Generic Procedure for Seismic Assessment of Out-of-plane Loaded URM Walls

Notations

A Wall acceleration response

bw Effective wall thickness, m
bwnom Nominal wall thickness, m
c Centre of gravity coefficient of the upper wall segment
Cp (Tp) Horizontal acceleration coefficient
D Wall displacement response
Dparapet Parapet displacement response
e Eccentricity of axial force, m
Fo Maximum wall resistance, kN
h Wall clear height, m
h1 Height of lower wall segment, m
h2 Height of upper wall segment, m
m1 Mass of lower wall segment, kg
m2 Mass of upper wall segment, kg
m Total wall mass, kg
O Applied axial overburden force, N
p Depth of mortar pointing each side of the wall, m
Rp Return period factor
Tp Period of the part, sec
W1 Weight of lower wall segment, N
W2 Weight of upper wall segment, N
W Total wall weight, N
Z Hazard factor
%NBS Percent of new building standard
Δins Instability displacement of simply-supported wall or that at the centre of mass of parapet
ΔTOP,ins Top instability displacement of parapet

This procedure is based upon research by Derakhshan (2011) and Griffith et al. (2003) and includes
the use of response spectrum method for Parts in buildings as per Section 8 of the NZS1170.5
(2004). The conventional elastic-based response spectrum methods have been shown to be
inadequate for analysis of rocking walls (Makris and Konstantinidis, 2003), and as such a response
spectrum method can only be used if prior error quantification studies have been done. One such
study is that by Griffith et al. (2003) that showed a specifically defined equivalent period can be used
to analyse the out-of-plane rocking response of URM walls. This technique is based upon that method
and the improved wall behavioural data (Derakhshan et al. 2013). The procedure assumes adequate
stiffening of timber diaphragm and adequate wall-diaphragm connections.

Equation of Dynamic Motion for Simply Supported Walls

With reference to Figure 1 and using D’Alembert’s Principle, the equation of dynamic motion can be
obtained as:
 ( ) { [ ( ) ] [ ( ) ]( )
( )
(1)
[ ( ) ] ( ) } ( )

where, , and , , , , , and are, respectively, weight, mass, and height of lower
and upper wall segments. and are the applied axial overburden force and its eccentricity from wall
centreline. h is the total wall height and W is the total wall weight. The eccentricity of axial force
should always be taken equal to or greater than zero. is detailed in Figure 1 and is a coefficient that
relates to the centre of gravity of the upper wall segment when accounting for the mass distribution in
the wall. is the effective wall thickness and can be calculated using Equation 2.

(2)

where, nom is the nominal wall thickness, and is the depth of mortar pointing each side of the wall.
The second term in Equation 1 corresponds to the restoring inertial forces and has a reverse
relationship with wall displacement. It is evident from Figure 1 that the maximum lateral wall
resistance and instability displacement correspond, respectively, to zero displacement and zero
restoring force. The maximum wall resistance, , is therefore equal to the value of the second term in
Equation 1 at , and the instability displacement, , is a value of ( ) that renders restoring
forces as zero. Following these procedures, one can obtain:

{ } (3)
( )

where,

( )( )
(4)
( )

The above relationships obtained for , are generic and describe a bilinear force-displacement
relationship for all simply-supported unreinforced masonry walls found in practical situations.
 e
O
ag (t)

ch 2
bw
W2

h2
(t)
ar (t)

W1

h1

Figure 1: Cracked out-of-plane wall subject to ground motion

Experimental investigation (Doherty 2000, Derakhshan et al. 2011 and 2013) has shown that actual
wall out-of-plane response is different from the bilinear response described by , and that a
trilinear behavioural model more suitably represents wall behaviour. Results from laboratory airbag
tests conducted in the University of Auckland were used to calibrate the trilinear model. Although a
refined procedure has been proposed in Derakhshan et al. (2011, 2013), the simplified model shown
in Fig. 2 is considered appropriate for NZ URM walls having overburden ratios, , of between zero
and 1.

F0
K2
Fmax=0.75F0 1
Real behaviour
Bilinear behaviour
Fi =0.9Fmax Trilinear behaviour
Linear behaviour

1
=0.15
2 ins ins

Fig. 2: Wall behavioural model

Griffith et al. (2003) conducted a parametric study that showed that the maximum displacement of a
system having trilinear behaviour can be adequately approximated from the response of a
representative linear system. Various linear stiffness properties were examined, and it was concluded
that K2 (Fig. 2) was most accurate when the wall maximum displacement ranged from 50% to 70% of
the instability displacement. The average difference between the wall responses calculated from
linear and trilinear systems remained between 1% and 5% for the aforementioned range. From
Fig. 2:

(5)

Replacing with its equivalent, , from Fig.2,

(6)

The natural period of the representative linear system can therefore be calculated as:

√ (7)

where , are defined by Equation 3 and Equation 4.

As inferred from the term on the right side of the equality in Equation 1, an effective force equal to 1.5
times the ground acceleration should be considered when calculating a simply-supported wall
response using period Tp. The subscript p is used as URM walls are considered as parts within the
main structure of a building. Modifications from the main building response should be included in wall
response using the appropriate section of the NZS 1170.5 (2004) seismic loading standard.
Wall displacement response can be obtained from general dynamics as:

(8)

where A is the wall acceleration response, calculated from Section 8 of NZS 1170.5 (2004), and
therefore,

( ) ( ) (9)

Parapets
For parapets it can be shown that the equation of dynamic motion is:

( ) { [ ( ) ( )] [ ( ) ]}
( ) (10)
( )
where m and h are total mass and height, and is displacement at the top of the parapet. Other
parameters have been defined similar to the case of simply supported walls. Following the same
procedure used earlier for a simply-supported wall, one can obtain from Equation 10:

{( ) } (11)
( )
 ( )
(12)
( )

√ (13)

The displacement capacity at the centre of mass is therefore equal to:

( )
( ) (14)
( )

Trilinear behavioural models have been mainly characterised for simply-supported walls. As no or
limited axial loads are usually applied to cantilever walls and parapets, the reduction in wall lateral
resistance due to factors such as masonry crushing at base are limited. It is therefore a conservative
approach to use the trilinear model for parapet assessment. Following the same procedures as that
for simply-supported walls:

( ) ( ) (15)

where, Tp is the parapet period calculated from Equation 13.

Damping
It is considered appropriate for the purpose of wall seismic assessment to use 5% damping.

Wall and Parapet Assessment

It has been shown by research (Derakhshan 2011) that the out-of-plane wall response is highly
unpredictable when the wall displacement approaches the instability displacement. A margin of safety
should be considered, and it is proposed to limit wall displacement capacity to 0.6 times the instability
displacement. The %NBS for URM wall can therefore be obtained as:

(16)

Procedure for the Seismic Assessment of Out-of-plane Responding URM Walls and Parapets:
1. Divide wall into two vertically spanning segments as suggested by Figure 1 either by
assuming a crack at two-thirds wall height, or a crack along an identifiable weak plane, or
along the eaves line of gable ends; for parapets, and are full parapet height and weight
and and are assumed as zero.
2. Assume a wall length and calculate corresponding overburden; for regular walls and parapets
a unit wall length can be assumed; for gables the total wall length and overburden should be
considered.
3. Calculate and and/or from Equations 3 and 4, or Equations 11, 12 and 14, as
appropriate.
4. Calculate from Equation 5 or 13.
5. Calculate ( ) using NZS1170.5 (2004) and wall/parapet displacement using Equations 9
or 15.
6. Calculate %NBS using Equation 14.
Worked examples

3
Assuming mortar pointing is 3 mm on each side of wall, and masonry density is 1700 kg/m for all
examples.

Assessment of a gable end wall

Building Location Christchurch

Wall ID 1
Building max height 10500 mm
Gable height from eaves level 7000 mm
Plan dimension 10000 (gable width) × 50000 (side wall length) mm
Dead load (on gables) zero
Soil type D
Wall-roof connection Inspections suggests that no structural element with significant
vertical stiffness has been used on top of the gable walls, but grouted
steel bars have been used to secure the top wall edge to the roof
Total wall thickness 500 mm
Wall prior cracking/
weak plane It is suggested that eaves line is a weak plane
7000
3500

10000

Figure 2: Gable end wall

Methodology: The gable has been shown in Figure 2, and it is likely that the gable end cracks at
eaves line and the top and bottom walls rock around the cracked line. It is therefore suggested to use
the simply-supported wall procedure to calculate %NBS for the gable end wall. The effect of gable
shape and lowered centre of gravity for top segment should be considered. The assessment
procedure is conservative as it assumes that the gable end top support is located at the gable crest
elevation. In reality, the gable top support starts from eaves line and continues up the gable height.
The results of the assessment has been summarised in row 1 of Tables 1 and 2.

Assessment of single-storey and top-storey one-leaf walls

One-leaf wall properties
Building location Wellington
Wall Single-storey Two-storey
First - storey (wall) height 3500 mm (Wall ID: 2) 5000 mm (Wall ID: 3)
Top-storey height --- 3000 mm (Wall ID: 4)
Wall thickness 125 mm 125 mm
Axial load Zero Zero
Soil type D Deep
It is assumed that the wall cracks at two-thirds its height from wall base, and other calculations have
been summarised in Tables 1 and 2.

Assessment of free-standing parapets

Building location Wellington
Storey height 5000 mm
Parapet height 600 mm
Parapet thickness 240
Axial load on top of parapet Zero
Soil type C

Calculations have been summarised in Tables 1 and 2 with an assigned Wall ID of 5.

Effects of eccentricity of applied overburden

It has been identified by site inspection that floor joists are seating on a single-storey 3-leaf wall with
an eccentricity of 110mm. The wall is assessed using the proposed procedures and the results are
compared with a similar case but excluding eccentricity.

Building location Gisborne

Building height 4500 mm
Wall height 4000 mm
Wall thickness 350 mm
Axial load on top of wall (for unit length) 5 kN
Eccentricity either zero (wall ID: 6) or 110 mm (wall ID: 7)
Soil type D
Seismic hazard factor 0.36

The eccentricity of applied overburden reduced wall capacity as indicated in Tables 1 and 2.

Effects of the centre of gravity coefficient, c,

Two walls are considered with similar geometry, but one having a lower centre of gravity in top
segment.
Building location Wellington
Building height 4500 mm
Wall height 4500 mm
Wall thickness 230 mm
c (coefficient related to centre of mass) 0.5 (for Wall ID 8), and 0.67 (for Wall ID 9)
Applied overburden Zero
Soil type D
Seismic hazard factor 0.4

A comparison of the results in Tables 1 and 2 shows that the wall with a higher centre of gravity has a
less %NBS.
 Table 1: Calculation of CP(TP) based on the NZS 1170.5:2004

TP hn hi
ID Ch(0) R N(T,D) C(0) CHi Ci(TP) CP(TP)
sec mm mm

1 0.998 1.12 1.00 1.00 0.25 10500 5250 1.88 1.50 0.69

2 0.833 1.12 1.00 1.00 0.45 3500 1750 1.29 1.83 1.06

3 0.595 1.12 1.00 1.00 1.14 8000 2500 1.42 2.00 1.27

4 0.772 1.12 1.00 1.00 0.45 8000 6500 2.08 1.96 1.83

5 0.518 1.33 1.00 1.00 0.53 5600 5300 1.88 2.00 2.00

6 0.695 1.12 1.00 1.00 0.40 4500 2000 1.33 2.00 1.07

7 0.695 1.12 1.00 1.00 0.40 4500 2000 1.33 2.00 1.07

8 0.945 1.12 1.00 1.00 0.45 4500 2250 1.38 1.61 1.00

9 0.900 1.12 1.00 1.00 0.45 4500 2250 1.38 1.70 1.05

Table 2: Wall assessment results*

bnw, bw h1 h2 c O e F0 TP D
ID CP(TP) %NBS
mm mm mm mm mm kN mm kN mm sec mm

1 500 494 3500 7000 0.67 0 0 3.4 385 0.998 0.69 258 89

2 125 119 2333 1167 0.50 0 0 1.5 119 0.833 1.06 274 26

3 125 119 3333 1667 0.50 6.25 0 2.3 94 0.595 1.27 168 33

4 125 119 2000 1000 0.50 0 0 1.8 119 0.772 1.83 406 18

5 240 234 600 0 0.50 0 0 7.7 234 0.518 2.00 266 53

6 350 344 2667 1333 0.50 5 0 5.4 299 0.695 1.07 193 93

7 350 344 2667 1333 0.50 5 110 4.9 271 0.695 1.07 193 84

8 230 224 3000 1500 0.50 0 0 2.2 224 0.945 1.00 332 41

9 230 224 3000 1500 0.67 0 0 2.0 183 0.900 1.05 318 34
* Part risk factor, RP, is assumed equal to one, representing category P.1 from Table 8.1 of the
NZS 1170.5:2004 standard
Comparison between the results from this method and earlier methods

A comparison of the results from the current method and earlier methods is shown in Figure 3 and
Figure 4.

Figure 3: Comparison of the results with NZSEE (2006) method and with University of
Auckland (2011) guideline for two-leaf non-load bearing walls located on shallow soil

Figure 4: Comparison of the results with NZSEE (2006) method and with University of
Auckland (2011) guideline for two-leaf non-load bearing walls located on deep soil

References
Derakhshan, H. (2011). Seismic Assessment of Out-of-Plane Loaded Unreinforced Masonry Walls.
Ph.D. Thesis, Faculty of Engineering, The University of Auckland.

Derakhshan, H., Griffith, M., and Ingham, J. (2013). ”Out-of-Plane Behavior of One-Way Spanning
Unreinforced Masonry Walls.” J. Eng. Mech., 139(4), 409–417.

Doherty, K., Griffith, M. C., Lam, N., and Wilson, J. (2002). Displacement-based seismic analysis for
out-of-plane bending of unreinforced masonry walls. Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics, 31(4):833–850.

Griffith, M. C., Magenes, G., Melis, G., and Picchi, L. (2003). Evaluation of out-of-plane stability of
unreinforced masonry walls subjected to seismic excitation. Journal of Earthquake Engineering,
7(SPEC. 1):141–169.

Makris, N., and Konstantinidis, D., 2003. The rocking spectrum and the limitations of practical design
methodologies, Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 32, 265–289.

NZS (2004). NZS 1170.5:2004: Structural Design Actions: Part 5 : Earthquake actions NewZealand.
Standards New Zealand.

NZSEE (2006). New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering (NZSEE): Assessment and
Improvement of the Structural Performance of Buildings in Earthquakes. Recommendations of a
NZSEE Study Group on Earthquake Risk Buildings.

University of Auckland (2011). Assessment and Improvement of Unreinforced Masonry Buildings for
Earthquake Resistance, Draft 02/2011. Supplement to “NZSEE 2006 Assessment and Improvement
of the Structural Performance of Buildings in Earthquakes”, Faculty of Engineering, University of
Auckland.
Appendix
Out-of-plane seismic assessment of unreinforced masonry (URM) walls

Traditionally strength-based criteria were used in the seismic assessment of URM walls. ABK (1981)
and Priestley (1985) conducted tests and analyses and proposed assessment procedures to be
based on the stability of a cracked wall instead of its strength. Reliable calculation of wall
displacement however poses a significant challenge to practicing engineers to the extent that Paulay
and Priestley (1992) described the problem as “one of the most complex and ill-understood areas of
seismic analysis”.
A systematic research of the out-of-plane URM wall response calculation started in late 1990s
although previous experimental work of ABK (1981) had assisted in the development of wall
assessment codes. Two basic categories of analysis models have been used to assess the dynamic
out-of-plane behaviour of URM walls: (1) stiffness-based models (Doherty et al., 1998-2002, Blaikie
1999&2002, and Simsir et al., 2004); and (2) rigid-body rocking models (part of Simsir et al., 2004,
Sharif et al., 2007). The stiffness-based models provide a simple representation of out-of-plane
behaviour that is consistent with structural analysis models used in engineering practice; however,
these methods are unable to capture the unique dynamic characteristics of a rocking system.
The characteristics of the rocking response of blocks to earthquakes have been extensively studied in
the past. A pioneer study (Housner 1963) concluded that the wall stability was dependent on the wall
thickness and that the wall response had a frequency that was displacement amplitude dependent.
Makris and Konstantinidis (2003) showed that the free vibration of a typical single-degree-of-freedom
(SDOF) oscillator can be described by trigonometric functions that have a period. The solution for a
rigid-body rocking block, however, is described by hyperbolic functions that do not have a standard
period but rather a complex/imaginary period. The study also suggested that damping characteristics
between elastic and rocking systems were substantially different.
Makris and Konstantinidis (2003) criticised some of the established oscillator-based methods for the
calculation of the response of rocking systems and claimed that the response of such systems cannot
be reliably calculated using stiffness-based methods. It was suggested that the response of a rocking
system should be calculated by directly integrating the equations of motions, and the use of
conventional stiffness-based spectra was erroneous.
In separate research, Doherty (2000) conducted shake table tests and static push tests and
developed a stiffness-based trilinear model that could be used to investigate the behaviour of simply-
supported walls. The model produced acceptable correlation with the experimental shake table test
results only after a special numerical procedure was employed to offset the errors produced by the
assumption of constant damping. Part of the success of the model was due to the out-of-plane
behaviour of the URM walls being in fact close to a trilinear elastic behaviour rather than a truly rigid
rocking. The latter model requires a threshold force to be applied before the wall is set to motion, a
characteristic that is absent in a trilinear elastic system. After the trilinear model had been confirmed
experimentally, Griffith et al. (2003) presented the results of analyses using the trilinear model and the
results of analyses assuming an equivalent SDOF oscillator (Figure 1). The SDOF system had a
period corresponding to the secant stiffness characterised by a break point in the trilinear model.
Accurate characterisation of the trilinear model is an essential step in using this method.
 Figure 1: Bilinear rigid model, trilinear model and the effective stiffness of an equivalent SDOF

Derakhshan (2011) conducted a series of laboratory tests aiming at improving the trilinear model
definition for a range of walls with different thicknesses, overburden loads, and heights. The
behavioural models proposed in Doherty (2000) were improved upon, and a new model was
proposed (Derakhshan et al. 2013). Numerical models of the out-of-plane loaded wall were developed
based on the principles of rocking mechanics. Linearization of the equations of motion was conducted
using the procedure recommended by Griffith et al. (2003) and assessment charts were produced.
These models could also be used to directly integrate nonlinear wall response as recommended by
Makris and Konstantinidis (2003). The latter is the subject of an ongoing study (Figure 2).

Figure 2: A rocking model. Different modes of wall response are due to the flexibility of diaphragm. Wall instability
can be triggered when either of wall segments becomes unstable. Rotational inertia is included and wall displacement
is calculated by integrating the equations of dynamic motion
NZSEE 2006 method

A method has been proposed in the NZSEE (2006) based on studies by Blaikie (1999 and 2002) and
shake table tests by Doherty (2000). Several other references have been given in the text of the
NZSEE (2006) method, but they mostly pre-date the development of the stability-based wall
assessment method. It has been mentioned that the method has been verified by shake table tests,
but as will later be explained, gross generalisations have been made from the shake table test results.
The method can be described as a mixture of several methodologies. In short, a wall period that
corresponds to wall displacement equal to 60% of the instability displacement is first calculated. Once
the period has been calculated the NZSEE (2006) suggests calculating the wall response using the
elastic spectra and Parts sections of the NZS 1170.5. A participation factor for the rocking system is
multiplied by the spectral displacement to obtain the rocking displacement.
There are some advantages associated with this method:
- The method can be used for complete range of wall height, thickness, and applied
overburden without restriction
- The method is based on NZS 1170.5 elastic spectra and therefore familiar to practicing
engineers

However, the disadvantages of the NZSEE (2006) method are considerable:

- The method is in contrast with studies by Makris and Konstantinidis (2003). These studies
have shown that rocking spectra are significantly different from elastic spectra and as such
the wall rocking displacement may not be well predicted using elastic spectra for all wall
geometries and applied overburden. A confirmed exception to this suggestion is the use of
the method suggested by Griffith et al. (2003) within its limitations. Generalisations of the
method to walls that are irregular in geometry or mass have not been confirmed to produce
reliable results. Unfortunately, the NZSEE (2006) allows the use of variable wall thickness
and mass that can change up the wall height. If the method proposed by Griffith et al. 2003 is
to be used in such conditions, a special study should be conducted.
- The equations defining wall instability displacement are based on infinite masonry material
properties and exclude the effects of masonry elastic and plastic deformations. More accurate
prediction of wall instability is available (Derakhshan et al. 2013).
- The method appears to be overly conservative; for instance it suggests that simply-supported
single-storey walls with slenderness ratios of as low as 5 should be considered earthquake
prone in some regions (Derakhshan et al. 2009).
- The method produces results that are illogical with respect to the changes in the wall
slenderness ratio, i.e. walls that have higher slenderness ratios produce more desirable
assessment results in certain situations. Details of this error have been reported in
Derakhshan et al. (2009).
- Using Parts section of the NZS 1170.5 includes the use of several parameters including Part
Spectral Shape Coefficient, which was originally derived for tall concrete structures. This
method may therefore produce unreliable results for unreinforced masonry buildings that are
substantially stiffer than a tall reinforced concrete building.
Method proposed by Derakshan (2013) - Generic out-of-plane assessment
procedure

This method was aimed at addressing some of the shortcomings associated with the NZSEE (2006)
method. The findings of a study by Derakhshan (2011) were used to establish wall instability
displacement and trilinear behaviour. Consistent with the Griffith et al. (2003) approach, a trilinear
model was used to establish a recommended “equivalent wall period”. The wall displacement
response was suggested to be calculated using the NZS 1170.5 spectra.
The advantages of generic assessment procedure method:
- The advantages are the same as that by the NZSEE (2006)
- In addition, the method does not have most disadvantages associated with the NZSEE (2006)
except for the last item listed above.

This method should only be used for walls that have regular geometry and mass distribution.

Method suggested by Derakshan (2011) - Out-of-plane assessment

stability charts, “Assessment and Improvement of Unreinforced Masonry
Buildings for Earthquake Resistance”

This method is based on direct integration of the wall response using the principles of rocking
mechanics. The method is the most reliable method, and the results in the form of assessment charts
are most readily usable by practicing engineers. The method, however, is limited to wall geometries
for which the analyses have been conducted. Keeping in mind that the other two methods (described
above) may produce unreliable results outside the strictly defined uniform wall geometrical and mass
properties. The effects of diaphragm flexibility and the effects of rotational inertia have been included
(Figure 2). Both these factors are missing in Method 2 discussed above.
Disadvantages of stability charts method:
- Multi-storey buildings have been excluded

Advantages of stability charts method

- The method is convenient to use
- The effects of diaphragm flexibility has been included in the method
- The model used to develop charts includes the effects of rotational inertia and nonlinear
rocking behaviour, and nonlinear time-history analyses have been conducted
- The method does not involve the use of Part Spectral Shape Coefficient originally developed
for reinforced concrete structures, and the effects of primary URM building on the out-of-plane
URM wall have directly been included in the time-history analyses.
- Most practical geometries of URM walls have been covered
References

ABK (1981). Methodology for mitigation of seismic hazards in existing unreinforced masonry buildings: Wall
testing, out-of plane, abk-tr-04. Technical report.

Blaikie, E. (1999). Methodology for the assessment of face loaded unreinforced masonry walls under seismic
loading. Technical Report C5643, Opus International Consultants.

Blaikie, E. (2002). Methodology for assessing the seismic performance of unreinforced masonry single storey
walls, parapets and free standing walls. Technical report, Opus International Consultants.

Derakhshan, H., Ingham, J. M., and Griffith, M. (2009). Out-of-plane assessment of an unreinforced masonry
wall: Comparison with the NZSEE recommendations. In Proceedings of the 2009 New Zealand Society for
Earthquake Engineering Technical Conference, Christchurch, New Zealand, April 3-5.

Derakhshan, H. (2011). Seismic Assessment of Out-of-Plane Loaded Unreinforced Masonry Walls. Ph.D.
Thesis, Faculty of Engineering, The University of Auckland.

Derakhshan H, Griffith M, Ingham J. Out-of-plane behaviour of one-way unreinforced masonry walls. Accepted
for publication in ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics, to appear April 2013.

Doherty, K. T. (2000). An investigation of the weak links in the seismic load path of unreinforced masonry
buildings. Ph.d. thesis, Faculty of Engineering of The University of Adelaide.

Griffith, M. C., Magenes, G., Melis, G., and Picchi, L. (2003). Evaluation of out-of-plane stability of
unreinforced masonry walls subjected to seismic excitation. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 7(SPEC.
1):141–169.

Housner, G. W., 1963. The behaviour of inverted pendulum structures during earthquakes, Bull. Seismol. Soc.
Am. 53, 403–417.

Ingham (2011). Assessment and Improvement of Unreinforced Masonry Buildings for Earthquake Resistance,
Draft 02/2011. Supplement to “NZSEE 2006 Assessment and Improvement of the Structural Performance of
Buildings in Earthquakes”, Faculty of Engineering, University of Auckland.

Makris, N., and Konstantinidis, D., 2003. The rocking spectrum and the limitations of practical design
methodologies, Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 32, 265–289.

NZSEE (2006). New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering (NZSEE): Assessment and Improvement of
the Structural Performance of Buildings in Earthquakes. Recommendations of a NZSEE Study Group on
Earthquake Risk Buildings.

Paulay, T. and Priestley, M.J.N. (1992), Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings, J.
Wiley, New York

Priestley, M. J. N. (1985). Seismic behaviour of unreinforced masonry walls. Bulletin of the New Zealand
National Society for Earthquake Engineering, 18(2):191–205.

Sharif, I., Meisl, C. S., and Elwood, K. J. (2007). Assessment of ASCE 41 height-to-thickness ratio limits for
URM walls. Earthquake Spectra, 23(4):893–908.

Simsir, C., 2004. Influence of Diaphragm Flexibility on the Out-of-Plane Dynamic Response of Unreinforced
Masonry Walls, Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.