AReviewofRetrofittingTechniquesofMasonryStructures
AReviewofRetrofittingTechniquesofMasonryStructures
net/publication/359758964
CITATION READS
1 501
4 authors, including:
All content following this page was uploaded by Salman Khursheed on 27 April 2023.
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
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.
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
17
Copyright2021@CIIR
Parnika Yadav, Salman Khursheed, Sushil K. Solanki and Virendra Kumar Paul, IJMIR
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