Received: 23 November 2017 Revised: 18 May 2018 Accepted: 27 July 2018

DOI: 10.1002/suco.201700261

TECHNICAL PAPER

Performance of hollow concrete block masonry walls retrofitted

with steel-fiber and microsilica admixed plaster
Madyan A. Al-Shugaa1 | Muhammad K. Rahman2 | Mohammed H. Baluch1 |
Ali H. Al-Gadhib1 | Ahmed A. Sadoon1 | Mohammed A. Al-Osta1

1
Civil and Environmental Engineering
Department, King Fahd University of Petroleum & The weakness of existing unreinforced masonry (URM) wall buildings in resisting
Minerals, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia lateral loads is a matter of concern, especially in locations exposed to seismic haz-
2
Center for Engineering Research, Research ards. In order to address this shortcoming, considerable research effort has been
Institute, King Fahd University of Petroleum &
dedicated in the last few years on the strengthening techniques of existing URM
Minerals, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia
structures. This paper presents the test results of four hollow concrete block walls,
Correspondence
Muhammad Rahman, Center for Engineering one as control, one using high steel-fiber reinforced mortar admixed with microsi-
Research, Research Institute, King Fahd lica (SFR-MS) mortar in joints and the other two walls plastered with 10 mm thick
University of Petroleum & Minerals, KFUPM Box SFR-MS mortar on one and both sides of the wall, respectively. The shear capacity,
151, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia.
Email: mkrahman@kfupm.edu.sa
stiffness, cracking patterns and failure modes of the walls were investigated. In
Funding information
addition, a nonlinear finite element simulation of the walls in an ABAQUS envi-
Deanship of Scientific Research, King Fahd ronment is presented and results compared with those obtained from the experi-
University of Petroleum & Minerals, Dhahran, mental investigations conducted. Modified analytical equations for predicting the
Saudi Arabia, Grant/Award Number: RG1403-1/2
shear capacity of masonry walls with plaster is proposed and results compared with
the experimental and finite element simulation results of the investigated walls.

KEYWORDS

cyclic load test, finite element, hollow concrete blocks, masonry prism,
microsilica, plaster, plastic damage model, steel-fiber, unreinforced masonry
walls

1 | INTRODUCTION
New concrete and steel buildings are constructed these days,
employing moment resisting frames with infill masonry
walls, for resisting lateral seismic and wind loads. However,
residential and commercial buildings utilizing ordinary
masonry wall construction are common in regions like India,
Middle East, Eastern Europe and some parts of Asia.1 The
ease of installation, low cost, low maintenance, availability
of multiple block types and inexpensive labor, makes the
usage of masonry residential buildings popular in the devel-
oping countries.2 The masonry walls can safely resist the
gravity loads due to its high compressive load capacity, but
these walls are weak in resisting lateral earthquake and wind
Discussion on this paper must be submitted within two months of the print
publication. The discussion will then be published in print, along with the
authors' closure, if any, approximately nine months after the print publication.
loads. Strong earthquakes, such as the 2002 Molise and the
2009 L'Aquila earthquake in Italy, and the 2011 Erciş-Van
earthquake in Turkey, caused severe damage to unreinforced
masonry wall buildings. Several studies on strengthening
techniques have been conducted over the years, to enhance
the lateral load resistance of unreinforced masonry walls,
and to reduce the damage potential, that may result from an
earthquake.
Strengthening of existing masonry walls using surface
treatments is an economical proposition. The application of
a surface treatment using cement mortar as a binder and
external reinforcement such as steel wire mesh or glass/car-
bon fiber reinforced polymers has been studied by several
authors.3–6 Retrofitting masonry walls using shotcreting
technique3 on one and both sides of the test walls enhanced
the lateral load capacity, ductility and energy dissipation.
Papanicolaou et al.7 studied the application of textile-

236 © 2018 fib. International Federation for Structural Concrete wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/suco Structural Concrete. 2019;20:236–251.
AL-SHUGAA ET AL.
TABLE 1 Mix proportions of SFR-MS mortar for 1 m3
SFR-MS ingredients
Water/binder ratio (w/b) (by mass)
Cement (kg)
Microsilica 15% by wt. of cement (kg)
Water (kg)
Superplasticizer 3% by wt. of cementitious materials (kg)
Fiber 2% of wt. of the mix (kg)
Sand (kg)
Density kg/m3
Note. SFR-MS = steel-fiber reinforced mortar admixed with microsilica.
reinforced mortar (TRM) as a replacement of fiber-
reinforced polymers (FRP) in retrofitting masonry walls.
They found that the enhancement of TRM retrofitting is bet-
ter than FRP and it can be an effective solution for strength-
ening and seismic retrofitting of unreinforced masonry
walls. Vasconcelos et al.4 used textile-reinforced mortar to
enhance the out-of-plane behavior of masonry infill walls.
Carbon fiber mesh embedded within the dual mortar layers
achieved similar enhancements in lateral load capacity as
externally applied CFRP sheets or plates.5 Mosallam and
Banerjee6 have addressed strengthening schemes of unrein-
forced masonry (URM) walls using carbon fiber sheets and
strips and analytical prediction of the in-plane shear strength
of these retrofitted walls. The shear behavior of tuff unrein-
forced masonry walls with and without openings, and
strengthened by inorganic matrix-grids (IMG) was investi-
gated by Parisi et al.8 and Augenti et al.9 Based on the exper-
imental results, they illustrated the effectiveness of IMG
retrofitting system in improving the strength as well as duc-
tility of URM walls. Load–displacement behavior, initial
stiffness, displacement ductility rate, and energy dissipation
of masonry infill walls retrofitted by plaster reinforced with
steel bars under various conditions has been recently
reported by Kaya et al.10
Steel-fiber reinforced concrete (SFRC) structural ele-
ments have been investigated extensively over the past three
decades. Some of the recent studies include the effect of
fiber geometry and volume fraction on flexural response.11
Effect of dosage, aspect ratio, tensile strength and orientation
of fibers on flexural postcracking behavior has been investi-
gated by Tiberti et al.12 Residual strength of SFRC beam
subjected to cyclic loading,13 macrocrack propagation, and
reinforcement type under sustained loading on beams14 and
flexural residual strength of SFRC beams with multiple
hooked end fiber15 shows the potential of steel fibers in con-
crete. The shear response of SFRC beams16 and its use in
shear wall17 has been investigated. Steel fiber reinforced
polymer concrete is also an important composite for
strengthening of structural elements.18 Addition of fibers to
non-reinforced concrete results in a remarkable enhancement
in the postcracking behavior, failure strain and toughness
due to crack bridging ability of the fibers. It also improves
237
the crack control, compressive strength, flexural strength,
Content shear strength, elastic modulus, fatigue life, and impact resis-
0.35 tance of the concrete structural elements.
500 The idea of using steel fiber reinforced mortar as a sur-
75 face treatment for retrofitting of unreinforced masonry walls
201.25 has been addressed in a few studies. The use of steel fiber
17.25 facilitates the application of the mortar layer, utilizing the
50 common trowel, because it holds the mortar together, as well
1,479 as, it improves the ductility behavior.19 Basaran et al.20
2,323 tested 24 prisms (400 × 400 × 100 mm) plastered using
fiber reinforced mortar (2, 3% polypropylene and 5% steel
fiber) on both sides. The stiffness and load bearing capacity
increased significantly, with steel fiber increasing the ductil-
ity of the masonry prism specimen better than polypropylene
fibers. Hollow brick infill reinforced concrete (RC) frames,
subjected to reverse cyclic loads with walls strengthened
using 20 mm thick plaster reinforced with 2% (by volume)
of hooked steel fibers, resulted in doubling of lateral load
capacity of the specimen compared to the infill wall with
normal plaster.21 An interesting research was conducted by
Facconi et al.22 on the use of steel fiber reinforced mortar as
a retrofitting material for masonry walls. Four walls, which
includes, a reference non-reinforced wall, two walls
strengthened using 25 mm thick plaster layer with steel
fibers and different types of steel dowel connections to
improve the bond, and the fourth specimen was the tested
reference specimen, repaired with a 25 mm thick plaster
layer. The results showed a 30% improvement in the shear
capacity of the plastered wall with a 60% enhancement in
the stiffness of the wall.
This work focuses on using steel fiber reinforced mortar/
plaster admixed with microsilica (SFR-MS) as a retrofitting
material to improve lateral load resistance of unreinforced
masonry (URM) walls, constructed using the extensively
used hollow core concrete blocks. It is well known, that the
use of microsilica in concrete and the cement paste provides
high strength, workability, and durability.23–26 The SFR-MS
mortar could be used for improving the seismic response of
existing URM walls, as well as, for the repair of such walls
damaged after a seismic event. The reinforced mortar can be
applied on one side only, which would keep the affected
building operational, during the repair and retrofitting.
The failure of masonry walls under lateral loading occurs
in one of the following modes or their combination, depend-
ing on the level of lateral and axial loads, aspect ratio of the
TABLE 2 Mechanical properties of SFR-MS mortar
Mechanical properties Value
Cylindrical compressive strength (MPa) 60
Compressive strength (50 mm cubes) (MPa) 70
Tensile strength (MPa) 5
Elastic modulus (GPa) 28
Flow (mm) 220
Note. SFR-MS = steel-fiber reinforced mortar admixed with microsilica.
238 AL-SHUGAA ET AL.

TABLE 3 Description of the wall specimen for reverse cyclic load tests

Specimen name Type of blocks Type of mortar in joints Type of plastering No. of wall specimens Axial pre-compression (%)f
a e
CW Normal concrete blocks Type M mortar None 1 45
WJb Normal concrete blocks SFR-MS None 1 45
WR1Sc Normal concrete blocks Type M mortar SFR-MS 1 45
WR2Sd Normal concrete blocks Type M mortar SFR-MS 1 35

Note. SFR-MS = steel-fiber reinforced mortar admixed with microsilica.

a
Masonry wall control.
b
Masonry wall with SFR-MS mortar in the joints.
c
Masonry wall retrofitted on one side with SFR-MS plaster.
d
Masonry wall retrofitted on two sides with SFR-MS plaster.
e
Mortar prepared as per ASTM C270.
f
Percentage of axial load capacity.

walls, materials properties of the components, and the
boundary conditions.27,28
1. Rocking failure: This failure occurs due to tensile hori-
zontal cracking at the bottom of the walls under increas-
ing lateral force or displacement and low levels of axial
load. The rigid body rotation of walls results in crushing
failure at the toe of the wall.
2. Diagonal tension cracking: This failure results from a
diagonal tension crack originating from the upper left
corner at the point of lateral load application to the toe
of the wall. It traverses through both the masonry units
and the joints.
3. Staggered joint failure: This type of failure is character-
ized by the development of cracking and separation of
masonry units at the head and the bed joints in a stepped
pattern and has been observed in many masonry build-
ings affected by an earthquake.
4. Sliding failure: This is a friction failure of the bed joint
along a single mortar bed joint.
5. Compression failure: Under very high axial load, the
masonry units fail by crushing, with vertical cracks
through the masonry and joints.
The interaction between lateral and axial loading has
been the subject of investigation recently, including both
experimental investigations and numerical simulation. Some
attempts have also been made to relate the applied axial
force to lateral force using an analytical approach as frame-
work of analysis.29–31
This paper presents the results of an experimental pro-
gram conducted to evaluate the performance of four unrein-
forced, hollow core concrete block walls, retrofitted using
SFR mortar, subjected to in-plane cyclic load test. Experimen-
tal results of tests conducted on masonry block prisms under
compression, triplet tests, and compressive strength of blocks

FIGURE 1 Wall specimens and its curing after being plastered

AL-SHUGAA ET AL.
FIGURE 2 Test setup of the wall (a) schematic of the testing frame with the specimen (b) sensors attached to the wall
and SFR-MS mortar are also presented. Finite element simula-
tion of the walls and prisms, incorporating the material proper-
ties of components and a cohesive contact model between the
plaster and masonry units, captured the experimental results
with good accuracy. A modified analytical equation for pre-
dicting the lateral load capacity of plastered walls is proposed.
2 | EX PER IM ENT AL PROGRA M
The experimental program comprised (a) mechanical charac-
terization of the hollow core concrete blocks, Type M
masonry mortar and SFR-MS mortar, (b) compressive load
tests on four hollow core concrete block prisms, (c) triplet
test, and (d) lateral reverse cyclic load test on four URM
walls up to failure. The walls and prisms tested in the experi-
mental program includes, one control specimen, specimen
fabricated using SFR-MS mortar in the joint, and the other
two specimen retrofitted using 10 mm thick SFR-MS mortar
as plaster on one and two sides, respectively.
239
2.1 | Material properties
2.1.1 | Masonry components
The walls were constructed using full length hollow core
concrete blocks of dimensions 400 × 200 × 100 mm and
half blocks of 195 mm length. The masonry block units are
connected at the head and bed joints with Type M mortar.
Hollow concrete blocks masonry units (ASTM C140-11a)
and cylinders (75 × 150 mm) for Type M mortar (ASTM C
39) were experimentally found to have a compressive
strength of 14.0 and 24.0 MPa, respectively. Flexural tests
on hollow concrete blocks and Type M mortar beams
(75 × 75 × 150 mm), gave modulus of rupture of 1.8 and
2.4 MPa, respectively.
2.1.2 | Steel fiber reinforced mortar with microsilica
The URM walls tested in the experimental program were ret-
rofitted using steel fiber reinforced mortar admixed with
microsilica (SFR-MS mortar), both for plastering the wall
and as a head-bed joint mortar. More than 20 trials were car-
ried out to arrive at a strong, durable and economical mix for
240
FIGURE 3 Loading cycles for the lateral load tests on walls
the SFR-MS mortar. Table 1 shows the ingredients of the
final mix that was utilized in the walls and the prisms. The
SFR-MS mortar was prepared, first by dry mixing of the
mortar cement, fine sand and microsilica at a low speed for
about 3 min. Superplasticizer was added to the water and
kept for 30 min before adding it slowly to the dry mix in a
period of 4–6 min, resulting in the formation a flowable
paste. Finally, the steel fibers were added to the mix, at a
very slow rate, to ensure uniform dispersion of steel fiber in
the mix. The total mixing time for making SFR-MS mortar
was approximately 15–20 min in the mixer.
Steel fibers was used in the SFR-MS mortar in order to
improve the ductility behavior,1,6 while low water/binder
FIGURE 4 Failure patterns in the prisms; (a) CW prism (b) WJ prism (c) WR1S prism and (d) WR2S prism
AL-SHUGAA ET AL.
ratio and silica fume were used to increase the compressive
strength of the mortar.25,26 The mechanical properties of
SFR-MS mortar obtained from the tests conducted in labora-
tory are summarized in Table 2.
2.1.3 | Compression test of hollow Core concrete block
prisms
Four prism specimens (400 × 410 × 100 mm) were pre-
pared using the hollow core concrete blocks, representing
each type of wall specimen. The prisms were prepared in
accordance with ASTM C 1314 and EN1052-1:1999, where,
it is stated that there should be at least two layers of masonry
bricks and one head-bed joint. The prisms were tested to
failure under uniaxial concentric compression load. The
compressive failure load of prisms was used to determine
the level of axial precompression load to be applied on the
walls for in-plane reverse cyclic load tests. Vertical and hori-
zontal LVDT's, strain gauges and load cells were attached to
the specimen to measure deformations and loads in the prism
specimens.
2.2 | Preparation of wall samples for reverse cyclic
load tests
Due to the limitations of actuators capacity available at
KFUPM laboratory, and very high strength of the SFR-MS
mortar, the horizontal and vertical dimensions of the tested
masonry wall panels were limited. Four concrete masonry
walls were constructed having dimensions of 830 mm height
(h) × 810 mm length (l) × 100 mm width (t). Since the shear
AL-SHUGAA ET AL. 241

failure is the most dominant type of failure, and takes place

frequently, the aspect ratio (h/l) was selected to be approxi-
mately 1.0 in order to get shear dominant behavior under the
combined axial and lateral loadings.6 The walls were con-
structed using hollow core concrete blocks with a 10 mm
thick layer of Type M mortar in the head and bed joint. The
mortar was prepared according to ASTM C270, with cement
to sand ratio of 1:3, and a water/cement ratio of 0.6.
Table 3 summarizes the details of the four wall speci-
mens, tested under in-plane reverse cyclic loading in the
experimental program. The first wall specimen (CW), serv-
ing as a control specimen, was prepared using Type M mor-
tar in the head and bed joints without any plaster on the
sides. The second specimen (WJ) has a SFR-MS mortar in
the head-bed joints instead of Type M mortar used in the
control specimen and the other two test walls. The third and
fourth samples (WR1S and WR2S) were prepared with Type
M mortar in the head-bed joints. The specimen WR1S was
plastered on one side with a 10 mm thick SFR-MS mortar,
whereas, the specimen WR2S was plastered on both sides
by SFR-MS mortar having a thickness of 10 mm.
After laying the blocks, the walls were fixed in the U-
steel channel with high strength mortar (EMACO S88 CT)
in the testing frame and capped with a layer of 30 mm thick
high-strength mortar in order to distribute the axial and hori-
zontal load uniformly. The specimens were then cured for
28 days using burlap blankets (Figure 1).

2.3 | Instrumentation and test setup

The test set-up used for reverse cyclic load tests on the walls FIGURE 5 Axial load–displacement curve from compression tests on
is shown schematically in Figure 2a. Each wall was loaded prism (a) CW and WJ prisms (b) CW, WR1S and WR2S prisms

vertically and horizontally through a reinforced concrete

load capacity obtained from the prism test. The limitation of
beam 300 mm wide and 400 mm high. This beam was
the steel frame capacity precluded the application of higher
placed on the wall to transfer the vertical and horizontal
axial stress level. The axial compressive load was applied to
loads to walls through the hydraulic jacks. The in-plane and
the walls through the vertical hydraulic jack and was kept
out of plane movements were restricted via a set of in-plane
constant during the application of the horizontal loads. The
and out of plane supports. Two load cells were attached to
reverse cyclic lateral load was subsequently applied through
each hydraulic jack to measure the applied loads. Three
the horizontal hydraulic jack using a displacement control
LVDTs (Linear Variable Displacement Transducer) were
system. The displacement-regime adopted for the reverse
fixed to the wall to control and measure horizontal and verti-
cyclic loading is shown in Figure 3.
cal displacements in the wall. In order to measure the strains,
six strain gauges were glued to the wall at various locations.
Two strain gauges (SG1 and SG2) were connected diago- 3 | E XP E R IM E NT AL R E S U L T S A N D
nally at the middle of the wall to record the shear deforma- OB S E R VA T I O NS
tion. Four strain gauges (SG3–SG6) were attached at the top
corners of the wall. All load cells, LVDTs and strain gauges
3.1 | Compressive strength test on masonry prisms
were connected to a data logger for collecting the data.
Figure 2b shows schematically the sensors attached to Four prisms, each corresponding to one of the four wall
the wall. specimens tested under in-plane cyclic loading, were tested
An axial compressive stress of 45% of the wall compres- to failure under uniaxial compressive load. The specimen
sive strength capacity, which was obtained from the tests tested included (a) control prism (CW prism), (b) prism with
conducted on wall prisms was applied to the three test walls SFR-MS mortar in the head-bed joint (WJ prism),
CW, WJ WR1S. One wall specimen WR2S, was subjected (c) prism with SFR-MS plaster on one side (WR1S prism)
to a reduced axial compressive stress of 35% of compressive and (d) prism with SFR-MS plaster on both sides (WR2S
242
FIGURE 6 In-plane cyclic test failure patterns; (a) WC wall (front view) (b) WJ wall (front view) (c) WR1S wall (d) WR2S wall (rear view) (e) hollow-
block dimensions
prism). Failure in all four types of prisms was initiated by
the development of a splitting vertical crack through the
web, at the middle of hollow concrete blocks, as shown in
Figure 4. The web-cracking in the hollow core concrete
blocks prisms occurred at an axial load of 260, 270,
308, and 308 kN in the CW prism, WJ prism, WR1S
prism and WR2S prism, respectively. The CW prism failed
by a complete failure of the specimen in compression,
immediately after the occurrence of the web-crack. How-
ever, the other three prisms WJ, WR1S and WR2S,
AL-SHUGAA ET AL.
continued to resist axial loading after the development of
the web-crack. The ultimate failure loads were 295, 395,
and 510 kN for WJ prism, WR1S prism, and WR2S prism,
respectively. In addition, the prisms with SFR-MS plaster,
exhibited more ductility and stiffness compared with con-
trol prism, as shown in axial load–displacement curve in
Figure 5. Incorporation of the SFR-MS mortar in the head
and bed joint of the masonry prism enhances the ultimate
load capacity by 13.5% with a higher initial stiffness. The
prism WR1S has an initial stiffness similar to the control
AL-SHUGAA ET AL. 243

FIGURE 7 Lateral load–displacement hysteresis curve (a) CW wall (b) WJ wall (c) WR1S wall and (d) WR2S wall

prism, whereas the prism WR2S has a significantly higher
stiffness. The ultimate load capacity of specimen WR1S
plastered on one side increased by 52% and the specimen
W2RS plastered on both sides increased by 96% compared
to the control prism CW.
3.2 | In-plane reverse cyclic load tests on wall
specimens
3.2.1 | Control specimen (CW)
The control wall specimen (CW) was tested under reverse
cyclic loading to assess its behavior under combined axial
and lateral loading and to use it as a reference to compare
with the performance of the retrofitted specimens. A steep
diagonal crack was noted during the third push cycle, initiat-
ing from the bottom compressed corner and propagating
upward through the concrete blocks at an angle of 15
to the
vertical. This crack occurred at a lateral load of 82 kN with a
corresponding lateral displacement of 1.63 mm (Crack 1, Fig-
ure 6a). For the same cycle in the pull direction, another crack
symmetric to Crack 1 was observed at a lateral load of 75 kN
and a lateral displacement of 1.9 mm (Crack 2, Figure 6a). It
was noticed that diagonal cracks occurred through the concrete
blocks that passed through the bed joints, and de-bonding

TABLE 4 Comparison of the experimental result of the tested walls

Stiffness (0–1 mm) Axial pre-compression Exp. lateral capacity Lateral displacement (push)
Wall's name kN/mm (%a) kN (%)b kN (%a) mm (%a) Mode of failure
CW control 60.6 (0.0) 230 (45) 82.0 (0.0) 1.62 (0.0) Shear dominant diagonal cracking
WJ 62.2 (2.6) 260 (45) 96.0 (17.1) 1.84 (13.6) Shear dominant diagonal cracking
WR1S 71.7 (17.3) 350 (45) 110.0 (34.1) 2.5 (54.3) Diagonal cracks
WR2S 76.2 (25.7) 360 (35) 178.0 (117.1) 3.9 (140.7) Tensile failure
a
Increase %: the percentage increase to the control specimen value.
b
Percentage of axial capacity.
244 AL-SHUGAA ET AL.

occurred in the head joint of the top layer. Lateral load and dis-
placement is almost linear as shown in Figure 7a. The control
specimen showed a brittle behavior and failed immediately
after reaching its full capacity (82 kN Push/75 kN Pull) with-
out showing any signs of non-linear behavior.

3.2.2 | Specimen with steel fiber reinforced mortar in the

joints (WJ)
The wall (WJ) tested under reverse cyclic load, showed a
significant increase in the shear capacity of the wall, as
compared to the control specimen CW, when only high
strength SFR-MS mortar was used in the head and bed
joints. The first crack in the WJ wall was delayed in con-
trast to the wall CW and occurred at a lateral force of
96 kN with an angle of 20
and a lateral displacement of
2.1 mm, during the fourth cycle in the push direction
(Crack 1, Figure 6b). This was followed by two cracks,
which took place at a lateral force of 90 kN and a lateral
displacement of 3.18 mm, during the fourth cycle in the
pull direction (Crack 2, Figure 6b). One of these two
cracks occurred at an angle of 31
and the other occurred
at an angle of 15
. The relationship between the lateral
load and lateral displacement was observed to be linear,
until the occurrence of the cracks (Figure 7b). Compared
to the control specimen, the wall specimen WJ, showed a
slight non-linear behavior with higher lateral displacement
at the ultimate load. Cracks in the specimen WJ initiated
through the block only, without any de-bonding in the
head joints. The high strength kept the joints intact. The
wall specimen WJ kept its integrity after removal of the
experimental load application setup, whereas, the specimen
CW collapsed. FIGURE 8 Comparison of lateral load–displacement envelopes: (a) overall
response for push cycles (b) detail of the curves up to a lateral deflection
of 1.5 mm
3.2.3 | Wall specimen with 10 mm thick SFR-MS plaster on
one side (WR1S)
The wall specimen WR1S, had a normal Type-M mortar in noticed that the steel fiber of the plaster, helped in retaining
the joint and was plastered only on one side, using 10 mm the integrity of the cracked parts of the hollow core blocks,
thick SFR-MS plaster. This wall simulates the fast track ret- and saved the wall from separation during the test and after
rofitting, without affecting the operation and service of the its removal from the experimental load applications setup.
building, which may be necessary when plastering two sides
3.2.4 | Wall specimen with 10 mm thick SFR-MS plaster on
of the wall. The first crack developed at an angle of 20
in
two sides (WR2S)
the fourth cycle at a lateral force of 110 kN and a lateral dis-
placement of 2.5 mm in the push direction (Crack 1, Fig- Unlike the other three walls, an axial load of 35% of ultimate
ure 6c). Subsequently, another crack developed during the capacity, obtained from prism test, was used in this test due to
fourth cycle in the pull direction at an angle of 25
, when the limitations of the testing frame. In contrast to the specimens
the lateral force was 98 kN, with the lateral displacement CW, WJ and WR1S, failure in the wall specimen WR2S was
being 2.5 mm (Crack 2, Figure 6c). The SFR-MS plaster has dominated by tensile cracking at the base and the first course
a significant effect on the behavior and the ultimate load level in the joint region at the lower left corner. The specimen
capacity of URM wall. The plaster saved the wall from com- WR2S failed at a lateral force of 163 kN, during the fourth
plete damage and separation of concrete block apart. cycle in the push direction, as shown in Figure 6d (rear view of
Figure 7c shows the relationship between the lateral load the wall). In addition, a crack occurred at the base of the wall,
and lateral displacement, which is linear up to a lateral load resulting in an uplift of the wall from the base during the test.
of 82 kN, which corresponds to the capacity of the control The wall uplift prevented an increase in the lateral load to more
specimen. At this point, the response of wall WR1S becomes than 178 kN. This mode of rocking failure occurred due to the
non-linear, until the occurrence of the first crack. It was lower level of axial stress which was applied to the specimen
AL-SHUGAA ET AL.
FIGURE 9 Experimental data for FE simulation (a) stress-plastic strain curve of masonry components in compression (b) stress-plastic strain curve of
masonry components in tension (c) triplet test setup (d) bond shear strength vs. slip displacement
WR2S. The relationship between the lateral force and lateral
displacement is almost linear up to a horizontal force of
140 kN, followed by a decrease in the wall stiffness because of
the development of tensile cracks at the base (Figure 7d). The
SFR-MS plaster layer worked as confinement, thereby, pre-
venting the occurrence of diagonal cracks through the hollow
concrete bricks. Retrofitting the URM wall by a 10 mm SFR-
MS plaster layer on both sides, helped in enhancing the shear
capacity and improving the hysteresis behavior of the wall.
3.2.5 | Comparison of results of wall specimens tested
The use of SFR-MS as a retrofitting plaster material,
improved the stiffness, lateral load capacity and the ductility
of the walls as shown in Table 4. The shear capacity of three
walls WJ, WR1S and WR2S increased by 17, 34, and 117%,
respectively. SFR-MS plaster improved the stiffness of the
walls significantly. Figure 8 illustrates the improvement in the
stiffness. The data in this figure is taken between 0 and
1.5 mm lateral displacement. The Figure 8 is divided into two
stages, for the first stage, the average secant stiffness was cal-
culated in a range of (0.0–1.0) mm, while the second stage
245
the average secant stiffness was calculated in a range of
(1.0–1.5) mm. The specimen CW and WJ have almost the
same initial stiffness, which decreases in the second stage by
38 and 24.6%, respectively. The initial stiffness of the wall
specimen WR1S and WR2S are 18.3 and 25.7% higher than
the control specimen. The stiffness of the one side retrofitted
wall (WR1S) decreased by 43.7% in the second stage, while it
remained the same for the two-side retrofitted (WR2S) wall.
4 | F IN I T E E L E M E NT M O D E L I N G O F
E X P E R IM E N T AL P RI S M S A ND WA L L S
4.1 | Finite element modeling of masonry walls
and prisms
Finite element method (FEM) is a convenient technique to
understand and predict the non-linear behavior of masonry
structures.30 The control and retrofitted samples tested in the
experimental program were modeled in ABAQUS environ-
ment using the constitutive model based on damage
246
FIGURE 10 Axial load–displacement curve from FE simulation compared
with experimental results (a) CW prism; (b) WR2S prism
mechanics and plasticity developed by Lubliner32 and
extended by Lee and Fenves.33 The damage-plasticity model
needs specific material parameters for predicting the damage
in the components of the URM walls. These material param-
eters were obtained from the tests conducted on the compo-
nents of the masonry wall in the experimental program. The
compressive strength, modulus of elasticity, Poisson's ratio
and stress-inelastic strain data under uniaxial compression
were obtained experimentally for Type M mortar, SFR-MS
mortar and hollow core concrete blocks. Cylinders obtained
for the two types of mortar mixes and the masonry block
units were subjected to cyclic uniaxial compression loading.
For the tensile strength, dog-bone specimens made from
SFR-MS mortar were subjected to direct tension loading,
while the hollow core concrete block and Type M mortar
beam specimens were subjected to four-point flexural load-
ing. The stress-plastic strain data in compression and ten-
sion, for each masonry component as obtained from
laboratory tests (Figure 9a,b), were used in the damage-
plasticity constitutive model. This data is required for tracing
the hardening and softening of the plastic yield surface.34
AL-SHUGAA ET AL.
Incorporation of an appropriate interface contact element
between the masonry components, is crucial for capturing a
realistic response of URM masonry walls and the prism
blocks using finite element simulation.35 The tangential and
normal contact between the hollow concrete blocks and the
joint mortar surfaces is generally governed by the coefficient
of friction, for which a value 0.85 was selected in the FE
model. In addition, the cohesive behavior at the interface
was calibrated to control the interaction between the SFR-
MS plaster and specimen surfaces. The cohesive element
parameters were calibrated based on a laboratory triplet test
in accordance with European Standard (EN 1052-3:2002). A
triplet specimen consisting of three half concrete blocks
(200 × 200 × 100 mm) were attached using 10 mm thick
SFR-MS mortar (Figure 9c) and cured for 28 days, after
which they were subjected to direct shear load. The load ver-
sus slip response is plotted in Figure 9d. Shear stiffness
(Kss) of 24 N/mm3 was obtained from the shear bond stress
vs. the slip displacement curve. The shear stiffness was used
in the calibration of surface-to-surface cohesive parameters
in the FEM simulation.
In the finite element modeling, the hollow core concrete
blocks, joint mortars and SFR-MS plaster, were meshed
using the three-dimensional stress, linear, hex-shaped,
reduced integration elements (C3D8R). The element mesh
size was chosen to be 20 mm based on several runs, which
were carried out with varying element sizes, until there was
no change in the response of the finite element model. The
finite element simulation was conducted under displacement
control scheme following procedure used in the experimen-
tal tests on the walls and the prisms. The axial load was
applied first, which was followed by the application of
reverses cyclic (push-pull) displacements for the URM walls
up to the failure of the walls.
4.2 | Finite element simulation of prisms under axial
compressive load
Finite element simulation of the hollow core concrete block
prisms, which were tested in the experimental program, was
carried out to understand the response of the masonry wall
units under uniaxial compression. In the compression tests,
failure in the hollow core concrete blocks commenced with a
cracking in the web of the blocks. The control prism was
also simulated with openings filled with concrete to look
into the mechanism driving the occurrence of the web-crack.
The response of the hollow block prisms in FE simulation,
yielded a close agreement with the experimental test in terms
of axial load–displacement curve as shown in Figure 10a,b.
The failure in the FE model of the all four types of prisms,
commenced with web cracking followed by crushing of the
concrete blocks, as shown in Figure 11. In contrast to hollow
block prisms, the failure mode of the solid block prism
occurred by the crushing of the concrete block without any
vertical cracking through the center of the block (Figure 11).
AL-SHUGAA ET AL. 247

FIGURE 11 Damage contours in axially loaded masonry prism (failure patterns) from FE simulation

FIGURE 12 FEM failure modes of (a) CW wall (b) WJ wall (c) WR1S wall (Non-plastered face) (d) WR1S wall (Plastered face) (e) WR2S wall (35% ULS)
(f) WR2S wall (45% ULS)
248
FIGURE 13 FEM and experimental lateral load displacement hysteresis of (a) CW wall (b) WJ wall (c) WR1S wall (d) WR2S wall
4.3 | Finite element simulation of in-plane reverse
cyclic load tests on URM walls
FE simulation of all walls exhibited failure modes similar to
those observed in the experimental tests including diagonal
cracks for the wall specimens CW, WJ, and WR1S and ten-
sile cracking failure for the specimen WR2S, as shown in
Figure 12. The contour of tension damage parameter (dt)
represents the crack development in the walls. The red color
in the tension damage contour (Figure 12) represents the ten-
sion damage through the blocks corresponding to crack
direction of the wall. Also, the lateral load–displacement
hysteresis for all models as compared with the experimental
tests exhibits reasonable agreement, as shown in Figure 13.
Due to limitation of the capacity of the testing frame the
specimen WR2S was tested under an axial load of 35% of
ultimate load capacity in compression. The FE response
(Figure 12e) was similar to the experimental results with a
tensile failure at the first joint layer. A FE simulation for
WR2S specimen was also conducted at an axial load of 45%
of its compressive strength capacity. Figure 12f shows a
dominant shear driven failure associated with diagonal
AL-SHUGAA ET AL.
cracks as noted in the other three specimens. The diagonal
cracks were formed at a lateral load of about 142 kN.
5 | A N A L Y T I C A L E Q U A T I O N FO R T H E
P R E D I C T I O N O F I N - P L A N E S H E AR
S T R E N GT H O F M A S O NR Y WA L L S
The failure mode of the wall specimens CW, WJ, and WR1S
was diagonal cracking through the concrete masonry blocks and
tensile failure at the base for the wall specimen WR2S. Mann
and Müller28 proposed an expression (Equation (1)) to predict
the shear capacity of the masonry wall associated with diagonal
cracks under moderate to high axial compressive stress.
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
fut σn
Vm ¼ dm tm 1+ , ð1Þ
2:3 fut
where fut is the tensile strength of the masonry, dm is the wall
width, tm is the wall thickness and σ n is the axial stress on
the wall (positive value in compression).
In the absence of data for tensile strength of the masonry,
it can be assumed that failure occurs when the tensile
AL-SHUGAA ET AL. 249

TABLE 5 Comparison of experimental, FE and the proposed equation results for the in-plane shear capacity of URM walls

Shear capacity kN
FEM Analytical
Specimen Experimental Value Difference %a Value Difference %a Mode of failure Level of axial load (%)
WC 82.0 77.6 5.4 81.0 1.2 Diagonal cracks 45
WJ 96.0 91.2 5.0 94.0 2.1 Diagonal cracks 45
WR1S 110.0 115.0 4.5 106.0 4.1 Diagonal cracks 45
WR2S 163.0 168.0 3.1 161.0 1.2 Tensile failure 35
WR2SV — 142.0 148 Diagonal cracks 45

Note. FEM = finite element method; URM = unreinforced masonry.

a
Percentage difference with the experimental results.

strength in the masonry (fut), equals a combination of 80% of
the tensile strength of the block (fbt = 1.6 MPa) and 20% of
the tensile strength of the joint mortar. The tensile strength
of Type M and SFR-MS mortar are fjt = 2.5 MPa and
5 MPa, respectively. Equation (1) can be used to predict the
shear capacity of the walls CW and WJ without any plaster.
In order to include the effect of the plaster, Equation (1)
was modified by the authors, based on the observed linear
behavior up to rupture. Using the concept of equivalent trans-
formed section, the elastic modular ratio (n) is used to trans-
form the plaster layer thickness (tp) to an equivalent masonry
thickness (ntp). The proposed new equation (Equation (2))
can predict the shear capacity of both plastered and virgin
URM walls, where Vm is the wall shear capacity.
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
  fut σn
Vm ¼ dm tm + ntp 1+ : ð2Þ
2:3 fut
For the wall WR2S, Equation (3) predicts the lateral
strength of the walls based on expected tensile cracking fail-
ure occurring at the mortar base, which has a tensile strength
of 7.0 MPa.
2
tm dm
Vm ¼ ðσ n + fut Þ,
6h
where h is the height of the wall.
The lateral load capacity of the walls obtained from the FE
simulation and the proposed new modified Mann and Muller
equation are compared with the values obtained from experi-
mental tests in Table 5. The table shows that the shear capacity
from the finite element simulation is within 5% of the experi-
mental values. The proposed analytical equation yields very
close shear capacity compared to the experimental results.
1. Incorporation of high strength SFR-MS mortar in the head
and bed joint results in about 17% enhancement in lateral
load capacity of the walls. The SFR-MS mortar is compati-
ble with wall masonry components and can be used both
as a retrofit plaster and also as a head and bed joint mortar.
The SFR-MS mortar enhances not only the shear capacity,
but also increases the ductility of the masonry structure.
2. The compressive strength tests on prisms made from the
web connected hollow core concrete masonry units indi-
cates that the thin webs in the blocks forms the weakest
link in resisting the axial compressive load. A vertical
split occurs in the blocks at the web. In the prisms retro-
fitted with plaster, acts as two independent parts enhanc-
ing the axial load capacity.
3. Retrofitting deficient hollow core block masonry walls
with a 10 mm thick high strength SFR-MS mortar
almost doubles the lateral shear capacity of the walls
under reverse cyclic loading with a moderate level of
axial precompression.
4. The Mann and Muller equation for predicting the in-
plane shear strength of URM walls is modified to incor-
porate the effect of high strength retrofitting plaster on
ð3Þ the walls. The proposed equation predicts the shear
capacity of these walls to a good degree of accuracy.
5. The damage-plasticity constitutive model, with experi-
mentally determined stress-plastic strain curves in com-
pression and tension for the components of the masonry
walls and the properties on the contact element between
the masonry components, captures the experimental
response of the test walls and the masonry prisms with a
good degree of accuracy.

6 | CON CLU SION S
This research investigated in-plane shear capacity of URM
hollow core concrete walls retrofitted with a high strength
plaster made using steel fibers and microsilica (SFR-MS).
A thin 10 mm thick, SFR-MS plaster, is shown to be very
effective in enhancing the of lateral load performance of the
URM walls. The following conclusions could be drawn:
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The financial support provided by the Deanship of Scientific
Research, King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals
under project number RG1403-1/2, is gratefully acknowl-
edged. The Support provided by the Center for Engineering
Research at Research Institute and the Department of Civil
and Environmental Engineering at KFUPM is also
acknowledged.
250
ORCID
Muhammad K. Rahman https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9817-871X
Mohammed A. Al-Osta https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3678-2695
REFERENC ES
1. Bhattacharya S, Nayak S, Dutta SC. A critical review of retrofitting methods
for unreinforced masonry structures. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct. 2014;7:
51–67.
2. Elgawady M, Lestuzzi P, Badoux M. A review of conventional seismic ret-
rofitting techniques for URM. 13th International Brick/Block Masonry Con-
ference, Eindhoven University of Technology: Eindhoven, The Netherlands,
2004; p. 1–10.
3. ElGawady M, Lestuzzi P, Badoux M. Retrofitting of masonry walls using
shotcrete. NZSEE Conference Yeni. Volume 45, The New Zealand Society
for Earthquake Engineering Inc: New Zealand, 2006; p. 45–54.
4. Vasconcelos G, Abreu S, Fangueiro R, Cunha F. Retrofitting masonry infill
walls with textile reinforced mortar. 15th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering in Lisbon, Sociedade Portuguesa de Engenharia Sísmica
(SPES): Lisbon, Portugal, 2012.
5. Bischof P, Suter R. Retrofitting masonry walls with carbon mesh. Polymers
(Basel). 2014;6(2):280–299.
6. Mosallam A, Banerjee S. Enhancement in in-plane shear capacity of unrein-
forced masonry (URM) walls strengthened with fiber reinforced polymer
composites. Compos Part B Eng. 2011;42(6):1657–1670.
7. Papanicolaou CG, Triantafillou TC, Papathanasiou M, Karlos K. Textile
reinforced mortar (TRM) versus FRP as strengthening material of URM
walls: Out-of-plane cyclic loading. Mater Struct Constr. 2008;41(1):
143–157.
8. Parisi F, Iovinella I, Balsamo A, Augenti N, Prota A. In-plane behaviour of
tuff masonry strengthened with inorganic matrix-grid composites. Compos
Part B Eng. 2013;45(1):1657–1666.
9. Augenti N, Parisi F, Prota A, Manfredi G. In-plane lateral response of a
full-scale masonry subassemblage with and without an inorganic matrix-grid
strengthening system. J Compos Constr. 2011;15(4):578–590.
10. Kaya F, Tekeli H, Anil Ö. Experimental behavior of strengthening of
masonry infilled reinforced concrete frames by adding rebar-reinforced
stucco. Struct Concr. March 2018;1–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/suco.
201700210.
11. Soulioti DV, Barkoula NM, Paipetis A, Matikas TE. Effects of fibre geome-
try and volume fraction on the flexural behaviour of steel-fibre reinforced
concrete. Strain. 2011;47:535–541.
12. Tiberti G, Germano F, Mudadu A, Plizzari GA. An overview of the flexural
post-cracking behavior of steel fiber reinforced concrete. Struct Concr. 2018;
19(3):695–718.
13. González DC, Moradillo R, Mínguez J, Martínez JA, Vicente MA. Post-
cracking residual strengths of fiber-reinforced high-performance concrete
after cyclic loading. Struct Concr. 2017;19:2.
14. Daviau-Desnoyers D, Charron J, Massicotte B, Rossi P, Tailhan J. Influence
of reinforcement type on macrocrack propagation under sustained loading in
steel fibre-reinforced concrete. Struct Concr. 2016;17(5):736–746.
15. Venkateshwaran A, Tan KH, Li Y. Residual flexural strengths of steel fiber
reinforced concrete with multiple hooked-end fibers. Struct Concr. 2017;
19(2):352–365.
16. Lee DH, Han S, Kim KS, LaFave JM. Shear capacity of steel
fiber-reinforced concrete beams. Struct Concr. 2016;18(2):278–291.
17. Dan D, Stoian V, Florut S, et al. Experimental investigations on performance
enhancement of composite steel concrete shear walls by using steel fibre
reinforced concrete. Compos Struct. 2017;1(2):2157–2165.
18. Prabhakaran RT, Andersen TL, Bech JI, Lilholt H. Investigation of mechani-
cal properties of unidirectional steel fiber/polyester composites: Experiments
and micromechanical predictions. Polym Compos. 2016;37(2):627–644.
19. Lee SF, Wang XH, Jacobsen S. Mix design and the effect of silica fume and
steel fiber on rheological and mechanical properties of mortars. Nord Concr
Res. 2010;41(3):33–50.
20. Basaran H, Demir A, Bagci M. The behavior of masonry walls with rein-
forced plaster mortar. Adv Mater Sci Eng. 2013;2013:1–9.
21. Sevil T, Baran M, Bilir T, Canbay E. Use of steel fiber reinforced mortar for
seismic strengthening. Construct Build Mater. 2011;25(2):892–899.
AL-SHUGAA ET AL.
22. Facconi L, Conforti A, Minelli F, Plizzari GA. Improving shear strength of
unreinforced masonry walls by nano-reinforced fibrous mortar coating.
Mater Struct. 2014;48(8):2557–2574.
23. Duval R, Kadri EH. Influence of silica fume on the workability and the com-
pressive strength of high-performance concretes. Cem Concr Res. 1998;
28(4):533–547.
24. Mazloom M, Ramezanianpour AA, Brooks JJ. Effect of silica fume on
mechanical properties of high-strength concrete. Cem Concr Compos. 2004;
26(4):347–357.
25. Toutanji HA, El-Korchi T. The influence of silica fume on the compressive
strength of cement paste and mortar. Cem Concr Res. 1995;25(7):
1591–1602.
26. Arel HS, Shaikh FA. Effects of silica fume fineness on mechanical proper-
ties of steel fiber reinforced lightweight concretes subjected to ambient and
elevated temperatures exposure. Struct Concr. 2018;1–9. https://doi.org/10.
1002/suco.201700281.
27. Parisi F, Augenti N. Seismic capacity of irregular unreinforced masonry
walls with openings. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn. 2013;41(1):101–121.
28. Mann W, Muller H. Failure of shear-stressed masonry- an enlarged theory,
tests and application to shear walls. Proc Br Ceram Soc. 1982;30:223–235.
29. Li T, Galati N, Tomialan JG, Antonio N. Analysis of unreinforced masonry
concrete walls strengthened with glass fiber-reinforced polymer bars. ACI
Struct J. 2005;102(4):569–577.
30. AlGohi BH, Baluch MH, Rahman MK, al-Gadhib AH, Demir C.
Plastic-damage modeling of unreinforced masonry walls (URM) subject to
lateral loading. Arab J Sci Eng. 2017;42:4201–4220. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s13369-017-2626-8.
31. Al-Gohi B, Demir C, Ilki A, Baluch M, Rahman M. Assessing Seismic vul-
nerability of unreinforced masonry walls using elasto-plastic damage model.
Seismic Evaluation and Rehabilitation of Structures. Volume 26. Switzer-
land: Springer International Publishing, 2014; p. 95–114.
32. Lubliner J, Oliver J, Oller S, Oñate E. A plastic-damage model for concrete.
Int J Solids Struct. 1989;25(3):299–326.
33. Lee JH, Fenves GL. Plastic-damage model for cyclic loading of concrete
structures. J Eng Mech. 1998;124(8):892–900.
34. Dogariu A, Campitiello F. Calibration of a FE model of masonry shear
panels strengthened by metal sheathing. Proceedings of the 3rd WSEAS
International Conference Finite Difference—Finite Element—Finite
Volume—Boundary Element F-and-B ’10, Wisconsin: World Scientific and
Engineering Academy and Society; 2010; p. 258–263.
35. Bolhassani M, Hamid A a, Lau ACW, Moon F. Simplified micro modeling
of partially grouted masonry assemblages. Construct Build Mater. 2015;83:
159–173.
AUTHORS' BIOGRAPHIES
Madyan A. Al-Shugaa, Graduate Stu-
dent
Civil and Environmental Engineering
Department
King Fahd University of Petroleum &
Minerals
Dhahran, Saudi Arabia
Muhammad K. Rahman, Associate
Professor
Center for Engineering Research
Research Institute
King Fahd University of Petroleum &
Minerals
KFUPM Box 151, Dhahran, Saudi
Arabia
mkrahman@kfupm.edu.sa
AL-SHUGAA ET AL. 251

Mohammed H. Baluch, Retired Mohammed A. Al-Osta, Assistant

Professor Professor
Civil and Environmental Engineering Civil and Environmental Engineering
Department Department
King Fahd University of Petroleum & King Fahd University of Petroleum &
Minerals Minerals
Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Dhahran, Saudi Arabia

Ali H. Al-Gadhib, Associate Professor

Civil and Environmental Engineering
Department How to cite this article: Al-Shugaa MA,
King Fahd University of Petroleum & Rahman MK, Baluch MH, Al-Gadhib AH,
Minerals Sadoon AA, Al-Osta MA. Performance of hollow
Dhahran, Saudi Arabia concrete block masonry walls retrofitted with steel-
fiber and microsilica admixed plaster. Structural Con-
crete. 2019;20:236–251. https://doi.org/10.1002/suco.
Ahmed A. Sadoon, Graduate Student 201700261
Civil and Environmental Engineering
Department
King Fahd University of Petroleum &
Minerals
Dhahran, Saudi Arabia