加強磚造常用於中小學之校舍建築，台灣典型校舍由於採光及通風需求，常於長軸方向大量設置門窗開口，為了增加此方向之耐震性，常見於柱兩側或單側設置翼牆，這類磚翼牆因只有單側鄰柱，為三邊圍束，且高寬比多大於1，在耐震評估時常被認為貢獻不大，分析方式亦有待釐清。本文即針對此類高型加強磚造翼牆進行面內方向側推試驗，並與現有構架內填磚牆面內強度公式進行比較。
本文共設計五座加強磚造高型翼牆足尺試體進行側推試驗，外加一座試驗後打除磚牆剩餘加強柱之試體，為探討側力加載型式、牆寬及牆體配置方式之影響，分為單邊柱試體（試體C、AC、AL）及中間柱試體（試體BC、BS），其中除了試體AC及試體BC進行往復加載試驗，其餘試體皆為單向側推試驗。所有試體牆淨高皆為2700mm，試體C及AC牆寬為900mm，試體AL牆寬為1200mm，試體BC與試體BS各為兩片900mm及600mm磚牆置於柱之兩側。
試驗結果得知五座試體於磚牆部分皆發生剪力破壞，其中試體BC及試體AL之柱亦發生剪力破壞，其餘試體之加強柱則未於試驗中破壞。由試體之破壞特徵，其受力行為大致可視為一等值拉壓桿系統，柱視為抑制磚牆發生剛體旋轉之拉桿，而磚牆視為沿對角線方向承受壓力的桿件，剪力裂縫發生之位置約略為等值壓桿所在處。試體之牆寬與極限側力強度約略呈正比之線性關係，但於總牆寬相同時，不同磚牆之配置狀況可能影響試體之破壞模式，造成試體側力強度之差異，因此於評估此類磚翼牆強度時，不能只根據牆體之斷面積進行計算，仍應考慮牆體配置方式對破壞模式所造成之影響。
由試驗結果與陳奕信博士及FEMA356既有評估公式比對顯示，牆體所承受軸力對其理論側向強度計算結果有顯著影響，軸壓力越高，磚牆理論強度越高。比較三種軸力分配方式之誤差後，本文建議於評估試體之極限強度時，可採用陳奕信剪力強度公式，並以將軸力全分配至RC柱之方式計算，可保守估計試體之極限強度。

Confined masonry is commonly used in the school buildings in Taiwan. Typical schools usually have many openings along the longitudinal direction for lighting and ventilation, causing the lack of seismic capacity. During the past earthquakes, wing-walls placed between the columns and the openings were found to be helpful to seismic resistance. However, these wing-walls are usually neglected in the seismic evaluation analysis since they are not fully confined and have a slenderness ratio larger than 1.0. The current analytical model for this type of walls is also controversial. Therefore, a series of experiment for confined masonry wing-walls under in-plane loading were carried out to investigate their structural behavior and to verify the existing analytical models.
Five full-scaled specimens, each of them contained one tie-column and one or two wing-walls, were tested. One of the specimens had the wall removed after the test and the remaining tie-column tested again. The main variable in the test include the loading pattern, the width of wing-walls, and the wall configuration. The specimens are divided into two types: the single wing-walls with the tie-column placed at one side (specimen C, AC, AL) and the twin wing-walls with the tie-column placed at the middle (specimen BC, and BS). Specimens AC and BC were tested under cyclic loading and the others were tested under monotonic loading. Specimens C and AC had 900-mm-wide walls, while specimen AL had a 1200-mm-wide wall, specimens BC and BS had 900-mm and 600-mm-wide walls, respectively.
The test results showed that the wing-walls in five original specimens had shear failure. The tie-columns in specimens BC and AL also failed in shear, whereas the tie-columns in the other specimens didn’t fail during the test. According to the cracking patterns observed, the tie columns and the wing-walls acted like tie-and-strut systems, where the columns were tension ties and the walls were diagonal compression struts. The lateral strength of the specimens seems to increase with the total walls width. However, the two specimens (AL and BS) that had equal total wall width and different configurations showed different failure modes and strengths. It suggests that the evaluation for lateral strength of wing-walls might need a case-by-case consideration with regard to the wall configuration.
The comparison between the experimental strength and the analytical model showed that the axial force in the wall affects the error notably. Both the FEMA 356 and the Chen’s model showed that the analytical strength increases with the axial force applied to the wall. Analytical results by three ways of axial force distribution between the walls and the tie-columns were compared. It is suggested that the Chen’s model with all the axial force applied to the column gives the most reasonable and conservative evaluation.

1.黃國彰，『有邊界柱梁之磚牆耐震試驗與等值牆版分析』，碩士論文，國立成功大學建築研究所，台南，1995。
2.林正偉，『有邊界柱梁之磚牆耐震試驗與等值桁架分析』，碩士論文，國立成功大學建築研究所，台南，1995。
3.張文德，『磚牆及含磚牆RC構架之耐震試驗分析與應用』，博士論文，國立成功大學建築研究所，台南，1997。
4.Tomaz ̌evic ̌, M., and Klemenc, I., “Seismic Behaviour of Confined Masonry Walls,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, vol. 26, pp. 1059-1071, 1997.
5.Tomaz ̌evic ̌, M., and Klemenc, I., “Verification of Seismic Resistance of Confined Masonry Buildings,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, vol. 26, pp. 1073-1088, 1997.
6.Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (FEMA356), FEMA, USA, 2000.
7.Al-Chaar, G., Issa, M., and Sweeney, S., “Behavior of Masonry-Infilled Nonductile Reinforced Concrete Frames,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, vol. 128, no.8, pp. 1055-1063, 2002.
8.陳奕信，『含磚牆RC建築結構之耐震診斷』，博士論文，國立成功大學建築研究所，台南，2003。
9.Colangelo, F., “Pseudo-Dynamic Seismic Response of Reinforced Concrete Frames Infilled with Non-Structural Brick Masonry,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, vol. 34, pp. 1219-1241, 2005.
10.Hori, N., Inoue, N., Purushotam, D., Nishida, T., and Kobayashi, J., “Experimental and Analytical Studies on Earthquake Resisting Behaviour of Confined Concrete Block Masonry Structures,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, vol. 35, pp. 1699-1719, 2006.
11.Lee, J. H., Li, C., Oh, S. H., Yang, W. J., and Yi, W. H., “Evaluation of Rocking and Toe Crushing Failure of Unreinforced Masonry Walls, ” Advances in Structural Engineering, vol. 11,no. 5, pp. 475-489, 2008.
12.羅婷頤，『RC構架內填高型磚牆面內側向加載試驗與分析』，碩士論文，國立成功大學建築研究所，台南，2010。
13.Kuang, J. S., and Wong, H. F., “Improving Ductility of Non-Seismically Designed RC Columns,” Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Structures and Buildings, vol. 158, pp. 13-20, 2005.
14.莊宗樺，『RC構架內填磚牆面外振動台試驗分析』，碩士論文，國立成功大學建築研究所，台南，2007。
15.ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirement for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-08) and Commentary (ACI318R-08), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hill, 2008.
16.鍾立來、葉勇凱、簡文郁、蕭輔沛、沈文成、邱聰智、周德光、趙宜峰、楊耀昇、涂耀賢、柴駿甫、黃世建、孫啟祥，『校舍結構耐震評估與補強技術手冊(第二版)』，國家地震工程研究中心，報告編號NCREE-09-023，2009。