TECHNOLOGY BRIEF

RESOURCE INFORMATION FROM THE INTERNATIONAL MASONRY INSTITUTE

TM
HYBRID MASONRY DESIGN
Section 2.13.01
INTRODUCTION
Hybrid masonry is a structural system that utilizes
reinforced masonry infll walls with a framed structure.
While the frame can be constructed of reinforced concrete
or structural steel and the masonry can be concrete
masonry units or structural clay brick units, the discussion
here will include steel frames in combination with
reinforced concrete masonry walls. The masonry walls are
used as part of the lateral load resisting system.
Following the development of the wrought-iron framed
Glass Palace in France in 1851, framed technology evolved
and spread to the United States. Since then, combining
masonry walls with frames has been used as common
feature of many early building types.
Caged construction was introduced in 1882 by architect
George Post. The frst caged framed building used a
structural steel framework mixed with exterior walls of
unreinforced masonry. The term caged walls resulted from
the exterior walls being built around a structural cage.
The frame supported the foor and roof gravity loads; the
masonry was independent of the frame and self-supporting
and provided the lateral stiffness. As a result, the wall
thicknesses were only slightly less than those in bearing
wall buildings.
Another type of structure used exterior unreinforced
bearing walls and interior structural frames. The famous
Monadnock Building in Chicago, constructed in 1892 is
an example of this type with exterior masonry bearing
walls up to 6 feet (1.83m) thick. The 15-story building was
the largest offce building in the world when completed.
Ironically, it was the last high-rise built with exterior
masonry bearing walls for the full height of the building
and an interior frame.
Transitional buildings were perhaps the most used type
of combination frame/masonry structures used through
the 1940s. An example is the 13-story Tower Building
in New York built in 1888, which used transitional and
loadbearing construction. Transitional buildings took
traditional masonry walls and constructed them integral
with the exterior structural frame. Brick or hollow clay
tile was used as an inner wythe, usually 8 inches (200
mm) thick. An exterior wythe of brick, cast stone, terra
cotta or stone was anchored or headered to the backup
to function as a composite wall system, but there was no
accommodation for the masonry walls to take differential
movement. It was common to design these buildings for
gravity loads only. While the wall system was not intended
to be structural, it provided lateral stiffness. The masonry
also provided exterior fnish, fre protection for the frame,
and backup for the interior fnish.
Confned masonry within concrete frames is yet another
form of combination structure. This system originated in
the 1800s. It has developed globally but apparently has
no specifc origin. Confned masonry is used primarily for
residential construction. The type of masonry infll varies
by region or country and includes clay brick, clay tile,
stone, or concrete masonry.
As framed structures grew taller, architects tried to reduce
the thickness of the exterior walls. The structural steel
and reinforced concrete structures were used to support
building loads and exterior wall loads. Curtain walls and
cavity walls developed during this time and masonry was
no longer the only wall material used as a backup system
for exterior walls.
The concept of using masonry infll to resist lateral forces
is not new; having been used successfully throughout
the world in different forms. While common worldwide,
U.S. based codes and standards have lagged behind in
the establishment of standardized means of designing
masonry infll.
The hybrid masonry system outlined in this Technology
Brief is a unique method of utilizing masonry infll to
resist lateral forces. The novelty of the hybrid masonry
design approach relative to other more established infll
design procedures is in the connection detailing between
the masonry and the steel frame, which offers multiple
alternative means of transferring loads into the masonry
or isolating the masonry infll from the frame.
DECEMBER 2009
Prepared in cooperation with the National Concrete Masonry Association.
Prior to implementing the design procedures outlined in
this Technology Brief, users are strongly urged to become
familiar with the hybrid masonry concept, its modeling
assumptions, and its limitations particularly in the way in
which inelastic loads are distributed during earthquakes
throughout the masonry and frame system. This system,
or design methods, should be used with caution in Seismic
Design Category D and above until further studies and tests
have been performed; and additional design guidance is
outlined in adopted codes and standards.
HYBRID MASONRY CONCEPT
Since the 1950s, architects and engineers have primarily
used cavity walls with framed structures. The backup
masonry walls are generally termed infll walls. They
support out-of-plane loads on the wall and are isolated
from the frame so as not to participate in the lateral load
resistance (Figure 1). Codes usually require that these
walls be isolated from the lateral movement of the frame
so no lateral loads are imparted to the masonry.
The hybrid system is a variation of the confned masonry
system. It incorporates the benefcial qualities of
transitional buildings and the characteristics of cavity
wall construction. It differs from cavity wall construction
in that the infll masonry walls participate with the
frame and provide strength and stiffness to the system.
The masonry can be used as single wythe or cavity wall
construction. Hybrid masonry structures are constructed
of reinforced masonry, not unreinforced masonry, as was
common in transitional buildings.
Hybrid masonry/framed structures were frst proposed
in print in 2006 [Ref. 1]. There are several primary
reasons for its development. One reason is to simplify
the construction of framed buildings with masonry infll.
While many designers prefer masonry infll walls as the
backup for veneers in framed buildings, there is often
a confict created when steel bracing is required and
positioned such that conficts arise with the location of
the masonry infll. This leads to detailing diffculties and
construction interferences in trying to ft masonry around
braces. One solution is to eliminate the steel bracing and
use reinforced masonry infll as shear wall and bracing.
Hybrid masonry/steel structures also provide structural
redundancy that can be utilized to limit progressive
collapse. The reinforced masonry infll results in an
alternative load path for the gravity loads of the frame
that provides redundancy. The resulting system is more
effcient than either a frame or a bearing wall system alone
when subjected to progressive collapse design conditions.
If a steel column is damaged in a hybrid structure,
gravity loads will transfer to the reinforced masonry. If
the masonry is damaged, the gravity load transfers to
the frame. There are documented examples from the
World Trade Center disaster that illustrate redundancy in
transitional buildings [Ref. 2].
CLASSIFICATION OF WALLS
There are three hybrid wall types. The loadings these
walls can support is dependent upon the degree of
confnement of the masonry within the frame. These walls
can potentially transfer axial loads from the beam/girder
of the frame as well as transfer shear from the beam/
girder or the columns. The wall systems are defned in
Table 1 based upon their ability to transfer loads from the
frame to the wall. All wall systems listed can address the
backup for cavity wall construction. If a veneer is used,
it is constructed with relieving angles and is isolated for
differential movement as with conventional cavity wall
construction. By comparison, an infll wall used in a cavity
wall does not transfer axial load or in-plane shear.
The following sections describe each wall type.
The key to the performance of the walls is the
confnement at the columns and the top of the wall along
with the anchorage.
Type I Hybrid Walls
This wall type transmits out-of-plane loads and in-plane
shear loads (Figure 1). The gap at the top and the top
anchors should not transmit axial loads. If column anchors
are used, they should not transmit shear loads. The gaps at
the columns must be adequate so the columns do not bear
against the masonry when the frame undergoes drift.
All wall types must transfer shear at the base of the wall.
This is commonly done using dowels into the foundation
or on the framing at the bottom of the wall. The tie-down
forces are a key component to the support of the wall
against preventing overturning.
Effectively, the masonry wall is a non-loadbearing shear
wall that also supports out-of-plane loads. The in-
plane forces are shown in Figure 2. These forces must
AIR BARRIER UPDATE - page 2
IMI 2009. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
C
This document is intended for the use of industry professionals who are competent to evaluate the significance and limitations of
the information provided herein. This publication should not be used as the sole guide for masonry design and construction, and
IMI disclaims any and all legal responsibility for the consequences of applying the information.
International Masonry Institute 42 East Street Annapolis, MD 21401 1-800-IMI-0988 www.imiweb.org
HYBRID MASONRY DESIGN - page 2
Table 1 Hybrid Masonry Wall Systems
Axial In-plane shear In-plane shear
load at beam/girder at column
Type I Hybrid No Yes No
Type II Hybrid Yes Yes No
Type III Hybrid Yes Yes Yes
Loads transferred from frame to wall: Wall Type
be applied to the frame design. The tension load T can
be accommodated by the distributed reinforcement
or the designated tie-down reinforcement. This same
reinforcement can be used to distribute shear forces
as well. Type I walls can be ideal for buildings up to
four stories.
The forces are resolved into:

C = P
wall
+ T [Eqn. 1]
M = C

l
W
kd

+ T
.
e [Eqn. 2]
where e is the eccentricity of the tie-down force,
which is defned as the distance between the tie-down
reinforcement and the center of the wall.
AIR BARRIER UPDATE - page 2
IMI 2009. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
C
This document is intended for the use of industry professionals who are competent to evaluate the significance and limitations of
the information provided herein. This publication should not be used as the sole guide for masonry design and construction, and
IMI disclaims any and all legal responsibility for the consequences of applying the information.
International Masonry Institute 42 East Street Annapolis, MD 21401 1-800-IMI-0988 www.imiweb.org
HYBRID MASONRY DESIGN - page 3
GAPS 1, 2: NO IN-PLANE LOAD TRANSFER
GAP 2 GAP 1
GAP 3
TYPE I
BEAM OR
GIRDER
COLUMN
SHEAR WALL
SHEAR (IN-PLANE)
GAP 3: TRANSFERS IN-PLANE SHEAR LOAD; NO AXIAL LOAD
COLUMN
Figure 1 Type I Hybrid Wall
Figure 1Type I Hybrid Wall
Figure 2 Type I Force Distribution
P
wall
C
T
SHEAR
H
M
kd
l
w
Figure 2 Type I Force Distribution
Deflected shape
Type II Hybrid Walls
This wall type is a modifcation of Type I. It is constructed
tight to the beam framing above such that axial loads
are transmitted to the masonry wall (Figure 3). The
top anchors transmit out-of-plane loads and shear
loads. If column anchors are used, they do not transmit
shear loads. Effectively, the masonry wall is a loadbearing
shear wall that also supports out-of-plane loads.
There are two options for distributing the in-plane forces
resulting from the overturning of the shear wall Type IIa
and Type IIb walls. For Type IIa (Figure 4), the tension load
T can be accommodated by the distributed reinforcement
or the designated tie-down reinforcement. For Type IIb
(Figure 5), the tension force that tied down the wall in
the Type IIa wall is replaced by compression on the upper
framing and is transferred into the steel frame. This is a
signifcant beneft to multi-story buildings such that the
tie-down to the frame is not required.
Figure 3Type II Hybrid Wall
GAPS 1, 2: NO IN-PLANE LOAD TRANSFER (SOFT JOINTS)
GAP 2 GAP 1
NO GAP
TYPE II
BEAM OR
GIRDER
COLUMN
SHEAR WALL
SHEAR (IN-PLANE)
BEAM/GIRDER TRANSFERS IN-PLANE SHEAR LOAD
COLUMN
AXIAL LOAD
Figure 3 Type II Hybrid Wall
Figure 4Type IIa Force Distribution
P
axial
P
wall
C
T
SHEAR
H
M
kd
l
w
Figure 4- Type IIa Force Distribution
Deflected shape
2 3
( )
-
AIR BARRIER UPDATE - page 2
IMI 2009. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
C
This document is intended for the use of industry professionals who are competent to evaluate the significance and limitations of
the information provided herein. This publication should not be used as the sole guide for masonry design and construction, and
IMI disclaims any and all legal responsibility for the consequences of applying the information.
International Masonry Institute 42 East Street Annapolis, MD 21401 1-800-IMI-0988 www.imiweb.org
HYBRID MASONRY DESIGN - page 4
As previously noted, shear dowels are needed at the
base of the walls Type IIb walls, unlike Type I and IIa, do
not require tension lap splices for the vertical
reinforcement at the base of the walls since only shear
loads are being developed.
Type II walls are generally limited to buildings 10 to 14
stories high since masonry stresses will usually govern.
Generally, this limitation is similar for loadbearing
buildings as well.

The designer has the option to load-share the gravity
loads with the masonry wall. This can reduce the size of
the beam/girder framing member. For example, if the
masonry is constructed after the dead loads of the foor/
roof framing system are installed, the masonry wall can
take the gravity loads that are added to the structure after
the walls are built. The framing (columns and beams/
girders) sizes can be limited to support only the dead
loads and the lateral load effects. The framing should be
designed for the full gravity loads if there is a chance that
the wall will be modifed in the future.
For the Type IIb wall at the base of the wall:
C
bottom
= P
axial
+ P
wall
+ C
top
[Eqn. 3]
The overturning is resolved by:

M = C
bottom


l
W
kd

+ C
top


l
W
k

d

[Eqn. 4]
Figure 5Type IIb Force Distribution
P
axial
SHEAR
H
C
top
kd
P
wall
M
C
bottom
kd
l
w
Deflected shape
Figure 5- Type IIb Force Distribution
The axial load imparted to the wall is a function of the
construction sequence. This should be stated in the
construction documents. For example, if the steel is
designed for only the slab and framing dead load and
the lateral load effects, the masonry walls must be
constructed tight to the framing above after the slab is
in place but before the wall above is started. The steel
framing and the masonry must be designed using similar
assumptions.
Type III Hybrid Walls
This wall type is fully confned within the framing (Figure
6). It is most similar to the transitional buildings from
the early 1900s. However in this modernized version, the
masonry is engineered and reinforced to support axial and
shear loads in addition to the out-of-plane loads. As with
the Type II hybrid wall, the designer has the option to
design the columns and beams/girders for the portion of
the gravity loads installed before the masonry.
Currently, there are no standards in the United States
that govern the design of this type of wall. Research is
underway to help defne the behavior of these walls which
should lead to code requirements. Designers should only
use this system at their own discretion. Statics can be
used to generate formulas comparable to the Equations 1
though 4 for Type I and Type II hybrid walls.
Figures 7 and 8 show the two variations (Type IIIa and Type
IIIb) based upon how the overturning force is handled.
Figure 6Type III Hybrid Wall
NO GAP NO GAP
NO GAP
TYPE
III
BEAM OR
GIRDER
COLUMN
SHEAR WALL
SHEAR (IN-PLANE)
COLUMN
SHEAR
(IN-PLANE)
SHEAR
(IN-PLANE)
AXIAL LOAD
Note: Type lll not yet included in building codes
Figure 6 - Type III Hybrid Wall
( )
2 3
( )
2 3
- -
AIR BARRIER UPDATE - page 2
IMI 2009. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
C
This document is intended for the use of industry professionals who are competent to evaluate the significance and limitations of
the information provided herein. This publication should not be used as the sole guide for masonry design and construction, and
IMI disclaims any and all legal responsibility for the consequences of applying the information.
International Masonry Institute 42 East Street Annapolis, MD 21401 1-800-IMI-0988 www.imiweb.org
HYBRID MASONRY DESIGN - page 5

HYBRID DESIGN
As discussed, the masonry in hybrid structures can carry
out-of-plane loads in addition to in-plane loads. The
masonry design can be performed based upon the code
for reinforced masonry using allowable stress (based upon
linear elastic methods). As strength design procedures
gain acceptance, load factor design with non-linear elastic
evaluation of the masonry will be possible.
While there are three hybrid types that dictate the
loadings (Type I, II, and III), there are three shear wall
types available for the design of the walls themselves.
The shear wall type is dependent upon the minimum
prescriptive reinforcement and grouting. The Building
Code Requirements for Masonry Structures and the
International Building Code (IBC) [Ref. 3, 4] classify shear
walls as ordinary reinforced, intermediate reinforced,
or special reinforced. Therefore, there are three
combinations of hybrid types to choose from.
The structural steel system design and the in-plane loads
to the masonry are based upon the IBC using seismic factors
for R (response modifcation coeffcient),
0
(system over-
strength factor), and C
d
(defection amplifcation factor)
applicable to the type of shear walls used with building
frames. These factors are given in Table 2:
Table 2 Factors Based On
Shear Wall Type [Ref. 9]
Shear Wall Type R
o
C
d
Ordinary Reinforced 3 2.5 2.25
Intermediate Reinforced 4 2.5 2.5
Special Reinforced 5.5 2.5 4
Ordinary reinforced shear walls are permitted in Seismic
Design Categories (SDC) A, B, and C. The building height is
unlimited for SDC A and B and limited to 160 feet (48.8 m)
for SDC C.
Intermediate reinforced shear walls are permitted in SDC
A, B, and C. The building height is unlimited.
Special reinforced shear walls are permitted in all seismic
design categories. The building height is unlimited for SDC
A, B, and C, limited to 160 feet (48.8 m) for SDC D and E,
and limited to 100 feet (30.5 m) for SDC F.
While these are the permitted types and classes, most
hybrid projects thus far have been in SDC A, B and C. This
has been convenient in that an R=3 type structural steel
design has been used in accordance with AISC. Designs in
SDC D and higher would require use of the AISC Seismic
Design Manual AISC 327-05 (Ref. 9). Research is on-going for
various aspects of the systems in higher seismic classes.
COMPUTER SOFTWARE
Several commercial software companies have masonry
design packages [Ref. 5, 6] which have included hybrid
masonry in their packages. This allows the masonry
and steel to be modeled and designed as a system.
The software is primarily based upon allowable stress
design and linear elastic analysis. There are plans are to
incorporate strength design in the future.
Figure 8Type IIIb Force Distribution
SHEAR
P
axial
C
left
H
P
wall
C
bottom
lw
C
right
kd kh
M
kh
C
top
kd
Note: Type lll not yet included in building codes
Figure 8 Type IIIb Force Distribution
Deflected shape
Figure 7Type IIIa Force Distribution
SHEAR
P
axial
C
left
H
P
wall
T
C
lw
C
right
kd kh
M
kh
Figure 7 Type IIIa Force Distribution
Note: Type III not yet included in building codes
Deflected shape
AIR BARRIER UPDATE - page 2
IMI 2009. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
C
This document is intended for the use of industry professionals who are competent to evaluate the significance and limitations of
the information provided herein. This publication should not be used as the sole guide for masonry design and construction, and
IMI disclaims any and all legal responsibility for the consequences of applying the information.
International Masonry Institute 42 East Street Annapolis, MD 21401 1-800-IMI-0988 www.imiweb.org
HYBRID MASONRY DESIGN - page 6
CONCLUSIONS
Hybrid masonry offers many benefts and complements
framed construction. By using the masonry as a structural
element for in-plane loads, the constructability of the
masonry with the frames is improved, the lateral stiffness is
increased, the redundancy is improved, and opportunities
for reduced construction costs are created.
Designs indicate that greater stiffness can be achieved
with hybrid masonry systems in comparison with braced
frames or moment frames. The benefcial effect on the
framing through the load-sharing abilities of the system
is also evident. These qualities, stiffness, and redundancy
can be useful in preventing progressive collapse.
For now, Type I and Type II hybrid systems can be designed in
the United States using existing codes and standards. Criteria
for Type III hybrid systems are under development.
Details for the construction of hybrid walls and design
issues related to the top connectors are discussed in IMI
Technology Brief 02.13.02 and NCMA TEK 3-3B (Ref. 7,8).
NOTATIONS:
C = resultant compressive force, lb (N)
C
bottom
= resultant compressive force at bottom
of masonry wall, lb (N)
C
d
= defection amplifcation factor
C
left
= resultant compressive force on left side
of masonry wall, lb (N)
C
right
= resultant compressive force on right side
of masonry wall, lb (N)
C
top
= resultant compressive force at top
of masonry wall, lb (N)
d = distance from extreme compression fber to
centroid of tension reinforcement, in. (mm)
e = eccentricity of the tie-down force, equal
to the distance of the tie-down reinforcement
from the center of the wall, in. (mm)
H = shear force, lb (N)
h = effective height of masonry element, in (mm)
k, k = ratio of distance between compression
face of wall and neutral axis to the
effective depth, d, for the bottom and
top of the wall; and to the height of the
wall, h, for the sides, respectively.
l
w
= length of entire wall or of segment of wall
considered in the direction of shear force,
in. (mm)
M = maximum moment at the section under
consideration, in-lb (N-mm)
P
axial
= axial load, lb (N)
P
wall
= axial load due to wall weight, lb (N)
R = seismic response modifcation factor
T = tension in reinforcement, lb (N)

o
= system over-strength factor
REFERENCES
1. Biggs, D.T., Hybrid Masonry Structures, Proceedings
of the Tenth North American Masonry Conference,
The Masonry Society, Boulder, CO, June 2007.
2. Biggs, D.T., Masonry Aspects of the World Trade Center
Disaster, The Masonry Society, Boulder, CO., 2004.
3. Building Code Requirements for Masonry Structures
(TMS 402-08/ACI 530-08/ASCE 5-08), The Masonry
Society, Boulder, CO.
4. International Building Code (IBC), International Code
Council, Falls Church, VA 22041-3401
5. RAM Elements Version 10., Masonry Wall, RAM
International, Carlsbad, CA
6. RISA 3D Version 8.0, RISA Technologies,
Foothill Ranch, CA.
7. IMI Technology Brief 02.13.02, Hybrid Masonry
Construction, International Masonry Institute,
Annapolis, MD, 2009
8. Hybrid Concrete Masonry Construction Details,
TEK 3-3B, National Concrete Masonry Association,
Herndon, VA, 2009
9. AISC Seismic Design Manual, AISC 327-05,
American Iron and Steel Institute, 2005.
Keywords: hybrid structures, shear walls, frame
structures, infll, tie-down, reinforced masonry
AIR BARRIER UPDATE - page 2
IMI 2009. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
C
This document is intended for the use of industry professionals who are competent to evaluate the significance and limitations of
the information provided herein. This publication should not be used as the sole guide for masonry design and construction, and
IMI disclaims any and all legal responsibility for the consequences of applying the information.
International Masonry Institute 42 East Street Annapolis, MD 21401 1-800-IMI-0988 www.imiweb.org