COMPUTER MODELING OF MASONRY STRUCTURES

BATCH 2011-2012

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

NED UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY

COMPUTER MODELING OF MASONRY STRUCTURES

Batch 2011-2012

BY
NAME

SEAT NO

AAQIB SHAFIQ

CE-208

AHSAN KAZMI

CE-212

FARAH SIDDIQUI

CE-304

APSERA FATIMA

CE-310

BEENA ZAIDI

CE-312

BATOOL FATIMA

CE-319

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

NED UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY

KARACHI, PAKISTAN
i

CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the following students of (BATCH 2011-2012) have successfully
completed the final year project in partial fulfillment of requirements for a Bachelors
Degree in Civil Engineering from NED University of Engineering and Technology,
Karachi, Pakistan.

NAME

SEAT NO

AAQIB SHAFIQ

CE-208

AHSAN KAZMI

CE-212

FARAH SIDDIQUI

CE-304

APSERA FATIMA

CE-310

BEENA ZAIDI

CE-312

BATOOL FATIMA

CE-319

PROJECT SUPERVISOR

__________________________
Prof. Dr. Abdul Jabbar Sangi
Department of Civil Engineering
NED University of Engineering & Technology,
Karachi.

ii

__________________________
Prof. Dr. Asad-ur-Rehman Khan
Chairman
Department of Civil Engineering
NED University of Engineering &
Technology, Karachi.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First praise is to Allah, the Almighty, on whom ultimately we depend for sustenance and
guidance. Our thanks to NED University of Engineering and Technology for the support
it provided us during our project. We would like to thank everyone who had contributed
to the successful completion of this project.

We would like to express our gratitude to our project supervisor, Professor Dr. Abdul
Jabbar Sangi for his advice, guidance and his patience throughout the development of the
work. In addition, we would also like to thank Mr. Amir Nizam and Mr. Shahid, and also
to the whole laboratory staff for helping us out in carrying the experiments and being
patient throughout the time.

iii

ABSTRACT
Masonry construction is widely used in Pakistan and it is estimated to be approximately
62% of the total construction. The past experience shows that the behavior of masonry is
vulnerable to earthquake and lateral loads. The deficiencies which lead to the failure of
the non-engineered masonry structures may include the poor quality cement sand mortar
or using low compressive strength masonry.
This project talks about the detailed experimental program for brick masonry in order to
gather the mechanical properties of traditional low quality red burnt clay brick. The brick
masonry was tested under different loading conditions which include gravity loads,
flexure and diagonal shear. The mechanical properties extracted were used as an input to
form a macro model using SAP2000 for the diagonal wall tested.

iv

Contents
COMPUTER MODELING OF MASONRY STRUCTURES ....................................................................... i
CERTIFICATE ..................................................................................................................................... ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ..................................................................................................................... iii
ABSTRACT........................................................................................................................................ iv
CHAPTER: 1 ...................................................................................................................................... 5
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 5
1.1

GENERAL .......................................................................................................................... 5

1.2

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES OF PROJECT ................................................................................ 6

1.3

SCOPE OF THE WORK ................................................................................................. 6

1.4

METHODLOGY ............................................................................................................. 6

1.5

OVERVIEW OF THE REPORT ..................................................................................... 8

CHAPTER: 2 ...................................................................................................................................... 9
LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................................................ 9
2.1

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 9

2.2

CONSTRUCTION METHODS ...................................................................................... 9

2.2.1 HISTORICAL FORMS......................................................................................................... 9

2.2.2

CONTEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION......................................................................... 10

2.2.3

UNREINFORCED NON STRUCTURAL MASONRY ..................................................... 10

2.2.4

UNREINFORCED STRUCTURAL MASONRY.............................................................. 11

2.2.4.3

REINFORCED CONSTRUCTION: ...................................................................... 11

2.3

MATERIAL CLASSIFICATION.................................................................................. 12

2.4 MATERIAL MECHANICAL BEHAVIOR ........................................................................ 13

2.4.1 MASONRY UNIT BEHAVIOR .................................................................................. 14
2.4.2 MORTAR BEHAVIOR ................................................................................................ 14
2.4.3 UNIT-MORTAR INTERFACE BEHAVIOR .............................................................. 14
2.4.4 COMPOSITE BEHAVIOR .......................................................................................... 15
2.4.5 BIAXIAL BEHAVIOR................................................................................................. 15
2.5

FAILURE MODES OF MASONRY ............................................................................. 15

2.6

BEHAVIOR OF MASONRY UNDER SEISMIC LOADS .......................................... 16

2.6.1 BEHAVIOUR OF BRICK MASONRY WALLS DURING AN EARTHQUAKE:.. 16

2.6.2 FAILURE REASONS OF BRICK MASONRY UNDER SEISMIC LOADING ...... 18
2.6.3

TYPES OF DAMAGES IDENTIFIED FROM AN EARTHQUAKE SURVEY . 19

1

2.6.4 DAMAGE CAUSED TO MASONRY DURING EARTHQUAKE: ......................... 20

2.7

BEHAVIOUR OF MASONRY UNDER VERTICAL LOADS ................................... 20

2.8

MODELING OF MASONRY ....................................................................................... 21

2.8.1

MICRO VERSUS MACRO APPROACHES ........................................................ 21

2.8.2 MASONRY MODELING STRATEGIES ................................................................. 21

2.8.3

MICRO-MODELING APPROACH...................................................................... 22

2.8.4

MACRO-MODELLING APPROACH.................................................................. 23

CHAPTER: 3 .................................................................................................................................... 25
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM .................................................................................................... 25
3.1

INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 25

3.2

COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF MORTAR .............................................................. 25

3.2.1 DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................... 28

3.3

COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF RED BURNT BRICK ........................................... 28

3.3.1
3.4

DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................ 29

FLEXURAL BOND STRENGTH OF RED BURNT CLAY BRICK MASONRY ..... 30

3.4.1 DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................... 32

3.5

MODULUS OF ELASTICITY OF WALL ................................................................... 32

3.4.1 Discussion ..................................................................................................................... 36

3.5 DIAGONAL TENSILE (SHEAR) STRENGTH TEST ...................................................... 36
3.5.1
3.6

DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................ 41

OUTCOMES.................................................................................................................. 41

MODELING OF MASONRY ....................................................................................................... 42

4.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 42
4.2 MATERIAL PROPERTIES FOR THE ANALYSIS .......................................................... 42

COMPRESSIVE STRENGHT OF HYDRAULIC CEMENT MORTAR .................... 42

COMPRESSIVE STRENGHT & MODULUS OF ELASTICITY OF RED BRICK ... 42

4.3 MACRO MODELING OF WALL ...................................................................................... 43

4.4

INTERPRETATION OF REULTS ............................................................................... 44

4.4.1 SHEAR STRESSES GENERATED ............................................................................. 44

4.4.2
4.5

JOINT DISPLACEMENTS GENERATED .......................................................... 46

MODELLING OF BUILDING ..................................................................................... 47

4.5.1 SHEAR STRESSES GENERATED ............................................................................. 48

4.6

DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................ 49

References:..................................................................................................................................... 51
Appendix........................................................................................................................................ 53
2

FIGURE 1 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................................7

FIGURE 2 MASONRY CONSTRUCTIONS IN THE PAST- ADOBE AND STUCCO[1] .................................................10
FIGURE 3 TYPICAL UNREINFORCED MASONRY CONSTRUCTION [1].................................................................11
FIGURE 4 TYPES OF BONDS IN BRICK MASONRY[2] .........................................................................................13
FIGURE 5 TYPICAL FAILURE MODES OF MASONRY WALLS, SUBJECTED TO IN PLANE SHEAR[5] ......................16
FIGURE 6 BASIC COMPONENTS OF A MASONRY BUILDING[7] .........................................................................16
FIGURE 7 DIRECTION OF FORCE ON A WALL CRITICALLY DETERMINING ITS EARTHQUAKE POSITION[7] .........17
FIGURE 8 WALLS LOADED IN THEIR WEAK DIRECTION TEND TO TOPPLE[7] ...................................................17
FIGURE 9 WALL A PROPERLY CONNECTED TO WALL B, WALL A LOADED IN STRONG DIRECTION SUPPORT
WALL B (LOADED IN WEAK DIRECTION)[7] ............................................................................................ 18
FIGURE 10 DAMAGE CAUSED TO MASONRY STRUCTURE DUE TO EARTHQUAKE[8] ........................................20
FIGURE 11 APPROACHES FOR MODELING[2] ..................................................................................................21
FIGURE 12 PREPARATION OF SIX MORTAR CUBES ..........................................................................................26
FIGURE 13 APPLICATION OF LOAD ON ONE OF THE SAMPLES ..........................................................................27
FIGURE 14 SPECIMENS FOR COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH ANALYSIS ...................................................................28
FIGURE 15: PLACEMENT OF SAMPLE AND ARRANGEMENT FOR TEST IN UTM.................................................29
FIGURE 16 SPECIMENS OF FLEXURE STRENGTH TEST ....................................................................................30
FIGURE 17 CURING OF SPECIMENS .................................................................................................................30
FIGURE 18 PLACEMENT OF PRISM IN UTM ....................................................................................................31
FIGURE 19 FAILURE OF PRISM .......................................................................................................................32
FIGURE 20: PREPARATION OF SAMPLES FOR TEST AND CAPPING....................................................................33
FIGURE 21: PLACEMENT OF SAMPLE IN THE UTM ..........................................................................................33
FIGURE 22: STRESS-STRAIN CURVE FOR SAMPLE 1 .........................................................................................34
FIGURE 23: STRESS-STRAIN CURVE FOR SAMPLE 2 ........................................................................................34
FIGURE 24: STRESS-STRAIN CURVE FOR SAMPLE 3 .........................................................................................35
FIGURE 25: FAILURE PATTERN OF SAMPLE .....................................................................................................36
FIGURE 26: PREPARATION OF SAMPLE WALL FOR DIAGONAL TEST .................................................................37
FIGURE 27 INSTRUMENTATION OF WALL[14] .................................................................................................38
FIGURE 28 FAILURE OF FIRST SAMPLE OF DIAGONAL WALL ...........................................................................39
FIGURE 29: FAILURE OF SECOND SAMPLE OF DIAGONAL WALL ......................................................................40
FIGURE 30: FAILURE OF THIRD SAMPLE OF DIAGONAL WALL .........................................................................40
FIGURE 31 WALL MODEL ...............................................................................................................................43
FIGURE 32: SHEAR STRESSES GENERATED AT 140KN .....................................................................................44
FIGURE 33: SHEAR STRESSES GENERATED AT 90KN ......................................................................................45
FIGURE 34: SHEAR STRESSES GENERATED AT 60KN ......................................................................................45
FIGURE 35 SINGLE STOREY SCHOOL BUILDING. ..............................................................................................47
FIGURE 36 SHEAR STRESSES DUE TO SUPER DEAD LOAD ...............................................................................48
FIGURE 37 SHEAR FORCES DUE TO SUPER DEAD LOAD .................................................................................49
FIGURE 38 LOAD VS. DISPLACEMENT CURVES OF FLEXURE TEST .................................................................57

TABLE 1 COMPOSITION OF MORTAR ...............................................................................................................26

TABLE 2 CALCULATION OF COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF MORTAR .................................................................27
TABLE 3 OBSERVATIONS AND CALCULATIONS OF COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF BRICK.................................29
TABLE 4: CALCULATION OF MODULUS OF RUPTURE .......................................................................................31
TABLE 5: CALCULATION OF MODULUS OF ELASTICITY OF PRISM 1 .................................................................34
TABLE 6 CALCULATION OF MODULUS OF ELASTICITY OF PRISM 2 ..................................................................35
TABLE 7 CALCULATION OF MODULUS OF ELASTICITY OF PRISM 3 ..................................................................35
TABLE 8 SUMMARY OF COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH AND MODULUS OF ELASTICITY ........................................36
TABLE 9 CALCULATION OF MODULUS OF RIGIDITY ......................................................................................39

TABLE 10 SUMMARY OF SHEAR STRENGTH AND MODULUS OF RIGIDITY ......................................................39

TABLE 11 OUTCOMES OF EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM .....................................................................................41
TABLE 12: INPUT PROPERTIES FOR MODEL .....................................................................................................43
TABLE 13 COMPARISON OF JOINT DISPLACEMENT OF DIAGONAL WALL SAMPLE 1.......................................46
TABLE 14 COMPARISON OF JOINT DISPLACEMENT OF DIAGONAL WALL SAMPLE 2.......................................46
TABLE 15 COMPARISON OF JOINT DISPLACEMENT OF DIAGONAL WALL SAMPLE 3.......................................47
TABLE 16 DETAILED CALCULATION OF COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF BRICK ................................................53
TABLE 17 STRESS STRAIN DISTRIBUTIONS OF PRISMS ..................................................................................54

CHAPTER: 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 GENERAL
Brick masonry is an earliest building technique, and masonry constructions constitute a
large share of structures around the world. Such structures are required to withstand
extraordinary dynamic loading caused due to accidental impact or seismic activity, along
with this brick masonry is a composite material made of brick units which are usually
made from clay and mortar. Masonry is in general a highly resilient type of construction.
However, the materials that are used, quality of the mortar and workmanship and the
arrangement of the unit can considerably affect the durability of the whole masonry
construction.
There are many variables that affect the mechanical behavior of brick masonry such as
the brick and mortar properties, brick geometry, joint dimensions and arrangement of
joints which results in heterogeneous masonry material. However masonry was supposed
to be isotropic elastic in initial analyses. The structural behavior of masonry is subjected
to several factors such as member geometry, the characteristics of its texture, the
physical, chemical and mechanical properties of its components and the characteristics of
masonry as a composite material.
All of the above stated factors make the study of the brick masonry mechanical behavior
a very complex matter. Since most of the masonry construction in Pakistan is nonengineered and very less research is done related to it. So the properties of locally used
masonry are not widely available in literature.
This is the reason that great interest for the development and calibration of effective
modeling and analysis approaches that are able to predict the behavior of masonry
structures, certainly under cyclic loads for seismic assessments. In terms of model scale,
the masonry structures can be modeled at the macro and micro levels.

1.2 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES OF PROJECT

The main objectives of this project are:
1. To establish the material characterization of the traditionally used red burnt clay
brick masonry in Pakistan by carrying out experiments at material testing
laboratory.
2. Using the extracted mechanical properties as an input data for the macro
modeling.

1.3 SCOPE OF THE WORK

The scope of the project includes:
The extraction of following mechanical properties of low quality, locally available red
burnt clay bricks from the experiments performed under different loading conditions:
1. Compressive strength of mortar
2. Compressive strength of brick masonry assemblage
3. Stress strain behavior
4. Modulus of elasticity
5. Shear modulus
6. Modulus of Rupture
7. Poissons ratio
The properties extracted were used as an input for macro modeling using SAP2000.

1.4

METHODLOGY

Following methodology is adopted to meet the objectives:

1. In order to gather the information regarding behavior of masonry, research papers
and related books were given a detailed go through to have a thorough study of
project.
2. The literature review encompasses the following major topics:
i.

General characteristics of brick masonry in different constructions

ii.

Mechanical behavior

iii.

Failure modes
6

iv.

Behavior of masonry under seismic loads

v.

Behavior of masonry under gravity loads

vi.

In plane and out of plane failures

vii.

Modeling approaches

3. Extracting mechanical properties of masonry through experimental program.

4. Using the mechanical properties as an input for macro modeling.

Figure 1 Methodology

1.5

OVERVIEW OF THE REPORT

The dissertation is organized in 4 chapters.

Chapter 2 starts with general discussion on the type of masonry structures with detailed
discussion on various possible loading conditions. A brief discussion is also made on
various failure modes in unreinforced masonry structure. Various techniques to model
masonry are also elaborated in this chapter.
Chapter 3 covers the detail of standard tests carried out on mortar, brick and their
composite.
Various mechanical properties such as compressive strength of mortar, compressive
strength and modulus of elasticity of brick, flexural bond strength of masonry, modulus
of elasticity of wall and diagonal tensile strength of walls are determined.
Chapter 4 involves the discussion on behavior of masonry using modeling techniques
modeling of masonry gives us shear and horizontal stresses developed. This chapter also
present the conclusion based on the work explained.

CHAPTER: 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1

INTRODUCTION

Masonry is one of the ancient structural materials that are still in use; it has been applied
on huge components presenting definite geometry and a high mechanical variability.
Masonry is usually used for the walls of buildings and retaining walls. Brick and concrete
block are the most common types of masonry in use in developed nations and may be
either weight-bearing or a veneer. Concrete blocks, especially those with hollow cores,
offer various possibilities in masonry construction. They generally provide great
compressive strength, and are best suited to structures with light transverse loading when
the cores remain unfilled. Filling some or all of the cores with concrete or concrete with
steel reinforcement (typically rebar) offers much greater lateral and tensile strength to
structures.
Before one starts with modeling of masonry it is important to know that with which type
one is dealing.

2.2 CONSTRUCTION METHODS

Many forms of masonry constructions can be used for buildings traditionally.

2.2.1 HISTORICAL FORMS

Many of the formations of masonry construction being used today are like the
constructions forms of the past. The simple rock piles were produced by the primitive
people. The basic elements of brick masonry constructions today are similar to the
construction in the ancient times. Figure 2 shows the type of masonry construction
followed in past.[1]

Figure 2 Masonry constructions in the past- adobe and stucco[1]

2.2.2 CONTEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION

Masonry is still a popular form of construction for many reasons including its resistance
to fire and weir, the solid sense it yields due to its rigid nature. The general character of
being permanent all these characters present masonry in front of public as a quality
construction.
The common forms of masonry include concrete blocks bricks and stones.

2.2.3 UNREINFORCED NON STRUCTURAL MASONRY

Masonry materials are used for variety of functions in building construction. Units of
fixed clay, precast concrete, cut stone or field stone can be used to form floor surfaces
wall finishes or non-load bearing walls (partitions or curtain walls).
Most of the construction that appeared to be made of brick, cut stone in today is veneer
used for red construction with surface of masonry units attached to some back up
structure.
Masonry veneer facings and non-load bearing partitions must be provided with control
joints and various forms of anchorage and support. The masonry units used for nonstructural purpose possess the same characters that the masonry units being used for
structural purpose. However it is possible to use some lower structure grades of material
that are not usable for structural masonry construction. A problem with non-structural
masonry construction is unintended structural response.

10

2.2.4 UNREINFORCED STRUCTURAL MASONRY

Unreinforced Masonry construction is widely found. It is generally held in low regard in
earthquake prone regions. If the masonry is unreinforced its grade and quality depend on
type of mortar. The following discussion deals with some major concerns of design of
unreinforced masonry structure.

2.2.4.1 DESIGN STRENGTH OF MASONRY

As like concrete the basic design strength of masonry is measured on basis of its
compressive strength. The value of compressive strength is taken based on the strength of
units and class of mortar.

2.2.4.2

ALLOWABLE STRESSES

Allowable stresses are directly specified for some cases (such as tension and shear) or are
determined by code formulas that usually include the variable of compressive strength.

2.2.4.3

REINFORCED CONSTRUCTION:

The term reinforced masonry designates a type masonry construction and specifically
classified by building code definitions. Essential to this definition are some assumptions
that steel reinforcement is designed to carry forces and the masonry does not develop
tensile stresses. Figure 3 shows a typical unreinforced masonry construction

Figure 3 Typical unreinforced masonry construction [1]

11

2.2.5.1 REINFORCED BRICK MASONRY

Here the wall consists of two wythes of bricks with a cavity space between them. The
cavity space is filled completely with grout so that the construction qualifies firstly as
grouted masonry for which various requirements are stipulated by the code. General
requirements and design procedures for the reinforce brick masonry are similar to those
for concrete walls.

2.2.4.4

REINFORCED HOLLOW UNIT MASONRY

It consists of single Wythe walls formed. Cavities are vertically aligned so that small
reinforced concrete columns can be formed with in them. At some intervals horizontal
courses also used to form reinforce concrete members.

2.2.4.5

VENEERED CONSTRUCTION

A veneer is a finish coating or layer of material that achieves the appearance of solid
natural material. The veneer may be a paper thin layer of walnut over a structural soft
wood, ply wood or a single Wythe of bricks over some structural supporting.
2.3

MATERIAL CLASSIFICATION

Different types of masonry are used in construction industry. This project focuses mainly
on the material characterization of brick masonry. To characterize brick masonry, the
important aspects are the age of masonry, the type of units (e.g. hollow or solid), the type
of brick material, type of bond and the type of mortar. Various types of bonds are used in
different part of the world. The most common bond in Pakistan (northern areas) is
Flemish bond as shown in Figure 4. Within the different types of bonds distinctions can
be made between whether the head joints are filled with mortar or they are not.
Ancient masonry buildings are often composed of a great variety of materials and are
often already cracked because of the loading history. Materials for bricks can, for
example, be clay and calcium silicate. In this research burnt clay red bricks have been
taken under consideration.[2]

12

Figure 4 Types of bonds in brick masonry[2]

2.4 MATERIAL MECHANICAL BEHAVIOR

Nevertheless, the mechanical behavior of the different types of masonry has generally a
common feature: a very low tensile strength. This property is so important that it has
determined the shape of ancient constructions. The difficulties in performing advanced
testing of ancient structures are quite large due to the innumerable variations of masonry,
the variability of the masonry itself in a specific structure and the impossibility of
reproducing it all in a specimen. Therefore, most of the advanced experimental research
carried out in the last decade has concentrated in brick / block masonry and its relevance
for design. This greater interest is reflected next, even if what will be described can be
applied to any masonry type, or other materials in which bonding, cohesion and friction
between constituents form the basic mechanical actions.[3]
Mechanical behavior mainly depends on the following factors of brick masonry:

13

2.4.1 MASONRY UNIT BEHAVIOR

Masonry units are quasi-brittle materials with a disordered internal structure that contains a large
number of randomly oriented zones of potential failure in the form of grain boundaries. Quasibrittle means that after the peak load is applied, the force gradually reverts to zero. This type of
softening is characterized by the development of micro-cracks into macro-cracks. The strength
and stiffness parameters of masonry units can be determined by experimental tests.[2]

2.4.2 MORTAR BEHAVIOR

The most important impact on the mechanical properties of mortar is the proportion in
which components are mixed, viz. cement, sand, lime and gypsum. Different types of
mortar can be distinguished

General purpose mortar is a traditional mortar which is used in joints with a

thickness larger than 3 mm;

Thin layer mortar is used for thinner joints, i.e. with a thickness between 1 and 3
mm;

Lightweight mortar is made using special materials and is applied when specic
requirements have to be met.

2.4.3 UNIT-MORTAR INTERFACE BEHAVIOR

The unit-mortar interface is generally the weakest connection in masonry composite.

Cracking is usually appeared on these locations. The deformation capacity of masonry is
therefore mainly dependent on the non-linear behavior in this interface. The interfacestrength depends predominantly on the absorbency of the units, water retention capacity,
porosity of mortar, amount of binder and curing conditions.

14

2.4.4 COMPOSITE BEHAVIOR

It is hard to obtain the behavior of masonry as a composite material; the reason is the
interaction between the constituents is complicated. Hence, stiffness and strength
parameters have to be found from experimental tests on masonry specimens. Separate
tests on units and mortar are not enough to capture this behavior. When taking into
consideration the in-plane behavior of masonry, the angle with the bed joint is a
parameter that tells the loading-angle.

2.4.5 BIAXIAL BEHAVIOR

Simple nonlinear stressstrain relations for brick masonry constructed with solid pressed
bricks are derived from the results of a large number of biaxial tests on square panels
with various angles of the bed joint to the principal stress axes. The macroscopic elastic
and nonlinear stressstrain relations are determined from, displacement measurements
over gage lengths which included a number of mortar joints. Although the initial elastic
behavior is found to be close, on average, to isotropic, the nonlinear behavior is strongly
influenced by joint deformations and is best expressed in terms of stresses and strains
referred to axes normal and parallel to the bed joint.[4]

2.5 FAILURE MODES OF MASONRY

According to the results of earthquake damage analysis and subsequent experiments three
types of mechanism and failure modes define the seismic behavior of structural masonry
walls when subjected to in plane seismic loads. The mechanisms depend upon geometry
of wall (height/width ratio) and quality of materials, but also on boundary restraints and
loads acting on the wall[5] (Figure 5)

15

Figure 5 Typical failure modes of masonry walls, subjected to in plane shear[5]

2.6 BEHAVIOR OF MASONRY UNDER SEISMIC LOADS

2.6.1 BEHAVIOUR OF BRICK MASONRY WALLS DURING AN
EARTHQUAKE:
Ground vibrations during earthquakes cause inertia forces at locations of mass in the
building. These forces travel through the roof and walls to the foundation. The main
emphasis is on ensuring that these forces reach the ground without causing major damage
or collapse. Of the three components of a building (roof, wall and foundation) (Figure 6),
the walls are most vulnerable to damage caused by horizontal forces due to earthquake. A
wall topples down easily if pushed horizontally at the top in a direction perpendicular to
its plane (termed weak direction), but offers much greater resistance if pushed along its
length (termed strong direction) [6](Figure 7).

Figure 6 Basic components of a masonry building[7]

16

Figure 7 Direction of force on a wall critically determining its earthquake position[7]

The ground shakes simultaneously in the vertical and two horizontal directions during
earthquakes However, the horizontal vibrations are the most damaging to normal
masonry buildings. Horizontal inertia force developed at the roof transfers to the walls
acting either in the weak or in the strong direction. If all the walls are not tied together
like a box, the walls loaded in their weak direction tend to topple (Figure 8). To ensure
good seismic performance, all walls must be joined properly to the adjacent walls. In this
way, walls loaded in their weak direction can take advantage of the good lateral
resistance offered by walls loaded in their strong direction (Figure 9).
Further, walls also need to be tied to the roof and foundation to preserve their overall
integrity.

Figure 8 Walls loaded in their weak direction tend to topple[7]

17

Figure 9 Wall A properly connected to wall B, wall A loaded in strong direction support
wall B (loaded in weak direction)[7]

2.6.2 FAILURE REASONS OF BRICK MASONRY UNDER SEISMIC

LOADING
Unreinforced masonry structures are the most vulnerable during an earth quake due to
following reasons:[8]

Brittle nature of URM

Large mass of masonry structures

Large initial stiffness

Large variability in masonry material properties

2.6.2.1

FAILURE MODES OF A MASONRY UNDER SEISMIC LOADS

Out of plane failure

In plane failure

Diaphragm failure

Non-structural component failure

2.6.2.2

OUT OF PLANE FAILURE

The Earthquake force is perpendicular to the plane. The wall tends to overturn or bend.
This causes the partial or full collapse of the wall. This is due to inadequate anchorage of
wall and roof, long and slender wall, etc. Characterized by vertical cracks at corner,
cracks at lintel, roof level and gable wall, etc.

18

2.6.2.3

IN PLANE FAILURE

The Earthquake force is parallel to the plane. The wall is shear off or bend. X- Cracks
occurs. Characterized by vertical cracks at wall intersection, separation of corners of two
walls, spilling of materials, etc.

2.6.2.4

NON STRUCTURAL COMPONET FAILURE:

Falling of plaster from walls and ceiling, Cracking and overturning of parapets,
chimneys, etc. Cracking and overturning of partition walls, cracking of glasses, falling of
loosely placed objects.[9]

2.6.3

TYPES OF DAMAGES IDENTIFIED FROM AN EARTHQUAKE

SURVEY

Following types of damages are identified from an earthquake survey:

Cracks between walls and floor
Cracks at corners and at wall intersections
Out-of-plane collapse of perimetral walls
Cracks in spandrel beams
Diagonal cracks in structural walls
Partial disintegration or collapse of walls
Partial or complete collapse of building
Figure: 10 shows the deformation and typical damages suffered by a simple
masonry building subjected earthquake ground motion.

19

Figure 10 Damage caused to masonry structure due to earthquake[8]

2.6.4 DAMAGE CAUSED TO MASONRY DURING EARTHQUAKE:

Earthquake damage depends on many parameters, including intensity, duration and
frequency content of ground motion, geologic and soil condition, quality of construction,
etc. Building design must be such as to ensure that the building has adequate strength,
high ductility, and will remain as one unit, even while subjected to very large
deformation.[10]

2.7

BEHAVIOUR OF MASONRY UNDER VERTICAL LOADS

Masonry has been used as a load bearing material for centuries. In the early gravity
structures, levels of stress were low and factors of safety against compression failure
were high, so that detailed knowledge of compressive behavior was not essential.
However in recent years, with the use of shear walls to resist lateral loads, walls have
become very thin and consequently often highly stressed under vertical loads. In loadbearing masonry buildings, the masonry is basically designed to act in compression, with
the load-bearing walls transmitting vertical loads from storey to storey down to the
foundation.[11]

20

2.8

MODELING OF MASONRY

Various ways to model masonry are elaborated in the literature, each with its own
difficulties. It should be noticed that there is not just one correct way of modeling
masonry. Each method has its merits and demerits. The goal of any analysis should be
determinative for the usage of an approach. As affair close estimate there are two types of
approaches; micro and macro.[2]

2.8.1

MICRO VERSUS MACRO APPROACHES

There are generally two kinds of models, micro-models and macro-models (see Figure
11). The prefixes micro and macro stand for the scale of modeling; microscopic or
macroscopic. The macroscopic scale is considered to be at least 10-100 times greater than
the microscopic scale modeling on a scale that is in between these two is considered
special in most literature form of micro-modeling, also called simple micro- modeling.

Figure 11 Approaches for modeling[2]

2.8.2 MASONRY MODELING STRATEGIES

In micro-models, every part of masonry (i.e. units, mortar, and their interface) is modeled
apart. The demerits of this method are that all the properties of the constituents have to be
known, there are a large number of degrees of freedom and it takes a lot of effort to form
the model. Micro-models are used when learning the behavior of a single structural
component, such as a wall or a oor.
Macro-models, on the other hand, tend to be more elaborative. They usually demand less
input data than micro-models and can be constructed without difficulty. Computationally,
21

they are also less time consuming and requiring less memory. The downside to these
kinds of models is that the essential equations can become difficult if every failure
mechanism is taken into account.
The step from micro to macro-models is termed as homogenization. This step can only be
proved right when the stresses across or along a macro-length [are] essentially same. If
a macro-model is subjected, then one is more interested in determining the global
behavior of the structure instead of getting local effects.

Since masonry failure can fundamentally be described as the development of microcracks into macro-cracks, it can be asked whether macro-models are able to model this
behavior at all. A settlement has to be made between accuracy (micro) and efficiency
(macro). Since most engineers like to have a little bit of both, nowadays, a lot of effort is
put into determining intermediate types of models or simple macro-models that take into
account the behavior of micro-models. [2]

2.8.3

MICRO-MODELING APPROACH

Ever since the beginning of masonry-modeling, micro-models elaborate the behavior of

masonry. Micro-modeling is basically the modeling of individual components of
masonry, viz. unit and mortar. There are two ways of using a micro-modeling approach.

2.8.3.1

DETAILED MICRO-MODELING

Units and mortar are shown by continuum elements and the unit-mortar interface is
modeled using common boundary elements. The non-linear behavior is mainly lumped in
the interfaces. They serve as planes where cracking, slipping and crushing can happen.
The common boundary is usually given initial dummy stiffness to avoid interpenetration
of both continua.[2]

2.8.3.2

SIMPLIFIED MICRO-MODELING

Units are shown by continuum elements. Mortar is scaled down to zero-volume interface
elements and units are expanded bricks for maintaining the geometrical continuity. The
22

modeling of mortar is done in an averaged sense. That is the exclusion of Poissons ratio
of mortar and part of the accuracy. Practically, this means that modeling of some types of
failure cannot be done with this simplied approach. The scale of the model is often
termed as mesoscopic in order to avoid confusion with the detailed micro-model. An
accurate micro-model should be able to elaborate all failure mechanisms. Several
mechanisms can be recognized. The most significant can be divided into following
categories namely as unit, joint or combined unit-joint mechanism.[2]

2.8.4

MACRO-MODELLING APPROACH

The distinguishing feature between the macro-model approach and the micro-model
approach is that all characteristics of masonry behavior are smeared out over the material.
Therefore, it is also a single-phase material. As a result of considering masonry as a
homogeneous anisotropic material its essential equations are different from those of its
constituents.
The reason behind the strength of this method is that it requires less computational power
than the micro-modeling approach. Demerits of this method are that it only regenerates
general structural behavior and that plasticity models contain apexes and corners. Hence
they are applicable to large structures only, i.e. where the dimension of the structure is
much larger than the unit size. This approach has good accuracy and the behavior of
separate units can only be neglected for these kind of structures.
The macroscopic damage is linked to the internal structure of masonry. Restricted
damage, in the order of the thickness of the joints, should be taken into consideration
when elaborating a material model. The scale transition from local to global behavior is
called homogenization. In the case of the macro-modeling approach, it can be visualized
as the relationship between the actual material behavior and the behavior of the material
in the model.
In the homogenization process of a composite material like as masonry, suppositions
have to be made on which part of the behavior can or cannot be included in the model. It
is proved that the objective is to make as few assumptions as possible in order to most
fully describe the actual behavior. In the previous years, many homogenization
techniques for masonry were developed.
23

Each material model has certain boundaries. The post-peak softening behavior and
localized damage is often not included. It also is often weakly assumed that a material
model based on proportional loading is also justifiable for non-proportional loading. This
could be asked because of the huge effect of damage induced anisotropy. Important
conditions in homogenization techniques are, non-linearity, periodic geometry, bond
and/or damage- induced anisotropy. [2]

24

CHAPTER: 3
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM

3.1 INTRODUCTION
In order to evaluate the behavior of typical buildings under seismic demand, duplication
of masonry materials and assemblage is necessary. Detailed experimental work has been
carried out in this study for the simulation of masonry materials and masonry assemblage.
Intrinsically, in the experimental work of this study the mechanical properties of
prototype masonry materials and assemblages have been found.
The following tests were performed on the masonry units and assemblage.

Mortar:
Compressive Strength of Hydraulic Cement Mortars
Masonry Unit:
Compressive strength test and Modulus of Elasticity

Masonry Assemblage:
I.

Flexure test for bond strength

II.

Modulus of elasticity of masonry assemblage

III.

Diagonal Tensile (shear) Strength Test and Modulus of Rigidity

3.2 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF MORTAR

This compressive strength test was carried out according to the specification ASTM C109[12]. The mortar ratio was 1:3 by weight. The sand was sieved using sieve no. 50 and
200. The sieved sand was mixed according to the proportion described in Table 1. The
base of the surface and the sides of the mold were greased. The mixture was poured in the
mold and 32 strokes were tampered after every one inch placement. Finishing surface
was provided on the top by cutting the edges with the help of trowel.
25

Table 1 Composition of mortar

Cement(gm)

500

Sand (gm)

1375

Water (ml)

230

Number of specimens

Figure 12 Preparation of six mortar cubes

The mortar in molds was allowed to dry for 24 hours and the curing was done for 6 days
in a small water tank. The molds were dried for one day and then placed in the
compressive testing machine. Unidirectional perpendicular load was applied on the mold
with the range of 200 to 400 lbs/s and respective compressive strength values were noted
down and are shown in table 2. The compressive strength is calculated by the formula:
= /

Equation 1

The average compressive strength of mortar cube is found to be 24 MPa.

26

Figure 13 Application of load on one of the samples

Table 2 Calculation of compressive strength of mortar

Compressive

Curing

S. No

Area(mm2)

Crushing Load(N)

Strength(MPa)

Period(Days)

2500

75000

30

2500

60000

24

2500

45000

18

2500

60000

24

2500

70000

28

2500

50000

20

Average

2500

60000

24

COV

0%

43%

43%

27

3.2.1 Discussion
According to Eurocode 06[13] the compressive strength of the masonry mortar should be
greater than 5MPa while according to Pakistan Building Code 07[14] compressive
strength of the masonry mortar should be greater than 4.1MPa. The average compressive
strength calculated in the Table 2 i-e 24MPa is greater than the minimum criteria of both
above mentioned codes.

3.3 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF RED BURNT BRICK

Compressive strength of red burnt clay bricks was found according to ASTM C-67[12].
Three samples of bricks of area 24.67x10 mm were prepared. The sample bricks were
soaked in water for 24 hours. After soaking, the bricks were dried for 1 day. The
unevenness and the frog of the brick were filled with mortar. The samples were covered
with a wet jute bag for a day and then cured for 3days.

Figure 14 Specimens for compressive strength analysis

The specimens were placed, with the frog facing upwards, between the plates in the
compressive testing machine. Axial load at the rate of 14N/ mm per minute was applied
until failure. Compressive strength of bricks was observed and is shown in Table 3. The
average compressive strength of brick is found to be 7 MPa.

28

Table 3 Observations and Calculations of Compressive Strength of Brick

Crushing
S. No

Length Width Height

Curing

Area

Load

Compressive Strength

Period

(mm)

(mm)

(mm)

(mm^2)

(N)

(MPa)

(Days)

218

105

70

22890

180000

7.863695937

232

111

70

25752

116000

4.504504505

215

110

65

23650

185000

7.822410148

Average

222

109

68

24097

160333

COV

6%

4%

6%

9%

34%

40%

Figure 15: Placement of sample and arrangement for test in UTM

3.3.1

Discussion

According to Eurocode 08[13] the compressive strength of the masonry unit should be
greater than 5MPa while according to Pakistan Building Code 07[14] compressive
strength of the masonry mortar should be greater than 8.25MPa. The average
compressive strength calculated in the Table 3 i-e 7MPa is greater than the minimum
criteria of Eurocode 08.
The coefficient of variance calculated seems very large i-e 40% which is due to poor
manufacturing quality of local handmade bricks.

29

3.4 FLEXURAL BOND STRENGTH OF RED BURNT CLAY BRICK

MASONRY
The flexural strength of the brick masonry was calculated by ASTM code C1390[15] test
specification. Five specimens of slack bonded prisms were made by using 5 bricks each.
These prisms were covered with jute bags and cured for 28 days.

Figure 16 Specimens of Flexure Strength Test

Figure 17 Curing of Specimens

Specimen was placed horizontally on its support as a simply supported beam in UTM.
Third point loading was applied on the specimen at 1/3rd spacing from each end. The
flexural strength was calculated by formula

30

R=

+.()

Equation 2

Figure 18 Placement of prism in UTM

The calculated and observed values are shown in Table 5.The modulus of rupture is
found out to be 0.2113MPa the figure shows the failure of prism.

Table 4: Calculation of modulus of rupture

Avg.

Avg.

Max.

Sample

Depth

Width

Span

Weight

Load

MOR

Curing

Units

Mm

Mm

mm

MPa

Days

106.75

225

481.25 91.1106

1281

0.253262904

28

103.75

225

481.25 93.3352

1150

0.242422175

28

105

225

481.25 91.1106

1125

0.231510802

28

106.25

218.75

475

84.4466

960

0.196836429

28

106.75

218.75

487.5

93.3352

609

0.132788804

28

Mean

106

222

481

90

1025

0.2113

COV

2%

3%

2%

8%

50%

46%

31

Figure 19 Failure of prism

3.4.1 Discussion
According to ASTM C 78 [16] the critical value of modulus of elasticity for brick
masonry should be 0.552MPa. The calculated value in lab i-e 0.211MPa is less than the
critical value.

3.5 MODULUS OF ELASTICITY OF WALL

The compressive strength and modulus of elasticity of wall are determined using ASTM
C1314[17]. Three brick prisms of dimensions 5 x 4.25 x10 inch were tested under
uniaxial compression. The curing was started after 48 hours of specimen preparation. The
specimens were cured for 7 days. The specimens were capped with Sulphur on both ends
24 hours prior to testing. Figure shows sample with Sulphur capping. A load cell and 1
string pot was connected with the data acquisition system. Load cell along with string pot
connected to data acquisition system is shown in figure.

32

Figure 20: Preparation of Samples for test and Capping

Figure 21: Placement of sample in the UTM

The compressive strength of masonry prism was calculated by dividing maximum load
over the plan area of the prism. The modulus of elasticity is determined as specified in
the ASTM C1314[17], that is, secant modulus of elasticity between 1/20th and 1/3rd of
the maximum compressive stress of the prism. Figure 22, 23 and 24 shows the stress
strain curve of sample and figure 25 shows the failure pattern of prism.

33

Stress Strain Curve (Prism 1)

Stress(MPa)

3
y = 185.16x + 0.5866
R = 0.9001

2
1
0
0

0.002

0.004

0.006
0.008
Strain(mm/mm)

0.01

0.012

Figure 22: Stress-strain curve for sample 1

Table 5: Calculation of modulus of elasticity of prism 1

S. No

Stress(MPa)
Maximum

1/3rd
2.22

0.74

Strain(mm/mm)
1/20th
0.11

Maximum

1/3rd

0.0154

0.0074

1/20th
0.004

Modulus of Elasticity=185.16 MPa

Stress Strain curve(Prism 2)

Stress(MPa)

2
y = 66.734x + 0.5088

1.5
1
0.5
0
0

0.005

0.01
Strain(mm/mm)

0.015

Figure 23: Stress-strain curve for sample 2

34

0.02

Table 6 Calculation of modulus of elasticity of prism 2

S. No

Stress(MPa)
Maximum
1.145329

Strain(mm/mm)

1/3rd

1/20th

0.381776

0.057266

Maximum
0.018842

1/3rd

1/20th

0.007401

0.002538

Modulus of Elasticity=66.734 MPa

Stress Strain curve(Prism 3)

1.8
y = 139.59x + 0.1175

1.6
1.4

Stress(MPa)

1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.002 -0.2 0

0.002

0.004

0.006

0.008

0.01

0.012

Strain(mm/mm)

Figure 24: Stress-strain curve for sample 3

Table 7 Calculation of modulus of elasticity of prism 3

S. No

Stress(MPa)
Maximum 1/3rd
1

Strain(mm/mm)
1/20th

1.364129 0.45471 0.068206

Maximum 1/3rd

0.010614 0.004099 0.00133

Modulus of Elasticity=139.59 MPa

35

1/20th

Figure 25: Failure pattern of sample

Table 8 Summary of Compressive Strength and Modulus of Elasticity
S. No

Designation

Compression Strength(MPa)

Modulus of Elasticity(MPa)

Max

Max

1 P1

2.22574

2 P2

1.145329

3 P3

1.364129

Average COV

Average

COV

185.16
1.57

51%

66.734

130.49

65%

139.59

3.4.1 Discussion
The modulus of elasticity and compression strength of masonry assemblage of the test
performed in UET Peshawar[14] were 200MPa and 5MPa respectively. In our case the
results are relatively smaller i-e 131MPa and 1.6MPa respectively.

3.5 DIAGONAL TENSILE (SHEAR) STRENGTH TEST

The test was done in accordance with ASTM C519-02[18]. A diagonal specimen
constructed in Flemish bond of nominal size 48 x 48 x 9 inch was prepared and tested.
With the help of expert mason wooden shuttering was provided to support the diagonal
wall. After construction of specimen the sample curing was done for 28 days.

36

Four string pots have been used which are 1000mm apart to measure vertical shortening
and horizontal extensions. Two string pots were connected in a way to measure vertical
shortening and the other two horizontal extensions. The specimen is positioned in
standard loading shoes on the top and bottom corners. Load cell was placed on the top
shoe by means of plate. The string pots were connected with data acquisition machine to
record the strains.

Figure 26: Preparation of sample wall for diagonal test

37

Figure 27 Instrumentation of wall[14]

Table 5 and 6 shows the calculated results obtained by applying equation3, 4 and 5.
Figure 28, 29 and 30 shows the failure pattern of walls,
The analysis of data procured from data acquisition machine was done by calculating
shear strain and modulus of rigidity.

=
=
=

.
Equation 3

(+ )

Equation 4

Equation 5

38

Table 9 Calculation of Modulus of Rigidity

Crushing

Shear

Vertical

Horizontal

Shear

Modulus of

Curing

Load

Strength

Displacement

Displacement

Strain

Rigidity

Period

MPa

mm

mm

mm/mm

MPa

Days

135322.5

0.34

12.7

12

0.0247

13.76

28

90301.2

0.23

0.66

7.135

0.00795

29.5

14

52690.16

0.13

0.59

0.212

0.0006112

212.69

14

Mean

92771.2

0.23

4.65

6.449

0.011

85.31

2.120283971

1.299055822

S. No

COV

0.630670908 0.636641379

1.5749249 1.833127931

Table 10 Summary of Shear Strength and Modulus of Rigidity

S. No

Designation

Shear Strength(MPa)
Max

W1

0.34

W2

0.23

W3

0.13

Average

COV

Modulus of Rigidity(MPa)
Max

Average

COV

85.316

183%

13.76
0.233

63%

29.5
212.69

Figure 28 Failure of first sample of diagonal wall

39

Figure 29: Failure of second sample of diagonal wall

Figure 30: Failure of third sample of diagonal wall

40

3.5.1

Discussion

The modulus of rigidity and Shear Strength of masonry assemblage of the test performed
in UET Peshawar[14] were 200MPa and 0.3MPa respectively. In our case the results are
relatively smaller i-e 85MPa and 0.23MPa respectively. The variation in the results of all
three samples is due to different curing periods. One trend is seen in the results that wall
having more shear strength has less modulus of rigidity and vice versa.

3.6 Outcomes

Table 11 Outcomes of Experimental Program

Properties

Values

Compressive strength of mortar

24 MPa

Compressive strength of Brick

6.49 MPa

Modulus of Rupture

0.211 MPa

Modulus of Elasticity of wall

130.45 MPa

Modulus of Rigidity of Wall 1

13.76 MPa

Modulus of Rigidity of Wall 2

29.5 MPa

Modulus of Rigidity of Wall 3

212.69 MPa

41

CHAPTER: 4
MODELING OF MASONRY

4.1 INTRODUCTION
The behavior of masonry has been studied through the use of modeling techniques based
on the effective modeling approach, an accurate but computationally efficient modeling
strategy. The macro element model is a macroscopic representation of a continuous
model in which the parameters are directly correlated to the mechanical properties of the
masonry elements. Masonry wall is modeled as a bi dimensional thin shell element of
thickness 9 inches, since it is a prototype of traditionally used load bearing wall in
Pakistan.
The finite element modeling of brick masonry structure was performed using SAP2000
V16.0. The material characterization was carried out using the results obtained from the
experimental tests performed in the laboratory.

4.2 MATERIAL PROPERTIES FOR THE ANALYSIS

To determine the material properties of the red burnt clay brick masonry experiments
were performed following ASTM Standards in the material testing laboratory of NED
University Karachi, Pakistan. The tests performed to gather the properties were:

Compressive strength of hydraulic cement mortars

Compressive strength and modulus of elasticity of red brick

Flexural bond strength of masonry

Modulus of elasticity of wall

Diagonal shear test

42

The following results extracted, were used as an input for the model;

Table 12: Input properties for model

Properties

Value

Modulus of Elasticity

66.49 MPa

Shear Modulus

30.27 MPa

Poissons Ratio

0.1

4.3 MACRO MODELING OF WALL

The macro model of wall of 48 x48 is made in SAP 2000 on X-Z plane using the
material properties extracted from experimental program. The meshing of wall is done
into objects. The size of objects is same as the area of brick (9 x 1.25) with which wall
was constructed. As the wall is a prototype of diagonal shear wall one end is fixed at the
bottom and the top of wall is subjected to the maximum concentrated point load. Figure
shows the model of wall on SAP 2000. After the model was prepared it was analyzed for
shear stresses. The joint displacements of model are compared with the displacements of
string pots as used in the experiment, in order to verify the model if the model is
prototype of diagonal shear wall.

Figure 31 Wall model

43

4.4

INTERPRETATION OF REULTS

4.4.1 SHEAR STRESSES GENERATED

The figure 32 shows the stress distribution with the help of color scheme. Hence it
depicts that maximum shear stresses have been generated at the top and bottom of the
wall because the load was applied at the top of the wall, also the bottom corner was fixed.
The stresses generated in the very middle of the wall are almost negligible while a bit
variation is generated at the horizontal corners.

Figure 32: Shear stresses generated at 140kN

Figure 32 is representing the stress distribution for diagonal wall sample 1 tested
experimentally under diagonal shear. It failed at the load of 140kN, the maximum
stresses lie within the range of -1.12 to -0.28 N/mm2.

44

Figure 33: Shear Stresses generated at 90kN

Figure 33 is representing the stress distribution for diagonal wall sample 2 tested
experimentally under diagonal shear. It failed at the load of 90kN, the maximum stresses
lie within the range of -0.9 to -0.18 N/mm2.

Figure 34: Shear Stresses generated at 60kN

Figure 34 is representing the stress distribution for diagonal wall sample 3 tested
experimentally under diagonal shear. It failed at the load of 60kN, the maximum stresses
lie within the range of -0.6 to -0.12 N/mm2.

45

4.4.2

JOINT DISPLACEMENTS GENERATED

The string pots used in the diagonal shear test provided with the joint displacements in
the vertical and horizontal directions. Similarly, the SAP model was analyzed for joint
displacements. Table 13 shows a rough comparison of the maximum values for both the
cases for sample wall. Hence the model has less variance from the displacements of
string pots which verifies the model.

Table 13 Comparison of Joint Displacement of Diagonal Wall Sample 1

DIRECTION OF

LEFT

RIGHT

UP

DOWN

DISPLACEMENT(mm)

(X-Axis)

(X-Axis)

(Z-Axis)

(Z-Axis)

MODEL

0.253787

0.253787

0.103111

0.103111

EXPERIMENT

0.0224

0.0051

0.06446

0.224

The data coming from experiment is different from the model due to the variation in
shear modulus of both. The value coming from the experiment for shear modulus was
contradicting to the standard thats why the values of experiment are lower than the
model.

The Table 14 shows that the maximum joint displacements for experiment in X-direction
are in range with the maximum values of model but the displacements in Z- direction of
experimental data is lower than model due to change in shear modulus.

Table 14 Comparison of Joint Displacement of Diagonal Wall Sample 2

DIRECTION OF

LEFT

RIGHT

UP

DOWN

DISPLACEMENT(mm)

(X-Axis)

(X-Axis)

(Z-Axis)

(Z-Axis)

MODEL

0.163149

0.163149

0.066286

0.066286

EXPERIMENT

0.082837

0.140023

0.26701

0.145867

46

The table 15 shows that the maximum displacement in wall from left to right is
between 0.0993mm to 0.1031mm that is equivalent to the maximum displacement in
wall model in horizontal direction that is 0.108766mm. In the vertical direction the
values are in between 0.05546 to 0.0934mm and the value coming from model is
0.04419mm. This value is comparatively smaller.

Table 15 Comparison of Joint Displacement of Diagonal Wall Sample 3

4.5

DIRECTION OF

LEFT

RIGHT

UP

DOWN

DISPLACEMENT(mm)

(X-Axis)

(X-Axis)

(Z-Axis)

(Z-Axis)

MODEL

0.108766

0.108766

0.04419

0.04419

EXPERIMENT

0.0993

0.1031

0.05546

0.09344

MODELLING OF BUILDING

A single storey building of school was constructed on SAP 2000. The building comprises
of three rooms and a passage. 6 thick slab of reinforced concrete is provided which is
treated as thin shell element in the model and the self-weight of slab is carried as a superdead load on building. The meshing of walls is analogous to the diagonal wall model.

Figure 35 Single storey school building.

47

4.5.1 SHEAR STRESSES GENERATED

The shear stresses generated due to super dead load are almost negligible. The interior
wall is facing higher shear stresses. The maximum shear stresses are 0.019Mpa and
minimum shear stresses are 0.018Mpa Figure 36 shows the distribution of shear stresses
generated analogous to the strategy followed for the diagonal shear wall model.

Figure 36 Shear stresses due to Super Dead Load

The building model is also analyzed for the shear forces because of the super dead load.
The shear forces generated are very less. The maximum shear forces are 0.557 MPa and
minimum shear forces are 0.437 MPa. The figure 37 shows the shear stresses on SAP
2000.

48

Figure 37 Shear Forces due to Super Dead Load

4.6

DISCUSSION

This research based project mainly focuses on extracting the mechanical properties of the
brick masonry used traditionally in Pakistan. The bricks procured were of low quality and
the purpose was to test them for load bearing structures. Proper handling of bricks was
done time to time. The testing phase was carried out at material testing laboratory under
favorable conditions.
Firstly, the individual properties of brick and mortar were extracted in order to have ease
in the formation of prototype model of wall. The average mortar strength came out to be
24MPa. The average brick strength came out to be 6.4MPa.
Secondly, the properties of masonry assemblage were tested. The modulus of rupture is
30.645 psi. The modulus of elasticity of triplet is 130.45Mpa.
Finally, the diagonal shear test was performed for three samples of wall. The shear
strength of each sample was calculated separately and the results for the three samples are
0.34MPa, 0.23MPa and 0.13MPa respectively. The sample 3 failed at a lesser force of
60kN because of being provided less curing period and hence the shear strength is very
low than other two.
Following the experimental phase, the macro model was prepared using SAP 2000. The
shear and horizontal behavior was analyzed. The joint displacements were verified with
49

experimental result. The model prepared, give a picture of the behavior of red burnt clay
bricks structures and can help for the seismic analysis under the required conditions.
After that with the help of the prototype the building of school was analyzed on SAP
2000. Based on the manual calculations the model was analyzed for its concreteness
under shear behavior.

50

References:
1.
2.

3.

4.

5.
6.

7.
8.

9.
10.
11.
12.

13.

14.

15.
16.

Ambrose, J., Simplified design of masonry structures. Vol. 26. 1997:

John Wiley & Sons.
Van der Mersch, W., Modelling the seismic response of an
unreinforced masonry structure. 2015, TU Delft, Delft University of
Technology.
Ali, S.S. and A.W. Page, Finite element model for masonry subjected
to concentrated loads. Journal of structural engineering, 1988.
114(8): p. 1761-1784.
Dhanasekar, M., P.W. Kleeman, and A.W. Page, Biaxial stress-strain
relations for brick masonry. Journal of Structural Engineering, 1985.
111(5): p. 1085-1100.
Tomazevic, M., Earthquake-resistant design of masonry buildings.
1999: World Scientific.
Paulay, T. and M. Priestley, 1992, Seismic Design of Reinforced
Concrete and Masonry Buildings, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
2000.
Tip, I.E., Behaviour of Brick Masonry Walls. 2014.
Rao, K.N., Structural Masonry: Properties and Behaviour.
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Science,
Bangalore, 2012.
Shankar, S., Masonry Structures under laterl loads
Book, STRUCTURAL PERFORMANCE DURING EARTHQUAKES.
PAGE, A.W., Load Bearing Masonry A-Review. 1990.
International, A., Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of
Hydraulic Cement Mortars (Using 2-in. or [50-mm] Cube
Specimens). 1996.
de Normalisation, C.E., Eurocode 6: Design of Masonry Structures
Part 1-1: General Rules for Reinforced and Unreinforced Masonry
Structures. Comit Europen de Normalisation: Brussels, Belgium,
2005.
Naseer, A., Performance behavior of confined brick masonry
buildings under seismic demand. 2009, University of Engineering and
Technology, Peshawar, Pakistan, 2009.
International, A., Standard Test Methods for Flexural Bond Strength
of Masonry C 109/C 109M 02. 1996.
Committee, M.S.J., Building code requirements for masonry
structures. American Concrete Institute, Detroit, MI., ISBN, 1999.
1929081022.
51

17.
18.

International, A., Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of

Masonry Prisms C 1314 03b. 1996.
International, A., Standard Test Method for Diagonal Tension (Shear)
in Masonry Assemblages E 519 02. 1996.

52

Appendix

111

70

25752

116000

4.504504505

215

110

65

23650

185000

7.822410148

Average

222

109

68

24097

160333

6%

4%

6%

9%

34%

40%

53

232

Curing

(MPa)

e Strength

7.863695937

Compressiv

Area(mm2)

180000

Load(N)

Height(mm)

22890

Crushing

Width(mm)

70

105

Length(mm

218

S. No
1

COV

Period(Days

Table 16 Detailed Calculation of Compressive Strength of Brick

Table 17 Stress Strain Distributions of Prisms

Prism 1
Strain(mm/mm)

Prism 1

Stress(MPa)

Strain(mm/mm)

Stress(MPa)

0.502843866

0.006199265

1.721806747

0.000151201

0.603630505

0.005392857

1.819419011

0.000604805

0.552840385

0.005796063

2.022579523

0.00085681

0.80361661

0.006300069

1.899572199

0.001008011

0.80361661

0.006048064

1.90671455

0.000907208

0.80361661

0.006249667

1.951155889

0.001260012

0.80361661

0.006350466

1.99559726

0.001612816

0.80361661

0.006703271

2.068608065

0.00181442

0.821075718

0.006249667

2.103526249

0.001864821

0.812346164

0.006753673

2.00829479

0.002217622

1.00677709

0.007056075

1.968614997

0.002167224

1.00677709

0.007257678

2.225740003

0.002520028

0.840121997

0.007509679

2.07178244

0.003225633

1.00677709

0.007711282

2.154316369

0.003024034

1.00677709

0.008668892

1.91941208

0.003427236

1.027410573

0.008769695

1.973376574

0.003679241

1.209937571

0.008870495

2.225740003

0.00388084

1.209937571

0.009072098

2.225740003

0.003679241

1.208350399

0.009172897

2.225740003

0.003981643

1.413098051

0.009828104

2.225740003

0.004485649

1.413098051

0.009878506

2.001946009

0.004233644

1.254378942

0.009878506

2.020198718

0.004435247

1.413098051

0.004888851

1.405162099

0.004888851

1.616258531

0.005191258

1.480553677

0.005040052

1.616258531

0.005191258

1.691650141

54

Prism 2
Strain(mm/mm)

Stress(MPa)

0.568392939

0.000524803

0.399368622

0.001669823

0.424910085

0.001622116

0.568392939

0.002099209

0.497027124

0.002767136

0.568392939

0.003196522

0.760705044

0.00338736

0.760705044

0.003625904

0.760705044

0.003959869

0.760705044

0.004389252

0.953017149

0.004770927

0.953017149

0.005295727

0.953017149

0.005629692

0.833573308

0.006011368

0.91245131

0.006297623

1.145329254

0.006679294

1.145329254

0.007251808

1.049924426

0.007872028

1.094246358

0.00763348

1.145329254

0.007967445

1.07246099

0.008587665

1.085231721

0.009160179

1.145329254

0.009303306

1.145329254

0.015123836

1.145329254

0.009923526

1.145329254

0.010496036

1.145329254

0.010686874

1.145329254

55

Prism 3

Prism 3

Strain(mm/mm)

Stress(MPa)

Strain(mm/mm)

Stress(MPa)

-0.000145962

-0.008712552

0.004232895

0.77576851

-9.73065E-05

-0.008712552

0.004086934

0.77576851

-4.86552E-05

0.002778864

0.004232895

0.77576851

-4.86552E-05

-0.011776954

0.004378857

0.77576851

-9.73065E-05

-0.008712552

0.004281551

0.77576851

-0.008712552

0.004232895

0.821734205

-4.86552E-05

-0.008712552

0.004622129

0.971888775

-0.000145962

-0.008712552

0.005011363

0.971888775

4.86552E-05

0.000480562

0.005011363

0.971888775

-4.86552E-05

0.016568551

0.005254631

0.971888775

0.000243268

0.187407713

0.005789826

0.971888775

0.000291923

0.187407713

0.005984439

0.971888775

0.00038923

0.024229495

0.005400593

0.971888775

0.000535195

0.187407713

0.005935788

1.168009041

0.000535195

0.049510629

0.006227711

1.168009041

0.000827119

0.187407713

0.006325018

1.168009041

0.000632502

0.081686606

0.006276366

1.168009041

0.001070387

0.084751008

0.006714251

1.168009041

0.000924425

0.187407713

0.006811558

1.118212874

0.001313659

0.187407713

0.006762906

1.161880298

0.000924425

0.187407713

0.007006174

1.364129306

0.001508272

0.383527979

0.006957519

1.364129306

0.001265004

0.187407713

0.007395408

1.364129306

0.00194616

0.383527979

0.007492715

1.364129306

0.001751544

0.383527979

0.00754137

1.156517625

0.001897505

0.383527979

0.007881948

1.364129306

0.002092122

0.383527979

0.008319833

1.364129306

0.002140773

0.383527979

0.00851445

1.364129306

0.002238084

0.579648244

0.00851445

1.364129306

0.002384045

0.400382068

0.008709063

1.246916814

0.002627313

0.579648244

0.009341565

1.364129306

56

0.002530007

0.579648244

0.009049641

1.364129306

0.002967892

0.579648244

0.009244258

1.168009041

0.002870585

0.579648244

0.009682143

1.132768692

0.003162509

0.579648244

0.010071377

1.168009041

0.003405781

0.579648244

0.009779453

1.364129306

0.003503087

0.77576851

0.01084984

1.168009041

0.003600394

0.77576851

0.010460607

1.132768692

0.004038283

0.77576851

0.010606568

1.364129306

Figure 38 Load vs. Displacement Curves of Flexure Test

Load(KN)

Sample 1

-1

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0

Displacement(mm)

57

Load(KN)

Sample 2
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

-1

Displacement(mm)

Sample 3
50

Load(KN)

40
30
20
10
0
-1

Displacement(mm)

58

59