See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/282879249

Elastic Stability of URM Walls under Transverse Loading

Article · January 2003

CITATIONS READS
12 129

2 authors, including:

Arturo E Schultz
University of Minnesota Twin Cities
199 PUBLICATIONS   986 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Design and Performance of Post-Tensioned Masonry Beams View project

Investigating the seismic behavior of precast concrete and masonry members with rocking connections View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Arturo E Schultz on 20 October 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Elastic Stability of URM Walls Under Transverse Loading
A. E. Schultz1 and J. G. Mueffelman2
Bending arising from out-of-plane lateral loads has a
dramatic impact on the stability of unreinforced masonry
(URM) compression members, such as walls (Figure 1).
Due to low tensile strength, flexural tension stress cracks
masonry and reduces the effective depth of the cross
section. This effect renders the member more flexible,
augments lateral deflection due to out-of-plane bending,
and gives rise to second-order moments. The additional
bending moment generates more tension stress, which
further reduces the cross-section, and produces larger
lateral deflections. These conditions can lead to instability
(i.e., buckling) if equilibrium of the member is not
established in its new configuration, which has larger lateral
deflections and a greater extent of cracking.
Out-of-plane bending due to axial load eccentricity
has been recognized to affect the stability of URM
compression members [Angervo (1954), Sahlin (1961),
Yokel (1971), Colville (1979)]. Previous research led to the
development of design provisions that include eccentricity
as a factor in the buckling capacity of URM compression
members. In the United States (US), a check on the buckling
strength of URM walls including the effects of axial load
eccentricity is required [MSJC (2002)]. However, current
Masonry Standards Joint Committee (MSJC) code
provisions require investigation of, but do not address
specifically, the effect of bending from out-of-plane loading
on the stability of URM compression members. Moreover,
a clear understanding of the interaction of axial load and
moment from transverse loading at the limit of stability is
not readily found in the technical literature on structural
masonry. This lack of technical information on the stability
of laterally-loaded masonry walls is further emphasized by
statements such as the following
are overly conservative in terms of nominal compression
strength, allowable compression stresses and wall
slenderness. Yet, new masonry construction, even if it is
unreinforced, often features members that are more slender
and more highly stressed than those in older buildings.
Furthermore, these trends come at a time when design
standards [ASCE 7 (2002)] and model codes [NEHRP
(2000)] have adopted significant increases in wind and
seismic loads. Thus, explicit consideration of transverse
load effects in the stability of URM walls is necessary.
This paper presents an elastic stability solution for
slender URM walls subjected to transverse loads and axial
compression. The behavior of slender URM walls at the
limit of stable behavior is investigated, including the
interaction between bending and critical axial loads, as
well as the influence of nonlinearity on axial load capacity.
A companion paper [Schultz and Mueffelman (2003)]
discusses stability issues relevant to the design of slender
URM walls under transverse loading and axial
compression.
PREVIOUS RESEARCH
Linear analysis techniques have been used to solve
the governing differential equation for the lateral deflection
of URM walls under eccentric axial load [Angervo (1954),
Sahlin (1961)]. In these studies, computed deflections, as
a function of axial load, were used to define critical axial
loads. In the US, solutions for the eccentric buckling

“The equation is not intended to be used to check

adequacy for combined axial compression and flexure”

which refers to MSJC Equation 2-15 for critical load capacity

of URM walls under eccentric axial load, and which appears
in p. 35 of the MSJC Code Commentary [MSJC (2002)].

Aside from severe seismic loading, widespread

problems in the performance of URM compression members
have not materialized in the US because most of the existing
building stock was designed according to older codes that

1
Assoc. Prof., Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Min-
nesota, Minneapolis, 55455.
2
Struct. Engr., Innovative Structural Solutions,
Monticello, MN, 55362. Figure 1—Transverse Loading of a Cracked URM Member

TMS Journal September 2003 31

Figure 2—Masonry Compression Stress Block
strength of URM compression members have been
developed [Yokel (1971), Colville (1979)]. Yokel (1971)
illustrated the accuracy of this approach for prediction of
the buckling strength of eccentrically loaded walls tested
over a wide range of variables, and the MSJC eventually
adopted this solution for use in [MSJC (2002)].
The impact on the eccentric buckling capacity of URM
walls of nonlinearity in the masonry stress-strain relation
has generated interest in the past decade [Romano et al.
(1993), La Mendola (1995), Ganduscio (1997)]. A variety
of elegant solutions have been obtained, but these have
not found their way to design practice due to their
complexity. These solutions typically involve coupled
systems of implicit nonlinear equations that must be solved
iteratively. Furthermore, any negative repercussions on
the design for lateral stability in masonry walls due to
neglecting nonlinearity in masonry compression behavior
has not been assessed.
Sahlin (1961) had earlier considered the influence of
out-of-plane bending on the buckling capacity of a solid
wall made using a linear, elastic material with no tensile
strength. However, this approach did not yield practical
solutions either.
INTRODUCING BENDING FROM
TRANSVERSE LOADING
In the present study, Yokel’s second-order formulation
for the deflection of a linear, elastic URM wall with solid
cross-section and no tensile strength has been extended
to include out-of-plane bending. An additional flexural
eccentricity ef was defined, at an arbitrary section along
the wall, as the ratio of the first-order bending moment M,
produced by transverse loading, to axial load P (Figure
2a). This eccentricity ef = M/P varies along the height of
the member since the bending moment at a section is also
32
a variable. The point of application of the axial load, P
(Figure 2a), is shifted by the flexural eccentricity, ef, to
define an equivalent system of forces (Figure 2b). The
lateral deflection of the wall, u, is defined from the line-of-
action of the axial load, P, to the deflected compression
face of the wall (Figures 1 and 2).
The masonry is assumed to be linearly elastic in
compression, but with no tensile strength, and, plane and
normal sections before deformation are assumed to remain
both plane and normal after deformation. Thus,
compression stresses in the masonry vary linearly with
distance from the neutral axis, defining a triangular
compression stress block. The internal force resultant from
the compression stresses must be in equilibrium with the
external axial load (Figure 2), from which the maximum
vertical compression stress at a given section along wall
height is
2P
σ0 = (1)
bt ′
where b is the width of the member under consideration,
and t ′ is the uncracked depth of masonry in the cross-
section.
Equilibrium of internal and external moments at the
section requires that the external axial load act through the
centroid of the compression stress block. The centroid of
the triangular compression stress distribution shown in
Figure 2 is located at a distance t ′ / 3 from the compression
face. Furthermore, the distance from the axial load, in its
shifted position (Figure 2b), to the compression face is
equal to the difference between the deflection, u, and the
flexural eccentricity, ef, or (u - ef ). Consequently, the
uncracked depth, t ′ , must be numerically equal to 3(u - ef ).
Combining this expression and the definition of flexural
eccentricity with Equation (1), the maximum compression
strain ε0 in the section can be defined
TMS Journal September 2003
 For convenience, a second definition for lateral
deflection, y, is introduced relative to the deflected
compression face of the wall (Figure 4). The longitudinal
coordinate, x, originates at the location of zero slope, i.e.,
at mid-depth for a simply-supported wall and at the base
for a cantilever wall. The deflections u and y are related by
the deflection u0 at x = 0, such that u=u0 + y, and u0 is taken
as a constant, albeit an unknown one, for a given wall and
system of loads. Clearly, the magnitude of u0 changes as
the properties of the wall change (i.e., geometry and
modulus of elasticity). This definition of coordinates offers
Figure 3—Curvature of a Deformed Element advantages when solving the differential equation for
lateral deflection of the wall. The deflection at the top of
σ0 2P the wall u1 is defined at x = h/2 for a simply-supported wall
ε0 = = and x = h for a cantilever wall, where h is the height of the
3Eb u − 
E M (2)
 P wall.
where E is the modulus of elasticity for masonry.
Following the small deflection approximation for
curvature, the second derivative of the deflection function,
DIFFERENTIAL EQUATION FOR d 2 y/dx 2 , is equated with the inverse of the radius of
BENDING curvature, 1/ρ. Thus, the general differential equation for
bending of the masonry wall becomes
For a differential segment of uncracked and deformed
wall with length dL (Figure 3), the relative rotation φ can be  2P 
d2y 1  9 Eb 
obtained as the ratio of the shortening of a fiber along the = =
compression face, ε0dL, to the thickness of uncracked dx 2
ρ  M( x)  (5)
u0 + y( x ) − P 
2

masonry, t ′ . Using Equation (2) and the definition of the  

uncracked thickness, t ′ , the relative rotation is expressed Equation (5) is a second-order nonlinear differential
as equation in which lateral deflection y and bending moment
ε 0 dL 2 PdL M from transverse loading vary along the axis of the
φ= = member. This formulation includes second-order moments
t′ 2
9 Eb u − 
M (3) due to lateral deflection (i.e., P-∆ moments), as can be seen
 P
in the expression given by the denominator of Equation
From Figure 3, the product of φ and the radius of curvature, (5). The negative sign in this expression arises from the
ρ, can be seen to define the deformed length of the extreme sign conventions selected for M and y. However, this
compression fiber dL(1-ε0), from which the inverse of the equation is valid only for “small deflections”, as a
radius of curvature becomes consequence of the assumed relationship between
1 φ 2P deflection, y(x), and curvature, 1/ρ. Moreover, the term (1 -
= = ε0) has been dropped from the denominator because
ρ dL(1 − ε 0 ) 2
9 Eb u −  (1 − ε 0 )
M (4) maximum compression strains ε0 for slender URM walls
 P
failing by instability are negligible relative to unity (i.e.,
1>>ε0).

LATERAL LOADING AND SUPPORT

CONDITIONS

Four combinations of lateral loading and support

conditions were considered in the solution of Equation
(5). These cases include 1) a simply-supported wall with
equal end-moments M0 at top and bottom, 2) a simply-
supported wall with uniformly distributed lateral load w
over the height h of the wall, 3) a cantilever wall with a
concentrated lateral load Q at the top of the wall, and 4) a
cantilever wall with a uniformly-distributed lateral load w

Figure 4—Coordinate System and Deflections

TMS Journal September 2003 33

Figure 5—Transverse Loading and Support Conditions
over wall height, h. These cases are shown in Figure 5,
along with sketches of the corresponding moment
diagrams. The formulas for the corresponding first-order
bending moment M(x), i.e. arising from transverse loading
only, are given by
M ( x ) = M0 (6a)
w  h2  the bending parameter, β, equal to 0, and increasing in
M( x) =  − x2 (6b)
2 4  magnitude until all axial load capacity vanished. The
M ( x ) = Q(h − x ) (6c)
w
M( x) = (h − x ) 2 (6d)
2 corresponding numerical solutions to Equation (5) were
NUMERICAL SOLUTION
Numerical solutions of Equation (5) for the lateral
displacement u of URM compression members under a
given axial load were obtained using a commercial computer
software package (Mathematica 2000). A constant value
for u0, and an initial value for u1, were assumed, for a given
wall geometry, material properties, support conditions,
lateral loading, and axial load magnitude. With this
information, the differential Equation (5) was integrated
numerically to obtain y(x), and a new value for u1 was
computed as u1=u0+ytop, where ytop is the value for y at
x=h/2 for a simply-supported wall and at x=h for a cantilever
wall. The initial and calculated values for u 1 were
subsequently compared to test for convergence. The
calculated value for u1 became the initial value for the next
iteration if convergence had not been established. Upon
convergence of u1, the values for u0/u1, Pec and P/Pec were
computed. The ‘equivalent’ Euler buckling load, Pec, was
34
defined by Yokel (1971) for an uncracked thickness of
masonry, t ′ , equal to 3u1. The effective moment of inertia
for such a thickness of masonry is 9bu13/4, for which
Pec=9Ebu13/4he2.
The solution procedure described above was repeated
for different amounts of bending, starting with a value for
bending parameter, β, is defined as the ratio of maximum
first-order moment from transverse loads, Mmax, to the
product of axial load, P, and end deflection, u1. The
found to describe axial load-lateral displacement
relationships like that shown in Figure 6 for Case 2, a
simply-supported wall with a uniform load w. In such plots,
the lateral displacement, u 0 , is normalized by the
displacement at the top of the wall, u1. The latter is the
distance from the point of application of axial load P to the
compression face of the wall (Figure 1), and axial loads are
normalized by the equivalent critical load Pec.
COMPARISON WITH YOKEL’S SOLUTION
Yokel (1971) obtained the exact analytic solution for
the deflection of a slender wall with linear, elastic
compression behavior and no tensile strength, and which
is loaded by a vertical compression force, P, that is applied
with a constant eccentricity, ea, and no lateral loading
(Figure 1 with w = 0). This case is similar to Case 1 in the
present study because the eccentricity of vertical loading
produces a first-order moment, Pea, that is constant over
the height of the wall for a given value of P. It differs from
TMS Journal September 2003
Figure 6—Stability Curves for Simply-Supported, Uniformly Loaded Member (Case 2, ea = 0)

Table 1. Comparison of Yokel’s Solution with Case 1 Case 1, however, in that the magnitude of the induced
(β = 0) first-order moment varies in direct proportion to axial load,
P, whereas, for Case 1, M0, is constant and independent of
P/Pec P.
u0/u1
Yokel Case 1
For the limiting condition in Case 1 when moment
1.0 0 vanishes (i.e., β = 0), the present solution should coincide
0.97973 0.03176 0.03176 with Yokel’s solution. Yokel (1971) reported the following
0.96052 0.05986 0.05986 formula for the relation between load, P, and deflection, u0
0.94228 0.08477 0.08477 2
  u 
0.92494 0.10690 0.10690   1− 0 
P 4  u0   u0  u0  u1 u1  
0.90843 0.12660 0.12660 =   1− +   ln  + 
Pec π 2  u1   u1  u1   u0 u0   (7)
0.89268 0.14415 0.14415   
0.87765 0.15982 0.15982   u1  
0.86327 0.17382 0.17382 In Table 1, Yokel’s load-deflection solution is compared
0.84951 0.18634 0.18635 with the numerical integration results obtained in the
0.83632 0.19755 0.19756 present study for Case 1 when β = 0 for select values of
u0/u1. The numerical integration results are seen to agree
0.77776 0.23834 0.23835
with Yokel’s solution to the fourth of fifth significant figure.
0.72907 0.26176 0.26177
0.65229 0.28121 0.28121 An interesting observation is noted regarding the
1
0.61165 0.28370 0.28370 solutions given in Table 1. For concentric loading (i.e.,
0.59408 0.28326 0.28326 ea=0), neither solution reverts to Euler buckling load, PE, at
0.54811 0.27807 0.27807 the limit of stability. The critical load is defined by
Pc=0.2837 Pec, and Pec=(27/8) PE for concentric loading
0.51069 0.26990 0.26990
(i.e., when ea=0, u1=t /2). Thus, Pc=0.2837(27/8) PE=0.9575PE.
0.47951 0.26066 0.26066 The 4.25% deficiency in these solutions, relative to Euler
0.45304 0.25123 0.25123 buckling capacity, arises from the assumed stress
0.43022 0.24205 0.24205 distribution in the compression region. The distribution is
0.41031 0.23330 0.23330 assumed to be triangular (Figure 2), but this shape is
0.29382 0.17133 0.17133 applicable only after the stress in the ‘tensile’ face has
gone into tension, which, for a linear, elastic section, occurs
0.18232 0.10234 0.10233
when the eccentricity of vertical loading exceeds the kern
0.12580 0.06724 0.06724 distance (t/6). For loading within the kern distance, the
0.01125 0.00481 0.00481 compression stress distribution is trapezoidal, and it is
1
Limit of stable behavior conducive to a slightly larger buckling capacity than if it
were triangular.

TMS Journal September 2003 35

Figure 7—Influence Of Bending On Buckling Capacity Of URM Members (ea = 0)

P
INFLUENCE OF BENDING ON CRITICAL = c1 β 3 + c2 β 2 + c3 β + c4 (8)
Pec
AXIAL LOADS where the coefficients c1, c2, c3 and c4 (Table 2) were
obtained by the least-squares procedure. These polynomial
The numerical solutions suggest that the axial force- curves were found to be accurate analytical approximations
lateral displacement response of an URM compression of the numerical solutions, and the numerical solutions,
member exhibits a strong dependence on the magnitude of shown as discrete points in Figure 7, are seen to coincide
out-of-plane bending moment, as indicated by the bending with the polynomials, shown as solid lines. In fact, the
parameter, β. Consider, for example, a simply supported coefficients of correlation for the least-squares fit in all
wall with uniform lateral loading (Case 2) and no eccentricity four Cases approached unity.
of axial load (ea = 0). The loading for such walls produces
maximum first-order moment Mmax at mid-height equal to
BENDING MOMENT AND AXIAL
wh2/8. The resulting axial force-lateral displacement
behavior (Figure 6) indicates that for β = 0.5, the maximum LOAD INTERACTION
axial load that the compression members can develop is
less than one-sixth of that for no lateral loading (β = 0). The numerical solutions and analytic approximations
defined above describe a highly nonlinear interaction
The relative maxima for stability curves such as those between critical axial load Pc and bending moment Mmax,
shown in Figure 6 represent points of impending instability, and are illustrated in Figure 8 for the load cases considered
and the corresponding critical axial loads are the buckling assuming no eccentricity of axial load (ea=0). Critical axial
strengths Pc. For each of the four load cases considered, the load Pc and moment M are normalized with respect to Euler
ratios of critical load, Pc , to equivalent critical load, Pec, were buckling load PE and the product of PE and radius of
correlated with the bending parameter, β (Figure 7). Critical gyration r, respectively, and gross sections were used to
axial load capacity, Pc, relative to Pec, is seen to decay very evaluate PE and r. The same critical axial loads, Pc, and
quickly with out-of-plane bending (i.e., increasing β). maximum first-order moments, Mmax, are plotted in Figures
Moreover, Case 1 is seen to undermine buckling capacity 7 and 8, but they are normalized differently. In Figure 7, the
most severely, while Case 4 is the most benign. This normalization factor for moments, Pcu1, is a direct outcome
observation follows directly from the shape of the first-order of the solution procedure employed in this study. Whereas,
moment diagrams for the four load cases (Figure 5), with Case the normalization factor for moment in Figure 8, PE r, utilizes
1 having the “fullest” diagram which affords all sections along Table 2. Polynomial Coefficients for Analytic
wall height equal potential for cracking under first-order Approximations
bending. Whereas, the moment diagrams for the other cases
have progressively smaller segments of the wall subjected to Coefficient
the largest moments. This effect can be envisioned as a Case
c1 c2 c3 c4
cracking potential that is proportional to the fullness of the
moment diagram, with “fuller” moment diagrams having more 1 -0.2845 0.8517 -0.8512 0.2837
sections attaining Mmax than ones with less “full” diagrams. 2 -0.1522 0.6176 -0.7457 0.2837
3 -0.0281 0.3530 -0.6073 0.2837
The numerical data for the Pc/Pec vs β were fitted by 4 0.0794 0.1005 -0.4683 0.2837
a third-order polynomial

36 TMS Journal September 2003

Figure 8—Bending Moment-Critical Axial Load Interaction Diagrams (ea = 0)
quantities that are commonly used in design. Both of these
parameters (PE and r) are constant for a wall of given
geometric and material properties, whereas the
normalization factor used in Figure 7 varies with the loads
applied to the wall.
As noted earlier, the magnitude of bending is seen to
have a dramatic impact on critical axial load. However, Figure
8 also indicates that for a given value of moment Mmax,
there are two values of axial load Pc that produce instability.
One of these axial load ranges (P/PE < 0.45) represents a
regime for which increases in axial load are beneficial since
they reduce flexural tension stresses, so, it is referred to as
the “tension” region. But, for the other axial load range
(P/PE >0.45), the reduction in flexural tension does not
offset the increased instability associated with larger axial
loads, so, it is denoted the “compression” region. However,
both regions represent failure due to axial load instability
(i.e., buckling), and the peak moment represents the
boundary between regimes.
Bending capacity, as illustrated in Figure 8, vanishes
when no axial load is present, due to the ‘zero tensile
strength’ assumption. This conservative assumption
ensures the existence of analytic approximations, such as
Equation (8), for the buckling strength of URM members.
Yet, the accuracy of this assumption depends greatly upon
the relative magnitudes of flexural tensile strength and
slenderness ratio. Yokel (1971) noted that the ‘zero tensile
strength’ approximation can lead to gross underestimation
of the buckling capacity of very slender URM walls (h/t >
25 or h/r > 85). In Figure 8, the ‘zero tensile strength’
assumption is seen to distort the moment-axial load
interaction, because URM sections have finite bending
strength, even if no axial load is present. Thus, the curves
in Figure 8 should intersect the horizontal axis to the right
of the origin at ordinates that are consistent with moment
strength at flexural cracking. Neglecting this resistance in
the present study introduces a measure of conservatism
which can be large for cases with low axial loads.
TMS Journal September 2003
INFLUENCE OF STRESS-STRAIN
NONLINEARITY
Romano et al. (1993) and Ganduscio and Romano
(1997) reported the buckling solution for a cantilever wall
with a concentrated lateral load at the top (i.e., Case 3).
They assumed that masonry has a nonlinear stress-strain
relation, and they concluded that nonlinearity can generate
large reductions in critical axial load capacities over the
buckling strength of linear, elastic systems. In their
analytical solution, Ganduscio and Romano used the
following nonlinear stress-strain relation to represent the
masonry in compression
σ = Êε n (9)
where Ê is a material constant (i.e., secant modulus at ε = 1),
and the exponent n controls the degree of nonlinearity.
For masonry meeting current specifications in the US
[MSJC (2002)], n is likely to exceed 0.7, and in some cases
approach a nearly linear stress-strain relation (n ≥ 0.9).
The modulus of elasticity for masonry Em is defined
on the basis of the stress-strain relation in compression. It
is the slope of the chord connecting points corresponding
to compression stresses equal to 5% and 33% of masonry
compression strength fm , or
0.33 fm − 0.05 fm
Em = (10)
ε 0.33 − ε 0.05
where fm is compression strength, and ε0.33 and ε0.05 are the
strains corresponding to stresses equal to 33% and 5%,
respectively, of f m [MSJC (2002)]. This definition
incorporates a significant portion of the softening due to
nonlinearity inherent in masonry compression behavior,
as noted in Figure 9. The implicit degree of nonlinearity is
sufficient for defining stability limits of most slender URM
walls which tend to have low demands on maximum
compressive strain demands σ 0. Using the masonry
modulus Em defined in this manner, the elastic solution
37
Figure 9—Masonry Modulus of Elasticity (Em)
proposed herein should provide reasonable estimates of
Pc for nonlinear masonry materials.
Critical axial loads Pc for Case 3, normalized by the
Euler buckling load PE , from both Ganduscio and Romano’s
solution (1997), for n = 0.7 and n = 0.9, and the proposed
elastic solution are compared in Figure 10. Masonry
modulus Em was defined using Equation (10), in which the
strains ε0.05 and ε0.33 were obtained using Equation (9).
Ganduscio and Romano’s solution is seen to be sensitive
to slenderness ratio, i.e., ratio of height, h, to thickness, t,
whereas the elastic solution is not. Furthermore, for
increasing nonlinearity (decreasing values of n), there is
more scatter among the various values for h/t considered.
Nonetheless, the elastic solution provides a conservative
approximation for all but the stockiest walls (h/t=10, which
is h/r = 35). For such stocky walls, instability is unlikely to
be a problem. Ganduscio and Romano’s solution for linear,
elastic compression (n = 1) coincides identically with that
for Case 3.
Maximum compression strains, ε0, can be obtained
from the elastic stability solution from Equation (2). The
a) n = 0.7
Figure 10—Influence of Nonlinearity on Critical Axial Loads
38
largest compression strain in the extreme face occurs at x = 0
(Figure 4), thus u = u0, M = Mmax, and P = Pc. Substituting
the corresponding formulas for β and Pec, and recognizing
that u1 = t/2 for the case of no axial load eccentricity (ea = 0),
enables the calculation of ε0
3π 2  Pc 
 
8  Pec 
ε0 =
 h   u0 − β 
2
(11)
 t   u1 

The ε0 demands for the elastic solutions considered in
Figure 10 are shown in Figure 11. Only elastic solutions
are given because Ganduscio and Romano (1997) did not
report maximum compressive strains, and the computed
strains are independent of n. It is further noted that while
h/t does not affect Pc or Pc / Pec, it does affect ε0, as can be
seen in Equation 11. For stocky members (h/t ≥ 10), the
strain demands shown in Figure 11 for the cases of n = 0.7
and n = 0.9 are very large, especially if the member has little
bending (i.e., small β). Under such conditions, masonry
would crush before the URM walls could buckle. In design,
this condition would be identified by appropriate
b) n = 0.9
TMS Journal September 2003
Figure 11—Influence of Slenderness and Bending on Maximum Compression Strain
consideration of cross-section axial strength. However,
for more slender walls (i.e., increasing h/t), and for more
bending (i.e., increasing β ), strain demands are seen to
decrease very rapidly to quantities that are small relative
to the strain capacity of typical masonry assemblages.
Thus, the elastic solution for buckling strength of
laterally-loaded URM walls is seen to provide a
conservative estimate of the buckling capacity of slender
URM walls. The elastic solution overestimates the inelastic
solution only for stocky walls, and only when there is little
bending (i.e., small β ), for which case instability is of little
concern. Nonlinearity has the greatest effect on stocky
walls with little bending because it is only under these
conditions (i.e., mostly axial loading) that axial compression
strains reach sufficiently large magnitudes for nonlinearity
to become dominant.
CONCLUSIONS
An analytical investigation of the elastic stability of
transversely-loaded URM compression members was
undertaken. This problem has received little attention from
the research establishment and a practical solution is not
readily found in the technical literature on structural
masonry. This paper documents a procedure in which
bending moments from transverse loading are introduced
into the governing differential equation by means of a
flexural eccentricity term, ef , which is defined as the ratio
of bending moment, M, to axial load, P. The usual
assumptions in linear beam theory (small deflections,
linearly elastic material, plane sections remaining plane,
and normal sections remaining normal) are made in the
derivation of this equation, as well as the assumption that
the masonry has no tensile strength.
The numerical solution for the critical axial loads in
URM compression members with no tensile strength is
TMS Journal September 2003
obtained for 4 cases comprising combinations of support
conditions (simply supported or cantilever walls) and
loading (equal end moments, uniformly distributed lateral
load, or concentrated transverse load). Accurate analytical
approximations for critical axial load, comprising third-order
polynomials as a function of bending moment, are also
presented. The numerical solutions and analytical
approximations demonstrate the marked influence of
bending moment from transverse loads on the buckling
strength of URM compression members.
The interaction between out-of-plane bending moment
and critical axial load is shown to be a highly nonlinear
relation for all four cases considered. The stability
interaction curves contain two axial loads for every value
of bending moment, each representing a different branch
of the interaction relation. There is a “tension” region in
which increases in axial load are beneficial since they reduce
flexural tension, and a “compression” region in which the
reduction in flexural tension does not offset the increased
instability associated with larger axial loads. However, both
regions represent stability limits. This paper also
demonstrates that nonlinearity, while important, is dealt
with in a conservative manner for most slender walls if the
masonry modulus Em is based on the chord definition used
in US design practice.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research was conducted with financial support
from the National Science Foundation through grant CMS-
9904110, Dr. V. J. Gopu, Dr. P. C. Chang, Dr. P. Balaguru and
Dr. S. L. Mc Cabe, Program Directors, and the Graduate
School of the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities by
means of a Grant-in-Aid of Research, Artistry and
Scholarship. This support is gratefully acknowledged.
39
 REFERENCES NOTATIONS

Angervo, K., Uber die knickung und tragfahigkeit eines b section width.
excentrisch gedrueckten pfeilers, Staaliche Tecnische ci polynomial coefficients for analytic approximations
Forschungsansalt, Helsinki, 1954. (i = 1- 4).
dL differential length of extreme compression fiber.
Code of Practice for Use of Masonry: Parts 1, 2 and 3, BS E modulus of elasticity.
5628, British Standards Institution, London, 1985. Ê secant modulus for nonlinear stress-strain relation.
Em chord modulus of elasticity of masonry (Equation (10)).
Colville, J. , “Stress reduction factors for masonry walls,” ea actual eccentricity of axial load at end of member.
Proceedings, ASCE, Vol. 105, No. ST10, 1979, pp. 2035-2051. ef effective flexural eccentricity.
fm masonry compression strength.
Ganduscio, S., and F. Romano, “FEM and analytical h member height.
solutions for buckling of nonlinear masonry members,” he effective height of member (he= kh).
Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 123, No. 1, I moment of inertia of member cross-section about
1997, pp. 104-111. weak axis.
k effective height factor (k = 1 for simply supported
Masonry Standards Joint Committee, Building Code walls, k = 2 for cantilever walls).
Requirements for Masonry Structures, ACI 530-02/ASCE M bending moment due to out-of-plane lateral load.
5-02/TMS 402-02, American Concrete Institute, Farmington M max maximum bending moment due to out-of-plane lateral
Hills, MI, Structural Engineering Institute (ASCE), Reston, load.
VA, The Masonry Society, Boulder, CO, 2002. M0 end moment at top and bottom of compression
member (Case 1).
La Mendola, L., M. Papia, and G. Zingone, “Stability of n exponent for nonlinear stress-strain relation
masonry walls subjected to transverse forces,” Journal of (Equation (9)).
Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 121, No. 11, 1995, pp. P external axial load.
1581-1587. Pc critical axial (buckling) load.
PE Euler buckling axial load.
Mathematica, Wolfram Research Inc., Champaign, IL, 2000. P ec equivalent critical axial load.
Q concentrated transverse load at top of compression
Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other member (Case 3).
Structures, ASCE 7-02, American Society of Civil Engineers, r radius of gyration for member cross-section about
Reston, VA, 2002, 352 pp. weak axis.
t member thickness.
NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations t′ uncracked depth of masonry.
for New Buildings and Other Structures, 2000 Ed., FEMA u lateral deflection of compression face relative to line-
368, Federal Emergency Management Agency. of-action of axial load.
Washington, DC, March 2001. uo maximum lateral deflection of compression face.
u1 lateral deflection of compression face at member end.
Romano, F., S. Ganduscio, and G. Zingone, “Cracked w uniformly distributed lateral load (Cases 2 and 4).
nonlinear masonry stability under vertical and lateral x position variable along height of compression
loads,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 119 member.
No. 1, 1993, pp. 69-87. y lateral deflection of compression face relative to
location of maximum displacement.
Sahlin, S, “Transversely loaded compression members ytop lateral displacement at top of compression member.
made of materials having no tensile strength,” Proceedings, ß bending parameter (Mmax /Pu1).
International Association for Bridge and Structural ε compression strain in masonry.
Engineering, Vol. 21, 1961, pp. 243-253. ε0 maximum vertical compression strain in masonry.
ε0.05 compression strain in masonry at a stress equal to
Schultz, A. E. and J. G. Mueffelman, “Design Considerations 0.05 fm .
for Stability of Transversely-Loaded URM Walls,” TMS ε0.33 compression strain in masonry at a stress equal to
Journal, accepted, 2003. 0.33fm .
φ relative rotation along member height.
Yokel, F. Y., “Stability and capacity of members with no ρ radius of curvature.
tensile strength,” Journal of the Structural Division, σ compression stress in masonry.
ASCE, Vol. 97, No. 7, 1971, pp. 1913-1926. σo maximum compression stress in masonry.

40 TMS Journal September 2003

View publication stats