New Zealand Society For Earthquake

New Zealand Society
For Earthquake
Engineering
Assessment and Improvement

of the Structural Performance
of Buildings in Earthquakes
Section 10 Revision
Seismic Assessment of
Unreinforced Masonry Buildings
Recommendations of a NZSEE Project Technical Group
In collaboration with SESOC and NZGS
Supported by MBIE and EQC
June 2006
Issued as part of Corrigendum No. 4
ISBN 978-0-473-32278-6 (pdf version)
This document represents the current status of a review of the original Section 10 of the NZSEE
Guidelines which was published in 2006.
Any comments will be gratefully received.
Please forward any comments to NZSEE Executive Officer at exec@nzsee.org.nz.
April 2015
Seismic As
ssessment of U
Unreinforced Ma
asonry Buildingss
S
Section 10 - Seiismic A
Assessm
ment of Unreinfforced
Masonry Buiildings ....................................... ............. 10-1
10.1 Ge
eneral ..................................................................................................................... 10-1
10..1.1 Backg
ground .................................................................... .......................... 10-1
10..1.2 Scope
e ............................................................................. .......................... 10-2
10..1.3 Basis
s of this secti on ...................................................... .......................... 10-3
10..1.4 How to
t use this se
ection ................................................. .......................... 10-4
10..1.5 Notattion ......................................................................... .......................... 10-4
10..1.6 Definitions ...................................................................... ........................ 10-11
10.2 Typ
pical URM Building
B
Pra
actices in Ne
ew Zealand ....................
.
......................... 10-14
10..2.1 Gene
eral .......................................................................... ........................ 10-14
10..2.2 Building forms ................................................................ ........................ 10-14
10..2.3 Found
dations ................................................................... ........................ 10-18
10..2.4 Wall construction
c
............................................................ ........................ 10-19
10..2.5 Consttituent materrials .................................................... ........................ 10-25
10..2.6 Floor//roof diaphra
agms ................................................... ........................ 10-25
10..2.7 Diaph
hragm seatin
ng and conne
ections ............................ ........................ 10-28
10..2.8 Wall to
t wall conne
ections................................................ ........................ 10-30
10..2.9 Damp
p-proof coursse (DPC) ............................................ ........................ 10-30
10..2.10 Built-iin timber ................................................................. ........................ 10-31
10..2.11 Bond beams ................................................................... ........................ 10-32
10..2.12 Bed-joint reinforce
ement ................................................. ........................ 10-33
10..2.13 Lintels ............................................................................. ........................ 10-34
10..2.14 Secon
ndary compo
onents ................................................ ........................ 10-34
10..2.15 Seism
mic strengthe
ening method
ds used to da
ate ............... ........................ 10-35
10.3 Ob
bserved Seis
smic Behav iour of URM
M Buildings ....................
.
......................... 10-39
10..3.1 Gene
eral .......................................................................... ........................ 10-39
10..3.2 Building configura
ation.................................................... ........................ 10-41
10..3.3 Diaph
hragms .................................................................... ........................ 10-42
10..3.4 Connections ................................................................... ........................ 10-42
10..3.5 Walls
s subjected to
o face loads ....................................... ........................ 10-45
10..3.6 Walls
s subjected to
o in-plane loa
ads ................................. ........................ 10-48
10..3.7 Secon
ndary compo
onents/eleme
ents ................................ ........................ 10-52
10..3.8 Pounding ........................................................................ ........................ 10-53
10..3.9 Found
dations and geotechnical failure ........................... ........................ 10-54
10.4 Fac
ctors Affectting Seismic
c Performan
nce of URM Buildings ............................ 10-54
10..4.1 Numb
ber of cycles and duration
n of shaking ................... ........................ 10-54
10..4.2 Otherr key factors............................................................ ........................ 10-55
10.5 Assessment Approach
A
......................................................................................... 10-58
10..5.1 Gene
eral .......................................................................... ........................ 10-58
10..5.2 Asses
ssment proce
ess ..................................................... ........................ 10-60
10..5.3 Asses
ssment of strrengthened buildings
b
......................... ........................ 10-64
10..5.4 Asses
ssment of row
w buildings ........................................ ........................ 10-66
10.6 On
n-site Investigations ........................................................................................... 10-68
10..6.1 Gene
eral .......................................................................... ........................ 10-68
10..6.2 Form and configu ration ................................................. ........................ 10-68
10..6.3 Diaph
hragm and co
onnections ......................................... ........................ 10-68
Se
ection 10 - Seism
mic Assessment of Unreinforce
ed Masonry Builldings
Upd
dated 22 April 2015
10-ii
IS
SBN 978-0-4
473-26634-9
9
Seismic
c Assessment of
o Unreinforced Masonry Buildings
1
10.6.4 Loa
ad-bearing walls
w
........................................................................ ......... 10-69
1
10.6.5 No
on load-bearing walls .................................................................. ......... 10-70
1
10.6.6 Co
oncrete ........................................................................................ ......... 10-70
1
10.6.7 Fou
undations ................................................................................... ......... 10-70
1
10.6.8 Ge
eotechnical and geologica
al hazards .......................................... ......... 10-70
1
10.6.9 Secondary elem
ments...................................................................... ......... 10-70
1
10.6.10 Seismic separa
ation ........................................................................ ......... 10-71
1
10.6.11 Pre
evious streng
gthening.................................................................. ......... 10-71
10.7 M
Material Pro
operties and
d Weights .......................................................................... 10-77
1
10.7.1 Ge
eneral .......................................................................................... ......... 10-77
1
10.7.2 Cla
ay bricks and
d mortars................................................................. ......... 10-77
asonry ............................................... ......... 10-78
1
10.7.3 Co
ompressive strength of ma
1
10.7.4 Dirrect tensile sttrength of ma
asonry................................................ ......... 10-79
1
10.7.5 Dia
agonal tensile
e strength off masonry ........................................... ......... 10-79
1
10.7.6 Mo
odulus of elas
sticity and sh
hear modulus
s of masonry
y .................. ......... 10-79
1
10.7.7 Tim
mber diaphra
agm material properties ......................................... ......... 10-79
1
10.7.8 Ma
aterial unit we
eights...................................................................... ......... 10-79
10.8 A
Assessmen
nt of Component/Elemen
nt Capacity .................................................. 10-80
1
10.8.1 Ge
eneral .......................................................................................... ......... 10-80
1
10.8.2 Strrength reducttion factors ............................................................. ......... 10-80
1
10.8.3 Dia
aphragms ................................................................................... ......... 10-80
1
10.8.4 Co
onnections .................................................................................. ......... 10-86
1
10.8.5 Wa
all elements under face lo
oad ..................................................... ......... 10-89
1
10.8.6 Wa
alls under in--plane load .............................................................. ....... 10-104
1
10.8.7 Oth
her items of a secondaryy nature ............................................... ....... 10-119
10.9 A
Assessmen
nt of Global Capacity
C
......................................................................... 10-120
1
10.9.1 Ge
eneral .......................................................................................... ....... 10-120
1
10.9.2 Glo
obal capacity
y of basic bu ildings ................................................ ....... 10-123
1
10.9.3 Glo
obal capacity
y of complex buildings ........................................... ....... 10-125
1
10.9.4 Glo
obal analysis
s .............................................................................. ....... 10-125
10.10 A
Assessmen
nt of Earthqu
uake Force a
and Displac
cement Dem
mands .................. 10-128
1
10.10.1 Ge
eneral .......................................................................................... ....... 10-128
1
10.10.2 Primary structu
ure ........................................................................... ....... 10-128
1
10.10.3 Parts and comp
ponents .................................................................. ....... 10-130
1
10.10.4 Vertical demands........................................................................... ....... 10-130
1
10.10.5 Fle
exible diaphra
agms ...................................................................... ....... 10-130
1
10.10.6 Rig
gid diaphragm
ms .......................................................................... ....... 10-132
1
10.10.7 Co
onnections prroviding supp
port to face-loaded walls.................... ....... 10-132
aphragm she
1
10.10.8 Co
onnections tra
ansferring dia
ear loads ........................ ....... 10-132
10.11 A
Assessmen
nt of %NBS ......................................................................................... 10-132
10.12 IImproving Seismic
S
Perfformance off URM Build
dings ....................................... 10-133
Refere
ences ....................................................................................................................... 10-133
Sugge
ested Refere
ences for Fu
urther Readiing .............................................................. 10-137
Section 10 - Se
eismic Assessm
ment of Unreinfo
orced Masonry B
Buildings
Updated 22 April 20
015
10-ii
ISBN 978--0-473-26634
4-9
Seismic Assessment of Unreinforced Masonry Buildings
Appendix 10A: On-site Testing

Appendix 10B: Derivation of Instability Deflection
and Fundamental Period for Masonry Buildings
Appendix 10C: Charts for Assessment of Out-ofPlane Walls
Section 10 - Seismic Assessment of Unreinforced Masonry Buildings

Updated 22 April 2015
10-iii
ISBN 978-0-473-26634-9
Seismic As
ssessment of U
Unreinforced Ma
asonry Buildingss
S
Section
n 10 - Seismic
S
c Asse
essmen
nt of U
Unreinfforced
M
Mason
ry Builldings
10.1
G
General
l
10.1.1
B
Backgrou
und
Thhis sectionn replaces the

t
unreinfforced massonry (URM
M) section in Assesssment andd
Im
mprovementt of the Strructural Perrformance of Building
gs in Earthhquakes, pu
ublished inn
20006. It draw
ws on key ob
bservationss from the 2010/11
2
Can
nterbury earrthquake sequence andd
onn the significant quan
ntity of res earch cond
ducted in reecent yearss at the Un
niversity off
A
Auckland, University
U
of
o Canterbuury and fu
urther afield
d. New secctions inclu
ude revisedd
innformation on
o materials characteriisation, a neew method for diaphraagm assessm
ment, a new
w
appproach to the treatm
ment of in-pplane pier capacity based on faailure modees, and thee
inntroduction of spandrel models.
U
URM construuction can be
b vulnerabble to earthq
quake shakiing becausee of its high
h mass, lackk
off integrity between
b
com
mponents aand lack of deformation
n capabilityy. The mostt hazardouss
feeatures of URM
U
buildin
ngs are inaddequately reestrained eleements at heeight (such as faades,,
chhimneys, paarapets and
d gable-endd walls), faace-loaded walls, andd their conn
nections too
diiaphragms and
a return walls.
w
Thesse can preseent a signifiicant risk too occupantss as well ass
peeople withinn a relativelly wide zonee from the building.
b
A
Assessing thhe perform
mance of thhese buildiings can be
b complexx as poten
ntial failuree
m
mechanisms are differen
nt from thosse occurring
g in other building
b
typpes. Perform
mance tendss
too be limitedd to out-off-plane walll behaviourr, relative movement of differen
nt elementss
atttached to flexible
f
diap
phragms, annd tying off parts. This conflicts with the more
m
typicall
iddealisation of
o a building
g acting as one unified
d mass, but is essential to understaand in orderr
too assess thesse structuress reliably.
uildings is also
a difficullt to quantify and mayy
Thhe seismic capacity off URM bearring wall bu
reesult in marggins againstt collapse thhat are smalll for the folllowing reassons:
URM waalls and piers may havee limited non
n-linear defformation caapability deepending onn
their connfiguration, material ccharacteristtics, verticaal stresses and poten
ntial failuree
modes.
They relyy on friction
n and overbuurden from supported loads
l
and w
wall weights.
hly variablee material prroperties.
They ofteen have high
e
additio
onal cycle oof greater diisplacementt
Their streength and sttiffness deggrade with each
of inelasttic responsee to shakingg. Thereforee, they are vulnerable
v
too incrementtal damage,,
especiallyy in larger-m
magnitude, longer-duraation earthquakes with multiple afftershocks.
U
Unlike otherr constructiion materiaals covered
d by these guideliness URM hass not beenn
peermitted to contribute to
t the buildding lateral load resisting system iin new builldings sincee
19964. Thereffore, there is no standdard for neew URM bu
uildings whhich could be used too
coompare to the
t standard
d achieved for an existing buildin
ng. New buuilding standard (NBS))
annd %NBS as
a it relatess to URM buildings is thereforee assumed to be defin
ned by thee
reequirementss set out in this
t section.
Se
ection 10 - Seism
Upd
dated 22 April 2015
10-1
IS
SBN 978-0-4
473-26634-9
9
Seismic
c Assessment of
If buildinggs have unddergone dam

mage in an earthquakee, much of the cyclic capacity may
m
have alreaady been used
u
by thee main ev ent. Assesssment of these buildiings after an
earthquakee should connsider this damaged
d
staate. As a reesult, their seismic capaacity could be
significantly lower thhan in their undamagged or rep
paired state. This is tthe importaant
rationale fo
for interim shoring
s
for URM builddings (Figu
ure 10.1) to mitigate fuurther damaage
as an impoortant part of building
g conservattion. These techniquess typically pprovide tyiing
(rather thann strengtheening) to preevent furtheer dilation of rocking or sliding pplanes, and to
relieve streesses at areaas of high co
oncentrationn.
Note:
We recomm
mend that you
y consideer selective strengtheniing of URM
M buildings as a first sttep
before prooceeding to a detailled assessm
ment, particularly in high seism
micity areas.
Improvemeent of diapphragm to wall
w conneections, for example, will
w almostt certainly be
required too provide thhe building with any m
meaningful capacity ass the as-buiilt details will
w
provide alm
most no suppport.
Using sounnd engineerring judgem
ment when assessing URM
U
buildiings is alsoo important or
you may eend up with an econom
mically non--viable solu
ution, with the
t result thhat demolitiion
may appeaar to be the only
o
option.
Figure
e 10.1: Temp
porary secu
uring of a miildly damaged solid ma
asonry URM
M building
(Dunning
g Thornton/H
Heartwood Community
C
)
10.1.2
Scope
This sectioon sets out guidelines

g
fo
or assessingg:
unrein
nforced soliid clay bricck masonryy buildings; constructeed of rectanngular units in
mortar,, laid in sinngle or mu
ulti-wythe w
walls, and in
i forms off bond suchh as comm
mon
bond, E
English bonnd, running bond
b
and F
Flemish bon
nd.
Section 10 - Se
eismic Assessm
ment of Unreinfo
orced Masonry B
Buildings
Updated 22 April 20
015
10-2
ISBN 978--0-473-26634
4-9
Seismic As
ssessment of U
Unreinforced Ma
asonry Buildingss
Thhese guidelines are vallid for:

walls in good con
ndition; wiith negligib
ble mortar joint craccking, brick
k splitting,,
settlemennt or similarr factors.
der face loa
ad attached
d to rigid or flexible diaphragms
d
s
walls und
brick ven
neers underr face loadiing
stone maasonry where the ston
nes are layered.
Thhey can alsoo be applied
d, with som
me additionall requirements, to:
unreinforrced stone masonry
m
that
at is well cou
ursed and laaid in runninng bond
hollow cllay brick and concretee block maasonry (refeer to Section
on 9 for asssessment off
brick or block
b
infill masonry
m
waalls in frameed construction)
rubble stoone masonrry: the failuure modes of these strructures maay be other than thosee
covered here,
h
including the posssibility of delamination
d
n
cobble sttone mason
nry: assessm
ment of facce-loaded capacity
c
is not covereed by thesee
guidelinees.
Not in scop
pe
Thhis section does
d
not cover:
earthquakke-damaged
d masonry bbuildings
reinforcedd partially filled
f
and fuully filled bllock masonrry
N
Note:
A
Although thee strengthen
ning of UR
RM building
gs is outside the scopee of this seection, brieff
coomments onn this topic have
h
been inncluded in Section 10.12.
10.1.3
B
Basis
of this sec
ction
Thhis sectionn is largely

y based oon experim
mental and analytic sstudies und
dertaken att
thhe Universitty of Auck
kland, Univversity of Canterbury
y and in A
Australia, and
a
on thee
reesearch undeertaken by Magenes ett al. (1997)) and Blaikiie (1999, 20002). It also draws onn
A
ASCE, 2013..
M
Most of the default
d
stresss values haave been ado
opted from tests underttaken at thee Universityy
off Auckland (Lumantarn
na et al., 20014a; Lumaantarna et all., 2014b) aand from other sourcess
inncluding FE
EMA, 1998; ASCE, 20113; Kitching
g, 1999; and
d Foss, 20011.
Prrocedures for
fo assessing
g face-loadded walls sp
panning vertically in on
one direction
n are basedd
onn displacem
ment responsse that incluudes strong
gly non-linear effects. T
These proceedures havee
beeen verifiedd by researcch (Blaikie,, 2001, 200
02) using numerical inntegration tiime historyy
annalyses andd by laboraatory testingg that inclu
uded testing
g on shakee tables. Th
his researchh
exxtended the preliminary
y conclusioons reached in Blaikie and Spurr ((1993). Oth
her researchh
haas been connducted elseewhere, som
me of which
h is listed in
i studies inncluding Yokel, 1971;;
Faattal, 1976;; Hendry, 1973, 198 1; Haseltin
ne, 1977; West,
W
19777; Sinha, 1978;
1
ABK
K
Consultants, 1981; Kariotis, 1986; Drysdale, 1988;
1
Lam, 1995; and Mendola, 1995.
1
Moree
n conductedd by Derakhshan et al., 2014.
reecent researcch has been
Se
ection 10 - Seism
Upd
dated 22 April 2015
10-3
3
IS
SBN 978-0-4
473-26634-9
9
Seismic
c Assessment of
Other usefful informattion on matterials, insppection and assessmentts is containned in FEM

MA
(1998) andd ASCE, 2013.
10.1.4
How to use this

s section
n
This sectioon is set out as follows.

Understa
anding UR
RM buildings (Sectio
ons 10.2 to
o 10.4)
These secttions providde important context onn the characcteristics off URM builldings, typiccal
building prractices in New
N Zealan
nd, and obsserved behaaviour in eaarthquakes. A
As URM iss a
non-engineeered constrruction, and
d given the rrecent learn
nings about its seismic performancce,
it is suggessted you revview this infformation ccarefully beffore proceed
ding to the aassessment.
Assessin
ng URM bu
uildings (S
Sections 1
10.5 to 10.11)
These sections explainn how to ap
pproach youur assessment dependin
ng on what yyou are beiing
asked and the type off building you
y are asseessing. Giv
ven the natu
ure of URM
M constructiion
and the nuumber of previous
p
strrengtheningg techniquees used on these builddings, on-site
investigatioon is particuularly impo
ortant. We pprovide a ch
hecklist of what
w to lookk for on-site as
well as proobable mateerial propertties, before ssetting out the
t detailed
d assessment
nt methods.
Improving URM bu
uildings (S
Section 10
0.12)
Although fformally ouutside the scope of the ssection, we have includ
ded some brrief commen
nts
on improviing seismic performancce of existinng URM bu
uildings. This is an introoduction on
nly
to a broad field of techhniques which is underr continual developmen
d
nt and reseaarch.
10.1.5
Notatio
on
Symbol
Meaning
Comments
Angu
ular deflection (rotation) of tthe top and
botto
om parts of a wall
w panel rela
ative to a
line through
t
the top and bottom restraints,
radia
an
The angle is in radians. It iss measured as if

there were no
o inter-storey ddeflection.
Agross
Grosss plan area off diaphragm
Eq 10.6
max
Max acceleration
Eqs 10B.19, 10B.26
An
Area
a of net mortarred/grouted se
ection of
the wall
w web, mm2
Eq 10.30
An
Net plan
p
are of wa
all, mm2
Eq 10.51
2
Eqs 10B.5, 10B.13, 10B.144
An
Net plan
p
area of masonry,
m
mm
Eq 10.9
Anet
Net plan
p
area of diaphragm exccluding any
pene
etration, m2
Eq 10.6
Para
ameter given by
b equation
Eqs 10.13, 10
0.14, Table 100.12, Eqs 10.2
28,
10.31, 10.32, 10B.2, 10B.223, 10B.27
Deptth of diaphragm, m
Eqs 10.8, 10.54, 10.55
Para
ameter given by
b equation
Section 10.8.5.1, Eqs 10.122, 10.21,

Table 10.12, Eqs 10B.3, 100B.28
BCA
Build
ding Consentin
ng Authority
Section 10 - Se
eismic Assessm
ment of Unreinfo
orced Masonry B
Buildings
Updated 22 April 20
015
10-4
ISBN 978--0-473-26634
4-9
Symbol
Meaning
Comments
bsp
Width of spandrel
Eqs 10.35, 10.37, 10.39, 10.40, 10.41,

10.42, 10.43, 10.46, 10.47, 10.48, 10.49
Masonry bed-joint cohesion, N/mm2
The ability of the mortar to work in

conjunction with the bricks.
This is related to moisture absorption in
the bricks. It depends less on the
absorption qualities of individual brick
types and is not greatly influenced by
keying of the brick surface (e.g. holes,
lattices or patterning).
Cohesion is relevant to the primary
decision of whether to use cracked or uncracked masonry properties for the
analyses.
Eqs 10.3, 10.33, 10.39, 10.47 10.36
Probable cohesion, MPa
C(0)
Table 10.4
Section 10.10.5.1, Figure 10.78
C(T1)
Elastic site hazard spectrum for horizontal

loading
Eq 10.53
C(Td)
Seismic coefficient at required height at

period Td
Eq 10.54
Ch(0)
Spectral shape factor for relevant soil

determined from Clause 3.1.1, NZS
1170.5, g
Appendix 10C
Ch(T1)
Spectral shape factor for relevant site

subsoil type and period T1 as determined
from Section 3, NZS 1170.5, g
Eq 10.53
Chc(Tp)
Spectral shape factor for site subsoil type

C and period Tp as determined from
Section 3, NZS 1170.5, g
Eq 10.16
CHi
Floor height coefficient for level i as

defined in NZS 1170.5
Appendix 10C
Ci(Tp)
Cm
Eq 10.16, Section 10.10.3

Value of the seismic coefficient that would
cause a mechanism to just form, g
Uniform acceleration to the entire panel is

assumed in finding Cm
Eq 10.21, Section 10.8.5.2 Step 15 Note,
Table 10.12, 10.27, 10B.20
Cp(0.75)
Seismic coefficient for parts at 0.75 sec.

Value of the seismic coefficient that would
cause a mechanism to just form, g
Section 10.8.5.2 Step 13 & Step 15 Note
Cp(Tp)
Design response coefficient for parts as

defined by Section 8, NZS 1170.5, g
Section 18.8.5.2 Step 8, Eqs 10.18, 10.19,

Section 10.8.5.2 Step 13
CSW
Critical structural weakness
D
Dph
Table 10.14
Displacement response (demand) for a
wall panel subject to an earthquake
shaking as specified by Equation 10.18,
mm

Eqs 10.18, 10.20
Table 10.14
10-5
ISBN 978-0-473-26634-9
Symbol
Meaning
Comments
Em
Youngs modulus of masonry, MPa, kN/m2
Eqs 10.4, 10.8, 10.51, 10.52
eb
Eccentricity of the pivot at the bottom of

the panel measured from the centroid of
Wb, mm
Eq 10.12, Table 10.12, 10.15,

Section 10.8.5.2 Step 4, Figure 10B.1
eo
Eccentricity of the mid-height pivot

measured from the centroid of Wb, mm
Eq 10.12, 10.15, Section 10.8.5.2 Step 4,

Figure 10B.1
ep
Eccentricity of P measured from the

centroid of Wt, mm
Eq 10.12, 10.15, Table 10.12,

Section 10.8.5.2 Step 4, Figure 10B.1
et
Eccentricity of the mid-height pivot

measured from the centroid of Wt, mm
Eqs 10.12, 10.15, Section 10.8.5.2 Step 4,

Figure 10B.1
Applied load on timber lintel
Eq 10.42
Fi
Equivalent static horizontal force at the

level of the diaphragm (level i)
fb
Compressive strength of bricks, N/mm2
Measured on the flat side

Section 10A.3.2
fb
Probable brick compressive strength, MPa
Table 10.3, 10.5, Eqs 10.1, 10.2
fj
Normalised mortar compressive strength,

N/mm2
Eq 10A.1
fj
Probable mortar compressive strength,

MPa
Table 10.4, Eq 10.2, Table 10.5
fji
Measured irregular mortar compressive

strength, MPa
Eq 10A.1
fm
Compressive strength of masonry, MPa
Eq 10.31
fm
Probable masonry compressive strength,

MPa
Eq 10.2, Table 10.5, Eq 10.4
f'r
Modulus of rupture of bricks, MPa
Eq 10.1, Section 10.8.5.1
f't
Equivalent tensile strength of masonry

spandrel, MPa
Eqs 10.9, 10.35, 10.36
fa
Axial compression stress on masonry due

to gravity load, MPa
Eqs 10.3, 10.30, 10.31
fbt
Probable brick tensile strength, MPa
May be taken as 85% of the stress derived

from splitting tests or as 50% of stress
derived from bending tests
Table 10.3
fdt
Diagonal tensile strength of masonry, MPa
Eqs 10.3, 10.30, 10.38, 10.40, 10.48
fhm
Compression strength of the masonry in

the horizontal direction (0.5fm), MPa
Eqs 10.37, 10.46
Acceleration due to gravity, m/sec2
Eqs 10.15, 10.17, 10.18, 10.29
Gd
Reduced diaphragm shear stiffness, kN/m
Eqs 10.6, 10.7, 10.8
Gd,eff
Effective diaphragm shear stiffness, kN/m
Eqs 10.7, 10.54
Gd
Shear stiffness of straight sheathed

diaphragm, kN/m
Table 10.8, Eq 10.6
Gm
Shear modulus of masonry, MPa
Eqs 10.5, 10.51, 10.52

10-6
ISBN 978-0-473-26634-9
Symbol
Meaning
Comments
Free height of a cantilever wall from its

point of restraint or height of wall in
between restraints in case of simplysupported face-loaded wall
The clear height can be taken at the

centre-to-centre height between lines of
horizontal restraint. In the case of concrete
floors, the clear distance between floors
will apply.
Eqs 10.13, 10.17
hi
Average of the heights of point of support
hi
Height of attachment of the part
Figure 10.78
Hl
Height of wall below diaphragm, m
Eq 10.8
heff
Height of wall or pier between resultant

forces
Table 10.13, Eqs 10.31, 10.32,

Figures 10.65, 10.74, Table 10.14,
Eq 10.51
hi
Average of the heights of points of support
hn
hsp
Figure 10.78
Height of spandrel excluding depth of
timber lintel if present
htot
Eqs 10.35, 10.37, 10.38, 10.39, 10.40,

10.41, 10.42, 10.43, 10.46, 10.47, 10.48,
10.49
Eq 10.46, Figure 10.69
Hu
Heigh of wlall above diaphragm, m
Eq 10.8
Ig
Moment of inertia for the gross section

representing uncracked behaviour
Eq 10.51
Ixx
Mass moment of inertia about x-x axis,

kgm2
Eq 10B.9
Iyy
Mass moment of inertia about y-y axis,

kgm2
Eq 10B.10
Rotational inertia of the wall panel and

attached masses, kgm2
Eqs 10.14, 10.15, 10.17, Table 10.12, Eqs

10.29, 10B.8, 10B.30
Janc
Rotational inertia of ancillary masses,

kgm2
Eqs 10.15, 10B.8
Jbo
Rotational inertia of the bottom part of the

panel about its centroid, kgm2
Eqs 10.15, 10B.11
Jbo
Polar moment of inertia about centroid,

kgm2
Eqs 10B.8, 10B.11
Jto
Rotational inertia of the top part of the

panel about its centroid
Eqs 10.15, 10B.8
In-plane stiffness of walls and piers, N/mm
Eqs 10.51, 10.52
KA
KR
Section 10.9.2
Seismic force reduction factor for in-plane
seismic force
Coefficient proposed in lieu of Sp and K
Span of diaphragm, m
Eq 10.8, 10.54, 10.55
Length of header
Section 10.8.5.1
lsp
Clear length of spandrel between adjacent

wall piers
Eqs 10.35, 10.37, 10.38, 10.40, 10.41,

10.42, 10.43, 10.44, 10.46, 10.48

Eq 10.53, Table 10.15
10-7
ISBN 978-0-473-26634-9
Symbol
Meaning
Comments
Lw
Length of wall
Eqs 10.31, 10.33
Moment capacity of the panel
Eq 10.9
M.F
Eq 10A.4
M1, Mi, Mn
Moment imposed on wall/pier elements
Figure 10.72
Mass, kg
Eq 10B.11
mi
Seismic mass at the level of the

diaphragm (level i)
N(T1,D)
Near fault factor determined from

Clause 3.1.6, NZS 1170.5
Eq 10.53
Number of recesses
Eq 10.10
N1, Ni, Nn
Axial loads on pier elements
Figure 10.72
Superimposed and dead load at top of

wall/pier
Eqs 10.31, 10.32, 10.33, 10.34
Load applied to the top of panel
P is assumed to act through the pivot at

the top of the wall
Section 10.8.5.1, 10.8.5.2 Step 2, 3 & 4,
Eqs 10.9, 10.12, 10.13, 10.15, 10.28
Depth of mortar recess, mm
Eq 10.10, Figure 10.62
P-
P- delta
Section 10.8
pp
Mean axial stress due to superimposed

and dead load in the adjacent wall piers
Eq 10.36
psp
Axial stress in the spandrel
Eqs 10.35, 10.37, 10.38, 10.39, 10.40,

10.41, 10.42, 10.43, 10.46, 10.47, 10.48,
10.49
Pw
Self-weight of wall and pier
Eqs 10.31, 10.32, 10.33, Figure 10.65, EQ

10.34
Live load
Section 10.10.5.2
Q1, Qi, Qn
Shear in pier element
Figure 10.72
Return period factor, Ru determined from

Clause 3.1.5, NZS 1170.5
Eq 10.16
ra
Eq 10.44, Figure 10.69
ri
Eqs 10.44, 10.45, Figure 10.69
ro
Eq 10.45, Figure 10.69
RP
Risk factor for parts as defined in

NZS 1170.5
Eq 10.18, Section 10.8.5.2 Step 13
Ru
Return period factor for ultimate limit state

as defined in NZS 1170.5
Eq 10.53
Si
Sway potential index
Eq 10.50
Sp
Structural performance factor in

accordance with NZS 1170.5
Section 10.8.5.2, 10.10.2.1, 10.10.5.1,

10.10.8
SW
Structural weakness

10-8
ISBN 978-0-473-26634-9
Symbol
Meaning
Comments
Depth of header
Section 10.8.5.1
Effective thickness, mm
Varies with position

Section 10.8.5.2 Step 2, 3 & 4, Eq 10B.22
T1
Fundamental period of the building, sec.
Eq 10.53
Td
Fundamental period of diaphragm, sec.
Eqs 10.54, 10.55
tgross
Overall thickness of wall, mm

Eq 10.10
tl
Effective thickness of walls below the

diaphragm, m
Eq 10.8, Figure 10.59
tnom
Nominal thickness of wall excluding

pointing, mm
Tp
Effective period of parts, sec.
Eqs 10.14, 10.16, 10.18, 10.19, 10.23,

10.24, 10B.15, 10B.16, 10B.17, 10B.18,
10B.24, 10B.25, 10B.31
tu
Effective thickness of walls above the

diaphragm, m
Eq 10.8, Figure 10.59
Probable shear strength capacity
Vdpc
Capacity of a slip plane for no slip
Eq 10.34
Vdt
In-plane diagonal tensile strength capacity

of pier and wall
Eq 10.30
Vfl
Peak flexural capacity of spandrel
Figure 10.68, Eqs 10.35, 10.43
Vfl,r
Residual flexural strength capacity
Figure 10.68, Eqs 10.37, 10.46
Eqs 10.9, 10.10, Section 10.8.5.2 Step 2

& 3, Eqs 10.33, 10B.22
(Vprob)global, base
Figure 10.75
(Vprob)line, i
Section 10.9.2
(Vprob)wall1,wall2
Figure 10.77
Vr
In-plane rocking strength capacity of pier

and wall
Eq 10.32, Figure 10.66
Vs
In-plane bed-joint shear strength capacity

of pier and wall
Eq 10.33, Figures 10.66, 10.68
Vs1
Eqs 10.39, 10.47
Vs2
Eqs 10.40, 10.48
Vs,r
Residual spandrel shear strength capacity

or residual wall sliding shear strength
capacity
Eq 10.33, Figure 10.68, Eqs 10.41, 10.49
Vtc
In-plane toe-crushing strength capacity of

pier and wall
Eq 10.31
Vtc,r
Figure 10.66
Weight of the wall and pier
Section 10.8.5.2 Step 3, Eqs 10.28,

10B.11
Wb
Weight of the bottom part of the panel
Section 10.8.5.1, 10.8.5.2 Step 2 & 14,

Eqs 10.12, 10.13, 10.15, 10.17, 10.21

10-9
ISBN 978-0-473-26634-9
Symbol
Meaning
Comments
Wt
Weight of the top part of the panel
Section 10.8.5.1, 10.8.5.2 Step 2 & 14,

Eqs 10.12, 10.13, 10.15, 10.17, 10.21
Wtrib
Uniformly distributed tributary weight
Eqs 10.54, 10.55
yb
Height of the centroid of Wb from the pivot

at the bottom of the panel
Eqs 10.12, 10.13, 10.15, 10.17, 10.21,

Sections 10B.2.6, 10B.2.7, 10B.2.8,
10B.3.2, 10B.3.3
yt
Height from the centroid of Wt to the pivot

at the top of the panel
Eqs 10.12, 10.13, 10.15, 10.17, 10.21
Hazard factor as defined in NZS 1170.5
Eq 10.53
Arch half angle of embrace
Eqs 10.43, 10.44, 10.45, 10.47, 10.48,

10.49
ht
t/l ratio correction factor
Eqs 10A.1, 10A.3
tl
Eqs 10A.1, 10A.2
Diaphragm stiffness modification factor

taking into account boundary walls
Eqs 10.7, 10.8
Factor to correct nonlinear stress

distribution
Eq 10.30, Table 10.13
Section 10.9.2
Spandrel aspect ratio
Eq 10.38
Participation factor for rocking system
This factor relates the deflection at the

mid-height hinge to that obtained from the
spectrum for a simple oscillator of the
same effective period and damping
Eqs 10.17, 10.18, 10.25, 10B.21, 10B.32
Horizontal displacement, mm
Eq 10B.16
Horizontal displacement of diaphragm
Eq 10.54
Deflection that would cause instability of a

face-loaded wall
Wb, Wt and P are the only forces applying

for this calculation
Eqs 10.11, Table 10.12, Eqs 10B.6,
10B.16, 10B.30, Section 18.8.5.2 Step 6,
Eq 10.20
An assumed maximum useful deflection =

0.6 i and 0.3i for simply-supported and
cantilever walls respectively
Used for calculating deflection response

capacity
An assumed maximum useful deflection =

0.6m and 0.8m for simply-supported and
cantilever walls respectively
Used for calculating fundamental period of

face-loaded rocking wall
tc.r
Deformation at the onset of toe crushing
Yield displacement
Yield rotation fo the spandrel
Figure 10.68, Table 10.14
Structural ductility factor in accordance

with NZS 1170.5
Sections 10.8.5.2, 10.10.2.1, 10.10.5.1,

10.10.8
dpc
DPC coefficient of friction
Eq 10.34

Section 18.8.5.2 Step 6, Eqs 10.20, 10B.6
Eq 10B.16
10-10
ISBN 978-0-473-26634-9
Seismic As
ssessment of U
Unreinforced Ma
asonry Buildingss
Sy
ymbol
Meanin
ng
Co
omments
Masonrry coefficient o
of friction
Eq
qs 10.3, 10.33 , 10.36, 10.39
9, 10.47,
Se
ection 10A.2.44
Probable coefficient o
of friction
Ta
able 10.4
Ductility
y of part (wall))
Se
ection 10.8.5.22 Step 13
Density
y (mass per un
nit volume)
Eq
qs 10B.9, 10B..10
Equivalent viscous da
amping
Se
ection 10.10.2..1
V*u,Pier
Sum of the 100%NBS

S shear force
demand
ds on the pierss above and below
b
the joint calculated ussing KR = 1.0
Vn,Pier
Sum of the piers cap

pacities above
e and
below th
he joint
V*u,Spandrel
Sum of the 100%NBS

S shear force
demand
ds on the span
ndrels to the le
eft and
right of the joint calcu
ulated using KR = 1.0
Vn,Pier
Sum of the spandrel capacities to the

t left
and righ
ht of the joint
Strength reduction fa
actor
Se
ection 10.8.2
Capacitty reduction fa
actor
Ta
able 10.6, Tab le 10.7
Inter-sto
orey slope, rad
dian
Intter-storey defleection divided

d by the storeyy
height
Eq
q 10.12
10.1.6
D
Definitio
ns
Acction
Set of concentra
ated or distribu
uted forces actting on a struccture (direct ac
ction), or
defformation impo
osed on a stru
ucture or cons
strained withinn it (indirect ac
ction). The
term
m load is also
o often used to
t describe dirrect actions.
Ad
dhesion
Bond between m
masonry unit and
a mortar.
Be
eam
An element subje
ected primarily to loads producing flexuree and shear.
Be
earing wall
A wall
w that carrie
es (vertical) grravity loads du
ue to floor and roof weight.
Be
ed joint
The
e horizontal la
ayer of mortar on which a brrick or stone iss laid.
Bo
ond
A bond
b
is the pa
attern in which masonry units are laid.
Brrittle
A brittle
b
material or structure is
s one that fails
s or breaks suuddenly when subjected to
ben
nding, swaying
g or deformation. A brittle structure has vvery little tende
ency to
defform before it fails and it very quickly lose
es lateral load carrying capa
acity once
failure is initiated
d.
Ca
avity wall
A cavity
c
wall con
nsists of two 's
skins' separate
ed by a hollow
w space (cavity
y). The skins
are
e commonly bo
oth masonry, such as brick or concrete b lock, or one could be
con
ncrete. The ca
avity is constru
ucted to provid
de ventilation aand moisture control in the
wall.
Co
ohesion
Bond between m
mortar and bric
ck.
Co
ollar joint
A collar
c
joint is a vertical longittudinal space between wythhes of masonrry or between
an outer masonrry wythe and another
a
backup system. Thiis space is ofte
en specified
to be
b filled solid w
with mortar orr grout, but sometimes collaar-joint treatme
ent is left
uns
specified.
Se
ection 10 - Seism
Upd
dated 22 April 2015
10-11
IS
SBN 978-0-4
473-26634-9
9
Course
A course refers to a row of units stacked on top of one another.
Cross wall
An interior wall that extends from the floor to the underside of the floor above or to
the ceiling, securely fastened to each and capable of resisting lateral forces.
Dead load
The weight of the building materials that make up a building, including its structure,
enclosure and architectural finishes. The dead load is supported by the structure
(walls, floors and roof).
Diaphragm
A horizontal structural element (usually suspended floor or ceiling or a braced roof

structure) that is strongly connected to the walls around it and distributes
earthquake lateral forces to vertical elements, such as walls, of the lateral force
resisting system. Diaphragms can be classified as flexible or rigid.
Dimension
When used alone to describe masonry units, means nominal dimension.
Ductility
The ability of a structure to sustain its load-carrying capacity and dissipate energy
when it is subjected to cyclic inelastic displacements during an earthquake.
Earthquake-Prone
Building (EQP)
A legally defined category which describes a building that has been assessed as
likely to have its ultimate limit state capacity exceeded in moderate earthquake
shaking (which is defined in the regulations as being one third of the size of the
shaking that a new building would be designed for on that site). A building having
seismic capacity less than 34%NBS.
Earthquake Risk
Building (ERB)
A building having seismic capacity less than 67%NBS.
Face-loaded walls
Walls subjected to out-of-plane shaking. Also see Out-of-plane load.
Flexible diaphragm
A diaphragm which for practical purposes is considered so flexible that it is unable

to transfer the earthquake loads to shear walls even if the floors/roof are well
connected to the walls. Floors and roofs constructed of timber, steel, or precast
concrete without reinforced concrete topping fall in this category.
Gravity load
The load applied in a vertical direction, including the weight of building materials
(dead load), environmental loads such as snow, and moveable building contents
(live load).
Gross area
The total cross-sectional area of a section through an element bounded by its

external perimeter faces without reduction for the area of cells and re-entrant
spaces.
In-plane load
Seismic load acting along the wall length.
In-plane walls
Walls loaded along its length. Also referred as in-plane loaded wall.
Irregular building
A building that has a sudden change in the shape of plan is considered to have a
horizontal irregularity. A building that changes shape up its height (such as setbacks
or overhangs) or is missing significant load-bearing walls is considered to have a
vertical irregularity. In general, irregular buildings do not perform as well as regular
buildings perform in earthquakes.
Lateral load
Load acting in the horizontal direction, which can be due to wind or earthquake
effects.
Leaf
See Wythe.
Load path
A path through which vertical or seismic forces travel from the point of their origin to
the foundation and, ultimately, to the supporting soil.
Load
See Action.
Low-strength masonry
Masonry laid in weak mortar; such as weak cement/sand or lime/sand mortar.
Masonry unit
A preformed component intended for use in masonry construction.
Masonry
Any construction in units of clay, stone or concrete laid to a bond and joined
together with mortar.

10-12
ISBN 978-0-473-26634-9
Mortar
The cement/lime/sand mix in which masonry units are bedded.
Mullion
A vertical member, as of stone or wood, between the lights of a window, the panels
in wainscoting, or the like.
Net area
The gross cross-sectional area of the wall less the area of un-grouted areas or
penetrations.
Out-of-plane load
Seismic load (earthquake shaking) acting normally (perpendicular) or at right angles

to the wall surface. Walls subjected to out-of-plane shaking are also known as faceloaded walls. Walls are weaker and less stable under out-of-plane than under inplane seismic loads.
Partition
A non-load-bearing wall which is separated so as not to be part of the seismic

resisting structure.
Party wall
A party wall (occasionally party-wall or parting wall) is a dividing partition between

two adjoining buildings or units that is shared by the tenants of each residence or
business.
Pier
A portion of wall between doors, windows or similar structures.
Pointing (masonry)
Troweling mortar into a masonry joint after the masonry units have been laid. Higher
quality mortar is used than for the brickwork.
Primary element
An element which is relied on as part of the seismic force resisting system.
Regular building
see Irregular building.
Return wall
A short wall usually perpendicular to, and at the end of, a freestanding wall to
increase its structural stability.
Rigid diaphragm
A suspended floor, roof or ceiling structure that is able to transfer lateral loads to the
walls with negligible horizontal deformation of the diaphragm. Floors or roofs made
from reinforced concrete, such as reinforced concrete slabs, fall into this category.
Running or stretcher
bond
The unit set out when the units of each course overlap the units in the preceding
course by between 25% and 75% of the length of the units.
Seismic hazard
The potential for damage caused by earthquakes. The level of hazard depends on
the magnitude of probable earthquakes, the type of fault, the distance from faults
associated with those earthquakes, and the type of soil at the site.
Seismic system
That portion of the structure which is considered to provide the earthquake

resistance to the entire structure.
Shear wall
A wall which is subjected to lateral loads due to wind or earthquakes acting parallel
to the direction of an earthquake load being considered (also known as an in-plane
wall). Walls are stronger and stiffer in plane than out of plane.
Special study
A procedure for justifying a departure from these guidelines or determining

information not covered by them. Special studies are outside the scope of these
guidelines.
Stack bond
The unit set out when the units of each course do not overlap the units of the
preceding course by the amount specified for running or stretcher bond.
Strength, design
The nominal strength multiplied by the appropriate strength reduction factor.
Strength, probable
The theoretical strength of a component section, calculated using the section

dimensions as detailed and the theoretical characteristic material strengths as
defined in these guidelines.
Strength, required
The strength of a component section required to resist combinations of actions for

ultimate limit states as specified in AS/NZS 1170 Part 0.
Structural element
Component of a building that provides gravity and lateral load resistance and is part
of a continuous load path. Walls are key structural elements in all masonry
buildings.

10-13
ISBN 978-0-473-26634-9
Seismic
c Assessment of
Through ston
ne
A long stone (header

(
unit) tthat connects two wythes to
ogether in a sto
tone masonry
wall. It is also known as bon
nd stone. Con
ntrary to its name, a throughh stone can als
so
be a concrete
e block, a wood
d element, or steel bars with hooked endds embedded in
i
concrete that perform the s ame function.
Transom
See Mullion.
Transverse w
wall
See Cross wa
all.
Unreinforced
d masonry
(URM) wall
A masonry wa
all containing n
no steel, timbe
er, cane or oth
her reinforcem
ment. An
unreinforced wall
w resists gra
avity and laterral loads solely through the strength of the
masonry mate
erials.
Veneer
See Wythe.
Wall tie
The tie in a ca
avity wall use d to tie the intternal and exte
ernal walls (orr wythes)
constructed of wires, steel b
bars or straps
s.
Wall
A vertical elem
ment which be
ecause of its position
p
and sh
hape contributtes to the rigid
dity
and strength of
o a structure.
Wythe
A continuous vertical sectio

on of masonry one unit in thickness. A wyythe may be
independent of,
o or interlockked with, the adjoining
a
wythe
e(s). A single wythe is also
referred to as a veneer or le
eaf.
10.2
Typica
al URM Buildin
ng Practices in
n New Z
Zealand
10.2.1
Genera
al
Most of N
New Zealandds URM buildings weere built du
uring a relattively narroow window of
time; betw
ween the latee 1870s and
d 1940 (Rus sell & Ingh
ham, 2010). As a resultt, constructiion
methods aare relativelly uniform with only a few variations refleecting the oorigins of the
t
stonemasonns and the customary stones (haard rock or
o soft rock
k) they useed for layin
ng.
However, tthese buildiings vary su
ubstantially in their stru
uctural conffiguration annd layout.
10.2.2
Buildin
ng forms
The range of typical URM

U
build
dings is set oout in Tablle 10.1 togeether with soome comm
mon
characterisstics for each type. Note that:
Most oof the smalller building
gs are celluular in natu
ure, combin
ning internaal masonry or
timber walls with the perimetter masonryy faade to provide
p
an overall
o
rigidd unit.
Many smaller com
mmercial URM
U
buildiings have fairly
f
open street faaddes at grou
und
level annd high botttom storeyss.
Larger buildings tend
t
to have punched w
wall framess (Figure 10
0.2) and oppen plan areeas
where ffloors and roofs
r
are sup
pported by ttimber, castt iron or steel posts.
Large, complex buildings
b
su
uch as churrches are paarticularly vulnerable
v
tto earthquaake
shakingg as they tend
t
to hav
ve irregularr plans, talll storey heeights, offs et roofs, feew
partitioons and manny windowss.
In these guuidelines sm
maller build
dings (ie lesss than two
o storeys), including sm
mall church
hes
and halls are categorised as ba
asic buildinngs to disttinguish theem from m
more compllex
buildings. Simplifieed approacches, particcularly asso
ociated witth determinning materrial
property annd analysis, are possib
ble when asssessing bassic building
gs. These aare covered in
the appropriate sectionns below.
Section 10 - Se
eismic Assessm
ment of Unreinfo
orced Masonry B
Buildings
Updated 22 April 20
015
10
0-14
ISBN 978--0-473-26634
4-9
Seismic As
ssessment of U
Unreinforced Ma
asonry Buildingss
Thhe interactioon of buildiings construucted with common

c
bou
undary or pparty walls is
i discussedd
inn more detaiil in Section
n 10.5.4.
Figure
F
10.2: URM buildiing with pun
nched wall
Ta
able 10.1: Building form
ms
Fo
orm
Illlustration
Partic ular issues
1S
Storey cellula
ar:
Boonding at wall intersections

i
Ma
asonry Intern
nal Walls
Brracing predom
minantly
fro
om in-plane walls
wa
ca
antilevering fro
om
grround level
Plaan regularity diaphragm

dem
mand if irregular
Reelative stiffness
s/strength
from
m varying walll lengths
Su bfloor height and

a level of
fixitty
Groound floor
diaaphragm/bracing
Coonnection to masonry
m
at
inteersections
Stifffness compattibility with

maasonry wall geometry
g
Stifffness compattibility with

maasonry materiality
(plaaster/lath, fibrrous plaster)
Fleexibility of strapping/lining
witth respect to masonry
m
Tim
mber wall foun
ndation
braacing capacity
y
1S
Storey cellula
ar:
Timber Interna
al Walls
Brracing predom
minantly
fro
om walls loade
ed inpla
ane cantileverring from
grround level
Se
ection 10 - Seism
Upd
dated 22 April 2015
10-15
5
IS
SBN 978-0-4
473-26634-9
9
Seismic
c Assessment of
Form
Illustration
Parrticular issuess
>1 Storey Ce
ellular:
As 1 Storey plus:
Masonry Inte
ernal Walls
Wall coupling over doorway

ys
Bracing pred
dominantly
from walls loa
aded inplane with intteraction
over doorwayys and
between floo
ors
Change in waall thickness att

first floor
>1 Storey Ce
ellular:
As 1 Storey plus:
Timber Interrnal Walls
Hold-down off upper walls to

o
lower walls
Hold-down annd bracing of

lower walls too piles
1 Storey Ope
en:
Bracing pred
dominantly
from walls loa
aded out-ofplane cantilevering from
ground level
End walls andd differential

stiffness
Ground condiitions and

foundations ccritical
Wall connectioon with ground

floor slab if prresent
>1 Storey Open:
Diaphragm sttiffness
Bracing pred
dominantly
from walls loa
aded out-ofplane cantilevering from
ground level, with
contributionss from end
walls
Diaphragm sttrength
Ancillary strucctures forming

g
bracing
Contribution oof shop front

beams/frame
Plan regularityy
Bracing pred
dominantly
from walls loa
aded inplane with intteraction
over doorwayys and
between floo
ors
Most commo
on town
centre comm
mercial
structures
Section 10 - Se
eismic Assessm
ment of Unreinfo
orced Masonry B
Buildings
Updated 22 April 20
015
10
0-16
ISBN 978--0-473-26634
4-9
Seismic As
ssessment of U
Unreinforced Ma
asonry Buildingss
Fo
orm
Illlustration
Partic ular issues
Mu
ulti-storey Op
pen
Brracing predom
minantly
fro
om perimeter walls
w
loa
aded in-plane
Waall-to-diaphrag
gm
connnection dema
ands high for
outt-of-plane wall loads
Diaaphragm stiffn
ness
impportant for outt-of-plane walll
anaalysis
Diaaphragm stren
ngth demands
ofteen high
Hooles in diaphra
agms
Pu nched walls in
n-plane
anaalysis can be complex
Mu
ulti-storey wiith
Intternal Structu
ures
Waall-to-diaphrag
gm
connnection dema
ands high
Brracing from
co
ombination of internal
i
wa
alls and perim
meter
wa
alls loaded in--plane
Coompatibility bettween flexible

inteernal and stiff external
struuctures
Pu nched walls in
n-plane
anaalysis can be complex
Mu
ulti-storey
Frrame/Wall
Oftten heavyweig
ght floors: stifff
butt strength difficult to
asccertain
Inteernal frame sttiffness vs.

perrimeter punched wall
stifffness
Higgh shear dema

ands on inplaane connection
n to perimeterr
eleements
Mo
onumental Single
Fo
orm
Oftten rocking go
overned can
be beneficial
Brracing predom
minantly
fro
om cantilever action,
a
sin
ngle degree off
fre
eedom
Fouundation stability critical
Coombination of materials
m
form
rming masonry
y unit
Daamping
Brracing from
co
ombination of internal
i
wa
alls and perim
meter
wa
alls loaded in--plane
Sttatues, towers,
ch
himneys and th
he like
Se
ection 10 - Seism
Upd
dated 22 April 2015
10-17
7
IS
SBN 978-0-4
473-26634-9
9
Seismic
c Assessment of
Form
Illustration
Parrticular issuess
Monumental Multiple
Forms
Highly compleex interaction

between elem
ments
Multiple degrrees of
freedom with
h different
stiffnesses/pe
eriods
Special studyy
Peer review reecommended
Most churche
es and
larger civic sttructures
10.2.3
Founda
ations
Foundationns for URM

M buildingss were typiically shallow strip fo
ootings (Figgure 10.3(aa)),
including under opennings in pu
unched waalls or facaades. Brickss were typpically placced
transverse to the wall to give a half-to-one
h
bbrick-thickeening, although larger m
multi-stepp
ped
The bricks were
w
typically protecteed from direect
thickenings were usedd in large structures. T
maller build
dings, this w
was often th
hin
contact witth the grounnd with a layer of conncrete. In sm
and unreinnforced.
Deeper cooncrete striips (Figuree 10.3(b)) for largerr buildings were ofteen nominally
reinforced with plain reinforcing
r
m rails. In extremely
e
pooor ground or
bars, flats, or train/tram
where the ffoundation formed a seea wall or w
wharf, thesee reinforced concrete str
trips generally
spanned beetween drivven timber or sometim
mes between
n steel or precast
p
piless. The desiign
was often rudimentarry, with th
he depth off the concrrete at leasst half thatt of the sp
pan
regardless of reinforceement.
As the widdening of the foundatiion was oftten nominal, some settlement waas common in
poorer groound either during or after consttruction. Seettlement du
uring constr
truction cou
uld
often be bbuilt in so would
w
not be
b visible.
Larger inddustrial builldings with
h timber, steeel or cast iron posts were oftenn founded on
large, isolaated pads. As
A these werre sized for the live actions,
a
they
y are often llightly load
ded
so are an excellent inddicator of seettlement.
Section 10 - Se
eismic Assessm
ment of Unreinfo
orced Masonry B
Buildings
Updated 22 April 20
015
10
0-18
ISBN 978--0-473-26634
4-9
Seismic As
ssessment of U
Unreinforced Ma
asonry Buildingss
(a)) Typical foundation de

etails
(b
b) A cross s ection of UR
RM building
g foundation
n
Figure 10
0.3: URM bu
uilding found
dations
10.2.4
W constructio n
Wall
Soolid and cavvity walls were

w commoon types of construction
c
n:
Solid wallls were gen
nerally usedd for industtrial buildin
ngs and builldings on th
he outskirtss
of town, and
a for partty walls andd walls eitheer not visiblle or in loweer storeys.
Cavity walls
w
were used
u
in builldings to co
ontrol moistture ingresss. They also
o allow thee
use of hiigher qualitty bricks w
where a bettter architecctural finishh was requiired on thee
exterior.
Se
ection 10 - Seism
Upd
dated 22 April 2015
10-19
9
IS
SBN 978-0-4
473-26634-9
9
Seismic
c Assessment of
In cavity w
walls, the exxterior maso
onry wythess act as an architectural
a
l finish (whiich can givee a
misleadingg impressionn of these walls
w
structtural thickneess). It was also comm
mon to proviide
an outer w
wythe that was
w continuo
ous over thee full heightt of the walll plus an innner one-bricckthick wythhe for the toop storey and
a two or more wyth
hes for loweer storeys ((Figure 10.4
4).
Constructioon quality was
w usually
y better for visible wallls and veneeers than inn hidden areeas
or at the reear of buildiings.
Figure 10.4: Ch
hange in cro
oss-section of brick wall (Holmes Consulting
C
G
Group)
Often a caavity wall, which

w
was originally oon the exterrior of the building,
b
haas become an
interior waall followingg subsequen
nt alterationn. This will be recognissable by a w
wall thickneess
that is not a wythe muultiple.
10.2.4.1 Wall thickness

The comm
monly used nominal
n
thiicknesses off brick wallls in New Zealand
Z
are 230 mm (9
9,
two wythees), 350 mm
m (14, thrree wythes)) and 450 mm
m (18, four
f
wythe s). This is in
addition too any outer veneer
v
of 11
10 mm (4
, one wyth
he).
10.2.4.2 Cavity ties

t
In cavity w
walls, outer wythes weere usually ttied to the inner wythee or main sstructural wall
w
with #8 tiees, sometim
mes with a kink
k
in the middle, orr with flat pieces
p
of tinn generally at
spacings oof 900 mm horizontally
y and everyy fifth or siixth course vertically ((Figure 10.5).
Cast steel, wrought steeel or mild steel togglees were som
metimes used
d at similar spacings.
Section 10 - Se
eismic Assessm
ment of Unreinfo
orced Masonry B
Buildings
Updated 22 April 20
015
10
0-20
ISBN 978--0-473-26634
4-9
Seismic As
ssessment of U
Unreinforced Ma
asonry Buildingss
(a
a) Common wire ties
B
ties
s
(c) Butterfly
(b) Doublee hook ties
(d) V-drip flat fishtaile

ed wall ties
Figure 10.5:
1
Comm
monly observ
ved wall ties
s (Dymtro D
Dizhur)
10
0.2.4.3 Masonry
M
bond and
d cross sections
s
A number of different bond patteerns have been
b
used for
f URM bu
buildings, ass describedd
beelow. The bond
b
pattern
n is an impoortant featu
ure of URM
M buildings: it determin
nes how thee
m
masonry unitts in a wall are connectted and has a significan
nt effect onn both the wall
w strengthh
annd how its components
c
act togetheer as a comp
plete structu
ural elementt.
Sttretcher uniits, or strettchers, are bricks laid in the plane of the w
wall. Headeer units, orr
heeaders are bricks
b
laid across the w
wall joining the
t masonry
y wythes toggether.
Inn cross sectiion, a wall three units thick is a three
t
wythee wall. To aact as one, each wythee
shhould be adequately
a
connected to the adjoining wytthe with hheaders at appropriatee
inntervals.
N
Note that sometimes faake headerss are incorp
porated into
o a wythe tthat do nott cover twoo
addjoining wyythes. Thesee can disguiise the presence of a cavity wall w
where theree is a cavityy
vooid betweenn the inner and
a outer wyythes.
Clay brick masonry
m
M
Most New Zealand
Z
URM
M building s were constructed witth either coommon bon
nd, which iss
thhe most freqquently occurring bondd pattern, or English bond,
b
whichh is often fo
ound on thee
boottom (grouund) storey.
Common bonnd is sometimes referreed to as Am
merican bon
nd or Englissh garden wall
w bond. Itt
haas layers off stretchers, and headeers every three
t
to six
x courses (FFigure 10.6
6(a)). Thesee
heeaders can be at differrent levels in different buildings,, and someetimes even
n within thee
saame buildinng. For exam
mple, the heeaders may be every seecond coursse at the bo
ottom of thee
grround storeyy but every fourth courrse near thee top of the third storeyy. Header courses mayy
Se
ection 10 - Seism
Upd
dated 22 April 2015
10-21
IS
SBN 978-0-4
473-26634-9
9
be irregular and made to fit in at ends of walls and around drainpipes with half widths and
other cut bricks.
English bond has alternating header and stretcher courses (Figure 10.6(c)).
(a) Common bond
(b) Running bond
(c) English bond
(d) Flemish bond
Figure 10.6: Different types of brick masonry bonds
Other bond patterns used in New Zealand include Running bond (Figure 10.6(b)) and
Flemish bond (Figure 10.6(d)). Running bond (stretcher courses only) often indicates the
presence of a cavity wall. Flemish bond (alternating headers and stretchers in every course)
is the least common bond pattern and is generally found between openings on an upper
storey; for example, on piers between windows.
Stone masonry
Stone masonry buildings in New Zealand are mainly built with igneous rocks such as
basalt and scoria, or sedimentary rocks such as limestone. Greywacke, which is closely
related to schist, is also used in some parts of the country. Trachyte, dolerite, and
combinations of these are also used.
Wall texture
Wall texture describes the disposition of the stone courses and vertical joints. There are
three different categories (Figure 10.7): ashlar (squared stone); rubble (broken stone); and
cobble stones (field stone), which is less common.

10-22
ISBN 978-0-473-26634-9
Seismic As
ssessment of U
Unreinforced Ma
asonry Buildingss
(a) Ashla
ar (squared stone)
((b) Rubble (broken ston

ne)
(c) Cobble stones

s
(field sto
one)
Figure 10.7: Classiification of stone

s
units (Marta Giareetton)
A
Ashlar (dresssed or undressed) is sstonework cut
c on four sides so thhat the adjo
oining sidess
w
will be at riight angles to each otther (Figurre 10.7(a)). Ashlar is usually laiid as eitherr
cooursed ashlar, which is
i in regulaar courses with contin
nuous jointts (Figure 10.8(a)),
1
orr
bllock-in-courrse ashlar (Figure 10 .8(b)). It may
m also ap
ppear as brroken courrses (whichh
deescribes thee broken con
ntinuity of tthe bed and
d head jointts) of eitherr random-co
ourse ashlarr
(F
Figure 10.8((c)), or brok
ken ashlar (F
Figure 10.8(d)).
A
All ashlar shhould have straight
s
andd horizontall bed joints,, and the veertical joints should bee
keept plumb. This type of
o stone cann also be found in courrsed rubble;; in which case
c
it mayy
bee consideredd as a hybrid between rrubble and ashlar
a
stoneework.
(a) Coursed
d ashlar
(b
b) Block-in-ccourse ashla
ar
(c) Random-cou
R
urse ashlar
(d) Brokeen ashlar
Figure 10.8: Sc
chematic of different forms of Ashlar bond (Lo
owndes 1994
4)
R
Rubble stoneework consists of ston es in which
h the adjoiniing sides arre not required to be att
rigght angles (Figure
(
10.7
7(b)). This form of maasonry is offten used foor rough maasonry suchh
ass foundationns and baccking, and frequently consists off common, roughly drressed fieldd
stone.
Se
ection 10 - Seism
Upd
dated 22 April 2015
10-23
3
IS
SBN 978-0-4
473-26634-9
9
Wall cross section

It is usually not possible to establish the cross section characteristics of a stone masonry
wall from the bond pattern. More detailed inspection is required to identify any
connections between the wythes; determine what material the core is composed of; and
locate any voids, a cavity, or the presence of other elements such as steel ties. All of these
contribute to determining the walls structural properties.
(a) Dressed stone in outer

leaves and rubble fill
(b) Stone facing and

brickwork backing
(c) Stone facing and

concrete core
Figure 10.9: Stone masonry cross sections in New Zealand. Representative cases observed
in Christchurch after the Canterbury earthquakes (Marta Giaretton)
Concrete block masonry

Although solid concrete masonry was used in New Zealand from the 1880s, hollow
concrete block masonry was not used widely until the late 1950s. Masonry was usually
constructed in running bond, but stacked bond was sometimes used for architectural effect.
From the 1960s onwards, masonry was usually constructed with one wythe 190 mm thick,
although this was sometimes 140 mm thick. Cavity construction, involving two wythes
with a cavity between, was mostly used for residential or commercial office construction
but occasionally for industrial buildings. The external wythe was usually 90 mm thick and
the interior wythe was either 90 mm or 140 mm. Cavity construction was often used for
infills, with a bounding frame of either concrete or encased steelwork.
To begin with, reinforcement in concrete masonry was usually quite sparse, with vertical
bars tending to be placed at window and door openings and wall ends, corners and
intersections, and horizontal bars at sill and heads and the tops of walls or at floor levels.
Early on, it was common to fill just the reinforced cells. Later, when the depressed web
open-ended bond beam blocks became more available, more closely spaced vertical
reinforcement became more practicable. When the depressed web open-ended bond beam
blocks (style 20.16) became available without excessive distortion from drying shrinkage,
these tended to replace the standard hollow blocks for construction of the whole wall (with
specials at ends, lintels and the like).
Wire reinforcement formed into a ladder structure (Bloklok or a similar proprietary
product) was common in cavity construction. Two wires ran in the mortar in bed joints,
joined across the cavity by another wire at regular centres and acting as cavity ties.

10-24
ISBN 978-0-473-26634-9
Seismic As
ssessment of U
Unreinforced Ma
asonry Buildingss
10.2.5
C
Constitu
ent mate
erials
10
0.2.5.1 Bricks
B
N
New Zealandd brick sizees are basedd on imperiial size. Th
he most com
mmon nomiinal size off
cllay bricks ussed in maso
onry buildinngs is 230 mm
m x 110 mm
m x 70mm (9x 4x 3).
10
0.2.5.2 Mortar
M
M
Mortar is usually soft due to faactors inclu
uding inferrior initial constructio
on, ageing,,
w
weathering and
a
leachin
ng (Figuree 10.10). Both
B
the ty
ype and pproportions of mortarr
coonstituents varied
v
signiificantly thrroughout the country. Until
U
early llast century
y, lime-sandd
m
mortar was common butt cement-lim
me-sand mo
ortar and cem
ment-sand m
mortar weree also used.
N
Note:
W
While the lim
me in lime mortars willl continue to absorb moisture
m
annd reset, over
o
time itt
w
will leach leaading to deteerioration oof the mortaar.
Figure 10..10: Soft mo

ortar. Note th
he delamina
ated mortar from brickss in the back
kground
(Ing
gham and Griffith,
G
2011
1)
10
0.2.5.3 Timber
T
Tootara, rimu,, matai (black pine) annd kahikateaa (white pin
ne) were thee most comm
monly usedd
tim
mber speciees in URM buildings.
b
10
0.2.5.4 Concrete
C
block
Frrom the beginning, ho
ollow concrrete blocks were manu
ufactured bby the Bessser process,,
w
where lean mix
m concrette was com
mpacted into
o moulds using vibratiion. Concreete strengthh
w
was usually 30
3 MPa or greater.
g
10.2.6
F
Floor/roo
of diaphrragms
Flloors of UR
RM building
gs were usuually made from timbeer and someetimes from
m reinforcedd
cooncrete slabbs.
Se
ection 10 - Seism
Upd
dated 22 April 2015
10-25
5
IS
SBN 978-0-4
473-26634-9
9
Seismic
c Assessment of
10.2.6.1 Timber floors

Timber flooor diaphraggms are usually consttructed of 19-25
1
mm thick
t
tonguue and groo
ove
(T&G) meembrane naailed to tim
mber joists tthat are su
upported by
y timber or steel beam
ms.
Matai, rim
mu and oreggon were co
ommonly ussed for the floor diaph
hragm mem
mbrane. Theese
timbers maay have harrdened from
m a centuryy of drying and be loccked up frrom long use.
The diaphrragm may also
a have beeen damageed by insectt infestation
n or decay ffrom moistu
ure
ingress. Ass well as thhe timber ch
haracteristiccs, the respo
onse of these diaphraggms during an
earthquakee is dictatedd by the beh
haviour of tthe nail join
nts. It shoulld be recoggnised that the
t
nails in usse a centurry ago weree much soffter than th
hose used today.
t
Resi stance com
mes
primarily ffrom frictionn between the
t boards, complemen
nted by vieerendeel acction from the
t
pairs of naails in a boaard. A further complicaation is thatt the respon
nse of timbeer diaphragm
ms
is differennt for eachh direction,, recognisinng that joiists and bo
oards spann in differeent
directions. Hence diiaphragm in
n-plane stiiffness and
d strength should be assessed for
f
earthquakee loading orriented both parallel andd perpendiccular to the orientation of the joistss.
10.2.6.2 Reinforced conc

crete slab
bs
Reinforcedd concrete slabs weree usually m
monolithic to brick walls
w
and form a rig
gid
diaphragm
m. While theey may have been reinnforced with
h bars, as iss commonlyy the case for
f
modern coonstruction, these bars were oftenn round or of
o a roughness pattern that provid
des
significantly less bondd than expected today. As a resultt, the presen
nce of termiination detaails
(such as hoooks, thickenings, threeads/nuts) w
will have a marked efffect on the load carryiing
capacity. O
Other types of reinforccement inclluded expan
nded metal lath (Figurre 10.11) and
a
even train rrails.
Figure 10
0.11: Concre
ete slab with
h expanded metal lath reinforceme
r
nt. Corrosio
on of the lath
from carbonattion of the concrete ove
er time has caused
c
the concrete to
o spall.
Portland cement graddually becam

me availablle throughout New Zealand from
m the 1890s to
the late 19920s, whichh was the time of muuch URM construction. Non-Porrtland cemeent
concretes ((often calledd Clinker concretes aas they were produced from only a single firiing
of lime prooducts) are significantlly weaker aand should be
b assessed
d with cautioon. Similarrly,
as concretee was a relaatively expensive materrial during these
t
times,, voids or riibs were oftten
formed in sslabs using hollow ceraamic tiles.
Section 10 - Se
eismic Assessm
ment of Unreinfo
orced Masonry B
Buildings
Updated 22 April 20
015
10
0-26
ISBN 978--0-473-26634
4-9
Seismic As
ssessment of U
Unreinforced Ma
asonry Buildingss
N
Note:
Taake care when
w
mak
king assum
mptions relaating to th
he concrette strength
h. Intrusivee
innvestigation is essentiall to understtand the makeup of thee original slaab construcction and itss
coonstituents properly
p
if forces
f
greatter than nom
minal are to be transferrred.
10
0.2.6.3 Roofs
R
Thhe roof struucture is usually provvided with straight sarrking (Figuure 10.12) or
o diagonall
saarking (Figuure 10.13) nailed
n
to puurlins suppo
orted by tim
mber trussess. Straight sarking hass
sim
milar actionn to floorin
ng, but boarrds are ofteen square ed
dges so do not have th
he stiffnesss
annd strengthh of the high-friction tongue an
nd groove connection.. Diagonal sarking iss
naaturally stifffer and strronger thann rectangular sarking because thhe boards provide
p
thee
diiagonal truuss memb
bers betweeen the rafteers and purrlins. Howeever, its du
uctility andd
diisplacementt capacity will
w be less than for reectangular sarking
s
as m
movementss will causee
diirect shearinng of the fix
xings along the lines off the boards.
N
Note:
Refer to Secttion 10.8.3 for the capaacities of th
hese types of
o systems. T
This is also
o covered inn
m
more detail inn Section 11.
(a) Typ
pical horizon
ntal roof sarrking
(b) Rooff diaphragm

m with vertic
cal sarking
Figure 10.12:
1
Typic
cal timber diiaphragms straight saarking
Se
ection 10 - Seism
Upd
dated 22 April 2015
10-27
7
IS
SBN 978-0-4
473-26634-9
9
Seismic
c Assessment of
Figurre 10.13: Typ

pical timberr diaphragms - diagonall sarking
The strenggth of both floor and ro

oof diaphraagms is com
mplemented by the ceilling sheathiing
material. C
Common tyypes of ceilings that prrovide strucctural capaccity are tim
mber lath-an
ndplaster, fibbrous plasterr, steel lath--and-plasterr, and pressed metal. More
M
modern
rn additions of
plywood boards and plasterboard
p
d may have also occurreed over time.
10.2.7
Diaphra
agm sea
ating and
d connec
ctions
URM builddings are chharacterised

d by absent oor weak con
nnections beetween variious structural
componentts.
Often, wallls parallel to
t the joists and rafterss are not tied to the floo
ors and rooof respectiveely
he design arrchitect. Waall-diaphrag
gm
(Figure 100.14), exceppt in a few cases depennding on th
anchor plaates, sometiimes referred to as roosettes or washers,
w
haave been ussed to secu
ure
diaphragm
ms to walls since the laate 19th cenntury (Figu
ure 10.15). If
I these aree present in
n a
building, thhey may haave been insstalled durinng the origin
nal construcction or at aany time sin
nce
as a remeddiation meassure.
Figure 10..14: A lack of

o connectio
on of the wa
alls parallel to
t joist and rafters with
h diaphragm
ms
and re
eturn walls leading to c
collapse of wall
w under face load
Section 10 - Se
eismic Assessm
ment of Unreinfo
orced Masonry B
Buildings
Updated 22 April 20
015
10
0-28
ISBN 978--0-473-26634
4-9
Seismic As
ssessment of U
Unreinforced Ma
asonry Buildingss
Figure 10.15: 1896 image show

wing anchor plate conne
ections instaalled in early URM
co
onstruction (National Library
L
of Ne
ew Zealand)
Evven where walls

w
are caarrying beam
ms, joists orr rafters, theey are not aalways securred to thesee
ellements. Coonnections made
m
of steeel straps tying the beams, joists oor rafters to walls havee
beeen observeed (Figures 10.16 andd 10.17), so
ometimes with
w a fish-ttail cast into concretee
poockets.
A
Another com
mmon featurre is a gap on either side
s
of the timber
t
joistts and beam
ms to avoidd
m
moisture trannsfer from brickworkk to timberr. With succh connectiions, horizo
ontal shearr
caannot be transferred fro
om walls to joists. How
wever, if the joists are sset tightly in
n the pockett
thhey can be effective
e
in horizontal
h
sshear transfe
fer between the wall andd floor struccture.
(a) Steel bea

am to wall pocketed con
nnection
(b) Floo
or joist to waall connectio
on. Note
presenc
ce of steel sstrap (Matt Williams)
W
(c) Flo
oor seating arrangemen
nt
(d) Fish
h-tail conneection betwe
een wall
and joist
Figure 10.16: Typical c

connection between
b
ma
asonry wallss and joist
Se
ection 10 - Seism
Upd
dated 22 April 2015
10-29
9
IS
SBN 978-0-4
473-26634-9
9
Seismic
c Assessment of
(a
a) Wall to ro
oof truss con
nnection
(Miyamo
oto Internatio
onal)
(b)
( Roof sea
ating arrangeement and
parapet wall
w (Dymtro
o Dizhur)
(c) W
Wall to roof truss
t
conne
ection. Note truss is sea
ated on a co
oncrete pad stone
(Miyamoto IInternationa
al)
Figure 10.17: Typical wall to rooff connection
ns
10.2.8
Wall to wall con

nnection
ns
In most cases, there are no mechanical

m
cconnectionss provided to tie orthhogonal waalls
together. C
Concrete baands may bee provided bbut may no
ot be tied to
ogether at coorners as itt is
possible thhat they weere built by different teeams at diffferent stagees. If they aare jointed,, it
may just bbe with inteermittent steeel ties, or bricks pock
keted into the
t abuttingg walls whiich
have very llittle tie or shear
s
capacity.
10.2.9
Damp-p
proof co
ourse (DP
PC)
Most tradittional builddings incorp

porate a dam
mp-proof co
ourse (DPC)) in the massonry betweeen
foundationns and grounnd floor lev
vel. This caan be madee from galvaanised metaal, lead, slaate,
thick bitum
men or bitum
men fabric.
The DPC layer usuallly forms a slip planee (Figure 10.18(a)) wh
hich is weaaker than the
t
surroundinng masonry for sliding. It also forrms a horizo
ontal discon
ntinuity whi
hich can affeect
bond for faace loading or hold-dow
wn of wallss for in-plan
ne loading. Sliding
S
on tthe DPC lay
yer
has been reecorded, as shown in Figure 10.188(b).
Section 10 - Se
eismic Assessm
ment of Unreinfo
orced Masonry B
Buildings
Updated 22 April 20
015
10
0-30
ISBN 978--0-473-26634
4-9
Seismic As
ssessment of U
Unreinforced Ma
asonry Buildingss
Considerationn of the DP
PC layer iss an importtant part off establishinng the capaacity of thee
w
wall: refer to Section 10.8.6 for detaails.
(a) DPC be
elow timber Chest Ho
ospital,
Welling
gton
(b) Bitumen DPC and

d sliding evident after
Cook
C
Strait eearthquakes
s
Figure 1 0.18: Comm

mon DPC ma
aterials
10.2.10 Built-in
B
timber
M
Most traditional URM buildings inccorporate bu
uilt-in timbeers (Figure 10.19) for:
fixing of linings, skirrting, cornicces and dad
do/picture raails
plates suppporting intermediate ffloor joists
forming header
h
conn
nections betw
tween wall layers,
l
and
top platess for affixin
ng rafters or trusses.
Figu
ure 10.19: 12
2 mm timbe r built into every
e
eighth
h course forr fixing linings
Se
ection 10 - Seism
Upd
dated 22 April 2015
10-31
IS
SBN 978-0-4
473-26634-9
9
Seismic
c Assessment of
Degradatioon of these items

i
is com
mmon, whicch causes lo
ocalised streesses or bow
wing of wallls.
This will tyypically be more severre on the souuth side of buildings
b
orr nearer the ground lev
vel.
Timber alsso shrinks, particularly
p
perpendicuular to the grain,
g
and su
uch timberss are often not
n
in full conntact with the
t surroun
nding masoonry. In thee case of co
ontinuous ttimber plates,
engagemennt with the masonry iss often limitted to locallised timberr blocks nottched into the
t
walls.
10.2.11 Bond beams

b
Bond beam
ms or perimeter tie beam
ms (Figure 10.20) weree typically constructed
c
d of reinforcced
concrete, plain conccrete or tiimber. Theey can pro
ovide sign
nificant bennefits to the
t
performancce of masonnry building
gs, includingg:
providiing a largerr, often stro
onger substr
trate for thee attachmen
nt of fixingss and thereeby
providiing better looad distribution
distribuuting diaphrragm loads along the leength of a wall
w
tying w
wythes togeether in cav
vity construuction (Figu
ure 10.20), provided tthat the bo
ond
beam iss laid over both
b
wythess
providiing couplingg between wall
w panels for in-planee loads
providiing longituddinal tying to
t spandrel bbeams, and
d
providiing out-of-pplane stabiliity to face-looaded wallss.
Dependingg on the agee of the stru
ucture, theree may be po
oor/no hook
k or terminat
ation details in
reinforced concrete boond beams,, so concenttrated loadss near the ends
e
of suchh bond beam
ms
should be aavoided. Stiirrup reinfo
orcement in these beam
ms is often nominal
n
iff present at all
so care shhould be takken when sh
hear loads aare being ap
pplied to theese elementts.
(a)) Bond beam

m in cavity wall
w also forrming lintel Chest Hos
spital, Wellin
ngton
(Dunning
g Thornton))
Section 10 - Se
eismic Assessm
ment of Unreinfo
orced Masonry B
Buildings
Updated 22 April 20
015
10
0-32
ISBN 978--0-473-26634
4-9
Seismic As
ssessment of U
Unreinforced Ma
asonry Buildingss
(b) Ty
ypical lintel detail (Dizh
hur)
Fig
gure 10.20: Bond
B
beams
s
Thhe presencce of a concrete bannd providess no surety

y that reinnforcement is present..
Fiigure 10.21 shows a co
oncrete cappping beam th
hat is obvio
ously not reiinforced.
Thhe reinforccement in the beam may also have degrraded or m
may soon degrade iff
caarbonation/cchloride attack has pennetrated intto the concrete to the depth of reeinforcing)..
W
When severe, this will sp
plit the conccrete.
Figure 10
0.21: The wiide cracks t hrough bon
nd beams indicate a lacck of reinforc
cement
in the beam
m (Dizhur)
10.2.12 Bed-joint
B
t reinforrcement
Bed-joint reiinforcementt (course rreinforcemeent) varies in type annd application. It cann
innclude:
single wirres or pairs of wires laiid in mortarr courses to augment inn-plane perfformance
single wiires or pairss of wires llaid in morttar courses to act as liintels or ties to soldierr
courses
prefabricaated/welded
d lattices laiid in multi-w
wythe wallss to ensure bbond
Se
ection 10 - Seism
Upd
dated 22 April 2015
10-33
3
IS
SBN 978-0-4
473-26634-9
9
Seismic
c Assessment of
prefabrricated/weldded lattices laid across cavity wallls to form caavity ties

cast iroon oversize cavity ties laid
l in multti-wythe waalls to ensuree bond, andd
chickenn mesh.
Bed-joint rreinforcemeent is often

n small in ssize relativ
ve to a fairlly massive wall. It ad
dds
robustness but usuallyy does not add significaant structuraal strength.
This type oof reinforceement is not usually appparent from
m a visual inspection.
i
However, the
t
requiremennt for bedd joint rein
nforcement was often
n noted in
n the origiinal mason
nry
specificatioons.
10.2.13 Lintels
Lintels com
mmonly com
mprise:
reinforced concrette beams thee full widthh of the walll
reinforced concrette beams beehind a deccorative faccing course,, with this facing courrse
supportted on cavitty ties or a steel
s
angle
steel anngles
steel flaats (shorter spans)
timber piece
a
and
soldier course archhes or flat arches,
stone liintels.
Arches or flat arches add a perm
manent outw
ward thrust to a buildin
ng which caan destabiliise
t
along
g with any other forcees should be
b resisted bby ties in the
t
walls in pllane. This thrust
building.
Reinforcedd concrete beams caan contribuute to in-p
plane pier/w
wall behavviour as th
hey
effectivelyy reinforce the spand
drel. Howevver, they concentrate
c
bearing looads at their
supports annd, if such frames dilaate, can be points of overloading
o
or destabillisation. Th
hey
are also uuseful compponents forr attachmennts for diap
phragms (iff the windoow heads are
a
sufficientlyy high) as thhey providee a robust, bblocky element to conneect to.
10.2.14 Second
dary com
mponentts
Parapets arre commonnly placed on
o top of thhe perimeterr walls. Theey are usuallly position
ned
off centre from the wall beneath,, and cappinng stones or other ornaamental feat
atures are th
hen
attached too the streett side. Roo
of flashingss are often chased intto the brickkwork on the
t
external faace just aboove roof lev
vel, creatingg a potentiaal weak poin
nt in the m
masonry wheere
rocking cann occur.
Note:
Parapets, cchimneys, pediments,
p
cornices annd signage (Figure 10
0.22) on strreet frontag
ges
present a significant hazard to the publicc. The Min
nistry of Business, Innnovation and
a
Employmeent has issueed a determ
mination (20 12/043) claarifying that external haazards such as
these mustt be includedd in the seissmic assessm
ment rating
g of a buildin
ng.
Partition w
walls are otther second
dary elemennts which are usually
y not tied tto the ceiliing
diaphragm
m and can poose a seriouss threat to liife safety.
Section 10 - Se
eismic Assessm
ment of Unreinfo
orced Masonry B
Buildings
Updated 22 April 20
015
10
0-34
ISBN 978--0-473-26634
4-9
Seismic As
ssessment of U
Unreinforced Ma
asonry Buildingss
Figure 10.22:
1
Secon
ndary eleme
ents (Miyam
moto Internattional)
10.2.15 Seismic
S
strength
hening methods
m
used to
o date
M
Many URM buildings have
h
been sttrengthened
d over the years
y
either because off legislativee
reequirementss (e.g. earthq
quake-pronee building legislation)
l
or post-eartthquake recconstructionn
(ee.g. followinng the 1942 Wairarapa earthquakee).
A number off strengthening techniqques have beeen used (Issmail, 20122). The main
n principless
w
were to tie unrestrained
u
d componennts, such ass chimneys and parap ets, to the main load-beearing struccture and to tie various building co
omponents together so the buildin
ng could actt
gllobally as a box with th
he intentionn that the av
vailable lateeral capacityy of the building couldd
bee fully mobiilised even though it m
may not alwaays have been increaseed.
N
Note:
Before 2004, seismic sttrengtheninng requirem
ments for UR
RM buildinngs were veery low. Inn
adddition, in most
m strengtthening projjects the maaterial propeerties were nnot verified
d by testing,,
annchors werre mostly untested,
u
aand they were
w
installled withoutt documentted qualityy
asssurance proocedures.
A
Assessment of previoussly retrofittted building
gs requires an understtanding of the retrofitt
m
measures thaat historicallly have beeen carried out
o and the likely effecct these wou
uld have onn
thhe seismic performance
p
e.
Teechniques used
u
historiccally for strrengthening different sttructural meechanisms in
nclude:
chimneyss: internal post-tensiooning and steel tube reinforcem
ment, concrrete filling,,
external strapping
s
an
nd bracing, rremoval and replacemeent
parapets: vertical steeel mullionss, raking brraces, steel capping, poost-tensionin
ng, internall
bonded reeinforcemen
nt, near surfface mounteed (NSM) composite
c
sttrips
face-loadded walls: vertical stteel or tim
mber mullio
ons, horizoontal transoms, post-tensioning, internal bonded reiinforcementt, composite fibre oveerlay, NSM
M compositee
strips, reeinforced concrete oor cementiitious overrlay, groutt saturatio
on/injection,,
horizontaal and verticcal reinforceed concrete bands.
Se
ection 10 - Seism
Upd
dated 22 April 2015
10-35
5
IS
SBN 978-0-4
473-26634-9
9
wall-diaphragm connections: steel angle or timber joist/ribbon plate with either grouted
bars or bolts/external plate, blocking between joists notched into masonry, external
pinning to timber beam end or to concrete beam or floor, through rods with external
plates, new isolated padstones, new bond beams
diaphragm strengthening: plywood overlay floor or roof sarking, plywood ceiling,
plywood/light gauge steel composite, plasterboard ceiling, thin concrete
overlay/topping, elastic cross bracing, semi-ductile cross bracing (e.g. Proving ring),
replacement floor over/below with new diaphragm
in-plane wall strengthening/ new primary strengthening elements: sprayed concrete
overlay, vertical post-tensioning, internal horizontal reinforcement or external
horizontal post-tensioning, bed-joint reinforcement, composite reinforced concrete
boundary or local reinforcement elements, composite FRP boundary or local
reinforcement elements, nominally ductile concrete walls or punched wall/frame or
reinforced concrete masonry walls, nominally ductile steel concentric or cross bracing,
limited ductility steel moment frame or concrete frame or concrete walls or timber
walls, ductile eccentrically braced frame/K-frames, ductile concrete coupled or rocking
walls, or tie to new adjacent (new) structure
reinforcement at wall intersections in plan: removal and rebuilding of bricks with interbonding, bed-joint ties, drilled and grouted ties, metalwork reinforcing internal corner,
grouting of crack
foundation strengthening: mass underpinning, grout injection, concentric/balanced repiling, eccentric re-piling with foundation beams, mini piling/ground anchors
faade wythe ties: helical steel mechanical engagement small diameter, steel
mechanical engagement medium diameter, epoxied steel rods/gauze sleeve, epoxied
composite/non-metallic rods, brick header strengthening
canopies: reinforce or recast existing hanger embedment, new steel/cast iron posts, new
cantilevered beams, deck reinforcement to mitigate overhead hazard, conversion to
accessible balcony, base isolation.
Figures 10.23 to 10.27 illustrate some of these techniques. A detailed table (Table 10.2) is
included in Section 10.6.11. This table lists common strengthening techniques and
particular features or issues to check for each method.

10-36
ISBN 978-0-473-26634-9
Figure 10.23: Bracing of wall against face load (Dunning Thornton)
(a) Bent adhesive anchor
(b) Through anchor with end plate (plate anchor)

Figure 10.24: Wall-diaphragm connections (Ismail, 2012)

10-37
ISBN 978-0-473-26634-9
Seismic
c Assessment of
Figure 10
0.25: New plywood diap
phragm (Holmes Consulting Group
p)
(a) C
Concentric steel
s
frame (Beca)
(b) Steel frame (Dizh

hur)
(c) FRP overlay
(d) Steel
S
frame (Dunning T
Thornton)
Figu
ure 10.26: Im
mproving in
n-plane capa
acity of URM
M walls
Section 10 - Se
eismic Assessm
ment of Unreinfo
orced Masonry B
Buildings
Updated 22 April 20
015
10
0-38
ISBN 978--0-473-26634
4-9
Seismic As
ssessment of U
Unreinforced Ma
asonry Buildingss
Sttrengtheningg of parapeets is oftenn done usin

ng racking braces,
b
with
th one end tied to thee
tim
mber roof structure
s
(reefer to Figuure 10.27). However, issues
i
with this method include a
laack of vertiical tie-dow
wn to countter the verttical force componentt of brace and
a groundd
shhaking, or thhe flexibility
y of the rooof amplifyin
ng shaking of
o the parappet.
N
Note:
W
When strengtthening parrapets, it is essential to
o make a rob
bust connecction down to the walll
beelow and back
b
into th
he structuree. The dang
ger of non-robust streengthening is that thee
paarapet still fails,
f
but collapses in laarger, more dangerous pieces.
.
Figure 10.27:
1
Parap
pet bracing. Note a lack
k of vertical tie-up
e parapet (D
of the
Dmytro Dizh
hur)
10.3
O
Observe
ed Seis
smic Be
ehaviour of UR
RM Build
dings
10.3.1
G
General
W
When assessing and retrrofitting exxisting URM
M buildings it is imporrtant to und
derstand thee
pootential seiismic deficciencies annd failure hierarchy of these buildings and theirr
coomponents.
Thhe most hazardous of these deficciencies are inadequateely restraineed elementss located att
heeight, such as
a street-faccing faadess, unrestrain
ned parapets, chimneyss, ornamentts and gablee
ennd walls. These are ussually the fi
first elemen
nts to fail in
n an earthquuake and arre a risk too
peeople in a zoone extendiing well outtside the buiilding perim
meter.
d their connnections to diaphragms
d
s
Thhe next most critical elements aree face-loadeed walls and
annd return walls.
w
Even though theeir failure may
m not lead to the bbuildings catastrophic
c
c
coollapse, theyy could pose a severe thhreat to lifee safety.
H
However, whhen building
g componennts are tied together an
nd out-of-pllane failure of walls iss
prrevented, thhe building will
w act as a complete entity
e
and in
n-plane elem
ments will come
c
underr
laateral force action.
a
Se
ection 10 - Seism
Upd
dated 22 April 2015
10-39
9
IS
SBN 978-0-4
473-26634-9
9
Failures of URM buildings (summarised in Figure 10.28) can be broadly categorised as:
local failures these include the toppling of parapets, walls not carrying joists or
beams under face load, and materials falling from damaged in-plane walls. These local
failures could cause significant life-safety hazards, although buildings may still survive
these failures.
global failures these include failure modes leading to total collapse of a building due
to such factors as loss of load path and deficient configuration.
Figure 10.28: Failure modes of URM buildings
In URM buildings, in-plane demands on walls decrease up the height of the walls. In-plane
capacity also decreases with height as the vertical load decreases. In contrast, out-of-plane
demands are greatest at the upper level of walls (Figure 10.29), but out-of plane capacity is
lowest in these areas due to a lack of vertical load on them. Hence, the toppling of walls
starts from the top unless these are tied to the diaphragm.
Figure 10.29: Out-of-plane vibration of masonry walls are most pronounced at the top floor
level (adapted from Tomazevic, 1999)

10-40
ISBN 978-0-473-26634-9
Seismic As
ssessment of U
Unreinforced Ma
asonry Buildingss
10.3.2
B
Building
configu
uration
Buuilding connfiguration tends

t
to dicctate the nature of URM
M failures. C
Cellular typ
pe buildingss
acct as stiff sttructures, atttracting higgh accelerattions and th
herefore forrce-governed failure off
thheir parts. Collapse
C
of walls
w
underr face load as
a they try to
t span vertitically and horizontally
h
y
beetween flooors and abu
utting wallss respectively tends to
t be indeppendent forr each cell,,
deepending onn the angle of
o loading aand the walll configurattion.
Buuildings whhere the spaan or flexibbility of thee diaphragm
m is an ordder of magn
nitude moree
thhan the wallls tend to haave more diisplacementt-related faiilures. Wallls and parap
pet collapsee
innitiates from
m the mid
d-span of the diaphrragm wheree movemennts are grreatest (butt
acccelerationss are necessaarily as highh).
Taaller buildinngs exhibit less damagge at low lev
vels than sh
horter buildiings (Figuree 10.30), ass
thhe confinem
ment of thee masonry from the weight
w
abov
ve providess significan
nt strength..
Inn larger buiildings, the weaker ellements (ussually spandrels) fail first from bottom upp
(F
Figure 10.466). This resu
ults in periood lengthening of the structure andd reduces th
he ability too
traansmit forces up the bu
uilding.
A
As with all structures,
s
th
he behaviouur of URM buildings with
w a moree regular co
onfigurationn
is generally more
m
predicctable. Builldings with irregular plan
p
configuurations, such as thosee
onn street cornners (especiially with ann acute angle corner), suffer
s
high displacemeents on theirr
ouuter points. Shop frontts similarlyy experiencee high drifts, but thesee are often masked byy
bbuttressing from adjaccent buildinngs in a row
w effect. This
T effect al
also disguisees a verticall
irrregularity inn which stifff faades ttend to mov
ve as a solid
d element abbove the fleexible openn
shhop front.
Figure 10
0.30: Reduction of dam age towards
s base of bu
uilding as axxial load inc
creases
(Dunning Thornton)
T
Se
ection 10 - Seism
Upd
dated 22 April 2015
10-41
IS
SBN 978-0-4
473-26634-9
9
Seismic
c Assessment of
10.3.3
Diaphra
agms
The timberr diaphragm

ms common
nly used in URM builldings are generally
g
fleexible, whiich
may resultt in large diaphragm
d
displacemeents during an earthqu
uake. Thesee will impo
ose
large displlacement deemand on th
he adjoiningg face-load
ded walls, which
w
couldd lead them to
fail (Figuree 10.31).
Figure
e 10.31: Outt-of-plane wall
w failure d ue to exces
ssive roof diaphragm m ovement
(Dizhur et al, 2011)
Figure 10.32 shows a photograp

ph of delam
mination off plaster duee to interacction betweeen
wall and ceeiling due too shear tran
nsfer.
Figure 10
0.32: Lath an
nd plaster ceiling. Note
e that stresses where sh
hears are traansmitted to
o
the wall have
h
caused
d the plasterr to delaminate from the
e timber lath
h.
In some caases, diaphrragm and sh

hear-wall acccelerationss can increaase with thee flexibility of
the diaphraagm (Tena-C
Colunga & Abrams, 19996).
10.3.4
Connec
ctions
10.3.4.1 Generall
The follow
wing types of damage to wall-ddiaphragm connection
ns have beeen postulatted
(Campbell et al, 2012) the first four were actuaally observ
ved during the 2010//11
Canterburyy earthquake sequence::
punchinng shear faiilure of massonry
yield or rupture off connector rod
rupturee at join betw
ween conneector rod annd joist platee
Section 10 - Se
eismic Assessm
ment of Unreinfo
orced Masonry B
Buildings
Updated 22 April 20
015
10
0-42
ISBN 978--0-473-26634
4-9
Seismic As
ssessment of U
Unreinforced Ma
asonry Buildingss
splitting of
o joist or sttringer
failure off fixing at jo
oist
splitting or
o fracture of
o anchor pllate
yield or ruupture at th
hreaded nut.
10
0.3.4.2 Wall
W to wa
all conne
ections
Connections between th
he face-loadded and retu
urn walls will
w open (i..e. there is return walll
seeparation) after
a
a few
w initial cyycles of sh
haking (Fig
gure 10.33)) because of
o stiffnesss
inncompatibiliity between
n stiff in-plaane and flex
xible face-lo
oaded wallss and a natu
ural dilationn
off a wall annd pier asseembly workking in plaane. This leeads to losss of flange effect andd
sooftening of the
t building
g, resulting in a changee in dynamic characterristics of the walls andd
piiers. The inntegrity of connectionn between wall at jun
nctions andd corners depends
d
onn
boonding betw
ween orthog
gonal walls.
W
While return wall separaation can caause significcant damagee to the buillding fabricc it does nott
neecessarily constitute
c
siignificant sstructural damage.
d
Thiis is providded the waall elementss
haave adequaate out-of-p
plane capaacity to sp
pan verticallly and the
here are en
nough walll
diiaphragm tiees.
(a) Vertic
cal cracks (D
Dmytro Dizh
hur)
(b
b) Corner ve
ertical splittting where walls
w
poorly
y
keyed in ttogether
unctions
Figure 10.3
33: Damage
e to in-plane
e and face-lo
oaded wall ju
10
0.3.4.3 Wall
W to flo
oor/wall tto roof connectio
ons
Faailure of rosettes,
r
rup
pture of aanchor barss and puncching shearr failure of
o the walll
w
was commonnly observeed followiing the 2010/11
2
Caanterbury earthquakee sequencee
(F
Figure 10.344). This faiilure mode is characterised by failure of thee mortar bed and headd
jooints in a maanner that trraces a failuure surface around the perimeter oof the ancho
or plate. Forr
Se
ection 10 - Seism
Upd
dated 22 April 2015
10-43
3
IS
SBN 978-0-4
473-26634-9
9
Seismic
c Assessment of
multi-wythhe walls thee head joints will not bbe in alignm

ment and, ass for a concrrete punchiing
shear failuure, it is posssible that the
t failure ssurface on the
t interior surface of the wall may
m
cover a brooader area.
Figurre 10.34: Pla

ate anchor on
o verge of punching shear failure (Dizhur et aal, 2011)
Testing at the Universsity of Auck

kland (Cam
mpbell et al., 2012) has shown that anchor plattes
may exhibbit a varietyy of differeent failure modes (reffer to Figu
ures 10.35 aand 10.36 for
f
examples) so their conndition shou
uld be consiidered careffully.
(a
a) Location of failure modes
m
(b
b) Compone
ents of the cconnection
assembly
a
Figu
ure 10.35: Wall-diaphrag
W
gm anchor p
plate failure modes (Campbell et all., 2012)
(a) Sample 1-02: Fa

ailure
where prreviously ne
ecked
(b) Samplle 2-01: Britttle

failure of anchor platte
Section 10 - Se
eismic Assessm
ment of Unreinfo
orced Masonry B
Buildings
Updated 22 April 20
015
(c) Sample 22-02: Brittle

failure where cconnector ro
od
was
w fixed to
o joist plate
10
0-44
ISBN 978--0-473-26634
4-9
Seismic As
ssessment of U
Unreinforced Ma
asonry Buildingss
((d) Sample 3:
3 Failure wh
here
previou
usly necked
((e) Sample 4:
4 Failure at
threaded
d region
(f) S
Sample 6: Failure
F
at
threaded re
egion
Figure 10
0.36: Observ
ved failure m
modes from
m tensile testt series (Cam
mpbell et al., 2012)
A
Adhesive annchorages have beenn a popular form of
o anchoraage for many years..
Thhese typicallly involve a threadedd rod being chemicallly set intoo a drilled hole usingg
eiither grout or
o epoxy adhesive.
a
U
Unfortunatelly, there haave been nnumerous observationss
earthquakee sequencee
off failed adhhesive anch
horages folllowing thee 2010/11 Canterbury
C
(F
Figure 10.377). Reasons for this incclude:
Their usee in regionss expected to be loadeed in flexural tension during an earthquakee
(such as on
o the rear surface of a parapet th
hat may top
pple forwardd onto the street)
s
thee
brick worrk was likelly to crack iin the vicin
nity of the anchorages aand cause th
hem to fail,,
even if thhe adhesive had been pllaced effecttively.
Incorrect installation
n examp les includeed cases off insufficiennt or absen
nt adhesive,,
ole had not bbeen sufficiently clearred of brickk dust from the drillingg
where thee drilled ho
operationn so there was
w inadequ
quate bond to the brick surface, or where the
t insertedd
anchorage was of inssufficient leength.
Anchors that were adequately
a
sset into a brrick but thee secured brrick had faiiled in bed-joint sheear around its perimeeter. As a result, only
y the indivvidual bricck was leftt
connectedd to the anchorage, whhile the remaainder of thee brickworkk had failed.
Figure 10.37: Failed a

adhesive brick anchors (Dizhur et aal., 2013)
10.3.5
W
Walls
subjected to face loads
l
Out-of-plane wall collap

pse under fface load iss one of th
he major cau
auses of desstruction off
m
masonry builldings, partiicularly wh en a timberr floor and roof
r
are suppported by these
t
walls..
Thhe seismic performanc
p
e of the UR
RM face-loaaded walls depends
d
on tthe type of diaphragm,,
peerformance of wall-diaaphragm coonnections and the waall-wall connnection. Fiigure 10.388
Se
ection 10 - Seism
Upd
dated 22 April 2015
10-45
5
IS
SBN 978-0-4
473-26634-9
9
illustrates the response of face-loaded walls to the type of diaphragm and wall-diaphragm
connections.
Figure 10.38: Effect of types of diaphragm on face-loaded walls a) inferior wall-to-wall

connection and no diaphragm, b) good wall-to-wall connection and ring beam with flexible
diaphragm, c) good wall-to-wall connection and rigid diaphragm
Figures 10.39 and 10.40 show images of damage to masonry buildings due to collapse of
walls under face load.
Figure 10.39: Out-of-plane instability of wall under face load due to a lack of ties between
the face-loaded wall and rest of the structure (Richard Sharpe)
Gable end walls sit at the top of walls at the end of buildings with pitched roofs. If this
triangular portion of the wall is not adequately attached to the roof or ceiling, it will rock as
a free cantilever (similar to a chimney or parapet) so is vulnerable to collapse. This is one
of the common types of out-of-plane failure of gable walls (Figure 10.40).

10-46
ISBN 978-0-473-26634-9
Seismic As
ssessment of U
Unreinforced Ma
asonry Buildingss
Figure 10.4
40: Collapse
e of gable wa
all. Note a secured
s
gab
ble end that ssurvived ea
arthquake
loading and
d a companion failed ga
able end tha
at was not secured
s
(Ing
gham & Grifffith, 2011)
Cavity wall construction

c
n can be paarticularly vulnerable
v
to
t face-loadding. Severre structurall
daamage and major
m
collaapse of URM
M buildingss with this type of consstruction waas observedd
duuring the 2010/2011 Canterburry earthquaake inspecttions (Figuure 10.41) and theirr
peerformance was signifiicantly worrse than soliid URM construction iin resisting earthquakee
foorces.
Fig
gure 10.41: F
Failure of UR
RM cavity walls
w
(Dizhurr)
Thhe veneers of cavity wall

w construcction also have the poteential to toppple during earthquakee
shhaking (Figuure 10.41). Toppling iss typically attributed
a
to
o the walls high slendeerness ratio,,
deeteriorated condition
c
of the ties, ooverly flexib
ble ties, pulll-out of tiees from the mortar bedd
jooints due to weak mortaar, or a totall absence off ties.
Inn multi-storeey building
gs the out-off-plane colllapse of walls is more pronounced
d at the topp
flooor level. This
T is due to
t the lack oof overburd
den load on the walls annd amplification of thee
eaarthquake shhaking theree (Figure 100.29).
Se
ection 10 - Seism
Upd
dated 22 April 2015
10-47
7
IS
SBN 978-0-4
473-26634-9
9
Seismic
c Assessment of
10.3.6
Walls subjected
s
d to in-p
plane loa
ads
Damage too URM walls due to in

n-plane seism
mic effects (in the direection of thee wall lengtth)
is less signnificant thann damage due
d to out-oof-plane seissmic effectss. In additioon, the stocky
elements inn URM (waalls, piers an
nd spandrelss) usually make
m
these structures
s
m
more forgiviing
of distress in individuual elementss than the sskeletal stru
uctures of modern
m
fram
med building
gs;
principallyy, because the spectrral displaceements are small com
mpared to the memb
ber
dimensionss. Nevertheless, some failure
f
moddes are less acceptable
a
than
t
others.
In general,, the preferrred failure modes
m
are rrocking or sliding of walls
w
or inddividual pieers.
These moddes have thhe capacity to sustain hhigh levels of resistan
nce during llarge inelasstic
straining. F
For examplee, sliding diisplacementts at the basse of a wall can be toleerated becau
use
the wall is unlikely to become un
nstable due tto the shearr displacemeents.
Masonry w
walls are either unpeneetrated or ppenetrated. A penetrateed wall connsists of pieers
between oopenings pllus a portio
on below oopenings (ssill masonrry) and aboove openin
ngs
(spandrel m
masonry). When
W
subjeected to in--plane earth
hquake shak
king, masonnry walls and
a
piers may demonstrate diagonal tension
t
craccking, rockiing, toe cru
ushing, slidin
ing shear, orr a
combinatioon of these. Similarly, the spandreels may dem
monstrate diiagonal tenssion crackin
ng,
unit crackiing or jointt sliding. Figure
F
10.422 shows th
he potential failure meechanisms for
f
unpenetrated and peneetrated wallls.
Figure 10.42: In-pla

ane failure m
modes of UR
RM wall (FE
EMA, 1998)
Section 10 - Se
eismic Assessm
ment of Unreinfo
orced Masonry B
Buildings
Updated 22 April 20
015
10
0-48
ISBN 978--0-473-26634
4-9
Rocking of URM piers may result in the crushing of pier end zones and, under sustained
cyclic loading, bricks could delaminate if the mortar is weak. An example of this is shown
in Figure 10.43, where the damage to the building is characterised by the rotation of entire
piers.
Figure 10.43: Rocking and delamination of bricks of a one-storey unreinforced brick

masonry building with reinforced concrete roof slab (Bothara & Hiylmaz, 2008)
Sliding shear can occur along a distinctly defined mortar course (Figure 10.44(a)) or over a
limited length of several adjacent courses, with the length that slides increasing with height
(Figure 10.44(b)). This can often be mistaken for diagonal tension failure, which is less
common in walls with moderate to low axial forces.
(a) Sliding shear failure along a defined plane at first floor level (Dunning Thornton)

10-49
ISBN 978-0-473-26634-9
(b) Stair-step crack sliding, in walls with low axial loads (Bothara)
Figure 10.44: Sliding shear failure in a brick masonry building
Alternatively, masonry piers subjected to shear forces can experience diagonal tension
cracking, also known as X-cracking (Figure 10.45). Diagonal cracks develop when tensile
stresses in the pier exceed the masonry tensile strength, which is inherently very low. This
type of damage is typically observed in long and squat piers and on the bottom storey of
buildings, where gravity loads are relatively large and the mortar is excessively strong.
(a) Diagonal tension cracks to a brick pier. Note splitting of bricks (Dizhur)

10-50
ISBN 978-0-473-26634-9
Seismic As
ssessment of U
Unreinforced Ma
asonry Buildingss
((b) Diagona
al tension crracks to bric
ck masonry.. Note splittiing of brickss, indicative
e of mortar
stronge
er than bricks (Russell 2010)
Figure 10
0.45: Diagon
nal tension cracking
c
Inn the penetrrated walls,, where spaandrels are weaker thaan piers, the
he spandrel may sufferr
caatastrophic damage
d
(Fiigure 10.46)). This coulld turn squaat piers intoo tall piers, resulting inn
a reduction in the overrall wall c apacity and
d an increaase in expeected deflecctions. Thee
inncrease in deflection
d
will
w increasee the fundam
mental perio
od of the buuilding and
d reduce thee
deemands whiich may be a mitigatinng effect. In any event the
t consequuences of faailure of thee
sppandrels, annd the resultting effect oon life safety
y needs to be
b considereed.
A
As noted inn Section 10.2.9, slliding on the DPC layer has also been
n observedd
(F
Figure 10.188).
Figure 10.4
46: Failure of
o spandrels
s. Also note rocking of upper
u
piers and cornerr cracking
e parapet (D
of the
Dmytro Dizh
hur)
Se
ection 10 - Seism
Upd
dated 22 April 2015
10-51
IS
SBN 978-0-4
473-26634-9
9
Seismic
c Assessment of
10.3.7
Second
dary com
mponentts/elements
The instabbility of parrapets and chimneys iis caused by these elements actinng as rockiing
cantileverss. which can
c
topple when suff
fficiently acccelerated (Figure 100.47). Bracced
chimneys and paraapets also failed duuring the Canterbury
y earthquaake sequen
nce
(Ismail, 20012). Possibble reasons include:
i
Bracingg to the rooof caused co
oupling withh the verticaal response modes
m
of thhe roof trussses
where tthe roof struucture was flexible.
f
Ties tyying the parrapets to th
he wall beloow the diap
phragm lev
vel did not exist or weere
deficiennt.
Strengtthening staandards weere low (uuntil 2004 the generral requirem
ment was to
strengthhen URM buildings
b
to two thirds of NZSS 19
900 (Chapteer 8), 1965)).
Spacing between lateral
l
support points tooo large.
High vvertical acceelerations.
bility betweeen support points (Fig
gure 10.47(bb)).
Lack of deformation compatib
(a) Out-off-plane insta

ability of parrapet (Beca))
(b) Chimney at onset

o
of falli ng ( Dizhur))
Figure 10.4
47: Seconda
ary compone
ents/elemen
nts
Canopies ccan be both beneficial and

a detrimeental in relattion to life safety
s
(Figuure 10.48):
They aare often huung off the face of thee buildingss so column
ns supportinng their outer
edge ddo not obstrruct the foo
otpath or rooadway. When subjectt to vertical
al loads, theese
diagonal hangers act to pry th
he outer layyers of bricck off the faace of the bbuilding at the
t
connecction point.
Howevver, if they are sufficiiently robusst in their decking an
nd fixings oor if they are
a
proppeed, they can provide ov
verhead prottection by taaking at leaast the first iimpact of any
a
falling objects.
Section 10 - Se
eismic Assessm
ment of Unreinfo
orced Masonry B
Buildings
Updated 22 April 20
015
10
0-52
ISBN 978--0-473-26634
4-9
Seismic As
ssessment of U
Unreinforced Ma
asonry Buildingss
Figure 10
0.48: Face-lo
oad failure o
of URM faade exacerba
ated by outw
ward loadings from
downw
ward force on
n canopy. N
Note the adja
acent propp
ped canopy did not collapse.
(Dunning Thornton)
T
10.3.8
P
Pounding
g
Thhis failure mechanism

m only occuurs in row--type construction (reffer to Section 10.5.4))
w
where there is
i insufficieent space beetween adjaacent buildin
ngs so they pound into
o each otherr
w
when vibratiing laterally
y during ann earthquak
ke. Many ex
xamples off pounding damage too
U
URM buildinngs were observed
o
foollowing thee 2010/11 Canterburyy earthquak
ke sequencee
(F
Figure 10.499).
Figure 1
10.49: Pound
ding failure (Cole)
Thhe magnitudde of pound

ding dependds upon the floor align
nment betweeen adjacen
nt buildings,,
thhe difference in stiffnesss between the buildin
ngs, the pou
unding surfaace, floor weights,
w
andd
cllearance of structural
s
seeparation beetween adjaacent buildin
ngs if separration is pro
ovided.
Se
ection 10 - Seism
Upd
dated 22 April 2015
10-53
3
IS
SBN 978-0-4
473-26634-9
9
Seismic
c Assessment of
10.3.9
Founda
ations an
nd geote
echnical failure
Foundationn damage thhat can be seen by insppection is co

ommonly frrom lateral sspreading and
a
differentiall settlementt. URM builldings typiccally have no
n tying capacity at fouundation lev
vel,
so they spplit at the weakest
w
po
oint along a wall. Faailure is often
o
an exttremely larrge
displacemeent (Figure 10.50). Ho
owever, givven the slow
wer and non
n-cyclic natture of lateral
spreading, this is lesss likely to induce acttual collapsse until exttreme displlacements are
a
reached.
(a) L
Large diago
onal cracks and
a lateral m
movement of
o the acces
ss ramp cau
used by
ground movement
(b) Settlem
ment and late
eral spread towards riv
ver
Figure 10.5
50: Earthquake-induced
d geotechniical damage
e to URM buildings (Neiill et al., 2014)
10.4
Factorrs Affec
cting Se
eismic Perform
P
mance o
of URM
Buildin
ngs
10.4.1
Numbe
er of cyclles and d
duration
n of shak
king
The strenggth and stifffness of UR

RM degradees rapidly with
w an incrreasing num
mber of cyclles
and the duuration of ground
g
shaaking (Figur
ure 10.51). In general, a numberr of cycles of
moderate accelerationn sustained
d over timee can be much
m
moree difficult for an UR
RM
building to withstand than a single, muuch larger peak accelleration (FE
EMA, 2006).
Similarly, damage froom higher acceleration
a
n, shorter period groun
nd shaking from shallo
ow
Section 10 - Se
eismic Assessm
ment of Unreinfo
orced Masonry B
Buildings
Updated 22 April 20
015
10
0-54
ISBN 978--0-473-26634
4-9
Seismic As
ssessment of U
Unreinforced Ma
asonry Buildingss
eaarthquakes could be co
onsiderablyy greater thaan from deeep earthquaakes. This could
c
affectt
stiffer URM buildings
b
faar more thann flexible frrame and tim
mber structuures.
(a) Po
ost-Septemb
ber 2010 eve
ent minor
visib
ble damage
(b) Post-Februa
P
ary 2011 event wall
section on verge of failure
st-June 2011
1 event wa
all collapse
(c) Pos
Figure 10.5
51: Progressive damag
ge and effect of shaking
g duration 2010/11 Ca
anterbury
earthqua
ake sequenc
ce (Dmytro Dizhur)
D
N
Note:
Thhe assessm
ment of dam
maged builldings is ou
utside the scope of tthese Guid
delines, andd
thherefore progressive deterioration aafter the maain event is not consideered. It is asssumed thatt
thhe building will
w have beeen approprriately stabiilised if thiss had been rrequired aftter the mainn
evvent.
10.4.2
O
Other
key
y factors
s
10
0.4.2.1 General
G
Other key facctors affectiing the seism
mic perform
mance of UR
RM buildinggs include:
f
building form
nents
unrestrainned compon
connectioons
wall slendderness
diaphragm
m deficiency
in-plane walls
w
foundatioons
redundanncy
quality off constructio
on and alterrations, and
maintenannce.
Se
ection 10 - Seism
Upd
dated 22 April 2015
10-55
5
IS
SBN 978-0-4
473-26634-9
9
Seismic
c Assessment of
10.4.2.2 Building
g form
A structuraally irregulaar building suffers moore damage than a regular buildinng because of
the concenntration of both force and displaacement demands on certain com
mponents. An
A
example off this is buiildings alon
ng urban strreets where the faadess facing thee street can be
highly pennetrated, with relatively
y narrow ppiers betweeen openingss, and the bbottom storrey
could be tootally openn. This conffiguration ccould imposse significan
nt torsionall demand and
a
soft/weak storey mechanism. Th
his can resuult in increaased displaccement dem
mand and may
m
lead to colllapse.
10.4.2.3 Unrestrrained co
omponentts
Instability of parapetts and chim
mneys is caaused by th
heir low ben
nding strenngth and hiigh
imposed acccelerationss. When sub
bject to seissmic action
ns, they rock
k on their suupports at the
t
roof line annd can toppple over wheen sufficienntly acceleraated by an earthquake.
10.4.2.4 Connec
ctions
URM builddings can show signifiicant resilieence to seism
mic shaking
g as long ass the buildiing
and its coomponents can
c maintain their inttegrity. Thee wall-diaphragm anchhors serve to
reduce the vertical sleenderness of
o a wall annd also to make
m
the bu
uilding comp
mponents wo
ork
together ass a whole, rather than as
a independdent parts. However,
H
on
ne of the moost significaant
deficienciees in URM
M buildings in New Z
Zealand is the lack of adequate connection
ns;
particularlyy those betw
ween walls and diaphraagms.
10.4.2.5 Wall sle

endernes
ss
Unreinforcced face-looaded maso
onry walls are weak
k in out-off-plane bennding so are
a
susceptiblee to out-of-pplane failures. The eartthquake vullnerability of
o a URM w
wall to out-o
ofplane bendding is preddominantly dictated byy its slenderrness (the raatio betweeen thicknessses
to span off wall). Cavvity walls are
a especiallly vulnerab
ble as the steel
s
ties coonnecting the
t
exterior wyythes to the backing waall can be w
weakened by
y corrosion.
10.4.2.6 Diaphra
agm defic
ciency
Diaphragm
ms act as a lid to a box and are esssential for ty
ying the waalls togetherr and ensuriing
that laterall loads are trransferred to
t the lateraal load-resisting elemen
nts. If diaphhragms are too
t
flexible, thheir abilityy to do thiis is comppromised. Excessive
E
diaphragm
d
displacemeent
imposes laarge displaccement dem
mand on w
walls, particu
ularly on face-loaded
fa
walls, whiich
could resullt in wall coollapse.
10.4.2.7 In-plane
e walls
These walls provide global stren
ngth and sttiffness against earthqu
uake load. T
Their seism
mic
performancce is definned by: the slendernesss of walls and piers; vertical looad; size and
a
location off penetrationns; relative strength beetween morttar and massonry units; and presen
nce
of bond beeams, built-iin timber an
nd DPC.
10.4.2.8 Foundations
Foundationn flexibilityy and deform
mation affeect the locall and global earthquakke response of
URM builldings. How
wever, foun
ndations teend to be quite
q
toleraant to defoormations and
a
building faailure is rarrely caused
d by groundd settlementt unless thee ground unnderneath the
t
building lliquefies orr suffers lateral
l
spreeading. Fou
undation effects or ssoil structu
ure
interactionn tend to redduce the force demand on the prim
mary lateral--force-resistting elemen
nts,
Section 10 - Se
eismic Assessm
ment of Unreinfo
orced Masonry B
Buildings
Updated 22 April 20
015
10
0-56
ISBN 978--0-473-26634
4-9
Seismic As
ssessment of U
Unreinforced Ma
asonry Buildingss
suuch as stifff in-plane lo

oaded wallss. At the saame time, ground defformation can pose ann
addditional rottational dem
mand on thee bottom sto
orey wall under face looad. The baase fixity off
thhe wall needds to be considered caarefully as do
d the cond
ditions at thhe wall base that havee
acccumulated over the bu
uildings liffe (such as underminin
u
g by brokenn drains, claay heave orr
allteration of the surroun
nding soil oor levels), and
a if thesee have channged with earthquakee
innduced liqueefaction.
Exxisting highh bearing pressures rrequire careeful consid
deration witth respect to possiblee
liqquefaction-iinduced setttlements. S
Settlement of long so
olid walls iis often no
ot a criticall
coonsiderationn for a URM
M building as the upper floors an
nd roof fram
me into the walls withh
piin connections. How
wever, careeful consid
deration off the induuced damag
ge to anyy
peerpendicular/abutting walls
w
is esseential. For taller walls, ratchetingg down with
h cyclic in-pllane actionss may be a consideratioon (refer Seection 14). With
W little oor no reinfo
orcement inn
thhe footings (or
( ground slabs
s
if pressent), there will be littlee resistancee to lateral spreading orr
grround lurch, so vulneraability to theese induced
d displacemeents should be assessed
d.
10
0.4.2.9 Redundan
R
ncy
Redundancy of a buildin
ng refers to the alternaative load paaths able to add to resistance. Thee
abbility to redistribute
demands through a secondarry load paath is an importantt
r
coonsiderationn, as a building with llow redund
dancy will be
b susceptibble to total collapse iff
onnly one of itts structurall elements ffails.
10
0.4.2.10 Quality
Q
off constru
uction and alterations
U
URM buildinngs in New
w Zealand reepresent an
n old buildin
ng stock whhich has go
one throughh
m
many changees of occup
pancy. As a result, th
here may haave been a number of structurall
m
modificationss at differen
nt times whiich may nott have been
n well considdered, such as openingg
neew penetrattions in walls and diaphhragms, rem
moving exissting compoonents and adding
a
new
w
coomponents. Such alteraations will aaffect seism
mic performaance.
10
0.4.2.11 Maintena
M
nce
Older buildings that have
h
been insufficienttly maintain
ned will hhave reduceed materiall
strrength due to weathering (Figuree 10.52), co
orrosion of cavity
c
ties ((Figure 10.53), rottingg
off timber annd other pro
ocesses thaat weaken masonry,
m
connection ccapability, timber andd
reeinforced cooncrete mem
mbers. Simillarly, waterr penetration
n in lime-baased masonry will leadd
too leaching of lime from
m the mortarr.
Figure 10.52: Se
everely degrraded bricks
s and morta
ar due to mo
oisture ingre
ess
(In
ngham & Grriffith, 2011)
Se
ection 10 - Seism
Upd
dated 22 April 2015
10-57
7
IS
SBN 978-0-4
473-26634-9
9
Seismic
c Assessment of
The metalllic cavity tiies used in the originaal constructtion of URM

M cavity w
walls typically
have no coorrosion prootection so are
a prone to severe deteerioration (F
Figure 10.533).
Figure 10.53: Metal ca

avity ties in rusted cond
dition (Dizhu
ur et al, 201 1)
10.5
Assessment Approa
A
ach
10.5.1
Genera
al
The assesssment of UR
RM buildin
ngs requiress an understtanding of the
t likely bbehaviour off a
number off building coomponents and
a how theese are likelly to interacct with eachh other.
The naturee of the consstruction off this type off building means
m
that each
e
buildinng is unique in
terms of coonstruction, quality of the
t originall workmansh
hip and currrent conditiion.
It is, thereefore, conssidered imp
portant thatt assessors of this typ
pe of buildding have an
appreciatioon of how thhese buildin
ngs were coonstructed, their
t
current condition,, the observ
ved
behaviour of similar buildings
b
in
n previous earthquakes and a hollistic view of the facto
ors
likely to affect their seismic performannce. Thesee issues haave been discussed in
a
10.4 which
w
are considered
d to be esssential readding prior to
Sections 100.2, 10.3 and
progressingg through thhe assessmeent processees outlined in
i this section.
It is a geneeral recomm
mendation of these guiddelines that the capacity
y of a buildding should be
consideredd independeently from the demandds (imposed
d inertial lo
oads and di
displacemen
nts)
placed on iit, bringing both togeth
her only in tthe final steep of the asssessment prrocess. Thiss is
no differennt for URM
M buildingss and is thhe basis beh
hind the reecommendeed assessmeent
processes ooutlined bellow.
Past obserrvations in earthquakes indicate tthat some components
c
s of URM buildings are
a
particularlyy vulnerablle to earthq
quake shakking and a hierarchy in vulneraability can be
identified that can bee useful in guiding thhe assessmeent processs. Figure 100.54 showss a
capacity chain for a typical URM
U
buildding with component
c
vulnerabilitty decreasing
from left too right on thhe chain. The capacityy of the buillding will be limited byy the capacity
of the weaakest link inn the chain
n, and the aability of eaach compon
nent to fullly develop its
capacity w
will typicallyy be depend
dent on the performancce of compo
onents to thhe left of it on
the chain. This suggeests that the assessment
nt of component capaciities shouldd also proceeed
from left too right in Fiigure 10.54..
Section 10 - Se
eismic Assessm
ment of Unreinfo
orced Masonry B
Buildings
Updated 22 April 20
015
10
0-58
ISBN 978--0-473-26634
4-9
Seismic As
ssessment of U
Unreinforced Ma
asonry Buildingss
F
Figure 10.54
4: The capac
city chain and hierarc
chy of URM building co
omponent vu
ulnerability
W
While the criitical structu
ural weakneess in a stru
uctural system will oftten be readiily apparentt
(ee.g. lack of any
a positivee ties from brick walls to floors/ro
oof) it will ggenerally be necessaryy
too evaluate thhe capacity
y of each linnk in the ch
hain to fully inform onn the comp
ponents thatt
reequire retroffit and the liikely cost oof this.
U
URM buildinngs come in
i different configurations, sizes and compllexity. While complexx
buuildings maay require a first-princiiples approaach to the assessment oof componeent capacityy
annd internal actions within
w
compponents, simplification
ns are posssible for more
m
basicc
strructures. Guidance
G
iss provided for both the detailed
d completee solutions and basicc
soolutions for common siimple buildiings.
Inn Section 100.5.2 the asssessment prrocess, as it applies to URM
U
builddings, is disccussed withh
paarticular em
mphasis on how
h
the appproach migh
ht be varied
d dependingg on the com
mplexity off
thhe buildingg. The asssessment ap
approach will
w
also be
b influencced by any
y previouss
strrengtheningg (Section 10.5.3), annd its locattion (includ
ding when it is a row buildingg
(S
Section 10.55.4)).
Se
ection 10 - Seism
Upd
dated 22 April 2015
10-59
9
IS
SBN 978-0-4
473-26634-9
9
Seismic
c Assessment of
10.5.2
Assess
sment prrocess
Key steps involved inn the assesssment of U

URM buildin
ngs are sho
own in Figuure 10.55 and
a
described bbelow.
STEP1
Ga
ather documentation (Section 10
0.6)
STEP2
Dec
cide on leve
el of assess
sment base
ed on
build
ding compllexity
STEP3
On
n-site inves
stigations (Section 10
0.6)
STEP4
Asse
ess materia
al propertie
es (Section
n 10.7)
Iden
ntify potenttial structurral weakne
esses
(SWs)
STEP5
Orde
er potentia
al SWs in te rms of exp
pected
vulnerab
bility (Sectio
on 10.5.1)
STEP6
Assess co
omponent capacities
(S
Section 10..8)
STEP7
A
Analyse
the
e structure to
t determin
ne
relattionship be
etween com
mponent ac
ctions
a global capacity (S
and
Section 10.9
9)
STEP8
As
ssess globa
al capacity (Section 10.9)
D
Determine
d
demands
(S
Section 10.1
10)
STEP9
De termine %N
NBS
STEP10
Reporting
g
Fig
gure 10.55: Assessmen
A
nt process fo
or URM buildings
Section 10 - Se
eismic Assessm
ment of Unreinfo
orced Masonry B
Buildings
Updated 22 April 20
015
10
0-60
ISBN 978--0-473-26634
4-9
Step 1 Gather documentation
Collect relevant information and documents about the building including drawings,
design feature reports, calculations and specifications, and any historical material test
results and inspection reports (if available).
If the building has been previously altered or strengthened, collect all available
drawings, calculations and specifications of this work.
Study this information before proceeding with the on-site investigation.
Step 2 Consider building complexity
Determine an assessment strategy based on an initial appraisal of the complexity of the

building. This can be reviewed as the assessment progresses.
Although all aspects will need to be considered for all buildings, simplifications can be
made for basic buildings e.g. one or two storey commercial, rectangular in plan. For
these buildings the default material strengths are expected to be adequate without
further consideration so that on-site testing, other than scratch testing of the bed joints
to ascertain mortar type and quality, is not considered necessary. Foundation rotations
are also not expected to have a significant effect so can be ignored.
Concentration of effort should be on assessing the score for face-loaded walls,
connections from the walls to the diaphragms and the diaphragms (lateral deflection
between supported walls). The score for the walls in plane will depend on the ability
(stiffness) of the diaphragm to transfer the shears but the calculations required are
likely to be simple irrespective of whether the diaphragms are rigid (concrete) or
flexible (timber, steel braced). Behaviour can be assumed to be linear-elastic (ie ignore
any non-linear behaviour).
Complexity is likely to be increased if a building has previously been retrofitted. Not
all issues with the building will necessarily have been addressed in historical retrofits.
Stiffness compatibility issues will often not have been considered or fully addressed.
Step 3 Investigate on-site
Refer Section 10.6.

Evaluate how well the documentation describes the as constructed and, where
appropriate, the as strengthened building.
Carry out a condition assessment of the existing building.
Complete any on-site retrieval of samples and test these.
Identify any site conditions that could potentially affect the building performance.
(Refer Section 14).
Step 4 Assign material properties
Start by using the probable material properties that are provided in Section 10.8, or
establish actual probable values through intrusive testing (this may be a step you come
back to depending on the outcome of your assessment).
Recognise that for basic buildings obtaining building-specific material strengths
through testing may not be necessary to complete an assessment.

10-61
ISBN 978-0-473-26634-9
Step 5 Identify potential structural weaknesses and relative vulnerability
The first step is to identify all of the various components in the building and then to
identify potential SWs related to these.
The identification of potential SWs in this type of building requires a good
understanding of the issues discussed in Sections 10.2, 10.3 and 10.4.
Early recognition of SWs and their relative vulnerability and interdependence is likely
to reduce assessment costs and focus the assessment effort.
Prior experience is considered essential when identifying the SWs in complex
buildings.
Separate the various components into those that are part of the primary lateral load
resisting system and those that are not (secondary components). Some components may
be categorised as having both a primary lateral load resisting function (e.g. in-plane
walls and shear connections to diaphragms) and a secondary function (e.g. face-loaded
walls and supporting connections).
The relative vulnerability of various components in typical URM buildings is likely to
be (refer also Figure 10.54):
- Inadequately restrained elements located at height; such as street-facing faades,
unrestrained parapets, chimneys, ornaments and gable end walls. Collapse of these
components may not lead to building collapse but they are potential life-safety
hazards and therefore their performance must be reflected in the overall building
score.
- Inadequate connection between face-loaded walls and floors/roof; little or no
connection capacity will mean that the walls will not be laterally supported when
the inertial wall forces are in a direction away from the building and then it can be
easily concluded that the walls and/or connections will be unlikely to score above
34%NBS, except perhaps in low-seismic regions. If observations indicate
reasonable diaphragm action from the floors and/or roof, adequate connections will
mean that the out-of-plane capacity of the face-loaded walls may now become the
limiting aspect.
- Out-of-plane instability of face-loaded walls. If the wall capacity is sufficient to
meet the requirements set out for face-loaded walls, then the capacity of the
diaphragms becomes important as the diaphragms are required to transfer the
seismic loads from the face-loaded walls into the in-plane walls.
- The in-plane capacity of walls: these are usually the least vulnerable components.
Step 6 Assess component capacities
Calculate the seismic capacities from the most to the least vulnerable component, in
turn. There may be little point in expending effort on refining existing capacities only
to find that the capacity is significantly influenced by a more vulnerable item that will
require addressing to meet earthquake-prone requirements or target performance levels.
Connections from brick walls to floors/roof diaphragms are an example of this. Lack of
ties in moderate to high seismic areas will invariably result in an earthquake-prone
status for the masonry wall and therefore it may be more appropriate and useful to
assess the wall as < 34%NBS and also calculate a capacity assuming ties are in place.
This will inform on the likely effect of retrofit measures.
A component may consist of a number of individual elements. For example, the
capacity of a penetrated wall (a component) loaded in-plane will need to consider the

10-62
ISBN 978-0-473-26634-9
likely behaviour of each of the piers and the spandrel regions between and above and
below the openings respectively (the elements). For some components the capacity will
be a function of the capacity of individual elements and the way in which the elements
act together. To establish the capacity of a component may therefore require structural
analysis of the component to determine the manner in which actions in the elements
develop.
For each component assess whether or not exceeding its capacity (this may be more
easily conceptualised as failure for these purposes) would lead to a life safety issue. If
it is determined that it will not, then that component can be neglected in the assessment
of the expected seismic performance of the structure. The same decisions may need to
be made regarding the performance of elements within a component.
Step 7 Analyse the global structure
In general, the complexity and extent of the analysis should reflect the complexity of
the building.
Start with analyses of low sophistication, progressing to greater sophistication only as
necessary.
An analysis of the primary lateral load resisting structure will be required to determine
the relationship between the global capacity and the individual component actions.
The analysis undertaken will need to recognise that the capacity of components will not
be limited to consideration of elastic behaviour. Elastic linear analysis will likely be the
easiest to carry out but the assessor must recognise that restricting to elastic behaviour
will likely lead to a conservatively low assessment score.
The analysis will need to consider the likely impacts of plan eccentricities (mass,
stiffness and/or strength).
Step 8 Assess global capacity
From the structural analyses determine the global capacity of the building. This will be
the capacity of the building as a whole determined at the point that the most critical
component of the primary lateral load resisting system reaches its determined capacity.
It may also be useful to determine the global capacity assuming successive critical
components are addressed (retrofitted). This will inform on the extent of retrofit that
would be required to achieve a target score.
Step 9 Determine the demands and %NBS
Determine the global demand for the building from Section 5 and assess the global
%NBS (global capacity/ global demand x 100).
Assess the demands on secondary components and parts of the building and assess
%NBS for each (capacity/demand x 100).
List the %NBS values in a table.
The CSW will be the item in the table with the lowest %NBS score and that %NBS
becomes the score for the building.
Review the items in the %NBS table to confirm that all relate to elements, the failure of
which would lead to a life safety issue. If not, revise the assessment to remove the
non-life safety element from consideration.

10-63
ISBN 978-0-473-26634-9
Seismic
c Assessment of
Step 10
Reportin
ng
Refer S
Section 12.
10.5.3
Assess
sment off strengtthened buildings
b
s
Seismic asssessment off URM builldings that ppreviously have

h
been strengthened
s
d is similar to
that underttaken for un-strengthe
u
ned structuures except that the peerformance of previoussly
installed sstrengtheninng compon
nents has to be taken into acccount. (Taable 10.2 in
Section 10.6 providess a detailed list of streengthening techniques used in UR
RM buildin
ngs
and associaated featurees.)
Issues requuiring conssideration in
nclude the capacity off the installled elementts, diaphrag
gm
continuity,, and deform
mation com
mpatibility b etween the original an
nd installed strengtheniing
elements.
10.5.3.1 Wall-to--diaphrag
gm ancho
ors
The effectiiveness of existing
e
walll-to-diaphraagm anchorrs needs to be verified.. Examples of
poorly perrforming annchors that are knownn to have been used in
n previous strengtheniing
projects incclude:
Shallow
w embedmeent grouted
d anchors. A
Anchors insstalled with
h low embeedment deptths
(i.e. lesss than half the wall thiickness) weere observed
d to perform
m poorly undder face loaads
(Moon et al. 2011)).
Grouteed plain rounnd bar anch
hors. Plain rround bars have a low bond streng
ngth comparred
with thhreaded bar or deformed
d reinforcinng bar ancho
ors.
Mechannical expannsion ancho
ors. Mechannical anchorrs do not generally per
erform well in
URM ddue to the low tensile capacity oof masonry and the lim
mited embeedment deptths
that cann be achieved with avaailable mechhanical anch
hors.
d
in Section 10..8.4 can be used for exxisting wall to
The defaullt connectorr strengths detailed
diaphragm
m anchors thhat are in good
g
conditiion and aree known to have been installed and
a
tested in acccordance with
w the requ
uirements oof Appendix
x 10A.
ors of unknnown construction should be prroof tested in
Existing nnon-headed wall ancho
accordancee with the teest procedurres detailedd in Appendix 10A.
Existing heeaded wall anchors sho
ould be testted if there is evidencee of significcant corrosiion
or if anchhor capacitiies greater than the ddefault valu
ues detailed
d in Sectioon 10.8.4 are
a
required.
Existing w
wall-to-diapphragm ancchor conneections thatt rely on cross-grainn bending of
boundary jjoists should be review
wed. Cross--grain bendiing will occcur in the bboundary jo
oist
when face-loaded waalls pull aw
way from suupporting flloor diaphragms for thhe case wh
hen
wall anchoor brackets are not pro
ovided (reffer Figure 10.56).
1
Tim
mber has low
w cross-graain
bending caapacity andd, in many instances, hhas been fo
ound to be inadequatee to resist the
t
necessary sseismic loads in past earthquakes
e
(ICBO, 2000). Capaciity is greatly
ly improved
d if
the ribbon board or soolid blockin
ng is well-coonnected to
o the joists. Where the connection
n is
to a bounddary joist, presence of solid blockiing between
n one or mo
ore pairs off joists shou
uld
be checkedd, with adeqquate connection to thee joists.
Section 10 - Se
eismic Assessm
ment of Unreinfo
orced Masonry B
Buildings
Updated 22 April 20
015
10
0-64
ISBN 978--0-473-26634
4-9
Seismic As
ssessment of U
Unreinforced Ma
asonry Buildingss
Figure 10.5
56: Out-of-plane loading
g cross graiin bending failure
f
mech
hanism (Oliv
ver, 2010)
10
0.5.3.2 Diaphrag
D
m contin
nuity
Detailing of existing strrengthened diaphragms should bee reviewed to ensure that
t
reliablee
looad paths exxist to transffer the inerttia loads fro
om the face-loaded UR
RM walls in
nto the bodyy
off the diaphraagm.
Exxisting nailled plywood sheathingg joints sho
ould not bee relied upoon to transsfer tensionn
foorces unlesss adequate detailing
d
is provided at the joint locations
l
(IC
CBO, 2000
0). The sub-diiaphragm design
d
meth
hodology caan be used to assess existing
e
diaaphragm strrengtheningg
coontinuity (O
Oliver, 201
10), with cchecks theen made to
o assess iff those disscontinuouss
diiaphragms that
t
arise when
w
continnuity is not realized orr is lost cann continue to
t fulfil thee
roole of structuural diaphraagms, even if not origin
nally intend
ded to be disscontinuouss.
10
0.5.3.3 Deformat
D
ion comp
patibility
Fllexible lateeral load reesisting sysstems, such
h as structu
ural steel oor reinforceed concretee
m
moment resissting framess, have beenn used to strrengthen UR
RM building
ngs (Figure 10.26(a)).
1
W
When assesssing the effect of strengtheniing measures such as this, deformation
d
n
coompatibilityy between th
he stiff UR
RM structuree and the more
m
flexiblle lateral loaad resistingg
syystem needss to be consiidered.
A
An understaanding off the nonn-linear strrength-deforrmation reelationship for eachh
strrengtheningg componeent will bee required so that th
his can bee compared
d with thee
reelationships determined
d for the UR
URM compo
onents and other
o
structtural system
ms that mayy
bee present.
ossible to m
mobilise th
he full capaacity of a flexible strrengtheningg
Often it willl not be po
coomponent before
b
the deeformation capacity off the URM is exceededd. An optio
on availablee
iff this foundd will be to
t delete th
the URM from
f
the primary
p
seissmic resisting system
m
(aassuming thhere is confiidence that a life safety
y issue does not arise ffrom the faailure of thee
m
masonry) andd reassess th
he capacity..
Se
ection 10 - Seism
Upd
dated 22 April 2015
10-65
5
IS
SBN 978-0-4
473-26634-9
9
Seismic
c Assessment of
10.5.4
Assess
sment off row buiildings
Row buildings are sim

milar buildin
ngs arrangeed side by siide with inssufficient seeismic gaps to
their neighhbours, often with co
ommon bouundary (parrty) walls: i.e. there is interactiion
between thhe individuual building
gs during a seismic shaking su
uch that theey cannot be
consideredd in isolatioon. Building
gs interconnnected acrosss boundariies should bbe considerred
as one buillding for thee purposes of
o assessmeent.
Note:
The guidannce below has
h been infferred from observed bu
uilding dam
mage only.
The effectt of seismicc shaking on row buuildings is complex
c
bu
ut also onee of the leaast
researchedd topics, paarticularly for
f URM bbuildings. Itt requires a special stu
tudy which is
outside thee scope of thhese guideliines.
The effectss of seismicc shaking du
ue to a lackk of seismic gap can bee both favouurable (for the
t
building w
within the roow) and unffavourable ((for the builldings on th
he ends of thhe row). Bo
oth
of these effects shouuld be accounted for w
when assessing the bu
uildings ovverall seism
mic
performancce. The buuilding or structure wiithin a row
w could beccome an ennd building if
adjacent buuildings aree demolished
d.
Favourablee effects incclude the po
otential for the whole block
b
of row
w buildingss to act as one
o
unit and shhare seismicc loads, and
d buttressingg of central buildings by
b adjacent bbuildings in
na
row or an iisolated building.
Unfavouraable effects include pounding (knnee effect an
nd impact) on verticall load-beariing
elements; tthe loss of which
w
could
d potentiallyy lead to losss of the graavity load paath.
Buildings aat the ends of rows sufffer from tw
wo significaant additional effects. FFirst, they can
c
be subjectt to the ineertia/pounding effects of not just the adjaacent buildiing but som
me
accumulatiion of effeccts along th
he row. Seccond and more
m
importtantly, forcces tend to be
almost uniidirectional, pushing the
t end buuildings off the row. This
T
ratcheeting effect is
particularlyy detrimental to mason
nry structurees where strrains/crack widths accuumulate mu
uch
more quickkly than whhen elements are able to complete a full retu
urn cycle. T
Therefore, the
t
standard pprocedures for
f the asseessment of buildings at
a the ends of rows shhould be ussed
with care aand considerration for th
hese effects .
Note:
These guiddelines recoommend thaat all row efffects on a particular building
b
froom the overrall
structure arre describedd as part off its analysiss and the vu
ulnerabilitiees recorded. A buildin
ng
may be beiing assessedd as if it is on
o one title,, but the building from a structuraal connectivity
point of viiew may exxtend for th
he whole bblock. The connectivity
c
y of the paarts should be
brought to the Buildinng Consent Authority s (BCAs) attention th
hroughout thhe assessmeent
or retrofit consent proocess. Stren
ngthening oone buildin
ng as part of a row w
will reduce the
t
hazard in tthat section,, but the seiismic capaccity of the overall build
ding may stiill remain lo
ow
due to the capacities in
i the remaiinder of thee structure. The legal and compliaance effects of
row buildiings shouldd be discusssed and aggreed with owners and BCAs ass part of any
a
assessmentt process.
Section 10 - Se
eismic Assessm
ment of Unreinfo
orced Masonry B
Buildings
Updated 22 April 20
015
10
0-66
ISBN 978--0-473-26634
4-9
Seismic As
ssessment of U
Unreinforced Ma
asonry Buildingss
10
0.5.4.1 General
G
performa
p
nce
Thhe performaance of row
w buildings ddepends primarily on th
he alignmennt (or otherw
wise) of:
floor diapphragms
faades,
t
bracing
b
elem
ments, when
n situated ag
gainst the booundary, an
nd
primary transverse
common walls
Thhe extent of
o misalignm
ment of flooors increasses the bend
ding effect on structurres that aree
coommon to both
b
buildin
ngs. When tthe extent of
o misalignment is greeater than th
he depth off
thhe floor, sheear failure caan also be innduced.
Often, even if
i floors aree misalignedd, the faad
des are in th
he same plaane (this is common inn
U
URM buildinngs). As a large proporrtion of the mass of the building iis in the faade, it willl
noot participatte in the pou
unding actioon between the misalig
gned floors.
Thhe effect off pounding damage to masonry bu
uildings is generally
g
leess than forr a frame orr
riggid diaphragm building
g as it tendss to be moree localised. Because off the high sttiffness andd
offten low heeight of thesse buildings, the impaact forces arre high freqquency and
d associatedd
w
with small diisplacementts, and therrefore carry
y less energy
y. Faades and other walls
w
in thee
saame alignmeent pound in
n their stronng direction
n. Pounding
g between paarallel walls where thee
poounding eneergy is disp
persed overr a large arrea will hav
ve a smaller
er effect thaan localisedd
puunching.
Inn addition too the above, most URM
M buildingss have timbeer floors whhich have little mass too
caause poundiing. Similarrly, with fleexible diaph
hragms the impact enerrgy is absorrbed over a
laarger displaccement. How
wever, it is important to
t consider that URM iis a brittle material
m
andd
is sensitive too impact. Th
herefore, yoou should asssess if the damage cauused is likelly to lead too
looss of signifficant vertical load-carrrying elemeents.
10
0.5.4.2 Building
B
interconn
i
nection
Iff row builddings are not
n tied toggether, theirr relative displacemen
d
nt should be
b assessedd
t floors, or
o roof elem
ments on th
he commonn
aggainst the leength of deependable sseating of the
w
wall.
Iff they are tied,
t
note th
hat the perrformance of
o elementss that proviide tying between
b
thee
buuildings (annd similarly
y retrofit tties) can be classified
d into threee types: rigid, elasticc
unnbonded, and
a
ductile. Rigid annd elastic unbonded
u
elements trransfer forrce withoutt
diissipation of energy. For elastic uunbonded ellements, if there
t
is suff
fficient strettch to allow
w
thhe relative movement
m
of
o the two sttructures th
heir differen
nt stiffnessess will interaact and willl
innterrupt each others reesonances. Some forcee will also be lost thrrough pounding as thee
ellements retuurn togetherr. Where flooors align, the ties may
y take the fform of sim
mple rods orr
beeams. Where floors misalign,
m
thhese rods/beeams will be
b coupled to a verticcal columnn
ellement whicch will (elasstically) trannsfer the flo
oor force acrross the offs
fset.
Se
ection 10 - Seism
Upd
dated 22 April 2015
10-67
7
IS
SBN 978-0-4
473-26634-9
9
Seismic
c Assessment of
10.6
On-site Inves
stigation
ns
10.6.1
Genera
al
You will nneed to condduct a detailled buildingg inspection

n in order to
o assess exissting buildiing
strength annd before prreparing any
y strengthenning proposal.
Your on-siite investigaation should
d cover thee whole building, payin
ng particulaar attention to
the rear off the buildinng and any hidden areaas. It should
d include, but
b not be llimited to, the
t
following aaspects.
10.6.2
Verify or establish the form

m and connfiguration of the building and componen
nts,
includiing load patths between
n componennts, elementts, and systems. As UR
RM buildin
ngs
may hhave had many
m
chang
ges of occuupancy, theere may bee significannt differencces
betweeen available documentaation and thee actual buiilding. Reco
ord this if soo.
Note thhe number of
o storeys, building
b
dim
mensions and year of constructionn. Your nottes
of buillding dimennsions shou
uld include opening lo
ocations an
nd their dim
mensions, and
a
should identify any discontinu
uities in thee structural system.
s
a materiaal descriptio
on, includin
ng vertical lateral forcceNote thhe structuraal system and
resistinng system, basement
b
an
nd foundatioon system.
Also noote any archhitectural feeatures thatt may affectt earthquakee performannce, includiing
unrestrrained compponents/elem
ments such as parapets or chimney
ys.
Note addjacent builldings and any
a potentiaal for pound
ding and fallling hazardds. (Also reffer
to Secttion 10.5.4 for
f specific implicationns for row buildings.)
b
10.6.3
Form and confiiguration

n
Diaphra
agm and
d connec
ctions
Note thhe diaphragm

m types. Fo
or timber diaaphragms, investigate
i
the
t timber ttype, joist and
a
beam sspacing, andd their connections, meembrane and
d cladding type.
Note thhe presencee of floor and
a roof diaagonal braccing systems and the ddimensions of
these elements.
Examinne wall-diapphragm con
nnections annd anchorage types (m
mechanical, adhesive and
a
plate) tto identify details
d
and condition.
c
Y
You may need to remov
ve floor or cceiling tiles to
investiggate conneections and anchoragge types. Record th
he conditioon of theese
connecctions, any variation in connecction types and otherr features such as any
a
alteratiions or deterrioration.
Note:
If adhesivee anchors are
a used, theese warrantt careful inv
vestigation. In some ccases, a visu
ual
inspection will not be sufficient and
a an on-siite testing programme
p
should
s
be coonsidered.
A dribble of epoxy on
o the wall can indiccate that th
he anchor hole
h
was fillled properrly.
However, iit may also indicate that there are voids betw
ween segmen
nts of adhessive along the
t
length of thhe anchor; or
o that the anchor
a
was iinserted, tak
ken out and
d reinserted.
For poocket type connections

c
s, check if the joists/rrafters/beam
ms are tighttly packed by
masonrry on both sides
s
or if th
here is a gapp on both sides of the jo
oists/rafterss/beams.
Section 10 - Se
eismic Assessm
ment of Unreinfo
orced Masonry B
Buildings
Updated 22 April 20
015
10
0-68
ISBN 978--0-473-26634
4-9
Seismic As
ssessment of U
Unreinforced Ma
asonry Buildingss
When innspecting th
he diaphraagm, note the locatio
on and sizze of the penetrationn
accommoodating stairr or elevatorr access. Sttudies have shown thatt when peneetrations aree
less than 10% of th
he diaphraggm area it is
i appropriaate to reducce in-plane diaphragm
m
stiffness and strengtth in proporrtion to thee reduction in diaphraggm area. Ho
owever, forr
larger diaaphragm peenetrations a special sttudy should
d be undertaaken to establish theirr
influencee on diaphraagm responsse.
Note if thhe diaphrag
gm has prevviously been re-nailed at every naail joint usiing modernn
nails placced by a nail gun or if iit has been varnished.
v
Your asseessment sho
ould also coonsider the quality of the
t fixings from any sheathing
s
too
the suppoorting structure to trannsfer the loaads and preevent bucklling of the diaphragm..
Plaster, especially
e
iff cementitioous, will act to protectt the fixingss. Howeverr, rusting off
nails and screws can
n cause splittting of timb
ber which can
c drasticaally reduce the
t strengthh
of a sarkking board of
o the suppporting fram
ming. We en
ncourage caareful exam
mination forr
rusting orr signs of leeaks, especiaally in roof cavities if these
t
are acccessible.
10.6.4
L
Load-bea
aring wa
alls
Record thhe walls general conddition including any deteriorationn of materiaals, damagee
from passt earthquaakes, or altterations an
nd addition
ns that couuld affect earthquakee
performannce.
For multti-wythe co
onstruction, record thee number of
o wythes, the distancce betweenn
wythes, placement
p
of
o inter-wyythe ties, an
nd the cond
dition and aattachment of wythes..
Note thatt cavity wallls will appeear thicker th
han the actu
ual structuraal wall.
Record the
t bond ty
ype of the masonry, including the
t presencce and disttribution off
headers. If
I possible, confirm thaat the bond bricks (heaaders) are noot fake and cover moree
than one wythe. Cheeck if the coollar joint is filled.
Check anny unusual characterisstics, such as
a a mix of walling uunits or unu
usual crackk
patterns.
Record thhe type an
nd conditionn of the mortar
m
and mortar joinnts (for example, anyy
weatherinng, erosion or hardnesss of the mortar)
m
and the conditiion of any pointing orr
repointingg, including
g cracks annd internal voids.
v
It is important tto establish the mortarr
strength relative
r
to the
t bricks aas stronger mortar can lead to a bbrittle modee of failure..
Investigation of exissting damagge to maso
onry walls can
c reveal ttheir relativ
ve strength..
Damage to
t bricks ind
dicates a strronger morttar and weak
ker brick.
N
Note:
V
Visual inspection and simple
s
scraatching of the
t bricks and
a mortarr may be su
ufficient too
innvestigate the
t
quality of masonnry constitu
uents. To be fully eeffective, your
y
visuall
innspection shhould includ
de both facees of the masonry.
N
Note that thee mortar useed for pointiing is usually far betterr than the acctual main body
b
of thee
m
mortar, so scrrape the poiint to full deepth so you
u can investiigate this.
Thhe extent of to which detailed tessting of the materials should
s
be cconsidered will
w dependd
onn the importance of thee building aand the likelly sensitivitty of the maaterial propeerties to thee
asssessment reesult.
Check anny damp areeas and thee rear part of

o the building to invesstigate the quality andd
deteriorattion of the masonry
m
andd its constittuents.
Se
ection 10 - Seism
Upd
dated 22 April 2015
10-69
9
IS
SBN 978-0-4
473-26634-9
9
Seismic
c Assessment of
Note aany horizonntal cracks in

i bed jointts, vertical cracks in head
h
joints and mason
nry
units, oor diagonal cracks nearr openings.
Recordd the presennce of bond
d beams annd their locaations, and covered w
walls. Signs of
crackinng or decayy should bee investigatted and, where
w
appropriate, inclu
lude chemiccal
testing.. Refer to Section 7 forr further info
formation on
n concrete testing.
t
Examinne and recoord any rotting and inssect infestattion of timb
ber. Investiggate timber in
contactt with masoonry, particu
ularly in dam
mp areas.
Recordd the presennce of any DPC
D layers.
Identify
fy any verticcal compon
nents that arre not straig
ght. Bulging
g or undulaations in waalls
should be observeed. Note an
ny separatioon of exterior wythes, out-of-plum
mb walls, and
a
leaningg parapets or
o chimneyss. Check U
URM party walls
w
and partitions
p
annd investigaate
whetheer these are tied to the structural
s
syystem.
If opeening up is
i permitted, include areas witth built-in timbers ((described in
Sectionn 10.2.10) so
s allowancce can be m
made during
g the analyssis. This annalysis shou
uld
allow ffor the bricck capacity only, with no beneficcial supportt from the ttimber unleess
specificc investigattions can prove
p
otherw
wise. Existiing bowing
g of walls aand a lack of
vertical load pathh where tim
mber platess have shru
unk can sev
verely reduuce face lo
oad
capacitty.
10.6.5
Recordd the material and consstruction dettails of the non-load

n
beearing wallss. These waalls
may stiiffen the flooor diaphragm and braace the main
n loading walls.
w
Their weight cou
uld
be a siggnificant coomponent in
n the total w
weight.
Check any unusuaal wall plastter constructtion.
10.6.6
Geotec
chnical and
a
geolo
ogical hazards
Carefullly investiggate any fou

undation seettlement orr deterioration due to vvegetation. In
particuular, check around
a
drain
ns and slopees.
Note aany geologiccal site hazzards such aas susceptib
bility to liqu
uefaction an
and conditio
ons
for sloppe failure annd surface fault
f
rupturee. Look for past signs of
o ground m
movement.
10.6.9
Founda
ations
Note thhe type, matterial and sttructure of tthe foundatiion system.

Check if the bricks are in con
ntact with thhe soil. Degrradation can
n occur deppending on the
t
extent to which thhe bricks were
w
fired w
when origin
nally producced, and/orr if the soil is
damp.
10.6.8
Concre
ete
Take ccare when making

m
assu
umptions reelating to the
t concretee strength aand detailin
ng.
Intrusivve investiggation is essential too understaand the makeup
m
of the origin
nal
construuction and its
i constitueents properlly if any grreater than nominal
n
forrces are to be
transferrred.
10.6.7
Non loa
ad-bearing walls
s
Second
dary elem
ments
Recordd the detailss of secondaary elementts such as parapets, orn

namentationn, gable wallls,
lift wellls, heavy eqquipment, canopies
c
andd chimneyss. Include deetails of theeir dimensio
ons
Section 10 - Se
eismic Assessm
ment of Unreinfo
orced Masonry B
Buildings
Updated 22 April 20
015
10
0-70
ISBN 978--0-473-26634
4-9
Seismic As
ssessment of U
Unreinforced Ma
asonry Buildingss
and locattion. Also check for the presen

nce of capp
ping stoness or other ornamentall
features as
a these creaate additionnal mass and
d eccentricitty.
In particuular, check if parapetss are positio
oned off-ceentre to the wall beneaath. Inspectt
parapets to
t estimate the locationn of the rock
king pivot.
10.6.10 Seismic
S
separatiion
Innvestigate seeismic sepaaration with adjacent bu
uildings. (N
Note that an apparent prresence of a
strructural sepparation is not
n necessarrily an indiccation that pounding
p
wiill not occu
ur unless thee
enntire length of the sepaaration is cleear of any obstructions
o
s between thhe two build
dings (Colee
ett al., 2011).
10.6.11 Previous
P
s strengtthening
V
Verify any strengthenin
s
ng systems that have been used
d against avvailable draawings andd
doocumentatioon. Record any variatioons and deterioration observed.
o
Ch
Check as-buiilt accuracyy
annd note the type of an
nchors usedd, their sizee and locatiion. Use Taable 10.2 to
o check forr
paarticular issues that can
n arise withh different strengthenin
s
ng techniquees: record any
a relevantt
obbservations.. Also referr to Sectionn 10.5.3 for additional consideraations for sttrengthenedd
buuildings, inncluding deformation
d
n compatib
bility betweeen the ooriginal and
d installedd
strrengtheningg elements.
Ta
able 10.2: Historical tec
chniques us
sed for URM buildings and
a common
n features
Sttructural
Me
echanism
Technique
Comme
ents/Issues
Ch
himneys
Internal post-tensioniing
Require
es well-mappeed, understood
d and not
degrade
ed vertical loadd-path
Internal steel tube re inforcement
Wrap-arround/tie reinfforcement to connect

c
to
tube imp
portant
Concre
ete filling
Adds mass
Adhesio
on to surroundding brick often
n insufficient
to tie
Externa
al strapping
Inward collapse
c
needds to be check
ked, especiallyy
if mortar degraded onn inside
Geomettry often meanns external fra
ames step
outward
d: changes in aangle need full resolution
not to apply stress cooncentrations to
t masonry
Externa
al bracing
Raking braces shouldd have all vertical

compon
nents of load re
resolved at each end
Compattibility of stiff bbraced chimne
ey with a
flexible diaphragm muust be checke
ed
Pa
arapets
Removal and replace

ement with
lightweight
Heritage
e and weatherring implications
Vertical steel mullion

ns
Robust attachment too upper levels of brick with

little wall/weight abovve critical
(durability and
we
eathering of
pa
articular conce
ern)
Weathering through rroof

Raking Braces
Robust attachment too upper levels of brick with

little wall/weight abovve critical
Interaction with roof m
modes can destabilise
Vertical tie-down requuired to raking
g braces
Se
ection 10 - Seism
Upd
dated 22 April 2015
10-71
IS
SBN 978-0-4
473-26634-9
9
Structural
Mechanism
Technique
Comments/Issues
Steel capping spanning between

abutting frames or walls
Anchorage depth down into mass of parapet to

clamp down loose upper bricks
Internal Post-tensioning

External post-tensioning

Internal bonded reinforcement

Near Surface Mounted (NSM)

composite strips
Parapet responds differently to different

directions of load
UV degradation
Face-loaded
walls
Vertical steel mullions (Figure 10.23)
Stiffness vs out-of-plane rocking/displacement

capability important
Regularity/robustness of attachment to wall is
important
Vertical timber mullions
Stiffness vs out-of-plane rocking/displacement

capability important
Regularity/robustness of attachment to wall is
important
Horizontal transoms spanning

between abutting frames or walls
Stiffness and attachment requirements need to

consider wall above which gives clamping
action to masonry at level of attachment
Internal post-tensioning
Durability
Anchorage level and fixity
Level of pre-stress to allow rocking without
brittle crushing
External post-tensioning
As above
Internal bonded reinforcement
Maximum quantity to ensure ductile failure

Anchorage beyond cracking points, and
consider short un-bonded lengths
Composite fibre overlay
Preparation to give planar surface very involved
Near Surface Mounted (NSM)

composite strips
Wall responds differently to different directions

of load
Bond important if in-plane capacity is not to be
weakened
Reinforced concrete overlay

of load
Reinforced cementitious overlay

of load
Ductility of reinforcement important for
deflection capacity
Grout saturation/injection

Elastic improvement only: more suitable for low

seismic zones and very weak materials
10-72
ISBN 978-0-473-26634-9
Structural
Mechanism
Technique
Comments/Issues
Connection of
walls to
diaphragms
Steel angle with grouted bars

(Figure 10.24(a))
Bar anchorage
Steel angle with bolts/external plate

(Figure 10.24(b))
Diaphragm/bar eccentricity must be resolved
Timber joist/ribbon plate with grouted

bars
Bar anchorage
Timber joist/ribbon plate with

bolts/external plate
Diaphragm/bolt eccentricity causes bending of

timber across grain - a potential point of
weakness
Blocking between joists notched into

masonry
Joist weak axis bending must be checked
Diaphragm/bar eccentricity must be resolved
Diaphragm/bolt eccentricity causes bending of

timber across grain - a potential point of
weakness
Tightness of fit of joists into pockets

Degradation of joists
External pinning to timber beam end
Quality assurance/buildability of epoxy in timber

Concentrated localised load
Development in masonry (external plate
preferred for high loads)
External pinning to concrete beam or

floor
Development in masonry (external plate

preferred for high loads)
Concrete floor type (hollow pots, clinker
concrete)
Through rods with external plates
Elastic elongation
Concentrated localised load
New isolated padstones
Tightness of fit
Resolution of eccentricity between masonry
bearing and diaphragm connection
Diaphragm
strengthening
New bond beams
High degree of intervention
Plywood overlay floor or roof

sparking (Figure 10.25)
Flexibility
Plywood ceiling
As above, plus existing ceiling battening/fixings

may not be robust or may be decayed
Plywood/light gauge steel composite
Stiffer but less ductile than ply-only
Requires continuous chord members and

primary resistance elements
Eccentricities between thin plate and

connections must be resolved
Plasterboard ceiling
As ply ceiling but less ductile

Prevention of future modification/removal
Thin concrete overlay/topping
Thickness for adequate reinforcement

Additional mass
Ductility capacity of non-traditional
reinforcement
Buckling restraint/bond to existing structure

10-73
ISBN 978-0-473-26634-9
Structural
Mechanism
Technique
Comments/Issues
Elastic cross bracing
Stiffness relative to wall out-of-plane capacity

Edge distribution members and chords critical
Concentration of loads at connections
In-plane wall
strengthening
Semi-ductile cross bracing (e.g.

Proving ring)
As elastic
Replacement floor over/below with

new diaphragm
Design as new structure
Sprayed concrete overlay
Restraint to existing floor/ roof structure
Energy absorption benefit not easily quantified

without sophisticated analysis
Out-of-plane capacity of wall
New primary
strengthening
elements
(Figure 10.26)
Ductility capacity if used very dependent on

aspect ratio
Chords
Foundation capacity needs to be checked
(uplift/rocking)
Internal vertical post-tensioning
Ensure pre-stress limited to ensure no brittle

failure
See out-of-plane issues also
External vertical post-tensioning
Ensure pre-stress limited to ensure no brittle

failure
See out-of-plane issues also
Internal horizontal reinforcement
Coring/drilling difficult
Stressing horizontally requires good vertical
(perpendicular) mortar placement and quality
External horizontal post-tensioning
Stressing horizontally requires good vertical

(perpendicular) mortar placement and quality
Bed-joint reinforcement
Workmanship critical
Low quantities of reinforcement only possible
Composite reinforced concrete

boundary or local reinforcement
elements
Development at ends/nodes
Composite FRP boundary or local

reinforcement elements
As above plus stiffness compatibility with

existing
Nominally ductile concrete walls or

punched wall/frame
High foundation loads result
Nominally ductile reinforced concrete

masonry walls
Stiffness compatibility considering geometry

(including foundation movement) important
Nominally ductile steel concentric or

cross bracing
Stiffness compatibility assessment critical

considering element flexibility, plan position and
diaphragm stiffness
Bond to existing
Drag beams usually required

Limited ductility steel moment Frame
Flexibility/stiffness compatibility very important
Limited ductility concrete frame
Flexibility/stiffness compatibility important

10-74
ISBN 978-0-473-26634-9
Structural
Mechanism
Technique
Comments/Issues
Limited ductility concrete walls
Assess effectiveness of ductility, including

foundation movements
Ensure compatibility with any elements cast
against
Drag beams often required
Limited ductility timber walls
Flexibility/stiffness compatibility very important

Drag beams often required
Ductile EBF/K-frames
Element ductility demand vs building ductility

assessment important
Drag beams usually required
Ductile concrete coupled or rocking

walls
Element ductility demand vs building ductility

assessment important
Ensure compatibility with any elements cast
against drag beams often required
Tie to new adjacent (new) structure
Elastic elongation and robustness of ties to be

considered
Higher level of strengthening likely to be
required
Reinforcement at
wall intersections
in plan
Removal and rebuilding of bricks

with inter-bonding
Shear connection only with capacity reduced

considering adhesion and tightness of fit
Disturbance of bond to adjacent bricks
Bed joint ties
Small reinforcement only practical but can be

well distributed
Care with resolving resultant thrust at any bends
Drilled and grouted ties
Tension only: consider shear capacity

Depth to develop capacity typically large
Compatibility with face-load spanning of wall
Metalwork reinforcing internal corner
Attachment to masonry
Small end-distance in abutting wall can mean
negligible tension capacity
Grouting of crack
Shear friction only: tension mechanism also

required
Stabilises any dilation but does not allow
recovery
Foundation
strengthening
Mass underpinning
Creates hard point in softer/swellable soils

Even support critical
Grout injection
Creates hard point in softer/swellable soils

Difficult to quantify accurately
Concentric/balanced re-piling
Localised needles through walls must provide

sufficient bearing for masonry
Eccentric re-piling with foundation

beams
Stiffness of found beams important to not rotate

walls out-of-plane
Mini piling/ground anchors
Cyclic bond less than static bond

Testing only static practical
Vulnerable to bucking if liquefaction

10-75
ISBN 978-0-473-26634-9
Structural
Mechanism
Technique
Comments/Issues
Pile type: vertical stiffness and preloading
Pre-loading dictates load position

Pre-loading important if new foundations less
stiff than existing
Dynamic distribution between new and old likely
different than static
Effects of liquefaction must be considered: may
create limiting upper bound to strengthening
level
Faade wythe
ties
Canopies
Helical steel mechanical

engagement small diameter
Low tension capacity, especially if cracked
Steel mechanical engagement

medium diameter
Some vierendeel action between wythes
Epoxied steel rods/gauze sleeve
Some vierendeel action between wythes
Epoxied composite/non-metallic rods
Stiffness
Brick header strengthening
Additional new headers still brittle; can become

overstressed under thermal/seasonal or
foundation loadings in combination
Reinforce or recast existing hanger

embedment
Degradation of steel
New steel/cast iron posts
Propping of canopy can mitigate hazard from

masonry falling to pavement
Durability
Depth of embedment to ensure sufficient mass

of bricks to prevent pull-out
Props in addition to hangars are not so critical

with regard to traffic damage
New cantilevered beams
Co-ordination with clerestory/bressumer beam

Backspan reaction on floor
Deck reinforcement to mitigate

overhead hazard
Sacrificial/crushable layer to mitigate pavement

hazard
Conversion to accessible balcony
Likely to achieves all of the above objectives for

canopies and also has natural robustness as
designed for additional live load. Hazard still
exists for balcony occupants
Base isolation
A lack of sufficient gap around the building

Vertically re-founding the building

10-76
ISBN 978-0-473-26634-9
Seismic As
ssessment of U
Unreinforced Ma
asonry Buildingss
10.7
M
Material
l Prope
erties an
nd Weig
ghts
10.7.1
G
General
Thhis section provides

p
deefault probaable materiaal propertiess for clay brrick masonrry and otherr
asssociated materials.
Thhese values can be used for aassessment of URM buildings in the abssence of a
coomprehensivve testing programme
p
(refer to Ap
ppendix 10A
A for detaills). Howeveer, to arrivee
att any reliablle judgemen
nt, some onn-site testing
g such as sccratching, et
etc. as discu
ussed in thiss
seection is reccommended.
N
Note:
Before proceeeding to on
n-site intrussive testing,, it is imporrtant to sennsibly underrstand whatt
innformation will
w be collected from
m any invesstigation, ho
ow that woould be used
d and whatt
vaalue the info
formation will
w add to thhe reliability
y of the asssessment. Seensitivity an
nalyses cann
bee used to deetermine th
he influencee of any maaterial param
meter on thhe assessment outcomee
annd, thereforre, and wheether testingg to refine that materiial parametter beyond the defaultt
vaalues given in this sectiion is warraanted.
W
When assessing the material charaacteristics of
o the buildiing, survey the entire building too
ennsure that the
t adopted
d material pproperties are
a represen
ntative. It m
may be app
propriate too
asssign differeent material propertiess to differen
nt masonry walls depeending on variations
v
inn
agge, weathereed condition
n or other a spects.
10.7.2
C
Clay
bric
cks and m
mortars
Recommendeed probable default m

material prroperties fo
or clay briicks and liime/cementt
m
mortars, corrrelated again
nst hardnesss, are given
n in Tables 10.3
1 and 100.4. The descriptions inn
thhese tables are
a based on
n the use off a simple scratch
s
test but there ar
are a variety
y of similar,,
sim
mple on-sitte tests you can use.
Too ensure thaat the test iss representaative of the structural capability off the materials, removee
anny weatherred or reemediated surface material
m
priior to asssessing thee hardnesss
chharacteristiccs. This req
quirement iss particularlly important for establilishing morttar materiall
prroperties whhere the surrface mortarr may be either weatheered or prevviously remediated andd
m
may not be reepresentativ
ve of the moortar at dep
pth. One reccommendedd technique to establishh
w
whether the mortar
m
cond
dition is uniiform acrosss the wall th
hickness is to drill into
o the mortarr
jooint and insspect the condition off the extraccted mortarr dust as thhe drill bit progressess
thhrough the jooint.
Ta
able 10.3: Prrobable stre
ength param
meters for cllay bricks (A
Almesfer et aal, 2014)
Brrick hardness
s
Brick des
scription
Probable briick
compressivve
sttrength, fb (M
MPa)
Probable brick
tensile strength,
fbt (MPa)
So
oft
Scratches
s with aluminiu
um pick
14
1.7
Me
edium
Scratches
s with 10 cent copper coin
26
3.1
Ha
ard
Does not scratch

s
with a
above tools
35
4.2
Se
ection 10 - Seism
Upd
dated 22 April 2015
10-77
7
IS
SBN 978-0-4
473-26634-9
9
Seismic
c Assessment of
Table 10.4: Probable strength

s
parrameters forr lime/cemen
nt mortar (A
Almesfer et aal, 2014)
Mortar
hardness
Mortar des
scription
Probable mortar
m
compress
sive
strength
h, fj
(MPa))
Probable
Cohesion, c
(MPa)
Probable
coefficient of
o
Friction, f
Very soft
Raked out by finger pres

ssure
0-1
0.1
0.3
Soft
Scratches easily with fing

ger nails
1-2
0.3
Medium
Scratches with
w finger nails
2-5
0.5
0.6
Hard
Scratches using aluminiu

um pick
To be established
from testing
0.7
0.8
Very hard
Does not scratch

s
with ab
bove tools
To be established from testing
Note:
When veryy hard mortar is present it caan be expected that walls subjjected to in-plaane loads and ffailing in diago
onal
shear will form diagonal cracks passing through the briicks rather than
n a stair-stepped
d crack pattern tthrough the mortar
head and bbed joints. Suchh a failure modee is non-ductilee. Very hard mo
ortar typically co
ontains cementt.
Values higgher than 0.6 may

m be considerred with care/innvestigation depending upon the
t nature/rougghness of the brrick
material annd the thickness of the mortar with respect too the brick rough
hness.
m be taken
n as half thee cohesion values
v
provided in Tabble 10.4.
Values for adhesion may
where the probable mod
dulus of ruppture of clay
y bricks can
nnot be estaablished fro
om
In cases w
testing, thee following value may be
b used (Allmesfer et al,
a 2014):
MPa
10.7.3
0.12
10.1
Compre
essive strength
s
of maso
onry
In cases whhere the com

mpressive strength
s
of m
masonry caannot be established froom the testiing
of extracteed masonryy prisms, th
he probablee masonry compressiv
ve strengthh, fm, can be
establishedd using Equuation 10.2 (Lumantarnna et al, 20
014b). Tablee 10.5 pressents probab
ble
compressivve strength values of clay
c
brick m
masonry bassed on this equation ussing the briick
and mortarr probable compressive
c
e strength vaalues from Tables
T
10.3 and 10.4.
MPa
0.75
for
1 MPa
0.75
for
1 MPa
10.2
2
Table 10.5: Probable compressive

c
e strength o
of clay brick masonry
Mortar stren
ngth, fj (MPa))
Probable m
masonry com
mpressive strrength, fm (M Pa)
Probable b
brick compre
essive strength, fb (MPa)
1
14
26
35
5
5.4
8.6
10.8
5
5.4
8.6
10.8
6
6.7
10.6
13.3
8
8.8
14.0
17.5
10
0.1
16.1
20.1
Section 10 - Se
eismic Assessm
ment of Unreinfo
orced Masonry B
Buildings
Updated 22 April 20
015
10
0-78
ISBN 978--0-473-26634
4-9
Seismic As
ssessment of U
Unreinforced Ma
asonry Buildingss
10.7.4
D
Direct
tensile strrength of masonry
Thhe direct tennsile streng

gth of masonnry, includiing any cem
ment renderiing and plaster, shouldd
bee assumed to
t be zero, except wheen the requirements giv
ven in Sectiion 10.8.5.2
2 for elasticc
annalysis are satisfied
s
forr vertical spaanning facee-loaded waalls.
10.7.5
D
Diagonal
l tensile strength
h of mas
sonry
W
Where speciffic material testing is nnot undertak
ken to deterrmine probaable masonry diagonall
teension strenggth, this maay be taken as:
0.5
MPa
10.3
w
where:
c
f
fa
10.7.6
=
=
=
masonry
m
bedd-joint coheesion
masonry
m
co--efficient off friction
axial
a
comprression stresss due to graavity loads.
M
Modulus
of elastticity and
d shear modulus
s of mas
sonry
Thhe masonryy modulus of

o elasticityy, Em, can be
b calculated by using the masonrry probablee
coompressive strength in
n accordancce with Equ
uation 10.4 (Lumantarnna et al, 20
014b). Notee
thhat this vallue of mod
dulus of elaasticity hass been estaablished as a chord modulus
m
off
ellasticity bettween 0.05 and 0.7 in order to represen
nt the elastiic stiffness appropriatee
upp to maximuum strength
h.
Y
Youngs moddulus of clay
y brick massonry can bee taken as:
300
10.4
Shhear moduluus of clay brick

b
masonr
nry can be taaken as (ASCE 41-13)::
0.4
10.7.7
10.5
T
Timber
diaphrag
d
m materrial prop
perties
Refer to Secttion 11 for timber

t
diaphhragm mateerial propertties.
10.7.8
M
Material
unit wei ghts
Y
You can usee the unit weights
w
in T
Table 10.6 as default values if yyou do not have moree
reeliable meassurements.
Ta
able 10.6: Unit weights
Ma
aterial
Unit weig
ght (kN/m3)
Brrick masonry
118
Oa
amaru stone masonry
m
116
Tim
mber
5--6
Se
ection 10 - Seism
Upd
dated 22 April 2015
10-79
9
IS
SBN 978-0-4
473-26634-9
9
Seismic
c Assessment of
10.8
Assessment of Com
mponentt/Eleme
ent Cap
pacity
10.8.1
Genera
al
This sectioon covers thhe assessment of the caapacity of th

he various components and elemen
nts
that make uup a masonnry building.
In the displacement baased proced
dure for facee-loaded waalls that is presented,
p
thhe assessmeent
mand is an inntegral part of the proceedure.
of the dem
10.8.2
Strengtth reduc
ction facttors
The assesssment proccedures in these guiddelines are based on probable sstrengths an

nd,
therefore, tthe strengthh reduction factor,
f
, shhould be sett equal to 1..0. The probbable strenggth
equations and recomm
mended deffault probabble capacitiies in this section
s
assuume equaals
1.0.
10.8.3
Diaphra
agms
10.8.3.1 Generall
Diaphragm
ms in URM buildings fulfil
f
two prrincipal fun
nctions. Theey provide ssupport to the
t
walls oriennted perpendicular to th
he directionn of loading
g and, if stifff enough, th
they also haave
the potentiial to allow
w shears to be transferrred betweeen walls in
n any level,, to resist the
t
storey sheaar and the toorsion due to
t any plan eeccentricitiees.
The relativve lateral sttiffness of the diaphraagms to thee walls providing laterral support is
often quite low duee to the hiigh stiffnesss of the walls,
w
partiicularly forr diaphragm
ms
constructedd of timber or steel braacing.
bility to pro
ovide adequuate support to
Flexibility in a diaphrragm, if too high, can rreduce its ab
nse of thesee walls, or render its ability
a
to trransfer storrey
walls and thus affect the respon
minimal levvels, althou
ugh this willl not generrally be an issue if reecognised and
a
shears to m
appropriateely allowedd for in the global analyysis of the building. Considering
C
the effects of
diaphragm
m flexibility is, thereforee, essential for proper understandi
u
ing of both iin and out-o
ofplane respoonse of the walls.
d
s it is necessary to consider both ttheir probab
ble
When asseessing the capacity of diaphragms
strength annd deformattion capacitiies.
The probabble strengthh capacity should be deetermined in accordancce with the requiremen
nts
in these guuidelines thaat relate to the
t particulaar constructtion materiaal of the diapphragm.
The deform
mation capaacity will bee that for whhich the streength capacity can be su
sustained.
The deform
mation cappacity is allso limited to that which
w
it is expected w
will result in
detrimentaal behaviourr of supporteed walls or of the build
ding as a wh
hole.
The diaphhragm defoormations should
s
be included when
w
deterrmining thee inter-storrey
deflectionss for checkking overalll building ddeformation
ns against the
t NZS 11170.5 limit of
2.5%.
Section 10 - Se
eismic Assessm
ment of Unreinfo
orced Masonry B
Buildings
Updated 22 April 20
015
10
0-80
ISBN 978--0-473-26634
4-9
Seismic As
ssessment of U
Unreinforced Ma
asonry Buildingss
Inn the sectionns below reecommendaations are prrovided for diaphragm

m deformatio
on limits too
ennsure adequuate supportt for face-looaded wallss and flexible (timber) and rigid diaphragms.
d
.
Riigid diaphrragms would typicallyy need to be constructed of conncrete to achieve
a
thee
neecessary rellative stiffneess with thee walls.
10
0.8.3.2 D
Diaphragm deform
mation lim
mits to provide ad
dequate support
s
to
o face-lo
oaded wa
alls
Inn order to ensure thatt the face-lloaded wallls are adeq
quately supp
pported, thee maximum
m
diiaphragm inn-plane disp
placement m
measured with
w respectt to the diaaphragm sup
pport wallss
shhould not exceed 50% of thhe thicknesss of the supportedd (face-load
ded) wallss
(F
Figure 10.557). For caavity constrruction with
h adequatee cavity tiees installed, the innerr
m
masonry wyythe is usuaally the looad-bearing wythe and
d this criteerion will require thee
m
maximum accceptable diaphragm diisplacementt to be limitted to 50% of the thick
kness of thee
innner wythe.
Figurre 10.57: Mid

d-span diap hragm displacement lim
mit for URM
M building on
na
flexible fou
undation
10
0.8.3.3 Timber
T
diiaphragm
ms
G
General
M
Most URM buildings
b
in
n New Zealland have flexible
fl
timb
ber floor annd ceiling diaphragms.
d
.
Thheir in-planne deformattion responnse is stron
ngly influen
nced by thee characterisstics of thee
naail connections (Wilso
on et al., 22013a) and
d their glob
bal responsse is most adequatelyy
reeplicated ass a shear beam
b
(Wilsson et al., 2013b). Responses
R
ccan be sep
parated intoo
diirections eitther paralleel or perpenndicular to the orientation of the joists (Willson, et al.,,
20013c), referr Figure 10.58, and are significantly influenceed by the prresence of any
a floor orr
ceeiling overlaay, the degrradation of the diaphraagm due to aspects
a
suchh as moistu
ure or insectt
daamage, and any prior remediation
r
n such as re--nailing or varnishing (Giongo, ett al., 2013)..
Iff the diaphraagms have had
h epoxy ccoatings thaat have peneetrated into the joints between
b
thee
floooring, thiis has been observedd to resultt in substaantial stiffe
fening. Theerefore, wee
reecommend that you undertake
u
a sensitivitty analysis, recognisin
ing that th
he effectivee
diiaphragm sttiffness coulld be more tthan given here
h by an order
o
of maagnitude or greater.
g
Se
ection 10 - Seism
Upd
dated 22 April 2015
10-81
IS
SBN 978-0-4
473-26634-9
9
Figure 10.58: Orthogonal diaphragm response due to joist orientation
It is assumed here that the diaphragm is adequately secured to all perimeter walls via
pocketing and/or anchorages to ensure that diaphragm deformation occurs rather than
global sliding of the diaphragm on a ledge. It is also assumed that the URM boundary
walls deform out-of-plane in collaboration with deformation of the flexible timber
diaphragm. For non-rectangular diaphragms, use the mean dimensions of the two opposing
edges of the diaphragm to establish the appropriate dimensions of an equivalent
rectangular diaphragm.
Note:
Timber roofs of unreinforced masonry buildings were often built with both a roof and
ceiling lining. As a result, roof diaphragms are likely to be significantly stiffer than the
mid-height floor diaphragms if there are no ceilings on the mid-floors. Diagonal sarking in
the roof diaphragm will also further increase its relative stiffness compared to the floor
diaphragms.
If the diaphragm you are assessing has an overlay or underlay (e.g. of plywood or pressed
metal sheeting), consult the stiffness and strength criteria for improved diaphragms. You
will still need to consider stiffness and ductility compatibility between the two. For
example, it is likely that a stiff, brittle timber lath-and-plaster ceiling will delaminate
before any straight sarking in the roof above can be fully mobilised.
While the flooring, sarking and sheathing provide a shear load path across the diaphragm,
it is necessary to consider the connections to the surrounding walls (refer to Section 10.8.4)
and any drag or chord members. A solid URM wall may be able to act as a chord as it has
sufficient in-plane capacity to transfer the chord loads directly to the ground. However, a
punched URM wall with lintels only over the openings will have little tension capacity and
may be the critical element in the assessment. Timber trusses and purlins, by their nature,
only occur in finite lengths: their connections/splices designed for gravity loads may have
little tie capacity.

10-82
ISBN 978-0-473-26634-9
Probable strength capacity

The probable strength capacity of a timber diaphragm should be assessed in accordance
with Section 11 of these guidelines.
Probable deformation capacity
Deformations in timber diaphragms should be assessed using the effective diaphragm
stiffness defined below.
The probable deformation capacity should be taken as the lower of the following, assessed
for each direction:
L/33 for loading oriented perpendicular to the joists or L/53 for loading oriented
parallel to the joists
Deformation limit to provide adequate support to face-loaded walls. Refer
Section 10.8.3.2.
Deformation required to meet global inter-storey drift limit of 2.5% in accordance with
NZS 1170.5. Refer Section 10.8.3.1.
Effective diaphragm stiffness
To determine the effective stiffness of a timber diaphragm, first assess the condition of the
diaphragm using the information in Table 10.7.
Table 10.7: Diaphragm condition assessment criteria (Giongo et al., 2014)
Condition rating
Condition description
Poor
Considerable borer; floorboard separation greater than 3 mm; water damage evident;
nail rust extensive; significant timber degradation surrounding nails; floorboard joist
connection appears loose and able to wobble
Fair
Little or no borer; less than 3 mm of floorboard separation; little or no signs of past

water damage; some nail rust but integrity still fair; floorboard-to-joist connection has
some but little movement; small degree of timber wear surrounding nails
Good
Timber free of borer; little separation of floorboards; no signs of past water damage;
little or no nail rust; floorboard-to-joist connection tight, coherent and unable to wobble
Next, select the diaphragm stiffness using Table 10.8 and accounting for both loading
orientations.
Note:
While other diaphragm characteristics such as timber species, floor board width and
thickness, and joist spacing and depth are known to influence diaphragm stiffness, their
effects on stiffness can be neglected for the purposes of this assessment.
Pretesting has indicated that re-nailing vintage timber floors using modern nail guns can
provide a 20% increase in stiffness.

10-83
ISBN 978-0-473-26634-9
Table 10.8: Shear stiffness values for straight sheathed vintage flexible timber floor
diaphragms (Giongo et al., 2014)
Direction of loading
Joist continuity
Parallel to joists
Continuous or discontinuous joists
Perpendicular to
joists
Condition rating
Continuous joist, or discontinuous joist

with reliable mechanical anchorage
Discontinuous joist without reliable

mechanical anchorage
Shear stiffness,
Gd (kN/m)
Good
350
Fair
285
Poor
225
Good
265
Fair
215
Poor
170
Good
210
Fair
170
Poor
135
Note:
Values may be amplified by 20% when the diaphragm has been renailed using modern nails and nail guns
Values should be interpolated when there is mixed continuity of joists or to account for continuous sheathing at joist
splice
For diaphragms constructed using other than straight sheathing, multiply the diaphragm
stiffness by the values given in Table 10.9. If roof linings and ceiling linings are both
assumed to be effective in providing stiffness, add their contributions.
Table 10.9: Stiffness multipliers for other forms of flexible timber diaphragms (derived
from ASCE, 2013)
Type of diaphragm sheathing
Multipliers to account for other

sheathing types
Single straight sheathing

Double straight sheathing
Single diagonal sheathing
Double diagonal sheathing or straight

sheathing above diagonal sheathing
x 1.0
Chorded
x 7.5
Unchorded
x 3.5
Chorded
x 4.0
Unchorded
x 2.0
Chorded
x 9.0
Unchorded
x 4.5
For typically-sized diaphragm penetrations (usually less than 10% of gross area) the
reduced diaphragm shear stiffness, Gd, is given by Equation 10.6:
/
10.6
where Anet and Agross refer to the net and the gross diaphragm plan area (in square metres).
For non-typical sizes of diaphragm penetration, a special study should be undertaken to
determine the influence of diaphragm penetration on diaphragm stiffness and strength. The

10-84
ISBN 978-0-473-26634-9
effective diaphragm stiffness must be modified further to account for stiffness of the URM
boundary walls deforming in collaboration with the flexible timber diaphragm.
Hence:
kN/m
10.7
where w may be determined using any rational procedure to account for the stiffness and
incompatibility of deformation modes arising from collaborative deformation of the URM
walls displacing out-of-plane as fixed end flexure beams and the diaphragm deforming as a
shear beam.
In lieu of a special study, prior elastic analysis has suggested that Equation 10.8 provides
adequate values for w:
1
10.8
where
Em
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
effective thickness of walls below the diaphragm, m

effective l thickness of walls above the diaphragm, m
height of wall below diaphragm, m
height of wall above diaphragm, m
Youngs modulus of masonry, MPa
depth of diaphragm, m.
span of diaphragm perpendicular to loading, m.
Refer to Figure 10.59 for definition of the above terms.

For scenarios where the URM end walls are likely to provide no supplementary stiffness to
the diaphragm, w = 1.0 should be adopted.
Direction ofloading
tu or tl(asappropriate)
Faceloaded wall
B
Wallloaded inplane
L
tu or tl(asappropriate)
Figure 10.59: Schematics showing dimensions of diaphragm

10-85
ISBN 978-0-473-26634-9
Seismic
c Assessment of
10.8.3.4 Rigid diiaphragm

ms
When assessing rigid diaphrag
gms, you ccan use a strut-and--tie methood. However,
investigatee the presennce of termiination detaails (hooks, thickenings, threads/nnuts) carefully
as their abbility to traansfer the loads at thhe strut-and
d-tie nodes is likely tto govern the
t
diaphragm
m capacity.
Rigid diapphragms cann be assumeed to have m
minimal efffect on the response off out-of-plaane
walls.
10.8.4
Connec
ctions
10.8.4.1 Generall
The probabble capacityy of diaphrragm to waall connectio
ons is taken
n as the low
west probab
ble
capacity off the failuree modes listeed below:
punchinng shear faiilure of massonry
yield or rupture off connector rod in tensiion or shearr
rupturee at join betw
ween conneector rod annd joist platee
splittinng of joist orr stringer
failure of fixing att joist
splittinng or fracturre of anchorr plate
yield or rupture at threaded nu
ut.
Suggested default prrobable cap
pacities forr embeddeed and plaate bearing anchors are
a
nce on speci fic assessm
ment of capaccities is alsoo provided.
provided bbelow togethher. Guidan
10.8.4.2 Embedd
ded anch
hors
You can usse the probaable capacitties provideed in Tabless 10.10 and
d 10.11 in liieu of specific
testing provided that:
The caapacity shouuld not be taken greatter than thee probable capacities oof the anch
hor
itself or the anchorr to grout orr grout to brrick bond.
When the embedm
ment length
h is less thaan four bolt diameters or 50 mm
m, the pull-o
out
strengthh should bee taken as zeero.
The m
minimum eddge distancee to allow full shear strength to
o be assum
med should be
12 diam
meters.
Shear sstrength of anchors wiith edge disstances equal to or less than 25 m
mm should be
taken aas zero.
o shear strength for edgge distances between these boundds is permittted
Linear inteerpolation of
(ASCE, 20013).
Simultaneoous applicattion of sheaar and tensioon loads neeed not be co
onsidered w
when using the
t
values from
m Tables 100.10 and 10..11.
Section 10 - Se
eismic Assessm
ment of Unreinfo
orced Masonry B
Buildings
Updated 22 April 20
015
10
0-86
ISBN 978--0-473-26634
4-9
Table 10.10: Default anchor probable shear strength capacities for anchors into masonry
units only1.
Anchorage type
Bolts/steel rods fixed through and bearing against a timber

member1,2
Bolts/steel rods fixed through a steel member (washer) having a

thickness of 6 mm or greater
Rod size
Probable shear
strength
capacity2,
(kN)
M12
8.5
M16
15
M20
18.5
M16
20
Note:
1.
Anchors into mortar bed joints will have significantly lower shear capacities
2.
Timber member to be at least 50 mm thick and MSG8 grade or better
3.
For adhesive connectors embedment should be at least 200 mm into solid masonry
Table 10.11: Default anchor probable tension pull-out capacities for 0m, >0.3m and > 3m of
wall above the embedment)
Mortar hardness
Single-wythe wall
(kN)
0
Very soft
Soft
Medium
Hard
Very hard
Embedment 160 mm1

into two-wythe wall
(kN)
>0.3 m(3) >3 m
>0.3 m(3) >3 m
Embedment 250 mm1

into three-wythe wall
(kN)
0
>0.3 m(3) >3 m
0.3
0.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
2.5
18
1.5
2.5
6.5
15
14
31
2.5
3.5
21
11
19
43
>2.5(4)
>4(4)
>8(4)
>6(4)
>10(4)
>21
>11(4)
>20(4)
>43(4)
Notes:
1. Representative value only: assumes drilling within 50 mm of far face of wall
2. Simultaneous application of tension and shear loading need not be considered
3. These values are intended to be used until there is >3 m of wall above the embedment.
4. Values for very hard mortar may be substantiated by calculation but can be assumed to be at least those shown.
The values in Table 10.11 are based on the pull-out of a region of brick, assuming cohesion
or adhesion strength of the mortar on the faces of the bricks perpendicular to the
application of the load factored by 0.5 and friction on the top and/or bottom faces (refer
Figure 10.60), depending on the height of wall above the embedment as follows:
0 m (ie at the top of the wall) - adhesion only on the bottom and side faces
>0.3 m but < 3 m adhesion on the top, bottom and side faces, friction on the top and
bottom faces
>3 m cohesion on the top, bottom and side faces, friction on the top and bottom faces.
A factor of 0.5 has been included in these values to reflect the general reliability of
mechanisms involving cohesion/adhesion and friction.
10-87
ISBN 978-0-473-26634-9
Seismic
c Assessment of
Figure 10.60: Basiis for embed

dded ancho
or capacity estimation
e
The designner should select a barr diameter aand tested epoxy systeem that willl develop the
t
required boond directlyy to the briccks and grouut system as
a appropriate. Alternattively, cemeent
mortars cann be used but the capaccity should be substanttiated by site pull-out teests, using the
t
grouting annd cleanoutt methodolo
ogy propose d by relevan
nt standardss/specificatiions.
For coarse thread screews, use thee manufactuurers data for the direect bond to bbricks, takiing
account off the brick compressive
c
e strength aand ensurin
ng that fixin
ngs are into whole briccks
rather thann mortar couurses.
c
off straight orr bent adheesive ancho
ors, refer too the produ
uct
When asseessing the capacity
specificatioon and the methodolog
m
gy prescribeed by the anchor manuffacturer.
For inclineed embeddeed anchors,, the horizoontal force capacity sh
hould be reeduced to the
t
horizontal vector com
mponent, an
nd checks m
made for an adequate load-path foor the verticcal
componentt. If the incclination iss less than 22.5 degreees these efffects can bbe considerred
insignificannt and the full
f capacity
y of the anchhor can be assumed.
a
10.8.4.3 Plate an
nchors
For plate aanchors, posstulate the potential
p
faillure surfacee to estimatee its capacitty.
s
in Fi gure 10.61.
A wall punnching shearr model is shown
Figure 10.6
61: Failure s
surfaces for plate ancho
ors
Section 10 - Se
eismic Assessm
ment of Unreinfo
orced Masonry B
Buildings
Updated 22 April 20
015
10
0-88
ISBN 978--0-473-26634
4-9
Seismic As
ssessment of U
Unreinforced Ma
asonry Buildingss
10
0.8.4.4 Capacity
C
of wall b
between connectio
c
ons
W
Where the laateral spacin
ng of conneections used
d to resist th
he wall anchhorage forcce is greaterr
thhan four tim
mes the wall thickness, m
measured along the len
ngth of the w
wall, check
k the sectionn
off wall spannning betweeen the anchoors to resist the local ou
ut-of-plane bending caaused by thee
laateral force (FEMA, 20
009). This ccheck migh
ht be underttaken allow
wing for arcching in thee
m
masonry; forr example, through thhe compresssive membrrane forcess that devellop when a
coonical yieldd line patteern developps in the bricck around th
he anchor.
Foor most appplications in
nvolving beaaring platess, it should be
b sufficienntly accuratee to assumee
a cylinder wiith a cross section the same shapee as the beaaring plate bbut lying outside it alll
roound by hallf the thickn
ness of the wall. Coheesion may be
b considere
red to be accting on thee
sides of this cylinder.
c
10.8.5
W elem
Wall
ments un
nder face
e load
10
0.8.5.1 General
G
Thhis section provides both
b
force-bbased (assu
uming elasttic behaviouur) and dissplacement-baased inelastic methods for assessinng face-load
ded walls. The
T force-bbased metho
ods utilisingg
thhe direct tennsile capacitty of the maasonry are only
o
approp
priate if all of the criteria listed inn
Seection 10.8..5.2 Generral are met.
N
Note:
Thhe procedurres in somee earlier verrsions of th
his documen
nt (such as the 1995 Red
Book))
thhat were bassed on the concept
c
of eequating tottal energy (strain energgy of deform
mation pluss
pootential enerrgy due to shifts
s
of weeights) of th
he rocking wall
w to that ffor an elastiic oscillatorr
haave since beeen shown to be deficiient. These proceduress give inconnsistent resu
ults and aree
pootentially unnsafe; particcularly wheere walls are physically
y hinged at floor levelss (i.e. whenn
thhey are suppported on a torsionally flexible beaam with no wall undern
rneath) or made
m
of stifff
(hhigh moduluus of elasticity) masonrry.
Thhis update uses
u
the sam
me formulattions as the 2006 guideelines but aaccommodattes some off
thhe more signnificant reccent researcch findings. These are based on w
work carried
d out at thee
U
University off Auckland and Univerrsity of Adelaide (Derrakhshan et al 2013a, Derakhshan
D
n
ett al, 2013b, Derakhshaan et al, 20114a and 2014b). Howeever, we haave not inclluded all off
thhe detailed procedures set out in this researcch (Derakh
hshan et al, 2014a) as there weree
soome simpliffying assum
mptions that made thesee proceduress less suitabble for thick
ker walls.
Prrocedures given
g
for asssessing facce-loaded walls
w
spannin
ng one-wayy horizontallly, or two-w
way horizontally and vertically,
v
aare based on response assuming only weak
k non-linearr
efffects (i.e. assumption
a
of elastic oor nominallly elastic reesponse). Thhese are baased on lesss
riggorous reseearch and are not ass well dev
veloped as proceduress for walls spanningg
veertically. Caaution is theerefore requuired when using
u
these recommenddations.
Fuurther research has been
b
carriedd out in this
t
area and
a
we exppect to incclude moree
coomprehensivve procedurres in the neext update.
Foor walls spaanning vertiically in onee direction between
b
a floor
f
and annother floor or the roof,,
orr as verticallly cantileveered (as in ppartitions an
nd parapets)), assure thee lateral resttraint of thee
flooors and thhe roof for all such w
walls. If thiis restraint cannot be assured, th
he methodss
prresented herre for one-w
way verticaally spannin
ng walls caannot be useed. Howeveer, it mightt
Se
ection 10 - Seism
Upd
dated 22 April 2015
10-89
9
IS
SBN 978-0-4
473-26634-9
9
Seismic
c Assessment of
still be posssible to asssess such walls

w
by anaalysing them
m as spanniing horizonntally betweeen
other wallss, columns or
o other elem
ments, or ass two-way assemblages
a
s.
Multi-wythhe walls cann be consideered as one integral uniit for face-loading if:
all wytthes are intterconnecteed with heaader coursees at least every
e
fourtth course and
a
regularrly along thee length of the
t wall, or
testing or special study has confirmed thhat the wyth
hes are capaable of actin
ing as integrral
units.
Otherwise,, consider each wythe as
a acting inddependently
y.
Header courses are tyypically pro
ovided everry four to six courses in commoon bond. Th
his
would norm
mally sufficce for wallss loaded ouut-of-plane (but
(
note th
he caution rraised above).
These headder courses would norm
mally pass through thee whole walll, with briccks lapping in
the interiorr as requireed. For exam
mple, in tripple brick walls
w
the heaader course on the insiide
will be eitther one briick higher or lower thhan the heaader course on the outtside to allo
ow
lapping ovver the centrral wythe.
If the abovve criterion is not met, investigatee the sufficiiency of thee available hheader courrse
by assuminng a verticaal shear actiing on the ccentreline of
o the lowerr wall equaal to P + Wt +
0.5Wb. Thiis shear neeeds to be resisted by hheader briccks crossing
g the centreeline. For th
his
purpose, yoou can assuume each heeader brick contributess a shear ressistance of 22frbt2/l, wheere
b, t and l aare the breaddth, depth and
a length oof the headeer and fr is its
i moduluss of rupture of
brick in beending.
If a wythe is not integgral with the main struuctural wall,, assume thee wythe waall piggybaccks
the backingg wall. If both wythes are one briick (110 mm
m) thick, yo
ou can assum
me they carrry
their own lload indepenndently for out-of-planne checks.
y single-wytthe partitio
ons, acousticc linings orr fire lining
gs)
Non-structtural masonnry (usually
should be consideredd as a mass within thee building and
a the risk
ks for face--load collap
pse
evaluated.
Internal waalls with flooors on both
h sides can be assumed
d to be supp
ported at flooor levels but
b
checks on the diaphraagms (streng
gth and defformation) and
a perpend
dicular wallls will still be
required.
Walls shouuld be assesssed in everry storey annd for both directions of
o response (inwards and
a
outwards). Set the ratiing of the wall
w at the leeast value fo
ound, as faillure in any oone storey for
f
either direcction of loadding will lead to progreessive failurre of the wh
hole wall.
10.8.5.2 Verticall spannin

ng walls
General
When usinng an elasticc analysis to
o determine the capacitty of a wall section, ignnore the direect
tensile streength of the masonry un
nless:
the dem
mands are calculated asssuming = 1 and Sp = 2, and
an insppection of thhe wall reveeals no signss of crackin
ng at that secction, and
the in-pplane calcullations indiccate crackinng of the briickwork is not
n expectedd.
Section 10 - Se
eismic Assessm
ment of Unreinfo
orced Masonry B
Buildings
Updated 22 April 20
015
10
0-90
ISBN 978--0-473-26634
4-9
Seismic As
ssessment of U
Unreinforced Ma
asonry Buildingss
Iff you adoptt a displaceement baseed approach

h, the maximum out-oof-plane diisplacementt
shhould be lim
mited to 0.6
6 times the iinstability displacemen
d
nt for simplly supported
d walls andd
0.3 times the instability displacemennt for cantillever walls, e.g. parapeets.
Inn the case of
o walls sup
pported agaainst face lo
oad, deflection of the supports will
w need too
m
meet minimuum requireements to ensure the walls can
n respond aas assumed
d. In thesee
guuidelines, liimits on th
he deflectionn of diaphrragms are considered
c
a diaphrag
gm capacityy
issue and aree defined in
n Section 100.8.3.2. Theese deflectio
on limits sho
hould also ap
pply to anyy
otther supportts to face-lo
oaded walls,, for examp
ple, the supp
port that maay be provid
ded by steell
poortal or steeel bracing reetrofits.
Elastic ana
alysis
A simple bennding analy
ysis may bee performed
d for the seeismic asseessment of face-loaded
f
d
w
walls using Equation
E
10
0.9 providedd that the crriteria given
n in Section 10.8.5.2 - General
G
aree
m
met. Equationn 10.9 is ap
pplicable forr a unit walll length.

10.9
w
where:
P
An
M
tnom
n
=
=
=
=
Lo
oad appliedd to top of paanel (N)
Neet plan areaa of masonry
y (mm2)
Moment
M
capaacity of the panel (Nmm
m)
No
ominal thickkness of waall excluding pointing ((mm)
10.10
w
where:
p
=
tgross
=
g
n
=
deepth of morttar recess (iin mm) as sh

hown in Figgure 10.62
ov
verall thicknness of walll (in mm)
nu
umber of reccesses.
n =2 if recessses are prov

vided on botth sides; n=1 otherwisee.
i less than 6 mm, it caan be ignoreed.
Iff the recess is
Recess
Figure 10.62: Poin

nting with re
ecess
Thhe imposedd moment may

m be assuumed criticaal at mid-height of wallls restrained
d at the topp
annd bottom, or
o critical att the base o f cantileverr walls.
Se
ection 10 - Seism
Upd
dated 22 April 2015
10-91
IS
SBN 978-0-4
473-26634-9
9
The direct tensile strength, ft, should be ignored in capacity calculations unless there is no
sign of pre-cracking in the wall at the section being considered and the demand is assessed
assuming fully elastic behaviour and taking Sp =2 (synonymous with applying a 0.5 factor
to the capacity) and cracking of the brickwork in the region of the section is not expected
for loading in-plane.
Inelastic displacement-based analysis for walls spanning vertically between
supports
Follow the steps below to assess the displacement response capability and displacement
demand in order to determine the adequacy of the walls.
Note:
Appendix 10B provides some guidance on methods for determining key parameters. Refer
to Figure 10B.1 for the notation employed.
We have also provided some approximations you can use (listed after these steps) if wall
panels are uniform within a storey (approximately rectangular in vertical and horizontal
section and without openings).
Charts are provided in Appendix 10C that allow assessment of %NBS for regular walls
(vertically spanning and vertical cantilever) in terms of height to thickness ratio of the
wall, gravity load on the wall and parameters defining the demand on the wall.
The wall panel is assumed to form hinge lines at the points where effective horizontal
restraint is assumed to be applied. The centre of compression on each of these hinge lines
is assumed to form a pivot point. The height between these pivot points is the effective
panel height h (in mm). At mid-height between these pivots, height h/2 from either, a third
pivot point is assumed to form.
The recommended Steps for assessment of walls following the displacement-based method
are discussed below:
Step1
Divide the wall panel into two parts: a top part bounded by the upper pivot and the mid
height between the top and bottom pivots; and a bottom part bounded by the mid-height
pivot and the bottom pivot.
Note:
This division into two parts is based on the assumption that a significant crack will form at
the mid height of the wall, where an effective hinge will form. The two parts are then
assumed to remain effectively rigid. While this assumption is not always correct, the errors
introduced by the resulting approximations are not significant.
One example is that significant deformation occurs in the upper part of top-storey walls. In
particular, where the tensile strength of the mortar is small the third hinge will not
necessarily form at the mid height.

10-92
ISBN 978-0-473-26634-9
Step 2
Calculate the weight of the wall parts: Wb (in N) of the bottom part and Wt (in N) of the top
part, and the weight acting at the top of the storey, P (in N).
Note:
The weight of the wall should include any render and linings, but these should not be
included in tnom or t (in mm) unless the renderings are integral with the wall. The weight
acting on the top of the wall should include all roofs, floors (including partitions and
ceilings and the seismic live load) and other features that are tributary to the wall.
Step 3
From the nominal thickness of the wall, tnom, calculate the effective thickness, t.
Note:
The effective thickness is the actual thickness minus the depth of the equivalent rectangular
stress block. The reduction in thickness is intended to reflect that the walls will not rock
about their edge but about the centre of the compressive stress block.
The depth of the equivalent rectangular stress block should be calculated with caution,
as the depth determined for static loads may increase under earthquake excitation.
Appendix 10B suggests a reasonable value based on experiments, t = tnom (0.9750.025 P/W). The thickness calculated by this formula may be assumed to apply to any type
of mortar, provided it is cohesive. For weaker (and softer) mortars, greater damping will
compensate for any error in the calculated t.
Step 4
Assess the maximum distance, ep, from the centroid of the top part of the wall to the line of
action of P. Refer to Figure 10B.1 for definition of eb, et and eo. Usually, the eccentricities
eb and ep will each vary between 0 and t/2 (where t is the effective thickness of the wall).
Exceptionally they may be negative, i.e. where P promotes instability due to its placement.
When considering the restraint available from walls on foundations assume the foundation
is the same width as the wall and use the following values for eb:
0
t/3
t/4
if the factor of safety for bearing under the foundation, for dead load only
(FOS), is equal to 1
if FOS = 3 (commonly the case)
if FOS = 2
Note:
Figure 10B.2 shows the positive directions for the eccentricities for the assumed direction
of rotation (angle A at the bottom of the wall is positive for anti-clockwise rotation).
The walls do not need to be rigidly attached or continuous with a very stiff section of wall
beyond to qualify for an assumption of full flexural restraint.

10-93
ISBN 978-0-473-26634-9
Care should be taken not to assign the full value of eccentricity at the bottom of the wall if
the foundations are indifferent and may themselves rock at moments less than those
causing rocking in the wall. In this case, the wall might be considered to extend down to
the supporting soil where a cautious appraisal should then establish the eccentricity. The
eccentricity is then related to the centroid of the lower block in the usual way.
Step 5
Calculate the mid-height deflection, i, that would cause instability under static conditions.
The following formula may be used to calculate this deflection.
10.11
where:
10.12
and:
10.13
Note:
The deflection that would cause instability in the walls is most directly determined from
virtual work expressions, as noted in Appendix 10B.
Step 6
Assign the maximum usable deflection, m (in mm), as 0.6 i.
Note:
The lower value of the deflection for calculation of instability limits reflects that response
predictions become difficult as the theoretical limit is approached. In particular, the
response becomes overly dependent on the characteristics of the earthquake, and minor
perturbances lead quickly to instability and collapse.
Step 7
Calculate the period of the wall, Tp, as four times the duration for the wall to return from a
displaced position measured by t(in mm) to the vertical. The value of t is less than m.
Research indicates that t= 0.6m =0.36i for the calculation of an effective period for use
in an analysis using a linear response spectrum provides a close approximation to the
results of more detailed methods. The period may be calculated from the following
equation:
4.07

10.14
10-94
ISBN 978-0-473-26634-9
where J is the rotational inertia of the masses associated with Wb, Wt and P and any
ancillary masses, and is given by the following equation:
10.15
where Jbo and Jto are mass moment of inertia of the bottom and top parts about their
centroids, and Janc is the inertia of any ancillary masses, such as veneers, that are not
integral with the wall but that contribute to the inertia.
When treating cavity walls, make the following provisions:
When the veneer is much thinner than the main wythe, the veneer can be treated as an
appendage. For inelastic analysis, the veneers can be accounted through Janc.
If both wythes are a one - brick (110 mm) thick, then these could be treated as
independent walls. Allocate appropriate proportion of overburden on them and solve
the problem in the usual way.
Where an accurate solution is the objective, solve the general problem with the
kinematic constraint that the two walls deflect the same.
Note:
The equations are derived in Appendix 10B. You can use the method in this appendix to
assess less common configurations as necessary.
Step 8
Calculate the design response coefficient Cp(Tp) in accordance with Section 8 NZS 1170.5
taking =1 and substituting C (Tp):
p
10.16
where:
Chc(Tp) = the spectral shape factor ordinate, Ch(Tp), from NZS 1170.5 for
Ground Class C and period Tp, provided that, solely for the purpose
of calculating Chc(Tp), Tp need not be taken less than 0.5 sec.
When calculating CHi from NZS 1170.5 for walls spanning vertically and held at the top, hi
should be taken as the average of the heights of the points of support (typically these will
be at the heights of the diaphragms). In the case of vertical cantilevers, hi should be
measured to the point from which the wall is assumed to cantilever. If the wall is sitting on
the ground and is laterally supported above, hi may be taken as half of the height to the
point of support.
If the wall is sitting on the ground and is not otherwise attached to the building it should be
treated as an independent structure, not as a part. This will involve use of the appropriate
ground spectrum for the site.

10-95
ISBN 978-0-473-26634-9
Note:
The above substitution for Ci(Tp) has been necessary because the use of the tri-linear
function given in NZS 1170.5 (Equations 8.4(1), 8.4(2) and 8.4(3) does not allow
appropriate conversion from force to displacement demands. The revised Ci(Tp) converts
to the following, with the numerical numbers available from NZS 1170.5 Table 3.1.
Ci(Tp)
2.0
for Tp < 0.5sec

0.75
2.0(0.5/ Tp)
for 0.5 < Tp < 1.5sec
1.32/ Tp
for 1.5 < Tp < 3sec
3.96/ Tp
for Tp > 3sec
Only 5% damping should be applied. Experiments show that expected levels of damping
from impact are not realised: the mating surfaces at hinge lines tend to simply fold onto
each other rather than impact.
Step 9
Calculate , the participation factor for the rocking system. This factor may be taken as:
10.17
Note:
The participation factor relates the response deflection at the mid height of the wall to the
response deflection for a simple oscillator of the same period and damping.
Step 10
From Cp(Tp), Tp, Rp and calculate the displacement response, Dph (in mm) as:
/2
...10.18
where:
Cp(Tp) = the design response coefficient for face-loaded walls (refer Step 8
above, and for more details refer to Section 10.10.3)
Tp
= Period of face-loaded wall, sec
Rp
= the part risk factor as given by Table 8.1, NZS 1170.5
Cp(Tp) Rp 3.6.
Note that with Tp expressed in seconds, the multiplied terms (Tp/2)2 Cp(Tp) g may be
closely approximated in metres by:
/2
MIN
/3, 1

10.19
10-96
ISBN 978-0-473-26634-9
Step 11
Calculate
%
100
60 /
10.20
Note:
The 0.6 factor applied to i reflects that response becomes very dependent on the
characteristics of the earthquake for deflections larger than 0.6i.
The previous version of these guidelines allowed a 20% increase in %NBS calculated by
the above expression. However that is not justified now that different displacements are
used for capacity and for the period and the subsequent calculation of demand.
Note:
Steps 12 to 14 are only required for anchorage design.
Step 12
Calculate the horizontal accelerations that would just force the rocking mechanism to form.
The acceleration may be assumed to be constant over the height of the panel, reflecting that
it is associated more with acceleration imposed by the supports than with accelerations
associated with the wall deflecting away from the line of the supports. Express the
acceleration as a coefficient, Cm, by dividing by g.
Note:
Again, virtual work proves the most direct means for calculating the acceleration.
Appendix 10B shows how and derives the following expression for Cm, in which the
ancillary masses are assumed part of Wb and Wt.
10.21
Note:
To account for the initial enhancement of the capacity of the rocking mechanism due to
tensile strength of mortar and possible rendering, we recommend that Cm be cautiously
assessed when mortar and rendering are present or in the case of retrofit likely to be
added. The value of Cm may also be too large to use for the design of connections.
Accordingly, it is recommended that Cm need not be taken greater than the maximum part
coefficient determined from Section 8 NZS 1170.5 setting Rp and p =1.0.
Step 13
Calculate Cp(0.75), which is the value of Cp(Tp) for a part with a short period from
NZS 1170.5 and define a seismic coefficient for the connections which is the lower of Cm,
Cp(0.75) or 3.6

10-97
ISBN 978-0-473-26634-9
Note:
Cp(0.75) is the short period ordinate of the design response coefficient for parts from
NZS 1170.5, and 3.6g is the maximum value of Cp(Tp) required to be considered by
NZS 1170.5 when Rp and p =1.0 .
Step 14
Calculate the required support reactions using the contributing weight of the walls above
and below the connection (for typical configurations this will be the sum of Wb and Wt for
the walls above and below the support accordingly) and the seismic coefficient determined
in Step 13.
Step 15
Calculate
%NBS = Capacity of connection from Section 10.8.4 x 100
Required support reaction from Step 14
10.22
Note:
If supports to face-loaded walls are being retrofitted, we recommend that the support
connections are made stronger than the wall(s) and not less than required using a seismic
coefficient of Cp(0.75), i.e. do not take advantage of a lower Cm value.
Simplifications for regular walls
You can use the following approximations if wall panels are uniform within a storey
(approximately rectangular in vertical and horizontal section and without openings) and the
inter-storey deflection does not exceed 1% of the storey height. The results are summarised
in Table 10.12.
The steps below relate to the steps for the general procedure set out above.
Step 1
Divide the wall as before.
Step 2
Calculate the weight of the wall, W (in N), and the weight applied at the top of the
storey, P (in N).
Step 3
Calculate the effective thickness as before, noting that it will be constant.
Step 4
Calculate the eccentricities, eb, et and ep. Each of these may usually be taken as
either t/2 or 0.
Step 5
Calculate the instability deflection, i from the formulae in Table 10.12 for the
particular case.
Step 6
Assign the maximum usable deflection, m, for capacity as 60% of the instability
deflection.
Step 7
Calculate the period, which may be taken as 4.07(J/a), where J and a are given
in Table 10.12. Alternatively, where the wall is fairly thin (h/t is large), the period
may be approximated as:

10-98
ISBN 978-0-473-26634-9
Seismic As
ssessment of U
Unreinforced Ma
asonry Buildingss
10.23
in which
w
h is ex
xpressed in metres.
Sttep 8
Calcculate Cp(Tp) followingg Equation 10.16.

1
Sttep 9
Calcculate the paarticipationn factor as fo

or the generral method, with the nu
umerator off
2
the expression
e
expanded too give = Wh /8J. Th
his may be ttaken at thee maximum
m
valuue of 1.5 or may be asssessed by ussing the sim
mplified exppression for J shown inn
Tablle 10.12.
Sttep 10 Calcculate Dph from Cp(Tp ), Tp and in the same

s
mannner as for the
t generall
methhod.
Sttep 11 Calcculate %NBS in the sam
me manner as
a for the geeneral methhod.
N
Note:
Chharts are prrovided in Appendix 110C that alllow the %N
NBS to be calculated directly forr
vaarious bounndary condiitions for rregular wallls spanning
g vertically,, given h/tGross
for thee
G
w
wall, gravity load on thee wall and faactors defin
ning the dem
mand.
Ta
able 10.12: Static
S
instab
bility deflecttion for unifform walls various bo
oundary con
nditions
Bo
oundary
Co
ondition
Nu
umber
ep
t/2
t/2
eb
t/2
t/2
(W
W/2+P)t
(W+3P//2)t
(W/2+3P/2)t
(W
W+2P)t
(W
W/2+P)h
(W/2+P
P)h
(W/2+P)h
(W
W/2+P)h
i = bh/(2a)
t/2
(2W+3P
P)t
(2W+4P)
(W+3P)t
(2W+4P)
{(W/12)[h2 +7t2]
{(W/12)[h2+16t2]
{((W/12)[h2+7t2]
{(W/12)[h2+16t2]
+Pt
+ 2}/g
+9Pt2/4
4}/g
+9Pt2/4}/g
+4Pt2}/g
(2+4
4P/W)t/h
(4+6P/W
W)t/h
(2+6P/W)t/h
4(1+
+2P/W)t/h
Cm
Noote:
1. The boundaryy conditions of the piers shownn above are for clockwise poteential rocking.
2. The top eccenntricity, et, is no
ot related to a bboundary condiition, so is not included
i
in the table. The top eccentricity, et,
is the horizonntal distance fro
om the central ppivot point to the
t centre of maass of the top bblock which is not related to a
boundary conndition.
3. The eccentriccities shown in the sketches iss for the positiv
ve sense. Wheree the top eccenntricity is in thee other sense ep
should be enttered as a negative number.
Se
ection 10 - Seism
Upd
dated 22 April 2015
10-99
9
IS
SBN 978-0-4
473-26634-9
9
Vertical cantilevers
Parameters for assessing vertical cantilevers, such as partitions and parapets are derived in
Appendix 10B. Please consult this appendix for general cases.
For parapets of uniform rectangular cross-section, you may use the following
approximations. These steps relate to the steps set out earlier for the general procedure for
walls spanning between vertical diaphragms.
Step 1
You do not need to divide the parapet. Only one pivot is assumed to form: at the
base.
Step 2
The weight of the parapet is W (in N). P (in N) is zero.
Step 3
The effective thickness is t (in mm) = 0.98tnom.
Step 4
Only eb is relevant. It is equal to t/2.
Step 5
The instability deflection measured at the top of the parapet i = t.
Step 6
The maximum usable deflection measured at the top of the parapet m = 0.3i =
0.3t.
Step 7
The period may be calculated from the assumption that t= 0.8m= 0.24i.
0.65
10.24
in which h, the height of the parapet above the base pivot, and t, the thickness of
the wall, are expressed in metres. The formulation is valid for P = 0, eb = t/2, yb =
h/2 and approximating t = tnom.
Step 8
Calculate Cp(Tp) (refer to Step 8 of the general procedure for walls spanning
vertically between diaphragms).
Step 9
Calculate = 1.5/[1+(t/h)2] 1.5.
10.25
Step 10 Calculate Dph from Cp(Tp), Tp and and as before.

Step 11 Calculate %NBS as for the general procedure for walls spanning between a floor
and an upper floor or roof, from;
%
100 /
30 /
30 /
...10.26
Note:
Steps 12 to 14 are only required for anchorage design.
Step 12 Calculate Cm = t/h.
10.27
Step 13 Calculate Cp(0.75) which is the value of Cp(Tp) for a part with a short period from
NZS 1170.5. and define a seismic coefficient for the connections which is the
lower of Cm, Cp(0.75) and 3.6.

10-100
ISBN 978-0-473-26634-9
Step 14 Calculate the base shear from W, Cm and Cp(0.75). This base shear adds to the
reaction at the roof level restraint.
Note:
Charts are provided in Appendix 10C that allow the %NBS to be calculated directly for
various boundary conditions for regular walls cantilevering vertically, given h/tGross for the
wall, gravity load on the wall and factors defining the demand.
Gables
Figure 10.63(a) shows a gable that is:
free along the vertical edge
simply supported along the top edge (at roof level), and
continuous at the bottom edge (ceiling or attic floor level).
This somewhat unusual case is useful in establishing parameters for more complex cases.
The following parameters can be derived from this gable:
2
3
32
10.28
10.29
Note:
In the above equations, W and P are total weights, not weights per unit length. Also note
that the participation factor now has a maximum value of 2.0 (t << h, P = 0).
These results can be used for the gable in Figure 10.63(b) to provide a cautious assessment
that does not recognise all of the factors that could potentially enhance the performance of
such gables, such as the beneficial effects of membrane action
Note:
There are several factors that enhance performance in gables like those shown in
Figure 10.63(a), all of which relate to the occurrence of significant membrane action.
Guidance on this aspect will be provided in future versions of this document when the
necessary research (including testing) has been undertaken. (Please also refer to the
following section on walls spanning horizontally and vertically.)

10-101
ISBN 978-0-473-26634-9
(a) Basic gable wall for defining parameters
(b) Typical gable for which results from (a) can be applied
Figure 10.63: Gable configurations

10-102
ISBN 978-0-473-26634-9
Seismic As
ssessment of U
Unreinforced Ma
asonry Buildingss
10
0.8.5.3 Horizonta
H
al and ve rtical-horizontal spanning
s
g panels
Paast earthquuakes have shown thaat URM waalls can acct as a twoo-way span
nning panell
shhowing yield line pattterns (Figuure 10.64) similar to those thatt occur in a two-wayy
sppanning slabb if the waalls are attacched to thee supports on
o four sidees. Howeveer, a speciall
stuudy is recommended if
i two-way spanning iss to be assu
umed. This study shoulld take intoo
acccount diffeerent elastic properties, displacemeent compatibility, and aany detrimeental effectss
reesulting from
m the expeccted behavioour of the wall
w in the orrthogonal ddirection.
Figure 10.64:
1
Idealis
sed crackin
ng patterns for
f masonryy walls
N
Note:
Computationnally intensiive analyticcal methodo
ologies such
h as finite element an
nalysis havee
beeen shown to predict the out-of--plane stren
ngth of two-way spannning URM walls withh
goood reliabillity. However, their reliance on
n knowing the precisse values of
o materiall
prroperties, thhe high com
mputational effort and the high an
nalytical skiill required of the userr
m
makes them unsuitable
u
for
f everydayy design usee.
Thhe approach prescribeed by the A
Australian masonry
m
co
ode AS 37000: 2011 for
f ultimatee
strrength desiggn of two-w
way spanninng walls is the
t so-called
d virtual woork method, developedd
byy Lawrencee and Marsh
hall (1996). This is a form
f
of rigiid plastic annalysis which assumess
thhat, at the point
p
of ulttimate strenngth, the lo
oad resistan
nce of the w
wall is obttained from
m
coontributionss of momen
nt capacitiees along veertical and diagonal crrack lines in
i two-wayy
beending mecchanisms (F
Figure 10.664). Compaarisons of strength
s
preedictions with
w
a largee
exxperimentall data set haave been shhown to be largely favourable in tthe sources mentionedd
Se
ection 10 - Seism
Upd
dated 22 April 2015
10-103
3
IS
SBN 978-0-4
473-26634-9
9
Seismic
c Assessment of
before, in sspite of num

merous shorrtcomings oof the momeent capacity
y expressionns used with
hin
the methodd which are still currently prescribbed in AS 37
700 (AS, 20
011).
More recenntly, Williss et al. (200
04) and Grriffith et al. (2007) hav
ve developeed alternatiive
expressionns for calculating th
he momennt capacitiees which incorporatte significaant
improvemeents over the AS 37
700 expresssions as they
t
are based
b
on m
more ration
nal
mechanicaal models, account
a
forr the benefficial effects of verticaal compresssion, and are
a
dimensionaally consisstent. Furth
hermore, W
Willis et al.
a (2004) demonstraated that the
t
expressionns perform favourably
f
in
i predictingg the ultimaate load cap
pacity whenn implementted
into the virrtual work approach.
a
The currenntly availablle research is not suffiicient for asssessing two
o-way panells in a typiccal
design offfice enviroonment. Ho
owever, siggnificant progress
p
haas been ma
made into the
t
behaviour of walls off this kind, e.g. Vaculiik, (2012), and we exp
pect to trannslate this in
nto
proceduress suitable for
f design office use and routin
ne assessmeent in time for the neext
update.
10.8.6
Walls under
u
in--plane lo
oad
10.8.6.1 Generall
The capaccity of walll componen
nts will typpically be represented
r
by the horrizontal sheear
capacity off the compoonent.
Wall compponents undder in-planee load can be broadly categorised
d into two main group
ps:
walls withoout penetrattion and waalls with pennetrations.
The capaciity of wall componentts without ppenetrationss should bee assessed aas outlined in
Section 10.8.6.2.
The recom
mmended approach
a
to assessingg the capaacity of a wall com
mponent with
penetrationns is as folloows:
Step 1:
Divide thee wall com

mponent intoo individuaal elementss comparinng the piers
between the penetraations and spandrel elements above annd below the
t
penetrations.
Step 2:
Determinee the capaccity of the ppier elemen

nts in a sim
milar manneer to walls in
accordancce with Secttion 10.8.6. 2. This willl require an
n assessmennt of the ax
xial
loads on thhe element due to gravvity loads.
Step 3:
Determinee the capaacity of tthe spandrrel elementts in accoordance with

Section 100.8.6.3. For
F basic bbuildings the
t
spandreels may bbe treated as
secondaryy elements and
a ignored in the assesssment of laateral capaccity.
Step 4:
Determinee if the capaacity of the penetrated wall is goveerned by sppandrel or pier

capacity. This
T will neeed to be evvaluated for each spand
drel to pier cconnection. A
sway indeex as defined
d in Sectionn 10.8.6.4 caan be used to
t do this.
Step 5:
Based on the sway index deterrmine if the capacity of each piier element is
governed by
b the pier itself or thee abutting sp
pandrel elem
ment.
Section 10 - Se
eismic Assessm
ment of Unreinfo
orced Masonry B
Buildings
Updated 22 April 20
015
10-1
104
ISBN 978--0-473-26634
4-9
Seismic As
ssessment of U
Unreinforced Ma
asonry Buildingss
Sttep 6:
Carry out an
C
n analysis off the wall component to
t determinee its capacitty based onn
thhe capacity
y of the individuall pier elem
ments actiing in serries. Referr
S
Section
10.8
8.6.4.
Thhe degree too which a wall

w on a siingle line, but
b extendin
ng over seveeral storeyss, should bee
brroken downn into indiv
vidual compponents will depend on
n the methood of analy
ysis used too
esstablish the buildings global
g
capaacity. This iss discussed further in SSection 10.9
9. Typicallyy
it is expectedd that it wiill be necesssary to assess the cap
pacity for eaach wall lin
ne betweenn
eaach storey inn the buildin
ng.
10
0.8.6.2 In
n-plane capacity
c
of URM walls
w
and
d pier ele
ements
Thhe in-planee strength capacity
c
of URM wallls and pier elements shhould be taaken as thee
loower of the assessed diiagonal tennsile, toe cru
ushing, in-p
plane rockinng or bed jo
oint slidingg
strrength capaacities as deetermined bbelow. Thiis then beco
omes the m
mode of beh
haviour andd
thhe basis for the calculaation of thee deformatio
on capacity. Where D
DPC layers are presentt
thhese may alsso limit the shear that ccan be resistted.
Foor the purpposes of asssessing the wall or pier capacitiees for eachh mechanism
m the yieldd
diisplacementt, y, may be
b taken as tthe sum of the
t flexural and shear iin-plane dissplacementss
(m
making allow
wance for cracking
c
etcc as recomm
mended in Section
S
10.77.6) when the
t elementt
is subjected to a laterral shear cconsistent with
w
achiev
ving the shhear strength for thatt
m
mechanism as
a given belo
ow. Refer aalso Section
n 10.9.4.5.
Diagonal te
ensile capacity
Thhis is one of the most important chhecks to be carried out.
Thhe maximuum diagonal tensile strrength of a wall, pierr or spandreel without flanges (orr
w
where you have decid
ded to ignnore them) can be calculated uusing Equaation 10.300
(A
ASCE 41-133). Refer to the section below if yo
ou decide to
o account foor the effectt of flanges.
1
10.30
w
where:
An
fdt
d
fa
=
=
=
=
factor
f
to corrrect nonlin
near stress distribution ((Table 10.13)
area
a of net m
mortared/grrouted sectio
on of the waall web, mm
m2
masonry
m
diaagonal tensiion strength
h (Equation 10.3), MPaa
axial
a
comprression stresss due to grravity loadss calculated at the basee
of
o the wall/ppier, MPa.
Ta
able 10.13: Shear
S
stress
s factor, , ffor Equation
n 10.30
Crriterion
Sle
ender piers, where
w
heff/l > 1.5
0.67
Sq
quat piers, where heff/l < 0.5
5
1.00
Noote:
Linnear interpolatiion is permitted
d for intermediaate values of hefff/l
Se
ection 10 - Seism
Upd
dated 22 April 2015
10-105
5
IS
SBN 978-0-4
473-26634-9
9
Refer to Figure 10.65 for the definition of heff.

This failure mode occurs when the diagonal tensile strength of a wall or pier is exceeded
by the principal stresses. It is one of the undesirable failure modes as it causes a rapid
degradation in strength and stiffness after the formation of cracking, ultimately leading to
loss of load path. For this reason a deformation limit of y for this failure mode is
recommended.
This failure mode is more common where axial stresses are high, piers are squatter and the
tensile strength of masonry is low.
Diagonal tension failure leads to formation of an inclined diagonal crack that commonly
follows the path of bed and head joints through the masonry, because of the lower strength
of mortar compared to brick. However, cracking through brick is also possible if the mortar
is stronger. In New Zealand masonry, the crack pattern typically follows the mortar joint.
For conditions where axial stresses on walls or piers are relatively low and the mortar
strengths are also low compared to the splitting strengths of the masonry units, diagonal
tension actions may be judged not to occur prior to bed-joint sliding. However, there is no
available research to help determine a specific threshold of axial stress and relative brick
and mortar strengths that differentiates whether cracking occurs through the units or
through the mortar joints (ASCE, 2013).
Toe crushing capacity
The maximum toe crushing strength, Vtc, of a wall, pier or spandrel can be calculated using
Equation 10.31 if no flanges are present or if you have decided to ignore them. If flanges
are to be accounted for, refer to the section below.

0.5
10.31
where:
P
Pw
Lw
heff
fa
=
=
=
=
=
fm
factor equal to 0.5 for fixed-free cantilever wall/pier, or equal to 1.0

for fixed-fixed wall/pier
superimposed and dead load at top of the wall/pier
self-weight of wall/pier
length of the wall/pier, mm
height to resultant of seismic force (refer to Figure 10.65), mm
axial compression stress due to gravity loads at mid height of
wall/pier, MPa
masonry compression strength, MPa (refer to Section 10.7.3).

10-106
ISBN 978-0-473-26634-9
Seismic As
ssessment of U
Unreinforced Ma
asonry Buildingss
Figu
ure 10.65: A rocking pie
er
A deformatioon limit of y or y is recommend

ded for thiss failure moode for wallls/piers andd
sppandrels respectively.
A toe crushinng failure mode
m
is not aan expected
d failure mode of low-riise New Zeealand wallss
orr piers durinng in-plane loading. H
However, it still needs to be asses sed; particu
ularly whenn
thhe walls havve been rettrofitted witth un-bondeed post-tensioning or a seismic interventionn
thhat inhibits the
t diagonal tension faiilure mode.
R
Rocking ca
apacity
Rocking faillure is onee of the sstable mod
des of failu
ure. Experiimental inv
vestigationss
unndertaken by
b Knox (20
012), Anthooine et al. (1995), Costtley and Abbrams (1996
6), Franklinn
ett al. (2001), Magenes and
a Calvi (11995), Moon
n et al. (200
06), Bruneauu and Paquette (2004),,
X
Xu and Abraams (1992)), and Bothhara et al. (2010)
(
havee confirmedd that URM
M elementss
exxhibiting roocking behaaviour havee substantiaal deformatiion capacityy past initial crackingg
buut also exhibbit very low
w levels of hhysteretic daamping.
A generalisedd relationsh
hip betweenn strength an
nd deformattion for the rocking meechanism iss
shhown in Figgure 10.66.
m probablee rocking strrength of a wall (considered overr one level) or pier, Vr,,
Thhe maximum
caan be calcullated using Equation
E
100.32.

0.9
0.5
10.32
w
where:
Vr
=
=
Pw
Lw
heff
=
=
=
strength
s
of w
wall or walll pier based on rockingg
factor
f
equall to 0.5 for fixed-free cantilever
c
w
wall, or equaal to 1.0 forr
fixed-fixed
f
wall pier.
superimpose
s
ed and deaad load at the top oof the wall//pier underr
consideratio
c
on
self-weight
s
of the wall//pier
length
l
of waall or wall/p
pier, mm
height
h
to ressultant of seeismic forcee (refer to FFigure 10.65
5), mm.
W
When assessing the capacity of waalls without openings for
f the full hheight of th
he building,,
Eqquation 10.32 will neeed to be adj usted to account for th
he differentt location off the laterall
foorce. This can
c be assum
med to be aapplied at tw
wo thirds of
o the heighht of the building from
m
thhe point of fixity.
f
Se
ection 10 - Seism
Upd
dated 22 April 2015
10-107
7
IS
SBN 978-0-4
473-26634-9
9
Seismic
c Assessment of
Nonlinear response of
o rocking URM
U
piers is generally characterrised by a nnegative postyield slopee due to P- effects bu
ut will be liimited by to
oe crushing,, as the effeective beariing
area at thee toe of thee rocking piier reduces to zero un
nder increassing lateral displacemeent
(refer Figuure 10.66). This laten
nt toe crushhing differs from thaat discussedd above as it
typically occurs at largger rotation
ns and lowerr shears.
Figure 10.66: Generralised stren

ngth-deform
mation relatio
onship for rocking of un
nreinforced
d
masonry walls orr piers (ASC
CE 41-13)
Deformatioon associateed with the onset of toee crushing, tc,r / heff, sh

hould be callculated usiing
a moment--curvature or
o similar analytical
a
aapproach an
nd a maxim
mum usablee strain at the
t
compressioon fibre of 0.0035. The axial com
mpressive sttress on the toe due to gravity loaads
should be based on an
a equivaleent compresssion zone of the effeective net ssection of the
t
rocking pieer that is in bearing.
metric stabiliity of the ro
ocking pierr due to P- effects may
m
Under raree conditionss, the geom
govern thee ultimate deformation
d
n capacity. In the abssence of su
ubstantiatingg test resullts,
assume elaastic unloadding hysteretic charactteristics forr rocking URM
U
in-plaane walls and
a
wall piers.
Note:
It is recom
mmended thaat the capaccity of a rockking wall/pier be limiteed to that coonsistent with
a wall/pierr lateral drifft equal to th
he lower off 0.003heff/Lw or 0.011. The laterall performan
nce
of a rockinng wall is coonsidered to
o be less re liable and not
n to provide the levell of resilien
nce
consideredd appropriatte when thee deflectionns exceed th
hese values.. Wall/pier elements th
hat
are not parrt of the seeismic resistting system
m and which
h have a thickness greeater than 350
mm (3 wyythes), are expected
e
be able to proovide reliab
ble vertical load
l
carryinng capacity at
higher defllections appproaching tw
wice the lim
mits given above.
a
Thesse greater liimits can allso
be used foor all wall//pier elemeents when cyclic stifffness and strength
s
deggradation are
a
included iin the anallysis metho
od used. S
Such an an
nalysis willl automaticcally inclu
ude
redistributiion of the laateral loads between eleements wheen this is necessary.
Section 10 - Se
eismic Assessm
ment of Unreinfo
orced Masonry B
Buildings
Updated 22 April 20
015
10-1
108
ISBN 978--0-473-26634
4-9
Seismic As
ssessment of U
Unreinforced Ma
asonry Buildingss
A
Assumption of fixity or cantilever action depeends on thee stiffness aand overall integrity off
thhe spandrelss above an
nd below thhe rocking pier and on how effeectively spaandrels cann
traansmit verttical shears and bendinng. Converssely, wall sp
pandrels thaat are weak
k relative too
addjacent pierrs may not provide fixxity at the tops
t
and bo
ottoms of piiers and maay result inn
piiers acting as
a cantileveers. In geneeral, deep sp
pandrels could providee fixed-fixed boundaryy
coonditions.
N
Note that if the self-weeight of the pier is larg
ge and bou
undary condditions are fixed-fixed,
f
,
Eqquation 10.332 may oveerestimate thhe rocking capacity.
c
Thhis behavioour mode iss common w
where axiall stresses arre low, wallls or piers are slenderr
(hheight to lenngth ratio > 2) and morrtar strength
h are relativeely better.
Bed-joint sliding she
ear capaci ty
Bed-joint slidding failure is one of thhe stable modes
m
of faillure. Investiigations und
dertaken byy
vaarious researchers hav
ve confirm
med that URM
U
elemeents exhibitting bed-jo
oint slidingg
beehaviour haave substanttial deformaation capacity past initial cracking .
Thhe recomm
mended geneeralized forrce-deformaation relatio
onship for URM wallls and walll
piiers governeed by bed-jjoint slidingg or sliding
g stair-stepp
ped failure m
modes is illustrated inn
Fiigure 10.677. A simpliffied form oof the ASC
CE 41-13 fo
orce-deform
mation relatiionship hass
beeen adoptedd.
F
Figure 10.67: Generalise
ed force-defformation re
elationship for
f unreinfo
orced mason
nry walls or
piers go
overned by b
bed-joint sliiding or staiir-stepped ssliding
Thhe maximum
m probable sliding sheear strength,, Vs, can be found from
m Equation 10.33.
1
0.7
w
where:
P
Pw
=
=
=
10.33
masonry
m
coeefficient off friction
superimpose
s
ed and dead
d load at top
p of the walll/pier
self-weight
s
of wall/pierr above the sliding planne being con
nsidered
Thhe 0.7 factoor is to reflect the overaall reliability

y of the slid
ding mechannism calculation.
Se
ection 10 - Seism
Upd
dated 22 April 2015
10-109
9
IS
SBN 978-0-4
473-26634-9
9
The capacity for bed-joint sliding in masonry elements is a function of bond and frictional
resistance. Therefore, Equation 10.33 includes both factors. However, with increasing
cracking, the bond component is progressively degraded until only the frictional
component remains. The probable residual wall sliding shear capacity, Vs,r, is therefore
found from Equation 10.33 setting the cohesion, c, equal to 0.
Note:
It is recommended that the bed joint sliding capacity of a rocking wall/pier be limited to a
lateral drift of 0.003. The lateral performance of a wall/pier is considered to be unreliable
and not able to provide the level of resilience considered appropriate when the deflections
exceed this value. Wall/pier elements that are not part of the seismic resisting system are
expected be able to provide reliable vertical load carrying capacity at higher drifts,
approaching 0.075. These greater limits can also be used for all wall/pier elements when
cyclic stiffness and strength degradation are included in the analysis method used. Such an
analysis will automatically include redistribution of the lateral loads between elements
when this is necessary.
Slip plane sliding
A DPC layer, if present, will be a potential slip plane, which may limit the capacity of a
wall.
The capacity of a slip plane for no slip can be found from Equation 10.34:

where:
dpc =
10.34
DPC coefficient of friction. Typical values are 0.2-0.5 for

bituminous DPC, 0.4 for lead, and higher (most likely governed by
the mortar itself) for slate DPC
Other terms are as previously defined.

Note:
Where sliding of a DPC layer is found to be critical, testing of the material in its current/in
situ state may be warranted. Alternatively, parametric checks, where the effects of
low/high friction values are assessed, may show that the DPC layer is not critical in the
overall performance.
Sliding on a DPC slip plane does not necessarily define the deformation capacity of this
behaviour mode.
Evaluating the extent of sliding may be calculated using the Newmark sliding block
(Newmark, 1965) or other methods. However, exercise caution around the sensitivity to
different types of shaking and degradation of the masonry above/below the sliding plane.
Where sliding is used in the assessment to give a beneficial effect, this should be subject to
peer review.

10-110
ISBN 978-0-473-26634-9
Seismic As
ssessment of U
Unreinforced Ma
asonry Buildingss
Efffect of wa
all and pie
er flanges
It is commonn practice to
o ignore thee effects of flanges on the walls orr piers whille assessingg
thhe in-plane capacity off walls andd piers. How
wever, expeerimental reesearch und
dertaken byy
Costley and Abrams (19
996), Bruneeau and Paaquette (200
04), Moon eet al. (2006
6), Yi et al..
(22008) and Russell
R
& In
ngham (20100) has show
wn that flang
ges have thee potential to
t influencee
thhe response of in-planee walls. Flaanged wallss can have considerablly higher sttrength andd
stiffness thann those with
hout flangess. The assesssment could
d be particuularly non-conservativee
w
where estimaated rocking, sliding sshear, or stair-step craacking strenngth (which
h are stablee
m
modes of faailure), are close to tthe diagonaal tensile strength
s
off pier and walls. Thee
reecommended approach is to assesss how much
h flange is required for diagonal teension to bee
thhe critical beehaviour mo
ode and bassed on this determine
d
iff further invvestigation is
i required.
N
Note:
One of the prreconditionss for taking into accoun
nt the effectt of the flannges is that they
t
shouldd
reemain integrral with the in-plane piiers and wallls during th
he seismic sshaking. Th
herefore, thee
inntegrity of thhe connectio
ons must bee ascertained before ign
noring or inncluding theem.
Iff flanges aree taken into account, itt is common
n to assume that the lenngths of flaanges actingg
inn compressioon are the lesser of sixx times the thicknesses of the in-pllane walls or
o the actuall
leengths of thhe flanges. It is also ccommon to
o assume th
hat equivaleent lengths of tensionn
flaanges (to resist
r
globaal or compoonent overtturning) aree based onn likely crack patternss
reelating to upplift in flan
nge walls (Y
Yi, et al., 2008). Otherr approachees that eitheer model orr
coonsider diffe
ferent flangee lengths quualitatively may result in a varietyy of crack patterns
p
andd
coorrespondinng sequences of actionss.
10
0.8.6.3 URM
U
span
ndrel cap
pacity
G
General
Thhe recomm
mended gen
neralized foorce-deform
mation relattionship foor URM sp
pandrels iss
illlustrated in Figure 10.68. The reccommended
d generalizeed force-deeformation relationship
r
p
is based on experimenta
e
al work unddertaken by Beyer and Dazio (20112a and 2012b), Knoxx
(22012) Graziotti et al (20
012) and Grraziotti et all (2014) and
d as recomm
mended by Cattari
C
et all
(22014).
Figu
ure 10.68: Generalized
G
fforce-deform
mation relattionship for unreinforce
ed
masonry spandrels
s
Se
ection 10 - Seism
Upd
dated 22 April 2015
10-111
IS
SBN 978-0-4
473-26634-9
9
Expected in-plane strength of URM spandrels should be the lesser of the flexural and shear
strengths.
is the chord rotation of the spandrel, relative to the piers.

Note:
It is considered prudent to limit the deformation capacity of a spandrel panel to a panel
drift of 3y if its capacity is to be relied on as part of the seismic resisting system. Panel
chord rotation capacities beyond 0.02 or 0.01 for rectangular and arched spandrels
respectively, for panels that are not assumed to be part of the lateral seismic resisting
system, are not recommended as the performance of the spandrel (ie ability to remain in
place) could become unreliable at rotations beyond these limits. These greater limits can
also be used for all spandrel elements when cyclic stiffness and strength degradation are
included in the analysis method used. Such an analysis will automatically include
redistribution of the lateral loads between elements when this is necessary and therefore
the need to distinguish, in advance, between elements of the lateral and non-lateral load
resisting systems is not required.
Two generic types of spandrel have been identified: rectangular and those with shallow
arches. Recommendations for the various capacity parameters for these two cases are given
in the following sections.
Investigations are continuing on appropriate parameters for deep arched spandrels. In the
interim, until more specific guidance is available, it is recommended that deep arched
spandrels be considered as equivalent rectangular spandrels with a depth that extends to
one third of the depth of the arch below the arch apex.
The geometrical definitions used in the following sections are shown on Figure 10.69.
Figure 10.69: Geometry of spandrels with timber lintel (a) and shallow masonry arch (b)
(Beyer, 2012)
Rectangular spandrels
The expected in-plane strength of URM spandrels with and without timber lintels can be
determined following the procedures detailed below.

10-112
ISBN 978-0-473-26634-9
Note:
There is limited experimental information on the performance of URM spandrels with
lintels made from materials other than timber. However, URM spandrels with steel lintels
are expected to perform in a similar manner to those with timber lintels.
When reinforced concrete lintels are present the capacity of the spandrel can be calculated
neglecting the contribution of the URM.
Peak flexural strength
The peak flexural strength of rectangular spandrels can be estimated using Equation 10.35
(Beyer, 2012). Timber lintels do not make a significant contribution to the peak flexural
capacity of the spandrels so can be ignored.
10.35
where:
ft
psp
hsp
bsp
lsp
=
=
=
=
=
equivalent tensile strength of masonry spandrel

axial stress in the spandrel
height of spandrel excluding depth of timber lintel if present
width of spandrel
clear length of spandrel between adjacent wall piers.
Unless the spandrel is prestressed the axial stress in the spandrel can be assumed to be
negligible when determining the peak flexural capacity.
Equivalent tensile strength of masonry spandrel, ft, can be estimated using Equation 10.36:
1.3
0.5
10.36
where:
pp
=
=
mean axial stress due to superimposed and dead load in the

adjacent wall piers
masonry coefficient of friction
masonry bed-joint cohesion.
Residual flexural strength

Residual flexural strength of rectangular URM spandrels can be estimated using
Equation 10.37 (Beyer, 2012). Timber lintels do not often make a significant contribution
to the residual flexural capacity of URM spandrels so they can be ignored.
,
psp
fhm
=
=
...10.37
where:
axial stress in the spandrel
compression strength of the masonry in the horizontal direction
(0.5fm).

10-113
ISBN 978-0-473-26634-9
Axial stresses are generated in spandrel elements due to the restraint of geometric
elongation. Results from experimental research indicate that negligible geometric
elongation can be expected when peak spandrel strengths are developed (Beyer, 2012; and
Graziotti et al., 2012), as this is at relatively small spandrel rotations. As a result, there is
little geometric elongation. Significant geometric elongation can occur once peak spandrel
strengths have been exceeded, and significant spandrel cracking occurs within the
spandrel, as higher rotations are sustained in the element. An upper bound estimate of
the axial stress in a restrained spandrel, psp, can be determined using Equation 10.38
(Beyer, 2014):
1
...10.38
where:
fdt
=
=
masonry diagonal tension strength

spandrel aspect ratio (lsp/hsp).
Equation 10.38 calculates the limiting axial stress generated in a spandrel associated with
diagonal tension failure of the spandrel. The equation assumes the spandrel has sufficient
axial restraint to resist the axial forces generated by geometric elongation.
In most typical situations you can assume that spandrels comprising the interior bays of
multi-bay pierced URM walls will have sufficient axial restraint such that diagonal tension
failure of the spandrels could occur.
Spandrels comprising the outer bays of multi-bay pierced URM walls typically have
significantly lower levels of axial restraint. In this case the axial restraint may be
insufficient to develop a diagonal tension failure in the spandrels. Sources of axial restraint
that may be available include horizontal post-tensioning, diaphragm tie elements with
sufficient anchorage into the outer pier, or substantial outer piers with sufficient strength
and stiffness to resist the generated axial forces. For the latter to be effective the pier would
need to have enough capacity to resist the applied loads as a cantilever.
It is anticipated that there will be negligible axial restraint in the outer bays of many typical
unstrengthened URM buildings. In this case you can assume the axial stress in the spandrel
is nil when calculating the residual flexural strength.
Peak shear strength
Peak shear strength of rectangular URM spandrels can be estimated using Equations 10.39
and 10.40 (Beyer, 2012). Timber lintels do not make a significant contribution to the peak
shear capacity of URM spandrels so can be ignored.
...10.39
...10.40
Unless the spandrel is prestressed you can assume the axial stress in the spandrel is
negligible when determining the peak shear capacity. Equation 10.39 is the peak shear

10-114
ISBN 978-0-473-26634-9
Seismic As
ssessment of U
Unreinforced Ma
asonry Buildingss
strrength assoociated with

h the formattion of craccks through
h head and bbed joints over
o
almostt
thhe entire heeight of the spandrel: use this eq
quation wheen the morttar is weak
ker than thee
brrick. If the mortar is stronger
s
thaan the brick
k and fracture of the bricks will occur, usee
Eqquation 10.440.
R
Residual sh
hear stren
ngth
Once shear cracking
c
hass occurred tthe URM sp
pandrel can
n no longer ttransfer in-plane shearr
deemands. Whhen presentt, timber linntels acting as beams (simply
(
suppported at one
o end andd
fixxed at the other) can transfer thhe vertical componentt of the spaandrel load
d, F, to thee
addjacent pier (Figure 10.70).
Figure 10.70: Shearr mechanism

m of URM sp
pandrels witth timber lin
ntels (Beyer, 2012)
Residual shear strength of crackedd rectangulaar URM spaandrels withh timber lin
ntels can bee
esstimated as the minimu
um of Equaation 10.41 or the capaacity of thee timber lintel to resistt
thhe applied looad (Beyer, 2012). Whhen no timbeer lintel is present
p
the rresidual sheear capacityy
off URM spanndrels is neg
gligible andd can be assu
umed to be nil.
...10.41
Thhe applied load,

l
F, to be
b resisted bby the timbeer lintel can
n be calculatted as:
...10.42
Y
You can calcculate spand
drel axial sttresses, psp, in accordaance with thhe procedurres outlinedd
abbove. Confirm the abiliity of the tim
mber lintel to
t sustain th
he applied looad.
Spandrels with
w
a sha
allow arch
h
P
Peak flexurral strengtth
Y
You can estiimate peak flexural caapacity of a URM spaandrel withh a shallow arch usingg
Eqquation 10.443 (Beyer 2012):
2
tan
Se
ection 10 - Seism
Upd
dated 22 April 2015
...10.43
10-115
5
IS
SBN 978-0-4
473-26634-9
9
where a is the arch half angle of embrace computed as:

tan
...10.44
where dimensions ri, ra and lsp are defined in Figure 10.69. The arch is considered
shallow if the half angle of embrace, a, satisfies Equation 10.45 where ro is also defined in
Figure 10.69.
cos
...10.45
Unless the spandrel is prestressed you can assume the axial stress in the spandrel is
negligible when determining the peak flexural capacity.
Residual flexural strength
You can estimate the residual flexural capacity of a URM spandrel with a shallow arch
using Equation 10.46 (Beyer 2012) and by referring to Figure 10.69.
,
10.46
where dimension htot is defined in Figure 10.69. You can calculate spandrel axial stresses,
psp, with the procedures set out in the previous section.
Figure 10.71: Spandrel with shallow arch. Assumed load transfer mechanism after flexural
(a) and shear (b) cracking. (Beyer, 2012)
Peak shear strength

You can estimate peak shear strength of a URM spandrel with a shallow arch using
Equations 10.47 and 10.48 (Beyer, 2012):
tan


...10.47
tan
...10.48
10-116
ISBN 978-0-473-26634-9
Seismic As
ssessment of U
Unreinforced Ma
asonry Buildingss
U
Unless the spandrel
s
is prestressedd you can assume thee axial streess in the spandrel iss
neegligible whhen determ
mining the ppeak shear capacity. Equation
E
100.47 is the peak shearr
strrength assoociated with
h the formattion of craccks through
h head and bbed joints over
o
almostt
thhe entire heiight of the spandrel: itt applies wh
hen the morrtar is weakker than thee brick. Usee
Eqquation 10.448 if the mo
ortar is stronnger than th
he brick and
d fracture off the bricks will occur.
R
Residual sh
hear stren
ngth
Once shear cracking
c
hass occurred tthe URM sp
pandrel itseelf can no loonger transffer in-planee
shhear demandds (Figure 10.71).
1
Thee residual caapacity of th
he lintel is ttherefore eq
quivalent too
thhe shear cappacity of thee arch whichh you can co
ompute as follows
f
(Beyyer, 2012):
,
tan
10.49
Y
You can calcculate spand
drel axial sttresses, psp, in accordan
nce with thhe procedurees providedd
inn the previouus section.
10
0.8.6.4 Analysis
A
methods
s for pene
etrated walls
w
Thhis section provides an
a overview
w of analyssis methodss that can bbe used to assess thee
caapacity of a penetrated
d wall madee up of com
mponents and of elemennts. Recomm
mendationss
m
made regardiing modelling assumpttions for glo
obal analyses in Sectioon 10.9.4 allso apply too
annalyses of URM
U
compo
onents.
A
Analysis of in-plane
i
loaaded URM walls and perforated
p
walls
w
can bee carried ou
ut using thee
sim
mplified ppier only model
m
show
wn in Figu
ure 10.72 (T
Tomazevic,, 1999). Th
his analysiss
prrocedure assumes that the spandreels are infin
nitely stiff and
a strong, and therefo
fore that thee
w
wall piers wiill govern th
he seismic rresponse off the buildin
ng. This sim
mplified proccedure mayy
leead to non-cconservativee assessmennts for thosee structures which conttain weak sp
pandrels, orr
foor structuress assessed on
o the assum
mption that piers
p
of disssimilar widtth rock simu
ultaneouslyy
w
with shears calculated
c
prro rata on thhe rocking resistance.
r
Fiigure 10.72: Forces and

d stresses in
n in-plane piers
p
(Tomazzevic, 1999)
Liinear and nonlinear

n
eq
quivalent fraame modells as shown
n in Figure 10.73 (Mag
genes et al,,
20006) can bee used to analyse
a
the in-plane reesponse of perforated
p
U
URM wallss. Work byy
K
Knox has exxtended thee equivalennt frame model
m
to in
nclude weaak spandrell behaviourr
(K
Knox 2012).
Se
ection 10 - Seism
Upd
dated 22 April 2015
10-117
7
IS
SBN 978-0-4
473-26634-9
9
Seismic
c Assessment of
Fig
gure 10.73: Equivalent frame
f
To investiggate whetheer perforated wall behaaviour is go

overned by spandrel orr pier capacity
a sway potential indeex, Si, can be
b defined for each sp
pandrel-pierr joint by ccomparing the
t
demand: caapacity ratioos for the piiers and spaandrels at eaach joint:
,
,
10.50
,
,
where:
V*u,Pier
sum
m of the 1000%NBS sheaar force dem
mands on thhe piers abo
ove
and
d below the jjoint calculated using KR = 1.0
Vn,Pier
sum
m of the pierrs capacitiees above and
d below thee joint.
V*u,Spandreel =
sum
m of the 1000%NBS sheear force deemands on the spandreels
to th
he left and rright of the joint calcullated using K R = 1.0
Vn,Pier
sum
m of the sppandrel capacities to the
t left andd right of the
t
join
nt.
When Si > 1.0 a weakk pier - stron

ng spandrel mechanism
m may be expected to foorm and wh
hen
Si < 1.0 a sstrong pier - weak span
ndrel mechaanism may be
b expected to form.
You can aalso carry out
o non-lineear analysiss of URM piers
p
and sp
pandrels ussing 2D plaane
stress elem
ments or sollid 3D elem
ments. This method haas the advan
ntage that tthe stress and
a
strains devveloped in the URM componennts can be assessed directly
d
andd deformatiion
compatibillity is mainntained. Co
ompressionn-only gap elements can
c be inccluded in the
t
analysis m
model to accoount for pieer rocking (K
Knox, 2012).
For URM walls with openings of
o differing sizes and relatively
r
weaker
w
pierss compared to
stronger sppandrels, Moon
M
et al (2
2004) have recommend
ded that thee effective hheight of eaach
rocking pieer be repressented as th
he height ovver which a diagonal compressionn strut is mo
ost
Section 10 - Se
eismic Assessm
ment of Unreinfo
orced Masonry B
Buildings
Updated 22 April 20
015
10-1
118
ISBN 978--0-473-26634
4-9
Seismic As
ssessment of U
Unreinforced Ma
asonry Buildingss
likkely to deveelop in the pier at the steepest possible anglee that wouldd offer the least
l
laterall
reesistance (Figure 10.74
4). As a resuult, effectiv
ve heights fo
or some roccking piers adjacent too
unnequal size openings will
w vary deppending upo
on the direcction of loadding. The an
ngles to thee
piiers generallly depend on bed andd head join
nt dimensio
ons and stai
air-step craccking alongg
m
mortar jointss. If the diaaphragms arre rigid or reinforced concrete baands are prrovided, thee
efffective heigght of the piers may bee limited to the bottom
m of the diapphragm or th
he concretee
baand, as apprropriate.
Figure 10
0.74: URM rocking pier effective he
eights based
d on develo
opment of diiagonal
com
mpression sttruts that va
ary with dire
ection of seismic force ((ASCE 41-13).
Thhe capacityy of a penetrated wall component at particu

ular level caan also be determinedd
from the capaacity (streng
gth and defo
formation) of
o the indiviidual wall/ppier elementts assumingg
thhat displacement comp
patibility muust be main
ntained along the com
mponent and
d using thee
foorce deform
mation relatio
onships defi
fined above for the governing modde of behaviiour of eachh
ellement. This can also be
b extendedd to multiplle levels, if required, aand the capaacity of thee
w
whole wall determined
d
if you havee some kno
owledge of the lateral load distrib
bution withh
heeight. This can be con
nsidered a vvariant of th
he SLAMa approach ddescribed ellsewhere inn
thhese guidelinnes.
10.8.7
O
Other
items of a seconda
ary nature
Iteems of a seecondary naature such ass canopies and architecctural featur

ures should be
b assessedd
foor parts and componentts loads.
Se
ection 10 - Seism
Upd
dated 22 April 2015
10-119
9
IS
SBN 978-0-4
473-26634-9
9
Seismic
c Assessment of
10.9
Assessment of Glob
bal Capacity
10.9.1
Genera
al
The globall capacity of the buildin

ng is the strrength and deformation
d
n capacity oof the buildiing
taken as a whole, ignoring the performancee of secondaary elementts. For this ppurpose facceloaded massonry wallss are consideered to be ssecondary elements unlless the walll is providiing
primary suupport to thhe building
g or buildinng part, e.g
g. by cantilever actionn of the waall.
Diaphragm
ms distributting lateral shears beetween lateral load reesisting com
mponents (as
(
opposed tto providinng support to face-looaded walls) are con
nsidered too be primaary
componentts and therrefore the capacity
c
off primary lo
oad paths through
t
diaaphragms and
a
through coonnections from
f
walls to diaphraggms need to
o be consid
dered when assessing the
t
global capaacity.
The globall capacity of
o the building is likelyy to be sign
nificantly in
nfluenced bby the relatiive
in-plane sttiffness of the diaphraagms comppared with the
t in-planee lateral stiiffness of the
t
masonry w
walls. Timber and crosss-braced stteel diaphraagms will ty
ypically bee flexible in
this sense and this alllows simplifications too be made in the assessment of gllobal capacity
as outlinedd below. Assuming high diaphragm
m stiffness where
w
this is
i not assureed can lead to
erroneous assessmennt results,, e.g. noon-conservative assesssments off diaphrag
gm
acceleratioons and inaccurate estiimates of looad distribu
ution betweeen lateral lload resistiing
elements ((Oliver, 20110). Flexiblle diaphragm
ms can be explicitly modelled
m
inn 3D analysis
models usiing linear orr nonlinear 2D plane sttress or sheell elements, but care iss required and
a
the additioonal compleexity will raarely be waarranted for basic build
dings. Welll-proportion
ned
concrete floor and rooof slabs in sm
mall buildinngs may be assumed to
o be rigid.
Considerattion of the non-linear
n
capacity
c
of masonry co
omponents is encouragged as it oftten
leads to a higher gloobal capacitty than if tthe compon
nent capacities are lim
mited to yieeld
(elastic) leevels. Conssideration of
o non-lineear behavio
our requiress a displaccement bassed
assessmentt approach.. In many situations this is reassonably eassy to impleement and is
recommended for thee greater un
nderstandinng of buildiing seismicc behaviourr that it oftten
provides.
When morre than one lateral load
d mechanism
m is presen
nt, or when there are coomponents of
varying strrengths andd stiffness, a displacem
ment based approach iss considereed essential to
ensure dispplacement compatibiliity is achievved and thee global caapacity is no
not overstateed.
This is often the casee for mason
nry buildinggs, particulaarly those th
hat have beeen previoussly
med ductilee (low streng
gth) systems.
retrofitted with flexiblle and assum
When asseessing the global
g
capaacity it willl be necessary to com
mplete an annalysis of the
t
building sttructure to assess the relationship
r
p between the individu
ual componeent capacitiies
and the gloobal demands. Simple hand methoods of analy
ysis are enccouraged in preference to
overly sopphisticated methods which
w
may imply unreealistic tran
nsfers in shhear betweeen
componentts that will be difficullt to achievve in practicce and may
y go unrecoognised in the
t
assessmentt. When sopphisticated analyses
a
aree used, it is recommend
ded that sim
mpler metho
ods
are also used to providde order of magnitude vverification
n.
ment is to find the highest
h
globbally appliied
The objecctive of gloobal capaciity assessm
load/displaacement thaat is consisteent with reaaching the strength/def
s
formation ccapacity in the
t
most criticcal componeent. The reccommendedd approach for URM buildings
b
iss described in
Section 10 - Se
eismic Assessm
ment of Unreinfo
orced Masonry B
Buildings
Updated 22 April 20
015
10-1
120
ISBN 978--0-473-26634
4-9
Figure 10.75. The global strength capacity can be referred to in terms of base shear
capacity. The deformation capacity will be the lateral displacement at heff for the building
consistent with the base shear capacity accounting for non-linear behaviour as appropriate.
This section provides guidance on the assessment of the global capacity for both basic and
complex buildings. It also provides guidance on methods of analysis and modelling
parameters.

10-121
ISBN 978-0-473-26634-9
Determine component capacity for each

"line" of the seismic system
RIGID
Diaphragm
stiffness?
FLEXIBLE
Carry out a lateral load analysis for each
"line" of the seismic system to determine
the shear distibution between
components and over the height of each
component
Carry out a lateral load analysis to

determine the seismic shear distribution
over the height of each component, taking
into account accidental eccentricities and
any strength/stiffness eccentricities from
the centre of mass
Compare the seismic shear distribution

and the shear capacity of each component
to determine the criticality of each
component
Scale the base shear from the analysis to

to the shear capacity of the critical
component to determine (Vprob)global,base
Check that the implied shears can be

transferred by the diaphragms and the
shear connections between the
diaphragms and each component
Diaphragm
and
connections
adequate?
NO
Factor down (Vprob)global,baseaccordingly
YES
Check the horizontal deformation of the
diaphragms
Horizontal
diaphragm
deformation
limits met?
NO
Factor down (Vprob)global,baseaccordingly
YES
(Vprob)global, base
Figure 10.75: Global capacity assessment approach for URM buildings

10-122
ISBN 978-0-473-26634-9
Seismic As
ssessment of U
Unreinforced Ma
asonry Buildingss
10.9.2
G
Global
ca
apacity o
of basic building
gs
Determining the globall capacity of basic URM

U
build
dings can bbe a simplle exercise..
Consider, for example, the singlee storey buiildings shown in Figuure 10.76. If the rooff
diiaphragm iss flexible th
he global caapacity in each
e
direction will be the lowest componentt
caapacity on any
a system line in thatt direction when
w
there are only tw
wo system lines. Whenn
thhere are moore than two
o system liines then th
he global caapacity in a direction will be thee
caapacity of the
t line in that
t
directioon which has
h the low
west value oof Vprob/tribu
utary mass,,
w
where Vprob in this con
ntext is the sum of th
he componeent probablee capacitiess along thee
paarticular line of the seissmic system
m.
Walllin
ne1
Wallli ne2
Wallline3
((Vprob)wall2
(Vprob)wall1
Dire ctionunderconsideration
Lineof inerttialforceassociiatedwithwalllline2
Tributarymaassassociatedwithwallline2
2
Wallline4
Figure 10.76:: Relationsh

hip between demand an
nd capacity for a basic b
building witth a flexible
diaphrragm
Foor such buuildings there would bbe little to gain from considerattion of the non-linearr
beehaviour off the compo
onents whenn determinin
ng the glob
bal capacityy. An underrstanding off
thhe non-lineaar capability, without jeopardisin
ng the vertiical load caarrying cap
pacity, will,,
hoowever, proovide confiidence that the buildin
ng has resiilience. Iff the deman
nd is to bee
caalculated in accordancee with Sectiion 10.10.2
2.2, non-lineear behavioour is assum
med if A iss
grreater than 1.
1
Soome small buildings with
w
flexibble diaphrag
gms will not
n have ide
dentifiable or
o effectivee
laateral load paths
p
to pro
ovide lateraal resistancee to all parts of the bui
uilding. An example off
thhis is the opeen front com
mmercial buuilding wheere the sole means of laateral suppo
ort might bee
caantilever acction of thee ends of tthe side walls,
w
the caapacity of which willl be highlyy
deependent onn the restrain
nt availablee from the wall
w foundattion, and likkely to be neegligible.
Basic buildinngs of two or three sttories with flexible diaaphragms ccan be conssidered in a
sim
milar fashioon, after first completinng a simplee analysis to
o determinee the variatiion in shearr
ovver the heigght of each line of the seismic sy
ystem. The global
g
capaacity of such buildingss
w
will be limiteed to the capacity of thhe line wherre (Vprob)line,i/i is the loowest. (Vproob)line,i is thee
suum of the coomponent capacities
c
allong a line of the seism
mic system at level i and
a i is thee
Se
ection 10 - Seism
Upd
dated 22 April 2015
10-123
3
IS
SBN 978-0-4
473-26634-9
9
ratio of the applied shear at level i to the shear at the base of the line under consideration.
For most basic buildings i will be the same for all lines of the seismic system.
The presence of rigid diaphragms in basic buildings introduces an additional level of
complexity into the building analysis. However, this analysis can still be kept quite simple
for many buildings.
For buildings with rigid diaphragms it will be necessary to consider the effect of the
demand and resistance eccentricities (accidental displacement of the seismic floor mass
and the location of the centre of stiffness or strength as appropriate). Refer Figure 10.77. If
the lines of the seismic system in the direction being considered have some non-linear
capability it is considered acceptable to resist the torque resulting from the eccentricities
solely by the couple available from the lines of the seismic system perpendicular to the
direction of loading. This will lead to a higher global capacity in many buildings than
would otherwise be the case. If this approach is to be followed it would be more
appropriate to consider the centre of strength rather than the centre of stiffness when
evaluating the eccentricities.
NZS 1170.5 requires that buildings not incorporating capacity design be subjected to a
lateral action set comprising 100% of the specified earthquake actions in one direction plus
30% of the specified earthquake actions in the orthogonal direction. The 30% actions
perpendicular to the direction under consideration are not shown in Figure 10.77 for clarity
and, suitably distributed, would need to be added to the shears to be checked for the
perpendicular walls. These are unlikely to be critical for basic buildings. If the diaphragm
is flexible, concurrency of the lateral actions should be ignored.
Wallline2
Wallline1
Wallline2
Wallline1
CoStiff
Direction
under
consideration
Sheardemandduetoinertialforce
CoM
e
(Vprob)wall2
Wallline3
(Vprob)wall1
CoM
(Vprob)wall2
(Vprob)wall1
Wallline3
CoStrength
Lineofactionofinertial force
Wallline4
Wallline4
Additionalsheardemandduetoeccentricity(typ)
a) Linear elastic
b) With non-linear capability on wall lines

1 and 2
Figure 10.77: Relationship between demand and capacity for a basic building with rigid
diaphragms
In the above discussion it has been assumed that the diaphragms are stiff enough to provide
the required support to the face-loaded walls orientated perpendicular to the direction of
loading. Diaphragms are considered as primary structural components for the transfer of
these actions and their ability to do so may affect the global capacity of the building in that
direction. Limits have been suggested in Section 10.8.3.2 for the maximum diaphragm
10-124
ISBN 978-0-473-26634-9
Seismic As
ssessment of U
Unreinforced Ma
asonry Buildingss
deeflections too ensure ad

dequate waall support. These lim
mits are likeely to be exceeded
e
inn
fleexible diaphhragms, eveen in small basic buildiings, and sh
hould be chhecked. If th
he limits aree
exxceeded, thhe global caapacity of tthe building
g in that direction willl need to be reducedd
acccordingly.
10.9.3
G
Global
ca
apacity o
of comp
plex build
dings
M
Many complex URM bu
uildings willl be able to
o be assesseed adaptingg the recomm
mendationss
ouutlined abovve for basiic buildingss. Howeverr, the assesssment of coomplex buiildings willl
offten require a first prin
nciples apprroach and a good underrstanding off the past performancee
off such builddings.
Thhe overall objective discussed iin 10.9.1 remains.
r
However,
H
thhe more co
omplex thee
buuilding the more likeely it will be necesssary to utiilise more complicateed analysiss
teechniques simply to keep
k
track of elementt actions and
a appliedd inertial fo
orces. It iss
reecommended that simple techniquees be used in
i all cases to identify tthe primary
y load pathss
annd to verify the order of magnitudee of the outp
puts.
U
Use of lineaar-elastic an
nalysis techhniques an
nd limiting componentt capacitiess to elasticc
beehaviour may
m significcantly undeerestimate the
t global capacity oof complex
x buildings..
H
However, non-linear con
nsiderationss can complletely alter the
t mechaniisms that caan occur.
A
Aspects that are likely to require specific consideration
n in the asssessment of
o complexx
buuildings include:
foundatioon stiffness
diaphragm
m stiffness
non-lineaar behaviou
ur of multii-storey, peenetrated walls,
w
and ddevelopmen
nt of swayy
mechanissms
potential soft storeyss
non horizzontal diaph
hragms.
10.9.4
G
Global
an
nalysis
10
0.9.4.1 Selection
S
of analy
ysis meth
hods
Foour analysiss methods are
a generallyy considered
d:
equivalennt static analysis (linearr static)
modal ressponse analysis (linear dynamic)
non-lineaar pushover (nonlinear static)
non-lineaar time histo
ory (nonlineear dynamicc).
Liinear analysis techniqu
ues supplem
mented with
h simple no
on-linear tecchniques (ee.g. adaptedd
SL
LaMA) are likely to bee appropriatte for all bu
ut the most complex off New Zealaands URM
M
buuildings.
N
Nonlinear annalysis techn
niques are aappropriate for
f building
gs which conntain irregu
ularities andd
w
when higher levels of non-linear beehaviour arre anticipateed. If nonlinnear pushov
ver analysiss
prrocedures are
a used, incclude approopriate allow
wances in the analysiss for anticip
pated cyclicc
strrength and stiffness deegradation.
Se
ection 10 - Seism
Upd
dated 22 April 2015
10-125
5
IS
SBN 978-0-4
473-26634-9
9
Seismic
c Assessment of
Non-linearr time histoory analysess can be ussed to analy

yse most URM
U
buildinngs. They are
a
able to acccount expliccitly for cycclic strengthh and stiffn
ness degradaation. Thesee analyses are
a
complex. They shouuld not be undertakenn lightly and
a
then on
nly by thoose that haave
experiencee in the proocesses involved. A fuull appreciaation of thee reliabilityy of the inp
put
parameterss and the likkely sensitiivity of the outputs to these is req
quired. Reffer to relevaant
references for non-lineear acceptan
nce criteria..
Note:
Non-linearr modellingg of URM walls is fe
feasible, bu
ut experiencce to date suggests th
hat
analytical rresults will not alwayss provide reeliable estim
mates of perrformance bbecause of the
t
variability in actual material sttrength andd condition.. Any analytical moddelling shou
uld
include sevveral analyyses to test sensitivity to materiaal variation,, modellingg method and
a
earthquakee motion.
Special carre is requirred with thee applicatioon of damp
ping, especially when considering
ga
mix of low
w and high period mo
odes. The reesulting forrce reductio
on from dam
mping for the
t
mode conssidered shouuld be invesstigated by a special sttudy for fin
nite elementt analysis. For
F
assessing URM builddings, Caughey dampping rather than Raleigh dampinng should be
consideredd.
10.9.4.2 Mathem
matical mo
odelling
Mathematiical modelss used for linear
l
analyysis techniq
ques should
d include thhe elastic, unu
cracked inn-plane stifffness of thee primary lateral load
d-resisting elements.
e
C
Consider bo
oth
shear and fflexural defformations.
If using noon-linear anaalysis techn
niques, the m
mathematical model sh
hould directlly incorporaate
the non-liinear load-deformation
n characterristics of individual in-plane eelements (ii.e.
backbone curves). Incclude cyclicc degradati on of stren
ngth and stiffness in thhe componeent
modelling when apprropriate. Recommendedd nonlinearr analysis parameters ffor non-britttle
URM failuure modes arre given in Section 10. 8.6.2.
10.9.4.3 Fundam
mental pe
eriod
The mass oof URM buuildings is normally
n
dom
minated by the mass of the masonnry. Howev
ver,
stiffness w
will depend on the relative flexibillity of the walls,
w
the floor
f
diaphrragms and the
t
ground (fooundation rootation). Wh
hile the perriod of thesee structuress can be quiite difficult to
calculate w
with precisioon and therre are severral modes of vibration to considerr, it will oftten
fall withinn the plateaau section of the specctra, so preecision is not
n requireed. For larg
ger
buildings (tall or long),
l
espeecially tho se with lo
ong flexible diaphraagms, special
consideratiion of thesee effects may
y be requireed.
In the casee of large buuildings, it may not bee sufficient to considerr all parts o f the buildiing
loaded at the same time
t
and having
h
the same time period. Co
ommonly uused metho
ods
include suub-structurinng: i.e. sub
bdividing thhe structuree into sections, each including its
elements aand all masss tributary to it. Each ssection is th
hen analysed
d separatelyy and check
ked
for compaatibility witth neighbou
uring sectioons along the
t margins between the section
ns.
These secttions shouldd typically be
b no moree than one third
t
of thee building w
width or mo
ore
than 30 m.
Section 10 - Se
eismic Assessm
ment of Unreinfo
orced Masonry B
Buildings
Updated 22 April 20
015
10-1
126
ISBN 978--0-473-26634
4-9
Seismic As
ssessment of U
Unreinforced Ma
asonry Buildingss
N
Note:
Thhe effectivee period of individual ssections of URM build
dings will ooften still bee short and,,
iff this is the case,
c
this fin
nal step willl not be req
quired.
10
0.9.4.4 Seismic
S
mass
m
U
URM buildinngs are esseentially systtems with mass
m
distrib
buted over tthe height, with barelyy
100-20% of thhe seismic mass
m
contribbuted by flo
oors and roof. This is especially the
t case forr
buuildings witth timber flo
oors and ligghtweight ro
oofs. In thiss context, thhe concept of
o a lumpedd
m
mass system
m is problem
matic. How
wever, unleess a more sophisticatted analysis has beenn
unndertaken to
t capture the
t effect oof distributted mass sy
ystems, an assessmen
nt based onn
m
masses lumpped at diap
phragm leveels is accep
ptable as lo
oads from the face-lo
oaded wallss
w
would be trannsferred to the
t in-planee walls throu
ugh the diap
phragm.
H
However, forr shear cheecks at the bbase of thee in-plane walls
w
and piiers of any storey, thee
seeismic demaand should include acccumulated floor
f
level forces
f
from
m the upper storeys andd
thhe seismic force due to the totaal mass off the in-plaane wall aabove the level
l
beingg
coonsidered. This
T is in co
ontrast to a ssessments of concretee constructiion, where the
t mass off
thhe lower hallf of the botttom storey is ignored when estim
mating the acctive mass for
f the basee
shhear.
10
0.9.4.5 S
Stiffness of URM w
walls and
d wall pie
ers subje
ect to in-p
plane
a
actions
Thhe stiffnesss of in-plan
ne URM w
walls subjeccted to seismic loads should be determinedd
coonsidering flexural,
f
shear and axiial deformations. The masonry
m
shhould be co
onsidered too
bee a homogeneous mateerial for stiff
ffness comp
putations with an expeccted elastic modulus inn
coompression,, Em, as disccussed in eaarlier section
ns.
onsidered too
Foor elastic annalysis, the stiffness off an in-planee URM wall and pier shhould be co
bee linear annd proportio
onal with tthe geomettrical propeerties of thhe un-crack
ked section,,
exxcluding anyy wythe, thaat does not meet the crriteria given
n in Section 10.2.4.3.
Laaboratory teests of solid shear waalls have sh
hown that behaviour
b
c an be depiccted at low
w
foorce levels using conv
ventional prrinciples off mechanicss for homoogeneous materials.
m
Inn
suuch cases, the
t lateral in
n-plane stifffness of a solid cantillevered walll, k, can bee calculatedd
ussing Equatioon 10.51:
10.51
w
where:
heff
An
Ig
=
=
=
Em
Gm
=
=
wall
w height,, mm
net
n plan are a of wall, mm
m 2
moment
m
off inertia forr the grosss section reepresenting uncrackedd
behaviour,
b
m
mm4
masonry
m
elaastic modulu
us, MPa
masonry
m
sheear modulus, MPa.
Se
ection 10 - Seism
Upd
dated 22 April 2015
10-127
7
IS
SBN 978-0-4
473-26634-9
9
Seismic
c Assessment of
The laterall in-plane sttiffness of a pier betweeen opening

gs with full restraint aggainst rotatiion
at its top annd bottom can
c be calcu
ulated usingg Equation 10.52:
1
10.52
2
Note that a completelyy fixed cond
dition is oftten not preseent in actuaal buildings..
10.10
Assessment of Earth
hquake
e Force and
acement Dema
ands
Displa
10.10.1 Genera
al
This sectioon sets out the procedu
ures for esttimating botth force and displacem
ment deman
nds
on URM bbuildings and their partss.
Section 5 ddescribes hoow the earth
hquake dem
mands are to be assessed
d.
uctural systeem which caarries seism
mic
For the purrposes of defining seissmic demannds, the stru
load and prrovides lateeral resistance to the gl obal buildin
ng should be considereed the primaary
seismic ressisting systeem (primary structure)). The comp
ponents wh
hich do not participate in
the overalll resistance of the struccture and w
which rely on
o the primaary structurre for streng
gth
and/or stabbility shoulld be assum
med to be pparts and co
omponents. Parts andd componen
nts
need to bee assessed for any im
mposed defo
formations from
f
the primary seissmic resistiing
system.
Therefore all in-planee walls and diaphragms
d
s are classiffied as primary structurre. Everythiing
else, such as face-loadded walls an
nd parapetss, and ornam
mentation, are
a considerred to be paarts
and compoonents.
10.10.2 Primary
y structu
ure
10.10.2.1
1 Generall
Determine the horizonntal demand
ds on the pprimary stru
ucture, in acccordance w
with Section
n5
taking =1, Sp = 1 annd e = 15%
%. Althouggh is set at
a 1 it is inteended that th
the benefits of
any non-linnear deform
mations from
m the assesssment of thee capacity arre also takenn.
10.10.2.2
2 Basic buildings
For basic buildings, a force-bassed assessm
ment of in-p
plane demaands for wa
walls/piers and
a
spandrels m
may be deteermined usiing a horizoontal deman
nd seismic coefficient,, C(T1), giv
ven
by Equatioon 10.53 whhere a load reduction ffactor, R, has
h been ussed in lieu oof the ratio of
the structurral perform
mance factor and structuural ductility
y factor giveen in NZS 11170.5.

Section 10 - Se
eismic Assessm
ment of Unreinfo
orced Masonry B
Buildings
Updated 22 April 20
015
10.53
10-1
128
ISBN 978--0-473-26634
4-9
where:
Ch(T1) =
Z
Ru
=
=
N(T1,D) =
KR
=
the spectral shape factor determined from Clause 3.1.2,

NZS 1170.5 for the first mode period of the building, T1, g
the hazard factor determined from Clause 3.1.4, NZS 1170.5
the return period factor, Ru determined from Clause 3.1.5,
NZS 1170.5
the near fault factor determined from Clause 3.1.6, NZS 1170.5
the seismic force reduction factor determined from Table 10.14.
Table 10.14: Recommended force reduction factors for linear static method
Seismic performance/
controlling parameters
Pier rocking, bed joint sliding,
stair-step failure modes
Force reduction
factor, KR
3
Pier toe failure modes
1.5
Pier diagonal tension failure

modes (dominated by brick
splitting)
1.0
Spandrel failure modes
1.0
Notes
Failure dominated by strong brick-weak mortar
Failure dominated by weak brick-strong mortar
Note:
The concept of a ductility factor (deflection at ultimate load divided by the elastic
deflection) can be meaningless for most URM buildings. The introduction of KR primarily
reflects an increase in the damping available and therefore reduced elastic response rather
than ductile capability assessed by traditional means. Therefore the displacements
calculated from the application of C(T1) are the expected displacements and should not be
further modified by KR.
These force reduction factors apply in addition to relief from period shift (if any).
Redistribution of seismic demands between individual elements of up to 50% is permitted
when KR = 3.0 applies, provided that the effects of redistribution are accounted for in the
analysis.
When there are mixed behaviour modes among the walls/piers in a line of resistance, you
can ignore the capacity of any piers for which KR is less than the value that has been
adopted for the line of resistance. Otherwise, consider lower force reduction factors. If you
have adopted higher force reduction factors, carefully evaluate the consequences of loss of
gravity load support from any walls/piers that have been ignored.
If there are mixed failure modes among the walls and piers in a line of resistance, the
displacement compatibility between these piers and walls should be evaluated.
For the case of perforated walls when a strong pier weak spandrel mechanism governs
the wall behaviour KR = 1.0 shall be adopted for the wall line as a whole, or the capacities
of the spandrels can be ignored. When the contribution of the spandrels is ignored the
higher KR factors detailed in Table 10.14 may be used provided the consequences of loss of
the ignored spandrels are considered.

10-129
ISBN 978-0-473-26634-9
Seismic
c Assessment of
10.10.3 Parts and comp

ponents
Refer to S
Section 8 of
o NZS 117
70.5 for dettermination
n of seismicc demands on parts and
a
componentts.
For face-looaded walls, assessed using
u
the dissplacement--based meth
hod in Sectiion 10.8.5, the
t
demands aare includedd within thee method. N
Note that th
he Part Speectral Shapee Coefficient,
Ci(Tp), deffined in NZ
ZS 1170.5 has
h been repplaced with
h a formulaation that beetter conveerts
into a displlacement sppectrum for this purposse.
10.10.4
Vertica
al deman
nds
Vertical grround motioons in close proximity tto earthquak

ke sources can
c be substtantial.
However, opinion iss divided on how ssignificant vertical acccelerationss are on the
t
performancce of URM buildings.
While verttical groundd acceleratio
ons could ppotentially reduce
r
the gravity andd compressiion
forces in tthe walls, reducing th
heir stabilitty, and red
ducing the pull-out
p
strrength of tiies
installed too restrain thhem back to
o the diaphrragms, theree is evidencce to suggesst that theree is
typically a time delaay between the maxim
mum verticaal accelerattions and tthe maximu
um
horizontal accelerationns, meaning
g that they aare unlikely
y act togetheer at full inteensity.
ore
In advancee of furtherr investigatiions on thiss subject, itt is considered reasonaable to igno
vertical acccelerations when asseessing the sstability of masonry walls
w
and thhe capacity of
embedded anchors.
When verrtical accellerations arre considerred the deemands maay be deteermined fro
om
NZS 1170..5.
10.10.5 Flexible
e diaphrragms
10.10.5.1
1 Generall
Masonry walls loadded in-plan
ne are typpically relaatively rig
gid structurral elemen
nts.
Consequenntly, the dominant
d
mode
m
of response for
f
buildin
ngs containning flexib
ble
diaphragm
ms is likely too be the ressponse of thhe diaphragm
ms themselv
ves, due to iinertial forcces
from diaphhragm self--weight and
d the conne cted URM boundary walls
w
respoonding out-o
ofplane.
Seismic deemands on flexible diaphragms iin URM bu
uildings which are braaced by UR
RM
walls shouuld, thereforre, be based
d on the perriod of the diaphragm and a horizzontal seism
mic
coefficientt assuming that
t
the diap
phragm is ssupported at
a ground level (i.e. no amplificatiion
to reflect iits height inn the buildiing). The seeismic coeffficient to be
b used is thherefore C((T)
from NZS 1170.5 (i.ee. Sp and =1) wheree T is the first
f
horizontal mode period of the
t
m.
diaphragm
If the diapphragm is brraced by fleexible (i.e. non-URM)) lateral loaad resisting elements, the
t
seismic dem
mands can be determin
ned using a seismic coeefficient equ
ual to Fi/mi, with a low
wer
limit of C
C(0) wheree Fi is th
he equivaleent static horizontal
h
force deteermined fro
om
Section 10 - Se
eismic Assessm
ment of Unreinfo
orced Masonry B
Buildings
Updated 22 April 20
015
10-1
130
ISBN 978--0-473-26634
4-9
Seismic As
ssessment of U
Unreinforced Ma
asonry Buildingss
N
NZS 1170.5 at the level of the diaaphragm an
nd mi is thee seismic m
mass at thatt level. Thee
inntention is indicated in Figure 110.78. This requiremen
nt recognisses that mo
ore flexiblee
laateral load-rresisting elements may cause the amplificatio
a
on of groundd motions in the upperr
storeys.
F
Figure 10.78
8: Distributio
on of accele
eration with height for evaluating
e
th
he demand on flexible
off flexible lateral
diaphragms braced o
l
load resisting eleements
10
0.10.5.2 Timber
T
diiaphragm
ms
Thhe diaphraagm in-plaane mid-sp an lateral displacem
ment demannd, d, is given byy
Eqquation 10.554.
mm
...10.54
w
where:
C d) =
C(T
Wtrib
L
B
G d,eff
G
Td
=
=
=
=
=
seismic
s
coeefficient at required
r
heiight for perriod, Td, dettermined inn
accordance
a
with Sectio
on 10.10.5.1
uniformly
u
ddistributed trributary weight, kN/m
span
s
of diapphragm, m
depth
d
of diaaphragm, m
effective
e
sheear stiffnesss of diaphraagm, refer E
Equation 10.55, MPa
lateral
l
firstt mode period
p
of the diaphhragm deteermined inn
accordance
a
with Equatiion 10.55, sec.
s
Thhe period, Td, of a tim

mber diaphraagm, based on the defformation prrofile of a shear beam
m
exxcited in ann approxim
mately parabbolic distrib
bution, is given by Eqquation 10.5
55 (Wilsonn
ett al, 2013c).
0.7
0
Se
ection 10 - Seism
Upd
dated 22 April 2015
10.55
10-131
IS
SBN 978-0-4
473-26634-9
9
Seismic
c Assessment of
where:
Wtrib =
total tribu
utary weightt acting on the diaphragm, being tthe sum of the
t
weight off the tributtary face-lo
oaded wallss both half--storey belo
ow
and above the diaphhragm being
g considered
d (i.e. the pproduct of the
t
tributary height, thicckness and
d density off the out-off-plane UR
RM
walls trib
butary to thee diaphragm
m accountin
ng for wall penetration
ns)
and diap
phragm seelf-weight plus live load (E x Qi as per
p
NZS 1170
0.5 Section 4.2).
Other term
ms are as deefined for Equation
E
10..54.
10.10.6 Rigid diaphrag

d
ms
Rigid diapphragms aree primary structure
s
annd the demands are deetermined iin accordan
nce
with NZS 1170.5 as outlined
o
in Section
S
10.110.2.
10.10.7 Connec
ctions prroviding
g supporrt to face
e-loaded
d walls
The demannds on connnections providing suupport to face-loaded
fa
masonry w
walls shall be
calculated in accordannce with Steeps 12, 13 aand 14 in Seection 10.8.5
5.2.
mand is uniformly disstributed accross all an
nchorages loocated at the
t
Assume thhat the dem
specific waall-diaphraggm interfacee. Repeat thhe exercise for
f the ortho
ogonal loadding directio
on,
reversing lloading regiimes for a given
g
anchorrage.
10.10.8 Connec
ctions trransferri ng diaph
hragm shear loa
ads
Wall-diaphhragm connnections req
quired to traansfer shearrs from diap
phragms to walls (load
ded
in-plane) sshould be considered
c
to be prim
mary structu
ure and theerefore the demands are
a
evaluated in accordaance with Section 100.10.2. The demand may
m be asssumed to be
uniformly distributed along the wall
w to diaphhragm conn
nection.
mands should be assesssed assumiing
Unless cappacity desiggn principlees are appli ed, the dem
=Sp = 1.
10.11
Assessment of %NB
BS
%NBS = Capacity/De
C
emand x1000
10.56
where cappacities andd demands can be deffined in terrms of streength or deeformation as

appropriatee.
The %NBSS score (or rating)
r
for the
t buildingg is the min
nimum of th
he %NBS vaalues assesssed
for each inndividual seecondary component annd the %NB
BS for the global perforrmance of the
t
primary strructure for each
e
princip
pal directionn.
The %NBSS for the global
g
perfo
ormance of the buildin
ng will be a function of individu
ual
scores for componennts and elem
ments, and the hierarcchy of these scores shhould also be
noted.
Section 10 - Se
eismic Assessm
ment of Unreinfo
orced Masonry B
Buildings
Updated 22 April 20
015
10-1
132
ISBN 978--0-473-26634
4-9
Seismic As
ssessment of U
Unreinforced Ma
asonry Buildingss
Thhe item witth the loweest %NBS sscore is refferred to as the criticaal structurall weakness,,
CSW. All othher items with a score bbelow 67%N
NBS are refferred to as structural weaknesses,
w
,
SW
Ws.
It is an impoortant aspectt of the ass essment pro
ocess that all
a of the inndividual %N
NBS scoress
thhat have beeen evaluated
d are reportted as this will
w providee a complette picture of the issuess
asssociated with
w the builldings seism
mic perform
mance and will aid in the develo
opment of a
reetrofit progrram if this iss to be conssidered.
A
Although thee impact on life safety of elementss will have been considdered when
n evaluatingg
thheir effect on
o the capaacity of thee componen
nt, it is imp
portant that
at the list of
o structurall
w
weaknesses is
i reviewed again to ennsure that any weaknessses, that doo not directtly lead to a
liffe safety isssue, do not appear
a
in thhe list of stru
uctural weaknesses andd do not lim
mit the scoree
off the buildinng.
10.12
Improving Seis
smic Pe
erforma
ance of URM
B
Building
gs
Thhe overarchhing probleem is that New Zeallands URM

M buildingg stock is simply nott
deesigned for earthquakee loads andd lacks a baasic degree of connectiion between
n structurall
coomponents to
t allow all parts of thee building to
o act together (Goodwiin et al., 201
11).
Thhe basic appproach to im
mproving thhe seismic performance
p
e of URM bbuildings is to:
t
secure alll unrestrained parts thaat represent falling hazards to the public (e.g. chimneys,,
parapets and
a ornameents)
improve the
t wall-diaaphragm connnections or
o provide alternative looad paths; improve
i
thee
diaphragm
m; and imprrove the perrformance of
o the face-loaded wallls (gables, facades
f
andd
other wallls) by improving the coonfiguration
n of the building and inn-plane wallls
d
strengthen specific structural eleements, and
consider adding new
w structural ccomponentss to providee extra suppport for the building.
b
W
When you are
a develop
ping strengtthening opttions, note that differring levels of seismicc
haazard will mean
m
that a solution advvised in a high
h
seismic area couldd be too conservative inn
a low seismiic area. Also note that even thoug
gh a buildin
ng may havve more thaan 34%NBSS
m
of faillure and/or tthe failure mode
m
couldd
seeismic capaccity, if that is limited bby a brittle mode
triigger a sequuence of faailure of othher elementts, the risk of failure oof the limitiing elementt
shhould be carrefully assesssed and miitigated.
R
References
Almesfer, N., Dizhur,
D
D., Lum
mantarna, R., Ingham, J. M.,
M 2014. Material propertiees of existing
g unreinforced
d
cla
ay brick massonry building
gs in New Z
Zealand, Bulletin of the New Zealandd Society for Earthquake
e
En
ngineering, 47
7, 2, June, 75-96.
An
nthoine, A. 19
995. Derivatio
on of the in-p
cs of masonrry through ho
omogenization
n
plane elastic characteristic
the
eory, Int. J. So
olids Structure
es, Vol. 32, pp
p 137-163.
AS
S, 2011, AS37
700: Masonry structures, Sta
andard Austra
alia.
Se
ection 10 - Seism
Upd
dated 22 April 2015
10-133
3
IS
SBN 978-0-4
473-26634-9
9
ASCE, 2013, ASCE 41: Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings (41-13), American Society for
Civil Engineers. Benedetti D, Petrini V. 1996. Shaking Table Tests on Masonry Buildings. Results and
Comments. ISMES, Bergamo.Bruneau
Beyer, K. (2012) Peak and Residual Strengths of Brick Masonry Spandrels, Engineering Structures, Vol 41,
August 2012, Pages 533-547
Beyer, K. (2014) Personal communication, July 2014
Beyer, K., Dazio, A., 2012a, Quasi-static monotonic and cyclic tests on composite spandrels, in Earthquake
Spectra, vol. 28, num. 3, p. 885-906.
Beyer K., Dazio, A., 2012b, Quasi-static cyclic tests on masonry spandrels, in Earthquake Spectra, vol. 28,
num. 3, p. 907-929.
Beyer K., Mangalathu, 2014, Numerical study on the force-deformation behaviour of masonry spandrels with
arches, in Journal of Earthquake Engineering, vol. 18, num. 2, p. 169-186,, 2014.
Blaikie, E.L. & Spurr, DD. 1993. Earthquake Vulnerability of Existing Unreinforced Masonry Buildings. EQC.
Blaikie, E.L. (1999). Methodology for the Assessment of Face-loaded Unreinforced Masonry Walls under
Seismic Loading. Opus International Consultants, Wellington, New Zealand.
Blaikie, E. L. (2001). Methodology for the Assessment of Face-Loaded Unreinforced Masonry Walls under
Seismic Loading, EQC funded research by Opus International Consultants, under Project 99/422.
Blaikie, E.L. 2002. Methodology for Assessing the Seismic Performance of Unreinforced Masonry Single
Storey Walls, Parapets and Free Standing Walls. Opus International Consultants, Wellington, New Zealand.
Bothara J. K., Dhakal, R. P., Mander J. B., 2010. Seismic performance of an unreinforced masonry building:
An experimental investigation, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Volume 39, Issue 1, pages
4568, January 2010.
th
Bothara, J. K., Hiylmaz, K, 2008, General Observations of the Building Behaviour during the 8 October
2005 Pakistan Earthquake, Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, Vol 41, No 4.
Bruneau, M. and Paquette, J. (2004). Testing of full-scale single story unreinforced masonry building
subjected to simulated earthquake excitations. SSMICA 2004 - 6 Congresso Nacional de Sismologia e
Engenharia Ssmica.
Campbell, J., Dizhur, D., Hodgson, M., Fergusson, G., and Ingham, J. M., 2012, Test results for extracted
wall-diaphragm anchors from Christchurch unreinforced masonry buildings, Journal of the Structural
Engineering Society New Zealand (SESOC), Volume 25, Issue 1, pp: 57-67.
Cattari, S., Beyer K. & Lagomarsino, S., Personal communication November 2014.
Charlotte, K., 2012, Assessment of perforated unreinforced masonry walls responding in-plane, Doctoral
dissertation,
The
University
of
Auckland,
Auckland,
New
Zealand,
January,
547p.
https://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/handle/2292/19422
Cole, G.L., Dhakal, R.P., Carr, A.J., Bull, D.K., 2011, Case studies of observed pounding damage during the
2010 Darfield earthquake, Proceedings of the Ninth Pacific Conference on Earthquake Engineering Building
an Earthquake-Resilient Society, 14-16 April, 2011, Auckland, New Zealand, Paper Number 173.
Costley, A.C. and Abrams, S.P. (1996). Dynamic Response of Unreinforced Masonry Buildings with Flexible
Diaphragm, Technical Report NCEER-96-0001, State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, U.S.A.
CRGN, 2012, Section 5: Unreinforced masonry buildings and their performance in earthquakes,
http://canterbury.royalcommission.govt.New Zealand/vwluResources/Final-Report-docx-Vol-4-S5/$file/Vol-4S-5.docx.
Derakhshan, H. Dizhur, D. Y., Griffith, M. C., Ingham, J. M., 2014a, Seismic assessment of out-of-plane
loaded unreinforced masonry walls in multi-storey buildings, Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for
Earthquake Engineering, 47, 2, June, 119-138.
Derakhshan, H., Dizhur, D., Griffith, M.C., Ingham, J. M., 2014b, In-situ out-of-plane testing of as-built and
retrofitted unreinforced masonry walls, ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, 140, 6, 04014022.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000960.
Derakhshan, H., Griffith, M. C., Ingham, J. M., 2013a, Out-of-plane behaviour of one-way spanning URM
walls, ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 139, 4, 409-417. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EM.19437889.0000347
Derakhshan, H., Griffith, M. C., Ingham, J. M., 2013b, Airbag testing of unreinforced masonry walls subjected
to
one-way
bending,
Engineering
Structures,
57,
12,
512-522.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2013.10.006

10-134
ISBN 978-0-473-26634-9
Dizhur, D., Campbell, J., Schultz, A., Ingham, J. M., 2013, Observations from the 2010/2011 Canterbury
earthquakes and subsequent experimental pull-out test program of wall-to-diaphragm adhesive anchor
connections, Journal of the Structural Engineering Society of New Zealand, 26(1), April, 11-20.
Dizhur, D., Ingham, J.M., Moon, L., Griffith, M., Schultz, A., Senaldi, I., Magenes, G., Dickie, J., Lissel, S.,
Centeno, J., Ventura, C., Leiti, J. Lourenco, P., 2011, Performance of Masonry Buildings and Churches in the
22 February 2011 Christchurch Earthquake, Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering,
44, 4, Dec., 279-297.
FEMA, 1998, FEMA 306-Evaluation of Earthquake Damaged Concrete and Masonry Wall Buildings, Federal
Emergency Management Agency.
FEMA, 2000, FEMA 356: Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic rehabilitation of Buildings, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC.
FEMA, 2006, FEMA 454: Risk Management Series: Designing for Earthquakes - a Manual for Architects,
Federal Emergency Management Authority,
FEMA, 2009, FEMA P-750: NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions for New Buildings and Other
Structures, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2000, FEMA 356: Prestandard and commentary for the
seismic rehabilitation of buildings, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Foss M, 2001. Diagonal Tension in Unreinforced Masonry Assemblages. MAEC ST-11: Large Scale Test of
Franklin, S., Lynch, J., and Abrams, D. P., 2001, Performance of Rehabilitated URM Shear Walls: Flexural
Behaviour of piers, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Urbana,
Illinois.
Giongo, I., Dizhur, D., Tomasi, R., Ingham, J. M. (2013). In-plane assessment of existing timber diaphragms
in URM buildings via quasi-static and dynamic in-situ tests, Advanced Materials Research, 778, 495-502.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.778.495
Giongo, I., Wilson, A., Dizhur, D., Derakhshan, H., Tomasi, R., Griffith, M. Quenneville, P., Ingham, J., 2014,
Detailed seismic assessment and improvement procedure for vintage flexible timber diaphragms, Bulletin of
the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, 47, 2, June, 97-118.
Goodwin, C., Tonks, G., Ingham, J, 2011, Retrofit techniques for seismic improvement of URM buildings,
Journal of the Structural Engineering Society New Zealand Inc., Volume 24 No. 1, pp 30-45.
Graziotti, F., Magenes, G. and Penna, A., 2012, Experimental Behaviour of Stone Masonry Spandrels,
Proceedings of 15th World Conference for Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal, Paper No. 3261.
Graziotti, F., Penna, A., Magenes, G. (2014) Influence of timber lintels on the cyclic behaviour of stone
masonry spandrels, International Masonry Conference 2014, Guimares, PT.
Griffith, M.C., Lawrence, S.J. and Willis, C.R., (2005). Diagonal bending of unreinforced clay brick masonry,
Masonry International, 18(3): 125-138.
Griffith, M.C., Vaculik, J., Lam, N.T.K., Wilson, J., and Lumantarna, E. (2007). Cyclic testing of unreinforced
masonry walls in two-way bending. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 36(6), 801-821.
ICBO, Guidelines for Seismic Evaluation and Rehabilitation of Tilt-Up Buildings and Other Rigid Wall/Flexible
Diaphragm Structures International Conference of Building Officials, 2000.
Ingham, J. M., Griffith, M. C., 2011, The Performance of Unreinforced Masonry Buildings in the 2010/2011
Canterbury Earthquake Swarm, Report to the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Building Failure Caused by
the Canterbury Earthquake. http://canterbury.royalcommission.govt.nz/documents-by-key/20110920.46.
Ismail, N., 2012, Selected strengthening techniques for the seismic retrofit of unreinforced masonry buildings,
A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy, University of
Auckland.
Kitching, N., 1999, The Small Scaling Modelling of masonry, Masonry Research, Civil Engineering Division,
Cardiff School of Engineering.
Knox, C. L. (2012) Assessment of Perforated Unreinforced Masonry Walls Responding In-Plane, University
of Auckland, PhD Thesis, Auckland, New Zealand.
Lawrence, S.J. and Marshall, R.J. (1996). Virtual work approach to design of masonry walls under lateral
loading, Technical Report DRM429, CSIRO Division of Building, Construction and Engineering, Sydney.
Lowndes, William S., (1994). Stone masonry (3rd. ed, p.69). International Textbook Company.
Lumantarna, R., Biggs, D. T., Ingham, J. M. (2014a). Compressive, flexural bond and shear bond strengths of
in-situ New Zealand unreinforced clay brick masonry constructed using lime mortar between the 1880s and

10-135
ISBN 978-0-473-26634-9
1940s, ASCE
Journal
of
Materials
in
Civil
566. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000685.
Engineering,
26, 4,
559-
Lumantarna, R., Biggs, D. T., Ingham, J. M. (2014b). Uniaxial compressive strength and stiffness of field
extracted and laboratory constructed masonry prisms, ASCE Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 26, 4,
567-575. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000731.
Magenes G., (2006). Masonry Building Design in Seismic Areas: Recent Experiences and Prospects from a
European Standpoint, Keynote 9, 1st European Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Engineering
Seismology, 3-8 september 2006, Geneva, Switzerland, CDROM.
Magenes, G. and Calvi, G.M. (1995). Shaking Table Tests on Brick Masonry Walls, Proceedings of the 10th
European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vienna, Austria, Vol. 3, pp. 24192424.
Magenes G., and Calvi G. M., 1997, In-Plane Seismic Response of Brick Masonry Walls, Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 26, pp. 1,091-1,112.
Mann, W. & Mller, H., 1982, Failure of Shear-Stressed Masonry - An enlarged theory, Tests and
Applications to Shear Walls. Proc. of the British Ceramic Society, No. 30.
Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment: Determination 2012/043: Whether the special provisions for
dangerous, earthquake-prone, and insanitary buildings in Subpart 6 of the Building Act that refer to a building
can also be applied to part of a building. www.dbh.govt.nz/UserFiles/File/Building/Determinations/2012/2012043.pdf
Moon, F. L., 2004, Seismic strengthening of low-rise unreinforced masonry structures with flexible
diaphragms, PhD Dissertation, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA.
Moon, F. L., Yi, T., Leon, R. T., and Kahn, L. F. (2006). "Recommendations for Seismic Evaluation and
Retrofit of Low-Rise URM Structures." Journal of Structural Engineering, 132(5), 663-672.
Moon, L., D. Dizhur, Griffith, M. & Ingham, J. (2011), Performance of Unreinforced Clay Brick Masonry
Buildings during The 22nd February 2011 Christchurch Earthquake, SESOC, Vol 24 No 2.
Neill, S.J., Beer, A.S., Amende, D., 2014, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, New Zealand,
Proceedings of NZSEE Conference 2014, Auckland.
Newmark, N.M., 1965. Effects of earthquakes on dams and embankments. Geotechnique 15, 139-159.
NZIS, 1965, NZSS 1900, Chapter 8: Basic Design Loads, New Zealand Standards Institute, Wellington
NZS, 2004. NZS 1170.5:2004: Structural Design Actions: Part 5: Earthquake actions New Zealand. Standards
New Zealand.
NZSEE, 1995, Draft guidelines for assessing and strengthening earthquake risk buildings, New Zealand
Society for Earthquake Engineering.
NZSEE, 2006. New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering (NZSEE): Assessment and Improvement of
the Structural Performance of Buildings in Earthquakes. Recommendations of a NZSEE Study Group on
Earthquake Risk Buildings.
Oliver, S. J., 2010, A design methodology for the assessment and retrofit of flexible diaphragms in
unreinforced masonry buildings, Journal of the Structural Engineering Society of New Zealand (SESOC),
23(1), 19-49.
Russell, A., 2010, Characterisation and Seismic Assessment of Unreinforced Masonry Buildings, Doctoral
dissertation,
The
University
of
Auckland,
Auckland,
New
Zealand,
344p.
https://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/handle/2292/6038
Russell, A. P., Ingham, J. M., (2010), The influence of flanges on the in-plane performance of URM walls in
New Zealand buildings. In Proceedings of the 2010 NZSEE Annual Conference (pp. 1-10). Wellington.
Russell, A. P,, Ingham, J. M., 2010, Prevalence of New Zealands unreinforced masonry buildings, Bulletin of
the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 43, No. 3, pp 183-202.
Tena-Colunga, A. and Abrams, D. (1996). Seismic Behavior of Structures with Flexible Diaphragms. J.
Struct. Eng., 122(4), 439445.
Tomazevic, M., 1999, Earthquake resistant Design of Masonry Buildings, ISBN 1-86094-066-8, Imperial
College Press.
Vaculik, J, 2004, Unreinforced Masonry Walls Subjected to Out-of-Plane Seismic Action, A thesis submitted in
partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, The University of Adelaide,
School of Civil, Environment & Mining Engineering.
Vaculik, JJ., 2012, Unreinforced Masonry Walls subject to Out-of-plane Seismic Actions, University of
Adelaide, School of Civil, Environmental and Mining Engineering, April 2012.

10-136
ISBN 978-0-473-26634-9
W. Mann, H. Muller Proc. Br. Ceram. Soc., 1982. Failure of Shear-Stressed Masonry An Enlarged Theory,
Tests and Application to Shear Walls
Willis, CR, Griffith, MC and Lawrence, SJ, (2004). Horizontal bending of unreinforced clay brick masonry
walls, Masonry International, 17(3): 109-121.
Wilson, A., Kelly, P. A., Quenneville, P. J. H., Ingham, J. M. (2013b). Non-linear in-plane deformation
mechanics of timber floor diaphragms in unreinforced masonry buildings, ASCE Journal of Engineering
Mechanics, http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EM.1943-7889.0000694
Wilson, A., Quenneville, P. J. H., Ingham, J. M. (2013). In-plane orthotropic behaviour of timber floor
diaphragms in unreinforced masonry buildings, ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000819
Wilson, A., Quenneville, P. J. H., Moon, F. L., Ingham, J. M. (2013a). Lateral performance of nail connections
from century old timber floor diaphragms, ASCE Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000792
Wilson, A., Quenneville, P., Ingham, J. (2013c). Natural Period and Seismic Idealization of Flexible Timber
Diaphragms, Earthquake Spectra, 29(3), in press.
Xu, W., and Abrams, D.P. (1992). Evaluation of Lateral Strength and Deflection for Cracked Unreinforced
Masonry Walls, U.S. Army Research Office, Report ADA 264-160, Triangle Park, North Carolina.
Yi, T., Moon, F.L., Leon, R.T. and Kahn, L.F. (2008). Flange Effects on the Nonlinear Behavior of URM Piers.
TMS Journal. November 2008
Yokel, F.Y. and Dikkers, R.D. (1971). Strength of load bearing masonry walls. Journal of the Structural
Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, 120(ST 5), 1593-1609.
Suggested Reading
Clifton, N. C., 2012, (1990). New Zealand Timbers; Exotic and Indigenous, GB Books, Wellington, 170p.
Curtin, W. G. , Shaw, G., Beck, J. K., Bray, W. A., Easterbrook, D., 1999, Structural Masonry Designers'
Manual, Blackwell Publishing.
De Felice, G. and Giannini, R. (2001). Out-of-plane seismic resistance of masonry walls. Journal of
Earthquake Engineering, 5(2), 253-271.
Doherty, K., Griffith, M.C., Lam, N., and Wilson, J. (2002). Displacement-based seismic analysis for out-ofplane bending of unreinforced masonry walls. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 31(4), 833850.
Ghobarah, A. and El Mandooh Galal, K. , 2004, Out-of-plane strengthening of unreinforced masonry walls with
openings. Journal of Composites for Construction, 8(4), 298-305.
Griffith, M.C., Magenes, G., Melis, G., and Picchi, L. (2003). Evaluation of out-of-plane stability of unreinforced
masonry walls subjected to seismic excitation. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 7(SPEC. 1), 141-169.
Lam, N.T.K., Griffith, M., Wilson, J., and Doherty, K. (2003). Time-history analysis of URM walls in out-ofplane flexure. Engineering Structures, 25(6), 743-754.
Najafgholipour, M. A., Maheri, M. R., Loureno, P. B., 2012, Capacity Interaction in Brick Masonry under
Simultaneous In-plane and Out-of-plane Loads, Construction and Building Materials. 38:619626.
Magenes G. and Calvi G. M., 1992, Cyclic behavior of brick masonry walls. In: Tenth world conference on
earthquake engineering. 1992. p. 351722.
Magenes G., della Fontana, A., 1998, Simplified non-linear seismic analysis of masonry buildings.
Proceedings of the Fifth International Masonry Conference. British Masonry Society, London.
Naeim, F, (ed), 2001, The Seismic Design Hand Book, 2nd edition, Springer,
Priestley, M.J.N., Calvi, G.M., Kowalsky, M.J., 2007, Displacement Based Design of Structures
Paulay, T., Priestley, M.J.N., 1992, Seismic design of reinforced concrete and masonry buildings, J. Wiley.
Chena, S.-Y. Moona, F.L. Yib, T. 2008, A macroelement for the nonlinear analysis of in-plane unreinforced
masonry piers, Engineering Structures, 30 (2008) 22422252.
Simsir, C.C. (2004). Influence of diaphragm flexibility on the out-of-plane dynamic response of unreinforced
masonry walls. PhD Thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, United States-- Illinois.

10-137
ISBN 978-0-473-26634-9
STM. (2002). Standard Test Method for Conducting Strength Tests of Panels for Building Construction (No.
E72-02). ASTM International.
Wilson, A., 2012, (2012). Seismic assessment of timber floor diaphragms in unreinforced masonry buildings,
Doctoral dissertation, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand, March, 568p.
https://researchspace.auckland.ac.New Zealand/handle/2292/14696
Yi, T., Moon, F. L., Leon, R. T., and Kahn, L. F _2006a. Lateral load tests on a two-storey unreinforced
masonry building. J. Struct. Eng., 132_5_ 643652.

10-138
ISBN 978-0-473-26634-9
Seismic Assessment of Unreinforced Masonry Buildings Appendix 10A

On-site Testing
Appendix 10A: On-site Testing

10A.1
General
While the seismic response of URM buildings is significantly influenced by characteristics

such as boundary conditions and the behaviour of inter-element connections, on-site testing
of material properties improves the reliability of the seismic assessments, the numerical
models that describe the seismic behaviour of URM buildings and may lead to less
conservative retrofit designs. However, the non-homogenous nature of masonry combined
with the age of URM buildings make it difficult to reliably predict the material properties
of masonry walls.
It is recommended that field sampling or field testing of URM elements is conducted. Field
sampling refers to the extraction of samples from an existing building for subsequent
testing offsite, while field testing refers to testing for material properties in-situ. A set of
techniques are described in subsequent sections that can be used to determine masonry
material properties.
Before proceeding to on-site testing, it is important to sensibly understand what
information will be collected from the investigation, how that would be used and what
value the information will add to reliability of the assessment. Before deciding an
investigation programme, sensitivity analyses should be undertaken to determine what
assessment parameters are more important and likely to influence the assessment result and
whether the default parameter values given are likely to be appropriate/sufficient.
Only rarely should on-site testing be considered necessary for basic buildings.
10A.2
Masonry Assemblage (Prism) Material

Properties
If masonry assemblage (prism) samples are to be extracted for laboratory testing they
should be single leaf and at least three bricks high. If they are two leafs thick or more, cut
them into single leaf samples. If present, remove rendering plaster from both sides of the
samples. Cap the prepared samples using gypsum plaster to ensure uniform stress
distribution.
Test individual brick units and mortar samples as per Section 10A.3 when sampling of
larger assemblages is not permitted or practical. Masonry properties can then be predicted
using the obtained brick and mortar properties as set out in Section 10.7.
10A.2.1 Masonry compressive strength

Determine masonry compressive strength in accordance with ASTM C 1314-03b
(ASTM 2003a). Figure 10A.1 shows a typical prism sample before testing. Aluminium
frames are attached to the sample ends and a displacement gauge spans between the frames
to measure the sample displacement.

App-1
ISBN 978-0-473-26634-9

On-site Testing
ASTM C 1314-03b (ASTM 2003a) also enables you to determine the masonry modulus of
elasticity (further detailed in Section 10A.2.2.1).
Figure 10A.1: Example of extracted sample with test rig attached for the prism
compression test
10A.2.2 Masonry modulus of elasticity

10A.2.2.1 Laboratory calibrated displacement measurement
Laboratory calibrated displacement measurement devices may be attached to the masonry
prisms during the compression tests detailed in Section 10A.2.1. Incorporate a minimum of
two measurement devices to record displacements at opposing sample faces. Their gauge
lengths should cover the distance from the middle of the top brick to the middle of the
bottom brick. Use the recorded measurement to derive the masonry stress-strain
relationship and subsequently the masonry modulus of elasticity, Em. The stress and strain
values considered in the calculation of Em are those between 0.05 and 0.70 times the
masonry compressive strength (fm).
10A.2.2.2 In situ deformability test incorporating flat jacks

Flat jack testing is a versatile and effective technique that provides useful information on
the mechanical properties of historical constructions. In-situ measurements of masonry
modulus of elasticity should be performed in accordance with the ASTM C 1197 - 04
(ASTM 2004) in situ deformability test.
Note:
Extensive studies have been conducted to confirm the reliability of this test, including the
work by Noland J.L., Atkinson R.H., Schuller M.P. (1991), Gregorczyk and Loureno
(2000); Parivallal et al. (2011); and Simes (2012).

App-2
ISBN 978-0-473-26634-9

On-site Testing
The in-situ deformability test is moderately destructive as it requires the removal of

horizontal mortar joints (bed-joint) for the insertion of the two flat jacks (Figure 10A.2a).
The horizontal slots are separated by at least five courses of brickwork, but the separation
distance should not exceed 1.5 times the flat jack length. A pressure controlled hydraulic
pump is used to inflate the flat jacks, applying vertical confinement pressure to the
masonry between the two jacks. To monitor displacement, typically three measurement
devices are attached between the two flat jacks (Figure 10A.2b). These flat jacks need to
be calibrated, following ASTM C 1197 - 04 (ASTM 2004).
Measurement
device
(a) Cutting mortar bed-joints and insertion of

flat jacks into clay brick masonry
(b) In-situ deformability test set-up under

preparation in clay brick masonry
Figure 10A.2: In situ deformability test preparation (EQ STRUC Ltd)
10A.2.3 Masonry flexural bond strength

Extract masonry prisms two bricks high and a single brick wide, and subject these to the
flexural bond test of AS 3700-2001 (Australian Standards, 2001). Remove any rendering
plaster from the sides of the sample before performing this test. Cut any samples that are
two leafs thick or more into single leaf masonry prism samples. Alternatively, you may
conduct the flexural bond test in situ if this is more practical.
(a) Plan view

App-3
ISBN 978-0-473-26634-9

On-site Testing
(b) Elevation view

Figure 10A.3: Flexural bond test-set-up (AS 3700-2001)
10A.2.4 Masonry bed-joint shear strength

Conduct the ASTM C 1531-03 (ASTM 2003b) in-situ bed-joint shear test to determine
masonry bed-joint properties. This type of test is moderately destructive as it requires the
removal of at least one brick on one side of the test specimen to allow for insertion of a
hydraulic jack, as well as the removal of a vertical mortar joint on the opposite side to
allow horizontal bed joint movement to occur. The hydraulic jack is then loaded, using a
pressure controlled hydraulic pump, until visible bed-joint sliding failure occurred. You
can then derive the bed-joint shear strength from the peak pressure records.
Alternatively, extract three brick high masonry prisms for laboratory testing following the
triplet shear test BS EN 1052-3 (BSI 2002). This test should be conducted while applying
axial compression loads of approximately 0.2 MPa, 0.4 MPa and 0.6 MPa. At least three
masonry prism samples should be tested at each level of axial compression. Remove any
rendering plaster from both sides of the sample before testing. Cut any masonry samples
that are two leafs thick or more into single leaf samples. Bed-joint shear tests performed in
the laboratory and in situ are shown in Figure 10A.4.
(a) Laboratory shear triplet test
(b) In situ shear test without flat jacks (EQ

STRUC Ltd)
Figure 10A.4: In situ and laboratory bed- joint shear test

App-4
ISBN 978-0-473-26634-9

On-site Testing
The in situ bed-joint shear test is limited to tests of the masonry face leaf. When the
masonry unit is pushed in a direction parallel to the bed joint, shear resistance is provided
across not only the bed-joint shear planes but also the collar joint shear plane. Because
seismic shear is not transferred across the collar joint in a multi-leaf masonry wall, the
estimated shear resistance of the collar joint must be deducted from the test values. This
reduction is achieved by including a 0.75 reduction factor in Equation 10.33, which is the
ratio of the areas of the top and bottom bed joints to the sum of the areas of the bed and
collar joints for a typical clay masonry unit.
The term P in Equation 10.33 represents the axial overburden acting on the bed joints. This
value multiplied by the bed-joint coefficient of friction, (f), allows estimation of the
frictional component contributing to the recorded bed-joint stress. Due to the typical large
variation of results obtained from individual bed-joint shear strength tests, the equation
conservatively assumes f = 1.0 for the purposes of determining cohesion, c. Therefore, for
simplicity, the f term has been omitted from the equation.
10A.3
Constituent Material Properties
10A.3.1 Brick compressive strength

Extract individual brick units for the ASTM C 67-03a (ASTM 2003a) half brick
compression test. Cut these brick units into halves and cap them using gypsum plaster
before compression testing (Figure 10A.5). Note that it is possible to obtain half brick units
from the residual samples of the Modulus of Rupture test described in Section 10A.3.2.
Figure 10A.5: Brick and mortar sample and compression test set-up (EQ STRUC Ltd)
10A.3.2 Brick modulus of rupture

Extract individual brick units from the building and subject these to the modulus of rupture
(MoR) test ASTM C 67-03a (ASTM 2003a). The tested brick specimens from the MoR
test may be subjected to the half brick compression test ASTM C 67-03a (ASTM 2003a) in
order to obtain a direct relationship between the brick MoR and compressive strength, fb.
Previous experimental investigation has confirmed that the brick unit MoR can be
approximated to equal 0.12fb.

App-5
ISBN 978-0-473-26634-9

On-site Testing
10A.3.3 Mortar compressive strength

Extract irregular mortar samples for laboratory testing. As it is common for URM walls to
have eroded mortar joints that were later repaired using stronger mortar, take care when
selecting the location for mortar sample extraction to ensure that your samples are
representative.
The method to determine mortar compressive strength is detailed in ASTM C 109-08
(ASTM 2008). This method involves testing of 50 mm cube mortar samples, which
generally are not attainable in existing buildings as most mortar joints are only 10 to
18 mm thick. Therefore, cut the irregular mortar samples into approximately cubical sizes
with two parallel sides (top and bottom). The height of the mortar samples should
exceed 15 mm in order to satisfactorily maintain the proportion between sample size and
the maximum aggregate size. Cap the prepared samples using gypsum plaster to ensure
a uniform stress distribution and testing in compression (Valek and Veiga, 2005): see
Figure 10A.6 for examples.
Measure the height to minimum lateral dimension (h/t) ratio of the mortar samples and use
this to determine the mortar compressive strength correction factors. Divide the
compression test result by the corresponding correction factors in Equation 10A.1. The
average corrected strength is equal to the average mortar compressive strength, fj.
10A.1
where:
=
=
=
=
normalised mortar compressive strength

measured irregular mortar compressive strength.

Equation 10A.1 normalises the measured compressive strength of irregular mortar samples
to the compressive strength of a 50 mm cube mortar. Factors and are calculated as
per Equations 10A.2 and 10A.3 (where . should be calculated as per Equation 10A.4)
respectively. Factor is required in order to normalise the sample t/l ratio to 1.0, while
is required in order to normalise the sample h/t ratio to 1.0, corresponding to a
factor
cubic mortar sample that is comparable to a 50 mm cube. These factors were derived based
on the study detailed in Lumantarna (2012).
0.42
0.58
10A.2
10A.3
2.4
5.7
4.3
10A.4
When conducting tests on laboratory manufactured samples make 50 mm mortar cubes,

leave these to cure under room temperature (20 C) for 28 days, and test them in
compression following the mortar cube compression test ASTM C 109-08 (ASTM 2008).

App-6
ISBN 978-0-473-26634-9

On-site Testing
(a) Example of typical extracted

mortar samples
(b) Example of typical mortar

sample preparations
(c) Example of
typical test set-up
Figure 10A.6: Determination of mortar compression strength (EQ STRUC Limited)
10A.4
Proof Testing of Anchor Connections
An epoxied or grouted anchorage system is a typical method of connecting the floor and
roof diaphragms of the building to masonry walls. Reliable anchor pull-out and shear
strength is important for assessment or design of anchors and the specification of anchor
spacing. Standard installation procedures of embedded anchors involve drilling the
masonry wall, cleaning the drilled hole and epoxying or grouting threaded steel bars to the
specified embedment depth, typically 50 mm less than the wall thickness. Two-part epoxy
or high strength grouts are typically used with surface preparation conducted in accordance
with the manufacturers specifications.
On-site quality control and proof testing should be undertaken on at least 15% of all
installed adhesive anchors, of which 5% should be tested prior to the installation of more
than 20% of all anchors. Testing is required to confirm workmanship (particularly the
mixing of epoxy and cleaning of holes) and anchor capacity against load requirements. If
more than 10% of the tested anchors fail below a test load of 75% of the nominated
probable capacity, discount the failed anchors from the total number of anchors tested as
part of the quality assurance test. Test additional anchors to meet the 15% threshold
requirements. Failures that cannot be attributed to workmanship issues are likely to be
indicative of an overestimation of the available capacity and a reassessment of the
available probable capacity is likely to be required.
10A.4.1 Anchors loaded in tension

Once the adhesive is cured (typically over 24 hours), the steel anchors can be loaded in
tension using a hydraulic jack until ultimate carrying capacity is reached (ASTM, 2003) or
when the load exceeds two times the specified load. The typical test set-up is shown in
Figure 10A.7. A 600 mm clear span of reaction frame allows testing of up to 300 mm
embedment depth without exerting any confining pressures onto the test area, as the
reaction frame supports are outside the general zone of influence. On completing the test,
the anchor stud is typically cut flush with the wall surface.

App-7
ISBN 978-0-473-26634-9

On-site Testing
(a) Typical anchor pull test

set up
(b) Close up of the typical test set-up with an

alternative test frame
Figure 10A.7: Typical anchor pull-out test set-up (EQ STRUC Ltd)
10A.4.2 Anchors loaded in shear

The test set-up that could be adopted for in situ testing of anchors loaded in shear is shown
in Figure 10A.8. Monotonic shear loading can be applied by using a single acting hydraulic
actuator, with the external diameter of the actuator selected to be as small as possible. The
bracket arrangements should minimise the tension loads in the anchors. The aim is to
determine the shear capacity in the absence of tension.

(a) Typical anchor shear tests set-up

(push cycle)
(b) Typical anchor shear tests set-up

(pull cycle)
Figure 10A.8: Shear tests set-up used (EQ STRUC Ltd)
10A.5
Investigation of Collar Joints and Wall Cavities
Investigation of collar joints quality and wall cavities can be undertaken using a Ground
Penetrating Radar (GPR) structural scanner (Figure 10A.9a). The scanner is capable of
accurately determining the member thickness, metallic objects, voids and other

App-8
ISBN 978-0-473-26634-9
Seismic Ass
sessment of Unreinforced Masoonry Buildings Appendix 10A
A
On-site Testing
g
innformation. An example of the innformation provided by

b GPR scaanning is presented
p
inn
Fiigure 10A.99b.

Poor coollar joint
Header coursess bridging

over the caavity
(a) Ground Penetrating

g Radar (GPR
R) scanner
(b) Typical results outp

put
A.9: Example
e of non-inva
asive scann
ning using Ground
G
Peneetrating Rad
dar (GPR)
Figure 10A
scannerr technology
y (EQ STRUC Ltd)
10A.6
Cavity Tie Exa

amination
Thhe main foccus of the cavity

c
tie exxamination is to identiffy the conddition and frrequency off
thhe cavity tiies embedd
ded betweenn the leavees of the cavity
c
URM
M walls. A borescopee
innspection caamera can be
b used to innspect the air
a cavity th
hrough a voiid left from
m a removedd
brrick or an aiir vent (Figu
ure 10A.10)).
(a) Borescope inspec

ction camerra
(b)
( Typical example
e
of ccavity observations
UC Ltd)
Figure 10
0A.10: Bores
scope inspe
ection camera (EQ STRU
Se
ection 10 - Seism
Upd
dated 22 April 2015
App-9
9
IS
SBN 978-0-4
473-26634-9
9

On-site Investigation
References
ASTM (2003). Standard Test Methods for Strength of Anchors in Concrete and Masonry Elements. E488-96.
ASTM International. Pennsylvania, United States.Se
ASTM. (2000). "Standard Test Method for Measurement of Masonry Flexural Bond Strength." C 1072 - 00a.
ASTM International, Pennsylvania, United States.
ASTM. (2003a). Standard Test Methods for Sampling and Testing Brick and Structural Clay Tile., C 67-03a.
ASTM International, Pennsylvania, United States.
ASTM. (2003b). "Standard Test Methods for In Situ Measurement of Masonry Mortar Joint Shear Strength
Index." C 1531 - 03. ASTM International, Pennsylvania, United States.
ASTM (2004). "Standard Test Method for In Situ Measurement of Masonry Deformability Properties Using the
Flatjack Method." C 1197 - 04, ASTM International, Pennsylvania, United States.
ASTM. (2008). "Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Hydraulic Cement Mortars (Using 2-in. or
[50-mm] Cube Specimens)., C 109/C 109M - 08, ASTM International, Pennsylvania, United States.BSI
(2002). "Methods of test for masonry. Determination of initial shear strength." BS EN 1052-3:2002, British
Standards Institution, United Kingdom.
Noland J.L., Atkinson R.H., Schuller M.P. (1991) "A Review of the Flat Jack Method for Non-destructive
Evaluation of Civil Structures and Materials. The National Science Foundation. Grant No. MSM 9005818.
Gregorczyk P. and Loureno P. (2000). A Review on Flat-Jack Testing. Universidad do Minho,
Departamento de Engenharia Civil Azurm, P 4800-058 Guimares, Portugal.
Parivallal S., K. Kesavan, K. Ravisankar, B Arun Sundram and A K Farvaze Ahmed (2011). Evaluation of Insitu Stress in Masonry Structures by Flat Jack Technique. Proceedings of the National Seminar & Exhibition
on Non-Destructive Evaluation. NDE 2011, December 8-10, 2011 CSIR-Structural Engineering Research
Centre, Chennai 600 113.
Lumantarna, R. (2012). Material Characterisation of New Zealands Clay Brick Unreinforced Masonry
Buildings. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Auckland, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/2292/18879.
Simes A., A. Gago, M. Lopes & R. Bento (2012). Characterization of Old Masonry Walls: Flat-Jack
Method. 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering (15WCEE) Lisbon, Portugal 24-28 September
2012.
Standards Australia (2001). "Appendix D: Method of Test for Flexural Strength." AS 3700 - 2001, Standards
Australia, Homebush, New South Wales, Australia.
Valek, J., and Veiga, R. (2005). Characterisation of Mechanical Properties of Historic Mortars - Testing of
Irregular Samples, Structural studies, repairs and maintenance of heritage architecture XI: Ninth international
conference on structural studies, repairs and maintenance of heritage architecture, Malta, 22-24 June.
Appendix 10ADetailed Assessment of Unreinforced Masonry Buildings

App-10
ISBN 978-0-473-26634-9
Seismic Assessment of Unreinforced Masonry Buildings Appendix 10B

Derivation of Instability Deflection and Fundamental Period for Masonry Buildings
Appendix 10B: Derivation of Instability Deflection

and Fundamental Period for Face-Loaded
Masonry Walls
10B.1
General considerations and approximations
There are many variations that need to be taken into account when considering a general
formulation for URM walls that might fail out-of-plane. These include:
Walls will not usually be of a constant thickness in a building, or even within a storey.
Walls will have embellishments, appendages and ornamentation that may lead to
eccentricity of masses with respect to supports.
Walls may have openings for windows or doors.
Support conditions will vary.
Existing buildings may be rather flexible, leading to possibly large inter-storey
displacements that may adversely affect the performance of face-loaded walls.
You can use the following approximations to simplify your analysis while still accounting
for some the key important factors.
1
Deformations due to distortions (straining) in the wall can be ignored. Assume

deflections to be entirely due to rigid body motion.
Note:
This is equivalent to saying that the change in potential energy from a disturbance of
the wall from its initial position is mostly due to the movement of the masses of the
elements comprising the wall and the movements of the masses tributary to the wall.
Strain energy contributes less to the change in potential energy.
Assume that potential rocking occurs at the support lines (e.g. at roof or floor levels)
and, for walls that are supported at the top and bottom of a storey, at the mid-height.
The mid-height rocking position divides the wall into two parts of equal height: a
bottom part (subscript b) and a top part (subscript t). The masses of each part are not
necessarily equal.
Note:
It is implicit within this assumption and (1) above that the two parts of the wall
remain undistorted when the wall deflects. For walls constructed of softer mortars or
walls with little vertical pre-stress from storeys above, this is not actually what
occurs: the wall takes up a curved shape, particularly in the upper part.
Nevertheless, errors occurring from the use of the stated assumptions have been
found to be small and you will still obtain acceptably accurate results.
Appendix 10BDetailed Assessment of Unreinforced Masonry Buildings

App-11
ISBN 978-0-473-26634-9

Assume the thickness to be small relative to the height of the wall. Assume the slope,
A, of both halves of the wall to be small; in the sense that cos(A) 1 and sin(A) A.
Note:
The approximations for slope are likely to be sufficiently accurate for reasonably
thin walls. For thick walls where the height to thickness ratio is smaller, the
formulations in this appendix are likely to provide less accurate results and forcebased approaches provide an alternative.
Inter-storey slopes due to deflection of the building are assumed to be small.

Note:
Approximate corrections for this effect are noted in the method.
In dynamic analyses, the moment of inertia is assumed constant and equal to that
applying when the wall is in its undisturbed position, whatever the axes of rotation.
Note:
The moment of inertia is dependent on the axes of rotation. During excitation, these
axes continually change position. Assuming that the inertia is constant is reasonable
within the context of the other approximations employed.
Damping is assumed at the default value in NZS 1170.5:2004, which is 5% of

critical.
Note:
For the aspect ratio of walls of interest, additional effective damping due to loss of
energy on impact is small. Furthermore, it has been found that the surfaces at
rocking (or hinge) lines tend to fold onto each other rather than experience the full
impact that is theoretically possible, reducing the amount of equivalent damping that
might be expected. However, for in-plane analysis of buildings constructed largely of
URM, adopting a damping ratio that is significantly greater than 5% is appropriate.
Assume that all walls in storeys above and below the wall under study move in
phase with the subject wall.
Note:
Analytical studies have found this to be the case. One reason for this is that the
effective stiffness of a wall as it moves close to its limit deflection (e.g. as measured
by its period) becomes very low, affecting its resistance to further deflection caused
by accelerations transmitted to the walls through the supports. This assumption
means that upper walls, for example, will tend to restrain the subject wall by exerting
restraining moments.

App-12
ISBN 978-0-473-26634-9

10B.2
Vertically spanning walls
10B.2.1 General formulation

Figures 10B.1 and 10B.2 show the configuration of a wall panel within a storey at two
stages of deflection. The wall is intended to be quite general. Simplifications to the general
solutions for walls that are simpler (e.g. of uniform thickness) are made in a later section.
Figure 10B.1 shows the configuration at incipient rocking. Figure 10B.2 shows the
configuration after significant rocking has occurred, with the wall having rotated through
an angle A and with mid-height deflection, , where = Ah/2.
In Figure 10B.1 the dimensions eb and et relate to the mass centroids of the upper and
lower parts of the panel. The dimension ep relates to the position of the line of action of
weights from upper storeys (walls, floors and roofs) relative to the centroid of the upper
part of the panel. The arrows on the associated dimensioning lines indicate the positive
direction of these dimensions for the assumed direction of motion (angle A at the bottom of
the wall is positive in the anti-clockwise sense). Under some circumstances the signs of the
eccentricities may be negative; for example for ep when an upper storey wall is much
thinner than the upper storey wall represented here, particularly where the thickness steps
on one face. When the lines of axial force from diaphragm and walls from above are
different, the resultant force should be calculated.
eP
et
eo+eb
P
ICR
yt
Wt
h
h
2
yb
Wb
ICR
eb e o
Figure 10B.1:
Configuration at incipient rocking

App-13
ISBN 978-0-473-26634-9

The instantaneous centres of rotation (ICR) are also marked on these figures. These are
useful in deriving virtual work expressions.
10B.2.2 Limiting deflection for static instability

You can write the equation of equilibrium directly by referring to Figure 10B.2 and using
virtual work expressions. For static conditions this is given by:
10B.1
The final term represents the effect of any inter-storey drift. In the derivation presented, the
total deformation has been assumed to be that resulting from the summation of the drift
and the rocking wall.
Writing:

10B.2
and:
10B.3
and collecting terms in A, the equation of equilibrium is rewritten as:
0
10B.4
from which:
10B.5
when the wall becomes unstable.

App-14
ISBN 978-0-473-26634-9

eP
eo +eb +et +ep - Ah
et
eo+eb
eo +eb +et - A(h -yt)

support reaction
ICR
ICR
A, A
Wtt
Wt
h
2
Wb
yb
Wb
h + A(e0 + eb + et + eP)
yt
Wt
Wb
A, A
ICR
eb eo
support reaction
eb - Ayb
eo +eb - Ah
2
Drift (max = 0.025)
Rocking Wall
Figure 10B.2: Configuration when rotations have become significant and there is interstorey drift
Therefore, the critical value of the deflection at mid-height of the panel, at which the panel
will be unstable, is:
10B.6
It is assumed that m, a fraction of this deflection, is the maximum useful deflection.

Experimental and analytic studies indicate that this fraction might be assumed to be about
0.6. At larger displacements than 0.6i, analysis reveals an undue sensitivity to earthquake
spectral content and a wide scatter in results.
10B.2.3 Equation of motion for free vibration

When conditions are not static, the virtual work expression on the left-hand side in the
equation above is unchanged, but the zero on the right-hand side of the equation is replaced
by mass x acceleration, in accordance with Newtons law. This gives:
10B.7
This uses the usual notation for acceleration (a double dot to denote the second derivative
with respect to time; in this case indicating angular acceleration), and J as the rotational
inertia.
The rotational inertia can be written directly from Figures 10B.1 and 10B.2, noting that the
centroids undergo accelerations vertically and horizontally as well as rotationally, and
these accelerations relate to the angular acceleration in the same way as the displacements
relate to the angular displacement. While the rotational inertia is dependent on the

App-15
ISBN 978-0-473-26634-9

displacements, the effects of this variation are ignored. Therefore, the rotational inertia is
taken as that when no displacement has occurred. This gives the following expression for
rotational inertia.
10B.8
where Jbo and Jto are the mass moments of inertia of the bottom and top parts respectively
about their centroids, and Janc is the inertia of any ancillary masses, such as veneers, that
are not integral with the wall but contribute to its inertia.
For a wall with unit length, held at the top and bottom, and rocking crack at mid-height,
with a density of per unit volume, the mass moment of inertia about the horizontal axis
through the centroid is given by:
kgm
10B.9
The corresponding mass moment of inertia about the vertical axis through the centroid is:
kgm
10B.10
The polar moment of inertia through the centroid is the sum of these, or:
kgm
10B.11
where m is the mass (kg) and W (N) is the weight of the whole wall panel and g is the
acceleration of gravity.
Note that in this equation the expressions in square brackets are the squares of the radii
from the instantaneous centres of rotation to the mass centroids, where the locations of the
instantaneous centres of rotation are those when there is no displacement. Some CAD
programs have functions that will assist in determining the inertia about an arbitrary point
(or locus), such as about the ICR shown in Figure 10B.2.
Collecting terms and normalising the equation so that the coefficient of the acceleration
term is unity gives the following differential equation of free vibration:
10B.12

App-16
ISBN 978-0-473-26634-9

10B.2.4 Period of free vibration

The solution of the equation for free vibration derived in the previous section is:
10B.13
The time, , is taken as zero when the wall has its maximum rotation, A (=/2h). Using
this condition and the condition that the rotational velocity is zero when the time = 0, the
solution becomes:
.10B.14
Take the period of the part, Tp, as four times the duration for the wall to move from its
position at maximum deflection to the vertical. Then the period is given by:
4
10B.15
This can be simplified further by substituting the term for i found from the static analysis
and putting the value of used for the calculation of period as t to give:
4
10B.16
If we accept that the deflection ratio of interest is 0.6 (i.e.
6.27
= 0.6), then this becomes:

10B.17
as in the 2006 guidelines. However, research (Derakhshan et al, (2014a)) indicates that the
resulting period and responding displacement demand is too large if a spectrum derived
from linear elastic assumptions is used. Rather, this research suggests that an effective
period calculated from an assumed displacement of 60% of the assumed displacement
capacity should be used. Therefore, the period is based on t = 0.36i so that:
4.07
10B.18
10B.2.5 Maximum acceleration

The acceleration required to start rocking of the wall occurs when the wall is in its initial
(undisturbed) state. This can be determined from the virtual work equations by assuming
that A=0. Accordingly:
10B.19

App-17
ISBN 978-0-473-26634-9

However, a more cautious appraisal assumes that the acceleration is influenced primarily
by the instantaneous acceleration of the supports, transmitted to the wall masses, without
relief by wall rocking. Accordingly:
10B.20
where Cm is the acceleration coefficient to just initiate rocking.
10B.2.6 Participation factor

The participation factor can be determined in the usual way by normalising the original
form of the differential equation for free vibration, modified by adding the ground
acceleration term. For the original form of the equation, the ground acceleration term is
added to the RHS. Written in terms of a unit rotation, this term is (Wbyb + Wtyt) times the
ground acceleration. The equation is normalised by dividing through by J, and then
multiplied by h/2 to convert it to one involving displacement instead of rotation. The
participation factor is then the coefficient of the ground acceleration. That is:
10B.21
10B.2.7 Simplifications for regular walls

You can make simplifications where the thickness of a wall within a storey is constant,
there are no openings, and there are no ancillary masses. Further approximations can then
be applied:
The weight of each part (top and bottom) is half the total weight, W.
yb = yt = h/4
The moment of inertia of the whole wall is further approximated by assuming that all e
are very small relative to the height (or, for the same result, by ignoring the shift of the
ICR from the mid-line of the wall), giving J = Wh2/12g. Alternatively, use the
simplified expressions for J given in Table 10B.1.
10B.2.7.1 Approximate displacements for static instability

Table 10B.1 gives values for a and b and the resulting mid-height deflection to cause static
instability when eb and/or ep are either zero or half of the effective thickness of the wall, t.
In this table eo and et are both assumed equal half the effective wall thickness. While these
values of the eccentricities are reasonably common, they are not the only values that will
occur in practice.
The effective thickness may be assumed as follows:
0.975
0.025
10B.22
where tnom is the nominal thickness of the wall.

App-18
ISBN 978-0-473-26634-9

Experiments show that this is a reasonable approximation, even for walls with soft mortar.
In that case, there is greater damping and that reduces response, which compensates for
errors in the expression for effective thickness.
10B.2.7.2 Approximate expression for period of vibration
Noting that:
10B.23
and using the approximation for J relevant to a wall with large aspect ratio, the expression
for the period is given by:
4.07
10B.24
where it should be noted that the period is independent of the restraint conditions at the top
and bottom of the wall (i.e. independent of both eb and ep).
If the height is expressed in metres, this expression simplifies to:
.
/
10B.25
It should be appreciated that periods may be rather long.

This approximation errs on the low side, which leads to an underestimate of displacement
demand and therefore to slightly incautious results. The fuller formulation is therefore
preferred.
10B.2.7.3 Participation factor
Suitable approximations can be made for the participation factor. This could be taken at the
maximum value of 1.5. Alternatively, the numerator can be simplified as provided in the
following expression, and the simplified value of J shown in Table 10B.1 can be used.
10B.2.7.4 Maximum acceleration
By making the same simplifications as above, the maximum acceleration is given by:
10B.26
Or, more cautiously, the acceleration coefficient, Cm, is given in Table 10B.1 for the
common cases regularly encountered.

App-19
ISBN 978-0-473-26634-9
Seismic A
Assessment of Unreinforced Masonry
M
Buildinggs Appendix 10B
1
De
erivation of Insttability Deflection and Fundame
ental Period for Masonry Buildings
10B.2.8 Adjusttments required

r
d when in
nter-storrey displlacemen
nt
is larg
ge
Using the common lim
mit on off 0.025, andd substitutin
ng for Wb = Wt = W/2 and yb = yt =
b Wh/160. Taking h//t = 25, in the absencce of any ssurcharge, the
t
h/4, b is found to be
percentagee reduction in the instaability defleection for each
e
case shown
s
in Taable 10B.1 is
31% for C
Cases 0 and 2, and 16%
% for Cases 1 and 3. Th
hese are not insignificaant, and theese
affects shoould be asseessed especcially in buiildings with
h flexible principal fraaming such as
steel momeent-resistingg frames.
Table 10B.1
1: Static ins
stability defe
ection for un
niform walls
s, various bo
oundary con
nditions
Boundary
condition nu
umber
ep
t/2
t/2
eb
t/
t/2
t/2
(W/2+P)t
(W+3
3P/2)t
(W/2+3P/2
2)t
(W+2P)t
(W/2+P)h
(W/2
2+P)h
(W/2+P)h
h
((W/2+P)h
i = bh/(2
2a)
t/2
(2W+
W+3P)t
(2W
W+4P)
(W+3P)t
(2W+4P)
{(W
W/12)[h2 +7t2]
+Pt2}/g
{(W/12) [h2+16t2]
+9Ptt2/4}/g
{(W/12)[h2+7
7t2]
+9Pt2/4}/g
g
{(W/
W/12)[h2+16t2]
+4Pt2}/g
Cm
(
(2+4P/W)t/h
(4+6P
P/W)t/h
(2+6P/W)t//h
4(11+2P/W)t/h
Note:
1. The bounndary conditions of the piers sh
hown above aree for clockwise potential rockin
ng.
2. The top eeccentricity, et is
i not related to a boundary conndition, hence is
i not included in the table. Thhe top eccentriccity,
et, is the hhorizontal distaance from the ceentral pivot poiint to the centree of mass of thee top block whicch is not related
d to
a boundar
ary condition.
3. The eccenntricities shownn in the sketchees are for the poositive sense. Where
W
the top ecccentricity is inn the other sensee ep
should bee entered as a negative numberr.
10B.3
Vertic
cal canttilevers
s
10B.3.1 Generral formu

ulation
Figure 10B
B.3 shows a general arrangemen
a
nt of a canttilever. Thee wall illusstrated has an
overburdenn load at the top, but th
his load wiill commonlly be zero, as in a paraapet. Wheree a
load does exist it is im
mportant to
o realise thaat the mass associated with that looad can mo
ove
wall is affeccted by the overburdenn to a greater
horizontallly. As a ressult the inerrtia of the w
extent thann if the walll was suppo
orted horizonntally at thee top. If the top load iss supported on
the wall inn such a wayy that its point of appli cation can change,
c
as is
i the case iif it is throu
ugh
a continuouus beam or slab that crrosses the w
wall, there will
w be an ecccentricity oof the point of
applicationn of P.
Appendix 10B
Detailed Assesssment of Unreinforced Mason
nry Buildings
Updated 22 April 20
015
App
p-20
ISBN 978--0-473-26634
4-9
Seismic Ass
sessment of Unreinforced Masoonry Buildings Appendix 10B
B
Derivvation of Instability Deflection and Fundamentaal Period for Ma
asonry Buildingss
Soometimes several wallls will be liinked; for example,

e
wh
hen a seriess of face-lo
oaded wallss
prrovide the lateral resiistance to a single-sto
orey buildin
ng. This caase can be solved byy
m
methods deriived from the generall formulatio
on, but exp
press formuulations forr it are nott
prrovided heree.
Foor the single wall illustrated, it is assumed th
hat P is app
plied eccentr
tric to the ceentre of thee
w
wall at the toop and that point
p
of appplication rem
mains constant. It is strraightforwarrd to obtainn
thhe followingg parameters:
10B.27
10B.28
10B.29
N
Note that in these
t
equatiions ep is takken as posittive in the sense shownn in Figure 10B.3.
1
Figure 10B.3:
Single
S
cantiilever
Ap
ppendix 10BDe
etailed Assessm
ment of Unreinfo
orced Masonry Buildings
B
Upd
dated 22 April 2015
App-21
IS
SBN 978-0-4
473-26634-9
9

10B.3.2 Limiting deflection for static instability

When the wall just becomes unstable, the relationship for A remains the same as before but
the deflection is Ah. Thus, the limiting deflection is given by:
...10B.30
For the case where P=0 and yb=h/2 this reduces to i = 2eb = t.
10B.3.3 Period of vibration

If t = 0.36i as for the simple case, the general expression for period would remain valid.
However, cantilevers are much more susceptible to instability under real earthquake
stimulation than wall panels that are supported both top and bottom. Therefore, the
maximum useable displacement for calculation of capacity, m, is reduced from 0.6i to
0.3i and the displacement for calculation of period changes from 0.6m to 0.8m = 0.24i
so that:
3.1
10B.31
Where P=0, eb=t/2, yb=h/2, approximating t=tnom and expressing h in metres, the period of
vibration is given by:
0.65
10B.32
Note that P, whether eccentric or not, will not affect the static instability displacement, and
therefore neither the displacement demand (by affecting the period), nor the displacement
capacity.
10B.3.4 Participation factor

The expression for the participation factor remains unaffected; that is, = Wh2/2J. This
may be simplified for uniform walls with P=0 (no added load at the top) by inserting the
specific expression for J. This gives:
10B.33
10B.3.5 Maximum acceleration

Using the same simplifications as above:
10B.34

App-22
ISBN 978-0-473-26634-9
Seismic Assessment of Unreinforced Masonry Buildings Appendix 10C

Charts for Assessment of Out-of-Plane Walls
Appendix 10C: Charts for Assessment of Out-ofPlane Walls

10C.1
General
This appendix presents simplified ready-to-use charts for estimation of %NBS for faceloaded unreinforced masonry walls with uniform thickness. The charts have been
developed for walls with various slenderness ratios (wall height/thickness) vs Basic
Performance Ratio (BPR). The BPR can be converted to %NBS after dividing it by the
product of the appropriate spectral shape factor (Ch(0), required to evaluate C(0) for parts),
return period factor (R), hazard factor (Z), near-fault factor (N(T, D)), and part risk factor
(Rp) which have been assigned unit values for developing the charts. The charts are
presented for various boundary conditions and ratio of load on the wall to self-weight of
the wall.
Refer to Section 10 and Appendix 10B for symbols and sign conventions.
This appendix includes charts for the following cases:
one-way vertically spanning walls laterally supported both at the bottom and the top
with no inter-storey drift
one-way vertically spanning walls laterally supported at the top and the bottom with
inter-storey drift of 0.025
vertical cantilever walls.
The following section presents how these charts should be used.
10C.2
One-way Vertically Spanning Face-Loaded

Walls
Charts for one-way vertically spanning walls are presented in Figures 10C.1a-f, 10C.2a-f
and 10C.3a-f for 110 mm, 230 mm and 350 mm thick walls respectively for inter-storey
drift of 0.00. Similarly, charts for an inter-storey drift of 0.025 are presented in
Figures 10C.4a-f, 10C.5a-f and 10C.6a-f for 110 mm, 230 mm and 350 mm thick walls
respectively. The charts have been developed for et = eo = t/2 and various values for ep.
Follow the following steps for estimation of %NBS for a vertically spanning face-loaded
wall:
Identify thickness, tGross and height, h of the wall.
Calculate slenderness ratio of the wall (h/tGross).
Calculate the total self-weight, W of the wall.
Calculate vertical load, P on the wall. This should include all the dead load and
appropriate live loads on the wall from above.
Calculate P/W.
Calculate eccentricities (eb and ep). eb could be t/2 or 0, whereas ep could be t/2 or 0.
To assign appropriate values, check the base boundary condition and location of P on
the wall. Calculation of effective thickness, t is not required.
Appendix 10C Charts for Assessment of Out-of-Plane Walls
App-23
ISBN 978-0-473-26634-9
Seismic Assessment of Unreinforced Masonry Buildings Appendix 10C

Charts for Assessment of Out-of-Plane Walls
Refer to the appropriate charts (for appropriate eb and ep, P/W and inter-storey drift).
Estimate Basic Performance Ratio (BPR) from the charts. Linear interpolation between
plots may be used as necessary for inter-storey drifts between 0 and 0.025.
Refer NZS 1170.5 for Ch(0) required to evaluate C(0) for parts, R, Z, N(T, D), CHi and
Rp. For estimation of CHi, hi is height of the mid-height of the wall from the ground.
%
10C.3
Vertical Cantilevers
Charts for one-way vertically spanning walls are presented in Figures 10C.7a-c, 10C.8a-c
and 10C.9a-c for 110 mm, 230 mm and 350 mm thick walls respectively.
Follow the following steps for estimation of %NBS of a face-loaded cantilever wall:
Identify thickness, tGross and height, h of the wall.
Calculate slenderness ratio of the wall (h/tGross).
Calculate total self-weight, W of the wall above the level of cantilevering plane.
Calculate vertical load, P on the wall, if any. This should include all the dead load and
appropriate live loads on the wall from above.
Calculate P/W.
Calculate eccentricity, ep, for loading P(ep). ep could be t/2 or 0, which depends upon
location of P on the wall. Calculation of effective thickness, t is not required.
Refer to the appropriate charts (for appropriate ep, and P/W).
Estimate Basic Performance Ratio (BPR) from the charts. Interpolation between plots
may be used as necessary.
Refer NZS 1170.5 for Ch(0) required to evaluate C(0) for parts, R, Z, N(T, D), CHi and
Rp. For estimation of CHi, hi shall be taken as height of the base of the cantilever wall.
Appendix 10C Charts for Assessment of Out-of-Plane Walls

App-24
ISBN 978-0-473-26634-9
Seismic Ass
sessment of Unrreinforced Masoonry Buildings Appendix 10C
C
Charts for Asse
sessment of Outt-of-Plane Wallss
a)
a For eb = + t/2 and ep = + t/2 (tGross =110 mm)
b) For eb = + t/2 and ep = 0 (tGross = 110 mm)

Ap
ppendix 10C Charts
C
for Assessment of Out-off-Plane Walls
Upd
dated 22 April 2015
App-25
5
IS
SBN 978-0-4
473-26634-9
9
Seismic A
M
Buildinggs Appendix 10C
1
Charts for Assessment
A
of O
Out-of-Plane Walls
W
c) For eb = + t/2 and e p = -t/2 (tGrooss = 110 mm

m)
d) For eb = 0 and ep = t/2 (tGross = 110 mm)

Appendix 10C
Charts for Asssessment of Ou
ut-of-Plane Wall s
Updated 22 April 20
015
App
p-26
ISBN 978--0-473-26634
4-9
Seismic Ass
C
Charts for Asse
e) For eb = 0 and ep = 0 (tGross = 110 mm)
f) For eb = 0 and ep = -t/2

- (tGross = 110 mm)
Figure 10C.1:
110
0 mm thick o
one-way vertically span
nning face-l oaded walls
s ( = 0)
Ap
ppendix 10C Charts
C
Upd
dated 22 April 2015
App-27
7
IS
SBN 978-0-4
473-26634-9
9
Seismic A
M
1
A
of O
Out-of-Plane Walls
W
a) For eb = + t/2 and e p = + t/2 (tGrross =230 mm

m)
b) For eb = + t/2 and

d ep = 0 (tGrosss =230 mm)
Appendix 10C
ut-of-Plane Wall s
Updated 22 April 20
015
App
p-28
ISBN 978--0-473-26634
4-9
Seismic Ass
C
Charts for Asse
c)
c For eb = + t/2 and ep = -t/2 (tGross = 230 mm)
d) For eb = 0 and ep = t/2 (tGross = 230

2 mm)
Ap
ppendix 10C Charts
C
Upd
dated 22 April 2015
App-29
9
IS
SBN 978-0-4
473-26634-9
9
Seismic A
M
1
A
of O
Out-of-Plane Walls
W
e) For eb = 0 and e p = 0 (tGross = 230 mm)
f) For eb = 0 and ep = -t/2 (tGross = 230 mm)

Figure 1
10C.2:
2 mm thic
230
ck one-way v
vertically sp
panning face
e-loaded waalls ( = 0 )
Appendix 10C
ut-of-Plane Wall s
Updated 22 April 20
015
App
p-30
ISBN 978--0-473-26634
4-9
Seismic Ass
C
Charts for Asse
a)
a For eb = + t/2 and ep = + t/2 (tGross = 350 mm)
Ap
ppendix 10C Charts
C
Upd
dated 22 April 2015
App-31
IS
SBN 978-0-4
473-26634-9
9
Seismic A
M
1
A
of O
Out-of-Plane Walls
W

m)
d) For eb = 0 and ep = t/2 (tGross = 350 mm)
Appendix 10C
ut-of-Plane Wall s
Updated 22 April 20
015
App
p-32
ISBN 978--0-473-26634
4-9
Seismic Ass
C
Charts for Asse
e) For eb = 0 and ep = 0 (tGross = 350

3 mm)
f) For eb = 0 and ep = -t/2

- (tGross = 350
3 mm)
Figure 10C
C.3:
350
0 mm thick o
one-way verrtically span
nning face-lo
oaded walls
s ( = 0 )
Ap
ppendix 10C Charts
C
Upd
dated 22 April 2015
App-33
3
IS
SBN 978-0-4
473-26634-9
9
Seismic A
M
1
A
of O
Out-of-Plane Walls
W
a) For eb = + t/2 and

d ep = + t/2 (tGross = 110 mm)
b) Forr eb = + t/2 an
nd ep = 0 (tGross
= 110 mm)
G
Appendix 10C
ut-of-Plane Wall s
Updated 22 April 20
015
App
p-34
ISBN 978--0-473-26634
4-9
Seismic Ass
C
Charts for Asse
c) For eb = + t/2 and ep = -t/2 (tGrooss = 110 mm

m)
d) For e b = 0 and ep = t/2 (tGross = 110 mm)
Ap
ppendix 10C Charts
C
Upd
dated 22 April 2015
App-35
5
IS
SBN 978-0-4
473-26634-9
9
Seismic A
M
1
A
of O
Out-of-Plane Walls
W
e) Fo
or eb = 0 and
d ep = 0 (tGrooss = 110 mm
m)
f)
Figure 10C.4:
Forr eb = 0 and ep = -t/2 (tGrross = 110 mm

m)
110
0 mm thick one-way
o
verrtically span
nning face-loaded wallss ( = 0.025 )
Appendix 10C
ut-of-Plane Wall s
Updated 22 April 20
015
App
p-36
ISBN 978--0-473-26634
4-9
Seismic Ass
C
Charts for Asse
a) For eb = + t/2 and ep = + t/2 (tGrross =230 mm

m)
b) For eb = + t/2 and

d ep = 0 (tGrosss =230 mm))
Ap
ppendix 10C Charts
C
Upd
dated 22 April 2015
App-37
7
IS
SBN 978-0-4
473-26634-9
9
Seismic A
M
1
A
of O
Out-of-Plane Walls
W
c) For eb = + t/2 an d ep = -t/2 (ttGross = 230 mm)

m
d) Fo
or eb = 0 and
d ep = t/2 (tGrooss = 230 mm
m)
Appendix 10C
ut-of-Plane Wall s
Updated 22 April 20
015
App
p-38
ISBN 978--0-473-26634
4-9
Seismic Ass
C
Charts for Asse
e) For e b = 0 and ep = 0 (tGross = 230 mm)
f)
F
Figure 10C.5
5:
For e b = 0 and ep = -t/2 (tGrosss = 230 mm)
230 mm
m thick on e-way vertic
cally spanniing face-loaaded walls ( = 0.025 )
Ap
ppendix 10C Charts
C
Upd
dated 22 April 2015
App-39
9
IS
SBN 978-0-4
473-26634-9
9
Seismic A
M
1
A
of O
Out-of-Plane Walls
W
a) For eb = + t/2 and

d ep = + t/2 (tGross = 350 mm)
b) Forr eb = + t/2 an
nd ep = 0 (tGross
= 350 mm)
G
Appendix 10C
ut-of-Plane Wall s
Updated 22 April 20
015
App
p-40
ISBN 978--0-473-26634
4-9
Seismic Ass
C
Charts for Asse
c) For eb = + t/2 and ep = -t/2 (tGrooss = 350 mm

m)
d) For e b = 0 and ep = t/2 (tGross = 350 mm)
Ap
ppendix 10C Charts
C
Upd
dated 22 April 2015
App-41
IS
SBN 978-0-4
473-26634-9
9
Seismic A
M
1
A
of O
Out-of-Plane Walls
W
e) Fo
or eb = 0 and
d ep = 0 (tGrooss = 350 mm
m)
f)
Figure 10C.6:
Forr eb = 0 and ep = -t/2 (tGrross = 350 mm

m)
350
0 mm thick one-way
o
verrtically span
nning face-loaded wallss ( = 0.025 )
Appendix 10C
ut-of-Plane Wall s
Updated 22 April 20
015
App
p-42
ISBN 978--0-473-26634
4-9
Seismic Ass
C
Charts for Asse
a)
a For eb = + t/2 and ep = + t/2 (tGross = 110 mm)
Ap
ppendix 10C Charts
C
Upd
dated 22 April 2015
App-43
3
IS
SBN 978-0-4
473-26634-9
9
Seismic A
M
1
A
of O
Out-of-Plane Walls
W

m)
Figure 10C
C.7:
110 mm thick cantilever

c
wa
all
a) For eb = + t/2 and e p = + t/2 (tGrooss = 230 mm

m)
Appendix 10C
ut-of-Plane Wall s
Updated 22 April 20
015
App
p-44
ISBN 978--0-473-26634
4-9
Seismic Ass
C
Charts for Asse
c)
Figure 10C.8
8:
230 mm thick can

ntilever wall
Ap
ppendix 10C Charts
C
Upd
dated 22 April 2015
App-45
5
IS
SBN 978-0-4
473-26634-9
9
Seismic A
M
1
A
of O
Out-of-Plane Walls
W
a) For eb = + t/2 and e p = + t/2 (tGrooss = 350 mm

m)
b) For eb = + t/2 and ep = 0 (tGrosss = 350 mm))
Appendix 10C
ut-of-Plane Wall s
Updated 22 April 20
015
App
p-46
ISBN 978--0-473-26634
4-9
Seismic Ass
C
Charts for Asse
c)
Figure 10C.9
9:
350 mm thick can

ntilever wall
Ap
ppendix 10C Charts
C
Upd
dated 22 April 2015
App-47
7
IS
SBN 978-0-4
473-26634-9
9
New Zealand Society

For Earthquake
Engineering
Assessment and Improvement

of the Structural Performance
of Buildings in Earthquakes
Section 14 New Section
Geotechnical Considerations
Recommendations of a NZSEE Project Technical Group

In collaboration with SESOC and NZGS
Supported by MBIE and EQC
June 2006
Issued as part of Corrigendum No. 4
ISBN 978-0-473-32280-9 (pdf version)
This document is a new section which now forms part of an amendment to the NZSEE Guidelines
which were published in 2006.
Any comments will be gratefully received.
Please forward any comments to NZSEE Executive Officer at exec@nzsee.org.nz
April 2015
Geotechnical Consideraations (24 March

h 2015 revision))
S
Section 14 - Geotechniical Con
nsiderations ... ............. 14-1
14.1
14.2
14.3
14.4
Introduction ............................................................................................................. 14-1

Scope ........................................................................................................................ 14-2
The Holistic Engineering System ......................................................................... 14-3
Ro
oles and Res
sponsibilitie
es for Geote
echnical Inputs ......................................... 14-4
14..4.1 Gene
eral .......................................................................... .......................... 14-4
14..4.2 The Structural
S
En gineer ................................................ .......................... 14-5
14..4.3 The Geotechnical
G
l Engineer .......................................... .......................... 14-6
14..4.4 Level of experiencce for Geotechnical Engineers .......... .......................... 14-6
14.5 Assessment Principles
P
........................................................................................... 14-7
14.6 Ma
anaging Unc
certainty ............................................................................................. 14-8
14.7 Ge
eotechnical Performanc
ce Objective
es ................................................................ 14-9
14.8 Assessment of
o Site Subso
oil Class ..................................................................... 14-10
entification and
a Assess
sment of Geo
ohazards ................................................. 14-11
14.9 Ide
14.10 So
oil-Foundatio
on-Structure
e Interaction
n ............................................................... 14-12
14.11 Re
eferences ............................................................................................................. 14-14
14.12 Suggested Reading ............................................................................................... 14-14
Se
ection 14 - Geottechnical Consid
derations
Upd
dated 22 April 2015
14-ii
IS
SBN 978-0-4
473-26634-9
9

h 2015 revision))
S
Section
n 14 - Geotec
G
chnicall Consideratiions
14.1
Introduc
ction
Thhis section of the Guidance provvides a com

mmentary on
n the geoteechnical con
nsiderationss
thhat should be borne in mind
m
in the assessmentt of a structu
ures vulnerrability to earthquakes..
A brief overvview of thee main topiics of intereest is provid
ded. A fulleer guidancee documentt
thhat expands on the main
n topics is inn preparatio
on (due 2015).
Depending on
o the site ground connditions and
d the level of detail oof the assesssment, thee
n assessmennt may be liimited with
h only the ssite subsoil class beingg
geeotechnical input to an
m
material to thhe assessment. This couuld be the case for ISAs1.
Inn many instaances, howeever, the groound and itss interaction
ns with the sstructure, att increasingg
leevels of shakking intensiity, can be ccomplex and non-lineaar, requiringg careful con
nsideration,,
sppecialist geeotechnical advice annd close collaboratio
on betweenn the stru
uctural andd
geeotechnical engineer du
uring the enntire assessm
ment processs.
Inn some casees the strucctural perforrmance maay be driven
n by geotecchnical considerations..
Soome projeccts may warrant speccial studiess, including
g a site-speecific seism
mic hazardd
asssessment.
Thhe early decisions reegarding thee complexiity of the geotechniccal assessm
ment that iss
w
warranted wiill be under the influennce of the assessing engineer, whoo will more than likelyy
bee a structuraal engineer. With this ccomes the reesponsibility
y to identifyy:
the possiible geotech
hnical issuees (and thee uncertaintties in the assumed geotechnical
g
l
conditionns);
their poteential influence on the sseismic perfformance of the buildinng
priate, if nnot essentiaal, to seek
k specialistt assistancee from ann
when it is approp
appropriaately experieenced geoteechnical eng
gineer.
G
Geotechnicall hazards th
hat have thee potential to significaantly affect the perform
mance of a
strructure thatt might not be
b readily aapparent to a non-geoteechnical enggineer inclu
ude:
Loss of ground streength and sstiffness liquefaction (sandy sooils), cyclic softeningg
(clayey sooils)
l
spre ading, rock
kfall, slope instability (above or below thee
Land instability lateral
structure)), instability
y of retaininng works
c
s of near-ffault effects, tsunami,,
Other geeohazards e.g. faultt rupture, complexitie
tectonic movement
m
leading to fllood inundaation.
Soome of thesse geohazards may proopagate from
m outside th
he building footprint neecessitatingg
a wider view
w of potentiaal hazard soources, whicch is essentiial for a hollistic assesssment. Suchh
haazards will not affect the %NBSS score bassed on the current neeeds for assessing thee
strructures raating. Howeever, if a hazzard is preseent it should
d be reporteed.
1
R
Refer to Sectionn 3 Table IEP-2
2
Se
derations
Upd
dated 22 April 2015
14-1
IS
SBN 978-0-4
473-26634-9
9
Geote
echnical Considerations (24 Maarch 2015 revisiion)
Note:
All structtural assesssments sho
ould includee consideraation of thee influencees the grou
und
behaviourr can havee on structu
ural perform
mance. Thee level of consideratiion will bee a
function of the dettail of the assessmennt and the likely sen
nsitivity off the seism
mic
performannce of the building
b
to the geotechnnical condittions.
The assesssor should recognise that
t
geotechhnical support may be required duuring the IS
SA
for some pprojects.
Effective assessmennt of structtures startss with effective comm
munication between the
t
client/ownner/tenant, the
t structural engineer and the geo
otechnical engineer.
e
A collaboorative apprroach betweeen all partties is essen
ntial if the final
f
assesssment is to be
appropriaate for the puurpose to which
w
it is too be put.
14.2
Scope
e
The geotecchnical guiddance (in preparation)

p
will provid
de the mean
ns for the ppractitioner to
identify thee level of innfluence thaat ground beehaviour maay play in a structuress performan
nce
during eart
rthquake shaking, and, where posssible, to qu
uantify thesse effects. T
The guidan
nce
will assist in the undeerstanding of the compllexity, resou
urces, time and cost thaat a particular
assessmentt warrants.
It is anticippated the maain topics covered willl include:
Interacction betweeen the geoteechnical enggineer and th
he structuraal engineer
The rolles of the geeotechnical engineer
Timingg of input frrom the geotechnical enngineer
Identifi
fication of coommon geo
ohazards
How too screen geeohazards to
o target thee influencess that are material
m
to the structural
assessm
ment
Selection of geotechnical design parametters and streength reducction factorss
ment and mitigation
m
off geohazardds
Assessm
Geotecchnical repoorting
How too prepare a brief
b
for a geotechnica
g
al engineer
Case sttudies.
Previous vversions off the NZSE
EE Guidancce considerred only a few of thhe potentially
significant geotechniccal considerations:
Near faault factor, hazard
h
scaliing factor annd site subssoil class (T
Table IEP-2))
Site chharacteristicss (Section 3.5.6(n)
3
&T
Table 3A.4).
The guidannce given in this secttion can bee considered
d interim pending
p
com
mpletion off a
complete ssection coveering the asssessment oof geohazard
ds and inclu
uding this iin the seism
mic
assessmentt of a buildiing.
Section 14 - Geotechnical Considerations

Updated 22 April 20
015
14-2
ISBN 978--0-473-26634
4-9

h 2015 revision))
14.3
T
The
Holistic En
ngineerring Sys
stem
Thhe soil, fouundations and

a superstrructure shou
uld be considered as a holistic engineering
e
g
syystem with each
e
compo
onent havingg the potential to influence the eaarthquake reesponse andd
deeformation of the other, often advversely and sometimess significanttly so. The effects cann
soometimes bee beneficial but any succh effects sh
hould be caautiously apppraised.
N
Note:
T
The assessm
ment may id
dentify effeects (e.g. kin
nematic interaction and
nd damping)) that couldd
ppotentially reduce
r
the shaking
s
inpuut to the stru
ucture relative to the frree-field mo
otion.
H
However, suuch effects should be considered
d with caution. They arre subject to
t on-goingg
rresearch andd are not routinely acceepted in Neew Zealand practice as they may lead to non-cconservativee prediction
ns of structuural behavio
our. Refer allso Section 14.10.
Thhis holistic approach, where we eexamine an
nd characterrise the threee distinct, interlinkedd
ellements is encompassed
e
d in the ass essment of soil-founda
ation-structuure interacttion (SFSI),,
allso referred to as soil-sttructure inteeraction (SSI), refer to
o Figure 14. 1.
Structure
Geohazard
ds
The
T three
eleements are
disstinct but
interlinked
ms
Mechanism
&
Consequennce
S
Soil
Foundation
F
Figurre 14.1: Soiil-Foundatiion-Structu

ure Interacttion
Thhis simple diagram

d
illu
ustrates:
that a struuctural assessment shouuld examinee all three primary
p
elem
ments that make
m
up thee
engineeriing system
that the SFSI
S
system
m is withinn the spherre of influence of geoohazards (th
heir variouss
mechanissms and con
nsequences))
Se
derations
Upd
dated 22 April 2015
14-3
3
IS
SBN 978-0-4
473-26634-9
9
Geote
that thee potential influence of

o geohazarrds should be consideered in the planning and
a
implem
mentation of
o the assesssment proccess (comm
mencing in the ISA) - not as later
refinem
ments to the commonly
y used fixed--base structtural model
the inteeraction neeeded betweeen engineeriing disciplin
nes.
It is imporrtant to connsider SFSI as not just relating to the dynam

mic interactioon of the soil
and the fouundation with
w the stru
ucture, but aalso wider aspects succh as the reesponse of the
t
system to lland instability issues (e.g.
(
lateral spread, slop
pe deformattion, etc.).
In this conntext the terrm soil means the grround modeel. The grou
und model iss a composite
of the geological moddel, the reg
gional seism
mic hazard model, the geotechniccal model, the
t
groundwatter regime and
a the terraain at and arround the sttructure.
14.4
Roles and Re
esponsiibilities
s for Geotechn ical
s
Inputs
14.4.1
Genera
al
Effective assessmentt of structu

ures starts with effecctive comm
munication between the
t
client/owner/tenant, thhe structuraal engineer and the geo
otechnical engineer.
e
A collaboratiive
approach bbetween all parties is essential
e
if tthe final asssessment is to be approopriate for the
t
purpose to which it is to be put.
a
It is impoortant that there is a common uunderstandiing of the expectationns, roles and
requiremennts of eachh team meember at thhe outset of an asseessment. D
Developing an
appropriatee geotechnnical brief in collaborration with
h the geoteechnical enngineer is an
important sstep in the assessment
a
process.
p
Note:
The scopee of the geootechnical engineers
e
bbrief should
d be prepared in activee consultatiion
between the geotechhnical and structural eengineer an
nd be tailorred to suit the projects
requiremeents.
There shoould be recoognition of assessing tthe issues to
o the approp
priate degreee at differeent
stages of a project the main staages being ((1) ISA, (2)) DSA and (3)
( the mitiggation/retro
ofit
design phhase, as apprropriate forr the particuular project. Table 14.1 outlines thhe key steps in
geohazardd identificaation and att what stagee in the asssessment prrocess theyy are likely to
require coonsiderationn.
The prospect of SFS
SI assessmeent tends too immediateely lead to expectatioons of projeect
complexityy and timee-consuming, sophistiicated analy
ysis. It is important to start the
t
assessmentt with a cleaar, simple expression oof the issuess.
The expeccted output from the definition
d
sttage would be a collab
borative sum
mmary of the
t
d vulnerabillities, the likelihood an
nd consequeences of their
structure, ffoundation and ground
potential ccompoundinng interactiions, and aan outline of
o the scop
pe of workk likely to be
needed to ccomplete thhe assessmen
nt.

Updated 22 April 20
015
14-4
ISBN 978--0-473-26634
4-9

h 2015 revision))
A
At the outsett of the projject it is verry importan
nt that the structural
s
enngineer is cognisant
c
off
pootential geoohazard inflluences andd makes thee client awaare of the ppotential neeed for andd
vaalue of geottechnical en
ngineer inpuut at variouss stages of th
he project.
A
An experiencced structurral engineerr will know the processs and how bbest to comm
municate too
thhe client the staged ap
pproach invvolved and
d that a parrticular projject may teerminate att
coompletion of
o the ISA, or advancee into more detailed wo
ork, with orr without geotechnical
g
l
enngineering input, depending on the clients requirem
ments, the characteristics of thee
strructure andd the ground
d conditionss.
Ta
able 14.1: Outline of key
y steps in g
geohazard id
dentification
n and assesssment
Prroject phase
ISA1
T
Topic
DS
SA
Mitigation
S
Site subsoil cla
ass & near-fau
ult factor (if releevant).
Id
dentify the geo
ohazards that the site is vulnnerable to.
Assess across a spectrum of earthquake demand
A
Assess the sev
verity of the ea
arthquake-induuced degradation and/or
th
he vulnerability
y of the site to
o any step chaange in its ability to provide
fo
oundation sup
pport.
D
Determine the earthquake de
emand threshhold at which degradation
d
m
may become excessive.
e
G
Ground shaking level at whic
ch step changge may occur. This may
in
nclude both the level and du
uration of shakking.
M
Magnitude of ground
g
deformation (verticall and lateral).
S
Soil and/or foundation capac
city (strength aand stiffness) to enable
sttructural mode
elling, as apprropriate.
A
Appropriate ge
eohazard mitigation measurees.
Noote:
1. It is expectted that the su
uitably compettent structural assessor leadiing the projectt should be able to suitablyy
characterise the geotechnical elements of aan ISA without a geotechnical engineers inpuut in many casees.
14
4.4.2
T
The
Structural E ngineer
Thhe structuraal engineerr will typiccally be thee profession

nal responssible for co
onducting a
seeismic assesssment and therefore foor recognisiing when sp
pecialist inpput from a geotechnical
g
l
enngineer is required.
r
This require s a reasonaable knowledge of thee geotechnical factorss
likkely to infl
fluence the seismic peerformance of the buillding and ssite and thee ability too
reecognise whhen these are likely to bbe importan
nt considerations in the seismic asssessment off
thhe building. If the strucctural enginneer is not comfortable that he/shee is able to do
d this thenn
thhe advice off a geotechn
nical engineeer should be
b sought du
uring an ISA
A, and espeecially for a
DSA.
Thhe structuraal engineer must identtify the weaaknesses an
nd vulnerabiilities of th
he structure,,
thhe load pathhs and mag
gnitudes off foundation loads. Th
he structuraal engineerr must alsoo
Se
derations
Upd
dated 22 April 2015
14-5
5
IS
SBN 978-0-4
473-26634-9
9
Geote
identify whhen geotechhnical issues are likely to be preseent that coulld significanntly influen
nce
the seismicc performannce of the bu
uilding.
The structuural engineeer will more than likeely be the person who
o recommennds when the
t
engagemennt of a speciialist geotecchnical adviisor is appro
opriate.
14.4.3
The Ge
eotechnic
cal Engi neer
The geotecchnical engiineer must identify

i
andd advise on the degree to which anny geohazarrds
could impaact directly on the stru
uctures behhaviour. In particular, it is importtant that sttep
change beehaviour off the ground and foundaation support be identiffied and thee consequen
nce
of this stepp-change beehaviour be assessed (C
Clayton et. al.
a 2014).
Note:
Step changge is an abrrupt changee in the soil s ability to
o provide fo
oundation ssupport. Som
me
ground connditions caan withstand
d an intenssity of seism
mic shaking for which
ch there is no
material chhange in itss ability to support
s
a fooundation, or the degradation is ttolerable ov
ver
the range of intensityy of interestt. Howeverr, some gro
ound conditions have a threshold at
which therre is an abruupt (and oftten severe/iintolerable) loss of fou
undation suppport, notab
bly
ground proone to liqueffaction and slopes pronne to failuree.
Routine innvestigationn methods and
a analyti cal tools can only giv
ve crude im
mpressions of
where the threshold may be. Prediction
P
oof the mag
gnitude of ground annd foundatiion
displacemeent is typicaally only po
ossible to +
+/- 100mm, and often with
w even lless precisio
on,
particularlyy for high earthquake
e
demand
d
scennarios, i.e. greater
g
than
n 500 year re
return period
d.
A step chaange in soil behaviour does
d
not auttomatically lead to britttle behavioour of the so
oilstructure syystem or strructural collapse. If theere is a step
p change in soil behavioour leading to
a brittle reesponse in the
t structurral performaance, howeever, then itt is crucial that the so
oilstructure innteraction iss adequately
y assessed aas part of th
he seismic asssessment.
It is often oonly possiblle to gain im
mpressions of how the ground and
d foundationn may behav
ve,
and not obbtain absollute values of deform
mation severrity. Accorrdingly, it w
will be mo
ore
relevant too provide a summary
y of risks and conseequences th
hrough the spectrum of
earthquakee demand, raather than attempt
a
to prrovide quan
ntitative predictions of deformation.
The scope of the geootechnical input
i
requirred will vaary from project to prooject, notab
bly
hich grounnd performaance is likeely to goveern structural
depending on the deegree to wh
behaviour. The scoppe of geo
otechnical-reelated task
ks include the identitification and
a
assessmentt of a suit of
o topics, so
ome of whicch potentiallly have oveerlap to reppresent revieew
and refinem
ment as a prroject progrresses.
14.4.4
Level of
o experience forr Geotec
chnical Engineer
E
rs
To providee the level of advice and judgm

ments that will
w often be necessaryy will require
knowledgee of the eartthquake beh
haviour of sooils and geo
ohazards an
nd the way in which theese
are likely tto interact with
w and inflluence the pperformancee of structurres.
t
that the advissing CPEng
g geotechniccal engineerr has relevaant
It is very iimportant, therefore
experiencee in this fielld or has theeir work revviewed by a suitably experienced and qualifiied
CPEng geeotechnical engineer. The
T geotecchnical professional must
m
be com
mpetent with

Updated 22 April 20
015
14-6
ISBN 978--0-473-26634
4-9

h 2015 revision))
suuitable relevvant trainin

ng and expperience in foundation
n investigatiions and geotechnical
g
l
eaarthquake enngineering.
14.5
A
Assessm
ment P rinciple
es
Im
mportant coonsideration
ns for the aassessment of the impact of geottechnical isssues on ann
exxisting struccture that may
m differ to that complleted for a new
n structurre include:
In accorddance with the
t NZ Buillding Act, the
t assessm
ment of a buuildings seiismic ratingg
relates onnly to the geeohazards thhat are preseent within th
he site bounndary.
N
Note:
S
Significant geohazard sources thaat could im
mpact on a buildings
b
sseismic ratiing may bee
ppresent outsside the sitee boundary. Even thoug
gh they may
y not affectt the seismiic rating forr
tthe buildingg, this does not mean that identiffied damagee potential resulting frrom groundd
pperformancee or geohazards outsidee the site bo
oundary sho
ould be ignoored.
T
The holisticc advice pro
ovided as thhe result of an assessm
ment should also includ
de commentt
oon damage potential
p
off geohazardss that have been identified to havee the potenttial to affectt
tthe structuree but propaagate outsidde the site boundaries and, thereffore, do not affect thee
%
%NBS rating for the bu
uilding.
If the ISA identifiees any poteential geoteechnical hazzards then the involveement of a
geotechniical engineeer should be consideered to be part of thee detailed assessmentt
scoping process.
p
The assessment is primarily
p
cooncerned with
w the pro
otection of life-safety rather thann
damage potential
p
(i.e. to underrstand the mechanism
m
s that may lead to parrtial or fulll
collapse of the struccture, as it is generally
y the failuree of the stru
ructure and//or its partss
ualties). Daamage mitig
gation is con
nsidered to be at the discretion off
that will lead to casu
a thereforre, does nott affect the %NBS
%
ratinng for the bu
uilding.
the buildiing owner and,
The geottechnical asssessment cconsiders th
he groundss behaviourr across a spectrum
s
off
earthquakke demand,, not just aat the design
n shaking level
l
(i.e. 5500 year return periodd
shaking for
f importan
nce level 2 bbuildings deefined by NZS
N 1170.5)).
N
Note:
T
The spectruum of earth
hquake dem
mand could
d be modellled by asseessing perfo
formance att
iincrements of demand
d, for exam
mple as perr the rangee of eventss given in Table 3.5;;
N
NZS 1170.55 Return perriod factor.
The SFS
SI and dyn
namic respoonse of ex
xisting strucctures is liikely to bee less welll
understoood compared to newly ddesigned bu
uildings.
Potentiallly, there may
m be connstraints reg
garding thee availabilitty and/or accuracy
a
off
foundatioon details an
nd subsurfacce information at and around
a
the sstructure.
Recognitiion that thee reliabilityy of the perrformance predictions
p
of the grou
und in everr
increasingg levels off shaking m
must reducce. The degree of relliability in predictingg
behaviour of the sitee for a typiical building
g for 2500 year returnn period shaaking is nott
required to
t be the sam
me as for 5000 year retu
urn period shaking, for example.
Se
derations
Upd
dated 22 April 2015
14-7
7
IS
SBN 978-0-4
473-26634-9
9
Geote
14.6
Manag
ging Un
ncertain
nty
We can gaain relativelly reliable im

mpressions of the behaviour of a structural ssystem at lo
ow
levels of sseismic shakking for wh
hich the groound and sttructure aree expected tto behave for
f
practical ppurpose in a more-orr-less linear
ar elastic manner.
m
Ho
owever, as the intensity
increases ((coupled with
w
increassed durationn of shakin
ng) we starrt to lose tthe ability to
reliably m
model the true
t
behaviiour of thee system, more so as
a the soills non-lineear
characterisstics becomee more prom
minent.
At the higgh end of the
t seismic demand sppectrum wh
here the rissk to life iss arguably of
greatest intterest, the complex
c
non-linear behhaviour of the
t soil and
d the compleex interactiion
of the soil, foundatioons and strructure preecludes reliiable predicction of thee stability of
buildings, so conservvative assesssment couppled with sound
s
judgeement are rrequired. The
T
consequences associaated with the particuular geohazzard will typically
t
innfluence ho
ow
conservativvely the unncertainties should be addressed. There musst be a balaance struck to
avoid beingg overly-coonservative and at the ssame time keep
k
geotech
hnical invesstigation costs
to an approopriate level.
It is imporrtant that cconsistent crudeness
c
bbe applied to the modeelling and aassessment of
the holisticc engineerinng system (ssoil, foundaations & stru
ucture). Parrametric invvestigations to
inform on the sensitivvity of perfo
ormance esttimates to assumptions made are lilikely to be an
essential paart of the asssessment.
Note:
The geottechnical asssessment should mak
ake due alllowance for the sensiitivity in the
t
performannce estimatees due to:
Variattion in the properties

p
of materials (linear and non-linear));
Variattion in the characteristi
c
ics of the sitte, and
Accurracy limitattions inhereent in the methods used
u
to predict the staability of the
t
grounnd and founddations.
ysis or allow
w for precission. Theree is
SFSI assesssment oftenn does not warrant in--depth analy
great meritt in startingg with a sim
mple sketchh of the grou
und model, the foundaations and the
t
structural ssystem (inccluding the load paths) . When thee problem iss understoodd the route to
the solutionn is often a lot clearer.
Note:
It is impoortant to connsider SFSII as not justt relating to
o the dynam
mic interactiion of the soil
and the fooundation with
w the stru
ucture, but also wider aspects succh as the reesponse of the
t
system to land instabbility issues (e.g. laterall spread, slo
ope deformaation, etc.).
For imporrtant buildinngs, consid
deration shhould be giiven to usiing site-speecific seism
mic
hazard anaalysis to beetter inform
m on the haazard at thee site. The site-specifi
fic assessmeent
might also allow conssideration of
o the impacct of the con
ntribution of
o earthquakkes of vario
ous
magnitudes to the haazard wheree duration oof shaking is also con
nsidered to bbe importaant.
Care must be taken too recognisee the inherennt uncertain
nties associated with ssuch analyses.
Significantt departuress from Code defined sshaking estimates shou
uld only be contemplatted
after carefuul consideraation.
Updated 22 April 20
015
14-8
ISBN 978--0-473-26634
4-9

h 2015 revision))
Considerationn should bee given to w

when in thee earthquake shaking ssequence th
he structurall
annd geotechnnical influen
nces may beecome signiificant, and whether orr not these interact
i
andd
coompound thhe threat to the
t structurre. For exam
mple, the efffects of liquuefaction maay manifestt
laate in the eaarthquake sh
haking sequuence or ev
ven after shaking has cceased and therefore itt
m
may not be appropriatee to consideer simultan
neous appliccation of reeduced soill resistancee
from liquefacction and th
he full shakiing intensity
y on the building.
14.7
G
Geotech
hnical P
Perform
mance Objectiv
O
ves
Thhe assessmeent of an ex
xisting buildding for pro
otection of life-safety
l
w
warrants a different
d
sett
off acceptablee performan
nce criteria aand objectiv
ves compareed to a newlly designed
d building.
gn, it is apppropriate to adopt a conservaative interp
pretation off
Inn new buillding desig
geeotechnical parameterss due to thee inevitable uncertainties in grounnd characterrisation andd
prrediction off SFSI behaviour. Succh an appro
oach does not generallly attract a high costt
prremium forr new build
dings. How
wever, a prrobable beh
haviour miind-set is likely to bee
m
more approprriate in seism
mic assessm
ment of exissting buildin
ngs.
W
While non-linnearity in foundation
f
bbehaviour may
m not be desirable inn new struccture designn
w
where it is also appro
opriate to llimit the risk of dam
mage, somee non-lineaarity in thee
fooundation suub-structuree may be accceptable fro
om a life-saafety preserv
rvation persp
pective andd
m
may be an accceptable mechanism too achieve en
nergy dissip
pation in ann existing bu
uilding. Thee
cooncept of geotechnicaal failure being when
w
deman
nd exceedss capacity should bee
reeconsidered,, and the co
oncept of whhat constituttes capacity
y needs careeful consideeration.
Thherefore, thhe commonlly applied ggeotechnical performan
nce objectivves used in new designn
m
may need to be reconsidered. The assessmen
nt of an exissting structuure and its foundationn
offten acceptss some deg
gree of nonnlinearity, ground defformation aand structurral damagee
beeyond that of
o the new design. Forr example, the
t assessorr would neeed to ascertaain whetherr
a specific fooundation behaviour
b
m
mechanism (e.g. differential setttlement or pad uplift))
w
would result in structuraal instabilityy or loss of gravity-load
g
d path in thee structure.
Thhe geotechnnical assesssment shoulld consider both the strength aspeects (earthquake loads,,
beearing streength, etc.)) and alsoo the disp
placement-b
based aspeects (inducced laterall
diisplacementt, foundation
n rotation, ssoil deformaation, etc.).
A
Acceptable performance
p
e for geotecchnical behaaviour shou
uld be consiidered as a function off
thhe consequeence of thee geotechniical induced
d deformation/loads oon the foun
ndation andd
strructural perrformance, which in tuurn dependss on the particular struuctures vullnerabilitiess
annd the desired structurral perform
mance level. As such, the soil m
may undergo
o excessivee
deeformation, but the beh
haviour of thhe ground may
m not neccessarily be governing.
Se
derations
Upd
dated 22 April 2015
14-9
9
IS
SBN 978-0-4
473-26634-9
9
Geote
14.8
Assessment of Site Subsoiil Class

s
A crude asssessment of
o site subssoil class caan be madee via referen
nce to mapps of depth to
bedrock annd the like if these aree available. However, site-specific
s
c assessmennt is preferrred
as maps arre typically prepared on
n a regionall-scale basiss and can be misleadinng as has beeen
found in W
Wellington, for
f examplee.
NZS 1170..5 requires that one subsoil cl ass be dettermined fo
or a new building. By
B
implicationn for sites where
w
the subsoil
s
variees this wou
uld be based
d on the proofile that was
w
likely to giive the highhest low am
mplitude sitee period. Wh
hereas this approach m
may have litttle
impact on the cost off a new buillding it cann have a sign
nificant efffect on the sseismic ratiing
for an existting buildinng.
Changes too the way in which th
he influencee of ground
d flexibility
y has been dealt with in
successive codes oveer the last 20 years m
means that this influen
nce can bee significantly
different fr
from that asssumed at th
he time thee building was
w designeed. This is eespecially the
t
case if thee subsoil is now characcterised as bbeing closee to the bou
undary betw
ween previo
ous
classes.
Care mustt therefore be taken when asseessing the site soil class for suuch sites and
a
consideratiion also givven to the way
w in whichh the buildiing might reespond giveen the varyiing
ground conditions. Inn many casses it mighht be difficu
ult to concceive that tthe building
gs
would be advversely affeected if a sm
mall part of it extended
d over a softter soil proffile
response w
especially if the founndation is quite
q
stiff annd has the ability to transfer
t
seissmic loads in
plan. In othher cases thhe lateral difference in soil stiffness might haave the poteential to result
in an amplification off torsional efffects in thee building which
w
should
d not be ignnored.
y for compllicated subssoil profiless is
Site subsoiil classificattion solely by shear waave velocity
problematiic and may also miss po
otential top ographic an
nd basin edg
ge amplificaation effectss.
Provided tthat potential effects from suchh phenomen
na, and alsso the buildding locatiion
relative to the changess in soil stifffness have been accou
unted for, it is considerred reasonab
ble
ng on the so
oil profile thhat applies for
f
to base thee subsoil claassification for an existting buildin
the majoritty of the sitte under thee building ffootprint. Fo
or the lack of any betteer advice itt is
consideredd that the majority
m
of the buildingg footprint be
b defined as
a 80% off the footprint
area.
N 1170.5
5 to accounnt for laterral
This suggested depaarture from the appliccation of NZS
b considereed as synon
nymous with the deparrtures allow
wed
differencess in soil stifffness can be
in the strucctural assessment to reflect the diffference in approach fo
or assessmeent of existiing
buildings ccompared with
w the desiign of new bbuildings.
Assessors are also reeferred to Larkin
L
& V
Van Houtte (2014) and
d Bradley ((2015), whiich
together prrovide an uppdated comm
mentary onn the assessm
ment of site response.
Note:
The rationnale for anyy departuress from the siimplistic NZS 1170.5 approach
a
m
must be clearrly
articulatedd in the asssessment, reecognising always the accuracy im
mplied andd uncertaintiies
present.

Updated 22 April 20
015
14
4-10
ISBN 978--0-473-26634
4-9

h 2015 revision))
14.9
Identific
cation a
and Ass
sessme
ent of G
Geohaza
ards
Thhe geotechnnical influen

nces in a strructural asssessment can be wide rranging frrom limitedd
too complex and
a severe. The assessoor should address the following
f
qquestions initially via a
sccreening proocess, cond
ducted usingg existing information
i
harvested from a sitee inspectionn
annd desk studdy.
What are the potential geohazarrds the site could
c
be im
mpacted by?
What is the
t likely severity
s
of the impact if the geoh
hazard occuurred, on th
he buildingg
response and on the building as a whole?
What are the effects of combinaations of geo
ohazards?
Taking innto accountt the initiall knowledge of the wh
hole system
m (ground, foundation,,
structure)) what are itts vulnerabiilities?
Is a step change
c
in performancee expected?
Is there enough ex
xisting infoormation av
vailable to satisfactoriily answer the abovee
questionss?
Iff the influennces are lim
mited or noot significan
nt then the ground may
ay be consid
dered to bee
coompetent inn that it pro
ovides satisffactory fou
undation sup
pport througghout the spectrum
s
off
eaarthquake demand bein
ng considereed. Examples of compeetent ground
nd include: strong
s
rock,,
deense sand/ggravel, and sites
s
not vuulnerable to slope instaability (masss impact orr underslip))
orr tsunami.
No
Non-competeent ground may be gground thaat is pronee to lose iits ability to providee
saatisfactory foundation
f
support ovver the specctrum of earthquake deemand. Stru
uctures cann
allso be vulneerable to loads (impactt) from exteernal sourcees. Loss off foundation
n support orr
im
mpact can be
b due to a number off geohazard
d mechanism
ms as summ
marised in Table
T
14.2..
M
Mixed founddations can exacerbate
e
tthe foundatiion deformaation responnse.
Ta
able 14.2: Su
ummary of potentially
p
d
damaging mechanisms
m
s associated
d with geoha
azards
Mech
hanism
Ge
eohazard
Differrential
settle
ement1
La
ateral
ex
xtension
Direct
D
im
mpact of
mass
m
Considered
d in ISA
%NBS ratin
ng?
Yes, if struc
cture is within
influence zo
one of the
main rupture and
associated shear
s
zone.
Yes
Se
ettlement of no
on-liquefiable
gro
ound
Check for in
nfluence, but
unlikely to be
b an issue.
Lo
ow seismic bea
aring capacity
y
Yes
Fa
ault rupture2
Liq
quefaction
or
Cyyclic softening
g (soft clay and
d
pla
astic silt)
Table 14.2
1
(cont))
Se
derations
Upd
dated 22 April 2015
14-11
IS
SBN 978-0-4
473-26634-9
9
Geote
Table 14.2 ((cont)

Me
echanism
Diffferential
setttlement1
Geohazard
Lateral
extension
Direct
impact of
mass
Consideered in ISA
%NBS raating?
Possible.. Depends on
wall and site geometry
y.
Retaining wa
all instability3
Seismic slope
e instability
Yes
No
No
No
(underslip)
Seismic slope
e instability
(site inundation by soil/rock)
Discrete rockk fall impact
(single or mu
ultiple boulderss)
Tsunami/Dam
m break (wate
er &
debris) includ
ding foundatio
on scour
Note:
1.
Includinng differential seettlement and/o
or foundation rootation.
2.
Vulnerabbility to earthquuake-induced teectonic land suubsidence and subsequent
s
perm
manent inundatiion should also
o be
considerred in coastal arreas
3.
Considerr effects of retaaining walls upsslope and downnslope of the site.
Note:
If a hazarrd is known report it. Although a geohazard
d may not in
nfluence thee %NBS ratiing
for an IS
SA a broadder view of
o all relevvant geohazards shou
uld be conssidered wh
hen
providingg advice to building
b
ow
wners.
Refer to ASCE 41 (20014) for a co
ommentary on Founda
ations and Geologic
G
Site
te Hazards.
14.10
Soil-Fo
oundation-Stru
ucture Interaction
Structural engineers have

h
typically adoptedd a fixed baase model for
f the interrface betweeen
g
Thiis is based oon an assum
mption that a fixed basee translates to
the structuure and the ground.
o vibration for the strructure and
d a higher lateral
l
loadd from desiign
a lower firrst mode of
spectra thaan would bee obtained iff flexibilityy was introd
duced at the base. Whille this may be
true in manny cases it can
c lead to an
a invalid reesult in otheers.
For exampple, over esstimating th
he restraint available at
a the base of
o a columnn founded on
shallow paads may proovide an erroneous ideaa of the ben
nding momeent profile inn the colum
mn,
and undereestimate thee deformatio
ons in a lateeral load meechanism. Equally,
E
asssuming a rig
gid
base underr a wall may
m miss th
he potential for found
dation uplifft/wall rockking and the
t
resulting efffects of thiis.
Perhaps m
more significcant, though
h, is the pottential for th
he building response, aas a whole, to
be underesstimated duue to ignorin
ng a possib le resonancce effect with the grouund that is not
n
sufficientlyy allowed for
f by the choice
c
of thhe specified
d subsoil claassification.. Multi-storrey
buildings llocated on deep
d
soil sitees would bee such a casse.

Updated 22 April 20
015
14
4-12
ISBN 978--0-473-26634
4-9
Geotechnical Considerations (24 March 2015 revision)
Allowing for soil-foundation-structure interaction can be very complicated and difficult to

model. Precision should not be assumed in any assessment of the interaction, but the
sensitivity to the expected response of the various assumptions should be understood. The
process will require close collaboration between the structural engineer and the
geotechnical engineer with each having an understanding of the issues faced by the other.
For assessments of earthquake performance of buildings both the structural and
geotechnical engineer must recognise and accommodate the potential for non-linear
behaviour of the structure, foundations and the ground. Principles to work by include:
The grounds behaviour cannot be represented by unique parameter values with
uniform distributions (e.g. linear springs).
With close collaboration, the old fear of possible misinterpretations and abuse of
numbers (e.g. spring stiffness, modulus of subgrade reaction) can be significantly
reduced and possibly averted.
An iterative process between structural and geotechnical designers has to be established
as soil behaviour is non-linear, spring stiffness depends on load, and load depends on
structure (including foundation) stiffness.
Sensitivity to variations in assumptions should always be checked.
There can be some beneficial influence of soil-foundation structure interaction on a
buildings life-safety performance (e.g. elongation of building period, concentration of
displacement demands in ductile foundation rotation, damping resulting from plastic soil
behaviour etc.). However, these beneficial influences are the subject of on-going research.
The assessing engineer should be cautioned in adopting the various benefits of SFSI if
considering possible mechanisms that may significantly reduce the assumed seismic
demands on the structure.
The following are considerations for SFSI modelling:
Soil structure interaction is modelled directly by soil springs, because the structural
model needs to be supported on something:
- The behaviour of springs is predictable and easy to understand.
- Springs are easy to incorporate into the software most structural engineers use.
- In a lot of cases structure response is not that sensitive to the spring values used
(sensitivity test 50% to 200% x spring value). If insensitivity is confirmed, this in
itself is a useful finding.
Pinned or fixed supports are not necessarily realistic.
Load transfer and shearing depends on relative stiffness of both structural elements and
supporting ground.
Multiple load cases to be considered (permanent, temporary, dynamic, different
combinations, load factors etc.).
Serviceability deflections are often critical for the design of new structures but not for
the assessment of existing structures. Therefore, bearing capacities capped to limit
settlements to meet serviceability conditions are not appropriate for assessments of
structures for earthquake life-safety protection.
Cost and time associated with more rigorous analysis methods.

14-13
ISBN 978-0-473-26634-9
Geote
14.11
Refere
ences
ASCE 41 (20
014) Seismic evaluation an
nd retrofit of e
existing buildin
ngs (Note: AS
SCE 41 providdes guidance on
site characterisation, geoh
hazard mitigation, foundation
n strength & stiffness,
s
SSI effects,
e
seismiic earth pressure
and foundation retrofit. Ca
are should be
e exercised to
o ensure advic
ce taken from
m ASCE 41 is compatible with
w
New Zealand
d practice).
Bradley (2015) Site-speciffic hazard ana
alysis for geottechnical desig
gn in New Zealand. ANZ 22015 conference,
Wellington, M
March 2015.
Clayton, Kam
m & Beer (2014) Interaction of geotechniccal and structural engineering in the seissmic assessment
of existing bu
uildings. 2014 NZSEE Confe
erence. http:///db.nzsee.org..nz/2014/oral/3
39_Kam.pdf
Larkin & Van
n Houtte (2014
4) Determinatio
on of site perio
od for NZS 11
170.5:2004. NZ
ZSEE Bull. Vool. 47, No. 1.
NZS 1170.5 (2004) Earthq
quake actions New Zealan
nd.
14.12
Sugge
ested Re
eading
Boulanger & Idriss (2014)). CPT and SPT

S
based liqu
gering proced
dures. Report No. UCD/CG
GMuefaction trigg
er for Geotech
hnical Modelin
ng, Departme nt of Civil and
d Environmen
ntal Engineerinng, University
y of
14/01, Cente
California, Da
avis, CA.
Bray & Dasshti (2014) Liquefaction-in
L
nduced buildin
ng movemen
nts. Bull. Earrthquake Enggineering (2014)
12:1129-1156
6.
Day (1996) G
Geotechnical Earthquake
E
En
ngineering
Kramer (2002
2) Geotechniccal Earthquake
e Engineering Handbook
NZS 1170.5 S
Supp 1 (2004) Earthquake actions New
w Zealand - Co
ommentary
NZGS Guide
elines http://ww
ww.nzgs.org/p
publications/gu
uidelines.htm; including:
Why Buiildings Respon

nd Differently to Earthquake
es
hnical Enginee
ering Practice
e Module 1 Guidelin
ne for the identification, aassessment and
a
Geotech
mitigatio
on of liquefaction hazards. [U
Under review. Revision due
e 2015].
Geotech
hnical Enginee
ering Practice Module 2 Guidelines for
f earthquake
e resistant fouundation design.
[In prepa
aration due 2015].
2
Geotech
hnical Enginee
ering Practice Module 3 Guidelines fo
or seismic des
sign of retainiing structures [In
preparattion due 2015].
Idriss and Boulanger (2

2008). Soil liq
quefaction du
uring earthqu
uakes. Monog
graph MNO- 12, Earthqua
ake
d, CA.
Engineering Research Insttitute, Oakland
d design of structure
s
- fou
undation systtems: the currrent situationn and emerg
ging
Pender (2014) Integrated
2014 NZSEE Conference.
C
http://db.nzsee
h
e.org.nz/2014//keynote/3_Pe
ender.pdf
challenges. 2
Refer to GNS
S Science (ww
ww.gns.cri.nz)) and MfE (ww
ww.mfe.govt.n
nz) websites fo
or informationn on active fau
ults
and tsunami hazard.
hristchurch Citty Council website (www. ccc.govt.nz and
a
link below
w) for GNS Science repo
orts
Refer to Ch
covering ma
ass movemen
nt, rockfall an
nd cliff collap
pse hazard identification and risk maanagement. The
T
ovide commentaries on geo
documents re
elate to the Ch
hristchurch Po
ort Hills but pro
ohazard risk m
management that
are relevant a
across the wid
der New Zeala
and context.
http://www.cccc.govt.nz/hom
meliving/civilde
efence/chchea
arthquake/porrthillsgeotech/index.aspx
Note:
Web links and referennce documents can channge/evolve over time. Reference
R
sshould alwaays
be made too the most reecent docum
ments.

Updated 22 April 20
015
14
4-14
ISBN 978--0-473-26634
4-9

New Zealand Society For Earthquake

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

New Zealand Society For Earthquake

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

New Zealand Society

Assessment and Improvement

Seismic Assessment of Unreinforced Masonry Buildings

Appendix 10A: On-site Testing

Section 10 - Seismic Assessment of Unreinforced Masonry Buildings

Thhis sectionn replaces the

If buildinggs have unddergone dam

This sectioon sets out guidelines

Thhese guidelines are vallid for:

Thhis sectionn is largely

Other usefful informattion on matterials, insppection and assessmentts is containned in FEM

How to use this

This sectioon is set out as follows.

The angle is in radians. It iss measured as if

Grosss plan area off diaphragm

Eqs 10B.19, 10B.26

Eqs 10B.5, 10B.13, 10B.144

Eqs 10.8, 10.54, 10.55

Section 10.8.5.1, Eqs 10.122, 10.21,

Seismic Assessment of Unreinforced Masonry Buildings

Eqs 10.35, 10.37, 10.39, 10.40, 10.41,

Masonry bed-joint cohesion, N/mm2

The ability of the mortar to work in

Probable cohesion, MPa

Elastic site hazard spectrum for horizontal

Seismic coefficient at required height at

Spectral shape factor for relevant soil

Spectral shape factor for relevant site

Spectral shape factor for site subsoil type

Floor height coefficient for level i as

Eq 10.16, Section 10.10.3

Uniform acceleration to the entire panel is

Seismic coefficient for parts at 0.75 sec.

Section 10.8.5.2 Step 13 & Step 15 Note

Design response coefficient for parts as

Section 18.8.5.2 Step 8, Eqs 10.18, 10.19,

Critical structural weakness

Section 10 - Seismic Assessment of Unreinforced Masonry Buildings

Eqs 10.18, 10.20

Seismic Assessment of Unreinforced Masonry Buildings

Youngs modulus of masonry, MPa, kN/m2

Eqs 10.4, 10.8, 10.51, 10.52

Eccentricity of the pivot at the bottom of

Eq 10.12, Table 10.12, 10.15,

Eccentricity of the mid-height pivot

Eq 10.12, 10.15, Section 10.8.5.2 Step 4,

Eccentricity of P measured from the

Eq 10.12, 10.15, Table 10.12,

Eccentricity of the mid-height pivot

Eqs 10.12, 10.15, Section 10.8.5.2 Step 4,

Applied load on timber lintel

Equivalent static horizontal force at the

Section 10.10.5.1, Figure 10.78

Compressive strength of bricks, N/mm2

Measured on the flat side

Probable brick compressive strength, MPa

Table 10.3, 10.5, Eqs 10.1, 10.2

Normalised mortar compressive strength,

Probable mortar compressive strength,

Table 10.4, Eq 10.2, Table 10.5

Measured irregular mortar compressive

Compressive strength of masonry, MPa

Probable masonry compressive strength,