Brick masonry is widely used for building construction throughout the world. However, unreinforced brick masonry buildings performed poorly in the 2005 Kashmir earthquake, in Pakistan, resulting in a decline in the use of brick masonry. In order to investigate and quantify the performance of brick masonry against the seismic forces by confining it through typical stiffer, line elements (column and beams), a full‐scaled room model of an area 3048 × 3658 mm (10 × 12 ft) and height of 3353 mm (11 ft) was constructed using confined brick masonry. The model was tested under quasistatic loading system. Crack pattern was noted at the end of each loading cycle. The response of the model was interpreted through a hysteresis curve, which was then idealized by a bilinear curve. A comparison of the results has been made with four different studies done on the similar model made of unreinforced brick masonry before and after retrofitting and unreinforced concrete block masonry before and after retrofitting previously tested at the same testing facility.

The empirical and numerical design approaches are considered very important in the viable and efficient design of support systems, stability analysis for tunnel, and underground excavations. In the present research work, the rock mass rating (RMR) and tunneling quality index (Q‐system) were used as empirical methods for characterization of rock mass based on real‐time geological and site geotechnical data and physical and strength properties of rock samples collected from the alignment of tunnel. The rock mass along the tunnel axis was classified into three geotechnical units (GU‐1, GU‐2, and GU‐3). The support systems for each geotechnical unit were designed. The 2D elastoplastic finite‐element method (FEM) was used for the analysis of rock mass behavior, in situ and redistribution stresses, plastic thickness around the tunnel, and performance of the design supports for the selection of optimum support system among RMR and Q supports for each geotechnical unit of tunnel. Based on results, Q support systems were found more effective for GU‐1 and GU‐2 as compared to RMR support systems and RMR support systems for GU‐3 as compared to Q support systems.