Experimental Seminar

On
COMPONENT LEVEL DUCTILITY OF REINFORCED
MASONRY WALLS

Presenter:- Under the guidance of

ARJUN KUMAR Dr. Arun Menon

Structural Engineering Associate Professor
(CE16M047) Structural Engineering
I.I.T. Madras

1
Content:-
Introduction:-
Literature review:-
Objective:-
Methodology:-
Scope:-
Experimental programme :-
References

2
Masonry construction ( buildings):-

- a type of construction which uses units and mortar(binding agent) to construct different element of a
structure.

Masonry
constructions

Non-load
Load bearing bearing

Confined
Masonry infill
masonry

3
 Building design philosophy???:-

- Buildings are designed to satisfy generally three requirements, the three Ss

- safe ( earthquake-resistant) !!!! most critical parameter for the development
- satisfactory ( comfortable for owners)
- sustainable (built with locally available materials, tools and skills, affordable).

Which structural system to use for the buildings ???:-

Masonry infill or Confined masonry

Higher cost Lower cost

More engineering input Less engineering input
Requirement of skilled worker Lower skilled labour required
4
5
 As per housing census data(2011):-

SL.NO. Indian No. of census Residential % schools % Hospitals %

state/UT houses
total
00 INDIA 330,835,767 77.1 0.7 0.2
01 Gujarat 17,524,030 77.6 0.6 0.3
02 Uttar pradesh 45,172,443 72.2 0.6 0.2
03 Kerala 11,217,853 76.4 0.8 0.3
04 Maharashtra 33,569,762 77.8 0.7 0.3
05 Andhra pradesh 25,594,996 86 0.6 0.2
06 A & N islands 141,675 74.8 0.9 0.2

Distribution of households by predominant material of wall (burnt brick) 47.5%

Distribution of households by predominant material of roof (concrete) 29.1 % (G,G+1,G+2,So on )
Distribution of households by predominant material of floor (cement + mosaic) 31.1+10.8 = 42%
6
Challenges :-

POPULATION INDUSTRY GOVT.

SCHEMES

COFINED MASONRY BUILDINGS MASONRY

INFILL

COST

Seismological DESIGN
EQ RESISTANT characteristics GUIDELINES
Space
requirements

7
 The National Building Code of India (NBC), a comprehensive
building Code, is a national instrument providing guidelines for
regulating the building construction activities across the country. It
serves as a Model Code for adoption by all agencies involved in
building construction works be they Public Works Departments, other
government construction departments, local bodies or private
construction agencies. The Code mainly contains administrative
regulations, development control rules and general building
requirements; fire safety requirements; stipulations regarding
materials, structural design and construction (including safety);
building and plumbing services; approach to sustainability; and asset
and facility management
The code was first published in the year 1970 which has seen two revisions
in the year 1983 and 2015 till 2015.
In the year 2016, Due to large scale changes in the building construction
activities, the revised Code has been brought out in 2016 as National
Building Code of India 2016 reflecting the state-of-the-art and
contemporary applicable international practices.

Part-06,sec-04 of the code, deals with the structural design and construction requirements for masonry
buildings, which is inspired from (ACI 530-02/ASCE 5-02/TMS 402-02).
8
Literature review:-
Part A:-
Dynamic characteristics of buildings:-

Displacement ductility:-
a. System-level ductility
b. Storey-level ductility -
c. Component-level ductility-

in order to develop system-level ductility factors of 3-5 and story-level ductility, factors have to be in
the range of 3-10 and element-level ductility factors shall be in the range of 5-15 or even more

9
 Fel 3
Total Horizontal Load

Fy 2

0 y max
Roof Displacement ()

System level ductility = max / y

As per Newmark and Hall ,
= (2R-1) , for SDOF medium period structures T =( 0.1- 0.6) s

Component level ductility = f ( kind of structural system) , (paulay and priestley)

10
 Energy dissipation capacity:-
energy dissipation through hysteretic damping can reduce the amplitude of seismic response and, thereby,
reduce the ductility demand on the structure.
Hysteretic damping can be described by an equivalent viscous damping ratio, eq, which is based on an equal
area approach that represents the same amount of energy loss per loading cycle. The relationship between the
dissipated energy, Ed, the stored strain energy, Es, and the equivalent viscous damping ratio is given by

11
PART B:-
BEHAVIOUR OF REINFORCED MASONRY SHEAR WALL :-
Factors affecting the ductility of reinforced masonry shear walls:
Modes of failure:-
flexural mode :-yielding of steel followed by crushing of toe,
higher ductility and energy dissipation.

shear mode :- formation of diagonal cracks , faster strength

and stiffness degradation after achieving maximum shear.

12
 Amount and spacing of reinforcement(horizontal as well as vertical):-
- amount of reinforcement has been found to be one of the important factors which has account for increase
in post-cracking strength, ductility and energy dissipation of shear dominated specimen with ultimate value
increasing with amount of horizontal reinforcement.
u = 0.18 (Ph.fyh.fm) , matsumura A.(1988) ; shing P.B.; Tomazevic et al. 1986, wakabayasi and
Nakamura 1984 ; Voon and Ingham,2006)
- the influence of the horizontal reinforcement on the shear strength is not found to be consistent .The increase
horizontal reinforcement has been found to change the behaviour from brittle shear mode to flexural ductile
mode. (Mayes et al. 1976;Wakabayashi and Nakamura 1984; Sveinsson et al. 1985)
- it has been shown that the opening of diagonal cracks can be effectively inhibited by horizontal
reinforcement (Priestley 1974, 1977)
- The performance of shear dominated walls was substantially improved when uniformly distributing
the shear reinforcement up the height of the walls .

13
 Axial pre-compression:-
- shear strength has found to vary almost linearly with the compression force.

Expression suggested by Matsumura A.(1988)

- Flexural ductility can be significantly reduced under high axial loads because of severe toe
spalling and hence, more shear critical. ( Shing P.B.,1989;
- The increasing the axial load can change the behaviour from a mixed/flexural mode to a
brittle shear mode. The axial stress has been found to have more influence on the flexural
strength than shear strength.
Aspect ratio:-
The value of (u /fm) is found to decrease hyperbolically with the increase in the aspect ratio.
As this result also included the effect of axial pre-compression and shear reinforcement
,hence an expression has been suggested by eliminating the effect of the above factors.
(Matsumura A.,1988 ; Voon K.C. and Ingham J.M.,2006
The inelastic behaviour of a wall panel, particularly the shear cracking mechanism, depends very
much on the effective aspect ratio as well as the actual geometry of the panel. (shing P.B.,1989)
14
 Prism compressive strength and type of units :-

- shear stress is found to be proportional to the fm

- influence of the compressive strength of masonry
on the moment capacity is small for axial loads
below the balanced-strain axial strength.

Matsumura A. (1988)
Mortar tensile strength and grout strength:-
- Occurrence of the first major diagonal crack depends primarily on the tensile strength of mortar in
addition to
axial load.
- Shear strength has been found to increase with increase in the tensile strength of masonry

15
REFERENCE SHEAR EQUATION

MSJC(2011)

Shing et al. (1990)

CSA ( 2004 )

Priestley (1992)

Matsumura (1988)

SANZ (2004)

16
Notations:-

k = ductility reduction factor;

kp = coefficient of the effect of flexural reinforcement;
ku = reduction factor;
Cap = coefficient to account the type of masonry used in construction;
C1 ,C2 ,C3 = shear strength coefficients
d = distance from extreme compression fiber to centerior of longitudinal tension
reinforcement or 0.8 L for walls (mm)
= angle formed between centers of load application and reaction;
= factor concerning the type of grouting;
= factor concerning loading method;
17
 Flexural strength:-
- assumption of plane section perpendicular to the neutral axis before bending remains plane
and perpendicular to neutral axis after bending
- It has been observed from finite element stress analyses that the variation of flexural strain with respect
to the distance from the neutral axis is far from linearity after flexural cracks have developed
(Klamerus, 1988).
- It is found that the simple flexure theory based on the
plane-section assumption can be applied to square wall
panels with good accuracy. Moreover, it appears to be
consistently conservative.(Shing P.B.)
-The actual flexural strength of a shear wall subjected to seismic
loads can be slightly higher than that predicted by the flexure
theory due to the more severe strain hardening under cyclic
loads. The strain-hardening effect is reduced as the axial stress increases
18
 Behaviour of partially grouted shear walls:-

- PG masonry shear walls responded similar to in-filled frames and provided little coupling between vertical reinforcing
steels (Mota. M. et. al., 2010)
Deterioration of post peak strength and significant pinching of the hysteresis loops increased with increasing aspect ratio.
the amount of horizontal reinforcement doesnt seem to affect the dissipation capacity of wall. (Schultz A.E.,1996)
The shear strength expression derived for fully grouted walls ,given in the code ,found to underestimate the shear strength
of partially grouted wall. ( for shear strength evaluation of PG walls, there is no separate expression)
- in different codes, design foe PG walls is accounted through use of same expression as derived for FG wall with slight
modification ,either in the use of net area in place of gross area or coefficient which takes into account for partial
grouting.
current RM shear strength expression provided by MSJC (2008) is unconservative.
It has been reported that there appears to be a maximum horizontal reinforcement ratio after which no additional shear
capacity is achieved which depends upon the spacing of grout spacing. (Elgawady Mohamed A. et al., 2012)

19
LIMITATIONS:-

LACK OF RATIONAL DESIGN METHODOLOGY FOR SHEAR ,due to the complexity of factors affecting
the shear strength of wall, Which led to the infinite possibility of factors affecting the behaviour of shear wall and
finally , for design, it leads to use of either empirical method ,semi-empirical method available in the literature or
use of design recommendation given in the code which can be conservative or overconservative, basically to be on
the safe side.
- Just to add a link to the unending chain of data with regard to aspect ratio, amount and spacing of
horizontal and vertical reinforcement, axial pre-compression etc.
Lack of data available for the partially grouted reinforced masonry shear walls for shear strength prediction
.
The walls are not fully grouted and degree of grouting is varying with the number of vertical bars provided in the
wall owing to design for flexure.
The percentage of reinforcement and amount of pre-compression is considerably lower .

20
 objectives:-

Experimental evaluation of the displacement ductility of the unreinforced

and reinforced concrete masonry unit (CMU) walls, for in-plane quasi static
cycling displacement loading under constant pre-compression , designed as
per National Building Code of India (SP 7,Pt-6 Sec-4) .

To validate the value of R , recommended in the code.

To estimate the energy dissipation capacity of the walls and

To find the effect of horizontal as well as vertical reinforcement on the

mode of failure.
21
Methodology:-

EQ design philosophy:-

22
National building code of India :-
As per the part-06,sec-04 (masonry) of National Building Code of
India (SP 7),2016 which defines masonry shear walls as

Type A B C

Increasing ductility and energy dissipation capacity

23
 type A
1. Designed as a URM shear
wall according to IS 1905-
2003.
2. Recommended in lower
seismic zones II & III.
3. Higher response reduction
factor (R) value of 2.25 as
compared to ordinary URM
wall (R=1.5).
4. minimum reinforcement is
recommended as follows:-
- vertical reinforcement of
atleast 100 mm in c/s area
at a maximum spacing of 3
m.
-horizontal reinforcement
shall consist of atleast two
bars 0f 6 mm spaced not
more than 400 mm.
Type B
1. Designed as a ordinary RM
shear wall according to SP
7 (NBC) .
2. Recommended in high
seismic zones IV & V.
3. Force reduction factor (R)
value of 3.
4. minimum reinforcement is
recommended as follows:-
- vertical reinforcement of
atleast 100 mm in c/s
area at a maximum
spacing of 3 m.
- horizontal reinforcement
shall consist of atleast two
bars 0f 6 mm spaced not
more than 400 mm.
1.2m)
Type C
1. Designed as a special RM
shear wall according to SP
7 (NBC).
2. this is also recommended
in high seismic zones IV &
V.
3. Force reduction factor (R)
value of 4.
4. The masonry shall be
uniformly reinforced in
both direction such that the
sum of the reinforce-
ment of 0.2% of gross c/s
area with minimum value
of 0.07% in each direction
with spacing value being
min. of (Lw/3 ,hw/3 &
24
25
Prototype building:-
W
D

D W

D W

ELEVATION LEFT-SIDE
VIEW

PLAN 26
 6m

MODEL DESIGN:-
Analysed as per IS 1893-2016

2.2 m

1.2 m

9m

Full scale (1:1) model

2.2m

2.4 m E-W 27
 Design of shear wall A and B as per SP 7:-
Design recommendation are based on the condition of wall under the
action of loads which is described as follows:-

1. The wall is uncracked, {

< 1 3 }

2
2. The wall is cracked with the steel in compression { (1 3
)<(
) 3
} and

3. The wall is cracked with steel in tension { > 2

3
}

Where,
e = eccentricity of load from mid section ; = distance of point load from centroid of outermost steel

28
e

cross-section of wall

Case 1

Case 2

Case 3

29
 Interaction diagram:-

30
Experimental programme:-

Phase-I design Phase-II

31
Type of specimen Test standard to follow No. of specimens

unit (CMU) Compressive strength ASTM C1314-16 3 (one sample)

(fm) 3 (one sample)
ASTM C1006-07
Splitting Tensile strength
grout Compressive strength ASTM C-1019 9 (three samples)

Mortar Compressive strength ASTM C-109, 9 (three samples)

IS 4031(6)-1988
masonry prism Compressive ASTM E-447 3 (one sample)
str.(grouted) IS 1905-1987
,,
(ungrouted) 3 (one sample)

Tensile strength (ft)n 3 (one sample)

,, (ft)p ASTM C1072-86 3 (one sample)
masonry wallette Diagonal tensile strength ASTM E-519 1 (one sample)

32
33
 DESIGN

Preliminary design has been done as per the code.

Parameters assumed:-
Seismic data:-
Seismic zone = V ( Z = 0.36 )
Importance factor (I) = 1.5
Soil type = rock (type I)
Force reduction factor(R) = 2.25 (TYPE A) , 3.0 (TYPE B) and 4.0 (TYPE C)

Material data:-
prism compressive strength, fm = 15 MPa
tensile strength of steel, fy = 415 MPa
Grout strength ,fg= 15 MPa
youngs modulus of masonry prism, Em = 550 fm

34
 Wall specimen details:-

WALL UNIT TYPE VERTICAL Horizontal axial stress

SPECIMEN STEEL
V
steel
h
(MPa)

Type A CMU 2 8 mm 0.021 5 6 mm 0.029 1.12

Type B CMU 4 12 mm 0.094 5 6 mm 0.029 1.14

Type C CMU 8 8 mm 0.083 12 8 mm 0.1256 1.00

35
DETAILING:-

Type A shear wall:-

2200 mm

5 6 mm bars @ spacing of 400

400 mm mm

2400 mm

2400 mm

200mm

36
2 8 mm HYSD bars
Type B shear wall:-

2200 mm

5- 6 mm bars @ spacing of 400 mm

2400 mm
2400 mm

200 mm

37
4- 12 mm HYSD bar
type C shear wall:-

12- 8 mm bars provided as trussed

reinforcement

2400 mm

2400 mm

200 mm

38
8- 8 mm HYSD bars
PHASE - II

39
 Cyclic loading

Actuator Top beam

Load cell

Wall specimen

3000 mm

Anchor bolt

2500 mm
Bottom beam
5500 mm

40
Instrumentation:-
Actuator capacity = 50 tons ( for lateral loading)

Top beam
Hydraulic jacks / Actuator = 50 tons
( numbers = 2 , for vertical two point loading)

Load cell = 50 ton or 100 ton ( numbers = 3)

LVDT

STRAIN
GUAGE
41
Bottom beam
Two cycles at each drift level

42
 Scope:-
Test has been done for shear walls with aspect ratio = 0.9 < 1 (shear dominant behaviour)

The results will be limited to prescription for CMU hollow block masonry shear walls.

Axial stress has been kept constant.

Grout spacing is different for different walls and shall be used similarly in the actual
construction to get the same performance.

for type C wall , Trussed reinforcement has been provided along with the slight
modification at both ends to have the confinement effect.

43
 Summary:-

1. A precise introduction to the topic has been given with its implication to current scenario and in
the near future.

2. A review to the excellent work of researchers has been presented which has led to the
confidence in the designers with their limitations which has led to the need of this project and
hence the objectives have been defined.

3. Design recommendations for shear wall given in the code are reviewed.

4. Experimental programme has been discussed in the detail.

5. The limitation of this project has also been envisaged and stated.
44
References:-
ASTM. (2004). Standard test method for Youngs modulus, tangent modulus, and chord modulus. ASTM E111-04, West Conshohocken,PA
ASTM. (2010b). Standard test method for compressive strength of masonry prisms. ASTM C1314-10, West Conshohocken, PA
ASTM. (2011). Standard test methods for sampling and testing concrete masonry units and related units. ASTM C140-11, West
Conshohocken,PA.
ASTM. (2007b). Standard test method for sampling and testing grout.C1019, West Conshohocken, PA
Klamerus, E. W. (1988). "Experimental and analytical evaluation of the inelastic behavior of reinforced masonry shear walls," thesis
presented to the University of Colorado, at Boulder, Colo., in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of
Science
Matsumura, A. 1988. Shear strength of reinforced masonry walls. Proc., 9th World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 7,121126
Mayes, R. L., Omote, Y., and Clough, R. W. (1976a). "Cyclic shear tests of masonry piers, Vol. 1 Test results." Report No. UCB/EERC-
76/8, Earthquake Engrg.Res. Ctr., Univ. of California, Berkeley, Calif.
Mayes, R. L., Omote, Y., and Clough, R. W. (1976b). "Cyclic shear tests of masonry piers, Vol. 2Analysis of test results." Report No.
UCB/EERC-76/16,Earthquake Engrg. Res. Ctr., Univ. of California, Berkeley, Calif.
Minaie E.; Mota M.; Moon F.L.; and Hamid A.A. In-Plane Behavior of Partially Grouted Reinforced Concrete Masonry Shear Walls. J.
Struct. Eng., 2010, 136(9): 1089-1097
Nolph M.Shawn and ElGawady Mohamed A., Static Cyclic Response of Partially Grouted Masonry Shear Walls. J. Struct. Eng., 2012,
138(7): 864-879
Priestley, M. J. N. 1977. Seismic resistance of reinforced concrete masonry shear walls with high steel percentages. Bulletin of the New
Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering, 101, 116
45
 Shing, P. B., et al. (1989). "Inelastic behaviour of concrete masonry shear walls.", . J. Struct. Eng., vol . 115, no.09
Shing, P. B., Schuller, M., and Hoskere, V. S. 1990. In-plane resistance of reinforced masonry shear walls. J. Struct. Eng., 1163, 619640.
Sveinsson, B. I., McNiven, H. D., and Sucuoglu, H. (1985). "Cyclic loading tests of masonry single piers, Vol. 4Additional tests with
height to width ratio of 1."Report No. UCB/EERC-85/15, Earthquake Engrg. Res. Ctr., Univ. of California,Berkeley, Calif.
Tomazevic, M., et al. (1986). "Seismic resistance of reinforced masonry walls."Report No. ZRMK/IKPI-86/04, Institute for Structures and
Earthquake Engineering,Ljubljana, Yugoslavia.
Wakabayashi, M., and Nakamura, T. (1984). "Reinforcing principle and seismic reistance of brick masonry walls." Proc, Eighth World Conf.
on Earthquake Engineering,V, San Francisco, Calif
Voon, K. C., and Ingham, J. M. 2003. Experimental In-Plane Shear Strength Investigation of Reinforced Concrete Masonry Walls. J. Struct.
Eng., 2006, 132(3): 400-408

46
47
48