Earthquake Performance of Unreinforced Masonry

Residential Buildings up to 15 m in Height

WILLIS, C. R.1
GRIFFITH, M. C.2
LAWRENCE, S. J.3

1
Postdoctoral Fellow, The University of Adelaide
2
Associate Professor, The University of Adelaide
3
Conjoint Professor, The University of Newcastle; SPL Consulting Pty Ltd

March 2007
ABSTRACT

This report presents deemed-to-satisfy solutions for earthquake loading of

unreinforced masonry structures up to 15 m in height. The structures under
analysis are Importance Level 2 buildings and are hence subject to Earthquake
Design Category II (EDC II). This study considers the wall forces and
associated actions due to earthquake loads corresponding to the Ballot Version
of the Australian Standard for earthquake actions, AS 1170.4 (Standards
Australia, 2005). The seismic demands for various loading conditions are
compared against the corresponding seismic capacities given by the Australian
Standard for masonry structures, AS 3700 (Standards Australia, 2001, including
proposed Amendment 3, 2006).
A parametric study was used to examine the effects of a wide range of
parameters, including number of stories, wall geometries, support conditions
and openings. The results of the parametric study indicate, for a typical office
building and a typical home unit building, the range of conditions leading to
earthquake failure using the current design criteria of AS 3700.
The following are the main findings:
• Out-of-plane bending tends to govern as wall span (L), site sub-soil class,
hazard factor (Z) and the number of levels increase. This applies for both
the office building and the home unit building. This finding is based on the
failure criterion of the strength of walls in two-way bending being exceeded.
• Out-of-plane shear governs in relatively few cases and, when it occurs, it is
in conjunction with out-of-plane bending and/or in-plane shear failure.
There is no difference in this respect between the office building and the
home unit building.
• In-plane shear in the direction of the short plan dimension of a building is
governed by the arrangement of the internal walls. For the assumed wall
distributions used in this study, in-plane shear in the short direction was not
critical for the office building. However, for the home unit building, in-
plane shear occurred in the short direction simultaneously with failure in the
long direction, since the tributary areas were equal, giving the same total
design capacity in both directions.
• In-plane shear in the long direction is the most significant mode governing
structural performance when the failure criterion of onset of sliding at the
base of the wall is used. The assumed layout of internal walls was found to
be a significant factor influencing behaviour. The onset of sliding does not
necessarily constitute failure under seismic action, as it often does not lead
to collapse or provide a risk to life. It is the opinion of the authors that this,
along with other possible design criteria such as tensile cracking at the heel
of a wall and compressive crushing at the toe of a wall are not threats to life-
safety and therefore might not be the most appropriate design criteria for
earthquake resistance. Further research in this area and a re-examination by
the AS 3700 Standards committee is recommended.

i
NOTATION

Adw combined bedded area of the shear-resisting portion of a member

ai effective floor acceleration at level i
EDC Earthquake Design Category
Fi horizontal static force at level i
fd minimum design compressive stress on the bed joint at the cross-section
f'ms characteristic shear strength of masonry
G crack slope
Gi permanent action (self-weight or ‘dead load’) at level i
Ks factor to account for floor number
kp probability factor
kv shear factor
Mcd diagonal bending moment capacity
Mch horizontal bending moment capacity
n maximum number of levels in structure
Qi imposed action for occupancy on level i
Rf1 rotational restraint factor (edge 1)
Rf2 rotational restraint factor (edge 2)
Sp / µ ratio of structural performance to ductility
Vc design shear capacity
Vd total out-of-plane shear force
V0 shear bond strength of the shear section
V1 shear friction strength of the shear section
Wi seismic weight of the structure at level i
wc total design capacity (out-of-plane load)
wd seismic demand (out-of-plane load)
Z hazard factor
φ capacity reduction factor
ψc combination factor for earthquake imposed action

ii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………………..i

NOTATION…………………………………………………………………………….ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………………………………………...iii

1 INRODUCTION………………………………………......................................1

2 METHODOLOGY……………………………………………………………..2
OUT-OF-PLANE BENDING…………………………………………...3
OUT-OF-PLANE SHEAR………………………………………………4
IN-PLANE SHEAR……………………………………………………..6

3 PARAMETRIC STUDY………………………………………………………8

4 RESULTS……………………………………………………………………...11
EFFECT OF AN OPENING ON BENDING RESPONSE………...….12
EFFECT OF Ks FACTORS ON BENDING RESPONSE……………..12
EFFECT OF SIDE RESTRAINT FACTORS ON BENDING
RESPONSE…………………………………………………………….15

5 CONCLUSIONS………………………………………………………………16

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS…………………………………………………………..17

REFERENCES………………………………………………………………………..17

APPENDIX A: METHODOLOGY………………………………………………….18

APPENDIX B: CALCULATIONS…………………………………………………..25

TABLE OF FIGURES

1 Seismic load path for a masonry building (Priestley, 1985)…………………3

2 Out-of-plane wall contribution to in-plane shear resistance………………...8
3 Tributary areas for load transfer……………………………………………...9
4 Idealised failure patterns……………………………………………………..12
5 Out-of-plane bending response (site sub-soil class A)………………………13
6 Out-of-plane bending response (site sub-soil class B)………………………13
7 Out-of-plane bending response (site sub-soil class C)………………………14
8 Out-of-plane bending response (site sub-soil class D)………………………14

iii
1 INTRODUCTION

Residential buildings up to 15 m in height constitute a highly important market

segment for the clay masonry industry. Houses of one and two storeys are
rarely subjected to engineering design, but three, four and five-storey ‘walk-up’
units require engineering calculations to justify their structural adequacy. The
development of panel systems using other materials presents a constant
challenge to the market share of clay masonry in this segment.
Following the 1989 Newcastle earthquake and as a result of on-going research
and development of standards and building regulations, there has been an
increased emphasis placed on design for earthquake forces. At the same time,
there has been some criticism of designers for not considering adequately all
aspects of behaviour of these types of buildings during an earthquake. In
particular, it has been suggested that some designs have not made adequate
provision for the transfer of shear forces to the foundation and that the masonry
might not perform as expected in an earthquake. The current earthquake loading
code AS 1170.4 was published in 1993 and, at the present time, a draft revision
is nearing completion. This revision will modify the design requirements for
structures, increasing design actions in some cases and requiring all structures
(except most houses) to be designed for earthquake forces. In particular, it will
move all material-related design and detailing considerations to the appropriate
material standards.
In conjunction with the revision of the earthquake loading standard, an
amendment to the masonry structures standard AS 3700 (Standards Australia,
2001) has been prepared and is in the final stages leading up to its publication.
This amendment includes detailing provisions for masonry structures to resist
earthquakes and will therefore have an effect on the design of residential unit
buildings.
The cumulative effect of these pending changes to standards and the challenges
faced by clay masonry in the marketplace has been to focus attention on the
performance of masonry in multi-storey residential buildings and, in particular,
the criteria being used for design. The masonry standard has, to date, applied
the same design approach and criteria for earthquake loading as for wind
loading, but recent research indicates that this might be unnecessarily
conservative and that the design criteria relevant to earthquake loading should
be re-examined. As a preliminary step, it is necessary to identify the critical
actions for the various masonry elements in a multi-storey residential building,
covering a range of variables, and this is the primary purpose of the current
study.
This study sets out to identify which seismically induced actions are critical to
the life-safety design objective embodied in the earthquake loading code. Out-
of-plane wall actions are related to the earthquake induced accelerations and in-
plane wall actions are related to the earthquake induced in-plane shear force.
The 15 m height limit for the study means that typical structures up to and
including five stories in height are considered. This also covers all domestic
construction (Building Class 1a and 1b), whether less than or greater than 8.5 m
tall.

1
2 METHODOLOGY

In the Ballot Version of AS 1170.4 (Standards Australia, 2005), the majority of

unreinforced masonry buildings whose height is less than or equal to 15 m are
covered by the simplified design method for Earthquake Design Category II
(EDC II) structures. This approach will be conservative for EDC I structures
and was therefore used to develop the deemed-to-satisfy requirements presented
in this study. The results will cover the majority of masonry walk-up flats and
apartment buildings in all capital cities and throughout most of Australia.
The method used is a parametric study, applying the range of parameters
encountered in service to the analysis of masonry buildings under seismic
actions. The range of parameters is presented in Section 3. By considering the
range of cases analysed, a pattern of critical actions and building elements is
developed and the appropriateness of the design criteria can be examined.
The seismic actions that are considered in this study include:
• out-of-plane bending;
• out-of-plane shear; and,
• in-plane shear.
The method by which each of these actions is analysed and the key assumptions
used are presented in the following sections. The threshold at which the seismic
capacity equals demand defines the limit for the deemed-to-satisfy conditions.
The foundation of a masonry structure transmits seismic motion from the ground
to the stiffest elements, the in-plane structural walls. The structural walls excite
the floor diaphragms that in turn excite the out-of-plane walls (Figure 1). The
seismic load path is the reverse of this energy input. Strictly speaking, the out-
of-plane loading is not constant for a single floor level. However, it is not
excessively conservative to assume that the out-of-plane load, which may be
directly related to ground acceleration, is uniform over the storey height
(Priestley, 1985). Hence, for the analysis of masonry it is assumed that the out-
of-plane load induced by seismic effects may be represented as an equivalent
static uniformly distributed load. The method given in AS 3700 (Standards
Australia, 2001) is consistent with this approach. To determine an equivalent
static load produced by seismic activity, factors including the location of the
wall in the building, the level of ground acceleration and the dynamic response
of the building must be accounted for (Page, 1995).

2
 energy input

ground
acceleration

Figure 1: Seismic load path for a masonry building (Priestley, 1985)

2.1 Out-of-plane Bending

Walls loaded in the out-of-plane direction must resist their own inertia forces,
determined from the wall self-weight multiplied by the acceleration at the mid-
height of the wall. The critical storey is taken as the top floor because
earthquake induced accelerations increase with height. Walls in the top storey
of masonry buildings were assessed for their total design capacity, wc, using
AS 3700 (Standards Australia, 2001) and compared to the seismic demand, wd,
specified in AS 1170.4 (Standards Australia, 2005). For deemed-to-satisfy limit
state conditions to exist, wc ≥ wd.

Seismic Demand (AS 1170.4 Analysis)

The wall in the top storey, i, is supported at its base by the floor at level i-1 and
at its top by the roof at level i. Hence, the acceleration at its mid-height is
approximated as the average of the accelerations at levels i-1 and i. The
horizontal static force at level i is given by (1) (AS 1170.4, Equation 5.4), hence
the acceleration at level i is given by (3).

k p Z S p 
Fi = K s   Wi (1)
 µ 

where:

Wi = ∑ G i + ∑ψ c Q i (2)

3
Ks = Factor to account for floor number
kp = Probability factor
Z = Hazard factor
Sp / µ = Ratio of structural performance to ductility
Wi = Seismic weight of the structure at level i
Gi = Permanent action (self-weight or ‘dead load’) at level i
ψc = Combination factor for earthquake imposed action
Qi = Imposed action for occupancy on level i

ai =
Fi
Wi
[
= Ks k pZ S p µ ] (3)

The out-of-plane load (seismic demand), wd, is given by the wall self-weight
multiplied by the acceleration at its mid-height (4). From AS 1170.1 (Standards
Australia, 2002) Table A2, the force per unit area for ‘brick masonry, solid -
burnt clay’, per 10 mm thickness is 0.19 kN/m2. Hence, for a wall thickness of
110 mm, the wall self-weight is 2.09 kN/m2.

wd = 2.09 kPa × (a i −1 + a i ) / 2 (4)

Total Design Capacity (AS 3700 Analysis)

For out-of-plane bending it is assumed that the entire vertical load is on the
inner leaf, which supports the slab, hence the outer leaf does not benefit from
superimposed compressive stress and is therefore critical. The total compressive
stress, fd, at the mid-height of the wall in the top storey is given by the self-
weight of the outer leaf. The horizontal and diagonal bending moment
capacities, Mch and Mcd, are calculated and used to determine the total design
capacity for the outer leaf, wc.

2.2 Out-of-plane Shear

Out-of-plane (i.e. through-thickness) shear is proportional to the earthquake
induced accelerations acting on a wall and as accelerations increase with height,
the critical storey is again taken as the top floor. For out-of-plane shear at the
wall edges in the top storey it is assumed that the out-of-plane load from both
leaves is shed to the inner leaf, hence the inner leaf is critical. Walls in the top
storey of masonry buildings were assessed for their total design capacity,
Vc = V0 + V1 (shear bond and friction strengths of the shear section), using
AS 3700 (Standards Australia, 2001) and compared to the total out-of-plane
shear (seismic demand), Vd, given in AS 1170.4 (Standards Australia, 2005).
For deemed-to-satisfy limit state conditions to exist, Vc ≥ Vd.

4
Seismic Demand (AS 1170.4 Analysis)

The seismic demand for out-of-plane shear, Vd, is given by the seismic demand
for out-of-plane bending, wd, multiplied by the face area of the wall over which
it acts, for each leaf of the wall in cavity construction. There will not always be
connectors at the vertical wall edges and the shear bond component at these
edges is considered questionable. As a result, most of the resistance is provided
by the top and bottom wall edges, where there is potentially shear bond and
friction from the vertical load, hence it is conservatively assumed that all of the
load will be equally distributed to these two edges.

Total Design Capacity (AS 3700 Analysis)

The out-of-plane shear capacity is given by (5).

V c = V 0 + V1 (5)

where:

′ Adw
V0 = φ f ms (6)

V1 = k v f d Adw (7)

V0 = Shear bond strength of the shear section

V1 = Shear friction strength of the shear section
φ = Capacity reduction factor
f'ms = Characteristic shear strength of masonry
Adw = Combined bedded area of the shear-resisting portion of a member
kv = Shear factor
fd = Minimum design compressive stress on the bed joint at the cross-section

In addition to assuming that the load on both leaves must be resisted along the
top and bottom edges of only the inner leaf, it was also assumed that a damp-
proof course or slip joint would be located at the base of the inner leaf. The
total compressive stress, fd, at the base of the wall in the top storey is given by
the compressive stress due to the ceiling and roof and the self-weight of the
inner leaf. The characteristic shear strength of masonry, f'ms, is taken as zero at
a damp-proof course or slip joint, hence the shear bond strength, V0, is also zero.
As a result, the design shear capacity (V0 + V1) must rely solely on the shear
friction strength, V1, to resist the shear demand, Vd.

5
2.3 In-plane Shear
Walls loaded in the in-plane direction must resist all the earthquake induced
shear forces applied in the structure above that level (Figure 1). Hence, the
critical storey is the ground storey because the storey shear forces (internal
actions) become larger moving down the building. The in-plane shear force in a
wall due to earthquake loading is computed and compared to its respective
design capacity given by AS 3700 (Standards Australia, 2001). The in-plane
shear capacity of the ground storey walls is computed assuming a damp-proof
course joint at the base of each wall; hence the shear capacity is given by shear
friction only. The in-plane shear strength design criterion at the base of
masonry walls is currently seen by AS 3700 (Standards Australia, 2001) to be a
necessary design criterion for earthquake loading.
In considering the in-plane action, it has been assumed that overturning of the
wall will be restrained by the weight of the structure above. Also, it is clear that
shear failure within the masonry will not occur, because f'ms for the mortar joints
is greater than the value of zero assumed at the base of the wall. Furthermore,
tensile ‘failure’ at the heel of a wall under in-plane shear is normally tolerated as
it will, at most, result in only minor cracking, and experience shows that
crushing at the toe of a wall will not occur. It has therefore been assumed that
the behaviour is governed by sliding on the base.

Seismic Demand (AS 1170.4 Analysis)

The equivalent horizontal static earthquake force applied at level i in a building

is given by (8).

k p Z S p 
Fi = K s   Wi (8)
 µ 

where:

Wi = ∑ G i + ∑ψ c Q i (9)

Ks = Factor to account for floor number

kp = Probability factor
Z = Hazard factor
Sp/µ = Ratio of structural performance to ductility
Wi = Seismic weight of the structure at level i
Gi = Permanent action (self-weight or ‘dead load’) at level i
ψc = Combination factor for earthquake imposed action
Qi = Imposed action for occupancy on level i

6
The relationship for Fi (8) is based on the assumption that the mass at each floor
level can be lumped together, i.e. the weight of the walls (i.e. both leaves of the
external walls in cavity construction and the internal partition walls) for half a
storey above and below each floor level are included in this lumping process.
For the top level, n, the total load includes the weights of the roof (terracotta
tiles), ceiling (Portland cement plaster, 13 mm thick) and half the walls spanning
between levels n-1 and n.
For levels 1 to n-1, the total load includes the live load (residential,
conservatively taken as 2.0 kPa), and weights of the floor slab (concrete,
175 mm thick), flooring (pine flooring overlay, 15 mm thick) and the walls for
half a storey above and below each floor level. It is assumed that the inertia
forces due to the weights of half the walls between the base and level 1 plus the
base slab and flooring are transmitted directly to the footings and these are
therefore not included in the calculations. The total force, Fi, for each level is
then determined using (8). The shear demand, Vd = ΣFi, must be resisted by the
ground storey walls running parallel to the earthquake motion.

Total Design Capacity (AS 3700 Analysis)

For in-plane loading, all load from the slabs (and both leaves) are assumed to
accumulate to the inner leaf, with the outer leaf not contributing to the shear
resistance. The shear resistances of the inner leaves are checked for the
structure in both the short and long directions. The relationship that must be
satisfied for shear capacity requirements is given by (10).

V d ≤ V c = V 0 + V1 (10)

where:

′ Adw
V0 = φ f ms (11)

V1 = k v f d Adw (12)

V0 = Shear bond strength of the shear section

V1 = Shear friction strength of the shear section
φ = Capacity reduction factor
f'ms = Characteristic shear strength of masonry
Adw = Combined bedded area of the shear-resisting portion of a member
kv = Shear factor
fd = Minimum design compressive stress on the bed joint at the cross-section

7
 It is also assumed that a damp-proof course or slip joint would typically exist at
the base of each ground storey wall. Hence the shear bond strength, V0, is zero
at this location. As a result, the design shear capacity (V0 + V1) is based solely
on the shear friction strength, V1.
To determine the compressive stress, fd, acting on each of the walls contributing
to the shear resistance, the gravity load transmitted to each leaf was considered
by assuming that the weights of the external leaves are transmitted directly to
the foundation and hence are excluded from the total vertical compressive load
on the inner leaves of the structure at ground level. It is conservative to exclude
the outer leaves since a proportion of their weight is likely to be transferred to
the inner leaf through nibs on the slab or shelf angles. Each critical inner leaf is
assumed to support the live load and ceiling, roof and floor slab weights in
proportion to their respective tributary areas, plus its own self-weight.
The actual in-plane resistance is modified to account for ‘flange effects’,
whereby a proportion of the walls orthogonal to the in-plane walls (a nominal
length of 25% of the span on each side of the in-plane wall was assumed) will
contribute to shear strength through the Adw term in (12). For this action, the in-
plane wall is envisaged as the ‘web’ of an I-section, and the out-of-plane walls
are envisaged as the ‘flanges’ of the section (Figure 2).

0.25 L 0.25 L

Direction of
in-plane shear In-plane wall
('web')

Out-of-plane wall
('flange')

Figure 2: Out-of-plane wall contribution to in-plane shear resistance

3 PARAMETRIC STUDY

For the formulation of the deemed-to-satisfy solutions for masonry structures up

to 15 m in height, two types of structure were investigated, i.e. a home unit (four
occupancies per level) and an office building.
Table 1 details the overall geometries for the structures considered in the
parametric study. For the determination of the total length of walls in each
direction, the external cavity walls are counted twice due to the assumption of

8
double leaf construction. In addition, to calculate the design shear capacity, the
proportion of tributary area in each direction is required to determine the
compressive stress, fd. For office buildings, the internal walls running parallel to
the short direction are assumed to be double the length of the orthogonal walls,
hence the tributary area for load transfer to each wall is taken as 75% of the total
floor area for the short direction and 25% for the long direction (Figure 3 (a)).
For home units, the wall lengths in the orthogonal directions are assumed to be
approximately equal, and hence the tributary areas are taken as 50% in each
direction (Figure 3 (b)).

Table 1: Overall structural geometries

Parameter Unit Office
Length of Building (Short Direction) m 11 12
Length of Building (Long Direction) m 32 50
Total Length of Walls (Short Direction) m 120 180
Total Length of Walls (Long Direction) m 180 250
Proportion of Tributary Area (Short Direction) 0.5 0.75
Proportion of Tributary Area (Long Direction) 0.5 0.25

75% of area 50% of area

2 L1 ABCD to short L2 ABCD to short
A B direction walls A B direction walls

L1
L2
D C

D C

50 m Long 32 m
direction

Short
12 m direction 11 m
(a) Office building (b) Home unit
Figure 3: Tributary areas for load transfer

Table 2 and Table 3 indicate respectively the parameters that were varied and
those held constant for the parametric study. The methodology and spreadsheet
calculations for an example case are presented in Appendix A and Appendix B,
respectively.
The range of earthquake hazard factor, Z, covers the major population centres in
Australia, from 0.05 (e.g. Brisbane, Gold Coast) to 0.12 (e.g. NW Western
Australia). Other capital cities (Adelaide 0.10, Darwin 0.09, Melbourne 0.08,
Perth 0.09, and Sydney 0.08) fall within this range. Hobart (0.03) does not have
significant earthquake risk.

9
AS 1170.4 (Standards Australia, 2005) defines site sub-soil class as follows:
• Class A - Strong rock;
• Class B - Rock;
• Class C - Shallow soil; and,
• Class D - Deep or soft soil.
A fifth class (E - Very soft soil) is not considered in this study and would
generally require special consideration for design.
AS 3700 (Standards Australia, 2001) defines the rotational restraint factor for
lateral load design of masonry walls as varying from 0 (a simply-supported
edge) to 1 (a fully restrained edge). Intermediate values are permitted,
indicating partial restraint, and are often used for designs where edges are
restrained by return walls or continuity. For this study, an intermediate value of
0.5 is used, along with the values of 0 and 1.

Table 2: Variable parameters

Parameter Values
Length of Wall L 4, 6, 8, 10 m
Length of Opening Lo 0, 1.2 m
Hazard Factor Z 0.05, 0.08, 0.10, 0.12
Site Sub-soil Class A, B, C, D
Total Number of Storeys 2, 3, 4, 5
Rotational Restraint Factor R f1 0, 0.5, 1.0
Rotational Restraint Factor R f2 0, 0.5, 1.0

Table 3: Constant parameters

Parameter Value
Shear Strength of Masonry f 'ms 0 MPa *
Flexural Tensile Strength of the Masonry f 'mt 0.2 MPa *
Lateral Modulus of Rupture of the Brick Unit f 'ut 0.8 MPa *
Height of Wall H 3m
Probability Factor (500 Year Reference Period) kp 1.0
Shear Factor kv 0.3
Ratio of Structural Performance to Ductility S p/ µ 0.62
Thickness of Mortar Joint tj 10 mm
Capacity Reduction Factor φ 0.6
Combination Factor for Earthquake-Imposed Action ψc 0.3
Unit Dimensions hu × lu × tu 76 × 230 × 110 mm
2
Density of Masonry (per 10 mm thickness ) 0.19 kN/m
Number of External Wall Leaves (Cavity Wall) 2
Slab Thickness 175 mm
Timber Flooring Thickness (Overlay on Concrete Slab) 15 mm
* Characteristic

10
4 RESULTS

Table 4 and Table 5 indicate the results for a wall with no opening that is
partially supported on four sides (rotational restraint factors, Rf1 = Rf2 = 0.5),
within an office building and home unit respectively. The numbers in the cells
indicate failure criteria as follows:
(1) out-of-plane bending;
(2) out-of-plane shear;
(3) in-plane shear (short direction); and,
(4) in-plane shear (long direction).
The shaded cells indicate that there was no failure under these conditions of
earthquake loading.

Table 4: Parametric study - office building

Length of Wall, L 4m 6m 8m 10 m
Site Sub-Soil Hazard No. of Levels No. of Levels No. of Levels No. of Levels
Class Factor, Z 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5
0.05
0.08
A
0.10
0.12
0.05
0.08
B
0.10 1
0.12 4 4 4 1,4 1 1 1
0.05
0.08 1 1
C
0.10 4 4 4 4 4 1,4 1 1,4 1,4 1 1
0.12 4 4 4 4 4 4 1,4 1,4 1,4 1 1,4 1,4 1,4 1
0.05
0.08 1 1 1 1
D
0.10 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1,4 1,4 1,4 1,4 1,4 1,4 1,4
0.12 4 4 2,4 2,4 4 4 1,2,4 1,2,4 1,4 1,4 1,2,4 1,2,4 1,4 1,4 1,2,4 1,2,4

Table 5: Parametric study - home unit

Length of Wall, L 4m 6m 8m 10 m
Site Sub-Soil Hazard No. of Levels No. of Levels No. of Levels No. of Levels
Class Factor, Z 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5
0.05
0.08
A
0.10
0.12
0.05
0.08
B
0.10 1
0.12 1 1 1 1
0.05
0.08 1 1
C
0.10 1 1 1 1 1 1
0.12 3,4 3,4 3,4 3,4 1,3,4 1,3,4 1 1 1,3,4 1,3,4 1 1
0.05
0.08 1 1 1 1
D
0.10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0.12 3,4 3,4 2,3,4 2,3,4 3,4 3,4 All All 1,3,4 1,3,4 All All 1,3,4 1,3,4 All All

11
4.1 Effect of an Opening on Bending Response
For the range of parameters investigated, the results for a wall with a 1.2 m
opening central in the wall panel that is partially supported on four sides are the
same as those indicated in Table 4 and Table 5 for an office building and home
unit respectively.
For the 4 m long wall, the out-of-plane bending capacity was reduced by the
presence of an opening. However, the seismic demand was not sufficient to
exceed the capacity and cause failure. For the longer walls (L = 6, 8, 10 m) the
out-of-plane bending capacity was not changed by the presence of an opening
due to the design approach adopted in AS 3700 (Standards Australia, 2001).
Figure 4 shows the assumed idealised failure patterns. The crack slope, G,
governs the formation of the diagonal crack lines, based on brick unit geometry
for half-overlap stretcher-bonded masonry. For walls 3 m in height, with an
opening width of 1.2 m, and a crack slope of G = 0.717, the diagonal cracks do
not intersect the opening for wall lengths greater than approximately 5.39 m and
therefore develop their maximum lengths and capacities. The horizontal crack
along the bed joint at mid-height is neglected in the calculation of the total
design capacity; hence, any reduction in length due to an opening does not affect
the results.

Intersection of diagonal
crack with opening

G = 0.717

H = 3.0 m

Lo = 1.2 m Lo = 1.2 m

L = 4.0 m L > 5.39 m

Figure 4: Idealised failure patterns

4.2 Effect of Ks Factors on Bending Response

Table 6 indicates the out-of-plane bending results for a wall with no opening
that is partially supported on four sides (rotational restraint factors,
Rf1 = Rf2 = 0.5). The ratio of capacity to demand, wc/wd, is reported for the same
range of parameters investigated previously for Table 4 and Table 5. The results
are applicable to both an office building and home unit. Figure 5 to Figure 8
indicate the results of Table 6 graphically for site sub-soil classes A, B, C and D
respectively. The vertical dashed line at wc / wd = 1.0 represents the equality of
capacity to demand, i.e. wc = wd, hence to the right of the line (wc / wd > 1) is
deemed to be safe for design. Note the change in the scale of the x-axis (wc / wd)
between figures for clarity.

12
 Table 6: Out-of-plane bending response (wc / wd)
Length of Wall, L 4m 6m 8m 10 m
Site Sub-Soil Hazard No. of Levels No. of Levels No. of Levels No. of Levels
Class Factor, Z 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5
0.05 8.67 7.99 8.67 9.26 5.03 4.63 5.03 5.37 3.50 3.23 3.50 3.74 2.69 2.48 2.69 2.87
0.08 5.42 4.99 5.42 5.79 3.14 2.90 3.14 3.36 2.19 2.02 2.19 2.34 1.68 1.55 1.68 1.80
A
0.10 4.34 4.00 4.34 4.63 2.51 2.32 2.51 2.68 1.75 1.61 1.75 1.87 1.34 1.24 1.34 1.44
0.12 3.61 3.33 3.61 3.86 2.09 1.93 2.09 2.24 1.46 1.35 1.46 1.56 1.12 1.03 1.12 1.20
0.05 7.03 6.27 6.68 7.28 4.07 3.63 3.87 4.22 2.84 2.53 2.70 2.94 2.18 1.94 2.07 2.26
0.08 4.39 3.92 4.18 4.55 2.55 2.27 2.42 2.64 1.77 1.58 1.69 1.84 1.36 1.22 1.30 1.41
B
0.10 3.51 3.13 3.34 3.64 2.04 1.82 1.94 2.11 1.42 1.27 1.35 1.47 1.09 0.97 1.04 1.13
0.12 2.93 2.61 2.78 3.03 1.70 1.51 1.61 1.76 1.18 1.06 1.13 1.23 0.91 0.81 0.86 0.94
0.05 5.51 4.48 4.79 5.16 3.19 2.60 2.78 2.99 2.23 1.81 1.94 2.08 1.71 1.39 1.49 1.60
0.08 3.44 2.80 3.00 3.22 2.00 1.62 1.74 1.87 1.39 1.13 1.21 1.30 1.07 0.87 0.93 1.00
C
0.10 2.75 2.24 2.40 2.58 1.60 1.30 1.39 1.50 1.11 0.90 0.97 1.04 0.85 0.69 0.74 0.80
0.12 2.29 1.87 2.00 2.15 1.33 1.08 1.16 1.25 0.93 0.75 0.81 0.87 0.71 0.58 0.62 0.67
0.05 5.51 4.48 4.00 3.70 3.19 2.60 2.32 2.15 2.23 1.81 1.61 1.50 1.71 1.39 1.24 1.15
0.08 3.44 2.80 2.50 2.32 2.00 1.62 1.45 1.34 1.39 1.13 1.01 0.94 1.07 0.87 0.77 0.72
D
0.10 2.75 2.24 2.00 1.85 1.60 1.30 1.16 1.07 1.11 0.90 0.81 0.75 0.85 0.69 0.62 0.57
0.12 2.29 1.87 1.66 1.54 1.33 1.08 0.97 0.89 0.93 0.75 0.67 0.62 0.71 0.58 0.52 0.48

L = 10 m 8 m 6m 4m
5
0.12 4
No. of Levels
3
2
Hazard Factor, Z

0.10

0.08

0.05

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Ratio of Capacity to Demand, w c / w d

Figure 5: Out-of-plane bending response (site sub-soil class A)

L = 10 m 8 m 6m 4m
5
0.12 4
No. of Levels
3
2
Hazard Factor, Z

0.10

0.08

0.05

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Ratio of Capacity to Demand, w c / w d

Figure 6: Out-of-plane bending response (site sub-soil class B)

13
 L = 10 m 8 m 6m 4m
5
0.12 4
No. of Levels
3
2

Hazard Factor, Z
0.10

0.08

0.05

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Ratio of Capacity to Demand, w c / w d

Figure 7: Out-of-plane bending response (site sub-soil class C)

L = 10 m 8 m 6 m 4m
5
0.12 4
No. of Levels
3
2
Hazard Factor, Z

0.10

0.08

0.05

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Ratio of Capacity to Demand, w c / w d

Figure 8: Out-of-plane bending response (site sub-soil class D)

The general trend displayed by the data points for site sub-soil classes A, B and
C (Figure 5, Figure 6 and Figure 7 respectively) indicates that the ratio of
wc / wd is a minimum for a three-storey building. For class D (i.e. deep or soft
soil) sites, the ratio is least for a five-storey building. The reason for this trend
is that the fundamental period of vibration of a three-storey unreinforced
masonry building is expected to be closest to resonance with the anticipated
earthquake ground motion frequencies for sub-soil classes A, B and C, whereas
on soft soil sites such as sub-soil class D the building period for a five-storey
building will be longer and more closely matched with the soft soil ground
motion frequencies.
For example, for a four-storey building, a wall in the top storey is supported at
its base by the floor at level 3 and at its top by the roof at level 4. Hence, the
acceleration (i.e. load or demand) at wall mid-height is approximated as the
average of the accelerations at levels 3 and 4. The acceleration at each level is
proportional to the factor, Ks, given in Table 7 for each level in a structure for
various sub-soil classes. Thus, for a four-storey building on soil class C, the
acceleration at wall mid-height is determined to be Ks = 4.25 (being the average
14
of 4.9 and 3.6). For a structure located on site class C with a hazard factor of
0.10 (Figure 7), the average Ks factors over the top level of two, three, four and
five-storey buildings are 3.7, 4.6, 4.3 and 4.0 respectively. Since the seismic
capacity, wc, remains constant, the ratio of wc / wd will vary inversely
proportionally to the value of wd. Hence, because the ‘demand’ at the top storey
of the three-storey building is the greatest (Ks = 4.6) the wc / wd ratio is least for
the three-storey building.
This also explains the trends shown in Table 4 and Table 5. For example,
consider a structure located in site class B, with a hazard factor of 0.10, and a
wall length of 10 m. Out-of-plane failure is deemed to occur in the top level of
a three-storey building, but not for a building with 2, 4 or 5 levels. This is also
shown graphically in Figure 6.

Table 7: Ks factor (AS 1170.4)

Total K s factor
Sub-soil
number of Storey under consideration
type
stories 5 4 3 2 1
A 2.5 1.9 1.4 1.0 0.5
B 3.1 2.5 1.8 1.2 0.6
5
C 4.4 3.5 2.6 1.7 0.9
D 6.1 4.9 3.6 2.5 1.2
A - 2.7 2.0 1.4 0.6
B - 3.5 2.6 1.7 0.9
4
C - 4.9 3.6 2.5 1.2
D - 5.8 4.4 3.0 1.4
A - - 3.1 2 1.0
B - - 3.9 2.6 1.3
3
C - - 5.5 3.6 1.8
D - - 5.5 3.6 1.8
A - - - 3.1 1.6
B - - - 3.9 1.9
2
C - - - 4.9 2.5
D - - - 4.9 2.5
A - - - - 2.3
B - - - - 3.0
1
C - - - - 3.6
D - - - - 3.6

4.3 Effect of Side Restraint Factors on Bending Response

Table 8 indicates the out-of-plane bending results for a wall supported on four
sides with no opening. The ratio of capacity to demand, wc/wd, is reported for
three values of the rotational restraint factors, Rf1 and Rf2, where 0, 0.5 and 1.0
correspond to conditions of simple, partial and rigid rotational restraint
respectively. While a value of 1.0 provides an upper bound estimate for
capacity, it is suggested that such restraint can not be achieved in practical
situations. The same range of parameters for hazard factor and number of levels
were investigated as done previously, however the typical case of site sub-soil
class B and wall length of 6 m were selected for comparison purposes. The
results are applicable to both an office building and home unit.

15
 Table 8: Out-of-plane bending response (wc / wd with Rf1, Rf2 varied)
Length of Wall, L 6m
Restraint, R f1 = R f2 0 0.5 1.0
Site Sub-Soil Hazard No. of Levels No. of Levels No. of Levels
Class Factor, Z 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5
0.05 3.45 3.08 3.28 3.58 4.07 3.63 3.87 4.22 4.69 4.19 4.46 4.86
0.08 2.16 1.93 2.05 2.24 2.55 2.27 2.42 2.64 2.93 2.62 2.79 3.04
B
0.10 1.73 1.54 1.64 1.79 2.04 1.82 1.94 2.11 2.35 2.09 2.23 2.43
0.12 1.44 1.28 1.37 1.49 1.70 1.51 1.61 1.76 1.96 1.74 1.86 2.03

With reference to Table 8 the following observations can be made:

• Increasing Rf1 = Rf2 from 0 to 0.5 increases the ratio of wc/wd by 18%; and
• Increasing Rf1 = Rf2 from 0 to 1.0 increases the ratio of wc/wd by 36%.

5 CONCLUSIONS

With reference to Table 4 and Table 5, the following conclusions can be made:
• Out-of-plane bending tends to govern as wall span (L), site sub-soil class,
hazard factor (Z) and the number of levels increase. An increase in wall
span reduces the total design capacity, wc, and increasing the other three
factors increases the seismic demand, wd. There is no difference in results
between the office building and home unit. This finding is based on the
failure criterion of cracking at the extreme tension fibre in bending.
• Out-of-plane shear governs in relatively few cases. The combinations of
factors that resulted in failure were four and five-storey buildings, for site
sub-soil class D and a hazard factor (Z) of 0.12. This failure criterion
occurred simultaneously with out-of-plane bending and/or in-plane shear.
There is no difference in results between the office building and home unit.
• In-plane shear in the short direction is governed by the arrangement of the
internal walls. As discussed above, for office buildings, the tributary area
for load transfer to each wall was taken as 75% of the total floor area for the
short direction and 25% for the long direction. For home units, the tributary
areas were taken as 50% in each direction. As a result, in-plane shear in the
short direction was not critical for office buildings for the range of
parameters investigated, however for home units, in-plane shear occurred
simultaneously in the two orthogonal directions since the tributary areas
were equal, giving the same total design capacity in both directions.
• In-plane shear in the long direction is the most significant mode governing
structural performance. The effects become less significant as the number
of levels increases, which increases the total design in-plane shear capacity
at a greater rate than the seismic demand due to the increase in compressive
stress, fd. The assumed wall layout was found to be a significant factor
influencing behaviour. For example, for office buildings, there was a
problem for site sub-soil class B and for Z = 0.10, however failure did not
occur for home units in this case. This was due to the assumed reduced
tributary areas for fd calculations in the long direction walls for office
buildings compared to the home unit building. This finding is based on the

16
 failure criterion of onset of sliding at the base of the wall. It should be noted
that this does not normally constitute failure under seismic action, as it often
does not lead to collapse or provide a risk to life.
While the in-plane shear strength design criterion at the base of masonry
walls is currently seen by AS 3700 (Standards Australia, 2001) to be a
necessary design criterion for earthquake loading, it is the opinion of the
authors that this, along with other possible design criteria such as tensile
cracking at the heel of a wall and compressive crushing at the toe of a wall
are not necessarily threats to life-safety and therefore might not be the most
appropriate design criteria. If a wall slips at its base it will ideally limit the
amount of acceleration that can be induced into the building, thereby
reducing the amount of inertia forces experienced by the structure. The
critical question then becomes, “how far will it slip and how much slip is
acceptable?”. Further research in this area and a re-examination of the
earthquake design criteria by the AS 3700 Standards Committee are
recommended.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research was conducted with the financial support of the Australian Clay
Brick and Paver Institute. Their support is gratefully acknowledged. The
comments and findings in this report are those of the authors, and not
necessarily those of the sponsor.

REFERENCES

1 Standards Australia (2005), AS 1170.4: Earthquake actions in Australia

(Ballot draft), Standards Australia, Sydney, April 2005.
2 Standards Australia (2001), AS 3700-2001: Masonry structures (including
proposed Amendment 3), Standards Australia, Sydney, 2001.
3 Standards Australia (2002), AS/NZS 1170.1: Structural design actions -
Permanent, imposed and other actions, Standards Australia, Sydney,
2002.
4 Page, A. W. (1995), “Unreinforced Masonry Structures - An Australian
Overview”. Proceedings of the Pacific Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Parkville, Victoria, Australia, November 1995, pp. 1-16.
5 Priestley, M. J. N. (1985), “Seismic Behaviour of Unreinforced Masonry
Walls”. Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society for Earthquake
Engineering, Vol.18, No.2, June 1985, pp. 191-205.

17
APPENDIX A: METHODOLOGY
1. Selection of Structure

The structure under analysis is an Importance Level 2 building, and is hence subject to earthquake
design category II (EDC II):
• Four (4) storey office building
• Length of building (short direction) = 12 m
• Length of building (long direction) = 50 m
• Total length of walls (short direction) = 180 m
• Total length of walls (long direction) = 250 m

The wall under analysis has the following characteristics:

• Length of wall, L = 4.00 m
• Height of wall, H = 3.00 m
• Supported on four sides
• No openings
• Loadbearing
• 110/50/110 mm cavity wall

2. Reference Period

Reference Period used in the analysis is 500 years

3. Hazard Factor

AS 1170.4, Table 3.2: Z = 0.10 (Adelaide)

4. Probability Factor

AS 1170.4, Table 3.1:

Annual Probability of Exceedance Probability Factor

P kp
1/500 1.0

5. Site Sub-soil Class

Select Class D: Deep or soft soil site

6. AS 1170.4 Analysis (Out-of-plane Bending)

Walls loaded in the out-of-plane direction must resist their own inertia forces, i.e. wall self-weight
multiplied by the acceleration at the mid-height of the wall.

The critical storey is taken as the top floor as accelerations increase with height. The wall in the top
storey is supported at its base by the floor at level 3 and at its top by the roof at level 4. Hence, the
acceleration at its mid-height is approximated as the average of the accelerations at levels 3 and 4. The
horizontal static force at level ‘i’ is given by AS 1170.4, Equation 5.4:

[
Fi = K s k p Z S p µ Wi]
Hence the acceleration at level ‘i’ is given by:

ai =
Fi
Wi
[
= Ks k pZ S p µ ]

Ks = 4.4 Table 5.1, 3rd of 4 storeys, Sub-soil D

= 5.8 Table 5.1, 4th of 4 storeys, Sub-soil D
S p/ µ = 0.62 Table 6.2, Masonry Structures, URM

18
 a 3 = 4.4 × 1.0 × 0.10 × 0.62 = 0.2728
a 4 = 5.8 × 1.0 × 0.10 × 0.62 = 0.3596

From AS 1170.1, Table A2, the force per unit area for ‘brick masonry, solid - burnt clay’, per 10 mm
thickness is 0.19 kN/m2. Hence, for a wall thickness of 110 mm, this equates to 2.09 kN/m2.

The out-of-plane load is given by the wall self-weight multiplied by the acceleration at its mid-height:

wd = 2.09 kPa × ( a3 + a4 ) / 2

Hence the seismic demand is 0.66 kPa.

7. AS 3700 Analysis (Out-of-plane Bending)

For out-of-plane bending it is assumed that the entire vertical load is on the inner leaf, which supports
the slab, hence the outer leaf is critical and does not benefit from superimposed compressive stress.

Parameters
Vertical edges supported Y
Top edge supported Y
Opening N
Unit length of wall b mm 1000
Design compressive stress f d MPa 0.029
Flexural tensile strength of masonry f mt MPa characteristic 0.2
Lateral modulus of rupture of brick unit f ut MPa characteristic 0.8
Height of wall H mm 3000
Height of opening H o mm -
Height of brick unit h u mm 76
Length of wall L mm 4000
Length of opening L o mm -
Length of brick unit l u mm 230
Thickness of mortar joint t j mm 10
Thickness of masonry section t u mm 110
Capacity reduction factor φ 0.6
Compressive stress σ v MPa 0
Force Per Unit Area (per 10 mm thickness) kN/m2 0.19
One-way Horizontal Bending
Perpend spacing factor kp 1.00
Section modulus of the bedded area Zd mm3 per metre width 2016667
Horizontal bending moment capacity (i) kNm per metre width 1.24
(ii) kNm per metre width 2.16
(iii) kNm per metre width 0.56
Horizontal bending moment capacity M ch kNm per metre width 0.56
Diagonal Bending
Aspect factor af 1.47
Height factor B mm 69.9
Equivalent torsional strength ft MPa characteristic 1.01
Crack slope G 0.717
Design height Hd mm 1500
Coefficients k1 0.54
k2 2.82
Design length Ld mm 2000
Restraint factors R f1 0.5
R f2 0.5
3
Equivalent torsional section modulus Z t mm per mm crack length 878.6
Slope factor α 0.96
Diagonal moment capacity M cd kNm per m crack length 0.53
Total design capacity w c kPa 1.32

Hence the design capacity is 1.32 kPa.

19
8. Deemed-to-Satisfy Result (Out-of-plane Bending)

wd (0.66 kPa) < wc (1.32 kPa)

The seismic demand of 0.66 kPa is less than the design capacity of 1.32 kPa, therefore for out-of-plane
bending, the wall in the 4th storey is OK.

9. AS 3700 Analysis (Out-of-plane Shear)

For out-of-plane shear at the wall edges in the top storey it is assumed that the out-of-plane load from
both leaves is shed to the inner leaf, hence the inner leaf is critical.

The seismic demand on each leaf is 0.66 kPa (calculated in Section 6)

acting over a face area of (4.0 × 3.0) m2
hence the total out-of-plane shear is given as follows:

Total out-of-plane shear = 2 × 0.66 kPa × (4.0 × 3.0) m2 (multiply by 2 since two leaves)
= 15.86 kN

Most of the resistance is provided by the top and bottom wall edges, where there is shear bond and
friction from the vertical load, hence it is conservatively assumed that all of the load will go to these
edges. There will not always be connectors at the sides and the shear bond component at these edges is
considered questionable.

Assuming the shear is equally distributed to both edges, the total out-of-plane shear (seismic demand),
Vd, for the top and bottom edge is therefore:
= 0.5 × 15.86 kN
= 7.93 kN

The relationship that must be satisfied for out-of-plane shear capacity requirements is given by AS 3700,
Equation 7.5.1(1):

Vd ≤ Vo + V1

Vo = the shear bond strength of the shear section

= φ f'ms Adw

φ = 0.6 Table 4.1

f'ms = 0 MPa Clause 3.3.4(a), for damp-proof course or slip joint
Adw = 0.44 m2 1 inner leaf wall × 4.0 m × 0.110 m

Vo = 0 kN

V1 = the shear friction strength of the shear section

= kv fd Adw

kv = 0.3 Table 3.3

The total compressive stress, fd, at the base of the wall in the top storey is given by the compressive
stress due to the ceiling and roof and the self-weight of the wall. The level of compressive stress acts to
increase the total design capacity, hence to be conservative, the lower bound will be assumed. It is
assumed that the shortest wall span is 4 m in each orthogonal direction.

The tributary area of ceiling and roof for load transfer to inner leaf can be shown to be = 2L - 4 = 4.0 m2

Pressure due to ceiling + roof = 0.29 + 0.57 = 0.86 kN/m2 (AS 1170.1 Table A2)

20
 fd =
(0.86 kN/m 2
)
× 4.0 m 2 + (2.09 kPa × 4.0 m width of wall × 3.0 m height of wall)
× 10 -3 = 0.0648 MPa
(4.0 m × 0.11 m )
Clause 7.5.1(a), not greater than 2 MPa

V1 = 8.56 kN

Vo + V1 = 8.6 kN

10. Deemed-to-Satisfy Result (Out-of-plane Shear)

Vd (7.9 kN) < Vo + V1 (8.6 kN)

The seismic demand on one wall of 7.9 kN is less than the design capacity of 8.6 kN, therefore for out-
of-plane shear, the wall in the 4th storey is OK. Hence, friction is sufficient to satisfy demand and edge
connectors are not required.

11. AS 1170.4 Analysis (In-plane Shear)

Walls loaded in the in-plane direction must resist all the forces applied in the structure above that level.

The critical storey is taken as the ground storey level as the storey shear forces (internal actions) get
larger as you go down the building.

The horizontal static force at level ‘i’ is given by AS 1170.4, Equation 5.4:

[
Fi = K s k p Z S p µ Wi ]
where:

Wi = ∑ G i + ∑ψ c Q i Equation 6.2(6)

The relationship for Fi (Equation 5.4) is based on the assumption that the mass at each floor level can be
lumped together, i.e. the weight of the walls for half a storey above and below each floor level are
included in this lumping process.

For level 4, the total load includes the weights of the roof, ceiling and half the walls spanning between
levels 3 and 4.

Total Load for Level 4: W4

Permanent Action, G
Material or Construction Force/unit area Area Total AS 1170.1
Ceiling Portland cement plaster, 13 mm thick 0.29 kN/m2 600.0 m2 174.0 kN Table A2
Roofs Tiles – Terracotta 0.57 kN/m2 600.0 m2 342.0 kN Table A2
Walls Brick masonry, solid –
burnt clay, per 10 mm of thickness 0.19 kN/m2 Table A2
2
Short direction walls 2.09 kN/m 270.0 m2 564.3 kN
2
Long direction walls 2.09 kN/m 375.0 m2 783.8 kN
Σ 1864.1 kN

Imposed Action, Q
None Σ 0 kN

Earthquake-Imposed Action Combination Factor, ψ c 0.3

Total Action, W W 4 = 1864.1 kN

21
For levels 1-3, the total load includes the live load, and weights of the floor slab, flooring and the walls
for half a storey above and below each floor level.

The weights of half the walls between the base and level 1 and the base slab and flooring are transmitted
to the footings and are therefore not included in the calculations.

Total Load for Levels 1-3: W1, W2, W3

Permanent Action, G
Material or Construction Weight/cubic metre Volume Total AS 1170.1
3 3
Concrete Floor slab, 175 mm thick 24.0 kN/m 105.0 m 2520.0 kN Table A1
Timber Pine flooring, 15 mm thick 5.3 kN/m3 9.0 m3 47.7 kN Table A1
Force/unit area Area
Walls Brick masonry, solid –
burnt clay, per 10 mm of thickness 0.19 kN/m2 Table A2
2
Short direction walls 2.09 kN/m 540.0 m2 1128.6 kN
2
Long direction walls 2.09 kN/m 750.0 m2 1567.5 kN
Σ 5263.8 kN

Imposed Action, Q
Material or Construction Uniformly Dist. Actions Area Total
Residential General areas (conservatively taken) 2.0 kPa 600 m2 1200.0 kN Table 3.1
Σ 1200.0 kN

Earthquake-Imposed Action Combination Factor, ψ c 0.3

Total Action, W W 1 = W 2 = W 3 = 5623.8 kN

Now determine the total force, Fi, for each level:

kp = 1.0 Table 3.1

Z = 0.10 Table 3.2
S p/ µ = 0.62 Table 6.2, Masonry Structures, URM

From AS1170.4, Table 5.1, 4 storey structure, Sub-soil D, Ks factors are given in the following table:

Level Ks Factor Wi (kN) Fi (kN)

1 1.4 5623.8 488.1
2 3.0 5623.8 1046.0
3 4.4 5623.8 1534.2
4 5.8 1864.1 670.3
Σ 18735.5 3738.7

Hence, the Total Base Shear, V = ΣFi = 3738.7 kN.

This total base shear, V, must be resisted by the walls running parallel to the earthquake motion.

12. AS 3700 Analysis (In-plane Shear)

For in-plane loading, all load from the slabs (and both leaves) will accumulate to the inner leaf, and the
outer leaf does not contribute to the shear resistance, hence the inner leaf is critical.

The relationship that must be satisfied for in-plane shear capacity requirements is given by AS 3700,
Equation 7.5.1(1):

Vd ≤ Vo + V1

22
Short Direction .

Vo = the shear bond strength of the shear section

= φ f'ms Adw

φ = 0.6 Table 4.1

f'ms = 0 MPa Clause 3.3.4(a), for damp-proof course or slip joint
Adw = 19.8 m2 180 m (total short direction walls) × 0.110 m

Vo = 0 kN

V1 = the shear friction strength of the shear section

= kv fd Adw

kv = 0.3 Table 3.3

To determine the compressive stress, fd, acting on each of the walls contributing to the shear resistance,
consider the load transmitted to each leaf. The weights of the external leaves are excluded from the total
load of the structure. It is conservative to exclude the outer leaves since a proportion of their weight is
likely to be transferred to the inner leaf through nibs on the slab or shelf angles.

18735.5 – [2 × (12 m + 50 m) × 3.00 m × 2.09 kPa] = 17958.0 kN

Each critical inner leaf wall supports the live load and ceiling, roof and floor slab weights in proportion
to their respective tributary areas, plus their own self-weight.

The internal walls running parallel to the short direction of the building are assumed to be double the
length of the orthogonal walls, hence the tributary area of roof and ceiling for load transfer to each wall
is taken as 75% of the total floor area. Therefore, the compressive stress, fd, for each leaf is
approximately:

0.75 × 17958.0 kN
fd = × 10−3 = 0.680 MPa Clause 7.5.1(a), not greater than 2 MPa.
180 m × 0.110 m

V1 = 4040.5 kN

The actual in-plane resistance is modified to account for ‘flange effects’, whereby a proportion of the
walls orthogonal to the in-plane walls (a nominal length of, say, 25% to each side of the in-plane wall)
will contribute to shear strength. For this action, the in-plane wall is envisaged as the ‘web’ of an I-
section, and the out-of-plane walls are envisaged as the ‘flanges’ of the section.

V1′ = 0.3 × 0.5 × 0.25 × 17958.0 = 673.4 kN

• multiply by 0.5 since 25% to each side of the orthogonal wall
• multiply by 0.25 since the long direction walls take 25% of the tributary area

Vo + V1 + V'1 = 4714.0 kN

Long Direction .

Vo = the shear bond strength of the shear section

= φ f'ms Adw

φ = 0.6 Table 4.1

f'ms = 0 MPa Clause 3.3.4(a), for damp-proof course or slip joint
Adw = 27.5 m2 250 m (total long direction walls) × 0.110 m

Vo = 0 kN

V1 = the shear friction strength of the shear section

= kv fd Adw

23
 kv = 0.3 Table 3.3

The internal walls running parallel to the short direction of the building are assumed to be double the
length of the orthogonal walls, hence the tributary area of roof and ceiling for load transfer to each wall
is taken as 25% of the total floor area. Therefore, the compressive stress, fd, for each leaf is
approximately:

0.25 × 17958.0 kN
fd = × 10−3 = 0.163 MPa Clause 7.5.1(a), not greater than 2 MPa.
250 m × 0.110 m

V1 = 1346.8 kN

The actual in-plane resistance is modified to account for ‘flange effects’, whereby a proportion of the
walls orthogonal to the in-plane walls (a nominal length of, say, 25% to each side of the in-plane wall)
will contribute to shear strength.

V1′ = 0.3 × 0.5 × 0.75 × 17958.0 = 2020.3 kN

• multiply by 0.5 since 25% to each side of the orthogonal wall
• multiply by 0.75 since the short direction walls take 75% of the tributary area

Vo + V1 + V'1 = 3367.1 kN

13. Deemed-to-Satisfy Result (In-plane Shear)

Short Direction .

Vd (3738.7 kN) < Vc (4714.0 kN)

The total base shear demand of 3738.7 kN is less than the design shear capacity of 4714.0 kN, therefore
for in-plane loading in the short direction, the walls in the base storey are OK.

Long Direction .

Vd (3738.7 kN) > Vc (3367.1 kN)

The total base shear demand of 3738.7 kN is greater than the design shear capacity of 3367.1 kN,
therefore for in-plane loading in the long direction, the walls in the base storey are NOT OK.

24
25
APPENDIX B: CALCULATIONS

26
1. PARAMETERS

Variable Parameters
Structure Type 1Office Office
Length of Wall L 410000 10000 mm
Length of Opening Lo 10 0 mm Note: opening is central in wall panel
Hazard Factor Z 40.12 0.12 AS 1170.4 Table 3.2
Wall Edge Support (Top) 2Simple Simple
Wall Edge Support (Left) 4Partial Partial Note: at least one wall
Wall Edge Support (Right) 4Partial Partial edge must be supported
Site Sub-soil Class 4D D AS 1170.4 Clause 4.2
Storey Under Consideration 55 5
Total Number of Storeys 45 5
Unit Type 1A A
Unit Dimension (Height) hu 76 mm
Unit Dimension (Length) lu 230 mm
Unit Dimension (Width) tu 110 mm
Rotational Restraint Factor R f1 0.5 AS 3700 Clause 7.4.4.2
Rotational Restraint Factor R f2 0.5 AS 3700 Clause 7.4.4.2

Constant Parameters
Length of Building (Short Direction) 12 m
Length of Building (Long Direction) 50 m
Total Length of Walls (Short Direction) 180 m
Total Length of Walls (Long Direction) 250 m
Proportion of Tributary Area (Short Direction) 0.75
Proportion of Tributary Area (Long Direction) 0.25
Unit Length of Wall b 1000 mm
Design Compressive Stress fd 0.0285 MPa
Shear Strength of Masonry f' ms 0 MPa * AS 3700 Clause 3.3.4 (a)
Flexural Tensile Strength of the Masonry f' mt 0.2 MPa * AS 3700 Clause 3.3.3 (a) (i)
Lateral Modulus of Rupture of the Brick Unit f' ut 0.8 MPa * AS 3700 Clause 1.5.2.9
Height of Wall H 3000 mm
Probability Factor kp 1.0 AS 1170.4 Table 3.1
Shear Factor kv 0.3 AS 3700 Table 3.3
Ratio of Structural Performance to Ductility S p /µ 0.62 AS 1170.4 Table 6.2
Thickness of Mortar Joint tj 10 mm
Capacity Reduction Factor (a) (ii) φ 0.6 AS 3700 Table 4.1
Earthquake-Imposed Action Combination Factor ψc 0.3 AS 1170.4 Clause 6.2.2
Force Per Unit Area (per 10 mm thickness) 0.19 kN/m2 AS 1170.1 Table A2
2
Force Per Unit Area 2.09 kN/m per metre width of wall
Number of Wall Leaves (Cavity) 2
Reference Period 500 years
Slab Thickness 175 mm
Timber Flooring Thickness 15 mm
* Characteristic

25
2. OUT-OF-PLANE BENDING

AS 1170.4 Analysis
Factor to Account for Floor (Upper) K s (upper) 6.1 AS 1170.4 Table 5.1
Factor to Account for Floor (Lower) K s (lower) 4.9 AS 1170.4 Table 5.1
Acceleration at Level i (Upper) ai 0.45
Acceleration at Level i -1 (Lower) a i -1 0.36
Seismic Demand (Out-of-plane Load) wd 0.86 kPa

AS 3700 Analysis
One-way Horizontal Bending
Perpend Spacing Factor kp 1.00 AS3700 Clause 7.4.3.4
3
Section Modulus of the Bedded Area Zd 2016667 mm per metre width
Horizontal Bending Moment Capacity (i) 1.24 kNm per metre width
(ii) 2.16 kNm per metre width
(iii) 0.56 kNm per metre width
Horizontal Bending Moment Capacity M ch 0.56 kNm per metre width
Diagonal Bending
Opening No
Number of Vertical Edges Supported Both
Slope Factor α 2.39 AS3700 Clause 7.4.4.2 (a)
Case 1-6 (Table 7.4) 2
Aspect Factor af 2.78
Coefficients k1 0.50 AS3700 Table 7.4
k2 2.95 AS3700 Table 7.4
Height Factor B 69.9 mm AS3700 Clause 7.4.4.2 (b)
Equivalent Torsional Strength f' t 1.01 MPa * AS3700 Clause 7.4.4.2 (b)
Crack Slope G 0.72 AS3700 Clause 7.4.4.2 (a)
Design Height Hd 1500 mm AS3700 Clause 7.4.4.2 (a)
Design Length Ld 5000 mm
3
Equivalent Torsional Section Modulus Zt 878.6 mm per mm crack length
Diagonal Moment Capacity M cd 0.53 kNm per m crack length
Total Design Capacity (Bending) wc 0.41 kPa = 0.48 w d Clause 7.4.4.2 (a)

Deemed-to-satisfy Result
(Seismic Demand) w d > w c (Total Design Capacity) NOT OK

26
3. OUT-OF-PLANE SHEAR

AS 3700 Analysis
Total Out-of-plane Shear 51.31 kN
Seismic Demand (Shear at Base of Wall) Vd 25.66 kN

2
Area of a Shear-resisting Portion of a Member A dw 1.1 m
Shear Bond Strength of the Shear Section Vo 0.00 kN
Minimum Design Compressive Stress fd 0.0648 MPa
Shear Friction Strength of the Shear Section V1 21.39 kN
Total Design Capacity (Shear) Vo +V1 21.39 kN

Deemed-to-satisfy Result
(Seismic Demand) V d > V o + V 1 (Total Design Capacity) NOT OK

Friction IS NOT sufficient to satisfy demand hence EDGE CONNECTORS are required

27
4. IN-PLANE SHEAR

AS 1170.4 Analysis
Total Load for Level 5
Permanent Action, G
Material or Construction Force/unit area Area Total AS 1170.1
Ceiling Portland cement plaster, 13 mm thick 0.29 kN/m2 600.0 m2 174.0 kN Table A2
Roofs Tiles – Terracotta 0.57 kN/m2 600.0 m2 342.0 kN Table A2
Walls Brick masonry, solid –
burnt clay, per 10 mm of thickness 0.19 kN/m2 Table A2
2
Short direction walls 2.09 kN/m 270.0 m2 564.3 kN
2
Long direction walls 2.09 kN/m 375.0 m2 783.8 kN
Σ 1864.1 kN

Imposed Action, Q
None Σ 0 kN

Total Action, W 1864.1 kN

Total Load for Levels 1 - 4

Permanent Action, G
Material or Construction Weight/cubic metre Volume Total AS 1170.1
Concrete Floor slab 24.0 kN/m3 105.0 m3 2520.0 kN Table A1
Timber Pine flooring 5.3 kN/m3 9.0 m3 47.7 kN Table A1
Force/unit area Area
Walls Brick masonry, solid –
burnt clay, per 10 mm of thickness 0.19 kN/m2 Table A2
2
Short direction walls 2.09 kN/m 540.0 m2 1128.6 kN
2
Long direction walls 2.09 kN/m 750.0 m2 1567.5 kN
Σ 5263.8 kN

Imposed Action, Q
Material or Construction Unif. Dist. Actions Area Total
Residential General areas (conservatively taken) 2.0 kPa 600.0 m2 1200.0 kN Table 3.1
Σ 1200.0 kN

Total Action, W 5623.8 kN

Total force, F i , for each level: Level Ks Wi Fi

1 1.2 5623.8 kN 502.1 kN
2 2.5 5623.8 kN 1046.0 kN
3 3.6 5623.8 kN 1506.3 kN
4 4.9 5623.8 kN 2050.2 kN
5 6.1 1864.1 kN 846.0 kN
Σ 24359.3 kN 5950.6 kN

Total Base Shear (Seismic Demand) Vd 5950.6 kN = 0.24 W

28
Short Direction
AS 3700 Analysis
2
Area of a Shear-resisting Portion of a Member A dw 19.8 m
Shear Bond Strength of the Shear Section Vo 0.00 kN
Minimum Design Compressive Stress fd 0.893 MPa
Shear Friction Strength of the Shear Section V1 5305.9 kN
Shear Friction Strength of the Shear Section (Flange Effects) V 1' 884.3 kN
Total Design Capacity (Shear) V o + V 1 + V 1' 6190.2 kN = 1.04 V d

Deemed-to-satisfy Result
(Seismic Demand) V < V o + V 1 + V 1' (Total Design Capacity) OK

Friction IS sufficient to satisfy demand

Long Direction
AS 3700 Analysis
2
Area of a Shear-resisting Portion of a Member A dw 27.5 m
Shear Bond Strength of the Shear Section Vo 0.00 kN
Minimum Design Compressive Stress fd 0.214 MPa
Shear Friction Strength of the Shear Section V1 1768.6 kN
Shear Friction Strength of the Shear Section (Flange Effects) V 1' 2652.9 kN
Total Design Capacity (Shear) V o + V 1 + V 1' 4421.6 kN = 0.74 V d

Deemed-to-satisfy Result
(Seismic Demand) V > V o + V 1 + V 1' (Total Design Capacity) NOT OK

FAIL: Friction IS NOT sufficient to satisfy demand

29