CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

The objective of this research work was to determine the behavior of typical confined brick masonry buildings subjected to seismic loadings. Response modification and ductility ratio of the confined brick masonry building was evaluated. The research work was aimed at the growing demand of confined brick masonry buildings after 2005 Kashmir earthquake which resulted in the destruction of more than 450,000 buildings.
6.1 SUMMARY

A survey of building typology and inventory has been carried out in Peshawar city and earthquake affected area, including Abbottabad and Mansehra city. About 65 building drawings have been collected from these cities and analyzed. Typical single story and double story buildings have been selected on the basis of wall density ratio close to mean value of the analyzed drawings. Masonry materials survey has also been made, including survey of mortar, bricks and rebars. Masonry mortar samples were collected in Peshawar as well as in Abbottabad and Mansehra city from the construction sites. The survey shows that cement-sand and cement-sand-khaka (stone dust) mortar were the typical mortar used in the area. The popular mix proportions are 1:6, 1:8 in cement-sand and 1:4:4 in cement-sand-khaka by volume. The mean compressive strength of masonry mortar was found to be 837 psi (5.77 MPa). Test data of fired clay brick and rebars was collected from Material Testing Lab, N-W.F.P UET, Peshawar. Mean compressive strength of the brick was 2350 psi (16.2 MPa). Grade 40 and 60 deformed bar are mainly used in buildings. Grade 40 bars are mostly used in residential buildings from 3/8 to 6/8 inch diameter. Data about compressive strength of structural concrete was; however, not collected. Compressive strength of concrete cores cut from existing buildings vary from 1500 (10.34 MPa) to 2500 psi (17.24 MPa). The mean compressive strength of masonry unit and masonry mortar comply with minimum requirements of Pakistan building code 2007 and Eurocode 6. 151

The experimental work has been divided into three phases. In the first phase properties of prototype masonry have been determined. In the second phase, properties of model materials, including masonry mortar, masonry unit and micro-concrete have been simulated. The mechanical properties of model masonry have been evaluated. In the last and final phase model buildings have been fabricated and tested on shake table to evaluate their seismic response. In order to fulfill the requirements of complete model similitude law extensive experimental work has been carried out for modeling masonry mortar, model brick and micro concrete. Mixes with different proportions have been prepared and tested in compression to simulate the masonry mortar. Cement-sand, cement-sand-lime, cement-lime-surkhi (brick remains), cement-lime-marble powder and lime-surkhi were used in different proportions. Almost 40 batches of masonry mortar have been tested. Finally, cement-lime-sand (1:1:5), has been selected as masonry mortar. Cement-lime-sand (1:1:5), having coarser sand than used in masonry mortar, has been selected as micro concrete. Cement-lime-surkhi (1:1:2) has been used for fabricating model masonry unit. Surkhi (burnt brick remains) passed through sieve no 8 and retained on sieve 30 has been used to simulate specific weight of the prototype brick as cement-lime-sand resulted in high specific weight. In order to reduce the fabrication efforts, model bricks were fabricated in three different dimensions. That is actual model brick of dimensions 2.2x1.1x0.67 (56x27x17 mm) (length x width x height), model brick with double height 2.2x1.1x1.34 inch (56x27x34 mm) and model brick double in width with dimensions 2.2x2.2x0.67 (56x56x17 mm) are used in model masonry wallets. The prototype and model masonry assemblage has been tested in compression, diagonal compression and cyclic test. Modulus of elasticity and rigidity has been determined. The compression strength of prototype masonry was 828 psi (5.7 MPa) and modulus of elasticity was 290 psi (2.0 MPa). Diagonal shear strength of prototype masonry was 51.0 psi (0.35 MPa) and modulus of rigidity was 26.0 psi (0.18 MPa). Model masonry walls of all the three type of bricks have been tested. It was concluded that model bricks doubled in height and width resulted in high strengths than actual model brick walls.

152

A small scale model of single and double story building has been tested on single degree of freedom shake table. Scale factor four and complete model similarity has been adopted for the models construction on the basis of capacity of the shake table and economy. Kobe accelerogram compressed in time with square root of scale factor but with the same PGA value as original record has been used for shaking table test of the reduced model. The models have been subjected to increasing intensity of vibration in each test run. The models have been instrumented with accelerometers and displacement transducers connected at the floor slab at front of the in-plane walls. Four accelerometers and four string pots have been used in single story model. However, four string pots and two accelerometers have been connected at each floor in double story models to measure response acceleration and displacement at the floor level. Additional weights are attached to each floor of the model to simulate the dead load of flooring. The confining elements (tie columns and bond beams) are designed according to Eurocode requirements. However, horizontal reinforcement were not provided to connect tie columns and masonry walls. Both the models failed in shear. Cracks initiated in masonry walls were confined by the confining elements. However, with the increased intensity of shaking, the cracks propagated and damaged the tie columns. During the final intensity of shaking, crushing of masonry units at the corners of walls, crushing of concrete and buckling of rebars in the tie columns have been observed. In the case of double story building model, damage was concentrated in the ground floor. However, the in-plane walls were severely damaged at high intensities of shaking; the confining elements prevented the collapse of model. The confining elements also prevented collapse of out-of-plane walls which are generally vulnerable in the URM buildings. Separation of masonry walls from the tie columns at early stages of shaking could be attributed to the absence of horizontal reinforcement. It is, therefore, recommended to provide horizontal reinforcement to connect the tie columns and masonry walls. However, further research work should be carried out to evaluate the effect of horizontal reinforcement on the ductility and energy dissipation capacity of confined masonry walls. However, further research work should be carried out to evaluate the effect of horizontal reinforcement on the ductility and energy dissipation capacity of confined masonry walls.

153

Seismic resistance and deformation capacity of the model have been evaluated on the basis of measured acceleration and displacement response. Base shear is determined by multiplying the response acceleration, measured at the attainment of maximum response displacement with masses concentrated at floor level. A graph of base shear coefficient, that is base shear divided by total weight of the model and first story rotation angle, first story drift divided by height of first story has been plotted. The curve is idealized as bilinear curve. Complete elastic analysis has also been carried out by modeling the reduced scale building in SAP, computer software. The response modification factor, R of single story model determined on the basis of global ductility ratio is 3.04 and the ductility ratio, comes out to be 5.13 for single story building. However, response modification factor determined by dividing elastic base shear over ultimate base shear comes out to be 2.16 for the single story model. The response modification factor evaluated for double story model on the basis of ductility ratio is 2.41 which is conservative value. In order to extrapolate the shaking table parameters and response characteristics of the model to the prototype earthquake and building, laws of complete model similarity have been taken into consideration. However, actual scale factor is to be considered instead of theoretical. The actual scale factor is determined as the relation between properties of the prototype that are target values to that of properties measured on model masonry. As the basic failure mode in the single and double story model was shear, therefore shear strength should be kept as the basis of the true scale factor. The scale factors for other physical quantities are determined on the basis of geometric scale factor and the strength factor. The base shear and shake table accelerations at the three characteristic states have been extrapolated to the prototype building. The limit states are damage limit state where the first significant crack occurs or where there is significant drop in the stiffness, the maximum resistance limit state and ultimate limit state that is before collapse and where the structural walls in the first story are severely damaged. Base shear and the acceleration at the three limit states are given in table 5.14 and 5.15. The tables are reproduced as given below.

154

Table 6.1 Parameters of Seismic Resistance for Single Story building

Description of limit state Elastic limit (R125) Maximum Resistance (R175) Ultimate state (R200) Base shear Coefficient 0.482 0.778 0.18 Story Rotation angle (%) 0.25 1.18 2.1 Maximum Ground Acceleration (g) 0.42 0.81 1.15

Table 6.2 Parameters of Seismic Resistance for Double Story building

Description of limit state Elastic limit (R30) Maximum Resistance (R100) Ultimate state (R300) Base shear Coefficient 0.180 0.272 0.134 Story Rotation angle (%) 0.37 0.55 0.80 Maximum Ground Acceleration (g) 0.254 0.461 1.02

It can be seen that both single and double story building would be able to resist with minor damage an earthquake with PGA 0.40g and 0.25g and without collapse an earthquake with PGA 1.1g and 1.0g respectively. It is concluded that properly constructed and designed single and double story models could be used in high seismic zones (Pakistan Building Code 2007). On the basis of observed behavior and wall density ratio it could be concluded that the Eurcode requirements are stringent for single story building.
6.2 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the experimental work, the following conclusions and recommendations are made. Further, research areas are identified to investigate vulnerability in the masonry buildings and its subsequent mitigation.
Conclusions:

Shear is the predominant failure mode in both single and double story models The analysis of measured response and observed behavior of the single story model reveals that the typical single story building would withstand with minor damage an earthquake of PGA 0.40g and would not collapse under an earthquake of PGA 1.15 g.

155

The typical double story building would withstand with minor damage an earthquake of PGA 0.25g and without collapse an earthquake of PGA 1.0g. Single and double story confined masonry buildings properly designed and constructed could be used in high seismic zones (zone 3 and 4 of Pakistan Building Code 2007). The ground story walls could collapse or severely damaged during strong ground motion (that is PGA 0.8 and higher) because of the absence of horizontal reinforcement. The confining elements could prevent collapse of out-of-plane walls of both single and double story buildings at strong earthquake, if proper monolithic behavior of tie columns and masonry walls is achieved. The eurocode requirements for the design of confined masonry buildings seems stringent for single story building. The provision of toothing in walls could not prevent separation of walls from confining element at strong ground motion. The response modification factor of single story building confined according to Eurocode 8 is 3.0. Response modification factor for double story building designed according to Eurocode is determined to be 2.41. The Eurocode requirements for response modification factor are found adequate. The mean compressive strength of masonry unit, 2350 psi (16.2 MPa), tested in the Material Laboratory, N-W.F.P UET, Peshawar, comply with the minimum requirements of Pakistan Building Code 2007 and Eurocode 6. The mean compressive strength of masonry mortar collected from field in Peshawar, Abbotabad and Mansehra after Kashmir earthquake comply with the minimum requirements of Pakistan Building Code 2007 and Eurocode 6.

Recommendations:

In order to delay extensive damage to masonry wall, it is recommended to provide horizontal bed joint reinforcement to connect the masonry walls and tie-columns. Wall density ratio should not be less than 5 % in seismic zone 3 and 4. The building should be regular in plan and elevation. 156

Minimum thickness of masonry wall should be kept at 9 inch (229 mm). Minimum thickness of confining element should be 9 inch (229 mm). Minimum 1% longitudinal reinforcement should be provided in the confining element. Stirrups of 3/8 inch (10 mm) diameter bars should be provided in the confining elements at a maximum spacing of 6 inch (152 mm) c/c. At least 48 diameters splice length should be provided. The longitudinal reinforcement of tie-columns should be adequately anchored in foundation and bond beam/floor slab. The reinforcement must be tied with foundation reinforcement at the bottom as well as with the bond beam/floor slab reinforcement at the top. Tie-column should be provided at 16 ft (4.2 m) c/c horizontal spacing. Not more than two stories building should be constructed in zone 4 and three stories in zone 3. Minimum compressive strength of brick, mortar and concrete should be1800 psi (12.4 MPa) , 800 psi (5.5 MPa) and 2000 psi (13.8 MPa), respectively.

6.3 FUTURE RESEARCH WORK

Numerical analysis of the typical confined brick masonry buildings is recommended. As real earthquake is three dimensional phenomenons, experimental testing of typical confined brick masonry building model on 6-degree of freedom shake table is recommended. Cyclic testing of full-scale confined brick masonry walls with different dimensions of confining elements and reinforced with different reinforcement ratio should be carried out. The optimum dimensions of confining element and reinforcement ratio could be suggested and made part of the Pakistan Building Code 2007. Shake table test of single story building model with smaller dimensions and less reinforcement ratio as required by Eurocode for both horizontal and vertical confining element should be tested and compared with the results of this research.

157

Effect of different earthquake accelerograms on the typical confined masonry building should be carried out. Confined masonry walls with different horizontal reinforcement ratio should be carried out and the effect of horizontal reinforcement on the seismic resistance and ductility should be investigated in future studies. Shake table testing of typical confined masonry building with flexible diaphragm should be carried out to study its behavior. The study of seismic behavior of typical confined block masonry buildings is recommended for future research work.

158