Experimental Studies of Different RCC Structural

EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES OF DIFFERENT RCC STRUCTURAL
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I hereby take a chance to express my sense of extreme gratitude towards my Master of

Technology Guide Er. Rahul Satbhaiya, HOD (Civil Engineering.), for his suggestions and
constant inspiration at every stage of the research.
He is an extremely sympathetic and principle-centered person. His skills, as a researcher and guide
helped me to overcome all the hurdles. Without his constant support and encouragement, I would
not have been able to complete my research work successfully.
I owe a debt of gratitude to Dr. D. Rai, Director, Infinity Management & Engineering College
(IMEC Sagar) for encouragement & the Head of Department Mr. Rahul Satbhaiya.
My parents have their own share in my success. I firmly believe that their blessings always
enlighten my path ahead. I hereby take a chance to salute my father Mr._____ Jain and mother
Mrs. Meetali Jain. Without all above support and sacrifice this thesis would not have been
possible for me. At last, I thank the one and all, for the divine blessings.
Abhishek Kannojia
Guided by: Dr. Ashad Ullah Qureshi

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
Email: conceptsbookspublication@gmail.com
Web: https://researchitout.blogspot.com/
CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify that Er. Abhishek Kannojia has completed his Master of Technology
Dissertation titled “Experimental Studies of Different RCC Structural” under my guidance.
I further certify that the whole work, done by him is of his own, original and tends to general
advancement of knowledge. According to the best of my knowledge, I also certify that he has not
been conferred any degree, diploma and distinction by either the Infinity Management &
Engineering College or any other university for this thesis.
Date: (Er. Rahul Satbhiaya)

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
DECLARATION
I, Er. Abhishek Kannojia Jain hereby declare that my Master of Technology dissertation titled
“Experimental Studies of Different RCC Structure” is written as a partial fulfillment of the
requirement for a degree on this topic. The complete study is based on literature survey, study of
periodicals, journals and websites and building a model for proving the concept studied and
designed.
I further declare that the complete thesis work, including all analysis, hypothesis, inferences and
interpretation of data and information, is done by me and it is my own and original work.
Moreover, I declare that no degree, diploma or distinction has been conferred on the basis of this
thesis by the Rajiv Gandhi Technical University or any other university to me before.
Date: (Abhishek Kannojia)

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
ABSTRACT
Earthquakes are natural hazards under which disasters are mainly caused by damage to structures
or collapse of buildings and other man-made structures. Shaking and ground rupture are the main
effects created by earthquakes, principally resulting in more or less severe damage to buildings
and other rigid structures. As the earth vibrates, all buildings on the ground surface will respond
to that vibration in varying degrees. The horizontal ground motion action is similar to the effect of
a horizontal force action on the building.
The seismic vulnerability of masonry buildings is strongly affected by the performance of the shear
walls. The shearing strength of masonry mainly depends upon the bond or adhesion at the contact
surface between the masonry unit and the mortar. Use of strong mortars, high strength masonry,
added reinforcement, improved detailing and the introduction of good anchorage between masonry
walls and floors and roofs have enhanced the resistance of masonry to seismic stress. Since shear
strength is important for seismic resistance of masonry walls, an attempt has been made to
investigate the brick masonry wall with clay brick /fly ash brick having the ratio of 1:6 cement
mortar with partial replacement of fine aggregate with fly ash as 0%, 10% and 20% for their
compressive strength and shear strength. Horizontal reinforcing of wall is required for imparting
strength against plate-action and for tying the perpendicular walls together. When the masonry
wall is subjected to lateral loading, the horizontal reinforcement prevents separation of the wall‘s
cracked parts at shear failure, therefore improving the shear resistance and energy absorption
capacity of the wall. Also, when the wall is adequately reinforced horizontally, many smaller
cracks will be evenly distributed over the entire surface of the wall. Experiments have been
conducted to understand the shear behavior of the unreinforced and the reinforced masonry wall.

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
CONTENTS
Chapter 1. Introduction 1-4
1.1 Product Perspective
1.2 Motivation
1.3 Objective
1.4 Organization of the Dissertation
Chapter 2. Literature Review 5 - 19
2.1 General
2.2 Review of Previous Research on Masonry
2.3 Research Gaps
Chapter 3. Material Properties of Structural Masonry 20 - 39
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Fly Ash
3.3 Brick Unit
3.4 Mortar
3.5 Reinforcement

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
3.6 Masonry Assemblages
Chapter 4. Experimental Investigation on Masonry Walls 40 - 65
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Description of the Specimen
4.3 Axial Strength of Brick Unit
4.4 Wall Under In – Plane Shear Compression Test
4.5 Wall Under Diagonal Compression Test
4.6 Cost Analysis
Chapter 5. Finite Element Modeling 66 - 76
5.1 Introduction
5.2Formulation of the Model
5.3 Micro level Modeling of Brick Masonry
5.4 Meso level Modeling of Brick Masonry
5.5 Macro level Modeling of Brick Masonry
Chapter 6. Conclusion 77 – 79
6.1 Conclusion

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
List of Figures
Chapter 1. Introduction
1.1 World’s tectonic plates 1
1.2 Seismic zone map of India 2
Chapter 2. Literature Survey
2.1 Schematic diagram depicting the 19

experimental work carried out in this research
Chapter 3. Material Properties of Structural Masonry
3.1 XRD pattern of fly ash 21
3.2 Mortar strength with partial t 26
replacement of fly ash with cement
3.3 Compressive strength of 1:6 cement 27

mortar with partial replacement of fine
aggregate with fly ash
3.4 Comparison between the substitution 28
of fly ash with cement fine aggregate
in 1:6 cement mortar
3.5 Woven wire mesh placed along 30
the bed joint in alternate course
3.6 Stress distributions in the 33
composite masonry
Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
3.7 Clay brick prism (unreinforced) and 33
fly ash brick prism (unreinforced and reinforced)
3.8 Comparison of compressive strength 34
of brick masonry
3.9 Stress-strain curve of clay brick masonry 35
3.10 Stress-strain curve of fly ash brick masonry 35
3.11 Splitting of brick masonry 36
3.12 Triplet bond test on brick masonry 39
Chapter 4. Experimental Investigation on Masonry Walls
4.1 Photographs of the brick masonry 41
pier specimens
4.2 Photograph of the clay brick &fly 43

ash brick masonry wall panel specimens
4.3 Axial load test setup with the data 45
acquisition system
4.4 Vertical splitting & Crushing of the 46
unreinforced clay brick masonry (UCBM)
4.5 vertical shearing & splitting of 47
unreinforced fly ash brick masonry (UFBM)
4.6 vertical splitting of unreinforced clay 48
brick masonry (UCBM10)

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
4.7 vertical shearing of unreinforced fly 49
ash brick masonry (UFBM10)
4.8 Axial strength of clay brick masonry 50
and fly ash brick masonry
(UCBM, RCBM, UFBM and RFBM)
4.9 Photograph of the clay brick 51
masonry wall panel specimen
4.10 Lateral in-plane shear compression 52
test set up
4.11 A simple structural layout model 53
of a rural masonry house located in Coimbatore
4.12 Diagonal compression test – 54
Experimental set up
4.13 Photograph of the unreinforced clay 55
brick masonry wall (CBP)
4.14 Photograph of the unreinforced 56
clay brick masonry wall (CBP10)
4.15 Photograph of the unreinforced clay 57

brick masonry wall (CBP20)
4.16 Photograph of the reinforced clay 58
brick masonry wall (CBPR)
4.17Photograph of the reinforced clay 58
Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
brick masonry wall (CBP10R)

4.18 Photograph of the reinforced clay 59
brick masonry wall (CBP20R)
4.19Comparison of load-deformation 60
curves obtained on clay brick masonry wall panels
Chapter 5. Finite Element Modeling
5.1 Micro Meso Macro level modeling 66
5.2 Solid 185, 3D solid element type used 68
for the brick unit
5.3 Shell 63 for the woven wire mesh 69
5.4 Micro level modeling of brick 70
masonry prism
5.5 Deformation of the unreinforced clay 71
brick masonry under triplet shear test
5.6 Meso level modeling of the brick 73

masonry prism
5.7 Stress distribution on unreinforced clay 74
brick masonry prism (UCBP)
5.8 Macro level modeling of brick 75
masonry prism
5.9 Stress – strain curve of the unreinforced 75
clay brick masonry prism (UCBP)

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Product Perspective
As the tectonic plates move against one another as shown in Fig 1.1, the plates rub against each
other and results in earthquakes. In some parts of the world, earthquakes are near the edges of these
plates. During earthquakes, waves are sent through the earth. The principal cause of earthquake-
induced damage is ground shaking. As the earth vibrates, all buildings on the ground surface will
respond to that vibration in varying degrees. The vertical component of the ground acceleration is
richer in high frequencies than the two horizontal components. Horizontal component of
acceleration is primarily used to report ground motion as structures are designed for vertical loads
and margin of safety in the vertical direction are usually adequate for earthquake induced vertical
load. The common amplitude measure of a ground motion is the largest horizontal acceleration
and known as horizontal peak ground acceleration (PGA) as discussed by Pankaj Agarwal and
Manish Shrikande.
Fig. 1.1 World’s tectonic plates
Historic earthquake have only intensity information. The varying geology at different locations in
the country implies that the likelihood of damaging earthquakes taking place at different locations

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
is different, depending on the type of soil. Thus, a seismic zone map is required to identify these
regions. The Indian standard IS 1893 classified India into four zones as shown in Fig 1.2.
Fig.1.2 Seismic zone map of India
In developing countries like India, most of the populations are living in medium towns and
villages. The people living in such rural area may not use costly materials and adopt tough
methodologies. So, the introduction of concrete bands in masonry buildings may not be possible
for rural people. Through earlier studies, it was proved that horizontal reinforcements improve the
seismic performance of the structural elements. An attempt has been made to enhance the energy
absorption capacity of the unreinforced and reinforced (with woven wire mesh in the alternate bed
course) masonry walls such as clay brick masonry and fly ash brick masonry in the ratio of 1:6
cement mortars with partial replacement of fine aggregate with fly ash.
1.2 Motivation
Masonry is the oldest building material that is still used in the building industry. The placing of
brick units on top of each other bonded with mortar has revealed itself as a successful technique
during thousands of years, which is mainly justified by its simplicity and the durability of the
constructions. In-spite of the simplicity associated with the building in masonry, the mechanical
Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
behaviour of masonry construction remains a true challenge. The basic mechanical properties of
the masonry are strongly influenced by the mechanical properties of its constituents namely brick
and mortar. Masonry buildings have proved to be most vulnerable to earthquake forces and have
suffered maximum damages in the past earthquakes. Hence, buildings in earthquake-prone regions
require adequate seismic shear strength along with their vertical load carrying capacity. The use
of masonry as a composite material has been favored in the construction of buildings and civil
infrastructures as it is simple and sophisticated with durability, aesthetic appeal and economic
advantages. However, the inherent weakness of masonry in tension has been repeatedly
demonstrated in seismic events. The need to overcome seismic deficiency of unreinforced masonry
panels has led to the development of structural walls with reinforcement.
1.3 Objective
Any good technology can be of helpful to the society only if it is accepted by the society and
transferred to the people with the minimal cost. The main aims of this investigation are:
To study the strength and the behavior of the unreinforced and reinforced brick masonry
wall panel for in-plane loading
To obtain earthquake safe construction at an affordable cost and thereby reduce the lateral
deformation and delay in cracking and increase in load carrying capacity
To study the influence factors such as brick strength, mortar strength and the woven wire
mesh in the in-plane resistance of the masonry wall
To recommend safer masonry walls in different seismic regions in India.
1.4 Organization of Dissertation
This research focuses on the equivalent-static mechanical behaviour of the masonry structures
loaded in their plane and failure of masonry. The mechanical behaviour of masonry is mainly
determined by a phenomena taking place at the scale of the individual bricks and mortar joints.
Chapter 1: Introduction
Presents the background and introduction to the topic, defines research problem and state the
motivation and objectives of the research and outlines the method of investigation used in this
research.
Chapter 2: Literature review

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
This chapter refers to the experience of damage to the masonry structures during the earthquakes
in India. It reviews the previous methodology and findings carried out by various researchers in
masonry. Also it identifies the research gap and explains the experimental and numerical studies
to be carried out for the current research.
Chapter 3: Material properties of structural masonry
This chapter presents the experimental work on the behaviour of brick assemblage for compressive
strength, shear strength and their elastic property. This chapter presents the discussion on the
experimental tests performed on specimens of brick assemblages like brick, mortar, brick prism
and shear prism for unreinforced and reinforced (with the hexagonal woven wire mesh along the
alternate bed course) brick masonry.
Chapter 4: Experimental investigation of masonry walls
This chapter presents the experimental work. The behavior of the brick masonry wall panel under
in-plane shear load was investigated. The significant effect of the brick masonry wall panel in the
ratio of 1: 6 cement mortar with partial replacement of fine aggregate with fly ash and with the
hexagonal woven wire mesh placed along the alternate bed joint resisting both vertical and lateral
loading is presented. This chapter presents the experimental results concerning the structural
behaviour of the brick masonry wall elements and the walls for in-plane shear behaviour. The
results are used to derive wall capacity and shear stiffness. Finally, the conclusions concerning the
experimental research are summarized and suggestions are proposed for safer construction in
different seismic zones in India.
Chapter 5: Finite element modeling
In this chapter a brief reference to solution procedures used in non-linear finite element formulation
are presented. The finite element modeling for masonry also has been modeled as the micro level
model, meso level model and macro level model and analyzed using the ANSYS software and the
results are discussed.
Chapter 6: Conclusion
This chapter highlights the main contributions on masonry assemblages and outcomes of this
research. The recommendations for further research are also proposed.

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 General
Masonry is an assemblage of masonry units and mortar. Its properties and behavior are controlled
by the characteristics of masonry units, mortar as well as the bond between them. For the same
type of bricks using same proportions of cement and fine aggregate, the strength obtained may be
different due to the variation in quality of water, difference in workmanship and on the
arrangement of bricks in masonry.
Many earthquake damage reports pointed out the devastating damage to masonry buildings
including the recent earthquakes. Due to many natural disasters like earthquakes, most rural houses
lacking in the proper building structure were damaged in brittle collapse. Nevertheless, Paulo et al
[2006]118 discussed that the brick masonry is the least understood in the aspect of strength and
other performance related parameters because of its complex behaviour and its non homogeneity
even in deci-scale. In India about 100 million tonnes of fly ash is generated each year. The Indian
government passed a law in October 2005 stating that a minimum of 25 percent of fly ash must be
used in the manufacture of clay bricks for use in construction activities within a 50 km radius of
coal burning thermal power plants. There are also restrictions on the excavation of top soil for the
manufacture of clay bricks. Consequently, the need for the research in material behaviour of brick
masonry in India became evident. The study of previous research work is essential in identifying
the problem to be investigated and to detect the research gap in the specified field of study.
2.2 Review of Previous Research on Masonry

The earlier research works were classified into two different categories: first being the study of
physical and mechanical properties of brick masonry and its assemblages; second the effect of in-

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
plane shear behaviour of the masonry wall elements and the wall capacity for un-reinforced and
reinforced brick masonry elements with analysis.
Brick
Sarangapani et al 125 compared the characterization and properties of local low modulus bricks,
table moulded bricks and wire cut bricks, mortars and masonry. Leaner mortars such as 1:6:9
cement – soil mortar showed very ductile behaviour which was indicated as the stress-strain curve
becoming horizontal after reaching a peak strain value. This indicated that the presence of a
significant amount of soil gave rise to ductility with low strength mortars. Stress-strain
characteristics of masonry were examined through prism tests. The modulus of elasticity of brick
masonry was found as 265MPa. Simple analysis was carried out to understand the nature of
stresses developed in the mortar joint and brick in the masonry. The results revealed that the bricks
made around Bangalore had low module compared to the cement mortar. This led the masonry
where mortar joints developed lateral tension while brick developed lateral compression.
Mei-In Chou and Sheng Fu Chou 93 reported that the paving bricks with 20 % volume of fly ash
and building bricks with up to 40% of fly ash were successfully produced in commercial-scale
production test. All the final products met the brick plant‘s in-house specifications for
marketability and far exceeded the ASTM commercial specifications for the severe weather grade.
The results showed that the bricks with the fly ash were introduced into the commercial production
without acquiring additional machinery, while concurrently reducing plant operation costs. They
also suggested that, similar to the regular commercial bricks, the fly ash containing bricks were
environmentally safe construction products that can be used for the construction.
Mariarosa Raimondo et al 89 considered the capillarity phenomenon and the suction capacity of
brick depends on their micro-structural characteristics, amount, size and shape of pores. Besides
some exceptions, the linear relationships between the capillary coefficient Ks and these micro-
structural variables substantially confirm the role played by open porosity in increasing the

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
absorption capacities of clay bricks. The capillary coefficient Ks, together with the micro-
structural variables and phase composition, finally underwent a statistical procedure that
confirmed the influence of porosity, as well as coarser pore dimension (in terms of both radius and
percentage of pores greater than 3μm) in increasing the liquid adsorbing rate with the highest
statistical significance. In addition, the sintering pattern of products, leading to a different
amorphous/crystalline phases ratio, proved to be relevant on the definition of the most suitable
microstructure: the higher porosity, promoted by the complete CaCO3 decomposition and the
smaller pore size, connected with the low sintering degree of clay bricks.
Obada Kayali et al 110 compared the properties of fly ash bricks to the clay bricks. The fly ash
bricks produced were about 28% lighter than clay bricks. The bricks manufactured from fly ash
possessed compressive strength higher than 40MPa. The technology used less energy than that
needed in the manufacture of clay bricks. The mechanical properties of the fly ash bricks exceeded
those of the standard load bearing clay bricks. Compressive strength was 24% better than good
quality clay bricks. Bond strength of fly ash bricks was 44% higher than the standard clay brick.
The density of fly ash brick was 28% less than that of standard clay bricks. This reduction in the
weight of bricks resulted in a great deal of savings in the raw materials and reduction in
transportation costs. The resistance of the bricks to repeated cycles of salt exposure showed zero
loss of mass and indicated excellent resistance to sulphate attack.
Kute and Deodhar 80 found suitable alternative methods of brick manufacturing process to the
existing materials. The properties of different proportions of fly ash at different baking
temperatures were tested. Also they investigated their effects on compressive strength and water
absorption quality of bricks by casting and testing. The two important properties of bricks namely
compressive strength and water absorption improved substantially by adding fly ash in proportion
of 40% by weight of brick during moulding and burning at 1000°C. It was found that the bricks
that were cast using 40% fly ash resulted in optimum strength. Blending fly ash in different
proportions with the soil modified its consistency limits. However, the consistency limits did not

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
have any noticeable effect on compressive strength of the bricks and it was concluded that fly ash
can be mixed with any type of soil for manufacturing good quality bricks.
Mortar
Deodhar 26 presented that the thickness of mortar material and brick material were very important
factors that affect the strength of brick masonry prisms in compression. More the thickness of brick
material in brick masonry compared to mortar thickness, more the strength of masonry. The joint
thickness of 5mm to 10mm is optimum for metric bricks and for conventional bricks, and there is
considerable reduction in strength of brick masonry beyond 10mm joint thickness. Stress – strain
curve of brick masonry are similar to that of concrete. Strain corresponding to maximum stress
was always higher and the brick strength does not affect the overall strain of brick work
corresponding to maximum stress.
Moinul Islam and Saiful Islam 103 studied cement as partially replaced with six percentages (10%,
20%, 30%, 40%, 50% and 60%) of class F fly ash by weight. Among the six fly ash mortars, the
optimum amount of cement replacement in mortar was about 40%, which provides 14% higher
compressive strength and 8% higher tensile strength as compared to ordinary Portland cement
mortar. The rate of gain in strength of fly ash mortar specimens was observed to be lower than the
corresponding ordinary portland cement mortar. Fly ash mortar provides satisfactory or higher
strength as compared with ordinary portland cement mortar. Use of high volume fly ash in any
construction work as a replacement of cement, provides lower impact on environment (reduce
CO2 emission) and judicious use of resources (energy conservation, use of by-product). Use of fly
ash reduced the amount of cement content as well as heat of hydration in a mortar mix. Thus, the
construction work with fly ash concrete became environmentally safe and also economical.
Mandal and Majumdar 87 studied the effect of various parameters such as fluid to fly ash ratio,
concentration of alkali activators, curing temperature and duration of curing on the compressive
strength of mortar at different ages of 3, 7 and 28 days. 48 hours curing at about 60-70oC was

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
optimum for the present alkali activated fly ash mortar. He concluded that concentration of
activator fluid and the fluid to fly ash ratio has a great effect on the compressive strength. At higher
concentration and at low fluid to fly ash ratio, the strength of the mortar was maximum and the
curing temperature increased in the range of 25oC to 90oC, the compressive strength of the mortar
also increased.
Yilmaz kocak 143 indicated that fly ash and silica fume have shown different surface features
compared to Portland cement. These variations on compressive strength of mortar samples were
studied. The ternary use of fly ash and silica fume provided the best performance, when the
compressive strength properties of the cement mortars were taken into account. During hydration
of cement mortars, calcium hydrate formation is reduced due to fly ash and silica fume substitution,
therefore a lower compressive strength was obtained at the early ages when compared to Portland
cement. In the following hydration days, fly ash and silica fume having pozzolanic structure bind
calcium hydrate in time and turn it into new (pozzolanic) C-S-H gel and cause the strength values
to reach that of plain cement (except for 30FA coded cement). It is thought that, durable cement
and concrete mortars can be produced with these cements without any compromise on strength.
Therefore, it will be beneficial to carry out research on other pozzolanas and their properties.
Hayen et al 54 addressed that during the failure of the masonry the cement mortar remains as quasi-
brittle material with its linear elastic deformation, the lime mortar instead transforms into a viscous
material with total deformation obtaining values which are upto 50 times higher in comparison to
its uni-axial value. The study on the pore structure of the mortar samples showed some evidence
for the alteration of the internal structure of the mortar upon tri-axial loading with the ratio of
confining pressure to vertical pressure. For the hydraulic lime mortar the decrease in total porosity,
a normal variation in material properties of the material, is substantial. The study of the pore
structure by mercury intrusion on the other hand showed that the internal structure of the hydrated
lime- mortar undergoes an important transformation. The tri-axial loading condition, again in the

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
case of the presence of an important horizontal component, is responsible for the formation of both
a network of fine to large cracks and the closing of the medium sized pores.
Brick Masonry
Jagadish et al 71 examined an additional feature known as containment reinforcement which

controls the post-cracking deflections and impart flexural ductility of masonry walls. Model-1: had
no earthquake resistant features: one of the cross walls collapsed after the fifth base shock and the
other after 8 base shocks. Model-2: provided with the horizontal band: this model never developed
vertical flexural crack propagating from the top edge and above the lintel level. However, a lot of
horizontal cracks were formed, particularly between the lintel and sill band and below the sill band.
Model-3: with containment reinforcement: It withstood 60 base shocks without collapsing,
although it developed a large number of cracks. This model also developed horizontal cracks below
the lintel and sill level; however they were prevented from growing significantly by the
containment reinforcement. Masonry buildings in mud mortar or lime mortar are prone to severe
damage due to lack of bond strength. Use of rounded stones in withes without through-stones can
further aggravate the problem. The failures of such structures were essentially due to out-of-plane
flexure. Masonry with cement mortar (which has higher bond strength) generally behaved better.
The provision of corner reinforcement in corners and junctions as suggested by BIS, has to be
properly bonded with the surrounding masonry possibly with dowels or keys to prevent separation.
Since the brittle nature of masonry buildings is the major cause for collapse of buildings and loss
of lives, there is a need to introduce remedial measures in the construction of such buildings. The
horizontal bands are helpful in tying the walls together at the junctions and also in preventing the
growth of vertical cracks and in-plane shear cracks.
Bryan and Mervyn 16 captured the stress-strain characteristics of unconfined and confined clay
brick masonry. Confinement plates dramatically improved the compressive strength of clay brick
masonry. The plates increased the ultimate strength by as much as 40%. It was noted that

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
confinement plates placed within the mortar bed joints restricted the lateral expansion of the joint
and the differential expansion between the clay brick unit and the joint.
Mojsilović 104 derived masonry characteristics from compression tests and examined the stress-
strain relationship and the applicability of orthotropic elasticity to masonry. It was concluded that
masonry behaved more or less as a linear-elastic material, in particular for working loads (loads
up to 30% of the failure load); for higher loads concrete and calcium-silicate block masonry
exhibited nonlinear behaviour, while clay brick masonry remained linear-elastic up to failure. At
the same time, concrete block masonry assumed to be isotropic, and calcium-silicate block and
clay brick masonry to be orthotropic materials.
Durgesh Rai and Subhash Goel 33 used a simplified mechanics model to obtain the system
capacity curve for an unreinforced masonry wall in which rocking piers were stabilized. The
undesirable compressive modes of failure of stabilized rocking piers at larger drifts were
eliminated by the use of yielding energy dissipation device to limit the forces in verticals and
thereby the compression force in rocking piers. The rocking resistance increased with lateral
displacement as the pier compression reaches a peak value. The model was first used to obtain the
load-deflection curves of each rocking pier in the story, which are then simply added to obtain the
story capacity curve. Further, the system capacity curve for the entire wall was simply derived by
assuming the pattern of story displacements after the first mode shape as it is the dominant mode
for earthquake response in most structures. The capacity spectrum method was then used to
estimate the seismic demand on the rocking pier system described by the system capacity curve.
A strengthening scheme using steel vertical elements and energy dissipation devices have been
proposed to enhance seismic performance of rocking piers which may be inadequate. A rocking
pier stabilized by vertical elements maintains its deformation controlled behavior, ductility and
stable hysteretic performance, despite significant enhancement in its lateral strength. This
strengthening system was shown to possess considerable load sharing between the masonry and
the added elements at almost all load stages.

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
Gumaste et al 52 attempted to study the properties of brick masonry using table moulded bricks
and wire-cut bricks of India with various types of mortars. The strength and elastic modulus of
brick masonry under compression were evaluated for strong-brick soft-mortar and soft-brick
strong-mortar combinations. Various sizes of prisms and wallettes were tested to study the size
effect and different bonding arrangements. It was concluded that for table moulded brick masonry,
the failure of masonry specimens using lean mortar was primarily due to loss of bond between
brick and mortar. In the case of 1:6 cement-sand mortars, the specimens showed failure due to
splitting of bricks. The masonry efficiency was in the range of 17.7% to 31% for prisms and in the
range of 20–27% for wallettes. Due to a large coefficient of variation for the brick strength (40%),
the crushing of the weakest brick in the specimen determined the masonry strength rather than the
interaction between brick and mortar, and mortar strength influenced the masonry strength. The
secant modulus (at 25% of ultimate stress) of prisms was observed in the range of 345–467MPa.
A larger scatter in the range of 260–735MPa was observed in case of wallette specimens. The poor
correlation in the strength pattern and the scatter in the modulus values of table moulded brick
specimens attributed to the large coefficient of variation in the brick strength. It was concluded
that wire-cut brick masonry exhibited a better correlation between mortar strength and masonry
strength. The stack bonded prisms and English bonded prisms showed masonry efficiencies in the
range of 21–43% whereas the stretcher bonded wallettes had efficiencies between 35-53%. The
wire-cut brick masonry showed a lesser scatter in the strength values as compared to the table
moulded brick masonry specimens. Relatively higher secant moduli values in the range of 2393–
5232 MPa were observed in these specimens. Specimens with 1:6 cement mortar 1:1:6 cement–
soil mortars failed due to loss of bond between brick and mortar, whereas the specimens with 1:½:4
cement–lime mortar failed by diagonal shear failure and splitting of bricks. The results provided a
guide to the design of brick masonry in a developing country like India, where low/moderate
strength bricks were common.
Masonry Wall

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
Sivarama Sarma et al 129 said that confined masonry panels in a building were considered to
provide better, cost-effective, seismic resistant structural elements as confined column in hollow
block masonry shear wall improved the ductility and shear load characteristics. In case of panels
with opening, however the ductility of hollow block panel was superior when compared with the
brick panels. The vertical reinforcement had significant influence in improving the ductility
behaviour. The ultimate lateral load was governed by shear failure when compared with flexural
capacity, even in the case of fully reinforced brick wall panel systems.
Shambu Sinha 126 investigated the most common retrofit technique applying a 76mm thick layer
of shotcrete to either the outside or inside surface of the walls to one surface strengthened to
provide earthquake resistance. The shotcrete greatly increased the strength of the un-reinforced
brick panels. Panels reinforced with the welded wire fabric showed a significant increase in
strength after first cracking and large inelastic deflection capacity. The shotcrete plus
reinforcement permitted the panels to deflect in-elastically and to remain intact even after the full
reversed cycle loading. Bond strength between the shotcrete and bricks directly influenced the
strengthening of the structural panels including its stiffness properties.
Khan Mahmud 76 conducted the experiment and investigated the use of Ferro cement laminates
for repairing and retrofitting masonry infill. It was concluded that Ferro cement overlay was a
highly effective method of strengthening/repairing distressed reinforced concrete frame with
masonry infill. Since the tested capacity of the repaired frame was more than the capacity of the
original frame, it was quite logical if Ferro cement overlay was applied to any existing distressed
infill, the lateral load capacity of the frame significantly increased.
Essy Arijoeni Basoenondo, 40 investigated the behaviour of brick masonry wall without surface
mortar, with surface mortar and added with different surface mortar plaster for monotonic,
repeated and cyclic loading. It was concluded that the capacity of the wall under cyclic loads was
50% less than that under monotonic and repeated lateral in-plane loads. All walls collapsed due to
brittle failure mechanism, without the presence of ductility. It was also recorded that the presence
Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
of surface mortar plaster as wall confinement system increased the stiffness of the wall, but did
not affect the improvement of wall ductility. Various kinds of masonry walls were suggested for
different seismic zones in Indonesia.
Brignola et al 15 presented the role of the in-plane stiffness of timber floors in the seismic response
of un-reinforced masonry buildings. The past experiences of earthquakes and the seismic response
of existing masonry buildings were strongly dependent on the characteristics of wooden floors and
in particular on their in-plane stiffness and on the connections quality between the floors and
masonry elements. The diaphragm action clearly depends on the type of floor. Focusing herein the
attention on timber floors was to evaluate the in-plane stiffness ofexisting (as-built) and retrofitted
configurations. According to international guidelines on seismic rehabilitation of buildings, both
the global and local behaviour of unreinforced masonry buildings were assessed, accounted for
partial/local collapse mechanisms, either in- plane or out-of-plane. The presence of a rigid
diaphragm limits the out-of-plane rotation of the masonry units while causing a concentration of
outward forces in the corners. The diaphragm flexibility was evaluated by analyzing the
contribution to the in-plane deformation of the timber floor under simple loading conditions.
Monotonic tests on small size floor specimen (1mx2m) and cyclic tests on real size floor specimens
(one-way, 4m x 5m, aspect ratio equal to 1.25) were performed. The floor specimen was linked to
the laboratory reaction floor by means of two external hinges due to the non-linear response of the
diaphragm shear force vs. displacement (or diagonal deformation). The value of in-plane stiffness
derived by each test was strongly affected by the floor stiffness adopted.
Korkmaz 77 investigated the seismic safety of unreinforced masonry buildings that dominated the
building inventory in the Pakistan region by multiple approaches. Four different representative
buildings were modeled to demonstrate the building stack in the region. Nonlinear time history
analysis and probabilistic based seismic assessment analysis were performed on the representative
buildings. The analysis showed that unreinforced masonry low-rise buildings present higher
displacements; shear forces and probability of damage were directly related to damage or collapse.

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
The non-linear time history analysis indicated that masonry buildings were susceptible to seismic
damage with higher displacements. A detailed seismic safety assessment for all unreinforced
masonry low-rise building types in the region was highlighted.
Finite Element Modeling
Paulo Lourenço et al 118 studied the numerical representation of masonry to focus on the micro-
modeling of the individual components, viz. unit (brick, block etc.) and mortar, or the macro-
modeling of masonry as a composite. Depending on the level of accuracy and the simplicity
desired, it was possible to use the following modeling strategies. Detailed micro-modeling - units
and mortar in the joints were represented by continuum elements whereas the unit-mortar interface
was represented by discontinuum elements; Simplified micro-modeling - expanded units were
represented by continuum elements whereas the behaviour of the mortar joints and unit-mortar
interface was lumped in discontinuum elements; Macro-modeling - units, mortar and unit-mortar
interface were smeared out in a homogeneous continuum. Simplified divisions of the elementary
cell such as layered approaches were inadequate for the non-linear range. In finite element analysis,
the failure mechanisms and collapse loads were similar to more complex approaches based on
nonlinear incremental and iterative finite element simulations and compared to the non-linear
simulations. Nevertheless, significant caution was always recommended when trying to reproduce
existing damage patterns, advanced non-linear simulations.
Krit Chaimoon and Mario Attard 79 used a simplified micro-modeling approach wherein the two
masonry components: bricks and mortar joints were modeled separately. The mortar joint, which
was the plane of weakness, was represented through interface nodes of zero thickness. A simplified
micro-modeling approach was proposed to model masonry. The mortar thickness and the brick–
mortar interfaces were lumped into a zero-thickness interface while the dimensions of the brick
units were expanded to keep the geometry of a masonry structure unchanged. A masonry structure
was thus modeled as a set of masonry units. Each masonry unit was further subdivided into interior
brick elements which had boundaries either representing the mortar interfaces or internal brick
Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
interfaces. Shear wall tests carried out by the performance of the proposed model for the case of
shear compression. Vermeltfort‘s specimens had a width/height ratio of 0.99 (990 × 1000 mm).
The walls were built with 18 courses (16 courses were active and 2 courses were clamped in steel
beams). The bricks were ‗Joosten‘solid clay bricks (dimensions 204 × 98 × 50 mm) and a 10 mm
thick mortar joint was used. Masonry was modeled using a 2D representation by means of
triangular units connected at boundary nodes along the interfaces between the units. The triangular
units were grouped into rectangular zones mimicking brick units and mortar joints. The mortar–
brick interface was modeled as a zero thickness interface. The inelastic failure surface for the
mortar interfaces were modeled using a Mohr–coulomb failure surface with a tension cut-off and
a linear compression cap. Fracture was modeled through a constitutive softening-fracture law at
the interface boundary nodes. The constitutive law was a single branch softening law. Comparison
of the formulation with the experimental results on the masonry shear walls under pre-compression
and shear showed reasonable agreement. The formulation was able to capture the pre-peak and
post-peak response and the cracking characteristics reasonably well.
Fazia Fouchal et al 42 discussed the experimental characterization of the materials (bricks and
mortar) and the brick/mortar interface. Since masonry was a composite structure, failure of these
structures depend on the properties of the materials (mortar, bricks, etc.), as well as on the
characteristics of the bonding between the various components. It was thus possible to model the
fracture process occurring along the interface as well as the mortar. Structures composed of hollow
bricks modeled using two adhesive characteristics. In particular, the model was used to study the
fracture process occurring along the interface of a small structure consisting of three hollow bricks.
Further studies were required on the fracture processes crossing the mortar in structures. The
results showed that the model accurately described the behaviour of the structures. In particular,
the cracking of the mortar in a small wall structure was accurately predicted by the model.
Dilrukshi and Dias 30 proposed the analysis of a typical wall connected to the effective slab area,
rather than analyzing a whole building. The behaviour of the cracks was predicted based on surveys

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
of buildings the methodology of cracks formed. Also, typical structural arrangements were
mathematically modeled using 3D brick finite element models, with link elements between the
masonry and concrete elements in order to model interfaces. Locations and directions where
cracking would occur were identified using the principal stresses developed in the finite element
model and a failure criterion developed based on the modified Von-Mises theory. Also, using these
numerical models, the effect of wall length and structural form of the wall (i.e. load bearing walls
and reinforced concrete framed walls) on the formation of these cracks was studied. These results
were compared with the information obtained from the survey. In the context of the finite element
method, there were two major groups of interface elements/models known as the ―zero thickness‖
interface element and ―thin layer‖ interface elements. Numerical modeling was able to reproduce
the phenomena observed in buildings where masonry walls were subjected to thermal movements
of an overlying slab. The type and location of cracking depend significantly on whether the wall
is load bearing or framed by reinforced concrete elements. Both types of arrangements gave
diagonal cracking near the ends of walls, although the crack orientation was steeped in load bearing
walls. The survey also indicated that more cracking was formed in walls oriented in the long way
direction of the building.
Luisa Berto et al 85 proposed two identification procedures based on standard homogenization

method and on direct identification method. In particular, the homogenization method adopted was
based on an analytical approach under the hypothesis of mortar joint modeled as interfaces of zero
thickness. On the other hand, the direct identification method was based on a finite element micro-
modeling of a periodic masonry pattern subjected to homogeneous deformation state. From a
structural point of view, two basic classes for masonry buildings: regular and irregular masonries
with regular texture in which brick or stone blocks were regularly shaped and characterized by a
disposition of the units along horizontal lines. Two further sub-classes were identified: periodic
and quasi-periodic masonry, being the difference related to the possibility of identifying a
representative volume cell, which generates panel as a whole by repetition. Masonry constituted

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
by irregular stones was characterized by the presence of irregularly shaped and irregularly disposed
stones with variable dimensions.
Mauro et al 92 presented a homogenization procedure and the effect of the bond and the poisons-
type interaction between mortar and brick. Assuming a simplified kinematics for the phases
belonging to the representative volume element (RVE), the so-called localization problem was
solved by imposing the minimization of the average internal strain energy. Closed form
formulations were then derived for the equivalent in-plane elastic constants of masonry. The
expressions found were limited to masonry as a stratified medium or where the joints were treated
as interfaces. The accuracy of the results was investigated by means of a comparison with finite
element analysis. A parametric study, conducted varying the geometries and the mechanical
properties of the phases showed that the error introduced over a very wide range of values for the
elastic properties was lower than 8%, meaning that the procedure was ready to be used for non-
linear analysis. A homogenization procedure for running bond masonry was presented. The
procedure relied upon a simplified kinematics defined within the representative volume element
and provided analytically the elastic properties of masonry as a function of the geometry and of
the individual properties of mortar and brick. By comparing the results with FE analysis, the errors
introduced by the model were low from an engineering view point, even when large differences
between mortar and brick stiffness were considered or when thick joints were taken into account.
On the basis of the results obtained, the proposed formulation reproduces the essential feature of
masonry behaviour and thus it constituted a promising tool which was adopted in the framework
of multi-scale analysis of masonry structures.
2.3 RESEARCH GAP
The brittle nature of masonry buildings is the major cause for collapse of buildings and loss of
lives and thereby there is a need to introduce remedial measures in the construction of such

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
buildings. According to the review of existing literature on research carried out in many institutions
and in many different countries, there is a need to investigate the in-plane structural behaviour of
masonry walls especially to increase the load carrying capacity and to delay the crack propagation
with caution. Also, the proposed new methodology to save the buildings to some extent from the
earthquakes should be easily affordable by the society. The research work is carried out to bridge
the gap in the in-plane behaviour of masonry structure and contribution towards determining the
enhanced performance of brick masonry wall structures in various seismic zones in India.
Consequently, the comparative responses of un-reinforced masonry brick walls and reinforced
masonry brick walls with introduction of hexagonal woven wire mesh along bed joint in alternate
layer of the masonry brick walls are extensively investigated and discussed elaborately in this
research thesis.
2.4 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Due to the heterogeneous nature present in the masonry wall, tests were conducted to study the
behaviour of masonry wall for in-plane loading. The observations obtained were used to develop
mathematical equations.
2.4.1 Focus of the research work
The research investigations are supported by experimental work and the analytical work using
ANSYS. The detailed experimental investigations carried out in this research are depicted in a
schematic flow chart in Fig. 2.1
The aim of this research work is to study the in-plane shear behaviour of brick masonry. First being
the study of structural properties of masonry, the tests were conducted with clay bricks and fly ash
bricks. The mortars have the composition of 1:6 cement mortar with partial replacement of fine
aggregate with fly ash as 0%, 10% and 20% respectively were used in this study. Initially, the
masonry strength was obtained for the unreinforced and reinforced brick masonry prism in 1:6
cement mortar with partial replacement of fine aggregate with fly ash; secondly the in-plane shear
behaviour of the unreinforced and reinforced masonry wall panel (with woven wire mesh along
the horizontal bed joint) was studied in 1:6 cement mortar with partial replacement of fine
Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
aggregate with fly ash using shear compression loading test and diagonal compression test
respectively; thirdly the numerical prediction of masonry strength and in-plane shear strength was
evaluated; and finally, the wall capacity for un-reinforced and reinforced masonry wall in seismic
zones was recommended
In-plane shear behavior

of brick masonry
Material properties Masonry In-plane behavior (shear test) In-plane shear prediction
Brick Mortar Prism Lateral in plane Diagonal

Loading compression
Clay brick Fly ash loading
Clay brick prism brick prism
1:6 Cement
Mortar 1:6 Cement mortar
with 10% replacement
of fine aggregate
with fly ash
Fly ash brick 1:6 Cement mortar

with 20% replacement
of fine aggregate with fly ash
Fig 2.1 Schematic diagram depicting the experimental work carried out in this research

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
CHAPTER 3
MATERIAL PROPERTIES OF STRUCTRAL MASONRY
3.1 Introduction
In engineered masonry, the compressive strength fpm and the modulus of elasticity Epm of the
material are the two main components of the element. Compressive strength is important because
it determines the bearing capacity of the element; the modulus of elasticity is important because it
provides the deformation of the element under loading. The compressive strengths of masonry unit
and mortars are two of the most tested properties for typical projects because, the specimens are
relatively easy and inexpensive to prepare when compared with the testing for other properties.
When structural masonry is subjected to vertical loading, the design parameters such as the stress-
strain relationship and the elastic property are to be understood. In order to study the elastic
properties of brick masonry in detail, mortar cubes and brick prisms were cast. In this research
some preliminary investigations were determined for evaluating physical and mechanical
characteristics of bricks, mortar and brick masonry. The parameters are,
Brick strength,
Mortar strength,
Bond shear strength between brick - mortar and
Masonry strength
3.2 Fly Ash
Fly ash are the artificial pozzalona which is basically derived as the residue during combustion of
pulverized coal used as fuel. During the combustion of coal, the products formed are classified
into two categories viz. bottom ash and fly ash. The bottom ash is that part of the residue which is
fused into particles. The fly ash is that part of the ash which is entrained in the combustion gas

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
leaving the boiler. Most of this fly ash is collected in either mechanical collectors or electrostatic
precipitators. In India, coal contains very high percentage of rock and soil and therefore ash
contents are as high as 50%. Ash may be classified into two groups as class C and class F, based
on the nature of their ash constituents. One is the bituminous ash (class F) and the other is the
lignite ash (class C). The lignite ash (class C) in India is produced at Neyveli thermal power plant
and most of the other power plants in India produce bituminous ashes (class F). Both class F and
class C fly ash react to cement in similar ways and undergo a -pozzolanic reaction‖ with the lime
(calcium hydroxide) by the hydration (chemical reaction) of cement and water to form the calcium
silicate hydrate which is the binder (ie) cement. In addition, some class C fly ash may possess
enough lime to be self- cementing, in addition to the pozzolanic reaction with lime from cement
hydration. In India, Tamilnadu has four major coal based thermal power plants, they are Ennore
thermal power station, Tuticorin thermal power station, Mettur thermal power station and North
Chennai thermal power station. The coal from the mines Talcher and Ib Valley of MCL and
Raniganj and Mugma of ECL is transported to the load ports of Paradip (Orissa), Vizag (Andhra
Pradesh) and Haldia (West Bengal) respectively through rail. Thereafter, the coal is transported to
the discharge ports of Ennore and Tuticorin by ships. From Ennore port, the coal is transported
again through rail to Ennore thermal power station and Mettur thermal power station.
3.2.1 XRD studies on fly ash
Chemical constituents of fly ash mainly depend on the chemical composition of the coal. However,
fly ashes that are produced from the same source have very similar chemical composition and
significantly different ash mineralogy depending on the coal combustion technology used. The fly
ash used for this study was collected from Mettur thermal power plant, Tamil Nadu, India. XRD
pattern obtained on fly ash material collected from Mettur thermal power plant in India is shown
in Fig. 3.1.

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
Fig 3.1 XRD pattern of fly ash
The XRD pattern (Fig 3.1) confirms the presence of Al2O3 and SiO2 as predominant materials in
the fly ash. Reda Taha and Shrive122 reported that the calcium bearing silica and silicate minerals
of ash occur either in crystalline or non-crystalline structures and are hydraulic in nature; they
easily reacts with water or hydrated lime and develop pozzolanic property. The XRD detail for the
fly ash used in the study is given in Table 3.1.

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
3.3 Brick Unit

Building bricks are usually made with mixture of clay and sand, which are mixed and moulded in
various ways and are dried and burnt. Tutunlu Faith and Atalay Umit 137 reported that the clay
for brick making must develop proper plasticity and be capable of drying rapidly without excessive
shrinkage, warping or cracking and of being burnt to desired texture and strength. This process for
Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
making clay bricks, require heating of the bricks in kilns to more than 2000oF, which consumes
much fossil fuel and generates air pollutants and carbon dioxides due to the combustion of the
fossil fuel; Fly ash is utilized to make bricks in one of several ways: (a) as substitute for a portion
of the cement and/or aggregates in making concrete bricks and blocks; (b) as substitute for a
portion of the clay used in making clay bricks. (c) As substitute for all the clay used in making
clay bricks, using the same process for making clay bricks which requires burning fossil fuel to
heat adobes in kilns at over 2000oF. This uses the same process and has the same drawback of
using 100% fly ash in making bricks; and (d) as the mixture of the fly ash 20% to 60%, lime, sand
and gypsum in making pressed bricks and dried.
3.3.1 Clay bricks
Bricks are the standard units of traditional building construction. Bricks have been used since
ancient times for walls and columns of residential and non-residential buildings. Bricks are made
from soil and hence the property of bricks depends on the properties of soil. Raw materials required
for manufacturing of clay bricks are clay, silt and sand. As per IS 2117 66 alumina (20 - 30%) to
impart plasticity to the earth for mould; silica (50 – 60%) to prevent cracking, shrinkage and
warping during drying and burning; lime (small quantity) to prevent shrinkage of raw bricks, iron
oxide (5- 6%) to retain the red colour to bricks; and magnesia a small quantity to impart yellow
tint to bricks and to decrease shrinkages. The four distinct stages of manufacturing the hand mould
clay bricks are: (i) preparing the brick earth (ii) moulding clay in rectangular blocks of uniform
size (iii) drying in sun and air and (iv) burning them in brick kilns. Burning of the brick during
manufacture governs the quality and properties of brick and uses more fossil fuels.
3.3.2 Fly ash bricks
Fly ash bricks manufacturing units can be set up near thermal power stations. Raw materials
required for manufacturing of fly ash bricks are fly ash, lime gypsum and sand (optional). The
general composition is: fly ash (50 -75%), lime (8 -20%), MgO content should be maximum of
5%, gypsum (2 - 5%) to accelerate hardening processes and acquiring early strength, sand (20 - 30
%) to enhance the gradation of the mix as per IS 13757 62. In the presence of moisture, fly ash
reacts with lime at ordinary temperature and forms a compound possessing cementitious
Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
properties. After reactions between lime and fly ash, calcium silicate hydrates are produced which
are responsible for the high strength of the compound. This process involves homogeneous mixing
of raw materials (generally fly ash, sand and lime), with chemical accelerator like gypsum, then
moulding of bricks and curing of the fly ash bricks. Bricks made by mixing lime and fly ash are
therefore chemically bonded bricks. These bricks are suitable for use in masonry just like common
burnt clay bricks. Generally, dry fly ash available from power plants meets the properties specified
in IS 3812 69. After the processing, the bricks are dried on applying required quantity of water on
the bricks. After two days the dried bricks are sold. Tayfun 131 described that the manufacturing
of clay brick requires kilns fired to high temperatures that cause wastage of energy, air pollution
and generate greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming. It should be noted that the use
of fly ash in the building material also improves the properties of building material as indicated by
Vyasa Rao and Raina 140. Manufacturing each ton of fly ash bricks instead of clay bricks will
reduce the emission of carbon- di-oxide – the major greenhouse gas by 0.0434 ton as stated by
Henry Liu 57.
3.4 Mortar
Mortar is used as a means of sticking or bonding bricks together and to take up all irregularities in
the bricks. Although mortars form only a small proportion of a masonry wall as a whole, its
characteristics have a large influence on the quality of the brick masonry. The utilization of fly ash
as cement replacement material in mortar or as additive in cement introduces many benefits from
economical, technical and environmental points of view as per Erdog Du 39. The use of fly ash is
accepted in recent years primarily due to saving cement, consuming industrial waste and making
durable materials, especially due to the improvement in the quality stabilization offly ash, as stated
by Li Yijin 82. Fly ash is another type of pozzolanic material widely being used as a cement/fine
aggregate replacement as reported by Rajamane 121. Many researchers, viz. Rafat 120 and Chaid
et al 17 indicated that low-calcium fly ash (class F) improves the interfacial zone microstructures.
Portland cement hydrates to produce calcium hydroxide as much as 20% to 25% by weight. Joshi

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
and Lohitia 74 reported that, when the pozzolanic materials in the form of fly ash are added to the
cements, the C-H of hydrated cement is consumed by the reactive SiO2 portion of these
pozzolanas. This pozzolanic reaction improves the microstructure of cement composites as
additional C-S-H gel is formed and also the pore size refinement of the hydrated cement occurs.
Hydration of tri-calcium-aluminate in the ash provides one of the primary cementitious products
in many ashes. The rapid rate at which the hydration of the tri-calcium-aluminate results in the
rapid set of these materials and is the reason for the delay in lower strengths of the stabilized
material, as reported by Dattatreya et al 23. Use of the waste material like fly ash as partial
replacement with cement and fine aggregate as 0%, 10%, 20%, 25% and 30% was investigated to
obtain the substitutes for the cement/ fine aggregate in the mortar. The ordinary portland cement
with fine aggregate of zone II and the fly ash obtained from the Mettur thermal power plant were
used for this study. The basic properties of mortar like compressive strength, modulus of elasticity
and poisson's ratio were determined. Mortar with different proportions of ingredients as four set
of mixture proportions were prepared as given in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2 Mortar Composition
The first mix (control mix) was prepared without the addition of fly ash and the other mixes were
prepared with the addition of class F fly ash obtained from Mettur thermal power plant, India. In
the first three sets, the mortars were prepared with the partial replacement of cement with fly ash
in 1:3, 1:4.5 and 1:6 cement mortar ratios. The fly ash was blended with the mixed cement at
Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
replacement ratios of 100:0, 90:10, 80:20, 75:25 and 70:30. In the fourth set, the partial
replacement of fine aggregate with fly ash in the ratio of 1:6 cement mortars was prepared with
100:0, 90:10 and 80:20 ratios and the results were compared.
3.4.1 Compressive strength of the mortar
The strength of the brick masonry is much depended on the quality and strength of the brick and
the mortar used in the construction of the walls. Thus, there is an optimum relationship between
the strength of the masonry brick unit and the strength of the mortar. For maximum strength and
for the whole mass of the wall to act together, the bricks should be bonded together properly. The
joints should not be very thick. If the bricks are stronger than the mortar, then mortar determines
the strength of the brick masonry. Compressive strength tests on cement mortar were performed
in a compression testing machine with cube sized samples.
3.4.1.1 Fly ash as a substitute for cement in the mortar
The comparative studies were performed for different cement mortar ratio as 1:3, 1:4.5 and 1:6
with partial replacement of cement with fly ash as 0%, 10%, 20% and 30% is shown in Fig.3.2.
Fig. 3.2 Mortar strength with partial replacement of fly ash with cement
Specimens with cement mortar ratios of 1:3, 1:4.5 and 1:6 with 10% replacement of cement with
fly ash produced a compressive strength slightly higher than the control mix at 28 days curing
period. Compressive strength of the cement mortar specimens with 20% and 30% replacement of
Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
cement with fly ash exhibited lower values than the control mix. Pitre 119 reported that the mortar
specimens with replacement of cement with fly ash may gain strength after long days of curing.
3.4.4.2 Fly ash as a substitute for fine aggregate in the mortar
The comparative studies were made on their characteristics for cement mortar ratio of 1:6 with
partial replacement of fine aggregate with fly ash as 0%, 10% and 20% at 3, 7, 28, 56 and 90days.
Specimens with cement mortar with the ratio of 1:6, the mortar strength increases with the increase
in fly ash content and the results are depicted in Fig 3.3.
Fig. 3.3 Compressive strength of 1:6 cement mortar with partial replacement of fine aggregate with fly ash
With the increase in days of curing, the compressive strength of the mortar also increased. At 28
days with 10% and 20% fly ash for fine aggregate replacement in mortar resulted in 35.6% and
56.9% higher than the control mortar. Cement normally gains its maximum strength within 28
days. During that period, lime produced from cement hydration remains within the hydration
product. Generally, this lime reacts with fly ash and imparts more strength as reported by Yilmaz
143. Cement mortar ratio of 1:6 with partial replacement of fine aggregate with fly ash as 0%, 10%
and 20% are designated as F1, F2 and F3. Cement mortar ratio of 1:6 with partial replacement of
cement with fly ash as 10% and 20% is designated as F4 and F5. Table 3.3 gives the recommended
mortar mixes and their strengths similar to the mortar designated as per IS1905 65.
Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
Table 3.2 Mix Proportions Recommended For Construction
The compressive strength in these mixes is attributed to both the continued hydration of portland
cement and the pozzolanic reactions between the fly ash and the calcium hydroxide compound of
portland cement gains more strength in 28 days and were compared in Fig 3.4. It can be seen that
there is increase in strength with the partial replacement of fine aggregate with fly ash in the cement
mortar. Yucel 144 also reported that replacement of the cement by fly ash decreases the
compressive strength of the concrete mortar. However, maximum strength occurred with 20%
replacement of fine aggregate with fly ash in the 1:6 cement mortar. This increase in strength due
to the replacement of fine aggregate with fly ash may be attributed to the pozzolanic action of fly
ash as reported by Joshi and Lohitia 74.

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
Fig. 3.4 Comparison between the substitution of fly ash with cement / fine aggregate in 1:6 cement mortar
Cement mortar of ratio 1:6 with 20% replacement of fine aggregate with fly ash showed higher
strength because of the inclusion of fly ash as the partial replacement of fine aggregate and
pozzolanic action starts to densify the matrix and due to this the strength of the fly ash mortar is
higher than the strength of control mix (1:6). Reda Taha and Shrive 122 showed that a strong CSH
fibrous network can significantly enhance the masonry bond when fly ash is incorporated in the
mortar mix. Replacement of cement by fly ash results in lower compressive strength, since fly ash
exhibits very little cementing effects and acts as fine aggregate as reported by Rajamane 121.
Mortar with 20% replacement of cement with fly ash in cement mortar 1:6 is suggested for the
brick masonry having the brick strength of 2 – 5 MPa and 10% replacement of fine aggregate with
fly ash in the ratio of 1:6 cement mortar is suggested for brick masonry having the brick strength
of 5- 10 MPa.
3.4.4.3 Improving earthquake resistance behaviour of masonry buildings
Miha Timozevic 96 has reported that seismic forces may cause sliding of a part of the wall along
one of the bed-joints, if the vertical compressive stresses in the wall are low and the quality of
mortar is poor. Sliding shear failure of unreinforced walls usually takes place in the upper part of
the masonry buildings below rigid roof structures, where the compressive stresses are low and the
response accelerations are high. For the purpose of specifying the earthquake resisting features,
Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
the buildings have been categorized in five categories as A to E with respect to the seismic
coefficient and the recommended mortar mixes for different categories of masonry buildings as
per IS 13828 63 based on the value of seismic coefficient is reported in Table3.3:
Table 3.3 Recommended Mortar Mix in Seismic Zones
The earthquake response of a masonry wall depends on the relative strengths of the bricks and the
mortar. Fly ash mortar can provide satisfactory or higher strength as compared with the plain
cement mortar as suggested by Rafat 120 and Chaid et al 17.
3.5 Reinforcement
Durgesh Rai 35 reported that the use of the reinforcement in masonry improves the load carrying
capacity and most importantly its flexure and shear behaviour under earthquake loads. Horizontal
reinforcement should be provided in walls to strengthen them against horizontal in-plane loading.
This also helps to tie together the perpendicular walls. Bed joint reinforcements can be easily
placed in the horizontal mortar layers without any significant modification to the construction
scheme. The presence of even slight horizontal reinforcement is very effective in controlling crack,
strength, displacement capacity and energy absorption as reported by Maria Rosa 88. Masonry
piers with horizontal reinforcement significantly enhance the seismic response in particular;
damage reduction and enhances the in-plane and out-of-plane lateral load carrying capacity.

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
Horizontal bed joint reinforcement in alternate mortar bed joints was carried out using hexagonal
woven wire mesh made of galvanized iron drawn wire mesh (fabric). This may improve the
structural performance of masonry walls. Woven wire mesh placed along the bed joint in alternate
course of the brick masonry is shown in Fig 3.5. Hexagonal wire mesh fabric formed by twisting
wires with a series of hexagonal openings and the length depends on the purchaser and the
manufacturer. Hexagonal woven wire mesh is the least expensive and had the higher tensile
strength among the meshes.
Fig 3.5 Woven wire mesh placed along the bed joint in alternate course
The thickness of the woven wire mesh strand used was 0.67mm and the opening was found to be
19mm. Since the wire mesh (reinforcement) is much stronger in tension compared to the matrix
(mortar), the role of the matrix is to properly hold the mesh in place and to give a proper protection
and to transfer stresses by means of adequate bond. Compressive strength of this composite is
generally a function of the compressive strength of the matrix (mortar), while the tensile strength
is the function of the mesh content with the elastic property as 310 MPa. The main requirement of
the composite is that, it is easy to handle and flexible enough to be bent around sharp corners. The
main function of the wire mesh is to act as a lath providing the form and to support the mortar in
its green state. In the hardened state, its function is to absorb the tensile stresses on the structure,
which the mortar on its own would not be able to withstand.
3.6 Masonry Assemblage

Masonry is a material built with brick units and mortar. Behaviour of masonry greatly depends on
the characteristics of masonry units, mortar and the bond between them. Analysis and design of

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
buildings with masonry require material properties of masonry; modulus of elasticity of masonry
is required in the case of linear static analysis. In general, masonry walls are primarily subjected
to vertical gravity force and lateral in-plane shear forces during an earthquake. Direct compression
and direct shear tests were carried out to obtain mechanical properties of masonry with various
combinations of brick and the mortar. The strength and the elastic modulus of brick masonry under
compression have been evaluated. Two types of bricks viz. clay brick and fly ash brick and the
cement mortar with partial replacement of fine aggregate with fly ash were used in this study. The
properties of different bricks and mortars adopted for casting the masonry specimens were also
studied. In particular, modulus of elasticity is a mechanical property influenced by different
factors, such as compressive strength of unit, shape of unit, compressive strength of mortar and
state of stress developed during loading.
3.6.1 Compressive strength of the brick masonry
Masonry is commonly used for the construction of foundations and superstructure throughout the
world. Variety of masonry units (stones, burnt clay bricks, concrete blocks etc) and mortars are
used for masonry construction. Codes of practice on masonry design give the guidelines to assess
the compressive strength of the brick masonry by considering compressive strength of the masonry
unit, height of the masonry unit and the type of the mortar (cement (C): fly ash(F): fine
aggregate(FA)). The compression testing was performed according to Indian masonry code IS:
1905 65. Five brick stack bonded masonry prism tests were performed under axial compression
tests to obtain the basic compressive strength of the brick masonry. The tests were conducted with
suitable prism assemblages with different combinations of masonry units and mortars as given in
Table 3.4.
Stack bonded unreinforced clay brick prism (UCBP) and unreinforced fly ash brick prism (UFBP)
of size 230 x 110 x 420mm were prepared using clay brick and fly ash brick of size 230x110
x70mm in the ratio of 1:6 cement mortars with 0%, 10% and 20% replacement of fine aggregate

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
with fly ash (UCBP10, UCBP20, UFBP10 and UFB20P). The clay brick prism (RCBP, RCBP10
and RCBP20) and fly ash brick prism (RFBP, RFBP10 and RFBP20) were reinforced with
hexagonal woven wire mesh at the alternate bed course and tested under compression. Mortar joint
thickness of 10 – 12mm was used for all the prism specimens. The nature of the stresses developed
in the masonry unit and the mortar when the brick masonry is subjected to compression greatly
depends upon its relative elastic modulus (E).
Table 3.4 Specimen Details for Compressive Strength of the Brick Masonry

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
Fig 3.6 Stress distributions in the composite masonry
During compression of brick masonry prisms constructed with stiffer bricks, mortar of the bed
joint may have a tendency to expand laterally more than the bricks because of lesser stiffness of
mortar as stated by Hemant 55. However, the mortar is confined laterally at the brick mortar
interface by the bricks because of the bond between them; therefore, shear stresses at the brick
mortar interface result in an internal state of stress consisting of tri-axial compression in bricks and
bilateral tension coupled with axial compression in mortar as shown in Fig 3.6. Under uni axial
compression, stack bonded brick masonry prism expands laterally in the plane perpendicular to
the direction of loading causing vertical splitting as shown in Fig. 3.7.

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
Fig 3.7 Clay brick prism (unreinforced) and fly ash brick prism (unreinforced and reinforced)
The compressive strength of the brick masonry with clay brick prism and fly ash brick prism
having the ratio of 1:6 cement mortars with 0%, 10% and 20% replacement of fine aggregate with
fly ash are shown in Fig 3.8. It was found that, with partial replacement of fine aggregate with the
fly ash in 1:6 cement mortars resulted in increase in compressive strength of the brick masonry.
Fig 3.8 Comparison of compressive strength of brick masonry
From Fig. 3.8, it was found that the clay brick masonry in 1:6 cement mortar with 20% replacement
of fine aggregate with fly ash resulted in higher load carrying capacity. However, the fly ash brick
masonry in 1:6 cement mortar with 10% replacement of fine aggregate with fly ash resulted in
higher load carrying capacity. From this, it was understood that fly ash content in the mortar
improves the interfacial zone microstructure as reported by Rafat 120 and Chaid et al 17, also the
fly ash brick masonry has higher compressive strength than clay brick masonry.
3.6.2 Elastic property of the brick masonry
Elastic properties of clay brick masonry and fly ash brick masonry for unreinforced (CBP, CBP10
and CBP20) and reinforced (RCBP, RCBP10 and RCBP20) with wire mesh were studied. Stress-
strain characteristics of brick masonry were examined through prism test as per IS 1905 65 and
ASTM C 67 6. The stress-strain curve of both unreinforced and reinforced clay brick masonry

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
with three types of mortar is shown in Fig.3.9. From the curve it was derived that the compressive
strength of reinforced clay brick masonry in 1:6 cement mortar with 20% replacement of fine
aggregate with fly ash exhibited higher compressive strength.
Fig 3.9 Stress-strain curve of clay brick masonry
The stress-strain curve was found to be linear until 1/3rd of the ultimate stress (fpm) after which
cracks began to form in the mortar introducing the non-linearity as shown in Fig 3.9. The stress-
strain curve of both unreinforced and reinforced fly ash brick masonry with three types of mortar
is shown in Fig.3.10. Secant modulus of elasticity at 60% of the ultimate strength of the specimen
is calculated from stress-strain curves.

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
Fig 3.10 Stress-strain curve of fly ash brick masonry
From the curve, it was found that the compressive strength of reinforced fly ash brick masonry in
1:6 cement mortar with 10% replacement of fine aggregate with fly ash exhibited higher strength.
Reda Taha and Shrive 122 reported that the effect of fly ash on brick masonry is attributed to its
pozzolanic activity, by which the pozzolans chemically convert the weak CH crystals to strong
CSH fibrous gel. The pozzolanic activity depends mainly on the chemical composition and the
fineness of the pozzolans. The pozzolanic reaction of fly ash was reported to have a significant
effect on long-term strength development. The fly ash brick masonry prisms were damaged with
visible vertical cracks (macro cracking) along the entire surface as shown in Fig 3.11. Lenczer 81
and Mosalam 06 reported that the mortar joints can develop lateral tension while brick develops
lateral compression in brick masonry. However, the stress-strain curve of fly ash brick masonry
was found to be non-linear.

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
Fig.3.11 Splitting of brick masonry
The compressive strength of the unreinforced clay brick prism varies in the range of 1.69 –
1.85MPa whereas the unreinforced fly ash brick prism varies from 2.4 – 2.68MPa. Mean
compressive strengths obtained on two types of bricks (fb) and three grades of mortar (fm) and the
ratio of brick compressive strength to mortar compressive strength obtained in this study are
detailed in Table 3.5.

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
Table 3.5 Property of the Brick and the Mortar in the Brick Masonry
The implication of brick and mortar proportions on the structural behavior of masonry under
compressive stress were studied and reported in Table 3.5 and in Table 3.6. From the above results,
it was found that the elastic modulus of the cement mortar is greater than the modulus of
the brick. The elastic properties of the brick masonry in comparison with the reported data are
presented in Table 3.6.

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
Table 3.6 Elastic Properties of Brick Masonry

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
3.6.3 Bond strength of the brick masonry

Masonry walls are intended to resist shear force due to in-plane lateral load in addition to the effect
of compressive load and bending. The shear characteristics of the brick masonry and the interfacial
interaction parameters of brick/mortar joint were determined on masonry prism; by triplet prism
test as reported by Sarangapani 125. There are two types of bonds between the mortar and the
brick units: chemical and friction. Tensile strength at the interface is primarily due to the chemical
bond. Hence, the chemical bond depends upon the absorption rate of the brick units as reported by
Reda Taha and Shrive 122. Therefore, high absorption rate of the brick units decreases the strength
of the bond. Thus, brick units are usually wetted with water before they are laid. The shear strength
at the interface between the surface of mortar layer and the surface of the brick unit is by the
friction and the chemical bond between the mortar and the brick units. The purpose for testing an
assemblage of triplet brick prism is to determine the maximum bond-shear strength retained by the
joint between the mortar and the brick. The bond shear strength is determined by testing a triplet
specimen such that only shear stresses develop in between the mortar and the masonry unit contact
planes as shown in Fig 3.12.
Fig 3.12 Triplet bond test on brick masonry
Shear strength of brick masonry triplet prisms were investigated in this test. The unreinforced and
reinforced triplet brick prisms of size 230mm x 220mm x 110mm were used in this study.

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
CHAPTER 4
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION ON MASONRY WALLS
4.1 Introduction
Masonry buildings constitute a significant part of the building either as load bearing wall or as
filler wall or as non load bearing wall. Structural walls are principally designed to resist gravity
loads. Structures that have proven to be safe and serviceable under gravity loads have provided
valuable information for modern design criteria. But, many of these structures have not been tested
for their capacity to resist lateral loadings. Unreinforced masonry shear walls are often used as the
main structural component of masonry buildings responsible for carrying the lateral loading such
as wind and earthquake loads. Horizontal loads induced by earthquakes, generate severe in-plane
and out-of plane forces in the wall and the foundation transmits the seismic motion from the ground
to the stiffest elements. Durgesh Rai 35 reported that the lateral load carrying capacity of shear
wall in a structure mainly depends on the in-plane resistances of the shear walls because the in-
plane stiffness of a shear wall is far greater than its out-of plane stiffness. Gabor et al 45 described
that the in-plane shear behavior of the structural element has an important role in improving the
seismic force resistance of the brick masonry. Buildings that are properly designed and detailed
on the basis of modern seismic building codes are less affected because these buildings absorb
energy through inelastic behavior. Structural masonry is a combination of a few or all constituent
masonry materials: masonry unit, mortar and reinforcement as discussed by Pankaj Agarwal 114.
4.2 Description of the Specimen
Structural walls are the key structural components in a masonry building and are used to resist the
following load effects:
Axial compression due to vertical gravity loads and
In-plane shear due to lateral earthquake loads applied to building system in a direction
parallel to the plane of the wall.
Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
Load bearing walls resist the effects of superimposed gravity loads (in addition to their self weight)
and the effects of lateral loads. In load bearing masonry construction, masonry shear walls are
subjected to both vertical and lateral loads in the plane of the wall. Under lateral loads, masonry
does not behave elastically. Hence, the unreinforced and reinforced clay brick masonry and the fly
ash brick masonry with the ratio of 1:6 cement mortar with partial replacement of fine aggregate/
cement was considered under monotonic loading until failure. Hexagonal woven wire mesh as the
horizontal wall reinforcement was placed in the alternate mortared bed joints to transfer the in-
plane shear forces and to enhance the load carrying capacity. The brick masonry walls were tested
under axial, shear–compression and diagonal compression test. The English bonded and stack
bonded pier specimens were tested for axial strength of the brick masonry in a 100T computerized
universal testing machine. A maximum of three prisms and wall panel specimens were cast and
tested in these experimental investigations. Hence, the average values of the experimental results
were only taken into considerations for the study. The photographs of cast specimen details are
shown in Fig 4.1 and the specimen details for axial load tests and in-plane shear tests are presented
in Table 4.1 and Table 4.2. The axial load test was performed according to IS: 1905 65
specifications, which are similar to those given in ASTM C 67 6.
Fig 4.1 Photographs of the brick masonry pier specimens
In load bearing brick masonry construction, masonry shear walls are subjected to both vertical and
lateral loads in the plane of the wall. Brick masonry wall panel for unreinforced and reinforced

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
with woven wire mesh in the alternate bed joint course were cast in the ratio of 1:6 cement mortar
with partial replacement of fine aggregate with fly ash as 0%, 10% and 20% is shown in Fig 4.2
and tested for in-plane shear behavior of masonry wall. The details of the masonry wall specimens
for in-plane shear study are given in Table 4.2.
Table 4.1 Specimen Details for Axial Load Test

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
Fig 4.2 (a) Photograph of the clay brick masonry wall panel specimens
(b) Photograph of the fly ash brick masonry wall panel specimens
The shear strength of the brick masonry wall has to be considered in the design of masonry
buildings in order to resist the lateral loads in all the situations where seismic effects are
encountered. Investigations have been undertaken on small specimens to develop the test methods
to improve the strength of the materials. Many new types of units have been developed in recent
years with improved thermal properties, greater uniformity in dimensions and in a greater variety
of sizes and types. Dimensionally accurate units together with the use of thin bed mortars, spread
more rapidly than by traditional methods and permit significant improvements in productivity as
reported by Emeritus 37. As seismic behavior of masonry walls were governed by shear
deformations, the panel aspect ratios close to one were considered as suggested by Durgesh Rai
33 and tested for unreinforced brick masonry and reinforced brick masonry. The horizontal
reinforcements were introduced in the brick masonry to improve the shear resistance, deformation
capacity and energy absorption capacity of the brick masonry walls because, in its presence the
cracks are distributed more evenly throughout the panel. The horizontal reinforcements were
embedded in the mortar bed joints. The behaviour and the damage pattern of the brick masonry
walls subjected to in-plane shear load are investigated.

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
Table 4.2 Specimen Details for the in-Plane Shear Test Behavior

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
4.3 Axial Strength of the Brick Masonry
Axial compression tests of brick masonry piers are used to determine the specified axial strength
of the brick masonry fa. The Bureau of Indian Standards IS: 1905 65 suggested to use brick
masonry prisms having the dimensions of minimum 40 cm height with aspect ratios (h/t) between
2 to 5 in order to determine the axial strength of the brick masonry. Axial load test was conducted
on the brick masonry piers with the aspect ratio (h/t) of 3.63, 2.6 and 1.71 in the ratio of 1:6 cement
mortar with 0%, 10% and 20% replacement of fine aggregate/cement with fly ash. The plywood
sheet having the thickness of 3mm was placed on the top and the bottom of the masonry pier
specimen which is loaded in-between the steel plate having the thickness of 25mm. The above
specimen was placed on the computerized universal testing machine and the axial load was applied
and the deformation was recorded by a sensor available in the computer based data acquisition
system as shown in Fig 4.3.
Fig 4.3 Axial load test setup with the data acquisition system

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
In general, bricks that are used in the brick masonry in India are relatively stiffer than the mortar.
If the brick–mortar interfacial bond remains intact until the failure of the brick masonry, the bricks
will be under tri-axial compression and the mortar will be under uni-axial compression and
bilateral tension. In such a case, the failure of the brick masonry may be initiated due to the tensile
splitting of the mortar in the joint. The failure of the mortar will then extend to the brick causing
splitting failure in the brick masonry. The load and deformation measurements were recorded in
data acquisition system. In case of English bonded masonry (with aspect ratio of 1.71 and 2.6 for
both clay brick masonry and fly ash brick masonry in the ratio of 1:6 cement mortar with partial
replacement of cement with fly ash), the mortar in the vertical joint caused vertical splitting failure
in the brick due to the stress formed in the mortar and led to the vertical split in the brick masonry
is shown in Fig 4.4 (a & b). Gumsate 52 reported that the tensile splitting occur in the brick
masonry may also be due to the presence of relatively weak bricks when an axial load is applied
to the specimen.
Fig.4.4 (a) Vertical splitting of the unreinforced clay brick masonry (UCBM)
(b) Crushing of unreinforced clay brick masonry (UCBM10)

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
From this Fig.4.4 (a & b), it was understood further that, the brick–mortar interface failed in shear
due to the loss of bond between them as the lateral compression in the brick vanished, the brick
failed by the tensile splitting. In case of stack bonded masonry (with the aspect ratio of 3.63 for
both clay brick masonry and the fly ash brick masonry) in the ratio of 1:6 cement mortar with
partial replacement of fine aggregate with fly ash, the mortar in the bed joint was initially splitted
and the splitting failure was moved to the brick masonry as shown in Fig 4.5 (a & b).
Fig. 4.5 (a) vertical shearing of unreinforced fly ash brick masonry (UFBM)
(b) Vertical splitting of reinforced fly ash brick masonry (RFBM)
Use of reinforcement with woven wire mesh in the brick masonry further improved its load
carrying capacity and delayed the crack propagation as shown in Fig 4.6 (a & b). The details of
the axial test results are indicated in Table4.1.

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
Fig.4.6 (a) vertical splitting of unreinforced clay brick masonry (UCBM10)
(b) Delay in crack propagation of reinforced clay brick masonry (RCBM10)
From the experimental results, it was found that the load carrying capacity of the fly ash brick
masonry reinforced with woven wire mesh was improved in comparison with the reinforced clay
brick masonry. The details are discussed below. The ultimate load carrying capacity of the
reinforced clay brick masonry with aspect ratio of 2.63 in the ratio of 1:6 cement mortar with
partial replacement of cement with fly ash as 0%, 10% and 20% was about 38.4%, 42% and 31%
higher than that of the unreinforced clay brick masonry respectively. The ultimate load carrying
capacity of reinforced fly ash brick masonry with aspect ratio of 2.63 in the ratio of 1:6 cement
mortar with partial replacement of cement with fly ash as 0%, 10% and 20% was about 24%, 20%
and 18% higher than that of the unreinforced fly ash brick masonry respectively. The ultimate load
carrying capacity of the reinforced clay brick masonry with the aspect ratio of 1.71 in 1:6 cement
mortar with partial replacement of cement with fly ash as 0%, 10% and 20% was about 40%,
23.7% and 33.33% higher than that of the unreinforced clay masonry respectively. The ultimate
Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
load carrying capacity of reinforced fly ash brick masonry of aspect ratio 1.71 in the ratio of 1:6
cement mortar with partial replacement of cement with fly ash as 0%, 10% and 20% was about 24
%, 21% and 20% higher than that of the unreinforced fly ash brick masonry respectively. The
ultimate load carrying capacity of reinforced clay brick masonry of aspect ratio 3.63 in the ratio of
1:6 cement mortar with partial replacement of fine aggregate with fly ash as 0%, 10% and 20%
was about 22.8%, 26.4% and 25.1% higher than that of the unreinforced clay brick masonry
respectively. The ultimate load carrying capacity of reinforced fly ash brick masonry of aspect
ratio 3.63 in 1:6 cement mortar with partial replacement of fine aggregate with fly ash as 0%, 10%
and 20% was about 14.3%, 8.4% and 6.0% higher than that of the unreinforced fly ash brick
masonry respectively. From the above results, it was found that the brick masonry reinforced with
woven wire mesh resulted in better performance than the cement/fine aggregate replaced with fly
ash. However, the replacement of fine aggregate with fly ash in the mortar of the brick masonry
may reduce the cost of the construction in addition to the enhancement of load carrying capacity
of the brick masonry.
Fig.4.7 (a) vertical shearing of unreinforced fly ash brick masonry (UFBM10)
(b) Vertical splitting of fly ash brick masonry reinforced with mesh (RFBM10)
Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
Fig. 4.7 (a & b) indicates the vertical shearing and vertical splitting of fly ash brick masonry of
both unreinforced and reinforced with woven wire mesh. Since similar behavior was obtained for
all the specimens, a sample photograph is given in Fig. 4.7. From this it was found that the brick
masonry reinforced with woven wire mesh resulted in better performance. The axial strength
measurements of both unreinforced and reinforced clay brick masonry (UCBM, RCBM) and fly
ash brick masonry (UFBM, RFBM) are depicted as a diagram in Fig.4.8.
Fig 4.8 Axial strength of clay brick masonry and fly ash brick masonry (UCBM, RCBM, UFBM and RFBM)
From the results, it was found that the axial strength measurements of the clay brick masonry and
the fly ash brick masonry in the ratio of 1:6 cement mortar with partial replacement of cement with
fly ash were comparatively less than the axial strength of the clay brick masonry and the fly ash
brick masonry in the ratio of 1:6 cement mortar with partial replacement of fine aggregate with fly
ash. Thereby, the clay brick masonry and the fly ash brick masonry in the ratio of 1:6 cement
mortar with partial replacement of fine aggregate with fly ash can be considered to study the in-
plane shear behaviour of the brick masonry wall.
4.4 Wall Under In-Plane Shear-Comparison Test

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
Unreinforced masonry shear walls are often used as the main structural components of masonry
buildings responsible for carrying the lateral loading like earthquake loads. In the in-plane shear
compression test, first an evenly distributed load was vertically applied simulating the service
gravity loads of the shear wall on the top of the panel. Then, a static lateral shear load was applied
at the top of the wall thickness until the failure of the masonry. The lateral and vertical loads lead
to tension and shear combined with compression within the masonry wall as stated by Krit 79. The
deformation in the specimen was noted (during the application of a static lateral shear load) in the
dial gauges kept at different heights. The test set-up was designed in such a way to study the basic
structural parameters such as strength, cracking pattern and deformation characteristics of the test
specimen. Fracture and failure of the brick masonry walls under shear-compression may be due to
the shear failure along the mortar joints and the compression failure at the toe of the wall.
Fig. 4.9 (a) Photograph of the clay brick masonry wall panel specimen
(b) Photograph of the fly ash brick masonry wall panel specimen
The photograph of the brick masonry wall panel specimens used in this research work is depicted
in Fig.4.9 (a & b). The specimens having the dimensions of 1m x 1m x 0.23m (l x b x t) brick panel
with 8 bricks in a row were cast and tested. The in-plane shear-compression test was conducted on
the brick masonry walls in the ratio of 1:6 cement mortar with 0%, 10% and 20% replacement of
fine aggregate with fly ash.

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
4.6.1 Shear- compression test - Experimental set up

The shear-compression tests were performed in two different steps. First, a vertical load was
applied at the top of the wall representing the service gravity load and was applied on the specimen
and kept constant during the experiment. Then, a horizontal load was applied on the top of the wall
along the wall thickness, until failure of the specimen under monotonic loading. The specimen was
placed on the loading frame and the vertical load applied on the specimen was kept constant. Then,
the lateral in-plane loads were applied gradually from zero until failure of the specimen. The
experimental set up of the lateral in-plane shear-compression test is shown in Fig. 4.10 (a & b).
The dial gauges were placed at the top, middle and bottom of the specimen to measure the
horizontal relative deformations of the specimen. As the lateral shear load was applied, the lateral
deformation was noted on the dial gauges and the failure behaviour was studied.
Fig. 4.10 (a) Lateral in-plane shear compression test set up

(b) Line sketch of the experimental set up
The line sketch of the experimental set up is indicated in Fig. 4.10 (a & b), where,
Axial load by hydraulic jack of capacity 50kN-f.
L- Lateral load by hydraulic/screw jack of capacity 25kN-f.
C- Load cell of capacity 5.5T.
T- Top dial gauge with 0.01mm least count (75cm from base)
Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
M- Middle dial gauge with 0.01mm least count (50cm from base)
B- Bottom dial gauge with 0.01mm least count (25cm from base)
4.6.2 Vertical load calculation on the masonry building during an earthquake
As the earthquake ground motion acts on a building, the roof diaphragm acts like a horizontal
beam spanning between the end walls as shown in Fig 4.11. The end reactions of this beam can be
transferred to the walls A and B. These walls in-turn subjected to lateral load along their
longitudinal axis (also called in-plane loads). Hence, they are called as shear walls. Along with the
floor and the roof diaphragms, shear walls are the important components of the building‘s lateral
load path that transfers the lateral load to the foundations. Load bearing walls resist the effects of
superimposed gravity loads (in addition to their self weight) and the effects of lateral loads along
its plane. In general, all brick walls are gravity load bearing structural element. A simple load
bearing masonry house in a rural area located in Coimbatore (zone – 3) subjected to 0.3 ground
acceleration was considered for the study and its plan view is shown in Fig 4.11.
Fig. 4.11 A simple structural layout model of a rural masonry house located in Coimbatore
The above parameters were used to calculate the vertical load to be applied on a masonry wall as
indicated below.

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
For simple ordinary houses, the total weight of the structure for 1/3rd scaling = 135kN
Earthquake shear force was assumed to be equal to 0.3 x 135kN = 40.5kN
The compressive pressure retained by the brick masonry wall = 40500N / 1000 x 230
= 0.17MPa
Based on the above estimation, the vertical compressive stress of 0.13MPa for clay brick panel
and 0.21MPa for fly ash brick panel were recommended to be applied on the masonry specimen
in the study.
4.5 Wall Under Diagonal Comparison Test

In the areas of seismic instability, the brick masonry buildings may be subjected to large amount
of shear loading which may allow the brick masonry walls to undergo shear failure. During the
time of earthquakes, the lower part of the structure displaces, but due to the inertia the top portion
remains. The above behaviour may lead to diagonal compression and diagonal tension in the
masonry walls of the building. The shear strength developed in the structure was estimated by the
method of ‗diagonal compression test‘. As per ASTM E 519 8, the masonry wall specimen having
the dimensions of 600mm x 600mm x 230mm (l x b x t) was considered for the diagonal
compression tests. In this test, a compressive force was applied gradually along one diagonal end
of the specimen to study the in-plane shear behaviour of the masonry wall panel. Also, diagonal
compression tests allowed the masonry brick panel a free deformation, since its four sides of the
wall were free from any kind of constraints, with the exception of the two corners of the masonry
wall in which the compressive load was applied. The details of the test were indicated in clause
4.5.2.
4.7.1 Diagonal compression test - Experimental set up
The diagonal compression test mechanism was composed of a set of metallic elements fixed at
two corners of a diagonal end of the panel as per ASTM E 519 8. In the diagonal compression test
the mortar bed is to be orientated at 45° to the horizontal to determine the in-plane shear resistance
of the masonry. In this test, the panel was allowed to fit into the metallic shoe (placed on the

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
loading frame) in which 70mm of the horizontal edge of the panel anchored. In this test, the load
was gradually applied using a 50 kN hydraulic jack on the top corner of the diagonal masonry
panel. The length of the embedding of the specimen into the metallic shoe is approximately equal
to the 1/6th of the wall length. The diagonal compression test - experimental set up used in this
investigation is depicted in Fig.4.24.
Fig.4.12 Diagonal compression test – Experimental set up
In the experimental set up, the hydraulic jack fitted at the top of the loading frame can be used to
compress the panel along one of the two diagonals of the specimen. Both diagonals of the panel
specimen were fitted with dial gauges to measure the vertical and horizontal deformations during
the experiment. This test was performed to study the in-plane shear behaviour of the masonry wall
panel.
4.7.2 Response of masonry wall panels under in-plane diagonal compression test
Masonry shear strength was evaluated according to ASTM E 519 8. The masonry wall panel was
tilted to 45o and compressive force was applied diagonally to the specimen as per the details
discussed in clause 4.7.1. The applied compressive force may cause a diagonal tension in the
specimen which in turn led to the failure of the specimen with splitting cracks parallel to the
Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
direction of the load. The failure pattern and the load-deformation in the specimen were studied
and reported in the forthcoming sections.
4.7.2.1 Unreinforced clay brick masonry wall panels under diagonal compression test
CBP:
The unreinforced clay brick masonry wall panel having the ratio of 1:6 cement mortar is specified
as CBP. The specimen was placed on the loading frame at 45o. Then the diagonal compressive
force was applied gradually to the specimen using a hydraulic jack fitted in the loading frame at
the top. As the load was increased gradually, the cracks started appearing at the mid section of the
panel. Then, the cracks propagated through the head and the bed joint of the mortar and led to the
failure of the specimen with the sliding effect at 9.4kN. The photograph and the line sketch with
the failure pattern of CBP are indicated in Fig. 4.13 (a & b) respectively.
Fig 4.13 (a) Photograph of the unreinforced clay brick masonry wall (CBP)
(b) Line sketch of the failure pattern of unreinforced clay brick masonry wall (CBP)
CBP10:

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
The unreinforced clay brick masonry wall panel having the ratio of 1:6 cement mortar with 10%
replacement of fine aggregate with fly ash is specified as CBP10. The specimen was tilted to 45o
and placed on the loading frame. Then the diagonal compressive force was applied gradually to
the specimen using a hydraulic jack fitted in the loading frame at the top. As the load was increased
gradually, the cracks started appearing and propagated through the mortar joints directly from the
top to the bottom of the specimen. The splitting failure of the specimen (CBP10) occurred at the
loading of 10.96kN which was slightly higher than that of CBP. The presence of fly ash in CBP10
may contribute to the enhancement in the load carrying capacity of CBP10. The photograph and
the line sketch with the failure pattern of CBP10 are indicated in Fig.4.14 (a & b).
Fig. 4.14 (a) Photograph of the unreinforced clay brick masonry wall (CBP10)
(b) Line sketch of the failure pattern of unreinforced clay brick masonry wall (CBP10)
CBP20:
The unreinforced clay brick masonry wall panel having the ratio of 1:6 cement mortar with 20%
replacement of fine aggregate with fly ash is specified as CBP20. The specimen was tilted to 45o
and placed on the loading frame. Then the diagonal compressive force was applied gradually to
the specimen using a hydraulic jack fitted in the loading frame at the top. The applied load was
with hold by the specimen initially and straight sharp diagonal crack was appeared between the
diagonal ends of the specimen along the direction of the applied load. Finally, the specimen splitted
into two halves and got failed at the load of 15.6kN. The better load carrying capacity of the

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
specimen, CBP20 may be due to the formation of strong bond between the brick and the fly ash in
the mortar in the specimen. The photograph and the line sketch with the failure pattern of CBP20
are indicated in Fig. 4.14 (a & b) respectively.
Fig 4.15 (a) Photograph of the unreinforced clay brick masonry wall (CBP20)
(b) Line sketch of the failure pattern of unreinforced clay brick masonry wall (CBP20)
From the failure modes observed in the diagonally loaded masonry wall panel specimen such as
CBP, CBP10 and CBP20, it was understood that all the unreinforced masonry specimens
experienced sudden kind of failure. The load carrying capacity of the specimens CBP10 and
CBP20 was increased by 14.29% and 40.63% than the specimen, CBP. The increase in load
carrying capacity of clay brick masonry specimens with the presence of fly ash in the mortar may
be due to the formation of bond and enhancement of strength of the bond between the brick and
the mortar as reported by Badarloo et al 10.
4.7.2.2 Reinforced clay brick masonry wall panels under diagonal compression test
CBPR:
The clay brick masonry wall panel having the ratio of 1:6 cement mortar reinforced with woven
wire mesh is specified as CBPR. The specimen was tilted to 45o and placed on the loading frame.
Then the diagonal compressive force was applied gradually to the specimen. As the load was
applied, the cracks started appearing at the top of the specimen. As the load was continually
applied, the meshes present at the alternate bed course yielded and the propagation of multiple fine

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
cracks resulted. The same behaviour was noticed until the cracks reached the bottom. When the
meshes yielded, mild breaking sound was also noticed. Finally, the specimen, CBPR failed at
12.54kN with splitting into two halves. Hence, reinforcement of woven wire mesh in the bed
course enhanced the load carrying capacity of the specimen. The photograph and the line sketch
with the failure pattern of CBP are indicated in Fig. 4.15 (a & b) respectively.
Fig 4.16 (a) Photograph of the reinforced clay brick masonry wall (CBPR)
(b) Line sketch of the failure pattern of reinforced clay brick masonry wall (CBPR)
CBP10R:
The clay brick masonry wall panel having the ratio of 1:6 cement mortar reinforced with woven
wire mesh is specified as CBP10R. The specimen was tilted to 45o and placed on the loading
frame. Then the diagonal compressive force was applied gradually to the specimen. As the load
was applied gradually, multiple cracks started appearing at the mid section of the panel. The
formation of multiple cracks may be due to the presence of fly ash (10%) in the mortar and the
reinforcement material (mesh) in the alternate bed course of the brick masonry. Also, the
propagation of cracks was delayed in the specimen. Finally, the specimen failed with the
appearance of multiple cracks at the load of 15.68kN. When the cracks moved from the top and to
the bottom of the specimen, the yielding of meshes was noticed with mild breaking sound. The
photograph and the line sketch with the failure pattern of CBP10R are indicated in Fig.4.16 (a &
b) respectively.

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
Fig 4.17 (a) Photograph of the reinforced clay brick masonry wall (CBP10R)
(b) Line sketch of the failure pattern of reinforced clay brick masonry wall (CBP10R)
CBP20R:
The clay brick masonry wall panel having the ratio of 1:6 cement mortar with 20% replacement of
fine aggregate with fly ash, reinforced with woven wire mesh is specified as CBP20R. The
specimen was tilted to 45o and placed on the loading frame. Then the diagonal compressive force
was applied gradually to the specimen. As the load was applied gradually to the specimen, cracks
started appearing at the top of the specimen (near to the shoes). Then, the cracks propagated
towards the bottom of the specimen with the simultaneous yielding of meshes with mild breaking
of sound. The cracks got multiplied at the middle portion of the specimen with the increase in the
application of load. Finally the cracks reached the bottom portion of the specimen through the head
and the bed joint of the mortar and the specimen failed at the load of 18.81kN. From this, it was
understood that the presence of fly ash (20%) and the reinforcement material (mesh) helped the
specimen to have better load carrying capacity than the other specimens. The photograph and the
line sketch with the failure pattern of CBP20R are indicated in Fig.4.17 (a&b) respectively.

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
Fig 4.18 (a) Photograph of the reinforced clay brick masonry wall (CBP20R)
(b) Line sketch of the failure pattern of reinforced clay brick masonry wall (CBP20R)
The comparison of load deformation curves of clay brick masonry wall panels (both unreinforced
and reinforced) is indicated in Fig. 4.18. As the compressive force was applied to the specimen
panels gradually, the deformation of the specimen was recorded using the dial gauges fitted at the
top diagonal end of the specimen.
Fig 4.19 Comparison of load-deformation curves obtained on clay brick masonry wall panels
From the Fig. 4.18, it was understood that all the specimen panels deformed linearly until the
application of load level of 0.6T. Also, it was found that the specimen panels such as CBPR,
CBP10R and CBP20R, the crack propagation got delayed due to the yielding of reinforcement

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
meshes and then the load carrying capacity of these panels were further increased. The general
behaviour of clay brick masonry wall panels under the application of diagonal compression load
is indicated in Table 4.3.
Table 4.3 General Baheviour of Clay Brck Masonry Wall
From the Table 4.3, it was understood that the load carrying capacity of the specimens, CBP10
and CBP20 increased when compared with the specimen CBP due to the presence of fly ash
content in the mortar. Further, the load carrying capacity of the specimen panels can be improved
with the introduction of reinforcement material (woven wire mesh) in the alternate bed course of
the specimen panels.

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
4.6 Cost Analysiss

For a simple masonry house (shown in Fig
4.2), the cost of the construction of the
masonry wall was estimated for the
unreinforced masonry structure and
reinforced masonry structure having the ratio
of 1:6 cement mortar with partial
replacement of fine aggregate with fly ash
content (0%, 10% and 20%) was calculated
and reported in Table 4.4 to Table 4.16. The
statement was prepared as per the current
schedule of (March 2011) rates.
Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
From the Tables 4.4 to 4.16, it was understood that the cost of the clay brick masonry walls
reinforced with hexagonal woven wire mesh in a building is higher only by 2.04% than the
unreinforced clay brick masonry walls in a building. Similarly, the cost of fly ash brick masonry
walls reinforced with hexagonal woven wire mesh in a building is higher by 3.54% than the
unreinforced fly ash brick masonry walls in a building. From this comparison, it was understood
that the cost of the building increases only by 5% when the masonry walls are reinforced with
hexagonal woven wire mesh. Also, it was found that the load carrying capacity of wall increases
by 20% when they are reinforced with hexagonal woven wire mesh under in-plane shear load.
Therefore, it is concluded that people in rural areas can prefer to build the structure with reinforced
masonry walls at an affordable cost especially in seismic zones in India.

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
CHAPTER 5
FINITE ELEMEMT MODELLING
5.1 Introduction
Masonry is a composite material with the building brick units and the mortar as the joining
material, which are bonded together. Guinea 51 reported that the basic mechanical properties of
the masonry are strongly influenced by the mechanical properties of its constituents namely, brick
and mortar. Utilizing the material properties obtained from the experiments and using actual
geometric details of both components and joints, the behavior of the brick masonry was
numerically analyzed using ANSYS. There is a need for developing a comprehensive finite
element model, as a numerical analysis method becomes more popular in solving numerous
engineering problems. The finite element model was developed to understand the behaviour of the
brick masonry walls. A three dimensional linear finite element model was developed to determine
the strength, lateral displacement and the stress distribution throughout the masonry wall. Masonry
itself is a composite material that consists of two materials depending upon the properties of the
masonry unit (brick) and the mortar. Paulo Lorenco 118 has discussed that, there are three
approaches towards its numerical representation depending upon the level of accuracy and
simplicity desired. They are (i) micro level modeling (ii) meso level modeling and (iii) macro level
modeling. The five brick stack bonded clay brick masonry prism and fly ash brick masonry prism
is considered to determine the masonry strength. The clay brick masonry prism of size 220mm x
110mm x 400mm is considered. The size of the masonry unit is 220 x 110 x 70mm. The size of
the mortar joint is 220 x 110 x 10mm as shown in Fig. 5.1. The finite element model was used to
understand the results of the shear – compression diagonal compression / tests on masonry wall
panel.

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
Fig. 5.1 Micro level modeling (b) Meso level modeling (c) Macro level modeling
Zuchini 145 used these different simulations depend upon the methods offered by different degrees
of accuracy and therefore they should be used according to the requirements of individual
situations. The first approach offers the detailed interaction between the masonry units (brick) and
the mortar as it is most suitable for the current study. The five brick stack bonded prism provides
the most detailed accuracy during simulation. The second approach offers a better accuracy of the
behavior of a masonry structure and is suitable for simulation of five brick stack bonded prism to
study the concentration of stress. The last approach studies a general behaviour simulation of the
structure and is better suited for studying large size structures for the global in-plane shear
behaviour of the masonry wall.
5.2 Formulation of the Model
Masonry strength is dependent upon the characteristics of the masonry unit, the mortar and the
bond between them. Empirical formulae as well as analytical and finite element models have been
developed to predict the structural behaviour of the masonry. When the masonry is under
compression, the masonry unit and the mortar will be under multi-axial state of stress. Hence, the
present investigation is an attempt to develop a finite element model to predict the masonry prism
compressive strength subjected to concentric compressive loading while using some failure
theories developed for brittle materials under multi-axial state of stress. The finite element model
is validated by comparing the predicted values with those obtained from the controlled
Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
experimental results. In the present study, models with two different material assumptions are
presented: in one, masonry as a composite material consisting of brick unit and mortar joint ; the
other, treats both phases of the material are replaced with an equivalent material property,
assuming it to be a homogenized material, Luisa Berto 85. Equivalent elastic modulus for brick
masonry had been studied assuming that no slippage occurs between the mortar layers and brick
unit with the head joints considered to be continuous as considered by Jahangir 72. In this method,
the behavior of the masonry is roughly approximated by linear elasticity and perfect interface
bonding hypothesis. Brick unit was modeled using solid 185, eight-node iso-parametric brick
element type with three degrees of freedom: translations in the nodal x, y, and z directions as
shown in Fig 5.2 (a). The element has plasticity, hyper-elasticity, stress stiffening, creep, large
deflection and large strain capabilities. It also has mixed formulation capability for simulating the
deformations of nearly incompressible elasto-plastic materials and fully incompressible hyper-
elastic materials. Mortar joint was modeled using SOLID45, the 3-D modeling of the element with
eight nodes having three degrees of freedom at each node: translations in the nodal x, y, and z
directions as shown in Fig 5.2 (b). The solid 45 element has plasticity, creep, swelling, stress
stiffening, large deflection and large strain capabilities. The unit properties of the brick and the
mortar joint required for the analysis were obtained by conducting experiments described in
chapter -3 of this thesis.
Fig. 5.2 (a) Solid 185, 3D solid element type used for the brick unit
(b) Solid 45, 3D solid element type used for the mortar joint
Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
The clay brick masonry reinforced with woven wire mesh in the alternate bed course of the brick
masonry is modeled using shell 63 element as it has both bending and membrane capabilities in
the ANSYS and the element detail is shown in Fig.5.3.
Fig 5.3 Shell 63 for the woven wire mesh
SHELL63 element has six degrees of freedom at each node: translations in the nodal x, y, and z
directions and rotations about the nodal x, y, and z-axes. Stress stiffening and large deflection
capabilities are also included.
5.3 Micro Level Modeling of the Brick Masonry
The micro level models consider the units and the mortar joints separately, characterized by
different constitutive laws; thus, the structural analysis is performed considering each constituent
of the masonry material. The mechanical properties that characterize the models adopted for the

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
brick units and the mortar joints are obtained through experimental tests conducted on the single
material components.
Compressive strength of the brick masonry:
The compression testing was performed according to Indian masonry code IS: 1905 65. Four stack
bonded prisms of five bricks each, were constructed and tested under axial loading. The main
purpose was to examine the effects of brick unit and the mortar properties on the strength and
deformation characteristics of the masonry prisms as discussed by Olivera 111. The stack bonded
brick masonry prism constructed with five clay bricks having dimensions of 220 mm x 110 mm x
70 mm in 10mm thick cement mortar having the ratio of 1:6 with partial replacement of fine
aggregate with fly ash. The discretization is such that, the bricks and the mortar joints had been
represented by separate layers of elements. Each type of element was represented with its own
properties in terms of its respective uni-axial compressive strength and initial modulus of elasticity.
The applied loading was on the top surface of the model in the negative ‗y‘direction representing
the compressive loading with the pinned boundary condition as all the nodes at the base of the
models are supported in the test platform. Brick and the mortar joint were modeled using the micro-
modeling approach representing joints as continuum elements and assuming a perfect bond
between the brick unit and the mortar joint. Each model was assumed to be subjected to axial
compressive load, as shown in Fig 5.4 (a).

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
Fig 5.4 (a) Micro level modeling of brick masonry prism
(b) Stress distribution on unreinforced clay brick masonry prism (UCBP)
This approach leads to structural analyses characterized by great computational effort.

Nevertheless, this approach can be successfully adopted for reproducing experimental tests. The
simulation was carried out in sub-steps. The failure of masonry under concentric compression is
related to the interaction between the masonry unit and the mortar as a result of their differing
deformation characteristics.
Shear strength of the brick masonry:
In order to determine the shear behaviour parameter, a double shear test method using triplet
specimens has been suggested by Gabor 43. The triplet shear model is assumed to be made from
two different materials, namely brick units and mortar. The non-linearity considered in the analysis
of the model was only material non-linearity. The 3-D finite element analysis on the unreinforced
clay brick masonry with the ratio of 1:6 cement mortar, UCBP was modeled and analyzed. The
results are obtained for the maximum deflection, the shear stress and the vertical shear strains in

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
the triplet prism. When the maximum stress level was reached, the behavior of the brick masonry
specimens was characterized by a (quasi fragile) softening behavior and by a sliding movement
between the adjacent bricks as reported by Fazia Fouchal 42. The triplet prism modeled indicates
that the shear behaviour of masonry is weak along the mortar joint are shown in Fig. 5.5 (a, b &
c).
Fig. 5.5 (a) Deformation of the unreinforced clay brick masonry under triplet shear test
(b) Element stress distribution in the clay brick masonry under triplet shear test

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
(c)
Fig. 5.5 (c) Nodal stress distribution in the clay brick masonry under triplet shear test
The displacement pattern predicted by the finite element model shows vertical sliding between the
brick and the mortar of the brick masonry prism.
5.4 Meso Level Modeling of the Brick Masonry
In meso-level modeling expanded units are represented by continuum elements. The behaviour of
the mortar joints and the unit/mortar interface are lumped into discontinuum elements as shown in
Fig 5.6. In this approach, the units are expanded to retain the initial geometry of the masonry
assemblage. Due to the assumption of the zero thickness of mortar joints, the elastic properties of
the expanded brick units are adjusted to yield the elastic modulus of the represented masonry. In
the stack bonded brick masonry prism, the bricks are assumed as a series of chain connection of
Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
the components results in the uniform stress distributions both in the brick unit and the mortar.
The adjusted average elastic stiffness of the expanded brick units are simply derived from Krit
[2007]79 by considering the elastic properties of the masonry components (brick and mortar) and
the expanded thickness as,
The hexagonal woven wire mesh (reinforcement material) used in the brick masonry was modeled
as shell 63 and modeled in between the expanded bricks. The stress behaviour of the clay brick
masonry (unreinforced and reinforced) is shown in Fig 5.7 (a & b).
Fig. 5.6 Meso level modeling of the brick masonry prism
From the finite element modeling of unreinforced clay brick prism, it was understood that the
stress is found to be uniform throughout the unreinforced masonry brick prism specimen. Whereas,
Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
in clay brick masonry prism reinforced with woven wire mesh the stress is concentrated at the
reinforcement (mesh) placed in between the expanded brick units at the bed joint of the brick
masonry prism.
(a) (b)
Fig 5.7 (a) Stress distribution on unreinforced clay brick masonry prism (UCBP)
(b) Stress distribution on clay brick masonry prism reinforced with wire mesh (RCBP)
5.5 Macro Level Modeling of the Brick Masonry
In this analysis, the brick masonry which is made from two different materials of the clay bricks
and the mortar had been replaced by an equivalent homogenous material. The macro-models are
based on the use of constitutive laws for the masonry material; i.e. the stress-strain relationships
adopted for the structural analysis are derived by performing tests on masonry, without
distinguishing the bricks and the mortar behavior. Equivalent homogeneous material or macro-
level simulation approach of the brick masonry is shown in Fig 5.8. Homogenization involves
using the analytical micro models for small masonry assemblages to determine the combined
Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
response. The meso level and the macro level modeling technique are unable to model the local
failure modes (unlike the micro-modeling technique).
Fig. 5.8 (a) Macro level modeling of brick masonry prism
(b) Stress distribution on the unreinforced clay brick masonry prism (UCBP)
Masonry sustains damage in the form of cracks in the early stage of the loading as the mortar break
at the low level of the load compared to the brick units. The micro-modeling has been compared
with the meso-level and the macro-level modeling along with the experimental results. Stress -
strain behaviour of the unreinforced clay brick masonry prism is predicted using finite element
modeling and verified with the experimental data. The comparison of the predictedvalues of
masonry compressive strength obtained by different numerical modeling techniques such as
(ANSYS) and with the experimental results are shown in Fig. 5.9

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
Fig 5.9 Stress – strain curve of the unreinforced clay brick masonry prism (UCBP)
The stress-strain curve obtained from the finite element analyses shows that the maximum
compressive strength of the brick masonry was slightly higher for the case of homogenized
material than that of the composite material. The actual compressive strength of the masonry
determined by experimental method was much higher than the strength obtained by numerical
method. However, in reality, the brickwork was constructed from two layered materials, namely
brick and mortar. Therefore, the idealization of composite material for the analysis should be
adopted. The comparison of experimental and numerical results indicates that the compressive
strength of masonry obtained by experimental method was 47% higher than those obtained by the
finite element method which are in accordance with the theories proposed by Hendry [1990]56.
Therefore, for the design purposes, the strength obtained for the brick masonry from finite element
analysis should be magnified with a factor of 1.52 in order to get the actual strength of the brick
masonry.

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSION
5.1 Conclusion
A combined experimental and numerical investigation was conducted to investigate the in-plane
shear behaviour of unreinforced and reinforced clay brick masonry wall panels in the ratio of 1:6
cement mortar with partial replacement of fine aggregate with fly ash (0%, 10% and 20%) and
with fly ash brick masonry wall panels in the ratio of 1:6 cement mortar with partial replacement
of fine aggregate with fly ash (0%, 10% and 20%). The work involved: characterizing the brick
assemblage material and the shear bond strength between the clay brick masonry in the ratio of
1:6 cement mortar with partial replacement of fine aggregate with fly ash and with fly ash brick
masonry in the ratio of 1:6 cement mortar with partial replacement of fine aggregate with fly ash.
i. The mechanical properties were found to be enhanced in fly ash bricks than the clay bricks.
Compressive strength and flexural strength of fly ash brick was 54.21% and 56% higher than the
clay bricks and 8.58% lighter in weight than the clay bricks.
ii. Costs of fly ash brick is 40% less than the clay brick.
iii. Fly ash bricks are energy-efficient and environment friendly and it is recommended for the
construction in seismic zones.
iv. Equation for determining the masonry strength has been arrived using the brick strength and
the mortar strength.
v. Based on the triplet bond shear test, the presence of fly ash had a strong influence on brick -
mortar joint. The bond strength of unreinforced clay brick masonry in 1:6 cement mortar with 20%
replacement of fine aggregate with fly ash, CBM20 was about 1.5 times higher than the
unreinforced clay brick masonry in 1:6 cement mortar, CBM.

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
vi. The bond strength of unreinforced fly ash brick masonry in 1:6 cement mortar with 10%
replacement of fine aggregate with fly ash, FBM10 was twice the unreinforced fly ash brick
masonry in the ratio of 1:6 cement mortar, FBM based on the triplet shear test. Incorporation of
fly ash resulted in the reaction of pozzolanas with the calcium hydrate which produced strong
calcium silicate hydrates, thus enhancing the bond strength of the masonry by modifying the
microstructure of the mortar-brick unit interface.
vii. Elastic modulus of masonry (Epm) was determined with the prism strength (fpm).
viii. The equivalent homogeneous elastic modulus of the brick masonry was arrived for the
unreinforced and the reinforced brick masonry (both clay brick masonry and fly ash brick masonry)
with the elastic modulus of brick, mortar and mesh and with thickness of brick and the mortar bed
joint.
ix. Depending on the quality of masonry brick units and mortar in unreinforced brick masonry
wall, diagonally oriented cracks were formed (either followed the bed and head-joints or passed
through the bricks or partly followed the joints and partly passed through the bricks).
x. Based on the in-plane shear test, the in-plane shear strength of clay brick masonry wall increased
by 15% to 18% when reinforced with hexagonal woven wire mesh in alternate bed course of the
masonry wall.
xi. Based on the in-plane shear test, the in-plane shear strength of the fly ash brick masonry wall
increased by 50% when reinforced with hexagonal woven wire mesh in the alternate bed course
of the masonry wall.
xii. The in-plane loads corresponding to the reinforced masonry wall panels are higher than that of
the unreinforced masonry wall panels. The gain in strength is 14.28% for the CBPR, 20% for
CBP10R and 16.66% for the CBP20R when compared with the unreinforced clay brick masonry
wall panel.

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
xiii. The experimental results on the in-plane diagonal compression test, the in-plane shear capacity
of the reinforced clay brick masonry wall panel had an average increase of 20% than the
unreinforced clay brick masonry wall panel.
xiv. The in-plane shear capacity of the masonry wall can be determined as the sum of the
contribution by both masonry and the reinforcement.
xv. Deformation capabilities of the reinforced walls are enhanced by the presence of woven wire
mesh which indicated the ductility.
xvi. The reinforced clay brick masonry walls attained 20% higher shear strengths and 12% higher
deformation resistance than those of the unreinforced masonry walls. Thus the seismic behavior
can be enhanced.
xvii. The cost of the fly ash brick masonry construction was reduced by 35% than the clay brick
masonry construction. The cost of the construction of masonry wall structure with reinforcement
increased only upto a maximum of 5%.
xviii. The comparison of experimental values with the results obtained from ANSYS indicated that
the compressive strength of brick masonry by experimental method was 52% higher. Therefore,
to get the actual compressive strength of brick masonry, the finite element analysis results should
be enhanced by a factor of 1.52.
xix. Fly ash brick masonry wall reinforced with woven wire mesh are recommended for the
construction of masonry structure in seismic zone 4 and zone 5.
xx. Clay brick masonry walls reinforced with woven wire mesh is recommended for the
construction of masonry structure in the seismic zone 2, zone 3 and zone 4.
xxi. Based on the values arrived on the in-plane shear capacity of the masonry wall to retain in-
plane shear force, fly ash brick masonry walls reinforced with woven wire mesh in the alternate
bed course are recommended for soft, medium and hard soil and in all seismic zones in India.
Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
CHAPTER-7
REFRENCES
REFRENCES
[1]. Abdou L, Ami Saada R, Meftah F and Mebarki A, ―Experimental investigations of the joint-
mortar behaviour‖, Mechanics Research Communications, Vol 33, 2006, p 370
[2]. Aeslina Abdul Kadir, Abbas Mohajerani, Felicity Roddick and John Buckeridge, - Density,
strength, thermal conductivity and leachate characteristics of light-weight Fired clay bricks
incorporating cigarette butts‖ International Journal of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Vol
2, April 2010, p 179
[3]. Aravind Galagali, ―Report on the Regional workshop on use of fly ash in construction held
at BVB College of Engineering and Technology, Hubli jointly organized with Rajiv Gandhi Rural
Housing Corporation, Government of Karnataka, Bangalore on 21st and 22nd May 2004
[4]. ASTM C- 67-09, ―Standard test method of sampling and testing brick and structural clay
tile‖, ASTM standard, USA 2009
[5]. ASTM C311-07 ―Standard test methods for sampling and testing fly ash or natural pozzolans
for use in portland-cement concrete‖, 2007, ASTM standards, USA
[6]. Bal İ E, Crowley H and Pinho R, ―Displacement-based earthquake loss assessment of Turkish
masonry structures‖, proceedings of the 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
October 12-17, 2008, Beijing, China
[7]. Balasubramanian S R, Vaidyanathan C V, Lakshmanan N, Anoop M B and Balaji K Rao, -In-
plane shear behaviour of unreinforced brick masonry – A literature review‖ Structural Analysis of
Historical Constructions, 2006, p 1041
[8]. Brignola A, Podestà S and Pampanin S, ―In-plane stiffness of wooden floor‖, NZSEE
Conference, 2008

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
[9]. Dilrukshi K G S and Dias W P S ―Field survey and numerical modeling of cracking in
masonry walls due to thermal movements of an overlying slab‖, Journal of the National Science
Foundation of Sri Lanka, Vol 36, No 3, September 2008, p 205
[10]. Duggal S K, ―Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures‖, Oxford Press, New Delhi 110001
, 2009
[11]. Durgesh C Rai, ―IITK-GSDMA Guidelines on structural use of reinforced masonry,
Provisions with commentary and explanatory examples‖, IIT Kanpur and Gujarat State Disaster
Mitigation Authority, Gandhinagar, Final Draft, 2005, p 69
[12]. Fazia Fouchal, Frédéric Lebon and Isabelle Titeux, ―Contribution to the modelling of
interfaces in masonry construction‖ Construction and Building Materials, Vol 23, 2009, p 2428
[13]. Giancarlo Marcari, Giovanni Fabbrocino, Gaetano Manfredi and Andrea Prota -Experimental
and numerical evaluation of tuff masonry panels shear seismic capacity‖, 10th North American
Masonry Conference, St. Louis, Missouuri, USA, June 2007
[14]. Gregory L Majkrzak, James P Watson, Mark M Bryan and Kip Clayton, - Effect of
cenospheres on fly ash brick properties‖, World of Coal ash Conference, May 2007, Northern
Kentucky, USA
[15]. Gumaste K S, Nanjunda Rao K S, Venkatarama Reddy B V and Jagadish K S, - Strength and
elasticity of brick masonry prisms and wallettes under compression‖, Materials and Structures, Vol
40, 2007, p 241
[16]. Haroun M A, Mosallam A S and Allam K H, - Cyclic in-plane shear of concrete masonry
walls strengthened by FRP Lamina‖, Proceeding of the Seventh International Symposium on Fiber
Reinforced Polymers for Reinforced Concrete Structures, FRPRCS7, Kansas City, November
2005, p 327
[17]. IS 1893-Part – I- 2002, - Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures‖, Bureau of
Indian standards, New Delhi, India, 2002

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
[18]. Jose -Luis Vivancos, Juan Soto A C, Israel Perez D, Jose V Ros-Lis and Ramon Martınez-
Mane, - A new model based on experimental results for the thermal characterization of bricks‖,
Building and Environment, Vol 44, 2009, p 1047
[19]. Khan Mahmud Amanat, - Experimental investigation of the use of ferrocement laminates
for repairing masonry in filled RC frames‖ Journal of Civil Engineering (IEB), Vol 35 No 2, 2007,
p 71
[20]. Luisa Berto, Antonella Cecchi and Anna Saetta, - Sensitivity of mechanical masonry
characteristics to the textures: FE micro-modeling and homogenization procedures”, proceedings
of the 5th European congress on Computational Methods in Applied Sciences and Engineering
(ECCOMAS 2008) June 30 – July 5, 2008, Italy

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477
APPENDIX – B
LIST OF PUBLICATION
[1] “Experimental Studies of Different RCC Structure”, International Research Journal

of Engineering & Technology, Volume: 6, Issue 2, pp 55-57, June 2016.

Contact: 6260651575, 9179357477

Experimental Studies of Different RCC Structural

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Experimental Studies of Different RCC Structural

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES OF DIFFERENT RCC STRUCTURAL

I hereby take a chance to express my sense of extreme gratitude towards my Master of

Guided by: Dr. Ashad Ullah Qureshi

Date: (Er. Rahul Satbhiaya)

Guided by: Dr. Ashad Ullah Qureshi

Date: (Abhishek Kannojia)

Guided by: Dr. Ashad Ullah Qureshi

Guided by: Dr. Ashad Ullah Qureshi

Chapter 1. Introduction 1-4

1.1 Product Perspective

1.4 Organization of the Dissertation

Chapter 2. Literature Review 5 - 19

2.2 Review of Previous Research on Masonry

2.3 Research Gaps

Chapter 3. Material Properties of Structural Masonry 20 - 39

3.2 Fly Ash

3.3 Brick Unit

Guided by: Dr. Ashad Ullah Qureshi

3.6 Masonry Assemblages

Chapter 4. Experimental Investigation on Masonry Walls 40 - 65

4.2 Description of the Specimen

4.3 Axial Strength of Brick Unit

4.4 Wall Under In – Plane Shear Compression Test

4.5 Wall Under Diagonal Compression Test

4.6 Cost Analysis

Chapter 5. Finite Element Modeling 66 - 76

5.2Formulation of the Model

5.3 Micro level Modeling of Brick Masonry

5.4 Meso level Modeling of Brick Masonry

5.5 Macro level Modeling of Brick Masonry

Guided by: Dr. Ashad Ullah Qureshi

1.1 World’s tectonic plates 1

1.2 Seismic zone map of India 2

Chapter 2. Literature Survey

2.1 Schematic diagram depicting the 19

3.1 XRD pattern of fly ash 21

3.2 Mortar strength with partial t 26

replacement of fly ash with cement

3.3 Compressive strength of 1:6 cement 27

the bed joint in alternate course

3.6 Stress distributions in the 33

3.7 Clay brick prism (unreinforced) and 33

fly ash brick prism (unreinforced and reinforced)

3.8 Comparison of compressive strength 34

3.9 Stress-strain curve of clay brick masonry 35

3.10 Stress-strain curve of fly ash brick masonry 35

3.11 Splitting of brick masonry 36

3.12 Triplet bond test on brick masonry 39

Chapter 4. Experimental Investigation on Masonry Walls

4.1 Photographs of the brick masonry 41

4.2 Photograph of the clay brick &fly 43

4.4 Vertical splitting & Crushing of the 46

unreinforced clay brick masonry (UCBM)

4.5 vertical shearing & splitting of 47

unreinforced fly ash brick masonry (UFBM)

4.6 vertical splitting of unreinforced clay 48

brick masonry (UCBM10)

4.7 vertical shearing of unreinforced fly 49

ash brick masonry (UFBM10)

4.8 Axial strength of clay brick masonry 50

and fly ash brick masonry

(UCBM, RCBM, UFBM and RFBM)

4.9 Photograph of the clay brick 51

masonry wall panel specimen