Dynamic Behavior of Box Type Scaled Stabilized Earth and

Fired Clay Block Masonry Building Models

Nanjunda K. S. Rao1

A BSTRACT
The paper discusses the outcome of the experimental investigations conducted on five scaled box type ma-
sonry building models with various kinds of earthquake resistant features for the purpose of evaluating their
effectiveness in reducing their vulnerability during earthquakes. Two of the building models were of one-
fourth scale and remaining three were of half scale. The one fourth scale building models were without
roof slab, while the half scale models were with rigid roofing system. One each of the one-fourth scale and
half scale models had all round RC horizontal bands at lintel and roof levels. The one-fourth scale model
also had vertical reinforcing steel at corners as suggested by the Bureau of Indian standards (IS 4326:1993).
The other building models had all round RC horizontal bands at sill, lintel and roof levels and vertical steel
hugging the masonry walls on both faces at corners and adjacent to door and window openings. The vertical
steel was connected discretely through bed joints of masonry using steel wires. The base motion to the
building models was provided through a shock table test facility which was designed and developed as a
simple and cost-effective alternative to the conventional shake table. Based on the investigations conducted
the following conclusions are drawn:

1. The shock table test protocol developed has been successful in evaluating the dynamic behavior of scaled
masonry building models and in simulating the failure patterns as observed in damage surveys after the
earthquakes.

2. The earthquake resistance features suggested by the Bureau of Indian standards (IS 4326:1993) are found
to be inadequate in preventing collapse of masonry buildings during severe ground shaking.

3. The provision of vertical reinforcement hugging the masonry wall in addition to RC band at sill level is
effective in limiting damage and ensuring seismic safety.

K EYWORDS : masonry structure, model, horizontal band, seismic vulnerability, reinforced masonry, earthquake
resistance

1
Chief Research Scientist; Indian Institute of Science; Bangalore, India; ksn@iisc.ac.in

Rao N. . (2019, June). “Dynamic Behavior of Box Type Scaled Stabilized Earth and Fired Clay Block Masonry Building Models.” In P.B. Dillon
& F.S. Fonseca (Eds.), Proceedings of the Thirteenth North American Masonry Conference. Paper presented at the 13th North American Masonry
Conference, Salt Lake City, Utah (pp. 904–915). Longmont, CO: The Masonry Society. c 2019 TMS. All rights reserved. ISSN 1053-2366.

904
S ALT L AKE C ITY, U TAH J UNE 16–19, 2019

INTRODUCTION
Significantly large number of dwelling units in India and other developing countries around the globe are
one to three storey height unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings. It is well known that such buildings
are the most vulnerable during earthquakes. Coburn and Spence (2002) has reported that large number of
fatalities during earthquakes is due to collapse of URM buildings. Bruneau (1994) has reviewed the seis-
mic performance of URM buildings by highlighting their modes of failure. For satisfactory seismic per-
formance, both out-of-plane and in-plane responses of walls of the building need to be simultaneously
mobilized and box action should not be jeopardized due to loss of connection between walls. However, in
buildings with light roof which do not provide lateral restraint to the top edge of the wall, the fundamental
mode shape causes out-of-plane flexure of the walls leading to collapse. In the case of buildings with rigid
roof providing diaphragm action at floor/roof level a large proportion of the lateral load is resisted by mo-
bilizing in-plane response of the walls as the fundamental mode of vibration is a sway mode. In order to
meet the above mentioned requirements for better performance of URM buildings, the Bureau of Indian
Standards (IS 4326: 1993, Reaffirmed 2008) recommends incorporating reinforced concrete (RC) hori-
zontal bands at lintel and roof levels, provision of vertical steel reinforcement within the core of masonry
at corners and junctions of walls and restricting the size and position/spacing of openings in the wall for
doors and windows. Some of these prescriptions were based on the research investigation carried out by
Krishna and Chandra (1965).

A field survey to assess the behavior of structures after an earthquake is a useful exercise as it provides
insights into performance of various types’ of masonry materials and earthquake resistant features adopt-
ed in the buildings. Such studies will also help in identifying any deficiencies in the existing provisions
for earthquake resistant design and learning lessons to reduce the risk in future earthquakes. The para-
graphs to follow presents a brief description of failure patterns of masonry buildings observed in several
places after the Latur and Kachchh earthquakes of 1993 and 2001 respectively in India.

(a) (b)

Figure 1. (a) Out-of-plane flexural failure of masonry wall; (b) Vertical timber posts abutting the wall.

Figure 1(a) shows the out-of plane failure of brick masonry wall in a place called Sastur, Maharashtra,
India after the Latur earthquake. This clearly demonstrates the vulnerability of masonry buildings with
light roof during an earthquake. In one of the walls “X” type of shear crack can also be observed. Figure
1(b) shows another brick masonry building in Sastur having walls on three sides and door opening on the
remaining one side, with all the walls practically intact after the earthquake. This building had mud roof
supported on timber posts and beams. The timber posts were abutting the walls as can be seen in the pho-
tograph (The timber posts have been removed for reuse elsewhere). The presence of timber posts at close
intervals abutting the walls must have acted as an earthquake resistant feature in the vertical direction and
prevented the out-of-plane flexural collapse of the walls.

905
P ROCEEDINGS OF THE 13 TH N ORTH A MERICAN M ASONRY C ONFERENCE

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Figure 2. (a) Out-of-plane failure of wall leading to collapse of RC lintel; (b) Bending deformation of masonry pier
between window openings; (c) Failure of corner in spite of vertical reinforcement; (d) Separation of walls at the
corner, Posocje, Slovenia, 1976 (Tomazevic 1999).

In the new town of Bhuj, Gujarat, India the masonry buildings constructed by Central Public Works De-
partment had earthquakes resistant features like RC lintel band and corner vertical reinforcement as rec-
ommended by Bureau of Indian Standards (IS 4326: 1993, Reaffirmed 2008). Behavior of three such
buildings was examined. In the building shown in figure 2(a), the wall suffered out-of-plane flexure fail-
ure leading to collapse of RC lintel band. In the building shown in figure 2(b), out-of–plane bending de-
formation of masonry pier between window openings is seen. Figure 2(c) shows corner failure of the
building in spite of the provision of vertical reinforcement. Figure 2(d) shows vertical cracks at the corner
of the building due to lack of good connection between intersecting walls (Tomazevic 1999).

SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES

Behavior and failure patterns of five numbers of scaled box type masonry building models having various
kinds of earthquake resistant features and subjected to base motion is investigated. Two of the building
models were of one-fourth scale and the remaining three were of half scale representing a prototype build-
ing approximately of size 6m×3m×3m. The one-fourth scale building models were without roof while the
half scale building models were with rigid RC roof slab. The base motion to four of the building models
was provided through shock table facility, which was designed and developed as a simple and cost effec-
tive alternative to the conventional shake table facility. One of the half scale building models was provid-
ed base motion through a shake table.

The objectives of the study were to (1) simulate the damage patterns, behavior and failure mechanism in
scaled masonry building models as those observed in prototype buildings during earthquakes; (2) address
the issue of deficiency in seismic resistance of masonry buildings by introducing new features and to un-
derstand their contribution in enhancing the seismic safety.

EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
The details of scaled masonry building models like size in plan, wall thickness, size of masonry units,
mortar, sizes and locations of opening for door and windows, earthquake resistant features and equipment
used for providing the base motion are discussed in following paragraphs.

906
S ALT L AKE C ITY, U TAH J UNE 16–19, 2019

(a)

(b)

Figure 3. Geometric details of half scale masonry building models. Figure 4. View of reinforcement (a) at a
corner in model -1; (b) hugging masonry
on both faces of the wall in model -2.

(a) (b) Model-1

Model-2

(c)
Figure 5. (a) View of vertical reinforcement hugging masonry on both faces with connecting wire (model – 2); (b)
View of vertical reinforcement at a corner with connecting wire in triangular fashion (model – 2); (c)
View of models 1 and 2 ready for testing on shock table platform.

Model - 1: This model was of one-fourth scale without a roof slab. It was constructed with scaled mason-
ry units of size 90 mm×40 mm×40 mm made of cement stabilized soil of proportions 1 (cement): 3 (soil):
5 (sand). Cement-lime-sand mortar of proportions 1 (cement):10(lime):20(sand) was used for masonry
construction in English bond. The bed joint mortar thickness was 6 mm, while the thickness of perpend
mortar joints was 6 mm to 10 mm. The thickness of the wall was 90 mm. Opening for door and windows
were provided only in the long walls (CW-1 and CW-2 shown in figure 3). The short walls (SW-1 and
SW-2 shown in figure 3) were solid walls without any openings. The dimensions of the model were one
half of the dimensions indicated in figure 3. The earthquake resistance feature provided were all round
RC band at lintel and roof levels and vertical reinforcement (galvanized iron (GI) wire of 4 mm diameter)
at the four corners in the pockets of masonry as per IS 4326:1993. Typical view of the vertical reinforce-
ment in one corner is shown in figure 4a. After constructing every four courses of masonry wall, the
pockets were grouted with cement-sand (1:4) mortar. The base motion was provided to the model using
first version of the shock table facility which will be described in the later section.

Model - 2: This model was similar to model-1, except for additional earthquake resistance features like
provision of all round RC band at sill level and vertical reinforcement hugging the wall on both faces on
either sides of all openings and on walls SW-1 and SW-2 at a spacing of one third its length. The galva-

907
P ROCEEDINGS OF THE 13 TH N ORTH A MERICAN M ASONRY C ONFERENCE

nized iron wire reinforcement of 4 mm diameter is bent to a “U” shape and anchored in the plinth of the
building as shown in figure 4b. The reinforcement which is hugging the wall on both the faces is held to-
gether with a 26 gauge (~0.45 mm diameter) wire passing through every bed joint of the masonry wall
(figure 5a). The vertical reinforcement at the corners provided in this model was different to that provided
in model -1 and is shown in figure 5b. At the corners the three vertical reinforcements hugging the ma-
sonry are held together using a 26 gauge wire passing through every bed joint in a triangular fashion. The
base motion was provided to the model using first version of the shock table facility. Figure 5c shows the
models 1 and 2 ready for testing on shock table platform.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 6. (a) Model – 3 ready for testing; (b) View of vertical reinforcement hugging the masonry embedded inside
the grove of the masonry unit with 1 mm diameter GI wire link in the bed joint; (c) View of cracks in the wall CW-1
of model -1 after 5th impact.

Model - 3: This model was of half scale with RC roof slab and geometric details and location of door and
window openings are as shown in figure 3. It was constructed with burnt clay bricks of size 225 mm×105
mm×75 mm which is normally used locally for constructing masonry buildings. Cement-sand (1:6) mor-
tar was used for masonry construction in stretcher bond with a wall thickness of 105 mm. The mortar
joint thickness was about 10 mm. The earthquake resistance feature provided was all round RC band at
lintel level only. Since stretcher bond was adopted for masonry construction it was not feasible to provide
vertical reinforcement at the corners similar to model -1. The base motion was provided to the model us-
ing first version of the shock table facility. Figure 6a shows the model - 3 ready for testing on shock table
platform.

Model - 4: This model was of half scale with RC roof slab. The geometric details and location of door
and window openings are as shown in figure 3. It was constructed with cement stabilized compressed
earth blocks of size 230 mm×108 mm×70 mm. Cement-soil-sand (1:1:6) mortar was used for masonry
construction in stretcher bond with a wall thickness of 108 mm. It had all the earthquake resistance fea-
tures as provided for model - 2 except that the vertical reinforcement hugging the wall was embedded in-
side a grove made in the masonry unit and the perpend mortar joints to prevent it from corroding and to
enhance bond between reinforcement and masonry for improved composite action (figure 6b). The base
motion was provided to the model using second version of the shock table facility.

Model – 5: This model was similar in every respect to model – 4, however it was tested on a six degree of
freedom shake table having the following specifications. The frequency range was 0.1 Hz to 50 Hz, pay
load was 10 tonnes, and limiting horizontal displacement was ±150 mm and ±100 mm in the vertical di-
rection. The limiting velocity and acceleration was ±1000 mm/s and 1g respectively.

908
S ALT L AKE C ITY, U TAH J UNE 16–19, 2019

DETAILS OF SHOCK TABLE TEST FACILITY

Laboratory testing of structures subjected to base motion similar to earthquakes is essential to assess their
safety. Severen (2011) has reviewed the development of shaking tables from the early days of manually
operated mechanical systems to the present day sophisticated digital controlled servo-hydraulic six degree
of freedom shake table. The initial cost, operating and maintenance costs of such shake tables are quite
high. It may not be always commensurable to bear such a large cost for laboratory testing of structural
models, with the advantages that are accomplished. Hence, the need for designing a simple and cost effec-
tive facility to produce to-and- fro motion that imitates earthquake ground motions was identified. In
spite of being simple, such facility should also provide the base motions having damage potential compa-
rable to the earthquake ground motions. One such facility called shock table test facility which was de-
signed and developed by the author at Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India has been employed in
the present work. The roots of this shock table facility can be traced to early versions of shaking tables
developed by Jacobson (1930). A schematic view of the first version of shock table test facility is shown
in figure 7. It consists of a rigid steel platform of size 3.5 m×2.5 m mounted on four wheels with ability to
move in one direction only. It can be set in motion by impacts of swinging pendulum (of mass 600 kg and
length 1.8 m) on one side with a rebound beam on the opposite side for providing reverse motion. The
force of impact can be controlled by changing the angle of release of the pendulum and the material
mounted on the table platform (item 8 in figure 7a). A protractor fixed at the hinged end of the pendulum
can be used to measure the angle of release of the pendulum (figure 7b). Using the chain pulley block
(item 7 in figure 7) and a scissor mechanism (item 9 in figure 7) the pendulum can be pulled back and
held in position by known angle with respect to the vertical. The scissor mechanism is so designed that by
pulling a string attached to one of the arms of the scissor, it gets opened and releases the pendulum to im-
pact the table. The gap between the table platform and rebound beam can be varied to alter the to and fro
motion of the table. In the second version of the shock table, springs are attached to the table and rebound
beam as shown in figure 8 to increase the number of to and fro motions of the table. The energy of impact
of the pendulum can be calculated knowing the mass, length and angle of release of the pendulum. From
the angle of release; height of release (h) can calculated to compute the velocity (v) of pendulum at the
time of impact as v = 2 gh , where g is acceleration due to gravity. Using the principle of impulse –
momentum, energy (E) can be calculated as E = 1 mv 2 . For more information on design and evaluation
2
of shock table facility the reader may refer to Anant (2015).

TESTING OF SCALED MASONRY BUILDING MODELS

It is well recognized that during an earthquake, a structure will be subjected to vibratory forces of com-
plex nature. An examination of earthquake record indicates that it can be considered as a series of ran-
dom impulses with differing amplitude and duration characteristics and hence cannot be standardized.
The structures suffer from damage only in a few big impulses which can be simulated by a series of pen-
dulum impacts in the shock table test. The following paragraphs summarize the test protocol of the mod-
els.
Models 1 and 2: Both the models were constructed and tested simultaneously and hence were subjected
to similar base motion. An accelerometer was mounted on the table to record the table motion. The re-
sponse of model 1 was recorded by mounting an accelerometer on the wall CW-1 at roof level in the mid-

909
P ROCEEDINGS OF THE 13 TH N ORTH A MERICAN M ASONRY C ONFERENCE

section, whereas the response of model 2 was measured at two locations namely one at roof level at mid-
section and other at the center of the masonry pier panel between the two window openings of the wall
(a)

(b)

Figure 7. (a) Schematic view of first version of the shock table facility; (b) View of protractor to measure tilt angle
of the pendulum

Figure 8. (a) Second version of shock table with springs;(b) View of failure pattern of models 1 & 2 after 9th impact

CW-1 (mid way between sill and lintel levels). Totally 12 impacts were given to the table with varying
angles of release of the pendulum. For the first seven impacts the angle of release of pendulum was in-
creased in increments of 5o reaching 35o in the seventh impact. Thereafter the angle of release was main-
tained constant at 35o from eighth to twelfth impact. The output from accelerometers was acquired using
data acquisition system and stored digitally.
Model 3: The model was tested on the first version of the shock table. An accelerometer was mounted on
the table to record the table motion. The response of model 1 was recorded by mounting an accelerometer
on the wall CW-1 at roof level in the midsection and at the center of the masonry pier panel between the
two window openings of the wall CW-1 (mid way between sill and lintel levels). Totally 12 impacts were
given to the table with varying angles of release of the pendulum. Table 2 gives details of angle of release
of pendulum for each impact.
Model 4: The model was tested on the second version of the shock table. Figure 9 shows the details of
instrumentation for recording the response of the model to base motion. In the figure “A” refers to accel-
erometer location and “S” refers to location of electrical resistances strain gauges mounted on masonry
and on steel reinforcement. The strain gauges S1 to S4 were mounted on masonry surface, whereas S5

910
S ALT L AKE C ITY, U TAH J UNE 16–19, 2019

Figure 9. Isometric view of model 4 with details of instrumentation for recording the response.

and S6 were mounted on reinforcement. Instrumented impact hammer was used to determine the natural
frequencies and damping of the model. The impact was given close to location A2 and responses were
measured at locations A4, A6 and A8. The circle fit method was employed for estimating the natural fre-
quencies and damping ratios of the model of the model. Totally 19 impacts were given to the table with
varying angles of release of the pendulum. For each impact the angle of release of pendulum was in-
creased in increments of 2.5o reaching 40o in the 16th impact. The angle of release of pendulum was kept
constant at 40o from 17th to 19th impact. Figure 10a shows the model with instrumentation on shock table
ready for testing.
Model 5: This model was tested on a six degree of freedom shake table. Figure 10b shows the model
with instrumentation on shake table ready for testing. The model was subjected to a series of real earth-
quake recorded ground motions (Uttarkashi, India earthquake record) and spectra (zone V of IS 1893: part
1(2001)) compatible motions as shown in figure 11. A number of shake table studies on masonry building
models are carried out and reported in literature and only few are cited in this paper (Abrams 1988, Tolles
and Krawinkler 1988, Tomazevic and Weiss 1994, Tomazevic 2000, Agarwal and Thakkar 2001, Tor-
realva and Acero 2005 and Bakshi et. al 2017).

Figure 10. (a) Model - 4 ready for testing on shock table; (b) Model - 5 ready for testing on shake table

911
P ROCEEDINGS OF THE 13 TH N ORTH A MERICAN M ASONRY C ONFERENCE

Figure 11. Input acceleration time histories of shake table test protocol of Model -5

RESULTS, OBSERVATIONS AND DISCUSSION

Models 1 and 2: From the free vibration test the fundamental natural frequency was found to be 71.23 Hz
and 77.73 Hz for the models 1 and 2 respectively. Table 1 gives the angle of release of the pendulum, ve-
locity of impact and energy imparted during each impact and cumulative energy imparted.

Table 1. Details of Test and Energy Imparted to the Table Platform

Impact number Angle of release of Velocity of impact (m/s) Energy of impact Cumulative energy
pendulum (in degree) (N-m) (N-m)
1 5 0.366 40.18 40.18
2 10 0.732 160.75 200.93
3 15 1.097 361.02 561.95
4 20 1.459 638.60 1200.55
5 25 1.820 993.72 2194.27
6 30 2.175 1419.19 3613.46
7 35 2.527 1915.72 5529.18
12 35 2.527 1915.72 15104.78

After the second impact vertical cracks were observed in model -1 on wall CW-1 between lintel and roof
levels. After the third impact in model -1 earlier cracks widened and new vertical crack was formed be-
tween lintel and roof levels. Further, a horizontal crack developed at the sill level in the masonry between
the two window openings on wall CW-1 and door and window openings on wall CW-2. After the 4th im-
pact in model-1, the horizontal cracks at sill level extended throughout the building and vertical cracks
developed at the corners (figure 12a) and in model-2 inclined cracks (at 40o to 45o to the horizontal) de-
veloped between lintel and roof level and sill and plinth level as shown in figure 12b. After 8th impact the
model-1 was on the verge of collapse with severe corner damage between sill and lintel levels in spite of

912
S ALT L AKE C ITY, U TAH J UNE 16–19, 2019

corner reinforcement, vertical crack in the cross panel above lintel level and horizontal cracks at lintel and
sill levels in the masonry pier between window openings in the wall CW-1 (figure 6c). Figures 8b and 12c
shows the views of the state of the models after 9th impact. Figure 8b shows corner failure and out-of-
plane flexure failure of wall CW-1 of model -1. However, model – 2 has performed better, which can be
attributed to the innovative way of vertical reinforcement suggested in this paper at the corners and adja-
cent to the openings. The view shown in figure 12c clearly demonstrates the effectiveness of innovative
earthquake resistance feature incorporated in model – 2, thereby reducing the lateral drift of the building
model in the event of a severe earthquake.

(c) Model -1
(b)
(a)

Model -2
Model-1 Model -2
Figure 12. (a) Vertical crack at the corner in model 1 after 4th impact; (b) Out-of-plane flexure cracks in model-2
after 4th impact;(c) State of the models 1 & 2 after 9th impact

Table 2. Details of Test of Model 3 and Energy Imparted to the Table Platform
Impact number Angle of release of Velocity of impact (m/s) Energy of impact Cumulative energy
pendulum (in degree) (N-m) (N-m)
1 10 0.732 160.75 160.75
2 20 1.459 638.6 799.35
3 10 0.732 160.75 960.1
4 30 2.175 1419.19 2379.29
5 35 2.527 1915.72 4295.01
6 35 2.527 1915.72 6210.73
7 40 2.874 2478.71 8689.44
12 40 2.874 2478.71 21083.00
# For impacts 7 to 12 the angle of release of pendulum was kept constant at 40 o

(a) (b)

Figure 13. (a) Diagonal shear cracks in wall SW-2 of model -3 after 5th impact; (b) Out-of-plane flexure failure of
wall CW-1 and shear failure of wall SW-2 of model 3 after 12th impact.

913
P ROCEEDINGS OF THE 13 TH N ORTH A MERICAN M ASONRY C ONFERENCE

Model 3: From the free vibration test the fundamental natural frequency was found to be 24.84 Hz. After
the first impact, horizontal cracks developed at sill level in all the walls of the building model. After the
2nd impact inclined cracks developed in the walls SW-1 and SW-2 (as shown in figure 13a) and also hor-
izontal cracks at lintel level in wall CW-1. From 3rd to 12th impact the cracks formed earlier extended
and widened. After the 12th impact the building model collapsed as shown in figure 13b. From the ob-
served behavior of model-3 it can be concluded that providing only RC band at lintel level is not suffi-
cient to prevent collapse of building in the event of a severe earthquake.

Figure 14. (a) Flexure cracks in wall CW-1; (b) Shear cracks in wall SW-1 of model –4 after 19th impact

Models 4 and 5: From the impact hammer test by employing circle fit method fundamental natural fre-
quency and fifth mode (bending) frequency was found to be 18.53Hz and 38.75Hz respectively and the
corresponding modal damping ratio was estimated to be 5.26% and 2.9%. Figure 14 shows the cracks in
walls CW-1 and SW-1 after 19th impact. The cumulative impact energy given to the table platform at the
end of 19th impact was 22145.6 N-m. The damages suffered by the building models were not severe as
witnessed in models 1 and 3. Therefore it can be easily repaired without the need for demolishing and
rebuilding. Further there was no fall of any masonry debris thus ensuring maximum safety to the occu-
pants. In the case of model-5 there was virtually no damage to the building model except for two minor
horizontal cracks in the pier masonry in the walls CW-1 and CW-2. The walls SW-1 and SW-2 were free
from any cracks. This clearly demonstrates that by incorporating earthquake resistance features as in
model 4, will ensure safety even under severe earthquake shaking. From a comparison of cracks devel-
oped in models 4 and 5 it can be concluded that the shock table test is more severe than the shake table
test and hence shock table test can be considered as suitable for evaluating the effectiveness of earthquake
resistance features in buildings.

CONCLUSIONS
Based on the investigations conducted the following conclusions can be drawn;

1. The shock table test protocol developed has been successful in evaluating the dynamic behavior of
scaled masonry building models and in simulating the failure patterns as observed in damage surveys
after the earthquakes.
2. The earthquake resistance features suggested by the Bureau of Indian standards (IS 4326:1993) are
found to be inadequate in preventing collapse of masonry buildings during severe ground shaking.
3. The provision of vertical reinforcement hugging the masonry wall in addition to RC band at sill level
is effective in limiting damage and ensuring seismic safety.

914
S ALT L AKE C ITY, U TAH J UNE 16–19, 2019

REFERENCES
Abrams D.P.(1988), “Dynamic and static testing of reinforced concrete masonry structures,” Proceedings
of the Ninth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, August 2-9, 1988, Tokyo-Kyoto, Japan, 169-
172.
Agarwal, P. and Thakkar, S.K. (2001). “A comparative study of brick masonry house model under quasi-
static and dynamic loading,” ISET Journal of Earthquake Technology, 38(2-4), 103-122.
Anant, J. A. (2015). Static and Dynamic Behavior of Reinforced Masonry: Experimental and Analytical
Investigation. Ph D thesis report, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore,
India.
Bakhshi, A., Ghannad, M., Yekrangnia, M. and Masaeli, H. (2017), “Shaking table tests on dome-roof
adobe houses,” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 46, 467-490.
Bruneau, M. (1994). “State-of -the-art report on seismic performance of unreinforced masonry build-
ings,” Journal of Structural Engineering, 120(1), 230-25.
Coburn, A. and Spence, R. (2002). Earthquake Protection, 2nd Ed., John Wiley &Sons Ltd., Sussex,
England.
IS 4326:1993. Earthquake Resistant Design and Construction of Buildings- Code of Practice, Bureau of
Indian Standards, New Delhi, India.
IS 1893:2002 (Part 1). Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures, Part 1 General provisions
and Buildings, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India.
Jacobson, L.S. (1930). “Motion of a soil subjected to a simple harmonic ground vibration,” Bulletin of the
Seismological Society of America, 20(3), 160-195.
Krishna, J. and Chandra, B. (1965). “Strengthening of brick buildings against earthquake forces,” Pro-
ceedings of the Third World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, New Zealand, 324-340.
Severn, R.T. (2011). “The development of shaking tables - a historical note,” Earthquake Engineering
and Structural Dynamics, 40(2), 195-213.
Tolles.E.L. and Krawinkler H.(1988). “Seismic testing on small scale models of adobe houses,” Proceed-
ings of the Ninth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, August 2-9, 1988, Tokyo-Kyoto, Japan,
919-924.
Tomazevic, M. (1999). Earthquake –Resistant Design of Masonry Buildings, Imperial College Press,
London.
Tomazevic, M. (2000). “Some aspects of experimental testing of seismic behavior of masonry walls and
models of masonry buildings,” ISET Journal of Earthquake Technology, 37(4),101-117.
Tomazevic, M., and Weiss, P. (1994). “Seismic behavior of plain-and reinforced-masonry buildings,”
Journal of Structural Engineering, 120(2), 323-338.
Torrealva, D. and Acero, J. (2005). “Reinforcing adobe buildings with exterior compatible mesh: The fi-
nal solution against the seismic vulnerability,” International Seminar on Architecture, Construction and
Conservation of Earthen Buildings in Seismic areas, 16-19 May 2005, Lima, Peru, South America, 28pp

915