Anda di halaman 1dari 93

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

net/publication/273455848

GUIDELINES FOR THE SEISMIC UPGRADING OF STONE-MASONRY STRUCTURES

Technical Report · July 2002


DOI: 10.13140/2.1.1786.5767

CITATIONS READS
0 3,053

2 authors:

S.E. Chidiac Simon Foo


McMaster University Queen's University Belfast
79 PUBLICATIONS   938 CITATIONS    31 PUBLICATIONS   187 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Characterization of SCC rheological properties View project

Self Healing of concrete View project

All content following this page was uploaded by S.E. Chidiac on 13 March 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


GUIDELINES FOR THE
SEISMIC UPGRADING OF
STONE-MASONRY STRUCTURES

Technology Directorate
Architectural & Engineering Services
Real Property Services Branch
Public Works & Government Services Canada
Hull, Quebéc
K1A 0S5

July 2002
NOTICE

These guidelines are not to be interpreted as replacing or superseding applicable building


regulations. Neither PWGSC nor the contributing individuals and organisations assume
liability for the use of this document.

Copyright © Public Works and Government Services Canada, 2002.


All right reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form, in an
electronic retrieval system or otherwise, without the prior written permission of Public
Works and Government Services Canada
PREFACE

Seismic risk reduction for stone masonry buildings can be achieved by a comprehensive
mitigation program that includes risk assessment and risk mitigation. Guidelines for the
Seismic Assessment of Stone Masonry Structures present different techniques and
procedures for establishing the seismic risk of stone masonry structures. This document
provides engineers with upgrading techniques to mitigate the seismic risk of stone
masonry structures. Risk mitigation of buildings can be attained through retrofitting prior
to a seismic event, or repairing/retrofitting following a seismic event.

This document describes the design concepts and methods for seismic upgrading of stone
masonry structures based on reported data. Conventional and non-conventional
upgrading techniques for structural and non-structural components are presented. This
document includes a brief discussion on restoration techniques for stone masonry. The
merits of the upgrading techniques are discussed and estimates of their unit cost are given
in Appendix B.

For more information, please contact:


Simon Foo, Ph.D. P.Eng.
Technology Directorate
Architectural & Engineering Services
Real Property Services Branch
Public Works & Government Services Canada
Hull, Quebec, Canada K1A 0S5
Tel: (819) 956-3402
Fax: (819) 956-3400
E-Mail: simon.foo@pwgsc.gc.ca

Guidelines for The Seismic Upgrading of Stone Masonry Structures


ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Dr. Samir E. Chidiac P. Eng. and Dr. Simon Foo P. Eng. are the principal contributors
to the guidelines development. PWGSC would like to acknowledge Hanscomb Limited
for assisting in developing unit cost estimates of the upgrading techniques as well as the
following individuals and organisations for their critical review of the guidelines and
their comments:

L. Binda, Politecnico di Milano, Milano, Italy


K. Ibrahim, Public Works & Government Services Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
C. Modena, Universita Degli Studi Di Padova, Padova, Italy
S. Thomasen, Wiss Janney Elstner Associates, Inc., San Francisco, California, USA
M. Tomazevic, Slovenian National Building & Civil Eng. Inst., Ljubljana, Slovenija

Guidelines for The Seismic Upgrading of Stone Masonry Structures


iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface................................................................................................................................. i

Acknowledgement ............................................................................................................. ii

Table of Contents ............................................................................................................. iii

List of Tables .................................................................................................................... vi

List of Figures.................................................................................................................. vii

Glossary ............................................................................................................................ ix

1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................1
1.1 Purpose of the guidelines .....................................................................................2
1.2 Basis of the guidelines .........................................................................................2
1.2.1 Scope and limitations...................................................................................2
1.2.2 Relationship to other documents and procedures ........................................3
1.3 Heritage considerations........................................................................................3
2. Seismic Vulnerability of Stone Masonry Structures ..................................................4
2.1 General attributes of stone masonry structures....................................................4
2.1.1 Strength ........................................................................................................4
2.1.2 Stiffness........................................................................................................4
2.1.3 Ductility .......................................................................................................5
2.1.4 Damping.......................................................................................................5
2.2 Adverse design and construction features ...........................................................5
2.2.1 Lack of strength/ductility.............................................................................5
2.2.2 Lack of integrity/redundancy.......................................................................5
2.2.3 Irregularities.................................................................................................6
2.2.4 Lack of direct load path ...............................................................................7
2.2.5 Adjacent buildings .......................................................................................7
2.3 Decay of stone masonry materials .......................................................................8
2.4 Creep of stone masonry materials......................................................................11
3. Principles of Seismic Upgrading ................................................................................12
3.1 Introduction........................................................................................................12
3.2 General procedure for upgrading .......................................................................12
3.3 Basic concept for upgrading ..............................................................................13
3.4 Effectiveness of the upgrading techniques ........................................................15

Guidelines for The Seismic Upgrading of Stone Masonry Structures


iv

4. Conventional Upgrading Techniques for Structural Components .........................18


4.1 Introduction........................................................................................................18
4.2 Reduction in seismic demand ............................................................................18
4.3 Increase capacity................................................................................................19
4.3.1 Modification of the masonry properties.....................................................20
4.3.1.1 Replacement...........................................................................................20
4.3.1.2 Grouting .................................................................................................20
4.3.1.3 Reinforced injections .............................................................................23
4.3.2 Modification of the structure mechanical properties .................................26
4.3.2.1 Jacketing ................................................................................................26
4.3.2.2 Centre-coring or reinforced injections...................................................28
4.3.2.3 Reinforced concrete and steel frames ....................................................29
4.3.2.4 Reinforced concrete beams and columns, and steel ties ........................30
4.3.2.5 Adding reinforced concrete shear walls or buttresses ...........................32
4.3.3 Modification of the seismic behaviour of the whole structure ..................32
4.3.3.1 Connections between intersecting walls ................................................33
4.3.3.2 Connections between walls and stiffened floors....................................35
4.3.3.3 Adding a secondary lateral resisting structural system..........................38
4.4 General upgrading requirements........................................................................40
5. Conventional Upgrading Techniques for Non-structural Components .................41
5.1 Introduction........................................................................................................41
5.2 Restoration techniques .......................................................................................41
5.2.1 Stone-cleaning............................................................................................42
5.2.2 Sealers/Water repellent ..............................................................................43
5.2.3 Stone consolidation....................................................................................45
5.2.4 Repair techniques for bedding mortar and mortar joint.............................49
5.3 Retrofitting techniques.......................................................................................49
5.3.1 Free-standing component...........................................................................50
5.3.2 Flat-wall component ..................................................................................52
5.3.3 Roof cornices .............................................................................................53
5.3.4 Exterior veneer...........................................................................................54
6. Non-Conventional Upgrading Techniques ................................................................55
6.1 Introduction........................................................................................................55
6.2 Non-conventional techniques ............................................................................55
6.2.1 Base isolation .............................................................................................55
6.2.2 Supplemental damping...............................................................................56
6.3 Non-conventional materials ...............................................................................57
6.3.1 Fibre-reinforced polymers .........................................................................57
6.3.1.1 Strengthening by external pre-stressing.................................................58
6.3.1.2 Strengthening with bonded laminates....................................................60
6.3.2 Fibre-reinforced cement.............................................................................61

Guidelines for The Seismic Upgrading of Stone Masonry Structures


v

7. Diagnostics & Evaluation of Upgrading Techniques ...............................................63


7.1 Introduction........................................................................................................63
7.2 Non-destructive tests..........................................................................................63
7.3 Monitoring .........................................................................................................64
7.3.1 Selection criteria for a monitoring system.................................................65
7.3.2 Design criteria for a monitoring system.....................................................65
7.3.3 Monitoring period and frequency of readings ...........................................66
7.3.4 Monitoring to provide information on the structural behaviour ................67
7.3.5 Monitoring to provide information on the environment ............................68
8. Closure ..........................................................................................................................70

References.........................................................................................................................72

Appendix A: Unit price for seismic upgrading techniques .........................................76


Purpose...........................................................................................................................76
Method ...........................................................................................................................76
Exclusions ......................................................................................................................76
Cost base ........................................................................................................................76
Contingencies.................................................................................................................76
Unit rates........................................................................................................................77
Taxes ..............................................................................................................................77
Statement of probable costs ...........................................................................................77

Guidelines for The Seismic Upgrading of Stone Masonry Structures


vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 5.1 List of commonly used cleaning methods ........................................................43


Table 5.2 Methods for evaluating the cleaning technique ................................................44
Table 5.3 Laboratory test methods for evaluating the hydrophobic and non-hydrophobic
stone consolidants ..........................................................................................48
Table 5.4 Field test methods for evaluating the hydrophobic and non-hydrophobic stone
consolidants....................................................................................................49

Guidelines for The Seismic Upgrading of Stone Masonry Structures


vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 Plan view of the West Block of the Parliament Buildings,
Ottawa, Ontario ................................................................................................6
Figure 2.2 East elevation of the West Block of the Parliament Buildings, Ottawa, Ontario7
Figure 2.3 Cracked base of finials due to corroded anchor ................................................9
Figure 2.4 Out-plane-movements of walls due to environmental actions or bending
moments .........................................................................................................10
Figure 2.5 Exfoliation of ornamental stone ......................................................................10
Figure 3.1 Basic concept for seismic upgrading of buildings; (a) increase strength,
(b) increase ductility, (c) increase strength and ductility ...............................13
Figure 3.2 Force - displacement relationships before and after seismic upgrading .........14
Figure 4.1 Illustration of different type of stone construction - rubble, ashlar and coursed
ashlar stone masonry......................................................................................20
Figure 4.2 Rubble stone masonry walls with varying voids ratio and
inter-connectivity............................................................................................21
Figure 4.3 Cross section classification of thick stone masonry with varying number
of wythes ........................................................................................................22
Figure 4.4 Reinforced injection for creating meshes between intersecting walls –
(N) is new component and (E) is existing component ...................................24
Figure 4.5 Reinforced injection for tying multi-wythe stone masonry wall.....................24
Figure 4.6 Heavy strengthening of stone masonry structure - Reinforced truss...............25
Figure 4.7 Reinforcement of a masonry vault ..................................................................26
Figure 4.8 Plan view of ties connecting reinforced outer thin plaster ..............................27
Figure 4.9 Jacketing consisting of reinforced concrete wall and concrete bond
beam ...............................................................................................................27
Figure 4.10 Reinforced injection or centre coring technique for strengthening and
tying the structure together.............................................................................29
Figure 4.11 Reinforced concrete frame for strengthening and existing or new wall
opening...........................................................................................................30
Figure 4.12 Detail of a reinforced concrete column added to strengthen and tie the
diaphragm and the stone masonry walls ........................................................31
Figure 4.13 Concrete belt and eaves are used to improve the out-of-plane stability
of the walls .....................................................................................................31
Figure 4.14 Reinforced bond beam used to strengthen and tie together the stone masonry
walls and the diaphragm ................................................................................32
Figure 4.15 Steel ties for tying the structure together.......................................................33
Figure 4.16 Illustration of steel tie anchoring technique ..................................................34
Figure 4.17 Anchoring details for steel ties......................................................................35

Guidelines for The Seismic Upgrading of Stone Masonry Structures


viii

Figure 4.18 Thin light-weight concrete shell is used to stiffen the diaphragm and
create a positive anchor with the existing wall ..............................................36
Figure 4.19 Steel ties are inserted to create an effective connection with the
existing wall ...................................................................................................36
Figure 4.20 Plywood strips are used to stiffen the diaphragm..........................................36
Figure 4.21 Steel straps are embedded between the two shells to create an effective
connection with the existing wall ..................................................................37
Figure 4.22 Illustration of different wall end connections................................................37
Figure 4.23 Steel ties utilised to anchor wooden floor beam to stone masonry wall .......38
Figure 4.24 Different bracing types ..................................................................................39
Figure 4.25 Steel frame and anchoring details for strengthening the out-of-plane stability
of stone masonry towers ................................................................................40
Figure 5.1 Strengthening of the anchors for freestanding finial .......................................50
Figure 5.2 Seismic bracing added to provide lateral support for a parapet ......................51
Figure 5.3 Jacketing technique used for strengthening the parapet anchoring
condition.........................................................................................................52
Figure 5.4 Strengthening of cornice using reinforcement and reinforced injection .........53
Figure 6.1 Typical isolator used at exteriors walls of the Slat Lake City and
County Building .............................................................................................56
Figure 6.2 Eccentric bracing systems used for energy dissipation ...................................57
Figure 6.3 Anchorage illustration for circumferencial pre-stressing of
semi-spherical domes .....................................................................................58
Figure 6.4 Anchorage/attachment illustration for corners ................................................59
Figure 6.5 Application of external FRP ties for stone masonry buildings .......................60
Figure 6.6 Illustration of FRP anchorage as part of a surface reinforcement of stone
masonry facade with epoxy-bonded FRP laminates ......................................61
Figure 6.7 FRC strengthening of stone masonry walls.....................................................62

Guidelines for The Seismic Upgrading of Stone Masonry Structures


ix

GLOSSARY

Appendage - An architectural component, such as a canopy, marquee, ornamental


balcony, or statuary.
Arcade - A row of arches supported on pillars.
Arch - A curved structural subsystem that resists only in compression and exerts
horizontal thrusts to the other subsystems.
Bearing Wall - An interior or exterior wall which provides support for vertical loads.
Bed Joint - A horizontal mortared joint between adjacent courses of masonry units.
Brittle Systems - Systems that do not have a definite yield phase and that have a
significant strength degradation immediately after the displacement associated
with peak strength.
Chimney - A non-structural element built for smoke passage.
Collar Joint - The vertical space between adjacent wythes; may contain mortar.
Collector - A member which collects and transfers the inertia forces into the lateral
resisting subsystem.
Cornice - An ornamental element at junction of wall and ceiling.
Diaphragm - A horizontal, or nearly horizontal, subsystem designed to transmit seismic
forces to the vertical elements of the lateral-force-resisting system.
Dome - A rounded vault forming a roof over a large interior space.
Ductile Systems - Systems that have a definite yield phase.
Flexible Diaphragm - A diaphragm of wood construction or other construction of
similar flexibility.
Flying Buttress - A structural subsystem resisting the thrusts imposed at a high level by
the masonry vault.
Lintel - A structural element spanning above a window or door opening, resisting
bending moments from gravity forces.
Masonry - An assemblage of masonry units and mortar.
Non-bearing Wall - An interior or exterior wall which does not provide support for
vertical loads other than its own weight.
Ornament - A decorative element attached to the main building.
Parapet - A low wall located above a roof.
Pier - A local thickening of a wall.
Pinnacle - A secondary structural subsystem placed on the buttress to enhance the
stability of the buttress.
Shear Wall - A wall, bearing or non-bearing, capable of resisting seismic forces acting in
the plane of the wall.
Shell - A thin curved roof structural subsystem able to transmit only in-plane load.
Subsystems - A set of building elements that makes up a major portion of the structure
resisting system, e.g. diaphragms, moment frames, and shear walls.

Guidelines for The Seismic Upgrading of Stone Masonry Structures


x

Tower - A tall structure consisting of perimeter walls that enclose a central space.
Unreinforced-Masonry (URM) Wall - A masonry wall in which the area of reinforcing
steel is less than 25% of the minimum steel ratios required by the CSA
Standard for reinforced masonry.
Unreinforced-Masonry Bearing Wall - A URM wall which provides the vertical
support for a floor or roof for which the total superimposed load exceeds 1.5
kN/m of wall.
Vault - A curved roof structural subsystem used for tunnels.
Veneer - Facing or ornamentation, not used to develop resistance to lateral forces,
composed of brick, concrete, stone, tile or similar materials that are connected
to a backup structure by either anchorage or adhesion.
Vertical Elements - Subsystems in a vertical plane including shear walls, braced frames,
and moment resisting frames.
Wythe - A single leaf or layer of masonry.

Guidelines for The Seismic Upgrading of Stone Masonry Structures


1. INTRODUCTION
The seismic upgrading of structural and non-structural components of stone masonry
buildings as the one shown in Figure 1.1, often presents special challenges. Slender
columns, towers, and roof-mounted lanterns form a part of large multi-story stone
masonry structure. As a result, the evaluation and design of the required seismic
upgrading needs to
• include a clear understanding of the dynamic interaction between the building’s
structural and non-structural components during a seismic event;
• account for the potential hazard from failure of opertional and functional
components, which are commonly known as non-structural components; and
• consider the compatibility requirements of both the strength and ductility
performance before and after the seismic retrofit.

Figure 1.1 North Elevation of British Columbia Parliament Buildings - Victoria,


B.C.

Current Guidelines for Seismic Assessment of Stone Masonry Structures developed by


Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC, 2000) provide technically
sound analytical tools and acceptable assessment criteria for the seismic evaluation of
stone masonry structures. The guidelines can be used to evaluate the seismic capacity of
stone masonry structures and to advise owners and property managers of potential
seismic risk to life safety. They can further be used to assist in identifying the seismic
risk and the needed upgrade of stone masonry structures. These guidelines do not,
however, provide any guidance on the strengthening and repair techniques for reducing
the seismic risk.

In Canada, there are many well built stone masonry structures that possess good
earthquake resistance. However, many of these structures have experienced continuous
deterioration through lack of maintenance, and may not conform to current building
regulations with regard to life safety and earthquake resistance. Selection of the level of
seismic upgrading is a difficult task that needs to be established by the owner at the

Guidelines for The Seismic Upgrading of Stone Masonry Structures


2 Chapter 1: Introduction

beginning of the project in consultation with the design team, namely the architects,
preservationists, and structural engineers. Strengthening to ensure that a structure
survives earthquakes without damage might be technically feasible, but for most cases it
might also involve high costs and an unacceptable impact on the structure’s heritage
character. On the other hand, inadequate strengthening that spares a building’s character
may result in the collapse of the structure when subjected to a strong earthquake.

1.1 Purpose of the guidelines


The purpose of these guidelines is to provide professionals dealing with seismic
upgrading, including repair for the purpose of upgrading of stone masonry structures,
with a) general understanding of the potential seismic deficiencies of stone masonry
structures, b) principles of seismic upgrading, and c) descriptions, cost and effectiveness
of existing design concepts and methods for seismic upgrading of stone masonry
structures.

These guidelines have been developed to be compatible with PWGSC Guidelines for
Seismic Assessment of Stone Masonry Structures (referred to as PWGSC Assessment
Guidelines), which provide the analytical tools and assessment criteria specific to stone
masonry. Seismic deficiencies identified by using PWGSC Assessment Guidelines can be
mitigated by using accepted upgrading techniques presented in this document.

In addition, this document addresses the deterioration of stone masonry structures.


Alternative methods for identifying the causes of deterioration and guidelines for
repairing or replacing existing components for the purpose of upgrading are described.

1.2 Basis of the guidelines

1.2.1 Scope and limitations


The intent of the seismic upgrading is to provide design professionals with the different
seismic upgrading techniques for stone masonry to mitigate life safety hazards.
However, the upgraded stone structure may not meet existing code requirements of life
safety and property protection even after upgrade. Although this document is organised
to permit a component-by-component consideration of deficiencies and upgrading
techniques, the choice of upgrading techniques should always follow the seismic
assessment of the whole stone structure and identification of all deficiencies.

The information contained in this document must be used in conjunction with good
technical judgment and a competent understanding of stone masonry construction and
earthquake engineering. Final decisions on the use of the information contained in the
guidelines must rest with the project design team and owner. It remains the sole
responsibility of the designer or design team to
a) properly design the seismic upgrading,
b) ensure that all architectural and engineering principles are properly applied
throughout, and

Guidelines for The Seismic Upgrading of Stone Masonry Structures


Chapter 1: Introduction 3

c) ensure that any strengthening techniques described in the guidelines are appropriate
for their particular project and properly incorporated into the project.

1.2.2 Relationship to other documents and procedures


These guidelines are to complement existing documents on the seismic evaluation and
upgrading of structures:
1. Guidelines for Seismic Assessment of Stone Masonry Structures, (PWGSC,
2000)
2. Guidelines for Seismic Upgrading of Building Structures (NRC, 1995c)
3. Guidelines on Seismic Evaluation and Upgrading of Non-Structural Building
Components (PWGSC, 1995)
4. National Building Code of Canada (NRC, 1995a).

The upgrading techniques presented in these guidelines are intended for stone masonry
structures, and for most projects, are to be combined with the upgrading techniques for
engineered materials.

1.3 Heritage considerations


Many of Canada’s existing stone masonry structures are designated as heritage buildings
by the Federal Heritage Building Review Office (FHBRO), the Provincial government,
or, in some cases, by the corresponding municipality. The heritage designation addresses
the exceptional importance of these structures in terms of such factors as historical
associations, architectural quality, and environmental impact. Additional constraints are
usually imposed upon proposed upgrading to protect the heritage fabric, following an
objective of “minimum intervention.”

The building owner, architect, engineer and preservationist should agree on the objectives
at the beginning of a retrofit project, realising that designing a seismic upgrade that meets
the building code requirements may not preserve the heritage fabric of the historic
building. Therefore, a seismic upgrading design should balance preservation of the
historic fabric, level of safety desired, level of acceptable damage in case of an
earthquake, and available funding.

Guidelines for The Seismic Upgrading of Stone Masonry Structures


2. SEISMIC VULNERABILITY OF STONE MASONRY
STRUCTURES
Unreinforced masonry bearing wall structures, particularly rubble stone masonry, are
considered the most vulnerable and therefore the most hazardous type of structures
during an earthquake. Poor ductility, low tensile strength and inadequate connections are
main contributors to the deficient performance of masonry structures under reversed and
cyclic lateral loads. Investigations into the seismic behaviour of stone masonry structures
(PWGSC, 1998) have shown that their seismic resistance depends primarily on:
• type of construction,
• quality of the masonry,
• the adequacy of connections between walls and floors, and
• the structural layout of the building in plan, i.e., the distribution of structural
components in plan and elevation of the building.

In this chapter, the seismic deficiencies of stone masonry structures are described from a
general perspective: the general characteristics of stone masonry, the design and
construction features of stone masonry, and the deterioration of stone masonry.

2.1 General attributes of stone masonry structures


The safety of structures depends on the dynamic response and the limits of damage, and
is controlled by the following material properties: strength, stiffness, ductility, and
damping.

2.1.1 Strength
The seismic adequacy of a structure does not solely depend on the strength of the
material, but also on its stiffness, ductility, and ability to absorb energy. Stone masonry
is generally found to possess high compressive strength and low shear and tensile
strength. Experience from past earthquakes has shown that the poor performance of
stone masonry can be partially attributed to the low shear and tensile strength of the
material.

2.1.2 Stiffness
Structures with a high stiffness have a short natural period of vibration, which often
results in an increase in the seismic forces to which they are subjected. Stone masonry
structures are inherently stiff structures and thus have a tendency to attract high lateral
load during an earthquake.

Lateral loads are distributed to the resisting vertical subsystems in proportion to their
relative stiffness; however, the added demand on the stone masonry subsystems is seldom
matched by comparable strength properties, thus rendering them seismically vulnerable.

Guidelines for The Seismic Upgrading of Stone Masonry Structures


Chapter 2: Seismic Vulnerability of Stone Masonry Structures 5

2.1.3 Ductility
Ductile structures can tolerate repeated cyclic deformations for the duration of ground
shaking without loosing much of their load-carrying capacity, even if they are damaged
during the shaking period. Unreinforced stone masonry, because of the poor bonding
strength (low shear and tensile strength), is a brittle material (non-ductile) that tends to
loose some or most of its lateral resisting capacity after the initial damage.

2.1.4 Damping
Damping is a material/system property that absorbs/dissipates some of the energy
transmitted to the building structure due to ground shaking. For stone masonry, the
energy is usually dissipated through friction at the mortar joint interfaces, or through
damage by cracking of the mortar joints. In principle, it is difficult to estimate damping;
however, stone masonry structures are expected to have good damping properties because
of the cracking of the mortar joint and then the friction generated at the mortar joint/stone
unit interfacing surfaces.

2.2 Adverse design and construction features


Numerous design and construction features are known to negatively impact the structural
response of stone masonry structures during an earthquake by precluding the contribution
of other structural subsystems.

2.2.1 Lack of strength/ductility


Stone masonry is generally found to possess adequate compressive strength, yet
inadequate shear and tensile strength. Low tensile strength of the mortar, which is
exacerbated by durability issues, and inadequate strength of the bonding/keying-
in/anchoring between the stone masonry components have been identified as governing
factors in the collapse of many stone masonry structures during past earthquakes. The
same factors have also a major impact on the ductility of the stone masonry, particularly
for rubble masonry.

2.2.2 Lack of integrity/redundancy


Lack of integrity, particularly the inadequate connections between the various structural
subsystems, has been identified as the main cause for the partial failure or complete
collapse of stone masonry structures. The poor seismic performance of stone masonry
structures has been attributed mainly to the inadequate connections between the walls and
the floor diaphragms, and the inadequate bonding between the outer wythes with the
cavity filled with rubble and mortar.

It is desirable for structures to possess a degree of redundancy, so that the loads


associated with failed components are undertaken by other components. Stone masonry
structures are generally indeterminate structures; however, the inherent redundancy
within indeterminate structure in the lateral resisting system is often lost, because the
structure is not integrally connected or possesses flexible floor diaphragms, incapable of
transferring the lateral forces to other vertically resisting subsystems.

Guidelines for The Seismic Upgrading of Stone Masonry Structures


6 Chapter 2: Seismic Vulnerability of Stone Masonry Structures

2.2.3 Irregularities
Geometric configuration is known to influence the seismic performance of a structure.
Architectural features (towers, turrets, courtyards, etc.) typically found in stone masonry
structures) tend to result both in a lack of symmetry in the geometrical shape of the
building and in changes in stiffness, mass distribution, and continuity with height (see
Figure 2.1). The lack of symmetry introduces a rotational motion when the shaking
occurs, which results in additional seismic forces due to torsion. Vertical discontinuities
in structural subsystems lead to a concentration of stress at the interface. This can result
either in partial failure or in total collapse at the location of the discontinuities (see Figure
2.2).

Figure 2.1 Plan view of the West Block of the Parliament Buildings, Ottawa,
Ontario

Guidelines for The Seismic Upgrading of Stone Masonry Structures


Chapter 2: Seismic Vulnerability of Stone Masonry Structures 7

Figure 2.2 East elevation of the West Block of the Parliament Buildings, Ottawa,
Ontario

2.2.4 Lack of direct load path


Seismic forces originating within the structure need to be transferred through its
structural components back into the ground. The load path includes a subsystem to
collect the inertial forces usually a diaphragm, a vertically resisting subsystem (stone
masonry walls, etc.) to deliver the load to the foundation, and a foundation to transmit the
load back into the ground. Stone masonry structures with flexible diaphragms that,
depending on the wall geometry, may not adequately collect the inertial forces thus
resulting in an uneven distribution of forces, and discontinuous load path. The lack of
direct load path leads to localised failures and subsequently complete collapse of the
structure.

2.2.5 Adjacent buildings


The lateral stiffness and deformation of stone masonry structures are not usually
compatible with modern, engineered structures. Therefore, stone masonry buildings with
inadequate clearance or energy-absorbing mechanism between adjacent buildings have
resulted in pounding between the two structures during an earthquake because of the
incompatible lateral deflections. Adjacent stone structures with different interstorey
heights have also suffered damage that was caused by pounding.

Stone masonry buildings often consist of more than one structure; a building can be either
connected to or abut with turret(s) or tower(s). The building and the tower, etc. in most
cases possess different vibration properties. During an earthquake, these types of stone

Guidelines for The Seismic Upgrading of Stone Masonry Structures


8 Chapter 2: Seismic Vulnerability of Stone Masonry Structures

masonry structures are found to suffer significant damage between the two structures,
when they abut or are not adequately tied together because of separation and pounding
that occur between the two structures.

2.3 Decay of stone masonry materials


Stone masonry structural subsystems (walls, buttresses, domes, etc.) and non-structural
subsystems (cornices, parapets, column capitals, gargoyles, etc.) are experiencing
continuous damage through lack of maintenance. These components, continuously
subjected to alternating actions from temperature, wind, and to gravitational forces when
installed as cantilevers, are often vulnerable to temperature fluctuations, moisture
infiltration, and attack by harmful environmental agents.

Limited field data have shown that in most cases, deterioration of the stone extends
millimetres beyond the badly damaged external layer (Binda et al., 1992a). From a
structural perspective, the decay of structural components such as walls caused by
chemical or physical actions can be treated as a reduction of the wall section. The
mechanical properties of the stone masonry material are considered unaltered beyond the
externally damaged layer.

In the case of slender and ornamental stone masonry components such as columns,
decorations, or gutters, the chemical-physical deterioration can penetrate the whole
section of the component, causing an overall reduction of its mechanical properties and,
in some cases, leading to structural failure. Furthermore, mechanical damage consisting
of cracks and ruptures that can be visually detected, can permit water penetration into the
structural elements, hence deteriorating the internal part of the wall. The deterioration of
the stone masonry components is often evident and manifested through cracking (Figure
2.3), out-of-plane movements (Figure 2.4), spalling, surface erosion, exfoliation (Figure
2.5), and corrosion of embedded metals, or loss of anchorage.

Guidelines for The Seismic Upgrading of Stone Masonry Structures


Chapter 2: Seismic Vulnerability of Stone Masonry Structures 9

Figure 2.3 Cracked base of finials due to corroded anchor

Guidelines for The Seismic Upgrading of Stone Masonry Structures


10 Chapter 2: Seismic Vulnerability of Stone Masonry Structures

Figure 2.4 Out-plane-movements of walls due to environmental actions or bending


moments

Figure 2.5 Exfoliation of ornamental stone

Guidelines for The Seismic Upgrading of Stone Masonry Structures


Chapter 2: Seismic Vulnerability of Stone Masonry Structures 11

Time-dependent behaviour of stone masonry structures over a long time span must be
considered part of a seismic evaluation. Particularly, carbonation of lime mortar in old
stone masonry structures renders their behaviour to be stronger and stiffer but also more
brittle. Studies have shown that the carbonation of lime mortar in thick sections can take
many years, or even centuries (Van Ballen and Van Gemert, 1994). The self-healing
characteristics of the lime mortar due to solubilization and recrystallization in calcite
cracks can lead to the modification of the mechanical properties of the masonry over
time.

2.4 Creep of stone masonry materials


Creep is the deformation of a structure with time under constant load. Studies have
shown that the action of heavy vertical loads, such as the dead load in a masonry tower,
can lead to long-term creep and collapse of the structure at stresses well below the
ultimate stress (Binda et al., 1992b; Anzani et al., 1995). Creep tests on very old rubble
masonry walls subjected to vertical loads have yielded the following observations:
• Dilatation of material with severe compressive stresses and high horizontal strains
developed before failure,
• Development of creep strains with secondary creep appearing at 40% of ultimate
stress and tertiary creep at about 70% of ultimate, and
• Slow vertical crack propagation and failure developing over a long time.

These findings strongly suggest that vertical cracks on external walls of a structure need
to be carefully analysed and monitored, since the possibility of continuous damage with
the consequences of a future sudden collapse cannot be ruled out. Creep phenomena
require long-term monitoring of the vertical crack width as well as flat jack tests to
monitor the state of stress.

Reinforced stone masonry components can also creep and needs to be investigated.
Redistribution of stresses can occur from modification of the stiffness of the structural
component, which in turn can be influenced by the different creep phenomena of the
reinforced and unreinforced parts of the structure. Van Balen and Van Gemert (1990)
have shown that masonry grouted with polymeric epoxy materials will continue to creep
after the grouting.

Guidelines for The Seismic Upgrading of Stone Masonry Structures


3. PRINCIPLES OF SEISMIC UPGRADING

3.1 Introduction
Historically, upgrading methodologies have focused on performance level, often
characterized in the Codes and Standards as life safety. This performance level
emphasizes collapse prevention, maintenance of egress (exit paths), and prevention of
hazards in and around the building. An effective upgrading of structures against
earthquake forces requires an adequate estimate of their current seismic capacity,
determination of the required seismic demand in accordance with the National Building
Code of Canada, NBC 1995, and development of an upgrading technique for achieving
the required added seismic capacity. This chapter presents the general procedure and
basic concept for seismic upgrading, and control of the upgrading techniques.

3.2 General procedure for upgrading


A general procedure for seismic upgrading of stone masonry is achieved by
implementing the following tasks:
a) seismic evaluation of the structure concerned,
b) determination of required seismic capacity,
c) selection of upgrading techniques,
d) design of connection details, and
e) evaluation of the upgraded structure.

It has been widely recognized that the earthquake response of a structure depends upon
stiffness, strength, deformation capacity (ductility), hysteretic characteristics of the
structural system, soil properties, and the characteristics of the earthquake ground
motions. Among these, the lateral strength and ductility are the most essential factors in
determining the seismic capacity of the building. It is therefore important to evaluate
seismic capacity of the buildings considering both lateral strength and ductility. For
evaluation of the seismic safety of the structure, it is also essential to determine the
required seismic capacity, i.e., criteria for upgrading in conjunction with the importance
of the structure, seismic activities, and seismic intensities expected at the site.

For buildings that need to be upgraded, techniques for seismic upgrading should be
determined by considering the existing condition of the structure, level of the required
seismic capacity, structural type, site condition, occupancy, cost, and heritage. A detailed
design of connections is also essential, since interface performance may significantly
affect the expected and upgraded performance of the structure. It should be noted that the
improvement of strength and stiffness distribution in plane and over the height, as well as
the increase in strength and ductility of the building should be carefully considered in the
upgrading design.
The Guidelines for Seismic Evaluation of Stone Masonry Buildings (PWGSC, 1998)
provide analytical tools and assessment criteria for the seismic evaluation of stone

Guidelines for The Seismic Upgrading of Stone Masonry Structures


Chapter 3: Principles of Seismic Upgrading 13

masonry structures. Engineers can, on the basis of the guidelines, estimate the seismic
capacity of stone masonry structures.

3.3 Basic concept for upgrading


Earthquakes cause a structure to generate dynamic inertial forces. To achieve a
satisfactory performance during an earthquake, the structure needs to provide a
continuous and adequate transfer or dissipation of these forces to the foundation. A well
designed seismic upgrading of a stone masonry structure should improve
a) the redundancy of the structure in resisting the seismic forces, as well as
b) the ultimate strength of overall structure;
c) the inelastic deformation capacity, i.e. ductility.

The last two concepts, schematically illustrated in Figure 3.1, render the performance of
the structure acceptable. Figure 3.2 a) to c) display the three different approaches of
performance enhancement or upgrading by increasing the structure’s strength, ductility,
or both strength and ductility.

7
(a) Desirable performance
6 - life safety
5 - damaged control
(c)
Strength

4
Required seismic
3 (b) capacity
2
Existing Building
1
Undesirable performance
0
0 1 2 Ductility
3 4 5 6 7

Figure 3.1 Basic concept for seismic upgrading of buildings; (a) increase strength,
(b) increase ductility, (c) increase strength and ductility

Increasing the strength of a stone masonry structure represented by the first concept is
achievable by re-pointing or replacing the mortar joint. Adding anchors to connect a
multi-wythe wall enhances the ductility of the stone masonry structure. The
improvement in both ductility and strength can be attained by adding a supplementary
structural system such as steel frame or by tying the structural system together using
anchor, for example.

Guidelines for The Seismic Upgrading of Stone Masonry Structures


14 Chapter 3: Principles of Seismic Upgrading

8
Response
After strengthening x Capacity
7

6
Shear force 5

4
Before strengthening
3

0
0 0.5 1 1.5
Displacement 2 2.5 3

(a) Increasing strength


3

After strengthening Response


2.5
x Capacity
2
Shear force

1.5 Before strengthening

0.5

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Displacement

(b) Increasing Ductility


4
Response
x Capacity
After strengthening
Shear force

Before strengthening

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Displacement

(c) Increasing strength and ductility


Figure 3.2 Force - displacement relationships before and after seismic upgrading

Guidelines for The Seismic Upgrading of Stone Masonry Structures


Chapter 3: Principles of Seismic Upgrading 15

3.4 Effectiveness of the upgrading techniques


Seismic deficiencies of stone masonry structures can be attributed to one or more of the
following characteristics: 1) unhomogeneity due to the presence of stone, mortar, voids,
etc., 2) lack of adhesion between external and internal wythes of the walls, 3) poor
adhesion between mortars and stones, 4) poor cohesion of mortars in the joints and in the
rubble filling, 5) high porosity due to voids, and 6) severe deterioration under high
moisture content due to water penetration. Therefore, the aim of the upgrading
techniques should be to restore homogeneity, uniformity of strength and continuity of
walls as well as to introduce better connections, both between orthogonal walls and
between walls and floors. In this respect, it is preferable to use materials that are
chemically, physically and mechanically compatible with those of the structure that needs
upgrading.

Stone masonry is a brittle material that can easily loose much of its load-carrying
capacity when undergoing cyclic deformations during a strong earthquake. Different
techniques have been proposed to increase the ductility of the material. Improvement to
the ductility of the seismic resisting system can be achieved by either encapsulating
brittle material such as walls, within a more ductile material such as reinforced plaster
coatings, or by providing reinforcement to the stone masonry components. Such
techniques permit walls to maintain their structural integrity during an earthquake, even
when the stone materials are damaged.

Uniformity and regularity in the structural configuration is highly desirable. Sudden


changes in elevation or in stiffness should be avoided. This particularly applies to
ground-floor piers that carry the largest loads. Asymmetrical setbacks are undesirable
and a concentration of mass especially near the top of a building should be avoided.

Plan forms should be symmetrical, including the distribution of shear walls or other
stiffening components. If the centre of mass of a structure does not coincide with its
centre of stiffness, then a torsional response would be induced and this often affects
performance adversely. The vertical stiffening components should not be concentrated
too centrally, because the torsional stiffness is then reduced.

Redundancy is similar to the existence of a back-up structural system, which prevents


collapse after the primary seismic resisting system has reached its ultimate capacity. For
stone masonry structure, redundancy can be achieved by either installing a back-up
system that is independent of, but connected to, the primary load-resisting system, or by
upgrading the connections between existing structural components, so that the lateral
loads can be shed after the primary resisting system has been damaged.

The overall lateral load resistance capacity of the structure can be increased by
strengthening the existing components or by adding such components as shear walls,
floor diaphragms or diagonal bracing. The effects of strengthening existing components
or adding new components must be considered in the context of the overall structure’s
behaviour. For example, the addition of new concrete shear walls adds to the overall

Guidelines for The Seismic Upgrading of Stone Masonry Structures


16 Chapter 3: Principles of Seismic Upgrading

stiffness of the structure. The addition can shorten the structure’s fundamental period of
vibration, which in some cases results in an increase in the seismic forces. The
introduction of new components can also create additional torsional effects, or it can lead
to overstressing existing structural components.

For years, traditional and new upgrading techniques have been applied to stone masonry
with little attention paid to their effectiveness and their performance along the time.
Unfortunately, some of these techniques showed to be unsuccessful or only appropriate to
some particular applications. Therefore the following measures should be taken prior to
the selection of a new upgrading technique:
• The selected upgrading technique should be tested to ensure that the physical,
chemical, and mechanical properties as well as the longevity of the upgrading
materials are compatible with those of the original stone masonry materials.
• On-site trials of the technique application need to be performed for testing its
adequacy, efficiency, and longevity before undertaken a full-scale implementation of
the technique.

Guidelines for The Seismic Upgrading of Stone Masonry Structures


Chapter 3: Principles of Seismic Upgrading 17

Guidelines for The Seismic Upgrading of Stone Masonry Structures


4. CONVENTIONAL UPGRADING TECHNIQUES FOR
STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS

4.1 Introduction
Seismic adequacy of stone masonry structures can be achieved by reducing the seismic
demand, increasing the seismic capacity, or a combination of the previous two.
Following the requirements of the National Building Code of Canada (NRC, 1995a), the
seismic demand of a structure is governed by five parameters: mass, fundamental period
of vibration, soil condition, importance of the structure, and seismicity of the region.
Therefore, the seismic demand can be reduced by either cutting down or redistributing
the weight of the building, increasing the fundamental period, isolating the structure from
the ground-shaking, installing supplemental damping devices that dissipate the energy, or
a combination. In addition, the seismic capacity can be increased by improving strength,
ductility and redundancy of the structural system. This is achieved either by
strengthening the existing components or by adding structural components.

Conventional seismic upgrading techniques for stone masonry structures have been
concentrated on either reducing the weight of the structure or improving the strength,
ductility and redundancy of the existing structural components. Further, it has been
acknowledged that adequate bonding of the stone units is one of the important safety
requirements for stone masonry structures located in earthquake-prone regions.

Non-conventional seismic upgrading techniques that have been developed to improve the
seismic performance of structures and that can be applied to stone masonry are discussed
in Chapter 6. These techniques include seismic isolation, supplemental damping, and
non-conventional repair materials.

This chapter presents the conventional techniques for upgrading the structural
components of stone masonry. The effectiveness for the upgrading techniques applicable
to stone masonry are also discussed. An estimate of the upgrading cost is provided in
Appendix B.

4.2 Reduction in seismic demand


A reduction in the weight of a structure results in a decrease of the fundamental period of
vibration. And that theoretically leads to higher seismic force coefficients. The
fundamental periods of stone masonry structures are typically between 0.2 s and 0.5 s.
Thus, depending on the seismicity of the region and the reduction in the fundamental
period, a reduction in the weight may not always lead to a significant change in the
seismic force coefficients.

Reducing the seismic demand of a stone masonry structure by reducing the weight of the
structure is only effective for some type of structures. For low-rise structures (up to five

Guidelines for The Seismic Upgrading of Stone Masonry Structures


Chapter 4: Conventional Upgrading Techniques for Structural Components 19

stories high), reducing the weight of the structure results in a reduction of seismic forces.
Although the fundamental period of a structure gets smaller as the weight decreases, the
prescribed formulae suggested by NBC 1995 for shear-type structures such as stone
masonry depend on the geometry of the structure. For these structures, the reduction in
the seismic forces is proportional to any weight reduction.

Stone masonry is seldom used as the load-bearing system for tall structures higher than
six stories. In general, the reduction in the fundamental period of high-rise structures due
to a reduction in the weight of the building can lead to an increase in the seismic forces.
The relative merits of reducing the weight for structures of six stories or more have to be
investigated for each structure.

Reducing the weight of a stone structure can be achieved by either removing or replacing
some of the existing components, i.e.,
i. Removing the upper stories of a building.
ii. Replacing heavy diaphragms in roof or floor, with a lighter assembly.
iii. Removing heavy non-structural components such as parapets, appendages, water
towers, equipment, chimneys, etc.

Relative merits
i. The removal of the upper stories can be used to reduce the earthquake demand on
certain type of stone masonry buildings. This approach is most effective for low-rise
stone masonry structures. A potential increase in the seismic capacity for the
remaining vertical load resisting components and foundations benefit is achievable
due to reduction in the gravity loads. The disadvantages of using such technique are
a) most load bearing stone masonry structures need the gravity loads to enhance their
lateral load capacity, b) it is an intrusive method that will alter the heritage fabric and
visual appearance of the structure; and c) it will result in a loss of usable space and
associated loss of income and resale value.
ii. Removing or replacing of heavy diaphragm is most effective for one-story structures.
The effectiveness of this technique diminishes as the number of building stories
increases.
iii. The relative merits of removing heavy, non-structural components are similar to those
for the removal of upper stories.

4.3 Increase capacity


Conventional upgrading techniques for improving the seismic capacity of stone masonry
structures is presented under the following three approaches: modify the local material
properties, increase the seismic resistance of the structural components, and improve the
overall structural behaviour of the entire structure. In practice, the capacity of stone
masonry structures is improved by employing one or more of the noted three approaches.
A detailed description of each of these three approaches is given hereafter.

Guidelines for The Seismic Upgrading of Stone Masonry Structures


20 Chapter 4: Conventional Upgrading Techniques for Structural Components

4.3.1 Modification of the masonry properties


The mechanical properties of the stone masonry, i.e., strength and ductility, can be
locally upgraded through the following techniques:
• Replacement
• Grouting
• Reinforced injections

4.3.1.1 Replacement
When a small area of stone masonry suffers significant deterioration, i.e., a decrease in
the components’ load carrying capacity, the existing masonry is locally removed and
replaced with a new masonry that should, as much as possible, match the chemical,
physical and mechanical properties of the original material. When this technique is
systematically applied as a routine maintenance operation, i.e., replacing small
deteriorated sections every time, it is probably one of the most cost-efficient techniques
for preserving the structural integrity of stone masonry structures from deterioration.

Replacement as an upgrading or repair technique is mainly applied to dressed stone


masonry such as ashlar and coursed ashlar shown in Figure 4.1. For this technique, good
workmanship is needed to ensure a good reproduction of the original stone masonry
along with the adhesion and the immediate transfer of stresses between existing and new
masonry.

Figure 4.1 Illustration of different type of stone construction - rubble, ashlar and
coursed ashlar stone masonry

Relative merits
One of the principal advantages of this technique is that the masonry can be repaired
again by being dismantled and re-laid, i.e., a reversible intervention. Another positive
effect derived from this technique is the preservation of the structure’s appearance,
provided the mason is aware of the traditional materials and methods of constructions.
For the replacement technique to be effective, it needs to be systematically applied as a
routine maintenance operation. However, the attractiveness/cost effectiveness of this
upgrading technique diminishes as the area of the deteriorated sections becomes larger.

4.3.1.2 Grouting
Grouting is a simple and commonly used technique for improving the strength and
stiffness of rubble stone masonry walls and piers. The technique is applied according to
the following sequence of operations:

Guidelines for The Seismic Upgrading of Stone Masonry Structures


Chapter 4: Conventional Upgrading Techniques for Structural Components 21

i. Holes are drilled on one face of the masonry.


ii. The holes are usually drilled up to 2/3 of the wall thickness.
iii. Short pipes are inserted and fixed with mortar.
iv. The masonry is pressure-washed through these pipes.
v. All small cracks on the surface of the wall are sealed.
vi. Grouts are injected, starting from the bottom of the wall, and usually with low
pressure.

Figure 4.2 Rubble stone masonry walls with varying voids ratio and inter-
connectivity

At present, there remain major technical issues that need to be addressed prior to the
implementation of such technique, namely:
1. Surveys of stone masonry have shown that although there exists between 2% to 6%
voids, voids are very seldom connected to one another or to the exterior face of the
wall (see Figure 4.2 and Figure 4.3). It should be noted that without inter-
connections between voids, the grouting of walls becomes impractical and is
ineffective.
2. Selection of compatible grout (admixtures of cement, lime, resin grouts, etc.) with
existing materials is not easily achieved. At present, no standards or guidelines exist
for testing the long-term behaviour of grouts and the implications of the grout on the
structural integrity of the existing wall structure (Binda et al., 1994).
3. Grouts cannot penetrate when loose materials are found inside the wall. The binding
ability of the mortar in existing stone masonry is often found to be weak or negligible
due to weathering and load fluctuations. This phenomenon has resulted in the
disintegration of the mortar joint, and the presence of loose materials inside stone
masonry structures prevents the full penetration of grouts (Binda et al., 1994).
4. Pre-wetting of stone masonry has yielded in general positive results depending on the
porosity and water uptakes of the masonry. However, wetting a stone masonry wall
has negative implications such as durability issues due to freeze-thaw cycles for
example, and water-induced damage to the interior fabric.

Guidelines for The Seismic Upgrading of Stone Masonry Structures


22 Chapter 4: Conventional Upgrading Techniques for Structural Components

Figure 4.3 Cross section classification of thick stone masonry with varying number
of wythes (Binda and Anzani, 1997)

The experimental procedure proposed by Binda et al. (1994) provides guidance for the
selection of a compatible grout, the technique of injection, and also for controlling the
local effectiveness of grouting. The procedure consists of the following steps:
1. Survey the wall section and sample of the materials contained in the internal part of
the wall.
2. Characterize the sample materials.
3. Pre-select a minimum of two different type of grouts that have characteristics
compatible with the sample materials.
4. Construct physical models with characteristics similar to the wall to be grouted.
5. Inject the pre-selected grouts into the constructed, physical models.
6. Use non-destructive and destructive techniques to test the adequacy of the injection
technique, pre-selected grout and the local efficiency of grouting.
7. Select the grout, the grouting procedure, and the injection technique.
8. Conduct an in-situ test on a small section using the selected grout in accordance with
the following steps:
• Use non-destructive tests (flat-jack, or a ground-penetrating radar) to
characterize the wall before grouting it.
• Grout the wall.
• Repeat the non-destructive tests (flat jack etc.) and compare the results.
• Conduct an in-situ test (coring) to validate the penetration and diffusion of the
grout.
9. Repeat the selection/evaluation process, if the in-situ test results are found
unacceptable.

Non-destructive evaluation needs to be carried out to test on site the effectiveness of this
type of upgrading for the entire structure. The ground-penetrating radar and the flat jack
appear to be viable tests for detecting the effectiveness of injection by grout (Binda et al.,
1994).

Relative merits
Laboratory investigations have indicated that grouting can increase, on average, both the
tensile and shear strength of stone masonry by 100% and its ductility by 20%. However,

Guidelines for The Seismic Upgrading of Stone Masonry Structures


Chapter 4: Conventional Upgrading Techniques for Structural Components 23

the in-situ seismic resistance of grouted rubble stone masonry walls is not known, since
there are no reported cases of grouted walls having survived earthquake loading.

Laboratory test results have indicated that the vertical and lateral resistance of grouted
rubble stone masonry walls are governed by the strength of the original mortar that
transfers the external loads across the stone (because of the observed limited penetration
of the injected grout), and that the grout provides additional lateral connections between
the stones. This behaviour is, however, best achieved by tying the walls with steel ties to
activate the potential seismic resistance of the whole structure (Tomazevic, 1992). For
the structures that are made up of deteriorated rubble stone masonry, grouting is usually
needed to consolidate the stone components.

Grouting is an irreversible upgrading technique that fuses the structure together, making
it difficult for future repair. In most cases, the structure’s life is now forced to be limited
to that of the new material/system seismic upgrading technique. From past experience
has it that upgrading of stone masonry structures (such as the introduction of iron
cramps) has resulted in a reduction of the structure’s life span (induced cracks, etc.)
because of the long-term effects (corrosion) that were not given adequate consideration.
Our understanding of the long-term behaviour of grouts is still at its infancy.

According to Binda et al. (1994) poor results in grouting can be attributed to


a) heterogeneous strength and stiffness in the injected portion of the structure,
b) poor penetration and diffusion due to poor techniques of injections and choice of
inadequate grout,
c) segregation and shrinkage of the grout due to high water absorption of the original
materials, and
d) possible chemical and physical reaction between the grout and the existing materials.

4.3.1.3 Reinforced injections


Reinforced injections employ similar procedure and equipment as the grouting technique.
The holes are, however, more frequent and deeper, inclined through the wall thickness,
and steel bars are inserted in every hole prior to the injection of grout. The exact number
and position of the holes depend on the structural condition. This technique permits the
creation of local meshes both a) locally to ensure local connections between intersecting
walls as shown in Figure 4.4, and b) on the whole structural components to either sew
cracks or to increase their strength, in compression and in tension (see Figure 4.5 through
Figure 4.7).

Guidelines for The Seismic Upgrading of Stone Masonry Structures


24 Chapter 4: Conventional Upgrading Techniques for Structural Components

Figure 4.4 Reinforced injection for creating meshes between intersecting walls – (N)
is new component and (E) is existing component

This technique, illustrated in Figure 4.6 and Figure 4.7, tends to make the existing
masonry act as ‘confined masonry’ in the sense that tensile, resistant, uni-dimensional
members are introduced, horizontally or both horizontally and vertically. This technique
allows the wall or portions of it to act as a truss element, where the struts are inclined
strips of unreinforced masonry.

Figure 4.5 Reinforced injection for tying multi-wythe stone masonry wall

The inserted solid bars or tubes can be mechanically anchored or chemically bonded to
the stone masonry. Variation in the end conditions of the bars enables the basic method
to be altered so that the bond is established only mechanically by anchoring the bar to
end plates or other steel devices. For mechanically anchored upgrading system, good
performance is usually achieved when the bar is pre-stressed to a nominal average stress

Guidelines for The Seismic Upgrading of Stone Masonry Structures


Chapter 4: Conventional Upgrading Techniques for Structural Components 25

ranging from 10% to 20% of the compressive strength of the stone masonry. The pre-
stressing ensures immediate action of the upgrading system and prevents cracking of the
walls at vertical joints.

Relative merits
Reinforced injections has been applied to both ashlar and rubble stone masonry. It is a
versatile and quick upgrading technique. The effectiveness of this strengthening
technique is found to be comparable to grouting. However, it is not a reversible
upgrading technique and if not adequately analysed, its inclusion can result in a non-
uniformity in strength and stiffness in the upgraded structure.

A mechanically anchored steel bar is a reversible technique, simple and easy to


incorporate to stone masonry walls, piers, buttresses, arches, etc. Its effectiveness as an
upgrading technique is found, according to laboratory testing, comparable to grouting,
and it has a reliable and reproducible performance. However, its application is mostly
limited to anchoring ashlar or dressed stone masonry wythes.

The improvements with coring bits have made dry coring a viable option with no
sacrifice in speed. The multiple bit used for dry coring cuts the core as well as mulches
the debris so that, instead of extracting stone rubble from the core, a positive and negative
air system simply vacuums the dust directly to a filtered, dust-controlled container for
removal from the site. The core created in the wall without water is clean and dry and
does not need brushing for removal of mortar paste or drying prior to implementing the
upgrading (Breiholz, 1991).

Figure 4.6 Heavy strengthening of stone masonry structure - Reinforced truss

Guidelines for The Seismic Upgrading of Stone Masonry Structures


26 Chapter 4: Conventional Upgrading Techniques for Structural Components

Figure 4.7 Reinforcement of a masonry vault

4.3.2 Modification of the structure mechanical properties


Upgrading techniques that transform an unreinforced masonry wall into a composite
structural component are grouped together, since all these techniques yield modified,
mechanical properties of the structural system. These techniques require the addition of
other structural components such as reinforced concrete beams or steel frame, and the
bonding of the existing and new structural components so that they act together.

4.3.2.1 Jacketing
Jacketing is referred to the application of reinforced plaster to one or two surfaces of a
wall, and covering either the entire wall surface or only parts of the wall in need of
upgrading, i.e., to sew cracks. The plaster is normally concrete with adequate aggregate
sizes and with additives to prevent creep and improve its adhesion to the masonry
surface.

The thickness of the plaster is in the order of 30 to 50 mm. A steel reinforcement mesh is
typically made with bars 3 to 4 mm in diameter. The effectiveness of this upgrading
technique is usually enhanced by connecting the reinforced plaster on both surfaces of the
wall with ties passing through the wall as shown in Figure 4.8. Normal practice has been
to insert a couple of ties with a bar 4 to 6 mm in diameter per square metre without any
injection into the hole.

Guidelines for The Seismic Upgrading of Stone Masonry Structures


Chapter 4: Conventional Upgrading Techniques for Structural Components 27

Figure 4.8 Plan view of ties connecting reinforced outer thin plaster

Jacketing is also achieved by using shotcrete or by constructing in-situ cast, reinforced


concrete walls. The minimum thickness of a reinforced concrete wall is in the order of
100 mm. The new walls are self-bearing, even if they are structurally connected to the
existing masonry wall. These walls can be built only on one face, i.e., the internal one, as
shown in Figure 4.9.

Figure 4.9 Jacketing consisting of reinforced concrete wall and concrete bond beam

Relative merits

Guidelines for The Seismic Upgrading of Stone Masonry Structures


28 Chapter 4: Conventional Upgrading Techniques for Structural Components

Analytical studies using finite element model have revealed that jacketing on both
surfaces of the wall reduces the masonry tension on average by 50%, or by more than
65% in the most stressed regions of the wall. Further, one-sided shortcrete jacketing has
been found to reduce the extreme tensile stresses in masonry by about one-third on
average and by less than 50% in the most critically stressed regions of the wall
(Karantoni and Fardis, 1992).

This technique, which fuses the structure into one solid mass of unyielding concrete, is
non-reversible and difficult to repair in the future. It should be noted that the life span of
the structure becomes limited to that of the upgrading technique.

4.3.2.2 Centre-coring or reinforced injections


Centre-coring consists of coring vertically down through masonry walls and grouting a
reinforcing bar into each cored hole as illustrated in Figure 4.10. This technique is used
to introduce steel reinforcement into the masonry wall. The same approach is also used
to provide reinforcement in the horizontal direction.

This technique has been used to avoid exterior and interior visual interruptions, where the
out-of-plane capacity of the wall is upgraded by vertically drilling down the centreline of
the wall, then installing a reinforcing bar and filling the hole with either a mixture of
polyester resin and sand or cementitious grout. This procedure requires the removal of
the mansard framing at some locations. Centre-coring preserves the exterior historic
architectural fabric, but not that of the inside of the wall.

Traditionally, the cores have been wet-drilled. However, a new technology has been
developed to dry-core so that finishes do not have to be removed, if susceptible to water
damage.

Relative merits
Although, this upgrading technique has been used, the directional control of the coring
needs to be improved. Further, there is no test data on the effectiveness of this technique
for stone masonry in order to develop design procedures.

Centre coring is an intrusive and non-reversible technique that introduces materials that
are not compatible with the existing construction methods. Future repair or upgrade is
extremely difficult.

Guidelines for The Seismic Upgrading of Stone Masonry Structures


Chapter 4: Conventional Upgrading Techniques for Structural Components 29

Figure 4.10 Reinforced injection or centre coring technique for strengthening and
tying the structure together

4.3.2.3 Reinforced concrete and steel frames


Typically this upgrading technique aims to strengthen an opening or to make an opening
in an existing stone masonry wall. The frame reinforces the wall structurally weakened
by the opening. The ties between the wall and the frame are introduced to connect the
two structural systems. This is traditionally accomplished through reinforced injections.
Figure 4.11 shows a typical design of a reinforced concrete frame.

Relative merits
The mechanical properties of both the reinforced concrete frame and the steel frame are
not compatible with the stone masonry. The stiffer concrete frame tends to attract more
loads and the flexible steel frame will provide resistance after the masonry has cracked.
Thus additional strengthening for the top and bottom portions of the wall is sometimes
required to transfer the lateral loads. Further, only the steel frame is a reversible
upgrading technique.

Guidelines for The Seismic Upgrading of Stone Masonry Structures


30 Chapter 4: Conventional Upgrading Techniques for Structural Components

Figure 4.11 Reinforced concrete frame for strengthening and existing or new wall
opening (Modena, 1992)

4.3.2.4 Reinforced concrete beams and columns, and steel ties


This technique employs new-engineered systems such as a reinforced concrete frame
shown in Figure 4.12 to Figure 4.14, in order to strengthen the in-plane and out-of-plane
capacity of the stone masonry structure. The use of a reinforced concrete frame to
confine the stone masonry walls and diaphragm was first used in Italy following the
earthquakes in the 1980s.

Guidelines for The Seismic Upgrading of Stone Masonry Structures


Chapter 4: Conventional Upgrading Techniques for Structural Components 31

Figure 4.12 Detail of a reinforced concrete column added to strengthen and tie the
diaphragm and the stone masonry walls

Relative merits
The additions of reinforced concrete beams and columns represent a relatively costly and
time-consuming upgrading technique. This technique was introduced without adequate
studies of its effectiveness. Analytical studies have shown that the addition of a deep
reinforced concrete tie beam at the levels of the floors results in a slightly lower reduction
in the tension of masonry. The inclusion of reinforced concrete tie-columns at all
intersections of load-bearing walls, used alone or in combination with reinforced concrete
slabs or tie beams, is found to contribute little to the seismic strengthening of the
building. This finding is due in part to the fact that the critical seismic tensile stresses in
the walls are in the horizontal direction (Karantoni and Fardis, 1992).

Figure 4.13 Concrete belt and eaves are used to improve the out-of-plane stability
of the walls

Guidelines for The Seismic Upgrading of Stone Masonry Structures


32 Chapter 4: Conventional Upgrading Techniques for Structural Components

Figure 4.14 Reinforced bond beam used to strengthen and tie together the stone
masonry walls and the diaphragm

The inclusion of a concrete frame a) is not compatible with the existing construction
methods, b) is irreversible, c) affects the facade of the building, and d) is difficult to
construct.

4.3.2.5 Adding reinforced concrete shear walls or buttresses


Reinforced concrete shear walls or buttresses have been added to strengthen the seismic
capacity of masonry structures. The shear walls may be new walls or shotcrete walls
added against the existing masonry with finishes restored (see Jacketing, Section 4.3.2.1).
For some cases, a wythe or two of masonry is removed and replaced with reinforced
shotcrete so that interior finishes will fit to original dimensions.

4.3.3 Modification of the seismic behaviour of the whole structure


The overall structural capacity of existing stone masonry structure to both gravity and
seismic loads can be upgraded by tying the structure together to provide a box-like
behaviour, or by adding a secondary structural system. From past experiences, the major
weakness of these structures has been the out-of-plane strength and stability of the walls.
The deficiencies have been attributed to inadequate stiffness of diaphragms,
insufficient/inadequate strength of the connections between floors and walls and between
intersecting walls. Techniques for upgrading the overall capacity of stone masonry
structures are presented in this section.

Guidelines for The Seismic Upgrading of Stone Masonry Structures


Chapter 4: Conventional Upgrading Techniques for Structural Components 33

4.3.3.1 Connections between intersecting walls


The connection of walls with steel ties, which are usually positioned on the outer side of
the walls and covered with plaster, represents a typical building-friendly method (see
Figure 4.15 and Figure 4.16). No intervention in the existing walls is usually necessary.
The ties are placed in channels cut into the plaster, re-plastered, and adequately protected
against corrosion. Where the walls are not plastered on the in- or outside, steel ties are
placed to channels cut into the masonry. In this case, the cut pieces of stone are carefully
removed and, after the ties have been placed into position and protected against
corrosion, they are used again to cover the ties.

The ties are anchored at the ends of the walls on steel bearing plates, adequately shaped
and placed on the smoothed surface of the walls (see Figure 4.17). The ends of the bars
are threaded what makes possible the pre-stressing and anchoring of the bars on the
anchor plates by means of nuts.

Figure 4.15 Steel ties for tying the structure together (UN-ICOMOS, 1984)

The minimum diameter of a tie-bar in the building depends on the distribution of the
walls in the critical story as well as on the number of ties provided in one direction of the
critical segment. Consequently, the minimum diameter of the tie can be calculated by the
equation (Tomazevic et al., 1994)
D min = (H u n )(4 π)(1 f y ) (4.1)

where Hu = the ultimate resistance of the critical segment of the story under
consideration,
n = the number of tie-bars, and
fy = the yield stress of the tie-bar.
A distance of 4 m can be taken as the critical segment of a wall with or without opening.

To make the tie effective at the onset of vibrations, the tie bars need to be pre-stressed to
approximately 500 µs or 10 to 20% of the masonry compressive strength (Tomazevic et

Guidelines for The Seismic Upgrading of Stone Masonry Structures


34 Chapter 4: Conventional Upgrading Techniques for Structural Components

al., 1994). This ensures immediate action of the ties and prevents cracking of the walls at
vertical joints.

Figure 4.16 Illustration of steel tie anchoring technique

The design and position of the ties can be based on the recommendations proposed by
Tomazevic et al. (1994):
• Good connection of walls can be achieved by placing steel tie bars on both sides of
all structural walls of the buildings under consideration, at all floor levels. Tie bars
should be anchored at the ends on steel bearing plates. In most cases, no additional
intervention in the floor structural system, wooden floors or brick vaults, is needed.
Sometimes, however, in the case of buildings with large distance between structural
walls, diagonal ties should be also used, anchored at the corners and at mid-span of
the walls and hidden within the wooden floor, to prevent excessive out-of-plane
vibration.
• The size and quantity of the ties can be determined by calculation. However, the
experiments have shown that the use of mild-steel reinforcing bars (yield stress 240
MPa), 22 mm in diameter, is adequate in most cases.
• To prevent cracking of the walls at vertical joints at the beginning of vibrations and to
ensure immediate action of the ties, the tie bars placed along the walls should be pre-
stressed. The pre-stressing of the tie that induces 500-µs strain in the tie-bars is
strongly recommended.

Guidelines for The Seismic Upgrading of Stone Masonry Structures


Chapter 4: Conventional Upgrading Techniques for Structural Components 35

Figure 4.17 Anchoring details for steel ties

Relative merits
Through past performances, it has been learned that no other technique gives the same
increase in seismic resistance of existing stone masonry with such minor changes to the
original structure (Tomazevic et al., 1994).

Pre-stressing of the walls by internal tie-bars at approximately 10% of the compressive


strength of the masonry is found to be more effective than the one-sided jacketing. It is
almost as effective as the combination of slabs and a tie beam at the top of the wall
provided the pre-stressing is placed in both horizontal (along the spandrel opening) and
vertical direction (along the piers, from the foundation to the top). Pre-stressing in the
vertical direction alone is not an effective strengthening technique (Karantoni and Fardis,
1992).

4.3.3.2 Connections between walls and stiffened floors


Past seismic behaviour of stone masonry structures has indicated that one of the effective
techniques to prevent out-of-plane instability is by adequately connecting the stone
masonry to a relatively stiff diaphragm. A thin layer of lightweight concrete has been
one of the initial techniques proposed to stiffen wood diaphragms (see Figure 4.18). The
new concrete diaphragm is tied to the wooden diaphragm using shear studs (nails) and is
connected to the stone masonry walls using reinforced injections (see Figure 4.19).

Guidelines for The Seismic Upgrading of Stone Masonry Structures


36 Chapter 4: Conventional Upgrading Techniques for Structural Components

Figure 4.18 Thin light-weight concrete shell is used to stiffen the diaphragm and
create a positive anchor with the existing wall

Figure 4.19 Steel ties are inserted to create an effective connection with the existing
wall

The conventional construction methods, i.e., adding plywood strips as shown in Figure
4.20, have been used to stiffen the diaphragm. By placing layers in perpendicular
orientation, the diaphragm stiffness can be increased significantly. Details of connections
to the walls using steel ties are shown in Figure 4.21, Figure 4.22, and Figure 4.23.

Figure 4.20 Plywood strips are used to stiffen the diaphragm

Guidelines for The Seismic Upgrading of Stone Masonry Structures


Chapter 4: Conventional Upgrading Techniques for Structural Components 37

Figure 4.21 Steel straps are embedded between the two shells to create an effective
connection with the existing wall

Figure 4.22 Illustration of different wall end connections

Guidelines for The Seismic Upgrading of Stone Masonry Structures


38 Chapter 4: Conventional Upgrading Techniques for Structural Components

Figure 4.23 Steel ties utilised to anchor wooden floor beam to stone masonry wall

Relative merits
Replacement of wooden floors with reinforced concrete slabs represents a relatively
costly and time-consuming procedure. It is a structural intervention that is not
compatible with historical construction methods. Experimental evidence suggests that
this approach is not always necessary, because it is very intrusive and does not yield the
best seismic resistance (Tomazevic et al., 1994).

Analytical studies have shown that the replacement of flexible wood floors by reinforced
concrete slabs, along with construction of a reinforced concrete tie beam at the top of the
walls is slightly more effective than one-sided jacketing. This technique reduces the
extreme masonry tension by about 35% on average, and by almost 50% in the most
critical region (Karantoni and Fardis, 1992).

4.3.3.3 Adding a secondary lateral resisting structural system


An alternative approach for increasing the capacity of a structure is to mitigate possible
damage by adding a secondary structural resisting system.

Steel diagonal bracing. The addition of structural-steel diagonal bracing seldom


achieves sufficient stiffness to protect the masonry from damage. However, steel bracing
acts to maintain structural integrity, once the stone masonry has cracked. Different
bracing types exist, as illustrated in Figure 4.24. The type of bracing system is usually
determined on the basis of structural and aesthetic requirements, and accessibility.

Relative merits
This technique is reversible. However, for this system to be effective, its connections
with the diaphragm or pier have to be strengthened to resist the increase in the load
transfer.

Guidelines for The Seismic Upgrading of Stone Masonry Structures


Chapter 4: Conventional Upgrading Techniques for Structural Components 39

Figure 4.24 Different bracing types

Steel frame to towers. This technique has been used to enhance the structural integrity
of stone masonry towers. The inclusion of a steel frame prevents the collapse of the
tower. Further, the use of pre-stressed ties permits the transfer of load from the tower to
the frame prior to the formation of vertical cracks at the wall interface.

Relative merits
There are no data regarding the effectiveness of this technique. However, it is reversible
and it can be upgraded in the future, if it is found to be deficient.

Guidelines for The Seismic Upgrading of Stone Masonry Structures


40 Chapter 4: Conventional Upgrading Techniques for Structural Components

Figure 4.25 Steel frame and anchoring details for strengthening the out-of-plane
stability of stone masonry towers (Modena, 1992)

4.4 General upgrading requirements


In the seismic upgrading of a stone masonry structure, the following requirements should
govern:
1. The structural walls should be uniformly distributed in both orthogonal directions of
the buildings. They should be sufficient in number, strength and ductility to resist the
expected seismic loads.
2. Adequate measures need to be taken for tying the walls, and anchoring and stiffening
of floors. Rigidity in the floor diaphragm is best achieved by stiffening the floors and
by ensuring that they are well anchored into the walls to prevent out-of-plane
behaviour of walls.
3. The use of building-friendly methods and compatible construction techniques is
recommended.
4. The foundation system must enable the transfer of ultimate loading from the upper
structure into the soil.

Guidelines for The Seismic Upgrading of Stone Masonry Structures


5. CONVENTIONAL UPGRADING TECHNIQUES FOR NON-
STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS

5.1 Introduction
Stone masonry buildings typically have ornamental components that constitute important
architectural features. These ornamental components referred to as non-structural
components, such as cornices, parapets, column capitals, pinnacles, finials, gargoyles,
etc., are generally anchored to or project out from or above the stone masonry walls.
These components are often exposed to the environment and are continuously subjected
to alternating actions from temperature, wind or seismic disturbances, and to gravity
forces when the components are cantilevered out. Because of the combinations of severe
and frequent exposure, thin section of the non-structural components have rendered the
material and the anchoring conditions vulnerable to moisture infiltration, and attack by
harmful environmental agents (soluble salts, etc.). The deterioration of these non-
structural stone masonry components is manifested through spalling, surface erosion,
exfoliation, corrosion of embedded metals, or loss of anchorage.

Seismic upgrading of non-structural components begins by evaluating the structural


integrity of the components through a field survey, non-destructive and destructive
testing, and for some cases, laboratory analyses of the materials. Those conducting the
evaluation need to consider the demand requirements (loads) and the available capacity
(resistance) of the non-structural component and its connection to the structural
components, the durability of the materials, the past and future performance and the
aesthetics of the component, as well as the required restoration and upgrading procedure.
The cost of the upgrading must also be considered, because it is in most cases the
decisive factor.

The first phase of upgrading non-structural components is to determine the need for an
appropriate material restoration procedure. Although restoration procedures are beyond
the scope of these guidelines, a brief description of the following techniques is given;
cleaning, sealing and consolidation of stone, and strengthening of mortar. The second
phase of the seismic upgrading process addresses the strengthening/retrofit of anchors
and backup framing for upgrading the seismic capacity.

5.2 Restoration techniques


The need to repair decayed stone dates back to the Roman times where stone replacement
was the normal practice. Today, a variety of techniques and chemical compounds are
available to stone conservator for either mitigating damage to the surface by cleaning the
stone, for protecting the stone by sealing the surface, or for consolidating/strengthening a
weakened surface by chemical impregnation of the stone. However, stone replacement is
still the preferred practice when it is permitted due to heritage and structural stability
considerations and when it is feasible.

Guidelines for The Seismic Upgrading of Stone Masonry Structures


42 Chapter 5: Conventional Upgrading Techniques for Non-structural Components

5.2.1 Stone-cleaning
Cleaning of stone is recommended only when it has been proven that the surface deposits
affect the integrity of the stone, and that the effects of the deposits are causing
irreversible damage. Therefore, soiling on the surface is not a just cause for the cleaning
of stone. Past experiences reported by Sasse & Snethlage (1997) have shown that
cleaning is essential to
• remove deleterious substances, especially salts,
• open pores to re-establish the water vapour transport, and
• improve the surface absorption properties to carry an effective treatment.

The most common methods of cleaning for a particular application are listed in Table 5.1.
The associated risks are also presented. Evaluation methods for determining the
effectiveness of the cleaning and available requirements are given in Table 5.2.
Additional information on the selection and evaluation of the various cleaning technique
are given by Sasse & Snethlage (1997).

It is recommended that the cleaning techniques be first evaluated on a small trial area
prior to their full applications.

Guidelines for The Seismic Upgrading of Stone Masonry Structures


Chapter 5: Conventional Upgrading Techniques for Non-structural Components 43

Table 5.1 List of commonly used cleaning methods (Sasse & Snethlage, 1997)

Method Parameters Application Risks


Cold water Spraying, no Gypsum-rich, High moisture, open
pressure soakable crusts, joints
dense rocks
Water under 60°C - 90°C, up Gypsum-rich crusts, Loss of substance
pressure to 150 bar dense rocks on soft surfaces,
loss of loose flakes,
open joints
Steam jet 140°C - 180°C, 20- Gypsum-rich crusts, Loss of substance
40 bar dense and porous on sanding and soil
rocks surfaces
Particle jet Blast furnace slag, All kind of dirt, Loss of substance
hollow glass balls, especially dense on sanding and soft
size 0.1 - 0.5 mm, hard rocks surfaces
dry and wet
Micro-particle jet Different materials, All kinds of dirt and Dust pollution of
e.g. Corundum, rocks environment
quartz, calcite,
hollow glass, size
0.05 - 0.1 mm
Laser Wave length, pulse All kind of dirt, Discoloration of
frequency, focus especially for light- pigments
(energy density) coloured rocks such
as limestone &
marble

5.2.2 Sealers/Water repellent


Stone is not damaged by the presence of water, but by its physical and chemical effects.
To this end, sealers have been used to develop a tight impervious surface skin which
prevent the access of moisture, reactive gases such as sulphur dioxide or nitrous oxides,
and soluble salts to the core of the stone. The aim has been to reduce the damage effects
caused by frost and hygric swelling, to mitigate biological growth, and to reduce the
amount of particulate fixation so that the formation of crusts is prevented.

A variety of sealers are currently available and continue to be used by stone conservators.
They range from the traditional linseed oil and paraffin solutions, to modern-day
chemicals such as polymeric silicone resins, alkyl silanes, and siloxanes. They all form a
silicone resin film.

Research into the durability of silicone resins has shown that their efficiency in
preventing the capillary water uptake drop remarkably at the surface region after a short

Guidelines for The Seismic Upgrading of Stone Masonry Structures


44 Chapter 5: Conventional Upgrading Techniques for Non-structural Components

time (Wendler, 1997). Laboratory results have shown a clear correlation between the
absorbed amount of siloxane solution/amount of silicone resin formed inside the pore
space and the durability of the treatment after artificial weathering (Wendler, 1997).
However, results obtained through field survey have indicated that the decrease in water
repellency is not due to UV radiation (Wendler and Snethlage, 1988).

Table 5.2 Methods for evaluating the cleaning technique (Sasse & Snethlage, 1997)
Property Dimension Test method Requirement
Visual appearance Not defined
Standard colour DIN 5033, part3 Not defined
Colour differences DIN6174
Water uptake kg m 2 h Karsten tube ωi ≈ ωo 1
coefficient, ω
Water vapour DIN 52615, wet cup µi ≈ µo
diffusion, µ
Biological No. of cells or MPN tests, etc. Not defined
colonisation clusters
Surface roughness, µm E DIN 4760 ff, E Ri ≈ Ro
R or P DIN 4770 ff, Pi ≈ Po
Surface roughness
meter Abott curve
1
Subscript (o) relates to the original stone and subscript (i) to the treated stone.

Field and laboratory results are showing that the reduction in the efficacy is the result of
the hygrophilic particulates being deposited inside the outermost grain layers. The newly
formed lateral zone, which is sharply separated from the intact water-repellent zone
inside the stone, begins to take up water again. Since the water due to rain and dew
cannot be transported into the interior of the material because of the impregnation, the
surface of the treated material remains wet for much longer than the untreated one.

It was believed that durability can be enhanced by reducing the deposition of hydrophilic
deposits through more of silicone, i.e., forming a dense network instead of a film. Or, the
limited durability of the silicones can also be overcome by treating the material again.
However, laboratory experiments have shown that the modulus of elasticity increases
sharply following an application of a 6% solution of alkyl siloxanes (Riecken and
Schwamborn, 1995). Thus, the application of additional treatments would result in a
rigid surface zone that is not compatible with the untreated material, i.e., prone to damage
due to environmental actions namely hygric dilatation, freeze/thaw action, and biological
attack.

Guidelines for The Seismic Upgrading of Stone Masonry Structures


Chapter 5: Conventional Upgrading Techniques for Non-structural Components 45

The effects of moisture on the swelling and shrinking of treated and untreated clay-rich
sandstone was investigated by Möller (Wendler, 1997). The results clearly indicate that
the amount of water absorbed by the untreated material was up to 40% higher than the
treated one. However, the hygric dilatation of the treated material was considerably
greater than that of the untreated material for the same moisture contents: 2 to 1 ratio.
The enhanced hygric dilatation was attributed to the wedge effect caused by the deposited
resin. Thus the risk of damage to the stone surface is greatly enhanced as a result of the
treatment.

Treating natural stone with sealers should be used as the last option. To this end,
Wendler (1997) has provided some guidance on when to use water-repellent agents:
• Stone with a high capillary absorbency, i.e. ω > 1 kg m 2 h 0.5 .
• Reactive components in the structure.
• The absence of moisture pathways from the ground or the interior.
• The possibility of repeating the treatment without altering the mechanical properties
in the treated zone, or the development of highly durable agents (>20 years).
• The absence of soluble and hygroscopic salts.
• A joint network without fissures or defects.

Past experiences have shown that the use of sealers to protect natural stone has in most
cases exacerbated the problem instead of providing remedy. Therefore, in addition to the
above noted guidance, it is further recommended that the use of sealers be limited to
special cases, where the stone can be completely sealed and is preferably in a controlled
environment.

5.2.3 Stone consolidation


Over-stressing, weathering, ageing, etc. are the actions that cause damage to stone
masonry, i.e., stone units and mortar. Guidance on methods to enhance the binding
ability of mortar is given in Section 5.2.4. This section addresses the damage and
consolidation of natural stones.

The observed surface damage to natural stone due to weathering is primarily related to
the loss of cohesion, i.e., strength and modulus of elasticity. The strength of a grain
structure in a porous stone is made up of three different types of cohesion (Sasse and
Snethlage, 1997):
1. cohesion due to real mineralic bridges, such as calcite inter-growth,
2. cohesion of minerals due to electrostatic forces and water films, and
3. cohesion due to mechanical indentation resulting in mechanical interlocking.

Thus a loss of strength implies the breakdown of one or more of these three types of
cohesion. To this end, consolidating products have been introduced to re-establish the
broken or damaged links, namely
• ethyl silicate or silica gel to improve the bridging properties,
• ethyl silicate or silica gel to improve the mechanical interlocking effects, and

Guidelines for The Seismic Upgrading of Stone Masonry Structures


46 Chapter 5: Conventional Upgrading Techniques for Non-structural Components

• modified ethyl silicate and polyurethanes as film forming agents.

At this time, there are still unanswered questions on where the consolidants are deposited,
what are the conditions that effect their effectiveness, and what is the long-term
performance of these materials. The state of knowledge was reported by Wendler (1997)
and is briefly summarised here.

The use of ethyl silicate (SAE) to consolidate natural stone for the past 20 to 30 years has
shown that the increase in strength depends on the type of substrate, i.e., stone. Results
indicate that SAE increases the strengths of sandstone but not those of limestone and tuff
(Wendler, 1997). For limestone, the cause is poor binding of the gel to the carbonic
surface attributed in part to the retarded or delayed condensation reaction observed for
calcite but not for quartz (Goins et al., 1996). The pore-size distribution of the tuff may
account for the poor performance of SAE. The silica gel is being deposited in the
capillary pores instead of the meso-pores, which is required for effective consolidation
(Wendler, 1997).

The effectiveness of SAE on limestone has been improved by the use of adhesive-
coupling agents as additives. A phosphate-modified product has been noted to increase
the strength of limestone because phosphate compounds can covalently link to the
growing silica gel structure during the condensation reaction. Wendler (1997) has also
noted that the integration of aminopropyl trialkoxy silanes into the gel network can
improve the bonding to quartz and mica surfaces. He also suggested that trialkoxy
silanes with functional groups of different polarity are useful coupling agents depending
on the type of substrate. Similar to the phosphate group, these additives increase the
bond strength as they are covalently integrated into the gel network structure (Wendler,
1997).

The integration of SAE into natural stone has resulted in increased stiffness of the treated
material. Stress-strain test results have indicated a significant difference between the
outermost treated zone and the untreated inner core of the material (Wendler, 1997).
Therefore, interfaces created by stone consolidants give rise to high stresses when
subjected to environmental actions. The result has been damage (scaling) of the outer
treated zone, particularly in softer types of stones such as porous limestone, tuffs, etc.
(Rodrigues and Costa, 1995).

To overcome the poor performance of SAE, flexible additives have been integrated with
rigid networks of silica gels (Wendler, 1997), or more flexible agents such as
polyurethanes (PUR) have been used (Sasse et al., 1993). It is believed that the new
flexible agents will form an elastic film binding the components together. Ideally, these
approaches are viable since they can minimise the effects of stress raisors because of the
reduction in stiffness of the treated zone, and minimise the effects of hygric swelling
because of the film which bar the entry of moisture. Unfortunately, experiences with
these materials have shown that they can be either water-repellent or hydrophilic
depending on the additives, i.e., potentially they can enhance the hygric swelling
problem. Additional information on the performance of modified SAE and PUR are

Guidelines for The Seismic Upgrading of Stone Masonry Structures


Chapter 5: Conventional Upgrading Techniques for Non-structural Components 47

discussed by Wendler (1997). See the list of laboratory (Table 5.3) and field (Table 5.4)
test methods and requirements for evaluating the stone consolidants.

Sasse and Snethlage (1997) have provided requirements to evaluate the acceptance of the
consolidants:
1. The required penetration depth should refer to the location of the maximum of the
mean moisture penetration depth, or the thickness of the structurally damaged zone
for cases of dense crusts and deterioration of rain-sheltered areas.
2. The properties of the treated zone should be related to those of the original stone.
3. Consolidation should enhance the strength of a stone to a maximum value equal to its
original state. Overstrengthening must be avoided. However, overstrengthening may
be permitted, if the following conditions are met:
• The penetration is deeper than the maximum of the mean moisture distribution
curve. Thus, salt crystallisation does not take place beneath the treated zone.
• The strength of the treated zone must be lower only in the zone beneath the
depth of the maximum of the mean moisture distribution curve.
• The modulus of elasticity of the consolidated zone must not exceed one and
half times the elastic modulus of the original stone.
• The ratio of the modulus of elasticity to strength of the consolidated zone
must not exceed the ratio of the elastic modulus to strength of the original
stone. However, an increase of 20% may be tolerated.
• The changes (slope) in the stone strength (MPa) over length (mm) must be
continuous, smooth and less than 0.5 MPa/mm.
4. At least two test methods must be used to determine the strength of the consolidated
stone.

In summary, decayed or soft surface sections of natural stone have been consolidated or
stabilised by chemical impregnation; however, the long-term performance of these
materials is still not well known. As a minimum, the stiffness of the treated material
must be lower than the untreated material, and that the strength must not exceed those of
the original material. Further, the stiffness of the treated zone should not change/increase
with time as a result of physical or chemical alteration.

Guidelines for The Seismic Upgrading of Stone Masonry Structures


48 Chapter 5: Conventional Upgrading Techniques for Non-structural Components

Table 5.3 Laboratory test methods for evaluating the hydrophobic and non-
hydrophobic stone consolidants (Sasse & Snethlage, 1997)
Property Dimension Test method Requirement1
Visual properties DIN 6174 Slight colour change only, no
darkening, gloss or increased
susceptibility to soiling
Application Less than 30% of the capillary pore
volume filled with water
Water uptake DIN 52 617 ωi ≈ ωo
kg m 2 h
coefficient, ω
Water penetration
cm h
DIN 52 617 Bi ≈ Bo
coefficient, B
Penetration depth cm Capillary soaking Deeper than zone of maximum
for 5 min mean moisture. In cases of dense
crusts and deterioration of rain-
sheltered areas the thickness of the
damaged zone is to be considered.
Hygric dilatation µm m Hygric and No increase against original stone
overhygric range
Thermal dilatation K −1 -20/0+20/ +40 No increase against original stone
Water vapour DIN 52615, µ i < 1.2 µ o
diffusion, µ wet cup
Sorption isotherm Storage under 0- No extra sorption in the range RH
95% RH, 20°C 70 to 95%
Drying rate h 20/65 Drying time until moisture content
at 20/65, t i < 1.2 t o
Flexural strength MPa Drill core slices Homogeneous strength profile,
with double ring strength increase of the weathered
load, storage stone up to the strength of the
20/65 original stone
Modulus of elasticity, Gpa Static or dynamic E i < 1.5 E o
E
Pull-off strength MPa Storage 20/65 Homogeneous strength profile,
strength increase of the weathered
stone up to the strength of the
original stone
SEM examination SEM Formation of grain-grain bridges,
adhesion and grain surface filming,
filling of clay mineral aggregates
1
Subscript (o) relates to the original stone and subscript (i) to the treated stone.

Guidelines for The Seismic Upgrading of Stone Masonry Structures


Chapter 5: Conventional Upgrading Techniques for Non-structural Components 49

Table 5.4 Field test methods for evaluating the hydrophobic and non-hydrophobic
stone consolidants (Sasse & Snethlage, 1997)
Property Dimension Test method Requirement
Drilling hardness Drill hardness Homogeneous strength profile,
meter strength increase of the weathered
stone up to the strength of the
original stone
Water uptake kg m 2 h Karsten tube ωi ≤ ωo
coefficient, ω
1
Subscript (o) relates to the original stone and subscript (i) to the treated stone.

5.2.4 Repair techniques for bedding mortar and mortar joint


The actions of weathering and ageing are the primary causes of mortar deterioration.
Mortar, the binding material between stone units, provides a mechanical and physical
connection between the stone units. Therefore, stone repair mortar or joint mortar must
possess thermal properties, mass transport properties, and mechanical properties
compatible with the existing material. For mechanical properties, the mortar’s stiffness
must be lower than that of the stone, i.e., material with the lowest modulus of elasticity
and acceptable strength values must be selected. The objective is to force the initiation of
failure, i.e., crack, to occur either in the mortar joint or in the contact area between the
mortar and the stone.

Also, the transport properties of the repair mortar must be compatible with the existing
material. Employing a mortar with different transport properties would result in the
accelerated deterioration of exposed surfaces because of weathering actions, and an
increase in ageing effects manifested by different discoloration with time.

5.3 Retrofitting techniques


Retrofit of non-structural components and ornaments addresses mainly the anchoring
system that involves strengthening distressed anchors and supporting frame members. It
should be noted that all weak material needs to be strengthened/consolidated first and that
the missing or decayed sections be repaired or replaced.

Traditionally, a cracked section in stone is strengthened by epoxy grouting, or secured by


the use of reinforced injection or the use of steel pins set in epoxy-filled holes. The weak
fabric of large ornamental sections is stitched together with steel bars set into grout in
pre-drilled holes, a procedure similar to the reinforced injection for structural
components.

The retrofit of anchorage for ornamental components that are classified heritage, are
addressed slightly different in that the intervention is preferably contained within the
component. The retrofit can involve the seismic strengthening of large building sections
such as the exterior veneer, or smaller free-standing components such as chimneys,

Guidelines for The Seismic Upgrading of Stone Masonry Structures


50 Chapter 5: Conventional Upgrading Techniques for Non-structural Components

cornices, wall ornaments, or tall parapets. Illustrations are provided for demonstrating
different procedures for upgrading the anchoring system.

5.3.1 Free-standing component


Free-standing non-structural components include chimney, finial, pinnacle, parapet,
statue, etc. A typical class of free-standing building ornament is the stone finial shown in
Figure 5.1. Finial is commonly anchored by a vertical steel bar through the centre. For
structures located in moderate to high seismic zones, the upgrading of the anchor is
usually required. The strengthening procedure depends on the condition and type of the
anchor. If the original anchor is found to be severely corroded, then the ornament is
dismantled in order to replace the steel bar. When the bar anchors are found to be in
good condition but their capacities are not adequate, then the ornament anchoring is
strengthened by reinforced injection (see Figure 5.1).

Figure 5.1 Strengthening of the anchors for freestanding finial

There are different type of injections used to cement the steel pins or bars inside the stone
masonry. The most common have been polymer-based grout such as epoxy; however,
grouts made from either cementitious or lime base material have also been used. The

Guidelines for The Seismic Upgrading of Stone Masonry Structures


Chapter 5: Conventional Upgrading Techniques for Non-structural Components 51

advantage of epoxy is its fast-setting and bonding strength, however, its ageing process is
different from the stone masonry and therefore their long-term performance is not known.

For preventing future deterioration of the ornament, it is essential to tuck-point the


deteriorated joint and to protect horizontal surfaces of the ornament against water
infiltration. Any openings and cracks around the original anchors should also be filled by
injection with epoxy, grout or foam in order to protect the steel from possible future
contact with moisture. In locations susceptible to water infiltration, it is recommended to
use stainless steel type of bar instead of traditional low-carbon material.

Figure 5.2 Seismic bracing added to provide lateral support for a parapet

Another class of a free-standing building component is the parapet shown in Figure 5.2.
The anchoring condition of a parapet is usually inadequate to resist lateral load due to
seismic forces. There are at least two techniques to strengthen the anchoring between the
parapet and the roof. As shown in Figure 5.2, bracing can be added to upgrade the out-
of-plane capacity of the parapet. This approach is reversible but visible. Another
technique includes the use of the jacketing technique to upgrade the stiffness and strength
of the parapet (see Figure 5.3). The disadvantage of this approach is that it is not
reversible; however, the advantage is that it requires less space to implement.

Stone masonry is traditionally used as an outer wythe in the construction of chimneys.


The centre-coring technique described in the previous chapter is a new technique adapted
to upgrade the lateral capacity of chimneys. Traditionally, reinforced stitching has been
used to improve the integrity of the chimney and to upgrade its lateral capacity. Both
techniques are intrusive and irreversible.

Guidelines for The Seismic Upgrading of Stone Masonry Structures


52 Chapter 5: Conventional Upgrading Techniques for Non-structural Components

Figure 5.3 Jacketing technique used for strengthening the parapet anchoring
condition

5.3.2 Flat-wall component


Distress in flat-wall-attached ornamental sections, such as decorative columns,
cartouches and friezes, is often in the form of cracking, debonding or discoloration
caused by environmental exposure or corrosion of embedded metal. With most cases,
water had entered through the joint where the mortar has deteriorated and subsequently
destroyed the bond to the substrate. These elements can be restored following the
guidance provided in Section 5.2. The re-attachment of these elements can be achieved
by reinforced injection and by anchoring the reinforcement to the backing frame using
the stitching technique.

Column capitals, wall sculptures, watertables and eyebrows typically have unprotected
top surfaces, therefore they are freely exposed to rain and accumulation of dirt. Thermal
stress and environmental exposure degrade the structure, a mechanism that is usually
fostered by the infiltration of water at the mortar joints, which results in the corrosion of
the steel support and metal anchors. The result is spalling of the materials. The
restoration procedure given in the previous section should be followed to consolidate the
stone and enhance its durability.

Failure of these components is due to seismic activity and to damage. In addition, they
represent a special hazard, because they are often located above building entrances.
Therefore, it is important not only to secure the ornament by means of the stitching
technique, but also to protect the horizontal surfaces against future water infiltration.

Guidelines for The Seismic Upgrading of Stone Masonry Structures


Chapter 5: Conventional Upgrading Techniques for Non-structural Components 53

5.3.3 Roof cornices


Similar to the flat-wall component, roof cornices are exposed to thermal movement and
water infiltration, in addition they are cantilevered outward. Thus a bending stress is
added to the component. As a result, their framing system is usually vulnerable to
corrosion. The strengthening of these components depends mainly on the condition of
the framing.

For those cornices whose framing system is significantly corroded, the existing framing
needs to be
a) strengthened by removing the top block of the cornice,
b) installing from the inside of the building new cantilevered steel beams above the
existing framing, and
c) re-anchoring the cornice blocks from the new framing.

The top block is then reinstalled and the top surface made watertight to prevent future
corrosion. Replacing the framing involves major construction and requires extensive
rigging and scaffolding.

For the case where only the capacity of block anchors are found inadequate because of
either insufficient strength or corrosion, the anchoring of the blocks can be strengthened
by using a combination of reinforced injections for the vertical section and anchoring the
soffits using steel bars as shown in Figure 5.4. Upgraded techniques presented in the
previous chapter, can also be used for the non-structural components.

Figure 5.4 Strengthening of cornice using reinforcement and reinforced injection

Guidelines for The Seismic Upgrading of Stone Masonry Structures


54 Chapter 5: Conventional Upgrading Techniques for Non-structural Components

5.3.4 Exterior veneer


Stone exterior facades are not designed to resist lateral load, but because of their inherent
high stiffness, they act as the structure’s primary lateral load-resisting system.
Observations from past earthquakes provide insight into the lateral deficiencies of these
facades:
• Diagonal shear cracking (x-cracking) is typically found in the narrow piers of facades
with many openings. In buildings with distinct soft stories, such as tall first-floor
levels or intermediate levels with large openings, the cracking is generally confined to
the weak areas.
• Vertical support and lateral anchors are important for the seismic performance of
historic facade, but the presence of anchors - even well-designed anchors - will not
prevent damage. These anchors are intended to support complete blocks or sections
of masonry, but the ornamental elements are often made of brittle materials and
located in high-stress areas of the facade. When the building deforms during an
earthquake, the brittle behaviour and close spacing of adjacent blocks result in
crushing and loss of small pieces of the blocks while the anchors remain in place.
• Irregularities in the distribution of stiff elements in the facade often cause problems.
Walls with many arch openings are vulnerable. In arch construction, the keystone
may slip down or the top of the arch may collapse.

The first step requires the upgrading of the anchor between the veneer and the backup
structural frame. This can be accomplished by embedding bolts into the exterior
sandstone blocks using epoxy-set from the inside, where the bolts are later connected to
an out-of-plane force resisting element. If the structural system needs to be upgraded to
prevent failure of the veneer, appropriate upgrading techniques have been discussed in
the previous chapter.

Typically, wall anchors connect two or more wythes of masonry together, or they connect
a stone masonry veneer to a structural back-up. They transfer lateral loads, while
permitting in-plane movement to accommodate differential movement. When a cavity or
air space exists between two or more wythes of masonry, the anchors need to have
adequate stiffness and strength to transfer the lateral loads by both axial compression and
tension without inducing flexural cracking because of bending in the veneer. Further, the
anchoring systems need to permit movement in the directions parallel to the plane of the
wall to alleviate any stress from differential movements resulting from thermal and
moisture gradients of the outer wythes of the masonry veneer walls.

Guidelines for The Seismic Upgrading of Stone Masonry Structures


6. NON-CONVENTIONAL UPGRADING TECHNIQUES

6.1 Introduction
Upgrading the structural components of stone masonry buildings often presents
challenging problems. To address these challenges, innovative methods have been used.
They include non-conventional techniques for reducing the seismic demand requirements
through the use of base isolation or damping devices, and non-conventional materials
such as fibre-reinforced polymers for increasing the seismic capacity of the structural and
non-structural components. This chapter examines the application and effectiveness of
non-conventional techniques and materials for improving the seismic performance and
controlling the damages to stone masonry structures. A preliminary cost estimate for
these methods are briefly presented in Appendix B.

6.2 Non-conventional techniques


The concept of reducing the high dynamic forces in the structure without reducing its
weight is an alternative approach to the conventional upgrading techniques. Base
isolation, a technique whereby a building is placed on slide bearings, and supplemental
damping, devices used for increasing the damping of vibrations to a structural component
or connection, are two promising non-conventional techniques for stone masonry
structures.

6.2.1 Base isolation


Base isolation systems use special bearings with sandwiched layers of steel and rubber to
uncouple the structure from the horizontal components of the ground motion due to an
earthquake, while at the same time supporting the vertical weight. The bearing lengthen
the structure’s natural period of vibration sufficiently to reduce the level of transmitted
energy, and the bearing dissipate some of this energy, so that the relative displacement
between the structure and the ground can be controlled. Depending on the seismic
capacity of the structure and the seismicity of the region where the building is located,
the structure may still have to be strengthened by conventional techniques for the lower
level of forces transmitted through the bearings.

During an earthquake, large displacements occur across the flexible bearings, which are
often installed above the footings and below the column bases. Therefore, provisions
need to be made, such as the incorporation of moveable joints, to accommodate these
large displacements without causing damages to the architectural, mechanical, and
electrical systems of the building. Also, as illustrated in Figure 6.1, the structure needs to
be separated from adjacent properties. These provisions can be both difficult and
expensive. Because of the considerable foundation upgrading required for base isolation
and the necessary provisions, this approach has been generally considered economically
viable only for special structures such as heritage buildings, legislative buildings, post-

Guidelines for The Seismic Upgrading of Stone Masonry Structures


56 Chapter 6: Non-Conventional Upgrading Techniques & Materials

disaster buildings, or buildings that house sensitive and expensive equipment or precious
artefacts.

Existing unreinforced
masonry wall
New reinforced
concrete side beams
New cover on and cross beam
slide bearings New high strength rod
New concrete floor
over steel decking
New perimeter Existing wood floor
retaining wall to be removed
Existing plinths
to be removed
New steel floor framing
New base isolator
New steel grillage

Existing footing

Figure 6.1 Typical isolator used at exteriors walls of the Slat Lake City and County
Building (Siekkinen, 1991)

There are three types of base isolation device: elastomeric, sliding, and hybrid. The
elastomeric, shown in Figure 6.1, consists of deep elastomeric pads sandwiched between
two steel plates. The hybrid device is a combination of the sliding and the elastomeric
devices.

Relative merits
Seismic base isolation entails the rebuilding of the foundation to incorporate isolators that
reduce the transmission of ground motion into the building. This method which requires
adding the isolators near the base of the structure is effective when the fundamental
period of the base-isolated building is substantially greater than both the predominant
periods of the ground motion and the fixed base equivalent of the building. Similarly, it
is not suitable for structures located on very soft soils.

The cost of integrating a base isolation system ranges from 1.5 to 3 times the cost of
conventional upgrading techniques. However, the cost of upgrading has not considered
that base isolation reduces substantially the building acceleration thus mitigating the risk
of damage to the original building fabric and its content. For heritage buildings and
artefacts, such intervention permits their preservation and continued survival following
an earthquake (Elsesser et al., 1991).

6.2.2 Supplemental damping


Energy dissipation systems, which employ mechanical devices, have been used to
provide damping of the earthquake-induced shaking. This supplemental damping can for

Guidelines for The Seismic Upgrading of Stone Masonry Structures


Chapter 6: Non-Conventional Upgrading Techniques & Materials 57

some structures be an effective means of controlling the structural response and thus
reduce the risk of severe damage. Most damping devices rely on friction between
viscoelastic materials or mechanical interfaces, or on yielding of steel to provide the
required level of energy dissipation. The conventional energy dissipation system used for
masonry is the eccentrically braced frame where the diagonals in a vertical steel frame
are slightly offset and the horizontal members are designed to yield (see Figure 6.2). The
damping devices are usually built as part of a new or existing bracing system of the
structure, or installed in connections between structural and non-structural building
components.

Figure 6.2 Eccentric bracing systems used for energy dissipation

Relative merits
Structural stone masonry elements are stiff and act as brittle members when subjected to
earthquake loading. Thus, damping devices do not prevent stone masonry walls and
other structural components from cracking in brittle shear due to earthquake. However, if
these devices are properly designed and integrated into the structure, they can dissipate
part of the earthquake-induced energy in the structure, resulting in the reduction of the
lateral forces, the interstorey drift, and most important; preventing its structural
instability. Other benefit of using damping devices is that foundations, if they need
upgrading at all, need much less.

6.3 Non-conventional materials

6.3.1 Fibre-reinforced polymers


The chemical industry has developed various types of high-strength organic and
inorganic materials consisting of fibres and composite binding materials. The fibres are
made of glass, aramid, or carbon strands 5 to 25-µm in diameter. The binding materials
consist of polymeric matrices including epoxy, polyester, vinylester, etc. These fibre-
reinforced polymers (FRP) offer many advantages over steel and cementitious products
as strengthening materials of heritage stone masonry structures: they have a high specific
strength and modulus of elasticity, outstanding corrosion resistance, excellent damping
characteristics, low creep behaviour, and they are lightweight (Noisternig and Maier,
1995). Further, FRP may be applied in a reversible manner in the form of circumferential
externally attached tendons in a colour matching that of the external surface of the
structure or as surface bonded laminates to reinforce stone masonry walls (Triantafillou
and Fardis, 1995).

Guidelines for The Seismic Upgrading of Stone Masonry Structures


58 Chapter 6: Non-Conventional Upgrading Techniques & Materials

In general, carbon-fibre-reinforced polymer (CFRP) is highly resistant to environmental


actions, whereas glass-fibre reinforced polymers (GFRP) is sensitive to moisture and
chemicals (alkalis), and aramid-fibre reinforced polymers (AFRP) is somewhat affected
by the environment, in particular ultra-violet exposure. For more information, refer to the
draft copy of CSA S806-00 ‘Design and Construction of Building Components with
Fibre Reinforced Polymers’.

6.3.1.1 Strengthening by external pre-stressing


FRP, a unidirectional composite with an anisotropic material behaviour, has a relatively
low transverse compressive strength (approximately 10% of tensile strength) and even
lower inter-laminar shear strength. It is a brittle material and therefore susceptible to
stress concentrations and hence it cannot be pierced or threaded. Its abrasion resistance
allows only limited frictional stresses. Hence, conventional anchoring solutions (upset
heads, threads, wedges, etc.) are not applicable to FRP tendons, and relatively large
anchors lengths are required.

Strip-like tendons may be better than round ones for external post-tensioning of masonry,
because they minimise anchor lengths (because of their large surface area) and simplify
the attachment of anchorage on the masonry walls. Proposed concepts for anchorage and
their attachment on masonry are illustrated in Figure 6.3 and Figure 6.4. The application
to a stone masonry building is shown in Figure 6.5.

Figure 6.3 refers to circumferencial pre-stressing of structures with a circular plan and
involves a single FRP tendon around the perimeter, gripped at each end between a pair of
steel plates to which it is epoxy-bonded. The two pairs of plates extend into a threaded
steel bar and are coupled by a turn-buckle. Because FRPs cannot be bent to a large
curvature, they cannot turn around sharp corners of the structure and have to be
individually anchored there.

Figure 6.3 Anchorage illustration for circumferencial pre-stressing of semi-


spherical domes (Triantafillou and Fardis, 1995)

Figure 6.4 illustrates the anchorage consisting of a steel or FRP angle attached to the
corner of the wall and transferring pre-stressing forces to the masonry through bearing
stresses. The two tendons anchored to the same corner angle have to be pre-stressed
gradually by alternate turning of the nuts at their end anchorage, so that at each corner the
moments of the individual tendon forces with respect to the corresponding wall mid-
surface counterbalance each other. For no such end moments to develop during
tensioning at a dead or passive anchorage, the two pairs of tendons actively anchored at
two diagonally opposite corners have to be tensioned simultaneously.

Guidelines for The Seismic Upgrading of Stone Masonry Structures


Chapter 6: Non-Conventional Upgrading Techniques & Materials 59

Figure 6.4 Anchorage/attachment illustration for corners (Triantafillou and Fardis,


1995)

Relative merits
For heritage buildings, the upgrading techniques should not adversely affect the character
of the building, must be reversible especially when little information is available on their
long-term in-service performance, and must be distinct from the original architectural
composition. Externally pre-stressed FRP tendons meet those requirements.

Conventional techniques commonly used to strengthen heritage masonry structures


comprise of external post-tensioning with steel ties, to tie the structural components
together into an integral three-dimensional system as described in Section 4.3.3.1. It is a
simple, efficient and reversible, however, it presents some practical difficulties in
protecting the strands against corrosion and handling at the construction site due to the
considerable weight of the steel. FRP tendons are found to be a viable alternative. They
are lightweight and non-corroding materials. The cost of FRP material ranges from 1.5 to
2.5 times those of the conventional materials. However, when considering the total
upgrading cost for a project, this technique costs marginally more than the conventional
technique.

Guidelines for The Seismic Upgrading of Stone Masonry Structures


60 Chapter 6: Non-Conventional Upgrading Techniques & Materials

Figure 6.5 Application of external FRP ties for stone masonry buildings

6.3.1.2 Strengthening with bonded laminates


The facades of an old stone masonry building can be strengthened using surface-bonded
FRP laminates as illustrated in Figure 6.6. The laminates are bonded to the surface of the
masonry using epoxy adhesives. The laminates are placed so that the fibre orientation is
parallel to the directions of the maximum principal tensile stresses. These FRP laminates
serve the role of tensile reinforcement.

The application of this technique involves the following steps:


• Determine optimum laminate dimensions and locations based on detailed structural
analyses of the building.
• Prepare the masonry surface by exposing, grinding and vacuum-cleaning the masonry
in the zones where the laminates are to be bonded (5 cm approximately from each
laminate edge).
• Provide suitable anchorage zones for the laminates by cutting into the masonry as
shown in Figure 6.6.
• Apply primer to the masonry bonding area.
• Apply epoxy adhesive to the masonry bonding area.
• Clean the laminates thoroughly.
• Push the laminates against the masonry and press firmly until the adhesive starts
hardening.

Guidelines for The Seismic Upgrading of Stone Masonry Structures


Chapter 6: Non-Conventional Upgrading Techniques & Materials 61

• Remove pressure.
• Cover the laminates with plaster, preferably plaster reinforced with a polyester fabric.

Relative merits
The comparable conventional technique used to strengthen heritage masonry structures
comprises of reinforced concrete or shotcrete jackets as described in Section 4.3.2.1.
Although traditional upgrading techniques are effective, they introduce substantial weight
that in some cases cannot be carried down to the ground level with the existing columns
and arches. Further, the added thickness in the order of 10 cm may violate the aesthetics
requirements. Again, FRP laminates provide a viable alternative.

The effectiveness of this upgrading technique has been demonstrated in laboratory tests
conducted by Schwegler (1994) at the Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Testing
and Research. The test results have indicated a considerable increases in the strength and
ductility of unreinforced brick masonry, for both the in-plane and out-of-plane loading.
Performance of externally epoxy-bonded laminates on stone masonry is still limited.

Figure 6.6 Illustration of FRP anchorage as part of a surface reinforcement of stone


masonry facade with epoxy-bonded FRP laminates (Triantafillou and
Fardis, 1995)

6.3.2 Fibre-reinforced cement


Fibre-reinforced cement (FRC) has been applied to seismically upgrade stone masonry
structures. The FRC system, consisting of a reinforced cementitious plaster skin with
polymeric fabric, is typically applied to the face of the stone masonry wall for improving
both its in-plane and out-of-plane strength. The FRC system can be made up of one or
more layers, depending on the strength requirements and the tensile strength of the FRC
system. In addition, FRC reinforcing system includes either a woven fibre-glass mesh or
steel mesh, that is embedded in a fibre-reinforced plaster (see Figure 6.7). This technique
can be applied to one or both sides of a wall.

Guidelines for The Seismic Upgrading of Stone Masonry Structures


62 Chapter 6: Non-Conventional Upgrading Techniques & Materials

Figure 6.7 FRC strengthening of stone masonry walls

Similar to externally bonded FRP laminates, special considerations are required at the
ends of shear walls to ensure the development of continuity. Proprietary details for
connecting the walls to the floors and roofs have been developed by manufacturers of
FRC systems.

Relative merits
FRC is an effective upgrading technique that can result in a considerable increase in the
strength and ductility of unreinforced masonry, for both the in-plane and out-of-plane
loading. However, FRC effectiveness as an upgrading technique depends largely on its
continuity and end connections.

Guidelines for The Seismic Upgrading of Stone Masonry Structures


7. DIAGNOSTICS & EVALUATION OF UPGRADING TECHNIQUES

7.1 Introduction
Stone masonry structures are in general old structures, and some of them are classified as
heritage structures. Therefore, the design for their seismic upgrading should be based on
a previous diagnosis defining their state of damage/deterioration. The diagnoses are
usually derived from field investigation and laboratory testing aimed at defining the
characteristics of both the materials and the structure itself and from structural analysis
based on appropriate mathematical models. Furthermore, information on the mechanical
behaviour of ancient masonry walls, particularly stone masonry can only be obtained
from tests carried out in-situ, since it is impossible to sample undisturbed pieces of wall
or build in the laboratory physical models representative of the masonry. For heritage
structures, the field investigations are limited to non-destructive tests, expected to give
reasonably accurate information about the condition of the material and the structure.

The condition of the masonry surface and the condition and behaviour of the structure are
interrelated. Many processes responsible for damage to the structural components start at
the surface. For instance, porosity of the material, cracks or openings due to
displacements permit the ingress of water and subsequently the dissolution of salts from
the masonry, causing salt crystallisation decay, freeze-thaw damage, and leaching of
mortars. Further, moisture-saturated masonry results in a significant reduction in its
strength, and for known cases lead to the partial or global collapse of the supporting
structure, such as the collapse of the dome and walls of the Cathedral of Noto, Sicily
Italy, in March 1996. When reinforcement has been introduced to strengthen the
masonry components, water ingress can lead to corrosion, resulting in the cracking,
spalling, and collapse of the component.

Once a diagnosis for the structures has been obtained, the appropriate techniques for
repairing, strengthening, and rehabilitating the structure can be chosen. This chapter
examines how both the non-destructive techniques and the monitoring programs are
being employed in diagnosing the behaviour of the structure, evaluating the effectiveness
of the upgrading techniques, as well as assessing the impact of the upgrading technique
on the structural performance and longevity of the structure.

7.2 Non-destructive tests


An overview of the non-destructive investigation methods suitable for stone structures
(PWGSC, 1998) is presented. These Non-Destructive Testing (NDT) techniques are
widely used to gather information about a structure without affecting its condition or
performance. Different test methods exist for collecting information about a material, a
structural component, or the overall behaviour of a structure. These methods can be
divided into two groups: tests that provide local information, i.e., about the material or a
structural component, and tests that give information about the response of the overall

Guidelines for The Seismic Upgrading of Stone Masonry Structures


64 Chapter 7: Diagnostics & Evaluation of Upgrading Techniques

structure. The current techniques used to provide local information for evaluating an
upgrading technique for stone masonry structures are
• the Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR), an electromagnetic method,
• the pulse velocity technique, a sonic and ultrasonic method, and
• the flat jack, a mechanical method.

The GPR represents one of the most versatile methods of collecting information about the
general structure of a building. It has been found reliable in the investigation of wall
composition and thickness, voids, location of ties, and even cracks. It has capabilities of
detecting anomalies inside a mass of rocks or rubble. The GPR has, in fact, been used for
evaluating the effectiveness of injections.

The pulse velocity techniques are the most popular non-destructive inspection techniques.
It is based on the principle that waves are transmitted through a medium in accordance to
its elastic properties. Thus, by sending a signal at different locations and receiving them
at a large number of locations, it is possible to derive the cross- section of the medium on
the basis of its material density. This technique, referred to as tomography, has been
recommended to inspect the effect of injections. When injections are made properly,
voids are filled and higher velocities are recorded, signalling an improvement in the
mechanical properties of the new material.

The flat jack, although included in the NDT techniques, induces localised damage in the
structure due to the removal of some material. This technique is used for estimating the
vertical stresses and the elastic modulus of the material.

Vibration test methods have been applied to stone masonry for obtaining information
about the stiffness and damping properties of the structure, and its constraints. Fforced
vibration testing by means of electro-dynamic shakers or ambient vibration testing
particularly with wind excitation has been carried out. The results from these tests can
also be used for both dynamic analysis and monitoring the structural behaviour under
controlled condition. For monitoring, parameters related to the overall stiffness of the
structure, which is directly effected by the seismic upgrading, can be determined through
the use of system identification procedures.

7.3 Monitoring
Monitoring is a process that deals with the collection of in-depth information about the
condition and behaviour of the structure, the structural component and material. It
requires the use of appropriate instruments and techniques. This information is
particularly important for the rehabilitation and upgrading of existing stone masonry
structure because the project’s terms of reference can be well-defined and executed only
after a period of observation of the behaviour of the structure as a function of time and of
environmental actions. Monitoring can also be used to evaluate the effectiveness and
compatibility of the upgrading technique, i.e., to evaluate unforseen side effects caused
by the proposed remedial measures.

Guidelines for The Seismic Upgrading of Stone Masonry Structures


Chapter 7: Diagnostics & Evaluation of Upgrading Techniques 65

Monitoring a structure for a suitable period of time provides insight into its behaviour
through the following results (Chidiac, 1998, 1998; Binda and Modena, 1998):
• Evaluation of structural behaviour through correlation between environmental actions
(temperature, moisture, wind, earthquake, foundation settlements) and structural
response (opening of cracks, displacement and tilting of the supporting structures,
differential movements of the foundation structures, etc.).
• Studying the long-term behaviour by means of trend analysis.
• Establishing a procedure for promptly checking anomalous behaviour based on past
recorded performance.

7.3.1 Selection criteria for a monitoring system


The design and installation of a monitoring system are case-specific; however, there are
two general approaches: continuous and discrete monitoring. The former is achieved by
using electrical sensors to measure responses within the structure connected to a
continuous data acquisition and recording system. The latter implies that removable or
mechanical instruments are used for taking measurements at discrete intervals of time and
recorded manually.

Continuous monitoring is more attractive than discrete monitoring because a) it provides


real time monitoring of the behaviour of the structure, b) it minimises reliance on
technical operators, and c) the transfer of data from the data acquisition site to the office
computer for processing and analysis is automatic. The discrete approach requires the
periodic presence of technical operators at the site and is not capable of continuously
monitoring both the behaviour and condition of the structure and the environmental
actions and structural loads. The discrete technique is usually chosen when the duration
of the monitoring period is short, i.e., less than one month, when the available resources
are not sufficient to install a continuous monitoring system, or when the monitoring
system needs to installed in an environment that impedes on its working conditions.

Continuous monitoring is used to track precarious structures for the first signs of possible
collapse such as vertical cracks in a tower because of creep deformation; deterioration
and damage to structures caused by environmental actions such as valuable fresco, which
are monitored for the first sign of moisture infiltration, or long-term response of cracked
structures; or the response of structures being subjected to loads or actions that varies
with time. When data are continuously and automatically collected, procedures for
condensing and processing the data needs to be part of the monitoring system in order to
overcome the problem of accumulating large amount of data that becomes difficult to
analyse and therefore useless.

7.3.2 Design criteria for a monitoring system


In the design of a monitoring system, considerations need to be given to the following
parameters:
1. Objective of the study - The selection of the type and location of the sensors and the
data acquisition must provide the necessary information for meeting the objectives of
the study.

Guidelines for The Seismic Upgrading of Stone Masonry Structures


66 Chapter 7: Diagnostics & Evaluation of Upgrading Techniques

2. Environmental conditions - The choice of a measuring system and the cable route
locations must be decided after a detailed analysis of environmental conditions in
order to guarantee reasonable protection of the system, a stable and continuous power
supply, the prevention for electrical noise, and accessibility for the wiring and
assembling of works.
3. Accuracy - The accuracy of the system can be defined by analysing all types of errors
(systematic or random) that can affect the instruments. It is important to pay attention
not only to the accuracy of the individual components (such as instruments, data
logger and computers), but also to the accuracy of the whole system.
4. Reliability - A monitoring system is generally used for long-term observations of the
behaviour of a structure, therefore it must sufficiently ensure long-term reliability.
For this reason, special attention should be paid to ensure long-term reliability in each
phase: design, installation and operation. Also the concept of redundancy for system
design is regarded as very effective in ensuring higher reliability of the system. The
system should be capable of periodic inspection and self-diagnosis to detect
malfunctions caused by internal disconnection, defective contact, and other accidents.
Some defects in an automated monitoring system can be detected by comparison of
measured values with periodic ones, in addition, to comparing measured value trends
with control standard values.
5. Flexibility - Great flexibility is desirable because a measuring system is expected to
operate in the long term and some changes or substitution of components may be
necessary during the life of the system. It is advisable to design data acquisition and
analysis systems with functions that enable adjustment of calibration constants and
initial values, the number of measuring point and items, and the frequency of
measurement.
6. Maintenance - Periodic inspection of system components for overall operational
functioning and for checking eventual deviation of measured values from expected
and historical trends, should be readily performed to secure long-term system
reliability.
7. Calibration - Periodic calibration of the sensors is necessary to ensure reliable data.

7.3.3 Monitoring period and frequency of readings


Selection of a suitable monitoring period is case specific. Long-term monitoring implies
a period of at least one year. This is generally required to help in understanding the
consequential effects of actions or loads on the structure, the structural component, or the
material that are
• periodic and random, such as environmental actions (temperature, moisture, etc.) or
environmental loads (wind, snow, etc.);
• continuous but random, such as traffic load; or
• impulsive and random loads, such as earthquakes.

Long-term monitoring can act as an early warning system to ensure the safety of the
occupants of the structure, or it can be used to design a cost-effective renovation or
maintenance programs without jeopardising the safety of the building and its occupants.

Guidelines for The Seismic Upgrading of Stone Masonry Structures


Chapter 7: Diagnostics & Evaluation of Upgrading Techniques 67

The monitoring frequency is based on how fast the magnitude of the monitored variable
changes. For environmental actions such as temperature, moisture, etc., the readings are
usually taken hourly, and subsequently reduced to a maximum, minimum and average
daily value. For earthquake loads, the system is designed to self-trigger, i.e., start the
measurement on its own, when a threshold value for acceleration or velocity has been
exceeded. The data acquisition must be able to acquire data at a high frequency rate of at
least 100 readings per second, and for about 20 to 30 seconds. Then it goes back to the
sleep mode until the process repeats itself.

Short-term monitoring is often selected to investigate the structural capacity and


behaviour of a structural component or an entire structure. The structure or structural
component are subjected to a well defined structural loads, such as a pre-loaded truck
crossing a bridge or a mass placed in the middle of a diaphragm, etc., and the structural
response is monitored during the loading period. Forced or ambient vibration NDT tests
also fall under this classification. The monitoring frequency, which depends on the
variables being tracked, is independent of the monitoring period.

7.3.4 Monitoring to provide information on the structural behaviour


Different quantities can be monitored for providing information about the structural
behaviour. They include:
Crack movements - For the design of a monitoring system, a detailed crack pattern
survey must be carried out in order to determine the critical cracks that may
affect the integrity or stability of the structure. Measurements of the crack’s
relative movements, i.e., opening and sliding, are by far the simples and most
frequently applied method. For a continuous system, Linear Variable
Differential Transformer (LVDT), which is a friction-free sensor, is usually
used for measuring distance. Discrete measurements of crack movements can
be monitored using hand-held gauges such as the Demecs or Whittemore and
vernier calipers. The former can measure movements as small as 0.001 mm
yet have a range of a couple of millimetres.
Relative vertical movements - Long-base extensionmeter can be used to monitor the
relative vertical movement of vertical structures such as walls and columns.
Absolute horizontal movements - The absolute horizontal movement of vertical structures
can be monitored and measured by using a direct pendulum. A small
cantilever is installed in the upper part of the structure from which hang the
pendulum wire while, at the bottom, a reading unit, equipped with a tracking
sensor, measures the two displacement components of the wire. Optical
measuring devices can also be used to measure vertical movements. This
system has been used for monitoring movements of such high structures as
towers, bell towers, etc.
Tilting – Electro-levels and inclinometers can be used to monitor the rotation of vertical
or horizontal surfaces. These instruments provide information about the
relative behaviour of two structural components.

Guidelines for The Seismic Upgrading of Stone Masonry Structures


68 Chapter 7: Diagnostics & Evaluation of Upgrading Techniques

Vibration - Seismographs or accelerometers are used in monitoring the dynamic response


of structures. Seismographs contain three accelerometers that measure
acceleration of a structural component in the three orthogonal directions, i.e.,
vertical, and two horizontal directions.

7.3.5 Monitoring to provide information on the environment


Monitoring the environment of certain structures is critical to the understanding of their
behaviour. For these structures, movements due to the environmental actions such as
temperature, moisture, radiation levels, wind velocity and direction, etc. need to be
monitored and compensated for. Environmental variables that can be quantified include:
Temperature - Temperature measurements are by far the most important because of their
effect on the deformation behaviour of the structure. Both surrounding air
temperature and temperature gradient across the thickness of the wall need to
be monitored. Thermal gauges can be used to monitor the surrounding and
micro-temperature. Hygrothermogaph continuously records both temperature
and humidity on a paper that is attached to a revolving drum for periods of 1
day, 1 week or 1 month.
Moisture content - Changes in the stone masonry moisture content result in structural
movement. However more importantly, the moisture content affects the
durability and longevity of stone masonry. Moisture content of masonry can
be monitored using either capacitance or resistance. The former detects
moisture by measuring the dielectric resistance of the material it is in direct
contact with. The resistance type uses electrodes in the form of pins to
measure the electrical resistance, an indicator of the moisture content.
Relative humidity (RH) - RH can be monitored either with the use of hygrometers that
are based on the dimensional change of an organic material such as hair and
has an accuracy of ±3%, or with the use of electronic sensors whose accuracy
range from 2% to 5%. Hygrothermogaph continuously records both
temperature and humidity on a paper that is attached to a revolving drum for
periods of 1 day, 1 week or 1 month.
Pressure – Low-pressure sensors can be used to monitor the absolute wind pressure on
the wall or the differential pressure across the wall. The one for differential
pressure provides information on the air leakage across the masonry wall.
Pressure sensors, the variable capacitance type, can detect changes in the
pressure with an accuracy of ± 50 Pa.

Guidelines for The Seismic Upgrading of Stone Masonry Structures


Chapter 7: Diagnostics & Evaluation of Upgrading Techniques 69

Guidelines for The Seismic Upgrading of Stone Masonry Structures


8. CLOSURE
The primary objectives of the seismic upgrading of stone masonry structures are to
prevent collapse and to protect lives during an earthquake. Selecting the level of seismic
upgrading is a difficult task that should be done by the owner at the beginning of the
project based on input from an architect, a preservationist for heritage structures, and a
structural engineer. Strengthening to ensure a structure survives earthquakes without
damage will most likely involve high costs and an unacceptable impact on the structure’s
heritage fabric. On the other hand, inadequate upgrading that spares a building’s
character may allow the building to collapse during a major earthquake. To mitigate such
risk, range of seismic upgrading techniques have been presented in this guideline that can
be implemented by engineers and architects.

Seismic upgrading of heritage stone masonry structures should be a balance between


interventions to reduce the risk of injury or property damage andt the desire to preserve
heritage fabric and minimise cost.

Guidelines for The Seismic Upgrading of Stone Masonry Structures


Chapter 7: Diagnostics & Evaluation of Upgrading Techniques 71

Guidelines for The Seismic Upgrading of Stone Masonry Structures


REFERENCES

Anzani, A., Binda, L., and Sacchi Landriani, G., 1995. A numerical interpretation of
long-term behaviour of masonry materials under persistent loads. Proceedings of
Structural Studies, Repairs and Maintenance of Historical Buildings IV, Chania,
Crete, vol. 1, pp 179-186.
Binda, L. and Modena, C., 1998. Examples of intervention in ancient constructions,
Proceedings of Structural Analysis of Historical Constructions II - Possibilities of
numerical and experimental, Barcelona, pp. 259-286.
Binda, L. and Anzani A., 1997. Structural behaviour and durability of stone masonry.
Report of the Dahlem Workshop on Saving Our Architectural Heritage: The
Conservation of Historic Stone Structures, ed. Baer N.S. and Snethlage, R. Berlin,
pp. 113-150.
Binda, L., Modena, C., Baronio, G. and Abbaneo, S., 1997a. Repair and investigation
techniques for stone masonry walls. Construction and Materials, Vol. 11, No. 3,
April 1997, p. 133-142.
Binda, L., Modena, C., Baronio, G. and Gelmi, A., 1994. Experimental qualification of
injection admixtures used for repair and strengthening of stone masonry walls.
Proceedings of 10th International Brick and Block Masonry Conference, Calgary
Canada, Vol. 2, p. 539-548.
Binda, L., Baronio, G., and Squarcina, T., 1992a. Evaluation of the durability of bricks
and stones and of preservation treatments, Proceedings of Int. Workshop on
Durability of Masonry, Ed. L. Binda and P. Bekker, Milan, pp. 145-153.
Binda, L., Gatti, G., Mangano, G., Poggi, C. and Sacchi Landriani, G., 1992b. The
collapse of the Civic Tower of Pavia: a survey of the materials and structure,
Masonry International, pp. 11-20.
Breiholz, D.C., 1991. Centercore strengthening system for seismic hazard reduction
unreinforced masonry bearing wall buildings, Proceedings of The Seismic
Retrofit of Historic Buildings Conference Workbook, San Francisco, pp. 18-1 to
18-8.
Chidiac, S.E., 1998. “Long term monitoring of S-W Tower, East Block, Parliament
Buildings”, Report HS-960419.5, 91 pages.
Elsesser, E., Naaseh, S., Walters, M., Sattary, V., and Whittaker, A.S., 1991. Repair of
five historic buildings damaged by the Loam Prieta Earthquake. Proceedings of
The Seismic Retrofit of Historic Building, ed. D. look, San Francisco, pp.4-1/4-
40.
Goins, E.S., Wheeler,G.S., and Wypyski, M.T., 1996. Alkoxysiloxane film formation on
quartz and calcite crystal surfaces. Proceedings of Deterioration and
Conservation of Stone of 8th Intl. Congress, Berlin, pp. 1255-1264.

Guidelines for The Seismic Upgrading of Stone Masonry Structures


References 73

Karantoni, F. and Fardis, M. 1992. Effectiveness of seismic strengthening techniques for


masonry buildings. Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 118, No. 7, pp. 1884-
1902.
Modena, C., 1992. Repair and upgrading techniques of unreinforced masonry structures
utilized after Friuli and Campania/Basilicata earthquakes, Proceeding of a Joint
USA/Italy Workshop on Learning from Pratice: A review of architectural design
and construction experience after recent earthquakes, Orvieto, Italy, pp. 105-119.
Modena, C., 1989. Italian practice in evaluating, strengthening, and retrofitting masonry
buildings, Proceeding of an International Seminar on Evaluating, strengthening,
and retrofitting masonry buildings, Arlington, Texas, pp. 2.1-2.25.
Noisternig, J.F. and Maier M., 1995. Strengthening with a carbon fiber composite cable.
A new possibility?, Proceedings of 4th International Conference on Structural
Studies of Historical Buildings, Vol. 2, Crete, pp. 121-128.
NRC, 1995a. National Building Code of Canada 1995, National Research Council
Canada, Ottawa, Ont.
NRC, 1995b. User’s Guide-NBC 1995. Structural Commentaries (Part 4), National
Research Council Canada, Ottawa, Ont.
NRC, 1995c. Guidelines for seismic upgrading of building structures, National Research
Council Canada, Ottawa, Ont.
PWGSC, 2000. Guidelines for the seismic assessment of stone masonry structures,
Public Works and Government Services Canada, Ottawa, Ont.
PWGSC, 1998. Procedure for seismic assessment of existing buildings, Public Works
and Government Services Canada, Ottawa, Ont.
PWGSC, 1995. Guideline on seismic evaluation and upgrading of non-structural
building components, Public Works and Government Services Canada, Ottawa,
Ont.
Riecken, B. and Schwamborn, B. 1995. Behaviour of impregnated natural stones after
different weathering procedures. Proceedings of Intl. Symp. on Surface
Treatment of Building Materials with Water Repellent Agents, ed. F.W.
Wittmann, A.J.M. Siemes, and L.G.W. Verhoef. pp. 26-1/26-14.
Sasse, H.R. and Snethlage, R., 1997. Methods for the evaluation of stone conservation
treatment. Report of the Dahlem Workshop on Saving Our Architectural
Heritage: The Conservation of Historic Stone Structures, ed. Baer N.S. and
Snethlage, R. Berlin, pp. 223-244.
Sasse, H.R., Honsinger, and D., Schwamborn, B. 1993. PINS – New technology in
porous stone conservation. Proceedings of Intl. RILEM & UNESCO Congress
Conservation of Stone and Other Materials, ed. M.J. Thiel, London, vol. 2, pp.
705-716.

Guidelines for The Seismic Upgrading of Stone Masonry Structures


74 References

Schwegler, G., 1994. Masonry construction strenghtened with fiber composites in


seismically endangered zzones, Proceedings of 10th European Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Vienna.
Sheppard, P. and Tercelj, S., 1980. The effect of repair and strengthening methods for
masonry walls, Proceeding of 7th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Istanbul Turkey, Vol. 6, p. 255-262.
Siekkinen, G., 1991. Preserving historic character and materials and the process of
achieving it. Proceedings of The Seismic Retrofit of Historic Building, ed. D.
look, San Francisco, pp.14-1/14-12.
Sparacio, R., 1991. Report on seismic retrofit of historic buildings after the 1980 Irpina
earthquake of southern Italy, Proceedings of The Seismic Retrofit of Historic
Buildings Conference Workbook, San Francisco, pp. 3-1 to 3-14.
Suprenant, B.A. and Schuller, M.P., 1994. Non-destructive evaluation and testing of
masonry structures. The Aberdeen Group.
Thomasen, S.E. and Searls, C.L., 1990. Assessment of building façade in masonry and
stone. Proceedings of Service Life of Rehabilitated Buildings and other
Structures, ed. S.J. Kelly and P.C. Marshall, pp.108-116. ASTM STP 1098.
Philadelphia: Am. Soc. For Testing and Materials.
Tomazevic, M., Apih, V. and Lutman, M., 1994. Aseismic strengthening of historical
stone-masonry buildings by building-friendly technologies. The Masonry Society
Journal, Vol. 13, No. 1, p. 41-55.
Tomazevic, M., 1992. Laboratory and in-situ tests of the efficiency of grouting and tying
of stone masonry walls. Proceedings of International Workshop on Effectiveness
of injection techniques for retrofitting of stone and brick masonry walls in
seismic, pp. 95-116.
Triantafillou, T.C. and Fardis, M.N., 1995. Strengthening of historic masonry structures
with fibre reinforced plastic composites, Proceedings of 4th International
Conference on Structural Studies of Historical Buildings, Vol. 2, Crete, pp. 129-
136.
UN-ICOMOS - United Nations Development Program / United Nations Industrial
development Organisation, 1984. Building construction under seismic conditions
in the Balkan Region, Vol. 6: Repair and strengthening of Historical Monuments
and Buildings in Urban Nuclei. UNDP/UNIDO Proj. RER/79/015, J.G.
Bouwkamp, Chief Techn. Advisor, Vienna.
Van Balen, K. and Van Gemert, D., 1994. Modelling lime mortar carbonation. Mat.
Struct., Vol. 27, p. 393-398.
Van Balen, K. and Van Gemert, D., 1990. Long term creep behaviour of grouted stone
masonry: The experience at the Church of Our Lady at Tongeren, Belgium.
Structural Conservation of Stone Masonry, ed. ICCROM, Rome, pp. 237-246.

Guidelines for The Seismic Upgrading of Stone Masonry Structures


References 75

Wendler, E. 1997. New materials and approaches for conservation. Report of the
Dahlem Workshop on Saving Our Architectural Heritage: The Conservation of
Historic Stone Structures, ed. Baer N.S. and Snethlage, R. Berlin, pp. 181-196.
Wendler, E. and Snethlage R. 1988. Durability of hydrophobing treatments of natural
stone buildings. Proceeding of The Engineering Geology of Ancient Work,
Monuments and Historical Sites, ed. P.G. Marinos and G.C. Koukis, Balkema,
vol. 2, pp. 945-951.

Guidelines for The Seismic Upgrading of Stone Masonry Structures


APPENDIX A: UNIT PRICE FOR SEISMIC UPGRADING
TECHNIQUES

Purpose
The purpose of Appendix B is to provide unit rates for seismic upgrading techniques of
stone masonry structures. Hanscomb Limited prepared the information presented in this
Appendix. Costs not included in this estimate are listed under exclusions and should be
carefully noted.

Method
The rates presented reflect probable construction costs obtainable in Ottawa for 1999.
The rates are a determination of fair market value for those specific items of work. They
do not represent a prediction of low rates.

Exclusions
The unit rates do not provide for:
a) Consultants fees and expenses;
b) Costs for tests, surveys and the like;
c) PWGSC management costs;
d) General contractors overhead and profit;
e) Escalation contingency;
f) Construction contingency;
g) Goods and Service Tax.

Cost base
It is assumed that a stipulated lump-sum form of contract will be used and that the rates
represent a competitive bidding environment.

Contingencies
Design and Pricing Allowance. An allowance has been included with the unit rates to
cover any design and pricing unknowns. This allowance is not intended to cover any
program space modifications but rather to provide some flexibility for the designers and
cost planners.
Escalation Allowance. No allowance has been included for escalation beyond 1999.
Construction Allowance. No construction contingency has been included to cover any
post-contract unknowns.

Guidelines for The Seismic Upgrading of Stone Masonry Structures


Appendix A – Unit price for seismic upgrading of stone masonry 77

Unit rates
The unit rates used in this estimate include the cost of labour, material, equipment, and
subcontractor overhead and profit.

Taxes
Ontario’s Provincial Sales Tax (PST) is included in the unit rates. The Good and
Services Tax (GST) has not been included.

Statement of probable costs


Evaluations of the owner’s project budget, preliminary estimates of construction costs,
and detailed estimates of construction costs, if any, prepared by Hanscomb, represent
Hanscomb best judgment as professional cost consultants/quantity surveyors familiar
with the construction industry. It is recognised, however, that Hanscomb does not have
control over the cost of labour, materials or equipment, over architect/engineering fees,
over contractor’s methods of determining prices, or over market or negotiating
conditions. Accordingly, Hanscomb cannot and does not warrant or represent that bids or
negotiated prices will not vary from this or any subsequent estimate or
design/construction cost or evaluation prepared by or agreed to by Hanscomb Limited.

Guidelines for The Seismic Upgrading of Stone Masonry Structures


78 Appendix A – Unit price for seismic upgrading of stone masonry

Table B-1 Seismic upgrading of stone masonry structures unit prices.


Ref. Description Unit Cost
4.2 Reduction in seismic demand
a) removing upper stories of building low-rise m2 $40.00
structure(up to 5 stories avg. 1000 m2)*
b) replacing of heavy diaphragms, roof or floor m2 $200.00
construction only, with light assemblies (avg. 1000
m2)*
c) removing of heavy non-structural components
parapets (avg. 100 m)* m $80.00
water towers – steel structure –allow No $5,000.00
chimneys – allow No $5,000.00
appendages – allow No $5,000.00
4.3.1.1 Replacement of original stone with reproductions 90 mm
thick
Large areas (over 50 m2)* m2 $380.00
2 2
small areas (under 50 m )* m $420.00
2
4.3.1.2 Grouting - not including back pointing (10% voids - over m $300.00
100 m2)*
4.3.1.3 Reinforced injections - steel pins and grout (1.8 m long & No $1,500.00
40 mm diameter - over 30 rods)*
4.3.2.1 Jacketing
a) reinforced thin outer plaster (30mm thick with steel m2 $80.00
mesh - over 100 m2)*
b) reinforced concrete wall (100 mm thick over 100 m2)* m2 $120.00
c) bond beam (over 10 m)* m $140.00
4.3.2.2 Center coring or reinforced injections (3 m long wall, 3 m m $800.00
floor to floor height, 600 mm o.c. both faces of wall, 40 m
of coring, 40 mm diameter)*
4.3.2.4 Reinforced concrete - bond beam to opening – avg. 1400 x
750
a) bond beam (5 m)* m $140.00
b) reinforced injections (12 rod 1.8 m long 40 mm No $1,500.00
diameter)*

Guidelines for The Seismic Upgrading of Stone Masonry Structures


Appendix A – Unit price for seismic upgrading of stone masonry 79

Ref. Description Unit Cost


4.3.2.3 Reinforced concrete beams, columns & steel ties -
additional structure
a) concrete beams (10 bars at 3 m)* No $1,500.00
b) concrete columns (10 bars at 3 m)* No $1,500.00
c) steel ties and anchor plates (100 m)* m $200.00
4.3.3.1 Connections between intersecting walls - steel ties and m $200.00
anchor plates (100 m)*
4.3.3.2 Connections between walls & stiffened floors
a) light weight concrete & welded wire mesh 40 mm m2 $35.00
thick (100 m2)*
b) 19 mm t&g plywood perpendicular to existing (100 m2 $20.00
m2)*
c) steel ties (1000 mm each)* Pair $800.00
4.3.3.3 Steel diagonal bracing
a) diagonal (bay 5 m x 3 m height) No $1,500.00
b) cross (bay 5 m x 3 m height) No $2,500.00
c) chevron (bay 5 m x 3 m height) No $2,000.00
d) 'V' (bay 5 m x 3 m height) No $2,000.00
e) 'K' bay 5 m x 3 m height) No $2,500.00
4.3.3.3 Steel frames to towers
a) structural steel m2 $140.00
b) anchors to masonry (1 per 1.5 m2 of surface area)* No $300.00
5.2.1 Stone cleaning
a) Cold water, no pressure (100 m2)* m2 $10.00
2
b) Water under pressure, 60 to 90 deg C., >= 150 bars m $25.00
(100 m2)*
c) Steam jet, 140 to 180 deg C., 20 to 40 bar (100 m2)* m2 $30.00
2 2
d) Particle jet, 0.1 to 0.5 mm dry and wet (100 m )* m $80.00
e) Micro particle jet, 0.05 to 0.1 mm (100 m2)* m2 $240.00
2
f) Laser (cost is project-specific) m Nil
5.2.2 Sealers/water repellents
a) linseed oil or paraffin solutions (100 m2)* m2 $10.00
b) silicone resins (100 m2)* m2 $20.00

Guidelines for The Seismic Upgrading of Stone Masonry Structures


80 Appendix A – Unit price for seismic upgrading of stone masonry

Ref. Description Unit Cost


5.2.3 Stone consolidation (100 m2 - 1 application)*
a) ethyl silicate or silica gel to improve bridging m2 $300.00
properties
b) ethyl silicate or silica gel to improve mechanical m2 $300.00
interlocking effects
c) modified ethyl silicate or polyurethane's as film m2 $300.00
forming agents
5.2.4 Stone repair mortar and joint mortar m2 $320.00
2
(re-pointing 100m )*
5.3.1 Free-standing component
a) finial - steel pins No $800.00
b) parapet - lateral support m $500.00
c) parapet – jacketing m $500.00
5.3.3 Roof cornices - anchors and reinforced injections (4 per m $1,200.00
m2)*
5.3.4 Exterior veneer
a) embedding bolts into the exterior with epoxy from the No $300.00
inside
b) wall anchors connecting two or more wythes of No $400.00
masonry together
6.2.1 Base isolation
a) elastomeric – allow No $5,000.00
b) sliding – allow No $5,000.00
c) hybrid – allow No $5,000.00
6.2.2 Supplemental damping
a) shear damping system (bay 5 m x 3 m height) bay $20,000.00
b) visco-elastic damping system (bay 5 m x 3 m height) bay $20,000.00
6.3.1.1 External pre-stressing using fiber reinforced polymers
a) FRP tendon connected by a turnbuckle m $300.00
b) FRP tendon connected by a turnbuckle and angle m $380.00
6.3.1.2 FRP bonded laminate (over 100 m, 5 cm strip)* m $120.00
6.3.2 Fiber reinforced cement (over 100 m2)* m2 $140.00

* unit rate based on assumed quantity

Guidelines for The Seismic Upgrading of Stone Masonry Structures

View publication stats