MASONRY

SpringSummer
2012

Engineering Notes For Design

With Concrete Block Masonry

CHRONICLES

.
.......
........
........
........
........
........
........

Along with the elimination of the one-third stress

increase, all of the allowable stresses in the 2011
Building Code were examined to determine if
there was sufcient rationale for a change in the
allowable value. A substantial amount of trial design
work was done in support of the effort as well as a
review of applicable research. This article provides
a compilation of the changes and the supporting
rational that was used for each change.

SJ

..
.
.
.
.
.
.
....
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.....
.
.
.
.
.
.
....
.
.
.
.
.
.
......
.
.
.
.
.
.
....
.
.
.
.
..
1M
01 e
2
d
the Co
or ing
f
tes ild
da y Bu
p
r
n U on
sig Mas
e
D

Allowable Stress Recalibration in

the 2011 TMS 402 Building Code
Introduction
This edition of Masonry Chronicles will discuss
major changes implemented in the 2011 Building
Code Requirements for Masonry Structures
[TMS 402-11] relating to Allowable Stress Design
(ASD) provisions. Prior to this edition, allowable
stresses were permitted to be increased by
one-third when considering load combinations
including wind or seismic forces. The origin and
the reason for the one-third stress increase are
unclear [Ellifritt 1977]. From a structural reliability
standpoint, the one-third stress increase is a
poor way to handle load combination effects
[Ellingwood, 1980]. Due to these shortcomings
of the one-third stress increase, other materials
had eliminated this provision with masonry being
the only structural material still permitting this
provision. This provision was eliminated in the
2011 TMS Building Code.

Summary of Changes to the 2011 TMS

402 Building Code
Anchor Bolts
No changes were made in anchor bolt allowable
stresses. There was a major revision to the
anchor bolt design requirements in Chapter 2
(Allowable Stress Design of Masonry) during
the 2008 Code cycle. This revision signicantly
increased the anchor bolt allowable stresses
and harmonized allowable stress design and
strength design of anchor bolts. The one-third
stress increase permitted in the 2008 Building
Code should not be applied to anchor bolt design.
Allowable Bearing Stress
The allowable bearing stress in TMS 402-08,
0.25fm, is harmonized with Chapter 3 Strength
Design of Masonry (SD) values. If the nominal
bearing strength, 0.60fmAbr, is multiplied by
the resistance factor for bearing of 0.60 and
divided by an average load factor of 1.4,
the resulting stress value in the equation is
0.26fm, or approximately the allowable bearing
stress. Note that in comparison to other codes,
the design bearing strength, O(0.60fm)Abr =
0.36fmAbr, is low. The nominal bearing strength
in concrete [ACI 318, 2008] is 0.85fc times the
bearing area. The strength reduction factor is
0.65 resulting in a design strength of 0.55fctimes
the bearing area. The nominal bearing strength
in the Canadian Masonry Code [CSA, 2004]
is 0.85fmA. The strength reduction factor is
0.55 resulting in a design strength of 0.47fmA.

Concrete Masonry Association

of California and Nevada

Based on comparison with other codes, the nominal

bearing strength for strength design is increased from
0.6fm to 0.8fm, resulting in a design strength of
0.6(0.8fm)Abr = 0.48fmAbr, which is still below most
codes. A similar increase in allowable bearing stress,
from 0.25fm to 0.33fm, is incorporated into allowable
stress design (ASD).
Axial Compression
No changes were made in the 2011 TMS Building Code for
allowable axial stresses. There are two reasons for this.

at present to justify an increase. The allowable flexural

compression stress rarely controls the design of
unreinforced masonry, and thus the impact of not
changing this value is minimal.
The allowable shear stress values for unreinforced
masonry were not changed. It was felt that there was
insufficient data at present to justify any increase.
Almost all unreinforced masonry shear walls will be
controlled by flexural tension and not shear. Thus, the
impact of not changing this value is minimal.
Reinforced Masonry - Allowable Steel Stress

For unreinforced masonry, allowable stress design is

currently well harmonized with strength design. The
allowable axial stress, Fa, is 0.25fm multiplied by a
slenderness reduction factor. The nominal axial strength,
Pn, is 0.8(0.8)fmAn multiplied by the same slenderness
reduction factor. The resistance factor for unreinforced
masonry is 0.6, and using an average load factor (LF)
of 1.4 results in 0.8(0.8)/LF = 0.6(0.8)(0.8)/1.4 = 0.27,
or about .
Thus, ASD and SD are fairly well
harmonized for unreinforced masonry.
For the design of prestressed walls, allowable stresses
are increased by 20% for the stress condition
immediately after transfer. Any change in allowable axial
stress would need to be coordinated with prestressed
design. No change is being made at present, but the
code committee continues to examine this issue.
Unreinforced Masonry
Unreinforced masonry design of members subjected to
lateral loads is primarily governed by flexural tension,
whether loaded in-plane or out-of-plane. Kim [2002]
performed a reliability analysis of unreinforced walls
under wind loading where 327 full-scale wall tests were
examined. The reliability analysis showed that
unreinforced masonry walls have a sufficient safety level
even with the one-third stress increase. This provides a
justification for increasing the allowable flexural tension
values by 4/3 when eliminating the one-third stress
increase. It is also noted that unreinforced masonry walls
have performed well under wind loading, even when
using the one-third stress increase in design. Finally, it is
noted that most unreinforced masonry walls designed by
current standards will be controlled by wind load as
unreinforced masonry is only allowed for participating
elements in Seismic Design Categories A and B.
The allowable flexural compression stress was left as
1/3fm, where fm is the specified compressive strength of
the masonry. It was felt that there was insufficient data

The allowable steel stress for Grade 60 reinforcement

was increased from 24 ksi to 32 ksi for both tension and
compression. No change was made to the allowable
tensile stress for Grade 40 reinforcement or wire joint
reinforcement. The use of Grade 40 reinforcement is
rather limited, and the current allowable tensile stress,
20 ksi, is approximately the same percentage of the yield
stress as being proposed for Grade 60 reinforcement.
There is a modest increase to the allowable compressive
stress for Grade 40 reinforcement from 0.4fy = 16 ksi to
20 ksi, where fy is the specified yield strength of the
reinforcement.
This provides consistency between
tensile and compressive allowable stresses.
To justify the increase in the allowable stress for Grade 60
reinforcement, the committee examined a non-bearing wall
under out-of-plane wind load, which it believed to be a
critical case. Allowable stress design is compared to
strength design. At the time of the analysis, the load factor
for wind loads was 1.6. The strength reduction factor is 0.9.
Using these factors with Grade 60 reinforcement results in
an allowable stress of (60ksi) x (0.9) / 1.6 = 33.75 ksi.
Strength design explicitly includes second-order effects
while allowable stress design does not. Thus, allowable
stress design should be more conservative than strength
design, or there should be an explicit inclusion of secondorder effects in allowable stress design. The committee
adopted having conservative allowable stress design
values, and not having an explicit second-order analysis in
allowable stress design. There is also some additional
conservatism with allowable stress design since the internal
lever arm is usually smaller than in strength design.
Two 8 in. CMU walls were evaluated to examine the
effect of the increase in allowable stress. The walls
have an fm=1.5 ksi and Grade 60 reinforcement. The
results of the analysis are shown in Table 1. With an
allowable stress of 32 ksi, there is around an 8%
conservatism over strength design. This is considered
sufficient to account for second-order effects.

Table 1. Comparison of allowable stress and strength design for non-bearing wall
Mallow (k-ft/ft)
0.9Mn/1.6 (k-ft/ft)
Mallow/[0.9Mn/1.6]
Reinforcement
Mn (k-ft/ft)
#4 @ 48 in.
0.927
0.475
0.521
0.912
#5 @ 32 in.
2.075
1.071
1.167
0.918
Mn = nominal moment capacity; Mallow = allowable moment capacity

Reinforced Masonry - Allowable Combined Flexural

and Axial Compressive Masonry Stress
The allowable compressive stress for combined flexural
and axial compressive loads were increased from 0.33fm
to 0.45fm. The justification for this is as follows.
Under pure flexure, there is little increase in allowable
moment with increase in reinforcement area when the
masonry allowable compressive stress controls the
design, Figure 1. An allowable masonry compressive
stress can be chosen so that the masonry compressive
stress controls when the reinforcement area reaches
some ratio of the balanced reinforcement ratio (balanced
based on strength design, the reinforcement yields just
as the masonry reaches the maximum useable strain).
This can be derived as follows for Grade 60
reinforcement and CMU masonry, although a similar
derivation could be constructed for other conditions.

The comparison of allowable stress design (ASD) and

strength design (SD) is shown in Figure 1 for CMU
elements and Grade 60 reinforcement. The nominal
moment is multiplied by a strength reduction factor of 0.9
and divided by a load factor of 1.6 for comparison to the
allowable moment. For low amounts of reinforcement,
the reinforcement allowable stress will control the
design. As pointed out in the previous section, ASD with
the new allowable values will give slightly more
conservative designs than SD. At higher reinforcement
ratios, the masonry allowable stress will control the
design. However, the failure of the member will still be
ductile as the reinforcement ratio is below the balanced
reinforcement ratio for strength design.

For strength design, the balanced reinforcement ratio is:

b, strength =

0.8(0.8) f m
fy

+
y
m

0.8(0.8) f m
f
0.0025

=
= 0.3502 m

fy
fy
0.0025 + 0.00207

(1)

where b,strength is the balanced reinforcement ratio (based

on strength design), m is the maximum useable
compressive strain, and y is the yield strain. Now consider
the balanced ratio for allowable stress design (ratio of
reinforcement for which the masonry compressive stress
reaches the allowable exactly when the steel tensile stress
reaches the allowable), as shown in Equation 2.

b , ASD

n
=
n + Fs

Fb

2 Fs
F
b

29000


900 f m
=
29000 x S f y
900 f + x f

m
M m

where Fs = xsfy is the allowable reinforcement tensile

stress, Fb = xmfm is the allowable masonry compressive
stress, n = Es/Em is the ratio of the modulus of elasticity
of the reinforcement to the modulus of elasticity of the
masonry, and the modulus of elasticity of concrete
masonry is obtained as Em = 900fm, the relationship
used in TMS 402. For an allowable reinforcement
tensile stress of 32 ksi (xs = 0.533) and an allowable
masonry compressive stress of 0.45fm (xm = 0.45), the
masonry stress begins to control at b,ASD =
0.375b,strength. The masonry allowable compressive
stress provides a practical limit on the amount of
reinforcement, as again, once masonry controls, there is
little increase in moment with increasing reinforcement.
Masonry elements will still fail in flexural tension (a
ductile failure) even when the masonry compressive
stress controls the design.

1
xS f y
2
x M f m

1
32.22
=

x S (60) x S f y

32.22 + x
2 x f
M
M m

(2)

Figure 1. Comparison of ASD and SD flexural design

for CMU elements

Historically, the Uniform Building Code [UBC 1997]

limited the reinforcement to one-half of b,strength. One
consideration in developing the allowable masonry
stress was to determine an allowable masonry stress for
which the masonry stress would start controlling at a
reinforcement ratio of 0.5b,strength. This value would be
0.534fm for CMU masonry and 0.528fm for clay
masonry. Based on this, a masonry allowable stress of
0.5fm was considered, but was ultimately not adopted.
Historically, allowable stress design of concrete used
0.45fc as the limiting compressive stress value, and it
was decided to use the 0.45 value for masonry.
The same trends observed for members in pure flexure
also were observed when considering combined flexural
and axial loads using the new allowable stress values.
When the reinforcement allowable stress controlled the
design, ASD and SD gave similar results, with ASD
being slightly conservative. When the allowable masonry
stress controlled the design, ASD was much more
conservative than SD. This is seen in the interaction
diagram in Figure 2, which is for a 2-ft wide, 8-ft high
wall segment made of 8-in. CMU (fm = 1500 psi). The
reinforcement is one #5 bar in each end cell. Figure 2
compares the allowable axial force and moment using
ASD to the allowable using SD, where the allowable
using SD is obtained by multiplying the nominal strength
by the strength reduction factor, 0.9, and dividing by a
load factor of 1.6. As with pure flexure, ASD designs are
quite conservative with respect to SD when the masonry
allowable stress controls the design. Even when the
masonry stress controls the design, the failure mode will
often be yielding of the reinforcement.
Reinforced Masonry - Allowable Shear Stresses
Historically with US building codes, allowable stress
design has not added the shear resistance from the
masonry and the reinforcement. Rather, either the
masonry had to have sufficient capacity to carry the
entire shear force or the reinforcement had to have
sufficient capacity to carry the entire shear force. This is
different from strength design, where the shear capacity
from the masonry and the reinforcement are permitted to
be added together. The justification given in the
commentary of TMS 402-08 for not allowing the shear
resistance from the masonry and the reinforcement to be
added together in allowable stress design is a 1974
reference [Priestley 1974]. In more recent work [Paulay
1992] it has been proposed that the masonry and
reinforcement shear strength can be added together.

Figure 2. Comparison of ASD and SD interaction

diagrams

A recent study [Davis 2010] compared eight different

methods for predicting the in-plane shear capacity of
masonry walls with the results from fifty-six tests of
masonry walls failing in in-plane shear. The test data
encompassed both concrete masonry walls and clay
masonry walls, all of which were fully grouted. Of the
eight different methods examined, the design provisions
of TMS 402 Chapter 3 (strength design) were found to
be the best predictor of shear strength. The average
ratio of the test capacity to the calculated capacity was
1.16 with a coefficient of variation of 0.15. The TMS
402-08 allowable stress shear design equations were
found to be both very conservative and to have a high
amount of scatter. The average ratio of the test capacity
to the calculated capacity using just the masonry shear
strength was 8.51 with a coefficient of variation of 0.25.
The average ratio of the test capacity to the calculated
capacity using just the reinforcement shear strength was
9.62 with a coefficient of variation of 0.48.
Based on the results of Davis [2010], the shear strength
equations of Chapter 3 (strength design) were adopted
for allowable stress design with the following
modifications.

All strength capacities are divided by a factor of

2. This factor was obtained as a load factor of
1.6 divided by a resistance factor of 0.8.

Service loads are used instead of factored

loads. For example, the masonry shear strength
includes a term for the contribution of axial load
to the shear strength.
The axial load is
expressed in terms of service load instead of
factored load.

The equations are written in terms of stress

instead of force to be consistent with the rest of
Chapter 2.

To summarize, the allowable shear stress, Fv, is

obtained as the sum of the allowable shear stress
resisted by the masonry, Fvm, and the allowable shear
stress resisted by the shear reinforcement, Fvs.

Fv = Fvm + Fvs

(3)

The allowable shear stress resisted by the masonry, Fvm,

is obtained as:

Fvm =

1
P
M
4.0 1.75 f m + 0.25
2
An
Vd

(4)

where M is the applied moment, V is the applied shear, d

is the distance from the extreme compression face to the
centroid of the reinforcement, and P is the applied axial
force. The allowable shear stress resisted by the shear
reinforcement, Fvs, is obtained as:

AFd
Fvs = 0.5 v s
An s

(5)

where Av is the area of the shear reinforcement and s is the

spacing of the shear reinforcement. The contribution to the
allowable shear stress provided by shear reinforcement,
Equation 5, represents half the theoretical contribution. In
other words, the allowable shear stress is determined as the
full masonry contribution plus one-half the contribution from
the shear reinforcement. Other coefficients for the
contribution of the shear reinforcement were evaluated (0.6,
0.8, and 1.0), but the best fit to the experimental data was
obtained using the 0.5 factor [Davis 2010].
A significant number of trial designs were conducted to
evaluate the new allowable stress shear design
provisions. A summary of a few of the trial designs is
given in Table 2. The TMS 402-11 allowable stress
design provisions require essentially the same amount of
shear reinforcement as the strength design provisions,
and in general less shear reinforcement than the TMS
402-08 allowable stress design provisions.
Further
details on the trial designs are available in Huston [2011].

Special Reinforced Shear Walls

TMS 402-08 has shear capacity design requirements for
special reinforced masonry shear walls as part of the
seismic design provisions. For strength design, the
design shear strength, Vn, must exceed the shear
corresponding to the development of 1.25 times the
nominal flexural strength, Mn, of the wall, except that the
nominal shear strength, Vn, need not exceed 2.5 times
required shear strength, Vu. For allowable stress design,
the design load is required to be increased by a factor of
1.5. Trial designs for special shear walls using these
shear capacity design requirements and the allowable
shear stresses given in Equations 3-5 showed that
allowable stress design would require much less shear
reinforcement than strength design. The committee did
not feel this was appropriate.
Various options to address this situation were examined.
The option chosen was to use a reduced value for the
allowable masonry shear stress to account for the
degradation of masonry shear strength that occurs in
plastic hinging regions [Anderson 1992]. Davis [2010]
recommended a reduction factor of 1.0 (no reduction) for
wall ductility ratios of 2.0 or less, and decreasing linearly
to zero as the ductility ratio increases from 2.0 to 4.0.
The committee chose a constant value of 0.5 for design
convenience. The resulting allowable shear stress due
to masonry for special shear walls is:

Fvm =

1
P
M
4.0 1.75 f m + 0.25
4
An
Vd

(6)

Again, numerous trial designs were performed with a

summary in Table 2, and further details are given in
Huston [2011].

Table 2. Results of shear wall trial designs

Spacing of #5 Grade 60 shear reinforcement (in)
fm
Non-special
shear wall Special shear wall
Wall #
t (in)
L (in)
h (ft)
M/(V*dv)
(psi)
08
08
11
08
08
11
ASD
SD
ASD
ASD
SD
ASD
2
1500
7.625 232
20
1.03
NR
NR
NR
16
16
16
12
3000
5.625 96
8
1.08
24
NR
NR
16
40
32
12B
3000
5.625 96
8
1.08
24
NR
NR
16
40
32
9
3000
7.625 176
10
0.68
16
NR
NR
8
16
16
9B
3000
7.625 176
10
0.68
16
NR
NR
8
16
16
20
1500
7.625 504
12
0.29
NR
NR
NR
40
40
24
NR = not required; 08 ASD = shear reinforcement required by TMS 402-08 allowable stress design provisions;
08 SD = shear reinforcement required by TMS 402-08 strength design provisions (unchanged in TMS 402-11),
and 11 ASD = shear reinforcement required by TMS 402-11 allowable stress design provisions.

Shear Wall Example

A 10 foot high by 16 foot long, 8-inch fully grouted CMU
shear wall is constructed using Grade 60 reinforcement.
The specified compressive strength, fm, is 1500 psi.
The vertical reinforcement is 2-#5s at each end and #5s
@ 32 inch on center. There is a superimposed dead load
of 1kip/ft.
This wall will be analyzed under in-plane loads using the
load combination of 0.9D + 0.7E (ASCE 7 permits this
load combination for special reinforced masonry shear
walls). For illustrative purposes and simplicity, vertical
earthquake forces will not be considered, although they
would need to be considered in an actual design. Based
on flexure (overturning), the maximum in-plane load, E,
would be 90.5 kips. Since this is a special reinforced
masonry shear wall, the load would have to be increased
by 1.5 for shear design, and the alternate equation for
shear capacity would have to be used (Equation [6] in
this paper; Equation (2-29) in the Code). The shear
stress under this load is 64.9 psi. The maximum
allowable shear stress is 96.8 psi, so the wall is OK by
this criterion. The calculated required shear
reinforcement is #5s @ 19.6 inches, or #5s @ 16 inches
would be used.
By comparison, the 2008 ASD provisions would have
resulted in the same capacity based on flexure if the
one-third stress increase had been used. The applied
shear stress of 64.9 psi is just less than the maximum
allowable shear stress of 65.3 psi. The calculated
required shear reinforcement using the 2008 ASD
provisions is #5s @ 20.3 inches, or #5s @ 16 inches
would be used. We see that there is little difference in
the required shear reinforcement between the 2008 and
2011 ASD provisions, but the 2011 provisions permit a
higher maximum allowable shear stress.
If the vertical reinforcement were #5s @ 24 inch on
center instead of #5s @ 32 inch on center, the
maximum in-plane load, E, would be 105.8 kips. The
shear stress under 1.5 times the load would be 72.2
psi, which is still less than the maximum allowable
shear stress permitted under the 2011 provisions. The
calculated shear reinforcement is #5s @ 16.0 inches,
so the shear reinforcement would not change; #5s @
16 inches would be used. Under the 2008 provisions,
the maximum allowable shear stress is limited to 65.3
psi, or the maximum in-plane load, E, would be 95.6
kips. The wall would be limited by the shear provisions
in the 2008 Code.
For comparison, the original wall (#5s @ 32 inches) will be
analyzed using the 2011 strength design provisions. The
maximum in-plane earthquake load, E, would be125.9 kips.

The 39% greater load is partly due to ASD provisions

being slightly more conservative than strength design
provisions, and partly due to distributed bars not
counting as much in ASD as in strength design. In
strength design, most tension bars will have yielded,
irrespective of their location. In ASD, where a linear
stress distribution across the cross-section is assumed,
bars that are not at the end of the wall will both have a
lower stress and a smaller lever arm for computing
flexural capacity.

Summary
The major changes to the allowable stresses in TMS
402-11 can be summarized as follows:
1. The allowable flexural tensile stresses for clay
and concrete masonry were increased based on
historical performance and the results of a
reliability analysis reported in the literature.
2. Allowable stresses for axial compression for
either unreinforced or reinforced masonry were
not changed.
3. The allowable reinforcement stress and
allowable masonry compressive stresses due to
flexure or flexure in combination with axial load
were increased based on a comparison with
strength design procedures.
4. Allowable shear stresses for reinforced masonry
elements were changed to be similar to strength
design based on a recent comparison of
predicted strengths using a variety of code
methods to experimental strength. It is now
permitted to add the shear strength of the
masonry and the shear strength of the
reinforcement to determine the allowable shear
strength.
5. Anchor bolt stresses were not changed due to a
recent major revision of the allowable anchor
bolt stresses in the 2008 code.

References
ACI

318:
Building Code Requirements for
Reinforced Concrete, ACI 318-08, American
Concrete Institute, Detroit, MI, 2008.
Anderson 1992: Anderson, D. L., and Priestley, M.
J. N. In plane shear strength of masonry
walls. Proceedings of the 6th Canadian
Masonry
Symposium,
Saskatoon,
Saskatchewan, Canada, 223-234, 1992.
CSA 2004: Design of Masonry Structures, CSA
S304.1-04,
Canadian
Standards
Association, Mississauga, Ontario, 2004.
Davis 2010: Davis, C.L., McLean, D.I. and Ingham,
J.M. Evaluation of Design Provisions for InPlane Shear in Masonry Shear Walls The
Masonry Society Journal, 28(2), 2010.
Ellifritt 1977: Ellifritt, D.S., The Mysterious 1/3
Stress Increase, Engineering Journal,
ASIC, 4th Quarter, 138-141, 1977.
Ellingwood 1980: Ellingwood, B., Galambos, T.V.,
MacGregor, J.G., and Cornell, C.A.,
Development of a Probability Based Load
Criteria for American National Standard
A58, NBS Special Publication 577, National
Bureau of Standards, 1980.
Huston 2011: Huston, E.T., and Bennett, R.M.
Allowable Stress Shear Design Provisions:
Trial Designs. Proceedings of the 11th North
American
Masonry
Conference,
Minneapolis, Minnesota, 2011.
Kim 2002: Kim, Y.S. and Bennett, R.M. Flexural
Tension
in
Unreinforced
Masonry:
Evaluation of Current Specifications. The
Masonry Society Journal, 20(1), 23-30,
2002.
Pauley 1992: Paulay, T., and Priestley, M.J.N.
Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and
Masonry Buildings. John Wiley and Sons,
1992.
Priestley 1974: Priestley, M.J.N., and Bridgeman,
D.O., Seismic Resistance of Brick Masonry
Walls, Bulletin, New Zealand National
Society
for
Earthquake
Engineering
(Wellington), 7(4), 167-187, 1974.
TMS 402-08:
Building Code Requirements for
Masonry Structures. TMS 402-08/ACI 53008/ASCE 5-08, The Masonry Society,
Boulder, Colorado, 2008.
TMS 402-11:
Building Code Requirements for
Masonry Structures. TMS 402-11/ACI 53011/ASCE 5-11, The Masonry Society,
Boulder, Colorado, 2011.
UBC 1997: Uniform Building Code, International
Council of Building Officials, Whittier, CA,
1997.

About the Authors

Dr. Richard Bennett is Director of Engineering
Fundamentals and a professor of Civil and Environmental
Engineering at the University of Tennessee. He has been
involved in engineering education and research for
almost 30 years. His research interests are the behavior
and design of masonry structures, and engineering
education. He is a fellow of The Masonry Society, a
member of the American Society of Civil Engineers and
the American Society of Engineering Education, and
currently serves as the Vice-Chair of the Masonry
Standards Joint Committee.
Dr. David McLean is a professor in the Department of
Civil and Environmental Engineering at Washington
State University. He has been involved in civil
engineering education and research for more than 25
years. His research interests include the behavior and
design of reinforced concrete and masonry structures,
the seismic response and retrofitting of bridges, and
concrete materials. He is the author of more than 100
refereed papers, technical reports, monographs and
book chapters. He has received numerous regional and
national awards for his research, teaching, advising and
consulting activities. He is a fellow of The Masonry
Society, a member of the American Concrete Institute
and the American Society of Civil Engineers, and
currently serves as Chair of the Technical Activities
Committee of The Masonry Society.

Concrete Masonry Association

of California and Nevada
6060 Sunrise Vista Drive, Suite 1990
Citrus Heights, CA 95610
(916) 722-1700
[email protected]
www.cmacn.org

Presort
Standard
U.S. Postage
PAID
Premit No. 604
Sacramento, CA

CHANGE SERVICE REQUESTED

Why Masonry?
www.whymasonry.org

Contact CMACN with Requests for Design Seminars at (916) 722-1700 or [email protected]
Concrete Masonry Association of California and Nevada (CMACN) is pleased to introduce updated products
for practicing engineers. Universities please call to inquire about discount pricing on student text books.

Available : 2009 Design of Reinforced Masonry Structures, CMD09 Computer

Program, Typical Masonry Details CD includes AutoCAD and PDF format
Orders can be placed on line at www.cmacn.org (all cards accepted) or by calling (916) 722-1700 (Visa and MasterCard only).
CMACN PRODUCER MEMBERS
Producer Members are an individual, partnership, or corporation, which is actively engaged in the manufacture
and sale of concrete masonry units.
Air Vol Block, Inc.
Angelus Block Company, Inc.
Basalite Concrete Products, LLC
Calstone Company, Inc.
CEMEX

Desert Block Company, Inc.

ORCO Block Co., Inc.
RCP Block & Brick, Inc.
Superlite (an Oldcastle Company)

Please go to www.cmacn.org for additional information on the latest design tools, previous MasonryChronicles,
additional publications, links to our Members, links to other associated organizations and much more.