12th North American Masonry Conference

M S C A
Denver, Colorado May 17 20, 2015

SHAKE-TABLE TESTS OF PARTIALLY GROUTED REINFORCED

MASONRY BUILDINGS

Andreas Koutras1 and P. Benson Shing2

Abstract
This paper presents the results and findings of shake-table tests conducted on two full-scale,
one-story buildings that had partially grouted ordinary wall systems. One structure was
designed and detailed according to current code provisions and practice. The other had the
same design but with double side-by-side vertically reinforced cells and joint reinforcement in
every bed-joint. The results have shown that the building designed according to the code
provisions and practice had an adequate base shear capacity. The structure was able to
resist ground motions with effective intensities twice the MCE level without catastrophic
failures. However, the structure eventually failed in a very brittle manner. The ductility of the
second structure was much higher than that of the first mainly due to the double grouted
cells. The sliding resistance of the first test structure has been accurately estimated with the
shear-friction theory by using a coefficient of friction of 0.7. It has also been found that walls
orthogonal to the direction of the lateral seismic forces are not effective in resisting shear
sliding.
Keywords: Shake table, Seismic performance, Reinforced masonry, Partially grouted,
Ductility, Shear walls, Sliding.

1 Graduate student researcher, Department of Structural Engineering, University of California, San Diego, 9500
Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA 92093-0085, USA, [email protected]
2 Professor, Department of Structural Engineering, University of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, La

Jolla, CA 92093-0085, USA, [email protected]

 Introduction
Walls are the main load-bearing elements in masonry structures. According to ASCE/SEI 7-
10 [ASCE/SEI 2010] and the masonry design code developed by the Masonry Standard Joint
Committee [MSJC 2013], reinforced masonry load-bearing walls are classified into three
types, namely, special, intermediate, and ordinary, based on the reinforcing details and
expected ductility. These walls can be either fully or partially grouted. Ordinary walls are
permitted for Seismic Design Category (SDC) C and below. The maximum spacing of vertical
reinforcing bars allowed for a special or intermediate reinforced masonry wall is 4 ft. (1.22 m),
and that for an ordinary wall is 10 ft. (3.05 m). Since only the cells containing reinforcing bars
are grouted in a partially grouted wall, a large portion of such a wall has ungrouted hollow
units. Hence, it can be expected that the behavior of partially grouted ordinary walls under
seismic loading can be quite different from that of fully grouted walls.
While a number of studies have been carried out to investigate the seismic performance of
fully grouted reinforced masonry walls, far less attention has been devoted to partially
grouted walls, even though the latter constitutes most of the reinforced masonry construction
outside the West Coast. Experimental studies have shown that the behavior and failure
modes of partially grouted walls strongly depend on the distribution of the reinforcement and
the level of the axial compressive stress [Ghanem 1992, 1993]. Schultz [Schultz 1996] tested
partially grouted walls with quasi-static loads and concluded that the lateral load resisting
mechanism of these walls was vastly different from that of fully grouted reinforced masonry.
Moreover, he concluded that the shear strength formula developed by [Matsumura 1988] best
represents the trends in the tests. Minaie et al. [Minaie 2010] tested four partially grouted
walls and observed that the behavior of these walls was similar to masonry-infilled RC
frames. The test results also showed that the shear strength formula for reinforced masonry
components in the 2011 and earlier editions of the MSJC code is not conservative for partially
grouted walls. The limitations of existing shear strength formulas for masonry walls were also
discussed by Voon et al. [Voon 2007]. Murcia-Delso and Shing [Murcia-Delso 2012] have
developed fragility curves for the shear damage states of partially grouted and fully grouted
reinforced masonry walls. These curves show that the probability of having the actual shear
strength of a partially grouted wall lower than the nominal shear strength given in the pre-
2013 editions of the MSJC code is a lot higher than that for a fully grouted wall. In the 2013
edition of the code, the MSJC has retained the same shear strength formula for fully grouted
masonry but has introduced a reduction factor of 0.75 for partially grouted. However, based
on the recent test data, this reduction may not be sufficient.
All the aforementioned studies considered individual wall segments. Information on the
system-level performance of these structures is not available. This paper presents the
observations and findings obtained from an experimental study conducted on two full-scale,
one-story, partially grouted ordinary reinforced masonry wall buildings. The buildings were
tested on the outdoor shake table at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD). The
tests were part of a collaborative research project carried out at the Drexel University, the
University of Minnesota, and UCSD. The first building tested on the shake table was a
partially grouted masonry wall system designed and constructed according to current code
provisions and current practice. The second building had the same design as the first except
that it had double side-by-side vertically grouted cells instead of separated single vertically
grouted cells. These tests have provided not only a good understanding of the system-level
behavior of these structures, but also data for the development and calibration of nonlinear
finite element models that can be used as tools to extrapolate experimental data and develop
general design recommendations.

Test Structures
Prototype Structure

The prototype structure considered is a one-story building with a configuration representative

of industrial and commercial buildings. It has gravity frames to carry most of the roof loads
and masonry shear walls to resist seismic forces as well as to carry part of the roof loads.
The structure is classified as SDC C and has partially grouted ordinary masonry shear walls.
The two building specimens tested on the shake table had the same configuration and
dimensions. The wall system of Specimen 1, as depicted in Figure 1, was considered to be
part of the prototype building with a relatively small tributary roof area for gravity loads but a
very substantial tributary area for the seismic weight. The seismic weight of the wall system
representing the test specimens was 407 kips (1810 kN), while the gravity weight was 76 kips
(338 kN). Each test structure was symmetric about the center plane along the east-west
direction, which was also the direction of the shake-table motion. The clear height of the
masonry walls was 152 in. (3.86 m). Figure 1 also shows the cross-sectional dimensions and
the numbering of the wall components on the south side of Specimen 1. The wall
components on the north side are numbered W-4, W-5, and W-6, starting from the west to
the east. From now on, W-2 and W-3 together with the portion with the window opening will
be called the main wall (and same for W-5 and W-6). The walls were constructed of 8 x 8 x
16-in. hollow concrete masonry units (CMU).

2013) for SDC Cmax with SDS  0.5 g as defined in FEMA P695 [FEMA 2009]. Since ordinary
Both specimens were designed according to current codes (ASCE/SEI 2010 and MSJC

masonry walls were considered, an R factor of 2 was used. According to ASCE/SEI 2010, the
fundamental period of the prototype was 0.09 sec and the resulting design base shear 102
kips (454 kN). An elastic plane-frame model was employed to calculate the seismic demand
on each of the wall components. The flexural and shear capacity of the walls were calculated
according to the MSJC code [MSJC 2013].
Design of Specimen 1

The reinforcement details for Specimen 1 are illustrated in Figure 1. The details conform to
the current practice in that all the vertically grouted cells were separated by ungrouted
masonry. Both the vertical and horizontal reinforcement had Grade 60 No. 4 (129 mm2) bars.
The positions of the vertical bars satisfied the code requirements in that there was vertical
reinforcement of at least 0.2 in2 (129 mm2) in cross-sectional area adjacent to the openings
and at wall intersections and that the maximum bar spacing did not exceed 10 ft. (3.05 m).
Bond beams with horizontal reinforcement were placed at the first course above the footing
and at the top course below the roof slab. The top bond beams were required to connect the
roof slab to the walls with ties, but bond beams are normally not used for the first course in
practice. The bottom bond beams were introduced here to provide a better performance at
the base if the walls were to develop base sliding. While bond beams are required right
above and below an opening according to the code, they need not be extended continuously
along the whole wall unless they are required to resist shear. For this specimen, the
intermediate bond beams were not required to resist shear, but it was deemed beneficial to
tie the vertically grouted cells by bond beams at these locations so that adequate frame
actions could develop if the walls were to behave like an infill frame as shown in previous
studies [Schultz 1996 and Minaie 2010].
The roof system had 8-inch-thick precast hollow-core planks and 4-inch reinforced concrete
topping. It was much thicker than that of the prototype to attain the targeted gravity load of 76
kips (338 kN) without the need to include the entire tributary roof area for the test structure.
The planks were supported by the south and north walls.

Figure 1. Reinforcement details of Specimen 1, south elevation view and Section A-A.
(1 ft. = 12 in., 1 in. = 25.4 mm)
Design of Specimen 2

The second specimen had two changes in the reinforcement details with the goal to improve
the ductility of the structure. First, double side-by-side vertically grouted cells were introduced
to increase the shear resistance of the vertical grouted elements and thus enhance the frame
action of the grouted masonry. This idea had been experimentally validated by quasi-static
tests of wall panels by Bolhassani et al. [Bolhassani 2014]. These tests have shown that
walls with double grouted cells demonstrated increased shear capacity and displacement
ductility as compared to those with single grouted cells. To maintain the same amount of
vertical reinforcement as that in Specimen 1, each of the two side-by-side vertically grouted
cells had a No. 3 bar (71 mm2). Second, ladder-type joint reinforcement with 3/16-in. (4.8-
mm) wires was placed in every bed-joint to control the opening of diagonal cracks developed
in the ungrouted portion of the walls and to hold the hollow units in place. Baenziger and
Porter [Baenziger 2011] have studied the effectiveness of joint reinforcement in partially
grouted walls, and have shown that joint reinforcement could improve the wall ductility. The
bond beams remained the same as those in Specimen 1.
In testing Specimen 1, the maximum actuator force required to drive the table during the
high-intensity ground motions was close to the capacity of the actuators because of the very
high fundamental frequency of the structure and the time and acceleration scaling required to
satisfy the dynamic similitude. Furthermore, severe base sliding was observed in the tests of
Specimen 1. To reduce the force demand on the table actuators and to arrest the base
sliding, the roof weight of Specimen 2 was increased to 145 kips (645 kN) by casting a 12-in.
concrete topping. Furthermore, the surface of the footing was roughened and additional
dowels were placed at the base. The reinforcement details of Specimen 2 are presented in
Figure 2.

Figure 2. Reinforcement details of Specimen 2, south elevation view.

(1 ft. = 12 in., 1 in. = 25.4 mm).

Material Properties and Instrumentation

The grout had 3/8-in. (9.5-mm) aggregate and the mortar was Type S. The CMU conformed
to ASTM C90. Material samples were taken during the construction of the two specimens and
were tested during the shake-table testing period at an age older than 28 days. The average
compressive strengths of grouted masonry prisms were 2.64 ksi (18.2 MPa) and 2.39 ksi
(16.5 MPa) for the first and second test structures, respectively, and those of ungrouted
masonry prisms were 2.14 ksi (14.8 MPa) and 1.53 ksi (10.6 MPa). The average tensile
strengths of the grouted masonry were 0.3 ksi (2.1 MPa) and 0.22 ksi (1.5 MPa) for the first
and second test structures, respectively, based on four-point bending tests on masonry
prisms. The tensile bond strength of the mortar joints was 0.12 ksi (0.8 MPa) for the second
structure based on four-point bending tests on ungrouted prisms. However this data is not
available for the first structure. The yield strength of the reinforcement was 70 ksi (483 MPa)
and 66 ksi (455 MPa) for the first and second test structures respectively. The joint
reinforcement had an almost elastic-perfectly plastic behavior with a yield stress of 70 ksi
(483 MPa) and a rupture strain of 0.055.
Each test structure was instrumented with 178 strain gages on the reinforcing bars, 180
displacement transducers, and 39 accelerometers.
 Ground Motions
Specimen 1 was subjected to a series of 17 ground motions scaled to different intensity
levels. Four different ground motion records were used. They were from the 1940 and 1979
Imperial Valley earthquakes in California, the 1985 Nahanni earthquake in Canada, and the
2011 Mineral earthquake in Virginia. However, most of the test runs had the El Centro 180
record (EC1940) from 1940 Imperial Valley earthquake. The structure was subjected to a
white-noise excitation that had a root-mean-square (RMS) amplitude of 0.05g after each
earthquake motion to estimate the change of the natural frequency of the specimen. The
actual seismic weight of the structure was 122 kips (543 kN), while the seismic weight
considered in the design was 407 kips (1810 kN) based on the prototype structure. Hence,
the accelerations in the records were scaled by a factor of 3.33 and the time scale was
compressed by a factor of 0.548 to satisfy the dynamic similitude with the prototype structure.
The time history of the original 1940 El Centro record after the similitude scaling is shown in
Figure 3. The fundamental period of the undamaged structure determined by the very first
white-noise test was 0.043 sec.
Specimen 2 was subjected to a sequence of 17 ground motions. The El Centro Array #5
record obtained in the 1979 Imperial Valley earthquake (EC1979) was used in the high-
intensity tests. This record is less severe than EC1940 in terms of the duration of strong
shaking. Because of the brittle behavior observed from Specimen 1, the less severe record
was selected to avoid uncontrollable failure. The seismic weight of Specimen 2 was 194 kips
(863 kN), which required a scaling factor of 2.10 for acceleration and 0.690 for time to satisfy
the dynamic similitude with the prototype. The scaled acceleration time history for EC1979 is
shown in Figure 3. The first white-noise excitation revealed a fundamental period equal to
0.062 sec.

Figure 3. El Centro 1940 scaled for Specimen 1, and El Centro 1979 scaled for Specimen 2.

Test Observations and Results

Given that the natural period of the building elongated as inelastic deformation occurred and
that the table motion was influenced by the table – structure interaction, the effective intensity
of an applied motion considered below is defined as the ratio of the spectral acceleration of
the table motion to that of the maximum considered earthquake (MCE) at the period that is
the mean of the structural periods before and after the motion.
Specimen 1
During the first day of testing, the structure was
subjected to ground motions with an effective
intensity up to the MCE level. Particularly, the last
two motions of the day, EC1940 125% and
EC1940 188%, had effective intensities of
0.81xMCE and 1.05xMCE, respectively. For
EC1940 125%, the structure did not experience
any damage. The structural response was elastic
with no elongation of the fundamental period at
the end of the test. The maximum roof
displacement developed was 0.026 in. (0.66
mm). For EC1940 188%, sliding occurred along
the base of the structure reaching a Figure 4. Base shear versus base sliding of
maximum value of 0.027 in. (0.69 mm). the main wall during EC1940 188% motion.
The maximum roof displacement was
0.057 in. (1.45 mm) and the maximum base shear developed was 239 kips (1063 kN).
However, no damage was detected on the walls. In addition, the change in the natural period
at the test was negligible. Figure 4 shows the recorded total base shear versus the base
sliding for W-2. The large frictional resistance developed at an early cycle can be attributed to
the clamping force exerted by the vertical reinforcement. However, as the grout surrounding
the dowels at the base was damaged as the result of sliding, the bond between the dowels
and the grout diminished. This could have led to a reduction of the clamping force and the
frictional resistance in the following cycles as shown in Figure 4. The small linear increase in
base shear with sliding could be attributed to the restoring force of the dowels as well as to
the action of the flanges. To estimate the sliding resistance, the shear-friction strength
equation adopted by ACI 318 can be used:
Vnf   ( Asp fy  P ) [1]

In the above equation, the normal force contributing to the friction resistance is the sum of the
clamping force of the vertical reinforcement, whose cross-sectional area is denoted by Asp,
crossing the sliding plane and the applied axial load P, which in the case of the test structure

resistance Vnf estimated with equation [1] was equal to 212 kips (943 kN), which was 2
is its total weight of 138 kips (614 kN). During the design of the specimen, the sliding

times the design base shear of 102 kips (454 kN). In this calculation, it was assumed that 20
No. 4 vertical reinforcing bars, including those in the wall flanges, contributed to the clamping

(414 MPa) and the strength factor (  ) was equal to 0.80. Before the conduction of the shake-
force, the coefficient of friction ( ) was equal to 0.70, the yield strength of the bars was 60 ksi

table tests, a nonlinear finite element analysis was performed to estimate the structural
capacity. The analysis showed a base shear capacity of 310 kips (1379 kN). Applying

67 ksi (462 MPa), and without the  factor, resulted in a sliding resistance of 284 kips (1263
equation [1] with the expected yield strength of the reinforcement, which was assumed to be

kN), which was close to the maximum base shear determined by the finite element model.
However, the test results (Figure 4) have shown a maximum sliding resistance of 239 kips
occurring in the first cycle in which sliding occurred. The over-estimation of the sliding
resistance in the pre-test calculation could be attributed to the inclusion of the vertical
reinforcement in the wall flanges. If the vertical reinforcement (6 No. 4 bars) in the flanges is
excluded and the actual yield strength of the reinforcement obtained from tension tests, which
is 70 ksi (483 MPa), is used, equation [1] yields a sliding resistance of 234 kips (1041 kN),
which is close to that observed in the tests. In Figure 4 considering the height of the
hysteresis curves after the reduction of the clamping force, one can deduce that the
coefficient of friction was close to 0.70. The footing surface was smoothened by troweling
during construction. It should be noted that equation [1] has been recently adopted for

walls with Mu / (Vu dv )  0.5 . The new provision specifies that be equal to 0.7 for concrete
inclusion in the 2016 edition of TMS 402 for calculating the shear friction resistance of squat

surfaces that are not intentionally roughened.

Figure 5 shows the time histories of the roof displacement and the base sliding of W-1 and
W-2 during EC1940 164%-A, which had an effective intensity of 1.91xMCE. It can be seen
that most of the roof displacement was contributed by base sliding. The smaller sliding
recorded at the base of W-1 was due to the lower strength and the larger deformation of the
wall component as compared to the main wall. Both W-1 and W-4 had diagonal cracking
during this motion, as shown in Figure 6. However, no significant cracks were observed at the
other wall components. During this motion, the fundamental period of the structure increased
from 0.052 sec to 0.066 sec.

Figure 5. Roof displacement and base Figure 6. Cracking of W-4 during

sliding during EC1940 164%-A. EC1940 164%-A.

After EC1940 164%-A, concrete block stoppers were installed at the west and east ends of
the main walls, and the structure was subjected to five more ground motions, whose
acceleration spectra are shown in Figure 7. Table 1 shows the natural period of the building
after each motion, the effective intensities of the motions, and maximum response values.
During the first four motions, new cracks developed along the mortar joints of the main walls
with and the crack widths remained small. However, there was no cracking in the grouted
masonry. The final motion had a smaller effective intensity than the previous one.
Nevertheless, because the mortar joints were already weakened, severe cracking occurred in
the vertically grouted cells during that motion, leading to a rapid loss of the shear strength
and large displacements as shown in Figure 8. The failure pattern of the structure at the
instant of the maximum drift is shown in Figure 9. Wall component W-1 did not have
significant contribution to the resistance because it had significant base sliding without
obvious additional cracking in the wall during these motions. Wall components W-2 and W-3
had severe cracking in the piers which
propagated into the grouted masonry during the
last motion. Wall components W-4, W-5, and W-
6 of the north side of the structure, behaved in
the same way as wall components W-1, W-2,
and W-3 respectively, due to the symmetry. The
regions at the corners of the walls near the
intersection of the vertically grouted cells and
bond beams had cracks, possibly caused by the
interaction between the grouted masonry and
the ungrouted masonry. The ungrouted masonry
panels acted like infill walls exerting diagonal
strut forces against the grouted masonry
columns and beams. The damage in the Figure 7. Acceleration spectra of recorded
structure before and after the final motion is table motions for Specimen 1 and
shown in Figure 10. Strain gages indicated fundamental period before each motion.
the yielding of the reinforcement at several
locations. Figure 11 shows the sequence of yielding of the reinforcement in the south wall.
Initially, the dowels at the base yielded in tension due to base sliding. The bond beams
experienced yielding during the second last motion due to the strut action of the ungrouted
masonry panels. This indicates the important role of the bond beams.
Table 1. Summary of response data during the last five tests of Specimen 1.

Fundamental period Fundamental period Maximum

Effective intensity Maximum
Ground motion of specimen of prototype roof drift ratio
(xMCE) base shear, kips (kN)
after test (sec) after test (sec) (%)

EC1940 125%-C 0.062 0.113 1.52 0.058 241.5 (1074.2)

EC1940 164%-B 0.066 0.120 2.04 0.095 264.3 (1175.7)
EC1940 188% 0.097 0.177 2.07 0.121 270.8 (1204.6)
EC1940 202% 0.118 0.215 1.43 0.175 277.1(1232.6)
EC1940 214% - - 1.17 2.245 269.9 (1200.6)
Note: Fundamental period before EC1940 125%-C was 0.056 sec.

Figure 8. Base shear versus drift ratio Figure 9. Failure mode of Specimen 1 at time
hysteresis curves for Specimen 1. instant of maximum drift (Point 1 in Figure 8).
 Figure 10. Damage in Specimen 1 before and after the final motion, EC1940 214%.

Figure 11. Yielding of reinforcement in the south wall. The motion during which yielding
occurred for first time is indicated.
Specimen 2
The specimen was subjected to a sequence of 17
motions. The performance of the structure during
motions with effective intensities at the MCE level
and above is presented here. The effective
intensities and selected response data for these
motions are shown in Table 2. The response
spectra are shown in Figure 13. Prior to these
high level motions, the fundamental period of the
structure increased by 135% as compared to the
initial period, which was 0.062 sec. Cracking along
the mortar bed-joints started in an earlier Figure 12. Crack pattern at W-5 after the
motion that had an effective intensity of testing of Specimen 2.
0.89xMCE. For Specimen 1, cracking along
the mortar joints was not observed during EC1940 125% which had effective intensity of
0.81xMCE and no base sliding. The hysteretic curves for Specimen 2 are compared to those
for Specimen 1 in Figure 14. Specimen 2 showed significantly increased ductility with only a
30% reduction in the base shear at the drift of 1%. A maximum base shear of 331.5 kips
(1478 kN) was attained, which was 20% higher than that of Specimen 1. It has been
estimated based on the shear strength formula in the MSJC code for partially grouted walls
that the increase of the dead load in Specimen 2, as compared to Specimen 1, could
increase the base shear capacity of the structure by only 13 kips (58 kN) (5%). The increased
cross-sectional area of the vertically grouted cells delayed the shear failure of the grouted
columns. The behavior of this structure closely resembled that of an infilled frame with
relatively weak ungrouted masonry acting like infill panels and exhibiting severe sliding along
the bed-joints. As shown in Figure 12, cracks are uniformly distributed in the ungrouted
masonry, with the grouted masonry remaining almost intact. In the last test, a large diagonal
crack started to form at the mid-height of the vertically grouted column of W-5 adjacent to the
door as it is illustrated in Figure 12.
Table 2. Summary of response data during the last five tests of Specimen 2.

Fundamental period Fundamental period Maximum

Effective intensity Maximum
Ground motion of specimen of prototype roof drift ratio
(xMCE) base shear, kips (kN)
after test (sec) after test (sec) (%)

EC1979 86% 0.166 0.241 0.94 0.188 303.5 (1350.0)

EC1979 108% 0.185 0.268 1.08 0.238 322.4 (1434.1)
EC1979 122%-A 0.249 0.361 1.34 0.336 331.5 (1474.6)
EC1979 137% 0.352 0.510 1.52 0.596 307.9 (1369.6)
EC1979 122%-B 0.398 0.577 1.24 1.014 250.2 (1112.9)
Note: Fundamental period before the motion EC1979 86% was 0.146 sec

Figure 13. Acceleration spectra of recorded Figure 14. Base shear versus drift ratio
table motions for Specimen 2 and fundamental hysteresis curves for Specimen 2.
period before and after each motion.

Conclusions
This paper presents the results and findings of shake-table tests conducted on two full-scale,
one-story buildings that had partially grouted ordinary wall systems. The results have shown
that the building designed according to the code provisions and practice had an adequate
base shear capacity, which was 2.7 times the design base shear. The structure was able to
resist ground motions with effective intensities twice the MCE level without catastrophic
failures. However, the structure suffered extensive cracking in the mortar joints of ungrouted
masonry and it eventually failed in a very brittle manner in the last motion with an effective
intensity level 1.2x MCE as soon as cracks propagated into the grouted vertical masonry. The
structure which had double side-by-side vertically grouted cells and joint reinforcement in the
bed-joints, showed increased ductility in spite of profuse cracking in the bed-joints of the
ungrouted masonry. This improvement can be mainly attributed to the double grouted cells,
which helped to maintain the structural integrity, as demonstrated in previous quasi-static
tests conducted on wall segments, by delaying the propagation of cracks into the grouted
masonry. The sliding resistance of the first test structure has been accurately estimated with
the shear-friction theory by using a coefficient of friction of 0.7. It has also been found that
walls orthogonal to the direction of the lateral seismic forces are not effective in resisting
shear sliding.

References
ASCE/SEI 2010: Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. The
American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia, 2010.
Baenziger 2011: Baenziger, G. P., M. L. Porter, “Joint Reinforcement for Masonry Shear
Walls,” Proceedings of the 11th North American Masonry Conference.
Minneapolis, Minnesota, 2011.
FEMA P695 2009: Quantification of Building Seismic Performance Factors. Applied
Technology Council, Redwood City, California, 2009.
Ghanem 1992: Ghanem, G. M., A. S. Essawy, A. A. Hamid, “Effect of Steel Distribution
on the Behavior of partially Reinforced Masonry Shear Walls,” Proceedings of the
6th Canadian Masonry Symposium. Saskatoon, Canada 1992.
Ghanem 1993: Ghanem, G. M., A. E. Salama, S. A. Elmagd, A. A. Hamid, “Effect of Axial
Compression on the Behavior of Partially Reinforced Masonry Walls,” Proceedings
of the 6th North American Masonry Conference. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1993.
Masonry Standards Joint Committee (MSJC) 2013: Building Code Requirements and
Specifications for Masonry Structures. The Masonry Society, Boulder, CO,
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, Structural Engineering Institute
of ASCE, Reston, VA, 2013.
Matsumura 1988: Matsumura, A., “Shear Strength of Reinforced Masonry Walls,”
Proceedings of the 9th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Tokyo,
Japan, 1988.
Minaie 2010: Minaie, E., M. Mota, F. L. Moon, A. A. Hamid, “In-Plane Behavior of
Partially Grouted Reinforced Concrete Masonry Shear Walls,” Journal of Structural
Engineering, 136(9), 2010 pp. 1089-1097.
Mohammad 2014: Mohammad, B., A. A. Hamid, F. L. Moon, “Enhancement of Seismic
Performance of Partially Grouted Reinforced Masonry Shear Walls,” Proceedings
of the 10th National Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Anchorage, Alaska,
2014.
Murcia-Delso 2012: Murcia-Delso, J., P. B. Shing, “Fragility Analysis of Reinforced
Masonry Shear Walls,” Earthquake Spectra, 28(4), 2012 pp. 1523-1547.
Schultz 1996: Schultz, A. E., “Seismic Performance of Partially-Grouted Masonry Shear
Walls,” Proceedings of the 11th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering.
Acapulco, Mexico, 1996.
Voon 2007: Voon, K. C., J. M. Ingham, “Design Expression for the In-Plane Shear
Strength of Reinforced Concrete Masonry,” Journal of Structural Engineering,
133(5), 2007 pp. 706-713.