3a-0002 The 17th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering

17th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 17WCEE

Sendai, Japan - September 13th to 18th 2020
Paper N°
Registration Code: S-38403409

THE NEW PERUVIAN MASONRY SEISMIC DESIGN CODE

D. Quiun(1), D. Torrealva(2), W. Silva(3)

(1 )
Professor, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, [email protected]
(2)
Professor, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, [email protected]
(3)
Professor, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, [email protected]

Abstract
Masonry walls are widely used for housing, schools and other buildings up to five stories high all over Peru and other
Latin American countries, located in the seismic regions subjected to earthquakes in the subduction zone of the Nasca
and South American plates. The Peruvian Masonry Code of 2006, after more than 12 years has been updated by the
Peruvian National Committee in which the authors are members. The purpose of the 2020 update is: adapt the Masonry
Code to the new Peruvian Seismic Code (2018), divide the specifications regarding confined masonry and reinforced
masonry, and also include new items and findings.
The masonry constructions in Peru must be able to resist gravity and earthquake loads. The recent 2018 Peruvian
Seismic Code has defined a new Seismic Map and Zone Factors, as well as soil factors. Also, the building irregularities
in plan and elevation have different factors to be considered in the value of the shear seismic force. Main updates and
new items included in the 2020 Masonry Code are: 1) properties for new materials for bricks and blocks, 2) the use of
prefabricated bar arrangements in columns for confined masonry, 3) simplified analysis and design procedure for small
confined masonry houses of up to three stories high, 4) guidelines for reinforcing, repairing and retrofitting of masonry
walls, and 5) updated specifications for out-of-plane seismic forces on masonry walls used as non-structural elements.
The new masonry code makes a separation between confined masonry and reinforced masonry specifications, keeps and
makes more emphasis in the performance based criteria for design in confined masonry, and leaves the seismic
resistance design for reinforced masonry walls. These modifications take into account that most of the masonry
constructions on Peru are of confined masonry; while reinforced masonry is mostly used for partition walls.
It is expected that the new masonry code will be easier to read and follow for engineers, constructors, teachers and
officials. Also, current population should be able to understand that seismic resistant buildings with correctly built
masonry walls, can withstand earthquakes, as masonry is the main material for popular constructions.

Keywords: Masonry; code; walls; seismic design; reinforcement

© The 17th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering - 3a-0002 -

3a-0002 The 17th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering

17th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 17WCEE

Sendai, Japan - September 13th to 18th 2020

1. Introduction
This paper presents the update of the Peruvian Masonry Code for 2020 [1]. Recent experiences of
destructive earthquakes that hit Peru in 2007 near Pisco (Mw=7.9) and 2019 in Loreto (Mw=8.0), have
shown severe damage to masonry constructions. The use of inadequate materials, low quality of construction
by masons without enough knowledge, poor structural configurations, are among the main reasons for the
poor performance of damaged masonry buildings, although these issues are covered by the code.

The 2020 Peruvian Masonry Code is an update of the 2006 Code [2], mainly motivated by: 1) the new
conditions of the recent 2018 Peruvian seismic Code [3], 2) the need to separate the materials, the
construction specifications and seismic design procedure for confined masonry buildings and reinforced
masonry buildings, 3) new materials for brick and blocks have been included, 4) a new chapter on simplified
design of small masonry buildings is included, 4) a new chapter on repair and retrofit of masonry walls is
included, and 5) the chapter on masonry walls subjected to out-of-plane seismic loads has been updated.

The evolution of the Peruvian Masonry Code was discussed in 2017 [4], showing the research done
with local materials for several years. The 1977 Peruvian Seismic Code contained a chapter on masonry
using elastic design with formulas for stress evaluation and masonry strength. The first Peruvian Masonry
Code (Norma E-070 Albañilería in Spanish) published in 1982, established an allowable stress design for
gravity and seismic loads in the elastic range. Afterwards, many experimental and analytical researches were
done in Peruvian universities (mainly in Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru PUCP and Universidad
Nacional de Ingeniería UNI), using local materials and masons [5], [6]. As a consequence of those
researches, the Masonry Code was updated in 2006 (using the 2003 Seismic code conditions), featuring a
performance based seismic design of confined masonry and reinforced masonry buildings [7], [8].

2. Peruvian Seismic Code and its implication in Masonry Buildings

2.1 Seismic map, Seismic zones and Soil conditions
The more important earthquakes that affect the territory of Peru are subduction earthquakes originated by the
Nasca Plate going under the South American Plate. The 1977 first Peruvian Seismic Code was updated in
1997, 2003, 2016 and 2018. All these versions contemplate masonry buildings as structures with rigid
diaphragms. In the 1977 and 1997 versions, seismic forces were considered to be in service; then for
reinforced concrete design, those forces had to be amplified by a 1.25 factor. Following international
standards, since the 2003 version, earthquake forces are considered as ultimate forces, therefore a unity
factor is used for reinforced concrete design and a 0.8 factor is required for analyzing foundations and
masonry in the elastic range. The 2016 Peruvian seismic code changed the seismic map and the
corresponding zone factor Z, the base seismic acceleration for 500 years. Earlier versions of the map
featured 3 zones, and nowadays the seismic map presents 4 zones in the 2016 and 2018 Codes (Fig.1)

Fig. 1 – Peruvian Seismic Map and zones (1997-2003 left, 2016-2018 right) [3].

© The 17th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering - 3a-0002 -

3a-0002 The 17th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering

17th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 17WCEE

Sendai, Japan - September 13th to 18th 2020

The seismic maps indicate that the coast facing the Pacific Ocean has the highest hazard (zone 4).
Seismic zones 3 and 2 represent medium seismicity, covering most of the Andean mountains. The Amazon
jungle covers most of zone 1, with low seismicity. The Zone factor Z and the soil factor S are used in the
next parts of the paper when the seismic analysis of masonry buildings is discussed.
The soil conditions in the earlier codes were constant along the territory. The types of soils affect the
seismic forces by the S soil factor; also, soil types have different period values (Tp) in the response spectra.
The response amplification factor C was merely defined as C=2.5 (Tp/T), with a limit of C2.5. In the 2016
and 2018 Seismic Code [3], the soil factor S depends on the seismic zone. Also new period values (Tp and
TL) are given for the different soil types, affecting the response amplification factor C.
For periods T<Tp, C=2.5; for Tp < T <TL , C=2.5 (Tp/T), and for T>TL, C=2.5 (Tp TL / T2). For typical
masonry buildings, the number of stories goes from one to five; their mass and rigidity usually gives that the
fundamental structural period T is less than Tp, which leads to a C value of 2.5.
2.2 Structural building regularity and seismic reduction coefficient R
The elastic seismic shear force V is reduced by the reduction coefficient R in regular analysis. Masonry
buildings (either confined or reinforced) have a basic seismic reduction coefficient R 0 of 3 [3]. This basic
coefficient must be reduced, if the building has not structural regularity. The structural irregularities are of
two types: in elevation and in plan; also some irregularities are considered as common and extreme. In the
earlier Codes up to 2003, any irregularity (in elevation or in plan) required the use of a single reduction
factor of 0.75 either the building had one or more structural irregularities. This issue changed in the next
Code editions.
Since the 2016 Seismic Code, the evaluation of irregularities and extreme irregularities must consider
the seismic zone. All common buildings (regardless of the material), that are used for housing, hotels,
offices, and alike, in seismic zones 4 and 3, should not have extreme irregularities. These extreme
irregularities are in stiffness, in strength, and torsion. In seismic zone 2 the same common buildings should
not have extreme irregularities with exceptions for 2 stories buildings. Seismic zone 1 has no restrictions.
The 2018 Seismic Code [3] defines irregularity factors Ia (in elevation, “altura” in Spanish) and Ip (in
plan). The seismic reduction coefficient R is found as: R = R0  Ip  Ia. Structural irregularities in elevation
are: stiffness (or soft story), strength (or weak story), mass irregularity, geometric vertical and discontinuity.
Structural irregularities in plan are: torsion, entrant corners, discontinuity of the diaphragm, and non-parallel
resistant systems. In both cases of irregularities, if the building has more than one type, the values to use for
Ip or Ia is the lesser one, considering two directions of analysis for the seismic forces. Informal non-
engineered masonry buildings may have several of the abovementioned irregularities. Common masonry
buildings may present either torsional (Ip=0.75) and entrant corner irregularities (Ip=0.90), or both.
2.3 Allowable drifts
Masonry building structures have a limit of story drift (relative story lateral displacement divided into the
story height) of 0.005, since the 1997 Seismic Code. For regular buildings, the lateral inelastic
displacements have to be calculated multiplying by 0.75 R the linear elastic analysis results. One of the
modifications between the two most recent seismic codes was that for irregular buildings, the factor to
amplify the elastic displacements was R in the 2016 code; it changed to 0.85 R in the 2018 code.
Earlier seismic codes allowed a story drift of 0.01. Peruvian earthquakes from 1996 and 2001 proved
that this drift was too high, as damages in several buildings occurred, particularly schools and hospitals [9].

3. The 2020 Masonry code updates in materials

The main structural system used for housing in Peru is confined masonry walls in single houses or multistory
apartment buildings, from one to five stories high (Fig. 2).

© The 17th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering - 3a-0002 -

3a-0002 The 17th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering

17th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 17WCEE

Sendai, Japan - September 13th to 18th 2020

Fig. 2 – Popular multistory housing buildings with confined masonry walls.

The masonry units used are mostly made of clay, also concrete and silica lime units are available. The
clay bricks are hand-made and industrial; the 2006 and 2020 Masonry Codes establish that a solid unit may
have up to 30% of holes in the bed area. On the other hand, the concrete and silica lime masonry units, both
industrial, meet the Code requirements of solid units. All these units and their properties have been included
in the 2020 Masonry Code; Fig. 3 (a) shows the variety of bricks used in Peru for confined masonry walls.
However, many users build bearing walls with perforated bricks that have 45-50% of holes, or horizontally-
hollow bricks, Fig. 3 (b), contrary to the Code specifications. This improper use happens due to economic
reasons and lack of control by the authorities. Such misuse have produced that most informal masonry
constructions built with these inadequate units are seismically vulnerable, because they crush in a brittle way.

(a) (b)
Fig. 3 – (a) clay, concrete and silica lime solid units; (b) clay perforated and horizontally hollow bricks.
Table 1 from the 2020 Masonry Code [1] display the typical strength properties for compression of
industrial bricks of three different materials, as well as the masonry strength of prisms under axial
compression f’m, and small walls under diagonal compression (shear) v’m.

Table 1 – Strength properties in 2020 Masonry Code (in MPa)

Material Compression Masonry compression Masonry Shear
strength f’b strength f’m strength v’m
Clay 17.6 8.3 0.90
Concrete 17.5 7.0 0.44
Silica lime 12.6 10.1 0.93

© The 17th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering - 3a-0002 -

3a-0002 The 17th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering

17th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 17WCEE

Sendai, Japan - September 13th to 18th 2020

Another new issue deals with prefabricated columns for confined masonry. Cyclic lateral load tests
made on confined masonry walls, compared columns with conventional ductile steel bars (9% deformation)
and welded steel bars arrangements, (6% deformation) [10]. Tests results showed similar behavior up to the
Code limit drift of 0.005. Therefore, the 2020 Masonry Code [1] allows the possibility to use such welded
steel bars arrangements, limited for two story buildings or the last two stories of a multistory building.

4. Different approaches for Confined masonry and Reinforced Masonry Buildings

4.1 The performance based seismic design for confined masonry buildings .
The 2020 Masonry Code [1] emphasizes the performance-based design for confined masonry buildings,
giving more explanation to this approach, introduced in the 2006 Code [2]. Confined masonry design is still
the only structural system in Peru featuring such seismic design. The design of confined masonry buildings
requires the verification of the structural behavior conditions for moderate earthquakes and severe ones.
For pre-dimensioning purposes, a minimum wall density is presented in terms of resistant shear and
the seismic shear force, see Eq. (1). Previous code had a constant k value of 56; it has been updated in the
2020 Code, considering hand-made bricks and industrial bricks. The wall length L (includes the columns)
and wall thickness t are multiplied to provide the shear wall resistant area, Ap represents the building plan
area, Z, U and S, are the parameters of the seismic code (zone factor, use factor, soil factor), N is the number
of stories; k=40 for hand-made bricks and k=60 for industrial bricks. The intention is that buildings with
walls of hand-made bricks need a more amount of walls than before.

(1)

The final failure for confined masonry is accepted to be a shear failure, in which the masonry wall
resists a shear force Vm, and the confinement RC elements are able to keep the wall shear capacity up to the
limiting drift of 1/200 = 0.005 for severe earthquakes. Fig. 4 illustrates the concepts of performance-based
design for confined walls. The structure of confined masonry walls should be undamaged for a moderate
earthquake (approximately drift of 1/800), and be able for an economical repair after a severe earthquake.

Fig. 4 – Fundamental scheme of the performance-based design for confined masonry walls [4]

© The 17th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering - 3a-0002 -

3a-0002 The 17th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering

17th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 17WCEE

Sendai, Japan - September 13th to 18th 2020

Moderate earthquake analysis has to be performed using forces defined as half of the severe
earthquake forces given in the seismic Code. This analysis provides elastic shear forces Ve in the confined
walls, which must remain below from diagonal shear cracking force Vm. The calculation of Vm must be done
for every wall in every story. It must be verified that Ve < 0.55 Vm. With the results of this elastic analysis,
lateral drifts of the building are obtained (see item 2.3) and verified to comply the 0.005 limit.
The expressions for Vm are as follows, Eq. (2) holds for clay and concrete units, and Eq. (3) holds for
silica lime units. For both cases, the aspect wall ratio  was modified in the 2020 Masonry Code as in Eq.
(4); this calculation for  is easier than the previous expression (Ve L / Me). The variables in Eq. (2), (3) and
(4) are as follows: v´m is the diagonal shear strength of small square walls; Pg is the wall axial load; t, L are
the wall thickness and length including columns, H is the story height of the wall.

Clay and concrete units: Vm  0.5 v´m  t L  0.23 Pg (2)

Silica Lime units: Vm  0.35 v´m  t L  0.23 Pg (3)

(4)
The severe earthquake analysis requires firstly the verification of shear resistance capacity. The total
seismic force VE in each direction has to be less than the sum of all shear wall´s capacity  Vm. If this
condition is not fulfilled some walls can be transformed to reinforced concrete.
Secondly, the results of each wall internal forces (shear force Ve, bending moment Me) from the
elastic analysis are amplified by a factor fu to obtain the design forces (Vu, Mu) for severe earthquake. The
factor fu amplifies Ve to Vm1, the shear capacity of each wall in the first floor. This factor has a minimum
value of 2 (ratio of forces between severe and moderate earthquakes) and a maximum value of 3 (the
reduction R factor). All the shear forces and bending moments of the same wall have the same factor fu.
In the next step, the internal forces (shear Vc, tension T, and compression C) in the confining columns
of the first floor (with the shear crack) have to be calculated, using the masonry Code expressions, which
depend on the shear force and bending moment of the first floor. For the upper stories, the wall must be
checked if it has a shear failure (Vui>Vmi) or not. If the upper story reaches its shear failure, its design is
similar to the first floor. On the case that the upper story wall does not fail in shear, minimum reinforcement
is required for the inner columns if any, while the outer columns only need design under tension and
compression due to the bending moment.
4.2 The simplified analysis and design for small regular confined masonry buildings
A significant percentage of Peruvian buildings using confined masonry walls are of medium size high. The
objective of this new chapter is to provide a simplified procedure for analysis and design. The following
conditions must apply: a) the building height is less than 7.5 m or three stories; b) the building length to
width ratio in plan should be less than or equal to 2; c) the ratio between the building height to the minimum
plan dimension should be less than or equal to 1.5; d) at least 75% of the vertical loads should be supported
by confined masonry walls, aligned vertically; e) the floor slabs should behave as rigid diaphragms; f) the
wall distribution in plan should be almost symmetric, with an allowable eccentricity (distance between the
mass center and stiffness center) less than 10% of the corresponding dimension in plan.
Also, perimeter walls must be provided to guarantee a minimum plan torsional rigidity, all walls have
to be connected to the roof diaphragm. The amount of confined walls in each direction must satisfy Eq. (5), a
variation of Eq. (1). The objective is to have elastic behavior of the building even in severe earthquakes.

(5)

© The 17th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering - 3a-0002 -

3a-0002 The 17th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering

17th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 17WCEE

Sendai, Japan - September 13th to 18th 2020

The effective wall area Ae given in Eq. (6) is found multiplying the gross wall area Ag times an aspect
ratio Fe given in Eq. (7); then the seismic shear resistance force Vm is given in Eq. (8).
(6)

(7)
(8)

The shear resistance is then verified, using Eq. (9) in every story “i”, Vmi is the shear resistance force
of the wall and VEi is the seismic shear force at story “i”.
(9)

After this condition is satisfied, the minimum size of the confining columns is found by multiplying
thickness t times 300 (if t  150 mm) or times 250 (if t  220 mm). The minimum size of the tie beam is the
slab thickness times 250 mm. With the gross dimensions set, the longitudinal reinforcement for the
confining columns (exterior and interior if any) and tie beam is given in this chapter as a set of 4 bars,
varying for stories 1, 2 and 3. The transverse reinforcement is also given, with the same distribution for all
the elements. By this way, the simplified analysis leads to a quite easy complete design of buildings with
confined masonry walls.
4.3 Reinforced masonry buildings
The 2020 masonry code has divided all the items concerning reinforced masonry walls apart from confined
masonry. The buildings of reinforced masonry are seldom used in Peru, mostly reinforced masonry is used
for non-structural partition walls, or parapets, or fences. The items include: materials, construction
procedure, tests for axial and shear strength, structural configuration, minimum requirements, analysis and
design for in-plane forces.
The design of reinforced walls only considers the severe earthquake, with a reduction factor R=3 of
the seismic forces. Usual design procedures for strength design are used for axial compression, axial plus in-
plane bending moment, and shear force.

5. Repair and retrofit of masonry walls

A completely new chapter in repair and retrofit of existing masonry walls is included in the 2020 Masonry
Code. It covers unreinforced masonry and both confined and reinforced walls.
5.1 Bearing masonry walls
The criteria for repair or retrofit masonry walls consider the following aspects: wall consolidation,
application of external or internal reinforcements, better connections between walls and between walls and
roofs, and partial or total substitution of the wall.
Wall consolidation implies substitution of damaged units for new ones, repair cracks in the wall,
replacement of the mortar in the joints, and the repair of confining elements in confined masonry walls.
External surface reinforcements can be attached to the wall surface. Meshes of materials that resist
tension such as welded wire, polypropylene, of fiber are suitable for this purpose. The attachment to the wall
can be a polymer or cementitious material. For example, a confined masonry wall of perforated bricks (45%
of holes in the bed area) and a reinforced masonry wall with hollow blocks were independently subjected to
cyclic lateral loads and showed important shear cracks. For the repair and retrofit process, steel welded wire

© The 17th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering - 3a-0002 -

3a-0002 The 17th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering

17th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 17WCEE

Sendai, Japan - September 13th to 18th 2020

meshes covered with mortar were attached to the repaired walls (Fig. 5) and they were tested again [11]. The
repaired walls recovered and increased their lateral load capacity, with slight less initial lateral stiffness,
because small cracks cannot be repaired.
Another problem regarding structural masonry walls that need retrofit are those built with
horizontally-hollow bricks, which should only be used for partition non-structural walls. However, popular
informal constructions use such bricks for any wall, because they are cheaper and the authorities are unable
to guide and control these constructions. In the structures laboratory of the Pontificia Universidad Catolica
del Peru, an experimental research was done to address this problem. The cyclic load test of two walls with
horizontally-hollow bricks was done, both W1 and W2 were built using traditional construction and
afterwards, wall W2 was retrofitted with wire meshes, covered with cement mortar [12]. Later, two more
walls made of similar horizontally-hollow bricks, were tested with the inclusion of vertical load prior to the
cyclic load test [13]. These retrofitted walls WV-1 and WV-2, had vertical loads simulating 2-stories and 3-
stories, respectively (Fig. 6). An important increase in load capacity and better structural behavior for the
reinforced walls was obtained compared to conventional wall W1, due to the mesh reinforcement and the
vertical load action that increases the shear capacity. Therefore, using this technique, masonry bearing walls
made of inadequate hollow bricks may be retrofitted effectively.
Also according to this new chapter, external reinforcements not attached to the walls, like anchored or
posttensioned steel cables, can be used to provide confinement and keep building integrity. Internal
reinforcements consist of confining RC columns and beams, inserted into unreinforced masonry walls.

W
1

Fig. 5 – Confined masonry wall tested and repaired with wire meshes [11].

Fig. 6 – Confined masonry walls retrofitted with wire meshes, subjected to vertical load and cyclic lateral
load [13].

© The 17th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering - 3a-0002 -

3a-0002 The 17th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering

17th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 17WCEE

Sendai, Japan - September 13th to 18th 2020

In case of important structural damage, the wall may need partial or total replacement. Special care
must be taken to assure a good bond between existing and new materials. Shrinkage due to new concrete
poured may produce volumetric changes that have to be considered.
Bearing walls of reinforced masonry that have thin cracks can be repaired by epoxy injections.
However the lateral stiffness cannot reach the original wall stiffness, because very small cracks cannot be
filled up with the epoxy mix. If the cracks are wider, or the reinforcement bars have buckled, they have to be
removed and replaced. After removing the affected zone, the surface must be cleaned, additional
reinforcement or welded mesh of equivalent capacity has to be incorporated. Also, to increase the wall
resistance, a reinforced concrete layer of minimum 50 mm thickness has to be attached, with a steel ratio of
0.0025 minimum. The additional concrete must be attached to the existing wall with dowels and epoxy. To
increase the flexural capacity of the wall, confining elements at both wall ends can be included, properly
connected to the wall by dowels. The concrete strength f’c must be 17.15 MPa at least.
5.2 Lateral stabilization of partition walls, fences and parapets
The overturning of walls that provoke danger to people must be prevented, by reinforcement to resist out-of-
plane seismic forces. The reinforcements can be external or internal, distributed in vertical, horizontal or
transverse directions. Also, the connections between walls and between walls and roofs can be improved.
Typically, reinforced concrete tie columns and beams can be inserted into the existing plain masonry
wall. Experimental tests have proven effectiveness (Fig. 7), such as a 1 m tall wall reinforced with RC
columns 120x120 mm cross section with a single 8 mm bar [14]. Also, wire meshes properly attached to the
slabs or roofs can be used.

Fig. 7 – Experimental tests for out-of-plane reinforcement columns in parapet wall [14].

5.3 Considerations for structural intervention to heritage constructions of masonry

The architecture structural heritage buildings, due to their nature and history (material and assemblage) have
a series of difficulties to diagnose and structural intervention. This is because the construction codes must be
applied together with international recommendations for heritage constructions.
In the case that the architectural heritage construction is inhabited, the purpose of the structural
intervention must guarantee the people’s life and the cultural contents in order to prevent any collapse,
partial or total.

© The 17th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering - 3a-0002 -

3a-0002 The 17th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering

17th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 17WCEE

Sendai, Japan - September 13th to 18th 2020

6. Non-structural masonry walls subjected to out-of-plane seismic forces

6.1 Changes due to the seismic code
In reinforced concrete and masonry buildings, the non-structural masonry walls have to be prepared to resist
out-of-plane seismic forces. The 2018 seismic code establishes new specifications for the design of non-
structural elements, including masonry walls used as partitions or similar in multistory RC buildings (or
similar). Among the specifications, the walls need to be designed to resist the inertia forces of the story floor
where they are located. Previous versions of the seismic code considered that the design seismic loads were
constant regardless the location of the wall.
6.2 Masonry wall fences
In the new 2020 masonry code, the chapter dealing with design of masonry walls for out-of-plane forces has
been updated, considering the changes mentioned in item 6.1. This covers masonry walls used as fences,
partitions, parapets, or similar walls inside buildings, with low or null vertical loads. Recent earthquakes in
Peru (Atico 2001 M8.4, Pisco 2007 M7.9, Lagunas 2019 M8.0) have shown many collapses due to poor
construction or deficiencies in their detailing and design [15] (Fig. 8).

Fig. 8 – Collapse of masonry walls due to poor construction and deficient design.
The main updates are regarding masonry parapets (Fig. 9, left), in which their collapse from upper
stories toward the floor is extremely dangerous. Such walls must be reinforced to prevent their failure by
overturning. For internally reinforced walls, horizontal and vertical steel reinforcing bars must be properly
designed. For plain masonry, either RC tie columns and tie beams, or structural meshes over the whole wall
surface can be properly designed and provided (welded wire, polypropylene, fiber meshes are suggested).
The reinforcing elements must be properly anchored to the floor slab or to other structural elements, and the
reinforcement must be able to take 100% of the tension forces in the parapet wall.
For masonry walls used as fences, the emphasis is given in the stability, because the wall acts as
cantilever under out-of-plane seismic loads (Fig. 9, right). Therefore, the foundation must act as a fix
support, in order to resist the overturning moments by having a deep foundation using the lateral earth
pressure, or a superficial foundation with adequate dimensions and weight.

Fig. 9 – Non-structural masonry walls: parapets and fences.

10

© The 17th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering - 3a-0002 -

3a-0002 The 17th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering

17th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 17WCEE

Sendai, Japan - September 13th to 18th 2020

7. Conclusions
The 2020 Peruvian Masonry Code replaces the previous 2006 code. The main features and updates were
discussed in this paper: the recent changes in the seismic code (seismic Zone, soil factor, building
irregularities), the new materials and their properties, the separation between the specifications for confined
masonry and reinforced masonry, two new chapters on simplified analysis and design for small confined
masonry buildings, and the repair and retrofit of masonry walls. Also, updates were done in non-structural
wall analysis under out-of-plane seismic forces. It is expected that this new masonry code can be better
understood by the people, and that the authorities can be better prepared to guide and to control informal
masonry constructions, in order to reduce the seismic vulnerability.
Also, the chapter guidelines in repair and retrofit of walls are expected to help engineers in the process
of evaluation and construction of reinforcement elements in vulnerable existing masonry walls, and therefore
be able to prevent building damages in future earthquakes.

8. Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the work of late prof. Angel San Bartolomé (+) and his contribution to the
Peruvian Masonry codes of 1982 and 2006. Also some of his last works is included in the 2020 Masonry
Code. The staff of the Structures Laboratory and many students of the Pontificia Universidad Católica del
Perú were very helpful in performing the experimental tests to study masonry walls, whose results were used
and included in the Code.

9. References
[1] SENCICO (2020): Norma Técnica E.070 Albañilería (Peruvian Masonry Code), Lima, Perú (in Spanish)
[2] SENCICO (2006): Norma Técnica E.070 Albañilería (Peruvian Masonry Code), Lima, Perú (in Spanish).
[3] SENCICO (2018): Norma Técnica E.030 Diseño Sismoresistente (Peruvian Seismic Code), Lima, Perú (in
Spanish).
[4] Quiun D, Santillan P (2017): Development of Confined Masonry Seismic Considerations, Research and Design
Codes in Peru 16th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, paper 2883, Santiago, Chile.
[5] Svojsik M, San Bartolomé A (1984): Relevant Masonry Projects carried out in the Structures Laboratory at the
Catholic University of Peru, 8th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 6, San Francisco, California,
USA, 823-830.
[6] San Bartolome A, Quiun D, Torrealva D (1992): Seismic behaviour of a three-story half scale confined masonry
structure, 10th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 6, Madrid, Spain, 3527-3531.
[7] San Bartolomé A, Quiun D (2007): Design Proposal of Confined Masonry Buildings, 10th North American
Masonry Conference, The Masonry Society (June, 2007) 366-377.
[8] San Bartolomé A, Casabonne C, Torrealva D, Quiun D (2008): Peru New Masonry Design Code, 14th
International Brick and Block Masonry Conference, Sydney, Australia.
[9] Muñoz A, Quiun D, Tinman M (2004): Repair and Seismic retrofitting of school and hospital buildings in Peru.
13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, paper 2000, Vancouver, Canada.
[10] San Bartolomé A, Quiun D (2012): Seismic Behavior of Confined Masonry Walls reinforced with welded steel and
ductile steel, 15th International Brick and Block Masonry Conference, Florianopolis, Brazil.
[11] San Bartolomé A, Castro A, Vargas B, Quiun D (2008): Repair of reinforced masonry walls with previous shear
failure, 14th International Brick and Block Masonry Conference, Sydney, Australia.
[12] San Bartolomé A, Quiun D, Araoz T, Velezmoro J (2013): Seismic reinforcement of existing walls made of
horizontally-hollow bricks, 12th Canadian Masonry Symposium, Vancouver, Canada.

11

© The 17th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering - 3a-0002 -

3a-0002 The 17th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering

17th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 17WCEE

Sendai, Japan - September 13th to 18th 2020

[13] Quiun D, Mamani P (2017) Cyclic Load behavior of confined masonry walls of horizontally-hollow bricks
retrofitted with wire meshes, 16th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Paper 3099, Santiago, Chile.
[14] San Bartolomé A, Quiun D, Siancas R, Manrique A (2014): Experimental Behavior of Parapet Masonry Walls
braced under out-of-plane seismic forces, 9th International Masonry Conference, Guimaraes, Portugal.
[15] San Bartolomé A, Quiun D (2008): Seismic behaviour of masonry constructions in 2007 Pisco, Peru earthquake.
14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, paper 01-1976, Beijing, China.

12

© The 17th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering - 3a-0002 -