China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Brick
Published in Gary Anglin, Introduction to Estimating, Plan Reading and Construction Techniques, 2019
All of the walls are 8″ brick, as noted on the floor plan. Section A shows that the wall is composed of two wythes. The concrete slab has a thickened edge and is recessed 3/4″ where the brick wall bears on it. This will keep water from entering the interior of the building.
Monolithic bearing walls — masonry, stone, concrete
Published in Mayine L. Yu, Skins, Envelopes, and Enclosures, 2013
If we look at a representative modern building wall section through a monolithic masonry wall (Figure 1.48), we see two wythes, set perhaps 2″—4″ apart, with steel reinforcing bars (“rebar”) in the cavity. Galvanized steel wire ties spanning across would be used to tie the two wythes together and resist any outward pressures from grout, filling the cavity like a header brick but better at resisting tensile forces. Grout, consisting of Portland cement, sand, and water, could be poured between the wythes to provide stability for the reinforcing bars, with a surprisingly thin final assembly capable of providing bearing for floor and roof construction.
Lateral Resistance of Brick Masonry Walls: A Rational Application of Different Strength Criteria Based on In-plane Test Results
Published in International Journal of Architectural Heritage, 2023
A possible improvement could consist in a more suitable evaluation of the interlocking coefficient ϕ, defined as the tangent of the average inclination angle θ of the expected stepwise diagonal cracking, which could be detected from on-site surveys in assessment procedures, as already stated in Calderini, Cattari, and Lagomarsino (2010). Particular attention should be paid in the calculation of this angle θ, as already pointed out by Malomo, DeJong, and Penna (2019), since its evaluation is not always straightforward for some bond patterns. In fact, whereas single-wythe brick masonry is realized with “running or stretcher bond”, double- or multi-wythe brick masonry could be realized with different bond patterns, for example, the “Dutch bond”, the “English bond”, the “Flemish bond”, the “Header bond”. A possible method to define more properly the coefficient ϕ can be based on the estimate of an “averaged” angle of inclination, where the crack can be drawn following the path providing the maximum inclination, as reported in Figure 14 for the different bond patterns (blue lines). In Figure 14(c) the green line represents the inclination assuming as minimum overlapping length between units of two adjacent courses the mean between header and stretcher (and then the inclination angle is calculated accordingly), in the case of “English bond”.
Quantification of Equivalent Strut Modeling Uncertainty and Its Effects on the Seismic Performance of Masonry Infilled Reinforced Concrete Frames
Published in Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 2023
Mathias Haindl, Henry Burton, Siamak Sattar
We assess the effect of record-to-record and modeling uncertainty on the seismic response and performance of the prototype building designed and studied by Stavridis (2009). The building comprises a three-story non-ductile reinforced concrete frame structure with unreinforced triple-wythe masonry infill walls. This type of building represents common construction practice in the 1920s era in California. However, masonry-infilled RC frames with similar design details as the prototype building used in this study are still often used for housing and industrial activities in many parts of the world. Furthermore, this type of structure continues to be a common construction practice in places where earthquakes are a great concern. A floor plan and elevation view of one of the longitudinal infilled frames is shown in Fig. 7. The triple-wythe masonry infill walls are located in the perimeter reinforced concrete frames. The longitudinal infilled frame without openings is considered for the current study. Additional details about the design of the prototype building are provided in Stavridis (2009).
Influence of Bond Pattern on the in-plane Behavior of URM Piers
Published in International Journal of Architectural Heritage, 2021
D. Malomo, M.J. DeJong, A. Penna
The CS specimens consisted of single-leaf walls, while CL specimens were double-wythe. Additionally, , thus compressive failure is more likely to occur when considering CS elements, and , which implies that the extent of head joints is larger in CS members. With reference to the latter, it is worth mentioning that, although the assumption of single-leaf walls is apparently against the idea of a bond pattern, for the purposes of this study (where 2D numerical analyses were performed) this is not considered an important point. Further, it should be noted that the presence of CS bricks in multi-wythe masonry is not as common as that of CL bricks. However, its selection appears suitable for the objectives of this work. Indeed, given the initial hypothesis of weak head joints and the abovementioned differences in terms of fcm, CS and CL masonry types can be regarded as representative of a lower and upper bound, respectively.