Brick and Block Masonry – Trends, Innovations and Challenges – Modena, da Porto & Valluzzi (Eds)

© 2016 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-1-138-02999-6

Static and dynamic testing for validating the polymer grid

as external reinforcement in earthen buildings

D. Torrealva
Pontifical Catholic University of Peru, Lima, Peru

ABSTRACT:  In 2004, the first static test using polymer grid as structural reinforcement for earthen
walls was performed at the Structures Laboratory of the Pontifical Catholic University of Peru. In 2005
the first dynamic test using the same reinforcement showed excellent results in substantially reducing the
seismic vulnerability of earthen buildings. Since then, more than 20 static tests and at least 12 earthquake
simulation tests have been performed with different types of grid reinforcement, amount of reinforcement
and architectural configurations to validate and perfecting the solution. In 2007 after a magnitude 8.0
earthquake caused extensive damage in adobe houses in the coast of Peru, this type of reinforcement was
included in the national building code for earthen buildings. The extensive testing comprises out of plane
flexural tests and in plane cyclic shear tests on adobe walls and shaking table tests on traditional adobe
modules scaled at ¾ of its full size with four orthogonal walls and square layout plans with light timber
roof. Masonry with normal sun dry adobe units bonded with soil mortar and masonry with compressed
earth blocks dry stack have also been used for the walls in static and dynamic tests. In all cases, the poly-
mer grid placed on both sides of the wall and connected through the wall provided enough strength and
deformation capacity to overcome the natural weakness and fragility of this type of constructions. This
paper shows a survey of the more relevant testing that support the use of the polymer grid as seismic
reinforcement for earthen buildings in general.

1  InTroduction 2  PREVIOUS TESTING RESULTS

It is widely recognized that the analysis of the 2.1  Dynamic testing with natural reinforcement
response of earthen buildings is particularly com- for adobe houses 1984–1990
plex when they are subjected to experimental static
During the period between 1984 and 1990, seis-
testing because of their large mass, weakness in
mic simulation tests using the unidirectional shake
tension, and brittleness that makes it difficult to
table of the Structures Laboratory at PUCP were
apply concentrated loads to earthen models. For
performed on 3/4  scale adobe building models
this reason, the first tests carried out at the Pon-
without roof, and with and without internal cane
tifical Catholic University of Peru (PUCP) were
reinforcement. Plan dimensions of the table are
performed with a tilt-up table that simulated the
4.40  m  ×  4.40  m with a maximum model weight
inertial earthquake forces with the inclined com-
capacity of 14  tons, just enough to test a square,
ponent of its own weight. With this testing tech-
four orthogonal wall traditional model with sym-
nique, several reinforcement procedures using
metrical openings. The models were subjected to
wood, bamboo cane, and steel wire were tested on
several seismic motions of increasing amplitude.
full-scale models. Nevertheless, static tests were
The main conclusion was that in the event of a
also performed on full-scale walls subjected to
severe earthquake, the internal cane reinforce-
horizontal shear and flexure, in order to study the
ment together with a wooden ring beam located
mechanical characteristics of adobe masonry. The
in the upper part of the wall prevents wall sepa-
most efficient reinforcement procedure at this stage
ration and consequent out-of-plane collapse. In
was found to be the placement of vertical bamboo
a subsequent research project, models with roof
canes in the interior of the walls at a spacing of
and several alternative methods of cane reinforce-
one and a half times the wall thickness combined
ment, including one model reinforced with only
with horizontal split canes placed every four layers.
vertical canes, were subjected to similar seismic
Initial horizontal shear monotonic tests and tilt up
simulation tests. It was concluded that in order to
tests on this type of reinforcement showed that this
maintain the integrity of the adobe walls, both hor-
technique provided an important increase in the
izontal and vertical reinforcements were necessary.
deformation capacity of adobe walls.

873

IBMAC16_Fullpaper_[CH001-CH150].indb 873 5/26/2016 2:49:33 PM

 This conclusion corroborated the one obtained
from the tilt up table tests. Torrealva (1986) tested
a similar model externally reinforced with chicken
wire mesh plastered with cement mortar, the model
failed in a brittle way by shear.
2.2  Vulnerability of existing houses and welded
steel mesh as reinforcement for adobe houses
1990–2000
In accordance with the International Decade for
the Reduction of Natural Hazards, PUCP focused
experimental work on existing houses, with the
objective of reducing the seismic vulnerability
of earthen buildings. Natural fiber ropes, wood,
Downloaded by [University of Waterloo] at 00:22 12 November 2016
chicken wire mesh, and welded steel wire mesh
placed at critical points were tried as reinforcement
materials.The best solution found was the use of
welded steel mesh applied on both faces of the wall,
vertically at the corners and horizontally at the top
of the walls and plastered with a layer of sand/
cement mortar, simulating columns and beams.
The tests performed on U-shaped walls demon-
strated that this reinforcement increase greatly the
seismic resistance. As a practical complement to
the experimental research program, rural houses in
several locations of Peru were reinforced using this
technique (Zegarra et al. 2003).
2.3  Dynamic testing on retrofitting techniques: 2003
In 2003 a strong earthquake hit the southern part
of Peru, causing extensive damage in all types of
buildings. Among them, thousands of earthen
houses in the coastal and Andean areas were
affected. The houses retrofitted with steel mesh
and sand-cement plaster in 1999 withstood the
effects of this earthquake without damage, becom-
ing a model for a reconstruction project of several
hundred houses in the area (Zegarra et  al. 2003).
In order to corroborate the effectiveness of this
reinforcement, three traditional model houses with
square plan and four orthogonal walls were tested
dynamically. The first model was built without
any reinforcement in order to serve as a baseline
for the reinforced models. The second model was
reinforced on both sides of the wall with horizontal
and vertical bands of welded wire mesh plastered
with a sand/cement mortar. Vertical bands were
placed at all corners, and the horizontal band was
placed at the top of the walls, simulating a ring
beam. The third model was similar to the previ-
ous one, but with an additional reinforced concrete
ring beam anchored to the walls with shear con-
nectors at all corners. All models were subjected to
several seismic motions of increasing intensity. The
seismic performance of the unreinforced model
was used as a baseline for the reinforced models.
874
IBMAC16_Fullpaper_[CH001-CH150].indb 874
The results showed that for strong motions, par-
tial collapse and global instability are not avoided
with this reinforcement technique. The reinforced
mortar bands are much more stiffer than the
adobe masonry and tend to absorb most of the
seismic forces until the elastic resistance is reached
and a fragile rupture occurs. The addition of the
reinforced concrete ring beam was not effective to
avoid the partial collapse.
2.4  The geogrid as seismic reinforcement for
earthen buildings
Since 2003, industrial polymeric materials were used
as reinforcing materials for earthen buildings. The
advantage of this material lies in the compatibility
with the earthen wall deformation and its ability to
provide an adequate transmission of tensile strength
to the walls up to the final state. In the first experi-
mental program (Blondet et  al. 2005), I-shaped
adobe walls with several reinforcing techniques
were subjected to cyclic static tests. Among them,
internal and external polymer mesh was used as
wall reinforcement. The results showed that external
polymer mesh confines the adobe wall up to high
levels of horizontal displacement, allowing a great
amount of energy dissipation in comparison with
the unreinforced wall and with the wall reinforced
with stiff steel mesh and sand cement plaster.
In 2004, another experimental program aimed
to corroborate dynamically the effectiveness of
external compatible reinforcement using natural
and industrial meshes. Two model houses with
geometrical characteristics similar to the model
reinforced with welded steel mesh were tested with
two types of external reinforcement, Figures 1 and
2 (Torrealva & Acero 2005).
One of them was reinforced with natural mate-
rials using whole bamboo cane as vertical rein-
forcement and ropes as horizontal reinforcement.
The reinforcement was placed at both sides of the
wall and connected with a small cabuya thread
through a hole previously drilled in the wall. The
second model was reinforced with a polymer mesh
(geogrid) completely covering the walls on both
sides. The mesh was connected with plastic thread
through holes previously drilled in the walls spaced
400 mm in two orthogonal directions. In both mod-
els, mud stucco was applied to half of the structure
in order to study the effect of stucco on the effec-
tiveness of reinforcement (Torrealva and Acero
2005). The results showed that placing an external
natural or industrial mesh on both sides and con-
necting through the thickness of the adobe wall is
an effective way to avoid partial or total collapse
of adobe buildings, even in severe earthquakes.
If the mesh is not covered with mud stucco, the ini-
tial strength is the same as the plain, unreinforced
5/26/2016 2:49:33 PM

Downloaded by [University of Waterloo] at 00:22 12 November 2016
Figure  1.  Plan view of traditional model and adobe
block layout.
Figure 2.  South wall elevation of traditional model.
wall, and the mesh becomes effective after the wall
is cracked. After the cracking, the mesh confines
the different sections into which the wall is bro-
ken, thus preventing partial or total collapse. In
both cases, the mud plaster over the mesh greatly
increases the initial shear strength and the stiffness
of the wall, controlling the lateral displacements
and preventing the cracking of the wall to a great
extent. This is particularly notable in the case of
the polymer mesh. Based on these results, the poly-
mer mesh reinforcement placed over the entire wall
can be considered the upper limit of the amount
of external reinforcement. The natural alterna-
875
IBMAC16_Fullpaper_[CH001-CH150].indb 875
tive, on the contrary, can be considered as near the
lower limit of the external reinforcement, because
of the bigger spacing between horizontal and verti-
cal elements. During the next two years, additional
dynamic testing was performed on models with
the same geometric characteristics, but with vary-
ing amounts and quality of polymer mesh, in an
attempt to reduce the overall cost of the mesh tech-
nique. Three additional models with the same geo-
metric characteristics were built with variations in
the reinforcement. Two of them using the normal
geogrid reinforcement at 75% and 50% of the wall
surface with polymer mesh and the third one using
low-cost polymer mesh but reinforcing it at 100%.
The results of this last group of dynamic tests
showed that the amount of mesh placed on the
walls is more important than the resistance of the
mesh. The wall, fully plastered and reinforced with
low-cost mesh, had a better seismic performance
than the models reinforced with stronger mesh at
75%. In all cases, the testing confirmed the benefi-
cial effect of having the plaster covering the mesh.
2.5  Dynamic testing on vaulted models reinforced
with geogrids
Between December 2005 and February 2006, two
vaulted models were subjected to seismic simula-
tion tests using the same earthquake signal, for
the sake of comparison with the models with
traditional square plan layout. The models were
designed by the Program for the Enhancement of
the Modernization of the Health Sector in Rural
Areas (AMARES), a nongovernmental organiza-
tion (NGO) working on implementation of health
infrastructure in the Andean areas of Peru. An
unreinforced model and a fully reinforced model
with polymer mesh on both sides of the wall were
tested for comparison. The results showed that the
unreinforced adobe vault was very vulnerable and
collapsed at very low intensity than did the unre-
inforced traditional houses. The fully reinforced
vault, on the contrary, performed well even in the
final phases of testing at the maximum acceleration
and displacement capacity of table shaking. This
last model was not plastered because of weight
limitations of the table and the geogrid worked
only as confinement.
2.6  Dynamic testing on traditional models with
compressed dry stack blocks masonry
In 2012, a traditional model was built using indus-
trialized compressed earth block and building the
walls by dry stacking the blocks without mortar.
In order to provide seismic capacity to the wall,
structural geogrid was placed on both sides of the
wall and connected through the wall with polymer
5/26/2016 2:49:34 PM
 strings that were left inside the wall at the time of
erection. Half of the house was plastered with a
sand/lima mortar and the other half with a mud
mortar. It was subjected to three increasing unidi-
rectional seismic motions until the maximum table
capacity. The results showed that the sand/lime
mortar was most effective in preventing the crack
formation in the wall whereas the mud plaster
detached from the wall leaving the grid as a confin-
ing element for the wall. The only damage to the
house at the end was small crushing of the adobes
in the mud plastered walls.
3  EXPERIMENTAL CAMPAIGNS
Downloaded by [University of Waterloo] at 00:22 12 November 2016
were a nubic vault roof house. The main variation in
the models has been the amount and type of rein-
forcement. This fact makes it possible to compare
the seismic performances of the different models
tested through the years. Table 1 shows a list of mod-
els tested in the period 200 last four years along with
their reinforcing characteristics: Unreinforced Tradi-
tional Models (UM), Reinforced Traditional Models
(RM), Steel Wire Mesh Reinforcement (SR), Poly-
Table 2.  Seismic performance of models.
Model & dam- Damage description and peak ground
age index acceleration (pga)
URM-01 Maximum pga. = 1.0 g

(C) Collapse of south-east corner,

3.1  Seismic performance of models remaining in unstable equilibrium
Almost all seismic simulation testing performed in RM-SM Maximum pga = 1.2 g
the Structures Laboratory at PUCP has been done (C) Collapse of south wall including the
using a table command signal derived from the lon- lintel, extensive cracking in the
non-plastered portions of the wall.
gitudinal component of the May 31, 1970, Peruvian
The final state is unstable.
earthquake. In addition to this, all models, except two, RM-RC Maximum pga. = 1.2 g
had traditional geometrical characteristics: a square (C) Shear failure at the lintel level.
plan, symmetrical wall openings and light timber Collapse of non-plastered portions
roof in such a way that they use the same concrete of walls. The final state is unstable
base to build them. The other two different models RM-NM Maximum p.g.a. = 1.0 g
(HD) Vertical cracks at every corner,
Table 1.  Reinforcement description for models. Crushing of the south wall near the
lintel. Extensive cracking by the
Model type Reinforcement and description mortar joints in the east and west
walls but remaining stable
URM-01 Non reinforced traditional model URM-02 Maximum pga = 1.3 g
RM-SM Welded wire mesh with cement plaster, (C) Total Collapse of model
vertically at corners and horizontally RM-PM100 Maximum pga. = 1.2 g
at top on both sides of wall (LD/HD) Vertical cracks in every corner,
RM-RC Welded wire mesh as RM-SM, plus light cracks in plastered walls and
reinforced concrete ring beam with moderate cracks in non-plastered
shear anchors to the wall at corners wall. Remains in stable equilibrium.
RM-NM Natural mesh with vertical whole cane RM-PM75 Maximum pga. = 1.3 g
and horizontal fiber rope placed (HD) Polymer mesh covering the walls
externally on both sides of wall at 75% on both sides
URM-02 Non reinforced traditional model RM-PM50 Maximum pga. = 1.3 g
RM-PM100 Polymer mesh covering the wall at (C) Partial collapse of walls due to
100% on both sides the detaching of adobes in the
RM-PM75 Polymer mesh covering the walls at non-reinforced portions of wall.
75% on both sides Remains in unstable equilibrium.
RM-PM50 Polymer mesh covering the walls at RM-LCM Maximum pga. = 1.3 g
50% on both sides (HD) Extensive cracking and dislodging
RM-LCM Low-cost polymer mesh covering half of adobes due to the great
of the model at 100% and the other deformation of low cost grid.
half at 70% URV Maximum pga = 0.8 g
URV Non reinforced vaulted model (C) Total Collapse of vaulted model
RV-PM100 Vaulted model with polymer mesh RV-PM100 Maximum pga = 1.2 g
covering the model completely (HD) Extensive cracking in adobe masonry.
on both sides Remains in stable condition
RM-CEB- Traditional model using of compressed RM-CEB- Maximum pga = 1.3 g
PM100 earth blocks (CEB) dry stacked in PM100 No damage in the sand/lime plastered
wall construction. 100% geogrid (LD) walls. Light damage in the mud
reinforcement. plastered walls.

876

IBMAC16_Fullpaper_[CH001-CH150].indb 876 5/26/2016 2:49:34 PM

 mer Mesh Reinforcement (PM100, PM75, PM50)
the number after the letters mean the approximate
percentage of the house surface that is reinforced
with polymer mesh. A natural external mesh on tra-
ditional model (NM) was also tested. Some models
reinforced with steel mesh were also complemented
with Reinforced Concrete Elements (RC). Finally,
the model built with Compressed Earth Blocks
(CEB) and dry stacked wall was completely rein-
forced with polymer grid on both sides of the wall.
Table 1 shows the identification of models with their
description and type of reinforcement.
For the purpose of comparison, a range of
table induced damage was established: ND means
no damage; LD means light damage, with small
Downloaded by [University of Waterloo] at 00:22 12 November 2016

cracks; HD stands for heavy damage, with large

cracks and some structural instability; and C signi-
fies total or partial collapse. The seismic perform-
ance of all these models is depicted in Table 2. Figure 3.  Plan layout of I shaped walls. The height of
Table  2  shows the final performance of the all specimens was 2.04 m.
model tested and the maximum peak acceleration
of the motion at the base of table (pga). It cor-
roborates once more that continuous external rein-
forcement is necessary to avoid collapse, but this
reinforcement has to be compatible with the defor-
mations of earthen building. In this sense, stiffer
bands, such as welded wire mesh with sand-cement
stucco, prevent cracking at higher levels of seismic
intensity than polymer grids with soil stucco but
do not work jointly with an adobe wall for severe
seismic motions, and they show brittle final behav-
ior. On the contrary, polymer and natural flexible
meshes embedded in a mud mortar work together
with adobe walls up to high levels of seismic inten-
sity without collapse. In addition, it can be said
that the polymer mesh is also appropriate for any
type of architectural configuration.
Figure  4.  Horizontal force vs displacement curve for
plain unreinforced wall.
3.2  In plane shear tests
Three I shaped in plan full scale adobe walls were
tested with different reinforcements(Blondet et  al
2005, Blondet et al 2006) see Figure 3. Wall 1 was
a plain unreinforced wall as a base line. Wall 2 was
confined with geogrid but no plaster was placed on
the wall. Wall 3 was reinforced with geogrid in both
sides of the wall and plastered with mud mortar;
also wall 3 had different thickness (0.23 m) since it
was built at a later stage than the first two.
The three walls were subjected to in plane cyclic
horizontal force at the top controlling the top dis-
placement. The results of these tests are shown in
Figures 4, 5 and 6.
Figure 5 shows that the use of geogrid as con-
finement does not increase the initial shear strength
capacity (Fig.  4) but provides large displacement
capacity maintaining the horizontal force level. Figure  5.  Horizontal force vs displacement curve for
When the geogrid is plastered with mud mortar, wall confined with geogrid.

877

IBMAC16_Fullpaper_[CH001-CH150].indb 877 5/26/2016 2:49:35 PM

 it gives an increase of the initial shear strength
because they work as a composite material trans-
mitting the tensile strength of the grid to the wall
trough the mortar. When the maximum capacity
is reach, the plaster stars detaching from the wall
generating an important amount of energy dissipa-
tion as in shown in Figure 6. At the final stage, the
plaster vanishes from the wall but the confinement
action by the geogrid continues. This behavior can
be seen in Figure  7 where the three evolvement
curves have been plotted as a matter of compari-
son (Torrealva et al 2008, Torrealva 2009).
3.3  Transversal bending tests
Downloaded by [University of Waterloo] at 00:22 12 November 2016
The dynamic tests and the cyclic shear tests dem-
onstrated that the geogrid placed over both sides
of the wall, connected through the thickness of the
wall and plastered with mortar, creates a compos-
ite material where the grid takes the tensile forces
and the adobe the compressive ones.
Figure  6.  Horizontal force vs displacement curve for
wall confined with geogrid and plastered with mud.
Figure 7.  Curves of shear strength vs angular distortion
for the three walls.
878
IBMAC16_Fullpaper_[CH001-CH150].indb 878
Given this scenario, it was appropriate to find
out the transversal bending resistance of the wall
reinforced with geogrid, for which bending tests
were performed in vertical walls (Torrealva et  al
2008). In order to find out the effect of the qual-
ity of the plaster in the response, mud and sand/
cement mortar were applied as plaster in different
walls. The results showed that the grid and the mud
plaster act together to resist the bending actions and
the use of cement mortar increases the initial flexure
strength but when the first bending crack appears
only the grid works and the resistance is similar to
the wall plastered with plain mud. However there
is the possibility that the geogrid breaks when the
cement mortar is very strong in such a way that only
one flexural crack appears and all the deformation
of the grid is concentrated in that crack.
The positive results of the vertical walls in bend-
ing prompted the testing of horizontal adobe pan-
els in bending (Torrealva et al 2012); so three walls
were built reinforced with geogrid and plastered
with plain mud. The panels were then placed in
Figure  8.  Transversal bending test of an adobe panel
reinforced with geogrid and plastered with plain mud.
Crack distribution corresponds to a composite material.
Figure  9.  Force-displacement curve for transversal
bending test.
5/26/2016 2:49:37 PM
 horizontal position through a testing device that
refrained the wall from bending stresses while the
installation took place and then were subjected
to its own weight in the first place and to a four
point bending test until the failure in bending.
Figure 8 shows the testing setup and Figure 9 shows
the Force vs vertical displacement curve until fail-
ure. The ultimate vertical force was 12 kN in addi-
tion to the own weight and the type of failure was
the breaking of the geogrid in tension.
4  CONCLUSIONS
The extensive testing performed on adobe masonry
Downloaded by [University of Waterloo] at 00:22 12 November 2016
specimens reinforced with geogrid supports the
hypothesis that this is a very effective and compat-
ible type of reinforcement for static and dynamic
actions.
There is a double effect of the geogrid on the
adobe dwellings when is embedded in the plaster
of the surface, for small displacements the rein-
forcement works together with the wall control-
ling the cracking and increasing the shear capacity
but for larger displacement, the reinforcement
detaches from the plaster and performs as a con-
finement element until the final stages of the shak-
ing preventing the collapse of adobe masonry
buildings. There is a wide variety of commercially
available geogrids varying the size of openings and
the thickness of the web, the thicker the web and
the smallest the opening the greater the stiffness of
the grid; and the greater the stiffness, the better it
controls the cracking in the adobe masonry. On the
contrary, if the grid is has a web with a small cross
section or wide opening, the tensile stiffness will be
very low and will not control properly the crack-
ing of the masonry. Most structural geogrids will
perform well with adobe masonry buildings but
nonstructural grids are very flexible and it may not
control the collapse of the masonry. The quality
of plaster also plays an important role in control-
ling the cracking on the masonry walls but a very
strong plaster like sand /cement is not advisable
879
IBMAC16_Fullpaper_[CH001-CH150].indb 879
because it may break the grid at the time of the
first crack creating a fragile behavior.
For transversal bending, the geogrid reinforce-
ment combines very well with the adobe masonry,
creating a composite material where the adobe takes
the compression and the grid the tension forces.
REFERENCES
Blondet M, Madueño, I., Torrealva, D., Villa García, G.
and Ginocchio F., 2005. “Using Industrial Materials
for Construction of Safe Adobe houses in Seismic
Areas” Conference International “EARTHBUILD
2005 ”Sydney, Australia.
Blondet, M., Torrealva, D., Vargas, J., Velasquez, J. and
Nicola Tarque. 2006 “Seismic reinforcement of adobe
houses using external polymer mesh”. Proceedings of
First European Conference on Earthquake Engineering
and Seismology.
Torrealva D, Acero J, 2005 Las Geomallas Como Refu-
erzo Sísmico de Viviendas de Tierra—El Fin de la
Vulnerabilidad Sísmica. Proceedings of conference
SISMOADOBE 2005 Pontificia Universidad Católica
del Perú, Lima Perú.
Torrealva D. 1986. “A Field and laboratory Tested
Technique for Retrofitting Adobe Houses in Seismic
Areas”. Middle East and Mediterranean Regional
Conference on Earthen and Low-Strength Masonry
Buildings in Seismic Areas. Ankara, Turkey. August
31-September 6, 1986. Page 403.
Torrealva, 2009 D. Seismic design of adobe walls rein-
forced with geogrids (in spanish). PUCP; Lima, Peru:
Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru.
Torrealva, D., Cerrón, C. and Espinoza, 2008 Y. “Shear
and out of plane bending strength of adobe walls
externally reinforced with polypropylene grids”. Pro-
ceedings of The 14th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Beijing.
Torrealva, D., Solís, M., Santillán, P. and Montoya,
G. “Empirical flexural behavior approach of adobe
masonry” 2012. 15th International Brick and Block
Masonry Conference Florianópolis—Brazil.
Zegarra L, Quiun D, San Bartolomé A. 2003. “Pruebas de
simulación sísmica en módulos de vivienda de adobe
reforzado del proyecto COPASA-GTZ-PUCP”.(in
spanish) Final Report. PUCP. Lima, Perú.
5/26/2016 2:49:37 PM