Derivation of Burland’s Chart for Assessing Category of Building Damage

Burland and Wroth (1974) and Burland et al. (1977) used the concept of limiting tensile strain to study the
onset of cracking in simple weightless elastic beams undergoing two modes of deformation. Although
modelling a building as an elastic beam clearly is a simplification, it was found that predictions of this model
were in good agreement with case records of damaged and undamaged buildings. Furthermore, this
simple approach demonstrates the mechanisms which control the onset of cracking within a structure.

The building is simplified as a rectangular elastic beam with length (L), height (H) and a maximum deflection
(), see Figure D1. Two extreme modes of deformation are shown in the figure. In bending, cracking is
caused by direct tensile strain whilst in shearing, diagonal cracking is caused by diagonal tensile strain. In
general, both modes of deformation will occur simultaneously and it is necessary to calculate both bending
and diagonal tensile strains to ascertain which type is limiting or critical.

The /L ratio of a beam is related to the maximum bending strain (b) and diagonal strain (d). Burland et al.
(1977) presented the following generalised formulae.

Maximum bending strain (b) is given as:

  L 3IE 
    b (1)
L 12t 2tLHG 

Maximum diagonal strain (d) is given as:

  HL2 G 
 1  d (2)
L  18 IE 

where
H = Height of the building
L = Length of the building
E = Young’s modulus of the building
G = Shear modulus of the building
I = Second moment area of the beam (I = H3/3 for hogging mode)
t = Further distance from the neutral axis to the edge of the beam (t = H for hogging mode)

Burland and Wroth (1974) showed that a hogging deformation with the neutral axis at the bottom edge is
likely to be more damaging than a sagging deformation with the neutral axis in the middle.

The total bending strain (bt) and total diagonal strain (dt) are given by:

 bt   b   h (3)


 dt  0.35 h   0.65 h    d
2

2 0.5
(4)

where h = Horizontal strain

Table 1 presents the relationship between the limiting tensile strain ( lim) and the category of building
damage.

Table 1: Relationship between category of building damage and limiting tensile strain, after
Boscardin and Cording (1989) and Burland (1995).
Category of Normal degree of severity Limiting tensile strain, lim
damage (%)
0 Negligible 0 – 0.05
1 Very Slight 0.05 – 0.075
2 Slight 0.075 – 0.15
3 Moderate 0.15 – 0.3
4 to 5 Severe to Very Severe >0.3
Note: Boscardin and Cording (1989) described the damage ‘moderate to severe’
corresponding to the tensile strain range 0.15% – 0.3%. However, none of the
case histories quoted by them showed severe damage for this range of strains.
There is therefore no evidence to suggest that tensile strains less than 0.3%
will result in severe damage.

Figure D2 shows a Burland (/L-h) assessment chart for the case of L/H = 1 and E/G = 2.6 for hogging
mode. Each of the contour lines on the Burland chart can be derived using the following procedures.

1. Set lim = bt for bending, and lim = dt for shearing.
2. For a given h, calculate b from equation (3), and d from equation (4).
3. Calculate /L from equation (1) for bending, and /L from equation (2) for shearing.
4. From the two calculated /L values in step (3) for bending and shearing, select the smallest /L.
5. Plot calculated /L vs. h.
6. Repeat steps (1) to (5) for different lim and h values.

The above calculation procedures can be carried out for different L/H and E/G ratios.

Reinforced concrete framed structures are more flexible in shear than masonry structures, signifying that
the former are less susceptible to damage. Burland and Wroth (1974) used an E/G ratio of 2.6 and 12.5 for
masonry and reinforced concrete framed structures respectively.

An exercise has been carried out to develop a Burland (/L-h) assessment chart for the Datum Apartments,
Unit 93-103 Euston Road. Figure D3 presents the developed Burland chart where L/H = 1.5 and E/G =
12.5.
Figure D1: Cracking of a simple beam in bending and in shear.
Figure D2: Category of building damage as a function of building horizontal tensile strain and deflection
ratio for L/H = 1 in hogging mode (after Burland, 1995).
 L/H = 1.5 E/G = 12.5
0.35

0.30

0.25

Category 4 and 5 damage

Deflection ratio, D /L (%)

0.20

0.15

Category 3 damage
Category 2 damage
0.10

Cat. 1
0.05

0
0.00
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
Horizontal strain, h(%)

Figure D3: Burland’s building damage category chart for Datum Apartments, Unit 91-103, Euston Road
(L/H = 1.5, E/G =12.5).