International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR)
ISSN: 2319-7064
ResearchGate Impact Factor (2018): 0.28 | SJIF (2018): 7.426
Rat Trap Bond Wall for Low Cost Material &High
Strength
Ashok Anand
Associate Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Roorkee College of Engineering, Roorkee, Uttrakhand, India
Abstract: The proposed investigation aims at investigating the structural strength or RAP TRAP BOND WALL, Presently in any
masonry structure the use of English bond brick is one of material made from clay. Now a days it has become a costly material so it is
better to use less bricks in constructing walls by using Rat trap bond. Use of Rat trap bond is profitable from point of view of its less
costly, less energy intensive and more labour, intensive. RAT TRAP BOND becomes very appropriate,at present very few information
are available regarding structural properties of Rat trap bond. Even Indian code of practices for masonry works is silent on Rat trap
bond masonry work. In 1999. Urban housing shortages were found to 9.6 million units. In these days of increasing cost of construction,
the dream of owning a house particularly for low income and middle income family is becoming a different reality.
Keywords: RTBW, EBW, Low Cost Material, High Strength
1. Introduction 2. Objectives
The economic success and advantage of masonry To study the behavior of the Rat-Trap Bond Wall shown in
construction lies in the fact that in load bearing structure, it figure.1 at both service load and ultimate load in comparison
performs a variety of functions, namely, supporting loads, with the conventional English Bond Wall. Also to find the
subdividing space, providing thermal and acoustic failure mode of the RAT-TRAP BOND WALL and to
insulation, affording to fire and weather protection. The validate its Low Cost Housing.
material is relatively chapter and durable, can provide
infinite flexibility in plan from and offer an attractive
external appearance. Furthermore, brickwork building can
be constructed without heavy capital expenditure on the part
of the builder. To make the best use of these inherent
advantages, it is necessary to use masonry work in building
in which floor area is subdivided into a large number of
rooms of small or medium size and in which the floor plan is
repeated in each storey throughout the height of the building.
These conditions are met-with in residential buildings,
hostels, nursing homes, hospitals and schools.
Side & Top View of Rat Trap Bond Wall
Figure 1
Volume 9 Issue 2, February 2020
www.ijsr.net
Licensed Under Creative Commons Attribution CC BY
Paper ID: ART20204528 DOI: 10.21275/ART20204528 754
International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR)
ISSN: 2319-7064
ResearchGate Impact Factor (2018): 0.28 | SJIF (2018): 7.426
Making rat TRP bond wall for low cost house vertically cracks are increasing top to bottom. (Figure: 1, 2
To determine the load carrying capacity of masonry wall and 3)
built in ENGLISH BOND and RAT-TRAP BOND
WALL.
To do comparative study between ENGLISH BOND and
RAT-TRAP BOND WALL.
To monitor the variation in stresses and strain during
loading
To observe the cracking pattern
3. Methodology
Laboratory Test of Material {Test of Bricks, Cement & Figure 1
Sand}
Figure 2
4. Observations and Findings Figure 3
Loads on the Rat Trap Bond Wall & English Bond Wall
Rat Loads for English Bond Wall
Sample No. 1, [Made of 1st - Class bricks in English Bond
Loads for Rat Trap Bond Wall:- Wall]
Sample No. 1, [Made of 1st - Class Bricks in Rat Trap Bond
Wall] Load applied on the specimen (wall):
Loads Applied: 150KN, 200KN, 300KN AND 440KN on
Load applied on the specimen (wall):- the English Bond Wall:-
Loads Applied: 150KN, 200KN, 250KN. on the rat Trap
Bond Wall Observation
Dimension of the Wall =41’’x27’’x10’’. Starting load from
Observation 0KN to 150KN, we observed one hairline crack 6’’ from
Dimension of the Wall =37’’x26’’x10’’ back side of the wall. And further gradual increase of load to
Starting from 0 KN and increased up to 100kN, the sample 200KN, we observed another crack 10’’ from front right
showed sign of inconsiderable crack. And further gradual hand side. Again increasing load to 300KN, we observed a
increase of loads to 150 KN, it was found that a 10’’ long new crack 10’’ on back side. Further gradual increase of
vertical hairline crack appeared originating from top at the load to 440 KN, we observed an 18” crack from right hand
right hand side end. And loading further up to 200KN, the end top to bottom.
hairline progressed down to the bottom of the specimen and
affected the top course to show sign of crack. Loading Finding
further up to 250 KN, the hairline progressed down to the The crack first started vertically in the joint b/w 1 st and 2nd
bottom of the specimen and affected the top course to show stretcher, 2nd crack started vertically in joint b/w 1st, 2nd and
sign of crack. 3rd stretcher, 3rd crack started vertically in the joint b/w 1st,
2nd and 3rd stretcher and 4th crack started vertically and
Findings horizontally in the joint b/w 1st ,2nd ,3rd and stretcher at frog
The crack first started vertically in the joint b/w the 1st& 3rd side. (Figure : 6 & 7)
headers at top from right hand side of wall and now, the
Volume 9 Issue 2, February 2020
www.ijsr.net
Licensed Under Creative Commons Attribution CC BY
Paper ID: ART20204528 DOI: 10.21275/ART20204528 755
International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR)
ISSN: 2319-7064
ResearchGate Impact Factor (2018): 0.28 | SJIF (2018): 7.426
Figure 6 Figure 7
Statement showing stresses at ultimate load on Rat
Sample Tested in Lab Three Samples of Rat Trap Bond
Wall and Three Samples of English Bond Wall:-
Table 1
Specimen Detail Load in KN
Wall Samples Length In Inches Height In Inches Breadth In Inches Initial Crack Final Crack
Sample-No.-1 37’’ 26’’ 10’’ 150 250
Rat Trap Bond
Sample-No.-2 38’’ 26’’ 10’’ 90 290
Wall
Sample-No.-3 37’’ 26’’ 10’’ 100 300
Sample-No.-1 41’’ 27’’ 10’’ 150 440
English Bond
Sample-No.-2 41’’ 26’’ 10’’ 400 500
Wall
Sample-No.-3 41’’ 27’’ 10’’ 160 400
Load for Initial and Final Crack for Rat Trap Bond Wall of [A] Rat Trap Bond Wall
1st class bricks:-
Sample-no.-1
Chart 3
Chart 1
[B] English Bond Wall
Load for Initial and Final Crack for English Bond Wall of 1 st
Class Bricks
Sample-No. 1
Chart 4
Cost Consumption of Cement and Sand [Ratio 1:3] In
Chart 2 Rattrap Bond Wall & English Bond Wall:-
Consumption of Cement and Sand [Ratio 1:3] In Rat
Trapbond Wall & English Bond Wall
Volume 9 Issue 2, February 2020
www.ijsr.net
Licensed Under Creative Commons Attribution CC BY
Paper ID: ART20204528 DOI: 10.21275/ART20204528 756
International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR)
ISSN: 2319-7064
ResearchGate Impact Factor (2018): 0.28 | SJIF (2018): 7.426
[A] Rat Trap Bond Wall 5. Calculation Data
Table No. [A]: Compressive Stresses/Crusing Strength in
N/mm2 (For Rat Trap Bond Wall)
Compressive
Samples Loads Stresses=Load/Area Stresses/Crusing
Strength in N/mm2
150KN 150000N/[37’’X10’’] 0.628 N/mm2
Sample-1 200KN 200000N/[37’’X10’’] 0.837N/mm2
250KN 250000N/[37’’X10’’] 1.O47 N/mm2
80KN 80000N/[38’’X10’’] 0.326 N/mm2
90KN 90000N/[38’’X10’’] 0.367 N/mm2
Sample-2
195KN 195000N/[38’’X10’’] 0.795 N/mm2
Chart 5 290KN 290000N/[38’’X10’’] 1.183 N/mm2
100KN 100000N/[37’’X10’’] 0.418 N/mm2
[B] English Bond Wall Sample-3 200KN 200000N/[37’’X10’’] 0.837 N/mm2
300KN 300000N/[37’’X10’’] 1.256 N/mm2
Table No. [B]: Compressive Stresses/Crusing Strength in
N/mm2 (For English Bond Wall)
Compressive
Stresses/
Samples Loads Stresses=Load/Area
Crusing Strength
in N/mm2
150KN 150000N/[41’’X10’’] 0.567 N/mm2
200KN 200000N/[41’’X10’’] 0.756 N/mm2
Sample-1
300KN 300000N/[41’’X10’’] 1.134 N/mm2
440KN 440000N/[41’’X10’’] 1.663 N/mm2
400KN 400000N/[41’’X10’’] 1.512 N/mm2
Chart 6 Sample-2
500KN 500000N/[41’’X10’’] 1.890 N/mm2
160KN 160000N/[41’’X10’’] 0.604 N/mm2
Cost Comparison of Cement and Sand in Rat Trap Bondwall Sample-3
250KN 250000N/[41’’X10’’] 0.945 N/mm2
and English Bond Wall:- 400KN 400000N/[41’’X10’’] 1.512 N/mm2
Rat Trap Bond Wall and English Bond Wall New Table No. [C]:- Comparison’s b/w RTBW & English
Bond Wall for Compressive Stresses/Crusing Strength in
N/mm2
Samples RTBW EBW Load In KN
1.047 N/mm2 0.945 N/mm2 250KN
Sample-1
1.256 N/mm2 1.134 N/mm2 300KN
1.183 N/mm2 1.096 N/mm2 290KN
Sample-2
1.631 N/mm2 1.512 N/mm2 400KN
1.256 N/mm2 1.134 N/mm2 300KN
Sample-3
1.675 N/mm2 1.512 N/mm2 400KN
Graphically charts: Table-1 & Table-2
Chart 7 Table 1
Samples RTBW EBW Load in KN
Comparison between English bond and rat trap bond wall Sample-1 1.047 N/mm2 0.945 N/mm2 250KN
table Sample-2 1.183 N/mm2 1.096 N/mm2 290KN
Sample-3 1.256 N/mm2 1.134 N/mm2 300KN
English Bond Rat Trap Bond Wall.
1. Headers and stretchers are 1. Headers and stretchers are laid
laid in alternate courses. alternately in each course. Line Graphically Chart: Table-1
2. Strongest of the types of 2. Comparatively less strong for
bonds. walls more than 30 cm thick.
3. Provides rough appearance. 3. Provides good appearance.
4. Absence of vertical joints in 4. Partly continuous vertical
the structure. joints appear in the structure.
5. Special attention is not 5. Special attention is required
required for this bond. for bond.
6. Progress of work is more. 6. Progress of work is less.
7. Economical, as brick bats are
7. Costly, no brick bats are used.
used.
Chart 8
Volume 9 Issue 2, February 2020
www.ijsr.net
Licensed Under Creative Commons Attribution CC BY
Paper ID: ART20204528 DOI: 10.21275/ART20204528 757
International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR)
ISSN: 2319-7064
ResearchGate Impact Factor (2018): 0.28 | SJIF (2018): 7.426
Area Graphically Chart: Table-1 Column Graphically Chart: Table-2
Chart 13
Chart 9 6. Benefits and Advantage
Column Graphically Chart: Table 1 1) Better thermal performance with 20 % reduction in
materials.
2) Environment friendly, maintenance free with concealed
electrication.
3) Lesser seepage possibilities.
4) Reduced self load.
5) It is 25% cheaper than solid brick wall. [English Bond
Wall]
6) Plastering of outside wall is not needed and acts as good
thermal insulator.
Chart 10
7) 7.70% to 75% cement saved in rat trap bond wall other
than English bond wall.
Table 2
Samples RTBW EBW Load in KN
Sample-1 1.256 N/mm2 1.134 N/mm2 300KN 7. Conclusion
Sample-2 1.631 N/mm2 1.512 N/mm2 400KN
Sample-3 1.675 N/mm2 1.512 N/mm2 400KN The rat-trap bond wall has 25% less dead weight than the
English bond wall. It results in about 18% and 54% saving
Line Graphically Chart: Table-2 in the brick and cement mortar respectively.
The result shows that the rat-trap bond wall be safely
employed for Low cost housing having two storeys with
short span not exceeding 4.20 m=13.780’ and with storey
height not exceeding 3.0 m=9.843’using bricks having
compressive strength not less than 5.69 n/sq.mm with h1
grade mortar ie, with cement mortar 1:3 the failure of the
rat-trap bond wall is due separation of the two leaves of the
wall caused by splitting of the header bricks, which fails
primarily in shear.
Chart 11
The appearance of the initial crack will not be seen on the
surface, it occurs in the header bricks. hence it does not give
Area Graphically Chart: Table 2
any warning of the possible failure of the wall.
The top layer bricks below the solid layer brick on-edge
course-laid
For closing the opening at window sill and at floor level fails
primary in flexure. Hence relatively higher strength bricks
have to be used in the top course as compared to other
courses.
Chart 12 References
[1] (CBRI ) Centre Building Research Institute, Roorkee.
[2] Proceedings international seminar on low cost housing
and alternative building materials by CBRI, Roorkee.
[3] Publications by HUDCO, India Habitat Centre, Lodhi
Road, New Delhi.
[4] Publications by structural engineering research centre,
Ghaziabad.
Volume 9 Issue 2, February 2020
www.ijsr.net
Licensed Under Creative Commons Attribution CC BY
Paper ID: ART20204528 DOI: 10.21275/ART20204528 758
International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR)
ISSN: 2319-7064
ResearchGate Impact Factor (2018): 0.28 | SJIF (2018): 7.426
[5] Bhawan Nirman Nirdesh Pustika,Lok Jumbish Parishad,
speed,
[6] Instruction manual to appropriate building system,
development alternatives, New Delhi, 1993.
[7] Proposed Norms for Lok Jumbish at Kishanganj,
Unpublished Report, daat, New Delhi, 1993
[8] IS: 1905-1987, (Indian Standard) code of practice for
structural use of Unreinforced Masonry , Bureau of
Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar
Marg , New Delhi-110002.
[9] Mud, Technical Papers, International Conference on
Mud Architecture at Trivandrum,
[10] Building system for Low Income Housing by A.K.Jain,
management publishing company, Dehradun, India.
[11] Perspectives in technology,vol-3,mud blocks for
housing,by Prof. K. S. Jagadish, Astra, i.i.sx.,
Bangalore, published by –KSCST, Bangalore.
[12] The Astram Soil Block Machine,a user manual for
machine, by Astra, I.I.Sc., Bangalore.
[13] NBC (Part 4th, section -4)1970, structural design of
Masonry,Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
[14] Reynolds and steedman, reinforced concrete designer’s
handbook (tenth edition),e and fn spon.
[15] Bihar Education Project Council, Beltron Bhawan,
Shastrinagar, Patna-800023. [16.] Rushad, Syed Tabin,
Rat Trap Bond, in Master of Science (Structural
Engineering) thesis, January-2007.
[16] Sah, Hari Narayan, Comparative Study between walls
constructed in conventional English bond and rat trap
bond using cement mortar grade h/2 (1 Cement: 4
sand),in master of science (structural engineering )
thesis, january-2007.
[17] Santhakumar, A.R, T.S.Lalitha (March 24-25, 1995),
validation of rat-trap bond walls, ACCE workshop on
cost reduction in construction, Building Technology
Center, Anna University, Madras.
Website
[18] http://www.archifacts.co.uk
[19] http://www.ashraya.kar
[20] http://www.devalt.org
[21] http://www.archidev.org
[22] http://www.tifac.org.in/offer/tsw
Volume 9 Issue 2, February 2020
www.ijsr.net
Licensed Under Creative Commons Attribution CC BY
Paper ID: ART20204528 DOI: 10.21275/ART20204528 759
