Guidelines For The Seismic Assessment of Stone-Masonry Structures

GUIDELINES FOR THE SEISMIC ASSESSMENT OF STONE-MASONRY STRUCTURES
July 2000
Technology Directorate Architectural & Engineering Services Real Property Services Branch Public Works & Government Services Canada Hull, Quebc K1A 0S5
NOTICE These guidelines are not to be interpreted as replacing or superseding applicable building regulations. Neither PWGSC nor the contributing individuals and organisations assume liability for the use of this document.
Copyright Public Works and Government Services Canada, 2000.
All right reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form, in an electronic retrieval system or otherwise, without the prior written permission of Public Works and Government Services Canada
PREFACE Most stone-masonry structures were built at a time when seismic risk was not considered in their design. Recent moderate to strong earthquakes have confirmed the vulnerability of heritage buildings, especially those constructed with unreinforced-masonry materials. Proper assessment of the seismic performance and of the potential deficiency of existing heritage structures forms the basis for determining the degree of intervention needed to preserve their heritage value. Both Canada and the US have guidelines on the seismic evaluation of commonly found brick masonry construction, but not on heritage stone-masonry buildings. In view of the fact that many government buildings, such as Parliament Buildings, legislature buildings, and city halls, are of stone-masonry construction and the lack of evaluation and design guidelines for stone-masonry structures, Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) decided to develop guidelines specifically for the seismic assessment of stone-masonry structures. The purpose of developing these guidelines is to provide technically sound analytical tools and acceptable assessment criteria for the seismic evaluation of stone-masonry structures. Engineers can use these guidelines to evaluate the seismic capacity of stone-masonry structures and to advise building owners and property managers of potential seismic risk to lives and safety. The guidelines are also intended as a reference document for owners, building regulators, and property managers. It is expected that such guidelines will lead to a more realistic and cost-effective assessment of the seismic performance and needed upgrade of stone-masonry buildings.
For more information, please contact: Simon Foo, Ph.D. P.Eng. Technology Directorate Architectural & Engineering Services Real Property Services Branch Public Works & Government Services Canada Hull, Quebec, Canada K1A 0S5 Tel: (819) 956-3402 Fax: (819) 956-3400 E-Mail: simon.foo@pwgsc.gc.ca
Guidelines for The Seismic Assessment of Stone-masonry Structures
ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Dr. Samir E. Chidiac P.Eng. of CHIDIAC & Associates Limited and Dr. Simon Foo P.Eng. are the principal contributors to the guideline development. PWGSC would also like to acknowledge the following individuals and organisations for their critical review of the guidelines and their comments: D. Allen, National Research Council Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada L. Binda, Politecnico di Milano, Milano, Italy M. Bruneau, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York, USA C.R. Constantinescu, CHIDIAC & Associates Limited, Gloucester, Ontario, Canada L. Fontaine, Public Works & Government Services Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada M. Green, Melvyn Green and Associates, Torrance, California, USA M. Harajli, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon K. Ibrahim, Public Works & Government Services Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada A.H.P. Maurenbrecher, National Research Council Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada C. Modena, Universita Degli Studi Di Padova, Padova, Italy J.H. Rainer, Rainer Dynamics Inc., Richmond, British Columbia, Canada D.E. Sporleder, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana, USA S. Thomasen, Wiss Janney Elstner Associates, Inc., San Francisco, California, USA M. Tomazevic, Slovenian National Building & Civil Eng. Inst., Ljubljana, Slovenija C. Vollan, Wayte Blohm & Associates, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
iii TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE............................................................................................. I ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ........................................................................II TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................III LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................. VIII LIST OF FIGURES ...............................................................................IX NOTATIONS .......................................................................................XI GLOSSARY........................................................................................XV 1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................1 1.1 Background ..................................................................................1 1.2 Purpose of the guidelines .................................................................1 1.3 Basis of the guidelines .....................................................................2 1.3.1 Scope and limitations.................................................................2 1.3.2 Criteria ..................................................................................2 1.3.3 Relationship to other documents and procedures ...............................3 1.4 Contents of the guidelines ................................................................3 1.4.1 Introduction ............................................................................3 1.4.2 Earthquake behaviour of stone-masonry structures............................3 1.4.3 Procedure for seismic evaluation of structures..................................3 1.4.4 Modelling and analysis...............................................................4 1.4.5 Material properties of stone-masonry .............................................4 1.4.6 Engineering properties of stone-masonry ........................................4 1.4.7 Seismic assessment criteria..........................................................4 1.4.8 Examples................................................................................4 1.5 Heritage considerations ...................................................................4 2. EARTHQUAKE BEHAVIOUR OF STONE-MASONRY STRUCTURES ......5 2.1 Background ..................................................................................5 2.2 General observations ......................................................................5 2.2.1 Method of construction ..............................................................6 2.2.2 Quality of materials and workmanship ...........................................7 2.2.3 Type of diaphragm ....................................................................7 2.2.4 Connection between structural subsystems .......................................9 2.3 Types of structural stone-masonry subsystems and typical earthquake damage ..............................................................................................9 2.3.1 Wall .................................................................................... 10 2.3.2 Lintel................................................................................... 12
iv 2.3.3 Arch.................................................................................... 12 2.3.4 Vault and dome ...................................................................... 13 2.3.5 Buttress and flying buttress ....................................................... 15 2.3.6 Tower .................................................................................. 16 2.3.7 Foundation subsystem .............................................................. 17 2.4 Types of non-structural stone-masonry subsystems and typical hazards.... 17 2.4.1 Veneers ................................................................................ 18 2.4.2 Pinnacles.............................................................................. 18 2.4.3 Appendages, parapets, cornices, statues, and other ornaments ........... 18 2.4.4 Chimneys.............................................................................. 18 2.5 Structural checklist....................................................................... 18 3. PROCEDURE FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES............ 23 3.1 Introduction................................................................................ 23 3.2 Site investigation and data collection ................................................ 23 3.2.1 Site visit prior to the undertaking of evaluation project ..................... 23 3.2.2 Assembling building design data ................................................. 24 3.2.2.1 Review of existing drawings and technical reports .................... 24 3.2.2.2 Review of repair and renovation work ................................... 24 3.2.3 Site survey ............................................................................ 24 3.2.4 Past earthquake performance..................................................... 24 3.2.5 Soil conditions ....................................................................... 25 3.3 Identification of the structural and non-structural subsystems of the building ........................................................................................... 25 3.4 Analysis of the structure ................................................................ 26 3.4.1 Equivalent static analysis .......................................................... 26 3.4.1.1 Base shear ....................................................................... 26 3.4.1.2 Lateral force distribution .................................................... 26 3.4.1.3 Horizontal distribution of storey shear ................................... 27 3.4.1.4 Horizontal torsion moments................................................. 27 3.4.2 Spectrum analysis ................................................................... 27 3.4.3 Time history analysis ............................................................... 28 3.5 Evaluation of the seismic performance of the building subsystems........... 28 3.5.1 Acceptance criteria.................................................................. 29 3.5.2 Vulnerability of the structure ..................................................... 29 3.6 Follow-up on-site inspection of accessible and critical subsystems............ 30 3.7 Final report ................................................................................ 31 4. MODELLING AND ANALYSIS ........................................................ 32 4.1 Scope ........................................................................................ 32 4.2 Mathematical modelling ................................................................ 32 4.2.1 Basic assumptions................................................................... 32 4.2.2 Configuration ........................................................................ 33 4.2.3 Floor diaphragms ................................................................... 33
v 4.2.4 Second-order effects ................................................................ 33 4.2.5 Load combinations .................................................................. 34 4.2.6 Assumptions about stiffness and strength ...................................... 34 4.3 Analysis procedures...................................................................... 34 4.3.1 Analysis procedure selection ...................................................... 34 4.3.2 Linear static procedure............................................................. 34 4.3.3 Linear dynamic procedure......................................................... 35 4.3.4 Non-linear static procedure ....................................................... 36 4.3.5 Non-linear dynamic procedure ................................................... 38 5. STONE-MASONRY - MATERIAL PROPERTIES................................. 39 5.1 Introduction................................................................................ 39 5.2 Physical properties ....................................................................... 41 5.2.1 Stone ................................................................................... 41 5.2.1.1 Bulk density ..................................................................... 41 5.2.1.2 Compressive strength ......................................................... 42 5.2.1.3 Tensile strength ................................................................ 43 5.2.1.4 Modulus of elasticity .......................................................... 44 5.2.2 Mortar ................................................................................. 44 5.2.2.1 Compressive strength ......................................................... 45 5.2.2.2 Bond strength................................................................... 46 5.2.3 Stone-masonry assembly ........................................................... 46 5.2.3.1 Compressive strength ......................................................... 46 5.2.3.2 Modulus of elasticity .......................................................... 49 5.2.3.3 Shear strength .................................................................. 49 5.3 Condition assessment .................................................................... 49 5.3.1 Visual examination ................................................................. 49 5.3.2 In-situ measurement of mechanical properties ................................ 50 5.3.2.1 Masonry compressive strength ............................................. 50 5.3.2.2 Masonry flexural tensile strength .......................................... 50 5.3.2.3 Masonry shear strength ...................................................... 51 5.3.2.4 Coefficient of friction ......................................................... 51 5.3.2.5 Modulus of elasticity for masonry ......................................... 51 5.3.2.6 Masonry shear modulus...................................................... 52 5.3.3 Location and minimum number of tests ........................................ 52 5.3.4 Non-destructive tests ................................................................ 52 5.3.4.1 Flat jack.......................................................................... 53 5.3.4.2 Sonic pulse velocity method (Impact echo method).................... 53 5.3.4.3 Ultrasonic pulse velocity ..................................................... 54 5.3.4.4 Radar ............................................................................. 55 5.4 Knowledge factor ......................................................................... 55
vii 7.3.5.1 Strength criteria................................................................ 80 7.3.5.2 Deformation criteria .......................................................... 80 7.3.6 Non-structural subsystems......................................................... 81 7.3.6.1 Veneers........................................................................... 81 7.3.6.2 Pinnacles ......................................................................... 81 7.3.6.3 Appendages, parapets, cornices, statues, and other ornaments .... 81 7.3.6.4 Chimneys ........................................................................ 81 7.3.6.5 Masonry foundation elements .............................................. 81 8. CLOSURE .................................................................................... 83
REFERENCES..................................................................................... 85 APPENDIX A - CASE STUDY................................................................. 89
viii LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1 Relation between performance and quality of masonry versus intensity of earthquake ..........................................................................8 Table 2.2 Some major historical earthquakes................................................9 Table 2.3 Basic structural checklist for stone-masonry bearing wall buildings with stiff diaphragms .............................................................. 20 Table 3.1 Ranking adopted for the consequences of failure ............................ 30 Table 5.1 Porosity and bulk density ranges of some common stone .................. 42 Table 5.2 Compressive strength of stone units............................................. 42 Table 5.3 Flexural tensile strength of stone ................................................ 44 Table 5.4 Modulus of elasticity of stone ..................................................... 44 Table 5.5 Proportion specification requirements for mortar........................... 45 Table 5.6 Property specification requirements for mortar ............................. 46 Table 5.7 Compressive strength of stone-masonry........................................ 47 Table 5.8 Summary of reported mechanical properties of stone-masonry .......... 48 Table 5.9 Maximum allowable compressive stress for unreinforced-masonry ..... 48
ix LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1 Inadequate connection between the outer wythes (a and b) results in the drifting apart of the outer wythe (c) leading to either partial or total collapse of the bearing wall (d) ........................................... 10 Figure 2.2 Cracks and separation of walls in poorly engineered corner connection and wall intersection ............................................................... 11 Figure 2.3 A schematic illustration of a well engineered corner connection ........ 11 Figure 2.4 Joint opening in arches due to increased spans (a) to (c), and the corresponding thrust line (d) to (f) ............................................. 13 Figure 2.5 Construction of barrel vaults, a) with horizontal courses, and b) with inclined courses ..................................................................... 13 Figure 2.6 Two styles of constructing Gothic cross-vaults .............................. 14 Figure 2.7 Gothic vaults with a boss stone at the centre ................................ 14 Figure 2.8 Hoop stress resultants for the equilibrium of a hemispherical shell.... 15 Figure 2.9 Vertical cracks due to increase in the domes span......................... 15 Figure 2.10 Top view of the corner wall showing fracture lines due to a) inadequate connection between the outer wythes and b) foundation settlement............................................................................. 16 Figure 2.11 Typical unconfined massive stone-masonry foundation.................. 17 Figure 5.1 Compressive strength of rock materials....................................... 40 Figure 5.2 Stress-strain relationship of rock in compression........................... 41 Figure 5.3 Compressive strength test set-up with the load perpendicular or parallel to the bedding joint of the test cube sample .................................. 43 Figure 6.1 Adequately bonded multi-wythe masonry .................................... 61 Figure 6.2 Forces across a poorly bonded middle wythe ................................ 63 Figure 6.3 Wall with openings................................................................. 64 Figure 6.4 Typical flat arches.................................................................. 65 Figure 6.5 Uniformly compressed circular arch of constant cross section .......... 66 Figure 6.6 Hemispherical dome idealised as a shell structure.......................... 67 Figure 6.7 Meridian of a spherical shell..................................................... 68 Figure 6.8 Equilibrium of an infinitesimal shell element................................ 68 Figure 6.9 Minimum thickness of a sliced arch............................................ 68 Figure 6.10 Semi-cylindrical shell carrying its own weight ............................. 69 Figure 6.11 Infinitesimal element of barrel shell.......................................... 69 Figure 6.12 Force distribution on half bay of vault ...................................... 70 Figure 6.13 Forces necessary for the equilibrium of vault ............................. 70 Figure 6.14 Vault sliced along the meridians into parallel arch rings ............... 71
x Figure 6.15 Equilibrium forces for a section of the vault of Figure 6.15 ........... 71 Figure 6.16 Forces acting on a buttressing pier: (a) stable buttress, if not overturned at the base; (b) sliding failure in the absence of pinnacle; (c) added weight prevents sliding failure ................................... 72 Figure 6.17 Flying buttress represented by an inclined flat arch...................... 72 Figure 6.18 Passive and active state of an idealised flying buttress................... 73 Figure 7.1 (a) Minimum and (b) maximum abutment thrust due to in-plane movement............................................................................. 79 Figure 7.2 A cracked dome due to increase of span ...................................... 80
xi NOTATIONS A a Ac At
cross-sectional area, m2 distance between the centre of exterior wythe and the centre of the composite wall, m compression area, m2 area in tension, m2a distance between the centre of exterior wyth.BT and the centr
xii k1 k K1, K2, K3 Ktower Kwall Ki l M Mc0 Mx n N N N Nx P p P- Pi Q coefficient taking into account the non-uniform distribution of shear stresses knowledge factor as defined in Section 5.5 shape factor for sheer deformation stiffness properties of each wythe of a composite wall, kN/m stiffness of the tower to lateral displacement, kN/m stiffness of a wall, kN/m stiffness of the wall component, i, kN/m span of the element, m bending moment, kN m corresponding bending moment for the simple supported beam with similar span, kN m bending moment, kN m number of wythes of a composite wall total number of storeys force transferred to the external wythes of a composite wall, kN hoop stress resultant, kN/m meridian stress resultant, kN/m axial force, kN compressive load, kN uniform distributed load, kN/m relation between axial force in a member and lateral displacement, referred as second-order effect vertical force applied to a subsystem, kN
effect of se002 Tc-0.0029 Tw(, K)TaQcce app029 Tw,]TJ-0.35 -4.26 TD0 Tc0 Tw(K)Tj
xiii S t T t1, t2 tj ts ti seismic response factor
thickness, m fundamental period of the building, s thickness of external wythes of a composite wall, m mortar joint thickness, m height of the stone unit, m thickness of componee0 0 12 1TJ-2.05 -1.286TD0 Tc0 Tw(t)Tj6.96 0 0 6.96 146.32060.7
xiv m horizontal in-plane movement of the arch abutment horizontal out-of-plane movement of the arch key horizontal radial movement of the supporting ring of a dome inclination of the tangent of the arch in a given section ductility of the material angle defining the meridian shape factor that takes into account the non-uniform distribution of shear stress in the cross section of the tower coefficient of friction coefficient of friction between soil and foundation stress acting on a diametrical ring of a dome, MPa critical stress, MPa compression vertical stress, MPa average normal stress due to gravity loads, MPa uplift stress produced by the vertical accelerations, MPa normal stress, MPa shear stress, MPa angle defining the parallel circle limiting value of the parameter used for stability acceptance criterion demand value of the parameter used for stability acceptance criterion of element i unit weight, kN/m3
H, Out of-Plane H, Radial f cr D 0 up 1, 2 C D,I
H, In-Plane
Guidelines for The Seismic Assessment of ktone-masonry ktructures
xvi Lintel A structural element spanning the opening in a wall for a window or door, resisting bending moments from gravity forces. An assemblage of masonry units and mortar. An interior or exterior wall that does not provide support for vertical loads other than its own weight. A wall perpendicular to the direction of seismic forces. A decorative element attached to the main building. A wall that resists lateral forces applied normal to its plane. A low wall located above a roof. A local thickening of a wall. A secondary structural subsystem placed on the buttress to enhance the stability of the buttress. A wall, bearing or non-bearing, capable of resisting seismic forces acting in the plane of the wall. A thin curved roof structural subsystem able to transmit only in-plane load. The ratio of the lateral displacement of a floor with respect to the floor below divided by the storey height. A set of building elements that makes up a major portion of the structure resisting system, e.g. diaphragms, moment frames, and shear walls. A tall structure consisting of perimeter walls that enclose a central space. A masonry wall in which the area of reinforcing steel is less than 25% of the minimum steel ratios required by the CSA Standard for reinforced masonry. A URM wall which provides the vertical support for a floor or roof for which the total superimposed load exceeds 1.5 kN/m of wall. A curved roof structural subsystem used for tunnels. Facing or ornamentation, not used to develop resistance to lateral forces, composed of brick, concrete, stone, tile or similar materials that are connected to a backup structure by either anchorage or adhesion.
Masonry Non-bearing Wall Normal Wall Ornament Out-of-Plane Wall Parapet Pier Pinnacle Shear Wall Shell
Storey Drift Ratio Subsystems
Tower UnreinforcedMasonry (URM) Wall UnreinforcedMasonry Bearing Wall Vault Veneer
xvii Vertical Elements Wythe Subsystems in a vertical plane including shear walls, braced frames, and moment resisting frames. A single leaf or layer of masonry.
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Current guidelines for the seismic evaluation of existing buildings, developed by the National Research Council of Canada (NRC, 1993) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency of the United States of America (FEMA, 1992 & 1997), address the most commonly found unreinforced-masonry (URM) buildings conseltructed of brick but do not include special types of seltructures and conseltruction materials such as heritage stone-masonry. Most stone-masonry structures were built at a time when seismic risk was not considered in structural design. In Canada, most stone-masonry structures are located in highly populated areas (e.g., the downtown cores of such large cities as Ottawa, Qubec City, Victoria, etc.) and pose a potential seismic risk depending on the seismicity of their location.
1.2
Purpose of the guidelines
The purpose of this document is to provide technically sound analytical tools and acceptable assessment criteria for the seismic evaluation of stone-masonry structures. These Guidelines for Seismic Assessment of Stone-masonry Structures are intended as an assessment tool for professional engineers and architects, and as a reference document for owners, building regulators, and property managers. Engineers can use these guidelines to evaluate the seismic capacity of stonemasonry structures and to advise building owners and property managers of potential seismic risk to lives. Mitigation of any risk to life is achieved by alleviating the occurrence of the following events during or following an earthquake: Complete collapse of the stone-masonry structure. Failure of one or more structural stone-masonry subsystem. Failure of non-structural stone-masonry subsystems that can result in either blockage of exit and entry routes or in increased risk to life.
The engineering expertise of professional engineers and architects is a prerequisite to the appropriate use of the guidelines. The engineer must have experience in building design that includes earthquake analysis and basic knowledge of stonemasonry. In addition to visual examination and direct observation that has been the traditional method for evaluating the performance of these structures, these guidelines provide analytical tools to assess the seismic response of stone-masonry structures. The methods of analysis and the performance criteria provided in the guidelines should be tempered with the engineer's judgement so that it reflects the
Chapter 1: Introduction
current condition of the structure, including deterioration, damage, and deformation. This document is neither a code nor a standard. It is intended for voluntary use by experienced design professionals.
1.3
Basis of the guidelines
1.3.1 Scope and limitations This document is intended for only one type of structure: stone-masonry. It provides methods for assessing the ability of stone-masonry structures to resist the
1.3.3 Relationship to other documents and procedures These guidelines are to complement the following documents for assessment of the seismic capacity of stone-masonry structures: 1. Guidelines for Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings (NRC, 1993) 2. Guidelines for Seismic Upgrading of Building Structures (NRC, 1995c) 3. Guidelines on Seismic Evaluation and Upgrading of Non-Structural Building Components (PWGSC, 1995) 4. Procedure for Seismic Assessment of Existing Buildings (PWGSC, 1998) 5. National Building Code of Canada (NRC, 1995a). These guidelines are specific to existing stone-masonry structures and are not to be interpreted as replacing or superseding applicable building regulations.
1.4
Contents of the guidelines

1) Introduction 2) Earthquake behaviour of stone-masonry structures 3) Procedure for seismic evaluation of structures 4) Modelling and analysis 5) Material properties of stone-masonry 6) Engineering properties of stone-masonry 7) Seismic assessment criteria 8) Closure 9) Appendix A - Examples.
This document consists of eight chapters and one appendix:
1.4.1 Introduction Chapter 1 presents the purpose, the basis, and the contents of the guidelines as well as a brief discussion in regards to heritage considerations. 1.4.2 Earthquake behaviour of stone-masonry structures Chapter 2 gives insights into the past seismic performance of stone-masonry structures, as reported in the literature. In it the common mechanisms of failure associated with typical structural subsystems and the identification of the main causes of failure are discussed. A structural checklist is introduced to identify potential structural weaknesses in existing stone-masonry bearing wall buildings with stiff diaphragm. 1.4.3 Procedure for seismic evaluation of structures Chapter 3 presents the basic procedure for the evaluation of the seismic performance of a structure. It begins with the first site visit and continues with the
assessment of the capacity of the building to resist lateral loads during an earthquake. 1.4.4 Modelling and analysis In Chapter 4, four methods of analysis are described: linear static, non-linear static, linear dynamic, and non-linear dynamic. The application of mathematical models to quantify the response of stone-masonry is also presented. 1.4.5 Material properties of stone-masonry In Chapter 5, the mechanical properties of stone-masonry, including the components are examined. Destructive and non-destructive test methods that have been used to measure the uniformity of the structure and the mechanical properties are reviewed. 1.4.6 Engineering properties of stone-masonry Chapter 6 contains analytical tools both for determining the stiffness and the distribution of forces, and for computing the resultant forces for structural stonemasonry subsystems. It also presents methods of analysis for the seismic evaluation of non-structural subsystems typically constructed of stone-masonry. 1.4.7 Seismic assessment criteria Chapter 7 provides acceptance criteria for the seismic evaluation of structural and non-structural stone-masonry subsystems. The criteria are developed on the basis of strength and deformation. 1.4.8 Examples Appendix A presents applications of these guidelines to existing stone-masonry structures.
1.5
Heritage considerations
Many of Canadas existing stone-masonry structures are designated as heritage
2. EARTHQUDKE BEHAVIOUR OF STONE-MASONRY STRUCTURES

2.1 Background
In contrast to other types of building construction, such as steel and reinforced concrete, progress in understanding the seismic performance of stone-masonry and the development of evaluation procedure have been rather slow. Information has come primarily from the European countries that have large stocks of stonemasonry located in high to medium seismic risk zones. Thus, the experiences gained from past seismic performance of stone-masonry structures in places such as Italy, Yugoslavia, Greece and Slovenia and reported in the technical literature provide valuable insight into both the potential deficiencies of such construction and the degree of damage that it may sustain. Damage is categorised as either structural damage or non-structural damage; both pose potential hazards to the occupants of buildings. Structural damage refers the degradation of subsystems that have influence over the lateral and/or gravityresistant structural capacity, e.g., the debonding of multi-wythe wall or the opening of an arch subsystem. Non-structural damage refers to the degradation of subsystems that have negligible influence over the structural capacity of the structure, e.g., the failure of chimneys or parapets. This chapter highlights past seismic performance of stone-masonry, taking into consideration the following key factors: type of construction, quality of the materials, type of diaphragm, type of structural subsystem (wall, pier, arch, etc.), adequacy of the connections between the various subsystems, and anchorage of the non-structural stone-masonry subsystems.
2.2
General observations
During an earthquake, the ground moves back and forth in all directions and at different frequencies and amplitudes. The structure starts moving in the same direction but, because of the flexibility of the structural subsystems, some parts of the structure will lag behind and then move in the opposite direction, thus generating forces that vary with time and with location on the structure. The force sustained by the structure during earthquake shaking is proportional to the mass. It is referred to as inertia force. Thus, the heavier the structure, the greater the inertia forces become. Stone-masonry structures are among the heaviest structures. In general, the damage sustained by a structure is attributed to either overstressing or excessive deformations of structural subsystems or to differential
Chapter 2: Earthquake Behaviour of Stone-masonry Structures
movements between different subsystems of the structure. Irrespective, global or local collapse occurs if the structural subsystems cannot resist the inertia forces and are displaced sufficiently following local damage. The extent of the damage to a structure is related to the duration and the severity of the ground motion, as well as to the structures own vibration characteristics, integrity, and soil conditions. Although general trends have been observed in many earthquakes, the exact type of damage is not easily predicted. This is especially true in Europe and Asia where there have been a numerous complete collapses of stone-masonry buildings during earthquakes with Richter magnitudes greater then 6. From a safety perspective, structural subsystems that have proven vulnerable during earthquake need to be evaluated and, if found deficient, adequately upgraded. Geometric configuration is known to influence the seismic performance of a structure. Architectural features typically found in stone-masonry structures
forces generated by an earthquake and thus reduce the seismic capacity of the building as a whole (Turnesk et al., 1978). Table 2.1 Relation between performance and quality of masonry versus intensity of earthquake (Winkler, 1994) MM scale I II III IV V VI Observed Sensations and Performance Not felt Felt by persons at rest on upper floors Vibration like the passing of a light truck; hanging objects swing Vibration like the passing of a heavy truck; sensation of a jolt, like a heavy ball striking the wall; windows, dishes and doors rattle Felt outdoors; sleepers wakened; liquids spill; small unstable objects are displaced or upset; doors swing Felt by all, many frightened; dishes break; objects fall off shelves; furniture moves or is overturned. Weak plaster or masonry D cracked Difficult to stand; drivers in motor cars notice; furniture breakage. Damage to masonry qm including cracks Damage to masonry C, partial collapse; some damage to masonry B, but none to masonry A; fall of stucco and masonry walls; twisting of columns, chimneys, and statues General panic; masonry D destroyed; masonry C heavily damaged, often complete collapse. Frame structures shifted off foundations, if not bolted; serious damage to reservoirs, cracks in ground Most masonry and frame structures destroyed; some well-built wooden structures and bridges destroyed; rails bent Rails and pipelines break Destruction total; large landslides
VII VIII
IX
X XI XII
Notes: Masonry A: Good workmanship, mortar, and design; reinforced laterally and designed to resist lateral forces. Masonry B: Good workmanship and mortar; reinforced but not designed to resist lateral forces. Masonry C: Ordinary workmanship and mortar; no extreme weakness, but neither reinforced nor designed to resist lateral forces. Masonry D: Weak materials, poor mortar, poor workmanship.
Table 2.2 Some major historical earthquakes (Winkler, 1994) Location China Lisbon (Portugal) San Francisco (USA) Tokyo (Japan) Anchorage (Alaska) Mexico City (Mexico) Kalamata (Greece) Armenia (former USSR) Loma Prieta (USA) Western Iran Year MM 1556 1755 1906 1923 1964 1985 1986 1988 1989 1990 XII XII X XI X IX VIII IX XI Richter Casualties 7 (?) 9 (?) 8.2 8.3 8.6 8.1 6.0 6.8 7.1 7.7 850 000 60 000 700 143 000 102 9 500 10 000 25 000 56 50 0000 Damage Breaking of dikes City destroyed Fires, city destroyed City destroyed Heavy damage Structures on soft ground, heavy damage Heavy damage Total destruction Much damage Total destruction
2.2.4 Connection between structural subsystems Inadequate connections between the various structural subsystems have been identified as the key factor leading to partial collapse or failure of masonry stone structures. Experiences in Europe, Middle East and Asia have shown the following occurrences: Weak connections between floors and walls have led to the partial collapse of the wall or complete collapse of the structure. Separations at wall intersections and between walls and floors were common for poorly constructed buildings and frequently led to collapse. Inadequate connection of the diaphragm to external walls has resulted in the collapse of the diaphragm. Poor connection between two outer wythes with a cavity filled with rubble and mortar has led to the separation of the peripheral walls. Independent behaviour of inner and outer wythes of walls that were poorly connected has resulted in the failure of the wall and or the structure.
2.3
Types of structural stone-masonry subsystems and typical earthquake damage
In the past, engineers have generally associated stone-masonry structures with poor seismic performance. However, as noted in the previous sections, the performance of stone-masonry is more or less dictated by the quality of construction and the structural adequacy. This section provides a summary of the commonly observed failure mechanisms for typical structural stone-masonry subsystems due to earthquake.
10
2.3.1 Wall The wall is a structural subsystem which provides resistance against gravity and lateral forces. Its capacity to resist lateral load depends on its aspect ratio, its orientation, the quality of the material and workmanship, and the adequacy of its connection to the rest of the structure. Examination of stone-masonry structures damaged by earthquakes has shown the following: Low shear resistance. Mortar used in the construction of stone-masonry often consists of lime and sand, with little or no Portland cement. This mortar mix is known to have little shear strength. Consequently, sliding along the mortar joint has been observed as one of the common failure mechanisms, resulting in either partial collapse of the bearing wall or total failure of the structure. Inadequate connection between wythes. Poor connection between the two outer stone wythes with the middle constructed of rubble and mortar has exhibited poor seismic performance. Diagonal cracks and separation of the two wythes have occurred. Partial or total collapse of the bearing walls was observed (see Figure 2.1).
Fi gure 251 Inadequate

11
Figure 2.2 Cracks and separation of walls in poorly engineered corner connection
12
2.3.2 Lintel A lintel consists of a stone that spans the top of an opening. This form of construction is not widespread due to the low tensile strength of stone. Poor performance of stone lintels in past earthquakes is due to: Low tensile strength. Flexural failure was commonly observed in this structural subsystem because of the low capacity of stone to resist tensile stresses. Insufficient anchorage. Sliding and collapse of stone lintels was observed where insufficient anchorage was provided for the lintel. 2.3.3 Arch The structural role of the arch subsystem is to transfer the applied vertical load of the building above to a thrust force that is restrained by the massive stone-masonry walls. Arches were widely recognised as an efficient construction method for spanning large distances. From past seismic performance, typical problems and damages observed on arches consist of: Poor structural adequacy. Poor structural adequacy in arches has resulted in the separation of the stone-masonry arch from the abutments, leading to the collapse of the arch and failure of the structure above. The shaking of the ground has led to a temporary reduction of frictional resistance along the arch that causes a downward slippage of the keystone and a permanent change in the shape of the arch. Partial or total collapse has been observed depending on the thickness of the arch and its ability to safely accommodate the relocation of the thrust line, see Figure 2.4 (d) to (f). Figure 2.4 (a) to (c) shows the crack patterns resulting from an increase in span length due to seismic displacements for arches of different shapes. Configuration problem. The collapse of arches has been attributed to the loss of stability when the thrust line passed outside the arch, Figure 2.4 (d) to (f). Compressive over-stress. Local splitting or crushing was observed, but in most cases, such local failures did not result in the failure of the arch. Arcade Slenderness. The lateral slenderness of many arcades was higher than would be required for an isolated arch subsystem, due to the smaller lateral thrusts (except for the end spans). Consequently, out-of-plane failure was observed due to the out-of-phase movement of the arcade supports.
13
14
15
Figure 2.8 Vertical cracks due to increase in the domes span (Heyman, 1995)
16
Poor quality construction. Pronounced shear failures were attributed to poor quality construction or, in some cases, poor maintenance. 2.3.6 Tower A tower consists of perimeter walls that enclose a central space. Problems associated with the seismic performance of towers include: Low shear strength. Deteriorated mortar caused by poor maintenance has resulted in numerous fissures, cracks, and, in some cases, voids in the mortar. Hence during earthquakes either partial collapse or failure of the tower occurs.
17
Interaction with another structure. Towers have different vibration characteristics than the surrounding structures. As a result, their pounding against neighbouring structures has led to their partial or total collapse. Creep behaviour of the material. Due to heavy dead loads, towers are subject to high compressive stresses in their lower part. Large as well as fine and diffused vertical cracks appear approximately at one-third of the tower height from where they can slowly propagate. The material behaviour shows secondary and tertiary creep up to a sudden collapse (Civic Tower of Pave, 1989). Material damage can also increase because of fatigue under temperature variations and cyclic loads (traffic vibration and wind), and because of sudden inertia forces caused by earthquake. 2.3.7 Foundation subsystem For a massive stone-masonry foundation subsystem, differential settlement of the structure has led to vertical and diagonal cracks in the masonry. Observed damages in the structure due to earthquake have occurred where the soil is weak. Unconfined massive stone-masonry piers supporting the structure are also susceptible to failure because of low shear strength of the masonry foundation (see Figure 2.11).
Figure 2.11 Typical unconfined massive stone-masonry foundation
2.4
Types of non-structural stone-masonry subsystems and typical hazards
Failure of non-structural subsystems is known to pose a high risk to life. These subsystems are supported by main structural subsystems. Non-structural stonemasonry subsystems commonly found are veneers, parapets, cornices, chimneys, appendages, ornaments, and statues. Typical hazards observed from past
18
earthquakes are dislocation and falling of the stone units, and falling of parts or the whole subsystem due to inadequate anchorage to the load bearing masonry. Failure of non-structural subsystems has caused injuries and death to occupants of the building or to pedestrians, blocked the passage entry to the building, and caused additional structural failure. Specific failure mechanisms observed in nonstructural subsystems are described in the following paragraphs. 2.4.1 Veneers Veneers, slender walls that are laterally connected to the main structure by mechanical anchors, are sensitive to excessive deformations caused by shaking of the ground. The heavy weight of stone-masonry translates to high inertia forces, causing either fractures within the wall or failure of the mechanical connections between the wall and the structure. The deformation of the structural subsystem surrounding the veneer results in failure of the connections, and displacement and failure of the stone units. Often, corrosion of anchors and voiding of the mortar have resulted in poor seismic performance of veneer walls. 2.4.2 Pinnacles Pinnacles are cantilevered piers constructed on top of the buttresses. They are, in general, decorative elements, although in some cases they were used to increase the frictional capacity of the pier buttresses. Pinnacles have failed either because of poor anchoring conditions or because of poor structural adequacy caused by weak mortars. 2.4.3 Appendages, parapets, cornices, statues, and other ornaments Appendages, parapets, cornices, statues, and other ornaments have been shown to be susceptible to out-of-plane failure because of lateral inertia forces. The main cause of failure is inadequate anchoring or support conditions. 2.4.4 Chimneys Chimneys are located at the roof level of structures where generally maximum shaking occurs. These cantilevered structures are very susceptible to inertia forces and can fail because of bending, shear, and overturning. Inadequate anchorage, poor construction, and weak mortar have been the primary causes of chimney failure during earthquakes.
2.5
Structural checklist
Structural checklist, given in Table 2.3, has been compiled from past seismic performance of stone-masonry. The purpose of the checklist is to identify potential inadequacy in the seismic capacity of existing stone-masonry bearing wall buildings with stiff diaphragms. The checklist contains clauses that need to be satisfied. C represents conforming, a necessary requirement for the clauses to pass the evaluation process. For the clauses that are found non-conforming (NC), an indepth evaluation is required to assess their potential seismic risk. N/A stands for
19
not applicable. For those buildings whose structural subsystems do not conform to the required criterion, and for those subsystems that are not included in the checklist, further analysis is required to evaluate their seismic capacity. For stone-masonry bearing-wall buildings with flexible diaphragms, either the horizontal-beam method or the plate method (as a quick check) or a refined analysis is required to determine the distribution of the seismic forces. Subsequently, the response and capacity of the structure can be evaluated according to the requirements of these guidelines. The entry point to the checklist depends on the particular item under investigation. The site investigation and data collection have to be completed before any of the items can be evaluated. A considerable amount of analysis is often required. Some of the items in the following checklist originate from existing checklists [NRCs Guidelines for Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings (NRC, 1993) and FEMAs Handbook for the Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings (FEMA 178, 1997)], and are applicable to the seismic evaluation of all existing buildings. The structural checklist provided in these guidelines is SUPPLEMENTARY to the Evaluation Statements of NRCS SEISMIC GUIDELINES.
20
Table 2.3 Basic structural checklist for stone-masonry bearing wall buildings with stiff diaphragms 1. General C NC N/A LOAD PATH: The structure contains one complete load path for seismic force effects from any horizontal direction that serves to transfer the inertial forces from the mass to the foundation. C NC N/A WEAK STOREY: The strength of the lateral-force-resisting system in any storey is not less than 80% of the strength in an adjacent storey above or below. N/A SOFT STOREY: The stiffness of the lateral-force-resisting system in any storey is not less than 70% of the stiffness in an adjacent storey above or below or less than 80% of the average stiffness of the three stories above or below. N/A GEOMETRY: There is no change in horizontal dimension of the lateral-force-resisting system of more than 30% in a storey relative to adjacent stories, excluding one-storey penthouses. N/A VERTICAL DISCONTINUITIES: All vertical elements in the lateral-force-resisting system are continuous to the foundation. N/A MASS: There is no change in effective mass more than 50% from one storey to the next. N/A TORSION: The distance between the storey centre of mass and the storey centre of rigidity is less than 20% of the building width in either plan dimension. N/A MASONRY UNITS: There is no visible deterioration of stonemasonry units. Sec. 2.2 Sec. 2.2 Sec. 2.2
C NC
C NC
Sec. 2.2 Sec. 2.2 Sec. 2.2 Sec. 2.2 Sec. 2.2.2
C NC C NC C NC
C NC C NC
N/A MASONRY JOINTS: The mortar is not easily scraped away from Sec. the joints by hand with a metal tool, and there are no areas of 2.2.2 eroded mortar. N/A UNREINFORCED STONE-MASONRY WALL CRACKS: There are no existing diagonal cracks in wall elements greater than 1 mm, or out-of-plane offsets in the bed joint greater than 5. N/A UNREINFORCED STONE-MASONRY DOMES, ARCHES, etc., CRACKS: There are no existing vertical or horizontal cracks in dome and arch structural subsystems greater than 1 mm, or outof-plane offsets in the bed joint greater than 5 mm. N/A MASONRY LAY-UP: filled collar joints of multi wythe masonry walls have negligible voids. Sec. 2.2 2.3.1 Sec. 2.3.3 2.3.4 Sec. 2.2
C NC
C NC
C NC
21
2. LATERAL FORCE RESISTING SYSTEM C NC N/A REDUNDANCY: The number of lines of shear walls in each principal direction is greater than or equal to 2. C NC N/A SHEAR STRESS CHECK: The shear stress in the unreinforcedmasonry shear walls, calculated using the Quick Check procedure of Section 3.4, is less than 0.1 MPa for rubble construction and less than 0.5 D for coursed stone-masonry.
Sec. 2.2 Sec. 3.4
3. DRIFT C NC N/A DRIFT: The drift ratio for stone-masonry walls is limited to Sec. 0.0015 for good quality coursed construction and 0.0003 for rubble 2.3.1 construction. 2.4.1 C NC N/A PROPORTIONS: The height-to-thickness ratio of the shear walls Sec. of coursed stone-masonry at each storey is less than the following 2.3.1 (): Conditions Seismic Zone 2.3.6 High Moderate to low 2.4 Top storey of multi-storey 9 14 building 15 18 First storey of multi-storey 13 16 building All other conditions
4. CONNECTIONS C NC N/A WALL ANCHORAGE: Exterior stone-masonry walls are Sec. anchored for out-of-plane forces at each diaphragm level with steel 2.2.4 anchors or straps that are developed into the diaphragm. C NC C NC C NC N/A ANCHOR SPACING: Exterior masonry walls are anchored to the Sec. floor and roof systems at a maximum spacing of 1 m. 2.3.1 N/A TRANSFER TO SHEAR WALLS: Diaphragms are reinforced and connected for transfer of loads to the shear walls. Sec. 2.2.3
N/A DOMES, ARCHES, etc./COLUMN CONNECTION: There is a Sec. positive connection between the domes, arches, and all other stone- 2.3.3 masonry structural systems and the column support. 2.3.4 2.3.5 Sec. 2.2.3
5. DIAPHRAGMS C NC N/A PLAN IRREGULARITIES: There is tensile capacity to develop the strength of the diaphragm at re-entrant corners or other locations of plan irregularities. C NC
N/A DIAPHRAGM CONTINUITY: The diaphragms are not composed Sec.
22
of split-level floors. C NC C NC
2.2.3
N/A CROSS TIES: There are continuous cross-ties between diaphragm Sec. chords. 2.2.3 N/A ROOF CHORD CONTINUITY: All chord elements are continuous, regardless of changes in roof elevation. Sec. 2.2.3
6. STONE-MASONRY BEARING WALLS C NC N/A UNREINFORCED STONE-MASONRY: Unreinforced rubble stone-masonry is braced at a spacing of 3 m or less in regions of
3. PROCEDURE FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES

3.1 Introduction
The Procedure for Seismic Assessment of Existing Buildings (PWGSC, 1997) provides the step-by-step procedure required for assessing the seismic capacity of
24
Chapter 3: Procedure for Seismic Evaluation of Structures
3.2.2 Assembling building design data 3.2.2.1 Review of existing drawings and technical reports The first step of the assessment procedure consists of gathering original contract drawings, specifications and calculations. The review of these documents permits the engineer to assess the compliance of the calculations and specifications with codes and standards at the time of construction, to determine any potential structural deficiencies due to updates in the codes or standards requirements, and to identify the building structural and non-structural subsystems. 3.2.2.2 Review of repair and renovation work Information on previous repair and renovation work also provides insight into the structure past performance, changes in the intended use of the building, alterations of the structural subsystems, and design problems. 3.2.3 Site survey Following the review of existing drawings and technical reports, the evaluating engineer must perform a detailed site inspection of the structure to check the conformity of as-built condition to the existing plans. When the original drawings are not available, new sets of drawings need to be prepared based on in-situ measurements. For stone-masonry, complete sets of drawings are seldom available. It is therefore recommended that the evaluating engineer generate a new set of plans reflecting the in-situ measured elevation and cross-sectional plan for every storey. The type of construction, quality of construction, and quality of material should be noted and visible damages and deterioration clearly recorded and photographed. Material deterioration and damages reveal the health of the structure and identify possible areas of weakness that need further consideration in the course of the evaluation. A survey of the crack pattern, of deviation from the horizontal or the vertical of the structural elements, and of the damaged areas should be reported on the set of plans and documents so that a first interpretation and understanding of the damage level and of the causes of damage can be obtained. When necessary (or when the designer suspects an evolution of the crack pattern), the structure and its crack pattern should be monitored by manual or automatic monitoring systems for at least 18 months. 3.2.4 Past earthquake performance A review of past performance of structures of similar construction that have been subjected to an earthquake provides insight into the potential weaknesses and strengths of the building under consideration. Chapter 2 discusses the inherent weaknesses of most stone-masonry structural and non-structural subsystems.
25
A review of historical earthquakes whose epicentres were located within a 100-km radius from the site, and the resulting damages can provide critical data to the seismic performance assessment of the structure. 3.2.5 Soil conditions It is widely recognised that structural damage due to earthquake is very much influenced by soil conditions. In general, the amplitude and duration of shaking depend on the depth and softness of the soil at the site. The engineer must obtain sufficient information to evaluate the load-bearing capacity and the dynamic amplification characteristic of the soil. For sites with high geological hazards, such as soils susceptible to large settlements, extra-sensitive soils, or soils with a high probability of liquefaction, a special geotechnical investigation is required.
3.3
Identification of the structural and non-structural subsystems of the building
To identify the structural subsystems, the engineer has to determine the type of structure, i.e. frame structure or bearing-wall structure. In most cases, stonemasonry structures are bearing-wall-type structures. Stone veneer is sometimes constructed with a frame-type structure. Structural and non-structural subsystems of the building can be identified initially by reviewing the structural and architectural drawings and later confirmed by site inspection. Building structures consist of many subsystems, which have to be identified separately, namely: 1. subsystems resisting lateral forces, 2. subsystems resisting only gravity loads, 3. diaphragms, 4. connections between the diaphragm and the other structural subsystems, 5. connections between the various structural subsystems, 6. foundation subsystems, and 7. non-structural subsystems and their connections to the structure. For each subsystem, it is necessary to identify the type and the construction material. The interaction between the identified subsystems depends on the adequacy of the connections between the different components of the subsystems. Therefore, all these connections must be carefully identified. Chapter 2 provides a list of typical structural and non-structural stone-masonry subsystems as well as their potential weaknesses.
26
3.4
Analysis of the structure
Three basic methods can be used to quantify and distribute the seismic forces within a buildings structure: the NBC 1995 equivalent static approach, spectrum analysis, and a dynamic analysis using time histories. In this section, all three methods of analysis and their application to stone-masonry structures are briefly discussed. For the analysis, an appropriate mathematical model of the structure is required. This is discussed in Chapter 4. 3.4.1 Equivalent static analysis The equivalent static analysis is a simplified method used to compute lateral seismic forces based on a design spectrum having a probability of exceedance of 10% in 50 years. The method provides a base shear force referred to as minimum base shear, V, and a distribution of forces over the height of the building. 3.4.1.1 Base shear The minimum base shear force is computed by
V = ( Ve / R ) U
(3.1)
where Ve is the equivalent lateral base shear representing elastic response, R a force modification factor, and U a calibration factor. Values for the factors R and U are given in the NBC 1995, Clause 4.1.9.1. For analyses of stone-masonry structures, R = 1 is usually considered. Ve is defined in the NBC 1995 by
Ve = v S I F W
(3.2)
where v is the zonal velocity ratio, S the seismic response factor, I the importance factor, F the foundation factor, and W the weight of the building. Values for the zonal velocity are given in the NBC 1995, Appendix C. The seismic response factor, S, is a function of the fundamental period, T, of the building, and the relative values of the velocity-related seismic zone, Zv, and acceleration-related seismic zone, Za, pertaining to the geographical location of the building. The fundamental period can be determined by one of the methods discussed in Section 6.3.1. The factors S, I, and F need to be evaluated in accordance with the NBC 1995, Clauses 4.1.9.1 (6), 4.1.9.1 (10), and 4.1.9.1 (11), respectively. The weight, W, of the building, has to be evaluated taking into account the total dead load, 25% of the design snow load specified in Clause 4.1.7 of NBC 1995, and 60% of the storage load for areas used for storage and the full contents of any tanks, in accordance to the NBC 1995, Appendix A. 3.4.1.2 Lateral force distribution The base shear can be distributed over the height of the building according to the following relation provided by NBC 1995, Clause 4.1.9.1. (13):
27 (3.3)
Fx = ( V Ft )
Wx h x
Wh
i =1 i
The concentrated force at the top, Ft, can be computed according to NBC 1995, Clause 4.1.9.1 (13) using the following expression:
Ft = 0.07 T V
(3.4)
Ft need not exceed 25% of the base shear force, V, and is equal to zero when T is less than 0.7 s. 3.4.1.3 Horizontal distribution of storey shear The storey shear should be distributed to the lateral resisting structural subsystems in proportion to their rigidities, and take the rigidity of the diaphragm into consideration. 3.4.1.4 Horizontal torsion moments Horizontal torsion moments are the moments resulting vrom eccentricities between the centroid of mass and the centre of rigidity plus an accidental torsion moment. This consideration is in accordance with the provisions of NBC 1995, Clause 4.1.9.1 (28). The requirements apply to buildings whose diaphragms can transmit that torsion. For buildings whose centroid of mass and centre of rigidity of different storeys are not approximately on vertical lines, the NBC 1995 recommends the use of a dynamic analysis to compute the effects of the torsion. 3.4.2 Spectrum analysis For tall buildings with significant irregularities either in plan or elevation, or for buildings with setbacks or major discontinuities in stiffness or mass, the spectrum analysis leads to a better distribution of the inertia forces. Spectrum analysis based on the design spectrum can be carried out according to the following procedure provided by Commentary J (44) in the Supplement to the NBC 1995: 1. Multiply the normalised 5% damping spectrum given in Figure J-4 of the Supplement to NBC 1995 by v to obtain the design spectrum. 2. Determine the natural periods, the associated mode shapes and the modal participation factors. 3. Obtain the modal base shear and other modal responses of interest. 4. Obtain the dynamic base shear, Vdyn, and other dynamic responses of interest using a suitable mode combination rule. The square-root-sum-square (SRSS) combination rule may be used when the periods are well separated. For buildings having closely spaced periods, a more refined rule such as the
28
complete quadratic combination (CQC) rule should be used. Enough mode shapes should be included so that a minimum of 95% of the participating mass of the structure is compensated for in the calculation of response for each principal horizontal direction. 5. Obtain the responses of interest by multiplying the dynamic responses of interest by the ratio V/Vdyn. (i) When a 2-D mathematical model is used, torsional effects need to be considered statically as specified by Clause 4.1.9.1. (28) (a) of NBC 1995 and combined with the parameters of interest to arrive at the final values. When a 3-D mathematical model is used, the accidental torsional effects need to be considered statically as specified by Clause 4.1.9.1. (28) (b) of NBC 1995 and combined with the parameters of interest to arrive at the final values.
(ii)
3.4.3 Time history analysis Time history analysis requires a minimum of three-ground motion time histories applicable to the location of the structure. The ground-motion time histories can be obtained from recorded past activities or artificially generated using seismological models. The structural response parameters are calculated for each time history analysis, and the maximum response is used for the assessment. For seven or more pairs of horizontal ground-motion records used for the time history analysis, the average response may be used for the assessment. NBC 1995 requires that the computed dynamic base shear be at least equal to the specified static base shear.
3.5
Evaluation of the seismic performance of the building subsystems
The evaluation of the seismic response is based on the type of analysis, i.e., equivalent static, dynamic, linear or non-linear, and the results that the analysis yields. The engineer must also take into consideration the level of refinement used in analysing the structure, i.e., whether the results were derived from a quickcheck method or a 3-D finite element model. The assessment of the structures seismic response is based on deformation and strength criteria. For stone-masonry structures, the following responses are needed for the assessment of seismic performance of the subsystems: maximum lateral displacements maximum inter-storey drift maximum resultant forces maximum resultant stresses maximum ratio of shear stress to compressive stress
29
3.5.1 Acceptance criteria The capacity of each component to resist seismic loads has to be calculated according to the specific failure mechanisms and the mechanical properties of the materials. The demand values obtained from seismic responses are compared to the capacity values of the subsystem. The general criterion for acceptance can be formulated as follows: Demand 1.0 Capacity (3.5)
Two groupings of acceptance criteria are used to assess the seismic performance of subsystems as a means to control damage. They are strength acceptance criteria, and deformation acceptance criteria. The latter can also be used for global and local stability. Chapter 7 provides a detailed presentation of the acceptance criteria associated with both structural and non-structural stone-masonry subsystems. For the structural subsystems that initially do not meet the acceptance criteria, additional investigation is recommended to check their structural adequacy (e.g., the connections) and the mechanical properties (e.g., strength and stiffness). Destructive and non-destructive tests may be carried out to better define the strength of the subsystem. An iterative process may be required depending on the outcome of the analysis. 3.5.2 Vulnerability of the structure When considering the seismic risk, the engineer must also evaluate the consequences of failure since risk, in simple terms, is equal to the product of the probability of failure and the consequences of failure. Following the seismic provisions of NBC 1995, the probability of exceeding a ground motion is 10% in 50 years a 475-year return period. Subsystems whose demand exceeds the capacity requirement are potentially vulnerable to the seismic load imposed on them. The failure of subsystems can have various consequences such as life safety issues, repair cost, loss of function, and loss of heritage value. Quantification of the consequences of failures is seldom possible; however, a ranking system as given in Table 3.1 can be adopted to assist in the assessment process.
30
Table 3.1 Ranking adopted for the consequences of failure (Chidiac et al., 1995) Rank Injury and/or Death very low Low Medium High very high Most unlikely very unlikely some likelihood significant likelihood very high likelihood Consequences of Failure Cost of repair or Loss of Function very small small medium substantial beyond repair or total loss of function Heritage Value very little effect little effect some effect substantial effect complete loss
Subsystems that do not meet the acceptance criteria are vulnerable to earthquakes and need upgrading to mitigate their seismic risk. It should be noted that some subsystems may pass some acceptance criteria, but fail others. For this reason, the use of all applicable acceptance criteria is strongly recommended. The decision about upgrading has to be made by taking into consideration the influence of the subsystem on the failure of the entire structure, and the associated risk involved in such a failure.
3.6
Follow-up on-site inspection of accessible and critical subsystems
A follow-up on-site inspection is strongly recommended to check the as-built configuration of the existing subsystems and to identify possible deviations from original blueprints. If significant deviations are detected, the existing load path has to be identified. Structural discontinuities, weak connections, and lack of ties and anchors have to be identified. Horizontal or vertical irregularities that may influence the seismic response of the building have to be considered. For a reliable development of structural models and a better representation of the seismic capacity, the connections between existing components of the structure have to be inspected in accessible locations. Every detail affecting the capability of the structure to resist seismic loads has to be considered; this includes observed damage due to past earthquakes, poorly constructed elements, deterioration, etc. In cases where relevant data on the strength of the materials and structural components is not available from previous investigations of similar buildings, such data may be obtained by in-situ testing of selected specimens. When additional data on the dynamic properties of the building (natural frequencies, mode shapes, damping ratios) is required, such data can be obtained by ambient or forced vibration tests. The experimental data of in-situ evaluation tests are useful for the calibration of mathematical models developed for the structural analysis. Data on soil conditions and the foundations must be obtained from original drawings, on-site inspection, subsurface testing, or review of the data on the
31
foundations of nearby buildings. If adequate geotechnical data are not available from previous testing, specific profile-type testing should be performed for building sites in areas with geologic hazards such as landslides or liquefaction.
3.7
Final report
Following the evaluation of the structure, a final report is required. The report should detail all of the tasks undertaken for assessing the seismic capacity of the structure and the resulting findings. The report should state clearly the source of information, the level of knowledge (see Section 5.4), the assumptions implied in the analysis of the structure, the type of analysis and model, the capacity of the structure, and the potential seismic risk.
The report should also provide different options of upgrading methods with associated cost estimates and degree of intrusion that can be used to mitigate the established seismic risk that is associated with the identified deficiencies. (The degree of intrusion, more often, is the most critical factor in designing the upgrading method for heritage structures.)
4. MODELLING AND ANALYSIS

4.1 Scope
This chapter presents analysis procedures and modelling techniques that can be used to quantify the seismic responses of stone-masonry subsystems and structures. Four different types of analysis - linear static, non-linear static, linear dynamic and non-linear dynamic - are discussed along with an analysis selection procedure. Modelling requirements for the seismic analysis of stone-masonry structures are also examined.
4.2
Mathematical modelling
Modelling considerations include basic assumptions, configuration requirements, floor diaphragm, second-order effects, load combinations, and stiffness and strength assumptions. 4.2.1 Basic assumptions In general, a stone-masonry structure should be modelled, analysed, and evaluated as a three-dimensional assembly of structural subsystems. However, threedimensional modelling of stone structures is a highly specialised task, which is both time-consuming and expensive. Therefore, the three-dimensional mathematical models are usually limited to the analysis and evaluation of structures with irregular plans or flexible diaphragms, and for structures whose centre of mass or centre of rigidity shifts between storey levels. A three-dimensional model may be selectively used to refine the stress analysis of over-stressed stone-masonry structural subsystems, especially for structural subsystems that possess complex geometry. A two-dimensional model can be adopted for the modelling, analysis, and evaluation of structural subsystems such as walls that are poorly connected to the rest of the structure, or that are connected to a flexible diaphragm. Multi-wythe walls can also be analysed and evaluated using a two-dimensional model, provided that the composite behaviour between the wythes is adequately modelled. A one-dimensional idealisation model of the stone-masonry structure can be adopted for structures with a rigid diaphragm and whose horizontal torsion can be adequately accounted for. The one-dimensional model can be used as a quick approach to obtain an appreciation for the dynamic characteristics and deformational behaviour of the structure. However, stress calculations derived from a one-dimensional model are average values and neither provide the maximum stress values nor the location of over-stressed areas.
Chapter 4: Modelling & Analysis
33
Modelling of connections between stone-masonry subsystems is seldom possible. For subsystems that have keyed-in stones at the interface, a rigid connection can be assumed for linear analysis. For linear analysis, anchors are assumed rigidly attached to the structural and non-structural subsystems. The non-linear analysis of the anchors, including slippage, yielding, buckling, etc., is performed by modelling the anchor separately. This type of modelling and analysis is carried out only to evaluate the performance of anchors that are located in over-stressed areas or subjected to large movements and vibration. 4.2.2 Configuration As much as possible, the mathematical model developed for the analysis of the stone-masonry structure should include all the structural subsystems and the mass of the non-structural subsystems, with all their irregularities. The model should also reflect all discontinuities of strength, stiffness, geometry, and mass. The same model could then be used during the design of upgrading solutions for improving the seismic resistance of the structure. 4.2.3 Floor diaphragms Diaphragms are the structural subsystems that provide horizontal transfer of forces to the vertical seismic resisting subsystems and to out-of-plane bracing. The connection between the diaphragm and the vertical lateral-resistant structural subsystem needs to be sufficient to transfer the maximum calculated diaphragm shear forces. Chapter 8 of NRC Guidelines (1993) provides specific requirements for the assessment of specific diaphragms. Diaphragms are considered flexible when the maximum lateral deformation of the diaphragm along its length is more than twice the average inter-storey drift of the storey immediately below the diaphragm. "Rigid diaphragm" implies that the maximum lateral deformation of the diaphragm along its length is less than half the average inter-storey drift of the associated storey. Diaphragms whose deformations lie between the classification of rigid and flexible are considered stiff (FEMA 273, 1996). Mathematical models have to include explicitly the diaphragm stiffness as well as the connections to other structural members. The selection of models is to be in accordance with Section 4.2.1. 4.2.4 Second-order effects For linear analysis, the stability of the stone structure has to be checked against the recommendations provided by NBC 1995, Commentary J Effect of Earthquakes, paragraphs 77 to 88, and those given in Chapter 7 of this document.
34
4.2.5 Load combinations For load combinations, including seismic loads, the specifications in NBC 1995 Clause 4.1.3.2 must be considered. 4.2.6 Assumptions about stiffness and strength Stiffness properties and strength estimates for various structural stone-masonry subsystems can be determined from information given in Chapters 5 through 7. Often, in stone-masonry construction, the outer wythes are of superior quality with a much higher Youngs modulus than the inner wythe, which sometimes is only stone rubble. This condition can also be seen in newer brick masonry construction, for example, in high-rise structures built in this century, where stone or terra-cotta veneer is backed up by inferior bricks. The resulting load distribution, under both gravity and seismic loading, can result in critical stress concentrations or out-ofplane deformations. The effect of the different moduli of the built-up sections has to be considered in the analysis.
4.3
Analysis procedures
The structural analysis of stone-masonry structures is required to assess the seismic vulnerability of the structure and to establish the necessary upgrading requirements. For structures that do not meet the requirements of the NBC 1995 seismic provisions and the criteria given in Chapter 7 of this document, the analysis is repeated on the upgraded structure until an acceptable solution (i.e., safety and level of intervention) is reached. 4.3.1 Analysis procedure selection Although there are four different methods of analysis - linear static, non-linear static, linear dynamic, and non-linear dynamic - the selection of an analysis procedure is limited by our knowledge of the material behaviour and the current condition of the stone-masonry structure. In general, linear static analysis is used to model the behaviour of stone-masonry. Linear dynamic analysis is chosen for evaluation of the seismic response of stone-masonry structures that have complex geometry and plan irregularities. The modal properties (i.e., natural frequencies and mode shapes) of the structure must be known before a dynamic analysis can be performed. Non-linear analysis is limited to modelling the behaviour of connections and the response of over-stressed structural stone-masonry subsystems. It is also recommended to assess the extent of the structure damage endured by stonemasonry structures due to recent earthquake activities. 4.3.2 Linear static procedure The procedure for linear static analysis is based on the seismic provisions of NBC 1995 that provides the necessary steps to compute the linear elastic seismic
35
response of stone-masonry structures. The calculation of seismic forces on the basis of equivalent base shear and the distribution along the height of the structure are obtained according to the following procedure: 1) Select a mathematical model for the structure in accordance with the requirements of Section 4.2. The model needs to consider the torsional effects due to plan irregularities. 2) Calculate the natural period of the structure using one of the methods given in Section 6.3.1. 3) Determine the equivalent base shear of the structure according to Section 3.4.1.1. 4) Distribute the seismic forces along the height of the structure according to Section 3.4.1.2. 5) With the aid of the mathematical model compute the responses for the structure. The acceptance of the results depends on the accuracy of the mathematical model used for the analysis. The model must meet the requirements of Section 4.2 and incorporate the various materials and engineering properties of the structural subsystems, the mass of the non-structural subsystems, and the boundary conditions. Connections between subsystems are modelled using the non-linear procedure. Given the complex geometry and material behaviour associated with stone-masonry structures, the linear static procedure may be used to arrive at a preliminary indication of the seismic response of stone-masonry structures. Refined analysis is required for special types of structures: structures that have significant variations in stiffness or rigidity among their structural subsystems, structures that have a stiff or flexible diaphragm, and structures that are tall. The distribution of seismic forces along the height of these structures can be accurately accounted for by means of a dynamic procedure. Chapters 5 and 6 provide information on the mechanical properties and analysis procedure for typical stone-masonry subsystems. This information can be used in conjunction with the mathematical models to calculate the elastic response of stonemasonry subsystems. 4.3.3 Linear dynamic procedure The procedure for linear dynamic analysis provides the necessary steps to compute the elastic responses of stone-masonry structures by time history analysis. This procedure provides an alternative approach for calculating the seismic forces and their distribution along the height of the structure. Response spectrum modal analysis is recommended for the linear dynamic procedure following the seismic
36
provisions of NBC 1995. The linear dynamic analysis should be carried out according to the following procedure: 1) Establish the design spectrum from Figure J-4 of NBC 1995. 2) Select a mathematical model for the structure in accordance with the requirements of Section 4.2. The model must account for the torsional effects due to plan irregularities. 3) Determine the modal properties of the structure - mode shapes and natural periods - as well as the modal participation factors. 4) Compute the modal base shears and other modal responses for the structure. 5) Compute the dynamic base shear and other dynamic responses using a suitable mode combination rule. For structures that have well separated natural periods, the traditional square-root-sum-square (SRSS) combination rule should be used. For those structures with natural periods that are closely spaced, the complete quadratic combination should be used. Stone-masonry structures tend to have closely spaced natural periods. 6) Compute a scaling factor equal to the static base shear divided by the dynamic base shear. 7) Obtain the seismic responses of the stone-masonry structures by multiplying the results by the scaling factor. This procedure provides a better vertical distribution of seismic forces than the equivalent static method. However, the procedure requires knowledge of the modal properties, i.e., natural periods and mode shapes of vibration. Modal properties can be computed in accordance with Section 4.2; however, for a better acceptance of the results, the computed modal properties should be calibrated against the structures measured dynamic properties. The model should include enough modes to account for not less than 95% of the vibration mass. 4.3.4 Non-linear static procedure The procedure for non-linear static analysis provides the necessary steps for computing the inelastic seismic responses of stone-masonry structures due to equivalent static forces suggested by the NBC 1995. The procedure is similar to the linear static procedure with the exception that the model takes into account nonlinear material deformation. The analysis procedure is iterative and will proceed until failure. The non-linear static procedure is as follows:
37
3. Determine the equivalent base shear of the structure according to Section 3.4.1.1. 4. Distribute the seismic forces along the height of the structure by following Section 3.4.1.2. 5. Using the mathematical model recommended in Section 4.2, compute the responses for the structure using a step-by-step procedure similar to the one given below: (i) (ii) Establish the elastic range of the structure. Compute the corresponding seismic force.
(iii) Obtain the non-linear portion of the seismic forces. (iv) Compute the response of the structure using an appropriate number of increments, e.g., by applying the elastic portion of the seismic force and incrementing the non-linear portion of the seismic force. (v) For each load increment, repeat the analysis until a convergence of the response is reached (i.e., the structure is in equilibrium where the applied loads are equal to the internal stress resultants).
6. Stop the iterative process once a failure mechanism has been established or the total seismic force has been applied to the structure. For stone-masonry structures, non-linear behaviour comes from cracking, opening and sliding of the mortar joint, yielding of metal anchors, second-order deformation of a flexible or stiff diaphragm, rocking of components, or yielding of other materials used with stone-masonry. The non-linear representation of the constituents of stone-masonry has little effect on the overall behaviour of the structure and may be ignored. The non-linear static procedure may be used to analyse and evaluate the seismic capacity of connections and anchors. The use of non-linear analysis is deemed appropriate for such small structural subsystems, especially when they are usually the weakest, yet most critical link, between all structural subsystems. Refined mathematical models, such as the finite element method or the discrete element method, or an equivalent discretisation method, are recommended to perform a non-linear analysis adequately. The reliability of the results depends on the knowledge for the material and engineering properties, and on the ability of the mathematical model to capture the essential response of stone-masonry. At present, mathematical models for non-linear analysis of stone-masonry are primarily used by researchers and academics; their use should be limited to those professionals who have adequate knowledge and experience in this area.
38
4.3.5 Non-linear dynamic procedure The procedure for non-linear dynamic analysis provides the steps necessary to compute the inelastic responses of stone-masonry structures using a time history analysis. This procedure gives the corresponding seismic forces and their distribution along the height of the structure and, with some exceptions, is a combination of the non-linear static procedure and the linear dynamic procedure. Time histories representing the ground accelerations specific to the location of the structure are typically used to dynamically excite the structure rather than the forces based on the seismic design requirements given by NBC. Because of the non-linear dynamic response of the structure, a step-by-step time-integration procedure must be used for the non-linear dynamic procedure. This procedure is time-consuming and should only be used to evaluate the seismic resistance of valuable heritage structural subsystems, and of subsystems that have a high seismic risk of failure and are difficult to assess and upgrade.
40
Chapter 5: Stone-masonry - Material Properties
the Romans mixed putty lime with pozzolana (a volcanic ash) and produced pozzolanic mortars and concrete. The Coliseum and the Pantheon in Rome are examples of Roman structures constructed with this concrete. When the pozzolana was not available, the Romans also mixed putty lime with crushed and powdered bricks to obtain hydraulic mortars. They used this material not only in Rome but wherever hydraulic mortars were needed (Roman therms in Bath, U.K; Augsburg, Germany; etc.) (Binda et al., 1994; 1996). In the eighteenth century, hydraulic lime was introduced, followed by Portland cement in the early part of the nineteenth century. Combining Portland cement with sand, lime, and water produced a much stronger mortar than was previously possible. As a result, hard and soft mortars were produced, depending on the proportions of cement and lime. Similar to stone, the properties of mortar used in stone-masonry are quite variable. In addition, the weathering characteristics of mortars, especially of the early mortars, depend very much on local exposure conditions and the thickness of the joint.
Figure 5.1 Compressive strength of rock materials (Winkler, 1994)
41
Figure 5.2 Stress-strain relationship of rock in compression (Conrad and Sujata, 1960)
5.2
Physical properties
Material properties of stone masonry structure include properties for stone unit, mortar, and stone masonry assembly. 5.2.1 Stone Material properties corresponding to the stone unit bulk density, compressive strength, tensile strength, and modulus of elasticity, are given next. 5.2.1.1 Bulk density 3 Bulk density is defined as the mass divided by the volume (kg/m ). The most frequently used method for findi.m the bulk density of a stone is by immersion of the unit in water. This approach avoids the problem of measuring the dimensions of an irregular stone and, if done properly, does take into account the porosity of the stone. However, this method can lead to erroneous results, if the stone is so porous that on removal from the water, water runs out of the stone before the stone can be weighed. A summary of typical values for stone density and porosity reported in the literature is given in Table 5.1.
42
Table 5.1 Porosity and bulk density ranges of some common stone (Baker, 1899; Chidiac et al., 1995; Winkler, 1994; Farmer, 1968; ICS, 1909; Parks, 1912) Rock (stone) Basalt Granites Gabbro (Black granite) Limestone Marble Quartzite Shale Sandstone Slate Bulk density (kg/m3) 2800 - 2900 2600 - 2700 3000 - 3100 2200 - 2700 2600 - 2700 2650 2000 - 2400 2000 - 2600 2600 - 2700 Porosity (%) 0.1 - 1.0 0.5 - 1.5 0.1 - 0.2 5.0 - 20.0 0.5 - 2.0 0.1 - 0.5 10.0 - 30.0 5.0 - 25.0 0.1 - 0.5
5.2.1.2 Compressive strength Compressive strength, the predominant property used for defining strength, will vary according to the test procedure, the natural bedding plane of the stone, its shape and size and the different methods of applying loads to the samples. ASTM C170-90 recommends performing uniaxial load tests both perpendicular and parallel to the bedding plane. The sample size is a 5-cm (2-in.) cube, dry and soaked. Figure 5.3 illustrates the position of the test cube with load parallel and perpendicular to the bedding plane of the sample. The compressive strength is calculated from:
f c' =
P A
(5.1)
where P is the maximum applied normal force and A the cross-sectional area of the sample. Figure 5.1 shows the range of compressive strength for common2types of rock; Figure 5.2, the various stress stages that the rock undergoes before failure. Table 5.2 gives ranges of compressive strength values for sandstone and limestone. Table 5.2 Compressive strength of stone units (Baker, 1912; Chidiac et al., 1995; Kidder, 1931; ICS, 1909; Parks, 1912) Rock (stone) Sandstone Limestone Compressive strength (MPa) 8 290 24 170
43
Guidelines for The Seismic Assessment of Stone-masonry StrucGMSes
44
45
Italy on old mortars indicate that they had much higher binder (lime) contents than modern mortars, with the average binder content being 25 to 35% by mass (Schfer & Hilsdorf 1993). This corresponds to mix proportions of slaked lime to sand of 1:4 to 1:3 by mass (Baronio and Binda, 1991). In terms of volume, this works out to be from 1:1.3 to 1:1, assuming densities of 500 and 1500 kg/m
46
Table 5.6 Property specification requirements for mortar (ASTM C270-96) Mortar Typ e Min. average compressive strength at 28 days (MPa) 17.2 12.4 5.2 2.4 Min. Max. water air retention content (%) (%) 75 75 75 75 12 12 12-14 12-14 Aggregate ratio (measured in damp, loose conditions) Not less than 2 and not more than 3 times the sum of the separate volumes of cementitious materials
Cementlime
M S N O
5.2.2.2 Bond strength The binding ability of mortar influences the shear and flexural strength of stonemasonry. The bond strength of mortar to stone depends on the surface absorption properties of the stone unit. The bond strength for a weak mortar (fc = 1 MPa) was measured using a bond wrench (ASTM C1072-86) and was found to range from 0.01 to 0.07 MPa (Chidiac et al., 1995). However, values up to 0.6 MPa are achievable, depending on the stone and mortar properties. 5.2.3 Stone-masonry assembly 5.2.3.1 Compressive strength Baker (1899, 1912) stated that no experiments were made to determine the strength of stone-masonry because of lack of testing equipment with adequate strength. This statement by Baker was quoted again by Merriman (1920). Instead of using tests, Baker followed a qualitative argument using observations of existing masonry structures and related experiments done on brick masonry to arrive at values for the strength of the stone-masonry. The limitations of Bakers assumption that stone-masonry will behave identically to clay brick masonry has to be recognised before using the derived properties. The following parameters affect the strength of a stone-masonry assembly (Baker, 1912): stone strength, size of the stones, accuracy of the dressing, proportion of headers to stretchers, and the strength and size of the mortar joints. Since the size of mortar joints affects the masonry strength, and since mortar is the weakest component of masonry, it is desirable to use as little mortar as possible. The smaller the mortar joints in relation to the height of the masonry unit, the stronger the masonry will be. At the same time, however, enough mortar must be used to ensure even bedding (stones should not touch each other) and a uniform transfer of stress between stones. The smaller the amount of mortar, the more the compressive strength of the masonry depends on the type of stone used instead of
47
the type of mortar. Strength of stone-masonry built with accurately shaped blocks with thin mortar joints would approximate the stone strength irrespective of the mortar strength (Hendry, 1990; 1994). Low-strength mortar, nevertheless, may cause cracking at an earlier stage, unless the aggregate size is such that the mortar can be considered a concrete. Applying the conclusions from tests on brick piers to stone-masonry, Baker stated that the generally accepted view that the working stress on stone-masonry should not exceed one twentieth to one tenth of the strength of the stone was not a sound design tool. Nevertheless, this was the design method recommended by the Civil Engineers Pocket-Book (1893) and was used until the early 1900s. Baker then explained that the experimental values of stone crushing strength that are used for design purposes may vary by as much as 50%. This is due to undetected differences in material, cutting, and manner of applying pressure. Further reductions are required to allow for the type of structure built, the quality of mortar, and the number of joints. The summary of documented compressive strengths for stone-masonry given in Tables 5.7 to 5.9, illustrates the ranges of values for different type of masonry. The stone-masonry compressive strength ranges from 0.3 to 5.5 MPa depending on the type of masonry, masonry units and mortar. Table 5.7 Compressive strength of stone-masonry (Baker, 1899; Chidiac et al., 1995; Merriman, 1920) Rock (stone) Sandstone Limestone Failure stress (MPa) 26 > 21 Working stress (MPa) 1.7 1.55 - 2.4
48
Table 5.8 Summary of reported mechanical properties of stone-masonry (Tomazevic and Anicic 1989; Tomazevic and Sheppard 1982; Turnsek et al., 1978) Type of Stonework Compressive strength (MPa) 4.7 - 5.5 Modulus of elasticity (GPa) 1.8 - 2.1
In-situ test: Uncoursed outer wythes filled with rubble Laboratory tests: Limestone uncoursed, with earth mortar of lime /clay and sand Limestone uncoursed, with mortar of lime/clean sand; mortar compressive strength is 0.5-1.0 MPa Limestone partly coursed, with mortar of lime/clean sand; mortar compressive strength is 1.0 MPa Uncoursed stone with clayey sand mortar Uncoursed stone with lime mortar, sand (1:1) Uncoursed stone with lime mortar, sand (2:1) Uncoursed stone with lime mortar, sand (3:1)
0.46 - 0.54 0.31 - 0.37 0.71 - 0.82
0.22 - 0.19 0.31 - 0.48 2.9 - 3.6
0.3 0.5 0.9
0.2 1.0 1.0 2.2
Table 5.9 Maximum allowable compressive stress for unreinforced-masonry (CSA S304.1-94) Type of masonry Type of masonry units Type of mortar S N Compressive strength (MPa) 0.8 5.0 3.1 2.5 0.7 4.4 2.8 2.2
Solid masonry or single wythe Masonry
Rubble stone Ashlar granite Ashlar limestone and marble Ashlar sandstone and cast stone
49
5.2.3.2 Modulus of elasticity Data found on modulus of elasticity for stone-masonry assemblies vary with the type of construction, mortar mix, stone type, and the method of testing. Table 5.8 gives a range of values for the modulus of elasticity. Alternatively, the modulus of elasticity can be approximated from the properties of the stone unit and the mortar on the basis of strain compatibility, equilibrium, and linear elastic behaviour (Drysdale et al., 1994). This leads to a relationship between the elastic modulus of the assemblage and that of the mortar and stone:
Em = 1 1 + Es Ej
(5.2)
where =
ts ts + t j
and ts is the height of the stone unit, tj the mortar joint thickness, Es the modulus of elasticity of stone unit, and Ej the modulus of elasticity of mortar joint. For very thin mortar joints, this results in a modulus of elasticity which approaches that of the stone unit. 5.2.3.3 Shear strength Very little has been reported on the shear strength of stone-masonry. The German standard DIN 1053 suggests a maximum value of 0.2 MPa (Henry, 1994). This value corresponds to rugble construction. The shear strength at the block/mortar interface can be approximated by
= 0 + D
(5.3)
where 0 is the adhesive shear strength, the coefficient of friction, and D the precompression vertical stress. From a limited experimental investigation on triplet specimens, the adhesive shear strength for the sandstone and limestone triplets was found to be 0.12 and 0.06 MPa, respectively (Chidiac et al., 1995). The corresponding coefficient of friction ranges from 0.62 to 0.80. Merriman (1920) gives a value of 0.65 for the coefficient of friction of masonry upon masonry.
5.3
Condition assessment
Assessment of the present condition of stone-masonry subsystems is conducted through visual inspection, in-situ material tests, and non-destructive tests. 5.3.1 Visual examination Visual inspection is performed to determine the following:
location and overall dimensions of stone-masonry subsystems
50
location and dimensions of openings type of walls, type of masonry, type and condition of masonry unit number of wythes, the distance between wythes, the type of connections, and the number and distribution of anchoring ties (wherever visible) type and condition of the mortar condition of connections between structural walls, between nonstructural subsystems and main structure, between walls and diaphragms, and between walls and roof structure
The conformity of existing drawings to inspection findings has to be checked. If large deviations from the original drawings are found or if no drawings are available, a more elaborate investigation is required to accurately describe the structural and non-structural subsystems as well as the integrity of the structure. 5.3.2 In-situ measurement of mechanical properties This section describes engineering methods for determining some of the mechanical properties of stone-masonry by means of in-situ testing: compressive strength, flexural tensile strength, shear strength, modulus of elasticity, shear modulus and coefficient of friction. 5.3.2.1 Masonry compressive strength Masonry compressive strength can be measured by one of the following methods: a) Prismatic specimens are cut from an existing wall and tested. This is usually not possible for walls made of irregularly shaped stones or of multiple wythes. b) Prismatic specimens are fabricated from stone units extracted from an existing wall and a surrogate mortar based on the chemical analysis of actual mortar samples, and then tested. c) Two flat jacks are inserted into slots cut into mortar bed joints and put under pressure until peak stress, or until a target compressive strength is reached (ASTM C1196-92). For irregularly shaped stones, the slot can be cut through the stones (Modena et al., 1993). In all the above methods the expected compressive strength must be determined taking into account the net-mortared area. 5.3.2.2 Masonry flexural tensile strength The flexural tensile strength of the bond between the mortar and the stone units can be determined by using the bond-wrench method (ASTM standard C1072-94, measurement of masonry flexural bond strength). The samples must be extracted from an existing wall or pier.
51
5.3.2.3 Masonry shear strength The in-place shear test recommended for the determination of shear strength for brick and regular stone-masonry consists of the following steps: 1. Remove a couple of stones located to the left of the test sample and one located to the right of it. 2. Insert a hydraulic jack in the left-side opening. 3. Insert a measuring gauge in the opening located on the right side. 4. Apply pressure on the sample using the hydraulic jack until movement is detected by the gauge. 5. Place a measuring gauge above and below the top mortar joint of the test sample. 6. Cut the top mortar joint of the test sample and record the movement. 7. Insert a flat jack into the slot cut into mortar bed joints, then apply enough pressure to restore the original location. 8. Record the pressure and then determine the applied compressive stress. This procedure permits the determination of the bonding strength of the mortar as well as the coefficient of friction between the stone and mortar. For uncoursed stone-masonry the determination of shear strength is somewhat difficult. For these structures, the shear strength of the material can be conservatively taken as 0.6 times the pre-compression vertical stress. The precompression vertical stress and the shear strength must be determined for the net mortared area. For rubble construction, the shear strength needs to be limited to a maximum value of 0.2 MPa. 5.3.2.4 Coefficient of friction The coefficient of friction can be determined using the procedure of Section 5.4.2.3. Recommended values for the coefficient of friction vary from 0.6 to 0.75, depending on the quality of the mortar and the voiding ratio of the mortar. A value of 0.6 should be used where significant leaching of the mortar and voiding within the masonry is observed. The upper value of 0.75 represents the coefficient of friction for sand bedding. 5.3.2.5 Modulus of elasticity for masonry The modulus of elasticity for masonry can be determined using one of the following methods:
52
a) Prismatic specimens are extracted from an existing wall, and tested in the laboratory. Compressive stress-strain curves need to be plotted in order to derive the modulus values. b) Two flat jacks are inserted into slots cut into mortar bed joints and put under pressure until one half of the expected compressive strength of the masonry is reached. The deformation between the two flat jacks needs to be measured to derive the compressive strain, and will later help to determine the elastic modulus (ASTM C1197-92). 5.3.2.6 Masonry shear modulus The shear modulus of masonry varies from 0.1 to 0.4 times the value of the elastic modulus in compression for uncoursed / rubble construction and coursed construction, respectively. 5.3.3 Location and minimum number of tests The number and location of material tests need be chosen to provide sufficient information to describe the material behaviour of the structure. The initial selection for the location of the tests needs to be in the structural subsystems identified as being critical to the primary path of lateral force resistance. Additional locations need be chosen to measure the properties in areas where the values are expected to change because of differences in the type of construction, material, age of construction, deterioration of the material, etc. The minimum number of tests depends on the quality and uniformity of construction. For good-quality masonry whose properties are found to be more or less uniform, using non-destructive tests according to Section 5.3.4, the minimum 2 number of tests per 200 m and for every three floors is recommended to be at least three. For structures whose material properties are perceived to be inconsistent, the uniformity of the material properties must first be evaluated by using nondestructive tests according to Section 5.3.4. The number of locations must increase to accommodate the variations in the material properties. If the coefficient of variation in test measurements exceeds 25%, additional tests are recommended. If the variation does not improve with more test results, the use of a value of 0.85 for the knowledge factor is recommended when using the test data. 5.3.4 Non-destructive tests Non-destructive tests are typically used to measure geometrical properties and composition, physical properties, strength, integrity, and moisture content of materials. Stone-masonry assembly has a complex inner structure, especially if constructed of rubble stone and mortar. Thus, the use of non-destructive testing to quantify the physical properties and strength of stone-masonry is not
53
recommended. The methods can however be used to measure variation in the material properties or changes in the structure of the stone-masonry, and to detect anchoring metals within the masonry assembly. For a general treatment, see Suprenant and Schuller (1994). Different methods can be used to test the stone-masonry without causing any destruction to its fabric. They are grouped as visual methods, mechanical methods, electromagnetic methods, sonic and ultrasonic methods, and radiography. The location and number of non-destructive tests is to be in accordance with the requirements of Section 5.3.3. The next section gives information about nondestructive tests for stone-masonry as well as their application, advantages, and limitations. 5.3.4.1 Flat jack The flat jack is used to determine in-situ deformation properties and existing compressive stress in masonry. It consists of a thin metal diaphragm formed from two sheets of steel welded at the edges with two openings to allow oil to be pumped into it. It is either rectangular or semi-circular. The flat jack is thin enough to be inserted into a slot cut into a mortar joint. It also comes with a hand-held strain gauge to monitor the deformation across the slot before and after it is cut into the wall. The flat jack has been successfully used both in stone-masonry structures of historical significance and with modern masonry cladding. It can determine the compressive stresses in masonry walls to within 15%. The test can also be used to determine the in-situ compressive strength (semi-destructive test) and the stressstrain relationship. The test is limited to a maximum stress of approximately 7 MPa and requires a flat surface. It requires a slot to be cut into the wall, which will need to be repaired after the tests. ASTM C1196-92 and C1197-92 standards provide the test procedure (Binda et al., 1997). 5.3.4.2 Sonic pulse velocity method (Impact echo method) The test consists of a stress pulse applied to the surface of the member by mechanical impact. In contrast 6(n)n electromechanical transducer (ultrasonic method), the energy is much less directional and spreads into the member in all directions, but the energy is usually much greater. The pulse or stress wave propagates within the member and is reflected at material discontinuities (cracks, voids, member boundaries). The reflected waves are measured at the impact point or at a number of different points.
54
The time of arrival and the amplitude of the reflected wave can be determined. If the pulse velocity in the material is known, then the depth to each reflected object within the member can be estimated from the arrival (travel) time of the reflected waves. Alternatively, the frequency content of the returning signal can be analysed. The waves caused by the impact are reflected at internal discontinuities and surface interfaces. The impacted surface is also an interface, thus the pulse will propagate back and forth between the surfaces and each internal discontinuity. These repeated surface reflections produce a decaying periodic surface response that can be monitored by placing a transducer close to the point of impact. The frequency content of this periodic response can then be used to determine the presence and depth of discontinuities. The sonic pulse velocity or impact echo method is extremely useful when only one surface of a component is accessible, since both the transmitter and receiver can be located on the same surface. It can be used primarily to measure wythe thickness; determine voids within the wythe; locate cracks, failure, and defects; and assess the uniformity of a material within a structure or within a structural subsystem. It should be noted that the test method has limited resolution that depends on the wave velocity in the material and the frequency of the pulse. In principle, highfrequency pulses are required to detect small defects or dimensions. Also, the reflected response is complex when the inner wythe geometry is not simple and when the pulse produced by the hammer impact propagates equally in all directions. Sonic tomography can be used for interpreting the results of the sonic pulse velocity test. 5.3.4.3 Ultrasonic pulse velocity An electromagnetic transducer transmits a high-frequency pulse into the member under investigation. The time taken by the pulse to reach another point on the member, or the time taken to return is measured. If the distance between the points is known, the pulse velocity can be calculated. The velocity is a function of the dynamic modulus of elasticity, Poissons ratio and the density of the materials through which it passes. If there are defects such as voids or low-density areas, then the pulse is reflected and refracted. This lowers the velocity and attenuates the amplitude of the transmitted wave. The ultrasonic pulse velocity can be used to assess the uniformity and relative quality of masonry, to measure the thickness of wythes, to detect cracks and voids,
55
affected by joints and voids that rapidly attenuate the signal, reducing the depth of penetration. Open joints present an impenetrable barrier to the ultrasonic waves. The results are also affected by the moisture condition of the material. ASTM E797-90 standard provides the test procedure. 5.3.4.4 Radar Radar is the electromagnetic analogue of sonic and ultrasonic pulse-velocity methods. Electromagnetic waves travel through the material and are reflected or refracted where changes occur in the dielectric properties of the material. Such changes occur with a change in material, density, or water content. Moisture attenuates and diffuses a signal and reduces the level of response. Steel acts as a complete barrier. The longer the wavelength, the greater the penetration and the lower the resolution. Radar can be used to detect voids within the stone-masonry construction; locate cavities, voids, and metal components; establish a boundary between wythes; and locate a cavity in a wythe within a wall. The interpretation of radar scan output is not easy and requires an experienced technician.
5.4
Knowledge factor
The investigators knowledge pertaining to the mechanical and physical properties of stone-masonry structural subsystems is seldom complete because of the limited intervention permitted for classified heritage structures. A material safety factor, k, also referred to as the knowledge factor, is therefore introduced to account for the lack of material information. A value of 0.75 represents a minimal level of knowledge about the structural subsystems and a value of 1.00 represents a comprehensive level of knowledge of the structural subsystems under consideration. A minimal level of knowledge applies to visual examination of the comprehensive level can be used if the following conditions are met: 1. Compressive strength of the masonry is determined in accordance with the requirements of Section 5.3.2.1. 2. Shear strength of the masonry is determined in accordance with the requirements of Section 5.3.2.3. 3. Uniformity of the properties is assessed using at least one of the requirements of Section 5.3.4 4. Compressive stresses of the masonry are determined in accordance with the requirements of Section 5.3.4.1. 5. Physical properties of the masonry are measured according to the requirements of Section 5.3.3.
6. STONE-MASONRY - ENGINEERING PROPERTIES

6.1 Introduction
This chapter provides basic engineering information to compute the structural response of typical stone-masonry subsystems, both structural and non-structural. Procedures to approximate the stiffness of subsystems and to compute the forces and stress resultants are also included. The material properties can be obtained in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 5. Applied lateral forces, computed in accordance with Section 3.4.1, must meet the requirements of NBC 1995.
6.2
Limitations
Stone-masonry subsystems have various geometrical shapes, material types, and construction methods. For subsystems that possess complex geometrical shapes, it is recommended that the analysis be carried out using refined mathematical models presented in Section 4.3. The analytical procedures set forth in this chapter encompass the following assumptions:
The structure is continuous and perfectly bonded. The material is elastic, linear, and homogeneous. There are no discontinuities or voids within the structure.
Section 4.3 provides the recommended procedures for performing linear static analysis, linear dynamic analysis, non-linear static analysis, or non-linear dynamic analysis. As few stone-masonry structures are perfectly bonded, elastic, linear, homogeneous or without discontinuities, it is difficult to establish even approximate property values for the material. Without representative values for the material properties, a refined analysis is not warranted. For these structures only the vibration test, presented in Section 6.3.1.4, provides meaningful information about their global dynamic properties.
6.3
Dynamic properties of stone-masonry structure
The structural response due to ground shaking is controlled by the dynamic or vibration properties of the structure. The dynamic properties are represented by the natural periods (T), the modes of vibration, and the structural and material damping. NBC 1995 provides empirical formulae to determine the natural period that corresponds to modern structures. Past experience with stone-masonry structures has revealed, however, that the measured dynamic properties do not correlate well with the empirical formulae given by NBC 1995. In this section,
Chapter 6: Stone-masonry - Engineering Properties
57
alternative procedures are presented for determining the natural period. It should be noted that NBC 1995 limits the variation of from the empirical formulae to 20%. 6.3.1 Natural period The fundamental period of a stone-masonry building can be determined by one of the following methods: 1. Empirical relations 2. Rayleigh approximation method 3. Eigenvalue analysis 4. Vibration tests 6.3.1.1 Empirical relations by NBC 1995 1. For buildings in which the lateral-force-resisting system consists of momentresisting frames capable of resisting all of the required lateral force, and such frames are not enclosed or adjoined by more rigid components which tend to prevent the frames from deflecting under seismic load, the fundamental period, T, can be determined in accordance with the following relation
T = 0.1n
(6.1)
where n is the number of storeys above ground. This formula is unlikely to apply to any stone-masonry building. 2. For all other buildings, the natural period is determined by
T = 0.09 h D
(6.2)
where D is the overall length (in m) of the building at the base in the direction under consideration, and h is the total height in meters above base of the building. 6.3.1.2 Rayleigh method The fundamental period, T, can be approximated by
T = 2
W
i =1 n i i =1
2 i
g Wi i
(6.3)
where Wi is the weight of storeys i, i (i=1,,n) is the elastic deflections in storeys i, due to the forces Wi applied horizontally at storeys i, and g is the acceleration due to gravity.
58
6.3.1.3 Eigenvalue analysis An eigenvalue (dynamic) analysis can be performed to compute the natural periods and mode shapes of the structure using the mathematical model generated for the building. Commercially available structural analysis packages can be used to perform eigenvalue analysis. 6.3.1.4 Vibration test Ambient or forced vibration tests can be conducted on a building to obtain the fundamental periods of vibration and to extract the modes of vibrations. Although such a test can be time consuming, it is the only method that yields representative dynamic properties of a structure. Dynamic testing gives valuable information about the effect of stiffness and mass distribution and possible hinges associated with subsystems. The results obtained from dynamic testing reflect the condition of the masonry under low excitations. The measured properties of the structure can be further used to calibrate the mathematical model used in the analysis.
6.4
Structural subsystems
The primary structural subsystems for stone-masonry are walls, piers, arches, vaults, domes, lintels, flying buttresses and towers. Methods for computing their stiffness are presented. 6.4.1 Walls and piers 6.4.1.1 Stiffness of a single-wythe wall Stone-masonry walls and piers must only be considered part of the lateral resisting structural subsystem when the lateral load is applied parallel to their long axis, i.e., parallel to the length of the wall. The lateral stiffness must include both flexural and shear deformations, and can be obtained using one of the following approximations. The stiffness of a wall subjected to a horizontal force at the top can be obtained from
K C wall =
1 kh h + 3E m I G m A
3
(6.4)
The above relation assumes that the wall is a cantilever and can be used to model walls connected to a rigid diaphragm. For walls that are fixed at both ends, the stiffness is given by
59 (6.5)
K F wall =
1 kh h + 12 E m I G m A
3
Equation 6.5 is to be used for the stiffness calculation of walls with openings. For a wall subjected to a uniformly distributed load, the stiffness is given by
K wall =
1 1 h 1 kh + 8 EmI 2 GmA
3
(6.6)
The above relation can be used for relatively short walls that are connected to a flexible diaphragm. The stiffness of a wall subjected to a triangularly distributed load with zero pressure at the top and maximum pressure at the bottom is
K wall = 1 11 h 2 kh + 60 E m I 3 G m A
3
(6.7)
The above relation can be used for tall walls that are connected to a flexible diaphragm. For the wall stiffness relations given above, Em is the modulus of elasticity, Gm the shear modulus, A the uncracked cross section, h the height of the wall, I the moment of inertia, and k the shape factor. For a rectangular section k is equal to 1.2. These relations assume that the wall is continuous and fully bonded. The calculated value of the stiffness must reflect the condition of the wall, i.e., for poorly constructed walls, the values of E and A need to be reduced. For cases where the wall is found to contain structural cracks, the values of I, A and Em must be adjusted to reflect the cracked section. 6.4.1.2 Stiffness of a multi-wythe wall Stone-masonry walls often consist of more than one wythe,frequently of two outer wythes of good-coursed ashlar with random rubble and mortar fill contained between these skins. This section presents two mathematical models that can be used to approximate the stiffness of multi-wythe walls, based on the stiffness and connections of the middle wythe to the outer wythes. Strong Interface. The stiffness of an adequately bonded multi-wythe wall is the greater of the two values determined as follows:
60
1. The composite-wall stiffness is computed like that of a single wythe but based on the following physical properties:
t wall = t i
n
(6.8)
(6.9) n 2. The composite wall-stiffness is the sum all the wythes stiffness computed like that of a single wythe:
K wall = K i
i =1 n
Em =
E
i =1
i =1 n
(6.10)
where n represents the number of wythes. Weak Interface. The stiffness of a multi-wythe wall that is poorly connected is treated as multi-independent and separated walls. The loads are distributed to the individual wythes according to Section 6.4.1.3. 6.4.1.3 Load transfer in a multi-wythe wall system Two mathematical models can be used to determine the vertical load transfer across multi-wythe wall subsystems. The first model assumes that the middle wythe is adequately bonded to the two outer wythes and that they deform equally. The second model considers an interface that has no stiffness and where the load is transferred through the frictional shear stress, i.e., the wythes re poorly bonded. It should be noted that the model for the weak interface does not account for the built-up internal pressure generated by the out-of-plane deformation of the middle wythe, i.e., bulging.
61
Wythes Adequately Bonded. For a concentrated vertical load P, applied at a distance e from the centre of a three-wythe wall, as shown in Figure 6.1, the load is distributed to the individual wythe according to the following relation (Binda et al., 1992):
F1 = K 1 F2 = K 2 F3 = K 3 K 2 ea + K 3 (a + b)(e + b) P K 2 ( K 1 a 2 + K 3 b 2 ) + K 1 K 3 ( a + b) 2 K 1 a (a e) + K 3 b( b + e) P K 2 ( K 1 a 2 + K 3 b 2 ) + K 1 K 3 (a + b) 2 K 1 (a + b)(a e) K 2 eb P K 2 ( K 1 a 2 + K 3 b 2 ) + K 1 K 3 (a + b) 2
(6.11a)
(6.11b)
(6.11c)
where a and b are the distances between the centres of exterior wythes and the
62
t2 = the thickness of the interior wythe, s = the thickness of the intermediate wythe, E1 = the modulus of elasticity for the exterior wythe, E2 = the modulus of elasticity for the interior wythe, l = the length of the transfer area, and x = the distance from the wall top to a current section. The parameter is calculated using the following relation:
= G 12d 2 2 E 1 t 1 (1 + 2 + ) E 1 t 1s E2 t2 t1
(6.13)
where G is the shear modulus of the weak joint, and d is given by:
d =s+ t1 2
(6.14)
63
The shear stress at the interface between the joint and the wythe is expressed by
(x ) = dN dx
(6.15)
64
Weak lintel. For walls that have relatively shallow or weak lintels, the equivalent stiffness of the wall does not include the contribution of the lintel. The stiffness is equal to the sum of the stiffness of the two piers located on both sides of the opening. Subsequently, the lateral load is distributed to the piers in proportion to their stiffness. Strong lintel. The deflection of a wall with openings can be approximated by calculating the deflection at the top of the wall due to an applied load P, considering the wall to be solid. Then, the deflection of the entire strip that contains openings is subtracted and, for the same strip, the deflection of the remaining piers between the openings are added as fixed-ended columns (Drysdale et al., 1994). The calculation procedure is illustrated using the wall shown in Figure 6.3, i.e.,
wall = solidwall stripA + 2 7
(6.17)
where wall is the deflection of the solid wall, strip A the deflection of strip A, and 27 the deflection of individual piers 2 to 7. The deflection for the solid wall and strip considers that the wall is a cantilever and Eq. 6.4 is used, whereas the deflection of piers 2 to 7 is based on the assumption of fixed-end conditions and Eq. 6.5 is used. The wall stiffness is given by
wall = wall
(6.18)
Figure 6.3 Wall with openings 6.4.2 Arches Arches are designed mainly to resist gravity loads. They are vulnerable to lateral loads. The evaluation of their engineering properties is based on the assumptions that the material can resist only compressive forces, and that no slippage occurs between arch or arcade stone units. The arches must accommodate the movements of the abutments. For engineering purposes, the arches can be considered an
65
assemblage of rigid blocks forming the arch shape. Assuming the blocks to be rigid means that they cannot deform within themselves, but that they can rotate about different contact points, thereby transferring the compression to the abutments. The mechanism works as long as the thrust line lies within the stonemasonry. Various types of flat arches are shown in Figure 6.4. Arches with fixed supports or with one or two hinges are indeterminate strwctures. Their analysis under gravity and seismic loads is best carried out by finite element methods. Only the simplest case, the three-hinged arch, will be presented here.
Figure 6.4 Typical flat arches Three-hinged arches. Arches with three hinges subjected to vertical loads, as shown in Figure 6.5, may be analysed using the following equations:
BA
M === HHH C h
(6979a) (6979b) (6979c)
V += V AA
0
H tan
V =V
H tan
where HA and HB are the horizontal thrusts; VA and VB are the vertical reaction 0 0 forces; VA and VB are the vertical reaction forces for a simply supported beam 0 with the same span as that of the arch; M C is the corresponding bending moment for the simply supported beam with similar span; h is the height of the arch, measured from the support line to the key; and is the inclination of the support line.
Guidelines for The Seismic Assessment of Stone-masonry Strwctures
66
Chapter 6: Stone-masonry - Engoneering Properties
67
Figure 6.6 Hemispherical dome idealised as a shell structure For hemispherical domes idealised as shells (see Figure 6.6), the stress acting on a diametrical ring because of gravity loads can be approximated by :
= r
(6.21)
where and r are the unit weight and the radius, respectively. The hoop stress resultant N and the meridian stress resultant N , schematically illustrated in Figures 6.7 and 6.8, may be computed by:
N =
wr (1 cos cos 2 ) 1 + cos wr 1 + cos
(6.22a)
N =
(6.22b)
where is angle defining the parallel circle, the angle defining the meridian, and t the thickness of the shell. w is the load per unit area obtained from:
w = t
(6.23)
68
Figure 6.7 Meridian of a spherical shell
Figure 6.8 Equilibrium of an infinitesimal shell element
A technique called slicing can be used to approximaue the resultant forces (Heyman, 1995). Slicing the dome in two halves forms a quasi two-dimensional arch as shown in Figure 6.9. The minimum thickness required of the dome must contain the thrust line arising from its own weight, W, as well as the lateral load, H.
Figure 6.9 Minimum thickness of a sliced arch The sketch of a barrel of radius r and length l is shown in Figure 6.10. The equilibrium conditions of an infinitesimal shell element located a distance x and subjected to a weight W is given in Figure 6.11. The resultant forces N x and N are in the normal direction, and Nx represents the shear forces. From the equilibrium conditions, the radial force is found to be
69 (6.24)
N = w r cos
This shows that the resultant forces around the circumference of the barrel have a maximum value of (w * r) per unit length at the crown. It should be noted that Eq. 6.24 applies to each vault, irrespective of the number of vaults (Heyman, 1995).
Figure 6.10 Semi-cylindrical shell carrying its own weight
70
72
Chapter 6: Stone-masonry - Engineering Propertmes
Figure 6.16 Forces acting on a buttressing pier: (a) stable buttress, if not overturned at the base; (b) sliding failure in the absence of pinnacle; (c) added weight prevents sliding failure (Heyman, 1995) The system of forces required to keep the flyer of weight, W, in equilibrium are expressed by:
H= V= Wl 8b 1 1h W(1 ) 2 4b
(6.25a) (6.25b)
where H is the horizontal thrust, V the vertical force at the top of the buttress, l the span of the flying buttress, b the depth of the buttress, and h the height (see Figure 6.17).
Figure 6.17 Flying buttress represented by an inclined flat arch
73
A flying buttress resisting its own weight is in a passive state, but all flying buttresses work in the active state as shown in Figure 6.18. Since it is difficult to determine the magnitude of the thrust force exerted on the flyer, the actual position of the thrust line cannot be calculated. Inspection of the flying buttress, in particular location of cracks, strongly indicates as to whether under gravity loads, the thrust line is outside the section (refer to Figure 2.4).
Figure 6.18 Passive and active state of an idealised flying buttress 6.4.6 Towers A tower is a structural subsystem that can be idealised as a shaft fixed at the base. The stiffness properties depend on the geometry, modulus of elasticity, and shear modulus. Their equivalent flexural and shear stiffness can be calculated by:
K=
h h + 3E m I G m A
3
(6.26)
where h is the height of the tower, Em the modulus of elasticity of the masonry, the shape factor that takes into account the non-uniform distribution of shear stresses on the cross section of the tower, Gm the shear modulus of the masonry, and A the cross section area of the tower.
6.5
Anchorage of stone-masonry subsystems
Anchorage of stone-masonry subsystems is extremely important. Simple calculation procedures to evaluate the stiffness and forces for stone-masonry subsystems are not available. Extreme conditions can be assumed, i.e., rigid and flexible, to establish the upper and lower response limits of a structural subsystem. It should be noted that well keyed stone-masonry can be represented by a rigid connection, provided the force demand does not exceed the shear capacity of the material. NBC method can be used to estimate the anchorage forces. Refined mathematical models are then applied to calculate the load carried by the anchoring system and
74
the capacity of the anchors can be checked by following the procedures of the NRC Guidelines-Appendix A (1993) for unreinforced-masonry walls since, there are no data available for stone-masonry.
6.6
Non-structural subsystems
Non-structural subsystems are not generally designed to resist structural loads, including seismic loads. In this section, procedures to evaluate their seismic capacity are presented on the basis of seismic performance. 6.6.1 Veneers The stiffness of a veneer wall is to be evaluated like that of the shear wall. The objectives of this procedure are to estimate the deformation of the veneer and to check the adequacy of the connections to the structural subsystems. Veneers are commonly high-quality materials with a Youngs Modulus far exceeding that of the substrate. Seismic and gravity forces, therefore, concentrate in the veneer, and this can create secondary shear stresses between veneer and substrate that often require strong connections. 6.6.2 Pinnacles Pinnacles are analysed as vertical cantilever beams subjected to inertia forces due to their own mass. The basic relation for evaluating the stiffness properties is similar to that used for towers. 6.6.3 Appendages, parapets, cornices, statues, and other ornaments The out-of-plane displacement of appendages, parapets, cornices, statues, and other ornaments must be checked for seismically induced inertia forces. Their stiffness is to be evaluated according to their geometry and material properties. The inertia force can be computed in accordance with the requirements of NBC 1995 for architectural components. 6.6.4 Chimneys The stiffness of a chimney can be determined using the relation given for towers and the applied inertia force computed using the requirements of NBC 1995 for architectural components.
7. SEISMIC ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA

7.1 Scope
This chapter presents the seismic assessment criteria for stone-masonry. The specified criteria are purposely broad in order to accommodate the different types of structural subsystems, to compensate for the expected variations in the material performance, and to satisfy a broad range of performance levels.
7.2
Acceptance criteria
Acceptance criteria are defined to reflect analysis procedure and response requirements. 7.2.1 General requirements The stone-masonry subsystems are modelled and analysed using either linear or non-linear analysis procedures. The resultant forces and deformations constitute the demand requirements of the structural subsystems that are to be compared with the capacity values of the structural subsystems under consideration. Acceptance criteria are established for both strength and deformation. 7.2.2 Linear procedure For the linear analysis procedure, the strength acceptance criterion is:
kQ C Q D
(7.1)
where k, QC, and QD are, respectively, the knowledge factor as defined in Section 5.4, the available strength capacity of the structural subsystem, and the demand value established from the seismic analysis. The deformation acceptance criteria is similar to the one given for the strength acceptance criteria since there is no ductility expected in the linear elastic analysis:
k C D
where C and D are, respectively, the available deformation (capacity) of the subsystem and the demand value of deformation established from the seismic analysis.
(7.2)
7.2.3 Non-linear procedure For the non-linear analysis procedure, the strength acceptance criteria are similar to those of the linear analysis procedure. However, the calculation of the demand requirements must include reductions to the subsystem stiffness, when the linear stress and deformation limits of the material are exceeded.
76
Chapter 7: Seismic Acceptance Criteria
kQ C Q D
where k, QC, and QD are the knowledge factor as defined in Section 5.5, the expected strength capacity of the structural subsystem, and the demand value established from the seismic analysis, respectively. The deformation acceptance criteria include the ductility of the material:
(7.3)
kC D
where represent the ductility of the material. Based on limited test data, a maximum value of 1.3 can be used for the ductility of stone-masonry.
(7.4)
7.3
Acceptance criteria for stone-masonry subsystems
Specific acceptance criteria are defined herewith for structural subsystems, i.e., walls, piers and towers; arches; vaults and domes; lintels; flying buttresses; and non-structural subsystems. 7.3.1 Walls, piers, and towers 7.3.1.1 Strength criteria Sliding and rocking are two modes of failure that control the strength capacity of stone-masonry walls, piers and towers. The strength capacity of existing stone walls and piers is the lesser of the following three (capacity) properties: Sliding capacity
Q C ,sl = ( 0 up )
(7.5)
where = coefficient of friction, 0 = average normal stress due to gravity loads , and up = the uplift stress produced by the vertical accelerations. The uplift stress value is to be computed using a vertical acceleration equal to twothirds of the horizontal ground acceleration. Rocking capacity
Q C , r = 0 .9 0 D h
(7.6)
where = factor for boundary conditions (equal to 0.5 for fixed-free wall or pier, or equal to 1.0 for fixed-fixed wall or pier), 0 = average vertical compressive stress in the wall or pier due to gravity and vertical inertia forces, D = in-plane width of the masonry, and h = height of the wall or pier.
77
A capacity reduction factor of 0.9 is added to compensate for toe-crushing and existing out-of-plane deformation. Shear capacity Minimum of the two relationships:
Q C ,sh = 0.9 u
(7.7) (7.8a)
Q C ,sh = 0.9
ft 1+ D b ft
2
whrre
ft =
D 2 + D + (b u ) 2 2
(7.8b)
Hrre, D =the compression vertical stress, b = the shear stress distribution, u = the shear strength of the wall, and ft = the refrrence tensile strength of masonry. The strength acceptance criterion for the walls and piers is:
Q D k . min(Q C ,sl , Q C,r , Q C,sh )
(7.9)
whrre QD is equal to the demand horizontal shear force obtained from the seismic analysis divided by the net cross section of the subsystem. 7.3.1.2 Deformation criteria The deformation acceptance criterion for walls and piers is
D k. C
whrre D = the demand deformation obtained from the seismic analysis, and C = the deformation capacity.
(7.10)
C is further defined as C = 0.0004 h for rubble stone-masonry C = 0.002 h for good-quality coursed stone-masonry
h = the storey height. (7.11a) (7.11b)
78 7.3.2 Arches
7.3.2.1 Strength criteria The strength criteria for arches are governed by two modes of failure: crushing and crack-opening of the masonry. Crushing criterion
Q D k . QC
(7.12)
where QD and QC are, respectively, the maximum compressive stress due to gravitational and seismic loads, and the compressive strength of the stone-masonry. Cracking criterion Cracking of the arch due to bending stress occurs when
A t A c
(7.13)
where At is the area in tension, Ac the area in compression, and the limit ratio. For a value of 0.67 is suggested. 7.3.2.2 Deformation criteria The deformation acceptance criterion for stone arches is that the thrust line lie within the shape of the arch, as shown in Figure 7.1. The tolerated in-plane and out-of-plane movement can be approximated from the geometry of the arch. In-plane movement
H ,In Plane 2 b h l
(7.14)
where H, In-Plane = the horizontal in-plane movement of the arch abutment due to all actions (dead load, seismic etc.), b = the depth of the arch, h = the height of the arch, and l = the span of the arch. Out-of-plane movement
H ,Out of Plane t h 2h 0
(7.15)
where H, Out-of-Plane t h0
= the horizontal out-of-plane movement of the arch key due to all actions, = the thickness of the arch, and = the height of the centre of mass above the abutments line.
79
Figure 7.1 (a) Minimum and (b) maximum abutment thrust due to in-plane movement 7.3.3 Vaults and domes The stability acceptance criterion is the predominant one for vaults and domes. A non-linear analysis can be performed to determine the stability of the vaults during an earthquake. Alternatively, a simple stability criterion is given to accept the stress values using the geometry of the dome. This criterion is expressed by
Q D k . Q cr Q cr = k E t
(7.16)
where QD = the maximum compressive stress due to gravitational and seismic loads, Qcr = the critical stress, k = the knowledge factor, k = a constant value equal to 0.25 (Heyman, 1995), t = the thickness of the dome, and =the radius of curvature of the shell. From the geometry of the arch, the tolerated movement can be obtained from
H , Radial t
h 2r
(7.17)
where H, Radial is the horizontal radial movement of the supporting ring, t is the thickness of the dome, and r is the radius of the dome. For hemispherical domes, the criterion becomes
H , Radial
t 2
(7.18)
Figure 7.2 illustrates the cracking pattern of a dome due to radial movement.
80
81
where D = the demand deformation obtained from the seismic analysis, and C = the deformation capacity.
C is further defined as C = 0.0004 h for rubble stone-masonry C = 0.002 h for good-quality coursed stone-masonry
h = the height of unsupported buttress. The stability acceptance criterion for stone arches requires that the thrust line lie within the shape of the arch. 7.3.6 Non-structural subsystems 7.3.6.1 Veneers Drift analysis is necessary for checking the stability of stone-masonry veneer. The limiting drift ratio is 0.001. A check of the anchor capacity for sustaining seismic forces and deformations is also required. 7.3.6.2 Pinnacles Strength acceptance criteria, similar to the ones used for structural piers, have to be used for these components. The anchors need to be considered, if the stonemasonry of the pinnacle includes such elements. 7.3.6.3 Appendages, parapets, cornices, statues, and other ornaments The criteria consist of meeting the force provisions of NBC 1995 for architectural components and the different requirements of the 1993 NRC Guidelines - Chapter 11. 7.3.6.4 Chimneys The criteria for structural stone-masonry walls can be used. The evaluation of the demand forces follows the provisions of NBC 1995. The general requirements for chimneys, provided by the 1993 NRC Guidelines - Chapter 11, must also be considered. 7.3.6.5 Masonry foundation elements A sliding mechanism can occur at the contact surface between the soil and the stone-masonry. Consequently, the capacity of this type of element is expressed by
Q C ,sl = f ( 0 up )
(7.11a) (7.11b)
(7.22)
where QC,sl is the sliding shear capacity of the foundation, f the coefficient of friction between soil and foundation, 0 the average normal stress due to gravity
82
loads, and up the normal stress due to the inertia forces produced by the vertical accelerations.
8. CLOSURE
These Guidelines provide engineers with analytical tools, material properties, and strength and deformation criteria, to assess the seismic demand and capacity of existing stone-masonry structures. The engineer should note that masonry structures have a complex geometry and non-uniform material properties, and therefore the analytical tools presented can only be considered a first approximation. Refined analytical models such as the finite element method are often needed to more accurately compute the deformation of the structure and the corresponding stress distribution. A case study is presented in Appendix A to illustrate the application of the guideline using three methods of assessments, 1. quick checks, 2. linear elastic analysis, and 3. refined dynamic analysis. The case study demonstrates that the guidelines can be employed while conducting simple or refined analysis for assessing the seismic performance of stone masonry structures. For structures requiring considerable intervention, as well as those with complex and irregular geometry, refined seismic analysis should be considered along with the use of these guidelines. These guidelines are developed to provide a more adequate and cost-effective assessment of the seismic performance of stone masonry structures.
84
Chapter 8: Closure
REFERENCES ASTM C99-87 (1993). Modulus of Rupture of Natural Building Stone, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia. ASTM C109-95. Compressive Strength of Hydraulic Cement Mortars (Using 2-in or 50-mm Cube Specimens), American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia. ASTM C170-90. Compressive Strength of Natural Building Stone, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia. ASTM C270-96. Standard Specification for Mortar for Unit Masonry, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia. ASTM C880-96. Test Method for Flexural Strength of Dimensional Stone, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia. ASTM C1006-84. Standard Test Method for Splitting Tensile Strength of Masonry Units, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia.
ASTM C1072-94. Measuressme of Masonry Flexural Bond Strength, AmericanSociety for Testing and
ASTM C1196-92. In situ compressive stre using flat jack measurement, Amer Philadelphia.
ASTM C1197-92. In situ measurement of flatjack method, American Society
ASTM E797-90. Measuring thickness by method, American Society for Tes
Baker, I.O., 1899 & 1912. A Treatise on
Int. Brick/Block Masonry Conf., Berlin, vol. 3, pp. 1397-1405. Binda, L., Fontana, A. and Anti, L., 1992. Load transfer in multiple leaf masonry walls, Proceedings of International Workshop Effectiveness of injection techniques for retrofitting of stone and brick masonry walls in seismic areas, Milan, Italy. Binda L., Modena C., Baronio G., 1993. Strengthening of masonry by injection technique, Proceedings of 6o NaMC, Vol. I, Philadelphia, pp. 1-14. Binda, L., Modena C., Baronio G., 1997. Repair and investigation techniques for stone-masonry walls. Construction and Materials, Vol. 11, No. 3, April, 1997, p. 133-142.
86
References
Chidiac, S.E., Rainer, J.H., Maurenbrecher, A.H.P., and Allen, D.E., 1995. Seismic evaluation of the Mackenzie Tower as a basis for the evaluation of the Parliament Buildings, NRC Report No. A8006.2, National Research Council Canada, Ottawa, Ont. Comit National dURSS de IIcomos., 1989. Le sauvetage du patrimoine architectonique de IArmenie, Icomos Information, No. 2, 11-22. CSA Standard CAN3-S304-M84, 1984. Masonry design for buildings, Canadian Standards Association, Rexdale, Ont. CSA Standard CAN3-S304.1-94, 1994. Masonry design for buildings (Limit States Design), Canadian Standards Association, Rexdale, Ont. Daly, R.A., Manger, G.E. and Clark, S.P., 1966. Density of rocks. In: Clark S.P. (ed.) Handbook of physical constants, Geol. Soc. Am Mem 97:19-26. Davison, J.I., 1974. Masonry Mortar, Canadian Building digest 163, National Research Council of Canada, Ottawa. Egermann, R., 1991. Experimental analysis of multiple leaf masonry wallets under vertical loading, Proceedings 2nd Conference on Structural Repair & Maintenance of Historical Buildings II, Brebbia, C.A. et al. (ed.), Seville, Spain, 197-208. Ergunay, O. and Erdik, M., 1984. Turkish experience on the earthquake performance of rural stone-masonry buildings, Proceedings Int. Conference on Natural Hazards Mitigation Research and Practice - Small Buildings and Community Development, New Delhi, India, 1-15. Erdik, M., 1990. The earthquake performance or rural stone-masonry buildings in Turkey, and, Earthquake damage evaluation vulnerability analysis of building structures, A. Koridze (ed.) INEEC Series of Engineering Aspects of Earthquake Phenomena, V3, Omega Scientific. Farmer, I.W., 1968. Engineering properties of rocks, Spoon, London. FEMA, 1992. NEHRP Guidelines for the seismic evaluation of existing buildings, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Report FEMA-178, Washington, D.C. FEMA, 1996. NEHRP Guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings (Ballot version), Federal Emergency Management Agency, Report FEMA-273, Washington, D.C. FEMA, 1997. Handbook for the Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings: A Prestandard (90% draft), Prepared by American Society of Civil Engineers, Prepared for Federal Emergency Management Agency, Report FEMA-178, Washington, D.C. Hendry, A. W., 1990. Structural Masonry, MacMillan Education Ltd.
References
87
Hendry, A. W., 1994. Aspects of stability and strength of stone-masonry structures, Proceedings of the British Masonry Society, No. 6. p. 212-217. Heyman, J., 1995. The Stone Skeleton, Cambridge University Press, Great Britain. ICS Reference library, 1909. Section on Building Stone, International Correspondence School, USA. Jackson, T.G., 1915. Gothic architecture in France, England and Italy, 2 vols. Cambridge. Jackson, T.G., 1921. The renaissance of Roman architecture, 3 vols. Cambridge. Kidder-Parker Architects and Builders Handbook, 1931. 18th Ed., John Wiley and Sons Inc. Mckee, H.J., 1973. Introduction to Early American Masonry, National Trust for Historic Preservation/Columbia University. Merriman, M., 1920. American Civil Engineers Handbook, 4th Edition John Wiley and Sons Inc. New York. Modena, C., 1989. Italian practice in evaluating, strengthening, and retrofitting masonry buildings, Proceeding of an International Seminar on Evaluating, strengthening, and retrofitting masonry buildings, Arlington, Texas, pp. 2.1-2.25. NRC, 1993. Guidelines for seismic evaluation of existing buildings, National Research Council Canada, Ottawa, Ont. NRC, 1995a. National Building Code of Canada 1995, National Research Council Canada, Ottawa, Ont. NRC, 1995b. Users Guide-NBC 1995. Structural Commentaries (Part 4), National Research Council Canada, Ottawa, Ont. NRC, 1995c. Guidelines for seismic upgrading of building structures, National Research Council Canada, Ottawa, Ont. Parks, W.A., 1912. Report on the building and ornamental stones of Canada, Vol. 1 Canada Department of Mines. Report 100. Government Printing Office. Pomonis, A., 1990. The October 1988 Elia Prefecture earthquake (SW Greece): Seismic environment, building types and change patterns, Disasters, Vol. 13, No. 2, 101-117. PWGSC, 1995. Guideline on seismic evaluation and upgrading of non-structural building components, Public Works and Government Services Canada, Ottawa, Ont. PWGSC, 1998. Procedure for seismic assessment of existing buildings, Public Works and Government Services Canada, Ottawa, Ont.
88
References
Schfer J. and Hilsdorf, H. K., 1993. Ancient and new lime mortars- the correlation between their composition, structure and properties, in Conservation of Stone and Other Materials, Vol. 2. E & F N Spon. Suprenant, B.A. and Schuller, M.P., 1994. Non-destructive evaluation and testing of masonry structures. The Aberdeen Group. Tomazevic, M. and Sheppard, P., 1982. The strengthening of stone-masonry buildings for revitalisation in seismic regions, Proceedings 7th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering , Athens, Vol. 5, 275-282. Tomazevic, M. and Anicic, D., 1989. Research, technology and practice in evaluating, strengthening and retrofitting masonry buildings: Some Yugoslavia experiences, Proceedings International Seminar on Evaluating, Strengthening and Retrofitting Masonry Buildings, Arlington, USA. Turnsek, V., Tercellj, S., Sheppard, P. and Tomazevic, M., 1978. The seismic resistance of stone-masonry walls and buildings, Proceedings 6th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Dubrovnik, Vol. 3. Paper 32, 255262. Winkler, E.M., 1994. Stone in Architecture. Properties, Durability, SpringerVerlag, N.Y.
APPENDIX A - CASE STUDY Introduction The following case study has been developed to illustrate the evaluation procedures of these guidelines. The case study represents an existing stone-masonry structure located in a moderate seismic region.

Guidelines For The Seismic Assessment of Stone-Masonry Structures

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Guidelines For The Seismic Assessment of Stone-Masonry Structures

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

GUIDELINES FOR THE SEISMIC ASSESSMENT OF STONE-MASONRY STRUCTURES

Copyright Public Works and Government Services Canada, 2000.

Guidelines for The Seismic Assessment of Stone-masonry Structures

Guidelines for The Seismic Assessment of Stone-masonry Structures

Guidelines for The Seismic Assessment of Stone-masonry Structures

Guidelines for The Seismic Assessment of Stone-masonry Structures

REFERENCES..................................................................................... 85 APPENDIX A - CASE STUDY................................................................. 89

Guidelines for The Seismic Assessment of Stone-masonry Structures

Guidelines for The Seismic Assessment of Stone-masonry Structures

Guidelines for The Seismic Assessment of Stone-masonry Structures

Guidelines for The Seismic Assessment of Stone-masonry Structures

Guidelines for The Seismic Assessment of Stone-masonry Structures

Guidelines for The Seismic Assessment of Stone-masonry Structures

xiii S t T t1, t2 tj ts ti seismic response factor

Guidelines for The Seismic Assessment of Stone-masonry Structures

H, Out of-Plane H, Radial f cr D 0 up 1, 2 C D,I

Guidelines for The Seismic Assessment of ktone-masonry ktructures

Storey Drift Ratio Subsystems

Tower UnreinforcedMasonry (URM) Wall UnreinforcedMasonry Bearing Wall Vault Veneer

Guidelines for The Seismic Assessment of Stone-masonry Structures

Guidelines for The Seismic Assessment of Stone-masonry Structures

Purpose of the guidelines

Guidelines for The Seismic Assessment of Stone-masonry Structures

Basis of the guidelines

Guidelines for The Seismic Assessment of Stone-masonry Structures

Contents of the guidelines

This document consists of eight chapters and one appendix:

Many of Canadas existing stone-masonry structures are designated as heritage

Guidelines for The Seismic Assessment of Stone-masonry Structures

2. EARTHQUDKE BEHAVIOUR OF STONE-MASONRY STRUCTURES

Guidelines for The Seismic Assessment of Stone-masonry Structures

Chapter 2: Earthquake Behaviour of Stone-masonry Structures

Guidelines for The Seismic Assessment of Stone-masonry Structures

Chapter 2: Earthquake Behaviour of Stone-masonry Structures

Guidelines for The Seismic Assessment of Stone-masonry Structures

Chapter 2: Earthquake Behaviour of Stone-masonry Structures

Types of structural stone-masonry subsystems and typical earthquake damage

Guidelines for The Seismic Assessment of Stone-masonry Structures

Chapter 2: Earthquake Behaviour of Stone-masonry Structures

Fi gure 251 Inadequate

Chapter 2: Earthquake Behaviour of Stone-masonry Structures

Guidelines for The Seismic Assessment of Stone-masonry Structures

Chapter 2: Earthquake Behaviour of Stone-masonry Structures

Guidelines for The Seismic Assessment of Stone-masonry Structures

Chapter 2: Earthquake Behaviour of Stone-masonry Structures

Guidelines for The Seismic Assessment of Stone-masonry Structures

Chapter 2: Earthquake Behaviour of Stone-masonry Structures

Guidelines for The Seismic Assessment of Stone-masonry Structures

Chapter 2: Earthquake Behaviour of Stone-masonry Structures

Guidelines for The Seismic Assessment of Stone-masonry Structures

Chapter 2: Earthquake Behaviour of Stone-masonry Structures

Guidelines for The Seismic Assessment of Stone-masonry Structures

Chapter 2: Earthquake Behaviour of Stone-masonry Structures

Figure 2.11 Typical unconfined massive stone-masonry foundation

Types of non-structural stone-masonry subsystems and typical hazards

Guidelines for The Seismic Assessment of Stone-masonry Structures

Chapter 2: Earthquake Behaviour of Stone-masonry Structures

Chapter 2: Earthquake Behaviour of Stone-masonry Structures

Guidelines for The Seismic Assessment of Stone-masonry Structures

Chapter 2: Earthquake Behaviour of Stone-masonry Structures

Guidelines for The Seismic Assessment of Stone-masonry Structures

Chapter 2: Earthquake Behaviour of Stone-masonry Structures

Sec. 2.2 Sec. 3.4