Masonry Buildings 249 : 1993 has still not been revised: Ail'the Yedemmendations wade i it basically for i 2002 may be followed. 6.2 Behaviour of Unreinforced Masonry Walls Masonry buildings are vulnerable to strong earthquake shaking. A masonry building has three components—the roof, the wall, and the foundation (Fig. 6.1). The inertia forces travel through the roofs and walls to the foundation. These inertia forces are developed both in x and y directions. A wall topples down easily if pushed horizontally at the top in a direction perpendicular to its plane (weak direction). This is called out-of-plane failure [wall B shown in Fig. 6.2(a)]. However, a wall [wall 4 shown in Fig. 6.2(b)] offers much greater resistance if pushed along its length (strong direction). This is called in-plane resistance. This is because of the wall’s large dimension in the plane of bending. Such a wall, carrying horizontal loads in its own plane, is known as a shear wall. Roof band—Good connection Fooof between roof ‘end walls—> Lintel band—Good connection between = —>| orthogonal walls Wall with small opening Wall Plinth band—Good z ‘connection y between iff foundation: walls and 7 foundation Good connection at wall comers Fig. 6.1 Principal directions of a building and essential requirements to ensure box action in a masonry building (adapted from Murty, 2005) QB 2. (a) Out-of-plane failure (b) In-plane resistance _(c) Earthquake force xaxis Fig. 6.2 Box action in masonry building (adapted from Murty, 2005) Scanned with CamScanner250 Earthquake-resistant Design of Structures The seismic capacity for unreinforced masonry is most commonly bag stability and energy considerations rather than stress levels. Neither elagig ,” ultimate strength analysis adequately predicts the seismic capacity—both meq, produce over-conservative results. ' Figure 6.3 shows the force-displacement relationship for a masonry yay subjected to static lateral loading. The wall behaves elastically up to a poin. where the base cracks and the force immediately drops from F, to Fy, , aa % x Displacement Fig. 6.3 Force-cisplacement relationship of masonry wall Resolving the static forces at the crack condition Ryka 22 (P+) pp 2h 2) ‘The force F reduces to zero at C, where, for small rotations Stabilizing force = 2 2 2 We 2 frenoe- FP eh, 27279 Unstabilizing force b b FhaP( 2 2 or na @ sjen(2 From which = Pb+Wb=2Fh 3) 2P+W x Scanned with CamScannerMasonry Buildings 251 When F= 9 ee Pb+Wh (6.4) 2P+W From Fig. 6.3, at point 4, the incremental stiffness of the wall becomes negative S0 that for a steadily applied force F,, collapse will occur unless the force F, is transferred by an alternative load path to other stiffer structural elements. For a ground acceleration pulse, this is not necessarily the case because the pulse which initiated rocking will have to be continued for a sufficient time to reach failure. If the ground acceleration Teverses soon after rocking has started, the wall will stabilize again, Under earthquake loading, the displacement may even exceed i, and retum to a stable state if a sufficiently strong reverse pulse occurs. It has been shown by a number of analytical and practical studies that failure in masonry is closely related to energy. Furthermore, it has been demonstrated that the energy requirement to cause in-plane stability failure of masonry walls is so high that failure is normally by shear rather than by instability. Out-of-plane failure, however, is customarily by instability and Fig. 6.4 shows the simplified response of the masonry wall in Fig. 6.3 to cyclic loading. For simple buildings, ultimate loading can be assessed approximately by replacing the wall by an equivatent elastic structure, the response of which is shown by the broken line. The energy required to cause failure is approximately equal for the actual and equivalent structures, x, being much smaller than x, for practical conditions, The equivalent stiffness can be found from the expression (6.5) (66) — Assumed force-displacement response i Equivalent force-displacement response Fig. 6.4 Equivatent structure response The maximum displacement can be derived from the appropriate response eum or other methods that are applicable to elastic structures, the criteria "Stability being x < x,. For multi-storey unreinforced masonry buildings, the Scanned with CamScanner252 Earthquake-resistant Design of Structures problem of the assessment of stability becomes more complex and Teference should be made to the energy approach. 6.3 Behaviour of Reinforced Masonry Walls The reinforced masonry walls are used and designed for lateral out-of-plane log, and axial loads. Most reinforced masonry walls are designed to span Vertically and transfer the lateral loads to the roof, floor, or foundation. Normally these walls are designed as simple beams spanning between structural supports, gp far as axial loads are concerned these are transferred directly to the foundation except for the case of eccentric loading that may cause tension in the wall, fy the vertically reinforced masonry construction, the vertical reinforcing bars start from the foundation concrete These must pass through all seismic bands and tied to the horizontal band reinforcement with binding wires and finally embedded in the roof band/toof slab} The vertical reinforcement should be bent using a 300-mm 90° bend. Embedding vertical reinforcement bars in the edges of the wall piers and their anchorage in the foundation and in the roof band (Fig. 6.5), forces the slender masonry piers to undergo bending instead of rocking. In wider wall piers, the vertical bars enhance their capability to resist horizontal earthquake forces and delay the cross-cracking, Further, the vertical bars also help to protect the wall from sliding as well as from collapsing in the weak direction. A reinforced masonry shear wall may fail in flexure or shear as discussed further, RC stab or roof band Bending of pier Soe Vertical steel! bars anchored in foundation and roof band Fig. 6.5 Vertical reinforcement causes bending of masonry piers and checks thelr rocking Flexural failure When the rat and the vertical reinforcement is behaviour of such a wall under ri tio of height to length of masonry wal is lt Small, flexural failure takes place. The hyste™* peated in-plane bending with low axial fore® Scanned with CamScannerMasonry Buildings 253 aprxiately kate clastoplastic {ype and shows high ductility and little strength degradat A cers wall failing in flexure and subjected to high axial force is not eae ie s aoe degradation is severe. The behaviour of a reinforced masonry Wall subjected to out-of-plane bending is simi ee ig is similar to an RC wall, and Shear failure _\nmasonry walls without openings, shear failure often takes place asshown in Fig, 6.6(a), while in wall piers and spandrels, in walls with openings, failure is as shown in Fig. 6.6(b). Shear failure is likely to occur in wall elements with small height-to-length ratio. Shear failure tends to be brittle, with low energy dissipation capacity and severe strength degradation due to load repetition. = —_ — Spandrel masonry Wall pier “Opening Malpes (2) Masonry wall without openings (b) Masonry wall with openings Fig. 6.6 Patterns of cracks in masonry walls 6.4 Behaviour of Walls—Box Action and Bands The box-type construction consists of walls along both the axes of the building as shown in Fig. 6.2(c). All traditional masonry construction falls under this category. The walls support vertical loads and also act as shear walls for lateral loads acting in any direction, Figure 6.2 illustrates the box action of the walls ofa building. For the loading case shown in Fig. 6.2(c), walls A will act as shear walls and walls B will topple over. Besides offering resistance themselves, however, walls 4 offer resistance against collapse of walls B, if both the walls 4 and walls B are properly tied up like a box [Fig, 6.2(0)]. The walls B of Fig, 6.2(c) may be considered to act as vertical slabs supported on two vertical sides and at the bottom, and subjected to inertia force on their own. ‘mass for ground motion along y-axis. Near the vertical edges the walls will carry bending moments in the horizontal plane for which the masonry strength may not be adequate, This may result in cracking and separation of walls. If, however, a flexural member is introduced at a suitable level (say lintel level) in walls B, and continued in walls A, it will take care of the bending tensions in the horizontal Scanned with CamScanner