Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia Engineering 173 (2017) 1833 – 1840

11th International Symposium on Plasticity and Impact Mechanics, Implast 2016

Analysis of existing masonry heritage building subjected to

earthquake loading
M. Shariqa,*, S. Haseebb and M. Arifc
a
Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, AMU Aligarh 202002, India
b
M. Tech.,Student, Department of Civil Engineering, AMU Aligarh 202002, India
c
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, AMU Aligarh 202002, India

Abstract

In the present study, the finite element analysis has been carried out on masonry building subjected to earthquake loading. For
this purpose, an existing masonry heritage building situated in Aligarh city has been chosen. The time history method using El-
Centro earthquake data has been employed for seismic performance of the chosen building. The maximum principal tensile stress
and maximum shear stress has been observed and compared with permissible stresses. It has been found that these stresses
exceed the permissible limit at few locations such as dome-wall junction, wall-roof junctions and the minarets. It has also been
found that these locations are the most critical portion of the building under earthquake forces.
© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
© 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-reviewunder
Peer-review under responsibility
responsibility of organizing
of the the organizing committee
committee of Implast
of Implast 2016 2016.

Keywords: Masonry heritage building; FEM; earthquake loading; maximum principal tensile stress; maximum shear stress

1. Introduction

It is well known fact that the effect of earthquake forces on building is unpredictable and can occur at any time
and at any place. Masonry building whether residential or historical/heritage have high compressive strength but low
tensile strength. Analysis and strengthening of heritage building subjected to earthquake loading has always been a
challenging task because of its geometrical complexity and lack of knowledge about the used material, structural
modifications during the time and ageing of material. Past studies [1-6] show that the critical issues affecting the

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +91-9897903968

E-mail address: mshariqdce@gmail.com

1877-7058 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of Implast 2016
doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2016.12.229
1834 M. Shariq et al. / Procedia Engineering 173 (2017) 1833 – 1840

seismic response of historic masonry buildings namely masonry quality; connections among structural elements;
diaphragm flexibility; out-of plane resistance of masonry walls; structural irregularities; wrong retrofit interventions
and earthquake ground motion characteristics. In some studies [7-10] finite element analysis has also been carried
out on masonry buildings subjected to earthquake forces. It has been found that the memory and time requirements
become too large and if a compromise between accuracy and economy is needed, a macro-modeling strategy is
likely to be more efficient. Past studies show that the existing forms of the buildings are highly vulnerable for future
earthquake. Due to increase the seismic activities in every part of the country, there is a need of research to preserve
and examine the performance of masonry heritage buildings under earthquake loading, particularly with regard to
wall-floor connections and openings. Aligarh is located at 27.88 degree N, 78.08 degree E in the province of Uttar
Pradesh, India. It has an average elevation of 178 m (587). Aligarh falls in seismic zone IV as per IS: 1893 (2002)
which is a high seismicity zone. The Jama Masjid of Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) is a heritage building and
needs to be analyzed under heavy earthquake forces. Fig. 1 and 2 shows the front and back view of Jama Masjid,
AMU respectively.

Fig. 2. Backside view of Jama Masjid

Fig. 1. Front view of Jama Masjid

2. Finite element modeling (FEM)

The finite element modeling of mosque was carried out using macro-modeling techniques due to the reduced
time and memory requirements as well as user friendly mesh generation. This type of modeling is most valuable
when a compromise between accuracy and efficiency is needed. The whole building is analyzed using shell/plate
elements with triangular plate elements are used in the arches and domes while quadrilateral plate elements are used
for the rest of the structure.

2.1. Geometric properties for jama masjid

The structure is very massive, the walls in the structure are very thick more than 1.5 m at the central portion of
the building. Height of building is 8 m at left and right side of the building while the central portion of the building
is 11 m high. The building has one central dome of diameter 7.3 m and two other domes of smaller diameter at
either side of the building of diameter 5.2 m. The whole structure is symmetrical about one axis having two minarets
at either end of height 24 m. The building rests on a very firm soil. Hence the support condition is taken as fixed.
Masonry columns are provided in the buildings. The structure has a large number of openings at the front side of the
structure whereas very few openings of very less dimension is present at the backside of the structures. The
openings present at the backside of the structure are not considered in the model because these openings are of very
less dimension which does not have much effect on the stiffness. The openings are provided in the form of arches,
the modeling of these arches is very complex and time consuming.
 M. Shariq et al. / Procedia Engineering 173 (2017) 1833 – 1840 1835

2.2. Mechanical properties for jama masjid

The mechanical properties of the material given in Table 1 have been taken from the literature [11] for the
seismic analysis of existing masonry heritage building.

Table 1. Mechanical properties of the material.

Material Modulus of Poisson’s ratio Mass density
elasticity ‘μ’ (kN /m3)
‘E’ (N/mm ) 2

Brick masonry 2100 0.13 19.2

2.3. Finite element model for jama masjid

The FEM of jama masjid chosen as masonry heritage building has been carried out using commercially available
finite element software. The parts of the building are first modeled using plate element and then fine meshing has
been done in order to get better results. Proper connectivity is ensured throughout the structure by varying the size of
the mesh at few places as well as by using triangular plates in place of rectangular plates. Triangular plates are also
used in the structure where arches are present and are also used in the dome to provide proper connectivity. The total
number of plate elements and nodes used in the FEM is 30391 and 30308 respectively. Fig. 3 to 5 are showing the
salient features of the analytical finite element model of the heritage building chosen for the present investigation.

Fig. 5. Backside view of the FEM

Fig. 4. 3D front view of the FEM

Fig. 3. FEM showing nodes and plates in the

structure

3. Results and discussion

The building has been analyzed by using the acceleration vs time data of El Centro earthquake as seismic input
ground motion. The structure is analyzed considering the seismic forces in X and Z directions. The permissible
values of the stresses given in [12], taken as tensile stress and shear stress must not exceed 0.07 MPa and 0.25 MPa
respectively.

3.1. Maximum principal tensile stresses for earthquake in X direction

It can be seen from Fig. 6 that the maximum value of tensile stress is observed as 1.12 N/mm². In most of the
parts of the building, the tensile stresses are within permissible limits but the value is exceeding at the dome-wall
junction, roof-wall junction and few other parts of the structure.
1836 M. Shariq et al. / Procedia Engineering 173 (2017) 1833 – 1840

Fig. 6. Principal tensile stresses for earthquake loading in X direction

 M. Shariq et al. / Procedia Engineering 173 (2017) 1833 – 1840 1837

3.2. Maximum shear stresses for earthquake in X direction

Fig. 7 shows that the maximum value of shear stress is observed as 0.544 N/mm². In most of the parts of the
building, the shear stresses are within permissible limits but the value is exceeding in few other parts of the
structure. The maximum value is found to be at the back side of the structure near the corner junction of dome and
wall.

Fig. 7. Shear stresses for earthquake loading in X direction

3.3. Maximum principal tensile stresses for earthquake in Z direction

The maximum value of tensile stress has been observed is 1.12 N/mm² as shown in Fig. 8 which is comparable
with the value obtained while considering earthquake in X direction. The most part of the structure is experiencing
tensile stresses within permissible limits but the value is exceeding at the junction of domes-wall junction and roof-
1838 M. Shariq et al. / Procedia Engineering 173 (2017) 1833 – 1840

wall junction and few other parts of the structure. The value of tensile stress is also slightly higher at the arches as
well as at the junction of two walls.

Fig. 8. Principal tensile stresses for earthquake loading in Z direction

3.4. Maximum shear stresses for earthquake in Z direction

From the Fig. 9, the maximum value of shear stress is 0.531 N/mm² and slightly lower than the values obtained
from earthquake loading in X direction. The structure is experiencing shear stresses within permissible limits but
 M. Shariq et al. / Procedia Engineering 173 (2017) 1833 – 1840 1839

value is exceeding at few parts of the structure. The maximum value is found to be at the place that is at the back
side of the structure at the corner junction of dome and wall.

Fig. 9. Shear stresses for earthquake loading in Z direction

1840 M. Shariq et al. / Procedia Engineering 173 (2017) 1833 – 1840

4. Conclusions

The principal tensile stresses and shear stresses in the masonry heritage building subjected to earthquake loading
in X and Z direction are found within the permissible limit at most part of the structure but the value exceeds beyond
the permissible limit at few places. The front portion of the building is found to be vulnerable under earthquake
loading due to the presence of large number of openings. The stresses are beyond the permissible values around the
openings. The wall-roof junctions and dome-wall junctions and the corners of the adjacent walls are found to be
critical while considering the earthquake in any of the two directions. The minarets are found be the most critical
portion of the structure as per the results of response spectrum analysis of finite element model considering
earthquake in X direction. The maximum value of the stresses are found be to be at the junction of minaret and the
roof.

References

[1] A.W. Page, (1995), “Reinforced masonry structures, Australian overview”, Pacific Conference on Earthquake Engineering, PCEE 95 (1995),
Melbourne.
[2] G. Magenes, A.D. Fontana, Simplified non-linear seismic analysis of masonry buildings, Proc. International Masonry Society, 8 (1998) 190-
195.
[3] R. Cardoso, M. Lopes, R. Bento, Seismic evaluation of old masonry buildings, Part I: Method description and application to a case study,
Eng. Struct. 27 (2005) 2024-2035.
[4] P.B. Lourenco, J.A. Roque, Simplified indexes for the seismic vulnerability of ancient masonry buildings, Constr. Build. Mater. 20 (2006)
200-208.
[5] F. Ceroni, M. Pecce, S. Sica, A. Garofano, Assessment of seismic vulnerability of a historical masonry building, Build. 2 (2012) 332-358.
[6] F. Parisi, N. Augenti, Earthquake damages to cultural heritage constructions and simplified assessment of artworks, Eng. Fail. Analy. 34
(2013) 735-760.
[7] P.B. Lourenco, Computational strategies for masonry structures, PhD dissertation, Delft University of Technology, Holland, 1996.
[8] G.V. Guinea, J. Planas, M. Elices, K1 evaluation by the displacement extrapolation technique, Eng. Fract. Mechan. 66 (2000) 243-255.
[9] M.A. Elgawady, P. Lestuzzi, and M. Badoux, Analytical model for in-plane shear behaviour of URM walls retrofitted with FRP”, Compos.
Sci. Techno. 66 (2006) 459-474.
[10] S.S. Khadka, Seismic performance of tradational unreinforced masonry building in nepal, Kathmandu University J. Sci. 9 (2013) 15-28.
[11] M. Shariq, H. Abbas, H. Irtaza, M. Qamaruddin, Influence of openings on seismic performance of masonry building walls, Build. Environm.
43 (2008) 1232-1240.
[12] IS 1905, Indian Standard Code of Practice for Structural Use of Unreinforced Masonry, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India
(1987).