Guidelines For The Seismic Assessment of Stone Masonry Structures

GUIDELINES FOR THE
SEISMIC ASSESSMENT OF
STONE-MASONRY STRUCTURES
July 2000
Technology Directorate
Architectural & Engineering Services
Real Property Services Branch
Public Works & Government Services Canada
Hull, Quebc
K1A 0S5
NOTICE
These guidelines are not to be interpreted as replacing or superseding applicable
building regulations. Neither PWGSC nor the contributing individuals and
organisations assume liability for the use of this document.
Copyright Public Works and Government Services Canada,
2000.
All right reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form, in
an electronic retrieval system or otherwise, without the prior written permission of
Public Works and Government Services Canada
Guidelines for TheSeismic Assessment of Stone-masonry Structures
PREFACE
Most stone-masonry structures were built at a time when seismic risk was not
considered in their design. Recent moderate to strong earthquakes have confirmed
the vulnerability of heritage buildings, especially those constructed with
unreinforced-masonry materials. Proper assessment of the seismic performance
and of the potential deficiency of existing heritage structures forms the basis for
determining the degree of intervention needed to preserve their heritage value.
Both Canada and the US have guidelines on the seismic evaluation of commonly
found brick masonry construction, but not on heritage stone-masonry buildings.
In view of the fact that many government buildings, such as Parliament Buildings,
legislature buildings, and city halls, are of stone-masonry construction and the lack
of evaluation and design guidelines for stone-masonry structures, Public Works
and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) decided to develop guidelines
specifically for the seismic assessment of stone-masonry structures.
The purpose of developing these guidelines is to provide technically sound
analytical tools and acceptable assessment criteria for the seismic evaluation of
stone-masonry structures. Engineers can use these guidelines to evaluate the
seismic capacity of stone-masonry structures and to advise building owners and
property managers of potential seismic risk to lives and safety. The guidelines are
also intended as a reference document for owners, building regulators, and
property managers. It is expected that such guidelines will lead to a more realistic
and cost-effective assessment of the seismic performance and needed upgrade of
stone-masonry buildings.
For more information, please contact:
Simon Foo, Ph.D. P.Eng.
Technology Directorate
Architectural & Engineering Services
Real Property Services Branch
Public Works & Government Services Canada
Hull, Quebec, Canada K1A 0S5
Tel: (819) 956-3402 Fax: (819) 956-3400 E-Mail:
simon.foo@pwgsc.gc.ca
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Dr. Samir E. Chidiac P.Eng. of CHIDIAC & Associates Limited and Dr. Simon
Foo P.Eng. are the principal contributors to the guideline development. PWGSC
would also like to acknowledge the following individuals and organisations for their
critical review of the guidelines and their comments:
D. Allen, National Research Council Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
L. Binda, Politecnico di Milano, Milano, Italy
M. Bruneau, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York, USA
C.R. Constantinescu, CHIDIAC & Associates Limited, Gloucester, Ontario,
Canada
L. Fontaine, Public Works & Government Services Canada, Ottawa, Ontario,
Canada
M. Green, Melvyn Green and Associates, Torrance, California, USA
M. Harajli, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon
K. Ibrahim, Public Works & Government Services Canada, Ottawa, Ontario,
Canada
A.H.P. Maurenbrecher, National Research Council Canada, Ottawa, Ontario,
Canada
C. Modena, Universita Degli Studi Di Padova, Padova, Italy
J.H. Rainer, Rainer Dynamics Inc., Richmond, British Columbia, Canada
D.E. Sporleder, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana, USA
S. Thomasen, Wiss Janney Elstner Associates, Inc., San Francisco, California,
USA
M. Tomazevic, Slovenian National Building & Civil Eng. Inst., Ljubljana,
Slovenija
C. Vollan, Wayte Blohm & Associates, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE.............................................................................................I
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ........................................................................II
TABLE OF CONTENTS........................................................................III
LIST OF TABLES............................................................................. VIII
LIST OF FIGURES...............................................................................IX
NOTATIONS.......................................................................................XI
GLOSSARY........................................................................................XV
1. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................1
1.1 Background..................................................................................1
1.2 Purpose of the guidelines.................................................................1
1.3 Basis of the guidelines.....................................................................2
1.3.1 Scope and limitations.................................................................2
1.3.2 Criteria..................................................................................2
1.3.3 Relationship to other documents and procedures...............................3
1.4 Contents of the guidelines................................................................3
1.4.1 I ntroduction............................................................................3
1.4.2 Earthquake behaviour of stone-masonry structures............................3
1.4.3 Procedure for seismic evaluation of structures..................................3
1.4.4 Modelling and analysis...............................................................4
1.4.5 Material properties of stone-masonry.............................................4
1.4.6 Engineering properties of stone-masonry........................................4
1.4.7 Seismic assessment criteria..........................................................4
1.4.8 Examples................................................................................4
1.5 Heritage considerations...................................................................4
2. EARTHQUAKE BEHAVIOUR OF STONE-MASONRY STRUCTURES......5
2.1 Background..................................................................................5
2.2 General observations......................................................................5
2.2.1 Method of construction ..............................................................6
2.2.2 Quality of materials and workmanship...........................................7
2.2.3 Type of diaphragm....................................................................7
2.2.4 Connection between structural subsystems.......................................9
2.3 Types of structural stone-masonry subsystems and typical earthquake
damage..............................................................................................9
2.3.1 Wall .................................................................................... 10
2.3.2 Lintel................................................................................... 12
iv
2.3.3 Arch.................................................................................... 12
2.3.4 Vault and dome...................................................................... 13
2.3.5 Buttress and flying buttress....................................................... 15
2.3.6 Tower .................................................................................. 16
2.3.7 Foundation subsystem.............................................................. 17
2.4 Types of non-structural stone-masonry subsystems and typical hazards.... 17
2.4.1 Veneers................................................................................ 18
2.4.2 Pinnacles.............................................................................. 18
2.4.3 Appendages, parapets, cornices, statues, and other ornaments ........... 18
2.4.4 Chimneys.............................................................................. 18
2.5 Structural checklist....................................................................... 18
3. PROCEDURE FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES............ 23
3.1 Introduction................................................................................ 23
3.2 Site investigation and data collection................................................ 23
3.2.1 Site visit prior to the undertaking of evaluation project..................... 23
3.2.2 Assembling building design data................................................. 24
3.2.2.1 Review of existing drawings and technical reports.................... 24
3.2.2.2 Review of repair and renovation work................................... 24
3.2.3 Site survey............................................................................ 24
3.2.4 Past earthquake performance..................................................... 24
3.2.5 Soil conditions....................................................................... 25
3.3 Identification of the structural and non-structural subsystems of the
building........................................................................................... 25
3.4 Analysis of the structure................................................................ 26
3.4.1 Equivalent static analysis.......................................................... 26
3.4.1.1 Base shear ....................................................................... 26
3.4.1.2 Lateral force distribution.................................................... 26
3.4.1.3 Horizontal distribution of storey shear................................... 27
3.4.1.4 Horizontal torsion moments................................................. 27
3.4.2 Spectrum analysis................................................................... 27
3.4.3 Time history analysis............................................................... 28
3.5 Evaluation of the seismic performance of the building subsystems........... 28
3.5.1 Acceptance criteria.................................................................. 29
3.5.2 Vulnerability of the structure..................................................... 29
3.6 Follow-up on-site inspection of accessible and critical subsystems............ 30
3.7 Final report................................................................................ 31
4. MODELLING AND ANALYSIS........................................................ 32
4.1 Scope........................................................................................ 32
4.2 Mathematical modelling................................................................ 32
4.2.1 Basic assumptions................................................................... 32
4.2.2 Configuration........................................................................ 33
4.2.3 Floor diaphragms................................................................... 33
v
4.2.4 Second-order effects................................................................ 33
4.2.5 Load combinations.................................................................. 34
4.2.6 Assumptions about stiffness and strength...................................... 34
4.3 Analysis procedures...................................................................... 34
4.3.1 Analysis procedure selection...................................................... 34
4.3.2 Linear static procedure............................................................. 34
4.3.3 Linear dynamic procedure......................................................... 35
4.3.4 Non-linear static procedure....................................................... 36
4.3.5 Non-linear dynamic procedure................................................... 38
5. STONE-MASONRY - MATERIAL PROPERTIES................................. 39
5.1 Introduction................................................................................ 39
5.2 Physical properties....................................................................... 41
5.2.1 Stone................................................................................... 41
5.2.1.1 Bulk density..................................................................... 41
5.2.1.2 Compressive strength......................................................... 42
5.2.1.3 Tensile strength................................................................ 43
5.2.1.4 Modulus of elasticity.......................................................... 44
5.2.2 Mortar ................................................................................. 44
5.2.2.2 Bond strength................................................................... 46
5.2.3 Stone-masonry assembly........................................................... 46
5.2.3.2 Modulus of elasticity.......................................................... 49
5.2.3.3 Shear strength.................................................................. 49
5.3 Condition assessment.................................................................... 49
5.3.1 Visual examination ................................................................. 49
5.3.2 I n-situ measurement of mechanical properties................................ 50
5.3.2.1 Masonry compressive strength............................................. 50
5.3.2.2 Masonry flexural tensile strength.......................................... 50
5.3.2.3 Masonry shear strength...................................................... 51
5.3.2.4 Coefficient of friction......................................................... 51
5.3.2.5 Modulus of elasticity for masonry......................................... 51
5.3.2.6 Masonry shear modulus...................................................... 52
5.3.3 Location and minimum number of tests........................................ 52
5.3.4 Non-destructive tests................................................................ 52
5.3.4.1 Flat jack.......................................................................... 53
5.3.4.2 Sonic pulse velocity method (Impact echo method).................... 53
5.3.4.3 Ultrasonic pulse velocity..................................................... 54
5.3.4.4 Radar............................................................................. 55
5.4 Knowledge factor......................................................................... 55
vii
7.3.5.1 Strength criteria................................................................ 80
7.3.5.2 Deformation criteria.......................................................... 80
7.3.6 Non-structural subsystems......................................................... 81
7.3.6.1 Veneers........................................................................... 81
7.3.6.2 Pinnacles......................................................................... 81
7.3.6.3 Appendages, parapets, cornices, statues, and other ornaments.... 81
7.3.6.4 Chimneys........................................................................ 81
7.3.6.5 Masonry foundation elements.............................................. 81
8. CLOSURE .................................................................................... 83
REFERENCES..................................................................................... 85
APPENDIX A - CASE STUDY................................................................. 89
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Relation between performance and quality of masonry versus intensity
of earthquake..........................................................................8
Table 2.2 Some major historical earthquakes................................................9
Table 2.3 Basic structural checklist for stone-masonry bearing wall buildings
with stiff diaphragms.............................................................. 20
Table 3.1 Ranking adopted for the consequences of failure............................ 30
Table 5.1 Porosity and bulk density ranges of some common stone.................. 42
Table 5.2 Compressive strength of stone units............................................. 42
Table 5.3 Flexural tensile strength of stone................................................ 44
Table 5.4 Modulus of elasticity of stone..................................................... 44
Table 5.5 Proportion specification requirements for mortar........................... 45
Table 5.6 Property specification requirements for mortar ............................. 46
Table 5.7 Compressive strength of stone-masonry........................................ 47
Table 5.8 Summary of reported mechanical properties of stone-masonry.......... 48
Table 5.9 Maximum allowable compressive stress for unreinforced-masonry..... 48
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1 Inadequate connection between the outer wythes (a and b) results in
the drifting apart of the outer wythe (c) leading to either partial or
total collapse of the bearing wall (d)........................................... 10
Figure 2.2 Cracks and separation of walls in poorly engineered corner connection
and wall intersection............................................................... 11
Figure 2.3 A schematic illustration of a well engineered corner connection........ 11
Figure 2.4 Joint opening in arches due to increased spans (a) to (c), and the
corresponding thrust line (d) to (f)............................................. 13
Figure 2.5 Construction of barrel vaults, a) with horizontal courses, and b) with
inclined courses..................................................................... 13
Figure 2.6 Two styles of constructing Gothic cross-vaults.............................. 14
Figure 2.7 Gothic vaults with a boss stone at the centre................................ 14
Figure 2.8 Hoop stress resultants for the equilibrium of a hemispherical shell.... 15
Figure 2.9 Vertical cracks due to increase in the domes span......................... 15
Figure 2.10 Top view of the corner wall showing fracture lines due to a)
inadequate connection between the outer wythes and b) foundation
settlement............................................................................. 16
Figure 2.11 Typical unconfined massive stone-masonry foundation.................. 17
Figure 5.1 Compressive strength of rock materials....................................... 40
Figure 5.2 Stress-strain relationship of rock in compression........................... 41
Figure 5.3 Compressive strength test set-up with the load perpendicular or parallel
to the bedding joint of the test cube sample.................................. 43
Figure 6.1 Adequately bonded multi-wythe masonry.................................... 61
Figure 6.2 Forces across a poorly bonded middle wythe................................ 63
Figure 6.3 Wall with openings................................................................. 64
Figure 6.4 Typical flat arches.................................................................. 65
Figure 6.5 Uniformly compressed circular arch of constant cross section.......... 66
Figure 6.6 Hemispherical dome idealised as a shell structure.......................... 67
Figure 6.7 Meridian of a spherical shell..................................................... 68
Figure 6.8 Equilibrium of an infinitesimal shell element................................ 68
Figure 6.9 Minimum thickness of a sliced arch............................................ 68
Figure 6.10 Semi-cylindrical shell carrying its own weight............................. 69
Figure 6.11 Infinitesimal element of barrel shell.......................................... 69
Figure 6.12 Force distribution on half bay of vault...................................... 70
Figure 6.13 Forces necessary for the equilibrium of vault ............................. 70
Figure 6.14 Vault sliced along the meridians into parallel arch rings ............... 71
x
Figure 6.15 Equilibrium forces for a section of the vault of Figure 6.15 ........... 71
Figure 6.16 Forces acting on a buttressing pier: (a) stable buttress, if not
overturned at the base; (b) sliding failure in the absence of pinnacle;
(c) added weight prevents sliding failure................................... 72
Figure 6.17 Flying buttress represented by an inclined flat arch...................... 72
Figure 6.18 Passive and active state of an idealised flying buttress................... 73
Figure 7.1 (a) Minimum and (b) maximum abutment thrust due to in-plane
movement............................................................................. 79
Figure 7.2 A cracked dome due to increase of span...................................... 80
xi
NOTATIONS
A cross-sectional area, m
2
a distance between the centre of exterior wythe and the centre of the
composite wall, m
A
c
compression area, m
2
A
t
area in tension, m2a distance between the centre of exterior wyth.BT and the centre of the
xii
k
1
k
coefficient taking into account the non-uniform distribution of shear
stresses
knowledge factor as defined in Section 5.5
shape factor for sheer deformation
K
1
, K
2
, K
3
stiffness properties of each wythe of a composite wall, kN/m
K
tower
stiffness of the tower to lateral displacement, kN/m
K
wall
stiffness of a wall, kN/m
K
i
stiffness of the wall component, i, kN/m
l span of the element, m
M bending moment, kN m
M
c
0
corresponding bending moment for the simple supported beam with
similar span, kN m
M
x
bending moment, kN m
n number of wythes of a composite wall
total number of storeys
N force transferred to the external wythes of a composite wall, kN
N
hoop stress resultant, kN/m

N
meridian stress resultant, kN/m

N
x
axial force, kN
P compressive load, kN
p uniform distributed load, kN/m
P- relation between axial force in a member and lateral displacement,
referred as second-order effect
P
i
vertical force applied to a subsystem, kN
Q effect of se002 Tc-0.0029 Tw(, K)TaQcce app029 Tw,]TJ -0.35 -4.26 TD0 Tc0 Tw(K)TjQ6.96 0 0 6.96 146.3236 630.25 -18m(i)TjC12 0 0 12 166.2406 300.255-18m(i)T017 Tc-0.0032 Tw[(Q)-1expof stitys5-4.2(te5, kN)]MPa-3.3 -1c-6 TD0 Tc0 Tw(K)TjQ6.96 0 0 6.96 146.3301 630.2301m0 Tc Tw9[(wal)C,
xiii
S seismic response factor
t thickness, m
T fundamental period of the building, s
t
1
, t
2
thickness of external wythes of a composite wall, m
t
j
mortar joint thickness, m
t
s
height of the stone unit, m
t
i
thickness of componee0 0 12 1TJ-2.05 -1.286TD0 Tc0 Tw(t)Tj6.96 0 0 6.96 146.32060.74.76 584.28002 Tc-35w(t[(8(l)4(,)05 -12 166.2406 602.4 T587.28002 Tc-2.0033 Tw[75)-1501.24f ch).744(n)5(k).744nompll,24f c-2.05 -1.22 TD-0.0032 Tc-150036 Tw[(4)-1501U2(t)-2sessuni9((l)-5s, i)-5s, bess7(rati)-5s, on
xiv
Guidelines for TheSeismic Assessment of ktone-masonry ktructures
m
H, In-Plane
horizontal in-plane movement of the arch abutment
H, Out of-Plane
horizontal out-of-plane movement of the arch key
H, Radial
horizontal radial movement of the supporting ring of a dome
inclination of the tangent of the arch in a given section
ductility of the material
angle defining the meridian
shape factor that takes into account the non-uniform distribution of
shear stress in the cross section of the tower
coefficient of friction
f
coefficient of friction between soil and foundation
stress acting on a diametrical ring of a dome, MPa
cr
critical stress, MPa
D
compression vertical stress, MPa
0
average normal stress due to gravity loads, MPa
up
uplift stress produced by the vertical accelerations, MPa
1
,
2
normal stress, MPa
shear stress, MPa
angle defining the parallel circle
C
limiting value of the parameter used for stability acceptance
criterion
D,I
demand value of the parameter used for stability acceptance
criterion of element i
unit weight, kN/m
3
xvi
Lintel A structural element spanning the opening in a wall for a
window or door, resisting bending moments from gravity
forces.
Masonry An assemblage of masonry units and mortar.
Non-bearing
Wall
An interior or exterior wall that does not provide support
for vertical loads other than its own weight.
Normal Wall A wall perpendicular to the direction of seismic forces.
Ornament A decorative element attached to the main building.
Out-of-Plane
Wall
A wall that resists lateral forces applied normal to its
plane.
Parapet A low wall located above a roof.
Pier A local thickening of a wall.
Pinnacle A secondary structural subsystem placed on the buttress to
enhance the stability of the buttress.
Shear Wall A wall, bearing or non-bearing, capable of resisting seismic
forces acting in the plane of the wall.
Shell A thin curved roof structural subsystem able to transmit
only in-plane load.
Storey Drift
Ratio
The ratio of the lateral displacement of a floor with respect
to the floor below divided by the storey height.
Subsystems A set of building elements that makes up a major portion of
the structure resisting system, e.g. diaphragms, moment
frames, and shear walls.
Tower A tall structure consisting of perimeter walls that enclose a
central space.
Unreinforced-
Masonry
(URM) Wall
A masonry wall in which the area of reinforcing steel is less
than 25% of the minimum steel ratios required by the CSA
Standard for reinforced masonry.
Unreinforced-
Masonry
Bearing Wall
A URM wall which provides the vertical support for a floor
or roof for which the total superimposed load exceeds 1.5
kN/m of wall.
Vault A curved roof structural subsystem used for tunnels.
Veneer Facing or ornamentation, not used to develop resistance to
lateral forces, composed of brick, concrete, stone, tile or
similar materials that are connected to a backup structure
by either anchorage or adhesion.
xvii
Vertical
Elements
Subsystems in a vertical plane including shear walls,
braced frames, and moment resisting frames.
Wythe A single leaf or layer of masonry.
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Current guidelines for the seismic evaluation of existing buildings, developed by the
National Research Council of Canada (NRC, 1993) and the Federal Emergency
Management Agency of the United States of America (FEMA, 1992 & 1997),
address the most commonly found unreinforced-masonry (URM) buildings
conseltructed of brick but do not include special types of seltructures and conseltruction
materials such as heritage stone-masonry. Most stone-masonry structures were
built at a time when seismic risk was not considered in structural design. In
Canada, most stone-masonry structures are located in highly populated areas (e.g.,
the downtown cores of such large cities as Ottawa, Qubec City, Victoria, etc.) and
pose a potential seismic risk depending on the seismicity of their location.
1.2 Purpose of the guidelines
The purpose of this document is to provide technically sound analytical tools and
acceptable assessment criteria for the seismic evaluation of stone-masonry
structures. These Guidelines for Seismic Assessment of Stone-masonry Structures
are intended as an assessment tool for professional engineers and architects, and as
a reference document for owners, building regulators, and property managers.
Engineers can use these guidelines to evaluate the seismic capacity of stone-
masonry structures and to advise building owners and property managers of
potential seismic risk to lives. Mitigation of any risk to life is achieved by
alleviating the occurrence of the following events during or following an
earthquake:
Complete collapse of the stone-masonry structure.
Failure of one or more structural stone-masonry subsystem.
Failure of non-structural stone-masonry subsystems that can result in
either blockage of exit and entry routes or in increased risk to life.
The engineering expertise of professional engineers and architects is a prerequisite
to the appropriate use of the guidelines. The engineer must have experience in
building design that includes earthquake analysis and basic knowledge of stone-
masonry. In addition to visual examination and direct observation that has been
the traditional method for evaluating the performance of these structures, these
guidelines provide analytical tools to assess the seismic response of stone-masonry
structures. The methods of analysis and the performance criteria provided in the
guidelines should be tempered with the engineer's judgement so that it reflects the
2 Chapter 1: Introduction
current condition of the structure, including deterioration, damage, and
deformation.
This document is neither a code nor a standard. It is intended for voluntary use by
experienced design professionals.
1.3 Basis of the guidelines
1.3.1 Scope and limitations
This document is intended for only one type of structure: stone-masonry. It
provides methods for assessing the ability of stone-masonry structures to resist the
Chapter 1: Introduction 3
1.3.3 Relationship to other documents and procedures
These guidelines are to complement the following documents for assessment of the
seismic capacity of stone-masonry structures:
1. Guidelines for Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings (NRC, 1993)
2. Guidelines for Seismic Upgrading of Building Structures (NRC, 1995c)
3. Guidelines on Seismic Evaluation and Upgrading of Non-Structural
Building Components (PWGSC, 1995)
4. Procedure for Seismic Assessment of Existing Buildings (PWGSC, 1998)
5. National Building Code of Canada (NRC, 1995a).
These guidelines are specific to existing stone-masonry structures and are not to be
interpreted as replacing or superseding applicable building regulations.
1.4 Contents of the guidelines
This document consists of eight chapters and one appendix:
1) Introduction
2) Earthquake behaviour of stone-masonry structures
3) Procedure for seismic evaluation of structures
4) Modelling and analysis
5) Material properties of stone-masonry
6) Engineering properties of stone-masonry
7) Seismic assessment criteria
8) Closure
9) Appendix A - Examples.
1.4.1 Introduction
Chapter 1 presents the purpose, the basis, and the contents of the guidelines as well
as a brief discussion in regards to heritage considerations.
1.4.2 Earthquake behaviour of stone-masonry structures
Chapter 2 gives insights into the past seismic performance of stone-masonry
structures, as reported in the literature. In it the common mechanisms of failure
associated with typical structural subsystems and the identification of the main
causes of failure are discussed. A structural checklist is introduced to identify
potential structural weaknesses in existing stone-masonry bearing wall buildings
with stiff diaphragm.
1.4.3 Procedure for seismic evaluation of structures
Chapter 3 presents the basic procedure for the evaluation of the seismic
performance of a structure. It begins with the first site visit and continues with the
4 Chapter 1: Introduction
assessment of the capacity of the building to resist lateral loads during an
earthquake.
1.4.4 Modelling and analysis
In Chapter 4, four methods of analysis are described: linear static, non-linear
static, linear dynamic, and non-linear dynamic. The application of mathematical
models to quantify the response of stone-masonry is also presented.
1.4.5 Material properties of stone-masonry
In Chapter 5, the mechanical properties of stone-masonry, including the
components are examined. Destructive and non-destructive test methods that have
been used to measure the uniformity of the structure and the mechanical properties
are reviewed.
1.4.6 Engineering properties of stone-masonry
Chapter 6 contains analytical tools both for determining the stiffness and the
distribution of forces, and for computing the resultant forces for structural stone-
masonry subsystems. It also presents methods of analysis for the seismic
evaluation of non-structural subsystems typically constructed of stone-masonry.
1.4.7 Seismic assessment criteria
Chapter 7 provides acceptance criteria for the seismic evaluation of structural and
non-structural stone-masonry subsystems. The criteria are developed on the basis
of strength and deformation.
1.4.8 Examples
Appendix A presents applications of these guidelines to existing stone-masonry
structures.
1.5 Heritage considerations
Many of Canadas existing stone-masonry structures are designated as heritage
2. EARTHQUDKE BEHAVIOUR OF STONE-MASONRY
STRUCTURES
2.1 Background
In contrast to other types of building construction, such as steel and reinforced
concrete, progress in understanding the seismic performance of stone-masonry and
the development of evaluation procedure have been rather slow. Information has
come primarily from the European countries that have large stocks of stone-
masonry located in high to medium seismic risk zones. Thus, the experiences
gained from past seismic performance of stone-masonry structures in places such
as Italy, Yugoslavia, Greece and Slovenia and reported in the technical literature
provide valuable insight into both the potential deficiencies of such construction
and the degree of damage that it may sustain.
Damage is categorised as either structural damage or non-structural damage; both
pose potential hazards to the occupants of buildings. Structural damage refers the
degradation of subsystems that have influence over the lateral and/or gravity-
resistant structural capacity, e.g., the debonding of multi-wythe wall or the
opening of an arch subsystem. Non-structural damage refers to the degradation of
subsystems that have negligible influence over the structural capacity of the
structure, e.g., the failure of chimneys or parapets.
This chapter highlights past seismic performance of stone-masonry, taking into
consideration the following key factors: type of construction, quality of the
materials, type of diaphragm, type of structural subsystem (wall, pier, arch, etc.),
adequacy of the connections between the various subsystems, and anchorage of the
non-structural stone-masonry subsystems.
2.2 General observations
During an earthquake, the ground moves back and forth in all directions and at
different frequencies and amplitudes. The structure starts moving in the same
direction but, because of the flexibility of the structural subsystems, some parts of
the structure will lag behind and then move in the opposite direction, thus
generating forces that vary with time and with location on the structure. The force
sustained by the structure during earthquake shaking is proportional to the mass.
It is referred to as inertia force. Thus, the heavier the structure, the greater the
inertia forces become. Stone-masonry structures are among the heaviest
structures.
In general, the damage sustained by a structure is attributed to either over-
stressing or excessive deformations of structural subsystems or to differential
6 Chapter 2: Earthquake Behaviour of Stone-masonry Structures
movements between different subsystems of the structure. Irrespective, global or
local collapse occurs if the structural subsystems cannot resist the inertia forces and
are displaced sufficiently following local damage.
The extent of the damage to a structure is related to the duration and the severity
of the ground motion, as well as to the structures own vibration characteristics,
integrity, and soil conditions. Although general trends have been observed in many
earthquakes, the exact type of damage is not easily predicted. This is especially
true in Europe and Asia where there have been a numerous complete collapses of
stone-masonry buildings during earthquakes with Richter magnitudes greater then
6. From a safety perspective, structural subsystems that have proven vulnerable
during earthquake need to be evaluated and, if found deficient, adequately
upgraded.
Geometric configuration is known to influence the seismic performance of a
structure. Architectural features typically found in stone-masonry structures
forces generated by an earthquake and thus reduce the seismic capacity of the
building as a whole (Turnesk et al., 1978).
Table 2.1 Relation between performance and quality of masonry versus intensity
of earthquake (Winkler, 1994)
MM scale Observed Sensations and Performance
I Not felt
II Felt by persons at rest on upper floors
III Vibration like the passing of a light truck; hanging objects swing
IV Vibration like the passing of a heavy truck; sensation of a jolt, like a
heavy ball striking the wall; windows, dishes and doors rattle
V Felt outdoors; sleepers wakened; liquids spill; small unstable objects
are displaced or upset; doors swing
VI Felt by all, many frightened; dishes break; objects fall off shelves;
furniture moves or is overturned. Weak plaster or masonry D
cracked
VII Difficult to stand; drivers in motor cars notice; furniture breakage.
Damage to masonry qm including cracks
VIII Damage to masonry C, partial collapse; some damage to masonry B,
but none to masonry A; fall of stucco and masonry walls; twisting of
columns, chimneys, and statues
IX General panic; masonry D destroyed; masonry C heavily damaged,
often complete collapse. Frame structures shifted off foundations, if
not bolted; serious damage to reservoirs, cracks in ground
X Most masonry and frame structures destroyed; some well-built
wooden structures and bridges destroyed; rails bent
XI Rails and pipelines break
XII Destruction total; large landslides
Notes:
Masonry A: Good workmanship, mortar, and design; reinforced laterally and
designed to resist lateral forces.
Masonry B: Good workmanship and mortar; reinforced but not designed to resist
lateral forces.
Masonry C: Ordinary workmanship and mortar; no extreme weakness, but
neither reinforced nor designed to resist lateral forces.
Masonry D: Weak materials, poor mortar, poor workmanship.
Chapter 2: Earthquake Behaviour of Stone-masonry Structures 9
Table 2.2 Some major historical earthquakes (Winkler, 1994)
Location Year MM Richter Casualties Damage
China 1556 XII 7 (?) 850 000 Breaking of dikes
Lisbon (Portugal) 1755 XII 9 (?) 60 000 City destroyed
San Francisco (USA) 1906 X 8.2 700 Fires, city destroyed
Tokyo (Japan) 1923 XI 8.3 143 000 City destroyed
Anchorage (Alaska) 1964 X 8.6 102 Heavy damage
Mexico City (Mexico) 1985 IX 8.1 9 500 Structures on soft
ground, heavy damage
Kalamata (Greece) 1986 VIII 6.0 10 000 Heavy damage
Armenia (former
USSR)
1988 IX 6.8 25 000 Total destruction
Loma Prieta (USA) 1989 7.1 56 Much damage
Western Iran 1990 XI 7.7 50 0000 Total destruction
2.2.4 Connection between structural subsystems
Inadequate connections between the various structural subsystems have been
identified as the key factor leading to partial collapse or failure of masonry stone
structures. Experiences in Europe, Middle East and Asia have shown the following
occurrences:
Weak connections between floors and walls have led to the partial collapse of
the wall or complete collapse of the structure.
Separations at wall intersections and between walls and floors were common for
poorly constructed buildings and frequently led to collapse.
Inadequate connection of the diaphragm to external walls has resulted in the
collapse of the diaphragm.
Poor connection between two outer wythes with a cavity filled with rubble and
mortar has led to the separation of the peripheral walls.
Independent behaviour of inner and outer wythes of walls that were poorly
connected has resulted in the failure of the wall and or the structure.
2.3 Types of structural stone-masonry subsystems and typical
earthquake damage
In the past, engineers have generally associated stone-masonry structures with poor
seismic performance. However, as noted in the previous sections, the performance
of stone-masonry is more or less dictated by the quality of construction and the
structural adequacy. This section provides a summary of the commonly observed
failure mechanisms for typical structural stone-masonry subsystems due to
earthquake.
2.3.1 Wall
The wall is a structural subsystem which provides resistance against gravity and
lateral forces. Its capacity to resist lateral load depends on its aspect ratio, its
orientation, the quality of the material and workmanship, and the adequacy of its
connection to the rest of the structure. Examination of stone-masonry structures
damaged by earthquakes has shown the following:
Low shear resistance. Mortar used in the construction of stone-masonry often
consists of lime and sand, with little or no Portland cement. This mortar mix is
known to have little shear strength. Consequently, sliding along the mortar joint
has been observed as one of the common failure mechanisms, resulting in either
partial collapse of the bearing wall or total failure of the structure.
Inadequate connection between wythes. Poor connection between the two outer
stone wythes with the middle constructed of rubble and mortar has exhibited poor
seismic performance. Diagonal cracks and separation of the two wythes have
occurred. Partial or total collapse of the bearing walls was observed (see Figure
2.1).

Fi gure 251 Inadequate connecti on between the outer wythes (a and b) resul ts i n the
dri fti ng apart of the outer wythe (c) l eadi ng to ei ther parti al or total
c ollapseof t hebe ar ing wall ( d) Poorl y engi neered corner connecti on. Separati on of the wal l s fol l owed by col l apse
was observed in non-engineered buildings with inadequate wall corner detailing
(see Figure 252). Figure 253 schematically illustrates a well engineered corner
connecti o n.

Figure 2.2 Cracks and separation of walls in poorly engineered corner connection
2.3.2 Lintel
A lintel consists of a stone that spans the top of an opening. This form of
construction is not widespread due to the low tensile strength of stone. Poor
performance of stone lintels in past earthquakes is due to:
Low tensile strength. Flexural failure was commonly observed in this structural
subsystem because of the low capacity of stone to resist tensile stresses.

Insufficient anchorage. Sliding and collapse of stone lintels was observed where
insufficient anchorage was provided for the lintel.
2.3.3 Arch
The structural role of the arch subsystem is to transfer the applied vertical load of
the building above to a thrust force that is restrained by the massive stone-masonry
walls. Arches were widely recognised as an efficient construction method for
spanning large distances. From past seismic performance, typical problems and
damages observed on arches consist of:
Poor structural adequacy. Poor structural adequacy in arches has resulted in the
separation of the stone-masonry arch from the abutments, leading to the collapse of
the arch and failure of the structure above. The shaking of the ground has led to a
temporary reduction of frictional resistance along the arch that causes a downward
slippage of the keystone and a permanent change in the shape of the arch. Partial
or total collapse has been observed depending on the thickness of the arch and its
ability to safely accommodate the relocation of the thrust line, see Figure 2.4 (d) to
(f). Figure 2.4 (a) to (c) shows the crack patterns resulting from an increase in
span length due to seismic displacements for arches of different shapes.

Configuration problem. The collapse of arches has been attributed to the loss of
stability when the thrust line passed outside the arch, Figure 2.4 (d) to (f).

Compressive over-stress. Local splitting or crushing was observed, but in most
cases, such local failures did not result in the failure of the arch.

Arcade Slenderness. The lateral slenderness of many arcades was higher than
would be required for an isolated arch subsystem, due to the smaller lateral thrusts
(except for the end spans). Consequently, out-of-plane failure was observed due to
the out-of-phase movement of the arcade supports.
F i g u r e l 3 J o i n t o p e n i n g i n a r c h e s d u e t o i n c r e a s e d s p a n s ( a ) t o ( c ) , a n d t h e
c o r r e s p o n d i n g t h r u s t l i n e s h o w n a s a d o t t e d l i n e i n ( d ) t o ( f )
39.4
V a u l t a n d d o m e
V a u l t s a n d d o m e s a r e e x t e n s i o n s o f t h e a r c h c o n s t r u c t i o n t h a t e n c l o s e s p a c e .
V a u l t s c a n b e c o n s t r u c t e d e i t h e r b y l a y i n g s t o n e s i n h o r i z o n t a l c o u r s e s w i t h t h e i r
b e d s r a d i a t i n g f r o m t h e c e n t r e , o r b y l a y i n g s t o n e u n i t s i n a s e r i e s o f a r c h e s s i d e b y
s i d e , a s i s s h o w n , 3 . 4 s p e c t i v e l y , i n F i g u . 4 s l 5 a a n d l 5 b ( J a c k s o n , 1 9 9 . ) . J a c k s o n
h a s a l s o i l l u s t r a t e d t h e t w o G o t h i c c r o s s - v a u l t s t y l e s o f c o n s t r u c t i o n , F r e n c h a n d
E n g l i s h , a s s h o w n i n F i g u r e l 6 ( J a c k s o n , 1 9 1 5 ) . F i g u r e l 7 s h o w s a t h r e e -
d i m e n s i o n a l v i e w o f a G o t h i c v a u l t . a )

F i g u r e 2 . 8 H o o p s t r e s s r e s u l t a n t s f o r t h e e q u i l i b r i u m o f a h e m i s p h e r i c a l s h e l l
( H e y m a n , 1 9 9 5 )
Figure2.8Vertical cracksduetoincreaseinthedomesspan(Heyman, 1995)
ConfigurationProblem. Geometrical imperfectionsof domesubsystemshaveledto unfavourablestressredistribution, resultinginseveredamagesduringearthquake shaking. Insomecasesthedomeswerenear collapseduetolossof stability(see Figure2.8).
2.9.5 Buttressandflyingbuttress Buttresseswereusedasasupportagainstthrustsimposedatahighelevationby themasonryvault. Theflyingbuttressisacompressiveproppassingbetweenthe vaultandtheexternal mainbuttress. Althoughpastearthquakeperformanceof suchsubsystemshasbeenreasonablygood, however, thefollowing failure mechanismshavebeenrecorded:
Poorstructuraladequacy. Poorconnectionsbetweentheflyersorthevaultsand thebuttresseshaveresultedinthecollapseoftheflyersandfailureofthevaults.

Poor quality construction. Pronounced shear failures were attributed to poor
quality construction or, in some cases, poor maintenance.
2.3.6 Tower
A tower consists of perimeter walls that enclose a central space. Problems
associated with the seismic performance of towers include:
Low shear strength. Deteriorated mortar caused by poor maintenance has resulted
in numerous fissures, cracks, and, in some cases, voids in the mortar. Hence
during earthquakes either partial collapse or failure of the tower occurs.

F
i
g
u
r
e

2
.
1
0

T
o
p

v
i
e
w

o
f

t
h
e

c
o
r
n
e
r

w
a
l
l

s
h
o
w
i
n
g

f
r
a
c
t
u
r
e

l
i
n
e
s

d
u
e

t
o

a
)
i
n
a
d
e
q
u
a
t
e

c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n

b
e
t
w
e
e
n

t
h
e

o
u
t
e
r

w
y
t
h
e
s

a
n
d

b
)

f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t
F
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n

p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
.

T
o
w
e
r
s

h
a
v
e

a

h
i
g
h

c
o
m
p
r
e
s
s
i
v
e

s
t
r
e
s
s

a
t

t
h
e

f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
l
e
v
e
l

w
h
i
c
h
,

f
o
r

p
o
o
r

s
o
i
l

c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
,

h
a
s

r
e
s
u
l
t
e
d

i
n

t
h
e

s
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t

o
f

t
h
e

s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
.
T
h
e

l
e
a
n
i
n
g

o
f

t
h
e

s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

c
h
a
n
g
e
s

t
h
e

d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

o
f

s
t
r
e
s
s
e
s

c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
n
g

t
h
e
m
e
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
l
y

a
r
o
u
n
d

o
p
e
n
i
n
g
s
.

F
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n

s
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t

l
e
a
d
s

t
o

c
r
a
c
k
s

t
h
r
o
u
g
h

t
h
e
t
h
i
c
k
n
e
s
s

o
f

t
h
e

w
a
l
l

r
e
s
u
l
t
i
n
g

i
n

t
h
e

s
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e

c
o
r
n
e
r

(
s
e
e

F
i
g
u
r
e

2
.
1
0
)
.
I
n
s
u
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t

a
n
c
h
o
r
a
g
e
.

D
u
r
i
n
g

e
a
r
t
h
q
u
a
k
e

s
h
a
k
i
n
g

t
h
e

l
i
n
t
e
l

o
r

a
r
c
h

s
p
a
n
n
i
n
g
o
v
e
r

o
p
e
n
i
n
g
s

m
a
y

c
o
l
l
a
p
s
e
,

l
e
a
d
i
n
g

t
o

e
i
t
h
e
r

p
a
r
t
i
a
l

f
a
i
l
u
r
e

o
r

t
o
t
a
l

c
o
l
l
a
p
s
e

o
f

t
h
e
t
o
w
e
r
.

T
o
w
e
r

s
l
e
n
d
e
r
n
e
s
s
.

T
h
e

d
e
g
r
e
e

o
f

s
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

o
f

a

t
o
w
e
r

i
s

i
n
v
e
r
s
e
l
y

p
r
o
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
a
l

t
o
i
t
s

s
l
e
n
d
e
r
n
e
s
s

r
a
t
i
o
.

T
o
e
-
c
r
i
p
p
l
i
n
g
.

R
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

i
n

t
h
e

c
r
o
s
s
-
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
a
l

a
r
e
a

a
t

t
h
e

b
a
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

t
o
w
e
r

d
u
e

t
o
o
p
e
n
i
n
g
s

o
f
t
e
n

l
e
a
d
s

t
o

l
o
c
a
l

c
r
u
s
h
i
n
g

n
e
a
r

t
h
e

b
a
s
e

b
e
c
a
u
s
e

o
f

s
e
i
s
m
i
c

o
v
e
r
t
u
r
n
i
n
g
f
o
r
c
e
s
.

Interaction with another structure. Towers have different vibration characteristics
than the surrounding structures. As a result, their pounding against neighbouring
structures has led to their partial or total collapse.

Creep behaviour of the material. Due to heavy dead loads, towers are subject to
high compressive stresses in their lower part. Large as well as fine and diffused
vertical cracks appear approximately at one-third of the tower height from where
they can slowly propagate. The material behaviour shows secondary and tertiary
creep up to a sudden collapse (Civic Tower of Pave, 1989). Material damage can
also increase because of fatigue under temperature variations and cyclic loads
(traffic vibration and wind), and because of sudden inertia forces caused by
earthquake.
2.3.7 Foundation subsystem
For a massive stone-masonry foundation subsystem, differential settlement of the
structure has led to vertical and diagonal cracks in the masonry. Observed
damages in the structure due to earthquake have occurred where the soil is weak.
Unconfined massive stone-masonry piers supporting the structure are also
susceptible to failure because of low shear strength of the masonry foundation (see
Figure 2.11).
Figure 2.11 Typical unconfined massive stone-masonry foundation
2.4 Types of non-structural stone-masonry subsystems and typical
hazards
Failure of non-structural subsystems is known to pose a high risk to life. These
subsystems are supported by main structural subsystems. Non-structural stone-
masonry subsystems commonly found are veneers, parapets, cornices, chimneys,
appendages, ornaments, and statues. Typical hazards observed from past
earthquakes are dislocation and falling of the stone units, and falling of parts or
the whole subsystem due to inadequate anchorage to the load bearing masonry.
Failure of non-structural subsystems has caused injuries and death to occupants of
the building or to pedestrians, blocked the passage entry to the building, and
caused additional structural failure. Specific failure mechanisms observed in non-
structural subsystems are described in the following paragraphs.
2.4.1 Veneers
Veneers, slender walls that are laterally connected to the main structure by
mechanical anchors, are sensitive to excessive deformations caused by shaking of
the ground. The heavy weight of stone-masonry translates to high inertia forces,
causing either fractures within the wall or failure of the mechanical connections
between the wall and the structure. The deformation of the structural subsystem
surrounding the veneer results in failure of the connections, and displacement and
failure of the stone units. Often, corrosion of anchors and voiding of the mortar
have resulted in poor seismic performance of veneer walls.
2.4.2 Pinnacles
Pinnacles are cantilevered piers constructed on top of the buttresses. They are, in
general, decorative elements, although in some cases they were used to increase the
frictional capacity of the pier buttresses. Pinnacles have failed either because of
poor anchoring conditions or because of poor structural adequacy caused by weak
mortars.
2.4.3 Appendages, parapets, cornices, statues, and other ornaments
Appendages, parapets, cornices, statues, and other ornaments have been shown to
be susceptible to out-of-plane failure because of lateral inertia forces. The main
cause of failure is inadequate anchoring or support conditions.
2.4.4 Chimneys
Chimneys are located at the roof level of structures where generally maximum
shaking occurs. These cantilevered structures are very susceptible to inertia forces
and can fail because of bending, shear, and overturning. Inadequate anchorage,
poor construction, and weak mortar have been the primary causes of chimney
failure during earthquakes.
2.5 Structural checklist
Structural checklist, given in Table 2.3, has been compiled from past seismic
performance of stone-masonry. The purpose of the checklist is to identify potential
inadequacy in the seismic capacity of existing stone-masonry bearing wall buildings
with stiff diaphragms. The checklist contains clauses that need to be satisfied.
C represents conforming, a necessary requirement for the clauses to pass the
evaluation process. For the clauses that are found non-conforming (NC), an in-
depth evaluation is required to assess their potential seismic risk. N/A stands for
not applicable. For those buildings whose structural subsystems do not conform
to the required criterion, and for those subsystems that are not included in the
checklist, further analysis is required to evaluate their seismic capacity.
For stone-masonry bearing-wall buildings with flexible diaphragms, either the
horizontal-beam method or the plate method (as a quick check) or a refined
analysis is required to determine the distribution of the seismic forces.
Subsequently, the response and capacity of the structure can be evaluated
according to the requirements of these guidelines.
The entry point to the checklist depends on the particular item under investigation.
The site investigation and data collection have to be completed before any of the
items can be evaluated. A considerable amount of analysis is often required.
Some of the items in the following checklist originate from existing checklists
[NRCs Guidelines for Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings (NRC, 1993) and
FEMAs Handbook for the Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings (FEMA 178,
1997)], and are applicable to the seismic evaluation of all existing buildings. The
structural checklist provided in these guidelines is SUPPLEMENTARY to the
Evaluation Statements of NRCS SEISMIC GUIDELINES.
Table 2.3 Basic structural checklist for stone-masonry bearing wall buildings with
stiff diaphragms
1. General
C NC N/A LOAD PATH: The structure contains one complete load path for
seismic force effects from any horizontal direction that serves to
transfer the inertial forces from the mass to the foundation.
Sec.
2.2
C NC N/A WEAK STOREY: The strength of the lateral-force-resisting
system in any storey is not less than 80% of the strength in an
adjacent storey above or below.
Sec.
2.2
C NC N/A SOFT STOREY: The stiffness of the lateral-force-resisting system
in any storey is not less than 70% of the stiffness in an adjacent
storey above or below or less than 80% of the average stiffness of
the three stories above or below.
Sec.
2.2
C NC N/A GEOMETRY: There is no change in horizontal dimension of the
lateral-force-resisting system of more than 30% in a storey relative
to adjacent stories, excluding one-storey penthouses.
Sec.
2.2
C NC N/A VERTICAL DISCONTINUITIES: All vertical elements in the
lateral-force-resisting system are continuous to the foundation.
Sec.
2.2
C NC N/A MASS: There is no change in effective mass more than 50% from
one storey to the next.
Sec.
2.2
C NC N/A TORSION: The distance between the storey centre of mass and
the storey centre of rigidity is less than 20% of the building width
in either plan dimension.
Sec.
2.2
C NC N/A MASONRY UNITS: There is no visible deterioration of stone-
masonry units.
Sec.
2.2.2
C NC N/A MASONRY JOINTS: The mortar is not easily scraped away from
the joints by hand with a metal tool, and there are no areas of
eroded mortar.
Sec.
2.2.2
C NC N/A UNREINFORCED STONE-MASONRY WALL CRACKS: There
are no existing diagonal cracks in wall elements greater than 1
mm, or out-of-plane offsets in the bed joint greater than 5.
Sec.
2.2
2.3.1
C NC N/A UNREINFORCED STONE-MASONRY DOMES, ARCHES, etc.,
CRACKS: There are no existing vertical or horizontal cracks in
dome and arch structural subsystems greater than 1 mm, or out-
of-plane offsets in the bed joint greater than 5 mm.
Sec.
2.3.3
2.3.4
C NC N/A MASONRY LAY-UP: filled collar joints of multi wythe masonry
walls have negligible voids.
Sec.
2.2
2. LATERAL FORCE RESISTING SYSTEM
C NC N/A REDUNDANCY: The number of lines of shear walls in each
principal direction is greater than or equal to 2.
Sec.
2.2
C NC N/A SHEAR STRESS CHECK: The shear stress in the unreinforced-
masonry shear walls, calculated using the Quick Check procedure
of Section 3.4, is less than 0.1 MPa for rubble construction and
less than 0.5 D for coursed stone-masonry.
Sec.
3.4
3. DRIFT
C NC N/A DRIFT: The drift ratio for stone-masonry walls is limited to
0.0015 for good quality coursed construction and 0.0003 for rubble
construction.
Sec.
2.3.1
2.4.1
C NC N/A PROPORTIONS: The height-to-thickness ratio of the shear walls
of coursed stone-masonry at each storey is less than the following
():
Sec.
2.3.1
Conditions Seismic Zone 2.3.6
Top storey of multi-storey
building
First storey of multi-storey
building
All other conditions
High
9
15
13
Moderate to low
14
18
16
2.4
4. CONNECTIONS
C NC N/A WALL ANCHORAGE: Exterior stone-masonry walls are
anchored for out-of-plane forces at each diaphragm level with steel
anchors or straps that are developed into the diaphragm.
Sec.
2.2.4
C NC N/A ANCHOR SPACING: Exterior masonry walls are anchored to the
floor and roof systems at a maximum spacing of 1 m.
Sec.
2.3.1
C NC N/A TRANSFER TO SHEAR WALLS: Diaphragms are reinforced
and connected for transfer of loads to the shear walls.
Sec.
2.2.3
C NC N/A DOMES, ARCHES, etc./COLUMN CONNECTION: There is a
positive connection between the domes, arches, and all other stone-
masonry structural systems and the column support.
Sec.
2.3.3
2.3.4
2.3.5
5. DIAPHRAGMS
C NC N/A PLAN IRREGULARITIES: There is tensile capacity to develop
the strength of the diaphragm at re-entrant corners or other
locations of plan irregularities.
Sec.
2.2.3
C NC N/A DIAPHRAGM CONTINUITY: The diaphragms are not composed Sec.
of split-level floors. 2.2.3
C NC N/A CROSS TIES: There are continuous cross-ties between diaphragm
chords.
Sec.
2.2.3
C NC N/A ROOF CHORD CONTINUITY: All chord elements are
continuous, regardless of changes in roof elevation.
Sec.
2.2.3
6. STONE-MASONRY BEARING WALLS
C NC N/A UNREINFORCED STONE-MASONRY: Unreinforced rubble
stone-masonry is braced at a spacing of 3 m or less in regions of
3. PROCEDURE FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES
3.1 Introduction
The Procedure for Seismic Assessment of Existing Buildings (PWGSC, 1997)
provides the step-by-step procedure required for assessing the seismic capacity of
24 Chapter 3: Procedure for Seismic Evaluation of Structures
3.2.2 Assembling building design data
3.2.2.1 Review of existing drawings and technical reports
The first step of the assessment procedure consists of gathering original contract
drawings, specifications and calculations. The review of these documents permits
the engineer to assess the compliance of the calculations and specifications with
codes and standards at the time of construction, to determine any potential
structural deficiencies due to updates in the codes or standards requirements, and
to identify the building structural and non-structural subsystems.
3.2.2.2 Review of repair and renovation work
Information on previous repair and renovation work also provides insight into the
structure past performance, changes in the intended use of the building, alterations
of the structural subsystems, and design problems.
3.2.3 Site survey
Following the review of existing drawings and technical reports, the evaluating
engineer must perform a detailed site inspection of the structure to check the
conformity of as-built condition to the existing plans. When the original drawings
are not available, new sets of drawings need to be prepared based on in-situ
measurements. For stone-masonry, complete sets of drawings are seldom
available. It is therefore recommended that the evaluating engineer generate a new
set of plans reflecting the in-situ measured elevation and cross-sectional plan for
every storey.
The type of construction, quality of construction, and quality of material should be
noted and visible damages and deterioration clearly recorded and photographed.
Material deterioration and damages reveal the health of the structure and identify
possible areas of weakness that need further consideration in the course of the
evaluation.
A survey of the crack pattern, of deviation from the horizontal or the vertical of
the structural elements, and of the damaged areas should be reported on the set of
plans and documents so that a first interpretation and understanding of the
damage level and of the causes of damage can be obtained. When necessary (or
when the designer suspects an evolution of the crack pattern), the structure and its
crack pattern should be monitored by manual or automatic monitoring systems for
at least 18 months.
3.2.4 Past earthquake performance
A review of past performance of structures of similar construction that have been
subjected to an earthquake provides insight into the potential weaknesses and
strengths of the building under consideration. Chapter 2 discusses the inherent
weaknesses of most stone-masonry structural and non-structural subsystems.
Chapter 3: Procedure for Seismic Evaluation of Structures
25
A review of historical earthquakes whose epicentres were located within a 100-km
radius from the site, and the resulting damages can provide critical data to the
seismic performance assessment of the structure.
3.2.5 Soil conditions
It is widely recognised that structural damage due to earthquake is very much
influenced by soil conditions. In general, the amplitude and duration of shaking
depend on the depth and softness of the soil at the site. The engineer must obtain
sufficient information to evaluate the load-bearing capacity and the dynamic
amplification characteristic of the soil. For sites with high geological hazards, such
as soils susceptible to large settlements, extra-sensitive soils, or soils with a high
probability of liquefaction, a special geotechnical investigation is required.
3.3 Identification of the structural and non-structural subsystems of
the building
To identify the structural subsystems, the engineer has to determine the type of
structure, i.e. frame structure or bearing-wall structure. In most cases, stone-
masonry structures are bearing-wall-type structures. Stone veneer is sometimes
constructed with a frame-type structure.
Structural and non-structural subsystems of the building can be identified initially
by reviewing the structural and architectural drawings and later confirmed by site
inspection. Building structures consist of many subsystems, which have to be
identified separately, namely:
1. subsystems resisting lateral forces,
2. subsystems resisting only gravity loads,
3. diaphragms,
4. connections between the diaphragm and the other structural subsystems,
5. connections between the various structural subsystems,
6. foundation subsystems, and
7. non-structural subsystems and their connections to the structure.
For each subsystem, it is necessary to identify the type and the construction
material. The interaction between the identified subsystems depends on the
adequacy of the connections between the different components of the subsystems.
Therefore, all these connections must be carefully identified. Chapter 2 provides a
list of typical structural and non-structural stone-masonry subsystems as well as
their potential weaknesses.
3.4 Analysis of the structure
Three basic methods can be used to quantify and distribute the seismic forces
within a buildings structure: the NBC 1995 equivalent static approach, spectrum
analysis, and a dynamic analysis using time histories. In this section, all three
methods of analysis and their application to stone-masonry structures are briefly
discussed. For the analysis, an appropriate mathematical model of the structure is
required. This is discussed in Chapter 4.
3.4.1 Equivalent static analysis
The equivalent static analysis is a simplified method used to compute lateral seismic
forces based on a design spectrum having a probability of exceedance of 10% in 50
years. The method provides a base shear force referred to as minimum base shear,
V, and a distribution of forces over the height of the building.
3.4.1.1 Base shear
The minimum base shear force is computed by
V V R U
e
= ( / ) (3.1)
where Ve is the equivalent lateral base shear representing elastic response, R a
force modification factor, and U a calibration factor. Values for the factors R and
U are given in the NBC 1995, Clause 4.1.9.1. For analyses of stone-masonry
structures, R = 1 is usually considered.
Ve is defined in the NBC 1995 by
V v S I F W
e
= (3.2)
where v is the zonal velocity ratio, S the seismic response factor, I the importance
factor, F the foundation factor, and W the weight of the building. Values for the
zonal velocity are given in the NBC 1995, Appendix C. The seismic response
factor, S, is a function of the fundamental period, T, of the building, and the
relative values of the velocity-related seismic zone, Z
v
, and acceleration-related
seismic zone, Z
a
, pertaining to the geographical location of the building. The
fundamental period can be determined by one of the methods discussed in Section
6.3.1. The factors S, I, and F need to be evaluated in accordance with the NBC
1995, Clauses 4.1.9.1 (6), 4.1.9.1 (10), and 4.1.9.1 (11), respectively. The weight,
W, of the building, has to be evaluated taking into account the total dead load,
25% of the design snow load specified in Clause 4.1.7 of NBC 1995, and 60% of the
storage load for areas used for storage and the full contents of any tanks, in
accordance to the NBC 1995, Appendix A.
3.4.1.2 Lateral force distribution
The base shear can be distributed over the height of the building according to the
following relation provided by NBC 1995, Clause 4.1.9.1. (13):
27
F V F
W h
Wh
x t
x x
i i
i
n
=
=
( )
1
(3.3)
The concentrated force at the top, F
t
, can be computed according to NBC 1995,
Clause 4.1.9.1 (13) using the following expression:
F T V
t
= 0 07 . (3.4)
F
t
need not exceed 25% of the base shear force, V, and is equal to zero when T is
less than 0.7 s.
3.4.1.3 Horizontal distribution of storey shear
The storey shear should be distributed to the lateral resisting structural subsystems
in proportion to their rigidities, and take the rigidity of the diaphragm into
consideration.
3.4.1.4 Horizontal torsion moments
Horizontal torsion moments are the moments resulting vrom eccentricities between
the centroid of mass and the centre of rigidity plus an accidental torsion moment.
This consideration is in accordance with the provisions of NBC 1995, Clause
4.1.9.1 (28). The requirements apply to buildings whose diaphragms can transmit
that torsion. For buildings whose centroid of mass and centre of rigidity of
different storeys are not approximately on vertical lines, the NBC 1995
recommends the use of a dynamic analysis to compute the effects of the torsion.
3.4.2 Spectrum analysis
For tall buildings with significant irregularities either in plan or elevation, or for
buildings with setbacks or major discontinuities in stiffness or mass, the spectrum
analysis leads to a better distribution of the inertia forces.
Spectrum analysis based on the design spectrum can be carried out according to
the following procedure provided by Commentary J (44) in the Supplement to the
NBC 1995:
1. Multiply the normalised 5% damping spectrum given in Figure J-4 of the
Supplement to NBC 1995 by v to obtain the design spectrum.
2. Determine the natural periods, the associated mode shapes and the modal
participation factors.
3. Obtain the modal base shear and other modal responses of interest.
4. Obtain the dynamic base shear, V
dyn
, and other dynamic responses of interest
using a suitable mode combination rule. The square-root-sum-square (SRSS)
combination rule may be used when the periods are well separated. For
buildings having closely spaced periods, a more refined rule such as the
complete quadratic combination (CQC) rule should be used. Enough mode
shapes should be included so that a minimum of 95% of the participating mass
of the structure is compensated for in the calculation of response for each
principal horizontal direction.
5. Obtain the responses of interest by multiplying the dynamic responses of
interest by the ratio V/V
dyn
.
(i) When a 2-D mathematical model is used, torsional effects need to be
considered statically as specified by Clause 4.1.9.1. (28) (a) of NBC 1995
and combined with the parameters of interest to arrive at the final values.
(ii) When a 3-D mathematical model is used, the accidental torsional effects
need to be considered statically as specified by Clause 4.1.9.1. (28) (b) of
NBC 1995 and combined with the parameters of interest to arrive at the
final values.
3.4.3 Time history analysis
Time history analysis requires a minimum of three-ground motion time histories
applicable to the location of the structure. The ground-motion time histories can
be obtained from recorded past activities or artificially generated using
seismological models. The structural response parameters are calculated for each
time history analysis, and the maximum response is used for the assessment. For
seven or more pairs of horizontal ground-motion records used for the time history
analysis, the average response may be used for the assessment. NBC 1995 requires
that the computed dynamic base shear be at least equal to the specified static base
shear.
3.5 Evaluation of the seismic performance of the building subsystems
The evaluation of the seismic response is based on the type of analysis, i.e.,
equivalent static, dynamic, linear or non-linear, and the results that the analysis
yields. The engineer must also take into consideration the level of refinement used
in analysing the structure, i.e., whether the results were derived from a quick-
check method or a 3-D finite element model. The assessment of the structures
seismic response is based on deformation and strength criteria. For stone-masonry
structures, the following responses are needed for the assessment of seismic
performance of the subsystems:
maximum lateral displacements
maximum inter-storey drift
maximum resultant forces
maximum resultant stresses
maximum ratio of shear stress to compressive stress
29
3.5.1 Acceptance criteria
The capacity of each component to resist seismic loads has to be calculated
according to the specific failure mechanisms and the mechanical properties of the
materials. The demand values obtained from seismic responses are compared to
the capacity values of the subsystem. The general criterion for acceptance can be
formulated as follows:
0 . 1
Capacity
Demand
(3.5)
Two groupings of acceptance criteria are used to assess the seismic performance of
subsystems as a means to control damage. They are strength acceptance criteria,
and deformation acceptance criteria. The latter can also be used for global and
local stability. Chapter 7 provides a detailed presentation of the acceptance
criteria associated with both structural and non-structural stone-masonry
subsystems.
For the structural subsystems that initially do not meet the acceptance criteria,
additional investigation is recommended to check their structural adequacy (e.g.,
the connections) and the mechanical properties (e.g., strength and stiffness).
Destructive and non-destructive tests may be carried out to better define the
strength of the subsystem. An iterative process may be required depending on the
outcome of the analysis.
3.5.2 Vulnerability of the structure
When considering the seismic risk, the engineer must also evaluate the
consequences of failure since risk, in simple terms, is equal to the product of the
probability of failure and the consequences of failure. Following the seismic
provisions of NBC 1995, the probability of exceeding a ground motion is 10% in 50
years a 475-year return period. Subsystems whose demand exceeds the capacity
requirement are potentially vulnerable to the seismic load imposed on them. The
failure of subsystems can have various consequences such as life safety issues,
repair cost, loss of function, and loss of heritage value. Quantification of the
consequences of failures is seldom possible; however, a ranking system as given in
Table 3.1 can be adopted to assist in the assessment process.
Table 3.1 Ranking adopted for the consequences of failure (Chidiac et al., 1995)
Rank Consequences of Failure
Injury and/or Death Cost of repair or Loss
of Function
Heritage Value
very low Most unlikely very small very little effect
Low very unlikely small little effect
Medium some likelihood medium some effect
High significant likelihood substantial substantial effect
very high very high likelihood beyond repair or total
loss of function
complete loss
Subsystems that do not meet the acceptance criteria are vulnerable to earthquakes
and need upgrading to mitigate their seismic risk. It should be noted that some
subsystems may pass some acceptance criteria, but fail others. For this reason, the
use of all applicable acceptance criteria is strongly recommended. The decision
about upgrading has to be made by taking into consideration the influence of the
subsystem on the failure of the entire structure, and the associated risk involved in
such a failure.
3.6 Follow-up on-site inspection of accessible and critical subsystems
A follow-up on-site inspection is strongly recommended to check the as-built
configuration of the existing subsystems and to identify possible deviations from
original blueprints. If significant deviations are detected, the existing load path has
to be identified. Structural discontinuities, weak connections, and lack of ties and
anchors have to be identified. Horizontal or vertical irregularities that may
influence the seismic response of the building have to be considered. For a reliable
development of structural models and a better representation of the seismic
capacity, the connections between existing components of the structure have to be
inspected in accessible locations. Every detail affecting the capability of the
structure to resist seismic loads has to be considered; this includes observed
damage due to past earthquakes, poorly constructed elements, deterioration, etc.
In cases where relevant data on the strength of the materials and structural
components is not available from previous investigations of similar buildings, such
data may be obtained by in-situ testing of selected specimens. When additional
data on the dynamic properties of the building (natural frequencies, mode shapes,
damping ratios) is required, such data can be obtained by ambient or forced
vibration tests. The experimental data of in-situ evaluation tests are useful for the
calibration of mathematical models developed for the structural analysis.
Data on soil conditions and the foundations must be obtained from original
drawings, on-site inspection, subsurface testing, or review of the data on the
31
foundations of nearby buildings. If adequate geotechnical data are not available
from previous testing, specific profile-type testing should be performed for building
sites in areas with geologic hazards such as landslides or liquefaction.
3.7 Final report
Following the evaluation of the structure, a final report is required. The report
should detail all of the tasks undertaken for assessing the seismic capacity of the
structure and the resulting findings. The report should state clearly
the source of information,
the level of knowledge (see Section 5.4),
the assumptions implied in the analysis of the structure,
the type of analysis and model,
the capacity of the structure, and
the potential seismic risk.
The report should also provide different options of upgrading methods with
associated cost estimates and degree of intrusion that can be used to mitigate the
established seismic risk that is associated with the identified deficiencies. (The
degree of intrusion, more often, is the most critical factor in designing the
upgrading method for heritage structures.)
4. MODELLING AND ANALYSIS
4.1 Scope
This chapter presents analysis procedures and modelling techniques that can be
used to quantify the seismic responses of stone-masonry subsystems and structures.
Four different types of analysis - linear static, non-linear static, linear dynamic and
non-linear dynamic - are discussed along with an analysis selection procedure.
Modelling requirements for the seismic analysis of stone-masonry structures are
also examined.
4.2 Mathematical modelling
Modelling considerations include basic assumptions, configuration requirements,
floor diaphragm, second-order effects, load combinations, and stiffness and
strength assumptions.
4.2.1 Basic assumptions
In general, a stone-masonry structure should be modelled, analysed, and evaluated
as a three-dimensional assembly of structural subsystems. However, three-
dimensional modelling of stone structures is a highly specialised task, which is both
time-consuming and expensive. Therefore, the three-dimensional mathematical
models are usually limited to the analysis and evaluation of structures with
irregular plans or flexible diaphragms, and for structures whose centre of mass or
centre of rigidity shifts between storey levels.
A three-dimensional model may be selectively used to refine the stress analysis of
over-stressed stone-masonry structural subsystems, especially for structural
subsystems that possess complex geometry.
A two-dimensional model can be adopted for the modelling, analysis, and
evaluation of structural subsystems such as walls that are poorly connected to the
rest of the structure, or that are connected to a flexible diaphragm. Multi-wythe
walls can also be analysed and evaluated using a two-dimensional model, provided
that the composite behaviour between the wythes is adequately modelled.
A one-dimensional idealisation model of the stone-masonry structure can be
adopted for structures with a rigid diaphragm and whose horizontal torsion can be
adequately accounted for. The one-dimensional model can be used as a quick
approach to obtain an appreciation for the dynamic characteristics and
deformational behaviour of the structure. However, stress calculations derived
from a one-dimensional model are average values and neither provide the
maximum stress values nor the location of over-stressed areas.
Chapter 4: Modelling & Analysis
33
Modelling of connections between stone-masonry subsystems is seldom possible.
For subsystems that have keyed-in stones at the interface, a rigid connection can be
assumed for linear analysis. For linear analysis, anchors are assumed rigidly
attached to the structural and non-structural subsystems. The non-linear analysis
of the anchors, including slippage, yielding, buckling, etc., is performed by
modelling the anchor separately. This type of modelling and analysis is carried out
only to evaluate the performance of anchors that are located in over-stressed areas
or subjected to large movements and vibration.
4.2.2 Configuration
As much as possible, the mathematical model developed for the analysis of the
stone-masonry structure should include all the structural subsystems and the mass
of the non-structural subsystems, with all their irregularities. The model should
also reflect all discontinuities of strength, stiffness, geometry, and mass. The same
model could then be used during the design of upgrading solutions for improving
the seismic resistance of the structure.
4.2.3 Floor diaphragms
Diaphragms are the structural subsystems that provide horizontal transfer of
forces to the vertical seismic resisting subsystems and to out-of-plane bracing. The
connection between the diaphragm and the vertical lateral-resistant structural
subsystem needs to be sufficient to transfer the maximum calculated diaphragm
shear forces. Chapter 8 of NRC Guidelines (1993) provides specific requirements
for the assessment of specific diaphragms.
Diaphragms are considered flexible when the maximum lateral deformation of the
diaphragm along its length is more than twice the average inter-storey drift of the
storey immediately below the diaphragm. "Rigid diaphragm" implies that the
maximum lateral deformation of the diaphragm along its length is less than half
the average inter-storey drift of the associated storey. Diaphragms whose
deformations lie between the classification of rigid and flexible are considered stiff
(FEMA 273, 1996).
Mathematical models have to include explicitly the diaphragm stiffness as well as
the connections to other structural members. The selection of models is to be in
accordance with Section 4.2.1.
4.2.4 Second-order effects
For linear analysis, the stability of the stone structure has to be checked against the
recommendations provided by NBC 1995, Commentary J Effect of Earthquakes,
paragraphs 77 to 88, and those given in Chapter 7 of this document.
34 Chapter 4: Modelling & Analysis
4.2.5 Load combinations
For load combinations, including seismic loads, the specifications in NBC 1995
Clause 4.1.3.2 must be considered.
4.2.6 Assumptions about stiffness and strength
Stiffness properties and strength estimates for various structural stone-masonry
subsystems can be determined from information given in Chapters 5 through 7.
Often, in stone-masonry construction, the outer wythes are of superior quality with
a much higher Youngs modulus than the inner wythe, which sometimes is only
stone rubble. This condition can also be seen in newer brick masonry construction,
for example, in high-rise structures built in this century, where stone or terra-cotta
veneer is backed up by inferior bricks. The resulting load distribution, under both
gravity and seismic loading, can result in critical stress concentrations or out-of-
plane deformations. The effect of the different moduli of the built-up sections has
to be considered in the analysis.
4.3 Analysis procedures
The structural analysis of stone-masonry structures is required to assess the seismic
vulnerability of the structure and to establish the necessary upgrading
requirements. For structures that do not meet the requirements of the NBC 1995
seismic provisions and the criteria given in Chapter 7 of this document, the analysis
is repeated on the upgraded structure until an acceptable solution (i.e., safety and
level of intervention) is reached.
4.3.1 Analysis procedure selection
Although there are four different methods of analysis - linear static, non-linear
static, linear dynamic, and non-linear dynamic - the selection of an analysis
procedure is limited by our knowledge of the material behaviour and the current
condition of the stone-masonry structure. In general, linear static analysis is used
to model the behaviour of stone-masonry. Linear dynamic analysis is chosen for
evaluation of the seismic response of stone-masonry structures that have complex
geometry and plan irregularities. The modal properties (i.e., natural frequencies
and mode shapes) of the structure must be known before a dynamic analysis can be
performed.
Non-linear analysis is limited to modelling the behaviour of connections and the
response of over-stressed structural stone-masonry subsystems. It is also
recommended to assess the extent of the structure damage endured by stone-
masonry structures due to recent earthquake activities.
4.3.2 Linear static procedure
The procedure for linear static analysis is based on the seismic provisions of NBC
1995 that provides the necessary steps to compute the linear elastic seismic
35
response of stone-masonry structures. The calculation of seismic forces on the
basis of equivalent base shear and the distribution along the height of the structure
are obtained according to the following procedure:
1) Select a mathematical model for the structure in accordance with the
requirements of Section 4.2. The model needs to consider the torsional effects
due to plan irregularities.
2) Calculate the natural period of the structure using one of the methods given in
Section 6.3.1.
3) Determine the equivalent base shear of the structure according to Section
3.4.1.1.
4) Distribute the seismic forces along the height of the structure according to
Section 3.4.1.2.
5) With the aid of the mathematical model compute the responses for the
structure.
The acceptance of the results depends on the accuracy of the mathematical model
used for the analysis. The model must meet the requirements of Section 4.2 and
incorporate the various materials and engineering properties of the structural
subsystems, the mass of the non-structural subsystems, and the boundary
conditions. Connections between subsystems are modelled using the non-linear
procedure.
Given the complex geometry and material behaviour associated with stone-masonry
structures, the linear static procedure may be used to arrive at a preliminary
indication of the seismic response of stone-masonry structures. Refined analysis is
required for special types of structures: structures that have significant variations
in stiffness or rigidity among their structural subsystems, structures that have a
stiff or flexible diaphragm, and structures that are tall. The distribution of seismic
forces along the height of these structures can be accurately accounted for by
means of a dynamic procedure.
Chapters 5 and 6 provide information on the mechanical properties and analysis
procedure for typical stone-masonry subsystems. This information can be used in
conjunction with the mathematical models to calculate the elastic response of stone-
masonry subsystems.
4.3.3 Linear dynamic procedure
The procedure for linear dynamic analysis provides the necessary steps to compute
the elastic responses of stone-masonry structures by time history analysis. This
procedure provides an alternative approach for calculating the seismic forces and
their distribution along the height of the structure. Response spectrum modal
analysis is recommended for the linear dynamic procedure following the seismic
provisions of NBC 1995. The linear dynamic analysis should be carried out
according to the following procedure:
1) Establish the design spectrum from Figure J-4 of NBC 1995.
2) Select a mathematical model for the structure in accordance with the
requirements of Section 4.2. The model must account for the torsional effects
due to plan irregularities.
3) Determine the modal properties of the structure - mode shapes and natural
periods - as well as the modal participation factors.
4) Compute the modal base shears and other modal responses for the structure.
5) Compute the dynamic base shear and other dynamic responses using a suitable
mode combination rule. For structures that have well separated natural
periods, the traditional square-root-sum-square (SRSS) combination rule should
be used. For those structures with natural periods that are closely spaced, the
complete quadratic combination should be used. Stone-masonry structures tend
to have closely spaced natural periods.
6) Compute a scaling factor equal to the static base shear divided by the dynamic
base shear.
7) Obtain the seismic responses of the stone-masonry structures by multiplying the
results by the scaling factor.
This procedure provides a better vertical distribution of seismic forces than the
equivalent static method. However, the procedure requires knowledge of the
modal properties, i.e., natural periods and mode shapes of vibration. Modal
properties can be computed in accordance with Section 4.2; however, for a better
acceptance of the results, the computed modal properties should be calibrated
against the structures measured dynamic properties. The model should include
enough modes to account for not less than 95% of the vibration mass.
4.3.4 Non-linear static procedure
The procedure for non-linear static analysis provides the necessary steps for
computing the inelastic seismic responses of stone-masonry structures due to
equivalent static forces suggested by the NBC 1995. The procedure is similar to the
linear static procedure with the exception that the model takes into account non-
linear material deformation. The analysis procedure is iterative and will proceed
until failure. The non-linear static procedure is as follows:
37
3. Determine the equivalent base shear of the structure according to Section
3.4.1.1.
4. Distribute the seismic forces along the height of the structure by following
Section 3.4.1.2.
5. Using the mathematical model recommended in Section 4.2, compute the
responses for the structure using a step-by-step procedure similar to the one
given below:
(i) Establish the elastic range of the structure.
(ii) Compute the corresponding seismic force.
(iii) Obtain the non-linear portion of the seismic forces.
(iv) Compute the response of the structure using an appropriate number of
increments, e.g., by applying the elastic portion of the seismic force and
incrementing the non-linear portion of the seismic force.
(v) For each load increment, repeat the analysis until a convergence of the
response is reached (i.e., the structure is in equilibrium where the applied
loads are equal to the internal stress resultants).
6. Stop the iterative process once a failure mechanism has been established or the
total seismic force has been applied to the structure.
For stone-masonry structures, non-linear behaviour comes from cracking, opening
and sliding of the mortar joint, yielding of metal anchors, second-order
deformation of a flexible or stiff diaphragm, rocking of components, or yielding of
other materials used with stone-masonry. The non-linear representation of the
constituents of stone-masonry has little effect on the overall behaviour of the
structure and may be ignored.
The non-linear static procedure may be used to analyse and evaluate the seismic
capacity of connections and anchors. The use of non-linear analysis is deemed
appropriate for such small structural subsystems, especially when they are usually
the weakest, yet most critical link, between all structural subsystems.
Refined mathematical models, such as the finite element method or the discrete
element method, or an equivalent discretisation method, are recommended to
perform a non-linear analysis adequately. The reliability of the results depends on
the knowledge for the material and engineering properties, and on the ability of the
mathematical model to capture the essential response of stone-masonry. At
present, mathematical models for non-linear analysis of stone-masonry are
primarily used by researchers and academics; their use should be limited to those
professionals who have adequate knowledge and experience in this area.
4.3.5 Non-linear dynamic procedure
The procedure for non-linear dynamic analysis provides the steps necessary to
compute the inelastic responses of stone-masonry structures using a time history
analysis. This procedure gives the corresponding seismic forces and their
distribution along the height of the structure and, with some exceptions, is a
combination of the non-linear static procedure and the linear dynamic procedure.
Time histories representing the ground accelerations specific to the location of the
structure are typically used to dynamically excite the structure rather than the
forces based on the seismic design requirements given by NBC. Because of the
non-linear dynamic response of the structure, a step-by-step time-integration
procedure must be used for the non-linear dynamic procedure. This procedure is
time-consuming and should only be used to evaluate the seismic resistance of
valuable heritage structural subsystems, and of subsystems that have a high seismic
risk of failure and are difficult to assess and upgrade.
40 Chapter 5: Stone-masonry - Material Properties
the Romans mixed putty lime with pozzolana (a volcanic ash) and produced
pozzolanic mortars and concrete. The Coliseum and the Pantheon in Rome are
examples of Roman structures constructed with this concrete. When the pozzolana
was not available, the Romans also mixed putty lime with crushed and powdered
bricks to obtain hydraulic mortars. They used this material not only in Rome but
wherever hydraulic mortars were needed (Roman therms in Bath, U.K; Augsburg,
Germany; etc.) (Binda et al., 1994; 1996). In the eighteenth century, hydraulic
lime was introduced, followed by Portland cement in the early part of the
nineteenth century. Combining Portland cement with sand, lime, and water
produced a much stronger mortar than was previously possible. As a result, hard
and soft mortars were produced, depending on the proportions of cement and lime.
Similar to stone, the properties of mortar used in stone-masonry are quite variable.
In addition, the weathering characteristics of mortars, especially of the early
mortars, depend very much on local exposure conditions and the thickness of the
joint.
Figure 5.1 Compressive strength of rock materials (Winkler, 1994)
Chapter 5: Stone-masonry - Material Properties
41
Figure 5.2 Stress-strain relationship of rock in compression (Conrad and Sujata,
1960)
5.2 Physical properties
Material properties of stone masonry structure include properties for stone unit,
mortar, and stone masonry assembly.
5.2.1 Stone
Material properties corresponding to the stone unit bulk density, compressive
strength, tensile strength, and modulus of elasticity, are given next.
5.2.1.1 Bulk density
Bulk density is defined as the mass divided by the volume (kg/m
3
). The most
frequently used method for findi.m the bulk density of a stone is by immersion of
the unit in water. This approach avoids the problem of measuring the dimensions
of an irregular stone and, if done properly, does take into account the porosity of
the stone. However, this method can lead to erroneous results, if the stone is so
porous that on removal from the water, water runs out of the stone before the
stone can be weighed. A summary of typical values for stone density and porosity
reported in the literature is given in Table 5.1.
Table 5.1 Porosity and bulk density ranges of some common stone (Baker, 1899;
Chidiac et al., 1995; Winkler, 1994; Farmer, 1968; ICS, 1909; Parks,
1912)
Rock
(stone)
Bulk density
(kg/m
3
)
Porosity
(%)
Basalt 2800 - 2900 0.1 - 1.0
Granites 2600 - 2700 0.5 - 1.5
Gabbro (Black
granite)
3000 - 3100 0.1 - 0.2
Limestone 2200 - 2700 5.0 - 20.0
Marble 2600 - 2700 0.5 - 2.0
Quartzite 2650 0.1 - 0.5
Shale 2000 - 2400 10.0 - 30.0
Sandstone 2000 - 2600 5.0 - 25.0
Slate 2600 - 2700 0.1 - 0.5
5.2.1.2 Compressive strength
Compressive strength, the predominant property used for defining strength, will
vary according to the test procedure, the natural bedding plane of the stone, its
shape and size and the different methods of applying loads to the samples. ASTM
C170-90 recommends performing uniaxial load tests both perpendicular and
parallel to the bedding plane. The sample size is a 5-cm (2-in.) cube, dry and
soaked. Figure 5.3 illustrates the position of the test cube with load parallel and
perpendicular to the bedding plane of the sample. The compressive strength is
calculated from:
A
P
f
'
c
=
(5.1)
where P is the maximum applied normal force and A the cross-sectional area of the
sample. Figure 5.1 shows the range of compressive strength for common2types of
rock; Figure 5.2, the various stress stages that the rock undergoes before failure.
Table 5.2 gives ranges of compressive strength values for sandstone and limestone.
Table 5.2 Compressive strength of stone units (Baker, 1912; Chidiac et al., 1995;
Kidder, 1931; ICS, 1909; Parks, 1912)
Rock (stone) Compressive strength
(MPa)
Sandstone 8 290
Limestone 24 170
Guidelines for TheSeismic Assessment of Stone-masonry StrucGMSes
43
44
45
Italy on old mortars indicate that they had much higher binder (lime) contents than
modern mortars, with the average binder content being 25 to 35% by mass
(Schfer & Hilsdorf 1993). This corresponds to mix proportions of slaked lime to
sand of 1:4 to 1:3 by mass (Baronio and Binda, 1991). In terms of volume, this
works out to be from 1:1.3 to 1:1, assuming densities of 500 and 1500 kg/m
Table 5.6 Property specification requirements for mortar (ASTM C270-96)
Mortar Typ
e
Min. average
compressive
strength at 28
days (MPa)
Min.
water
retention
(%)
Max.
air
content
(%)
Aggregate ratio
(measured in damp,
loose conditions)
Cement-
lime
M
S
N
O
17.2
12.4
5.2
2.4
75
75
75
75
12
12
12-14
12-14
Not less than 2 and not
more than 3 times the
sum of the separate
volumes of cementitious
materials
5.2.2.2 Bond strength
The binding ability of mortar influences the shear and flexural strength of stone-
masonry. The bond strength of mortar to stone depends on the surface absorption
properties of the stone unit. The bond strength for a weak mortar (f
c
= 1 MPa)
was measured using a bond wrench (ASTM C1072-86) and was found to range
from 0.01 to 0.07 MPa (Chidiac et al., 1995). However, values up to 0.6 MPa are
achievable, depending on the stone and mortar properties.
5.2.3 Stone-masonry assembly
5.2.3.1 Compressive strength
Baker (1899, 1912) stated that no experiments were made to determine the strength
of stone-masonry because of lack of testing equipment with adequate strength.
This statement by Baker was quoted again by Merriman (1920). Instead of using
tests, Baker followed a qualitative argument using observations of existing masonry
structures and related experiments done on brick masonry to arrive at values for
the strength of the stone-masonry. The limitations of Bakers assumption that
stone-masonry will behave identically to clay brick masonry has to be recognised
before using the derived properties.
The following parameters affect the strength of a stone-masonry assembly (Baker,
1912): stone strength, size of the stones, accuracy of the dressing, proportion of
headers to stretchers, and the strength and size of the mortar joints.
Since the size of mortar joints affects the masonry strength, and since mortar is the
weakest component of masonry, it is desirable to use as little mortar as possible.
The smaller the mortar joints in relation to the height of the masonry unit, the
stronger the masonry will be. At the same time, however, enough mortar must be
used to ensure even bedding (stones should not touch each other) and a uniform
transfer of stress between stones. The smaller the amount of mortar, the more the
compressive strength of the masonry depends on the type of stone used instead of
47
the type of mortar. Strength of stone-masonry built with accurately shaped blocks
with thin mortar joints would approximate the stone strength irrespective of the
mortar strength (Hendry, 1990; 1994). Low-strength mortar, nevertheless, may
cause cracking at an earlier stage, unless the aggregate size is such that the mortar
can be considered a concrete.
Applying the conclusions from tests on brick piers to stone-masonry, Baker stated
that the generally accepted view that the working stress on stone-masonry should
not exceed one twentieth to one tenth of the strength of the stone was not a sound
design tool. Nevertheless, this was the design method recommended by the Civil
Engineers Pocket-Book (1893) and was used until the early 1900s. Baker then
explained that the experimental values of stone crushing strength that are used for
design purposes may vary by as much as 50%. This is due to undetected
differences in material, cutting, and manner of applying pressure. Further
reductions are required to allow for the type of structure built, the quality of
mortar, and the number of joints. The summary of documented compressive
strengths for stone-masonry given in Tables 5.7 to 5.9, illustrates the ranges of
values for different type of masonry. The stone-masonry compressive strength
ranges from 0.3 to 5.5 MPa depending on the type of masonry, masonry units and
mortar.
Table 5.7 Compressive strength of stone-masonry (Baker, 1899; Chidiac et al.,
1995; Merriman, 1920)
Rock
(stone)
Failure stress
(MPa)
Working stress
(MPa)
Sandstone 26 1.7
Limestone > 21 1.55 - 2.4
Table 5.8 Summary of reported mechanical properties of stone-masonry
(Tomazevic and Anicic 1989; Tomazevic and Sheppard 1982; Turnsek et
al., 1978)
Type of Stonework Compressive
strength
(MPa)
Modulus of
elasticity
(GPa)
I n-situ test:
Uncoursed outer wythes filled with rubble 4.7 - 5.5 1.8 - 2.1
Laboratory tests:
Limestone uncoursed, with earth mortar of
lime /clay and sand
Limestone uncoursed, with mortar of
lime/clean sand; mortar compressive
strength is 0.5-1.0 MPa
Limestone partly coursed, with mortar of
lime/clean sand; mortar compressive
strength is 1.0 MPa
0.46 - 0.54
0.31 - 0.37
0.71 - 0.82
0.22 - 0.19
0.31 - 0.48
2.9 - 3.6
Uncoursed stone with clayey sand mortar
Uncoursed stone with lime mortar, sand
(1:1)
(2:1)
(3:1)
0.3
0.5
0.9
0.2
1.0
1.0
2.2
Table 5.9 Maximum allowable compressive stress for unreinforced-masonry (CSA
S304.1-94)
Type of masonry Type of masonry units Type of mortar
S N
Compressive
strength (MPa)
Solid masonry or single wythe Rubble stone 0.8 0.7
Masonry Ashlar granite 5.0 4.4
Ashlar limestone and marble 3.1 2.8
Ashlar sandstone and cast
stone
2.5 2.2
49
5.2.3.2 Modulus of elasticity
Data found on modulus of elasticity for stone-masonry assemblies vary with the
type of construction, mortar mix, stone type, and the method of testing. Table 5.8
gives a range of values for the modulus of elasticity.
Alternatively, the modulus of elasticity can be approximated from the properties of
the stone unit and the mortar on the basis of strain compatibility, equilibrium, and
linear elastic behaviour (Drysdale et al., 1994). This leads to a relationship
between the elastic modulus of the assemblage and that of the mortar and stone:
E
E E
m
s j
=
+

1
1
(5.2)
where =
+
t
t t
s
s j
and t
s
is the height of the stone unit, t
j
the mortar joint thickness, E
s
the modulus
of elasticity of stone unit, and E
j
the modulus of elasticity of mortar joint. For
very thin mortar joints, this results in a modulus of elasticity which approaches
that of the stone unit.
5.2.3.3 Shear strength
Very little has been reported on the shear strength of stone-masonry. The German
standard DIN 1053 suggests a maximum value of 0.2 MPa (Henry, 1994). This
value corresponds to rugble construction. The shear strength at the block/mortar
interface can be approximated by
= +
0 D
(5.3)
where
0
is the adhesive shear strength, the coefficient of friction, and
D
the pre-
compression vertical stress. From a limited experimental investigation on triplet
specimens, the adhesive shear strength for the sandstone and limestone triplets was
found to be 0.12 and 0.06 MPa, respectively (Chidiac et al., 1995). The
corresponding coefficient of friction ranges from 0.62 to 0.80. Merriman (1920)
gives a value of 0.65 for the coefficient of friction of masonry upon masonry.
5.3 Condition assessment
Assessment of the present condition of stone-masonry subsystems is conducted
through visual inspection, in-situ material tests, and non-destructive tests.
5.3.1 Visual examination
Visual inspection is performed to determine the following:
location and overall dimensions of stone-masonry subsystems
location and dimensions of openings
type of walls, type of masonry, type and condition of masonry unit
number of wythes, the distance between wythes, the type of connections,
and the number and distribution of anchoring ties (wherever visible)
type and condition of the mortar
condition of connections between structural walls, between non-
structural subsystems and main structure, between walls and
diaphragms, and between walls and roof structure
The conformity of existing drawings to inspection findings has to be checked. If
large deviations from the original drawings are found or if no drawings are
available, a more elaborate investigation is required to accurately describe the
structural and non-structural subsystems as well as the integrity of the structure.
5.3.2 I n-situ measurement of mechanical properties
This section describes engineering methods for determining some of the mechanical
properties of stone-masonry by means of in-situ testing: compressive strength,
flexural tensile strength, shear strength, modulus of elasticity, shear modulus and
coefficient of friction.
5.3.2.1 Masonry compressive strength
Masonry compressive strength can be measured by one of the following methods:
a) Prismatic specimens are cut from an existing wall and tested. This is usually
not possible for walls made of irregularly shaped stones or of multiple wythes.
b) Prismatic specimens are fabricated from stone units extracted from an existing
wall and a surrogate mortar based on the chemical analysis of actual mortar
samples, and then tested.
c) Two flat jacks are inserted into slots cut into mortar bed joints and put under
pressure until peak stress, or until a target compressive strength is reached
(ASTM C1196-92). For irregularly shaped stones, the slot can be cut through
the stones (Modena et al., 1993).
In all the above methods the expected compressive strength must be determined
taking into account the net-mortared area.
5.3.2.2 Masonry flexural tensile strength
The flexural tensile strength of the bond between the mortar and the stone units
can be determined by using the bond-wrench method (ASTM standard C1072-94,
measurement of masonry flexural bond strength). The samples must be extracted
from an existing wall or pier.
51
5.3.2.3 Masonry shear strength
The in-place shear test recommended for the determination of shear strength for
brick and regular stone-masonry consists of the following steps:
1. Remove a couple of stones located to the left of the test sample and one located
to the right of it.
2. Insert a hydraulic jack in the left-side opening.
3. Insert a measuring gauge in the opening located on the right side.
4. Apply pressure on the sample using the hydraulic jack until movement is
detected by the gauge.
5. Place a measuring gauge above and below the top mortar joint of the test
sample.
6. Cut the top mortar joint of the test sample and record the movement.
7. Insert a flat jack into the slot cut into mortar bed joints, then apply enough
pressure to restore the original location.
8. Record the pressure and then determine the applied compressive stress.
This procedure permits the determination of the bonding strength of the mortar as
well as the coefficient of friction between the stone and mortar.
For uncoursed stone-masonry the determination of shear strength is somewhat
difficult. For these structures, the shear strength of the material can be
conservatively taken as 0.6 times the pre-compression vertical stress. The pre-
compression vertical stress and the shear strength must be determined for the net
mortared area.
For rubble construction, the shear strength needs to be limited to a maximum value
of 0.2 MPa.
5.3.2.4 Coefficient of friction
The coefficient of friction can be determined using the procedure of Section
5.4.2.3.
Recommended values for the coefficient of friction vary from 0.6 to 0.75,
depending on the quality of the mortar and the voiding ratio of the mortar. A
value of 0.6 should be used where significant leaching of the mortar and voiding
within the masonry is observed. The upper value of 0.75 represents the coefficient
of friction for sand bedding.
5.3.2.5 Modulus of elasticity for masonry
The modulus of elasticity for masonry can be determined using one of the following
methods:
a) Prismatic specimens are extracted from an existing wall, and tested in the
laboratory. Compressive stress-strain curves need to be plotted in order to
derive the modulus values.
b) Two flat jacks are inserted into slots cut into mortar bed joints and put under
pressure until one half of the expected compressive strength of the masonry is
reached. The deformation between the two flat jacks needs to be measured to
derive the compressive strain, and will later help to determine the elastic
modulus (ASTM C1197-92).
5.3.2.6 Masonry shear modulus
The shear modulus of masonry varies from 0.1 to 0.4 times the value of the elastic
modulus in compression for uncoursed / rubble construction and coursed
construction, respectively.
5.3.3 Location and minimum number of tests
The number and location of material tests need be chosen to provide sufficient
information to describe the material behaviour of the structure. The initial
selection for the location of the tests needs to be in the structural subsystems
identified as being critical to the primary path of lateral force resistance.
Additional locations need be chosen to measure the properties in areas where the
values are expected to change because of differences in the type of construction,
material, age of construction, deterioration of the material, etc.
The minimum number of tests depends on the quality and uniformity of
construction. For good-quality masonry whose properties are found to be more or
less uniform, using non-destructive tests according to Section 5.3.4, the minimum
number of tests per 200 m
2
and for every three floors is recommended to be at least
three. For structures whose material properties are perceived to be inconsistent,
the uniformity of the material properties must first be evaluated by using non-
destructive tests according to Section 5.3.4. The number of locations must increase
to accommodate the variations in the material properties.
If the coefficient of variation in test measurements exceeds 25%, additional tests
are recommended. If the variation does not improve with more test results, the use
of a value of 0.85 for the knowledge factor is recommended when using the test
data.
5.3.4 Non-destructive tests
Non-destructive tests are typically used to measure geometrical properties and
composition, physical properties, strength, integrity, and moisture content of
materials. Stone-masonry assembly has a complex inner structure, especially if
constructed of rubble stone and mortar. Thus, the use of non-destructive testing to
quantify the physical properties and strength of stone-masonry is not
53
recommended. The methods can however be used to measure variation in the
material properties or changes in the structure of the stone-masonry, and to detect
anchoring metals within the masonry assembly. For a general treatment, see
Suprenant and Schuller (1994).
Different methods can be used to test the stone-masonry without causing any
destruction to its fabric. They are grouped as visual methods, mechanical
methods, electromagnetic methods, sonic and ultrasonic methods, and
radiography.
The location and number of non-destructive tests is to be in accordance with the
requirements of Section 5.3.3. The next section gives information about non-
destructive tests for stone-masonry as well as their application, advantages, and
limitations.
5.3.4.1 Flat jack
The flat jack is used to determine in-situ deformation properties and existing
compressive stress in masonry. It consists of a thin metal diaphragm formed from
two sheets of steel welded at the edges with two openings to allow oil to be pumped
into it. It is either rectangular or semi-circular. The flat jack is thin enough to be
inserted into a slot cut into a mortar joint. It also comes with a hand-held strain
gauge to monitor the deformation across the slot before and after it is cut into the
wall.
The flat jack has been successfully used both in stone-masonry structures of
historical significance and with modern masonry cladding. It can determine the
compressive stresses in masonry walls to within 15%. The test can also be used to
determine the in-situ compressive strength (semi-destructive test) and the stress-
strain relationship.
The test is limited to a maximum stress of approximately 7 MPa and requires a flat
surface. It requires a slot to be cut into the wall, which will need to be repaired
after the tests. ASTM C1196-92 and C1197-92 standards provide the test
procedure (Binda et al., 1997).
5.3.4.2 Sonic pulse velocity method (I mpact echo method)
The test consists of a stress pulse applied to the surface of the member by
mechanical impact. In contrast 6(n)n electromechanical transducer (ultrasonic
method), the energy is much less directional and spreads into the member in all
directions, but the energy is usually much greater. The pulse or stress wave
propagates within the member and is reflected at material discontinuities (cracks,
voids, member boundaries). The reflected waves are measured at the impact point
or at a number of different points.
The time of arrival and the amplitude of the reflected wave can be determined. If
the pulse velocity in the material is known, then the depth to each reflected object
within the member can be estimated from the arrival (travel) time of the reflected
waves. Alternatively, the frequency content of the returning signal can be
analysed. The waves caused by the impact are reflected at internal discontinuities
and surface interfaces. The impacted surface is also an interface, thus the pulse
will propagate back and forth between the surfaces and each internal discontinuity.
These repeated surface reflections produce a decaying periodic surface response
that can be monitored by placing a transducer close to the point of impact. The
frequency content of this periodic response can then be used to determine the
presence and depth of discontinuities.
The sonic pulse velocity or impact echo method is extremely useful when only one
surface of a component is accessible, since both the transmitter and receiver can be
located on the same surface. It can be used primarily to measure wythe thickness;
determine voids within the wythe; locate cracks, failure, and defects; and assess the
uniformity of a material within a structure or within a structural subsystem.
It should be noted that the test method has limited resolution that depends on the
wave velocity in the material and the frequency of the pulse. In principle, high-
frequency pulses are required to detect small defects or dimensions. Also, the
reflected response is complex when the inner wythe geometry is not simple and
when the pulse produced by the hammer impact propagates equally in all
directions. Sonic tomography can be used for interpreting the results of the sonic
pulse velocity test.
5.3.4.3 Ultrasonic pulse velocity
An electromagnetic transducer transmits a high-frequency pulse into the member
under investigation. The time taken by the pulse to reach another point on the
member, or the time taken to return is measured. If the distance between the
points is known, the pulse velocity can be calculated. The velocity is a function of
the dynamic modulus of elasticity, Poissons ratio and the density of the materials
through which it passes. If there are defects such as voids or low-density areas,
then the pulse is reflected and refracted. This lowers the velocity and attenuates
the amplitude of the transmitted wave.
The ultrasonic pulse velocity can be used to assess the uniformity and relative
quality of masonry, to measure the thickness of wythes, to detect cracks and voids,
55
affected by joints and voids that rapidly attenuate the signal, reducing the depth of
penetration. Open joints present an impenetrable barrier to the ultrasonic waves.
The results are also affected by the moisture condition of the material. ASTM
E797-90 standard provides the test procedure.
5.3.4.4 Radar
Radar is the electromagnetic analogue of sonic and ultrasonic pulse-velocity
methods. Electromagnetic waves travel through the material and are reflected or
refracted where changes occur in the dielectric properties of the material. Such
changes occur with a change in material, density, or water content. Moisture
attenuates and diffuses a signal and reduces the level of response. Steel acts as a
complete barrier. The longer the wavelength, the greater the penetration and the
lower the resolution.
Radar can be used to detect voids within the stone-masonry construction; locate
cavities, voids, and metal components; establish a boundary between wythes; and
locate a cavity in a wythe within a wall. The interpretation of radar scan output is
not easy and requires an experienced technician.
5.4 Knowledge factor
The investigators knowledge pertaining to the mechanical and physical properties
of stone-masonry structural subsystems is seldom complete because of the limited
intervention permitted for classified heritage structures. A material safety factor,
k, also referred to as the knowledge factor, is therefore introduced to account for
the lack of material information. A value of 0.75 represents a minimal level of
knowledge about the structural subsystems and a value of 1.00 represents a
comprehensive level of knowledge of the structural subsystems under
consideration. A minimal level of knowledge applies to visual examination of the
comprehensive level can be used if the following conditions are met:
1. Compressive strength of the masonry is determined in accordance with the
requirements of Section 5.3.2.1.
2. Shear strength of the masonry is determined in accordance with the
3. Uniformity of the properties is assessed using at least one of the requirements of
Section 5.3.4
4. Compressive stresses of the masonry are determined in accordance with the
5. Physical properties of the masonry are measured according to the requirements
of Section 5.3.3.
6. STONE-MASONRY - ENGINEERING PROPERTIES
6.1 Introduction
This chapter provides basic engineering information to compute the structural
response of typical stone-masonry subsystems, both structural and non-structural.
Procedures to approximate the stiffness of subsystems and to compute the forces
and stress resultants are also included. The material properties can be obtained in
accordance with the requirements of Chapter 5. Applied lateral forces, computed
in accordance with Section 3.4.1, must meet the requirements of NBC 1995.
6.2 Limitations
Stone-masonry subsystems have various geometrical shapes, material types, and
construction methods. For subsystems that possess complex geometrical shapes, it
is recommended that the analysis be carried out using refined mathematical models
presented in Section 4.3. The analytical procedures set forth in this chapter
encompass the following assumptions:
The structure is continuous and perfectly bonded.
The material is elastic, linear, and homogeneous.
There are no discontinuities or voids within the structure.
Section 4.3 provides the recommended procedures for performing linear static
analysis, linear dynamic analysis, non-linear static analysis, or non-linear dynamic
analysis.
As few stone-masonry structures are perfectly bonded, elastic, linear, homogeneous
or without discontinuities, it is difficult to establish even approximate property
values for the material. Without representative values for the material properties,
a refined analysis is not warranted. For these structures only the vibration test,
presented in Section 6.3.1.4, provides meaningful information about their global
dynamic properties.
6.3 Dynamic properties of stone-masonry structure
The structural response due to ground shaking is controlled by the dynamic or
vibration properties of the structure. The dynamic properties are represented by
the natural periods (T), the modes of vibration, and the structural and material
damping. NBC 1995 provides empirical formulae to determine the natural period
that corresponds to modern structures. Past experience with stone-masonry
structures has revealed, however, that the measured dynamic properties do not
correlate well with the empirical formulae given by NBC 1995. In this section,
Chapter 6: Stone-masonry - Engineering Properties
57
alternative procedures are presented for determining the natural period. It should
be noted that NBC 1995 limits the variation of from the empirical formulae to
20%.
6.3.1 Natural period
The fundamental period of a stone-masonry building can be determined by one of
the following methods:
1. Empirical relations
2. Rayleigh approximation method
3. Eigenvalue analysis
4. Vibration tests
6.3.1.1 Empirical relations by NBC 1995
1. For buildings in which the lateral-force-resisting system consists of moment-
resisting frames capable of resisting all of the required lateral force, and such
frames are not enclosed or adjoined by more rigid components which tend to
prevent the frames from deflecting under seismic load, the fundamental period,
T, can be determined in accordance with the following relation
n 1 . 0 T = (6.1)
where n is the number of storeys above ground. This formula is unlikely to
apply to any stone-masonry building.
2. For all other buildings, the natural period is determined by
D
h
09 . 0 T = (6.2)
where D is the overall length (in m) of the building at the base in the direction
under consideration, and h is the total height in meters above base of the
building.
6.3.1.2 Rayleigh method
The fundamental period, T, can be approximated by
=
=
=
n
1 i
i i
n
1 i
2
i i
W g
W
2 T (6.3)
where W
i
is the weight of storeys i,
i
(i=1,,n) is the elastic deflections in storeys
i, due to the forces W
i
applied horizontally at storeys i, and g is the acceleration
due to gravity.
58 Chapter 6: Stone-masonry - Engineering Properties
6.3.1.3 Eigenvalue analysis
An eigenvalue (dynamic) analysis can be performed to compute the natural periods
and mode shapes of the structure using the mathematical model generated for the
building. Commercially available structural analysis packages can be used to
perform eigenvalue analysis.
6.3.1.4 Vibration test
Ambient or forced vibration tests can be conducted on a building to obtain the
fundamental periods of vibration and to extract the modes of vibrations. Although
such a test can be time consuming, it is the only method that yields representative
dynamic properties of a structure. Dynamic testing gives valuable information
about the effect of stiffness and mass distribution and possible hinges associated
with subsystems. The results obtained from dynamic testing reflect the condition
of the masonry under low excitations.
The measured properties of the structure can be further used to calibrate the
mathematical model used in the analysis.
6.4 Structural subsystems
The primary structural subsystems for stone-masonry are walls, piers, arches,
vaults, domes, lintels, flying buttresses and towers. Methods for computing their
stiffness are presented.
6.4.1 Walls and piers
6.4.1.1 Stiffness of a single-wythe wall
Stone-masonry walls and piers must only be considered part of the lateral resisting
structural subsystem when the lateral load is applied parallel to their long axis,
i.e., parallel to the length of the wall. The lateral stiffness must include both
flexural and shear deformations, and can be obtained using one of the following
approximations.
The stiffness of a wall subjected to a horizontal force at the top can be obtained
from
A G
h k
I E 3
h
1
K
m m
3
wall
C
+
= (6.4)
The above relation assumes that the wall is a cantilever and can be used to model
walls connected to a rigid diaphragm. For walls that are fixed at both ends, the
stiffness is given by
59
A G
h k
I E 12
h
1
K
m m
3
wall
F
+
= (6.5)
Equation 6.5 is to be used for the stiffness calculation of walls with openings.
For a wall subjected to a uniformly distributed load, the stiffness is given by
A G
h k
2
1
I E
h
8
1
1
K
m m
3
wall
+
= (6.6)
The above relation can be used for relatively short walls that are connected to a
flexible diaphragm.
The stiffness of a wall subjected to a triangularly distributed load with zero
pressure at the top and maximum pressure at the bottom is
K
h
E I
k h
G A
wall
m m
=
+
1
11
60
2
3
3
(6.7)
The above relation can be used for tall walls that are connected to a flexible
diaphragm.
For the wall stiffness relations given above, E
m
is the modulus of elasticity, G
m
the
shear modulus, A the uncracked cross section, h the height of the wall, I the
moment of inertia, and k the shape factor. For a rectangular section k is equal to
1.2.
These relations assume that the wall is continuous and fully bonded. The
calculated value of the stiffness must reflect the condition of the wall, i.e., for
poorly constructed walls, the values of E and A need to be reduced. For cases
where the wall is found to contain structural cracks, the values of I, A and E
m
must
be adjusted to reflect the cracked section.
6.4.1.2 Stiffness of a multi-wythe wall
Stone-masonry walls often consist of more than one wythe,frequently of two outer
wythes of good-coursed ashlar with random rubble and mortar fill contained
between these skins. This section presents two mathematical models that can be
used to approximate the stiffness of multi-wythe walls, based on the stiffness and
connections of the middle wythe to the outer wythes.
Strong Interface. The stiffness of an adequately bonded multi-wythe wall is the
greater of the two values determined as follows:
1. The composite-wall stiffness is computed like that of a single wythe but
based on the following physical properties:
=
=
n
1 i
i wall
t t (6.8)
n
E
E
n
1 i
i
m
=
= (6.9)
2. The composite wall-stiffness is the sum all the wythes stiffness computed
like that of a single wythe:
=
=
n
1 i
i wall
K K (6.10)
where n represents the number of wythes.
Weak Interface. The stiffness of a multi-wythe wall that is poorly connected is
treated as multi-independent and separated walls. The loads are distributed to the
individual wythes according to Section 6.4.1.3.
6.4.1.3 Load transfer in a multi-wythe wall system
Two mathematical models can be used to determine the vertical load transfer
across multi-wythe wall subsystems. The first model assumes that the middle
wythe is adequately bonded to the two outer wythes and that they deform equally.
The second model considers an interface that has no stiffness and where the load is
transferred through the frictional shear stress, i.e., the wythes re poorly bonded.
It should be noted that the model for the weak interface does not account for the
built-up internal pressure generated by the out-of-plane deformation of the middle
wythe, i.e., bulging.
61
Wythes Adequately Bonded. For a concentrated vertical load P, applied at a
distance e from the centre of a three-wythe wall, as shown in Figure 6.1, the load is
distributed to the individual wythe according to the following relation (Binda et al.,
1992):
P
) b a ( K K ) b K a K ( K
) b e )( b a ( K a e K
K F
2
3 1
2
3
2
1 2
3 2
1 1
+ + +
+ + +
= (6.11a)
P
) b a ( K K ) b K a K ( K
) e b ( b K ) e a ( a K
K F
2
3 1
2
3
2
1 2
3 1
2 2
+ + +
+ +
= (6.11b)
P
) b a ( K K ) b K a K ( K
b e K ) e a )( b a ( K
K F
2
3 1
2
3
2
1 2
2 1
3 3
+ + +
+
= (6.11c)
where a and b are the distances between the centres of exterior wythes and the
t
2
= the thickness of the interior wythe,
s = the thickness of the intermediate wythe,
E
1
= the modulus of elasticity for the exterior wythe,
E
2
= the modulus of elasticity for the interior wythe,
l = the length of the transfer area, and
x = the distance from the wall top to a current section.
The parameter is calculated using the following relation:
)
t E
t E 2
t
d 12
1 (
s t E
G
2 2
1 1
2
1
2
1 1
+ + = (6.13)
where G is the shear modulus of the weak joint, and d is given by:
2
t
s d
1
+ = (6.14)
63
The shear stress at the interface between the joint and the wythe is expressed by
( )
x d
N d
x = (6.15)
Weak lintel. For walls that have relatively shallow or weak lintels, the equivalent
stiffness of the wall does not include the contribution of the lintel. The stiffness is
equal to the sum of the stiffness of the two piers located on both sides of the
opening. Subsequently, the lateral load is distributed to the piers in proportion to
their stiffness.
Strong lintel. The deflection of a wall with openings can be approximated by
calculating the deflection at the top of the wall due to an applied load P,
considering the wall to be solid. Then, the deflection of the entire strip that
contains openings is subtracted and, for the same strip, the deflection of the
remaining piers between the openings are added as fixed-ended columns (Drysdale
et al., 1994). The calculation procedure is illustrated using the wall shown in
Figure 6.3, i.e.,
7 2 A strip wall solid wall
+ = (6.17)
where
wall
is the deflection of the solid wall,
strip A
the deflection of strip A, and
2-
7
the deflection of individual piers 2 to 7. The deflection for the solid wall and strip
considers that the wall is a cantilever and Eq. 6.4 is used, whereas the deflection of
piers 2 to 7 is based on the assumption of fixed-end conditions and Eq. 6.5 is used.
The wall stiffness is given by
wall
wall
= (6.18)
Figure 6.3 Wall with openings
6.4.2 Arches
Arches are designed mainly to resist gravity loads. They are vulnerable to lateral
loads. The evaluation of their engineering properties is based on the assumptions
that the material can resist only compressive forces, and that no slippage occurs
between arch or arcade stone units. The arches must accommodate the movements
of the abutments. For engineering purposes, the arches can be considered an
Guidelines for TheSeismic Assessment of Stone-masonry Strwctures
65
assemblage of rigid blocks forming the arch shape. Assuming the blocks to be
rigid means that they cannot deform within themselves, but that they can rotate
about different contact points, thereby transferring the compression to the
abutments. The mechanism works as long as the thrust line lies within the stone-
masonry. Various types of flat arches are shown in Figure 6.4.
Arches with fixed supports or with one or two hinges are indeterminate strwctures.
Their analysis under gravity and seismic loads is best carried out by finite element
methods. Only the simplest case, the three-hinged arch, will be presented here.
Figure 6.4 Typical flat arches
Three-hinged arches. Arches with three hinges subjected to vertical loads, as
shown in Figure 6.5, may be analysed using the following equations:
h
M
HHH
0
C
BA
=== (6979a)
+= tan H V V
0
AA
(6979b)
= tan H V V
0
BB
(6979c)
where H
A
and H
B
are the horizontal thrusts; V
A
and V
B
are the vertical reaction
forces; V
A
0
and V
B
0
are the vertical reaction forces for a simply supported beam
with the same span as that of the arch; M
C
0
is the corresponding bending moment
for the simply supported beam with similar span; h is the height of the arch,
measured from the support line to the key; and is the inclination of the support
line.
66
Chapter 6: Stone-masonry - Engoneering Properties
67
Figure 6.6 Hemispherical dome idealised as a shell structure
For hemispherical domes idealised as shells (see Figure 6.6), the stress acting on a
diametrical ring because of gravity loads can be approximated by :
r = (6.21)
where and r are the unit weight and the radius, respectively. The hoop stress
resultant N
and the meridian stress resultant N
, schematically illustrated in
Figures 6.7 and 6.8, may be computed by:
) cos cos 1 (
cos 1
r w
N
2

+
=
(6.22a)
+
=
cos 1
r w
N (6.22b)
where is angle defining the parallel circle, the angle defining the meridian,
and t the thickness of the shell. w is the load per unit area obtained from:
t w = (6.23)
Figure 6.7 Meridian of a spherical
shell
Figure 6.8 Equilibrium of an infinitesimal
shell element
A technique called slicing can be used to approximaue the resultant forces
(Heyman, 1995). Slicing the dome in two halves forms a quasi two-dimensional
arch as shown in Figure 6.9. The minimum thickness required of the dome must
contain the thrust line arising from its own weight, W, as well as the lateral load,
H.
Figure 6.9 Minimum thickness of a sliced arch
The sketch of a barrel of radius r and length l is shown in Figure 6.10. The
equilibrium conditions of an infinitesimal shell element located a distance x and
subjected to a weight W is given in Figure 6.11. The resultant forces N
x
and N
are
in the normal direction, and N
x
represents the shear forces. From the equilibrium
conditions, the radial force is found to be
69
=
cos r w N (6.24)
This shows that the resultant forces around the circumference of the barrel have a
maximum value of (w * r) per unit length at the crown. It should be noted that
Eq. 6.24 applies to each vault, irrespective of the number of vaults (Heyman,
1995).
Figure 6.10 Semi-cylindrical shell carrying its own weight
F i g u r e 6 1 1 1 I n f i n i t e s i m a l e l e m e n t o f b a r r e l s h e l l
T h e f o r c e s f o r a s i n g l e - b a y v a u l t c a n b e a p p r o x i m a t e d b y a p p l y i n g a c o m p r e s s i o n
f o r c e w h o s e m a g n i t u d e i s ( w * r ) p e r u n i t l e n g t h a t t h e c r o w n ( s e e F i g u r e 6 1 1 2 ) .
T h e n e c e s s a r y f o r c e s f o r e q u i l i b r i u m o f t h e v a u l t a r e s h o w n i n F i g u r e 6 1 1 3
( H e y m a n , 1 9 9 5 ) .
72 Chapter 6: Stone-masonry - Engineering Propertmes
Figure 6.16 Forces acting on a buttressing pier: (a) stable buttress, if not
overturned at the base; (b) sliding failure in the absence of pinnacle;
(c) added weight prevents sliding failure (Heyman, 1995)
The system of forces required to keep the flyer of weight, W, in equilibrium are
expressed by:
b 8
Wl
H = (6.25a)
)
b
h
4
1
1 ( W
2
1
V = (6.25b)
where H is the horizontal thrust, V the vertical force at the top of the buttress, l
the span of the flying buttress, b the depth of the buttress, and h the height (see
Figure 6.17).
Figure 6.17 Flying buttress represented by an inclined flat arch
73
A flying buttress resisting its own weight is in a passive state, but all flying
buttresses work in the active state as shown in Figure 6.18. Since it is difficult to
determine the magnitude of the thrust force exerted on the flyer, the actual position
of the thrust line cannot be calculated. Inspection of the flying buttress, in
particular location of cracks, strongly indicates as to whether under gravity loads,
the thrust line is outside the section (refer to Figure 2.4).
Figure 6.18 Passive and active state of an idealised flying buttress
6.4.6 Towers
A tower is a structural subsystem that can be idealised as a shaft fixed at the base.
The stiffness properties depend on the geometry, modulus of elasticity, and shear
modulus. Their equivalent flexural and shear stiffness can be calculated by:
A G
h
I E 3
h
1
K
m m
3

+
= (6.26)
where h is the height of the tower, E
m
the modulus of elasticity of the masonry,
the shape factor that takes into account the non-uniform distribution of shear
stresses on the cross section of the tower, G
m
the shear modulus of the masonry,
and A the cross section area of the tower.
6.5 Anchorage of stone-masonry subsystems
Anchorage of stone-masonry subsystems is extremely important. Simple
calculation procedures to evaluate the stiffness and forces for stone-masonry
subsystems are not available. Extreme conditions can be assumed, i.e., rigid and
flexible, to establish the upper and lower response limits of a structural subsystem.
It should be noted that well keyed stone-masonry can be represented by a rigid
connection, provided the force demand does not exceed the shear capacity of the
material.
NBC method can be used to estimate the anchorage forces. Refined mathematical
models are then applied to calculate the load carried by the anchoring system and
the capacity of the anchors can be checked by following the procedures of the NRC
Guidelines-Appendix A (1993) for unreinforced-masonry walls since, there are no
data available for stone-masonry.
6.6 Non-structural subsystems
Non-structural subsystems are not generally designed to resist structural loads,
including seismic loads. In this section, procedures to evaluate their seismic
capacity are presented on the basis of seismic performance.
6.6.1 Veneers
The stiffness of a veneer wall is to be evaluated like that of the shear wall. The
objectives of this procedure are to estimate the deformation of the veneer and to
check the adequacy of the connections to the structural subsystems.
Veneers are commonly high-quality materials with a Youngs Modulus far
exceeding that of the substrate. Seismic and gravity forces, therefore, concentrate
in the veneer, and this can create secondary shear stresses between veneer and
substrate that often require strong connections.
6.6.2 Pinnacles
Pinnacles are analysed as vertical cantilever beams subjected to inertia forces due
to their own mass. The basic relation for evaluating the stiffness properties is
similar to that used for towers.
6.6.3 Appendages, parapets, cornices, statues, and other ornaments
The out-of-plane displacement of appendages, parapets, cornices, statues, and
other ornaments must be checked for seismically induced inertia forces. Their
stiffness is to be evaluated according to their geometry and material properties.
The inertia force can be computed in accordance with the requirements of NBC
1995 for architectural components.
6.6.4 Chimneys
The stiffness of a chimney can be determined using the relation given for towers
and the applied inertia force computed using the requirements of NBC 1995 for
architectural components.
7. SEISMIC ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA
7.1 Scope
This chapter presents the seismic assessment criteria for stone-masonry. The
specified criteria are purposely broad in order to accommodate the different types
of structural subsystems, to compensate for the expected variations in the material
performance, and to satisfy a broad range of performance levels.
7.2 Acceptance criteria
Acceptance criteria are defined to reflect analysis procedure and response
requirements.
7.2.1 General requirements
The stone-masonry subsystems are modelled and analysed using either linear or
non-linear analysis procedures. The resultant forces and deformations constitute
the demand requirements of the structural subsystems that are to be compared
with the capacity values of the structural subsystems under consideration.
Acceptance criteria are established for both strength and deformation.
7.2.2 Linear procedure
For the linear analysis procedure, the strength acceptance criterion is:
D C
Q kQ (7.1)
where k, Q
C
, and Q
D
are, respectively, the knowledge factor as defined in Section
5.4, the available strength capacity of the structural subsystem, and the demand
value established from the seismic analysis.
The deformation acceptance criteria is similar to the one given for the strength
acceptance criteria since there is no ductility expected in the linear elastic analysis:
D C
k (7.2)
where
C
and
D
are, respectively, the available deformation (capacity) of the
subsystem and the demand value of deformation established from the seismic
analysis.
7.2.3 Non-linear procedure
For the non-linear analysis procedure, the strength acceptance criteria are similar
to those of the linear analysis procedure. However, the calculation of the demand
requirements must include reductions to the subsystem stiffness, when the linear
stress and deformation limits of the material are exceeded.
76 Chapter 7: Seismic Acceptance Criteria
D C
Q kQ (7.3)
where k, Q
C
, and Q
D
are the knowledge factor as defined in Section 5.5, the
expected strength capacity of the structural subsystem, and the demand value
established from the seismic analysis, respectively.
The deformation acceptance criteria include the ductility of the material:
D C
k (7.4)
where represent the ductility of the material. Based on limited test data, a
maximum value of 1.3 can be used for the ductility of stone-masonry.
7.3 Acceptance criteria for stone-masonry subsystems
Specific acceptance criteria are defined herewith for structural subsystems, i.e.,
walls, piers and towers; arches; vaults and domes; lintels; flying buttresses; and
non-structural subsystems.
7.3.1 Walls, piers, and towers
7.3.1.1 Strength criteria
Sliding and rocking are two modes of failure that control the strength capacity of
stone-masonry walls, piers and towers. The strength capacity of existing stone
walls and piers is the lesser of the following three (capacity) properties:
Sliding capacity
) ( Q
up 0 sl , C
= (7.5)
where = coefficient of friction,
0
= average normal stress due to gravity loads , and
up
= the uplift stress produced by the vertical accelerations.
The uplift stress value is to be computed using a vertical acceleration equal to two-
thirds of the horizontal ground acceleration.
Rocking capacity
h
D
9 . 0 Q
0 r , C
= (7.6)
where = factor for boundary conditions (equal to 0.5 for fixed-free wall or pier,
or equal to 1.0 for fixed-fixed wall or pier),
0
= average vertical compressive stress in the wall or pier due to gravity
and vertical inertia forces,
D = in-plane width of the masonry, and
h = height of the wall or pier.
Chapter 7: Seismic Acceptance Criteria
77
A capacity reduction factor of 0.9 is added to compensate for toe-crushing and
existing out-of-plane deformation.
Shear capacity
Minimum of the two relationships:
u sh , C
9 . 0 Q = (7.7)
t
D t
sh , C
f
1
b
f
9 . 0 Q

+ = (7.8a)
whrre ( )
2
u
2
D D
t
b
2 2
f +
+

= (7.8b)
Hrre,
D
=the compression vertical stress,
b = the shear stress distribution,
u
= the shear strength of the wall, and
f
t
= the refrrence tensile strength of masonry.
The strength acceptance criterion for the walls and piers is:
) Q , Q , Q min( . k Q
sh , C r , C sl , C D
(7.9)
whrre Q
D
is equal to the demand horizontal shear force obtained from the seismic
analysis divided by the net cross section of the subsystem.
7.3.1.2 Deformation criteria
The deformation acceptance criterion for walls and piers is
C D
. k (7.10)
whrre
D
= the demand deformation obtained from the seismic analysis, and
C
= the deformation capacity.
C
is further defined as
h 0004 . 0
C
= for rubble stone-masonry (7.11a)
h 002 . 0
C
= for good-quality coursed stone-masonry (7.11b)
h = the storey height.
7.3.2 Arches
7.3.2.1 Strength criteria
The strength criteria for arches are governed by two modes of failure: crushing
and crack-opening of the masonry.
Crushing criterion
C D
Q . k Q (7.12)
where Q
D
and Q
C
are, respectively, the maximum compressive stress due to
gravitational and seismic loads, and the compressive strength of the stone-masonry.
Cracking criterion
Cracking of the arch due to bending stress occurs when
c t
A A (7.13)
where A
t
is the area in tension, A
c
the area in compression, and the limit ratio.
For a value of 0.67 is suggested.
7.3.2.2 Deformation criteria
The deformation acceptance criterion for stone arches is that the thrust line lie
within the shape of the arch, as shown in Figure 7.1. The tolerated in-plane and
out-of-plane movement can be approximated from the geometry of the arch.
In-plane movement
l
h
b 2
Plane In , H

(7.14)
where
H, In-Plane
= the horizontal in-plane movement of the arch abutment due to all
actions (dead load, seismic etc.),
b = the depth of the arch,
h = the height of the arch, and
l = the span of the arch.
Out-of-plane movement
0
Plane of Out , H
h 2
h
t

(7.15)
where
H, Out-of-Plane
= the horizontal out-of-plane movement of the arch key due
to all actions,
t = the thickness of the arch, and
h
0
= the height of the centre of mass above the abutments line.
79
Figure 7.1 (a) Minimum and (b) maximum abutment thrust due to in-plane
movement
7.3.3 Vaults and domes
The stability acceptance criterion is the predominant one for vaults and domes. A
non-linear analysis can be performed to determine the stability of the vaults during
an earthquake. Alternatively, a simple stability criterion is given to accept the
stress values using the geometry of the dome. This criterion is expressed by
t
E k Q
Q . k Q
cr
cr D
(7.16)
where Q
D
= the maximum compressive stress due to gravitational and seismic
loads,
Q
cr
= the critical stress,
k = the knowledge factor,
k = a constant value equal to 0.25 (Heyman, 1995),
t = the thickness of the dome, and
=the radius of curvature of the shell.
From the geometry of the arch, the tolerated movement can be obtained from
r 2
h
t
Radial , H
(7.17)
where
H, Radial
is the horizontal radial movement of the supporting ring, t is the
thickness of the dome, and r is the radius of the dome. For hemispherical domes,
the criterion becomes
2
t
Radial , H
(7.18)
Figure 7.2 illustrates the cracking pattern of a dome due to radial movement.
81
where
D
= the demand deformation obtained from the seismic analysis, and
C
= the deformation capacity.
C
is further defined as
h 0004 . 0
C
= for rubble stone-masonry (7.11a)
h 002 . 0
C
= for good-quality coursed stone-masonry (7.11b)
h = the height of unsupported buttress.
The stability acceptance criterion for stone arches requires that the thrust line lie
within the shape of the arch.
7.3.6 Non-structural subsystems
7.3.6.1 Veneers
Drift analysis is necessary for checking the stability of stone-masonry veneer. The
limiting drift ratio is 0.001. A check of the anchor capacity for sustaining seismic
forces and deformations is also required.
7.3.6.2 Pinnacles
Strength acceptance criteria, similar to the ones used for structural piers, have to
be used for these components. The anchors need to be considered, if the stone-
masonry of the pinnacle includes such elements.
7.3.6.3 Appendages, parapets, cornices, statues, and other ornaments
The criteria consist of meeting the force provisions of NBC 1995 for architectural
components and the different requirements of the 1993 NRC Guidelines - Chapter
11.
7.3.6.4 Chimneys
The criteria for structural stone-masonry walls can be used. The evaluation of the
demand forces follows the provisions of NBC 1995. The general requirements for
chimneys, provided by the 1993 NRC Guidelines - Chapter 11, must also be
considered.
7.3.6.5 Masonry foundation elements
A sliding mechanism can occur at the contact surface between the soil and the
stone-masonry. Consequently, the capacity of this type of element is expressed by
) ( Q
up 0 f sl , C
= (7.22)
where Q
C,sl
is the sliding shear capacity of the foundation,
f
the coefficient of
friction between soil and foundation,
0
the average normal stress due to gravity
loads, and
up
the normal stress due to the inertia forces produced by the vertical
accelerations.
8. CLOSURE
These Guidelines provide engineers with analytical tools, material properties, and
strength and deformation criteria, to assess the seismic demand and capacity of
existing stone-masonry structures. The engineer should note that masonry
structures have a complex geometry and non-uniform material properties, and
therefore the analytical tools presented can only be considered a first
approximation. Refined analytical models such as the finite element method are
often needed to more accurately compute the deformation of the structure and the
corresponding stress distribution. A case study is presented in Appendix A to
illustrate the application of the guideline using three methods of assessments,
1. quick checks,
2. linear elastic analysis, and
3. refined dynamic analysis.
The case study demonstrates that the guidelines can be employed while conducting
simple or refined analysis for assessing the seismic performance of stone masonry
structures. For structures requiring considerable intervention, as well as those
with complex and irregular geometry, refined seismic analysis should be considered
along with the use of these guidelines.
These guidelines are developed to provide a more adequate and cost-effective
assessment of the seismic performance of stone masonry structures.
84 Chapter 8: Closure
REFERENCES
ASTM C99-87 (1993). Modulus of Rupture of Natural Building Stone, American
Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia.
ASTM C109-95. Compressive Strength of Hydraulic Cement Mortars (Using 2-in or
50-mm Cube Specimens), American Society for Testing and Materials,
Philadelphia.
ASTM C170-90. Compressive Strength of Natural Building Stone, American Society
for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia.
ASTM C270-96. Standard Specification for Mortar for Unit Masonry, American
Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia.
ASTM C880-96. Test Method for Flexural Strength of Dimensional Stone,
American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia.
ASTM C1006-84. Standard Test Method for Splitting Tensile Strength of Masonry
Units, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia.
ASTM C1072-94. Measuressme of Masonry Flexural Bond Strength, AmericanSociety for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia.
ASTM C1196-92. I n situ compressive stress within solid unit masonry estimated
using flat jack measurement, American Society for Testing and Materials,
Philadelphia.
ASTM C1197-92. I n situ measurement of masonry deformability properties using
flatjack method, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia.
ASTM E797-90. Measuring thickness by manual ultrasonic pulse-echo contact
method, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia.
Baker, I.O., 1899 & 1912. A Treatise on Masonry Construction, John Wiley andSons.
Baronio, G., Binda, L., 1991. Experimental approach to a procedure for the
investigation of historic mortars, 9th
Int. Brick/Block Masonry Conf., Berlin,
vol. 3, pp. 1397-1405.
Binda, L., Fontana, A. and Anti, L., 1992. Load transfer in multiple leaf masonry
walls, Proceedings of International Workshop Effectiveness of injection
techniques for retrofitting of stone and brick masonry walls in seismic
areas, Milan, Italy.
Binda L., Modena C., Baronio G., 1993. Strengthening of masonry by injection
technique, Proceedings of 6
o
NaMC, Vol. I, Philadelphia, pp. 1-14.
Binda, L., Modena C., Baronio G., 1997. Repair and investigation techniques for
stone-masonry walls. Construction and Materials, Vol. 11, No. 3, April,
1997, p. 133-142.
86 References
Chidiac, S.E., Rainer, J.H., Maurenbrecher, A.H.P., and Allen, D.E., 1995.
Seismic evaluation of the Mackenzie Tower as a basis for the evaluation of the
Parliament Buildings, NRC Report No. A8006.2, National Research Council
Canada, Ottawa, Ont.
Comit National dURSS de IIcomos., 1989. Le sauvetage du patrimoine
architectonique de I Armenie, Icomos Information, No. 2, 11-22.
CSA Standard CAN3-S304-M84, 1984. Masonry design for buildings, Canadian
Standards Association, Rexdale, Ont.
CSA Standard CAN3-S304.1-94, 1994. Masonry design for buildings (Limit States
Design), Canadian Standards Association, Rexdale, Ont.
Daly, R.A., Manger, G.E. and Clark, S.P., 1966. Density of rocks. In: Clark S.P.
(ed.) Handbook of physical constants, Geol. Soc. Am Mem 97:19-26.
Davison, J.I., 1974. Masonry Mortar, Canadian Building digest 163, National
Research Council of Canada, Ottawa.
Egermann, R., 1991. Experimental analysis of multiple leaf masonry wallets under
vertical loading, Proceedings 2nd Conference on Structural Repair &
Maintenance of Historical Buildings II, Brebbia, C.A. et al. (ed.), Seville,
Spain, 197-208.
Ergunay, O. and Erdik, M., 1984. Turkish experience on the earthquake
performance of rural stone-masonry buildings, Proceedings Int. Conference
on Natural Hazards Mitigation Research and Practice - Small Buildings and
Community Development, New Delhi, India, 1-15.
Erdik, M., 1990. The earthquake performance or rural stone-masonry buildings in
Turkey, and, Earthquake damage evaluation vulnerability analysis of building
structures, A. Koridze (ed.) INEEC Series of Engineering Aspects of
Earthquake Phenomena, V3, Omega Scientific.
Farmer, I.W., 1968. Engineering properties of rocks, Spoon, London.
FEMA, 1992. NEHRP Guidelines for the seismic evaluation of existing buildings,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Report FEMA-178, Washington,
D.C.
FEMA, 1996. NEHRP Guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings (Ballot
version), Federal Emergency Management Agency, Report FEMA-273,
Washington, D.C.
FEMA, 1997. Handbook for the Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings: A Pre-
standard (90% draft), Prepared by American Society of Civil Engineers,
Prepared for Federal Emergency Management Agency, Report FEMA-178,
Washington, D.C.
Hendry, A. W., 1990. Structural Masonry, MacMillan Education Ltd.
References
87
Hendry, A. W., 1994. Aspects of stability and strength of stone-masonry structures,
Proceedings of the British Masonry Society, No. 6. p. 212-217.
Heyman, J., 1995. The Stone Skeleton, Cambridge University Press, Great
Britain.
ICS Reference library, 1909. Section on Building Stone, International
Correspondence School, USA.
Jackson, T.G., 1915. Gothic architecture in France, England and I taly, 2 vols.
Cambridge.
Jackson, T.G., 1921. The renaissance of Roman architecture, 3 vols. Cambridge.
Kidder-Parker Architects and Builders Handbook, 1931. 18th Ed., John Wiley
and Sons Inc.
Mckee, H.J., 1973. I ntroduction to Early American Masonry, National Trust for
Historic Preservation/Columbia University.
Merriman, M., 1920. American Civil Engineers Handbook, 4th Edition John Wiley
and Sons Inc. New York.
Modena, C., 1989. I talian practice in evaluating, strengthening, and retrofitting
masonry buildings, Proceeding of an International Seminar on Evaluating,
strengthening, and retrofitting masonry buildings, Arlington, Texas, pp.
2.1-2.25.
NRC, 1993. Guidelines for seismic evaluation of existing buildings, National
Research Council Canada, Ottawa, Ont.
NRC, 1995a. National Building Code of Canada 1995, National Research Council
Canada, Ottawa, Ont.
NRC, 1995b. Users Guide-NBC 1995. Structural Commentaries (Part 4), National
NRC, 1995c. Guidelines for seismic upgrading of building structures, National
Parks, W.A., 1912. Report on the building and ornamental stones of Canada, Vol. 1
Canada Department of Mines. Report 100. Government Printing Office.
Pomonis, A., 1990. The October 1988 Elia Prefecture earthquake (SW Greece):
Seismic environment, building types and change patterns, Disasters, Vol. 13,
No. 2, 101-117.
PWGSC, 1995. Guideline on seismic evaluation and upgrading of non-structural
building components, Public Works and Government Services Canada,
Ottawa, Ont.
PWGSC, 1998. Procedure for seismic assessment of existing buildings, Public
Works and Government Services Canada, Ottawa, Ont.
88 References
Schfer J. and Hilsdorf, H. K., 1993. Ancient and new lime mortars- the
correlation between their composition, structure and properties, in
Conservation of Stone and Other Materials, Vol. 2. E & F N Spon.
Suprenant, B.A. and Schuller, M.P., 1994. Non-destructive evaluation and testing
of masonry structures. The Aberdeen Group.
Tomazevic, M. and Sheppard, P., 1982. The strengthening of stone-masonry
buildings for revitalisation in seismic regions, Proceedings 7th European
Conference on Earthquake Engineering , Athens, Vol. 5, 275-282.
Tomazevic, M. and Anicic, D., 1989. Research, technology and practice in
evaluating, strengthening and retrofitting masonry buildings: Some Yugoslavia
experiences, Proceedings International Seminar on Evaluating,
Strengthening and Retrofitting Masonry Buildings, Arlington, USA.
Turnsek, V., Tercellj, S., Sheppard, P. and Tomazevic, M., 1978. The seismic
resistance of stone-masonry walls and buildings, Proceedings 6th European
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Dubrovnik, Vol. 3. Paper 32, 255-
262.
Winkler, E.M., 1994. Stone in Architecture. Properties, Durability, Springer-
Verlag, N.Y.
APPENDIX A - CASE STUDY
Introduction
The following case study has been developed to illustrate the evaluation procedures
of these guidelines. The case study represents an existing stone-masonry structure
located in a moderate seismic region.

Guidelines For The Seismic Assessment of Stone Masonry Structures

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Guidelines For The Seismic Assessment of Stone Masonry Structures

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GUIDELINES FOR THE

hoop stress resultant, kN/m

meridian stress resultant, kN/m

and the meridian stress resultant N

You might also like