See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304395969

Strength characteristics of brick masonry wall

before and after encasing with ferrocement

Conference Paper · July 2010

CITATIONS READS

0 170

1 author:

S V Venkatesh
PES Institute of Technology
26 PUBLICATIONS 26 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

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

Earth quake View project

All content following this page was uploaded by S V Venkatesh on 25 June 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 8th International Masonry Conference 2010 in Dresden

Strength characteristics of brick masonry wall before and after

encasing with ferrocement

S.V.VENKATESH1

ABSTRACT
Brick is perhaps the oldest man made material used in building construction. The strength of brick
masonry depends on the compressive strength of the bricks and mortar used. Brick masonry is
primarily used as a load bearing walls to carry vertical loads. Rehabilitation of old and damaged brick
masonry is a subject of widespread ongoing research. One of the methods of improving or increasing
the strength of these masonry walls is by encasing with Ferrocement. In the present work an attempt
has been made to determine the increase in the load carrying capacity of cracked brick masonry walls
by encasing with Ferrocement. In this investigation brick masonry walls, with different shapes, bonds
and methods of fixing mesh for Ferrocement were tested. Observations were made on crack pattern,
crack width, first crack load and ultimate load. The results obtained show substantial increase in load
at first crack and ultimate load after encasement.

Keywords: - Rehabilitation, Strength, Brick masonry, Encase, Ferrocement.

NOTATION
SWEB Straight wall English bond;
SWFB Straight wall Flemish bond;
TSFB „T‟ shaped wall Flemish bond;
TSEB „T‟ shaped wall English bond;
fm Compressive strength of mortar;
fmt Tensile strength of mortar;
Am Area of mortar;
fy Proof stress of mesh;
Amesh Area of mesh;
A1 Area of 01;
A2 Area of 02;
Y1 Centriod of 01;
Y2 Centriod of 02;
Y3 Position of Jack 3.

1 INTRODUCTION

The strength of masonry depends on the compressive strength of the bricks and mortar used. There
are several types of masonry structural elements in a building, the most used being the load bearing
wall. These elements are solid planes, which are designed primarily to carry the vertical loads within
the structure.

1
Assistant Professor, Faculty of Civil Engineering Bangalore, Peoples Education Society Institute of Technology, venkateshsv@yahoo.com

th
8 International Masonry Conference Dresden 2010 1
S.V.Venkatesh

The risk of damage to such old masonry walls, particularly when unreinforced has made masonry
structures, the subject of widespread ongoing research. One area of the research that is very active is
that of defining methods where by these structures can be strengthened or upgraded in their load
carrying capacity. The methods used include the effective repairing or enhancing the load carrying
capacity of brick masonry. Ferrocement is a material ideally suited for retrofitting and is a highly
versatile composite material of reinforcing wire mesh, either in single or close packed layers, with or
without reinforcing rods in cement mortar. This paper presents tests carried out on a full scale
masonry wall rehabilitated with Ferrocement. The objective of this study is to better understand the
behavior of masonry walls under gravity loading and to investigate the effectiveness of Ferrocement
as a rehabilitation material.

2 DESCRIPTION

The experiments were conducted in three phases. In the first phase the constituent materials were
tested in “preliminary” tests. In the second phase walls were constructed and tests carried out without
encasing with Ferrocement up to a predefined degree of crack damage. In the third phase the
damaged (cracked) walls were encased with Ferrocement and tested again.

2.1 Characteristics of constituent materials

The tests to determine the characteristics of the constituent materials and cement mortar were carried
out as per the Indian standard codes. The tests on the constituent materials along with the results are
listed in Table 1. The average compressive strength of 1:2 cement mortar cubes at 28 days was
found to be 41.55 Mpa.

2.2 Details of the experimental study of masonry walls before encasing with
ferrocement.

2.2.1 Test Specimens

The experiment was carried out on four one brick thick masonry wall specimens, comprising two
straight and two „T‟ shaped wall specimens. The dimensions of the walls were chosen by considering
the slenderness ratio, height to width ratio and the loading facility available. The IS 1905–1987
specifies the maximum slenderness ratio of masonry walls constructed using cement mortar to
prevent buckling to be 27 and height to length ratio not to exceed 2. To satisfy all the above
requirement the dimension were chosen as given in Table 2, with these dimensions the slenderness
ratio and height to width ratio were obtained as 8 & 1 respectively.
For construction of walls a cement: sand mortar of ratio 1:6 was used. The bricks were kept in
water for 24 hours before use.
2.2.2 Test setup and loading system
The walls were tested under point load on spreader beam. The spreader beams were placed on the
wall tops to ensure uniforms transformation of load and “I” sections were placed on top of the
spreader beams. 30 Tons capacity hydraulic jack applied the load onto the “I” sections. A hand pump
was used to fill the gap between the wall top and spreader beam with a sand cement slurry. The
positions of the jacks were placed such that the centroid of the jacks coincided with those of wall. The
number of jacks for the straight wall was two and for the „T‟ shaped wall three were used. For the „T‟
shaped wall, the position of the jacks was calculated as given by formulae (1) and (2). The position of
the jacks are shown in Figure 1 and 2, where as the loading arrangement is shown in Figure 3.
2.2.3 Layout
The walls were constructed in the loading frame to fill in the space available. The layout of the walls is
as shown in figure 4.

th
2 8 International Masonry Conference Dresden 2010
 Strength characteristics of brick masonry wall before and after encasing with ferrocement

2.3 Details of experimental study of masonry walls after encasing with Ferrocement.

2.3.1 Test specimens

The specimens which were damaged in earlier test were used for encasing with Ferrocement. The
thickness of mortar was 12 mm. A 4/20 gauge wire mesh was used, with a cement sand proportion of
1:2, and a water cement ratio of 0.55. The number of layers of wire mesh was two as obtained by the
minimum volume fraction formula (5) and other formulae (3),(4),(6). The wire mesh was fixed to the
walls in two ways as described below
1. By driving nails at scattered intervals as shown in Figure 5, 7 and 8.
2. By placing 6 mm dia M.S. dowel rods through holes drilled at regular intervals in the walls as
shown in Figure 6 and 9.
The cement mortar was placed manually to fill the gap between the wall and the mesh and then
levelled with a float. The walls were cured by pouring with water at regular internals for 28 days. The
walls were also covered with gunny bags to retain water for a longer time. The details of walls are
given in Table 3.
2.3.2 Test setup and loading system
See section 2.2.2.

3 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

3.1 Discussion on wall results before encasing with Ferrocement.

The crack width was recorded for every 10 kN interval of load until cracks achieved a width of
0.27 mm. The load at first crack and maximum load was noted; the corresponding stress values were
calculated and tabulated as given in Table 4 and 5.
The cracks appeared on the interface of the brick and mortar both horizontally and vertically as
shown in Figure 10 and 11. Observing the crack patterns which are like open loops it can be
concluded that these cracks are due to very high stress concentrations at the interface of brick and
mortar. The high stress concentration is due to lateral tension in the mortar and compression in the
bricks, due to the difference in Young‟s modulus value of brick and mortar, when subjected to uniaxial
compression. The results show little difference between English bond and Flemish bond in load
carrying capacity.

3.2 Discussion on wall results after encasing with Ferrocement.

The structural behavior of composite materials depends on the bonding between the two materials in
this case between brick masonry and Ferrocement. The cracks formed are vertical rather than the
isolated loops before encasement as shown in Figure 12 and 13. The cracks on the surface started
appearing after partial de-bonding or de-lamination of the Ferrocement from the brick masonry. As the
load application increased further the Ferrocement encasement started bulging perpendicular to the
face of the wall which is a clear indication of de-bonding, but this characteristic was not observed so
much in the case of Flemish bond walls as the wire mesh on both faces was connected with 6mm
M.S. rods through holes drilled through the wall. This also indicates that the load is taken by the stiff
outer member which is Ferrocement as opposed to the inner core of soft cracked brick masonry. The
difference in load at first crack and failure is mainly because of the ductility of Ferrocement and its
ability to carry load after cracks of smaller width have developed which is one of the advantages of
using Ferrocement.
The first crack load increased by between 352% and 1596% and failure loads increased by
between 111% and 131% when compared to walls before encasement as given in table 6. The
difference in the load carrying capacity of English bond and Flemish bond is due to the difference in
fixing of wire mesh.

th
8 International Masonry Conference Dresden 2010 3
S.V.Venkatesh

4 TABLES

Table 1. Results of constituent material

Brick units Cement Sand Wire Mesh
Water Normal consistency : 32% Specific gravity : 2.55 Proof stress
absorption Initial setting time: 135 mins. Water absorption: 11.98 % : 340 MPa
: 14.37% Final setting time : 400 mins. Bulk density (loose) : 1.5g/cc Ultimate stress
Comp. Finess : 4% Percentage of voids : 41.17% : 406 MPa
strength Specific gravity : 3.076 Bulk density (compact) Young‟s Modulus
4
: 3.668mpa. Comp. Strength : 1.66g/cc : 2.5x10 MPa
Dry Density : 22.27mpa (7 days) Percentage of voids : 34.90%
: 1.54 g/cc Soundness : 2 mm Fineness modulus : 2.367

Table 2. Details of walls before encasing with Ferrocement

Type of wall Dimensions Type of bond
LENGTH (L) BREADTH (B) HEIGHT (H) THICKNESS (T)
SWEB 1800 mm -- 1800 mm 225 mm ENGLISH
SWFB 1800 mm -- 1800 mm 225 mm FLEMISH
TSFB 1800 mm 900 mm 1800 mm 225 mm FLEMISH
TSEB 1800 mm 900 mm 1800 mm 225 mm ENGLISH

Table 3. Details of walls after encasing with Ferrocement

Type of Dimensions Thickness of Method of fixing
wall LENGTH BREADTH (B1) HEIGHT THICKNESS (T1) Ferro wire mesh
(L1) (H1) Cement
SWEB 1824 mm -- 1812 mm 249 mm 12 mm Using nails only
SWFB 1824 mm -- 1812 mm 249 mm 12 mm Using M.S. Rod
TSFB 1824 mm 900 mm 1812 mm 249 mm 12 mm Dowels & nails.
TSEB 1824 mm 900 mm 1812 mm 249 mm 12 mm Using nails only

Table 4. Results of walls before encasing with Ferrocement

Type of wall First Crack Load kN First Crack Stress MPa Failure Load kN Failure Stress MPa
SWEB 34.00 0.084 214.00 0.528
SWFB 14.00 0.035 284.00 0.701
TSFB 24.55 0.036 309.55 0.510
TSEB 29.55 0.049 309.55 0.510

Table 5. Results of walls after encasing with Ferrocement

Type of wall First Crack Load kN First Crack Stress MPa Failure Load kN Failure Stress MPa
SWEB 154.00 0.34 454.00 1.01
SWFB 134.00 0.30 604.00 1.33
TSFB 416.46 0.61 716.46 1.06
TSEB 289.65 0.43 609.65 0.89

th
4 8 International Masonry Conference Dresden 2010
 Strength characteristics of brick masonry wall before and after encasing with ferrocement

Table 6. Comparison of Results of walls before and after encasing with Ferrocement
Type of Increase in Load at Percentage Increase in Increase in load at Percentage Increase in
wall first crack kN Load at first crack failure kN Load at failure
SWEB 120.00 352.94 240.00 112.67
SWFB 120.00 857.14 316.00 111.26
TSFB 391.91 1596.37 406.91 131.45
TSEB 260.10 880.20 300.10 96.95

5 FORMULAE

To find the position of jack 3 (Y3) for „T‟ shaped walls.

From applied mechanics and with respect to figures 1 and 2

Y = A1 x Y1 + A2 x Y2
A1 + A2 (1)
Y = (1800 x 225) x (900 + (225/2)) + (900 x 225) x 450
(1800 x 225) + (900 x 225)
Y = 825 mm
825 = 2 x (900 + (225/2)) + 1 x Y3
2+1 (2)
Y3 = 450.00 mm.

fmt = 0.7 x √fm

(3)
= 0.7 x √(41.55)

= 4.51 MPa

Am = Area of Ferrocement – Area of Mesh

(4)
= 1800 x 12 - Amesh

fmt x Am = fy x Amesh
(5)
4.51 x (1800 x 12 - Amesh) = 340 x Amesh

Therefore Amesh = 282.76 mm2

Here the wire mesh used is 4/20 gauge, which means 4 wires per inch of 20 gauge wire i.e
4 wires per 25.40 mm of 0.8 mm diameter.

Therefore Amesh = No. of layers x No. of wires per mm x area of one wire x length of
(6)
Ferrocement

282.76 mm2 = No. of layers x (4/25.40) x ((π x (0.8)2 )/4)

Therefore No. of layers = 282.76 / 142.44

= 1.98 ~ 2

The number of layers of wire mesh = 2 (Two)

th
8 International Masonry Conference Dresden 2010 5
S.V.Venkatesh

6 FIGURES AND DIAGRAMS

Figure 1. Position of Jacks

Figure 2. Loading arrangement

Figure 3. Layout of walls Enlarged Cross section view of walls

th
6 8 International Masonry Conference Dresden 2010
 Strength characteristics of brick masonry wall before and after encasing with ferrocement

Figure 4. Fixing of wire mesh Enlarged back view of „T‟ wall Wall fixed with mesh
to wall with nails only after fixing mesh with nails only using M.S rods and nails

Figure 5. Typical crack pattern of Walls Enlarged view of Typical crack pattern of Walls
before encasing before encasing

Figure 6. Typical crack pattern of walls Enlarged view of Typical crack pattern of
after encasing walls after encasing.

th
8 International Masonry Conference Dresden 2010 7
S.V.Venkatesh

7 LIMITATIONS

The walls are subjected to vertical load only.

Loading of wall is only up to a crack width of 0.27 mm.

8 CONCLUSIONS

The load carrying capacity of the walls increased both at first crack and at failure.
The walls in which wire mesh was fixed with 6 mm M.S. rod and nails showed better
characteristics than with only nails.
The cracks were straight and vertical after encasement rather that isolated loops before
encasement which indicates a better distribution of stress.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author would like to thank the management, Principal, Head of Mechanical Engineering
Department and staff of PESIT for their contineous support.

REFERENCES
[1] A.M.Rehihorn, S.P.Prawel, Zi-He Jia, „Experimental study of ferrocement as a seismic retrofit
material for masonry walls‟, Journal of ferrocement, 1985, 15(3), 247-260.
[2] K.K.Singh, S.K.Kaushik, Anand Prakash, „Strengthening of brick masonry columns by
Ferrocement‟, 3rd International Conference on Ferrocement, 1988, 306-313.
[3] S.V.Venkatesh, Dr. Veerappa Reddy, ‘Strength Characteristics of English Bond Brick Masonry
Wall Encased with Ferro cement‟, International conference on Recent Developments in
Structural Engineering, RDSE, No 174, 313. 2007
[4] S.V.Venkatesh, “Strength Characteristics Of Flemish Bond Brick Masonry Wall Encased With
FerroCement” International conference on Social Sciences & Humanities (ICoSSH 2008),
Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia 2008, 38.
[5] Ravikant Shrivastava, „Seismic retrofitting and restoration of masonry buildings‟, Workshop on
recent advances in masonry construction. 1998, 333-340.
[6] National Building Code of India 1970.
[7] Code of Practice for Structural use of Unreinforced Masonry (Third Revision). IS 1905–1987
[8] Verrappa Reddy, „Studies on Strength, behavior and cracking of lightweight Ferro cement in
tension and flexure, and pre-tensioned Ferro cement flexural elements‟, Ph.D. Thesis,
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore. 1987.
[9] S.V.Venkatesh,”Rehabilitation of Brick Masonry Wall using Ferro cement” National Level
Technical Paper Presentation Contest (Stapana 2k7), 2007, 24.

th
8 8 International Masonry Conference Dresden 2010

View publication stats