PERFORMANCE OF UNREINFORCED MASONRY BUILDINGS DURING THE NEWCASTLE EARTHQUAKE, AUSTRALIA

by

Dr. Michael C. Griffith Department of Civil Engineering The University of Adelaide

Research Report No. R86

July 1991

ABSTRACT

On December 28, 1989, an earthquake of Richter magnitude 5.6 shook the city of Newcastle. Newcastle is situated on the east coast of Australia only 100km north of Sydney. Eleven deaths and $300-$400 million damage to buildings have been attributed to the earthquake, with the total economic cost to the community estimated to be in excess of $1 billion. Because Newcastle, and most of the rest of Australia, does not currently fall within a seismic zone which requires earthquake loads to be considered during design, there are several implications for earthquake resistant design within Australia. This paper presents a summary of the performance of unreinforced masonry buildings in the Newcastle area during the 1989 earthquake. In particular, a 3-storey masonry apartment building which suffered a combined soft-storey and torsional mode of failure is analysed. This example is then used to illustrate several of the short-comings in the current Australian Earthquake Design Code, AS2121-1979. The paper concludes with recommendations for improving the code and its impact on the design of masonry structures.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author would like to acknowledge the assistance of Professor Rob Melchers and Associate Professor Adrian Page of the University of Newcastle in providing information related to the Kemp Street apartment building and about the strength and behaviour of unreinforced masonry buildings.

Dr. David Brooks and Dr. David Payne of Kinhill Engineering have also provided much insight into this subject through many informal discussions.

Finally, the Civil Engineering Department of the University of Adelaide should be thanked for allowing me the time to visit Newcastle and study first-hand the damage caused by the December 1989 earthquake.

i

Section

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ABSTRACT ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES

LIST OF TABLES

ii iii iii

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1

2.0 PERFORMANCE OF UNREINFORCED MASONRY BUILDINGS 1

2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5

Parapet and Gable-end Failures Wall Bending Failures

Wall Shear Failures

Torsional Failures Consequential Failures

2 3 4 4 4

3.0 PERFORMANCE OF URM APARTMENT BUILDING

3.1 3.2 3.3

Building Properties

Magnitude and Type of Damage Observed Mode of Failure

5 5 6

10

10 10 1 1 1 1 1 1

12

4.0 AUSTRALIAN EARTHQUAKE CODE - AS2121-1979

4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4

Scope of Code Structural Period

Total Horizontal Earthquake Force Torsional Force Calculations

5.0 DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF URM APARTMENT BUILDING

5.1 5.2 5.3

Computer Model

Natural Frequenceis and Mode Shapes Response Spectrum Earthquake Analysis

12 13 14

6.0 COMPARISON OF CODE AND THEORETICAL RESULTS

7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

APPENDIX A

REFERENCES

6.1 6.2

Structural Period

Horizontal Earthquake Design Force

15 15 16

17

19

19

ii

Figure

1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12 13

Table

1 2 3

LIST OF FIGURES

Gable-End Failure

Wall Bending Failure Wall Shear Failure Consequential Failure URM Apartment Building URM Building Elevations

Ground Floor Plan showing centre-of-mass and centre-of-stiffness Typical Building Cross-section

Damage to Ground Floor

Rotation of Upper Floor Relative to Ground Floor Computer Model of URM Building

Fundamental Mode Shape: X-direction Fundamental Mode Shape: V-direction

LIST OF TABLES

Structural Periods: Code and Theory Seismic Response Factors: C = 1 A 15ff) Total Horizontal Earthquake Force

iii

Page

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 9

10 13 13 14

Page

15 16 16

1. INTRODUCTION

The Newcastle earthquake occurred on December 28, 1989 at approximately 10:30 a.m. (local standard summer time). The Richter magnitude of the earthquake was ML = 5.6 and the epicentre was approximately 14 km W/SW of the city centre at a depth of approximately 11 km [1]. The majority of damage occurred in the city centre at sites with poor soil conditions where the ground motion intensity was about 4 times that experienced at firm soil sites [2,3]. The earthquake intensity, based on observations of structural damage and eye-witness accounts, varied between Modified Mercalli VI (MMVI) in the outer suburbs and MMIX in parts of the city centre and inner suburbs of Hamilton and The Junction.

At the time of the Newcastle earthquake, there were no seismic design requirements for the Newcastle area although the Australian earthquake code, AS2121-1979 [4], did exist. This code has been used predominantly in South Australia and parts of Western Australia. However, even if the code was enforced in New South Wales at the time of the earthquake, the current code has Newcastle located in the lowest seismic zone, Zone 0, which does not require consideration of earthquake loads for design. The fact that Newcastle is situated in Zone 0 does not mean that there is no risk of earthquakes in Newcastle but rather that the risk is sufficiently low so that other factors will control the design of all structures. Consequently, AS2121- 1979 would not effect any building in Newcastle unless the seismic zones were modified.

Australia is, by world standards, a country with a low seismic risk. Nevertheless, there have been several major earthquakes in Australia in recent times [5] with magnitudes greater than ML = 6 and although none have occurred in major populated areas the potential for a major disaster does exist. Furthermore, if a small earthquake, similar in magnitude to the Newcastle earthquake, were to occur in Sydney or Melbourne there could be significantly more damage and deaths than occurred in Newcastle. A major reason for this is that unreinforced masonry (URM) construction is commonplace throughout the country and it is widely recognized that URM buildings do not perform as well under earthquake loading as other more ductile types of buildings such as timber, steel and reinforced concrete framed buildings.

2. PERFORMANCE OF UNREINFORCED MASONRY BUILDINGS

The majority of buildings which suffered major damage during the Newcastle earthquake were of unreinforced masonry (URM) construction, however, there were several notable exceptions to this such as the Newcastle Worker's Club and the Junction Motel which were both predominantly reinforced concrete buildings [2,3]. The various types of damage suffered by URM buildings in Newcastle can be generally categorised as follows: (1) parapet and gable-end failure, (2) transverse wall failure (bending), (3) racking wall failure (shear), (4) torsional failure, or (5) consequential failure. While none of these types of failure are in any way new or unusual, they do illustrate some shortcomings of the current Australian earthquake code. This will be discussed further in Sections 3-7.

It should be mentioned at this time that while there were many URM buildings which were damaged during the Newcastle earthquake, there

1

were also many which suffered no damage. This fact indicates to some degree that well designed and properly constructed URM buildings are capable of performing reasonably well under moderate earthquake loading. It is well known that U RM does not possess the ductility necessary to withstand major earthquakes such as those experienced in areas of California and New Zealand, however, for lower risk areas such as Australia, URM may be used effectively with acceptably low risks of failure from earthquake loads.

2.1 Parapet and Gable-End Failures

It has been reported that between 200 and 300 masonry buildings suffered parapet failures [3]. In some instances, the failures may have been induced by modifications to the building in the late 1950s when posts supporting the awnings were removed (as a traffic hazard) and replaced with tie-backs to the parapets. In other instances, the lateral forces generated by the earthquake were just too large for the unsupported section of masonry to resist so they failed in bending. Many gable-end failures also occurred and these were primarily due to a lack of ties between the gable-ends and the supporting roof structure (Figure 1).

Figure 1 - Gable-End Failure

?

2.2 Wall Bending Failures

There were also more than 300 cases of transverse wall failures reported after the earthquake. This failure was due to earthquake forces generated in the direction perpendicular to the face of the wall. In many cases, there were insufficient numbers of ties between the wall and the remaining structural members (such as floor joists and beams) or, in the case of brick cavity walls, the cavity ties were either insufficient in number, badly corroded, or were incorrectly placed (Figure 2).

\ ~ ,

: i'\\, '\' \, ',' " \ \h

,,~ . \,' , .

-, ~, \ 1

'. '\ \ "I.

" \-

'. ,I \..;-' " \

Figure 2 - Wall Bending Failure

2.3 Wall Shear Failures

The many examples of racking wall failures consisted of excessive in plane shear forces causing extensive cracking and in some cases complete destruction of sections of walls (Figure 3). This failure mode is probably the only one mentioned in this report which is due to insufficient member strength. All other modes of failure considered in this section could have been minimised by better design, construction, or building maintenance.

Figure 3 - Wall Shear Failure

2.4 Torsional Failures

Torsional failures generally occur in structures which have unsymmetrically located lateral force resisting members. This pattern results in an eccentricity between the centre-of-mass and the centre-of-stiffness which causes a torsional moment, or couple, in the structure. The horizontal forces which the couple induces in the lateral force resisting members serve to amplify the horizontal forces in these same members due to the horizontal ground motion components. Risk of failure due to torsion can be minimised by proper design. There were at least two buildings which suffered major damage due in part to the torsional response of the building. One of these buildings was the Junction Motel, another was a 3-storey masonry apartment building at 17-19 Kemp Street. The Kemp Street apartment building is the subject of further discussion in Sections 3 - 7 of this report.

2.5 Consequential Failures

Consequential failures were considered to be cases when structures were significantly damaged due to failures of adjacent structures. For example, there were many instances of gable end walls falling away from the building

and landing on top of adjacent buildings, many times going through the roof (Figure 4).

Figure 4 - Consequential Failure

3. PERFORMANCE OF URM APARTMENT BUILDING

The previous sections of this report have dealt in general with the performance of U RM buildi ngs in Newcastle during the December 28, 1989 earthquake. While this information provides some insight into typical problems faced by designers and constructors of masonry buildings, much of this information has been presented and discussed in more detail elsewhere [2,3]. However, there is much to be learned by detailed analysis of specific structures. This and subsequent sections of the report deal with a masonry apartment building in Kemp Street, Newcastle. The results of a dynamic analysis of this building are presented and then compared with results based on the current earthquake design code formulae and with observations of actual structural performance. A quantitative assessment is then made of the effectiveness of the current earthquake code for masonry buildings.

3.1 Building Properties

The apartment building under consideration is located at 17-19 Kemp Street in Newcastle, NSW. The structure is a 3 storey load-bearing URM building with the upper two floors consisting of five apartments per floor and the ground floor consisting of ten parking garages (Figures 5 & 6). In order to

provide access for the parking garages, the entire west side of the ground floor was kept open which resulted in the structure being eccentric with respect to earthquake loading in the direction of the long-axis of the building (Figure 7). In addition, the ground floor was less stiff than the upper storeys in the long direction which caused the ground floor to act as a soft storey. It is the opinion of the author that these two factors were major contributors to the failure of the building during the earthquake.

Figure 5 - URM Apartment Building

The ground and first floors were each 2.6m high and the second floor was 2.45m high. The building was approximately 39m long and 9.8m wide in plan (Figures 7 & 8). The exterior walls were brick cavity walls at all levels while the remainder of the walls were single-skin brick. The first floor slab consisted of 150mm thick reinforced concrete, the second floor slab was 120mm thick reinforced concrete and the ground floor was reinforced concrete of an unknown thickness. The roof consisted of a timber truss supporting battens and tiles (Figure 8).

3.2 Magnitude and Type of Damage

The building was damaged almost exclusively at the ground floor level with the majority of damage occurring in the stepped wall which runs in the long direction of the building. Most of the glass windows shattered and closed doors buckled in this wall. Significant in-plane shear cracks also occurred in this wall (Figure 9). The upper two storeys of the building appeared to have rotated relative to the ground floor, as shown in Figure 10. No damage was observed in the upper floors or slabs.

D
[]
D
0 z z
0 ~ 0
~ ~
0 <t: -e
[£ >- ~
Cl >-
8 ~ 5 ~
~ 0
@ ~ t:: ~
...l E-< E-<
t:: en en
~ <t:
0 ~
0
0
D D []

[]
<~
~§ DO

Figure 6 - URM Building Elevations

7

,-I
I
I

I
I
I -
:><
I ~
Z
tIl
I
I
I
I
I
I

I t:i t:ii2
~i2 ~~
I tIlg::
B~ UCI) z
-c
I .....:l
of 0...
0:::
I 0
E 0
s ti
I 0
0
FIJI] >n @
0-
M
~ I M
g ~
~ I 0
z 0:::
tIl 0
....l
~ I
~ I i ~
z
::l I
LI
I
I
I
I
I ~
I i
I
I
I I f1iI]
L_=i ~
Figure 7 - Ground Floor Plan showing Centre-of Mass and Centre-of-Stiffness

8

BEDROOM

BEDROOM

TILTA DOOR

GARAGE I

TIMBER FRAME TILED ROOF 22-1/2° PITCH

2450 mm

• i

2600 mm I

t

•

I

2600mm

t

11- .. ----- 9800 mm ------ __ --1

SECTION

Figure 8 - Typical Building Cross-Section

Figure 9 - Damage to Ground Floor

g

..--_. III'? , ..

Figure 10 - Rotation of Upper Floor Relative to Ground Floor 3.3 Observed Mode of Failure

It was felt that the building failed in a combined soft-storey and torsional failure mode. The soft-storey mode was apparent because the damage was concentrated in the ground floor while the upper floors suffered no apparent damage. The torsional mode was suspected of being important because of the evidence of rotation of the upper storeys relative to the bottom storey and apparent non-symmetry of the ground floor of the building.

4. AUSTRALIAN EARTHQUAKE CODE - AS2121-1979

4.1 Scope of Code

The current code excludes from its scope the following: special structures; bridges; detached single dwellings; multiple dwellings side by side not on top of another; and buildings intended for agricultural occupancy.

It was clear that the ten unit apartment building fell within the scope of the code because it was a multiple dwelling with units on top of one another. However, in the present code, the city of Newcastle is situated in seismic Zone 0, which does not require earthquake loads to be considered for design. However, the current earthquake design code is undergoing revision and it appears likely that most of Australia will be required to consider the effects of earthquake loads in the revised code and that the Newcastle area will be upgraded in terms of seismic zoning to approximately the equivalent of Zone 1. Thus, for the purpose of the following discussion, calculations were carried out assuming that Newcastle was in seismic Zone 1. The total horizontal earthquake design force was calculated based on the

formulae in AS2121-1979. These values were then compared to estimates of the magnitude of earthquake load experienced by the real building.

4.2 Structural Period

Several formulae are given in AS2121-1979 for estimating the fundamental period of a building. These formulae are empirically based and in general are applicable to buildings greater in height than about four storeys. The two formulae given in Section 5.2 of AS2121-1979 for calculating the fundamental period of a building are:

T = 0.09 h/VD and T = 0.1 n,

where hn is the height of the building, D is the plan dimension of the building in the direction of interest, and n is the number of storeys in the building. However, the second equation is generally applicable only to momentresisting frame structures. Thus, estimates of the fundamental period of the masonry building in the x- and y-directions were calculated using the first equation and found to be Tx = 0.105 seconds and Ty = 0.210 seconds.

4.3 Total Horizontal Earthquake Force

The total horizontal earthquake force for design was calculated using the following equation from AS2121-1979:

H = ZIKCSW z 0.02W

where Z = the seismic zone factor (0.18 for Zone 1); I = the occupancy importance factor (1.0 for non-essential buildings); K = the horizontal force

factor (3.2 for masonry buildings in Zone 1); C = 1/(15-ff) s 0.12; S = sitestructure resonance factor (between 1.0 and 1.5) with CS s 0.14; and W = the total weight of the building.

The code specifies that the weight of the building shall be considered to consist of the total dead-load plus 0.25 times the live-load on any area used for storage. Since the building under consideration was a dwelling, it was assumed no storage area existed and W was taken to be equal to the total dead load of the building. The value of W was estimated to be 8.3 x 106 Newtons, based on architectural drawings of the building (Figures 6, 7 & 8).

The building was assumed to be situated on medium non-cohesive soil with a depth between 5m and 50m. S was then calculated to be = 1.375 using Ts = 0.6s and T min = 0.3s which resulted in a limit state value (after multiplying by 1.5) for the total horizontal earthquake design force of H = 0.12W in both directions.

4.4 Torsional Force Calculations

The effect of torsion on structural response is recognised by the current earthquake code, AS2121-1979, in that it requires member forces to be increased in proportion to the distance between the centre-of-mass (COM) and centre-of-stiffness (COS) of a structure. The Kemp Street apartment building was estimated to have an eccentricity (es) between its COM and COS of approximately 3.5m at the ground floor level (Figure 7). It was

11

estimated that es ;:::: 0 for the upper two storeys. The torsional forces were then distributed to the lateral force resisting members at the ground level according to the code formula

where ed is the greater of

with b = the plan dimension of building perpendicular to direction of Hi and Hi = the horizontal earthquake force at level i.

For this building at ground floor level, b = 8.9m, ed = 5.46m, and Hi = H so that MT = 5.46m x H. This torsional moment must be resisted by the various lateral force resisting members which are oriented in the short dimension of the building. If just tonsion is considered, then the stress induced in the end walls would be approximately 1.45 times greater than the stress which would occur in the same walls due to an earthquake force H=0.12W acting in the direction of the short dimension of the building.

5. DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF URM APARTMENT BUILDING

5. 1 Computer Model

A computer model (Figure 11) was formed of the apartment building using the finite element program IMAGES-3D [6]. The model of the building was defined with respect to a coordinate system which had the x-axis pointing in the direction of the long plan dimension of the building, the y-axis pointing in the direction of the short plan dimension of the building, and the z-axis pointing vertically upward. The URM walls and concrete floor slabs were modelled with plate elements which accounted for bending and in-plane shear effects. A plate thickness of 11 Omm for single-skin walls and 220mm for double skin walls (corresponding to brick dimensions of 75 x 110 x 230mm) was used to model the brick walls. The first and second floor concrete slabs were modelled as 150mm thick and 120mm thick plates, respectively. A value of 15 x 103 MPa was used for Young's modulus for the masonry. This was based on values of 16 x 103 MPa for brick and 8 x 103 MPa for mortar [7]. A value of 30 x 103 MPa was used for the Young's modulus of concrete. Poisson's ratio was taken to be 0.2 for both the concrete and masonry elements. The supports for all the elements at the foundation level of the model were taken to be pinned - that is, displacements were restrained in the X-, y-, and z-directions but no rotational restraint was assumed. Finally, the respective weight densities were defined for the masonry (19 kN/m3) and concrete (24 kN/m3) elements in order for the program to generate the weight (mass) matrix for the structure.

12

Figure 11 - Computer Model of URM Building

5.2 Natural Frequencies and Mode Shapes

Once the computer model had been defined, the eigen-value problem was solved in order to compute the natural frequencies and mode shapes for the model of the masonry building. The results of this analysis indicated that the fundamental period of the structure in the x-direction of the building was Tx = 1.67 seconds and the fundamental period of the structure in the y-direction was Ty = 1.34 seconds. This agreed with the observation that there was a soft-storey mechanism in the real building in the x-direction and that the real building was stiffer in the y-direction than in the x-direction. The mode shape corresponding to the fundamental period in the x-direction was a combination of soft-storey and torsion (Figure 12); again in agreement with the observed damage.

Figure 12 - Fundamental Mode Shape: X-direction

13

Figure 13 - Fundamental Mode Shape: V-direction

The mode shape corresponding to the fundamental period in the y-direction was essentially a lateral shear mode (Figure 13). While this mode was less apparent than the first mode in the real building, it would have been significant for earthquake shaking predominantly in the y-axis direction.

S.3 Response Spectrum Earthquake Analysis

A linear-elastic response spectrum analysis [8] was performed using the computer model generated and discussed above. It was recognised that the true response of the structure would be highly nonlinear once cracking occurred. Therefore, the objective of this analysis was simply to provide an estimate of the threshold level of structural accelerations necessary for initial cracking to occur. The response spectrum used for this analysis had the shape of the seismic response factor in AS2121-1979,

C = 1/(15...JT) s 0.12.

The amplitude of this curve was scaled by the product of the code factors Z, I, K, and S so that the response spectrum had the form of a pseudo acceleration response spectrum (PSA):

PSA(T) = ZIKS/(15...JT) ~ 0.12 (ZIKS) ~ 0.14 (ZIK)

For masonry apartment buildings (K = 3.2, I = 1.0) in seismic zone 1 (Z = 0.18) situated on 10 - 20m deep, medium density alluvial soil (S = 1.375), the spectrum takes the form:

PSA(T) = 0.0528 I...JT~ 0.081

In the x-direction of the building, PSAx(T = 1.67s) = 0.0409 = 4.09% of the acceleration of gravity. For the y-direction, PSAy(T = 1.34s) = 0.0456 = 4.56% of the acceleration of gravity. Multiplying these spectrum values by a factor of 1.5 to bring them up to limit state force levels, the total horizontal earthquake forces were calculated to be H, = 0.048W and Hy = 0.039W in the two directions. The corresponding maximum shear stresses in the masonry walls were computed to be 0.06 MPa and 0.03 MPa, respectively.

14

In view of the magnitudes of shear stress which were estimated to occur in the masonry walls, it appears that the amplitude of the response spectrum significantly underestimated the level which would correspond to the Newcastle earthquake. Even allowing for the wide range of shear strength possible in masonry, 0.2MPa - 2MPa [7,9,10,11], the amplitude would have to be approximately three times greater than indicated by the code for Zone 1 to give results which approach the 0.2 MPa value. If it was assumed that the shear stress in the masonry walls for cracking to occur needed to be about 0.2 MPa, the magnitude of the forces which correspond to these levels

of acceleration would be approximately Hx = 0.11W = ( 0.2 ) 0.048W = and

0.06

Hy = 0.17W = ( 0.2 ) 0.039W for the two directions.

0.03

6 COMPARISON OF CODE AND THEORETICAL RESULTS

6. 1 Structural Period

The first comparisons to be made between the code values and the analytical values concern the estimate of fundamental period. The code predicted a structural period of 0.105 seconds for the building in the xdirection as compared to 1.67 seconds estimated analytically. The code and analytical predictions for structural period in the y-direction were 0.210 and 1.34 seconds, respectively. The discrepancy between these results is large with the ratio of Ttheor/Tcode equal to 15.9 in the x-direction and 6.38 in the ydirection (Table 1). The code formula, by underestimating the structural period, implies that the building is very much stiffer than when computed by finite element methods. If one considers that structural period is proportional to the square root of the ratio of the mass divided by the stiffness and that the difference between the analytical and code results is of the order of 10, it can be seen that these two results correspond to buildings with differences in mass/stiffness ratio of about 100!

AS 2121 (code} IMAGES-3D (theory theory/code
Tx 0.105 sec. 1.67 sec. 15.9
Tv 0.210 sec. 1.34 sec. 6.4 Table 1 - Structural Periods: Code and Theory

In order to determine which method gave more realistic results, the response of the real building was considered. The real building failed in a soft-storey mechanism in the x-direction which indicated that the building's ground floor was more flexible than the other storeys. Also, the code formula indicated that the building was stiffer in the x-direction than in the y-direction. In contrast, the analytical results indicated that the building should be stiffer in the y-direction. After considering the number and amount of walls at the ground level in the two directions, it was obvious that the real structure was stiffer in the y-direction, a result consistent with the analytical results. Hence, it was concluded that the theoretical results were better estimates of the structural period than those given by the code formula.

It must be stated, however, that while the code estimate for the structural period appears to be significantly different to the theoretical value, at least it is conservative. It is conservative because a smaller value of T will give a

15

larger value for C, and hence a larger earthquake design force. In fact, the values of C given by the code estimates for T in the two directions were C, =

0.206 and Cy = 0.145. However, since C must be !S: 0.12, C, and Cy = 0.12. When the values of C were calculated using the analytical results for T in the two directions (1.67sec and 1.34 sec), the values for C were O, = 0.052 and Cy = 0.058. Thus, even though the code estimate for structural period was conservative by factors of about 16, and 6, the values of C were reduced to a much less conservative ratio of about 2 (Table 2).

using Tcode usi ng Ttheory code/theory
Cx 0.120 0.052 2.31
Cy 0.120 0.058 2.07 Table 2 - Seismic Response Factors: C = 1/(1S-VT) 6.2 Horizontal Earthquake Design Force

Next, comparisons were made between the values for the earthquake design force, H, given by the code formula and theory. The value of H was calculated previously in Section 4.3 to be H = 0.12W. When this value was compared to the analytical results of the linear-elastic response spectrum analysis it was seen that the amplitude of earthquake forces required to initiate cracking (0.11 W) in the x-direction was 9% smaller than the code value for H (Table 3). Clearly, in the case of the Kemp Street apartment building, the earthquake ground motion caused more than just initial cracking in the ground floor. However, with the limitations of linear-elastic response spectrum analysis it was only possible to estimate a threshold value beyond which cracking, and consequently nonlinear behaviour, will occur.

AS2121 IMAGES IMAGES code code
(code) (theoryf) jtheo_ry*) theo~# theory'
Hx 0.12W 0.048W 0.11W 2.50 1.09
Hy 0.12W 0.039W 0.17W 3.07 0.71 # - Result obtained using code spectra (PSA = 0.0528/ -ff!S: 0.081) * - Corresponds to initial cracking in URM walls ('t = 0.2 MPa)

Table 3 - Total Horizontal Earthquake Force

While the amplitude of the response spectrum was estimated to be PSAA1.67s) = 0.204g for cracking to occur, this does not mean that the ground accelerations were equal to 0.204g. It indicates that the maximum accelerations in the structure were of this order. For this analysis, the maximum base shears in the two directions were found to be H, = 0.11 W and Hy = 0.17W. Thus, while the code formulae gave generously conservative estimates for the structural period and the spectral coefficient (T and C), the end result was that the total horizontal earthquake design force H was only conservative by a factor of about 9% (Table 3).

In order to put this into a better perspective, an estimate of the limit state wind load for the masonry building in Newcastle was calculated and found to be Ox = 0.03W and Oy = 0.11 W. Comparing these first to the earthquake code

Hi

results, it was seen that the design wind force was four times smaller than the earthquake force in the x-direction and 8% smaller than the earthquake force in the y-direction. Thus, the earthquake loading for this building would control the design in both horizontal directions.

7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Before any conclusions are drawn regarding the adequacy of the current Australian earthquake code the magnitude of the Newcastle earthquake must be evaluated with respect to the "design" level earthquake. Based on estimates of peak firm-soil ground velocities (50 mm/sec [3]), Figure 3.1 in AS2121 indicates that for seismic zone 1, the Newcastle earthquake was a seismic event with a recurrence interval of somewhere between 60-years and 300-years. The current SAA loading codes are based on approximately 1 ODD-year return periods. This implies that the Newcastle earthquake was smaller in magnitude than the so-called "design" earthquake for seismic zone 1. In light of this fact and the damage observed in the Kemp Street apartment building it appears that the earthquake design loads indicated by AS2121 are insufficient for the safe behaviour of masonry buildings during design level earthquakes in seismic zone 1. Furthermore, there is a large discrepancy between the theoretical and code estimates for structural period of low-rise masonry structures. While this second issue is of concern, it does appear to place the code estimates of period on the conservative side. It should also be pointed out that these formulae were not intended for the design of low-rise buildings even though the code does not exclude such structures from its scope.

Some of the factors responsible for the differences between the code design load and the response spectra and "cracking" load magnitudes are:

(1) difference in building period;

(2) site-structure resonance factor, S, underestimated;

(3) soil amplification of ground motion not considered by code;

(4) horizontal force factor K = 3.2 too small for URM;

(5) seismic zone factor Z = 0.18 too small for Newcastle; and

(6) unrealistic estimate of dynamic shear strength for URM;

The factor for site-structure resonance is dependent upon the structural period. Thus, an error in T may result in an unconservative estimate of S. It is likely that a "site-factor" will be included in the revised Australian earthquake code, however, it may still not be enough on its own to account for the difference between code values and analytical values for this building. Past experience has shown that the magnitude of the ground motion can be significantly greater for soft-soil sites over that experienced by firm-soil sites in nearby locations [12]. It is unlikely that the revised code will allow for extremely large amplifications. Nevertheless, this new factor will have an advantage over the site-structure resonance factor discussed above in that it will be independent of code estimated structural periods.

The current earthquake code recommends a value of 3.2 for the horizontal force factor K. This factor is supposed to scale the earthquake forces up to the elastic response spectra level, thereby not requiring any ductility from the structure. Commentary in AS2121 (Section C15.2 [4]) states that ductility factors of 4 to 6 correspond to ductile moment-resisting frames (K = 0.67) so that if the higher value of 6 is multiplied by 0.67 a value of K = 4 is obtained.

17

This value was subsequently reduced to 3.2 in AS2121 but needs to be reevaluated.

Certainly, the seismic zoning for Newcastle will be changed in the revised code. The question remains as to what level; according to this comparison it may be necessary to set it at higher than Zone 1 magnitude or accept that the Newcastle earthquake was larger than the design earthquake for Zone 1. Finally, values for the dynamic shear and bending strengths of masonry walls in existing buildings are needed in order to either confirm past research or to establish more realistic levels of dynamic strength.

18

APPENDIX A - REFERENCES

[1] K. McCue, V. Wesson and G. Gibson, "The Newcastle NSW Earthquake of 28 December 1989," Bureau of Mineral Resources, Journal of Australian Geology and Geophysics, (1990).

[2] The Institution of Engineers, Australia, "Newcastle Earthquake Study," Report for the NSW State Government, (Ed.) R.E. Melchers, (1990).

[3] G. Walker, "Interim Report on Newcastle Earthquake," Division of Building, Construction and Engineering, CSIRO, DBCE Doc. No. 90/01 (s), (1990).

[4] Standards Association of Australia, "SAA Earthquake Code, AS 2121" (1979).

[5] Australian Bureau of Mineral Resources, "Earthquake Data File".

[6] Celestial Software Inc., "IMAGES-3D User's Manual," Berkeley, California, (1983).

[7] D.C. Payne, "The Strength of Slender Brick Wails," PhD Thesis, The University of Adelaide, Department of Civil Engineering (1982).

[8] R.W. Clough and J. Penzien, Dynamics of Structures, McGraw-Hili Book Co., (1975).

[9] Brooks, D., "Strength and Stability of Brick Masonry Wails," The University of Adelaide, Department of Civil Engineering Report No. R30, (1980).

[10] Dhanasekar, M., Kleeman, P. and Page, A., "Biaxial Stress-Strain Relations for Brick Masonry," Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 111, No. 5, pp. 1085-1100, (1985).

[11] Dhanasekar, M., Page, A.W. and Kleeman, P.W., "The Failure of Brick Masonry Under Biaxial Stress," Proceedings, Institution of Civil Engineers, Part 2, Vol. 79, pp. 295-313, (1985).

[12] Bertero, V., (Ed.), "Lessons Learned from the 1985 Mexico Earthquake," Earthquake Engineering Research Institute Report 89-02, (1989).

19

UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE

Reports from the Department of Civil Engineering

G - Series (General)

G1 Brooks, D.S., Crawley, D.B., Moxham, K.E., Fargher, P.J. and Miles, R.T. 'Education in Civift£ngineering 'Design, July 1976

G2 Arnold, M.A.

Sali-damp - !Funaamentaf Principles, March 1978

G3 Arnold, M.A.

Salt-damp - Overseas tJ(esearch ana Practice, March 1978

G4 Brooks, D.S.

(j[ass ~inforcea Cement - Yl ~w Materia[ from ora Inqtedients, April 1978

G5 Crawley, D.B.

~port on Institution of t£ngineers Conference - t£ngineering 'Education. 1978, July 1978

G6 Cumming, D.B.

Ylustrafia's t£ngineering j-{eritage, June 1979

G7 Cumming, D.B.

t£ngineering j-{eritage, February 1981

G8 Warner, R.F.

Structural Assessment oft£xjsting Concrete Bulldinqs, January 1981

G9 Bridgeland, R.J.

Civift£ngineering at 'Ihe 'ilnioersiu] of YliefaUe 1878--1974, December 1981

G10 Cumming, D.A.

Processing of Copper Ores in South Ylustrafia, May 1982

G11 Cumming, D.A.

The 1@punaa Mine 1842 to 1906, May 1982

G12 Cumming, D.A.

Identification ana 'Eoaluation. of Items of t£ngineering Heritaqe, May 1982

Obsolete G13-R Cumming, D.A.

see G 17 ::A[ptes on t£ngineers, Technicians, Manufacturers ana Contractors who have Served South Ylustra[ia, {Part n March 1983

Obsolete G14 Cumming, D.A.

see G 19 ::A[ptes on t£ngineers, 'Technicians, Manufacturers ana Contractors who have Seroed. South Ylustrafia, {Part In March 1983

G15 Dillon, P.J.

Artificiai (jrounawater ~charge: Yl Case Stuay in Maharashtra, India, June 1983

G16 Cumming, D.A.

'The 'Butra Mine ana Smelter, May 1984

G17 Cumming, D.A.

::A[ptes on t£ngineers, 'Technicians, Manufacturers ana Contractors who have Seroed South Ylustrafia, (Part I) July 1984

G18 Cumming, D.A.

9{ptes on 'Engineers, 'Technicians, :Manufacturers ana Contractors wlio haue Served. Soutli .9lustra[ia, (Part III) July 1984

G19 Cumming, D.A.

9{ptes on 'Engineers, 'Technicians. :Manufacturers ana Contractors wlio haoe Served South. .9lustrafia, (Part II) November 1984

G20 Crawley, 0.8., McPherson, I.

.9l Strategy for t]3uiUing Structure 1Jesign in :Moaerate 1\.isl( 'Eartliquat« ~gions, .9lpp[iea in Soutli .9lustrafia. November 1985

G21 Kay, J.N.

'Work§liop on the Use of Statistical :Metliocfs for 1ligliway Construction, November 1987

G22 Moxham, K.E. and Warner, R.F.

S ttuctural 'Engineering into the !J.Ii~ :Miffenium, February 1991

G23 Daniell, T.M.

:rfe~6ifity in :Management - Specialized Traininq for 'Engineering 'llnderqraduates Jury, 1991

UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE

Reports from the Department of Civil Engineering

R - Series (Research)

R1 Cheung, Y.K., Yeo, M.F., Cumming, D.A.,

Three dimensional analysis of flexible pavements with special reference to edge loads, July 1975.

R2 Bodley, W.E.,

Energy dissipation in mammalian arteries - An assessment of the distribution of energy dissipation between the blood and the vessel wall, November 1975.

R3 Kasemset, C., Cheung, Y.K., Khatua, T.P.,

Analysis of multi-layer sandwich shells using curved elements, December 1975.

R4 Melksham, M.H., Yeo, M.F., Cheung, Y.K.,

The initial effects of water jet cleaning on superheater tubes, 1976.

R5 Kay, J.N., Abel, J.F.,

A design approach for circular buried conduits, December 1976.

R6 Delcourt, C., Cheung, Y.K.,

Finite strip analysis of continuous folded plates, 1977.

R7 Brooks, D.S., Hirst, M.J.S.,

The low cycle fatigue behaviour of joints in reinforced concrete frames, April 1977

R8 Moxham, K.E., Dwight, J.B.,

Stability of structure under static and dynamic loads, May 1977.

R9 Cheung, Y.K., Swaddiwudhipong, S.

Static analysis of frame shear wall structures, June 1977.

R10 Kay, J.N.,

Factor of safety for piles in cohesive soils, July 1977.

R11 Wylie, E.B., Bodley, W.E.,

Control of unsteady free-surface flow with gates, December 1977.

R12 Bodley, W.E., Wylie, E.B.,

Control of transients in series channel with gates, December 1977.

R13 Kay, J.N., Qamar, M.I.,

Tie-back anchor load-deformation response, January 1978.

R14 Hirst, M.J.S.,

The structural behaviour of composite walls and beams, June 1978.

R15 Hirst, M.J.S.,

Application of the finite-stringer theory of the interaction of walls and their supporting structures, June 1978.

R16 Hirst, M.J.S., Kay, J.N.,

A design method for shear wall and pile interaction, June 1978.

R17 Kay, J.N.,

Incorporation of probability in the design of buried concrete pipe, August 1978.

R18 Kay, J.N., Flint, R.C.L.,

Design charts for large span metal arch culverts, August 1978.

R19 Hutton, S.G., Sved, G.,

The determination of critical loads and natural frequencies of nonuniform beams, September 1978.

R20 Brooks, D.S., Sved, G., Payne, D.C.,

The stiffness of partially cracked brick walls, March 1979.

R21 Kay, J.N., Hain, S.J.,

A design method for buried concrete pipe, October 1979.

R22 Kay, J.N., Mitchell, P.W.,

A down hole plate load test for in situ properties of stiff clays, October 1979.

R23 Kay, J.N. Avalle, D.L., Flint, R.C.L., Fitzhardinge, C.F.R.,

Instrumentation of a corrugated steel-soil arch overpass at Leigh Creek, South Australia, November 1979.

R24 Warner, R.F.,

Serviceability of cracked partially prestressed concrete members . Test and analysis, January 1980.

R25 Payne, D.C., Sved, G., Brooks, D.S.,

Numerical analysis of brick columns subject to axial and lateral loads, May 1980

R26 Hirst, M.J.S.,

Solar heating of bridges, April 1980.

R27 Bodley, W.E., Mcintyre, A.K.,

Depth control during demand changes in open channels, August 1980.

R28 Kay, J.N.,

A systematic approach to safety margins in pile foundation design, July 1980.

R29 Warner, R.F.,

Design criteria for the new structures code, August 1980.

R30 Brooks, D.S.,

Strength and stability of brick masonry walls, October 1980

R31 Sved, G., Brooks, D.S., Yeo, M.F.,

Investigations on cruciform welded joints with root gaps. August 1980.

R32 Crawley, D.B.,

An evaluation of creep and shrinkage of high strength concrete in South Australia, December 1980.

R33 Warner, R.F.,

Strengthening stiffening and repair of concrete structures, March 1981.

R34 Kay, J.N., Avalle, D.L.,

Application of the Screw Plate to stiff clays, March 1 981 .

R35 Hirst, M.J.S.

Designing Slender Webs for Steel Bridge Beams, March 1981.

R36 Flint, R.C.L.,

Design Chart for Large-Span Corrugated Metal Arch Structures, September 1981.

R37 Sved, G., Yeo, M.F., Brooks, D.S.,

Effect of Root Gap on the Fatigue Strength of Welded JOints, 1982.

R38 Dandy, G.C., Neil, R.H.

Alternate Mathematical Structures for Modelling Mode Choice, February 1981.

R39 Payne, D.C., Brooks, D.S.

The Flexural Stiffness of Brickwork Panels Subjected to Vertical and Lateral Loads, December 1981.

R40 Brooks, D.S., Payne, D.C.

Strength and Stability of Brick Masonry Walls, February 1982.

R41 Flint, RC.L., Kay, J.N.

Response of Corrugated Metal Arches to Soil Loads, January 1982.

R42 Kay, J.N., Asce, M., Cavagnaro, RL.

Settlement of Raft Foundations, January 1982.

R43 Kay, J.N., Flint, RC.L.

A Note on Heavy Vehicle Loading of Corrugated Metal - Soil Arch Structures, January 1982.

R44 Kay, J.N., Parry, RH.G.

Screw Plate Tests in a Stiff Clay, January 1982.

R45 Dandy, G.C.

A Set of Mode and Destination Choice Models for Adelaide, August 1982.

R46 Ewers, J. R.

Some Volumetric Aspects of Energy Dissipation, September 1982.

R47 Arnold, M.

An Empirical Evaluation of Pressuremeter Test Data, November 1982.

R48 Hirst, M.J.S.

Thermal Loading of Concrete Bridges, August 1982.

R49 Hirst, M.J.S.

Thermal Loading of Concrete Roofs, August 1982.

R50 Hirst, M.J.S.

Bridge Temperatures in Australia, August 1982

R51 Hirst, M.J.S.

A Micro-Computer Interface for Acoustic Strain Gauges, January 1983.

R52 Sved, G., Payne, D.C. and Brooks, D.S.

Finite Element - Finite Difference Analysis of Cracked Brick Walls, August 1982.

R53 Moxham, K. E., Brooks, D.S.

A Dual Servo-Controlled Test Rig, May 1983.

R54 Mitchell, Peter W., and Arnold, Maurice,

A Simple Guide for the Design of Shallow Stiffened Footings on Expansive Soils, September 1983.

R55 Arnold, M.

The Self-Boring Press ureme ter, September 1983.

R56 Kay, J.N., Nichols, G.W, Mitchell, P.W., Avalle, D.L.

Recent Developments in Screw Plate Testing in Adelaide, October 1983.

R57 Dandy, G. C.

An Approximate Method for the Analysis of Uncertainty in BenefitCost Ratios, October 1983.

R58 Kay, J.N. Kokkinakis, T., Tallidira, M.C.

Compressible Conduits Under Deep Fill Loads - A Model Study, October 1983

R59 Avalle, D.L., Flint, R.C.L., Kay, J.N.

Large Scale Test Facility for Model Conduits and Arches Buried in Soil, October 1983.

R60 Ferreira, L.J.A.

Urban Transport Management (UTM) and Energy Consumption - a review of evidence, November 1983

R61 Warner, R.F. and Yeo, M.F.

Collapse Behaviour of Concrete Structures with Limited Ductility, January 1984

R62 Ahmad, Azman and Warner, R.F.

Ductility Requirements for Continuous Reinforced Concrete Structures, January 1984

R63 Behan, J.E. and Warner, R.F.

Fatigue Properties of Tempcore Reinforcing Bars, January 1984

R64 Foo, M.H. and Warner, R.F.

Fatigue Tests on Partially Prestressed Concrete Beams, January 1984

R65 Hirst, M.J.S.

Measuring the Temperature of Concrete Structures February 1984

R66 Ferreira, L.J.A.

Modelling Urban Fuel Consumption, February 1984

R67 Ferreira, L.J.A.

Traffic Signal Coordination - a survey of drivers in Adelaide, April 1984

R68 Ferreira, L.J.A.

The Effects of traffic signal coordination along an arterial in Adelaide, April 1984

R69 Warner, R.F. and Dandy, G.C.

Multistage Decision Models for the Assessment of Structural Defects, May 1984

R70 Warner, R.F.

Design of Concrete Structures for Fatigue and Reliability, April 1985

R71 Crawley, D.B.

Civil Engineering Design Management - Teaching by Project, April 1985

R72 Crawley, D.B.

Using a Project Design to Integrate Civil Engineering Studies, August 1985

R73 Crawley,D.B.

Preliminary Design for a Project: The deSign brief (for building and other structural projects), August 1985

R74A Kay, J.N.

An Efficient Soils Exploration and Testing Program, October 1986

R74 Kay, J.N.

Examination of a New Proposal for Determination of Atterberg Limits, August 1986

R75 Varga, J.

Change of Flow Pattern in Model Bin (Silo Pressure Abatement Study - SACBH), October 1986

R76 Dandy, G.C.

Factors which Affect Residential Water Consumption in Adelaide, November 1986

R77 Kay, J.N. and Rigon, C.

Instrumentation of a Bebo Arch Constructed at Byron Bay, New South Wales, November 1986

R78 Dandy, G.C.

A Study of the Factors which Affect Residential Water Consumption in Adelaide, Final Report March 1986 R78A Wong, K.W., Yeo, M.F. and Warner, R.F.

Collapse Behaviour of Reinforced Concrete Frames, August 1987

R79 Kgoboko, K., Wyche, P.J. and Warner, R.F.

Col/apse Behaviour and Ductility Requirements in Partially Prestressed Concrete Bridge Girders, April 1988

R80 Oehlers, D.J.,

Reinforced Concrete Beams with Steel Plates Glued to their Soffits; Prevention of Plate Separation Induced by Flexural Peeling, August 1988

R81 Oehlers, D.J.

The Derivation of the Fatigue Endurance of Stud Shear Connections in Composite Steel and Concrete Beams, November 1988

R82 Oehlers, D.J.

A New Approach to the Design of Stud Shear Connectors in Composite Bridge Beams, June 1989

R83 Hua, W.G., Griffith, M.C. and Warner, R.F.

Diagnosis and Assessment of Defective Concrete Structures, August 1989

R84 Oehlers, D.J.

Shear Strength of Longitudinally Cracked Composite Beams, August 1991

R85 Oehlers, D.J.

Design of Shear Connectors in Composite Steel and Concrete Beams, August 1991

R86 Griffith, M.C.

Performance of Unreinforced Masonry Buildings during the Newcastle Earthquake, Australia August 1991