台灣既有低層建築物常使用加強磚造構法，因機能需求而留有門或窗開口時，易導致建築物弱向發生於開口較多的方向，表示具開口磚牆往往控制整體建築物的耐震性能，但目前國內外針對具開口加強磚造磚牆之研究仍顯缺乏，因此本文進行具開口加強磚造構架結構試驗，以探討其受力行為，再與既有分析模型進行比對驗證。
本文進行兩座單層單跨足尺具開口加強磚造磚牆試體之面內往復側推試驗，並施予固定大小的軸壓力，探討開口形式對其受力行為之影響，磚牆淨高為2700mm，開口寬度為1250mm，配置於中央，窗型開口底部較門型開口試體多一片高度900mm的窗台。試驗結果顯示，兩座試體皆為對角壓力破壞，開口兩側牆體可視為各具有一組等值拉壓桿系統，對角剪力裂縫位置約為壓桿所在處，而窗型試體正反向裂縫/壓桿角度不同。兩座試體初始剛度及開裂變位相近，亦有類似的破壞歷程，但窗型開口試體的開裂強度、極限強度及極限變位均大於門型開口試體，而前者邊界柱上端發生剪力破壞，行為較為脆性，後者邊界柱僅發生剪力開裂，並未產生嚴重破壞。
將試驗結果與FEMA 356 填入式磚牆強度公式比對後顯示，門型開口試體之理論強度高估，同時，公式無法反映窗台之強度貢獻，導致窗型開口試體理論值過於保守，加上試體實際破壞模式與公式之破壞模式假設並不符合，邊界條件亦不相同，故不建議直接套用。以莊宗樺博士分析模型可準確預估試體之破壞模式，而理論初始剛度偏保守，但開裂點及極限點的強度變位均高估。本文將莊宗樺博士分析模型稍作修正後，可更合理預測試體之極限強度及變位，性能曲線亦較接近試驗曲線，但由於開裂強度高估，導致整座試體性能曲線之最大強度轉由單側牆體之開裂強度控制，此情形與試驗結果並不符合，建議仍須對性能曲線分析模型持續探討。

SUMMARY
Two full-scale specimens of confined masonry panels with openings were tested under in-plane lateral cyclic load and vertical forces. The purpose of this thesis is to study the behavior of confined masonry panels with different opening types. Therefore, two types of openings are schemed：door opening and window opening. The test results show that both specimens failed in diagonal compression. The panel and the frame resist lateral load as composite tie-and-strut system. The opening type affects the maximum strength of panels and the performance of the frame. Compared with existing analytical models, FEMA 356 shows that maximum strength are overestimated in panel with door opening but the evaluation of window specimen are conservative. Chuang’s model can accurately estimate the failure mode and conservatively evaluate initial stiffness, but the cracking and maximum strength are overestimated.

INTRODUCTION
Most of the existing low-rise buildings are constructed by confined masonry (CM) panels in Taiwan. In need of lighting and ventilation, panels are perforated by door or window opening. Since a panel with opening is obviously weaker than a complete panel, this kind of panels usually govern the capacity of seismic resistance of a building. Therefore, the seismic behavior of confined masonry panels with opening is an important issue.

MATERIALS AND METHODS
Two full-scale specimens of confined masonry panels with opening were tested under lateral cyclic in-plane loading and simultaneously subjected to vertical compression. The test factor is opening type. Specimens CD and CW have centrally positioned door opening and window opening, respectively. Specimen CW has 900mm-height windowsill. The masonry panels were laid in English bond by using solid clay bricks. The panel thickness is 198mm (double wythe). The column section is 300mm × 400mm (depth × width). Lateral cyclic in-plane loading was applied to the top beam. The loading is displacement-controlled with increasing drift, each drift is loaded for two cycles. Two vertical actuators provide vertical compression and restrain the top beam from rotation during the test to simulate the shear-building behavior. Total axial force of 470.88kN (48tf) was applied on each specimen.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Test results
The structural behavior of two directions are approximately the same. The test results showed that both specimens were in diagonal compression failure mode and showed similar damage progress. According to the cracking patterns observed, the tie column and masonry panels acted like tie-and-strut system. The diagonal crack lies approximately along the diagonal compression struts. Because of the exists of the windowsill, the slope of diagonal cracks in two directions of specimen CW were different. The major inclined cracks took place at early stage. Vertical split cracks and toe crushing showed at both the top and bottom opening edges when the specimens reached maximum strength. At the final stage, brick spalling happened along the major inclined cracks; the cracks divided the panels into segments that slided towards the opening. Initial stiffness and drift at cracking point were close in both specimens. The differences between two specimens include that specimen CW showed higher strength at cracking point and ultimate point. The columns in specimen CW failed in shear while the columns in specimen CD were only cracked.

Comparison between experimental and analysis values
The comparison between the experimental strength and the analytical models shows that FEMA 356 model for infill masonry overestimates the ultimate strength of specimen CD but is conservative of specimen CW. The analytical model can not evaluate the strength contribution of the windowsill. The failure mode of the specimens are also not consistent with the assumption of FEMA 356, so it is not recommended to use for confined masonry.
Chuang’s model can accurately evaluate the failure mode. The prediction of initial stiffness are conservative, but the calculated strength at cracking point and Ultimate point are overestimated. After modifying the Chuang’s models, the analytical model can estimate the strength and drift at ultimate point reasonably. The analytical curve are approximately close to the experimental envelope curve. However, since the cracking strength are overestimated, the maximum strength of the whole specimen are controlled by cracking strength. This result is not consistent with the real situation of test.

CONCLUSION
1. Both specimens failed in diagonal compression. The inclined cracks appeared at early stage. Vertical split cracks and toe crushing on the top and bottom opening sides were observed at ultimate point.

2. The presence of windowsill increases the strength of the panel and no obvious effect on initial stiffness is observed. However, stronger panels also cause shear failure in the columns and lead to a brittle behavior.

3. Chuang’s model can accurately evaluate the failure mode, but overestimate the cracking and ultimate strength. After modifying, it can reasonably estimate the strength and drift at ultimate point, and the analytical curve are approximately close to the experimental envelope curves. However, the maximum strength of the whole specimen are governed by cracking strength, this result is not consistent with the real damage progress. Therefore, further studies of analytical model are needed.

1. 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。
2. 林柏成，「加強磚造翼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，2011。
3. Tomaz ̌evic ̌, M., and Klemenc, I., “Seismic Behaviour of Confined Masonry Walls,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, vol. 26, pp. 1059-1071, 1997.
4. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (FEMA356), FEMA, USA, 2000.
5. Ya ́n ̃ez, F., Astroza, M., Holmberg, A., and Ogaz, O., “Behavior of Confined Masonry Shear Walls with Large Openings,” Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, paper no. 3438, Vancouver, Canada, August, 2004.
6. Yoshimura, K., Kikuchi, K., Kuroki, M., Nonaka, H., Kim, K. T., Wangdi, R., and Oshikata, A., “Experimental Study on Effects of Height of Lateral Forces,Column Reinforcement and Wall Reinforcements on Seismic Behavior of Confined Masonry Walls,” Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, paper no. 1870, Vancouver, Canada, August, 2004.
7. Kuroki, M., Kikuchi, K. and Nonaka, H., “Experimental Study on Reinforcing Methods for Window Openings in Confined Masonry Walls,” Proceedings of the 35th Conference on OUR WORLD IN CONCRETE & STRUCTURES, Singapore, 2010.
8. Meli, R., Brzev, S., Astroza, M., Boen, T., Crisafulli, F., Dai, J., Farsi, M., Hart, T., Moghadam, A. S., Quiun, D., Tomaz ̌evic ̌, M. and Yamin, L., “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.
9. 莊宗樺，「部分圍束加強磚造高型磚牆面內受力行為研究」，博士論文，國立成功大學建築研究所，台南，2013。
10. ASTM C1314-07, “Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Masonry Prisms,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2007
11. ASTM E519-02, “Standard Test Method for Diagonal Tension (Shear) in Masonry Assemblages,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2002.
12. 林耀宗，「磚造歷史建築物牆體結構行為研究」，碩士論文，國立成功大學建築研究所，台南，2005。
13. ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-11) and Commentary (ACI 318R-11), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hill, 2011.