This article introduces an analytical model to compute the monotonic force-displacement response of in-plane loaded unreinforced brick masonry walls accounting for shear controlled, flexure dominated and hybrid-type wall behaviour. The masonry wall is modelled as elastic in compression with zero tensile strength using a Timoshenko beam element. Its cross-section properties (moment of inertia and area) are continuously updated to capture the non-linearity that results from flexural and shear cracking. For this purpose, diagonal cracking of shear critical walls is represented by one Critical Diagonal Crack. The ultimate drift capacity of the wall is determined based on an approach evaluating a plastic zone at the wall toe. Validation against results of cyclic full-scale tests of unreinforced masonry walls made with vertically perforated clay units shows that the presented formulation is capable of accurately predicting the effective stiffness, the maximum strength and the ultimate drift capacity of the wall. It outperforms current empirical code equations with regard to stiffness and ultimate drift capacity estimates and yields similar results concerning strength prediction.

No abstract

Summary Displacement‐based seismic assessment of buildings containing unreinforced masonry (URM) walls requires as input, among others, estimates of the in‐plane drift capacity at the considered limit states. Current codes assess the drift capacity of URM walls by means of empirical models with most codes relating the drift capacity to the failure mode and wall slenderness. Comparisons with experimental results show that such relationships result in large scatter and usually do not provide satisfactory predictions. The objective of this paper is to determine trends in drift capacities of modern URM walls from 61 experimental tests and to investigate whether analytical models could lead to more reliable estimates of the displacement capacity than the currently used empirical models. A recently developed analytical model for the prediction of the ultimate drift capacity for both shear and flexure controlled URM walls is introduced and simplified into an equation that is suitable for code implementation. The approach follows the idea of plastic hinge models for reinforced concrete or steel structures. It explicitly considers the influence of crushing due to flexural or shear failure in URM walls and takes into account the effect of kinematic and static boundary conditions on the drift capacity. Finally, the performance of the analytical model is benchmarked against the test data and other empirical formulations. It shows that it yields significantly better estimates than empirical models in current codes. The paper concludes with an investigation of the sensitivity of the ultimate drift capacity to the wall geometry, static, and kinematic boundary conditions.

Summary Code design of unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings is based on elastic analysis, which requires as input parameter the effective stiffness of URM walls. Eurocode estimates the effective stiffness as 50% of the gross sectional elastic stiffness, but comparisons with experimental results have shown that this may not yield accurate predictions. In this paper, 79 shear‐compression tests of modern URM walls of different masonry typologies from the literature are investigated. It shows that both the initial and the effective stiffness increase with increasing axial load ratio and that the effective‐to‐initial stiffness ratios are approximately 75% rather than the stipulated 50%. An empirical relationship that estimates the E‐modulus as a function of the axial load and the masonry compressive strength is proposed, yielding better estimates of the elastic modulus than the provision in Eurocode 6, which calculates the E‐modulus as a multiple of the compressive strength. For computing the ratio of the effective to initial stiffness, a mechanics‐based formulation is built on a recently developed analytical model for the force‐displacement response of URM walls. The model attributes the loss in stiffness to diagonal cracking and brick crushing, both of which are taken into account using mechanical considerations. The obtained results of the effective‐to‐initial stiffness ratio agree well with the test data. A sensitivity analysis using the validated model shows that the ratio of effective‐to‐initial stiffness is for most axial load ratios and wall geometries around 75%. Therefore, a modification of the fixed ratio of effective‐to‐initial stiffness from 50% to 75% is suggested.

Unreinforced masonry (URM) walls show a limited horizontal in‐plane deformation capacity, which can lead to an unfavorable seismic response. To predict this response, the walls' effective stiffness, shear force and drift capacity are required. While mechanics‐based models for the force capacity are well established, such approaches are largely lacking for the effective stiffness and the drift capacity. The mostly empirical code equations for the two latter parameters lead to often unsatisfactory and, in the case of drift capacities, sometimes unconservative predictions when compared to test results. This article summarises recently developed simple closed‐form equations for the effective stiffness, the shear force and the drift capacity. Furthermore, it compares said formulations and currently used code equations to a database of shear compression tests. It shows that the novel models capture the effective stiffness and the drift capacity more accurately than current code equations. The shear force capacity is predicted with a similar reliability, yet using a very simple formulation.