Engineering Failure Analysis 139 (2022) 106461

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Failure Analysis

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engfailanal

Structural and mechanical performance of adobe with the addition

of high-density polyethylene fibres for the construction of
low-rise buildings
David Dominguez-Santos *, Julio Alberto Moya Bravo
Department of Engineering and Building Management, University of Talca, Curicó zip code 3340000 Chile

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Adobe bricks have been used in construction since ancient times, due to their low cost, good
Seismic-resistant behavior performance and the ease of assembly and elaboration of these elements in construction. How­
HDPE ever, the low ductility and resistance of adobe could harm the structural behaviour of buildings,
Structures
especially taller buildings. The addition of additives, in the form of abundant high-density
Adobe
Brick
polyethylene (HDPE) fibres, could improve the mechanical properties from a seismic and struc­
Polyethylene tural point of view. These improved adobes could replace factory bricks, whose mechanical de­
Structural vulnerability ficiencies are similar to adobe (stiffness and flexural strength), and they could reduce the high
cost of buildings today. This work analyses and compares the performance and structural per­
formance that these elements acquire in framed buildings, compared to traditional adobe,
incorporating different percentages of high-density polyethylene fibres (HDPE) in low-rise
buildings (of 2 and 4 storeys), which are very abundant in areas of high seismicity. For this,
models of structural frames are analysed, adding adobe walls using the mechanical results carried
out in a laboratory at the University of Talca (Chile). The addition of a small percentage (0.6%
and 1.2%) of HDPE in the traditional adobe, improves the ductility and the structural perfor­
mance of the frames.

Introduction

Adobe is one of the oldest and most widely used building materials. The sun-dried clay units date back to 8000 BCE [1]. Adobe has
been used as a building material for thousands of years by Native American peoples (for residential use). The use of raw earth as a
construction element date to pre-Hispanic times, however, its use was gradually lost due to its lack of application and its mechanical
deficiencies [2]. Raw earth architecture was present in the great centres of civilisation in each of the five continents, as can be seen in
Fig. 1.
On the African continent, in ancient Egypt, a primitive method based on adobe construction has been used for more than 3000
years. Egypt is the first country where blocks of raw earth were used for the construction of arches. During the 3rd to 7th century CE,
the eastern part of Africa received influences from peoples who came across the Indian Ocean, extending the use of adobe from Nubia
to present-day Kenya. Furthermore, in Asia, earthen dwellings dating from 8000 to 6000 BCE have been found. In Turkestan, as well as
in the city of Jericho, archaeological excavations have exposed adobe walls from 8000 BCE [3].

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ddominguez@utalca.cl (D. Dominguez-Santos).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2022.106461
Received 2 January 2022; Received in revised form 3 March 2022; Accepted 18 May 2022
Available online 25 May 2022
1350-6307/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
D. Dominguez-Santos and J. Alberto Moya Bravo Engineering Failure Analysis 139 (2022) 106461

In the American continent, construction with earth developed in parallel with the other continents. Among the different zones, the
city of Chan Chan in Peru stands out (Fig. 2): it was built entirely from earth, by the Chimbú culture (1200 CE − 1480 CE), and is one of
the most important pre-Columbian cities in the Andean area.
In addition to the city of Chan Chan, vestiges of construction with earth have been found in the southern United States to the
southernmost territories of the expansion of the Inca Empire, prior to the Spanish colonisation. The adobe construction method was
brought by the Spanish [3].
In highly seismic countries, such as Chile, the use of adobe as a structural construction material is not something that is within the
legal framework, relegating the use of this technique to rural constructions and the intervention of heritage buildings. However, there
are still many low-rise buildings (1 or 2 floors) constructed in adobe, showing that it is a material that is still used [4].
According to Minke [5], to better understand the earth as a construction material, it is necessary to consider:

– Earth is not a standardised building material. This means that its composition depends on where it is extracted from, so it can
contain different amounts and types of clay, silt, sand, and aggregates.
– The earth contracts when it dries. When the mixing water (necessary to activate the binding capacity of the clay and enable it to be
handled and malleable) evaporates, cracks appear. Linear shrinkage during drying ranges from 3 to 12%. This property can be
reduced by reducing the amount of water and clay, optimising the granulometric composition or by using additives.
– The earth is not waterproof. The earth must be protected against rain and frost, especially when wet.

Background

Highly seismic countries, such as Chile, present construction, and structural problems for any type of building that is not considered
with an adequate earthquake resistant design. After the earthquake of February 27, 2010, which struck the central area of Chile, the
devastation produced in the coastal sectors could be witnessed. Among the most affected buildings, the adobe construction typology
stood out, corresponding to approximately 50% of the total [6].
Faced with the damage that occurred, it was shown that traditional adobe masonry techniques are not the most suitable for seismic
areas. When adobe structures do not contain reinforcement [7], the resistant capacity of the material is exceeded by seismic actions,
generating sudden failures due to the fragility of the material. To all these technical deficiencies is added the lack of maintenance of the
buildings and repairs with inappropriate techniques [8].
According to Guzman [9], the adobe house is an old system that has not been studied with the same intensity and perseverance as
other materials, so it requires a detailed analysis and investigation of its properties and characteristics. This little information is
complemented by the few rules that regulate this type of construction. For example, in Chile there is only one Standard (NCh3332
[10]) that establishes the minimum requirements for the intervention of raw earth heritage constructions. These are simple low-rise
buildings, as evidenced in the main towns of the country.
Unlike adobe, in recent years, materials widely used in construction have been analysed and investigated, e.g., concrete, steel and
ceramic bricks. The purpose of these studies has been to improve the properties and characteristics and to have a better performance in
the building. In the scientific literature, there are abundant studies on the introduction of additives incorporated into concrete and
traditional cement. Examples of this are the addition of metallic fibres or polypropylene to concrete to increase the properties of load
capacity [11-13] and resistance to shear and improve ductility [14]. Likewise, from an environmental point of view (the damage
caused by the extraction of raw materials and/or CO2 emissions), some mixtures have considered the addition of volcanic ash [15],

Fig. 1. Map crossing. Earth Architecture (www.terracruda.org) and map of seismic zones (Global Seismic Hazard Program). Ancient seismic routes.
a journey through the constructive cultures in adobe in the most seismic places in the world. Ibero-American Seminar on Architecture and Con­
struction with Earth. Basin from November 9 – 13, 2015.

2
D. Dominguez-Santos and J. Alberto Moya Bravo Engineering Failure Analysis 139 (2022) 106461

Fig. 2. Ruins of the citadel of Chan Chan, Peru. (https://peru.info/es-pe/).

wood [16], and recycled concrete [17-19], among others.

These materials have been widely used in construction, especially in walls (enclosures and partitions), demonstrating their
effectiveness and efficiency in the structural and energetic part of the buildings. Because of this, several researchers have studied the
influence of additives in the materials of these elements, to improve the thermal [20,21], acoustic [22], and mechanical [23] prop­
erties, among others.
All these statements are in contrast to the scarce information that is available with other materials widely used in the walls of
buildings, especially the oldest ones, such as adobe. Due to the scarce information on this material and its low performance in con­
struction [24-26], this study will try to improve the physical and mechanical properties of adobe bricks, by incorporating recycled
high-density polyethylene fibres (HDPE) to the mixture during the manufacturing process of the units. The improvement of these
properties aims to improve behaviour against seismic actions [27-29] or exposure to water [30]. For this, the introduction of different
additives in manufacturing has been the trigger to improve its most deficient properties. High-density polyethylene (HDPE), also
known by its acronym in English (HDPE, High Density Polyethylene) [31-34], has a molecular structure that contains practically no
branches, which allows its molecular chains to be very orderly, reaching a high degree of crystallinity and resulting in a type of
polyethylene that is more rigid than other similar materials. This also gives it a considerable molecular density, which translates into
greater resistance, hardness, and tolerance to high temperatures. This characteristic is the main difference between high and low-
density polyethylene. In addition to all this, it is a recyclable material [35-37] and can be reused, if it is in optimal hygienic condi­
tions. Among its characteristics, its excellent thermal and chemical resistance stand out, in addition to presenting good resistance to
impact. It is a waterproof, flexible, tough, and lightweight material, is not corroded by solid or toxic leaching wastes and has a low
acquisition cost, which is why it is used in the packaging industry. It is an easy material to process using thermoplastic shaping
methods, such as injection and extrusion.
Finally, it has been shown that the use of walls in low-rise, arcaded buildings improves their seismic behaviour [38-40]. However,
this statement is not so relevant in medium and high-rise buildings, due to the rigidity and weight that these elements provide to the
structures. To solve these problems, at present, these elements have been replaced by more complex ones that do not depend on these
characteristics; dissipators [41-43], braces [44-46], and base isolators [47-51], among others. These devices have shown good per­
formance in buildings, but the complexity, costs and preparation required for their placement in buildings has affected their use in
structures.
Because of this, traditional walls continue to be the most-used solution in construction [38-40]. That is why different materials have
been introduced as additives in the manufacture of the walls, to improve some of their properties. The purpose of this work is to
demonstrate the improvement in resistance and other properties of this new mixture of adobe with HDPE in framed structures with
respect to traditional adobe, not its applicability in some buildings.

Materials and methods

Materials used

The dosage and the amounts of additives in the manufacture of adobe determine the final properties that the mixture acquires (for
example, resistance, ductility, and workability). That is why the same quantities used for the realisation of traditional adobe bricks will
be used, adding a percentage of HDPE additive.
To make the samples, the specifications of the Peruvian Standard E.080 [52,53], the Chilean Standards, NCh3332 [10], NCh1517
[54] and some specifications of the American ASTM Standard [55] have been followed.
The materials used in the different samples were obtained as follows:

(a) The natural straw fibre to be used was obtained in the sector and corresponds to natural oat straw.
(b) High density polyethylene fibre (HDPE) was obtained through a recycling process, collecting 5L drums used as containers for
detergents. Only the side walls of the drum were used as HDPE sheets, as indicated in Figs. 3a and 3b. The HDPE fibre was made
with a saw, cutting the HDPE sheets. From this process, fibres of approximately 18 cm were obtained (Fig. 3c), which were cut

3
D. Dominguez-Santos and J. Alberto Moya Bravo Engineering Failure Analysis 139 (2022) 106461

with a fibre length of approximately 3–4 cm (Fig. 3d). These fibres were made based on chemical inputs, through some in­
dustrial process. Despite having a greater environmental impact than natural fibres, synthetic fibres are characterised by high
mechanical resistance and high durability. Among the most used synthetic fibres are polypropylene fibres, polyester fibres, and
nylon fibres. Based on existing publications [56-58], synthetic fibres are used between 0.25% and 3.00%, with respect to dry
weight. The greatest difficulty in its use is to achieve a homogeneous distribution of the fibre with the soil sample. For this,
laboratory shakers have been used in small quantities to mix the different elements that make up the adobe.
(c) To size the HDPE fibre, the thickness and length of the straw used in the manufacture of traditional adobes was taken into
consideration, which has a typical length between 30 and 40 cm, according to local adobe. Due to the size of the manufactured
samples, it was decided to apply fibres whose length corresponded to 10% of the recommended length, between 3 and 4 cm [4].

The general properties of HDPE are shown in Table 1.

(d) The water was obtained from the bed of a river and was drinkable.
(e) Due to the importance of the land, previously mentioned, the earth was obtained from the ruins of an old colonial house built in
adobe, which was demolished by the earthquake of February 27, 2010. This building is in an advanced state of deterioration and
with an almost zero possibility of restoration (Fig. 4). Most of the material used in the manufacture of adobe comes from the
reuse of adobe blocks obtained from a neighboring construction (Fig. 4), which has been disabled since the earthquake of
February 27, 2010. To avoid discrepancies in the results, the material chosen comes from the same place, qualifying after the
sieving process carried out in the laboratory, of a fine granular soil (silty clay of low plasticity). The origin of this material comes
from the crushing mixed with water and subsequent sifting of the blocks obtained from the construction. The water is drinkable,
coming from a river near the construction and the straw is dry oats from the same area. In this case, there was an abundant
source of straw, so it was not necessary to replace it with coarse sand. All the materials that make up the adobe mixture have
been dosed according to the weight of the mixture (Table 13). The sand used in the mixture was considered as part of the earth,
since the reused adobe had a percentage of sand in its composition. For this reason, 75% silty clay (obtained from reused
adobes) and 25% sand were used. The new sand added to the mixtures was obtained from a local aggregates plant. Finally, the
amounts of high-density polyethylene fiber (HDPE) from the detergent bottle (0.6% and 1.2% based on weight) were discounted
from the amount of straw used in the preparation of the original adobe. For more detail, the dosage of each material is shown in
chapter 3.2 (Table 13).

Manufacturing procedure

1. The earth was prepared. For this, the earth obtained from the reused adobes, the sand (in case of needing to give consistency to the
mixture) and the water (20% with respect to the weight of the soil) were mixed.
2. The straw was added to the mixture while it was stirred. For this, a shovel was used, stepping on the earth continuously.

Fig. 3a. Detergent bottles used.

4
D. Dominguez-Santos and J. Alberto Moya Bravo Engineering Failure Analysis 139 (2022) 106461

Fig. 3b. Detergent bottle.

Fig. 3c. Fibre cutting process.

3. In the case of samples containing high-density polyethylene fibres (HDPE), the fibres were added when the earth was mixed. The
amount of synthetic fibre added, corresponded to 0.6% and 1.2% of the weight of the earth used for the preparation of the samples.
To obtain a homogeneous mixture, laboratory shakers were used.
4. In both cases (with and without HDPE), when the clay mass presented a homogeneous shape, it was left to rest for 24 to 48 h. This
process sought to activate a greater quantity of clay particles, improving the plasticity of the mixture. The dosages used in the
mixtures are shown in Table 13:
5. For the manufacturing of the adobe bricks, the mould was moistened (Fig. 6), to prevent the clay from adhering to it. This process
was carried out by filling the moulds with the clay mixture with force, trying not to deform the adobe when extracting the mould.
Two different moulds were used, one for prismatic specimens and the other for cubic specimens. Each mould was prepared to run 3
samples at a time. The walls that made up the moulds were made of 18 mm thick wood.

For the sizing of the adobe samples, the recommendations of Morales et al. [59] and Peruvian Standard E.080 were followed
[52,53]:

5
D. Dominguez-Santos and J. Alberto Moya Bravo Engineering Failure Analysis 139 (2022) 106461

Fig. 3d. Fibre size used.

Table 1
General properties of HDPE (http://www.ub.edu/cmematerials/es/materials).
PROPERTIES UNIT. METRIC MEAN VALUES

PHYSICAL
Density g/cm3 0.952–0.965
Crystallinity % 70–80
Contraction % 1.5–3
MECHANICAL
Elastic module (Young) GPa 1.07 – 1.09
Poisson’s ratio 0.41–0.427
Compressive strength MPa (kg/cm2) 18.6–24.8
Flexural-tensile strength MPa (kg/cm2) 30.9–43.4
Tensile strength MPa (kg/cm2) 22.1–31
Tensile modulus GPa 0.5–1.2
THERMAL
Specific heat J K− 1 kg− 1 1900
Expansion coefficient X10e6 K− 1 100–200
Thermal conductivity A 23 ◦ C (W/mK) 0.45–0.52
Melting temperature ◦
C 125

• The length must not be greater than twice its width plus the thickness of a glue joint.
• Maximum dimension for length and width was 40 cm due to unit weight.
• The height should be between 8 and 10 cm.
• The relationship between length and height should be of the order of 4 to 1, to allow a horizontal overlap in a 2 to 1 ratio, which
provides security against the shear effect produced by earthquakes.

For constructive facilities and mechanical behaviour, the rectangular or square shape is recommended for adobe bricks, as shown in
Fig. 5..

6. The fabricated samples (Fig. 7) were allowed to dry. For this, a flat area, free of humidity and roofed, was used to avoid sudden
drying that could generate shrinkage in the samples.

For this research, a total of 45 samples (including traditional adobe) were used for the different tests that were carried out. The
samples were divided into: 15 of them were used for mechanical tests (Compression strength and Flexural-tensile strength), 15 of them
for erosion and, the rest were used for the manufacturing tests of the samples (granulometry, humidity…). The mean physical
characteristics of each adobe sample indicating the percentage of HDPE and the dimension of the bricks (Fig. 5), and the density, are
shown in Table 2.

6
D. Dominguez-Santos and J. Alberto Moya Bravo Engineering Failure Analysis 139 (2022) 106461

Fig. 4. Process of obtaining the earth used in the manufacture of adobe.

Table 13
Dosages used in the mixtures.
Materials Units 0.0% HDPE fiber 0.6% HDPE fiber 1.2% HDPE fiber

Clay (g) 5411 5411 5411

Sand (g) 1804 1804 1804
Water (ml) 2250 2250 2250
Straw (g) 420 376.71 333.42
HDPE fiber (g) 0 43.29 86.58

Fig. 5. Dimensions (in metres) recommended for square adobe and half adobe.

Fig. 6. Specimen types of moulds.

7
D. Dominguez-Santos and J. Alberto Moya Bravo Engineering Failure Analysis 139 (2022) 106461

Fig. 7. Freshly moulded samples.

Table 2
Mean physical properties of the samples.
Adobe sample Bricks dimension (cm) Density of the samples (kg/m3)
(Percentage in relation to the weight of the mixture)
(% HDPE)

0% HDPE (traditional adobe) 40x20x10 1491

0.6% HDPE 1402 (− 6%)
1.2% HDPE 1332 (− 11%)

7. After 28 days from their manufacture, the dried adobes were used to carry out laboratory tests.

Laboratory tests

Once the manufacturing and drying process of the samples was completed, their properties were studied. These tests were carried
out in controlled spaces, avoiding environmental agents that could affect the results obtained. The mechanical compression strength
and flexural-tensile strength results performed on the traditional adobe and HDPE samples (0.6% and 1.2%, in relation to the weight of
the mixture) were obtained from the tests carried out with the hydraulic machines (TECNOTEST) of the construction laboratory (in the
building of the Faculty of Engineering of the University of Talca).
The laboratory results shown below, correspond to the mean of the 5 samples for each test carried out (compression strength,
flexural-tensile strength, and erosion).
Among the tests carried out in the laboratory:

– Compressive strength test

Fig. 8a. Compression testing machine (TECNOTEST. Machine from the laboratory of the University of Talca).

8
D. Dominguez-Santos and J. Alberto Moya Bravo Engineering Failure Analysis 139 (2022) 106461

These tests were carried out based on the provisions of the standard NTP.399.613 [60]. Figs. 8a and 8b show the hydraulic ma­
chines used in the process.

– Flexural-tensile strength test

This process was carried out based on the provisions of standard NTP.399.613 [60]. Fig. 9 shows the hydraulic machine used in the
process.

– Swinburne accelerated erosion test (SAET) or Gylong test.

To determine the resistance of bricks of earth (adobe) to erosion caused by water, simulating severe exposure. This process was
carried out based on the provisions of UNE 41410 [61]. Usually, this process is known as the Gylong test.
In the process, the sample was placed on a surface with an inclination of 27◦ with respect to the horizontal (Figs. 10a and 10b).
Subsequently, the equipment was activated, dropping a continuous stream of water on the brick for 10 min, through a 5 mm internal
diameter tube, supplied with a tank of water at a constant level, whose head was 1.5 m above the eroded face of the adobe. Finally, the
depth of the cavity was measured with a 3 mm diameter rod.

Results obtained in the laboratory

– Compressive strength test

The mean results obtained from the 5 samples for each case study are presented in Table 3.
Taking into consideration the value of minimum resistance to compression according to Standard E.080 [52,53], the three cases
managed to exceed the minimum recommended resistance, when adobe stabilised with 0.6% of HDPE fibre the optimal dose to obtain
the most favourable result of mean resistance to the applied effort.

– Flexural-tensile strength test

The mean results obtained from the 5 samples for each case study are presented in Table 4.
According to the results obtained, an improvement was observed in the resistance to flexural-tensile strength presented by the
adobes as the amount of HDPE fibre increased, when compared to traditional adobes without the addition of HDPE fibre.

– Swinburne accelerated erosion test (SAET) or Gylong test

To interpret the results of this test, the sampling was considered ‘suitable’ if the depth of the void was less than 10 mm, otherwise
the adobe unit was considered ‘not suitable’. For this test, the behaviour of the adobe units to erosion on the surface of each sample,
due to continuous contact with water, was determined. For this, the UNE 41410 [61], was considered.
The images of the samples tested are shown in Fig. 11.
The mean erosion results of the samples for each case study are presented in Table 5.
The results, considering the UNE 41410 [61] standard, were considered ‘suitable’ for use, since all of the erosion produced was less
than 10 cm.

Fig. 8b. Head for cubic samples (TECNOTEST. Machine from the laboratory of the University of Talca).

9
D. Dominguez-Santos and J. Alberto Moya Bravo Engineering Failure Analysis 139 (2022) 106461

Fig. 9. Flexural-tensile testing machine.

Fig. 10a. Equipment scheme (image measurements in mm) (UNE 41410 [61]).

Structural analysis

This section describes the seismic behaviour of representative structural models in seismic zones, using non-linear static analysis
(Push-over). The calculations were implemented with the Seismostruct v.7.0.2 structural analysis software. This software is based on a
finite element analysis, a product of the company Seismosoft® [62]. This software allows the estimation of the relationship between
the displacement on the top floor and the maximum shear at the base of buildings under static and dynamic loads, considering the
behaviour of non-linear materials in all their geometries. The results of these non-linear static analyses (Push-over) are shown in the

10
D. Dominguez-Santos and J. Alberto Moya Bravo Engineering Failure Analysis 139 (2022) 106461

Fig. 10b. Equipment used in the Swinburne Accelerated Erosion Process.

Table 3
Mean compression results.
Adobe sample Compression strength
(% HDPE) MPa (kg/cm2)

0% HDPE (ordinary) 1.19 (12.08)

0.6% HDPE 1.32 (13.43) (+11%)
1.2% HDPE 1.11 (11.36) (− 6%)

Table 4
Mean flexural-tensile strength results.
Adobe sample Flexural-tensile strength MPa (kg/cm2)
(% HDPE)

0% HDPE (ordinary) 0.17 (1.80)

0.6% HDPE 0.18 (1.89) (+5.00%)
1.2% HDPE 0.19 (1.96) (+8.89%)

Fig. 11. Eroded samples with SAET.

respective capacity curves.

Description of the analysed frames

The models analysed in this work were based on framed structures, due to the abundance of this construction system in many Latin
American and European countries [38-40]. These structures are characterised by fast execution times and few material resources.
Traditionally, the structural behaviour of buildings made of beams and columns, without any type of anti-seismic device, during

11
D. Dominguez-Santos and J. Alberto Moya Bravo Engineering Failure Analysis 139 (2022) 106461

Table 5
Mean results of Swinburne Accelerated Erosion Test (SAET).
Adobe sample Erosion (cm)
(% HDPE)

0% HDPE (ordinary) 6.77

0.6% HDPE 5.72 (− 16%)
1.2% HDPE 4.97 (− 27%)

earthquakes has not been satisfactory. Consequently, it is necessary to incorporate walls or other resistant elements with the intention
of reducing the possible damage caused [38-40], complying with the normative requirements.
In recent years, most European countries have been adapting their national (structural) codes to resemble European (Eurocodes)
and American codes. Consequently, the results of this work can be considered as being representative for a significant percentage of the
existing buildings in Europe and parts of Latin America.
As shown in Fig. 12, each frame model was made up of 4 spans of 5 m lengths, measured on column axes. Of the 4 openings that
make up each frame, 2 of them were filled with adobe walls, while the other 2 were left empty. The empty openings simulated the
windows and doors that the architectural composition of the buildings would have.
The reinforced concrete elements of these frames (beams and columns) were designed and calculated considering the American
ACI-318 [63] and European EC-2 [64] Standards, without considering the seismic forces or the walls.
The adobe bricks that make up the infilled walls were located below the upper beam of each storey of the frame without any
anchoring to the structural elements. The cases with infilled walls were in the external bays of the frame.
The height between floors was 3 m, with a free height per floor of 2.60 m. This means that the models used had a height of 6 and 12
m for the 2 and 4 height frames, respectively. The configuration of the frames is regular and symmetrical in elevation (Fig. 12).
The horizontal structural elements (beams) of the frames correspond to beams 30 cm wide and 40 cm high in all heights with a
longitudinal reinforcement of 8ø20 (4 per row), and a transverse reinforcement (frames) of ø8c/20 cm. The reinforcement cover is 2.5
cm in beams and columns. The vertical elements (columns) of each frame are formed by five square columns of 30x30 cm, with a
longitudinal reinforcement of 6ø16, and a transverse reinforcement of ø8c/20 cm. The structural continuity of the elements that make
up the frames is achieved through the longitudinal reinforcements, corresponding to steel bars that connect the beams and columns,
complying with all the requirements of the European and American codes of structural design.
The non-structural infill walls are made of adobe brick with the dimensions specified in Fig. 5, complying with the recommen­
dations of Morales et al. [59]; Standard E.080 [52,53]. These bricks are lareyed by 1 cm thick mortar, with “ladder” type steel
transverse reinforcements every four rows of brick (Fig. 13).
The most important characteristics and properties of the structural models (frames) are summarised in Table 6. On the other hand,
the materials used for the structural elements (beams and columns) were: HA-30 concrete with a characteristic resistance of fck = 300
kg/cm2 and B-500-S steel, with an elastic limit of fyk = 5000 kg/cm2; both materials are defined in the CTE [65].
In Table 6, each frame is denoted with a number and letters. The first number indicates the number of heights of the frame and the
letters, the type of element used in the infill walls: ‘NW’ means frame without walls (bare frame), ‘WA’ means frame with adobe bricks
without HDPE aggregate. Lastly, the numbers correspond to the type of wall and indicate the percentage of HDPE aggregate used in the
mixtures: ‘WA-0.6′ with 0.6% HDPE adobe bricks and ‘WA-1.2′ with 1.2% HDPE adobe bricks. This table shows the total height and
length of the portal, the dimensions of the beams and columns, the weight of the frame following the combination of G + 0.3Q actions
according to Eurocode 8 (EC-8) [66], and the fundamental periods of the different models analysed.
In the combination of actions that determines the weight of the frame, G determines the structure’s own weight and Q the live
loads, considering a residential, administrative, or small commercial use, corresponding to 2 kN/m2 [65] in all the frame floors except
for the upper floor (roof), whose load was 1 kN/m2 [65] (maintenance).
The present work did not consider the collaboration of the carpentry of windows in the openings, due to their great fragility.
Finally, for each of the floors that make up the frame, infinitely rigid diaphragm behaviour was considered, which is an element that

Fig. 12. Frame dimensions and geometry.

12
D. Dominguez-Santos and J. Alberto Moya Bravo Engineering Failure Analysis 139 (2022) 106461

Fig. 13. Placement of adobe walls.

Table 6
Structural Frame Model Configuration.
Frame Total height (m) Total length (m) Beams Columns Total weight Fundamental period (s)
(cm2) (cm2) (kN)

2– NW 6 20.5 30 × 40 30 × 30 1140 0.19

2– WA 6 20.5 30 × 40 30 × 30 1320 (+16%) 0.12
2– WA0.6 6 20.5 30 × 40 30 × 30 1305 (+14%) 0.12
2– WA1.2 6 20.5 30 × 40 30 × 30 1290 (+13%) 0.12
4– NW 12 20.5 30 × 40 30 × 30 2280 0.37
4– WA 12 20.5 30 × 40 30 × 30 2640 (+16%) 0.23
4– WA0.6 12 20.5 30 × 40 30 × 30 2610 (+14%) 0.23
4– WA1.2 12 20.5 30x40 30x30 2580 (+13%) 0.22

limits all possible displacement in the vertical axis.

Structural frame model

The elements that make up each of the frames were modeled using finite bar elements. For the materials of each structural element
(columns and beams), the prescriptions proposed by Mander [67] for concrete and Ferrara’s bilinear model [68] for reinforced steel
bars were followed.
In addition, the existing beams and columns are represented by non-linear bar finite elements [69], where the non-linearities are
concentrated in the plastic hinges located at the ends of each bar, corresponding to 15% of the total length of the element. [70].
According to Scott et al. [71], it was considered that the joints/connections between the columns and concrete beams were rigid, while
the hysterical behaviour that represents the stress distribution, were calculated with fibre models based on the properties of the
material and the geometry of the structural elements (discretised with 300 fibres). In the model, the loads were applied to the beams.
The tolerances used for the displacements and rotations were of the order of 10-5 in all cases, with a maximum number of 300
iterations.
The simulation of the mechanical behaviour of each material in the elements of the frame required entering several data corre­
sponding to the properties of the material. That is why the experimental values of plasticisation and breakage obtained from the
capacity curves of each of the materials were considered sufficient. On the other hand, the unit deformations corresponding to the
concrete and steel failure processes used the standard values determined by Seismostruct [62]: concrete cracking (0.0001), concrete
detachment (− 0.002), concrete failure (− 0.002), creep (0.0025) and steel fracture (0.06). Furthermore, the criteria regarding cur­
vature and rotations were verified through the rotational capacity given in Mergos and Kappos [72] and the cutting capacity was
established in the EC-8.
As stated and demonstrated in [96-98], the main structural behavior of frames with infill walls falls on their primary elements
(beams and columns), with the infill walls being the elements that affect the initial behavior of the models due to the great rigidity they
have and that they infringe on the structures. That is why it have begun to calibrate the bare models (without infill walls), to later
introduce the walls. The models used in this work have been calibrated and compared with models from other investigations [38-40]
that used experimental values obtained in laboratory tests at the University of Girona, from the hysteresis curves of the joints between
beams and columns [96-98]. To implement these values, it would start by calibrating the model of a single-storey frame using bi-linear
curves (moment-curvature) from the hysteretic curves for each of the test nodes. Once the models have been calibrated, the intro­
duction of the walls would continue following the same premises made in the calibration of the frames.

Infill walls model

Once the bare frame model has been calibrated, the walls are entered. The model of the walls was made following the same
guidelines used in the calibration of the frames, starting with the modeling of 1 wall using the properties of traditional adobe, as is done
in other works [99-101]. Once this calibration is completed, it will be distributed to all existing models. It would begin by calibrating

13
D. Dominguez-Santos and J. Alberto Moya Bravo Engineering Failure Analysis 139 (2022) 106461

the traditional adobe infill walls. The modeling values and the results obtained using the properties of traditional adobe [101], have
been compared with similar structures from other investigations [101-104]. Once the model with traditional adobe infill walls has
been calibrated, the structures with infill walls have been modeled using the properties that appear in Table 7, referring to the new
adobe with HDPE. The characterization of these elements has been detailed in chapter 4.4.
The presence of infill panels considerably modifies the structural behaviour of RC structures, making them more resistant and rigid.
The modelling of the infill wall considers the non-linear inelastic behaviour, the determination of the mechanical properties and the
interaction with the frame. However, there are many techniques that allow the analysis of filled walls. In this sense, Crisafulli et al. [73]
conducted a detailed review with several publications on this topic. After conducting a review of the literature, this work adopted the
double-strut approach proposed by Crisafulli [74] and implemented by Piestley et al. [75], using Seismosoft® software. The main
criterion considered for the selection of this calculation system was the good performance of the panel-gantry interaction effects
proposed for the models used. In addition, the double-strut approach has been successfully applied to predicting the seismic response
of multi-storey, reinforced concrete frames, with verified results [76].
The Crisafulli approach proposed a macro-model for the evaluation of the global response of the system. The model is implemented
as a four-node panel element, connected to the frame at the beam-column junctions (Fig. 14). Internally, the panel element explains the
compression and shear behaviour of the masonry wall separately, using two parallel struts and a shear spring in each direction. This
model allows adequate consideration of the lateral stiffness of the panel and the strength of the masonry panel, particularly when a
shear failure is expected along the mortar joints or a diagonal tension failure (strut compression). Other numerical details about the
transformation of the forces in the internal and fictitious nodes to the external forces in the four nodes can be followed in Crisafulli
[74].

Characterisation of infill walls

For the calibration of the wall model used in this research, the geometric and mechanical parameters of Table 7, obtained from
laboratory tests and Eurocode 6 (EC-6) [77], have been used.
The wall width was assumed to be equal to the width of the masonry units used (i.e. 20 cm), while the strength of the walls fk for a
conventional adobe brick masonry, bonded with ordinary Portland cement, was calculated following Eq. (1), in accordance with
section 3.6.2.2. of the EC-6:
fk = Kfb 0.65fm 0.25 (1)
where:

fk = Characteristic strength value for masonry [Nmm− 2].

fb = Standard compressive strength for used material [Nmm− 2].
fm = Standard compressive strength of mortar [Nmm− 2].
K = Coefficient, expressed in [Nmm− 2], depending on the placement of the brick and mortar in the wall. In this case, a placement
with sutures was used. K = 0.45 in Table 3.3 EC-6 [77].
The stiffness of the masonry was obtained as Kw = 500fk..

The shear resistance was estimated, with a maximum value of Vk = 0.065fb (Ec-6).
The out-of-plane collapse drift value was entered as a percentage of the floor height.
Regarding the strut areas, A1 was defined by the product of the width and the equivalent width of the strut (bw) and commonly
varied between 10% and 40% of the diagonal length (dm). These values were discussed by Smyrou et al. [78].
The effective width of the prop has been calculated by Eq. (2):
( )0.5
A1 = 0.175(λH)− 0.4 H2 + L2 (2).
Also, A2 is defined as a percentage of A1 and aims to show the fracture of the wall. Due to fracture, the contact length between the
frame and the wall decreases for lateral displacement, which impacts the effective width of the struts (A2). In this paper, it was assumed
that the reduction in area varies linearly as a function of axial deformation, according to Smyrou et al. [78].
Equivalent contact length (hz) is counted as a percentage of the wall height, to represent the contact between the portal and the
wall. A 1:3 ratio was assumed with respect to the effective contact length (z) which was calculated according to Nicola et al. [79].
The horizontal (Xoi) and vertical (Yoi), displacement values were considered as percentages of the wall dimensions and the pro­
portion of stiffness related to shear (γ) was automatically calculated by the program, with values ranging from 0.20 to 0.60.
The specific weight value (γ s) was obtained from laboratory tests, as defined in Table 2.
The openings within the wall, such as doors or windows, have not been considered in the calculations, due to their low rigidity.
Several researchers have studied the influence of openings on both the stiffness and strength of the struts. Unfortunately, due to the
large number of related uncertainties, the issue is currently controversial at a quantitative level and the authors do not agree on their
conclusions [80,81]. However, this role assumes a reduction in the effective area of the struts, according to the relative areas of doors
and windows, which leads to a reduction in the stiffness of the walls [82].

14
D. Dominguez-Santos and J. Alberto Moya Bravo Engineering Failure Analysis 139 (2022) 106461

Fig. 14. Models used in infill walls.

Table 7
Numerical values of geometry and mechanical behaviour obtained in the laboratory.
Units Adobe (0% HDPE) Adobe (0.6% HDPE) Adobe (1.2% HDPE)

t (mm) 200 200 200

A1 (mm2) 276970.21 276970.21 276970.21
dw (mm) 5830.95 5830.95 5830.95
bw (mm) 1457.74 1457.74 1457.74
Eb (MPa) 10,809 11,642 10,355
b (mm) 192 192 192
j (mm) 10 10 10
Em (MPa) 2402 2587 2301
hw (mm) 2600 2600 2600
Ec (MPa) 25,018 25,018 25,018
h (mm) 3000 3000 3000
ft (MPa) 1.12 2.21 3.05
Fb (MPa) 12.08 13.43 11.36
τmax (MPa) 1.80 1.89 1.96
Υ s (kN/m3) 14.91 14.02 13.32
hz (mm) 641 637 644
λ 0.00122 0.00125 0.00121
ϴ (◦ ) 30.96 30.96 30.96
Ic (mm4) 675e6 675e6 675e6
fm (MPa) 8.0 8.0 8.0

Design frames

Structural design codes describe different procedures for analysing frames. This work considered 3 types of analysis:

(a) Static analysis using the North American reinforced concrete standard ACI-318 [83] (also used in countries such as Chile) and
some recommendations of EC-2, through which the structural elements of the frames (beams and columns have been designed).
(b) Spectral analysis using the European (EC-8) and Chilean NCh433 [84] seismic standards to obtain the seismic forces and the
basal shear of the frames. These results are compared with the results of the nonlinear static analysis (Push-over).
(c) Nonlinear static analysis (Push-over), by which the ultimate and plastic capacity is estimated, in terms of resistance and
displacement, for each of the analysed structures.

15
D. Dominguez-Santos and J. Alberto Moya Bravo Engineering Failure Analysis 139 (2022) 106461

Infill wall models

In this section, a comparative study of the maximum basal shear of each of the frames analysed will be described, considering the
Chilean earthquake-resistant regulations (NCh433), the European regulations (EC-8) and the displacements associated with the
application of the same in the structures previously dimensioned with ACI318 and EC-2.
The results obtained are shown in Table 8, using the spectra of the Chilean and European regulations to consider a soil type of
medium hardness (type II (NCh433)/Type C (EC-8)) and a high seismic acceleration (ag = 0.40 g), for a building of normal importance
(S = 1). For all structures, a damping of 5% was considered. Table 8 shows the basal shear of each frame, obtained as the sum of the
forces of each plant without reducing, and the basal shear, as the sum of the seismic forces of each plant applying the reducing co­
efficient R = 7, as it is a concrete structure.
Table 9 shows the displacements of the frames, applying the seismic forces of the Chilean (NCh433) and European (EC-8) Standards
shown in Table 8.

Nonlinear static analysis (Push-over)

The nonlinear static analysis of incremental thrust (Push-over) was used in the estimation of the maximum horizontal capacity of a
structure, considering the deformation and the frequency content of the dynamic response movement. For the evaluation and cal­
culations carried out, the following references were used: Antoniou and Pinho [85] and Ferracuti et al. [86].
In carrying out the calculations, the lateral load distribution was not kept constant, but was continually updated during the
analysis, in accordance with the modal forms and the participation factors derived from the eigenvalue analysis at each step of the
process. This method is multimodal and explains the softening of the structure, the lengthening of its period and the modification of the
inertial forces due to spectral amplification.
The constant updating of the lateral load patterns, according to the modal properties that constantly change the system, provides
better response estimates than conventional methods, especially in cases where there are strength or stiffness irregularities in the
structure and/or higher mode effects [87].
The adaptive algorithm implemented in SeismoStruct is very flexible, accepting parameters that adapt to the specific requirements
of each structure. Examples are the SRSS and CQC modal combination methods [88].
This analysis makes it possible to calculate the maximum horizontal resistance capacity of structures, whose dynamic response is
not excessively affected by the levels of deformation experienced. This means that the distribution of horizontal forces simulating the
dynamic response can be assumed to be constant. Push-over analysis is one of the four analysis procedures incorporated in FEMA 356
[89]/ASCE 41 [90], which are used in performance-based design approaches. For interested readers, a detailed description of the
method can be found in [91-93].
In the methodology followed in this research, the failures of the frames are concentrated in the plastic hinges that appear in the
areas near the nodes (approximately 10% of the length of the element) of each structural element (beams and columns). The analyses
were carried out assuming a triangular load distribution. This loading pattern increases proportionally with a factor (λ ⋅ p) until
structural instability (collapse) is reached [94]. For the calculations in this investigation, a displacement response control was used,
corresponding to the nodes of the upper floor.
Figs. 15 and 16 show the static ‘non-linear’ behaviour of the analysed models of 2 and 4 heights, respectively. The graphs allow the
analysis of the elastoplastic behaviour of the frames prior to collapse. The beginning of each curve allows for the elastic behaviour of
the structures prior to a major failure. Eliminating the behaviour of the bare frames, the elastic zone of the curves of the walls, no great
differences were appreciated. However, as the applied force increases, the displacement differences are greater between the different
models for the same load level. During the initial load increase, prior to the first major failure, it is the infill walls that support the shear
forces of the structures. These elements increase the initial rigidity of the structure, subsequently causing the main structural elements
(beams and columns) to fail. This is observed with a significant loss in initial structural stiffness once maximum strength is reached
(Table 10 and Figs. 15 and 16). On the other hand, it can be seen how the structural behaviour of the frames with walls, once the
maximum shear is reached, tends to be the same as structures without walls. This is because the walls collapse before the main ele­
ments of the frame (beams and columns), which are the ones that support the main structure.
The plasticity in the capacity curves is mainly generated by the cracks produced in the concrete of the backfill walls and the
plasticity of the existing steel reinforcement in the primary structural elements. These effects are determined by the formation of plastic

Table 8
Base shear of the frames obtained from the Regulations.
Frame NCh433 (kN) EC-8 (kN)

2– NW 430/62 485/70
2– WA 499/72 (+16%) 561/81 (+16%)
2– WA-0.6 492/71 (+14%) 554/80 (+14%)
2– WA-1.2 487/70(+13%) 548/78 (+13%)
4– NW 861/123 969/139
4– WA 997/143 (16%) 1122/160 (+16%)
4– WA-0.6 985/141 (+14%) 1108/158 (+14%)
4– WA-1.2 974/139 (+13%) 1096/157 (+13%)

16
D. Dominguez-Santos and J. Alberto Moya Bravo Engineering Failure Analysis 139 (2022) 106461

Table 9
Displacements of the frames obtained from the Regulations.
Frame NCh433 (m) EC-8 (m)

2– NW 0.0078 0.0090
2– WA 0.00088 (− 89%) 0.0010 (− 89%)
2– WA-0.6 0.00083 (− 90%) 0.0009 (− 90%)
2– WA-1.2 0.00088 (− 89%) 0.0010 (− 89%)
4– NW 0.0308 0.0344
4– WA 0.0032 (− 90%) 0.0035 (− 90%)
4– WA-0.6 0.0030 (− 91%) 0.0032 (− 91%)
4– WA-1.2 0.0032 (− 90%) 0.0034 (− 90%)

Fig. 15. Capacity curve (basal shear - deformation) for a 2-storey-frame.

Fig. 16. Capacity curve (basal shear - deformation) for a 4-storey-frame.

Table 10
Elastic and effective stiffness of frames.
Frame Kelas (kN/m) Keff (kN/m) Kelas/Keff

2– NW 12,867 5373 2.39

2– WA 78,689 52,558 1.50
2– WA-0.6 82,111 53,783 1.52
2– WA-1.2 76,729 49,153 1.56
4– NW 8844 3464 2.55
4– WA 47,552 29,858 1.59
4– WA-0.6 49,833 31,824 1.57
4– WA-1.2 46,326 28,911 1.60

17
D. Dominguez-Santos and J. Alberto Moya Bravo Engineering Failure Analysis 139 (2022) 106461

Table 11
Displacement, base shear and ductility in 2 story-frame.
Frame δy (m) δu Fy Fu μ
(m) (kN) (kN)

2– NW 0.036 0.104 202 325 2.90

2– WA 0.028 0.062 1303 1443 2.26
2– WA-0.6 0.026 0.062 1339 1553 2.35
2– WA-1.2 0.025 0.062 1138 1385 2.49

Table 12
Displacement, base shear and ductility in 4 story-frame.
Frame δy (m) δu Fy Fu μ
(m) (kN) (kN)

4– NW 0.108 0.268 381 517 2.49

4– WA 0.055 0.105 1512 1633 1.92
4– WA-0.6 0.055 0.107 1592 1740 1.96
4– WA-1.2 0.051 0.105 1341 1574 2.05

hinges in each of these elements. The greater or lesser number of hinges that are formed will determine the length of these curves and
the ductility of the structures.
Tables 11 and 12 show the structural results corresponding to the displacements of the capacity curves for each of the frames. The
values concerning the plasticising shear force at the base of the frame (Fy) and the plasticising displacement at the top of the frame (δy),
have been obtained through the system of similar areas explained in ATC-40 [95], while the values concerning the ultimate shear force
at the base of the frame (Fu) and the ultimate displacement at the top of the frame (δu) correspond to the point of the curve where the
structure undergoes a significant decrease in its resistance. The ductility values (μ) are obtained from the relationship between the
ultimate deformation (δu) and the plastic displacement (δy).

Discussion of the results

Adobe bricks have long been used in construction due to their strength, thermal and acoustic insulation, fire resistance, and low
moisture absorption. However, seismically active countries, such as Chile or Japan, also require materials with good earthquake-
resistant behaviour. That is why, in these countries, it is necessary to improve the properties of these materials, adding other mate­
rials into their composition so that they can be used in construction, complying with the regulatory requirements. This research has
focussed on the use of adobe bricks with HDPE fibres (aggregates) in the walls and partitions, the purpose of which is to provide greater
ductility and a reduction in weight to traditional adobe walls, a property that generates great interest, from a seismic point of view.
The inclusion of infill walls in buildings is known to be beneficial for structures (especially in low-rise buildings). However, the
increase in weight and stiffness in high-rise buildings impairs the structural behavior (seismic resistance). That is why this work tried to
reduce weight and increase ductility by incorporating additives in the composition of the walls with materials such as HDPE.
The inclusion of HDPE in the manufacture of adobe reduces the density of traditional adobe. This reduces the weight of walled
frames and, therefore, the seismic forces are reduced.
The inclusion of HDPE in the manufacture of adobe increases the flexural-tensile strength of traditional adobe but does not always
increase the compressive strength. On the other hand, the addition of HDPE significantly reduces the erosion of the bricks.
Regarding the structural analyses carried out on the frames, the resistance of those with the addition of HDPE fibres (aggregates)
does not always decrease their resistance capacity (adobe with 0.6% HDPE), however, it always improves its ductile behaviour,
compared to traditional adobes.
On the other hand, in this research, the structural behaviour of frames was studied through linear static analysis (Normative) and
nonlinear analysis (Push-over). From a seismic design point of view, one of the most important attributes of materials is their ductility,
which reflects the absorption capacity and energy dissipation that a structure can take before collapsing. In this sense, a building must
dissipate the maximum energy that the movement of the ground transfers to it during an earthquake. The most effective way to do this
is through lateral deformation and local deterioration: internal damage where the energy transferred to materials is converted into
heat. If, during a seismic episode, the maximum horizontal deformation estimated from the non-linear static analysis (Push-over) is
reached, the structure could collapse. More precisely, the greater or lesser deformation that an earthquake demands from a structure is
expressed in terms of ductility.
The static ‘non-linear’ behaviour (Push-over) of frames with infill walls, with adobe bricks with HDPE, showed an improvement
from a ductility point of view, with respect to ordinary walls, making structures more efficient in dissipating energy. Greater flexibility
in these elements reduces building rigidity, improving structural performance.
The inclusion of walls in the frames significantly improves the resistance of the bare frames, especially in the lower frames (2
heights). The difference in resistance of the frames with adobe infill walls compared to the bare ones increases significantly, producing
increases of 450–470% in the 2-storey frames and 300–340% in the 4-storey frames.

18
D. Dominguez-Santos and J. Alberto Moya Bravo Engineering Failure Analysis 139 (2022) 106461

On the other hand, the inclusion of adobe infill walls reduces the ductility of the frames by 22% (traditional adobe), 19% (adobe
with 0.6% HDPE) and 14% (adobe with 1.2% HDPE) in the 2-storey frames and 23% (traditional adobe), 21% (adobe with 0.6% HDPE)
and 18% (adobe with 1.2% HDPE) in the 4-storey frames.
The ultimate basal shears obtained from the normative analysis for frames without walls are more restrictive than the push-over
analyses performed, especially for 4-height frames. However, the inclusion of infill walls in the frames improves the structural per­
formance of the constructions, significantly increasing the basal shear with respect to the normative analyses. In addition, none of the
walled frames, considering the seismic forces of the regulations and the displacements produced by these seismic forces in the static
analysis, entered the plastic limit.
The maximum displacement of the walled frames decreases significantly with respect to the bare frames. Furthermore, the in­
clusion of adobe infill walls with HDPE fibres (aggregates) slightly increases the ultimate deformation capacity compared to walls
made with traditional adobe. Furthermore, plastic deformations are similar in all walled frames.
Finally, the use of HDPE in the manufacture of adobe in the infill walls only increases the existing relationship between elastic and
effective stiffness in the case of adobe with 1.2% HDPE.

Conclusions

The inclusion of HDPE in traditional adobes reduces the density of the adobes. These reductions are 6% and 11%, with the inclusion
of 0.6% and 1.2% of HDPE, respectively. This is reflected in the reduction of the weight of the frames and, therefore, in the seismic
forces calculated with the seismic resistant Standards.
On the other hand, the addition of these “HDPE” fiber plastics allows eco-efficient management of some volumes of plastic waste
generated in the environment, helping the ecosystem.
The addition of HDPE in the manufacture of traditional adobes increases the flexural-tensile strength by 5.0% and 8.89%, with
0.6% and 1.2% of HDPE, respectively. On the other hand, the compressive strength does not always increase; when introducing 0.6%
of HDPE, the compressive strength increases by 11%, however, when introducing 1.2% of HDPE, it is reduced by 6%.
On the other hand, the addition of HDPE in the adobes, significantly reduces erosion, causing the fibres to affect their cohesion.
These reductions are 16% and 27%, by introducing 0.6% and 1.2%, respectively. The introduction of HDPE in the adobe increases the
cohesion of the components of the mixture.
The fundamental period of the bare frames decreases significantly (37–38%) with the inclusion of adobe walls. These reductions do
not influence the inclusion of HDPE in the composition of the adobes that make up the walls.
The strength of the frames is considerably increased with the use of infill walls.
The ductility of the frames decreases with the incorporation of adobe walls, however, the use of HDPE in the adobe composition
slightly improves this property. Ductility decreases with an increasing height of construction. This may be due to the excessive stiffness
infringed by this material in constructions.
The European anti-seismic regulations (EC-8) are slightly more restrictive than the Chilean regulations (NCh433); the shear levels
obtained by the latter regulation (NCh433) are between 8% and 12% lower, for a medium type of hard soil (type II), with a soil ac­
celeration ag = 0.4 g.
The basal shear obtained in the non-linear static analyses (Push-over) is lower than the shear obtained with the seismic-resistant
regulations in the cases without walls, which does not comply with the maximum capacity that they support. However, the use of
adobe walls causes the basal shear obtained in the push-over calculations to increase significantly, making them higher than the basal
shear obtained by the Standards.
The use of HDPE in adobe walls would only increase the resistance of the frames with traditional adobe walls (8%) in the cases with
0.6% of this material. Adding twice as much HDPE (1.2%), would reduce the strength of frames with traditional adobe walls by 6%.
However, the ductile improvements of the frames with adobe bricks, accompanied by the reduction of weight of the structures, could
be beneficial for the seismic behaviour of the analysed frames. In this research, it has been found that a higher amount of HDPE in­
creases the ductility of traditional adobe frames by 4% and 10%, in 2-storey frames, and 2% and 7%, in 4-storey frames.
The present study is purely exploratory. A priori, adobe bricks with HDPE appear to show slight improvements in structural be­
haviours from one point of view. However, the author considers that these results may vary when other percentages of HDPE and their
granulometry are considered. In addition, the use of other concrete and steel strengths, as well as other numbers of floors and/or frame
con0urations, must also be analysed to find the optimal rates applicable to a wider variety of contexts. As can be seen, the number of
possible combinations to verify is enormous. Therefore, it is foreseeable that several additional studies will be necessary to cover them
all.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgement

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

19
D. Dominguez-Santos and J. Alberto Moya Bravo Engineering Failure Analysis 139 (2022) 106461

References

[1] M. Blondet, G. Villa Garcia, S. Brzev, Á. Rubiños, Earthquake-Resistant Construction of Adobe Buildings: A Tutorial, EERI/IAEE World Housing Encyclopaedia,
56(Second), (2011),13–21.
[2] J.E. Gama Castro, T. Cruz y Cruz, T. Pi Puig, R. Alcalá Martínez, H. Cabadas Báez, S. Sánchez Pérez, F. López Aguilar, R. Vilanova de Allende, Arquitectura de
tierra: el adobe como material de construcción en la época prehispánica, Boletín de La Sociedad Geológica Mexicana 64 (2) (2012) 177–188.
[3] L. Karmelic Visinteiner, Terremoto Chile 2010. Reconstrucción/restauración patrimonial: proceso de validación de la tierra como material vigente. Balance de
las intervenciones en la VI region, 2016.
[4] F. Prado, M. González, Influence of the polymeric fibers adding upon mortars based on the flexural resistance and compression of mud plasters, Revista de La
Construccion 11 (3) (2012) 4–16, https://doi.org/10.4067/s0718-915x2012000300002.
[5] G. Minke, Manual Construccion En Tierra: La tierra como material de construcción y su aplicación en la arquitectura actual, 2005, p. 222.
[6] Gobierno de Chile, Plan de Reconstrucción Terremoto y Maremoto del 27 de febrero de 2010, 1–231.
[7] M.S. Islam, K. Iwashita, Earthquake resistance of adobe reinforced by low cost traditional materials, J. Nat. Disast. Sci. 32 (1) (2010) 1–21.
[8] S. Contreras Arancibia, M. Bahamondez Prieto, M. Hurtado SaldÃ-as, J.V. Neumann, N. Jorquera Silva, La arquitectura en tierra frente al sismo: conclusiones y
reflexiones tras el sismo en Chile del 27 de febrero de 2010 TT - Earthen architecture faces the earthquake: findings and reflections after the earthquake in
Chile on 27 February 2010, 2011, 16, 39—54.
[9] E. Gúzman, Curso Elemental de Edificación, 1980.
[10] NCh.3332, Norma Chilena NCh 3332. In INN, Instituto nacional de normalización, 2013.
[11] S. Mindess, G. Vondran, Properties of concrete reinforced with fibrillated polypropylene fibres under impact loading, Cem. Concr. Res. 18 (1) (1988) 109–115.
[12] Z. Bayasi, M. McIntyre, Application of fibrillated polypropylene fibers for restraint of plastic shrinkage cracking in silica fume concrete, Mater. J. 99 (4) (2002)
337–344.
[13] S.A. Ashour, F.F. Wafa, Flexural behavior of high-strength fiber reinforced concrete beams, Struct. J. 90 (3) (1993) 279–287.
[14] B.H. Oh, Flexural analysis of reinforced concrete beams containing steel fibers, J. Struct. Eng. 118 (10) (1992) 2821–2835.
[15] B.B. Sabir, S. Wild, J. Bai, Metakaolin and calcined clays as pozzolans for concrete: a review, Cem. Concr. Compos. 23 (6) (2001) 441–454.
[16] N. Quaranta, M. Caligaris, H. López, M. Unsen, H. Di Rienzo, Adición de aserrines de descarte en la producción de mampuestos cerámicos, in: Actas del Octavo
Congreso Internacional de Metalurgia y Materiales, 2008.
[17] M. Nili, H. Sasanipour, F. Aslani, The effect of fine and coarse recycled aggregates on fresh and mechanical properties of self-compacting concrete, Materials 12
(7) (2019) 1120.
[18] J. Xie, J. Zhao, J. Wang, C. Wang, P. Huang, C. Fang, Sulfate resistance of recycled aggregate concrete with GGBS and fly ash-based geopolymer, Materials 12
(8) (2019) 1247.
[19] W. Liu, W. Cao, J. Zhang, Q. Qiao, H. Ma, Seismic performance of composite shear walls constructed using recycled aggregate concrete and different
expandable polystyrene configurations, Materials 9 (3) (2016) 148.
[20] L. Zhu, J. Dai, G. Bai, F. Zhang, Study on thermal properties of recycled aggregate concrete and recycled concrete blocks, Constr. Build. Mater. 94 (2015)
620–628.
[21] I. Miličević, D. Bjegović, R. Siddique, Experimental research of concrete floor blocks with crushed bricks and tiles aggregate, Constr. Build. Mater. 94 (2015)
775–783.
[22] J.M. Pastor, L.D. García, S. Quintana, J. Peña, Glass reinforced concrete panels containing recycled tyres: Evaluation of the acoustic properties of for their use
as sound barriers, Constr. Build. Mater. 54 (2014) 541–549.
[23] A. Ergün, Effects of the usage of diatomite and waste marble powder as partial replacement of cement on the mechanical properties of concrete, Constr. Build.
Mater. 25 (2) (2011) 806–812.
[24] L.E. Yamín Lacouture, C. Phillips Bernal, J.C. Reyes Ortiz, D. Ruiz Valencia, Estudios de vulnerabilidad sísmica, rehabilitación y refuerzo de casas en adobe y
tapia pisada, Apuntes: Revista de estudios sobre patrimonio cultural-J. Cult. Heritage Stud. 20 (2) (2007) 286–303.
[25] J.C. Rivera Torres, El adobe y otros materiales de sistemas constructivos en tierra cruda: caracterización con fines estructurales, Apuntes: Revista de Estudios
sobre Patrimonio Cultural-J. Cult. Heritage Stud. 25 (2) (2012) 164–181.
[26] F.A. Webster, E. Tolles, Earthquake damage to historic and older adobe buildings during the 1994 Northridge, California Earthquake, in: Proceedings of the
12th world conference on earthquake engineering [CD ROM], Auckland, New Zealand, 2000, January.
[27] G. Ottazzi, J. Yep, M. Blondet, G. Villa-Garcia, J. Ginocchio, Ensayos de simulación sísmica de viviendas de adobe, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú,
1989.
[28] Z. Cao, H. Watanabe, Earthquake response prediction and retrofitting techniques of adobe structures, in: Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, 2004, August.
[29] E.L. Tolles, E.E. Kimbro, F.A. Webster, W.S. Ginell, Seismic stabilization of historic adobe structures: Final report of the Getty seismic adobe project, 2000.
[30] A. San Bartolomé, D. Quiun, D. Cabrera, W. Huaynate, I. Romero, J. Pereyra, Experimental study on adobe walls with long term water exposure due to floods,
in: Proceedings of the 12th Canadian Masonry Symposium, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, 2013, June.
[31] K.B. Adhikary, S. Pang, M.P. Staiger, Dimensional stability and mechanical behaviour of wood–plastic composites based on recycled and virgin high-density
polyethylene (HDPE), Compos. B Eng. 39 (5) (2008) 807–815.
[32] N. Dusunceli, O.U. Colak, High density polyethylene (HDPE): Experiments and modeling, Mech. Time-Depend. Materials 10 (4) (2006) 331–345.
[33] N. Dusunceli, O.U. Colak, The effects of manufacturing techniques on viscoelastic and viscoplastic behavior of high density polyethylene (HDPE), Mater. Des.
29 (6) (2008) 1117–1124.
[34] M. Tanniru, Q. Yuan, R.D.K. Misra, On significant retention of impact strength in clay–reinforced high-density polyethylene (HDPE) nanocomposites, Polymer
47 (6) (2006) 2133–2146.
[35] P. Sae-Oui, C. Sirisinha, P. Sa-nguanthammarong, P. Thaptong, Properties and recyclability of thermoplastic elastomer prepared from natural rubber powder
(NRP) and high density polyethylene (HDPE), Polym. Test. 29 (3) (2010) 346–351.
[36] M.N. Alghamdi, Effect of Filler Particle Size on the Recyclability of Fly Ash Filled HDPE Composites, Polymers 13 (16) (2021) 2836.
[37] I.L. Hosier, A.S. Vaughan, S.G. Swingler, An investigation of the potential of ethylene vinyl acetate/polyethylene blends for use in recyclable high voltage cable
insulation systems, J. Mater. Sci. 45 (10) (2010) 2747–2759.
[38] F. López-Almansa, D. Domínguez, A. Benavent-Climent, Vulnerability analysis of RC buildings with wide beams located in moderate seismicity regions, Eng.
Struct. 46 (2013) 687–702.
[39] D. Domínguez, F. López-Almansa, A. Benavent-Climent, Comportamiento, para el terremoto de Lorca de 11-05-2011, de edificios de vigas planas proyectados
sin tener en cuenta la acción sísmicaComportamiento, para el terremoto de Lorca de 11-05-2011, de edificios de vigas planas proyectados sin tener en cuenta la
acción sísmica, Inf. constr. 66 (533) (2014) e008.
[40] D. Domínguez, F. López-Almansa, A. Benavent-Climent, Would RC wide-beam buildings in Spain have survived Lorca earthquake (11-05-2011)? Eng. Struct.
108 (2016) 134–154.
[41] J.M. Franco, X. Cahís, L. Gracia, F. López, Experimental testing of a new anti-seismic dissipator energy device based on the plasticity of metals, Eng. Struct. 32
(9) (2010) 2672–2682.
[42] F. Hurtado, L.M. Bozzo, Numerical and experimental analysis of a shear-link energy dissipator for seismic protection of buildings, in: 14th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China, 2008, October, pp. 12-17.
[43] S.T. De la Cruz, F. López-Almansa, S. Oller, Numerical simulation of the seismic behavior of building structures equipped with friction energy dissipators,
Comput. Struct. 85 (1–2) (2007) 30–42.
[44] J. Kim, H. Choi, Behavior and design of structures with buckling-restrained braces, Eng. Struct. 26 (6) (2004) 693–706.

20
D. Dominguez-Santos and J. Alberto Moya Bravo Engineering Failure Analysis 139 (2022) 106461

[45] S. Sorace, G. Terenzi, Seismic protection of frame structures by fluid viscous damped braces, J. Struct. Eng. 134 (1) (2008) 45–55.
[46] A.A. Sarlis, D.T.R. Pasala, M.C. Constantinou, A.M. Reinhorn, S. Nagarajaiah, D.P. Taylor, Negative stiffness device for seismic protection of structures,
J. Struct. Eng. 139 (7) (2013) 1124–1133.
[47] A. Baratta, I. Corbi, Optimal design of base-isolators in multi-storey buildings, Comput. Struct. 82 (23–26) (2004) 2199–2209.
[48] O.E. Ozbulut, S. Hurlebaus, Optimal design of superelastic-friction base isolators for seismic protection of highway bridges against near-field earthquakes,
Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 40 (3) (2011) 273–291.
[49] O.E. Ozbulut, S. Hurlebaus, A comparative study on the seismic performance of superelastic-friction base isolators against near-field earthquakes, Earthq.
Spectra 28 (3) (2012) 1147–1163.
[50] A. Tena-Colunga, M.Á. Pérez-Osornio, Design displacements for base isolators considering bidirectional seismic effects, Earthq. Spectra 22 (3) (2006) 803–825.
[51] L. Su, G. Ahmadi, I.G. Tadjbakhsh, Comparative study of base isolation systems, J. Eng. Mech. 115 (9) (1989) 1976–1992.
[52] Norma E.080, NTE E.080 – Adobe. Ministerio de Vivienda, Construcción y Saneamiento (MVCS), Lima, 2006.
[53] Norma E.080, Diseño y construcción con tierra reforzada, Ministerio de Vivienda, Construcción y Saneamiento (MVCS), Lima, 2017.
[54] Nch1517, Mecánica de suelos - Límites de consistencia - Parte 1: Determinación del límite líquido. Instituto Nacional de Normalización. NCh1517/1:1979,
1979.
[55] ASTM D143 – 09, Standard Test Methods for Small Clear Specimens of Timber. USA Standard, 2009.
[56] K.S. Lokesh, Preparation and Tensile strength Evaluation of Synthetic fibers Sandwiched with Foam structures, Int. Res. J. Eng. Technol. (IRJET), e-ISSN, 2395-
0056, 2018.
[57] H.B. Poorsaheli, A. Behravan, S.T.T. Aghda, A. Gholami, A study on the durability parameters of concrete structures reinforced with synthetic fibers in high
chloride concentrated shorelines, Constr. Build. Mater. 200 (2019) 578–585.
[58] F. Pelisser, A.B.D.S.S. Neto, H.L. La Rovere, R.C. de Andrade Pinto, Effect of the addition of synthetic fibers to concrete thin slabs on plastic shrinkage cracking,
Constr. Build. Mater. 24 (11) (2010) 2171–2176.
[59] R. Morales, R. Torres, L. Rengifo, C. Irala, R. Morales, L. Rengifo, MANUAL PARA LA CONSTRUCCIÓN DE VIVIENDAS DE ADOBE, 1993.
[60] NTP.399.613, N, Normas NTP 399.613 Unidades de Albañilería. Métodos de muestreo y ensayo de ladrillos de arcilla usados en albañilería. Ministerio de
Vivienda, Construcción y Saneamiento (MVCS), Lima, 2(1) (2005) 1–22. https://doi.org/10.4067/s0718-915x2012000300002.
[61] UNE 41410 norma Española, 2008, www.aenor.es.
[62] SeismoSoft, “A Computer Program for Static and Dynamic Nonlinear Analysis of Frame Structure”, SeismoStruct, Pavia, Italy, 2013. https://www.seismosoft.
com.
[63] ACI Committee, Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318-08) and commentary. American Concrete Institute, 2008.
[64] B. Standard, Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures—. Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings, 230, 2004.
[65] C. T. de la Edificación, Ministerio de la Vivienda. Real Decreto, 314, 2006.
[66] P. Code, Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance-part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings, European Committee for
Standardization, Brussels, 2005.
[67] J.B. Mander, M.J. Priestley, R. Park, Theoretical stress-strain model for confined concrete, J. Struct. Eng. 114 (8) (1988) 1804–1826.
[68] M. Bosco, E. Ferrara, A. Ghersi, E.M. Marino, P.P. Rossi, Improvement of the model proposed by Menegotto and Pinto for steel, Eng. Struct. 124 (2016)
442–456.
[69] E. Spacone, F. Filippou, June). Flexibility-based frame models for nonlinear dynamic analysis, in: Proceedings of the 11th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, 1996, pp. 23–28.
[70] M.H. Scott, G.L. Fenves, Plastic hinge integration methods for force-based beam–column elements, J. Struct. Eng. 132 (2) (2006) 244–252.
[71] M.H. Scott, G.L. Fenves, F. McKenna, F.C. Filippou, Software patterns for nonlinear beam-column models, J. Struct. Eng. 134 (4) (2008) 562–571.
[72] P.E. Mergos, A.J. Kappos, Estimating fixed-end rotations of reinforced concrete members at yielding and ultimate, Struct. Concrete 16 (4) (2015) 537–545.
[73] F.J. Crisafulli, A.J. Carr, R. Park, Analytical modelling of infilled frame structures, Bull. New Zealand Soc. Earthq. Eng. 33 (1) (2000) 30–47.
[74] F.J. Crisafulli, Seismic behaviour of reinforced concrete structures with masonry infills, 1997.
[75] M.N. Priestley, G.M. Calvi, M.J. Kowalsky, Displacement-based seismic design of structures, IUSS press, 2007.
[76] F.J. Crisafulli, A.J. Carr, Proposed macro-model for the analysis of infilled frame structures, Bull, New Zealand Soc. Earthq. Eng. 40 (2) (2007) 69–77.
[77] B. Standard, Eurocode 6—Design of masonry structures—, British Standard Institution, London, 2005, p. 2005.
[78] E. Smyrou, C. Blandon, S. Antoniou, R. Pinho, F. Crisafulli, Implementation and verification of a masonry panel model for nonlinear dynamic analysis of
infilled RC frames, Bull Earthq. Eng. 9 (5) (2011) 1519–1534.
[79] T. Nicola, C. Leandro, C. Guido, S. Enrico, Masonry infilled frame structures: state-of-the-art review of numerical modelling, Earthq. Struct. 8 (1) (2015)
225–251. https://doi.org/10.12989/EAS.2015.8.1.225.
[80] V. Sarhosis, K. Tsavdaridis, I. Giannopoulos, Discrete element modelling (DEM) for masonry infilled steel frames with multiple window openings subjected
tolateral load variations, Open Constr, Build. Technol. J. 8 (2014) 93–103, https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-0231-9.
[81] A. Mohebkhah, A.A. Tasnimi, H.A. Moghadam, Nonlinear analysis of masonry-infilled steel frames with openings using discrete element method, J. Constr.
Steel Res. 64 (12) (2008) 1463–1472.
[82] E. Smyrou, C.A. Blandon, S. Antoniou, R. Pinho, H. Crowley, Implementation and verification of a masonry panel model for nonlinear pseudo-dynamic analysis
of infilled RC frames. In: Proceedings of the first European conference on earthquake engineering and seismology. Paper no. 355, Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.
[83] ACI Committee, Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318-05) and commentary (ACI 318R-05). American Concrete Institute, 2005.
[84] N.C. Oficial, Diseño sísmico de edificios. Instituto Nacional de Normalización INN-Chile. NCh433. Of2012, 2012.
[85] S. Antoniou, R. Pinho, Development and verification of a displacement-based adaptive pushover procedure, J. Earthq. Eng. 8 (05) (2004) 643–661.
[86] B. Ferracuti, R. Pinho, M. Savoia, R. Francia, Verification of displacement-based adaptive pushover through multi-ground motion incremental dynamic
analyses, Eng. Struct. 31 (8) (2009) 1789–1799.
[87] H. Crowley, B. Borzi, R. Pinho, M. Colombi, M. Onida, Comparison of Two Mechanics-Based Methods for Simplified Structural Analysis in Vulnerability
Assessment. Advances in civil Engineering, 2008.
[88] A.K. Chopra, Dynamics of structures theory and, 1995.
[89] B. FEMA, Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings, 2000.
[90] ASCE, Seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing buildings. American Society of Civil Engineers, 2014, May.
[91] R.K. Goel, A.K. Chopra, Evaluation of modal and FEMA pushover analyses: SAC buildings, Earthq. Spectra 20 (1) (2004) 225–254.
[92] R.A. Hakim, M.S. Alama, S.A. Ashour, Seismic assessment of RC building according to ATC 40, FEMA 356 and FEMA 440, Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 39 (11) (2014)
7691–7699.
[93] N.D. Lagaros, M. Fragiadakis, Evaluation of ASCE-41, ATC-40 and N2 static pushover methods based on optimally designed buildings, Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng.
31 (1) (2011) 77–90.
[94] M.A. Crisfield, Non-linear Finite Element Analysis of Solids and Structures, John Wiley & Sons, 1991.
[95] C.D. Comartin, R.W. Niewiarowski, S.A. Freeman, F.M. Turner, Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings: a practical overview of the ATC 40
Document, Earthq. Spectra 16 (1) (2000) 241–261.
[96] A. Benavent-Climent, Shaking table tests of reinforced concrete wide beam–column connections, Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 34 (15) (2005) 1833–1839.
[97] A. Benavent-Climent, Seismic behavior of RC wide beam-column connections under dynamic loading, J. Earthq. Eng. 11 (4) (2007) 493–511.
[98] A. Benavent-Climent, X. Cahís, J.M. Vico, Interior wide beam-column connections in existing RC frames subjected to lateral earthquake loading, Bull. Earthq.
Eng. 8 (2) (2010) 401–420.
[99] P. Fontana, L. Miccoli, U. Grünberg, Experimental investigations on the initial shear strength of masonry with earth mortars, Int. J. Masonry Res. Innov. 3(1)
(2018) 34–49.

21
D. Dominguez-Santos and J. Alberto Moya Bravo Engineering Failure Analysis 139 (2022) 106461

[100] C. Scuro, S. Tiberti, R. Codispoti, G. Milani, R.S. Olivito, Fictile tubules: A traditional Mediterranean construction technique for masonry vaulted systems,
Constr. Build. Mater. 193 (2018) 84–96.
[101] D. Dominguez (a), P. Muñoz Velasco (b) Impact of Lightweight fired clay bricks used as enclosures for individual houses of one story on zones of high
seismicity. VOL. 67 NO. 328 (2017 Materiales de construcción). https://doi.org/10.3989/mc.2017.03316.
[102] D. Domínguez, Rendimiento estructural de bloques de hormigón con agregados de madera para la construcción de edificios de mediana y gran altura, Informes
de la construcción. 73 (2021) 564, https://doi.org/10.3989/ic.81319.
[103] P. Muñoz, D. Dominguez, M.P. Morales, L. Muñoz, R. Sanchez-Vazquez, The effect of infill walls made by eco materials on mechanical response, energy
performance and co2 print of residential and non-residential low-rise buildings, Energy Build. 243 (15) (July 2021) 110996, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enbuild.2021.110996.
[104] D. Dominguez, F. Pallarés, P. Llanos, Seismic structural performance of concrete blocks with steel and aluminum alloy fiber aggregates for building
construction, Mech. Adv. Mater. Struct. (2021), https://doi.org/10.1080/15376494.2021.1988190.

22