Earthquake Resistant Design for Masonry Walls Utilizing a Mortar-less Construction System

Charles Anthony Laster August 4, 2012 laster3@bellsouth.net

Abstract A mortar-less construction system is explored that has several advantages over standard masonry construction in earthquake resistance and total building cost. Unlike standard masonry walls which are solid, the interlocking mortar-less masonry blocks allow slight movement and lock tighter over time, aided by an innovative application of steel reinforcement. This construction technique is also better at dissipating the energy of a seismic wave than traditional masonry. This system can also be used in conjunction with poured concrete for improved performance.

Table of Contents Introduction Dry Stacked, Interlocked and Ashlar Masonry Interlocking Reinforced Ashlar Masonry, I.R.A.M. I.R.A.M. Walls, Forces During an Earthquake Foundations Vertical forces and associated wall movement Forces parallel to the wall and associated movement Forces perpendicular to the wall and associated movement Masonry Veneer Prestressing in I.R.A.M. Construction Precompression Post-tensioning Using Post-tensioning to Precompress I.R.A.M. walls. Steel Reinforcement Connections A Walls Weak Spot, Corners Curves Layered Wall Construction Improved Earthquake Performance Insulation in Layered Walls I.R.A.M. "Forms" in Poured Concrete Conclusions

Introduction Masonry walls can crack from settling, earthquakes are an even greater danger. The high mass of masonry walls means the forces exerted on the wall from an earthquake are higher than on lighter structures like lumber framed walls. Masonry veneer walls are often anchored to a framed structure, resulting in damage to the structure from the collapsing wall. "There is a limited understanding of the ability of the veneer to resist cyclic earthquake loading while acting in combination with light frame bracing systems and because veneer cracks and breaks at smaller displacements then required for the light-frame system to achieve its capacity." p. 103 [1] This specific problem will be examined in detail latter. For other masonry walls, strength of a wall depends solely on the strength of the stone or masonry used, and the mortar used to bond them together and reinforcement, if any. If the bond strength of the mortar is too weak, it will give, but this is only a problem with old, poor quality lime mortar joints. If the bond strength of the mortar is less than the mortar or the masonry, the wall will crack along the joint next to the masonry. If the bond is as strong or stronger than the mortar, the crack will run through the masonry. This is commonly seen when modern concrete based mortar is used in masonry construction. Regardless masonry walls crack under strain, and the mortar used is the main factor in how and where the fracture occurs. Masonry walls are rigid, and don't handle movement well because the mortar bonds the wall into a single fairly rigid structure. Lime based mortar is slightly more flexible than concrete mortar, but the lower strength of traditional lime mortar makes it less desirable. [2] During the research into improving lime based mortars [2] the role of mortar in masonry wall cracking and failure became clearer, and some examples of earthquake resistant masonry without mortar was found. Using a mortar-less construction has some significant advantages, both in performance and cost, over traditional masonry and reinforced concrete for many applications. Dry Stacked, Interlocked and Ashlar Masonry Walls of stone built without the use of mortar have been used throughout the history of mankind and have proved to be remarkably stable, even in earthquake prone regions. Mortar-less wall construction allows for some movement and settling of the wall without damage. They have several passive structural effects that work to dissipate seismic energy and suppress resonant amplifications during an earthquake. [3]

Mortar-less masonry construction can be divided into 3 basic types. Dry-Stacked: Rough too lightly dressed masonry of various shapes and sizes. Primarily used for low walls, wide at base and tapering towards the top. While more stable than a mortared walled, it is limited in its practical applications. Interlocking Dry-Stacked: Lightly dressed to dressed masonry of various shapes and sizes fitted together like a jigsaw puzzle. Very stable but requires great skill and time to construct properly. Ashlar masonry is the last type of mortar-less construction. This type of fully dressed masonry is laid in courses of a uniform height like bricks. The masonry blocks are larger and heavier than in use today, and the blocks grow more massive as older examples are examined. Interlocking and Ashlar are the two best earthquake resistant masonry designs, but they are at the limits of their design capabilities. By combining the best aspects of these two types of masonry and modern reinforced masonry, and effective mortar-less system can be developed with walls that are of standard thickness used today. Interlocking Reinforced Ashlar Masonry, I.R.A.M. While the name Interlocking Reinforced Ashlar Masonry is technically correct and sounds quite impressive, there is nothing complex or difficult in its construction. Traditional masonry, concrete block and engineered stone can be found in almost any specification, structural and artistic needed. Several designs for an interlocking mortar-less were examined and a block that interlocks with a substantial tongue and groove seemed the best option. While blocks can be made in any size, the proportions of the tongue and groove block are critical to its function.

The blocks can be of any length and have round holes evenly spaced along the length for reinforcing steel to be added, depending on design considerations. The holes need to be slightly larger than the reinforcing steel used to allow for the slight movement of the blocks before engaging the steel reinforcement. The reinforcing steel is inserted after sufficient courses are laid and thus do not interfere

with laying the wall, easing construction. If the steel must be connected, mechanical connectors should be used as in standard re-bar applications, and the hole should be just large enough to accommodate the connector. Standard re-bar can be used, but in regions with a lot of tremors, the ridges on standard re-bar will cause excessive wearing of the hole. Cold rolled round steel stock is a better choice, and should be cheaper than re-bar made from it. The spacing and size of the holes are more dependent on the size and spacing for the steel reinforcement used to achieve correct alignment of the holes. The block dimensions are based on how wide of a block is going to be used. 1. the 'Tongue' of the block and its corresponding groove should be at least 1/4 as wide of the block and not more than 1/3 as wide. 2. The height of the 'Tongue' should not be more than twice as high as it is wide. 3 The 'Body' of the block should be 1 1/2 to 2 times the height of the 'Tongue'. For an 8" wide block, a 2"X4" tongue is within those bounds, and the body of the block could be from 6" to 8" in height. 3", 4" and 5" wide blocks can be used for veneer on framed structures so as to fit current codes for veneer thickness for the seismic zone. Before moving on to the details as to how this design resists damage, it is important to explain why the proportions of the tongue are so critical. Masonry wall are weakest against movement perpendicular to the wall causing it to sway from a central position. In designing for earthquake protection how something fails is as important as keeping it from failing because any wall can fail under a great enough load. These proportions control where an individual block will fail during excessive lateral movement of the wall.

It is better for the break to occur internally on the tongue than on one of the faces, which are bearing the brunt of the load as the wall sways during a quake. While the tongue still needs to be substantial enough to keep the masonry courses

interlocked till that point, with help from the re-bar. The proportions have sufficient leeway for manufactures make custom lines of block, and still maintain earthquake resistance. To understand how this type of masonry resists settling and earthquake damage, we need to examine the forces on a structure during a quake next. I.R.A.M. Walls Forces During an Earthquake Every building starts with the foundation, and that is the best place to start the examination of earthquake resistance and I.R.A.M. walls. Codes for masonry foundations are already well established, and I.R.A.M. wall do not require any modification for their use. There are however some above code measures that can be used to increase earthquake performance. During an earthquake, the entire structure including the foundation can slide sideways.

The above diagram shows the forces and how a foundation resists them. [1]

Codes generally recommend wider and deeper foundations to increase the resistance with the soil and mass of the soil that must be pushed with the foundation. p. 59 [1] Increasing the size of a foundation costs more due to increased material used. The sliding friction of a foundation can also be increased, with minimal extra material by the addition of very short friction pylons on the underside of the foundation. These pylons need not be big, Diameter, 1/4 the thickness of the foundation and the length 1/2 to 3/4 the thickness of the foundation. So for a standard 2 foot thick foundation, a pylon 6" in diameter and from 12" to 18" deep will be strong enough not to break easily while providing extra grip. A hole is simple dug every few feet for one before the foundation is poured, and re-bar may be added if needed. These small pylons do not add as much cost in materials, and are easy to add. They provide friction in any direction of movement and may be a viable alternative or addition to larger foundations for some applications. Structures can also slide off their foundation during a quake. Again codes cover how to secure a structure to its foundation and no modification is needed for I.R.A.M. walls. The block that rests on the foundation can be mortared to the foundation as in normal masonry, and is the only place mortar may be used. When higher shearing forces from sliding are expected, the groove in the bottom of the block offers a better solution. A corresponding groove can be incorporated onto the foundation. A "Shear Stone" with holes for the steel reinforcement can be inserted to secure the I.R.A.M. walls to the foundation. This shear block act like a shear wall to resist sliding of the walls. It also still allows free movement of the blocks above it. In regions where liquefaction of the soil can result in large shear forces, both a shear stone and a mortar joint plus steel reinforcement would give the maximum amount of protection from sliding of the structure from its foundation possible with this design. Now that the foundation has been covered it is time to examine how I.R.A.M. walls handle the forces exerted on them by a quake. The forces on a masonry wall can be split into 3 vector forces in the principle directions of the structure for examining the effects on walls. [4] Vertical movement will be examined first.

Movement up and down. This type of movement can damage walls, in masonry construction it produces a near vertical crack, often seen with settling problems, but also in earthquakes. Interlocking Reinforced Ashlar Masonry performs very well against damage from this type of movement. The block is free to move up and down, using the tongue and groove and the re-bar as guides. The force exerted on the wall is spread out to neighboring blocks over the length of the wall, rather than being concentrated in a near vertical line above the point of greatest deflection. Also the forces on the wall are still mainly compressive as well. Masonry and concrete is strong verses compression and weak verses tension. Lift the center of one of standard masonry or concrete walls, and the weight and slope of the rest of the wall produces a tension strain at the top of the wall above the point of greatest deflection. Thus a tension crack can start at the top of the wall and propagate down. Thus mortar-less masonry should exceed standard and reinforced masonry walls of the same size and compressive strength verses this type of damage. When the wall reaches its maximum amount of free movement in this direction, the force on individual blocks are at the corners rather than through the body of the block. This results in the corners of the block becoming rounded to allow more free movement, rather than a critical failure. Longer blocks are more pone to cracking through the body of the block than shorter ones from this type of movement, and in soils susceptible to this type of movement, shorter blocks can be used. Even when an individual block is cracked from this type of movement, the compressive load bearing capacity is not diminished. The block in effect becomes two shorter blocks and remain interlocked by the tongue and grooves. Structures are also subjected to forces in the X and Y planes as well. Thus the walls will have to deal with forces that are parallel to the wall, along its length, and forces perpendicular to the wall. [4]

First we will examine movement parallel to the wall. This type of movement tends to produce near horizontal cracks. In masonry these tend to follow the mortar joint and is a shear type failure. Note in the cute little house above, the bricks in every course of masonry have the same amount of displacement. The force on a wall varies with its height, and thus all the masonry in a level course can be considered as being subjected to the same amount of force. Ashlar masonry is exceptional at withstanding and absorbing forces in this direction. This design for I.R.A.M. allows for considerable movement of the wall in this direction. Every block in the wall is free to move, but during a quake, an individual block if not moving at the average speed of the wall or blocks on other courses. This means every block is acting as a small mass damper for the wall with energy being dissipated by friction with other blocks above and below it. This friction and slight wearing of the blocks actually serves to tighten the wall, and raise the coefficient of friction between blocks. The mass damping effect can be increased by using blocks of at least 2 different sizes in the same course.

The lighter blocks tend to start moving sooner and change directions quicker due to their lower coefficient of friction and moment of inertia, and they want to travel at a faster speed. If we alternate short and long blocks in the same course, all the blocks in the same course will no longer be moving as one. In the above diagram, the lighter block will be pushing the heavier block next to it when movement starts. When the lighter blocks start to change direction, the heavy block will still be wanting to go in same direction it was traveling, and heavy and light block on one side will be pushing against each other. Finally the heavy block changes direction, and the process starts over again. this pushing produces compressive forces on the blocks, which is masonry strong point. This will reduce overall movement of the masonry courses parallel to the wall and absorb considerable energy in the process without damage to the wall. Interlocked reinforced ashlar masonry should perform better than traditional masonry and reinforced masonry verses this type of damage. The next type of damage from movement during an earthquake is movement perpendicular to the wall trying to topple it. Masonry wall are weakest verses this type of damage. When a masonry wall bends it produces a horizontal fracture when the top of the wall leans too far over the base. It will produce a vertical fracture if the wall bows in or out to far. When a wall bends like this, the wall is under compression on the inside of the curve, and under tension on the other side, and this is the side where a fracture is prone to start. In this mortar-less design the inside of the curve is still under compression, however the other side is not under tension because that side of the block is free to lift up, instead the tension has been moved to the center of the block on the tongue.

There is less displacement and therefore less tension near the center of the block, but also less material. The re-bar which is also strong in tension is likewise at the center of the block resisting tilting. If the tongue does crack and fail on an individual block, the compressive strength of the wall is not affected. Also the reinforcing steel and other interlocking block will be supporting it. Performance of the wall verses damage from this type of movement should be comparable to slightly better than reinforced masonry. During an earthquake a wall are subjected to all 3 motions and cracks can thus form and propagate in any direction. I.R.A.M. should perform as well or better than reinforced masonry and concrete of the same thickness and compressive strength for many residential and light commercial applications. So far we have examined walls a single block wide comparable to the standard 8" concrete block with reinforcement. Before moving on, we need to examine the special case of masonry veneer on wood frame construction. Masonry Veneer While masonry veneer is commonly used, "There is a limited understanding of the ability of the veneer to resist cyclic earthquake loading while acting in combination with light frame bracing systems and because veneer cracks and breaks at smaller displacements then required for the light-frame system to achieve its capacity." p. 103 [1] Current code in the U.S. limits the size of block and mass of veneer based on the seismic zone. There is good reason for this, but thinner walls are more prone to failure. For masonry walls, thicker is better for stability. The mortar-less masonry system detailed here should offer slightly better performance than other systems. Because it is mortar-less, wall connections will have to be incorporated into the blocks when cast. If this was done for every individual block of a mortar-less wall, performance can be considerably improved.

Veneer is attached to the lighter framed structure, which complicates analyzing the forces acting on the wall during a quake because they are connected. The two walls, which are placed slightly apart for moisture reasons, slam into each other repeatedly during a quake, weakening both. Blocks cast from a high calcium quicklime and aggregate could be mounted flush with a framed wall. Such blocks, unlike concrete, will transfer moisture from the inside to the outside of the wall. [2] This might also offer some improvement in earthquake resistance for non-load bearing veneer walls. Blocks made from quicklime are considered a green building product that uses less energy to produce than a concrete block, and is carbon neutral over time as it absorbs carbon-dioxide from the air. This brings up another option, make the veneer wall load bearing. While the lumber wall should still be designed to take the whole load, by sharing some of that load with the veneer wall, the wall can be stabilized much better. Prestressing in I.R.A.M. Prestressed structures are commonly used today, but the origins of prestressing started in masonry construction where precompression of the wall is achieved by the weight above it. The master mason would lay a number of courses of stone over an arch to pre-stress and stabilize the arch before removing the form it was built around. The massive attic wall of the Colosseum in Rome helps to stabilize the large open arches on the levels below it. [5] Load bearing masonry wall already benefit from precompression, veneer walls could also benefit from having a load on them. However it may not be possible to have the veneer wall attached to the roof for this load, as many veneer walls are only partial walls. There is another prestressing technique that we can use to induce precompression of a veneer wall, posttensioning. Most masonry including this design uses capstones for the top of the wall. The typical capstone for this system would not have the tongue or the holes for the steel reinforcement. To apply post-tensioning to a veneer wall the steel reinforcement needs to extend through the capstone and a beam that runs the length of the wall. The ends of the steel reinforcement are threaded and tightened down onto the beam with nuts and washers. The beam could be wood, plastic made to look like stone, a metal plate, or any other suitable non brittle material. This post-tensioning method allows for the steel reinforcing rods to be pretensioned and the veneer I.R.A.M. walls to be precompressed at the same time for

improved earthquake performance. This method may also be used on standard load bearing I.R.A.M. walls where they join the roof or floor structure. This will help the tie the structure together during an earthquake or other natural disaster as well as improving earthquake resistance. The steel reinforcement does not develop the protective coating as it does in poured concrete. Thus is some application where moisture is a problem, the steel may need a protective coating. However some expansion of the steel from rusting will not put a bursting strain on the wall as in poured concrete either. While on the subject of steel reinforcement, it is a good time to discuss how connections between steel rods are done during construction. Steel Reinforcement Connections Earlier it was mentioned that mechanical connections should be used when connecting steel reinforcement rods rather than lap joints. Lap joints in re-bar gain much of their strength from the surrounding concrete, which they do not have in I.R.A.M. walls. Lap joints would also take up too much space in the block, and produce uneven strain on the blocks during an earthquake. Also lap joints would necessitate that the steel go up first, then the blocks would have to be placed over the steel and lowered into place, an unnecessary complication during construction. Placing the blocks over the first few feet of steel that ties the foundation and the base of the wall together is not a problem and mechanical connectors are stronger and allow separate sections to be threaded together easily from the top of the wall. The steel coming up from the foundation should be threaded and a mechanical connection placed on it before courses of block are laid over it. The holes in the block help to align the bar from the foundation with the bar inserted from above. A slight slope on the inside of the connector can be used to help guide the rod into the threads. The standard mechanical connector for re-bar is a steel sleeve threaded at each end.

While not absolutely necessary, this slight modification will help to align the

steel reinforcing rods. This can also be accomplished by tapering the end of the rod inserted from above, or both could have a slight taper. A Walls Weak Spot, Corners Till now we have focused on the walls themselves, but all masonry wall have a weak spot that requires special attention, the corners. Regions of high stress can occur at or near the corners during and earthquake. Asymmetrical structures are even at more risk from this type of damage. Most masonry walls, like brick, use a simple overlapping butt joint for the corners. Because of the tongue and groove of I.R.A.M. blocks, they can not use this type of corner joint. Instead a block made just for corners must be used.

The body and the tongue must both make a 90 degree turn in a single block. The arms can be of various length, depending on the size of block used so joints between courses can be staggered, similar to a running bond and some other masonry patterns. This type of block will produce a stronger corner than a simple overlapping butt joint. This is also the only I.R.A.M. wall block that could benefit from reinforcement incorporated into the body of the block. Still as quakes increase in strength, corners will continue to be a problem area. One solution is to eliminate them wherever possible. A curve rather than a corner can spread the force over several blocks that would normally be exerted on a single corner block. I.R.A.M. blocks can be manufactured to form a radius rather than a sharp corner, or even curved and circular walls if desired. I.R.A.M. walls are easier to repair than many wall designs. The reinforced steel can be removed and the wall unstacked, damaged blocks replaced, and reassembled. So far I.R.A.M. walls have compared favorably verses other types of masonry like bricks and reinforced concrete block walls in earthquake performance and do not require skilled labor to construct. I.R.A.M. walls can easily have post-tensioning applied to increase earthquake performance with only a slight increase in overall cost to a structure.

So far only walls the thickness of a single block has been examined, but that is not the only design option for a wall to improve earthquake resistance. Layered Wall Construction Brick walls in particular have been constructed with multiple layers of bricks in the wall. At regular intervals some bricks join the two wall together. There are a number of patterns that use this approach. Stone masonry has also used "Through Stones" to join two walls or two sides of a wall together.

In I.R.A.M. walls a "through stone" would look just like two blocks combined that connects the two separate walls at regular intervals, just like in normal masonry. Generally thicker is considered better in masonry walls when it comes to stability and earthquake resistance, however there is some benefit in constructing a wall out of two thinner walls connected with "through stones" Instead of an 8" thick wall made with a single block, let us consider an 8" wall made of two 4" walls with connecting blocks like the graphic above evenly spaced. This wall has about the same mass as a single block wall of the same thickness, but the material is distributed differently and its behavior is modified. The two 4" walls will be slightly out of phase with each other during a quake and tend to dampen each others movement. Tension on the back side of a wall can lead to crack formation, that tension is reduced and distributed in a double wall construction. Also the steel reinforcement has moved from the center and is now closer to the outside faces where its strength in tension can do the most good. If post-tensioning is also applied to the steel, this location is better for stability and performance than when it was at the center of the wall. Construction is easier due to the smaller size and lower weight of the block as

well. So when a thick wall is needed, performance can be increased by making it a layered wall of smaller individual walls interconnected. Also the individual wall layers do not have to be touching. A slightly longer "Through Stone" can be used to connect two walls with a slight separation. This air space can be left as is or filled with insulation. Masonry and concrete are poor insulators, and this construction technique can help overcome that shortcoming. In earthquake zones this insulation should also have some structural value. Concrete mixed with Styrofoam is one example of an material with both insulation and structural properties that could be used. The bond strength of such mixtures is not as strong as pure concrete, and during a quake should give allowing free movement of the block. Lime based mixes like "Hemp-crete" have an even lower bond strength and are considered a green building material. There are insulated panels that also have structural value and bond strength is not an issue with their use. The engineer and architect have a number of options for the choice of insulation used in a project. Of course the space between the two layers could be filled with reinforced concrete, and this opens up a whole new realm of applications for I.R.A.M. used in conjunction with poured concrete. I.R.A.M. "Forms" in Poured Concrete I.R.A.M. walls can be used as a leave in place forms for a concrete pour. They offer the engineer some additional flexibility in designs. The I.R.A.M. walls form a structural veneer for the poured concrete. This allows for the I.R.A.M. blocks to have completely different properties than the concrete, like resistance to weathering, while the poured reinforced concrete mix focuses on strength. The walls and the reinforced concrete core can be bonded together, or the walls coated on the inside to reduce or eliminate the bond between wall and core so that the walls retain their full earthquake resistance. That way even if the reinforced concrete core becomes damaged in a quake, the more flexible I.R.A.M. veneer will help to contain the fractured concrete and maintain its load bearing capability. Of course the I.R.A.M. veneer can also be post-tensioned in applications involving reinforced concrete cores as well. The force from post-tensioning the walls can also be used too pre-compress the core as well.

Conclusions I.R.A.M. walls offer an affordable solution for improved earthquake performance in masonry walls. Its low cost and ease of construction and repair make it a viable alternative even in non-seismic zones. It is versatile enough to be used in applications where masonry is not normally used, as in poured concrete. The design offered here for mortar-less walls is not the only design possible, but was chosen for its simplicity of design as well. A variation of the basic design was also considered.

A stepped tongue design offered a slight improvement verses damage from movement perpendicular to the wall for a slight increase in block complexity. The stepped tongue serves to move the initial fracture plane higher on the tongue leaving a small base of the tongue to help maintain wall integrity and interlocking. This base should be 1/4 to 1/3 the height of the tongue. I am sure other improvement will be made in this unique construction method in the future. References [1] FEMA 232 - June 2006 Homebuilders' Guide to Earthquake-Resistant Design and Construction Prepared by the Seismic Safety Council, for the, Federal Emergency Management Agency of the Department of Homeland Security [2] Laster, Charles A. - July 2012 Improving Lime Mortar http://www.scribd.com/doc/100043428/Improving-Lime-Mortars [3] Clark, Liesl First Inhabitants PBS online, Nova updated Nov 2000 [4] Image enggpedia.com http://www.enggpedia.com/civil-engineeringencyclopedia/articles/1553-earthquake-resistant-buildings-design

[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquake_engineering Personal Note I make this design publicly available for several reasons. I believe this construction method will save lives, reduce injury and damage during a quake. It will reduce rebuilding costs due to ease of repair as well getting people back into safe shelter as soon as possible. I do not have the money to patent it with all the fees, searches and lawyers required. It would be a hardship and time consuming to raise the money needed, and with work, school and family, I do not have the time to do it all myself, and I would still need more cash than I have, even then. The time it would take for me to profit from this idea would cost considerable time, time that may cost lives. If one life is saved by this construction method by not waiting, it is worth it.