Journal of Earthquake Science and Soil Dynamics Engineering

Volume 5 Issue 1

A Comparison of Seismic Sensitivity Analysis of Brick Masonry

Buildings with Mud Mortar by Solid and Shell Modelling
Approach: A Case Study on Bhaktapur, Nepal
Sanjay Kumar Kawan*
Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering,
Nepal Engineering College, Bhaktapur, Nepal.
*Corresponding Author
E-mail Id:[email protected]

ABSTRACT
Kathmandu valley’s traditional dwellings are constructed with brick masonry by traditional
technology. These buildings resistance to earthquake is vulnerable. So, these buildings
should be conserved against probable earthquakes. The seismic evaluation of these masonry
buildings with timber floors is primary focus of this study. The study is divided into two parts.
The first part comprises modelling of the buildings. Two different methods of modelling are
adopted for these modelling of masonry buildings with timber floors and without timber
floors. In first modelling approach (Solid model), the brick work is discretized as the eight
nodded solid elements while in shell model brick is divided into four nodded shell elements.
In second part, comparison of various seismic parameters i.e., time period, displacement and
internal stresses are carried out by discriminant analysis technique of multivariate statistics
for different load cases including gravity and earthquake loads by seismic coefficient method.
After analysis of three buildings of 2 storey, 4 storey and 6 storey building by shell and solid
models, the result obtained for in-plane and out-of plane displacement, time period, internal
stresses from these models does not have significance difference. Sensitivity analysis of
structure with timber flexible flooring and without flooring shows that displacement in out of
plane is without flooring is more than that of timber flooring.

Keywords: -Seismic Sensitivity, Displacement, Time Period, Internal Stress

INTRODUCTION plan strategic mitigation and idea about the

Earthquake is a major natural disaster, in risk reducing factors. The study is divided
many regions, significant risks to masonry into two parts: a) Seismic vulnerability
buildings. Masonry buildings are often analysis b) Modeling of the structures.
vulnerable to medium to strong ground
motions.[1] Bhaktapur is one of the Seismic Vulnerability
traditional cities with very old typical A vulnerability intends to ascertain to what
Newari buildings built constructed using extent an object is prone to be damaged in
brick masonry building with mud case of earthquake occurrence.[6] The
mortar.[2] concept of vulnerability is closely linked
to that of ―exposure‖, indicating the
Most of the buildings are standing in number of exposed people and the quantity
Bhaktapur are load bearing plane brick and the value threatened goods.[5,7,12]
masonry and exist in a compacted form There is a risk only if there are objects that
due to lack of proper planning. Detailed may be damaged or people who may be
seismic analysis is needed of these involved in the area where the event
buildings to assess their vulnerability to occurs. It is then important to analyze the

HBRP Publication Page 1-12 2022. All Rights Reserved Page 1

 Journal of Earthquake Science and Soil Dynamics Engineering
Volume 5 Issue 1

area and verify which and how many kinds Modeling of Structures
of objects and people are exposed. The numerical analysis used eight nodded
Discriminant analysis technique is selected isoparametric element is to discretize the
for the vulnerability study. The major layers of brick and mortars joints. For
parameters of vulnerability study are these two types of finite element model
number of stories, overhang ratio, lateral has been suggested and finite element
strength index.[15] analyses has been performed using
computer software SAP 2000. [10]
Among these parameters, number of
stories is found most critical parameter of The first model is idealized as a
seismic vulnerability of existing building, homogenized material. For this brick
by discriminate analysis. The procedure element and mortar joint element is
classifies the building as the building as replaced by the equivalent homogeneous
―safe‖, ―unsafe‖, and ―intermediate‖ with material. Modulus of elasticity of masonry
reference of damage score. (Em) in compression is calculated
according to UBC 1991.

where;
γt =Thickness ratio = tj/tb

γm =Modulus ratio =Ej/Eb

tj =Thickness of mortar joint

(1   t ) tb =Thickness of brick
i.e Em  Eb
 t 
1  
 m 

The modeling technique of the buildings wooden boards with a thick layer of mud
has been done by shell and solid modelling topping is applied support the floors and
approach. roof. The roof is doubly pitched and has
brick tile roofing.
Selection of Buildings
The typical traditional Newari house of Different parameters can be used for
Bhaktapur is usually three or four stories categorize the existing building. This
high. It has a simple rectangular plan with makes easy to analyze the vulnerability of
depth about 6 m and length varying from 3 building and compare with each category.
to 10 meters. It also indicates the most powerful factor
that cause building to more vulnerable to
The foundation is usually shallow, made earthquake.
out of stones. The superstructure is
constructed with locally available sun- Here six parameters are taken as the
dried bricks and mud-mortar. primary indicators.

Three walls, two outside walls and one  Construction material

spine wall at the center, support the whole  Load transfer system
structure. Timber joists over which

HBRP Publication Page 1-12 2022. All Rights Reserved Page 2

 Journal of Earthquake Science and Soil Dynamics Engineering
Volume 5 Issue 1

 No. of storey floor height buildings are selected with

represent the typical building of the
 Age of building Bhaktapur.
 Openings
The buildings are modelled in sap 2000
 Plinth area
using the shell and solid model technique
with timber flooring and without timber
Classification according to construction flooring.
material:
For the analysis of the masonry building
 Adobe building (Building made with Seismic coefficient method is proposed
sun dried brick) with the following load combination.
 Masonry building with mud mortar
joint I. Dead load
II. Dead load + Lateral seismic load
 Masonry building with cement mortar along positive X- direction
joint
 Building with RCC structure. Dead load - Lateral seismic load along
positive X- direction

Classification according to Load transfer: III. Dead load + Lateral seismic load
along positive Y- direction
 Load bearing IV. Dead load - Lateral seismic load
 Moment resisting frame structure along positive Y- direction

Classification according to No. of stories: Seismic Coefficient Method

In the seismic coefficient method, the
 Low rise – 1 to 2 storeys lateral load acting on each floor is
calculated.
 Medium rise – 3 to 4 storeys
 High rise – > 5 storeys For this, the structure is idealized as a
lumped mass multi-degree of freedom
system interconnected by elastic elements.
Classification according to Age of building
The mass lumped at each floor level and is
 Recent – 1 to 10 years equal to the weight of the building
 Medium age - 10 to 20 years between the horizontal planes passing
through the mid-height of successive
- 20 to 30 years
floors.
- 30 to 40 years
- 40 to 50 years Based on the mass at each floor, first the
 Old – 50 to 75 years base shear is calculated which is then
 very old – > 75 years distributed over each floor level based on
their contribution factor,
METHODOLOGY
In this case study, the buildings of various

HBRP Publication Page 1-12 2022. All Rights Reserved Page 3

 Journal of Earthquake Science and Soil Dynamics Engineering
Volume 5 Issue 1

Calculation of base shear

The horizontal seismic shear force acting at the base of the structure, in the
direction being considered, shall be:
V = Cd Wt
Where,
Cd= Design horizontal acceleration spectrum value =CZIK
Where,
C= basic seismic coefficient, C, shall be determined from Figure 8.1 of NBC 105:1994
for the appropriate site subsoil category using the fundamental structural period
determined in accordance with 7.2 of NBC 105:1994 for the direction under
consideration.

Z = The seismic zoning factor, Z, shall be obtained from Figure 8.2 of NBC 105:1994 for
the appropriate location.

I= The importance factor, I, for the structure shall be obtained from Table 8.1 Of NBC
105:1994
K= The minimum permissible value of the structural performance factor, K, and
Associated detailing requirements shall be as given in Table 8.2 of NBC 105:1994.

Distribution of lateral force at each floor level

The lateral force on each floor level is distributed using the following relation
2
Wi * h i
Fi  n
Vb
W *h
2
i i
i 1

Where,
Fi = horizontal force acting at any floor i
Wi = seismic weight of ith storey assumed to be lumped at ith floor.
hi = height of ith floor above base of frame
n = number of storeys in the building
i = number of levels at which the masses are located.

HBRP Publication Page 1-12 2022. All Rights Reserved Page 4

 Journal of Earthquake Science and Soil Dynamics Engineering
Volume 5 Issue 1

RESULT AND DISCUSSION Period 2) In-plane and out-of-plane

The Research is carried out step by step to Displacement 3) Increment of internal
draw comparison of structural parameters. stresses.
Seismic coefficient method is used for the
analysis of the buildings by Solid and shell Time Period
model with floor and without floor. The After analysis of three structures of 2
analysis is carried out by application of storey, 4 storey and 6 storey building by
lateral loads in Sap 2000 ver.19. The shell and solid models with timber floor
zoning factor of Z=1 (for the Kathmandu) and without timber floor, the result
and the structural performance factor K= 4 obtained for, time period from these
and importance factor I=1 has been used in models shows slight increase time period
the analysis as per NBC 105:1994. The from shell model in comparison with solid
result and discussion are discussed under model.
following seismic parameters. 1) Time

7
6
5 solid model
mode

4
Shell Model
3
2
1
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3

Time period in sec

Fig.1:-Comparison of Time periods for different mode by Shell and Solid Model of 6 storey
without floor

HBRP Publication Page 1-12 2022. All Rights Reserved Page 5

 Journal of Earthquake Science and Soil Dynamics Engineering
Volume 5 Issue 1

7
6 solid
5 model
Shell

mode
4 Model
3
2
1
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Time Period in sec

Fig.2:-Comparison of Time periods for different mode by Shell and Solid Model of 6 storey
with floor

In Plane and out of Plane Displacement the structure. The structure’s stiffness is
The in Plane and out-of-plane higher in the direction of the X. The in-
displacement of shell and solid model is in plane displacement under the application
the same range for both with floor and of the load in Y-direction is found to be
without floor models. Even though there higher in the solid model in comparison to
are no significant differences in the the shell model because of the lower
displacement, the displacement is observed stiffness. The maximum displacement is
to be maximum in case of shell models found higher in the solid element because
while comparing with the solid model. The of the boundary condition as solid model is
in-plane displacement under lateral load in more realistic model than the shell model
the X-direction is found to be similar for as it’s an eight noded element having more
both with and without floor models rigid connection between each element.
because of the increase in the stiffness of

Fig.3:-Comparison of In- Plane max displacement for with floor by Shell and Solid Model
Loading in Y- direction

HBRP Publication Page 1-12 2022. All Rights Reserved Page 6

 Journal of Earthquake Science and Soil Dynamics Engineering
Volume 5 Issue 1

14

12

10 solid6

Shell6
Height in m

8
SOLID 4

6 SHELL 4

SOLID2
4
Shell2

0
0 5 10 15
Displacement in mm

Fig.4:-Comparison of In- Plane max displacement for without floor by Shell and Solid Model
Loading in Y- direction

14

12

10
Solid 6
Height in m

8 Shell 6
solid 4
6
shell4

4 solid2
shell2
2

0
0 2 4 6
Displacement in mm
Fig.5:-Comparison of In- Plane max displacement for with floor by Shell and Solid Model
Loading in X- direction

HBRP Publication Page 1-12 2022. All Rights Reserved Page 7

 Journal of Earthquake Science and Soil Dynamics Engineering
Volume 5 Issue 1

14

12

Solid 6
10
Shell 6
Height in m

8 solid 4

6 shell4

solid2
4
shell2
2

0
0 2 4 6
Displacement in mm
Fig.6:-Comparison of In- Plane max displacement for without floor by Shell and Solid Model
Loading in X- direction

14

12
solid model
10
Shell model
Height in m

8 SOLID 4

SHELL 4
6
SOLID2
4 Shell2

0
0 2 4 6
Displacement in mm

Fig.7:-Comparison of out-of- Plane max displacement for floor by Shell and Solid Model
Loading in X- direction

HBRP Publication Page 1-12 2022. All Rights Reserved Page 8

 Journal of Earthquake Science and Soil Dynamics Engineering
Volume 5 Issue 1

14

12

10
solid6
Height in m

8 Shell6
SOLID 4
6 SHELL 4
SOLID2
4
Shell2

0
0 2 4 6
Displacement in mm

Fig.8:-Comparison of out-of- Plane max displacement for floor by Shell and Solid Model
Loading in X- direction

14

12

10 Solid 6
Height in m

8 Shell 6

solid 4
6
shell4
4 solid2

2 shell2

0
0 5 10 15 20
Displacement in mm
Fig.9:-Comparison of out-of- Plane max displacement for with floor by Shell and Solid
Model Loading in Y- direction

HBRP Publication Page 1-12 2022. All Rights Reserved Page 9

 Journal of Earthquake Science and Soil Dynamics Engineering
Volume 5 Issue 1

Fig.10:-Comparison of out-of- Plane max displacement for without floor by Shell and Solid
Model Loading in Y- direction

Increment of Internal Stresses to the solid structures. The results are

The increment of internal stresses is found shown in Table 1 to Table 4.
to higher in shell structures in comparison

HBRP Publication Page 1-12 2022. All Rights Reserved Page 10

 Journal of Earthquake Science and Soil Dynamics Engineering
Volume 5 Issue 1

REFERENCE 6. Binda, L., Cardani, G., Saisi, A., &

1. Kim, J., Lorenzoni, F., Salvalaggio, Valluzzi, M. R. (2006). Vulnerability
M., & Valluzzi, M. R. (2021). Seismic analysis of the historical buildings in
vulnerability assessment of free- seismic area by a multilevel approach.
standing massive masonry columns by 7. Tabeshpour, M. R., Bakhshi, A., &
the 3D Discrete Element Golafshani, A. A. (2004, August).
Method. Engineering Structures, 246, Vulnerability and damage analyses of
113004. existing buildings. In 13th World
2. Gautam, D., Rodrigues, H., Bhetwal, conference on earthquake
K. K., Neupane, P., & Sanada, Y. engineering (Vol. 1261).
(2016). Common structural and 8. Mosoarca, M., Gioncu V.(2010).
construction deficiencies of Nepalese Assessment and mitigation procedures
buildings. Innovative infrastructure for historical buildings situated in
solutions, 1(1), 1-18. seismic areas, Proceedings of the
3. Giordano, A., Mele, E., & De Luca, International Conference on RISK
A. (2002). Modelling of historical MANAGEMENT, ASSESSMENT and
masonry structures: comparison of MITIGATION
different approaches through a case 9. Korkmaz, K. A., Demir, F., & Sivri,
study. Engineering Structures, 24(8), M. (2007). Earthquake assessment of
1057-1069. R/C structures with masonry infill
4. Quim, F., Lima, A., & Silva, N. walls. International journal of science
(2012. Comparative analyses through & technology, 2(2), 155-164.
simplified method, plane frames and 10. Bakhteri, J., Makhtar, A. M., &
space frames for design of structural Sambasivam, S. (2004). Finite
masonry buildings. element modelling of structural clay
5. Sucuoglu, H., & Yazgan, U. (2003). brick masonry subjected to axial
Simple survey procedures for seismic compression. Jurnal Teknologi, 57â-
risk assessment in urban building 68.
stocks. In Seismic assessment and 11. Bruneau, M. (1994). Seismic
rehabilitation of existing evaluation of unreinforced masonry
buildings (pp. 97-118). Springer, buildings—A state-of-the-art
Dordrecht. report. Canadian Journal of Civil
Engineering, 21(3), 512-539.

HBRP Publication Page 1-12 2022. All Rights Reserved Page 11

 Journal of Earthquake Science and Soil Dynamics Engineering
Volume 5 Issue 1

12. Tomaževič, M., Weiss, P., & 14. Nepal National Building Code(NBC
Velechovsky, T. (1991). The influence 105-1994-Seismic Design of
of rigidity of floors on the seismic Buildings in Nepal.
behaviour of old stone-masonry 15. M.Semih Yucemen, Guney Ozcebe -
buildings. Prediction of Potential damage due to
13. New Zealand Draft Code - The severe earthquakes.
Assessment and Improvement of the DOI:10.1016/j.strusafe.2003.09.002
Structural Performance of Earthquake
Risk Buildings.

HBRP Publication Page 1-12 2022. All Rights Reserved Page 12