Ain Shams Engineering Journal 10 (2019) 435–451

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ain Shams Engineering Journal

journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com

Civil Engineering

Numerical modeling of reinforced masonry walls under lateral loading at

the component level response as opposed to system level response
Ahmed Abdellatif, Marwan Shedid ⇑, Hussien Okail, Amr Abdelrahman
Structural Engineering Department, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Many experimental and analytical investigations were carried out on fully-grouted reinforced masonry
Received 31 May 2017 shear walls types (rectangular, flanged or end-confined) to investigate their behavior under lateral loads.
Revised 14 August 2018 These studies mainly focused on evaluating the seismic response parameters for reinforced masonry
Accepted 18 December 2018
shear walls (RMSW) such as ductility capacity, energy dissipation, stiffness degradation and strength.
Available online 26 February 2019
Yet, most of the research was conducted on studying each wall individually (component level response)
and quite few investigations were carried out considering the system level response when different wall
Keywords:
types are combined in a single building/system. In this paper, a simple numerical macro finite element
Finite element
Nonlinear models
model for walls is verified and used to simulate the in-plane response of a structure composed of ten
Reinforced masonry RMSW having different ductility capacities but designed to have the same ultimate strength. The model
Shear wall was initially verified against available experimental data in the literature, then a parametric study was
Numerical analysis introduced to represent the effect of reinforcement ratio and axial compression on wall behavior prior
to modeling structures composed of several walls. The current investigation intended to introduce
how the structure ductility is affected when walls, having different ductility capacity, are interacting
within one lateral load resisting system in the structure. Three methods were proposed to measure the
yield displacement of the entire system to determine the value of displacement ductility for the structure
and compared it to that of the individual walls within the system. Finally, a set of fragility curves were
represented to illustrate the enhancement of seismic performance of masonry structures through adding
end confined and flanged walls inside the structure. The results of this study showed that the displace-
ment ductility of a structure could be significantly improved when flanged and end-confined boundary
walls are included in the system as opposed to that constructed using only rectangular walls. The effect
of adding end-confined masonry walls in improving structure displacement ductility is found to be more
significant compared to adding flanged ones. Using fragility curves, the effect of end confined and flanged
wall in the enhancement of the structure performance and delaying the damage state appears clearly in
third and fourth damage states but did not have any contribution in enhancement of the first and second
damage states.
Ó 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Faculty of Engineering, Ain Shams University.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-
nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction

Fully grouted reinforced masonry shear walls have been used in

⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: ahmed.yasin@eng.asu.edu.eg (A. Abdellatif), marwan.shedid@
eng.asu.edu.eg (M. Shedid), Hussein.osama@eng.asu.edu.eg (H. Okail), amr@aace-eg.
com (A. Abdelrahman).
Peer review under responsibility of Ain Shams University.
Production and hosting by Elsevier
many countries especially in North America as the main lateral
load resisting systems in low and medium rise buildings because
of their inherently large lateral stiffness and strength. The behavior
of these walls depends on the behavior of several constitutive
materials that have different characteristics such as blocks, mortar,
vertical and horizontal reinforcement and grout which makes the
nonlinear analysis of RMSW challenging. Consequently, there is a
need to develop a numerical model for such walls that is both
accurate and simple to be used in modeling the response of struc-

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2018.12.003
2090-4479/Ó 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Faculty of Engineering, Ain Shams University.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
436 A. Abdellatif et al. / Ain Shams Engineering Journal 10 (2019) 435–451
tures composed of many walls under lateral loading as opposed to
individual wall elements. A simplified numerical model using pri-
marily fiber-based beam column elements capable of capturing
flexure response is used to simulate the behavior of three different
wall types: rectangular, flanged and end confined reinforced
masonry shear walls under cyclic loading. A detailed description
of the model followed by description of the experimental program
used to validate the proposed modeling technique is presented in
this paper. In this regard, the experimental results of cyclic
response, strength, displacement ductility, energy dissipation and
effective stiffness is compared to model results in order to evaluate
the effectiveness of the modeling approach of an individual wall
(component level). Afterwards, a structure (system level) will be
modeled to investigate the seismic performance of a structure
using the verified individual wall modeling technique. It worth
mentioning that a few and recently experimental investigations
were carried out to evaluate the building response. In 2011, Heer-
ema et al. [1] tested a two-story third scale building with RM walls
that have no coupling through the concrete diaphragm. That is
done through reducing the slab thickness between the walls. Also,
Ashour et al. [2] tested the same building configuration that was
tested by Heerema, but the coupling effect was investigated
through keeping the slab thickness constant. Finally, Ezzeldin
et al. [3] tested the same two-story building tested by Ashour
but changed the main walls from rectangular to confined walls
with boundary element. Although many numerical models were
used to simulate response of individual elements, a simple numer-
ical model is needed to simulate the building performance with
accurate representation.
The nonlinear finite element program SeismoStruct v6.5 [4] is
used in this study to conduct static pushover and cyclic analysis
for previously experimentally tested reinforced masonry shear
walls. The program is capable to consider both geometric nonlin-
earity due to P-delta effects and material nonlinearity through
introducing material constitutive rules. The model was validated
against the results of six reinforced concrete block structural walls
having rectangular, flanged and end-confined cross sections, and
subjected to in-plane cyclic lateral loading presented by Shedid
et al. [5]. In this study, the validated simple macro models captured
to a good extent the cyclic load-displacement relationships, energy
dissipation, strength and stiffness degradation, and displacement
ductility. These models were then used in a parametric study to
investigate the effect of axial stress ratio and reinforcement ratio
on yielding drift, ultimate drift and displacement ductility. More-
over, a 3D-structure is modeled and investigated regarding
strength and displacement ductility using a set of walls having dif-
ferent ductility capacity which is difficult to be performed experi-
mentally due to laboratory limitations and costs.
2. Nonlinear analytical modeling
In the proposed modeling technique each wall is represented by
a beam-column element that fully accounts for both geometric
nonlinearity (p-delta effect) and material nonlinearity (plasticity).
Geometric nonlinearity is considered through the employment of
a total co-rotational formulation developed by Correia and Virtu-
oso [6], while material nonlinearity is considered in the model by
using distributed plasticity element. Such element considers
spread of plasticity along wall height and has many advantages
in earthquake engineering compared to simpler lumped-
plasticity models [7]. The latter has the disadvantage of consider-
ing inelastic deformation in local zones (localization) and therefore
Reinforced Concrete (RC) and Reinforced Masonry (RM) walls hav-
ing ductile behavior with plasticity extending over part of the wall
height will not be accurately represented by lumped-plasticity
models. The type of distributed plasticity model implemented in
this study is displacement-based formulation (DB) element. This
type of formulation assumes a displacement field with a linear cur-
vature variation along the wall element and hence the nonlinear
behavior at wall base (Inelastic curvature) will not be captured cor-
rectly and numerical instability may occur. Therefore, subdivision
of wall element at the base into small segments must be conducted
to overcome the assumption of a linear curvature field. A subdivi-
sion of wall into six elements per storey yields a close match with
the experimentally recorded response as will be discussed later.
This subdivision provides a better representation for the plastic
hinge length Lp which is determined based on Eq. (1) as reported
by Bohl and Adebar [8] and previous test results of RMSW [9]. This
equation was based on nonlinear finite element analysis results of
22 isolated walls and found to give the best estimate of the plastic
hinge length for the three walls. The formula is a function of the
wall length (Lw), moment-shear ratio (Z), gross area of wall cross
0
section (Ag), concrete compressive strength (f c ) and axial compres-
sion (P).
!
P
Lp ¼ ð0:2Lw þ 0:05Z Þ 1:0  1:5 0 ð1Þ
f c Ag
The cross-section analysis and the generated behavior are based
on a fiber-section approach. In such approach, the cross section is
divided into small fibers and each fiber is associated with a uniax-
ial stress-strain relationship, the strain or stress distribution over
each section is then obtained through the integration of the nonlin-
ear uniaxial stress-strain response of the individual fibers accord-
ing to number of fibers per section. The constitutive materials
such as reinforcement steel, unconfined and confined masonry
are represented as fibers. The cross section of the three wall types
(Rectangular, Flanged and End-Confined) is discretized into fibers
and as the number of fibers increases the fiber area decreases lead-
ing to a higher accuracy in solution results. The main advantages of
using fiber section method are that both moment-curvature anal-
ysis of members and element hysteretic response are not required
prior to analysis as they are already defined by the material consti-
tutive models. The solution is obtained by assuming a linear strain
distribution across the slender wall cross section (according to
Navier-Bernoulli assumption that plane sections remain plane)
and calculating the stresses in each fiber using the material consti-
tutive models. For the flexural dominated walls considered later in
this study, the assumption was found to yield accurate results up
to the damage level considered (15% strength degradation). This
may not be the case for higher loading levels where severe damage
is expected along the length of the wall in the plastic hinge zone,
however this may not be of interest in seismic analysis related to
specific performance limits such as life safety/collapse prevention
states [10]. The assumed strain distribution is adjusted in an itera-
tive procedure until equating the internal axial force to the applied
axial load. This adjustment is performed by changing the strain
values in the first and last fibers and assuming a linear distribution
of strains relaying on compatibility of strains. After obtaining the
correct strain distribution in each step of the analysis, the curva-
ture (/), the axial force (N) and the moment (M) in the section
can be computed using Eqs. (2)–(4).
es þ em
/¼ ð2Þ
d
X
N¼ ri Ai ð3Þ
X
M¼ ri Ai yi ð4Þ
where: es is the steel strain, em is the masonry strain, d is the dis-
tance from outermost bar to the compression wall end, ri is the
 A. Abdellatif et al. / Ain Shams Engineering Journal 10 (2019) 435–451
fiber axial stress, Ai is the fiber cross section area and yi is the fiber
distance from neutral axis.
It is worth noting that all walls modeled in this study are flex-
ural dominated with large safety against shear failure as stipulated
by major design codes. In such cases, shear effects and deforma-
tions are to be minimal; therefore, ignoring shear effect associated
with fiber-section formulation is not expected to jeopardize the
analytical results and findings [10]. Moreover, the assumption of
linear strain profile for flexural dominated walls shown to be
acceptable based on previous experimental test programs con-
ducted on RMSW with aspect ratios larger than 1.5 [5,11], hence
it is considered valid for modeling.
3. Constitutive material model
In this paper, three previously experimentally tested types of
RMSW (rectangular, flanged and end confined boundary wall) were
modeled. Unconfined masonry models were used for Rectangular
and Flanged wall types due to the lack of confinement of the grout
core as a result of having a single horizontal reinforcement and sin-
gle layer of vertical reinforcement in block cell. On the other hand,
the end confined boundary wall type was represented with two
masonry materials model types, namely confined and unconfined
model. The confined model was used at the end of the wall with
confining parameters due to the presence of end boundary charac-
terized by the presence of closed ties that prevented and delayed
buckling of vertical reinforcement, in addition to providing con-
finement to the grout core. The second masonry material model
presented at middle of the wall without confining condition
(unconfined masonry) similarly to rectangular wall type as shown
in Fig. 1.
Fig. 1. Cross-section details of analyzed walls.
Fig. 2. (a) Stress-Strain relationship for Mander model, (b) Menegotto-Pinto steel model.
437
3.1. Masonry material
Although, Mander et al. model [12] is originally a concrete
model, the stress-strain characteristics of fully grouted masonry
prims are very similar to those of concrete given that proper values
of the elastic modulus, compressive strength and ultimate strain
are used in modeling [13,14]. Mander et al. nonlinear concrete
model was modified and used to represent fully grouted masonry
elements. In this model the effect of transverse reinforcement
and stirrups in increasing ductility of confined core material was
considered due to the effect of confinement which increased the
deformability of ultimate compressive masonry strain. A confine-
ment factor was applied to Mander et al. concrete model to
account for the effect of confinement stirrups and defined as the
ratio between the confined and unconfined compressive stress of
masonry to scale up the stress-strain relationship (about 13%) as
shown in Fig. 2a.
As recommended, the tensile strength of masonry was
neglected and taken equal to zero and this is due to the fact that
crack opening may introduce numerical instability in the analysis
[4]. This assumption is accepted when predicting the global
response of an element such as top displacement (which is the
focus of the paper) rather than accurately representing the local
response of elements and sections such as local strains. The param-
eters used for masonry modeling are listed in Table 1.
3.2. Reinforcement material
The steel reinforcement was modeled using Menegotto-Pinto
[15] steel model that is defined in Siesmostruct [4] materials
model. Menegotto-Pinto model is defined as a uniaxial steel model
438 A. Abdellatif et al. / Ain Shams Engineering Journal 10 (2019) 435–451

Table 1
Parameter used for masonry and steel modeling.

Material Parameter Value

Masonry Model [12] Young’s modulus (Em ) 13,700 MPa
0
Maximum compressive strength (f m ) 16.40 MPa
Strain at maximum compressive strength 0.002
tension strength (rt ) 0
Confinement factor 1 (for Rectangular and Flanged walls)
1.13 (for End-Confined walls)
Steel Reinforcement Model [15] Young’s modulus (Es ) 200.6 GPa
Yield strength (Fy) 495 MPa
Strain hardening parameter 0.01
Transition curve initial shape parameter R0 20
Transition curve shape calibrating coefficient–A1 19.4
Transition curve shape calibrating coefficient–A2 0.15
Isotropic hardening calibrating coefficient–A3 0
Isotropic hardening calibrating coefficient–A4 1
Fracture/buckling strain 0.1

enhanced by the isotropic hardenings rules proposed by Filippou

et al. [16], and the additional memory rule introduced by Fra-
giadakis et al. [17] for higher numerical stability and accuracy
under transient seismic loading. This model is defined by Modulus
of elasticity, yield strength, strain hardening parameter, fracture/
buckling strain and some coefficients representing Bauschinger
effect [18], pinching of hysteretic loops and transition from elastic
to plastic zone. This model considers the effect of reversal cycles
(Bauschinger effect & hysteretic behavior) of tension and compres-
sion and is characterized by the stress-strain hysteretic loops
shown in Fig. 2b. This formulation allows modifying the shape of
the branches at each cycle depending on the plastic excursion of
the previous cycle. All parameters values used for the steel model
are shown in Table 1.

Fig. 3. Model sensitivity to number of subdivisions for wall element.

4. Modeling approach
The displacement based formulation as opposed to force-based
formulation was used as the post peak behavior in the latter will be
underestimated if the number of integration points (NIP) and con-
sequently its weighted length does not match the location of plas-
tic hinge at the base of the wall. On the other hand, only a refined
meshing is required in displacement based formulation to achieve
an accurate response [19]. The choice of element length is an
important aspect when displacement-based elements are used
with distributed plasticity due to strain localization, in which plas-
tic deformation in a vertical cantilever wall tends to be concen-
trated in the first element above the base of the wall, while the
top elements remain elastic. Because of strain localization, the
numerical results are very sensitive to the first element length near
the base, or simply to the plastic hinge length estimation. It is
worth noting that in this situation, with a displacement based for-
mulation a refined division of the structural element is needed for
accurate response.
A sensitivity study was conducted to determine the number of
elements to be used for wall meshing and Fig. 3 shows load dis-
placement relationship for W1 using 3 and 6 element meshing.
Based on the plotted results, it was shown that 3 element meshing
resulted in overestimating strength and ductility of the wall. Based
on several iterations, it was found that 6 element meshing yield
reasonable results and denser meshing would not cause significant
enhancement in load displacement relationships. Therefore, 6 ele-
ment meshing was used for all wall modeled in this study. Also, to
capture the structural response, two types of deformations are
required to be considered [20]; the first is flexural deformation
causing inelastic strains in reinforcing steel and masonry while
the second deformation is member end rotation due to reinforce-
ment slip and strain penetration in the foundation. Experimental
studies done by Kowalsky et al. [21] and Saatcioglu et al. [22]
showed that the top displacement resulting from end rotation pro-
duced by strain penetration may occupy up to 35% of the total lat-
eral deformation of flexural members which may result in
underestimation of wall drift as well as overestimation of wall
stiffness. Yield penetration causes increase in base rotations which
are considered by reducing the bending stiffness of an elastic ele-
ment at the wall base. This elastic element is modeled with small
length of 10 mm as suggested in the verification manual of Seis-
moStruct v6.5 [4] adopted for flexural elements. To account for
strain penetration deformations and bond slip, an elastic element
is modeled at the base of the wall to consider the initial deforma-
tion. The elastic stiffness (EI) of this element is considered, as sta-
ted by (FEMA-356) [23], to be equal to 0.5EI of gross wall section.
This value is considered when the ratio between the applied axial
load (P) to the gross cross-sectional area (Ag) multiplied by
0
masonry compressive strength (f m ) is less than 0.3. Therefore,
the reduced stiffness will account for the additional deformation
(i.e., wall end rotation) due to bar slip.
5. Modeling verification
In this paper, the generated numerical models for the different
types of RMSW specimens were verified with experimentally
tested walls conducted by Shedid et al. [5]. The results of the six
rectangular, flanged and end confined walls (specimens W1–W6)
were compared with the modeling results to validate the numeri-
cal model. A brief overview of the experimental program is pro-
vided herein. The experimented walls were tested under fully
 A. Abdellatif et al. / Ain Shams Engineering Journal 10 (2019) 435–451 439

reversed displacement controlled quasi-static cyclic loading up to 5.1. Cyclic response

50% degradation in strength while being subjected to 160 kN ver-
tical axial load. The selection of the tested walls was based on a cri-
teria to allow verifying the analytical model under various
conditions including amount of vertical reinforcement (1.17–
0.55%), cross section shape (Rectangular, Flanged and End con-
fined) and aspect ratios (1.5 and 2.2). Table 2 summarizes the dif-
ferent design aspects of the walls used for model calibration,
showing wall type, axial load level, reinforcement, dimensions
and the cross-section details of the different wall types, which
are presented in Fig. 1b.
A comparison between analytical and experimental results is
conducted with respect to cyclic response, peak load, displacement
ductility, energy dissipation and effective stiffness. As a measure
for the evaluation, the error in the results will be quantified as in
Eq. (5) being equal to the ratio of the difference between analytical
and experimental result to the experimental value.
 
Analytical mean v alue  Experimental mean
Error ¼
Experimental mean v alue
 100
All walls were loaded with target multiples of yield displace-
ment in reversed cycles until walls lost 50% of their ultimate capac-
ity (Qu) which is considered the failure state in the analytical study
similar to the experimental investigation. Fig. 4 shows that there is
a good agreement between experimental hysteresis loops and the
corresponding loops from the nonlinear cyclic analysis for all wall
types. The model was able to capture the most relevant character-
istics of the cyclic wall response, including initial stiffness, ultimate
resistance, stiffness degradation, strength deterioration and hys-
teretic shape. Fig. 5 shows the comparison between experimental
and analytical values of ultimate strength, yield displacement, dis-
placement at 20% strength degradation and displacement ductility
at 20% strength degradation. The error calculated is found to range
between 3.8% and 12%. It was observed from Fig. 5 that end con-
fined and flanged walls have more ductile capacity compared to
rectangular walls, which is mainly due to the increased thickness
v alue
at wall ends (flanges or end-confined) leads to a significant
decrease for the required length of compression zone, and there-
fore increasing curvature at ultimate load and displacement ductil-
ð5Þ ity. Moreover, thickened wall ends will provide out of plane

Table 2
Data used for model verification (Shedid et al. [2]).

Specimen Wall dimensions Vertical reinforcement Horizontal reinforcement Axial stress (MPa)
Number of bars and bar size qv (%) No. D4 @ spacing (mm) qh (%)
W1 1802 mm  3990 mm Length  Height 19 M10 1.17 1 @95 0.30 1.09
W2 11 M10 0.55 1 @95 0.30 0.89
W3 11 M10 0.55 1 @95 0.30 0.89
W4 1802 mm  2660 mm Length  Height 19 M10 1.17 2 @95 0.60 1.05
W5 11 M10 0.55 2 @95 0.60 0.88
W6 11 M10 0.55 2 @ 95 0.60 0.88

Fig. 4. Experimental and Numerical cyclic results for Reinforced Masonry Walls.
440 A. Abdellatif et al. / Ain Shams Engineering Journal 10 (2019) 435–451
Fig. 5. Experimental and Numerical response for Reinforced Masonry Walls, (a) Ultimate strength, (b) Yield displacement, (c) Displacement at 20% strength degradation, (d)
Displacement ductility at 20% strength degradation.
stability and the closed ties at end boundary will prevent vertical
reinforcement buckling and thus provide confinement for com-
pression zone.
5.2. Energy dissipation
Energy dissipation through hysteretic damping Ed, is an impor-
tant aspect in seismic design because it reduces the amplitude of
the seismic response. Previous work [24] showed that the envelope
of the load-displacement hysteresis loops is relatively insensitive
to the imposed displacement increments and to the number of
cycles. Therefore, the energy dissipation Ed, is represented, as sug-
gested by Hose and Seible [25] by the area enclosed within the
load-displacement curve passing through the peak values of each
loading cycle. Fig. 6 illustrates that the energy dissipation was
low for the loading stages prior to significant inelastic deformation
in the masonry and reinforcement took place. For higher displace-
ment levels, the energy dissipation increased significantly com-
pared to early stages of loading for both experimental and
analytical results. The maximum difference between experimental
and numerical results for each wall was 14%, 6%, 15%, 11%, 9.5% and
15% for walls 1–6 respectively and the average difference for all the
six walls was equal to 11.75%.
5.3. Effective stiffness
To assess the variation of stiffness with increased displacement,
the effective stiffness was calculated according to ASCE/SEI 7-10
(ASCE/SEI 2010) [26] as shown in Eq. (6).
jF þ j þ jF  j
K eff ¼
jDþ j þ jD j
where F+ and F are positive and negative lateral resistance of shear
wall at D+ and D respectively, and D+ and D are the maximum
push and pull displacement for each cycle. Fig. 7 shows that the
numerical model well predicts the effective stiffness which is deter-
mined experimentally with an average difference of 9.5%, 5.3%, 5.4%,
10.4%, 9.9% and 12.7% for walls W1 to W6 respectively. It is
observed from Fig. 7 that the rate of change by which the effective
stiffness decreases is higher at the early stage of loading until yield-
ing compared to the post-yield stage due to the progression of
cracks and reduction of gross inertia in the early stages.
It can be concluded from this study that the proposed models
can to a great extent capture the cyclic response, the ultimate
strength, displacement ductility, energy dissipation, strength
degradation and stiffness of the experimentally tested walls
throughout the entire loading history. Therefore, the numerical
model can be used to conduct extensive parametric study to illus-
trate the effect of reinforcement ratio and axial compressive stress
on the behavior of different wall cross section types and aspect
ratios.
6. Parametric study
A parametric study was performed to investigate the effect of
vertical reinforcement ratio (qv ), axial compressive stresses and
aspect ratio variation on the ultimate strength, displacement at
reinforcement yielding and at 20% strength degradation and finally
displacement ductility for different wall sections (rectangular,
flanged and end-confined). Two phases of analysis are considered,
the first phase is intended for studying the effect of vertical rein-
forcement ratio variation from 0.4% to 1.3% for rectangular, flanged
and end confined wall sections while taking into consideration
aspect ratio difference of 2.2 and 1.5 and keeping the axial com-
pression constant and equal to 160 kN (similar to experimental
ð6Þ walls). While, the second phase is intended for the studying the
effect of axial compressive stress variation from 0.8 MPa to
0 0
3.0 MPa (from 5% f m to 18% f m ) on the three wall types and also
with different aspect ratios of 2.2 and 1.5 for walls with vertical
 A. Abdellatif et al. / Ain Shams Engineering Journal 10 (2019) 435–451 441

Fig. 6. Experimental and Numerical Energy Dissipation Results.

Fig. 7. Experimental and Numerical Effective Stiffness Results.

reinforcement ratio held constant at 0.8%. All wall heights, lengths,
block dimensions, reinforcement pattern and distribution are
taken the same as the six previously verified walls shown in
Fig. 1b. It should be noted that increasing reinforcement ratio is
done through increasing bar diameter to maintain same reinforce-
ment pattern. Finally, the effect of these parameters on lateral wall
resistance, lateral displacement and displacement ductility are
investigated and discussed. For all reinforced concrete masonry
shear walls analyzed in this study, the material properties were
taken as shown in Table 1.
442 A. Abdellatif et al. / Ain Shams Engineering Journal 10 (2019) 435–451
6.1. Effect of vertical reinforcement
The effect of significant variation in vertical reinforcement
ratios (0.4–1.3%) on wall strength, lateral displacement and dis-
placement ductility is discussed in this section. The axial compres-
sive load applied on walls and the horizontal reinforcement ratio
are held constant at about 5% fm and at qh = 0.30%, respectively.
0
Whereas, the vertical reinforcement ratio (qv ) for all wall section
types ranged from 0.4% to 1.3% for aspect ratios of 2.2 and 1.5.
6.1.1. Ultimate strength
As shown in Fig. 8, for flexural dominated walls, the wall ulti-
mate strength tends to be very sensitive to the amount of vertical
reinforcement. For rectangular walls the increase in reinforcement
ratio by 225% (from 0.4% to 1.3%) increases wall strength by 108%
for both aspect ratios while for flanged walls and end confined
walls a similar increase in reinforcement ratio lead to increase in
wall strength by 120% on average for both aspect ratios. It was also
observed that end-confined and flanged walls slightly gain more
strength compared to their rectangular counterparts and this is
mainly due to the effect of bar configuration which allows concen-
tration of reinforcement at wall ends where maximum stresses are
located. It is also shown from Fig. 8 that walls having end-confined
boundary element have higher strength capacity compared to
flanged and rectangular walls when the same vertical reinforce-
ment ratio is used for the three wall section types. Similarly,
flanged walls possess higher section capacity compared to rectan-
gular wall section. Normalization for the relationship between ulti-
mate strength (Q) and drift for the three wall types is illustrated in
Fig. 8 where ultimate strength of each wall is divided by the ulti-
mate strength (Qq = 0.4%) of walls with minimum considered rein-
forcement ratio qv ¼ 0:4% to represent an expression for strength
variation with reinforcement ratio variation. It is clear that both
aspect ratio (2.2 and 1.5) curves coincide as flexure strength is a
section level property.
6.1.2. Drift at yield
The top drift at first yield is affected by increasing the amount of
vertical reinforcement as shown in Fig. 9a where lateral displace-
ment at first yield (Dy) increases with increasing of the amount
of vertical reinforcement. For rectangular walls the increase in
reinforcement ratio by 225% increases wall yield drift by 26% for
both aspect ratios while for flanged walls and end confined walls
a similar increase in reinforcement ratio lead to increase in wall
Fig. 8. Effect of vertical reinforcement on ultimate capacity.
yield drift by 22% for both aspect ratios. This increase is mainly
due to increasing the yielding curvature as a result of increases
of reinforcement ratio and consequently the displacement at yield-
ing increases (for the same load level the curvature decreases with
the increase of reinforcement ratio). The effect of aspect ratio also
is presented in Fig. 9a where yield drift increases with the increase
of aspect ratio and consequently walls having aspect ratio 2.2 will
have higher yield drift values compared to walls having aspect
ratio of 1.5. This is mainly due to yield displacement strongly
depending on wall height as from Eq. (7).
Øy H 2
Dy ¼ ð7Þ
3
where H is the wall height and Øy is the yield curvature.
6.1.3. Drift at 20% strength degradation
The effect of vertical reinforcement ratio on top wall drift at 20%
strength degradation is presented in Fig. 9b where drift decreases
with the increase of amount of vertical reinforcement. For rectan-
gular walls, top drift at 20% strength degradation decreases by 27%
on average for both aspect ratios corresponding to the increase in
reinforcement ratio by 225% (from 0.4% to 1.3%) while for flanged
walls and end confined walls similar increase in reinforcement
ratio lead to decreases in wall drift by only 14% on average for both
aspect ratios. The reason for such decrease in displacement capac-
ity with the increase of reinforcement ratio is that as reinforcement
increases the depth of the neutral axis increased and so ultimate
curvature will decrease and hence decreasing the ultimate dis-
placement and drift for flexural dominated walls. The reason that
rectangular walls are more affected by the decrease of drift at ulti-
mate stage (27%) compared to flanged and end confined (14%) is
due to the higher influence of reinforcement ratio on neutral axis
depth and consequently compression zone as a result of smaller
thickness of cross section. On the other hand, the presence of
flange or end boundary decreases the rate by which neutral axis
moves leading to lesser decrease of ultimate curvature. Also, it
can be observed that with the increase of aspect ratio from 1.5 to
2.2 the lateral drift at 20% strength degradation increases.
6.1.4. Displacement ductility at 20% strength degradation
Fig. 9c shows the effect of vertical reinforcement ratio on dis-
placement ductility at 20% strength degradation. Displacement
ductility at 20% strength degradation is affected by the increase
of amount of vertical reinforcement. For rectangular walls the
 A. Abdellatif et al. / Ain Shams Engineering Journal 10 (2019) 435–451
Fig. 9. Effect of vertical reinforcement on (a) %drift at first yield (%Dy), (b) %drift at 20% strength degradation (%D0.8u), (c) displacement ductility (m0.8).
increase of vertical reinforcement from 0.4% to 1.3% leads to a
decrease in the displacement ductility at 20% strength degradation
decreases by 41% on average (43% for aspect ratio 1.50 and 39% for
aspect ratio 2.2), while for flanged and end-confined walls a similar
increase of vertical reinforcement results in decrease in displace-
ment ductility by 28% on average (30% for aspect ratio 1.50 and
26% for aspect ratio 2.2). The decrease of overall displacement duc-
tility is mainly due to the increase yield drift and the decrease of
drift at 20% strength degradation with the increase of reinforce-
ment ratio as discussed earlier. The aspect ratio also affects dis-
placement ductility, as shown in Fig. 9c where walls with smaller
aspect ratio have higher displacement ductility compared to walls
with higher aspect ratio and this is mainly due to smaller yield drift
values for low aspect ratio walls (aspect ratio 1.5) while walls hav-
ing higher aspect ratio (2.2) exhibit yielding at higher drifts.
Although higher aspect ratio walls (2.2) have higher lateral drift
at 20% strength degradation compared to lower aspect ratio walls
(1.50) yet the variation in yield drift significantly affects the dis-
placement ductility (refer to Fig. 9a and b). It is also observed that
for the same vertical reinforcement ratio, the end-confined wall
443
sections have higher displacement ductility in comparison with
flanged and rectangular wall section for both aspect ratios. Simi-
larly flanged walls has higher displacement ductility capacity com-
pared to rectangular wall section as shown in Fig. 9c for qv = 0.8%.
6.2. Effect of axial compression
The effect of variation in applied axial compression on wall ele-
0
ment (5–18% of f m ) is discussed in this section with respect to wall
strength, lateral displacement and displacement ductility. The ver-
tical reinforcement ratio and the horizontal reinforcement ratio in
this section are held constant and equal to 0.8% and 0.30%, respec-
tively for the three wall section types. While the axial compressive
stress and aspect ratio are variables. The axial loads acting on walls
are 160 kN, 195 kN, 320 kN, 400 kN and 485 kN corresponding to
0
6%, 7.3%, 12%, 15%, 18.3% f m respectively for rectangular section
0
and 5%, 6%, 10%, 12.2%, 15% f m respectively for flanged and end
confined section.
444 A. Abdellatif et al. / Ain Shams Engineering Journal 10 (2019) 435–451
6.2.1. Ultimate strength
Fig. 10 shows the effect of axial compressive stress on ultimate
strength of walls. As shown in the figure, the ultimate strength is
less sensitive to the applied compressive stresses compared to
the effect of vertical reinforcement ratio variation. The increase
in axial load by 200% (from 160 kN to 485 kN) increases the ulti-
mate strength on average by 20%, 19.2% and 16.6% for rectangular
wall section, flanged and end-confined walls respectively. It is
obvious from Fig. 10 that walls having end-confined boundary ele-
ment have higher strength capacity when the same axial stress
level is applied for the three wall section types, similarly flanged
walls have higher section capacity compared to rectangular wall
section. Normalization for the curves of the three wall types is
illustrated where ultimate strength (Q) of each wall with a differ-
ent axial compression load is divided by that subjected to the min-
imum applied axial load of 160 kN (Qp min). The rate by which the
strength increases with the increase of axial load is the same for
both aspect ratios (2.2 and 1.5) as both curves coincide on each
other.
6.2.2. Drift at yield
The lateral drift at first yield slightly changed with increasing
the axial load for the different wall section types (rectangular,
flanged and end-confined) and for both aspect ratios of 1.5 and
2.2 as shown in Fig. 11a. The increase in axial load by 200%
increases the yield drift on average by 6% for rectangular wall sec-
tion while a similar increase in axial load increases the yield drift
on average by 7% for flanged and end-confined walls. The effect
of aspect ratio also is presented in Fig. 11a where yield drift
increase with the increase of aspect ratio and this is due to high
dependency of yield displacement on wall height as shown in Eq.
(7). Also, the trend of variation of yield drift for both aspect ratios
is similar for the tested axial load range.
6.2.3. Drift at 20% strength degradation
A shown in Fig. 11b, the lateral drift at 20% strength degradation
decreases significantly with the increase of applied axial compres-
sive stress. the increase in axial load by 200% decreases on average
wall drift at 20% strength degradation by 62%, 63% and 52% respec-
tively for both aspect ratios for rectangular walls, flanged walls and
end confined walls. The reason for the decrease in drift and dis-
placement at 20% strength degradation (displacement capacity)
with the increase of axial stress is due to the increase of compres-
sion zone length and shifting of neutral axis towards tension side
Fig. 10. Effect of axial compressive stress on ultimate capacity.
which decreases the ultimate curvature and consequently ultimate
displacement and drift.
6.2.4. Displacement ductility at 20% strength degradation
Fig. 11c shows the effect of axial compression on displacement
ductility at 20% strength degradation. Displacement ductility at
20% strength degradation is significantly affected by the increase
of compressive stresses. For a 200% increase in axial load the dis-
placement ductility at 20% strength degradation decreases on aver-
age by 60%, 63% and 53% for rectangular walls, flanged and end-
confined walls, respectively.
7. System level ductility capacity
In this part of the study an analytical investigation is carried out
for a system composed of ten reinforced masonry shear walls to
compare the component level response (Individual wall) to that
of the system level with respect to ductility capacity. The investi-
gation is intended to understand how system ductility varies with
the variation of individual wall ductility especially, when com-
posed of rectangular, flanged and end-confined walls having differ-
ent ductility capacities. It is clear from the previous experimental
and analytical investigations reported and discussed in previous
sections that end-confined and flanged walls have more ductility
capacity compared to rectangular wall section.
It is worth noting that the purpose of the analysis presented in
the following section is not to simulate real building construction
as the study is only concerned with translation displacement while
ignoring rotation at the system level. The purpose of the study is to
test the interaction of walls with different ductility capabilities at
the post-peak loading stage as opposed to single wall element.
Therefore, extreme cases are considered to test the entire spectrum
of wall combination.
The three wall types used in this study to construct the struc-
tures are the same walls verified in the previous section (W1,
W2 and W3) having the same length and height of 1800 mm and
3990 mm respectively. The vertical reinforcement ratio and axial
stress level for the walls are shown in Table 2. Each wall of the
ten walls forming the structure is subjected to an axial compres-
sion load of 160 kN.
It is worth noting that the strength of the three wall types used
in the structure was designed to be approximately the same so that
the ductility capacity of each wall is the only influencing factor in
 A. Abdellatif et al. / Ain Shams Engineering Journal 10 (2019) 435–451 445

Fig. 11. Effect of axial compression on (a) %drift at first yield (%Dy), (b) %drift at 20% strength degradation (%D0.8u), (c) displacement ductility (m0.8).

the outcome global displacement ductility of the entire structure.
The arrangement of the ten walls forming the structure is shown
in Fig. 12 where walls are spaced by 6 m and placed in a symmet-
rical manner. The structures are loaded by a displacement incre-
mental load acting at their center of rigidity to which the top
node of all walls is constrained as this study is only concerned with
translational deformation. It shall be noted that the aim of the
paper is not to simulate real construction, however, the main pur-
pose is to document the post-peak response of a group of walls
having different ductility and displacement capabilities at the sys-
tem level. Therefore, extreme cases are considered to test the
entire spectrum of wall combination.

Fig. 12. Reinforced masonry walls arrangement: model configuration and individual wall type analytical load-displacement curve.
446 A. Abdellatif et al. / Ain Shams Engineering Journal 10 (2019) 435–451
The analysis conducted in this study is nonlinear static push-
over analysis to study the effect of combining a ductile element
(flanged or end-confined wall) with a less ductile one (rectangular
wall) on the overall displacement ductility of the structures. Proto-
type structures are modeled to represent all the available combina-
tions between individual wall types. The analytical pushover
curves for the three individual wall types which illustrate the dis-
placement ductility capacity of different wall types are shown in
Fig. 12. It was observed a sudden drop in strength in Fig. 12 for
the end-confined wall at the ultimate displacement and this is
mainly due to outermost reinforcement bars reaches fracture
strain. This agrees with experimental test result reported by Shedid
et al. [5] during the repeated loading cycle at 101.2 mm where two
vertical reinforcement bars fractured at both ends of the end con-
fined wall. Regarding structures matrix data, three control struc-
ture prototype are considered and composed of ten identical
walls and ten structures with different combinations between wall
types, as presented in Table 3, are modeled to investigate their
effect on overall system displacement ductility.
7.1. Displacement ductility calculation
In this study, the displacement ductility (mD0.8u), defined as the
ratio of the displacement associated with of 20% strength degrada-
tion to the effective yield displacement, will be used as a measure
for structure performance under lateral load. The value of the dis-
placement corresponding to 20% drop in peak strength is easily
determined from the load-displacement curve of the global struc-
ture system generated from the nonlinear pushover analysis. How-
ever, the value of the displacement corresponding to yielding of
the entire structure is not well defined from the load-
displacement curve especially when the structure is composed of
walls with different ductility capacities. Consequently, three
approximate methods are proposed to determine the yielding dis-
placement for the structure as illustrated below:
i. Weighted Average Method
In this method the yielding displacement of the structure is
determined based on the yielding of its constitutive walls occur-
ring at different displacements depending on the wall type. Thus,
structure yielding displacement can be calculated by the following
proposed Eq. (8).
N A  DyðAÞ þ N B  DyðBÞ
Dytotal ¼
NA þ NB
Where:
Table 3
Different walls combination in structures.
Structure ID Type Wall Wall Combination
Control 1 Rectangular (R) 10R
Control2 Flanged (F) 10F
Control3 End-Confined (C) 10C
1 R&C 8R + 2C
2 6R + 4C
3 4R + 6C
4 R&F 8R + 2F
5 6R + 4F
6 4R + 6F
7 F&C 2C + 8F
8 4C + 6F
9 6C + 4F
10 8C + 2F
Dytotal = Yield displacement of structure;
DyðAÞ = Yield displacement of individual wall A;
DyðBÞ = Yield displacement of individual wall B;
N A = Total number of wall type A;
N B = Total number of wall type B.
ii. Tangent Stiffness Method
In this method, the yielding displacement of the structure is
considered by calculating the tangent stiffness incrementally from
the load-displacement curve of the structure. The increment show-
ing a significant drop in stiffness value is then considered the yield-
ing increment and the corresponding displacement value will be
taken as the yield displacement of the whole structure. A constant
displacement increment of 0.2 mm is used to calculate the tangent
stiffness and resulted in an acceptable measure for the rate of
change of load with respect to imposed displacement and hence
a good capture for stiffness variation along loading stroke. Fig. 13
illustrates the method of calculation where tangent stiffness and
lateral resistance are presented with imposed lateral displacement.
As shown in the figure structure 1 was used as a demonstrative
example where a significant variation of stiffness corresponding
to a displacement of 9.6 mm which is considered yielding displace-
ment of the structure.
iii. Design load (Qd) Method
In this method the yielding load Qy for the structure will be
taken equal to the design load Qd following ASCE/SEI 7-10 (ASCE/
SEI 2010) [26] which defines the overstrength factor X as the ratio
between the ultimate load Qu and designed load Qd and taking this
ratio equal to 0.6. This assumption is also consistent with the def-
inition proposed by Uang [27] indicating that Qd corresponds to
the load level at which a significant deviation from the system lin-
ear elastic response starts to develop, therefore the yielding load Qy
of the system will be assumed to be equal to 0.6Qu in this method.
7.2. Results
The load-displacement curves for the ten prototype structures
are shown in Fig. 14. It is observed from the curves that the effect
of adding a more ductile element enhances the overall structure
displacement ductility. The detailed values of yield displacement
Dy, displacement at ultimate load Du, displacement at 20% strength
degradation D0.8u and displacement ductility at 20% strength
ð8Þ
degradation l0.8u and their corresponding lateral resistance Q
and secant stiffness for the whole structure are illustrated in
Table 4. The secant stiffness is given as a percentage of the initial
stiffness to show the variation of the lateral stiffness with
increased top wall displacement. From the previous table it is clear
that the first and second method for calculating an approximate
value for structure yield displacements are almost similar and
more conservative than the third method thus, the first and second
method are selected by the authors to determine structure dis-
placement ductility in this study. Regarding structure displace-
ments, the yield displacement did not vary significantly for all
structures and ranged from 8.8 mm to 9.8 mm with an average
yield drift of 0.235%. A significant variation was observed for dis-
placement at ultimate load Du and ranged between 0.615% and
0.86% drift at ultimate load for structure 1 to structure 3 respec-
tively (Group I), while a minor variation ranging from 0.595% to
0.675% drift at ultimate load for structure 4 to structure 6 respec-
tively (Group II) was observed and finally a significant variation of
1.08–1.89% drift at ultimate load was observed for structure 7 to
structure 10 respectively (Group III). This illustrates the major
 A. Abdellatif et al. / Ain Shams Engineering Journal 10 (2019) 435–451 447

Fig. 13. Tangent Stiffness Method demonstration, (a) Load–displacement curve and stiffness variation, (b) Structure 1 Load and Stiffness variation with lateral displacement.

Fig. 14. Buildings Load-Displacement Curves.

effect of the presence of end confined wall in a structure (Group I
and III) in increasing the drift at ultimate load. On the other the
effect of flanged wall participation was smaller (Group II) com-
pared to end confined wall. A significant variation For displace-
ment at 20% strength degradation D0.8u was observed and ranged
between 1.37% and 1.78% drift for structure 1 to structure 3 respec-
tively (Group I), while a variation of 1.22–1.47% drift for structure 4
to structure 6 respectively (Group II) was observed and finally a
significant variation of 1.82–2.27% drift was observed for structure
7 to structure 10 respectively (Group III). These results showed
that increasing the participation of end confined or flanged walls
in a structure consisting of rectangular walls (Control 1) did not
affect the structure displacement at first yield; however, it signifi-
cantly increased the attained displacements and drift level prior to
any significant loss in lateral resistance of structure. It shall be
noted that the NBCC (2005) [28] specifies 1% drift as a drift limit
for post-disaster structures, which are required to operate in full
capacity after a seismic event with an insignificant strength degra-
dation, while a 2.5% drift is permitted for structures of normal
importance. For ASCE/SEI 7-10 (ASCE/SEI 2010) [26] it specifies a
maximum of 1% drift for cantilever shear wall.
Regarding structures ultimate capacity, all structures approxi-
mately have the same ultimate strength Qu as shown in Table 4
and did not vary significantly as the individual walls were designed
to approximately have the same ultimate capacity. For structure
secant stiffness, it was observed from Table 4 that all structures
have a similar stiffness until the onset of yielding, as the yielding
stiffness varies between 40.2% and 36.1% of initial stiffness from
structure 1–10 respectively. However, a significant degradation
in stiffness was observed at the post peak loading level especially
at 20% strength degradation. This observation is clear for structure
1, 2 and 3 (Group I) and structure 7, 8, 9 and 10 (Group III) and as
448 A. Abdellatif et al. / Ain Shams Engineering Journal 10 (2019) 435–451

Table 4
Structure response.

Global Structure Response

Top displacements Displacement Secant stiffness (kN/mm) Ultimate
(mm) ductility Strength (kN)
GROUP I Building 1 (8R + 2C) Dy Du D0.8u mD0.8u Initial (Kg) At yield (Ky) At Qu (Ku) At 20% Qu (K0.8u) Qu
(%Kg) (%Kg) (%Kg)
*
9.8 24.6 55 5.6 333 134 76.5 28.5 1882
9.6** 5.7 (40.2%) (23.0%) (8.6%)
8.0*** 6.8
Building 2 (6R + 4C) 9.6* 26.4 65.6 6.8 350 137 70.3 24.3 1855
9.6** 6.8 (39.1%) (20.1%) (6.9%)
7.6*** 8.6
Building 3 (4R + 6C) 9.4* 34.4 71.2 7.5 367 140 53 20.5 1820
9.6** 7.4 (38.1%) (14.4%) (5.6%)
7.2*** 9.8
GROUP II Building 4 (8R + 2F) 9.8* 23.8 49 5 334 134 78.8 31.3 1876
9.6** 5.1 (40.1%) (23.6%) (9.4%)
7.9*** 6.2
Building 5 (6R + 4F) 9.6* 24.6 52 5.4 352 138 75.2 29.2 1850
9.2** 5.6 (39.2%) (21.4%) (8.3%)
7.6*** 6.8
Building 6 (4R + 6F) 9.4* 27 59 6.3 369 140 67.1 25.3 1811
9.0** 6.5 (37.9%) (18.2%) (6.9%)
7.1*** 8.3
GROUP III Building7 (2C + 8F) 9* 43.4 73 8.1 400 144 39.1 18.5 1696
8.8** 8.3 (36.0%) (9.8%) (4.6%)
8.8*** 8.3
Building8 (4C + 6F) 9* 56 75 8.3 399.5 144 30.4 18.1 1700
8.8** 8.5 (36.0%) (7.6%) (4.5%)
8.8*** 8.5
Building 9 (6C + 4F) 9* 64.8 83 9.2 399.5 144 26.5 16.5 1716
8.8** 9.4 (36.0%) (6.6%) (4.1%)
8.8*** 9.4
Building 10 (8C + 2F) 9* 75.6 91 10.1 399 144 23 15.3 1737
8.9** 10.2 (36.1%) (5.8%) (3.8%)
8.8*** 10.3
Control 1 (10R) 10 23 46.5 4.65 314 129.5 82.1 33.3 1891
(41.2%) (26.1%) (10.6%)
Control 2 (10F) 9 42 69 7.6 401 142.8 40.2 22.1 1685
(35.6%) (10.0%) (5.5%)
Control 3 (10C) 9 85 96.5 10.7 397 143.5 20.6 17.2 1750
(36.1%) (5.1%) (4.3%)
*
Yield displacement calculated based on weighted average method.
**
Yield displacement calculated based on Tangent stiffness method.
***
Yield displacement calculated based on yielding load at 0.6 Qu.

the participation of end confined increases inside the structure, the
stiffness in post peak loading (At maximum load (Ku) and at 20%
strength degradation (K0.8u)) decreases significantly.
It was observed through structures 1, 2 and 3 (Group I) where
20%, 40% and 60% of rectangular walls were replaced by more duc-
tile end-confined walls that the displacement ductility of the struc-
ture increased by 18%, 46% and 62% respectively compared to a
structure that consists only of rectangular walls (control 1). These
results clarify the effect of end confined walls in enhancement the
ductility of structure composed of rectangular walls. While for
structures 4, 5 and 6 (Group II) replacing 20%, 40% and 60% of rect-
angular walls by more ductile flanged walls lead to increase in the
displacement ductility of the structures by 9%, 18% and 37% respec-
tively compared to a structure consisting only of rectangular walls
(control1). These results clarify the effect of flanged walls in
enhancement the ductility of structure composed of rectangular
walls but not the same influence as the case of more ductile end
confined walls in Group I. For structures 7, 8, 9 and 10 (Group
III) replacing 20%, 40%, 60% and 80% of flanged walls by more duc-
tile end-confined walls lead to increase in the displacement ductil-
ity of the structure by 17%, 20%, 33% and 46% respectively
compared to a structure consisting only of flanged walls (control2).
These results clarify the effect of end confined walls in enhance-
ment the ductility of the structure composed of flanged walls.
To measure the level of enhancement of structure ductility, a
Structure Performance Enhancement Ratio (SPER) is considered
and is defined as the ratio between the displacement ductility of
a structure with components having different displacement ductil-
ity levels (i.e. Rectangular and End-Confined wall system) to that of
a structure composed of the less ductile elements (i.e. Rectangular
wall). Fig. 15a shows the SPER with respect to the participation
percentage of End-confined and Flanged walls. As shown in
Fig. 15b the effect of relying on end-confined masonry walls in
improving structure displacement ductility is much more signifi-
cant compared to that of flanged walls. This is due to the end-
confined masonry wall having much more ductility capacity com-
pared to flanged walls, as for example the SPER values are 1.55 and
1.25 for 50% participation percentage of end-confined and flanged
walls respectively.
It was also observed that the response of component wall inside
a system level is different compared to the same wall response
when tested individually with respect to ductility capacity. This
 A. Abdellatif et al. / Ain Shams Engineering Journal 10 (2019) 435–451
Fig. 15. Structure enhancement variation, (a) Displacement ductility of buildings, (b) SPER using end confined and flanged walls.
behavior is clear when the system level is composed of different
wall types that have different ductility levels. If the system is com-
posed of the same wall type (one type of wall) then no difference
will be observed between the component wall inside the structure
and the individual wall with respect to ductility (the load–dis-
placement curve will be scaled up according to the number of walls
used in the structure). It was observed that the individual wall sys-
tem i.e. Flanged or end-confined affects and improves the displace-
ment ductility of rectangular wall when both are used in same
structure (Group I and II) and this is due to delaying of displace-
ment corresponding to 20% strength degradation D0.8u for the rect-
angular wall and thus increase the ductility capacity of individual
rectangular walls within the system due to redistribution of loads.
Also, the yield displacement Dy is not significantly affected in all
groups for individual walls.
7.3. Fragility assessment
Performance-based seismic assessment is a formal process for
design of new structures, or seismic upgrade of existing structures,
which includes a specific intent to achieve defined performance
objectives in future earthquakes. Performance objectives relate to
expectations regarding the amount of damage a building may
experience in response to earthquake shaking, and the conse-
quences of that damage. Performance is measured in terms of
the probability of incurring casualties, repair and replacement
costs, repair time, and unsafe placarding. The methodology and
procedures are applicable to new or existing buildings.
The concept of Performance-based seismic design was implic-
itly incorporated in most of the modern seismic codes through
limit states. However, such design mainly was attributed to fulfill-
ment of only one performance level aimed to preserve the life
safety. In response to the problems attributed to consideration of
one performance level, as stated above, several performance levels
were considered in Performance-based seismic design. Perfor-
mance levels were classified to four categories (FEMA 356) [23]:
1. Fully operational: Facilities continue in operation with negligi-
ble damage.
2. Immediate occupancy: Facility continues in operation with
minor damage.
3. Life safe: Life safety is substantially protected, damage is mod-
erate to extensive.
4. Collapse prevention: Life safety at risk, damage is severe.
449
One method of evaluating seismic performance of buildings in
earthquakes is by using Fragility curves. These diagrams show
the probability of exceeding a specific state of damage versus
demand parameter. In this section the concept of seismic fragility
was used to evaluate the seismic performance of the ten structures
previously described to reveal the effect of presence of ductile wall
elements (flanged or end confined) on the probability of exceeding
a well-known damage state by using the structure drift as the engi-
neering demand parameter. A previous fragility study was carried
out [29] to illustrate the enhancement of seismic performance of
end confined and flanged walls as individual walls compared to
rectangular wall; however the fragility study at the structure level
is introduced in this section.
Quantification of the anticipated damage patterns and behav-
ior of traditional reinforced masonry structural shear walls is
divided into four categories according to a predefined method
of repair by FEMA 306 (ATC 1998) [30]: Insignificant, Slight,
Moderate and Extreme. These damage states have been identi-
fied to coincide with a certain level of remediation (i.e. epoxy
injection of cracks) and may be integrated into the formulation
of fragility functions as described by the ATC-58-1 (ATC 2011)
[31] document. Fragility functions provide a conditional proba-
bility that a particular damage sate will occur in a component
for a given demand value. The peak top drift (D) of each struc-
ture is selected as the demand parameter, and the occurrence of
each damage state is assumed to be sequential in nature (i.e.
Damage state 2 occurs after Damage State 1). The top drift asso-
ciated with the first occurrence of each damage state has been
determined for each structure using the pushover curve. The
ATC-58-1 (ATC 2011) [31] recommends the use of a cumulative
probability function based on a log-normal probability distribu-
tion for the generation of fragility functions. The lognormal prob-
ability distribution function is shown in Eq. (9) and requires
determination of the median drift for each damage state (hi) as
well as the logarithmic standard deviation (dispersion) (bi) as
determined by Eqs. (10) and (11) respectively. The fragility func-
tion is represented by a smoothed curve fit to the observed
occurrence of each damage state in each structure.
 
ln hD
F ðDÞ ¼ Uð
i
Þ ð9Þ
bi
PM
1 ðln Di ÞÞ
hi ¼ eðM i¼1 ð10Þ
450 A. Abdellatif et al. / Ain Shams Engineering Journal 10 (2019) 435–451
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
u M  
u 1 X Di 2
bi ¼ t ln
M  1 i¼1 hi
Where:
Di = Top drift;
hi = Mean drift of a damage state;
bi = logarithmic Standard deviation (Dispersion);
M = Total number of walls;
F = Log- normal probability distribution;
U = Standard normal (Gaussian) cumulative distribution.
As shown in Fig. 16 the three structure group I, II and III are hav-
ing the same vulnerability to the first and second damage states
which are considered for initiation of flexure cracks and onset of
reinforcement yielding. Consequently, the presence of end con-
fined or flanged walls in these structures did not affect the occur-
rence of first and second damage states. However, for the third and
fourth damage states which are considered for crushing of
masonry toe or buckling or fracture of reinforcement, it was
observed that the presence of end confined walls in structure
group I and III delay the occurrence of both state of damage com-
pared to when flanged walls were used. As Shown in Fig. 16 the
80% probability of occurrence of third damage state was at drift
ratio of 0.67%, 0.82% and 1.8% drift for Group II, I and III respec-
tively. While, the 80% probability of occurrence of fourth damage
state was at drift ratio of 1.4%, 1.8% and 2.2% drift for Group II, I
and III respectively. Consequently, the combination between
flanged and end confined walls (group III) represent the best alter-
native to delay the third and fourth damage state (life safety per-
formance level and collapse prevention) with significant drift
level with the preceding structure group II and I, thus resulting
in lesser amount of damage at the same drift level.
Fig. 16. Fragility curves for building group 1, 2 and 3.
8. Conclusions
ð11Þ
The aim of this paper was to introduce a reliable and simple
numerical model that could be used to simulate the flexural
behavior of reinforced fully grouted masonry shear walls, to be
used in representing the system level behavior and the overall
response of a structure with respect to displacement ductility.
This study investigated the behavior of structures composed of
different types of walls with different ductility capacities and
the factors that influenced the structure overall ductility. Three
methods for representing the structure’s yield displacement were
also proposed and used in calculating the system displacement
ductility. A parametric study was introduced to represent the
effect of reinforcement ratio and axial compression on wall
behavior. Finally, a set of fragility curves were presented to illus-
trate the enhancement of the seismic performance (life safety
and collapse prevention (performance levels) of masonry struc-
tures through adding end confined and flanged walls inside the
structure. Based on the results of this study the following con-
clusions may be drawn:
 Yield drift increases by 25% on average with the increase of ver-
tical reinforcement by 225% while it was almost constant corre-
sponding to an increase in axial load by 200%.
 Displacement ductility decreases with the increase of axial
compression and vertical reinforcement by 57% and 30%,
respectively on average for three wall types corresponding to
increases of axial load and vertical reinforcement ratios of
200% and 225% respectively.
 Strength increases with the increase of axial compression and
vertical reinforcement by 18% and 110%, respectively on aver-
age for three wall types corresponding to increases of axial
load and vertical reinforcement ratios of 200% and 225%
respectively.
 A. Abdellatif et al. / Ain Shams Engineering Journal 10 (2019) 435–451
 Effect of reinforcement increase on the reduction of the dis-
placement ductility is more significant in rectangular walls
compared to flanged and end confined walls.
 The displacement ductility of the structures investigated in this
study increased by 18%, 46% and 62% when the end confined
wall participation increased by 20%, 40% and 60% respectively
with rectangular wall combinations, which reflects the effect
of end confined wall in enhancement of the structure ductility.
 The displacement ductility of the structures increased by 9%,
18% and 37% when the flanged wall participation increased by
20%, 40% and 60% respectively with rectangular wall combina-
tion, which reflects the effect of flanged wall in enhancement
of the structure ductility.
 The effect of end-confined masonry walls in improving struc-
ture displacement ductility is more significant than the flanged
one and this is due to that the end-confined masonry wall has
much more ductility capacity compared to flanged walls.
 Using fragility curves, the effect of end confined and flanged
wall in enhancement of the structure performance and delaying
the damage state appears clearly in the third and fourth damage
states. However, they did not have any contribution in enhance-
ment of the first and second damage states.
References
[1] Heerema P, Ashour A, Shedid M, El-Dakhakhni W. System-level displacement
and performance-based seismic design parameter quantifications for an
asymmetrical reinforced concrete masonry building. J Struct Eng
2015:04015032. doi: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001258.
[2] Ashour A, El-Dakhakhni W. Influence of floor diaphragm wall coupling on the
system-level seismic performance of an asymmetrical reinforced concrete
block building. J Struct Eng 2016:04016071. doi: https://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001540.
[3] Ezzeldin M, El-Dakhakhni W, Wiebe L. Experimental assessment of the system-
level seismic performance of an asymmetrical reinforced concrete block-wall
building with boundary elements. J Struct Eng 2017. doi: https://doi.org/
10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001790, 04017063.
[4] Seismosoft. SeismoStruct v6.5 – A computer program for static and dynamic
nonlinear analysis of framed structures. available from <http://
www.seismosoft.com>; 2013.
[5] Shedid M, El-Dakhakhni W, Drysdale R. Alternative strategies to enhance the
seismic performance of reinforced concrete-block shear wall systems. J Struct
Eng 2010;136(6):676–89.
[6] Correia AA, Virtuoso FBE. Nonlinear analysis of space frames. In: Soares Mota,
et al., editors. Proceedings of the third european conference on computational
mechanics: solids, structures and coupled problems in engineering; 2006.
Lisbon, Portugal.
[7] Soleimani D, Popov EP, Bertero VV. Nonlinear beam model for R/C frame
analysis. In: 7th ASCE conference on electronic computation, St. Louis; 1979.
[8] Bohl A, Adebar P. Plastic hinge lengths in high-rise concrete shear walls. Am
Concr Inst Struct J 2011;108(2):148–57.
[9] Shedid M, El-Dakhakhni W, Drysdale R. Seismic Response modification factors
for reinforced masonry structural walls. J Perform Construc Facil J Struct Eng
2011;25(2):74–86.
[10] National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) Seismic Design
Technical Brief No. 6. Seismic design of cast-in-place concrete special
451
structural walls and coupling beams, National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST).
[11] Banting B, El-Dakhakhni W. Force- and displacement-based seismic
performance parameters for reinforced masonry structural walls with
boundary elements. J Struct Eng 2012. doi: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
ST.1943-541X.0000572, 1477-1491.
[12] Mander JB, Priestley MJN, Park R. Theoretical stress-strain model for confined
concrete. J Struct Eng 1988;114(8):1804–26.
[13] Shedid MT, El-Dakhakhni WW, Drysdale RG. Characteristics of confined and
unconfined masonry for seismic performance enhancement of structural
walls. Masonry Int 2010;23(2):69–78.
[14] Drysdale RG, Hamid AA. Masonry structures: behaviour and
design. Mississauga, ON: Canada Masonry Design Centre; 2005.
[15] Menegotto M, Pinto PE. Method of anaysis for cyclically loaded reinforced
concrete plane frames including changes in geometry and non-elastic behavior
of elements under combined normal force and bending. Proc IABSE Symp of
resistance and ultimate deformability of structures acted on by well-defined
repeated loads, vol. 13. Libson, Portugal: International Association of Bridge
and Structural Engineering; 1973. p. 15–22.
[16] Filippou FC, Popov EP, Bertero VV. Effects of bond deterioration on hysteretic
behaviour of reinforced concrete joints. Berkeley: Earthquake Engineering
Research Center, University of California; 1983. Report EERC 83–19.
[17] Fragiadakis M, Pinho R, Antoniou S. Modelling inelastic buckling of reinforcing
bars under earthquake loading. In: Papadrakakis M, Charmpis DC, Lagaros ND,
Tsompanakis Y, editors. Progress in computational dynamics and earthquake
engineering. The Netherlands: A.A. Balkema Publishers – Taylor & Francis;
2008.
[18] Stanton JF, McNiven HD. The development of a mathematical model to predict
the flexural response of reinforced concrete beams to cyclic loads, using
system identification. Berkeley, Calif.: Earthquake Engrg. Res. Ctr., University
of California; 1979. EERC Rep. No. 79-02.
[19] Calabrese A, Almeida JP, Pinho R. Numerical issues in distributed inelasticity
modeling of RC frame elements for seismic analysis. J Earthquake Eng 2010;14
(S1):38–68.
[20] Zhao J, Sritharan S. Modeling of strain penetration effects in fiber-based
analysis of reinforced concrete structures. ACI Struct J 2007;104(2):133–41.
[21] Kowalsky MJ, Priestley MJN, Seible F. Shear and flexure behavior of lightweight
concrete bridge columns in seismic regions. ACI Struct J 1999;96(1):136–48.
[22] Saatcioglu M, Alsiwat J, Ozcebe G. Hysteretic behavior of anchorage slip in R/C
members. J Struct Eng 1992;118(9):2439–58.
[23] Federal Emergency Management Agency. FEMA 356: prestandard and
commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Washington, DC:
FEMA 356, Federal Emergency Management Agency; 2000.
[24] Sinha B, Gerstle K, Tulin L. Stress strain behavior for concrete under cyclic
loading. Am Concr Inst Struct J 1964;61(2):195–211.
[25] Hose Y, Seible F. Performance evaluation database for concrete bridge
components and systems under simulated seismic loads PEER
report. Berkley (USA): Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center,
College of Engineering, University of California; 1999.
[26] ASCE. Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. ASCE 7,
Reston, VA; 2010.
[27] Uang C. Establishing R (or Rw) and Cd factors for building seismic provisions. J
Struct Eng 1991;117(1):19–28.
[28] NBCC. National building code of Canada. Ottawa, Canada: National Research
Council of Canada; 2005.
[29] Abdellatif A, Okail H, Shedid M, Abdelrahman A. Modelling of reinforced
masonry structural walls under lateral loads. In: 12th North American
Masonry conference, TMS, Denver, Colorado, May 2015; 2015.
[30] Applied Technology Council (ATC). Evaluation of earthquake damaged
concrete and masonry wall buildings. Washington D.C., USA: FEMA 306; 1998.
[31] Applied Technology Council (ATC). Guidelines for seismic performance
assessment of buildings (75% Draft): Volume 1 – Methodology, ATC 58-1,
Redwood City, CA; 2011.