1.

Introduction
Nepal is located in seismically active area and had experienced several destructive earthquakes in the past. Many existing building in Nepal are masonry structures. They do not meet the performance according to modern codes. These structures are seismically vulnerable and required strengthening. Earthquake damage building cannot be replaced or rebuilt in the event of earthquake. Hence it is need to evaluate their performance and retrofit in time as per current code so that they can be safely reused in future. Collapse of masonry structures due to earthquake are increasing. So, to overcome this situation retrofitting techniques involving inexpensive construction material available in remote regions and low skill labor is needed. National Building Codes of Nepal has provided NBC 202: 1994 Mandatory Rule of Thumb for Load Bearing Structure for strengthening of unreinforced masonry structure. The major features of this code are extracted from the Basic Concept of Seismic Codes prepared by the International Association for Earthquake Engineering (IAEE) in 1980. An Indian code IS 4326: 1993 and IS 13828: 1993 are also based on codes prepared by IAEE. The performance evaluation of structure constructed as per technique given in this code is research topic. Hence, modeling the building structure according to the guideline and the evaluating performance of the building before and after applying strengthening techniques is research part of this study. In U.S., the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has published a performancebased design code - FEMA 356 - in 2000 to use for analyzing and retrofitting existing structures. According FEMA 356 the structural performance level of a building shall selected from four discrete structural performance levels and two intermediate structural performance ranges. The discrete structural performance levels are: a) Immediate Occupancy b) Life Safety c) Collapse Prevention and d) Operational. The immediate structural performance ranges are: a) Damage Control Range and b) Limited Safety Range.

2. Objective:
The main objective of this research is to evaluate the performance of the brick masonry structure analytically according to code provision. The model of structure will be made according to the practice of design in Nepal. Specific objective are: To evaluate the performance of brick masonry structure according to current practice. To evaluate the effectiveness of masonry structure after strengthening the structure according to guideline given by code.

3. Methodology:
The methodology will be as follows: Comprehensive study of previous work: The various literatures related with the works will be search and review. Experimental and analytical studies conducted in past will be referred simultaneously. Collection of required data: Data regarding material properties will be collected from previous work and published journal. Summarizing the several methods: The method conducted in past with related work will be collected and suitable method will be considered in modeling structure. Modeling structure using suitable software: Structure will be model using available software capable of computing non-linear analysis and suitable for masonry structure. Evaluating and analyzing the performance of building: Non-linear analysis will be carried out to find out performance of structure.

4. Literature Review and Theoretical Background

Masonry buildings are the most common type of construction used for housing purpose all around the world. Past experiences have shown how masonry structures are failed during earthquake. The structural elements that resist the earthquake in brick masonry structure are walls. Several techniques are used to improve the performance of wall. Before applying any retrofitting technique it is necessary to understand the behavior of masonry structure under different kind of loading. Typical Damage and Failure of Masonry Buildings 1. Non-Structural Damage: Cracking and overturning of masonry parapets, roof chimney and balconies. Failure of plaster from walls and ceiling. Cracking and overturning of partition walls, filler walls and cladding walls from inside of frame. Cracking and falling of ceiling etc. 2. Damage and failure of bearing walls due to bending and shear. 3. Cracking of spandrel wall between openings. 4. Failure of Roof and floors. Review of Code NBC 202: 1994: The main strengthening features provided in NBC202 are: 1. 2. 3. Horizontal reinforcement in Wall (Plinth Band, Lintel Band, Roof Band, Gabel Band) Dowels bar at the corner and junctions Vertical reinforcement in wall

The basic aim for providing the earthquake resistance features as recommended in the codes is based on following concept: (i) need of integral action, (ii) strong and ductile connection between walls, roof elements and foundation, (iii) improvement in strength for out of plane bending, (iv) strengthening of weaker section by steel, timber or reinforced concrete, and (v) improving the strength of mortar, quality of construction and insertion of bonding element. To develop a better understanding of the efficiency, reliability and acceptability of these measures, experimental verification is needed Pankaj Agarwal and Shashi K Thakkar (2000) experimentally studied on models of one story stone masonry houses. Models are tested on shock table to study the effectiveness of IS codal provision for earthquake resistance measures. A three Dimensional (3D) elastic analysis of the tested structure has also been carried out. The study concluded that codal provisions are effective in reducing the damage mainly above the lintel level. The vertical reinforcement at the corner of model, in combination with horizontal bands increases the strength of model as well as reduces
3

the cracking at the corner. They also concluded that 3-D elastic finite element analysis of masonry model can predict dynamic behavior and the region of cracking in the structure. Bishnu Hari Pandey and Kimiro Meguro (2004) also study the effect of lintel band in inplane loading. Observation shows that the lintel has significant effect in wall behavior, particularly in crack pattern. Crack appeared in wall without band is disappeared in the wall with band when the walls are in same drift level. Non-linear static (pushover) analysis is being recognized as a practical tool for the evaluation of seismic response of structure. Pushover analyses are being considered within modern seismic code, both for design of new structure and for assessment of existing structure. This method considers nonlinear behavior of structures by mean of their capacity curve. The seismic demand can be estimate in terms of spectral displacement (performance point), intersection so called capacity spectrum (the capacity curve plotted in terms of spectral acceleration and displacement) with the earthquake response spectrum. This paper will focus on studying performance of brick masonry structure using non-linear analysis.

5. Working Schedule

S.N 1 2 3 4 5 6

Activities Proposal Submission and Approval Literature Review and Data collection Modeling Mid-term Defense Performance evaluation and Data analysis Final Defense

Time (Months) Poush-15 Magh 16 Magh - Falgun Chaitra - Baishak Jestha Ashad Shrawan - Bhadra Kartik

6. References
1. P. Agarwal and S.K. Thakkar, Seismic Evaluation of Earthquake Resistant and Retrofitting Measures of Stone Masonry Houses 12 WCEE 2000 2. Bishnu Hari Pandey and Kimiro Meguro, Simulation of Brick Masonry Wall Under In Plane Lateral Loading Using Applied Element Method 13WCEE 2004 3. N. Lakshman Seismic Evaluation and retrofitting of buildings and structures ISET Journal of Earthquake Engineering 2006. 4. Daniel P. Abrams, Performance Based Engineering Concepts for Unreinforced Masonry Building Structure Journal on Progress in Structural Engineering and Materials 2001. 5. Guido Maguenes, A Method For Pushover Analysis in Seismic Assessment of Masonry Buildings 12WCEE 2000 6. Alessandro Galasco, Sergio Lagomarsino, Andre Penna, On The Use Of Pushover Analysis For Existing Masonry Building 1st ECEES 2006 7. Nepal National Building Code NBC 202: 1994, Mandatory Rules of Thumb Load Bearing Masonry. 8. Pankaj Agarwal and Manish Shrikhande Book Earthquake Resistance Design is Structure 9. Federal Emergency Management Agency FEMA-356 Pre-standard and Commentary for the seismic Rehabilitations of Building. 10. IAEE Manual, Guidelines For Earthquake Resistant Non-Engineered Construction, NICEE 2004