Floor Diaphragm

Related terms:

Lateral Loads, Diaphragms, Energy Dissipation, Degree of Freedom

View all Topics

Autoclaved aerated concrete

R. Klingner, in Developments in the Formulation and Reinforcement of Concrete,
2008

1.5.6 Step 4: Design floor diaphragms for in-plane actions

Design requirements for AAC floor diaphragms are not given in the 2005 MSJC
Code and Specification, because that can be applied to many different types of floor
systems. The design procedure given here is based on the requirements of the ICC
ES 215 evaluation report, which was developed based on research at the University of
Texas at Austin. The procedure is also given at the AACPA website (www.aacpa.org).

Ring beam reinforcement 2 #5

Grouted key reinforcement 1 #5

Factored transverse lateral load in each bay, Fu = 220.9 kips/16 bays = 13.81 kips

(a) Design diaphragm for flexure, assuming that load is uniformly distributed
along span (Fig. 1.15)1.15. (a) Design diaphragm for flexure, assuming that
load is uniformly distributed along span, plan view; (b) Design diaphragm for
flexure, assuming that load is uniformly distributed along span, elevation view.
(b) Design diaphragm for shear based on adhesion(i)Panel-to-panel joint (-
Fig. 1.16(a))1.16. (a) Design diaphragm for shear based on adhesion: pan-
el-topanel joint; (b) Design diaphragm for shear based on adhesion: panel
bond beam joint.The total resistance is the adhesion of the grouted area
plus the adhesion of the thin-bed mortar area.(ii)Panel bond beam joint
(Fig. 1.16(b))
(c) Design diaphragm for shear based on truss model
One #5 bar in each grouted key. Each plank is 2 ft wide, so there are 10 planks.
The load applied to each node is 1/10 of the total load, or 1.38 kips.

In this model the compression chords act as diagonal compression members. There
are two types of nodes: loaded nodes (on the upper side of Fig. 1.17) and unloaded
nodes (on the lower side) (Fig. 1.18).

1.17. Design diaphragm for shear based on truss model.

1.18. Loaded and unloaded nodes.

The critical diagonal compression occurs in the panels next to the support. The
component of that compression parallel to the transverse walls is onehalf the total
factored load on the panel, or one-half of 13.81 kips, or 6.91 kips. The total com-
pressive force in the diagonal, and also the tension force in the associated tension
tie, is essentially that shear, because of the aspect ratio of the panels:

Check capacity of compression strut:

Check capacity of tension tie in grouted key:

Tension ties in ring beams have already been checked, and are satisfactory.

> Read full chapter

Design and Construction of Multifami-

ly Dwellings
Marshall Long, in Architectural Acoustics (Second Edition), 2014

Structural Floor Connections

In certain cases there can be significant flanking of a wall through structural
connections such as a floor diaphragm. In wood-frame buildings there are re-
quirements that there be a fire stop between wall studs or joists supporting a
floor. In earthquake country there are also requirements that the building have
adequate stability to withstand vibration-induced lateral motion. In many cases this
stability is provided through a plywood diaphragm that runs continuously from
floor to floor beneath a sound-rated partition such as a party wall in a multifamily
residence. Craik, Nightingale, and Steel (1997) published a study of the flanking
due to the presence of several types of fire stops: wood, metal, drywall, and safing
(no structural connection). Their calculations (Craik, 1996) using statistical energy
analysis, assumed that the floor and wall could be modeled using four plates, one
for each side of the wall and one for the floor on each side, with only a moment
connection between them. Both calculated and measured results were reported. The
measured results are summarized in Fig. 15.4. Note that the wall has a double stud
with double 1/2-inch (13 mm) gypsum board, a 1-inch (25 mm) air gap, and two
layers of batt insulation. The floor was constructed of a single layer of 5/8-inch (16
mm) plywood.
Figure 15.4. Effects of Structural Decoupling (Craik, Nightingale, and Steel, 1997)

The results show that there can be significant flanking due to the structural
path through the floor when there is continuous plywood. In fact, the calculations
indicated that for coupled structures the most important noise path is from the
source room into the floor, through the diaphragm, into the adjacent floor, and into
the receiving room. Improvements can be obtained by separating the two sides and
by using a thin sheet metal or safing fire stop and by increasing the mass of the
floor structure through the use of a concrete topping layer or by the installation of a
floating floor system. Horizontal fire stops in double stud party walls can be achieved
with drywall attached only to one side. On the opposite side the gap between the
drywall and the stud is minimized and stuffed with safing.

In concrete-slab construction the high mass of the floor helps block the
room-floor-floor-room path. In wood construction a continuous diaphragm may be
required for structural reasons, but here concrete topping slabs increase the floor
mass and help decrease the floor transmission path. Metal straps may provide the
coupling required by structural or earthquake requirements, while still providing a
significant impedance mismatch.
> Read full chapter

Mechanical design
Kevin W. McGill, in Heat Recovery Steam Generator Technology, 2017

10.9.1 Design philosophy

The lateral and longitudinal force-resisting system is comprised of a series of
steel moment-resisting frames, roof and floor diaphragms, and side wall shear
panels. The HRSG is designed as a three-dimensional system comprised of these
components. The load combinations for design are designated by the specific code
required and are calculated and applied to the system in proportion to their mass.
Each frame is designed using the latest AISC LRFD (load and resistance factor design)
strength design method (other analyses can be considered). The frame moment
connections at the column to roof and floor beams are designed for the appropriate
overstrength capacity as specified by the code. The baseplates and shear blocks
transfer lateral forces to the foundation slide plates. The HRSG is typically made of
two basic structural systems, one to resist lateral forces and one to resist longitudinal
forces (Fig. 10.14)
Figure 10.14. HRSG structural systems.

> Read full chapter

Retrofitting using fiber-reinforced

polymer (FRP) composites for blast pro-
tection of buildings
G.S. Urgessa, in Blast Protection of Civil Infrastructures and Vehicles Using Com-
posites, 2010
12.5 Fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) connection systems
After a particular structure has been strengthened, one of the concerns is pro-
viding an adequate connection between the FRP and adjacent foundation or floor
diaphragm. The connection is critical in establishing membrane action for structures
strengthened with FRP. There are very few research findings on FRP connection
systems for out-of-plane loadings including blast.

Holmberg (2000) grouted reinforcing steel bars into the foundation and into the un-
reinforced masonry wall a short distance to provide a pin connection. FRP was then
applied to the exterior of the wall over the grouted cell containing the reinforcing
bar, creating a lap splice between the FRP and the bar.

Hall et al. (2002) presented a scheme for testing and analysis of a ductile structural
steel connection that can be used to strengthen the connection of FRP strengthened
shear walls to the foundation. The test was designed to simulate the uplift experi-
enced at the heel of an unreinforced masonry shear wall, and the authors identified
several failure modes including delamination, GFRP composite rupture, glass fiber
tearing and angle yielding of steel angles. The results showed the increase in energy
dissipation of the system and indicated that a ductile failure mode can be attained
using the system.

Carney and Myers (2003) investigated a slightly different anchorage mechanism.

Their method involved the anchoring of the laminate in a groove at the concrete
boundary (base of a structure) by allowing the laminate strip to wrap in the groove.
A GFRP bar was epoxied into the groove to hold the strips in place. First, a 0.5 in
(12.7 mm) by 0.5 in (12.7 mm) groove was cut into the boundary member across the
length of the wall. The wall was then constructed with the face flush with the side of
the groove. The laminate strips were cut longer than the height of the wall to have
enough materials to work with in the anchorage region. Once the FRP was applied
to the wall, the sheet was wrapped into the groove and the groove was filled with
paste and a #2 GFRP rebar was inserted in the boundary element. The connection
system proved to provide an additional capacity compared to a control test without
anchorage into the boundary element.

Brown and Maji (2002) provided a detail for using a metal angle iron anchorage
system in a full-scale blast test. The angles were fastened to embedded channels in
the test structure with bolts welded to the channels. The angles served as a clamp to
the adhered GFRP fabric that was bonded to the channels and walls. A small strip of
plywood was placed between the angle iron and the wall to fill the gap caused by the
radius in the FRP as it turned from the wall to the floor or ceiling. The connection
system was shown to remain intact following an explosion in a full-scale field test.
> Read full chapter

MULTIOBJECTIVE OPTIMUM DE-

SIGN OF STRUCTURES WITH GE-
NETIC ALGORITHM AND GAME
THEORY: APPLICATION TO LIFE-CY-
CLE COST DESIGN
Franklin Y. Cheng, in Computational Mechanics in Structural Engineering, 1999

Optimum Design of Seismic Structure with/without Control

Consider a three-story steel shear frame with an active control system located on the
top floor (Cheng et al. 1996) shown in Fig. 3. Floor diaphragms are rigid and axial
deformations are neglected. Thus the system has only one degree of freedom (in
the lateral direction) at each floor. The total of live and dead loads at each story is
56kN/m, which does not include the weight of the columns. Lateral forces as well as
weight density and elastic module E of the structure are also presented in Fig. 3.

Figure 3. Three-Story Shear Frame

Optimum design of the system takes place under two cases. The first case is
optimizes the system without control. Optimization criteria are structural weight W
to better utilize materials and reduce structural cost, and earthquake input energy Ei
to reduce dynamic response and damage to the structure under the action of seismic
loadings. Input energy Ei represents the work done by the structure's base shear
as the structure moves through ground displacements. The second case optimizes
the system with an active control system. Optimization criteria are weight W and
performance index PI to optimize control energy input. The two multiobjective
optimization problems are formed as

(8)

Both cases are subject to the same constraints as

(9)

where i, i and Ki are column stress, relative story stiffness of the ith story, respec-
tively, and i=1,2,3. T1 is the fundamental natural period of the structure. Details of the
integrated structural/control optimization design are given previously (Cheng and
Tian, 1993). The proposed genetic algorithms have been applied to optimum design.
Due to space limitation, only the results from the Pareto GA are presented and
discussed. GA parameters are that uniform crossover (Davis, 1991) and stochastic
remainder selection (Goldberg, 1989) are used in crossover and selection operating
procedures.

Figures 4 and 5 illustrate part of the solution. Figure 4 shows the points in the
Pareto-set filter which gives the trade-offs between the two conflicting objectives.
The two points (Min. W and Min. Ei), determined by using a traditional optimal
method, are drawn as reference points because they are the two end-points of the
Pareto optimal set for this problem. Note that the points in the filter are on or
very close to the Pareto optimal set. The compromise solution point (W=2.8110,
Ei=5.1635) is the decision-making result. Results of case II are given in Fig. 5.

Figure 4. Points in Pareto-Set Filter

Figure 5. Points in Pareto-Set Filter

> Read full chapter

Natural disasters and earth buildings:

resistant design and construction
H.W. Morris, in Modern Earth Buildings, 2012

19.3.3 Essentials for seismic survival

If earth buildings are constructed in earthquake regions, even if the risk is low to
moderate, then seismic design principles must be applied with special attention to
structural detailing.

Summary guidelines, explained in more detail below, are:

• Build single storey only or, if two storeys high, use a lightweight timber upper
level
• Use a bond beam that is well reinforced to resist moment at intersections
and has 135° hooks in shear ties, or use a roof or upper floor diaphragm with
adequate strength and stiffness
• Use regular forms in plan that have a good aspect ratio

• Use walls with a low h/w (height to thickness) ratio

• Provide adequate wall lengths in each direction to provide adequate in-plane

strength
• Limit the lengths of window and door openings

• Provide high-quality materials and maintain high-quality workmanship

• Use reinforcing to tie all the components of the building together

• Do not use thin single skin infill panels or thin cavity wall construction

• Do not use heavy masonry in the upper part of gable ends.

Earth houses in seismic regions experience high inertial loading, because the walls
are very heavy they pose a major risk at an upper level. If a second storey is needed,
it should be constructed of lightweight materials that impose only a minor increase
in capacity on the lower level.

Bond beams and diaphragms, described earlier, are essential in tying the walls
together. The connections must be adequate to transfer the loads. The bond beam
in Fig. 19.26 only had a friction connection to the walls. Dowel connections along
its length would have made a far better connection and prevented major damage to
this building.

19.26. A reinforced concrete bond beam that has been poured onto the rough
surface of a rammed earth wall but without positive connection. The earthquake has
displaced the bond beam relative to the wall, near Darfield, New Zealand, 2010.

Buildings that are regular in shape perform most reliably during an earthquake. The
simplest starting point for good seismic performance is a regular plan form without
re-entrant corners (Dowrick, 2009). If the plan is eccentric, with the centre of mass
offset from the centre of stiffness, then torsional vibrations will occur as shown in
Fig. 19.27.
19.27. A building with an asymmetric plan, the centre of stiffness is not aligned with
the centre of mass causing a torsional response. The re-entrant corner has to resist
loads due to different performance in the two directions.

Buildings can be regular in plan but have asymmetric wall layout. This creates high
demand on the more flexible walls (see Fig. 19.28). A series of good and poor plan
forms are given in Fig. 19.29. Very long buildings can experience differential move-
ment along their length and also lack cross walls. It is recommended to have seismic
separation gaps that have specific allowance for differential movement between two
buildings. In very low seismic risk areas if two-storey earth wall construction (not
recommended) is used then structure regularity in elevation must also be used. A
regular profile would have walls and openings in the lower storey predominantly
aligned with openings in the upper storey. A lower storey with significantly larger
and additional openings reduces the stiffness but must be avoided, even though it
is likely to be architecturally desired.
19.28. A building with a symmetric plan form, but very different wall stiffnesses
at opposite ends create eccentricity and place high demand on the near-end wall
panels.

19.29. Plan forms of structures illustrating long unrestrained walls, building eccen-
tricity and re-entrant wall effects. For low-rise buildings the eccentricity and re-en-
trant effects are best avoided but can be mitigated by high-quality reinforcement
detailing.

Wall stability in low strength materials is significantly improved with wall thickness.
Recommended maximum h/w ratios are 6 for cantilever walls and 10 for walls with
top restraint. Where material tests have demonstrated a reliable tensile strength, this
ratio could be reduced.
In elevation, regularity and good spacing between openings is another simple rule
of thumb.

Materials and workmanship are described in other chapters. Seismic loading pro-
vides the greatest test for low strength masonry and will find the weakest link in a
structural system.

Reinforcing needs to tie all the components together so the structure works as an
integral whole. In New Zealand it is common to use vertical reinforcing within the
wall that is continuous from the foundation to the top plate. This is very effective
in giving integrity to wall panels. It prevents uplift and maintains the shear capacity
of the wall. Horizontal reinforcing prevents the opening of diagonal tension cracks
and provides corner continuity. Figure 19.30 illustrates vertical reinforcement that is
full height in an adobe wall; horizontal geogrid reinforcement is laid into the mortar
and anchored to avoid slip and to supplement reinforcing bond to prevent diagonal
tension cracks. It provides a high-quality corner connection at every third course.

19.30. Horizontal geogrid reinforcement between courses in adobe. For effective-

ness the ends of the reinforcement needs to be well anchored.(photo: Richard
Walker)

Figure 19.31 illustrates the behaviour of a poorly constructed unreinforced house.

Figure 19.32 illustrates a number of the key features in a reinforced and well-con-
structed seismic resistant earth building in a moderate seismic area.
19.31. Typical earthquake damage in an unreinforced or poorly detailed building.
19.32. Key features that characterise a good reinforced building in a low to moderate
seismic area.

> Read full chapter

Noise Transmission in Floor Systems

Marshall Long, in Architectural Acoustics (Second Edition), 2014

Squeak
Floor squeak is a phenomenon found in wood structures, most often caused by the
rubbing of nails against wood framing members or metal hangers. It is high pitched
and localized to the area around the point of contact. It can occur when there are
gaps between the floor diaphragm and the supporting joists and when no glue has
been used, or when joists are supported by metal hangers. It can also be exacerbated
by the use of wood products having a high glue content that do not allow the nail
to grip the wood.

To control squeak, all nonbedded nails (sometimes called shiners) that can rub
against a joist or other wood or metal members should be removed and wood
diaphragms should be glued to their supporting joists. Shiners must be removed
before any concrete topping is poured. When the squeak originates at a joist hanger,
it can be caused by inconsistencies in the joist size, and can be treated with small
wood shims inserted and glued between the joist and the hanger.

Metal framing used to support ceilings and soffits can also create a squeak when
pieces rub together. This can be caused by loose members or inadequate or missing
screw attachments. In most cases silicone caulk can be used at the screw or in severe
cases the metal framing can be replaced by wood components.

> Read full chapter

Tube System in Tall Building

Feng Fu, in Design and Analysis of Tall and Complex Structures, 2018

4.2.1 Introduction
This structure system is a coupled structural system by outer tube around the exterior
and the inner core (can be a concrete core wall or a steel-framed tube) is called
a tube-in-tube structure. The inner braced core and the outer tube are normally
connected through the floor diaphragm; in certain occasions, they are connected
through outriggers. They work together to resist lateral loads such as the earthquake
and wind. They are also part of the gravity-resistance system. Most of the lateral loads
are normally taken by the outer tube because the external tube holds much greater
structural significance in comparison to the internal core due to the structural
depth. Fig. 4.1 shows the Petronas towers, which is one of the typical tube-in-tube
structures which we will introduce in the next section.
Fig. 4.1. Petronas Towers, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.(Photo taken by the author.)

There are some confusion between the concept of tube-in-tube and framed tube
systems which will be introduced in latter part of this chapter. In tube-in-tube
system, the inner tube and the outer tube are a pair of soft tubes, especially the outer
tube is not that stiffer. In framed tube structure, the outer tube is stiffer, as they are
composed of close spaced columns connected by the spandrel beams which make a
very stiff outer tube. However, with the fast development of the modern construction
technology, many tall buildings are using hybrid lateral stability system, so it is not
that important to distinguish these two terminologies.

> Read full chapter

EARTHQUAKE EXCITATION AND

RESPONSE OF BUILDINGS
F. Naeim, in Encyclopedia of Vibration, 2001

Mass and stiffness properties

In order to simplify the solution it is usually assumed for building structures that the
mass of the structure is lumped at the center of mass of the individual story levels.
This results in a diagonal matrix of mass properties in which either the translational
mass or the mass moment of inertia is located on the main diagonal:
[62]

It is also convenient for building structures to develop the structural stiffness

matrix in terms of the stiffness matrices of the individual story levels. The simplest
idealization for a multistory building is based on the following three assumptions:
(i) the floor diaphragm is rigid in its own plane; (ii) the girders are rigid relative to
the columns and (iii) the columns are flexible in the horizontal directions but rigid
in the vertical. If these assumptions are used, the building structure is idealized
as having three dynamic degrees-of-freedom at each story level: a translational
degree-of-freedom in each of two orthogonal directions, and a rotation about a
vertical axis through the center of mass. If the above system is reduced to a plane
frame, it will have one horizontal translational degree of freedom at each story level.
The stiffness matrix for this type of structure has the tridiagonal form shown below:

[63]

For the simplest idealization, in which each story level has one translational
degree-of-freedom, the stiffness terms ki in the above equations represent the
translational story stiffness of the ith story level. As the assumptions given above are
relaxed to include axial deformations in the columns and flexural deformations in the
girders, the stiffness term ki in eqn (63) becomes a submatrix of stiffness terms, and
the story displacement vi, becomes a subvector containing the various displacement
components in the particular story level. The calculation of the stiffness coefficients
for more complex structures is a standard problem of static structural analysis.

> Read full chapter

Seismic Performance of Buildings in

Nepal After the Gorkha Earthquake
Humberto Varum, ... Hugo Rodrigues, in Impacts and Insights of the Gorkha
Earthquake, 2018

3.2.2 Damage and Failure Modes

As discussed already, earlier building construction in the region did not follow any
design code. These structures were built to carry gravity loads and now possess
visible structural defects with respect to their seismic design. Although NBC 205
(1994) is applicable to buildings up to 3 stories, site surveys revealed that it is
applied to buildings ranging from 3 to 6 stories, with most being irregular 4-story
constructions. Structural defects that disturb the load path in the structure detected
in the survey, included a short column effect at the staircase landings, lack of
continuity of the floor beam due to the presence of the stair landing that decreases
the effectiveness of floor diaphragms, and an absence of a seismic gap between
adjacent buildings that might result in pounding during ground shaking. Other ob-
served structural defects included issues related to slender buildings that increased
expected drift demands, and very different floor heights and floor elevations in
adjacent buildings. The latter increased the propensity for these buildings to strike
each other, causing the failure of weak stories and potentially even the complete
structures.

One of the most common construction issues in Nepal is related to the existence of
soft-stories in constructions that are used for residential or commercial purposes.
In the case of residential buildings, there is often an opening on the road-facing
side used for retail shops that results in lower stiffness and strength with respect
to upper stories. Commercial and office buildings often do not have ground infill
or even sometimes infill at the basement of the structure, the latter for parking
and storage purposes, resulting in considerably lower stiffness and strength at the
story at the ground floor, potentially leading to soft-stories during an earthquake,
as shown in Fig. 3.2. Poor concrete quality and compaction eventually increases the
potential for brittle failure of structural members. The lack of sufficient effective
cover in beams and columns may result in the exposure of structural reinforcing steel
bars and subsequently lead to corrosion Such a situation may also indicate that the
longitudinal reinforcement from the beam is not properly anchored, causing a weak
connection at the beam–column joint. The structural deficiencies just mentioned
lead to disproportionate effects when these buildings are subjected to moderate to
intense earthquakes.

Figure 3.2. Examples of buildings subjected to soft-story collapse during the Nepal
earthquake.
In buildings, each column suffers the same slab deformation during ground mo-
tion shaking. However, short columns are stiffer than tall columns, and since the
force required to achieve the same deformation is larger for stiffer elements, short
columns experience large shear forces. If a short column is not designed for such
lateral forces or has insufficient transverse reinforcement, the element suffers
significant damage or even collapse during the earthquake shaking, in what is
called a short-column failure. Such failures were caused by the existence of openings
in infill walls (Fig. 3.3A and C) and at mid-story heights in staircase landings (Fig.
3.3B).

Figure 3.3. Examples of short-column failure due to the existence of (A) staircase
landing and infill, (B) staircase landing beam, and (C) infill panels with openings.

Pounding failure observed during the reconnaissance was typically attributed to

the lack of a seismic gap between adjacent buildings. Each building has its own
natural period of vibration, given approximately by 0.1 N (as per IS 1893:2002)(Indian
Standard, 2002) for RC-MRF, where N denotes the number of stories. It is therefore
apparent that higher buildings have a longer fundamental period. In addition, the
fundamental period of vibration also depends on the stiffness provided by structural
and nonstructural elements. The typical building type in the Kathmandu valley is
rows of buildings without a sufficient seismic gap, with no uniform interstory
height, number of stories, or structural element sizes. Due to these variations,
during ground shaking, such structures vibrate at different periods and phases, in-
creasing the chance that they strike each other in an effect known as pounding. Under
such conditions, the probability of failure of a weak structure is higher. Building
failure due to pounding followed by soft-story collapse. Similarly, a significant
difference in floor level elevation between two adjacent buildings can also lead to
pounding failure.

The so-called beam–column joint failure mechanisms were also observed in Nepal.
Beam–column joint failures were attributed to the placing of concrete during two
different periods and to insufficient transverse reinforcement and poor reinforce-
ment detailing. The first attributed reason is related to the addition of a further
1–3 stories 5–10 years after the construction of the original building without taking
into account the condition of the concrete contact surface, producing weak links
with large voids between existing and added concrete. Moreover, for the second
attributed reason, the lack of proper lap splicing of reinforcement and insufficient
splice lengths explain the beam–column failures, as shown in Fig. 3.4A.

Figure 3.4. Failure caused by (A) weak beam–column joint and insufficient
reinforcement detailing and (B) poor reinforcing steel bar detailing.

Last, the pancake-type failure was observed in several damaged buildings during
the reconnaissance performed following the earthquake. This is often attributed
to soft-story mechanisms, but at least in one case this could be explained to the
existence of weak beam–column joints.

In older RC building design and construction, it was assumed that the beams should
be stronger than the columns. As a result, preengineered RC buildings in Nepal
possess a small column section (230×230 mm) when compared to the beam size (230
× 325 mm), leading to a weak column-strong beam design. This design approach
leads to formation of shear failures or formation of plastic hinges in the columns.
This design approach, along with insufficient stirrup spacing and small stirrup
diameter, results in poor confinement of the RC sections and premature reinforcing
steel bar buckling (Fig. 3.4B).

Detailing problems recorded during the reconnaissance included insufficient

lap-splice lengths that lead to bond-slip failures. For building structures, the modi-
fied rule of thumb (MRT) Nepal building code delineates lap-splice detailing require-
ments, specifying that column lap-splice should be carried out at floor mid-height.
In addition, the lap-splice length should be 60 (bar diameter), and the number
of lap-spliced bars should not be more than 50% of longitudinal reinforcement.
However, in Nepal, these guidelines are not enforced on site due to lack of en-
forcement policies, lack of accountability, or even fear of conflicts arising between
contractors and engineers. As a result, the lap-splice of the longitudinal reinforcing
steel in the columns and beams are often developed near the beam–column joints
with an insufficient lap-splice length. Such sections are the weakest zone of any
structural element and failure occurs with concentrations of the deformations at
the sections, where bond-slip failures develop. When seismic forces act on these
sections, the column will fail, rupturing the concrete and leading to buckling of
the longitudinal reinforcing bars. Examples of structures that collapsed during the
Gorkha earthquake due to such construction work and poor concrete quality were
observed.

Masonry infill panels can increase the seismic capacity of a structure 3–4 times with
respect to that of the RC bare frame (Rai, 2005), thus attracting large seismic forces
during earthquake loading. Masonry infill wall panels consist of brick masonry units
and mortar joints. Brick masonry units are usually brittle and weaker in tension
than in compression, which results in the infill walls being weaker in a biaxial ten-
sion–compression stress state than under biaxial compression–compression stress
states. The failure of the infill panel is also influenced by the presence of mortar
joints. Depending on the orientation of the mortar joints with respect to the applied
loading, failure can take place either in the joint only or via a combined mechanism in
the mortar and masonry unit. When the stresses are parallel to the bed joints, failure
occurs along the interface of brick and mortar joint. Due to these possible modes of
failure of the brick and mortar, masonry infill panels are very brittle in nature and
in-plane cracking may take place in shear or flexural modes of deformation (Varum et
al., 2017). Infill walls also experience both in- and out-of-plane forces simultaneously
during an earthquake. Examples of in-plane failures caused by flexural cracking and
shear cracking are shown in Fig. 3.5. These failure mechanisms are commonplace
in masonry infill panels found in Kathmandu, as the strength of typical masonry
units is weaker at the mortar joint in comparison to the surrounding frame. In
contrast, out-of-plane failure was not observed as frequently due to the relatively
large thickness of infill panels.

Figure 3.5. Examples of infill masonry failure due to the Gorkha earthquake.

At the top of columns, shear failures that were induced by the presence of a
masonry infill panel was a common mode of structural failure seen after the Gorkha
earthquake. This type of failure was observed mostly near beam–column joints.
The damage patterns observed are consistent with those expected for strong-infill
and weak-frame modes of failure, including in-plane diagonal shear damage to the
 infill masonry wall panels and shear failures of RC columns near the beam–column
joints. As described before, insufficient shear detailing at column ends was also
commonplace, which exacerbates this failure mechanism.

> Read full chapter

ScienceDirect is Elsevier’s leading information solution for researchers.

Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. or its licensors or contributors. ScienceDirect ® is a registered trademark of Elsevier B.V. Terms and conditions apply.