C9-EPFL SIKA Report VersionSika

C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
DYNAMIC TESTS ON URM WALLS
BEFORE AND AFTER UPGRADING
WITH COMPOSITES
EXPERIMENTAL REPORT
imac Publication No.1, May 2003
Applied computing and mechanics laboratory

DYNAMIC TESTS ON URM WALLS BEFORE AND AFTER
UPGRADING WITH COMPOSITES

EXPERIMENTAL REPORT

Mohamed ElGawady
BSc. & MSc. Cairo University
Dr. Pierino Lestuzzi
IS-IMAC
Prof. Marc Badoux
IS-BETON

MAY 2003
ABSTRACT

Unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings represent a large portion of the buildings stock
around the world. Most of these buildings were built with little or no considerations for
seismic design requirements. Recent earthquakes have shown that many such buildings are
seismically vulnerable; therefore, the demand for upgrading strategies of these buildings has
become increasingly stronger in the last few years. Modern composite materials offer
promising upgrading possibilities for masonry buildings. This report documents dynamic in-
plane tests carried out on URM specimens and unreinforced masonry specimens upgraded
with composites (URM-WUC). Five half-scale URM walls were built using weak mortar and
half-scale brick units. These five walls were dynamically tested as reference specimens. Then,
these reference specimens were upgraded on one face only using composites and retested
again. As consequence eleven specimens were tested on a single degree of freedom
earthquake simulator. This tests investigated the following parameters: two aspect ratios (1.4,
and 0.7), two mortar types (M2.5, and M9), three composite materials (carbon, aramid, and
glass), three fiber structures (plates, loose fabric, and grids), and two upgrading configurations
(diagonal X and full surface shapes). The tests show that Fiber Reinforced Plastic (FRP)
composites can provide an upgrading alternative for URM buildings. The upgrading materials
increased the specimens lateral resistances by a factor of 1.4 to 2.9 compared to the reference
(URM) specimens. In addition, the upgrading enhanced the cracking resistance and the energy
dissipation of the upgraded specimens.

I

II
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This project was made possible through the financial and technical support of SIKA AG Company
complemented with the financial support of the Swiss Commission for Technological Innovation
(CTI). This support is very gratefully acknowledged.
Further, deep appreciation is extended to the following organizations and individuals:
The Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich (ETHZ) for the use of the testing facility.
Special thanks to Professor Peter Marti for his openness to EPFL-ETHZ collaboration.
Federal Commission for Scholarships for Foreign Students (FCS), for providing a scholarship for
the first author of this report.
Morandi for donation of the half-scale brick units
Mr. Markus Baumann (IBK-ETHZ), the head of the laboratory, for his invaluable support during
the dynamic tests.
Mr. Heinz Meier (SIKA) for his contribution of knowledge to this project
Mr. Victor Venetz (SIKA) for installing the composites on the masonry specimens and for
demolishing the tested specimens
Mr. Christoph Gisler, Technician (IBK-ETHZ)
Mr. Patrice Gallay, Technician (IS-IMAC-EPFL)
Mr. Rongchang Fu, Engineer
III

IV
TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Objectives and Scope of the Project .............................................................................................. 1
1.2 Organization of the Report ............................................................................................................ 2
1.3 Background.................................................................................................................................... 2
1.3.1 Historical ................................................................................................................................. 2
1.3.2 Masonry Walls ........................................................................................................................ 3
1.3.3 Composite Material................................................................................................................. 3
1.3.4 Literature Review.................................................................................................................... 3
1.4 Performance of URM Buildings During Earthquakes ................................................................... 4
CHAPTER 2: EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM ................................................................................. 9
2.1 Test Set-up..................................................................................................................................... 9
2.1.1 Earthquake simulator .............................................................................................................. 9
2.1.2 Frame with movable masses ................................................................................................. 10
2.1.3 Lateral guidance.................................................................................................................... 10
2.2 URM Test Specimens .................................................................................................................. 11
2.3 Experimental Tests ...................................................................................................................... 12
2.4 Construction and Upgrading........................................................................................................ 12
2.4.1 Construction materials .......................................................................................................... 12
2.4.2 Head beam............................................................................................................................. 13
2.4.3 Foundation ............................................................................................................................ 16
2.4.4 Construction procedure ......................................................................................................... 16
2.4.5 Upgrading materials.............................................................................................................. 16
2.4.6 Composites application......................................................................................................... 18
2.5 Loading system............................................................................................................................ 19
2.6 Dynamic Excitations.................................................................................................................... 21
CHAPTER 3: MEASURED RESPONSE......................................................................................... 23
3.1 Measuring system........................................................................................................................ 23
3.2 Measured Response ..................................................................................................................... 24
3.2.1 Earthquake type and nominal intensity................................................................................. 24
3.2.2 Earthquake real intensity....................................................................................................... 24
3.2.3 Post-tensioning force............................................................................................................. 25
3.2.4 Lateral force .......................................................................................................................... 25
3.2.5 Lateral displacement ............................................................................................................. 27
3.2.6 Natural frequencies ............................................................................................................... 27
3.2.7 Hysteresis loops .................................................................................................................... 28
3.2.8 Accelerations......................................................................................................................... 29
V
3.2.9 Rocking displacement ........................................................................................................... 31
3.2.10 Plane section ....................................................................................................................... 32
3.3 Observed Response...................................................................................................................... 32
CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION................................................................................ 37
4.1 General Performance of Test Specimens..................................................................................... 38
4.1.1 Reference specimens............................................................................................................. 38
4.1.2 Upgraded specimens ............................................................................................................. 41
4.2 Delamination and Anchorage ...................................................................................................... 46
4.3 Maximum Strains at Failure ........................................................................................................ 47
4.4 Specimens Asymmetry ................................................................................................................ 47
CHAPTER 5: CALCULATED VERSUS MEASURED RESPONSE............................................ 49
5.1 Seismic Performance of Unreinforced Masonry Walls ............................................................... 49
5.2 Lateral Resistance of URM Walls ............................................................................................... 49
5.2.1 Flexural design...................................................................................................................... 50
5.2.2 Shear design .......................................................................................................................... 50
5.2.3 Comparison between Measured Lateral Force and Calculated Lateral Resistance............... 53
5.3 Lateral Resistance of URM-WUC............................................................................................... 57
5.3.1 Flexural design...................................................................................................................... 57
5.3.2 Shear design .......................................................................................................................... 59
CHAPTER 6: SUMMARY AND FINDINGS................................................................................... 63
6.1 Experimental Work...................................................................................................................... 63
6.2 Findings ....................................................................................................................................... 63
6.2.1 General .................................................................................................................................. 63
6.2.2 Impact of upgrading configuration........................................................................................ 64
6.2.3 Impact of upgrading product, materials and reinforcement ratio.......................................... 65
6.2.4 Design model ........................................................................................................................ 65
APPENDIX A: SPECIMEN L1-REFE ............................................................................................. 67
A.1 Observations ............................................................................................................................... 67
A.2 Measured Response .................................................................................................................... 68
APPENDIX B: SPECIMEN L1-WRAP-G-F.................................................................................... 73
B.1 Observations................................................................................................................................ 74
B.2 Measured Response..................................................................................................................... 75
APPENDIX C: SPECIMEN L1-LAMI-C-I ...................................................................................... 79
C.1 Observations................................................................................................................................ 80
C.2 Measured Response..................................................................................................................... 81
APPENDIX D: SPECIMEN L1-WRAP-G-X................................................................................... 85
D.1 Observations ............................................................................................................................... 86
VI
D.2 Measured Response .................................................................................................................... 87
APPENDIX E: SPECIMEN S1-REFE.............................................................................................. 91
E.1 Observations................................................................................................................................ 92
E.2 Measured Response..................................................................................................................... 93
APPENDIX F: SPECIMEN S1-LAMI-C-X...................................................................................... 97
F.1 Observations ................................................................................................................................ 98
F.2 Measured Response ................................................................................................................... 100
APPENDIX G: SPECIMEN S1-WRAP-G-F.................................................................................. 105
G.1 Observations ............................................................................................................................. 107
G.2 Measured Response .................................................................................................................. 107
APPENDIX H: SPECIMEN S2-REFE............................................................................................ 111
H.1 Observations ............................................................................................................................. 111
H.2 Measured Response .................................................................................................................. 112
APPENDIX I: SPECIMEN S2-WRAP-A-F.................................................................................... 117
I.1 Observations............................................................................................................................... 118
I.2 Measured Response.................................................................................................................... 119
APPENDIX J: SPECIMEN L2-REFE............................................................................................ 123
J.1 Observations............................................................................................................................... 123
J.2 Measured Response.................................................................................................................... 124
APPENDIX K: SPECIMEN L2-GRID-G-F ................................................................................... 129
K.1 Observations ............................................................................................................................. 130
K.2 Measured Response .................................................................................................................. 132
APPENDIX L: COMPARISON BETWEEN MEASURED STRAINS ....................................... 135
L.1 Delamination and Anchorage.................................................................................................... 135
L.2 Maximum Strains ...................................................................................................................... 136
L.3 Specimens Asymmetry.............................................................................................................. 136
APPENDIX M: DYNAMIC EXCITATIONS................................................................................. 141
APPENDIX N: MATERIAL PROPERTIES.................................................................................. 145
N.1 Brick Compressive Strength ..................................................................................................... 145
N.2 Mortar Compressive Strength................................................................................................... 147
N.3 Masonry Compressive Strength................................................................................................ 148
N.4 Masonry Ultimate Strain........................................................................................................... 150
N.5 Masonry Modulus of Elasticity................................................................................................. 150
N.6 Masonry Shear Strength............................................................................................................ 150
N.6.1 Shove test ........................................................................................................................... 150
VII
N.6.2 Triplet test .......................................................................................................................... 150
APPENDIX O: Reinforced Concrete Elements.............................................................................. 153
APPENDIX P: EQUIPMENTS........................................................................................................ 157
APPENDIX Q: FLEXURAL LATERAL RESISTANCE OF URM-WUC................................. 159
BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................................. 161

VIII
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure 1.1: Totally Collapsed One Story Building Made of Brick Walls and Wood Roof ................ 5
Figure 1.2: No Damage to One Story Building .................................................................................. 5
Figure 1.3: Typical Deformation and Damage to URM Building...................................................... 5
Figure 1.4: In-Plane Shear Failure...................................................................................................... 6
Figure 1.5: Out-of-Plane Failure......................................................................................................... 6
Figure 1.6: Parapet Failure.................................................................................................................. 7
Figure 1.7: Combined Out-of-Plane/In-Plane Failure ........................................................................ 7
Figure 1.8: Combined Out-of-Plane/In-Plane/Pounding Failure........................................................ 8
Figure 1.9: Hammering-Induced Cracking......................................................................................... 8
Figure 2.1: Test Set-Up....................................................................................................................... 9
Figure 2.2: Un Upgraded Specimen Ready to Test .......................................................................... 10
Figure 2.3: Reference Building with External Structural URM Walls ............................................. 10
Figure 2.4: Long (Slender) Walls ..................................................................................................... 11
Figure 2.5: Short (Squat) Walls ........................................................................................................ 11
Figure 2.6: Overview of the Tested Long Specimens....................................................................... 14
Figure 2.7: Overview of the Tested Short Specimens ...................................................................... 15
Figure 2.8: Dimensions of Half- Scale Clay Brick Unit .................................................................. 15
Figure 2.9: Original and Half-Scale Clay Brick Units...................................................................... 15
Figure 2.10: Typical Construction Procedure. .................................................................................... 17
Figure 2.11: Upgrading Bi-Directional Materials............................................................................... 18
Figure 2.12: Roughening of the Masonry Surface.............................................................................. 20
Figure 2.13: Dust Removing............................................................................................................... 20
Figure 2.14: Impregnate Epoxy Resin to Masonry Substrate............................................................. 20
Figure 2.15: Fixation of the Fabric onto Masonry Surface................................................................. 20
Figure 2.16: Impregnating the Fabric. ................................................................................................ 20
Figure 2.17: CFRP Plates Surface Cleaning....................................................................................... 20
Figure 2.18: Coating CFRP Plate with Epoxy Resin.......................................................................... 21
Figure 2.19: Spectrum-Compatible Synthetic Earthquake. ................................................................ 22
Figure 3.1: Overview of Typical Measurements For a Slender Specimen ....................................... 23
Figure 3.2: Target and Measured Acceleration Response Spectrum of Specimen L2-GRID-G-F for
Test Runs 3, 4, 10, 14, 18, and 19.................................................................................. 26
Figure 3.3: Sample of the Variations in the Post-tensioning Forces before (L1-WRAP-G-F) and
after (L2-GRID-G-F) the Springs during an Earthquake UG1R of Real Intensity 232%..
........................................................................................................................................ 26
Figure 3.4: Normalized Peak Lateral Force vs. Specimen Drift ....................................................... 27
IX
Figure 3.5: Horizontal Relative Displacement () Time-Histories of Specimen L2-GRID-G-F for
Test Runs 3, 4, 10, 14, 18, and 19.................................................................................. 28
Figure 3.6: Fourier Amplitude Spectra for Relative Mass Accelerations of Specimen L2-GRID-G-F
for Test Runs 3, 4, 10, 14, 18, and 19 ............................................................................ 29
Figure 3.7: Lateral Force (F) vs. Relative Lateral Displacement () for test Runs 3, 4, 10, 14, 18,
and 19............................................................................................................................. 30
Figure 3.8: Head Beam Horizontal Acceleration for Test Runs 3, 4, 10, 14, 18, and 19 ................. 31
Figure 3.9: Vertical Acceleration Measured on the Head Beam for Test Run 19 ............................ 31
Figure 3.10: L2-GRID-G-F after Testing (Western Face).................................................................. 34
Figure 3.11: L2-GRID-G-F after Testing (Eastern Face) ................................................................... 34
Figure 3.12: Grid Rupture in the Bottom Western North Side of L2-GRID-G-F .............................. 34
Figure 3.13: Grid Rupture in the Bottom Western South Side of L2-GRID-G-F .............................. 34
Figure 3.14: Fiber Rupture at the End of Testing L2-GRID-G-F....................................................... 34
Figure 3.15: Masonry Failure in the Eastern South Side of L2-GRID-G-F ....................................... 34
Figure 3.16: The Rocking Vertical Displacement Time-Histories Measured along the Specimen Full
and Mid-Height .............................................................................................................. 35
Figure 3.17: Measured Lateral Relative Displacement and Estimated Lateral Displacement due to
Rocking .......................................................................................................................... 35
Figure 3.18: Vertical Strain Distribution along Specimen L2-GRID-G-F Cross Section .................. 36
Figure 4.1: Final Crack Pattern of Specimen L1- REFE (Eastern Face) ......................................... 40
Figure 4.2: Final Crack Pattern of Specimen L2- REFE (Western Face)......................................... 40
Figure 4.3: Final Crack Pattern of Specimen S1- REFE (Western Face) ........................................ 40
Figure 4.4: Final Crack Pattern of Specimen S2- REFE (Western Face) ......................................... 40
Figure 4.5: Final Crack Pattern of Specimen L1-LAMI-C-I (Eastern ace) ...................................... 41
Figure 4.6: The Improvement in the Lateral Resistance of the Upgrading Specimens .................... 42
Figure 4.7: Specimen L1-WRAP-G-F Ready to Test (Western Face) ............................................. 43
Figure 4.8: L2-GRID-G-F after Testing (Western Face).................................................................. 43
Figure 4.9: Specimen L1-WRAP-G-X after Testing ........................................................................ 44
Figure 4.10: Specimen S1-WRAP-G-F Ready to Test ....................................................................... 45
Figure 4.11: Specimen S2-WRAP-A-F Ready to Test ....................................................................... 45
Figure 4.12: Specimen S1-LAMI-C-X Ready to Test (Appendix F) ................................................. 46
Figure 4.13: Comparison between Measured Lateral Resistances (F) and Post-tensioning Forces (P)
for Long Reinforced Specimens L1-WRAP-G-F and L2-GRID-G-F............................ 48
Figure 4.14: Comparison between Measured Lateral Resistances (F) and Post-tensioning Forces (P)
for Short Reinforced Specimens S1-WRAP-G-F and S2-WRAP-A-F.......................... 48
Figure 5.1: In-plane Failure Modes of a Laterally Loaded URM Wall ............................................ 50
Figure 5.2: Assumptions for Rocking Resistance of Wall Failing with Toe Crushing .................... 50
Figure 5.3: Comparison of Calculated Lateral Resistance (equations. 4.1, 4.5, and 4.7) and
Measured Lateral Forces for Specimens L1-REFE and L1-LAMI-C-I ......................... 54
X
Measured Lateral Forces for Specimen L2-REFE ......................................................... 55
Measured Lateral Forces for Specimen S1-REFE ......................................................... 55
Measured Lateral Forces for Specimen S2-REFE ......................................................... 56
Figure 5.7: Simple Structural Model for The Test Set-Up ............................................................... 56
Figure 6.1: The Improvement in the Lateral Resistance of the Upgrading Specimens under a
Normal Force (N) of 57 kN............................................................................................ 64
Figure A.1: Specimen L1-REFE after Testing (Western Face)......................................................... 67
Figure A.2: Final Crack Pattern of Specimen L1- REFE (Eastern Face) ......................................... 67
Figure A.3: Normalized Lateral Force vs. Wall Drift........................................................................ 69
Figure A.4: Lateral Force (F) vs. Relative Wall Displacement () for Test Runs 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, and 11
........................................................................................................................................ 70
Figure A.5: Relative Wall Displacement for Test Runs 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, and 11 .................................. 71
Figure A.6: Top Wall Acceleration for Test Runs 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, and 11. .......................................... 71
Figure B.1: Specimen L1-WRAP-G-F Upgraded Face..................................................................... 73
Figure B.2: Specimen L1-WRAP-G-F Ready to Test ....................................................................... 73
Figure B.3: Delamination and White Lines ................................................................................... 73
Figure B.4: Final Crack Pattern of L1-WRAP-G-F (Eastern Face) .................................................. 73
Figure B.5: Toe Crushing at The Eastern North Side after Test Run 24........................................... 75
Figure B.6: Fabric Rupture at The Bottom Western North Side after Test Run 24 .......................... 75
Figure B.7: Normalized Lateral Force vs. Wall Drift........................................................................ 75
Figure B.8: Lateral Force (F) vs. Relative Wall Displacement () for Test Runs 3, 4, 10, 14, 18, and
19.................................................................................................................................... 77
Figure B.9: Relative Wall Displacement for Test Runs 3, 4, 10, 14, 18, and 19 .............................. 78
Figure B.10: Top Wall Acceleration for Test Runs 3, 4, 10, 14, 18, and 19....................................... 78
Figure C.1: Specimen L1-LAMI-C-I Upgraded Face ....................................................................... 79
Figure C.2: Specimen L1-LAMI-C-I Ready to Test ......................................................................... 79
Figure C.3: Final Crack Pattern of Specimen L1-LAMI-C-I ............................................................ 79
Figure C.4: L1-LAMI-C-I after Testing............................................................................................ 79
Figure C.5: Crack Propagation during L1-LAMI-C-I Test ............................................................... 81
Figure C.6: 2 mm Crack Opening during Test Run 16 ..................................................................... 81
Figure C.7: Normalized Lateral Force vs. Wall Drift........................................................................ 81
Figure C.8: Lateral Force (F) vs. Relative Wall Displacement () for Test Runs 4, 7, 10, 13, 17, and
20.................................................................................................................................... 82
Figure C.9: Relative Wall Displacement for Test Runs 4, 7, 10, 13, 17, and 20 .............................. 83
Figure D.1: Specimen L1-WRAP-G-X Upgraded Face .................................................................... 85
XI
Figure D.2: Specimen L1-WRAP-G-X after Testing ........................................................................ 85
Figure D.3: Final Crack Pattern of Specimen L1-WRAP-G-X (Western Face)................................ 85
Figure D.4: Diagonal Fabric Rupture after Test Run 24 of Specimen L1-WRAP-G-X.................... 85
Figure D.5: Details of Fabric Rupture at the Test End of L1-WRAP-G-X....................................... 87
Figure D.6: Crack Propagation during L1-WRAP-G-X Test ............................................................ 87
Figure D.7: Normalized Lateral Force vs. Wall Drift........................................................................ 88
Figure D.8: Lateral Force (F) vs. Relative Wall Displacement () for Test Runs 5, 7, 10, 18, 24, and
26.................................................................................................................................... 89
Figure D.9: Relative Wall Displacement for Test Runs 5, 7, 10, 18, 24, and 26 .............................. 90
Figure D.10: Top Wall Acceleration for Test Runs 5, 7, 10, 18, 24, and 26....................................... 90
Figure E.1: Specimen S1-REFE (Eastern Face)................................................................................ 91
Figure E.2: Specimen S1- REFE after Testing (Eastern Face) ......................................................... 91
Figure E.3: Final Crack Pattern of Specimen S1- REFE (Eastern Face) .......................................... 91
Figure E.4: Final Crack Pattern of Specimen S1- REFE (Western Face) [mm] ............................... 91
Figure E.5: Normalized Lateral Force vs. Wall Drift........................................................................ 93
Figure E.6: Lateral Force (F) vs. Relative Wall Displacement () for Test Runs 3,6,9, 16, 22, and 25
........................................................................................................................................ 94
Figure E.7: Relative Wall Displacement for Test Runs 3,6,9, 16, 22, and 25 .................................. 95
Figure E.8: Top Wall Acceleration for Test Runs 3,6,9, 16, 22, and 25........................................... 95
Figure F.1: Specimen S1-LAMI-C-X Upgraded Face...................................................................... 97
Figure F.2: Specimen S1-LAMI-C-X Ready to Test ........................................................................ 97
Figure F.3: Final Crack Pattern of Specimen S1-LAMI-C-X (Western Face) ................................. 97
Figure F.4: Specimen S1-LAMI-C-X after Testing (Western Face) ................................................ 97
Figure F.5: Final Crack Pattern of Specimen S1-LAMI-C-X (Eastern Face)................................... 99
Figure F.6: Specimen S1-LAMI-C-X after Testing (Eastern Face).................................................. 99
Figure F.7: Buckling of Plate Number 1 at the Third Brick Course of Specimen S1-LAMI-C-X... 99
Figure F.8: Rupture of Plate Number 3 at the Top of Specimen S1-LAMI-C-X ............................. 99
Figure F.9: Hair Line Diagonal Crack in the Western Face of Specimen S1-LAMI-C-X................ 99
Figure F.10: 0.03 mm Crack Opening in The Western Face of Specimen S1-LAMI-C-X................ 99
Figure F.11: Normalized Lateral Force vs. Wall Drift...................................................................... 100
Figure F.12: Lateral Force (F) vs. Relative Wall Displacement () for Test Runs 3,15,16, 19, 24, and
29.................................................................................................................................. 102
Figure F.13: Relative Wall Displacement for Test Runs 3,15,16, 19, 24, and 29 ............................ 103
Figure F.14: Top Wall Acceleration for Test Runs 3,15,16, 19, 24, and 29..................................... 103
Figure G.1: Specimen S1-WRAP-G-F Upgraded Face................................................................... 105
Figure G.2: Specimen S1-WRAP-G-F Ready to Test ..................................................................... 105
Figure G.3: Final Delamination Pattern (Western Face) of Specimen S1-WRAP-G-F .................. 105
XII
Figure G.4: S1-WRAP-G-F after Testing (Western Face) .............................................................. 105
Figure G.5: Delamination Propagation in the Northern Side of Specimen S1-WRAP-G-F............ 107
Figure G.6: White Lines and Spots in Specimen S1-WRAP-G-F................................................... 107
Figure G.7: Normalized Lateral Force vs. Wall Drift...................................................................... 108
Figure G.8: Lateral Force (F) vs. Relative Wall Displacement () for Test Runs 2, 8, 19, 23, 32, and
34.................................................................................................................................. 109
Figure G.9: Relative Wall Displacement for Test Runs 2, 8, 19, 23, 32, and 34 ............................ 110
Figure G.10: Top Wall Acceleration for Test Runs 2, 8, 19, 23, 32, and 34..................................... 110
Figure H.1: Specimen S2-REFE after Testing (Eastern Face) ........................................................ 111
Figure H.2: Final Crack Pattern of Specimen S2- REFE (Western Face) ....................................... 111
Figure H.3: Normalized Lateral Force vs. Wall Drift...................................................................... 113
Figure H.4: Lateral Force (F) vs. Relative Wall Displacement () for Test Runs 3,6,10, 16, 19, and
22.................................................................................................................................. 114
Figure H.5: Relative Wall Displacement for Test Runs 3,6,10, 16, 19, and 22 .............................. 115
Figure H.6: Top Wall Acceleration for Test Runs 3,6,10, 16, 19, and 22....................................... 115
Figure I.1: Specimen S2-WRAP-A-F Upgraded Face................................................................... 117
Figure I.2: Specimen S2-WRAP-A-F Ready to Test ..................................................................... 117
Figure I.3: S2-WRAP-A-F after Testing (Eastern Face)................................................................ 117
Figure I.4: S2-WRAP-A-F after Testing (Western Face) .............................................................. 117
Figure I.5: Normalized Lateral Force vs. Wall Drift...................................................................... 119
Figure I.6: Lateral Force (F) vs. Relative Wall Displacement () for Test Runs 2,7,9, 20, 26, and 30
...................................................................................................................................... 120
Figure I.7: Relative Wall Displacement for Test Runs 2, 7, 9, 20, 26, and 30 .............................. 121
Figure I.8: Top Wall Acceleration for Test Runs 2, 7, 9, 20, 26, and 30....................................... 121
Figure J.1: Specimen L2-REFE after Testing (Eastern Face) ........................................................ 123
Figure J.2: Final Crack Pattern of Specimen L2- REFE (Western Face)....................................... 123
Figure J.3: Normalized Lateral Force vs. Wall Drift...................................................................... 125
Figure J.4: Lateral Force (F) vs. Relative Wall Displacement () for Test Runs 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, and
14.................................................................................................................................. 126
Figure J.5: Relative Wall Displacement for Test Runs 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 14 .............................. 127
Figure J.6: Top Wall Acceleration for Test Runs 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 14....................................... 127
Figure K.1: Specimen L2-GRID-G-F Upgraded Face..................................................................... 129
Figure K.2: Specimen L2-GRID-G-F Ready to Test....................................................................... 129
Figure K.3: L2-GRID-G-F after Testing (Western Face)................................................................ 129
Figure K.4: L2-GRID-G-F after Testing (Eastern Face) ................................................................. 129
Figure K.5: Grid Rupture in the Bottom Western North Side of L2-GRID-G-F ............................ 131
Figure K.6: Grid Rupture in the Bottom Western South Side of L2-GRID-G-F ............................ 131
Figure K.7: Fiber Rupture at the End of Testing L2-GRID-G-F..................................................... 131
XIII
Figure K.8: Masonry Failure in the Eastern South Side of L2-GRID-G-F ..................................... 131
Figure K.9: Normalized Lateral Force vs. Wall Drift...................................................................... 132
Figure K.10: Lateral Force (F) vs. Relative Wall Displacement () for Test Runs 3, 4, 10, 14, 18, and
19.................................................................................................................................. 133
Figure K.11: Relative Wall Displacement for Test Runs 3, 4, 10, 14, 18, and 19 ............................ 134
Figure K.12: Top Wall Acceleration for Test Runs 3, 4, 10, 14, 18, and 19..................................... 134
Figure M.1: Spectrum-Compatible Synthetic Earthquake (UG1) .................................................... 141
Figure M.2: Spectrum-Compatible Synthetic Earthquake (UG1R) ................................................. 142
Figure M.3: Spectrum-Compatible Synthetic Earthquake (UG1RR)............................................... 142
Figure M.4: Spectrum-Compatible Synthetic Earthquake (UG1RRR). ........................................... 143
Figure M.5: Spectrum-Compatible Synthetic Earthquake (UG3). ................................................... 144
Figure N.1: Testing a Brick Unit in a Lengthwise........................................................................... 145
Figure N.2: Early Cracking of Brick Unit ....................................................................................... 146
Figure N.3: The Test End of Brick Unit .......................................................................................... 146
Figure N.4: Typical Failure of Mortar Cube ................................................................................... 147
Figure N.5: Compression Test of Masonry Assemblage................................................................. 149
Figure N.6: Compression Failure of Assemblage............................................................................ 149
Figure N.7: Shove Test .................................................................................................................... 151
Figure N.8: Triplet Test of Masonry Assemblage ........................................................................... 151
Figure N.9: Triplet Test of Masonry Assemblage (a) at Test Beginning and (b) at the Test End... 152
Figure O.1: Execution Drawings for Foundation ............................................................................ 153
Figure O.2: Modified Foundation.................................................................................................... 153
Figure O.3: Foundation Reinforcement ........................................................................................... 154
Figure O.4: Head Beam Execution Drawing for Long Walls.......................................................... 155
Figure O.5: Head Beam Execution Drawing for Short Walls ......................................................... 155
Figure O.6: Long Walls Head Beam Typical Reinforcement ......................................................... 156
Figure P.1: Overview of Typical Measurements for a Slender Specimen...................................... 158
Figure P.2: Overview of Typical Measurements for a Squat Specimen ......................................... 158
Figure Q.1: Strain, Stresses, Internal, and External Forces in Upgraded Brick Masonry Specimen159

XIV
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1: Summary of The Tested Specimens ...................................................................................... 2
Table 2.1: List of the Tested Specimens............................................................................................... 12
Table 2.2: Legend for Specimens Names............................................................................................ 13
Table 2.3: The Different Mixes of Mortars .......................................................................................... 13
Table 2.4: FRP Used in the Experimental Program............................................................................. 17
Table 3.1: Loading History and Main Peak Measured Response of Specimen L2-GRID-G-F ........... 24
Table 4.1: Summary of The Dynamic Tests......................................................................................... 37
Table 4.2: Summary of The Peak Measured Forces and Displacements in the North Direction ......... 38
Table 4.3: Summary of The Peak Measured Forces and Displacements in the South Direction ......... 38
Table 5.1: Parameters Used in Assessment of Reference Specimens .................................................. 56
Table 5.2: Calculated Lateral Resistance and Measured Lateral Forces for Specimens L1-REFE and
L2-REFE ............................................................................................................................. 57
Table 5.3: Theoretical Resistance and Measured Lateral Forces of Reference Squat Specimens ....... 58
Table 5.4: Summary of Flexural Assessment ....................................................................................... 59
Table 5.5: Fiber Contribution to Lateral Resistance in case of Shear Failure ...................................... 61
Table 5.6: Theoretical Lateral Resistance and Measured Lateral Forces of Squat Specimens ............ 61
Table A.1: Loading History and Measured Response of Specimen L1-REFE ..................................... 68
Table B.1: Loading History and Measured Response of Specimen L1-WRAP-G-F............................ 74
Table C.1: Loading History and Measured Response of Specimen L1-LAMI-C-I .............................. 80
Table D.1: Loading History and Measured Response of Specimen L1-WRAP-G-X........................... 86
Table E.1: Loading History and Measured Response of Specimen S1-REFE...................................... 92
Table F.1: Loading History and Measured Response of Specimen S1-LAMI-C-X............................. 98
Table G.1: Loading History and Measured Response of Specimen S1-WRAP-G-F.......................... 106
Table H.1: Loading History and Measured Response of Specimen S2-REFE.................................... 112
Table I.1: Loading History and Measured Response of Specimen S2-WRAP-A-F.......................... 118
Table J.1: Loading History and Measured Response of Specimen L2-REFE .................................. 124
Table K.1: Loading History and Measured Response of Specimen L2-GRID-G-F............................ 130
Table L.1: Measured Vertical Strains along the Specimen Mid-Height and Bottom for Specimen L1-
WRAP-G-X at Different Test Runs .................................................................................. 138
Table L.2: Measured Vertical Strains along Specimen Heights for Upgraded Slender Specimens at
Different Test Runs ........................................................................................................... 138
Table L.3: Measured Vertical Strains along Specimen Heights for Upgraded Squat Specimens at
Different Test Runs ........................................................................................................... 139
Table L.4: Measured Concentrated Strains at Specimen Bottom for Slender Specimens at Different
Test Runs........................................................................................................................... 139
XV
Table L.5: Measured Concentrated Strains at Specimen Bottom for Squat Specimens at Different Test
Runs................................................................................................................................... 140
Table N.1: Compression Test on Brick Units in Lengthwise.............................................................. 146
Table N.2: Compression Test on Brick Units in Heightwise .............................................................. 147
Table N.3: Compressive Strength of Mortar Type 0........................................................................... 147
Table N.6: Compressive Strength of Masonry Assemblage Made with Mortar Type 2 ..................... 149
Table N.7: Compressive Strength of Masonry Assemblage Made with Mortar Type 1 ..................... 150
Table N.8: Initial Shear Strength of Masonry Assemblage Made with Mortar Type 2 ...................... 151
Table P.1: List of Gages Used in Data Collection.............................................................................. 157

XVI
Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION 1
1 INTRODUCTION

Unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings represent a large portion of the buildings around the world.
Most of these buildings were built with little or no considerations for seismic design requirements.
Recent earthquakes have shown that many such buildings are seismically vulnerable; therefore, the
demand for upgrading strategies of these buildings has become increasingly stronger in the last few
years, implying the evaluation of lateral resistance of existing URM buildings. Evaluation of the
lateral resistance of URM buildings in many times clouded because of uncertainties associated with
estimating shear or flexural strength of individual walls [Ab 92]. Moreover, based on modern design
codes most of the existing URM buildings need to be upgraded. For example, under the URM
Building Law of California, passes in 1986, the buildings evaluation showed that approximately 96%
of the URM buildings needed to be retrofitted, which would result in approximately $4 billion in
retrofit expenditure [ED 02]. In Switzerland, a recent research [La 02] carried out on a target area in
Basel shows that from 45% to 80% of the existing URM buildings, based on construction details, will
experience heavy damage or destruction during an earthquake event. Thereby, improving existing and
developing better methods of upgrading existing seismically inadequate buildings is an urgent need.
Numerous techniques are available to increase the strength and/or ductility of URM walls. There
seems to be a reliability issue with some of the commonly used techniques. Modern composite
materials offer promising upgrading possibilities for masonry buildings. This report documents
dynamic in-plane tests carried out on unreinforced masonry specimens and unreinforced masonry
specimens upgraded with composites (URM-WUC).
1.1 Objectives and Scope of the Project
The scope of the research included an experimental study of the in-plane behavior of URM and URM-
WUC under earthquake loading. The following primary objectives were followed throughout the
course of this study:
to examine, in near real conditions, the seismic in-plane behavior of unreinforced masonry (URM)
specimens that have been upgraded on one face using composites
to study the effect of various fiber types and structures on the upgraded specimen behavior
to compare the behavior of various upgrading configurations
to compare available design models with the test results for URM specimens and URM specimens
that have been upgraded using composites (URM-WUC).
Five half-scale URM walls were built using weak mortar and half-scale brick units. These five walls
were dynamically tested as reference specimens. Then, these reference specimens were upgraded
using composites and retested. As consequence a total of eleven specimens were tested on the
earthquake simulator of ETHZ. This research has investigated the following parameters (Table 1.1):
the aspect ratio: slender (aspect ratio of 1.4) and squat (aspect ratio of 0.7)
the fiber type: aramid, glass, and carbon
the upgrading configurations: diagonal shape (X) and wrapping
the fiber structures: plates, fabrics, and grids
the mortar compressive strength: weak (M2.5) and strong (M9).

2 Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION
Table 1.1: Summary of The Tested Specimens
Specimen
Name
Slenderness
Upgrading Material
1
and Fiber Product
Upgrading
Configuration
Mortar Type
L1-REFE Slender No upgrading Strong
L2-REFE Slender No upgrading Weak
S1-REFE Squat No upgrading Strong
S2-REFE Squat No upgrading Weak
L1-LAMI-C-I Slender CFRP Plates 2 Vertical plates Strong
L1-WRAP-G-F Slender GFRP Fabric Full face Strong
L2-WRAP-G-F Slender GFRP Grid Full face Weak
L1-WRAP-G-X Slender GFRP Fabric X Pattern Strong
S1-WARP-G-F Squat GFRP Fabric Full face Strong
S2-WRAP-A-F Squat AFRP Fabric Full face Weak
S1-LAMI-C-X Squat Plates of CFRP XX Pattern Weak
1. All specimens were upgraded on one face only. The materials used for upgrading were Glass (G),
Carbon (C), and Aramid (A) FRP.

The following issues were not included in this research:
the anchorage of the Fiber Reinforced Plastic (FRP). Although the anchorage of externally bonded
reinforcement is a recognized crucial aspect, it was not the goal of this research to test the
anchorage of the upgrading system. The anchorage can be studied using simple tests (e.g. direct
tension tests). To ensure that anchorage failure did not occur, steel plates were used at the end of
the FRP to anchor the FRP to the walls using steel bolts.
the out-of-plane behavior of URM walls and URM-WUC. The out-of-plane behavior of URM
walls and URM-WUC were extensively discussed experimentally and theoretically in the literature
(e.g. [KEC 03], [AEC 01], [HD 01], [HMM 01], [VE 00a], [VE 00b], and [ESV 99]).
1.2 Organization of the Report
The report is divided into 6 chapters. Specimen design, upgrading materials and configurations,
construction procedure, instrumentation, and the synthetic earthquakes are detailed in Chapter 2. The
measured dynamic responses are described in Chapter 3. The complete measured data are collected in
appendices A to K. The most important findings appear in Chapter 4. Chapter 5 covers the static
response calculated with conventional methods. A summary of the report and the main conclusions are
provided in Chapter 6. The measured strains at delamination and failure are appeared in Appendix L.
More details about the dynamic excitations are available in Appendix M. Appendix N gives the
material properties. The dimensions and reinforcements of the reinforced concrete elements (head
beam and foundations) are given in Appendix O. Appendix P presents a list of the equipments used in
the measurements. Finally, Appendix Q gives the complete derivation of the mathematical equations,
which used to calculate the flexural capacity of URM-WUC.
1.3 Background
1.3.1 Historical
Masonry is one of the oldest construction materials. Clay units have been in use for over 10,000 years.
Sun dried bricks were widely used by early civilizations in Babylon, Egypt, Spain, South and North
America. Wide usage is illustrated by the word adobe which is now incorporated in the English
language but is a Spanish word based on the Arab word atob meaning sun-dried brick. Some
enduring masonry structures include the Pyramids of Egypt and the Great Wall of China. Masonry was
often used in the construction of simple small dwelling units. But multistory masonry buildings were
common long time ago. For example, the Romans built apartments blocks up to five or more stories
high [Mu 87].
There are many reasons for the extensive use of masonry as a construction material. The simplicity of
construction process and local availability of materials are among these reasons. Many materials have
been used for masonry construction, those locally available being most convenient. The most common
masonry materials used today are stone, clay, calcium silicate, and concrete.
Masonry is used as structural element for walls, columns, pilasters, beams, and lintels as well as it may
be used to enclose and subdivide the interior architectonic space of a building. Masonry has many
advantages as a construction material including, good acoustic and thermal insulation; moreover,
masonry construction is fire retardant.
1.3.2 Masonry Walls
There are various types of masonry walls. The function of a wall, the load it carries, and its location in
the building are some of the factors to be considered in choosing the wall type. Depending on the
number of wythe, we can define four types of masonry walls: single-wythe (leaf), solid and composite,
cavity, and veneer walls. The first type is the most common type in Europe, and it was used during this
research. The leaf type can be built in a running bond (half or one third bond), stack pattern, or an
open bonded pattern. The last two types are for decorative purpose while the first one can be used for
load bearing and non-load bearing applications. The leaf wall can be grouted and reinforced but does
not have to be. This research concerns leaf-unreinforced masonry walls built in half running bond
using hollow clay brick.
1.3.3 Composite Material
Development of fiber composites began for military and aerospace applications at the beginning of the
20
th
century. Since the 1960s, application of advanced composites in military aircraft has become
common. With time, the potential benefits for structural engineering applications were recognized.
Composite fiber materials, most commonly known as fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP), are made of
different kinds of fibers (carbon, glass, aramid, etc.) impregnated in a polymeric matrix. Present FRPs
have several well-known advantages including negligible specific weight, corrosion immunity, and
high tensile strength. The unique properties of fiber composite materials have led to a rapidly growing
number of applications, in particular the retrofitting of existing structures. Moreover, their flexibility
and ease of application allow a wide range of intervention scenarios for upgrading.
1.3.4 Literature Review
A complete literature review is presented in [ElG 04]; nevertheless, the survey of the literature review
shows the following:
Different post earthquakes surveys have been done (e.g. [Pa 91], [Br 95], and [Ke 96]). These
missions noted the different modes of failure of URM buildings; also, they discussed some
behavioral differences between different construction issues (e.g. the effect of concrete
and wooden floor on masonry behavior, the wall-floor connection, etc.).

Several researchers examine experimentally the behavior of URM walls (e.g. [BMT 80], [KM
88], [Ab 92], [MC 92], [MC 94], and [AMM 94]). These experiments demonstrated that the
behavior of URM walls is highly dependent on the applied axial load and wall aspect ratio, with
material properties playing a smaller role.
Different conventional upgrading techniques are available for in-plane upgrading of URM walls:
shotcrete, Ferro-cement surface coating, center core, grouting, [AL 01] [MEE 96]. In many
cases, these techniques were not able to significantly improve the behavior of the
upgrading specimens. In addition, Northridge (1994) post-earthquake surveys showed that
more than 450 buildings upgraded, before the earthquake, using conventional techniques failed
after the earthquake [Ke 96].
Few researchers have focused on the in-plane behavior of URM-WUC under static cyclic (e.g.
[HH 02], [HSH 02], [AL 01], and [Sc 94]) or dynamic loading [AH 99]. Most of these researchers
used either glass and/or carbon fiber; also, different upgrading configurations were tested. The
upgrading materials were applied on one face (e.g. [AH 99], and [Sc 94]) and/or on both faces
(e.g. [HH 02], [HSH 02], [AL 01], and [Sc 94]). The results of these researches have shown that
composites could improve significantly the lateral resistance of URM walls.
All the previous researchers concentrate their effort on experimental investigations. No physical
design models have been developed for design of URM-WUC. Researchers tried to either use
conventional design methods of reinforced concrete elements to design URM-WUC (e.g. [ESV
99]) or use empirical formulae to calculate the shear resistance of URM-WUC (e.g. [Tr 98]).
1.4 Performance of URM Buildings during Earthquakes
The potential vulnerability of old, unreinforced masonry buildings was observed a long time ago
(Figure 1.1); however, there is evidence that URM buildings can survive major earthquakes (Figure
1.2). The conditions required for satisfactory performance are not fully understood, and the usual
modern analytical tools are often unable to discriminate appropriately [Br 94a].
Although the structural typology of masonry buildings varies in different regions, their damage
resulting from earthquakes can be classified in an uniform way. Figure 1.3 demonstrates typical
deformations and damages to structural walls of a simple masonry building subjected to seismic loads.
Moreover, Figures (1.4 to 1.9) summarize some major failure patterns of URM buildings that have
been observed during past earthquakes.


Compton Junior High School, Long Beach Earthquake, 1933
Figure 1.1: Totally Collapsed One Story Building Made of Brick Walls and Wood Roof
(Courtesy of EERC Library)

Coalinga Library, Coalinga Earthquake, 1983
Figure 1.2: No Damage to One Story Building (Courtesy of EERC Library)

Figure 1.3: Typical Deformation and Damage to URM Building (Courtesy of [To 99])


Santa Monica, Northridge Earthquake, 1994

Watsonville, Loma Prieta Earthquake, 1989

Arvin, Kern County Earthquake, 1952 Long Beach Earthquake, 1933
Figure 1.4: In-Plane Shear Failure (Courtesy of EERC Library)

North of Coalinga, Coalinga Earthquake, 1983 Downtown Coalinga, Coalinga Earthquake, 1983
Figure 1.5: Out-of-Plane Failure (Courtesy of EERC Library)

Watsonville, Loma Prieta Earthquake, 1989

Hollister Area, Loma Prieta Earthquake, 1989
Figure 1.6: Parapet Failure (Courtesy of EERC Library)

Whittier, Whittier Narrows, 1987
(Courtesy of EERC Library)

GUJARAT, Bhuj Earthquake, 2001
(Courtesy of Langenbach / UNESCO)
Figure 1.7: Combined Out-of-Plane/In-Plane Failure

.
Santa Cruz Area, Loma Prieta Earthquake, 1989
Figure 1.8: Combined Out-of-Plane/In-Plane/Pounding Failure (Courtesy of EERC Library)

Hollister Area, Loma Prieta Earthquake, 1989
Figure 1.9: Hammering-Induced Cracking (Courtesy of EERC Library)

Chapter 2: EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM 9
2 EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM

Five half-scale walls were constructed for the experimental program. The test walls were constructed
of half-scale clay brick units and weak mortar to represent common structures in central Europe in the
early half of the 20
th
century. The test specimens were constructed and tested in the laboratory of the
structural engineering institute IBK of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich ETHZ.
This research has investigated the effect of the aspect ratio, the mortar type, the upgrading material
and the upgrading configurations on the specimens dynamic behavior. The specimens have been
tested on the earthquake simulator using synthetic earthquakes. This chapter describes the test set-up,
the test specimens, the construction procedure, the upgrading configurations, and the dynamic
excitations.
2.1 Test Set-up
The test set-up used for the dynamic tests was constructed and successfully used in a previous research
for dynamic tests of reinforced concrete shear walls. A complete description of the test set up is
available in [LWB 99]. In general, the test set-up consisted of three parts (Figures 2.1 and 2.2): an
earthquake simulator, a frame with movable masses, and the lateral guidance of the specimens.
a. Shake table
b. Test specimen (1600 x 1600)
c. Separate test set-up for the masses
d. Additional frame for the laterally guidance
e. Moveable car for mass (M=12 t)
f. Hinged connecting member
g. External post-tensioning
h. Jack for the post-tensioning
i. Footing connection: M16 bolt
j. Shock absorber
k. Reaction structure
l. Servo-hydraulic actuator
m. Room
n. Valve 120 l/min
o. Hinge
p. Rail guidance
+/- 0.0
+1125
+4020
a
b
g
j
k
n
l
p
j
o
m
d
2400 1200 1200
1
6
0
0
3
5
0
3
5
0
3
5
0
4
0
0
c
e
i
+1700
+3060
+4420
f
h

Figure 2.1: Test Set-Up
2.1.1 Earthquake simulator
The earthquake simulator includes the following equipments:
An uniaxial (horizontal) shaking table measures 2m by 1m. The maximum displacement of the
table from the rest position is 100 mm.

10 Chapter 2: EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
A 100 kN servo-hydraulic actuator supplied by a 280 bar hydraulic pump with a total capacity of
240 l/min drives the table.
A control system controls the table displacements.

Figure 2.2: Un Upgraded Specimen Ready to Test
2.1.2 Frame with movable masses
R R R R
L~H
R
R
H
H
H
H
H

Figure 2.3: Reference Building with
External Structural URM
Walls
In order to simulate the inertia mass of the floor, the dark
gray area in Figure 2.3, a separate frame with movable
mass is used. This structure consists of a three
dimensional steel frame (element c in Figure 2.1)
supports three carts, each cart supports 12 ton mass. The
mass consists of 28 steel bars. The maximum
displacement of the car is 200 mm. A low friction
guidance of the car was implemented with cam rollers.
Coefficient of friction in order of 0.5% can be achieved
for this wheels system.
During this research, only a single mass was used: either
the lower or the middle mass in case of squat or slender
specimens, respectively.
The axial force was applied by two external post-
tensioning bars (element g in Figure 2.1)
2.1.3 Lateral guidance
To guide laterally the specimens, additional lateral frames were constructed (element d in Figure 2.1).
Two steel beams rested on lateral frames, are used to guide the specimen at the reinforced concrete
head beam level. To minimize the friction between the head beam and the steel guides layers of Teflon
connected to the steel beams were used.
2.2 URM Test Specimens
Due to the size and capacity limitations of the test set-up, half-scale walls were devised. A total of 5
half-scale brick masonry walls were constructed for the research program. Two wall families were
tested. The first family consisted of slender walls (herein after referred to as long walls). The second
family consisted of squat walls (herein after referred to as short walls). The nominal dimensions of a
long wall were 1.600 m height, 1.570 m length, and 0.075 m width. For a short wall the height was
reduced to 0.700 m height. The main geometric features of the constructed walls are illustrated in
Figures 2.4 and 2.5.
1
1
3
.
0
5
1
.
6
0
0
.
3
5
0
.
3
0
1.60
0.60 0.40 0.60
0
.
2
0
0
.
3
6
0
.
2
5
0.15
0.10
0.40
0.15
Mass
Level
(4.020)
Table Top
Level
(1.125)
0.075
0.36
Sec (1-1)
b
a
c c
b
a
d
a. Head beam (R.C.)
b. Masonry specimen
c. Foundation (R.C.)
d. Post-tensioning bars
1.57

Figure 2.4: Long (Slender) Walls [m]
1
1
0
.
7
0
1
.
9
5
0.60
1.60 0.36
0.075
0.60
0
.
1
9
0.40
0.40
0
.
1
8
(1.125)
(2.660)
0
.
3
0
0
.
3
3
Sec (1-1)
0
.
2
5
Level
Mass
Level
Table Top
a. Head beam (R.C.)
b. Masonry specimen
c. Foundation (R.C.)
d. Post-tensioning bars
1.57
b
c
a
d
c
b
a

Figure 2.5: Short (Squat) Walls [m]

2.3 Experimental Tests
The test walls were tested twice; first, the URM specimens were tested, as reference specimens, till a
predefined degree of damage; secondly, these reference specimens were upgraded using composites
and retested. The specimens were upgraded on one face only; since in many upgrading intervention
scenarios one face upgrading is frequently preferred over two faces ones, either for convenience of
construction (when added to the wall exterior surface) or to leave the exterior faade of the building
unaltered. This way of upgrading was successfully used in different research programs for upgrading
of URM walls using either composite material [Sc 94] or other upgrading materials such as shotcrete
[KF 92a].
Table 2.1 gives a complete list of the tested specimens. Also, Figures 2.6 and 2.7 show summary of
the tests that were carried out on the specimens. The following comments complete the table and
figures:
Each specimen is designated by a name reflects their characteristics, Table 2.2 explains the
specimens names. For instance, L1-WRAP-G-X means long specimen (L) with mortar type (1)
upgraded with fabric (WRAP) of glass (G) fiber in a diagonal shape (X) configuration.
To study the shear resistance of such slender specimens, there was one virgin URM specimen
upgraded with plates of CFRP (L1-LAMI-C-I). The goal of this specimen was to increase the
flexural resistance of the specimen with minimum increase of its shear resistance in order to force
a shear failure. As such, this specimen herein after is considered as a reference specimen.
After testing of L1-LAMI-C-I and S1-LAMI-C-X the CFRP plates were taken off using hammer
and chisel. These specimens were upgraded, one more time, using glass fiber and retested again as
L1-WRAP-G-X and S1-WRAP-G-F respectively.
Table 2.1: List of the Tested Specimens
Tests carried out on slender specimens with type 1 mortar
L1-REFE Reference specimen
L1-WRAP-G-F Specimen L1-REFE after upgrading with fabrics of glass fibers
L1-LAMI-C-I Specimen has been upgraded with plates of carbon fiber and is considered as a reference
specimen
L1-WRAP-G-X Specimen L1-LAMI-C-I after taking off the carbon plates and re-upgrading the specimen
with fabrics of glass fiber
Tests carried out on slender specimens with type 2 mortar
L2-REFE Reference specimen
L2-GRID-G-F Specimen L2-REFE after upgrading with grids of glass fibers
Tests carried out on squat specimens with type 1 mortar
S1-REFE Reference specimen
S1-LAMI-C-X Specimen S1-REFE after upgrading with plates of carbon fibers
S1-WRAP-G-F Specimen S1-LAMI-C-X after taking off the carbon plates and upgrading it with fabrics of
glass fibers
Tests carried out on squat specimens with type 2 mortar
S2-REFE Reference specimen
S2-WRAP-A-F Specimen S2-REFE after upgrading with fabrics of aramid fibers
2.4 Construction and Upgrading
2.4.1 Construction materials
Test specimens were intended to represent structures built in the middle of the 20
th
century in
Switzerland. It was important that materials were selected such that test specimens would reflect
structural characteristics of an old masonry wall. Based on this criterion, it was decided that hollow
clay masonry with relatively weak mortar would be used for the construction of test specimens. The
construction material properties are available in Appendix N.
Table 2.2: Legend for Specimens Names
Slenderness Mortar Type
L Long (Slender) 1 Type 1
S Short (Squat) 2 Type 2
Upgrading Products Upgrading Materials
WRAP Loose Fabric A Aramid fibers
GRID Rigid Fabric C Carbon fibers
LAMI Plates G Glass fibers
REFE REFERENCE - -
Upgrading Configurations
F One Face Fully Covered I Vertical Elements
X Diagonal Elements - -
Brick
A commercial firm specially produced the brick units, used in the experimental program, to be one-
half scale of original Hollow Clay Masonry (HCM) units. The original HCM unit is 300 X 150 X 190
mm; this resulted in a scale brick nominally measuring 150 X 75 X 95 mm (Figures 2.8 and 2.9). This
scaled HCM units had been produced with the same materials and procedure like the original one. The
only difference between the original HCM unit and the scale HCM one was that the scaled one had
one end frog while the original had frogs at both ends.
Mortar
Two types of weak mortars, type 1 and 2, were used in the construction of the test walls. A few joints
of the test walls required a stronger mortar, so type 0 was used. This strong mortar was used in the first
layer of mortar just after the foundations and the last layer between the foundation and the head beam.
This strong mortar (type 0) was not used in the last two walls (specimens S2-REFE and L2-REFE).
For bed joints the nominal size were 5 mm, which was consistent with the half-scaled bricks.
Table 2.3: The Different Mixes of Mortars
Proportions of Components by Volume
Mortar Type
Cement Hydrated Lime Sand
*

0 1 0.25 3
1 1 2 9
2 1 1 12
* The maximum aggregate size was 3 mm to be consistent with the half-scale specimens
2.4.2 Head beam
Two reinforced pre-cast-concrete head beams, 1.600 m length, were used (see Appendix O for
concrete dimensions and reinforcements). The beams served the following functions:
To apply and distribute the post-tensioning axial forces.
To connect the test specimen to the moveable mass in the separate structure. The head beam web
was connected by steel pin element (element f in Figure 2.1) to the movable mass.
The web provided an anchorage surface for the composite material.

L1-REFE L1-WRAP-G-F

+ Fabrics of Glass FRP

L1-LAMI-C-I L1-WRAP-G-X

- Plates of Carbon FRP
+ Fabrics of Glass FRP

L2-REFE L2-GRID-G-F

+ Grids of Glass FRP

Figure 2.6: Overview of the Tested Long Specimens

S1-REFE S1-LAMI-C-X

+ Plates of Carbon
FRP
S1-WRAP-G-F

S2-REFE S2-WRAP-A-F

+ Fabrics of Aramid
FRP
Figure 2.7: Overview of the Tested Short Specimens
- Plates of Carbon FRP
+Fabrics of Glass FRP

Figure 2.8: Dimensions of Half- Scale Clay
Brick Unit [mm]
Figure 2.9: Original (under) and Half-Scale
(above) Clay Brick Units

2.4.3 Foundation
The pre-cast concrete foundation had an inverted T shape. The nominal length of the foundation was
1.600 m. The flange thickness was 0.30 m and 0.360 m width. The web height was 0.350 m and
0.075 m wide (see Appendix O for concrete dimensions and reinforcements).
The reinforced concrete foundation served the following functions:
To post attach rigidly to the shaking table platform.
To distribute the prestressing force uniformly.
The web provided an anchorage surface for the composite material.
To provide a lifting element for transportation of the wall via the overhead crane.
The foundation was built with two types of holes: 16 mm diameter holes in its web and 25 mm
diameter holes in its flange. The foundation was clamped to the shaking table platform via 20 steel
bars, each of diameter 16 mm. These bars prevented foundation motion relative to the shaking table
during the dynamic tests. The web holes were used to fix the different types of upgrading materials to
the web through screw bolts and steel plates.
The same foundation, as for the long walls was used for the short walls. As in the test set-up the
position of the mass gave the lateral force level, modifications of the height of the foundation web was
required. At this point, a decision was made to cut about 0.190 m from the foundation web and to use
the modified foundation for the short walls (see Appendix O).
2.4.4 Construction procedure
As mentioned previously the bricks were half-scale, and both the head beam and foundation had been
pre-cast and had delivered after curing. Both the head beam and the foundation were reused for several
specimens. Skilled workers built the walls. Prior to use, the bricks were soaked in water. The required
number of half bricks was prepared and lightly scrubbing to adjust the edge. Then the upper face of the
foundation was roughed to increase the bond with the base mortar joint. Then, the walls had been built
in a running bond pattern. Figure 2.10 shows the construction procedure.
A few days (between 3-7 days) after wall construction, the head beam was lifted by crane and adjusted
on the wall specimen. A strong mortar type 0 (except for specimen S2-REFE and L2-REFE) had been
prepared. Then, the mortar was applied to the masonry wall. The head beam was being lowered slowly
till it rested on the masonry wall. A metal balance was used to adjust the level in plane and out-of-
plane through a metal column (Figure 2.10(d)). These metal columns adjusted the beam level and
ensured the stability of the head beam.
2.4.5 Upgrading materials
Fiber reinforced plastic (FRP)
Different types of FRP were used in the experimental program. Mainly, there were two families: the
first family consisted of unidirectional fiber structure and the second family consisted of bi-directional
fiber structures. The unidirectional fiber structure included two types of carbon fiber plates. The bi-
directional family included two different types of glass fibers, and one type of aramid fiber (Figure
2.11). Table 2.4 summarizes the material properties of these commercial products.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure 2.10: Typical Construction Procedure: (a) Foundation Grinding, (b) Brick
Adjustment, (c) Built in a Running Bond Pattern, and (d) Head Beam Fixation.

Table 2.4: FRP Used in the Experimental Program
Commercial name
FRP
[Fiber]
Warp
W

[g/m
2
]
Weft
W

[g/m
2
]
f
t

[GPa]
E
[Gpa]

[%]
SikaWrap-400A 0/90 Aramid 205 205 2880 100 2.8
SikaWrap-300G 0/90 Glass 145 145 2400 70 3.0
MeC Grid G4000 Glass 139 119 3450 72 4.0
Sika CarboDur S512 Carbon 93 - 2800
*
165
**
1.7
Sika CarboDur T1.214 Carbon 26 - 2400
*
135
**
1.6
Warp
w
and Weft
w
: Weight of fiber in the warp and weft directions respectively
f
t
and E: Fibers nominal tensile strength and E-modulus respectively
: Ultimate strain
: Composite tensile strength
**: Composite E-modulus


(a)

(b)

(C)
Figure 2.11: Upgrading Bi-Directional Materials, (a) SikaWrap-300G 0/90, (b) MeC Grid
G4000, and (c) SikaWrap-400A 0/90
Bonding adhesive
Two types of adhesive were used in this experimental program: Sikadur-30 and Sikadur-330. Both of
the epoxy resins consist of two components A and B. The two components were mixed in a ratio of
3:1 (Sikadur-30) and 4:1 (Sikadur-330) by weight. The Sika CarboDur S512 and Sika CarboDur
T1.214 plates were bonded to the specimens using Sikadur-30 epoxy structural adhesive, while the
fabrics and the grids were bonded to the specimens using Sikadur-330 epoxy impregnating resin.
2.4.6 Composites application
The upgrading of the reference specimens consisted in the application of a layer of FRP composite
material on one face of the masonry specimen (Figures 2.12 to 2.18). This was a particularly easy
operation. The main steps may be summarized as follows:
The specimen surface was roughened by grinding.
The dust and any loose particles were removed with vacuum cleaner.
The composites were cut to the desired dimensions by metal saw or disk cutter.
The two-component epoxy was homogeneously mixed.
A thin layer of the epoxy adhesive resin was applied to the masonry substrate by means of a steel
trowel and leveled by scraping. This completely filled and wetted the rough surface of the masonry
specimen.
This step was a special step for CFRP plates: the surface was cleaned by rubbing it with white
cotton soaked with solvent. The cleaning was continued until the white cotton remains white. The
completely cleaned and dried composites were coated with epoxy adhesive. The adhesive layer
was 2-mm average thickness.
The FRP composites was applied to the specimen face by hand and impregnated with an
impregnation roller until homogeneous color was obtained.
To prevent anchorage failure, steel plates were used at specimens corners to anchor the FRP to
specimens foundations and head beams using steel bolts.
2.5 Loading system
In the test specimens, an axial load of 30 kN was applied via two external post-tensioning bars to
apply a structural concept similar to the building of Figure 2.3. This was in addition of 12 kN of self-
weight from steel elements at wall top (due to the test set-up), reinforced concrete head beam, and
masonry panel weight. This normal force corresponded to a stress of 0.35 MPa. In one reference
specimen L2-REFE, in the second half of the test, we increased the prestressing force up to 60 kN (see
Appendix J).
During testing of the first four specimens, (L1-REFE, L1-WRAP-G-F, L1-LAMI-C-I, and L1-WRAP-
G-X) the prestressing force increased many times due to the increase of the wall height consecutive to
flexural cracks; in the next specimens four railcar springs were used with the post-tensioning bars in
order to minimize the increase of the post-tensioning force.
For the lateral loads, the concrete head beam was connected to the movable mass to transit and
distribute the horizontal lateral forces to the masonry test specimens. The concrete foundation was
clamped to the shaking table platform and dynamic excitations were applied. Therefore, the test
specimens had boundary conditions similar to a cantilever wall with an effective moment/shear ratio
equal to 1.4 for the slender walls and 0.7 for the short walls. From dynamic response standpoint the
test specimen was a single degree of freedom system (SDF).


Figure 2.12: Roughening of the Masonry
Surface
Figure 2.13: Dust Removing

Figure 2.14: Impregnate Epoxy Resin to
Masonry Substrate
Figure 2.15: Fixation of the Fabric onto Masonry
Surface by Light Finger Pressure

Figure 2.16: Impregnating the Fabric by
Means of a Plastic Impregnation
Roller.
Figure 2.17: CFRP Plates Surface Cleaning by
Rubbing It with White Cotton
Soaked with Solvent


Figure 2.18: Coating CFRP Plate with Epoxy Resin
2.6 Dynamic Excitations
Spectrum-compatible synthetic earthquakes were used for the tests in order to facilitate the comparison
of the results with the codes assumptions. The synthetic earthquakes were generated using a
stationary simulation [SIM 76]. The possible loading histories were limited by the possibilities of the
ETH earthquake simulator [BWB 99]. Although the accelerations are of prime interest for the tests, the
table is controlled through the jack displacements; therefore, the generated acceleration time-histories
had to be integrated twice for use with the ETH shaking table.
The displacement inputs were based on synthetic acceleration time-histories generated from a
spectrum shaped according to the Swiss national application document of Eurocode 8 [EC8 95] for
rock soil type A and with a peak ground acceleration of 1.6 m/s
2
(seismic zone 3b of the current Swiss
building code [SIA 89]). The corner frequencies of 2.5 Hz and 10 Hz define the plateau with a
constant spectral value of 4 m/s
2
. Three synthetic earthquakes were mainly used for the tests. The first
one (UG1) was for lower accelerations (up to about 100% of the reference spectrum) and used larger
table displacements. For higher accelerations, two synthetic earthquakes with smaller table
displacements had to be used (UG1R and UG1RR) because of the limitations on the table
displacements. These two synthetic earthquakes were derived from the first one and exhibit the same
acceleration response spectrum. In order to increase one more time the accelerations, the third
synthetic earthquakes (UG1RR) was also used with a smaller time interval (corresponding to a
definition frequency of 250 Hz instead of 150 Hz) leading to higher accelerations and shorter duration.
This fourth synthetic earthquake is called UG1RRR. Another synthetic earthquake (UG3) was also
generated from a modified spectrum shape in order to evaluate the possibility for the compensation of
the disturbance on the acceleration response spectrum due to the interaction between the moving mass
and the shaking table. As an example of these synthetic earthquakes, Figure 2.19 shows the first
synthetic earthquake UG1 used in the tests. The time-histories of table displacements, velocities and
accelerations (left) and the related acceleration response spectra (right) are plotted. The peak
displacement is approximately 72 mm. Therefore, UG1 could be used with intensities up to 120%. The
earthquake lasts about 15 seconds. Appendix M gives more details about the other synthetic
earthquakes.
The specimens were subjected to dynamic excitations of nominal increasing intensity, until failure
occurred or a predefined degree of damage was obtained. Appendix (A to K) gives the loading history
of each test specimen.

t
a
b
l
e

d
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
]
0 5 10
-0.2
-0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
t
a
b
l
e

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
y

[
m
/
s
]
0 5 10
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
time [s]
t
a
b
l
e

a
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
m
/
s
2
]
0.1 1 10 100
0
1
2
3
4
5
frequency [Hz]
S
a

[
m
/
s
2
]
Eurocode 8
calculated
min
= -1.56 m/s
2
max
= 1.68 m/s
2
0.01 0.1 1 10
0
1
2
3
4
5
period [s]
S
a

[
m
/
s
2
]
u
min
= -0.110 m/s
.
u
max
= 0.169 m/s
.
0 5 10
-0.05
0.00
0.05
u
max
= 71.8 mm
u
min
= -65.8 mm

Figure 2.19: UG1, Eurocode 8 for Rock Soils Type A, Spectrum-Compatible Synthetic Earthquake.

Chapter 3: MEASURED RESPONSE 23

3 MEASURED RESPONSE

This chapter discusses the measuring system and the dynamic behavior of the test specimens observed
and recorded through the dynamic test runs. A sample of the observed behavior and measured
response are presented in this chapter for one of the upgraded specimens (L2-GRID-G-F). A complete
description for this specimen is reported in Appendix K and for the other specimens the behavior and
measurements are reported in Appendixes A to J.
3.1 Measuring system
Either 28 or 24 channels of accelerometers, linear variable displacement transducers (LVDs), and load
cells were collected during the dynamic test of a slender specimen or a squat specimen, respectively.
The instrumentation plan was designed to record a through of the specimens behavior, with an
emphasis on the specimens lateral drifts and rocking response at the specimens toes and heals. 18
Linear Variable Displacement transducers (LVDs) measured vertical, horizontal, and diagonal
displacements for a slender specimen while this amount was reduced to 14 LVDs for a squat
specimen. The LVD measures positive values for compression. Three accelerometers were positioned
on the mass, the head beam (eastern face), and the shaking table platform to measure horizontal
accelerations. Another two accelerometers were positioned on northeastern and southeastern sides of
the specimen head beam to measure the vertical accelerations. The table displacements and hydraulic
jack forces were measured using table built in devices; both measures positive values toward the north.
The forces in the post-tensioning bars were measured using 2 load cells. In addition, the lateral force at
the head beam was measured using a load cell, which measured positive values toward the north. The
information read by each device was recorded using a computer controlled data acquisition system.
The scanning velocity for each channel was 100 Hz. An overview of the instruments used are shown
in Figure 3.1 while a through list of equipment is given in Appendix P.
0
.
3
9
0
.
3
9
0
.
3
9
0
.
3
9
19 17
18
22
23
24
25
26
14
15
13 12
9 16
10
11
1 2
28
5 6 4
21 20
Displacement Measurements
Acceleration Measurements
Force Measurements
West Face East Face
N S
Displacements
+
+

Figure 3.1: Overview of Typical Measurements For a Slender Specimen [m]
24 Chapter 3: MEASURED RESPONSE
3.2 Measured Response
For each specimen, a summary of the main features of measured and computed response from every
test run is presented in a loading history table. These tables are presented in the Appendixes A to K.
As an example, Table 3.1 summarizes the measured response of specimen L2-GRID-G-F.
3.2.1 Earthquake type and nominal intensity
The specimens were subjected to dynamic excitations of increasing nominal intensity, until failure
occurred or a predefined degree of damage was obtained. The 2
nd
columns of the loading history tables
give the earthquake type and nominal intensity of each test run (e.g. Table 3.1). For instance, the last
test run of specimen L2-GRID-G-F was UG1R 220 that means this specimen, in this test run, was
subjected to an earthquake type UG1R (see appendix L) with a nominal acceleration 2.2 times the
acceleration of the reference synthetic earthquake (100% UG1R).
3.2.2 Earthquake real intensity
During testing of test specimens, it was observed that the measured accelerations of the shaking table
differ from programmed input acceleration amplitudes (Figure 3.2). This difference appeared due to
the interaction between the table (2 ton) and a test specimen including the movable mass (12 ton). The
difference could not be compensated because the earthquake simulator control system does not include
Table 3.1: Loading History and Main Peak Measured Response of Specimen
L2-GRID-G-F
Test
Run
Earthquake
[Type & %]
R.I.

[%]
P

[kN]
F
max

[kN]
F
min

[kN]
max

[mm]
min

[mm]
f
[Hz]
1 UG1 40 40 30.4 9.0 -9.2 0.74 -0.61 3.17
2 UG1 60 57 30.4 12.4 -12.6 0.86 -0.84 3.17
3 UG1 80 83 30.5 15.1 -16.2 0.98 -0.98 3.37
4 UG1 100 101 30.5 18.8 -19.2 1.11 -1.30 3.37
5 UG1 120 125 30.6 23.9 -22.6 1.44 -1.58 3.66
6 UG1R 100 122 30.5 23.8 -18.5 1.43 -1.21 3.37
7 UG1R 100-2
*
118 30.5 23.6 -18.2 1.72 -1.54 3.37
8 UG1R 100-3
*
117 30.5 23.3 -18.2 1.51 -1.33 3.37
9 UG1R 120 146 30.6 27.2 -22.8 1.86 -1.66 3.37
10 UG1R 130 164 30.6 29.5 -26.4 1.88 -1.77 3.37
11 UG1R 140 176 30.6 31.5 -28.2 2.25 -2.18 3.37
12 UG1R 150 186 30.8 34.1 -30.8 2.29 -2.39 3.37
13 UG1R 160 189 31.1 38.6 -32.2 3.20 -2.64 3.37
14 UG1R 170 193 31.5 42.3 -33.9 3.76 -3.03 3.37
15 UG1R 180 189 31.9 42.5 -40.3 4.30 -4.92 3.17
16 UG1R 190 179 33.0 47.6 -43.0 5.60 -5.92 3.13
17 UG1R 200 184 33.8 49.8 -44.3 6.45 -6.20 2.73
18 UG1R 210 232 35.3 51.2 -47.3 8.59 -7.42 2.73
19 UG1R 220 178 43.4 46.9 -48.1 19.71 -12.49 2.00
R.I.: Earthquake real intensity.
P: Maximum post-tensioning force.
F: Lateral force.
: Relative horizontal displacement between top and bottom of the specimen.
f: Measured natural frequency.
* Test set-up problems.

a control loop between target and actual values (neither on the displacement nor on the accelerations).
The control of the shaking table is achieved by an adaptive digital control (PID-control), which acts on
the oil pressure of the jack.
The interaction between the shaking table and a test specimen including the movable mass resulted in
a magnification of the interactive frequency in the frequency content and in a general damping of the
table excitations; consequently, the actual accelerations were disturbed and the acceleration response
spectrum diverged from the target response spectrum. As an example, the acceleration response
spectrum of the test runs 3, 4, 10, 14, 18, and 19 of L2-GRID-G-F are plotted in Figure 3.2. The
comparison between the target (nominal) and corresponding measured response spectra clearly shows
the influences of the disturbance.
The peak between 1 Hz and 5 Hz reflects the interaction between the shaking table and test specimen.
The location of this peak corresponds to the fundamental frequency of the test specimen. The peaks
between the 5 Hz and 10 Hz correspond to the natural frequencies of the whole system jack-table-
specimen. It was difficult to quantify the influence of the hydraulic jack, which acts as a high
frequency spring, most probably non linear. Moreover, hydraulic oscillations in the jack rooms
produce the peak in spectrum acceleration (S
a
) after 10 Hz. These peaks had been observed in earlier
dynamic tests on r.c. walls [LWB 99].
The amplitude of the peak between 1 Hz and 5 Hz define the earthquake real intensity. The real
earthquake intensity, for each test run of each specimen, was reported in the 3
rd
column of the loading
history tables (e.g. Table 3.1).
3.2.3 Post-tensioning force
As mentioned, an external post-tensioning normal force of 30 kN was applied to the specimens via 2
external post-tensioning bars. These post-tensioning forces were measured through 2 load cells. The
post-tensioning forces varied during the tests due to increase of the wall height consecutive to flexural
cracks; this variation was very high in the first 4 specimens. In the next specimens, the variation in the
post-tensioning force was reduced using railcar springs. The maximum post-tensioning force in each
test run is presented in the 4
th
column of the loading history tables (e.g. Table 3.1). Figure 3.3 presents
these variations during two test runs, each test run has an earthquake of type UG1R with intensity of
230%. The comparison clearly shows the efficiency of the springs.
The normal force on a specimen is the sum of the post-tensioning force (P) plus the weights sum of the
head beam, the masonry panel, and the other test set-up steel elements at specimen top. This resulted
in a normal force of P +12 kN or P + 11 kN for slender and squat wall respectively. Consequently, the
compression stress due to the total normal force is approximately 0.35 MPa.
3.2.4 Lateral force
The lateral force was measured using a load cell, which was mounted on the head beam. In some test
runs, this load cell was malfunction hence the lateral force was computed as a multiple of the mass
(12-tons) times the measured mass acceleration.
The maximum (toward north) and minimum (toward south) lateral force for each test run is listed in 5
th

and 6
th
column of the loading history tables (e.g. Table 3.1). These values are used to determine the
envelop of the hysteresis loops of all the test runs. By examining this curve, a summary of the
specimen behavior during the test runs can be captioned. Also, the average of the absolute peak lateral
force in the south and north directions from each test run is plotted against the average of the absolute
peak specimen drift in north and south directions.
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
0 1 10 100
Frequency [Hz]
M
a
s
s

A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
m
/
s
2
]
Measured
Nominal
L2-GRID-G-F
Test Run 3

0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
0 1 10 100
Frequency [Hz]
M
a
s
s

A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
m
/
s
2
]
Measured
Nominal
L2-GRID-G-F
Test Run 4

0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
0 1 10 100
Frequency [Hz]
M
a
s
s

A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
m
/
s
2
]
Measured
Nominal
l
L2-GRID-G-F
Test Run 10

0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
0 1 10 100
Frequency [Hz]
M
a
s
s

A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
m
/
s
2
]
Measured
Nominal
L2-GRID-G-F
Test Run 14

0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
0 1 10 100
Frequency [Hz]
M
a
s
s

A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
m
/
s
2
]
Measured
Nominal
L2-GRID-G-F
Test Run 18

0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
0 1 10 100
Frequency [Hz]
M
a
s
s

A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
m
/
s
2
]
Measured
Nominal
L2-GRID-G-F
Test Run 19

Figure 3.2: Target (Nominal) and Measured Acceleration Response Spectrum of Specimen
L2-GRID-G-F for Test Runs 3, 4, 10, 14, 18, and 19

0
20
40
60
80
100
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
P
r
e
s
t
r
e
s
s
i
n
g

F
o
r
c
e

[
k
N
]
With Spring
Without Spring

Figure 3.3: Sample of the Variations in the Post-tensioning Forces before (L1-WRAP-G-F) and
after (L2-GRID-G-F) the Springs during an Earthquake UG1R of Real Intensity 232%

The peak lateral force values are
normalized by 128.7 kN for a
slender specimen and 127.7 kN for
a squat specimen, the weights sum
of the 12-ton mass, the head beam,
half of the masonry panel, and the
other test set-up steel elements at
specimen top. The drift is
computed by dividing the measured
lateral relative displacement by
the height of the top horizontal
LVD transducer (e.g. gage number
26 in case of a slender specimen),
which is little different from the
specimen height. The envelop of
each test specimen is presented in
Appendixes (A-K). As an example,
Figure 3.4 present this curve for L2-GRID-G-F.
3.2.5 Lateral displacement
The absolute lateral displacement at the specimen top was measured (
top wall
) using LVD transducer
either number 26 or 24 in case of a slender or a squat specimen, respectively. In addition, the lateral
displacement of the table was measured (
table
) using the built in transducer. The relative lateral
displacement was computed as follows:
table top wall
= (3.1)
In many cases, the table displacements were very large (e.g. 100% of UG1 has a displacement of
approximately 70 mm) while the specimen itself has a very small relative lateral displacement (less
than 0.5 mm). Therefore, the use of equation 3.1 leads to imprecise measurements of the relative
lateral displacement. In addition, in few test runs in the first two specimens (L1-REFE and L1-WRAP-
G-F) the LVD transducers did not work properly. In order to overcome these problems and to have a
fair estimation of the lateral displacement of the tested specimens several solutions were investigated.
Among, is to use the measurements of other LVD transducers (e.g. the diagonal or the vertical) and the
specimen geometry to estimate the lateral displacements. Another solution is to integrate twice the
collected relative horizontal acceleration time histories either from the head beam or from the mass. In
addition, to have homogeneous results for all test runs of all specimens we decided to generalize the
solution for all the test runs of all specimens.
For all test runs of all specimens, comparisons have been made between the direct measurements of
the lateral displacements and the estimated (calculated) lateral displacements. The comparisons
include the lateral displacement calculated using the vertical LVD transducers (see 3.2.9), which
gives good results for the slender specimens (for rocking dominant behavior). As expected the vertical
LVD transducers failed in estimating the lateral displacement for squat walls while the diagonal LVD
transducers give good results for squat specimens. In addition, the double integration of the relative
horizontal acceleration gives good results for all test runs of all specimens. As the LVD transducers
were fall down in few cases before the end of the tests a decision was made to use the integration for
all test runs of all specimens. For the slender specimens, the double integration of the relative
accelerations measured on the mass gives the best results. For squat specimens, the double integration
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1
Lateral Drift [%]
F
/
W
Idealized
Experimental
Rocking
Cracking
Ultimate

Figure 3.4: Normalized Peak Lateral Force vs. Specimen
Drift
of the relative accelerations measured on the head beam gives the best results. These integrated
displacements were used through out this report and its appendixes.
The maximum and minimum relative displacement for each test run is presented in 7
th
and 8
th
column
of the loading history tables (e.g. Table m.1). In the appendixes, sample relative displacements time-
histories from different test runs are also presented. As an example, the relative displacement time-
histories of specimen L2-GRID-G-F from test runs 3, 4, 10, 14, 18, and 19 are plotted in Figure 3.5.
3.2.6 Natural frequencies
Fast Fourier transforms (FFTs) were computed from the relative horizontal acceleration response time-
histories of the mass collected during the dynamic test runs. The relative horizontal acceleration of the
mass is the difference between the absolute horizontal acceleration measured on the mass and the table
acceleration. As an example, the Fourier amplitude spectra from test runs 3, 4, 10, 14, 18, and 19 of
specimen L2-GRID-G-F are plotted in Figure 3.6. The oscillation of the mass reflects the wall
behavior therefore the fundamental frequency was defined as the location of the peak Fourier
amplitude between 1 Hz and 5 Hz for each test run. The lower bound of this range avoided low
frequency disturbances appearing from measurements and numerical imprecision. The upper bound
avoided high frequency disturbances appearing from hydraulic jack. As shown in Figure 3.6, several
Fourier amplitude peaks at similar locations appeared in the investigated frequency. From a test run to
the following test run, the relative amplitudes of the peaks rather than their location were modified.
This feature is a characteristic of non-linear behavior. As a consequence, the fundamental frequency
did not change gradually with increasing the test runs but rather dropped suddenly from a peak to
another after staying constant at the same peak for several test runs.
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
m
]
L2-GRID-G-F
Test Run 19
L2-GRID-G-F
Test Run 3

-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
m
]
L2-GRID-G-F
Test Run 19
L2-GRID-G-F
Test Run 4

-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
m
]
L2-GRID-G-F
Test Run 19
L2-GRID-G-F
Test Run 10

-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
m
]
L2-GRID-G-F
Test Run 19
L2-GRID-G-F
Test Run 14

-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
m
]
L2-GRID-G-F
Test Run 19
L2-GRID-G-F
Test Run 18

-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
m
]
L2-GRID-G-F
Test Run 19
L2-GRID-G-F
Test Run 19

Figure 3.5: Horizontal Relative Displacement () Time-Histories of Specimen L2-GRID-G-F for
Test Runs 3, 4, 10, 14, 18, and 19

The fundamental frequencies are listed in the last column of the loading history tables. As an
example, the last column of Table 3.1 presents theses values for specimen L2-GRID-G-F.
Examinations of these values reveal that:
natural frequencies dropped as structural damage increased, and
frequency measurements were dependent on the amplitude of the test.
3.2.7 Hysteresis loops
The lateral force is plotted versus the measured relative lateral displacement producing what are
commonly referred to as hysteresis loops. By examining different aspects of the hysteresis loops, such
as the slopes of the curves many of the visual observations were confirmed. For each specimen six-
hysteresis curves representing different stages of the tested specimen in the elastic and inelastic range
are presented in Appendixes (A-K).
As an example, samples of the hysteresis loops of specimen L2-GRID-G-F are shown in Figure 3.7. It
is worth to note the following:
The hysteresis loops for test runs 3 (UG1 80%) and 4 (UG1 90%) showed a predominately linear
behavior, and the initial stiffness in both directions remained constant as either cracking or
delamination was observed.
The cracking observed in test run 10 and later on, was not clearly evidenced in the hysteresis loops
for test runs 10 (UG1R 130%), 14 (UG1R 170%), and 18 (UG1R 210%) because the rocking crack
had not entirely developed across the specimen.
0
1
2
3
4
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Frequency [Hz]
F
o
u
r
i
e
r

A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

[
m
/
s

2
/
H
z
]
f=3.37 Hz

0
1
2
3
4
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Frequency [Hz]
F
o
u
r
i
e
r

A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

[
m
/
s

2
/
H
z
]f=3.37 Hz

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Frequency [Hz]
F
o
u
r
i
e
r

A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

[
m
/
s

2
/
H
z
]
f=3.37 Hz

0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Frequency [Hz]
F
o
u
r
i
e
r

A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

[
m
/
s

2
/
H
z
]

f=3.37 Hz

0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Frequency [Hz]
F
o
u
r
i
e
r

A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

[
m
/
s

2
/
H
z
]

f=2.73 Hz

0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Frequency [Hz]
F
o
u
r
i
e
r

A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

[
m
/
s

2
/
H
z
]

f=2.00 Hz

Figure 3.6: Fourier Amplitude Spectra for Relative Mass Accelerations of Specimen L2-GRID-
G-F for Test Runs 3, 4, 10, 14, 18, and 19
[mm]
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
F

[
k
N
]
L2-GRID-G-F
Test Run 3
UG1 80%

[mm]
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
F

[
k
N
]
L2-GRID-G-F
Test Run 4
UG1 100%

[mm]
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
F

[
k
N
]
L2-GRID-G-F
Test Run 10
UG1R 130%

[mm]
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
F

[
k
N
]
L2-GRID-G-F
Test Run 14
UG1R 170%

[mm]
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
F

[
k
N
]
L2-GRID-G-F
Test Run 18
UG1R 210%

[mm]
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
F

[
k
N
]
L2-GRID-G-F
Test Run 19
UG1R 220%

Figure 3.7: Lateral Force (F) vs. Relative Lateral Displacement () for test Runs 3, 4, 10, 14,
18, and 19

-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
0 5 10 15 20
Time [S]
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
m
/
s
2
]
S2-REFE
Test Run 22
L2-GRID-G-F
Test Run 3

-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
0 5 10 15 20
Time [S]
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
m
/
s
2
]
S2-REFE
Test Run 22
L2-GRID-G-F
Test Run 4

-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
0 5 10 15 20
Time [S]
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
m
/
s
2
]
S2-REFE
Test Run 22
L2-GRID-G-F
Test Run 10

-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
0 5 10 15 20
Time [S]
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
m
/
s
2
]
S2-REFE
Test Run 22
L2-GRID-G-F
Test Run 14

-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
0 5 10 15 20
Time [S]
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
m
/
s
2
]
S2-REFE
Test Run 22
L2-GRID-G-F
Test Run 18

-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
0 5 10 15 20
Time [S]
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
m
/
s
2
]
S2-REFE
Test Run 22
L2-GRID-G-F
Test Run 19

Figure 3.8: Head Beam Horizontal Acceleration for Test Runs 3, 4, 10, 14, 18, and 19

-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
0 5 10 15 20
Time [S]
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
m
/
s
2
]
S2-REFE
Test Run 22
L2-GRID-G-F
Test Run 19

(a)
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
0 5 10 15 20
Time [S]
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
m
/
s
2
]
S2-REFE
Test Run 22
L2-GRID-G-F
Test Run 19

(b)
Figure 3.9: Vertical Acceleration Measured on the Head Beam, (a) Eastern South, and (b)
Eastern North for Test Run 19
The hysteresis loops of the last test run 19 (UG1R 220%) indicated that during initial seconds of
the test there was some pseudo yielding of the GFRP grid. After the grid had ruptured, the
specimen began to rock with a capacity that was reduced to that associated with the URM
specimen.
During test run 19, there was relatively high-energy dissipation due to grid rupture. However, for
other test runs there was little energy dissipation. This energy dissipation increased slightly with
increasing earthquake intensity due to mortar grinding, friction and specimen rocking.
3.2.8 Accelerations
As aforementioned, 3 accelerometers were positioned on the shaking table platform, head beam, and
mass to measure the horizontal accelerations. Sample of these measured acceleration time-histories are
plotted for each specimen in the Appendixes (A to K). As an example, the horizontal accelerations at
the head beam of specimen L2-GRID-G-F are plotted in Figure 3.8. Also, 2 accelerometers (gages 4
and 5 in Figure 3.1) were positioned on the northeast and south east of a specimen head beam to
measure the vertical acceleration during the specimen rocking. Figure 3.9 presents a sample of the
measurements of these gages for the last test run of specimen L2-GRID-G-F.
3.2.9 Rocking displacement
To measure the opening and closing of horizontal cracks along test specimens, 7 vertical LVDs were
used for a slender specimen, reduced to 5 LVDs for a squat specimen. These vertical LVDs were fixed
on the eastern face (unreinforced face), at the north and south sides. In addition, there was a LVD on
the southwestern face (upgraded face). An example of the measured vertical displacement time-
histories on the southeastern face of specimen L2-GRID-G-F during the last test run (19) is plotted in
Figure 3.16. Two displacement time-histories are superimposed: the first displacement time-history
was measured along the masonry panel full height (i.e. gages 11, Figure 3.1), the second displacement
time-history was measured along the bottom mid-height of the masonry panel (i.e. gages 10, Figure
3.1). In these measurements the negative values represent an opening of the crack. By examining such
displacement time-histories, fairly determination was made as to when cracks first appeared along this
side. In addition, by comparing the displacement time-histories along different height of the same side,
estimation of horizontal cracks positions were made. Another feature of the crack opening/closing
histories was the regular pattern that existed for the opening and closing of the horizontal cracks. This
repetitive, regular opening and closing motion was indicative of a specimen rocking.
In addition, an examination of the vertical displacement history measured through the specimens full
height gave an indication of how much of the post-cracking horizontal displacements were due to the
rocking motion. As an example, specimen L2-GRID-G-F was 1570 mm length time 1633 mm height.
By multiplying the measured vertical displacement (
14 gage 11 gage
or ) time-history by 1633/1570, an
estimate of the horizontal displacement time-history caused by rocking was made. An enhancement
could be done if we replace the measured vertical displacement with the calculated vertical
displacement
calculated Vertical
. The calculated vertical displacement is calculated as following:
14 gage 11 gage calculated Vertical
= (3.2)
Figure 3.17 presents a sample of such estimation for the last test run of specimen L2-GRID-G-F. The
comparison with the maximum measured lateral displacements shows that rocking is responsible for
approximately 83% of the lateral displacements; therefore, the contribution of the shear deformation to
the total lateral displacements is limited to 17%.
3.2.10 Plane section
Vertical deformations, at the first brick course, along a specimen cross-section were measured using 4
LVDs (gages 9, 12, 13, 16 of Figure 3.1). The measured displacement were divided by the original
measuring length (156 mm) this gave the strain time-history along the specimen cross-section. These
measurements were used to verify the main assumption of Bernoulli-Navier hypothesis (plane section
remains plane) for URM-WUC. As an example of these strain distributions, measured strains during
the last test run (19) of specimen L2-GRID-G-F, is plotted in Figure 3.18. In this figure, the peak
strain from gage 9 and the corresponding values from the other gages are presented.
A salient feature of this figure is that the vertical strain distribution along the specimen cross section is
linear even at failure. The verification of this assumption of plane section is very important to use the
usual linear elastic approach to calculate the lateral resistance of URM-WUC, which is used in this
report.

3.3 Observed Response
The initiation and development of cracking, delamination, and specimens failure were noted during the
test. As an example of the observed behavior of an upgraded specimen, the description of specimen
L2-GRID-G-F is reported on here. This slender specimen was upgraded using a glass fiber grid; it was
subjected to two types of earthquake motions: UG1 and UG1R (Table 3.1). A full details about this
specimen is reported in Appendix K and the other specimens are reported in Appendix A to J.
L2-GRID-G-F after the tests is shown in Figures 3.10. and 3.11. The following comments describe
the specimen behavior during the tests:
Test runs 1 to 9 (UG1R 120%) produced no visible damage to L2-GRID-G-F.
During test run 10 (UG1R 130%), the specimen started to rock at the specimen foundation and a
small opening in order of 1 mm width was observed between the masonry specimen and its
foundation. This crack corresponds to a drift of 0.1% and a lateral force of (28 kN) 56% of the
specimen lateral resistance (50 kN).
During test run 11 (UG1R 140%), the specimen continued to rock. Both the lateral force and the
drift increased a little.
During test run 12 (UG1R 150%), the delamination process began in few points. This
delamination was visible in the form of white lines at bed joints under the first and second brick
courses. In addition, the specimen continued to rock and a cracking noise was heard. This cracking
noise increased with the next test runs.
During test runs 13 (UG1R 160%) to 17 (UG1R 200%), the delamination process continued and
the white lines propagated at the bed joints everywhere in the specimen bottom half.
During test run 18 (UG1R 210%), the grid started to rupture in tension at the bottom northern side
of L2-GRID-G-F.
During test run 19 (UG1R 220%), the grid ruptured in tension at the bottom sides of L2-GRID-G-
F (Figures 3.12, 3.13, and 3.14). Also, a masonry failure in compression was observed in the
bottom southeastern side (Figures 3.11 and 3.15). Also important was that the peak drift for test
run 19 (1.0%) was approximately 2 times the drift for test run 18 (0.5%) while the average peak
lateral force reduced slightly from 50 kN (test run 18) to 48 kN (test run 19).
By the end of test run 19, the specimen reached its ultimate capacity. Its ultimate limit state was
clearly a flexural failure that was initiated by tensile rupture in grid fiber reached when the
masonry at the specimen toe crushed in compression.
During testing L2-GRID-G-F, the maximum increment in the post-tensioning force was in order
of 43% of its initial value thanks to the railcar springs.


Figure 3.12: Grid Rupture in the Bottom Western
North Side of L2-GRID-G-F
Figure 3.13: Grid Rupture in the Bottom Western
South Side of L2-GRID-G-
F

Figure 3.14: Fiber Rupture at the End of Testing
L2-GRID-G-F
Figure 3.15: Masonry Failure in the Eastern
South Side of L2-GRID-G-F

Figure 3.10: L2-GRID-G-F after Testing
(Western Face)
(Eastern Face)

-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
0 5 10 15
Time [S]
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
m
]

Wall Full Height
Wall Half Height

Figure 3.16: The Rocking Vertical Displacement Time-Histories Measured along the Specimen
Full and Mid-Height
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
0 5 10 15 20
Time [S]
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
m
]
]
Estimated Lateral Displacement
Measured Lateral Displacement

Figure 3.17: Measured Lateral Relative Displacement and Estimated Lateral Displacement due to
Rocking
-3
-2.5
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
L [m]
S
t
r
a
i
n

[
%
]
UG1R 200% UG1R 150%
UG1R 210% UG1 40%
UG1R 200% UG1R 150%
UG1R 210% UG1 40%

Figure 3.18: Vertical Strain Distribution along Specimen L2-GRID-G-F Cross Section

Chapter 4: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 37
4 FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter discusses briefly specimens behavior and the important findings; the complete
description of the specimens behavior is presented in Appendixes A to K. This chapter includes the
description of cracking, delamination and ultimate load as well as the corresponding drifts based on
measurements. Also, this chapter includes comments on the FRP strains at first delamination and
failure. In addition, the specimen asymmetric deformations are discussed in the end of this chapter.
The specimens tested during the experimental program included: 6 slender (long) specimens with an
aspect ratio of 1.4 and 5 squat (short) specimens with an aspect ratio of 0.7, Tables 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3
present a summary of the test histories, peak measured forces and relative displacements at the
specimen top as well as the specimens drift.
Table 4.1: Summary of The Dynamic Tests
Specimen
Name
h
[mm]
U.M. U.C E.T. N
E.I.
[%]
F
[kN]

[mm]
F.M. Ap.
L1-REFE 1600 - - UG1 11 100 31 11.8 R A
L2-REFE 1600 - - UG1 14 100 16 13.0 R J
S1-REFE 700 - -
UG1
UG1R
11
14
120
230
29 2.3 RS E
S2-REFE 700 - -
UG1
UG1R
7
15
120
260
28 2.3 RS H
L1-LAMI-C-I 1600
CFRP
Plates
2 Vertical
plates
UG3
UG1R
12
8
120
170
31 5.3 RS C
L1-WRAP-G-F 1600
GFRP
Fabric
Full face
UG1
UG1R
11
13
120
230
57 14.2 R B
L2-WRAP-G-F 1600
GFRP
Grid
Full face
UG1
UG1R
5
14
120
220
48 16.1 MF K
L1-WRAP-G-X 1600
GFRP
Fabric
X Pattern
UG1
UG1R
12
14
120
230
42 17.4 FS D
S1-WRAP-G-F 700
GFRP
Fabric
Full face
UG1R
UG1RR
8
26
250
470
74 2.1 NF G
S2-WRAP-A-F 700
AFRP
Fabric
Full face
UG1R
UG1RR
UG1RRR
8
18
4
260
470
230
72 0.9 NF I
S1-LAMI-C-X 700
CFRP
Plates
XX
Pattern
UG1R
UG1RR
24
5
280
270
36 3.3 FD F
h: specimen nominal height, specimen nominal dimensions were 75 mm width, and 1600 mm length
U.M.: upgrading material and its structure, all specimens were upgraded on one face only. The materials
used for upgrading were Glass (G), Carbon (C), and Aramid (A) FRP
U.C.: upgrading configuration
E.T.: earthquake type (see 2.7)
N: number of test runs
E.I.: maximum nominal earthquake intensity
F: the maximum of the average of the absolute peak lateral resistances measured in both directions
: the maximum of the average of the absolute peak lateral relative displacement measured in both
directions
F.M.: failure mode (R: Rocking, RS: Rocking and Shear, MF: Masonry compression failure and
fiber rupture, FS: Fiber rupture due to shear failure, FD: fiber rupture due to debonding, and
NF: no failure was reached)
Ap.: appendix for further information on the considered specimen

38 Chapter 4: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
Table 4.2: Summary of The Peak Measured Forces and Displacements in the South Direction

P
max

[kN]
P
c

[kN]
P
d

[kN]
F
min

[kN]
F
c

[kN]
F
d

[kN]
min

[mm]
c

[mm]
d

[mm]
D
min

[%]
D
c

[%]
D
d

[%]
F
c
/
F
min

F
d
/
F
min

c/

min

d
/
min

Reference specimens
L1-REFE 90 32 - 32 13 - 11.8 0.9 -
0.72 0.06 - 0.41 - 0.08 -
L2-REFE 44 30 - 16 10 - 13.0 0.9 - 0.80 0.06 - 0.63 - 0.07 -
L1-LAMI-C-I 45 31 - 32 15 - 5.2 1.0 - 0.32 0.06 - 0.47 - 0.19 -
S1-REFE 38 31 - 29 24 - 2.3 0.7 - 0.32 0.10 - 0.83 - 0.30 -
S2-REFE 35 29 - 29 24 - 2.4 0.4 - 0.33 0.06 - 0.83 - 0.17 -
Upgraded specimens
L1-WRAP-G-F 88 - 33 65 - 23 15.6 - 1.6 0.95 - 0.10 - 0.35 - 0.10
L2-GRID-G-F 43 31 31 48 26 31 12.4 1.8 2.4 0.76 0.11 0.15 0.54 0.65 0.15 0.19
L1-WRAP-G-X 112 29 74 39 14 39 17.8 0.9 10.5 1.09 0.06 0.64 0.36 1.00 0.05 0.59
S1-WRAP-G-F 33 - 29 76 - 44 2.2 - 0.7 0.31 - 0.10 - 0.58 - 0.32
S2-WRAP-A-F 32 - - 75 - - 0.9 - - 0.13 - - - - - -
S1-LAMI-C-X 35 30 32
*
37 24 34
*
3.4
**
0.7 1.6
*
0.47 0.09 0.22
*
0.65 0.92 0.21 0.47
* Anchorage Failure, ** the ultimate displacement at the end of the last test run (see Appendix F)
P: post-tensioning force, F: lateral resistance, : lateral relative displacement, and D: lateral drift
c: cracking, d: delamination
Table 4.3: Summary of The Peak Measured Forces and Displacements in the North Direction
P
max

[kN]
P
c

[kN]
P
d

[kN]
F
max

[kN]
F
c

[kN]
F
d

[kN]
max

[mm]
c

[mm]
d

[mm]
D
max
[%]
D
c

[%]
D
d

[%]
F
c
/
F
max

F
d
/
F
max

c/

max

d
/
max

Reference specimens
L1-REFE 90 32 - 30 10 - 11.9 0.8 - 0.73 0.05 - 0.33 - 0.07 -
L2-REFE 44 30 - 16 11 - 13.1 0.9 - 0.80 0.06 - 0.69 - 0.07 -
L1-LAMI-C-I 45 31 - 31 16 - 5.3 1.1 - 0.32 0.07 - 0.52 - 0.21 -
S1-REFE 38 31 - 28 20 - 2.4 0.6 - 0.33 0.08 - 0.71 - 0.25 -
S2-REFE 35 29 - 28 20 - 2.3 0.4 - 0.32 0.06 - 0.71 - 0.17 -
Upgraded specimens
L1-WRAP-G-F 88 - 33 50 - 25 12.8 - 1.8 0.78 - 0.11 - 0.50 - 0.14
L2-GRID-G-F 43 31 31 47 30 34 19.7 1.9 2.3 1.20 0.12 0.14 0.64 0.72 0.10 0.12
L1-WRAP-G-X 112 29 74 45 11 32 17.0 1.0 10.3 1.04 0.06 0.63 0.24 0.71 0.06 0.60
S1-WRAP-G-F 33 - 29 73 - 36 2.0 - 0.7 0.28 - 0.10 - 0.49 - 0.35
S2-WRAP-A-F 32 - - 69 - - 0.8 - - 0.11 - - - - - -
S1-LAMI-C-X 35 30 32
*
35 20 30
*
3.2
**
0.6 1.3
*
0.45 0.08 0.18
*
0.57 0.86 0.19 0.41
* Anchorage Failure, ** the ultimate displacement at the end of the last test run (see Appendix F)
P: post-tensioning force, F: lateral resistance, : lateral relative displacement, and D: lateral drift
c: cracking, d: delamination
4.1 General Performance of Test Specimens
4.1.1 Reference specimens (L1-REFE, L2-REFE, L1-LAMI-C-I, S1-REFE, S2-REFE)
Changing the aspect ratio led to changing the specimen behavior. Slender specimens tended to fail
in rocking (flexure) rather than shear.
Specimens that failed in flexure (L1-REFE and L2-REFE) have lower cracking loads and drifts
than specimens that failed in shear (S1-REFE and S2-REFE). For slender specimens at cracking,
the average drift was approximately 0.06% while the average cracking load was approximately
66% of the maximum measured lateral resistances. For squat specimens at cracking, the average
drift was approximately 0.08% while the average cracking load was approximately 77% of the
maximum measured lateral resistances. These cracking loads compare well to the cracking loads,
70% of the ultimate load, proposed by Tomazevic [To 99].
Changing the mortar compressive strength had insignificant effect on reference specimens
behavior: cracking and ultimate loads as well as cracking and ultimate drifts remained roughly
constant.
Test specimens L1- REFE and L2-REFE
Both slender specimens had the same aspect ratio and normal forces; however, the differences between
them were the mortar compressive strength and mortar uniformity. For L1-REFE, mortar type 1 was
used, while mortar type 2 was used for L2-REFE. The following comments complete the overview of
the tests:
Under a normal force of approximately 45 kN, L1-REFE had a lateral resistance of about 15.1 kN,
while L2-REFE had a lateral resistance of about 14.4 kN. The cracking load was approximately
the same, 11.5 kN for L1-REFE and 10.5 kN for L2-REFE.
As expected, the lateral resistance of L1-REFE in rocking approximately doubled (test runs 7 and
11) when the normal force approximately doubled. The increase in the normal force was due to the
change of wall height consecutive to openings of flexural cracks. In case of L2-REFE, such
increment in the normal force was avoided by the use of railcar springs.
Both specimens were able to withstand large displacements without significant damage even after
numerous rocking cycles: both L1-REFE and L2-REFE had maximum drift of 0.73% and 0.80%
respectively. This confirms that rocking can be classified as a stable and favorable post cracking
behavior for URM specimens.
For the second phase of testing L2-REFE (see Appendix J), we increased the post-tensioning force
up to 60 kN (i.e. the normal force was 72 kN). This increment in the normal force could be
considered as an upgrading of the original specimen, which led to a corresponding increase of the
lateral resistance. After that upgrading, the specimen was able to recover approximately its initial
stiffness under a lateral resistance equal to its original maximum lateral resistance. However, clear
determination of the specimen lateral resistance under the increased normal force could not be
performed, as the test was interrupted in order to reserve the specimen for the next test on
specimen L2-GRID-G-F.
Using a strong mortar (type 0), between the masonry specimen and the foundation, and less strong
mortar (type 1) within the entire specimen (L1-REFE) moved the rocking plane to happen between
the second and third brick courses (Figure 4.1). For L2-REFE with a consistence mortar (type 2)
everywhere, the rocking plane was between the first brick course and the foundation (Figure 4.2).
After formation of the full-length rocking crack, no new bed joint cracks appeared in spite of the
very weak mortar were used. Therefore, minimum mortar strength seems sufficient to maintain the
specimen integrity during repeated rocking cycles.


Figure 4.1: Final Crack Pattern of Specimen
L1- REFE (Eastern Face)

L2- REFE (Western Face)

Test specimens S1- REFE and S2-REFE
Similarly to slender REFE specimens, both squat specimens had the same aspect ratio and normal
force; the sole difference was the mortar strength. Both specimens had mixed modes of failure
(Figures 4.3 and 4.4). The presence of the weak mortar in S2-REFE induced the rocking mode to be
the govern mode of failure. The following comments complete the overview of the tests:
The measured cracking and maximum lateral resistances were approximately the same for both
specimens, approximately 22 kN and 29 kN respectively.
No large increment in the post-tensioning force was recorded since no large deformations occurred
and the railcar springs were used for both specimens.

S1- REFE (Western Face)
S2- REFE (Western Face)
S2-REFE had cracking drift of 0.06% while specimen S1-REFE had cracking drift of 0.09%.
However, no correlation between the mortar strength and the drift was found at the measured
maximum lateral resistances. At the last test run, S1-REFE had a larger drift than S2-REFE in one
direction while it had a lower drift in the other direction. Finally, an average drift of 0.33% was
measured for both specimens at the last test run.
Test specimen L1-LAMI-C-I
This specimen was designed to investigate the shear behavior of slender URM specimens by
increasing the flexural resistance with minimal increase of the shear resistance (by the addition of two
vertical CFRP plates, see 2.3). So it can be considered as a reference specimen rather than an
upgraded specimen. As expected, the presence of the vertical CFRP plates changed the failure mode of
the specimen from rocking to mixed modes of failure (shear and flexure, Figure 4.5). The test can
therefore be considered to give a good indication of the shear resistance of the specimen; however, this
specimen also can be used to give an indication about the effectiveness of using vertical plates of
CFRP to upgrade URM walls. The following comments complete the overview of the tests:
At the test end, the normal force was 57 kN and the
lateral resistance was 32 kN (north direction). For
L1-REFE, the lateral resistance at a similar normal
force was 18.4 kN (data from test run 8). That means
the upgrading increased the lateral resistance by a
factor of 1.75 or that the shear resistance is 1.75
times the flexural resistance.
At first cracking, the drift was approximately 0.07%,
while the cracking load (16 kN) was 50% of the
measured lateral resistance (32 kN). Also, this means
that the presence of the CFRP plates increased both
cracking drift and cracking load (For L1-REFE the
cracking load was 13 kN).
Test combination of measured lateral resistance and
normal force in test run 17 indicated that the friction
coefficient in the masonry was about 0.55.
The upgrading delayed the failure: the specimen
failed under real earthquake intensity of 125% of the
reference earthquake. (L1-REFE failed under real
earthquake intensity of 99% of the reference earthquake).

Figure 4.5: Final Crack Pattern of
Specimen L1-LAMI-C-I
(Eastern ace)
During the test no delamination was observed in the plates; moreover, at the test end, no
deterioration was observed on the composite laminates. The test was interrupted in order to
preserve the specimen for the subsequent test of specimen L1-WRAP-G-X.
4.1.2 Upgraded specimens (L1-WRAP-G-F, L2-GRID-G-F, S1-WRAP-G-F, S2-WRAP-A-F,
and S1-LAMI-C-X)
All the upgrading materials increased the lateral resistance at a same normal force (N= 57 kN) by a
factor of 1.5 to 2.9 (Figure 4.6). To measure the improvements in the specimens lateral resistance a
magnification factor (MF) was used; the MF represents the ratio of the lateral resistance of the
upgraded specimen divided by the corresponding reference lateral resistance.

The ultimate lateral drifts of upgraded specimens are dependent on the aspect ratio and mostly
independent on the reinforcement ratio (). For slender (long) specimens (L1-WRAP-G-F, L2-GRID-
G-F, and L1-WRAP-G-X) the ultimate drifts were approximately 1%. For squat (short) specimens
(S1-WRAP-G-F, S2-WRAP-A-F, and S1-LAMI-C-X), it is difficult to prove this conclusion since the
specimens (S1-WRAP-G-F, S2-WRAP-A-F) did not reach its ultimate state due to the test set-up
capacity. However, the measured maximum drift for the squat upgraded specimens ranged from 0.12%
to 0.46%.
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
M
F
=
F
U
p
g
r
a
d
e
d
/
F
R
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
N=57 kN
=
0
.
0
7
2
%

=
0
.
0
6
8
%
=
0
.
0
2
8
%
=
0
.
0
4
9
%
=
0
.
0
7
2
%
F
upgraded
=?
=
0
.
1
8
9
%

Figure 4.6: The Improvement in the Lateral Resistance of the Upgrading Specimens
L
1
-
W
R
A
P
-
G
-
F
L
2
-
G
R
I
D
-
G
-
F
L
1
-
W
R
A
P
-
G
-
X
S
1
-
L
A
M
I
-
C
-
X
S
1
-
W
R
A
P
-
G
-
S
2
-
W
R
A
P
-
A
-
F
Test specimens L1-WRAP-G-F and L2 GRID-G-F
Both specimens were upgraded with glass fibers (Figure 4.7) and had the same reinforcement ratio;
however, the grid has superior nominal characteristics, ultimate stress and strain, over fabric. Another
difference between both specimens was that specimen L2-GRID-G-F had railcar springs while
specimen L1-WRAP-G-F did not have it. Both specimens developed a rocking mode (Figure 4.8) and
a maximum lateral drift of about 1%. The following comments summarize the main findings:
The post-tensioning force increased many times (approximately tripled) in case of L1-WRAP-G-F
due to increase of specimen height due to flexural cracks opening while in case of L2-GRID-G-F
increment as low as half the original post-tensioning force was recorded.
For L1-WRAP-G-F, under a normal force of approximately 57.0 kN the average peak lateral
resistance was about 43.6 kN; while, under approximately the same normal force (55.4 kN) L2-
GRID-G-F had an average peak lateral resistance of about 47.5 kN. These values mean that the
MFs for fabric and grid were 2.6 and 2.9 respectively. For L1-WRAP-G-F, at the test end, when
the normal force increased up to 99.5 kN the average peak lateral resistance increased a little up to
57.3 kN. This shows that the high normal force has insignificant effect on the lateral resistance of
URM-WUC; nevertheless, the lateral resistance of the reference specimen (L1-REFE)
approximately tripled when the normal force tripled. As a consequence, the MF reduced, in case of
high normal force, to 1.9.
At failure, the average ultimate drifts were 0.9% and 1.0% for L1-WRAP-G-F and L2-GRID-G-F
respectively.

Figure 4.7: Specimen L1-WRAP-G-F Ready
to Test (Western Face)
(Western Face)
The grid system increased the cracking load from approximately 11 kN (for L2-REFE) to 28 kN
for the upgraded specimen (L2-GRID-G-F).
Generally, the presence of the FRP system prevented development of cracks through the specimen
panel itself, i.e. the specimen did not experience observable damage until masonry crushing at the
bottom corners. The fabric prevents falling of debris from the specimen after failure; thus,
preventing possible injuries to occupants in the vicinity of the specimen in the event of a real
earthquake.
Rupture of the FRP at the specimen base was right to masonry crushing. As demonstrated by
Ehsani et al. [ESV 99], for URM specimens tested for out-of-plane, this mode of failure is more
ductile than other modes of failure (e.g. anchorage failure or FRP rupture prior to masonry
crushing).
The upgrading forced a move of the rocking crack from 3
rd
and 4
th
course (L1-REFE) to the base
of the masonry specimen (L1-WRAP-G-F), while the rocking plane was the same for L2-REFE
and L2-GRID-G-F. This means that even with a very non-uniform mortar, as in case of L1-
WRAP-G-F (strong mortar at the first brick course and weak mortar elsewhere) the mortar did not
influence the failure plane of the URM-WUC.
The upgrading delayed the onset of damaging deformations from 92% to 197% and from 86% to
230% of the reference earthquake for L1-WRAP-G-F and L2-GRID-G-F respectively.
In order to examine the effect of the final material product on the specimens behavior, the lateral
resistances from each test run were plotted versus the earthquake real intensity in Figure 4.13. The
figure shows that, the behavior of both specimens can be described through two phases: before and
after delamination. The first phase (before delamination), by increasing the earthquake real
intensity (acceleration) the lateral resistance of both specimens increased linearly, approximately,
in an identical way. In this phase no large variations in the post-tensioning forces, in both
specimens, were recorded. The second phase started with delamination; after delamination both
specimens behaved in a nonlinear way; there was nonlinear increase in the lateral resistance with
increasing earthquake real intensity. This nonlinear behavior was combined with high increase in
the post-tensioning force in case of L1-WRAP-G-F (note that no railcar springs were used). In
case of L2-GRID-G-F, the post-tensioning force remained approximately constant till test run 18
(UG1R 210% i.e. 232% of real earthquake intensity); after rupture of the grids, the real earthquake

intensity decreased while the corresponding post-tensioning force increased many times. This
suggests that, in the elastic range, there is no difference in response between specimens upgraded
either with grid or fabric.
Test specimens L1-WRAP-G-X

Figure 4.9: Specimen L1-WRAP-G-X
after Testing
In this specimen the upgrading material was exactly the
same as L1-WRAP-G-F, the differences were the
upgrading configuration (Figure 4.9) and reinforcement
ratio; also, this specimen did not have the railcar
springs. This wall was previously tested as reference
specimen (L1-LAMI-C-I); the behavior of specimen L1-
WRAP-G-X could be affected by this previous test. At
failure, the FRP failed at the specimen mid-height due
to shear and flexural cracks, which had developed first
through brick joints. The deformation capacity of this
specimen (1.1%), at failure, corresponds to those of L1-
WRAP-G-F and L2-GRID-G-F. The following
comments complete the main findings:
At the test end, the post-tensioning force reached
approximately five times the original post-
tensioning force due to the increase of the specimen
height corresponding to flexural and shear cracks
opening.
Under a normal force of approximately 57.0 kN the average lateral resistance was approximately
25.7 kN, L1-REFE under the same normal force had a lateral resistance of 17 kN i.e. the MF was
1.51. This MF was approximately constant till the first delamination (test run 18, Appendix D). At
delamination, the normal force was 86.3 kN, the lateral resistance was 39.1 kN, while for L1-
REFE the lateral resistance at a normal force of 81.5 kN was 24.6 kN i.e. the MF was 1.59.
However, with increasing the normal force the MF reduced. At failure, the post-tensioning force
increased many times due to the increase of the specimen height corresponding to flexural and
shear cracks opening. Under a normal force of approximately 124.1 kN, L1-WRAP-G-X had an
average ultimate lateral resistance of about 42.1 kN. Nevertheless, it was difficult to determine the
MF since no reference specimen was tested under the same normal force. To determine an
approximate value of the MF, the ultimate lateral resistance of L1-WRAP-G-X under 124 kN
normal force without upgrading (i.e. URM specimen) could be calculated simply using
equilibrium equation (further discussion is given in Chapter 5). This gives a lateral resistance of 36
kN, which could be compared with the specimens maximum lateral resistance (45 kN) i.e. the MF
was 1.25.
The upgrading delayed the failure: the specimen failed under earthquake real intensity of 199% of
the reference earthquake; however, part of this delay should be attributed to the increase in the
normal force.
Although this specimen failed due to tearing of the FRP consecutive to shear forces, its average
ultimate lateral drift, about 1.1%, was the best over all the other specimens.
The presence of the FRP system did not prevent development of shear and flexural cracks through
the specimen panel itself. This is one of the main difference between the fully and the partially
covered surfaces. This suggests that, for a heavily damaged URM wall it is better to cover one
surface with composite rather than using diagonal (X) configuration.
Test specimens S1-WRAP-G-F and S2 WRAP-A-F
Both specimens were wrapped from one face using glass fiber for S1-WRAP-G-F and aramid fiber for
S2-WRAP-G-F (Figures 4.10 and 4.11). As mentioned in Chapter 2, the aramid fabric has superior
nominal characteristics, ultimate stress and strain, over glass fabric. The lateral resistances of both
specimens were higher than the machine capacity. Both tests were stopped without any significant
signs of failure. The following comments complete the overview of the tests:

Figure 4.10: Specimen S1-WRAP-G-F Ready
to Test
Figure 4.11: Specimen S2-WRAP-A-F Ready
to Test
No significant increment was recorded in the post-tensioning force during testing both specimens,
thanks to the railcar springs.
At the test end, under a normal force of approximately 44 kN, S1-WRAP-G had an average lateral
resistance of about 74 kN, while S2-WRAP-A-F had an average lateral resistance of about 72 kN
i.e. the MFs were at least identically to about 2.6.
At the test ends, the average drift was 0.12% and 0.30% for S2-WRAP-A-F and S1-WRAP-G-F
respectively (for the squat reference specimens the maximum drift was approximately 0.33%).
No cracks were visually observed during both tests, this means that the upgrading system
increased the cracking load by a factor of at least 3.0.
The upgrading delayed the ultimate damaging deformations from 193% to, at least, 467% and
from 206% to, at least, 538% of the reference earthquake for S1-WRAP-G-F and S2-WRAP-A-F
respectively.
Both specimens behaved nonlinearly, approximately in an identical way, right first delamination
(Figure 4.14). No delamination was observed for S2-WRAP-A-F right machine capacity, while for
S1-WRAP-G-F a delamination was observed. After delamination, S1-WRAP-G-F behaved
linearly with reduced stiffness. S2-WRAP-A-F continued to behave nonlinearly right machine
capacity. It is worth here to note that, although there were no visual signs of delamination for
specimen S2-WRAP-A-F, the data analysis suggest that there were a delamination during test run
27. The horizontal line in Figure 4.14 between real earthquake intensities 338% and 482%
confirms this comments.

Test specimens S1-LAMI-C-X
In this specimen the upgrading material was a special type of CFRP plates (Figure 4.12). The
specimen had XX shape upgrading configuration and a reinforcement ratio of 0.05%. Generally, the
behavior of this specimen may be affected by the previous test that was carried out on the same wall as
specimen (S1-REFE). During test run 16, one plate failed due to anchorage failure at the foundation
level. This plate had been repaired with a fast curing epoxy resin and the bottom ends of the four
plates had been fixed with steel plates.
The following comments complete the overview of
the test runs:
No significant increment was recorded in the
post-tensioning force during testing specimen S1-
LAMI-C-X, thanks to the railcar springs.
At failure and under a normal force of 47.5 kN,
S1-LAMI-C-X had a lateral resistance of 38.4 kN.
Approximately under the same normal force (48.6
kN) specimen S1-REFE had a lateral resistance of
28.6 kN i.e. the MF factor was 1.34.
Although this specimen failed due to FRP
anchorage failure, its average maximum lateral
drift, about 0.46%, was higher than the measured
maximum drift of the other upgraded specimens.
It is worth to note that the specimen did not reach
its displacement ultimate capacity; since S1-
LAMI-C-X was reserved for the subsequent test
and both S1-WRAP-G-F and S2-GRID-G-F reached the machine capacity.

Figure 4.12: Specimen S1-LAMI-C-X
Ready to Test (Appendix F)
The presence of the FRP system did not prevent development of shear and flexural cracks through
the specimen panel itself. This is one of the main differences between the fully covered and the
partially covered surfaces.
At failure, the FRP failed at the specimen top due to debonding followed by anchorage failure.
4.2 Delamination and Anchorage
Delamination is an important event, since it could be either a raison for stiffness degradation or early
sign of failure. The stiffness degradation due to delamination was reported by others [ESV 99] for out-
of-plane failure of URM-WUC. The delamination could happen at the load vicinity or near the
supports; if happened at the supports usually leads to anchorage failure. As mentioned earlier, the
study of the anchorage system was out of the scope of this research; hence, the anchorage failure was
prevented by using steel plates at the FRP ends; the steel plates were used in all specimens except in
the beginning of testing specimen S1-LAMI-C-X. In all specimens, except S1-LAMI-C-X, this
technique prevented the anchorage failure. At first delamination, a comparison between the lateral
resistance and FRP strains in the test specimens are presented in Appendix L; the presented strains are
calculated based on the measured deformations using the LVD transducers, the comparison shows the
following:
The lateral resistance at first delamination (F
d
) is proportional to the fiber ultimate strength and
inverse proportional to the reinforcement ratio.
Qualitatively F
d
is influenced by three factors: the aspect ratio, the FRP product and material type,
and the upgrading configuration.
The glass fiber fabrics delaminated at average tensile strains approximately ranged from 0.06% to
0.32%, depends on the reinforcement ratio.
The glass fiber grids delaminated at average vertical tensile strains approximately 0.09%.
The thermoplastic plates of CFRP Sika CarboDur T failed due to anchorage at average tensile
strains of 0.4%; after reparation using fast epoxy, it delaminated at average tensile strain of 0.5%.
For all specimens, that had delaminated, the average vertical compression strains along the
masonry panel, at delamination, was approximately 0.04% independent on the reinforcement ratio
or product.
4.3 Maximum Strains at Failure
Recently, several researchers proved that, during testing reinforced concrete beams, the FRP strain at
failure is many times lower than its nominal ultimate strains. This phenomenon has been reported for
reinforced concrete beams that have been tested in shear ([Tr 98], and [KGN 98]) as well as in bending
[BM 01]; moreover; this phenomenon was presented [KEC 03] for URM walls that had been upgraded
using GFRP and tested for out-of-plane failure. All these researchers proposed an empirical efficiency
factor for FRP; this efficiency factor is inversely proportional to FRP area and Youngs modulus. In
order to investigate this phenomenon for the tested specimens, the maximum strains, calculated based
on the measured deformations using the LVD transducers, at the masonry and upgraded faces of the
failed test specimens are examined. Detailed results are given in Appendix L; the results show that just
before failure, the maximum vertical strain for the GFRP fabrics was 1.2%, while for GFRP grids was
2.5% (the nominal ultimate strain for grid fiber is 4%). For the other upgrading materials, no strains at
failure were recorded since the FRP did not fail in tension (either debonding and anchorage or no
failure at all).
4.4 Specimens Asymmetry
As mentioned earlier all the test specimens were upgraded on one face only. As shown by other
researchers [Sc 96] and [AH 99] this system did not result in any asymmetry in deformations, which
may result in more complicated failure mechanism. In order to evaluate this issue for the tested
specimens, a comparison between the vertical strains, calculated based on measured displacements
using LVD transducers, on the masonry face bare face and the upgraded face was carried out
(Appendix L). The comparison shows the following:
For slender specimens, the upgraded system succeeds in producing complete symmetric response
in case of tension while there was a little asymmetry in case of compression. The strains indicate
that the asymmetry increased by increasing the earthquake intensity, the rate of increase in the
asymmetry during compression is many times larger than tension. The maximum asymmetry in
tension was recorded in the last test run (test run 19) of specimen L2-GRID-G-F; the average
vertical strain along the masonry face was approximately 118% of the average vertical strain along
the FRP face. In compression, the maximum asymmetry was recorded in the last test run (test run
24) of specimen L1-WRAP-G-F; the average vertical strain along the masonry face was
approximately 50% of the average strain along the FRP face.
For squat specimens, the upgraded system did not success in producing symmetric response. The
maximum asymmetry in tension was recorded in test run 20 of specimen S1-WRAP-G-F; the

average vertical strain along the masonry face was approximately 290% of the average vertical
strain along the FRP face. In compression, the maximum asymmetry was recorded in the last test
run (test run 30) of specimen S2-WRAP-A-F; the average vertical strain along the masonry face
was approximately 56% of the average strain along the FRP face.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250
Real Earthquake Intensity [%]
F

[
k
N
]
29.0
39.0
49.0
59.0
69.0
79.0
89.0
99.0
P

[
k
N
]
L1-WRAP-G-F (F)
L2-GRID-G-F (F)
L1-WRAP-G-F (P)
L2-GRID-G-F (P)
Fabric Delamination
No Difference
P Approx. Constant
F Approx. Coincident
Grid
Delaminatio

Figure 4.13: Comparison between Measured Lateral Resistances (F) and Post-tensioning
Forces (P) for Long Reinforced Specimens L1-WRAP-G-F and L2-GRID-G-F
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
Real Earthquake Intensity [%]
F

[
k
N
]
28.5
29.5
30.5
31.5
32.5
33.5
34.5
35.5
36.5
37.5
P

[
k
N
]
S1-WRAP-G-F (F)
S2-WRAP-A-F (F)
S1-WRAP-G-F (P)
S2-WRAP-A-F (P)
Glass
Delamination
Jack Capacity

Figure 4.14: Comparison between Measured Lateral Resistances (F) and Post-tensioning
Forces (P) for Short Reinforced Specimens S1-WRAP-G-F and S2-WRAP-A-F

Chapter 5: CALCULATED VERSUS MEASURED RESPONSE 49
5 CALCULATED VERSUS MEASURED RESPONSE

This chapter reviews various methods used to calculate the lateral resistance of URM walls and URM-
WUC. The methods used for the analysis of URM walls represent methodologies currently available
for the analysis. The methods used for the analysis of URM-WUC represent conventional methods for
reinforced concrete elements but rather new methodology for masonry, especially in case of shear
failure. However, right now no experimental results are available to calibrate these models in case of
URM-WUC.
5.1 Seismic Performance of Unreinforced Masonry Walls
Masonry is non-homogeneous and anisotropic composite structural material, consisting of masonry
units, and mortar. Masonry behavior is complex; its behavior is not perfectly elastic even in the range
of small deformations. The accurate prediction of the lateral load capacity of URM walls is difficult
because of the complex block-mortar interaction behavior. The principle in-plane failure mechanisms
of URM walls subjected to earthquake actions can be summarized as following (Figure 5.1):
Shear failure: Walls with low aspect ratios and high axial loads tend to develop a diagonal cracking
failure. This unfavorable mode of failure occurs when the principal tensile stresses, developing in a
wall under a combination of horizontal and vertical loads, exceeds masonry tensile resistance. Just
before the attainment of maximum lateral load, diagonal cracks are developed in the wall either follow
the path of the bed- and head-joints for relatively strong bricks and weak mortars or may go through
the masonry units in case of relatively weak bricks and strong mortars, or both. The high the vertical
load, the more likely that the cracks go through the brick. For high axial load with diagonal shear
mode of failure, explosive failure may happen.
Sliding mode: in case of low vertical loads and /or low friction coefficient, which maybe due to poor
quality mortar, horizontal cracks in the bed joints can form a sliding plane extending along the wall
length. This causes the wall upper part to slide on the wall lower part.
Flexural (rocking) mode: in case of high bending moment/shear ratio or improved shear resistance
failure happens with the crushing of the compressed zones at the wall edges. This causes the
overturning of the wall.
Combinations of flexural and shear behavior may exist for elements that first crack in flexure, then
redistribute shear stress across a smaller un-cracked portion, and subsequently crack in diagonal
tension. Also for low axial force and aspect ratio combinations of rocking and sliding might happen.
5.2 Lateral Resistance of URM Walls
In this section, the flexural and shear capacity of the URM specimens are computed and the computed
values are compared to those values measured during the tests.

50 Chapter 5: CALCULATED VERSUS MEASURED RESPONSE

(a) (b) (c)
Figure 5.1: In-plane Failure Modes of a Laterally Loaded URM Wall:
a) Shear Failure, b) Sliding Failure, and c) Rocking Failure
5.2.1 Flexural design
The ultimate lateral force, which can be resisted by a rocking wall under in plane loading, can be
calculated using simple static equilibrium equations [To 99]. With reference to Figure 5.2 and
neglecting masonry tensile strength, the nominal lateral resistance can be calculated as follows:

Figure 5.2: Assumptions for Rocking Resistance of Wall Failing with
Toe Crushing
N
h
F
e
f
k
a
x
L
L/2 L/2
N
F
r
(Moving Mass)
Head Beam
I= , A=
( )
)
t f
N
(L
r h 2
N
F
k
+
= (5.1)
where
F = nominal lateral resistance,
N = axial load,
L = wall length,
h = wall height,
r = distance between the lateral force application level and the top of the masonry panel,
t = walls thickness,
f
k
= characteristic compressive strength of masonry,
x= compression zone length,
a= stress block depth,
e= eccentricity.
5.2.2 Shear design
Two different mechanisms are considered in order to evaluate the shear failure of URM wall. The
failure mechanisms are the following:
The first mechanism assumes that walls are built of strong masonry units in poor quality mortar. In
such a case, typical diagonal cracks pass through the mortar joints step cracks. Assuming a
Mohr-Coulomb frictional model, the ultimate shear stress can be calculated as follows:
+ = u c
u
(5.2)
where:
c = characteristic initial shear strength under zero compressive stress (cohesion),
u = friction coefficient, and
= N/Lt = average compression stress due to the vertical load N.
The second mechanism assumes that walls are built of weak brick units in good quality mortar. In
such a case, typical diagonal cracks pass through brick units. The shear failure is caused by the
principal tensile stresses, which develop in brick units when subjected to a combination of vertical
and lateral loads. In this case, formation of diagonal cracks passing through masonry units can be
easily explained. By considering the masonry wall as an elastic, homogeneous and isotropic
structural element, the basic equation to determine the shear resistance of URM wall can be
derived. Using this approach, a design equation was presented by Turnsek and Sheppard [TS 81].
The equation takes into account the influence of wall geometry and the ratio between vertical and
lateral loads. The ultimate shear stress can be calculated as follows:
t
t
u
f
1
b
f
+ = (5.3)
where
b= the shear stress distribution factor, depending on the wall aspect ratio. Values of b has been
proposed [TS 81] as follows:
b=
0 1 ratio aspect l geometrica for 1 1

5 1 ratio aspect l geometrica for 5 1
. .
. .
f
t
= the tensile strength of masonry units, and
= N/Lt = average compression stress due to the vertical load N.
These failure mechanisms have been implemented in recent design models (e.g. [EC6 99], and [MC
97]). In addition, these design models consider the influence of flexural cracking on shear stress
distribution. Only the compressed portion of the URM wall sensed shear because no shear stress could

be transferred across an open flexural crack cracked section. In the following paragraphs, examples
of a masonry design code and a recent design model are presented.
Eurocode 6 [EC6 99]
To calculate the lateral resistance of URM wall according to [EC6 99] the following comments should
be taken into considerations:
[EC6 99] defines two-types of head joints: dry or infilled head joints. All the head joints in this
research were infilled joints.
[EC6 99] defines four groups of brick units. The percentage of holes volume in a brick unit
defines the unit group. Brick units used in this research are of group 2.
The coefficient of friction is, independent on the mortar type, equal to 0.4.
Taking into consideration these comments, the lateral resistance (F) of URM wall can be calculated as
follows:
F= (5.4) xt
u
+
+
=
0.126 f 0.0306
0.4 c
min
b
u
(5.5)
where
= N/Lt = average compression stress due to the vertical load N,
c = 0.2 MPa for mortar types M2.5-M9,
f
b
= normalized compressive strength of brick units,
x = compression zone length,
t = wall thickness.
Magenes and Calvi model [MC 97]
A recent design model for URM walls has been developed, based on experimental tests and numerical
models, by [MC 97]. This model is based on equations 5.2 and 5.3. Modification factors- to take into
consideration the effect of brick size, complex stress distribution, shear-flexure interaction, and crack
propagation- have been developed.
The first failure mechanism step cracks has been modified by considering the concept of
cracked section and implementing a correction factor
v
into equation 5.2, this yields:
Lt F
u
= (5.6)
+
+
+
+
=
section uncracked the to relevant
1
u c
section cracked the to relevant
c 3 1
u c 5 1
v
v
u
) (
.
min (5.7)
where
= shear ratio,
v
FL
M
v
= (5.8)
M = bending moment corresponding to the lateral resistance F, for the test specimens
M= F(h+r),
c = characteristic initial shear strength under zero compressive stress (cohesion),
u = friction coefficient,
N/Lt = average compression stress due to the vertical load N. =
This yields
L
r h
v
+
= (5.9)
The previous formulas have been developed based on Gambarotta and Lagomarsino [GL 94]
numerical model. This numerical model simulated masonry as a layered material, made by the
superposition of continuous, homogeneous layers of solid clay and mortar, thus neglecting head joints
influences. A correction factor originally proposed by Mann and Mller [MM 82], to take into
considerations existing head joints, have been implemented. The correction factor transfers a local bed
joint strength parameters c and u, derived from laboratory or in situ tests, to global strength
parameters. This corrected or global parameters should be implemented in equation 5.7. The corrected
cohesion and corrected coefficient of friction are expressed as follows:
u u c c = = , (5.10)
u 2 1
1
X
Y
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
= (5.11)
where
= correction factor,
= height of the brick unit,
Y
= length of the brick unit,

X
u = friction coefficient.
In the second failure mechanism, shear cracks pass through bricks, a formula similar to equation
5.3 with b=2.3 has been adopted. This formula has been originally developed by [MM 82].
t
t
u
f
1
3 . 2
f
+ = (5.12)
Using the correction factor in equation 5.12, the local failure criterion expressed by equation 5.12
can be transformed into a global resistance criterion as follows:
v
( )
t v
t
f
1
1 3 2
Lt f
F
+
+
=
.
(5.13)
Finally, the lateral resistance of URM wall should then be calculated as the lower resistance obtained
from equations and 5.13.
5.2.3 Comparison between Measured Lateral Force and Calculated Lateral Resistance
The measured lateral force of each reference test specimen is compared with the calculated lateral
resistance. The lateral resistance was calculated using equations 5.1, 5.5, and 5.7, as in this research
equation 5.13 gives higher resistance than equation 5.7. Figures 5.3 to 5.6 present the calculated
lateral resistances and measured lateral forces for slender and squat specimens. It is worth to note that
the calculated lateral resistances in Figure 5.3 and 5.5 are generally higher than those in Figures 5.4

and 5.6; this difference is mainly attributed to the difference masonry characteristic compressive
strength used in each case. The main parameters that have been used in the calculations are
summarized in Table 5.1.
To obtain a better insight into the shear capacity of a slender specimen, the lateral resistance of
specimen L1-LAMI-C-I, which failed in mixed modes of failure (shear and rocking), was calculated
according to equation 5.5 [EC6 99] and equation 5.7 [MC 97]. One assumption was made here to
make the calculation easier; the contribution of vertical FRP reinforcement to shear resistance, which
provides mainly dowel action effect, is negligible. This can be justified by the high flexibility of the
laminates. Figure 5.3 shows the lateral measured forces for the last ten test runs of specimen L1-
LAMI-C-I. Although the specimen did not reach its ultimate capacity, the last three test runs of the
measured lateral forces have a tendency to be a constant value. The comparison with [EC6 99] and
[MC 97] was made with these last three measured forces.
Slender specimens
Equation 5.1 was used to calculate the ultimate resistance of the slender reference specimens that
failed in flexural mode, i.e. rocking (L1-REFE and L2-REFE). Table 5.2 summarize the calculated F
and the related experimental values for three normal force values, after specimen rocking, for each
specimen. Although equation 5.1 has the meaning of masonry compressive failure and the reference
tests were stopped before masonry compressive failure occurred (Appendixes A and J), the measured
lateral resistances correlate well to the calculated values. Examination of Table 5.2 shows that under
different normal forces, both specimens tended to rock at 89% to 100% of its calculated lateral
resistance.

0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90
Normal Stresses ()[MPa]
F

[
k
N
]
flexural
Shear, K=1.00 [MC 97]
Shear, K=0.67 [MC 97]
Shear [EC6 00]
L1-REFE
L1-LAMI-C-I

Measured Lateral Forces for Specimens L1-REFE and L1-LAMI-C-I
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55
Normal Stresses ()[MPa]
F

[
k
N
]
flexural
Shear, K=1.00 [MC 97]
Shear, K=0.67 [MC 97]
Shear [EC6 00]
L2-REFE

Measured Lateral Forces for Specimen L2-REFE
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
0.33 0.34 0.35 0.36 0.37 0.38 0.39 0.40 0.41 0.42
Normal Stresses () [MPa]
F

[
k
N
]
flexural
Shear, K=1.00 [MC 97]
Shear, K=0.67 [MC 97]
Shear [EC6 00]
S1-REFE

Measured Lateral Forces for Specimen S1-REFE

15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
0.33 0.34 0.35 0.36 0.37 0.38 0.39 0.40 0.41 0.42
Normal Stresses () [MPa]
F

[
k
N
]
flexural
Shear, K=1.00 [MC 97]
Shear, K=0.67 [MC 97]
Shear [EC6 00]
S2-REFE

Measured Lateral Forces for Specimen S2-REFE
Table 5.1: Parameters Used in Assessment of Reference Specimens
f
1
k
6.0 Mpa L 1575 mm
f
2
k
4.8 Mpa t 75 mm
f
b
14.8 Mpa
lateral force
application level
(LW)

2245 mm
f
t
2.4 Mpa
lateral force
application level
(SW)

1045 mm
c 0.2 Mpa
V(LW)
1.43
u 0.4
V(SW)
0.67
X
150 mm
Y
95 mm
LW: Slender Wall (long wall)
SW: Squat Wall (short wall)
1. Specimens were built with mortar type 1
2. Specimens were built with mortar type 2

Figure 5.7: Simple Structural Model for The Tested Walls

h
r
t
L
F
Moving Mass
F
N
N
Head Beam
I= , A=
The previous calculation of the lateral resistance assumes that the failure occurs between the
foundation and the masonry panel. In case of L1-REFE, the actual plane of failure was between the
second and third brick courses. When equation 5.1 was used to calculate the lateral resistance at this
rocking plane; the measured lateral forces were approximately 87% of the calculated lateral
resistances.
The EC6 analysis indicated that the rocking would control over the wall shear for both reference
specimens. In addition, the EC6 ultimate shear calculation is compared with the measured lateral
forces of L1-LAMI-C-I. The comparison indicates that EC6 overestimates the ultimate shear
resistance of URM wall. For L1-LAMI-C-I, the calculated lateral resistance using EC6 design model
was quite un-conservative relative to those measured during the experiment. For the last three test runs
of L1-LAMI-C-I, the measured values were about 65% of the calculated values.
[MC 97] model indicated that the wall shear (step cracks) for reference walls would control over wall
rocking, either =1 or =0.67. For L1-LAMI-C-I, the calculated lateral resistance using [MC 97]
design model was quite conservative relative to those measured during the experiment. For the last
three test runs of L1-LAMI-C-I, the measured values are about 230% and 150% of the calculated
values using =0.67 and =1.00, respectively.
Table 5.2: Calculated Lateral Resistance and Measured Lateral Forces for Specimens
L1-REFE and L2-REFE
Specimen Test [Run]
N
[kN]

[Mpa]
F
Measured
[kN]
F
Calculated

[kN]
F
Measured
/
F
Calculated

8
*
81.5 0.69 23.7 25.4 93%
10 70.9 0.60 20.1 22.5 89%
L1-REFE
(L=1580 mm)
Appendix A 11 101.5 0.87 30.6 30.6 100%
8
*
46.4 0.39 14.5 14.9 97%
9 48.7 0.41 15.4 15.6 99%
L2-REFE
(L=1570 mm)
Appendix J 10 55.6 0.47 16.2 17.5 93%
* Specimen started to rock
Squat specimens
The failure modes of reference squat walls (S1-REFE and S2-REFE) were mixed modes of failure
(shear and rocking). Table 5.3 summarize the calculated lateral resistances and measured lateral forces
for the last three tests run of S1-REFE and S2-REFE. Examination of Figures 5.5 and 5.6 and Table
5.3 leads the conclusion that the [MC 97] shear design model is more conservative than [EC6 99].
EC6 analysis indicated that both rocking and shear lateral resistances are close together in case of S1-
REFE; nevertheless, with increasing the normal force the rocking and shear lateral resistances diverge.
In case of S2-REFE, the rocking lateral resistance is clearly dominant. As a consequence, the
comparison indicates that [EC6 99] overestimates the ultimate shear resistance of URM wall.
[MC 97] model indicated that the wall shear (step cracks) would control over wall rocking, either =1
or =0.67. The calculated lateral resistances using [MC 97] design model, with =1, correlate well to
those measured during the test. For the last three test runs of both S1-REFE and S2-REFE, the
measured values are about 160% and 110% of the calculated values using =0.67 and =1.00
respectively.

Table 5.3: Calculated Lateral Resistance and Measured Lateral Forces for Specimens
S1-REFE-S2-REFE
F
Calculated

[kN]
Specimen
Test
Run
N
[kN]

[MPa]
F
Measured
[kN] [MC 97]
=0.67
[MC 97]
=1
EC6 Flexure
24 45.9 0.39 26.9 16.8 25.1 36.4 32.8
25 47.3 0.40 28.0 17.0 25.4 38.0 33.7
S1-REFE
(L=1565 mm)
Appendix E 26 48.6 0.41 28.5 17.2 25.7 39.5 34.6
20 42.8 0.36 26.4 16.4 24.4 41.5 30.4
21 43.5 0.37 26.9 16.5 24.6 42.5 30.8
S2-REFE
(L=1570 mm)
Appendix H 22 46.0 0.40 28.2 17.0 25.4 47.5 33.0
5.3 Lateral Resistance of URM-WUC
In this section the conventional methods, which have been used for reinforced concrete elements, were
used to calculate the lateral resistance of URM-WUC. The calculated and measured lateral forces are
compared together. In case of slender specimens, the calculated lateral resistance compared well with
the experimental data. In case of squat specimens, the comparison with the experimental data could
not be done as no squat specimen reached its lateral resistance during the dynamic tests. Therefore, the
measured lateral forces, in case of squat specimens, could be assumed as lower bound values to be
compared with the calculated values. Static cyclic tests of squat specimens are being continued to
determine its lateral resistance [HEL 03].
5.3.1 Flexural design
A common method to calculate the flexural capacity of structural elements is the use of linear elastic
approach. It is an easy method and intended to incorporate a realistic behavior of a structural element
by assuming that it behaves linearly up to failure. In case of URM-WUC, this assumption is justified
by the observed behavior of the tested specimens. The complete derivation of the mathematical
equations is given in Appendix Q, the derivation based on the following assumptions:
only rocking mode of failure is considered.
full composite action between composite material and the brick surface is assumed. Debonding of
the composite material is avoided by choosing appropriate dimensions for composite and good
anchorage system.
plane section remains plane before and after deformations.
tensile strength in brick and adhesive is neglected; this means that all tensile stresses in the wall
section are resisted by composite materials only.
the maximum nominal compressive strain in masonry is 0.0035, while the nominal tensile strain in
glass fiber is 0.03 for fabric glass, 0.04 for grid glass, and 0.028 for aramid woven.
the effect of the thickness of the composite material has been ignored to simplify the design
equations.
This method is used to calculate the lateral resistances of specimens S1-WRAP-G-F, S2-WRAP-A-F,
L1-WRAP-G-F, and L2-GRID-G-F. The calculations were made based on FRP nominal material
characteristics. Table 5.4 summarizes the results.
Table 5.4: Summary of Flexural Assessment of URM-WUC
Parameters S1-WRAP-G-F S2-WRAP-A-F L1-WRAP-G-F L2-GRID-G-F
|| 0.072 0.189 0.072 0.068
[-] 0.033 0.134 0.033 0.043
[-] 0.062 0.071 -0.1399 -0.098
X [mm] 259 411 362 325
M
u
[kN.m] 80.47 111.42 95.93 75.04
F

[kN] 77.00 106.6 42.7 33.4
F
(measured)
[kN] 74.1
*
72.0
*
57.3 47.5
F/ F
(measured)
1.04
*
1.47
*
0.75 0.70
* Earthquake simulator maximum force capacity
5.3.2 Shear design
Studies on shear strengthening of URM using composites are very limited. Some relevant literature
regarding shear strengthening of reinforced concrete beams show the following. The effectiveness of
the strengthening reinforcement, that is, the load carried by the FRP at the ultimate limit state, depends
on its failure mechanism. As suggested by experimental evidence, failure of the FRP may occur either
by debonding or by tensile fracture. This tensile fracture may occur at stresses lower than the tensile
strength of the composite material (e.g. at debonded areas). In many cases, the actual failure
mechanism is a combination of FRP debonding at certain areas and fracture at others [Tr 98].
A detailed investigation on shear strengthening of reinforced concrete beams shows that researchers
have idealized FRP materials in an analogy with internal steel stirrups. They assume that the
contribution of FRP to shear capacity emanates from the capacity of fibers to carry tensile stresses at a
more or less constant strain, which is equal either to the FRP ultimate tensile strain or to a reduced
value.
This section introduces the shear calculations based on:
a recent empirical design model have been developed by Triantafillou [Tr 98], and
in place shear test shove test.
Triantafillou model
The, only existent, shear design model for URM-WUC has been empirically developed by
Triantafillou [Tr 98]. This model made the following assumptions:
Dowel action of vertical FRP is neglected in shear,
Shear is resisted by masonry specimen and horizontal FRP only, and
Horizontal FRP can be modeled in analogy to steel stirrups in reinforced concrete beams.
FRP m
F F F + = (5.14)
By adopting the classical truss analogy, it can be shown that the contribution of horizontal FRP to
shear capacity is given as follows:
L t E F
eff FRP h FRP
= (5.15)
where
F
m
= lateral resistance of URM specimen calculated according to equation 5.5,
F
FRP
= contribution of FRP in the lateral resistance of URM specimen,
h
= reinforcement ratio of FRP in horizontal direction,

E
FRP
= modulus of elasticity of FRP,
eff
= effective FRP strain.
The effective FRP strain is the only unknown in equation 5.15 to determine the contribution of
FRP in shear resistance of URM specimen. This term refers to the maximum mobilized axial force in
the FRP. To evaluate this term Triantafillou [Tr 98] derived a polynomial function, for reinforced
concrete beams, that relates the strain in the FRP at shear failure of the member to the axial rigidity of
the composites . This polynomial was derived through curve fitting on about 40 test data
published by various researchers. The effective FRP strain may be calculated as follows:
eff
FRP h
E
2
FRP h FRP h FRP
) E ( 0104 . 0 ) E ( 0205 . 0 0119 . 0 + = (5.16)
Using this method, calculations were made for ultimate shear resistance of squat specimens as slender
specimens failed in flexure. Tables 5.5 and 5.6 summarize the calculated lateral resistance due to the
fibers only (equation 5.15) as well as the one due to masonry and fibers (equation 5.14).
Shove test
As described in Appendix N, a shove test was conducted on specimen L1-WRAP-G-F after the
dynamic tests. The shove test measures masonry shear strength at a single point. The UCBC [UC 90]
details the required number and locations of these shove tests and prescribes the allowable shear stress,
a
, as follows:
+ = 15 . 0 1 . 0
t a
(5.17)
where
t
= the shear strength value exceeded by 80% of the shove test values that have been reduced
to a zero normal stress.
The measured ultimate shear resistance of specimen L1-WRAP-G-F was used to calculate the
specimen ultimate lateral resistance. The direct use of equation 5.17 is impossible as one point was
measured during the shove test. Another implementation of the shove test was explored in [AS 92].
Abrams and Sinha [AS 92] divided the shove test measurements by a factor of 1.5 to account for the
difference between average and maximum shear stresses distribution. The ultimate lateral resistance of
a specimen can be calculated as follows:
Lt
5 1
F
.
= (5.18)
where

u
= the ultimate shear stress,
L = wall length,
t = wall thickness.
This simple way, in case of shear failure, gave an overestimation of 7% over the measured lateral
resistance during the test [AS 92].

In case of specimen L1-WRAP-G-F, the shove test shear stress is 1.6 MPa. Using equation 5.18, the
lateral resistance of URM specimen upgraded with GFRP from one side could be 125.6 kN. The
measured lateral force, under a post-tensioning force of 33 kN (i.e. N= 45 kN), was approximately 24-
kN.

Table 5.5: Fiber Contribution to Lateral Resistance in case of Shear
Failure
Parameters S1-WRAP-G-F S2-WRAP-A-F
|| 0.072 0.189
E [GPa] 70 100
eff
[-] (equation 5.27) 0.0109 0.0119
F
FRP
[kN] 74 264

Table 5.6: Calculated Lateral Resistance and Measured Lateral Forces of Squat Specimens
F
*
Calculated

[kN]
Specimen
Test
Run
N
[kN]
F
Measured
[kN] [MC 97]
=0.67
[MC 97]
=1
EC6
S1-WRAP-G-F 35 43.5 74.1 90.5 98.6 103.7
S2-WRAP-A-F 30 42.9 72.0 280.4 288.4 293.1
*the lateral resistance due to composites are calculated according to equation 5.25 [Tr 98]


Chapter 6: SUMMARY AND FINDINGS 63
6 SUMMARY AND FINDINGS

The following primary objectives were followed throughout the course of this experimental study:
to examine, in near real conditions, the seismic in-plane behavior of unreinforced masonry (URM)
specimens that have been upgraded on one face using composites
to study the effect of various fiber materials and products on the upgraded specimen behavior
to compare the behavior of various upgrading configurations
to compare available design models with the test results for URM specimens and URM specimens
that have been upgraded using composites (URM-WUC).
6.1 Experimental Work
Five half-scale URM walls were built using weak mortar and half scale brick units. These five walls
were dynamically tested as reference specimens. Then, these reference specimens were upgraded
using composites and retested. As a consequence, a total of eleven specimens were tested on the
earthquake simulator of ETHZ. This research has investigated the following parameters:
the aspect ratio: slender (aspect ratio of 1.4) and squat (aspect ratio of 0.7)
the fiber type: aramid, glass, and carbon fiber
the upgrading configurations: diagonal shape (X) and wrapping
the fiber structures: plates, fabrics, and grids
the mortar compressive strength: weak (M2.5) and strong (M9).
6.2 Findings
The dynamic experimental testing of five URM and six URM-WUC specimens, led to the following
findings:
6.2.1 General
The upgrading materials increased the specimens lateral resistances by a factor of 1.4 to 2.8
(Figure 6.1) compared to the reference (URM) specimens. Expectedly, the increase ratio is higher
for lower normal force: the lateral resistance of the reference specimen increases, approximately in
a linear fashion, by increasing the normal force; nevertheless, the increase in the normal force has
little effect on the resistance of the upgraded specimens.
The enhancement in the ultimate drift for the slender upgraded specimens was small, reaching up
to 1.2. Furthermore, the ultimate drifts were independent on the reinforcement ratio and
reinforcement type (grid or fabric); however, the ultimate drifts were dependent on the aspect ratio
and the upgrading configuration.
The upgrading enhanced the cracking resistance of the specimens by a factor of 2.0 or more.
Within the test conditions, upgrading on one side appears to produce good behavior. No out-of-
plane or uneven response of the specimens was observed. Small asymmetries in the transducers
64 Chapter 6: SUMMARY AND FINDINGS
were recorded in the case of squat specimens. However, further investigations are required for
squat specimens in the ultimate range.
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
M
F
=
F
U
p
g
r
a
d
e
d
/
F
R
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
N=57 kN
L
1
-
W
R
A
P
-
G
-
F
L
2
-
G
R
I
D
-
G
-
F
L
1
-
W
R
A
P
-
G
-
X
=
0
.
0
7
2
%

=
0
.
0
6
8
%
=
0
.
0
2
8
%
=
0
.
0
4
9
%
S
1
-
L
A
M
I
-
C
-
X
S
1
-
W
R
A
P
-
G
-
S
2
-
W
R
A
P
-
A
-
F
=
0
.
0
7
2
%
F
upgraded
=?
=
0
.
1
8
9
%

Figure 6.1: The Improvement in the Lateral Resistance of the Upgrading Specimens under a
Normal Force (N) of 57 kN

Qualitatively, the upgrading materials enhanced the energy dissipation of the tested specimens due
to delamination.
In some specimens there was debonding of the fibers/grids in the form of white spots. This
debonding occurred at different lateral load levels, which ranged from 50% to 80% of the ultimate
load resistance. The lateral resistance at first delamination is strongly dependent on the
reinforcement ratio and specimen aspect ratio as well as the fiber characteristics.
The fabric prevented falling of debris from the wall after failure; thus, preventing possible injuries
to occupants in the vicinity of the wall in the event of an earthquake in a real case.
URM specimen rocking during the dynamic tests has been clearly established. Based on the fact
that slender reference test specimens were able to withstand displacements several times greater
than the cracking displacements, and the fact that neither specimen collapsed, even after numerous
rocking cycles, rocking can be classified as a stable and reliable failure mechanism.
The mortar compressive resistance had little influence on the URM specimens lateral resistance.
The mortar strength appears to affect the cracking resistance rather than the ultimate resistance.
The test set-up and the reduced scale brick produced modes of failure similar to modes of failure
obtained in another static cyclic test carried out on URM and URM-WUC using a full size brick
[HH 02]. This confirms that the half-scale brick units can be used to study the behavior of URM
and URM-WUC.
6.2.2 Impact of upgrading configuration
In general, the bi-directional surface type materials (fabrics and grids) applied on the entire surface
of the wall (and correctly anchored) can help postpone the three classic failure modes of masonry
walls: rocking (flexural failure), step cracking and sliding (shear failures). In other terms, they
are robust: even if the engineer is not sure of the expected failure mode before/after retrofit, the
Chapter 6: SUMMARY AND FINDINGS 65
retrofit can help. Additionally, in some situations, they will postpone in-plane collapse by
keeping the bricks together under large seismic deformations.
Carbon plates or fabric strips used in a diagonal pattern (X or XX) was less successful. It was
used in the upgrading of two specimens; in both cases, premature failure developed (anchorage
once and shear-flexure another). In both cases, the retrofit pattern and reinforcement ratio could
have been improved to prevent the premature failure; however, the tests indicate that these retrofits
are less robust and less redundant.
6.2.3 Impact of upgrading product, materials and reinforcement ratio
Before first delamination, regardless of the reinforcement ratio and material type, the behaviors of
the wrapped specimens were identical. The behavior differed after first delamination.
In the case of grid materials, the energy dissipation was better than what was witnessed in fabric
materials as grid rovings failed gradually. This gradual failure led to a sort of pseudo yielding.
For the same configuration, reinforcement ratio, and aspect ratio, the glass grid debonded at a
strain concentration of 0.7% while the glass fabric debonded at a strain concentration of 0.09%.
At failure, the maximum-recorded strains were 1.2% in the glass fabric and 2.5% in the glass grid.
These values are about 40% and 60% of the nominal strain values for fabric and grid respectively.
6.2.4 Design model
URM
The flexural lateral resistances, calculated based on equilibrium equations, compare well with the
measured lateral forces (100% to 120% of the lateral resistance).
The available models for prediction of the shear resistance of URM walls are less successful.
From the two investigated models, one was too conservative and the other overestimated too
much. The EC6 [EC6 00] design model overestimated the ultimate lateral resistance ranged from
130% to 175% of the maximum measured lateral force. The Magenes and Calvi [MC 97] design
model was too conservative (from 40% to 60% of the maximum measured lateral loads).
URM-WUC
The simple model used to calculate the lateral resistance of URM-WUC in flexure is conservative.
Based on the Bernoulli-Navier hypothesis and the simple stress block, the ultimate resistance of
URM-WUC was underestimated by about 30%.
66 Chapter 6: SUMMARY AND FINDINGS

Appendix A: SPECIMEN L1-REFE 67
APPENDIX A
SPECIMEN L1-REFE
Dimensions: (length x height x thickness) mm 75 1630 1580
Mortar: Type 1 (see Table 2.3)
Upgrading: Reference specimen.
Previous tests: -
Loading: This specimen was subjected to an earthquake type UG1 (from 5% to 100%); for
loading details see Table A.1.

Figure A.1: Specimen L1-REFE after Testing
(Western Face)
Figure A.2: Final Crack Pattern of Specimen
L1- REFE (Eastern Face)[mm]
1630
1580
F
2245
N
A.1 Observations
Specimen L1-REFE after testing is shown in Figures A.1 and A.2. The following comments apply to
Test runs 1-5 (UG1 40%) caused no visible damage to L1-REFE.
Test run 6 produced a small horizontal crack in the bed joint between the second and the third
courses near the bottom south of the wall.
During test run 7 (UG1 60%), the previous crack was extended slightly into the north part of the
wall and the normal force started to increase.
The greatest amount of cracking occurred during test run 8 (UG1 70%). A new crack appeared in
the north part of the wall in the bed joint between the third and fourth courses. This new crack
extended till it was connected to the previous one. At this point there was no continuity left
between the upper part and the lower part of the wall. However, the rest of the wall above and
under that crack did not experience any observable damage or large cracking.

68 Appendix A: SPECIMEN L1-REFE
During test runs 8 to 11, the wall displayed a characteristic rocking behavior and the normal force
increased many times because of the large opening of the rocking crack and the absence of the
railcar springs. These runs produced no additional large cracking. Only two small cracks appeared
in the brick at the first and third courses. Very limited spalling of masonry cover at the third course
was observed
At the end of the test, wall L1-REFE showed little damage. As shown in Figure A.1 no visible
damage or crushing to the brick units or mortar was observed.
The test was interrupted in order to preserve the specimen for a subsequent test.
During testing L1-REFE, the maximum prestressing force was about three times its initial value.
Table A.1: Loading History and Measured Response of Specimen L1-REFE
Test
Run
Earthquake
[Type & %]
R.I.

[%]
P

[kN]
F
max

[kN]
F
min

[kN]
max

[mm]
min

[mm]
f
[HZ]
1 UG1 5 13 30.1 2.5 -2.7 0.10 -0.09 2.54
2 UG1 10 23 30.2 3.8 -4.6 0.17 -0.19 2.73
3 UG1 20 33 30.3 5.5 -7.3 0.27 -0.32 2.73
4 UG1 30 46 30.7 8.2 -7.8 0.44 -0.41 3.17
5 UG1 40 66 30.8 8.5 -11.2 0.55 -0.55 3.13
6 UG1 50 71 31.7 10.1 -12.7 0.81 -0.85 3.17
7 UG1 60 82 38.5 13.8 -16.7 2.10 -2.13 3.13
8 UG1 70 92 69.5 22.7 -24.6 7.91 -7.42 2.34
9 UG1 50-2 63 35.6 11.2 -12.2 1.88 -1.68 2.98
10 UG1 80 80 58.9 18.3 -21.8 7.59 -7.79 2.25
11 UG1 100 99 89.5 29.7 -31.5 11.91 -11.75 2.10
R.I.: Earthquake Real Intensity (see 3.2.2)
P: Maximum prestressing force
F: Lateral force
: Relative horizontal displacement between top and bottom of the wall
f: Measured natural frequency (see 3.2.6)
A.2 Measured Response
Table A.1 summarizes the measured response of L1- REFE.
The normalized peak lateral force from each test run is plotted against the peak wall drift in Figure
A.3. The curve consisted of two parts. The first part showed a linear part till test run 5. Then, a
second linear part with positive stiffness was observed. The positive stiffness was mainly due to
the increase in the prestressing force.
A sample of the hysteresis loops is shown in Figure A.4. The hysteresis loops for test run 5
showed a predominately linear behavior. The stiffness in the positive and negative directions
approximately was equal.
The hysteresis loops for test run 6 (UG1 50%) showed a limited nonlinear behavior. This behavior
was consistent with the visual observations of a small horizontal crack during this test run.
The hysteresis loops for test runs 8, 9,
10, and 11 showed a large amount of
nonlinear behavior. The almost bilinear
nonlinear behavior exhibited was
indicative of specimen rocking.
In general, there was a little energy
dissipation. This energy dissipation
was due to wall rocking.
Sample wall relative displacements,
and acceleration time-histories
measured on the wall top are presented
in Figures A.5 and A.6.
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Lateral Drift [%]
F
/
W
Figure A.3: Normalized Lateral Force vs Wall Drift

[mm]
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
F

[
k
N
]
L1-REFE
Test Run 5
UG1 40%

[mm]
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
F

[
k
N
]
L1-REFE
Test Run 6
UG1 50%

[mm]
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
F

[
k
N
]
L1-REFE
Test Run 8
UG1 70%

[mm]
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 2
F

[
k
N
]
0
L1-REFE
Test Run 9
UG1 50%-2

[mm]
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
F

[
k
N
]
L1-REFE
Test Run 10
UG1 80%

[mm]
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 2
F

[
k
N
]
0
L1-REFE
Test Run 11
UG1 100%

Figure A.4: Lateral Force (F) vs. Relative Wall Displacement () for Test Runs 5, 6, 8, 9, 10,
and 11
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
m
]
L2-GRID-G-F
Test Run 19
L1-REFE
Test Run 5

-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
m
]
L2-GRID-G-F
Test Run 19
L1-REFE
Test Run 6

-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
m
]
L2-GRID-G-F
Test Run 19
L1-REFE
Test Run 8

-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
m
]
L2-GRID-G-F
Test Run 19
L1-REFE
Test Run 9

-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
m
]
L2-GRID-G-F
Test Run 19
L1-REFE
Test Run 10

-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
m
]
L2-GRID-G-F
Test Run 19
L1-REFE
Test Run 11

Figure A.5: Relative Wall Displacement for Test Runs 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, and 11
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
m
/
s
e
c
2
]
S2-REFE
Test Run 22
L1-REFE
Test Run 5

-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
m
/
s
e
c
2
]
S2-REFE
Test Run 22
L1-REFE
Test Run 5

-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
m
/
s
e
c
2
]
S2-REFE
Test Run 22
L1-REFE
Test Run 8

-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
m
/
s
e
c
2
]
S2-REFE
Test Run 22
L1-REFE
Test Run 9

-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
m
/
s
e
c
2
]
S2-REFE
Test Run 22
L1-REFE
Test Run 10

-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
m
/
s
e
c
2
]
S2-REFE
Test Run 22
L1-REFE
Test Run 11

Figure A.6: Top Wall Acceleration for Test Runs 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, and 11.


Appendix B: SPECIMEN L1-WRAP-G-F 73
APPENDIX B
SPECIMEN L1-WRAP-G-F
Previous tests: It was previously tested as L1-REFE
Upgrading: One face was fully covered using two vertical strips of bi-directional glass fiber
fabrics, each was 875 mm width. In order to ensure the continuity between the two
fabrics, there was an overlap of about 170 mm between the two fabrics (Figures B.1
and B.2).
Loading: This specimen was subjected to two earthquake types: UG1 (from 10% to 120%), and
UG1R (from 100% to 230%); for loading details see Table B.1.

Figure B.1: Specimen L1-WRAP-G-F
Upgraded Face
Figure B.2: Specimen L1-WRAP-G-F Ready
to Test

Figure B.3: Delamination and White Lines Figure B.4: Final Crack Pattern of L1-
WRAP-G-F (Eastern Face)[mm]
N
2245
F
1630
1580

74 Appendix B: SPECIMEN L1-WRAP-G-F
Table B.1: Loading History and Measured Response of Specimen L1-WRAP-G-F
Test
Run
Earthquake
[Type & %]
R.I.

[%]
P

[kN]
F
max

[kN]
F
min

[kN]
max

[mm]
min

[mm]
f
[HZ]
1 UG1 10 14 30.0 2.9 -3.0 0.19 -0.14 2.39
2 UG1 20 23 30.1 4.4 -4.7 0.23 -0.23 2.59
3 UG1 30 33 30.2 5.8 -6.6 0.34 -0.38 2.73
4 UG1 40 41 30.3 6.7 -6.6 0.43 -0.41 2.73
5 UG1 50 49 30.4 8.2 -8.6 0.46 -0.55 3.17
6 UG1 60 57 30.5 9.3 -9.4 0.47 -0.59 3.17
7 UG1 70 59 30.7 10.7 -11.2 0.69 -0.62 3.17
8 UG1 80 63 30.8 11.7 -12.9 0.67 -0.76 3.17
9 UG1 90 79 32.5 13.2 -14.5 0.80 -0.86 3.17
10 UG1 100 88 32.1 14.0 -15.6 0.84 -0.89 3.17
11 UG1 120 107 31.6 16.8 -18.5 1.07 -1.08 3.17
12 UG1R 100 111 31.7 18.2 -19.2 1.18 -1.16 3.17
13 UG1R 120 134 32.7 22.5 -21.9 1.57 -1.49 3.17
14 UG1R 130 144 33.3 24.5 -23.2 1.78 -1.64 3.17
15 UG1R 140 150 33.8 26.2 -24.3 1.94 -1.75 3.17
16 UG1R 150 154 34.1 26.9 -24.7 2.06 -1.75 3.17
17 UG1R 160 150 34.1 27.3 -23.8 2.03 -1.83 3.17
18 UG1R 170 141 34.1 27.6 -22.9 2.03 -1.78 3.17
19 UG1R 180 134 33.4 24.1 -23.7 1.83 -1.68 3.17
20 UG1R 190
*
167 39.8 36.9 -40.0 3.74 -3.46 2.73
21 UG1R 200 167 45.0 41.9 -45.3 4.94 -4.88 2.39
22 UG1R 210 179 50.6 43.8 -48.8 6.25 -5.96 2.93
23 UG1R 220 197 55.4 45.0 -50.3 7.16 -6.76 2.73
24 UG1R 230 232 87.5 49.5 -65.0 12.80 -15.55 2.54
F: Lateral force
* Test setup problems.
B.1 Observations
Specimen L1-WRAP-G-F after testing is shown in Figures B.2 and B.4. The following comments
apply to the specimen behavior during the tests:
Test runs 1 to 18 (UG1R 170%) produced no visible damage to L1-WRAP-G-F.
The delamination process began in few points during test run 14 (UG1R 130%). This delamination
was visible in the form of white spots on the wrap.
During test run 19 (UG1R 180%), there were test setup problems; thus, both the horizontal force
and the prestressing force decreased slightly. No visible damage was noticed.
During test runs 20 (UG1R 190%) to 23 (UG1R 220%) both of the horizontal force and the
prestressing force increased rapidly.
During test run 24 (UG1R 230%) the wall started to rock at the base. This rocking was linked with
crushing of the masonry at the wall toes (Figure B.5). The fabrics failed under a combination of
local buckling and tearing at the wall corner (Figure B.6).
By the end of test run 24 (UG1R 230%), the specimen reached its ultimate capacity. Its ultimate
state was clearly a flexural failure.

Figure B.5: Toe Crushing at The Eastern
North Side after Test Run 24
Figure B.6: Fabric Rupture at The Bottom
Western North Side after Test
Run 24
During testing L1-WRAP-G-F, the prestressing force increased many times because of the large
opening of the rocking crack, especially at the test end, and the absence of the railcar springs.
The maximum increment in the prestressing force was in the order of 192% of its initial value.
B.2 Measured Response
Table B.1 summarizes the measured response of L1-WRAP-G-F.
B.7.
A sample of the hysteresis loops
is shown in Figure B.8. The
hysteresis loops for test runs 8
and 10 showed a predominately
linear behavior, and the initial
stiffness in both directions
remained constant as neither
cracking nor delamination was
observed.
The hysteresis loops for test runs
14, 18, and 22 showed a
predominately linear behavior.
The stiffness in the positive
direction was less than in the
negative direction. This is
consistent with the observation
of delamination on the specimen northern side. This difference in stiffness increased with
increasing earthquake intensity.
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Lateral Drift [%]
F
/
W
Figure B.7: Normalized Lateral Force vs Wall Drift

The large loop in the hysteresis loops of test run 24 indicated fabrics failure.
In general, there was a little energy dissipation. This energy dissipation increased slightly with
increasing earthquake intensity due to wall rocking.
During the last test run, there was moderate energy dissipation due to fabrics rupture.
Sample wall relative displacements, and acceleration time-histories measured on the wall top are
presented in Figures B.9 and B.10.

[mm]
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
F

[
k
N
]
L1-WRAP-G-F
Test Run 8
UG1 80%

[mm]
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
F

[
k
N
]
L1-WRAP-G-F
Test Run 10
UG1 100%

[mm]
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
F

[
k
N
]
L1-WRAP-G-F
Test Run 14
UG1R 130%

[mm]
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
F

[
k
N
]
L1-WRAP-G-F
Test Run 18
UG1R 170%

[mm]
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
F

[
k
N
]
L1-WRAP-G-F
Test Run 22
UG1R 210%

[mm]
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 2
F

[
k
N
]
0
L1-WRAP-G-F
Test Run 24
UG1R 230%

Figure B.8: Lateral Force (F) vs. Relative Wall Displacement () for Test Runs 8, 10, 14, 18,
22, and 24

-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
m
]
L2-GRID-G-F
Test Run 19
L1-WRAP-G-F
Test Run 8

-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
m
]
L2-GRID-G-F
Test Run 19
L1-WRAP-G-F
Test Run 10

-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
m
]
L2-GRID-G-F
Test Run 19
L1-WRAP-G-F
Test Run 14

-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
m
]
L2-GRID-G-F
Test Run 19
L1-WRAP-G-F
Test Run 18

-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
m
]
L2-GRID-G-F
Test Run 19
L1-WRAP-G-F
Test Run 22

-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
m
]
L2-GRID-G-F
Test Run 19
L1-WRAP-G-F
Test Run 24

Figure B.9: Relative Wall Displacement for Test Runs 8, 10, 14, 18, 22, and 24
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
m
/
s
e
c
2
]
S2-REFE
Test Run 22
L1-WRAP-G-F
Test Run 8

-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
m
/
s
e
c
2
]
S2-REFE
Test Run 22
L1-WRAP-G-F
Test Run 10

-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
m
/
s
e
c
2
]
S2-REFE
Test Run 22
L1-WRAP-G-F
Test Run 14

-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
m
/
s
e
c
2
]
S2-REFE
Test Run 22
L1-WRAP-G-F
Test Run 18

-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
m
/
s
e
c
2
]
S2-REFE
Test Run 22
L1-WRAP-G-F
Test Run 22

-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
m
/
s
e
c
2
]
S2-REFE
Test Run 22
L1-WRAP-G-F
Test Run 24

Figure B.10: Top Wall Acceleration for Test Runs 8, 10, 14, 18, 22, and 24

Appendix C: SPECIMEN L1-LAMI-C-I 79
APPENDIX C
SPECIMEN L1-LAMI-C-I
Upgrading: One face was upgraded using two vertical plates of CFRP (Sika CarboDur S512), each
of 50 mm width and 1.2 mm thickness (Figures C.1 and C.2).
Loading: This specimen was subjected to two types of earthquakes: UG3 (from 10% to 120%)
and UG1R (from 100% to 170%); for loading details see Table C.1.

Figure C.1: Specimen L1-LAMI-C-I
Upgraded Face [mm]
Figure C.2: Specimen L1-LAMI-C-I
Ready to Test

Figure C.3: Final Crack Pattern of
Specimen L1-LAMI-C-I
Figure C.4: L1-LAMI-C-I after Testing
1640
2245
1550
N
F
80 Appendix C: SPECIMEN L1-LAMI-C-I
Table C.1: Loading History and Measured Response of Specimen L1-LAMI-C-I
Test
Run
Earthquake
[Type & %]
R.I.

[%]
P

[kN]
F
max

[kN]
F
min

[kN]
max

[mm]
min

[mm]
f
[HZ]
1 UG3 10 10 30.1 2.4 -2.1 0.29 -0.29 2.25
2 UG3 20 15 30.1 3.8 -5.1 0.36 -0.38 2.88
3 UG3 30 24 30.1 5.2 -6.2 0.47 -0.44 2.88
4 UG3 40 34 30.1 6.2 -7.9 0.44 -0.56 2.88
5 UG3 50 41 30.1 8.2 -8.7 0.57 -0.59 2.88
6 UG3 60 46 30.2 10.7 -9.6 0.73 -0.65 3.27
7 UG3 70 52 30.3 12.6 -12.6 0.88 -0.77 3.27
8 UG3 80 57 30.4 14.4 -14.1 0.94 -0.90 3.27
9 UG3 90 64 30.7 15.8 -15.3 1.11 -1.00 3.27
10 UG3 100 69 31.0 16.6 -16.7 1.32 -1.08 3.27
11 UG3 110 78 31.6 18.5 -17.5 1.44 -1.23 3.27
12 UG3 120 85 32.3 20.0 -18.9 1.69 -1.39 3.27
13 UG1R 100 104 32.6 20.3 -20.1 1.74 -1.55 3.17
14 UG1R 110 112 33.8 22.3 -24.8 2.12 -2.16 3.17
15 UG1R 120 113 35.0 23.5 -26.5 2.68 -2.86 3.17
16 UG1R 130 118 36.7 25.0 -27.7 3.27 -3.24 3.17
17 UG1R 140 122 38.3 26.2 -27.7 3.76 -3.43 3.17
18 UG1R 150 125 39.7 27.1 -24.8 3.80 -2.88 2.69
19 UG1R 160 117 39.1 23.5 -28.9 3.57 -3.78 2.54
20 UG1R 170 116 45.4 30.5 -32.2 5.31 -5.22 2.54
F: Lateral force
C.1 Observations
Specimen L1-LAMI-C-I after testing is shown in Figures C.3 and C.4. The following comments apply
to the specimen behavior during the tests:
Test runs 1 to 8 (UG3 80%) produced no visible damage to L1-LAMI-C-I.
During test run 9 (UG3 90%) a small clatter was heard. This clatter was interpreted as a sign of
first crack formation. This interpretation was proved during the next test runs.
During test runs 10 (UG3 100%) and 11 (UG3 110%) limited length hair cracks were found in the
bed joints between the third, fourth, and fifth brick coarse.
During test runs 13 (UG1R 100%) and 14 (UG1R 110%) the length and width of the horizontal
crack along the bed joint between the third and fourth brick course was increased (Figure C.3).
During test run 15 (UG1R 120%), new cracks were observed including more horizontal cracks in
bed joints and limited vertical hair line cracks in few bricks. During this test run the force in the
vertical prestressing bars started to increase.
During test runs 16 (UG1R 130%) to 20 (UG1R 170%), cracking of bed joints extended
significantly and characteristic step cracks were formed (Figure C.5). By the end of test run 16
(UG1R 130%), a maximum residual crack width of about 2 mm was measured in some head joints
(Figure C.6).
At the end of test run 20 (UG1R 170%), no deterioration was observed on the composite
laminates. The test was interrupted in order to preserve the specimen for the subsequent test of
specimen L1-WRAP-G-X. At that point in the test, the shear capacity of the wall was only
increasing because of the increase of the vertical force.
Figure C.5: Crack Propagation during
L1-LAMI-C-I Test
Figure C.6: 2 mm Crack Opening during
Test Run 16
C.2 Measured Response
Table C.1 summarizes the loading history of L1-LAMI-C-I.
The normalized peak lateral force
from each test run is plotted against
the peak wall drift in Figure C.7. At
a lateral force equal to
approximately 64% of the measured
peak lateral force, a gradual
softening started due to diagonal
cracks formation. The most salient
feature of the curve was that the
resistance values remained high
well after cracking occurred.
A sample of the hysteresis loops is
shown in Figure C.8. The hysteresis
loops for test runs 4, 7, and 10,
showed a predominately linear
behavior, as the wall remained
undamaged. The cracking experienced by the specimen during test run 13 (UG1R 100%), was not
clearly evidenced in the hysteresis loops for test run 13 because cracks had not entirely developed
across the specimen. The hysteresis loops for test runs 17 and 20 exhibited a classic bi-linear
relationship.
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
Lateral Drift [%]
F
/
W
Figure C.7: Normalized Lateral Force vs Wall Drift
The energy dissipation was generally low during the test runs.
presented in Figures C.9 and C.10.
[mm]
-35
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
F

[
k
N
]
L1-LAMI-C-I
Test Run 4
UG3 40%

[mm]
-35
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
F

[
k
N
]
L1-LAMI-C-I
Test Run 7
UG3 70%

[mm]
-35
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
F

[
k
N
]
L1-LAMI-C-I
Test Run 10
UG3 100%

[mm]
-35
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
F

[
k
N
]
L1-LAMI-C-I
Test Run 13
UG1R 100%

[mm]
-35
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
F

[
k
N
]
L1-LAMI-C-I
Test Run 17
UG1R 140%

[mm]
-35
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
F

[
k
N
]
L1-LAMI-C-I
Test Run 20
UG1R 170%

Figure C.8: Lateral Force (F) vs. Relative Wall Displacement () for Test Runs 4, 7, 10, 13, 17,
and 20
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
m
]L1-LAMI-C-I
Test Run 4

-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
m
]L1-LAMI-C-I
Test Run 7

-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
m
]
L1-LAMI-C-I
Test Run 10

-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
m
]
L1-LAMI-C-I
Test Run 13

-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
m
]
L1-LAMI-C-I
Test Run 17

-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
m
]
L1-LAMI-C-I
Test Run 20

Figure C.9: Relative Wall Displacement for Test Runs 4, 7, 10, 13, 17, and 20
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
m
/
s
e
c
2
]
L1-LAMI-C-I
Test Run 4
UG3 40%

-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
m
/
s
e
c
2
]L1-LAMI-C-I
Test Run 7
UG3 70%

-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
m
/
s
e
c
2
]
L1-LAMI-C-I
Test Run 10
UG3 100%

-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
m
/
s
e
c
2
]
L1-LAMI-C-I
Test Run 13
UG1R 100%

-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
m
/
s
e
c
2
]
L1-LAMI-C-I
Test Run 17
UG1R 140%

-5
-3
-1
1
3
5
0 5 10 15
Time [Sec]
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
m
/
s
e
c
2
]
20
L1-LAMI-C-I
Test Run 20
UG1R 170%

Figure C.10: Top Wall Acceleration for Test Runs 4, 7, 10, 13, 17, and 20


Appendix D: SPECIMEN L1-WRAP-G-X 85
APPENDIX D
SPECIMEN L1-WRAP-G-X
Upgrading: Two diagonal bi-directional fabrics of glass fiber, each of 300 mm width (Figures D.1
and D.2).
Previous tests: It was previously tested as specimen L1-LAMI-C-I
Loading: This specimen was subjected to two earthquake types: UG1 (from 10% to 120%) and
UG1R (from 100% to 210%); for loading details see Table D.1.

Figure D.1: Specimen L1-WRAP-G-X
Upgraded Face [mm]
Figure D.2: Specimen L1-WRAP-G-X after
Testing

Figure D.3: Final Crack Pattern of
Specimen L1-WRAP-G-X
(Western Face)
Figure D.4: Diagonal Fabric Rupture after
Test Run 24 of Specimen L1-
WRAP-G-X
3
0
0
3
0
0
2
2
4
5
1550
F
1
6
4
0

86 Appendix D: SPECIMEN L1-WRAP-G-X
Table D.1: Loading History and Measured Response of Specimen L1-WRAP-G-X
Test Run
Earthquake
[Type & %]
R.I.

[%]
P

[kN]
F
max

[kN]
F
min

[kN]
max

[mm]
min

[mm]
f
[HZ]
1 UG1 10 13 27.1 3.4 -3.5 0.16 -0.18 2.39
2 UG1 20 24 27.1 4.3 -5.4 0.20 -0.23 2.73
3 UG1 30 35 27.3 5.8 -5.7 0.31 -0.36 2.73
4 UG1 40 43 27.5 7.0 -6.3 0.46 -0.34 2.73
5 UG1 50 48 27.7 8.3 -7.7 0.55 -0.38 2.54
6 UG1 60 55 28.2 9.6 -11.4 0.71 -0.52 2.73
7 UG1 70 66 29.1 11.1 -14.4 1.00 -0.88 2.73
8 UG1 80 81 31.6 14.7 -19.7 1.67 -1.55 2.73
9 UG1 90 94 36.4 17.4 -23.6 2.61 -2.49 3.17
10 UG1 100 111 40.6 19.9 -26.2 3.49 -3.20 2.73
11 UG1 110 136 51.9 22.3 -33.7 5.06 -6.18 2.69
12 UG1 120 113 54.9 25.7 -33.7 6.43 -6.43 2.39
13 UG1R 100 110 51.8 22.0 -29.4 5.13 -5.53 2.54
14 UG1R 110 112 62.3 25.3 -35.9 6.49 -7.58 2.39
15 UG1R 120 111 64.5 28.3 -36.0 7.99 -8.05 2.39
16 UG1R 130 121 69.3 30.1 -37.7 9.23 -9.03 2.25
17 UG1R 140 145 71.6 30.7 -38.2 9.72 -9.60 2.39
18 UG1R 150 147 74.3 31.8 -39.1 10.28 -10.51 2.10
19 UG1R 160 145 74.6 31.4 -36.8 11.00 -10.89 2.10
20 UG1R 170 151 78.0 32.5 -31.9 12.22 -10.11 2.10
21 UG1R 180 141 70.4 28.3 -30.9 10.59 -10.31 2.10
22 UG1R 190 152 81.1 34.1 -32.7 12.20 -11.11 2.05
23 UG1R 200 179 99.5 41.0 -35.6 15.73 -12.82 1.76
24 UG1R 210 199 112.1 44.7 -39.4 17.03 -17.84 1.76
25 UG1R 100-2 77 45.5 15.9 -14.9 6.74 -6.89 1.76
26 UG1R 150-2 121 88.4 28.1 -31.4 11.79 -13.79 1.76
F: Lateral force
D.1 Observations
Specimen L1-WRAP-G-X after testing is shown in Figures D.2 and D.3. The following comments
apply to the specimen behavior during the tests:
Test runs 1 to 6 (UG1 60%) produced no visible damage to L1-WRAP-G-X.
During test runs 7 (UG1 70%) to 9 (UG1 90%), a cracking noise was heard. Afterwards, this
cracking noise increased with increasing earthquake intensity.
Test run 10 (UG1 100%) produced a horizontal crack at the western south side, along the bed joint
between the third and fourth brick courses (Figure D.3).
During test runs 11 (UG1 110%) to 15 (UG1R 120%), large flexural cracks were observed along
many bed joints in both faces. In addition, a small hairline crack was observed in the first brick, in
the fourth brick course, at the eastern south side.
During test run 16 (UG1R 130%), a new horizontal crack along the bed joints between the seventh
and eighth brick courses was observed.

Figure D.5: Details of Fabric Rupture at the
Test End of L1-WRAP-G-X
Figure D.6: Crack Propagation during L1-
WRAP-G-X Test
During test run 17 (UG1R 140%), the specimen rocked stably with (loose) joints everywhere. At
the end of this test run, diagonal cracks, 0.1 mm width, along the masonry blocks were observed in
many places (Figures D.3 and D.6). Also, there was mortar spalling from head joints.
delamination was visible in the form of white lines at both of the diagonal fabrics along the fifth
and sixth brick courses. In addition, the diagonal cracks length increased.
During test runs 19 (UG1R 160%) to 20 (UG1R 170%), the crack between the sixth and seventh
brick courses extended in the fabrics. In addition, the diagonal cracks at the eastern south side
joined together and made continues crack from the second brick course to the fourth brick course.
These diagonal cracks had a width of 0.15 mm.
During test run 21 (UG1R 180%), the crack between the sixth and seventh brick courses extended
in the fabrics. In addition, a spalling in the western north bottom brick courses was observed.
During test run 22 (UG1R 190%), the fabrics continued to tear. More spalling at the north and new
spalling at the south sides were observed.
During test run 23 (UG1R 200%), cracks propagated around the specimen half bottom from both
faces, to be noted here that all cracks were around the GFRP fabrics from the exterior.
During test run 24 (UG1R 210%), one of the GFRP fabrics failed in tension (Figures D.4 and D.5)
and the specimen continued to rock.
During test runs 25 (UG1R 100%) and 26 (UG1 150%), the specimen was (loose) and left to rock
mainly on the sixth brick course at the south and on the fourth brick course at north sides.
By the end of these test runs, L1-WRAP-G-X had diagonal cracks, flexural cracks, and fabric
failure and so its ultimate limit state was a mixed mode of failure.
One of the worth notes was that the brick block, in the northern side, that was destroyed during the
test of specimen L1-LAMI-C-I had not any visible damage during L1-WRAP-G-X test runs.
During testing L1-WRAP-G-X, the maximum increment in the prestressing force was 314% of its
initial value.
D.2 Measured Response
Table D.1 summarizes the measured response of L1-WRAP-G-X.

The normalized peak lateral force from
each test run is plotted against the peak
wall drift in Figure D.7. At a
normalized lateral force equal to
approximately 40% of the maximum
normalized lateral force, a gradual
softening started due to cracks
formation. At a lateral drift of 1.09%,
the diagonal fabrics failed and the
maximum drift was reached.
shown in Figure D.8. Although the
specimen had suffered many diagonal
cracks during the test of L1-LAMI-C-I,
the hysteresis loops for test run 5 (UG1
50%) showed a predominately linear
behavior. The noise experienced by the
specimen during test run 7 (UG1 70%), was evidenced in the hysteresis loops for test run 7 (UG1
70%). In that hysteresis, there is a little non-linearity. The hysteresis loops for test runs 10 (UG1
100%) and 18 (UG1R 150%) exhibited a classic bi-linear relationship. The hysteretic loops for test
runs 24 (UG1R 210%) and 26 (UG1R 150%-2) showed the mixed mode of failure for this
specimen.
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Lateral Drift [%]
F
/
Wfabrics commence to rupture
fabrics rupture
Figure D.7: Normalized Lateral Force vs. Wall Drift
The energy dissipation was generally low during these test runs. A little increase in the energy
dissipation was observed in the hysteresis loops for test run 24 due to fabric failure.
plotted in Figure D.9 and D.10.

[mm]
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
F

[
k
N
]
L1-WRAP-G-X
Test Run 5
UG1 50%

[mm]
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
F

[
k
N
]
L1-WRAP-G-X
Test Run 7
UG1 70%

[mm]
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
F

[
k
N
]
L1-WRAP-G-X
Test Run 10
UG1 100%

[mm]
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
F

[
k
N
]
L1-WRAP-G-X
Test Run 18
UG1R 150%

[mm]
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
F

[
k
N
]
L1-WRAP-G-X
Test Run 24
UG1R 210%

[mm]
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
F

[
k
N
]
L1-WRAP-G-X
Test Run 26
UG1R 150%-2

Figure D.8: Lateral Force (F) vs. Relative Wall Displacement () for Test Runs 5, 7, 10, 18, 24,
and 26

-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
m
]
L2-GRID-G-F
Test Run 19
L1-WRAP-G-X
Test Run 5

-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
m
]
L2-GRID-G-F
Test Run 19
L1-WRAP-G-X
Test Run 7

-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
m
]
L2-GRID-G-F
Test Run 19
L1-WRAP-G-X
Test Run 10

-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
m
]
L2-GRID-G-F
Test Run 19
L1-WRAP-G-X
Test Run 18

-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
m
]
L2-GRID-G-F
Test Run 19
L1-WRAP-G-X
Test Run 24

-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
m
]
L2-GRID-G-F
Test Run 19
L1-WRAP-G-X
Test Run 26

Figure D.9: Relative Wall Displacement for Test Runs 5, 7, 10, 18, 24, and 26
-12
-8
-4
0
4
8
12
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
m
/
s
e
c
2
]S2-REFE
Test Run 22
L1-WRAP-G-X
Test Run 5

-12
-8
-4
0
4
8
12
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
m
/
s
e
c
2
]S2-REFE
Test Run 22
L1-WRAP-G-X
Test Run 7

-12
-8
-4
0
4
8
12
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
m
/
s
e
c
2
]S2-REFE
Test Run 22
L1-WRAP-G-X
Test Run 10

-12
-8
-4
0
4
8
12
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
m
/
s
e
c
2
]S2-REFE
Test Run 22
L1-WRAP-G-X
Test Run 18

-12
-8
-4
0
4
8
12
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
m
/
s
e
c
2
]S2-REFE
Test Run 22
L1-WRAP-G-X
Test Run 24

-12
-8
-4
0
4
8
12
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
m
/
s
e
c
2
]S2-REFE
Test Run 22
L1-WRAP-G-X
Test Run 26

Figure D.10: Top Wall Acceleration for Test Runs 5, 7, 10, 18, 24, and 26

Appendix E: SPECIMEN S1-REFE 91
APPENDIX E
SPECIMEN S1-REFE
Upgrading: Reference squat specimen (Figure E.1).
Previous tests: -
and UG1R (from 100% to 230%); for loading details see Table E.1.

Figure E.1: Specimen S1-REFE
(Eastern Face)
Figure E.2: Specimen S1- REFE after
Testing (Eastern Face)

Figure E.3: Final Crack Pattern of
Specimen S1- REFE
(Eastern Face)
Figure E.4: Final Crack Pattern of
Specimen S1- REFE (Western
Face) [mm]
1
0
4
5
7
2
5
F
1565

92 Appendix E: SPECIMEN S1-REFE
Table E.1: Loading History and Measured Response of Specimen S1-REFE
Test
Run
Earthquake
[Type & %]
R.I.

[%]
P

[kN]
F
max

[kN]
F
min

[kN]
max

[mm]
min

[mm]
f
[HZ]
1 UG1 10 10 29.9 2.3 -3.5 0.06 -0.06 2.59
2 UG1 30 25 30.0 5.3 -7.4 0.13 -0.12 3.17
3 UG1 40 34 30.0 6.4 -8.4 0.17 -0.20 4.05
4 UG1 50 41 30.0 7.2 -9.1 0.16 -0.19 3.71
5 UG1 60 48 30.0 8.7 -10.7 0.17 -0.24 4.49
6 UG1 70 56 29.9 10.1 -11.8 0.24 -0.24 4.49
7 UG1 80 63 29.9 11.4 -12.7 0.26 -0.28 4.49
8 UG1 90 70 29.9 12.1 -14.2 0.27 -0.33 4.49
9 UG1 100 77 30.0 13.5 -15.4 0.33 -0.36 4.49
10 UG1 110 85 30.1 14.9 -16.6 0.28 -0.48 4.49
11 UG1 120 92 30.2 15.9 -18.3 0.40 -0.39 4.49
12 UG1R 100 78 30.1 15.6 -17.7 0.34 -0.36 4.05
13 UG1R 110 87 30.3 16.8 -19.8 0.41 -0.45 4.05
14 UG1R 120 95 30.4 18.0 -21.4 0.48 -0.56 4.15
15 UG1R 130 102 30.6 19.0 -23.1 0.53 -0.68 4.15
16 UG1R 140 110 30.8 19.6 -24.3 0.64 -0.74 4.15
17 UG1R 150 119 31.1 20.5 -25.1 0.69 -0.95 4.15
18 UG1R 160 128 31.4 21.3 -25.9 0.86 -1.05 4.15
19 UG1R 170 138 31.8 22.0 -26.6 1.04 -1.09 4.15
20 UG1R 180 148 33.3 23.3 -26.6 1.04 -1.38 4.20
21 UG1R 190 158 33.7 24.1 -27.1 1.28 -1.46 4.20
22 UG1R 200 165 34.2 24.9 -27.6 1.42 -1.68 4.20
23 UG1R 210 173 34.9 25.8 -28.0 1.67 -1.78 4.20
24 UG1R 220 184 36.3 27.4 -28.6 2.00 -2.18 4.20
25 UG1R 230 193 37.6 28.4 -28.6 2.40 -2.25 4.20
F: Lateral force
E.1 Observations
Specimen S1-REFE after testing is shown in Figures E.2 to E.4. The following comments apply to the
specimen behavior during the tests:
Test runs 1 to 15 (UG1R 130%) produced no visible damage to S1-REFE.
During test run 16 (UG1R 140%), the wall rocked slightly at the first bed joints immediately
above the reinforced concrete foundation at the south edge (Figure E.3 and E.4). This rocking was
observed along approximately one brick length.
During test run 17 (UG1R 150%), the rocking extended to the second bed joints (Figure E.3 and
E.4). Again, the rocking was observed along approximately one brick length.
During test runs 18 (UG1R 160%) to 22 (UG1R 200%), the wall continued slightly to rock at the
first and second brick courses in the north and south directions (Figure E.3 and E.4). Also, there
was some slight mortar spalling of head joints.
During test run 23 (UG1R 210%), the wall continued to rock at the first bed joints immediately
above the reinforced concrete foundation. This rocking was observed over approximately two
brick length in the south direction.
During test run 24 (UG1R 220%), a limited crack width was observed in the eastern north side in
the first brick course (Figure E.3 and E.4). This crack was observed along half brick block height.
During test run 25 (UG1R 230%), the previous crack extended along the whole height of the brick
block.
The test was interrupted in order to preserve the specimen for the subsequent test of specimen S1-
LAMI-C-X.
During testing S1-REFE, the maximum increment in the prestressing force was in the order of
26% of its initial value.
E.2 Measured Response
Table E.1 summarizes the measured response of S1- REFE.
The normalized peak lateral
force from each test run is
plotted against the peak wall
drift in Figure E.5. At a lateral
force equal to approximately
80% of the measured peak
lateral force (F/W), a gradual
softening started due to cracks
formation.
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0 0.15 0.3 0.45
Lateral Drift [%]
F
/
W
Figure E.5: Normalized Lateral Force vs. Wall Drift
A sample of the hysteresis
loops is shown in Figure E.6.
The hysteresis loops for test
runs 3, 6, and 9 showed a
The stiffness in both (positive
and negative) directions was
approximately equal.
The hysteresis loops showed a large amount of nonlinear behavior. The almost bilinear nonlinear
behavior exhibited was indicative of specimen rocking.
In general, there was little energy dissipation. This energy dissipation was due to mortar grinding,
friction, and wall rocking.
presented in Figures E.7 and E.8.

[mm]
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
F

[
k
N
]
S1-REFE
Test Run 3
UG1 40%

[mm]
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
F

[
k
N
]
S1-REFE
Test Run 6
UG1 70%

[mm]
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
F

[
k
N
]
S1-REFE
Test Run 9
UG1 100%

[mm]
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
F

[
k
N
]
S1-REFE
Test Run 16
UG1R 140%

[mm]
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
F

[
k
N
]
S1-REFE
Test Run 22
UG1R 200%

[mm]
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
F

[
k
N
]
S1-REFE
Test Run 25
UG1R 230%

Figure E.6: Lateral Force (F) vs. Relative Wall Displacement () for Test Runs 3, 6, 9, 16, 22,
and 25

-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
m
]
S1-REFE
Test Run 3

-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
m
]
S1-REFE
Test Run 6

-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
m
]
S1-REFE
Test Run 9
S1-REFE
Test Run 9

-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
m
]
S1-REFE
Test Run 16

-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
m
]
S1-REFE
Test Run 22

-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
m
]
S1-REFE
Test Run 25

Figure E.7: Relative Wall Displacement for Test Runs 3, 6, 9, 16, 22, and 25
-2.5
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
0 3 6 9 12
Time [Sec]
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
m
/
s
e
c
2
]
15
S1-REFE
Test Run 3

-2.5
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
0 3 6 9 12
Time [Sec]
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
m
/
s
e
c
2
]
15
S1-REFE
Test Run 6

-2.5
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
0 3 6 9 12
Time [Sec]
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
m
/
s
e
c
2
]
15
S1-REFE
Test Run 9

-2.5
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
0 3 6 9 12
Time [Sec]
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
m
/
s
e
c
2
]
15
S1-REFE
Test Run 16

-2.5
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
0 3 6 9 12
Time [Sec]
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
m
/
s
e
c
2
]
15
S1-REFE
Test Run 22

-2.5
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
0 3 6 9 12
Time [Sec]
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
m
/
s
e
c
2
]
15
S1-REFE
Test Run 25

Figure E.8: Top Wall Acceleration for Test Runs 3, 6, 9, 16, 22, and 25


Appendix F: SPECIMEN S1-LAMI-C-X 97
APPENDIX F
SPECIMEN S1-LAMI-C-X
Upgrading: Four diagonal plates of CFRP, each of 12 mm width (Figures F.1 and F.2).
Previous tests: It was previously tested as specimen S1-REFE
Loading: This specimen was subjected to two earthquake types: UG1R (from 60% to 280%)
and UG1RR (from 200% to 280%); for loading details see Table F.1.

Figure F.1: Specimen S1-LAMI-C-X
Upgraded Face
Figure F.2: Specimen S1-LAMI-C-X
Ready to Test

Figure F.3: Final Crack Pattern of
Specimen S1-LAMI-C-X
(Western Face)
Figure F.4: Specimen S1-LAMI-C-X after
Testing (Western Face)
F
1 4
3 2

98 Appendix F: SPECIMEN S1-LAMI-C-X
Table F.1: Loading History and Measured Response of Specimen S1-LAMI-C-X
Test
Run
Earthquake
[Type & %]
R.I.

[%]
P

[kN]
F
max

[kN]
F
min

[kN]
max

[mm]
min

[mm]
f
[HZ]
1 UG1R 60 49 28.9 10.0 -11.5 0.27 -0.24 4.05
2 UG1R 80 65 29.2 14.9 -15.4 0.46 -0.29 4.05
3 UG1R 100 87 29.4 17.8 -20.6 0.45 -0.49 4.15
4 UG1R 110 96 29.6 19.1 -22.6 0.59 -0.48 4.35
5 UG1R 120 102 29.7 19.9 -23.7 0.56 -0.68 4.35
6 UG1R 130 108 29.9 21.3 -25.2 0.68 -0.77 4.35
7 UG1R 140 114 30.1 22.4 -26.5 0.71 -0.78 4.35
8 UG1R 150 120 30.2 22.5 -26.8 0.67 -0.91 4.35
9 UG1R 160 127 30.5 23.2 -28.2 0.81 -0.94 4.35
10 UG1R 170 136 30.7 24.0 -29.0 0.81 -1.10 4.35
11 UG1R 180 143 30.9 24.9 -30.0 0.88 -1.13 4.35
12 UG1R 190 151 31.2 25.7 -31.1 0.87 -1.32 4.20
13 UG1R 200 164 31.4 26.6 -31.8 1.01 -1.44 4.20
14 UG1R 210 177 31.8 28.2 -33.2 1.21 -1.52 4.20
15 UG1R 220 187 32.1 29.9 -33.7 1.29 -1.64 4.20
16 UG1R 230
*
197 32.6 28.4 -34.5 1.69 -1.73 4.20
17 UG1R 200-2
*
175 31.9 26.2 -31.6 1.45 -1.56 4.20
18 UG1R 200-3 164 31.3 25.3 -30.5 1.15 -1.50 4.20
19 UG1R 230-2 192 32.1 28.5 -33.5 1.34 -1.58 4.20
20 UG1R 240 201 32.4 30.2 -34.0 1.30 -1.78 4.20
21 UG1R 250 210 32.7 31.6 -34.8 1.53 -1.84 4.20
22 UG1R 260 219 33.1 33.2 -35.5 1.91 -1.77 4.20
23 UG1R 270 227 33.5 34.1 -36.2 1.92 -2.04 4.20
24 UG1R 280 237 34.2 35.1 -36.5 2.06 -2.20 4.20
25 UG1RR 200 173 31.7 28.2 -30.6 1.46 -1.61 4.20
26 UG1RR 240 209 33.7 33.1 -35.8 1.97 -2.26 4.20
27 UG1RR 250 218 34.3 34.2 -36.6 2.10 -2.41 4.20
28 UG1RR 260 227 34.8 35.4 -37.3 2.35 -2.52 4.20
29 UG1RR 270 230 36.5 32.3 -38.4 2.94 -2.96 4.20
30 UG1RR 280 236 37.1 30.9 -36.9 3.20 -3.43 4.20
F: Lateral force
* Anchorage failure
F.1 Observations
Specimen S1-LAMI-C-X after testing is shown in Figures F.3 to F.6. The following comments are
regarding the specimen behavior during the tests:
Test runs 1 to 4 (UG1R 110%) produced no visible damage to S1-LAMI-C-X.
During test runs 5 (UG1R 120%) to 7 (UG1R 140%), there was a slight uplifting (rocking) in
bottom joints at edges.
During test runs 8 (UG1R 150%) to 14 (UG1R 210%), the rocking continued and there were some
slight mortar spalling of joints.
During test run 15 (UG1R 220%), the rocking was continuing when a noise was heard. This noise
was interpreted as a sign of commence of plate anchorage failure. This interpretation was proved

Figure F.5: Final Crack Pattern of
(Eastern Face)
Figure F.6: Specimen S1-LAMI-C-X after
Testing (Eastern Face)

Figure F.7: Buckling of Plate Number 1
(Figure 1) at the Third Brick
Course of Specimen S1-LAMI-
C-X
Figure F.8: Rupture of Plate Number
3(Figure 1) at the Top of
Figure F.9: Hair Line Diagonal Crack in
the Western Face of Specimen
S1-LAMI-C-X
Figure F.10: 0.03 mm Crack Opening in The
Western Face of Specimen S1-
LAMI-C-X

in the next test run. The head joint deterioration continued, and a crack of 0.2 mm width was
measured in the second brick course in the last southern head joint (Figure F.3).
At the beginning of test run 16 (UG1R 230%), the anchorage of plate number 1 (Figure F.1) failed
at the wall foundation. By the end of this test run, there were many cracks of limited width in head
joints (Figures F.3, F.5, and F.6).
Test run 17 (UG1R 200%-2) conducted on the specimen with a failed anchor of plate number 1.
The same earthquake it was imposed as for test run 13 (UG1R 200%). The head joints cracks
increased and there was a brick spalling from the upper brick course (Figure F.3).
Before test run 18 (UG1R 200%-3), the CFRP plate (plate number 1) was repaired with a fast
hardening epoxy. Also, the bottom ends of the four CFRP plates were fixed with steel plates. After
a one and half hour, test runs 13 (UG1R 200%) and 16 (UG1R 230%) were repeated as test runs
18 (UG1R 200%-3) and 19(UG1R 230%-2).
During test runs 18 (UG1R 200%-3) to 22 (UG1R 260%), the rocking continued.
During test run 23 (UG1R 270%), delamination buckling of plate number 1 happened at the
third brick course (Figure F.7).
During test runs 24 (UG1R 280%) to 28 (UG1RR 260%), both rocking and mortar joints
deterioration continued.
During test run 29 (UG1RR 270%), the anchorage of plate number 1 failed (Figure F.4).
During test run 30 (UG1RR 280%), plate number 3 bricked down, and the reinforced concrete
head beam shifted toward the eastern face (Figure F.8). The shift in the head beam was in the
order of 5 mm.
By the end of test run 30 (UG1RR 280%), there were many steps cracking in both faces. Some
cracks path through bricks (Figures F.9 and F.10) and others path through head and bed joints
(Figures F.5 and F.6). In general, head joint cracks were wider than bed joint cracks. The order of
magnitude of crack opening varied between 0.03 mm for crack passing through brick blocks and
1.2 mm for crack passing through head joints.
During testing S1-LAMI-C-X, the maximum increment in the prestressing force was in the order
of 27% of its initial value thanks to the railcar springs.
F.2 Measured Response
Table F.1 summarizes the measured response of S1-LAMI-C-X.
F.11. The curve consisted of three parts. The first part showed a linear part until test run 4. Then, a
second linear part with stiffness degradation was observed until test run 16 (anchorage failure).
Finally, the third part which consisted of a transition part until the anchorage repaired then a linear
part with stiffness equal to the second part stiffness.
loops is shown in Figure F.12.
The hysteresis loops for test run
3 (UG1R 100%) showed a
The stiffness in the positive
direction was less than in the
negative direction.
The hysteresis loops for the
other test runs showed a large
amount of nonlinear behavior.
The almost bilinear nonlinear
behavior exhibited was
indicative of specimen rocking.
The CFRP plate rupture during
test run 16 (UG1R 230%) was
clearly evidenced in the hysteresis loops for this test run. There was a large loop in the hysteresis
showed a large amount of nonlinear behavior and an increase in the area enclosed by the loop.
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Lateral Drift [%]
F
/
W
Figure F.11: Normalized Lateral Force vs. Wall Drift
In general, there was a little energy dissipation. This energy dissipation was due to mortar
grinding, friction, and specimen rocking.
presented in Figures F.13 and F.14.

[mm]
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
F

[
k
N
]
S1-LAMI-C-X
Test Run 3
UG1R 100%

[mm]
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
F

[
k
N
]
S1-LAMI-C-X
Test Run 15
UG1R 220%

[mm]
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
F

[
k
N
]
S1-LAMI-C-X
Test Run 16
UG1R 230%

[mm]
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
F

[
k
N
]
S1-LAMI-C-X
Test Run 19
UG1R 230%-2

[mm]
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
F

[
k
N
]
S1-LAMI-C-X
Test Run 24
UG1R 280%

[mm]
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
F

[
k
N
]
S1-LAMI-C-X
Test Run 29
UG1RR 270%

Figure F.12: Lateral Force (F) vs. Relative Wall Displacement () for Test Runs 3,15,16, 19, 24,
and 29

-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
m
]
S1-LAMI-C-X
Test Run 3

-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
m
]
S1-LAM I-C-X
Test Run 15

-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
m
]
S1-LAMI-C-X
Test Run 16

-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
m
]
S1-LAMI-C-X
Test Run 19

-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
m
]
S1-LAMI-C-X
Test Run 24

-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
m
]
S1-LAMI-C-X
Test Run 29

Figure F.13: Relative Wall Displacement for Test Runs 3,15,16, 19, 24, and 29
-12
-8
-4
0
4
8
12
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
m
/
s
e
c
2
]S1-LAMI-C-X
Test Run 3

-12
-8
-4
0
4
8
12
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
m
/
s
e
c
2
]S1-LAMI-C-X
Test Run 15

-12
-8
-4
0
4
8
12
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
m
/
s
e
c
2
]S1-LAMI-C-X
Test Run 3

-12
-8
-4
0
4
8
12
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
m
/
s
e
c
2
]S1-LAMI-C-X
Test Run 19

-12
-8
-4
0
4
8
12
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
m
/
s
e
c
2
]S1-LAMI-C-X
Test Run 24

-12
-8
-4
0
4
8
12
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
m
/
s
e
c
2
]S1-LAMI-C-X
Test Run 29

Figure F.14: Top Wall Acceleration for Test Runs 3,15,16, 19, 24, and 29


Appendix G: SPECIMEN S1-WRAP-G-F 105
APPENDIX G
SPECIMEN S1-WRAP-G-F
Upgrading: One face was fully covered using two vertical strips of bidirectional fabrics of glass
fiber, each of 870 mm width. In order to ensure the continuity between the two
fabrics, there was an overlap of about 175 mm between the two fabrics (Figures G.1
and G.2).
Previous tests: It was previously tested as specimen S1-LAMI-C-X
Loading: This specimen was subjected to the two types of earthquakes: UG1R (from 60% to
250%), and UG1RR (from 200% to 470%); for loading details see Table G.1.

Figure G.1: Specimen S1-WRAP-G-F
Upgraded Face [mm]
Figure G.2: Specimen S1-WRAP-G-F
Ready to Test

Figure G.3: Final Delamination Pattern
(Western Face) of Specimen
S1-WRAP-G-F
Figure G.4: S1-WRAP-G-F after Testing
(Western Face)
F
1565
7
2
5
1
0
4
5
N

106 Appendix G: SPECIMEN S1-WRAP-G-F
Table G.1: Loading History and Measured Response of Specimen S1-WRAP-G-F
Test
Run
Earthquake
[Type & %]
R.I.

[%]
P

[kN]
F
max

[kN]
F
min

[kN]
max

[mm]
min

[mm]
F
[HZ]
1 UG1R 60 50 28.7 10.6 -11.6 0.12 -0.14 4.05
2 UG1R 100 91 28.7 19.5 -21.3 0.14 -0.15 4.49
3 UG1R 140 121 28.7 24.3 -28.5 0.35 -0.38 4.35
4 UG1R 180 141 28.8 30.5 -32.9 0.40 -0.38 4.74
5 UG1R 200 151 28.8 32.4 -33.8 0.42 -0.43 4.74
6 UG1R 220 162 28.8 34.1 -34.3 0.56 -0.49 4.74
7 UG1R 240 174 28.8 34.9 -34.7 0.52 -0.54 4.74
8 UG1R 250 182 28.9 36.0 -35.2 0.52 -0.54 4.74
9 UG1RR 200 159 28.7 30.4 -35.3 0.47 -0.59 4.49
10 UG1RR 240 187 28.7 34.3 -40.6 0.53 -0.57 4.49
11 UG1RR 260-2 211 28.8 36.0 -42.5 0.58 -0.64 4.49
12 UG1RR 280 211 28.9 37.0 -43.8 0.60 -0.63 4.49
13 UG1RR 300 226 29.0 37.9 -44.6 0.65 -0.77 4.49
14 UG1RR 310 234 29.0 38.1 -44.6 0.60 -0.75 4.49
15 UG1RR 320 242 29.1 39.6 -45.5 0.68 -0.73 4.49
16 UG1RR 330 247 29.2 37.9 -45.7 0.64 -0.77 4.49
17 UG1RR 340 249 29.2 38.2 -46.3 0.69 -0.74 4.49
18 UG1RR 350 255 29.3 36.0 -44.7 0.70 -0.71 4.15
19 UG1RR 360 260 29.2 36.0 -43.8 0.66 -0.74 4.15
20 UG1RR 380
*
276 29.4 36.9 -49.3 0.70 -0.83 4.49
21 UG1RR 390
*
267 29.7 56.5 -55.0 1.00 -0.96 3.32
22 UG1RR 400 286 32.1 74.7 -64.3 2.10 -1.53 3.32
23 UG1RR 380-2 280 30.0 40.9 -51.0 1.02 -1.03 4.49
24 UG1RR 390-2 285 29.9 41.8 -49.5 1.02 -1.13 4.49
25 UG1RR 400-2 290 29.8 42.5 -48.6 1.00 -1.16 4.49
26 UG1RR 410 296 29.8 43.0 -47.5 1.11 -1.10 4.49
27 UG1RR 420 305 30.0 46.0 -52.2 1.12 -1.05 4.49
28 UG1RR 430 309 30.2 47.0 -52.3 1.22 -1.22 4.49
29 UG1RR 440 314 30.2 47.9 -52.5 1.10 -1.32 4.49
30 UG1RR 450 321 30.3 48.9 -52.3 1.18 -1.26 4.49
31 UG1RR 460 325 30.3 49.3 -50.5 1.19 -1.33 4.49
32 UG1RR 470 330 30.3 49.3 -51.3 1.30 -1.24 4.49
33 UG1RR 300-2 229 29.6 33.9 -44.5 0.94 -1.21 4.49
34 UG1RR 300-3
**
467 32.5 72.7 -75.5 2.02 -2.23 4.54
F: Lateral force
* Test set-up problems
** Special earthquake with 250 Hz

Figure G.5: Delamination Propagation in the
Northern Side of Specimen S1-
WRAP-G-F
Figure G.6: White Lines and Spots in
Specimen S1-WRAP-G-F
G.1 Observations
Specimen S1-WRAP-G-F after testing is shown in Figures G.3 and G.4. The following comments are
Test runs 1 to 18 (UG1RR 360%) produced no visible damage to specimen S1-WRAP-G-F.
During test run 19 (UG1RR 360%), the delamination process began in few points. This
delamination was visible in the form of white lines at the bed joints under the first, second and
fourth brick courses (Figures G.3, G.4, and G.5).
During test runs 20 (UG1RR 380%) to 22 (UG1RR 400%), there was a problem with the link
member between the mass and the wall head beam. These tests were repeated as test runs 23
(UG1RR 380%-2) to 25 (UG1RR 400%-2).
During test runs 23 (UG1RR 380%-2) to 34 (UG1RR 300%-3), the delamination process
continued and the white lines propagated. Also, delamination was visible also in the form of white
spots. These spots were concentrated at the northern bottom brick courses (Figure G.5, G.6).
During test runs 23 (UG1RR 380%-2) to 34 (UG1RR 300%-3), no visible damage was observed
in the masonry (eastern) face. Although the specimen eastern face had diagonal hair cracks from
test specimen S1-LAMI-C-X, no additional visible damage was observed.
During testing S1-WRAP-G-F, the prestressing force was stable thanks to the railcar springs: the
maximum increment was in the order of 15% of its initial value.
At the end of test run 35, no deterioration was observed in the composite fabrics itself. The test
was interrupted because the maximum force capacity of the shaking table hydraulic jack was
reached.
G.2 Measured Response
Table G.1 summarizes the measured response of S1-WRAP-G-F.
G.7.

shown in Figure G.8. The
hysteresis loops for test runs 2, and
8 showed a predominately linear
behavior, and the initial stiffness in
both directions remained constant
as no delamination was observed.
The delamination, experienced by
the specimen during test run 19 and
later on, was clearly evidenced in
the hysteresis loops for test runs
19, 23, 32, and 34. The stiffness in
the negative direction was less than
the stiffness in the positive
direction. This is consistent with
the observation of delamination on
the north side of the specimen
(Figure G.3, G.4). This stiffness difference increased with increasing earthquake intensity.
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
Lateral Drift [%]
F
/
W
Figure G.7: Normalized Lateral Force vs Wall Drift
In general, there was little energy dissipation. This energy dissipation increased slightly with
increasing earthquake intensity due to mortar grinding and friction.
presented in Figures G.9 and G.10.

[mm]
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
F

[
k
N
]
S1-WRAP-G-F
Test Run 2
UG1R 100%

[mm]
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
F

[
k
N
]
S1-WRAP-G-F
Test Run 8
UG1R 250%

[mm]
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
F

[
k
N
]
S1-WRAP-G-F
Test Run 19
UG1RR 360%

[mm]
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
F

[
k
N
]
S1-WRAP-G-F
Test Run 23
UG1RR 380%-2

[mm]
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
F

[
k
N
]
S1-WRAP-G-F
Test Run 32
UG1RR 470%

[mm]
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
F

[
k
N
]
S1-WRAP-G-F
Test Run 34
UG1RR 300%-250H

Figure G.8: Lateral Force (F) vs. Relative Wall Displacement () for Test Runs 2, 8, 19, 23, 32,
and 34

-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
m
]
S1-WRAP-G-F
Test Run 2

-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
m
]
S1-WRAP-G-F
Test Run 8

-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
m
]
S1-WRAP-G-F
Test Run 19

-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
m
]
S1-WRAP-G-F
Test Run 23

-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
m
]
S1-WRAP-G-F
Test Run 32

-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
m
]
S1-WRAP-G-F
Test Run 34

Figure G.9: Relative Wall Displacement for Test Runs 2, 8, 19, 23, 32, and 34
-12
-8
-4
0
4
8
12
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
m
/
s
e
c
2
]S1-WRAP-G-F
Test Run 2

-12
-8
-4
0
4
8
12
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
m
/
s
e
c
2
]
S1-WRAP-G-F
Test Run 8

-12
-8
-4
0
4
8
12
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
m
/
s
e
c
2
]
S1-WRAP-G-F
Test Run 19

-12
-8
-4
0
4
8
12
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
m
/
s
e
c
2
]
S1-WRAP-G-F
Test Run 23

-12
-8
-4
0
4
8
12
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
m
/
s
e
c
2
]
S1-WRAP-G-F
Test Run 32

-12
-8
-4
0
4
8
12
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
m
/
s
e
c
2
]
S1-WRAP-G-F
Test Run 34

Figure G.10: Top Wall Acceleration for Test Runs 2, 8, 19, 23, 32, and 34

Appendix H: SPECIMEN S2-REFE 111
APPENDIX H
SPECIMEN S2-REFE
Upgrading: Reference specimen.
Previous tests: -
Loading: This specimen was subjected to two earthquake types: UG1 (from 10% to 120%) and
UG1R (from 100% to 260%); for loading details see Table H.1.

Figure H.1: Specimen S2-REFE after Testing
(Eastern Face)
Figure H.2: Final Crack Pattern of Specimen
S2- REFE (Western Face)[mm]
1
0
5
0
7
1
0
F
1570
N
H.1 Observations
Specimen S2-REFE after testing is shown in Figures H.1 and H.2. The following comments apply to
Test runs 1 to 9 (UG1R 120%) produced no visible damage to S2-REFE.
During test run 10 (UG1R 140%), the wall rocked slightly at the first bed joints immediately
above the reinforced concrete foundation at northern edge. This rocking was observed along
approximately half brick block length.
During test runs 11 (UG1R 150%) to 15 (UG1R 190%), the wall continued to rock slightly at the
first brick courses at the northern and southern sides.
During test runs 16 (UG1R 200%) and 17 (UG1R 210%), the wall continued to rock. The opening
of the rocking was clearly observed along one and half brick blocks length at the north direction.
In addition, there were some slight bed joints mortar spalling between the reinforced concrete head
beam and the brick wall.

112 Appendix H: SPECIMEN S2-REFE
Table H.1: Loading History and Measured Response of Specimen S2-REFE
Test
Run
Earthquake
[Type & %]
R.I.

[%]
P

[kN]
F
max

[kN]
F
min

[kN]
max

[mm]
min

[mm]
f
[HZ]
1 UG1 10 10 29.3 2.4 -3.2 0.05 -0.04 2.39
2 UG1 20 19 29.3 4.3 -4.5 0.05 -0.07 2.73
3 UG1 40 33 29.3 6.7 -7.6 0.11 -0.13 3.17
4 UG1 60 49 29.3 8.5 -10.2 0.14 -0.12 4.49
5 UG1 80 63 29.3 11.5 -12.4 0.15 -0.14 4.49
6 UG1 100 76 29.2 13.0 -15.0 0.16 -0.17 4.49
7 UG1 120 88 29.1 15.8 -18.2 0.26 -0.22 4.49
8 UG1R 100 79 29.1 15.3 -16.6 0.24 -0.26 4.49
9 UG1R 120 97 29.0 17.9 -21.1 0.34 -0.30 4.35
10 UG1R 140 109 29.0 19.6 -23.8 0.39 -0.37 4.35
11 UG1R 150 115 29.0 20.3 -25.0 0.45 -0.44 4.35
12 UG1R 160 122 29.0 21.5 -25.8 0.52 -0.56 4.35
13 UG1R 170 130 29.0 22.1 -26.3 0.69 -0.73 4.35
14 UG1R 180 136 29.0 22.5 -26.9 0.61 -0.79 4.35
15 UG1R 190 142 29.3 21.3 -27.2 0.59 -1.03 4.35
16 UG1R 200 148 29.7 21.3 -26.9 0.68 -0.92 4.35
17 UG1R 210 154 30.3 21.2 -26.9 0.84 -1.10 4.49
18 UG1R 220 163 30.8 22.3 -27.2 0.89 -1.31 4.20
19 UG1R 230 173 31.4 22.9 -27.2 1.03 -1.76 4.20
20 UG1R 240 184 31.8 24.8 -27.9 1.25 -1.79 4.20
21 UG1R 250 193 32.5 25.8 -28.0 1.70 -1.89 4.20
22 UG1R 260 206 35.0 27.7 -28.7 2.27 -2.42 4.20
F: Lateral force

During test run 18 (UG1R 220%), the wall continued to rock at the northern first brick course and
at the southern second brick course. The rocking was observed at the northern side along four
brick blocks length and at the southern side along two and half brick blocks length.
During test runs 19 (UG1R 230%) to 22 (UG1R 260%), the wall continued to rock at the first
brick course at the northern side and at the second brick course at the southern side. The rocking
was observed along six brick blocks length at the northern side and four brick blocks length at the
southern side.
By the end of these tests, two limited width cracks were observed. The first crack was in the
eastern north side in the first brick course over one brick block height. The second crack was
observed in the western south side in the fourth brick course over one brick block height.
The test was interrupted in order to preserve the specimen for the subsequent test of specimen S2-
WRAP-A-F.
During testing S2-REFE, the maximum increment in the prestressing force was in the order of
19% of its initial value thanks to the railcar springs.
H.2 Measured Response
Table H.1 summarizes the measured response of S2- REFE.
The normalized peak lateral force
from each test run is plotted
against the peak wall drift in
Figure H.3. At a lateral force equal
to approximately 85% of the
measured peak lateral force, a
gradual softening started due to
flexural cracks formation.
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0 0.15 0.3 0.45
Lateral Drift [%]
F
/
W
Figure H.3: Normalized Lateral Force vs. Wall Drift
shown in Figure H.4. The
hysteresis loops for test runs 3
(UG1 40%) and 6 (UG1 100%)
showed a predominately linear
behavior. The stiffness in the
positive and negative directions
was approximately equal.
First signs of the development of a rocking were observed during test run 10 (UG1R 140%).
The hysteresis loops for test run 16 (UG1R 200%) exhibited a nonlinear relationship linked to the
observed rocking.
The hysteresis loops for test runs 19 (UG1R 230%) and 22 (UG1R 260%) showed a large amount
of nonlinear behavior. The almost bilinear nonlinear behavior exhibited was indicative of
specimen rocking.
In general, there was a little energy dissipation. This energy dissipation was due to mortar grinding
and friction.
presented in Figures H.5 and H.6.

[mm]
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
F

[
k
N
]
S2-REFE
Test Run 3
UG1 40%

[mm]
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
F

[
k
N
]
S2-REFE
Test Run 6
UG1 100%

[mm]
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
F

[
k
N
]
S2-REFE
Test Run 10
UG1R 140%

[mm]
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
F

[
k
N
]
S2-REFE
Test Run 16
UG1R 200%

[mm]
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
F

[
k
N
]
S2-REFE
Test Run 19
UG1R 230%

[mm]
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
F

[
k
N
]
S2-REFE
Test Run 22
UG1R 260%

Figure H.4: Lateral Force (F) vs. Relative Wall Displacement () for Test Runs 3, 6, 10, 16, 19,
and 22

-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
m
]
S2-REFE
Test Run 3

-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
m
]
S2-REFE
Test Run 6

-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
m
]
S2-REFE
Test Run 10

-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
m
]
S2-REFE
Test Run 16

-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
m
]
S2-REFE
Test Run 19

-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
m
]
S2-REFE
Test Run 22

Figure H.5: Relative Wall Displacement for Test Runs 3, 6, 10, 16, 19, and 22
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
0 3 6 9 12
Time [Sec]
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
m
/
s
e
c
2
]
15
S2-REFE
Test Run 3

-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
0 3 6 9 12
Time [Sec]
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
m
/
s
e
c
2
]
15
S2-REFE
Test Run 6

-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
0 3 6 9 12
Time [Sec]
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
m
/
s
e
c
2
]
15
S2-REFE
Test Run 10

-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
0 3 6 9 12
Time [Sec]
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
m
/
s
e
c
2
]
15
S2-REFE
Test Run 16

-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
0 3 6 9 12
Time [Sec]
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
m
/
s
e
c
2
]
15
S2-REFE
Test Run 19

-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
0 3 6 9 12
Time [Sec]
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
m
/
s
e
c
2
]
15
S2-REFE
Test Run 22

Figure H.6: Top Wall Acceleration for Test Runs 3, 6, 10, 16, 19, and 22


Appendix I: SPECIMEN S2-WRAP-A-F 117
APPENDIX I
SPECIMEN S2-WRAP-A-F
Upgrading: One face was fully covered using seven vertical bi-directional aramid fiber fabrics,
each of 320 mm width. In order to ensure the continuity between the fabrics, there
were overlaps of about 100 mm between adjacent fabrics (Figures I.1 and I.2).
Previous tests: It was previously tested as specimen S2-REFE
Loading: This specimen was subjected to three earthquake types: UG1R (from 60% to 260%),
UG1RR (from 200% to 470%), and UG1RRR (from 200% to 230%); for loading
details see Table I.1.

Figure I.1: Specimen S2-WRAP-A-F
Upgraded Face [mm]
Figure I.2: Specimen S2-WRAP-A-F
Ready to Test

Figure I.3: S2-WRAP-A-F after Testing
(Eastern Face)
Figure I.4: S2-WRAP-A-F after Testing
(Western Face)
N
1570
F
7
1
0
1
0
5
0

118 Appendix I: SPECIMEN S2-WRAP-A-F

Table I.1: Loading History and Measured Response of Specimen S2-WRAP-A-F
Test
Run
Earthquake
[Type & %]
R.I.

[%]
P

[kN]
F

max

[kN]
F

min
[kN]
max

[mm]
min

[mm]
f
[HZ]
1 UG1R 60 52 27.2 9.7 -10.8 N.A. N.A. 4.05
2 UG1R 100 81 30.1 17.5 -19.5 0.24 -0.28 4.49
3 UG1R 140 115 30.2 21.9 -27.4 0.33 -0.20 4.35
4 UG1R 180 140 30.3 28.7 -31.6 0.35 -0.29 4.79
5 UG1R 200 151 30.3 31.4 -34.0 0.29 -0.32 4.79
6 UG1R 220 161 30.4 33.7 -34.8 0.36 -0.34 4.79
7 UG1R 240 175 30.4 35.2 -35.9 0.39 -0.37 4.79
8 UG1R 260 190 30.4 36.7 -36.9 0.38 -0.42 4.79
9 UG1RR 200 164 30.3 29.1 -36.4 0.26 -0.28 4.49
10 UG1RR 240 193 30.4 33.3 -41.1 0.38 -0.34 4.49
11 UG1RR 260 206 30.4 34.3 -43.5 0.49 -0.38 4.49
12 UG1RR 280 217 30.4 35.0 -45.4 0.39 -0.33 4.49
13 UG1RR 300 227 30.4 35.6 -46.7 0.48 -0.34 4.79
14 UG1RR 310 231 30.4 35.7 -47.0 0.44 -0.35 4.49
15 UG1RR 320 234 30.4 36.4 -47.1 0.49 -0.39 4.74
16 UG1RR 330 244 30.4 37.1 -47.5 0.49 -0.55 4.74
17 UG1RR 340 251 30.4 38.8 -48.8 0.45 -0.52 4.74
18 UG1RR 360 256 30.4 35.0 -41.8 0.40 -0.27 4.49
19 UG1RR 380
*
269 30.7 50.6 -52.1 0.40 -0.43 3.37
20 UG1RR 400
*
280 30.7 49.0 -53.2 0.38 -0.34 3.32
21 UG1RR 420
*
286 31.6 64.0 -68.8 0.58 -0.46 3.17
22 UG1RR 420-2 301 30.5 38.4 -47.4 0.48 -0.50 4.74
23 UG1RR 440 316 30.6 43.0 -53.5 0.60 -0.49 4.74
24 UG1RR 450 325 30.8 48.8 -57.9 0.62 -0.58 4.74
25 UG1RR 460 331 30.9 51.4 -61.1 0.66 -0.66 4.74
26 UG1RR 470 338 30.9 53.4 -62.6 0.62 -0.63 4.74
27 UG1RRR 200 482 31.3 59.7 -62.2 0.71 -0.73 4.59
28 UG1RRR 210 500 31.4 62.9 -66.4 0.73 -0.77 4.59
29 UG1RRR 220 519 31.6 65.9 -70.9 0.82 -0.86 4.59
30 UG1RRR 230 538 31.9 69.0 -74.9 0.82 -0.92 4.59
F: Lateral force
* Test setup problems
I.1 Observations
Specimen S2-WRAP-A-F after testing is shown in Figure I.3, and I.4. The following comments apply
Test runs 1 and 2 (UG1R 100%) produced no visible damage to S2-WRAP-A-F.
During test run 3 (UG1R 140%), there was a very limited small crack in the first brick course, the
first northern brick block. This crack was steady till the test end, and no additional extension was
observed until the end of S2-WRAP-A-F testing.
During test runs 4 (UG1R 180%) to 10 (UG1RR 240%), no visible cracks were observed.
Between test runs 11 (UG1R 260%) and 30 (UG1RRR 230%), there was a little deterioration of
the mortar in some head and bed joints.
During test runs 19 (UG1RR 380%) to 21 (UG1RR 420%), there was a problem with the link
member between the mass and the wall head beam. The influence of this link member problem
clearly appears in the measured natural frequency. During these three test runs the natural
frequencies dropped suddenly. The problem was corrected and test run 21 (UG1RR 420%) was
repeated as test run 22 (UG1RR 420%-2).
During the test the prestressing force was stable: the maximum increment was in the order of 6%
of its initial value thanks to the railcar springs.
At the end of test run 30 (UG1RRR 230%), no deterioration was observed in the composite fabrics
itself (Figure I.4). The test was interrupted because the maximum force capacity of the shaking
table hydraulic jack was reached.
I.2 Measured Response
Table I.1 summarizes the measured response of S2-WRAP-A-F.
I.5.
loops is shown in Figure I.5.
The hysteresis loops for all
test runs showed a
predominately linear
behavior, and the stiffness in
the positive direction was
less than in the negative
direction. This difference in
stiffness increased with
increasing earthquake
intensity.
0.
0
1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0 0.05 0.1 0.15
Lateral Drift [%]
F
/
W
Figure I.5: Normalized Lateral Force vs Wall Drift
In general, there was little
energy dissipation. This
energy dissipation was due
to mortar grinding and
friction.
presented in Figures I.7 and I.8.


[mm]
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
F

[
k
N
]
S2-WRAP-A-F
Test Run 2
UG1R 100%

[mm]
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
F

[
k
N
]
S2-WRAP-A-F
Test Run 7
UG1R 240%

[mm]
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
F

[
k
N
]
S2-WRAP-A-F
Test Run 9
UG1RR 200%

[mm]
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
F

[
k
N
]
S2-WRAP-A-F
Test Run 20
UG1RR 400%

[mm]
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
F

[
k
N
]
S2-WRAP-A-F
Test Run 26
UG1RR 470%

[mm]
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
F

[
k
N
]
S2-WRAP-A-F
Test Run 30
UG1RRR 230%

Figure I.6: Lateral Force (F) vs. Relative Wall Displacement () for Test Runs 2,7,9, 20, 26,
and 30


-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
m
]
S2-WRAP-A-F
Test Run 2

-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
m
]
S2-WRAP-A-F
Test Run 7

-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
m
]
S2-WRAP-A-F
Test Run 9

-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
m
]
S2-WRAP-A-F
Test Run 20

-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
m
]
S2-WRAP-A-F
Test Run 26

-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
m
]
S2-WRAP-A-F
Test Run 30

Figure I.7: Relative Wall Displacement for Test Runs 2, 7, 9, 20, 26, and 30
-12
-8
-4
0
4
8
12
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
m
/
s
e
c
2
]S2-WRAP-A-F
Test Run 2

-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
m
/
s
e
c
2
]S2-WRAP-A-F
Test Run 7

-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
m
/
s
e
c
2
]S2-WRAP-A-F
Test Run 9

-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
m
/
s
e
c
2
]S2-WRAP-A-F
Test Run 20

-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
m
/
s
e
c
2
]S2-WRAP-A-F
Test Run 26

-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
m
/
s
e
c
2
]S2-WRAP-A-F
Test Run 30

Figure I.8: Top Wall Acceleration for Test Runs 2, 7, 9, 20, 26, and 30


Appendix J: SPECIMEN L2-REFE 123
APPENDIX J
SPECIMEN L2-REFE
Upgrading: Reference slender specimen.
Previous tests: -
Loading: This specimen was subjected to earthquake type UG1 (from 10% to 100%). For
loading details see Table J.1.

Figure J.1: Specimen L2-REFE after Testing
(Eastern Face)
Figure J.2: Final Crack Pattern of Specimen
L2- REFE (Western Face) [mm]
F
1570
2
2
7
8
1
6
3
3
N
J.1 Observations
Specimen L2-REFE after testing is shown in Figures J.1 and J.2. The following comments are
Test runs 1 to 4 (UG1 40%) caused no visible damage to L2-REFE.
Test run 5 (UG1 50%) produced a small horizontal crack in the bed joints between the first brick
course and the reinforced concrete foundation at the northern side of the wall. This crack was
observed along two brick blocks length.
During test runs 6 (UG1 60%) and 7 (UG1 70%), the previous crack extended slightly along half-
length of the wall.
The greatest amount of cracking occurred during test run 8 (UG1 80%). A new crack appeared in
the southern side of the wall in the bed joints between the first and second brick courses. This new
crack extended till it connected to the previous one. At this point there was no continuity left
between the upper part and the lower part of the wall. However, the rest of the wall above and
under the bed joints did not experience any observable damage or large cracking. During this test
run the normal force increased slightly.

124 Appendix J: SPECIMEN L2-REFE
Table J.1: Loading History and Measured Response of Specimen L2-REFE
Test
Run
Earthquake
[Type & %]
R.I.

[%]
P

[kN]
F
max

[kN]
F
min

[kN]
max

[mm]
min

[mm]
f
[HZ]
1 UG1 10 14 29.8 3.4 -5.2 0.38 -0.41 2.67
2 UG1 20 22 29.8 5.9 -5.2 0.50 -0.50 3.19
3 UG1 30 33 29.9 6.9 -8.0 0.60 -0.71 2.83
4 UG1 40 42 29.9 8.0 -9.3 0.66 -0.72 2.83
5 UG1 50 48 30.0 10.7 -10.1 0.94 -0.86 3.27
6 UG1 60 57 30.3 11.8 -11.4 1.22 -1.41 3.21
7 UG1 70 69 31.1 12.5 -13.8 2.00 -2.18 2.71
8 UG1 80 86 34.4 14.7 -14.3 4.79 -3.96 2.69
9 UG1 90 80 36.7 15.0 -15.8 6.94 -6.98 1.76
10 UG1 100 71 43.6 15.9 -16.4 13.07 -12.98 2.05
11 UG1 70
*
67 60.5 13.0 -12.2 1.28 -1.06 3.22
12 UG1 80
*
73 60.5 13.9 -13.9 1.45 -1.24 3.21
13 UG1 90
*
82 60.5 15.8 -14.7 2.02 -1.60 3.20
14 UG1 100
*
93 60.5 17.3 -16.4 2.35 -1.92 3.15
F: Lateral force
* High prestressing force

During test run 9 (UG1 90%), the specimen displayed a characteristic rocking behavior and the
normal force increased, even with the added springs, by about 23% of its original value because of
the large opening of the rocking crack.
During test run 10 (UG1 100%), the wall continued to rock at the previous crack with large lateral
displacements. By the end of this test there was a limited spalling in a half brick block at the first
course at the northern side.
After these test runs, it seemed that the specimen could rock further but subsequent tests would
have little significance. At this point, a second phase of the test was started. A decision was made
to increase the prestressing force to 60.5 kN and redo test runs 7 to 10 as test runs 11 to 14.
During test runs 11 (UG1 70%) to 14 (UG1 100%), the specimen continued to rock; no additional
damage was observed to specimen L2-REFE.
At the end of the test, specimen L2-REFE showed little damage.
The second phase test was interrupted in order to preserve the specimen for the subsequent test of
specimen L2-GRID-G-F.
During testing L2-REFE (first phase), the maximum increment in the prestressing force was in the
order of 46% of its initial value.
J.2 Measured Response
Table J.1 summarizes the measured response of L2- REFE.
J.3. The curve can be idealized in a similar way to the classical tri-linear force deformation curve.
The first part till first crack i.e. test run 5 (UG1 50%) and a normalized lateral force of about 60%
of the maximum normalized
lateral force. Then, a gradual
softening was observed till test
run 8 (UG1 80%) i.e. till a
normalized lateral force of 80%
of the maximum normalized
lateral force. After test run 8
(UG1 80%), the last part of the
curve started with a small
positive stiffness till test run 10
(UG1 100%). It is worth to note
that in a classical tri-linear force
deformation curve, the
normalized lateral force at test
run 8 (UG1 80%) should
represent the maximum
normalized lateral force;
moreover, the third part of the curve should have theoretically a negative stiffness [To 99]. During
testing this specimen, the lateral resistance continues to increase well after this point. This
increment was, mainly, due to the increment in the prestressing force.
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Lateral Drift [%]
(
F
/
W
)
Figure J.3: Normalized Lateral Force vs Wall Drift
Although the prestressing force was increased after the wall severely cracked, the increment of the
normal force restored, approximately, the original stiffness of the URM specimen (Figure J.3).
A sample of the hysteresis loops is shown in Figure J.4. The hysteresis loops for test runs 4 and 11
showed a predominately linear behavior. The stiffness in the positive and negative directions are
approximately equal.
The hysteresis loops for test runs 7 (UG1 70%) and 14 (UG1 100%) showed a limited nonlinear
behavior. This behavior was consistent with the visual observations of a rocking crack during
these test runs.
The hysteresis loops for test runs 8 (UG1 80%) and 10 (UG1 100%) showed a large amount of
nonlinear behavior. The bilinear nonlinear behavior exhibited was indicative of specimen rocking.
In general, there was little energy dissipation. This energy dissipation was due to wall rocking.
presented in Figure J.5 and Figure J.6.

[mm]
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 2
F

[
k
N
]
0
L2-REFE
Test Run 4
UG1 40%

[mm]
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 2
F

[
k
N
]
0
L2-REFE
Test Run 7
UG1 70%

[mm]
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 2
F

[
k
N
]
0
L2-REFE
Test Run 8
UG1 80%

[mm]
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 2
F

[
k
N
]
0
L2-REFE
Test Run 10
UG1 100%

[mm]
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 2
F

[
k
N
]
0
L2-REFE
Test Run 11
UG1 70%

[mm]
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 2
F

[
k
N
]
0
L2-REFE
Test Run 14
UG1 100%

Figure J.4: Lateral Force (F) vs. Relative Wall Displacement () for Test Runs 4, 7, 8, 10, 11,
and 14

-16
-12
-8
-4
0
4
8
12
16
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
m
]
L2-GRID-G-F
Test Run 19
L2-REFE
Test Run 4

-16
-12
-8
-4
0
4
8
12
16
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
m
]
L2-GRID-G-F
Test Run 19
L2-REFE
Test Run 7

-16
-12
-8
-4
0
4
8
12
16
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
m
]
L2-GRID-G-F
Test Run 19
L2-REFE
Test Run 8

-16
-12
-8
-4
0
4
8
12
16
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
m
]
L2-GRID-G-F
Test Run 19
L2-REFE
Test Run 10

-16
-12
-8
-4
0
4
8
12
16
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
m
]
L2-GRID-G-F
Test Run 19
L2-REFE
Test Run 11

-16
-12
-8
-4
0
4
8
12
16
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
m
]
L2-GRID-G-F
Test Run 19
L2-REFE
Test Run 14

Figure J.5: Relative Wall Displacement for Test Runs 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 14
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
m
/
s
e
c
2
]
S2-REFE
Test Run 22
L2-REFE
Test Run 4

-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
m
/
s
e
c
2
]
S2-REFE
Test Run 22
L2-REFE
Test Run 7

-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
m
/
s
e
c
2
]
S2-REFE
Test Run 22
L2-REFE
Test Run 8

-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
m
/
s
e
c
2
]
L2-REFE
Test Run 10

-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
m
/
s
e
c
2
]
S2-REFE
Test Run 22
L2-REFE
Test Run 11

-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
m
/
s
e
c
2
]
L2-REFE
Test Run 14

Figure J.6: Top Wall Acceleration for Test Runs 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 14


Appendix K: SPECIMEN L2-GRID-G-F 129
APPENDIX K
SPECIMEN L2-GRID-G-F
Upgrading: One face was fully covered using two vertical strips of bi-directional glass fiber grids.
In order to ensure the continuity between the two fabrics, there was an overlap of
about 210 mm between the two grids (Figures K.1 and K.2).
Previous tests: It was previously tested as specimen L2-REFE
and UG1R (from 120% to 220%); for loading details see Table K.1.

Figure K.1: Specimen L2-GRID-G-F
Upgraded Face [mm]
Figure K.2: Specimen L2-GRID-G-F
Ready to Test

Figure K.3: L2-GRID-G-F after Testing
(Western Face)
Figure K.4: L2-GRID-G-F after Testing
(Eastern Face)
1
6
3
3
2
2
7
8
1570
F
N

130 Appendix K: SPECIMEN L2-GRID-G-F
Table K.1: Loading History and Measured Response of Specimen L2-GRID-G-F
Test
Run
Earthquake
[Type & %]
R.I.

[%]
P

[kN]
F
max

[kN]
F
min

[kN]
max

[mm]
min

[mm]
f
[HZ]
1 UG1 40 40 30.4 9.0 -9.2 0.74 -0.61 3.17
2 UG1 60 57 30.4 12.4 -12.6 0.86 -0.84 3.17
3 UG1 80 83 30.5 15.1 -16.2 0.98 -0.98 3.37
4 UG1 100 101 30.5 18.8 -19.2 1.11 -1.30 3.37
5 UG1 120 125 30.6 23.9 -22.6 1.44 -1.58 3.66
6 UG1R 100 122 30.5 23.8 -18.5 1.43 -1.21 3.37
7 UG1R 100-2
*
118 30.5 23.6 -18.2 1.72 -1.54 3.37
8 UG1R 100-3
*
117 30.5 23.3 -18.2 1.51 -1.33 3.37
9 UG1R 120 146 30.6 27.2 -22.8 1.86 -1.66 3.37
10 UG1R 130 164 30.6 29.5 -26.4 1.88 -1.77 3.37
11 UG1R 140 176 30.6 31.5 -28.2 2.25 -2.18 3.37
12 UG1R 150 186 30.8 34.1 -30.8 2.29 -2.39 3.37
13 UG1R 160 189 31.1 38.6 -32.2 3.20 -2.64 3.37
14 UG1R 170 193 31.5 42.3 -33.9 3.76 -3.03 3.37
15 UG1R 180 189 31.9 42.5 -40.3 4.30 -4.92 3.17
16 UG1R 190 179 33.0 47.6 -43.0 5.60 -5.92 3.13
17 UG1R 200 184 33.8 49.8 -44.3 6.45 -6.20 2.73
18 UG1R 210 232 35.3 51.2 -47.3 8.59 -7.42 2.73
19 UG1R 220 178 43.4 46.9 -48.1 19.71 -12.43 2.00
F: Lateral force
* Test setup problems
K.1 Observations
Specimen L2-GRID-G-F after testing is shown in Figure K.3 and K.4. The following comments apply
Test runs 1 to 9 (UG1R 120%) produced no visible damage to L2-GRID-G-F.
During test run 10 (UG1R 130%), the specimen started to rock at the specimen foundation and a
small opening in order of 1 mm width was observed between the masonry specimen and its
foundation. This crack corresponds to a drift of 0.1% and a lateral force of (28 kN) 56% of the
specimen lateral resistance (50 kN).
During test run 11 (UG1R 140%), the specimen continued to rock. Both the lateral force and the
drift increased a little.
delamination was visible in the form of white lines at bed joints under the first and second brick
courses. In addition, the specimen continued to rock and a cracking noise was heard. This cracking
noise increased with the next test runs.
During test runs 13 (UG1R 160%) to 17 (UG1R 200%), the delamination process continued and
the white lines propagated at the bed joints everywhere in the specimen bottom half.
During test run 18 (UG1R 210%), the grid started to rupture in tension at the bottom northern side
of L2-GRID-G-F.
During test run 19 (UG1R 220%), the grid ruptured in tension at the bottom sides of L2-GRID-G-
F (Figure K.3, K.5, K.6, and K.7). Also, a masonry failure was observed in the bottom
southeastern side (Figure K.4 and K.8). Also important was that the peak drift for test run 19
(1.0%) was approximately 2 times the drift for test run 18 (0.5%) while the average peak lateral
force reduced slightly from 50 kN (test run 18) to 48 kN (test run 19).

Figure K.5: Grid Rupture in the Bottom
Western North Side of L2-GRID-
G-F
Figure K.6: Grid Rupture in the Bottom
Western South Side of L2-GRID-
G-F

Figure K.7: Fiber Rupture at the End of
Testing L2-GRID-G-F
Figure K.8: Masonry Failure in the Eastern
South Side of L2-GRID-G-F
By the end of test run 19, the specimen reached its ultimate capacity. Its ultimate limit state was
clearly a flexural failure that was initiated by tensile rupture in grid fiber reached when the
masonry at the wall toe crushed in compression.
Although the northern side of the wall was damaged during test run 12 of specimen L2-REFE and
was repaired using AFRP (Figures K.2 and K.5), no additional damage in masonry was observed
in the northern side and all masonry failure happened at the southern side.
During testing L2-GRID-G-F, the maximum increment in the prestressing force was in order of
43% of its initial value thanks to the railcar springs.

K.2 Measured Response
Table K.1 summarizes the measured response of L2-GRID-G-F.
K.9. At a lateral force equal to approximately 66% of the ultimate lateral force a gradual
delamination started. Also, a gradual softening was observed.
loops is shown in Figure
K.10. The hysteresis loops
for test runs 3 (UG1 80%)
and 4 (UG1 100%) showed
a predominately linear
behavior, and the initial
stiffness in both directions
remained constant as
neither cracking nor
delamination was observed.
The cracks observed in test
run 10 (UG1R 130%) and
later on was not clearly
evidenced in the hysteresis
loops for test runs 10
(UG1R 130%), 14 (UG1R 170%), and 18 (UG1R 180%) because the rocking crack had not
entirely developed across the specimen.
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1
Lateral Drift [%]
F
/
W
Figure K.9: Normalized Lateral Force vs. Wall Drift
The hysteresis loops of test run 19 (UG1R 220%) indicated that during initial seconds of the test
there was some pseudo yielding of the GFRP grid. After the grid had ruptured, the wall began to
rock with a capacity that was reduced to that associated with the URM specimen.
During test run 19 (UG1R 220%), there was relatively high-energy dissipation due to grid rupture.
However, for other test runs there was little energy dissipation. This energy dissipation increased
slightly with increasing earthquake intensity due to mortar grinding, friction and wall rocking.
presented in Figures K.11 and K.12.

[mm]
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
F

[
k
N
]
L2-GRID-G-F
Test Run 3
UG1 80%

[mm]
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
F

[
k
N
]
L2-GRID-G-F
Test Run 4
UG1 100%

[mm]
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
F

[
k
N
]
L2-GRID-G-F
Test Run 10
UG1R 130%

[mm]
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
F

[
k
N
]
L2-GRID-G-F
Test Run 14
UG1R 170%

[mm]
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
F

[
k
N
]
L2-GRID-G-F
Test Run 18
UG1R 210%

[mm]
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 2
F

[
k
N
]
0
L2-GRID-G-F
Test Run 19
UG1R 220%

Figure K.10: Lateral Force (F) vs. Relative Wall Displacement () for Test Runs 3, 4, 10, 14, 18,
and 19

-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
m
]
L2-GRID-G-F
Test Run 19
L2-GRID-G-F
Test Run 3

-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
m
]
L2-GRID-G-F
Test Run 19
L2-GRID-G-F
Test Run 4

-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
m
]
L2-GRID-G-F
Test Run 19
L2-GRID-G-F
Test Run 10

-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
m
]
L2-GRID-G-F
Test Run 19
L2-GRID-G-F
Test Run 14

-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
m
]
L2-GRID-G-F
Test Run 19
L2-GRID-G-F
Test Run 18

-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
m
]
L2-GRID-G-F
Test Run 19
L2-GRID-G-F
Test Run 19

Figure K.11: Relative Wall Displacement for Test Runs 3, 4, 10, 14, 18, and 19
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
m
/
s
e
c
2
]
S2-REFE
Test Run 22
L2-GRID-G-F
Test Run 3

-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
m
/
s
e
c
2
]
S2-REFE
Test Run 22
L2-GRID-G-F
Test Run 4

-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
m
/
s
e
c
2
]
S2-REFE
Test Run 22
L2-GRID-G-F
Test Run 10

-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
m
/
s
e
c
2
]
S2-REFE
Test Run 22
L2-GRID-G-F
Test Run 14

-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
m
/
s
e
c
2
]
S2-REFE
Test Run 22
L2-GRID-G-F
Test Run 18

-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
0 5 10 15 20
Time [Sec]
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
m
/
s
e
c
2
]
S2-REFE
Test Run 22
L2-GRID-G-F
Test Run 19

Figure K.12: Top Wall Acceleration for Test Runs 3, 4, 10, 14, 18, and 19

Appendix L: COMPARISON BETWEEN MEASURED STRAINS 135
APPENDIX L
COMPARISON BETWEEN MEASURED STRAINS
L.1 Delamination and Anchorage
Delamination is an important event, since it could be either a raison for stiffness degradation or early
sign of failure. The stiffness degradation due to delamination was reported by others (e.g. [ESV 99])
for URM-WUC for out-of-plane failure. The delamination could happen at the load vicinity or near the
supports; if happened at the supports usually lead to anchorage failure. As mentioned earlier the study
of the anchorage system was out of the scope of this research; hence, the anchorage failure was
prevented by using steel plates at the FRP ends. In all specimens, except S1-LAMI-C-X, this
technique prevented the anchorage failure. The following comments with Tables L.1 to L.5 describes
the delamination behavior of the tested specimens in form of strains and lateral forces.
Although specimens L1-WRAP-G-F and L2-GRID-G-F had the same reinforcement ratio, the
delamination happened at different lateral resistances and drifts. At first delamination, the lateral
resistance (F
d
) for the glass fiber grid was 1.4 times F
d
of the glass fiber fabric, while the lateral
drift (D
d
) for the glass fiber grid was approximately two times D
d
for the glass fiber fabric. A worth
note here is that the ratio between the F
d
for both materials is identical to the ratio between the
ultimate tension resistances for the glass fiber grid (3450 MPa) and the glass fiber fabric (2400
MPa). This suggests that F
d
is proportional to the ultimate fiber strength.
Although specimen L1-WRAP-G-X had reinforcement ratio less than L1-WRAP-G-F, the
delamination happened at higher lateral resistance and drift. At first delamination, F
d
for the
diagonal fabrics was 1.5 times F
d
for fully wrap fabrics, while D
d
for L1-WRAP-G-X was
approximately 6.6 times D
d
for L1-WRAP-G-F. By contrast, specimen S2-WRAP-A-F has
reinforcement ratio 2.6 times the reinforcement ratio of specimen S1-WRAP-G-F, the lateral
resistance at first delamination (F
d
) for S2-WRAP-A-F was at least 1.4 times F
d
for specimen S1-
WRAP-G-F. This finding suggests that F
d
is dependent on the reinforcement ratio. This suggests
that F
d
is influenced by three factors: the material type, the upgrading configuration, and the
reinforcement ratio.
Although specimen S1-WRAP-G-F had the same reinforcement ratio and glass fiber fabric type as
the slender specimen (L1-WRAP-G-F), F
d
for the squat specimen was higher than F
d
for the
slender specimen. This means that the aspect ratio influences the fiber delamination.
Although specimen S1-LAMI-C-X had reinforcement ratio many times lower than S1-WRAP-G-
F, F
d
for specimen S1-LAMI-C-X (debonding of plate number 1, test run 15) 0.8 times F
d
for
specimen S1-WRAP-G-F. This suggests that F
d
is influenced by the upgrading material.
For L1-WRAP-G-F at delamination, the measured average strains, along the specimen height, in
tension and compression were approximately 0.06% and 0.03% respectively (test run 14). For L2-
GRID-G-F, these strains were 0.09% and 0.04%, respectively (test run 12). Moreover, strains
concentration at specimen toe and heel were recorded. In case of L1-WRAP-G-F, the strain
concentrations were approximately 0.09% in tension and 0.03% in compression. For L2-GRID-G-
F, the strains concentrations were as high as 0.70% in tension and 0.09% in compression. These
values indicate that glass fabric has the ability to distribute the strains approximately uniform
along the specimen, while the glass fiber grid leads to stress concentrations in few points.
However, such comment has insignificant influence on the observed overall behavior.

136 Appendix L: COMPARISON BETWEEN MEASURED STRAINS
For specimen L1-WRAP-G-X at delamination, the measured average strains, along the specimen
diagonal in the tension and compression were approximately 0.32% and 0.02% respectively (test
run 18). Unlike other upgraded specimen, there was no stress concentration in tension while there
was, approximately 0.15%, compression vertical strain concentration at specimen toe and heel.
For specimen S1-WRAP-G-F at delamination, the measured average strains, along the specimen
height, in tension and compression were approximately 0.05% and 0.04% respectively, which are
very similar to the values that had been recorded for L1-WRAP-G-F. Strains concentration, at
specimen toe and heel, were recorded on the masonry face. The strain concentrations were as
much as approximately 0.85% in tension and 0.08% in compression.
L.2 Maximum Strains
Recently, several researchers proved that, during testing reinforced concrete beams, the ultimate strain
of FRP at failure is many times lower than its nominal ultimate strains. This phenomenon has been
reported for reinforced concrete beams that have been tested in shear ([Tr 98], and [KGN 98]) as well
as in bending [BM 01]. All these researchers proposed an empirical efficiency factor for FRP; this
efficiency factor is inversely proportional to FRP area and Youngs modulus. In order to examine this
phenomenon for the tested specimens, the maximum strains recorded at the masonry faces of the failed
test specimens are reported as follows:
Before failure, the maximum-recorded strain for specimen L1-WRAP-G-F in tension was 1.2%,
while the maximum-recorded strains in tension and compression for L2-GRID-G-F were 2.5% and
0.23% respectively (Table L.4).
For specimen L1-WRAP-G-X at ultimate load, it was difficult to measure the maximum strain at
the FRP rupture position, since no LVD transducer was prepared to measure strain concentration at
rupture position. Nevertheless, the average strain measured along the specimen diagonal in tension
was 0.54%.
For specimen L1-LAMI-C-I at ultimate load, the maximum-recorded strain in tension was 0.45%
and 0.13% in compression. Unlike the other specimens, the maximum tension strains were
recorded at the middle of the specimen cross section (gage 12 and 13). The compression, like the
other specimens was concentrated at the specimen toe. This comment is consistent with the visual
observation of step cracks everywhere and the mixed mode of failure.
Before failure, the maximum-recorded strains for specimen S1-WRAP-G-F were 0.22% in tension
and 0.06% in compression respectively, while the maximum-recorded strains in tension and
compression for S2-WRAP-A-F were 1.08% and 0.11% respectively.
For specimen S1-LAMI-C-X at ultimate load, the maximum-recorded strain in tension was 1.4%
and in compression was 0.13%.
L.3 Specimens Asymmetry
For slender specimens, as expected [Sc 96], no significant asymmetry or asymmetry behavior was
observed even though the specimens were upgraded on one face only. For squat specimens there were
differences between the measured vertical stains in both faces. However, for all specimens no uneven
response was visualized during the tests. Samples, of the vertical strains measured along the specimen
height, through both faces, are presented in Tables L.2 to L.3. Strains from three test runs are
presented: at first delamination, the test run before the last test run as in many cases the gages fall
down in the last test run, and the last test run. Regarding the gage locations, gages 11, 17, 21
represent the average strains along the specimen height at the same section from eastern, and western
faces as well as southern side respectively. Gages 14 and 20 represent the average strains along the
specimen height at the same section from western face and southern side respectively (for more
information about gage locations see chapter 2).
For specimen L1-WRAP-G-F, the average measured strains along the specimen height were about
0.5%, 0.1% in tension and compression respectively. For specimen L2-GRID-G-F, the average
strains measured along the specimen height were about 0.6% in tension and 0.2% in compression.
Although each specimen had different normal forces and ultimate lateral resistances, the average
strains for both specimens, in compression and tension, were very similar. This could be explained
as in both specimens the failure was concentrated at the specimen base where stress and strain
concentrations occurred. Careful examination of the table yields the following comments: For both
specimens, the upgraded system succeeds in producing complete symmetric response in case of
tension while there were a little asymmetry in case of compression. The strains indicate that the
asymmetry increased by increasing the earthquake intensity.
For specimen L1-LAMI-C-I at last test run, gages (11, 17, and 21) in Table L.2 indicate very
symmetrical system. The specimen was very symmetrical in the beginning, and then a little
asymmetry appeared. This asymmetry increased with increasing earthquake intensity. The average
recorded strains along the specimen height, at the last test run, were approximately 0.19% in
tension and 0.05% in compression. These values are many times lower than the other specimens
(L1-WRAP-G-F, L2-GRID-G-F, and L1-WRAP-G-X).
For specimen L1-WRAP-G-X, gages (11, 17, and 21) in Table L.2 indicate very symmetrical
response. The average measured strains along the specimen height were approximately 0.9% and
0.1% in tension and compression respectively. Careful examination of the table yields the
following comments: The strains distribution along the specimen thickness was symmetric at both
faces while little more at the specimen center line (gage 21). These recorded strains were
approximately two times the recorded strains for L1-WRAP-G-F in tension, while it was the same
in compression.
For specimen S1-WRAP-G-F, the average measured strains along the specimen height were about
0.23% in tension and 0.09% in compression. For specimen S2-WRAP-A-F, the average strains
measured along the specimen height were about 0.23% in tension and 0.03% in compression.
Although each specimen had different reinforcement ratio and different upgrading material, the
average strain for both specimens, in tension, were very similar. This could be explained, as in
both specimens the failure would concentrate at the specimen base where there were stress and
strain concentrations. Careful examination of the table yields the following comments: For both
specimens, the upgraded system did not success in producing symmetric response. In tension, the
strain along the upgraded face was approximately 1/3 times the strain along the masonry face. In
compression, the symmetry was little better than tension: the compression strain along the
upgraded face was approximately 1/2 of the strain along the masonry face. The strains indicate that
the asymmetry increased by increasing the earthquake intensity. However, no asymmetric
deformations were visualized during the tests.

Table L.1: Measured Vertical Strains along the Specimen Mid-Height and Bottom for
Specimen L1-WRAP-G-X at Different Test Runs
Specimen Strain Type Gage 9
[%]
Gage 10
[%]
Gage 15
[%]
Gage 16
[%]
Test Run
Compression 0.15 0.13 0.00 N.A.
Tension 0.01 0.84 0.84 N.A.
18
Compression 0.25 0.16 0.00 0.19
Tension 0.00 0.98 1.39 N.A.
23
Compression 0.29 0.18 0.00 0.27
L1-WRAP-G-X

Tension 0.00 1.75 1.56 0.18
24

Table L.2: Measured Vertical Strains along Specimen Heights for Upgraded Slender Specimens
at Different Test Runs
[%]
Gage 17
[%]
Gage 14
[%]
Gage 20
[%]
Gage 21
[%]
Test
Run
Compression 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03
Tension 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06
14
Compression 0.06 0.09 0.08 0.09 0.06
Tension 0.27 0.27 0.26 N.A. 0.29
23
Compression 0.07 0.14 0.10 N.A. 0.09
L1-WRAP-G-F

Tension 0.46 0.46 0.49 N.A. 0.39
24
Compression 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.04
Tension 0.07 0.06 0.09 0.10 0.08
12
Compression 0.07 0.09 0.07 0.09 0.06
Tension 0.33 0.30 0.40 0.41 0.37
18
Compression 0.15 0.22 N.A. N.A. 0.22
L2-GRID-G-F

Tension 0.58 0.49 N.A. N.A. 0.64
19
Compression 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.11 0.13
Tension 0.47 0.49 0.53 0.55 0.54
18
Compression 0.12 0.14 0.10 0.12 0.16
Tension 0.53 0.54 0.79 0.83 0.61
23
Compression 0.13 0.14 0.12 0.14 0.17
L1-WRAP-G-X

Tension 0.85 0.87 0.87 0.91 0.98
24
Compression 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.04
Tension 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07
14
Compression 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.05
Tension 0.13 0.12 0.13 0.12 0.14
19
Compression 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.06
L1-LAMI-C-I

Tension 0.19 0.17 0.20 0.19 0.20
20

Table L.3: Measured Vertical Strains along Specimen Heights for Upgraded Squat Specimens at
Different Test Runs
[%]
Gage 17
[%]
Gage 15
[%]
Gage 20
[%]
Gage 21
[%]
Test
Run
Compression 0.05 N.A. 0.04 0.04 0.06
Tension 0.29 N.A. 0.30 0.10 0.10
16
Compression 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.06
Tension 0.36 0.27 0.37 0.31 0.41
23
Compression 0.05 0.06 0.03 0.04 0.07
S1-LAMI-G-X
Tension 0.37 0.28 0.38 0.36 0.42
28
Compression 0.04 0.06 0.04 0.03 0.03
Tension 0.10 0.03 0.06 0.04 0.05
20
Compression 0.08 0.12 0.10 0.06 0.07
S1-WRAP-G-F
Tension 0.35 0.12 0.37 0.20 0.20
35
Compression 0.05 0.09 0.02 0.02 0.04
S2-WRAP-A-F Tension 0.23 0.09 0.28 0.04 0.11
30

Table L.4: Measured Concentrated Strains at Specimen Bottom for Slender Specimens
at Different Test Runs
[%]
Gage 12
[%]
Gage 13
[%]
Gage 16
[%]
Test Run
Tension 0.09 0.06 0.02 N.A.
14
Tension 0.60 0.40 0.48 N.A.
23
Compression N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.
L1-WRAP-G-F

Tension 1.2 N.A. N.A. N.A.
24
Compression 0.11 0.01 0.01 0.06
Tension 0.76 0.37 0.31 0.65
12
Compression 0.23 0.01 0.00 0.16
Tension 2.46 1.48 1.22 2.25
18
Compression N.A. 0.01 N.A. N.A.
L2-GRID-G-F

Tension N.A. 2.50 N.A. N.A.
19
Tension 0.01 0.51 0.68 0.17
18
Compression 0.25 -0.03
*
-.05 0.19
Tension 0.00 0.90 0.76 N.A.
23
*
-0.06 0.27
L1-WRAP-G-X

Tension 0.00 1.06 1.67 0.18
24
Compression 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.05
Tension 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.17
14
*
-0.02
*
0.09
Tension 0.09 0.24 0.25 0.21
19
*
-0.02
*
0.13
L1-LAMI-C-I

Tension 0.12 0.42 0.45 0.26
20
* Tension strain

Table L.5: Measured Concentrated Strains at Specimen Bottom for Squat Specimens at
Different Test Runs
[%]
Gage 12
[%]
Gage 13
[%]
Gage 16
[%]
Test Run
Compression 0.10 0.02 0.03 0.13
Tension 1.28 0.50 0.63 0.93
16
Compression 0.10 0.01 0.02 0.11
Tension 1.39 0.62 0.78 0.62
23
Compression 0.13 0.02 0.04 0.11
S1-LAMI-G-X

Tension 1.40 0.70 0.81 0.21
28
Compression 0.09 0.04 0.05 0.07
Tension 0.77 0.40 0.70 1.00
20
Compression 0.06 0.02 0.03 0.06
S1-WRAP-G-F
Tension 0.22 0.08 0.08 0.14
35
Compression 0.11 N.A. 0.02 N.A.
S2-WRAP-A-F
Tension 1.08 N.A. 0.52 N.A.
30

Appendix M: DYNAMIC EXCITATIONS 141
APPENDIX M
DYNAMIC EXCITATIONS

Figure M.1 shows the first synthetic earthquake UG1 used in the tests. The time-histories of table
displacements, velocities and accelerations (left) and the related acceleration response spectra (right)
are plotted. The peak displacement is approximately 72 mm. Therefore, UG1 could be used with
intensities up to 120%. The earthquake lasts about 15 seconds.
Figure M.2 shows the second synthetic earthquake UG1R. The time-histories (left) and the related
acceleration response spectra (right) are plotted. In fact, UG1R was generated first. As the peak
displacement is only about 35 mm, the addition of a few long period sine waves leads to UG1.
Consequently, the accelerations and the spectral characteristics remain exactly the same except for the
very low frequency domain where the added long period sine waves have a significant influence. Such
a peak displacement enables the use of UG1R with intensities up to 250%.
Figure M.3 shows the third synthetic earthquake UG1RR. The time-histories (left) and the related
acceleration response spectra (right) are plotted. UG1RR was obtained by the subtraction of a few long
period sine waves of UG1R to reach a peak displacement of about 21 mm. Again, the accelerations
and the spectral characteristics remain practically the same as UG1R. Such a reduced peak
displacement enables the use of UG1RR with intensities of up to 430%.
t
a
b
l
e

d
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
]
0 5 10
-0.2
-0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
t
a
b
l
e

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
y

[
m
/
s
]
0 5 10
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
time [s]
t
a
b
l
e

a
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
m
/
s
2
]
0.1 1 10 100
0
1
2
3
4
5
frequency [Hz]
S
a

[
m
/
s
2
]
Eurocode 8
calculated
min
= -1.56 m/s
2
max
= 1.68 m/s
2
0.01 0.1 1 10
0
1
2
3
4
5
period [s]
S
a

[
m
/
s
2
]
u
min
= -0.110 m/s
.
u
max
= 0.169 m/s
.
0 5 10
-0.05
0.00
0.05
u
max
= 71.8 mm
u
min
= -65.8 mm

Figure M.1: UG1, Eurocode 8 for Rock Soils Type A, Spectrum-Compatible Synthetic Earthquake.

142 Appendix M: DYNAMIC EXCITATIONS
t
a
b
l
e

d
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
]
0 5 10
-0.2
-0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
t
a
b
l
e

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
y

[
m
/
s
]
0 5 10
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
time [s]
t
a
b
l
e

a
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
m
/
s
2
]
0.1 1 10 100
0
1
2
3
4
5
frequency [Hz]
S
a

[
m
/
s
2
]
Eurocode 8
calculated
min
= -1.53 m/s
2
max
= 1.70 m/s
2
0.01 0.1 1 10
0
1
2
3
4
5
period [s]
S
a

[
m
/
s
2
]
u
min
= -0.104 m/s
.
u
max
= 0.141 m/s
.
0 5 10
-0.05
0.00
0.05
u
max
= 33.8 mm
u
min
= -35.0 mm

Figure M.2: UG1R, Spectrum-Compatible Synthetic Earthquake. The Displacements of UG1
Correspond to The Ones of UG1R after Addition of a Few Long Period Sine Waves
t
a
b
l
e

d
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
]
0 5 10
-0.2
-0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
t
a
b
l
e

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
y

[
m
/
s
]
0 5 10
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
time [s]
t
a
b
l
e

a
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
m
/
s
2
]
0.1 1 10 100
0
1
2
3
4
5
frequency [Hz]
S
a

[
m
/
s
2
]
Eurocode 8
calculated
min
= -1.50 m/s
2
max
= 1.66 m/s
2
0.01 0.1 1 10
0
1
2
3
4
5
period [s]
S
a

[
m
/
s
2
]
u
min
= -0.101 m/s
.
u
max
= 0.109 m/s
.
0 5 10
-0.05
0.00
0.05
u
max
= 21.0 mm
u
min
= -20.5 mm

Figure M.3: UG1RR, Spectrum-Compatible Synthetic Earthquake. The Displacements of UG1RR
Correspond to the Ones of UG1R after Substraction of a Few Long Period Sine
Waves.
Figure M.4 shows the fourth synthetic earthquake UG1RRR. The time-histories (left) and the related
acceleration response spectra (right) are plotted. In fact, UG1RRR is the same as UG1RR in which the
time history of displacements is operated with a smaller time interval (corresponding to a definition
frequency of 250 Hz instead of 150 Hz), and their amplitudes remaining constant. As a consequence,
the amplitudes increased after each derivation, and the duration was shortened. The accelerations
Appendix M: DYNAMIC EXCITATIONS 143
increased by a factor of approximately 2.8 (250
2
/150
2
=2.78), and the frequency content increased by a
factor of about 1.67 (250/150=1.67). These influences may be observed on the acceleration response
spectra. In the semi-logarithmic representation of the spectral acceleration, the increase of the
frequency content shifts the curves towards the high frequencies of a value of Log (1.67). Because of
the increased accelerations, UG1RRR could be theoretically used with intensities of up to more than
1000%; in this case, the limitation of the jack force (100 kN) becomes predominant.
Figure M.5 shows the fifth synthetic earthquake UG3. The time-histories (left) and the related
acceleration response spectra (right) are plotted. According to the results of a non-linear two-degree of
freedom system modeling the complete test set-up and the specimen, UG3 was especially generated to
test the possibilities for the compensation of the disturbance due to the interaction between the moving
mass and the shaking table. As the disturbance provides a bulk in the vicinity of the first corner
frequency (corresponding to the natural frequency of the wall), UG3 was generated with a modified
target spectrum. The plateau of the target spectrum was modified in such a way that the lower part is
reduced and the higher part is increased. The modification may be observed in the acceleration
response spectra. The peak displacement is approximately 81 mm. Therefore UG3 could be used with
intensities of up to 110%. The earthquake lasts about 15 seconds. UG3 was used only once in the tests
of the specimen L1-LAMI-C-I.
t
a
b
l
e

d
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
]
0 5 10
-0.2
-0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
t
a
b
l
e

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
y

[
m
/
s
]
0 5 10
-5.0
-4.0
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
time [s]
t
a
b
l
e

a
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
m
/
s
2
]
0.1 1 10 100
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
frequency [Hz]
S
a

[
m
/
s
2
]
Eurocode 8
calculated
min
= -4.17 m/s
2
max
= 4.60 m/s
2
0.01 0.1 1 10
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
period [s]
S
a

[
m
/
s
2
]
u
min
= -0.169 m/s
.
u
max
= 0.182 m/s
.
0 5 10
-0.05
0.00
0.05 u
max
= 21.0 mm
u
min
= -20.5 mm

Figure M.4: UG1RRR, This Synthetic Earthquake Is UG1RR in Which the Time History of the
Displacements Is Operated with a Smaller Time Interval (Corresponding to a
Definition Frequency of 250 Hz Instead of 150Hz).

144 Appendix M: DYNAMIC EXCITATIONS
t
a
b
l
e

d
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
]
0 5 10
-0.2
-0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
t
a
b
l
e

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
y

[
m
/
s
]
0 5 10
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
time [s]
t
a
b
l
e

a
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
m
/
s
2
]
0.1 1 10 100
0
1
2
3
4
5
frequency [Hz]
S
a

[
m
/
s
2
]
Eurocode 8
calculated
min
= -1.97 m/s
2
max
= 1.52 m/s
2
0.01 0.1 1 10
0
1
2
3
4
5
period [s]
S
a

[
m
/
s
2
]
u
min
= -0.120 m/s
.
u
max
= 0.134 m/s
.
0 5 10
-0.05
0.00
0.05
u
max
= 79.7 mm
u
min
= -81.4 mm

Figure M.5: UG3, Eurocode 8 for Rock Soils Type A, Spectrum-Compatible Synthetic Earthquake.

Appendix N: MATERIAL PROPERTIES 145
APPENDIX N
MATERIAL PROPERTIES
The material properties were determined according to the appropriate European standard. In this
appendix brick, mortar, and assemblage compressive strengths were reported. In addition, the shear
resistance of masonry was reported using triplet and shove test.
N.1 Brick Compressive Strength
The brick compressive strength was determined according to EN 772-1 (Figure N.1); the brick units
tested in two orientations: lengthwise (perpendicular to bearing surface) and heightwise (perpendicular
to end surface). Plates of Teflon were used at both ends of the tested brick unit. The peak compressive
force was divided the plan gross area of the brick to give the brick compressive strength. Tables N.1
and N.2 give the specimens dimensions and the tests periods as well as the compressive stress; also,
Figures N.2 and N.3 show specimens at early cracking and at the test end.
According to art 7.3 of EN 772-1, the brick units could be tested under different prescribed moisture
conditions. During this test, the units were immersed in water, at a temperature of about 20C, for
approximately 17 hours and subsequently the units were leaved to drain for 10-30 minute. According
to annex A of EN 772-1, the compressive strength of brick units should be converted to a normalized
compressive strength, which is used through the EC6. This conversion could be done as follows:
B A f f
test b
= (N.1)
where
f
b
= normalized compressive strength of brick units
f
test
= compressive strength of masonry units from compression test
A = correction factor takes into consideration brick dimensions, for the brick units used in this test this
factor = 1.08 for lengthwise test and 1.25 for heightwise test
B = correction factor takes into consideration the moisture content of brick units during the test, for the
moisture conditions during this research this factor = 1.2

Figure N.1: Testing a Brick Unit in a Lengthwise

146 Appendix N: MATERIAL PROPERTIES

(a)

(b)
Figure N.2: (a) Lengthwise and (b) heightwise orientation at Early Cracking

(a)

(b)
Figure N.3: (a) Lengthwise and (b) heightwise orientation at The Test End
Table N.1: Compression Test on Brick Units in Lengthwise
Number
Time
[Sec]
Length
[mm]
Width
[mm]
Height
[mm]
Stress
[MPa]
1 165 147.6 74.7 94.8 12.30
2 210 148.1 74.1 94.4 11.20
3 150 149.1 74.2 95.6 12.10
4 225 148.0 74.5 95.9 11.20
5 165 148.2 73.7 95.1 10.70
6 150 149.0 74.4 94.9 11.10
Average Stress [MPa] 11.43
Normalized Stress [MPa] 14.81
Standard Deviation [MPa] 0.57
Coefficient of Variation [%] 4.99
Table N.2: Compression Test on Brick Units in Heightwise
Number
Time
[Sec]
Length
[mm]
Width
[mm]
Height
[mm]
Stress
[MPa]
1 165 149.7 74.7 95.5 3.20
2 130 147.1 74.4 95.0 3.20
3 190 148.7 74.1 94.9 6.40
4 145 149.9 74.8 94.1 4.00
5 150 148.6 74.5 94.9 3.10
6 170 149.2 73.9 94.3 4.00
Average [MPa] 3.98
Normalized Stress [MPa] 5.97
N.2 Mortar Compressive Strength
The mortar compressive strength was determined according to EN 1015-11; 40 mm cubes were tested
from each mortar type. Figure N.4 shows a mortar cube after testing, while Tables N.3 to N.5 show
the test results.

Figure N.4: Typical Failure of Mortar Cube

Table N.3: Compressive Strength of Mortar Type 0
Number
Time
[min]
Length
[mm]
Width
[mm]
Height
[mm]
Stress
[MPa]
1 18 40.1 40.6 42.4 16.00
2 19 40.1 40.8 42.1 16.10
3 18 40.3 41.0 42.3 16.20

Number
Time
[min]
Length
[mm]
Width
[mm]
Height
[mm]
Stress
[MPa]
1 23 40.1 40.5 41.9 9.60
2 20 40.1 40.3 42.1 8.90
3 21 40.0 40.4 42.1 8.90
4 18 39.9 40.5 42.4 8.50

Number
Time
[min]
Length
[mm]
Width
[mm]
Height
[mm]
Stress
[MPa]
1 18 40.1 40.5 39.7 3.00
2 23 40.0 40.1 39.5 3.10
3 32 40.7 40.0 39.6 3.80
4 22 40.1 39.9 39.3 2.90
N.3 Masonry Compressive Strength
During construction of the test specimens, masonry assemblages were constructed according to EN
1052-1 to determine masonry characteristic compressive strength. At each end of the masonry
assemblage a steel plates were used to provide a uniform bearing surface. The assemblages were
tested in the universal machine (Figure N.5); the assemblages were then compressed until failure, with
the highest loads were recorded. The strength was calculated as following
A
N
f =
where
N = maximum measured normal force,
A = cross sectional gross area.
The characteristic compressive strength, which used through the EC6, can be calculated as follows
f
m
=
2 1
f
.

the failure mode for the assemblages was typical compression splitting of the masonry units (Figure
N.6 (a)); however, in few specimens a little eccentricity during fixation of the masonry assemblage in
the machine was happened. This eccentricity changes a little the mode of failure (Figure N.6 (b)).


Figure N.5: Compression Test of Masonry Assemblage

(a)

(b)
Figure N.6: Compression Failure of Assemblage (a) Initial Cracking of Concentric and
(b) Failure of Eccentric Specimens

Table N.6: Compressive Strength of Masonry Assemblage
Made with Mortar Type 2
Number
Time
[min]
Length
[mm]
Width
[mm]
Height
[mm]
Stress
[MPa]
1 28 310.0 74.3 512.0 5.20
2 31 311.0 74.2 512.0 5.60
3 26 308.0 74.4 511.0 6.40
4 31 307.0 73.7 512.0 5.60

Table N.7: Compressive Strength of Masonry Assemblage
Number
Time
[min]
Length
[mm]
Width
[mm]
Height
[mm]
Stress
[MPa]
1 34 315.0 75.1 512.0 7.20
2 36 312.0 74.7 513.0 6.80
3 33 314.0 74.9 511.0 7.50
N.4 Masonry Ultimate Strain
During the compression test of the masonry assemblage made with mortar type 2, trials were made to
measure the masonry ultimate strain. The measurements were done through one third of the
assemblage height. Each assemblage was monitored through 4 demic points in each face. These trials
success twice, the measurements were ranged from 2.5 to 4.5 with average of 3.5.
N.5 Masonry Modulus of Elasticity
The modulus of elasticity was measured after wall construction and head beam fixation. Different
values of normal forces were applied and the deformations were measured. The maximum normal
force applied for each wall was in the order of 35 kN (0.29 MPa). The deformations were measured
over the length of the wall. An average value of 4500 MPa was measured as modulus of elasticity for
the specimens.
N.6 Masonry Shear Strength
N.6.1 Shove test
After the dynamic testing of L1-WRAP-G-F a shove test was performed under a normal stress of 0.35
MPa. This test requires the removal of two bricks and a head joint one brick away on the same course,
as shown in Figure N.7. A loading jack is placed in the cavity and the brick between the cavity and the
missing head joint is forced towards the missing head joint until shear failure is achieved. The
compressive strength of the masonry governed the test. The test was stopped at 35 kN, corresponding
to characteristic shear stresses (
u
) of about 1.6 MPa.
N.6.2 Triplet test
To determine masonry initial shear strength c, a triplet tests were carried out according to prEN 1052-
3 (Figure N.8). The triplet tests were carried out under zero compressive strength. The masonry
assemblage made with type 1 mortar were failed during transportation, as so tests carried out on only
masonry assemblages made with mortar type 2 (Figure N.9 and Table N.8). The initial shear strength
were calculated using the following formula:
c =
A 2
F
(N.2)

Figure N.7: Shove Test

Table N.8: Initial Shear Strength of Masonry Assemblage
Number
Time
[min]
Height
[mm]
Width
[mm]
Stress
[MPa]
1 30 149.0 74.2 0.18
2 25 149.5 74.4 0.16
3 22 147.5 74.4 0.15

Figure N.8: Triplet Test of Masonry Assemblage


(a) (b)
Figure N.9: Triplet Test of Masonry Assemblage (a) at Test Beginning and (b) at the Test End

Appendix O: REINFORCED CONCRETE ELEMENTS 153
APPENDIX O
REINFORCED CONCRETE ELEMENTS

Figure O.1: Execution Drawings for Foundation [m]
Figure O.2: Modified Foundation

154 Appendix O: REINFORCED CONCRETE ELEMENTS

Figure O.3: Foundation Reinforcement [mm]
Appendix O: REINFORCED CONCRETE ELEMENTS 155
Figure O.4: Head Beam Execution Drawing for Long Walls [m]
Figure O.5: Head Beam Execution Drawing for Short Walls [m]

156 Appendix O: REINFORCED CONCRETE ELEMENTS
Figure O.6: Long Walls Head Beam Typical Reinforcement

Appendix P: EQUIPMENTS 157
APPENDIX P
EQUIPMENTS

Table P.1: List of Gages Used in Data Collection
Gage # Description S8 Number S8 Position Channel # Serial #
Force
1 Eastern face 1 0 0
2 Western face 1 1 1
3 Table force 4 1 31
28 Mass force 4 3 33
Displacement
27 Table 4 2 32
Eastern Face
9 50 mm 1 2 2 51710165
10 50 mm 1 3 3 51710147
11 W100 1 4 4 6753
12 20 mm 1 5 5 34010069
13 10 mm 1 6 6 34010053
14 W100 1 7 7 8541
15 50 mm 2 0 10 51710158
16 50 mm 2 1 11 51710153
North and South Sides
20 50 mm 2 2 12 51710152
21 50 mm 2 3 13 51710154
22 W100 2 4 14 2963
23 W100 2 5 15 48916
24 W100 2 6 16 1762
25 W100 2 7 17 48913
26 W100 3 0 20 2924
Western Face
17 W50 3 1 21 7403
18 W100 3 2 22 6757
19 W100 3 3 23 8544
Accelerations
Vertical
4 South 3 4 24 1220
5 North 3 5 25 1219
Horizontal
7 Mass 3 7 27 49148
8 Table 4 0 30 39941
6 Head Beam 3 6 26 1223

158 Appendix P: EQUIPMENTS
0
.
3
9
0
.
3
9
0
.
3
9
0
.
3
9
19 17
18
22
23
24
25
26
14
15
13 12
9 16
10
11
1 2
28
5 6 4
21 20
Force Measurements
West Face East Face
N S
Displacements
+
+

Figure P.1: Overview of Typical Measurements for a Slender Specimen [m]
Force Measurements
Displacements
+
+
0.54 0.53
10
9
12
0.53
1
16
13
15
24
23
22
0
.
3
3
0
.
3
5
5
20
4 6
21
5 4 6
1
19 17
18

Figure P.2: Overview of Typical Measurements for a Squat Specimen [m]

Appendix Q: Flexural LATERAL RESISTANCE OF URM-WUC 159
APPENDIX Q
Flexural LATERAL RESISTANCE OF URM-WUC

Let us consider such a case of URM-WUC and the composite covering one face of the wall. With
reference to Figure Q.1, the force equilibrium and strain compatibility yields:
N C T = (Q.1)
f
f f
lt)f 0.5( T = (Q.2)

ta f C
k
= (Q.3)
A
A
Lt
A
f f
f
= = (Q.4)
Where
T = tension force in the fiber,
C = compression force in the masonry,
f
f
= fiber characteristic tensile strength,
f
k
= masonry characteristic compressive strength,
= axial tensile strain in the fiber at the specimen edge computed based on linear variation of
strains in the cross section,
= ultimate axial tensile strain of the composite,
f
A
f
= fiber cross sectional area,
A = cross sectional area of the specimen,

L
x
l
a
=0.8 x
C
T
N
Mu
f
k
f
t

f

External
Forces
Internal
Forces
Stresses Strains

Figure Q.1: Strain, Stresses, Internal, and External Forces in Upgraded Brick
Masonry Specimen

160 Appendix Q: Flexural LATERAL RESISTANCE OF URM-WUC
t = specimen thickness,
x= compression zone length,

m
= masonry ultimate strain,
M
u
= ultimate moment of resistance.
By substituting Q.2 to Q.4 into Q.1 and dividing by specimen gross-sectional area and masonry
characteristic compressive strength, this yields:
)
L
x
( 8 . 0 )
L
)(
x
( 5 . 0 =
l l
(Q.5)
Where
f
m
k
f
f
f
f
= , constant depending on the material properties and fiber reinforcement ratio (Q.6)
A f
N
k
= , normalized normal force, (Q.7)

m
= masonry ultimate strain.
Solving Q.5 for x yields:
( ) ( )
( )

+ + + +
=
6 1
6 1 0 2
L x
.
. .
(Q.8)
The previous equation can be simplified; by neglecting the terms and
2
, this yields:
( + = 6 1
6 1
L
x .
.
) (Q.9)
To avoid premature FRP fracture, the reinforced section should be over-reinforced or where
lim
>
)
x
)(
L
)(
L
x
68 . 0 ( 2
l l
lim
+ = (Q.10)
The ultimate moment of resistance M
u
is given by:
)
l l
3L
(0.5
x
0.5 )
L
x
0.4 0.8x(0.5
A f
M
2
k
u
+ = (Q.11)
BIBLIOGRAPHY 161
BIBLIOGRAPHY

[Ab 92] Abrams, D. P. (1992). Strength and behavior of unreinforced masonry elements. 10
th

World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Madrid, Spain, 3475-3480.
[AEC 01] Albert, M. L., Elwi, A. E., and Cheng, J. J. R. (2001). Strengthening of unreinforced
masonry walls using FRPs. Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE, 5(2), 76-
84.
[AH 99] Al-Chaar, G. K., and Hasan, H. (1999). Masonry bearing and shear walls retrofitted
with overlay composite material. U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, Champaign,
Technical Report 98/86.
[AHH 90] Abboud, B., Hamid, A., and Harris, H. (1990) Small-Scale Modeling of Concrete
Block Masonry Structures. ACI Structural Journal, 87(2), 145-155.
[AL 01] Abrams, D. P., and Lynch, J. M. (2001). Flexural behavior of retrofitted masonry
piers. KEERC-MAE Joint Seminar on Risk Mitigation for Regions of Moderate
Seismicity, Illinois, USA.
[AMM 94] Anthoine A., Magonette G., and Magenes G. (1994). Shear-compression testing and
analysis of brick masonry walls. 10
th
European Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Vienna, Austria, 1657-1662.
[Ar 88] Arya, A. S. (1988). Repair and strengthening of damaged stone houses after Dhamar
earthquake of Dec. 1982. 9
th
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo-
Kyoto, Japan, 1141-1146.
[AS 92] Abrams, D. P., and Shah, N. (1992). Cyclic load testing of unreinforced masonry
walls. Report No. 92-26-10, Advanced Construction Technology Center, Newmark
Civil Engineering Laboratory, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Illinois
at Urbana-Champaign, USA.
[BB 02] Brennet G., Badoux M. (2002). Seismic inventory of the city of Aigle (Switzerland).
12
th
European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, London, England, Paper No.
621
[BBB 02] Bakis, E. C., Bank, C. L., Brown, V. L., Cosenza, E., Davalos, A. M., Lesko, J. J.,
Machida, A., Rizkalla, H. S., and Triantafillou, C. T. (2002). Fiber-reinforced
polymer composites for construction- State-of-the-art review. Journal of Composites
for Construction, ASCE, 6(2), 73-87.
[BEL 02] Badoux, M., Elgwady, M. A., and Lestuzzi, P. (2002). Earthquake simulator tests on
unreinforced masonry walls before and after upgrading with composites. 12
th

European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, London, England, Paper No. 862.
[BM 01] Bonacci F. J.; Maalej, M (2001), Behavioral Trends of RC Beams Strengthened with
Externally Bonded FRP Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE, 5(2), 102-
113.
[BM 92] Button, M., Mayes, R. (1992). Out of Plane Seismic Response of Reinforced
Masonry Walls. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 118(9), 2495-2513.

162 BIBLIOGRAPHY
[BMT 80] Bernardini, A., Modena, C., Turnsek, V., and Vescovi, U. (1980). A comparison of
three Laboratory test methods used to determine the shear resistance of masonry
walls. 7
th
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Istanbul, Turkey, 181-184.
[Bo 01] Borgogno, W. (2001). Earthquake retrofit of a low rise building composite fiber
plates for strengthening of masonry walls and their anchorage. 20
th
EAEE Regional
Earthquake Engineering, Sion, Switzerland, 121-122.
[Br 95] Bruneau, M. (1995). Damage to masonry buildings from the 1995 Hanshin-Awaji
(Kobe, Japan) earthquake preliminary report. 7
th
Canadian Masonry Symposium, 1,
84-98.
[Br 94a] Bruneau, M. (1994). State-f-the-art report on seismic performance of unreinforced
masonry buildings. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 120(1), 230-251.
[Br 94b] Bruneau, M. (1994). Seismic evaluation of unreinforced masonry buildings - State-f-
the-art report. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 21, 512-539.
[BWB 99] Bachmann H., Wenk T., Baumann M., Lestuzzi P. (1999). Der neue ETH-
Erdbebensimulator. Schweizer Ingenieur und Architekt, SI+A, 4/99, Zrich.
[Ch 95] Chopra, A. K. (1995). Dynamics of structures. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey.
[Co 02] Costa, A. (2002). Determination of mechanical properties of traditional masonry
walls in dwellings of Faial Island, Azores. Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics, 31, 1361-1382.
[EC6 99] Design of masonry structures, (1999). Eurocode 6, Comite Euro-International du
Bton, Lausanne, Switzerland.
[EC8 95] Design provisions for earthquake resistance of structures, (1995). Eurocode 8, Part
1-1: General rules and rules for buildings- seismic actions and general requirements
for structures. Comite Euro-International du Bton, Lausanne, Switzerland.
[ED 02] El-Dakhakhani, W. W. (2002). Experimental and analytical seismic evaluation of
concrete masonry-infilled steel frames retrofitted using GFRP laminates. PhD
dissertation, college of Engineering, Drexel University, USA.
[ElG 04] ElGawady, M. A. (in preparation). Seismic in-plane behavior of unreinforced
masonry walls upgraded with composites. PhD dissertation, School of Architecture,
Civil, and Environmental Engineering, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (EPFL),
Lausanne, Switzerland.
[Elg 99] Elgwady, M. A. (1999). Strengthening of short corbels using CFRP. MSc. thesis,
Department of Civil Engineering, Cairo University, Giza, Egypt.
[ELB 02] Elgwady, M. A., Lestuzzi, P., Badoux, M. (2002). Dynamic in-plane behavior of
URM wall upgraded with composites. 3
rd
International Conference for Composite in
Infrastructure, San Francisco, USA, Paper No. 009.
[ES 97] Ehsani, M. R., and Saadatmanesh, H. (1997). Fiber composites: an economical
alternative for retrofitting earthquake-damaged precast-concrete walls. Earthquake
Spectra, (13)2, 225-241.
[ESA 97] Ehsani, M. R., Saadatmanesh, H., Al-Saidy, A. (1997). Shear behavior of URM
retrofitted with FRP overlays. Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE, 1(1),
17-25.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 163
[ESV 99] Ehsani, M. R., Saadatmanesh, H., Velazquez-Dimas, J. I. (1999). Behavior of
retrofitted URM walls under simulated earthquake loading. Journal of Composites
[GGS 89] Ganz, H., Guggisberg, R., Schwartz, J., and Thrlimann, B. (1989). Contribution to
the design of masonry walls, Internal Report, Institute of Structural Engineering,
Department of Civil, Environmental and Geomatics Engineering, Swiss Federal
Institute of Technology, Zurich, ETH No. 168.
[GL 94] Gambarotta, L., and Lagomarsino, S. (1994). Modeling unreinforced brick masonry
wall, U.S.-Italy workshop on Guidelines for Seismic Evaluation and Rehabilitation of
Unreinforced Masonry Buildings, Pavia, Technical Report NCEER-94-0021, National
Center for Earthquake Engineering, Buffalo.
[HD 01] Hamilton III, H. R., and Dolan, C. W. (2001). Flexural capacity of glass FRP
strengthened concrete masonry walls. Journal of Composites for Construction,
ASCE, 5(3), 170-178.
[HH 02] Holberg, A. M., and Hamilton, H. R., (2002). Strengthening URM with GFRP
composites and ductile connections. Earthquake Spectra, (18) 1, 63-84.
[HEL 03] Hegner, J., ElGawady, M., Lestuzzi, P., and Badoux M. (in Preparation). Static cyclic
tests of URM walls upgraded with composites,
[HMM 01] Hamoush, A. S., McGinley, W. M., Mlakar, P., Scott, D., and Murray, K. (2001).
Out-of-plane strengthening of masonry walls with reinforced composites. Journal of
Composites for Construction, ASCE, 5(3), 139-145.
[HSD 97] Hendry, A. W., Sinha, B. P., and Davies, S. R. (1997). Design of Masonry Structures.
E & FN Spon.
[HSH 02] Hall, J. D., Schuman, P. M., and Hamilton III, H. R. (2002). Ductile anchorage for
connecting FRP strengthening of under-reinforced masonry buildings. Journal of
[KAN 99] Khalifa, A., Alkhrdaji, T., Nanni, A., and Lansburg, S. (1999). Anchorage of surface
mounted FRP reinforcement. Concrete International: Design and Construction,
21(10), 49-54.
[Ke 96] Kehoe, B. E. (1996). Performance of retrofitted unreinforced masonry buildings.
11
th
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Acapulco, Mexico, Paper No.
1417.
[KEC 03] Kuzik, M. D., Elwi, A. E, and Cheng, J. J. R. (2003). Cyclic flexural tests of masonry
walls reinforced with glass fiber reinforced polymer sheets. Journal of Composites
[KF 92a] Karantoni, F., and Fardis, M. N. (1992). Effectiveness of seismic strengthening
techniques for masonry buildings. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 118(7),
1884-1902.
[KF 92b] Karantoni, F., and Fardis, M. N. (1992). Computed versus observed seismic response
and damage of masonry buildings. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 118(7),
1802-1821.
[KGN 98] Khalifa, A., Gold, W., Nanni, A., and Abdel Aziz, I. (1998). Contribution of
externally bonded FRP to shear capacity of RC flexural members. Journal of

164 BIBLIOGRAPHY
[KM 88] Knig, G., Mann, W., and tes, A. (1988). Experimental investigation on the
behavior of unreinforced masonry walls under seismically induced loads and lessons
derived. 9
th
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo-Kyoto, Japan,
1117-1122.
[Ko 98] Kolsch, H. (1998). Carbon fiber cement matrix (CFCM) overlay system for masonry
strengthening. Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE, 2(2), 105-109.
[LBB 99] Lee, J. Y., Boothby, E. T., Bakis, E. C., and Nanni, A. (1999) Slip modulus of FRP
sheets bonded to concrete. Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE, 3(4), 161-
167.
[Le 00] Lestuzzi, P. (2000). Dynamisches plastisches verhalten von stahlbetontragwnden
unter erdbebeneinwirkung. PhD dissertation, Institute of Structural Engineering,
Department of Civil, Environmental and Geomatics Engineering, Swiss Federal
Institute of Technology, Zurich, Switzerland.
[La 02] Lang, K. (2002). Seismic vulnerability of existing buildings. PhD dissertation,
Institute of Structural Engineering, Department of Civil, Environmental and
Geomatics Engineering, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich, Switzerland.
[LWB 99] Lestuzzi, P., Wenk, T., and Bachmann, H. (1999). Dynamic tests of RC structural
walls on the ETH earthquake simulator. Report No. 240, Institute of Structural
Engineering, Department of Civil, Environmental and Geomatics Engineering, Swiss
Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich, Switzerland.
[CGM 90] Clouth, W. R., Glkan, P., Mayes, L. R., and Manos, C. G. (1990) Seismic Testing of
Single-Story Masonry Houses: Part 2. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE,
116(1), 1884-1902.
[MC 97] Magenes G., and Calvi G. M. (1997). In-plane seismic response of brick masonry
walls. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 26, 1091-1112.
[MC 94] Magenes G., and Calvi G. M. (1994). Shaking table tests on brick masonry walls.
10
th
European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vienna, Austria , 2419-2424.
[MC 92] Magenes G., and Calvi G. M. (1992). Cyclic behavior of brick masonry walls. 10
th

World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Madrid, Spain, 3517-3522.
[MEE 96] Mostafa, H., El-Zanaty, H. A., El-Zanaty, H. M., and Nassef, M. E. (1996). Behavior
of hollow concrete masonry walls under the effect of vertical and in-plane static
horizontal load. PhD dissertation, Department of Civil Engineering, Cairo University,
Egypt.
[MN 99] Miller, B., and Nanni, A. (1999). Bond between CFRP sheets and concrete. 5
th

ASCE Materials Congress, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA, 240-247.
[MST 99] Marshall, Jr., Sweeney, S. C., and Trovillion, J. C. (1999). Seismic rehabilitation of
unreinforced masonry walls. ACI Special Publications 188-26, 287-295.
[Mu 87] Musgrove, J. (1987). A history of architecture, Butterworths, London, England.
[MYL 02] Moon, F. L., Yi, T., Leon, R. T., and Kahn, L. F. (2002). Seismic strengthening of
unreinforced masonry structures with FRP overlays and post-tensioning. 12
th

European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, London, England, Paper No. 613.
[NKF 01] Nakaba, K., Kanakubo, T., Furuta, T., and Yoshizawa, H. (2001). Bond behavior
between fiber-reinforced polymer laminates and concrete. ACI Structural Journal,
98(3), 359-367.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 165
[OYB 88] Ottazzi, G., Yep, J., Blodet, M., Villa-Garacia, G., and Ginocchio, J. F. (1988).
Shaking table tests of improved adobe masonry houses. 9
th
World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo-Kyoto, Japan, 1123-1128.
[Pa 91] Page, A. W. (1991). The Newcastle earthquake - behavior of masonry structures.
Masonry International, 5(1), 11-18.
[PCO 86] Plecnik, J., Cousins, T., and Oconner, E. (1986). Strengthening of unreinforced
masonry buildings. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 112(5), 1070-1087.
[PP 92] Paulay, T., and Priestley, M. J. N. (1999) Seismic design of reinforced concrete and
masonry building. John Wily & Sons, New York, USA.
[RM 95] Reinhorn, A. M., Maden, A. (1995). Evaluation of TYFO-W fiber wrap system for in
plane strengthening of masonry walls Report No. 95-0002, Department of Civil
Engineering, State University of New York at Buffalo, USA.
[Ro 89] Roberts, M. T. (1989). Approximate analysis of shear and normal stress
concentrations in the adhesive layer of plated RC beams. The Structural Engineering,
67(12), 229-233.
[RS 86] Reinhorn, A. M., and Sherwood, P. P. (1986). Ferrocement in a large shaking table.
Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 112(2), 401-416.
[Sc 94] Schwegler, G. (1994). Masonry construction strengthened with fiber composites in
seismically endangered zones. 10
th
European Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Vienna, Austria, 2299-2303.
[SIA 89] Actions on structures, Standard (1989). Swiss Society of Engineers and Architects.
[SIM 76] Gasparini D. A., and Vanmarcke, E. H. (1976). Simulated earthquake motions
compatible with prescribed response spectra (SIMQKE procedure). MIT Civil
Engineering Research Report R76-4. Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge, Mass.
[SK 96] Schwegler, G., and Kelterborn, P. (1996). Earthquake resistance of masonry
structures strengthened with fiber composites. 11
th
World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Acapulco, Mexico, Paper No. 1460.
[So 02] Sofronie R. A. (2002). Repair and retrofitting masonry buildings. 12
th
European
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, London, England, Paper No. 183.
[Ta 00] Taghdi, M. (2000). Seismic retrofit of low-rise masonry and concrete walls by steel
strips. PhD dissertation, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Ottawa,
Ottawa, Canada.
[Tr 98] Triantafillou, T. C. (1998). Strengthening of masonry structures using epoxy-bonded
FRP laminates. Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE, 2(2), 96-104.
[TS 81] Turnsek, V., and Sheppard, P. (1981). The shear and flexural resistance of masonry
walls. International Research Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Skopje, PP.
517-573.
[To 99] Tomazevic, M. (1999). Earthquake-resistant design of masonry buildings. Imperial
College Press, London, England.
[UC 90] Seismic strengthening provisions for unreinforced masonry bearing wall buildings,
(1990). Appendix Chapter 1, Uniform Code for Building Conservation.

166 BIBLIOGRAPHY
[VE 00a] Velazquez-Dimas, J. I., and Ehsani, M. R. (2000). Out-of-plane behavior of brick
masonry walls strengthened with fiber composites. ACI Structural Journal, 97(3),
377-387.
[VE 00b] Velazquez-Dimas, J. I., and Ehsani, M. R. (2000). Modeling out-of-plane behavior of
URM walls retrofitted with fiber composites. Journal of Composites for
Construction, ASCE, 4(4), 172-181.
[WS 94] Weeks, J., Seible, F., Hegemier, G., Priestly, N. (1994). The U. S. TCCMAR Full-
Scale Five-Story Masonry Research Building Test. University of California, San
Diego.

C9-EPFL SIKA Report VersionSika

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

C9-EPFL SIKA Report VersionSika

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

C

0 1 ratio aspect l geometrica for 1 1

= length of the brick unit,

lt)f 0.5( T = (Q.2)

= , normalized normal force, (Q.7)

Potrebbero piacerti anche