CONFERENCE PAPER

No. 61 (1999)

Earthquake Load Sharing Between

Timber Framed and Masonry Walls
Graeme J. Beattie

Presented at the Pacific Timber Engineering Conference,

Rotorua, March 14-18, 1999

Funding for this project was provided by the Cement and Concrete Association
and the Building Research Levy.
 ISSN: 0111-7505
EARTHQUAKE LOAD SHARING BETWEEN TIMBER FRAMED AND MASONRY
WALLS

G. J. Beattie
Senior Engineer, Building Research Association of New Zealand

SUMMARY

The lateral load resistance of lightly reinforced masonry walls has always been thought to be quite different from that of
timber framed walls. Timber walls were expected to respond to earthquake loading in a ductile fashion while masonry
walls were expected to behave in a brittle manner. These differences made it difficult to design structures that
incorporate both of these common forms of construction. Since the introduction of the non-specific design standards, it
is now recognised that lightly reinforced masonry walls have a limited amount of ductility, which reduces the bracing
demand. Additional ductile capacity is available in the connections between masonry walls and the ceiling. This was
quantified experimentally. The distribution of lateral force between masonry and timber framed walls was examined in
some typical structures by computer modelling. It was found that the stiffness of a masonry wall system incorporating
the bolted and nailed joint, is not significantly different from that of a timber framed wall system when there is a bolted
and nailed joint at the ceiling to wall junctions. The distribution of lateral load between walls may be obtained using
tributary areas when these joints are used. Diaphragm action must also be considered when there are continuous ceiling
“chords” perpendicular to the bracing walls. Without the presence of diaphragm action, the loads can be distributed on
the basis of tributary area.

INTRODUCTION was accepted as an “Industry Standard” for housing.

There has been a problem for some time relating to how
to distribute lateral forces between lightly reinforced
masonry walls and timber framed walls in houses that
are designed to the non-specific design standards [6,7].
This paper outlines the historic problem of stiffness
incompatibility between walls constructed of the two
materials and its effect on the lateral load resisting
behaviour of structures built using a combination of
timber framed and masonry walls. It describes changes
to the loadings standard [8] design philosophy and the
consequent changes to the non-specific design
standards.
Experimental testing of bolted ribbon plates is
described. The paper then gives details of a computer
model incorporating the results of this experimental
work and work previously undertaken to investigate the
distribution of forces between masonry walls and timber
framed walls. Conclusions are then drawn from the
results of the computer modelling.
BACKGROUND
The vast majority of New Zealand houses are built to the
non-specific design code for timber [7] while a smaller
number are built with reinforced masonry walls to the
non-specific design code for masonry [6].
The dominance of timber framed houses in New
Zealand meant that the non-specific timber design code
The non-specific masonry standard attempted to emulate
the non-specific design timber code, using the same
“bracing unit” system to describe the seismic and wind
resistance to be provided by the structure. The “bracing
unit system” is based upon the equivalent static force
design method.
Early versions of the two standards were based on
different design philosophies and the authors of the
standards never intended them to be used jointly. The
non specific design timber standard was based on a
working stress design method while the non specific
design masonry standard was based on a strength design
method. Houses of similar weight required a greater
number of bracing units if built of masonry than if built
of timber. Furthermore, timber walls were considered to
respond to an earthquake loading in a ductile manner
while masonry walls responded in a brittle manner.
In 1992, when the loadings standard [8] was converted
to limit states format, the non-specific design timber
standard was also converted from a working stress to a
limit state format. The effect of this conversion was an
increase in the bracing unit demand in the non-specific
design timber standard. However, the procedure for
establishing the available bracing capacity of a system
was also amended to reflect the change in philosophy.
There was also an amendment made at this time to the
non-specific design timber standard to reflect an
acceptance that reinforced masonry walls designed to
the non-specific standard did exhibit limited ductility -
the specified bracing ratings for masonry walls were
increased.
Houses with a reinforced masonry lower storey and a
timber framed upper storey were then able to be
designed using the two standards but there was no
design procedure for houses with a mix of reinforced
masonry and timber framed walls within the same
storey.
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PREVIOUSLY
REQUIRED BRACING UNITS AND THOSE
DERIVED FROM THE 1992 LOADINGS CODE
A comparison was recently made between the number of
bracing units required by NZS 4229 [6] and those
derived using NZS 4203 [8] as part of a BRANZ
investigation [2]. This used a house with a floor plan of
14
7 m and a roof area of 125 m2 for the comparison.
Tables 1 gives the bracing demands per square metre
derived using NZS 4230:1992 for different
combinations of roof and wall materials. The number of
bracing units required by NZS 4229:1986 are shown in
brackets.
It can be seen that the reduction in bracing units using
NZS 4203:1992 is very significant and drops to as low
as 40% of the NZS 4229 requirements. This reduction
is caused partially by the recognition that lightly
reinforced non-specifically designed masonry walls are
more ductile than was previously assumed.
In contrast to the above, a comparison [2] of the bracing
requirements of NZS 3604 [7] and those derived from
NZS 4203:1992, showed that for houses in earthquake
zone A, NZS 4203:1992 would require an increase in
the number of bracing units of up to 24% over the NZS
3604 requirements.
Clearly, there is a need to rationalise the requirements in
both non-specific design standards so that the two
materials can be effectively used side by side in the
same structure.
LOAD AND DISPLACEMENT BEHAVIOUR OF
BOTH WALL TYPES
Full load reversal pseudo-static in-plane racking tests
have been undertaken at BRANZ on both timber framed
and 150 series reinforced masonry walls [1,3,9]. Figure
1 shows a typical load-displacement hysteresis loop for
a light timber framed wall. The wall panel was 2.4 m
long, had nominal 100 mm by 50 mm studs at 600 mm
centres and was clad with a plasterboard lining nail
fixed on one face. The difficulty in relating the
performance of such a wall to the real world is in
accurately representing the continuity of the wall beyond
the panel under test.
To better replicate the continuity present at the outer
edges of the panel and also model the effects of
discontinuities such as doors and windows within the
panel, a number of 6.4 m long walls have been subjected
to racking tests [9]. Figure 2 gives a typical hysteresis
loop for one of these walls in which plasterboard was
fixed on one side.
 Timber Partitions Masonry Partitions
Zone A Zone B Zone C Zone A Zone B Zone C
150 series 13 (25) 10 (20) 6.5 (15) 18 (30) 14 (25) 9 (20)
+ veneer 18.5 (30) 14 (25) 9 (20) 24 (40) 18 (35) 12 (30)

a) SINGLE STOREY WITH LIGHT ROOF

Timber Partitions Masonry Partitions

Zone A Zone B Zone C Zone A Zone B Zone C
150 series 18 (30) 13 (25) 9 (20) 23.5 (40) 17.5 (35) 12 (25)
+ veneer 23 (35) 17.5 (30) 11.5 (25) 29 (45) 21.5 (40) 14.5 (30)

b) SINGLE STOREY WITH HEAVY ROOF

Zone A Zone B Zone C

200 series Upper floor 29.5 (60) 22 (50) 15 (40)
Lower floor 53 (100) 40 (85) 26.5 (70)
+ veneer Upper floor 38.5 (70) 29 (60) 20(50)
Lower floor 71 (100) 54 (85) 35.5 (70)

c) TWO STOREY WITH HEAVY ROOF - LIGHT TIMBER PARTITIONS TO THE

UPPER FLOOR AND MASONRY PARTITIONS ON THE LOWER FLOOR.

TABLE 1 COMPARISON OF BRACING REQUIREMENTS OF NZS 4203 AND NZS 4229

8 time the wall had reached a displacement of 24 mm, a

6
number of the nails connecting the plasterboard to the
bottom plate had broken out of the edge of the sheet.
4
The peak load was clearly achieved at a displacement of
2 about 12 mm. A view of the wall in the test rig is
Load kN

0
shown in Figure 3.
-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
-2

-4

-6

-8
Displacement mm

Figure 1: Load-displacement hysteresis loops for 2.4

m timber frame lined with plasterboard on one face
15

10

5
Load (kN)

0
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
Figure 3: 6.4 m long wall in the racking test rig
-5

-10 The masonry wall was 4.6 m long and consisted of two
linked shear panels 1 m and 1.4 m long with window
-15 and door openings between, to represent a typical
Displacement (mm)
section of exterior wall. Only the cells containing
Figure 2: Load-displacement hysteresis loops for 6.4 vertical reinforcement and the top two courses forming a
m timber frame lined with plasterboard on one face bond beam were grouted. A view of the masonry wall
during testing is given in Figure 4 and the corresponding
During the early cycles to 6 mm, the joints between the load-displacement plot is shown in Figure 5.
plasterboard sheets had opened and this gap width
increased as the wall displacement increased. By the

Figure 4: 4.6 m long masonry wall under test
120
80
40
Load (kN)
0
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
-40
-80
-120
Displacement (mm)
Figure 5: Load-displacement hysteresis loops for a
4.6 m reinforced masonry wall
Faint hairline cracks appeared in the mortar joints
immediately beneath the corners of the window opening
and also vertically and horizontally at the top corners of
the door opening at a shear load of 40 kN and a
longitudinal displacement of the top of the wall of about
1 mm. The wall was able to resist a maximum load of
approximately 70 kN before yielding occurred, but
continued to gain strength up to about 100 kN, at a
displacement of about 8 mm. Using the procedure
proposed by Park [5] for calculating the displacement
ductility of a test specimen, a ductility of 3 was
obtained. Compare the behaviour of this wall to the
plasterboard lined wall where a maximum load of 13 kN
was achieved at a displacement of 13 mm.
Clearly, the strength of the masonry wall is considerably
greater than the timber framed wall. Notice that the
deflections at the peak load are similar in one direction.
In the other direction, to achieve peak capacity the
timber framed wall is required to displace about one and
a half times as far as the masonry wall.
The difficulty arises in distributing the lateral forces in a
house which has both masonry and timber framed walls.
For a house with a rigid diaphragm ceiling or roof and
no torsional eccentricity, then the assumption that the
lateral capacity of the whole is the sum of that of the
parts is clearly incorrect. This is because when the
stiffer masonry wall is at its ultimate strength the
displacement of the adjacent more flexible timber walls
will be less than that required to reach their ultimate
strength.
If the ceiling or roof is not rigid, as will be the case with
most sheet material linings on timber framing, then the
displacements of the two wall types will not be the same
and both types may be able to mobilise their ultimate
strengths at the same time. This essentially suggests that
the walls could be designed on a tributary area
approach.
CONNECTION BETWEEN CEILINGS AND
WALLS
Typical Details
NZS 4229 provides a number of details for connecting
the ceiling and/or roof to the masonry walls. Generally,
either the ceiling lining is nailed directly to an
overhanging top plate which is in turn bolted to the top
of the masonry wall (Figure 6(a)) or it is nailed to a
ribbon plate (stringer) bolted to the side face of the wall
(Figure 6(b)). Finishing of the junction is likely to be by
a timber fillet or similar to hide the nail heads. Both the
bolted joint and the nailed joint provide flexibility to the
connection between the ceiling and the wall.
For timber framed walls, the connection between the
ceiling and the wall has some significant differences to
the masonry wall connection. While the ceiling lining is
nailed to the top plate or blocking adjacent to the top
plate, the shear transfer from the ceiling to the wall is
through the taped and stopped joint (Figure 7(a)) or
through a plaster cornice which is glued in place (Figure
7(b)), both of which are stiff connections.
While NZS 4229 requires M12 cast in bolts at 1200 mm
centres for fixing the plate or the stringer to the wall,
often builders will substitute proprietary expanding
masonry anchors of the same strength for ease of
construction. The bolted connection is expected to have
some flexibility in either case.
 Gable end in
masonry
construction
M12 bolts at 1200 crs to stringer
Building strap and solid
Wall plate blocking to ceiling joists

300mm
Ceiling
joist
Batten Ceiling diaphragm
fixed to stringer
Ceiling diaphragm
fixed to plate
M12 bolts at 1200 centres
to wall plate

(a) (b)
Figure 6: Alternative fixings for ceilings to masonry walls

Ceiling Top
joist plate

Joint Taped Plaster cornice

and stopped glued in place

Wall framing

(a) Taped and Stopped (b) Glued cornice

Figure 7: Typical ceiling/timber framed wall connections

Laboratory Testing Restraint

To quantify the load/slip characteristics of the bolted D12 bar

connection, a series of cyclic load reversal tests was Internal webs
removed
undertaken at BRANZ. Both cast-in and proprietary 50 x 50 x 3
expanding anchors were investigated. A single bolt was washer
3-2014 M12 cast in bolt (Case 1)
tested in each case, fixing a 1200 mm long nominal 150 masonry M12 Expansion anchor (Case 2)
blocks
mm x 50 mm stringer against the side face of a masonry
wall (Figure 8). 17.5 MPa grout
150 x 50 ribbon
plate
Each specimen was subjected to three cycles to each Grout
displacement from 1 mm to 5 mm in 1 mm increments at M12 cast
D12 in bolt (Case 1)
a slow loading rate. Three further cycles were Restraint 50mm dia.
completed to 10 mm, 15 mm and 20 mm, if the fixing hole in wall
Section of block
hadn’t already failed. The results showed that the peak at bolt filled with
grout
load for the M12 cast in anchors was about 13.5 kN
(equivalent to 11.3 kN per metre of wall) and for the Load

proprietary fixing 11.5 kN (9.6 kN/m). The initial

Plan on Test Setup
stiffness of both anchor types was between 8 and 10
kN/mm but the stiffness reduced quickly as the Figure 8: Bolted ribbon plate connection tests
displacement increased. The displacement of both the
cast-in anchors and the proprietary anchors was about
15 mm at the peak load. Figure 9 shows the curves of
the mean of the third cycle peak loads obtained from the
experimental hysteresis plots for the two anchor types.
 20
COMPUTER MODELLING OF HOUSES
15
A selection of house formats were modelled to
10
determine the distribution of seismic forces between
5
masonry and timber framed walls. The ceiling and walls
0 were identified as the most significant components.
-20 -10 -5 0 10 20
Load (kN)
-10 M12 mean A finite element model of the ceiling was programmed
-15 Anchor mean into an Excel [4] spreadsheet. The ceiling was modelled
-20 as a series of beam elements which accommodated both
Joint Slip (mm) bending and shear deformations. The boundary chord
area and elastic modulus were used to calculate bending
Figure 9: Mean third cycle peaks of the bolted deformations. The shear modulus of the ceiling lining
stringer connections and the non-linear joint deformation characteristics were
used to calculate shear deformations. The shearwalls
Curve Fitting were modelled as non-linear springs at the ends of the
diaphragm and at up to 5 locations within its length.
An approximation to the Figure 9 response was required Forces in the model were balanced using the spreadsheet
to represent it in a model of a full house. The following solver for each arrangement of external loads.
equation has previously been used to model the load-slip
performance of nails securing plasterboard and fibre- Outputs from the program included reaction forces at
cement board to timber framing [10]: wall lines, deflections of walls, and ceiling deflections,
bending moments and shear forces.
A * Slip(mm)
Load(kN)  (1) Computer Model Spring Properties
B  Slip(mm)
where The nailed joint between the ceiling and the ribbon plate
was modelled as a non-linear spring, as was the bolted
A = the (asymptotic) ultimate strength of the joint between the ribbon plate and the masonry wall. In
bolted joint both cases, the spring characteristics were modelled
B = the characteristic deformation which is using equation (1), but with constant coefficients
that at half ultimate load (giving an initial appropriate to the stiffness of the connection.
stiffness of A/B)
The stiffness characteristics of the masonry walls and
This equation was fitted to the load-slip plot for each of the timber framed walls were modelled using the same
the cast-in anchors using a least squares method. equation form. The stiffness characteristics of the bolted
ribbon plate joint and the masonry wall were combined
Figure 10 shows the match between the experimental into a single equation to simplify the calculations.
curve and the curve generated from the above
expression. The A and B terms are displayed on the Comparison of Stiffnesses
graph.
To illustrate the stiffness relationships between the
masonry wall systems and the timber framed wall
systems, load-displacement plots have been produced
15 for the individual components and for the combination
A = 14.5 of these, all normalised to loads per metre of wall.
10
B = 0.44 These are presented in Figure 11.
5
Load (kN)

0 It is clear from the plot that the masonry wall and the
-20 -10 M12 cast-in bolts individually have high initial
-5 0 10 20
stiffnesses. However, when they are combined with the
-10 M12 bolt stiffness of the nailed joint to the ceiling, the stiffness of
-15 Match the system is markedly reduced. The system stiffness is
comparable to the stiffness of the wall lined with
-20
Joint Slip (mm)
plasterboard on both sides and the wall lined with
plasterboard on one side and fibre-cement board on the
Figure 10: Third cycle peaks and the best fit curve other.
 TABLE 4
DETAILS OF HOUSE MODELS
20 PB = plasterboard
Model # Dimensions (m) Details
FC = fibre cement sheet
PB both sides
18 Timber framed end walls with plasterboard lining and one central masonry wall
1 16 x 8
PB & FC
Timber framed end walls with plasterboard lining and fibre-cement board
2 16 16 PB
x 8 nails
cladding
14 Masonry wall at one end, timber framed central wall with plasterboard lining both
3 16 PB&Bolt&Masonry
x8
Load (kN/m)

faces and timber framed end wall with plasterboard lining and fibre-cement board
12 Masonry cladding
Masonry end walls and two timber framed walls lined with plasterboard on both
4 10 16 M12
x 8 bolts
faces, each at 6 m from the end
8 Timber framed end walls with plasterboard lining and five masonry walls spaced
5 14 x 7.4
randomly between
6
Masonry end walls and a mix of two plasterboard lined timber framed and three
6 16 x 8.5
4 masonry interior walls

2
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Displacement (mm)
Figure 11: Comparison of Stiffnesses Normalised to Loads per Metre

envelope), the distribution of force to the walls was

Computer Model Results
Six house arrangements were modelled. Four of these
had simple 16 m by 8 m rectangular plans and basic wall
layouts while the remaining two contained a mix of wall
types, lengths and positions. Loading was considered in
the transverse direction only.
Details of the plans are summarised in Table 2.
In all models the ceiling was either considered to be
lined with ordinary plasterboard or bracing plasterboard.
The major difference between these two cases is in the
strength of the nailed connection between the ceiling
and the ribbon plate. The other major variation
investigated in the models was the effect of the ability of
the ceiling to behave as a continuous diaphragm over the
plan of the house.
From the model outputs it was clear that when the
ceiling was not considered to act as a diaphragm, the
distribution of forces to the walls was proportioned on
the basis of tributary areas. This would be the case
when masonry walls are utilised internally and they
penetrate the exterior envelope, causing a break in the
exterior wall top plate, which is acting as the chord of
the diaphragm. This could be expected if the internal
wall was being provided for fire and/or sound resistance
between flats or sleeping and living areas of a house.
When the ceiling was considered to act as a diaphragm
with a continuous top plate (a case which will exist if the
interior masonry walls are enclosed within the building
found to be more related to the stiffnesses of the
elements, particularly the flexural stiffness of the
ceiling.
If the masonry walls were at the ends of the structure,
they tended to attract more than their tributary area share
of load by up to 50%. When they were randomly placed
internally, the attraction of load was closer to that based
on tributary areas. The reason for this is unclear but it
may be due to the relatively short length of building load
attributable to each wall element in the latter case.
CONCLUSIONS
This paper has presented the background to the
development of the two non-specific design standards
and the changes to the loadings standard philosophy
since their introduction. Experimental investigations
have shown that the fundamental stiffness
incompatibility between the two wall types when used in
the same structure is less of a concern when account is
taken of the flexibility of the connection between the
masonry shear walls and the ceiling.
A computer model was developed which allowed the
strength and stiffness properties of both wall types, their
connections to the ceiling and the ceiling itself to be
incorporated. Realistic force distributions between the
walls were obtained.
The model results indicate that it is reasonable to
attribute lateral load to the walls based on their tributary
areas when the ceiling chord member is discontinuous.
However, when it is possible to have a continuous
chord, masonry walls placed on exterior wall lines
attract more than their tributary area share.
The influence of the ceiling flexural stiffness was found
to be significant but not easily quantifiable. Further
work is required to establish the degree of influence
over a range of chord types and arrangements.
FUNDING ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The project was funded equally by the Cement and
Concrete Association and the Building Research Levy.
References
1. Herbert, P.D. (1997) Report on the Indicative
Testing of Concrete Masonry Walls for Seismic
Assessment. Building Research Association of New
Zealand, Test Report STR 336, Judgeford, New
Zealand.
2. Herbert, P.D. and Beattie, G.J. (1997) Earthquake
Behaviour of Combined Masonry and Timber
Framed Walls., Building Research Association of
New Zealand, Report SC1043, Judgeford, New
Zealand.
3. Herbert, P.D. and King, A.B. (1998) Racking
Resistance of Bracing Walls in Low-Rise Buildings
Subject to Earthquake Attack - Volume 2 -
Experimental Program Derivation & Assessment.
Study Report SR 78, Building Research Association
of New Zealand, Judgeford, New Zealand.
4. Microsoft Corporation. (1992) Microsoft



Windows Excel 5.0
5. Park, R. (1989) Evaluation of Ductility of Structures
and Structural Assemblages from Laboratory
Testing, Bulletin of the NZNSEE, Vol 22, No. 3.
6. Standards Association of New Zealand (1986) NZS
4229:1986; Code of Practice for Concrete Masonry
Buildings not Requiring Specific Design, Standards
Association of New Zealand, Wellington.
7. Standards New Zealand (1990) NZS 3604:1990;
Code of Practice for Light Timber Framed Buildings
not Requiring Specific Design, Standards New
Zealand, Wellington.
8. Standards New Zealand (1992) NZS 4203:1992;
Code of Practice for General Structural Design and
Design Loadings for Buildings (known as the
Loadings Standard), Standards New Zealand,
Wellington.
9. Thurston, S.J. (1993) Report on Racking Resistance
of Long Sheathed Timber Framed Walls With
Openings. Study Report SR 54, Building Research
Association of New Zealand, Judgeford, New
Zealand.
10. Thurston, S.J. (1994) The Specific Design of
Shearwalls and Ceiling Diaphragms Constructed
• •
Using Gib Braceline and Gib Fyreline. Building
Research Association of New Zealand, Report SC
5014, Judgeford, New Zealand.