See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/286920823

Earthquake shear load in load-bearing masonry buildings * P Sing-Sang

Article · January 2008

CITATIONS READS

0 2,450

1 author:

Adrian Page
The University of Newcastle, Australia
74 PUBLICATIONS   1,955 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Simulation of Heritage Structures View project

Low-carbon and affordable retrofits of Australian housing for climate change and scarce resource scenarios - PhD View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Adrian Page on 15 December 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 1

Earthquake shear load in

load-bearing masonry buildings *

P Sing-Sang
Universidade Eduardo Mondlane, Mozambique
University of Newcastle, Australia

Y Totoev and A Page †

University of Newcastle, Australia

SUMMARY: Load-bearing masonry buildings are composed of concrete slabs and supporting
masonry walls, and in Australia usually incorporate slip joints in the interfaces between walls and
slabs for serviceability reasons. The apparent conflicting requirements of the slip joints, to slip under
long-term loads and to transmit short-term loading from wind and earthquake actions, together
with the lack of attention to the design of slip joints, make slip in the joints likely to occur when the
building is subjected to a lateral loading. Joint slip leads to a redistribution of loading in the building
wall system, resulting in wall shear loads different from that determined using the current standard
elastic design procedures. Redistribution of loading may be also caused by softening of the masonry.
This paper has assessed the realistic response of various load-bearing masonry buildings, including
the potential for slip in the joints and softening of the masonry, and evaluated the level of wall shear
load deviations resulting from the application of current design procedures. Analyses of the buildings,
using non-linear static and dynamic finite element models, have indicated that joint slip may occur
in buildings subjected to earthquake loading. The application of current elastic design procedures,
which do not account for loading redistribution, resulted in major wall shear load deviations, such
as overestimations of up to +75% and underestimations of up to –62%. It was therefore concluded
that improvements in the current design procedures are required for a more accurate evaluation of
wall shear loads in load-bearing masonry buildings subjected to the lateral loading.

1 INTRODUCTION
Load-bearing masonry buildings are composed of
reinforced concrete slabs and supporting masonry
walls arranged in a cellular pattern (Figure 1). In
Australia, these buildings usually incorporate
slip joints in the interfaces between walls and
slabs (Figure 2) to allow for long term relative
displacements caused by brick growth, concrete
shrinkage, and thermal expansion and contraction.
A common application of this technique is for
“walk-up” apartment buildings up to five storeys
(Page, 2002). In this system of building, wind and
earthquake actions are resisted by the floor slabs
acting as horizontal diaphragms in conjunction with
* Paper S07-M06 submitted 5/07/07; accepted for
publication after review and revision 15/08/07.
† C
 orresponding author Em/Prof Adrian Page can
be contacted at adrian.page@newcastle.edu.au.
the walls. The load path therefore includes the slip
joints at the wall-floor interface. The distribution of
those actions among the walls initially depends on
the elastic stiffness and arrangement of the walls.
However, once either softening of masonry or slip
in the joints occurs, a redistribution of shear loads
will result. The redistribution of shear is a complex
process and is influenced by many factors, such as
the non-linear behaviour of the masonry and the slip
joints, the compressive stress level in the walls, and
the wall arrangement.
In asymmetrical buildings, the centre of mass does
not coincide with the centre of wall stiffness. Hence,
the lateral loading action tends to twist the building,
and causes an increase of shear in the walls located
at one side of the centre of stiffness and a reduction
of shear in the other walls. The building twisting also
induces shear loading in the walls perpendicular
to the lateral load direction. This behaviour may
accelerate or delay the masonry softening and the
slip in the joints. When either softening of masonry

© Institution of Engineers Australia, 2008 Australian Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol 8 No 2

2 “Earthquake shear load in load-bearing masonry buildings” – Sing-Sang, Totoev & Page
Figure 1: Load-bearing masonry construction
(Page, 2002).
or slip in the joints occurs, the centre of walls stiffness
will also change its position. Thus, during the loading
process the effects of building torsion may change
the shear distribution, making the prediction of wall
forces a very complex process.
Current design procedures rely on linear elastic
analysis (Baker et al, 1991), so do not consider the
redistribution of shear. Hence, those procedures may
lead to the inaccurate prediction of the shear forces
in the building wall system. An investigation of
earthquake shear force distribution in load-bearing
masonry buildings is being carried out at The
University of Newcastle. The investigation includes
the development of a numerical model that predicts
the accurate behaviour of those buildings (Sing-
Sang et al, 2005), and the study of both symmetrical
and asymmetrical load-bearing masonry buildings
subjected to wind and earthquake actions (Sing-Sang
et al, 2006a; 2006b; 2006c; 2007; Sing-Sang, 2007). The
numerical simulation of building behaviour uses a
finite element model that considers the non-linear
material behaviour of masonry and slip joints, as
well as the dynamic nature of earthquake action.
This paper describes the numerical procedures
and the building cases studied, and discusses the
main findings of that research. The simulations
were carried out for buildings located in Newcastle.
Because of the relative magnitude of the predicted
wind and earthquake forces, with earthquake forces
dominating, this paper concentrates on the behaviour
of the buildings under earthquake action.
2 PREVIOUS RESEARCH
The numerical study of lateral load distribution in
load-bearing masonry construction requires a model
that can simulate the behaviour of masonry and slip
joints. Masonry is a complex material that exhibits
different strengths and strain softening properties
along axes parallel and normal to the bed joints. Its
behaviour can be modelled through the use of either
Australian Journal of Structural Engineering
masonry wall
slip joint
concrete slab
slip joint
masonry wall
Figure 2: Slip joints between concrete slab and
masonry walls.
a micro-model or a macro-model. In the micro-model,
each component of masonry – unit, mortar and unit/
mortar joint – must be represented with different
finite elements. In the macro-model, masonry is
treated as a composite and one type of finite element
can be used, resulting in better computing efficiency.
Investigations that have successfully used macro-
models to study masonry include the works of
Hamid & Drysdale (1982), Page (1985), Guggisberg
& Thurlimann (1990) and Lourenço (1997).
Slip joints typically consist of one or two layers
of membrane type damp-proof-course material
of bitumen coated aluminium or polyethylene.
Experiments on slip joints have shown that their shear
behaviour is almost linear elastic until a peak stress
is reached, followed by a residual shear capacity,
which is almost constant. Slip joints subjected to
repeated cyclic shear loading do not exhibit any
degradation (Page & Griffith, 1998; Trajkovski &
Totoev, 2002). The load at which the slip occurs is
also directly related to the level of pre-compression
in the joint. This behaviour, as for the behaviour of
jointed rock, can be accurately predicted using zero
thickness interface elements and a Mohr-Coulomb
yield surface. Some applications of that strategy can
be found in the works of Goodman et al (1968), Beer
(1985) and Day & Potts (1994).
In spite of the extensive knowledge on the behaviour
and modelling of masonry and slip joints, little
research has been carried out on earthquake
induced shear in load-bearing masonry buildings
taking into account the non-linear effects of the
masonry and slip joints. Previous research includes
the investigations by Chen (1999) and Sutcliffe &
Page (2001). Earlier research of the influence of
slip joints was preliminary only with some major
simplifications for ease of analysis. However, the
research did show the potential significance of joint
slip, with significant departures from elastic force
distribution in the shear walls. The main purpose of
the current investigation was to refine and extend
Vol 8 No 2
 “Earthquake shear load in load-bearing masonry buildings” – Sing-Sang, Totoev & Page 3

the above preliminary analyses to more accurately The building layouts were chosen to cover a range
reproduce real building behaviour and study the of wall arrangements, with the shear walls being
design implications for those buildings. subjected to a wide range of compressive stress levels.
Building S6 is the main symmetrical building. Other
symmetrical buildings were adapted from building
3 BUILDING LAYOUT FOR THE STUDY S6 by changing the geometry of some walls and
the support conditions of the slabs. These changes
The buildings investigated were idealised four storey produced a range of loading in the slip joints and
“walk-up” apartments, composed of reinforced walls, one of the critical factors influencing the shear
concrete solid slabs and clay brick masonry load distribution in the building wall system. In
walls, with slip joints of one layer of embossed building S12, the majority of slab load from gravity
polythene being used at all wall-slab interfaces. and live loading is transferred to walls oriented in
The investigation was carried out by simulating 12 the z direction, whereas in building S3 those walls
buildings, six of them symmetrical and another six support less gravity loading from the slabs due to
asymmetrical. The layout of typical floor plans for the the changed nature of the slab two-way action. Thus,
symmetrical and asymmetrical buildings is shown different levels of compressive stresses would be
in figures 3 and 4, respectively. The sections of the expected in the shear wall system of these buildings,
buildings are shown in figure 5. Those figures also and consequently different shear redistribution due
show the classification of walls and slabs adopted for to sliding in the slip joints or softening of masonry
ease of discussion of the building behaviour. may occur.

3.00
wall 2 z

wall 3 z

wall 4 z
6.00

7.80
1.80
wall 5 z

3.00
wall 1 z
13.80
1.80

BUILDING S3
wall 2 z

wall 3 z

wall 4 z
6.00

BUILDING S6

12.00
6.00

25.80
1.80
13.80
1.80
6.00

12.00

BUILDING SI

BUILDING S12
6.00

6.00
13.80
1.80

13.80
1.80
6.00

6.00

6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00

6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00

24.00
24.00
BUILDING SH
BUILDING ST
z

earthquake earthquake
load direction load direction

Figure 3: Typical floor plan of symmetrical buildings (all dimensions in metres).

Australian Journal of Structural Engineering Vol 8 No 2

 4 “Earthquake shear load in load-bearing masonry buildings” – Sing-Sang, Totoev & Page

wall 1 x wall 1 x
x

wall 2 z

wall 3 z

wall 4 z

wall 2 z

wall 3 z

wall 4 z
6.00

6.00
wall 5 z

wall 5 z
wall 2 x wall 2 x wall 2 x wall 2 x
wall 1 z

wall 1 z
13.80

13.80
1.80

1.80
wall 3 x wall 3 x wall 3 x wall 3 x

wall 2 z

wall 3 z

wall 4 z

wall 2 z

wall 3 z

wall 4 z
6.00

6.00
wall 4 x wall 4 x
BUILDING C1 BUILDING H

wall 1 x wall 1 x

wall 4 z
4.60

wall 3 z

4.60
wall 5 z
wall 2 z

wall 3 z
wall 1 z

wall 5 z
wall 2 z

wall 4 z
wall 1 z
13.80

13.80
4.60

4.60
wall 3 z
wall 4 z
4.60

4.60
wall 2 x wall 2 x
BUILDING C3 BUILDING C4

wall 1 x wall 1 x
wall 2 z

wall 3 z

wall 2 z

wall 3 z
6.00

6.00
wall 2 x wall 2 x
wall 1 z

wall 1 z
13.80

13.80
1.80

1.80
wall 3 x wall 3 x

wall 5 z
wall 2 z

wall 3 z

wall 4 z

wall 5 z

wall 2 z

wall 3 z

wall 4 z
6.00

6.00
wall 4 x wall 4 x
6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 12.00

24.00 24.00

BUILDING L1 BUILDING L2
z

earthquake earthquake
load direction load direction

Figure 4: Typical floor plan of asymmetrical buildings (all dimensions in metres).

Buildings SH, SI and ST result from either partial or from building C3 by swapping the positions of walls
complete removal of internal walls in the x direction. 3z and 4z. Thus, the analysis of these buildings will
The removal of the walls leads to an increase and non- also allow the study on the influence of the shear
proportional variation of compressive stress within walls arrangement in the distribution of lateral loads.
the shear walls. For instance, while in building SH a Buildings L1 and L2 are L shaped in plan, so the
major increase of stress is expected in walls 1z and wall asymmetry in those buildings results naturally
5z, in building ST this will be expected in wall 3z. from the shape of the buildings. Building L1 differs
A significant difference in compressive stress levels from building L2 by the length of the walls 3x and
between walls 2z and 3z would also be expected. 4x. The wall layout in the building L1 results in a
Thus, those buildings allow for the investigation of
higher compressive stress levels in the slip joints of
shear loading in buildings where a wide variation
wall 4z. Therefore, the study of buildings L1 and L2
in compressive stress is expected between the walls
also allows the influence of wall compressive stress
of a building.
variation on the distribution of lateral load to be
The wall asymmetry in the buildings C1 and H is studied.
created by the arrangement of the internal walls
in the x direction, while the wall asymmetry in the Wall and slab thicknesses for the symmetrical and
buildings C3 and C4 results from the difference asymmetrical buildings are summarised in tables
between the length and hence the stiffness of the 1 and 2, respectively. The wall thicknesses of the
shear walls in the direction of the earthquake load. buildings were determined in accordance with the
The wall layout for those buildings also results in a Australian standard for masonry structures, AS 3700
diverse range of compressive stress levels in the slip (Standards Australia, 2001). Slab thicknesses are
joints of the shear walls. Building C4 was adapted typical for the slab spans and support conditions.

Australian Journal of Structural Engineering Vol 8 No 2

 “Earthquake shear load in load-bearing masonry buildings” – Sing-Sang, Totoev & Page 5

slab 4 slab 4

3.20
level 4
slab 3 slab 3

3.20
level 3
slab 2 slab 2

13.80
3.20
level 2
slab 1 slab 1

4.20
level 1

z
6.00 1.80 6.00 4.60 4.60 4.60

13.80 13.80

BUILDINGS S6, SH, SI, BUILDINGS C3 & C4

y ST, C1, H, L1 & L2

slab 4 slab 4

3.20
level 4
slab 3 slab 3

3.20
level 3
slab 2 slab 2

13.80
3.20
level 2
slab 1 slab 1

4.20
level 1

z
12.00 1.80 12.00 3.00 1.80 3.00

25.80 7.80

BUILDINGS S12 BUILDING S3

Figure 5: Typical transversal section of the buildings (all dimensions in metres).

Table 1: Thickness of walls and slabs of Table 2: Thickness of walls and slabs of
symmetrical buildings. asymmetrical buildings.
Thickness (mm) Thickness (mm)
Building Building
walls slabs walls slabs
S3 190 150 C1 190 250
S6 140 200 C3 190 250
S12 140 250 C4 190 250
SH 140 250 H 190 250
SI 140 250 L1 190 250
ST 140 250 L2 140 200

4 NUMERICAL ANALYSIS as the dynamic nature of the earthquake action. All

Three types of analysis were used in the numerical
simulations: a linear elastic analysis to determine
the lateral loading distribution according to the
current standard procedures, and non-linear static
and dynamic analyses to predict a more accurate
distribution of loading taking into account masonry
non-linear behaviour and potential joint slip, as well
analyses were carried out using the commercial
software package DIANA 9.1 (TNO DIANA, 2005),
which is based on the finite element method. The
non-linear analysis of the buildings followed the
Newton-Raphson method, where the loads are
applied incrementally and for each increment of load
an iterative process is developed to guarantee the
convergence of the solution. The non-linear dynamic

Australian Journal of Structural Engineering Vol 8 No 2

6 “Earthquake shear load in load-bearing masonry buildings” – Sing-Sang, Totoev & Page
analysis of the buildings consisted of time history
analysis performed using the Newmark procedure,
with the parameters α and d selected as 0.25 and 0.50,
respectively. The analysis considered a constant time
step Dt of 0.02 s for the discretisation of the ground
motion acceleration and integration of the building
displacements and internal forces. A Rayleigh
Damping Matrix, defined in accordance with the
first six principal vibration modes, was considered
in the analysis. The consistent mass procedure was
applied in the determination of the Mass Matrix
(Sing-Sang, 2007).
4.1 Building modelling and
material properties
A three-dimensional model with masonry walls and
concrete slabs was used for the linear elastic analysis.
Masonry was considered as an orthotropic material
and reinforced concrete was assumed as an isotropic
material. The elastic properties used for masonry
and reinforced concrete are presented in tables 3 and
4, respectively. The masonry properties were those
reported by Page et al (1985).
For the non-linear analyses, the model was enhanced
by including slip joint elements and considering
the strain softening behaviour of both the masonry
and the slip joints. The softening of masonry was
simulated through a three-dimensional non-linear
model that combines the yield surfaces of Rankine
for masonry tensile behaviour and Hill for masonry
compressive behaviour. The slip in the joints was
modelled by a Mohr-Coulomb yield surface. A
detailed description of the implementation and
validation of that model has been presented
elsewhere (Sing-Sang et al, 2005). The non-linear
Table 3: Masonry elastic properties used
in the analyses.
Ex 5700 MPa
Modulus of
Ey 5600 MPa
elasticity
Ez 5600 MPa
Gxy 2350 MPa
Shear
Gyz 2350 MPa
modulus
Gxz 2350 MPa
vxy 0.19
Poisson’s
vyz 0.19
ratio
vxz 0.19
Table 4: Reinforced concrete elastic properties
used in the analyses.
Modulus of elasticity E 30000 MPa
Poisson’s ratio v 0.20
Australian Journal of Structural Engineering
properties used for the masonry and the slip joints
are presented in tables 5 and 6, respectively. The
masonry properties were determined from the results
of tests carried out by Page (1982) and Dhanasekar et
al (1985). The slip joints properties were established
from tests carried out by Page & Griffith (1998).
4.2 Discretisation of the buildings
The reinforced concrete slabs and masonry walls
were discretised using four noded curved shell
elements. Gauss integration, with 2 x 2 integration
points, was applied over the area of the curved shell
elements. In the direction of the element thickness,
the Simpson integration scheme was used, with
three integration points for concrete elements and
seven integration points for masonry elements. The
adoption of a higher number of integration points
in masonry elements was to allow for local failure
and stress redistribution in the masonry under high
local stress levels. The concrete slab was assumed
linear elastic. Slip joints were discretised using
four noded zero-thickness interface elements. The
Newton-Cotes and Simpson integration schemes
were employed in the length and thickness of the
interfaces elements, respectively. Two integration
points were applied in the length of the elements,
and seven integration points were employed in
the thickness of the elements. The meshes for each
building were formulated using finite elements with
an average length of 700 m.
4.3 Building loads and loading
process in the analyses
The buildings were subjected to the load combination
for the ultimate limit state where the earthquake
action is the dominant lateral loading:
Ed = G + Eu + ψcQ (1)
as prescribed in the Australian Standard for
Structural Design Actions, AS1170.0 (Standards
Australia, 2002), where G represents the permanent
load, Q symbolises the imposed action, Eu is the
earthquake action, and ψc is a combination factor
for the imposed action. The combination factor for
a distributed imposed action on an apartment floor
is 0.40. The permanent load was defined using the
volumetric weights of solid clay brick masonry and
reinforced concrete of 19 and 25 kN/m3, respectively.
The live load was assumed as a uniform pressure of
2 kN/m2 on the floors, as typically required for an
apartment building. In the linear elastic and non-
linear static analyses, the earthquake action was
obtained using the Australian Standard AS1170.4
(Standards Australia, 1993). For that purpose, the
buildings were classified as “ordinary” in terms
of the consequences of failure, designed to contain
a large number of people, and considered built in
Newcastle on a soil profile containing 10 m of loose
Vol 8 No 2
 “Earthquake shear load in load-bearing masonry buildings” – Sing-Sang, Totoev & Page 7

Table 5: Masonry non-linear properties used in the study.

ftx 0.43 MPa

Tensile strength
fty 0.32 MPa

1§ f ·§ f ·
D ¨¨1  4 tx ¸¸¨¨1  4 ty ¸¸
9© f D ¹© fD ¹

0.5f D

45°
α 1.26
-f D -f D

0.5f D

ª 16 § 1 E 1 ·º
J « 2  9¨ 2   2 ¸¸ » f mx f my
«¬ fJ ¨
© f mx f mx f my f my ¹ »¼
-0.5f J
45°

g 9.59
-f J -f J

-0.5f J

Gfx 7 x 10–6 MPa.m

Tension fracture energy
Gfy 7 x 10–6 MPa.m
fmx 8.74 MPa
Compressive strength
fmy 8.03 MPa

§ 1 1 1 ·
E ¨   2 ¸ f mx f my
¨f2 f2 f my ¸¹
© E mx

-f E

b –1.17
-f E -f E

-f E

Plastic strain equivalent to the peak compressive stress kp 0.0018

Gcx 6 x 10–3 MPa.m
Compressive fracture energy
Gcy 6 x 10–3 MPa.m

sands. These assumptions led to the earthquake base Table 6: Properties of slip joints
shear (EBS) loads presented in table 7. The EBS was used in the analyses.
then distributed up the building, as prescribed in
AS1170.4. Cohesion c 0.0

In the non-linear dynamic analysis the earthquake Frictional coefficient tg(ϕ) 0.27
action was simulated through a time variation
Shear modulus ET 464 MPa/m
of ground motion acceleration at the level of the

Australian Journal of Structural Engineering Vol 8 No 2

8 “Earthquake shear load in load-bearing masonry buildings” – Sing-Sang, Totoev & Page

Table 7: Earthquake base shear load of the earthquake load distribution is influenced
for the buildings. by the building twist direction and by the stiffness
of the walls. Thus, in symmetrical buildings, the
Building EBS (kN) EBS/(G + ψcQ) stiffer external walls attracted more earthquake
S3 1808 loading than the internal walls, and a decrease of
S6 2483 wall shear load occurred in the walls that had their
flanges removed. In asymmetrical buildings, the
S12 4679 anticlockwise twist of the building resulted in an
SH 2625 increase of shear loading in the walls located in
SI 2463 the right hand side of the building. The earthquake
ST 2625 shear loads in the walls perpendicular to the loading
0.183 direction in asymmetrical buildings are not presented
C1 2951 here as their magnitude was far less than for the walls
C3 2655 parallel to the loading direction. A comprehensive
C4 2655 description of those loads can be found in Sing-Sang
H 2951 et al (2006b) and Sing-Sang (2007).

L1 2122
L2 1790
building foundation, which was consistent with
the “El Centro 1940 Ground Motion” accelerogram
(figure 6). A comprehensive description of the
evaluation and distribution of the earthquake loading
can be found in Sing-Sang (2007). In all analyses,
the loads were applied consistent with their typical
sequence of application. Thus, firstly the weight of
masonry walls was applied, the concrete slab weights
then considered, followed by the partial live load,
and finally earthquake action. This strategy allows
for a more realistic simulation of the strains and stress
history in the structure.
5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
5.1 Linear elastic analysis
Tables 8 and 9 present the linear elastic distribution
of the earthquake load in the shear wall system for
the investigated buildings. The linear elastic pattern
5.2 Vertical pre-compression in the joints
The pre-compressive stress1 state of the slip joints is
the main factor that influences their shear capacity
and therefore the potential redistribution of shear
load in the buildings caused by joint slip. Tables
10 and 11 present the pre-compressive stress
levels in the slip joints between level 3 and slab 3
in the symmetrical and asymmetrical buildings,
respectively. In the symmetrical buildings, a typical
wall pre-compressive pattern can be seen, where the
smaller tributary areas of the external walls in the
z direction resulted also in lower pre-compressive
stress levels in those walls compared to the internal
walls. In buildings S3, S6 and S12, the internal walls
are subjected to similar levels of pre-compression.
Increasing the wall lengths in the z direction resulted
also in a corresponding increase in the compressive
stress levels in those walls. In buildings SH, SI
1 The pre-compressive stresses result from the application
of dead load and a proportion of imposed action, in
accordance with the load combinations described by
equation (1). They represent the stresses just prior to the
application of earthquake loads.

Figure 6: Accelerogram of “El Centro 1940 Ground Motion”.

Australian Journal of Structural Engineering Vol 8 No 2

 “Earthquake shear load in load-bearing masonry buildings” – Sing-Sang, Totoev & Page 9

Table 8: Earthquake load distribution in the shear wall system of symmetrical buildings.

Wall shear load (kN) in wall

Building
1z 2z 3z 4z 5z
S3 419.8 314.3 321.9 314.3 419.8
S6 539.0 459.3 463.3 459.3 539.0
S12 972.3 899.9 903.8 899.9 972.3
SH 577.7 472.6 501.8 472.6 577.7
SI 589.6 421.3 425.8 421.3 589.6
ST 598.7 487.5 430.6 487.5 598.7

Table 9: Earthquake load distribution in the shear wall system of asymmetrical buildings.

Wall shear load (kN) in wall Building twist

Building
1z 2z 3z 4z 5z direction
C1 646.0 466.2 550.2 580.5 683.7
C3 650.7 749.0 127.3 342.3 762.0
C4 634.0 737.3 337.7 131.9 790.0
anticlockwise
H 640.4 528.2 541.0 544.8 671.0
L1 593.6 593.7 598.7 170.9 147.3
L2 493.0 448.7 447.7 230.6 197.1

Table 10: Pre-compressive stress levels at mid-length of the walls in symmetrical buildings.

Compression (MPa) in slip joint of wall

Building
1z 2z 3z 4z 5z
S3 0.12 0.14 0.15 0.14 0.12
S6 0.21 0.31 0.32 0.31 0.21
S12 0.30 0.51 0.52 0.51 0.30
SH 0.28 0.41 0.38 0.41 0.28
SI 0.30 0.57 0.60 0.57 0.30
ST 0.23 0.45 0.52 0.45 0.23

Table 11: Earthquake load distribution in the shear wall system of symmetrical buildings.

Compression (MPa) in slip joint of wall

Building
1z 2z 3z 4z 5z
C1 0.24 0.43 0.35 0.29 0.18
C3 0.22 0.48 0.70 0.54 0.25
C4 0.22 0.47 0.54 0.73 0.26
H 0.23 0.35 0.33 0.33 0.19
L1 0.18 0.29 0.37 0.48 0.26
L2 0.21 0.31 0.31 0.32 0.21

and ST, a great range of pre-compressive stress
levels occurred in the slip joints of the buildings,
particularly in the internal walls, resulting from the
different arrangements for the walls oriented in the
x direction.
In asymmetrical buildings, the smaller tributary
areas of the external walls in the z direction also
resulted in lower pre-compressive stress levels in
those walls compared to the internal walls. Since
the asymmetrical buildings were idealised with a
range of shear wall lengths and arrangements in
the direction perpendicular to the loading direction,
varying levels of wall pre-compression occurred,
particularly for buildings C3 and C4, where the
pre-compressive stress levels varied by more than
a factor of 3.

Australian Journal of Structural Engineering Vol 8 No 2

10 “Earthquake shear load in load-bearing masonry buildings” – Sing-Sang, Totoev & Page

5.3 Non-linear static analysis compressive stress levels for those walls given in
tables 10 and 11.
The non-linear static analyses revealed that slip did
In asymmetrical buildings, the shear redistribution
occur in the joints when the buildings were subjected
may be also influenced by the direction of the
to earthquake action. The typical shear behaviour
building twist, as observed in buildings C3, C4, L1
indicating slip in the joints is shown in figures 7
and L2. In building C3 for instance, slip in the joints
and 8 for the slip joints of buildings S6 and C3,
of wall 5z occurred before slip in the joints of wall 1z,
respectively. It can be seen that first slip occurred in
despite higher pre-compressive stress level in wall
the joints located in the external walls (walls 1z and
5z (figure 8 and table 11). This unexpected behaviour
5z – joints with the lowest pre-compressive stress
was caused by the anticlockwise twist of the building,
level), and later in the joints located in the internal
which increased the shear force in the slip joints of
walls (walls 2z, 3z and 4z – joints with higher pre-
wall 5z and decreased the shear in the slip joints
compressive stress levels). After slip of a joint, the
of wall 1z. In this building, the shear stress was
slope of the remaining shear stress curves increases.
essentially redistributed to the walls with the higher
This behaviour is consistent with a redistribution of
pre-compressive stress levels (walls 3z and 4z). In this
shear stress and hence earthquake loading from the
case, the walls with higher pre-compressive stress
walls in which joint slip has occurred to the walls that
levels are also those with lower elastic stiffness.
remain capable of resisting additional shear stress.
The sequence of slip in the joints and the magnitude Figure 9 shows the earthquake load distribution in
of the shear stress limit are consistent with the pre- the shear wall system of building C3. This figure also

Figure 7: Shear stress at mid-length of slip joints between level 3 and slab 3 of building C3.

Figure 8: Shear stress at mid-length of slip joints between level 3 and slab 3 of building C3.

Australian Journal of Structural Engineering Vol 8 No 2

 “Earthquake shear load in load-bearing masonry buildings” – Sing-Sang, Totoev & Page 11

shows a comparison between the results from the
application of the representative model and a similar
model simplified by considering masonry as a linear
elastic material, but still allowing for slip in the joints.
The results for the two sets of analysis are virtually
identical. This clearly indicates that strain softening
of the masonry did not occur, so it can be concluded
that all the non-linear effects in the buildings resulted
from joint slip.
The earthquake distribution shown in figure 9 is
consistent with the evolution and redistribution of the
shear stress in the slip joints of the buildings (figure
8). Thus, in symmetrical buildings, typically the
shear redistribution occurred from the external to the
internal walls. The internal walls into which the shear
load is primarily redistributed are those subjected to
higher levels of pre-compression. The effects of the
building twist can be seen particularly in buildings
L1 and L2 (Sing-Sang et al, 2006b; Sing-Sang, 2007).
In building L1 for instance, in spite of the lower pre-
compressive stress level in wall 5z, the shear load is
redistributed to that wall rather than to the walls 2z
and 3z (figure 10 and table 11). It can therefore be
concluded that the earthquake load distribution in
load-bearing masonry buildings is influenced not
only by the elastic stiffness and arrangement of the
walls, but also by the pre-compressive stress levels
in the walls and the building twist direction.
Current design procedures do not consider the shear
redistribution illustrated above. Hence, the application

Figure 9: Earthquake load distribution in the shear wall system of building C3.

Figure 10: Earthquake load distribution in the shear wall system of building L1.

Australian Journal of Structural Engineering Vol 8 No 2

12 “Earthquake shear load in load-bearing masonry buildings” – Sing-Sang, Totoev & Page

of those procedures has the potential to result in the (2007). In this paper, the description is focused on
inaccurate prediction of the distribution of earthquake the differences between the results of dynamic and
loading. The maximum deviations of the linear static analyses because of the restriction on the length
elastic shear distribution from the analysis allowing of the paper.
for joint slip and softening of masonry observed in
Table 14 presents values of the times when the
the symmetrical and asymmetrical buildings are
equivalent static EBSs in building S6, C3 and L1 are
presented in tables 12 and 13, respectively. It can be
best approximated by the dynamic analysis. These
seen that in symmetrical buildings the shear load is
are the most realistic times to be used in a comparison
systematically overestimated in the external walls
between the non-linear static and dynamic analysis
and underestimated in the internal walls by using
results. A comparison between the wall shear loads
linear elastic analysis. In this case, current design
determined by non-linear dynamic and non-linear
procedures would therefore lead to the possible
static analyses is shown in figure 11 for building
uneconomical design of the external walls, and the
S6. This comparison is also presented in table 15
unsafe design of the internal walls. Major deviations
for buildings S6, C3 and L1. It can be seen that the
of +60% and –32% were observed in buildings SI
application of non-linear static analysis resulted in
and ST, respectively. In asymmetrical buildings,
wall shear loads with a deviation of up to –13% and
overestimates of up to +75% and underestimates
+10%, respectively, when compared to the non-linear
of up to –62% occurred in buildings C4 and C3,
dynamic analysis. It can therefore be concluded
respectively. The results for the asymmetrical
that depending on the level of accuracy required, in
buildings also revealed that the overestimation of
many cases a non-linear static analysis would suffice
shear may occur in the internal walls (for instance,
if less computing time and storage are critical. The
wall 3z of the building L1) and the underestimation
deviations between the results from the non-linear
of shear may occur in the external walls (for example,
static and non-linear dynamic analyses may be
wall 5z of the building L1).
caused by the continuous variation of the normal
stress levels in the joints during the earthquake event
5.4 Non-linear dynamic analysis
(figure 12). This behaviour, which is consistent with
a building undergoing an earthquake event, is not
The results of non-linear dynamic analysis confirmed
modelled by the static analysis.
the main findings observed in the non-linear static
analysis, which indicated that the earthquake Table 16 presents the deviations of the linear elastic
action results in shear redistribution caused by wall shear loads in buildings S6, C3 and L1. It can
joint slip. The joint slip is influenced by the joint be seen that, by using linear elastic procedures, the
pre-compression and building twist direction. A wall shear loads may be overestimated by up to 66%
comprehensive description on the results of the non- or underestimated by up to –57%. The deviations
linear dynamic analysis can be found in Sing-Sang determined by considering the non-linear static

Table 12: Deviations of linear elastic earthquake shear loads in symmetrical buildings.

Deviation of LEA (%) for wall

Building
1z 2z 3z 4z 5z
S3 59 –27 –25 –27 59
S6 47 –19 –19 –19 47
S12 38 –15 –15 –15 38
SH 53 –19 –22 –19 53
SI 60 –25 –25 –25 60
ST 55 –16 –32 –16 55

Table 13: Deviations of linear elastic earthquake shear loads in asymmetrical buildings.

Deviation of LEA (%) for wall

Building
1z 2z 3z 4z 5z
C1 48 –34 –16 –15 59
C3 56 –2 –62 –48 74
C4 54 –2 –48 –62 75
H 48 –23 –19 –16 48
L1 42 –9 18 –48 –20
L2 35 –20 –1 –14 25

Australian Journal of Structural Engineering Vol 8 No 2

 “Earthquake shear load in load-bearing masonry buildings” – Sing-Sang, Totoev & Page 13

Figure 11: Comparison of wall shear loads in building S6 determined by dynamic and static analyses
(The evolution of shear load in the walls 2z and 4z is not presented because its behaviour is
similar to the shear load evolution in the wall 3z).

Figure 12: Evolution of normal stress at mid-length of joints between level 3 and slab 3 of building S6.

analysis as the accurate procedure (see section 5.3)
are slightly higher than those determined assuming
the non-linear dynamic analysis as the accurate
procedure. Despite this difference, it can be seen
that the deviations from both sets of analyses are
significant. The magnitude of these deviations
indicates that the use of linear elastic design
procedures may result in wall shear load design
significantly deviated from its actual value, and
hence lead either to unsafe or uneconomical design
of the walls. Thus, it is recommended that the current
linear elastic design procedures consider the effects of
shear redistribution that may occur in load-bearing
masonry buildings.
6 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Investigation on earthquake shear distribution in
load-bearing masonry buildings has been presented
and discussed in this paper. The investigation was
related to 12 buildings, six of them symmetrical and

Australian Journal of Structural Engineering Vol 8 No 2

14 “Earthquake shear load in load-bearing masonry buildings” – Sing-Sang, Totoev & Page

Table 14: Times for similar values of dynamic and static earthquake base shears in the buildings.

EBS (kN)
Building Time (s) Deviation (%)
Dynamic Static
S6 2.06 –2494 –2483 0
C3 1.76 2658 2655 0
L1 1.80 2153 2122 2

Table 15: Comparison of wall shear loads determined by non-linear dynamic and static analyses.

Wall shear load (kN)

Building Time (s) Wall Deviation (%)
Dynamic Static
1z & 5z –403.3 –367.5 10
S6 2.06 2z & 4z –535.3 –565.7 –5
3z –547.2 –574.0 –5
1z 436.3 416.3 5
2z 772.3 760.7 2
C3 1.76 3z 295.3 338.5 –13
4z 671.6 656.3 2
5z 457.7 438.8 4
1z 443.4 419.5 6
2z 647.8 654.9 –1
L1 1.80 3z 512.8 507.8 1
4z 327.2 326.1 0
5z 202.8 184.7 10

Table 16: Deviations of wall shear loads determined by linear elastic analysis.

Deviation of linear elastic analysis (%) of wall

Building
1z 2z 3z 4z 5z
S6 34 –14 –15 –14 34
C3 49 –3 –57 –49 66
L1 34 –8 16 –48 –27

another six asymmetrical. The investigation used
numerical simulations through the finite element
method, first using a linear elastic analysis consistent
with the current design procedures and then with
non-linear static and dynamic analyses to simulate
a more accurate building behaviour.
The non-linear static analysis indicated that slip
did occur in the joints when the buildings were
subjected to the earthquake action. However, strain
softening of the masonry did not occur. The absence
of masonry softening is related to the conservative
design procedures used in the standards, particularly
in the definition of compressive and shear stress
design limits for the masonry bearing walls, and the
limited shear capacity of the slip joints, which limits
the amount of lateral load that can be transferred to
a particular shear wall.
Joint slip led to the redistribution of shear stress
and, hence, earthquake loading from the walls in
which joint slip occurred to the walls that remained
capable of resisting additional shear stress. Typically,
the sequence of slip in the joints was directly related
to the level of pre-compression in the joints. Slip
first occurred in the joints with the lowest pre-
compressive stress level and later in the joints with
higher pre-compressive stress levels. In asymmetrical
buildings, this behaviour was also influenced by the
direction of the building twist. In some asymmetrical
buildings, joint slip occurred first in the joints with
higher pre-compression because of the increased
wall shear loading resulting from building twist. The
walls into which the earthquake shear was primarily
redistributed were not those possessing the higher
elastic stiffness in the building, but those subjected to
higher pre-compression and hence additional shear
capacity. Thus, it was concluded that the earthquake
load distribution is influenced not only by the elastic
stiffness and arrangement of the walls, as assumed
in the current standard design procedures, but also
by the pre-compressive stress levels in the walls and
the building twist direction.

Australian Journal of Structural Engineering Vol 8 No 2

 “Earthquake shear load in load-bearing masonry buildings” – Sing-Sang, Totoev & Page
Current design procedures, which are based on
linear elastic analysis, do not consider this shear
load redistribution. Hence, the application of elastic
analysis procedures has the potential to result in the
inaccurate distribution of earthquake loading in the
shear wall system of load-bearing buildings. This
investigation discovered that major deviations, such
as overestimations up to +75% and underestimations
up to –62%, resulted when linear elastic analysis was
used to determine the wall shear load. The major
deviations were observed in the buildings with a
higher range of variation of the pre-compressive stress
levels within the bearing walls of the building.
The results from the non-linear dynamic analysis
confirmed the major findings from the results of the
non-linear static analysis. The non-linear dynamic
analysis also indicated that during an earthquake
event, the level of the pre-compression in the joints
changes continuously. This variation of normal stress
in the joints resulted in slight differences between
the results of the non-linear static and dynamic
analysis. For instance, the earthquake wall shear
loads determined by the non-linear static analysis
predicted deviations of up to –13% and +10%,
compared to those determined through the non-
linear dynamic analysis. Although important, those
deviations are far less significant than the deviations
from the linear elastic current design procedures.
Therefore, it can be concluded that the use of the
non-linear static analysis is adequate for predicting
the load distribution in the wall system. For buildings
S6, C3 and L1, the deviations of the linear elastic wall
shear loads were up to –62% and +74% compared
to the non-linear static analysis, and up to –57%
and +66% compared to the non-linear dynamic
analysis. Although different, it can be seen that the
deviations resulting from both sets of analyses are
very significant. The magnitude of these deviations
indicates that using linear elastic design procedures
may result in wall shear load design significantly
deviated from its actual value, and hence lead either
to unsafe or uneconomical design of the walls.
It can be seen that improvements in the current
analysis procedures are desirable if a more accurate
evaluation of the force distribution in the shear
wall system is required. This would lead to a safer
and more economical design of masonry walls.
In particular, the evaluation of wall shear loads
should consider the role of slip joints in causing
the redistribution of wall forces due to the local slip
effects.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research has been conducted with the support
of Think Brick Australia and the UEM Higher
Education Project/World Bank fund. Their support
is gratefully acknowledged.
Australian Journal of Structural Engineering
15
REFERENCES
Baker, L., Lawrence, S. & Page, A. 1991, Australian
Masonry Manual, Joint Committee of the New South
Wales Public Works Department and the Association
of Consulting Structural Engineers of New South
Wales, Australia.
Beer, G. 1985, “An isoparametric joint/interface
element for finite element analysis”, International
Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, Vol. 21,
pp. 585-600.
Chen, Q. 1999, “The seismic design of connections
in unreinforced masonry structures”, Master Thesis,
The University of Newcastle.
Day, R. & Potts, D. 1994, “Zero thickness interface
elements – numerical stability and application”,
International Journal for Analytical Methods in
Geomechanics, Vol. 18, pp. 689-708.
Dhanasekar, M., Kleeman, P. & Page, A. 1985, “Biaxial
stress-strain relations for brick masonry”, Journal of
Structural Engineering, Vol. 111, pp. 1085-1100.
Goodman, R., Taylor, R. & Brekke, T. 1968, “A model
for the mechanics of jointed rock”, Journal of the Soil
Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, Vol. 94,
pp. 637-659.
Lourenço, P. 1997, “An anisotropic macro-model
for masonry plates and shells: implementation and
validation”, Report 03.21.1.31.07, Delft University of
Technology, The Netherlands.
Page, A. 1982, “An experimental investigation of the
biaxial strength of brick masonry”, Sixth International
Masonry Conference, Italy, pp. 3-15.
Page, A. 1985, “An in-plane finite element model for
brick masonry”, New Analysis Techniques for Structural
Masonry, ASCE, USA.
Page, A. 2002, “Unreinforced masonry structures –
An Australian overview”, CBPI research paper 15,
pp. 2-19, Australia.
Page, A. & Griffith, M. 1998, “A preliminary study
of the seismic behaviour of slip joints and joints
containing membranes in masonry structures”,
Research Report 160.02.1998, The University of
Newcastle, Australia.
Page, A., Kleeman, P. & Dhanasekar, M. 1985, “An in-
plane finite element model for brick masonry”, New
Analysis Techniques for Structural Masonry, ASCE.
Vol 8 No 2
16 “Earthquake shear load in load-bearing masonry buildings” – Sing-Sang, Totoev & Page
Sing-Sang, P. 2007, “Wind and earthquake induced
shear in load-bearing masonry buildings”, PhD
Thesis, The University of Newcastle, Newcastle,
Australia.
Sing-Sang, P., Totoev, Y. & Page, A. 2005, “A numerical
model for analysis of lateral load distribution in
load-bearing masonry construction”, Research
report No. 256.10.2005, The University of Newcastle,
Australia.
Sing-Sang, P., Totoev, Y. & Page, A. 2006a, “Wind
and earthquake shear in symmetrical masonry load-
bearing buildings”, Approved for publication in The
Masonry Society Journal, November 2007.
Sing-Sang, P., Totoev, Y. & Page, A. 2006b, “Wind
and earthquake shear in asymmetrical load-bearing
masonry buildings”, Approved for publication in The
Masonry Society Journal, November 2007.
Sing-Sang, P., Totoev, Y. & Page, A. 2007, “Earthquake
shear in a symmetrical load-bearing masonry
building – A dynamic and non-linear time history
analysis”, 10th North American Masonry Conference,
USA.
Australian Journal of Structural Engineering
Standards Australia, 1993, AS 1170.4 Minimum design
loads on structures, Part 4: earthquake loads.
Standards Australia, 2001, AS 3700 Australian
Standard for Masonry Structures.
Standards Australia, 2002, AS 1170.0 Structural design
actions, Part 0: general principles.
Sutcliffe, D. & Page, A. 2001, “The effect of slip
joints on lateral load distribution in load-bearing
masonry shear wall systems”, 9th Canadian Masonry
Symposium.
TNO DIANA BV, 2005, “Analysis procedures”,
DIANA user’s manual, The Netherlands.
Trajkovski, S. & Totoev, Y. 2002, “Shear strength of
masonry including damp proof course: experimental
determination at different strain rates”, 6th International
Masonry Conference, UK, pp. 487-492.
Vol 8 No 2
 “Earthquake shear load in load-bearing masonry buildings” – Sing-Sang, Totoev & Page 17

PEDRO SING-SANG

Dr Pedro Sing-Sang was born in Mozambique. In 1996, he graduated in Civil

Engineering at the Universidade Eduardo Mondlane, Mozambique, with his
thesis titled “Modelling and design of reinforced concrete skew slab bridges”.
In 2000, he received his Masters degree in Structures of Civil Engineering at
the Universidade do Porto, Portugal, for his thesis titled “Structural behaviour
and numerical modelling of reinforced concrete box-culverts”.
From 1996 to 1998 and 2000 to 2003, Pedro worked as a lecturer at the
Universidade Eduardo Mondlane in the course titled “Design of Reinforced
and Prestressed Concrete Structures”, as well as a designer of concrete and steel
structures with a Mozambican company Tecnica-Engenheiros Consultores,
Lda.
In 2004, he started his research for a Doctorate degree in Civil Engineering at
the University of Newcastle, Australia. Pedro was awarded his doctorate degree
in August 2007, with his thesis titled “Wind and earthquake induced shear in
loadbearing masonry buildings”. He is now working as a research assistant at
the University of Newcastle in the study of the behaviour of wall ties in cavity
and veneer masonry walls, and reliability of masonry walls subjected to blast
loading.

YURI TOTOEV

Dr Yuri Totoev was born and educated in the former USSR. He graduated
from Kiev State Technical University for Civil Engineering and Architecture
(KSTUCEA) in 1982 with a MEng. The title of his Masters thesis was “Structural
design of RC slab panels for multi-storey bus terminal”. After graduation, Yuri
worked on various construction projects. In 1984, he went back to university
and in 1988 he was awarded his PhD for a research study titled “Stress and
strain state of complex structures combining plates and shells”.
After finishing his postgraduate studies, Yuri worked in the research centre
for thin-walled structures, primarily on development of numerical methods
for structural analysis. He was involved in the structural analysis of the
international nuclear fusion reactor ITER and the space station MIR. He was
also lecturing at university on mechanics of solids.
In 1992, Yuri migrated to Australia and in 1993 he became a member of the
masonry research group at the University of Newcastle. He has worked on
a number of projects, including interaction between masonry structures and
expansive clays; moisture transport from fresh mortar into brick; dynamic
properties and dynamic response of masonry walls; damage accumulation in
masonry; system behaviour of multi-storey masonry buildings with RC slabs;
and development of bricks with improved thermal efficiency.
Yuri has presented research papers to most national and international masonry
conferences. In 2001, he was awarded the Dr RG Drysdale Award for Best
Research Paper in the General Area of Engineered Structural Masonry.

Australian Journal of Structural Engineering Vol 8 No 2

 18 “Earthquake shear load in load-bearing masonry buildings” – Sing-Sang, Totoev & Page

ADRIAN PAGE

Adrian Page is an Emeritus Professor in the School of Engineering at the

University of Newcastle, and is the leader of the Masonry Research Group in
the Centre for Infrastructure Performance and Reliability. He has been actively
involved in fundamental and applied masonry research for many years, and has
been internationally recognised for his work. Much of his research has related to
the development of design provisions for the Masonry Structures Code AS3700,
which he currently chairs. Adrian has close links with the industry and was
awarded the Brick Industry Medal in 2006 for his contributions to that industry.
His Chair at Newcastle has also been supported by “Think Brick Australia”
(formally the Clay Brick and Paver Institute) since 1992. Adrian is a Fellow of
the Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering, an Honorary Fellow
of Engineers Australia, and a past recipient of the Engineers Australia Warren
and Chapman Medals.

Australian Journal of Structural Engineering Vol 8 No 2

View publication stats