Istituto Universitario Università degli Studi

di Studi Superiori di Pavia di Pavia

EUROPEAN SCHOOL OF ADVANCED STUDIES IN

REDUCTION OF SEISMIC RISK

ROSE SCHOOL

DISPLACEMENT-BASED SEISMIC ANALYSIS FOR

OUT OF PLANE BENDING OF
UNREINFORCED MASONRY WALLS

A Dissertation Submitted in Partial

Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Master Degree in

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING

Master Thesis by: Supervisors:

Giammichele Melis Guido Magenes
Michael C. Griffith
April, 2002
The dissertation entitled “Dispalcement-based seismic analysis for out of plane bending of
unreinforced masonry walls”, by Giammichele Melis, has been approved in partial fulfilment of the
requirements for the Master Degree in Earthquake Engineering.

Guido Magenes_____________________________________

M.J. Nigel Priestley__________________________________

ii
Abstract

ABSTRACT

The importance of assessing the seismic resistance of existing masonry structures has drawn strong
and growing interest in the recent years.
While conservative rules may be acceptable for the design of new masonry structures implying only a
minor and negligible economic penalty, on the other hand in the case of existing buildings the same
degree of conservatism may hold the balance between the necessity of strengthening or not the
structure under investigation, with hence a huge difference in the economic balance.
This study has investigated on the applicability of a displacement-based procedure to predict the
response of unreinforced masonry walls when dynamically loaded, taking into account their reserve
capacity due to rocking.
It has been found that the procedure proposed is reasonably accurate and at the same time fairly
conservative, with a more acceptable degree of conservatism with respect to traditional methods of
assessing seismic performance of unreinforced masonry walls based on elastic stress calculations
which lead to excessively conservative results.

iii
Acknoledgements

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

iv
Index

DISPLACEMENT-BASED SEISMIC ANALYSIS FOR

OUT OF PLANE BENDING OF
UNREINFORCED MASONRY WALLS

INDEX

ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................................... iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................................... iv
INDEX .................................................................................................................................................... v
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................. vi
LIST OF FIGURES............................................................................................................................... vii
1. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................... 1
2. TRI-LINEAR MODEL ................................................................................................................... 3
3. SDOF IDEALIZATION.................................................................................................................. 9
4. TESTS ........................................................................................................................................... 13
5. SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS.......................................................................................................... 21
6. CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................................... 48
7. REFERENCES.............................................................................................................................. 54

v
Index

LIST OF TABLES

2.1 Empirically derived tri-linear F-∆ defining displacements.

4.1 Tests’ walls data.
4.2 Analysed walls.
4.3 Peak responses.
5.1 Equivalent aspect ratio and thickness.
5.2 First set of 22 walls.
5.3 Refined set of 8 walls selected for THA analysis.
5.4 Earthquake ground motions used in the sensitivity study.
5.5 T1 and T2 values.
5.6 Mean value and standard deviation of the error.
5.7 Mean value and standard deviation of the error for ∆max=∆U.
6.1 Mean value and standard deviation of the error for ∆2/∆U=0.25÷0.50.

vi
Index

LIST OF FIGURES

2.1 Deflection of Rocking Walls.

2.2 Bi-linear F-∆ relationship.
2.3 Simply supported wall at incipient rocking and at point of instability.
2.4 Parapet wall at incipient rocking and at point of instability.
2.5 Bi-linear and real ‘Semi-rigid’ F-∆ relationship.
2.6 Tri-linear, Bi-linear and real ‘Semi-rigid’ F-∆ relationship.
3.1 SDOF Idealisation.
3.2 50mm Wall – Non-linear ξ vs. Frequency.
3.3 Non-load bearing 110mm Wall – Non-linear ξ vs. Frequency.
4.1 Experimental vs. analytical predictions of wall displacements.
4.2 Experimental vs. analytical predictions of wall acceleration.
4.3 F.E.A.P. model vs. ROWMANRY analytical predictions of wall displacements.
4.4 F.E.A.P. model vs. ROWMANRY analytical predictions of wall acceleration.
5.1 Unreinforced masonry wall support configurations.
5.2 Rigid Force Deformation relationship – Set 1.
5.3 Rigid Force Deformation relationship – Set 2.
5.4 Generic tri-linear F-∆ relationship for URM walls.
5.5 Earthquake records: accelerograms.
5.6 Earthquake records: displacement spectra.

vii
Index

5.7 Earthquake records: acceleration spectra.

5.8.a Wall 1 – F-∆ relationship for ∆1/∆U=0.05÷0.20.
5.8.b Wall 1 – F-∆ relationship for ∆2/∆U=0.25÷0.50.
5.9 Definition of the secant stiffness values K1, K2 and KS.
5.10 ∆max/∆U vs. period (T1, T2 or TS) for Wall 1, Artificial earthquake.
5.11 Variation in Sd/∆max values vs. ∆max/∆U for all earthquakes: Wall 1.
5.11. bis Variation in Sd/∆max values vs. ∆max/∆U for all earthquakes: Wall 1 (resized).
5.12 Variation in Sd/∆max values vs. ∆max/∆U for all earthquakes: Wall 4a.
5.12. bis Variation in Sd/∆max values vs. ∆max/∆U for all earthquakes: Wall 4a (resized).
5.13 Comparison between Sd and analytical ∆max values vs. ∆max/∆U for the Artificial earthquake
record.
5.13. bis Comparison between Sd and analytical ∆max values vs. ∆max/∆U for the Artificial earthquake
record (resized).
5.14 Comparison between Sd and analytical ∆max values vs. ∆max/∆U for the san Salvador earthquake
record.
5.14.bis Comparison between Sd and analytical ∆max values vs. ∆max/∆U for the San Salvador earthquake
record (resized).
6.1 Sd(T2)/∆max vs. ∆max/∆U for ∆2/∆U=0.25.
6.2 Sd(T2)/∆max vs. ∆max/∆U for ∆2/∆U=0.30.
6.3 Sd(T2)/∆max vs. ∆max/∆U for ∆2/∆U=0.35.
6.4 Sd(T2)/∆max vs. ∆max/∆U for ∆2/∆U=0.40.
6.5 Sd(T2)/∆max vs. ∆max/∆U for ∆2/∆U=0.45.
6.6 Sd(T2)/∆max vs. ∆max/∆U for ∆2/∆U=0.50.

viii
Chapter1 – Introduction

1. INTRODUCTION

The importance of assessing the seismic resistance of existing masonry structures has drawn strong
and growing interest in the recent years.
While conservative rules may be acceptable for the design of new masonry structures implying only a
minor and negligible economic penalty, on the other hand in the case of existing buildings the same
degree of conservatism may hold the balance between the necessity of strengthening or not the
structure under investigation, with hence a huge difference in the economic balance.
In particular it has been shown [1] that traditional methods of assessing seismic performance of
unreinforced masonry (URM) walls based on elastic stress calculations lead to excessively
conservative results when compared with more realistic methods of assessment based on stability and
energy considerations.
With this starting point the purpose of this research is first to address the problem of assessing the out-
of-plane seismic resistance of rocking unreinforced masonry (URM) walls when their ‘reserve
capacity’ is considered and then to investigate the applicability of a linearized displacement-based
(DB) procedure to predict the maximum displacement (and eventually the failure) of URM walls when
dynamically loaded.
One of the main reference for the research which is here presented has been the analysis procedure
proposed at the University of Adelaide and Melbourne by K. Doherty, M.C. Griffith et al. to model the
‘reserve capacity’ of rocking brick masonry walls subjected to out-of-plane bending [2]. Such a
procedure rests on a linearized displacement based (DB) approach capable of predicting the response
of URM walls subjected to a dynamic excitation.

In order to lead a series of time history analyses capable of validate the effectiveness of the proposed
DB procedure and to analyse the influence that the characteristic parameters of the walls have on the

1
Chapter1 – Introduction

application of such a procedure, it has been necessary to characterise the real force-displacement
relationship of the rocking walls.
According to the approach based on the experimental results of the shaking table tests led at the
University of Adelaide [3], the real non-linear force-displacement relationship of rocking unreinforced
brick masonry walls has been modelled with a tri-linear relationship described with further details in
the following section.
The analysis procedure which is here presented is not completely new compared with other methods
that like the one proposed are opposing to the traditional methods based on elastic stress calculations
for evaluating the seismic performance of unreinforced masonry structures. With respect to other
methods, like the one proposed by M.J.N. Priestley and founded on the ‘equal energy’ observation [1],
the DB approach herein examined and validated has the main advantage of being rather
straightforward both in the definition of the equivalent structure and in the evaluation of the maximum
response.
Nevertheless it should be remarked that the approach proposed by M.J.N. Priestley has the big merit to
have surpassed the traditional one in favour of an approach which takes into account the reserve
capacity of the URM walls. Hence it constitutes the starting point of all the following researches, this
one included, which assess the seismic resistance of URM walls based on stability mechanisms rather
than static strength.

2
Chapter2 – Tri-linear model

2. TRI-LINEAR MODEL

The study presented in this paper is focused on a specific class of URM walls which comprises parapet
walls (cantilever walls) and simply-supported walls vertically spanning between supports at ceiling
and floor levels where the support motions can be assumed to move simultaneously.
For dynamic analysis the URM walls which agree with the description given above, can be idealised
as single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) systems, resting on the fundamental modal deflection of the
rocking walls (schematically depicted in Figure2.1) for parapet walls and simply supported walls.

Parapet Wall Simply Supported Wall

Figure 2.1 – Deflection of Rocking Walls

In order to define the parameters characterising the equivalent structure (or ‘substitute structure’
according to the definition given by Shibata and Sozen [4]) to be used in the DB approach, an
extensive series of time history analyses has been performed.
It is well known that non linear time-history analysis (THA) based on time step integration is a
representative and reliable method of accounting for the time dependent nature of URM wall response,
provided that the non-linear Force-Displacement (F-∆) relationship and the damping properties of the
wall are accurately represented in the analytical model.
Chapter2 – Tri-linear model

Hence the correct definition of the two mentioned above parameters, the Force-Displacement
relationship and the Damping properties, of the examined URM walls, is the first essential point to be
defined.
For what concerns the Force-Displacement relationship, recalling that the attention in this is study
focused on assessing the seismic resistance of existing masonry structures, it has first of all to be
underlined that solely the Post-Cracked F-∆ relationship has been here considered, taking into account
that many of the existing buildings are already cracked due to low strength mortar, settlement of
footings or temperature and moisture changes and that past earthquakes or accidental damage may also
have previously induced cracking.
The first simplification which can be done to infer the F-∆ relationship is to consider the URM walls
as rigid bodies thus having an infinite material stiffness so that the corresponding theoretical Force-
Displacement relationship is the bilinear relation depicted in Figure 2.2 with initial rigid resistance F0
related to the geometry (i.e. height and thickness), to the self weight, to the overburden weight and to
the boundary conditions of the walls.
An expression of F0 can be inferred from moment equilibrium at the point of instability.

Figure 2.2 - Bi-linear F-∆ relationship

For a rocking simply supported wall it is assumed a triangular-shaped relative displacement profile.
The accuracy of this assumption has been verified with shaking table tests and THA as described in
[3]. Under this assumption moment equilibrium, at the point of incipient rocking, of the upper half of
the wall about the pivot point in the cracked cross section at the mid-height of the wall (refer to Figure
2.3), leads to:
W t h F h Mg t h F h
⋅ =R⋅ − 0 ⋅ Æ ⋅ = R⋅ − 0 ⋅
2 2 2 2 6 2 2 2 2 6

4
Chapter2 – Tri-linear model

where R, the horizontal reaction at the top of the wall, can be obtained by considering rotational
equilibrium of the simply supported wall as a whole about the pivot point at the base, and can be
written as
F0 M ⋅ g ⋅ t
R= −
2 2⋅h
and the rigid threshold resistance:
t
F0 = 3M ⋅ g ⋅
h
Considering that for walls simply supported at their top and bottom and with uniformly distributed
mass, the effective mass has been calculated to be three-fourths of the total mass (Me = ¾ M), based
on standard calculation techniques [2], the expression of the rigid threshold resistance can be hence re-
written as:
t
F0 = 4 ⋅ M e ⋅ g ⋅
h

Figure 2.3 - Simply supported wall at Incipient Rocking and at Point of Instability

For a parapet wall, under the assumption of a triangular-shaped relative displacement profile (refer to
Figure 2.4), moment equilibrium with respect to the pivot point at the base of the wall leads to the
following expression:
t 2 t 2
W⋅ = F0 ⋅ h Æ Mg ⋅ = F0 ⋅ h
2 3 2 3
and considering that also in this case the effective mass is Me = ¾ M, the expression of the rigid
threshold resistance can be written as follows:
4 t t
F0 = M ⋅ g ⋅ = Me ⋅ g ⋅
3 h h

5
Chapter2 – Tri-linear model

Figure 2.4 - Parapet wall at Incipient Rocking and at Point of Instability

Referring to the scheme illustrated in Figure 2.3 of a simply supported wall at Incipient Rocking and at
Point of Instability, when the lateral force (i.e. the resultant of the inertial forces) exceeds F0 (the
‘Rigid threshold resistance’), a mid-height displacement occurs, permitted by the rigid rotation at the
three joints (pivot points) formed at the cracked section: at the top, at the mid height and at the base of
the wall. P-∆ effects then reduce the gravity restoring moments as the resultant of the vertical forces
above the mid-height crack moves toward the wall’s back compressive face. With further
displacement P-∆ effects continue to reduce the lateral resistance of the wall creating a negative
stiffness arm, K0, of the bi-linear F-∆ relationship.
When the vertical force resultant above the mid-height crack moves outside of the wall thickness the
resistance to overturning is reduced to zero. The displacement at which this occurs is termed the ‘rigid
instability displacement’, ∆instability(rigid).

For a real URM wall the individual blocks of the wall can deform significantly when subjected to high
compressive forces with two main consequences.
The first one is that the pivot points possess finite dimensions rather than being infinitesimal like
supposed in the rigid-body model so that the resistance to rocking is associated with a lever arm
significantly less than half the wall thickness (as for a rigid wall) with hence a displacement at the
point of instability (∆U=∆instability) which is less than the one theoretically obtainable when a rigid-body
model is considered. The second consequence is that the wall possess finite lateral stiffness (rather
than being rigid) prior to incipient rocking.
The real semi-rigid F-∆ relationship as it can be observed during the tests [3] deviates significantly
from the bilinear relationship for the reasons explained above and assumes a curvilinear profile. Such
a profile is represented, together with the Bi-linear F-∆ relationship, in Figure 2.5 where it can be
observed that the peak semi-rigid Resistance force is much less than the rigid threshold resistance
previously defined and that the displacement at the point of instability is lower than in the rigid case.

6
Chapter2 – Tri-linear model

∆ ∆

Figure 2.5 - Bi-linear and real ‘Semi-rigid’ F-∆ relationship

The real curvilinear relationship can be idealised with a tri-linear model defined by three displacement
parameters ∆1, ∆2, ∆u and the force parameter F0 and represented in Figure 2.6.

∆ ∆ ∆ ∆

Figure 2.6 - Tri-linear, Bi-linear and real ‘Semi-rigid’ F-∆ relationship

To construct the tri-linear model, the bilinear model is first constructed in accordance with F0 and K0.
The amplitude of the force plateau is, therefore, controlled by the ratio ∆2/∆u. For displacements in the
range exceeding ∆2, the tri-linear and the bi-linear models coincide. For displacements between ∆1 and

7
Chapter2 – Tri-linear model

∆2 the force is constant. The initial slope of the tri-linear model is governed by the force amplitude of
the plateau and by the value of ∆1.
The ratios ∆1/∆u and ∆2/∆u are related to the material properties and the state of degradation of the
mortar joints at the pivot points.
It has been proposed [2] that for walls in ‘new’, ‘moderately degraded’ and ‘severely degraded’
condition the ratios of ∆1/∆u and ∆2/∆u possess the values indicated in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1 - Empirically derived tri-linear F-∆ defining displacements.

State of degradation at cracked joint ∆1/∆u ∆2/∆u
New 6% 28%
Moderate 13% 40%
Severe 20% 50%

Recognising that the definition of the parameters given above is debatable because it is based on a
qualitative, and hence subjective, measure of the state of the walls, the influence of selecting an
incorrect or an inappropriate value for the ratios ∆1/∆u and/or ∆2/∆u has been investigated with further
details. The results are presented in Section 5.

8
Chapter3 –SDOF Idealisation

3. SDOF IDEALIZATION

As mentioned in the previous Section, for dynamic analysis the URM walls considered in this study
can be idealised as SDOF systems.
The equation of motion governing the rocking behaviour of the cracked URM walls, also considering
what has been defined about the F-∆ relationship of the walls, can be written as the equation of motion
of a SDOF ‘non-linear’ system, that is:

M SDOF ⋅ a (t ) + C SDOF ⋅ v(t ) + f S (∆ (t )) = − M SDOF ⋅ a g (t ) (3.1a)

where
a(t) and v(t) and ∆(t) are the SDOF system acceleration, velocity and displacement
respectively;
fS(∆(t)) is the resisting force of the SDOF system, which is a function of the displacement ∆(t);
MSDOF is the mass of the SDOF;
CSDOF is the damping coefficient equal to 2⋅MSDOF⋅ω⋅ξ

and diving by MSDOF equation 3.1a can be re-written as follows:

C SDOF f (∆(t ))
a (t ) + ⋅ v(t ) + S = −a g (t ) (3.1b)
M SDOF M SDOF
Chapter3 – SDOF Idealisation

The resisting force considering the F-∆ relationship of a rocking URM wall can be written as follows:
F0 (∆ U − ∆ 2 )
fS = ⋅ ∆(t ) for ∆(t) ≤ ∆1
∆U ∆1

F0
fS = ⋅ (∆ U − ∆ 2 ) for ∆1 < ∆(t) ≤ ∆2
∆U

F0
fS = (∆ U − ∆(t )) for ∆(t) > ∆2
∆U
and takes into account of the ‘non-linearity’ of the system.

Equation 3.1a (and 3.1b) applies if the effective mass of the system is considered (i.e. ¾ of the total
mass for a non load-bearing simply supported wall) and if a(t), v(t) and ∆(t) are respectively the
acceleration, the velocity and the displacement of the considered (single) degree of freedom.
Because it can be more suitable for a simply supported rocking wall to refer to the mid-height wall
response (which is the point of maximum response), equation 3.1 can be re-written putting in evidence
the wall mid-height displacement, velocity and acceleration.
Referring to the SDOF idealisation depicted in Figure 3.1 and considering that, based on the
assumption of a triangular shaped relative displacement profile, the displacement of the considered
degree of freedom is two thirds of the displacement at the mid-height of the wall :
∆SDOF =2/3 ∆m

1/2

∆ 2/3 ∆

∆ 2/3 ∆

1/2

Figure 3.1 – SDOF Idealisation.

and similarly:
aSDOF =2/3 am
vSDOF =2/3 vm
where
am and vm and ∆m are the wall mid-height acceleration, velocity and displacement respectively;
Equation 3.1 can be rearranged as follows:

C 3 f (∆(t )) 3
am +   ⋅ vm + ⋅ S = − ag (3.2)
M  2 M 2

10
Chapter3 – SDOF Idealisation

where
M is the total mass of the wall;
C is the damping coefficient equal to 2⋅M⋅ω⋅ξ (notice that CSDOF = 2⋅MSDOF⋅ω⋅ξ =2/3 C).
The circular frequency ω which appears in the expression of the damping coefficient C is herein
evaluated with reference to the initial stiffness of the tri-linear F-∆ relationship, which is:
F0 (∆ U − ∆ 2 )
K initial =
∆U ∆1

K initial 3 K initial
therefore ϖ= = ⋅
M SDOF 2 M
The correct definition of the damping coefficient should take into account the change in the circular
frequency of the system as the stiffness changes along the tri-linear curve.
For simplicity a constant damping coefficient value has been adopted and the suitability of such an
assumption has been checked ‘a posteriori’.

To perform the required time history analyses a specific non linear spring element to be used with the
finite element program F.E.A.P. [5] has been developed coding the tri-linear model described above.
In the time history analyses a damping coefficient corresponding to a damping ratio ξ = 5 % was
assumed, equal to the lower bound of the damping ratio values obtained from the experimental
observations (i.e. based on the results of the tests led at the university of Adelaide by K.T. Doherty et
al.).
Figures 3.2 and 3.3 present the correlation between the frequency of each response cycle versus the
non-linear damping ratio ξ for the 50 mm wall specimens at various levels of applied overburden and
for non-loadbearing 110 mm wall specimens. For both sets of walls a lower bound estimate of ξ of
around 5% was observed.

The selection of such a constant value, ξ = 5 %, appears to be a conservative one. As illustrated in the
results of the time history analyses reported in the following the use of a lower bound for the damping
ratio value leads to a slight increase in the displacement and in the acceleration response (with a bigger
relevance in the second case) which contains an acceptable and favourable degree of conservatism
when that value is used in the prediction of the wall maximum displacement.

11
Chapter3 – SDOF Idealisation

25.0%
NO PRECOMP
22.5%
0.075MPa
0.15MPa
20.0%
PERCENT CRITICAL DAMPING (PSI)

17.5%

15.0%

12.5%

10.0%

7.5%

5.0%

2.5%

0.0%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
FREQUENCY (Hz)

Figure 3.2 - 50mm Wall - Non-linear ξ vs. Frequency (From [8]).

30.0%

25.0%
PERCENT CRITICAL DAMPING (PSI)

20.0%

15.0%

10.0%

5.0%

0.0%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
FREQUENCY (Hz)

Figure 3.3 - Non-loadbearing 110mm Wall - Non-linear ξ vs. Frequency (From [8]).

What has been described above for simply supported walls can be extended to the case of a
cantilevered wall.
It has to be underlined that in the latter case equation 3.2 is applicable with am and vm representing
respectively the acceleration and the velocity at two third of the wall height. The remaining quantities
have the same meaning than in the case of a simply supported wall.

12
Chapter4 – Tests

4. TESTS

Using the previously mentioned non-linear model a parametric study was carried out to investigate
which are the parameters that primarily characterise the tri-linear model in terms of wall response
when a time history analysis is performed and how do these parameters affect the displacement based
assessment procedure.
Before starting the parametric study a comparison between the analytical and the experimental results
coming from the tests performed at the Adelaide University [8] has been done. This was made both to
have a support of the theoretical assumptions (i.e. the Tri-linear F-∆ approximation and the parameters
assumed in the SDOF approxiamtion) and also to test the reliability of the F.E.A.P. model coded for
the specific purpose of this parametric study.
Doherty et al. [3] and [8] conducted at the Adelaide University an extensive set of numerical analyses
in order to verify the ability of the tri-linear model to accurately simulate the dynamic response of
URM walls subjected to earthquake support motion. Several of the walls tested by Doherty were
numerically re-analysed using as input in the THA the actual shaking table acceleration.
In following some of the results obtained from these comparisons are presented.
The analysed walls have the characteristics summarised in Table 4.1 and were tested with three
different input motions: 50% El Centro, 66% El Centro and four times the Nahanni earthquake
accelerogram record.
Table 4.1 – Tests’ wall data.
Wall Data
L [m] 1.00 Length
h [m] 1.50 Height
t [mm] 110 Thickness
γ [N/m3] 18000 Specific Weight
Chapter4 – Tests

In Table 4.2 the characteristics of the SDOF idealizations used as input values in the numerical
analyses are reported. It has to be remarked that the differences between the three walls considered in
the analyses lie in the ∆1 and ∆2 values as a consequence of the different state of degradation of the
tested walls.

Table 4.2 Analysed walls.

Wall a
P [N] 0 Vertical Load
M [kg] 302.9 Total Mass
F0 [N] 871.20 Force at Incipient Rocking
F'0 [N] 1306.80 3/2 Force at Incipient Rocking
∆u [m] 0.1100 Displacement at Point of Instability
∆1 [m] 0.0070 Characteristic displacement 1
∆2 [m] 0.0330 Characteristic displacement 2
C [kg/sec] 629.1 Viscous Damping Factor

Wall b
P [N] 0 Vertical Load
M [kg] 302.9 Total Mass
F0 [N] 871.20 Force at Incipient Rocking
F'0 [N] 1306.80 3/2 Force at Incipient Rocking
∆u [m] 0.1100 Displacement at Point of Instability
∆1 [m] 0.0150 Characteristic displacement 1
∆2 [m] 0.0350 Characteristic displacement 2
C [kg/sec] 629.1 Viscous Damping Factor

Wall c
P [N] 0 Vertical Load
M [kg] 302.9 Total Mass
F0 [N] 871.20 Force at Incipient Rocking
F'0 [N] 1306.80 3/2 Force at Incipient Rocking
∆u [m] 0.1100 Displacement at Point of Instability
∆1 [m] 0.0700 Characteristic displacement 1
∆2 [m] 0.0300 Characteristic displacement 2
C [kg/sec] 629.1 Viscous Damping Factor

14
Chapter4 – Tests

In Figure 4.1 and 4.2 the time histories in terms of displacements and accelerations for the three walls
are reported.

Midheight Displacement Response

0,020
Experimental
0,015
Numerical
Midheight Response [m]

0,010

0,005

0,000
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
-0,005

-0,010

-0,015
Time [sec]
-0,020

a) Wall a

Midheight Displacement Response

0,150
Experimental
0,100 Numerical
Midheight Response [m]

0,050

0,000
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
-0,050

-0,100
Time [sec]
-0,150

b) Wall b

Midheight Displacement Response

0,040
0,030 Experimental
Numerical
Midheight Response [m]

0,020
0,010
0,000
0

10

11

12

-0,010
-0,020
-0,030
-0,040
-0,050
Time [sec]
-0,060

c) Wall c
Figure 4.1 Experimental versus analytical predictions of wall displacements.

15
Chapter4 – Tests

Midheight Acceleration Response

5,00
4,00 Experimental
Numerical
Midheight Response [m/s 2]

3,00
2,00
1,00
0,00
-1,00 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
-2,00
-3,00
-4,00 Time [sec]
-5,00

a) Wall a

Midheight Acceleration Response

8,00

6,00 Experimental
Numerical
4,00
Midheight Response [m/sec 2]

2,00

0,00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
-2,00

-4,00

-6,00

-8,00
Time [sec]
-10,00

b) Wall b

Midheight Acceleration Response

6,00
Experimental
4,00 Numerical
Midheight Response [m/s 2]

2,00

0,00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
-2,00

-4,00

Time [sec]
-6,00

c) Wall c
Figure 4.2 Experimental versus analytical predictions of wall accelerations.

16
Chapter4 – Tests

In Figure 4.1 a good correlation between the experimental and analytical displacement response can be
noticed.
From Figure 4.2 it can be observed that the accelerations predicted with the analytical model are
bigger than the actual ones (i.e. the ones recorded with the shaking-table tests) as a consequence that a
lower bound for the damping ratio value has been used in the numerical model. For the same reason,
in the corresponding displacement plots, it can be observed that the experimental response appears to
drop off (damp out) much more rapidly than the analytical response. This is consistent with an under
estimate of damping in the numerical model. It is worth noting that in the plots reported in Figure 4.1
(Experimental vs. analytical predictions of wall displacements) the amplitude of the first peak
following each significant impulse in the ground motion is reasonably well predicted by the analysis
(this is because the amplitude of the first peak is much less sensitive to damping as are the subsequent
peaks).
The assumption of a lower bound for the damping ratio value results hence in being a conservative
one, still within the range of an acceptable approximation of the ‘exact’ solution (i.e. the real
acceleration of the wall specimen in the tests).

The good, but non-perfect, correspondence between the numerical and the experimental results (for
both the displacement and the acceleration responses) is due in part to the approximation of the real
curvilinear F-∆ relationship of the rocking wall with a tri-linear one and in part to the high non-
linearity of the real wall’s rocking response, even at small displacements.
The real rocking wall is highly non-linear for all the displacements beyond the cracking displacement
which is only a few millimetres, much less than the value assumed for the displacement ∆1.

The main reason of having assumed for Wall_a, Wall_b and Wall_c the characteristics summarised in
Table 4.2 is that, as a countercheck for the reliability of the model, its results (i.e. the results reported
above for Wall_a, Wall_b and Wall_c) have been compared with the theoretical results obtained by
Doherty at the Adelaide University with the program ROWMANRY.
The good correspondence between the time history responses of the two programs can be observed in
Figure 4.3 and 4.4 even if it has to be underlined that the two responses are not perfectly coincident.
This is due to the fact that ROWMANRY uses an ‘event-based’ time history routine instead of the
traditional ‘step-by-step’ non-linear time history analysis used in F.E.A.P..
The event-based model effectively checks after each half-cycle of response (each zero crossing) to see
whether the damping used for the analysis of that half-cycle of response was correct for the amplitude
of displacement for that half-cycle of response. If not, the damping was adjusted and the analysis
repeated for that half-cycle of response.

17
Chapter4 – Tests

Getting back to the correlation with the experimental results, neither ROWMANRY or the F.E.A.P.
model gives perfect correlation with the tests’ results (the real curvilinear F-∆ relationship is
approximated with a tri-linear one), but it has again to be underlined the good correlation between the
experimental and the numerical results in terms of peak displacement response.

Table 4.3 Peak responses.

Maximum absolute displacement [m]
Shaking Table F.E.A.P.
Wall a 0.017 0.015
Wall b 0.104 0.110 = ∆U
Wall c 0.032 0.047

It has to be observed that even when the numerical analysis leads to estimate for the wall a failure that
doesn’t occur in the test (Wall_b), such a prediction is still within the range of an acceptable degree of
conservatism: the maximum experimental displacement (i.e. the displacement recorded in the test) was
only the 95% of the ultimate displacement ∆U.

18
Chapter4 – Tests

Midheight Displacement Response

0,015
ROWMANRY
0,010
Midheight Response [m]
FEAP
0,005

0,000
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
-0,005

-0,010

-0,015
Time [sec]
-0,020

a) Wall 1

Midheight Displacement Response

0.150
ROWMANRY
0.100
FEAP
Midheight Response [m]

0.050

0.000
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
-0.050

-0.100
Time [sec]
-0.150

b) Wall 2

Midheight Displacement Response

0.040
0.030 ROWMANRY
Midheight Response [m]

0.020 FEAP

0.010
0.000
0

10

11

12

-0.010
-0.020
-0.030
-0.040
-0.050
Time [sec]
-0.060

c) Wall 3
Figure 4.3 F.E.A.P. model vs. ROWMANRY analytical predictions
of wall displacements.

19
Chapter4 – Tests

Midheight Acceleration Response

5,00
4,00 ROWMANRY
FEAP
3,00
Midheight Response [m/s 2]

2,00
1,00
0,00
-1,00 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

-2,00
-3,00
-4,00 Time [sec]
-5,00

a) Wall 1

Midheight Acceleration Response

5.00
4.00 ROWMANRY
3.00 FEAP
Midheight Response [m/sec2]

2.00
1.00
0.00
-1.00 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

-2.00
-3.00
-4.00
Time [sec]
-5.00

b) Wall 2

Midheight Acceleration Response

6.00
ROWMANRY
4.00 FEAP
Midheight Response [m/s2]

2.00

0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
-2.00

-4.00

Time [sec]
-6.00

c) Wall 3
Figure 4.4 F.E.A.P. model vs. ROWMANRY analytical predictions
of wall accelerations.

20
Chapter5 – Sensitivity analysis

5. SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

In order to select for the analyses a set of walls which was not excessively large but at the same time
capable of representing the full range of interest (i.e. a realistic range for design and assessment
purposes in terms of geometric characteristics of the walls and applied load), a normalised force-
displacement relationship has been considered.
The selection of a normalised F-∆ relationship allows to avoid the repetition of analyses where walls
with different geometric characteristics and boundary conditions would anyway lead to the same F-∆
relationship simply scaled in proportion to the ratio of the thickness versus the height of the wall. Such
a condition would imply that the same results would be obtained if the accelerogram used as input
motion is scaled in proportion.
For what concerns the boundary conditions, it has to be underlined that the response of a non-
loadbearing simply supported wall is the same as the response of a parapet wall with the same
thickness and one-quarter of the aspect ratio (h/t), as it has been shown in Section 2 when the
expression of the rigid threshold resistance has been derived from moment equilibrium in the two
cases. Proceeding in a similar way it can be shown [8] that when an overburden pressure is applied the
effect can be modelled by further reducing the aspect ratio of the equivalent parapet wall. These
equivalencies in terms of aspect ratio take to an equivalent thickness such that the ratio between the
equivalent and the actual thickness varies between one and three quarter as summarised in the
following Table 5.1.
Chapter5 – Sensitivity analysis

Table 5.1. Equivalent aspect ratio and thickness.

Support Type (h/t)eq/(h/t)actual teq/tactual

Rigid parapet 1 1

Rigid non-loadbearing simply supported wall with base 1/4 1

reaction at the leeward face

Rigid loadbearing simply supported wall with top and 1/[4(1+Ψ)] 1

base reaction at the leeward face

1/[4(1+Ψ)] (1+3/4Ψ)/(1+Ψ)
Rigid loadbearing simply supported wall with top reaction
varies between ¾
at the centreline and base reaction at the leeward face
and 1
The symbol Ψ in the previous table defines the ratio of overburden weight and self weight of the upper
half of the wall above mid-height:
P
Ψ=
W
2
With reference to a simply supported wall, two boundary conditions have been considered along the
top edge of the URM walls: the first corresponding to a Slab boundary condition (which places the
vertical load at the edge of the wall face) and the second corresponding to a Timber Bearer boundary
condition (which maintains the vertical load along the wall centreline). These two conditions are
depicted in Figure 5.1 (respectively 5.1c and 5.1d) together with the configurations corresponding to a
parapet wall (5.1a) and to a simply supported non-loadbearing wall (5.1b).

Figure 5.1 Unreinforced masonry wall support configurations.

22
Chapter5 – Sensitivity analysis

The two boundary conditions have been taken into account in the ratio F0/W (W being the weight of
the wall) and in the values of the ratio ∆u/t that have been calculated respectively as:
F0/W = 4 t/h (1+Ψ) ; ∆u/t = 1 in the first boundary condition, and
F0/W = 4 t/h (1+3/4Ψ) ; ∆u/t = (1+3/4Ψ)/(1+Ψ) ≅ 0.8 for what concerns the second
boundary condition described above.

On the basis of the considerations reported above the following range of properties has been selected:
t [mm] 110 ÷ 500 Thickness
h [m] 3.0 ÷ 5.0 Height
p [MPa] 0.00 ÷ 0.50 Axial compression
P
Being the axial compression p defined as p = , with P the applied vertical load and l the length of
t ⋅l
the wall (always considered unitary).

All the possible combination (with t/h between 1/30 and 1/5) have been considered taking into account
the following values
t = 110mm, 200mm, 300mm, 400mm 500mm;
h = 3.0m, 3.3m (only for the 110mm thickness wall), 4.0m, 5.0m;
p = 0.00MPa, 0.10MPa, 0.20MPa, 0.30MPa, 0.40MPa, 0.50MPa.

A total number of 168 walls resulted from such a combination.

Among these walls only those having an aspect ratio between 1/30 and 1/5 and a F0/W ratio less than
one have been selected. Their characteristics are presented in Table 5.2 referring to a 1m wide strip of
a wall with a specific weight of 18000 N/m3.

23
Chapter5 – Sensitivity analysis

Table 5.2. First set of 22 walls.

Wall t h p h/t Fo W F0/W ∆u ∆u/t
No. [mm] [m] [Mpa] [N] [N]) [mm]
1 200 3.0 0.1 15.0 10908 10800 1.01 160 0.80
1a 110 3.0 0.2 27.3 5702 5940 0.96 86 0.78
1b 200 4.0 0.2 20.0 14832 14400 1.03 158 0.79
1c 200 5.0 0.3 25.0 17280 18000 0.96 156 0.78
1d 300 4.0 0.1 13.3 20088 21600 0.93 246 0.82
1e 300 5.0 0.2 16.7 28080 27000 1.04 240 0.80
1f 500 5.0 0.1 10.0 48150 45000 1.07 415 0.83
2 200 5.0 0.2 25.0 12600 18000 0.70 160 0.80
2a 300 5.0 0.1 16.7 17280 27000 0.64 249 0.83
3 200 5.0 0.1 25.0 7740 18000 0.43 166 0.83
3a 110 3.3 0.1 30.0 3071 6534 0.47 89 0.81
4 110 3.3 0.0 30.0 849 6534 0.13 110 1.00
4a 200 5.0 0.0 25.0 2880 18000 0.16 200 1.00
5 300 3.0 0.0 10.0 6480 16200 0.40 300 1.00
5a 400 4.0 0.0 10.0 11520 28800 0.40 400 1.00
5b 500 5.0 0.0 10.0 18000 45000 0.40 500 1.00
6 500 3.0 0.0 6.0 18090 27000 0.67 500 1.00
6a 110 3.0 0.1 27.3 4099 5940 0.69 110 1.00
6b 200 4.0 0.1 20.0 10944 14400 0.76 200 1.00
6c 300 5.0 0.1 16.7 20790 27000 0.77 300 1.00
7 400 5.0 0.1 12.5 37080 36000 1.03 400 1.00
8 200 2.0 0.0 10.0 720 7200 0.10 200 1.00

In Figure 5.2 the normalised Force-Displacement relationship is depicted for the walls included in
Table 5.2 and considered as rigid blocks.

Something has to be underlined about the procedure followed in the selection of the parameters of the
walls to be analysed.
Considering at this stage the model of the cracked unreinforced masonry walls as rigid blocks has the
benefit that it simplifies the problem, taking also into account that the definition of the parameters ∆1
and ∆2 is so far not influent.

24
Chapter5 – Sensitivity analysis

1
Rigid Force-Deflection Relationship 1a
1b
1c
1.20
1d
1e
1.00 1f
2
2a
0.80
3
3a
Fo/W

0.60 4
4a

0.40 5
5a
5b
0.20 6
6a
0.00 6b
6c
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20
7
∆ u/t 8

Figure 5.2 Rigid Force-Deformation Relationship – Set 1.

The adaptation to the model of the cracked unreinforced masonry walls as deformable (semi-rigid)
blocks, according to what explained in Section 2, can be done only in a next step (i.e. when the Time
History Analyses have to be performed).

A more refined selection has been hence done in order to reject walls with very similar properties,
getting to the set of walls presented in ascending order of F0/W values in Table 5.3 (and highlighted in
the previous Table 5.2) which corresponds to the set of eight walls analysed in the time history
analyses and whose normalised Force-Displacement relationships are represented in Figure 5.3.

Table 5.3. Refined set of 8 walls selected for the THA.

Wall t H P h/t Fo W F0/W ∆u ∆u/t
No. [mm] [m] [Mpa] [N] [N]) [mm]
1 200 3.0 0.1 15.0 10908 10800 1.01 160 0.80
1a 110 3.0 0.2 27.3 5702 5940 0.96 86 0.78
6 500 3.0 0.0 6.0 18090 27000 0.67 500 1.00
2a 300 5.0 0.1 16.7 17280 27000 0.64 249 0.83
3a 110 3.3 0.1 30.0 3071 6534 0.47 89 0.81
5 300 3.0 0.0 10.0 6480 16200 0.40 300 1.00
4a 200 5.0 0.0 25.0 2880 18000 0.16 200 1.00
4 110 3.3 0.0 30.0 849 6534 0.13 110 1.00

25
Chapter5 – Sensitivity analysis

Rigid Force-Deflection Relationship

1.20
1
1.00 1a
2a
3a
0.80
4
4a
Fo/W

0.60 5
6

0.40

0.20

0.00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20
∆ u/t

Figure 5.3 Rigid Force-Deformation Relationship – Set 2.

The generic normalised load versus deflection characteristics for all eight walls are shown in Figure
5.4 where it can be seen that the tri-linear F-∆ relationship used in the numerical model is contained
within the triangular F-∆ relationship for a rigid-body analysis of a wall with a horizontal crack at its
mid-height (its base for a cantilever wall) and no consideration of deformations (tensile or
compressive) in the mortar.

∆ ∆ ∆ ∆

Figure 5.4. Generic tri-linear F-∆ relationship for URM walls.

26
Chapter5 – Sensitivity analysis

Six different earthquake records were used to study in which way different characteristics of the
earthquake ground motions affect the behaviour of URM walls.
The earthquake ground motions used for this purpose are listed in Table 5.4 and presented in Figure
5.5. Their respective displacement and acceleration response spectra are given in Figure 5.6 and 5.7.

Table 5.4 Earthquake ground motions used in the sensitivity study.

Earthquake Description
El Centro Recorded at El Centro during the Imperial Valley, California earthquake, 18th May
1940. Magnitude 6.6, Epicentral Distance 8km. Accelerogram component NS.
Taft Recorded at Kern Country, Taft Lincoln School Tunnel, California, 21st July 1952.
Accelerogram component S69E. Epicenter 35 00 00N
119 02 00W. Seismograph station 35 09 00N 119 27 00W.
San Salvador Recorded at San Salvador, El Salvador, 10th October 1986. Magnitude 5.4,
Epicenter 13 67 00N 89 19 00W.
Gemona Recorded at Gemona, Friuli, Italy, 15th September 1976. Magnitude 6.1,
Accelerogram component NS.
Sturno Recorded at sturno, Irpinia, Italy, 23rd November1980. Magnitude 6.9,
Accelerogram component EW.
Artificial Code Compatible earthquake.

27
Chapter5 – Sensitivity analysis

0.40 0.40

0.30 0.30

0.20 0.20

0.10 0.10
a [g]

a [g]
0.00 0.00
-0.10 -0.10
-0.20 -0.20
-0.30 -0.30
-0.40 -0.40
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0
t [sec] t [sec]

(a) El Centro (b) Taft

0.60 0.80

0.60
0.40
0.40
0.20
0.20
a [g]

a [g]
0.00 0.00

-0.20
-0.20
-0.40
-0.40
-0.60

-0.60 -0.80
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0
t [sec] t [sec]

(c) San Salvador (d) Gemona

0.40 0.15

0.30
0.10
0.20
0.05
0.10
a [g]
a [g]

0.00 0.00

-0.10
-0.05
-0.20
-0.10
-0.30

-0.40 -0.15
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0
t [sec] t [sec]

(e) Sturno (f) Code Compatible

Figure 5.5 Earthquake records: accelerograms.

28
Chapter5 – Sensitivity analysis

0.40 0.20
ElCentro 5% damping Taft 5% damping
0.30 0.15

Sd [m]
Sd [m]

0.20 0.10

0.10 0.05

0.00 0.00
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
T [sec] T [sec]

(a) El Centro (b) Taft

0.40 0.40
SanSalvador 5% damping Gemona 5% damping
0.30 0.30
Sd [m]

Sd [m]
0.20 0.20

0.10 0.10

0.00 0.00
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
T [sec] T [sec]

(c) San Salvador (d) Gemona

0.80 0.08
Sturno 5% damping Code Compatible_EQ 5% damping
0.60 0.06
Sd [m]

Sd [m]

0.40 0.04

0.20 0.02

0.00 0.00
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
T [sec] T [sec]

(e) Sturno (f) Code Compatible

Figure 5.6 Earthquake records: displacement spectra, 5% damping.

The input motions (i.e. the accelerograms described in Table 5.4) used for the Time History analyses
have been scaled in order to lead the wall under consideration into a significative range of
displacements ∆1<∆<∆2 or ∆>∆2.

29
Chapter5 – Sensitivity analysis

10.0 8.0
ElCentro 5% damping Taft 5% damping
8.0
6.0

Sa [m/sec ]
Sa [m/sec2]

2
6.0
4.0
4.0

2.0
2.0

0.0 0.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
T [sec] T [sec]

(a) El Centro (b) Taft

20.00 20.00
SanSalvador 5% damping Gemona 5% damping
15.00 15.00
Sa [m/sec ]

Sa [m/sec ]
2

2
10.00 10.00

5.00 5.00

0.00 0.00
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
T [sec] T [sec]

(c) San Salvador (d) Gemona

16.00 4.00
Sturno 5% damping Code Compatible_EQ 5% damping
12.00 3.00
Sa [m/sec ]

Sa [m/sec ]
2

8.00 2.00

4.00 1.00

0.00 0.00
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
T [sec] T [sec]

(e) Sturno (f) Code Compatible

Figure 5.7 Earthquake records: acceleration spectra, 5% damping.

It is worth noting that according to the selection of the walls described in the first part of this Section
the set of eight walls considered in this study encompasses:
wall slenderness ratios (h/t) ranging between 6 and 30;
wall heights (h) ranging between 3m and 5m;
wall thickness (t) ranging between 110mm and 500mm;
axial compression (p) ranging between 0 and 0.2MPa.

The walls were modelled as “equivalent” single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) systems as previously

described in Section 2.

30
Chapter5 – Sensitivity analysis

Having thus confirmed the suitability of the tri-linear model to model the out-of-plane response of
“simply-supported” or “cantilever” URM walls, a more detailed parametric study has been conducted
to study the effect of the walls’ initial stiffness and strength on the post-cracking dynamic response of
these walls.
These parameters, the stiffness and the strength of the walls, are strictly related to the selection of the
parameters ∆1 and ∆2 that define the tri-linear F-∆ relationship together with the values of the
displacement at ‘point of static instability’ ∆U and the force at incipient rocking F0.
From the Shaking-table tests performed at the Adelaide University [8] it appears that the values of ∆1
and ∆2 mainly depend on the material properties and on the state of degradation at the cracked joints.
Since an exact quantification of such parameters in a real existing masonry wall can be problematic if
not impossible, it was considered essential to determine how the dynamic response of a wall is
affected by variations in ∆1 and ∆2 (and therefore in initial stiffness and static strength Fu) once the
geometric characteristics, the boundary conditions and the vertical loading are given.
The values of ∆1/∆U and ∆2/∆U have been varied in the ranges considered of practical interest, that is
∆1/∆U = 0.05 ÷ 0.20 and ∆2/∆U = 0.25 ÷ 0.50.

In figure 5.8a and 5.8b are depicted respectively the influence that the change in the value of ∆1/∆U (in
Figure 5.8a) and of ∆2/∆U (in Figure 5.8b) have on the F-∆ relationship for a given wall.
In particular the F-∆ relationships represented in Figure 5.8 refer to wall 1, characterised by the
following parameters
l [m] 1.0 Length
h [m] 3.0 Height
t [mm] 200 Thickness
3
γ [N/m ] 18000 Specific Weight
P [N] 20000 Vertical load

and with ∆1/∆U and ∆2/∆U respectively varying in the ranges 0.05 ÷ 0.20 and 0.25 ÷ 0.50.

31
Chapter5 – Sensitivity analysis

D1/Du = 0.050
Force-Displacement Relationship
15000 D1/Du = 0.075
D1/Du = 0.100
12500 D1/Du = 0.125
D1/Du = 0.150
10000 D1/Du = 0.175
D1/Du = 0.200
Force [N]

7500

5000

2500

0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
Displacement [m]

Figure 5.8a Wall 1 F-∆ relationship for ∆1/∆U = 0.05÷0.20

D2/Du = 0.25
Force-Displacement Relationship
15000 D2/Du = 0.30
D2/Du = 0.35
12500 D2/Du = 0.40
D2/Du = 0.45
10000
D2/Du = 0.50
Force [N]

7500

5000

2500

0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
Displacement [m]

Figure 5.8b Wall 1 F-∆ relationship for ∆2/∆U = 0.25÷0.50

An example of the results obtained from these analyses is shown in Figure 5.10 for Wall 1 where the
maximum wall displacement ∆MAX (normalised by the theoretical ultimate wall displacement, ∆U) is
32
Chapter5 – Sensitivity analysis

plotted versus the “effective” natural period of the wall for the ranges of ratios for ∆1/∆U and ∆2/∆U
mentioned above.
Three different methods of natural period calculation were used for the abscissa of each value of
∆MAX/∆U in this figure: T1, T2, and TS. The values of T1 were computed using the stiffness of the initial
elastic segment of the tri-linear F-∆ relationship used in each analysis, i.e. K1=FU/∆1 (being FU the
‘Semi-rigid threshold resistance’) as indicated in Figure 5.9. The values of T2 were calculated using
the secant stiffness going through the point on the tri-linear F-∆ curve at the point where ∆ = ∆2, i.e.
K2=FU/∆2 depicted in Figure 5.9. The values of TS were calculated using the secant stiffness at the
point ∆ = ∆max, i.e. KS = F(∆=∆max)/∆max (see Figure 5.9).

∆ ∆ ∆ ∆

Figure 5.9 Definition of the secant stiffness values K1, K2 and Ks

The natural periods T1 and T2, respectively based on the stiffness of the initial elastic segment and on
the secant stiffness at ∆ =∆2, depend hence on the values of ∆1 and ∆2 (or, which is the same, on the
values of the ratios ∆1/∆u and ∆2/∆u).
The variation in the values of T1 and T2 for all the examined walls with changing the values of ∆1/∆u
and ∆2/∆u are reported in Table 5.5.

33
Chapter5 – Sensitivity analysis

Wall Fo W ∆u ∆1/∆u ∆2/∆u T1 Τ2 Wall Fo W ∆u ∆1/∆u ∆2/∆u T1 Τ2

No. (N) (N) (mm) (sec) (sec) No. (N) (N) (mm) (sec) (sec)
0.05 0.35 0.18 0.48 0.05 0.35 0.20 0.52
0.08 0.35 0.23 0.48 0.08 0.35 0.25 0.52
0.10 0.25 0.24 0.38 0.10 0.25 0.26 0.41
0.10 0.30 0.25 0.43 0.10 0.30 0.27 0.47
0.10 0.35 0.26 0.48 0.10 0.35 0.28 0.52
1 10908 10800 160 0.10 0.40 0.27 0.53 3a 3071 6534 89 0.10 0.40 0.29 0.58
0.10 0.45 0.28 0.59 0.10 0.45 0.30 0.65
0.10 0.50 0.29 0.65 0.10 0.50 0.32 0.71
0.13 0.35 0.29 0.48 0.13 0.35 0.32 0.52
0.15 0.35 0.31 0.48 0.15 0.35 0.34 0.52
0.18 0.35 0.34 0.48 0.18 0.35 0.38 0.52
0.20 0.35 0.36 0.48 0.20 0.35 0.40 0.52
0.05 0.35 0.14 0.36 0.05 0.35 0.39 1.04
0.08 0.35 0.17 0.36 0.08 0.35 0.50 1.04
0.10 0.25 0.18 0.28 0.10 0.25 0.52 0.82
0.10 0.30 0.19 0.32 0.10 0.30 0.54 0.93
0.10 0.35 0.19 0.36 0.10 0.35 0.56 1.04
1a 5702 5940 86 0.10 0.40 0.20 0.40 5 6480 16200 300 0.10 0.40 0.58 1.16
0.10 0.45 0.21 0.44 0.10 0.45 0.60 1.28
0.10 0.50 0.22 0.49 0.10 0.50 0.63 1.42
0.13 0.35 0.22 0.36 0.13 0.35 0.63 1.04
0.15 0.35 0.24 0.36 0.15 0.35 0.68 1.04
0.18 0.35 0.26 0.36 0.18 0.35 0.75 1.04
0.20 0.35 0.27 0.36 0.20 0.35 0.79 1.04
0.05 0.35 0.39 1.04 0.05 0.35 0.51 1.34
0.08 0.35 0.50 1.04 0.08 0.35 0.64 1.34
0.10 0.25 0.52 0.82 0.10 0.25 0.67 1.06
0.10 0.30 0.53 0.93 0.10 0.30 0.69 1.20
0.10 0.35 0.56 1.04 0.10 0.35 0.72 1.34
6 18090 27000 500 0.10 0.40 0.58 1.16 4a 2880 18000 200 0.10 0.40 0.75 1.50
0.10 0.45 0.60 1.28 0.10 0.45 0.78 1.66
0.10 0.50 0.63 1.42 0.10 0.50 0.82 1.83
0.13 0.35 0.63 1.04 0.13 0.35 0.82 1.34
0.15 0.35 0.68 1.04 0.15 0.35 0.88 1.34
0.18 0.35 0.74 1.04 0.18 0.35 0.96 1.34
0.20 0.35 0.79 1.04 0.20 0.35 1.02 1.34
0.05 0.35 0.28 0.75 0.05 0.35 0.42 1.11
0.08 0.35 0.36 0.75 0.08 0.35 0.53 1.11
0.10 0.25 0.37 0.59 0.10 0.25 0.55 0.87
0.10 0.30 0.39 0.67 0.10 0.30 0.57 0.99
0.10 0.35 0.40 0.75 0.10 0.35 0.59 1.11
2a 17280 27000 249 0.10 0.40 0.42 0.83 4 849 6534 110 0.10 0.40 0.62 1.23
0.10 0.45 0.44 0.92 0.10 0.45 0.64 1.36
0.10 0.50 0.46 1.02 0.10 0.50 0.67 1.51
0.13 0.35 0.46 0.75 0.13 0.35 0.67 1.11
0.15 0.35 0.49 0.75 0.15 0.35 0.72 1.11
0.18 0.35 0.54 0.75 0.18 0.35 0.79 1.11
0.20 0.35 0.57 0.75 0.20 0.35 0.84 1.11
Table 5.5 T1 and T2 values.

34
Chapter5 – Sensitivity analysis

Wall-1 ∆2 /∆u =0.350 T1 [sec] Wall-1 ∆1 /∆u =0.100 T2 [sec]

0.900 TS [sec] 0.900 TS [sec]
Sd/Du 0.800 Sd/Du
0.800
0.700 0.700

0.600 0.600

∆ max /∆ u
∆ max /∆ u

0.500 0.500
0.400 0.400
0.300 0.300
0.200 0.200
0.100 0.100
0.000 0.000
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
T [sec] T [sec]

(a) Variation in ∆max/∆U with changes in ∆1 and ∆ 2 for ∆max/∆U < 0.5 Æ 4.0 Artificial eq.

Wall-1 ∆2 /∆u =0.350 T1 [sec] Wall-1 ∆1 /∆u =0.100 T2 [sec]

1.800 1.800
Sd/Du Sd/Du
1.600 1.600
1.400 1.400
1.200 1.200
∆ max /∆u
1.000
u

1.000
max/

0.800 0.800

0.600
0.600
0.400
0.400
0.200
0.200
0.000
0.000
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
T [sec] T [sec]

(b) Variation in ∆max/∆U with changes in ∆1 and ∆ 2 for ∆max/∆U > 0.5 Æ 8.0 Artificial eq.

Figure 5.10 ∆max/∆U versus period (T1, T2 or Ts) for Wall 1, Artificial earthquake

For the two plots on the left-hand side of Figure 5.10, the data points (from left to right) correspond to
the case where ∆2/∆U = 0.35 and ∆1/∆U =0.05, 0.075, 0.10, 0.125, 0.15, 0.175 and 0.20, respectively.
For the two plots on the right-hand side of Figure 5.10, the data points (from left to right) correspond
to the case where ∆1/∆U = 0.10 and ∆2/∆U = 0.20, 0.25, 0.30, 0.35, 0.40, 0.45 and 0.50, respectively.

It is of interest to note how sensitive the maximum wall response (∆max/∆U) is to changes in initial
stiffness (∆1/∆U) and strength (∆2/∆U).
Plots of the same kind of those of Figure 5.10 are reported in an Appendix for all the examined cases,
that is the walls reported in Table 5.3 subjected to the earthquake input motions presented in Table 5.4.

The linear elastic displacement response spectra (for 5% damping) are also plotted in Figure 5.10 to
enable comparisons between the displacement spectra and the calculated values. In Figure 5.10a, it can
be seen that for support motion that generates displacement response onto the “plateau” of the F−∆
curve (∆1≤∆≤∆2, refer to Figure 5.4), it appears that good estimates of the wall response can be

35
Chapter5 – Sensitivity analysis

obtained using the linear elastic response spectra and wall natural period calculated based on the initial
stiffness, T1 . For displacement response greater than ∆2 (∆max/∆U >0.5, Figure 5.10b), however, it

appears that better estimates of the maximum wall response are given using the elastic spectrum with
values of period, T2. Note that in Figure 5.10b, plots of ∆max/∆U versus TS were omitted because at
large displacements, the secant stiffness is so small that the corresponding periods become extremely
large, giving extremely poor correlation with the linear elastic displacement spectrum.

To confirm that these trends were consistent, Sd(T)/∆max was plotted versus ∆max/∆U for all three
methods (i.e. using T1, T2 and Ts) for several combinations of the walls listed in Table 5.3 under the
effect of the earthquake motions presented in Table 5.4 and whose response spectra are given in
Figure 5.6 and 5.7.

Two walls characterised by opposite strength conditions, i.e. wall 1 and wall 4a, have been analysed
under the effect of all the input motion presented in Table 5.4.
Furthermore all the walls have been analysed under the effect of two specific earthquakes, which is the
Artificial and the San Salvador earthquakes.
The results of these analyses are presented in the following Figures in terms of Sd/∆max vs. ∆max/∆U.
First the full scale has been used and then all the plots have been resized to the same range of Sd/∆max
in order to make the comparison more clear.

36
Chapter5 – Sensitivity analysis

2.50

2.00
El Centro
Taft

Sd(T 1) / ∆ MAX
1.50
San Salvador
Gemona
1.00 Sturno
Artificial

0.50

0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
∆ MAX / ∆ u

(a) Response spectrum predictions using T1 values for period.

14.00

12.00

10.00 El Centro
Taft
Sd(T 2 ) / ∆ MAX

8.00 San Salvador

Gemona
6.00 Sturno
Artificial
4.00

2.00

0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
∆ MAX / ∆ u

(b) Response spectrum predictions using T2 values for period.

4.00

3.50

3.00 El Centro
Taft
Sd(T S) / ∆ MAX

2.50
San Salvador
2.00 Gemona
Sturno
1.50
Artificial
1.00

0.50

0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
∆ MAX / ∆ u

(c) Response spectrum predictions using TS values for period.

Figure 5.11 Variation in Sd/∆max values versus ∆max/∆U
for all earthquakes: Wall 1.

37
Chapter5 – Sensitivity analysis

5.00

4.00
El Centro
Taft

Sd(T 1 ) / ∆ MAX
3.00
San Salvador
Gemona
2.00 Sturno
Artificial

1.00

0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
∆ MAX / ∆ u

(a) Response spectrum predictions using T1 values for period.

5.00

4.00
El Centro
Taft
Sd(T 2 ) / ∆ MAX

3.00
San Salvador
Gemona
2.00 Sturno
Artificial

1.00

0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
∆ MAX / ∆ u

(b) Response spectrum predictions using T2 values for period.

5.00

4.00
El Centro
Taft
Sd(T S) / ∆ MAX

3.00
San Salvador
Gemona
2.00 Sturno
Artificial

1.00

0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
∆ MAX / ∆ u

(c) Response spectrum predictions using TS values for period.

Figure 5.11_bis Variation in Sd/∆max values versus ∆max/∆U
for all earthquakes: Wall 1 (resized).

38
Chapter5 – Sensitivity analysis

1.40

1.20

1.00 El Centro
Taft

Sd(T 1 ) / ∆ MAX
0.80 San Salvador
Gemona
0.60 Sturno
Artificial
0.40

0.20

0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
∆ MAX / ∆ u

(a) Response spectrum predictions using T1 values for period.

6.00

5.00

El Centro
4.00 Taft
Sd(T 2 ) / ∆ MAX

San Salvador
3.00 Gemona
Sturno
2.00 Artificial

1.00

0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
∆ MAX / ∆ u

(b) Response spectrum predictions using T2 values for period.

4.50

4.00

3.50
El Centro
3.00 Taft
Sd(T S) / ∆ MAX

2.50 San Salvador

Gemona
2.00
Sturno
1.50 Artificial

1.00

0.50

0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
∆ MAX / ∆ u

(c) Response spectrum predictions using TS values for period.

Figure 5.12 Variation in Sd/∆max values versus ∆max/∆U
for all earthquakes: Wall4a.

39
Chapter5 – Sensitivity analysis

5.00

4.00
El Centro
Taft

Sd(T 1 ) / ∆ MAX
3.00
San Salvador
Gemona
2.00 Sturno
Artificial

1.00

0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
∆ MAX / ∆ u

(a) Response spectrum predictions using T1 values for period.

5.00

4.00
El Centro
Taft
Sd(T 2 ) / ∆ MAX

3.00
San Salvador
Gemona
2.00 Sturno
Artificial

1.00

0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
∆ MAX / ∆ u

(b) Response spectrum predictions using T2 values for period.

5.00

4.00
El Centro
Taft
Sd(T S) / ∆ MAX

3.00
San Salvador
Gemona
2.00 Sturno
Artificial

1.00

0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
∆ MAX / ∆ u

(c) Response spectrum predictions using TS values for period.

Figure 5.12_bis Variation in Sd/∆max values versus ∆max/∆U
for all earthquakes: Wall4a (resized).

40
Chapter5 – Sensitivity analysis

2.50

2.00 Wall 1
Wall 1a
Wall 2a

Sd(T 1 ) / ∆ MAX
1.50
Wall 3a
Wall 4
1.00 Wall 4a
Wall 5
Wall 6
0.50

0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
∆ MAX / ∆ u

(a) Response spectrum predictions using T1 values for period.

8.00

7.00
Wall 1
6.00 Wall 1a
Wall 2a
Sd(T 2) / ∆ MAX

5.00
Wall 3a
4.00 Wall 4
Wall 4a
3.00
Wall 5
2.00 Wall 6

1.00

0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
∆ MAX / ∆ u

(b) Response spectrum predictions using T2 values for period.

4.00

3.50
Wall 1
3.00 Wall 1a
Wall 2a
Sd(T S) / ∆ MAX

2.50
Wall 3a
2.00 Wall 4
Wall 4a
1.50
Wall 5
1.00 Wall 6

0.50

0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
∆ MAX / ∆ u

(c) Response spectrum predictions using Ts values for period.

Figure 5.13 Comparison between Sd and analytical ∆max values versus ∆max/∆U for the Artificial
earthquake record.

41
Chapter5 – Sensitivity analysis

5.00

4.00 Wall 1
Wall 1a
Wall 2a

Sd(T 1 ) / ∆ MAX
3.00
Wall 3a
Wall 4
2.00 Wall 4a
Wall 5
Wall 6
1.00

0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
∆ MAX / ∆ u

(a) Response spectrum predictions using T1 values for period.

5.00

4.00 Wall 1
Wall 1a
Wall 2a
Sd(T 2) / ∆ MAX

3.00
Wall 3a
Wall 4
2.00 Wall 4a
Wall 5
Wall 6
1.00

0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
∆ MAX / ∆ u

(b) Response spectrum predictions using T2 values for period.

5.00

4.00 Wall 1
Wall 1a
Wall 2a
Sd(T S) / ∆ MAX

3.00
Wall 3a
Wall 4
2.00 Wall 4a
Wall 5
Wall 6
1.00

0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
∆ MAX / ∆ u

(c) Response spectrum predictions using Ts values for period.

Figure 5.13_bis Comparison between Sd and analytical ∆max values versus ∆max/∆U for the
Artificial earthquake record (resized).

42
Chapter5 – Sensitivity analysis

1.20

1.00 Wall 1
Wall 1a
0.80 Wall 2a

Sd(T 1 ) / ∆ MAX
Wall 3a
0.60 Wall 4
Wall 4a
0.40 Wall 5
Wall 6
0.20

0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
∆ MAX / ∆ u

(a) Response spectrum predictions using T1 values for period.

14.00

12.00
Wall 1
10.00 Wall 1a
Wall 2a
Sd(T 2) / ∆ MAX

8.00 Wall 3a
Wall 4
6.00 Wall 4a
Wall 5
4.00
Wall 6

2.00

0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
∆ MAX / ∆ u

(b) Response spectrum predictions using T2 values for period.

7.00

6.00
Wall 1
5.00 Wall 1a
Wall 2a
Sd(T S) / ∆ MAX

4.00 Wall 3a
Wall 4
3.00 Wall 4a
Wall 5
2.00
Wall 6

1.00

0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
∆ MAX / ∆ u

(c) Response spectrum predictions using Ts values for period.

Figure 5.14 Comparison between Sd and analytical ∆max values versus ∆max/∆U for San Salvador
Earthquake.

43
Chapter5 – Sensitivity analysis

5.00

4.00 Wall 1
Wall 1a
Wall 2a

Sd(T 1 ) / ∆ MAX
3.00
Wall 3a
Wall 4
2.00 Wall 4a
Wall 5
Wall 6
1.00

0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
∆ MAX / ∆ u

(a) Response spectrum predictions using T1 values for period.

5.00

4.00 Wall 1
Wall 1a
Wall 2a
Sd(T 2) / ∆ MAX

3.00
Wall 3a
Wall 4
2.00 Wall 4a
Wall 5
Wall 6
1.00

0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
∆ MAX / ∆ u

(b) Response spectrum predictions using T2 values for period.

5.00

4.00 Wall 1
Wall 1a
Wall 2a
Sd(T S) / ∆ MAX

3.00
Wall 3a
Wall 4
2.00 Wall 4a
Wall 5
Wall 6
1.00

0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
∆ MAX / ∆ u

(c) Response spectrum predictions using Ts values for period.

Figure 5.14_bis Comparison between Sd and analytical ∆max values versus ∆max/∆U for San
Salvador Earthquake (resized).

44
Chapter5 – Sensitivity analysis

The wall displacement evaluated from a THA has been considered as the exact one.
The reliability of the simplified elastic spectrum approach has been evaluated from the error in
percentage of the displacements computed from the displacement response spectra following the
method described above (i.e. using T1, T2 or TS).
Several ranges of maximum response have been defined to work out whether the use of T1 rather than
T2 can be considered more reliable or vice versa.
Those ranges have been selected on the basis of the plots shown in Figures from 5.11 to 5.14.
The mean value and the standard deviation of the error (error defined as the difference in percentage
from the exact value) have been considered as the parameters more representative of the
approximation of the method and are given in the Table 5.6 and 5.7 for all the examined cases divided
in different ranges of interest.

In particular it can be observed that the mean error done in predicting ∆max using Sd(T1) appears to be at
the very most equal to 24% when the maximum displacements are less than 50% of ∆U. The standard
deviation of the error in such conditions varies between 17% and 27%. However, the spectral
estimates are consistently less than the calculated (so-called actual) displacements so while this
approach appears to be in average reasonably accurate, it is also on the “non-conservative” side of the
likely “real” maximum values. This is especially true in the region of ∆max > 0.5∆U where the spectral
estimates using T1 are well below the calculated values of ∆max.

Furthermore, the mean error done in predicting ∆max with the simplified elastic spectrum approach and
the natural period T2 (in other words using Sd(T2)) is at the very most equal to 13% when the
maximum displacements are greater than 50%∆U and equal to a mean error of 12% when the
maximum displacements are greater than 70%∆U.
The standard deviation of the error in these last conditions (when the maximum displacements are
greater than 70%∆U), varies between 9% and 24%. The degree and ‘gravity’ of uncertainty that can be
inferred from the mean value and the standard deviation of the error seems hence to be acceptable
compared with the natural uncertainties of the problem that lie in the accurate definition of the real F-
∆ relationship and its idealisation.
It appears that this method, while not giving very good predictions of maximum displacements in the
small amplitude range (∆max < 0.5∆U), seems to work very well in the large amplitude (∆max > 0.7∆U),
displacement region, hence suitable for predicting whether a wall will collapse or not (see Table 5.6).

45
Chapter5 – Sensitivity analysis

Table 5.6
(Sd- ∆MAX)/∆MAX (Sd- ∆MAX)/∆MAX (Sd- ∆MAX)/∆MAX
∆MAX Error
(T1) (T2) (TS)
Wall 1
-16% 209% 61% Mean Value
50%∆U > ∆MAX > 0
27% 191% 44% Standard Deviation
-59% 9% 116% Mean Value
∆MAX > 50%∆U
19% 29% 45% Standard Deviation
-67% -5% 131% Mean Value
∆MAX > 70%∆U
12% 9% 48% Standard Deviation
Wall 4a
-12% 48% 27% Mean Value
50%∆U > ∆MAX > 0
19% 77% 29% Standard Deviation
-35% -6% 72% Mean Value
∆MAX > 50%∆U
21% 22% 100% Standard Deviation
-34% -12% 61% Mean Value
∆MAX > 70%∆U
19% 24% 80% Standard Deviation
San Salvador
-24% 184% 45% Mean Value
50%∆U > ∆MAX > 0
18% 270% 56% Standard Deviation
-52% 3% 9% Mean Value
∆MAX > 50%∆U
23% 29% 111% Standard Deviation
-58% -4% -20% Mean Value
∆MAX > 70%∆U
21% 11% 58% Standard Deviation
Artificial
-10% 85% 59% Mean Value
50%∆U > ∆MAX > 0
17% 73% 37% Standard Deviation
-41% 13% 116% Mean Value
∆MAX > 50%∆U
17% 24% 35% Standard Deviation
-47% -1% 117% Mean Value
∆MAX > 70%∆U
10% 16% 48% Standard Deviation

46
Chapter5 – Sensitivity analysis

Table 5.7
(Sd- ∆MAX)/∆MAX (Sd- ∆MAX)/∆MAX (Sd- ∆MAX)/∆MAX
∆MAX Error
(T1) (T2) (TS)
Wall 1
-68% -7% - Mean Value
∆MAX = ∆U
11% 9% - Standard Deviation
Wall 4a
-38% -29% - Mean Value
∆MAX = ∆U
24% 7% - Standard Deviation
San Salvador
-69% -3% - Mean Value
∆MAX = ∆U
13% 5% - Standard Deviation
Artificial
-48% -11% - Mean Value
∆MAX = ∆U
9% 8% - Standard Deviation

47
Chapter6 – Conclusions

6. CONCLUSIONS

This study has shown the applicability of a simplified linearized displacement-based procedure to
predict the response of URM walls subjected to specific earthquake ground motion. In particular when
the DB approach is applied to assess the possibility of failure of existing walls, it has been shown that
the results appear to be reasonably accurate and fairly conservative.
The main advantage of the method is that it is straightforward in its application and at the same time it
takes into account of the real behaviour of the URM walls (i.e. their reserve capacity due to rocking)
when dynamically loaded.
The natural period T2, which is the effective natural period to be used in the DB approach when the
objective is to predict whether or not the wall will fail, is a function of the maximum force plateau (the
so-called rigid threshold resistance) and of the displacement ∆2, hence it is a function of the tri-linear
F-∆ relationship for the wall under investigation.
The key point is hence the definition of the characteristic displacement ∆2.
It is important to underline that the reliability of the method doesn’t seem to be affected by the
‘position’ of the value ∆2 with respect to the ultimate displacement ∆U (for a given wall). In other
words the method doesn’t seem to work better or worst depending on the absolute value of the natural
period T2 (given that the value of T2 assumed for the examined wall approximates accurately well the
‘real’ T2 value of the wall). This is shown in Figures 6.1 to 6.6 where Sd(T2)/∆max vs. ∆max/∆U is
reported for the six value of ∆2/∆U considered for each examined wall and for maximum
displacements greater than 50%∆U.
Chapter6 – Conclusions

∆ 2/ ∆ U =0.25
2.50

2.00
Sd(T 2 ) / ∆ MAX

1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

∆ MAX / ∆ u

Figure 6.1 Sd(T2)/∆max vs. ∆max/∆U for ∆2/∆U=0.25.

∆ 2/ ∆ U =0.30
2.50

2.00
Sd(T 2) / ∆ MAX

1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

∆ MAX / ∆ u

Figure 6.2 Sd(T2)/∆max vs. ∆max/∆U for ∆2/∆U=0.30.

∆ 2/ ∆ U =0.35
2.50

2.00
Sd(T 2) / ∆ MAX

1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

∆ MAX / ∆ u

Figure 6.3 Sd(T2)/∆max vs. ∆max/∆U for ∆2/∆U=0.35.

49
Chapter6 – Conclusions

∆ 2/ ∆ U =0.40
2.50

2.00

Sd(T 2) / ∆ MAX 1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

∆ MAX / ∆ u

Figure 6.4 Sd(T2)/∆max vs. ∆max/∆U for ∆2/∆U=0.40.

∆ 2/∆ U =0.45
2.50

2.00
Sd(T 2) / ∆ MAX

1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

∆ MAX / ∆ u

Figure 6.5 Sd(T2)/∆max vs. ∆max/∆U for ∆2/∆U=0.45.

∆ 2/∆ U =0.50
2.50

2.00
Sd(T 2) / ∆ MAX

1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

∆ MAX / ∆ u

Figure 6.6 Sd(T2)/∆max vs. ∆max/∆U for ∆2/∆U=0.50.

50
Chapter6 – Conclusions

As for the general case the mean value and the standard deviation of the error (define as the difference
in percentage from the exact value) have been computed. The mean value and the standard deviation
for maximum displacements greater than 50%∆U and greater than 70%∆U are reported in Table 6.1.

Table 6.1 – Mean value and Standard deviation of the error for ∆2/∆U=0.25÷0.50.

(Sd(T2)- ∆MAX)/∆MAX Error

∆2/∆U=0.25
-2% Mean Value
∆MAX > 50%∆U
15% Standard Deviation
3% Mean Value
∆MAX > 70%∆U
26% Standard Deviation
∆2/∆U=0.30
10% Mean Value
∆MAX > 50%∆U
21% Standard Deviation
1% Mean Value
∆MAX > 70%∆U
14% Standard Deviation
∆2/∆U=0.35
0% Mean Value
∆MAX > 50%∆U
22% Standard Deviation
-11% Mean Value
∆MAX > 70%∆U
13% Standard Deviation
∆2/∆U=0.40
9% Mean Value
∆MAX > 50%∆U
23% Standard Deviation
4% Mean Value
∆MAX > 70%∆U
16% Standard Deviation
∆2/∆U=0.45
20% Mean Value
∆MAX > 50%∆U
42% Standard Deviation
7% Mean Value
∆MAX > 70%∆U
18% Standard Deviation
∆2/∆U=0.50
14% Mean Value
∆MAX > 50%∆U
34% Standard Deviation
5% Mean Value
∆MAX > 70%∆U
16% Standard Deviation

51
Chapter6 – Conclusions

For maximum displacements greater than 70%∆U, which is the range of interest for the values of ∆max
when the objective is to assess the failure of the wall, the mean error varies between 1% and 11% and
the standard deviation of the error varies between 13% and 26%. It can be observed that these ranges
are essentially the same inferred for the general case and reported in Table 5.6 (i.e. between 1% and
12% for the mean error and between 11% and 24% for the standard deviation of the error) revealing
that the method proposed possess the same degree of reliability in the full range of ∆2/∆U which has
been considered.

Furthermore the time history analyses performed for this specific purpose have shown that large
changes in the value of the ratio ∆1/∆U do not imply big changes in the value of ∆max/∆U. This suggests
that an inaccuracy in the evaluation of ∆1 doesn’t invalidate the results of the DB procedure and
emphasise the importance of correctly define the displacement ∆2.
It has to be considered that the point on the tri-linear F-∆ curve where ∆=∆2 determines the maximum
force plateau, corresponding roughly to the maximum strength of the wall. A study recently carried
out at the University of Pavia by L.Picchi [10] showed that the maximum wall strength calculated
according to the currently available theories is relatively insensitive to the wall material properties
such as the elastic modulus and the compressive strength.
In particular in the study mentioned above it has been shown that for a likely range of material
properties (i.e. varying the elastic modulus of the masonry from 500Mpa up to 10000Mpa), the
ultimate wall strength varies by only as much as 10%.
With this result, it is remarkable the possibility of establishing a value of ∆ 2 for a wall without the
need for detailed material property data. Once calculated an estimate of Fu (for instance with the
method proposed by Priestley [6]) the value of ∆2 is easily determined on the triangular rigid-body F-∆
envelope. With this point established, it is possible to calculate the secant stiffness, K2, and go on to
assess whether or not collapse will occur using the corresponding period, T2, and the 5% damped
elastic displacement spectra for the earthquake motion being considered.

The accuracy of the method doesn’t seem to be conditioned by the characteristics of the earthquakes
considered as input motions. It has anyway to be underlined that even if the selection of the six
earthquakes described in Table 5.4 has been done trying to select seismic excitation with different
characteristics, a complete analysis with all six earthquakes has been done only for the two walls at the
boundaries, in terms of strength, of the considered set of walls (i.e. wall 1 and wall 4a). The entire set
of wall has been analysed under the effect of the artificial and San Salvador earthquakes, not revealing
any particular influence of the characteristic of the two earthquakes (quite different one from the other
as it can be noticed in the spectra of Figures 5.5 and 5.6) in the response of the walls.
A more complete set of earthquakes should be considered in order to confirm this trend.

52
Chapter6 – Conclusions

Still to be confirmed is whether other more complex out-of-plane failure mechanisms can be modelled
in a similar fashion. A study on this issue constitutes an important future development of this work.
There appears to be no reason, in principle, that it can not be done if a comparable “rigid body”
mechanism exists which has a force-displacement response that can be described with a tri-linear
model.

Another issue to be investigated is whether this approach will work when the hysteretic model is not
symmetric or when friction is accounted for in the model (i.e. when the non-linear F-∆ relationship
becomes inelastic instead of elastic).

53
Chapter7 – References

7. REFERENCES

[1] M.J.N.Priestley Seismic behaviour of unreinforced masonry walls– Bulletin of the New Zeland
National Society for Earthquake Engineering 1985 18(2)
[2] K.T.Doherty, M.C.Griffith, N.Lam and J.Wilson Displacement-based seismic analysis for out-of-
plane bending of unreinforced masonry wall - Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2002
[3] K.T.Doherty, B.Rodolico, N.Lam, J.Wilson and M.C.Griffith The modelling of earthquake
induced collapse of unreinforced masonry walls combining force and displacement principals. – 12
World Conference of Earthquake Engineering
[4] A.Shibata, M.A.Sozen Substitute-structure method for seismic design of R/C– Journal of
Structural Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineering 1976 102, ST1.
[5] FEAP A Finite Element Analysis Program Robert L. Taylor Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering – University of California at Berkeley
[6] T.Paulay, M.J.N.Priestley Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings. – John
Wiley and Sons, Inc. 1992
[7] Anil K. Chopra Dynamics of Structures. – Prentice Hall. 2001
[8] Kevin Thomas Doherty An investigation of the weak links in the seismic load path of unreinforced
masonry buildings. Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Engineering at The University of Adelaide for
the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
[9] M.J.N.Priestley, R.J.Evison, A.J.Carr Seismic Response of Structures free to rock on their
foundations. – Bulletin of the New Zeland National Society for Earthquake Engineering 1978 11(3)
[10] Luigino Picchi Risposta sismica per azioni fuori dal piano di pareti murarie - Tesi di Laurea in
Ingegneria Civile Relatore: Prof. Ing. Guido Magenes– Università di Pavia
[11] George W. Housner The behaviour of inverted pendulum structures during earthquakes. –
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 1963 53(2)
[12] N.T.K.Lam, J.L.Wilson, G.L.Hutchinson The seismic response of unreinforced masonry
cantilever walls in low seismicity areas – Bulletin of the New Zeland National Society for Earthquake
Engineering 1995 28(3)