台灣加強磚造建築常因機能需求將完整之四邊圍束磚牆多處開口，形成數片部分圍束高型磚牆，依其圍束條件可分為無側邊圍束磚牆及三邊圍束磚牆。因此類磚牆側向強度較低，使其面內方向成為建築物之弱向。在實務分析上，為求計算簡便常將此類磚牆忽略，但所得結果過於保守且不符合實際結構行為，且國內外既有評估方法之適用範圍均未涵蓋此類磚牆。因此，本文旨在探討部分圍束加強磚造高型磚牆受力行為，並建立性能曲線分析模型以供耐震評估使用。
本文於國家地震工程研究中心進行一系列加強磚造高型磚牆之靜態側推試驗，試體共有九座，包括兩座無側邊圍束試體及七座三邊圍束試體，試體全為足尺設計，以雙曲率方式加載。無側邊圍束試體之變因為軸壓力，而三邊圍束試體則分為單側翼牆及雙側翼牆試體，控制變因為磚牆寬度、加強柱配置及單向或往復加載。試驗結果顯示，加強柱存在時，因柱牆間之互制關係，使無側邊圍束試體與三邊圍束試體破壞模式及受力行為不同。無側邊圍束試體之軸力與側向強度約成正比關係，受軸壓力較大之磚牆，強度較大但韌性較差。三邊圍束試體中，牆寬較大之試體具有較高初始剛度及側向強度，且行為更為脆性，牆寬與側向強度約成正比關係。所有三邊圍束試體之加強柱均出現均勻拉力裂縫，顯示柱承受額外軸拉力，磚牆承受額外軸壓力。此外，將磚牆配置於受力側或背力側，側向強度差異不大，顯示耐震評估時不應忽略受力側磚牆之貢獻。
根據試驗結果及既有文獻，本文歸納受面內力之部分圍束加強磚造磚牆破壞行為及側力抵抗機制。破壞模式可分為剪力破壞及撓曲破壞，剪力破壞又分為對角拉力破壞、對角壓力破壞及灰縫滑移破壞。側力抵抗機制方面，無側邊圍束磚牆及三邊圍束磚牆分別以二鉸拱機制及拉壓桿機制抵抗側力。
本文依據上述歸納結果推導部分圍束加強磚造高型磚牆面內性能曲線分析模型。無側邊圍束磚牆之分析模型為假設磚牆撓曲破壞，於側傾過程中呈現剛體旋轉，並依適用情形分為高度固定及垂直軸力固定分析模型。與本文試體及既有文獻試體比對後顯示，本分析模型可合理預估牆體性能曲線。三邊圍束磚牆之性能曲線分析模型，則以部分自行推導，部分修正既有公式之方式建立，並將側力造成之磚牆額外軸壓力及加強柱之強度貢獻納入考量，分別計算各破壞模式之極限強度後，取各極限強度最小值決定最終破壞模式。與本文試體及既有文獻試體比對後顯示，分析結果大致呈現合理偏保守之情形，其中，極限強度及破壞模式預測準確，但對開裂即達極限強度之牆體，性能曲線誤差較大。

In Taiwan, confined masonry wall (CM) walls are often divided into several slender partially-confined masonry (SPCM) panels due to the needs of openings. SPCM panels can be classified into piers or wing-walls by the restraint conditions. Since SPCM panels are obviously weaker then complete CM panels without openings, the SPCM panels usually govern the capacity of resisting earthquake of a building. However, because of the difficulty in analysis, the contribution of SPCM panels is usually ignored in practical seismic assessment, causing over-conservative results. Most of current analytical models are not suitable for this kind of panels. Therefore, the objective of this thesis is to investigate the seismic behavior and to establish an analytical model of SPCM panels.
A series of static lateral-load tests for SPCM panels had been conducted in the laboratory of National Center for Research on Earthquake Engineering (NCREE). All specimens are full-scaled, including two piers and seven wing-walls. The two pier specimens were identical and subjected to different axial force during the test. The test factors of wing-wall specimens include the number and the length of the panels, the position of the column and the loading type.
The test results suggest that the seismic behavior and failure mode of the pier specimens are obviously different from the wing-wall specimens due to the interaction between the panel and the column. The lateral strength of pier specimens is proportional to the axial force., but the ductility is lower when the axial force is higher. The wing-wall specimens with longer panels have higher initial stiffness, higher strength, and lower ductility. The lateral strength of wing-wall specimens is approximately proportional to the total length of the panels, even though the failure modes are not the same. Although axial load were applied to all the wing-wall specimens during the test, uniform tensile cracks were observed on the columns, indicating that the columns were subjected to tension while the masonry panels were subjected to additional compression. No matter which side the masonry panel was placed, the single wing-wall specimens showed similar lateral resistance, indicating that the custom of neglecting masonry panels on the “tensile” side in analysis is not reasonable.
According to the test results and former researches, the failure modes of SPCM panels can be classified as shear failure and flexural failure and shear failure includes diagonal tension failure, diagonal compression failure and bed-joint sliding failure. The load resistance mechanism of the SPCM panels is also generalized. The piers resist lateral loading with double-hinged arch mechanism, while the wing-walls can be considered as strut-and-tie systems.
Analytical models for both piers and wing-walls had been established on the basis of structural behavior summarized from the test result. The model for pier can be applied to fixed-vertical restraint or fixed-axial-force conditions. It is used to evaluate the piers failed by flexure and display rocking behavior. In the comparison with existing test results, the analytical model shows accurate and reasonable evaluation for the load-displacement curve of piers. The model for wing-wall considers the additional compression due to panel-column interaction and the contribution of the column. It was established by modifying existing models. The ultimate strength, the failure mode, and the form of load-displacement curve are determined by the minimum between the strengths of three failure modes. The comparison with test results shows that the analytical model can accurately evaluate the ultimate strength and failure mode of wing-walls, but error in load-displacement curve becomes obvious when a wing-wall reaches its ultimate strength as initial cracking happens. Generally, the analytical model shows reasonable and conservative estimation.

1. T. Paulay and M. J. N. Priestley, “Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings,” John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1992.
2. R. G. Drysdale, A. A. Hamid, and L. R. Baker, “Masonry Structures: Behavior and Design,” Prentice Hall College Div, New Jersey, 1994.
3. R. Meli, S. Brzev, M. Astroza, T. Boen, F. Crisafulli, J. Dai, M. Farsi, T. Hart, A. S. Moghadam, D. Quiun, M. Tomazevic and L.Yamin, “Seismic Design Guide for Low-rise Confined Masonry Buildings,” A Project of the World Housing Encyclopedia, EERI & IAEE with Funding Support from Risk Management Solutions, 2011.
4. B. S. Smith, “Lateral Stiffness of Infilled Frames,” Journal of the Structural Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 88, No. ST 6, 1962.
5. M. Holmes, “Combined Loading on Infilled Frames,” Proceedings of the Institute of Civil Engineers, Vol. 25, 1963.
6. B. S. Smith, “Behavior of Square Infilled Frames,” Journal of the Structural Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 92, No. ST 1, 1966.
7. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (FEMA356), FEMA, USA, 2000.
8. Masonry Standards Joint Committee (MSJC), Building Code Requirements and Specification for Masonry Structures with Commentaries (MSJC2011), MSJC, USA, 2011.
9. A. Hendry, “Structural Brickwork,” Macmillan, London, 1981.
10. M. J. N. Priestley and D. M. Elder, “Stress-Strain Curves for Unconfined and Confined Concrete Masonry,” ACI Journal, Vol. 80, No. 3, 1983.
11. H. B. Kaushik, D. C. Rai and S. K. Jain, “Stress-Strain Characteristics of Clay Brick Masonry under Uniaxial Compression,” Journal of Material Civic Engineering, Vol. 19, No. 9, 2007.
12. R. Angel, “Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Frames with Masonry Infill Walls, ” Ph. D. Thesis, University of Illinois, Urbana, 1994.
13. 薛凱元，「RC構架內填磚牆面內受力行為」，碩士論文，國立成功大學建築研究所，台南，2008。
14. M. Tomazevic and I. Klemenc, “Seismic Behaviour of Confined Masonry Walls,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, vol. 26, pp. 1059-1071, 1997.
15. M. Tomazevic and I. Klemenc, “Verification of Seismic Resistance of Confined Masonry Buildings,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, vol. 26, pp. 1073-1088, 1997.
16. 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。
17. 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。
18. K. Yoshimura, K. Kikuchi, M. Kuroki, H. Nonaka, K. T. Kim, R. Wangdi, and A. Oshikata, “Experimental Study on Effects of Height of Lateral Forces, Column Reinforcement and Wall Reinforcements on Seismic Behavior of Confined Masonry Walls,” 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, paper No. 1870, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, 2004.
19. F. Yanez, M. Astroza, A. Holmberg, and O. Ogaz, “Behavior of Confined Masonry Shear Walls with Large Openings,” 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, paper no. 3438, Vancouver, Canada, August, 2004.
20. D. J. Kakaletsis, and C. G. Karayannis, “Influence of Masonry Strength and Openings on Infilled R/C Frames Under Cycling Loading,” Journal of Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 12, pp. 197-221, March, 2008.
21. B. Blackard, K. William, and S. Mettupalayam, “Experimental Observations of Masonry Infilled Reinforced Concrete Frames with Openings,” ACI SP-265-9, Thomas T.C. Hsu Symposium on ‘Shear and Torsion in Concrete Structures’, A. Belarbi, Y-L. Mo, and A. S. Ayoub, eds.:199-222, Farmington Hills: American Concrete Institute.
22. M. Kuroki, K. Kikuchi and H. Nonaka, “Experimental Study on Reinforcing Methods for Window Openings in Confined Masonry Walls,” 35th Conference on OUR WORLD IN CONCRETE & STRUCTURES, Singapore, 2010.
23. A. Matsumura, “Shear Strength of Reinforced Masonry Walls,” Proceedings of 9th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, pp. VI-121-126, Tokyo-Kyoto, 1988.
24. Z. Riahi, K. J. Elwood, and S. M. Alcocer, “Backbone Model for Confined Masonry Walls for Performance-Based Seismic Design,” Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 135, No. 6, pp. 644-654, 2009.
25. D. Abrams, T. Smith, J. Lynch and S. Franklin, “Effective of Rehabilitation on Seismic Behavior of Masonry Piers,” Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 133, No.1, pp. 32-43, January, 2007.
26. J. H. Lee, C. Li, S. H. Oh, W. J. Yang, and W. H. Yi, “Evaluation of Rocking and Toe Crushing Failure of Unreinforced Masonry Walls,” Advances in Structural Engineering, Vol. 11, No. 5, pp. 475-489, October, 2008.
27. 內政部營建署編輯委員會「建築物磚構造設計及施工規範」，內政部營建署營建雜誌社，台北，2008。
28. J. S. Kuang, and H. F. Wong, “Improving Ductility of Non-seismically Designed RC Columns,” Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Structures and Buildings, vol. 158, pp. 13-20, 2005.
29. G. Magenes and G. M. Calvi, ”In-Plane Seismic Response of Brick Masonry Walls,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, vol. 26, pp. 1091-1112, 1997.
30. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Evaluation of Earthquake Damaged Concrete and Masonry Wall Buildings (FEMA306), FEMA, USA, 1998.
31. P. G. Asteris, D. J. Kakaletsis, C. Z. Chrysostomou and E. E. Smyrou, “Failure Modes of In-filled Frames,” Electronic Journal of Structural Engineering, vol. 11, pp. 11-20, 2011.
32. 蔡益超、陳清泉，「鋼筋混凝土建築物耐震能力評估法及推廣」，內政部建築研究所，台北，1999。
33. 鍾立來、葉勇凱、簡文郁、蕭輔沛、沈文成、邱聰智、周德光、趙宜峰、涂耀賢、柴駿甫、黃世建、孫啟祥，「校舍結構耐震評估與補強手冊第二版」，國家地震工程研究中心研究報告NCREE-09-023，1999。
34. Y. H. Tu, T. H. Chuang, P. M. Liu and Y. S. Yang, “Out-of-plane shaking table tests on unreinforced masonry panels in RC frames,” Engineering Structures, vol. 32, pp. 3925-3935, 2010
35. ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-11) and Commentary (ACI 318R-11), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hill, 2011.
36. ASTM, “Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Masonry Prisms,” Masonry Test Methods and Specifications for the Building Industry, ASTM-C1314-07, Philadelphia, 2007.
37. 王貞富，「磚造歷史建築物震害及耐震評估研究」，博士論文，國立成功大學建築研究所，台南，2002。
38. 陳明生，「紅磚、砂漿與其介面之基本力學性質研究」，碩士論文，國立成功大學建築研究所，台南，1994。
39. 陳清泉、高建章、蔡益超、陳國顯，「紅磚與磚牆力學特性之試驗研究」，行政院國家科學委員會防災科技研究報告73-12號，台北，1984。
40. ASCE-ACI Committee 426, “Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Members,” (ACI 426R-74) (Reapproved 1980), ASCE, Vol. 99, No. ST6, pp.1148-1157, 1973
41. AIJ, ”Ultimate Strength and Deformation Capacity of Buildings in Seismic Design”, pp. 592-593, 1990
42. 中國土木水利工程學會，「鋼筋混凝土學」，科技圖書股份有限公司，台北，2011。
43. Masonry Standards Joint Committee (MSJC), American Concrete Institute and American Society of Civil Engineers, Building Code Requirements for Masonry Structures (ACI 530/ASCE5/TMS402-92), Detroit, New York, USA, 1992.
44. Standards Association in Australia (SAA), Australian Standard 3700-1988, American Concrete Institute and American Society of Civil Engineers, Masonry in Buildings, North Sydney, N.S.W., 1988.
45. Canadian Standard Association (CSA), CSA Standard CAN3-S304-M84 , Masonry Design for Buildings, Rexdale, Ontario, 1984.
46. S. Franklin, J. Lynch and D. Abrams, “Performance of Rehabilitated URM Shear Walls: Flexural Behavior of Piers, ” Masters’ Thesis, University of Illinois, Urbana, 2001.