Stone Masonry English

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/265675807
A TUTORIAL: Improving the Seismic Performance of Stone Masonry Buildings
Book · January 2011
CITATIONS READS
73 2,525
2 authors:
Jitendra Bothara Svetlana Brzev

Miyamoto International NZ Ltd University of British Columbia - Vancouver
31 PUBLICATIONS 414 CITATIONS 71 PUBLICATIONS 638 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Masonry View project
Experimental testing of low strength masonry (stone in mud mortar) buildings View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Svetlana Brzev on 28 September 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

A TUTORIAL:
Improving the Seismic Performance
of Stone Masonry Buildings
Jitendra Bothara • Svetlana Brzev
First Edition, July 2011

A TUTORIAL:
Improving the Seismic Performance
of Stone Masonry Buildings
Jitendra Bothara
Svetlana Brzev
First Edition, July 2011
Publication Number WHE-2011-01

© 2011 Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, California 94612-1934.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any means without the prior written permission
of the publisher, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, 499 14th St., Suite 320, Oakland, CA 94612-1934.
This tutorial is published by the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, a nonprofit corporation. The objective of
the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute is to reduce earthquake risk by advancing the science and practice of
earthquake engineering by improving understanding of the impact of earthquakes on the physical, social, economic,
political, and cultural environment, and by advocating comprehensive and realistic measures for reducing the harmful
effects of earthquakes.
Production of this tutorial has been supported in part by generous contributions from the New Zealand Society for
Earthquake Engineering and the Earthquake Engineering Center of the University of Engineering and Technology,
Peshawar, Pakistan.
This tutorial was written and reviewed by volunteers, all of whom participate in EERI and IAEE’s World Housing
Encyclopedia project. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed herein are the authors’ and do
not necessarily reflect the views of their organizations.
Copies of this publication may be ordered from:
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute

499 14th Street, Suite 320
Oakland, CA 94612-1934 USA
Telephone: 510/451-0905
Fax: 510/451-5411
E-mail: eeri@eeri.org
Web site: www.eeri.org
ISBN: 978-1-932884-48-7
EERI Publication Number WHE-2011-01
Technical Editor: Andrew Charleson

Production coordinators: Svetlana Brzev, Marjorie Greene, Ruben Negrete, Emmett Seymour
Layout & Design: Rachel Beebe
Illustrators: Ruslan Idrisov, Simon John Harrison
Cover Photo: The construction of the Kuleshwor Primary School in the Thumki village, Kaski District, Nepal. The
building was built by the Smart Shelter Foundation and uses stone, since it is a locally available material. The building is
located at 1100 m elevation in a hilly area close to the mountains (photo: Smart Shelter Foundation)
Acknowledgments
This tutorial was developed and reviewed by an international team of experts, who volunteered their time and knowledge
to develop this document over the last three years. The primary authors are Jitendra Bothara (New Zealand) and Svetlana
Brzev (Canada). The authors are particularly grateful to those who provided many useful suggestions as reviewers. The
authors are especially grateful to Qaisar Ali (Pakistan) and Tom Schacher (Switzerland) for performing a thorough review
of the manuscript and contributing photographs. The authors would like to acknowledge the individuals and organiza-
tions who provided useful review comments and contributed photographs and illustrations, including Marjana Lutman
and Miha Tomazevic (Slovenia), Martijn Schildkamp (Smart Shelter Foundation), Randolph Langenbach (U.S.A.), Mo-
hammed Farsi (Algeria), Stavroula Pantazopoulou (Greece), Krishna Vasta (India), and Robert Culbert, Builders Without
Borders (Canada). The authors appreciate valuable feedback provided by Mel Green (U.S.A.). The authors of all the vari-
ous WHE housing reports cited in this tutorial provided much useful information in their reports, for which the authors
are very grateful.
The authors are grateful to C.V.R. Murty (India), former WHE Editor-in-Chief, who supported the idea of developing
this tutorial and contributed in the early stages of its development. Special thanks are due to Andrew Charleson (New
Zealand), current WHE Editor-in-Chief who served as the Technical Editor of this publication and has reviewed its many
drafts. This publication would not have been possible without Marjorie Greene (EERI) and Heidi Faison (U.S.A), WHE
Associate Editor, who played a critical role in developing the final draft of the publication. The authors are grateful to
Dr Richard Sharpe (New Zealand) for reviewing the final draft of the tutorial on behalf of the New Zealand Society for
Earthquake Engineering. The quality of the publication would not be the same without superb illustrations developed
by Ruslan Idrisov and Simon John Harrison (New Zealand), and editorial effort by Rachel Beebe (U.S.A.). The authors
appreciate contributions by Ruben Negrete and Emmett Seymour, EERI Interns, in the editing stage of this document.
Production of this tutorial has been supported in part by generous contributions from the New Zealand Society for
Earthquake Engineering and the Earthquake Engineering Center of the University of Engineering and Technology,
Peshawar, Pakistan. The financial support was used to enable the development of graphics and production of this
publication.
i
WORLD HOUSING
ENCYCLOPEDIA
EDITORIAL BOARD
Editor-in-Chief Managing Editor
Andrew Charleson Marjorie Greene
Victoria University of Wellington Earthquake Engineering Research Institute
New Zealand U.S.A.
Associate Editor
Heidi Faison Associate Editor
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center Dominik Lang
U.S.A NORSAR Foundation
Norway
Qaisar Ali Chitr Lilavivat

NWFP University of Eng. & Technology Consulting Engineer
Pakistan Thailand
Takim Andriono Marjana Lutman

Petra Christian University Slovenian National Bldg.& Civil Eng. Institute
Indonesia Slovenia
Marcial Blondet Leo Massone

Catholic University of Peru University of Chile
Peru Chile
Jitendra Bothara C.V.R. Murty

Beca Indian Institute of Technology Madras
New Zealand India
Svetlana Brzev Farzad Naeim

British Columbia Institute of Technology John A. Martin & Associates
Canada U.S.A.
Tatsuo Narafu
Craig Comartin Japan International Cooperation Agency
CD Comartin Inc. Japan
U.S.A.
Sahar Safaie
Junwu Dai The World Bank
Institute of Engineering Mechanics U.S.A.
China
Baitao Sun
Dina D’Ayala Insitute of Engineering Mechanics
University of Bath China
United Kingdom
Sugeng Wijanto
Trisakti University
Jorge Gutierrez Indonesia
University of Costa Rica, Dept. of Civil Engineering
Costa Rica
Andreas Kappos
University of Thessaloniki
Greece
ii
WORLD HOUSING ENCYCLOPEDIA
CONTRIBUTORS
Abdibaliev, Marat Deb, Sajal K. Lutman, Marjana Sinha, Ravi

Agarwal, Abhishek Desai, Rajendra Maki, Norio Skliros, Kostas
Ahari, Masoud Nourali DIaz, Manuel Malvolti, Daniela Smillie, David
Ait-Méziane, Yamina Dimitrijevic, Radovan Manukovskiy, V. Sophocleous, Aris
Ajamy, Azadeh Dowling, Dominic Martindale, Tiffany Sanchez, De la Sotta
Al Dabbeek, Jalal N. Eisenberg, Jacob Meguro, Kimiro Spence, Robin
Alcocer, Sergio Eisner, Richard Mehrain, Mehrdad Speranza, Elena
Alemi, Faramarz Ellul, Frederick Mejía, Luis Gonzalo Sun, Baito
Alendar, Vanja Elwood, Kenneth Meli, Roberto P. Syrmakezis, Kostas
Ali, Qaisar Faison, Heidi Moin, Khalid Taghi Bekloo, Nima
Alimoradi, Arzhang Farsi, Mohammed Mollaioli, Fabrizio Talal, Isreb
Al-Jawhari, Abdel Hakim W. Feio, Artur Moroni, Ofelia Tanaka, Satoshi
Almansa, Francisco López Fischinger, Matej Mortchikchin, Igor Tassios, T. P.
Al-Sadeq, Hafez French, Matthew A. Mucciarella, Marina Tomazevic, Miha
Ambati, Vijaya R. Gómez, Cristian Muhammad, Taj Tuan Chik, Tuan
Ambert-Sanchez, Maria Gordeev, Yuriy Muravljov, Nikola Norhayati
Ansary, Mehedi Goretti, Agostino Murty, C. V. R. Tung, Su Chi
Arnold, Chris Goyal, Alok Naeim, Farzad Upadhyay, Bijay Kumar
Arze L., Elias Greene, Marjorie Naito, Clay J. Uranova, Svetlana
Aschheim, Mark Guevara-Perez, Teresa Ngoma, Ignasio Valluzzi, Maria Rosa
Ashimbayev, Marat U. Gülkan, Polat Nienhuys, Sjoerd Ventura, Carlos E.
Ashtiany, Mohsen Ghafory Gupta, Brijbhushan J. Nimbalkar, Sudhir Vetturini, Riccardo
Astroza, Maximiliano Gutierrez, Jorge A. Nudga, Igor Viola, Eugenio
Awad, Adel Hachem, Mahmoud M. Nurtaev, Bakhtiar Wijanto, Sugeng
Azarbakht, Alireza Hashemi, Behrokh Hosseini Olimpia Niglio, Denise U. Xu, Zhong Gen
Bachmann, Hugo Irfanoglu, Ayhan Ordonez, Julio Yacante, María I
Baharudin, Bahiah Itskov, Igor Efroimovich Ortiz R, Juan Camilo Yakut, Ahmet
Bassam, Hwaija Jain, Sudhir K. Osorio G., Laura Isabel Yao, George C.
Bazzurro, Paolo Jaiswal, Kishor S. Ottazzi, Gianfranco Zhou, Fu Lin
Begaliev, Ulugbek T. Jarque, Francisco Garcia Palanisamy, Senthil Kumar
Belash, Tatyana Kante, Peter Pantelic, Jelena
Benavidez, Gilda Kappos, Andreas Pao, John
Benin, Andrey Kaviani, Peyman Papa, Simona
Bento, Rita Khakimov, Shamil Parajuli, Yogeshwar Krishna
Bhatti, Mahesh Khan, Akhtar Naeem Pradhan, Prachand Man
Bin Adnan, Azlan Khan, Amir Ali Pundit, Jeewan
Blondet, Marcial Kharrazi, Mehdi H. K. Quiun, Daniel
Bogdanova, Janna Klyachko, Mark Rai, Durgesh
Bommer, Julian Kolosova, Freda Reiloba, Sergio
Bostenaru Dan, Maria Koumousis, Vlasis Rodriguez, Virginia I
Bothara, Jitendra Kumar Krimgold, Fred Rodriguez, Mario
Brzev, Svetlana Kumar, Amit Samant, Laura
Cardoso, Rafaela Lacava, Giuseppe Samanta, R. Bajracharya
Castillo G., Argimiro Lang, Kerstin Samaroo, Ian
Cei, Chiara Lazzali, Farah Sandu, Ilie
Chandrasekaran, Rajarajan Leggeri, Maurizio Saqib, Khan
Charleson, Andrew Levtchitch, Vsevollod Sassu, Mauro
Chernov, Nikolai Borisovich Lilavivat, Chitr Schwarzmueller, Erwin
Cherry, Sheldon Liu, Wen Guang Shabbir, Mumtaz
Choudhary, Madhusudan Loaiza F., Cesar Sharpe, Richard
Cleri, Anacleto Lopes, Mário Sheth, Alpa
Comartin, Craig Lopez, Walterio Sheu, M.S.
D’Ayala, Dina Lopez M, Manuel A. Singh, Narendrapal
D’Ercole, Francesco Lourenco, Paulo B. Singh, Bhupinder
Davis, Ian
iii
About the World Housing Encyclopedia
The World Housing Encyclopedia (WHE) is a project of the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute and the
International Association for Earthquake Engineering. Volunteer earthquake engineers and housing experts from around
the world participate in this web-based project by developing reports on housing construction practices in their countries.
In addition, volunteers prepare tutorials on various construction technologies and donate time on various special projects,
including a collaborative project to generate information on global construction types with the U.S. Geological Survey,
and an initiative to promote confined masonry construction. The WHE is also a partner of the World Bank’s Safer Homes
Stronger Communities project. All information provided by the volunteers is peer-reviewed. Visit www.world-housing.
net for more information.
Andrew Charleson
Editor-in-Chief
February 2011
iv
About the Tutorial
Durable and locally available, stone has been used as a construction material since ancient times. Stone houses, palaces,
temples, and important community and cultural buildings can be found all over the world. With the advent of new
construction materials and techniques, the use of stone has substantially decreased in the last few decades. However, it is
still used for housing construction in parts of the world where stone is locally available and affordable material.
Traditional stone masonry dwellings have proven to be extremely vulnerable to earthquake shaking, thus leading to
unacceptably high human and economic losses, even in moderate earthquakes. The seismic vulnerability of these buildings
is due to their heavy weight and, in most cases, the manner in which the walls have been built. Human and economic
losses due to earthquakes are unacceptably high in areas where stone masonry has been used for house construction. Both
old and new buildings of this construction type are at risk in earthquake-prone areas of the world.
This document explains the underlying causes for the poor seismic performance of stone masonry buildings and offers
techniques for improving it for both new and existing buildings. The proposed techniques have been proven in field
applications, are relatively simple, and can be applied in areas with limited artisan skills and tools. The scope of this
tutorial has been limited to discussing stone masonry techniques used primarily in the earthquake-prone countries of Asia,
mostly South Asia. Nevertheless, an effort has also been made to include some stone masonry construction techniques
used in other parts of the world, such as Europe. For more details on global stone masonry housing practices, readers are
referred to reports published in the World Housing Encyclopedia (www.world-housing.net).
The authors of this document believe that by implementing the recommendations suggested here, the risk to the occupants
of non-engineered stone masonry buildings and their property can be significantly reduced in future earthquakes. This
document will be useful to building professionals who want to learn more about this construction practice, either for the
purpose of seismic mitigation or for post-earthquake reconstruction.
v
Contents
1. INTRODUCTION 1

Stone Masonry Construction Around the World 1
Key Building Components 3
Wall Construction Practices 8
2. SEISMIC DEFICIENCIES AND DAMAGE PATTERNS 15

Lack of Structural Integrity 16
Delamination of Wall Wythes 22
Out-of-Plane Wall Collapse 24
In-Plane Shear Cracking 27
Poor Quality of Construction 28
Foundation Problems 29

3. STONE MASONRY CONSTRUCTION WITH IMPROVED
EARTHQUAKE PERFORMANCE 31
Building Site 31
Building Configuration 32
Structural Integrity (Box Action) 33
Seismic Bands (Ring Beams) 34
Stone Masonry Walls 39
Floor and Roof Construction 44
Foundations 46
Construction Materials 47
4. RETROFITTING A STONE MASONRY BUILDING 53

Seismic Retrofitting: Key Strategies and Challenges 53
Enhancing Building Integrity 54
Enhancing the Lateral Load Resistance of Stone Masonry Walls 63
Strengthening Foundations 69
5. CONCLUSIONS 71
6. REFERENCES 73
7. GLOSSARY 77
vii
1. Introduction
Stone Masonry Buildings Around the World
Stone masonry is a traditional form of construction buildings can be found in many earthquake-prone
that has been practiced for centuries in regions regions and countries including Mediterranean
where stone is locally available. Stone masonry has Europe, North Africa, the Middle East, and
been used for the construction of some of the most Southeast Asia. The World Housing Encyclopedia
important monuments and structures around the currently contains 15 reports describing stone
world. Buildings of this type range from cultural masonry housing construction practices in
and historical landmarks, often built by highly Algeria, Greece, India, Iran, Italy, Nepal, Pakistan,
skilled stonemasons, to simple dwellings built Palestinian Territories, Slovenia, and Switzerland
by their owners in developing countries where (see References section). Examples of stone
stone is an affordable and cost-effective building masonry around the world are shown in Figures
material for housing construction. Stone masonry 1.1 to 1.6.
a) b)
Figure 1.1 Stone masonry buildings in Greece: a) older construction in Northern Greece, and b) recent construction (photos: S. Pantazopoulou)
b)
Figure 1.2 Stone masonry in Italy: a) castle tower in San Giuliano di Puglia, the village most affected by the 2002 Molise earthquake, and b) a
street lined with stone masonry houses in Sermonetta, a village between Rome and Naples (photos: R. Langenbach)
1
Stone Masonry Tutorial
Figures 1.3 Typical stone masonry houses in Turkey (photos: M. Erberik)
Houses of this construction type are found in urban

and rural areas around the world. There are broad
variations in construction materials and technology,
Typically, stone masonry
shape, and the number of stories. Houses in rural houses are built by the
areas are generally smaller in size and have smaller-
sized openings since they are typically used by a sin- owners themselves or by
gle family. Multi-family residential buildings in ur-
ban areas are often of mixed use - with a commercial
local builders without
ground floor and a residential area above. Houses in any formal training.
rural areas and suburbs of urban centers are built as
detached structures, while
housing units in urban cen-
ters often share a common
wall.
In hilly Mediterranean areas

the number of stories varies
from two (in rural areas) to
five (in urban centers). These
buildings have often expe-
rienced several interior and
exterior repairs and renova-
tions over the course of their
useful lives.
Typically, stone masonry

houses are built by building
owners themselves or by lo-
cal builders without any for-
mal training. The quality of
construction in urban areas
is generally superior to that
found in rural areas.
Figure 1.4 Six-story stone masonry building in Algiers, Algeria (photo: S. Brzev)
2
Chapter 1: Introduction
Figure 1.5 Typical rural housing in Maharashtra, India (photo: S. Brzev) Figure 1.6 Typical rural housing in Nepal (photo: M. Schildkamp)
Key Building Components tem consists of a timber roof structure supported

by timber columns and beams, and stone masonry
walls at the exterior. In this case, the walls may not
The key components of a typical stone masonry provide support to the floor/roof structure. This
building include floor/roof systems, walls, and type of construction can be found in Maharash-
foundations. The walls are vertical elements which tra, India and in Pakistan. It performed poorly in
support the floors and/or roof, and enclose the past earthquakes due to the absence of wall-to-roof
building interior. In some cases, a dual gravity connections and walls collapsing outward (e.g., the
load-bearing system is used (Figure 1.7). This sys- 1993 Maharashtra earthquake, India).
Uncoursed random rubble

stone masonry wall
Mud overlay
Timber planks
Timber planks along
the wall between
Intermediate piece
successive beams
b)
Figure 1.7 Dual gravity load-

bearing system: a) a typical stone
masonry building with exterior
stone masonry walls and an in-
Longitudinal timber Transverse timber terior timber frame in Maharash-
beam beam tra, India (source: GOM 1998),
Timber post and b) a stone masonry building
Stone column pedestal
a) with dual system under construc-
tion in Pakistan (source: Bothara
and Hiçyılmaz 2008)
3
Floor and Roof Structures

Floor and roof structures in stone masonry build-
ings utilize a variety of construction materials and
systems. The choice is often governed by the regional
availability and cost of materials, and local artisan
skills and experience. Floor and roof systems include
masonry vaults, timber joists or trusses, and rein- a)
forced concrete slabs.
Vaulted Floors/Roofs
Brick or stone masonry vaults are typical floor/roof
systems found in Mediterranean Europe and the
Middle East. Figure 1.8a shows a typical early 20th
century floor structure in Slovenia, in which iron
beams support shallow brick masonry arches (this
is known as a jack arch system), while Figure 1.8b
shows a typical 19th century brick masonry vault in b)
Slovenia. In multi-story buildings, jack arches are of-
ten found at the ground floor level, and timber joist Figure 1.8 Brick masonry vaults: a) jack arch system, and b) brick ma-
sonry vault supported by stone walls (source: M. Lutman)
floors at upper levels. Figure 1.9 shows examples of
vaulted floor and roof structures from Italy.
Figure 1.9 Vaults in stone masonry buildings in Italy: a) and b) stone

masonry vaults in L’Aquila (photos: T. Schacher) and c) an example of
a brick vault from Pavia (photo: S. Brzev)
b)
a) c)
4
Tile flooring
Timber Joists or Trusses

Ballast fill
Timber floor construction may
be in the form of wooden beams
covered with wooden planks,
ballast fill, and tile flooring, as
shown in Figure 1.10. A timber
floor structure overlaid by planks
and bamboo strips is also com-
mon (Figure 1.11). In hot cli-
mate regions, a thick mud over-
lay is provided on top of the roof Wooden planks
for thermal comfort, as shown in
Figure 1.12. Timber truss roofs
Wooden beams
are common in the area affected
by the 2005 Kashmir earthquake Figure 1.10 Typical floor construction in Italy with wooden beams
in Pakistan, as shown in Figure and planks, ballast fill, and tile flooring (source: Maffei et al. 2006)
1.13. In most cases, timber joists are placed on top of
walls without any positive connection; this has a nega-
tive effect on seismic performance.
Figure 1.11 A timber floor structure in Nepal (source: WHE Report 74)
Figure 1.12 A timber roof structure with mud overlay in Maharash- Figure 1.13 Timber truss roof structure in the area affected by the
tra, India (photo: S. Brzev) 2005 Kashmir earthquake in Pakistan (source: M. Tomazevic 1999)
5
Stone Masonry Walls

Stone masonry walls are constructed
from stone boulders bonded to-
gether with mortar; alternatively,
“dry stone masonry” is used when
the stones are flat in shape and no
mortar is used. Figure 1.15 shows an
example of dry stone masonry from
Duao, Chile, a small town affected
by the February 27, 2010 earth-
quake (M 8.8) and the subsequent
tsunami. This building was located
on a beach (the Pacific Ocean can be
seen in the background).
Figure 1.14 A stone masonry building with an RC slab roof in Pakistan (photo: J. Bothara) In some cases, walls are built using
concrete with smaller stone boul-
ders or rubble; this type of com-
Reinforced Concrete Floors/Roofs posite construction is called “stone-
crete” in India. Concrete construction which uses
It is a common structural/seismic rehabilitation prac- small stone pieces is known as “plum concrete”
tice to replace the original floor structures in historic (Figure 1.16).
buildings with either a precast concrete joist system
or solid reinforced concrete (RC) slabs; examples of Stone masonry construction practices, including
this practice were reported in Italy (WHE Report types of stone and wall configurations, are often
28) and Slovenia (WHE Report 58). The use of RC region-specific. Differences in stone masonry wall
slabs is increasingly popular because cement-based construction also depend on economic factors, the
construction materials and technology are becoming availability of good quality construction materials,
widely accessible. An example of a stone masonry and artisan skills and experience.
building with an RC roof in Pakistan is shown in
Figure 1.14. RC slabs are affordable because they re-
quire low maintenance and use space efficiently.
Figure 1.15 A stone masonry house built using slate stones in Duao, Chile (photos: S. Brzev)
6
b)
a) Figure 1.16 Concrete wall construction using stone rubble: a) an ancient Roman concrete wall, and
b) in-situ concrete construction with stone rubble in Pakistan (photos: T. Schacher)
Foundations
Foundations support the wall weight and provide an
interface between the underlying soil and the build- In most cases, stone masonry
ing structure. In most cases, stone masonry walls are
supported by continuous stone masonry strip foot-
walls are supported by con-
ings (Figure 1.17). In some cases, footings do not tinuous stone masonry strip
exist at all (Figure 1.18).
footings.
Stone wall
Mud plaster
Mud plaster
Mud floor
Stone
flooring
Compacted earth
Stone masonry
in mud mortar
Figure 1.18 A wall without foundations in the area
affected by the 1993 Maharashtra, India, earthquake
Figure 1.17 Typical stone masonry foundation in Nepal (source: WHE Report 74) (photo: S. Brzev)
7
Wall Construction Practices
Types of Stone and Mortar

Stone boulders from various sources, including river
stones, field stones, and quarried stones, are used for
stone masonry construction. River stones or field
stones are often used in their natural round or ir-
regular forms (Figure 1.19); this is especially the case
when the materials, expertise, or labor required to
shape these stones are either not available or not af-
fordable. An artisan stone-cutter (see Figure 1.20)
can shape stones to produce semi-dressed stones,
which have at least one exterior flat surface (wedged
stone), as shown in Figure 1.21. In some cases, stones
can be fully dressed into regular shapes to better suit
construction.
Stone masonry walls are constructed using a variety

of mortars, such as mud, lime, or cement/sand mor-
tar. Mud and lime mortars are considered to have
low strength. When cement mortar is used, the ce- Figure 1.19 Round stone boulders used for traditional stone masonry
construction in Padang, Indonesia (photo: J. Bothara)
ment-to-sand ratio is 1:6 or leaner. In some areas, ce-
ment mortar has replaced other types because of its
increased affordability and availability. The use of ce- security in terms of expected superior building per-
ment mortar does not necessarily imply an increase formance. As a result, there has been a significant
in wall strength, and it often creates a false sense of increase in story height and the number and size of
openings in stone masonry buildings
where cement mortar has been used.
Stone masonry walls can be classified

into three types: uncoursed random
rubble stone, uncoursed semi-dressed
stone, and dressed stone. This clas-
sification is made based on the type
of stone, extent of shaping, and the
layout. In all these wall construction
types, common deficiencies include:
lean cement mortar, the use of soil or
very fine sand mixed with sea sand, and
the absence of curing.
Figure 1.20 A stone-cutter at work in Maharashtra,

India (photo: S. Brzev)
8
a) b)
Figure 1.21 Semi-dressed stones ready for wall construction: a) wedged stones in Maharashtra, India (photo: S. Brzev), and b) shaped stones in
Pakistan (photo: T. Schacher)
Uncoursed Random Rubble Stone

Masonry
Stone used for this type of construction is of ir-
regular shape, including small or medium-size river
stones, smooth stone boulders with rounded edg-
es, or stones from a quarry (Figures 1.22 to 1.25).
Sometimes, these round stones are partially dressed
to achieve a relatively regular shape (Figure 1.25).
These stones are usually laid in a low-strength mor-
tar such as mud or lime mortar. The walls consist
of two wythes and the space between the wythes is
filled with mud, small stones and pieces of rubble.
Through-stones (long stones that extend through all
wythes), which are essential for bonding the wythes
and ensuring wall integrity, are usually absent. The
wall thickness is usually on the order of 600 mm,
but it can be excessively large—up to 2 m. In many
instances, the exterior walls in the building are con- a)
structed first and the interior walls are constructed
later without any connection. Rooms in these build- Figure 1.22 Typical
uncoursed random
ings are generally small and there are few small wall rubble stone walls: a) an
openings (if any). uncoursed random rubble
stone wall in Maharashtra,
India, showing exterior
Rooms in buildings with un- wythes and stone rubble

in mud mortar in between
coursed stone masonry walls (photo: S. Brzev) and b)

plan view of a stone wall b)
are generally small and there under construction in

Nepal (note stone rubble
are few wall openings. between the wall wythes) (photo: Smart Shelter Foundation)
9
Figure 1.23 Construction of an uncoursed random rubble stone wall Figure 1.24 Construction of an uncoursed random rubble stone wall
in Maharashtra, India (photo: S. Brzev) in Pakistan after the 2005 Kashmir earthquake (photo: M. Tomazevic)
Uncoursed Semi-Dressed
Stone Masonry
This construction type is similar
to random rubble stone masonry
in that there are two external wall
wythes and an interior wythe
filled with rubble or dirt. How-
ever, in the case of semi-dressed
stone masonry, the exterior wy-
thes are dressed. As a result, the
construction has a better appear-
ance, although its seismic perfor-
mance may not be significantly
improved. Examples of uncoursed
semi-dressed stone masonry from
Switzerland and Pakistan are
Figure 1.25 A building with uncoursed stone

masonry walls in lime mortar in L’Aquila,
Italy (note round stone boulders) (photo: T.
Schacher)
10
Figure 1.26 Uncoursed semi-dressed stone masonry wall in South- Figure 1.27 Stone masonry wall built using round river stone boulders
ern Switzerland (photo: T. Schacher) with shaped exterior surfaces near Balakot, Pakistan (photo: T. Schacher)
shown in Figures 1.26 and 1.27. Figure 1.28 shows a comparison

between uncoursed random rubble stone masonry and semi-dressed
stone masonry. In many parts of the world, including South Asia, it
is common to build the exterior wythe of the wall using dressed or
semi-dressed stone (Figure 1.28b and 1.28c) and the interior one with
random rubble masonry (Figure 1.28a).
900 mm thick and above

900 mm thick and above
a) b) c)
Figure 1.28 Stone masonry walls in Maharashtra, India: a) an uncoursed random rubble stone masonry wall (source: CBRI 1994); b) a semi-
dressed stone wall with an exterior wythe built using wedge-shaped dressed stone (Source: CBRI, 1994), and c) an example of a semi-dressed
stone wall (photo: S. Brzev)
11
Figure 1.29 Stone masonry con-

struction with timber bands in
Pakistan (photo: T. Schacher)
In some regions of the world, timber or brick bands

are used to enhance the wall stability in both un-
coursed random rubble and semi-dressed masonry.
This is a traditional practice in some parts of Ne-
pal, India, Pakistan, Turkey, and Greece. Examples
from Italy and Pakistan are shown in Figures 1.29
and 1.30. Use of timber bands (hatils) in Turkish
stone masonry construction has been discussed by
Erdik (1990). Figure 1.30 shows a stone masonry
building in Italy with brick bands, which are ex-
pected to have an effect similar to timber bands.
In some regions of the world,

timber or brick bands are
used to enhance the wall sta-
bility in both uncoursed ran-
dom rubble and semi-dressed
stone masonry.
Figure 1.30 A stone masonry wall with brick bands in L’Aquila, Italy
(photo: T. Schacher)
12
Dressed Stone Masonry (Ashlar Masonry)

Dressed stone masonry is constructed using stones use of dressed stone masonry in Italy is due to the
of regular shape that look like solid blocks, as shown availability of calcareous stones and tuffs (rocks
in Figure 1.31. A stone with a rectangular or square formed from volcanic ash), which are relatively easy
face is also called ashlar, hence the name ashlar ma- to shape. Mortar in dressed stone masonry walls is
sonry (Shadmon 1996). Dressed stone masonry can usually of poor quality, however the seismic resis-
be found in Europe. A few examples from Italy and tance is superior compared to other types of stone
Switzerland are shown in Figures 1.31 and 1.32. It masonry due to frictional forces between adjacent
should be noted that some types of stone are easier to stones. The thickness of dressed stone masonry walls
shape than the others. For example, the widespread is in the range of 300 to 600 mm.
a) b)
Figure 1.31 Dressed stone masonry: a) an isometric view of a typical wall, and b) an exterior of a wall in Umbria, Italy (source: Maffei et al. 2006)
b)
a)
Figure 1.32 Dressed stone masonry construction in Southern Switzerland: a) a typical building in Giornico, and b) a detail of the exterior
(photos: T. Schacher)
13
Chapter 2: Seismic Deficiencies and Damage Patterns
2. Seismic Deficiencies and Damage Patterns

Stone masonry buildings are vulnerable to the effects tries. In the 2005 Kashmir earthquake (M 7.6), over
of even moderate earthquakes. The excessive thickness 74,000 people died in Pakistan, most of them buried
of stone walls, often compounded by heavy floors or under the rubble of traditional stone masonry dwell-
roof, account for the heavy weight of these buildings, ings. In India, most of the 13,800 deaths during the
thus resulting in significant inertia forces being devel- 2001 Bhuj earthquake (M 7.7), and more than 8,000
oped during an earthquake. As a building material, deaths in the 1993 Maharashtra earthquake (M 6.4),
stone usually has a significant strength when sub- were attributed to collapses of this type of construc-
jected to compression, and it is stronger than most tion. Examples of devastation caused by heavy dam-
other conventional masonry units (bricks and con- age or the collapse of stone masonry buildings in past
crete blocks). However, when round, unshaped stones earthquakes are shown in Figures 2.1 to 2.4.
and low-strength mortar are used and artisan skills are
at a low level, the resulting structures are extremely
vulnerable. These unsafe practices are the result of
economic constraints and lack of proper training for
local artisans in countries and regions that use stone
masonry.
Stone masonry buildings have shown poor performance

in earthquakes, leading to significant human and eco-
nomic losses. This includes performance in earthquakes
in Italy, Greece, Turkey, Montenegro, Slovenia, Algeria,
Iran, Pakistan, India, Nepal, and many other coun-
a)
b)
Figure 2.2 Extensive damage to stone masonry buildings in Indian

Figure 2.1 Extensive damage to stone masonry buildings in the 2009 earthquakes: a) the 2001 Bhuj, Gujarat, earthquake (photo: C.V.R.
L’Aquila, Italy, earthquake (photo: T. Schacher) Murty), and b) the 1993 Maharashtra earthquake (photo: S. Brzev)
15
In the 2005 Kashmir

earthquake 74,000
people died, most bur-
ied under the rubble
of traditional stone
masonry dwellings.
the direction of the shaking (trans-

verse walls) are going to experience
out-of-plane vibrations and are
prone to instability, and possibly
Figure 2.3 Collapse of stone masonry buildings, 2009 Bhutan earthquake (photo: K. Vatsa)
collapse when anchorage to the roof
and transverse walls is not adequate.
Walls parallel to the direction of the
shaking (shear walls) are also sus-
The key deficiencies of stone masonry buildings are: ceptible to damage. When the walls are well con-
nected, there is a rigid roof, and a horizontal ring
• Lack of structural integrity beam (band) at the lintel level acts like a belt, the
building vibrates as a monolithic box; that is a sat-
• Roof collapse isfactory seismic performance (see Figure 2.5b).
It should be noted that a stone masonry building
• Delamination of wall wythes with a flexible roof may show good seismic perfor-
mance provided that the walls are well connected
• Out-of-plane wall collapse and the roof maintains its integrity.
• In-plane shear cracking
• Poor quality of construction
• Foundation problems
Lack of Structural Integrity

The seismic performance of an unreinforced
masonry building depends on how well the
walls are tied together and anchored to the
floor and the roof (Tomazevic 1999). Con-
sider a simple building as shown in Figure
2.5. When the walls are not connected at
the intersections, each wall is expected to
vibrate on its own when subjected to earth-
quake ground shaking (see Figure 2.5a). In Figure 2.4 Collapsed stone masonry buildings, 2009 Bhutan earthquake (pho-
this situation, the walls perpendicular to to: K. Vatsa)
16
a) b)
Figure 2.5 Masonry building during earthquake shaking: a) loosely connected walls without slab at the roof level, and b) a building with well-
connected walls and a roof slab (source: Tomazevic 1999)
A lack of integrity is characterized by the following Damage and/or Separation of Walls at

damage patterns: Intersections
• Damage and/or separation of walls at intersections Wall intersections are particularly vulnerable to earth-
quake effects due to significant tensile and shear stresses
• Floor and/or roof collapse from inadequate wall-to- developed when seismic forces are transferred from
floor (or wall-to-roof) anchorage walls B (transverse walls) to walls A (shear walls), as
illustrated in Figure 2.6. When wall connections are
inadequate or absent, vertical cracks may develop or
separation may take place at wall intersec-
tions. These damage patterns have been
Inertia force observed in past earthquakes, as shown in
Toothed joints Figures 2.7 to 2.9. In some cases, intersect-
in masonry
courses or L-
ing walls are built using different materials
shaped dowel (a combination of brick or block and stone
bars masonry), and are more susceptible to
damage compared to other walls, as shown
in Figure 2.38.
Adequate connections between inter-

secting walls are critical for ensuring
the satisfactory seismic performance
Direction of of a building as a whole. However, evi-
earthquake dence from past earthquakes has shown
that the presence of ring beams/bands
(or alternative provisions such as ties or
Figure 2.6 Wall connections are critical to the box-like action of a building: Walls A bandages) is very effective in enhancing
(loaded in the strong direction) support Walls B (loaded in the weak direction) (source: structural integrity (refer to Chapters
Murty 2005)
17
The evidence from

past earthquakes has
shown that the pres-
ence of ring beams/
bands, or alternative
provisions such as ties
or bandages, is very
effective in enhancing
Figure 2.7 Vertical crack in a stone masonry wall Figure 2.8 Disintegration of stone structural integrity.
due to the 1993 Maharashtra, India, earthquake masonry walls in Greece (source:
(photo: S. Brzev) WHE Report 16)
3 and 4 for more details on bands and bandages).

An example of a stone building with an RC roof
band that remained undamaged in the 2005 Kash-
mir earthquake in Pakistan is shown in Figure 2.10.
Figure 2.11 shows a building with an RC lintel
band that showed good performance in the same
earthquake.
After the 2005 Kashmir earthquake, a significant

research program related to evaluating and improv-
ing the seismic resistance of stone masonry buildings
was undertaken at the NWFP University of Engi-
neering and Technology, Peshawar, Pakistan (Ali et
al. 2010). Three one-third scale models of a single-
story stone masonry house were tested on a shake-
table. One of the models had semi-dressed stone Figure 2.9 Damage at a wall intersection of a single-story stone ma-
masonry walls built in cement mortar and an RC sonry building in the 2009 Padang, Indonesia, earthquake (note ab-
sence of bands at lintel and roof levels) (source: Bothara et al. 2010)
roof slab (SM1). The other model, named SM2, had
uncoursed rubble stone masonry walls in mud mor-
tar and a timber roof with a mud overlay. Vertical
RC members were also provided at the wall intersec-
tions. The third model (SM3) was similar to SM2,
but additional horizontal bands were provided at sill,
lintel, and roof levels. The models were subjected to
the same earthquake record, but they showed sub-
stantially different responses. Model SM1 collapsed
at a significantly lower shaking intensity, and lost
integrity once the separation of the roof slabs and
the walls took place at a peak ground acceleration
(PGA) of 0.22 g. The walls demonstrated a brittle
response and ultimately failed. The presence of verti-
Figure 2:10 A stone masonry building in Muzzaffarabad was undam-
cal RC members at the wall intersections in model
aged in the 2005 Kashmir, Pakistan, earthquake; this was attributed
SM2 caused a slight increase in strength as well as to the presence of an RC band at the eaves level (photo: J. Bothara)
18
a) b)
Figure 2.11 A stone masonry building with an RC lintel band that survived the 2005 Kashmir earthquake in Pakistan: a) the building suffered only
moderate damage in the top portion, and b) separation at the wall intersection took place in spite of the band (note inadequate anchorage of
the band reinforcement) (photos: Builders Without Borders)
a) b)
Figure 2.12 Damaged models at the end of the test: a) failure of model SM1, and b) model SM3 at the end of the experiment (source: Ali et al. 2010)
displacement capacity. However, they did not im- Floor and/or Roof Collapse from Inad-
prove the overall capacity of the structure, as the equate Wall-to-Floor and Wall-to-Roof
model faced moderate damages at a PGA of 0.16 g
and major damages at a PGA of 0.26 g. Model SM3 Anchorages
showed an excellent response, and maintained its in-
tegrity until the base acceleration (PGA) of 0.27 g Reports from many past earthquakes have con-
was reached. Model SM1, with semi-dressed stone firmed that wall-to-floor and wall-to-roof anchor-
walls in cement mortar, showed worse performance ages are critical for ensuring the integrity of a
than model SM2, which had uncoursed rubble walls building and preventing floor and roof collapse.
in mud mortar. It was concluded that bands pro- When an anchorage is not adequate, the walls
vided at several levels are effective in maintaining the perpendicular to the direction of the earthquake
integrity of a building because these elements divide shaking move away from the floors and roof, and
the walls into smaller portions. Figure 2.12 shows might topple; this is known as “out-of-plane” col-
models SM1 and SM3 at the end of the test. lapse (illustrated in Figure 2.13).
19
No shear transfer connection
Direction of
inertia forces
Shear failure of
masonry wall
Direction of
ground motion
Figure 2.13 Inadequate wall-to-roof anchorage
In the Anjar area of Gujarat, India, which

was affected by the 2001 Bhuj earthquake,
buildings are characterized by thick stone Figure 2.14 Roof deficiencies in
masonry walls (thickness around 750 mm) the area affected by the 2001
built in sandstone and lime mortar (Jain Bhuj, India, earthquake: a) dis-
et al. 2002). In this area, the traditional continuous rafters over interior
walls, and b) inadequate wall-
buildings have timber roofs with rafters to-floor connections caused the
spanning two walls in a room, instead of a) severe building damage (pho-
spanning the full length of the building. As tos: C.V.R. Murty)
a result, the floor in each room acted as an
independent system, and had a tendency
to pull apart from the other floors during
the strong ground shaking. This caused a
partial or total collapse of many stone ma-
sonry buildings in the area (Figure 2.14).
Evidence from past earthquakes has shown

that buildings with good floor-wall and
roof-wall anchorages are able to resist earth-
quake effects and maintain integrity with-
out collapse (Figures 2.15 and 2.16).
Hipped roofs made of timber or light

metal are common in areas affected by b)
20
Figure 2.15 A building

with horizontal wall
anchors at the floor level
survived the 2009 L’Aquila,
Italy, earthquake (photos:
T. Schacher)
Figure 2.16 A building with roof-to-wall anchors survived the 2009

L’Aquila, Italy, earthquake (photos: T. Schacher)
the 2005 Kashmir, Pakistan, earthquake. These to the collapse of stone masonry walls, as shown
buildings have a few important seismic deficiencies, in Figure 2.17. It should be noted that the seismic
such as an absence of effective ties or ring beams performance of hipped roofs in the earthquake was
(bands) at the eaves level (beneath the roof ), inad- excellent in terms of maintaining their integrity
equate wall-to-roof anchorage, and an absence of and shape. After the earthquake, people were able
through-stones in the walls. Buildings of this type to lift the roof of their collapsed house and rebuild
showed poor performance in the earthquake due the walls (Bothara and Hiçyılmaz 2008).
Figure 2.17 Collapse of stone masonry buildings with hipped roofs in the 2005 Kashmir, Pakistan, earthquake (source: Bothara and
Hiçyılmaz 2008)
21
Roof Collapse a 500 to 800 mm thick mud overlay (GOM 1998).

The roofs were supported by interior timber frames
Roof collapse is one of the major causes of fatalities (called khands) which were not connected to the walls,
in masonry buildings during earthquakes, and it can as shown in Figure 2.19. In the earthquake, heavy roof
take place when either the walls lose the ability to re- mass caused lateral swaying of the frames, which pushed
sist gravity loads and collapse, or when the roof struc- the stone walls outward and caused their collapse.
ture collapses (e.g. timber post-and-beam construc-
tion) (Coburn 1987). Roof collapse is often caused by
inadequate wall-to-roof anchorage. The roof structure Delamination of Wall Wythes
can simply “walk away” from the walls and cave into
the building. Roof collapse can also be caused by the Stone masonry walls constructed of two exterior
collapse of supporting walls, as shown in Figure 2.18. wythes are prone to delamination. As discussed in
Chapter 1, the space between the wythes is usu-
Some stone masonry buildings have heavy roofs that ally filled with small stones and pieces of rubble
contribute to their seismic vulnerability. Heavy RC bonded together with mud mortar. These wythes
roof slabs contributed to the collapse of buildings in are usually constructed using large stone boulders
the 2005 Kashmir earthquake (Figure 2.18a). Tradi- (either round stones or partially dressed stones).
tional buildings in the Marathwada area of Maharash- The large wall thickness is required to ensure the
tra, India, affected by the 1993 earthquake, were char- thermal comfort and/or personal security of the
acterized by a timber plank-and-joist roof supporting inhabitants.
a) b)
Figure 2.18 Collapse of roof structures due to the loss of gravity load-bearing capacity of stone walls in the 2005 Kashmir, Pakistan, earthquake:
a) reinforced concrete roof, and b) timber and steel roof (photos: M. Tomazevic)
Figure 2.19 Wall collapse in the 1993 Maharashtra, India, earthquake: a stone masonry building with a timber roof and a heavy mud overlay
(photo: S. Brzev)
22
Vertically split
shaped stones are used. Another
Vertical gap possible cause of delamination
layer of wall
is an increase in internal lateral
pressure from the soil or rubble
core of the wall, which pushes
the wall wythes outward. The
Mud mortar delamination process observed
during the testing is illustrated
in Figure 2.21.
Outward bulging
of vertical wall Delamination of the wythes in
layer
Half-dressed stone masonry walls has been
oblong stones observed in several earthquakes
around the world, as shown in
Figures 2.22 and 2.23. Delami-
a) b) nation is usually initiated in the
upper portion of the wall, and
Figure 2.20 Delamination of stone masonry walls: a) delamination in progress (source: Murty 2005), the appearance of the damaged
and b) delamination of wall wythes due to the 1993 Maharashtra, India, earthquake (photo: S. Brzev) wall is as if the exterior wythe has
been peeled off. It was reported
after the 2002 Molise earthquake
in Italy that “spreading (delami-
nation) damage in stone mason-
ry walls begins at the top of the
building, where the lack of over-
burden weight allows the mason-
ry to vibrate apart. The stability
of the wall can be most at risk
when the masonry units vary in
a) b) c) d)
size and are laid with a minimum
of horizontal bedding” (Deca-
Figure 2.21 Delamination of stone masonry walls: a) two-wythe stone wall with a rubble core; nini et al. 2004).
b) stones are displaced due to vibrations; c) internal lateral pressure due to rubble fill increases,
and d) the wall collapses (source: Meyer et al. 2007)
Delamination takes place when vertical wall layers

(wythes) bulge and collapse outward due to earth-
quake ground shaking, as shown in Figure 2.20.
One of the causes of delamination is the absence of
through-stones (long stones which tie the wythes
together). Other factors influencing delamination
include intensity of ground shaking, shape of stone
(round, irregular, or regular), and the magnitude of
the gravity load.
A detailed experimental and analytical research

study on the delamination of stone masonry walls
was performed by Meyer et al. (2007). According
to the study, delamination is triggered by high-fre-
quency vibrations that cause inter-stone vibrations.
This results in a reduction of frictional forces that Figure 2.22 Delamination of a stone masonry wall in the 2000 Beni-
hold the stones together, particularly when wedge- Ouartilane, Algeria, earthquake (photo: M. Farsi)
23
The chances of delamination can be considerably

reduced if wall wythes are “stitched” by means of
Out-of-Plane Wall Collapse
through-stones (also known as “bond stones” or “head- Out-of-plane wall collapse is one of the major causes
ers”). An experimental study by Meyer et al. (2007) of destruction in stone masonry buildings, particu-
demonstrated the effectiveness of through-stones in en- larly in buildings with flexible floors and roofs. As
hancing the out-of-plane seismic performance of stone discussed earlier in this chapter, overall building
walls. The results showed that a regular untied wall integrity is critical for the satisfactory seismic per-
specimen collapsed at an acceleration of 0.19 g, while formance of stone masonry buildings. The connec-
a similar specimen with two through-stones for a given tions between structural components are important
wall surface area failed at an acceleration of 0.32 g, and for maintaining building integrity, as discussed in
the specimen with four through-stones failed at an ac- Chapter 3. Integrity is absent or inadequate when
celeration of 0.45 g. The installation of through-stones the walls are not connected at their intersections and
in new and existing stone masonry walls is discussed in there are no ties or ring beams at the floor and roof
Chapters 3 and 4, respectively. levels. As a result, each wall vibrates on its own when
subjected to earthquake ground shaking and is there-
fore likely to collapse. In multi-story buildings, this
type of collapse usually takes place at the top floor
level due to the significant earthquake accelerations
there (Figures 2.24 and 2.25).
Figure 2.23 Delamination was a common damage pattern observed in the 1993 Maharashtra, India, earthquake (photos: S. Brzev)
More pronounced
response at higher levels
Figure 2.24 Out-of-plane vibrations of stone masonry walls are most Figure 2.25 Out-of-plane collapse at the top floor of a stone masonry
pronounced at the top floor level (source: Tomazevic 1999) building in the 2003 Boumerdes earthquake in Algeria (photo: M. Farsi)
24
Figure 2.26 Rendered images of a building damaged in the 2002 Molise (Italy) earthquake: a) the stone masonry construction is damaged at the
corner resulting in a loss of gravity support; b) a façade falls away from the floor and roof diaphragms (source: Maffei et al. 2006)
Depending on the intensity of earthquake ground shaking, this

failure mechanism is characterized either by vertical cracks de-
veloped at the wall intersections, or by tilting and collapse of an
entire wall. This collapse mechanism was observed after the 2002
Molise, Italy, earthquake (Maffei et al. 2006) (Figure 2.26).
When cross walls parallel to the direction of earthquake shak-

ing are far apart, the central areas of long walls are subjected
to significant out-of-plane vibrations and may collapse (Figure
2.27). The inadequacy of connections between the cross walls
and long walls is one of the key factors influencing out-of-plane
wall collapse. When connections are inadequate, long walls are
more susceptible to the effects of out-of-plane vibrations and
Figure 2.27 Out-of-plane collapse of a long wall in the 1988
the chances of collapse are higher (Figure 2.28). East Nepal earthquake (photo: TAEC Consult, Nepal)
Out-of-plane wall collapses were reported

in the area affected by the 2009 Padang
earthquake in Indonesia. The two-story
buildings shown in Figure 2.29 had light
metal roofing supported by timber truss-
es. The floors were inadequately connect-
ed to the walls. Stone masonry walls were
250 mm thick and relatively slender. The
walls were constructed using 100 to 120
mm diameter round or angular stones
in lime/sand mortar. The walls collapsed
due to the absence of floor and roof an-
chorages and bands (refer to Chapter 3).
Out-of-plane wall collapse is common in

buildings with flexible roofs and floors,
and where wall-to-roof connections are
inadequate, as shown in Figure 2.30.
Figure 2.28 Out-of-plane collapse of two parallel

walls, NWFP Pakistan (photo: SDC)
25
Figure 2.29 (left and above) Out-of-plane collapse of stone masonry walls in the
2009 Padang, Indonesia, earthquake (source: Bothara et al. 2010)
Figure 2.30 Out-of-plane collapse of stone masonry walls in build-

ings with flexible roofs and inadequate wall-to-roof connections:
a) the 2005 Kashmir, Pakistan, earthquake (photo: M. Tomazevic);
b) the 2003 Boumerdes, Algeria, earthquake (photo: M. Farsi) a)
Adequate connec-
tions between cross
walls and long
walls are critical for
preventing out-of-
plane wall collapse.
b)
26
In-Plane Shear Cracking

Damage to stone masonry walls due to in-plane
seismic effects (in the direction of the wall length)
is less common than damage due to out-of-plane
seismic effects. Vulnerability is mainly caused by
the manner in which the walls are constructed, of-
ten using irregular stones and weak mortar.
A typical masonry wall consists of piers between

openings, plus a portion below openings (sill ma-
sonry) and above openings (spandrel masonry), as
shown in Figure 2.33a. When subjected to in-plane
earthquake shaking, masonry walls demonstrate
Figure 2.31 A tall gable wall in Nepal that is at risk due to the absence either rocking or diagonal cracking. Rocking is il-
of a wall-to-roof connection (photo: Smart Shelter Foundation) lustrated in Figure 2.33b, and is characterized by
the rotation of an entire pier, which results in the
Buildings with pitched roofs have gable walls. These crushing of pier end zones. Alternatively, masonry
are taller than other walls and tend to vibrate as free- piers subjected to shear forces can experience di-
standing cantilevers during earthquakes, unless they agonal shear cracking (also known as X-cracking),
are tied to the roof structure. These walls are often in- as shown in Figure 2.33c. Diagonal cracks develop
adequately connected to the roof, as shown in Figure when tensile stresses in the pier exceed the masonry
2.31. Out-of-plane collapse of gable walls is often re- tensile strength, which is inherently very low. This
ported after earthquakes. Several stone masonry gable type of damage is typically observed in the bottom
walls collapsed in the 2010 and 2011 New Zealand story of a building.
earthquakes, as shown in Figure 2.32.
Several factors influence the in-plane failure
mechanism of stone masonry buildings, including
pier dimensions, wall thickness, building height,
and masonry shear strength. Rocking behavior is
more desirable than diagonal shear cracking. In-
plane wall damage patterns observed in past earth-
quakes are illustrated in Figure 2.34.
a) b)
Figure 2.32 Collapse of stone masonry gable walls in New Zealand earthquakes: a) a partial collapse in the 2010 Darfield earthquake, and b)
total collapse of the same building in the 2011 Christchurch earthquake (photos: J. Bothara)
27
a)
a)
b)
b)
Figure 2.34 Shear failure in stone masonry walls: a) shear cracks

initiated at the corners of openings in the 2005 Kashmir, Paki-
c) stan, earthquake (Photo: Bothara and Hiçyılmaz, 2008), and b)
shear cracking in a stone masonry pier damaged by the same
earthquake (photo: Builders Without Borders)
Figure 2.33 In-plane damage of stone masonry walls: a) typical wall with
openings; b) rocking failure, and c) diagonal shear cracking (adapted from:
Murty 2005)
Poor Quality of Construction

Reports from past earthquakes confirm that the use of low
quality building materials and poor construction practices
often result in significant earthquake damage or destruction.
For example, evidence from the 2001 Bhuj earthquake in
India indicates that semi-dressed/dressed stone masonry in
cement mortar generally suffered less damage than random
rubble stone masonry in mud mortar (Jain et al. 2002).
During earthquake shaking, irregularly placed stones tend to
move out (displace) from the wall and cause localized dam-
age or even collapse in extreme cases, as shown in Figure 2.35.
When the stone surface is not clean, or smooth river boulders
are used, the bond between stones and mortar can be weak.
Poor bond strength is generally a problem under earthquake
conditions. During lateral movement in the structure the
mortar crumbles as the stones move and the walls lose in- Figure 2.35 Localized wall failure caused by irregular stones
tegrity and may suffer damage or collapse (see Figure 2.36). (source: WHE Report 74)
28
F
F
F
Figure 2.36 Detail of wall failure caused by irregular stones (source: Bothara and Hiçyılmaz Figure 2.37 A stone masonry wall with
2008) thick mud mortar (thickness on the order
of 80 mm) in the area affected by the 2001
Bhuj, India, earthquake (photo: J. Arlekar)
When the mortar used for construction is made of mud instead
of cement and/or lime, the mortar becomes the weak link and
prevents a proper bond between the mortar and the stones. In
some cases, mud mortar is excessively thick (Figure 2.37). Even
when cement mortar is used, minimum quality standards (as dis-
cussed in Chapter 3) are often not met during construction.
Another problematic construction practice is the use of more than

one type of masonry unit for wall construction, for example, stone
and brick. Because of the differences in size and shape of units, the
bond between orthogonal walls is inadequate. Figure 2.38 shows a
building in which one wall is constructed of brick masonry and the
other of stone masonry. The use of mixed structural units and sys-
tems results in variable wall strength and stiffness in different parts
of a building. This can cause torsional effects once damage begins
to accrue in the building. It is acceptable to mix materials provided
that only one material is used for each story. The stronger materials
should be used for the ground floor wall construction.
Figure 2.38 Vertical cracking at a wall intersection

Foundation Problems in the 2005 Kashmir, Pakistan, earthquake due to
absence of connection between the intersecting
walls, a stone masonry and a brick-masonry wall
Foundations are not considered to be critical for the seismic (source: Bothara and Hiçyılmaz 2008)
performance of stone masonry buildings. However, it was re-
ported after the 2005 Kashmir, Pakistan, earthquake that build-
ings on foundations of adequate size suffered less damage than
those supported by shallow foundations. Foundation soils may
be prone to instability, in the form of soil spreading or land-
slides (Figure 2.39). Buildings in hilly areas were most affected
by the 2005 Kashmir earthquake due to soil movement.
Traditional foundations in non-engineered buildings are often very

shallow and inadequate for soft soil conditions. For example, in the
area affected by the 1993 Maharashtra earthquake in India, founda-
tion depth was on the order of 600 mm, which is significantly less
than required for buildings located in the region where expansive
black cotton soil is common. As a result, cracking in the walls due Figure 2.39 Soil spreading in the 2005 Kashmir,
to foundation movement was common even before the earthquake. Pakistan, earthquake - note wide cracks in the
walls (source: Bothara and Hiçyılmaz 2008)
29
Chapter 3: Stone Masonry Construction with Improved Earthquake Performance
3. Stone Masonry Construction with Improved

Earthquake Performance
Damage is expected during major ground shaking soil instability, and consequent destruction of the
even in buildings designed and constructed accord- building if it is constructed on sloping ground; this
ing to the latest building codes. However, even in can be achieved by following the procedure illus-
severe earthquake shaking, buildings should not col- trated in Figure 3.2.
lapse, threatening the life safety of the occupants.
It is usually not economically viable to construct a Under normal conditions, the slopes may be stable,
stone masonry building to resist a strong earthquake but an earthquake could trigger landslides or rock-
without significant damage. However, the provision falls, which can cause a partial or complete building
of seismic measures during construction is critical collapse (see Figure 3.3). Retaining walls, rock barriers
for limiting the extent of damage and preventing and green barriers can provide protection. A simple
collapse. This chapter provides important consider- indication of slope instability is the presence of in-
ations to be taken into account before and during clined standing trees.
the construction of a new stone masonry house to
ensure its enhanced seismic performance. The site should be located away from riverbanks and
large trees. Also, construction of buildings at sites with
predominantly loose sand, uncompacted soil, or soft
Building Site clay should be avoided. However, when that is not
possible, sufficient drainage should be provided and
The first step in constructing a new building the ground level of the building should be raised by
should involve careful selection and review of pos- compacted earth forming a plinth. When a building
sible building sites. The site should provide a stable has to be constructed on fill, the foundations should
and firm base for the building. It is best to build be deep enough to rest on the firm ground surface
in areas that have firm soil or rock underneath the below the fill. Pile foundations are required in some
topsoil. Soft soils can amplify building movement cases.
due to earthquakes, cause excessive
settlement, and require more elabo-
rate foundations. The selected build-
ing site should have a consistent soil
type across the entire building area.
Variations in base soil types can cause
unequal settlement problems and un-
even support conditions that could
jeopardize integrity of the building.
The key considerations related to the
selection of a suitable building site
are discussed below.
Buildings should not be constructed

near or on steep slopes due to the
high risk of damage (Figure 3.1).
Flat sites are preferable; they reduce
the need for excessive earthworks
prior to construction and help en-
sure a simple building design and
construction process. Special pre- Figure 3.1 A collapsed building on a steep slope after the 2005 Kashmir earthquake, Paki-
cautions should be taken to avoid stan (source: Bothara and Hiçyılmaz 2008)
31
1. Start the retaining wall 3 ft below 1/5 H 1 ft

vegetable soil and prepare a 2 ft
base half as wide as the finished
wall height.
2. Maximum heigth of a retaining H 5 ft
wall should not exceed 8 ft. The Example
2
lower the wall, the stronger it will
4
be. H
3. Incline the front of the wall in a max 8 ft Stones at 3
ratio 1:5. That is, for every 5 ft of right angle
height, go 1 ft back.
Slope of front 1/5
4. Incline the stones at a right angle
to the front. 2 ft
Vegetable earth 2 ft
5. Place as many ‘through-stones’
as possible, but at least every
3 ft
2 ft along the height and length
of the wall. 2 ft
6. If mortar is used, leave 4”x4” 1
drainage holes in the lower part ½H
of the wall, every 2 ft. 5 6
7. Instead of making one high wall, Through-stones Drainage holes
subdivide it into several lower
walls, stepping back each time
the same distance as the heigth 7
of the lower wall. min 3 ft
8. Keep the building away from the min H (better h)
retaining walls.
• On the lower side at least the 9
same distance as the heigth of
the wall.
• On the upper side at least 3 ft h h
from the retaining wall.
9. Curved retaining walls are H
stronger. 8
8
FigureR3.2
E TA I N I Nprovisions
Special G W A L Lfor
S building construction on a steep slope (source: Schacher 2009)
Building Configuration
Building Plan tween them; these blocks could be built on the same
foundation (see Figure 3.4). Another approach is to
Building plans should be regular, simple, and sym- construct buttresses or interior cross walls (these will
metrical. Buildings with square, rectangular, or cir- be discussed in Chapter 4).
cular plans have shown better seismic performance
in past earthquakes than buildings with irregular
plans.
Buildings with T-, L-, or C-shaped plans are prone to

twisting, localized damage or even collapse and dis-
integration at wall intersections. When the proposed
plan of a building is irregular, it should be divided
into smaller blocks of regular plans (see Figure 3.4).
Long and narrow buildings appear to suffer more

extensive damage during earthquakes. Without the
support of cross walls, long walls are very flexible and
may collapse during ground shaking. When a build-
ing is longer than three times its width, it should be
divided into smaller blocks with sufficient gaps be- Figure 3.3 A building damaged by a landslide in the 2005 Kashmir,
Pakistan, earthquake (source: Bothara and Hiçyılmaz 2008)
32
Building Elevation
A stone masonry building should be
as regular as possible up its height
(see Figure 3.5). Setbacks are not
recommended. However, if they
cannot be avoided, a load-bearing
wall should be provided beneath
each wall in the upper story.
Building Height
Non-engineered stone masonry
Figure 3.4 Building configurations: DOs and DON'Ts (adapted from: IAEE 2004) buildings with walls built using ce-
ment mortar should be limited to
two stories in high seismic zones,
and three stories in moderate to
low seismic zones. However, when
mud mortar is used for wall con-
struction, building height should
be limited to one story in high
seismic zones, and two stories in
moderate and low seismic zones.
The definition of seismic zones is
country-specific and is usually pre-
Figure 3.5 Building irregularity in vertical direction: regular buildings are recommended, scribed by national building codes.
and buildings with setbacks or overhangs are not.
Structural Integrity (Box
Roof that stays together as Walls Action)
a single integral unit during with small
earthquakes openings Past earthquakes have shown that
Good connection be- damage to unreinforced masonry
tween roof and walls
buildings is significantly reduced
when building components are well
connected and the building vibrates
like a monolithic box, as discussed
in Chapter 2. In many cases, unrein-
Lintel band forced masonry buildings have flexi-
ble floors (in-plane), so there is a need
to provide additional elements to tie
the walls together and ensure accept-
able seismic performance. Structural
integrity of a building can be achieved
Good connection
Stiff foundation between walls by developing a box action by ensur-
and foundation ing good connections between all
building components—foundations,
Good connections
at wall corners
walls, floors, and roof. Key require-
ments for the structural integrity in
a masonry building are illustrated in
Figure 3.6. A ring beam (band) at lin-
Figure 3.6 Key requirements for ensuring box action in a stone masonry building (adapted
tel level is one of the critical provisions
from: Murty 2005)
for ensuring structural integrity.
33
Seismic Bands (Ring Beams) Pulling of lintel band

Bending of lintel band
Background
A seismic band is the most critical earthquake-re-
sistant provision in a stone masonry building. Usu-
ally provided at lintel, floor, and/or roof level in a
building, the band acts like a ring or belt, as shown
Lintel band
in Figure 3.7. Seismic bands are constructed using
either reinforced concrete (RC) or timber. Proper
placement and continuity of bands and proper
use of materials and workmanship are essential for
their effectiveness.
Seismic bands hold the walls together and ensure in-

tegral box action of an entire building. Also, a lintel
band reduces the effective wall height. As a result, Ground movement
Figure 3.8 Pulling and bending of a lintel band in a stone masonry

building (adapted from: Murty 2005)
Roof band
Figure 3.7 A seismic band acts like a belt (adapted from: GOM 1994)
bending stresses in the walls due to out-of-plane Lintel

earthquake effects are reduced and the chances of band
wall delamination are reduced.
During earthquake shaking, a band undergoes bend-

ing and pulling actions, as shown in Figure 3.8. A
portion of the band perpendicular to the direction
of earthquake shaking is subjected to bending, while
the remaining portion is in tension.
Seismic bands can be provided at plinth, lintel,

floor, and roof levels (see Figure 3.9). In some
cases, a lintel band is combined with a floor or Floor Band
roof band. An RC plinth band should be provided
atop the foundation when strip footings are made
of unreinforced masonry and the soil is either soft
or uneven in its properties (as discussed later in Figure 3.9 Locations of seismic bands in a stone masonry building
(roof omitted for clarity) (adapted from: UNCRD 2003)
this chapter).
34
Do This Avoid This A seismic band

must be contin-
uous, like a loop
or a belt.
Figure 3.10 Seismic bands should always be continuous; an offset in elevation is not ac-
ceptable (adapted from: GOM 1998) A floor/roof band is not re-
quired in buildings with RC
CGI sheet floor/roof structures. In such
cases, the slab itself ties the
Do This Avoid This walls together.
A seismic band must be

Lintel band continuous (like a loop or a
Plinth band belt), otherwise they are in-
efficient. Some examples of
undesirable discontinuities
in lintel band construction
Figure 3.11 RC seismic bands should always remain level without any dips or changes in height are illustrated in Figures
(adapted from: GOM 1998) 3.10 and 3.11.
A lintel-level band is required in most cases. Seismic Lintel beams (commonly known as lintels) are re-
bands at both the floor and the roof level are required quired atop all the openings in a wall. However, if
under the following conditions: a band is provided at the lintel level, a lintel beam
can be cast as an integral part of the lintel band to
• The floor structures are flexible (e.g., timber floors), minimize construction costs, as illustrated in Figure
3.12. Details for combining a lintel and floor/roof
• The vertical distance between lintel and floor level band are shown in Figure 3.13. The band must be
exceeds 400 mm, or continuously reinforced at the wall intersections, as
shown in Figure 3.14.
• The total story height exceeds 2.5 m.
Timber band
Lintel band
Roof band Lintel combined

with RC band
RC slab or
floor band
combined
with lintel
Timber lintel
a) b)
Figure 3.13 Combining floor/roof and lintel band: a) timber band,

Figure 3.12 Merging RC floor and lintel bands and b) RC band
35
Figure 3.15 Stone masonry houses with RC

lintel bands built after the 1993 Maharash-
tra, India, earthquake (source: GOM 1998)
Stone masonry build-

ings with RC bands
performed well in
past earthquakes.
between adjacent cross walls), the

importance of the building in the
community, the expected inten-
sity of earthquake shaking (seismic
Figure 3.14 Recommended detailing of timber and RC bands (adapted from: T. Schacher zone), and the number of stories.
and C.V.R. Murty) Usually, two or four longitudinal
bars of 10 to 16 mm diameter suf-
fice. These bars must be tied with
links or ties at a maximum spacing of 150 mm, as
Reinforced concrete bands shown in Figure 3.16. The bars must be bent at wall
intersections with 400 mm hooks. The required
RC bands are generally a better choice than timber band depth depends on the number of bars: a 75
bands due to their low maintenance, long service life, mm depth is sufficient when two bars are used,
and improved integrity with the stone (provided the while a depth of 150 mm is needed when four bars
concrete is properly mixed, placed, and compacted). are used, as shown in Figure 3.17. The band width
Stone masonry buildings with RC bands performed should match the wall thickness.
well in past earthquakes, such as the 2005 Kashmir,
Pakistan, earthquake, as discussed in Chapter 2, and Links and ties are used to “tie” longitudinal bars, that
were used in post-earthquake rebuilding efforts in is, hold them in place and prevent them from bending
India, as shown in Figure 3.15. outward (buckling) in an earthquake. Proper bending
of ties and links is critical for the effectiveness of RC
The required number and size of reinforcing bars bands in earthquakes. Ties are used in bands with four
in RC bands depends on the room span (distance bars, and they must be bent in the form of a closed
36
loop. The ends of the bars must be bent into 135°

hooks, as shown in Figure 3.17a. Figure 3.18b shows
an example of poor construction practice, when ties
are not bent in the form of a closed loop; this should
be avoided. Links are used for bands with two bars.
In order for links to be effective, their ends must be
bent into 180° hooks, as shown in Figure 3.17b. Inad-
equately bent links are shown in Figure 3.18a.
It is very important to provide sufficient cover to the
reinforcement in RC bands. Inadequate cover results
in corrosion of the reinforcement accompanied by
cracking of the concrete. An example of exposed
min 400 mm and corroded reinforcing bar in an RC lintel band is
shown in Figure 3.19a.
Links at 150 mm spacing c/c
A proper concrete cover can be achieved by casting

concrete spacers, as shown in Figure 3.19b. The spac-
ers can be made by cutting PVC pipes into 25 mm
thick rings. These rings are filled with concrete (made
using a small-sized aggregate). A steel wire is embed-
ded in the center (wire is used to tie the spacers to the
reinforcing bars). These spacers were successfully used
by Smart Shelter Foundation in their school projects
in Nepal. An example of an RC band under construc-
tion using spacers is shown in Figure 3.19c.
Figures 3.16 Reinforcement layout in RC bands (adapted from: GOM
1998)
When reinforcing bars remain exposed after the re-
moval of formwork, a 15 to 20 mm thick mortar
min 10 mm ø overlay (1:3 cement:sand mix) should be provided at
6 mm ø @ 150 mm c/c
these locations.
150 mm
wall thickness tie
a) 135° hook
a)
6 mm ø @ 150 mm c/c
75 mm
wall thickness 180° hook
min 30 mm cover
b)
link b)
Figure 3.17 RC band cross-section: a) a band with four bars and ties, Figure 3.18 Inadequate bending of reinforcement in RC bands: a)
and b) a band with two bars and links links, and b) ties (photos: Smart Shelter Foundation)
37
In many countries, such as

Turkey, Nepal, Pakistan, and
India, timber bands have been
used for centuries.
Once the concrete is mixed and placed into form-
work, it is essential to ensure proper compact-
ing using steel rods. If compacting is not done
properly, segregation (honeycombing) of con-
crete may take place, as shown in Figure 3.20.
This will result in concrete with poor compres-
sive strength and corroded reinforcement. Note
a)
the excessively large aggregate size used for the
concrete construction shown in Figure 3.20.
Timber bands
In many countries, such as Turkey, Nepal, Pakistan,
and India, timber bands have been used in stone ma-
sonry construction for centuries. At the present time,
however, a scarcity of timber leads to unacceptably high
costs and makes the use of timber in new construction
impractical. Timber bands are made using a pair of par-
allel planks or runners nailed together with small cross
members. The corners of the timber band should be
strengthened by diagonal knee-braces that match the
size of the cross members (see Figure 3.21). The cross
members should be placed either perpendicular to the
b)
long runners (like rungs on a ladder), as shown in Fig-
ure 3.21, or diagonally at approximately 45 degrees, to
c)
Figure 3.19 Concrete cover in RC bands: a) exposed bars due to in-

adequate cover, b) concrete spacers made from PVC pipes, and c) RC
band under construction showing use of concrete spacers (photos: Figure 3.20 Poor concrete construction quality in an RC lintel band
Smart Shelter Foundation) (photo: Smart Shelter Foundation)
38
Rafters
Wired overwall
to timber blocks
passing through
wall
Figure 3.22 Timber band as a horizontal truss with cross members

Figure 3.21 Timber band with a knee-brace at the corner placed at a 45° angle to ensure roof anchorage
form a horizontal truss (see Figure 3.22). The long tim-

bers of the eaves-level timber band should be attached
Stone Masonry Walls
to the stone wall at regular intervals (this is required to Proper wall construction is of critical importance for
tie the top band to the roof). seismic safety. Important considerations that need to
be followed are summarized below.
The detailing of a timber band is of critical importance.
Wood spacers (the short timber pieces) should be prop- Wall height
erly nailed and the long runners should be properly
spliced to achieve continuity (see Figure 3.23). The story height in stone masonry buildings should be
limited to 3.5 m when cement mortar is used for wall
The required size and number of timber elements de- construction, and 2.7 m when mud mortar is used.
pends on the distance between cross walls, the type of
timber, the importance of the building, the seismic Wall length
zone, and the building height. Usually, long parallel
timber runners with dimensions of 50 mm by 100 Recommendations regarding the wall length are il-
mm and cross members with dimensions of 50 mm lustrated in Figure 3.24. The maximum distance be-
by 50 mm, placed at spacing of half a meter along the tween adjacent cross walls in a building should be less
runners should suffice for a span up to 5 m. than 5 m when mud mortar is used, and 7 m when
cement mortar is used. When
Figure 3.23 Detailing of a timber band - joints and splices
longer walls are required, it
is possible to introduce but-
tresses at 5 m spacing; howev-
er, this requires more detailed
planning and a higher quality
of construction. For more de-
peg
tails about buttresses in ma-
sonry construction refer to
IAEE (2004). Recommenda-
39
Long walls are NOT Well-distributed cross Use buttresses to

recommended. walls are a must. stabilize long walls.
Figure 3.24 Recommendations related to the wall length (source: Bothara et al. 2002)
tions regarding the maximum length and height of ing size and locations are summarized in Figure
stone masonry walls are summarized in Figure 3.25. 3.26.
When possible, construction of stone masonry gable The following guidelines can be followed when plan-
walls should be avoided (see Figure 2.31). The use of ning the openings in a stone masonry building:
light-weight materials such as galvanized iron sheets
or wood panels is recommended instead. • The number and size of openings should be mini-
mized since excessive openings weaken the walls.
Size and location of openings
• Ideally, openings in opposite walls should be of
Special consideration must be made regarding the similar size.
size and locations of doors and windows within a
wall, to ensure satisfactory building performance in • Openings should be located away from the wall
an earthquake. Recommendations related to open- intersections, and placed as far apart as possible.
Figure 3.25 Recommendations regarding the length and story height of stone masonry walls
Stone masonry walls Length (L) Story Height (H)

In mud mortar 5 m 2.7 m
In cement mortar 7 m 3.5 m
40
L
b1 + b2 ≤ 0.33L
b4 ≥ 0.5h2 and b4 ≥ 600 mm

b1 b4 b2
b5 ≥ 0.25 h1 and b5 ≥ 600 mm
h2
h1
b5 b4
Walls in Mud Mortar
L1 L2
1 Story: b1 + b2 + b3 < 0.5L1
b6 + b7 ≤ 0.5L2
b6 b4 b7 b4 2 Stories: b1 + b2 + b3 < 0.42L1

b6 + b7 ≤ 0.42L2
h2
b4 ≥ 0.5h2 and b4 ≥ 600 mm

h1
b5 b1 b4 b2 b4 b3 b5 ≥ 0.25h1 and b5 ≥ 600 mm
Walls in Cement Mortar
Figure 3.26 Recommended location and size of openings for stone masonry walls (source: IAEE 2004)
Wall construction safe. However, excessively thin walls can be unstable,

and these are difficult, if not impossible, to construct
Stone masonry walls are traditionally constructed us- adequately. The recommended minimum wall thick-
ing mud mortar. However, the use of cement or ce- ness is 380 mm. Examples of good stone masonry
ment/lime mortar is becoming more common in construction practice are shown in Figure 3.27.
modern construction. A detailed discussion on mortar
properties is included later in this chapter. Bonding of wall wythes with through-
stones
Wall thickness
Through-stones (also known as bond stones) are long
The maximum thickness of a stone masonry wall stones placed through the wall to tie wall wythes to-
should be limited to 450 mm. Seismic forces are gether and prevent delamination, which is one of the
proportional to building mass (i.e., a wall of a larger main causes of the collapse of stone masonry walls
thickness attracts higher seismic loads). Construc- in earthquakes (see Chapter 2 for more details). The
tion of thicker walls is uneconomical and also un- presence of through-stones in stone masonry walls
41
Figure 3.27 Examples of stone masonry in cement mortar with a wall thickness limited to 450
mm (note through-stones) (photos: S. Brzev)
is one of the most important earthquake-resistant

provisions. Through-stones make the wall wythes
perform like hands with interlaced fingers, as shown
in Figure 3.28a. A wall with through-stones is shown Through-stones extending over the full wall thickness
in Figure 3.28b and one with two external wythes must be used every 600 mm in height and at a 1.2
and an interior rubble core is shown in Figure 3.28c. m maximum spacing along the length (Figure 3.29).
The difference can be seen only when a vertical or Constructing walls in lifts not exceeding 600 mm can
horizontal wall section is exposed (the presence of facilitate the installation of through-stones.
through-stones in the wall cannot be easily con-
firmed by visual inspection). When long stones are not available, a pair of over-
lapping stones can be used, each extending at least
three-quarters of the wall thickness.
Contrary to the name, through-stones can also be

made of concrete, wood, or steel bars with hooked
ends embedded in concrete. Even though these
a)
elements are not made from stone, they serve the
same purpose as through-stones, that is, they act as
continuous members that tie wall wythes together.
Provided that good quality concrete and steel rein-
forcement are used, cast-in-situ RC through-stones
(bonding elements) are an appropriate solution since
they provide bond between adjacent stones. It is im-
portant to provide reinforcement in RC bonding el-
ements: for example, one 8 mm diameter steel bar is
required for a bonding element.
b) c)
Construction details at wall intersections
Figure 3.28 Through-stones in stone masonry walls: a) through-
stones act like interlaced fingers; b) a wall with through-stones, and It is important to detail and construct wall in-
c) a wall without through-stones (source: GOM 1998) tersections carefully. All intersections should be
42
Alternatives to Through-Stones
Wood plank
Hooked steel tie
S-shaped steel tie

< 450 mm
> 600 mm
< 1200 mm
Overlapping stones
each 3/4 of wall
> 600 mm thickness
< 450 mm
< 1200 mm < 1200 mm
Wall Section Wall Plan

Figure 3.29 Proper placement of through-stones in stone masonry walls (adapted from: GSDMA 2001)
Wooden Batten Wooden Batten
Long Junction Stones

Long Junction Stones
Figure 3.30 Placement of long stones at wall intersections (adapted from: Bothara et al. 2002)
strengthened with stitches to

ensure the integral, box action
of the building during earth-
quake shaking. These stitches
could be constructed using Wire Mesh
Wire Mesh
long stones, RC bonding ele-
ments, steel mesh, or timber,
600 mm
600 mm
depending on the availability Construction Joint

of building materials and con- Construction Joint
struction costs, as shown in
Figures 3.30 to 3.33. When-
ever possible, these stitches
b
should be placed no further

apart than 600 mm up the Figure 3.31 Construction of stitches made from wire mesh embedded in mortar at the wall inter-
wall height. section (adapted from: IAEE 2004)
43
b 600 mm 600 mm b 600 mm
b
b
50 x 30 mm — 50 x 30 mm
Cross-Section of
Timber Battens
600 mm
600 mm
60 x 38 mm — Cross-Section 60 x 38 mm
of Timber
b
b b = Wall Thickness
Figure 3.32 Stitches made from wood dowels at wall corners and intersections (adapted from: Bothara et al. 2002)
4.75 mm Steel Cross Link

600 mm
8 mm Steel Bar
600 mm
b
b
600 mm b 600 mm b 600 mm
Figure 3.33 Wall stitches made from reinforced concrete with steel reinforcement (adapted from: Bothara et al. 2002)
Floor and Roof Construction Compared to masonry walls, timber and steel floors
and roofs are flexible in their own planes, so they
Roof structures should be as light as possible. Also, the should be braced. Examples of diagonal bracing
integrity of floor and roof structures and their connec- schemes are shown in Figure 3.36.
tions to the supporting walls are of critical importance
because these structures act as a lid on top of a box. RC floor or roof slabs are heavy compared to timber
and metal roofs, and that may be a disadvantage. How-
An example of a light roof is a timber or steel roof ever, these slabs are stiff in their own planes, which is a
structure with metal roofing. Adequate connections positive feature. In most cases, wall-to-slab connections
between the roof rafters, floor joists, and the lintel or are adequate, but the top wall surface should remain
roof-level seismic band are critical for seismic safety, rough to ensure a satisfactory bond between the walls
as shown in Figures 3.34 and 3.35. and the RC slab built on top of the walls.
44
Use double 3 mm wire to anchor the

joist and make a notch to prevent
movement in the beam.
Figure 3.34 Tying floor joists to the wall
It is important to ensure an
adequate connection between the
roof and the wall.
Rafter
Collar tie
Figure 3.35 Tying roof rafters at the eaves level
Cross-bracing in
plane of roof Detail A
Roof band
Roof band and raf-

ters tied together
Roof Bracing with wire
Figure 3.36 Details of floor and roof bracing Floor Structure
45
Soil “A”: Soft Soil
Soil “B”: Hard Soil
Figure 3.37 Different foundation depths are required for building sites with variable soil properties (source: GOM 1998)
Foundations mud mortar is used, it is advisable to provide an RC

plinth band to avoid uneven building settlement and
Recommendations related to foundation construc- to tie building elements together at the plinth level.
tion are outlined below. If a timber plinth band is used, it should be installed
300 mm above ground (see Figure 3.38). Figure
Foundation depth 3.39 shows an RC plinth band under construction.
A 600 mm minimum depth is recommended for a Foundation width

foundation on hard stiff soil, and 1.8 m for a founda-
tion built in a soft or clay soil area. As recommended A 750 mm wide continuous strip footing is recom-
earlier in this chapter, the building site should have a mended for 450 mm thick stone masonry walls con-
consistent soil type across the entire building area. If structed on hard soil. When the wall thickness is less
this is not possible, a foundation of variable width or than 450 mm, the footing width may be reduced,
depth may be required, as illustrated in Figure 3.37. but should not be less than 600 mm. Note that a
750 mm foundation width may not be sufficient in
It is desirable to avoid the use of mud mortar in soft soil areas. Local practices should be followed in
the construction of stone masonry foundations. If deciding the type and width of the foundation.
100 mm
300 mm
Figure 3.38 Stone masonry

foundation with plinth
bands: a) RC band, and b)
a) b)
timber band
46
Construction Materials
Stone masonry must be con-
structed using good quality
materials and following sound
construction practices. Gen-
eral recommendations are out-
lined below.
Stone
Good building stone should be
hard, tough, compact grained,
uniform in texture and color, Figure 3.39 Construction of an RC plinth band using large stone rubble (also known as "stone-
and crack-free. A simple test to crete") (photo: S. Brzev)
prove that stone is hard is to
try to scratch it with a knife—
hard stone cannot be scratched Sand
easily.
Sand used for mortar mix should be clean and free of
Round-shaped stone boulders commonly found organic matter. It should not contain more than 10%
in river valleys should not be used without further clay or silt (note that excess clay or silt can be removed
shaping (dressing). Figure 3.40 illustrates the collec- from the sand by washing). The suitability of sand can
tion of stones in a hilly area of Nepal. be tested, as shown in Figure 3.41.
Figure 3.40 Stone construction in hilly areas of Nepal: a) collection

of stones, and b) delivery to the building site (photos: Smart Shelter
Foundation)
Good building stone should

be hard, tough, compact
grained, uniform in texture
and color, and crack-free.
47
The sand test is performed as follows:
Take a bottle and fill it with the sand until it is half full. Pour in clean water until the bottle
is three-quarters full. Shake it violently for about half a minute and leave to settle for about
one hour. Clean sand will settle immediately, while silt and clay will settle slowly on top of
the sand. The thickness of the clay and silt layer should not exceed one-tenth of the sand
layer below.
Water
10% clay/silt
90% sand
a) b)
Figure 3.41 Testing of sand
Different types of sand and their uses are illustrat-

ed in Figure 3.42. If the sand is too coarse, small
pebbles must be sieved out. These pebbles could be
added to aggregate for concrete construction. Sand
from the sea or ocean should not be used due to the
presence of salt (chlorides), which causes corrosion
of steel reinforcement.
Cement
Cement is a key ingredient of both concrete and
mortar. It must be of good quality and “fresh”. If c)
the cement has large lumps, it indicates that it is stale
and should not be used (see Figure 3.43).
Figure 3.42 Sand for different uses: a) fine sand for plaster construc-
tion; b) coarse sand for mortar and concrete construction, and c) ex-
Mortar cessively coarse sand (photos: Smart Shelter Foundation)
Mud mortar has been used in stone masonry con-

struction for centuries in spite of its low strength
and poor durability. The properties of mud mortar, The authors of this document recommend the use of
including its strength, can be improved by stabi- stabilized mud mortar at the minimum. The use of
lizing it with cement, lime, etc. The use of cement cement mortar or cement/lime mortar is also recom-
or cement/lime mortar has been recommended by mended, as its strength and durability are superior
various codes and guidelines. A recent research study compared to mud mortar. The use of mud mortar
by Ali et al. (2010) has shown that use of cement is also acceptable provided that stones are shaped
mortar does not necessarily lead to improved seismic (dressed), the wall thickness is not excessively large,
resistance of stone masonry buildings unless earth- and through-stones are provided as per the recom-
quake-resistant provisions are also incorporated. mendations presented earlier in this chapter.
48
Properties of different types of mortar are briefly dis- Ash, produced by burning coal, coke, or rice husks,
cussed below. can be used to stabilize mud mortar (usually 5 to
10% by volume). Ash can be somewhat pozzola-
Cement mortar nic and additional improvements are possible when
combined with lime.
Cement mortar mix used for wall construction
should preferably be 1:6 cement:sand or 1:2:9 Lime can also be added for stabilization, usually 3
cement:lime:sand. The use of leaner (lower strength) to 10% by volume (the higher, the better). In order
cement-based mortars should be avoided. to make the soil easier to work and compact, lime
should be added at least 2 hours (preferably 8 to 16
Mud mortar hours) before short-term stabilization. It is appropri-
ate to mix lime with soils characterized by a relatively
Mud mortar must be of good quality and free of or- high proportion of clay.
ganic matter, pebbles, and other large particles which
affect the mortar thickness. The sand content of the Mud can also be stabilized by adding cement, which
mud should be less than 30% in order to achieve improves both the dry and wet compressive strength.
sufficient cohesiveness. Soil should be thoroughly Some soils require only a 3% cement by volume, but
kneaded with water to achieve a dense mortar paste. usually 5 to 8% is recommended. A variety of fi-
The addition of lime helps increase the strength of brous additives including straw, chaff or husks, hay,
mud mortar. hemp, millet, sisal, or elephant grass can be used.
Alternatively, cow, horse, or camel dung can also be
Stabilized mud mortar used for stabilization.
The strength of mud mortar can be increased by Lime mortar

modifying (“stabilizing”) its soil properties. Differ-
ent additives such as ash, lime, cement, fibers, or Lime mortar is a mix of lime putty and an aggregate
cow dung can be used for this purpose. To achieve (usually sand). Lime mortar has a lower compressive
good results, it is important that the additives are strength than cement mortar, but its strength is usu-
mixed well with the soil. ally adequate for stone masonry construction. Lime
mortar is more workable than cement mortar, and
it is also less brittle. When lime mor-
tar is subjected to tension, numerous
microcracks develop and subsequently
recrystallize when exposed to air. Lime
mortar thus has an ability to self-heal,
which is not true of other mortar types.
A typical lime mortar mix ratio is

1:3 lime putty:sand. The sand must
be washed, well graded, and sharp.
Other materials could be used instead
of sand, such as pozzolan, powdered
brick, heat-treated clay, silica fume,
fly ash, or volcanic materials.
Care should be taken to avoid shrink-

age and cracking in lime mortar. This
can happen due to the use of poor-
quality lime putty and sand, exces-
sively fine sand, high water content
Figure 3.43 Cement with large lumps should not be used for construction (photo: Smart
in the mortar mix, or excessive mor-
Shelter Foundation) tar thickness.
49
Concrete
It is very important to ensure the use of good qual-
ity concrete for RC band construction. Typically, a
concrete with a 1:2:4 cement:sand:aggregate ratio
can be used. Sand properties were discussed earlier
in this chapter. Aggregate for concrete construction
can be obtained by crushing the stone, as shown
in Figure 3.44. The aggregate size must not exceed
20 mm.
A measuring box such as that shown in Figure 3.45

a can be used to ensure the consistent proportion of
materials in concrete mix. The box dimensions are 300
mm x 300 mm x 350 mm (or 1 ft x 1 ft x 1 ft 2 in).
In many countries, cement is available in 50 kg bags, Figure 3.44 Stones can be cut to produce aggregates for concrete con-
and measuring boxes should have the same volume as struction—an example from Nepal (photo: Smart Shelter Foundation)
one bag of cement. Therefore, one box of cement, two
boxes of coarse sand, and four boxes of aggregate would
be required for a 1:2:4 concrete mix.
Reinforcement
When choosing and using reinforcing steel, consider
the following:
• Deformed bars should be used for longitudinal

steel, while plain bars can be used for links and ties.
• Re-bent bars should not be used in construction.

Over-bent or over-stretched lengths form weak spots
in the reinforcement.
• The bend diameter of bars should not be less

than six times the bar diameter. Steel reinforcement
should not snap at this radius.
a)
• Reinforcement manufactured
from scrap steel must be avoided.
Such steel is of widely variable
quality and thus inappropriate for
use in RC construction.
• Reinforcing steel should be clean

and free of loose mill-scale, dust,
rust, paint, oil, grease, or other
coatings which may impair or re-
duce bond. Loose particles should
be removed from the steel surface
b)
using wire brushes. Bar cross-sec-
Figure 3.45 Measuring concrete materials: a) proportioning concrete ingredients using a mea- tional area should not be reduced
suring box, and b) a measuring box (photos: Smart Shelter Foundation) due to corrosion by more than 5%.
50
Do’s and Don’ts

This section provides a list of do’s and don’ts that must be followed when selecting and using construction
materials.
Mortar Do’s: Concrete Do’s

Use clean sand for mortar and concrete con- Calculate how much finished concrete is re-
struction. quired and estimate the amount of cement,
sand, coarse aggregate, and water required for
Use fresh and lump-free cement for mortar construction.
and concrete.
Use clean sand and aggregates.
Mix the dry ingredients (sand and cement) to-
gether before adding water. Use measuring boxes.
Protect the mortar or concrete-mixing area Mix the dry ingredients (sand, cement, and
from wind, rain, and sunshine. aggregates) together before adding water.
Mortar Don’ts Inspect the formwork to ensure its stability,
dimensions, water-tightness, and placement
Don’t use excessively thick mortar joints. of reinforcement before placing concrete.
Don’t use or re-use mortar that has already Concrete, stone masonry, brick masonry, plas-
hardened. As cement mortar sets relatively terwork, cement flooring work, etc. should be
quickly (in approximately 30 minutes), it cured for seven days.
should never be mixed in huge quantities.
Concrete Don’ts
Don’t use sea sand or sand containing a large
amount of silt or clay. Don’t place concrete more than one hour after
adding water to the mix.
Don’t use cement that has already set.
Steel Reinforcement Do’s

Masonry Do’s
Bending diameter of reinforcement should be
Use shaped/dressed stones. more than six times the bar diameter.
Use through-stones to stitch wall wythes to- Steel Reinforcement Don’ts
gether.
Don’t store the steel bars directly on the
Masonry Don’ts ground. Avoid using bars which show signs of
corrosion or are covered by dirt.
Don’t build a stone masonry wall higher than
1 m per day. Don’t use straightened and re-bent reinforce-
ment in reinforced concrete construction.
Don’t lift stones up for final adjustments after
placing them into the mortar bed.
Don’t level/top-up the stone masonry wall
with mortar at the end of the day.
Don’t allow anyone to stand on top of the
newly built stone wall for at least two days.
51
Chapter 4: Retrofitting a Stone Masonry Building
4. Retrofitting a Stone Masonry Building

Seismic Retrofitting: Key Strategies share a building, and housing units with different
owners have a common wall. Retrofitting a single
and Challenges home in row housing has little benefit when adjacent
housing units are seismically deficient.
Past earthquakes have shown that damage to and
the collapse of stone masonry buildings cause ma- The appropriate retrofit strategy for a specific build-
jor human and economic losses in areas where this ing depends on the socio-economic constraints, and
construction type is widespread. The causes of poor a number of technical issues, including the structural
seismic performance of these buildings are explained system, construction materials, quality of construc-
in Chapter 2. Massive demolition and replacement tion, building condition, site conditions and con-
of these vulnerable buildings is neither affordable straints, intensity of damage sustained by the build-
nor feasible due to historical, cultural, social, and ing in past earthquakes (if any), and the expected
economic constraints. This ground shaking in the area.
chapter presents cost-effec-
tive strategies for retrofitting The following strategies have
stone masonry buildings in
order to enhance their seis- Existing stone masonry the highest cost-to-benefit ra-
tio in terms of improving the
mic performance. buildings located in seismic safety of stone masonry
buildings:
Many stone buildings have areas of high seismic
been constructed using weak
mortar and local construc- risk can be economi- • Enhancing integrity of the en-
tire building by ensuring a box-
tion materials; this indicates
that their initial construction
cally retrofitted. like seismic response,
cost was very low. Most of • Enhancing the wall strength

these buildings were built in for in-plane and out-of-plane
an informal manner by the effects of seismic loads, and
owners themselves, avoiding any major cash outlay.
These buildings need a significant and costly interven- • Improving floor and roof diaphragm action.
tion to bring them up to the safety levels required by
current building codes. An additional strategy is to strengthen the existing
foundation, but this is not considered practical and
Protection of the lives of building occupants in an economically feasible in most cases.
earthquake is the main goal of the retrofit (this is
referred to as “life safety”performance in building This chapter provides an overview of established
codes). In many cases the life safety level prescribed seismic retrofitting strategies for stone masonry
by building codes cannot be achieved without major buildings that have been used in post-earthquake
structural intervention and investment. Retrofitting rehabilitation efforts around the world; some ex-
is considered to be unfeasible when the required cap- amples include the 1979 Montenegro earthquake,
ital investment exceeds the initial building cost, or 1993 Maharashtra and 2001 Bhuj (India) earth-
when a building is in a dilapidated condition. Costs quakes, the 2002 Molise (Italy) earthquake, and
associated with demolition, rubble disposal, and re- the 2005 Kashmir (Pakistan) earthquake. For a
construction determine the feasibility of the retrofit more detailed discussion on various retrofitting
project. strategies, the reader is referred to several publi-
cations including Maffei et al. (2006), UNCRD
Legal issues arise when the safety of a building is de- (2003), GSDMA (2002), Tomazevic (1999),
pendent on adjacent housing units, like in the case GOM (1998), Momin et al. (1996), BMTPC
of row buildings (townhouses) where several owners (1994), and UNIDO (1983).
53
Enhancing Building Integrity • Improving floor and roof integrity, and
• Strengthening wall-to-floor and wall-to-roof con-

Why is building integrity critical? nections.
Building integrity is the most important prerequi- Figure 4.1 presents models used for shake-table
site for survival during earthquake shaking (this was testing performed after the 1993 Maharashtra,
discussed in detail in Chapter 3). The integrity of an India, earthquake, with an objective to compare
existing building can be enhanced by means of the the seismic performance of strengthened and un-
following provisions: strengthened uncoursed stone masonry buildings.
Two one-half scale models of a traditional build-
• Tying walls together by means of external steel tie- ing with uncoursed random rubble stone masonry
rods, reinforced concrete bands, or bandages, walls and timber roofs were tested on a wagon-type
field shake-table that simulated earthquake effects.
• Connecting the walls at corners or intersections, The strengthened model survived all 12 tests, while
the unstrengthened one collapsed. This testing
a) b)
c)
Figure 4.1 Verification of seismic retrofitting methodology for stone masonry buildings through shake-table testing: a) strengthened (retrofitted) mod-
el, b) unstrengthened model after testing, and c) models at the end of the experiment (unstrengthened model shown on the left) (source: GOM 1998)
54
Steel tie 16 – 20 mm ø
Anchor plate
confirmed the effectiveness of seismic
strengthening provisions, including Steel tie 16 – 20 mm ø
bandages and through-stones, in re-
sisting earthquake effects.
The strengthened model of

a stone masonry building
survived all 12 tests, while Anchor plate
the unstrengthened one

collapsed.
Ties
Iron ties have been used for many cen-
turies to strengthen masonry build- 16 – 20 mm diameter steel
ings in Mediterranean Europe, includ- prestressing rods on both
ing Italy and neighboring countries. sides of wall
Steel ties have been used for seismic
retrofitting in several post-earthquake
Steel anchor plate
projects in Europe (including after
the 1979 Montenegro earthquake);
Figure 4.2 Plan view of a building showing layout of steel ties and anchor plates (adapted
for more details refer to UNIDO
from: Tomazevic 1999)
(1983) and Tomazevic (1999). Steel
ties are 16 to 20 mm threaded rods in-
stalled horizontally beneath the floors
and roof. These rods are restrained at
the ends by steel anchor plates. Steel
tie concepts and layouts are shown in
Figures 4.2 and 4.3. The rods help to
connect the walls at floor and roof
levels and thus prevent separation Steel tie 16 –
during ground shaking. In the case of 20 mm ø
Anchor plate
flexible roofs and floors, ties are effec-

tive in increasing the stiffness of these
diaphragms. Experimental studies on
brick masonry building models tested
on a shake-table with and without ties
confirmed the effectiveness of ties in
preventing the separation and disinte-
gration of walls (Tomazevic 1999). An
example of a field application is shown
in Figure 4.4.
Figure 4.3 A vertical building elevation showing ties be-

neath the floor level (adapted from: Tomazevic 1999)
55
a) b) c)
Figure 4.4 A field application of ties in Slovenia: a) and b) installation of steel ties after the 1998 Bovec, Slovenia, earthquake (note that anchorage
end-plates are yet to be attached), and c) an example of a retrofitted building (photos: M. Lutman)
Bands and Bandages

Bands
Reinforced concrete (RC) bands or
Existing stone Parapet wall to be RC band to be con-
bandages can be used as an alternative masonry wall removed up to 150 structed below roof
to ties to enhance the overall building mm below roof level level with minimum
integrity. Both bands and bandages act gap of 20 mm
like rings or belts at the level where they
are applied, as discussed in Chapter 3. Pieces of stone to be inserted
The installation of an RC band in an into the middle portion of the
existing building requires a portion of of band
the wall above the band to be removed
and rebuilt; alternatively, chases need Brick edging Min 60 mm
to be cut in the walls. A bandage can 30 mm
be installed without demolishing a cover
portion of the wall, since it is an ex-
ternal application. The provision of
bands is thus more invasive compared
to bandages and could cause damage Steel links ø 6 mm @ 150
in the wall if not installed carefully. mm c/c
Longitudinal steel
However, the successful application of bars min 10 mm ø
a bandage requires attention to surface
cleaning and the provision of cross-
wall anchors, which may be challeng-
ing in the case of thick stone masonry
walls or when artisan skills are at a m
400 0m
mm 40
low level. RC bands and bandages are
most effective when constructed at the
lintel or roof levels (above doors and
windows).
Figure 4.5 illustrates the steps in in- Figure 4.5 Installation of an RC band at the roof level in a stone masonry building
stalling an RC band at roof level in a (source: GOM 1998)
building with a timber frame and a
flexible timber roof. In this case, the
roof is not connected to the walls; this is typical for size and number of reinforcing bars in the bands will
rural construction in Maharashtra, India. The required depend on the wall span between the adjacent cross
56
b)
Figure 4.6 An example of a field application of an RC

band in an existing stone masonry building in Ma-
harashtra, India: a) RC band installation completed
(note brick edging at the band level and a newly
constructed portion of the wall above the band),
and b) RC band at the roof level underneath the
a) timber beams (note that the roof is supported by an
interior timber frame) (photos: S. Brzev)
walls and the seismic zone at the site. For

a detailed explanation of RC band con-
struction in stone masonry buildings re-
fer to GOM (1998). A field application
of RC band construction in Maharash-
tra, India is shown in Figure 4.6.
Anchor Bolts
A common practice in stone masonry
buildings is that the roof is supported
by the walls (unlike the case of Maha-
rashtra, India described above). When
a new RC band is constructed beneath
the roof, it must be anchored to the
Bond Beam
roof; this can be achieved by using an-

chor bolts, as shown in Figure 4.7.
Bandages Temporary Support
Bandages are thin reinforced mortar

overlays bonded to the walls at the lintel,
floor and/or eaves levels (as an alternative
to RC bands). When constructed prop-
erly, bandages can be effective in confin-
ing the masonry walls they are attached
to (similar to a wide belt). Bandages
should be provided on both the interior
and exterior wall surfaces. The width of
the bandage varies, but a typical width is
on the order of 200 to 400 mm, and the
mortar thickness ranges from 40 to 50
mm (GOM, 1998). Reinforced cement Figure 4.7 A new RC band must be anchored to the roof (adapted from: Tomazevic 1999)
57
Steel tie
200 – 400 mm
60
0m
m 00 mm
6
Nails
Welded steel mesh tied
Overlapping to the wall by nails
a) b) length
Figure 4.8 Construction of a reinforced concrete bandage: a) a retrofit application in Maharashtra, India and b) concept (source: GOM 1998)
and sand plaster or micro-concrete (with a maximum Strengthening of Wall Intersections

aggregate size of 5 mm) is applied in two layers, and
the welded wire mesh reinforcement is placed between A few different approaches can be used to strengthen
them. A connection between the exterior and the in- wall intersections. In some existing stone masonry build-
terior bandage is achieved by providing through-wall ings, wall intersections are in good condition, and long
anchors (Figure 4.8). stones are provided at the intersections. In such cases,
strengthening the wall intersections is not required.
Bandages should be continued around all re-entrant However, when wall intersections are deficient due to
wall corners, as shown in Figure 4.9. A steel tie rod poor construction or an absence of header stones, splints
can be used to ensure continuity. in the form of L-shaped mortar overlays can be used to
strengthen these deficient areas. Splints are applied to the
RC bands and ban-

dages are effective in Additional reinforcement
enhancing building
integrity.
Continuous band
around all bends
Figure 4.9 Continuing a bandage in re-entrant walls (source: R. Desai)
58
Top of wall Inside splint
Mesh
Anchors at 600
mm horizontal and Stone wall
1,000 mm vertical
spacing
600 mm
Cross anchor placed

next to the corners
b)
Remove the earth be-

1m low the ground level
a) approx. depth 700 mm
Figure 4.10 Strengthening of intersecting walls using splints : a) a concept, and b) anchorage - anchor bars tying splints on both sides of wall
(source: GOM 1998)
wall in two layers and are reinforced with welded wire

mesh. Ideally, splints are applied to both the exterior and
interior wall surfaces (Figure 4.10). The construction of
splints and bandages is similar. It is very important that
the wall surfaces are clean and that the splints are prop-
erly anchored to the walls. Anchorage can be achieved
by dowel bars embedded in concrete-filled holes in the
wall, as shown in Figure 4.10a. Through-wall anchors
can be used when the wall thickness is not excessive, as
shown in Figure 4.10b.
a)
Two examples of field applications are shown in Figure
4.11. Figure 4.11a shows a school building retrofitted
after the 1993 Maharashtra, India, earthquake using
splints at the wall intersections and RC bands at the
lintel and roof levels. Figure 4.11b shows an unsuccess-
ful application, where the concrete overlay fell off and
the reinforcement was exposed. It can be also observed
that the wall surface was not properly prepared since
the original plaster had not been removed prior to the
splint application. This is an unacceptable practice and
such a retrofit is useless.
b)
Where technology is available and affordable,
connections between intersecting walls can be en-
Figure 4.11 Strengthening of intersecting walls: a) retrofitted
hanced by embedding a horizontal post-tensioned school building in India, and b) an unsuccessful retrofit application
steel anchor into a 60 mm hole drilled through (photos: S. Brzev)
59
the wall (Figure 4.12). The A

Steel anchor
rod is bonded to the wall by
means of epoxy grout. The
Grout
exterior steel plates and nuts
are installed and covered by
the grout to preserve the ex-
terior appearance of the wall.
This technique was used for Steel plate
retrofitting stone masonry
walls in Italy after the 2002
Molise earthquake (Maffei et Section A – A
A
Elevation Section
al. 2006). Although expensive,
this technology could be ap-
plied in stone buildings of his- Figure 4.12 Installation of post-tensioned steel anchors to enhance connections between the
intersecting walls (source: Maffei et al. 2006)
toric importance.
When the wall intersections are

severely damaged, it is better to rebuild the damaged an adequate tension capacity. The strap thickness
portions. This requires providing temporary support should be 3 to 5 mm.
for the floor or roof structure above the wall. Special
attention should be paid to achieving a strong bond 2. Casting a new RC topping atop the exist-
between new and existing masonry. ing floor: A thin RC topping (with a minimum
thickness of 40 mm) reinforced with reinforce-
ment mesh can be placed atop an existing floor
Enhancing Wall-to-Floor and Wall-to- or roof, as shown in Figure 4.14a. The connection
Roof Connections between the concrete topping and the existing
timber floor should be adequately secured using
One of the most critical seismic retrofitting provi- a sufficient number of well-distributed nails. The
sions for stone masonry buildings is to tie the walls RC topping has to be anchored to the walls (simi-
to the floors and roof. Many existing stone masonry lar to Figure 4.15b).
buildings have flexible timber floors and roofs, many
of which have deteriorated over time. As a mini- 3. Installing new timber planks: A layer of new timber
mum, the connection between floor and roof com- planks can be laid perpendicular to the existing planks
ponents can be improved by providing additional and nailed to the floor, as shown in Figure 4.14b.
nails or bolts. In many cases, a retrofit of the existing
floors and roof is required. This can be achieved by 4. Diagonal bracing: Floor structure can be stiff-
stiffening the floor or roof structure, and enhancing ened by providing new diagonal braces made of
the connections between floor or roof and walls with timber or steel underneath the existing floor or
one of the following techniques: roof. The braces must be anchored to the walls, as
shown in Figure 4.15a.
1. Installing new steel straps: New steel straps
can be installed to connect the exterior walls to a 5. Casting a new RC slab: In some cases, replac-
timber floor, as shown in Figure 4.13a (UNIDO, ing an existing timber floor or roof with an RC
1983). This is convenient when the floor beams floor slab can be a realistic option from both the
are perpendicular to the exterior wall, and the economic and structural perspective. An advantage
connection can be achieved using bolts rather than of this solution is its low maintenance. However, a
nails. However, when the floor beams are parallel downside is that an RC slab adds significant weight
to the exterior walls, V-shaped straps need to be to the building. It is important to ensure adequate
attached to the floor and anchored to the wall, as bearing of the RC slab on the walls and anchorage
shown in Figure 4.13b. It is important that straps between the RC slab and the walls by means of steel
are sufficiently long and that the timber floor has dowels, as shown in Figure 4.15b.
60
Connecting steel 80 x 5 mm
Nails
30° Existing
wooden floor
A A
800
mm
Plan
80 x 5 mm connecting steel flat Plan
nailed to existing floor beam New concrete
topping 40 Connecting
mm thick steel 80 x 5 mm Possible slab stiffening
Existing floor beam Existing wooden floor

Nails
800 mm
Wooden beam
a) b)
Elevation Section A – A
Figure 4.13 Steel straps for wall-to-floor anchorage: a) floor beams perpendicular to the wall, and b) floor beams parallel to the wall (source: UNIDO 1983)
New, stiffening
wood planks
b)
Existing floor
Concrete layer
Existing floor joist
Existing slab
a) Nails to ensure connection

of timber planks to concrete
Wooden beams
Figure 4.14 Stiffening the floor structures: a) RC topping, and b) new timber planks (source: UNIDO 1983)
61
Existing wall Steel anchor
Existing wall
Steel anchor Existing floor
Steel truss
Steel truss
a) Timber joist
1.5 – 2.0 m
RC dowel Existing wall
Anchor 12 mm ø
New RC slab
A A
Bearing min 150 mm
b) Existing wall RC slab

Steel mesh Section A – A
Figure 4.15 Retrofitting the floor and roof structures: a) diagonal braces, and b) a new RC slab (adapted from: Tomazevic 1999)
It is important to ensure that stone masonry buildings in Italy

the new or retrofitted floor/roof after the 2002 Molise earthquake The integrity of a
structure is adequately anchored is shown in Figure 4.16 (Maffei
to the existing walls. For exam- et al. 2006). timber roof can
ple, new RC topping can be an-
chored by embedding steel dow- Timber and steel roofs must be
be improved by
els into holes drilled into the wall braced in plane (Figure 4.17a). tying roof compo-
and filled with epoxy or cementi- The integrity of a timber roof
tious grout. Alternatively, dowels can be improved by tying roof nents with straps
can be provided by embedding
steel bars in holes filled with con-
components with straps and
nailing them together. In the
and nailing them
crete, as shown in Figure 4.16. case of a two-sided pitched roof, together.
Dowel size and spacing depends collars should be provided to
on the seismic retrofit criteria. prevent roof spreading (Figure
A typical detail used to retrofit 4.17b).
62
Section A – A
12 mm ø steel bar
Anchorage
6 mm ø mesh at ø 12 ø6
40 mm concrete slab
100 mm spacing
Var
iable
1m
Vertical Section
Plan
600 mm
Isometric View
Figure 4.16 Wall-to-floor anchorage with steel dowels embedded into the wall (source: Maffei et al. 2006)
Enhancing the Lateral Load Re-

Rafter sistance of Stone Masonry Walls
Commonly used wall retrofit techniques include
Collar tie the installation of through-stones and jacketing,
which can be used to increase the wall strength
both for in-plane (parallel to the wall length) and
out-of-plane (perpendicular to the wall surface)
seismic effects. Other techniques include grouting
and the installation of buttresses. Some of these
Cross-bracing in
techniques are discussed next.
plane of roof
Roof band
Through-stones
Roof band and raf-
a) ters tied together
with wires
Reports from past earthquakes show that the wy-
thes in stone masonry walls delaminate (separate)
Existing rafter vertically down the middle due to the absence of
New 40 x 200 mm collar
tie nailed at both ends through-stones, thereby causing disintegration
New 40 x 200 mm timber
of the interior and exterior wall wythes. In an
plank nailed at both ends extreme case, collapse of the entire building may
occur. The causes of delamination are discussed
in Chapter 2. Chances of wall delamination are
considerably reduced when wall
Figure 4.17 Roof bracing details: wythes are “stitched” together by
a) roof bracing layout, and b) tying means of through-stones. The pur-
Existing floor beam
roof rafters to ceiling joists pose of this retrofit provision is to
b) Existing stone wall
63
1. 2. 3.
Figure 4.18 Procedure for the installation of
through-stones (source: GOM 1998)
8 mm ø bar
Existing wall Make holes Place steel bars

and fill concrete
1:2:4 Concrete
mimic good construction practice for stone masonry
where long stones (bonding stones) are provided. 1:3 Cement -
The effectiveness of through-stones in new construc- sand mortar
tion is discussed in Chapter 3. Cross section of a through-stone
The installation of through-stones is labor-inten-
sive, but it may be a feasible retrofit option for stone
masonry walls provided that the wall thickness is interior. A hooked steel bar needs to be installed
not excessively large. The procedure is illustrated in and the hole should be filled with concrete. Finally,
Figure 4.18. First, a hole needs to be created in the the exposed surface should be covered with a rich
wall by removing stones. To create a hole, stones cement and sand plaster coating and cured for at
need to be loosened by means of gentle pushes side- least 14 days. Through-stones should be installed
ways, upward and downward using a small crow- very carefully, otherwise surrounding portions of
bar, so that the other stones in the wall are not dis- the wall may be damaged. Examples of through-
turbed. The hole should be dumbbell-shaped, that stone applications are shown in Figures 4.19 and
is, it will be larger on the wall surfaces than in the 4.20.
b)
Figure 4.19 Examples of through-stone installation in Maharashtra,

a) India: a) removing stone from the existing wall, and b) surface of a
through-stone covered with a plaster (photos: S. Brzev)
64
Figure 4.20: Examples of completed through-stone retrofit projects in Maharashtra, India (photos: S. Brzev)
Through-wall anchors can be used instead of tally, as shown in Figure 4.21 (note that spacing
through-stones. These anchors were used to ret- depends on the masonry strength and seismic
rofit stone masonry walls after the 2002 Molise, zone at the site). Each pipe section had slotted
Italy, earthquake (Maffei et al. 2006). Steel pipes holes cut in eight locations to ensure a good bond
of approx. 90 mm diameter and 4 mm thickness between the grout injected and the steel elements.
were installed into 130 mm diameter holes in the Once these slotted pipes were installed, they were
wall at 1500 mm spacing vertically and horizon- filled with cementitious grout.
Elevation Vertical Section

Plaster
Nozzle for the

cement grout
1.5 m
Stone
element
ø 130 mm hole
1.5 m
Detail Interior Element

Button hole A
Locking bolt
Section A – A A
4 mm pipe thickness
Figure 4.21 Installation of though-wall anchors in stone masonry walls after the 2002 Molise, Italy, earthquake (source: Maffei et al. 2006)
65
Jacketing
Jacketing consists of covering the wall surface with a segments). It is critical that the mesh is anchored to
thin overlay of reinforced mortar, micro-concrete, or the floors below and above and the foundations. Fig-
shotcrete. Jacketed wall surfaces must be intercon- ure 4.24 shows a stone masonry building in Slovenia
nected by means of through-wall anchors. When being jacketed. Note the dowels extending from the
properly implemented, jacketing provides confine- floor structure below.
ment and ensures wall integrity for in-plane and
out-of-plane seismic effects. Two retrofit provisions Jacketing causes an increase in the wall mass and stiff-
described earlier in this chapter, namely bandages ness. This in turn causes an increase in shear forces
and splints, represent localized applications of the and overturning moments at the base of wall, which
jacketing technique. need to be transferred to foundations. In some cases,
strengthening the foundations may be required.
Different materials can be used for jacketing, how-
ever the most common application includes the use
of cement plaster or shotcrete reinforced by welded
wire mesh (UNIDO, 1983). Jacketing consists of re- Through-stones prevent
inforced cement plaster (40 to 50 mm overall thick-
ness) applied to the wall in two layers with welded the delamination of stone
wire steel mesh between them. Ideally, jacketing is
applied on both the exterior and interior wall sur-
masonry walls.
faces, and jacketed surfaces are connected by passing
steel ties through the wall at 500 to 750 mm spacing
horizontally and vertically (Figure 4.22). It is criti-
cal to remove existing plaster and dirt from the wall
surface before jacketing. An adequate bond between
the new jacket and the existing wall surface must be
8 mm ø internal
ensured. Figure 4.23 shows stone masonry buildings corner bar 75 mm thick concrete
in Pakistan being jacketed. roof band
The steel mesh should be continuous at wall intersec-

tions (this can be achieved by overlapping the mesh
50 x 50 mm
welded wire
mesh
40 – 50 mm
thick micro- 40 – 50 mm thick
concrete layer micro-concrete layer
Figure 4.22 Jacketing stone masonry walls (source: IAEE 2004)

Cross ties at 500 – 750 mm apart
66
Figure 4.23 Jacketing

stone masonry buildings
in Pakistan after the
2005 Kashmir earth-
quake: a) a wall surface
showing reinforcement
and anchors in place
before the plaster ap-
plication (photo: Q. Ali),
and b) a detail of steel
mesh reinforcement and
through-wall anchors
(photo: T. Schacher) a) b)
Dowel bar set in reinforced

concrete
Woven wire mesh vertical belt Wall plaster

Random rubble stone
Figure 4.25 Single-sided jacketing showing steel dowels
Figure 4.24 Jacketing of a stone masonry wall in Slovenia

(photo: M. Lutman)
Figure 4.26 Testing polypropylene bands at IEM in Harbin, China (photo: W. Feng)
Ideally, jacketing should be applied to both An alternative technology: Polypropylene bands

interior and exterior wall surfaces, but this
may not always be possible due to functional Mayorca et al. (2008) report on an approach where a closely-
or financial constraints. In the case of a sin- spaced mesh of polypropylene (PP) straps, an inexpensive mate-
gle-surface application, steel dowels of ad- rial commonly used for packing, wraps around stone or adobe
equate size and spacing should be provided walls to increase their seismic performance. This approach has
to ensure that the existing stone wall and the been tested at the University of Tokyo, and more recently at the
new jacket act in unison (Figure 4.25). How- Institute of Engineering Mechanics (IEM) of the China Earth-
ever, it should be noted that the effectiveness quake Administration in Harbin, China (Figure 4.26). A non-
of single-surface jacketing is significantly in- profit organization in China, the China Development Research
ferior to double-sided application because a Foundation, is working with Professor Meguro to use this tech-
single-sided jacket cannot confine the wall. nology to strengthen stone masonry houses in Tibet. A training
67
Wall buttresses
Long unsupported walls may be vulnerable to the ef-
fects of out-of-plane earthquake vibrations. Damage
or collapse of these walls can be prevented by con-
structing new buttresses to provide lateral support
(Figure 4.28). The concept of buttresses is introduced
in Chapter 3. The spacing between buttresses should
not exceed 5 m. It is critical to connect new but-
tresses with the existing wall by providing steel dowels
anchored into the wall.
Figure 4.27 Grouting an existing stone masonry wall in Slovenia -

note uniformly distributed holes at the location where grout is to be
injected (photo: M. Lutman)
program is being developed for local en-

gineers, along with a pilot program of
strengthening ten houses (Feng 2010).
An attempt was made to use these bands
in rebuilding after the 2005 Pakistan
earthquake, but the need for skillful use
of a plastic melting gun proved to be a
major constraint. For this reason, the lo-
cal population preferred wall retrofit us-
ing steel wire mesh (Ali 2010).
Grouting
New buttress
Stone masonry walls can be strength- a) Existing walls
ened by injecting cementitious grout
into air voids. The hardened grout is
effective in bonding the loose parts of
the wall together into a solid structure.
Cement-based grouting was first ap-
plied on a large scale in Italy and Slo-
venia after the 1976 Friuli, Italy, earth- Stones removed to
make through-holes
quake. The grout mix proportions may
vary, but the common ingredients are
Portland cement and pozzolana mixed Internal
wythe
with water. The grout is injected into
Filled concrete with
the wall at low pressure through injec- hooked steel bar
tion tubes and nozzles, which are built External
wythe
into the joints between the stones uni-
formly over the entire wall surface. For
more details about this technique refer
to Tomazevic (1999) and Lutman and
Tomazevic (2002). A stone masonry b)
wall prepared for grouting is shown in
Figure 4.27. Figure 4.28 Strengthening an existing stone wall with buttresses
68
Strengthening Foundations
of the foundation. In this way, the foundation is
Strengthening existing foundations is a difficult supported sideways and also underneath.
and expensive task. A special investigation is rec-
ommended before any such intervention. A few Sliding movements of a foundation structure can
foundation strengthening schemes are discussed in also be prevented by providing RC belts (tie beams)
UNIDO (1983), GOM (1998), Tomazevic (1999), around the building at the foundation level, or by in-
and IAEE (2004). stalling a tie beam along the inner side of the foun-
dation (similar to an RC plinth band), as shown in
A foundation structure which has experienced dif- Figure 4.29b.
ferential settlement can be supported by underpin-
ning. Underpinning can be carried out in phases The continuity of longitudinal reinforcement bars
by placing concrete blocks, as illustrated in Figure should be ensured in all the above schemes. Foun-
4.29a. Sliding movement of a foundation structure dation capacity can also be improved by providing a
can be prevented by constructing new RC support- drainage apron around the building to avoid water
ing beams. This method is especially feasible in seepage directly into the soil beneath the foundation.
sloping ground areas. These beams are constructed An example of foundation strengthening in Slovenia
deep in the soil, toward the downward sloping side is shown in Figure 4.30.
WALL
A
b
min 2b
a) A
Section A – A New RC supporting beam
Bricks or stones to be removed at 2.5
m spacing to provide anchorage for
the belt in concrete-filled “chases”
350 mm 350 mm
4 ø 16 mm
“Chase” 200 mm
200 mm
6 mm ties @ 200 mm c/c

6 mm ties @ 200 mm c/c
4 ø 16 mm Sound soil
Stitching Bars
b) 4 ø 10 mm
Figure 4.29 Strengthening existing foundations: a) underpinning the foundation, and b) external RC belt (adapted from: GOM 1998 and UNIDO 1983)
69
b)
Figure 4.30 Strengthening a stone masonry foundation: a) reinforcement cage and form-
work, and b) new reinforced concrete foundation under construction (photos: M. Lutman)
a)
70
Chapter 5: Conclusions
5. Conclusions
Stone masonry is one of the oldest and most com- • Properly detail seismic provisions, such as seismic
mon vernacular construction practices. Stone ma- bands
sonry construction varies widely around the world
depending on the type of locally available materials, It is often difficult to follow these guidelines in envi-
the level of artisan skills and tools, and economic ronments where the availability and level of artisan
constraints. In the past, stone masonry construction skills are very limited and there is no quality control
was used to build simple dwellings and also palaces, during construction.
temples, and heritage landmark structures. It contin-
ues to be used for housing construction in develop- Technology Transfer
ing countries and in areas where stone is a locally
available and affordable building material. The dissemination of knowledge on the earthquake-
resistant construction of stone masonry buildings is
Stone is one of the most durable construction ma- a major challenge because of the informal nature of
terials, and many stone masonry buildings have re- the construction process and the absence of input
mained in use for centuries. In many cases, earth- by qualified engineers and architects. Those in-
quakes pose a major threat to these structures. The volved in the construction process typically have a
seismic vulnerability of stone masonry buildings is limited knowledge of earthquake-resistant construc-
due to their heavy weight and, in most cases, the tion practices. There is a widespread lack of under-
manner in which the walls have been built. Human standing, at all levels, of the issues related to stone
and economic losses due to earthquakes are unac- masonry construction and its seismic risk mitigation
ceptably high in areas where stone masonry has options. In most cases there is no mechanism to de-
been used for house construction. Both old and liver available knowledge to the field. Even when the
new buildings of this construction type are at risk in knowledge is delivered, it is very difficult to change
earthquake-prone areas of the world. traditional construction practices, and to ensure the
long-term implementation of new or modified tech-
This document explains the underlying causes for nologies that are required for improved seismic per-
the poor seismic performance of stone masonry formance of these buildings. Artisans and builders
buildings and offers techniques for improving it play a pivotal role in the process by acting as organiz-
for both new and existing buildings. The proposed ers, project planners, consultants, and contractors.
techniques have been proven in field applications,
are relatively simple, and can be applied in areas Closing Remarks
with limited artisan skills and tools. The authors of
this document believe that there are two main chal- Past earthquakes have revealed the extremely high
lenges related to improving the seismic performance vulnerability of stone masonry buildings, which re-
of stone masonry buildings: technical challenges and sulted in unacceptably high human and economic
challenges related to the technology transfer. losses. The authors of this document believe that, by
implementing the recommendations suggested here,
Technical Challenges the risk to the occupants of non-engineered stone
masonry buildings and their property can be signifi-
The satisfactory seismic performance of stone ma- cantly reduced in future earthquakes.
sonry buildings can be ensured by following three
critical guidelines: This document will be useful to building profession-
als who desire to learn more about this construction
• Improve the quality of building materials and con- practice, either for the purpose of seismic mitiga-
struction practices tion, or for post-earthquake reconstruction.
• Ensure the integrity of building components to

create a box-like effect during earthquake shaking
71
References
6. References
Ali, Q., Naeem, A., Ashraf, M., Alam, B., Rehman, Stone Masonry House, World Housing En-
S., Fahim, M., and Awais, M., 2010. Shake Ta- cyclopedia Report 28 (Italy), Earthquake En-
ble Tests on Typical Stone Masonry Buildings gineering Research Institute and International
Used in the Himalayan Belt, Paper No. 1414, Association for Earthquake Engineering, www.
Proceedings of the 9th U.S. National and 10th world-housing.net.
Canadian Conference on Earthquake Engineer-
ing, Toronto, Canada. Decanini, L., De Sortis, A., Goretti, A., Langenbach,
R., Mollaioli, F., and Rasulo, A., 2004. Per-
BMTPC, 1994. Retrofitting of Stone Masonry formance of Masonry Buildings During the
Houses in Marathwada Area of Maharash- 2002 Molise, Italy, Earthquake, Earthquake
tra, Building Materials and Technology Promo- Spectra, Vol. 20, Special Issue 1, S191–S220.
tion Council, Ministry of Urban Development,
Government of India, New Delhi, India. Erdik, M., 1990. The Earthquake Performance of
Rural Stone Masonry Buildings in Turkey, in
Bothara, J., Beetham, R., Brunsdon, D., Stannard, Earthquake Damage Evaluation and Vulnerability
M., Brown, R., Hyland, C., Lewis, W., Miller, Analysis of Building Structures, Omega Scientific,
S., Sanders, R., and Sulistio, Y., 2010. General Wallingford, England, 57–77.
Observations of Effects of the 30 September
2009 Padang Earthquake, Indonesia, Bulletin Feng, W., 2010. “Seismic Retrofit of Rural Resi-
of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engi- dence in Tibet”, China Development Research
neering, Vol. 43, No. 3, 143–173. Foundation, (slide presentation obtained from
personal communication).
Bothara, J. K. and Hiçyılmaz, K., 2008. General
Observations of Building Behaviour during GOM, 1994. Guidelines for Repair, Strengthen-
the 8th October 2005 Pakistan Earthquake, ing and Reconstruction of Houses Damaged
Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earth- in September 30, 1993 Earthquake in Ma-
quake Engineering, Vol. 41, No. 4, 209–233. harashtra, India, Project Management Unit,
MEERP, Government of Maharashtra, Mum-
Bothara, J. K., Guragain, R., and Dixit, A., 2002. bai, India.
Protection of Educational Buildings Against
Earthquakes: A Manual for Designers and GOM, 1998. Manual for Earthquake-Resistant
Builders, National Society for Earthquake Construction and Seismic Strengthening of
Technology-Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal. Buildings in Rural Areas of Maharashtra,
Revenue and Forests Department, Government
CBRI, 1994. Pilot Project on Repairs and of Maharashtra, Mumbai, India.
Strengthening of Earthquake Damaged
Houses in Maharashtra, Central Building Re- GSDMA, 2001. Guidelines for Reconstruction
search Institute, Roorkee, India. and New Construction of Houses in Kachchh
Earthquake Affected Area of Gujarat, Gujarat
Coburn, A., 1987. Analysis of Earthquake Damage State Disaster Management Authority, Govern-
and Proposals for Strengthening Stone Ma- ment of Gujarat, India.
sonry Buildings in Eastern Anatolia, Proceed-
ings, Middle East and Mediterranean Regional GSDMA, 2002. Guidelines for Repair, Restora-
Conference on Earthen and Low-Strength Ma- tion and Retrofitting of Masonry Buildings
sonry Buildings in Seismic Areas, Middle East in Kachchh Earthquake Affected Area of Gu-
Technical University Research Center, Ankara, jarat, Gujarat State Disaster Management Au-
Turkey, 445–466. thority, Government of Gujarat, India.
D’Ayala, D. and Speranza, E., 2002. Single-Family IAEE, 2004. Guidelines for Earthquake-Resistant
73
Non-Engineered Construction, International Earthquake Engineering, University of Roorkee,

Association for Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo, India.
Japan (first published in 1986 and reprinted by
the National Information Center of Earthquake Parajuli, Y., Bothara, J. K., and Upadhyay, B., 2002.
Engineering, IIT Kanpur). Uncoursed Rubble Stone Masonry Walls with
Timber Floor and Roof, World Housing En-
Jain, S. K., Lettis, W. R., Murty, C. V. R., Bardet, cyclopedia Report 74 (Nepal), Earthquake En-
J., 2002. Bhuj, India Earthquake of January gineering Research Institute and International
26, 2001: Reconnaissance Report, Earthquake Association for Earthquake Engineering, www.
Spectra, Vol. 18, Supplement A. world-housing.net.
Lutman, M. and Tomazevic, M., 2002. Rubble- Shadmon, A., 1996. Stone: An Introduction, 2nd
Stone Masonry House, World Housing Ency- ed., Practical Action and ITDG Publishing,
clopedia Report 58 (Slovenia), Earthquake En- London, England.
gineering Research Institute and International
Association for Earthquake Engineering, www. Tassios, T. P. and Syrmakezis, K., 2002. Load-Bear-
world-housing.net. ing Stone Masonry Building, World Housing
Encyclopedia Report 16 (Greece), Earthquake
Maffei, J., Bazzurro, P., Marrow, J., and Goretti, A., Engineering Research Institute and Interna-
2002. Recent Italian Earthquakes: Examina- tional Association for Earthquake Engineering,
tion of Structural Vulnerability, Damage, and www.world-housing.net.
Post-Earthquake Practices – Case Studies and
Comparisons to U.S. Practice, Earthquake En- Tomazevic, M., 1999. Earthquake-Resistant De-
gineering Research Institute, Oakland, CA. sign of Masonry Buildings, Imperial College
Press, London, England.
Mayorca, P., Navaratnaraj, S., and Meguro, K., 2008.
Report on the State of the Art in the Seismic UNCRD, 2003. Guidelines for Earthquake Resis-
Retrofitting of Unreinforced Masonry Hous- tant Design, Construction, and Retrofitting
es by PP Band Meshes, International Centre of Buildings in Afghanistan, Ministry of Ur-
for Urban Safety Engineering, Institute of In- ban Development and Housing, Government
dustrial Science, University of Tokyo, Japan. of Afghanistan, and United Nations Centre for
Regional Development, Disaster Management
Meyer, P., Ochsendorf, J., Germaine, J., and Kausel, Planning Hyogo Office.
E., 2007. The Impact of High-Frequency/Low-
Energy Seismic Waves on Unreinforced Mason- UNIDO, 1983. Repair and Strengthening of Re-
ry, Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 77–94. inforced Concrete, Stone and Brick Masonry
Buildings, Building Construction Under Seismic
Momin, S. S., Nikolic-Brzev, S., and Bajoria, K. M., Conditions in the Balkan Region, Vol. 5, UNDP/
1996. Seismic Retrofitting of Stone Masonry UNIDO Project RER/79/015, United Nations
Buildings Damaged in the September 1993 Industrial Development Organization, Vienna,
Earthquake in India, Paper No. 1389, Proceed- Austria.
ings, 11th World Conference on Earthquake Engi-
neering, Acapulco, Mexico. WHE, 2009. World Housing Encyclopedia: An
Encyclopedia of Housing Construction in
Murty, C. V. R., 2005. IITK-BMTPC Earthquake Seismically Active Areas of the World, www.
Tips: Learning Earthquake Design and Con- world-housing.net.
struction, National Information Centre of
Earthquake Engineering, IIT Kanpur, India,
www.nicee.org.
NSET and UOR, 2000. Reconnaissance Report:

Chamoli Earthquake of 29th March 1999, In-
dia, Joint study by National Society for Earth-
quake Technology – Nepal and Department of
74
References
RELEVANT WORLD HOUSING ENCYCLOPEDIA REPORTS

(www.world-housing.net)
Ahari, M., and Azarbakht, A., 2005. Stonework Tassios, T. P., and Syrmakezis, K., 2002. Load-
building with wooden timber roof, Report Bearing Stone Masonry Building, Report 16
114 (Iran). (Greece).
Al Dabbeek, J., and Al-Jawhari, A., 2002. Unrein- Vetturini, R., Cleri, A., Mollailoli, F., and Bazzur-
forced Concrete and Masonry Bearing Wall ro, P., 2007. Unreinforced Stone Wall Rural
Construction (Designed for gravity loads Housing (Upper Income), Report 120 (Italy).
only), Report 49 (Palestinian Territories).
Vetturini, R., Mollailoli, F., and Bazzurro, P., 2007.
Ali, Q., and Muhammad, T., 2007. Stone Masonry Unreinforced Stone Wall Rural Housing
Residential Buildings, Report 138 (Pakistan). (Lower and Middle Class), Report 121 (Italy).
Brzev, S., Greene, M., and Sinha, R., 2002. Rubble

Stone Masonry Walls with Timber Frame and
Timber Roof, Report 18 (India).
D’Ayala, D., and Speranza, E., 2002. Single-Family

Stone Masonry House, Report 28 (Italy).
Farsi, M., Lazzali, F., and Ait-M, Y., 2002. Stone

Masonry Apartment Building, Report 75 (Al-
geria).
Lang, K., and Bachmann, H., 2007. Urban Resi-

dential Buildings of the 19th Century in the
City of Basel, Report 119 (Switzerland).
Lutman, M., and Tomazevic, M., 2002. Rubble-

Stone Masonry House, Report 58 (Slovenia).
Parajuli, Y., Bothara, J. K., and Upadhyay, B., 2002.

Traditional Oval-Shaped Rural Stone House,
Report 47 (Nepal).
Parajuli, Y., Bothara, J. K., and Upadhyay, B., 2002.

Uncoursed Rubble Stone Masonry Walls with
Timber Floor and Roof, Report 74 (Nepal).
Sinha, R., and Ambati, V., 2002. Low-Strength

Dressed Stone Masonry Buildings, Report 80
(India).
Sassu, M. and Cei, C., 2005. Casa Torre Construc-

tion: Multistory Tower Masonry with Stone
Pillars and Wood or Arched Beams, Report
113 (Italy).
75
Glossary
7. Glossary
Bearing Wall: A wall that carries (vertical) gravity large amount without breaking or collapsing, even
loads due to floor and roof weight. when it suffers overload and bends, sways, and de-
forms.
Bed Joint: The horizontal layer of mortar on which
a stone is laid. Flexible Diaphragm: A diaphragm which is so flex-
ible that it is unable to transfer the earthquake loads
Brittle: A brittle material or structure fractures or to shear walls even if the floors/roof are well con-
suddenly breaks while subjected to bending, sway- nected to the walls. Floors and roof constructed of
ing, and deforming. A brittle structure has little ten- timber, steel, or precast concrete without reinforced
dency to deform before it fractures. concrete topping fall in this category.
Cover: In a reinforced concrete member cover is a Gravity Load: The load applied in vertical direc-
clear distance between the embedded reinforcement tion, including the weight of building materials
(link or tie) and the concrete surface. The main role (dead load), environmental loads such as snow, and
of cover is to protect the reinforcement from corro- moveable building contents (live load).
sion.
In-Plane Load: Seismic load acting along the wall
Cross Wall: An interior wall that extends from the length.
floor to the underside of the floor above or to the
ceiling, securely fastened to each and capable of re- Irregular Building: A building that has a sudden
sisting lateral forces. change in the shape of plan is considered to have
a horizontal irregularity. A building that changes
Dead Load: The weight of the building materials shape up its height (such as setbacks or overhangs) or
that make up a building, including its structure, en- is missing significant load bearing walls is considered
closure and architectural finishes. The dead load is to have a vertical irregularity. It is not desirable for a
supported by the structure (walls, floors, and roof ). building to be irregular—regular buildings perform
better in earthquakes.
Deformed bar: A steel bar with projections or in-
dentations for improved bonding with concrete. Lateral Load: Load acting in the horizontal direc-
Preferably, deformed bars should be used for lon- tion; this load can be due to wind or earthquake
gitudinal reinforcement in RC members in seismic effects.
regions. In some countries, plain (smooth) steel bars
without projections are still used for concrete con- Lime Putty: Slacked quicklime in the form of liquid
struction. slurry.
Delamination: Bulging of exterior wythes in stone Link: A transverse reinforcing bar used to tie (con-
masonry walls due to earthquake shaking. Delami- fine) the longitudinal reinforcing bars together. A
nation usually leads to either partial or total wall col- link acts like a belt, that is, it confines the cross-sec-
lapse. Delamination is a common failure mechanism tion of a reinforced concrete member. Links are used
in stone masonry walls without through-stones. in horizontal RC members (beams or bands), while
the term “tie” is used for transverse reinforcement in
Diaphragm: A horizontal structural element (usu- RC columns.
ally a suspended floor or ceiling or braced roof struc-
ture) that is strongly connected to the walls around Liquefaction: An earthquake-induced phenom-
it and distributes earthquake lateral forces to vertical enon when saturated, loose, granular soils lose shear
elements, such as walls, of the lateral force resisting strength and behave as a liquid.
system. Diaphragms can be classified as flexible or
rigid. Live Load: The weight of all moveable contents of
a building, including the occupants, furnishings,
Ductility: The ability of a structure to deform by a books and personal belongings that are supported
77
by the structural system of the building. are a part of a continuous load path. Walls are key
structural elements in a stone masonry building.
Load: Active force (or combination of forces) ex-
erted on a structure. The load can be classified, based Through-Stone: A long stone that connects two
on direction, into gravity (vertical) load and lateral wythes together in a stone masonry wall. It is also
(horizontal) load. known as bond stone. Contrary to its name; a
through-stone can also be a concrete block, a wood
Load Path: A path through which vertical or seis- element, or steel bars with hooked ends embedded
mic forces travel from the point of their origin to the in concrete that perform the same function.
foundation and, ultimately, to the supporting soil.
Transverse Wall: see Cross Wall
Low-Strength Masonry: Masonry laid in weak
mortar; such as mud, weak cement/sand or lime/ Unreinforced Masonry (URM) Wall: A masonry
sand mortar. wall containing no steel, timber, cane, or other rein-
forcement. An unreinforced wall resists gravity and
Out-of-Plane Load: Seismic load (earthquake shak- lateral loads solely through the strength of the ma-
ing) acting normally (perpendicular), or at right- sonry materials.
angle to the wall surface. Walls subjected to out-of-
plane shaking are also known as face-loaded walls or Wall: Vertical, planar building element.
transverse walls. Walls are weaker and less stable un-
der out-of-plane than under in-plane seismic loads. Wythe: A vertical leaf or layer of stone in a masonry
wall. Stone masonry walls usually have two exterior
Polypropylene Bands (PP Bands): Bands (strips) wythes constructed using large stone boulders.
similar to the straps used for securing boxes for ship-
ping.
Regular Building: see Irregular Building.
Rigid Diaphragm: A suspended floor, roof or ceil-

ing structure that is able to transfer lateral loads to
the walls with negligible horizontal deformation of
the diaphragm. Floors or roofs made from reinforced
concrete, such as reinforced concrete slabs, fall into
this category.
Seismic Hazard: The potential for damage caused

by earthquakes. The level of hazard depends on the
magnitude of probable earthquakes, the type of
fault, the distance from faults associated with those
earthquakes, and the type of soil at the site.
Shear Wall: A wall which is subjected to lateral loads

due to wind or earthquake acting parallel to the di-
rection of an earthquake load being considered (also
known as an in-plane wall). Stone walls are stronger
and stiffer in-plane than out-of-plane.
Stiffness: Resistance to deformation. A stiff (rigid)

wall does not deform much, even when subjected
to significant lateral loads. Stone masonry walls are
usually very stiff, as opposed to timber walls, which
are flexible (the opposite of stiff).
Structural Elements: Components of a building

that provide gravity and lateral load resistance and
78
View publication stats

Stone Masonry English

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Stone Masonry English

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Stone Masonry English

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

A TUTORIAL: Improving the Seismic Performance of Stone Masonry Buildings

Book · January 2011

Jitendra Bothara Svetlana Brzev

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Masonry View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Jitendra Bothara • Svetlana Brzev

First Edition, July 2011

First Edition, July 2011

Publication Number WHE-2011-01

Copies of this publication may be ordered from:

Earthquake Engineering Research Institute

Technical Editor: Andrew Charleson

Qaisar Ali Chitr Lilavivat

Takim Andriono Marjana Lutman

Marcial Blondet Leo Massone

Jitendra Bothara C.V.R. Murty

Svetlana Brzev Farzad Naeim

Abdibaliev, Marat Deb, Sajal K. Lutman, Marjana Sinha, Ravi

2. SEISMIC DEFICIENCIES AND DAMAGE PATTERNS 15

4. RETROFITTING A STONE MASONRY BUILDING 53

Figures 1.3 Typical stone masonry houses in Turkey (photos: M. Erberik)

Houses of this construction type are found in urban

In hilly Mediterranean areas

Typically, stone masonry

Key Building Components tem consists of a timber roof structure supported

Uncoursed random rubble

Figure 1.7 Dual gravity load-

Floor and Roof Structures

Figure 1.9 Vaults in stone masonry buildings in Italy: a) and b) stone

Timber Joists or Trusses

Stone Masonry Walls

Wall Construction Practices

Types of Stone and Mortar

Stone masonry walls are constructed using a variety

Stone masonry walls can be classified

Figure 1.20 A stone-cutter at work in Maharashtra,

Uncoursed Random Rubble Stone

Rooms in buildings with un- wythes and stone rubble

coursed stone masonry walls (photo: S. Brzev) and b)

are generally small and there under construction in

Figure 1.25 A building with uncoursed stone

shown in Figures 1.26 and 1.27. Figure 1.28 shows a comparison

900 mm thick and above

Figure 1.29 Stone masonry con-

In some regions of the world, timber or brick bands

In some regions of the world,

Dressed Stone Masonry (Ashlar Masonry)

2. Seismic Deficiencies and Damage Patterns

Stone masonry buildings have shown poor performance

Figure 2.2 Extensive damage to stone masonry buildings in Indian

In the 2005 Kashmir

the direction of the shaking (trans-

• In-plane shear cracking

• Poor quality of construction

Lack of Structural Integrity

A lack of integrity is characterized by the following Damage and/or Separation of Walls at

Adequate connections between inter-