STUDY OF MODES OF STRUCTURAL FAILURE

DUE TO EARTHQUAKE

Shaukat Ali Khan*, University of Engineering & Technology Taxila, Pakistan

32ndConference on OUR WORLD IN CONCRETE & STRUCTURES: 28 - 29 August 2007,
Singapore

Article Online Id: 100032030

The online version of this article can be found at:
http://cipremier.com/100032030





Thisarticleisbroughttoyouwiththesupportof
SingaporeConcreteInstitute
www.scinst.org.sg

AllRightsreservedforCIPremierPTELTD
YouarenotAllowedtoredistributeorresalethearticleinanyformatwithoutwrittenapprovalof
CIPremierPTELTD
VisitOurWebsiteformoreinformation
www.cipremier.com
32
nd
Conference on OUR WORLD IN CONCRETE & STRUCTURES: 28 29 August 2007, Singapore
STUDY OF MODES OF STRUCTURAL FAILURE
DUE TO EARTHQUAKE
Shaukat Ali Khan*, University of Engineering & Technology Taxila, Pakistan.
Abstract
A devastating earthquake measuring 7.6 on Richter scale hit Pakistan at 8:50
AM on October 08, 2005. The earthquake was unprecedented in the history of the
country and caused very severe damages to the structures since they were not
designed for that intensity. Its epicenter was reported about 95 kilometers north-west of
the capital Islamabad. The main cities and towns of Pakistan seriously affected include
Muzaffarabad, Bagh, Rawalakot, Shenkari, Mansehra, Butgram, Balakot, Gari
Habibullah. A part of the Margalla towers Islamabad collapsed while many other
buildings faced minor damages. The structures having major and minor damages
include brick-masonry, stone-masonry, block-masonry and RCC frame structures with
brick-masonry cladding as well as block-masonry cladding. The affected buildings
include single storey as well as multistoried structures. In hilly areas the buildings
generally have roof trusses.
A study of damages to different structures is very important to adopt strategies for
future construction and to develop design codes so that the earthquake resistant
structures could be designed. In this paper a study of damages mainly for the brick-
masonry and RCC frame structures with block-masonry cladding are discussed.
Keywords: Block Masonry, Stone Masonry, Cladding
1. Introduction
Earthquakes mostly cause damage due to ground shaking. The shaking may be the result of tectonic
movement or volcanic activity. The surface of the earth consists of seven major tectonic plates and many
smaller ones. These plates move in different directions and at different speeds from those of the
neighboring ones. The most devastating event recorded in the recent history of Pakistan on 8
th
October
2005 is the result of the stress releases in the tectonically active zone due to collision of Indian plate with
the Eurasian plate. The major cities and towns affected were Muzaffarabad, Bagh, Rawalakot, Balakot,
Shinkiari, Batagram, Mansehra, Abbottabad, Murree, Rawalpindi and Islamabad. [1]
The area hit by the earthquake has to face serious loss of life and property depending upon the
earthquake intensity and location of the epicenter. The main cause of loss of life is the collapse of
structures. The affected areas have variety of construction e.g., load bearing masonry construction, frame
structure, single storey dwellings or multistoried residential apartments, commercial or official buildings. In
developing country like Pakistan, the private houses are usually not properly designed and constructed
while the multistoried commercial or official buildings are properly designed and constructed following the
prevailing design codes and construction specifications.
Catastrophic natural disasters result in a major loss of life and tremendous amount of damage. The
vulnerability of society for these losses tends to rise by increasing population and investments in hazard
prone areas, less resilience against disaster, changed land use and a higher dependency on vulnerable
communication and services [2].
In this earthquake about 80,000 persons died, and an equal number severely injured or disabled and over
2.8 million persons have been left without shelter [3]. In recent events, earthquakes have also caused
great damage and destruction of Mosques and other monumental buildings [4, 5, 6].
The inherent compulsions do not allow shifting from the earthquake prone areas. Rather the man has the
God gifted qualities to fight the hazards and develop strategies and systems for safety. To develop
positive future safety strategies, studies of the failure modes and mechanism are very important. This
paper is dedicated to the study of failure modes for brick-masonry and RCC frame structures with block
and brick-masonry infill walls. The study area was mainly confined to AJK-University Muzaffarabad.
2. Site Lithology
The campus is located on a fairly narrow terrace at the foot of high mountains. The terrace ends with a
steep slope into the river Neelum at a significant depth. The strata mainly consist of gravels (rounded to
sub-rounded) with very little binder (fines). Serious sliding activity has been observed on all the
surrounding mountains standing around the campus. The dust at the slip-scar as shown in figures-1
indicates active creep of the mountains. The slide may be deep seated and the entire terrace supporting
the campus buildings may be unstable.
3. Buildings
The campus comprises of several newly constructed departments and residences. A brief of the buildings
is as follows:
The first building was completed in 1990 and the rest of the buildings are still younger.
The departments mostly have double storey frame structure with brick-masonry cladding.
The Main Boys Hostel comprises of double and triple storey wings. It is a frame structure with
hollow block-masonry cladding.
The residences mostly have double storey load bearing brick-masonry structures.
4. Modes of Failure
Modes and degrees of damage varied among the buildings. The intensity of damage to all the buildings is
quite severe and most of the buildings are none repairable and ultimately have to be demolished.
However for the buildings (although quite small in number) with smaller degree of distress, detailed survey
need to be conducted to decide the mode and extent of repair but definitely keeping in view the seismicity
of the area. Different modes of failure are discussed as follows:
4.1 Failure due to Foundation Settlement
The main cause of failure for most of the buildings is the differential foundation settlement. The
differential settlement caused serious cracking of the walls, sagging of the floors and distress to the
structural frame due to development of additional moments/stresses. The administration block was
among the buildings severely affected due to differential settlement. The administration block is a
double storey frame structure building with brick masonry cladding. The building is located right at
the foot of a hill.
The administration block has two wings, with a front wing parallel and the second wing normal to the
approach road. The back portion of the second wing is expected to be supported on the rock/hard
stratum, resulting in none to very small settlement. While the front wing, resting on a layer of
overburden soil settled more. Serious cracking due to differential settlement and folding of the steps
of staircase connecting the two wings was observed.
Shear movement of the porch column near was observed. The floor of the entrance lobby, probably
supported on a fill showed significant sagging. The intensity of damage due to differential settlement
for different buildings is shown in figures 2-10.
4.2 Shear Movement of the Structural Columns
Quite large shear movement of the structural columns of the triple storey wing of the boys-hostel was
observed. The hostel comprises of frame structure with hollow blocks masonry cladding. The hostel
has a double storey front portion and a triple storey back portion. Partial and total collapse of block
masonry was observed at most of the points. The front double storey portion did not show major
signs of distress to the structural frame. But the triple storey portion showed serious structural failure
due to shear movement of the ground floor columns. The modes of failure are shown in figures 11-
15.
4.3 Shear Movement of the Column due to Cold Joint
Shear movement of the top floor column of an under-construction triple storey building was observed.
A triple storey frame structure building with brick masonry cladding was under construction. All the
walls were still without plaster. The columns for the third floor without roof top were projecting above
the roof of the second floor. Shear movement of the column mainly due to cold joint was observed
and is shown in the figures 16-17.
4.4 Collapse of Block-Masonry Cladding
Total and partial collapse of the Block-masonry at many locations was observed as shown in figure
18.
4.5 Alligator Cracking of the Brick-Masonry
Serious alligator cracking was observed in the brick masonry walls of the campus mosque, mainly
due to greater wall length and height and lack of bond with the RCC structural frame. The mosque
has a single storey frame structure with brick masonry cladding. The spans are quite long with a
comparatively higher ceiling level. The relatively long and high walls (9-inches thick) without lateral
members (walls) badly cracked and a portion even collapsed. The buckling of main reinforcement at
the beam-column joint due to poor quality of construction (i.e., stirrups missing) was clearly visible.
The walls supporting the extended Mehrab portion failed leaving the extended slab of the Mehrab in
hanging position. The failure modes are shown in figures 19-20.
4.6. Buckling of main Reinforcement of Columns
The buckling of longitudinal column reinforcement due to lack of stirrups was observed as shown in
figure 21.
5. Discussion
1. All the buildings (except the mosque and the administration block) were locked and the
observations were made only from the exterior surfaces of the buildings.
2. The intensity of damage observed, includes the effect of the main earthquake of October 08, 2005,
and also the after-shocks before the date of survey i.e., 24/10/2005.
3. Scores of after-shocks of moderate to high intensity hit the area even after the date of survey,
which might have further aggravated the conditions (e.g., widening of the previous cracks and
development of new cracks).
4. The buildings inspected were single, double and triple storey. Single storey buildings showed only
minor damages and are repairable. The major damages to double and triple storey buildings are
mainly due to localized weaknesses resulting from poor quality of construction.
5. Differential settlements are mainly the result of lack of vigilance of the supervisory staff in placing
the foundations. Uniform foundation design has been adopted for non-uniform soil support.
Differential settlement might have been controlled if minor adjustment in foundation depth and size
would have been adopted according to the actual soil conditions met during foundation
excavations.
6. Recommendations
1. Most of the buildings, which were surveyed cant be repaired and may have to be demolished.
2. For repairable building, detailed survey should be made to decide the mode and extent of repair.
3. For the repaired building it should be kept in mind that after repair the buildings are safe and stable
on long term basis considering the present seismic conditions of the area.
4. The area seems to be geologically active. Detailed geological survey for stability of the area is
recommended before taking any decision what so ever regarding the campus.
7. Conclusions
1. In hilly areas soil investigation for each building should be made separately with specific
recommendations to control the differential settlement.
2. Most of the failures have been initiated due to weak zones resulting from poor quality of
construction.
3. Shear failure of columns, only along a single plane, indicates that there exist some relationship
between the direction of earthquake movement and the plane of shear movement. Possibly the
plane of shear movement is parallel to the direction of earthquake movements.
4. Double storey load bearing brick-masonry residences did not show any prominent sign of failure.
5. Conventional shape of the hollow blocks does not provide adequate strength of masonry bonds,
reshaping is recommended.
6. Block masonry with the conventional shape of hollow blocks has low Earthquake resistance and
should be avoided.
7. Highest possible quality control is required for construction in seismic zones.
8. Brick masonry performed better than block masonry.
9. Cladding walls should be connected to the structural frame at adequate intervals for better
resistance against earthquake shaking.
8. References
[1] EERI Special earthquake report December 2005.
[2] J.G. Knoeff and G.J. Akkerman Geotechnical contribution to risk reduction of natural hazards
PP-281
[3] Report of Asian Development Bank and World Bank Islamabad, Pakistan, November 12, 2005.
[4] Croci, G-1998, The conservation and structural restoration of architectural heritage, computational
mechanics publication, 1998.
[5] Croci, G-1998, The collapse occurred in the basilica of St. Francis of Assisi and Cathedral of Noto,
structural analysis of historical constructions-II, (Eds Roca, Gonzalez, Ofiate, Lourenco), CIMNE,
Barcelona, 1998, PP 297-317.
[6] Macchi, G-1998, Seismic risk and dynamic identification in towers-A keynote lecture, Proc
Monument-98, workshop on seismic performance of Monuments, Lisbon, Portugal, 1998, K3-K17.
Fig: 1 Slip scar in the mountains surrounding
the campus (Dust is indicating that slide is
still active/creeping)
Fig: 2 Shear movement of the column near
plinth level (Administration block porch)
Fig: 3 Sagging of the lobby floor
(Administration block)
Fig: 4 Cracks due to non-uniform foundation
settlement (Administration block)
Fig: 5 Cracks due to non-uniform foundation
settlement (Administration block)
Fig: 6 Cracks due to non-uniform foundation
settlement (Administration block)
Fig: 7 Differential movement of the landing of
staircase, main-reinforcement is exposed
Fig: 8 Cracking of the masonry column due to
non-uniform settlement at the entrance of the
Department of Zoology
Fig: 9 Cracking of the masonry column due to
non-uniform settlement at the entrance of the
Department of Chemistry
Fig: 10 Cracking of the staircase due to
differential settlement at the entrance to the
Department of Chemistry
Fig: 11 Shear movement of structural
column and collapse of block masonry
(Boys Hostel)
Fig: 12 Failure of the beam column joint
(Boys Hostel)
Fig: 13 Large shear movement of the ground
floor column due to poor reinforcement
detailing (Boys Hostel)
Fig: 14 Large shear movement of the ground
floor column (Boys Hostel)
Fig: 16 Shear movement of column due to cold
joint (Under Construction Students Hostel)
Fig: 15 Large shear movement of the ground
floor column due to poor reinforcement
detailing and weaker concrete (Boys Hostel)
Fig: 18 Failure of block masonry walls of
English Department
Fig: 17 Shear movement of column due to cold
joint (Under Construction Students Hostel)
Fig: 19 Failure of brick masonry and hanging
Mehrab slab (Campus Mosque)
Fig: 20 Collapse of the back wall and debris
(Campus Mosque)
Fig: 21 Buckling of the main column reinforcement
due to lack of stirrups (Campus Mosque)