Sei sulla pagina 1di 11

RELIABILITY-BASED PROBABILITY ANALYSIS FOR

PREDICTING FAILURE OF EARTH BRICK WALL IN


COMPRESSION

A. A. Adedeji
Department of Civil Engineering
University of Ilorin, PMB 1515
Ilorin, Kwara State, Nigeria.
aaadeji@unilorin.edu.ng or amadeji@yahoo.com

ABSTRACT

Reliability evaluation, based on compressive strength, of earth wall with respect to its service life was
carried out in this paper. At present, reliability-based design studies for a typical earth wall structure
may not consider the effects of cement plaster and mortar joints. The wall components of cement
plaster, cement joint mortar and its units were taken into account in the analysis. Fault tree analysis,
as in a conventional masonry, has given possible failure combinations for the strawbale wall under
vertical loads. Using constant failure rate (CFR), for the wall having strength of 2.06N/mm 2 at 28 days
old, the service age of 149 years gives a reliability of 0.5. A reliability-based analytical approach, in
minimising the expected lifetime cost, is emphasized in this work for an earth walled residential
building. The results of the analysis has indicated that plastered earth wall, under compression, has
failure probability of 0.77 for its optimum design value.

Key words: Reliability model, failure, earth, cement plaster, fault tree analysis, compression

INTRODUCTION

The need to research into the earth (mud and laterite) material is imperative, as its strength in
compression, for a low-rise building, compares favourably with other common wall materials (concrete
and sandcrete block, earth, burnt and unburnt brick, to mention a few). An urgent demand for standard,
durable and cost-effective building materials suggests that there is the need to look inwards for such
materials.
Cement plastered earth, even in its form, is a very reliable material in building construction if
necessary expertise is followed. Earth walled structure has many advantages: heat/cold insulation
performance, low shrinkage, local availability and its Low-Tech construction. A wall may not perform
its intended functions due to structural failure, such as cracks, water penetration, and poor finishes. All
these may be attributed to poor workmanship (improper jointing and poor plumbing), lack of adherence
to specifications and misuse by over-stressing beyond the stated capacity of the brick wall.
Since the validity of any particular design method rests on the extent to which it can perform, this
research intends to: determine how reliable this wall is as a load bearing element is with respect to its
failure rate, so as to incorporate the reliability values into design for its service life.
The main objective of this work therefore is to evaluate the reliability-based probability of the
Earth wall failure rate for a two storey residential building.
To achieve this objective, earth panel were moulded, masonry prisms specimens were produced
in laboratory environment. Units (bricks) were subjected to non-destructive tests, while prisms were
crushed to failure and their properties were recorded. Reliability-based design approach for the earth
wall under compressive load has been proposed based on the results of the properties obtained from the
test. The cost of the wall was minimized.

RELIABILITY-ENHANCING TECHNIQUES
In research, the term reliability means “repeatability” or “consistency”. A measure is considered
reliable if it would give the same result over and over again assuming that what we are measuring isn’t
changing.
Reliability evaluation of a product can include a number of different analyses, depending on the
phase of the product life cycle (Okpala and Kotingo 2007). David (2001) described the reliability
engineering activity as an ongoing process starting from the conceptual phase of a product life cycle.
Trochim (2006) classified reliability estimators into four types. These are: (i) Inter-Rater
reliability and it is used to assess the degree to which different raters give consistent estimates of the
same phenomenon, (ii) Test-Retest Reliability in which the consistency of a measure from one time to
another is assessed, (iii) Parallel-Forms reliability is the assessment of the consistency of the results of
two tests constructed in the same way from the same content domain and (iv) the Internal Consistency
reliability used to assess the consistency of results across items within a test.
The brick wall design is usually based upon vertical design loads for a reasonable performance
(BS 5628, 1985). A wall may be designed to carry a load of 50kN, and can still carry up to 60kN load,
but would not be so reliable to this extent. A balance must therefore be achieved between rating, cost
and reliability. Partial redundancy is employed to accomplish the required functions so as to reduce the
strength of the wall. For instance, spalling or cracking of plaster may allow severe water or frost
penetration into the wall fibre thereby reducing, to an extent, the wall strength. In other word, Test-
Retest, which is especially feasible in most experimental and quasi-experimental designs without a
treatment control group was embarked upon in this work.

EXPERIMENTAL METHODOLOGY
Specimens of cement plastered earth prism were constructed from bricks size: 75mm x 105mm x
205mm. The specimen prisms (having slenderness ratio i.e. height: thickness = 3) were produced from
bricks that were joined together, using 1:10 (cement: sand) mix ratio.
Compressive strength tests were carried out at 3, 7, 14, 21 and 28 days, and the rate of strength
gained for the tested specimens were obtained. During the crushing tests by the universal testing
machines, a portable ultrasonic non-destructive digital apparatus with an indicating tester was used for
testing strength at each section loss due to damage conditions of the wall component and results were
recorded. Prisms initial average strength values for 7, 14, 21 and 28 days were obtained as: 1.48, 1.66,
1.89 and 2.06 (N/mm2) respectively. It has been established according to results of tests carried out by
the Cement and Concrete Association and reported by Roberts et al (1988) of the minimum influence
that mortar joint has on the strength of wall (Figure 1). The mortar effect was considered only in the
assumption of the cost factor of the wall. Since the effect of mortar is taken as mere binder between the
panels (Robert et al, 1988), the effect of it in the loss of wall section is negligible and was therefore
neglected

Mortar Strength (N/mm^2)

Figure 1 Effects of mortar strength on wall strength

Solid blocks 18.5 N/mm2 Cellular blocks 14.0 N/mm2

ANALYSES AND RESULTS


Strength Analysis
From the results of the analysis, the total strength considered was 100N/mm2 (Table 1 and 2). If
 i is the number of the strength by the end of testing day (i), then Ri is the total of the strength still
remained at the end of day (i), and by Leitch (1988),

Q i   i j 1 ( i ) (1)

Ri = 100 – Qi (2)
TABLE 1. AVERAGE STRENGTH RESULTS FOR 10 BRICKS EACH TESTING DAY
Days Strength Cumulative Average Cumulative Remaining Strength Rate
gained(  i) strength(Q i) strength (  ) strength (Q) strength (Ri) (d)

N/mm2 N/mm2 N/mm2 N/mm2 %


3 0.084 0.82 0 0 99 0.010
7 1.410 1.494 19 20 80 0.192
14 1.770 3.264 23 43 57 0.288
21 2.010 5.274 27 70 30 0.474
28 2.290 7.564 30 100 0 1.000

TABLE 2 AVERAGE STRENGTH RESULTS FOR 5 PRISMS FOR EACH TESTING DAY
Strength Cumulative Average Cumulative Remaining Strength Rate
gained (  i) Strength (Qi) strength (  ) strength (Q) strength (Ri) (d)
Days N/mm 2
N/mm 2 N/mm 2 N/mm 2 %
3 0.08 0.08 1 1 84 0.190
7 1.48 1.56 33 34 66 0.214
14 1.66 3.22 22 56 44 0.333
21 1.89 5.11 22 78 22 0.500
28 2.06 7.17 32 100 0 1.000

The data presented in Tables 1 and 2 show values of cumulative strength for each day. The last
column d i (Table 1 and 2) is related to the strength gained and the total strength remained. This is
represented by the following equation.
 i
d i  (3)
R I 1

where di is the strength rate or rate of gain in strength, which is the value of strength in a given day as
the remaining strength at the beginning of the day. This is the probability of obtaining particular
strength of a brick during day (i), assuming there are still remaining strength during the day.

Constant Failure Rate Model


Constant failure rate (CFR) is employed here for easy algebraic manipulation. Here d is assumed
constant with time and according to Leitch (1988):

R(t) = e-dt (4)

where R(t) -=constant rate of failure, t = variable time . The failure density is expressed with respect
to constant rate of failure as:
F(t) = de -dt (5)

So that the estimator is expressed as recommended by Leitch (1988):

F(t) = 1-e-dt (6)


The mean time to failure, is the average functioning (without a failure) period for an item or
average life cycle of a number of items, is expressed as:

MTTF = 1/d (7)

So that reliability :
R = e-t/m (8)

where t = period of time, d = failure rate, m = expected average number of break downs

Earth wall
failure

Separation of
To A
Weak Weak Plaster
panel mortar from wall panel failure

Imposed Imposed
Plaster is Plaster Plater
load exceed load exceed
Excess Insuffici- stronger washed cracks
Bleeding capacity + capacity +
Cement Panel cement ent cement that the ourt by to spall
segregation high high
not cracks base wall water
excentricity excentricity
enough

Poor mix Poor mix


design design Poor
Excess of Excess of Poor
assessment Poor curing
cement cement tender wall assessment Excess of Implelegate
study wall cement cement

Earth wall
failure
Poor
workmanship
A

Weak Separation of Weak Plaster


panel mortar from wall panel failure

Imposed Imposed load


Plaster is Plaster Plater
load exceeds exceeds
Excess Insufficien stronger washed cracks
Bleeding capacity + capacity +
Panel cement t cement that the out by to spall
segregation high high
rack base wall water
excentricity excentricity

Poor mix Poor mix


design design Poor
Excess of Excess of Poor
assessment Poor curing
clay clay assessment
slender wall Excess of inadequate
study wall cement cement

Figure 2. Fault-tree analysis for earth wall


Poor
workmanship
Specification of Reliability
Fault tree analysis
Based on experience and past works (Adedeji 2004, Adedeji 2002, Adedeji 2001) on the failure
of masonry In predicting reliability, all possible combination of failure in failures of wall could occur
due to possible combination of faults. This could be due to the panel not properly moulded into
required standard, improper curing or mixing. It could also be due to strong or weak mortar joint. Fault
tree analysis composed by this work, gives a pictorial view of these possibilities and their relationships
to each other as in Figure 2.
The occurrences of the above events (Figure 2) are not mutually exclusive as two, three or more
of these conditions can occur at the same time. This may lead to the failure of the wall.

Block diagram analysis


It has been necessary to specify not only for the performance characteristics of the Earth wall at
early stage but also the reliability and its allowable characteristics. A realistic reliability figure at this
stage must be determined for a wall life span. In this paper, a design approach was based on early work
of Frangopol and Hendawi (1994) and Lin and Frangopol (1996).
Considering the Reliability Panel Diagram (RPD) as shown in Figure. 3, the reliability of each
wall component was indicated. This assumption was used to determine the wall total cost factor (K) in
equation (10).

Bb
Bp Wall

Bm Bb = panel
Bm = mortar
Bp = plaster
Figure 3. Block diagram analysis for earth wall

Table 3 indicates the reliability of panel, mortar, plaster and wall with time. At this stage a
reliability figure must be determined for wall life span. In this paper, a design approach used is based
on the early work of Frangopol and Hendawi (1994) and Lin and Frangopol (1996).

TABLE 3. RELIABILITY OF BRICK, MORTAR, PLASTER AND WALL WITH TIME


BbR Time BmR Time BpR Time Rw Time
(year) (year) (year) (year)
0.84 114 0.93 48 0.95 34 0.78 65
0.50 146 0.89 76 0.91 62 0.65 95
0.72 178 0.85 106 0.87 91 0.56 95
0.72 215 0.81 138 0.83 122 0.42 192
0.68 252 0.77 171 0.79 154 0.42 192
0.64 292 0.73 20 0.75 188 0.35 229
0.60 335 0.69 243 0.71 224 0.29 267
BbR = panel reliability, BmR = mortar reliability,
BpR = plaster reliability, Rw = wall reliability
Estimation of Capacity Loss of Sectional Area
The compressive strength of loaded Earth wall members depends mainly on the total available
sectional area of the wall. For a uniform loading, the total wall crushing failure area, as a function of
time t, is expressed as:
A(t) = LxB for t≤ T (9a)
(intact or undamaged )

and A(t) = L [B – dr(t -T), for t > T (9b)


(damaged section)

where L, B = length, thickness of wall respectively, T = time of service initiation, d r = rate of damage
(disintegration) on panel and plaster.
The loss of material due to deterioration under constant load is time-dependent. If we consider a
residential building of earth walled (RR100), the reliability-based structural optimum design of this
wall requires a definition of the 8 design variables and 6 parameters as shown in Table 4. The objective
of the optimization process is to minimize the total cost of the wall with the factor:

CP
KC = (10)
Cm  Cb

where Cp, C m, Cb = cost of plaster, mortar, brick respectively, the value of Kc = 0.10.
TABLE 4. DESIGN VARIABLES (V) AND DESIGN
PARAMETERS (P) FOR RR100 BUILDING
Notation Variables Units
V1 Brick height,Hb 150mm
V2 Brick thickness, TH 130mm
V3 Brick width, B 250mm
V4 Wall thickness,Tw 250mm
V5 Wall height, Hw 300mm
V6 Wall length, Lw 4200mm
V7 Mortar thickness, tm 15mm
V8 Plaster thickness, tp 15mm
P1 Brick strength,  b 2.63 N/mm2
P2 Wall strength,  w 2.06 N/mm2
P3 Mortar strength,  m 2.1 N/mm2
P4 Plaster strength,  p 2.1 N/mm2
P5 Live load on wall 103.78 kN/m
P6 Dead load on wall 9.54kN/m

The residual capacity factor, due to loss of wall sectional area is expressed as,

A damaged
ACR = (11a)
A int act
And the sectional area loss
Aloss = Ainstact - Adamaged (11b)

where Adamaged is the sectional area reduced or crushed due to spalling of plaster on the masonry prism
and Aintact is the area of prism plaster, while the residential capacity factor due to loss in wall strength:

 damged
 CR  (12)
 int act

where  intact is equivalent brick failure.  damaged = crushed or damaged on the prism. And the strength
loss is expressed as,

 loss   int act   damage (13 )

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
Wall Strength and Sectional Loss
In Table 5, the results of the sectional and strength of plastered earth wall were shown, while
Figures 5 and 6 show relationship between the residual capacity factor and loss. As the sectional area
increases the residual capacity factor remains at maximum value of 0.98, while the residual capacity
factor is nonlinear as the loss in strength increases

TABLE 5. EARTH WALL SECTIONAL AND STRENGTH LOSS


Days  intact Aintact  damaged Adamaged
3 0.08 27500 0.07 27460
7 1.45 27510 1.40 27470
14 1.60 27500 1.51 27487
21 1.90 27500 1.88 27487
28 2.11 27500 2.01 27489
Resdual Capacity Factor

1.00
0.80
0.50
0.30
0.20

0.00
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
Sectional Area Loss
Figure 4. Residual capacity factor and area loss.
1.00

0.80

0.50

0.20

0.00
0.0 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20

Loss of Strength
Figure 5. Residual capacity factor vs strength loss.

Optimum design based on service life cost


Minimum material cost may not be the most essential characteristics the utility of a structure If
failure consequence is taken into account, more general criteria for the design of wall produces the
minimum total expected cost were considered here: (a) initial expected cost Ci (t) and (b) expected
failure during life-time (cost due to loss of structure and life Structural optimization design was
obtained within the framework of consequences of structural failure. This is necessary to introduce
lifetime failure probability Plife in the objective function which is minimized as,

Clife.min = Ci (t) + Ccf= Ci (t) + C f Plife (15)

In which: Plife = 1 -  (R(t)) (15a)

And Cf = 1000C b (16)

where Cb = cost of a brick. Earth wall cost versus lifetime reliability is shown in Figure 6. At the
optimum point, the Earth wall life cost to 30.3% of the cost at the reliability of 0.77.
Figure 6. Wall life-time reliability and cost

CONCLUSION
A reliability based design approach of an earth (laterite) wall under compressive load has been
proposed. The formulation includes partial redundancy and residual (damaged) reliability constraints.
Unlike convention wall design, which is based on satisfying code constraints only, the proposed
reliability-based approach uses material components or the expected lifetime service of the
components. The wall components (cost) are the objective that was minimized. When a wall of a
residential low-rise building is under the appropriate vertical load, the reliability which is below 0.5%
occurred at the wall age above 149 years.
From the analyses, the optimum design occurs at wall reliability of 0.45 at a cost of N15,000/m2
(in the year 2008), while the maximum cost, in the wall life time, is N 21000 at a reliability of 0.25.
The wall under compression has failure probability of 0.77 at its optimum design.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I appreciate the help rendered by Kehinde, O.A. for his assistance in producing few data used in
this work. My appreciation also extends to the Civil Engineering Department for providing equipment
and laboratory for this research.

REFERENCES

ADEDEJI, A. A. (2004). Deterioration of earth walls and design improvement, Journal of Applied
Science and Technology (JAST-AJOL), Ghana, 8(1, 2).
ADEDEJI, A. A. (2002). Thermal effects on the bearing capacity of earth wall in optimal design,
Association for the Advancement of Modelling and Simulation Techniques in Enterprises
(AMSE), France, Modelling B-2002, 71(3), 17 – 28.
ADEDEJI, A. A. (2001), Estimation of service life of coated brickwork mortar joint, International
Journal of Cement & Concrete Research, Elsevier, UK, 32 (2002), 199 – 203.
BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION, BS 5628, (1978). “Code of practice for use of masonry,
Part 1. Structural Use of Unreinforced Masonry”, BSI London. 1978.
DAVID, J. S. (2001). “Reliability, maintainability and risk, practical method for engineers”, Courier
Dover Publication,. Minneola, N.Y.
LEITCH, R. D, (1988). “Basic reliability engineering analysis”, 1st Edition, McGinley, 13-86.
FRANGOPOL, D. M. AND HENDAWI, S. (1994). “Incorporation of corrosion effects in reliability-
based optimization of composite hybrid plate girders” Structural Safety (1/2): safety 161(2), .145-
169.
LIN K. Y. AND FRANGOPOL, D. M., (1996). “Reliability safety. 18 (23), 239-258.
ROBERT, J.J., TOKEY, A. K., CRAMSTON, W. B., BEEBY, A. W.(1988). “Concrete Masonry
designer’s handbook, 7-77.
TROCHIM, W. M. K., (2006). “Research methods Knowledge Based,” file://I:\20%20..htm pp 48
OKPALA, A. N AND KOTINGO, K. (2007). Application of reliability analysis for predicting
failures in glass industry, Global Journal of Engineering Research, AJOL (UK): http://www.ajol.info
8(2), 83-87

Potrebbero piacerti anche