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

net/publication/257940717

Use of non-structural masonry walls as robustness reserve

Conference Paper · January 2011

CITATIONS READS

2 832

4 authors, including:

Inês Grilo Eduardo Nuno Brito Santos Júlio

University of Coimbra Instituto Superior Técnico
10 PUBLICATIONS   12 CITATIONS    346 PUBLICATIONS   4,555 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Luis A. C. Neves
University of Nottingham
194 PUBLICATIONS   1,791 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

SMARTI - Sustainable Multifunctional Automated Resilient Transport Infrastructures View project

Aerial Crack View (PTDC/ECM-EST/6830/2014) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Eduardo Nuno Brito Santos Júlio on 23 November 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Use of Non-Structural Masonry Walls as Robustness Reserve

André CACHADO Inês GRILO Eduardo JÚLIO

Civil Engineer PhD Student Full Professor
Central de Projectos University of Coimbra ICIST & DECivil IST-UTL
Coimbra, Portugal Coimbra, Portugal Lisbon, Portugal
acachado@hotmail.com inesgrilo@dec.uc.pt ejulio@civil.ist.utl.pt
ejulio@dec.uc.pt
Luis NEVES
Assistant Professor
New University of Lisbon
Lisbon, Portugal
luis.neves@fct.unl.pt

Summary
This paper describes a research study conducted to analyze the proposal of considering non-
structural clay masonry walls as a reserve of robustness for structures subjected to unforeseen
extreme events. A residential building partially damaged as a consequence of a landslide is herein
considered as case-study. In this case, disproportionate collapse was prevented due to the
contribution of the outer masonry clay walls. A parametric study is also presented, considering
different damage scenarios, namely the collapse of up to three outer columns, and different
geometries, varying the span length and the number of floors. The increase in robustness provided
by non-structural masonry walls was computed for all considered situations. Results are discussed
and conclusions are drawn.

Keywords: Robustness; clay masonry walls; unforeseen event.

1. Introduction
Robustness of a structural system can be defined as the ability to prevent disproportionate collapse
in the event of a localized damage caused by an unforeseen event. Civil engineering structures must
be robust to avoid the incalculable loss of human lives, besides the intrinsic social, economic and
even political impact of such a disaster. Back in 1968, in Ronan Point, London, a gas explosion on
the 18th floor of a residential building blew out a wall element and gave rise to a progressive
collapse of the building. In the terrorist attack of September 11th, 2001, in New York, it was
witnessed the complete collapse of the twin towers of the World Trade Center. All these events
highlighted the importance of robustness [1].
In spite of its interest, there is neither a single definition of robustness, nor a single method to
design robust structures. There are however points in common to all approaches: (i) actions must
include unforeseen events; and (ii) progressive collapse should be avoided.
Robustness is defined in Eurocode 1 as “the
ability of a structure to withstand events like
fire, explosions, impact or the consequences of
human error, without being damaged to an
extent disproportionate to the original cause”.
In this scope, it is possible to correlate several
key concepts, as shown in Figure 1 (Cavaco et
al [2]): when a structure is exposed to an event,
damage is likely to occur; this can produce a
Fig. 1: Concept keys for Robustness [2]. decrease in the structural performance (loss of
function); and this will have consequences.
Over the years, several methodologies have been proposed to characterize robustness. Frangopol
and Curley [3] proposed a deterministic index to measure the redundancy, depending on the
collapse load of the structure with and without damage. Biondini and Restelli [4] studied the
robustness in lattice girder structures. Robustness was characterized through performance
indicators, considering both the undamaged structure and the structure affected by corrosion.
Starossek and Haberland [5] proposed two methods to analyze the robustness of structures, one is
based on stiffness and the other on energy.
Recently, Baker et al. [6] proposed a methodology based on risk analysis, defining a robustness
index computed considering both direct and indirect risk. Robustness is assumed as dependent of
the environment where the structure is situated, since the risks, direct or indirect, depend on the
exposure and on the indirect consequences. The direct risk includes the direct consequences of local
damage in the structural system, while the indirect risk considers the effect non-associated with the
elements directly affected.
The robustness index IRob, is given by Equation (1):

RDir
I Rob = (1)
RDir + Rind

Where RDir is the direct risk and Rind is the indirect risk.
Cavaco et al. [2] developed a methodology to quantify robustness, based on the behaviour of the
structure. These authors define robustness as the "quantification of the reduction in performance of
the structure after the occurrence of a particular type of damage. Performance can be of any type,
from the limit state of service until the ultimate state”. A robustness index, IR,D, is proposed, given
by Equation (2):
D =1
I R ,D = ∫ f ( D)dD
D =0
(2)

Where is the standardized performance of the structure and D is the normalized damage
function. Figure 2 shows three types of performance curves according to the damage. Considering
the performance indicator, R (D), as the load capacity, f (D) will be obtained from Equation (3):

R( D = d )
f ( D) = (3)
R ( D = 0)

Where D is the damage caused by a

certain exposure, R (D = d) is the load
capacity of the structure for a damage
a) b) c) extent d and R (D = 0) is the load
Fig. 2: Standard Performance of the structure, f, as a capacity of the undamaged structure.
function of the standard damage D; a) Minimum Robustness In this case, IR,D, represents the
standard average load capacity of the
b) Intermediate Robustness; c) High Robustness [2].
damaged structure. IR,D can vary from
0 (a low level of damage causes total
loss of the structural performance) to 1 (the damage did not affect the performance of the structure).
It should be mentioned that comparing approaches based on the behaviour of the structure with
approaches based on the assessment of risk is not acceptable, since these correspond to totally
different robustness concepts. Furthermore, each of these presents advantages and disadvantages,
being therefore not possible to state which is the most appropriate.
2. Case Study
2.1 Description of the Building
In 2000, in Coimbra, Portugal, a
landslide caused severe damages to the
RC structure of a residential building
of 16 stories. As a result of this
extreme event, the first two levels of
three columns were completely
destroyed and the rear body of the
a) b) building supported by these, with a
dimension in plant of 9,5 x 6,7 m2,
Fig. 3: Building a) Rear (West) façade of the building, after became a 7,0 meters span cantilever
the accident; b) Detail of the total collapse of the outer with 12 stories (Figure 3).
columns of the damaged rear body of the building [7].

Unlike what would be expected, there was no collapse, total or partial, of the structure. On the
contrary, only a low level of damage could be observed. On the outer masonry walls, no significant
anomalies were identified. This was attributed to
the behaviour of the RC structure together with the
outer non-structural masonry walls. A strut-tie
model was materialized to resist dead loads
(Figure 4) [7], with the slabs in tension (ties) and
the walls in compression (struts).
Based on this case study, and aiming to develop a
new concept considering the use of non-structural
masonry walls as robustness reserve, a numerical
Fig. 4: Scheme of the strut-tie model study was conducted in the scope of a master
materialized after the accident. [7]. thesis [8]. Presently, a combined experimental-
numerical research project is being conducted [9].
2.2 Structural characterization and quantification of actions
In order to assess the safety of the damaged body, it was necessary to quantify the stress state in the
resulting structural system. It was decided to build a plane linear elastic finite elements model of the
walls, including the columns common to the rest of the building. The RC structure was modelled
using linear elements and masonry walls were simulated with shell elements assuming adequate
geometric and material properties. Due the observation of damaged elements it was concluded that
the connections were poorly accomplished and, although in the original project solid slabs were
adopted, it was decided to replace these by prestressed concrete beams and hollow clay block
floors.
The North outer masonry walls, presenting larger openings, were assumed to be made of two 25
mm layers of mortar and a 70 mm layer of solid equivalent clay bricks, the latter corresponding to
the effective width of the clay bricks, i.e., excluding the voids. Equivalent Young´s Modulus was
attributed based on an experimental study [11] conducted with similar mortar and clay bricks.
Given the facts that, for mortar, a Young´s modulus of 3 GPa was found and, for clay bricks, the
corresponding value was 10 GPa, it was decided to conduct a parametric analysis sustaining the
equivalent Young´s modulus of 10 GPa.
In this Case Study, the actions were quantified according to the RSEP [10], the Portuguese code on
actions for buildings and bridges.
2.3 Structural analysis of the damage part of the building
It was decided to model the damaged part of the structure using the commercial software Robot
[12]. First, this was conducted disregarding the contribution of masonry walls and, then, these were
included in the analysis (Figure 5).
 2.3.1 Analysis disregarding the
contribution of the non-structural masonry
walls
It appears that the safety of this part of the
building depends mainly on the safety of the
surrounding beams and slabs. If the columns
of the building body exceed their loading
capacity, these beams and slabs will work as
a cantilever, subjected only to negative
bending moment. Otherwise, if the columns
b) do not suffer total collapse, beams and slabs
will be subject to positive bending moments.
Fig. 5: Numerical model of the building: a) without
outer walls; b) with outer walls. Assuming the safety of columns, the
maximum positive and negative moments in
Table 1: Mresistant surrounding beams surrounding beams were computed. It was
concluded that surrounding beams are not
As (cm2) Msd (kNm) Mrd (kNm) capable of resisting the increased stresses
Mpositives 3,14 439,96 31,20 caused by damage, i.e. collapse occurs
(Table 1). The slabs are supported by
Mnegatives 4,52 657,16 43,96 reinforced concrete beams with little
resistance to the negative bending moments.
2.3.2 Analysis considering the contribution of non-structural masonry walls
The observed low level of damage was attributed to the joint behaviour of the RC structure with the
outer non-structural masonry walls that allowed a strut-tie system to materialize in order to resist
the gravity loads. The beams and slabs, which in the previous model presented a structural
behaviour controlled mainly by bending, are now subjected to, predominantly, to axial forces.
The safety of ties, beams and slabs and non-structural masonry walls was checked. At the masonry
walls, maximum tension stresses of approximately 3 MPa were located at the openings’ corners,
where cracks appeared, and maximum compression stresses ranging between 3 and 6 MPa were
identified. In the study [11] mentioned above, façade walls similar to the walls of the building
herein analyzed were tested in compression until failure, reaching ultimate values in the order of 13
MPa. This value was assumed in the present study.
The numerical analysis validated the hypothesis of the strut-tie model behaviour. Moreover, it can
be concluded that the building, herein considered as case study, was able to withstand the
mentioned unforeseen event only because both lateral masonry walls were mobilized. It seems
therefore rather interesting to investigate to what extent these walls can be considered a robustness
reserve for this type of unforeseen events.

3. Parametric Study
A parametric study was conducted, based on several numerical models, to simulate the damage
associated with an impact against the structure, similar to what occurred in the case study. So, by
assuming the robustness as a property intrinsic to the structure, its assessment was based on a
performance indicator of the structure. This indicator was compared considering the undamaged
structure and several scenarios of damage, with and without considering the non-structural masonry
walls. This comparison was performed in terms of the load carrying capacity of the structure before
and after the damage.
3.1 Models Geometry and Characteristics
Also using Robot [12], several structures were designed for Ultimate Limit States, considering
reinforced concrete slabs with varying numbers of stories and different spans. These models were
composed of 4 x 2 spans, with the following characteristics:
• The spans (Lx and Ly) between columns, vary between 4 and 8m; the number of stories of the
structure vary between 2 and 6;
Considering the varying spans and
Table 2: Adopted sections in the structural elements the number of stories, different
dimensions were adopted for the
Beams structural elements (beams,
Slabs
Span cross- Columns cross-section columns, and slabs). The same
thickness
sections 2 cross-section was adopted for the
(m) (m )
2 (m) beams for each span length,
(m )
regardless the number of stories.
2 4 6 Columns dimensions were selected
stories stories stories for each combination of span and
number of stories. The slab
4 0,2x0,3 0,3x0,3 0,3x0,4 0,3x0,5 0,15 thickness was defined in terms of
6 0,25x0,5 0,3x0,4 0,3x0,5 0,4x0,6 0,20 the span length. In Table 2, the
adopted sections in the structural
8 0,3x0,7 0,3x0,5 0,4x0,6 0,5x0,7 0,25 elements are resumed.
C25/30 concrete and S400 reinforcing steel were adopted for all structural elements (columns,
beams and slabs).
In Table 3, the adopted nine typologies are summarized.
3.2 Quantification of actions and its application
The quantification of the actions applied to the structure was made according to RSEP [10],
considering the permanent actions (dead weight of structural and non-structural elements) and
variable actions (liveload and seismic action).
As in the case study, beams and columns were modelled using linear elements and slabs and
masonry walls were simulated with shell elements. Regarding supports, it was considered that
rotation of all columns is restricted at the foundation.
3.3 Damage Characterization
The damage introduced consisted of removing one up to three outer columns, this way simulating
an extreme event like an explosion or impact against these peripheral structural elements. This was
done by removing, sequentially, the ground-floor columns. The intensity of the damage was defined
in terms of the number of removed columns as shown in Figure 6.
Table 3: Base Models
Spans
Stories
(m)
Model 1 4 2
Model 2 4 4
Model 3 4 6
Model 4 6 2
Model 5 6 4
Model 6 6 6
a) b) c)
Model 7 8 2
Fig. 6: a) Type damage 1; b) Type damage 2; c) Type
damage 3, with and without masonry walls. Model 8 8 4
Model 9 8 6
For each of the adopted nine typologies (Table 3), three levels of damage were considered, resulting
in 27 models. Each of these was assumed with and without masonry walls, giving rise to a total of
54 analyzed models.
3.4 Robustness assessment
Considering the robustness as a property of the structure, the assessment of IR,D index was based on
the performance of the defined structures, with and without walls, subjected to damage. The loading
capacity was obtained by comparing the required reinforcement area, As,req, assuming the structure
undamaged (intact) and damaged, R (D):

As,req.,intact
R(D ) = , R(D ) ∈ [0,1] (4)
As,req.,damaged

The design of the elements of concrete structures was executed according to EC 2 [13], by
calculating the area of required reinforcement for the elements in order to resist the stress in
Ultimate Limit State. In a first stage, masonry walls and damage were not considered,
corresponding As,req.,intact. In a second stage, damage was introduced and required reinforcement was
defined, As,req.,damaged. Note that, in these analyses, actions were quantified with their quasi-
permanent values since the probability of an unexpected action is comparable to that of an
accidental action. The procedure was repeated taking into account the masonry walls, As,req.,damage
with walls. It was possible to obtain the loading capacity of each of the structural elements with and
without the contribution of the masonry walls. This process was carried out for each type of
damage.
3.5 Results and analysis
It was found that, considering both the masonry walls and the reinforced concrete structure, only
model 9 exhibits elements with insufficient loading capacity. However, even for this model, a high
level of robustness, IR,D=0,932, is found. In all other models, the structure was considered safe, i.e.
the index of robustness of the structure is IR,D=1. It was also observed that, without considering
masonry walls, all studied models have elements that exceed their loading capacity (i.e., IR,D<1)
showing the lack of safety of the structure under these conditions.
Simultaneously, the safety of the walls was also analyzed, in terms of stresses due to loading.
Results showed that the estimated strength was not reached, as the maximum tensile stress found for
most wall panels was close to 1,5 MPa. Results also showed that the critical wall panels are located
close to the damaged columns, where stresses up to 2,3 MPa were observed.
3.6 Discussion of results of the parametric study
The parametric study showed that stresses in wall panels are rather low, increasing with span and
number of stories. It was observed that masonry walls increase the safety of buildings under
accidental events for all examples considered. However, this influence is greater for buildings with
2 and 4 stories, where, taking advantage of these elements, safety is verified under failure of several
columns. When 6 stories (or more) are considered, even with the masonry walls, there are structural
elements of the lower stories that do not present enough loading capacity. This means that, for these
situations, non-structural masonry walls cannot provide alone a sufficient robustness reserve for
unforeseen events. In these cases, the design of the RC structure has to take this fact into account.

4. Conclusions
The analysis of the case study showed the viability of considering non-structural masonry walls as a
reserve of robustness of buildings subjected to unforeseen actions. It is concluded that regardless of
the low mechanical resistance of these elements, compared with other structural elements, its
contribution for the global behaviour of the damaged structure is essential to ensure its safety. The
outer masonry walls together with the damaged structure are an alternative load path which, for
some combination of actions, can avoid disproportionate collapse. So, it seems appealing to take
 these non-structural elements as a structural reserve to take into account in a robustness analysis of
buildings submitted to unforeseen extreme events.
It is also concluded that there is a significant increase in the robustness of the buildings when
considering the non-structural masonry walls together with the damaged structure (without
peripheral columns), following an extreme event not foreseen by the codes. However, this increase
of robustness decreases with increasing spans (> 8 meters) and number of stories.

Acknowledgement
This research project has been funded by National Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF/QREN),
Project QREN 13312, SeTIVERNano – Production of thermal and structural more resistant bricks
by incorporating nanomaterials.

References
[1] SORENSEN J. D., RIZZUTO E., FABER M.H., “Robustness – Theoretical Framework”,
Proceedings of the Joint Workshop of COST Actions TU0601, 2010, pp. 27-34.
[2] CAVACO E.S., CASAS J.R., NEVES L.C., HUESPE A.E., “Robustness of Corroded
Reinforced Concrete Structures. A deterministic approach”, Structure and Infrastructure
Engineering, 2010.
[3] FRANGOPOL D. M., CURLEY J.P., “Effects of damage and redundancy on structural
reliability”, Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 3, Issue 7, 1987, pp. 1533-1549.
[4] BIONDINI F., RESTELLI S., “Damage Propagation and Structural Robustness”,
Proceedings of the International Symposium on Life-Cycle Civil Engineering, IALCCE´08,
Held in Varenna, Lake Como, Italy, 2008, page 131.
[5] STAROSSEK U., HABERLAND M., “Evaluating Measures of Structural Robustness”,
Structures Congress 2009: Don´t Mess with Structural Engineers – Expanding Our Role,
2009, pp. 1785-1765.
[6] BAKER J., SCHUBERT M., FABER M., “On the Assessment of Robustness”, Structural
Safety, Vol. 30, Issue 3, 2008, pp. 253-267.
[7] TIAGO P., JÚLIO E., “Case Study: Damage of an RC Building After a Landslide –
Inspection, Analysis and Retrofitting”, Engineering Structures, Vo. 32, Issue 7, 2010, pp.
1814-1820.
[8] CACHADO A., “Use of Non-Structural Masonry Walls as Robustness Reserve of Buildings
Subjected to Unforeseen Events”, Master Thesis, 2010, Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Coimbra (In Portuguese).
[9] GRILO I., “Use of Nano-Enhanced Masonry Walls as Robustness Reserve of Buildings
Submitted to Unforeseen Events”, PhD Thesis in Progress, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Coimbra.
[10] D.L. 234/83, “Safety and Actions Code for Buildings and Bridges – RSA”, Portugal. (In
Portuguese).
[11] VICENTE R., “Pathology of façade walls – Mechanical behaviour of façade walls with
external correction of thermal bridges”, Master Thesis, 2002, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Coimbra. (In Portuguese).
[12] AUTODESK, “Robot Structural Analysis Professional”, 2011, Educational Version.
[13] EN 1992-1-1, “Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures. Part 1-1: General Rules and
Rules for Buildings”, European Committee for Standardization (CEN), 2004.

View publication stats