In most design codes, infill walls are considered as non-structural elements and thus are typically neglected in the design process. The observations made after major earthquakes (Duzce 1999, L’Aquila 2009, Christchurch 2011) have shown that even though infill walls are considered to be non-structural elements, they interact with the structural system during seismic actions. In the case of heavy infill walls (i.e. clay brick infill walls), the whole behaviour of the structure may be affected by this interaction (i.e. local or global structural failures such as soft storey mechanism). In the case of light infill walls (i.e. non-structural drywalls), this may cause significant economical losses. To consider the interaction of the structural system with the ‘non-structural ’infill walls at design stage may not be a practical approach due to the complexity of the infill wall behaviour. Therefore, the purpose of the reported research is to develop innovative technological solutions and design recommendations for low damage non-structural wall systems for seismic actions by making use of alternative approaches. Light (steel/timber framed drywalls) and heavy (unreinforced clay brick) non-structural infill wall systems were studied by following an experimental/numerical research programme. Quasi-static reverse cyclic tests were carried out by utilizing a specially designed full scale reinforced concrete frame, which can be used as a re-usable bare frame. In this frame, two RC beams and two RC columns were connected by two un-bonded post tensioning bars, emulating a jointed ductile frame system (PRESSS technology). Due to the rocking behaviour at the beam-column joint interfaces, this frame was typically a low damage structural solution, with the post-tensioning guaranteeing a linear elastic behaviour. Therefore, this frame could be repeatedly used in all of the tests carried out by changing only the infill walls within this frame. Due to the linear elastic behaviour of this structural bare frame, it was possible to extract the exact behaviour of the infill walls from the global results. In other words, the only parameter that affected the global results was given by the infill walls. For the test specimens, the existing practice of construction (as built) for both light and heavy non-structural walls was implemented. In the light of the observations taken during these tests, modified low damage construction practices were proposed and tested. In total, seven tests were carried out: 1) Bare frame , in order to confirm its linear elastic behaviour. 2) As built steel framed drywall specimen FIF1-STFD (Light) 3) As built timber framed drywall specimen FIF2-TBFD (Light) 4) As built unreinforced clay brick infill wall specimen FIF3-UCBI (Heavy) 5) Low damage steel framed drywall specimen MIF1-STFD (Light) 6) Low damage timber framed drywall specimen MIF2-TBFD (Light) 7) Low damage unreinforced clay brick infill wall specimen MIF5-UCBI (Heavy) The tests of the as built practices showed that both drywalls and unreinforced clay brick infill walls have a low serviceability inter-storey drift limit (0.2-0.3%). Based on the observations, simple modifications and details were proposed for the low damage specimens. The details proved to be working effectively in lowering the damage and increasing the serviceability drift limits. For drywalls, the proposed low damage solutions do not introduce additional cost, material or labour and they are easily applicable in real buildings. For unreinforced clay brick infill walls, a light steel sub-frame system was suggested that divides the infill panel zone into smaller individual panels, which requires additional labour and some cost. However, both systems can be engineered for seismic actions and their behaviour can be controlled by implementing the proposed details. The performance of the developed details were also confirmed by the numerical case study analyses carried out using Ruaumoko 2D on a reinforced concrete building model designed according to the NZ codes/standards. The results have confirmed that the implementation of the proposed low damage solutions is expected to significantly reduce the non-structural infill wall damage throughout a building.
Unreinforced masonry (URM) cavity-wall construction is a form of masonry where two leaves of clay brick masonry are separated by a continuous air cavity and are interconnected using some form of tie system. A brief historical introduction is followed by details of a survey undertaken to determine the prevalence of URM cavity-wall buildings in New Zealand. Following the 2010/2011 Canterbury earthquakes it was observed that URM cavity-walls generally suffered irreparable damage due to a lack of effective wall restraint and deficient cavity-tie connections, combined with weak mortar strength. It was found that the original cavity-ties were typically corroded due to moisture ingress, resulting in decreased lateral loadbearing capacity of the cavity-walls. Using photographic data pertaining to Christchurch URM buildings that were obtained during post-earthquake reconnaissance, 252 cavity-walls were identified and utilised to study typical construction details and seismic performance. The majority (72%, 182) of the observed damage to URM cavity-wall construction was a result of out-of-plane type wall failures. Three types of out-of-plane wall failure were recognised: (1) overturning response, (2) one-way bending, and (3) two-way bending. In-plane damage was less widely observed (28%) and commonly included diagonal shear cracking through mortar bed joints or bricks. The collected data was used to develop an overview of the most commonly-encountered construction details and to identify typical deficiencies in earthquake response that can be addressed via the selection and implementation of appropriate mitigation interventions. http://www.journals.elsevier.com/structures
The connections between walls of unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings and flexible timber diaphragms are critical building components that must perform adequately before desirable earthquake response of URM buildings may be achieved. Field observations made during the initial reconnaissance and the subsequent damage surveys of clay brick URM buildings following the 2010/2011 Canterbury, New Zealand, earthquakes revealed numerous cases where anchor connections joining masonry walls or parapets with roof or floor diaphragms appeared to have failed prematurely. These observations were more frequent for adhesive anchor connections than for through-bolt connections (i.e., anchorages having plates on the exterior facade of the masonry walls). Subsequently, an in-field test program was undertaken in an attempt to evaluate the performance of adhesive anchor connections between unreinforced clay brick URM walls and roof or floor diaphragm. The study consisted of a total of almost 400 anchor tests conducted in eleven existing URM buildings located in Christchurch, Whanganui and Auckland. Specific objectives of the study included the identification of failure modes of adhesive anchors in existing URM walls and the influence of the following variables on anchor load-displacement response: adhesive type, strength of the masonry materials (brick and mortar), anchor embedment depth, anchor rod diameter, overburden level, anchor rod type, quality of installation, and the use of metal mesh sleeves. In addition, the comparative performance of bent anchors (installed at an angle of minimum 22.5° to the perpendicular projection from the wall surface) and anchors positioned horizontally was investigated. Observations on the performance of wall-to-diaphragm connections in the 2010/2011 Canterbury earthquakes, a summary of the performed experimental program and test results, and a proposed pull-out capacity relationship for adhesive anchors installed into multi-leaf clay brick masonry are presented herein. AM - Accepted Manuscript
The connections between walls of unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings and flexible timber diaphragms are critical building components that must perform adequately before desirable earthquake response of URM buildings may be achieved. Field observations made during the initial reconnaissance and the subsequent damage surveys of clay brick URM buildings following the 2010/2011 Canterbury, New Zealand earthquakes revealed numerous cases where anchor connections joining masonry walls or parapets with roof or floor diaphragms appeared to have failed prematurely. These observations were more frequent for adhesive anchor connections than for through-bolt connections (i.e. anchorages having plates on the exterior façade of the masonry walls). Subsequently, an in-field test program was undertaken in an attempt to evaluate the performance of adhesive anchor connections between unreinforced clay brick URM walls and roof or floor diaphragms. The study consisted of a total of almost 400 anchor tests conducted in eleven existing URM buildings located in Christchurch, Whanganui and Auckland. Specific objectives of the study included the identification of failure modes of adhesive anchors in existing URM walls and the influence of the following variables on anchor load-displacement response: adhesive type, strength of the masonry materials (brick and mortar), anchor embedment depth, anchor rod diameter, overburden level, anchor rod type, quality of installation and the use of metal mesh sleeve. In addition, the comparative performance of bent anchors (installed at an angle of minimum 22.5o to the perpendicular projection from the wall surface) and anchors positioned horizontally was investigated. Observations on the performance of wall-to-diaphragm connections in the 2010/2011 Canterbury earthquakes, a snapshot of the performed experimental program and the test results and a preliminary proposed pull-out capacity of adhesive anchors are presented herein.
As part of a seismic retrofit scheme, surface bonded glass fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP) fabric was applied to two unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings located in Christchurch, New Zealand. The unreinforced stone masonry of Christchurch Girls’ High School (GHS) and the unreinforced clay brick masonry Shirley Community Centre were retrofitted using surface bonded GFRP in 2007 and 2009, respectively. Much of the knowledge on the seismic performance of GFRP retrofitted URM was previously assimilated from laboratory-based experimental studies with controlled environments and loading schemes. The 2010/2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence provided a rare opportunity to evaluate the GFRP retrofit applied to two vintage URM buildings and to document its performance when subjected to actual design-level earthquake-induced shaking. Both GFRP retrofits were found to be successful in preserving architectural features within the buildings as well as maintaining the structural integrity of the URM walls. Successful seismic performance was based on comparisons made between the GFRP retrofitted GHS building and the adjacent nonretrofitted Boys’ High School building, as well as on a comparison between the GFRP retrofitted and nonretrofitted walls of the Shirley Community Centre building. Based on detailed postearthquake observations and investigations, the GFRP retrofitted URM walls in the subject buildings exhibited negligible to minor levels of damage without delamination, whereas significant damage was observed in comparable nonretrofitted URM walls. AM - Accepted Manuscript
Seismic behaviour of typical unreinforced masonry (URM) brick houses, that were common in early last century in New Zealand and still common in many developing countries, is experimentally investigated at University of Canterbury, New Zealand in this research. A one halfscale model URM house is constructed and tested under earthquake ground motions on a shaking table. The model structure with aspect ratio of 1.5:1 in plan was initially tested in the longitudinal direction for several earthquakes with peak ground acceleration (PGA) up to 0.5g. Toppling of end gables (above the eaves line) and minor to moderate cracking around window and door piers was observed in this phase. The structure was then rotated 90º and tested in the transverse (short) direction for ground motions with PGA up to 0.8g. Partial out-of-plane failure of the face loaded walls in the second storey and global rocking of the model was observed in this phase. A finite element analysis and a mechanism analysis are conducted to assess the dynamic properties and lateral strength of the model house. Seismic fragility function of URM houses is developed based on the experimental results. Damping at different phases of the response is estimated using an amplitude dependent equivalent viscous damping model. Financial risk of similar URM houses is then estimated in term of expected annual loss (EAL) following a probabilistic financial risk assessment framework. Risks posed by different levels of damage and by earthquakes of different frequencies are then examined.
