See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/359758964

A Review of Retrofitting Techniques of Masonry Structures

Research · April 2022

CITATION READS

1 501

4 authors, including:

Parnika Singh Yadav Salman Khursheed

School of Planning and Architecture Delhi School of Planning and Architecture Delhi
21 PUBLICATIONS 53 CITATIONS 31 PUBLICATIONS 148 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Salman Khursheed on 27 April 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

International Journal of Multidisciplinary Innovative Research
ISSN: 2583-0228 Volume 2, Number 2 (Apr’ 2022) pp. 12-20
© CIIR, Noida, INDIA
https://www.ciir.in

A Review of Retrofitting Techniques of

Masonry Structures
Parnika Yadav1, Salman Khursheed2, Sushil K. Solanki3 and Virendra Kumar Paul4
1
Research Scholar, Department of Building Engineering and Management,
2
Assistant Professor, Department of Building Engineering and Management,
3
Associate Professor, Department of Building Engineering and Management,
4
Professor, Head of the Department of Building Engineering and Management,
School of Planning and Architecture, New Delhi, India.
Email: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] &
[email protected]

ABSTRACT: The masonry structures in India are the non-engineered buildings and are among the
most vulnerable structures for damage against seismic loads but these structures are not even able
to sustain against gravity loads majorly due to the effects of structural distress caused due to ageing.
This paper gives us an overall view of the response of masonry structures response towards seismic
loading and their failure modes, factors affecting decision to retrofit. Various local and global
retrofitting techniques are identified through an exhaustive literature study and are presented in a
form of a matrix for the ease of selection.
KEYWORDS: Masonry structures, Structural distress, Seismic response, Retrofitting techniques.

INTRODUCTION
Circular Load bearing brick wall structures are essentially box-type structures that withstand
earthquake loading through the integral action of the walls and their cross walls. During an
earthquake occurrence, the forces acting on brick walls in a structure are applied in both the in-
plane and out-of-plane directions of the brick walls. To resist the earthquake forces, shear and
flexural strength of brick masonry walls play an important role in load bearing masonry
structures. Pathologies that are common in old load-bearing buildings are primarily related to
their age. In the case of masonry, the most common pathologies are structural in nature and can
manifest as desegregation, crushing, fracture, and cracking (Meireles & Bento, 2013) (Hemeda,
2019). Mostly existing load bearing structures that were built in accordance with previous
design codes and standards are frequently discovered to be vulnerable to earthquake damage
due to inadequate detailing, underestimated earthquake loads, corrosion of material with time,
and other reasons. While solidification an old building, structural designer must first
understand about the structural functioning of the building, as well as assess its performance
against different loading conditions combinations as per the latest code requirement (Sarkar,
2014).
(Bedi, 2013) defines retrofit as a general term that encompasses a wide variety of structural
treatments such as preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction. The major
difficulty faced in the retrofit process is the choice of the appropriate treatment strategy and its
procedure needs to be addressed in detail. Many existing structures do not meet the seismic
strength criteria of current earthquake standards, according to (IS:13935, 2009) due to original
structural weaknesses, material degradation or adjustments made during use over time.
12
Copyright2021@CIIR
Parnika Yadav, Salman Khursheed, Sushil K. Solanki and Virendra Kumar Paul, IJMIR

Few authors reported that Indian construction industry is facing multitude challenges including
construction quality, sustainability and quality benchmarking, (Anil Sawhney, 2014) and have
focused on the use of benchmarking for selection of suitable techniques. (Seth, 2017) With the
application of proper seismic retrofitting techniques, their earthquake resistance can be
increased to the level required by contemporary requirements. However, in most cases, the cost
of retrofitting vs the cost of reconstruction determines whether or not to retrofit. (-273, 1997)
As a thumb rule, “if the cost of repair and seismic strengthening is less than about 30 percent
of the reconstruction cost, retrofitting is adopted”. The code mentions about the damageability
assessment of existing masonry buildings through some retrofitting techniques corresponding
to each damageability grade (C.P.W.D, 2007). The researchers have also suggested on the use
of building performance as a criterion for selection of retrofit techniques and material. (Paul S.
G., 2018) Retrofitting removes the seismic insufficiencies, improves the response of existing
unreinforced masonry buildings to both gravity and seismic loads and further enhances the
“box type” behaviour of the structure by increasing the flexural strength of the structural
components by improvement in configuration, load path, redundancy, connections, ductility
and capacity etc. falls under it. Retrofitting of structures can be done so as to enable it to sustain
against maximum probable earthquake without collapse. For deciding retrofitting system for a
particular building, seismic evaluation of building is essential. So, strengthening must be done
to avoid future loss of life and property (Sabu, 2012).

Research Objectives
• To develop an understanding of seismic response of masonry buildings.
• To identify techniques of retrofitting suitable for the existing masonry structure.
• To develop a framework for identification of suitable retrofitting techniques.

Methodology

The present research work was carried out using the following methodologies.
Stage 1: Search for relevant literature: This stage involved a comprehensive search for available
literature like published research papers, conference papers, books, codes, and standards, etc.
Related to load bearing masonry structures for developing an understanding of their behavior.
And to identify the research gap and need of the study.
Stage 2: Screening of identified works: This stage was focused on screening identified works
by focusing on the title, abstract, and keywords related to seismic performance, structural
distress, non-destructive testing, masonry structures, and retrofitting techniques. Further full-
text analysis of the works was carried out to find potential literature, followed by an exhaustive
review of references listed in the sourced out works.
Stage 3: Retrofitting techniques identification: The current stage involved decision analysis for
the identification of all types of retrofitting techniques and the extent of retrofitting needed.
Stage 4: Framework development: This stage deals with the development of a framework for
selection of suitable retrofit technique for masonry structures.

Literature Review
Seismic Response of Masonry Buildings
The masonry walls around the exterior, and sometimes similar walls in the interior, bear up
under the weight that is delivered to them by floor or roof beams, that’s why they are called
the load bearing walls. Masonry being an orthotropic material possessing very high strength in
13
Copyright2021@CIIR
Parnika Yadav, Salman Khursheed, Sushil K. Solanki and Virendra Kumar Paul, IJMIR

compression but almost negligible strength in tension. It is also heterogeneous as it is composed

of both masonry units (bricks or concrete) and mortar. As per (Ingham, 2011), the mechanical
properties of the components vary greatly depending on the type of construction, location, and
time of erection. The masonry tends to have a short elastic period before cracking and
subsequent non-linear behaviour. (Bouchard, 2007) The structural configuration of masonry
buildings also tends to have a major role in the response of buildings towards seismic loading
like the no of storeys, whether it’s a regular structure or an irregular structure (Bélec, 2016).
The failure modes of masonry elements are difficult to predict as they are affected by a number
of factors like, the direction of loading acting stresses, number of openings, size of the
openings, and the compressive and flexural strength of the masonry mortar (Abdolhossein
Fallahi, 2012).
Failure Modes in case of Masonry structures
After going through the available literature, the researchers like (Bouchard, 2007) (Meireles &
Bento, 2013) (Chuanlin Wang, 2018), others have identified three major failure modes in cases
of masonry structures. Few of the common mechanisms of failure identified through the
literature are- Out of plane, in plane, connection, diaphragm, pounding, failure due to opening
of walls, non-structural component failure, inadequate shear capacity, absence of collector
elements in slab, inadequate detailing of connections in the frame, presence of soft storey, lack
of proper confinement of beam- column joints etc. These all identified failure mechanisms can
be broadly classified into these three failure mechanisms based on the available literature-
Plane failures
In-plane failure generally occurs when the load acts parallel to the wall which leads to
generation of in-plane shear stresses. So, the major factor responsible for failure are the size
and location of the openings, masonry mortar strength (Apaudel, 2022). If the direction of
acting forces is perpendicular to the plane of the wall, then it leads to generation of out-plane
stresses. Masonry buildings with light roofs, such as tiled roofs, are more susceptible to out-
of-plane vibrations because the top edge can deform significantly due to a lack of lateral
restraint.
Deformation controlled failures
The deformation - controlled failures possess less risk of sudden collapse. These failures
generally have a more ductile nature when compared to force- controlled failure (Bouchard, A
Performance-Based Approach to Retrofitting UnreinforcedMasonry Structures for Seismic
Loads, 2007).
Force controlled failures
Masonry failures under vertical loads are always force-controlled because the blocks crush
quickly. Toe crushing and diagonal tension are two common examples of force-controlled
failure for in-plane lateral loads on URM shear walls (Bouchard, A performance-based
approach to retrofitting unreinforced masonry structures for seismic loads 2007).
Seismic Retrofit Strategies
(Bedi, 2013) defines retrofitting process as a broad umbrella term comprising of treatments
such as preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction. The major challenge faced
while the retrofit process is the selection of an appropriate treatment strategy, and every project
has some uniqueness so it must be determined individually for each project considering the
suitability of the treatment strategy.

14
Copyright2021@CIIR
Parnika Yadav, Salman Khursheed, Sushil K. Solanki and Virendra Kumar Paul, IJMIR

According to various researchers like (Chuang, 2005) (Y. Korany, 2001), (Chuanlin Wang,
2018), (A. Bradshaw 2011), retrofitting techniques for existing URM buildings have been
studied in detail. The type and quality of masonry materials, existing structures strength,
building occupancy, type of structure, use of the structure, structural layout etc., are important
considerations when selecting a retrofit method. The method chosen must take into
consideration the building aesthetics, function, and the structural strength requirements for
strength, ductility, and stiffness. The following are the traditional retrofitting techniques found
in various literature:
• Grout and epoxy injection
• Anchoring and tying
• Overlays
• Repointing
• Bracing
• Internal reinforcement
• External reinforcement
• Post tensioning
• Seismic damper
• Base isolation
Extent of retrofit
If seismic strength of an existing building is only 33% of that required for a new building as
per the current standard design code the risk involved is about 20 times as high as that of a new
building. If the strength is two-thirds of what is required by the current standard, the risk is
reduced to three times what it is now. As a result, it is strongly advised that retrofitting be
carried out if the existing building's strength falls below 70% of the capacity required by the
current design standard. In the interest of public safety, when the risk is too high (more than
ten times the standard risk), building authorities should prohibit human occupancy of the
building. If a building is relatively old and has lived more than half of its design life, it should
be retrofitted to withstand at least 70% of total design seismic loads, according to current
standards. (C.P.W.D, 2007) as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Extent of retrofit

15
Copyright2021@CIIR
Parnika Yadav, Salman Khursheed, Sushil K. Solanki and Virendra Kumar Paul, IJMIR

General Issues to be Considered While Selecting Retrofit Technique

The international and national codes provide the technical criteria for retrofitting solution
assessment solution but these also include few noon- technical issues also. As per (547, 2006),
(A. Bradshaw, 2011), (Charleson, 2001), (Caterino, 2009), (Khursheed, 2017), (Seshadhri,
2017), (E Kapoor, 2021) six basic non-technical issues are of concern to building owners or
users which help the stakeholders in decision to making to prioritize the decision making:
1. Construction cost: Overall construction cost is a very important aspect to decide whether
to retrofit or not along with the client’s expectation fulfilment.
2. Disruption to the building users during construction: In case of a partially or completely
occupied building, the parameter of disruption of building occupants becomes a major
challenge.
3. Aesthetics: In historic buildings, conservation of historic architecture also usually has a
control on type of retrofit strategy.
4. Post-disaster importance of building: The post-disaster importance of a building refers to
whether the building has any special usage after a disaster. For example, hospitals, airports,
fire station etc.
5. Availability of workmanship/materials: Depending on the location of the project the
availability of the required skillset of manpower as well as the material and equipment
availability might also have an impact on the choice of retrofit.
6. Sustainability: For the purpose of retrofitting, sustainability concept includes:
transportation of materials, amount of material and machinery required, and recycled
content of materials.

Figure 2: Retrofit framework plan

16
Copyright2021@CIIR
Parnika Yadav, Salman Khursheed, Sushil K. Solanki and Virendra Kumar Paul, IJMIR

Table 1: Comparison matrix for effectiveness of retrofitting methods based on

effectiveness and economic cost
Methods Effectiveness Economical
It is one of the most expensive
To Reduction of acting seismic techniques to install. Ranging up to 5 to
Base isolation
decrease forces by 5 to 6 times. 6% of the construction cost. It’s
the advisable for new construction.
seismic Reduction of acting seismic It is also a very expensive technique and
forces Seismic
forces by energy dissipation entails use of advanced equipment and
damper
through seismic dampers techniques.
It requires purchase of special equipment
Shotcrete method enhances the
Surface like pressurised hoses but it is cheaper as
stability of structure in case of out
Treatment compared to base isolation and seismic
of plane failure
damper.
Repair work of existing cracks is
carried out by stitching using steel
Stitching & ties and mortar. Although there is
grout/epoxy no significant increase in lateral
injection strength, this aids in the Trifling costs for grouting technique as
restoration of the wall's initial such products are readily available in the
stiffness. market and the application process is
The original strength and stiffness also very simple.
Mortar Joint can be restored by injection
To treatment grouting and repointing
enhance technique.
the
strength of It is relatively costlier when compared
External Increases lateral in-plane
existing with mortar jointing and epoxy injection
reinforcement resistance by 4.5 times.
buildings techniques.
There’s no significant Minimal costs is associated with
improvement in the structural repointing as main element is just strong
Re-pointing
performance under dynamic mortar or any high strength bonding
loading conditions. material.

Mesh
Industrial Application
It boosts lateral strength by a cost:
geogrid cost: $19/m²
factor of 1 to 3. It also improves $2/m²
Mesh out-of-plane and in-plane stability
reinforcement by increasing shear and flexural
strength while causing minimal Soft Mesh
Application
structural disturbance. polymer cost:
cost: $4/m²
mesh $0.5/m²

It increases the structural ductility

and energy dissipation capacity.
Suitable for up to 15 m high
PP structures. US $ 2 per sq ft of PP band.
reinforcement
Few preventive measures are
needed to be taken for protection
of polypropylene from sunrays.

Steel bar mesh are suitable up to 4

Steel mesh The cost of steel reinforcement for a
storeys, involving less
cage 1000-square-foot house is $400
architectural changes.

17
Copyright2021@CIIR
Parnika Yadav, Salman Khursheed, Sushil K. Solanki and Virendra Kumar Paul, IJMIR

Improves the lateral resistance of It involves activity of demolition and

Columns the structure by adding vertical reconstruction. So, it’s costlier to
structural elements execute.
To
improve Is effectiveness is similar to that
The cost of this technique is similar to
Tie bars of the steel bars in post-tension
the method.
that of post-tensioning.
integrity
Fibre By increasing the tensile strength The cost of this technique is less costly
reinforced of mortar, FRP improves both in- as mortar and fibre are the main
mortar plane and out-of-plane capacity. contributors towards cost.
It improves in-plane strength by a
factor of 5-6 and improves both
Post-
tensile and flexural capacity. It is
tensioning Combined cost of scrap tyres and
appropriate for historical
(using rubber connectors is ~ INR 45/ sqm.
buildings with architectural value
tyres)
because it causes minimal
disruption to aesthetics.
Cable wire system comprises of
wires or strands which are very
light weight material possessing
Cable wire
high tensile strength and are anti It involves high cost.
system
corrosive which enhances the in-
plane capacity and ductility of the
structure.
This technique is suitable for up US $ 4-6 per sq ft. (RCC)
Splint and
to 2 storeys and it leads to major US $ 3-5 per sq ft. (GI welded wire
bandage
architectural changes. mesh)
Shotcrete increases in-plane
strength by a factor of 3.6 while
also improving out-of-plane
stability by increasing ductility
Shotcrete It’s a low-cost technique.
and energy dissipation. High
mass, surface treatment required,
affects architecture, finishing
required, high disturbance

The comparison matrix above has been drawn out by in depth literature review of previously
carried out research works (A. Bradshaw, 2011), (Subhamoy Bhattacharya, 2014), (Chuang,
2005), (Hima Shrestha, 2012), (547, 2006), (Anil Sawhney, 2014), (Abdolhossein Fallahi,
2012), (Salman Khursheed, 2019), (Paul V. K., 2017).
CONCLUSION
The major conclusion drawn out from the current paper are that structural cracks are one of the
major signs for structural distress due to ageing in case of load bearing structures. The overall
seismic behavior of an unreinforced masonry building is very complex because of variability
in the material properties and non-homogeneous nature of the material. In-plane walls (walls
in the direction parallel to earthquake shaking), being the stiffest parts of the building, are
considered as the lateral load resisting elements. The retrofitting technique selected should be
such that increases the stiffness, ductility of the structure, by reducing the brittle failure
behavior of masonry. The proposed retrofit techniques selection matrix can help as a tool is
ease of selection of the relevant technique.

18
Copyright2021@CIIR
Parnika Yadav, Salman Khursheed, Sushil K. Solanki and Virendra Kumar Paul, IJMIR

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank everyone, just everyone!
REFERENCES
[1] Building Seismic Safety Council. FEMA Publication 273. 1997. NEHRP Guidelines for seismic
rehabilitation of existing buildings. Washington DC USA: FEMA.
[2] Building Seismic Safety Council. FEMA Publication 547. 2006. Techniques for the Seismic Rehabilitation
of Existing Buildings. Washington DC USA: FEMA.
[3] Bradshaw, P. Rajeev and S. Tesfamariam. 2011. “Multi Criteria Decision Making Tool for the Selection of
Seismic Retrofitting Techniques.” Australian Earthquake Engineering Society 2011 Conference. Barossa
Valley, South Australia.
[4] Abdolhossein Fallahi, Reza Amiraslanzadeh,Toshikazu Ikemoto & Masakatsu Miyajima. 2012. “A
Comparative Study on Seismic Retrofitting Methods for Unreinforced Masonry Brick Walls.” WCEE.
Lisboa.
[5] Anil Sawhney, Raghav Agnihotri & V.K Paul. 2014. “Grand challenges for the Indian construction
industry.” Built Environment Project and Asset Management, Emerald.
[6] Apaudel. 2022. Failure Mechanism of Masonry Structure. 28 February. http://achyutpaudel.com.np/failure-
mechanism-of-masonry-structure/.
[7] Bedi, Prof. Komal. 2013. “Study on Methods and Techniques of Retrofitting.” International journal of
engineering research & technology (IJERT).
[8] Bélec, Gilbert. 2016. Seismic assessment of unreinforced masonry buildings in Canada. Ottawa, Canada:
Ottawa-Carleton Institute for Civil Engineering.
[9] Bouchard, Keith M. 2007. A performance-based approach to retrofitting unreinforced masonry structures
for seismic loads. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, .
[10] Bouchard, Keith M. 2007. A Performance-Based Approach to Retrofitting UnreinforcedMasonry Structures
for Seismic Loads. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
[11] C.P.W.D. 2007. Handbook on repair and retrofitting of buildings. Delhi: C.P.W.D.
[12] Caterino, N., Iervolino, I., Manfredi, G. and Cosenza, E. 2009. “Comparative analysis of multi-criteria
decision making methods for seismic structural retrofitting.” Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure
Engineering, Vol.24 432-445.
[13] Charleson, A., Preston, J., & Taylor, M. 2001. “Architectural expression of seismic strengtheni.” Earthquake
Spectra, Vol.17, No.3 417-426.
[14] Chuang, S., & Zhuge, Y. 2005. “Seismic Retrofitting of Unreinforced Masonry Buildings – A Literature
Review.” Australian Journal of Structural Engineering 25-36.
[15] Chuanlin Wang, Vasilis Sarhosis and Nikolaos Nikitas. 2018. “Strengthening/Retrofitting Techniques on
Unreinforced Masonry Structure/Element Subjected to Seismic Loads: A Literature Review.” The Open
Construction and Building Engineering Journal 251-268.
[16] E Kapoor, Sushil Kumar Solanki, Prof. V.K Paul. 2021. “Cost Benefit Analysis for Rehabilitation of
Buildings: Case of Indian Medical Association, New Delhi.” International Journal of Structural Engineering:
Publisher Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.
[17] Hemeda, Sayed. 2019. “3D finite element coupled analysis model for geotechnical and complex structural
problems of historic masonry structures: conservation of Abu Serga church, Cairo, Egypt.” Heritage Science
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40494-019-0248-z.
[18] Hima Shrestha, Suman Pradhan, Ramesh Guragain. 2012. “Experiences on Retrofitting of Low Strength
Masonry Buildings by Different Retrofitting Techniques in Nepal.” WCEE LISBOA. National Society for
Earthquake Technology-Nepal (NSET).
[19] huanlin Wang, Vasilis Sarhosis and Nikolaos Nikitas. 2018. “Strengthening/Retrofitting Techniques on
Unreinforced Masonry Structure/Element Subjected to Seismic Loads: A Literature Review.” The Open
Construction and Building Technology Journal 251-268.

19
Copyright2021@CIIR
 Parnika Yadav, Salman Khursheed, Sushil K. Solanki and Virendra Kumar Paul, IJMIR
[20] Ingham, M Griffith and J. 2011. “Performance of unreinforced masonry buildings during the 2010 Darfi eld
(Christchurch, NZ) earthquake.” Australian Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol 11 No 3 1-18.
[21] n.d. “Intervention Strategy for Enhanced User Satisfaction Based on User Requirement Related BPAs for
Government Residential Buildings.”
[22] IS:13935. 2009. Seismic evaluation, repair and strengthening of masonry buildings — guidelines. Delhi:
Bureau Of Indian Standards.
[23] Khursheed, S., Paul, V. K. & Mushfique, M., 2017. “Mechanization in Building Construction and Its Cost
Implication.” Proceedings of the International Conference on Futuristic Trends in Architecture. . Delhi:
School of Architecture and Planning, Sharda University. 107-114.
[24] Meireles, H., and R. Bento. 2013. “Rehabilitation and strengthening of old masonry buildings.”
[25] Paul, S. Gopalkrishnan & V.K. 2018. “Measuring satisfaction with user requirement related building
performance attributes: A questionnaire.” Journal of Building Performance. 133-146.
[26] Paul, V. K., Khursheed, S. & Singh, R., 2017. “Comparative Study of Construction Technologies for
Underground Metro Stations in India.” International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology,
6(3) 55-63.
[27] Sabu, P.S Pajagade and D.J. 2012. “Seismic Evaluation of existing reinforced conceret building.”
International Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research, Volume 3, Issue 6 1-8.
[28] Salman Khursheed, Virendra Kumar Paul, Md. Asif Akbari. 2019. “Cost feasibility and performance
assessment of expanded polystyrene sheet over conventional method.” Asian Journal of Civil Engineering.
[29] Sarkar, Debranjan Sar and Pradeep. 2014. “Seismic Evaluation Of Un-Reinforced Masonry Structures.” In
Proceedings of the International Symposium on Engineering under Uncertainty: Safety Assessment and
Management (ISEUSAM - 2012), by Subrata Chakrobarty and Gautam Bhattacharya, 1267-1276.
[30] Seshadhri, G. & Paul, V. K. 2017. “Intervention Strategy for Enhanced User Satisfaction Based on User
Requirement Related BPAs for Government Residential Buildings.” International Conference on
Sustainable Infrastructure. Newyork.
[31] Seth, V.K Paul and V. 2017. “Benchmarking and objective selection of technologies for housing in India
using quality function deployment.” Journal of Construction in Developing Countries, 22(S1 63-78.
[32] Subhamoy Bhattacharya, Sanket Nayak,Sekhar Chandra Dutta. 2014. “A critical review of retrofitting
methods for unreinforcedmasonry structure.” International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 51-67.
[33] Y. Korany, R. Drysdale, S. Chidiac. 2001. “Retrofit of Unreinforced Masonry Buildings: The State-Of-The-
Art.”

20
Copyright2021@CIIR

View publication stats