STATIC AND DYNAMIC OUT-OF-PLANE RESPONSE OF BRICK MASONRY WALLS

S.A. Adham
Agbabian Associates, El Segundo, California
ABSTRACT

1.

Responses of brick masonry walls subjected to out-of-plane seismic

forces were studied as part of two separate programs.
The first
program included static testing of reinforced brick masonry walls.
The study indicated that there was no evidence of elastic or inelastic
lateral instabilty for the load ranges tested.
The tests demonstrated that there is no need to impose fixed height-to-thickness
lmits.
However, they did reveal the need for limits to control
potential residual deflection in panels where service loads are
exceeded. The second program included dynamic testing of unreinforced
brick masonry walls. The three seismic hazard levels of the 1978 ATC
provisions were used to develop the seismic input for both analysis
and testing.
A survival crterion for unreinforced brick masonry
walls was developed for different height-to-thickness ratios. The two
programs resulted in the developrnent of guidelines and code provisions
for the analysis, design, and retrofit of brick masonry wall systems.

INTRODUCTION

Out-of-plane static responses of brick masonry walls was studied by the Structural Engineers Association of Southern California (SEASC) in conjunction with
the Southern California Chapter of the American Concrete Institute (ACI)
(1,2,3).
The study was part of a major research program on the vertical and
lateral load capacities of tall slender walls.
In past years, walls have been constructed thinner and taller, and many suggestions have been made to relax code slenderness height-to-thickness (h/t)
limits for load bearing concrete tilt-up-walls and masonry walls. As a result,
the above program was conducted to assess the capabilities of brick masonry of a
slenderness ratio (h/t) far in excess of 1981 code limitations.
The second program was conducted on unreinforced masonry (URM) walls subjected
to dynamic out-of-plane motions.
The program is one of several tasks in an
overall research program, sponsored by the National Science Foundation, whose
objective is to establish bounds on the seismic resistance of URM walls and
develop a methodology for mitigation of seismic hazards in existing unreinforced
masonry buildings.
Full-scale tests on URM walls subjected to dynamic out-of-plane motions were
designed and conducted on 8 clay brick and block masonry wall specimens. The
test specimens were subjected to seismic dynamic motion sequences covering the
full range of seismicity in the United States from an Effective Peak Acceleration (EPA) 0.10 g to 0.4 g (4).
2.

ACI-SEASC SLENDER WALL PROGRAM

Test Program
A total of 32 slender walls were built. Thirty-one of the walls were 1.22 m
(4 ft) wide and 7.52 m (24 ft-8 in.) high. Among these walls, nine were brick
masonry (Table 1).
These nine panels were 139.7 mm (5-1/2 in.), 190.5 mm
(7-1/2 in.), .241.3 mm (9-1/2 in.), resulting in h/t ratios of 52.4,38.4, and
30.3 respectively.
An additional panel, built with hollow brck unts was
88.9 mm (3-1/2 in.) thick and 5.08 m (16 ft-8 in.) high for an h/t of 55. The
f' for brick ranged between 21,083 KPa (3060 psi) and 42,994 KPa (6240 psi).
m

1213

TABLE 1.

Wall
No.

Thickness
inches

SLENDER WALL TESTS (BRICK MASONRY) (2)

Material

Strength
f'm
psi

Actual
h/t
Ratio

Vertical
Load
p.l.f.

Maximum
Lateral
Load
p.s.f.

Maximum
Lateral
Deflection
inches

9-1/2

Brick

3060

30.3

320

150.8

15.6

9-1/2

Brick

3060

30.3

320

164.1

16 . 8

9-1/2

Brick

3060

30.3

320

89.4

14.6

7-1/2

Brick

3440

38.4

320

59.8

19.6

7-1/2

Brick

3440

38.4

320

57 . 2

15 . 9

7-1/2

Brick

3440

38 . 4

320

78.0

14 . 8

5-1/2

Hollow Brick

6243

52.4

320

86.6

19.3

5-1/2

Hollow Brick

6243

52 . 4

320

86.5

17.0

5-1/2

Hollow Brick

6243

52 . 4

320

61.6

11.1

1 1nch - 25.4 mm

p . l . f. - 14.59 N/m

p . S . 1. - 6.89 KPa

Vertical
Reinf .

Date
Tested
(1981)

4-20
5114
4-17
5114
51/4
5-11
5114
5-8
5-7
5114
5-6
5114
4-15
5114
4-16
5114
5-4
5114
114 - 12.7 mm Rebar

The walls were built on a 12.7 mm (1/2 in.) steel plate 1.22 m (4 ft) long on
which was welded one-half of a 101. 6 mm (4 in.) diameter pipe. This detail
provided a pin support and allowed full free rotation . The top of the wall was
restrained by a device with a spherical roller bearing that permi tted vert i cal
movement and rotation but prevented horizontal translation, thus providing a pin
support.
All masonry walls were reinforced vertically with five 12.7 mm (1/2 in.) bars
Grade 60 with an f
482,300 KPa (70 ksi) and f
757,900 KPa (110 ksi),
u
located in the cente~. Horizontal bars were spaced 1.22 m (4 ft) apart. The
loading frame allows for both lateral load and eccentric vertical load to be
applied simultaneously to the panel. The vertical load was provided by waterfilled drums whose weight was applied through a lever system to the ledger angle
(Fig. 1). The vertical load simulated the actual loading from the roof on a
building and was varied from 3282.75 N per m (225 plf) to 4668.8 N per m
(320 plf) for the 88.9 mm (3-1/2 in.) thick walls and the remainder of .brick
panels respectively.

An airbag 1.22 m (4 ft) wide and 7.32 m (24 ft) high was placed between the wall
and the loading frame.
The airbag imposed a lateral load aga i nst the wall,
which caused a movement in the same direction as that created by the eccentric
load on the ledger angle (Fig. 1). The lateral deflection was measured at 11
vertically distributed locations on the wall. During the test, the lateral
pressure imparted by the airbag to the panel was incrased unt i l deflections
reached two to three times the panel thickness . Up to the yield level, the
relationship between lateral load and midheight lateral deflection resembled a
bilinear form (Fig. 2).
Test Results
Typical load-deflection test results and idealized load-deflection curves for
the brick masonry panels are given in Table 1 and Figures 3 and 4. The results
indicate a low modulus of rupture followed by a flat slope.
The flexural
strength of the panels was limited by the yield and ultimate strength of reinforcement.
The cracking was confined to the bed joints, but there were a few
exceptional cracks throilgh the bricks. The load deflection results indicate
that these slender panels can resist 50 to 90% of their weight laterally. In
addition, the lateral resisting load was increasing even when deflections were
extremely large. The results also indicate the panels are flexible and therefore reach large deflections before yield occurs. The plots ofaxial load or
force versus moment (Figs. 5, 6) indicate that the applied axial loads are

1214

VERTICAL LOAD
ON TO LEDGER
ANGLE

FIGURE 1.

LOADING FRAME AND WALL SPECIMEN SETUP

YIELDING
OF STEEL

r:~~

CRACKING OF
MASONRY WALL

____
E
2

YIELDING OF REINFORCING STEEL

-:-_L_ _E.::.3:...-_ _ _ _ _4
COMPOSITE BEHAVIOR OF STEEL AND
MASONRY (SLOPE DEPENDS ON AMOUNT
OF REINFORCING STEEL)

VIRGIN STIFFNESS OF MASONRY WALL

lL-----------------------------------------~

FIGURE 2.

IDEALIZED COMPOSITE STRESS/STRAIN RELATIONS

FOR PANEL

1215

A PANEL 1

PANEL 2
O PANEL 3

O
~

...

2,395
(50)

1,916
(40)

'"a

'"

'"

'"

LOAO-OEFLECTION RELATION

--'

a::

~ - 0.9, fr -

"">-

--'
--'
a::

2.0..rr::

>""

'\R Sfr

12.7
(0.5)

25.4
(1.0)

38.1
(1.5)

O A

--'

50.8
(2.0)

63.5
(2.5)

76.2
(3.0)

1,437
(30)

......
rv
......

cn

CJ

A O

O
[lo

958
(20)

LOAO-OEFLECTION RELATION

~ = 0 . 9, fr -

479
(10)

O __

~'

88.9
(3 . 5)

2.5...p;;:

M Sfr
CR

____L-____L-____L-____

012.7
(0.5)

38.1
(1.5)

63.5
(2.5)

MIDHEIGHT DEFLECTION, mm -(in.)

FIGURE 3.

O
A O

'"

1,916
(40)

O
AO

...

1,437
(30)

--'

TEST RESULTS
A PANEL 7
O PANE L 8
O PANEL 9

2,395
(50)

TEST RESULTS
2,874
(60)

88.9
(3 . 5)

____

114.3
(4 . 5)

__

139.7
(5.5)

~~

__

165.1
(6.5)

MIDHEIGHT OEFLECTION, mm -(in.)

M
AND ~, 241.3mm (9.6 IN.)
CR
TWO WYTHE BRICK MASONRY

FIGURE 4.

~ SELECTION 139.7mm (5.5 IN.)

HOLLOW BRICK MASONRY PANEL

V>

V>

a.

a.

(7.5")
190.5mm

(9.6")
241.3mm

"6

x
z

V>

V>

I i

,''''' I

BRICK
il

i'

TEST

~
Lo.!

2,225
(500)

<:>

22 . 5

(5)

o
-'

-'

,'''''

44.5
( 10)

I-

~
Lo.!

(9.6")
241.3mrn

"<::

I-

-'

66.75
(15)

(l.5")
190.5mm

<:>

(5.5")
139.7mm

BR.I CK

.......
o

o
O

27.2
(20)

54.4
(40)

81.6
(60)

MOMENT IN m - NEWTONS

FIGURE 5.

108 .8
(80)
X

190.5
(7.5)

136.0
(100)

163.2
( 120)

-'

"

6 .8
(5)

13.6
(10)

20.4
(15)

I,

34.0
(25)

40.8
(30)

47.6
(35)

10 3 , (KIPS)

SHORT COLUMN P-M CURVES BRICK

27.2
(20)

MOMENT IN m - NEWTONS X 10 , (KIPS)

FIGURE 6.

SHORT COLUMN P-M CURVES

EXPANDED-BRICK

FIGURE 7.

FIGURE 8.

0.2 4m (9 1/2") BRICK WALL BRACED AFTER TESTING

88.9mrn
HIGH,

(3 1/2") HOLLOW BRICK WALL, 5.08m (16'-8")

DEFLECTED LATERALLY O.43m (17") UNDER

A 2,682 Pa

(56 PSF)

1217

considerably lower than axial loads that may cause instability of the walls.
Therfore, stability of these walls even under very large lateral deflections was
clearly demonstrated (Figs. 7, 8).
Conclusions of the Slender Wall Program
lt was concluded from the tests that (1) there was no evidence of elastic or
inelastic lateral instability for the load ranges tested; (2) the significance
of the eccentric moment from the applied simulated light framing roof load was
small; (3) the significance of the P-~ moment was most pronounced in the thinner
panels but did not produce lateral instability in the load ranges tested (panel
weight was the largest component of the secondary moments. However, secondary
moments accounted for less than 20% of the total moment at yield of the reinforcement); (4) the interaction P-M (Load-Moment) curves for short columns provided an adequate predicted moment capacity envelope for brick masonry panels
when loaded with relatively low axial loads that are less than balance point on
the P-M curve; (5) although the panels exhibited adequate strength at and beyond
the yield point, the rebound study indicates that a midpoint permanent deflection of 76.2 mm (3 in.) to 127 mm (5 in.) can be expected for panels loaded to
the yield leveI of the reinforcement; (6) the tests demonstrated that there is
no need to impose fixed height-to-thickness limits. However, they did reveal
the need for deflection limits to control potential residual deflection in
panels after service loads experience.
It was

recommended that (1) moment capacity of cracked section at yielding of

reinforcement should be at least greater than the moment capacity of the
uncracked section based on a gross section tensile strength; (2) the adoption of
deflection control as a new feature to be used to assure a wall of reasonable
straightness after a service leveI loading.
(lt should prevent excessive
deflection at service load leveI, and also prevent use of a panel with excessive
flexibility. The committee recommended that midheight deflection be limited to
height divided by 100, that is
~ < h/lOO); (3) A phi (q
factor should be
introduced to reflect effective quality control relating to material and construction practices.
(It is suggested the q> factor be used to account for the
differences in construction with continuous and noncontinuous inspection, for
both concrete and masonry construction); (4) the maximum flexural steel ratio,
P , based on gross area should be limited to the value given in Table 2. This
l~mitation on the amount of steel is to assure that there will be a ductile
yielding condition and never a brittle failure of masonry.
TABLE 2.

BALANCED RElNFORCEMENT PERCENTAGES (1)

Design Values, F

f' or

= 60,000

psi

If'c~

Balanced
Pb

Balanced
Pgbt

Maximum
Design
Pgtt

5-1/2 in. Hollow Brick

2500

1. 78

0.89

0.40

0.45

5-1/2 in. Hollow Brick

5000

3 .56

1. 78

0.40

0.22

1.28

0.64

0.40

0.63

Type

ps~

9-5/8 in . 2-Wythe Brick

1800
.npercentage
'based on d d~stance,
tPercentage based on t
ttp < 0.32%
g
in. = 25.4 mm
plf = 14.59 N/m

~.e.,

1218

= t/2

Maximum
Pb/P gb

3.

ABK UNREINFORCED MASONRY TEST PROGRAM

General
The full-scale tests on URM walls were designed to account as closely as possible, for the nonlinear, dynamic interaction between the walls and diaphragms of
typical URM buildings. This interaction was included in the component tests by
defining the kinematic environment at the top and base of the walls from nonlinear dynamic analyses using analytical models of typical URM buildings that
included the nonlinear, hysteretic characteristics of the diaphragms and the
diaphragm/wall mass system (5).
The kinematic environments were obtained for
buildings with both stiff and soft diaphragms. The kinematic input motions for
a ground leveI wall element consists of a ground motion at the base of the wall
and a compatible diaphragm response at the top of the wall. In addition, the
wall s were tested with various leveIs of overburden mass attached to the top of
the wall to simulate additional wall or parapet mass above the wall section
being tested.
Specimens
The wall specimens tested included 3 Wythe common brick, grouted clay block, in
addition to concrete block walls (6).
The test program included one form of
retrofit that consisted of applying a wire mesh and a plaster covering to both
sides of the wall spe cimens . The URM wall specimens were 1.8 m (6 ft) wide and
3.0 to 4.9 m (10 to 16 ft) high , and had height-to-thickness ratios that ranged
from 14 to 25. Table 3 gives a brief summary description of the brick mas onry
wall specimens.
TABLE 3.

WALL SPEClMEN DESCRIPTION (6)

Wall Number

Overburden
kg (tons)

907
(1)

1,814
(2)

3,628
(4)

907
(1)

1,814
(2)

3,628
(4)

907
(1)

907
(1)

Wall Weight
kg (tons)

6,658
(7.34)

3,084
(3.40)

4,010
(4.42)

Height
m (ft)

4.9
(16.0)

4.9
(16.0)

4.9
(16.0)

Thickness
m (in.)

.35
(13.75)

.19
(7.63)

.25
(9.75)

H/T Ratio

14.0

25.2

19.7

3 Wythe Brick

Clay Block

Clay Block';"

Material
Grouted Solid

Grouted
Solid

Wall 7: Nominal 203 mm x 203 mm x 406 mm (8 in. x 8 in. x 16 1n.) clay block
grouted solid, 25.4 mm (1 in.) plaster each side with 50 . 8 mm x 50.8 mm (2 in. x
2 in. x 14 ga) reinforcing
wall 8; double 50.8 mm x 50.8 mm (2 in. x 2 in. x
14 ga) reinforcing. 1 inch = 25.4 mm; 1 foot = 305 mm; 1 ton = 907 kg.

1219

Test Set-up and Instrumentation

A schematic of the test set-up is shown in Figure 9. The URM wall specimens
were installed in a test fixture that allowed the base and top of the wall tobe
moved independently in the out-of-plane direction by servocontrolled hydraulic
actuators.
The wall rested on a low friction, roller supported base and the
overburden mass was applied through a mechanical header that was attached to the
top of the wall. The wall specimens were instrumented with load cells, accelerometers, and displacement sensors (Fig. 10). Data from each instrument were
recorded on magnetic tape in digital formo
Test Modes and Sequences
Each wall with its prescribed overburden mass (Table 3) was subjected to a
sequence of dynamic input motion sets that consisted of a compatible pair of
kinematic motions, one for the base and one for the top of the wall (6). The
kinematic motions used in the test program are based on actual earthquake ground
motion records that correspond to seven major geographical regions of the United
States. The ground motion records were scaled to an effective peak acceleration
(EPA) of 0.10 g to 0.4 g. For a given wall, the dynamic testing starts with
motion sets of low intensity and proceed to higher intensity leveIs of motion
until the wall collapses.
Construction of Specimens
Mortar was "O" type and job mixed using sacked portland cement, sacked lime, and
washed sand purchased from local sources.
The "O" mortar is 1 part portland
cement, 2 parts lime, and 9 parts sand mixed on the job site to a workable
mortar.
Three-wythe masonry units, walls 1 through 3, were solid with the
interior-wythe floated in place and the collar joints were slushed with mortar.
Two walls ( i.e., wall 7 and 8) identical to walls 4, 5 and 6 were constructed
for application of retrofit methods. Reinforcement of a single or double layer
of fabriction wire mesh 50 mm spacing x 2 mm dia (2 x 2, 14 ga) was applied to
each face and furred with spacers from the face of the masonry. Portland cement
plaster was applied over the mesh to embed the reinforcement in the first plaster coat. The plaster proportions were 2 volume cement to 4 parts sand maximum.
Lime was also added to plaster.
For walls 1 through 3, the wythes were bonded with continuous header courses at
610 mm (24 in.). Header courses were lapped in the center wythe to complete a
tie through the wall.
This practice is 2 consistent 2with existing URM.
The
weight of the wall constructed was 746 Kg/m (153 lb/ft ).
Walls 4, 5, and 6 were 1.8 m wide x 4.9 m high (6 ft x 16 ft) 203.2 mm (8 in.)
nominal hollow clay units laid with head and bed mortar joints equal to the face
shell thickness.
Internal cells of the hollow u'2its were filfed with mortar
type "N." Unit weight of these walls were 346 Kg/m (70.9 Ib/ft ).
Results of ABK Test Program
Test resuIts included measured data from instrumentation, still photographs,
motion pictures, and visual observations.
The dynamic testing of the unreinforced wall specimens provided data for determining the probability of survival
of typical URM walls.

1220

SERVO VALVE
(60 GPH)

ACTUATOR
76 mm x 559
(3" x 22")

mm

HECHANICAL
HEAOER
LOAO CE LL (TYP)
(5,000 LB)
URH WALL

&ACK STOP

SERVO VALVES
(25 GPH)

ACTUATORS (2)
51 mm x 559 mm
(2" x 22")

FIGURE 9.

SCHEMATIC TEST SETUP FOR DYNAMIC TESTING OF WALLS

WOl
WAl
'"
*W01A

W01B

GAGE LOCATION
3.05 m WALL (10 FT)
~ . 88 m WALL (16 FT)

W02~1~
WF:
WO:

LOAO
OI SPLACEHENT

WA:

ACCELERATION

S
0 . 61 m
(2 FT)
0.915 m
(3 FT)

"'-1-+-

WA3
_____

"'~+-'
--1-wM

W05
WA5

W06 ~i~
I!.
WFW7 }
'WOI/7A
WOW7B

NOTE:

FEEOBACK CONTRO L NOT

RECORO EO OIG ITALLY

1 f t - 305 mm

FIGURE 10.

WALL INSTRUMENTATION

1221

1. 778 r - - - , . , . - - - - - , - - - , - - - - - , - - - - - , , - - - - - ,
(lo)

1.52 ~1_---+-_'<_~..>.ct---+_---+---__1f__-~

(60)

o
~

5.0

_--+

1 . 0161_---+--~--+----'~-+_---"".....",.-+----"""'"""":__If__"_'~.",-0
~ (~o)
3.0

-.:
~

2.0

. 762

,; (JO)

f---+----'~c-"'~:__+-----="'+=_--:Jf--1...:...0- - 1
0.5
0.1
0.0

(~gfl----+-----+---+----+-----11-0:-:/"...W---+

(10)

H/T

SQUARE ROOT OF SUM OF PEAK VElOC 1TI ES AT

TOP ANO BOnOM DF WAll SQUAREO
1-- HE1GHT TO TH1CKNESS RATIO OF WAll

O/W

'"' OVERBURDEN WEIGHT TO WAlL WEIGHT RATlO

V. SRSS
.25~f---

I
10

15

--1

I
20

25

lO

l5

H/ T

FIGURE 11.

UNREINFORCED MASONRY WALL STABILITY CRITERIA,

98% PROBABILITY OF SURVIVAL

The response of wall 1 is typical of almost all of the walls tested. Wall 1
(Table 3) cracked above its midheght and one course above base (Figs. 12, 13).
In general, the walls would develop these cracks and would respond as two rockng blocks, cyclng on the cracks.
The walls approached nstablty under
earthquake moton sets wth hgh velocity contento Walls wth smaller overburen
loads such as wall 1 had larger excursons than those wth larger overburden
loads such as walls 2 and 3.
The retroft specmens utilzed a sngle straghtforward method of modifying URM
walls. The retroft system dd not exhbt extended nelastc response due to
the unexpected strength of the bonding portland cement plaster.
However,
observatons of the dynamc performance of URM specmens gve insght into other
smple retroft methods that modfy one or more of the test parameters used.
The effect of retroft on increasing the earthquake resistance of the walls was
clearly demonstrated.
Conclusons of ABK Test Program
The dynamc testng of the unrenforced wall specmens provided data for the
determination of the survval of well anchored URM walls. The tests produced
valuable data for establshng bounds on the resstance of URM walls to collapse
when subj ected to dynamc, out-of-plane motons.
The tests showed that the
resstance of the walls to collapse was more dependent on the peak velocities
nput at the base and top of the walls than on the peak relatve deformatons
nduced between the top and bottom of the walls. Moreover, ncreasng of the
overburden ncreases the collapse resstance of the walls.
The tests also
demonstrated that the retroft procedure substantally enhanced the resistance
of the walls to collapse, and provded some nsght for the design of other
retroft methods.

1222

FIGURE 12.

FIGURE 13.

TEST WALL

CRACKS ABOVE MIDHEIGHT AND DETERIORATION

AT BASE OF WALL
1223

The information obtained in these dynamic tests is believed to be applicable in

alI seismic zones within the United States. Since the geographic United States
spans the total range of seismic intensity the information gained can be utilized outside its boundaries.
3.

CONCLUSIONS OF BOTH STATIC AND DYNAMIC PROGRAMS

Both studies were in general agreement and indicate that brick masonry walls
have sustained loads much higher than those causing initial cracking. Unreinforced brick masonry walls have an inherent stability to dynamic out-of-plane
motions, even though they have . little or no tensile strength. Reinforced brick
masonry walls exhibit rather large ductilities and displacement controls should
be imposed. The two programs established stability criteria for reinforced and
unreinforced masonry walls under static and dynamic loads. It remains to study
the stability of thin reinforced brick walls when subjected to seismic dynamic
loads.
4.

REFERENCES

1.

Simpson, W.M. (Chairman) et aI. (1982) Report of the Task Committee on

Slender Walls, American Concrete Institute - Southern California and Structural Engineers Association Southern California, Los Angeles.

2.

Amrhein, James E. (1981) "Slender Walls Research Program by California

Structural Engineers," The Masonry Society Journal, 1:2.

3.

Adham, Samy A. (1982) "The Slender Wall Test Program Conclusion and Recommendations," Proceedings Structural Engineers Association of California.

4.

Applied Technology Council (1978) Tentative Provisions for the Development

of Seismic Regulations for Buildings, ATC 3-06, PaIo Alto, CA.

5.

ABK, A Joint Venture (ABK) (1981) Methodology for Mitigation of Seismic

Hazards in Existing Unreinforced Masonry Buildings:
Diaphragm Testing,
ABK-TR-03, El Segundo, CA: Agbabian Associates, Dec.

6.

ABK (1981) Methodology for Mitigation of Seismic Hazards in Existing

Unreinforced Masonry Buildings: Wall Testing, Out-of-Plane, ABK-TR-04, El
Segundo, CA: Agbabian Associates, Dec.

1224