EXPERIMENTAL STUDY ON SEISMIC RESISTANT CAPACITY OF MASONRY WALLS Dagen WENG/wdg@mail.tongji.edu.

cn Xilin LU, Xiaosong REN and Zhuhui LU Research Institute of Structural Engineering and Disaster Reduction, Tongji University, Shanghai, China Kangning LI and Tetsuo KUBO Earthquake Disaster Mitigation Research Center, NIED, Miki, Japan Abstract: The study is to investigate the lateral load resistant capacity and deformation capacity of masonry walls. Nine masonry wall specimens were cast using the mortar in different strength and tested under equivalent lateral cyclic or monotonic load. The specimens are designed to represent the masonry walls from lower to upper stories and are subjected to different normal stress. The experimental results indicate that the maximum lateral load resistant capacity of the masonry wall is about 2.0 ~ 4.0 times to the calculated capacity according to the Chinese Design Code[1], and the higher the normal stress is exerted on the wall, the higher the lateral load resistant capacity the wall has. The load capacity is lowered quickly accompanied with dramatically increasing of deflection after reaching its maximum capacity. The resistance-deflection curves show that the masonry wall certainly has the ability of energy dispassion. To find a quick method to recover the lateral load resistant capacity of cracked walls, a new repairing method using glass fiber is tested. The test results show that the repaired wall specimens can recover the original lateral load resistant capacity. Keyword: Masonry, Lateral load resistant capacity, Cyclic loading, Glass fiber, Strengthening

INTRODUCTION Multi-story masonry buildings are mainly used for residence, school, administration, hospital and hotel in China. The region fortification intensity in Shanghai area before 1992 was 6-degree from the Chinese seismic design intensity map. According to the seismic design codes published before 1988, no earthquake-resistant fortifications, i.e., no check of earthquake action in design and no seismic measuring in construction, were required for the masonry buildings in Shanghai area. However, the earthquake disasters experienced in China during the past few decades have resulted in huge economic loss and great number of casualties. Some main cities mapped as 6-degree fortification intensity had encountered the real earthquake actions in a scale of or more than 8-degree. The typical event was Tangshan-city in the 1976 Great Earthquake. In the past earthquake disasters the masonry buildings have suffered most severe damages and highest rate of collapse among all kinds of structures. Learning from the lessons, the regulation has been placed in the design code GBJ11-89 (1989)[2] to require taking the seismic measures in construction of the buildings in the 6-degree area as the same of that in the 7-degree area. Drawing a line by the year of 1989, many masonry buildings designed and constructed before had no seismic fortification hence very poor earthquake-resistant capacity. According to a survey conducted in 1989, the multi-story masonry buildings took one-third in the total built areas of various kinds of buildings in Shanghai, and even 50 percents of the residential buildings were multi-story masonry buildings. Taking the lessons from the past earthquake disasters in China, the researchers of Shanghai Tongji University have carried out the earthquake disaster evaluation for the multi-story masonry buildings in Shanghai region[3]. The results indicated that more than 30 % of these buildings would suffer moderate or severe damage, and some would collapse if an earthquake attacks the area with the intensity of 7-degree. If it happens, a great number of

people would have to live in temporary buildings for long period. This situation is unimaginable for the city Shanghai with the highest population density in the world. Therefore, it is with great significance to develop the technologies and technical measures for quick rehabilitation of the buildings, especially the hospital, school and administration buildings, in order to make the city exert its function properly after earthquake. Many multi-story masonry buildings built in early times without consideration of earthquake resistance worried Shanghai Government very much. Consequently the government has entrusted the Research Institute of Structural Engineering and Disaster Reduction (RISEDR) of Tongji University with the research projects on the experiment and appraisement of the seismic behavior of masonry structures[4], after the catastrophic Tangshan Earthquake in 1976. Recently, the RISEDR is collaborating with the Earthquake Disaster Mitigation Research Center (EDM), NIED to further promote the research and development for disaster prevention. The two institutions carried out a co-research project to finely characterize the seismic behavior and evaluate the earthquake-resistant capacity of masonry structures, using the data from some typical masonry buildings in Tongji University Campus. In this co-research project, the experimental results of masonry structures obtained by RISEDR during the past years were reviewed, and further experimental research was planned and carried out. Static loading test on nine specimens of masonry walls, cast using the traditional Chinese materials and construction methods, was carried out in the structural lab at Tongji University. Furthermore, three of the specimens after damaged by its maximum capacity lateral load were repaired by using Epoxy Resin Glass Fiber and retested. This report introduces the test methods and analyzes the test results. SPECIMEN DESIGN AND CAST According to the Chinese Seismic Design Code for Buildings GBJ11-89 (called the code GBJ11-89), when considering the damage pattern of step-shaped cracks developed along the mortar seam of the masonry blocks the shear strength for design of masonry is calculated as

f vE =

fv

(1)

Where, fvE for seismic design the shear strength of masonry along the step-shaped cross section; fv the shear strength of masonry for non-seismic design, using the value given in the Chinese National Standard of Structural Design Code for Masonry GB50003;

N the influence factor of normal stress, using the value given in Table 1.
Table 1: The Influence Factor of Normal Stress for Clay Brick and Hollow Brick

0 / fv N

0 0.80

1.0 1.00

3.0 1.28

5.0 1.50

7.0 1.70

10.0 1.95

15.0 2.32

0 the normal stress on the horizontal cross section of masonry wall.

According to the code GBJ11-89, the following equation (2) is used to check the seismic capacity of the cross section of clay brick and hollow brick without both steel bars and non-structural RC columns.

V f vE A / RE
Where, V the design shear force;

(2)

A the cross section area of masonry wall horizontal section (using the gross area for hollow brick);

RE adjusting factor for the seismic capacity.

From the above, it is clearly that the shear resistant capacity of masonry is not only dependent on the strength of mortar and brick, but also directly affected by the normal stress on the masonry cross section. Therefore, the specimens are designed to investigate the damage pattern and ultimate loading carrying capacity, subjected to various normal stresses. The Chinese Code requires that the ratio of height to width of masonry structure shall not exceed 2.5. It results in the vibration mode of most masonry structures being dominant in lateral shear deformation. Therefore, the specimens are designed to 3 meters in width and 1.5 meters in height (the H/W ratio 0.5), and estimated maximum lateral resistance less than or equal to 600 kN, within the actuator's loading capacity of the structural lab. Fig. 1 shows the specimen outline, loading and measuring systems. The mortar strength and designed normal stress for the specimens are given in Table 2. The specimen's name includes three numbers. The first number (1, 2 and 3) represents the mortar in different design strength, while the next two numbers indicate the value of normal stress. The specimen RX102, RXX210 and RX308 are repaired using Epoxy Resin Glass Fiber from the tested specimen X102, XX210 and X308, respectively. Table 2: List of Specimens with the Mortar Strength and Normal Stress (MPa) Design mortar strength M2.5 M5 M10 M15 X308 (18.2) RX308*

0 = 0.2
X102 (2.27) RX102* X202 (5.09)

0 = 0.6

0 = 0.8
X108 (2.27)

0 = 1.0
XX210 (3.88), RXX210* X210 (5.09) Y210 (9.75)

X206 (5.09)

X208 (5.09)

* Glass fiber repaired specimens; 0 = Normal stress; Number in parentheses indicates the average mortar strength from mortar cube test results. The clay brick for the specimen is widely used standard brick in Shanghai area, in the size of 240 mm 115 mm 53 mm. The brick strength at factory is Mu10. The mortar is mixed cement and lime with sand in certain proportion according to the Chinese traditional process. The way of laying the bricks for the specimens was the same for the masonry wall of the selected buildings in the research, i.e., alternating brick layers with one in transverse direction and another in longitudinal direction (as shown in Fig. 1). This is the traditional method of laying the brick for masonry walls. Both of the mortar mixing and the brick laying methods meet the requirements of current Chinese building design and construction codes. The total 9 specimens were cast in several groups in different time due to the limitation of casting site. The first group is the specimen X202, X206, X208 and X210 with the same mortar design strength of M5. The second group is X102 and X108 with the same mortar design strength of M2.5. The others are in different groups in mortar design strength as show in Table 2. To ensure the reliability and comparability of the test results among the specimens, one worker and the same worker is employed to lay the bricks simultaneously for all specimens of the same group using the same mortar, working layer by layer in a streamline procedure. Each specimen has 23 layers of bricks, and is referred from the base to the top as layer 1 to layer 23. In the streamline procedure the same patch of mortar is used to lay the bricks of the same layers for all specimens of one group. For each patch of mortar, at least three mortar cubes (7 cm 7 cm 7 cm) were made for mortar strength test. The average mortar strength from the mortar cube test results is indicated in Table 2 in the parentheses for each specimen.

A B
1 Actuator
Layer 23 Loading side

Oil jack

C D
Far side

450

Specimen 1 2
Longitudinal bricklayer

1
Layer 1

E F G

1500

450

1 RC top beam (loading beam) 2 RC footing beam

A Actuator load cell B Actuator displacement output C~G Displacement transducer

240 1350 11
Transverse bricklayer

3000

Fig. 1: Illustration of the Loading Test System and Specimen Outline REPAIRATION OF DAMAGED SPECI MENS The multi-story buildings suffered earthquake with moderate or severe damage are of high danger for use due to the possible threat of aftershocks. Repair is the must. The traditional method for masonry wall repairing is to set a wire-mesh reinforced concrete layer onto the wall surface. This method requires a curing period and is difficult to conduct due to its complexity. Therefore, it hardly affords to emergency assistance of earthquake disaster. The test study proposed a new repairing method by pasting epoxy resin layers and glass fiber layers onto the surfaces of the damaged specimens. The surfaces of the damaged specimens are prepared before repairing, i.e., scrapping off the plastering layer (a thin lime mortar coating for better crack-watching). Instead of repairing the cracks, two coating layers of glass fiber and three oil layers of epoxy resin were pasted crossing onto the surface of specimens. The repairing uses general epoxy resin and glass fiber of CW series products made in China. The detail indexes of the materials were listed in Table 3. Table 3: Material Properties of the Glass Fiber Cloth Thickness Width Breaking strength (N/Strip 25100mm) Textile (mm) (cm) Weft Warp 0.130.01 0.130.01 902 902 Even Even 480 480 440 420

Product series number CW130900 CW1301000

STATIC LOADING TEST Outline of the loading and measuring system As shown in Figure 1, the specimen of masonry wall is laid on an I-shaped RC footing beam, which was fixed on the lab floor. The masonry wall is topped by a RC beam, which was connected with actuator for applying

lateral loading to the specimen. The top RC beam has a slight stud at the two ends to hold the masonry wall. On the top beam five oil jacks are placed evenly to apply the axial load on the specimen. The jacks are together controlled through a synchronized oil-pump device to maintain equal oil pressure among them and to keep constant vertical load during the whole test. Between the oil jack and the top beam, rollers are placed to minimize the friction force due to the lateral displacement of the top beam and specimen. The lateral load value is picked up from the load cell in the actuator, while the lateral displacement of the specimen is measured using five displacement transducers, in which two are placed at the center of the footing and top beams, and others are at the top, center and base of the masonry wall, as shown in figure 1. The vertical load through the jacks is first applied up to the designed value at the beginning of the test, and then is kept as constant load during the test. The lateral loading path is designed as following. (1) Before reaching the estimated specimen maximum resistance Pu, the loading is controlled by a load increment P = Pu/10 for each loading step. (2) After reaching the estimated resistance Pu, the stroke of the actuator is controlled at a displacement increment D = Du/2 for each loading step. Where Du is the lateral displacement at the estimated resistance Pu. (3) For the specimen subjected to static cyclic loading, load-time curve of sin-function is used. The time for each loading cycle is 50 seconds and is kept constant throughout the test. However, in the loading test, the displacement of the specimen is always monitored even in the load steps using load increment control, and the loading control is shifted from load increment P control to displacement increment D control when the lateral load has reached 70 % of the estimated maximum resistance Pu, thus to avoid the failure of loading control due to too large load (in the case of over estimated resistance Pu). As the result, there are different loading steps for each specimen. The loading test is continued until severe cracks occurred in the masonry wall, and is terminated when the specimen is about to collapse. Test results and the comparison with the shear strength by the design code The test results are summarized in 4 and 5. Table 4 lists the recorded maximum load and its relevant displacement value. Table 5 compares the shear strength from the test results and from the calculation according to the design code suggestion. From the comparison, it indicates that the tested shear strength is about 2.15 ~ 4.0 times the calculated strength in average. Table 4: The Maximum Load Pu and the Corresponding Displacement Specimen X202 X206 X208 X210 (Monotonic loaded) X102 RX102 (Repaired) X108 XX210 RXX210 (Repaired) Y210 X308 RX308 (Repaired)

0 (MPa) 0.2 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.2 0.2 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.8

Pu (kN) 341 363 423 543 247 238 482 573 485 571 402 491

fvE0 (MPa) 0.474 0.504 0.588 0.754 0.343 0.331 0.669 0.796 0.674 0.793 0.558 0.682

(mm) 13.4 4.63 2.18 5.9 6.9 8.9 12.1 5.2 4.1 4.9 6.8 8.1

/H (%) 0.89 0.31 0.15 0.39 0.46 0.59 0.81 0.35 0.27 0.33 0.45 0.54

In the Table 4, 0 = the average normal stress of the masonry wall; Pu = the maximum load; fvE0 = the average shear stress of the masonry wall according to the maximum load; = the displacement (the top beam displacement minus the footing beam displacement) corresponding to the maximum load; H = the height of the specimen. Table 5: Comparison of the Shear Strength from the Test Results and from Design Code Suggestion fvE0 fv0 0 0 fv0 N0 N 0 fv0 0 = f vE0 N 0 f v0 Specimen (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) X202 0.2 0.12 1.67 1.094 0.131 0.474 3.62 X206 0.6 0.12 5.00 1.500 0.180 0.504 2.80 X208 0.8 0.12 6.67 1.667 0.200 0.588 2.94 X210 1.0 0.12 8.33 1.811 0.217 0.754 3.47 X102 RX102 X108 XX210 RXX210 Y210 X308 RX308 0.2 0.2 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.11 0.11 0.18 >0.18 >0.18 2.22 2.22 8.89 9.09 9.09 5.56 <4.44 <4.44 1.171 1.171 1.858 1.874 1.874 1.556 1.438 1.438 0.105 0.105 0.167 0.206 0.206 0.280 0.259 0.259 0.343 0.331 0.669 0.796 0.674 0.793 0.558 0.682 3.27 3.15 4.00 3.86 3.27 2.83 2.15 2.63 Average 3.17

In the Table 5, fv0 = the design shear strength of masonry wall calculated based on the test mortar strength; N0 = the influence factor based on the masonry wall average normal stress; fvE0 = the average shear stress from the test results according to the maximum load; 0 = the ratio of the tested strength to the calculated strength. The average ratio of fvE0/N0 fv0 is 3.17. The relations of tested and calculated shear strength to the normal stress are shown in Fig. 2 for the specimen X202, X206, X208 and X210. It indicates that the shear strength is generally increased as increasing the normal stress. The relations of tested and calculated shear strength to the mortar strength are given in Fig. 3 for the specimen X108, X208 and X308. It shows that the ultimate shear strength is independent on the mortar strength.

Fig. 2 Specimen Shear Strength vs. Normal Stress The crack behavior of the specimen

Fig. 3 Specimen Shear Strength vs. Mortar Strength

Except the specimen X210, all other specimens were tested under reversed cyclic loading.

Specimen X202: The first crack occurred in horizontal direction in the specimen base section (between the masonry wall and the footing beam) at the far side (the side far from the loading side). The crack developed through the whole base section as load increasing. However, there were no cracks in the masonry wall except the horizontal crack in the base section. This is attributed to the relative smaller normal stress for the specimen and the original cracks between the masonry wall and the footing beam due to accident collision when setting up the specimen. When reaching maximum load, the specimen has had out-plane movement. The test had to be terminated when there was 22 mm out-plane movement. Specimen X206: The first crack occurred at the far side near the wall base in the brick joint between the layer 1 and 2, followed by horizontal crack between the wall and the top beam in the middle part. The horizontal crack then developed into the masonry wall in diagonal direction, and finally formed almost symmetrical splay-shaped cracks. The test terminated at the crack opening reached 12 mm. Specimen X208: The first crack occurred at the two sides of the specimen in the wall base and top section (between the masonry wall and the footing and top beams). The crack then developed into the masonry wall in diagonal direction. Finally it formed X-shape cracks throughout the whole masonry wall, and caused crushing at the four corners of the wall and dramatic decreasing of load resistance. The crack opening reached 38 mm at the end of the test. Specimen X210: The specimen X210 was tested under monotonic increasing load. The first crack occurred in the wall base section at the far side, then the second in the top section at the loading side. As loading increasing, the two cracks developed into the masonry wall in opposite direction and became one diagonal crack through the whole wall. The maximum crack opening reached 15 mm and bricks crushed at the two opposite corners of the crack when terminating the test. Specimen X102: The horizontal fine cracks originated at the wall base far away from loading side. Then oblique cracks began to develop from the wall base to the top of the far side. It was about diagonal direction. Finally it formed X-shape cracks throughout the whole specimen. The crack opening reached 8 mm at the end of the test. Specimen X108:Oblique cracks occurred in the wall base on both sides. At the place of one-third of wall height, the oblique cracks developed along horizontal direction. Finally the horizontal cracks of both sides met together. These cracks were ladder-shaped. The maximum horizontal dislocation along the crack reached 30mm. Specimen XX210: The first crack occurred in diagonal direction in both sides of the specimen in the wall base and top sections. Then the cracks in the wall lower part developed and met together at the middle height of the specimen. Finally it formed X-shaped crack. The crack opening reached 8 mm at the end of the test. Specimen Y210: The development of cracks of the specimen Y210 was similar to that of the specimen X102. Specimen X308: The first oblique crack occurred in the wall base near the loading side. It developed towards the upper part of the specimen, and finally reached the top of the wall. The crack opening reached 8 mm at the end of the test.

Specimen RX102, RXX210, RX308: For these repaired and retested specimens, damage began from the place where cracks had occurred in the former test. When the glass fiber crossing the cracks peeled off and broke with sound, the load resistant capability of specimen decreased abruptly. As a common phenomenon, when crack developed into the masonry wall, it split the bricks and developed in diagonal direction. The crack behavior of the specimens shows that the extent of the normal stress not only affects the shear strength but also plays a key role in the crack development and crack pattern. The load-deflection curves of the masonry wall The loading tests acquired total 7 channels of test data: the load and displacement from the actuator sensors, and the five displacements from the displacement transducers (the point C, D, E, F and G as shown in Fig. 1). The displacement from the actuator sensors may include the elastic deformation of the loading apparatus and the footing and top beams as well as the possible movement of the footing. Therefore, the relative lateral displacement of the specimen is found from the difference of the displacements of the transducer C (top beam) and G (footing beam). Then the load-deflection curves of the specimens are drawn using the specimen relative displacement and the actuator's load to observe the elasto-plastic deformation behavior of the masonry walls. The results are shown in Fig. 4 in various combinations of specimen groups for easy comparison. Each sketch consists of the maximum force and its displacement for every cyclic loading. From these results we can see that the specimen maintains higher ultimate shear strength when the normal stress is higher. The ultimate shear strength of masonry shows independent on its mortar strength. The repaired masonry walls using glass fiber can recover the ultimate shear strength of the original wall. Almost for all specimens the load-deflection curves can be approximated by a tri-linear curve. For the specimens X202, X206 and X208 subjected to reversed cyclic loading, each cycle of the load-deflection curve is shown in the Fig. 5 to Fig. 7. In the figures, the loading cycle name given in the peak value of the load in kN implies that the load cycle is controlled by load increment, while that given in displacement value in mm indicates the loading cycle is controlled by displacement increment. The displacement value is measured from the actuator sensor at the peak displacement point. The curve may not in good shape for the final 2 to 3 loading cycles, because the displacement transducers are not sensitive enough in data acquisition when the displacement becomes relatively large. As a tendency the load-deflection curves widen the loop as the displacement increased. It means that the masonry wall after cracking has energy dissipation capacity. The results of other specimens show the similar load-displacement curves under the reversal cyclic loading. CONCLUDING REMARKS The static loading test results of the masonry wall specimens can be concluded as followings: (1) The real ultimate shear strength of the masonry walls can be 2.0~4.0 times to the design strength suggested by the design code. (2) The ultimate shear strength of the masonry walls is almost directly proportional to the normal stress by vertical load. The higher the normal stress on the wall, the larger the ultimate shear strength the wall maintains. (3) After reaching the ultimate strength, the strength deteriorates significantly and the deflection increases rapidly. The shape of load-deflection curve shows that the masonry wall has certain energy-dissipation

capacity. The skeleton curve of the load-deflection relations can be approximated by tri-linear curve. (4) The ultimate shear strength of the masonry walls shows independent on their mortar strength. (5) Repairing using glass fiber, the rehabilitated masonry walls can recover the ultimate shear strength of the original wall. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The experimental research was supported by both the EQTAP Project and the local Shanghai Government. The loading test was carried out in the State Key Laboratory for Disaster Reduction in School of Civil Engineering at Tongji University. The authors would like to express their sincere thanks to the lab staffs for their efforts in completing the tests.

Fig. 4 The Envelope Skeleton Curves of Specimen Load-Deflection Relations

Fig. 5: Load-Deflection Curves of Specimen X202

Fig. 6 Load-Deflection Curves of Specimen X206

Fig.7: Load-Deflection Curves of Specimen X208 REFERENCES [1] China National Standard: Structure Design Code for Masonry GBJ 388, China Building Industry Publisher, 1991. [2] China National Standard: Seismic Design Code for Building GBJ 1189, China Building Industry Publisher, 1991. [3] Weng Dagen, et al., Probability-database Method for Seismic Damage Assessment of Multi-story Masonry Buildings (in Chinese), Journal of Tongji University, No.4, 1993.

10

[4] Zhu Bolong, Wu Mingshun & Jiang Zhixian, The Test Study on the Behavior of Masonry under the Periodic Load (in Chinese), Journal of Tongji University, No.2, 1980.

11