________________________

The Professional Journal

________________________

of The Masonry Society

________________________

Volume 36, Number 1

________________________

December 2018
________________________

Copyright The Masonry Society--downloaded by Anthony Ruth on June 22, 2020

 THE MASONRY SOCIETY
JOURNAL
EDITOR
Arturo E. Schultz

MANAGING EDITOR
L. Susan Scheurer
ASSOCIATE EDITORS
Richard M. Bennett
Jennifer Tanner Eisenhauer
Lisa R. Feldman

EDITORIAL BOARD
Daniel P. Abrams P. Benson Shing Phillip J. Samblanet
Max L. Porter Arturo E. Schultz Nigel G. Shrive

THE MASONRY SOCIETY BOARD OF DIRECTORS

President: Darrell W. McMillian Administrative Committee Team Chair: James A. Farny
President Elect: Christine A. Subasic Technical Activities Committee Chair: Peter M. Babaian
Vice President: W. Mark McGinley Executive Director: Phillip J. Samblanet
Secretary/Treasurer: Jason J. Thompson

Zone 1 Paul G. Scott At Large Representatives

James P. Mwangi Steve M. Dill
David I. McLean
Zone 2 Mohamed A. ElGawady David L. Pierson
Manuel A. Diaz Diane B. Throop
Michael P. Schuller
Zone 3 Robert C. Haukohl
Matthew T. Reiter Affiliate/Sustaining Representatives
Jamie L. Davis
Zone 4 Matthew R. Hamann Craig Finch
Charles A. Haynes David M. Sovinski

Zone 5 David Stubbs

Nebojsa Mojsilovic

The Masonry Society Journal is published each year by The Masonry Society, 105 South Sunset Street, Suite Q,
Longmont, CO 80501-6172, U.S.A. Phone: 303-939-9700; Fax: 303-541-9215; E-mail: info@masonrysociety.org;
Website: www.masonrysociety.org. Subscription rates: Electronic Journals: $55 per calendar year; valid email address
required. Printed Copy & Electronic Journals: Domestic: $100 per year; International: $115 per year.

The Masonry Society is not responsible for the statements or opinions expressed in its publications. TMS publications
are not able to nor intended to supplant individual training or judgment of the user or the supplier of the information
provided.

The Masonry Society Journal

Copyright © 2018
Printed in the United States
ISSN 0741-1294

Copyright The Masonry Society--downloaded by Anthony Ruth on June 22, 2020

 THE MASONRY SOCIETY
JOURNAL
The Professional Journal of The Masonry Society

The Masonry Society Journal is an open

forum for the presentation and discussion
o f ma s o n r y r e s e a r c h a n d a s
s u c h welcomes papers related to the
field. All material submitted for
publication will be reviewed according
to TMS policy, a description of which
appears at the end of each issue.

All technical materials appearing in the

Journal may be discussed, and
discussion of papers in this issue will be
published along with the author’s
replies. Discussion relating to this issue
must be received by July 1, 2019.

TMS Journal is indexed and abstracted by

Clarivate Analytics in Emerging Sources
Citation Index.

Volume 36, Number 1

December 2018

Copyright The Masonry Society--downloaded by Anthony Ruth on June 22, 2020

Copyright The Masonry Society--downloaded by Anthony Ruth on June 22, 2020
 THE MASONRY SOCIETY

JOURNAL
Contents
Abstracts .....................................................................................................................................................v

Technical Papers

Compressive Strength Prediction of Grouted Hollow Concrete Block Masonry: Major International
Codes and a Proposed Model
By: Salah R. Sarhat and Edward G. Sherwood .............................................................................................1

Finite Element Modeling of Reinforced Concrete Frames with Masonry Infill Walls Subjected to Lateral
Load Reversals
By: R. Allouzi and A. Irfanoglu...........................................................................................................35

Joint Reinforcement as Primary Shear Reinforcement for Concrete Masonry Shear Walls
By: Greg Baenziger and Max L. Porter ...............................................................................................49

Instructions for Authors ..........................................................................................................................65

TMS Journal December 2018 iii

Copyright The Masonry Society--downloaded by Anthony Ruth on June 22, 2020

Copyright The Masonry Society--downloaded by Anthony Ruth on June 22, 2020
 ABSTRACTS

Compressive Strength Prediction of Grouted Finite Element Modeling of Reinforced

Hollow Concrete Block Masonry: Concrete Frames with Masonry Infill Walls
A Comparative Study of Major Subjected to Lateral Load Reversals
International Codes and a Proposed Model
BY: R. Allouzi and A. Irfanoglu
BY: Salah R. Sarhat and Edward G. Sherwood
KEYWORDS: reinforced concrete frame, infill wall,
KEYWORDS: Hollow concrete block masonry, cohesive interfaces, monotonic and cyclic loading, crack
compressive strength, grouted masonry, masonry design formation, nonlinear finite elements
codes
ABSTRACT: This paper presents a non-linear finite
ABSTRACT: In this paper, a large database of element based modeling approach to estimate behavior of
compressive test results on grouted concrete block RC frames infilled with masonry walls. At the core of the
masonry prisms was assembled from published literature. approach is the ability to qualify and quantify the
This database was critically reviewed to study different interaction along the frame-infill and brick-to-brick
factors influencing the compressive strength (f’m) of interfaces during cyclic loadings. Results from simulations
grouted hollow concrete block masonry. Furthermore, the of RC frames infilled with masonry walls to cyclic loads
collected database was statistically analyzed to derive an show good agreement with experimental response. Three-
accurate empirical formula to estimate f’m of grouted dimensional (3D) finite element models are developed to
masonry based on the strengths of its constituents. The model the strength and stiffness degradation and simulate
predictive performance of the proposed model at various types of in-plane failure mechanisms of infilled
calculating f’m was compared to those of major frames under monotonic and cyclic loadings.
international masonry design codes. The study showed that
the proposed formula gives the lowest coefficient of
variation and the second lowest average ratio of Joint Reinforcement as Primary Shear
experimental f’m to predicted f’m (f’m Exp/ f’m Pred). The Reinforcement for
masonry codes, on the other hand, underestimate the Concrete Masonry Shear Walls
compressive strength of grouted masonry with high
coefficients of variation. The proposed model gives
consistent predictions for the entire range of the different BY: Greg Baenziger and Max L. Porter
factors that affect f’m of grouted masonry and can serve as
a base for revisiting the conservative tabulated KEYWORDS: joint reinforcement, shear wall, concrete
compressive strength values in masonry design codes. masonry, ductility, cracking, load-displacement,
envelope, cyclic loading, drift, energy dissipation

ABSTRACT: This paper provides comparisons between

concrete masonry shear walls for in-plane loading with
deformed reinforcement in bond beams and with joint
reinforcement. Ten full-scale wall tests were conducted of
fully grouted and partially grouted shear walls. The results
show that sufficient areas of joint reinforcement can
provide the strength necessary to resist lateral loads and
control cracks that form in shear walls. The joint
reinforcement provides a more uniform distribution of
reinforcement, which results in a larger number of smaller
cracks versus a smaller number of larger cracks with bond
beam reinforcement. Joint reinforcement also provides
energy dissipation and ductility at levels comparable to
walls reinforced with deformed reinforcement in bond
beams. The paper reviews previous work in this area and
provides recommendations concerning construction details
of shear walls.

TMS Journal December 2018 v

Copyright The Masonry Society--downloaded by Anthony Ruth on June 22, 2020

vi TMS Journal December 2018

Copyright The Masonry Society--downloaded by Anthony Ruth on June 22, 2020

 Compressive Strength Prediction of Grouted Hollow Concrete
Block Masonry: A Comparative Study of Major International
Codes and a Proposed Model
Salah R. Sarhat1 and Edward G. Sherwood2

INTRODUCTION Masonry design codes generally offer two methods to

determine the compressive strength of grouted masonry in
One of the most important material properties a structure. The first approach involves testing masonry
affecting the competitiveness of masonry as a building prisms or wallets (as shown in Figure 1) built from the
material is its compressive strength (f’m). Because of this same materials used in the construction of the structure.
importance, the behavior and strength of grouted masonry The measured strengths of these prisms or wallets are then
under compressive loads have been extensively studied converted to the f’m of the masonry structure by factors that
over the last three decades, typically involving are functions of the aspect ratios (i.e. the height to thickness
assemblages such as those shown in Figure 1. The results ratio) of the tested specimens. This method is typically not
of these tests have shown that many parameters, both practical at the design stage. Furthermore, it may not be
material and experimental, influence the compressive possible during the construction phase due to time and cost
strength of grouted masonry. A summary of previous constraints, including the lack of local availability of high
research (Drysdale and Hamid (1979), Boult (1980), capacity testing machines and the complexities of
Hamid et al. (1978), Drysdale and Hamid (1983), Wong transporting the samples.
and Drysdale (1985), Baba and Senbu (1985), Romagna
and Roman (1988), NCMA (1988), Scrivener and Baker
1. TMS Member, Postdoctoral Fellow, Queen’s University,
(1988), Kingsley et al. (1989), Yao (1989), Khalaf et al.
Dept. of Civil Engineering, 58 University Avenue,
(1994), Steadman et al. (1995), Khalaf (1996), Thompson
Kingston, Ontario, Canada, ss306@queensu.ca
et al. (2002), Duncan (2008), NCMA (2012), Ross et al.
2. Associate Professor, Carleton University, Dept. of Civil
(2013) , Das et al. (2013), Fortes et al. (2014), Hegmier et
and Environmental Engineering, 1125 Colonel By Dr.,
al. (1977), Cheema and Klingner (1984), Sakr and Neis
Ottawa, ON, Canada, ted.sherwood@carleton.ca
(1986), Bexten et al. (1989), Olatunji et al. (1986), Guo
(1991), Thomas and Scolforo (1995)) on the compressive
behaviour of grouted masonry, including the factors
investigated, is presented in Table 1.

t Grout
W

Concrete
Block Unit Mortar Joints

Stack Bond Prism Running Bond Prism

a) Half Block Prism b) Full Block Prism c) Wallet

Total grout Area

≥ 25% ≤ 60%
Cross-Section of Block Unit

Figure 1 – Configurations of Grouted Hollow Concrete Block Masonry Prisms

TMS Journal December 2018 1

Copyright The Masonry Society--downloaded by Anthony Ruth on June 22, 2020

Table 1. Summary of the Experimental Investigations Conducted on the Main Factors Affecting the Compressive
Strength of Grouted Hollow Concrete Block Masonry
Experimentally Studied Factors
Unit Mortar Prism
Reference No.

Grout Strength

Age and Moisture

Type or Strength

Mortar Bedding

Bond Pattern
Author Year

Thickness
Geometry

Strength

Content
Other
Size

h/t
1 Drysdale and Hamid 1979 √ √ √
2 Boult 1979 √ √
3 Hamid et al 1979 √ √ √
4 Drysdale and Hamid 1983 √ √
5 Wong and Drysdale 1985 √ √ √ √
6 Baba and Senbu 1995 √ √
7 Romagna and Roman 1988 √ √ √
8 NCMA Tests 1988 √ √ √
9 Scrivener and Baker 1988 √ √ √ √ √
10 Kingsley & Noland 1989 √ √
11 Yao 1989 √ √ √ √
12 Khalaf et al 1994 √ √ √ √
13 Steadman et al 1995 √ √
14 Khalaf 1996 √ √ √ √ √ √
15 Thompson et al 2002 √
16 Duncan 2008 √
17 NCMA Tests 2012 √ √ √
18 Ross et al. 2012 √
19 Das et al. 2014 √
20 Fortes et al. 2014 √ √ √
21 Hegmier et al 1977 √ √
22 Cheema and Klingner 1984 √ √
23 Sakr and Neis 1989 √
24 Baxten et al 1989 √
25 Olatunji et al 1986 √
26 Guo 1991 √ √
27 Thomas and Scolforo 1995 √

In the second method, known as the unit strength grouted masonry the same as either solid block masonry (as
method, masonry design codes provide tabulated values of in the CSA S304.1-04, CSA S304-14, BS 5628-2:2005 and
the specified compressive strength (f’m) based on the Eurocode 6 codes) or ungrouted masonry (as in the TMS
compressive strength of the block and the type of mortar. 602 code). Since these tables are reported to be
These tables in various codes have been derived from conservative (Drysdale and Hamid (2005), Korany and
empirical relationships, though these have often been based Glanville (2005), Ross and Korany (2012), Gayed and
on limited numbers of test results. These tables typically do Korany (2011)), it is worthwhile to continuously re-
not account for the effect of grout strength, thereby treating evaluate the tabulated values of f’m as more test results
2 TMS Journal December 2018

Copyright The Masonry Society--downloaded by Anthony Ruth on June 22, 2020

become available. Furthermore, with an infinite number of database covers wide ranges of values for different
combinations of unit, mortar, and grout strengths, parameters affecting the f’m of grouted masonry (see Table
designers will benefit more from a design equation that 2 for these ranges).
accounts for the mechanical properties of all individual
components used in its construction. FACTORS INFLUENCING f’m OF
The goal of this paper is to derive an accurate formula
GROUTED CONCRETE BLOCK
to estimate the compressive strength (f’m) of grouted MASONRY
masonry based on the compressive strengths of individual
materials used in its construction (the unit, mortar, and A comprehensive review of the database indicted that
grout). This was accomplished by assembling and the most dominant parameters influencing f’m of grouted
statistically analyzing a large database of compressive test concrete block are the unit strength, the mortar strength, the
results on grouted masonry prisms reported in the literature. grout strength and the height to thickness ratio. The scatter
The reliability of the proposed formula was evaluated by plot for each independent variable was checked for
comparing it to predictions of f’m made by seven major directionality and correlation of data. A linear best-fit line
international masonry design codes, plus an equation derived was drawn and its quality was quantified by calculating the
by Khalaf et al. (1994). The codes analyzed include: AS coefficient of determination (R2), which is the square of
3700-2001 (Australia), BS 5628-2:2005 (UK) which is Coefficient of Correlation (r). The statistical significance
superseded by Eurocode 6, CSA S304.1-2004 and CSA of each parameter was evaluated using the common 0.05 p-
S304-2014 (Canada), Eurocode 6 (European Commission) value (Montgomery (2012)). The p-value tests the null
and TMS 602-2011 and 2016 (US). hypothesis that the independent variable has no effect.
When p-value is less than 0.05, this indicates that we can
reject the null hypothesis and that the parameter is
statistically significant.
DESCRIPTION OF THE EXPERIMENTAL
DATABASE Influence of h/t
The database used in this study was constructed from Tests reported in the literature (Boult (1979), Wong
experimental investigations reported in the literature (see and Drysdale (1985), Kingsley et al. (1989), Khalaf (1996),
Table 1). This database considers only grouted masonry Das et al. (2013)) indicate that the measured compressive
prisms and wallettes made with hollow concrete blocks that strength of masonry reduces as the ratio of a prism’s height
have two or three vertical voids (passing completely to its thickness (h/t) increases, and that above a certain
through the block) resulting in a total grouted area ranging height the effect of h/t becomes unimportant (as shown in
from 25% to 60% of the gross area. These blocks are Figure 2a). This is due to the decreasing influence of platen
known as ‘‘Group 2’’ blocks according to Eurocode 6 and restraint (Boult (1979), Kingsley et al. (1989)) as h/t
‘‘Hollow’’ blocks as per CSA A165. This paper is not increases. In Figure 2a, the reported compressive strengths
intended to study the compressive strength of solid block of 23 grouted prism sets, which were devoted to study the
prisms or grouted prisms made with the following: semi- effect of h/t, are plotted versus the prism h/t ratio. While it
solid block (void ratio < 25%), blocks with a void ratio of can be seen in Figure 2a that a logarithmic trend line will
greater than 60%, cellular concrete blocks with cavities give a slightly better representation than the linear trend
which do not pass completely through the block, or clay line for the relationship between f’m and h/t, masonry
masonry units. The collected database comprises of a total design codes are in favour of using a linear relationship.
of 171 average masonry compressive strength data sets The gradient of the linear trend line in Figure 2a shows an
(each set consists of a number of individual prisms) average 7.5% decrease in measured f’m with each unit
representing the test results of 624 individual prisms (see increase in h/t ratios from 2 to 5. The h/t factor in this linear
Appendix A for a full list of the gathered data points and trend line was confirmed to be significant (p-value < 0.05).
the references). It is worth mentioning that AS 3700-2001 uses the same
factor (7.5%) to account for the reduction of the
As strengths of prisms with soft capping such as fiber compressive strength of masonry prisms with the increase
board have been found to be lower than those with hard in h/t ratio. When the entire database is considered (see
capping (Wong and Drysdale (1985), Hegmier et al. Figure 2b), the trend of reduction in f’m with an increase in
(1977)), In cases where there was a choice of prisms within h/t is still observed and the h/t factor is still statistically
a test program prisms with soft capping were ignored and significant (p-value < 0.05). The significant scatter in the
those with hard capping were included. Moreover, in order data can be attributed to the fact that most of the
to reasonably represent typical North American investigations included in the database were not devoted to
construction practice, prisms made out of block or grout study the effect of h/t.
with compressive strengths greater than 50 MPa (7250 psi)
or less than 10 MPa (1450 psi) were excluded. The

TMS Journal December 2018 3

Copyright The Masonry Society--downloaded by Anthony Ruth on June 22, 2020

 Table 2. Ranges of the Values of the Main Factors Affecting the Compressive Strength of
Grouted Masonry Covered in the Assembled Database
Parameter Range of the Parameter
Unit compressive strength (MPa) (psi) 12.5 - 41.6 (1812-6032)
Unit thickness, t (mm) (in) 140 - 240 (5.51-9.45)
Unit solid ratio (%) 51-75
Grouted area ratio (%) 25- 49
Mortar compressive strength (MPa) (psi) 3.8-32.3 (551-4684)
Grout compressive strength (MPa) (psi) 10.2-47.3 (1480-6859)
Mortar joint thickness (mm) (in) 5–20 (3/16-3/4)
h/t ratio 2.0 - 6.26
No. of prism sets 171
Total No. of prisms 624
No. of sets using Type N mortar 42
No. of sets using Type S mortar 129

a) 35 5000 b) 35 5000
Kingsley et al.(1989)
Reported Masonry Compressive Strength

Reported Masonry Compressive Strength

Reported Masonry Compressive Strength

(fbl=21.6 MPa (3132 psi),Type S mortar, fgr= 20 MPa (2900 psi))

Reported Masonry Compressive Strength

30 30
4000 4000
Logarithmic Trend line Linear Trend line
f'm = -6.43 ln(h/t) + 25.1 f'm = -1.56 (h/t) + 22.6
25 25
R² = 0.30 R² = 0.29

3000 3000
20 20
(MPa)

(psi)

(MPa)

(psi)
15 15
2000 2000

10 10

Wong and Drysdale (1985) Linear Trend Line

1000 f'm = -1.55 (h/t) + 22.4 1000
(fbl=19.2 MPa (2784 psi) ,Type S mortar, fgr= 21.8 MPa (3136 psi))
5 5 R² = 0.14

0 0 0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(h/t) Ratio (h/t) Ratio

a) data from tests devoted to study the effect of h/t, b) entire database

Figure 2 – Effect of h/t Ratio on the Compressive Strength of Grouted Concrete Block Masonry

Masonry design codes account for the effect of h/t The proposed formula considers the prism h/t ratio of
through the use of linear correction factors to convert f’m 5 as the standard value as identified in CSA S304-2014, AS
measured using prisms of various h/t to a standard h/t (see 3700-2001 and BS 5628-2:2005. As such, the reported
Figure 3). These codes have different philosophies compressive strengths plotted in Figure 2 were normalized
regarding the standard h/t that should be used to determine by multiplying them by the factor (1-0.075 (5-h/t)) using
f’m. The TMS 602 code (ASTM C1314-16 (2016)) the relationship specified in AS 3700. Reported
considers an h/t of 2 as the standard for determining f’m compressive strengths that have been normalized for the h/t
while other codes use an h/t of 5 as the standard based on ratio are identified as f’m values in all subsequent figures
the assumption that taller prisms are more representative of and discussions. Besides being a code practice, other
in-situ masonry. researchers (such as Gayed et al. (2011), Maurenbrecher
(1986) and Ross et al. (2012)) have used a similar approach
in normalizing raw data for h/t ratio.

4 TMS Journal December 2018

Copyright The Masonry Society--downloaded by Anthony Ruth on June 22, 2020

 1.3
Unit Compressive Strength , fbl (psi)
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
30
1.2 Romagna and Roman (1988)

Masonry Compressive Strength, f'm (psi)

Masonry Compressive Strength, f'm (MPa)
Linear Trendline 4000
(Type S mortar, fgr= 13.5 MPa (1958 psi))
f'm = 0.39 fbl+ 5.55 (MPa)
25 R² = 0.43
1.1
Correction Factor

3000
20
1.0

15
0.9 2000
BS 5628-05 and CSA S304.1-04
10 Power Trendline
0.8 TMS 602-16 (ASTM C1314-16)
f'm = 2.34 fbl0.58 (MPa)
AS 3700-01 R² = 0.40 1000
5 Romagna and Roman (1988)
0.7 Proposed
(Type N mortar, fgr= 13.5 MPa (1958 psi))
CSA S304-14
0 0
0.6 0 10 20 30 40 50
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Unit Compressive Strength, fbl (MPa)
(h/t) Ratio

Figure 3 - Correction Factors for h/t Ratios of Figure 4 – Effect of Unit Strength on the
Grouted Concrete Block Masonry in Different Compressive Strength of Grouted
International Masonry Design Codes Concrete Block Masonry

Influence of unit compressive strength (fbl) Influence of mortar strength (fmr)

Numerous researchers (Boult (1979), Drysdale and Multiple researchers (Hamid et al. (1978), Romagna
Hamid (1983), Baba and Senbu (1986), Romagna and and Roman (1988), NCMA (1988), Scrivener and Baker
Roman (1988), NCMA (1988), Scrivener and Baker (1988), Yao (1989), Khalaf (1996), NCMA (2012), Fortes
(1988), Kingsley et al. (1989), Khalf et al. (1994), et al. (2014)) have shown that mortar compressive strength
Steadman et al. (1995), Khalf (1996), NCMA (2012), Ross (fmr) affects prism strength, though the compressive
et al. (2013), Fortes et al. (2014)) have shown that strength of grouted masonry is less influenced by mortar
compressive strength of the unit (fbl) has a significant properties than that of ungrouted masonry due to the
influence on the compressive strength of grouted masonry. presence of grout and its major role in the carrying
There is a consensus among these researchers that as fbl compressive loads (Drysdale and Hamid (1983), Khalaf
increases, the f’m of grouted prism increases. The slope of (1996)). Indeed, considerable scatter is observed in Figure
the linear best-fit line shown in Figure 4 along with its 5, wherein f’m is plotted versus the mortar strength. The
intercept (+5.55 MPa) were confirmed to be statistically general trend observed in Figure 5 is that f’m increases
significant (p-value <0.05). Compressive failure of a marginally when mortar strength increases can be
grouted prism is associated with vertical tensile cracking in observed. Despite the low Coefficient of Determination (R2
the unit followed by splitting of the unit, often with the is less than 0.1) caused by the scatter in the database, the
grout cores left largely intact. This failure mechanism analysis proved that mortar strength is statistically
occurs due to differences between the Poisson’s ratios and significant (p-values for both the slope and the intercept are
stiffnesses of the grout and unit leading to the unit failing < 0.05). This trend supports the findings of Khalaf (1996)
prior to the grout (Drysdale and Hamid (1983)). Given that and Scrivener and Baker (1988) who found that mortar
compressive failure of a prism is thus related to the tensile strength has a marginal effect on f’m of grouted masonry.
strength of the concrete used in the block, it would be
expected that a non-linear relationship exists between It must be noted that mortar compressive strengths
block strength and prism strength. While there is some reported in the references were determined by testing either
evidence of such a relationship in Figure 4, when results cubes or cylinders. The database was unified based on the
from individual test series are identified (Romagna and cube strength. Singh (1988) suggested a factor of 1/0.85 to
Roman (1988)), it is apparent that within the range of convert reported cylinder compressive strengths to cube
common block strengths the relationship between prism compressive strengths. It was decided to adopt this factor
strength and block strength is roughly linear even if a non- in the current study. Figure 5 expresses fmr in terms of the
linear trend is considered (see the power trend line in cube strength.
Figure 4). It must be noted that unit compressive strengths
reported in the references used in the database were given
either in terms of net or gross areas. To unify the database,
fbl was expressed in terms of net area.

TMS Journal December 2018 5

Copyright The Masonry Society--downloaded by Anthony Ruth on June 22, 2020

 0
Mortar Cube Strength, fmr (psi)
1000 2000 3000 4000
developed by Neville (1966) and adopted by Hamid et al.
30 (1977) was used:

Masonry Compressive Strength, f'm (psi)

4000
Masonry Compressive Strength, f'm (MPa)

25 Linear Trend line

fgr 0.85
= (V, hg and d in (mm)) (1)
f'm = 0.13 fmr + 13.3 (MPa)

0.697
R² = 0.08

3000
P (0.56+ )
20
V h
� + g�
6hg d d
15 fgr 0.85
2000
= (V, hg, and d in (in.))
P (0.56+ 0.697
)
10
V h
� + g�
Khalaf (1996)
(fbl= 20 MPa (2900 psi), fgr=28 MPa (4060 psi))
1000 152hg d d
5
Hamid et al. (1978)
(fbl= 19.7 MPa (2857 psi), fgr=12.3 MPa (1784 psi)) Where:
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0
fgr = Grout cylinder compressive strength
Mortar Cube Strength, fmr (MPa) P = Grout prism compressive strength
d = Maximum lateral dimension of the grout prism
Figure 5 – Effect of Mortar Strength hg = Height of the grout prism
on the Compressive Strength of V = Volume of the grout prism
Grouted Concrete Block Masonry
Grout Compressive Strength, fgr (psi)
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
30

Influence of grout strength (fgr)

Masonry Compressive Strength , f'm (MPa)

Romagna and Roman (1988) 4000

Masonry Compressive Strength, f'm (psi)

(Type N mortar, fbl= 29 MPa (4205 psi))
25
3500
Many researchers (Drysdale and Hamid (1979),
Hamid et al. (1978), Drysdale and Hamid (1983), Wong 20
3000

and Drysdale (1985), Baba and Senbu (1985), Romagna 2500

and Roman (1988), NCMA (1988), Scrivener and Baker 15

2000
(1988), Kingsley et al. (1989), Yao (1989), Khalaf et al.
(1994), Fortes et al. (2014)) have studied the effect of grout 10
Linear Trend Line
1500

strength on f’m . The general trend is that increasing grout f'm = 0.28 fgr + 8.4 (MPa)
R² = 0.30 1000

strength results in increasing prism strength for all different 5

Hamid et al. (1978)
(Type S mortar, fbl= 19.7 MPa (2857 psi)) 500
block strengths (see Figure 6), so long as the grout is
adequately consolidated. The slope of the linear best-fit
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50

line shown in Figure 6 was confirmed to be statistically Grout Cylinder Strength, fgr (MPa)

significant. Several investigations (Drysdale and Hamid

(1979), Romagna and Roman (1988), Khalaf et al. (1994), Figure 6 – Effect of Grout Strength on the
Fortes et al. (2014)) have revealed that the best Compressive Strength of Grouted
compressive strength results can be achieved when the Concrete Block Masonry
deformation characteristics of the grout (such as stiffness
and Poisson’s ratio) matches those of the concrete block. It Influence of other factors
has been found that this can be achieved by using a grout
compressive strength that is 1.5 times that of the concrete Figure 7 shows the effects of additional factors on f’m
block (Drysdale and Hamid (1979), Khalaf et al. (1994), of grouted masonry. Drysdale and Hamid (1979) found that
Fortes et al. (2014)). It is worth mentioning that only a the effect of unit geometry (in particularly the ratio of face
portion of the grout strength is effective in the shell thickness to unit thickness) has only a marginal effect
determination of the overall prism strength since prism on f’m of both grouted and ungrouted masonry (see Figure
failure is characterized by failure in the block prior to 7-a). It can be seen from Figure 7-b that the thickness of
crushing of the grout. mortar joints is not an influential factor on the behaviour of
grouted masonry in compression. Romagna and Roman
Grout strengths in the references were determined by (1988) found that the mortar bedding (face-shell versus
testing different types of specimens: cubes, cylinders or full) has some influence on the compressive strength of
absorbent block moulded prisms. The grout compressive grouted prisms (see Figure 7-c). In this case, face-shell
strength is unified based on the cylinder strength, with a bedded prisms have a slightly higher strength than fully-
height to diameter ratio of 2. A factor of 0.85 was used to bedded prisms. In order to maximize the generality of the
convert cube compressive strength to equivalent cylinder proposed equation, both types of prisms will be included in
compressive strength. To convert grout compressive the database. Tests by Scrivener and Baker (1995) revealed
strength of block moulded prisms to equivalent cylinder that the compressive strength of grouted prisms laid in
compressive strength, the empirical following formula running bond can be less than that of grouted prisms laid in
stack bond (see Figure 7-d). More research is required

6 TMS Journal December 2018

Copyright The Masonry Society--downloaded by Anthony Ruth on June 22, 2020

before the effect of bond pattern on f’m can be accurately full block prisms. Further research is needed to quantify the
quantified, however, hence bond pattern will not be effects of other factors on f’m of grouted masonry, such as
considered in this study. the type of capping, workmanship, and loading rate. These
For prisms of the same h/t ratio, results by Khalaf et factors have been studied for ungrouted masonry but not
al. (1994) showed that the strength decreases as the volume for grouted masonry (Hegmier et al. (1977)).
of the specimens increases. In contrast, results by Drysdale
and Hamid (1979) results indicated the strengths of prisms
with half blocks were essentially identical to strengths of

a) b)
25 25
3500 3500
Masonry Compressive Strength, f'm (MPa)

Masonry Compressive Strength, f'm (MPa)

Masonry Compressive Strength, f'm (psi)

Masonry Compressive Strength, f'm (psi)
Drysdale and Hamid (1979)
(fbl= 20.7 MPa (3000 psi), Type S Mortar) 3000
20
Yao (1989) 3000
20
(fbl= 23.5 MPa (3408 psi), h/t=3.1, S Mortar, fgr= 25.5 MPa(3698 psi))
2500 2500

15 15
2000 2000

10 1500 1500
10
Drysdale and Hamid (1979)
(fbl= 20.7 MPa (300 psi), Type S Mortar, 1000 Khalaf (1996) 1000
fgr= 21 MPa (3054 psi)) (fbl= 20.5 MPa (2973 psi), h/t=3.1, S Mortar,
5 5 fgr=19.5 MPa (2828 psi))
500 500

0 0
0 0
0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2 0.22 0.24
0 5 10 15 20 25
(ts/t) Ratio Mortar Joint Thickness, tJ (mm)
c) Unit Compressive Strength, fbl (psi) Grout Compressive Strength, fgr (psi)
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
d)
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
25 25
Roman and Romagna (1988)
Masonry Compressive Strength, f'm (MPa)

3500
Masonry Compressive Strength, f'm (MPa)

3500
(Type S Mortar , fgr= 35.6 MPa (5162 psi)) Scrivener and Baker (1988)
Masonry Compressive Strength, f'm (psi)

Masonry Compressive Strength, f'm (psi)

Full- Bedded Mortar
(Type N Mortar , fbl= 15.1 MPa (2190 psi))
Face Shell- Bedded Mortar 3000 3000
20 20
Stack Bond
2500 2500

15 15
2000 2000

10 1500 1500
10

1000 1000
Roman and Romagna (1988)
(Type S Mortar , fgr=14 MPa (2030 psi)) Running Bond
5 5
500 500

0 0 0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Unit Compressive Strength, fbl (MPa) Grout Compressive Strength, fgr (MPa)

Figure 7 - Effect of Different Factors on the Compressive Strength of Grouted Concrete Block Masonry:
a) Unit Geometry, b) Mortar Joint Thickness, c) Mortar Bedding and d) Bond Pattern

TMS Journal December 2018 7

Copyright The Masonry Society--downloaded by Anthony Ruth on June 22, 2020

DATA ANALYSIS The goodness of fit of these regression models was
verified based on the following standard checks
Regression analysis (Montgomery (2012)): coefficient of multiple
determinations (R2), the square Root of the Mean Square
Since a substantial quantity of the collected Error (RMSE), test for significance of regression, and tests
experimental data was reported without values of standard on individual regression coefficients. Further tests were
deviation or coefficient of variation, the development of the performed on residuals such as residual analysis on normal
proposed model was based on the average strength of the probability plots and residuals versus predicted values.
prisms, unit, mortar and grout. To meet the homogeneity
required to perform least squares analysis, weighted It can be observed from Table 3 that the multiple linear
average masonry compressive strengths based on the model (model (e)) achieved the highest coefficient of
number of individual prisms should be used. However, as determination at 72% and the lowest square Root of the
the collected experimental database covers a wide range of Mean Square Error (RMSE) value of 2.17 MPa. This model
parameters, assigning different weights on the average (Equation 2) produced the least coefficient of variation of
values could make the regression less representative since 15%.
some sets with large number of individual prisms were
devoted to study specific parameters only. As such, same f' m = 0.29 fbl + 0.10 fmr + 0.21 fgr + 1.51 (MPa) (2)
weight was assigned to all the average masonry f' m = 0.29 fbl + 0.12 fmr + 0.21 fgr + 219 (psi)
compressive strengths included in the database.
Figure 8-a shows a statistical feature that is indicative
An extensive regression analysis based on the least of the adequacy of Equation 2. When the experimental
squares method was conducted with the compressive values of f’m are plotted against the predicted values
strength of the masonry prisms (normalized for h/t), f’m , predicted by Equation 2, the data points are consistently
considered to be a dependent variable and block strength, distributed along the line of equality. It can be further seen
fbl, mortar cube strength, fmr, and grout cylinder strength, from Table 3 and Figure 8-b that correlating the
fgr, considered to be the independent variables. Various compressive strength of grouted prisms to only the unit
models were attempted to acquire the most representative compressive strength and the mortar type (as is done in
formula. Table 3 summarizes the models considered in this various masonry codes) leads to formulae with poor
analysis. Note that models (g) to (j) were formulated as a representation. Another indication of the success of
portion of the ungrouted strength plus a contribution from Equation 2 is presented in Figure 9, wherein the residuals
the grout. In these models, the ungrouted strength is taken for Equation 2 are plotted against the block strength. The
as equal to (1.107 fbl0.75 f mr
0.18
, which was derived by Sarhat trend line favorably lies along the horizontal axis, thus
residuals do not follow any specific trend (neither increase
and Sherwood (2014) for ungrouted prisms.
nor decrease) with fbl. Furthermore, the regression
coefficients in Eq. (2) investigated for significance and
they were found to be statistically significant.

a) Predicted f'm (f'm Pred) (psi) b) Predicted f'm (f'm Pred) (psi)
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
30 30
(MPa)

(MPa)
(psi)

Statistical Model (e) 4000 Statistical Model (d) 4000 (psi)

(Equation 2)
25 25
3500 3500
Experimental f''m (f'm Exp)
Experimental f'm (f'm Exp)
Experimental f'm (f'm Exp)

Experimental f'm (f'm Exp)

3000 3000
20 20

2500 2500
15 15
2000 2000

10 1500 10 1500

1000 1000
5 5
500 500

0 0 0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Predicted f'm (f'm Pred) (MPa) Predicted f'm (f'm Pred) (MPa)

Figure 8 - Adequacy of Equation 2 Compared to the Unit Strength Model

8 TMS Journal December 2018

Copyright The Masonry Society--downloaded by Anthony Ruth on June 22, 2020

Table 3. Coefficients of Multiple Determination for Different Statisical Models
Square Root of
Coefficient of
Mean Square Errors
Statistical Models Multiple
(RMSE)
Determination (R2)
(MPa)
f' m = 0.375 fbl + 5.881 (MPa)
a 0.42 3.03
f' m = 0.375fbl + 852.8 (psi)
f' m = 2.14 (fbl)0.61 (MPa)
b 0.41 3.07
f' m = 14.9 (fbl)0.61 (psi)
f' m = 0.008(fbl)2 - 0.054(fbl) + 11.01 (MPa)
c '
0.43 3.01
f m = 5.5x10 (fbl) - 0.054(fbl) + 1597 (psi)
-5 2

N Type Mortar f' m = 3.872 (fbl)0.406 (MPa)

0.23 2.67
f' m = 74.437 (fbl)0.406 (psi)
d
S Type Mortar f' m = 1.734 (fbl)0.677 (MPa)
' 0.40 3.17
f m = 8.65 (fbl) 0.677
(psi)
f' m = 0.29fbl + 0.10fmr + 0.21fgr + 1.51 (MPa)
e 0.72 2.11
f' m = 0.29fbl + 0.10fmr + 0.21fgr + 219 (psi)
f' m = 0.28fbl + 0.06fmr + 1.55�fgr + 1.21 (MPa)
F 0.51 2.82
f' m = 0.28fbl + 0.06fmr + 18.67�fgr + 176 (psi)
f' m = 0.47(1.107 fbl0.75 fmr 0.18)* + 0.22 fgr + 0.84 (MPa)
G 0.64 2.41
f' m = 0.47(1.57 fbl0.75 fmr 0.18)* + 0.22 fgr + 122 (psi)
f' m = 0.48 (1.107 fbl0.75 fmr 0.18)* + 2.14 �fgr - 4.33 (MPa)
H 0.64 2.43
f' m = 0.48 (1.57 fbl0.75 fmr 0.18)* + 25.77 �fgr - 628 (psi)
f' m = 0.92 An (1.107 fbl0.75 fmr 0.18)* + 0.22 (1-An) fgr + 0.64 (MPa)
I 0.62 2.45
f' m = 0.92 An (1.57 fbl0.75 fmr 0.18)* + 0.22 (1-An) fgr + 93 (psi)
f' m = An (1.57 fbl0.75 fmr 0.18)* + 3.43 (1-An) �fgr - 2.93 (MPa)
J 0.59 2.54
f' m = An (1.57 fbl0.75 fmr 0.18)* + 41.3 (1-An) �fgr - 346.6 (psi)
*
f’m of ungrouted masonry by Sarhat and Sherwood (2014)

TMS Journal December 2018 9

Copyright The Masonry Society--downloaded by Anthony Ruth on June 22, 2020

 Unit Compressive Strength, fbl (psi) to convert cylinder mortar strengths to cube strengths.
15
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
2175 When shapes of samples other than cylinders are used to
determine the grout strength, Equation (1) should be used
10 1450
to convert the grout compressive strength to cylinder
strength.
Residual (f'm Exp - f'm Pred) (MPa)

5 725
A graphical representation of Equation 3 is presented
in Figure 11, and this can be used to simplify the
0 0
determination of f’m using Equation 3. As an example, take
a set of grouted masonry prisms (tested by NCMA (2012))
-5 -725
made out of 14.1 MPa (2045 psi) blocks, type N mortar
Trendline with strength of 6.7 MPa (972 psi) and grout with strength
-10 -1450 of 24.8 MPa (3596 psi). As the grout strength is greater
than 1.5 times of the block strength, its value will be limited
-15 -2175 to 1.5x14.1MPa= 21.2 MPa (3074 psi). Figure 11 can be
0 10 20 30 40 50
used to determine that f’m = A+B+C = 4.5+3.6 +0.6 = 8.7
Unit Compressive Strength, fbl (MPa)
MPa (1262 psi). The experimentally measured f’m
(normalized for a h/t ratio of 5) was 10.92 MPa (1583 psi)
Figure 9 - Distribution of Residuals of Equation 2 leading to f’m Exp/ f’m Pred ratio of 1.25. CSA S304 code
Plotted Against fbl significantly underestimates the compressive strength of
this set of prisms and gives f’m Exp/ f’m Pred ratio of 2.1.

For grouted masonry prisms built with h/t other than

The proposed model 5, f’m can be predicted by applying a correction factor, Ch,
to Equation 3 as indicated in Equation 4.
In order to propose a reliable model to be included in
masonry design codes, the majority of the strength f' m = 0.81Ch{0.29 fbl + 0.10 fmr + 0.21 fgr + 1.51} (MPa) (4)
predictions by the model should be higher than the
f' m = 0.81Ch{0.29 fbl + 0.10 fmr + 0.21 fgr + 219} (psi)
experimental strengths (Ross and Korany (2013), Gayed
and Korany (2011), Maurenbrecher (1986)). In the current
study, it was decided to use the 90% confidence lower Where Ch is a factor to account for the h/t ratio defined
limit. Assuming the f’m Exp/ f’m Pred ratios to be normally from the linear trend line in Figure 2, which can be taken
distributed, the 90% confidence limit can be calculated by as:
subtracting 1.28 standard deviations from the arithmetic  1 h
          < 5
mean. The 90% confidence limit for a mean of 1.0 and a t
 1 − 0.075  5 − h  
standard deviation of 0.15 is 0.81. The application of this Ch =    t              (5)
limit is to assure that 90% of the predicted prism strengths 
are higher than the experimentally determined values (see 1                                           h ≥ 5
Figure 10). It is worth mentioning that the application of  t
the 90% lower limit is not meant to replace the limit-state
reduction factors, which are developed using reliability
analysis (CSA S408-2011). Thus Equation 2 can be re-
written as follows:

f' m = 0.81{0.29 fbl + 0.10 fmr + 0.21 fgr + 1.51} (MPa) (3)
f' m = 0.81{0.29 fbl + 0.10 fmr + 0.21 fgr + 219} (psi)
Mean = 1.0
The proposed formula (Equation 3) is valid for the
1.28σ

range of a) grouted prisms made out of hollow concrete

blocks having an An ratio of 0.4 to 0.75, b) block strengths
10th Percentile = 0.81
(based on net area) of 10 to 50 MPa (1450 to 7250 psi), c)
cylinder grout strength of 10 to 50 MPa (1450 to 7250 psi) .
Furthermore, the grout strength used in Equation 3 is
limited to a maximum of 1.5 times the block strength, as
recommended by Fortes et al. (2014), and d) mortar cube
strength of less than 30 MPa (4350 psi). It is worth
mentioning that the proposed model is developed based on Figure 10 - Application of the 90% Confidence Lower
cube mortar compressive strength and cylinder grout Limit to the Proposed Model
compressive strength. A factor of (1/0.85) should be used

10 TMS Journal December 2018

Copyright The Masonry Society--downloaded by Anthony Ruth on June 22, 2020

 10
Where:
f'm = A+B+C
f’m (ungrouted) = 1.3x1.4x�fbl (MPa)
Contribution of Component to f'm (MPa)
9

8 f’m (ungrouted) = 1.3x1.4x12x�fbl (psi)

7 An = unit solid ratio
6
The Eurocode 6 code uses the following empirical
5
A= 4.5 MPa formula to determine the characteristic compressive
4
B= 3.6 MPa strength of masonry:
3

2
f' m= K (fbln)α (fmr) β (8)
C=0.6MPa
1
Values for the parameters K, α and β are given in the
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
national annexes of Eurocode 6. The values of these
Unit, Mortar or Grout Strength (MPa) constants in the UK are 0.55 (for grouted hollow concrete
block masonry (Group 2)), 0.7 and 0.3 respectively (Edgell
Figure 11 - Graphical Form for the Proposed Formula et al. (2002)). The unit compressive strength (fbln) in
(1 MPa =145.038 psi) Equation 8 is the normalised average compressive strength
of 100 mm x100 mm masonry units (BS EN 772-1-2000).
According to BS EN1015-11 (BS EN 1015-11-1999), the
compressive strength of mortar in Equation 8 should be
measured on the broken parts of flexural strength
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
specimens. To account for this type of measurement, the
fmr values used in Equation 8 were the mortar cube strength
The predicted compressive strengths of the prisms multiplied by a factor of 1.28 (Ferguson (1995)).
included in the database were generated using Khalaf et al's
model (1994) and the five international masonry design Based on their test results of grouted masonry prisms,
codes along with the proposed model (Equation 3), and the Khalaf et al. (1994) suggested the following equation:
ratios of f’m Exp / f’m Pred were calculated for each data point
(a sample of calculations is presented in Appendix B). The
f' m = 0.3fbl + 0.2 fmr + 0.25 fgr +1.3 (MPa) (9)
mean f’m Exp / f’m Pred ratios along with their standard
deviations and coefficients of variation (COV %), number f' m = 0.3fbl + 0.2 fmr + 0.25 fgr +188.5 (psi)
and percentage of overpredicted data (f’m Exp / f’m Pred ratio
with value less than 1.0) and the integral absolute errors Where fbl is based on net area and fmr and fgr are in terms
(IAE %) for each model were calculated and comparisons of the cube compressive strength. It is worth mentioning that
were made between the different methods. Khalaf et al. (1994) derived the last two terms (0.25fgr+1.3)
from the best fitting line passing through the results of
The IAE index (Equation 6) is statistically very grouted prisms with polystyrene joints (no mortar was used)
sensitive in measuring the deviation between experimental having varying grout strengths. The gradient of the line 0.25
data points and regression predictions. For a perfect model, was considered to be the contribution factor or the grout
IAE should be as low as possible (Oluokun (1991), Arιoglu strength while the constant of 1.3 was related to the strength
et al. (2006)). of the block unit. The contributions of the block and mortar
(0.3 fbl+0.2 fmr) were derived based on test results of
2 1/2
ungrouted prisms.
[(𝑓𝑓′𝑚𝑚 Exp -𝑓𝑓′𝑚𝑚 Pred) ]
IAE(%)= � . 100 (6)
∑ 𝑓𝑓′𝑚𝑚 Exp Table 4 lists the predictive performances for the
various codes and formulae. It can be observed that the
The BS 5628-2, CSA S304.1, CSA S304 and the TMS proposed model gives the lowest coefficient of variation
602 code predictions were calculated using tabulated (16%), the second lowest mean f’m Exp/ f’m Pred ratio and the
values presented in the codes. Linear Interpolation for second lowest IAE value for the entire database. This
intermediate values between tabulated values was used. applies to type N mortar and type S mortar subsets of the
The AS3700 predictions were generated using Equation 7, database as well. Figure 12 shows that the AS3700, BS
which is reproduced from the code: 5628-2, and CSA S304.1 codes underestimate f’m by
considerable margins. This underestimation of f’m is
fgr likewise associated with large COV and IAE values.
f' m = f' m(ungrouted) An + 1.4 �� � (1-An)
1.3
(MPa) (7) Eurocode 6 code gives a more accurate prediction with
mean f’m Exp/ f’m Pred ratio of 1.34, COV of 25% and IAE of
fgr
f' m = f' m(ungrouted) An + 16.8 �� � (1-An) (psi) 20%. The TMS 602-2016 exhibits lowest f’m Exp/ f’m Pred
1.3
ratio (1.09) and IAE value (19%), however, it gives non-

TMS Journal December 2018 11

Copyright The Masonry Society--downloaded by Anthony Ruth on June 22, 2020

conservative predictions (f’m Exp/ f’m Pred of less than 1.0) prisms built with low strength block and medium or high
for more than 40% of the database. strength grout.

Equation 9 was proposed to predict the experimental Figure 15 shows that the CSA code underestimates the
results of tested prisms. Khalaf et al. (1994) did not intend to compressive strength of type N mortar prisms more than
use it as a design equation and they did not set additional safety those of type S mortar prisms. The proposed model, on the
factors into account. As such, it was decided to compare the other hand, exhibited consistently good prediction
predictive ability of Khalaf et al’s model to that of Equation 2. performance for prisms made with both types of mortar.
It can be seen from Figure 13 that Equation 2 gives better Tabulated strength values for grouted masonry with type N
predictions with fewer variations (COV and IAE) and less mortar should be targeted in any future revision of the CSA
number of overpredicted data points. This can be attributed S304. Unlike the 2014 CSA S304 code, the 2016 version
partly to the fact that the proposed formula predicts that the of the TMS code has effectively addressed this issue. This
mortar strength contributes less to prism strength than does is illustrated in Figure 16 which compares the predictive
Khalaf et al’s equation. It is interesting to note that both Khalaf abilities of the 2011 and 2016 versions of the TMS 602
et al's model (derived based on one experimental program) code for both type N and S mortar prisms.
and Equation 2 (derived independently based on a large
database) suggest that the contributions of block and grout to Most masonry design codes do not consider the
f’m are about 30% and 20% of their strengths respectively. average prism strength. Instead, they require the use of the
characteristic (or specified) compressive strength, where
With the exception of AS 3700, the masonry codes do the characteristic strength is statistically calculated from
not account for the effect of grout strength on f’m. However, multiple prism tests. In the CSA S304 code, for example,
the AS 3700 code significantly underestimates f’m for the tabulated characteristic f’m are typically given for different
entire range of grout strengths covered in the database (see characteristic compressive strength of the block. Since the
Figure 14). Similarly, CSAS304, BS 5628-2 and Eurocode proposed model was formulated based on average block,
(to a lesser degree) considerably underestimate f’m for the mortar, grout and prism strengths, it is worthwhile to
entire range of grout strengths. Conversely, the TMS code explore the validity of the proposed model to predict
tends to significantly overestimate f’m for grout strengths of characteristic f’m values. In Figure 17, characteristic
less than about 20 MPa (2900 psi). This overestimation at strengths of units (except for Eurocode 6), mortar, grout
lower grout strengths may need to be investigated further to and prisms were calculated by subtracting 1.64 standard
ensure the adequacy of the TMS 602-2016 approach to deviations from the mean strengths as per Annex C of CSA
calculating f’m , particularly given the trend to use low S304, with the standard deviation taken as the higher of the
strength grouts in masonry construction and the fact that reported value or 10%. In cases where the reference did not
TMS 602 set a minimum grout strength of 13.79 MPa (2000 report a standard deviation, it was taken to be 10%. It can
psi). Figure 14 shows that the proposed model gives more be noticed that the proposed model made quite satisfactory
consistent predictions for the entire range of grout strengths predictions for the characteristic masonry strengths based
covered in the database. on characteristic component strengths. On average, the
proposed model yielded characteristic masonry strengths
To assess the capability of the proposed model for that are 25% higher using than characteristic strengths
predicting f’m with material properties at borderline cases, obtained from CSA S304-2014. This clear gain in safety
18 tests results from Romagna and Roman (1988) were and accuracy could have a meaningful input on the
highlighted in Figure 14. These test results cover different economic competitiveness of grouted masonry as a choice
combinations of (low, medium, high) strengths of the unit for building designers, especially in seismic areas where
and grout for both type N mortar prisms and type S mortar the common practice is to use reinforced (grouted)
prisms. It can be seen from Figure 14 that the use of the masonry (Tomazevic (1999)). When used in a reliability
proposed model exhibits consistent predictions for all these analysis, this gain in safety and accuracy, will lead to the
cases. AS 3700 code, on the other hand, show reduction of the variation in the statistical parameters for
underestimated predictions for all these combinations. BS masonry resistance under compression, which in turn will
5628-2 and Eurocode 6 considerably underestimate the f’m help in adopting higher resistance factor in the Canadian
for prisms with high strength unit and low strength grout or masonry design code (Kazemi et al. (2011)). Although the
low strength unit and high strength grout. TMS 602-2016 Eurocode 6 yielded less conservative characteristic
seems to overestimate f’m for type S mortar grouted prisms strengths than the proposed model, this was associated with
built with high strength block and low or medium strength higher variation and larger number of predictions with f’m
grout. Finally, the CSA S304 code underestimated f’m for Exp/ f’m Pred of less than 1.0.
all the combinations, particularly for type N mortar grouted

12 TMS Journal December 2018

Copyright The Masonry Society--downloaded by Anthony Ruth on June 22, 2020

 Table 4. Values of mean (f’m Exp/ f’m Pred), standard deviation, coefficient of variation, IAE, number and percentage of overpredicted data for the proposed
formula and major international masonry codes

All the database Type N mortar prisms Type S mortar prisms

Masonry Design Code (f’m Exp/ f’m Pred) (f’m Exp/ f’m Pred) (f’m Exp/ f’m Pred)
IAE IAE IAE
COV # of % of % COV # of % of % COV # of % of %
Mean STDV Mean STDV Mean STDV
% < 1.0 < 1.0 % < 1.0 < 1.0 % < 1.0 < 1.0
CSA S304.1-2004 1.52 0.41 27 3 1.7 32 1.96 0.33 17 0 0 48 1.39 0.33 23 3 2.3 28

TMS Journal December 2018

CSA S304-2014 1.55 0.42 27 4 2.3 33 1.99 0.36 18 0 0 49 1.41 0.34 24 4 3.0 29

BS 5628-2:2005 1.63 0.37 23 1 0.6 37 1.83 0.37 20 0 0 40 1.56 0.35 22 1 0.8 35

Eurocode 6 1.34 0.33 25 20 12 24 1.66 0.30 18 0 0 36 1.23 0.26 21 25 20 18

TMS 602 -2011 1.21 0.28 23 44 25.7 20 1.28 0.28 22 6 14.3 22 1.19 0.28 24 38 29.5 19

TMS 602-2016 1.09 0.23 21 71 41.5 19 1.18 0.21 18 8 19 19 1.07 0.23 22 49 38 17

AS 3700-2001 1.96 0.35 18 0 0 49 1.91 0.23 12 0 0 48 1.98 0.38 19 0 0 50

Proposed (Equation 3) 1.24 0.20 16 12 7 20 1.28 0.17 13 1 2.4 22 1.22 0.19 15 11 8.5 20

Equation 2 1.00 0.15 15 81 47.4 12 1.01 0.14 17 18 42.8 11 1.00 0.15 15 63 48.8 13

Khalaf et al. (1994) 0.93 0.16 17 112 65.5 15 0.98 0.17 18 23 54.8 10 0.93 0.17 18 89 69 16

Copyright The Masonry Society--downloaded by Anthony Ruth on June 22, 2020

13
 Unit Compressive Strength, fbl (psi) Unit Compressive Strength, fbl (psi)
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
3.5 3.5
AS 3700-2001 BS 5628-2-2005
Mean=1.96, COV= 18% Mean=1.63, COV= 23%
3.0 IAE=49% 3.0 IAE=37%

2.5 2.5

f'm Exp / f'm Pred

f'm Exp / f'm Pred

2.0 2.0

1.5 1.5

1.0 1.0

0.5 0.5

0.0 0.0
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
Unit Compressive Strength, fbl (MPa) Unit Compressive Strength, fbl (MPa)
Unit Compressive Strength, fbl (psi) Unit Compressive Strength, fbl (psi)
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
3.5 3.5
CSA S304-2014 Eurocode 6
Mean=1.55, COV= 27% Mean=1.34, COV= 25%
3.0 IAE=33% 3.0 IAE=24%

2.5 2.5

f'm Exp / f'm Pred

f'm Exp / f'm Pred

2.0 2.0

1.5 1.5

1.0 1.0

0.5 0.5

0.0 0.0
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
Unit Compressive Strength, fbl (MPa) Unit Compressive Strength, fbl (MPa)
Unit Compressive Strength, fbl (psi) Unit Compressive Strength, fbl (psi)
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
3.5 3.5
TMS 602-2016 Proposed (Equation 3)
Mean=1.09, COV= 21% Mean=1.24, COV=16%
3.0 IAE=19% 3.0 IAE=20%

2.5 2.5
f'm Exp / f'm Pred
f'm Exp / f'm Pred

2.0 2.0

1.5 1.5

1.0 1.0

0.5 0.5

0.0 0.0
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
Unit Compressive Strength, fbl (MPa) Unit Compressive Strength, fbl (MPa)

Drysdale and Hamid (1979) Boult (1979) Drysdale and Hamid (1983)
Wong and Drysdale (1985) Baba and Senbu (1986) Roman and Romagna (1988)
NCMA (1988) Scrivener and Baker (1988) Kingsley and Noland (1989)
Yao (1989) Khalaf et al. (1994) Steadman et al. (1996)
Duncan (2008) NCMA (2012) Ross et al. (2013)
Das et al. (2014) Fortes et al. (2014) Others

Figure 12 - Comparison of Predictive Performance for the Proposed Model, AS 3700, BS 5628-2, CSA S304,
Eurocode 6, and TMS 602-16 Codes for the Entire Database

14 TMS Journal December 2018

Copyright The Masonry Society--downloaded by Anthony Ruth on June 22, 2020

 Unit Compressive Strength, fbl (psi) Unit Compressive Strength, fbl (psi)
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
3.5 3.5
Khalaf et al. (1994) Equation 2
Mean=0.93, COV= 17% Mean=1.0, COV= 15%
3.0 IAE=15% 3.0 IAE=12%

2.5 2.5
f'm Exp / f'm Pred

f'm Exp / f'm Pred

2.0 2.0

1.5 1.5

1.0 1.0

0.5 0.5

0.0 0.0
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
Unit Compressive Strength, fbl (MPa) Unit Compressive Strength, fbl (MPa)

Figure 13 - Comparison of Predictive Performance for Equation 2 and Khalaf et al.’s (1994) Model

CONCLUDING REMARKS f’m based on both average and characteristic compressive

strength. The characteristic masonry strengths are 25%
- An extensive experimental database of grouted higher using the proposed model than characteristic
hollow concrete block masonry prisms was assembled strengths obtained from CSA S304-2014. This increase in
from published literature. characteristic strengths can help in adopting higher
resistance factor in the Canadian masonry design code.
- A regression analysis was conducted on the collected
database and led to the development of an accurate model - The BS 5628-2, the AS3700 and CSA S304.1 codes
to predict f’m of grouted hollow concrete block masonry significantly underestimate f’m for grouted masonry, and do
based on the contributions of its individual components. so with high variations. CSA S304-2014 underestimates f’m
of type N mortar prisms while the TMS 602-2016 code, on
- This model gives the lowest coefficient of variation the other hand, overestimates f’m of prisms with grout
and the second lowest mean of f’m Exp/ f’m Pred and the second strength of 20 MPa (2900 psi) or less. The overestimation
lowest IAE value for the assembled database. It was also of f’m by the TMS 402 code requires further investigation.
proven that the proposed model can accurately and safely
predict f’m of grouted masonry for various combinations of - The proposed formula can replace the conservative
material properties. The superiority of the proposed model tabulated masonry compressive strength values in design
over the masonry design codes is verified for predictions of codes. This effort can contribute to advance the effective
use of masonry as a competitive building material.

TMS Journal December 2018 15

Copyright The Masonry Society--downloaded by Anthony Ruth on June 22, 2020

 Grout Compressive Strength, fgr (psi) Grout Compressive Strength, fgr (psi)
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
3.0 3.0
fbl= 14.4 MPa Proposed (Equation 3) AS 3700-2001
fbl= 20.7 MPa Type N Mortar Mean=1.24, COV=16% Mean=1.96, COV= 18%
Romagna & fbl= 34.1 MPa
IAE=20% 2.5 IAE=49%
2.5 Roman fbl= 12.5 MPa
fbl= 20.7 MPa Type S Mortar
fbl= 34.1 MPa
2.0 2.0
Other

f'm Exp / f'm Pred

f'm Exp / f'm Pred

1.5 1.5

1.0
1.0

0.5
0.5

0.0
0.0 0 10 20 30 40
0 10 20 30 40
Grout Compressive Strength, fgr (MPa)
Grout Compressive Strength, fgr (MPa)

Grout Compressive Strength, fgr (psi) Grout Compressive Strength, fgr (psi)
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
3.0 3.0
BS 5628-2-2005 Eurocode 6
Mean=1.63, COV= 23% Mean=1.34, COV= 25%
2.5 IAE=37% 2.5 IAE=24%

2.0 2.0
f'm Exp / f'm Pred

f'm Exp / f'm Pred

1.5 1.5

1.0 1.0

0.5 0.5

0.0 0.0
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
Grout Compressive Strength, fgr (MPa) Grout Compressive Strength, fgr (MPa)
Grout Compressive Strength, fgr (psi) Grout Compressive Strength, fgr (psi)
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
3.0 3.0
TMS 602-2016 CSA S304-2014
Mean=1.09, COV= 21% Mean=1.55, COV= 27%
2.5 IAE=19% 2.5 IAE=33%

2.0 2.0
f'm Exp / f'm Pred

f'm Exp / f'm Pred

1.5 1.5

1.0 1.0

0.5 0.5

0.0 0.0
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
Grout Compressive Strength, fgr (MPa) Grout Compressive Strength, fgr (MPa)

Figure 14 - Comparison of Predictive Performance for the Proposed Model, AS 3700, BS 5628-2, CSA S304,
Eurocode 6, and TMS 602-16 for the Range of Grout Strength

16 TMS Journal December 2018

Copyright The Masonry Society--downloaded by Anthony Ruth on June 22, 2020

 Unit Compressive Strength, fbl (psi) Unit Compressive Strength, fbl (psi)
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
3.5 3.5
Type N Type N
CSA S304-2014 Proposed (Equation 3)
3.0 Mean=1.99, COV= 18% 3.0 Mean=1.28, COV=13%
IAE=49% IAE=22%
2.5 2.5
f'm Exp / f'm Pred

f'm Exp / f'm Pred

2.0 2.0

1.5 1.5

1.0 1.0

0.5 0.5

0.0 0.0
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
Unit Compressive Strength, fbl (MPa) Unit Compressive Strength, fbl (MPa)

Unit Compressive Strength, fbl (psi) Unit Compressive Strength, fbl (psi)
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
3.5 3.5
Type S Type S
CSA S304-2014 Proposed (Eq. 3)
3.0 Mean=1.41, COV= 24% 3.0 Mean=1.22, COV=15%
IAE=29% IAE=20%
2.5 2.5
f'm Exp / f'm Pred
f'm Exp / f'm Pred

2.0 2.0

1.5 1.5

1.0 1.0

0.5 0.5

0.0 0.0
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
Unit Compressive Strength, fbl (MPa) Unit Compressive Strength, fbl (MPa)

Figure 15- Comparison of Predictive Performance of the CSA S304 Code and Equation 3 for N Type Mortar and S
Type Mortar Prisms

TMS Journal December 2018 17

Copyright The Masonry Society--downloaded by Anthony Ruth on June 22, 2020

 Unit Compressive Strength, fbl (psi) Unit Compressive Strength, fbl (psi)
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
3.5 3.5
Type N Type S
TMS 602-2011 TMS 602-2011
3.0 Mean=1.29, COV= 22% 3.0 Mean=1.19, COV= 24%
IAE=22% IAE=21%
2.5 2.5
f'm Exp / f'm Pred

f'm Exp / f'm Pred

2.0 2.0

1.5 1.5

1.0 1.0

0.5 0.5

0.0 0.0
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
Unit Compressive Strength, fbl (MPa) Unit Compressive Strength, fbl (MPa)

Unit Compressive Strength, fbl (psi) Unit Compressive Strength, fbl (psi)
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
3.5 3.5
Type N Type S
TMS 602-2016 TMS 602-2016
3.0 Mean=1.18, COV= 18% 3.0 Mean=1.07, COV= 22%
IAE=19% IAE=21%
2.5 2.5

f'm Exp / f'm Pred

f'm Exp / f'm Pred

2.0 2.0

1.5 1.5

1.0 1.0

0.5 0.5

0.0 0.0
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
Unit Compressive Strength, fbl (MPa) Unit Compressive Strength, fbl (MPa)

Figure 16- Comparison of Predictive Performance of the TMS 602-2011and TMS 602-2016 Codes for N Type Mortar
and S Type Mortar Prisms

18 TMS Journal December 2018

Copyright The Masonry Society--downloaded by Anthony Ruth on June 22, 2020

 Unit Specified Compressive Strength, fbl (psi) Unit Specified Compressive Strength, fbl (psi)
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
3.5 3.5
CSA S304-2014 Proposed (Equation 3)
Mean=1.53, COV= 28% Mean=1.22, COV= 16%

Specified f'm Exp / Specified f'm Pred

Specified f'm Exp / Specified f'm Pred

3.0 IEA=31% 3.0 IEA=21%

2.5 2.5

2.0 2.0

1.5 1.5

1.0 1.0

0.5 0.5

0.0 0.0
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
Unit Specified Compressive Strength, fbl (MPa) Unit Specified Compressive Strength, fbl (MPa)

Normalized Unit Compressive Strength, fbln (psi)

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
3.5
Eurocode 6
Mean=1.12, COV= 25%
Specified f'm Exp / Specified f'm Pred

3.0 IEA=19%

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
0 10 20 30 40
Normalized Unit Compressive Strength, fbln (MPa)

Figure 17- Comparison of Predictive Performance of Proposed Model, CSA S304-2014 and Eurocode 6 Based on
Specified Compressive Strength

TMS Journal December 2018 19

Copyright The Masonry Society--downloaded by Anthony Ruth on June 22, 2020

REFERENCES
Arιoglu et al. (2006). Arιoglu, N.Z., Girgin, C. and CSA S304.1-04 (2004). CSA Committee S304.1, “Design
Arιoglu, E., “Evaluation of Ratio Between Splitting of Masonry Structures”, CSA S304.1-04, pp. 148,
Tensile Strength and Compressive Strength for Concretes Canadian Standards Association, Toronto, Ontario,
up to 120 MPa and its Application in Strength Criterion,” Canada, 2004,
ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 103, No. 1, 2006, pp. 18-24,
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2006. CSA S304-14 (2014). CSA Committee S304, “Design of
Masonry Structures, CSA S304-14,” Canadian Standards
AS 3700-2001. AS Committee 3700, “Masonry Association, pp. 180, Toronto, ON, Canada, 2014.
Structures,” Australian Standard Association, pp. 197,
Sydney, Australia, 2001. CSA S408-11 (2011). “Guidelines for the Development of
Limit State Design Standards” Canadian Standards
ASTM C1314-16 (2016). ASTM C1314-16 “Standard Association, pp. 62, Toronto, ON, Canada, 2014.
Test Method for Compressive Strength of Masonry
Prisms”, pp.10, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, Das et al. (2014). Das, S., Liu, J., El Sayed, M. and Kenno,
PA, 2016. S. “Effect of Height-to-Thickness Ratio on Compressive
Strength of Masonry.” TMS Journal, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 1-
Baba et al. (1986). Baba, A., and Senbu, O., “Influencing 9, The Masonry Society, Longmont, CO, 2014.
Factors on Prism Strength of Grouted Masonry and
Fracture Mechanism Under Uniaxial Loading,” Drysdale et al. (1979). Drysdale, R. G.; and Hamid, A. A.,
Proceedings of the 4th Canadian Masonry Symposium, “Behavior of Concrete Block Masonry Under Axial
Vol. 2, 1068-1074 pp., Frediction, New Brunswick, Compression,” ACI Journal, Vol.76, No. 6, pp. 707-721,
Canada, 1986. American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1979.

Bexten et al. (1989). Bexten K., Tedros M., Horton R., Drysdale et al. (1983). Drysdale, R. G., and Hamid, A. A.,
“Compression Strength of Masonry,” Proceedings of the “Capacity of Concrete Block Masonry Prisms Under
5th Canadian Masonry Symposium, pp. 629-639, Eccentric Compressive Loading,” ACI Journal, Vol. 80,
Vancouver, B.C., Canada, 1989. No. 3, pp. 102-108, American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI, 1983.
Boult (1979). Boult, B. F., “Concrete Masonry Prism
Testing,” ACI Journal, Vol. 76, No. 4, 1979, pp. 513-535, Drysdale et al. (2005). Drysdale, R. G. and Hamid, A. A.,
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1979 . Masonry Structures: Behavior and Design, 895 pp, Canada
Masonry Design Centre, Mississauga, ON, Canada, 2005.
BS 5628-2 (2005). BS Committee 5628-2. Code of
Practice for the Use of Masonry – Part 2: Structural Use Duncan (2008). Duncan L., “Effect of Block Face Shell
of Reinforced and Prestressed Masonry, pp. 68, London, Geometry and Grouting on the Compressive Strength of
United Kingdom, 2005. Concrete Block Masonry”, MSc Thesis, pp.136, University
of Windsor, Windsor, ON, Canada, 2008.
BS EN 1015-11 (1999). BS EN 1015-11-1999. “Methods
of Test for Mortar for Masonry. Part II: Determination of Edgell et al. (2002). Edgell G.J., Bright N.J. and Heath M.,
Flexural and Compressive Strength of Hardened Mortar”, “Characteristic Compressive Strength of U.K. Masonry: A
British Standards Institution, London, United Kingdom, Review,” 6th International Masonry Conference, Nov.
1999. 2002, pp. 109-120, International Masonry Society,
London, United Kingdom, 2002.
BS EN 772-1 (2000). BS EN 772-1-2000. “Methods of
Test for Masonry Units. Part 1: Determination of Eurocode 6 (2005). CEN. Eurocode 6. “Design of
Compressive Strength, British Standards Institution”, Masonry Structure- Part 1- Common Rules for Reinforced
London, United Kingdom, 2000. and Unreinforced Masonry Structures. BS EN-1996-1-1,
pp. 128, European Commission., Brussels, Belgium, 2005.
CAN/CSA-A165 (2004). CAN/CSA-A165. CSA
Standards on Concrete Masonry Units, Canadian Ferguson (1995). Ferguson, W.A., “A Comparison
Standards Association, CSA, Mississauga, ON; Canada, Between the Compressive Strength of Mortar Obtained
2004. from 70.7mm Mortar Cubes and 40mm x 40mm x 160mm
Prisms”, Report to Masonry Research Advisory
Cheema et al. (1984). Cheema, T. S. and Klingner, R. E., Committee, July 1995.
“Compressive Strength of Concrete Masonry Prisms,” ACI
Journal, Vol. 83, No. 1, 1984, pp. 88-97, American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1984.

20 TMS Journal December 2018

Copyright The Masonry Society--downloaded by Anthony Ruth on June 22, 2020

Fortes et al. (2014). Fortes, E., Parsekian, G., and Fonseca, Maurenbrecher (1986). Maurenbrecher, A. H. P.,
F. “Relationship Between the Compressive Strength of “Compressive Strength of Hollow Concrete Blockwork,”
Concrete Masonry and the Compressive Strength of Proceedings of the 4th Canadian Masonry Symposium,
Concrete Masonry Units.” J. Mater. Civ. Engineering, pp. Fredericton, NB, pp. 997-1009, Canada Masonry Design
1-12., American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, Centre, Mississauga, ON, Canada, 1986.
2004.
Montgomery (2012). Montgomery, D. C., Design and
Gayed et al. (2011). Gayed, M., Korany, Y., “Concrete Analysis of Experiments, pp. 752., John Wiley & Sons,
Compressive Strength Using the Unit Strength Method,” New York, NY, 2012.
Masonry Chair Report No.102-2011, May, pp. 22,
Edmonton, AB, Canada, 2011. NCMA (1988). NCMA, “Research Investigation of the
Properties of Masonry Grout in Concrete Masonry”, pp. 39,
Guo (1991). Guo, P., “Investigation and Modeling of the National Concrete Masonry Association, Herndon, VA,
Mechanical Properties of Masonry”, Doctoral thesis. 1988.
McMaster University, pp. 388, Hamilton, ON, Canada,
1991. NCMA (2012). NCMA, “Recalibration of the Unit
Strength Method for Verifying Compliance with the
Hamid et al. (1978). Hamid, A. A.; Drysdale, R. G.; and Specified Compressive Strength of Concrete Masonry,”
Heidebrecht, A.C., “Effect of Grouting on the Strength pp. 98, National Concrete Masonry Association, Herndon,
Characteristics of Concrete Block Masonry,” Proceedings VA, 2012.
of the North American Masonry Conference, Boulder,
Colorado, pp. 11-1 to 11-17, The Masonry Society, Neville (1966). Neville, A.M. “A General Relation for
Longmont, CO, 1978. Strengths of Concrete Specimens of Different Shapes and
Sizes,” ACI Journal, Vol. 63, No. 52, pp. 1095-1109,
Hegmier et al. (1977). Hegmier, G. A.; Krishnmoorthy, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1966.
G., Nunn, R. O., and Moorthy, T. V., “Prism Tests for the
Compressive Strength of Concrete Masonry,” Report No. Olatunji et al. (1986). Olatunji, T. M.; Warwaruk J.; and
AMES-NSF-77-1, University of California, San Diego, pp. Longworth J., “Behaviour and Strength of Masonry
100, National Science Foundation, 1977. Wall/Slab Joints,” Report No. 139, pp.228, University of
Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada, 1986.
Kazemi et al. (2011). Kazemi, S.; Mohoutian, M.,
Moosavi, H.; and Korany, Y., “Reliability Analysis of Oluokun (1991). Oluokun, F., “Prediction of Concrete
Masonry Members Under Compression” ASCE Structures Tensile Strength from its Compressive Strength: An
Congress, Las Vegas, Nevada, pp. 605-615, American Evaluation of Existing Relations for Normal Weight
Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, 2011. Concrete,” ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 88, No. 3, pp. 302-
309, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI,
Khalaf (1996). Khalaf, F. M., “Factors Influencing 1991.
Compressive Strength of Concrete Masonry Prisms,”
Magazine of Concrete Research, 48(174), pp. 95-101, ICE Romagna et al. (1988). Romagna, R. H., and Roman, H.
Publishing, London, United Kingdom, 1996. R., “Compressive Strength of Grouted and Ungrouted
Concrete Block Masonry,” Proceedings of the British
Khalaf et al. (1994). Khalaf, F.M.; Hendry, A.W.; and Masonry Society, Vol. 9, pp. 399-404, London, United
Fairbairn, D.R., “Study of the Compressive Strength of Kingdom, 1988.
Blockwork Masonry,” ACI Journal, Vol. 91, No. 4, pp.
367-376, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Ross et al. (2012). Ross, M., and Korany, Y., “Concrete
MI, 1994. Masonry Compressive Strength Using the Unit Strength
Method for Grouted Masonry,” Masonry Chair Report
Kingsley et al. (1989). Kingsley, G. R.; Atkinson, R. H.; No.105-2012, pp. 17, May 2012.
Noland, J. L.; and Hart, G. C., “The Effect of Height on
Stress-Strain Measurements on Grouted Concrete Masonry Ross et al. (2013). Ross, M., Korany, Y., and Sturgeon, G.,
Prisms,” Proceedings of the 5th Canadian Masonry “Recalibration of the Unit Strength Method in the
Symposium, Vancouver, BC., pp. 587-598, Canada Canadian Masonry Design Standard, CSA S304.1-04 for
Masonry Design Centre, Mississauga, ON, Canada, 1989. Grouted Masonry.” 12th Canadian Masonry Symposium,
University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada,
Korany et al. (2005). Korany Y. and Glanville, J., 2013.
“Comparing Masonry Compressive Strength in Various
Codes,” Concrete International, July, 2005, pp. 35-39,
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2005.

TMS Journal December 2018 21

Copyright The Masonry Society--downloaded by Anthony Ruth on June 22, 2020

Sakr et al. (1989). Sakr, K. and Neis, V., “Some Studies Wong et al. (1985). Wong, H. E., and Drysdale R. G.,
on the Stress Strain Behaviour of Grouted Masonry Block “Compression Characteristics of Concrete Block Masonry
Units,” Proceedings of the 5th Canadian Masonry Prisms,” Masonry, Research, Application, and Problems,
Symposium, Vancouver, BC., pp. 619-628, Canada STP 871, ASTM, pp.167 - 177, West Conshohocken, PA,
Masonry Design Centre, Mississauga, ON, Canada, 1989. 1985.

Sarhat et al. (2014). Sarhat, S. R. and Sherwood E. G., Yao (1989). Yao C., “Failure Mechanisms of Concrete
“The Prediction of Compressive Strength of Ungrouted Masonry”, Doctoral Thesis. University of British
Hollow Concrete Block Masonry,” Construction and Columbia, pp. 238, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 1989.
Building Materials, Vol. 58, pp. 111–121, Elsevier, New
York, NY, 2014.
NOTATION
Scrivener et al. (1988). Scrivener, J. C., and Baker, L.R.,
“Factors Influencing Grouted Masonry Prism Compressive
An = unit solid area
Strength,” Brick and Block Masonry, Vol. 2, pp. 874-883,
Victoria, Australia, 1988.
d = maximum lateral dimension of the moulded grout
prism
Singh et al. (1988). Singh, R. “Evaluation of Masonry
Mortar Properties and Relationship between Compressive
fbl = the compressive strength of the masonry unit based
Strength of 2” Cube and 2” x 3” Cylinder,” M.Sc Thesis,
on its net area
pp. 137, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, 1988.
fbln = normalized compressive strength of 100x100
Steadman et al. (1995). Steadman M., Drysdale R. G., and
masonry units (Eurocode 6)
Khattab, M. M., “Influence of Block Geometry and Grout
Type on Compressive Strength of Block Masonry,”
fgr = grout cylinder compressive strength
Proceedings of the 7th Canadian Masonry Symposium,
Hamilton, Canada, pp. 1116–1127, Canada Masonry
f’m = masonry compressive strength, normalized for the
Design Centre, Mississauga, ON, Canada, 1995.
h/t ratio of prism
Thomas et al. (1995). Thomas, R. D., and Scolforo, M. J.,
f’m Exp = experimentally determined masonry compressive
“Evaluation of the Compressive Strength of Masonry by
strength, normalized for the h/t ratio of prism
Prism Sampling,” TMS Journal, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 56-67,
The Masonry Society, Longmont, CO, 1995.
f’m Pred = predicted masonry compressive strength,
normalized for the h/t ratio of prism
Thompson et al. (2002), Thompson, J.; Walloch, C.; and
Thomas, R., “Predicting Grouted Concrete Masonry Prism
fmr = mortar cube compressive strength
Strength,” Masonry Opportunities in the 21st Century, STP
1432, ASTM International, pp. 170-185, West
h = height of the masonry prism
Conshohocken, PA, 2002.
hg = height of the grout moulded prism
TMS 602-11 (2011). Masonry Standards Joint Committee,
Specification for Masonry Structures (TMS 602-11/ACI
530.1-11/ASCE 6-11), The Masonry Society, Longmont, K, α and β= constants used in Eurocode 6 to predict f’m
CO, 2011.
P = grout moulded prism compressive strength
TMS 602-16 (2016). TMS 602-16, Specification for
t = thickness of the masonry prism
Masonry Structures, pp. 89, The Masonry Society,
Longmont, CO. 2016.
V = volume of the moulded grout prism
Tomazevic M. (1999). Tomazevic, M., Earthquake-
Resistant Design of Masonry Buildings, pp. 267, Imperial
College Press, London, United Kingdom, 1999.

22 TMS Journal December 2018

Copyright The Masonry Society--downloaded by Anthony Ruth on June 22, 2020

 APPENDIX A
(Database of Compressive Tests for Grouted Hollow Concrete Block Masonry)

TMS Journal December 2018 23

Copyright The Masonry Society--downloaded by Anthony Ruth on June 22, 2020

 24
Appendix A
(Database of Compressive Tests for Grouted Hollow Concrete Block Masonry)
Unit Mortar * Grout Prisms

Dimension (mm) Dimension (mm)

NO. Author
h/t

An
Type

(MPa)
(MPa)
(MPa)
W T H H W T
Reported

COV (%)
COV (%)
COV (%)
COV (%)

Compressive
Compressive

Bond Pattern

Bedding type

Cube Strength
No. of courses

(as in Figure 1)
Strength (MPa)

Specimen Type
Specimen Type
Cylinder Strength

Strength (net area)

No. of tested prisms
Prism Configuration
1 S 15.1 14.3 5 Stack 10.84 6.1
b 390 140
2 S 16.7 13.7 5 Run. 11.18 6.2

3 S 17.3 13.7 5 11.32 4.4

4 N 5.73 15.7 4 10.50 3.3

5 0.59 19.7 4.2 S 14.2 13.7 5 11.32 14

6 S 18.2 15.7 4 12.08 3

7 S 15.8 19.2 5 12.83 6.4

8 S 13.5 27.8 4 13.39 7.2

Drysdale and
9 Hamid (1979) 390 140 190 S 13.5 - 15.7 - 4 589 3 4.2 12.08 3
Stack

50 mm Cube
10 S 17.8 4 a 195 140 16.91 2.3
Face Shell Bedding

0.58 32.2 6.9

11 S 17.8 4 16.42 5.2
20mm

12 0.70 22.0 4 S 19.8 4 13.18 4.1

13 0.69 21.3 6 S 14.2 19.8 4 14.15 4.7

Block-Moulded Prism (194 mm x 140 mm x 50 mm)

14 0.64 20.2 5.4 S 17.8 4 12.15 1.4

15 0.74 20.0 5.9 S 19.8 4 14.70 9.2

16 0.61 15.6 8 S 19.3 3 9.25 3.3

Copyright The Masonry Society--downloaded by Anthony Ruth on June 22, 2020

17 0.59 19.7 4 S 13.6 42.5 4 15.18 6.9

18 3 416 2 2.0 16.20

19 3 629 3 3.1 15.00

Boult (1979) 406 203 203 0.56 21.0 - S 11.2 - 15.5 - b 406 203 -
Stack

Cylinder
Cylinder

20 3 842 4 4.1 14.60

(50 mm x 100 mm)
(50 mm x 100 mm)
Face Shell Bedding

21 3 1055 5 5.2 14.80

TMS Journal December 2018

 Unit Mortar * Grout Prisms

Dimension (mm) Dimension (mm)

NO. Author

An
h/t

Type

(MPa)
(MPa)
(MPa)
W T H H W T
Reported

COV (%)
COV (%)
COV (%)
COV (%)

Compressive
Compressive

Bond Pattern

Bedding type

Cube Strength
No. of courses

(as in Figure 1)
Strength (MPa)

Specimen Type
Specimen Type
Cylinder Strength

Strength (net area)

No. of tested prisms
Prism Configuration

TMS Journal December 2018

22 3 416 2 2.0 17.10 -

23 3 629 3 3.1 14.80

FS

Boult (1979) 406 203 203 0.56 24.5 - S 11.2 - 15.5 - b 406 203
Stack

Cylinder
Cylinder
24 3 842 4 4.1 13.20

(50mmx100mm)
(50mmx100mm)
25 3 1055 5 5.2 12.60

26 S 14.2 11.1 9 5 3 4.2 11.30 14

27 S 18.2 12.7 9 5 3 4.2 12.07 3

28 N 5.72 13.0 9 5 3 4.2 10.41 3.3

Hamid et al(1979) Stack
FS

29 390 140 190 0.59 19.7 4.3 S 15.8 - 15.5 4 5 a 589 195 140 3 4.2 12.83 6.4

50 mm Cube
30 22.5 5 5 3 4.2 13.83 7.2

Block-Moulded Prism
31 S 13.5 12.7 8 5 3 4.2 12.07 3

(194 mm x 140 mm x 50 mm)

32 34.1 3 5 3 4.2 15.17 7

33 25.1 19.0 5 14.40 3.3

34 25.1 12.3 4 14.10 11

35 17.1 19.0 3 11.00 16

190 3.1
36 27.9 19.0 3 15.00 7.2
Drysdale and
Stack
FB

37 Hamid (1983) 390 190 190 0.53 20.2 - S 17 - 19.0 - 4 b 589 390 3 14.10 2.3

38 22.2 50 mm Cube 19.0 3 14.50 4.5

Copyright The Masonry Society--downloaded by Anthony Ruth on June 22, 2020

Block-Moulded Prism

39 23.6 19.0 4 140 4.2 13.80 6.5

(380 mm x 120 mm x 120 mm)

40 25.1 36.9 3 190 3.1 15.40 7.4

41 23.4 19.0 4 240 2.5 11.40 11

Wong and
C
42 Drysdale 390 190 190 0.51 19.2 - S 18.8 14 cy 21.8 - 3 b 390 390 190 FB ST 2 2.1 18.80 12
U
(1985)

25
 26
Unit Mortar * Grout Prisms

Dimension (mm) Dimension (mm)

NO. Author

An
h/t

Type

(MPa)
(MPa)
(MPa)
W T H H W T
Reported

COV (%)
COV (%)
COV (%)
COV (%)

Compressive
Compressive

Bond Pattern

Bedding type

Cube Strength
No. of courses

(as in Figure 1)
Strength (MPa)

Specimen Type
Specimen Type
Cylinder Strength

Strength (net area)

No. of tested prisms
Prism Configuration
43 3 589 3 3.1 14.90 9.5
Wong and
44 Drysdale 390 190 190 0.51 19.2 - S 18.8 14 cy 21.8 - 3 b 812 390 190 4 4.3 14.50 0.6
Stack

(1985)

50 mm Cube
Full Bedding

45 3 1016 5 5.3 13.00 3.5

46 14.8 29.8 1 12.70

47 41.6 29.8 1 25.30

48 Baba and Senbu 41.6 40.6 1 24.30

(1986) 390 190 190 0.56 - S 12.4 - - a 589 190 190 FS Stack 3 3.1 -

BMP
49 31.4 29.8 1 27.20

50 mm Cube
50 31.4 40.6 1 30.70

51 14.8 40.6 1 12.60

52 13.9 3 12.92

53 17.7 N 4.6 27.1 3 15.50

54 38.0 3 18.20

55 14.5 3 14.40

56 27.7 N 6.6 27.2 3 16.48

57 Romagna and 38.3 3 19.09

Roman (1988) 390 140 190 0.58 - - - b 589 390 140 Stack 3 4.2 -
58 13.1 3 15.77
Full Bedding

59 29.0 N 4.5 27.3 3 17.12

Cylinders (50 mm x 100 mm)

Cylinders (50 mm x 100 mm)

Copyright The Masonry Society--downloaded by Anthony Ruth on June 22, 2020

60 39.6 3 20.27

61 15.1 3 11.15

62 12.5 S 9.0 26.8 3 12.90

63 37.0 3 15.76

TMS Journal December 2018

 Unit Mortar * Grout Prisms

Dimension (mm) Dimension (mm)

NO. Author

An
h/t

Type

(MPa)
(MPa)
(MPa)
W T H H W T
Reported

COV (%)
COV (%)
COV (%)
COV (%)

Compressive
Compressive

Bond Pattern

Bedding type

Cube Strength
No. of courses

(as in Figure 1)
Strength (MPa)

Specimen Type
Specimen Type
Cylinder Strength

Strength (net area)

No. of tested prisms
Prism Configuration
64 14.7 3 17.05

TMS Journal December 2018

65 34.1 S 8.7 25.1 3 17.84

66 34.9 3 21.11
Full Bedding

67 16.4 3 16.71
33.5 S 9.2
68 27.6 3 17.07

69 15.0 3 FS 12.65

70 14.4 N 5.7 25.8 3 15.00

71 33.9 3 15.81

72 13.0 3 14.46

73 20.7 N 4.6 23.8 3 17.11

Romagna and
74 Roman (1988) 390 140 190 0.58 - - 32.4 - 3 b 589 390 140 Stack 3 4.2 19.53 -

75 11.9 3 17.08

76 35.5 N 5.0 21.5 3 20.12

Cylinders (50 mm x 100 mm)

Cylinders (50 mm x 100 mm)
77 31.9 3 20.44

78 12.5 3 13.10
Face-Shell Bedding

79 14.4 S 9.3 28.4 3 16.69

80 35.7 3 17.34

Copyright The Masonry Society--downloaded by Anthony Ruth on June 22, 2020

81 28.5 3 18.51
20.7 S 11.6
82 33.8 3 20.52

83 13.7 3 18.18
35.5 S 8.4
84 25.5 3 20.13

27
 28
Unit Mortar* Grout Prisms

Dimension (mm) Dimension (mm)

NO. Author

An
h/t

Type

(MPa)
(MPa)
(MPa)
W T H H W T
Reported

COV (%)
COV (%)
COV (%)
COV (%)

Compressive
Compressive

Bond Pattern

Bedding type

Cube Strength
No. of courses

(as in Figure 1)
Strength (MPa)

Specimen Type
Specimen Type
Cylinder Strength

Strength (net area)

No. of tested prisms
Prism Configuration
85 35.5 S 8.4 34.7 3 25.12
Romagna and FS
0.5
86 Roman (1988) 390 140 190 20.7 - S 11.6 - 12.8 - 3 b 589 390 140 Stack 3 4.2 16.10 -
8

Cylinders
Cylinders
(50 mm x 100 mm)

(50 mm x 100 mm)

87 33.5 S 9.2 40.6 3 FB 17.14

88 18.7 16 3 15.00 3.0

0.5
397 193 193 13.3 2.5 N 6.62
1
89 22.6 2 3 16.40 2.5

90 41.5 6 3 34.18 6.6

91 NCMA (1988) - 47.3 4 3 a 396 397 193 Stack 2 2.0 37.18 5.9
0.5
397 193 193 32.7 1.6 S 19.9
7

50 mm Cube
92 22.70 8 3 31.68 2.2
Face-Shell Bedding

(90 mm x 90 mm x 175 mm)

Block-Moulded Prism
93 21.5 2 3 28.20 3.5
0.5
94 397 193 193 13.3 2.5 N 6.62 42.8 6 3 19.86 0.7
1
95 16.4 3 Stack 14.7 12

96 Scrivener and 16.4 3 Run 11 13

0.5
Baker (1989) 390 190 200 15.1 8 N 8.9 - - a 830 190 190 4 4.4
6

Cylinder
Cylinder
97 22.0 3 Stack 12 19

(100 mm x 200 mm)

(100 mm x 200 mm)
Face-Shell Bedding

98 22.0 3 Run 11.3 11

99 2 407 2 2.1 21.57

100 2 610 3 3.2 19.16

Kingsley & Noland 0.5
390 190 190 21.6 - S 21.6 - 20.1 - b 390 190 -
(1989) 6
Running

Cylinder

101 2 812 4 4.3 19.68

50 mm Cube
(50 mm x 100 mm)
Face-Shell Bedding

Copyright The Masonry Society--downloaded by Anthony Ruth on June 22, 2020

102 2 1016 5 5.3 18.64

103 S 27.6 5 25.5 5 3 17 8

0.5
104 Yao(1989) 390 190 190 23.6 7 S 32.3 7 25.5 5 3 b 590 390 190 3 3.1 18.7 3
BMP

1
Running

50 mm Cube
Full Bedding

105 N 10.8 9 34.5 6 3 16.5 9

TMS Journal December 2018

 Unit Mortar* Grout Prisms

Dimension (mm) Dimension (mm)

NO. Author

An
h/t

Type

(MPa)
(MPa)
(MPa)
W T H H W T
Reported

COV (%)
COV (%)
COV (%)
COV (%)

Compressive
Compressive

Bond Pattern

Bedding type

Cube Strength
No. of courses

(as in Figure 1)
Strength (MPa)

Specimen Type
Specimen Type
Cylinder Strength

Strength (net area)

No. of tested prisms
Prism Configuration
106 25.5 5 2 16.3 17

TMS Journal December 2018

Full
Bedd.
107 23 3 3 15 8
0.5
Yao(1989) 390 190 190 23.6 7 N 10.8 9 b 590 390 190 3 3.1

BMP
1
Running

108 25.5 5 3 FS 14.4 3

50 mm Cube
109 25.5 5 3 FB 16.7 5

110 N 9.2 16.5 3 15.80 13

111 13.5 27.2 3 17.90 4

112 15.4 13.3 3 11.40 2

20.0 10
113 Khalaf et al. (1994) 20.2 20.0 3 13.40 8
0.5
390 190 190 - b 589 390 190 Stack 3 3.1
6 -
114 S 26.8 28.9 3 19.30 8

50 mm Cube
Full Bedding

100 mm Cube
115 26.5 24.5 3 14.50 14

116 26.5 24.5 3 20.50 5

25.7 11
117 26.5 38.5 3 26.40 3

118 38.8 3 18.30

119 22.4 3 18.30

Running

120 27.8 31.6 2 21.20

121 Steadman and 39.8 3 24.20

0.5
Drysdale (1995) 390 190 190 - S 19.8 - - b 812 390 190 4 4.3 -
6
122 31.6 3 Stack 23.20

50 mm Cube
Face-Shell Bedding

(75 mm x 75 mm x 175 mm)

Copyright The Masonry Society--downloaded by Anthony Ruth on June 22, 2020

123 40.0 38.8 2 24.70
Block-Moulded Prism

124 34.8 38.8 3 20.40

Running

125 40.0 32.3 3 28.50

0.5
126 Khalaf (1996) 390 190 190 20.0 10 S Cu 21.2 - Cu 14.5 - 3 b 390 390 190 FB ST 2 2.1 16.8 6
6

29
 30
Unit Mortar * Grout Prisms

Dimension (mm) Dimension (mm)

NO. Author

An
h/t

Type

(MPa)
(MPa)
(MPa)
W T H H W T
Reported

COV (%)
COV (%)
COV (%)
COV (%)

Compressive
Compressive

Bond Pattern

Bedding type

Cube Strength
No. of courses

(as in Figure 1)
Strength (MPa)

Specimen Type
Specimen Type
Cylinder Strength

Strength (net area)

No. of tested prisms
Prism Configuration
127 20.0 10 26.6 17.7 3 b 1190 390 6 6.3 15.20 6

128 S 26 16.7 3 1190 6 6.3 15.60 6

25.7 11 a 190
0.5
129 Khalaf (1996) 390 190 190 - 14.5 - 3 390 190 Stack 2 2.1 23.20 2
6

50 mm Cube
Full Bedding

100 mm Cube
130 5mm
21.2 21.2 3 14.5 8
20.0 10 b 589 390 3 3.1
131 S 21.2 3 12.8 8
20mm
Thompson et 0.5
132 395 194 194 25.0 - S 22 - Cy 15.9 - 5 a 397 - 194 FB Stack 2 2.0 17.00 4.4
al(2002) 2
133 17 12 5 12.8 4
Duncan (2008) 0.5
134 396 194 193 33.8 4 S 19.2 13 Cy 30.7 8 5 b 802 396 194 FS 4 4.1 17.2 7
2

50 mm Cube
Running

135 27.5 11 5 19.6 9

136 14.1 6.6 24.8 5 3 15.3 2

137 23.3 4.7 S 14 2 25.9 1.5 3 17.70 4

0.5
138 NCMA (2012) 394 194 194 38.0 2 43.8 1.7 3 a 406 216 194 Stack 2 2.1 26.50 4
2

50 mm Cube
Full Bedding

139 14.1 6.6 24.8 5 3 14.00 4

N 6.7 6 (90 mm x 90 mm x 175 mm)
140 23.3 4.7 Block-Moulded Prism 25.9 1.5 3 16.40 3.6

141 S 15.1 3 13.96

142 N 3
3.85 15.93
26.7 3 22.16
143 Ross et al. (2013) S 3
0.5 13.6 17.4
390 190 190 - - b 589 390 190 FS 3 3.1 -
2

Copyright The Masonry Society--downloaded by Anthony Ruth on June 22, 2020

Running

Cylinder

144 N 3
50 mm Cube 7.06 12.92
(50 mm x 100 mm)

145 S 3
22.8 16.98
33.0 13 10.60
146 N 3
9.01 14.67
Das et al(2014) 0.5
147 397 194 194 28 2 S Cu 17 7 Cy 19.3 4 5 b 400 397 194 FS Ru 2 2 19.6 2
2

TMS Journal December 2018

 Unit Mortar * Grout Prisms

Dimension (mm) Dimension (mm)

NO. Author

An
h/t

Type

(MPa)
(MPa)
(MPa)
W T H H W T
Reported

COV (%)
COV (%)
COV (%)
COV (%)

Compressive
Compressive

Bond Pattern

Bedding type

Cube Strength
No. of courses

(as in Figure 1)
Strength (MPa)

Specimen Type
Specimen Type
Cylinder Strength

Strength (net area)

No. of tested prisms
Prism Configuration
148 5 600 3 3 20.2 10

TMS Journal December 2018

149 Das et al(2014) 397 194 194 0.52 28 2 S 17 7 19.3 4 5 b 800 397 194 FS 4 4 16.3 5
Running

Cylinder

50 mm Cube
(50 mm x 100 mm)
150 5 1000 5 5 17.2 9
14.
151 21.6 N 5.1 3.7 26.1 12 5 16.6 11
3
13.
152 27 N 7.1 4.8 31.0 6.8 5 20.1 11
7
Fortes et al(2014)
153 390 140 190 0.58 38.9 9.8 S 10.9 5.1 33.7 4.6 5 a 390 390 140 FS Stack 2 2.8 23.8 7.4

Cylinder

50 mm Cube
(50 mm x1 00 mm)
154 37.8 8.1 S 10.1 3.2 39.2 6.1 5 26.1 4.2

155 41.1 8.8 S 11.5 4 41.2 7.7 5 26.3 2.9

156 Stack 16.61 9

Hegmier et al
394 190 194 0.56 25.6 11 S 11.9 - 18.6 4.2 3 b 390 390 190 FB 2 2.1
(1997)
157 Run. 15.07 16

158 5 15.59 7

159 11 15.39 11
Cheema and
390 190 190 0.56 25.9 18 S 12.4 13 24.6 17 b 390 390 190 FB Stack 2 2.1
Klinker (1984)
160 7 16.22 7

161 Block-Moulded Prism 6 13.65 3

(90 mm x 90 mm x 175 mm)

162 28.6 4 2 2.1 18.50

Sakr and Nies
390 190 190 0.56 16.5 - S 12.4 - - b 390 390 190 FB Stack -
(1989)

50 mm Cube
163 17 2.1 23.80

164 2 600 3 3.0 17.00 -

FB.

Copyright The Masonry Society--downloaded by Anthony Ruth on June 22, 2020

Baxten et al(1989) 400 200 200 0.56 22 - N 6.7 - 34.7 - b 400 200 Stack
165 2 400 2 2.0 22.00

166 3 b Stack 10.73

Olatunji et al(1986)
390 190 190 0.56 13.9 - S 10.5 - 11.42 - 589 390 190 FB 3 3.1 -
167 3 c Run. 8.42
Cylinder
(100mm x 200mm)

168 Gou (1991) 390 190 190 0.56 25.1 5 S 10.9 - 10.2 - 5 b 790 390 190 FS Run. 4 4.1 12.9 5

31
 Copyright The Masonry Society--downloaded by Anthony Ruth on June 22, 2020
TMS Journal December 2018 32
.

171
170
169
NO

(1995)
Author

Gou (1991)

Thomas & Scolforo

W

390
390
T

190
190
Dimension (mm)

190
190
Unit

An
0.56
0.56

Compressive
Strength (net area)
21.6
25.1

(MPa)
-
5

COV (%)
S
S

Type
50 mm Cube Specimen Type
Mortar

Cube Strength
*

9.2

20.5
11.3

(MPa)
-
-

COV (%)
Cylinder
(100 x 200)
Specimen Type
BMP

Cylinder Strength
35

48.9

19.0

(MPa)
Grout

-
-

COV (%)
5
5

30

No. of tested prisms

Prism Configuration
a
b

(as in Figure 1)
H

390
790
W

190
`390
Dimension (mm)

190
190
Face

FB
Bedding type
Prisms

Shell
Running Bond Pattern

Stack
2
4
No. of courses

2.1
4.1
h/t
Reported
Compressive

19.5
14.8

18.64
Strength (MPa)

5
5
11
COV (%)
 APPENDIX B
(Sample of Calculations)
NCMA (2012) tested a set of three grouted masonry prisms with (h/t) ratio of 2.1. The prisms were built of hollow concrete blocks with net compressive strength of
14.1 MPa and COV of 6.6%, type N mortar with cube compressive strength of 6.7 MPa COV of 6.6% and a grout mix with cylinder compressive strength of 24.8 MPa.
The average compressive strength of the tested prisms was 14 MPa with COV of 4%. (1 MPa =145.038 psi, 1 mm = 0.0394 in.)

AS 3700-2001 BS 5628-2:2005 CSA S304-14

TMS Journal December 2018

Correction factor for (h/t) ratio = 0.78 By interpolation Correction factor for (h/t) ratio = 0.8 (Appendix D of BS5628-2) Correction factor for (h/t) ratio = 0.86 (Annex D of CSA S304)
(Appendix C of AS 3700) The average normalized strength =14 × 0.8= 11.2 MPa The average normalized strength =14 × 0.86= 12.04 MPa
The average normalized strength=14 x 0.78= 10.92 MPa fgr > fbl , hence use fbl From Table 3 in CSA S304-14 ,for fbl =14.1 MPa and type N mortar
f’m (ungrouted) =1.3x1.4x(√14.1)= 6.83 MPa unit shape factor =thickness/height =1
f' m = 4.5 +
24.8 for shape factor 0.6 table 2 for solid concrete unit
Grout contribution =1.4� = 6.11 MPa
(14.1-10)

1.3
× (6 -4.5) = 5.73 MPa

f’m Exp / f’m Pred = 12.04 / 5.73 = 2.10

(15-10)

=4.2+ x(5.5-4.2)=4.89
Ab fcg Ac
′
(14.1-10.4)

for shape factor 2.0 table 2 for solid concrete unit

𝑓𝑓𝑚𝑚1

Ag 1.3 Ag
(17.5-10.4)
𝑓𝑓𝑚𝑚′ = 𝑓𝑓𝑚𝑚′ (ungrouted) +1.4 �� �

An = 0.52
′
=8.4+ x(11.1-8.4)=9.81
(14.1-10.4)

f’m = 6.83× An + 6.11 × (1- An) = 6.48 MPa For shape factor = 1
𝑓𝑓𝑚𝑚2
(17.5-10.4)

f’m Exp / f’m Pred = 10.92 / 6.48= 1.68

x(9.81-4.89)=6.29 MPa
(1-0.6)

f’m Exp / f’m Pred =11.2 / 6.29 = 1.78

𝑓𝑓𝑚𝑚′ =4.877+
(2.0-0.6)

TMS 602-16 Eurocode 6 Proposed

Correction factor for (h/t) ratio= 1.01 (ASTM C 1314-16) Correction factor for (h/t) ratio= 0.8 (National Appendix D of Correction factor for (h/t) ratio= 1- 0.075 × (5-2.1) = 0.78
The average normalized strength =14.0 x 1.01= 14.14 MPa BS5628-2) The average normalized strength =14 × 0.78 = 10.92 MPa
From Table 2 in TMS 602-16,for fbl = 14.1 MPa and type N The average normalized strength =14 × 0.8= 11.2 MPa fgr = 24.8 >1.5xfbl = 21.2, hence use fgr=21.2 MPa
mortar Normalized conversion factor= 1.14 (BS EN 772-1) From Equation 3 in the current study:
Normalized block strength =1.14 × 14 = 15.96 MPa
f’m =12.07 +
Mortar strength according to Eurocode6 =1.28 × 6.7=8.58 MPa
Or from figure 11
(14.1-13.79)
f' m = 0.81 × (0.29 × 14.1 + 0.10 × 6.7 + 0.21 × 21.2+1.51) = 8.68 MPa

f’m Exp / f’m Pred =14. 14/12.19 = 1.16

x (13.79 - 12.07) = 12.19 MPa

f’m = 0.55 (15.96)0.7(8.58)0.3 = 7.29 MPa

Unit, grout, and mortar contributions = 4.5, 3.6, 0.6 MPa , respectively
(18.27-13.79)

f’m Exp / f’m Pred =11.2/7.29= 1.54

f’m= 4.5 + 3.6 + 0.6 = 8.7 MPa

Copyright The Masonry Society--downloaded by Anthony Ruth on June 22, 2020

f’m Exp / f’m Pred =10.92/8.68= 1.26

33
34 TMS Journal December 2018

Copyright The Masonry Society--downloaded by Anthony Ruth on June 22, 2020

 

Finite Element Modeling of Reinforced Concrete Frames with Masonry

Infill Walls Subjected to Lateral Load Reversals
R. Allouzi1 and A. Irfanoglu2

INTRODUCTION bricks and frame and between the bricks themselves were
modeled as cohesive interfaces to account for shear
Finite element (FE) analysis is currently used to behavior along the mortar joints. A smeared-crack model
estimate the behavior of complex structural systems under was used for frame concrete and brick units. The results
various loading conditions. Reinforced concrete (RC) were compared with experimental outcomes. It was shown
frames with masonry infill walls belong to such complex that using interface elements in the column ends overcomes
systems. They are characterized by the interaction of the inability of the smeared-crack model to model the shear
multiple components across “interfaces.” The presence of behavior.
interfaces is a defining feature of such complex system and
the component-to-component interaction along these Stavridis and Shing (2010) developed models to assess
interfaces often determines the behavior of the system as a the influence of material properties, gravity loading,
whole. geometry of the RC frame, and the size and location of
openings in the masonry wall. These models considered 51
Finite element models developed recently include parameters for mortar and masonry units for the infill and
advances in component and interface representation of RC concrete reinforced with steel bars. In their models, the
frames with masonry infill walls. Riddington and Smith expected planes of fracture are predefined as interfaces in
(1977) developed an elastic finite element model to frame, mortar joints, and even within brick units.
simulate reinforced concrete frame with unreinforced Koutromanos et al. (2011) demonstrated the ability of
masonry infill wall. Dhanasekar and Page (1986) built a nonlinear FE models to consider the cyclic opening and
finite element model based on elastic properties, inelastic closing of cracks, the reversible shear behavior, strength
stress-strain response and a failure surface to predict the and stiffness degradation in tensile region, and non-linear
behavior of infilled frames subjected to racking loads. El behavior in compression. They used a special discretization
Haddad (1991) developed a computer program based on scheme to capture possible crack initiation and propagation
finite element method and fracture mechanics to analyze planes.
the effects of cracks in frame and separation between
masonry infill walls and the frame. The redistribution of The ability to quantify and qualify the constitutive
internal stresses in frame and wall was obtained to identify models of components and their interaction along the
most stressed regions. Lotfi and Shing (1994) developed a frame-infill and brick-to-brick interfaces during a seismic
dilatant interface constitutive model to simulate the event, i.e. with numerous lateral load reversals, using the
initiation and propagation of fracture under combined techniques of numerical simulation is a challenging task.
normal and shear stresses. Mehrabi and Shing (1997) In this paper, the element discretization procedure, the
simulated the behavior of masonry infilled RC frames method used to select the constitutive models for the
using smeared crack elements for the RC frame and materials (concrete, steel, bricks, and mortar) and the
masonry units, and interface elements for mortar joints. approach to define the corresponding model parameters are
While the models developed by Mehrabi and Shing (1997) presented. The resulting finite element models of RC
incorporated the nonlinear behavior of the infilled frames, frames with infill walls are capable of capturing the most
they failed to capture some of the failure mechanisms common modes of component failures. Also, the
observed in the laboratory tests. Citto (2008) developed an techniques used to simulate numerically the structural
interface constitutive model for fracture initiation and frame-infill wall and brick-to-brick interactions under
propagation in masonry walls under normal and shear monotonic and cyclic loadings are presented. A nonlinear
stresses and implemented it in ABAQUS (2007). A interface model is used to simulate the mechanism of load
compressive cap was included to account for crushing transfer in the mortar connecting the frame to the infill and
failure. Al-Chaar and Mehrabi (2008) performed numerical bricks in the presence of large deformations and material
simulations on DIANA (v. 8.1) to investigate the nonlinear nonlinearity, as well as damage along these interfaces. The
behavior of infilled frames. The mortar joints between techniques available in ABAQUS (2011) are investigated
and the numerical results are calibrated and compared with
existing experimental data. Only key modeling
1. Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, components and summary of results are presented. Full
University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan, r.louzi@ju.edu.jo details, calibrated parameters and ABAQUS input code can
2. Associate Professor, Lyles School of Civil Engineering, be found in Allouzi (2015).
Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN,
ayhan@purdue.edu
 
TMS Journal December 2018 35

Copyright The Masonry Society--downloaded by Anthony Ruth on June 22, 2020

 
FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS SCHEME Infill Wall: Infill wall is built from brick bonded
  together by horizontal and vertical mortar joints with finite
thickness. It is discretized such that cohesive interfaces are
The element discretization and constitutive models of
placed in the middle of mortar bed joints leaving a part
materials and interfaces have been selected carefully to
composed of brick and half thickness of mortar around it
capture the most expected modes of failures of components
(Figures. 2 and 3). Continuum 3D 8-noded elements of
and interfaces, namely, compressive crushing and tensile
bricks and mortar are able to interact with cohesive
cracking of concrete, compressive crushing and tensile
interfaces to model the diagonal shear cracking of the wall
splitting of bricks, shear or tensile fracture in mortar joints,
without prior knowledge of crack location and orientation
and steel reinforcement yielding. Accordingly, the model
and without excessive involving of cohesive interfaces
introduced in this paper can capture the diagonal cracking
within brick units themselves. By mortar joint interface
and sliding shear cracking in the infill walls. The proposed
implementation, the model of infill wall can capture the
model overcomes the difficulties associated with manual
sliding shear cracking in the infill walls while it overcomes
predefining initiation and propagation planes for the so-
the excessive distortion of mortar along these interface
called shear cracks, the tedious calibration process
surfaces. Besides, the frictional resistance is incorporated
encountered in discrete models and the resulting heavy
directly after the cohesive strength starts to diminish along
computational effort to run the simulations. The proposed
these surfaces.
model is calibrated first to capture the monotonic response,
i.e. the failure mode, crack pattern, and material behavior
of infilled RC frames under monotonic loading regime.
Then the stiffness and strength degradation under cyclic
loadings are studied to model the loading-unloading-
reloading process, i.e. lateral load reversals.

Simulation results from the proposed model of RC

frames with infill wall components, interfaces and
integrated models are compared with experimental data
provided by Mehrabi et al. (1994). These tests provide a
database of response of infilled RC frames subject to
monotonic and cyclic loading. Specimens are ½ scale and Figure 2 - Finite Element Discretization of Infill Wall
designed to represent first story infilled interior frame of a
typical office building. The prototype structure is a six-
story three-bay RC frame system infilled with masonry
walls in the middle bay only.

FINITE ELEMENT DISCRETIZATION

Reinforced Concrete Frame: Reinforced concrete
frame is modeled in 3D space as a composition of truss
elements of steel reinforcement embedded into 8-noded 3D
elements of concrete (Figure 1).
(a) (b)
Figure 3 - Finite Element Discretization of
(a) Hollow and (b) Solid Brick Unit with
Half Thickness Mortar Around It

Figure 1 - Finite Element Discretization of

Reinforced Concrete Frame

36 TMS Journal December 2018

Copyright The Masonry Society--downloaded by Anthony Ruth on June 22, 2020

 
CONSTITUTIVE MODELS The plasticity of concrete under compression is
described by the hardening and softening behavior, and is
Constitutive Model for Unconfined Concrete modeled based on Tsai’s equation (Tsai (1988)).
Under Compression: Discrete crack models were used
successfully to model cracking shear in concrete and nx
y (2)
masonry walls (Stavridis and Shing (2010) and  r  xr
Koutromanos et al. (2011)). But these models have some 1  n  x
 r 1  r 1
drawbacks, namely: the expected shear crack initiation and
propagation planes need be predefined manually, the large
computational time to run these models, and the tedious c f
where x  , y  c . The strain at compressive strength
calibration process. The continuum material models can  c' f c'
also be used to simulate shear cracks in concrete (Malm fc'
and Holmgren (2008)). The local variation in concrete f c' is c'  Chang and Mander (1994). n
properties can initiate cracks due to concrete heterogeneity 680000  260 fc'
which makes continuum material model more suitable for and r are parameters to control the shape of the curve and
simulating cracks in concrete.
Ecc' f c'
are taken as and  1.9 , respectively Chang and
The Concrete Damaged Plasticity model is a fc' 750
continuum model that is developed to model behavior of
Mander (1994).
brittle materials subjected to monotonic or cyclic loading.
This model uses the damaged elasticity, and tension and
In this study, the damage-strain curve is defined after
compression plasticity. The damaged elasticity is defined
the peak strength in compression is reached and in which
by scalar parameters that describe the unrecovered
the value of damage parameter dc (see Figure 4)
distortions that occur during tensile cracking and
compressive crushing under cyclic loading as
Constitutive Model for Confined Concrete under
Compression: The enhanced strength and ductility of
E  1  d E  E 0 (1)
concrete in columns due to the confinement provided by
transverse reinforcement (stirrups) is considered in this
where E is the damaged modulus of elasticity and E0 is study. Richart et al. (1928) defined the peak strength and
strain of concrete under hydrostatic fluid pressure as
the initial modulus of elasticity taken as 57, 000 f c' ( f c'
is the specified compressive strength of concrete in psi) f cc'  f c'  k1 f l (3)
(Tsai (1988)).
The parameter d E represents the damage variable
 fl 
which is defined as a function of inelastic strain. In tension,  cc'   c' 1  k2  (4)
d E is estimated as d t  ( 1  f t ) at each strain level  fc' 
ft 0
fc where f cc' is the concrete strength under a confining
while in compression it is taken as d c  1.5( 1  ). fto is
fc' pressure of f l , k 1 is a factor taken as 4.1, and
the tensile strength and f t is the tensile stress k 2  5 k1 .These expressions have been adopted by Chang
corresponding to the tensile strain  t . f c is the and Mander (1994) with different formulations to define
compressive stress corresponding to the compressive strain f l and k 1 . They are stated as
c .
fl1  fl 2
The transition from tension to compression and vice fl  (5)
versa is another important aspect that is considered in 2
modeling the concrete response under cyclic loadings by
defining the parameter “wc” (Figure 4). This parameter  0.9 
k1  A  0.1   (6)
represents closing of cracks and partially recovering the  1  Bx 
compressive stiffness when the load changes from tension
to compression. Also, total or partial recovery of tensile
where
stiffness is expected when uncrushed or partially crushed
f l1  f l 2
concrete undergo tensile loading through the use of x  (7)
parameter “wt”. The value assigned to “wc and “wt” ranges 2 f c'
from 0 to 1. A value of 1 (unity) represents full recovery of
stiffness while 0 (zero) represents total loss of stiffness.
A  6.8886  0.6069 17.275r e4.989r (8)

TMS Journal December 2018 37

Copyright The Masonry Society--downloaded by Anthony Ruth on June 22, 2020

 
4.5
B 5 (9) Constitutive Model of Concrete Under Tension:
5
A
 
0.9849  0.6306e3.8939r  0.1 The tensile behavior of concrete is modeled as elastic until
strength limit is reached. The plastic branch is modeled to
simulate the load transfer across cracks to steel bar through
fl1 and fl 2 are the confining pressure in the two planar what is called “tension stiffening”. For the concrete
directions due to stirrup size and distribution Chang and material defined for the foundation, the stress-strain
Mander (1994) “r” equals 1 for symmetric lateral pressure. relation of tension stiffening is defined based on Tsai’s
equation
Popovics’ relation (Popovics (1973)) was modified by
Thorenfeldt et al. (1987) and used here to develop the nx
monotonic stress-strain curve of confined concrete in the y (12)
 r  xr
form of 1   nt  x
 r 1  r 1
rx
y (10) t f
r 1  xrk where  , y  t , n t and r are parameters to control
t 0 ft 0
 f
where  c , y  c , and “k” is taken as 1 for the the shape of the curve. The strain at peak tensile strength is
'
 cc f cc'
t0 .
ascending branch and greater than 1 for the descending
branch such that the compressive stress at failure is
The damage-strain curve is defined after the peak strength
in tension is reached and the damage parameter value dt
 0.8  (see Figure 4) is equal to the ratio of the relative reduction
f f  f cc'  K f c  5  0.2  (11)
K  in stress from that achieved at peak strength at each strain
level. After defining tensile and compressive damage and
where fc is the reduction in compressive strength when 3 recovery parameters, cyclic response of concrete cylinder
can be estimated (see Figure 4).
fcc'
 c' is reached and K .
fc' For the concrete material defined for the frame, the
plastic branch of tensile behavior is modeled based on stress-
In this study, the damage-strain curve is defined after displacement response defined by Cornelissen et al. (1986)
the peak strength in compression is reached and the value rather than a stress-strain response to avoid mesh sensitivity
of damage parameter dc (see Figure 4) is equal to the ratio of concrete elements that do not contain reinforcement.
of the relative reduction in stress from that achieved at peak
strength at each strain level.

Figure 4 - Numerical Stress-Strain Curve of Concrete Cylinder Under Cyclic Loading

38 TMS Journal December 2018

Copyright The Masonry Society--downloaded by Anthony Ruth on June 22, 2020

 
This is related to the fact that when plain concrete cracks Mortar Joints Interface: Cohesive behavior is
across some section within frame members, the crack enforced between surfaces located at the middle of mortar
length is determined based on the amount of opening segment thickness prior to damage (Figure 2). Cohesive
across the crack which does not depend on size of that behavior represents the interaction between these surfaces
member. According to Cornelissen et al. (1986), the stress based on traction versus separation law. Damage is
distribution on the crack tip zone depends on the stress- modeled to simulate the reduction in cohesion and failure
displacement relationship and the crack geometry. The of cohesive interface over two steps: damage initiation and
normalized stress-displacement curve was modeled as an damage evolution.
envelope curve of specimens tested under various regimes
of cyclic loadings. It is expressed as Damage initiation follows a quadratic criterion of
contact stress ratios represented as

y  1   C1 x 
3
e  C2 x
 
 x 1  C13 e  C 2 (13)
2 2 2
 tn   t s   tt 
 o    o    o   1 (15)
 f  tn   t s   tt 
where  t , y  t . The values of  t 0 , C1 , and C 2
t0 ft 0
were estimated based upon regression analysis (Cornelissen where
et al. (1986)). The stiffness degradation during the cyclic tn , t s , tt are nominal traction stress components, and
loading as a function of crack opening were given by t no , t so , t to are peak values of the contact stress when the
Cornelissen et al. (1986) and considered in this paper. separation is either purely normal to the interface (tensile)
or purely in the first or the second shear direction in plane,
Constitutive Model of Bricks and Mortar: The respectively.
Concrete Damaged Plasticity model is also used for brick
and mortar materials (plain concrete). The compressive 100
plasticity is defined as before for the unconfined concrete.
80
The tension plasticity modeling of bricks is defined based
on stress-displacement response. For tension softening, a 60
relation defined by Van der Pluijm (1992) is used: 40
Stress (ksi)

20
ft 0
 wcr 0
GFI
ft  ft 0 e (14) ‐0.02 ‐0.01 ‐201E‐16 0.01 0.02
‐40
Abaqus Results
where ft 0 is the tensile strength of brick taken as 6 f c' ‐60
Experimental
with f c' being the compressive strength of concrete blocks ‐80
Strain (in./in.)
in psi. G FI is the first mode fracture energy and wcr is the
crack opening displacement. The damage-strain curve is Figure 5 - Stress-Strain Curve of Reinforcing
defined after the peak strength in tension and compression Bars Under Cyclic Loading (1 ksi=6.895 MPa)
are reached and the damage parameter value is equal to the
ratio of the relative reduction in stress from that achieved
100
at peak strength at each strain level.

Constitutive Model of Steel Reinforcing Bars: An 50

elastic-plastic model is used to simulate uniaxial response
Stress (ksi)

of embedded steel reinforcement bars. The inelastic

behavior of steel subjected to cyclic loadings is modeled 0
by nonlinear kinematic hardening using test data where ‐0.04 ‐0.02 0 0.02 0.04
stress-strain response remained stable. For reinforcing bars ‐50
with grade 60 steel, the model is calibrated based on the Experimental
tests conducted by Ma et al. (1976). The stress-strain curve
from experimental results is compared with that from ‐100 Abaqus results
ABAQUS results in Figure 5. This constitutive model is Strain (in./in.)
also used for stirrups and calibrated based on experiments
Figure 6 - Stress-Strain Curve of Stirrups Under
by Panthaki (1991). Stress-strain curves for stirrups from
Cyclic Loading (1 ksi=6.895 MPa)
experimental results and ABAQUS estimates are compared
in Figure 6.

TMS Journal December 2018 39

Copyright The Masonry Society--downloaded by Anthony Ruth on June 22, 2020

 
Once the damage initiation criterion is met, a linear INTEGRATED RC FRAME WITH
damage evolution law is defined to simulate the rate at MASONRY INFILL WALL
which the cohesion stiffness degrades. Accordingly, the
 
friction model is activated and ramped up in proportion to
the degradation rate of the cohesive stiffness. At this stage, The commercial software ABAQUS 6.11-1 was used
the shear stress is represented as a combination of cohesion to develop comprehensive 3D nonlinear finite element
and friction until all cohesion is lost and the only models that can capture the most common failure
contribution is from the friction model. mechanisms. The RC frames and infill masonry walls
interact through cohesive interfaces applied around the
The material and interface models of brick and mortar wall panel. These interfaces also represent the middle
described before are implemented in ABAQUS to simulate surface of mortar that lies between the frame and the wall.
the couplet tests conducted by Mehrabi et al. (1994). The mortar joint interface defined previously is also
Simulation results are compared with experimental results applied along the frame- infill wall interfaces.
in Figure 7 for solid blocks and Figure 8 for hollow blocks.
The simulation results compare very well with the The integrated RC frames with infill walls tested by
empirical data. Mehrabi et al. (1994) and used in this paper are presented
in Table 1. The properties of these specimens are
introduced in Table 2 while the values of the parameters
Finite Element required to define the constitutive model of concrete are
Experimental presented in Table 3. The lateral load versus displacement
curves for the five monotonically tested specimens are
150 estimated using ABAQUS. The measured responses of
Shear Stress (psi)

actual specimens are also shown in Figure 9. Specimen 2

was subjected to a large lateral force which cracked the
50 infill before data were recorded. Hence, the base shear-drift
curve for specimen 2 represents the post-cracking behavior
‐0.4 ‐0.2 of the specimen. This explains the reason behind the initial
‐50 0 0.2 0.4
stiffness based on FE compared to experimental results.
The FE could capture the peak strength, drift at peak
strength, residual strength, and ultimate drift.
‐150 Shear Displacement (in.)
Table 1. Details of Specimens Tested by Mehrabi et al.
Figure 7 - Shear Stress-Shear Displacement (1994)
Curve of Mortar Joint Between Two Solid Specimen Infill Wall Vertical Load Lateral
Concrete Bricks Under 150 psi Normal Stress ID Type (kips) Load
(1 in. = 25.4 mm, 1 psi=6.895 kPa).
2 Hollow Column (66) Monotonic

Finite Element 3 Solid Column (66) Monotonic

250
Experimental Column (44)
200 5 Solid Cyclic
+Beam (22)
150 Column (44)
8 Hollow Monotonic
100 +Beam (22)
Column (44)
Shear Stress (psi)

50 9 Solid Monotonic
+Beam (22)
0
‐0.4 ‐0.2 ‐50 0 0.2 0.4 Table 2. Properties of the Infilled RC Frame
‐100 Specimens Considered by Mehrabi et al. (1994)
(1 in. = 25.4 mm, 1 ksi=6.895 MPa, 1 kip= 4.448 kN)
‐150
Longitudinal Transverse Total bc hc fy
‐200 (in.) (in.) (ksi)
reinforcement reinforcement P
Shear Displacement (in.) ratio ratio (kips)
Figure 8 - Shear Stress-Shear Displacement Curve of
Mortar Joint Between Two Hollow Concrete Bricks 3.2% 0.6% 66 7 7 71.8
Under 150 psi Normal Stress µo C fyv s hw Lw
(1 in. = 25.4 mm, 1 psi=6.895 kPa). (ksi) (ksi) (in.) (in.) (in.)
 
0.87 0.05 53.3 2.5 56 84

40 TMS Journal December 2018

Copyright The Masonry Society--downloaded by Anthony Ruth on June 22, 2020

 
Table 3. Input Values of the Parameters Required to Define the Constitutive Model of
Concrete in Frame, Foundation, Bricks, Mortar, and Mortar Joint Interfaces
(1 psi=6.895 kPa)
Unconfined Concrete of Frame and Foundation in Compression
f c (psi)
'
 c' r n E (ksi) wc
4480 0.00243 4.073 1.982 3180 1
Confined concrete of columns in compression
f l1 (psi) fl 2 (psi) r A B k1
217 217 1 6.77 2.28 6.16
k f cc' (psi) K f f (psi) '
 cc
k2
30.8 1 (ascending) 5817 1.3 3850 0.006
1.2 (descending)
Concrete of frame in tension
ft 0 (psi) t 0 C1 C2 wt
401.6 0.0063 3 6.93 1
Concrete of foundation in tension
ft 0 (psi) t0 nt r wt
401.6 0.00013 1.15 4.073 1
Unconfined concrete of bricks in compression
f c' (psi)  c' r n E (ksi) wc
2260 0.0018 1.11 2.88 2710 0.8
Unconfined concrete of mortar in compression
f c' (psi)  c' r n E (ksi) wc
2150 0.0017 0.97 2.95 2643 0.8
Concrete of bricks in tension
ft 0 (psi) G FI wt
285 0.00029 0.5
Concrete of mortar in tension
ft 0 (psi) G FI wt
278 0.00029 0.5
Mortar joints interfaces
t no (psi) t so (psi) t to (psi) Cohesion (psi) friction
356 60 60 50 0.87

Specimen 3 was subjected to gravity load at columns peak strength is shift 40% and at residual strength is only
only. The FE results could not capture the drift at peak 10% shifted.
strength and ultimate strength compared to experimental
outcomes but could represent the initial stiffness and Specimen 9 is the same as specimen 3 except that the
average peak strength. This can be attributed to the gravity load is distributed along the beam (22 kips) and at
sensitivity of infilled frame response to labor work of columns (44 kips). The FE results could capture the initial
applying mortar. stiffness, peak strength, and residual strength. The drift at
peak strength is shift 50% and at residual strength is only
Specimen 8 is the same as specimen 2 except that the 17% shifted.  
gravity load is distributed along the beam (22 kips) and at
columns (44 kips). The FE results could capture the initial
stiffness, peak strength, and residual strength. The drift at

TMS Journal December 2018 41

Copyright The Masonry Society--downloaded by Anthony Ruth on June 22, 2020

 
Tension damage distribution results estimated from illustrations in Figures 10-14 represent the cracking pattern
numerical simulation are shown in Figure 10 through of specimens and can be compared with the crack maps
Figure 14. Since the tension damage parameter at each obtained during laboratory experiments. For specimen 3,
integration point is a function of the cracking strain and its the crack pattern could not capture the crack pattern.
value increases with increase in cracking strain,
 
40 70
35
Lateral Load (kip)

60
30
25 50

Lateral Load (kip)

20 40
15 30
10 20
experimental results
5 experimental results
FE results 10
0 FE results
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 0
Displacement (in.) 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Displacement (in.)
(a) (b)
50 70

Lateral Load (kip)

60
Lateral Load (kip)

40
50
30 40
30
20 20
10 10 experimental results
experimental results FE results
0
FE results
0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 Displacement (in.)
Displacement (in.)
(c) (d)
Figure 9 - Lateral Load - Story Drift Curve of Weak Frame Infilled with Brick Wall.
Experimental Data is from Mehrabi et al. (1994) (a) Specimen 2, (b) Specimen 3, (c) Specimen 8, and (d) Specimen 9
(1 inch = 25.4 millimeters, 1 kip= 4.448 kN)

 
(a) (b)

Figure 10 - Specimen 1 (a) Tension Damage Distribution in the ABAQUS [(2011) Model;
(b) Crack Map for the Laboratory Specimen by Mehrabi et al. (1994)
 
 

42 TMS Journal December 2018

Copyright The Masonry Society--downloaded by Anthony Ruth on June 22, 2020

 

(a) (b)

Figure 11 - Specimen 2 (a) Tension Damage Distribution in the ABAQUS [(2011) Model;
(b) Crack Map for the Laboratory Specimen by Mehrabi et al. (1994)
 

(b)
(a)
Figure 12 - Specimen 3 (a) Tension Damage Distribution in the ABAQUS (2011) Model;
(b) Crack Map for the Laboratory Specimen by Mehrabi et al. (1994)
 
 

(a) (b)

Figure 13 - Specimen 8 (a) Tension Damage Distribution in the ABAQUS (2011) Model;
(b) Crack Map for the Laboratory Specimen by Mehrabi et al. (1994)

TMS Journal December 2018 43

Copyright The Masonry Society--downloaded by Anthony Ruth on June 22, 2020

 

(a) (b)

Figure 14 - Specimen 9 (a) Tension Damage Distribution in the ABAQUS (2011) Model;
(b) Crack Map for the Laboratory Specimen by Mehrabi et al. (1994)
 

Specimen 5 is the same as specimen 9 except that it is model approaches. The proposed modeling approach holds
subjected to cyclic loadings. Simulation results are shown promise and could be extended, after calibration, to study
in Figure 15. The FE model was not set to be subjected to the performance of infilled frames under various geometric
the same cycles as tested due to long running time. The FE configurations including door and window openings,
results could capture the peak and residual strengths. The multiple bays and multiple stories, and subject to
strength in-between is underestimated. The unloading was earthquake ground motions.
overestimated at the beginning but could represent the 80
unloading by end to good extent. The calculated tension
damage distribution and crack map for the laboratory 60
specimen are shown in Figure 16. 40
Lateral Load (kip)

20
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 0
This study investigated the ability of numerical non- ‐1.5 ‐1.0 ‐0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
linear finite element models to predict the performance of ‐20
RC frames infilled with masonry walls. It is shown that
calibrated finite element models can serve as a beneficial ‐40
tool for further study of infilled frames. A continuum ‐60
Concrete Damage Plasticity model in conjunction with FE results
cohesive-friction interfaces along mid-thickness of mortar Experiment results
‐80
joints is capable of simulating the behavior of infilled Drift (in.)
frames under monotonic and cyclic loadings. Damage Figure 15 - Lateral Load- Story Drift Curve of Weak
parameters and stiffness recovery defined previously Frame Infilled with Solid Brick Wall, Specimen 5.
resulted in cyclic response in good agreement with Experimental Data are from Mehrabi et al. (1994)
experimental data. Few geometric and physical properties (1 inch = 25.4 millimeters, 1 kip= 4.448 kN)
are needed for these simulations compared to discrete

44 TMS Journal December 2018

Copyright The Masonry Society--downloaded by Anthony Ruth on June 22, 2020

 

 
(a) (b)

Figure 16 - Specimen 5 (a) Tension Damage Distribution in the ABAQUS (2011) Model;
(b) Crack Map for the Laboratory Specimen by Mehrabi et al. (1994)

REFERENCES
El Haddad (1991). El Haddad, M. H., “Finite Element
ABAQUS (2011). ABAQUS Analysis User’s Manual Analysis of Infilled Frames Considering Cracking and
Online Documentation, Version 6.11, Dassault Systèmes Separation Phenomena”, Computers & Structures, 41(3),
Simulia Corp., Providence, RI, 2011. 439-447, Elsevier, 1991.

Al-Chaar and Mehrabi (2008). Al-Chaar, G. and Mehrabi, Koutromanos et al. (2011). Koutromanos, I., Stavridis, A.,
A.B., “Constitutive Models for Nonlinear Finite Element Shing, P.B., and Willam, K., “Numerical Modeling of
Analysis of Masonry Prisms and Infill Walls”, Masonry-Infilled RC Frames Subjected to Seismic Loads”,
ERDC/CERL TR- 08-19, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Computers and Structures, 89, pp. 1026-1037, Elsevier,
Washington, DC, 2008. 2011.

Allouzi (2015). Allouzi, R., “Seismic In-Plane Response Lotfi and Shing (1994). Lotfi, H.R. and P.B. Shing, “An
of Reinforced Concrete Frames with Masonry Infill Walls”, Interface Model Applied to Fracture of Masonry
PhD Thesis, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, 2015. Structures.” Journal of Structural Engineering, 120(1): 63-
80, American Society of Structural Engineers (ASCE),
ACI (2014). ACI 318-14: Building Code Requirements for Reston, VA, 1994.
Structural Concrete and Commentary, American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2014. Ma et al. (1976). Ma, S.M., Bertero, V.V., and Popov, E.P.,
“Experimental and Analytical Studies on Hysteretic
Chang and Mander (1994). Chang, G.A. and Mander, Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Rectangular and T-
J.B., “Seismic Energy Based Fatigue Damage Analysis of beams”, Rep. EERC 76-2, Earthquake Engineering
Bridge Columns: Part 1 – Evaluation of Seismic Capacity.” Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA,
NCEER Technical Report No. NCEER-94-0006, State 1976.
University of New York (SUNY), Buffalo, NY, 1994.
Malm and Holmgren (2008). Malm, R. and Holmgren, J.
Citto (2008). Citto, C., “Two-Dimensional Interface (2008). “Cracking in Deep Beams Owing to Shear Loading.
Model Applied to Masonry Structures.” Master’s Thesis. Part 2: Non-linear Analysis”, Magazine of Concrete
University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, CO, 2008. Research, Vol. 60, No. 5, 381-388.

Cornelissen et al. (1986). Cornelissen, H. A. W., Hordijk, Mehrabi et al. (1994). Mehrabi, A.B., Shing, P.B.,
D. A., and Reinhardt, H. W. (1986). “Experimental Schuller, M.P., and Noland, J. L., “Performance of
Determination of Crack Softening Characteristic of Masonry-Infilled RIC Frames Under In-Plane Lateral
Normal Weight and Lightweight Concrete.” HERON 31 Loads”, Rep. CU/SR-94-6, Dept. of Civil.,
(2), 45-56, Delft University of Technology, Netherlands, Environmental, .and Architectural Engineering.,
1986. University at Colorado at Boulder, CO, 1994.

Dhanasekar and Page (1986). Dhanasekar, M., and A.W. Mehrabi and Shing (1997). Mehrabi, A.B. and Shing,
Page, “The Influence of Brick Masonry Infill Properties on P.B., “Finite Element Modeling of Masonry-Infilled
the Behavior of Infilled Frames”, Proceedings of the Reinforced Concrete Frames” Journal of Structural
Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE), 81(2): 593–606, Engineering, Vol. 123, No. 5, ASCE, Reston, VA, 1997.
London, United Kingdom, 1986.

TMS Journal December 2018 45

Copyright The Masonry Society--downloaded by Anthony Ruth on June 22, 2020

 
Panthaki (1991). Panthaki, F.D., “Low Cyclic Fatigue C2 = factor estimated based upon regression
Behavior of High Strength and Ordinary Reinforcing analysis for stress-strain definition of
Steels”, MS Thesis, State University of New York (SUNY), concrete in tension
Buffalo, NY, 1991.
dc = damage parameter for compression
Popovics (1973). Popovics, S., “A Numerical Approach to
the Complete Stress-Strain Curves of Concrete.” Cement dE = damage parameter 
and Concrete Research, 3(5), 583-599, Elsevier, 1973.
dt = damage parameter for tension
Richart et al. (1928). Richart, F. E., Brandtzaeg, A., and
Brown, R. L., “A Study of the Failure of Concrete Under
E = damaged modulus of elasticity
Combined Compressive Stresses”, Bulletin 185,
University of Illinois Engineering Experimental Station,
Ec = modulus of elasticity of concrete
Urbana, IL, 1928.

Riddington and Smith (1977). Riddington, J.R. and Smith, E0 = initial modulus of elasticity 
S.B., “Analysis of Infilled Frames Subject to Racking With
Design Recommendations”, The Structural Engineer, Vol. FE = finite element
55, No. 6, The Institution of Structural Engineers, London,
United Kingdom, 1977. fc = compressive stress 

Stavridis and Shing (2010). Stavridis, A. and Shing, P. B., f c' = compressive strength of concrete
“Finite-Element Modeling of Nonlinear Behavior of
Masonry-Infilled RC Frames”, Journal of Structural f cc' = compressive strength of confined concrete
Engineering, 136(3):285-296, ASCE, Reston, VA, 2010.
fl = Confining pressure 
Thorenfeldt et al. (1987). Thorenfeldt, E., Tomaszewicz,
A., and Jensen, J.J., “Mechanical Properties of High-
Strength Concrete and Application in Design.” f l1 = Confining pressure in x-direction
Proceedings of the Symposium on Utilization of High-
Strength Concrete, pp 149-159, Tapir, Trondheim, Norway, fl 2 = Confining pressure in y-direction
1987.
ft = tensile stress
Tsai (1988). Tsai, W. T., “Uniaxial Compressional Stress-
Strain Relation of Concrete”, Journal of Structural ft 0 = tensile strength of concrete 
Engineering, 114(9):2133-2136, ASCE, Reston, VA, 1988.
fy = yield strength of longitudinal reinforcement
Van der Pluijm (1992). Van der Pluijm, R., “Material
Properties of Masonry and its Components Under Tension fyv = yield strength of transverse reinforcement
and Shear.” Proceedings of the 6th Canadian Masonry
Symposium, pp. 675-686, Saskatoon, Canada, 1992. = first mode fracture energy
G FI

hc = depth of column
NOTATION AND ABBREVIATIONS
hw = height of infill wall
A = factor to define k 1
k = factor to control the shape of the stress-
strain curve of concrete in compression
B =  factor to define  k 1
K = ratio of the compressive strength of confined
bc  =  width of column concrete to the compressive strength of
unconfined concrete
C =  cohesion of mortar
k1 = factor to account for confinement effect on
C1   =  factor estimated based upon regression the compressive strength
analysis for stress-strain definition of
concrete in tension k2 = factor to account for confinement effect on
the strain at compressive strength

46 TMS Journal December 2018

Copyright The Masonry Society--downloaded by Anthony Ruth on June 22, 2020

 
Lw  =  length of infill wall t to = peak contact stress in the second shear
direction in plane of the interface
N =  parameter to control the shape of the
ascending part of the stress-strain curve of wc = parameter that account for transition from
concrete in compression tension to compression to model cyclic
loading 
nt =  parameter to control the shape of the
ascending part of the stress-strain curve of wcr = crack opening displacement
concrete in tension
wt = parameter that account for transition from
P =  total load applied at the level of beam of compression to tension to model cyclic
infilled frame loading 

R =  parameter to control the shape of the c = compressive strain 

descending part of the stress-strain curve of
concrete in compression   c' = compressive strain when the compressive
strength of concrete is reached 
RC =  Reinforced concrete
'
 cc = compressive strain when the compressive
S =  spacing of transverse reinforcement strength of confined concrete is reached

tn   =  nominal traction stress normal to the t = tensile strain

interface
t0 = tensile strain when the tensile strength is
t no   =  peak contact stress normal to the interface reached 

ts   =  nominal traction stress in the first shear t 0 = Crack opening at the concrete tensile
direction in plane of the interface strength

t so   =  peak contact stress in the first shear µo = Coefficient of friction of mortar

direction in plane of the interface
x  = Factor to define  k 1  
tt   =  nominal traction stress in the second shear
direction in plane of the interface

TMS Journal December 2018 47

Copyright The Masonry Society--downloaded by Anthony Ruth on June 22, 2020

 

48 TMS Journal December 2018

Copyright The Masonry Society--downloaded by Anthony Ruth on June 22, 2020

 Joint Reinforcement as Primary Shear Reinforcement for
Concrete Masonry Shear Walls
Greg Baenziger1 and Max L. Porter2

INTRODUCTION result, there was apprehension in using joint

reinforcement to resist shear loads. Early shear wall tests
Partially grouted masonry shear walls are common included tests by Shing (1991 and 1992) and Sveinsson
in North America. Construction of partially grouted (1985), carried out with fully grouted walls.
concrete masonry shear walls can benefit greatly by
placement of joint reinforcement in bed joints of each or Sveinsson (1985) conducted tests that included wire
every other course instead of deformed reinforcement in truss joint reinforcement in every bed joint of small piers
bond beams, because placement and grouting of bond as horizontal shear reinforcement. Sveinsson stated that the
beams slow construction. Joint reinforcement is already joint reinforcement did not provide the strength that the
used to help control cracking and provide prescriptive two #5 (M#16) bars provided in the comparison wall;
horizontal reinforcement. With sufficient area and however, the areas of reinforcement were not comparable.
ductility of wire, joint reinforcement can also provide The longitudinal wires of six effective joint reinforcement
the tension capacity to span across cracks in shear walls wire trusses had a total cross-sectional area of 0.33 in.2
and to act as primary shear reinforcement for in-plane (213 mm2) compared to the two #5 (M#16) bars, which had
shear forces. a total cross-sectional area of 0.62 in.2 (400 mm2).
Sveinsson did suggest that joint reinforcement enhanced
The research reported herein provides: the ductility of the piers, which is an important property of
1. direct comparisons of walls constructed using shear walls for resisting collapse.
joint reinforcement as shear reinforcement and
walls constructed using conventional deformed Shing (1991 and 1992) documented the study of two
reinforcement in bond beams; cantilever wall panels, Wall D1, which used heat-treated
joint reinforcement and, Wall D2, which used cold-drawn
2. demonstration of shear wall behavior with joint joint reinforcement. The walls were tested under the
reinforcement as primary shear reinforcement; TCCMAR program in the same manner as Sveinsson’s
3. demonstration that wire reinforcement can be study and were compared to Wall 14 of the earlier work by
provided with sufficient area and ductility to Shing, which did not include joint reinforcement. All walls
avoid fracture; were 6-foot (1.83-m) square fully grouted concrete
masonry walls 55/8 inches (143 mm) thick. All walls were
4. further demonstration of the validity of the subjected to a 270 psi (1.86 MPa) compressive surcharge.
Schultz (Schultz 1996) strength and energy Walls D1 and D2 were constructed with ladder style joint
criteria; and reinforcement in each bed joint, 0.15-inch (3.76-mm)
5. further expansion of the database of tests of full- diameter wire (9-gage), and a total horizontal wire area of
size shear walls, including partially grouted 0.275 in.2 (177 mm2). Wall 14 was constructed with #3
walls. (M#13) bars at 16-inch (406-mm) spacing with a total bar
area of 0.55 in.2 (355 mm2), double the reinforcement area
of Walls D1 and D2.
BACKGROUND
In early shear wall tests of fully grouted masonry All three walls exhibited brittle shear failures. Wall
walls, there was a presumption that the higher strength capacities and shear load at failure were significantly
of cold drawn wire used in joint reinforcement would greater than horizontal reinforcement capacities. The wall
result in reduced cross-sectional areas of steel required. with heat treated wire ruptured at 104 kips (464 KN), where
Testing was carried out with small areas of joint total wire capacity was 23 kips (102 KN) yield and 25 kips
reinforcement, which resulted in fractured wires. As a (111 KN) ultimate. The wall with cold-drawn wire
ruptured at 102 kips (452 KN), where total wire capacity
was 26 kips (116 KN) yield and 27 kips (120 KN) ultimate.
1. P.E., Former Graduate Research Assistant, Dept. of Civil,
Construction, and Environmental Engineering, Iowa The wall with deformed reinforcement ruptured at 94 kips
State University, Ames, IA, gbaenzig@gmail.com (418 KN), notably less than the walls with joint
2. Ph.D., P.E., TMS Fellow Member, Professor Emeritus, reinforcement. The bar capacity was 31 kips (138 KN)
Dept. of Civil, Construction, and Environmental yield and 45 kips (200 KN) ultimate. Shing reported that
Engineering, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, the brittle behavior of all three walls studied was due to the
small quantity of horizontal reinforcement.
mporter@iastate.edu

TMS Journal December 2018 49

Copyright The Masonry Society--downloaded by Anthony Ruth on June 22, 2020

 Additional tests were conducted in cooperation with Joint reinforcement conforming to ASTM A951 was
The National Institute of Standards and Technology either single ladder style or double seismic style placed in
(NIST) by Schultz (1994, 1998 and 2001) with partially every bed joint. Wires were hot dip galvanized. The
grouted walls. Test walls used 0.148-inch (3.76 mm) 9- longitudinal wires were 3/16-inch (4.8-mm) diameter cold-
gage or 0.207-inch (5.26 mm) 5-gage wire. Three aspect drawn wire. Crosswires were 9-gage wires butt welded to
ratios were tested: 56 inches (1.42 m) high by 112, 80, the longitudinal wires at 16-inch (406-mm) spacing.
and 56 inches (2.84, 2.03, and 1.42 m) long. Schultz Deformed reinforcement consisted of two #4 (M#13)
(2001) reported that partially grouted shear walls using Grade 60 bars located in bond beams at 48-inch (1.22-m)
sufficient horizontal joint reinforcement performed well. spacing. Horizontal reinforcement, illustrated in Figure 3
The walls generated large lateral drifts prior to with properties provided in Table 2, had 90 or 180 hooks
deteriorating and thus were able to dissipate energy at the ends bent around but not in contact with the vertical
through inelastic deformations. Schultz concluded that jamb reinforcement. Vertical reinforcement was #4
joint reinforcement met the tensile requirements for shear (M#13) or #6 (M#19) Grade 60 threaded splice bars
reinforcement and helped to make partially grouted walls a located in grouted cells at a maximum spacing of 48 inches
viable, stable lateral-load resisting system for seismic (1.22 m) with 90 bend and threaded splice embedded in
design, with high initial stiffness and ample energy the concrete base.
dissipation. The failure of the walls included fracture of
wires, but the failure was reported to be: Masonry was: ASTM C90 8-inch (203-mm) concrete
masonry units with 8-inch (203-mm) courses and cell
“…gradual, as progressive damage was being spacing; ASTM C270 Spec Mix Portland Cement-Lime-
accumulated by these moderately resilient walls Sand Mortar; and ASTM C476 Spec Mix Corefill Grout.
which exhibited a respectable amount of
toughness.” (Schultz 2001) Table 1. Test Matrix for Shear Wall Program
“The lateral load resisting mechanism Group A B C D
observed in the tests represents a considerable
improvement over that observed for the partially- Dominance Shear Flexure Shear
grouted shear walls with bond beams in the Aspect Ratio (H/L) 0.93 0.62
previous phase of the experimental program
(Schultz 1994).” (Schultz 2001) Grout Part Full Part
NIST tests combined with research reported here Vertical 2#6 2#4 2#4 2#6
from Iowa State University (Braun 1997) and Horizontal (M#19) (M#13) (M#13) (M#19)
(Baenziger 2010 and 2011) have shown that sufficient 2#4(M#13) DR Bond Beam SW1 SW7 SW9 SW3
areas of joint reinforcement can satisfy strength and
energy criteria by Schultz (1996), and can resist shear in 2x3/16"(4.8mm) JR Wire SW2 SW5 SW4
masonry walls without fracture of reinforcement. 4x3/16"(4.8mm) JR Wire SW6 SW10 SW8
DR – Deformed Reinforcement SW# – Shear Wall ID
JR – Joint Reinforcement
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
The research included construction and testing of ten
full-size concrete masonry cantilever shear walls, as
indicated in Table 1. The tests by Baenziger (2010 and
2011) included both partially grouted and fully grouted
walls. The walls were 8’-8” (2.64 m) high and either 9’-4”
(2.85 m) long, as shown in Figure 1, or 14’-0” (4.27 m)
long, providing two aspect ratios (Height/Length) 0.93 and
0.62. No surcharge loading was applied to the walls. The
top of the wall was allowed to rotate in-plane as a
cantilever, indicated in Figure 2. Test Groups A and D were
designed as shear-dominant walls similar to previous tests
of shear reinforcement. Test Groups B and C were
designed as flexural walls approximating code based Figure 1 – Typical Test Wall, Test Frame, Load
designs consistent with capacity design, providing flexural Actuators, and Instrumentation
yielding before failure, and developing plastic hinges.

50 TMS Journal December 2018

Copyright The Masonry Society--downloaded by Anthony Ruth on June 22, 2020

 The prism strength of Shear Wall 7 was 10.7% greater than
the average prism strength and 23.9% greater than that of
Shear Wall 5. The Shear Wall 8 prism strength was 12.3%
greater than the average strength of the group.

Instrumentation consisted of load cells, strain gages,

and string potentiometers. Potentiometers were attached to
the concrete base and to the braced instrument frame,
which was supported by the concrete base. The instrument
support frame is visible at the periphery of the test wall in
Figure 1, and the hydraulic actuators and load cells are
visible in the upper corners. The mechanism for load
transfer is illustrated in Figure 4. Horizontal loads were
applied slowly at the top of the cantilever shear walls using
Figure 2 – Shear Wall Configuration displacement control and following the procedure
recommended by the U.S. Coordinated Program for
Masonry Building Research and the Technical
Coordinating Committee for Masonry Research
(TCCMAR) (Porter 1987). The load sequence, illustrated
in Figure 5, consisted of sets of three cycles at increasing
displacements until a major event, such as significant
cracking, occurred followed by sets of degradation cycles,
three stabilization cycles, and an increased displacement
cycle until the wall failed.

In the first two test walls, vertical reinforcement

Figure 3 – Horizontal Shear Reinforcement Images extended into the top bond beam past the horizontal bars
but did not have a bend or hook. In subsequent walls, ¾-
inch (19-mm) threaded rods were embedded 24 inches (610
mm) into the top jamb cells and anchored to the cap beam
Table 2. Reinforcement Properties
and #4 (M#13) bent bars were lapped with each vertical bar
Yield Maximum and anchored above the top horizontal bars. Also, a second
Reinforcement Stress Strain Stress Strain1 jamb cell was reinforced and grouted. The improved
psi (MPa) psi (MPa) configuration in the last eight walls was to prevent internal
Grade 60 #4 64,480 103,330 vertical reinforcement anchorage failures at the top of the
0.00242 0.09482
Horizontal

(M#13) DR Bar (444.6) (712.4) wall and delamination of the jamb. Common to all walls
3/16”(4.8mm) JR 87,950 91,0602 were one-inch (25.4-mm) diameter bolt anchors fastened to
Wire
0.00288 0.06093
(606.4) (627.8) the cap beam in each top cell.
Grade 60 #6 63,190 101,400
0.00238 0.0915
(M#19) DR Bar (435.7) (699.1)
Vertical

Grade 60 #4 66,980 104,250

(M#13) DR Bar
0.00298 0.0888
(461.8) (718.8)
1
Maximum strains were at maximum stress
2
Ultimate strain averaged 0.1138
3
Ultimate strain values were equal to strains at maximum stress

Nominal design strength was 1,500 psi (10.3 MPa). Actual

compressive strength, for ASTM C1314 moist-cured
prisms, f’m-prism, averaged between 2,500 psi (17.2 MPa)
and 3,530 psi (24.3 MPa). There was no significant
difference between ungrouted and grouted prism strengths
once the net area was considered. Grout strength varied
between 2,650 psi (18.3 MPa) and 5,640 psi (38.9 MPa). Figure 4 – Cap Beam and Reinforcement Anchorage
The mortar was ASTM C270 Type S by proportion. ASTM Illustrations
C109 mortar strength varied between 1,120 psi (7.7 MPa)
and 1,760 psi (12.1 MPa). Wet cured prism strengths were
within 3.5% of the average for a group, with the exceptions
of Shear Wall 7 in Group B and Shear Wall 8 in Group D.
TMS Journal December 2018 51

Copyright The Masonry Society--downloaded by Anthony Ruth on June 22, 2020

 upper corner beneath the top bond beam and moving
further along the top of the wall, typical for the test walls.
The horizontal bars, in the mid-height bond beam, did not
yield and restrained crack sizes along the bond beam. There
was greater deformation and cracking above mid-height.
At approximately 60% of capacity, a large diagonal crack
formed in the primary loading direction, Figure 6(a). Due
to the release of the top vertical jamb bar anchorage,
strength was limited in the primary direction. Reverse
loading continued to full capacity, Figure 6(b). The top
anchorage failure resulted in a loading plateau between 0.1
and 0.65 inches (3 and 17 mm) displacement and reduced
energy dissipation, with the mid-wall vertical
reinforcement acting as a spring. The lack of plastic
Figure 5 – TCCMAR Cyclic Loading Pattern deformation in the primary direction was one reason for
greater capacity in the reverse direction, where mostly
RESULTS AND OBSERVATIONS monotonic loading occurred. Tests were halted when
Maximum lateral load, displacement at peak load, wall sliding resulted in the loss of stability of the top courses,
configuration, and material test data are provided in Table limiting overall displacement to about 2 inches (51 mm).
3. Groups A and D were designed to demonstrate “shear
critical behavior” and the capacity of the horizontal shear Shear Wall 2, with 3/16-inch (4.8-mm) single ladder
reinforcement by including greater cross-sectional areas of style joint reinforcement in every bed joint, demonstrated
vertical reinforcement referred to as “full vertical more uniform cracking, both in size and distribution,
reinforcement.” Groups B and C were designed as Figure 6(c), and better engagement of the shear
“capacity design” walls with reduced vertical flexural reinforcement than did Shear Wall 1. The joint
reinforcement cross-sectional areas, configured to limit the reinforcement wire strain reached 0.003483, which is 21%
overstrength of the walls. In high seismic demand zones, greater than the yield strain.
walls in Wall Group A would be inappropriate designs due
to high overstrength and would result in undesirable brittle Shear Wall 6, with 3/16-inch (4.8-mm) double seismic
shear wall failures. style joint reinforcement in every bed joint, behaved more
robustly than Shear Walls 1 and 2. Shear Wall 6
demonstrated a greater level of shear capacity and ductility.
WALL GROUP A – Performance of Partially Grouted, Shear Wall 6 had greater areas of well-distributed
Shear-Critical Walls with High Aspect Ratio reinforcement to restrict the crack size and distribute
Shear Wall 1, H/L=0.93, with 2 #4 (M#13) bars in a deformations uniformly across the wall. The load-
mid-height bond beam, had horizontal flexural crack origin displacement diagram for Shear Wall 6 is provided in
moving up the jambs followed by diagonal cracking at the Figure 7.

Table 3. Experimental Average Maximum (Peak) Shear Capacities1

Avg. Avg. Wet Prism
Avg. Peak Displacement Avg. Strength
Group

Gross Aspect
Grout
Wall

Shear1 @Peak1 ρhorz. Jamb Gross Ratio Net Area f′m prism
Reinforcement kips KN in. mm % Bars3 ρVert2 % H/L in.2 cm2 ksi MPa
1 DR – 2x #4 (M#13) 46.8 208 0.482 12.2 0.109 0.24 520.5 3358 2.72 18.8
A 2 JR – 2x 3/16”(4.8 mm) 45.2 201 0.352 8.9 0.091 2 0.25 520.5 3358 2.72 18.8
Partial

6 JR – 4x 3/16”(4.8 mm) 73.2 326 0.424 10.8 0.181 0.29 587.2 3788 2.85 19.6
7 DR – 2x #4 (M#13) 56.0 249 0.310 7.9 0.109 0.19 0.93 587.2 3788 3.53 24.3
B
5 JR – 2x 3/16”(4.8 mm) 59.8 266 0.470 11.9 0.091 0.19 587.2 3788 2.85 19.6
1
9 DR – 2x #4 (M#13) 95.6 425 0.956 24.3 0.109 0.29 854.0 5510 3.11 21.4
Full

C
10 JR – 4x 3/16”(4.8 mm) 95.4 424 0.642 16.3 0.181 0.28 854.0 5510 2.90 20.0
3 DR – 2x #4 (M#13) 78.3 348 0.333 8.5 0.109 0.20 780.6 5036 2.72 18.8
Partial

D 4 JR – 2x 3/16”(4.8 mm) 96.9 431 0.492 12.5 0.091 2 0.23 0.62 847.5 5468 2.86 19.7
8 JR – 4x 3/16”(4.8 mm) 91.2 406 0.334 8.5 0.181 0.23 847.5 5468 3.34 23.0
1
Averaged between primary and reverse load directions
2
Number of vertical #6 (M#19) bars (or equivalent) located in the jamb. One #4 (M#13) was located in certain cells other than the jamb. Reinforcement was
located in: cells A-G-H-N for Shear Wall 1 (SW1) and SW2; cells A-B-G-H-M-N for SW5, SW6, and SW7; cells A-B-D-E-G-H-J-K-M-N for SW9 and
SW10; cells A-G-H-N-O-U for SW3; and cells A-B-G-H-N-O-T-U for SW4 and SW8.

52 TMS Journal December 2018

Copyright The Masonry Society--downloaded by Anthony Ruth on June 22, 2020

Figure 6 – (a) SW1 Primary Diagonal Crack (upper left); (b) Reverse Load Cracks (upper right); (c) SW2 Stair Step
Cracking (middle left); (d) SW6 Ungrouted Panel Cracking at 68.6 kips (305 KN) Load and 0.6 in. (15.2 mm)
Displacement (middle right); (e) SW6 at 5 in. (127 mm) Displacement (bottom left); (f) SW5 Ungrouted Panel Damage
at 5 in. (127 mm) Displacement (bottom middle); and (g) SW9 Damage Due to Sliding at 88 kips (391 KN) and 1 in.
(25.4 mm) Displacement (bottom right)

TMS Journal December 2018 53

Copyright The Masonry Society--downloaded by Anthony Ruth on June 22, 2020

 the stronger reinforced and grouted cells around the
ungrouted panels. The joint reinforcement remained intact
and provided a stabilizing effect for the lower strength
masonry wall. The broader load-displacement loops in
Figure 8(a) indicate a more robust energy dissipation
capacity and ductility associated with shear walls that have
reserve capacity after significant displacement. Cracking in
Shear Wall 5 is illustrated in Figure 6(f).

Shear Wall 7, with 2 #4 (M#13) bars in a mid-height

bond beam, was similar to other bond beam walls, with a
significant diagonal crack that opened after 0.6 inches
(15.2 mm) displacement in the reverse direction. Sliding
and delamination occurred after displacements exceeded
one inch (25 mm), in Figure 9(a). The mid-height bars
restrained cracking, but the bond beam acted as a strut
Figure 7 – Shear Wall 6 Load-Displacement contributing to delamination at each end. The greater prism
strength of Shear Wall 7 over Shear Wall 5 is not reflected
The improved anchorage at the top of the wall and the
in the overall wall peak shear capacity (93.6% of that of
second jamb cell increased initial stiffness and added to the
Shear Wall 5). Increased loads, resulted in sliding and
greater strength of the wall after significant damage to the
interaction with the test frame, visible in the bottom left of
ungrouted panels. The moment resistance of the reinforced
the load-displacement graph beyond -1.5 inches (38.1 mm)
and grouted cells around the ungrouted panels helped to
displacement, Figure 8(b).
prolong the wall strength and increase drift capacity. Two
stages of wall damage are shown in Figures 6(d) and 6(e),
maximum shear capacity and maximum wall displacement, WALL GROUP C – Performance of Fully Grouted,
respectively. Shear Wall 6 was not directly comparable to Flexure-Critical Walls with High Aspect Ratio
the other walls of the group, but the test demonstrated the
possible increase in capacity and displacement due to Shear Wall 9, H/L=0.93, a fully grouted wall with 2 #4
greater areas of horizontal joint reinforcement distributed (M#13) bars in a mid-height bond beam, showed improved
at a small spacing with improved wall details to include top crack distribution over partially grouted walls and a greater
hooks. number of smaller cracks. Fracture of the #6 (M#19)
vertical bar above the threads in the threaded splice at the
base occurred during loading in the reverse direction. Shear
WALL GROUP B – Performance of Partially Grouted, Wall 9 could not be tested in the reverse direction beyond
Flexure-Critical Walls with High Aspect Ratio one inch (25 mm) displacement due to sliding damage,
shown in Figure 6(g), and instability. The wall remained
Shear Wall 5, H/L=0.93, with 3/16-inch (4.8-mm)
stable longer in the primary loading direction with the
single ladder style joint reinforcement in each bed joint,
largest diagonal crack shown in Figures 9(b) and 9(c). The
was similar to Shear Wall 6. Increased flexural
gap between wall and base at the bottom right of Figure
deformations were apparent and included plastic
9(c) was due to plastic deformation of the vertical
deformation of the vertical jamb reinforcement up to and
reinforcement. The wall strength dropped significantly and
beyond the onset of strain-hardening. The test proceeded to
became unstable beyond three inches displacement in the
approximately 5 inches (127 mm) displacement
primary direction due to loss of dowel resistance.
demonstrating pronounced masonry cell frame behavior of

Figure 8 – Load-Displacement Plots: (a) Shear Wall 5 (left) and (b) Shear Wall 7 (right)
54 TMS Journal December 2018

Copyright The Masonry Society--downloaded by Anthony Ruth on June 22, 2020

 Figure 9 – (a) SW7 at 5 in. (127 mm) Displacement with Mid-Height Bond Beam (top left); (b) SW9 Diagonal Cracks
(top right) and (c) at 103 kips (458 KN) Load and 1.5 in. (38 mm) Displacement, Seen from Opposite Sides of the Wall
(middle left); (d) SW10 Toe Crushing (Double Joint Reinforcement, middle right); (e) SW10 (Double Joint
Reinforcement) Compression at 4 in. (102 mm) Displacement (bottom left); 17 (f) SW10 (Double Joint Reinforcement)
Largest Crack at 96 kips (427 KN) load and 0.85 in. (22 mm) Displacement (bottom middle); and (g) SW4 Beyond
Peak Load with Diagonal Cracks Extending to the Base (bottom right)

TMS Journal December 2018 55

Copyright The Masonry Society--downloaded by Anthony Ruth on June 22, 2020

 Shear Wall 10, with 3/16-inch (4.8-mm) double Shear Wall 8, with 3/16-inch (4.8-mm) double seismic
seismic style joint reinforcement in every bed joint, was style joint reinforcement in every bed joint, was similar to
similar to Shear Wall 9, except without the fracture of the the other walls in the group, except with better crack
vertical bar. Significant deformation of the vertical bars distribution and smaller cracks, as illustrated in Figure
occurred at the base of the wall due to the dowel 10(b). The shear capacity was similar to Shear Wall 4, but
resistance contribution near failure. The average the strains were significantly smaller. The Shear Wall 8
horizontal reinforcement peak strain was 62% of yield. peak shear capacity was 16.5% greater than that of Shear
Displacements and ductility were due to vertical bar Wall 3, but only 94% of that of Shear Wall 4. Cracking was
plastic elongation beyond strain hardening and sliding. nearly vertical occurring in face shells as well as mortar
The wall continued to resist nearly half the peak shear joints and located primarily in the ungrouted panels
capacity after sliding but was not stable beyond 4 inches adjacent to grouted cells. The visible cracking of the bed
displacement in the reverse direction. joints in the top courses preceded the onset of sliding there.

Both fully grouted shear walls provided significant In Group D walls, the vertical reinforcement did not
shear resistance throughout the tests, and the masonry experience the extent of plastic deformations experienced
remained intact except at the base. Damage to the vertical by the walls with reduced vertical reinforcement in Groups
bar dowel anchorage at the base and the resulting B and C, and thus do not have the loss of shear resistance
instability was the primary reason for terminating both in failing to recompress the vertical steel upon load
tests. Restraint of the vertical bars by the bottom bond reversal. The degradation in shear capacity was a result of
beam reinforcement continued through 2 inches of wall the degradation of masonry, which occurred to a greater
displacement. At greater displacement, grout failure degree in the ungrouted regions of the walls. The walls with
around the bars allowed increasing deformation, Figures joint reinforcement had greater shear capacity and
9(d) and 9(e). Both walls lost shear resistance due to failure ductility, in part because more uniform distribution of
to recompress deformed vertical steel at the base upon load horizontal reinforcement maintained the integrity of the
reversal. In both shear walls, displacements beyond one masonry and delayed damage which results in the
inch were increasingly due to sliding. formation of failure planes. Shear Wall 8 did not provide
greater capacity than Shear Wall 4 because the additional
WALL GROUP D – Performance of Partially Grouted, area of wire was not required for strength. Shear Wall 8
Shear-Critical Walls with Low Aspect Ratio experienced smaller reinforcement strains and as a result
demonstrated greater ductility than Shear Wall 4.
Shear Wall 3, H/L=0.62, with 2 #4 (M#13) bars in a
mid-height bond beam, behaved similarly to Shear Wall 1,
with cracking in fewer larger cracks, shown in Figure Shear Wall Strengths and Displacements
10(a). Eventually, the delamination of the jambs, visible to Peak shear capacity and displacement are used to
the right in the figure, degraded wall behavior and resulted evaluate shear wall performance. Table 4 provides the
in a failure plane combining diagonal cracking and sliding shear wall capacities at various displacements and drift
adjacent to the bond beam. levels. Masonry shear wall capacities reported by past
research have been shown to be significantly below the
Shear Wall 4, with 3/16-inch (4.8-mm) single ladder design capacities predicted by code criteria. The disparity
style joint reinforcement in every bed joint, was similar to is primarily due to the use of wet-prism strengths to
Shear Wall 3. The added reinforced and grouted jamb cells correlate strength of the test walls, which were used in
increased the strength and displacement capacity and these tests. Based on data from Schultz and Hutchinson
delayed jamb delamination and sliding. An extension of the (2001) which tested both moist-cured and air-cured prisms,
diagonal cracking at the base can be seen in Figure 9(g). the air-cured prisms had 77.6% of the capacity of moist-
Six cross wires fractured at the wall ends due to vertical cured prisms, a reduction of 22.4% in actual experimental
movement, and one tension failure of a side rail mid-height data, resulting in a ratio of 1.29 as a correction factor.
at one jamb were observed, all due to jamb delamination. Harris (2010) also reported 62.9% of capacity based on
Shear wall 4 experienced the greatest joint reinforcement similar data. Shear wall capacities based on air-cured prism
strains of all of the walls. On the wall diagonal at the lower tests, cured next to the walls would have been nearer their
quarter point, strains reached approximately one-third of predicted capacities.
the ultimate strain capacity of the wire, which was eight
times the yield strain.

56 TMS Journal December 2018

Copyright The Masonry Society--downloaded by Anthony Ruth on June 22, 2020

 Figure 10 – (a) Shear Wall 3 Restrained Cracks at Mid-Height Bond Beam (course 7) beyond Peak Load (left)
and (b) Shear Wall 8 Beyond Peak Load (right)

Modes of Failure and Sliding (2009)). There was a rebound or plateau in strength after
shear resistance decreased as flexure of the reinforced and
The first two tests demonstrated undesirable failure grouted cells, dominated the resistance to displacement.
modes including a vertical bar top anchorage failure, The walls experienced significant plastic deformation of
delamination of the jamb, and sliding after peak loading. the vertical bars. Greater drift capacity than other shear
Additional vertical anchorage was added to the top of dominated walls was also observed in the Shear Wall 6,
Shear Wall 3 to delay undesirable failure modes. For all with double joint reinforcement. The uniform distribution
subsequent walls, additional top anchorage was installed of shear reinforcement and the greater area of wire
and a second jamb cell was reinforced and grouted. combined with flexure of the reinforced and grouted cells
improved drift capacity.
The shear wall tests were carried out up to 5 inches
(127 mm) displacement to determine the complete pattern The cumulative cracking resulted in planes of failure
of failure. The walls with joint reinforcement and bond due to large flexural deformations and insufficient
beams resulted in no failures of the longitudinal wires compression force in the reverse cycle to recompress the
attributed to diagonal shear cracking. The primary mode of vertical steel upon load reversal and to close flexural cracks
failure in the partially grouted walls was masonry damage, each cycle. The lack of full contact between masonry crack
including both horizontal and diagonal cracking. surfaces resulted in low shear friction and decreased shear
resistance. Eventually, sliding occurred along the damaged
Significant load resistance was observed for large failure surfaces. From Table 5, the displacement ductility
levels of drift, especially in the partially grouted, Shear can be seen to vary significantly between inclusion and
Walls 5 and 7, with reduced areas of jamb flexural exclusion of sliding.
reinforcement to limit overstrength per FEMA P695 (ATC
Table 4. Average Shear Capacity at Drift1 and Displacements at Peak Shear Capacity With and Without Sliding
Shear @ Drift2 Displacements at Peak
Horizontal 0.007 0.01 0.02 W/Sliding Sliding W/O Sliding
Group Wall Reinforcement ρ kips KN kips KN kips KN in. mm in. mm in. mm
A 1 DR Bars 0.11 28 125 18 80 *4 *4 0.3275 8.31 0.0155 0.38 0.3125 7.92
4
2 Single JR 0.09 14 62 8 36 * *4 0.352 8.94 0.040 1.0 0.311 7.90
6 Double JR 0.18 61 270 62 280 46 205 0.424 10.8 0.099 2.5 0.325 8.26
B 7 DR Bars 0.11 39 175 34 150 26 530 0.310 7.87 0.032 0.81 0.278 7.06
5 Single JR 0.09 46 205 45 200 36 160 0.470 11.9 0.040 1.0 0.384 9.75
C 9 DR Bars 0.11 76 340 58 260 *3 *3 1.4965 38.0 0.4725 12.0 1.024 26.01
4
10 Double JR 0.18 90 400 81 360 * *4 0.642 16.3 0.189 4.80 0.453 11.5
4
D 3 DR Bars 0.11 50 220 34 150 * *4 0.333 8.46 0.027 0.69 0.306 7.77
4 Single JR 0.09 84 375 68 300 *4 *4 0.492 12.5 0.051 1.3 0.442 11.2
8 Double JR 0.18 68 300 66 295 7 31 0.334 8.48 0.030 0.76 0.304 7.72
1
Average shear values for primary and reverse loading, interpolated between loading cycle peaks.
2
For 8’-8” (2,642 mm) wall height, story drifts are: 0.728 in. (18.5 mm), 1.04 in. (26.4 mm), and 2.08 in. (52.8 mm), respectively.
3
Failure of vertical reinforcement did not allow the level of drift to occur
4
Test was not taken to the displacement required or test frame interfered with test results
5
Data based on one direction of test only

TMS Journal December 2018 57

Copyright The Masonry Society--downloaded by Anthony Ruth on June 22, 2020

 Shear Walls 1 and 2 experienced significant sliding, Load-Displacement Envelopes and Ductility
but much later in the tests. Shear Wall 3 through 8
experienced only small sliding displacements. Shear Walls There are significant advantages to comparing
9 and 10 developed a plane of failure at the base resulting envelopes of load-displacement loops rather than plots of
in sliding prior to peak load. Displacements due to sliding load-cycle loops. Load-displacement envelopes allow easy
may not be as effective in dissipating energy as other comparison of wall strength and behavior, allowing
modes of deformation, visible in the envelopes for Shear visualization of parameters that relate directly to the
Walls 1, 2, and 9. However, provided stability is not computation of ductility and collapse resistance. Envelopes
compromised, sliding can allow significant dissipation of for the load-displacement curves for each wall group are
energy and structure flexibility to avoid collapse. provided in Figures 11(a) through 11(d). The primary and
reverse loading directions are the positive and negative
displacement curves, respectively.

Figure 11 – Envelopes of Peak Load Cycle Data: (a) Group A (upper left); (b) Group B (upper right); (c) Group C
(lower right); and (d) Group D (lower left)

58 TMS Journal December 2018

Copyright The Masonry Society--downloaded by Anthony Ruth on June 22, 2020

 The primary and reverse envelopes for Wall Group A, softer masonry structures. Deformation capacity is based
Figure 11(a), are similar except for load capacity and the on the load resistance dropping permanently below 75% of
plateau in the primary direction for Shear Wall 1. This capacity. The criterion for the effective yield intercept is
behavior was due to the vertical jamb bar anchorage failure 40% of maximum shear based on the inverse of the 2.5
in the top bond beam. The envelopes for Group B Shear overstrength factor for masonry from ASCE 7-10 (ASCE
Walls 5 and 7, Figure 11(b), are all similar. The greater (2010)). Ductility is illustrated in Figure 12(b) from FEMA
capacity, ductility, and energy dissipation of Shear Wall 5 P695 (ATC (2009)).
is evident, as well as, the greater uniformity of behavior in
both loading directions. The Envelopes for Shear Wall
Group C, Figure 11(c), fully grouted walls are significantly
stiffer and stronger than the partially grouted walls with the
same aspect ratio. The envelopes for Group D, Figure
11(d), with lower aspect ratio, were also significantly
stiffer and stronger than the other partially grouted walls;
resulting in smaller displacement at peak load and the
overall drift capacity. The greater initial stiffness and more
gradual damage, due to jambs remaining elastic and due to
the longer shear failure plane, resulted in higher ductilities.

The displacement ductility, μd, in FEMA P695 (ATC

(2009)), is the ratio of ultimate displacement, δu, to
effective yield displacement, δy,eff, Figure 12(a). Ductility
relates the proximity of collapse due to strength
degradation to plastic yielding and is associated with the
wall’s ability to dissipate energy through plastic
deformations. Larger values of ductility implied larger
overall drift capacity prior to collapse and increased
likelihood of wall survival in a seismic event.

The percentage of shear capacity used to determine

collapse and effective yield is not specified in FEMA P695
Figure 12 – (a) Illustration of Displacement Ductility
(ATC, 2009). The percentage of maximum shear capacity
(μd) for Load-Displacement Envelopes (top) FEMA
used to represent the point of collapse in concrete
P695 (ATC 2009) and (b) Relationship Between Design
structures is usually 80%. Based on NIST GCR 01-808
Shear, V, and Overstrength, Ω0, (bottom)
(Schultz (2001)), a criterion of 75% may be appropriate for

Table 5. Ductility Comparison by Group Based on Various Yield Criteria1 with Sliding Included and Removed3
Yield Criterion 75% 67% 40% Effective Inelastic
Sliding Included Removed Included Removed
Overstrength 1.33 1.5 2.5 Varies
Group Wall Reinforcement P3 R3 P3 R3 P3 R3 P3 R3 P3 R3 P3 R3
A 1 DR -4 2.94 -4 4.90 -4 4.37 -4 4.0 -4 3.4 -4 3.1
2 Single JR 3.11 3.07 3.68 3.29 4.70 5.01 4.2 4.1 2.7 3.3 2.4 2.2
6 Double JR 6.32 4.00 6.37 4.21 8.66 7.08 8.7 7.1 6.3 3.3 6.3 3.3
B 7 DR 3.02 2.17 3.28 2.50 8.23 5.18 8.2 5.2 2.6(2.46)5 1.7(2.04)5 2.6(2.46)5 1.7(2.04)5
5 Single JR 2.61 2.83 3.58 3.22 6.78 6.43 6.8 6.4 3.9(2.53)5 2.0(2.30)5 3.9(2.53)5 2.0(2.30)5
C 9 DR -4 2.04 -4 2.42 -4 3.27 -4 3.0 -4 1.4(2.72)5 -4 1.1(2.21)5
10 Double JR 2.44 2.71 2.84 2.95 6.81 6.67 4.0 3.1 3.9(5.65)5 3.2(4.98)5 1.9(2.81)5 1.3(2.03)5
D 3 DR 1.90 2.64 2.30 3.10 4.75 5.09 4.7 5.1 1.7 2.2 1.7 2.2
4 Single JR 4.51 4.72 6.58 6.55 13.4 18.0 13.4 18.0 5.6 5.0 5.6 5.0
8 Double JR 7.71 3.48 10.2 5.31 23.2 16.4 23.2 16.4 4.9 2.9 4.9 2.9
1
The 40% yield criterion is based on ASCE (2010) overstrength and FEMA P695 criteria (ATC 2009) for ductility.
2
The effective inelastic yield criteria are based on estimations of the point of transition from elastic to plastic wall behavior.
3
Loading directions provided: P – Primary direction (+ displacement and direction loaded first), and R – Reverse direction.
4
The ductility evaluation for SW1 and SW9 was not provided due to failures, as indicated above and in Baenziger, 2010.
5
Ductilities based on the yielding of flexural steel, where it occurred, are provided in parentheses following the values computed using the effective inelastic
yield criteria.

TMS Journal December 2018 59

Copyright The Masonry Society--downloaded by Anthony Ruth on June 22, 2020

Figure 13 – Peak Load Loops for SW5 and SW7. The a brittle mechanism for failure. Failure mechanisms can
loop areas are almost equal indicating that energy include toe crushing, excessive sliding, jamb delaminating,
dissipation in the walls is nearly equivalent. fracture of reinforcement, buckling or other instability.
Analysis of the data, without normalization, indicates
The ductilities provided in Table 5 have been
that the energy dissipation of walls with joint
computed using several criteria, which differ in the manner
reinforcement is of a similar magnitude to comparable
of determining effective yield. Historically, a fixed
walls with deformed reinforcement in bond beams. The
percentage of maximum shear capacity was used to define
comparison was made by computing the energy capacity of
the effective yield point, which provided a relative
peak loops and by integrating the energy capacity of the
comparison of ductility. Four of the walls, Shear Walls 5,
full load-displacement envelopes. The areas integrated in
7, 9 and 10, were configured to be conventional in design,
this manner provide a reasonable comparison of the total
with the flexural steel yielding as required and with design
work acting on the walls in the loading protocol, which is
loads corresponding to the 40% criterion.
designed to mimic a seismic event that exceeds the
capacity of the wall. The area within a loop represents the
An “Effective Inelastic Yield Criteria” is also
net energy dissipated. A plot comparing the peak load
included, based on an estimate of the transition between
loops from Shear Walls 5 and 7 is provided in Figure 13.
elastic and inelastic behavior. The method is subjective and
The summary of the dissipated energies computed
can be based on different criteria and thus is not
from the areas under the load-displacement envelopes is
recommended for comparison of wall designs. The method
provided in Table 6. The areas beneath the envelopes are
used here involves visual identification of a change in
representative of the cumulative energy dissipated during
stiffness in the load-displacement data to determine the
the entire wall test and thus indicate the wall energy
point of yield. The approach results in values that are
resistance to collapse. The energy capacities of walls with
typical of higher fixed percentage criteria, which are not
joint reinforcement are, in general, greater than or equal to
consistent with conventional masonry shear wall design
walls with deformed reinforcement.
and the ASCE overstrength criteria.
Table 6. Envelope Energy Based on Area Under the
Where the overstrength criterion is met in Envelope of Load-Displacement Loops1
conventional designs, including Shear Walls 5, 7, 9 and 10, Reverse(-
Group

comparison of ductility can be made based on yielding of Total Prime(+disp.) disp.)

Type
Wall

the vertical reinforcement. The remaining walls are shear

in.-kips Joules in.-kips Joules in.-kips Joules
dominated walls, in which flexural steel yielding did not
occur, and are designed to remain elastic for the life of the 1 DR 79.3 8960 32.2 3640 47.1 5320
structure. Ductilities based on the yield of flexural steel are A 2 JR 58.6 6620 30.9 3490 27.7 3130
provided in parentheses in Table 5. 6 2JR 401.1 45320 227.1 25660 174.0 19660
7 DR 312.9 35350 155.2 17540 157.7 17820
B
Energy Dissipation Potential 5 JR 315.3 35620 146.0 16500 169.2 19120
9 DR 384.5 43440 326.4 36880 58.1 6560
Energy dissipated due to a combination of C
10 2JR 558.4 63090 311.3 35170 247.2 27930
displacements, plastic deformations, cracking, crushing, 3 DR 154.2 17420 84.8 9580 69.4 7840
and sliding of masonry shear wall components can be D 4 JR 228.8 25850 139.4 15750 89.4 10100
sufficient to avoid collapse caused by seismic loading,
8 2JR 207.2 23410 111.3 12580 95.9 10800
provided the walls are sufficiently ductile and do not have 1Presentation of original data without normalization
60 TMS Journal December 2018

Copyright The Masonry Society--downloaded by Anthony Ruth on June 22, 2020

Summary of Behavioral Observations 9. Mobilization of reinforcement is improved in walls
with closely spaced joint reinforcement.
The shear capacity of walls with joint reinforcement 10. Sufficient areas of horizontal shear reinforcement
was approximately equal to or greater than that of walls are required to provide the necessary shear strength
with deformed reinforcement. Based on averaged wall to avoid the fracture that occurred in earlier
strengths of comparable walls, walls with joint historical shear wall tests cited in the Background
reinforcement are 9% stronger than the corresponding Section of this paper.
walls with deformed reinforcement. The walls with joint 11. Additional areas of reinforcement provided beyond
reinforcement had a greater number of smaller cracks and that required for strength do not add to the strength
more uniform distribution and size of cracks than the walls of the wall, but do reduce or delay wall damage if
with deformed reinforcement. The walls with joint well distributed, and thereby can increase wall
reinforcement acted as a whole, whereas, the upper half of ductility.
the walls with the mid-height bond beam behaved 12. Masonry prism strength varied; however, greater
separately from the lower half. The average ductility and prism strength combined with less reinforcement
energy dissipation of walls with joint reinforcement was resulted in less ductility.
greater than or approximately equal to those walls with
deformed reinforcement. The energy dissipated in the peak
loop of the wall with joint reinforcement exceeded the
energy dissipated in the peak loop of the wall with
deformed reinforcement.

CONCLUSIONS
There are many important conclusions that can be
drawn from these tests. Specifically and in detail:
1. For many common design conditions, joint
reinforcement can provide the necessary capacity
and ductility required as the primary shear
reinforcement for shear walls.
2. Walls with joint reinforcement performed as well as
or better than walls with bond beams.
3. Single ladder style 3/16-inch (4.8-mm) joint
reinforcement spaced at 8 inches (203 mm) can
replace two #4 (M#13) deformed reinforcement
bars in bond beams spaced at 48 inches (1.22 m) in
partially grouted shear walls.
4. Double seismic style joint reinforcement, four 3/16-
inch (4.8-mm) wires, spaced at 8 inches (203 mm)
can replace two #4 (M#13) deformed reinforcement
bars spaced at 48 inches (1.22 m) in partially
grouted and fully grouted shear walls.
5. Unlike some historical tests discussed in the
Background Section, the areas of joint
reinforcement used in this research provided the
strength required to resist the shear loads up to
failure by other mechanisms.
6. Well distributed 3/16-inch (4.8-mm) double seismic
style joint reinforcement provided the strength and
ductility required to resist seismic level cyclic
loading.
7. The 3/16-inch (4.8-mm) ladder style joint
reinforcement at 8-inch (203-mm) spacing provided
superior crack control over bond beams containing
2 #4 (M#13) bars at 48-inch (1.22-m) spacing.
8. The 8-inch (203-mm) joint reinforcement spacing
limited the size of cracks and resulted in a larger
number of smaller cracks across the wall (as
opposed to a smaller number of larger cracks).

TMS Journal December 2018 61

Copyright The Masonry Society--downloaded by Anthony Ruth on June 22, 2020

RECOMMENDATIONS REFERENCES
The results suggest that joint reinforcement should be ASCE (2010). American Society of Civil Engineers,
included in masonry codes for use as primary shear “Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other
reinforcement with appropriate limits placed upon the Structures,” ASCE Standard 7-10, ASCE/SEI, Reston, VA,
material properties to ensure that the necessary strain 2010.
capacity, compatibility, and strength are obtained. Certain
construction details are recommended to increase inelastic ASTM (2006). American Society for Testing and
deformation capacity and to delay undesirable failure Materials (ASTM), “Annual Book of ASTM Standards,”
modes until well past the collapse level deformations for including: C90-06 Specification for Loadbearing Concrete
both walls with deformed reinforcement and walls with Masonry Units; C109/C109M-07 Test Method for
joint reinforcement. The detailed recommendations for Compressive Strength of Hydraulic Cement Mortars;
shear walls are as follows. A153/A153M-09 Specification for Zinc Coating (Hot-Dip)
1. Horizontal joint reinforcement and deformed on Iron and Steel Hardware; C270-00 Specification for
reinforcement should be anchored using hooks Mortar for Unit Masonry; C476-02 Specification for Grout
around the vertical reinforcement in the grouted for Masonry; A615/A615M-09b Specification for
jambs to develop the shear reinforcement. Joint Deformed and Plain Carbon-Steel Bars for Concrete
reinforcement should have cross wires and bent Reinforcement; A951/A951M-06 Specification for Steel
longitudinal wires anchored in the grouted cells. Wire for Masonry Joint Reinforcement; C1019-03 Test
2. Vertical reinforcement should be anchored at or Method for Sampling and Testing Grout; and C1314-03b
above the top of the wall to avoid tension pullout Test Method for Compressive Strength of Masonry Prisms;
of the vertical reinforcement. ASTM International, www.astm.org, West Conshohocken,
3. Reinforcement and grout should be placed in the PA, 2006.
first two jamb end cells.
4. In shear walls with low surcharge, vertical ATC (2009). Applied Technology Council,
reinforcement above the plastic hinge region in “Quantification of Building Seismic Performance Factors
jamb cells should be increased to maintain elastic – FEMA P695,” June 2009.
behavior, thereby allowing cracks to close each
cycle. Baenziger et al. (2010a). Baenziger, G. P., Porter, M. L.,
5. Intermediate vertical reinforcement should be “In-Plane Structural Testing of Joint Reinforcement in
provided in grouted pairs of cells, thereby Concrete Masonry Shear Walls,” Iowa State University,
providing column-like rigid cell frame behavior in Ames, IA, April 2010.
the reinforced portions of partially grouted shear
walls. Baenziger et al. (2010b) Baenziger, G. P., Porter, M. L.,
6. The spacing of vertical reinforcement should be “In-Plane Structural Testing of Joint Reinforcement in
reduced if only single reinforcement and grouted Concrete Masonry Shear Walls – Supplement 1: Potential
cells are used, Nolph (2011). Code Provisions,” Iowa State University, Ames, IA, 2010.
7. In experimental evaluation of performance, Air-
cured prisms should be used and cured adjacent to Baenziger et al. (2011). Baenziger, G. P., Porter, M. L.,
their shear walls rather than wet-cured prisms to “Joint Reinforcement for Masonry Shear Walls,” 11th
provide a more accurate measure of the strength North American Masonry Conference, Minneapolis, MN,
of masonry for comparison with code predicted The Masonry Society, Longmont, CO, June 2011.
capacities.
Baenziger et al. (2012). Baenziger, G. P., Porter, M. L.,
“In-Plane Structural Testing of Joint Reinforcement in
Concrete Masonry Shear Walls – Supplement 2:
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Comparison of Experimental Results to Design Capacity,”
The work associated with this paper was conducted by Iowa State University, Ames, IA, March 2012.
Iowa State University under the auspices of the
Engineering Research Institute, with sponsorship provided Braun (1997). “Bond and Strain Behavior of Horizontal
by Hohmann & Barnard, Inc., Wire-Bond, Inc., and Dayton Reinforcement in Masonry Mortar Joints”, Masters Thesis,
Superior, Inc. The authors wish to thank the sponsors for Iowa State University, Ames, IA,1997.
their consultation, time, and resources donated. The
MSJC (2008)."Building Code Requirements for Masonry
authors also wish to thank the Masonry Institute of Iowa
Structures, Specification for Masonry Structures, and
(MII), Forrest and Associates, The Industry Advisory
Commentaries," Masonry Standards Joint Committee, The
Panel chaired by Mario Catani, The Consultants Advisory
Masonry Society, Longmont, CO; 2008.
Panel, Laboratory Supervisor Doug Wood, and student
assistants from the Department of Civil, Construction and
Environmental Engineering.

62 TMS Journal December 2018

Copyright The Masonry Society--downloaded by Anthony Ruth on June 22, 2020

Harris (2010). Harris, B. H., “Investigation of the Lower Shing et al. (1990). Shing, P.B., Schuller, M., Hoskere,
Bound Compressive and Flexural Strengths of V.S., "In-Plane Resistance of Reinforced Masonry Shear
Conventional Concrete and Clay Masonry,” Master’s Walls," Vol. 116, No. 3, ASCE Journal of Structural
Thesis, University of Texas, Arlington, TX, 2010. Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers
(ASCE), Reston, VA, March 1990.
Nolph et al. (2011). Nolph, S. M., ElGawady, M. A., “In-
Plane Shear Strength of Partially Grouted Masonry Shear Shing et al. (1991). Shing, P.B., Noland, J.L., Spaeh, H.P.,
Walls,” 11th North American Masonry Conference Klamerus, E.W., and Schuller, M.P., "Response of Single-
Proceedings, Minneapolis, MN, The Masonry Society, Story Reinforced Masonry Shear Walls to In-Plane Lateral
Longmont, CO, June 2011. Loads," Report No. 3.1(a)-2, U.S.- Japan Coordinated
Program for Masonry Building Research, Dept. of Civil,
Porter (1987). Porter, M. L. “Sequential Phased Environmental, and Architectural Engineering, University
Displacement (SPD) Procedure for TCCMAR Testing,” of Colorado, Boulder, CO, 1991.
Proceedings of Third Meeting of the Joint Technical
Coordinating Committee on Masonry Research of the U.S., Shing et al. (1992). Shing, P. B., Noland, J. L., “Shear
Japan Coordinated Earthquake Research Program, Behavior of Concrete Masonry Walls with Horizontal Joint
Sapporo, Japan, October 1987. Reinforcement” Report for sponsors: Dur-O-Wal and the
National Science Foundation, University of Colorado,
Porter et al. (1998). Porter, M. L., Braun, R. A., Boulder, CO, 1992.
“Horizontal Reinforcement Elongation in Masonry Mortar
Joints,” Proceedings, Eighth Canadian Masonry Sveinsson et al. (1985). Sveinsson, B. I., McNiven, H. D.,
Symposium, pp. 599-609, Jasper, Canada, Canadian Sucuoglu, H., "Cyclic Loading Tests of Masonry Single
Masonry Research Institute, Mississauga, ON, May 1998. Piers - Volume 4; Additional Tests with Height to Width
Ratio of 1," UCB/EERC-85/15, Earthquake Engineering
Porter et al. (1999). Porter, M. L., Braun, R. L., “An Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA,
Effective Gage Length for Joint Reinforcement in December 1985.
Masonry,” Proceedings of Eighth North American
Masonry Conference, Austin, Texas, The Masonry
Society, Longmont, CO, June, 1999.

Schultz (1994). Schultz, A. E., “NIST Research Program

on the Seismic Resistance of Partially Grouted Masonry
Shear Walls,” NISTIR 5481, Building and Fire Research
Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and
Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, June 1994.

Schultz (1996). Schultz, A. E., “Minimum Horizontal

Reinforcement Requirements for Seismic Design of
Masonry Walls,” TMS Journal, Vol. 14, pp. 53-64, The
Masonry Society, Longmont, CO, 1996.

Schultz et al. (1998). Schultz, A. E., Hutchinson, R. S.,

Cheok, G. C., “Seismic Performance of Masonry Walls
with Bed Joint reinforcement,” T119-4, Elsevier Science
Ltd., Amsterdam, Netherlands,1998.

Schultz et al. (2001). Schultz, A. E., Hutchinson, R. S.,

“Seismic Behavior of Partially-Grouted Masonry Shear
Walls: Phase 2 – Effectiveness of Bed-Joint
reinforcement,” NIST GCR 01-808, Building and Fire
Research Laboratory, Dept. of Civil Engineering,
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, 2001.

Shing et al. (1989). Shing, P.B., Noland, J. L., Klamerus,

E., Spaeh, H., "Inelastic Behavior of Concrete Masonry
Shear Walls," Vol. 115, No. 9, ASCE Journal of Structural
Engineering, Reston, VA, September 1989.

TMS Journal December 2018 63

Copyright The Masonry Society--downloaded by Anthony Ruth on June 22, 2020

NOTATION
2JR = Double joint reinforcement (seismic style)
Agross = Gross Area of masonry
As Horz = Area of Horizontal reinforcement steel
As Vert = Area of Vertical reinforcement steel
d or dv = Depth of wall effective in resisting shear
δu = Ultimate displacement at collapse
δy,eff = Displacement at effective yield
DR = Deformed Reinforcement
f’m = Specified Masonry Design Strength
f’m-prism = Experimental Wet Prism Strength
JR = Joint reinforcement
(M#16) = Soft Metric bar size 16 mm (U.S. #5 bar)
M/(Vd) = Shear wall aspect ratio used in MSJC
M = Moment at the base of a shear wall
μd = Displacement ductility
Ω0 = Overstrength
P = Primary load direction (+ displacement)
R = Reverse load direction (- displacement)
ρh or ρhorz = Horizontal reinforcement ratio (As horz/Agross)
ρvert = Vertical reinforcement ratio (As vert/Agross)
TCCMAR = Joint Technical Coordinating Committee on
Masonry Research
V = Shear load applied at the top of a shear wall
Vmax = Maximum shear load capacity

64 TMS Journal December 2018

Copyright The Masonry Society--downloaded by Anthony Ruth on June 22, 2020

Instructions for Authors
PURPOSE AND MISSION Interest Topic. General Interest Topics will be reviewed by
two reviewers as selected by the Editor or Associate
The primary purpose of the TMS Journal is to provide a Editors. Detailed requirements for submittal of a General
medium for presenting detailed reports on specific topics. Interest Topic are given in Section 2.2.
Reports are in the form of Technical Papers and General
Interest Topics. Discussion of Technical Papers and General 1.3 Discussion — Discussion may be submitted in
Interest Topics is encouraged and will also be published. response to a Technical Paper or General Interest Topic
Subjects addressed may include, but are not limited to, that was previously published in the TMS Journal, or to
masonry materials, structural system configurations, code further discuss previously published discussion.
requirements, and construction at the research, design, and Discussion is reviewed by the Editor only. The Author of
application levels. the original Technical Paper or General Interest Topic
will be invited to respond to discussion by submitting a
1.0 Submittals closing statement. Discussion is expected to be well-
Three categories of manuscripts may be submitted for written and objective, and may be rejected if it presents
publication in the TMS Journal: Technical Papers, readily available information, advocates special interests,
General Interest Topics, and Discussions. A manuscript is speculative, or introduces personality questions.
must not be submitted to other sources for possible
publication unless the TMS Journal rejects the
manuscript. Technical Papers are expected to be original 2.0 Manuscript Requirements
contributions, although material that was previously Following are the requirements for manuscripts submitted
published elsewhere will be considered if previous to the TMS Journal for consideration.
exposure was very limited, if appropriate credits are
given, and if necessary permission is granted. 2.1 Requirements for Technical Papers

1.1 Technical Papers — Technical Papers are formal 2.1.1 The maximum length is 36 double-spaced pages,
manuscripts, such as reports of research, design including tables, figures, and appendices. If the subject
techniques, literature reviews, or results of testing cannot be treated adequately within this limitation, the
programs. Technical Papers are expected to be well- author should submit the work as a series of two or more
written, complete, and substantiated. Technical Papers papers. The author may also submit an exception request
should adhere to the following general format: to the Editor.

Abstract and Keyword 2.1.2 All submitted manuscripts are to be double spaced
Introduction with a minimum 1 inch margin on all sides. Electronic
Technique submissions should be sent to info@masonrysociety.org.
Results
Conclusions and Recommendations 2.1.3 Figures must be drawn electronically. Individual
electronic files containing the final drafts of all figures, in
Technical Papers are not required to rigidly adhere to this their original formats, shall be emailed to
format but should follow this outline to present an info@masonrysociety.org once a manuscript has been
understandable paper. See Section 2.1 of this document accepted for publication by the Journal Editor. Figures
for more detailed requirements for submittal of a must be legible at up to a 50 percent reduction in size.
Technical Paper. Acceptance of Technical Papers will be The figure number and title must appear at the bottom of
based on peer review by two persons with knowledge of the figure. All figures must have captions and be
the subject, as selected by the Editor or Associate Editors. referenced and explained in the text.
Prior to publication, authors may be asked to make
changes as required for clarity or completeness. 2.1.4 Table number and title must be indicated at each table.
All tables must be referenced and explained in the text.
1.2 General Interest Topics — General Interest Topics are
generally more informal manuscripts that are shorter than 2.1.5 Individual electronic files containing the final drafts
Technical Papers. General Interest Topics may describe a of all photographs, in their original formats, shall be
case study, review a specific problem, provide basic emailed to info@masonrysociety.org once a manuscript
background on an aspect of masonry, present a design aid, has been accepted for publication by the Journal Editor.
provide a literature review on a single topic, or review other Photographs should be scanned electronically and
subjects that may be of interest to TMS members. Concepts provided in TIFF or EPS format. Photographs are treated
or information that have not advanced to where a Technical the same as figures and must be referenced and explained
Paper is appropriate, may be submitted as a General in the text.

TMS Journal December 2018 65

Copyright The Masonry Society--downloaded by Anthony Ruth on June 22, 2020

2.1.6 Submitted artwork, photographs, tables and text for 2.1.13 Use U.S. Customary Units (in.-lb) followed by
manuscripts accepted for publication become the property of System Internationale units in parentheses.
The Masonry Society and will not be returned to the author.
If specific photographs or material need to be returned, 2.1.14 Manuscripts must not contain unsubstantiated
special arrangements may be made. Prior to publication, all opinions, and must be objective and unbiased.
authors are required to sign a Copyright Transfer Agreement
transferring all publication rights to TMS. 2.2 Requirements for General Interest Topics
General Interest Topics must meet the same requirements
2.1.7 Title is not to exceed 10 words. as Technical Papers, except as follows:

2.1.8 Author’s or authors’ names must appear below the 2.2.1 The manuscript must not exceed eight double
title. The present affiliation of all authors must be given in spaced pages in length.
a footnote. Authors are not required to be members of The
Masonry Society, but those who are should so indicate. 2.2.2 A keyword list and abstract are not required.

2.1.9 A list of Keywords and an information retrieval 2.3 Requirements for Discussion
Abstract of approximately 200 words must be provided on Discussion must meet the same requirements as Technical
a separate page. Papers, except as follows:

2.1.10 References are to be listed in a section entitled 2.3.1 The manuscript must not exceed four double spaced
REFERENCES. References must be cited in the text by pages in length.
author name and date, e.g. Jaffe (1998). All listed
references must match those cited in the text. Provide 2.3.2 Keywords and an abstract are not required.
complete information about each reference, including
journal or book title, authors, date of publication, issue 2.3.3 The title of the Technical Paper or General Interest
volume and number, page numbers, and publisher. Format Topic that is being discussed must appear at the top of the
in accordance with the MLA Handbook for Writers of first page, together with a reference to the Journal issue
Research Papers, by Joseph Gibaldi, 6th ed., New York, and page number, and names of authors under discussion.
Modern Language Association, 2003.
2.3.4 The discusser’s name must appear below the
2.1.11 Mathematical symbols (notation) are to be defined Technical Paper or General Interest Topic title as
when they first appear in the text (or in figures or tables). “Discussion by ...” The discusser’s affiliation (company,
Notation is also to be listed alphabetically and defined in address) must also be listed.
a section at the end of the paper entitled: NOTATION.
2.3.5 Figures, tables, and references provided by the
2.1.12 Mathematical expressions (equations) must be discusser must be identified by letter rather than number.
numbered, with the number appearing to the right of the Figures, tables, and references appearing in the original
equation. Complex equations must be provided in paper are to be referenced as in the original manuscript.
electronic format or on a separate sheet of paper.

For more information on submitting papers for

TMS Journal, call TMS at (303) 939-9700
or contact TMS at info@masonrysociety.org.

66 TMS Journal December 2018

Copyright The Masonry Society--downloaded by Anthony Ruth on June 22, 2020

 THE MASONRY SOCIETY

SUSTAINING MEMBERS
ACME Brick Company / Featherlite Block
Arizona Masonry Guild, Inc.
Arriscraft International
Brick Industry Association
Canada Masonry Design Centre
Canadian Concrete Masonry Producers
Cast Stone Institute
Concrete Masonry Association of CA & NV
International Masonry Institute
KPFF Consulting Engineers, Inc.
Masonry Association of Florida, Inc.
Masonry Institute of America
Masonry Institute of St. Louis
National Concrete Masonry Association
Pennsylvania Concrete Masonry Association
Raymond T. Miller P.E., S.E.
Western States Clay Products Association

AFFILIATE ORGANIZATIONS
A. Jandris and Sons, Inc. Mason Contractors Association of America
Angelus Block Co., Inc. MASONPRO, Inc.
Atkinson-Noland & Associates, Inc. Masonry Contractors of New Jersey
Basalite Dixon Masonry Institute of Iowa
Calstone Company Midwest Products Group
Caretti Restoration & Preservation Services, LLC Nelson Testing Laboratories
Caruso Turley Scott, Inc. North Carolina Masonry Contractors Association
Delaware Valley Masonry Institute ORCO Block Co.
DGM Consultants, P.A. Portland Cement Association
Forrest and Associates RCP Block & Brick, Inc.
General Shale Products LLC Rocky Mountain Masonry Institute
Group One for Blocks, Interlocks & Kerbstones Ryan Biggs | Clark Davis Engineering & Surveying,
Hoggatt G.P., LLC Seves Glass Block, Inc.
Hohmann & Barnard Simpson Gumpertz & Heger, Inc.
INSPEC, Inc. Summit Brick Company
Interstate Brick Company The Roderick Group, Inc.
Jerry Painter Masonry Consulting, LLC University of Costa Rica
KB - Blok System, S.R.O. WDP & Associates Consulting Engineers, Inc.
Keystone Masonry, Inc. Wire - Bond
Mason Contractor Association of California, Inc. Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates Inc.

Copyright The Masonry Society--downloaded by Anthony Ruth on June 22, 2020

 The Masonry Society
105 South Sunset Street, Suite Q
Longmont, Colorado 80501
303-939-9700 FAX# 303-541-9215

ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED

THE MASONRY SOCIETY

J O U R N A L
Copyright The Masonry Society--downloaded by Anthony Ruth on June 22, 2020