Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Dissertation2007 Asinari
Dissertation2007 Asinari
ROSE SCHOOL
A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Master Degree in
EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING
by MARIANA ASINARI
February, 2007
The dissertation entitled Buildings with structural masonry walls connected to tie-columns and bond-beams, by Mariana Asinari, has been approved in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Master Degree in Earthquake Engineering.
Abstract
ABSTRACT
Confined masonry is extensively used in seismic regions around the world. Experimental data about confined masonry are very scarce and this lack of knowledge affects the seismic safety and the design practice of masonry structures. This type of constructions consist basically of masonry panels confined by vertical and horizontal elements usually of reinforce concrete. This confinement enhances greatly the connection between structural walls, improves the stability and the strength, provides ductility under earthquake loading and improves the integrity and containment of earthquake damage in masonry walls. The present dissertation concerns a general review on confined masonry structures, ranging from current and past research, taking as a reference the experimental data available in the literature. Failure and resisting mechanisms are described. Vulnerability and experimental tests in confined masonry are presented as well. Finally some code recommendations, of different countries, for a proper construction and resistance verification are given.
Acknowledgements
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to acknowledge: The financial support of the Erasmus Mundus Programme, The help, suggestions and support of Dr. Andrea Penna and Professor Guido Magenes, especially for founding me this research project that may help with the continuities of my studies and professional life, The cooperation with the available experimental data and suggestions of Professor Alfredo Payer and Professor Carlos Prato, The help and cooperation of Saverio, The support and sacrifice of my parents Jos Luis and Beatriz being so far form each other for so long, The support and love of my sisters Cecilia and Florencia, The comprehension, patience, support and love of Andrs, The great and unforgettable time in Europe with my new friends from all over the world of the meees programme: Paola, Francisco, Bin, Oil, Jessie, Rena, Nelson, Daniele, Davide x 2, Marco, Michael and Gopal.
ii
Index
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................................i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS....................................................................................................................ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................................................iii LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................v LIST OF TABLES.................................................................................................................................xi LIST OF SYMBOLS ...........................................................................................................................xiii 1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................1 1.1 Objectives ..................................................................................................................................1 1.2 Description.................................................................................................................................2 1.3 Construction procedure..............................................................................................................5 1.3.1 Materials for confined masonry construction ..................................................................5 1.3.2 Construction procedure ....................................................................................................8 2. FAILURE MECHANISMS AND PERFORMANCE IN PAST EARTHQUAKES ......................12 2.1 Failure mechanisms .................................................................................................................12 2.2 Ductility ...................................................................................................................................15 2.3 Predominant design failures in confined masonry during earthquakes....................................17 2.4 Vulnerability: performance in past earthquakes ......................................................................19 3. RESISTING MECHANISMS .........................................................................................................30 3.1 Resisting mechanism ...............................................................................................................30 4. EXPERIMENTAL TESTS..............................................................................................................34 4.1 Dynamic behaviour of confined masonry buildings through shaking table tests ....................34 4.1.1 Assessment of the response of Mexican confined masonry structure through shaking table test, Alcocer et al [27] .....................................................................................................34 4.1.2 Seismic behaviour of confined masonry, Tomazevic et al. [28]....................................39 iii
Index
4.1.3 Seismic behaviour of a three-story half scale confined masonry structure, San Bartolom et al. [29] 48 4.1.4 Pseudo dynamic tests of confined masonry buildings, Scaletti et al. [30] .....................51 4.2 Dynamic behaviour of confined masonry panels under cyclic lateral loads............................55 4.2.1 Experimental behaviour of masonry structural walls used in Argentina, Zabala et al. [5] 55 4.2.2 Behaviour of multi-perforated clay brick walls under earthquake type loading, Alcocer and Zepeda [31] .......................................................................................................................60 4.2.3 Experimental investigation of the seismic behaviour in full- scale prototypes of confined masonry walls, Decanini et al. [32]..........................................................................................64 4.2.4 Influence of vertical and horizontal reinforcement: Influence of the tie-column vertical reinforcement ratio on the seismic behaviour, Irimies [33] .....................................................70 4.2.5 Influence of openings in the behaviour of confined masonry: Behaviour of confined masonry shear walls with large openings, Yez et al. [8]......................................................72 4.2.6 Influence of the number and spacing of confining tie-columns: Experimental evaluation of confined masonry walls with several confining columns, Marinilli and Castilla [34] ........75 4.2.7 Experimental study on effects of height of lateral forces, column reinforcement and wall reinforcements on seismic behaviour of confined masonry walls, Yoshimura et al. [11] .......77 4.2.8 Effects of vertical and horizontal wall reinforcement on seismic behaviour of confined masonry walls, Yoshimura et al. [13] ......................................................................................81 4.2.9 Experimental study for developing higher seismic performance of brick masonry walls, Yoshimura et al. [12] ...............................................................................................................83 4.2.10Experimental study on earthquake-resistant design of confined masonry structures, Ishibashi et al. [35]...................................................................................................................86 4.3 Concluding remarks .................................................................................................................89 5. CODE RECOMMENDATIONS.....................................................................................................91 5.1 Quality of masonry ..................................................................................................................91 5.2 Classification of the structural walls........................................................................................94 5.3 Confined masonry....................................................................................................................99 5.4 Resistance verification ...........................................................................................................107 5.5 Simplified method allowed by the Argentinean code ........................................................111 5.6 Comparison between codes....................................................................................................118 5.7 Conclusions and possible topics to develop...........................................................................125 1. REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................................128 2. ANNEX .............................................................................................................................................1
iv
Index
LIST OF FIGURES
Page Figure 1.2.1 Uses of masonry in Argentina, 1985. 1) Confined masonry and 2) RC frames with masonry infill; Decanini, Payer and Terzariol [4]...........................................................................2 Figure 1.2.2 Solid brick masonry confined with tie-columns and bond-beams, Kuldeep Virdi [3] ........4 Figure 1.3.1 Types of masonry units, Kuldeep Virdi [3]........................................................................5 Figure 1.3.2 Determination of the mortar compressive strength, Bustos [10]........................................7 Figure 1.3.3 Typical anchorages of the reinforcing bars according to EC 6 Kuldeep Virdi [3].............8 Figure 1.3.4 Foundations construction and start of the vertical concrete columns.................................8 Figure 1.3.5 Construction of the masonry panel.....................................................................................6 Figure 1.3.6 Arrangement of vertical reinforcement in tie-columns ......................................................6 Figure 1.3.7 Position of the horizontal reinforcement ............................................................................6 Figure 1.3.8 Concrete poured against the boundaries of the masonry panel ..........................................6 Figure 1.3.9 Confined masonry walls under construction Mexico, 1993. Yoshimura et al. [11] ...........8 Figure 1.3.10 Left: confined masonry walls under construction (Jimo, P.R. China, 1999); right: confined masonry walls under construction (El Salvador, 2001), Yoshimura et al. [12] ...............8 Figure 1.3.11 Confined masonry walls using hollow concrete block masonry units. Las Losas Project under construction in Villahermosa, Mexico, Yoshimura, Kikuchi, Okamoto and Sanchez [13] ..9 Figure 1.3.12 Confined masonry of clay bricks deposit under construction in Crdoba, Argentina......9 Figure 1.3.13 Confined masonry of clay bricks deposit under construction in Crdoba, Argentina....10 Figure 1.3.14 Construction problems from Blondet et al. [14].............................................................11 Figure 2.1.1 Flexural failure, Zabala et al. [5] .....................................................................................13 Figure 2.1.2 Diagonal cracking under cycling loading, Zabala et al. [5]..............................................13 Figure 2.1.3 Bad connection between horizontal and vertical reinforcement, Universidad Nacional de Crdoba [16] .................................................................................................................................14 Figure 2.1.4 Compression of the diagonal, Universidad Nacional de Crdoba [16] ............................14
Index
Figure 2.1.5 Occurrence of the different failure modes in confined masonry. a) Compression failure; b) Diagonal crack; c) Flexural failure; Bustos [10]...........................................................................15 Figure 2.2.1 Different ductilities induced by different typologies of masonry, Bustos, Universidad Nacional de San Juan, Argentina [10]...........................................................................................16 Figure 2.2.2 Ductile response of the confined masonry structures, Decanini and Payer [17] ..............17 Figure 2.3.1 Failure caused by insufficient anchorage of reinforcement in the confinement elements. Examples of bad disposition of the reinforcement, Decanini and Payer [17]...............................18 Figure 2.3.2 Typical period range in confined masonry constructions. Statistic values for different types of soils; Decanini and Payer [17].........................................................................................19 Figure 2.4.1 Damage to reinforced concrete column in confined masonry wall due to 1999 Colombia earthquake, Yoshimura et al. [12] .................................................................................................20 Figure 2.4.2 Cracks observed in confined masonry after the Oaxaca earthquake 1999, Lpez Btiz et al. [19] ...........................................................................................................................................21 Figure 2.4.3 Damage resulting from an inadequate distribution of the confining elements, Lpez Btiz et al. [19] .......................................................................................................................................21 Figure 2.4.4 Damage in a hospital during the Oaxaca earthquake in Mexico, Lpez Btiz et al. [19] .22 Figure 2.4.5 Failure of a hollow concrete-block masonry wall. The hollow concrete block units are separated from the RC confining column, Yoshimura and Kuroki [20] .......................................23 Figure 2.4.6 Damage to a confined clay-brick masonry wall in Usulutan, Yoshimura and Kuroki [20] .......................................................................................................................................................23 Figure 2.4.7 Photograph illustrating typical damage in confined masonry, 1996 Nazca earthquake, Loaiza and Blondet [21]................................................................................................................24 Figure 2.4.8 Undamaged recently constructed reinforced masonry dwelling in Bermejo, 60km southsoutheast of the epicenter, Rojahn, Brogan and Slemmons [22]...................................................25 Figure 2.4.9 Damage in masonry in Caucete earthquake, 1977 Argentina. Decanini, Payer and Terzariol [4] ..................................................................................................................................26 Figure 2.4.10 Vertical and horizontal confining elements maintain the stability of the building, Kooroush Nasrollahzadeh Nesheli [24] ........................................................................................28 Figure 2.4.11 Confined masonry wall in Iran that survive the earthquake, Usam Ghaidan [25]..........28 Figure 2.4.12 Damage to masonry building in the 1998 Mionica earthquake, Nikola Muravljov, Radovan Dimitrijevic [26] ............................................................................................................29 Figure 3.1.1 Left: Distribution of seismic loads in the building; Right: tension originated by the gravitational loads before the earthquake, Bustos [10] .................................................................30 Figure 3.1.2 Tensions in the confined masonry wall originated by gravitational and seismic loads during the earthquake, Bustos [10] ...............................................................................................31 Figure 3.1.3 Resisting mechanisms, Universidad Nacional de Crdoba [16] ......................................31 vi
Index
Figure 3.1.4 Resisting mechanisms of confined masonry walls, Universidad Nacional de Crdoba [16] .......................................................................................................................................................32 Figure 3.1.5 Non-deformable diaphragms and good connection between walls allowing the correct distribution of the seismic action. Decanini and Payer [17]..........................................................33 Figure 3.1.6 Deformable slab and no capacity of load distribution. Consequence: An important bending moment in wall M2 is generated. Decanini and Payer [17] ............................................33 Figure 4.1.1 Characteristics of the Specimens, Alcocer et al. [27].......................................................35 Figure 4.1.2 Reinforcement of the Specimens, Alcocer et al. [27].......................................................36 Figure 4.1.3 Final cracks patterns, Alcocer et al. [27] ...........................................................................37 Figure 4.1.4 Response envelope for M1 and M3; MCBC: Mexico City Building Code, Alcocer et al. [27] ................................................................................................................................................37 Figure 4.1.5 Typical floor plan of prototype building, used as a basis for the design of 1:5 scale models, Tomazevic et al. [28] .......................................................................................................40 Figure 4.1.6 Typical section prototype building, used as a basis for the design of 1:5 scale models, Tomazevic et al. [28].....................................................................................................................40 Figure 4.1.7 Reinforcement of floor slabs and vertical and horizontal bonding elements, Tomazevic et al. [28] ...........................................................................................................................................41 Figure 4.1.8 Earthquake simulator set-up, Tomazevic et al. [28].........................................................42 Figure 4.1.9 Left: instrumentation of models: accelerometers and LVDT-s on model M1; Right: strain gauges on reinforcing steel of vertical confinement of model M1, Tomazevic et al. [28] ...........42 Figure 4.1.10 Left: instrumentation of models: accelerometers and LVDT-s on model M2; Right: strain gauges on reinforcing steel of vertical confinement of model M2, Tomazevic et al. [28]..43 Figure 4.1.11 Model M1, northern side-propagation of cracks at the eastern corner, Tomazevic et al. [28] ................................................................................................................................................44 Figure 4.1.12 Left: Model M1: middle pier after test run R200; Right: Model M1: detail of damage to tie-column after test run R200, Tomazevic et al. [28] ..................................................................45 Figure 4.1.13 Model M1, southern side, cracks after test runs R100, R150 and R200, Tomazevic et al. [28] ................................................................................................................................................45 Figure 4.1.14 Model M2: mechanism of collapse, Tomazevic et al. [28] ............................................47 Figure 4.1.15 Model M2: mechanism of collapse, Tomazevic et al. [28] ...........................................47 Figure 4.1.16 Geometry of the 3-storey confined masonry specimen, San Bartolom et al. [29]........48 Figure 4.1.17 Specimen after run C, San Bartolom et al. [29]............................................................50 Figure 4.1.18 Left: Total base shear force vs. displacement at level 1 in run C; Right: Lateral force in one wall at the time of maximum base shear force at each run (A, B and C), San Bartolom et al. [29] ................................................................................................................................................51 Figure 4.1.19 Test specimen, Scaletti et al. [30]...................................................................................51 vii
Index
Figure 4.1.20 Left: resonance curves for full scale specimen; Right: natural periods, frequencies, damping and modal shapes; Scaletti et al. [30].............................................................................52 Figure 4.1.21 Left: input signal for PD test of half scale model; Right: input signal for PD test of full scale model; Scaletti et al. [30] .....................................................................................................53 Figure 4.1.22 Left: base shear vs first story displacement, pseudo dynamic test of half scale model; Right: envelopes of base shear vs first story displacement of the half scale model; Scaletti et al. [30] ................................................................................................................................................54 Figure 4.1.23 Left: first story displacement time histories of the full scale specimen; Right: base shear time histories of the full scale specimen, Scaletti et al. [30] .........................................................55 Figure 4.2.1 Model Dimensions, Zabala et al. [5] ................................................................................56 Figure 4.2.2 Outline of the test setup and its instrumentation, Zabala et al. [5] ....................................57 Figure 4.2.3 Shear failure in column of wall 1, Zabala et al. [5] ..........................................................58 Figure 4.2.4 Crack pattern developed in the first 4 testing walls, Zabala et al. [5] ..............................59 Figure 4.2.5 Crack pattern developed in walls 5 and 6, Zabala et al. [5] .............................................59 Figure 4.2.6 Characteristics of the specimens, Alcocer and Zepeda [31].............................................61 Figure 4.2.7 Final cracks patterns of the fourth specimens, Alcocer and Zepeda [31].........................63 Figure 4.2.8 Hysteretic curves, Alcocer and Zepeda [31] .....................................................................64 Figure 4.2.9 General dimensions of the prototypes, Decanini et al. [32] .............................................65 Figure 4.2.10 Left: Reinforcement of confined masonry of solid clay bricks; Right: reinforcement of confined masonry of hollow clay bricks, Decanini et al. [32] ......................................................66 Figure 4.2.11 Test setup and its instrumentation, Decanini et al. [32] ..................................................67 Figure 4.2.12 Initial and ultimate cracks of the testing wall M3, Decanini et al. [32] .........................69 Figure 4.2.13 Experimental models, Irimies [33] .................................................................................70 Figure 4.2.14 Damage patterns of walls WC1, Irimies [33] .................................................................71 Figure 4.2.15 Damage patterns of walls WC2, Irimies [33] .................................................................72 Figure 4.2.16 Wall dimensions, Yez et al. [8] ..................................................................................73 Figure 4.2.17 Failure Mechanisms, Yez et al. [8].............................................................................74 Figure 4.2.18 Configuration of specimens M1, M2, M3 and M4, Marinilli and Castilla [34] .............75 Figure 4.2.19 Specimens M1 and M2 after testing, Marinilli and Castilla [34] ...................................76 Figure 4.2.20 Specimens M3 and M4 after testing, Marinilli and Castilla [34] ...................................76 Figure 4.2.21 Test setup, Yoshimura et al. [11]....................................................................................79 Figure 4.2.22 a) Specimens with aspect ratio (ho/lo) of 1.51; b) Specimens with aspect ratio (ho/lo) of 0.84; c) Specimens with aspect ratio (ho/lo) of 0.69, Yoshimura et al. [11] ............................80 Figure 4.2.23 Crack patterns of the specimens, Yoshimura [13]..........................................................83 Figure 4.2.24 Final crack pattern, Yoshimura et al. [12] ......................................................................85 Figure 4.2.25 Specimens details, Ishibashi et al. [35] ..........................................................................87 viii
Index
Figure 4.2.26 Loading history, Ishibashi et al. [35]..............................................................................87 Figure 4.2.27 Response of specimens WW, WBW and WWW, Ishibashi et al. [35] ..........................89 Figure 5.1.1 Tests on brick piers to determine the compressive strength, Bustos [10] ........................92 Figure 5.1.2 Masonry probes under diagonal compression to determine the strength, INPRESCIRSOC 103 code [7] and Yez et al. [8]...................................................................................93 Figure 5.2.1 Confined masonry. Left: reinforce confined masonry; right: confined masonry. Universidad Nacional de Cordoba [16].........................................................................................95 Figure 5.2.2 Different options of reinforced masonry, Decanini and Payer [17] .................................95 Figure 5.2.3 Minimum dimensions of confined masonry panels with two constraints, Universidad Nacional de Cordoba [16] .............................................................................................................96 Figure 5.2.4 Minimum dimensions of confined masonry panels with three or more constraints, Universidad Nacional de Cordoba [16].........................................................................................97 Figure 5.2.5 Structural walls distribution in plan, Kuldeep Virdi [3]...................................................98 Figure 5.2.6 Irregular configurations in plan should be separated in regular potions, Kuldeep Virdi [3] .......................................................................................................................................................99 Figure 5.3.1 Detail of RC bond-beam showing splicing of re-bars at wall corners, Kuldeep Virdi [3] .....................................................................................................................................................102 Figure 5.3.2 Dimensions recommended by INPRES-CIRSOC 103 code for tie-columns and bondbeams, Universidad Nacional de Cordoba [16] ..........................................................................102 Figure 5.3.3 Hoops in critic zones (near corners) and in normal zones, Universidad Nacional de Cordoba [16] ...............................................................................................................................104 Figure 5.3.4 Recommended details in masonry wall connection in Argentina [16]...........................105 Figure 5.3.5 Recommended details in masonry wall to RC column connection in P.R. China, Yoshimura et al. [12] ..................................................................................................................105 Figure 5.3.6 Construction of tie-column for confined brick masonry house, Kuldeep Virdi [3] .......107 Figure 5.5.1 Gravity loads, INPRES-CIRSOC 103 [7] ......................................................................111 Figure 5.5.2 Seismic coefficient of design, INPRES-CIRSOC 103 [7] .............................................111 Figure 5.5.3 Determination of torsion moments and shears of each story, INPRES-CIRSOC 103 [7] .....................................................................................................................................................112 Figure 5.5.4 Determination of the elastic constants, INPRES-CIRSOC 103 [7]................................112 Figure 5.5.5 Geometric characteristics, INPRES-CIRSOC 103 [7] ...................................................113 Figure 5.5.6 Wall stiffness, INPRES-CIRSOC 103 [7]......................................................................113 Figure 5.5.7 Total design shear for each story, INPRES-CIRSOC 103 [7]........................................114 Figure 5.5.8 Design bending moment of each wall for each story, INPRES-CIRSOC 103 [7] .........114 Figure 5.5.9 Design normal resistance for each wall, INPRES-CIRSOC 103 [7]..............................115 Figure 5.5.10 Verification of shear strength, INPRES-CIRSOC 103 [7] ...........................................115 ix
Index
Figure 5.5.11 Verification of gravitational loads, INPRES-CIRSOC 103 [7]....................................116 Figure 5.5.12 Reinforcement dimensions of bond-beams, INPRES-CIRSOC 103 [7] ......................116 Figure 5.5.13 Reinforcement dimensions of tie-columns, INPRES-CIRSOC 103 [7].......................117 Figure 5.5.14 Verification of flexion and compression, INPRES-CIRSOC 103 [7] ..........................117
Index
LIST OF TABLES
Page Table 1.3.1 Strength of the masonry units, INPRES-CIRSOC 103 [7] ..................................................6 Table 1.3.2 Typical prescribed composition and strength of general purpose mortars, Kuldeep Virdi [3] ....................................................................................................................................................7 Table 1.3.3 Constituents of the mortar joints given by the INPRES-CIRSOC 103 [7]..........................7 Table 4.1.1 Measured response characteristics, Alcocer et al. [27].......................................................38 Table 4.1.2 Characteristic parameters of shaking-table motion recorded during individual test runs, Tomazevic et al. [28].....................................................................................................................43 Table 4.1.3 Assumed force distribution in one specimen wall, San Bartolom et al. [29] ...................49 Table 4.1.4 Shaking table test runs, San Bartolom et al. [29].............................................................49 Table 4.1.5 First floor displacement, base shear and predominant period as a function of maximum ground acceleration, Scaletti et al. [30].........................................................................................54 Table 4.2.1 Main features of the six tested walls, Zabala et al. [5] .....................................................58 Table 4.2.2 Measured loads and angular deformations, Decanini et al. [32]........................................68 Table 4.2.3 Properties of the system, Marinilli and Castilla [34] .........................................................77 Table 4.2.4 Test specimens, Yoshimura et al. [11]...............................................................................78 Table 4.2.5 Predicted and observed ultimate lateral strengths and failure modes, Yoshimura et al. [11] .......................................................................................................................................................81 Table 4.2.6 List of specimens, Yoshimura et al. [13] ...........................................................................82 Table 4.2.7 Listed of the tested specimens, Yoshimura et al. [12] .......................................................84 Table 5.1.1 Values of compressive strength for different masonry units and mortar joints, INPRESCIRSOC 103 code [7] ...................................................................................................................92 Table 5.1.2 Values of shear strength for different masonry units and mortar joints, INPRES-CIRSOC [7] ..................................................................................................................................................94 Table 5.2.1 Maximum heights and number of stories allowed by the INPRES-CIRSOC 103 code [7] .......................................................................................................................................................97 xi
Index
Table 5.3.1 Maximum area and dimension for confined masonry panels, INPRES-CIRSOC 103 [7] .....................................................................................................................................................100 Table 5.3.2 Recommended diameters and separation for reinforcement in tie-columns and bondbeams, Universidad Nacional de Cordoba [16] ..........................................................................103 Table 5.3.3 Recommended reinforcement for tie-columns [37].........................................................106 Table 5.3.4 Recommended reinforcement for bond-beams [37] ........................................................106 Table 5.6.1 Elastic properties of masonry given by the different codes .............................................118 Table 5.6.2 Minimum conditions for walls to be considered as load-bearing walls...........................119 Table 5.6.3 Geometric conditions for confined masonry given by the different codes, Decanini et al. [38] ..............................................................................................................................................120 Table 5.6.4 Resistance verifications in plane given by codes.............................................................121 Table 5.6.5 Resistance verification out-of-plane and verification of the confining elements ............122 Table 5.6.6 Specifications and requirements of the confining elements.............................................123 Table 5.6.7 Specifications and requirements of reinforcement for confining elements .....................124
xii
Index
LIST OF SYMBOLS
= Cross-sectional area of the longitudinal reinforcement of tiecolumns = Cross-sectional area of stirrups in one layer = Cross-sectional area of the longitudinal reinforcement of bondbeams = Total area of the transverse section of tie-columns = Cross-section of the masonry wall = Design seismic coefficient = Projection of the compressive loads in the direction of the masonry course for the diagonal testing = Elastic modulus of masonry = Shear modulus of masonry = Height of confined masonry measured between constrains = Height of confined masonry measured between bond-beams = Total height of confined masonry measured from the top of the foundation = Horizontal seismic loads = Length between borders of the confined masonry wall = Length of confined masonry measured between tie-columns = Length between tie-columns of load-bearing wall = Reinforced masonry with distributed reinforcement (mampostera reforzada con armadura distribuida) = Ultimate bending moment and axial loading of confined masonry wall = Ultimate bending moment of the confined masonry wall = Ultimate bending moment in the vertical direction per unit of length, in the out-of-plane verification of walls = Gravitational loads = Vertical load applied to the masonry wall = Compressive strength of the wall = Ultimate vertical load resisted by the wall xiii
Index
P RC URM Vp Vur
= Compressive load for the diagonal testing = Reinforced concrete = Un-reinforced masonry = Compressive stress acting in the masonry panel = Maximum shear stress resisted by the masonry in ultimate limit state
= Yield stress of steel = Ductility = Mean compressive strength of masonry units = Characteristic compressive strength of masonry units =Mean compressive strength generated by vertical loads on the wall = Compressive strength of masonry = Shear strength of masonry = Diameter of the reinforcing steel = Reduction factor due to the eccentricity of vertical loads and slenderness of the confined walls
d dc ds eo ea ec et e* k lb lc q qs se t
= Diagonal length = Transversal dimension of tie-column = Diameter of the reinforcing steel = Thickness of the masonry probes under diagonal compression = Accidental eccentricity due to vertical loads = Complementary eccentricity due to the slenderness effect = Eccentricity at the top of the wall = Design eccentricity of load-bearing walls = Number of stories above the analysed story = Straight anchorage length = Critical length = Lateral gravitational load per unit area of the wall = Seismic load per unit area of the wall = Spacing of stirrups = Thickness of the masonry wall
List of symbols for chapter 5.6 Italian code = Cross-sectional area of the i- esima longitudinal reinforcement of tie-columns xiv
Avi
Index
Mr di fc fy l t tr o ok m
= Resisting moment of tie-columns = Length between the reinforcement to the compressive = Compressive strength of masonry = Yield stress of steel = height of tie-column = Thickness = Diagonal tensile strength of masonry = Mean compressive strength = Value that variety in function of masonry type = Medium diagonal tension Colombian code
Aci Ae Amd Amv As Ast Mn Mu Pnc Pnd Pnt Pu Puc Put Re Vn Vnc Vu Vuc b fc fm fy h
= Total area of the transverse section of tie-columns = Cross-section of the masonry wall = Effective cross-section of the masonry wall = Cross-section of the masonry wall to determine shear strength = Cross-sectional area of the longitudinal reinforcement of bondbeams = Cross-sectional area of the longitudinal reinforcement = Design bending moment of the confined masonry wall = Ultimate bending moment of the confined masonry wall = Nominal compression load acting in tie-column, positive, N = Nominal compression load of the masonry = Nominal tension load acting in tie-column, negative, N = Design compression load of the masonry wall, N = Design compression load acting in tie-column, positive, N = Design tension load acting in tie-column, negative, N = Coefficient that takes into account the slenderness of the elements under compression = Design shear stress resisted by the masonry, N = Nominal shear stress acting in the reinforcing concrete = Maximum shear stress resisted by the masonry in ultimate limit state, N = Maximum shear stress resisted by the tie-column = Thickness of the masonry wall, mm = Compressive strength of the concrete of confining elements = Compressive strength of masonry = Yield stress of steel, MPa = Diagonal length, mm xv
Index
hp lc lw t
= Height of confined masonry measured between bond-beams = Length of confined masonry measured between tie-columns = Total length of confined masonry = Thickness of the masonry wall = Reduction strength coefficient Peruvian Code
C1 F L Lm Me Ms Nc Pc Pg Pm Ts U Ve Vet Vm Z a e fm h t vm w m
= Seismic coefficient = Axial force in tie-columns produced by the bending moment = Total length of confined masonry = Total length of the highest confined masonry or 0.5L = Bending moment acting in confined masonry = Distributed bending moment per unit length = Number of tie-columns = Sum of the gravitational loads = Service gravitational load = Maximum gravitational load = Tension force = Importance factor = Shear force produced by moderate earthquake in the wall = Shear force in the wall determined in the elastic analysis = Shear strength of the confined masonry wall = Zone factor = Critic dimension of the confined masonry panel = Gross thickness of the wall = Compressive strength of masonry = Height of confined masonry measured between bond-beams = Thickness of the masonry panel = Characteristic shear strength of masonry = Seismic load uniformly distributed = Reduction factor of the shear strength due to slenderness effects = Specific weight = Maximum axial strength Mexican Code
As Asc AT
= Cross-sectional area of the longitudinal reinforcement = Cross-sectional area of stirrups in one layer = Cross-section of the confined masonry wall xvi
Index
FE FR Mo MR P PR Pu Q VmR
= Coefficient of reduction that takes into account the slenderness and the eccentricity = Resistance factor = Bending moment = Bending moment applied to the plane of the wall = Axial compressive load = Design strength of the masonry wall to vertical load = Design axial load = Factor of seismic behaviour = Design shear load of masonry, N = Length between the reinforcement in tension and the concrete in compression. = Length of confined masonry measured between longitudinal reinforcement of tie-columns = Compressive strength of the concrete of confining elements = Compressive strength of masonry = Yield stress of steel = Total area of the transverse section of tie-columns = Spacing of stirrups = Compressive diagonal strength of masonry
d d fc fm* fy hc s vm
xvii
Chapter 1. Introduction
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Objectives
The issue of the seismic performance and safety of existing mixed masonry and reinforced concrete buildings systems is characterized by numerous uncertainties and in some cases by a real lack of sufficient knowledge. This statement also applies to existing codes, where scarce or no provisions are given regarding methods of analysis and safety check criteria to be used in practical applications. Recent code provisions such as Eurocode 8 [1] or the Annex 2 to the OPCM 3274 [2] provide little or no guidelines to the designer, and are limited most often to define the general principles for design. The present dissertation concerns with a general review of the subject, ranging from current and past research, taking as a reference the experimental data available in the literature, the characteristics of buildings with structural masonry walls connected to tie-columns and bondbeams. This type of buildings is characterized by the mutual interaction between masonry and tiecolumns and bond-beams, giving a composite behavior which is essentially similar to what is now defined in modern construction as confined masonry. This type was rather common in Italy during the first half of the past century, and is still being used nowadays in some regions of the Italian territory, in spite of the fact that specific national code regulations are not yet available, as a local building tradition in which the vertical tie-columns are seen as a confinement for masonry and/or a means to carry concentrated vertical loads.
Chapter 1. Introduction
1.2
Description
The construction of confined masonry starts after the Messina earthquake in 1908 and has become one of the most popular and inexpensive structural construction system used for housing. With the increased popularity and availability of reinforced concrete and different types of masonry units, this construction is common for low-rise residential buildings and individual houses in many areas of Latin America, Indian Subcontinent and Asia as well as in some parts of Europe. In these buildings masonry shear walls are often the only structural element assumed to provide resistance to gravitational and seismic lateral loads. It consists basically of masonry panels confined by vertical and horizontal elements usually of reinforced concrete. From the structural and seismic point of view, in Argentina and in many other countries, masonry can generally be use in two ways for dwelling: confined or reinforced masonry and reinforced concrete frames with masonry infill. Figure 1.2.1 shows the percentage of use of confined masonry in relation with RC frame with masonry infill in Argentina, 1985. Almost 75% correspond to constructions of confined masonry (1), around 20% to RC frames with masonry infill (2) and the rest to other typologies like timber and steel structures. In this document only confined masonry is study. The main difference between confined masonry and RC frames with masonry infill is that: in confined masonry the confining elements are not intended or designed to perform as momentresisting frames. When such frames are constructed to resist lateral and vertical loads the purpose of the masonry walls is only for space partitioning, and the construction system is called masonry infilled frames. In masonry infilled frames the reinforced concrete frame structure is constructed first and the masonry is added later between the RC members. In the case of confined masonry, the masonry walls are load-bearing and are constructed to carry all of the gravity loads as well as lateral loads, Kuldeep Virdi [3].
Figure 1.2.1 Uses of masonry in Argentina, 1985. 1) Confined masonry and 2) RC frames with masonry infill; Decanini, Payer and Terzariol [4]
Chapter 1. Introduction
Confined masonry is normally used in buildings up to five stories high. Reinforced concrete confining elements are horizontal members called bond-beams and vertical members called tie-columns. Tie-columns have a square section whose dimensions typically correspond to the wall thickness (15cm in general). Bond-beams width is the wall thickness and the depth is usually equal to 25cm. Typically, both tie-columns and bond-beams have a longitudinal reinforcement ratio, based in the gross sectional area, of about 1.2%, this percentage can vary between the different national codes. Seismic action, represented by lateral forces applied to each floor and to the roof, is resisted by a mechanism of walls, coupled by lintels and sills, and interconnected by the floor slabs. Slabs are assumed to behave as non-deformable diaphragms, being able to distribute the lateral forces to the walls, Zabala et al. [5]. The floor system generally consists of cast-inplace reinforced concrete slabs, but very often, prefabricated units are used (such us prestressed concrete joints or planks), Meli et al. [6]. The major improvements in the performance of the confined masonry building over the plain masonry building are the following ones, Kuldeep Virdi [3]: Enhances greatly the connection between structural walls. Improves the stability of masonry walls. Improves the strength of masonry walls. Provides ductility under earthquake loading. Improves the integrity and containment of earthquake damaged masonry walls.
Tie-columns and bond-beams confine the masonry walls to give containment after cracking as the result of the earthquake, avoiding a brittle behavior and allowing the dissipation of energy under earthquake loading. The confinement must be continuous as is shown in Figure 1.2.2, to improve the connection among other walls and floor diaphragms.
Chapter 1. Introduction
Figure 1.2.2 Solid brick masonry confined with tie-columns and bond-beams, Kuldeep Virdi [3]
Confined masonry walls have limited shear strength and ductility as compared to common reinforced concrete walls; nevertheless, typical low-cost housing buildings have good earthquake resistance, because they have large wall densities (ratio of transverse wall areas to a typical floor area), and because wall layout is symmetric and regular, both in plan and in elevation. Depending on the presence, or not, of reinforcement in the masonry panels, different classifications of confined masonry are currently use. Confined masonry, reinforced confined masonry and confined masonry without vertical columns is the classification used in the masonry seismic code of Argentina (INPRES-CIRSOC 103 [7]). The difference between the confined masonry and the reinforced confined masonry is the presence of horizontal reinforcement in the cement mortar joints. In this kind of masonry the reinforcement does not give much more resistance to the panel but gives more ductility and integrity. It must be mentioned that generally in South America it is not common to use horizontal reinforcement in confined masonry walls. In the case of confined masonry without vertical elements, there are no tie-columns. This type of masonry is only used for internal load-bearing walls made of solid clay bricks and in areas of low seismic activity. Another classification is based in the different masonry units. Masonry panels are usually made of clay bricks, clay or concrete blocks, bonded with cement mortar.
Chapter 1. Introduction
After examining its good seismic performance, this system became popular in zones of high seismic hazard. It must be pointed out that confined masonry has evolved essentially through an informal process based on experience, and that it has been incorporated in formal construction through code requirements and design procedures that are mostly rationalizations of the established practice, even after having been validated by structural mechanics principles and experimental evidence. In spite of masonry experimental research programs conducted in many countries, Yes et al. [8], the behavior of confined masonry shear walls is still not very well known.
1.3
Construction procedure
Masonry units
Masonry units are classified into the following types: solid, perforated unit, hollow unit, cellular unit and horizontally perforated unit illustrated in Figure 1.3.1., Kuldeep Virdi [3]. They can be made of clay or concrete. It is forbidden the use of perforated or hollow clay bricks in the horizontal direction because of their brittle behaviour and the difficulties to build vertical mortar joints. Also the re-utilization of the masonry units (bricks, blocks, etc) is not allowed by the codes.
Different test are made to each type of masonry brick. These tests consist in tension, axial compression made with half masonry unit and water absorption. Average of the measurements is compute and parameters like strength are given for each masonry unit.
Chapter 1. Introduction
The strength of the masonry units is given as an example in Table 1.3.1 from the Argentinean code.
Table 1.3.1 Strength of the masonry units, INPRES-CIRSOC 103 [7]
Type of masonry unit Solid clay brick Solid clay brick Hollow clay block Hollow clay block Hollow concrete block Hollow concrete block Hollow concrete block
class A B A B I II III
'PK Kg/cm 80 45 85 50 45 45 30
Net section >80% gross section >80% gross section >60% gross section >40% gross section >40% gross section >40% gross section >40% gross section
Mortar
Depending on the codes of the different countries there are different specifications for the mortar joints. According to the specification used in EC 6 [9], several types of mortar can be used for masonry walls, Kuldeep Virdi [3]: General purpose mortar, used in joints with thickness greater than 3mm and produced with dense aggregate.
Thin layer mortar, which is designed for use in masonry with nominal thickness of joints 1-3mm.
Lightweight mortar, which is made, using perlite, expanded clay, expanded shale etc. Lightweight mortars typically have a dry hardened density lower than 1500kg/m3.
In the Table 1.3.2 below are shown typical composition of prescribed general purpose mortar mixes and expected mean compressive strength. This table corresponds to the specifications given in EU 6, where mortars are classified by their compressive strength, expressed as the letter M followed by the compressive strength in N/mm, for example, M5. Prescribed masonry mortars, additionally to the M number, will be described by their prescribed constituents, e. g. 1: 1: 5 cement: lime: sand by volume.
Chapter 1. Introduction
Table 1.3.2 Typical prescribed composition and strength of general purpose mortars, Kuldeep Virdi [3]
In the Argentinean code values of the compressive strength of mortar joints is given after 28 days, like is illustrated in Table 1.3.3. Three categories of mortar are distinguished here: high (H), intermediate (I) and normal (N). Also the proportions of cement, sand and hydrated lime are given for each type of category. Test to determine the compressive strength for each kind of mortar are made of squares of 7cm of side, Figure 1.3.2.
The strength of the mortar is increased with the increase of the cement content and a little proportion of hydraulic lime enhances the use of the mortar for the joints.
Table 1.3.3 Constituents of the mortar joints given by the INPRES-CIRSOC 103 [7]
Chapter 1. Introduction
Reinforcing steel
Steel bars are used as reinforcement in confined masonry. Reinforcing steel may be assumed to possess adequate elongation ductility and shall provide with sufficient anchorage length so that the internal forces are well transmitted between all the members. Anchorage should be achieved by straight anchorage, hooks, bends or loops as shown in Figure 1.3.3. Alternatively stress transfer may be by means of an appropriate mechanical device proven by tests.
Figure 1.3.3 Typical anchorages of the reinforcing bars according to EC 6 Kuldeep Virdi [3]
1.3.2 Construction procedure In the case of confined masonry, the masonry walls are considered as load-bearing and are built to carry all of the gravity loads as well as lateral loads. For this reason load-bearing masonry walls are constructed first with serrated edges and then the concrete of columns and beams are poured against the boundaries of the masonry panel. The vertical and horizontal confining elements are cast simultaneously with the floors, which are constructed as reinforced concrete slab. The steps of the construction procedure of the confined masonry are illustrated in Figure 1.3.4 to 1.3.8.
Figure 1.3.4 Foundations construction and start of the vertical concrete columns
Chapter 1. Introduction
Figure 1.3.8 Concrete poured against the boundaries of the masonry panel
In order to achieve effective confinement of walls, vertical confining elements (tie-columns) should be located at all corners and changes of wall contour, and at all joints, wall intersections and free ends of structural walls. The contribution of the tie-columns and bond-beams to the lateral resistance of the masonry building is normally not taken into account for design. Consequently specific design calculations for confining elements are not required. The amount of reinforcement in vertical and horizontal confining elements is determined on an empirical basis. Although the tiecolumns and bond-beams do not provide frame system contribution to the wall, adequate splicing and anchoring of re-bars is required at all joints. Confined masonry should be constructed following simple instructions for quality of workmanship, Kuldeep Virdi [3]:
Chapter 1. Introduction
In dry and hot climate, masonry units should be soaked in water before the construction in order to prevent quick drying and shrinkage of cement based mortars.
Same type of masonry units and mortar should be used for structural walls in the same Bracing walls should be constructed in the same time as the load-bearing walls. The thickness of individual walls is kept constant from storey to storey.
storey.
In cases where general purpose mortar is going to be used, the mortar joints thickness should be between 8 and 15mm. From Figure 1.3.9 to Figure 1.3.13 confined masonry walls, of different types of masonry units, under construction are showed as is the current practice in various countries.
Figure 1.3.9 Confined masonry walls under construction Mexico, 1993. Yoshimura et al. [11]
Figure 1.3.10 Left: confined masonry walls under construction (Jimo, P.R. China, 1999); right: confined masonry walls under construction (El Salvador, 2001), Yoshimura et al. [12]
Chapter 1. Introduction
Figure 1.3.11 Confined masonry walls using hollow concrete block masonry units. Las Losas Project under construction in Villahermosa, Mexico, Yoshimura, Kikuchi, Okamoto and Sanchez [13]
Figure 1.3.12 Confined masonry of clay bricks deposit under construction in Crdoba, Argentina
Chapter 1. Introduction
Figure 1.3.13 Confined masonry of clay bricks deposit under construction in Crdoba, Argentina
Construction problems
Most surveyed dwellings had important construction problems, mainly due to lack of knowledge of proper building techniques, poor workmanship, or the use of materials of poor quality. House owners and builders seem to believe that the reinforced concrete beams and columns are the most important structural elements. Accordingly, they pay a lot of attention to their construction. The results, however, usually tend to be poor. Concrete is prepared with high water/cement ratio, large aggregate size, and inadequate mixing and vibration. Aggregates are usually bought from informal quarries, where there is little or no quality control in its cleanliness and contents of fines or organic material, or of the size of the material. Furthermore, curing is not considered to be important: beams and columns are seldom cured, and slabs are sometimes cured by pouring some water on the surface the day after they are built. As a result of these poor construction practices concrete is often weak, porous, and full of voids, Figure 1.3.14. Because there is an understanding of the importance of reinforcement in the strength of the structure, most elements are overly reinforced, even though steel reinforcement is expensive. Stirrups, however, are believed to be useful only to maintain the main reinforcement in place, and in most cases they have open hooks, or are made with small diameter rebar. In areas with access to welding factories, it is common to find welded steel bars, instead of overlapping rebar connections. Since safety is always a concern, many owners weld metal doors and windows to the reinforcement of columns or beams. A common problem observed is corrosion of the steel reinforcement. This happens because of poor quality of concrete with small covers to protect from filtration of rain water and other atmospheric agents.
10
Chapter 1. Introduction
The bricks used to build the masonry walls are usually hand made by local artisans, because they are significantly cheaper than industrial bricks. Furthermore, the quality of the masonry is generally quite poor due to the mortar joints, Blondet, Dueas, Loaiza, and Flores [14].
11
In the event of an earthquake, apart from the existing gravity loads, horizontal loads are imposed on walls. In these conditions, however, the un-reinforced masonry generally behaves as a brittle material, depending on the intensity of the excitation. Hence if the state of stress within the wall exceeds masonry strength, brittle failure occurs, followed by possible collapse of the wall and/or of the building. Therefore one solution to make the un-reinforced masonry walls vulnerable to earthquakes can be to confined and/or reinforced whenever is possible the masonry panels, Kuldeep Virdi [3]. The principal failure mechanisms of confined masonry subjected to seismic actions can be summarized as follows: Flexural failure: this king of failure is ductile causing yielding of the vertical reinforcement. A flexural failure would be desirable because is more ductile than a shear failure; also the former is more simple to repair, however more research is needed to obtain this goal. Generally first yielding occurs at the base of the tie-columns as illustrated in Figure 2.1.1.
Tie-columns and bond-beams, according to the specifications set up in EU 6, are not considered in assessing the flexural resistance of structural walls, Tomazevic [15].
12
Shear failure: A brittle failure in the masonry is due to the shear, Figure 2.1.2. Failure occurs when the applied loads are higher than the shear resistance of the confined masonry. For this failure to happen the previous failure in flexure must not have occurred. This means that it can only occur when tie-columns have higher reinforcement, when the masonry panel has high axial load or when the masonry panel is very long. Research showed that a shear failure is possible to occur when a strong earthquake hits a confined masonry structure, even in the case that the structure satisfies the ideal characteristics to obtain flexural failure. The formation and development of inclined diagonal cracks may follow the path of bed and headjoints (stepped) or may go through the bricks, depending on the relative strength of mortar joints, brick mortar interface, and brick units.
According to the requirements of EC 6, the strength of the reinforced masonry members should be taken into account in the design of confined masonry for seismic load. These is in disagreement with the existing experimental evidence, that indicates that tie-columns and bond-beams improve the lateral resistance of a plain masonry wall panel, just as they improve its energy dissipation capacity and ductility, Tomazevic [15].
Figure 2.1.2 Diagonal cracking under cycling loading, Zabala et al. [5]
13
Insufficient anchorage of the vertical or horizontal elements: failure that occurs when the anchorage of the reinforcement is not enough in foundations or when the reinforcement of the horizontal elements is not well connected to the vertical confinement like is illustrated in Figure 2.1.3.
Bond-beam Tie-column
Figure 2.1.3 Bad connection between horizontal and vertical reinforcement, Universidad Nacional de Crdoba [16]
Crushing of the compressed corners of the diagonal: This kind of failure generally occurs in hollow concrete blocks and the crushing zones are situated at the ends of the diagonal as is showed in Figure 2.1.4
Hs
Compressed diagonal
14
It is possible to estimate the theoretical flexural strength of a confined masonry wall in a simple way, by considering the amount of column reinforcement, vertical load supported by the wall and yield stress of the reinforcement steel. On the other hand, the cracking shear load and the maximum shear strength of these walls are more uncertain, since they depend on several factors like: individual brick strength, mortar and workmanship qualities, vertical load, amount of columns reinforcement and amount of horizontal reinforcement embedded in the masonry. In addition, the manufacturing conditions of the bricks and the walls are very variable, causing high dispersion of the resulting mechanical properties, Kuldeep Virdi [3]. The different failures mechanisms and their occurrence are illustrated in a load vs. deformation plot Figure 2.1.6, Bustos [10]. In this plot three fields are observed: lineal elastic field, non linear field until the ultimate load and the last one of failure. As is observed here the flexural failure is the desirable one, as it presents more ductility.
Load
(b)
(c)
First crack
(a)
Figure 2.1.5 Occurrence of the different failure modes in confined masonry. a) Compression failure; b) Diagonal crack; c) Flexural failure; Bustos [10]
2.2
Ductility
In case of the confined masonry wall system, both of the vertical and horizontal reinforcement in masonry walls play an important role for expecting higher ultimate lateral strength and better ductility, as shown in Figure 2.2.1. Ductility is defined as the relation between the maximum displacement and the displacement when the first crack appears. Different levels of ductility are achieved for different types of masonry. Un-reinforced masonry has generally
15
less ductility in comparison with the rest. When tie-columns and bond-beams are added to the un-reinforced masonry panel more ductility is expected. In the case of reinforced confined masonry, the reinforcement does not give much more resistance to the panel but gives more ductility and integrity. In general the higher ductility is achieved in the case of the reinforced masonry, where the reinforcement is distributed in the horizontal and vertical direction like is shown in the third case of Figure 2.2.1. In this figure the graphics are only intending to represents more less the different ductilities achieved by different configurations of masonry.
Confined masonry
Un-reinforced masonry
Reinforced masonry
Figure 2.2.1 Different ductilities induced by different typologies of masonry, Bustos, Universidad Nacional de San Juan, Argentina [10]
For masonry structures, it should be provide adequate capacity for energy dissipation in the inelastic field. This energy dissipation must be comparable with the seismic loads assumed in the design. This capacity is given with the inclusion of the confinement and the reinforcement on it. In Figure 2.2.2 is illustrated the effect of the force reduction for the inelastic response. This reduction is given by the ductility.
16
The INPRES-CIRSOC 103 [7] code gives, for confined masonry with clay solid bricks, a global ductility of 3 and for masonry with hollow concrete blocks a ductility of 2. From the comparison of these two ductilities, it is known that confined masonry with clay solid bricks have major capacity of energy dissipation. This is also verified in the experimental tests carried out in the National University of Crdoba.
Figure 2.2.2 Ductile response of the confined masonry structures, Decanini and Payer [17]
2.3
Common failures in design that produce collapse during earthquakes, in confined masonry, are listed below, Bustos [10]:
Missing elements of vertical confinement (tie-column). High spaced between tie-columns producing a loss of the effect of confinement. Wrong poured of concrete in columns.
Bad quality of the concrete in tie-columns that can produce propagation of the shear failure from the masonry panel to the confinement columns.
2.3.1. Excessive vertical load that produce more shear resistance in the wall but reduce the ductility.
17
Torsion problems due to: bad distribution of the walls, in a given direction not enough wall density, no vertical continuity in the masonry panels, and differential settlements and big openings in the slabs.
Figure 2.3.1 Failure caused by insufficient anchorage of reinforcement in the confinement elements. Examples of bad disposition of the reinforcement, Decanini and Payer [17]
Predominant failures have been found to occur in buildings are due to the shear and not due to bending as expected. The reasons of the shear failure are:
The deformation due to shear failure is predominant because masonry panels have short height and a higher moment of inertia of the transverse section.
If the effect of the transversal walls is added (including their loads) when the masonry panel wants to flexure the transverse wall must make off with it and this is difficult to achieve.
The bending moment at the base, associated with the static analysis, is reduced due to: rotation of the foundations, high modes of vibration and by the interaction of slab and wall. For this reason the conventional design showed an extra capacity in bending.
Confined masonry is very stiff system due to their large wall densities interconnected by the floor slab, assumed to behave as non-deformable diaphragms. In addition concentrated loads (slabs) and distributed loads (walls) are also present enhancing the stiffness of the system. Due to these effects the accelerations of the structure are very close to the accelerations at the ground level, Figure 2.3.2.
18
Sa/g 4) Soft clay and sand 0.9 3) Deep non-cohesive soils (H>80m) 2) Stiff soils (H<50m) 1) Rock 0.3
0.6
0.5
1.0
1.5
T (seg)
Figure 2.3.2 Typical period range in confined masonry constructions. Statistic values for different types of soils; Decanini and Payer [17]
2.4
Several studies reveal that masonry construction is the most common solution for housing construction in Latin America. Mainly two types of masonry are used: adobe (sun-dried mud blocks) and confined brick masonry. During the recent earthquakes analyzed, adobe construction and un-reinforced brick masonry had the highest rate of damage or collapse, and in general good performance was observed in confined or reinforced brick masonry housing. The seismic behavior of confined masonry buildings has been generally satisfactory and could be found undamaged even in the most heavily damaged areas. Nevertheless, significant damages have been observed in near-epicentral regions during strong ground shaking, Meli et al. [6]. A summary of observed behavior of confined masonry dwellings during past seismic events is presented next, together with several examples of good and poor housing construction practices. Typically damage patterns observed are: 1) Shear diagonal failure of walls, 2) Shear and bending failure of heads and feet of reinforced columns, 3) Separation of columns from walls, and 4) Collapse of wood slabs, hollow brick joist slabs and brick jack arch slabs, 5) Another main structural deficiencies for this construction type lies in the widely different wall densities in the two orthogonal directions. This deficiency may be eliminated with appropriate
19
architectural design. This construction type is otherwise expected to demonstrate good seismic performance.
The magnitude Mw=6.2 earthquake occurred in an epicentral area near the cities of Armenia and Pereira, with populations of 270.000 and 380.000, respectively. These were the largest cities affected by the earthquake although other smaller cities were also severely damaged. The total number of deaths in Armenia alone was about 1.000, and about 5.000 people were injured in this city. Armenia was the city that suffered the highest rate of deaths and damage in dwellings, Rodriguez and Blondet [18]. Extensive structural damage occurred in some of the newly constructed confined masonry walls, in which adjacent masonry walls were separated from the reinforced concrete confining columns, as shown in Figure 2.4.1.
Figure 2.4.1 Damage to reinforced concrete column in confined masonry wall due to 1999 Colombia earthquake, Yoshimura et al. [12]
20
On September 30, 1999 at 11:31:00 h (local time), a magnitude Mw=7.5 earthquake occurred with its epicenter located southeast form the city of Puerto Escondido, Oaxaca. Observations made during a visit to the affected region on the behaviour of confined masonry showed no structural damage, only cracks is walls as is illustrated in Figure 2.4.2 and 2.4.3. It is estimated that 40% of the walls present diagonal cracks this is a direct consequence of construction problems observed, like over-reinforcement and insufficient anchorage between beams, columns, slabs and foundations, Lpez Btiz et al. [19].
Figure 2.4.2 Cracks observed in confined masonry after the Oaxaca earthquake 1999, Lpez Btiz et al. [19]
Figure 2.4.3 Damage resulting from an inadequate distribution of the confining elements, Lpez Btiz et al. [19]
21
Also a hospital under construction suffered damage during the 30 of September earthquake. This building was built of a mix between confined masonry and frames of reinforced concrete localized in the frontal and lateral parts of the construction. Both structures suffer damage as is showed in Figure 2.4.4.
Figure 2.4.4 Damage in a hospital during the Oaxaca earthquake in Mexico, Lpez Btiz et al. [19]
The main shock of this earthquake occurred at 17:33, Saturday the 13th of January 2001. Its Magnitude was Mw=7.6. The epicenter, 100km southwest of the city of San Miguel, El Salvador, was located off coast of Central America, Yoshimura and Kuroki [20]. A large number of the buildings of confined masonry wall construction exist in El Salvador, but most were not severely damaged during the earthquake. A few rare cases of damage to confined masonry buildings show where hollow concrete block walls and clay masonry brick walls were severely damaged. In the building shown in Figure 2.4.5, a concrete block masonry wall has separated into parts due to shear cracking, and part of the wall has separated from its adjacent RC confining column and overturned in the out-of-plane direction. Also, shear cracks formed in the clay brick masonry walls of the building in Figure 2.4.6 have penetrated the RC confining columns. This damage seems to have been caused by pounding from a collapsed building rather than by ground shaking.
22
Figure 2.4.5 Failure of a hollow concrete-block masonry wall. The hollow concrete block units are separated from the RC confining column, Yoshimura and Kuroki [20]
Figure 2.4.6 Damage to a confined clay-brick masonry wall in Usulutan, Yoshimura and Kuroki [20]
The earthquake occurred in the coastal region of the state of Colima and had a magnitude of about 7.6 Mw. From 13.500 dwellings reported damaged, about 2.700 collapsed. Confined masonry dwellings suffered mostly minor damage and most damage was concentrated in dwellings of un-reinforced masonry or adobe, Rodriguez and Blondet [18]. Only some fissures appear in the confined masonry, this was a direct product of the bad construction of the tie-columns and bond-beams.
23
Damage to confined masonry in Per was reported in the following years, Loaiza and Blondet [21]: The 12 November 1996 Nazca, Per Earthquake: the 12 November 1996 Mw =7.7 Per subduction zone earthquake occurred off the coast of southern Peru, near the intersection of the South American trench and the highest topographical point of the subducting Nazca Ridge. Some damage was found in confined masonry after the earthquake. Figure 2.4.7 shows a slender wall in the right.
The 23 June 2001 Atico, Per Earthquake: in the late afternoon of June 23, 2001, a colossal earthquake with a magnitude of Mw=8.4 took place in the coastal waters off the District of Arequipa and the town of Atico, Per. The magnitude of the event makes it the largest in the world in the last 25 years. This earthquake caused nearly 2000 deaths, 3.000 injuries, 26.000 homes destroyed and 34.000 damaged homes and left 190.000 people homeless. Confined masonry walls have generally shown a good seismic performance, and no significant damage was found during this earthquake in Per.
Figure 2.4.7 Photograph illustrating typical damage in confined masonry, 1996 Nazca earthquake, Loaiza and Blondet [21]
This was an interplate event in the subducted Nazca plate, with Mw = 7.8. Its epicenter was located 20km from the Pacific coast of central Chile. This earthquake is considered one of the most important experienced in Chile in the 20th century and has been compared to the great 1906 Valparaiso earthquake. Most of the severe damage occurred in adobe dwellings in rural
24
areas, particularly near Llolleo, where an acceleration record had a peak ground acceleration of 0.67g, Rodriguez and Blondet [18].
The epicentre of the destructive San Juan, Argentina earthquake of November 23, 1977 was located near the eastern slopes of the Andes Mountains approximately 80km northeast of the city of San Juan, capital of San Juan province. On the basis of teleseismic and local seismograph data, the earthquake has been assigned a magnitude of 7.4 (Ms), a depth of 30km or less. The main shock was followed by a large aftershock sequence including at least one magnitude 6 event and was felt throughout much of southern South America, including Buenos Aires 950km to the southeast and Sao Paulo 2.100km to the northeast. The earthquake caused extensive damage in the Province of San Juan, particularly in the towns of Bermejo and Caucete, respectively located approximately 60km south southeast and 70km southwest of the epicentre. Most notable effects of the earthquake included vast areas of liquefaction (hundreds of square kilometers), complete or partial collapse of hundreds of adobe dwellings, and damage to numerous cylindrical wine storage tanks. Approximately 65 persons were killed, 284 injured and 20.000 to 40.000 left homeless, Rojahn, Brogan and Slemmons [22]. Most of the adobe dwellings and un-reinforced masonry wall buildings collapse, including the building which housed the towns electric power generating plant. Recently constructed reinforced and confined masonry walls buildings that where designed to resist earthquakes, on the other hand, where not damage, Figure 2.4.8. As indicated by the bed in the center of this photograph taken eight days after the earthquake, some residents of Bermejo chose to sleep outdoors after the earthquake. In Figure 2.4.9 proportions of damage for different dwellings are given.
Figure 2.4.8 Undamaged recently constructed reinforced masonry dwelling in Bermejo, 60km southsoutheast of the epicenter, Rojahn, Brogan and Slemmons [22]
25
Soil failure
Confined masonry
Un-reinforced masonry
Adobe dwellings
Recoverable
Damage of consideration
No significant damage
Figure 2.4.9 Damage in masonry in Caucete earthquake, 1977 Argentina. Decanini, Payer and Terzariol [4]
26
The 1985 Michoacan earthquake was the result of the subduction of the Cocos Plate under the continent and has been classified as of the interplate type. Several reports have been published on observed damage in structures during this earthquake. Most of these reports describe damage in Mexico City. Little information can be found on the behavior of masonry dwellings near the epicentral location the Pacific coast. However, it is accepted that most of the damage occurred in Mexico City, with little or no damage in masonry dwellings in either Mexico City or in the area near the epicenter, Rodriguez and Blondet [18]. No important damage or collapse was found in buildings of confined masonry in the city of Mexico. In particular, no damage was found in dwellings of resent construction that follow the code regulations. In the epicentral zone some damage was found.
A devastating earthquake hit the city of Bam in the south of Iran at 5:26 a.m. local time, Friday, 26 December 2003. Based on the government of Iran's February estimate, the earthquake caused more than 43.000 deaths, 30.000 injuries, and left 70.000 homeless. It caused extensive damage to residential and commercial buildings and emergency response facilities. Essential buildings usually play a very important role in emergency response, but this was not the case in the Bam earthquake. Damage to the fire station, hospitals, and municipal and communications buildings caused serious problems in emergency response soon after the earthquake, Sassan Eshghi and Kiarash Naserasadi [23]. Confined masonry demonstrated good seismic performance. All structural walls of all masonry buildings, one or two stories, irrespective of whether they are constructed with bricks, cement blocks or stone, confining elements must be constructed. Vertical and horizontal confining tie-columns and bond-beams provide integrity for the building and make a seismic resistant structure. By constructing tie-columns in the main corners of the buildings, the connection of walls at the intersections can be maintained. It should be noted that good seismic performance of confining ties could be expected only if the ties are well executed. In other words, the ties with poor quality of concrete are not able to develop a seismic resistant mechanism. In order to have a three-dimensional resisting system, tie-columns should be properly connected at all intersection points to tie-beams. If there is no suitable detailing for reinforcing bars in the concrete joints, the building can not stand against earthquakes. Moreover, the distance between axes of two successive tie-columns should be limited to 5 meters. The confined masonry buildings, which did not observe the abovementioned points, failed during the Bam Earthquake, Kooroush Nasrollahzadeh Nesheli [24].
27
Figure 2.4.10 Vertical and horizontal confining elements maintain the stability of the building, Kooroush Nasrollahzadeh Nesheli [24]
Anothers earthquake cause: technical school at Avaj, Qasvin province is designed by ORDENS and constructed of confined masonry walls, Figure 2.4.11. It has survived the earthquake while a neighbouring building was totally destroyed. It has brick walls anchored to the foundations and to the rigid floors and roof by means of tie-columns and ring beams, Usam Ghaidan [25].
Figure 2.4.11 Confined masonry wall in Iran that survive the earthquake, Usam Ghaidan [25]
In the1998 Mionica (magnitude Mw=5.7) and the 1999 Trstenik (magnitude Mw=5.1), damage to confined masonry buildings was not extensive. Figure 2.4.12 shows damage to masonry buildings in the 1998 Mionica earthquake. A number of older un-reinforced masonry buildings were damaged in the earthquake however confined masonry buildings performed
28
well and did not suffer any significant damage, as illustrated in the figure, Nikola Muravljov, Radovan Dimitrijevic [26].
Figure 2.4.12 Damage to masonry building in the 1998 Mionica earthquake, Nikola Muravljov, Radovan Dimitrijevic [26]
29
Chapter 3. Models
3. RESISTING MECHANISMS
3.1 Resisting mechanism
Under an earthquake, the walls are subjected to gravitational and seismic loads as is shown in Figure 3.1.1. Tensions are generated in the masonry panel by the combination of the gravitational loads and the oscillating earthquake loads. The slab acts like a rigid diaphragm and transfer the loads directly to the walls parallels to the seismic action, M2. The inertial forces originated in the walls perpendicular to the seismic action (M1) are also transfer to the wall M2 in part by the slab and by the connections between the two walls. It is observed that the resistance to the seismic loads is provided by the wall M2, parallel to the seismic action. Figure 3.1.1 and 3.1.2, before and during the earthquake respectively, illustrate the loads and the tensions originated in the resisting wall M2. This masonry panel will be subjected to flexion with compression and shear. In constructions of low height, the shear will be predominant effort.
Rigid diaphragm
Figure 3.1.1 Left: Distribution of seismic loads in the building; Right: tension originated by the gravitational loads before the earthquake, Bustos [10]
30
Chapter 3. Models
Gravitational loads Tensions originated by gravitational and seismic loads Seismic action
Figure 3.1.2 Tensions in the confined masonry wall originated by gravitational and seismic loads during the earthquake, Bustos [10]
Under these loads, confined masonry can be modeled to resist the actions in: two confining columns (a1), two confining beams (a2) and the masonry panel can behave like two diagonals, one in compression (a4) and the other one in tension (a3), Figure 3.1.3. Hs
a2
Hs
a1 a3 a4
a1
a2
Figure 3.1.3 Resisting mechanisms, Universidad Nacional de Crdoba [16]
In this way two resisting mechanisms are generated: A and B, Figure 3.1.4. In the resisting mechanism A, the diagonal is under compression. Under the action of low amplitude forces the diagonal a3 may fail in tension, and mechanism A is the only one left to resist the seismic loads.
31
Chapter 3. Models
Hs/2
Figure 3.1.4 Resisting mechanisms of confined masonry walls, Universidad Nacional de Crdoba [16]
It is very important to remark the fact of having links between the walls panel for a good behaviour under an earthquake action. They must perform a rigid box for an efficient load transmission. To materialize the previous condition it is necessary to have slabs that behave as nondeformable diaphragms and sufficient anchorage of reinforcement in the confinement elements, Figure 3.1.5. In this way the mechanism of walls and interconnected floor slabs are able to distribute the lateral forces to the walls parallels to the seismic action. Figure 3.1.6 presents the consequences of a bad connection between slabs-walls and wallswalls. In this case, due to a wrong distribution of forces the panel M2 has an important bending moment in the perpendicular direction.
32
Chapter 3. Models
Figure 3.1.5 Non-deformable diaphragms and good connection between walls allowing the correct distribution of the seismic action. Decanini and Payer [17]
Figure 3.1.6 Deformable slab and no capacity of load distribution. Consequence: An important bending moment in wall M2 is generated. Decanini and Payer [17]
33
4. EXPERIMENTAL TESTS
The results of experimental tests concerning confined masonry walls are summarized and discussed in this chapter. Dynamic behaviour of confined masonry walls test using shaking tables or cycling loading are described with the correspond results of cracks patterns, hysteretic behaviour, energy dissipation, stiffness degradation and other mechanical characteristics. Experimental tests concerning the study of the influence of openings and distance between tie-columns in the strength of the confined masonry are given as well.
4.1
4.1.1 Assessment of the response of Mexican confined masonry structure through shaking table test, Alcocer et al [27] Little information is presently available on the response of three-dimensional confined masonry structures subjected to controlled dynamic excitations, like those applied through shaking tables tests. The dynamic behaviour of two small-scale confined masonry buildings tested in shaking table is discussed. Specimens were half-scale models of typical low-cost housing buildings of one and three stories constructed in Mexico, hereafter referred to as M1 and M3 specimens respectively. Models were subjected to a series of seismic motions characteristic of Mexican subduction events recorded in the epicentral region. Walls were made of hand-made solid clay bricks confined by reinforced concrete tie-columns and bond-beams. In the direction of the earthquake-simulator motion (E-W), three wall axes were built, Figure 4.1.1. The facade walls had door and window openings, whereas the middle walls were solid. In the prototype, the middle wall axis divides two adjacent dwellings. In the transverse direction (N-S), four walls were built to improve the gravity load distribution among walls, and to control possible torsional deformations. Models were symmetrical and the wall distribution was uniform over the specimen height.
34
Tie-column and bond-beam reinforcement was made of four longitudinal wires and hoop reinforcements spaced at 100mm. In M3, aimed at increasing wall shear strength, controlling damage and achieving a more stable behaviour, hoop spacing was reduced to 30mm at tiecolumns ends. Floor systems were cast-in-place reinforced concrete solid slabs supported on bond-beams. Slabs were reinforced with 4,76mm diameter deformed wires, spaced each 150mm in both directions. The models were built on a steel platform, Figure 4.1.2.
35
Two earthquake motions recorded in epicentral regions in Mexico were used as basis for the testing program. One was the motion recorded in Acapulco, Guerrero, in April 25, 1989, during Mw=6.8 earthquake with PGA=0.34g. The other was that recorded in Manzanillo, Colima, in October 10, 1995, during Mw=8.0 earthquake with PGA=0.40g.
TEST RESULTS
Analysis of data confirmed that shear deformations controlled the response like is showed in Figure 4.1.3. In M1, damage was mainly characterized by horizontal and inclined cracks. The first inclined cracks formed near the wall center, and propagated towards the corners of tiecolumns ends, except for walls MS4 and MN4, where behavior was dominated by a shearsliding mechanism (horizontal cracks at the walls base) and inclined cracks in the lower part. First diagonal cracking occurred at a drift ratio to 0.36%. Crack propagation into the tiecolumns ends, thus shearing off these elements, was recorded at a drift ratio to 0.67%. At the end of the test runs, maximum recorded drift ratio was 1.83%. In M3, damage was mainly concentrated in the first story, ground floor. In general, walls exhibited one or two large inclined cracks at 45-deg (X-shaped). First diagonal cracks formed at a drift ratio to 0.25%. Penetration of inclined cracking to tie-columns ends was recorded at a drift ratio to 0.43%. A full soft-story mechanism was readily observed during test runs for which the maximum recorded drift ratio was 1.75%. In the second story, few horizontal cracks at the base of the walls were observed, whereas in the third story no cracking was observed.
36
Based on the failure mode observed, the analytical model for design and assessment could be simplified by assuming that all inelastic deformations would take place at the first story and would be controlled by shear.
Hysteretic loops were typical of confined masonry structures. The elastic limit was defined by the occurrence of the first inclined cracking in the masonry wall; strength was achieved when the maximum base shear was attained; and the ultimate limit state was considered at a lateral drift ratio when 20 percent reduction in strength was recorded, Figure 4.1.4.
Figure 4.1.4 Response envelope for M1 and M3; MCBC: Mexico City Building Code, Alcocer et al. [27]
37
The measured response characteristics are shown in Table 4.1.1. Cycles within the elastic limit experienced some hysteretic attributed to wall flexural cracking at initial stages. As it is common in confined masonry structures, specimens attained their maximum strength at loads higher than those associated to first inclined cracking. Specimen M1 showed stable and symmetric loops up to large drift ratios, whereas in M3, hysteretic curves were stable and symmetric up to the strength limit state, after which a severe strength and stiffness decay, because of damage over the panels and at tie-columns ends, was developed. As it is customary in shear-governed members subjected to inelastic deformations, response curves exhibited severe pinching, especially at very large lateral drift ratios associated to failure of the structure. In M3, at the ultimate limit state, a fast degrading process, involving sliding along the first story inclined cracking and crushing of masonry and concrete, was clearly observed. It was apparent that stories 2 and 3 laterally deformed very slightly, suggesting a rigid body motion over the first story. This phenomenon led to a concentration of deformations and damage at the first story which performed as a soft-story with shear governed mechanism.
Stiffness decay was observed at low drift ratios, even before first inclined cracking became apparent. This phenomenon is attributed to incipient wall flexural cracking, and perhaps, to some micro-cracking in masonry materials, local loss of mortar bond and adjustment of brick position. After first inclined cracking, but before reaching strength, the decay increased with drift ratio. At larger drift ratios, decay remained nearly constant. At this stage, stiffness decay is associated to cracking and crushing in masonry walls and RC confinement members. The energy dissipated during the tests was computed as the area within the hysteretic loops from the base sheardrift relations. M1 dissipated, in absolute terms, more energy that M3; moreover, at same drift ratios, M1 also dissipated more energy. At present, it is contended that the failure mode of M1, characterized by shear and sliding mechanisms, contributed to the difference in behaviour in both specimens.
38
Two models of a three-storey confined masonry buildings have been tested on a simple uniaxial earthquake simulator. The models have been made at 1:5 scale according to the assumptions of the theory of complete models. Both models where identical and represented a typical three- to four-storey house with structural walls at 5.78m in one and 4.65m distance in the other direction, designed according to Chilean engineering practice. Since the distribution of structural walls of the model was not symmetric in both directions, model M1 was tested in the longitudinal, whereas model M2 was tested by subjecting it to the simulated earthquake ground motion in the transverse direction. By testing the model transversally, the possible torsional effects have been studied. The building was a three-storey structure, composed of ground floor and two typical storeys with storey height 2.47m. According to the design, structural walls were built with hollow blocks units: in the ground floor, the thickness of the walls was 17.5cm, in the upper storeys; however, the thickness of the walls was reduced to 14cm. Lime-cement mortar in the proportion of 1:0.25:4 (cement: lime: sand) was used to construct the walls. Vertical tiecolumns were reinforced with 48mm bars and were grouted with concrete with a characteristic compressive strength 16MPa. Bearing walls were supported by a continuous reinforced concrete strip foundation. Floors were cast in situ monolithic reinforced-concrete slabs 12cm thick, roof structure was wooden. Typical plan and vertical section of smaller, square unit, which has been used as a basis for the design of the models, are shown in Figure 4.1.5 and Figure 4.1.6. The distribution of confining vertical element, tie-columns can be also seen in these figures. Reinforcement of floor slabs, tie-columns and bond-beams are illustrated in Figure 4.1.7.
39
Figure 4.1.5 Typical floor plan of prototype building, used as a basis for the design of 1:5 scale models, Tomazevic et al. [28]
Figure 4.1.6 Typical section prototype building, used as a basis for the design of 1:5 scale models, Tomazevic et al. [28]
40
Figure 4.1.7 Reinforcement of floor slabs and vertical and horizontal bonding elements, Tomazevic et al. [28]
Both models have been tested by subjecting them to a sequence of simulated earthquake ground motion with increased intensity of motion during each subsequent test run, Figures 4.1.8 to 4.1.10. During the shaking-table tests, the displacement and acceleration response of the models has been measured at three points at each storey level. The changes of strain in vertical reinforcement of typical tie-columns have been also followed. Similar behaviour of both models has been observed, with symmetrical amplitudes of vibration at both sides of the
41
models, despite the expected torsional behaviour in the case of the model tested transversally. As a result of relatively high wall/floor area ratio in both directions of the tested structures, the observed seismic resistance was very high, in both cases. However, significant strength degradation has been observed after the attained maximum value, with increased damage to the masonry wall and subsequent falling off of the masonry. Simulation of seismic loads was made with the first 24 seconds of ground acceleration record of Montenegro earthquake of April 15, 1979, N-S component of the Petrovac record, with peak ground acceleration of 0.43g has been used for simulation of earthquake ground motion. Several individual test runs in the shaking-table were made, the characteristic of parameters use are described in Table 4.1.2.
Figure 4.1.9 Left: instrumentation of models: accelerometers and LVDT-s on model M1; Right: strain gauges on reinforcing steel of vertical confinement of model M1, Tomazevic et al. [28]
42
Figure 4.1.10 Left: instrumentation of models: accelerometers and LVDT-s on model M2; Right: strain gauges on reinforcing steel of vertical confinement of model M2, Tomazevic et al. [28]
Table 4.1.2 Characteristic parameters of shaking-table motion recorded during individual test runs, Tomazevic et al. [28]
TEST RESULTS
Development of cracks and damaged propagation in the structural elements of both models during the shaking-table tests has been inspected visually.
43
In model M1 no damage was observed after the initial phases of tests, test run R5 and R25. The first tiny crack was at the first floor after the test run R50, the real initiation of diagonally oriented cracks in the walls in the first storey was test run R75. The cracks were not all oriented in the same direction. No cracks could be seen in the walls orthogonal to the direction of seismic motion. During the test run R100, the existing cracks propagated, Figure 4.1.11(a). In some walls, new diagonal cracks developed, oriented in the other diagonal direction. Some horizontal cracks have been also observed in the parapets, passing through the mortar joints. The damage was serious during run R150, Figure 4.1.11(b). Most of the cracks passed through mortar joints and it start the crushing of masonry units in the middle. Severe stiffness degradation was observed as a result of damage to wall, occurred during test run R150, and, consequently, large displacements amplitudes of vibration have been measured, no damage has been observed to the walls, orthogonal to seismic excitation. Also, no damage has been observed to confining elements. Heavy damage occurred during test run R200, Figure 4.1.12 and Figure 4.1.13. In the first floor, all the walls oriented in the direction of excitation disintegrated and fall out of the confinement: in the middle sections of the walls, masonry units crushed, and at vertical borders the walls separated from the confining elements. This indicates that tie-columns and bond-beams are only active until a certain level of lateral displacements; afterwards they cannot prevent the disintegration of the masonry, unless it is reinforced with horizontal, mortar bed-joint reinforcement. During test run R200, the central wall partly collapsed. Parts of the wall failed in shear, in some parts; however, sliding shear failure was the reason of collapse.
Figure 4.1.11 Model M1, northern side-propagation of cracks at the eastern corner, Tomazevic et al. [28]
44
Figure 4.1.12 Left: Model M1: middle pier after test run R200; Right: Model M1: detail of damage to tiecolumn after test run R200, Tomazevic et al. [28]
Figure 4.1.13 Model M1, southern side, cracks after test runs R100, R150 and R200, Tomazevic et al. [28]
45
On the other hand, the behaviour of model M2 during shaking tests was basically similar as the behaviour of model M1. Obviously, different position of the model on the platform during testing and non-symmetry of structural system with regard to the transversal axis caused slightly different damage propagation. First cracks in the walls of model M2 developed during moderate excitation in the beginning of shaking test (R25). Diagonally oriented cracks in the walls were not located symmetrically: on the southern side of the model, cracks have occurred at the eastern part of the shear-wall. After the run R50, the crack pattern became symmetric, since cracks in the other; previously not damage parts of the shear-walls have been also observed. In both walls, diagonal cracks have been oriented from the corners at the bottom to the corners at the top of the model. No cracks have been observed in the middle part of the shear-walls. During test run R75, the cracks propagated along the whole height of the model. In the walls where diagonal cracks in one direction have been observed after test run R25, cracks in the other diagonal direction have occurred. In the central shear-wall hardly visible cracks developed in both diagonal directions. Model M2 was seriously damaged during test run R100. A system of cracks, oriented in both diagonal directions, developed in all elements of all shear-walls in the direction of seismic motion. Most of the cracks passed through mortar joints and the first signs of crushing of masonry unites have been observed in the middle. During test run R150 the damage to model walls increased. The walls of the first and second storey stated to falling of. Initialization of micro-concrete at the joints between vertical and horizontal tying elements has been also observed. The extent of damage to model M2 during test run R200 significantly changed the dynamic characteristics of the model. Practically all walls in the first storey failed: the masonry units crushed and the broken parts of the walls simply disintegrated and fell out, so that the model was left standing mainly due to confining elements, without any masonry infill. The damage in the upper storeys did not increase. The model M2 was submitted to a repeated strong excitation R200/1. It did not cause further increase of damage to the structure, so the model was subjected to a series of sinusoidal motion which followed the decayed natural frequency of the masonry in the first storey, increased immensely, the model started pounding with the rigid steel supporting structure, fixed at a distance of about 10cm from the model to the foundation slab. As the model consequently leaned to the steel structure, and did not fall on the opposite side, the testing was terminated. The collapse mechanism is illustrated in Figure 4.1.14 and Figure 4.1.15.
46
47
4.1.3 Seismic behaviour of a three-story half scale confined masonry structure, San Bartolom et al. [29]
In this research it was study, analytically and experimentally, the seismic behaviour of a reduced scale model (1:2.5) through shaking table test. The walls represent one perimetric wall of a 3-story building, made of clay masonry confined by reinforced concrete elements. The geometry of the specimen is given in Figure 4.1.16. Reinforced concrete slabs with added load were used in the model. The specimen weight was 57.78KN; therefore the axial stress in the first-story walls was 0.33MPa.
Figure 4.1.16 Geometry of the 3-storey confined masonry specimen, San Bartolom et al. [29]
The masonry units were solid clay bricks of 11MPa of compressive strength. The mortar was 1:4 (Portland cement: sand) with a compressive strength of 6MPa. The concrete of the tiecolumns and bond-beams had a compressive strength of 15MPa and elastic modulus Ec=13700MPa. The axial compression was tested with four masonry prisms and it results of 6MPa and the elastic modulus was E=1510MPa. To obtain the shear strength, four square masonry prisms were tested to diagonal compression, giving a shear strength of 0.8MPa and a shear modulus G=450MPa. Vertical reinforcement in each column was 4#5.5mm wire steel. The yield stress was 220MPa and the ultimate stress was 316MPa. Horizontal reinforcement was added in the first-story in a small ratio of 0.016% (1#1.8 every 3 layers anchorage in the columns), even that in Per it is not common to use horizontal reinforcement in confined masonry walls. The specimen was design according to the Peruvian code (ININVI). Flexural and shear capacity of the walls were computed, Table 4.1.3. The shear capacity of each wall was evaluated using the formula (1) proposed by San Bartolom, 1990. The results of the shear
48
capacity were greater than the values associated to the yielding flexural capacity and also to the maximum flexural capacity; therefore, a flexural failure was expected.
Table 4.1.3 Assumed force distribution in one specimen wall, San Bartolom et al. [29]
In the dynamic test the input wave was the L component of the May 31, 1970 earthquake, recorded in Lima. The horizontal excitation was in the wall direction and the peak platform displacement for each run is shown in Table 4.1.4.
Table 4.1.4 Shaking table test runs, San Bartolom et al. [29]
TEST RESULTS
In run A no cracking occurred. At run B a flexural crack appeared at the walls base, causing the yield of the vertical reinforcement. The shear failure in both first-story walls occurred in run C, at the end of the test the specimen was in an irreparable condition as is shown in Figure 4.1.17. During this run the horizontal reinforcement broke, showing that it effectively worked under dynamic conditions, including the sliding of the upper stories across the first-story diagonal cracks.
49
First flexural crack prediction: a moment M= 31.4KN-m was obtained at the base for one wall, while experimental result in run B was M= 32.9KN-m. Shear strength prediction: the formula 1 was applied for the wall and the shear strength obtained was of 22KN. This prediction is 13% less than the experimental value obtained in run C (24.9KN), so the correlation is acceptable. The following comments can be made: The failure of the specimen was concentrated only at the first story, while the upper stories the actual shear force never surpassed the theoretical shear strength, so their failure was avoided.
Referring to the ductility factor the obtained value was 1.8, this calculated with the shear forces obtained, Figure 4.1.18. This value is less than the Peruvian Code specification for confined masonry Rd= 2.5, so the Code does not appear to be conservative.
The platform acceleration was 0.54g at the instant the shear failure occurred. This value has never been recorded in Per.
The research has shown that a shear failure is possible to occur when a strong earthquake hits a confined masonry structure, even in the case that the structure satisfies the ideal characteristics to obtain a flexural failure. Therefore, the design process of a confined masonry buildings should include the possibility of a shear type of failure to avoid structural collapse.
50
Figure 4.1.18 Left: Total base shear force vs. displacement at level 1 in run C; Right: Lateral force in one wall at the time of maximum base shear force at each run (A, B and C), San Bartolom et al. [29]
4.1.4 Pseudo dynamic tests of confined masonry buildings, Scaletti et al. [30]
Pseudo dynamic tests were carried out to investigate the behaviour of confined masonry structures. Two-story one-bay specimens, with two parallel walls connected by stiff horizontal slabs, were used for the tests. One full scale specimen and one half scale model were built based on Peruvian standards for confined masonry. Figure 4.1.19 show the dimensions of the specimens. Scale factors were 2 for displacement, 1 for acceleration as for strain, angular distortion, stress and elastic modulus, square root of 2 for time and 4 for mass and force. The mass of the full scale specimen was 15.26tn (including added masses of 2.54tn on each slab).
51
The materials used for the specimens were: clay bricks units laid with a 1:4 (cement: sand) mortar. The concrete used for footings, columns and slabs had a nominal strength of 20MPa. Columns were reinforced with 4#3 longitudinal bars and stirrups #2 at 14cm, except near the joints, were 10cm spacing was used. The yielding stress of the steel was 410MPa. The test program included: static test of half scale model under monotonic loading, shaking table test of half scale model and pseudo dynamic test of one full scale specimen and one half scale model. Steady-state resonance test were performed using a small rotating eccentric weight exciter, producing a horizontal sinusoidal force parallel to the walls. Figure 4.1.20 shows typical resonance curves, obtained for the full scale model. Damping was estimated by considering the specimen as a one degree of freedom system and using the bandwidth method. Modal shapes were obtained from the ratios of acceleration amplitudes at resonance. Natural periods, frequencies and percentage of critical damping of the specimens tested are also showed in Figure 4.1.20.
Figure 4.1.20 Left: resonance curves for full scale specimen; Right: natural periods, frequencies, damping and modal shapes; Scaletti et al. [30]
For the PD tests of the half scale model the input signal was the same used for the shaking table test. It consisted of a series of 5Hz sine waves with different amplitudes, Figure 4.1.21. During the first stage of the test, while the specimen had little damage, this 5Hz base motion was equivalent to a static loading. The maximum acceleration in the input signal is 1.3g, although the specimen failed during the stage with maximum acceleration of 1.06g. The integration time interval was 0.004sec.
52
The full scale specimen was tested with a ground acceleration corresponding to the NO8E component of the Lima earthquake of October 10, 1966. The test was repeated four times, scaling the record as required to have a maximum ground acceleration of 293.6gal (original record), 400, 800 and 1200gal. the integration time interval was 0.004sec, Figure 4.1.21.
Figure 4.1.21 Left: input signal for PD test of half scale model; Right: input signal for PD test of full scale model; Scaletti et al. [30]
TEST RESULTS
For the half scale model thin cracks were observed at the base of the walls from the beginning of the test. Diagonal cracks developed during the second stage and became increasingly important after 4 seconds. A large strain increment in the longitudinal steel reinforcement of the columns occurred at the same time. The failure mode was shear, involving both masonry units and mortar joints. Diagonal cracks were also observed in the second level, this damage can be related with defects on the construction in one of the walls. A plot of base shear versus first story displacement is shown in figure 4.1. The behaviour was almost linear during the first two stages of test, while the story drift angle was less than 1/1000. Stiffness degradation and hysteretic were important from the third stage. The right part of Figure 4.1.22 compares envelope curves from static and dynamic tests reported by San Bartolom et al., 1991, with those from the PD tests. Good agreement was found between results of static and shaking table tests. Lower values obtained in the PD tests may be due to strain rate.
53
Figure 4.1.22 Left: base shear vs first story displacement, pseudo dynamic test of half scale model; Right: envelopes of base shear vs first story displacement of the half scale model; Scaletti et al. [30]
For the full scale model the failure mode was by shear. Cracks were noticeable in the first story walls after the 400gal earthquake. The second story walls remained practically undamaged. Table 4.1.5 lists maximum first floor displacement (u), maximum shear base shear (V), and predominant response period (T) for different levels of ground acceleration (a). Although maximum displacements and base shears correspond to only one point of each record, their relative magnitudes and the period elongation reflect the importance of nonlinearities in the response. The specimen failed at an average shear stress in the first level of 0.32MPa, considerably lower than that reached by the half scale model. The allowable design stress in the current Peruvian Code is 0.16MPa. First story displacement time histories and base shear time histories of the full scale model are shown in Figure 4.1.23
Table 4.1.5 First floor displacement, base shear and predominant period as a function of maximum ground acceleration, Scaletti et al. [30]
54
Figure 4.1.23 Left: first story displacement time histories of the full scale specimen; Right: base shear time histories of the full scale specimen, Scaletti et al. [30]
4.2
4.2.1 Experimental behaviour of masonry structural walls used in Argentina, Zabala et al. [5] Confined masonry is extensively used in seismic regions of Argentina. Experimental data about confined masonry built using local practice are very scarce and this lack of knowledge affects the seismic safety and the design practice of masonry structures. In order to obtain better knowledge about the seismic behaviour of confined masonry walls used in the seismic region of Argentina tests were performed on six full-scale model walls at the Earthquake Research Institute of the National University of San Juan (IDIA). The walls were built with handmade solid ceramic bricks, 18 cm wide. Wall confinement was provided by reinforced concrete columns, with nearly square sections, 20cm wide by the thickness of the wall. The design of the tested models was based on the typical building layout used by the San Juan Provincial Institute of Housing (IPV), and built with the recommendations given by the INPRES-CIRSOC 103 code. Model dimensions are showed in Figure 4.2.1.
55
The walls were tested under a prescribed constant vertical load and allowing free rotation of the upper end. The vertical load was applied through a stiff steel beam by means of two vertical servo-controlled actuators, Figure 4.2.2. The tests were performed by applying cycles of lateral displacements at the wall head. The instrumentation consisted of one displacement transducer controlling the horizontal displacement of the wall head, two vertical displacement transducers at both sides of the model, two diagonal displacement transducers, three load cells mounted in series with the hydraulic jacks and a number of strain gages applied to some columns reinforcement bars.
56
Figure 4.2.2 Outline of the test setup and its instrumentation, Zabala et al. [5]
TEST RESULTS
Table 4.2.1 summarizes the main features of the six tested walls. The models 1 to 4 developed the crack pattern presented in Figure 4.2.4. This pattern includes diagonal cracking of the masonry panel and partial separation of the confinement columns. These walls clearly show a shear failure, but sustained their strength for a displacement up to 20mm. None of these walls reached their theoretical flexural capacity and the final state was controlled by the columns shear strength. This is due to the fact that, under large displacements, diagonal cracking of masonry extended to the columns, Figure 4.2.3. Compression failure never occurred.
57
Table 4.2.1 Main features of the six tested walls, Zabala et al. [5]
Notes: (1) Considering the horizontal load applied at the horizontal actuator level, the applied vertical load and s= 420 MN/ m2 (yield stress of the steel) (2) Vur= (0.3 +0.6 mo)Bm. Where = compressive stress, mo = diagonal shear strength of small masonry probes. mo= 0.3 MN/ m2 (3) Additional strength due to horizontal masonry reinforcement.
58
Figure 4.2.4 Crack pattern developed in the first 4 testing walls, Zabala et al. [5]
Walls 5 and 6, having a shear capacity clearly larger than the flexural capacity, reached, by hardening of the vertical reinforcement bars, strength values substantially larger than the theoretical flexural capacity. Under the applied displacement cycles with increasing amplitude, it was observed that these walls (Figure 4.2.5) maintain their strength and their energy dissipation ability for larger displacement amplitudes than walls 1 to 4. Bending-induced horizontal cracking was observed and the separation between column and panel did not occur. The final state is controlled again by the shear strength of the column at the joints with the confinement beams.
Figure 4.2.5 Crack pattern developed in walls 5 and 6, Zabala et al. [5]
59
The INPRES-CIRSOC building code allows a reasonable estimation of the wall strength, based on measured strength in diagonal shear test of small masonry probes, only in the case of lightly reinforced columns, not providing larger flexural capacity than shear capacity (See Table 4.2.1). For larger reinforcement ratios of columns, the wall strength is controlled by the shear strength of the confinement columns and beam joints. The code should require the capacity design of columns and joints reinforcement, considering the maximum expected shear force induced by the compressed masonry strut, arising from the cracking pattern of the panel. For the used brick type, a compression failure of this strut is not likely to occur and therefore the wall strength becomes controlled by the vertical reinforcement of the columns. The amount of transverse reinforcement in critical zones of the confinement columns and beams normally used in practice is insufficient in order to sustain this shear force.
4.2.2 Behaviour of multi-perforated clay brick walls under earthquake type loading, Alcocer and Zepeda [31] To evaluate the behaviour and to develop analysis, design and construction guidelines of this type of brick walls, four large-scale isolated load-bearing walls were built and tested under constant vertical axial load and cyclic lateral loads. Previous research conducted on this issue made clear that the mode of failure of these bricks is quite brittle. On the other hand, its economic advantages compared to the traditional handmade bricks have made multi-perforated bricks an increasingly popular construction system for low-cost housing. The control specimen, N1, consisted of an un-reinforced wall panel, made of multi-perforated bricks, confined in its vertical edges with tie-columns built within hollow clay bricks, Figure 4.2.6. In specimens N2 and N3, the minimum horizontal reinforcement ratio as required by the Mexico City Building Code, was provided. N2 was confined with similar internal tiecolumns as in N1, whereas in N3 external reinforced concrete tie-columns were used. In specimen N4, the horizontal reinforcement ratio was almost four times the minimum value; internal tie-columns were built using special hollow pieces fabricated to achieve a larger tiecolumn cross sectional area.
60
TEST RESULTS
Final crack patterns and hysteretic loops are shown in Figure 4.2.7 and Figure 4.2.8 respectively. In N1, damage was mainly concentrated in two large inclined cracks that extended into the lower ends of the internal tie-columns. After the x crack pattern was formed, the wall lost its capacity for carrying vertical and lateral loads.
61
A more uniform distribution of cracks was observed in specimens with horizontal reinforcement; the larger the amount, the more uniformly distributed the cracking was. Main cracks were inclined at 45 and extended through bricks and mortar joints. At same drift levels, crack widths in horizontally reinforced specimens (i.e. N2 to N4) were smaller than those recorded in N1. Typically, flexural cracks formed at a drift angle of 0.09%; the x pattern of inclined cracking was formed at 0.15%. Model N2 abruptly failed after fracture of four horizontal wires, which led to a shear compression failure of few multi-perforated bricks along the crack (and along the internal compression strut), and to shearing off the lower ends of the tie-columns. Damage in specimen N3 was concentrated in the panel with extension of some fine cracks into the tie-column. Similarly to N2, some bricks exhibited spalling of their exterior walls after crushing or fracture of interior walls. Specimen N4 exhibited a very uniform distribution of fine cracks over the wall. Crushing and spalling of exterior brick walls in the second uppermost brick course triggered the failure. Analysis of strain gages on the horizontal reinforcement of N2 to N4 indicated that wires remained elastic only in N4. The most severe damage in tie-columns was observed in N1, although closely spaced crossties and hoops were placed at their ends. In the other specimens, horizontal reinforcement better controlled the wall shear deformations and clearly improved the stability of the behaviour after cracking, thus delaying the crack extension into the tie-columns. The inter-story drift angle R is defined as the ratio of the applied horizontal displacement measured at the slab level to the specimen height.
62
Figure 4.2.7 Final cracks patterns of the fourth specimens, Alcocer and Zepeda [31]
Based on the observations made during the tests, and on the analysis of the instrumentation, the following conclusions were developed: Masonry diagonal compressive strengths, related to design shear stresses, varied with the amount of mortar penetration into the multi-perforated bricks. Larger strengths were obtained with fluid mortars.
First inclined cracking occurred at a drift angle of 0.1%, disregarding the amount of horizontal reinforcement, as well as type and detailing of the tie-columns.
As compared to walls without panel reinforcement, walls reinforced horizontally with deformed cold-drawn small-diameter wires exhibited a superior behaviour in terms of lateral strength, deformation and energy dissipation capacities, strength degradation, damage distribution, and crack widths.
63
The increase in lateral strength was not linearly proportional to the amount of horizontal reinforcement. Moreover, the mode of failure is strongly dependent on the horizontal reinforcement ratio ph and its yield stress fyh.
The contribution of the horizontal reinforcement to the wall lateral strength was a function of the lateral displacement and the type of tie-column.
As compared to walls with internal tie-columns, the specimen with external RC tiecolumns exhibited higher lateral strength, stiffness, energy dissipation and deformation capacities and a more stable behaviour.
4.2.3 Experimental investigation of the seismic behaviour in full- scale prototypes of confined masonry walls, Decanini et al. [32] In this investigation test results obtained in the laboratory of the National University of Cordoba, Argentina are presented and discussed. In this test series, 8 confined masonry panels are subjected to the effects of horizontal loads simulating the seismic action. Four of the masonry panels were made of solid clay brick and the rest of hollow clay bricks. Confined masonry panel M1 was made of solid clay bricks and has not openings, M2 to M4 were made also of solid clay bricks but they present an opening in the middle of the panel. M5 and M6 were confined masonry panels made of hollow clay bricks without openings and finally walls M7 and M8 were also of hollow clay brick but with an opening in the centre of the panel. General dimensions of the prototypes are shown in Figure 4.2.9. They all were built
64
with the recommendations given by the INPRES-CIRSOC 103 code. The design of the tested models was based on the typical building layout used in Crdoba. The reinforcements used for both typologies are illustrated in Figure 4.2.10.
65
Figure 4.2.10 Left: Reinforcement of confined masonry of solid clay bricks; Right: reinforcement of confined masonry of hollow clay bricks, Decanini et al. [32]
The walls were tested allowing free rotation of the upper end. No vertical load was applied, Figure 4.2.11. The tests were performed by applying cycles of lateral displacements at the wall head. The loading device consisted in two Amsler jacks of 10tn of maximum capacity.
66
Figure 4.2.11 Test setup and its instrumentation, Decanini et al. [32]
TEST RESULTS
In Table 4.2.2, results are showed for the different models, also showing the maximum angular deformation, first cracking, ultimate cracking and maximum load achieved in the test. The following comments can be made: There is not substantial difference between the levels of loads reached by the force applied in one sense and the other of the different steps considered, although some differences are found in the values of maximum angular deformation.
In the walls made of solid clay bricks, the loads that correspond to the ultimate cracking are approximately twice the one that produces the initial cracking.
On the other hand, for walls made of hollow clay bricks the load that produced the ultimate cracking is only 20% higher than the one that produced the initial cracking.
The loads that produced initial cracking of the walls with openings are half of the load that produced the same effects in the wall without the openings.
Ultimate loads for masonry walls of solid clay bricks are 50% more than the maximum loads for masonry walls made of hollow clay bricks, but the load that produce the initial cracking is higher for the hollow clay bricks than for the solid clay bricks.
67
Table 4.2.2 Measured loads and angular deformations, Decanini et al. [32]
In Figure 4.2.12 final cracking pattern is showed for walls of solid clay bricks M3. The failure mechanisms in all the cases were due to shear. The maximum shear stresses for the panels of solid bricks were between 1.20kg/cm and 2.20 kg/cm. On the other hand for hollow bricks this maximum shear stress was around 1.00kg/cm and 1.30kg/cm. These values are less that the ones given by the INPRES-CIRSOC 103 code may be attributed to the poor resistance of the mortar joints utilized in the models.
68
Figure 4.2.12 Initial and ultimate cracks of the testing wall M3, Decanini et al. [32]
The reinforcement utilized in the tie-columns was 4 8mm for the walls conformed by solid bricks, that correspond two the minimum reinforcement recommended by the Argentinean code for seismic zone 3 and 4. And for the hollow bricks the reinforcement of the tie-columns was 4 6mm corresponding to seismic zones 1 and 2. All the tests showed that the bending strength of the walls was higher than the required in this experience. No flexural failure was registered. The stiffness reduction consequence of the non linear behaviour of the masonry panels observed is as follow: