DESIGN METHODOLOGIES FOR THE ASSESSMENT AND RETROFITTING OF EXISTING MASONRY BUILDINGS

by

R. POPESCU , GH. POPESCU , A. CRAIFALEANU

1

IPCT Structuri SRL, Senior Research Engineer, Bucharest, Romania, ipctstructuri@yahoo.com

2

Politehnica University of Bucharest, PhD, Associate Professor, Romania

ABSTRACT A rather important proportion of the building stock in Romania consists of pre-code unreinforced masonry buildings, which do not comply with the requirements of the present Romanian seismic code. A number of these buildings are historical monuments, while other cannot be demolished due to social and economic reasons. Consequently, retrofitting is the only acceptable solution in order to ensure their seismic safety. At present, jacketing is the common and cost-effective retrofitting solution used in Romania for masonry walls. The paper presents an analytical method for the calculation of the lateral strength capacity of unreinforced masonry elements, and its adaptation to account for the presence of jacketing. The method is applied to the retrofitting of rectangular or multiflanged masonry walls. Based on some case studies, comparisons are made between the pre- and post-retrofitting strength capacities of unreinforced masonry walls.

1. INTRODUCTION The paper presents an analytical method for the calculation of the lateral strength capacity of unreinforced masonry walls, subjected to in-plane bending, shear and axial force. Developed in perspective of the revision of the Romanian design code for masonry buildings, the method is the result of studies carried out over a period of more than a decade [1-8]. Presently implemented into the design handbook [6], the method can be used both for the evaluation of existing buildings and for the design of new unreinforced masonry buildings. Moreover, with some simple adaptations, presented in the paper, the method can also be used for the calculation of the lateral strength capacities of unreinforced masonry walls retrofitted by jacketing. The numerical and engineering aspects related to the application of the method were studied in depth by using a specially designed computer code [9]. In an independent study [1], strength capacities predicted by the method were verified against values determined by laboratory tests, showing good agreement between analytical and experimental results. 2. DESCRIPTION OF THE METHOD 2.1 Assumptions The assumptions of the method are presented below. 1. It is accepted that, for structural unreinforced masonry walls, the main failure criterion is diagonal failure, due to shear stresses. 2. The law of Bernoulli applies. 3. The mortar in the bed joints at the bottom of the wall has null tension strength. 4. The normal compression stresses () have a linear variation on the elastic zones ( c ) of the section. 5. On the plastic zones of the section ( > c ), the normal compression stresses are constant and equal to the compression strength of masonry (f).

6. The distribution of shear stresses, , over the height of the section conforms to the average flexural shear stress formula (i.e. it is parabolic); the shear stresses are distributed only over the compressed, elastic zone of the section (where c ). 7. For flanged sections, the distribution of shear stresses over the flange width has a constant variation (see Figure 1). The stress-strain curve of masonry is assumed to be of the type shown in Figure 2, where c is the yield strain in compression, u is the ultimate strain in compression, f is the design compression strength of masonry, and the letters C and U denote the yielding and the ultimate state, respectively. The ratio between u and c expresses the ductility of masonry, z . Insert Figure 1 here Insert Figure 2 here

2.2 Deformation stages Unreinforced masonry elements subjected to constant axial loads and to gradually increasing lateral forces are analysed, as shown in Figure 3. Insert Figure 3 here The section at the base of a structural unreinforced masonry shear wall passes through successive deformation stages, as the lateral force gradually increases. The described method considers three reference stages, characterised by the stress and strain distributions shown in Figures 4, 5 and 6, respectively. Insert here Figure 4

Figure 5

Figure 6

Figure 7

The moment-rotation relationship is represented in Figure 7. For small and moderate axial loads (i.e. N f A 2 , where N is the axial force and A is the overall cross-sectional area), the order of occurrence of the above stages is F-C-U. For large axial loads, yielding at the extreme compression fibre of the cross-section occurs prior to cracking at the tension fibre; therefore, the order of occurrence of the three stages is C-F-U. 2.3 Calculation of the lateral strength capacity The lateral strength capacity of unreinforced masonry walls (Figure 3) is calculated by considering diagonal failure due to principal tensile stresses as the main failure criterion. The calculation involves the following two steps. 1. For each deformation stage (F, C and U), the following quantities are determined: a) the values of the lateral force, Q, corresponding to the stress and strain distributions in Figures 4 to 6: QM,F, QM,C and QM,U; b) the values of the lateral force, Q, corresponding to diagonal failure due to principal tensile stresses: QQ,F, QQ,C and QQ,U. The QQ values are those for which, by conserving the normal stress ( ) distribution in the concerned stage (Figures 4 to 6) and by amplifying the shear stress ( ) distribution, diagonal failure occurs at a point of the section. The shear stress distribution at diagonal failure can be deduced from the equation of principal stresses (1), in the assumption that, at the respective point, the principal tensile stress, 2 , equals the strength to principal tensile stresses of the mortar in the bed joints of the masonry, fp.
1,2 = 2 + 2 . 2 4

(1)

2. With the six values above, the lateral strength capacity, QR, is determined from the condition:
QR = QQ = QM .

(3)

The Q values can be obtained by manual calculations or by using the specialised computer code ZINEX [6]. 2.4 Determination of the failure mode By comparing the values of lateral forces corresponding to diagonal failure due to principal tensile stresses (QQ) with the values associated to bending capacity (QM), the failure mode can be determined, analytically or

graphically, for each of the three deformation stages, as follows: 1. ductile failure MMM (Figure 8):

QQ,F > QM ,F if QQ,C > QM ,C then QR = QM ,U QQ,U > QM ,U

2. low ductility failure MMQ (Figure 9): QQ,F > QM ,F if QQ,C > QM ,C then QR is found at the intersection of the curves QM and QQ . QQ,U < QM ,U 3. brittle failure MQQ (Figure 10): QQ,F > QM ,F if QQ,C < QM ,C then QR is found at the intersection of the curves QM and QQ . QQ,U < QM ,U 4. brittle failure QQQ (Figure 11): QQ,F < QM ,F if QQ,C < QM ,C then QR = QQ,F . QQ,U < QM ,U Insert Figure 8 here Insert Figure 10 here Insert Figure 9 here Insert Figure 11 here

Diagrams in figures 8 to 11 correspond to the case of low and moderate axial loads, for which the succession of stages is F-C-U.
3. APPLICATION TO UNREINFORCED MASONRY WALLS In order to illustrate the application of the method, three unreinforced masonry walls with rectangular, T- and Ishaped cross-sections were chosen (Figure 3). The walls have the following common properties: total height 2 H = 5.75 m, cross-section height htot = 5.75 m, strength of the mortar in bed joints fp = 0.09 N/mm , design 2 strength of masonry f = 1.40 N/mm . The other section properties, as specified in Figure 3, are given in Table 1. Insert Table 1 here

Diagrams of M and Q were plotted for a value of the average compression strength 0 = N A = 0.5 f (Figures 12 to 14). The shear strength capacity, R , can be found, as shown previously, at the intersection of the
M and Q curves. Note that all diagrams are expressed in terms of average shear stress. In order to obtain the

corresponding Q forces, diagram values should be multiplied with the cross-sectional area. The quantity plotted on the abscissa is the curvature, . For the T- and the I-shaped sections, calculations were performed by considering a shear stress distribution over the flange width as shown in Figure 1. Diagrams in Figures 13 and 14 were plotted for the case of lateral force Q acting from left to right (see Figure 3). Insert here Figure 12 Insert here Figure 13 Insert here Figure 14 It can be observed that, for the rectangular section, the failure mode is of low ductility type (MMQ), while for the T- and I-shaped sections, the failure mode is of brittle type (QQQ). In order to study the influence of the axial force level on strength capacity, the above sections were analysed by considering a variation of 0 from zero to the value of the design compression strength of masonry, f. Diagrams were plotted by considering both signs of the lateral force Q (from left to right and from right to left). The resulted 0 R diagrams are shown in Figures 15 to 17. Insert here Figure 15 Insert here Figure 16 Insert here Figure 17

From the analysis of the above figures, it can be observed that

- for the rectangular section, the maximum shear strength is obtained for 0 = 0.5 f . - for the T- and I-shaped sections, the maximum shear strength is obtained for 0 = 0.7 f . - for the T-shaped sections, an increase of the shear strength of about 40% can be observed, as compared to the shear strength of the rectangular section with the same cross-section height, when the flange is in tension. - for the T- and I-shaped sections, an abrupt decrease of the strength capacity is observed when the compression stress increases above 0.7f.

It is worth noting that the 0 R curves are limit curves. By considering that the stress state on a section is defined by a point corresponding to a pair of (, ) values, three characteristic situations can be identified:
- if the point is located inside the curve, then the sections resists the applied forces, - if the point is located on the curve, the section has reached its failure stage, - all points located outside the curve define stress states which cannot be physically reached, as they are beyond failure. 4. APPLICATION TO UNREINFORCED MASONRY WALLS RETROFITTED BY JACKETING The method presented previously was adapted for the calculation of the strength capacity of unreinforced masonry walls, retrofitted by jacketing. The adaptation was based on the determination of two key quantities: the equivalent compression strength and the equivalent strength to principal tensile stresses. The overall equivalent strength capacity also includes two safety ratios related to: - the interaction between the jacketing and the unreinforced masonry up to the ultimate stage - the materials quality. 4.1 The equivalent compression strength The calculation of the equivalent compression strength, feq, of the retrofitted masonry wall (Figure 18) is carried out based on the compression strength of unreinforced masonry, f, and on the strength of the jacketing mortar, fm (see equations 2 and 3).

f eq = cc [nf + (1 n )fm ] , where n= Az . Atot total area of retrofitted masonry wall area of original (not retrofitted) masonry wall partial safety ratio for the interaction between jacketing and masonry, up to the ultimate stage design compression strength of masonry compression strength of the jacketing mortar

(4)

(5)

NOTATION Atot Az cc f fm

Insert Figure 18 here. 4.2 The equivalent strength to principal tensile stresses The calculation of the equivalent strength to principal tensile stresses of the retrofitted masonry (Figure 19) is carried out based on the tensile stress of the mortar of unreinforced masonry, on the tensile stress of the mortar of the jacketing and on the tensile stress of the reinforcement steel (see equations 4 and 5).
eq fp = c p nfp + (1 n )fpm + 0.8nafs ,

(6)

where
na = Aa 0 . 100b

(7)

NOTATION cp fp fpm fs

partial safety ratio for the quality of the mortar in the joints strength to principal tensile stresses of the mortar in the bed joints of the masonry strength to principal tensile stresses of the mortar of the jacketing tensile strength of the reinforcement steel

Aa0 reinforcement steel area b total thickness after retrofitting: b=bz+2tm for two-side jacketing and b=bz+tm for one-side jacketing. 4.3 Evaluation of the efficiency of the retrofitting solution For the evaluation of the retrofitting solution efficiency, an unreinforced masonry wall with rectangular cross-section was considered (Figure 19). The wall was calculated for a moderate axial compression stress in two variants: pre-retrofitting (Figure 19a) and post-retrofitting (Figure 19b). The characteristic conventional deformation stages of the two sections (F, C and U) were determined practically in the same way as for unreinforced masonry (paragraph 2 of the present paper), with the only difference consisting in the calculation of the material strengths, which was performed as shown in paragraph 4.2. Insert here Figure 19 a Insert here Figure 19 b Figure 19 The diagrams of the axial compression stress () and of the shear stress (), corresponding to the conventional stages of deformations (F, C and U), as well as the diagrams of the shear strength capacity, were determined for the original (not retrofitted) wall (Figure 20a) and for the retrofitted wall (Figure 20b). Insert here Figure 20a Insert here Figure 20b

Figure 20 As shown in Figure 20a, the original wall section is subjected to large compression stresses, and its failure is of brittle type (MQQ). By retrofitting, a ductile type of failure (MMM) is obtained. Until the failure, the section passes successively through the F, C and U stages. Failure occurs in bending, due to the crashing of the masonry in the compression zone, when the ultimate strain of the masonry, u , is reached.
5. CONCLUSIONS The method presented in the paper provides a simple, yet analytically rigorous, way of calculating the lateral strength capacity of unreinforced masonry walls. The method is implemented into a specialised computer code, developed by the authors, and in a handbook for the design of unreinforced masonry walls. Independent laboratory tests have shown a good agreement between the analytically predicted values and experimental results. The extension of the application of the method to unreinforced masonry walls retrofitted by jacketing is very convenient from the practitioner's point of view, since the analysis of retrofitted walls is made essentially in the same way as for the original (not retrofitted) unreinforced masonry walls.

REFERENCES
1. POPESCU, R., POPESCU, GH., TITARU, EM., Handbook for the design of unreinforced masonry walls, Ministry of Transport, Construction and Tourism, Bucharest, Romania, 1995. 2. POPESCU, GH., TITARU, EM., POPESCU, R., CRAIFALEANU, I., CRAIFALEANU, A., Aspects concerning the determination of the strength capacity of masonry structures subjected to seismic actions, Gazeta AICR, 9, (43-44), 68-78, 2000 (in Romanian). 3. POPESCU, GH., POPESCU, R. et al., New Romanian masonry design code, Ministry of Transport, Construction and Tourism, Bucharest, Romania, 2002. 4. POPESCU, GH., POPESCU, R., A Method for the Assessment of the Seismic Performance of Unreinforced Masonry Walls, Proceedings of the International Conference "Earthquake Loss Estimation and Risk Reduction" (ELE&RR), Bucharest, Romania, 2, 171-178, 2002. 5. POPESCU, R. et al., Methodologies for the design of new masonry buildings and for the evaluation of existing masonry buildings located in seismic zones, IPCT Structuri SRL, 2003-2004 (in Romanian). 6. CRAIFALEANU, A., POPESCU, R. et al., ZINEX. Software application for the analysis and design of masonry structures, IPCT Structuri SRL, 2003-2005 (in Romanian). 7. POPESCU, GH., POPESCU, R., Design methodologies for the assessment and retrofitting of existing masonry buildings, Proceedings of the International Symposium on Shell and Spatial Structures - Theory, Technique, Valuation, Maintenance (IASS 2005), Bucharest, Poiana Brasov, Romania, 2, 947-950, 2005. 8. POPESCU, GH., POPESCU, R., CRAIFALEANU, A., Methodology for the design of confined masonry structural walls, Proceedings of the 3rd National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Bucharest, Romania, 2, 2005 (in Romanian). 9. BERAR, T., Contributions to building rehabilitation solutions, PhD Thesis, Technical University Timisoara, Romania, 1999 (in Romanian). 10. AMRHEIN, J. E., Reinforced Masonry Engineering Handbook: Clay and Concrete Masonry, Fifth Edition, CRC Press, 1998.

11. PAULAY, T., PRIESTLEY, M. J. N., Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings, Wiley, 1992. 12. SCHNEIDER, K. J., WEICKENMEIER, N., Mauerwerksbau aktuell, Beuth Verlag, Werner Verlag, 2001. 13. TUDOR, D., SECULA, S., Testing of a masonry element retrofitted with reinforcing steel, Studiebureau B.T.C., Belgium, 2000. 14. FEMA-273. NEHRP guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington D. C., October 1997. 15. FEMA-274. NEHRP commentary on the guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington D. C., October 1997. 16. P2-85, Romanian design code for masonry buildings, Construction Bulletin, Bucharest, Romania, 1985.

f C U
c = z u

0
Figure 1. Distribution of shear stresses over the flange width

Figure 2. Assumed stress-strain relationship for masonry

h h1 At1 b1
h1

H(storey / building)

Ai G

At2 b2 b3 b2

Ai

At b1

G h3 h2 htot

h2 htot
b

G h Lateral force 1 Lateral force 2

Figure 3. Masonry elements: elevations and sections

h b

h b x
2 0

h b x
f

max=2/30

0 F

max

max

Figure 4. Stage F: cracking

Figure 5. Stage C: yielding in compression

Figure 6. Stage U: ultimate

M MU MC MF C

Figure 7. Moment-rotation relationship for unreinforced masonry cross-section

Q QR=QM

QQ QM
F C U stages

Q QR
F C

QQ QM
U stages

Figure 8. MMM (ductile) failure mode

Figure 9. MMQ (low ductility) failure mode

Q QR
F C

QM QQ
U stages

QM QQ
F C U stages

QR=QQ,F

Figure 10. MQQ (brittle) failure mode

Figure 11. QQQ (brittle) failure mode

Table 1. Cross-sectional properties Rectangular cross-section T-shaped cross-section I-shaped cross-section

h=5.75 m b=0.25 m

h1=0.48 m b1=1.40 m h2= 5.27 m b2=0.25 m

h1=0.48 m b1=1.50 m h2= 5.02 m b2=0.25 m h3=0.25 m b3=1.75 m

0.20 0.15

0.40

M
N/mm 2

Q -->
0.30 0.20 0.10

M R Q R
F
0.02 0.03

, N/mm

0.10 0.05 0.00 0.00

F C R
0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04

Q
U
0.05 0.06

0.00 0.00

C U
0.04

0.01

Figure 12. Shear strength R: rectangular cross-section

0.40

Figure 13. Shear strength R: T-shaped cross-section

Q --> , N/mm
2

M R Q R
F
0.02 0.03

0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 0.00

C U
0.04

0.01

Figure 14. Shear strength R: I- shaped section

1.4 1.2

0
(N/mm
2 )

1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05

2 )

0.1

0.15

(N/mm

Figure 15. 0R diagram: rectangular section

1.4 1.2

0 ,
(N/mm
2 )

1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1

2 )

0.2

0.3

(N/mm

Figure 16. 0R diagram: T-shaped section

1.4 1.2

0
(N/mm
2 )

1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1

)

R
Figure 17.

(N/mm

0.2

0.3

0R

diagram: I-shaped section

Aa0

Az

tm

bz b

tm

Figure 18. Section through an unreinforced masonry structural wall retrofitted by jacketing

b h
a) pre-retrofitting

h
b) post-retrofitting

tm b tm

Figure 19. Retrofitting by jacketing of an unreinforced masonry wall with rectangular cross-section

0.10 0.08
2

1.40 1.20

1.00

R =M,U Q

, N/mm

, N/mm

0.06 0.04 0.02

0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20

0.00 0.00

R
F
0.05

0.10

0.15

0.00 0.00 F

R
0.10 0.20

0.30

0.40

U 0.50

a) pre-retrofitting

b) post-retrofitting

Figure 20. Determination of the pre- and post-retrofitting strength capacities of the unreinforced masonry wall LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Distribution of shear stresses over the flange width Figure 2. Assumed stress-strain relationship for masonry Figure 3. Masonry elements: elevations and sections Figure 4. Stage F: cracking Figure 5. Stage C: yielding in compression Figure 6. Stage U: ultimate Figure 7. Moment-rotation relationship for unreinforced masonry cross-section Figure 8. MMM (ductile) failure mode Figure 9. MMQ (low ductility) failure mode Figure 10. MQQ (brittle) failure mode Figure 11. QQQ (brittle) failure mode

Figure 12. Shear strength R: rectangular section Figure 13. Shear strength R: T-shaped section Figure 14. Shear strength R: I-shaped section Figure 15. 0R diagram: rectangular section Figure 16. 0R diagram: T-shaped section Figure 17. Figure 18. Figure 19. Figure 20. 0R diagram: I-shaped section Section through an unreinforced masonry structural wall retrofitted by jacketing Retrofitting by jacketing of an unreinforced masonry wall with rectangular cross-section Determination of the pre- and post-retrofitting strength capacities of the unreinforced masonry wall

10