International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 7 (2014) 51–67

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijdrr

Review Article

A critical review of retrofitting methods for unreinforced

masonry structures
Subhamoy Bhattacharya a,n, Sanket Nayak 1,b, Sekhar Chandra Dutta 2,b
a
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Surrey, Guildford,
Surrey GU27XH, United Kingdom
b
School of Infrastructure, Indian Institute of Technology Bhubaneswar, Bhubaneswar 751013, Odisha, India

a r t i c l e i n f o abstract

Article history: Unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings are common throughout Latin America, the
Received 26 March 2013 Himalayan region, Eastern Europe, Indian subcontinent and other parts of Asia. It has
Received in revised form been observed that these buildings cannot withstand the lateral loads imposed by an
6 December 2013
earthquake and often fails, in a brittle manner. Methods for retrofitting URM buildings to
Accepted 9 December 2013
increase the time required for collapse and also to improve the overall strength widely
Available online 19 December 2013
vary. This review has collated information on various types of retrofitting methods either
Keywords: under research or early implementation. Furthermore, these methods are categorized and
Unreinforced masonry critically analyzed to help further understand which methods are most suitable for future
Earthquake
research or application in developing countries. The comparison of the different methods
Lateral loads
is based on economy, sustainability and buildability and provides a useful insight. The
Brittle
Retrofit study may provide useful guidance to policy makers, planners, designers, architects and
engineers in choosing a suitable retrofitting methodology.
Crown Copyright & 2013 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Background to the problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

1.1. Importance of studying unreinforced masonry (URM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
2. Types of URM buildings vulnerable to collapse during earthquakes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
2.1. Adobe buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
2.2. Brick masonry buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
2.3. Stone masonry buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
3. Common failure mechanisms of URM buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
3.1. Adobe buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
3.2. Brick masonry buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
3.3. Stone masonry buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
4. Existing URM retrofitting technologies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
4.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
4.2. Surface treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

n
Corresponding author. Tel./fax: þ44 1483689534.
E-mail addresses: s.bhattacharya@surrey.ac.uk, subhamoy.bhattacharya@gmail.com (S. Bhattacharya), sanketiitbbsr@gmail.com,
sn12@iitbbs.ac.in (S. Nayak), scdind2000@gmail.com, scdutta@iitbbs.ac.in (S.C. Dutta).
1
Mobile: þ91 94373 10275; fax: þ 91 674 2306203.
2
Mobile: þ91 78944 07830; fax: þ91 674 2306203.

2212-4209/$ - see front matter Crown Copyright & 2013 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2013.12.004
52 S. Bhattacharya et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 7 (2014) 51–67

4.2.1. General surface treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

4.2.2. Application of shotcrete. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
4.3. Stitching and grout/epoxy injection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
4.4. Re-pointing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
4.5. External reinforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
4.5.1. Bamboo reinforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
4.5.2. Seismic wallpaper or glass fibre-reinforced polymer (GFRP) reinforcement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
4.6. Strengthening of junction of URM walls by using L-shaped reinforcement and poly-propylene (PP) band . . . . . . . . . . . 59
4.7. Post-tensioning using rubber tyres. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
4.8. Confinement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
4.9. Mesh reinforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
4.9.1. Polymer mesh reinforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
4.9.2. PP packaging strip mesh reinforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
4.9.3. Steel reinforcement in Peru. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
4.9.4. Comparing various methods of mesh reinforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
5. Summary and conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Acknowledgments: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

1. Background to the problem developing countries, there exists a vicious cycle whereby
they do not possess the wealth to develop their infra-
Earthquakes are results of the deformations of tectonic structure sufficiently to withstand the damages caused by
plates on two sides of a fault resulting from the tendency earthquakes and conversely, earthquake damage affects
of relative displacement between the two tectonic plates. them from developing their economy.
These deformations take place over the years, strain
energy keeps on accumulating in the tectonic plates.
1.1. Importance of studying unreinforced masonry (URM)
Finally, a slip occurs at the fault when the plates slips
back to their original undeformed shape suddenly releas- Earthquakes are one of the most deadly forms of
ing a tremendous amount of energy. The above pro- natural disaster, yet human fatality does not occur directly
cess generates earthquakes as per the classical elastic because of ground motions; people die as a result of falling
rebound theory. Such earthquakes are called inter-plate
structure. A vast amount of research has been carried out
earthquakes. However, if there is a weak zone in the plate over the last few decades to prevent the collapse of tall
itself then during the process of accumulation of deforma-
buildings, resulting in new building codes and guidelines
tion, a crack may suddenly occur resulting in instanta- being written. Such structures are found in wealthy
neous energy release. This also causes earthquake known
countries and are now reasonably designed for seismic
as intra-plate earthquake. Further, volcanic eruption and loading that they do not cause many casualties. However,
removal of mineral ores without adequate protective
in rural areas of developing countries where people are
measures may also be the reasons for generation of generally poor and equipped with little knowledge of
earthquake. However, irrespective of the cause of the
engineering or construction, very little work has been
earthquake, the consequences can be devastating to done to help protect housing against the dangers of
human lives, see for example Table 1, which lists the
earthquakes. In these areas masonry becomes the major
casualties from a few past major earthquakes. For some form of habitat. These remote areas are difficult to reach
for the emergency services meaning that most of the
Table 1 fatalities will occur at the time of the earthquake as rescue
Earthquakes causing the greatest number of casualties in the last
is very unlikely. However, the sustainability of masonry
100 years.
structures has been questioned during past earthquakes.
Year Location Casualties These structures perform well under gravity loading due to
satisfactory compression carrying capacity of masonry.
1908 Messina (Italy) 70,000 to 100,000 However, it is a challenging task for the engineering
1920 Gansu (China) 200,000
community to improve the shear and tension carrying
1923 Kanto (Japan) 143,000
1927 Qinghai (China) 200,000 capacity of masonry structures for achieving better sus-
1932 Gansu (China) 70,000 tainability of such structures during earthquakes. It is
1948 Ashgabat (Turkmenistan) 110,000 therefore vitally important that the engineering commu-
1970 Peru 66,000
nity is made aware of this problem, because solving it will
1976 Tangshan (China) 255,000
2001 Gujarat (India) 20,000
save hundreds of thousands of lives.
2003 Bam (Iran) 30,000 A history of exposure to the effects of serious earth-
2004 Sumatra (Indonesia) 220,000 quakes has allowed the engineering community to pro-
2005 Kashmir (Pakistan) 73,000 gressively increase its knowledge of how buildings
2008 Sichuan (China) 69,197
respond to seismic activity. Fig. 1 shows how the world
2010 Haiti 230,000
2011 Sikkim (India–Nepal border) 150 has been subjected to large number of earthquakes whose
epicenters are distributed all over the world. Table 2 shows
 S. Bhattacharya et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 7 (2014) 51–67 53

Fig. 1. Earthquake epicenters in world from 1963 to 1998 [1].

Table 2
Historic development of earthquake engineering practice [2].

Earthquake Remarks Engineering developments

Messina (Italy), 1908
Kanto (Japan), 1923
Long Beach (USA), 1933
Niigata (Japan), 1964
San Fernando (USA), 1971
Mexico City (Mexico), 1985
Northridge (USA), 1994
Kobe (Japan), 1995
Chi-Chi (Taiwan), 1999
Koceli (Turkey), 1999
Bhuj (India), 2001
Sumatra, 2004
Following 100,000 fatalities, committee of engineers
and professors appointed by Italian government to
study failures and set design guidelines
Bridges and buildings destroyed. Foundations settled,
tilted and moved
Destruction of building, particularly schools
Soil can also be major contributor to earthquake
damage
Failure of bridges and dams and soil effects observed
Amplification of ground motion
Failure of steel connections in bridges
Massive foundation failure (soil effects)
Many bridges collapsed, which were located close to
faults
Damage to Bolu tunnel due to fault movement.
Damage to buildings and bridges
Large scale destruction
Destruction to built environment caused by
earthquake and giant tsunami waves
Base shear equation evolved (i.e. lateral force
exerted on structure is typically 5–15% of
building0 s dead weight)
Seismic coefficient method was incorporated in
design of Japanese highway bridges
First earthquake for which acceleration records
were obtained from recently developed
accelerograph
Soil liquefaction studies started
Liquefaction studies intensified and bridge retrofit
studies started
Translated in code of practice
Importance of ductility in construction realized
Lateral spreading is thought to be one of the main
causes. JRA (1996) code modified for design of
bridges
Importance of proximity to plate boundaries and
plates realized
Building conforming to design codes performed
well
National Program for Earthquake Engineering
Education (NPEEE) formed and Earthquake
Geotechnical Engineering studies started in India
New research started on tsunami warning systems

how past earthquakes are constantly teaching engineers
about new aspects of earthquake engineering and leading
to developments within this field. This critical review is a
continuation of the international, award-winning Mondia-
lago project, ‘Improving the Structural Strength under
Seismic Loading of Non-Engineered Buildings in the Hima-
layan Region’ and will build upon and extend the work
carried out to date. It is in this way that this review aims to
contribute towards the ongoing development of engineers
within the field of earthquake engineering.
2. Types of URM buildings vulnerable to collapse during
earthquakes
URM buildings can broadly be arranged into three
common categories: adobe, brick and stone masonry. Each
of these has features and construction methods that are
dependent on its geographic location and level of local
expertise. Although cheap and easy to build, all URM
buildings have been observed to be susceptible to earth-
quakes, as will be explained in this review.
54 S. Bhattacharya et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 7 (2014) 51–67

2.1. Adobe buildings
Adobe structures, which consist of sun-dried blocks
with mud mortar, have been popular throughout the
world for thousands of years. This is because of the low-
cost and availability of construction materials, which can
be soil sourced from nearby fields and the ease of
construction with no sophisticated equipment or expertise
required. A newly-constructed adobe house can cost as
little as $10/m² in India. This popularity is illustrated by the
high proportion of adobe housing present in different
developing countries of Latin America, Africa, Asia, the
Middle East and Southern Europe. However, most of these
developing countries are being visited by numerous earth-
quakes frequently, as may be well understood from the
pictorial representation of the seismically active areas all
over the world shown in Fig. 2. Further, the strong
presence of such constructions all over the globe may be
seen in Fig. 3. Indeed, 30% of the world0 s population lives
in adobe dwellings, which accounts for 20% of the world0 s
urban/suburban population [4].
A typical adobe house, shown in Fig. 4, is a single storey
construction with foundations that consist of medium to
large graded rocks with mud mortar in between. The roof
is usually composed of timber joists, or even bamboo,
overlaid by corrugated metal sheets, clay tiles or thatch,
depending on the economy of the region. Adobe structures
are highly prone to collapse during earthquakes causing
considerable damage and loss of lives, as shown in Table 3.
Furthermore, it is estimated that over 75% of earthquake
fatalities over the last century were a result of buildings
collapse [6].
2.2. Brick masonry buildings
Bricks are extremely common in house construction
and have been used in this way since as early as 3500 BC.
Brick masonry buildings consist of fired brick units bonded

Fig. 2. Distribution of seismically active regions across the globe, extracted from De Sensi [3].

Fig. 3. Earth construction distribution across the globe, extracted from De Sensi [3].
 S. Bhattacharya et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 7 (2014) 51–67
Fig. 4. Typical adobe structures in Argentina and India, respectively, extracted from Blondet and Garcia [5].
Table 3
Effects of earthquakes on adobe buildings [5].
Earthquake Fatalities
El Salvador, 2001 1100
Southern Peru, 2001 81
Iran, 2003 26,000
to one another with mortar. The strength of the brick
depends on the purity of clay used and the temperature at
which it is fired. Mortar strength depends on the quality of
the bonding agent used as well as the sand to bonding
agent ratio. The ability of the mortar to adhere to bricks is
tremendously important for the wall0 s ability to resist in-
plane shear cracking during an earthquake, a failure mode
which will be discussed in Section 3 of this review. Brick
masonry housing is also vulnerable to collapse under
seismic loading; one of the worst death tolls inflicted from
an earthquake in China, 1976 caused the loss of approxi-
mately 240,000 lives, mainly owing to the collapse of brick
masonry structures. Fig. 5 shows the severe damage of
URM building during Jabalpur earthquake, 1997.
2.3. Stone masonry buildings
Stone masonry buildings can be found in Mediterra-
nean Europe, North Africa, the Middle East, India, Nepal
and other parts of Asia. They are a common type of
construction in developing regions since they provide
low-cost housing due to the local availability of the
materials constituting stone masonry buildings; a new
house in India costs, on average, between $50–$90/m²
[8]. Stone constructions can be separated into 2 different
groups:
 Rural housing – These are typically small dwellings that
are 1 storey tall and contain small openings for win-
dows and doors. The buildings are usually built as
isolated buildings, not sharing any common walls with
other houses, and are used by a single family. The ‘khan’
house is a common rural dwelling and consists of a
single-storey stone masonry outer frame surrounding a
timber inner frame overlaid by thick flat roofs provid-
ing good thermal insulation spread throughout rural
India and in Nepal also.
55
Adobe buildings damaged or collapsed People affected
150,000 1.6 million
25,000 –
85% of infrastructure destroyed 100,000 left homeless
 Urban housing – Houses in urban communities are
often used for varying purposes with commercially
functioning ground-floors underneath domestic hous-
ing floors. These buildings frequently share common
walls.
These buildings tend to perform poorly in earthquakes
as shown in Table 4 owing to the low strength of the stone
and mortar used and the lack of adequate wall connec-
tions. The quality of local construction is often very low
due to the lack of skilled engineers involved. For example,
in Nepal over 98% of buildings are constructed by the
owners following the advice of local craftsmen [9].
3. Common failure mechanisms of URM buildings
Construction methods and technologies are dependent
on local conditions and level of engineering expertise as
well as demographic factors. For example, URM structures
are common in North America but there are building codes
in place to regulate construction and determine how well
protected structures are from seismic loading. In contrast,
the rapid urbanization of countries such as Nepal has
resulted in a huge rise in demand for quick and cheap
housing without regulation or controls in place to ensure
they are built to survive earthquakes. From past earth-
quakes, these types of buildings have been observed to
demonstrate common failure mechanisms, which will be
explained in this section. However, junction failure pre-
ceded by out-of-plane collapse is the prime type of failure
in all the 3 mentioned categories of URM buildings.
3.1. Adobe buildings
The reason adobe housing is so vulnerable to collapse
during earthquakes is due to its heavy walls, which cause
a greater resultant force on the building caused from
the lateral movement of the ground. In addition, adobe
56 S. Bhattacharya et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 7 (2014) 51–67

Fig. 5. Unreinforced brick masonry before and after 1997 Jabalpur earthquake, extracted from Sinha and Brzev [7].

Table 4
Percentage of masonry buildings that have collapsed in recent earth-
quakes [8].

Earthquake Location % of masonry Year

(magnitude) buildings that
collapsed

Athens earthquake, Greece (M5.9) 8 1999

Bovec earthquake, Slovenia (M5.6) 2 1998
Maharastra earthquake, India (M6.5) 5 1993

(iii)

Fig. 7. Shear cracks in unreinforced brick masonry building from the

1993 Killari earthquake, extracted from D’Ayala [11].
(i) (iv)

(v)
(ii)
and roofing can be due to local stress concentration due to
many other reasons. It is true if such buildings are
subjected to wave loading or tsunami loading then water
may cause substantial decrease in strength of adobe
blocks. So, the initiation of the failure under such type of
loading may be initiated by failure of such blocks.
Fig. 6. Common failure mechanisms for adobe structures including:
(i) separation of walls at corners; (ii) diagonal cracking in walls;
(iii) separation of roofing from walls; (iv) vertical cracking in walls;
(v) out-of-plane wall failure, extracted from CENAPRED [10]. 3.2. Brick masonry buildings

Some of the common modes of failure for brick

structures lacks in ductility and are consequently very
brittle resulting in sudden catastrophic failures under
seismic loading. Failure of adobe structures is caused by
either the separation of walls at the corners or separation
of roofing from walls or more commonly cracking and
subsequent failure of walls. These modes of failure are
demonstrated in Fig. 6. Though, the disintegration of floors
masonry buildings are
 Failure of corner junction leading to out-of-plane col-
lapse is the prime type of failure.
 Shear cracks in walls, which tend to be initiated at the
corners of openings in wall as can be seen in Fig. 7 after
the 1993 Killari earthquake.
 S. Bhattacharya et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 7 (2014) 51–67
 Out-of-plane failure in long spans where the wall
topples as a result of poor connections between walls
and at roof-wall interfaces.
 After walls have collapsed, this can lead to the disin-
tegration of floors and roofing and in severe cases, total
collapse of the building occurs.
These failures illustrate the importance of the following
features of brick masonry buildings:
 Bond between mortar and bricks – this is the main
characteristic that will resist in-plane shear failures.
 Connection between wythes of brick walls – this can
prevent out-of-plane toppling.
 Connection between walls at corners/junctions – this
will prevent disintegration of the masonry at corners
and junctions, which is a common failure mechanism
for brick buildings as shown in Fig. 8.
 Connections between walls and floors/roofing – this can
have a significant effect on the safety of the building
during seismic activity as the collapse of the roofing and
floors accounts for a high amount of the resulting
fatalities.
The above types of failure are also identified during
many historical earthquakes in Indian sub-continent and
outside India. Kern County (1952), Imperial Valley (1979),
South Italy (1980), Bihar (1988), Loma Prieta (1989),
Fig. 8. Failure of Junction of two orthogonal walls in URM building
during 2011 Sikkim earthquake.
Fig. 9. In-plane failure mechanisms of URM walls: (a) shear failure; (b) sliding failure; (c) rocking failure; (d) toe crushing, extracted from Macabuag [31].
57
Uttarkashi (1991), Killari (1993), Northridge (1994), Kobe
(1995), Jabalpur (1997), Chi Chi (1999), Chamoli (1999),
Bhuj (2001), Andaman (2002), Sumatra (2004), Kashmir
(2005), Pakistan (2005), Sikkim (2006), Sumatra (2007),
Durgapur (2008), Haiti (2010), Chile (2010), Sikkim (2011),
Christchurch (2011) and Tohoku (2011) are a few to name
in this context. Further, details in this regard are available
in the well accepted literature [12–30].
3.3. Stone masonry buildings
During seismic activity, common failure modes that
occur in stone masonry are
 De-lamination: It is typical for a stone masonry house
to have two external walls with loose rubble infill
between for increased thermal performance but when
these walls are insufficiently attached to one another
through the use of ‘through’ stones, they disintegrate
and crack during the lateral motion induced by an
earthquake.
 In long-span walls, overturning can occur in out-of-plane.
 When connections between adjacent walls are of
adequate strength, the in-plane shear resistance of
the wall is mobilized after which shear cracks develop.
The various mechanisms for in-plane failure are shown
in Fig. 9.
 Junction failure leading to out-of-plane collapse is also
observed in many past earthquakes.
4. Existing URM retrofitting technologies
4.1. Introduction
For the reasons discussed previously, an increasing
amount of research has been carried out investigating
the retrofitting of existing URM buildings in order to
increase their collapse time under seismic loading and
thereby reduce the loss of lives resulting from sudden,
catastrophic building collapses. This section will collate
these methods and explore current research into their
performance.
58 S. Bhattacharya et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 7 (2014) 51–67

4.2. Surface treatment
4.2.1. General surface treatment
The surface treatment process involves constructing a steel
or polymer mesh around the building exterior, which is then
coated with a layer of high-strength mortar. Alternatively,
shotcrete can be applied to the wall surface. The steel
reinforcement can have a reinforcement ratio between 3
and 8% (which means the ratio of the weight of steel
reinforcement used to that of masonry may vary in a range
of 3–8%) depending on the loading resistance required.
This method is beneficial for use in developing areas as
it is possible to use fly-ash or rice-husk ash to replace up to
20% of the mortar, thereby reducing costs. It can also be
performed with unskilled workers. The system helps to
confine the masonry after cracking has occurred and it has
been shown to moderately increase the structure0 s ulti-
mate lateral load resistance. Surface treatment also
improves the out-of-plane resistance of masonry buildings
as it increases the height-to-thickness ratio of the walls
and thereby reducing any ‘arching action’. The disadvan-
tages of surface treatment are that the lack of ‘breathing’ of
the existing wall can lead to its deterioration and the
architectural effects are significant.
4.2.2. Application of shotcrete
ElGawady et al. [32] carried out tests upon URM walls
and the retrofitted walls. In case of retrofitted walls, the
reinforcement arrangement was varied; in the first test,
reinforcement and shotcrete were applied to one side of
the wall and in the second, the same amount of reinforcing
mesh was distributed evenly on both sides of the panel.
The tests were prepared in the following way:
 4 mm diameter shear dowels were fixed into pre-
drilled holes in the wall at approximately 250 mm
centers.
 The reinforcement mesh was fixed into place in 2
different configurations.
 After wetting the surface of the wall panel, shotcrete
was applied as illustrated in Fig. 10.
During testing, lateral loading was applied in increasing
increments up to failure of the wall. The results are summar-
ized in Table 5. In both of the retrofit tests, the ultimate lateral
load resistance of the walls was increased by a factor of
approximately 3.6, and though the initial stiffness was unaf-
fected by the surface treatment, the stiffness at peak loading
was increased by a factor of 3. Further, it can be concluded
that the use of shotcrete significantly increases the ultimate
load carrying capacity of the retrofitted models. However, the
limitations regarding the use lie with the facts that, use of
shotcrete is time consuming, reduces available spaces, creates
disturbance in occupancy and affects the esthetics.

4.3. Stitching and grout/epoxy injection

This method involves injecting grout or epoxy into the

Fig. 10. Application of shotcrete to URM wall, extracted from ElGawady
et al. [32].
walls in order to fill any voids or cracks that have formed
due to the deterioration of the building. In addition,
existing cracks can be ‘stitched’ together using steel ties
and mortar. These techniques can restore the initial stiff-
ness of the wall. When using epoxy injection, the stiffness
increase has been shown to be less dramatic than the
increase in strength [33]. Further, the popularity of the use
of this technique is because of minimal cost, availability of
material and ease of implementation without requiring
much technical rigor. The most important aspect of its vast
use lies with the fact that it is sustainable. In addition to
initial stiffness, this method is also able to restore the
initial strength of masonry. However, the technique will be
successful only if the mechanical property of the mix and
its physical chemical compatibility with the masonry to be
retrofitted is achieved.

Table 5
Shotcrete testing results [32].

Reference specimen Single-side reinforcement Double-side reinforcement

Initially, flexural cracks formed, progressively
worsening until rocking started (at 0.7% drift)
Sliding occurred followed by cracking in wall toes
Average lateral strength of 35.5 kN
At 75% of ultimate load, first cracks occurred
Small flexural cracks formed
horizontally in shotcrete and propagated
Separation of shotcrete layer from foundations
Hair cracks formed at load of 53.8 kN
Visible cracking occurred at 82.9 kN
Flexural cracking followed by rocking
behavior until failure at 126 kN
Toe and heal heavily damaged
 S. Bhattacharya et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 7 (2014) 51–67
4.4. Re-pointing
In cases where bricks are of good quality but the mortar
is poor, the mortar can be replaced to some extent with a
higher strength bonding material. However, Tetley and
Madabhushi [34] found that the addition of 2% Ordinary
Portland Cement to the mortar made little or no difference
to the ultimate acceleration resistance. The advantages in
the use of this technique may be enlisted as minimal cost
and convenience of implementation. On the other hand,
this method is not sustainable and the success of this
technique lies with the compatibility of the new mortar
with that of existing bricks.
4.5. External reinforcement
Various external reinforcements which may be used for
improving the strength are discussed briefly under the
following subsections.
4.5.1. Bamboo reinforcement
The current method of reinforcement using bamboo is
to use it as part of a system involving buttresses, ring
beam, internal vertical reinforcement and horizontal inter-
nal reinforcement. It has been shown that this system
increases the collapse time of adobe structure but has little
capacity to prevent cracking at low intensity ground
motions. It was proposed by Dowling et al. [35] that the
same partnership of ring beam and bamboo reinforcement
Fig. 11. Bamboo reinforced wall with ring beam, extracted from Dowling
et al. [35].
Fig. 12. Retrofitting of adobe wall using GFRPs, extracted from Man [37].
59
could be used with vertical reinforcement being externally
fixed post-construction (Fig. 11). By installing vertical
reinforcement after wall construction, complications such
as alignment of the reinforcement and trimming of the
bricks are avoided. Horizontal chicken wire mesh was used
in one of the models alongside the bamboo and ring beam.
During testing, all reinforced structures survived up to a
100% increase in displacement intensity. Better reinforced
models survived up to a 125% increase and one heavily
reinforced model was even up to 400%.
4.5.2. Seismic wallpaper or glass fibre-reinforced polymer
(GFRP) reinforcement
Testing of this technique was carried out on several
models of URM walls with solid clay bricks and low
strength mortar [36]. All specimens were retrofitted with
vertical composite strips which were bonded on both faces
of the wall using epoxy resin. Each wall was then subjected
to out-of-plane loading and displacement via an airbag
loading system. It was found that the ultimate flexural
strength of all retrofitted specimens was increased.
Further, research by Man [37] has shown that GFRPs are
most effective when arranged at 451 to horizontal, as
demonstrated in Fig. 12. Diagonal shear compression tests
and out-of-plane bending tests showed that this retrofit
doubled the tensile strength of the wall at yield and
increases its ductility up to 7.5 times its original value.
Many researchers have carried out experiments to
investigate the efficiency of different types of FRP rehabi-
litation techniques for enhancement of the seismic resis-
tance of the masonry walls. Some of the major
contributions in this regard are available in [38–51]. These
studies revealed that there could be significant increase in
ultimate load carrying capacity, energy absorption and
ductility in case of retrofitted walls as compared with
un-retrofitted URM walls. The catastrophic failure pattern
in URM walls could be improved by a gradual failure
pattern by retrofitting the URM walls with FRP composite
material.
4.6. Strengthening of junction of URM walls by using
L-shaped reinforcement and poly-propylene (PP) band
A recent study (Fig. 13) has been carried out by Dutta
et al. [52] to investigate the performance improvement
60 S. Bhattacharya et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 7 (2014) 51–67

Fig. 13. Strengthening of junction using L-shaped steel bars and PP band, extracted from Dutta et al. [52]. (a) Junction reinforced with L-shaped steel bars
and (b) Encasing junction by PP band.

Fig. 14. Constructing the post-tensioning strap, extracted from Turer et al. [53].

shaking. For similar wall models tested in shaking table,

Table 6
Performance of retrofitted specimens compared to unreinforced wall it was observed that the URM wall failed at an acceleration
[53]. of 0.25g, whereas, the failure of the walls strengthened
using L-shaped reinforcement and PP bands was at 0.60g
Horizontal Vertical Horizontal and vertical
and 0.80g, respectively. These experiments have clearly
reinforcement reinforcement reinforcement
shown about 3 fold increases in strength due to the
70% increase in 40% increase in More than 10% increase retrofitting options adopted.
failure failure acceleration in failure acceleration
acceleration 4.7. Post-tensioning using rubber tyres

Post-tensioning of URM walls using scrap rubber tyres,

in URM by strengthening the junction, the most vulnerable
part of a masonry wall, using L-shaped reinforcement and
PP band. For L-shaped reinforcement, steel bars of dia-
meter 8 mm was used in alternate layers to strengthen the
junction. For the method of strengthening using PP band,
walls were encased with horizontal and vertical PP bands
at regular interval depending on the size of the wall. Both
the cases were subjected to unidirectional sinusoidal
which have an embedded steel mesh, has been proposed
as a potential retrofitting solution. The tyres are assembled
as shown in Fig. 14. To alleviate stress concentrations at
wall corners, half cylindrical wooden logs are placed for
the rubber to mold around. After installation, the rubber
stretches and looses its post-tensioning effect, and so
the bolts are tightened after 3 days to ensure enough
compressive force is applied.
 S. Bhattacharya et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 7 (2014) 51–67
Testing was carried out by Turer et al. [53] on a 1:10
scale model using a simple shake table. Testing was carried
out using the models that were unreinforced, horizontally
reinforced, vertically reinforced and reinforced in both
directions, respectively. The results are shown in Table 6.
The addition of post-tensioning improves the failure
mechanisms of the models; cracks were less pronounced
and better spread and the brittle failure usually associated
with these buildings changed into a more ductile response
so that the roof did not collapse. The combined horizontal
and vertical reinforcement resulted in a foundation failure
rather than in shear.
4.8. Confinement
This building method as shown in Fig. 15, involves
introducing reinforced tie columns that confine the build-
ing walls at all corners and intersections [33]. Europe
recommends its use in EC8 and in China; it is used in
new construction as well as retrofitting existing buildings.
Research carried out by Paikara and Rai [54] has investi-
gated the performance of half-scale masonry walls (con-
fined using reinforced concrete ties) under cyclic loading.
The tests demonstrated that confining wall sections into
Fig. 15. Reinforced tie columns containing masonry wall panels,
extracted from ElGawady et al. [33].
Fig. 16. Geo-grid and soft fence mesh, respectively, extracted from Blondet et al. [55].
61
smaller elements improves the in-plane deformability and
energy dissipation of the walls. Actually, the masonry
being confined by reinforced concrete frame may behave
effectively as a diagonal compressive strut under lateral
loading and may improve the behavior considerably as
compared to what is observed in case of a bare frame
(frame containing concrete columns and beams only).
4.9. Mesh reinforcement
4.9.1. Polymer mesh reinforcement
Two types of polymer mesh that have been used to
retrofit URM structures are an industrial geo-grid and a
weaker mesh that is usually used as a ‘soft’ fence on
construction sites as shown in Fig. 16. In a study carried
out by Blondet et al. [55] the mesh was wrapped around
the wall and then coated with a mud plaster finish. Three
variations of the geo-grid (100%, 75% and 50% area cover-
age) and one soft mesh system (80% area coverage) were
tested. Each specimen was dynamically tested using a uni-
directional shake table. Table 7 summarizes the results.
In fact, while going through Table 7, it may be easy to
understand the relative performance of soft mesh and
different types of geo-grid.
4.9.2. PP packaging strip mesh reinforcement
This method of reinforcement uses PP packaging strips
that can be found with many packaged items. The strips
are intertwined to produce a mesh that is then attached to
the wall by drilling through it and using ties. Testing under
static loading had been carried out by Macabuag [31], in
which two scaled wall sections were constructed (with
one retrofitted) and tested in a diagonal compression
machine (Fig. 17). It was found that the horizontal strips
prevent separation of bricks on the same row. Vertical
bands increase the frictional resistance between rows and
consequently prevent sliding. In conclusion, this method
effectively improves the shear resistance of test specimens
under static loading but there was a recurring problem of
the mesh snapping at points of stress concentration such
as the wall corners. A similar test was carried out at Tokyo
University by Meguro et al. [9] under dynamic loading
conditions. The testing showed how the retrofit improved
62 S. Bhattacharya et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 7 (2014) 51–67

Table 7
Performance summary of polymer mesh reinforcement [55].

Mesh Area covering Results

type (%)

Geo-grid 100 Behaved as a rigid body with only small cracks developing beyond deflections of 80 mm
One wall slides from its foundation during deflections of 100 mm without any significant damage
Beyond deflections of 120 mm walls showed signs of torsional response, sliding at the base and additional cracking
Geo-grid 75 Vertical cracks at the corners and diagonal cracks on the longitudinal walls developed beyond deflections of 80 mm
Cracking continued beyond deflections of 130 mm
The wall was able to keep its integrity as the mesh provided displacement control and a means of distributing stresses
Geo-grid  50 (critical) Cracks initiated at deflections of 80 mm yet were much larger
During shaking at 130 mm deflection, severe structural damage was sustained
Though collapse was averted it was clear that insufficient reinforcement was provided
Soft mesh 80 Small cracking initiated at deflections of 80 mm
Major cracks were observed at deflections of 130 mm
Beyond deflections of 130 mm the wall had broken into several large pieces and was only held together by the mesh
In places the mesh had deformed or snapped indicating that the amount provided was barely adequate

Fig. 17. Non-retrofitted and retrofitted wall panel, extracted from Macabuag [31].

the specimen seismic performance significantly, displaying
increased load resistance and ductility before failure.
Macabuag et al. [56] studied the effect of retrofitting of
URM buildings in Nepal using PP meshing, being subjected
to artificially generated strong shocks. The study con-
cluded that, use of PP mesh prevents spoiling out the
masonry blocks and thus enables the system to accom-
modate more deformation without collapse.
4.9.3. Steel reinforcement in Peru
After extensive testing at the laboratories of the Ponti-
fical Catholic University of Peru (PUCP), it was decided by
the Regional Seismological Center for South America
(CERESIS) to reinforce some adobe buildings with steel
wire mesh, between 1994 and 1999 [57]. This steel mesh
was applied externally at critical locations of adobe walls
such as at corners and free ends. This was then covered
with a layer of mortar. A large earthquake (Mw ¼8.0)
occurred in Pisco, Peru on August 15, 2007 resulting in
519 deaths, the collapse of over 70,000 houses and the
serious damage of more than 33,000 houses. However, 5
houses in Ica that had been reinforced in 1998 survived the
earthquake without suffering any damage. Major cracking
or complete collapse occurred in adjacent buildings but
even the partially reinforced buildings performed better
than the unreinforced brick and adobe buildings of Peru.
Furthermore, in 2001, an earthquake occurred (Mw¼8.4)
in South Peru with similar results, shown in Fig. 18.
An experimental study using steel strips has been
carried out by Taghdi et al. [59] to retrofit low-rise
masonry walls. It has been reported from the study that
steel strips are effective in increasing the in-plane
strength, ductility and energy dissipation capacity. It has
also been observed that the anchor bolts along the vertical
steel strips help to eliminate the premature buckling of
masonry walls.
4.9.4. Comparing various methods of mesh reinforcement
Experiments were carried out by Tetley and Madab-
hushi [34] to compare various retrofitting methods includ-
ing introducing steel reinforcing bars, a steel mesh cage
around the wall and a similar mesh formed from plastic
carrier-bags (Fig. 19). All tests were made with 1:5 scale
adobe walls consisting of gravel, simulating adobe blocks
and mortar made from kaolin clay and sand. The control
wall failed at an acceleration of 0.32g. The steel caging
method was tested by constructing a 13 mm  13 mm net
mesh and then constructing the wall within it. Mortar was
then plastered over the steel mesh. The results showed
that there was significant increase in ductility demon-
strated by large deformations before failure occurred and
an increase of acceleration resistance by a factor of 3.
 S. Bhattacharya et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 7 (2014) 51–67 63

Fig. 18. Reinforced and unreinforced neighboring houses after 2001 earthquake, extracted from Bartolomé et al. [58].

Fig. 19. (a), (c) and (e) shows various retrofitting methods carried out and (b), (d) and (f) show their effect on test walls, respectively, extracted from Tetley
and Madabhushi [34]. (a) Unreinforced control wall, (b) Failure of adobe wall around reinforced corner section, (c) Steel mesh cage, (d) More contained
failure of mesh-reinforced wall, (e) Plastic carrier-bag net and (f) Increased wall ductility using plastic bag mesh.

The final failure, at an acceleration of 1.02g, was due to a
separation of the mesh from the base.
A similar mesh was installed but using plastic carrier-
bags instead of steel. The bags were cut into 20 mm strips,
braided together and then used to form a 50 mm  50 mm
square mesh, which was fixed to the wall using simple
tacks. Three courses of masonry were then built on top of
the mesh to fix it properly, after which plaster using
mortar was applied. Testing showed increased ductility
and tensile strength of the wall. The transverse wall failed
at 0.64g and then total in-plane failure occurred at 1.02g
(double the control wall resistance).
5. Summary and conclusions
The study begins with broad idea about the casualties
due to past earthquakes in about last 100 years discussed
through presentation of Table 1. Following such discus-
sions, historic evolution of various earthquake resisting
practices have discussed and presented in Table 2.
The importance of failure of adobe and masonry buildings
is then discussed to show that such buildings form a large
part of the habitat of the ordinary people. Thus, failure of
such building may have great impact on human civiliza-
tion (as may be well understood from Tables 3 and 4).
So, need of improving performance of such buildings
becomes an issue of great importance to civil and struc-
tural engineers involved in infrastructure building for
ordinary people. With this background discussion, various
ways of improving the performance of masonry building
have been evaluated, summarizing their features in
Tables 5–11. Such studies highlighting overall structural
performance, economic aspects and also the aspect of
sustainability and ease of construction may lead to follow-
ing broad conclusive understanding about state-of-the-art
regarding seismic performance of masonry building.
(A) From these assessments it can be concluded that the
mesh retrofitting techniques and the softer methods
as listed here are the most feasible for application in
developing countries. They are namely, re-pointing,
stitching and grout/epoxy injection, polymer mesh
64 S. Bhattacharya et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 7 (2014) 51–67

Table 8
Summary of previous research into URM retrofitting techniques.

Technology Conclusions

Surface treatment using Shotcrete Increased lateral load resistance by factor of 3.6 under static loading as well as ductility of wall
Stitching and grout/epoxy Grout or epoxy injected into walls to fill voids or cracks. Also, existing cracks can be ‘stitched’ together using steel
injection ties and mortar. Can restore the initial stiffness of the wall
Re-pointing with 2% ordinary No noticeable improvement in performance under dynamic loading
Portland cement
Bamboo Uncertainty about performance of vertical internal reinforcement at low earthquake intensity
Seismic wallpaper Shown to be effective at increasing wall resistance to lateral acceleration. Optimum arrangement of GFRPs was at
451 to horizontal, which doubled tensile strength at yield
Post-tensioning using rubber tyres Combining horizontal and vertical reinforcements improved the lateral acceleration resistance of the masonry
models by 100% and increased their ductility
Confinement Confinement improves in-plane deformability and energy dissipation of the walls
Center core Placing a grouted core in the center of walls can double ultimate lateral load resistance. Creates zones of varying
stiffness/strength
Polymer mesh Can prevent partial or total collapse of brick-masonry building during earthquake. Placing mesh at critical wall
locations may improve efficiency of method
Polypropylene packaging strips Demonstrated improved shear resistance of brick walls under static loading and significant increase in
performance under dynamic loading
Steel mesh cage Improved lateral acceleration resistance and increased ductility of adobe wall under testing. Proven to be highly
effective in adobe houses, surviving two major earthquakes in Peru with little or no damage
Plastic carrier bag mesh Similar performance to steel mesh cage
L-Shaped reinforcement Increases the resistance by preventing junction failure

Table 9
Discussion of retrofitting technologies according to economic criteria.

Retrofit method Economic features

Surface treatment (shotcrete)
Stitching and grout/epoxy injection Minimal costs as such products are readily available and can be easily applied
Re-pointing
Bamboo reinforcement
Seismic wallpaper
Post-tensioning (rubber tyres)
Confinement
Polymer mesh reinforcement
PP strip reinforcement
Steel mesh cage
Plastic carrier bag mesh
L-Shaped reinforcement
Requires purchase of shot-creting system including pressurized hoses and pump, although initial installation
costs could be offest by retrofitting many houses. Also requires manufacturing of concrete and use of steel
reinforcement mesh and the inclusion of at least one experienced worker, making it too expensive for
application in poor communities
Minimal costs as only required the manufacturing of a stronger mortar
For 1000 sq. ft house, cost of reinforcing is $225, in comparison to $400 when using steel reinforcement
‘E’-glass costs $2–$4 per kg. Field experiments have shown that retrofitting with a composite material is cost-
effective [60]
Combined cost of scrap tyres and connectors is  $0.6/m². This can be further reduced by mass production of
connectors
Cost-effective for application in new building, costing little in comparison to the overall construction costs. As a
retrofit, requires demolition and reconstruction of wall sections making it uneconomical for this purpose
Industrial geogrid Mesh cost: $2/m² Application cost: $19/m²
Soft polymer mesh Mesh cost: $0.5/m² Application cost: $4/m²
Demo by Tokyo University and JICA (Japanese International Cooperation Agency) in Kashmir following the
major 2005 earthquake, performed a retrofit at an estimated 5% total cost of house. Actual cost, when
implemented by rural masons is expected to be much lower [31]
For 1000 sq. ft house, costs $400 when using steel reinforcement
This retrofitting technique would cost very little due to the availability of plastic carrier-bags and the cheap cost
of mortar to apply to the wall surface
Adds only 5–10% to the total cost

reinforcement, polypropylene packaging strap reinfor-
cement, steel mesh cage, and L-shaped reinforcement.
(B) There are some methods in practice or under research
that are also suitable for implementation in develop-
ing communities but with some disadvantages. These
methods include the following:
 Bamboo reinforcement – There may be difficulties
in sustainably sourcing good quality bamboo. There
lies a need for a good understanding of the meth-
odology of bamboo processing. In fact, passing on
such skills to local workers could be difficult.
 Plastic carrier bag net – Unless the manufacture of
the mesh is industrialized, the time taken to
construct it is a barrier for the application of this
technique.
 Post-tensioning using rubber tyres – The poor
esthetic appearance is the main disadvantage for
this method.
(C) The least suitable retrofitting methods researched are
 Surface treatment using shotcrete – Difficulties
were experienced during application in the labora-
tories that are likely to translate to real world
situations.
 Seismic wallpaper – Although they significantly
improve structural performance, the need for qual-
ity control in manufacture and application means
 S. Bhattacharya et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 7 (2014) 51–67 65

Table 10
Discussion of retrofitting technologies according to sustainability criteria.

Retrofit method Sustainability features

Surface treatment (shotcrete)
Stitching and grout/epoxy
injection (re-pointing)
Bamboo reinforcement
Seismic wallpaper
Post-tensioning (rubber tyres)
Confinement
Polymer mesh reinforcement
PP strip reinforcement
Steel mesh cage
Plastic carrier bag net
L-Shaped reinforcement
Use of concrete in small quantities (i.e. not taking advantage of thermal mass), is unsustainable
Minimal amount of material required and very ‘light’ application make these methods sustainable
Provided bamboo is responsibly sourced, this method is sustainable. Requires very little processing and can be
easily disposed of at the end of its design life
GFRPs contain a large amount of embodied energy. Also, there is a danger of harmful fumes being released if the
materials were burned in a fire. However, GFRPs are non corrosive and extremely durable and so have a long
design life
Considered a sustainable solution as it involves re-using a resource otherwise wasted; 190 million tyres a year
are sent to landfill in the U.S.A. This would reduce the need for large tire fires that pollute the environment [61]
This is a relatively ‘heavy’ engineering solution and therefore requires materials and methods that are
intrinsically unsustainable
Polymer mesh requires use and processing of petrochemicals, which is not sustainable unless sourced from
recycled or re-used units
There is plenty of scope for re-use or recycling due to the massive volume of consumer goods that are protected
by these packaging strips
The manufacture of steel is unsustainable and disposal at the end of the design life will be difficult in a
developing community
Approximately 17.5 billion plastic carrier bags are thrown away in Britain every year. Re-using these bags is
therefore considered a sustainable solution [62]
Use of reinforcement will not have any adverse effect from the view point of sustainability

Table 11
Discussion of retrofitting technologies according to buildability criteria.

Retrofit method Buildability features

Surface treatment (shotcrete)
Stitching and grout/epoxy injection Little technical knowledge required and materials can be easily transported, applied and removed
Re-pointing
Bamboo reinforcement
Seismic wallpaper
Post-tensioning (rubber tyres)
Confinement
Polymer mesh reinforcement
PP strip reinforcement
Steel mesh cage
Plastic carrier bag net
L-shaped reinforcement
Application requires trained specialists. Even when applied by experienced workers, there have been difficulties
noted in the application process such as excessive dust and noise, which would make it very disruptive for
occupants
Little technical knowledge required. However, some sort of temporary works may be needed to support the
structure
If fixed to wall exterior, method is easily buildable. If horizontal reinforcement is tied on the exterior of the wall,
it will overlap openings causing practical and esthetic problems. Mud bricks surrounding the bamboo will not
provide adequate protection against water intrusion and also makes maintenance/inspection of bamboo
difficult. Installation is quick to learn for local builders but they need to understand the key earthquake
engineering concepts involved
Manufacture of glass reinforced fibers must be under strictly controlled conditions. Retrofit is easy to apply and
inspect/maintain but removal is extremely difficult
Retrofit is reasonably simple but as straps protrude away from walls, they are difficult to mask with plaster
resulting in significant architectural impact
Application is very intrusive requiring demolition of wall sections. Also, requires the use of tie-beams to be
effective
Industrial Tough nature of material and lack of flexibility makes application
geo-grid and removal of this method difficult
Soft polymer mesh Mesh can be easily deformed so transportation, application and removal are easy
Retrofit is simple enough for application by local craftsmen and homeowners without any prior knowledge/
expertise on earthquake engineering [9]
Steel cage can be attached to a building if specific instructions are given, but this is not ideal and if problems
arise, technical knowledge is required to solve them. Demolition of the steel mesh presents difficulties
The materials used are light and flexible. However, it takes a very long time to construct the mesh, which is a
barrier for this method unless the mesh manufacture can be industrialized/streamlined in some way
No special expertise is required for using this

that widespread retrofitting in poor communities
will be difficult.
 Confinement – It is more suited to new construc-
tion as opposed to retrofitting where demolition
and rebuilding are required.
(D) Corner/junction failure leading to out-of-plane collapse in
brick masonry buildings is the most common type of
failure. Intuitively it could be suggested that simultaneous
application of strengthening mechanisms arresting joint
separation as well as providing better integrity to the
walls, would be the suitable one. One such combination
could be the use of PP band and horizontal L-shaped
reinforcing bars while the other might be with combina-
tions of horizontal L-shaped reinforcing bars and wire
mesh. L-shaped horizontal reinforcing bars will be
effective in arresting corner/junction failure. However,
PP band and wire mesh will be beneficial in improving
the overall integrity providing some strength against
66 S. Bhattacharya et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 7 (2014) 51–67
bending resulting in better resistance towards out-of-
plane failure. However, such combinations may be easier
for applications without requiring any specialized skills.
This review has outlined the problems posed by earth-
quakes for developing counties, particularly with regard to
strike a balance between the economy, safety and quality
of life in areas such as Latin America, Peru, Nepal and
Indian subcontinent. Primarily, URM buildings affected by
earthquakes were highlighted in this study. These include
adobe, stone and brick masonry buildings. The common
mechanisms of failure of these types of buildings were
explored and remedial measures with their suitability,
ease of application and economic viability as well as
sustainability has been presented in details. The present
study thus, not only becomes a literature helping to choose
suitable existing retrofitting techniques for various adobe,
stone and brick masonry buildings but also helps in
disseminating the existing state-of-the-art knowledge
within policy makers, architects, designers and civil engi-
neering community in general. It may help in boosting
further research in improving some of the strengthening
strategies mentioned here, too.
Acknowledgments:
The first author would like to thank the project stu-
dents [Josh Macabuag, Louisa Man, Andrew Smith, Thomas
Redman, Kate Humphreys and Luke Hobbs] over the years
for contributing to the study. Some of the tests reported
were carried out at the BLADE [Bristol Lab for Advanced
Dynamic Engineering] laboratories.
References
[1] 〈http://denali.gsfc.nasa.gov/dtam/seismic〉 [accessed March, 2012].
[2] Bhattacharya S, editor. Design of foundations in seismic areas:
principles and applications, NICEE, ISBN: 81-904190-1-3, 2007.
[3] De Sensi B.Terracruda B. soil dissemination of earth architecture;
2003. (〈www.terracruda.com/%20architetturadiffusione.htm〉)
[accessed March, 2012].
[4] Houben H, Guillaud H. Earth construction – a comprehensive guide.
ITDG Publishing.1994.
[5] Blondet M, Garcia GVM. Adobe Construction, WHE Housing Report,
Catholic University of Peru, Peru; 2003.
[6] Papanikolaou A, Taucer F. Review of non-engineered houses in Latin
America with reference to building projects and self-construction
projects. Eur Lab Struct Assess 2004 (EUR21190EN).
[7] Sinha R, Brzev SN. Unreinforced brick masonry building with
reinforced concrete roof slab. World Housing Encyclopedia. 2002.
Report 21, 〈http://www.world-housing.net/〉 [accessed March, 2012].
[8] Lutman M. Stone Masonry Construction, WHE Housing Report,
Slovenian National Building and Civil Engineering Institute, Slove-
nia; 2002.
[9] Meguro K, Mayorca P, Sathiparan N, Guragain R, Nasrollahzadeh
Nesheli K. PP-Band retrofitting technique: affordable, acceptable and
feasible method for developing countries, Institute of Industrial
Science. University of Tokyo; 2005.
[10] CENAPRED (Centro Nacional de Prevencion de Desastres), Metodos
de Refuerzo para la Vivienda Rural de Autoconstruccion, Primera
Jornada Nacional De Simulacros Para La Prevencion de Riesgos,
Mexico; 2002.
[11] D’Ayala D. Unreinforced brick masonry construction, WHE housing
report. United Kingdom: University of Bath; 2002.
[12] Jain SK. On better engineering preparedness: lessons from the 1988
Bihar earthquake. Earthquake Spectra, EERI 1992;8(3).
[13] Bruneau M. State-of-the-art report on seismic performance of
unreinforced masonry buildings. J Struct Eng, ASCE 1994;120(1):
230–51.
[14] Jain SK, Singh RP, Gupta VK, Nagar A. Garhwal earthquake of October
20, 1991. EERI Special Earthquake Report, EERI Newsletter February
1992; 26(2).
[15] Jain SK, Murty CVR, Chandak N, Seeber L, Jain NK. The September 29,
1993, M6.4 Killari, Maharashtra earthquake in central India. EERI
Special Earthquake Report, EERI Newsletter January 1994; 28(1).
[16] Bruneau M. Performance of masonry structures during the 1994 North-
ridge (Los Angeles) earthquake. Can J Civ Eng 1995;22:378–402.
[17] Bruneau M, Yoshimura K. Damage due to masonry buildings caused
by the 1995 Hyogo-ken Nanbu (Kobe, Japan) earthquake. Can J Civ
Eng 1996;23:797–807.
[18] Jain SK, Murty CVR, Arlekar JN, Rajendran CP, Rajendran K, Sinha R.
Chamoli (Himalaya, India) earthquake of 29 March 1999. EERI
Special Earthquake Report, EERI Newsletter July 1999; 33(7).
[19] Jain SK, Murty CVR, Dayal U, Arlekar JN, Chaubey SK. Learning from
earthquakes: a field report on structural and geotechnical damages
sustained during the 26 January 2001 M7.9 Bhuj earthquake in
Western India. Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of
Technology Kanpur, Kanpur 208016, India, 2001.
[20] Rai DC, Murty CVR. Reconnaissance Report on North Andaman
(Diglipur) Earthquake of 14 September 2002. Department of Civil
Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur, Kanpur 208016,
India, 2003.
[21] Jain SK, Murty CVR, Rai DC, Malik JN, Sheth AR, Jaiswal A. Effects of
M9 Sumatra earthquake and tsunami of 26 December 2004. Curr Sci
2005;88(3):357–9.
[22] National Information Centre of Earthquake Engineering (NICEE)
Photo gallery 2005, 〈http://www.nicee.org/photos.php〉 [accessed
09.03.13].
[23] Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI) Special Earth-
quake Report (2006). Learning from earthquakes – The Kashmir
earthquake of October 8, 2005: Impacts in Pakistan, 〈https://www.
eeri.org/ lfe/pdf/kashmir_eeri_2nd_report.pdf〉 [accessed 09.03.13].
[24] Dutta SC, Mukhopadhyay P, Bhattacharya S. Impact of moderate
earthquakes in post-Bhuj era: case study of Sikkim 2006 and
Durgapur 2008 earthquakes, India. In: Proceedings of 3rd Greece-
Japan workshop: seismic design, observation and retrofit of founda-
tions, Santorini, Greece 2009: p. 154–170.
[25] Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI). Learning from
earthquakes: The MW 7.0 Haiti earthquake of January 12, 2010:
Report #2. EERI Special Earthquake Report May 2010, Okland, CA
94612-1934, USA.
[26] Kato H, Tajiri S, Mukai T. Preliminary reconnaissance report of the
Chile Earthquake 2010. Building Research Institute Japan, July 1,
2010.
[27] Moon LM, Dizhur D, Ingham JM, Griffith MC. Seismic performance
of masonry buildings in the Christchurch earthquakes 2010–2011:
A progress report. In: Proceedings of the Australian earthquake
engineering society 2012 conference; December 7–9, 2012, Gold
Coast, Qld.
[28] Nishiyama I, Okawa I, Fukuyama H, Okuda Y Building damage by the
2011 off the Pacific coast of Tohuku earthquake and coping activities
by NILIM and BRI collaborated with the administration, 〈www.pwri.
go.jp/eng/ujnr/joint/43/paper/4_Nishiyama.pdf〉.
[29] 〈http://www.nicee.org〉 [accessed March, 2013].
[30] 〈http://earthquake.usgs.gov〉 [accessed March, 2013].
[31] Macabuag J. An introduction to modelling and retrofitting of non-
engineered masonry buildings under seismic loading. MEng
Research Report, Oxford University; 2007.
[32] ElGawady MA, Lestuzzi P, Badoux M. Retrofitting of masonry walls
using shotcrete, 2006 NZSEE Conference, Paper 45.
[33] ElGawady M, Lestuzzi P, Badoux M. A review of conventional
seismic retrofitting techniques for URM, 13 thIB 2 MaC. Holland:
Amsterdam; 2004.
[34] Tetley R, Madabhushi G. Vulnerability of adobe buildings under
earthquake loading, In: Proceedings of the international conference
on earthquake geotechnical engineering, Greece 2007; June 25–28:
Paper no. 1244.
[35] Dowling D, Samali B, Li J. An improved means of reinforcing
adobe walls-external vertical reinforcement, SismoAdobe 2005;
May 16–19th: PUCP, Lima, Peru.
[36] Ehsani MR, Saadatmanesh H, Velazquez-Dimas JI. Behavior of retro-
fitted URM walls under simulated earthquake loading. J Compos
Constr, ASCE 1999;3(3):134–42.
[37] Man L. Improving the earthquake resistance of non-engineered
adobe masonry buildings. Oxford University; 2008.
 S. Bhattacharya et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 7 (2014) 51–67
[38] Gilstrap JM, Dolan CW. Out-of-plane bending of FRP-reinforced
masonry walls. Compos Sci Tech 1998;58:1277–84.
[39] Corradi M, Borri A, Vignoli A. Strengthening techniques tested on
masonry structures struck by the Umbria-Marche earthquake of
1997–1998. Constr Build Mater 2002;16:229–39.
[40] Kuzik MD, Elwi AE, Cheng JJR. Cyclic flexure tests of masonry walls
reinforced with glass fiber reinforced polymer sheets. J Compos
Constr, ASCE 2003;7(1):20–30.
[41] Tan KH, Patoary MKH. Strengthening of masonry walls against out-
of-plane loads using fiber-reinforced polymer reinforcement.
J Compos Constr, ASCE 2004;8(1):79–87.
[42] Korany Y, Drysdale R. Rehabilitation of masonry walls using unob-
strusive FRP techniques for enhanced out-of-plane seismic resis-
tance. J Compos Constr, ASCE 2006;10(3):213–22.
[43] El-Dakhakhni WW, Hamid AA, Hakam ZHR, Elgaaly M. Hazard
mitigation and strengthening of unreinforced masonry walls using
composites. Compos Struct 2006;73:458–77.
[44] Wang Q, Chai Z, Huang Y, Yang Y, Zhang Y. Seismic shear capacity of
brick masonry wall reinforced by GFRP. Asian J Civil Eng (Build
Housing) 2006;7(6):563–80.
[45] Shrive NG. The use of fiber reinforced polymers to improve seismic
resistance of masonry. Constr Build Mater 2006;20:269–77.
[46] Mosallam AS. Out-of-plane flexural behavior of unreinforced red
brick walls strengthened with FRP composites. Compos Part B
2007;38:559–74.
[47] Prakash SS, Alagusundaramoorthy P. Load resistance of masonry
wallettes and shear triplets retrofitted with GFRP composites. Cem
Concr Compos 2008;30:745–61.
[48] Willis CR, Yang Q, Seracino R, Griffith MC. Damaged masonry walls
in two-way bending retrofitted with vertical FRP strips. Constr Build
Mater 2009;23:1591–604.
[49] Hamed E, Rabinovitch O. Failure characteristics of FRP-strengthened
masonry walls under out-of-plane loads. Eng Struct 2010;32:
2134–45.
[50] Maalej M, Lin VWJ, Nguyen MP, Quek ST. Engineered cementitious
composites for effective strengthening of unreinforced masonry
walls. Eng Struct 2010;32:2432–9.
67
[51] Roca P, Araiza G. Shear response of brick masonry small assemblages
strengthened with bonded FRP laminates for in-plane reinforce-
ment. Constr Build Mater 2010;24:1372–84.
[52] Dutta SC, Mukhopadhyay P, Goswami K. Augmenting strength of
collapsed unreinforced masonry junctions: the principal damage
feature due to moderate Indian earthquakes. Nat. Hazards Rev., ASCE
2012;. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)NH.1527-6996.0000096.
[53] Turer A, Korkmaz SZ, Korkmaz HH. Performance improvement
studies of masonry houses using elastic post-tensioning straps.
Earth Eng Struct Dyn 2007;36:683–705.
[54] Paikara S, Rai DC. Confining masonry using pre-cast R.C. element for
enhanced earthquake resistance, in: Proceedings of the 8th U.S.
National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, San Francisco,
California, USA, April 18–22, 2006.
[55] Blondet M, Torrealva D, Vargas J, Velasquez J, Tarque N. Seismic
reinforcement of adobe houses using external polymer mesh,
September 2006, Paper no. 632.
[56] Macabuag J, Guragain R, Bhattacharya S. Seismic retriofitting of non-
engineered masonry in rural Nepal. In: Proceedings of the
ICE – Structures and Buildings; 2012. doi: 10.1680/stbu.10.00015.
[57] Bartolomé A.S., Quiun D., Zegarra L. Performance of reinforced adobe
houses in Pisco, Peru earthquake. In: Proceedings of the 14th
world conference on earthquake engineering, Beijing, China,
October 12–17, 2008.
[58] Bartolomé AS, Quiun D, Zegarra L. Effective system for seismic
reinforcement of adobe houses. Proceedings of the 13th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, B.C., Canada,
August 1–6, 2004, Paper no. 3321.
[59] Taghdi M, Bruneau M, Saatcioglu M. Seismic retrofitting of low-rise
masonry and concrete walls using steel strips. J Struct Eng, ASCE
2000;126(9):1017–25.
[60] 〈http://www.netcomposites.com/education.asp?sequence=33〉
[accessed December, 2008].
[61] 〈http://www.ridelust.com/190-million-tires-thrown-away-ea
ch-year-wheres-the-rubberized-asphalt-concrete-rac/〉 [accessed
December, 2008].
[62] www.thegreenstoreonline.co.uk/default.aspx/Page/122 [accessed
December, 2008].