See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323264770

Numerical and Experimental Study on

Unreinforced Masonry Buildings with Various
Opening Configurations ....

Conference Paper · February 2018

CITATIONS

2 authors:

Thainswemong Choudhury Hemant B Kaushik

Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati
6 PUBLICATIONS 11 CITATIONS 61 PUBLICATIONS 440 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Evaluation and Enhancement of Seismic Capacity of Typical Assam-Type Housing View project

Create new project "None" View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Hemant B Kaushik on 19 February 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 MASONRY TODAY
AND TOMORROW

11 - 14 February, 2018
SYDNEY AUSTRALIA

www.10amc.com

NUMERICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL STUDY ON UNREINFORCED

MASONRY BUILDINGS WITH VARIOUS OPENING
CONFIGURATIONS STRENGTHENED WITH STEEL BANDS
T. Choudhury1 and H.B. Kaushik2
1
Research Scholar, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati, Guwahati,
Assam, India, t.choudhury@iitg.ernet.in
2
Associate Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati, Guwahati,
Assam, India, hemantbk@iitg.ernet.in

Unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings are commonly constructed in many Asian countries
due ease in availability of materials and economical construction. But these types of buildings
are susceptible to severe damage or collapse during earthquakes; therefore, strengthening of
such buildings has been a crucial issue since many years. A few codes of practice suggest
various schemes to strengthen such buildings without providing sufficient details on design and
detailing of strengthening schemes. Though using these schemes increases the lateral load
carrying capacity of such buildings, the codes do not provide any method to estimate the actual
increase in load carrying capacity. Application of steel bands over URM buildings is tried in
the current study as a retrofitting approach to improve their seismic performance. Effectiveness
of using steel bands over URM buildings with different opening configurations is an essential
issue to be studied. Initially the capacity of a URM building is determined experimentally and
results are used to calibrate the numerical model. Over the calibrated model a numerical
approach (nonlinear analysis using ABAQUS) is adopted to estimate the lateral load carrying
capacity of a URM building with different opening configurations and sizes, and assessment is
carried out considering strengthening intervention using steel bands. Though openings
drastically alter the lateral load behavior of URM buildings, providing steel bands can be an
inexpensive and efficient way of strengthening such buildings without modifying the
architecture.

Keywords: masonry buildings, nonlinear analysis, strengthening, steel bands.

INTRODUCTION

Traditional masonry structures, which include important heritage buildings, government offices
and general residential buildings, are commonly found in most of the Asian countries. Though
most of the currently constructed buildings in urban areas are reinforced concrete structures,
unreinforced Masonry (URM) building construction still constitute a large proportion of
buildings in rural areas due to affordable construction, easily available local materials, and easy
construction methodology (Figure 1,a). URM buildings are proven to have good thermal and
sound insulation. Being a load bearing structure, the walls are thicker which indirectly make
the building fire resistant. Despite of these advantages, URM buildings are considered as one

1
of the most earthquake prone building typology due to their brittle behaviour and low tensile
strength. Such buildings exhibits poor ductility under lateral forces. Therefore, URM buildings
constructed in regions of high seismicity are highly vulnerable. In addition, the vulnerability
analysis of these buildings was carried out by Ansary (2003); Khan and Khalid (2002); Kumar
(2002); Sinha and Brzev (2002) have categorised them under medium-high vulnerability. The
capacity of unreinforced brick masonry building decreases due to the introduction of openings
in the structure. But quantity, size and position of the openings largely influence the overall
capacity of the structure (Shariq et al., 2008). Due to poor seismic performance, a need for
strengthening of existing URM buildings has become crucial. Besides, several other past studies
(Tomaževič et al., 1996; Vicente et al. 2011) used steel ties as a strengthening element, and
have shown a substantial improvement in capacity of the structure without contributing an
excessive increase in the structure’s weight. Hence, to counter the horizontal action due to
seismic activity, introduction of steel flats can be a suitable strengthening option since they are
easily available and increase in overall construction cost can be significantly reduced (Figure
1. b, c).

(a)

(b) (c)
Figure 1: (a) Typical Unreinforced Brick Masonry with GI Sheet (Choudhury et. al,
2015) (b)(c) Retrofitted building using steel flats (Kaushik & Dasgupta, 2014)

Hence, the present work consists of experimental and numerical analyses of a single storey
URM building with no partition walls. The numerical model was initially calibrated with the
results of the experimental model, and the calibrated model was further analysed with different

2
opening configurations and opening sizes commonly observed in URM. These building models
were strengthened using 40 mm × 5 mm steel flats and their lateral load behaviour was studied
and compared with different models. The results of this work can be helpful to determine the
performance level, and an approximate amount of capacity increased for URM building with a
particular opening typology and size when strengthened with proposed steel band
configuration.

BUILDING GEOMETRY AND MODELLING

A full scale, single storey URM building was considered for slow cyclic pseudo-static
test(Shahzada et al., 2012). Due to the limited area of the strong floor and the actuator capacity,
only single room with one storey building was considered. A single room with the plan
dimension of 3m×3m×3m with 10 cm flat RC slab on top was chosen since such size rooms are
commonly constructed in rural areas (see Figure 2). A parapet wall of 90 cm high was
constructed over the slab and small opening was provided for easy access to the roof. An
additional mass of 1 ton was placed on slab to account for the additional masses, for example,
water tank over the roof. The sizes of the openings bearing the symbols have dimensions as: D
= Door (2.1 m x 0.9 m) and W = Window (1.2 m x 0.9 m).

0.9 W

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 2: (a) URM building test specimen (b) FE Model and (c) Building Plan

Each wall of the specimen had a height of 3 m, length 3 m and thickness of about 0.24 m. All
the walls had double wythes and constructed in English bond, which is commonly used in India.
A servo-controlled hydraulic actuator of 250 kN load capacity and 250 mm displacement
capacity was used for slow-cyclic pseudo-static testing of the building. The test was carried out
in displacement-controlled way by applying three cycles of each target displacement till failure.

The experimental results were used to calibrate the finite element (FE) models of the URM
building using Strand7 (Strand 7.2 User’s Manual, 2013) as shown in Figure 2,b which was
later exported to ABAQUS (ABAQUS: Theory Manual, 2010) for further analysis. Two
software were used since Strand7 requires fewer material properties (cohesion value and
friction angle), takes lesser computational time to determine the capacity curve and exhibits
stability in nonlinear range. But dealing with Stran7 introduces bigger limitations since the
softening behaviour of the material is disregarded. Whereas, by means of Concrete Damage
Plasticity Model, the softening behaviour of the material can be accounted for in ABAQUS
resulting in an acceptable damaged model and capacity curve but the analysis process is highly

3
time consuming. The FE model consists of 10160 eight-noded brick elements and 15612 nodes.
All nodes located at the base of the structure were fully restrained. A concentrated load was
applied at the point where the quasi-static load was applied as per the experimental setup. The
material properties of the building model, some of which were obtained experimentally, are
given in Table 1.The compressive strength of the masonry unit, mortar, and masonry prism
were determine as per the relevant Indian standards (BIS 1992, BIS 1995 and BIS 1987a). The
tensile bond strength was determined using the method suggested by Khalaf (2005). The initial
shear capacity of masonry units was determined following BS EN-1052 (2002).

Table 1: Mechanical properties of the material used in brick masonry building

Property Value Remarks

Brick Unit compressive strength 19.3 MPa Experimentally obtained
Compressive Strength of Mortar (1:6) 4.84 MPa Experimentally obtained
Masonry Prism compressive strength 3.18 MPa Experimentally obtained
Tensile bond strength (Z test) 0.129 MPa Experimentally obtained
Elastic Modulus of Masonry 1748 MPa Experimentally obtained
Shear Strength (Triplet Shear test) 0.165 MPa Experimentally obtained
Specific Weight of masonry material 1637 kg/m3 BIS (1987b)
Elastic Modulus of Concrete 24768 MPa BIS (2000)
Density of Concrete 2400 kg/m3 BIS (1987b)
Elastic Modulus of Steel 200000 MPa BIS (2000)
Density of Steel 7870 kg/m3 BIS (1987b)

Pushover analyses of the URM building model were carried out using Strand7 and ABAQUS
in order to systematically evaluate their failure modes and lateral load carrying capacity.
Further, FE numerical analyses of the URM building model strengthened using steel bands were
also carried out. In the later stage, additional numerical analyses of the URM building model
were carried out considering different window sizes and opening configurations. The analyses
performed using Strand7 were carried out considering a Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion for
masonry with a friction angle of 35o and cohesion value of 0.145 MPa . The non-linear analyses
performed using ABAQUS considered the Concrete Damage Plasticity (CDP) model for which
the non-linear parameters were taken with dilatation angle as 10o, eccentricity as 0.1, fbo/fco as
1.16, Kc as 0.667 and viscosity parameter as 0.0001, which have been considered based on
established literature (Lubliner et al., 1989; Page, 1981). The maximum strength in tension and
compression are calculated using the Mohr-Coulomb yield criterion under plane stress
conditions. Material non-linearity was defined exclusively for masonry elements, whereas
concrete lintels/slabs and steel bands were assumed to behave elastically. Such assumption was
made considering the fact that concrete and steel possess strength that is much larger than that
of masonry.

EXPERIMENTAL RESUTLS AND CALIBRATION OF THE NUMERICAL MODEL

Results of the full-scale URM specimen tested under slow cyclic pseudo-static loading are
discussed in this section followed by the numerical calibration of the FE models for the
specimen. The experimental test exhibited a mixed failure mechanism consisting of both shear
and tensile failure along with twisting mechanism at higher displacement levels (Figure 3). The
distribution of Von Mises stresses in the FE model was found to exhibit peaks near the corners

4
of the openings indicating that damage was more prominent near the openings. The numerical
model was then calibrated with the experimental results. The strain contours resulting from the
numerical analyses carried out in ABAQUS showed nearly the same crack formation and
similar critical regions with that observed in the Experiment (Figure 3). The model was further
numerically analysed using Strand7 and the equivalent plastic strain patch, which is one of the
outcomes of the numerical simulations, produced nearly similar results when compared with
the ABAQUS results. The capacity curves are compared in Figure 4, which again shows a very
good agreement between the experimental and numerical curves. More details on both the
analysis approaches are provided later. The numerical model of experimentally tested building
is referred as Model 1.1, which is later analysed with different opening sizes and configurations.

Figure 3: Damaged states of URM building

100
Lateral Load (kN)

80
60
Experimental
40
Abaqus model 1.1
20
Strand7 model 1.1
0
0 5 10 15 20
Displacement (mm)

Figure 4: Comparison of capacity curves obtained from Strand7 and ABAQUS with the
experimentally obtained capacity curve.

5
NUMERICAL ANALYSIS WITH DIFFERENT OPENING CONFIGURATIONS

Since it is noticeable that the numerical results matched really well with the experimental
results, the calibrated numerical model was further extended considering different opening
configurations and sizes. For this purpose, nine FE models were developed considering three
different window opening sizes in three different configurations keeping door opening size and
configuration same as given below and shown in Figure 5. Three Model sets with different
opening configourations were:
Model set 1: D = 0.9 m × 2.1 m , W1= 0.9 m × 1.2 m with Plan 1,2,3
Model set 2: D = 0.9 m × 2.1 m , W2= 1.2 m × 1.2 m with Plan 1,2,3
Model set 3: D = 0.9 m × 2.1 m , W3= 0.5 m × 1.2 m with Plan 1,2,3

W W

W W W W W

D D D
Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3

Figure: 5. URM building with different opening configurations

The Plan 1 of Model set 1 was tested under slow cyclic pseudo-static lateral loading in
laboratory. The whole set of FE models were subjected to non-linear pushover analysis in both
the software for comparison. The same models that were analyzed using strand7 were imported
in ABAQUS and analyzed again to get the damage data and to compare their capacity curves
obtained from two software. A comparison between pushover curves obtained using both the
numerical approaches exhibited nearly similar capacity value but the capacity curves generated by
Strand7 do not exhibited much plastic displacement values due to limitations in dealing with
softening behaviour of the material. However, adopting the numerical model using Mohr-Column
failure criteria with associated flow rule in Strand7 provides an acceptable elasto-plastic curve with
much lesser computational time (Choudhury et al., 2015). Such limitations are not there in
ABAQUS in which utilisation of CDP model provides more accurate masonry behaviour but takes
more computational time. From the results obtained, it is noticeable that the numerical results
generated by both the commercial codes, matched quite well.

Since Pushover analysis in strand7 was comparatively faster than that in ABAQUS, it was
further used for numerical analysis of rest of the models. The numerical analyses conducted on
the models showed a considerable change in capacity with different configuration and opening
sizes. Though presence of openings play a major role in stiffness degradation and reduction of
lateral load carrying capacity, model with large opening also exhibited large twisting mechanism.
In addition, building having lesser number of openings, though of larger size, showed higher lateral
load carrying capacity. As expected the models resisted lesser lateral load when the openings were
provided along the loading direction. Models with smaller size openings showed insignificant
change in load carrying capacity irrespective of the opening configuration. The model with no

6
window opening along the in-plane direction underwent larger deformation level with negligible
twisting mechanism and a small increase in lateral load carrying capacity. Comparing the amount
of damage in all the models as shown in Figure 6, the model with smaller opening size exhibited
minimum amount of damage with respect to other models. Significant amount of damage was
visible in building models with large opening sizes as shown in Figure 7, which represents damage
distribution in a particular building configuration with various opening sizes.

Model 1 set Model set 2 Model set 3

100 100 100 Loading
Model
Lateral Load (kN)

80 Model 80
Direction
Model
1.1 80
2.1 3.1
60 60 60 Model 1
Model
Model Model
1.2
40 40 2.2 40 3.2
Model Model 2
20 D:0.9x2.1m 20 D:0.9x2.1m Model 20 D:0.9x2.1m Model
1.3
W:1.2x0.9m W:1.2x1.2m 2.3 W:0.5x1.2m 3.3
0 0 0
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 Model 3
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)
Plan

Figure 6: Comparison of capacity curves of three model sets

(a)

(b)
Figure 7: Damage distribution in Plan 2 with various window sizes

STRENGTHENING OF URM BUILDING

From some past earthquakes, it was observed that application of steel bands on masonry walls
was quite effective in preventing separation and disintegration of wall elements (Kaushik and
Dasgupta, 2014; Kaushik et al., 2006). In addition, it would be interesting to study the

7
effectiveness of using steel bands in improving the lateral load performance of URM buildings
with different opening configurations. In order to achieve this objective, steel bands, in the form
of mild steel flats of 40 mm width and 5 mm thickness, were used to strengthen the walls (both
internally and externally) of the three building model sets, which were numerically analysed
earlier. From the experimental and numerical study of unreinforced masonry it was observed
that the damage occur mainly near the corners of the openings (Figure 3 and 7). Hence,
horizontal steel bands were used at lintel and sill level of the building models to delay and
reduce the development of tensile stresses near the openings. Vertical steel bands were
additionally used to connect the horizontal bands for stress transfer as shown in Figure 8.

Figure 8: Strengthening of URM building using steel bands

In the already developed FE models, steel flats with cross-section (40mm x 5mm) were
simulated as line elements connected to both inside and outside of the wall at a node to node
interval of 0.5 m. The numerical analyses results showed a significant increase in lateral load
carrying capacity of the structure for each strengthened model sets. Model sets even with large
window openings (Model set 2) exhibited higher capacity in comparison to the original
unreinforced masonry model (Figure 9, Figure 10).

CONCLUSIONS

In the present study, experimental and numerical testing of full-scale URM building, both un-
strengthened and strengthened using steel bands, was carried out. Pseudo-static cyclic test was
first carried out on the building and the capacity curve thus obtained was used to calibrate the
numerical FE models. The numerical analysis was carried out by performing non-linear static
analyses of the building models using two FE commercial codes, namely, Strand7 and
ABAQUS. Both the experimental and numerical results provided a good agreement with each
other and displayed the same types of failure modes. Strengthening using single steel flats on
both faces of the walls showed not only significant increase in lateral load carrying capacity but
also a remarkable improvement in displacement capacity of the URM building models.

Besides, a parametric study was also carried out on model sets with different opening
configurations and sizes. Nine URM building models categorized as three model sets were
created and non-linear pushover analyses of the models were carried out. FE simulation results
showed that each model set performed differently in terms of displacement capacity, but
introduction of large openings in the walls resulted in reduction in lateral load carrying capacity.

8
All the building model sets with different opening location and sizes showed remarkable change
in lateral load carrying capacity. However, application of steel bands on the walls of the URM
building model sets as a strengthening measure resulted in a remarkable increase in both lateral
load and displacement capacity. Hence, use of steel flats as a strengthening intervention can be
an inexpensive and efficient way of improving the overall capacity of URM buildings.
150 150
150
Lateral Load (kN)

100 100
100

URM 1.1 URM 1.3

50 50 URM 1.2 50
Strengthened Strengthened
Strengthened URM 1.3
URM 1.1 URM 1.2 0
0 0
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)
150 150 150
URM 2.2
Lateral Load (kN)

Strengthened 100
100 100 URM 2.2

URM 2.1
50 URM 2.3
50 50
Strengthened Strengthened
URM 2.1 URM 2.3
0
0 0
0 1 2
0 2 4 0 1 2
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)
180 180 180
lateral load (kN)

120 120 120

URM 3.1 URM 3.2 60 URM 3.3

60 60
Strengthened Strengthened
Strengthened
URM 3.1 URM 3.3
0 0 URM 3.2 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)

Figure 9: Capacity curves comparison for different models

Model set 1 Model set 2 Model set 3

150 150 200
Lateral Load (kN)

URBM 150
100 100 URBM URBM
100
50 50 50
Strengthened Strengthened
Strengthened
URM 0 URM
0 URM 0
1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3
Plan Plan Plan

Figure 10: Lateral load carrying capacity comparison for different model sets

9
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The financial support provided for the experimental study by the Department of Science and
Technology, Government of India, is gratefully acknowledged.

REFERENCES

ABAQUS: Theory Manual. (2010). Version 6.10, 2010.

Ansary, A. (2003). Housing Report Unreinforced Brick Masonry Buildings with GI Sheet.
World Housing Encyclopedia, EERI(IAEE).

BS EN. (2002). Methods of test for masonry - Part 3: Determination of initial shear strength.
BS EN 1052-3.

Bureau of Indian Standards(BIS). (1995). Indian standard code of practice for preparation and
use of masonry mortars. IS 2250, 5th Revision,New Delhi, India.

Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS). (1987). Code of Practice for Structural use of Unreinforced
Masonry. IS 1905, 3rd Revision,New Delhi, India.

Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS). (1987). Code of Practice for Design Loads(Other than
Earthquake) for Buildings and Structures. IS 875(Part 1), New Delhi, India.

Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS). (2000). Code of Practice for Plain and Reinforced Concre.
IS 456, New Delhi, India

Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS). (1992). Indian standard methods of test of burn clay
building bricks—Part 1: Determination of compressive strength. IS 3495, 3rd Revision, New
Delhi, India.

Choudhury, T., Milani, G., & Kaushik, H. B. (2015). Comprehensive numerical approaches
for the design and safety assessment of masonry buildings retrofitted with steel bands in
developing countries: The case of India. Construction and Building Materials, 85, 227–246.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.02.082

Kaushik, H. B., & Dasgupta, K. (2014). Assessment of Seismic Vulnerability of Structures in

Sikkim , India , Based on Damage Observation during Two Recent Earthquakes,
27(December 2013), 697–720. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000380.

Kaushik, H. B., Dasgupta, K., Sahoo, D. R., & Kharel, G. (2006). Performance of structures
during the Sikkim earthquake of 14 February 2006. Current Science, 91(4), 449–455.

Khalaf, F. M. (2005). New Test for Determination of Masonry Tensile Bond Strength,
17(December), 725–732.

Khan, A. A., & Khalid, M. (2002). Housing Report Unreinforced Brick Masonry Walls In
Mud Mortar With Flat Timber Roof. World Housing Encyclopedia, EERI(IAEE).

Kumar, A. (2002). Housing Report Unreinforced Brick Masonry Walls In Mud Mortar With
Flat Timber Roof. World Housing Encyclopedia, EERI(IAEE).

10
 Lubliner, J., Oliver, J., Oller, S., & Oñate, E. (1989). A plastic-damage model for concrete.
International Journal of Solids and Structures, 25(3), 299–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-
7683(89)90050-4

Page, A. (1981). The Biaxial Compressive Strength of Brick Masonry. Proceedings of the
Institution of Civil Engineers, 71(3), 893–906. https://doi.org/10.1680/iicep.1981.1825

Shahzada, K., Khan, A. N., Elnashai, A. S., Ashraf, M., Javed, M., Naseer, A., & Alam, B.
(2012). Experimental seismic performance evaluation of unreinforced brick masonry
buildings. Earthquake Spectra, 28(3), 1269–1290. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.4000073

Shariq, M., Abbas, H., Irtaza, H., & Qamaruddin, M. (2008). Influence of openings on
seismic performance of masonry building walls. Building and Environment, 43(7), 1232–
1240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2007.03.005

Sinha, R., & Brzev, S. N. (2002). Housing Report Unreinforced Brick Masonry Building With
Reinforced Concrete Roof Slab. World Housing Encyclopedia, EERI(IAEE).

Strand 7.2 User’s Manual. (2013). www.strand7.com.

Tomaževič, M., Lutman, M., & Weiss, P. (1996). Seismic Upgrading of Old Brick‐Masonry
Urban Houses: Tying of Walls with Steel Ties. Earthquake Spectra, 12(3), 599–622.

Vicente, R., Rodrigues, H., Varum, H., & Mendes da Silva, J. a. R. (2011). Evaluation of
Strengthening Techniques of Traditional Masonry Buildings: Case Study of a Four-Building
Aggregate. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 25(3), 202–216.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000164

11

View publication stats