Seismic performance, retrofitting and testing

of soil based buildings: A review

Presented by
K. S. Nanjunda Rao
Chief Research Scientist

Department of Civil Engineering

(also Associate Faculty at CST & CiSTUP)
Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, INDIA

International Symposium on Earthen Structures (ISES-2018)

22 to 24 August 2018
 Outline of the Presentation

1) Performance of earthen buildings during past earthquakes

2) Discuss various retrofitting techniques suggested in the literature.

3) Evaluation of dynamic performance of building models/components through

laboratory tests and numerical studies
Main Building of IISc, Bangalore, INDIA
The Indian Institute of Science (IISc, or just
‘The Institute’) was established in 1909 by a
visionary partnership between the
industrialist Jamsetji Nusserwanji Tata, the
Maharaja of Mysore, and the Government of
India. Over the 109 years since its
establishment, IISc has become the premier
institute for advanced scientific and
technological research and education in India.
Since its inception, the Institute has laid a
balanced emphasis on the pursuit of basic
knowledge in science and engineering, as well
as on the application of its research findings
for industrial and social benefit.

IISc is ranked number 1 by MHRD, Govt. of

India.
 Importance of this research

(a)

(b)

(a) Map of earthen constructions (b) Distribution of earthquake epicenter's around the Globe 5
Source: Structural rehabilitation of old buildings, Editors: Anibal Costa et al. (2014)
Some major earthquakes in regions where adobe
buildings are located (Source: USGS)
Year Region Fatalities Magnotude
2008 Eastern Sichuan, China 87,587 7.9
2005 Pakistan 86,000 7.6
2003 Southeastern Iran (Bam) 31,000 6.6
2001 Gujarat, India 20,085 7.6
1999 Turkey 17,118 7.6
1990 Western Iran 40,000 7.4
1978 Iran 15,000 7.8
1976 Tangshan, China 2,55,000 7.5
1976 Gautemala 23,000 7.5
1974 China 20,000 6.8
1948 Turkmeniya USSR 1,10,000 7.3
1939 Erzincan, Turkey 32,700 7.8
1935 Baluchistan, India 30,000 7.6
1934 Bihar, India-Nepal 10,700 8.1
1905 Kangra, India 19,000 7.5
 Breakdown of earthquake related fatalities
(Coburn and Spence, 2002)

1900 – 1949 Share of 795 000 fatalities 1950 – 1999 Share of 700 000 fatalities

 Nearly 75% of fatalities caused • Brittle mode of failure

by earthquakes were due to
collapse of buildings.
 70% of the buildings that
collapsed were masonry
structures.
• Lack of tensile strength
• Poor workmanship and quality
control
• Lack of earthquake resistant
features in masonry buildings
Seismic zone map
of India
(IS 1893 (Part 1) : 2016)

Zone PGA
II 0.1g
III 0.16g
IV 0.24g
V 0.36g
Performance of soil based buildings
during earthquakes
 Bam earthquake of 26 December 2003

Arg-e Bam (Bam Citadel)

o Arg-e Bam ( in Farsi arg means citadel ) is oldest and largest complex with mud
brick structures in the world and is a UNESCO World Heritage Site .
o Approximately 2000 years old and covers an area of 200,000 m2 .
o Has four main zones
Outer most zone has Residential/commercial/public spaces.
The second inner zone accommodates Stables.
The next inner zone has Barracks for high rank military personnel and
The inner most zone and at highest elevation is Governor’s Residence of five stories height.

o Two types of construction

Unfired adobe masonry known in farsi as “Khesht” and
Built up earth or Cob construction known in farsi as “Chineh”
o Details of the earthquake
Magnitude Mw = 6.6 (USGS)
Recorded ground acceleration:
In horizontal direction (1) Longitudinal (East-West) = 0.82g
(2) Transverse (North-South = 0.65g
In vertical direction = 1.01g. The vertical vibration frequency recorded at Bam = 15 to 20 Hz
Strong motion duration = 8 s
 Bam earthquake of 26 December 2003

General Plan view of Arg-e-Bam (Bam Citadel, Iran)

 Bam earthquake of 26 December 2003

Damage to Arg-e Bam (Bam Citadel)

General view

Entrance Gate

View before earthquake View after earthquake

 Bam earthquake of 26 December 2003 (contd.)
Damage to Arg-e Bam (Bam Citadel)
Before earthquake After earthquake

View of Stables courtyard

Before earthquake After earthquake

View of second gate

Bam earthquake of 26 December 2003 (contd.)
Performance of Adobe residential buildings
Typical modest Adobe
dwelling unit:
Consists of central main
room of size 8m × 4m with
four side rooms each of size
3m × 4m.
Roof
For main room: Cylindrical
Out-of-plane failure of end walls
vault
Side rooms: Semi-spherical
leading to collapse
dome

Aerial view showing Excellent performance of adobe

layout and roof variations houses with ring beams
of more complex houses.
 Several earthquakes in El Salvador
Source of seismicity: The Benioff-Wadati zones caused by subduction of Cocos plate which is
converging with the Caribbean plate at an estimated rate of 7cm/year.

List of some past earthquakes: 1) 8 June 1917 (Ms =6.7), 2) 28 April 1919 (Ms =5.9)
3) 3 May 1965 (Ms =5.9), 4) 10 October 1986 (Ms =5.4)
5) 13 February 2001 (Mw =6.6)

Construction practices for dwelling units: Adobe, Bahareque, Reinforced brick masonry
(mixto),Wood frames covered with thin metal sheets and wood frames covered with palm
fronds (ranchos)

Bahareque consists of timber vertical elements anchored to the ground with horizontal
timber/cane/bamboo elements forming a mesh infilled with mud and small stone pieces and
plastered with soil. Its seismic resistance depends primarily on condition of timber and cane
elements. Haslow vulnerability when maintained well.

Traditional rural
Bahareque housing
in El Salvador. No
outer render has
been applied
(It is known as
wattle-daub in UK)
 Several earthquakes in El Salvador (Contd.)
Performance of Bahareque dwellings

Damage due to deterioration of

Damage is limited to peel-off
timber due to climatic effects or
of plaster or external soil
attack by insects and termites
rendering .
 Performance of masonry buildings during past earthquakes

 Earthquake of September 30, 1993 (3.56 hours) Latur, Maharashtra, India,

Magnitude 6.4 on RIchter scale, 3 aftershocks on the same day. Epicentre near Killari, Latur
district . Extensive damage to life and property.
Statistics: 7,928 people killed, 16,000 people injured, 15,854 livestock killed. 52 villages raised
to ground, 30,000 houses collapsed, 2,11,000 houses in 13 districts suffered damages of varying
degree.
 Earthquake of January 26, 2001 (8.46 hours), Bhuj, Gujarat, India
Moment magnitude was 7.7 (6.9 on the Richter scale), Epicentre near village of Chobari in
Bhachau Taluka of Kutch District. Extensive damage to life and property.
Statistics: 13,805 deaths,  6.3 million people affected, losses 5 billion US$, Number of buildings
destroyed ~ 300,000, Number of buildings damaged ~ 700,000,
 Earthquake of October 8, 2005 (8.50 hours), North Kashmir, J & K, India,
Afghanistan and Pakistan
Moment magnitude 7.6 , Epicenter 19 km northeast from the major neighboring town of
Muzaffarabad, which is 170 km west-northwest of Srinagar.
Statistics: ~ 75,000 deaths in Pakistan and India,  4 million people affected, losses US$ 5 billion,
Number of housing units destroyed ~ 200,000, Number of buildings damaged ~ 200,000,
 Earthquake of April 25, 2015 (11.56 hours), Gorkha, Kathmandu Valley, Nepal.
 Earthquake of August 17, 1999 (03.01 hours), Kocaeli & Duzce or Marmara,
October 23, 2011 (13.41 hours), Van and July 21 (01.31 hours), 2017, Turkey.
It is always useful to study the behaviour of masonry buildings after an
earthquake as it gives an insight into the performance of various kinds of
masonry materials used and earthquake resistant features adopted in the
buildings.

Following slides shows photographs of failure patterns of masonry buildings

in Latur and Bhuj earthquakes of 1993 and 2001 respectively

Plate 1: Out-of plane collapse of wall of a Plate 2: Timber post supported wall of a shop
school building (Sastur) building intact after earthquake (Sastur)
Latur earthquake of September 30, 1993
 Bhuj earthquake of January 26, 2001

Out-of-plane collapse of sandstone in House with lintel band and columns

lime mortar masonry wall (MORBI) (SAMAKHYALI)

Wall flexure – RC roof

stone-in-CM (Lodhrani)

Out-of-plane failure of wall leading to

collapse of lintel band (BHUJ) Corner failure in presence of Collapse of walls between
corner reinforcement (BHUJ) openings (KHAVDA)
 North Kashmir earthquake of October 8, 2005

Out-of-plane collapse of stone masonry walls

Buildings with mixed construction involving dhajji-dewari / Taq and dressed/undressed stone masonry
and brick masonry have shown superior performance with no or very little damage.
Source:PRELIMINARY REPORT ON THE 2005 NORTH KASHMIR EARTHQUAKE OF OCTOBER 8, 2005
Durgesh C Rai and C V R Murty, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur, India
 Nepal Earthquake April 25, 2015

Out-of –plane failure of Masonry wall at

Collapse of three-storey unreinforced Nikosera in Bhaktapur
masonry building at Nikosera in Bhaktapur

Collapse of a URM building due to poor

Combined in-plane and out-of –plane failure connection of the wall with the floor slab and
of Masonry wall at Nikosera in Bhaktapur cross- wall at Nikosera in Bhaktapur
Source: Reconnaissance of the effects of the M7.8 Gorkha (Nepal) earthquake of April 25, 2015,
Durgesh C. Rai, Vaibhav Singhal, Bhushan Raj S. & S. Lalit Sagar; Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk,
Taylor & Francis
 Typical shear cracks (X-cracks) in window piers of brick
masonry building (Budva, Montenegro, 1979)
Separation of walls at corner
(Posocje, Slovenia, 1976)

Typical X-cracks in adobe walls due to in-plane seismic action

Timber-laced traditional construction in different parts of the world

Timber laced masonry construction

practice in Turkey called “HIMIS”

View of five storey building constructed with traditional Taq technique (left)
and four storey building constructed with Dhajji –dewari technique (right) in the
Srinagar (India) city center (Photo taken in 2005)
 Traditional rural Bahareque housing in El
Salvador. No outer render has been applied
(It is known as wattle-daub in UK)

Typical Taq construction in Srinagar city

Some observations
 Staggering of windows
 Division of masonry into piers &
spandrel panels
 Presence of Horizontal timber
members Taquezal house in Leon, Nicaragua
A XV century timber frame house in York, England
(credits: E. Poletti).

The beautiful 15th century St. Anthony of Padua

House in Rye, East Sussex
Four and five story residential buildings in the India (Kashmir city of Baramulla) showing
how the unreinforced masonry collapsed, leaving the dhajji dewari bridging over the gap,
while a tall rubble stone building reinforced with taq timber ring beams survived the 2005
earthquake undamaged (Credits: Randolph Langenbach).
Deformation and typical damages suffered by a
simple masonry building subjected earthquake
ground motion
Seismic force
Retrofitting of buildings
 Adobe dwellings
Provision of
(1) Bamboo rods in both vertical (within grooves of masonry unit) and horizontal directions
(Fig. A)
(2) Corner and intermediate buttresses (Fig. B)
(3) Buttresses at corners can be substituted by R.C. columns (Fig. D). For scheme shown in
Fig. C horizontal steel bars have to be provided at 50 cm interval to grip the wall.

(A)

(A)

(C) (D)

(B)
Joint research of Getty Conservation Institute and Catholic
University of Peru (PUCP)
(1) Use of natural materials as reinforcement

Place the vertical canes on both faces of the wall and tie them horizontally with
cabuya rope to form a structural grid. The joints of grid are connected through
the wall with yute thread. One side of the building is plastered
 Joint research of Getty Conservation Institute and Catholic University of Peru
(PUCP)
(2) Use of Polymer Geogrid as reinforcement

• Geogrids are placed on both faces of the wall and stretched specially at the
corners.
• The meshes on the opposite faces of the wall are tied through the wall using
 (3) Use of Polypropylene

(PP) Band.

(4) Use of used car tyre

straps
Joint research Project GTZ, Germany, CERESIS, Peru and Catholic University of
Peru (PUCP)
(5) Use of welded wire mesh

It is reported that these adobe buildings did not suffer any damage in the 23
June 2001 earthquake (Mw =8.4)
 Evaluation of dynamic performance of building
models/components through laboratory tests and
numerical studies
1) The John A Blume Earthquake Engineering Centre, Stanford University – Tolles E L and
Krawinkler H

2) Catholic University of Peru (PUCP) – Marcial Blondet, Daniel Torrealva and group

3) Indian Institute of Science – K S Jagdish, K S Nanjunda Rao and group

4) University of Savoie, Chambery – Bui Q B and group

5) Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur – Durgesh Rai and group

6) Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee – S K Thakkar, Pankaj Agarwal, Yogendra Singh and
group

7) Sharif University of Technology, Teheran, Iran – Ali Bakhshi and group

 Shake table tests on dome roof adobe houses conducted at
Sharif University of Technology, Teheran, Iran – Ali Bakhshi and
group

Unretrofitted building model

Adopted Zarand earthquake (2005) input ground motion at 25, 100, 125, 150 and 175% of
design level excitation
 View of observed damage in the
form of shear cracks

Retrofitted building model

Ref: Ali Bakhshi, M Ghannad, M. Yekrangnia and H Masaeli (2017), Shaking table tests on dome-
roof adobe houses, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, Vol. 46, pp. 467-490
Different ways of reinforcing masonry
Earthquake Resistant Design Concepts for Masonry Buildings
BIS CODAL PROVISIONS (IS: 4326- Combined action of vertical &
1993) out-of-plane lateral load
HORIZONTAL RC BANDS AT LINTEL
AND ROOF LEVELS

VERTICAL STEEL AT CORNERS,

JUNCTIONS AND DOOR & WINDOW
JAMBS

Typical modes of failure of masonry wall

under vertical & in-plane lateral load

Reinforcement
near
the surface on
both faces

Link connecting
Reinforcement the vertical
at centre reinforcement

Containment reinforcement as an Earthquake resistant feature

Behavior of steel/FRP reinforcement under uniaxial tension

GFRP of grade CFRP of grade

Type of High yield
reinforcement Torkari 360 kg/m2 200 kg/m2
------------------------- GI wire strength
steel (Rao and (Rao and
property steel
Pavan,2014) Pavan,2014)

Tensile strength
380 580 600 176 232
(MPa)
Modulus of elasticity
210 220 210 11.62 25.10
(GPa)

Ultimate strain 0.051 0.011 0.055 0.0070 0.0083

0.2 % yield stress

330 570 520 NA NA
(MPa)
 Earthquake Resistant Design Concepts for Masonry Buildings

Masonry building with horizontal bands and

‘Containment reinforcement’

Single side Double side Block

grooved grooved without
block block groove Corner ‘Containment reinforcement’
 Reinforced masonry for improving seismic behavior

The primary objective of reinforcing masonry was to prevent catastrophic collapse of

masonry buildings during earthquakes by controlling the rocking of masonry panels and

avoiding overturning to ensure gravity load bearing capacity.

Scope of the investigations

• Reverse cyclic flexural tests to examine

hysteretic behavior of containment reinforced
masonry beams
• Comparison with flexure behavior of FRP
reinforced masonry beams
• Shear behavior of containment reinforced
/FRP reinforced masonry panels
• Shaking table tests on containment reinforced
building model with sill and lintel bands
• Demonstrate effectiveness of containment
reinforcement in low rise symmetric and
asymmetric buildings through nonlinear FE
analysis 44
Flexure behavior of reinforced masonry: monotonic and cyclic test
 Cross-section of reinforced masonry beams

English bond Rat-trap bond

containment reinforced reinforced beams
beams (Rtb)
(Eb-1, Eb-2, Eb-3)

Est
Afrp  Ast
E frp
Stretcher bond containment
reinforced beams (Sb) English bond FRP
reinforced beams (Eb-4
and Eb-5)
 47
Details of masonry beams
Cross section Reinforcement details
Effect-
Beam Width Total
Descript- ive Percentage of
Desig- depth Diameter Number of
ion depth Type balance steel
nation (mm) bars
(%)
(mm) (mm)
(mm)
Sb Stretcher 350 110 97 GI wire 4 2 11.39 (220)#

Eb1 English 350 230 217 GI wire 4 2 2.60 (966)

Eb2 English 350 230 222 Torkari steel 5.35 2 9.00 (499)

Eb3 English 350 230 225 HYSD steel 10 2 27.87 (563)

Eb44  English 350 230 230 GFRP-360 350X0.68 2 (Layers) NA

Eb5 English 350 230 230 CFRP-200 300X0.61 1 (Layer) NA

Rtb Rat-trap 390 230 115 GI 4.25 4 28.75 (174)

#
values in () is area of balance steel in mm 2
Construction of masonry beams
 49
Monotonic four point bending test set up
Video clip of GI reinforced masonry beam under monotonic flexure

50
Video clip of FRP reinforced masonry beam under monotonic flexure

51
 52
Failure pattern of masonry beams under four point bending test

Sb Rtb

Eb-1 Eb-5

Eb-3
 53
Failure of reinforcement under four point bending test
 54
Reverse cyclic three point bending test set up
 55
Displacement patterns for static and dynamic tests

Monotonic Sinusoidal Sinusoidal cyclic Earthquake

(Tomazevic et al., 1996)

Sb
 56
Load-displacement hysteretic behavior

Sb Eb-2

Rtb Eb-5
 57
Equivalent viscous damping and stiffness degradation

Priestley et al., 2007

eq  e   h
Ah
h 
2 Fm Dm
 58
Equivalent damping and stiffness degradation

Secant stiffness/initial stiffness (%)

Equivalent damping (%)

Normalized displacement (%) Normalized displacement (%)

Video clip of FRP reinforced masonry beam under reversed cyclic flexure

59
 60

Behavior of the masonry under in-plane shear

 61
Diagonal tension (shear) test specimens
62
 63
Details of specimens and test protocol

Number of
Designation Description Reinforcement details Test type
specimens
Monotonic
SU Unreinforced masonry panel No reinforcement 3
loading

Masonry panel reinforced Monotonic

SG1 two bars of 4 mm diameter 3
with GI wire loading

Masonry panel reinforced Cyclic

SG2 two bars of 4 mm diameter 3
with GI wire loading

two strips, each with three layers of GFRP

(360 g/m2), Thickness of each layer: 0.68
Masonry panel reinforced Monotonic
SGF mm, widths of first, second, third layer of 3
with GFRP loading
a strip are 150 mm, 150 mm and 50 mm
respectively

Two strips of CFRP (200 g/m2), Thickness

Masonry panel reinforced Monotonic
SCF of each layer: 0.61 mm, widths of each 3
with CFRP loading
strip is 150 mm
 64
Sensor arrangement for diagonal tension (shear) test
 65
State of stress under diagonal tension (shear) test

State of stress as per

ASTM E519 (2010)
  h  v

Pu
  0.707
A

(h  w)t
A
2
tate of stress as per linear
FE analysis
Chiostrini et.al, 2000
 66
Shear behavior of containment reinforced masonry (cyclic loading)
 67
Crack pattern under diagonal tension (shear) test
Unreinforced masonry panel Containment reinforced masonry panel

Debonding
of FRP

FRP reinforced
masonry panel
 68
Behavior of unreinforced masonry panel

SU SG-1

SGF SCF
 69
Behavior of masonry panel under diagonal tension (shear) test

Designation of masonry
SU SG1 SGF SCF
panel
0.9
0.75 1.2
Diagonal tension (shear)
0.7 (1.1 times τs (1.7 times τs of
strength (τs) in Mpa (1.3
of SU) SU)
times τs of SU)
Shear modulus (Mpa) 2160 2410 3420 3600
0.000424
0.003
0.0037
Area under shear stress-
(14
strain curve Ass 0.00027
(1.6 times Ass for
(Mpa) (11.3 times Ass
times Ass for SU)
for SU)
SU)
405 422 856
Area under load-
(2.7
displacement curve Ald 152
 70

S e c a n t s tiffn e s s /in itia l s tiffn e s s (% ) E q u iv a le n t h y s te r e tic d a m p in g

Displacement pattern: cyclic test protocol and hysteretic behavior

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 25 50 75 100
Normalized displacement (%)

100

80

60

40

20

0
0 25 50 75 100
Normalized displacement (%)
Shock Table Test Facility

71
 A Note on the Historical development of Base Shaking
Apparatus to imitate Earthquakes
Source
1. Rogers F J (1906)
“Experiments with a Shaking Machine”,
Bull Seis Soc of America, Vol. 20, 1930,
pp.147-159.

2. Severn R T (2011)
“The Development of Shaking
Tables – A Historical Note”,
Earthquake Engg. and Struc. Dyn.,
Vol. 40, pp.193 -213.

The Milne-Omori railway truck shaking table (1890s)

in Japan

The shaking table designed and developed by Rogers F J

at Stanford University in 1906
Railway wagon shock table test facility at IIT Roorkee, INDIA
(Developed by Keightly in 1977)

Schematic view of the facility

Photographs of the facility

Schematic view of shock table test facility at IISc
 Base motion parameters
Amplitude
parameters
PA  max(| acceleration |)

Ground motion Mixed

Duration
parameters parameters PV  max(| velocity |)
parameters
(Kramer, 1996)
SD  t95% AI  t5% AI
Frequency

parameters 
AI  
2
[ a ( t )] dt
2g 0
A single parameter cannot characterize an earthquake ground
2.5
motion due to its complexity (Joyner and Boore, 1988) HI   PSV (  0.05, T )dT
0.1
Parameters considered in the present study 0.5
ASI  S
0.1
a (  0.05, T )dT
Peak acceleration (PA), Peak velocity (PV), Arias intensity
(AI), Significant duration (SD), Housner intensity (HI),
Acceleration spectrum intensity (ASI) 75
 Behavior of reinforced masonry building models
subjected to base excitation
Through shock table
Base Excitation
Through shake table

Pendulum
(1.8m length & 600kg mass)
Max, swing angle 40 deg

Reaction Beam

Table
(Pay load 5000kg)
Fund. Freq. 90Hz
76
 Pendulum
(1.8m length & 600kg mass
Max. swing 400)

Three springs in parallel

Modified shock table with three springs on the reaction beam side with effective K= 575kN/m 77
 Effect of spring stiffness
Base motion parameter
Spring
Angle of PV
stiffness SD
release PA AI HI ASI Improvement in SD but
(s) PA is higher than
(degree) (m/s2) (m/s) (m) (m/s)
(kN/m) earthquakes
(m/s)
225 15 27.66 0.27 0.12 1.31 0.44 2.73
1000 15 27.33 0.27 1.35 1.42 0.40 3.28
W-R-W
6000 15 25.23 0.24 1.75 1.82 0.33 2.82
Contact material

S-R-S
 Earthquake ground motions

N.E. India N.E. India The Chi-Chi Bhuj

earthquake earthquake earthquake earthquake
Aug 1988 Jan 1990 Sep 1999 Jan 2001
(210 km) (259 km) (77.50 km) (239 km)

Chamboli Uttarkashi N.E. India The Imperial The Kobe The Loma Far-field
earthquake earthquake earthquake valley earthquake Prieta
March 1999 Oct 1991 May 1997 earthquake Jan 1995 Earthquake
(17 km) (21km) (41 km) Oct 1979 (24km) Oct 1989 Near-field
(30 km) (31km)
 Impact hammer test: natural frequency and damping
Circle fit method Hammer impact was given close to location A2; FRF
(He and Fu, 2001) at locations A4, A6 and A8

Nyquist plot
Location A8

 
Fundamental natural frequency: 18.53 Hz and Average
damping of fundamental mode: 5.26 % 80
Behavior of reinforced masonry building models subjected to base excitation

Shock table testing

Failure pattern on cross wall Failure pattern on shear wall 81

Failure pattern of building model without
Containment reinforcement and RC band
at sill level

Construction of the building model in progress

82
Behavior of reinforced masonry building models subjected to base excitation

Shake table testing

Failure pattern on cross wall

Failure pattern on shear wall 83

Video clip of shock table testing of masonry building models
 85
Spectral compatible Chamboli earthquake record

Zone II Zone III

Zone IV Zone V
Two storied symmetric masonry buildings
URB-S: Without sill and
lintel band
URLSB-S: With sill and
lintel band
RLSB-S: With sill and
lintel band and
containment reinf.

86
 Two storied asymmetric masonry buildings

URLSB-AS: With sill and

lintel band
1310 mm RLSB-AS: With sill and
lintel band and
containment reinf.
2510 mm

1310 mm

2600 mm

87
Damage under Zone-V compatible time history

88
Damage under Zone-V compatible time history

89
 90
Inter-storey drift ratios
Percent inter storey drift ratio
Limiting percent drift ratios by
under spectrum compatible base
Type of FEMA 356 (2000)
motion (%)
masonry Storey
building Performance Limiting percent
Zone II Zone III Zone IV Zone V
level drift (%)

First storey 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.29 Unreinforced: 0.1

URB-S Immediate
Second storey 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.25
occupancy
First storey 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.21 Reinforced: 2.0
URLSB-S
Second storey 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.21 Unreinforced: 0.3
First storey 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.08 Life safety
RLSB-S
Second storey 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.07 Reinforced: 3.0
First storey 0.07 0.37 0.85 1.17 Unreinforced: 0.4
URLSB-AS
Second storey 0.01 0.04 0.13 0.28 Collapse
First storey 0.06 0.29 0.68 0.77 prevention
RLSB-AS
Second storey 0.01 0.03 0.15 0.19 Reinforced: 5.0
Confined Masonry Construction

91
 References
1) Blondet M, Gladys V G M, Svetlana B and Alvaro R, (2011), Earthquake resistant construction
of adobe buildings: A tutorial, EERI.
2) Randolph Langenbach (2005), Performance of earthen Arg-e-Bam (Bam Citadel) during the
2003 Bam, Iran, earthquake, Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 21, S1, pp S345-S374.
3) M R Maheri and F Naeim (2005), Performance of adobe residential buildings in the 2003
Bam, Iran, Earthquake, Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 21, S1, pp S337-S344.
4) Gernot Minke (2001), Construction manual for earthquake-resistant houses built of earth,
51pp, GATE-BASIN, Germany.
5) Daniel Torrealva and Jose Acero, Reinforcing adobe buildings with exterior compatible mesh:
The final solution against the seismic vulnerability, International Seminar on Architecture,
Construction and Conservation of Earthen Buildingsin Seismic areas, 16-19 May 2005, Lima,
Peru, South America, 28pp
6) M Lopez, J Bommer and P Mendez, (2004), The seismic performance of Bahareque dwellings
in El Salvador, 13WCEE, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
7) Sathiparan Navaratnarajah (2015), Mesh type seismic retrofitting for masonry structures:
critical issues and possible strategies, European Journal of Environmental and Civil
Engineering.
8) Joshi Amrut Anant (2015), Static and dynamic behaviour of reinforced masonry:
Experimental and Analytical investigations, Ph D thesis, Department of Civil Engineering,
Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India.
9) Nanjunda Rao K. S, Anitha M & Reddy B V V (2015), Dynamic behavior of scaled cement
92
stabilized rammed earth building models, ICREC, Perth, Western Australia
 Nature never
excuses lapses
…. Sir M.V.

Thank you
Houses built for farmers in Germany (formerly East Germany) post world war (1947)
Timber laced earth block buildings
Surviving hımıs ， house next to a row of collapsed reinforced concrete
buildings, Adapazari, Turkey, 1999 (photograph © Randolph Langenbach)

Taquezal house in Leon, Nicaragua

Stress – strain response of plain adobe and adobe reinforced
with natural fibers (coconut and sisal)