Chapter 15

Lessons Learnt from Past Earthquakes

15.1 Introduction

Human casualties in earthquakes are mostly due to the collapse of structures than by the events
themselves. Local climate, materials available for construction and traditions of the locality
influence the construction of buildings. Damages caused by earthquake depend on a number of
aspects, such as intensity, duration and frequency content of ground motion; geological and soil
conditions; quality of materials and constructions; etc. In case a building is subjected to very
large deformation its integrity as a single entity must be ensured by designing it in such a manner
that it has adequate strength, high ductility, and enough resistance to cyclic loading. Several
aspects of construction of building such as its type and age, foundation, quality of materials used,
seismic code applied, quality of construction, etc., determine its failure by the loading due to
earthquake. From a field investigation conducted in Mianyang area of China after the Wenchuan
earthquake in 2008, it was found out that among the available stock, 63% of buildings
constructed using raw-soil, 36% of brick-wood structures, 25% of masonry structures, and 11%
of framed RC structures were damaged during the earthquake.

The most popular materials used for construction of masonry are stone and bricks. These are
low-energy materials. Necessary skills are available all over the globe to make use of these
materials in construction. A combination of these materials and skills helps in creating quite
useful and beautiful buildings. But the difficulty with these materials is their low tensile strength.
This characteristic limits their available ductility. Because of this, the masonry depends on its
ability to sustain high compressive strength during an earthquake for survival. Suppose the
compressive strength is low as in the case of earth bricks, also called adobe, this results in
catastrophic failure in an earthquake (Fig. 15.1). It is often the case. However, masonry
constructed with good quality stone and bricks can perform well.

Fig. 15.1 Collapse of hollow clay tile masonry in 1992 Turkey earthquake (courtesy: Booth
and Key)
The seismic vulnerability of masonry buildings depends on several factors, such as irregularity in
plan and/or in elevation, discontinuity of walls/piers along the height of the building, alteration
of the structural scheme initially constructed during the lifetime of the building, inadequate
repairs after the occurrence of previous earthquake, low quality of masonry construction and/or
low quality of materials, inadequate connections between vertical elements or between horizontal
and vertical elements, lack of diaphragm action of horizontal elements, etc. The box action helps
in limiting the deformations imposed on masonry during an earthquake and, hence, prevents
extensive damages and collapse. Many times old masonry structures do not possess the box
action: floors and roofs are rarely connected effectively with the walls, floors and roofs do not
behave as diaphragms of limited deformability in their plane, often the connections between
walls are not very strong, and large openings as well as openings located close to the corners of
buildings lead to further weakening of the box action.

A review of the performance of structures in the past earthquakes throws some light into the type
of damages as well as the deficiencies in their design and detailing. There are many lessons that
engineers have to learn from the damage and collapse of structures. We discuss below the
details of different types of buildings, failure patterns and reasons for their failures along with
that of surviving structures.

15.2 Random Rubble Stone Masonry Buildings

Random rubble masonry consists of rough cut or natural stones set in mud mortar. Sometimes
this may form a core and the cladding is arranged with well dressed stone called ashlar. The
seismic performance of such stone masonry construction depends on the mortar holding firmly
the stones together. Otherwise, the seismic performance would be very poor. In India stone
buildings are built quiet commonly in the hills of Western Uttar Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh and
Killary District of Maharashtra (Fig. 15.2) which are severe seismic zones. They are single or
double storey building constructed with or without mud mortars. The thickness of stone walls is
around 400 mm in two halves vertically without any interconnection. The roof, generally,
consists of tiled stone slates. Such buildings are prone to worst damage under any calamity (Fig.
15.3). Typical failures in such buildings are:

1. Overturning of walls due to out-of-plane inertia forces

2. Separation of the two leaves of stone walls, and
3. Collapse of roof due to very heavy self weight.

In old Anjar town of Gujarat there were several stone-in-mud masonry buildings. They were
destroyed completely during the earthquake. However, buildings constructed recently using brick
in-cement-mortar behaved much better. The vulnerability of masonry walls under out-of-plane
mode of collapse could be gauged by a large amount of debris strewn in the nearby narrow lanes.
The damage at Bachau town was indeed on a scale not seen before anywhere. The entire town
was practically razed to the ground. Complete failure of stone-in-mud masonry buildings was
observed.
Fig. 15.2 A typical stone building in mud mortar with tiled roof
 Fig. 15.3 Typical damages/failure observed in stone masonry buildings in the past
earthquakes

The main reasons for failures of stone buildings are:

1. Absence of adequate mortar in stone walls
2. Discontinuity at the joints of walls in horizontal plane
3. Absence of through stone between the outer and inner leaves of stone wall
4. Very heavy roof of stone slates, and
5. Absence of inter connection between roof and walls
Good quality and carefully cut large rectangular block of stones, also called dressed stone, are
sometimes arranged one over the other to resist lateral resistance without developing tensile
stresses. Such construction can possess very good earthquake resistance. This is because the
weight of masonry above forms vertical prestress. This is important for the following reasons.

1. When the prestress is large enough there is no possibility of the development of tensile
stress under earthquake loading
2. The shear strength of dressed stone depends mainly on friction between them and with
higher contact forces due to higher friction the greater the shear strength.
Normally, the gravity loads due to compression is large at the base of a building. Therefore the
corresponding seismic resistance is also greater. This is the reason that the damage of dressed
stone is less at the bottom when compared to that at top.

15.3 Un-reinforced and Reinforced Brick Masonry Buildings

Un-reinforced masonry (URM) walls are a common type of construction in age-old buildings.
Generally, un-reinforced masonry is defined as masonry without reinforcement of any sort.
However, resistance to shear forces by these walls is limited. Initially, their behaviour is similar
to that of the reinforced walls, but domination of shear usually is manifested by X-cracks and
hence is particularly dangerous in URM construction (Fig. 15. 4). URM buildings, therefore,
require strengthening against earthquakes.

Fig. 15.4 X-crack in masonry due to poor resistance to shear force

Typical failure patterns observed in brick masonry buildings that are not reinforced are:
1. Formation of diagonal cracks through masonry units
2. Occurrence of overturning of walls due to out-of-plane inertia forces
3. Formation of vertical cracks in walls due to plate bending action
4. Failure of connection between walls
5. Collapse of roof
6. Instability of masonry walls at gable end because they are not reinforced. Also,
additional forces are imposed due to strutting action of purlins.
Some of these types of failures are shown in Fig. 15.5.
 Fig. 15.5 Typical damages of un-reinforced masonry

The main reasons for the above failure patterns are attributed to the following factors

1. Poor quality of material and workmanship

2. Long walls without buttresses
3. Large openings in walls probably more than 50 per cent of its length
4. Openings being close to corners of walls
5. Absence of proper structural integrity
6. Plan of building not being symmetrical
7. Poor soil or foundation not adequate

Behaviour of some of the two-storeyed masonry buildings with lintel bands and corner columns
was observed to be better with the portion above the lintel band being almost intact as shown in
Fig. 15.6. The lintel band in these cases served as a box-like arrangement integrating all the walls
in a building as a monolithic entity. This action prevented the overturning of walls due to inertia
forces generated by the earthquake.

Fig. 15.6 First floor of building survived because of lintel band

The structures in the old town of Bhuj within the fort premises were devastated during the
earthquake. There were many types of one- and two-storeyed stone-in-mud buildings with poor
bonding, of which none had survived. However, in the new Bhuj town, most of the one- or two-
storeyed buildings constructed using brick/stone in cement mortar behaved reasonably well with
minor cracks. It was observed in Gujarat earthquake that a three-storeyed building constructed in
stone masonry set in cement mortar performed rather well, while a RC framed structure in the
vicinity had collapsed. Some of the masonry buildings built by the Central Public Works
Department (CPWD) had earthquake resistant features like lintel band and corner reinforcement.
Two such buildings were studied. In one building the wall below the lintel band suffered out-of-
plane failure and the lintel band also had come down. In another building, the corners were badly
fractured and the stones came out in spite of the corner reinforcement. The provision of the
corner reinforcement is not possible without having a continuous vertical joint, whereas,
masonry demands that continuous vertical joints be avoided. These buildings indicated the
inadequacy of such measures when the ground motion intensity was high.

15.3.1 Lessons Learnt from Masonry Failure and Possible Remedial Measures
Un-reinforced masonry structures are the most vulnerable to the extreme action of an earthquake.
Normally, they are designed for gravity or vertical loads because masonry has adequate
compressive strength, and the structures behave well as long as the loads are vertical. However,
during an earthquake lateral inertial forces are induced due to the shaking of structures. When a
masonry structure is subjected to lateral inertial loads during an earthquake, the walls develop
shear and flexural stresses. The strength of masonry under these conditions often depends on the
bond between brick or stone and mortar, which is generally poor. This bond is also often very
poor when lime mortars or mud mortars are used.

If the inertial forces are in the plane of the wall a masonry wall can also undergo in-plane shear
stresses. A combination of vertical load and shear forces causes its failure in the form of diagonal
cracks as in Fig. 15.4. However, catastrophic collapses take place when the wall experiences out-
of-plane flexure. This can bring down a roof and cause more damage as in Fig. 15.7. Masonry
buildings with light roofs such as tiled roofs are more vulnerable to out-of-plane vibrations since
the top edge can undergo large deformations.

Fig. 15.7 Wall and roof collapse

After an earthquake, it is always advisable to investigate the behaviour of masonry buildings in

order to identify inadequacies in earthquake resistant design. Studying various types of masonry
construction, their performance and failure patterns help to improve the design and detailing of
structures. Description of the behaviour of masonry buildings during some of the earthquakes are
presented below.

The old buildings in the town of Morbi were essentially made of well-cut sandstone set in lime
mortar. All such buildings have responded badly whereas neighbouring brick-in-cement-mortar
buildings survived although they developed extensive cracks. The failure pattern may be
essentially characterized as out-of plane failure due to the extremely low value of flexural
strength. Out-of-plane failure of parapet walls and failure of stair case blocks were also quite
common.

In Samakhyali, Gujarat the behaviour of an interesting two-storeyed building with earthquake

resistant features could be observed. This building was constructed using cement blocks, with
continuous lintel band and corner RC columns. This building did not collapse, but had developed
extensive cracks below the lintel band. The portion of the building above the lintel band was
practically crack-free. The corner columns suffered severe damage. It appears as though the por-
tion below the lintel band behaved like a ‘soft first storey’, absorbing all the energy. It is indeed
clear that the lintel band protected the portion above by creating a rigid block. The damage
below the lintel band may indicate the need for horizontal band, possibly at sill level. The
provision of the RC column at the corners or elsewhere, without bonding with the infill walls is
not helpful as it causes a discontinuity in masonry walls leading to the building losing its
integrity. Studies have shown that the strip of wall between two large openings experiences large
deformations during flexural vibrations. A well dressed stone masonry building for Kutch
Navnirman Abhiyan with cement mortar and light ferrocement roofing behaved well with very
little cracking. In the village of Jhadawas, an interesting structure with a very thin wall of about
120 mm thickness, locally called as ’Naliyawali Deewal’ made out of country tiles was
prevented from collapse by thin sticks on either face of the wall, held together by coir ropes.
Figure 15.8 shows the details of the wall.

Fig. 15.8 Naliyawali Deewal

Based on the observations of the damages caused to a variety of masonry structures during the
Bhuj earthquake the following conclusions could be drawn:

Masonry buildings in mud mortar or lime mortar are prone to severe damage due to lack of bond
strength. Use of rounded stones in wythes without through-stones can further aggravate the
problem. The failures of such structures are essentially due to out-of-plane flexure. Masonry with
cement mortar (which has higher bond strength) has generally behaved better, although it does
not mean that good masonry bonding is all that is needed for earthquake resistance. Use of lintel
band, as suggested by the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) (IS 13828:1993), appears to
introduce a rigid box-like behaviour in the upper portions of the building while the portion below
the lintel band is cracked badly (Fig. 15.5). This horizontal reinforcement in the band does not
seem to improve the ductility to the desired level. This seems to suggest that additional horizon-
tal bands, possibly at the sill level and at plinth level, are needed. The provision of corner
reinforcement in corners and junctions, again as suggested by BIS, has to be properly bonded
with the surrounding masonry possibly with dowels or keys to prevent separation.

Since the brittle nature of masonry buildings is the major cause for collapse of buildings and loss
of lives, there is a need to introduce remedial measures in the construction of such buildings. The
horizontal bands are helpful in tying the walls together at the junctions and also in preventing the
growth of vertical cracks and in-plane shear cracks. However, they may not be adequate in
strengthening against out-of-plane flexure, especially for flexural cracks that run horizontally. In
this context the concept of ‘containment reinforcement’, to contain the flexural tensile cracks
from growing can help in imparting ductility and in absorbing a lot of energy during earthquakes.

In Balakot in Kashmir earthquake 2005 complete collapse of single storey URM buildings has
occurred. All buildings were constructed in stone and concrete block using cement sand mortar
with roofing consisting of RC slab or galvanized iron sheeting. Almost all such buildings close
to epicenter were collapsed. The stone masonry walls were built with undressed stones and
irregularly placed and set in cement sand or mud mortar. The quality of stones and mortar as
well as the workmanship were very poor because of the economic condition of people living
there. The most commonly used mortars consisted of 1 part cement and 10 parts sand. Locally
available river stones, mostly rounded and smooth were used. This combined with poor mortar
became the root cause for creating loose bond between stones thus rendering the building
vulnerable to earthquake forces. There was no sign of horizontal beams being provided at plinth
level or at roof level.

Many of the concrete block masonry were collapsed as shown in Fig. 15.9. The reasons
attributed for failure of this nature were poor quality of concrete, insufficient thickness of wall to
provide shear resisting elements in the building and the absence of connections at corners.

Fig. 15.9 Collapse of concrete block masonry

During May 20, 2012 Italy earthquake many brick masonry buildings collapsed. One interesting
failure of a clock tower of Finale Emilia is shown in Fig. 15.10. The tower was unsymmetrical in
plan and elevation. It was hollow too. On the left side the tower was straight vertical and on the
right side it was sloppy. The tower was cut off vertically including the clock. The bricks were
also made of clay and were seem to be of poor quality. There was a second quake on May 29,
2102 and the tower was torn down completely.

Fig. 15.10 Partial collapse of clock tower in Italy earthquake 2012

A partial collapsed 6-storey building due to failure of load-bearing masonry walls at Mianyang
city in China is shown in Fig. 15.11. This is a precast structure without any tie-system to
integrate the walls. Chinese seismic design code recommends provision of a tie-system in
buildings to resist tension induced by earthquake. It also recommends higher strength rather than
ductility. Even though load bearing system, in Fig. 15.11 the walls are not having adequate
thickness. Even though 6-storey load bearing construction various elements were not integrated
properly to present a box-like arrangement. The lack of redundancy of simply supported precast
slabs and the insufficient strength of the tie-beam and column systems are believed to be the two
major causes of the widespread collapse of confined masonry residential buildings. To improve
the integrity and hence the load-bearing capacity of the masonry walls, it is strongly
recommended adding vertical ties (two 6 mm diameter bars, 1 m long at 500 mm spacing) to
attach the masonry infill to the top and bottom tie beams to restrain all four edges of the infill
walls and prevent out-of-plane dislocations.
 Fig. 15.11 Collapse of load-bearing walls in China

Figure 15.12 shows damages to 6 storey confined masonry structure during Wenchuan
earthquake. It is an L shaped building with façade at reentrant corner very badly damaged. The
openings in the building are unsymmetrical. Some on the left side are of smaller sizes and those
near the reentrant corner are of double the size of those on the left. There is twisting of the
building due to earthquake particularly the facades facing and the one at right leg very severely
broken and fallen down.

A two-storey house in concrete block masonry with lintel band in Bheematala, UP is shown in
Fig. 15.13. Even through quality of construction was poor the house performed very well. Only
negative aspect was that the roof projection sustained damage as the reinforcement in the
cantilever portion was placed on bottom side of slab.
 Fig. 15.12 Typical damage of RC framed structure during Wenchuan earthquake

Fig. 15.13 Concrete block masonry house performed well

A two-storey house at Pipalkoti with no damage is shown in Fig. 15.14. It is interesting to note
that the ground storey was constructed using slate wafer masonry. The first storey was
constructed later in concrete block masonry. However, both storeys have RC lintel band. It is
non-engineered construction still it withstood successfully. The same building constructed using
two different materials at different times could survive the earthquake without any damage. The
lesson learnt is that even normal construction material can do a job better with good
workmanship and proper planning.
Figure 15.15 shows a brick masonry house that survived attack by Chamoli earthquake without
any damage. It is to be noted that the building has been constructed with RC columns, RC
beams, and with the discontinuous lintel band. It is a common construction practice in the area
to provide RC beams between lintel and roof with RC slab supported on masonry. It is learnt
from this brick construction is that with box-like arrangement with RC band all around the
building could withstand the onslaught of severe seismic attack without any damage at all. The
brick walls are restrained at the plinth level with RR masonry as well as at top with RC band,
thus integrating them as a unit ensured its survival under earthquake.

Fig. 15.14 Undamaged two-storey masonry Fig. 15.15 Undamaged single storey house

in stone and concrete block

After having seen the damages caused to a variety of masonry structures, in summary we can
state here that masonry buildings without any mortar, or with mud or lime mortar are vulnerable
to severe damages or at times collapse due to lack of bond strength. However, masonry set in
cement mortar generally behaved better. Use of rounded stones in wythes without through-
stones can further aggravate the problem. The collapse of such structures is essentially due to
out-of-plane flexure. Use of lintel band, as suggested by the relevant Bureau of Indian Standards
(BIS), appears to introduce a rigid box-like behaviour in the upper portions of the building while
the portion below the lintel band can be cracked badly. This horizontal reinforcement in the band
does not seem to improve the ductility to the desired level. This seems to suggest that additional
horizontal bands, possibly at the sill level and at plinth level, are needed. The provision of
corner reinforcement in corners and junctions, again as suggested by BIS, has to be properly
bonded with the surrounding masonry possibly with dowels or keys to prevent separation.
Buildings constructed with different materials at different times can survive the earthquake
without any damage if box-like arrangements with RC ties integrating all the walls are included
in the building. The Chinese seismic code recommends provision of ties in the construction of
masonry to resist the tension induced by earthquake. This code further prefers higher strength
rather than ductility.
15.4 RC Multi-Storey Framed Buildings

The performance of buildings in an area during earthquake depends on their dynamic

characteristics, their plan and elevation regularity, and the period of construction during which
seismic codes keep changing and many a time as per a country’s requirements. Reinforced
Concrete (RC) buildings, particularly mid-rise, multi-family condominium structures,
experienced significant damage in the 2009 earthquake that struck L’Aquila, Italy. The most
frequent type of damage consisted of cracking and, in some cases, failure of non-structural
masonry infill walls. Some structures also exhibited cracking in column, spalling, shear failure,
and even eventual collapse. Field inspection conducted after the earthquake, three to four weeks
later, was used to collect data about 483 RC frame buildings in the city of L’Aquila. These data
included information about building location, characteristics, damage, and post earthquake loss
of functionality. These results showed that the damage state was correlated to building height,
building usage, irregularities in elevation as well as in strength and stiffness, and the estimated
peak ground acceleration at each location. The Bhuj earthquake caused significant damage to
multi-storeyed RC buildings. The main reasons of failure are attributed to soft storey; mass,
vertical and torsional irregularities; floating columns and beams; pounding of buildings; lack of
proper load path; lack of proper geotechnical investigation, estimation of soil liquefaction at
sites; lack of proper detailing of reinforcement; deficiency in the design of buildings as per 1S:
1893-2002 and IS: 13920-1903; poor quality of material and workmanship; corrosion of
reinforcement; etc. Detailed safety standards for Nuclear Power Plants for protection against
earthquake attack have been prescribed by International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in its
Safety Guide No. NS-G-1.6.

In Fig. 15.16 a view of the total collapse of a RC building in Haiti earthquake is shown. Ground
storey has been completely razed and not visible. In the first storey, the span of the beam is large
with a column above resting on it depicting the case of floating column. This column and the one
on left side at window sill level have been sheared off horizontally. The left column was also
sheared in the first floor. The floating column of the second floor on the adjoining left bay has
been broken and separated. As a result of this the entire bay has been twisted and rotated towards
left side and moved towards the front separating from the rest of the building. The shear crack
from the sill level of right-most window further going down upto the sunshade below and at that
level propagates along the wall at right at 45° towards the column behind. After meeting the
column the crack propagated straight down along the column and stopped at the sunshade below.
In effect the shear crack divided the building into two halves. Soft storey combined with floating
column has caused the collapse of the building.
 Fig. 15.16 RC building collapse in Haiti 2010 earthquake

A view of the collapsed apartment block made of RC structural frame with infilled walls
between beams and columns in Armenia is shown in Fig. 15. 17. It is due to unsymmetry in the
elevation and plan of the building.

Fig. 15.17 Collapse of RC apartment building in Armenia

In the 2009 L’Aquila earthquake many of the collapses of RC structures were due to poor quality
construction and the use of non-ductile detailing. Besides, it was found out during inspection of
damaged and collapsed buildings that they were not designed for seismic loading even though
they were moment-resisting framed construction. No shear wall was used in multi-storey RC
buildings. Besides, other reasons are poor quality of concrete, poor detailing of RC members,
shear failure due to inadequate transverse reinforcement, buckling of longitudinal reinforcement
in the plastic region, etc.

Figure 15.18 shows the failure of shear wall during October 23, 2011 Van earthquake in Turkey.
Main reason for this failure was low concrete strength and inadequate shear reinforcement. The
out-of-plane bending moments resulting from torsional response of the unsymmetrical structure
during earthquake was also another reason.

Fig. 15.18 Collapse of shear wall in 2011 Van earthquake in Turkey

In September 1999 earthquake struck the central region of Taiwan. This is called 921 Chi-Chi
earthquake. In the affected are more than two dozen 10 to 20 storeys apartment buildings
overturned or collapsed. These were constructed using RC moment resisting frames. The
observed damages on RC structures suggested the influence of masonry and lightly reinforced
concrete non-structural components. It was a great surprise that many of the collapsed buildings
were engineered and constructed in the last decade. However, no building exhibited ductile
behaviour. Many of the buildings were having tall floor with open plaza at the ground floor.
Common failure features were that columns were provided with stirrups with large spacing,
splices were provided without sufficient development lengths, stirrups were having only 90°
bend, etc. Excessive column damage triggered the failure of strong-beam weak-column
arrangement. This is the reason for storey collapse of numerous buildings because larger
openings combined with larger storey height resulted into lower structural stiffness and strength
forming a soft storey mechanism.

Factors contributing to the collapse of this building as well as to the structural damage of similar
buildings are the badly designed structural system for resisting earthquake forces together with
the non-ductile nature of its R/C members and the considerable eccentricities between the center
of mass and the center of stiffness. In addition, the observed serious structural damage can
be attributed to the poor foundation of such structures built on the underground remains of the
ancient city by means of spread footings. The pounding effects from attached buildings and the
amplification of the strong motion that was caused by the soft soil conditions, as demonstrated
by acceleration recordings during the aftershock activity, were also significant contributors. The
detrimental influence of a “soft story” at the ground floor was not recognized at the time and it
continued as an architectural feature.

Irregular arrangement of ties in the column shown in Figure 15.19 failed in an earthquake. The
spacing between the ties was not uniform. The ties were of smaller diameter. Also ties were not
in the same vertical plane.

Fig. 15.19 Irregular ties in column

A case of buckling of all longitudinal bars at the head of a column is shown in Fig. 15.20. This
has occurred because of high compression at the top of the column. There is no stirrup in the
buckled portion. Also, stirrup used is of thin diameter. Buckling has occurred in two planes.
 Fig. 15.20 Buckling of longitudinal bars in a column

Figure 15.21 shows a very long , 9 bays and 5 storeys building that was damaged in earthquake.
The three bays on the left end of the building have vertically displaced down to a large extent.
On the left end and in the third and fourth storeys glazed windows have been provided in the
balcony thus creating unsymmetry in the long building. This building is a good example of the
difference between the behaviour of bare- and infill-frames under gravity and seismic loads. As
shown in Fig. 15.21, except the two adjacent bare frames at one end of the building every other
frame is filled with masonry. While columns in the infill frames were relatively undamaged all
columns in the bare frames at the ground level experienced plastic hinges at top and bottom,. The
formation of plastic hinges at the ends of the columns in the bare frames resulted in spalling and
crushing of the concrete and as a result the axial capacity of the columns was the reduced. As a
consequence of this, there was a large vertical displacement that occurred at the top of the two
adjacent bare frames at the left end.

Fig. 15.21 Damage to long building due to unsymmetry

Most important lessons relating to the performance of reinforced concrete wall buildings were
learnt from the damages in Christchurch earthquake that struck New Zealand in February 22,
2011. Most shear walls in CBD (Central Business District) buildings were tall slender walls
where, after the 1982 Concrete Code of New Zealand NZS 3101, 1982, capacity design concepts
were applied to ensure flexural yielding at the base of the wall and limited the shear demands.
Adequate horizontal reinforcement was provided to avoid shear failure in the plastic hinge zone.
This design approach appeared to protect against shear failures in modern wall buildings.
However unexpected flexural compression and tension failures occurred in numerous shear walls
in Christchurch and indicated the need to modify shear wall design provisions to improve the
flexural ductility of slender walls. Figure 15.22 shows the overall buckling of one outstanding
leg of an L-shaped shear wall in a 7-story building. The width of the buckled web was 300 mm,
with an unsupported wall height of 2.66m, resulting in a height-to-thickness (slenderness) ratio
of 8.9. The boundary zone extended approximately 1.2 m into the 4m long web. The boundary
steel at the damaged end of the wall consisted of 16-24 mm diameter deformed bars confined by
10 mm diameter smooth bars at 120 mm spacing, with a 180 degree hook on every other
longitudinal bar.

The wall buckled approximately 1 m over a height and the crushing extended over 3 meters
along the web. Horizontal cracks of approximately 1-1.5 mm width were visible at the buckled
end of the web, while inclined cracks in both directions were seen at approximately 45° over the
first story height in the middle of the web. Well distributed and primarily horizontal cracks with
width less than 1.5 mm were observed in the lower half of the first story of the generally
undamaged flange. The damage pattern shown in Fig. 15.22 suggests that the web may have
initially experienced yielding of the boundary steel in flexural tension, followed by buckling of
the unsupported web over the relatively short plastic hinge length. The L-shaped cross-section
would have resulted in a deep compression zone with high compressive strains at the damaged
end of the web wall. Stability of the compression zone may have been compromised by a
reduction in the out-of-plane bending stiffness in the web due to open flexural tensile cracks
from previous cycles. Normally a limit used in several international codes of a height to
thickness ratio of less than 10 avoids out-of-plane instability of buckling in a wall. This failure
suggests that a limit on h/t may not be enough to prevent wall buckling. In this context further
research is needed to determine a relationship between buckling of wall, length of plastic hinge
and axial stiffness of the compression zone after yielding of the bar.

(a) Failure of L-shape shear wall (b) Closure view

Fig. 15.22 Buckling of L-shaped shear wall in Christchurch earthquake 2011

In Turkey some irregular structures under construction were seen. In Fig. 15.23 is shown an
offset created between the columns below and above. The axes of both columns do not lie on the
same vertical line. This essentially means the load path has been broken. This is a potential
weakness created in a building and also vulnerable to earthquake loading. In Fig. 15.24 columns
in the second storey have not been constructed. This type of construction is prone to severe
damage or even a chance of collapse under strong ground motion. Large unsupported brickwork
at the gable end is highly vulnerable to out-of-plane forces generated during earthquake.

Fig. 15.23 Column offset Fig. 15. 24 Colum not continued in upper storey

Points to remember

 Local climate, materials available for construction and traditions of the locality influence the
construction of buildings

 The box action helps in limiting the deformations imposed on masonry during an earthquake
and, hence, prevents extensive damages and collapse

 Random rubble (RR) masonry consists of rough cut or natural stones set in mud mortar

 Typical failures in RR masonry buildings are: Overturning of walls due to out-of-plane inertia
forces, separation of the two leaves of stone walls, and collapse of roof due to very heavy self
weight

 X-cracks are common in URM buildings

 During an earthquake lateral inertial forces are induced due to the shaking of structures

 If the inertial forces are in the plane of the wall a masonry wall can also undergo in-plane
shear stresses

 ’Naliyawali Deewal’ was made out of country tiles with thin sticks on either face of the wall,
held together by coir ropes

 A two-storey house in concrete block masonry with lintel band in Bheematala, UP survived in
spite of the quality of construction being poor

 The same building constructed using two different materials at different times could survive
the earthquake without any damage because of RC lintel band

 The Chinese seismic code recommends provision of ties in the construction of masonry to
resist the tension induced by earthquake

 Reinforced Concrete (RC) buildings, particularly mid-rise, multi-family condominium

structures, experienced significant damage in the 2009 earthquake that struck L’Aquila, Italy

 Common failure features observed in Taiwan earthquake were that columns were provided
with stirrups with large spacing, splices were provided without sufficient development lengths,
stirrups were having only 90° bend, etc.

Exercises
1. What is the major cause of human casualties in earthquake?
2. Name the factors on which the damages caused by earthquake depend?
3. What are the popular materials used in the construction of masonry?
4. List the factors on which seismic vulnerability of masonry depends?
5. What is vertical prestress in masonry?
6. List the failure patterns in brick URM buildings?
7. What is the reason behind the formation of X-crack in URM wall?
8. Why we have to investigate the behaviour of masonry buildings that have collapsed in the
past earthquakes?
9. Describe briefly the collapse of single storey masonry buildings in Balakot in Kashmir
earthquake 2005.
10. Describe briefly the partial collapse of 6 storey masonry buildings in Miangyan, China.
11. On what factors the performance of RC building depend?
12. What are the main reasons for the collapse of multi-storeyed buildings in Bhuj
earthquake?
13. Describe briefly the features of typical RC buildings in Haiti earthquake.
14. What are the main reasons for the collapse of a shear wall building in Van earthquake?
15. What is the reason for buckling failure at column head?
16. Describe briefly the failure of L-shaped shear wall in Christchurch earthquake.
17. What are the defects observed in the construction in Turkey?