COAS1RUCJII No.

1 / 2012
62
COMPONENTS INTERACTION IN TIMBER FRAMED MASONRY
STRUCTURES SUBJECTED TO LATERAL FORCES
Andreea DUTU
1
, Joao GOMES FERREIRA
2
, Ana Maria GONCALVES
3
, Alexandra COVALEOV
4
1
Postdoctoral Fellow, PhD, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Center for Urban Earthquake Engineering,
e-mail: [email protected]
2
Associate Professor, PhD, Technical University of Lisbon, ICIST/IST, Portugal,
e-mail: [email protected]
3
PhD student, Technical University of Lisbon, ICIST/IST, Portugal, e-mail: [email protected]
4
Assistant Professor, PhD student, Technical University of Civil Engineering Bucharest, Romania,
e-mail: [email protected]
ABSTRACT
Structures with timber framed masonry represent
a special typology that is frequently found in
Europe and other countries of the world. They
are traditional buildings, non-engineered, which
showed an unexpected redundancy during
earthquakes where reinforced concrete buildings
(improperly constructed) collapsed. In the paper,
aspects regarding the interaction between timber
elements and masonry are mainly addressed, that
were observed both in experimental studies, but
also in the in situ seismic behavior of this type of
structure during important earthquakes.
Keywords: masonry; timber, interaction;
earthquake
REZUMAT
Structurile cu schelet din lemn si umplutur din
zidrie reprezint o tipologie aparte, care este des
ntlnit att n Europa, ct si n alte tri din
lume. Ele sunt case traditionale, construite Ir
cunostinte ingineresti, dar care au dat dovad de
o redundant neasteptat n timpul cutremurelor,
acolo unde cldiri din beton armat (executate
neadecvat) s-au prbusit. n articol sunt abordate
in principal aspecte legate de conlucrarea dintre
lemn si zidrie, observate prin studii
experimentale, dar si prin comportarea acestui tip
structural n timpul unor cutremure importante.
Cuvinte cheie: zidrie; lemn; interactiune; seism
1. INTRODUCTION
Timber framed masonry structures
represent a traditional type of building that is
usually non-engineered and built with no
special workmanship, according to local
building culture. Nevertheless, there are some
examples that were enforced by law as
earthquake resistant structures, like the
pombaline buildings in Portugal, or casa
baraccata in Calabria region (2).
However, in other countries, even though
they were built only based on the aesthetic
trends in those times, they withstood strong
earthquakes, in which other modern (poorly
executed) building types suffered a total
collapse (Fig. 1) (4, 5).
Fig. 1. Gingerbread houses in Haiti, after the 2010
earthquake (6)
2. SEISMIC BEHAVIOR OF TIMBERED
MASONRY BUILDINGS
The structure of these buildings is
composed of two different materials. One is
Components interaction in timber framed masonry structures
COAS1RUCJII No. 1 / 2012
63
the timber, that carries the horizontal forces
(seism or wind), and the other one is the
masonry, that mainly carries the gravity loads,
but it also dissipates energy through joints
sliding after the mortar cracks. It is interesting
to observe how the timber elements and
masonry work together, both in experimental
studies (1), and the earthquake behavior of this
type of structure.
The contribution of each component for
this case (timber, masonry), when the whole
structure is subjected to lateral forces, was
observed in experimental tests carried out
within REABEPA program at Instituto
Superior Tecnico (1). The tests showed that
stiffness in the approximately linear segments
(load between 0 kN and ca. 10 kN) was 3
times higher for the masonry wall (Fig. 3),
than for the timber frame (Fig. 2).
Fig. 2. Timber frames TF (left) and masonry
walls MW (right) (1)
Fig. 3. Force relative displacement diagrams
(envelope) for timber frame, respectively, masonry
wall
The seismic behavior of these buildings
was also observed in strong earthquakes.
Though the system seems weak, this might be
exactly the main advantage, because the
timber flexibility allows for large
deformations; moreover, the buildings being
usually two storeys high, they are light, but
stiff, because of the masonry infill.
Even though the experimental program
could not reproduce exactly the real behavior,
the unexpected redundancy of this structural
system was proved by the damages observed
after various earthquakes (Izmit 1999 (4) or
Lefkas 2003 (7)). Another confirmation is the
fact that after 1755 Lisbon earthquake, the
government of that time enforced by law the
construction of pombaline buildings, that had
timber framed masonry structures. The same
was done by the Italian government after the
Calabria earthquake in 1783. More recent
evidence is given by the fact that, after
Pakistan 2005 Kashmir earthquake, a
reconstruction solution is actually the use of
this system (Fig. 4).
Moreover, after the Haiti 2010 earthquake
the gingerbread houses (Fig. 1) did not
collapse even though they were severely
damaged, unlike the poorly executed RC
structures.
Fig. 4. Housing reconstruction in earthquake
affected areas in Pakistan (9)
Romania is located in a seismic prone
area, and here timber framed masonry houses
can be found, as well. Fig. 5 shows a house in
Buzau County, where this type of structure
was most probably chosen precisely for its
seismic resistance properties, as the area is
very close to the Vrancea source. The specific
of the local construction practice consists in
A. Dutu, J. Gomes Ferreira, A.M. Goncalves, A. Covaleov
COAS1RUCJII No. 1 / 2012
64
the use of only one diagonal, as compared to
timbered masonry in other countries, where
generally two diagonals are used. It should be
noted that the house is symmetrical, even if it
is a non-engineered building, and it may not
have two diagonals in the same frame.
However, there are diagonal timber elements
for both directions, so that when one is in
compression the other one is in tension. Thus,
during an earthquake, diagonals are able to
carry horizontal forces in both directions.
Fig. 5. Traditional house in Buzau County
3. OBSERVED INTERACTION OF
STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS
For timber masonry infilled frames, at low
levels of in-plane force, the frame and the
infill panel will act in a fully composite
fashion, as a structural wall with boundary
elements. As lateral deformations increase, the
behavior becomes more complex, as a result of
the frame attempting to deform in a flexural
mode, while the panel attempts to deform in a
shear mode. The result is the separation
between frame and panel at the corners on the
tension diagonal and the development of a
diagonal compression strut on the compression
diagonal. The separation may occur at 50 to
70% of the ideal lateral shear capacity of the
infill for concrete frames, and at very much
lower loads for steel frames (8).
The separation of the masonry from the
timber frame is similar to the steel frame
situation, as it was observed during the
experimental program. Separation occurred
very early in the loading process, starting at
the inferior masonry triangles in early loading
cycles and ending, at failure load, with the
separation of the superior triangle adjacent to
the middle horizontal timber element (Fig. 6).
Fig. 6. Crack opening in lateral loading
A very important factor is the strength of
the mortar. For the traditional houses
presented before, and which were built
hundreds of years ago, lime mortar, which is
very weak, was used. As a consequence, the
mortar fails first, and not the masonry, thus
dissipating energy when experiencing
earthquakes through sliding of bricks. The
masonry used for these tests consists of
ceramic debris and of cement-lime-sand
mortar with a volume ratio of 1:2:6. Although
ancient mortars were only composed of lime
and sand, cement was added in these cases to
ensure a faster cure (lime mortars need several
months or years to cure through the
carbonation process) (3).
Bricks strength is not really important as
even in this situation, when using debris
bricks, they did not failed in neither shear nor
tension.
It was observed that the timber diagonals
do not work in tension, when they actually
detach from the joint (Fig. 7). When they are
Components interaction in timber framed masonry structures
COAS1RUCJII No. 1 / 2012
65
compressed, they usually come back to the
initial position, without experiencing out of
plane behavior. This can be explained by the
presence of masonry, as in previous tests with
only pure timber frame, there was a significant
out of plane behavior of timber diagonals.
Fig. 7. Diagonal timber element detaching from left
inferior joint
Masonry mainly increases the stiffness of
the panel, as it can be seen in Fig. 3. It is
interesting how the whole element behaves
when subjected to lateral force, as only the
inferior masonry panels suffer shear failure,
the other ones remaining almost intact (Fig. 8).
Fig. 8. Separation of masonry from timber frame
when subjected to shear stress
4. ATTEMPTS TO INCREASE
INTERACTION BETWEEN
STRUCTURE COMPONENTS
As this type of building is quite largely
spread and the system is still used nowadays,
either because it is known to be seismic
resistant or because its aesthetical value, some
interesting aspects regarding the increasing of
interaction between elements should be
pointed out, as observed in Haitis
gingerbread houses (Fig. 9).
As it can be seen in Fig. 9, within the
masonry layers there are some barbed wires
embedded in the mortar joints. As simple as
the idea is, as useful it was proved to be. This
kind of practices is encouraged, using local,
easy to get materials for masonry
reinforcement. For this particular example, the
barbed wire is appropriate since it is
galvanized, easy to be laid in the mortar joints
of the masonry and it is widely used in local
agriculture (8).
Fig. 9. Barbed wire used as reinforcement for
masonry (6)
For this construction type, rebar
reinforcement cannot be used, as it would
imply its anchorage in the timber frame. This
is not a reliable solution, as it means the
weakening of the timber section and,
additionally, the use of lime mortar favors the
corrosion of steel.
Another example of interaction increase
attempt is the case of pombaline buildings.
Fig. 10 shows how nails were used on the
timber elements and embedded in mortar when
masonry was built for the experimental
program on simple module (St. Andrews
cross) of pombaline buildings within
REABEPA project.
A. Dutu, J. Gomes Ferreira, A.M. Goncalves, A. Covaleov
COAS1RUCJII No. 1 / 2012
66
Fig. 10. Increasing the bond between materials by
the use of iron nails (3)
5. CONCLUSIONS
The structural capacity of these type of
structure when subjected to lateral forces is
difficult to be predicted by calculation, as it
involves three materials (timber, bricks,
mortar) and each of them behave differently.
The buildings design codes of Romania
do not provide information related to timber
framed masonry structures. It is difficult to
apply the timber structures design code or the
masonry code for this particular case.
Thus, considering that it is still built
nowadays, the importance of experimental
studies on this structural type is obvious.
Moreover, being a traditional non-engineered
construction, often preferred by people in
seismic prone areas in Romania because of
both earthquake resistance and economic
reasons, the subject deserves more attention in
terms of theoretical and experimental research.
Even if the timber has actually a limited
interaction with the masonry, it is clear that
they help each other. The timber carries the
horizontal forces (seism or wind), while the
masonry carries mainly the gravity loads, also
dissipating energy through joints sliding after
mortar cracking.
It was observed during experimental tests
that the timber diagonals do not work in
tension, when they actually detach from the
joint. However, when they are compressed
they usually come back to their initial position,
without experiencing out of plane behavior.
Local seismic culture has a clear and
important influence, as it was observed, for
example, in Romania, where timber framed
masonry houses do not have diagonals in the
same frame, being separate. However diagonal
timber elements exist for both directions, so
when one is in compression, the other one is in
tension, such that during an earthquake they
can carry horizontal forces in both directions.
Looking at the gingerbread houses in
Haiti or pombaline buildings in Portugal, it is
clear that increasing the interaction between
the structure components is possible, using
local, easy to get materials, as barbed wire or
nails. Even if the technologies have advanced
greatly nowadays, there is still to be learned
from the past construction practices and, in
many other situations, the simplest ideas prove
to be sometimes the most useful and handy.
REFERENCES
1. DUTU A., FERRERIRA J. G., GONCALVES A.
M., The behaviour of timber framed masonry
panels in quasi-static cyclic testing, 9th
International Conference on Urban Earthquake
Engineering/ 4th Asia Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, March 6-8, Tokyo Institute of
Technology, Tokyo, Japan, 2012
2. DUTU, A., FERREIRA, J. G., GUERREIRO, L.,
BRANCO, F., GONCALVES, A. Timbered
masonry for earthquake resistance in Europe,
Materiales de Construccin (online), accepted
manuscript. doi: 10.3989/mc.2012.01811, 2012
3. FERREIRA, J. G., TEIXEIRA, M. J., DUTU, A.,
BRANCO, F., GONCALVES, A., Experimental
Evaluation and Numerical Modelling of Timber
Framed Walls, Experimental techniques, in press,
February 2012
4. GLKAN, P., LANGENBACH, R., The
earthquake resistance of traditional timber and
masonry dwellings in Turkey, 13th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering Vancouver,
B.C., Canada August 1-6, Paper No. 2297, 2004
5. LANGENBACH, R., Online video - lecture at the
World Bank Cultural Heritage Thematic Group,
Washington DC, December 6,
http://www.conservationtech.com/, 2011
6. LANGENBACH R., KELLEY S., SPARKS P.,
ROWELL K., HAMMER M., JULIEN O. J.,
Preserving Haitis Gingerbread Houses, 2010
Earthquake Mission Report, 2010
Components interaction in timber framed masonry structures
COAS1RUCJII No. 1 / 2012
67
7. MAKARIOS, T., DEMOSTHENOUS, M., Seismic
response of traditional buildings of Lefkas Island,
Greece, Engineering Structures, Vol 28 (2006), pp.
264278.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2005.08.002
8. PAULAY T., PRIESTLEY M.J.N., Seismic design
of reinforced concrete and masonry buildings, John
Willey&Sons, Inc., 1992
9. Shelter Centre, http://sheltercentre.org/, last accesed
on 23.07.2012