Australian Journal of Structural Engineering

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsen20

Damage limitation and structural behaviour factor

for masonry structures

Ajay Chourasia, Shubham Singhal & Pradeep Bhargava

To cite this article: Ajay Chourasia, Shubham Singhal & Pradeep Bhargava (2021) Damage
limitation and structural behaviour factor for masonry structures, Australian Journal of Structural
Engineering, 22:1, 19-28, DOI: 10.1080/13287982.2021.1872978

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13287982.2021.1872978

Published online: 14 Jan 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 47

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tsen20
AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
2021, VOL. 22, NO. 1, 19–28
https://doi.org/10.1080/13287982.2021.1872978

ARTICLE

Damage limitation and structural behaviour factor for masonry structures

a a
Ajay Chourasia , Shubham Singhal and Pradeep Bhargavab
a
Structural Engineering Division, CSIR-Central Building Research Institute, Roorkee, India; bDepartment of Civil Engineering, Indian
Institute of Technology, Roorkee, India

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Different codes provide a range of values for structural behaviour factor for various masonry Received 1 June 2020
building systems. High variation in structural behaviour factors in different codes arises mainly Accepted 4 January 2021
due to the lack of information from experimental studies. Thus, the present paper highlights KEYWORDS
investigation of behaviour of different masonry construction systems through full-scale tests Structural Behaviour factor;
on masonry buildings subjected to cyclic displacement. Six tests, out of which three on virgin damage limitation; confined
masonry building systems, employing unreinforced masonry (URM), reinforced masonry (RM) masonry; reinforced
and confined masonry (CM) having similar geometrical, material, constructional features and masonry; unreinforced
test procedures were conducted. The remaining three building models tested included masonry
repaired unreinforced masonry (URM-REP), retrofitted unreinforced masonry (URM-RET) and
retrofitted reinforced masonry (RM-RET). Observations and data from the experiments have
been co-related between damage index, grade of damage and displacement capacity, thereby
estimation of structural behaviour factor for different masonry building typologies. The analysis
shows that the ranges of structural behaviour factor mentioned in codes are adequate for URM
and RM, while the same for CM is conservative, which can be relaxed. Also, it has been noticed
that there is a substantial increase in structural behaviour factor for repaired and retrofitted
masonry structures, thus proving the structural adequacy of retrofitting measures.

1. Introduction response spectrum is divided by structural behaviour

Majority of low-to-medium rise dwelling units in
developing countries are masonry buildings. As per
2011 Census of India, there were 304 million houses
of which around 85% is masonry buildings. Most of
such constructions are unreinforced masonry lacking
the seismic requirements or reference to any seismic
design code. The brittle behaviour of masonry due to
low tensile strength, lower energy dissipation capa­
city and high mass, limit the adoption of unrein­
forced masonry buildings (URM) in the high
seismic region of Europe, while no such restrictions
exist for reinforced masonry buildings (RM) and
confined masonry buildings (CM). The Indian code,
IS 4326 (2013), refers to seismic provisions for URM,
RM and is silent on CM construction, although this
typology is also becoming popular in the country
(Chourasia, Parashar, and Singhal 2019). In all the
cases it is essential to experimentally verify seismic
resistance of masonry construction vis-à-vis design
forces of the structure. The capacity of seismic resis­
tance in the non-linear range is simplified to the
linear range with a factor of seismic forces smaller
than pure linear elastic response. The evaluation of
the behaviour factor considers that the structure shall
dissipate energy and deform in the non-linear range.
To avoid explicit inelastic structural analysis in
design, generally, a linear elastic analysis based on
factor (q). These factors are based on the considera­
tion that a substantial amount of ductility is offered
by the structural system. Although the range of q-fac­
tor mentioned in various codes for different masonry
system is available, however, there are only a few
experimental verifications that have been attempted.
European Committee for Standardization (2004) and
EC 6 (2005) mention range of q-factor for different
masonry as 1.5–2.5; 2.0–3.0; and 2.5–3.0 correspond­
ing to URM, CM and RM masonry. The Indian code
(IS-1893Part-1, 2002) provides the corresponding
factor as ‘response reduction factor (R)’ for URM
and RM as 1.5 and 2.5 respectively, only. Contrary,
Tomaževič and Weiss (1994), 1996, 1997a, 1997b,
1997c, 2004, 2005, 2007) had carried out the investi­
gation of q factor of a 1:5 scaled masonry structure
through a simple uni-directional shaking table and
assessed q = 2.84, 2.69 and 3.74 for URM, CM and
RM buildings respectively. Benedetti, Carydis, and
Pezzoli (1998) had assessed q-factor on a 1:1 URM
and retrofitted structure as 1.4 and 2.0 respectively.
Also, da Porto, Grendene, and Modena (2009) had
attempted the assessment of structural behaviour
factor on masonry walls subjected to lateral cyclic
loads. Other relevant studies on seismic behaviour
of masonry buildings include that of Kumazawa
and Ohkubo (2000), Meli (1973 June), Yoshimura

CONTACT Ajay Chourasia ajayc@cbri.res.in

© 2021 Engineers Australia
20 A. CHOURASIA ET AL.
et al. (1996), Yoshimura et al. (2003), Marinilli and
Castilla (2004), Yáñez et al. (2004) and Zabala et al.
(2004). The results obtained through these tests are
beyond the elastic limit and close to near collapse
state for simple masonry buildings. Such tests are
essential to assess the range of behaviour factor of
masonry system, which cannot be correctly estimated
only through ductility tests on structural walls.
Although the small-scale test on masonry model ade­
quately simulates global behaviour and mechanism of
the building, however, results in upper bound values
of q-factor. Also, there is a wide difference in q-fac­
tors assessed across the world. Moreover, no attempt
has been made for comparing experimentally deter­
mination of structural behaviour factor of indigen­
ously built masonry buildings. The database of
q-factor thus generated can be used to define the
realistic q-factors for estimation of design forces
hence there is a need to investigate.
Under a research programme, three full-scale tests
on masonry systems viz. URM, RM and CM, subjected
to uni-directional low cyclic lateral displacements with
increasing amplitudes were conducted at CSIR-CBRI,
Roorkee. The full-scale tests on different masonry
buildings having common asymmetric features such
as walls with door and windows openings, walls without
openings, prevailing construction practices etc. were
performed for a realistic estimation of different para­
meters. All the tested masonry structures have similar
geometrical, material and experimental procedure. In
addition the other three models include repaired/retro­
fitted buildings of URM and RM type. The specimens
represent typical Indian masonry construction of
3 × 3 m in plan with a height of 3 m using burnt solid
clay units having size 220 × 110 x 70 mm with 1:6
cement-sand mortar with 220 mm wall thickness. The
specimens were designed as per EC-8 (2004) and IS-
4326 (1993) and constructed in accordance with the
prevailing construction practice of India. The construc­
tion features of different specimens are illustrated in
Table 1, while Figure 1 illustrates the retrofit and rein­
forcement details of different buildings.
This paper discusses the procedure of assessment of
structural behaviour factor for different masonry con­
structions, both virgin and their repair/retrofitted
building specimen, along with damage limitation cri­
terion correlated with storey drift. It is expected that
the outcomes would contribute to enhancing the fra­
mework of structural behaviour factor for masonry
systems leading to the development of efficient design
features.
2. Test set-up, instrumentation and loading
protocol
Full-scale masonry buildings were erected on the RC
beam, which was founded on the strong floor of the
lab, and fixed through steel buttresses and channel
sections. The buildings were subjected to displace­
ment controlled reversed cyclic quasi-static lateral
load at the top level through a 50 ton loading actua­
tor with a stroke of 75 mm in the push and pull
directions. The load through actuator was distributed
through roller ball bearings fixed with grillage
mechanism and distributed to eight points at the
roof level. This simulated a fixed boundary condition
as a rigid diaphragm. Figure 2 portrays the con­
structed full-scale masonry buildings tested under
lateral load at the top level. Linear variable displace­
ment transducers (LVDTs), having 0.01 mm sensi­
tivity were located at critical points to capture the
deformations. Four LVDTs were fixed on the out-of-
plane loading wall to record lateral deformation
along with the height and two LVDTs were fixed on
the opposite wall at the top position. Two LVDTs
were fixed on the wall parallel to the direction of
loading to record out-of-plane deformations (if
any). Displacements occurring during the test were
recorded in a data acquisition system connected to
the LVDTs. The cyclic displacement was applied at
equal intervals in accordance with ASTM 2009 2126.
The frequency was defined as 0.004 Hz to simulate
time history displacement. The experiment was ter­
minated at the attainment of failure state just prior to
the collapse state so that the test set-up and instru­
ments are prevented from the damage. Figure 3 por­
trays the test set-up, loading arrangement and
instrumentation for the tested buildings.
3. Damage pattern
The URM building exhibited a linear behaviour with
brittle damage. Excessive diagonal and flexural hori­
zontal cracks were observed in initial displacement
cycles in URM building. URM-REP building demon­
strated similar damage pattern as its original counter­
part (URM), with marginal enhancement in
displacement, owing to the stitching of cracks using.
However, repair using stitch technique was not effica­
cious in load enhancement. Contrary, URM-RET
building exhibited superior performance with regards
to damage and lateral load-carrying capacity. MS lintel
band restricted the cracks in spandrel masonry above
lintel level, and vertical reinforcement in masonry lead
to pier action at the corners, which eliminated cracks
in the masonry.
RM building suffered diagonal cracking in step
pattern at the masonry unit-mortar interface. These
cracks were mainly observed near the opening corners
of both out-of-plane and in-plane and wall. Whereas
walls without opening demonstrated horizontal
cracks. These cracks extended at higher displacement
levels, but restricted up to lintel band. Vertical rein­
forcement and lintel band in RM and RM-RET
 AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING 21

Table 1. Description of tested different masonry buildings.

Building
nomenclature Building type Material Structural details
URM Unreinforced Burnt solid clay units in 1:6 cement and sand 220 mm thick burnt solid clay brick masonry walls with window
Masonry mortar, RC slab with M20 grade concrete. and door openings, 100 mm thick RC slab. No seismic
resilience characteristics.
URM-REP Unreinforced URM + stitching along the cracks with M20 grade URM + the damaged URM building model repaired by 100 mm
Masonry concrete and 8 mm dia, Fe415 steel rebar. wide, 250 mm high and 220 mm thick reinforced concrete
(Repaired) stitching along the crack at a spacing of 300 mm c/c along
with cement grout in cracks.
URM-RET Unreinforced URM + steel reinforcement (Fe415). URM + one no. of Fe415 10 mm dia vertical reinforcement
Masonry embedded in masonry wall at the corners and welded with
(Retrofitted) the foundation beam and slab reinforcement. Stitching
length extended till 400 mm. MS flat of 75 × 4 mm
dimensions on both the faces at the lintel level, connected
with steel bolts of 10 mm dia, at a spacing of 600 mm c/c.
RM Reinforced Burnt solid clay units in 1:6 cement and sand 220 mm thick burnt solid clay brick masonry walls with window
Masonry mortar, RC elements with M20 grade concrete and door openings, 100 mm thick RC slab. One no. of 10 mm
and Fe415 steel. dia corner vertical reinforcement at masonry wall
intersections and jambs of door/window openings; 75 mm
thick and 220 mm wide RC lintel band with 2 no. of 8 mm dia
Fe415 rebars and 6 mm dia stirrups at a spacing of 150 mm
c/c.
RM-RET Reinforced RM + Galvanised Iron Welded Wire Mesh (GI RM + 35 × 35 x 3 mm GI WWM (200 mm width), adequately
Masonry WWM). fixed along the cracks with nails to the wall and embedded
(Retrofitted) in 10 mm thick, 1:4 cement and sand plaster on the outer
side, along with the grout of cement filled in cracks through
the inner side.
CM Confined Burnt solid clay units in 1:6 cement and sand 220 mm thick burnt solid clay brick masonry walls with window
Masonry mortar, RC elements with M20 grade concrete and door openings, 100 mm thick RC slab. 220 × 220 mm RC
and Fe415 steel. tie-columns, 220 × 200 mm tie-beams at lintel level, 40 mm
groove between tie-column and masonry. RC elements with
4 no. of 10 mm dia rebars (Fe415) and 6 mm dia stirrups at
a spacing of 150 mm c/c.

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 1. (a) Details of bolt connection of MS Twin Box Lintel Bands on either face of masonry walls in URM-RET building; (b)
Reinforcement in lintel band in RM and RM-RET building; and (c) Reinforcement in tie-beams and tie-columns in CM building.
22 A. CHOURASIA ET AL.

Figure 2. Full-scale constructed masonry buildings: (a) unreinforced masonry building; (b) unreinforced masonry building repaired
with stitching technique; (c) unreinforced masonry building retrofitted with twin MS steel lintel band and vertical reinforcement;
(d) reinforced masonry building; (e) reinforced masonry building retrofitted with GI WWM, embedded in cement-sand mortar; (f)
confined masonry building.

Figure 3. Test set-up, loading arrangement and instrumentation for the tested buildings.

buildings lead to integral box action, which was effi­
cacious in damage limitation, and subsequently
resulted in higher load and deformation capacity
than URM buildings. Although RM and RM-RET
buildings showed similar damage pattern, still the
seismic parameters (lateral deformation and load car­
rying capacity) of RM-RET were significantly higher
as compared to its original counterpart.
The cracks initiated at the lower course of masonry
during the 7 mm cycle. These cracks at the masonry
unit-mortar interface developed as a result of sliding
shear due to the induction of excessive shear stress
and lower bond strength between masonry and cement-
sand mortar. During higher deformation, both the walls
with opening developed diagonal smeared shear cracks
originating from the window corner, which extended

diagonally towards the bottom in the further cycles, but
interestingly restricted by the tie-columns. The cracks
widened during the subsequent cycles, with the initia­
tion of crushing of units. It was also observed that tie-
beam at the lintel level controlled cracks from entering
into the spandrel masonry. However, the simultaneous
motion of mutually perpendicular out-of-plane and in-
plane wall led to the flange action, having a tendency of
tie-column-masonry separation at higher displacements.
It can conveniently be summarised that tie-columns and
tie-beams in CM building were advantageous in restrict­
ing the damage in masonry walls, providing integrity,
attributed to the confining effect. Figure 4 portrays the
final damage pattern of the CM building.
4. Damage limitation of masonry
In general, the damage in masonry building varies
depending on masonry material, workmanship, con­
struction practice and its geometrical configuration.
The damage limitation requirements are important to
define displacement capacity and usability of
a masonry building. The damages in masonry building
have been uniformly classified in different grades at
the European Macroseismic Scale (EMS-98) (Grünthal
1998). The following damage grades characterise
damage pattern as per EMS-98:
Grade I – No structural damage, a few hair-line
cracks in the wall.
Grade II – Slight structural damage or cracks in some
walls. Formation of hairline diagonally oriented smeared
cracks in the centre region of walls, light damage.
Grade III – Moderate structural damage or cracks
in most of the walls. Increase in a number of diagonal
Figure 4. Damage pattern of CM building.
AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING 23
cracks having crack width up to 0.2 mm; acceptable/
repairable damage at the serviceability limit state.
Grade IV – Heavy structural damage, leading to
a serious failure of walls. Increase in diagonal cracks
having crack width between 1 and 10 mm, crushing of
masonry units; heavy damage which may be repairable
but mostly uneconomical to repair.
Grade V –Very heavy structural damage, excessive
cracking and crushing, near or total collapse state.
Increased cracks – more than 10 mm wide, crushing
of masonry units along the diagonal crack, large
degradation in lateral strength and ultimate collapse.
Based on above, similar correlations have been made
for the tested building models attributing damage grades,
observed damage and limit states. These grades range
between a simple crack to collapse states as follows:
Grade II – First structural damage/crack – signifi­
cant cracking: Crack limit.
Grade III –Increased number of diagonal and hor­
izontal cracks in case of shear and sliding/flexure
mechanism having moderate, repairable damage:
Maximum resistance (Serviceability) limit.
Grade IV – Heavy damage to masonry, crushing of
brick units at corners of the building, repairable
damage, however uneconomical sometimes: Ultimate
design state – damageability limit.
Grade V –Increased damage to masonry, damage to
lintel band, crushing of concrete in lintel band, tie
beam/column and buckling of reinforcing bars:
Collapse limit.
The storey drifts at the attainment of different
limit states in tested masonry building models
under lateral loads is presented in Table 2. It can
be perceived that the generalised range of storey
24 A. CHOURASIA ET AL.

Table 2. Storey drift (ɸ) at different limit states of masonry level, and is usually expressed as a function of stiff­
buildings. ness as:
Crack Maximum resistance Collapse
Building limit limit limit Ki K
designation (ɸcr, %) (ɸPmax, %) (ɸcoll, %) DI ¼ (2)
Ki
URM 0.095 0.120 0.123
URM-REP 0.109 0.376 0.512 where Ki = initial stiffness, and K = stiffness at state,
URM-RET 0.132 0.167 0.539
RM 0.159 0.223 0.789 where the DI is required. The DI of all the tested
RMM-RET 0.291 1.054 1.390 masonry building models was computed at different
CM 0.312 0.838 1.800
Mean (all results) 0.183 0.463 0.859
limit states and co-related with the grade of damage
SD (all results) 0.094 0.389 0.622 and performance level. The DI at the ultimate state
Mean (except 0.200 0.532 1.006 was determined to be in the range of 0.75 –0.95 for
URM)
SD (except URM) 0.094 0.393 0.567 different masonry buildings, indicating severe to heavy
damage. Howbeit, URM building demonstrated com­
paratively lower DI values, attributed to gradual stiff­
drifts in case of RM and CM buildings for crack, ness degradation. The obtained DI is co-related with
maximum resistance and collapse limits are 0.15–­ the damage level. Table 3 presents the obtained DI and
0.32%, 0.25%–0.85% and 0.75%–2.0% respectively. corresponding damage levels for the tested masonry
A large variation in displacement and ductility building models.
capacity of the building at limit state of collapse
is ascribed due to different masonry construction
system. 6. Base shear coefficient
It has been noticed that the occurrence of grade 3 Alternatively, the response of different masonry build­
damage is just after attaining maximum resistance ing systems may be expressed in terms of structural
limit. Such damage generally occurs at 2 and 2.5 behaviour factor, q. The shear force resisted by the
times the storey drift (rotation) of the appearance of building is specified in a dimensionless form, as the
a first significant crack in case of URM and RM/CM ratio of base shear resisted by the building to its
buildings respectively. Therefore, for acceptable seis­ weight, termed as Base Shear Coefficient (BSC).
mic performance, the ductility capacity and design These values are plotted against storey drift (ratio of
displacement of masonry buildings should be at least relative storey displacement and storey height) in
2 and 2.5 for URM and RM/CM respectively, times the a non-dimensional form. The envelope showing the
displacement (rotation), when the first crack occurs. It relation between BSC developed at each run and the
can be attributed that grade 2 and grade 3 damages are corresponding storey drift is given in Figure 5 for all
associated with crack limit and attainment of maxi­ the tested masonry buildings. In addition, the envel­
mum lateral resistance state respectively. Considering ope of BSC is also plotted for all the tested buildings in
maximum displacement attained by the masonry non-dimensional form against normalised displace­
building, the grade 4 damage state corresponds to ment/drift, as shown in Figure 6.
the degradation of 20% of peak or maximum resis­
tance (D0.8 Pmax) and displacement corresponds to
a limit state of 2dcr for URM and 2.5dcr for RM and Table 3. Damage index at different limit states.
Building Damage Damage
CM buildings. Thus, the ultimate design state (du,i) designation Limit state index level Grade
corresponding to grade 4 damage on idealised resis­ URM Yield limit 0.03 Moderate II
tance curve may be defined by Eq. (1). Peak load 0.09 Severe III
Ultimate 0.22 Heavy IV
du,i = min {d0.8 Pmax; 2 dcr} . . . for unreinforced state
masonry URM_REP Yield limit 0.04 Insignificant I
� � Peak load 0.68 Severe III
du;i ¼ min d0:8 pmax ; 2:5 dcr Ultimate 0.77 Heavy IV
(1) state
for reinforced and confined masonry URM_RET Yield limit 0.14 Insignificant I
Peak load 0.18 Severe III
The above result thus provides the basis for damage Ultimate 0.75 Heavy IV
state
limitation and performance criteria for the design of RM Yield limit 0.34 Moderate II
various masonry buildings. Peak load 0.44 Moderate II
Ultimate 0.89 Heavy IV
state
RM_RET Yield limit 0.42 Moderate II
5. Damage index Peak load 0.70 Severe III
Ultimate 0.91 Heavy IV
Damage index (DI) of a structure is the degree of state
CM Yield limit 0.75 Severe III
damage or quantification of damage occurred during Peak load 0.89 Heavy IV
the seismic event. It indicates structural damage cor­ Ultimate 0.95 Heavy IV
responding to a particular limit state and performance state
 AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING 25

1
URM
URM_REP 0.75
URM_RET

BSC
0.5
RM
RM_RET 0.25
CM
0
-2 -1.6 -1.2 -0.8 -0.4 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2
-0.25 Storey Rotaon (%)
-0.5

-0.75

-1

Figure 5. Resistance curve of different masonry system: Base shear coefficient-storey drift relationship.

1
URM
URM_REP 0.75
URM_RET
BSC

RM 0.5
RM_RET
CM 0.25

0
-1 -0.75 -0.5 -0.25 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
-0.25 Normalised Displacement Rao
-0.5

-0.75

-1

Figure 6. Base shear coefficient-normalised displacement relationship for different masonry systems.

The influences on seismic behaviour of tested
building types have also been studied. The URM
exhibited substantially more brittle behaviour than
that of RM and CM models, as expected. As can be
noticed from Figure 5, that the significant change in
stiffness as a result of damage in walls (damage limit
state) is observed for the tested buildings justifying the
different storey drift limit ranges for different con­
struction system as proposed at Eq. (1). It is to be
mention that the test of CM was terminated at 1.8%
storey drift due damage of some elements posing
threat to measuring instruments. The final stage of
storey drift reported can have slightly higher displace­
ment, if the test would have carried further, till actual
failure. This would achieve a further higher level of
storey drift.
7. Structural behaviour factor
A structure acquiring energy dissipation or displace­
ment characteristics can be designed with the standard
linear elastic method for the ultimate design load. The
linear elastic seismic load in an ideal linear-elastic
structure is usually normalised by a factor, known as
structural behaviour factor or response reduction fac­
tor (q), for the computation of ultimate design seismic
force. In reference to European Committee for
Standardization (2004), ‘the structural behaviour fac­
tor is an approximation of the ratio of the seismic forces
that the structure would experience if its response is
completely elastic with 5% viscous damping, to mini­
mum seismic forces that may be used in the design with
a conventional elastic analysis model’. Considering this
definition, the structural behaviour factor (q) with
regards to lateral load can be represented as:
Pmax
q¼ (3)
Pu
where Pmax = maximum seismic force in an elastic
structure; and Pu = ultimate design seismic force.
Figure 7 illustrates the evolution of structural beha­
viour factor. The load-deformation relationship of
actual (experimental) structure when subjected to lat­
eral load is idealised considering maximum lateral
displacements of an elastic and elasto-perfect plastic
system with same initial stiffness characteristics up to
26 A. CHOURASIA ET AL.

Figure 7. Evolution of structural behaviour factor.

the un-cracked state, with the equalisation of energies Table 4. Base shear coefficient and behaviour factor for differ­
dissipated under the experimental lateral load- ent masonry system.
displacement envelope and idealised bilinear curve Base shear coefficient Behaviour factor

(Tomaževič 2007). This procedure includes computa­ Building designation BSC,le max BSCmax BSCd qmax qd
URM 0.369 0.293 0.269 1.25 1.36
tion of idealised bilinear resistance curve equivalent to URM-REP 0.555 0.211 0.204 2.63 2.70
the monotonic envelope of successive hysteresis loops URM-RET 0.975 0.430 0.430 2.26 2.26
corresponding to each load step. The value of Pu RM 0.939 0.377 0.311 2.49 3.00
RMM-RET 1.245 0.444 0.416 2.80 2.98
relates to the lateral strength of an idealised bi-linear CM 2.780 0.953 0.832 2.91 3.33
system equivalent to non-linear capacity curve and
may be adopted as an estimate of the ultimate base
shear capacity of the structure. According to energy
given in Table 4 for different masonry systems and
equivalence criteria, normally it corresponds to 20%
their repaired/retrofitted building models.
degradation of maximum resistance, PH,max, and may
Moreover, it is also possible to compute the beha­
be represented as P0.8H-max.
viour factor using the ductility factor of the structure.
From the principle of energy conservation, with an
This method makes use of the principle adopted in
equal area of lateral load resistance and deformation
Figure 7. The ductility-based values of behaviour fac­
relationship below the idealised elasto-plastic and
tor (qu), considering drift corresponding to ultimate
ideal elastic structure (Figure 7), the structural beha­
displacement at 80% of maximum resistant, ɸ0.8H,max
viour factor (q) may be represented in terms of ducti­
and storey drift at damage limit state have been calcu­
lity, μ = du/de, where du and de are the displacements
lated as 2ɸcr for URM and 2.5ɸcr for RM/CM, as given
at the ultimate state and the idealised elastic limit of
in Table 5. As can be noticed that the structural beha­
the structure, and is expressed as:
viour factor obtained through force and ductility-
p
q ¼ ð2μ 1Þ (4) based approach on the experimental data are adequate
when compared with the range of values suggested in
Eq. (4) takes into account minimum ductility capacity European Committee for Standardization (2004) for
for estimating structural behaviour factor (q), posing URM and RM. On the contrary, the European
upper limit to be considered for reduction of seismic Committee for Standardization (2004) mentions mar­
forces. In other words, verification of design loads for ginally lower values of behaviour factor for CM
seismic resistance of masonry structure using struc­
tural behaviour factor q, should govern by:
Table 5. Behaviour factor in terms of ductility for different
� masonry systems.
μu ¼ 0:5 q2 þ 1 (5)
Building
designation Φe,i Φcr Φu,i(0.8max) ΦP-max µu qcr/e,i qu
Table 4 summarises the obtained maximum ideal
URM 0.123 0.095 0.128 0.237 1.34 1.29 1.30
elastic base shear coefficient, BSCle,max; maximum URM-REP 0.336 0.108 0.505 0.270 4.67 3.11 2.88
measured experimental BSCmax; and designed BSCd URM-RET 0.374 0.133 0.536 0.332 4.03 2.81 2.65
RM 0.473 0.159 0.655 0.397 4.11 2.97 2.69
determined by the bi-linear elastic plastic curve. In RMM-RET 0.870 0.291 1.120 0.727 3.84 2.99 2.58
addition, experimentally obtained behaviour factor CM 1.061 0.313 1.800 0.782 5.75 3.39 3.24
qmax and designed behaviour factor (qd) are also

buildings. It is to be noted that all the full-scale tests
were terminated at the attainment of failure state just
prior to the collapse state so that the test set-up and
instruments are prevented from the damage, though
the buildings possessed further displacement capacity.
This would result in a further increase in behaviour
factor and may exceed the range mentioned at EC-8.
This implies that in case of URM and RM, the range of
q-values suggested by the code is reasonable corre­
sponding to the damage limitation in the building
structure. However, the range of q-value for CM pre­
scribed in the code is relatively under-estimated.
Additionally, material over-strength may be antici­
pated as a consequence of partial safety factor for the
material strength for which mechanism models are
used for seismic resistance. With regards to experi­
mentally obtained data and ignoring material over-
strength factor, behaviour factor values in case of
CM may be modified in code (EC-8) as 2.5–3.25
even when adequate performance and damage limita­
tion requirement of CM will not be surpassed.
A special mention can be made in regard to proper
reinforcement detailing (i.e. confined lateral ties at the
end region and joints) for this particular range of
q-values.
8. Conclusions
The paper presents an experimental assessment of
damage states and structural behaviour factor for differ­
ent masonry system viz. URM, RM, CM and their repair/
retrofit, through quasi-static tests on full-scale models.
The test results provide valuable information about
damage limits, behaviour factor, along with other data
like crack pattern, failure modes, drift etc. for under­
standing their behaviour which is useful for the develop­
ment of structural design tools. From the experimental
results, the following conclusions may be derived:
(1) The tested URM, RM and CM buildings demon­
strated a distinct behaviour in terms of cracks
and deformation pattern. The corner vertical
reinforcement and RC band at lintel level clearly
improves the seismic performance of RM over
URM building. Furthermore, confinement of
masonry by tie-column at wall intersections
and tie beam at the lintel level exhibits better
seismic performance over URM and RM build­
ings. The results confirm the adequacy of CM
buildings for moderate to large seismic forces,
together with the ductile behaviour with ade­
quate capacity even after high damage.
(2) The correlation between limit states, damage
and storey drift in seismic resistance evaluation
depends on masonry construction system.
Thus, independent requirements of damage
limitation with regards to maximum acceptable
AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING 27
storey drift are accounted for determination of
design seismic load and respective values of
structural behaviour factor.
(3) The DI at the ultimate state was determined to be
in the range of 0.75–0.95 for different masonry
buildings, indicating severe to heavy damage.
(4) To validate the proposed structural behaviour
factor (q), mentioned at EC-8(2004) for earth­
quake resistance design of different masonry
systems, experimental information has been uti­
lised, indicating the adequacy of structural beha­
viour factors for RM and URM from both
damage limitation and no collapse require­
ments. However, the prescribed q-factors for
CM are under-estimated and higher upper-
bound values up to 3.25 for CM with proper
reinforcement detailing (i.e. confined lateral ties
at end region and junctions) may be practiced.
(5) The experiments were carried-out on typical
masonry types and construction practices adopted
in India and the results were found to be almost in
conformity of EC-8 recommendations.
It is expected that the values of response reduction or
structural behaviour factor derived from the experi­
mental investigations on different masonry building
typologies would be beneficial to the structural engi­
neers for the structural analysis and design of different
masonry building systems.
Acknowledgments
The work is conducted as a part of the research project at
CSIR-Central Building Research Institute, Roorkee, India.
The authors greatly acknowledge the Director for all the
support, encouragement and allowing to publish this paper.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the
authors.
Notes on contributors
Dr Ajay Chourasia is working as a Senior
Principal Scientist at CSIR-Central
Building Research Institute, Roorkee
(India), with a professional experience
of over 25 years. His area of specialisation
is Structural Engineering and Earthquake
Resistant Design, Repair and Retrofitting,
Masonry Buildings, Precast Technology
and Structural Health Monitoring. He
has published various books on Earthquake Resistant Design,
Construction Practices and Confined Masonry. He has pub­
lished numerous research papers in various international and
national journals and conferences, focussing primarily on
earthquake-resistant design, construction, structural beha­
viour, strengthening/retrofitting and health monitoring.
28 A. CHOURASIA ET AL.
Mr. Shubham Singhal is working as
a Research Scholar at CSIR- Central
Building Research Institute, Roorkee
(India). His area of specialisation is
Earthquake Resistant Design, Precast
Technology and Masonry Buildings.
Prof. Pradeep Bhargava‘s Biography is
working as a Professor at Indian
Institute of Technology, Roorkee
(India). His area of specialization is
Structural Engineering, Finite Element
Applications and Structural Fire
Engineering. He has supervised numer­
ous PhD students over his carrier, and
published numerous research papers in
international journals.
ORCID
Ajay Chourasia http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6595-2465
Shubham Singhal http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2779-9011
References
ASTM, E. 2009. “2126. Standard Test Methods for Cyclic
(Reversed) Load Test for Shear Resistance of Vertical
Elements of the Lateral Load Resisting Systems for
Buildings.” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA,
USA.
Benedetti, D., P. Carydis, and P. Pezzoli. 1998. “Shaking
Table Tests on 24 Simple Masonry Buildings.”
Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 27 (1):
67–90. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1096-9845(199801)27:1<67::
AID-EQE719>3.0.CO;2-K.
Chourasia, A., J. Parashar, and S. Singhal. 2019. “Confined
Masonry Construction for India: A Techno Economical
Solution for Improved Seismic Behaviour.” Current Science
117 (7): 1174–1183. doi:10.18520/cs/v117/i7/1174-1183.
da Porto, F., M. Grendene, and C. Modena. 2009.
“Estimation of Load Reduction Factors for Clay
Masonry Walls.” Earthquake Engineering & Structural
Dynamics 38 (10): 1155–1174. doi:10.1002/eqe.887.
European Committee for Standardization. 2004. “En 1998-1
(2004).” In.Eurocode 8- Design of structures for earthquake
resistance. Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for
buildings.
European Committee for Standardization. 2005. “En
1996-1-1 (2005).” In. Eurocode 6- Design of masonry
structures. Part 1-1: General rules for reinforced and
unreinforced masonry structures.
Grünthal, G. 1998. European Macroseismic Scale 1998.
European Seismological Commission (ESC), Potsdam,
Germany
IS 1893 (Part 1). 2002. “Criteria for Earthquake Resistant
Design of Structures, Part-1: General Provisions and
Buildings”. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
IS 4326. 1993. “Criteria of Practice for Earthquake Resistant
Design and Construction of Buildings”. Bureau of Indian
Standards, New Delhi.
IS 4326. 2013. “Criteria of Practice for Earthquake Resistant
Design and Construction of Buildings”. Bureau of Indian
Standards, New Delhi.
Kumazawa, F., and M. Ohkubo 2000, February. “Nonlinear
Characteristics of Confined Masonry Wall with Lateral
Reinforcement in Mortar Joints.” In Proceedings of the
12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Auckland, New Zealand
Marinilli, A., and E. Castilla 2004, August. “Experimental
Evaluation of Confined Masonry Walls with Several
Confining-columns.” In Proceedings of 13th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver,
British Columbia, Canada
Meli, R. 1973 June. “Behaviour of Masonry Walls under Lateral
Loads.” In Fifth world conference on earthquake engineer­
ing, Rome, Italy
Tomaževič, M. 1997. “Seismic Design of Masonry Structures.”
Progress in Structural Engineering and Materials 1 (1): 88–95.
doi:10.1002/pse.2260010114.
Tomaževič, M., V. Bosiljkov, and P. Weiss 2004, August.
“Structural Behaviour Factor for Masonry Structures.” In
13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Tomaževič, M. 2007. “Damage as a Measure for
Earthquake-resistant Design of Masonry Structures:
Slovenian Experience.” Canadian Journal of Civil
Engineering 34 (11): 1403–1412. doi:10.1139/L07-128.
Tomaževič, M., and I. Klemenc. 1997a. “Seismic Behaviour
of Confined Masonry Walls.” Earthquake Engineering &
Structural Dynamics 26 (10): 1059–1071. doi:10.1002/
(SICI)1096-9845(199710)26:10<1059::AID-EQE694>3.0.
CO;2-M.
Tomaževič, M., and I. Klemenc. 1997b. “Verification of
Seismic Resistance of Confined Masonry Buildings.”
Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 26 (10):
1073–1088. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1096-9845(199710)
26:10<1073::AID-EQE695>3.0.CO;2-Z.
Tomaževič, M., M. Lutman, and L. Petković. 1996. “Seismic
Behavior of Masonry Walls: Experimental Simulation.”
Journal of Structural Engineering 122 (9): 1040–1047.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1996)122:9(1040).
Tomaževič, M., M. Lutman, and V. Bosiljkov. 2006.
“Robustness of Hollow Clay Masonry Units and Seismic
Behaviour of Masonry Walls.” Construction and Building
Materials 20 (10): 1028–1039. doi:10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2005.05.001.
Tomaževič, M., and P. Weiss. 1994. “Seismic Behavior of
Plain-and Reinforced-masonry Buildings.” Journal of
Structural Engineering 120 (2): 323–338. doi:10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9445(1994)120:2(323).
Yáñez, F., M. Astroza, A. Holmberg, and O. Ogaz 2004,
August. “Behavior of Confined Masonry Shear Walls
with Large Openings.” In 13th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering (Vol. 3438), Vancouver, British
Columbia, Canada
Yoshimura, K., K. Kikuchi, T. Okamoto, and T. Sanchez 1996,
June. “Effect of Vertical and Horizontal Wall Reinforcement
on Seismic Behavior of Confined Masonry Walls.” In Proc.
of 11th World Conf. Earthquake Engrg (Vol. 11), Acapulco,
Mexico
Yoshimura, K., K. Kikuchi, M. Kuroki, H. Nonaka, K. T. Kim,
Y. Matsumoto, T. Itai, R. Wangdi, and L. Ma 2003, June.
“Experimental Study on Reinforcing Methods for Confined
Masonry Walls Subjected to Seismic Forces.” In Proc., 9th
North American Masonry Conf (pp. 89–100), South
Carolina, USA
Zabala, F., J. L. Bustos, A. Masanet, and J. Santalucia 2004,
August. “Experimental Behaviour of Masonry Structural
Walls Used in Argentina.” In Proceedings of 13th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, British
Columbia, Canada