See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/361583643

Construction and Analysis of Brick Masonry Dome in Lime Mortar without

Form Work

Article · June 2022

DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.3570369

CITATION READS

1 2,562

2 authors:

Atharva Kulkarni Vrushali Vasantrao Nalawade

Indian Institute of Technology Bombay Jawaharlal Nehru Engineering College
1 PUBLICATION 1 CITATION 2 PUBLICATIONS 1 CITATION

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Atharva Kulkarni on 06 September 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Ceramics and Concrete Sciences
e-ISSN: 2582-1938
Volume 4 Issue 3

Construction and Analysis of Brick Masonry Dome in Lime

Mortar without Form Work
A R Kulkarni*1, V V Nalawade2
1
B.Tech Student, 2Assistant Professor
Department of Civil Engineering, Jawaharlal Nehru Engineering College, Aurangabad,
Maharashtra, India
Email: *atharva24kulkarni@gmail.com
DOI:

Abstract
Dome is a large hemispherical roof, which is an ancient roofing technique used for large
span structures without intermediate fixed support. And it’s a technique where there is no
need of any kind of support or formwork at the time of construction. Many stone masonry
domes built few hundred years ago are serving in best working conditions and are
aesthetically more appealing than domes built using any other material. The temples,
mosques and churches built using stone masonry are still standing with minimum
maintenance. The feeling of tranquility in these structures cannot be compared with
structures built using reinforced cement concrete or steel. It gives astonishing results if we
use naturally available materials viz., stone, mud, haze, etc. In this paper construction
technique of domes without form-work have been discussed. This paper talks about the
results of experimental study on construction and analysis of masonry dome in lime mortar
without using formwork.

Keywords: Formwork, funicular analysis, lime mortar, loading, masonry dome

INTRODUCTION structures we are constructing using

We see around us many heritage reinforced concrete and steel will not
structures, most of them built using survive for our grandchildren. Hence to
masonry, are standing for centuries. Many maintain these valuable heritages and to
stone masonry domes built few hundred re-consider our choices of material for
years ago are serving in best working many new structures, it becomes
conditions and are aesthetically more imperative to understand the structural
appealing than domes built using any other behavior of masonry structures.
material. The temples, mosques and
churches built using stone masonry are The maintenance of heritage masonry
still standing with minimum maintenance. structures and it’s assessment for stability
The feeling of tranquility in these need the appropriate method of structural
structures cannot be compared with analysis. The stability parameter of these
structures built using reinforced cement heritage structures is still haze to the
concrete or steel. These masonry structures engineers. It is easy to find the document
have proven its durability over hundreds or related to history and art of these
even thousands of the years. In terms of monuments, but it is very hard to find any
structural analysis or drawing related to
durability and tranquility reinforce
these structures. It is imperative to
concrete and steel structures cannot be
understand the structural actions of these
compared with masonry structures. These structures not only to maintain its integrity
heritage structures built by our forefather but also to create heritage by ourselves for
are standing for generations, but the our grandchildren.

23 Page 23-29 © MAT Journals 2019. All Rights Reserved

 Journal of Ceramics and Concrete Sciences
e-ISSN: 2582-1938
Volume 4 Issue 3

The masonry dome structure of Taj-Mahal properties of masonry but its use for study
is one of the very impressive heritage of masonry structure remained limited to
structures exists in India. The key for arches and vaults only. Furthermore it fails
durability of masonry structures lies in its to study the effect of complex boundary
material properties and in its structural conditions and settlement of support. This
action. The structural profile of these lack of knowledge and assessment due to
heritage building was always maintained limitation in analysis method lead to ad-
in compression by ancient builders. The hoc strengthening measure to such heritage
property of masonry is good in resisting structures [6]. Hence it becomes very
compression, whereas it fails to resist any important to find suitable method for
tension. These masonry dome structures masonry analysis and more specifically for
are designed mainly using understanding masonry dome analysis. The method
of geometrical stable shapes, or by using should be versatile to include the effect
simple graphical methods like thrust line hoop forces and support settlement on
method. The application of this approach stability of structure. In graphical thrust
was remained limited to the arch problem line method, the result is very easy to
only, and so masonry dome are historically interpret for stability [7]. If the thrust line
analyzed as arch or by orange slice passes through middle third then structure
methods. This approach has ignored the is understood to be stable without any
strength available due to hoop compressive meridional tension. The method developed
forces and at the same time ignored the ill should also have similar ease in
effect due to hoop tension forces. Almost interpretation of stability; it is well
all masonry dome structures suffer the documented fact that masonry domes are
cracks due to these hoop tension forces. critical for stability and not for the stress.
The domes constructed under Islamic The method developed should not be
architecture like Gol-gumbaz of Bijapur sensitive to mechanical properties of the
and Taj-mahal of Agra were not provided masonry [8, 9].
with any tension resisting mechanism,
wherein the domes constructed in Europe Recently, the center of the Global
like Pantheon and St. Peter cathedral of Vipassana Pagoda was built in Mumbai. It
Rome were provided with metal chains in contains the world's biggest stone arch
the thickness of these domes. The effect of worked with no supporting columns [10].
existence or non-existence of these The height of the arch is roughly 29
tensions resisting mechanism on stability meters, while the height of the structure is
of the dome needs to comprehend. Finite 96.12 meters, the outside measurement of
element analysis can quantify these hoop the biggest area of the dome is 97.46m and
forces. But the engineers face some the shorter segments, is 94.82m. The
difficulties in finite element analysis of internal diameter of the dome is
these structures due to non-availability of 85.15m. Within the pagoda is empty and
data for mechanical properties of the fills in as an exceptionally huge
heritage structures. Even in new contemplation corridor with a territory
construction, the assessment and control of covering more than 6000 sq. m (65,000 sq.
these mechanical properties is challenging ft). The massive inner dome seats over
task due to uncertainty associated with 8000 people.
texture (pattern of placement of stone and
matrix) of masonry [1-5]. Design
The design of the dome was done
The conventional thrust line approach on considering factors like end usage,
other hand does not require mechanical climatic conditions and weigh bearing

24 Page 23-29 © MAT Journals 2019. All Rights Reserved

 Journal of Ceramics and Concrete Sciences
e-ISSN: 2582-1938
Volume 4 Issue 3

capacity [11]. The location was fixed to be Test Program

near the entrance of the civil engineering Test program involves the analysis and
department at MGM’s Jawaharlal Nehru construction of masonry dome. For this
College of Engineering, Aurangabad. The
first step is to determine the load coming
size and shape were fixed, and the analysis
was done using the Funicular Method. on the structure as well as the load
This method of graphical analysis for carrying capacity of brick masonry dome
domes uses weight of every Voussoir is with lime mortar. The resources recycled
taken into consideration and vector lines for the structure are, Burnt clay bricks of
are drawn and their behavior is studied. If size 150X 75X 15mm consuming
the thrust line passes through the structure,
compressive strength of 4.0N/mm2 and
the arch is safe to be built. If we rotate an
arch about its central axis, we get a dome. 1:1:1:1.5 (Lime: Surkhi: Sand: Water)
Therefore, this method of analysis is lime mortar having compressive strength
justified to be used for domes. Four 0.803N/mm2 (dry) have been used for the
columns of 360×360mm were to be built construction of dome. The preparation
over which a ring beam was to be rested. time for lime to be used in the mortar is
For this study, dome of span 1.92m, 0.15m
min 5hr. After that, preparation of lime
thickness and 0.96m rise has been
considered. Also an oculus of 0.57m from mortar will take minimum 3-4hrs with
top is present. The diagrams for which Muller refer to Fig. 1.
have been provided in the paper.

Figure 1: Muller used for the preparation of lime mortar.

Table 1 indicates the segment weight has been constructed with RCC to support
calculation for analysis of masonry dome the dome. The ring beam rests on brick
by Funicular analysis refer Fig. 2. Which masonry square column of sides 360mm.
help us to construct the dome. Before The columns were constructed in 1:6
starting the construction of dome, the ring cement mortars with standard burnt clay
beam of cross-section 230mm X 150mm bricks of class-I grade.

25 Page 23-29 © MAT Journals 2019. All Rights Reserved

 Journal of Ceramics and Concrete Sciences
e-ISSN: 2582-1938
Volume 4 Issue 3

Table 1: Segment weight calculations for funicular analysis.

Segment Segment Length Depth Thickness Volume mass Weight Weight to
References (Median) (cm) (cm) (cm) (kg/m³) (Kg) draw (cm)
W1 2.317 100 9.00 1900 3.96 0.7924
W2 10.9 100 9.00 1900 18.64 3.7278
W3 10.9 100 9.00 1900 18.64 3.7278
W4 10.9 100 9.00 1900 18.64 3.7278
W5 10.9 100 9.00 1900 18.64 3.7278
W6 10.9 100 9.00 1900 18.64 3.7278
W7 10.9 100 9.00 1900 18.64 3.7278
W8 10.9 100 9.00 1900 18.64 3.7278
W9 10.9 100 9.00 1900 18.64 3.7278
W10 10.9 100 9.00 1900 18.64 3.7278
W11 10.9 100 9.00 1900 18.64 3.7278
W12 10.9 100 9.00 1900 18.64 3.7278
W13 10.9 100 9.00 1900 18.64 3.7278

Figure 2: Funicular analysis of arch.

The construction of dome completed layer as seen in Fig. 4, with exact center of
by layer with lime mortar joint with dome marking is used for constructing
thickness of joint 5mm to 15mm. Refer each course. Not more than 3 courses were
Fig. 3 for geometrical data. Not any type constructed each day. This method of
of formwork has been used for dome constructing reduces the cost of
construction. The simple ancient technique construction since no formwork needs to
was incorporated for it, a wooden flat log be used.

26 Page 23-29 © MAT Journals 2019. All Rights Reserved

 Journal of Ceramics and Concrete Sciences
e-ISSN: 2582-1938
Volume 4 Issue 3

Figure 3: Elevation, section and plan for the steel reinforced concrete ring beam.

Figure 4: Tool (wooden flat log) used for maintaining the levels and center of each layer.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS analysis and construction technique of

The study presented in this paper aims to masonry dome without formwork refer
address the load carrying capacity, Fig. 5 and 7.

27 Page 23-29 © MAT Journals 2019. All Rights Reserved

 Journal of Ceramics and Concrete Sciences
e-ISSN: 2582-1938
Volume 4 Issue 3

Figure 5: Masonry dome under construction without using formwork.

 The method of construction is very exponentially due to the gummy

versatile & can be implemented for up mixture of the mortar used.
to 3m span.  The above construction technique is
 Funicular analysis method is used to economical since it doesn’t require any
identify the thrust line of dome which formwork.
helps in stability analysis of the same.  The major disadvantage of this type of
 The efficiency in practice depends on construction is Time. It takes more
the skills of the mason. days to complete as not more than 3
 The brick masonry dome in lime courses were constructed each day.
mortar is relatively easier to build Refer Fig. 6.
since the workability increased

Figure 6: End of construction at day 2. Figure 7: Top view of the dome under construction.

CONCLUSIONS  Skilled labor is necessary for a process

 The design process was found to be like this.
quite convenient and can be  The method is considered economical
implemented for larger spans. since no formwork is required in the
 The method used or the construction process to build the dome.
was labor intensive.

28 Page 23-29 © MAT Journals 2019. All Rights Reserved

 Journal of Ceramics and Concrete Sciences
e-ISSN: 2582-1938
Volume 4 Issue 3

 No use of steel for the construction of structures”, Mecc., Volume 27, Issue 3,
roof ensures greater life span since no pp. 161−172.
corrosion related issues occur (The 6. Pesciullesi C, Rapallini, M., Tralli, A.
steel used in the beam for this project and Cianchi, A. Optimal Spherical
can be replaced). Masonry Domes of Uniform Strength,
 Workability for Lime mortar is found Journal of structural Engineering, Vol.
to be quite difficult at times due to its 123, No. 2, Feb 1997, pp. 203-209.
unique components. 7. Raghunath S, Prasanna Kumar P
 A flaw for this construction (1994), “Experimental Investigation on
methodology is that it takes a lot of Brick Masonry Domes”, B.E., Project,
time to be executed and a limited Dept. of Civil Engg, B.M.S.C.E.,
number of people can work at a time. Bangalore.
8. Vrushali V Nalawade, Dr. SB Shinde
REFERENCES (2016), “Finite element thrust line
1. Heyman J (1977), “Equilibrium of analysis of masonry dome”, IJESC,
shell structures”, Clarendon Press, DOI 10.4010/2016.1517ISSN 2321
Oxford, England. 3361.
2. Heyman J (1967), “On shell solutions 9. Auroville earth institute, building with
for masonry domes”, J. Sol. Str., arches, vaults and domes – training
Volume 3, pp. 227−241. manual for architects and engineers,
3. Varma M, Jangid R, Ghosh S (October Available from www.earth-
2010), “Thrust line analysis using auroville.com
finite element method”, Advanced 10. IS 383 (1970), “Indian Standard
Materials Research, Volume 133−134, Specification for coarse and fine
pp. 503−508. aggregates from natural sources for
4. Mahesh N Varma, Prof. RS Jangid, Dr. concrete”, BIS, New Delhi, India.
VG Achwal (2006), “Tension Ring in 11. IS 875 (Part 2) (1987), “Indian
Masonry domes”, Structural Analysis Standard code of Practice for Design
of Historical Constructions, New Loads (Other than Earthquake) for
Delhi, ISBN 972-8692-27-7 Buildings and Structure”, BIS, New
5. Livesley RK (1992), “A Delhi, India.
Computational model for the limit
analysis of three-dimensional masonry

29 Page 23-29 © MAT Journals 2019. All Rights Reserved

View publication stats