ENHANCEMENT OF SEISMIC PERFORMANCE

AND DESIGN OF PARTIALLY GROUTED

REINFORCED MASONRY BUILDINGS

Erik Avila
Home Institution: California State University, Los Angeles
REU Site: University of California, San Diego
PI: Benson Shing, Ph.D
Graduate Student Adviser: Andreas Koutras

August 22, 2014

Abstract
Partially grouted structures construction is common in the Midwestern, Eastern, and
Northwestern United States. Seismic design provisions for partially grouted reinforced
masonry are based solely on research performed on fully grouted shear walls. This joint
project between Drexel University, University of Minnesota, and the University of
California, San Diego aims to understand the behavior of partially grouted masonry
structures and to develop improved design details to enhance their seismic performance.
At the University of California, San Diegos Network for Earthquake Engineering
Simulation (NEES@UCSD) site, the system level performance was studied by
constructing two full-scale, single-story, partially grouted reinforced masonry buildings
and testing them at the Englekirk Structural Engineering Centers Large High
Performance Outdoor Shake Table (LHPOST). The first structure represented common
practice while the second structure had added enhancements. The applied enhancements,
which included double grouted vertical cells, bond beams, and ladder type joint
reinforcement, enabled Specimen 2 to perform better than Specimen 1. Through the
shake tests, the seismic performance of the structures was better understood.

Table of Contents
1.Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1
2. Literature Review............................................................................................................ 1
3. Methods........................................................................................................................... 3
3.1 Testing Overview .................................................................................................................. 3
3.2 Specimen One........................................................................................................................ 4
3.3 Specimen 2 ............................................................................................................................ 5

4. Student Contributions ..................................................................................................... 7

4.1 GoPro camera documentation ............................................................................................... 7
4.2 Use of MATLAB to Inspect Sensors..................................................................................... 8
4.3 Structural inspection after motion ......................................................................................... 9
4.4 Strain Gage Yield Sequence .................................................................................................. 9
4.5 MATLAB Video and Data Synchronization ....................................................................... 11
4.6 Proposed Shear Friction Formula Problems ........................................................................ 12

Results ............................................................................................................................... 12
Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 15
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................... 15
Further Information........................................................................................................... 16
References ......................................................................................................................... 16

ii

Table of Figures
Figure 1: Prototype Building for Testing ........................................................................... 3
Figure 2: Shake Table Test Structure.................................................................................. 4
Figure 3: South Elevation View of Specimen 1.................................................................. 5
Figure 4: East Elevation View of Specimen 1 .................................................................... 5
Figure 5: South Elevation View of Specimen 2.................................................................. 6
Figure 6: East Elevation View of Specimen 2 ................................................................... 6
Figure 7: Specimen 2 View 1 Captured with GoPro Camera ............................................. 7
Figure 8: Specimen 2 View 2 Captured with GoPro Camera ............................................. 7
Figure 9: Malfunctioning Accelerometer Analyzed Using MATLAB ............................... 8
Figure 10: Functioning Accelerometer Reading Analyzed Using MATLAB .................... 8
Figure 11: Crack Occurrence - Marking of Structure After Each Test............................... 9
Figure 12: Strain Gage Data Using Average Yield With MATLAB.
First Yielding is Circled .................................................................................. 10
Figure 13: South view of wall elevation use to display strain gage yield sequence.
The colors represent the time at which the yielding occurred. ....................... 11
Figure 14: MATLAB Video and Data Synchronization ................................................... 12
Figure 15: Specimen 1 after testing .................................................................................. 13
Figure 16: Specimen 1 after testing, Side View ............................................................... 13
Figure 17: Specimen 2 after testing, Front View .............................................................. 14
Figure 18: Specimen 2 after testing, Side View ............................................................... 14

iii

1.Introduction
Reinforced masonry constitutes about 10% of all low-rise construction in the United
States. The TMS-402/ACI-530/ASCE-5 (MSJC, 2013) building code requirements for
masonry structures developed by the Masonry Standards Joint Committee (MSJC) and
ASCE 7 (ASCE, 2010) classify reinforced masonry shear walls into three types: special,
intermediate, or ordinary. These walls can be either fully grouted or partially grouted
(Shing et al. 2013). Fully grouted masonry walls have grout placed in every cell. Partially
grouted ordinary walls are used outside of the West Coast and have grout in the location
of the reinforcement. The construction of partially grouted reinforced masonry buildings
is common practice in the areas within the Midwestern, Eastern, and Northwestern
United States.
Partially grouted structures are designed using shear strength and seismic design
provisions specified by TMS-402/ACI-530/ASCE-5 (MSJC, 2013). The shear strength
and seismic design provisions are based solely on experimental results of fully grouted
masonry shear walls (Shing et al. 1990). Therefore, the motivation for this project derives
from the shear strength formula overestimating shear capacity. Not much research has
been done on partially grouted reinforced masonry buildings to improve the shear
strength formula and design provisions. This is a joint project between Drexel University,
University of Minnesota, and the University of California, San Diego to understand the
behavior of partially grouted masonry structures and to develop improved design details
to enhance their seismic performance.
At the University of California, San Diegos Network for Earthquake Engineering
Simulation (NEES@UCSD) site the system level performance was studied by
constructing two full-scale, single-story, partially grouted reinforced masonry buildings.
These structures underwent shake tests at the Englekirk Structural Engineering Centers
Large High Performance Outdoor Shake Table (LHPOST), the worlds first and largest
outdoor shake table. Through these shake table tests, the seismic performance of the
structures was better analyzed. The first structures construction reflected the current
practice, while the second had improved details.
2. Literature Review
The expression for shear strength in fully grouted reinforced masonry is shared with
partially grouted reinforced masonry, therefore results may not be accurate. The
expression used in the Masonry Standard Joint Committee to determine shear strength
has been tested for accuracy through an experiment of four partially grouted special
reinforced masonry shear walls by Minaie et al. (2010). The four partially grouted special
reinforced masonry walls were subjected to reversed cyclic displacement in order to
experimentally establish their in-plane behavior and assess the appropriateness of current
seismic design provisions for partially grouted shear walls. Minaie et al. (2010) arrived at
the conclusion that the shear strength expression for reinforced masonry shear walls
provided by the MSJC appears unconservative for partially grouted masonry shear walls.
The expression may not be appropriate because it is based exclusively on tests with fully

grouted masonry shear walls, which displayed failure modes that are different than
partially grouted systems.
An experimental study of the seismic performance of partially grouted nominally
reinforced concrete-masonry structural walls was completed to evaluate this as an
alternative to fully grouted reinforced masonry structural walls. Five reduced-scale
structural walls were constructed and tested under scaled versions of the 1940 El Centro,
California earthquake, using its north-south component record with a constant axial
compression load that represented a single-story building (Kasparik et al. 2014).
According to Kasparik et al. (2014), the use of partially grouted nominally reinforced
masonry also results in a reduced cost, compared with traditional reinforced masonry
systems used in seismic zones that are typically fully grouted within the plastic hinge
zones and require higher reinforcement ratios. Unfortunately, the capacity of the shake
table did not allow the testing of the walls to failure. This was an attempt to understand
partially grouted masonry systems. Key aspects of the wall were examined pertaining to
the wall yield capacities, stiffness degradation, period shift, displacement ductility, and
seismic forcereduction factors. Although this experiment involved nominally reinforced
masonry and not fully reinforced masonry it does seek to prove the cost effectiveness of
using a partially grouted system. Unreinforced masonry is economically competitive but
could perform poorly in earthquakes. The reasons for this poor performance are the
inherent brittleness, lack of tensile strength, and lack of ductility; that is, a lack of the
properties given to reinforced masonry by the steel reinforcing (Hess 2008). The cost
effective advantage of partially grouted system is evident nonetheless.
Cost effectiveness plays a major role in the design of structures but seismic performance
is even more crucial. Seismic resistance of partially grouted masonry is yet to be verified
and current analysis and design methods must be validated (Shultz 1996). Schultz (1996)
attempted to study the seismic performance of partially grouted masonry shear walls by
testing six partially grouted shear walls with bond beams. Bond beams serve to connect
and strengthen the walls. Outermost vertical cells of the walls were reinforced vertically
and grouted while a single bond beam containing horizontal reinforcement was placed at
mid-height of the walls. Schultz (1996) arrived at the conclusion that partially grouted
masonry is a viable lateral-load resisting system for areas of moderate and low seismic
risk. Shultz (1996) added that the resistance to the drift histories is stable and also
features high initial stiffness and ample energy dissipation. Finally, vertical cracks
arising from stress concentrations between ungrouted and grouted masonry dominated
wall behavior and the sliding friction between masonry panels and the concrete surface
contributed to the seismic resistance.
These previous experiments were attempts to understand seismic performance of a
partially grouted structure whether it is fully reinforced or nominally reinforced. It is
evident that not much research has been done in this topic and this experiment will serve
to be the first project with conclusive data that may lead to a new successful enhanced
design for these partially grouted reinforced masonry systems.

3. Methods
3.1 Testing Overview
Two one-story partially grouted reinforced masonry structures were tested at the
Englekirk Structural Engineering Center at Camp Elliott, a site located 15 km away from
the main UCSD campus. The specimens were built on the LHPOST, the worlds largest
outdoor shake table with dimensions of 12 m x 7.6 m (40 ft x 25 ft). The shake table is
uni-directional with motion along the long direction. According to the NEES@UCSD
website (UCSD, 2013), the shake tables peak acceleration when bare is 4.2 g and 1.2 g
when a 400 ton payload is present. The tables peak velocity is 1.8 m/s. Finally, the table
can resist an overturning moment of 35 MN-m when bare, and 60 MN-m when a 400 ton
payload is applied. It was essential that the LHPOST is able to accurately reproduce
near-fault ground motion effects (UCSD, 2013). Figure 1 depicts the prototype building,
the dark lines on the plan view represent walls and the small openings represent windows
and doors. Figure 2 shows the actual test structure, which is a selection from the
prototype seen in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Prototype building for testing (Source: Andreas Koutras)

Figure 2: Shake table test structure (Source: Andreas Koutras)

3.2 Specimen One
This experiment began with the construction of a one-story partially grouted reinforced
masonry structure that reflected common practice on the East Coast. Location of vertical
#4 rebar was determined with the MSJC 2013 building code and while bond beams were
not required, they were placed to see if they proved to be practical. Bond beams are not
usually used in East Coast construction. Although most of the construction reflects East
Coast practice, since bond beams were added this was considered a modified East Coast
design. Figures 3 and 4 display two different views of specimen 1. The two figures show
dark gray areas, which are where the grout is placed and also the location of the
reinforcement. The specimen was monitored using 178 strain gages, 180 displacement
transducers, and 39 accelerometers. Specimen one was tested using the El Centro 1940
motion, which was of magnitude 6.9 Mw.

Figure 3: South elevation view of Specimen 1 (Source: Andreas Koutras)

Figure 4: East elevation view of Specimen 1 (Source: Andreas Koutras)

3.3 Specimen 2
After testing the first specimen a second specimen was constructed with an enhanced
design. The new enhancements included vertical double reinforced cells with #3 rebars,
while maintaining the same vertical reinforcement ratio as the first specimen. Bond
beams were maintained with #4 rebar. Ladder type joint reinforcement of size 3/16 in.
wire was added in every course. This follows the MSJC building code recommendation
that joint reinforcement should be applied in every course to be considered as
reinforcement. The base was also roughened to prevent sliding and to increase the shear
coefficient, and dowels were also added. The topping thickness of the roof slab was
increased from 4 inches to 12 inches. This can be seen in both Figures 5 and 6. Figures 5
and 6 are two different views of the second specimen. These two figures show the
enhancements incorporated into the second specimen.

Figure 5: South elevation view of Specimen 2 (Source: Andreas Koutras)

Figure 6: East elevation view of Specimen 2 (Source: Andreas Koutras)

4. Student Contributions
4.1 GoPro camera documentation
GoPro cameras were first installed before the second structure was tested on the
LHPOST at the Einglekirk testing facility. A total of 15 GoPro cameras were set up in
and around the structure. Four cameras documented the inside of the building while 11
cameras recorded the outside. These cameras were first synced to be controlled by a
single remote control and to capture the entire test from different angles at the same time.
Figures 7 and 8 show examples of GoPro video images of the second specimen. The
GoPro videos were used to examine the structures performance during the various
motions. Four videos were selected to be used in MATLAB. The MATLAB program was
to display the data and videos simultaneously.

Figure 7: Specimen 2 View 1 captured with GoPro camera

Figure 8: Specimen 2 View 2 captured with GoPro camera

4.2 Use of MATLAB to Inspect Sensors

Sensor feedback was provided in the form of MATLAB plots. These plots were inspected
for any problems in the sensors performance. Approximately 40 accelerometers were
inspected using MATLAB plots. Figure 9 displays the output of a flawed accelerometer
and Figure 10 displays a functioning accelerometer. The plot titles display the node that
belongs to the sensor for reference. Reporting which sensors are not performing allows
for inspection before further testing. After inspecting the plots a list of malfunctioning
sensors was created and presented to the graduate student so he could inspect those
sensors.

Figure 9: Malfunctioning accelerometer analyzed using MATLAB

Figure 10: Functioning accelerometer reading analyzed using MATLAB

4.3 Structural inspection after motion

During the testing period from June 20 to June 25, 2014 Specimen 2 was subjected to
various table motions. After each motion the structure was inspected and cracks were
marked with a certain color representing that specific motion. This assisted in finding any
patterns and tracking how the enhancement of the structure was performing after each
motion. Figure 11 shows the markings on the wall, which have been labeled with the
name of the motion and the date. The undergraduate student participant was only
available to assist during the testing of the second specimen.

Figure 11: Crack occurrence - Marking of structure after each test

4.4 Strain Gage Yield Sequence
Approximately 177 MATLAB plots for the strain gages were analyzed for yielding.
MATLAB plots displayed the history of the strain gage and the yielding was to be found
by inspecting the plots and recording under what motion the yielding occurred. A special
script was used when two strain gages were in the same location to obtain the average
yield to be used in the strain gage sequence. An example of the MATLAB plot using the
average can be seen below in Figure 12. The top feedback response in blue is data from
one strain gage and the bottom feedback response is from the other strain gage at the
same location. The green feedback is the average of those two and is what is used to
determine when the sensor yields. For locations with only one sensor a single feedback
was used to find the yield. Yielding can be identified in the plot when the feedback
response, green for average or a blue for single feedback, crosses either the top or bottom
red parallel dotted lines. The aim of this task was to identify the motion when the
yielding occurred and to record the motion in Excel for the last five motions of the

second specimen and the last eight motions for the first specimen. The first yield was
recorded and assigned a specific color, the first yielding is circled in Figure 12. This
inspection was done more than 300 times to create a yielding sequence. From the two
Excel files, the location of the strain gage was marked on the specimen plans and colorcoded depending on when it yielded. The result was a plan with color coded strain gages
representing the yield sequence as shown in Figure 13.

Figure 12: Strain gage data using average yield with MATLAB. First yielding is circled

10

Figure 13: South view of wall elevation used to display strain gage yield sequence.
The colors represent the time at which the yielding occurred.

4.5 MATLAB Video and Data Synchronization

Following the collection of videos from the GoPro cameras, the videos and the data was
synchronized using MATLAB to run two different GoPro views and display the data at
the same time. Three plots of base shear vs. drift ratio, drift ratio vs. time, and input
acceleration vs. time are displayed simultaneously with the videos. The MATLAB script
was changed numerous times to make sure the data being displayed correlated with the
videos being played. There were four MATLAB scripts in total, two for the first
specimen and two for the second specimen. These videos were uploaded and are
available at the NEES@UCSD website (http://nees.ucsd.edu/projects/2014-partialgrouted-masonary)

11

Figure 14: MATLAB video and data synchronization

4.6 Proposed Shear Friction Formula Problems

The TMS 402-13 standard does not have provisions to calculate the shear-friction
strength of reinforced masonry walls. Dr. Benson Shing is working on a proposed
formula for the nominal shear strength Vnf in a future edition of MSJC. Data for walls
that showed significant sliding was provided. The experimental shear strength was
compared with a value calculated using the proposed formula and tabulated in Table 1.
Shing 6 and Shing 8 are walls tested at UC San Diego while UT PBS-03 and UT PBS-04
are cantilever walls tested at the University of Texas, Austin. The formula used to find
these theoretical values will soon be implemented and available in the 2016 MSJC. This
will aid in the design and construction masonry structures.
Table 1: Shear Friction Test Results and Proposed Shear Strength
Wall Sample

Experimental Vnf, kips

Calculated Vnf, kips

Percent Error

Shing 6
Shing 8
UT-PBS-03
UT-PBS-04

50
49
82
47

53
54
85
47.3

5.66
9.26
3.53
0.6

Results
The first specimen failed in a non-ductile manner with diagonal shear cracks and
horizontal sliding. Figures 15 and 16 display the first specimens extensive damage and
concrete masonry units can be seen on the floor. It is evident that the common East Coast
practice needs improvement. The enhancements in the second specimen proved to be
effective and this can be seen in Figures 17 and 18. The same damage that is seen in the

12

first specimen is not visible after the testing of the second specimen. The testing of these
structures has been a great step forward in the field of masonry construction. With a few
enhancements the seismic performance of partially grouted reinforced masonry structures
has really improved.

Figure 15: Specimen 1 after testing

Figure 16: Specimen 1 after testing, Side view

13

Figure 17: Specimen 2 after testing, Front view

Figure 18: Specimen 2 after testing, Side view

14

Conclusions
The experiment shows that Specimen 1 failed in a non-ductile manner with diagonal
shear cracks as well as horizontal sliding. Sliding was observed at the base before the
occurrence of cracks on the superstructure and to try to prevent this, heavily reinforced
concrete stoppers were incorporated at the end of the base of the main wall in specimen
1. Since sliding was observed in Specimen 1 the base was roughened for the Specimen 2.
It was observed that the grouted cells did not have sufficient width to prevent shear
cracking. Specimen 1, which reflects common practice outside of the West Coast,
performed poorly.
Specimen 2 involved improved design details which attempted to enhance the ductility of
the structure. The bond beams proved to be effective in Specimen 1 and were retained in
the Specimen 2. The placement of the joint reinforcement weakened the mortar bed
joints, resulting in early cracking along the joints. The increased cross-section of the
grouted cells prevented shear failure of the grout and led to a more flexural dominant
behavior.
Following the objective of the project, which was to enhance the seismic performance of
partially grouted reinforced masonry buildings, the applied enhancements which included
the double grouted vertical cells, bond beams, and ladder type joint reinforcement,
proved to assist Specimen 2 to perform better than Specimen 1. This was the first time a
full scale partially grouted structure was tested on a shake table. This project will assist in
the understanding of the seismic performance of this type of structure while also
providing an enhanced alternative to this type of construction. The system level
performance was successfully analyzed and will serve as a great contribution to the
masonry structure community.
Acknowledgements
This research is supported by the National Science Foundation under the Network for
Earthquake Engineering Simulation program with Award No. CMMI-1208208. NSF
REU grant EEC-1263155 and the NEES grant CMMI-092718. Any opinions, findings,
and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
Thank you to the principal investigator Dr. Benson Shing for his support throughout the
program and for allowing me to be part of this project.
Thank you to Andreas Koutras for sharing his knowledge and for his extensive support
throughout this project. Thank you for providing figures for this report.
Undergraduate student assisted in post data analysis towards the end of the project.

15

Further Information
For further information on this project
REU student Erik Avila: erikavila38@gmail.com
Graduate Student Advisor- Andreas Koutras: akoutras@eng.ucsd.edu
PI Dr. P. Benson Shing: pshing@ucsd.edu
References
American Society of Civil Engineers. (2010). ASCE 7-10, Minimum Design Loads for
Buildings and Other Structures, Reston, VA, 2010.
Hess, R. L. (2008). The ShakeOut Scenario Supplemental Study: Unreinforced Masonry
(URM) Buildings, SPA Risk LLC. Denver, CO. .
Kasparik, T., Tait, M., and El-Dakhakhni, W. (2014). Seismic Performance Assessment
of Partially Grouted, Nominally Reinforced Concrete-Masonry Structural Walls Using
Shake Table Testing. J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 28(2), 216227.
Minaie, E., Mota, M., Moon, F., and Hamid, A. (2010). In-Plane Behavior of Partially
Grouted Reinforced Concrete Masonry Shear Walls. J. Struct. Eng., 136(9), 10891097.
MSJC (Masonry Standards Joint Committee ) (2011), TMS 402-11/ACI-530-11/ASCE 511: Building Code Requirements for Masonry Structures, The Masonry Society,
American Concrete Institute, and ASCE/Structural Engineering Institute.
Schultz, A.E. (1996) Seismic Performance of Partially-Grouted Masonry Shear Walls.
Eleventh World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Acapulco, Mexico, 246-256.
Shing, P., Ahmad, H., Moon, F., Shultz, A., and Koutras, A. (2013) Improving Seismic
Performance of Partially-Grouted Reinforced Masonry Buildings. 12th Canadian
Masonry Symposium, Vancouver, British Columbia.
Shing, P., Schuller, M., and Hoskere, V. (1990). In-Plane Resistance of Reinforced
Masonry Shear Walls. J. Struct. Eng., 116(3), 619640.
University of California, San Diego. (2013). Shake Table Specifications.
NEES@UCSD, < http://nees.ucsd.edu/facilities/shake-table.shtml>. (July 28, 2014).

16