Engineering Structures 106 (2016) 5367

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Failure of masonry structures in earthquake: A few simple cost effective

techniques as possible solutions
Sanket Nayak 1, Sekhar Chandra Dutta
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad 826 004, Jharkhand, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Masonry structures have exhibited their extreme vulnerability even in the event of past minor to mod-
Received 13 August 2014 erate earthquakes. Junction failure followed by out-of-plane collapse of the wall orthogonal to the direc-
Revised 30 September 2015 tion of strong shaking is the reason of failure of small masonry building structures as shown in a recent
Accepted 9 October 2015
literature. In this context, present study makes an attempt to examine the efficacy of a few strengthening
techniques of such structures verified through testing a large number of small scale models on shake
table. Techniques being cost effective and easy to implement may prove useful in improving seismic
Keywords:
performance. Large number of experimental results presented in this study may help in choosing one
Masonry structures
Earthquake hazard mitigation
of the suitable techniques depending on specialties of a particular local condition.
Shaking table tests 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Low cost
Strengthening

1. Introduction
Unreinforced masonry (URM) is the oldest and most widely
used construction material in the world due to esthetics, economy,
ease in construction, architectural appearance, fire resistance and
effective heat and sound insulation. Unreinforced low-rise
masonry building is the popular form of habitat in most of the
developing countries. URM walls are the prime load carrying com-
ponents of masonry buildings. Corner/junction failure and out-of-
plane wall failure are the most common type of failure observed
in these structures during earthquakes. Fig. 1 presents a few such
exemplary cases in India and other countries. The reason may be
due to poor interlocking between orthogonal walls. Reasons of sev-
ere seismic damage of such structures were examined through
post earthquake based damage surveys and were reported in a
recent paper [3]. This study clearly indicates that out-of-plane col-
lapse proceeded by separation of the wall resulting from failure of
its junction with in-plane walls is the reason of failure of such
structures. Such failure mechanism is needed to be arrested by
some strengthening mechanism. This study reported a very limited
number of experimental results indicating the possibility of a fruit-
ful use of L-shaped horizontal dowel bars and poly propylene (PP)
bands. These possibilities are needed to be established in terms of
Corresponding author. Mobile: +91 78944 07830; fax: +91 326 2296511.
E-mail addresses: sanketiitbbsr@gmail.com, nayak.s.civ@ismdhanbad.ac.in
(S. Nayak), scdind2000@gmail.com, dutta.sc.civ@ismdhanbad.ac.in (S.C. Dutta).
1
Mobile: +91 9471192395; fax:+91 326 2296511.
at least broad quantified benefit. Present study not only aims to
achieve the same but also explore the possibility of steel wire mesh
for similar improvement in behavior. Further, using more than
such feasible technique may lead to larger benefit. Keeping these
views in the mind such possibilities are also studied. All these
studies require less cost as well as normal artisanal skills.
Strengthening of URM structures is a challenge for engineers to
minimize the human loss, economic loss and loss of history due to
the failure of such structures. The use of different strengthening
mechanism to strengthen URM walls is primarily for avoiding brit-
tle failure and increasing the strength, stiffness and ductility and
also maintaining integrity of the walls. Generally most of the
strengthening techniques used for URM walls are visually intrusive
and too costly for application. Retrofitting method proposed in
most of the developing countries for strengthening of unreinforced
masonry (URM) should be able to take care of the structural
demand in terms of strength and deformability. The material cho-
sen should be available easily and should also be low cost from
view point of manufacturing and delivery, too.
Quite a good number of researches [419] were carried on the
issue of strengthening of masonry walls using carbon or glass fiber
reinforced polymers (CFRP or GFRP). The study revealed that
application of FRP to URM walls resulted with significant increase
in ultimate capacity, energy absorption and deformability but the
considerable increase in cost and expertise required for application
make it difficult for many developing countries like India.
Besides composite materials, few other materials were also
used in strengthening URM walls. Taghdi et al. [20] reported that

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2015.10.014
0141-0296/ 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
54 S. Nayak, S.C. Dutta / Engineering Structures 106 (2016) 5367
Fig. 1. Collapse/damage of unreinforced masonry buildings: (a) corner/junction failure in Uttarkashi earthquake, 1991 (NICEE, [1]) and (b) out-of-plane wall failure in
Pakistan earthquake, 2005 (EERI, [2]).
steel strip system was effective in increasing the in-plane strength,
ductility and energy dissipation capacity of low-rise masonry and
concrete walls being subjected to lateral loading. In a study carried
out by Murty et al. [21] revealed that use of twin lintel belt in steel
along with vertical corner reinforcement is effective in enhancing
the seismic performance of single-storey masonry building.
Another study [22] by using scrap tyre for strengthening
masonry houses, showed that strength of the retrofitted model
was improved up to 2 times compared to the non-retrofitted one,
leading to the increase in damping ratio, energy consumption char-
acteristics of the masonry. Maalej et al. [23] used Engineered
Cementitious Composite (ECC) to enhance the out-of-plane resis-
tance of URM walls subjected to quasi-static and dynamic loading.
Ma et al. [24] reported that introduction of external pre-stressing
was effective in improving flexural resistance, torsional resistance,
energy dissipation capacity and overall stiffness of masonry struc-
tures. Strengthening of URM walls by using poly propylene (PP)
band was experimentally investigated by Mayorca and Meguro
[25], Macabuag et al. [26], and Sathiparan and Meguro [27]. The
study revealed that, though the peak strength of the structure
was not increased by the application of PP band but performance
of the wall after crack propagation was significantly increased. It
was also reported that use of PP band in retrofitting prevents loss
of materials and maintains wall integrity for large deformations
leading to enhancement of the safety even against worst-case
earthquake scenario. The effectiveness of PP band in significant
increase in seismic performance of masonry structure was satisfac-
tory. It was also reported [28] that, use of rubber granulate soft lay-
ers may enhance the seismic performance of URM walls.
Indian codes [2931] and international standards [32,33] also
recommend some guidelines regarding design, construction, repair
and strengthening of URM buildings. BIS [29,30] specifies the guide-
lines for openings and provision of longitudinal and vertical rein-
forcement in masonry walls for better seismic performance.
Interestingly there is hardly any study on the quantitative aspect
of improvement in strength and other aspects. It is clearly under-
stood that use of steel lintel belt, scrap tyre, cementitious compos-
ites, or external pre-stressing are costly techniques. So, these are
difficult for implementation in mass scale at least in developing
countries as all these require sophisticated equipment and skilled
manpower. On the other hand, use of PP band may have a beneficial
effect despite being cheap and easy to implement. At this backdrop,
the present paper is an effort to judge the efficacy of a few low cost
retrofitting techniques including the use of PP band. The present
study can be regarded as a follow up exploring the possibilities
observed in a previous study [3] along with a few more new tech-
niques for seismic strengthening of masonry building. The retro-
fitted materials (PP band, steel wire mesh and reinforcing bars)
used in here are low cost as well as easily applicable without
requiring sophisticated equipment and technical manpower for
implementation. Scaled models are constructed using half size
bricks having dimensions (120 mm  57 mm  35 mm) which are
half of the dimensions of traditional size. The details of the property
of the materials (brick, mortar, PP band, steel wire mesh and
reinforcing bars) used are discussed below in subsequent sections.
Testing of both URM and retrofitted walls of three different types,
namely, free standing, L-shaped and assembly of four walls were
carried out using shake table. Effectiveness of strengthening
techniques (applied individually and simultaneously) and nature
of failure were studied in details for different cases. This study
may be of help for framing guidelines for seismic safety of masonry
structures.
2. Experimental program
2.1. Seismic behavior of masonry structures
Horizontal shear failure, corner/junction failure and failure of
out-of-plane walls initiated by junction failure are the most com-
mon type of failure in unreinforced masonry structures when sub-
jected to seismic excitation. Corner/junction is identified as the
weakest portion of such structures. It is needed to improve the
integrity of the structures to behave as a single unit and to ensure
proper interlocking between orthogonal walls to reduce the
causalities during earthquake. Such issue is discussed in details
by DAyala [34], Murty [35,36], etc. Keeping in view of the above
mentioned facts, the present study tried to use PP band, steel wire
mesh and reinforcing bars to strengthen URM walls for achieving
better seismic performance. Use of PP band and wire mesh help
to improve the integrity of the structures. Horizontal reinforcing
bars ensure proper interlocking between orthogonal walls.
2.2. Materials used
Half size (120 mm  57 mm  35 mm) bricks were used instead
of using traditional brick (245 mm  114 mm  70 mm) for the
construction of the models to simulate a realistic ratio between
the dimensions of structural elements and the dimensions of brick.
The half brick used for construction of the models was of class 10
 S. Nayak, S.C. Dutta / Engineering Structures 106 (2016) 5367 55

(compressive strength 7.510 N/mm2 as per BIS [37]) and mortar Table 1
was of grade M1 (compressive strength 5.0 N/mm2 and permissible Comparison between the properties of full size and half size brick along with Indian
standard [39].
tensile stress normal to the bed joint 0.07 N/mm2 as per BIS [38]).
The comparison of property of full brick and half brick and the Property of brick Full brick Half brick BIS (1992) (Full
specification for full brick as per BIS [37] is presented in Table 1 brick)

as extracted from another recent study [39] made by the authors. Dimension (mm) 240  114  70 120  57  35 230  110  70
Apart from the size, all other features seem to be comparable with Water absorption (%) 16.175 14.478 <20
Compressive strength 7.838 7.811 7.510 (Class 10)
that of available full size bricks and conform to the property ranges (MPa)
of bricks prescribed in relevant Indian standard (BIS [37]). In fact,
the comparison of compressive strength is presented in Table 1
itself to show such conformity as this is one of prime properties
Table 2
of brick so far as structural strength of masonry element is con-
Properties of strengthening materials used [39].
cerned. For strengthening mechanism, the materials used are PP
band (commonly used as packaging material), steel wire mesh Type of Property Numerical value
materials
(popularly used in windows for preventing the entry of insects
and mosquitoes) and reinforcing bars. Properties of the three PP band Width 12 mm
Thickness 0.85 mm
strengthening materials are presented in Table 2 as extracted from
Density 0.91 g/cm3
another recent study [39] made by the authors. Yield strength 1243 MPa
Ultimate strength 19.780 MPa
2.3. Shake table and ground excitation Reinforcing bar Diameter 6 mm
Density 7.58 g/cm3
All the experiments presented in this paper were carried out Yield strength 250 MPa
using the Shake Table installed in Structural Engineering Labora- Ultimate strength 841 MPa

tory, School of Infrastructure at IIT Bhubaneswar. The shake table
is a 1 m  1 m single axis horizontal electrodynamic shaker cap-
able of shaking 1000 kg mass with peak ground acceleration of
1g. The maximum displacement of the shake table is 51 mm. This
facility may reproduce the input acceleration history with reason-
able accuracy. All experiments were carried out under same
ground excitation. Since, the real acceleration time history avail-
able corresponding to various real earthquakes may be biased by
their spectral shape and frequency content, etc., a ground excita-
tion in the form of swept sine motion has been used in all the cases.
The frequency of such swept sine motion was changed from 5 to
50 Hz by increasing the frequency with a rate of 1 Hz/s. Such a
range well includes the natural frequency of the models used
which were found in the range of 30 to 40 Hz. Thus, on one hand
such excitation may capture the possible amplification in response
due to resonating trend and at the same time may not be influ-
enced by the nature of the particular spectral shape and the fre-
quency content of the ground excitation. Hence, the comparison
of the PGA at which the damage starts and failure occurs may give
at least a relative picture of the performance of various cases of the
model studied. Thus, PGA is used as a parameter for damage indi-
cator in the present study. The PGA at which damage may initiate
or cause failure were not known at the beginning of the experi-
ment, hence initially such swept sine motion was applied with a
PGA of 0.1g. Gradually such motions were repeated to be applied
by increasing the PGA in a step of 0.05g keeping all other features
of the motion unchanged. This has been continued to reach the ini-
tiation of damage as well as the occurrence of failure. These two
values are noted in all cases and compared to judge the perfor-
mance of various models with different strengthening techniques.
2.4. Details of construction procedure
The sequential steps followed for construction of the model
wall are described here. The models were built on a wooden plank.
This plank was placed over the shake table and bolted in such a
way that there is no slip between the table and the plank. The
center line of the shake table was marked with strings so that
the center line of the wooden plank to be attached coincides with
the same of the shake table, to avoid any undesirable torsional
effect. The formwork was then made with the help of bricks. Nails
of length 80 mm were inserted at intervals of 75 mm (Fig. 2(a)) in
both directions on the wooden plank to ensure good gripping
Wire mesh Size of each rectangle of the wire 3.12 mm  2.54 mm
mesh
Diameter of the wire used in wire 0.35 mm
mesh
between the layer of PCC and the walls, which were to be casted
on the wooden surface. A PCC (1:2:4) layer was then laid oriented
along the axis of vibration of the shake table and perpendicular to
the axis as shown in (Fig. 2(b)). The PCC layer acts as the base of
masonry wall and ensures no slippage at the base. On this bed of
mortar layer, model brick walls were constructed. PP bands were
attached to the model in crisscross manner. PP bands were hori-
zontally provided after the construction of the models. Further,
these bands were placed below the 1st brick layer and then tied
vertically. Such tying was done by putting a clamp at the end
and tightening the same it so that the bands could not become
loose. Steel wire mesh was pasted on the walls with help of small
nails. Horizontal L-shaped reinforcing bar was embedded within
the mortar layer at the junction of two walls. Vertical reinforcing
bars were placed at the corners. Details of strengthening tech-
niques are presented in Fig. 3. The walls were kept under proper
curing and were tested after curing.
Total 57 masonry structural models (URM and strengthened) are
constructed for testing. Out of 57, 18 are free standing walls, 12 are
L-shaped walls and rest 27 is assembly of four walls. The scaled
models of the free standing walls were having dimension 750 mm
(length)  1000 mm (height)  62.5 mm (thickness). Similarly, the
scaled models of L-shaped walls (primarily used for studying
the junction behavior) were having the dimension of
750 mm  1000 mm  62.5 mm (of each arm). Further, each
wall of assembly of four walls was having dimension
750 mm  1000 mm  37.5 mm. Generally, it is considered that
both length and height of a full size room of a masonry building
is about 3 m. Thus, the scale factor of the model varies in the range
of 1:31:4. Further, the thickness of masonry walls of the real
masonry building is about 250 mm. So, the thickness of model
should be about 62.580 mm. Thus, the dimension of the brick
should also be reduced in the same ratio as compared to the full size
brick. However, making a reduced size exactly in the same ratio
became practically very difficult. In this context, the bricks of
dimensions with 120 mm (length)  57 mm (width)  35 mm
(height) has been specially fabricated and used for making the
model. Though the size of each brick unit was scaled down in
56 S. Nayak, S.C. Dutta / Engineering Structures 106 (2016) 5367

Fig. 2. Preparation of base for construction: (a) nails inserted in the ply and (b) PCC layer.

Wire mesh

PP band

(a) (b)

Reinforcing bar Reinforcing bar

(c) (d)
Fig. 3. Construction of reinforced four sided walls: (a) pp band provided in form of grid; (b) steel wire mesh all around; (c) horizontal reinforced bar at the junction and (d)
vertical reinforced bar at the corner.

length and height by a scale factor of 1:2 compared to that of a full
size brick, the same for width was almost as per the expected scale
factor. Thus it can be said that the width of each unit brick of the
model walls was adequately scaled down. A little mismatch in the
scaling of dimension of model brick to that of the dimensions of
the model may not seriously affect the trends observed in the study.
However, there is a further scope to see the effect of such scaling.
Though for each type of model, 3 models were tested but the
details of crack propagation and failure pattern is described in
the following subsections for one typical case referred as model
1 (i.e. the value crack initiation and the failure acceleration for
the one is mentioned first in the series of values of three models).
Types of model, symbols used to denote the nature of strengthen-
ing, acceleration at which cracking was initiated and that at which
 S. Nayak, S.C. Dutta / Engineering Structures 106 (2016) 5367
failure took place (expressed in terms of acceleration due to grav-
ity, g) are presented in Table 3.
2.4.1. Free standing wall
Eighteen free standing walls include three unreinforced walls
(URMW) and three more walls encased with horizontal and verti-
cal PP band (RMPPBW). Out of the remaining twelve walls experi-
mented, six walls are strengthened using steel wire mesh
throughout its length and up to half of its height in one side
(RMWMHWI) and both sides (RMWMHWII), respectively. Other
six walls have wire mesh provided along the full height in one side
(RMWMFWI) and both sides (RMWMFWII), respectively. After con-
struction, all the walls were plastered and painted for observing
clear crack pattern during testing.
2.4.2. L-shaped wall
To study the failure pattern and to observe the effectiveness of
the strengthening mechanism, twelve L-shaped walls namely;
three unreinforced walls (URMLW), three walls reinforced with
PP band (RMPPBLW), three walls reinforced with steel wire mesh
(RMWMLW) and three more walls reinforced with horizontal
L-shaped reinforcing bars (RMRBLW) were tested in the similar
manner like the free standing walls. Each arm of the L-shaped wall
had dimension 750  1000  62.5 mm. In RMPPBLW, PP band was
provided in form of grid as done in case of free standing wall. In
RMWMLW, the steel wire mesh was provided at the junction of
the two walls. The wire mesh was provided throughout the height.
The length of the wire mesh was 350 mm on each arm of the
L-shaped walls. The length of the reinforcing bar in RMRBLW
was kept as 150 mm in both the sides. The reinforcing bar was
placed in the mortar layers at the junction of the two walls at an
interval of two brick layers.
2.4.3. Assembly of four walls
Total twenty seven assembly of four walls; six unreinforced and
fifteen reinforced with the above mentioned strengthening materi-
als were casted and tested. In the case of six unreinforced four
walls (URMFW), the length and height (750 mm and 1000 mm)
of each wall were same. Two varieties of assembly of unreinforced
walls were initially studied. These two varieties had 62.5 mm and
37.5 mm thickness of the walls; all other dimensions being same.
These two varieties were studied to see whether both can with-
stand the same ground acceleration level. After verifying the same,
further study on effect of various strengthening measures are car-
ried out with assembly of walls having 37.5 mm thickness only, as
the payload is reduced to half of the previous one and became
easier to deal with from the view point of providing higher ground
acceleration. The other assembly of walls consisted of three rein-
forced with PP band (RMPPBFW) and three more with wire mesh
(RMWMFW). In case of RMPPBFW the PP bands are provided in
the form of grids. Wire mesh is provided throughout the length
and height of the outside four walls of RMWMFW and for better
contact, the wire mesh was nailed with the walls by small nails.
Six models of assembly of four walls were constructed with
L-shaped horizontal reinforcing bars placed at the corners
(RMRBFW) with an interval of two brick layers. However, develop-
ment lengths of the L-shaped reinforcing bars are varied as
150 mm for three models and 300 mm for next three models to
see the effect of the same. Three more models consisting of assem-
bly of four walls were studied by providing one vertical bar at each
corner (RMVRBFW) of the model, as this was prescribed as a
strengthening in some of the literature (e.g. [21]). Further, six more
models were studied. Three made with combinations of PP band
and horizontal L-shaped reinforcing bars (RMPPBRBFW) and the
57
three other with combinations of horizontal L-shaped reinforcing
bars and wire mesh (RMRBWMFW), to see whether the
combinations of more than one strengthening techniques may
resulted in additional improvement in strength.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Behavior of free standing walls
The damage and failure pattern of free standing walls (unrein-
forced and strengthened) are explained in this sub section. It was
observed in URMW (unreinforced masonry wall) at PGA of 0.5g
horizontal crack near the base was developed leading to shear
failure along the crack line as shown in Fig. 4 for model 1. The
mean failure acceleration of the three models was found to be
0.5g. Proposition of shear failure was made due to following rea-
sons and observations. The loading applied to these walls was
in-plane loading. Chances of failure due to any accidental lateral
perturbation leading to out-of-plane collapse was being avoided
by using brick layers at both the sides of the wall at the base. Fur-
ther, if failure was governed by bending, in that situation the mode
of failure would have exhibited toe crushing. However, this was
not observed during the experiments. In this context, such failure
appears to be shear failure.
No damage was observed in RMPPBW (PP band tied wall) in the
PGA range of 0.10.5g. It was observed that a horizontal crack
occurred at a PGA of 1.0g. But a horizontal shear failure along the
crack line was observed when the wall was being subjected to a
PGA of 2.0g for model 1 in this case. The failure pattern of this
model (Fig. 5) was similar to that of URMW. However, in case of
RMPPW, the height from the base at which failure occurred is less
than that in case of the URMW. It was noted that PP band remains
unaffected even after failure. From the above two cases, it may be
noted that the strength of the wall goes up to four times because of
use of PP band. The mean PGA at which failure took place comes to
be 2g for the three models.
There was no damage observed in any of the walls wrapped
with wire mesh to half height on one and both sides (RMWMHWI
and RMWMHWII) in the PGA range of 0.10.5g. However, complete
base failure was observed at a PGA of 1.0g for model 1 for both the
cases. The pattern of failure is presented in Fig. 6. Steel wire mesh
remains unaffected in both the cases. However, the mean failure
acceleration of the three models was found to be 1.1 and 1.05g,
respectively, for RMWMHWI and RMWMHWII.
Like the previous ones, in this case also there was no crack
observed in the walls wrapped with wire mesh to full height on
one and both sides (RMWMFWI and RMWMFWII) up to a PGA of
0.5g. However, at a PGA of 0.75g crack was initiated in both the
specimens. In case of RMWMFWI, the crack was prominent at
the base of both sides of the wall. But in RMWMFWII, the crack
appeared only in the front side of the wall. Again at a PGA of
1.0g, the crack of RMWMFWI was widened with exposing of wire
mesh. But the failure was limited to the front side of the wall in
case of RMWMFWII without development of any crack at the base
of any sides of the wall. The complete failure occurred with widen-
ing of crack and exposing of wire mesh in RMWMFWI at a PGA of
1.25g. However, the failure in case of RMWMFWII was observed at
a PGA of 1.5g. The above observations points out the effectiveness
of using steel wire mesh in strengthening URM walls. It was found
that the mean PGA of failure acceleration of the three models was
found to be 1.21 and 1.5g, respectively, for RMWMFWI and
RMWMFWII. As the failure pattern was similar to that of the pre-
vious case (as illustrated in Fig. 6), a separate figure has not been
provided for the sake of brevity.
58 S. Nayak, S.C. Dutta / Engineering Structures 106 (2016) 5367

Table 3
Nomenclature of various specimens with initiation of crack and ultimate collapse in terms of g.

Type of wall Sub-type with nomenclature used No. of PGA at crack PGA at failure (g)
models initiation (g)
For 3 Mean For 3 Mean
models models
Free standing URMW (Unreinforced masonry wall) 3 0.5, 0.4, 0.47 0.5, 0.45, 0.5
wall 0.5 0.55
RMPPBW (Reinforced masonry wall tied with PP band) 3 1, 1.1, 0.9 1 2, 2.1, 1.9 2
RMWMHWI (Reinforced masonry wall wrapped with wire mesh up to half height of the wall in 3 0.7, 0.65, 0.65 1, 1.2, 1.1 1.1
one side) 0.6
RMWMHWII (Reinforced masonry wall wrapped with wire mesh up to half height of the wall in 3 0.75, 0.68 1, 0.95, 1.05
both sides) 0.65, 0.65 1.2
RMWMFWI (Reinforced masonry wall wrapped with wire mesh provided in full height of the 3 0.75, 0.6, 0.67 1.25, 1.2, 1.21
wall in one side) 0.65 1.2
RMWMFWII (Reinforced masonry wall wrapped with steel wire mesh provided in full height of 3 0.75, 0.9, 0.83 1.5, 1.45, 1.5
the wall in both sides) 0.85 1.55
L-shaped wall URMLW (Unreinforced L-shaped masonry wall) 3 0.6, 0.5, 0.55 0.85, 0.85
0.55 0.95, 0.75
RMPPBLW (Reinforced L-shaped masonry wall tied with PP band) 3 0.75, 0.65 1.1, 0.9, 1.1
0.65, 0.55 1.3
RMWMLW (Reinforced L-shaped masonry wall wrapped with wire mesh) 3 0.75, 0.7, 0.7 0.9, 1, 1.1 1
0.65
RMRBLW (Reinforced L-shaped masonry wall with horizontal L-shaped reinforcing bars at 3 0.5, 0.55, 0.58 1, 1.15, 1.08
corners) 0.7 1.1
Assembly of URMFW (Assembly of four unreinforced masonry walls) Thickness of 3 1, 1.1, 1.2 1.1 1.5, 1.55, 1.51
four walls wall = 62.5 mm 1.5
Thickness of 3 1.25, 1.2, 1.2 1.5, 1.6, 1.51
wall = 37.5 mm 1.15 1.45
RMPPBFW (Assembly of four reinforced masonry walls tied with PP band) 3 1.25, 1.2 2.5, 2.65, 2.5
1.25, 1.1 2.35
RMWMFW (Assembly of four reinforced masonry walls wrapped with wire mesh) 3 1.5, 1.4, 1.48 2.5, 2.45, 2.5
1.55 2.55
RMRBFW (Assembly of four reinforced masonry walls with (Each arm of L-shaped 3 1.5, 1.6, 1.51 1.5, 1.65, 1.58
horizontal L-shaped reinforcing bars at corners) bar = 150 mm) 1.45 1.6
(Each arm of L-shaped 3 1.75, 1.6, 1.67 2.25, 2.3, 2.3
bar = 300 mm) 1.65 2.35
RMVRBFW (Assembly of four reinforced masonry walls with vertical reinforcing bar at corners) 3 1, 1.15, 1.08 1.5, 1.45, 1.51
1.1 1.6
RMPPBRBFW (Assembly of four reinforced masonry walls tied with PP band and having 3 1.75, 1.73 3.5, 3.45, 3.53
horizontal L-shaped reinforcing bars at corners) 1.65, 1.8 3.65
RMRBWMFW (Assembly of four reinforced masonry walls having horizontal L-shaped 3 1.5, 1.6, 1.55 2.75, 2.8
reinforcing bars at corners and also wrapped with wire mesh) 1.55 2.85, 2.8

Base failure

Horizontal shear crack

(a) (b)
Fig. 4. Testing and failure mechanism of unreinforced masonry wall (URMW): (a) crack propagation and (b) shear failure at base.

3.2. Behavior of L-shaped walls
Presented in this sub section are the damage and failure pattern
of L-shaped walls (unreinforced and reinforced). No crack was
noticed when unreinforced L-shaped wall (URMLW) was subjected
to ground accelerations with PGA varying from 0.1g to 0.5g.
Debonding of mortar at the bottom of the base of out-of-plane
behaving was started at a PGA of 0.6g. At a PGA of 0.75g horizontal
shear crack was observed in out-of-plane behaving wall, while
there was no crack observed in in-plane behaving wall. Corner fail-
ure was initiated with vertical crack (Fig. 7) at the junction of both
the walls which was appeared at a PGA of 0.85g. The crack was
 S. Nayak, S.C. Dutta / Engineering Structures 106 (2016) 5367 59

PP band

Base failure

(a) (b)
Fig. 5. Testing and failure mechanism of reinforced masonry wall tied with PP band (RMPPBW): (a) shear failure at base and (b) unaffected PP band exposed.

Wire mesh

Base failure

(a) (b)
Fig. 6. Failure pattern of reinforced masonry wall wrapped with wire mesh to half height (RMWMHW): (a) base failure and (b) steel wire mesh exposed.

In-plane Out-of-plane
behaving behaving wall
wall Horizontal
shear crack
Vertical crack

(a) (b)
Fig. 7. Failure pattern of unreinforced L-shaped masonry wall (URMLW): (a) development of horizontal shear crack in out-of-plane behaving wall and (b) vertical crack in the
corner junction.

initiated from bottom and extended to top. For this case, the mean
PGA at which failure took place in the three models was found to
be 0.85g.
There was no crack noticed in any one of the walls tied with PP
band (RMPPBLW) up to PGA of 0.7g. Horizontal crack was observed
in out-of-plane behaving wall at a PGA of 0.75g without any dam-
age in corner junction or development of any crack in in-plane
behaving wall. At a PGA of 0.9g, horizontal crack developed leading
to shear failure only in out-of-plane behaving wall (Fig. 8). The PP
band was exposed but remains unaffected. However, there was no
60 S. Nayak, S.C. Dutta / Engineering Structures 106 (2016) 5367
vertical crack observed like unreinforced L-shaped masonry wall
(URMLW). Both the walls toppled at a PGA value of 1.1g. It shows
that PP band was not as effective as in case of free standing wall.
This may be due to the fact that, horizontal wrapping of PP band
was not tight due to presence of junction. Here, the mean failure
acceleration of the three models was found to be 1.1g.
Up to a PGA of 0.7g, no crack was observed in any one of the
walls wrapped with wire mesh (RMWMLW). Horizontal shear
crack in out-of-plane behaving wall leading to base failure was
observed at a PGA of 0.75g without any damage in corner junction
(Fig. 9). At a PGA of 0.9g, both the walls toppled. The wire mesh
was exposed at the corner. However, there was no vertical crack
observed like unreinforced wall (URMLW). While toppling, the
out-of-plane behaving wall fall down inside and in-plane behaving
wall fall down outside. It was noted that no corner failure was ini-
tiated due to the presence of steel wire mesh. In this case, the mean
PGA of the three models at which failure took place was found to
be 1g.
There was no damage observed in any one of the three walls up
to a PGA of 0.45g in L-shaped wall with horizontal L-shaped rein-
forcing bars at corners (RMRBLW). Horizontal crack was initiated
at a PGA of 0.5g (Fig. 10). The crack was more prominent in case
of out-of-plane behaving wall in comparison to its in-plane coun-
terpart. Only the widening of the crack increases in both of the
walls up to a PGA of 0.95g without any failure at the corner junc-
tion. However, it was noticed that the crack was widening and it
leads to toppling of both the walls at PGA of 1.0g. The presence
of reinforcing bars may be the reason behind the non-failure of
the junction. However, the mean PGA at which the failure took
place considering the three samples was found to be 1.08g.
3.3. Behavior of assembly of four walls
After free standing walls and L-shaped masonry walls, this sub
section explains the damage and failure pattern of assembly of four
walls (unreinforced and reinforced). The three model having four
walls of 62.5 mm thickness, unreinforced (URMFW), remains unaf-
fected up to PGA of 0.75g. The failure initiation was started at 1.0g.
First the corner failure was started leading to the development of
the horizontal shear crack. The crack was more prominent in case
of out-of-plane behaving wall compared to the in-plane behaving
wall as shown in Fig. 11. Again it was observed that there was a
hole (Fig. 11) at the corner near base and the horizontal shear crack
was more widened at a PGA of 1.25g (Fig. 11). However, at a PGA of
1.5g, some of the brick layers are detached in one of the out-of-
plane behaving wall just below the horizontal shear crack looking
like a big hole as shown in Fig. 11. The corner hole was also more
widened and all the four walls were detached along the horizontal
crack line.
In case of 37.5 mm thick unreinforced four walls (URMFW), a
clearly visible vertical crack starting from the base and extending
up to the top was observed at 1.25g in one of the out-of-plane
behaving wall. The other walls (another out-of-plane and two in-
plane walls) remain unaffected as shown in Fig. 12. At a PGA of
1.5g, one of the out-of-plane walls (having vertical crack) fell down
and became the reason of falling down of the adjacent in-plane
wall. However, the other two walls were still standing (Fig. 12).
For RMPPBFW (assembly of four reinforced masonry walls tied
with PP band), at 1.25g, a small hair line crack at the corner near
the base and also at the top along with vertical crack at the top
of the other corner was visible. Further, shaking at 1.5g resulted
in vertical crack at both the out-of-plane wall along with crack in
the two corner junctions. Again it was observed, at 1.75g vertical
crack widened, PP band was loosened in one place, corner crack
was widened. At 2.0g, at the base of the one of the out-of-plane
wall, a small hole was formed. Vertical crack appeared near to
one of the corner. Though, PP band was loosened near the hole
but, not torn. One small portion of the wall from top of one of
the out-of-plane wall fell down at 2.25g. More corner failure along
with loosening of PP band in some more cases was observed. The
integrity of the model was still maintained at 2.5g, though both
the out-of-plane walls damaged severely above the base along
with severe damage of the corner. Interestingly it was observed
at no places the PP band was torn. From the initiation of crack for-
mation to severe damage of the model is shown in Fig. 13.
Only small vertical cracks at top of the three corners were
observed at a PGA of 1.25g. At 1.5g the corner cracks at the top
were elongated but there was no observation of any base failure
in case of RMWMFW (assembly of four reinforced masonry walls
wrapped with wire mesh). At PGA of 1.75g, the top corner cracks
were more elongated and widened with exposing of wire mesh
in some places. In one corner, the base was slightly damaged. At
a PGA of 2.2g and 2.25g the widening and elongation of cracks
exposing wire mesh in some more cases was observed. However,
the corner crack from the top was extended up to the base leading
to base failure along with corner failure at 2.5g. In one of the out-
of-plane wall some bricks from the top layer fall down. Though the
wall was severely damaged but the presence of wire mesh all
around did not allow complete collapse. The progress of failure is
shown in Fig. 14.
Up to 1.25g, there was no crack formation in the RMRBFW
(assembly of four reinforced masonry walls with horizontal L-
shaped reinforcing bars at corners) having development length of
150 mm in each side. However, at 1.5g the horizontal shear crack
in the third brick layer near the base was formed in one of the
out-of-plane behaving wall and the same layer was separated. Ver-
tical shear crack was developed in the same out-of-plane behaving
wall. The horizontal shear crack extended around all the four sides
leads to development of vertical crack in one of the in-plane wall. It
was noticed that the vertical crack was developed after the devel-
opment length (150 mm) of the reinforcing bar. All the sequences
of the crack formation and failure are shown in Fig. 15.
Since, it appeared that the vertical crack developed beyond the
length of the reinforcing bar. So, to observe the effectiveness of the
length of each arm of horizontal L-shaped reinforcement in arrest-
ing the length of each arm was doubled, i.e. from 150 mm to
300 mm in both sides of the L-shaped bar. Likewise the previous
case, a horizontal crack (in third layer) around four sides just above
base was formed at 1.75g. The crack width was widened at 2.0g
with a small hole formation in one of the corner. Interestingly,
unlike the previous case, there was no vertical crack appeared in
any places (corner or middle of the wall). At 2.25g the model fell
down exposing the reinforcing bar at base above third layer with-
out any vertical crack. Various stages of damages are presented in
pictorial form in Fig. 16. The objective of arresting the vertical
crack with increase in development length was achieved
satisfactorily.
At 1.0g a small crack was developed near base in one corner of
RMVRBFW (assembly of four reinforced masonry walls with verti-
cal reinforcing bars at corners). The horizontal shear crack was
widened with formation of hole in base adjacent to corner in one
out-of-plane wall; at PGA of 1.5g. Prominent vertical crack
appeared in one out-of-plane wall and one in-plane wall at some
distance from corner. The in-plane wall having the vertical crack
collapsed. The progress of failure pattern leading to collapse is pre-
sented in Fig. 17. So, effectiveness of the provision of vertical bars
seems to be marginal. However, this issue needs further confirma-
tory investigation.
In case of RMPPBRBFW (assembly of four reinforced masonry
walls tied with PP band and having horizontal L-shaped reinforcing
bars at corners), it was observed that, horizontal crack at base
around all four sides appeared at 1.75g. At 2.0g, PP band was
 S. Nayak, S.C. Dutta / Engineering Structures 106 (2016) 5367 61

PP band
Horizontal
shear crack

(a) (b)
Fig. 8. Failure pattern of reinforced L-shaped masonry wall tied with PP band (RMPPBLW): (a) development of horizontal shear crack in out-of-plane behaving wall and (b)
toppling of wall with exposing of PP band.

Minor crack
Major Corner failure with
crack exposing of wire mesh

(a) (b)
Fig. 9. Failure pattern of reinforced L-shaped masonry wall wrapped with wire mesh (RMWMLW): (a) major failure of out-of-plane behaving wall and development of crack
in in-plane behaving wall and (b) failure of corner junction with exposing of wire mesh, leading to toppling.

Horizontal shear crack Shifted from base

(a) (b)
Fig. 10. Failure pattern of reinforced L-shaped masonry wall with L-shaped horizontal reinforcing bars at corners (RMRBLW): (a) development of horizontal shear crack both
in in-plane and out-of-plane behaving walls and (b) tilting of the wall from its position at base.

exposed in two out-of-plane walls. Hair line vertical crack was out-of-plane wall some bricks at base get separated. At 3.0g PP
observed at 2.25g at top and more number of PP bands band was also exposed in one in-plane wall along with damage
was exposed in out-of-plane walls (Fig. 18). At 2.5g in one of corner at base. Vertical hair line crack was also appeared at
62 S. Nayak, S.C. Dutta / Engineering Structures 106 (2016) 5367

Damaged out-of-plane
wall
Hole

(a) (b)
Fig. 11. Failure pattern of assembly of four unreinforced masonry walls (URMFW) having thickness 62.5 mm: (a) damage in out-of-plane behaving wall in comparison to in-
plane behaving wall and (b) creation of hole at corner.

Vertical crack

(a) (b)
Fig. 12. Failure pattern of assembly of four unreinforced masonry walls (URMFW) having thickness 37.5 mm: (a) development of vertical crack in one of the out-of-plane
behaving wall and (b) falling down of one out-of-plane behaving wall and one in-plane behaving wall.

Exposing of PP band

Hole

(a) (b)
Fig. 13. Failure pattern of assembly of four reinforced masonry walls tied with PP band (RMPPBFW): (a) formation of hole and fall down of some portion in one of the out-of-
plane wall and (b) severe damage of the other out-of-plane wall.

the other out-of-plane wall at 3.25g (Fig. 18). The model was dam- places than base. The vertical crack appeared in both the
aged severely at base exposing of PP band. Hole formation was also out-of-plane walls still remained as hair line crack. Even though
observed at 3.5g. However, PP band was not exposed in any other the model was damaged severely at base but not collapsed due
 S. Nayak, S.C. Dutta / Engineering Structures 106 (2016) 5367 63

Corner
Initiation of corner crack
crack extended
Base failure up to base

(a) (b)
Fig. 14. Failure pattern of assembly of four reinforced masonry walls wrapped with wire mesh (RMWMFW): (a) initiation of corner crack base failure and (b) elongation of
corner crack from top to base.

Portion of the wall fall down Vertical

crack
Hole
Horizontal shear crack

(a) (b)
Fig. 15. Failure pattern of assembly of four reinforced masonry walls with horizontal L-shaped reinforcing bars at corners (RMRBFW) (length of each side of the L-shaped bar
is 150 mm): (a) horizontal crack above the base in all the four walls with fall down of some portion from the top in one of the out-of-plane wall along with hole near base in
one corner and (b) vertical crack in one of the in-plane wall.

Horizontal shear failure Hole formation with

horizontal shear failure

(a) (b)
Fig. 16. Failure pattern of assembly of four reinforced masonry walls with horizontal L-shaped reinforcing bars at corners (RMRBFW) (length of each side of the L-shaped bar
is 300 mm): (a) horizontal crack above the base in all the four walls and (b) formation of hole in the other out-of-plane wall.

to the presence of PP band and horizontal L-shaped reinforcing reinforced masonry walls having horizontal L-shaped reinforcing
bars ensured the proper interlocking of orthogonal walls. bars at corners and also wrapped with wire mesh) as presented
Some portion of the wall fell down from top at 1.5g in one in Fig. 19. No other crack was observed. Complete collapse of the
out-of-plane behaving wall of RMRBWMFW (assembly of four model exposing the reinforcing bars at base above third layer
64 S. Nayak, S.C. Dutta / Engineering Structures 106 (2016) 5367

Horizontal shear
failure

Unaffected corner
Vertical crack reinforcement

(a) (b)
Fig. 17. Construction and progress of failure pattern of assembly of four reinforced masonry walls with vertical reinforcing bars at corners (RMVRBFW): (a) propagation of
horizontal shear crack near base along with vertical crack in one in-plane wall and (b) collapse of the one in-plane wall.

PP band PP band

Vertical
crack

(a) (b)
Fig. 18. Progress of failure pattern of assembly of four reinforced masonry walls tied with PP band and having horizontal L-shaped reinforcing bars at corners (RMPPBRBFW):
(a) exposing of PP band at base in one out-of-plane wall and (b) hair line vertical crack in one out-of-plane wall along with exposing of PP band.

Portion fall
down from top

(a) (b)
Fig. 19. Progress of failure pattern of assembly of four reinforced masonry walls having horizontal L-shaped reinforcing bars at corners and also wrapped with wire mesh
(RMRBWMFW): (a) some portion fall down in one out-of-plane wall and (b) complete collapse.

(where one set of L-shaped bars present at four corners) without
any vertical crack was observed at 2.75g (Fig. 19). Presence of hor-
izontal L-shaped bars ensured no corner/junction failure. However,
though the wire mesh was not so effective but helped in increasing
the strength and stopped the base failure.
3.4. Summary of observations
Major observations from this experimental study may be sum-
marized as follows. Using PP band, strength goes up to 4 times,
1.29 times and 1.65 times in free standing, L-shaped and assembly
 S. Nayak, S.C. Dutta / Engineering Structures 106 (2016) 5367 65

Table 4
Comparison of failure level for different types of wall and percentage increase in cost in providing different strengthening materials.

Type of wall Nomenclature used PGA at which failure took Ratio of Strength in Increase in cost (%) due
place in terms of g Comparison to URM Specimen to strengthening
Free standing wall URMW 0.5
RMPPBW 2 4 1.02
RMWMHWI 1.1 2.2 1
RMWMHWII 1.05 2.1 1.01
RMWMFWI 1.21 2.42 1.01
RMWMFWII 1.5 3 1.02
L-shaped wall URMLW 0.85
RMPPBLW 1.1 1.29 1.01
RMWMLW 1 1.17 1.02
RMRBLW 1.08 1.27 1.01
Assembly of four walls URMFW 1.51
RMPPBFW 2.5 1.65 1.52
RMWMFW 2.5 1.65 3.42
RMRBFW (Each arm of L- 1.58 1.04 2.85
shaped bar = 150 mm)
RMRBFW (Each arm of L- 2.3 1.52 5.52
shaped bar = 300 mm)
RMVRBFW 1.51 1 1.52
RMPPBRBFW 3.53 2.33 7.04
RMRBWMFW 2.8 1.85 8.94

2.5 1.2

2 1

0.8
PGA (g)

1.5
PGA (g)

0.6
1
0.4
0.5
0.2

0 0
URMLW RMPPBLW RMWMLW RMRBLW

(a) (b)
4
3.5
3
2.5
PGA (g)

2
1.5
1
0.5
0

(c)
Fig. 20. Comparison of strength in terms of PGA for: (a) free standing walls; (b) L-shaped walls and (c) assembly of four walls.

of four walls respectively compared to the unreinforced models.
Similarly, use of wire mesh increases the strength by 23 times,
1.17 times and 1.65 times in free standing, L-shaped and assembly
of four walls respectively compared to the unreinforced models.
However, the use of reinforcing bars in L-shaped walls and
assembly of four walls increases the strength by 1.27 times and
1.52 times, respectively; as compared to their unreinforced counter
parts. Although, the strength does not increase by providing
vertical reinforcing bars at corners but it was successful in arrest-
ing the vertical corner cracks. Moreover, the combinations of
66 S. Nayak, S.C. Dutta / Engineering Structures 106 (2016) 5367
strengthening mechanisms increased the strength by 2.33 times
(for PP band with L-shaped bars) and 1.85 times (for L-shaped bars
with wire mesh). The details of the increase in strength and cost in
various strengthened models compared to the unreinforced ones
are presented in Table 4. From the economic point of view, it is
observed that use of PP band, wire mesh and reinforcing bars
add less than 5% to total cost. Further, combinations of any two
materials add less than 10% to total cost. All these methods of
strengthening also do not require any special technical skill and
thus, may be easily implementable in developing countries.
Fig. 20 presents a pictorial representation of comparison of
maximum PGA that can be resisted by different models of three
categories of walls. PGA presented in form of bar chart is the
indicative of strength. In all the three categories, it was observed
that PP band showed more improvement in strength in comparison
to steel wire mesh or horizontal L-shaped bars. In case of the free
standing walls, the effect is more due to domination of in-plane
walls. Out-of-plane behavior dominates in L-shaped walls. So, the
effectiveness of PP band is less in comparison to other two types.
However, in assembly of four walls, the effectiveness is more than
that of L-shaped walls, though less than that for free standing walls
where in-plane action is only present; this may be due to box
action. Steel wire mesh was effective in free standing walls when
applied throughout the height to both sides of the walls. Further,
in this case the improvement of strength is lowest than the other
two strengthening measures (PP band and horizontal L-shaped
bar). In assembly of four walls the strength improvement by using
wire mesh is almost same as that of PP band. Appreciable improve-
ment of strength was observed by increasing the length of each
arm of the L-shaped bars from 150 mm to 300 mm. Vertical
reinforcement is not effective in improving the strength in assem-
bly of four walls. Simultaneous use of PP band and horizontal
L-shaped bar more effectively improves the strength than the
simultaneous use of horizontal L-shaped bar and wire mesh, in
assembly of four walls. In fact, the improvement in strength in this
case is the highest among all other measures either applied indi-
vidually or in combinations.
Many masonry buildings are found in the developing countries
having roofs made up of asbestos, iron sheets, tiles, thatched roofs
or materials other than reinforced concrete slabs. Further details in
this regards are available elsewhere [40,3]. Out-of-plane failure
preceded by separation of two walls at junction is the prime type
of failure of masonry building, irrespective of the presence of the
concrete roof slab or pitched roof made by asbestos or any other
materials. This may be due to the fact that roof slab does not have
adequate connection with the walls in most of the cases. Thus,
presence of roof or floor slab will possibly not affect the perfor-
mance of masonry buildings during seismic excitation consider-
ably. So, the present study has not considered this effect.
However, this issue may be investigated further in details.
4. Conclusions
The study presented in this paper is an effort to explore the pos-
sibility of improvement in seismic performance of masonry struc-
tures through some simple yet cost effective methods of
strengthening, by using PP band, vertical wire mesh, L-shaped hor-
izontal reinforcing bars and vertical reinforcing bars at corners.
From the experiments, the crack patterns, failure behavior and
overall effectiveness of the strengthening technique has been stud-
ied. The study leads to following broad conclusions.
(a) Free standing walls exhibit considerable improvement in
strength due to all the three strengthening measures.
Horizontal shear failure at the base was the prime type of
failure at all the cases. Maximum improvement has been
observed for the ones tied with PP bands. Thus, these meth-
ods may become most effective for improving the strength
of boundary walls or masonry structures with long wall in
one direction having a tendency of behaving as a free stand-
ing wall.
(b) In most of the cases of L-shaped walls, the out-of-plane
behaving walls suffered more damage in comparison to the
in-plane behaving walls. This may be very clearly under-
stood intuitively as the strength and stiffness of out-of-
plane wall is much lesser than in-plane wall. Much improve-
ment is not observed in junction behavior of L-shaped walls
as noticed from the limited number of experimental case
studies. However, these observations should be verified
through more number of experimental studies conducted
in this direction.
(c) Assembly of four walls showed about 1.5 times improve-
ment in strength due to all the three methodologies. This
indicates that adopting this methodology may improve the
strength of masonry structures at least about 1.5 times if
the aspect ratio is about 1:1.
(d) Use of combinations of strengthening materials showed 2.33
times (applying PP band and L-shaped bars simultaneously)
and 1.85 times (using L-shaped bars and wire mesh simulta-
neously) improvement in strength. However, the combina-
tions add less than 10% to the total cost.
(e) The study revealed the use of various retrofitting materials
increases the strength, delays the time of failure and change
in mode of failure from brittle to ductile.
(f) Most important aspect of the study is that, the appreciable
improvement in strength is achieved with affecting the
economy to the extent of 5% (using only one strengthening
materials) to 10% (using combinations of two strengthening
materials). Moreover, the ease in application without requir-
ing any specialized technical manpower and sophisticated
equipment may make the methods more acceptable.
In fact this study, followed by further detailed parametric study,
may help to arrive at guidelines for improving the seismic perfor-
mance of masonry structures preferably using PP band and L-
shaped bar or steel wire mesh and L-shaped bar. This may suffice
for survival of masonry structures in India and many other devel-
oping countries which are visited by small to moderate magnitude
earthquakes, intensity of which can be safely withstood by
masonry structures if their strength go up to about to two times.
Marginal increase in cost and ease in implementation may make
one method or others suitable for some particular local condition
or others. Further, the study can be extended to explore the exper-
imental behavior of similar models with representative openings
for doors and windows to emerge a more realistic picture. The
dimensions of such openings should be suitably scaled. Models
consisting of roof slab may also be experimented. Other mechani-
cal properties may also be investigated for developing better
insight. A sequential study in this direction is under progress.
References
[1] National Information Centre of Earthquake Engineering (NICEE) Photo Gallery,
2005 <http://www.nicee.org/photos.php> [accessed on March 9, 2013].
[2] Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI) Special Earthquake Report,
2006. Learning from Earthquakes-The Kashmir Earthquake of October 8, 2005:
Impacts in Pakistan. EERI 2006 <https://www.eeri.org/lfe/pdf/kashmir_eeri_
2nd_report.pdf> [accessed on March 9, 2013].
[3] Dutta SC, Mukhopadhyay P, Goswami K. Augmenting strength of collapsed
unreinforced masonry junctions: the principal damage feature due to
moderate Indian earthquakes. Nat Haz Rev ASCE 2013;14(4):2815.
 S. Nayak, S.C. Dutta / Engineering Structures 106 (2016) 5367
[4] Priestley MJN, Seible F. Design of seismic retrofit measures for concrete and
masonry Structures. Construct Build Mater 1995;9(6):36577.
[5] Ehsani MR, Saadatmanesh H, Velazquez-Dimas JI. Behaviour of retrofitted URM
walls under simulated earthquake loading. J Compos Construct ASCE 1999;3
(3):13442.
[6] Corradi M, Borri A, Vignoli A. Strengthening techniques tested on masonry
structures struck by the UmbriaMarche earthquake of 19971998. Construct
Build Mater 2002;16:22939.
[7] Tan KH, Patoary MKH. Strengthening of masonry walls against out-of-plane
loads using fiber-reinforced polymer reinforcement. J Compos Construct ASCE
2004;8(1):7987.
[8] Korany Y, Drysdale R. Rehabilitation of masonry walls using unobtrusive FRP
techniques for enhanced out-of-plane seismic resistance. J Compos Construct
ASCE 2006;10(3):21322.
[9] Shrive NG. The use of fiber reinforced polymers to improve seismic resistance
of masonry. Construct Build Mater 2006;20:26977.
[10] Wang Q, Chai Z, Huang Y, Yang Y, Zhang Y. Seismic shear capacity of brick
masonry wall reinforced by GFRP. Asian J Civil Eng (Build Hous) 2006;7
(6):56380.
[11] El-Dakhakhni WW, Hamid AA, Hakam ZHR, Elgaaly M. Hazard mitigation and
strengthening of unreinforced masonry walls using composites. Compos Struct
2006;73:45877.
[12] Tomazevic M, Klemenc I, Weiss P. Seismic upgrading of old masonry buildings
by seismic isolation and CFRP laminates: a shaking-table study of reduced
scale models. Bullet Earthq Eng 2009;7:293321.
[13] Oday AS, Yingmin L, Houssam MA. Experimental study on seismic behaviour
before and after retrofitting of masonry walls using FRP laminates. In:
Proceedings of 5th international conference on FRP composites in civil
engineering 2010, September 2729. p. 93942.
[14] Hamed E, Robinovitch O. Failure characteristics of FRP-strengthened masonry
walls under out-of-plane loads. Eng Struct 2010;32:213445.
[15] Roca P, Araiza G. Shear response of brick masonry small assemblages
strengthened with bonded FRP laminates for in-plane reinforcement.
Construct Build Mater 2010;24:137284.
[16] Capozucca R. Experimental analysis of historic masonry walls reinforced by
CFRP under in-plane cyclic loading. Compos Struct 2011;94:27789.
[17] Mosallam A, Banerjee S. Enhancement in in-plane shear capacity of
unreinforced masonry (URM) walls strengthened with fiber reinforced
polymer composites. Composites: Part B 2011;42:165770.
[18] Konthesingha KMC, Masia MJ, Petersen RB, Mojsilovic N, Simundic G, Page AW.
Static cyclic in-plane shear response of damaged masonry walls retrofitted
with NSM FRP stripsan experimental evaluation. Eng Struct 2013;50:12636.
[19] Dizhur D, Griffith M, Ingham J. Out-of-plane strengthening of unreinforced
masonry walls using near surface mounted fibre reinforced polymer strips.
Eng Struct 2014;59:33043.
[20] Taghdi M, Bruneau M, Saatcioglu M. Seismic retrofitting of low-rise masonry
and concrete walls using steel strips. J Struct Eng ASCE 2000;126(9):101725.
[21] Murty CVR, Dutta J, Agrawal SK. Twin lintel belt in steel for seismic
strengthening of brick masonry buildings. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 2004;3
(2):21522.
[22] Turer A, Korkmaz SZ, Korkmaz HH. Performance improvement studies of
masonry houses using elastic post-tensioning straps. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam
2007;36:683705.
[23] Maalej M, Lin VWJ, Nguyen MP, Quek ST. Engineered cementitious composites
for effective strengthening of unreinforced masonry walls. Eng Struct
2010;32:24329.
67
[24] Ma R, Jiang Lu, He M, Fang C, Liang F. Experimental investigations on masonry
structures using external prestressing techniques for improving seismic
performance. Eng Struct 2012;42:297307.
[25] Mayorca P, Meguro K. Proposal of an efficient technique for retrofitting
unreinforced masonry dwellings. In: Proceedings of 13th world conference on
earthquake engineering, August 16. Vancouver, BC, Canada; 2004 [paper no.
2431].
[26] Macabuag J, Guragain R, Bhattacharya S. Seismic retrofitting of non-
engineered masonry in rural Nepal. Proc ICE Struct Build 2012;165:27386.
[27] Sathiparan N, Meguro K. Seismic behaviour of low earthquake-resistant arch-
shaped roof masonry houses retrofitted by PP-band meshes. Pract Period
Struct Des Construct ASCE 2012;17(2):5464.
[28] Vgeli C, Mojsilovic N, Stojadinovic B. Masonry wallettes with a soft layer bed
joint: behaviour under static-cyclic loading. Eng Struct 2015;86:1632.
[29] Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS). Earthquake resistant design and construction
of buildings code of practice (Second Revision) (Incorporating Amendment
Nos. 1, 2 & 3), IS 4326:1993 (Reaffirmed 2003) Edition 3.3 (200501). New
Delhi (India): BIS; 2005.
[30] BIS. Improving earthquake resistance of low strength masonry buildings-
guidelines (Incorporating Amendment Nos. 1, 2 & 3), IS 13828:1993
(Reaffirmed 2003) Edition 1.3 (200502). New Delhi (India): BIS; 2005.
[31] BIS. Repair and seismic strengthening of buildings-guidelines (Incorporating
Amendment No. 1), IS 13935:1993 (Reaffirmed 2003) Edition 1.1 (200204).
New Delhi (India): BIS; 2002.
[32] Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). NEHRP Guidelines for
Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, Report No. 273, FEMA 2731997, FEMA
1997; Washington D.C., USA.
[33] European Standard (ES). Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake
Resistance, Part 3: strengthening and repair of buildings, Euro Code 8-1998.
Brussels: European Committee for Standardisation; 2003.
[34] DAyala D. Unreinforced brick masonry construction. WHE housing report.
University of Bath (United Kingdom); 2002 <http://www.world-housing.net/
wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Type_Brick.pdf> [accessed on September 13,
2013].
[35] Murty CVR. How do brick masonry houses behave during earthquakes?
Learning earthquake design and construction. IITK-BMTPC Earthquake Tip 12.
New Delhi (India): Building Materials and Technology Promotion
Council; 2002 <http://www.iitk.ac.in/nicee/EQTips/EQTip12.pdf> [Accessed
on September 13, 2013].
[36] Murty CVR. Why should masonry buildings have simple structural
configuration? Learning earthquake design and construction. IITK-BMTPC
Earthquake Tip 13. New Delhi (India): Building Materials and Technology
Promotion Council; 2002 <http://www.iitk.ac.in/nicee/EQTips/EQTip13.pdf>
[Accessed on September 13, 2013].
[37] BIS. Common burnt clay building bricks specification (Fifth Revision), IS
1077:1992 (Reaffirmed 2002). New Delhi (India): BIS; 1992.
[38] Code of Practice for Structural use of Unreinforced Masonry (Third Revision), IS
1905: 1987 (Reaffirmed 2002). BIS 1989; New Delhi, India.
[39] Nayak S, Dutta, SC. Improving seismic performance of masonry structures with
openings by polypropylene bands and L-shaped reinforcing bars. J Perform
Construct Facil, ASCE 2015, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-
5509.0000733.
[40] Mukhopadhyay P, Dutta SC. Strongest cyclone of the new millennium in the
Bay of Bengal: strategy of RVS for nonengineered structures. Nat Haz Rev ASCE
2012;13(2):97105.