Schedule & Continuing Education Instructions
Session 1 – Existing Masonry Topics & New Prefabrication Opportunities
Thursday, October 14, 8:00 AM – 9:00 AM
Building on a Solid (Stone) Foundation: Assessing Historic Masonry Buildings at CU Boulder
Presented by Peter M. Babaian, Simpson, Gumpertz & Heger
The University of Colorado Boulder (CU Boulder) started with a single building – called “Old Main” – in 1876, which provided all services for the university and stood over the fledgling college town. Saved from demolition by an outpouring of alumni support in the 1920s, Old Main is now the jewel of the university, sitting in the heart of the historic campus along with similar historic masonry buildings like the Hale Science Building (1894) and Macky Auditorium (1922). When CU Boulder recognized that these buildings were deteriorating and needed repair, the university initiated a project to assess all three, including a condition assessment of the existing masonry, a structural evaluation of the masonry and integrated systems, and recommendations for repairs. This presentation will discuss this case study, highlighting several considerations for evaluating masonry of this age. The presenter will also explore the unique conditions created by design decisions made in the late 1800s and early 1900s that affect how masonry structures function.
Ready or Not: Masonry Prefabrication and Offsite Construction
Presented by Brian E. Trimble, P.E., LEED AP, International Masonry Institute
Prefabrication and offsite construction are garnering a lot of attention due to the perceived efficiency during construction. While other material systems have been using prefabrication for decades, the masonry industry has seen its interest in prefabrication occur sporadically. When it has occurred, it is usually a one-time event and conventional masonry construction is resumed. Prefabrication and offsite construction are now being pushed by general contractors and construction managers to bring about efficiencies during construction, so choices are often being made for our industry.
The attributes of this type of construction include perceived shorter construction time, working in a controlled environment, fewer safety issues compared to onsite construction, higher quality levels and better utilization of a shrinking skilled workforce. Whether these can be achieved depends on a number of factors. This seminar will reveal the results of a survey of mason contractors conducted by the International Masonry Institute that pooled their experiences with prefabricated masonry construction and offsite construction. Some of the lessons learned from their experiences will provide ways that they masonry industry can forge another delivery system and one more way for masonry to be considered on construction projects.
Download PDF
Terra Cotta Fabrication Issues
Presented by Ed Gerns, LEED AP and Rachel Will, P.E., Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates
This presentation will discuss architectural terra cotta manufacturing defects that exist in both historic material as well as new replacement material that are sometimes mis-interpreted by contractors and design professionals as being significant structurally or relative to long term performance and durability. Examples include: clay shrinkage cracking; glaze cracking due to pooling glaze; crazing; geometry issues with the units that cause cracking when in service; shrinkage cracking between webs and sidewalls; and manufacturing related cracking in extruded units.
Session 2 – Review of Recent and Upcoming Masonry Research Projects
Thursday, October 14, 9:00 AM – 10:00 AM
Advanced Composite Masonry Column Confinement Techniques and Analytical Model Comparison to Experimental Literature Database
Presented by John J. Myers, Ph.D., P.E., FTMS, Missouri S&T
The confinement of masonry columns using advanced composites is frequently used to upgrade the column capacity. In this study, the efficiency of using different types of advanced composite for external confinement as a strengthening method is investigated. A wide range of experimental column specimens has been collected from scientific literature.
Performance of Adhesive Anchors in Grouted Concrete Block Masonry
Presented by Arturo E. Schultz, Ph.D., FTMS, University of Texas at San Antonio & Kenton McBride, Hilti Corp
Results from a series of pullout tests in grouted concrete block masonry are presented. Variables include adhesive type, anchor diameter, embedment depth, location (relative to webs and bed-joints) and test type (confined vs unconfined). The measured pullout capacities are compared with current code provisions in TMS 402, as well as formulas modified from ACI 318.
Overview of an Ongoing Project on the Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Unreinforced Masonry Buildings
Presented by Andreas Stavridis, Ph.D., University at Buffalo
This presentation will overview a recently funded by NIST program to improve the seismic performance of existing URM buildings. Initially the effectiveness of retrofit schemes for URM walls will be investigated through a testing program on wall components including shake-table tests of two large-scale URM buildings with different retrofit schemes. The structures will be repaired and retested to assess the effectiveness of the retrofit schemes during future seismic events. Afterwards, detailed finite element (FE) models for retrofitted URM walls and buildings will be developed. The detailed models will then be used to develop and calibrate simplified models to be used by engineers. In addition, accurate fragility curves for the retrofitted URM walls and buildings will be developed using both the validated detailed and the simplified FE model. The fragility curves will be utilized for the quantification of potential losses and recovery time (downtime) of the retrofitted buildings during future seismic events. A framework will be developed for the selection of the optimum retrofit strategy in terms of structural performance, life-cycle losses, and resilience of the buildings.
Session 3 – Energy Performance of Masonry
Thursday, October 14, 10:15 AM – 11:15 AM
Energy Performance – What Factors Really Matter in the Design of Masonry Buildings?
Presented by Mark McGinley, P.E., FTMS, University of Louisville
This session will review key factors that affect the energy performance of a building. The session will examine assembly performance independently of energy code requirements and will seek to educate listeners to better understand the energy performance of exterior masonry systems.
Prescriptive Energy Code Compliance
Presented by Jason Thompson, National Concrete Masonry Association
Presentation provided by Phil Ledent, P.E., S.E., Masonry Institute of Michigan
This session will discuss the nature of using prescriptive compliance methods for energy code compliance using single wythe masonry as a case study. The session will provide a focused summary of work produced by the Masonry Institute of Michigan and disseminate the most pertinent findings that others in the masonry industry can use to promote masonry.
Masonry and Energy Resources and Upcoming Code Provisions for Masonry Structures
Presented by Chip Clark, P.E., LEED AP, Brick Industry Association
This session will provide a state of the union on current research and resources available on masonry energy performance. An overview of recent research by the National Brick Research Center on thermal mass will be summarized along with efforts by the joint ACI/TMS Standard 122 Committee that are expected to lead to alternative code compliance provisions for masonry systems.
Session 4 – Seismic and Resilient Design Considerations
Thursday, October 14, 11:15 AM – 12:24 AM
Implications of the IRC Seismic Requirements on Brick Veneer Construction
Presented by Nathan Matthews, General Shale & Richard M. Bennett, Ph.D., P.E., FTMS, University of Tennessee
This presentation reviews the implications of the 2018 International Residential Code (IRC) seismic regulations on brick veneer construction in the United States. The primary focus is on those areas assigned to Seismic Design Category D0 or above. The issues are whether the prescriptive requirements for brick veneer enhance the safety of the structure and whether they are justified when the seismic risk is compared to other risks.
Design loads for wind and seismic risks are compared. Wind loads are typically higher than seismic for design. Wind values are higher without the consideration of weather events such as tornadoes. Still, the design earthquake remains at 2,475 years, which is roughly the same likelihood of occurrence as a tornado in parts of the country. All risks need to be considered and weighed appropriately.
The IRC assigns a damping value for wood framed construction of 5%. Wood frame construction, the most common for residential construction, will typically have damping values higher than this. With increased damping values the discrepancy between wind and seismic loads becomes even greater.
When proper ties and fasteners are used, brick veneer construction can perform well under seismic conditions. Brick veneer can be inadvertently penalized by increased seismic requirements despite the added benefits of brick in a more likely event such as fire and wind-borne debris.
Masonry and Resiliency Panel Discussion
Presented by John Civitillo, P.E., WDP Consulting Engineers, Christine ‘Tina’ Subasic, P.E., LEED A.P., Mark McGinley, P.E., FTMS, University of Louisville, and Jason Thompson, National Concrete Masonry Association
This session will provide a short primer on what resiliency means and how masonry is resilient. The session will introduce the Building Performance Committee and the overall mission and goals of the committee. A moderator will pose targeted questions to facilitate discussion between the audience and panel members, seeking guidance on where value can be provided to the industry in terms of masonry and resiliency. Specific questions may include:
-
-
- Before today, how would you have defined resiliency?
- In practice, are designers and consultants seeing resiliency or aspects of resilient design as project requirements or goals? How often and for what aspects?
- How often are masonry systems and assemblies being considered to meet resilient project goals, and for what aspects?
- How are resilient project goals being measured or quantified?
- Is there one aspect of resiliency that Owners are prioritizing that can be satisfied with masonry?
-
