International Journal of Architectural Heritage: Conservation, Analysis, and Restoration

This article was downloaded by: [University of Connecticut]
On: 14 October 2014, At: 07:17

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
International Journal of Architectural

Heritage: Conservation, Analysis, and
Restoration
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uarc20
Seismic Behavior of Unreinforced and

Confined Brick Masonry Walls Before and
After Ferrocement Overlay Retrofitting
a a a
Mohammad Ashraf , Akhtar Naeem Khan , Amjad Naseer , Qaisar
a a
Ali & Bashir Alam
a
Department of Civil Engineering , University of Engineering and
Technology , Peshawar , Pakistan
Accepted author version posted online: 17 Oct 2011.Published
online: 18 Apr 2012.
To cite this article: Mohammad Ashraf , Akhtar Naeem Khan , Amjad Naseer , Qaisar Ali & Bashir
Alam (2012) Seismic Behavior of Unreinforced and Confined Brick Masonry Walls Before and After
Ferrocement Overlay Retrofitting, International Journal of Architectural Heritage: Conservation,
Analysis, and Restoration, 6:6, 665-688, DOI: 10.1080/15583058.2011.599916
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15583058.2011.599916
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 07:17 14 October 2014
International Journal of Architectural Heritage, 6: 665–688, 2012
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1558-3058 print / 1558-3066 online
DOI: 10.1080/15583058.2011.599916
SEISMIC BEHAVIOR OF UNREINFORCED

AND CONFINED BRICK MASONRY WALLS BEFORE
AND AFTER FERROCEMENT OVERLAY RETROFITTING
Mohammad Ashraf, Akhtar Naeem Khan, Amjad Naseer,

Qaisar Ali, and Bashir Alam
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Engineering and Technology,

Peshawar, Pakistan
This study presents experimental results of quasi-static load test conducted on two full-scale
brick masonry walls, one unreinforced and the other confined, to investigate their in-plane
lateral load behavior before and after retrofitting. The walls were constructed closely fol-
lowing the masonry system commonly used in Pakistan and in most South Asian countries.
The walls before retrofitting were tested to their peak resistance. The damaged walls were
then retrofitted with grout injection followed by ferrocement overlay and retested to their
ultimate failure under the identical conditions. The effectiveness of the proposed confine-
ment and retrofitting scheme was assessed from the damage pattern, energy dissipation, and
force-deformation behavior of the walls tested before and after retrofitting. The test results
before retrofitting show that the capacity of confined masonry wall is almost double to that
of unreinforced masonry wall. The test results after retrofitting indicate that the applied
retrofitting scheme significantly enhanced the lateral load capacity of the unreinforced
masonry wall, however it was marginally beneficial in the confined masonry walls. The test
results are also compared with American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) standards in
terms of stiffness, strength and acceptable deformations. It is concluded that the guidelines
provide reasonable estimates of the test observations.
KEY WORDS: unreinforced masonry, confined masonry, retrofitting, seismic behavior, steel
welded wire mesh
1. INTRODUCTION
A devastating earthquake of magnitude 7.6 struck Northern Pakistan and Kashmir on
October 8, 2005, killing more than 70,000 people. More than 400,000 plus buildings were
partially or fully damaged. The financial loss was estimated at $5.2 billion including reha-
bilitation and reconstruction cost (Asian Development Bank and World Bank [ADB-WB],
2005). Most of the damaged buildings were constructed from unreinforced stone, brick,
or block masonry. Detailed discussion on the damage inflicted on unreinforced masonry
(URM) buildings in 2005 Kashmir earthquake may be found elsewhere (Javed, Khan, and
Magenes, 2008, Naseer et al. 2010). The demolition of those partially damaged buildings
Received August 19, 2010; June 21, 2011.

Address correspondence to Mohammad Ashraf, Department of Civil Engineering, University of
Engineering and Technology, Peshawar, Pakistan 25000. E-mail: engineerashraf@yahoo.com
665
666 M. ASHRAF ET AL.
for which economically justifiable repair was possible further worsened the economic sit-
uation. Had people been aware of cost-effective, efficient, and locally possible techniques,
the bulk of partially damaged buildings would have been saved.
Various conventional and unconventional rehabilitation and retrofitting techniques
are available worldwide to enhance the seismic performance of URM buildings. These
techniques include application of fiber reinforced polymers (FRP), ferrocement overlay,
shotcrete overlay, center core technique, grout injection, application of steel elements, bed
joint reinforcement, post tensioning, and application of polypropylene band (PP band),
for example. A considerable amount of research work has been carried out through-
out the world on retrofitting of URM in the past two decades. ElGawady, Lestuzzi, and
Badoux (2004a) and Ashraf et al. (2009) reviewed various retrofitting technologies used
for URM buildings. Taghdi Bruneau, and Saatcioglu (1998) studied the effect of steel
strips on masonry and concrete walls. Stratford et al. (2004) and Maria, Alcaiano, and
Luders (2006) worked on the behavior of masonry walls strengthened with FRP sheets.
ElGawady, Henger, and Lestuzzi (2004b) carried out cyclic test on URM walls before and
after retrofitting with composites. Rai and Goel (1996) studied the hysteretic behavior of
URM piers strengthened with steel elements. Recently, Japanese researchers (Mayorca,
Navaratnaraj, and Meguro, 2006) proposed a new material, polypropylene band (PP band)
for retrofitting of masonry buildings.
These well established techniques have never been studied for indigenous mate-
rials and building systems commonly used in Pakistan. Various research projects have,
therefore, been initiated in different universities of Pakistan on retrofitting and rehabili-
tation of URM buildings using indigenous materials and technologies. In this regard, a
research work has been conducted in University of Engineering and Technology (Peshawar,
Pakistan) on the seismic strengthening of URM buildings through ferrocement overlays in
combination with grout injection. In ferrocement overlay, steel welded wire mesh is con-
nected to the surface of masonry through screws followed by plaster coating. Ferrocement
overlay was selected based on its easy application, rapid construction and low cost, espe-
cially in developing countries such as Pakistan, where resources like heavy machinery and
high-level skilled workers are limited. The efficacy of the method depends upon the con-
nection between masonry wall and plaster coating that transfers shear between the two
surfaces. The connection is established partly with the bond between plaster mortar and
wall surface and partly with the connecting screws/bolts that connect steel wire mesh with
the wall. The grout injection was used to fill cracks in damaged masonry walls.
Ferrocement is old technique in terms of its application but relatively young in
terms of the year devoted to its research for URM buildings. The first systematic work
on retrofitting of URM buildings with ferrocement overlay was conducted by the research
team of Prawel and Reinhorn (Prawel and Reinhorn, 1985; Reinhorn and Prawel, 1985).
They tested a series of masonry walls strengthened with a number of ferrocement layers
using different mesh arrangement. The overall seismic performance of retrofitted walls was
nearly double than those of non-retrofitted wall. According to Lizudia et al. (1997) the sur-
face coating could improve the in-plane and out-of-plane capacity of masonry walls. The
double side coating was said to be more effective than single side coating because of the
confinement effect in the former case. Alcocer et al. (1996) applied the technique to con-
fined masonry walls and building. The technique not only improved the lateral strength but
also the deformation capacity. Abrams et al. (2007) worked on rehabilitation of rocking-
critical masonry piers rehabilitated with ferrocement overlays tested under quasi-static
loading. Slight increase in the initial elastic strength was observed by the researcher. Once
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 6(6): 665–688

RETROFITTING BRICK MASONRY WALLS 667
the wire mesh was fractured, the strength was reduced and the pier continued to rock like
a non-rehabilitated specimen. The technique was thus found to be less effective in the case
of rocking critical piers.
This article presents a study on the seismic behavior of unreinforced and con-
fined brick masonry before and after retrofitting by testing two full scale brick masonry
walls with openings (perforated walls) under quasi static cyclic loading. The walls before
retrofitting were tested to their peak resistance. The damaged walls were then retrofitted
with grout injection followed by ferrocement overlay and retested to their ultimate failure
under the identical conditions. A comparative study of the behavior of walls before and
after retrofitting is also presented.
2. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
Two full scale perforated walls of same size and configuration, representing
a typical brick masonry building in Pakistan, were constructed in the Structural
Engineering Laboratory of Department of Civil Engineering, University of Engineering
and Technology, Peshawar, Pakistan. One of the walls was made with unreinforced brick
masonry and the other with confined brick masonry. The walls before retrofitting were
tested under cyclic loading up to their peak resistance. The damaged walls were then
retrofitted and retested under the same load and boundary conditions.
2.1. Test Specimens

Two full scale test specimens (3262 mm × 3087 mm × 225 mm); unreinforced and
confined brick masonry walls, were constructed by a local mason in a manner similar to
field practice. Bricks were soaked in water for approximately 6 hours before use. Size
and configuration of the walls were decided based on the local construction practice and
limitation of the testing facility. Each wall comprised three slender masonry piers with one
opening each for a door and a window as shown in Figure 1. The height to length ratio was
Figure 1. Diagram of the test specimens, confined masonry wall (left), unreinforced masonry wall (right).

2.35 for south and middle piers and 3.82 for north pier. Both the walls were constructed
on a 150 mm thick and 525 mm wide reinforced concrete footing. A 450 mm × 375 mm
reinforced concrete beam was cast on each wall to distribute the vertical load and to connect
the horizontal load jack with the wall.
In case of confined wall, confining elements were cast monolithically with
foundation and top concrete beam. Isolated and continuous horizontal RC members
(225 mm × 150 mm) were provided as lintel in the case of unreinforced and confined
masonry walls, respectively. In confined masonry wall openings were confined with pro-
posed vertical reinforced concrete elements (113 mm × 225 mm). The reinforcement
proposed in the confining elements and lintel beams are shown in Figure 2. As per field
practice, the test specimens were moist cured by sprinkling water four times per day for
7 days. After 7 days of curing, the walls were kept at room temperature. They were tested
at the age of approximately 2 months.
Material properties of bricks, mortar, and reinforced concrete elements were cho-
sen to represent a typical brick masonry building in Pakistan (Ali, 2004). The specimens
were made in 225-mm thick English bond pattern (alternate stretcher and header courses)
using solid burnt clay bricks laid in 1:8 cement-sand mortar. The nominal size of brick
was 225 mm × 113 mm × 75 mm. The reinforced concrete elements were cast with
1:2:4 cement-sand-coarse aggregates concrete. Mortar and concrete were prepared from
ordinary Portland cement, locally available sand, crushed stones and portable water.
The mechanical properties of the materials used in the construction of walls, with
ASTM designation (ASTM 2003a; ASTM 2003b; ASTM 2002; ASTM 2003c), are given in
Table 1. The mortar and concrete strengths were based on 50 mm cube and 150 mm × 300 mm
cylinder, respectively. The compressive strength and modulus of elasticity of masonry were
determined by testing masonry prisms, 400 mm long × 450 mm high × 225 mm thick.
Figure 2. Diagram of the reinforcement in reinforced concrete elements.
Table 1. Materials Properties
Material Description ASTM Designation Specimens, n MPa COV %
Mortar compressive strength (fmo ) C 109 6 5.23 15.2

Brick compressive strength (fb ) C 67 5 21.9 13.8
Concrete compressive strength (f c ) C 39 11 20.3 15.1
Masonry compressive strength (f m ) C 1314 5 4.5 11.5
Masonry elastic modulus (Em ) C 1314 5 1207 22.2
Yield strength of wire mesh (fy ) — — 207 —
Plaster compressive strength (f p ) C 109 23 23.5 18.0

2.2. Experimental Test Setup

The experimental test setup is shown in Figure 3. The walls were fixed at the bottom
and unrestrained at the top to allow free rotation and translation. The horizontal and vertical
loads, applied through hydraulic jacks, were measured with load cells having capacities of
500 KN and 250 KN, respectively. These hydraulic jacks were connected to a manually
controlled hydraulic pump. The horizontal jack and load cell were connected to the top
concrete beam through swivel in order to allow free rotation and vertical translation at the
top of wall. The horizontal load was applied at 3250 mm from the bottom of walls.
To capture the displacement field at all important locations, 16 displacement trans-
ducers were installed on wall as shown in Figure 3 and tabulated in Table 2. Transducer 01,
which was recording the in-plane displacement of the top of wall (at the horizontal load
level) was considered as control gauge. All the displacement transducers and load cells
were connected to a data acquisition system UCAM-70A shown in Figure 3.
2.3. Test Procedures

The walls were subjected to increasing intensities of in-plane quasi-static cyclic dis-
placements before and after retrofitting. A pre-compressive force of 100 KN (0.136 MPa on
wall) including the weight of concrete and steel beams, was applied on both walls through
vertical jack, resulting in an average stress of 0.258 MPa on top of north and south piers
Figure 3. Diagram and photograph of the experimental test setup and instrumentation (color figure available
online).

Table 2. Description of Instrumentation
Gauge No. Type Location Description
00 Load cell Top RC beam Recording lateral load

01 LVDTs Top RC beam at load Control gauge recording lateral
level displacement at load level
02, 04 and 06 -do- Top of south, middle and Recording lateral displacements at top
north pier respectively of each pier
03, 05 and 07 -do- -do- Recording vertical displacements at top
of each pier due to rocking
08 -do- Top of masonry wall, Recoding lateral displacement at top of
below top RC beam wall for any possible sliding between
masonry and concrete beam
09 -do- Top of masonry wall, Recording vertical displacement at top
below top RC beam of wall for global rocking

10, 11, 12 and 13 -do- South and middle pier Recording diagonal displacements in
south and middle pier
14 -do- Middle top of wall Recording any possible out-of-plane
movement of wall
15 Load cell Top of steel beam Recording vertical load on wall
LVDT, linear variable differential transformer; RC, reinforced concrete.
and 0.364 MPa on middle pier. Horizontal displacement (gauge-01) at the opposite end of
the top concrete beam was used as the control displacement for the whole test. Each dis-
placement cycle consisted of loading to a specified displacement level, unloading to zero
load, reloading in negative direction to the same specified displacement and again unload-
ing to zero displacement. Each displacement cycle was repeated three times starting from
0.5 mm as shown in Figure 4. One displacement cycle was completed in 1 to 4 minutes
depending upon the specified displacement. Due to the inherent deficiencies in the test
setup the vertical load could not be kept constant and was allowed to vary with increasing
horizontal displacement. Cracks produced at the end of each cycle were marked on the
walls. The tests were stopped after exhausting the maximum lateral resistance of the walls.
The damaged walls were retrofitted and retested to their ultimate state.
It is worth mentioning that each test was completed in 2 to 3 days. At the end of each
day, the test was stopped under zero horizontal loading and data was saved on a memory
Figure 4. Graph of the typical displacement pattern for cyclic testing of walls.

card. Since the data acquisition system was unable to keep the data saved for more than
6 hours, the residual displacements at the end of day were, therefore, not available in the
system on next day and the test has to be started after initializing all the displacements to
zero. However during the data analysis the recorded displacements were corrected for the
residual displacements which resulted in different control displacements for positive and
negative directions.
2.4. Data Analysis

The data obtained from the cyclic test was first filtered through three-point mov-
ing average method. The filtered data was used to plot the force-deformation hysteresis
loops and envelope curves. Seismic resistance parameters such as stiffness, peak load, ulti-
mate displacement, equivalent viscous damping, etc were determined from these plots. The
envelope curves were produced by joining the points of peak loads in each displacement
cycle. The equivalent viscous damping was calculated from the relation:
Ed
ξeq = (EQ1)
2π Einp
Where Ed is the dissipated energy equal to the average area of three displacement cycles
at the same displacement level, and Einp is the input energy calculated as sum of half the
product of peak load and the corresponding displacements in positive and negative loading,
Figure 5.
3. BEHAVIOR OF MASONRY WALLS BEFORE RETROFITTING

To study the response of unreinforced and confined brick masonry walls before
retrofitting, the pattern of cracking in the walls were examined and force deformation
behavior was recorded as they were lateral loaded. A detailed discussion on the test results
is given as under:
3.1. Unreinforced Brick Masonry Wall

The damage pattern of URM the wall tested before retrofitting is shown in Figure 6.
The test was stopped at a drift of 0.28% during which cracks were produced in the wall. The
Figure 5. Illustration of input energy (left) and dissipated energy (right).

Figure 6. Diagram of the damage pattern of unreinforced masonry wall before retrofitting (color figure available
online).
60 60
Lateral Load, KN
40 50
Lateral Load, KN.
URM
40
20
30
0 URM (+ve)
–0.4 –0.3 –0.2 –0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 20 URM (–ve)
–20 10 URM (Ave)
–40 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
–60
Drift (%) Drift (%)
Figure 7. Graph of force-deformation behavior of unreinforced masonry wall before retrofitting (color figure
available online).
cracks, produced in spandrel above south pier, widened approximately 12.5 mm and endan-
gered the wall collapse in out-of-plane direction (Figure 6) as the wall was not restrained in
the out-of-plane direction. The rest of the cracks produced in the wall may be categorized
as minor. No cracks were found in the north and south piers because they behaved in a
pure rocking mode producing cracks at top and bottom only. In contrast, the middle pier
showed a mixed flexural and shears behavior. Shear cracks originating from the window
corners were also noticed. No cracks were observed in spandrel above openings.
The force-deformation hysteretic response of the URM wall is shown in Figure 7.
The loops are very tight indicating very small energy dissipation. The behavior of wall
in negative and positive load directions was identical in the initial elastic range up to
a drift of 0.06%. After the formation of cracks the slope of force-deformation envelope
curve decreased more rapidly in positive load direction than that in the negative load
direction due to more damages produced in the former case. This unsymmetrical post-
elastic behavior may be attributed to the unsymmetrical configuration of test specimen.
The test was stopped just after peak load at an average drift of 0.28%. Analysis of the

12 12
Pier Displacement, mm
South Pier Middle Pier
6 6
0 0
–12 –6 0 6 12 –12 –6 0 6 12
–6 –6
–12 –12
Wall Displacement, mm Wall Displacement, mm
12
North Pier
0
–12 –6 0 6 12
–6
–12
Wall Displacement, mm
Figure 8. Graph of pier displacement versus wall displacement: unreinforced masonry wall before retrofitting
(color figure available online).
displacements recorded at the pier level indicated that the deformations were mainly con-
centrated at the pier levels and the spandrel was moving as a rigid body. However some
residual displacements were seen in south pier at the end of each cycle, which was due
to the cracks produced above the south pier. All vertical gauges mounted on the wall
recorded appreciable displacement which is an indication towards the rocking of walls
and individual piers.
Variation in horizontal in-plane displacements recorded at the top of three piers with
increasing wall displacement is given in Figure 8. The solid thick lines, drawn at 45◦ , act as
reference lines. The displacements for north and middle piers were almost equal to the wall
displacement indicating that the spandrel was moving as a rigid body. The displacement at
the top of south piers was initially equal to the wall displacement but after the appearance
of cracks above south pier, the pier was shifting southward, relative to the spandrel, with
increasing wall displacement. The gauge-02 measuring displacement at top of south pier
could not record the data beyond 11.5 mm displacement.
The vertical jack load was found to be varying with increasing lateral displacement
as shown in Figure 9. The maximum variation in vertical load was 26.7 KN and 36.6 KN
along the positive and negative loading direction respectively. This corresponds to 28%
and 36% variation in positive and negative direction respectively. However the variation
was less significant in the initial cycles. In the last cycle the variation in vertical load was
almost zero in positive direction. Since the vertical load was varying during test, the results
may not accurately represent the actual behavior of the wall under constant vertical load.
As the retrofitted wall was also tested under the same loading environment, therefore the
use of these results for comparison with retrofitted wall is justified.

160
140
Vertical Load, KN.

120
100
80
60
40
URM
20
0
–0.4 –0.2 0 0.2 0.4
Drift (%)
Figure 9. Graph of the variation of vertical load in unreinforced masonry wall tested before retrofitting (color
figure available online).
3.2. Confined Brick Masonry Wall

The final damage pattern of the confined masonry wall tested before retrofitting is
shown in Figure 10. Middle and south piers showed a mixed rocking and shear behavior.
Vertical splitting at the joints between vertical concrete elements and the masonry was also
prominent which was believed to be produced due to improper concreting at the interface
of both materials. The cracks first appeared at a drift of 0.09% in the lintel band near the
door and window openings and in the first bed joint above lintel band. Flexural cracks in
the vertical confining elements were noticed at a drift of 0.28%. South and middle piers
showed more damages compared with the north slender pier. Some minor cracks were
observed in the spandrel. At a drift of 0.43% the horizontal crack above lintel crossed the
whole length of the wall. The test was stopped at a maximum drift of 0.49% at which the
damages were of moderate nature.
The force-deformation response of the confined masonry wall is shown in Figure 11.
The response is asymmetric giving more energy dissipation in negative direction than
that in positive direction because of more damages produced in positive direction. The
MIDDLE
PIER
SOUTH
PIER
Figure 10. Diagram of the damage pattern of confined masonry wall before retrofitting (color figure available
online).

150 120
Lateral Load, KN.

Lateral Load, KN.
CM 100 90
50 60
CM (+ve)
0 30 CM (–ve)
–0.6 –0.4 –0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6
–50 CM (Ave)
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
–100
Drift (%) Drift (%)
Figure 11. Graph of force-deformation behavior of confined masonry wall before retrofitting (color figure
available online).
200
Lateral Load, KN.
150
100
50 CM
0
–0.6 –0.4 –0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Drift (%)
Figure 12. Graph of the variation of vertical load in confined masonry wall before retrofitting (color figure
available online).
response was identical in both directions till 0.04% drift. Beyond 0.04% drift there was an
appreciable change in positive stiffness of wall which then continued till the end of the test.
The positive stiffness, however, decreased gradually and continued towards the end of test.
More elaboration on the force-deformation behavior in the light of variation in the vertical
load with increasing lateral displacement in positive and negative load directions is given
in the following paragraphs.
The variation of total vertical load with lateral displacement is shown in Figure 12,
which is symmetric in positive and negative directions. The asymmetric behavior of the
wall is, thus, not because of the vertical load rather it is because of the asymmetric con-
figuration and the damage pattern which initiated first in positive load direction. At a drift
of 0.1%, 0.2%, and 0.4% the increase in vertical load was approximately 10%, 26%, and
43% of the vertical load at zero drift, respectively.
The variation in horizontal in-plane pier top displacement with wall displacement
is given in Figure 13. The displacements at north and south pier in positive direction was
slightly lagging behind the wall displacement which is because of global rocking and shear
sliding of spandrel. The south pier displacement was, however, more than the wall displace-
ment in negative load direction indicating some permanent deformation in south piers.
4. REPAIR AND RETROFITTING OF DAMAGED WALLS

The damaged wall specimens were retrofitted using a proposed cost-effective and
efficient technique, consisted of:

Pier Displacement, mm. 20 20
Pier Displacement, mm.

10 10
0 0
–20 –10 0 10 20 –20 –10 0 10 20
–10 –10
–20 –20
20
Pier Displacement, mm.
North Pier
10
0
–20 –10 0 10 20
–10
–20
Figure 13. Graphs of pier displacement versus wall displacement: confined masonry wall before retrofitting.
r Replacement of loose joint mortar around the cracks,

r Injecting grout in cracks,
r Connecting steel welded wire mesh, and
r Applying plaster coating in cement sand mortar.
Cement-based grout material (Ultra-LSR) was used for filling cracks in masonry while
epoxy-based grout (Ultra injection resin) was used to fill cracks in concrete elements. Steel-
welded wire mesh made of 1.0 mm wires spaced at 12.5 mm in both directions with a
reinforcement ratio of (ρ s = 0.054% of the gross area) was connected to the surface of wall
using 50-mm long No. 10 screws, steel washer and plastic plugs inserted in pre-drilled holes
in bricks. An average of 19 mm thick plaster coating was then applied on the surface of wall
using 1:3 cement-sand mortar. Mechanical properties of retrofitting materials are given in
4.1. Injecting Concrete Elements

Epoxy-based material (Ultra Injection Resin) was used to fill relatively thinner cracks
(3 mm or less) produced in concrete elements of confined masonry wall going through the
following steps:
r Injection ports/nozzles, 6 mm in diameter, were installed in predrilled holes along the
cracks spaced at approximately 150 mm.
r The cracks were sealed from surface with an epoxy based sealant (Ultra Fairing Coat).
r Before injecting grout air was passed through nozzles to remove any dust inside the
cracks.
r Grout was then injected at a high pressure exceeding 0.6 MPa. Injection process was
carried out under dry condition.

4.2. Injecting Brick Masonry

To fill the relatively wider cracks in both unreinforced and confined walls, ready to
mix cement based grout material (Ultra-LSR) was used. The stepwise procedure is:
r Injection ports/nozzles, 10 mm in diameter, were installed at a spacing ranging from
300 mm to 450 mm.
r The cracks were sealed from surface with a fast bonding mortar (Ultra-Grout with Ultra-
SBR Latex) as shown in Figure 14.
r Water was passed through the nozzles from top to bottom to moist the masonry and
to check the connectivity between nozzles before injecting grout. However, the water
was found coming out of surrounding areas adjacent to the cracks and it was, therefore,
decided to seal the whole wall surface with plaster before injection.
r When the plaster had sufficient strength, the wall was moistened by passing water
through the nozzles once again.

r Finally grout material was injected at pressure ranging from 0.2 MPa to 0.4 MPa. The
pressure was kept applied for approximately 2 minutes to consolidate the grout inside
the cracks and to allow excessive water to spell out.
4.3. Connecting Wire Mesh

After repairing cracks in both masonry and concrete element, steel welded wire mesh
was connected to the surface of walls, wrapping it around walls and piers (Figure 15).
It must be noted that the connecting screws were fixed in holes drilled within bricks, not in
the mortar joints. The distance between screws was 400 mm approximately. The minimum
lap length at the discontinuous end of the wire mesh was kept 225 mm. After connecting the
wire mesh, wall surfaces were plastered with 1:3 cement-sand mortar to a total thickness of
19 mm. The retrofitted specimens were moist cured for at least 28 days and retested under
the same load and boundary conditions.
5. BEHAVIOR OF MASONRY WALLS AFTER RETROFITTING

The data recorded during the cyclic test of retrofitted specimens were filtered and
analyzed similar to that of wall specimens tested before retrofitting.
Figure 14. Photograph of the installation of injection ports/nozzles and crack sealing (color figure available
online).

Figure 15. Photograph of the application of wire mesh and application of plaster (color figure available online).
5.1. Unreinforced Brick Masonry Wall

Figure 16 shows the damage pattern of unreinforced wall tested after retrofitting.
All the three piers behaved in a pure rocking mode. The damages were concentrated at
the top and bottom of the piers especially near the pier-spandrel connections. The location
of cracks was different from those produced in the wall before retrofitting indicating that
the grout injection worked well in repairing the cracks. The cracks were very minor and
distributed during the initial displacement cycles. The failure first started with the breaking
sound of steel mesh and then appeared as cracks in the plaster. The first cracks appeared
at drift of 0.15%. A major shear crack originating from the corner of the window was
observed at a drift of 0.31% due stress concentration. Spalling of plaster from the cracked
region was also observed. The cracks appeared in plaster could not be confirmed for their
penetration in the masonry. However it was believed that the cracks were penetrating in the
masonry.
The force deformation hysteretic response of the retrofitted URM wall is shown in
Figure 17. The behavior was almost similar in positive and negative load direction up to a
drift of 0.20%. Afterward the stiffness of wall in positive load direction decreased at faster
Figure 16. Diagram and photograph of the damage pattern of unreinforced wall after retrofitting (color figure
available online).

150 150
Lateral Load, KN.

100
Lateral Load, KN
URMR
100
50
0 URMR (+ve)
–0.6 –0.4 –0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 50
–50 URMR (–ve)
URMR (Ave)
–100 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
–150
Drift (%)
Drift (%)
Figure 17. Force-deformation behavior of unreinforced masonry wall after retrofitting (color figure available
online).
30 20
Pier Displacement, m
South Pier 20 Middle Pier
10
10
0 0
–20 –10 0 10 20 –20 –10 0 10 20
–10
–10
–20
–30 –20
20
Pier Displacement, m
North Pier
10
0
–20 –10 0 10 20
–10
–20
Figure 18. Graph of pier displacement versus wall displacement: unreinforced masonry wall after retrofitting
rate than the stiffness in the negative load direction. However, the strength degradation
in negative direction started at drift of 0.34% while the load in positive load direction was
still increasing. Both the positive and negative curves reached approximately the same load
level at a drift of 0.55%.
Figure 18 provides variation in pier displacements with variation in wall displace-
ment. Similar to the URM wall tested before retrofitting, the pier displacements were
almost equal to the wall displacement indicating that the spandrel was moving as a rigid
body. However, in the case of negative load direction in middle pier and both positive
and negative load direction in south pier, the pier displacement was found slightly lagging
behind the wall displacement which is because of the global rocking of wall.
A more insight in the force-deformation behavior can be obtained by first dis-
cussing the variation in vertical load with increasing lateral displacement. Likewise the

300
Vertical Load, KN.

250
200
150
100
50 URMR
0
–0.8 –0.4 0 0.4 0.8
Drift (%)
Figure 19. Graph of the variation of vertical load in retrofitted unreinforced masonry wall after retrofitting (color
non-retrofitted URM wall, the vertical load in the retrofitted URM wall was found increas-
ing with increasing lateral displacement (Figure 19). Until a drift of 0.20% the increase
in total vertical load was less than 20% in both positive and negative load direction.
Beyond 0.20% drift, the vertical load increased more rapidly in negative direction than
in the positive direction, which might be the reason for increase in the lateral load occurred
at faster rate in negative direction (Figure 19). The variation in the vertical load was a
function of the lateral displacement and the damages produced. More the damages pro-
duced, lesser was the increase in the vertical load due to decrease in the vertical stiffness
of wall. At peak resistance in the negative load direction the wall experienced severe
damages which resulted in a slow increase in the vertical load. However, the increase in
vertical load, which continued in positive load direction, caused increased in the lateral
resistance.
5.2. Behavior of Confined Masonry Wall

The retrofitted confined masonry wall was tested under reverse cyclic test up to drift
of 0.31%. In the subsequent cycle the anchor bolts, connecting top concrete beam to the
horizontal loading system, pulled out of concrete beam. Since it was not possible to con-
tinue the test under full cyclic loading, therefore it was decided to continue the test under
half cyclic loading (push only). Very few cracks appeared in the wall till 0.31% drift. Most
of the damages occurred in the half cyclic test. The final damage condition of the retrofitted
confined masonry wall is shown in Figure 20. Cracks were distributed throughout the whole
surface of wall. The piers showed rocking failure mode. The north slender pier, however,
also developed some vertical splitting cracks at the masonry-confining element connec-
tions which were believed to be produced due to high compressive stress in the half cyclic
loading. Significance cracks in confining elements appeared in the wall after a maximum
drift of 0.55%. Patches of plaster were also observed falling at high drift ratios.
The force-deformation response of confined masonry wall after retrofitting is shown
in Figure 21. Significant decrease in the positive stiffness of wall was noticed at very small
drift of approximately 0.02% and then continued unchanged till the end of test. The positive
stiffness, however, changed gradually up to a drift of 0.05% and then continued almost
unchanged till the end of the test. As already mentioned that the cyclic test could not be
continued after a drift of 0.31% due to the premature failure of the top beam anchor system,
half cyclic test in positive direction was performed after 0.31% drift. The positive lateral

Figure 20. Photograph of the damage pattern confined wall after retrofitting (color figure available online).
200 160
Lateral Load, KN.
Lateral Load, KN
100 120
80 CMR (+ve)
0 CMR (–ve)
–0.4 –0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 40 CMR (Ave)
–100 Half Cyclic
Cyclic 0
–200 Half Cyclic 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Drift (%) Drift (%)
Figure 21. Graph of force-deformation behavior of confined masonry wall after retrofitting (color figure available
online).
load was increasing almost linearly with increase in lateral displacement. This increase in
lateral load was mostly due to increase in the vertical stress which is described in the next
paragraph.
The variation in total vertical load with increasing lateral displacement for confined
masonry wall after retrofitting is shown in Figure 22. In the reverse cyclic test the increase
in vertical load was more in negative direction than the positive direction. Vertical load
was increased by 5%, 22% and 41% in positive direction and 10%, 36% and 73% in neg-
ative direction at drift of 0.1%, 0.2% and 0.3% respectively. In the positive half cyclic
the increase in vertical load was more than 100% at drift of 0.55%. The performance of
confined masonry wall after retrofitting was certainly affected by such a high increase of
vertical load in the half cyclic phase of test.
Variation in pier displacements with variation in wall displacement is given in
Figure 23. The pier displacements were lagging behind the wall displacement both in pos-
itive and negative load direction, which was because of the global rocking of the wall.

250
Lateral Load, KN.

200
150
100
50 CMR
Half Cyclic
0
–0.6 –0.1 0.4
Drift (%)
Figure 22. Graph of the variation of vertical load in confined masonry wall after retrofitting (color figure
available online).
40 40
20 20
0 0
–40 –20 0 20 40 –40 –20 0 20 40
–20 –20
–40 –40
40
North Pier
20
0
–40 –20 0 20 40
–20
–40
Figure 23. Graph of pier displacement versus wall displacement: confined masonry wall after retrofitting (color
6. COMPARISON OF THE BEHAVIOR

6.1. Comparison of Unreinforced Masonry Wall Before
and After Retrofitting
The average experimental force-deformation curves of URM wall before and after
retrofitting along with their bilinear idealization are shown in Figure 24. The initial slope
of bilinear curve was obtained by joining the origin with a point at which there was signif-
icant change in the slope. The yield strength was obtained by equating the energies of the
experimental and bilinear curves. There was a significant increase in the lateral stiffness
(68%) and strength (110%) of wall tested after retrofitting. The change in the deformation
capacity could not be established.

100
Lateral Load, KN.

80
60
40 URMR(Ave.)
20 URM (Ave.)
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Drift (%)
Figure 24. Graph of the comparison of force-deformation envelope curves: unreinforced masonry wall (color
15
URM
Damping (%)
10 URMR
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Drift (%)
Figure 25. Graph of the comparison of equivalent viscous damping: unreinforced masonry wall (color figure
available online).
The equivalent viscous damping (Figure 25) for URM wall before retrofitting started
at value of approximately 7.7%. After a slight decreasing trend up to 0.15% drift ratio, the
damping remained almost constant at 5.0%. In contrast, the damping of URM wall after
retrofitting started at 4.0% and remained almost constant till 0.18% drift. The damping
was found increasing from 4.0% to 12% at a drift of 0.36%. From the comparison of
the damping before and after retrofitting it can be concluded that the energy dissipating
capacity of URM wall is not appreciably affected after retrofitting with steel wire mesh.
However this non-dependency of the dissipated energy was mainly because of the slender
geometry of piers and could not be generalized.
6.2. Comparison of Confined Masonry Wall Before and After Retrofitting

The experimental force-deformation curves and their bilinear idealizations of con-
fined masonry wall before and after retrofitting are compared in Figure 26. The initial
stiffness of retrofitted wall is restored back to its pre-damaged condition while the lateral
strength is increased by 17%. Thus the proposed steel wire mesh is less effective in case
of confined masonry as compared to URM wall. However, the results could not be gen-
eralized due to the slender nature of pier and high capacity of confined masonry before
retrofitting. The deformation capacity could not be obtained because of premature failure
of top concrete beam.
Equivalent viscous damping of confined wall before and after retrofitting remained
almost constant (Figure 27). Starting at 4.5% damping in both case, the damping before and
after retrofitting remained constant at 5.6% and 3.9% respectively. The retrofitting scheme

120
Lateral Load, KN.

90
60
30 CM (Ave)
CMR (Ave)
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Drift (%)
Figure 26. Graph of the comparison of force-deformation envelope curves: confined masonry wall (color figure
available online).
10
8 CM
Damping (%)
CMR
6
4
2
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Drift (%)
Figure 27. Graph of the comparison of equivalent viscous damping: confined masonry wall (color figure
available online).
has, thus, no appreciable effect on the damping characteristic of confined masonry wall.
Once again the results could not be generalized due to the slender geometry of piers.
6.3. Comparison of Confined and Unreinforced Masonry Walls

A significant difference in the strength, stiffness and deformation capacity of con-
fined and URM walls tested before retrofitting is noticed. This difference in behavior
is attributed to the presence of reinforced concrete elements in confined masonry wall,
Figure 28. The strength, effective stiffness and deformation capacity of the confined
masonry wall are respectively 93%, 93%, and 76% greater than those of the unreinforced
wall. Thus it can be concluded that the performance of the confined masonry walls was
120
Lateral Load, KN.
90
60 CMR (Ave)
URMR (Ave)
30 CM (Ave)
URM (Ave)
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Drift (%)
Figure 28. Graph of the comparison of force-deformation envelope curves: confined and unreinforced masonry
walls (color figure available online).

much better than that of the unreinforced wall. The strength and stiffness of the retrofitted
unreinforced wall are comparable with those of the confined masonry wall tested before
retrofitting.
6.4. Comparison of Measured Response with American Society of Civil

Engineers (ASCE) Standards
The measured response of URM wall, tested before and after retrofitting, is compared
with the criteria mentioned in ASCE standard (ASCE/SEI 41-06). The standard is silent
about the confined masonry. The lateral strengths of individual piers before retrofitting
were estimated using Equation 7–3 and Equation 7–5 (reproduced here as Equation 2 and
Equation 3) and the lateral stiffness was estimated from Equation C7-2 (reproduced here as
Equation 4) of the ASCE standard. The ultimate deformation before retrofitting was taken
from the acceptable deformation given in Table 7–4 of the standard.

L
Vr = 0.9αPE (EQ2)
heff

L fa
Vtc = αPL 1− (EQ3)
heff 0.7fm
3
heff heff
k=1 + (EQ4)
12Em Ig Av Gm
Where, α is a factor equal to 0.5 for fixed-free cantilever wall and 1.0 for fixed-fixed pier,
L is the length of pier, PE is the expected axial compressive force, heff is the effective pier
height, PL is the lower bound axial compressive force, fa is the axial compressive stress,
f m is the lower bound masonry compressive strength, Em and Gm are the elastic and shear
moduli respectively, Ig is the gross moment of inertial and Av is the shear area equal to
5/6 times the gross area of pier.
There are no explicit equations available to estimate the response of retrofitted piers.
The ASCE standard (Section C7.3.1.3.4) recommends to estimate the response from the
composite section provided the plaster coating is adequately anchored to the masonry. The
stiffness is estimated from Equation 4 using transformed section, while the lateral strength
is estimated from Equation 5 proposed by Ashraf (2010). Since, ASCE standard provides
acceptance criteria for the percent drift of isolated piers or solid wall, the measured ultimate
drifts of middle pier are, therefore, compared with the acceptance criteria for collapse
prevention performance level of ASCE standard.

fa + fy ρs L2 t fa + fy ρs
Vtc,retrofitted = 1− (EQ5)
2ψH 0.85fm + 0.85fp ttc + fy ρs
Where, fy is the yield strength of wire mesh, L, H and t are the length, height and thickness
of masonry pier, ρ s is the wire mesh steel ratio over the wall area, tc is the total thickness
of plaster, f p is the compressive strength of plaster coating and ψ is boundary condition
factor equal to 1.0 for cantilever pier and 0.5 for fixed ended pier.

Table 3. Comparison of Measured with Estimated Response of Unreinforced Masonry Wall
Ultimate Drift
Lateral Stiffness Lateral Strength Ratio of Middle
KN/mm (KN) Pier (%) Failure Mode
Description Before After Before After Before After Before After
Measured value (a) 15.14 33.1 39.6 68.5 1.00 1.20 Rocking Rocking
Estimated value (b) 14.12 34.9 34.1 53.3 0.94 0.94 Both rocking and Toe crushing
toe crushing
Ratio (b)/(a) 0.93 1.06 0.75 0.78 0.94 0.78 — —
All the three piers are assumed to be fixed at both top and bottom i.e. α = 1.0 and
ψ = 0.5. The vertical load (PE = PL ) on each masonry piers and the corresponding vertical
stress pa are calculated based on a total vertical load of 100 KN which is equal to the load
on top of wall at the beginning of the cyclic test. The capacity of wall, tested before and
after retrofitting is calculated by superimposing the results of three piers. The measured and
estimated responses are compared in Table 3. It is concluded that the ASCE standard esti-
mates the lateral stiffness accurately while the lateral strength is estimated conservatively
for both uncoated and coated URM walls.
7. CONCLUSIONS
An experimental study on the force-deformation, damage pattern and energy dis-
sipation of two full scale unreinforced and confined brick masonry walls was conducted
two investigate their in-plane behavior before and after retrofitting under cyclic loading
The damaged walls were retrofitted with grout injection and ferrocement overlay. Cement-
based and epoxy-based grouts were injected in cracks produced in masonry and concrete
elements, respectively. The following conclusions are drawn from the experimental
comparative study:
r The seismic performance of confined masonry wall is significantly higher than that of
URM wall. The effective stiffness, lateral strength and deformation capacity of confined
masonry wall were respectively 93%, 93%, and 76% more than those of URM wall.
r Application of steel welded wire mesh covered with cement sand plaster (ferrocement
overlay) in addition to grout injection is an effective technique to enhance the seismic
performance of unreinforced brick masonry buildings. The lateral strength and effective
stiffness of URM wall are increased by 110% and 68%, respectively.
r The proposed retrofitting technique is relatively less effective to enhance the seismic
performance of confined masonry buildings. The lateral stiffness was almost unaffected
while there was an increase of 17% in the lateral strength of confined masonry wall.
However, the results could not be generalized due to the slender nature of pier.
r The retrofitting technique has negligible effect on the energy dissipation capacity of
both unreinforced and confined masonry walls. However, the technique could have
affected the energy dissipation capacity for the case of wall if made with shear critical
piers.
r The seismic performance of retrofitted unreinforced wall was comparable with that of
non-retrofitted confined masonry wall.

r The ASCE standard estimates the lateral stiffness accurately while the lateral strength
is estimated conservatively for unreinforced brick masonry walls tested before and after
retrofitting.
Based on these conclusions, application of grout injection and ferrocement overlay is rec-
ommended for retrofitting of unreinforced brick masonry buildings in northern areas of
Pakistan affected by the 2005 Kashmir earthquake.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors greatly acknowledge University of Engineering and Technology
Peshawar, Pakistan for providing access to its laboratory facilities. The Higher Education
Commission, Pakistan is also thanked for providing financial support. Gratitude is due also
to AHWA Chemicals Rawalpindi, Pakistan for providing Ultra Chemicals used in the study,
and the Mid-America Earthquake Center at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign,
for hosting the primary author.
REFERENCES
Abrams, D. P., T. Smith, J. Lynch, S. and Franklin. 2007. Effectiveness of rehabilitation on seismic
behavior of masonry piers. ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering 133(1):32–43.
Asian Development Bank and World Bank (ADB-WB). 2005. Preliminary Damage and Needs
Assessment—Pakistan 2005 Earthquake. Islamabad, Pakistan: ADB-WB.
Alcocer S. M., J. Ruiz, J. A. Pineda, and J.A., Zepeda. 1996. Retrofitting of confined masonry walls
with welded wire mesh. In Proceedings of the 11th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Paper No. 1471. Elsevier Science and Technology Books.
Ali, Q. 2004. Seismic performance study of brick masonry building systems in Peshawar region.
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Engineering and Technology Doctoral Thesis.
Peshawar, Pakistan.
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). 2006. Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings,
ASCE/SEI 41–06, Reston, VA: ASCE.
Ashraf, M., Naseer, A., Khan A. N., and Shahzada K. 2009. Seismic upgradation of unreinforced
masonry buildings as a part of disaster management policy. International Disaster Management
Conference–2009. Nathiagali, Pakistan: University of Peshwar.
Ashraf, M. 2010. Development of cost-effective and efficient retrofitting technique for masonry build-
ings in Pakistan. Department of Civil Engineering, University of Engineering and Technology
Ongoing Doctoral Research. Peshawar, Pakistan: UET.
ASTM International. 2002. ASTM C 109/C 109M–02: Standard test method for compressive strength
of hydraulic cement mortars (using 2-inch or 50 mm cube specimens). West Conshohocken, PA:
ASTM International.
ASTM International. 2003a. ASTM C 39/C 39M–03: Standard test method for compressive strength
of cylindrical concrete specimens. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International:
ASTM International. 2003b. ASTM C 67–03a, Test methods for sampling and testing brick and
structural clay tiles. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.
ASTM International. 2003c. ASTM C 1314–03b: Standard test method for compressive strength of
masonry prisms. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.
ElGawady M., P. Lestuzzi, and M. Badoux. 2004a. A review of conventional seismic retrofitting
techniques for URM. In Proceedings of the 13th IB2MaC. Amsterdam, The Netherlands:.

ElGawady, M., J. Hegner, P. Lestuzzi, and M. Badoux. 2004b. Static cyclic test of URM wall
before and after retrofitting with composites Proceedings of the 13th IB2MaC. Amsterdam,The
Netherlands:.
Javed M., A. N. Khan, and G. Magenes. 2008 Performance of masonry structures during
earthquake–2005 in Kashmir. Mehran University Research Journal of Engineering & Technology
27(3):271–282.
Lizudia B., W. T. Homes, M. Longstreth, A. Kern, and D. P. Abrams. 1997. Development of pro-
cedures to enhance the performance of rehabilitated URM buildings. Technical Report No. NIST
GCR 97-724-1. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology.
Maria, H. S., P. Alcaiano, and C. Luders. 2006. Experimental response of masonry walls externally
reinforced with carbon fiber fabrics. In Proceeedings of the 8th US NCEE. San Francisco, CA,
Paper No. 1402.
Mayorca P., S. Navaratnaraj, and K. Meguro. 2006, July. Report on the state-of-the-art in the seismic
retrofitting of unreinforced masonry houses by PP-band meshes. Tokyo, Japan: International
Center for Urban Safety Engineering, Institute of Industrial Science, University of Tokyo.
Naseer, A., A. N. Khan, Q. Ali and Z. Hussain. 2010. Observed seismic behavior of buildings in
Northern Pakistan during the 2005 Kashmir earthquake. Earthquake Spectra 26(2):425–449.
Prawel, S. P. and A. M. Reinhorn. 1985. Seismic retrofit of structural masonry using a ferrocement
overlay. In Proceedings of the 3rd NAMC. Arlington, TX, 50: 1–19.
Rai D. C., and S. C. Goel 1996. Seismic strengthening of unreinforced masonry piers with steel
elements. Earthquake Spectra 12(4):845–862.
Reinhorn A.M., and S. P. Prawel. 1985. Experimental study of ferrocement as a seismic retrofit
material for masonry walls. Journal of Ferrocement 15: 247–260.
Stratford T., G. Pascale, and O. Manfroni, and B. Bonfiglioli. 2004. Shear strengthening of masonry
panels with sheet glass-fiber reinforced plymer. ASCE Journal of Composite for Construction
8(5):434–443.
Taghdi M., M. Bruneau, and Saatcioglu M. 1998. Seismic retrofit of non-ductile concrete and
masonry walls by steel strip bracing. In Proceeedings of the 11th ECEE. Rotterdam, The
Netherlands: Balkema.

International Journal of Architectural Heritage: Conservation, Analysis, and Restoration

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Architectural Heritage: Conservation, Analysis, and Restoration

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [University of Connecticut]

On: 14 October 2014, At: 07:17

International Journal of Architectural

Seismic Behavior of Unreinforced and

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15583058.2011.599916

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

SEISMIC BEHAVIOR OF UNREINFORCED

Mohammad Ashraf, Akhtar Naeem Khan, Amjad Naseer,

Department of Civil Engineering, University of Engineering and Technology,

Received August 19, 2010; June 21, 2011.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 6(6): 665–688

2.1. Test Specimens

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 6(6): 665–688

Figure 2. Diagram of the reinforcement in reinforced concrete elements.

Table 1. Materials Properties

Material Description ASTM Designation Specimens, n MPa COV %

Mortar compressive strength (fmo ) C 109 6 5.23 15.2

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 6(6): 665–688

2.2. Experimental Test Setup

were connected to a data acquisition system UCAM-70A shown in Figure 3.

2.3. Test Procedures

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 6(6): 665–688

Table 2. Description of Instrumentation

Gauge No. Type Location Description

00 Load cell Top RC beam Recording lateral load

below top RC beam of wall for global rocking

LVDT, linear variable differential transformer; RC, reinforced concrete.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 6(6): 665–688

2.4. Data Analysis

3. BEHAVIOR OF MASONRY WALLS BEFORE RETROFITTING

3.1. Unreinforced Brick Masonry Wall

Figure 5. Illustration of input energy (left) and dissipated energy (right).

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 6(6): 665–688

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 6(6): 665–688

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 6(6): 665–688

Vertical Load, KN.

3.2. Confined Brick Masonry Wall

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 6(6): 665–688

Lateral Load, KN.

4. REPAIR AND RETROFITTING OF DAMAGED WALLS

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 6(6): 665–688

Pier Displacement, mm. 20 20

Pier Displacement, mm.

r Replacement of loose joint mortar around the cracks,

4.1. Injecting Concrete Elements

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 6(6): 665–688

4.2. Injecting Brick Masonry

through the nozzles once again.

4.3. Connecting Wire Mesh

5. BEHAVIOR OF MASONRY WALLS AFTER RETROFITTING

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 6(6): 665–688

5.1. Unreinforced Brick Masonry Wall

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 6(6): 665–688

Lateral Load, KN.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 6(6): 665–688

Vertical Load, KN.

5.2. Behavior of Confined Masonry Wall

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 6(6): 665–688

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 6(6): 665–688

Lateral Load, KN.

6. COMPARISON OF THE BEHAVIOR

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 6(6): 665–688

Lateral Load, KN.