Fragility Analysis of Reinforced Masonry Shear Walls

Juan Murcia-Delso,a)
M.EERI,

and P. Benson Shing,a)

M.EERI

Fragility functions have been developed to evaluate the damageability of fully grouted and partially grouted reinforced masonry shear walls subjected to inplane seismic loading. Six damage states are considered, representing different levels of flexure, diagonal shear, and sliding shear damage. For each damage state, two classes of fragility functions have been developed. One has the story-drift ratio as the demand parameter. The other uses normalized demand parameters that account for the specific loading condition and design details of a wall component. All the fragility functions are derived from experimental data except for those developed for partially grouted walls and the sliding shear damage state. With both classes of fragility functions, the seismic damageability of flexure-dominated cantilever reinforced masonry shear walls in a four-story building has been assessed. It has been shown that the normalized flexural demand parameter provides a better correlation to the degree of damage developed in a wall than the story-drift ratio. [DOI: 10.1193/1.4000075]

INTRODUCTION Performance-based engineering has emerged as a promising framework for the design of buildings and bridges to withstand seismic loads using performance objectives, such as the expected repair cost and downtime, which are meaningful to owners and decision makers. For the performance-based seismic design and assessment of buildings, new procedures and guidelines are being developed in the ATC-58 Project (ATC 2010). One essential step in applying this methodology is the use of fragility functions to assess the damageability of structural and nonstructural building components. A fragility function relates the probability of exceedance of a damage state to a demand parameter (such as the story-drift ratio or floor acceleration). This paper presents two sets of fragility functions developed for six probable damage states of reinforced masonry shear walls subjected to in-plane seismic loading and explains how they are developed. One set is for fully grouted reinforced masonry walls and the other is for partially grouted walls. For each set, two classes of fragility functions are developed. One, referred to as Class A, uses the story-drift ratio as the demand parameter. The other, referred to as Class B, uses normalized demand parameters that are tailored for the different damage modes and account for the specific design details and loading conditions of individual wall components in a building. The use of the latter fragility functions requires more refined analytical models. For the Class A fragility functions, five damage states have been considered. Three correspond to a flexure-dominated failure mode, and two to a diagonal shear-dominated failure mode. For the Class B fragility functions, a sixth damage state,

a)

Dept. of Structural Engineering, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093-0085

1523

Earthquake Spectra, Volume 28, No. 4, pages 15231547, November 2012; 2012, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute

1524

J. MURCIA-DELSO AND P. B. SHING

which corresponds to sliding shear behavior, has been included. These are the most common failure modes of reinforced masonry walls as identified in prior research (e.g., Shing et al. 1991) and in FEMA 306 (ATC 1998). Each damage state reflects a certain level of difficulty or cost to repair or restore the wall to its original state. All the fragility functions are derived from experimental data except for those developed for partially grouted walls and the sliding shear damage state. Only limited experimental data are available for partially grouted walls, and these data are mainly for shear-dominated behavior. Hence, the fragility functions for flexure-dominated partially grouted walls have to be derived based on rational assumptions. The use of the fragility functions for a seismic damageability assessment has been demonstrated using a four-story reinforced masonry shear wall building that has flexure-dominated cantilever walls. Furthermore, with this building example, a parametric study has been conducted to evaluate the correlation of the demand parameters to the degree of damage sustained by the structure. EXPERIMENTAL DATA The majority of the experimental data gathered here to construct fragility functions for different damage states is from single-story, fully grouted, reinforced masonry cantilever walls. Data on multistory walls and partially grouted walls are very limited. To be specific, fully grouted walls tested by Shing et al. (1991), Brunner (1994), Ibrahim and Sutter (1999), Shedid et al. (2008), Voon and Ingham (2006), and Priestley (1976) are used here. This set of data consists of 50 single-story cantilever walls with aspect ratios (i.e., height/length) ranging from 0.5 to 2. The vertical and horizontal reinforcing ratios vary between 0.31% and 1.39%, and 0.01% and 0.98%, respectively. The walls were tested with monotonic and cyclic lateral loading histories, and were subjected to different axial compressive stresses ranging between 0% and 11% of the compressive strength of the masonry prisms. The characteristics of these walls and the loading conditions are presented in the appendix. The wall specimens showed different behaviors: flexure, shear, and mixed flexure and shear. In a few cases, sliding was observed. It should be mentioned that 85% of the flexure-dominated fully grouted walls in this data set met the maximum flexural reinforcement requirement for special reinforced masonry walls, as stipulated in the strength design provisions of the Masonry Standards Joint Committee code (MSJC 2008). For partially grouted walls, data by Voon and Ingham (2006), Ingham et al. (2001), and Ghanem et al. (1992 and 1993) are used in this study. This set of data consists of 15 singlestory cantilever walls with aspect ratios ranging from 0.6 to 3. The vertical and horizontal reinforcing ratios vary between 0.20% and 1.45%, and 0% and 0.36%, respectively. Monotonic and cyclic lateral loading histories were used, and the axial stresses varied between 0% and 9% of the compressive strength of the masonry prisms. Most of the specimens showed a shear-dominated behavior. The characteristics of these walls and the loading conditions are presented in the appendix. The values of the demand parameters at which the damage states of interest were exceeded are obtained from each wall whenever the information is available. For a wall subjected to cyclic load reversals, two data points are obtained for each damage state with one from each loading direction.

FRAGILITY ANALYSIS OF REINFORCED MASONRY SHEAR WALLS

1525

BEHAVIOR MODES AND DAMAGE STATES For the purpose of developing fragility functions, distinct damage states that are associated with different levels of repair, restoration effort, and cost have been identified. They are associated with different behavior modes of a wall. Based on experimental observations (e.g., see Shing et al. 1991), the behavior modes of reinforced masonry shear walls can be classified into three main types: (a) flexure, (b) diagonal shear, and (c) sliding shear. A damage mode can be further classified into slight, moderate, and severe damage. The ductility associated with different behavior modes and the damage states described below are only relevant to reinforced masonry. Unreinforced masonry may behave differently. Flexural damage may involve flexural cracking, the yielding, buckling, and fracture of flexural reinforcement, masonry crushing at wall toes, the slip of lap splices, and out-of-plane buckling in the compression zone of a wall, as summarized in FEMA 306 (ATC 1998). Walls dominated by flexure can exhibit relatively ductile behavior. However, a larger axial compressive load or a higher flexural reinforcement ratio can lead to less ductile behavior. The damage evolution for flexural-dominated walls is gradual. Hence, flexural damage is classified into three states: slight (DS1), moderate (DS2), and severe damage (DS3). A description of these damage states is provided in Table 1. The damage patterns of a wall (identified as Specimen 17) tested by Shing et al. (1991) for DS2 and DS3 are shown in Figure 1. The behavior of walls dominated by diagonal shear cracking is often very brittle. The shear strength of a wall depends on its aspect ratio, the tensile and compressive strengths of the masonry, the quantity of the shear reinforcement, and the applied axial compressive load. Walls with low effective height-to-length HL ratios and insufficient shear reinforcement will most likely exhibit this type of behavior. Shear behavior is brittle, and the first occurrence of major diagonal shear cracks in a wall can be considered moderate damage as such a wall may not be able to take much additional load or deformation before exhibiting a drastic load drop. For this reason, only two damage states are considered for shear-critical walls. They are moderate (DS4) and severe damage (DS5) as defined in Table 1. The damage patterns of a wall (identified as Specimen 16) tested by Shing et al. (1991) representing DS4 and DS5 are shown in Figure 2. As shown in Figure 1, diagonal shear cracks can also occur in a flexure-dominated wall, but they may not be able to open wide enough to result in brittle shear failure when sufficient shear and flexural reinforcement is present to restrain the cracks. Therefore, the repair effort and cost required for the flexural damage states should also take the shear cracks into account, and vice versa. Walls with a low aspect ratio and low axial compressive load have a tendency to exhibit sliding shear behavior. This behavior can impair the flexural ductility of a wall by accelerating wall damage such as masonry spalling and bar buckling at the base. Significant base sliding may also induce severe damage to other structural and nonstructural components. Hence, sliding shear failure is generally considered undesirable and classified as brittle behavior. For sliding shear damage, only the severe state (DS6) is considered (see Table 1), as damage can quickly evolve from slight to severe as sliding increases. The classification of damage into slight, moderate, or severe is based on the effort and cost required for the repair and reconstruction. Walls suffering slight damage would require

1526

J. MURCIA-DELSO AND P. B. SHING

Table 1.

Description of damage states for reinforced masonry shear walls

Identification criteria to calibrate fragility functions When a flexure-critical wall was loaded to 80% of its peak in-plane lateral resistance.

Damage state Slight flexure damage (DS1)

Description of the damage

A few flexural and shear cracks with hardly

noticeable residual crack widths. Slight yielding of extreme vertical reinforcement. No spalling. No fracture or buckling of vertical reinforcement. No structurally significant damage.

Moderate flexure damage (DS2)

Numerous flexural and diagonal cracks. Mild toe crushing with vertical

cracks or light spalling at wall toes.

No fracture or buckling of reinforcement. Small residual deformation.

When a flexure-critical wall was loaded to its peak inplane lateral resistance.

Severe flexure damage (DS3)

Severe flexural cracks. Severe toe crushing and spalling. Fracture or buckling of vertical

reinforcement.
Significant residual deformation.

When a flexure-critical wall was loaded beyond its peak resistance and exhibited a load drop of 20% with respect to the peak. When major diagonal cracks crossing almost the entire length of a wall first occurred, based on experimental observations. When a shear-critical wall reached its peak shear resistance. Derived analytically.

Moderate diagonal shear damage (DS4)

First occurrence of major diagonal cracks. Cracks remain closed with hardly

noticeable residual crack widths after load removal. Severe diagonal shear damage (DS5) Severe sliding shear damage (DS6)
Wide diagonal cracks with typically

one or more cracks in each direction. Crushing or spalling at wall toes.

Large permanent wall offset. Spalling and crushing at the wall

toes due to dowel action and flexure.

Shear fracture of vertical

reinforcement or dowels.

only minor cosmetic repair by patching the cracks and painting each side of the wall. Walls suffering moderate damage should be reparable. For fully grouted walls, cracks can be repaired by epoxy injection. To do this, both sides of a crack need to be sealed and injection ports installed at 6- to 12-inch spacing on one or both sides of a crack, depending on the wall thickness, together with some monitoring ports. Then, epoxy is injected with a pump. If a

FRAGILITY ANALYSIS OF REINFORCED MASONRY SHEAR WALLS

1527

Figure 1. Damage patterns for Specimen 17 tested by Shing et al. (1991): (a) DS2, moderate flexural damage, (b) DS3, severe flexural damage.

Figure 2. Damage patterns for Specimen 16 tested by Shing et al. (1991): (a) DS4, moderate diagonal shear damage, (b) DS5, severe diagonal shear damage.

wall is partially grouted, the wall cavities may have to be fully filled with grout and the remaining cracks will be injected with more fluid nonshrink grout. If spalling has occurred, the loose masonry should be removed, and replaced by a nonshrink grout. For severe damage, repair or partial replacement of the wall may not be the most economical solution. Most likely, the entire wall component would have to be replaced. This would call for the shoring of the structure, the removal of the wall component, and the construction of a new wall. Fragility functions for each of the aforementioned damage states have been derived from experimental data. To do that, the level of damage has been calibrated against the maximum lateral load a wall was subjected to with respect to its peak resistance and also against the degree of strength degradation exhibited by a wall. This reduces the subjectivity in data interpretation. The criteria used to identify the various damage states from experimental data are described in Table 1. Due to the lack of sufficient experimental observations on shear sliding, the fragility function for DS6 has been derived analytically.

1528

J. MURCIA-DELSO AND P. B. SHING

DEMAND PARAMETERS Two classes of fragility functions using different demand parameters have been developed. The Class A functions use the story-drift ratio as the demand parameter, which is a simple and widely used measure of seismic demand on a structure or structural component. However, this parameter may not properly reflect the flexural demand on a wall and may not necessarily be a good index of the severity of damage caused by diagonal shear or sliding shear. Furthermore, it should be noted that the experimental data used to develop the fragility functions are from a specific set of wall specimens that might not truly reflect the actual design details and loading condition of a wall system being evaluated. The values of the story-drift ratio reflecting different damage states may vary as the design and loading conditions change. For this reason, a second set of demand parameters, which account for the actual design and loading conditions of a wall system and are thought to be a better index of the damage level, is introduced. The Class B fragility functions are based on these demand parameters. They can be used if one chooses to conduct a more refined analysis of a wall system.
DEMAND PARAMETER FOR CLASS A FRAGILITY FUNCTIONS

The Class A fragility functions use the story-drift ratio (i.e., the story drift divided by the story height, h) as the demand parameter. The story drift in a wall system can be contributed by flexural and shear deformations as well as shear sliding. However, the flexural and shear deformations of a wall are often difficult to separate and quantify accurately from test data. Furthermore, simplified analytical models used for performance assessment often do not distinguish these deformation components. Even when the shear deformation is explicitly accounted for in more refined models, its accuracy would be far lower than the predicted flexural deformation. Hence, only the lump-sum story drift is used to derive the fragility functions. To this end, the total story-drift ratios corresponding to the damage states defined above are obtained from the experimental data. When using these functions for performance assessment, the calculation of the story drift requires special attention. In a multistory cantilever wall, much of the story drift of an upper-story wall component can be caused by the rigid-body rotation, , induced by the flexural deformation in the lower stories. This rigidbody rotation should be taken out from the numerical result so as not to overestimate the deformation demand on the wall component. Hence, a modified story-drift ratio, hdef h , has been adopted here.
DEMAND PARAMETERS FOR CLASS B FRAGILITY FUNCTIONS

For the Class B fragility functions, the demand parameters associated with flexural and shear damage are defined differently. The damage of flexure-dominated walls can be related to the level of flexural deformation, while that caused by diagonal shear or sliding shear can be best related to the shear force demand as compared to the shear capacity because of the brittle and sudden nature of the latter. Hence, it is proposed that the demand parameter for the flexure damage states (i.e., DS1, DS2, and DS3) be displacement-based and that for the shear damage states (i.e., DS4, DS5, and DS6) be force-based. Flexural ductility is a continuous function of the axial compressive loads and quantity of flexural reinforcement. Hence, to have fragility functions that represent a broad range of flexural

FRAGILITY ANALYSIS OF REINFORCED MASONRY SHEAR WALLS

1529

behavior, a normalized displacement-based demand parameter is introduced here. Since the experimental data were obtained from cantilever wall specimens, such a wall configuration is used as an example to introduce the demand parameter proposed here. Curvature at the wall base could be a suitable demand parameter that reflects the level of flexural damage in a cantilever wall. Nevertheless, curvature is difficult to determine accurately from experimental data, and the prediction of curvature demand at the base of a wall depends, to a large extent, on the modeling assumptions, which may affect the length of the plastic hinge in which plastic deformation will localize. Hence, the following normalized flexural deformation NFD is proposed as the demand parameter for flexural damage states (DS1, DS2, and DS3):
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e1;62;529

N FD

uf lex um

(1)

in which uf lex is the displacement at the top of a cantilever wall due to flexure, and it is normalized by um , which is the theoretical wall displacement at which the maximum (peak) flexural resistance develops. Note that in a less ductile wall, um will have a lower magnitude. The normalization is to account for the variations in wall geometry, flexural reinforcement level, material properties, and the applied axial load, which may result in different flexural ductility, and to create fragility functions that are independent of these variables. For a cantilever wall that has a plastic hinge at the base, um can be calculated with the following equation (see Figure 3):
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e2;62;391

um uy up y

H2 e m y lp H e 0.5lp 3

(2)

in which m is the theoretical curvature that corresponds to the maximum (peak) moment, y is a nominal yield curvature, lp is the assumed effective plastic-hinge length, and H e is the effective wall height at which the resultant lateral load is located in the cantilever wall. The yield curvature can be estimated, as suggested by Priestley et al. (2007) for rectangular reinforced masonry walls, to be y 2.1 y Lw , in which y is the yield strain of the reinforcing steel, and Lw is the length of the wall. The evaluation of m can be based on the principles of

Figure 3. Calculation of um for a cantilever wall.

1530

J. MURCIA-DELSO AND P. B. SHING

mechanics with rational simplifying assumptions. To calculate m for the tested walls, the recommendations for flexural analysis in Sec. 3.3.2 of the masonry design code (MSJC 2008) are used. However, the actual material strengths are used instead of the nominal strengths. The effective plastic hinge length is estimated to be lp 0.22H e , which has been found to result in a good match of the experimental data for walls with different height-to-length ratios. The effective wall height, H e , can be obtained as the moment at the base of the wall divided by the base shear. This method of calculating the demand parameter NFD can be easily generalized for other situations where plastic deformation could develop in the upper stories of a cantilever wall due to the higher-mode effect, or in coupled or perforated walls with spandrel beams (Murcia-Delso and Shing 2011). To obtain uf lex for the different flexural damage states, the shear deformation has to be subtracted from the measured total deflection of a wall specimen. It is difficult to obtain an accurate evaluation of the shear deformation of a cracked wall. This data is not available for many of the wall specimens considered in this study. Test results from Shing et al. (1991) have shown that for flexure-dominated cantilever walls that had a height/length ratio of 1, as much as 55% of the top displacement at the peak load could be contributed by shear, while this contribution is calculated to be 42% for an elastic wall. Based on this observation, the contribution of the shear deformation to the total displacement of a cracked wall has been estimated by multiplying the proportion of the shear deformation calculated for an elastic wall by a factor of 1.3. This is used to extract the flexural deformation of all the walls considered in this study. Diagonal shear cracks tend to develop suddenly, and walls dominated by diagonal shear often exhibit very brittle behavior. Since the post-peak shear behavior is not of interest here because of its brittle nature, damage in shear can be best determined in terms of the shear force developed. To arrive at an objective demand parameter that considers the variations in the wall geometry, quantity of shear reinforcement, material properties, and applied axial load, the shear force demand needs to be normalized with respect to the shear strength of a wall, which accounts for all these factors. Hence, the following normalized diagonal shear demand parameter NDSD is adopted for damage states DS4 and DS5.
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e3;41;274

N DSD

V Vn

(3)

in which V is the absolute maximum shear force developed in a wall section and V n is the shear capacity calculated in accordance with Sec. 3.3.4.1.2 of the masonry design code (MSJC 2008) using the expected material strengths instead of the nominal strengths. This parameter is applicable to wall components and even spandrel beams in any wall system. Like diagonal shear damage, sliding shear occurs suddenly once the shear resistance at the base of a wall has been overcome. Sliding shear resistance depends on the level of the axial compressive load, the restraint provided by the flexural reinforcement, and the roughness of the sliding plane at the base of a wall. Hence, the normalized sliding shear demand parameter NSSD adopted for damage state DS6 assumes the same form as NDSD.
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e4;41;119

N SSD

V V sn

(4)

FRAGILITY ANALYSIS OF REINFORCED MASONRY SHEAR WALLS

1531

in which V sn is the sliding shear capacity that is estimated with the following formula:
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e5;62;627

V sn P 0.7As f y

(5)

in which P is the axial compressive load exerted on the sliding plane, As is the total area of the reinforcement crossing the sliding plane, f y is the expected yield strength of the reinforcement, and is the coefficient of friction at the sliding plane. The friction coefficient may assume a value of 0.7. The above formula is similar to that recommended in Sec. 6.3.4 of FEMA 306 (ATC 1998) but with a reduction factor of 0.7 applied to the steel resistance considering the likelihood that not all the vertical bars will reach the tensile yield strain when sliding occurs. This reduction is determined with the limited experimental data considered here. FRAGILITY FUNCTIONS The fragility functions have been derived following the methodology presented in the ATC-58 guidelines (ATC 2010). These functions are assumed to take the form of a lognormal distribution.   ln Dxm;i F i D (6) i
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e6;62;449

in which xm;i is the median, i is the dispersion, F i D is the conditional probability that a component will have a damage state i, or a more severe damage state when the value of the demand parameter is D, and is the standard normal (Gaussian) cumulative distribution function. Both the Class A and Class B fragility functions have been derived for fully grouted and partially grouted walls. Class A does not include the fragility functions for the sliding shear damage due to the lack of experimental data and appropriate analytical methods that can use the story-drift ratio as the demand parameter to derive such a function. The fragility function for each damage state and demand parameter as represented by the cumulative lognormal distribution shown in Equation 6 is derived by calculating the median xm and the random dispersion r of the demand parameter from relevant experimental data following the actual demand method described in Porter et al. (2007). Figure 4 plots the Class

Figure 4. Derived lognormal and empirical Class A fragility functions for fully grouted walls considering only random dispersion: (a) flexure-dominated, (b) shear-dominated.

1532

J. MURCIA-DELSO AND P. B. SHING

Figure 5. Derived lognormal and empirical Class B fragility functions for fully grouted walls considering only random dispersion: (a) flexure-dominated, (b) shear-dominated.

A fragility functions derived for fully grouted walls, and compares them to empirical cumulative distribution functions obtained from the experimental data using the plotting position method. Figure 5 plots the Class B fragility functions derived from experimental data for fully grouted walls and the corresponding empirical cumulative distribution functions. The goodness-of-fit of the derived lognormal distribution functions with the empirical functions has been measured using the Lilliefors test at a 5% significance level. The results of the Lilliefors tests are shown in Table 2. Even though four of the fragility functions did not pass this test, the derived and empirical fragility functions show a good match. The dispersion parameter, r , corresponding to the derived fragility curves in Figures 4 and 5 accounts only for the random variability of the experiments. A second dispersion parameter, u , is introduced in the fragility functions to account for the uncertainty that the tests represent the actual conditions in a real building or that the available reflects the true p test data random variability; and the total dispersion, , is taken as 2 2 (ATC 2010). It r u should be noted that u is assumed to be 0.25 for the Class A fragility functions (ATC 2010), while it is assumed to be 0.10 for Class B, based on the fact that the use of the normalized demand parameters in the Class B fragility functions better reflects the different design and loading conditions that might occur in real buildings. The values of the median and total dispersion of the demand parameters obtained for all the damage states are presented in Table 2. By substituting these values into Equation 6, the final fragility functions can be obtained. Due to the lack of experimental data on the sliding shear damage state (DS6), the Class B fragility function has been derived analytically by assuming that the median is equal to 0.92 times the analytically computed sliding shear capacity and the total dispersion is 0.4 (Porter et al. 2007). The sliding shear capacity is calculated with Equation 5. For partially grouted walls, only the fragility function for DS5 has been derived from experimental data. For this damage state, it has been observed that the fragility function for partially grouted walls has a lower median and higher dispersion that fully grouted walls. For the other damage states, there is not sufficient experimental data, and the functions

FRAGILITY ANALYSIS OF REINFORCED MASONRY SHEAR WALLS

1533

Table 2.
Wall type

Summary of fragility parameters and goodness-of-fit test

Fragility Damage class state DS1 DS2 DS3 DS4 DS5 DS1 DS2 DS3 DS4 DS5 DS6 DS1 DS2 DS3 DS4 DS5 DS1 DS2 DS3 DS4 DS5 DS6 Demand parameter Story-drift Story-drift Story-drift Story-drift Story-drift NFD NFD NFD NDSD NDSD NSSD Story-drift Story-drift Story-drift Story-drift Story-drift NFD NFD NFD NDSD NDSD NSSD ratio ratio ratio ratio ratio ratio ratio ratio ratio ratio xm 0.31% 0.87% 1.51% 0.36% 0.59% 0.31 0.91 1.69 0.86 1.05 0.92 0.18% 0.51% 0.86% 0.20% 0.33% 0.28 0.80 1.49 0.75 0.92 0.81 r 0.40 0.27 0.20 0.54 0.44 0.56 0.44 0.31 0.22 0.21 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. 0.74 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. 0.38 N.A. 1 0.45 0.35 0.30 0.60 0.50 0.55 0.45 0.30 0.25 0.25 0.40 0.75 0.60 0.55 0.85 0.752 0.65 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.302 0.45 Derivation Lilliefors method3 test E E E E E E E E E E A M.F.G M.F.G M.F.G M.F.G E M.F.G M.F.G. M.F.G M.F.G. E M.F.G. Pass Pass Fail Fail Pass Pass Fail Pass Fail Pass N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. Pass N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. Pass N.A.

Fully grouted

Partially grouted

The values of have been rounded to the closest 0.05. The value of has been reduced as explained in the text. 3 E: experimental; A: analytical; M.F.G: modified from fully grouted wall data.
1 2

have been derived by decreasing the values of the median, xm , and increasing the values of the dispersion, , obtained for the same respective damage states of fully grouted walls. These adjustments are made with the assumption that the differences in the respective fragility function parameters for DS1 through DS4 and DS6 for the two wall types are the same as those for DS5. Because of the higher dispersion for partially grouted walls, the probability of failure of partially grouted walls will be higher than that of fully grouted walls for demands at the lower tail of the fragility curves. However, the fragility curves for the two wall types may intersect at a point of high demand, resulting in a higher probability of failure for fully grouted walls beyond that point. This situation is unlikely and is an artifact caused by the lack of experimental data for partially grouted walls. To avoid such an unlikely situation for demands within the regime of interest, the following requirement has been imposed. The intersection of the two fragility curves should be at a demand not less than the mean plus three times the standard deviation of the demand values for fully grouted walls. Hence, the total

1534

J. MURCIA-DELSO AND P. B. SHING

dispersion, , for some damage states for partially grouted walls has been slightly reduced to meet the above condition. The resulting median and dispersion values are shown in Table 2. It is interesting to note that for the flexural damage states (DS1, DS2, and DS3), the Class B fragility functions have a higher dispersion of the demand parameter than the Class A functions, even though the demand parameter for the former is considered more relevant to the damage level of a wall. This larger dispersion can be attributed to two sources. One is the estimation of the shear deformations of the wall specimens and the other is the estimation of the effective plastic-hinge lengths. Furthermore, 85% of the flexuredominated wall specimens considered in this study met the maximum reinforcement ratio requirement for special walls in the MSJC code (MSJC 2008) and, therefore, had comparable ductility capacity. This possibly reduces the dispersion for Class A, which could otherwise be increased should the walls show a wider range of ductility. Hence, this data set is not the best to demonstrate the benefit of using the normalized flexural demand parameters. Nevertheless, for DS4 and DS5, the shear-dominated damage states, the Class A fragility functions show a much larger dispersion. To estimate the probability of exceeding a certain amount of required repair or replacement cost for a given seismic risk, it may be convenient to assume that the flexure-dominated (DS1, DS2, and DS3), diagonal shear-dominated (DS4 and DS5), and sliding sheardominated (DS6) damage states are mutually exclusive. With this assumption, one needs to determine the dominant behavior mode of a wall. For a wall to be considered flexure critical, its diagonal and sliding shear resistances have to be greater than the shear force required to develop the flexural resistance of the wall. If this condition is not met and the diagonal shear resistance is higher than the sliding shear resistance, then the wall is sliding shear critical. Otherwise, it is diagonal shear critical. The calculation of the flexural and diagonal shear resistances can follow the strength design provisions of the masonry design code (MSJC 2008) using the expected strengths of masonry and steel, while the sliding shear resistance can be calculated with Equation 5. The expected compressive strength of masonry can be assumed to be 1.25 times the nominal strength, based on the information from the Commentary section of the MSJC code (MSJC 2008). The expected yield strength of steel can be assumed to be 1.13 times the nominal value based on the study by Nowak et al. (2008). APPLICATION EXAMPLE
ARCHETYPE BUILDING

An example is presented here to apply the Class A and Class B fragility functions in order to assess the probability of different damage scenarios for a four-story building that has special reinforced masonry load-bearing walls with different earthquake ground motion records. This building was designed and analyzed by Koutromanos and Shing (2010) in a prior study. As shown in Figure 6, the lateral load-resisting system consists of eight reinforced masonry shear walls in each direction. These walls were designed according to the seismic provisions of ASCE/SEI 7-05 (ASCE/SEI 2005) and the strength design requirements of the MSJC code (MSJC 2008) for seismic design category (SDC) Dmax as defined in FEMA P695 (ATC 2009). All the walls are 40 ft. (12.2 m) high and 32 ft. (9.8 m) wide, and are made of fully grouted concrete masonry blocks with a nominal width of 8 in. (203 mm) and a nominal masonry compressive strength of 3 ksi (20.7 MPa). The walls in the east-west direction and

FRAGILITY ANALYSIS OF REINFORCED MASONRY SHEAR WALLS

1535

Figure 6. Four-story building with special load-bearing reinforced masonry walls.

the reinforced concrete columns carry all the gravity loads from the floor and roof slabs made of precast planks, while those in the north-south direction carry loads from the corridor area only. The east-west and north-south walls are not connected and are thus lineal walls. In this study, only the east-west walls are considered. The vertical and horizontal reinforcement ratios are 0.08% (12 No. 4 [12-mm] bars) and 0.12% (No. 5 [16-mm] bars at 32-in. [813-mm] spacing), respectively, over the entire height of these walls. Grade-60 steel (60 ksi [414 MPa] nominal yield strength) was chosen for the reinforcement. For the fragility assessment, three near-source ground motion records obtained from the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) Center ground motion database (PEER 2012a) are considered. They are severe ground motions recorded in the 1989 Loma Prieta, 1994 Northridge, and 1995 Kobe earthquakes. The elastic response spectra corresponding to these ground motions for 5% damping are plotted in Figure 7. The fundamental period of the structure calculated from the analytical model is 0.23 sec. As shown in Figure 7, the spectral acceleration at this structural period for all three records is higher than that of the design spectrum, which is 1.0 g. In particular, the Corralitos record from the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake would correspond to the maximum considered earthquake (MCE). Nonlinear time-history analyses were conducted with the selected ground motions. In the design of the walls, the coupling action introduced by the floor and roof slabs was ignored; and this is also assumed in the analyses. As a result, only a single four-story cantilever wall needs to be analyzed with the appropriate tributary gravity load and seismic mass. The values of the tributary gravity load and seismic mass for this wall at each floor level are given in

1536

J. MURCIA-DELSO AND P. B. SHING

Figure 7. Elastic response spectra for 5% damping ratio. Table 3.

Floor No. 2 3 4 Roof

Gravity load and seismic mass distribution for each east-west wall
Gravity load, kips (kN) 152 152 152 132 (676) (676) (676) (587) Seismic mass, kips-sec2/ft. (kg) 9.9 9.9 9.9 7.9 1.44 105 1.44 105 1.44 105 1.15 105

Table 3. In addition to the self-weight of the structure and superimposed dead load, 25% of the design live load is also included in these values following the recommendations in FEMA P695 (ATC 2009). With the assumption that the flexural and shear damage states are mutually exclusive, the first step in the fragility assessment is to determine the governing failure mode of the walls using the methods recommended earlier in this paper. For this purpose, the expected masonry compressive strength is assumed to be 3.75 ksi (25.9 MPa) and the expected yield strength of the reinforcement is 68 ksi (469 MPa). It has been found that for these walls, the shear force required to develop the flexural moment resistance at the base of the wall is 387 kips (1,721 kN), while the diagonal shear resistance and sliding shear resistance are 705 kips (3,136 kN) and 491 kips (2,184 kN), respectively. As a result, the walls are considered flexure-dominated, and the fragility functions for DS1, DS2, and DS3 are used here. For the fragility assessment, the values of the relevant demand parameters are obtained for each story and the probability of occurrence of each damage state is obtained from the fragility functions.
MODELING OF NONLINEAR WALL BEHAVIOR

For the time-history analyses, the modeling strategy adopted is the same as that used by Koutromanos and Shing (2010). The analyses are conducted with the OpenSees program, developed by the PEER Center (PEER 2012b), using displacement-based beam-column

FRAGILITY ANALYSIS OF REINFORCED MASONRY SHEAR WALLS

1537

Figure 8. Nonlinear model of the wall.

elements with a fiber cross section to model the flexural behavior. Shear deformation is modeled with a zero-length elastic spring for each story. However, diagonal shear and sliding shear failures are treated as nonsimulated modes, and the flexural and shear mechanisms are assumed to be uncoupled. The discretization scheme adopted is shown in Figure 8. The bottom story is modeled with two beam-column elements and the length of the element closest to the base is equal to the effective plastic-hinge length, which is lp 0.22H e , while each of the upper stories is represented by one element. When using displacement-based beam-column elements with distributed plasticity and strain-softening material laws to model a shear wall, inelastic deformation tends to concentrate in a single element at the wall base while the rest of the model remains elastic. By prescribing the length of the bottom element equal to the effective plastichinge length, the inelastic energy dissipation is realistically represented. The P-delta effect in the wall is accounted for by using co-rotational transformation for the beam-column element. However, this influence is found to be insignificant for the in-plane response of a wall. The envelopes of the stress-strain relations used for the masonry and steel fibers are shown in Figure 8. The Kent-Park model (Kent and Park 1971) for concrete, which is available in OpenSees, is adopted to model the behavior of masonry. The model assumes zero tensile strength and exhibits stiffness degradation in compressive unloading and reloading. The expected compressive strength of the masonry is assumed to be 3.75 ksi (25.9 MPa). The strain corresponding to the peak stress, p , is assumed to be 0.0025, while the strain marking the end of the descending branch, r , is taken as 0.005. The expected yield and

1538

J. MURCIA-DELSO AND P. B. SHING

tensile strengths of a bar are assumed to be 68 ksi (469 MPa) and 102 ksi (703 MPa). The steel models in OpenSees cannot simulate the buckling or rupture of a bar, which can occur when the wall undergoes severe flexural damage (DS3). Hence, the stress-strain relation used in this study is obtained from appropriate calibration of the general hysteretic model in OpenSees. It is assumed that the tensile rupture of a steel bar occurs at a strain of 0.05, which is about one half of the strain at which a bar reaches its peak tensile strength, to account for the low-cycle fatigue phenomenon. After this, the tensile strength of the bar decreases linearly and reaches zero at a tensile strain of 0.10. A bar will buckle when the masonry around the bar spalls significantly. This is simulated by introducing a compressive strain softening in steel that starts at the strain level at which the masonry compressive strength drops to 40% of the peak value, signifying the occurrence of severe spalling. The elastic stiffness, K s , of the spring used to simulate the shear deformation is assumed to be 20% of the theoretical elastic shear stiffness K s;e of the wall for each story, as suggested by Shing et al. (1991). This modeling strategy has been validated with data from flexure-dominated specimens tested by Shing et al. (1991) and Shedid et al. (2008). The flexural mechanism is well captured by the model, including the peak strength, strength degradation, flexural deformation capacity, and hysteretic behavior. However, the shear deformations at large displacement levels are significantly underestimated because it is modeled with an elastic spring, which is not able to account for the significant drop in shear stiffness when severe flexural damage occurs. As a result, the total displacements are also underestimated. The constant-average acceleration method has been used for the numerical computation. Initial-stiffness-based Rayleigh damping with 5% damping in the first and forth modes has been assumed.
DEMAND PARAMETERS AND PROBABILITY OF DAMAGE

Results from the time-history analyses of the wall subjected to the aforementioned ground motions are used to compute the demand parameters. For the Class A fragility functions, the demand parameter at each story, i, is the maximum value of the modified story-drift ratio, hi;def , obtained by subtracting the wall rotation at floor i, i , from the story-drift ratio, hi , obtained from the analyses (see Figure 9a). The demands in terms of the modified story-drift ratio are presented in Table 4. Note that the drift demands for the upper stories are small compared to that for the first story. This is because the wall is very stiff and most of the wall rotation takes place in the plastic hinge near the base. If the unmodified story-drift ratio was used instead of the modified one, the demands for the upper stories would be one order of magnitude higher. This would result in a significant overestimation of damage in the upper stories. For Class B, the maximum value of the lateral displacement at story i due to flexural deformation, i;f lex , is needed to compute the NFD parameter. This value is obtained by subtracting the lateral displacement due to shear deformation, i;shear , and the displacement due to rigid-body rotation, that is, i;RB i hi , from the maximum total story drift, i (see Figure 9a). In addition, NFD requires the calculation of um for each story, which in this case is the story drift due to flexure, excluding the rigid-body rotation, when the nominal moment capacity is reached. For this purpose, Equation 2 needs to be modified and the effective wall height, H e , has to be determined for each story. The effective wall height at a given story has

FRAGILITY ANALYSIS OF REINFORCED MASONRY SHEAR WALLS

1539

Figure 9. Story i of a multistory cantilever wall: (a) calculation of story deformation, (b) curvature distribution for the calculation of um .

Table 4.

Demand parameters
Demand parameter computation Class A Class B m (1/in.) 9.15 10 1.27 104 1.40 104 1.38 104 9.15 105 1.27 104 1.40 104 1.38 104 9.15 105 1.27 104 1.40 104 1.38 104
5

Record number Story Max. i;def (%) Max. i;f lex (in.) h 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 0.41 0.12 0.07 0.03 2.20 0.12 0.07 0.03 1.59 0.12 0.06 0.03 0.43 0.08 0.03 0.00 2.61 0.08 0.03 0.00 1.86 0.07 0.01 0.00

H e (in.) um (in.) NFD 350 258 182 120 350 258 182 120 350 258 182 120 0.58 0.67 0.58 0.41 0.58 0.67 0.58 0.41 0.58 0.67 0.58 0.41 0.75 0.12 0.04 0.00 4.54 0.12 0.04 0.00 3.23 0.11 0.03 0.00

Notes: hi 120 in; lp 0.22 H e , and y 1.2 105 for all stories, and 1 in: 25.4 mm

been determined by the location of the resultant of the lateral seismic forces acting above this story with a distribution specified in ASCE/SEI 7-05 (ASCE/SEI 2005). This is a good approximation for walls like this one, for which the response is dominated by the fundamental mode. However, when the higher-mode effect is important, the effective wall height can be more generally determined as the moment at the base of the wall at the given story divided

1540

J. MURCIA-DELSO AND P. B. SHING

Table 5.

Probability of exceedance of damage states

Probability of exceedance (%) Class A Class B DS3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 89.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 56.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 DS1 94.6 4.5 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.9 0.0 0.0 100.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 DS2 33.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 99.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 DS3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 98.5 0.0 0.0 0.0

Record number

Story 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

DS1 73.5 1.8 0.1 0.0 100.0 2.0 0.1 0.0 100.0 1.9 0.0 0.0

DS2 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 99.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 95.7 0.0 0.0 0.0

by the story shear force at the instant the maximum i;f lex is attained. Based on the same kinematic assumption adopted for a cantilever wall um , for each story i is calculated with the following equation (see Figure 9b): um uy up y h2 3H e hi i m y lp hi 0.5lp 6 He (7)

EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e7;41;340

in which hi is the story height, and the plastic-hinge length lp 0.22H e hi . In lieu of using a simplified flexural analysis based on the guidelines of the MSJC code, the value of m is determined with a moment-curvature analysis for each story using the same fiber-section model of the beam-column elements. The yield curvature is estimated as y 2.1 y Lw . The NFD parameters calculated with the aforementioned method are presented in Table 4. Finally, the probabilities of exceeding the flexural damage states DS1, DS2, and DS3 are obtained from the respective fragility functions using the values of the demand parameters in Table 4. The probabilities of exceedance obtained with the Class A and Class B fragility functions are shown in Table 5. Table 5 shows that damage very likely concentrates at the bottom story. The Class B fragility functions indicate that the probability of exceeding DS2 in the bottom-story wall is moderate (33%) for Earthquake Record 1, while the probabilities of exceeding DS3 are extremely high for Records 2 and 3. The Class A fragility functions result in a similar trend, but in lower probabilities of exceedance for all the damage states. This is due to the underestimation of the total story drifts by the analytical model. While the story-drift ratio used to derive the Class A fragility functions includes shear deformation, the analytical model used here significantly underestimates the shear deformation at large drift levels, as mentioned previously.

FRAGILITY ANALYSIS OF REINFORCED MASONRY SHEAR WALLS

1541

QUALITY OF DEMAND PARAMETERS

The quality of a fragility analysis depends on the accuracy of the analytical model in predicting the inelastic response of the structure to seismic excitations, and on the level of dispersion of the fragility functions. The level of dispersion of the fragility functions considered here is defined by two parameters. One is the random dispersion r , which reflects the random uncertainty of the experimental data including the uncertainties in construction quality of the tested walls, and the other is u , which reflects how well the tests represent the real conditions of a building and depends to a large extent on how well the demand parameters account for these conditions. However, there is a lack of data to allow a good assessment of u , and the values assumed here are based on the general ATC-58 guidelines (ATC 2010). Hence, the total dispersion shown in Table 2 may not accurately reflect the actual dispersion. To assess how well the demand parameters account for the real conditions of a building, the consistency between their values and the actual damage states predicted by analysis is evaluated here with a parametric study using the four-story building example. For this assessment, the values of the demand parameters for the Class A and Class B fragility functions are obtained at theinstant a damage state is exceeded in the analysis. The criteria used to identify each of the three damage states defined for flexure-dominated walls are shown in Table 1. For the convenience of identifying these damage states in the dynamic analyses, a moment-vs.-curvature relation is obtained for each of the walls under consideration, and the value of the curvature at which a damage state occurs is identified and used to detect the damage state in the time-history analyses. Damage state DS1 is assumed to be exceeded when the maximum curvature at thebaseis higher thanthe curvature correspondingto 80% ofthe peakmoment resistance obtained from the ascending branch of the moment-vs.-curvature curve. Similarly, the thresholds to exceed DS2 and DS3 are the curvature at the peak moment resistance and the curvature at a 20% drop from the peak moment resistance, respectively. Since numerical results indicate that damage tends to be concentrated at the bottom story of the four-story building, only the bottom story is monitored in the analyses. A total of 33 time-history analyses are conducted with 11 different models of the fourstory building. Each model is subjected to the three earthquake records shown in Figure 7. As shown in Table 6, the variables in these models are the axial load N, vertical steel ratio v , shear spring stiffness K s as a fraction of the theoretical elastic shear stiffness K s;e of an uncracked wall, assumed plastic-hinge length lp , and compressive strain r marking the end of the post-peak descending branch of the masonry compressive stress-strain relation. The reference model in Table 6 is the original model used in the above fragility assessment. Figure 10 plots the values of the demand parameters obtained at the instant each damage state is exceeded. It can be observed that for every damage state, the story-drift ratio, which is the demand parameter for the Class A fragility functions, has a significantly larger scatter than NFD. The number of data points, and the mean and coefficient of variation of the demand parameters for each damage state are shown in Table 7. It can be seen that NFD has a much lower coefficient of variation for all the damage states. This, to a large extent, stems from the fact that NFD is normalized with respect to um , which is estimated with the same m and lp as the analytical model used for the time-history analyses. Since NFD shows a better consistency with the damage states identified in the analyses, this demand parameter can be considered a better index of the damage level than the story-

1542

J. MURCIA-DELSO AND P. B. SHING

Table 6.

Variation of model parameters

Axial load at the base, N base kips (kN) 537 1,074 269 537 537 537 537 537 537 537 537 (2389) (4777) (1194) (2389) (2389) (2389) (2389) (2389) (2389) (2389) (2389) Vertical steel ratio, v (%) 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.17 0.04 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 Shear stiffness Ks 0.2K s;e 0.2K s;e 0.2K s;e 0.2K s;e 0.2K s;e K s;e 0.05K s;e 0.2K s;e 0.2K s;e 0.2K s;e 0.2K s;e Plastic hinge length, lp 0.22H e 0.22H e 0.22H e 0.22H e 0.22H e 0.22H e 0.22H e 0.30H e 0.10H e 0.22H e 0.22H e

Model No. 1 (reference) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

r 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.010 0.0035

Figure 10. Values of demand parameters at each damage state: (a) story-drift ratio, (b) NFD.

Table 7.

Statistics for the demand parameters

DS1 Story-drift ratio (%) NFD 33 0.09 0.03 0.28 DS2 Story-drift ratio (%) 23 0.61 0.19 0.31 NFD 23 1.06 0.06 0.05 DS3 Story-drift ratio (%) 19 1.14 0.26 0.23 NFD 19 2.19 0.23 0.10

No. of data points Mean Standard deviation Coefficient of variation

33 0.12 0.08 0.61

FRAGILITY ANALYSIS OF REINFORCED MASONRY SHEAR WALLS

1543

drift ratio. Because of this, and the fact that most nonlinear analytical models can provide a better assessment of the flexural deformation than the shear deformation of a reinforced masonry wall, the Class B fragility functions will be a better choice than the Class A. CONCLUSIONS Fragility functions have been presented in this paper for assessing the damageability of fully and partially grouted reinforced masonry shear walls subjected to in-plane seismic loads. A total of six damage states are considered: slight, moderate, and severe flexure damage; moderate and severe diagonal shear damage; and severe sliding shear damage. For each damage state, two classes of fragility functions have been developed. Class A uses the story-drift ratio as the demand parameter, which is a common and simple measure of seismic demand on a structural component. Class B uses a set of normalized demand parameters that account for the different design and loading conditions of a wall component in a real building, and are, therefore, a better index of damage level. The normalized demand parameter for flexural damage is displacement-based, while that for diagonal shear and sliding shear damage is force-based, which is perceived to be better for brittle damage modes. Except for the sliding shear damage and for partially grouted walls, all the fragility functions have been derived from experimental data. As an example of a fragility analysis, the seismic damageability of a flexure-dominated reinforced masonry cantilever wall in a four-story building has been analyzed with both classes of fragility functions. For diagonal shear-dominated walls, the use of a force-based demand parameter results in fragility functions with a lower random dispersion, which implies a better correlation between the demand parameter and the damage observed in the tests. However, for flexural-dominated walls, the Class B fragility functions have a higher random dispersion than the Class A. This higher dispersion can be attributed to a coarse estimation of the shear deformations and the effective plastic-hinge lengths of the wall specimens, which are needed to derive the Class B fragility functions from experimental data. Nevertheless, a parametric study conducted with a four-story building example has shown that the normalized flexural demand parameter exhibits a much better correlation with the actual damage states predicted by the analyses. Furthermore, the normalized flexural demand parameter only requires the flexural deformation of a wall, which can be more accurately calculated than the shear or total deformation. For these reasons, the Class B fragility functions seem preferable. However, it should be understood that the numerical results supporting this conclusion are based on a parametric study conducted with one building configuration.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This paper is based on a study supported by the Applied Technology Council and conducted for the ATC-58 Project, Development of Performance-Based Seismic Design Guidelines Phase 3. The authors would like to express their appreciation to the review panel of the ATC-58 project for their valuable input and comments. However, opinions expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Applied Technology Council or the review panel.

1544

J. MURCIA-DELSO AND P. B. SHING

APPENDIX

Table A1.
Reference

Summary of experimental data for fully grouted RMSWs

Specimen ID 1 2 3 4 5 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 Unit Type Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete Clay Clay Clay Clay Clay Clay Concrete Concrete Clay Clay Clay Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete P Aspect ratio (H/L) An f 0m v (%) h (%) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 0.72 0.59 1.00 0.64 0.47 0.64 0.64 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.07 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.04 0.03 0.08 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.08 0.08 0.03 0.11 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.03 0.07 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.09 0.38 0.38 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.38 0.38 0.74 0.38 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.74 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.57 0.57 0.55 0.55 0.59 0.57 0.56 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.60 0.40 0.31 0.83 0.77 1.39 1.39 1.39 0.24 0.24 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.14 0.24 0.24 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.24 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.08 0.13 0.13 0.26 0.26 0.26 Loading Cyclic Cyclic Cyclic Cyclic Cyclic Cyclic Cyclic Cyclic Cyclic Cyclic Cyclic Cyclic Cyclic Cyclic Cyclic Cyclic Cyclic Cyclic Cyclic Cyclic Monotonic Monotonic Monotonic Cyclic Monotonic Cyclic Cyclic Cyclic Cyclic Cyclic Cyclic Cyclic Cyclic Cyclic Cyclic Cyclic Data for damage states 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4 4,5 4,5 4,5 4,5 1,2,3,4 4,5 1,2,3,4 4,5 4,5 1,2,3,4 4,5 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4 4,5 4,5 4,5 4,5 4,5 4,5 4,5 1,2,3,4 4,5 4,5 4,5 4,5 1,2,3 1,2,3 1,2,3 1,2,3 1,2,3 1,2,3
(continued )

Shing et al. (1991)

Brunner (1994)

Ibrahim and Sutter (1999)

Shedid et al. (2008)

FRAGILITY ANALYSIS OF REINFORCED MASONRY SHEAR WALLS

1545

Table A1.
Reference

(continued )
Specimen ID 1 2 3 4 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 Unit Type Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete P Aspect ratio (H/L) An f 0m v (%) h (%) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 0.60 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.03 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.97 0.60 0.66 0.34 0.66 0.34 0.66 0.66 0.05 0.01 0.14 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.98 0.68 0.98 0.68 0.98 0.98 Loading Cyclic Cyclic Cyclic Cyclic Cyclic Cyclic Cyclic Cyclic Cyclic Cyclic Cyclic Cyclic Cyclic Cyclic Data for damage states 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4

Voon and Ingham (2006)

Priestley (1976)

0 P: axial load; An : net cross-sectional area; f m : compressive strength of masonry prism; v : vertical reinforcement ratio; h : horizontal reinforcement ratio

Table A2.

Summary of experimental data for partially grouted RMSWs

Specimen ID 5 6 2 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 2 3 Unit Type Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete Aspect P ratio 0 An f m (H/L) v (%) h (%) 1.00 1.00 0.92 3.00 1.33 0.92 0.57 3.00 1.33 0.92 0.57 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.09 0.04 0.04 1.45 0.87 0.20 0.47 0.31 0.29 0.27 0.47 0.31 0.29 0.27 0.36 0.36 0.34 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.36 0.34 0.36 Data for damage states 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4,5 4,5 4,5 4,5

Reference Voon and Ingham (2006)

Loading Monotonic Monotonic Cyclic Cyclic Cyclic Cyclic Cyclic Cyclic Cyclic Cyclic Cyclic Monotonic Monotonic Monotonic Monotonic

Ingham et al. (2001)

Ghanem et al. (1992) Ghanem et al. (1993)

1546

J. MURCIA-DELSO AND P. B. SHING

REFERENCES
Applied Technology Council (ATC), 1998. FEMA 306 Evaluation of Earthquake Damaged Concrete and Masonry Wall Buildings, Basic Procedures Manual, Redwood City, CA. Applied Technology Council (ATC), 2009. FEMA P695: Quantification of Building Seismic Performance Factors, Redwood City, CA. Applied Technology Council (ATC), 2010. ATC-58: Guidelines for Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings (75% Draft), Redwood City, CA. American Society of Civil Engineers, Structural Engineering Institute (ASCE/SEI), 2005. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE/SEI 7-05, Reston, VA. Brunner, J. D., 1994. Shear Strength of Reinforced Masonry Walls, M.S. thesis, Department of Civil, Environmental, and Architectural Engineering, University of Colorado, Boulder. Ghanem, G. M., Essawy, A. S., and Hamid, A. A., 1992. Effect of steel distribution on the behavior of partially grouted reinforced masonry shear walls, 6th Canadian Masonry Symposium, 1517 June 1992, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada. Ghanem, G.M., Salama, A.E., Elmagd, S.A., and Hamid, A.A., 1993. Effect of axial compression on the behavior of partially grouted reinforced masonry shear walls, 6th North American Masonry Conference, 69 June 1993, Philadelphia, PA. Ibrahim, K. S, and Sutter, G. T., 1999. Ductility of concrete masonry shear walls subjected to cyclic loading, 8th North American Masonry Conference, 69 June 1999, Austin, TX. Ingham, J. M., Davidson, B. J., Brammer, D. R., and Voon, K. C., 2001. Testing and codification of partially grout-filled nominally-reinforced concrete masonry subjected to in-plane cyclic loads, The Masonry Society Journal 19, 8396. Kent, D. C., and Park, R., 1971. Flexural members with confined concrete, Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, 97, 19691990. Koutromanos, I., and Shing, P. B., 2010. Application of the FEMA 695 (ATC-63) methodology for the collapse performance evaluation of reinforced masonry shear wall structures, 9th U.S. National and 10th Canadian Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 2529 July 2010, Toronto, Canada. Masonry Standards Joint Committee (MSJC), 2008. Building Code Requirements for Masonry Structures (TMS 402-08 / ACI-530-08 / ASCE 5-08), The Masonry Society, American Concrete Institute, and ASCE/Structural Engineering Institute. Murcia-Delso, J., and Shing, P. B., 2011. Damage States and Fragility Curves for Reinforced Masonry Shear Walls, Structural Systems Research Project, Dept. of Structural Engineering, University of California, San Diego. Nowak, A. S., Szersen, M. M., Szeliga, E. K., Szwed, A., and Podhorecki, P. J., 2008. ReliabilityBased Calibration for Structural Concrete, Phase 3, PCA R&D Serial No. 2849, Portland Cement Association, Skokie, IL. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER), 2012(a). PEER Ground Motion Database, http://peer.berkeley.edu/peer_ground_motion_database. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER), 2012(b). Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (OpenSees) software framework, http://opensees.berkeley.edu/index .php. Porter, K., Kennedy, R., and Bachman, R., 2007. Creating Fragility Functions for PerformanceBased Earthquake Engineering, Earthquake Spectra 23, 471489.

FRAGILITY ANALYSIS OF REINFORCED MASONRY SHEAR WALLS

1547

Priestley, M. J. N., 1976. Cyclic Testing of Heavily Reinforced Concrete Masonry Shear Walls, Research Report 76-12, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand. Priestley, M. J. N., Calvi, G. M., and Kowalsky, M. J., 2007. Displacement-Based Design of Structures, IUSS Press, Institute for Advanced Study of Pavia, Italy. Shedid, M. T., Drysdale, R. G., and El-Dakhakhni, W. W., 2008. Behavior of fully grouted reinforced concrete masonry shear walls failing in flexure: Experimental results, Journal of Structural Engineering 134, 17541767. Shing, P. B., Noland, J. L., Spaeh, H. P., Klamerus, E. W., and Schuller, M. P., 1991. Response of Single-Story Reinforced Masonry Shear Walls to In-Plane Lateral Loads, Report No. 3.1(a)-2, US-Japan Coordinated Program for Masonry Building Research, University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder. Voon, K. C., and Ingham, J. M., 2006. Experimental in-plane shear strength investigation of reinforced concrete masonry walls, Journal of Structural Engineering 132, 400408. (Received 23 May 2011; accepted 17 October 2011)