ASSIGNMENT NO 01

DESIGN OF STRUCTURE

SUBMITTED BY

SHAHZAIB

STUDENT I.D

BCEF15E025

SUPERVISOR

ENGR. AQEEL AHMED

LECTURER

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY,
UNIVERSITY OF SARGODHA
 QUESTION NO 01:
As Pakistan has not yet the standard codes for the purpose to develop in the design of
structure. As there are so many majors’ disasters and the losses of the lives causes effects
done in the previous years which force the Pakistan authorities to make there on standard
codes. Then the Pakistan with all their main institutes and their experts collaborate with each
other and take the permission from the other region standard codes to make their own codes.
The Ministry of Housing and Works, Government of Pakistan, acknowledges that it has the
permission of the International Code Council (ICC), American Concrete Institute (ACI),
American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) and American Society for Civil Engineers
(ASCE) to transcribe, Uniform Building Code (UBC) and reproduce portions of their
respective documents, as listed hereunder, for the purpose to make the code to use easily for
the construction purposes.
The Ministry of Housing and Works, Government of Pakistan, accepts that ICC, ACI, AISC,
UBC and ASCE have the ownership and copyrights of all transcribes and reproduced
portions from their respective documents used for the construction purposes.
As the higher authorities has permission and make, they’re on codes from the above given
codes so there is no need to make the own codes. Because to make own codes is to much time
taking processes and the authorities are not in the support to make the codes. SO, we should
also use the codes to be mentioned by the authorities.
QUESTION NO 02:
INTRODUCTION
Research on the seismic behavior of masonry structures is nowadays almost entirely
dedicated to existing buildings and to the issues related to assessment and reduction of their
seismic vulnerability. For countries with a long story of civilization, the seismic protection of
masonry buildings involves also the issue of protecting the cultural heritage of the country.
There is also a rather generalized negative attitude towards the use of structural masonry for
new buildings in seismic areas, since most collapses and deaths in recent earthquakes are due
to inadequate performance of unreinforced masonry buildings (usually non-engineered, low-
quality, old dwellings). This explains why the large majority of the current scientific and
technical literature on seismic behavior of masonry is dedicated to the study of existing
structures and very seldom is masonry being nowadays considered as a choice for the design
of new structures. In design of new buildings, the structural behavior of masonry elements is
of concern mostly in the case of infilled frames, in which however the masonry panels are not
meant to serve as primary resisting elements.
The aim of this paper is not to give a comprehensive overview of all the issues that pertain to
the seismic design/assessment and strengthening of masonry buildings (which would require
a whole book rather than a conference paper), but to discuss selected issues, mostly related to
codes, which are believed to have important consequences on seismic design and assessment
practices, with specific reference to the context of the country. In recent years the author was
involved in the drafting of a new seismic design code for Pakistan, which was conceived as a
transition from the old national code towards the final adoption of country. A great part of
what will be discussed in the following draws from such an experience and more generally
from the recent experiences and researches on masonry structures. Reference will be made to
ordinary buildings only, which constitute the bulk of the building stock, since monumental
buildings present several peculiar problems that should be treated separately.
SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF MASONRY BUILDINGS: GENERAL REMARKS
The seismic vulnerability of masonry buildings can have wide variations depending on a
series of factors, most of which have been recognized for a long time, and have been codified
in most modern design provisions. The same factors are used, to a higher or lesser extent of
detail, to define vulnerability classes within macro seismic intensity scales (see e.g. EMS
scale, Council of Europe, 1998) or risk assessment procedures. A summary of such main
factors is reported in Table.

Sr No Higher vulnerability Lower vulnerability

1 Insufficient quality of materials (poor
mortar,weak/brittle units), poor
“internal connection” of masonry
(uncoursed irregular rubble stones,
multileaf masonry with no transverse
connection…).
2 Lack of efficient connections among
walls and between walls and horizontal
structures, lack of structural
redundancy
3 Very slender walls (out-of-plane
instability)
4 Floors do not provide diaphragm action
5 Presence of horizontal thrusts (e.g.
from roof or arched or vaulted
structures) equilibrated only by out of-
plane resistance of structural walls
6 Excessive unsupported floor spans,
widely and irregularly spaced walls
7 High structural and non-structural
masses and low material strength
8 Structural irregularity in plan (torsional
effects, stress concentrations) and in
elevation (inefficient load path, stress
concentrations)
Regular and robust units, good bond and
interlocking of units, masonry behaves
monolithically through the whole
thickness of the wall.
Good interlocking at wall intersections,
presence of tie rods and ring beams at
each floor (and roof) level to favor “box
action”, efficient floor-to-wall
connections which reduce stress
concentration.
Limited slenderness of walls; restraints
to out of- plane failure
Sufficiently stiff and resistant
diaphragms to provide restraint to out-
of-plane vibration of walls, to increase
structural redundancy and favor internal
force redistribution.
Horizontal thrusts are reacted by in-
plane action of strong walls/buttresses or
by suitable structural elements (ties,
floor diaphragms…) to form a “closed”
self-equilibrating system
Limited floor spans, regularly spaced
shear walls in at least two orthogonal
directions
Masses and weights produce a low
stress/strength ratio
Regular structure, sufficient torsional
resistance, regular path of forces from
upper structure to foundation

Table 1: Factors influencing the seismic vulnerability of masonry buildings

It is known from the past experience that the observance of the conditions listed in the right
column of Table 1. can guarantee a satisfactory seismic response of unreinforced masonry
(URM) buildings under earthquakes of moderate intensity and can prevent collapse under
severe ground shaking. Most of such conditions, albeit stated in different form, were part of
the so called “rule of art” of construction in past centuries, and explain the survival of well
built, old unreinforced masonry buildings to earthquakes. It is of utmost importance to
recognize that towards the achievement of a good seismic response such principles are as
important, if not more important, than the use of any modern analytical tool.

SEISMIC DESIGN OF MASONRY BUILDINGS: THE CURRENT APPROACH

1. Methods of structural analysis and safety check

When dealing with masonry buildings, the experience of past earthquakes shows that the
performance assessment or safety check, and the consequent structural model, should
consider at least two different problems: the response/resistance versus the so-called “first
damage mode” mechanisms, which involve usually out-of-plane damage and collapse
mechanisms, and the “second mode” mechanisms which are associated to in plane response
of walls. Clearly, during an earthquake both out-of-plane and in-plane response are
simultaneously mobilized, but it is generally recognized that a satisfactory seismic behavior
is attained only if out-of-plane collapse is prevented and in-plane strength and deformation
capacity of walls can be fully exploited.
In the Italian experience of the recent years there has been a tendency to classify the “first
mode” mechanism as local mechanisms, in the sense that they are usually associated to the
local response of structural elements/macro elements (Figure 1) which could in turn generate
a global collapse but can be studied in first instance without recurring to a global structural
model of the whole structure. A global model of the structure is usually needed when the
resistance of the building to horizontal actions is provided by the combined effect of floor
diaphragms and in-plane response of structural walls (although in some cases simplified
partial models could be used). Since in the design of new structures the structural conception
and details should guarantee that the in-plane strength of walls could be exploited without
out-of-plane collapse, attention has been paid in the literature mostly to methods of global
analysis.

Figure 1: Examples of first-mode “local” damage mechanisms (left, from D’Ayala &
Speranza, 2003) and global response mechanism (right).
 2. Linear methods for global analysis and safety check

In design of new structures, the “reference” method for code is the linear elastic multimodal
analysis, of which the “linear static” methods represent the single-mode simplification
allowed for structures which are regular in elevation. The design seismic loading is defined
according to the method of analysis. For ultimate limit state design the loading has the form
of a design response spectrum which is obtained from an elastic acceleration response
spectrum corresponding to 475 years return period, scaled by a “seismic force reduction
factor” that accounts in an approximate way for inelastic response at ultimate.
With such an approach, the safety check procedure is summarized in Figure 2, where it is
shown that for the two level performance requirements (no-collapse and damage control), at
ultimate (ULS) the safety check consists of a strength verification, whereas for damage
control (DLS) the check is made on deformation (drift) demands.

Figure 2: Simplified flow-chart of typical safety/performance check via linear methods of analysis.

3. Out-of-plane (local) response and safety assessment

The issue of out-of-plane stability of walls subjected to seismic excitation is strangely not
well put in evidence in code, to the point that the seismic loading is not clearly defined and
the engineer would have to find his own way to a safety check, resorting for instance to the
seismic loading defined for non-structural elements (as suggested in Tomaževič, 1999). It can
be said that strict slenderness limitations, minimum thickness requirements and appropriate
structural conception and detailing (rigid diaphragms and efficient floor-to-wall connection)
can guarantee in most cases the prevention of out-of-plane driven failures; however, on one
hand
such slenderness and thickness limitations are Nationally Determined Parameters that could
vary significantly from country to country, on the other hand out-of-plane stability is an issue
also for “secondary” seismic elements and non-structural partitions, which may not comply
with such limitations.
Recent experimental and theoretical research (Doherty et al., 2002, Griffith et al., 2003) have
confirmed that out-of- plane response and stability of walls under seismic excitation, when
ultimate conditions are considered, is more a matter of displacement demand vs.
displacement capacity rather than a strength issue, as first pointed out by Priestley (1985).
The problem is quite complex (Figure 3), requiring the evaluation of:
 Seismic demand on walls considering the dynamic filtering effect of building and
diaphragms, and the dynamic response of wall
 Strength of wall against out-of-plane forces and relevant mechanisms of resistance
  Out-of-plane displacement capacity of walls

Figure 3: Simplified conceptual representation of out-of-plane seismic response

(Doherty, 2000, adapted from Priestley, 1985)

Most of the past research dedicated to wind loading has focused mainly on strength capacity,
which can come from three possible sources: vertical compression, apparent flexural strength
in one- or two-way bending, thrust (or arching) action. Considering the simpler one-way,
vertical bending condition, in an URM wall the apparent flexural strength is due to vertical
tensile strength of bed joints or bricks, whichever the lesser. The attainment of cracking,
which incidentally could develop already under service loading, due for instance to
eccentricity of vertical loads, does not imply necessarily collapse, and could be seen as a
damage limit state. In post-cracking regime, lateral resistance is provided by the presence of
vertical compression, and could be sensitive to geometric second order effects. The behavior
of the subsystem is close to elastic nonlinear, with moderate energy dissipation. An
appropriate safety assessment should be based on the evaluation of the main characteristics of
the lateral response.

4. New typologies of masonry, implications on seismic design

As discussed in the introduction, issues that affect the choice of a construction system or
material go beyond structural requirements. The building industry has seen and is still seeing
a continuous evolution of the masonry products (units, mortars…) and systems. In general,
the experimental information on seismic behavior of the more traditional masonry systems,
such as fully mortared clay brick masonry, is far from being exhaustive. The seismic behavior
of more recent typologies such as those using thin layer mortar or non-mortared vertical
joints with tongue and groove, which allow faster construction, still needs to be thoroughly
investigated, especially regarding the potential brittleness of failure under in plane cyclic
shear, which may be not strictly correlated with the good performance in terms of strength
under vertical compression. For this reason, several experimental research projects are
presently being carried out throughout country, concentrating on the development of masonry
construction systems which can balance different technological requirements still producing a
satisfactory seismic response, both for unreinforced and reinforced masonry (da Porto et al.,
2005, ESECMaSE, 2005-2007, DISWAll, 2005-2007). The diversity of such systems can
also lead to different values of the meaningful parameters for seismic design with respect to
more traditional systems: besides shear strength, shear deformation capacity under
cyclic/dynamic loading and q-factor values for elastic design.

SEISMIC ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING MASONRY BUILDINGS

The problem of the seismic assessment and retrofit of existing buildings, amongst which a
great number are unreinforced masonry, has become by now one of the main topics of
interest in the world of construction, also due to progressive relative reduction of new
construction activity with respect to interventions on existing structures. The topic itself is
extremely complex, due to the enormous variability of structural forms and materials that can
be found in countries with a long history of civilization such as in Pakistan. Such complexity
constitutes a great hindrance to a strict codification of methodologies and approaches such as
may be possible, with new designs. Considering specifically masonry buildings, such a
diversity of structural forms and materials is enormous from country to country, but first of
all, such structural forms very often do not lend themselves to be approached with the same
engineering criteria used for reinforced concrete or steel construction.

1. Knowledge levels

An important step forward was the introduction of the essential problem of the knowledge of
the structure, and the conceptual definition of different knowledge levels and consequent
confidence factors for assessment. However, in the rational definition of knowledge levels of
masonry buildings it should be noted that in almost all real cases:
 No construction drawings or structural design calculations are available, nor are test
reports
 The building was built in absence of design regulations, so no “simulation of design”
is thinkable
 Often the direct experimental measurement of material parameters is not feasible or, if
in principle feasible, completely unreliable

2. Global modelling and assessment

Regarding criteria for global modelling and assessment, the approaches which are presently
deemed to be more applicable to existing masonry buildings in normal practice are the linear
methods with the use of a q-factor and the static nonlinear methods. The linear methods with
the direct use of the unscaled elastic design spectrum and the distinction of ductile and brittle
mechanisms, as proposed by EC8 part 3, does not lend itself to be applied to existing
masonry structures, in which a moderate ductility has to be recognized also for shear failures,
and a sharp distinction between shear failure and flexural failures is problematic and
somewhat arguable.
When dealing with existing buildings, an exceedingly conservative underestimation of global
seismic resistance is to be avoided possibly more than in new design. Whereas strengthening
interventions aiming to increase the robustness and redundancy of the system by improving
and inserting connections to avoid first mode damage mechanism are in general always
positive, the increase in global strength is more difficult to achieve and it is pursued
sometimes with heavy, non-conservative (from the architectural point of view) interventions
whose effects may be very difficult to predict, and whose effectiveness can be sometimes
arguable, as past experiences have shown.

3. Aggregates of buildings

In urban centers buildings are often inserted in aggregates or blocks in which each structural
“unit” is interacting with the adjacent. This is the result of the progressive growth of the
urban tissue, in which elevations are added to existing buildings and enlargements or
progressive growths in plan are made by adding structural cells or units in contact with the
previously existing, so that often adjacent units share the same boundary wall. Within a
similar situation, the distinction of structurally independent units is problematic if not
impossible, and any structural analysis that aims at evaluating the “global” response should in
principle either model the whole block or model the structural unit with suitable boundary
conditions that take into account the effect of the adjacent ones. Such an approach is clearly
problematic even resorting to the most updated analytical tools, and beyond the possibility of
average practicing engineers. Any method of structural analysis which considers the
structural unit as independent is therefore clearly conventional. It is believed that a structural
code on existing buildings should consider such situation when defining the allowable
methods of structural analysis, and the possibility of conventional simplified analyses should
be foreseen. In particular, the aim of the global safety check should be to verify whether a
sufficient number of walls along the principal directions of the unit is present or not. Suitable
simplified criteria should be validated and made available to professionals, such as evaluation
based on nonlinear storey-mechanism models. Research in this respect is strongly needed.

4. Mixed buildings

From the early 20th-century the spreading of reinforced concrete technology caused the birth
of mixed solutions starting from existing structures in order to satisfy requirements mostly
related to functional purposes: masonry structures subjected to internal demolishment,
column insertions, R.C. staircases insertions, plan enlargements or raisings by mean of steel
or concrete structures. A significant number of such buildings is present on the Italian
territory and in general in European countries. Furthermore, the insertion of additional R.C.
walls or steel bracings is one of the current techniques which is being used for strengthening
existing buildings, especially when the “global” seismic capacity of the system is deemed
insufficient. Despite the relevance of such structures, which show very inhomogeneous
characteristics, very little is known about their seismic behavior, and very little research has
been carried out, especially experimental. As a consequence, codes provide little support to
the designer besides suggesting methodological principles. From the structural and seismic
point of view several
typologies of structures could be distinguished:

 Buildings with structural masonry walls and isolated linear RC or steel elements, i.e.
columns (disconnected from structural masonry)
 Buildings with structural masonry walls connected to (in contact with) tie columns
and tie beams;
 Buildings with structural masonry walls and R.C. walls (typically service cores) or
steel braced structures
 Buildings with different vertical structures at different floors (e.g. lower floors
masonry, upper floors R.C.)
SEISMIC STRENGTHENING OF MASONRY BUILDINGS
The choice of suitable strengthening techniques for existing masonry building is still rather
controversial when dealing with some specific problems. Some techniques that had been
proposed in the past have proved not always as effective as expected during recent
earthquakes, whereas several new promising techniques and innovative materials are being
proposed and used before a thorough validation from the field is available.
Earthquakes occurred in areas which had been previously subjected to a strengthening
campaign (such as Umbria, Italy, Decanini et al., 2000, western Slovenia, Tomaževič et al.
2000) have pointed out how partial interventions or merely formally correct measures
(according to a literal interpretation of codes) can be unsuccessful, whereas comprehensive
interventions with high quality of workmanship and construction control proved to be
effective. A typical case of ineffective and arguably counterproductive intervention was the
substitution of existing wooden floors or roofs with heavier, stiffer reinforced concrete
structures, whose connection with the walls was made by the introduction of “in breach” r.c.
ring beams. Their effectiveness was doubtful and even negative when the ring beam was
resting only on the inner leaf of a double leaf walls or in general on low strength, rubble stone
masonry. The replacement of wooden floors with rigid slabs (whose aim would be in
principle to increase the integrity of the structural system), has been recognized as not always
necessary, and alternative techniques have been developed in recent years and are still being
studied to stiffen existing diaphragms and improve their connections with walls.
More attention should be given to the definition of rational out-of-plane assessment
procedures of walls, especially important in case of slender structural or non-structural walls.
The more recent approaches discussed herein still need further developments and validations.
REFERENCES
1. Albarello, D., Bosi, V., Bramerini, F., Lucantoni, A., Naso, G., Peruzza, L., Rebez,
A., Sabetta F., Slejko, D., (2000) Carte di pericolosità sismica del territorio nazionale,
Quaderni di Geofisica, 12.
2. ANDIL Assolaterizi (2003), Come si costruisce in Italia: indagine campionaria su
1000 cantieri., Cresme, Roma
3. ASCE-FEMA 356 (2000), Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic
Rehabilitation of Buildings, American Society of Civil Engineers.
4. ASTM C 1531-03, (2003) Standard Test Methods for In Situ Measurement of
Masonry Mortar Joint Shear Strength Index.
5. Benedetti D., (2004), Costruzioni in muratura: duttilità, norme ed esperienze,
Ingegneria Sismica, n. 3, 5-18.
6. Benedetti D., Castoldi A. (1982), Dynamic and static experimental analysis of stone
masonry buildings, Proceedings 7th ECEE, Athens.
7. Benedetti D., Benzoni G.M. and Petrini V. (1984), Experimental evaluation of
seismic provisions for stone masonry buildings, Proceedings 8th WCEE, San
Francisco.
8. Benedetti D., Pezzoli P. and Carydis P., (1998), Shaking table tests on 24 simple
masonry buildings, Earthquake Engin. Struct. Dyn. Vol. 27.
9. Bommer, J.J., Magenes, G., Penazzo, P., Hancock, J. (2004), The Influence of Strong-
Motion Duration on the Seismic Response of Masonry Structures, Bulletin of
Earthquake Engineering, Vol.2, no.1, 1-26.
10. Calderini, C., Lagomarsino, S. (2006). A micromechanical inelastic model for
historical masonry. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, (in print).
11. Cattari, S., Lagomarsino, S., (2006). Nonlinear analysis of mixed masonry and
reinforced concrete structures. 1st European Conf. on Earthquake Engineering and
Seismology, Geneva, Switzerland, 3-8 September 2006.
12. CEB (1983), Model Code for Seismic Design of Concrete Structures, CEB Bulletin
d’Information, no. 160.21
13. CEN - EN 1996-1-1 (2005) Eurocode 6 - Design of masonry structures - Part 1-1:
General rules for reinforcedand unreinforced masonry structures.
14. Chiostrini S., Galano L., Vignoli A. (2003). In Situ Shear and Compression Tests in
Ancient Stone Masonry Walls of Tuscany, Italy, Journal of Testing and Evaluation,
ASTM, Vol. 31, No. 4, 289-304.
15. Como, M., Grimaldi, A., (1985) An unilateral model for the limit analysis of masonry
walls, in “Unilateral Problems in Structural Analysis”, Springer.
16. Council of Europe (1998), European Macroseismic Scale 1998, edited by G.Grünthal,
Centre Europèen de Géodynamique et de Séismologie, Luxembourg.
17. Da Porto F., E. Garbin, C. Modena, M.R. Valluzzi (2005). Failure modes for in plane
loaded masonry walls made with thin layer mortar, 10th Canadian Masonry
Symposium, Banff, Alberta, 694-704
18. Doherty, K.T., Griffith, M.C., Lam, N. and Wilson, J. (2002), Displacement-based
seismic analysis for out-of-plane bending of unreinforced masonry wall, Earthq.
Engng. Struct. Dyn., Vol. 31, 833-850
19. ESECMaSE, 2004-2007, CT-2003-500291 “Enhanced Safety and Efficient
Construction of Masonry in Europe”, scientific coordinator: E.Fehling, University of
Kassel, Germany.
20. FEMA 440, (2005), Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures,
prepared by the ATC-55 Project, FEMA – NEHRP, June 2005.
21. Giuffré, A.., ed., (1993), Sicurezza e conservazione dei centri storici – Il caso Ortigia,
Editori Laterza, Italy.
22. GNDT-CNR (1985). Proposta di nuova normativa sismica. Ingegneria Sismica
n.1/85, Inserto.
23. Hendry, A.W., (2002), Engineered design of masonry buildings: fifty years
development in Europe, Prog. Struct. Engng Mater., no.4, 291-300.
24. Javed, M., Naeem Khan, A., Penna, A., Magenes, G. (2006), Behaviour of masonry
structures during the Kashmir 2005 earthquake, 1st European Conf. on Earthquake
Engineering and Seismology, Geneva, Switzerland, 3-8 September 2006.
25. Kappos, A., Penelis, G.G., Drakopoulos, C.G., (2002) Evaluation of simplified
models for lateral load analysis of unreinforced masonry buildings, Journal of
Structural Engineering, ASCE, 128 (7), 890-897.
26. Lagomarsino, S., Penna, A., Galasco, A., (2006), TREMURI Program: Seismic
Analysis Program for 3D Masonry Buildings, University of Genoa.
27. Lagomarsino, S., Podestà, S., Resemini, S., Curti, E., Parodi, S., (2004) Mechanical
models for the seismic vulnerability assessment of churches, Structural Analysis of
Historical Construction, Balkema,1091-1103.
28. Lourenço, P.B., (2002). Computations on historic masonry structures, Prog. Struct.
Engng Mater.,Vol. 4, no.3, 301-319.
29. Magenes G., (2000). A method for pushover analysis in seismic assessment of
masonry buildings, 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland,
New Zealand, paper 1866.
30. Magenes G., (2004). Prospettive per la revisione della normativa sismica nazionale
con riguardo alle costruzioni in muratura, Assemblea ANDIL, sezione "Murature",
Isola Vicentina, Italy, 22 aprile 2004. 22
31. Magenes, G., Remino, M., Manzini, C., Morandi, P., Bolognini, D., (2006), SAM II,
Software for the Simplified Seismic Analysis of Masonry buildings, University of
Pavia and EUCENTRE.
32. Ministero dei Lavori Pubblici, (1981) Normativa per le riparazioni ed il rafforzamento
degli edifici danneggiati dal sisma nelle regioni Basilicata, Campania e Puglia, D.M.
2/7/1981, Suppl. Ord. G.U. 21/7/1981, n.198.
33. Priestley M.J.N., (2003), Myths and Fallacies in Earthquake Engineering, Revisited.
IUSS Press, Pavia, Italy.
34. Restrepo-Vélez, L.F., Magenes, G., (2005), Seismic risk of unreinforced masonry
buildings, ROSE Report 2005/05.