DEFORMATION CAPACITY OF STRUCTURAL MASONRY: A … · deformation capacity of walls which have undergone a shear-dominated failure mode is much lower than that of walls failing by

15th International Brick and Block

Masonry Conference

Florianópolis – Brazil – 2012

DEFORMATION CAPACITY OF STRUCTURAL MASONRY:

A REVIEW OF EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH

Salmanpour, Amir Hosein1; Mojsilović, Nebojša

2; Schwartz, Joseph

3

1 MSc, Graduate student, ETH Zurich, Institute of Structural Engineering, [email protected]

2 PhD, Senior Scientist, ETH Zurich, Institute of Structural Engineering, [email protected]

3 PhD, Professor, ETH Zurich, Institute for Technology in Architecture, [email protected]

A research project on the deformation capacity of unreinforced masonry is underway at the

Institute of Structural Engineering of ETH Zurich. The development of the basic building

blocks for the deformation-based design of masonry structures is the objective of the present

research project, which should be seen as a first step in an initiative to investigate the limits of

the deformation capacity of structural masonry.

This paper presents a summary review of previous experimental studies on the deformation

capacity of structural masonry. This review is the first phase of a three year long research

program, launched by the authors, whose objective is highlighted above. The review included

tests on unreinforced, unconfined masonry walls made of clay bricks and bed joints with

general purpose mortar. The tests are presented in the form of a database, along with relevant

parameters of the material, geometry, loading and type of failure. The presented test results

are discussed and a set of conclusions is given. The findings of this review will be

incorporated into the abovementioned research project.

Keywords: Clay block masonry, deformation capacity, load tests, shear wall, structural masonry, URM

INTRODUCTION

In masonry structures subjected to seismic actions, if local failure modes, e.g. out-of-plane

failure, are prevented, a global behaviour is governed by the in-plane response of the walls. In

particular, the global behaviour of masonry structures is mainly affected by the in-plane

response of walls with shear-dominated failure mechanisms, because they have lower

displacement capacity compared to those which fail in flexural or sliding modes. As tests have

shown, the deformation capacity of unreinforced masonry walls that fail in shear-dominated

modes is not negligible; thus, this fact has to be considered for the rational design or

assessment of masonry structures.

Current codes of practice prescribe values for deformation capacity of masonry walls, usually

based on available experimental data. Unfortunately, the proposed values are not always

readily applicable since the data obtained from tests exhibits a rather large scatter. Given the

above, there is a need for a thorough investigation of the deformation capacity of structural

masonry.

mailto:[email protected]




Masonry Conference


To meet the aforementioned need, a research project on the deformation capacity of

unreinforced masonry has been initiated at the Institute of Structural Engineering of ETH

Zurich. The development of the basic building blocks for the deformation-based design of

masonry structures is the objective of the present research project, which should be seen as a

first step in an initiative to investigate the limits of the deformation capacity of structural

masonry. The research project will include a thorough survey and assessment of existing

experimental and theoretical research in the area of the deformation capacity of structural

masonry as well as developing and introducing new sophisticated mechanical models for

structural masonry. A novel approach will be developed and utilized for the purpose of

applying experimental evidence collected from our own tests performed on large-scale

masonry structural elements for the development of reliable mechanical models.

EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH DATABASE

As the initial phase of the research project, a review of the technical literature on experimental

research on the deformation capacity of structural masonry was conducted. The main

objective of the literature review was to provide a comprehensive database of available test

results as well as to identify the governing parameters for our own (future) experimental

work.

Table 1 presents a summary of 71 tests which have been reviewed so far. It gives information

regarding material properties of the constituents: unit dimensions and compressive strengths

of units, fb, mortar, fm and masonry (perpendicular to the bed joints), fx; specimen geometry:

wall length, lw, height, hw and thickness, tw; boundary conditions and applied vertical pre-

compression, 0. The database is limited to the shear tests conducted on full-scale

unreinforced, unconfined masonry shear walls made of clay bricks and bed joints with general

purpose mortar, whose joints had a nominal thickness of 10 mm. Different types of head

joints including fully mortared (F), unfilled (U), mortar pocket (MP) and tongue and groove

(TG) have been considered. All tests were static-cyclic, except for the test MI1m where the

shear load was applied monotonically. Where the composition of the mortar has not been

specified, the mortar is supposed to be a cement-lime mortar. Further, it should be noted that a

considerable number of reviewed shear tests on structural masonry have not been considered

in the database for they did not provide useful information on the deformation capacity.

Table 1 also reports the results of the reviewed tests in terms of failure mechanism and

parameters of the idealized bilinear envelope, see Figure 1. Regarding the failure mechanism,

the data was classified into four categories: walls that were shear-dominated (SH), flexure-

dominated (F), sliding (SL) and hybrid (H), i.e. combined shear and flexural failure modes.

The classification was carried out based on the shape of the reported hysteretic loops and

available photos, sketches and description of the damage propagation and failure modes given

in the reviewed reports. Among the analysed 71 tests, 24 tests (34%) were characterized by

the shear-dominated failure mode, 22 tests (31%) by the flexure-dominated failure mode and

21 tests (29%) by the hybrid failure mode. Only 4 tests (6%) failed by sliding.

In order to ensure consistency throughout the database, the actual hysteretic behaviour of the

walls has been approximated by the linear-elastic, ideal-plastic bilinear envelope illustrated in

Figure 1 (Tomaževič, 1999). In order to determine the idealized bilinear envelope curve, after

construction of the hysteretic envelope, three parameters must be identified: the equivalent


Masonry Conference


elastic stiffness (Kel), the ultimate displacement capacity (u) and the ultimate shear strength

(Vu). The elastic stiffness is calculated from a secant of the cyclic envelope at 0.7Vmax, where

Vmax is the maximal lateral load obtained from the test. The ultimate displacement capacity is

the displacement corresponding to the strength degradation of 20%. The ultimate shear

strength is obtained by equating the areas under the experimental and bilinear envelopes.

Figure 1: Bilinear idealization of the hysteretic envelope (Tomaževič 1999)

DISCUSSION

Figure 2 illustrates the ultimate drift capacity (the ultimate displacement divided by the height

of the specimen, u/hw) for each failure mode except for the sliding failure mode, where the

tests were interrupted before reaching the maximum displacement. Theoretically, the

displacement capacity of these walls is unlimited.

Figure 2: Ultimate drift capacity of unreinforced masonry walls obtained from tests

As indicated by Figure 2, the mean values of the ultimate drift capacity for walls failing in

flexural, hybrid and shear failure modes were 1.21%, 0.96% and 0.40%, respectively. The

deformation capacity of walls which have undergone a shear-dominated failure mode is much

lower than that of walls failing by hybrid or flexure-dominated modes. Thus, it could be

concluded that the global displacement capacity of unreinforced masonry structures will be


Masonry Conference


mostly controlled by the displacement capacity of walls failing in shear-dominated mode. In

the following, we will discuss the ultimate drift capacity of walls with shear failure modes in

more detail.

Figure 3 illustrates the ultimate drift capacity of walls that failed in the shear-dominated

failure mode. The hatched and solid bars correspond to the specimens with cantilever and

fixed ends boundary condition, respectively. As shown, the ultimate drift capacity of walls

with shear failure modes ranges between 0.14% and 0.78% with the mean value of 0.40% and

the coefficient of variation (COV) of 49.1%. It should be mentioned that tests which did not

reach the ultimate limit state have been excluded from the analysis and from Figures 2 and 3

(4 tests in the case of shear-dominated failure).The minimal value of the drift capacity

corresponded to wall 16_2. It is important to point out that in this case, such rather limited

ultimate drift capacity of 0.14% is basically due to the definition of the ultimate state as the

state corresponding to a strength degradation of 20%. As given in Frumento et al. (2009) the

hysteretic envelope of wall 16_1 exhibits sudden strength degradation after reaching the

maximum shear strength, but after that the wall displays further deformation capacity before

the collapse. A similar behaviour has been observed for wall 16_3 from the same reference.

Figure 3: Ultimate drift capacity of walls with shear-dominated failure mode

The maximum value of the ultimate drift capacity has been reached for specimen BNW3

which was tested under a medium level of compression 0/fx = 0.22. For this wall, the early

occurrence of shear cracks and the large difference between the cracking load and the

maximum shear load were typical (Frumento et al., 2009).

From Figure 3, it can be seen that the specimens with fixed ends boundary conditions

exhibited lower drift capacity than those with cantilever boundary conditions. Further

inspection of the comparable data revealed that the ultimate drift capacity decreases as the

vertical pre-compression increases or as the aspect ratio of the specimen, i.e. hw/lw, decreases.

The influence of the other factors, e.g. head joints type and size effect (specimens with the

same aspect ratio), could not be investigated because of the inhomogeneity of the available

experimental data.


Masonry Conference


It is clear from Figure 2 that the ultimate drift capacity exhibited rather large scatter. The

corresponding (large) values of COV for walls with flexure-dominated, hybrid and shear-

dominated failure modes were 57.8%, 41.0% and 49.1%, respectively. Due to this scatter, it is

not easy to identify a rational value for the ultimate displacement capacity of unreinforced

masonry shear walls based only on available experimental data. However, some guidance for

practicing engineers must be provided and such values are given by structural codes. In

Europe, the ultimate drift capacity provided by Annex 3 of EN 1998-3 is 0.53% for

unreinforced masonry walls with the shear failure mode and 1.07% for walls failing in the

flexural mode for the limit state of Near Collapse (NC). As can be seen from Figures 2 and 3,

these values do not always provide a safe design.

In general, the deformation capacity of structural masonry is influenced not only by the failure

mechanism but by many other factors such as constituent materials, geometry, pre-

compression level, etc. Due to inhomogeneous experimental data and a lack of reliable

mechanical models, we are still not able to properly take into account the influence of all

factors affecting the deformation capacity of structural masonry. Obviously, to get a clearer

picture on the problem, in addition to conducting more tests, we need to develop reliable

mechanical models to describe the load-deformation behaviour of structural masonry. This

task is being approached within the framework of the current research project.

CONCLUSIONS

The preliminary analysis of our review of the technical literature on experimental research on

the deformation capacity of unreinforced, unconfined masonry walls made of clay bricks and

bed joints with general purpose mortar allows a number of conclusions to be drawn:

It was not possible to identify a rational value for the ultimate drift capacity of

unreinforced masonry shear walls based only on the available experimental data,

mainly due to the large scatter in the test results.

The values of the ultimate drift capacity of unreinforced structural masonry given by

Eurocode 8 were not always found to be on the safe side.

To identify the ultimate drift capacity of unreinforced masonry shear walls, in addition

to conducting more tests, it is necessary to develop reliable mechanical models for the

load-deformation behaviour of structural masonry.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Funding from the Swiss National Science Foundation (Grant 200021_131971) is gratefully

acknowledged.

REFERENCES

Abrams, D.P., Shah, N. “Cyclic load testing of unreinforced masonry walls”, Report #92-26-

10, Advanced Construction Technology Centre, College of Engineering, University of Illinois

at Urbana-Champaign, 1992.

Anthoine, A., Magonette, G., Magenes, G. “Shear-compression testing and analysis of brick

masonry walls”, Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering,

Vienna, Austria, 1994, pp. 1657-1662.


Masonry Conference


Bosiljkov, V., Tomaževič, M., Lutman, M. “Optimization of shape of masonry units and

technology of construction for earthquake resistant masonry buildigs”, Research Report-Part

Three, ZAG Ljubljana, Slovenia, 2006.

Bosiljkov, V., Tomaževič, M., Lutman, M. “Optimization of shape of masonry units and

technology of construction for earthquake resistant masonry buildings”, Research Report-Part

One and Two, ZAG Ljubljana, Slovenia, 2004.

Bosiljkov, V., Page, A., Bokan-Bosiljkov, V., Zarnic, R. “Performance based studies of in-

plane loaded unreinforced masonry walls”, Masonry International, Vol. 16, No. 2, 2003, pp.

39-50.

CEN-EN 1998-3, “Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance, Part 3:

Strengthening and repair of buildings”, 2005.

Da Porto, F., Grendene, M., Modena, C. “Estimation of load reduction factors for clay

masonry walls”, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 38, 2009, pp. 1155-

1174.

Fehling, E., Stuerz, J., Emami, A. “Tests results on the behaviour of masonry under static

(monotonic and cyclic) in plane lateral loads”, Technical report of the collective research

project ESECMaSE, Deliverable D7.1a, Institute of Structural Engineering, University of

Kassel, Germany, 2007.

Frumento, S., Magenes, G., Morandi, P., Calvi, G.M. “Interpretation of experimental shear

tests on clay brick masonry walls and evaluation of q-factors for seismic design”, Research

Report No. 02.09, EUCENTRE and University of Pavia, IUSS Press, 2009.

Magenes, G., Morandi, P., Penna, A. “Tests results on the behaviour of masonry under static

cyclic in plane lateral loads”, Technical report of the collective research project ESECMaSE,

Deliverable D7.1c, Department of Structural Mechanics, University of Pavia, Italy, 2008.

Magenes, G., Calvi, G.M. “In-plane seismic response of brick masonry walls”, Earthquake

Engineering and Structural Dynamics,Vol. 26, 1997, pp. 1091-1112.

Magenes, G., Calvi, G.M. “Cyclic behaviour of brick masonry walls”, Proceedings of the 10th

World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Madrid, Spain, 1992, pp. 3517-3522.

Manzouri, T., Shing, P.B., Amadei, B., Schuller, M., Atkinson, R. “Repair and retrofit of

unreinforced masonry walls: experimental evaluation and finite element analysis”, Report

CU/SR-95/2, Department of Civil, Environmental and Architectural Engineering, University

of Colorado at Boulder, 1995.

Modena, C., Da Porto, F., Garbin, F. “Ricerca sperimentale sul comportamento di sistemi per

muratura portante in zona sesmica”, Draft 2005/01, University of Padua, Italy, 2005.

Tomaževič, M. “Earthquake-resistant design of masonry buildings”, Imperial College Press,

London, 1999.


Masonry Conference


Tab

le 1

: S

um

mary

of

the

exp

erim

enta

l st

ud

ies

on

th

e d

eform

ati

on

cap

aci

ty o

f st

ructu

ral

maso

nry

Refe

ren

ce

Bo

silj

kov

et

al.

(200

4)

Bo

silj

kov

et

al.

(200

6)

Mag

enes

et

al.

(200

8)

Bo

silj

kov

et

al.

(200

4)

Bo

silj

kov

et

al.

(200

6)

Mod

ena

et a

l.

(200

5)

4

Da

Po

rto

et

al.

(200

9) 4

1-

Th

e te

sts

wer

e st

op

ped

bef

ore

rea

chin

g f

ailu

re.

2-

Th

e v

erti

cal

stre

ss w

as i

ncr

emen

ted

fro

m 0

.5 t

o 0

.68 M

Pa

afte

r 7

cy

cles

bec

ause

of

sig

nif

ican

t sl

idin

g b

etw

een

th

e st

eel

bea

m a

t th

e to

p a

nd t

he

wal

l it

self

.

3-

Hy

dra

uli

c pre

mix

ed l

ime

mo

rtar

(T

300

-Tas

sull

o C

om

pan

y)

4-

Th

e p

aram

eter

s o

f th

e b

ilin

ear

env

elo

pes

hav

e b

een

tak

en f

rom

Fru

men

to e

t al

. (2

009

).

Vu

[KN

]

52.1

90.9

52.7

100

.8

100

.5

60.9

258

.3

441

.9

353

.5

391

.0

288

.6

327

.3

79.3

97.7

98.9

101

.5

327

.3

86.4

128

.3

132

.4

δu/h

w

[%]

>1

.71

1

0.6

6

1.3

1

0.8

5

0.8

3

2.3

2

1.3

7

0.5

7

0.7

7

0.3

3

0.3

4

0.2

5

>1

.95

1

0.6

6

0.7

8

0.6

6

0.7

2

2.9

1

1.9

8

1.3

7

Kel

[KN

/mm

]

57.5

1

43.0

0

49.6

9

51.2

1

39.1

2

33.6

5

210

.86

280

.09

168

.24

153

.45

111

.00

114

.44

38.1

3

35.9

9

32.7

7

32.0

7

409

.13

21.7

2

84.3

5

45.2

6

Vm

ax

[KN

]

55.0

98.8

56.2

112

.0

109

.4

65.9

285

.1

467

.9

384

.9

417

.4

316

.0

343

.0

84.5

106

.3

110

.3

111

.0

358

.9

89.8

136

.3

140

.5

F.M

.

F

F

H

F

H

F

H

S

S

S

S

S

F

F

F

F

H

F

F

F

B.C

.

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

F

F

F

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

σ0/

f x

0.1

5

0.2

9

0.1

5

0.2

9

0.2

9

0.1

5

0.1

4

0.2

9

0.2

2

0.2

2

0.0

7 2

0.0

7

0.0

5

0.1

9

0.1

9

0.1

9

0.2

2

0.1

7

0.2

1

0.2

7

σ0

[MP

a]

0.6

0

1.1

9

0.6

0

1.1

9

1.1

9

0.6

0

0.5

9

1.1

9

0.8

9

2.0

7

0.6

8 2

0.6

8

0.5

0

1.1

9

1.1

9

1.1

9

0.8

5

0.8

9

1.1

4

1.4

6

Hea

d

Join

ts

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

MP

MP

MP

MP

MP

MP

MP

Wa

ll D

imen

sio

ns

[mm

]

t w

300

300

300

300

300

300

297

297

297

172

300

300

300

300

300

300

247

300

300

300

hw/l

w

1.4

7

1.4

7

1.4

7

1.4

8

1.4

7

1.4

7

0.6

8

0.6

8

0.6

8

0.6

7

1.0

4

1.0

4

2.0

8

1.5

3

1.5

3

1.5

3

0.6

8

1.1

8

1.1

8

1.1

8

l w

1028

1030

1033

1025

1027

1026

2567

2572

2584

2712

2500

2500

1250

985

985

986

2359

992

992

992

f x

[MP

a]

4.1

4.1

4.1

4.1

4.1

4.1

4.1

4.1

4.1

9.4

9.5

9.5

9.5

6.3

6.3

6.3

3.9

5.3

5.3

5.3

f m

[MP

a]

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.4

5.4

5.4

11.3

7.4

7.4

7.4

5.3

5.3

5.3

10.4

L

ightw

eight

14.0

3

14.0

3

14.0

3

f b

[MP

a]

10.0

10.0

10.0

10.0

10.0

10.0

10.2

10.2

10.2

23.3

15.1

15.0

15.1

11.9

11.9

11.9

13.3

20.0

20.0

20.0

Un

it S

ize [

mm

]

Bric

k V

oid

Area

[%]

245x

298

x23

7

50%

244x

297

x23

6

51%

288x

172

x18

8

41%

250x

300

x19

0

45%

245x

299

x23

6

52%

389x

245

x18

8

52%

250x

300

x22

5

43%

Sp

ecim

en

BN

L1

BN

L2

BN

L3

BN

L4

BN

L5

BN

L6

BN

W1

BN

W2

BN

W3

BS

W

CL

04

CL

05

CL

06

BP

L1

BP

L2

BP

L3

BT

W

15_8

15_9

15_1

0

La

b.

ZA

G

UP

V

ZA

G

UP

D

No

.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20


Masonry Conference


Refe

ren

ce

Fru

men

to e

t al

.

(200

9)

Bo

silj

kov

et

al.

(200

4)

Bo

silj

kov

et

al.

(200

6)

Mod

ena

et a

l.

(200

5) 3

Da

Po

rto

et

al.

(200

9) 3

Mag

enes

et

al.

(200

8)

1-

Th

e te

sts

wer

e st

op

ped

bef

ore

rea

chin

g f

ailu

re.

2-

Hy

dra

uli

c pre

mix

ed l

ime

mo

rtar

(T

300

-Tas

sull

o C

om

pan

y)

3-

Th

e p

aram

eter

s o

f th

e b

ilin

ear

env

elo

pes

hav

e b

een

tak

en f

rom

Fru

men

to e

t al

. (2

009

).

Vu

[KN

]

189

.4

232

.9

263

.5

238

.9

237

.4

257

.5

95.6

94.6

68.7

91.0

95.4

95.2

328

.3

227

.8

109

.6

119

.3

144

.6

72.0

262

.0

δu/h

w

[%]

0.2

5

0.1

4

0.2

4

1.0

0

1.0

0

>2

.00

1

0.6

6

0.8

3

0.9

7

0.4

0

0.6

1

0.5

8

0.7

2

1.7

2

1.4

2

1.5

7

1.5

8

0.2

2

0.4

0

Kel

[KN

/mm

]

216

.46

221

.81

250

.95

227

.52

169

.57

163

.49

57.4

4

52.1

7

13.8

1

43.0

5

30.0

5

31.5

6

144

.31

185

.96

36.0

3

59.9

8

53.7

3

19.7

8

71.9

8

Vm

ax

[KN

]

220

.0

278

.0

298

.0

260

.0

260

.0

269

.0

101

.7

102

.9

93.8

100

.4

103

.8

102

.4

352

.3

243

.3

114

.4

124

.7

152

.0

72.5

267

.7

F.M

.

S

S

S

H

H

SL

H

H

H

F

F

F

S

H

F

F

F

S

S

B.C

.

F

F

F

F

F

F

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

F

F

σ0/

f x

0.0

7

0.1

0

0.1

0

0.1

0

0.1

0

0.1

0

0.2

8

0.2

8

0.2

8

0.1

9

0.1

9

0.1

9

0.2

2

0.2

2

0.1

7

0.2

2

0.2

7

0.0

8

0.1

0

σ0

[MP

a]

0.4

0

0.6

0

0.6

0

0.6

0

0.6

0

0.6

0

1.1

9

1.1

9

1.1

9

1.1

9

1.1

9

1.1

9

0.9

5

0.5

3

0.9

4

1.2

4

1.5

5

0.5

0

0.6

8

Hea

d

Join

ts

MP

MP

MP

MP

MP

MP

U

U

U

TG

TG

TG

TG

TG

TG

TG

TG

TG

TG

Wa

ll D

imen

sio

ns

[mm

]

t w

300

300

300

300

300

300

300

300

300

298

298

298

296

296

300

300

300

300

300

hw/l

w

0.7

0

0.7

0

0.7

0

0.7

0

0.7

0

0.7

0

1.5

3

1.5

3

1.5

3

1.5

3

1.5

3

1.5

3

0.7

1

0.7

0

1.1

8

1.1

8

1.1

8

2.0

8

1.0

4

l w

2500

2500

2500

2500

2500

2500

989

987

988

988

987

986

2482

2484

992

992

992

1250

2500

f x

[MP

a]

5.7

6.0

6.0

6.0

6.0

6.0

4.3

4.3

4.3

6.2

6.2

6.2

4.3

2.4

5.7

5.7

5.7

6.6

6.6

f m

[MP

a]

*

*

*

6.6

6.0

4.9

6.3

6.3

6.3

3.3

3.3

3.3

5.3

5.3

L

ightw

eight

14.0

2

14.0

2

14.0

2

10.6

10.6

f b

[MP

a]

*

*

*

*

*

*

10.0

10.0

10.0

15.1

15.1

15.1

10.9

10.9

20.0

20.0

20.0

13.1

13.1

Un

it S

ize [

mm

]

Bric

k V

oid

Area

[%]

250x

300

x23

8

*%

Ho

llo

w C

lay

Bri

ck

250x

300

x23

8

46%

245x

298

x23

7

50%

243x

298

x23

5

48%

244x

297

x23

7

48%

250x

300

x22

5

43%

250x

300

x19

0

45%

Sp

ecim

en

16_1

16_2

16_3

18_1

18_2

18_3

BG

L1

BG

L2

BG

L3

BZ

L1

BZ

L2

BZ

L3

BZ

W1

BZ

W2

15_5

15_6

15_7

CL

07

CL

08

La

b.

UT

CB

ZA

G

UP

D

UP

V

No

.

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39


Masonry Conference


Refe

ren

ce

Feh

lin

g e

t al

.

(200

7)

Mag

enes

&C

alv

i

(199

2)

Mag

enes

&C

alv

i

(199

7)

An

thoin

e et

al.

(199

4)

Mag

enes

&C

alv

i

(199

7)

Ab

ram

s&S

hah

(199

2)

Man

zou

ri e

t al

.

(199

5)

1-

Acc

ord

ing

to

EN

998

-2 (

200

5)

2-

Th

e te

sts

wer

e st

op

ped

bef

ore

rea

chin

g f

ailu

re.

3-

Tes

t w

alls

wer

e in

ten

ded

to

rep

rese

nt

old

mas

on

ry s

tru

ctu

res.

4-

Th

e w

all

exh

ibit

ed s

ud

den

str

eng

th d

egra

dat

ion

aft

er t

he

max

imu

m s

hea

r st

ren

gth

, bu

t it

dis

pla

yed

fu

rth

er d

eform

atio

n c

apac

ity

aft

er t

hat

.

Vu

[KN

]

139

.0

107

.5

115

.0

46.0

144

.0

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

δu/h

w

[%]

>0

.11

2

0.2

2

0.2

8

0.4

3

>0

.28

2

0.3

8

0.3

5

0.4

0

0.4

0

0.3

7

0.3

1

>0

.60

2

0.7

5

0.7

84

0.9

2

0.9

0

>1

.30

2

0.7

5

0.7

5

Kel

[KN

/mm

]

73.1

6

43.0

0

26.7

4

11.7

9

40.0

0

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Vm

ax

[KN

]

160

.0

118

.0

149

.0

56.0

162

.0

259

.0

259

.0

227

.0

185

.0

153

.0

84.0

72.0

71.0

422

.6

195

.7

89.0

693

.9

324

.7

364

.7

F.M

.

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

H

H

S

F

F

SL

H

F

SL

S

S

B.C

.

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

C

C

C

C

C

C

σ0/

f x

*

*

*

*

*

0.1

5

0.1

5

0.0

5

0.1

5

0.0

5

0.1

0

0.1

0

0.1

3

0.0

8

0.0

5

0.0

5

0.0

8

0.0

3

0.0

3

σ0

[MP

a]

1.0

0

1.0

0

1.0

0

1.0

0

1.0

0

1.2

0

1.2

0

0.4

0

1.2

0

0.4

0

0.6

0

0.6

0

0.8

0

0.5

2

0.3

4

0.3

4

1.0

0

0.4

0

0.6

0

Hea

d

Join

ts

TG

TG

TG

TG

TG

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

Wa

ll D

imen

sio

ns

[mm

]

t w

175

175

175

175

175

380

380

380

380

380

250

250

250

198

198

198

330

330

330

hw/l

w

1.1

4

1.1

4

1.1

4

2.2

7

1.1

4

1.3

3

1.3

3

1.3

3

2.0

0

2.0

0

1.3

5

2.0

0

2.0

0

0.4

4

0.7

9

1.1

9

0.5

9

0.5

9

0.5

9

l w

2200

2200

2200

1100

2200

1500

1500

1500

1500

1500

1000

1000

1000

3658

2057

1372

2591

2591

2591

f x

[MP

a]

*

*

*

*

*

7.9

7.9

7.9

7.9

7.9

6.2

6.2

6.2

6.3

6.3

6.3

13.8

15.2

17.9

f m

[MP

a]

*

M5

1

*

M5

1

*

M5

1

*

M5

1

*

M5

1

4.3

3

Lim

e

4.3

3

Lim

e

4.3

3

Lim

e

4.3

3

Lim

e

4.3

3

Lim

e

3.3

1

Lim

e

3.3

1

Lim

e

3.3

1

Lim

e

*

*

*

*

Lim

e

*

Lim

e

*

Lim

e

f b

[MP

a]

*

*

*

*

*

19.7

19.7

19.7

19.7

19.7

26.9

26.9

26.9

24.0

24.0

24.0

21.6

21.6

21.6

Un

it S

ize [

mm

]

Bric

k V

oid

Area

[%]

363x

175

x23

8

*%

Ho

llo

w C

lay

Bri

ck

250x

120

x55

So

lid C

lay

Bri

ck

250x

120

x55

So

lid C

lay

Bri

ck

198x

89x

56

So

lid C

lay

Bri

ck

210x

105

x51

So

lid C

lay

Bri

ck

Sp

ecim

en

No

.1

No

.3

No

.6

No

.8

No

.11

MI1

m

MI1

MI2

MI3

MI4

ISP

1

ISP

2

ISP

3

W1

W2

W3

W1

W2

W3

La

b.

UN

IK

UP

V 3

ISP

3

UIL

3

UC

B 3

No

.

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58


Masonry Conference


Refe

ren

ce

Bo

silj

kov

et

al.

(200

3)

1-

Th

e te

sts

wer

e st

op

ped

bef

ore

rea

chin

g f

ailu

re.

KE

Y T

O T

HE

TA

BL

E

* D

ata

is n

ot

avai

lab

le.

ZA

G:

ZA

G,

Lju

blj

ana,

Slo

ven

ia;

UP

V:

Un

iver

sity

of

Pav

ia a

nd

EU

CE

NT

RE

, It

aly

; U

PD

: U

niv

ersi

ty o

f P

adu

a, I

taly

; U

TC

B:

Tec

hn

ical

Un

iver

sity

of

Civ

il

En

gin

eeri

ng

Bu

char

est,

Ro

man

ia;

UN

IK:

Un

iver

sity

of

Kas

sel,

Ger

man

y;

ISP

: Jo

int

Res

ear

ch C

entr

e o

f th

e E

uro

pea

n C

om

mu

nit

y,

Isp

ra, It

aly

; U

IL:

Un

iver

sity

of

Illi

no

is a

t U

rban

a-C

ham

pai

gn

; U

CB

: U

niv

ersi

ty o

f C

olo

rad

o a

t B

ou

lder

B.C

.: B

ou

nd

ary

Co

nd

itio

n:

C s

tan

ds

for

can

tile

ver

an

d F

sta

nd

s fo

r fi

xed

en

ds.

F.M

.: F

ailu

re M

ech

anis

m

Vu

[KN

]

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

δu/h

w

[%]

0.5

7

1.1

1

1.1

8

0.6

8

0.7

3

0.9

3

0.7

2

1.0

3

>1

.80

1

1.7

6

>2

.46

1

>0

.45

1

>0

.55

1

Kel

[KN

/mm

]

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Vm

ax

[KN

]

95.5

97.8

76.1

72.2

66.4

43.8

49.4

40.7

27.0

49.9

70.6

114

.8

116

.7

F.M

.

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

SL

F

F

S

S

B.C

.

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

σ0/

f x

0.1

7

0.1

7

0.1

7

0.1

7

0.1

7

0.1

7

0.1

7

0.1

7

0.0

6

0.0

8

0.1

2

0.3

2

0.3

2

σ0

[MP

a]

2.5

0

2.5

0

2.0

9

2.0

9

2.0

9

1.1

6

1.1

6

1.1

6

0.6

9

1.0

0

1.5

0

4.0

0

4.0

0

Hea

d

Join

ts

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

Wa

ll D

imen

sio

ns

[mm

]

t w

120

120

120

120

120

120

120

120

120

120

120

120

120

hw/l

w

1.4

7

1.4

7

1.4

7

1.4

7

1.4

7

1.4

7

1.4

7

1.4

7

1.4

7

1.4

7

1.4

7

1.4

7

1.4

7

l w

950

950

950

950

950

950

950

950

950

950

950

950

950

f x

[MP

a]

15.0

15.0

12.5

12.5

12.5

6.9

6.9

6.9

12.5

12.5

12.5

12.5

12.5

f m

[MP

a]

13.8

C

emen

t

13.8

C

emen

t

9.5

9.5

9.5

1.1

L

ime

1.1

L

ime

1.1

L

ime

9.5

9.5

9.5

9.5

9.5

f b

[MP

a]

17.4

17.4

17.4

17.4

17.4

17.4

17.4

17.4

17.4

17.4

17.4

17.4

17.4

Un

it S

ize [

mm

]

Bric

k V

oid

Area

[%]

210x

120

x65

So

lid C

lay

Bri

ck

Sp

ecim

en

CM

01

CM

02

CL

M01

CL

M02

CL

M03

LM

01

LM

02

LM

03

CL

M04

CL

M05

CL

M06

CL

M07

CL

M08

La

b.

ZA

G

No

.

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

Documents

DEFORMATION CAPACITY OF STRUCTURAL MASONRY: A … · deformation capacity of walls which have undergone a shear-dominated failure mode is much lower than that of walls failing by