Experimental Study on Confined Masonry Squat Walls

M. Seki
Japan Building Disaster Prevention Association
V. Popa, D. Coofan, E. Lozinc & A.B. Chec
National Center for Seismic Risk Reduction, Romania

R. Vcreanu
Technical University of Civil Engineering, Bucharest

ABSTRACT:
Seismic assessment of existing masonry building represents a difficult task. This is mainly caused by the limited
understanding of the masonry walls behavior when subjected to severe lateral cyclic loading.
Worldwide available experimental data can not be easily imported from one country to another due to the very
scattered characteristics of the bricks and mortar.
This paper presents the results of an experimental program aimed to investigate the behavior of squat masonry
walls when subjected to cyclic loading. The testing program was conducted at the structural testing laboratory of
the National Center for Seismic Risk Reduction, Romania. The experimental research was performed in the
framework of the Romanian-Japanese technical cooperation project in the field of seismic engineering.
The testing series comprised 6 specimens: unconfined, confined and retrofitted masonry walls. In this paper, the
results for the one unconfined masonry specimen and two the confined masonry specimens are reported here.
Keywords: masonry, confined, cyclic, experimental, seismic

1. SPECIMENS
This paper presents the results of 2 tests conducted on confined masonry squat walls. Both specimens
denoted here CMW1 and CMW2 had the same characteristics and were tested in the same conditions.
The masonry walls were made of old solid bricks having an average of compression strength of 10
MPa. Relatively weak mortar have been used with an average compressive strength of 2,5 MPa. The
nominal dimensions of the bricks were 240 x 115 x 63 mm.
The masonry panels were laterally confined by two RC boundary elements having rectangular section
of 150 x 250 mm. These elements have been lightly reinforced with 4D10 longitudinal steel bars and
stirrups D6 spaced at 200 mm. Plain (not ribbed) steel bars were used having an average tensile of
strength of 285 MPa. The thickness of the masonry panels was 250mm. Only the horizontal joints
have been filled with mortar. These specimens were detailed to represent the state of practice in
Romania for old buildings constructed after 1930. The general layout of the specimens can be
observed in figure 1.

The lower and upper parts of the specimens were blocked for rotation during lateral loading.
Therefore, given the general dimensions of the specimens, a very short shear span results:

M 1,75
=
= 0,875m
V
2

(1.1)

M
1,75
=
= 0,36
Vd 2 2,4

(1.2)

4D10

400

1750
D6/200

150

2100

150

300

Figure 1. Specimens layout

The testing equipment consists of a steel reaction frame, the loading equipment and the data
acquisition systems. The general layout of the frame, the dimensions and the capacity of the hydraulic
jacks are presented in figure 2. The structural testing facility, worthy of approximately 1 million US$,
was donated by Japan International Cooperation Agency within the Romanian-Japanese technical
cooperation project in the field of seismic engineering.

Figure 2. Reaction frame

The specimens were subjected to a cyclic, statically applied, lateral force under a constant axial load.
The lateral force was applied using two horizontal 100 t hydraulic jacks. Displacement based control
of the lateral force was considered. The lateral loading protocol included two cycles at 0,025%,
0,05%, 0,1%, 0,2% and 0,6% lateral drifts. The lateral load protocol is presented in figure 3.
The axial load was applied using one 200 t vertical jack. This force was applied at the beginning of the
tests and maintained constant up to failure. The applied axial load of app. 750kN was calculated to
correspond to an average axial stress of 1,2MPa. The tests were stopped when the loss in the axial
force carrying capacity occurred.

0.6

Vertical Load (kN)

Lateral disp. (%)

0.8

Lateral Displacement
Vertical Load

0.4

100

-100

-200

0.2
-300

0
1

Step

51

101

151

201

251

-400

-0.2
-500

-0.4

-600

-0.6

-700

-0.8

-800

Figure 3. Loading protocol

2. TEST RESULTS

600

400
200

-0.4

400

200

200

d (%)

d (%)

0
-0.6

600

400

d (%)

-0.2

0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6 -0.6

-0.4

F (kN)

600

F (kN)

F (kN)

A similar response was observed for both specimens, at least in the early loading cycles. However, the
failure patterns presented some differences.
Up to 0,05% lateral drift the response of the walls was essentially elastic. No cracks were observed up
to this point and the residual displacement after two cycles for each peak was around 0,01%.
In the second cycle at 0,1% lateral drift the first crack appeared in the masonry. This is a diagonal
crack starting from the upper-left corner of the masonry panel.
At 0,2% the first crack appeared in the RC boundary elements. This was an inclined crack in the
direction of the diagonal crack in the masonry panel.

-0.2

0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6 -0.6

-0.4

-0.2

-200

-200

-200

-400

-400

-400

-600

-600

-600

0.2

0.4

0.6

Figure 4. CMW1: Snapshots of the hysteretic behaviour

Just two horizontal cracks were observed in the vertical RC elements which appeared at about 0,4%
lateral drift. At this deformation stage, after two loading cycles at peak, a severe cracking pattern
could be observed in the masonry panel.
The residual displacement after 2 cycles at +0,4% was about 0,35%.
After 0,2% lateral drift a severe strength decay could be observed. The lateral force recorded in the
second cycle at peak decreased from 379kN to 310kN at 0,4%.

2
1.5

400

1
200

0.5
0

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

Vertical displ. (mm)

Lateral force (kN)

2.5
600

Lateral displacement (%)

-0.2

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8
-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0.2

0.4

0.6

-0.5

Lateral displacement (%)

-200

-1
-400

-1.5
-2

-600

Lateral - vertical displacement relation

Lateral force - lateral displacement relation

Figure 5. CMW1 - Hysteretic behavior

Figure 6. CMW1 - Cracking pattern at maximum lateral displacement

Lateral force (kN)

2
600

0
400

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0
-2

200

-4

Vertical displ. (mm)

For specimen CMW1 the failure occurred suddenly at 0,8% when a critical inclined crack appeared in
the RC vertical element. Basically, the shear failure of RC boundary element led to a sudden increase
of the lateral displacement of the specimen.
In case of specimen CMW2, the inclined shear cracks appeared in the RC elements at the first attempt
to load up to 0,4% drift. This led to a sudden increase of the lateral deformation up to 0,52%. However,
no severe loss of the lateral load carrying capacity had been observed so the cyclic loading continued
to 0,6%.
After the RC confining elements failed, the masonry panel quickly deteriorated. The intersecting
inclined cracks at the middle height of the panel led to a severe vertical settlement of the specimen
which can be observed in figure 7.

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0
-200

0.4

0.6

0.8

Lateral displacement (%)

0
-0.8

0.2

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

-6

Lateral displacement (%)

-8
-400

-10

-600

-12

Lateral force - lateral displacement relation

Lateral - vertical displacement relation

Figure 7. CMW2 - Hysteretic behavior

0.8

Figure 8. CMW2 - Cracking pattern at maximum lateral displacement

Simplified representations of the failure mode of specimens CMW1 and CMW2 are presented in
figure 9.

CMW1

CMW2

Figure 9. Failure modes

Analyzing the behavior of both specimens the following conclusions can be drawn:
An essentially elastic response was observed up to 0,05% lateral drift.
No major damages were observed up to 0,2% lateral drift. No strength decay was recorded in
this interval.
The lateral strength decay began after 0,2% lateral drift. This resulted in a failure to accurately
control the lateral displacement due to the brittle shear failure of the columns.
0,6% lateral drift can be considered the failure point for both specimens. Both specimens
failed after the brittle failure of the RC boundary elements.
Insignificant horizontal cracks were observed in the RC vertical elements. That means that
these elements responded more like columns than as vertical ties. Shear failure is characteristic to
columns. For ties, severe yielding of the longitudinal reinforcement can be expected due to axial
tensile force.
In fact, considering the recorded peak forces at the base of the masonry wall the following stress
distribution can be calculated (Figure 10). The rather small tensile stress in the tie reinforcement can
explain the lack of horizontal cracks in the columns.

750kN
350kNm
400kN

max

s40MPa

5.1MPa

1600
2400

Figure 10. Stress distribution at the bottom of the masonry wall

The lateral maximum and cracking forces for each specimen are presented in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1. The lateral maximum and cracking forces for each specimen
Cracking
Peak (+), 2nd cycle
Displacement
Force
Displacement
Force
CMW1
0,1%
408
0,2%
379
CMW2
0,1%
388
0,2%
432

0,6 (+), 2nd cycle

Displacement
Force
0,6%
284
0,6%
368

3. COMPARISON WITH RESULT OBTAINED ON UNCONFINED MASONRY WALL

400

0
-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.6

-0.4

0
-1

200

-2

100

-3

-0.2

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

-100
-200

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Lateral displacement (%)

-4

0
-0.8

-0.2

300

Lateral displacement (%)

-5
-6
-7

-300

-8

-400

-9
-500

Lateral force - lateral displacement relation

-10

Lateral - vertical displacement relation

Figure 11. UMW1 - Hysteretic behavior

Vertical displ. (mm)

Lateral force (kN)

Similar masonry walls, but without any confining elements, have been tested in the early stages of this
testing program at NCSRR.
The results obtained for specimen UMW1 are presented here briefly:
The obtained hysteretic behavior recorded up to 0,6% lateral drift can be observed in figure 11
together with the history of the vertical settlement.
The failure cracking pattern after two loading cycles at 0,6% lateral drift can be observed
in figure 12.

Figure 12. CMW2 - Cracking pattern at maximum lateral displacement

Comparing the results obtained for specimens CMW1 & 2 with those obtained for the unconfined
masonry wall the following observations can be made:
The maximum lateral forces recorded for the unconfined masonry wall (385 kN) are 25%
lower than the forces recorded for the confined elements.
The ultimate lateral displacement did not significantly changed due to the presence of the
confining elements. However, this remark refers only to the tested specimens.
Similar strength and stiffness degradation was recorded in all 3 tests, but the fatter F-d
hysteretic loops were recorded for the confined elements
Severe vertical settlement was recorded in case of unconfined masonry wall even after few
loading cycles. This settlement equalled 9 mm at the end of the test, after two loading cycles at 0,6%.
Similar settlement was observed for specimen CMW2, after the shear failure of the boundary columns.
However, in this case the largest part of the settlement was recorded after 2 loading cycles at 0,4%
lateral drift.
4. CONCLUSIONS
The use of confining boundary elements for squat masonry panel does not significantly improve the
lateral displacement capacity. An approximately 0.6% ultimate displacement value was recorded. The
elements responded essentially elastic up to 0.05% lateral drift. Very limited deterioration of the walls
was recorded up to 0.1%. This can be reasonable considered as an allowable value of the lateral
displacement for the damage limitation requirement as defined in EN1998-1:2004.
The boundary elements act as columns subjected to severe shear forces transmitted by the compressed
diagonal strut in the masonry wall in the vicinity of the joints. The presence of the axial load and the
short aspect ratio of the walls do not allow the development of significant tensile forces in the
longitudinal reinforcement of the columns. This means that a flexural yielding mechanism cannot be
mobilized for this type of confined walls.
The higher lateral strength of the confined masonry wall can be explained mainly by the higher shear
capacity of the reinforced concrete boundary elements.
The boundary elements prevent the vertical settlement of the wall at early loading cycles, prior to their
shear failure.
AKCNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors deeply acknowledge the generous, continuous and long-lasting financial support of JICA during the
implementation of the Technical Project for Seismic Risk Reduction in Romania. The technical and financial
support of Building Research Institute (BRI) for the implementation of the test series is gratefully acknowledged.
REFERENCES
Seki, M., Vacareanu, R., Saito, T., Cotofana, D., Lozinca, E:, Popa, V., Chesca, A.B. (2008). Cyclic shear tests
on plain and FRP retrofitted masonry walls. The 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering