You are on page 1of 83

EVALUATION OF STRESS REDUCTION

FACTORS BASED ON TESTS ON AXIALLY


AND ECCENTRICALLY LOADED WALLS

BY

KRISHNA KUMAR S
1BM08CCT07
GUIDED BY

Smt MANGALA KESHAVA


Assistant Professor,
Dept of Civil Engineering,
BMSCE B’lore
 INTRODUCTION
 LITERATURE REVIEW
 INITIAL TESTS
 EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES ON WALLS
 ANALYTICAL STUDIES
 COMPARISON OF RESULTS
 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
 SCOPE FOR FURTHER STUDIES
 REFERENCES
 The International Building Code (IBC 2000) defines Masonry as "a
built-up construction or combination of building units or materials
of clay, Shale, concrete, glass, gypsum, stone or other approved
units bonded together with or without mortar or grout or other
accepted methods of joining”

 Masonry practically considered as the art of shaping and uniting


masonry units made of either Natural i.e., Adobe, Granite e.t.c
Artificial i.e., Clay blocks , Bricks ,Concrete masonry units,
Hollow blocks with aid of cement or iron cramps and lead. It
therefore includes cutting ,facing, placing of masonry units into
particular forms required to perform operations which needs
practical dexterity with some skill in geometry and mechanics
 Began as low walls of stones or caked mud
 Sun-dried bricks and with the availability of fire became burnt bricks
 The first sun-dried bricks were made in Mesopotamia (what is now
Iraq), in the ancient city in about 4000 BC.
 The description of the building skills of early Romans can be found in
the four books of Vitruvius, the famous mason who lived in the first
century B.C.
 The earliest evidence of masonry construction is the arches found in
the excavations at Ur in the Middle East. These ruins have been dated
at 4000 B.C. Arch structures dating la 3000 B.C. have been found in
Egypt.
 The pyramid of Khufu in Egypt built about 2700 B.C remains one of
the largest single stone masonry structure built by humans even
though its original height of 147 m (482 ft.) is now reduced to 137m.
20th Century Developments
 Steel Reinforced Masonry

 High Strength Mortars

 High Strength Masonry Units

 Pre-stressed Masonry
GREAT WALL OF CHINA
Bonds in Masonry
• Bond is the interlacement of bricks, formed when they lay
those immediately below or above them.
• It is the method of arranging the bricks in courses so that
individual units are tied together and the vertical joints of
successive courses do not lie in the same vertical line.
Mortar
• In masonry construction, mortars constitute only a small
proportion (approximately 7%) of the total wall area, but its
influence on the performance of the wall is significant.
• The primary purpose of mortar in masonry is to bind masonry
units into an assemblage that acts as an integral element
having desired functional characteristics.
Functions
 Bond masonry units together into an integral structural
assembly
 Seals joints against penetration by air and water
 Accommodates small movements within a wall
 Bonds to joint reinforcement to assist in resisting shrinkage
and tension
Development of load bearing masonry

 The basic advantages of masonry constn. is that the same


element can perform a variety of functions such as sub-division
of space, thermal and acoustic insulation, fire and weather
protection, energy efficient

 In the first half of the present century, masonry construction


for multi-storied buildings was very largely replaced by steel
and R.C .structure due to excessively thick walls wasteful in
terms of space and material

 Hence code of practice came into existence through research


and experience providing sufficient basis for design of masonry
structures.
Walls
Definition Classification
 A wall can be defined as an Mainly classified into 2 types
upright member, the width  Load bearing type
of which exceeds four times  Non load bearing type
its thickness. If this ratio is
less than four, the wall is
considered as column.
Solid wall
Cavity wall

Panel wall
Types of loading in Walls
 Primarily walls are subjected to compression. But however
when walls are loaded eccentrically, they will be subjected
to flexure in addition to compression.
Objective of Present study
• To study the behaviour of full scale masonry wall under
axial and eccentric loading with S.R=6.0 and (e/t=0.25)
• To compute Stress reduction factor by an Analytical
approach. Secant formula has been used for computing
stress reduction factors for varying slenderness ratio and
eccentricities

• To compare the stress reduction factor obtained from


experimental investigation and Secant formula with BS
code (BS 5628), Euro code (ENV-1995-1-1-1996) Indian
code (IS-1905-1987)
Factors affecting Compressive strength of masonry

 Mortar strength

 Unit strength

 Relative values of unit and mortar strength

 Ratio of the units (ratio of height to least horizontal dimension)

 Orientation of the units in relation to the direction of the


applied load
 Bed-joint thickness

 Workmanship (Hendry,1998)

 Type of bond
Literature
Review
Compressive strength of bricks

***Gumaste(2004)
Earlier studies on Full scale Masonry walls in India
 Raghunath et al 2003,carried out tests on un- reinforced
and reinforced walls for Axial and eccentric load
Eccentric load on 1-brick un-reinforced masonry walls
(3 Specimens)
 Eccentric load test on 1-brick masonry walls with
containment reinforcement (3 Specimens)
 It was not possible to sustain the applied load after the
observation of the first crack in the entire un-reinforced
specimen. These un-reinforced specimen started to
rotate as soon as the cracks formed, leading to the
failure of wall, which broke into two parts.
Gumaste 2004,
 had carried out compression tests on 3, storey height
walls. The walls were of following dimensions;
 Wall No 1. 720 x 105 x 2770mm(TMB)-1:0:6 mix
 Wall No 2. 970 x 230 x 2770mm(TMB), 1:0:6 mix
 Wall No 3. 750 x 115 x 2770mm(WCB),1:1:6 mix
 The half brick thick stretcher walls failed due to
material crushing where as the failure of one brick thick
English bonded wall was due to a combination of
splitting of bricks, bond failure and diagonal shear
failure
 Stress reduction factors from IS code( 0.54,0.67) were
on conservative side as compared to experimental
values(0.91,0.83)
Jolad 2008,
 had carried out compression tests on 2 walls. The walls
were of following dimensions;
 Wall No1. 1050 x 230 x 2430mm(TMB)-1:0:6 mix axial
loaded, S.R=10.57
 Wall No 2. 1050 x 230 x 2430mm(TMB )1:0:6 mix,
eccentric loading (e/t=(1/6)), S.R=10.57

 The axially loaded wall exhibited typical compression


type failure i.e. crushing of bricks, spalling, vertical
cracks. Whereas wall with ecc. loading collapsed and
typical flexure failure was noticed
 Stress reduction factors from IS code were ( 0.88,0.83-
(e)) whereas from experiments it was (0.925,0.370)
Details of tests carried on full scale walls
Behaviour of Masonry under Compression

 Masonry loaded in uniform compression will either fail


by the development of tensile cracks parallel to the axis
of loading or by kind of failure along the lines of
weakness
 A number of studies have been carried out on full-scale
masonry walls however there is little data which is
available for masonry using moderate strength bricks in
India & in particular, south Indian bricks
 In this present experimental investigation an attempt has
been made to determine the strength, elasticity and stress
reduction factor(Ks) of a masonry wall for SR=6.0 for
axial and eccentric and comparing the results obtained
with codal provisions of different countries.
Design of Masonry Wall for
Vertical Load (IS 1905)
Factors:
Effective thickness

Effective length Slenderness


Ratio
Effective height
Stress
Eccentricity of load
reduction
factors
Eccentricity
Thickness of wall ratio
Masonry Walls:
Slender wall,
Slenderness central load
and
Eccentricity Reduced strength

Stocky wall,
central load

100% strength
Masonry Walls:e
Slenderness
and Slender wall,
eccentric load
Eccentricity Reduced strength

e
Stocky wall,
eccentric load
Reduced strength
Effect of slenderness and eccentricity
Masonry Walls: Slenderness
and Eccentricity IS 1905 1987
Slenderness Ratio
= Effective Height/Effective Thickness
(or)
= Effective Length/Effective Thickness
*** whichever is least
Masonry Walls: Slenderness
and Eccentricity IS 1905 - 1987

Effective Height
= Actual Height * a number from 0.75 to
1.5, depending on the end fixity

***In the present study depending on boundary


condition provided it was considered 0.85 H as
per IS 1905 - 1987
Masonry Walls: Slenderness
and Eccentricity IS 1905 – 1987

Effective Length
= Actual Length * a number from 0.80 to
2.0 depending on the end fixity
Eccentricity depends on various factors
!
• Extent of bearing
• Magnitude of loads
• Unequal span lengths of the slabs
• Degree of fixity at the support
• Moment at floor/roof – wall junction
• Pitched roofs
• Walls of varying thickness
• Eccentricity of vertical loading at a particular junction in a
masonry wall shall depends on factors, such as extent of
bearing, magnitude of loads, stiffness of slab or beam, fixity
at the support and constructional details at junctions.
• No exact calculations are possible to make accurate
assessment of eccentricity. Extent of eccentricity under any
particular circumstances has, therefore, to be decided
according to the best judgment of the designer. Some
guidelines for assessment of eccentricity are given in
Appendix A. of IS 1905 - 1987
• Arches, vaults and pillars generally experience eccentric
force
VAULT PITHCED ROOF
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAMME

 Basic Tests on bricks

 Tests on Mortar

 Tests on Masonry prisms

 Full Scale Tests on Masonry walls


Tests on Bricks
Avg. Dry density C.O.V Range
1.75 g/cc 1.70% 1.6-1.95g/cc ****
Water Absorption(%) C.O.V Range
(Avg)

13.90 2.06% ≤20%**


I.R.A C.O.V Range
kg/m2/min kg/m2/min

2.815 8.55% 1.35-3.53**

***Sarangpani 1998
Compressive Strength = Ultimate Load MPa.
Area of Loading

Compr . C.O.V Range


Strength (MPa) ***Sarangpani1998,
(MPa) Raghunath 2003 for
5.32 2.56% 3-11*** T.M.B of Bangalore
E = 752.6 MPa
from the Graph
TESTS ON MORTAR
 Compressive strength of mortar
 Tests were carried out as per IS 2250-1981
1:6 ratio was chosen and hence mortar cubes were cast
measuring 70.6 mm*70.6mm*70.6mm

Compr C.O.V Range


strength (MPa) (MPa)

10.03 3.87% min3.0**

** As per IS-1905-1987
 Flow is defined as the resulting increase in the base
diameter of mortar mass expressed as a
percentage of original base diameter
 This test is useful in determining the optimum
water cement ratio for a particular mortar mix

As per IS-2250-
1981, Flow value
shall be b/w 100-
115%
Brass plate-circular
Conical mould

Mortar cone before and after applying jolts

Rigid frame
Tests on Masonry Prisms
Objective
• To evaluate basic properties such as compressive strength,
elastic modulus, stress-strain relationship

• Presently behaviour of stack bonded prism and 225 mm thick


masonry prisms have been studied

• Prisms have been cast using 1:6 mix cement sand mortar 1.2
water cement ratio and table moulded bricks

• An average thickness of 10-12mm was maintained for mortar


joints and the prisms were cured for 14 days and tested under
compression in Universal testing machine
225 mm masonry prism and stack bonded prism before testing
Stress strain curve for prisms
Modes of failure
 Failure of brick-mortar bond was often noticed.

 crushing of the brick was also seen in prisms

 Tensile splitting of the brick was also noticed in the


prism
Need for present investigation

To investigate
stress reduction
factor of walls,
for slenderness
ratio=6.0 for axial
loading and
eccentric
loading(e/t=0.25)
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
 In the present project, full scale brick wall have been
constructed for both axial and eccentric loading(e/t=0.25)
for a slenderness ratio =6

 Number of test specimens


 For axial loading – 2 Nos
 For eccentric loading -- 2 Nos

 In this experiment an attempt has been made to compare


the values obtained by experiments, with actual stress
reduction factor in Table9, IS-1905-1987.
4 legged loading frame-reaction type
Courtesy-RVCE
0.225m

0.95m

1.55m
Arrangement for Ecc.loading

1.3m

1.0m

DIAL
GAUGE
POSITION
0.5m
Plan of Eccentric loading arrangement-1

Plan of Eccentric loading arrangement-2


Test Set-up details
vertical
Crushing of brick splitting

WALL1- Front face and Rear face after testing


Vertical cracks

Spalling

WALL2- Front face and Rear face after testing


Comments on failure of axial loaded walls

Vertical splitting crack observed in the wall


specimen after failure.
 Crushing of bricks also observed as seen in the
figure
 De-lamination of brick due to crushing also
observed
 The vertical cracks were distributed from top of
the specimen to the bottom course
 Diagonal shear cracks were also observed in
the wall specimen
Eccentric loading before and after failure
CRACK PATTERN-ECCENTRICALLY LOADED

Separation of 2
leaves of wall
Comments
Global failure of wall specimen was observed i.e. all
courses from top to the bottom participated in
sustaining load

 Mainly, horizontal cracks induced due to flexure


were observed in this specimen

Vertical cracks along the side face of the specimen


were also observed i.e., separation of two leaves of
wall
Wall1
Wall2
Wall3
WALL 4(ECC2)

wall4
SUMMARY OF WALL TESTED
Evaluation of stress reduction factors
 It is virtually impossible to apply an axial compressive load to a
wall or column since this would require a perfect unit with no
fabrication errors
 The vertical load will, in general, be eccentric to the central
axis and this will produce a bending moment in the member
The additional moment can be allowed in 2 ways
 The stresses due to the equivalent axial loads and bending moments can be
added using the formula below
Total stress=P/A±M/Z
(or)
 Reducing the axial load-carrying capacity, of the wall, by a
suitable factor known as “Stress reduction factor” in
IS-1905-1987

Formulation of Secant formula

 The problem of column buckling has been


approached in a different way, by observing that
load P applied to a column is never perfectly centric

 Due to eccentricity, moment is induced in column


which induces bending
Where
σmax from experiment on walls
‘E’ VALUE from prism experiment
(e/t)= eccentricity ratio
(l/t)= slenderness ratio
(P/A) values
Stress reduction factor obtained
Comparison with different codes of masonry
 In present study, In the present study, stress reduction factors
computed from various codes have been compared with the
present stress reduction factor obtained from Secant formula
for slenderness ratio = 6.0 and eccentricity ratio = 0.25

Euro-code (ENV 1996-1-1-1995)

 As per ENV 1996-1-1-1995(code of practice for masonry in


Europe), Stress reduction factor is denoted by “øm”. In the
present study, the stress reduction factor for slenderness ratio
= 6.0 and eccentricity ratio =0.25, is equal to 0.48.
0.48

Graph showing stress reduction factors for varying


eccentricites and slenderness ratio as per
Euro-code (ENV 1996-1-1-1995)
British code (BS 5628)

• As per BS 5628 (code of practice for masonry in Britain),


Stress reduction factor is denoted by “β”. In the present study,
the stress reduction factor for slenderness ratio = 6.0 and
eccentricity ratio =0.25, is equal to 0.55

0.55
Conclusion
 The analytical approach using secant formula was adopted to evolve the stress
reduction factor which gave a value of 0.40 for slenderness ratio of 6.0 and
eccentricity ratio of 0.25 (1/4)

 IS: 1905-1987 gives a value stress reduction factor of 1.0 for slenderness ratio of
6.0 for all eccentricity ratios (0 to 1/3). However the experiment has shown that
there is a reduction in stress reduction factor value

 The stress reduction factor value given in Eurocode(ENV-1996) and British code
(BS 5628) also reveals the reduction in stress reduction factor for varying (e/t)
ratios (eccentricities) against slenderness ratio of 6.0. Hence, the IS code value
which is on higher side needs to investigated
Scope for Further Study

• In the present case, experiments on full scale walls were


carried out for slenderness ratio of 6.0 and eccentricity ratio
of 0.25. This can be extended for varying eccentricities such
as (1/24), (1/12), (1/3), ETC AND FOR VARYING
ECCENTRICITIES to find stress reduction factors as
compared to axially loaded
References
 AVINASH A.C. (2006) “A Comprehensive study on Masonry units”, M.Tech Thesis,
Department of civil Engineering, BMSCE, Bangalore, India.
 BEER JOHNSTON DE WOLF, “Mechanics of Materials”,2004, Mc Graw Hill
Publishers New York
 BS 5628-1:1992,” Code of Practice for Structural use of Unreinforced Masonry”
 DAYARATHNAM .P (1988),”Brick and Reinforced masonry Structures”, Oxford IBH
Publishing Company New Delhi
 EUROCODE 6 ,“Design of masonry Structures”,(ENV 1996-1-1: 1995)
 GUMASTE K.S. (2004), “Studies on the Strength and Elasticity of Brick masonry
walls ”, Ph.D Thesis, Dept of Civil Engg, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore
 HENDRY A W, “Design of Structural Masonry”, 1998, Mc Millan Publishers London
 HENDRY A W, B.P.SINHA ,S.R. DAVIES,” Design of Masonry Structures”, 2003,
Chapman and Hall Publishers London
 IS: 1905-1987, “Code of Practice for structural use of Unreinforced Masonry”, Bureau
of Indian standards, New Delhi
 IS: 2250-1981, “Code of practice for preparation and use of Masonry mortars”, (first
revision),
 JAGADISH .K.S, “Alternative Building Materials”, Indian Institute of Science, 2005,
New Age International Publishers, Bangalore
 MAC KENZIE ,”Design of Structural Masonry”, 2001,Palgrave Publishers, New
York
 MAURENBRECHER,1985,”Axial Compression Tests on Masonry Walls and
Prisms”, National Research Institute of Canada
 NARENDRA TALY, “Design of Reinforced Masonry structures”, 2002 Mc Graw Hill
Publishers New York
 NIKHIL JOLAD (2008),”Evaluation of Stress Reduction Factors through
Experiments on Full Scale Brick Masonry Walls”, M.Tech Thesis. Department of
Civil Engineering, BMSCE, Bangalore, India
 RAGHUNATH (2003),”Static and Dynamic Behaviour of Brick masonry with
Containment Reinforcement” Ph.D Thesis submitted to Department of Civil
Engineering, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore
 SAHLIN SVEN, “Structural Masonry”, 1971, Prentice hall Publishers London
 SARANGAPANI .G (1998), “Studies on the Strength of Brick Masonry” Ph.D thesis
submittedto Dept. of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore
 SHWETHA( 2009), ”Stress Reduction Factors for Masonry an Analytical Approach”,
M.TechThesis. Department of Civil Engineering, BMSCE, Bangalore, India
• SP-20 (1991), “ Handbook on Masonry Design and Construction”, Bureau of
Standards, New Delhi
THANK YOU
THANK YOU

You might also like