Design of reinforced masonry walls and columns for gravity loads

AND

CARLJ . TURKSTRA
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Queensland on 11/23/14

MrGrIl Urziversity, 817 Sherhr-ooke Street West, Morltr.etr1, P.Q.. Ctrrlntln H3A ZK6
Dep.prrrt~rlerltof Civil E~~gir~eer-ing,
Rcccivcd Junc 16. 198 1
Rcviscd manuscript acccptcd October 5 . 1981

Thc ultimate strength of reinforced masonry compression mcmbcrs subjected to axial or ccccntric vertical loads is thc main
concern of the paper. As an initial step, thc literature is reviewed so as to arrive at reasonable assumptions relating to thc
stress-strain propertics of the material: thcsc arc ncccssary to dcfinc thc load-moment interaction curve for a short column
or wall. A nicthotl that can account for thc weakening cffcct of slcndcrncss is also discussed. Thcsc two fundamental
components of thc proccdurc arc then judged rclativc to cxperimcntal test data. Axially loaded walls arc modcllcd quite well
but thc theory is conscrvativc for walls tested eccentrically. Although thc inclusion of a strain gradicnt factor and consideration
of nonlinear bchaviour would improve analytical predictions for thc lattcr c;~sc,thcsc extra factors are not applied to the rcsults
duc to a lack of definitive knowledge relating to thc lattcr.
La rdsistancc ultimc dcs piitccs dc maqonncrie armdc sollicitdcs vcrticalemcnt cn con~pressionaxialc ou cxccntrdc formc
I'objct principal dc cct article. Dans un prcmicr temps, Ics autcurs passcnt en rcvuc la littitratuse cxistantc pour cn tircr dcs
hypothitscs raisonnablcs sur Ic comportcmcnt contraintc-ddformation rclativc du nlatdriau, qu'il faut connaitrc pour ddfinir
la courbe dc rdciprocitd charge-moment d'un potcau ou d'un niur court. LC tcxtc conticnt aussi dcs considdrations sur la pcrtc
For personal use only.

dc capacitd lidc 5 I'dlanccmcnt. Ccs dcux dldmcnts fondamcntaux sont alors mis cn regard des rdsultats cxpdrimcntaux. Le
moditlc mathdmatiquc reproduit bicn convcnablcmcnt Ic cas dcs niurs 5 chargc axiale. mais il sc rdvtlc conscrvatcur dans Ic
cas dcs murs h chargc cxccntrdc. Bicn quc la prisc en consitleration d'un gradicnt dc ddformation et d'unc non-IinCaritC dc
comportcment amdliorcrait la qualitd dcs rdsultats thdoriqucs dans Ic second cas (cxccntricitd), les autcurs s'absticnncnt
d'introduirc ccs factcurs suppldmcntaircs dans Ics calculs cn raison dc I'abscncc dc donndcs ddfinitivcs appropridcs.
[Traduit par la rcvuc]
Can. J. CIV. Eng.. 9. 84-95 (1982)

Introduction on which the ultimate strength design of masonry can be

The theoretical development of reinforced and plain
masonry has lagged behind that for steel and concrete.
A great deal of experimental work was, however, per-
formed by the Brick institute of America -work which
led to an engineered approach in masonry design
(Structural Clay Products Institute 1969). Rcncwecl in-
terest in the structural capabilities of masonry is now
apparent in work carried out in Canada (Drysdale et (11.
1976; Mayes et 01. 1978; Brettle 1969; Haseltine 1978;
Roberts 1975), Mexico, California. New Zcaland, and
Great Britain. especially as concerns the in-plane shear
resistance of walls. As a result, more rational lirnit
states design codes have been adopted in Mexico (insti-
tuto de Ingenieria 1977) and in Great Britain (British
Standards Institution 1978).
The ultimate limit state for reinforced masonry walls
or columns subjected to gravity loads and minor axis
bending is the special concern of this investigation. A
reexamination of the initial data base used to develop
existing allowable load codes and an evaluation of more
modern sources form the background for assu~nptions
based. As for reinforced concrete and steel bearing
members, a rational analysis [nust consider both the
strength of a short specimen and the recluction in
strcngth due to slenderness effects.
The uniaxial capacity of a short specimen is de-
scribed by the load-moment interaction diagram.
Defining this diagram requires knowledge of the
stress-strain curve of the ~naterial.Essential character-
istics of the curve include its shape, the ultimate stress,
and the maximum compressive strain at ultirnate stress.
These properties are discussed for various masonry wall
and column cross sections and conclusions are reached
concerning analytical simplifications. Because of the
many varied forms that reinforced masonry can take,
and the lack of complete knowledge, these siniplifica-
tions are merely presented as a workable basis.
Concerning the effects of slenderness and load eccen-
tricities on wall or colunln capacity, t w o methods are
briefly examined. While both methods are approxi~nate
in nature, onc of these is choscn for comparison with
experimental results. The conlplete theory, comprising

03 15-14681871010084-12$0 1 .0010
01982 National Rcscarch Council of CanadalConseil national dc rcchcrchcs du Canada
 OJINAGA AND TURKSTRA
grout
\ ties
L?k33
COLUMN
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Queensland on 11/23/14
MULTI - WYTHE WALL
FIG.I . Different reinforced systcms envisaged.
assumptions related to the short section strength and
slenderness effects, is found to be conservative, espe-
cially when loads are applied eccentrically.
Stress-strain characteristics
The shape of the stress-strain curve and ultimate val-
ues of compressive stresses and strains are the three
principal components of the curve. Although not
For personal use only.
touched on here, the modulus of elasticity or initial
tangent inodulus is also an important property.
Compressive strength
Reinforced masonry can have many geometrical
forms, some of which are shown in Fig. 1. Reinforcing
is made possible by the use of grout in the cavities
between wythes of masonry or in the cores of hollow
units. When subjected to axial loads the grout and
masonry interact transversely, an interaction that dif-
fers in its effect on different construction types. Besides
this interaction, many other factors can intluence the
compressive strength as obtained by testing short
specimens; most of these were summarized by
Maurenbrecher (1978). Some of these factors and the
options they imply in terms of analysis techniques are
discussed for the structural forms presented in Fig. I.
Grouted block masonry
Behaviour under axial load of single wythe, hollow
block. grouted wall specimens has received relatively
more attention than other construction types. One such
study by Harnid et al. (1978) showed that a grouted
prism failed at lower stresses than an ungrouted, plain
prism. This observation can be explained by the differ-
ences in elastic properties, i.e., moduli of elasticity and
Poisson's ratio, of block and grout. Transverse action
of the grout under axial loads leads to a strength for the
composite which is lower than the strengths that would
be obtained by testing a plain block prism or a grout
specimen. A transformed section analysis is therefore
inappropriate since the ultimate behaviour of the
\
SINGLE WYTHE , GROUTED CELL WALL
MULTI - WYTHE COMPOSITE WALL
grout-block system is no longer directly predictable
on the basis of the elastic properties of each material.
As a result, grouted prisms should be tested to define
the strength in compression of fully or partially grouted,
single wythe, block constructions. Tabulated values
based on experimentation can, however, offer a conser-
vative alternative to prism testing; lsaacs (1975), for
example, presented an empirical equation as a function
of the individual block and grout strengths.
Existing standards relating to grout usually specify
that either fine or coarse grout be used, depending on
the size of cavity being filled. From the work of Haniid
et al. (1978) and that of lsaacs (1975), it is apparent that
standards should also recognize the strength of the grout
as it affects the ultimate strength of the composite.
The height-to-thickness ratio of small test specimens
is known to be a significant parameter in defining com-
pressive strength. especially when solid constructions
are considered. To correctly model a tensile splitting
failure and obtain strengths that correlate well with
those observed in full-scale tests, a height-to-thickness
ratio of about four or five is adequate for solid prisms.
This recluirernent largely eliminates the effect of platen
restraint, which can lead to deceptively high experi-
mental strengths. Test results for shorter prisms would
require correction for this effect.
Multi-wythe wall systems where grout is poured
between wythes, and colunlns formed by grouting large
inner cores, can be expected to act differently from the
case covered by the discussion, i.e., single-
wythe walls and columns where grout is placed in the
hollow cores of the units themselves. Although no
experimental study can be cited, if the wythes of ma-
sonry are adequately tied together the transverse action
between grout and masonry will be less critical in this
case and the ultimate conlpressive strength is reached
when the weakest component of the system fails. In
other words, a transformed section analysis would be
justified. Alternatively, if the strength and elastic mod-
 86 CAN. J. CIV. ENG. VOL. 9. 1982
uli of the various components did not differ greatly, the
load-moment interaction diagram could be defined
using the properties of the weakest material.
lndividual masonry and grout prisms should have
height-to-thickness ratios of about four and grout speci-
mens should be block-formed to model the highly
absorbent conditions they actually experience between
wythes of masonry.
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Queensland on 11/23/14
Ultimate stress values obtained from prism tests as
well as member calculations must be based on net load-
bearing areas. Read and Clements (1972) and Self
(1975) reported that misalignment of cross webs in run-
ning bond construction reduced the effective bearing
area. The latter study indicated, however, that ultimate
stresses were comparable for full mortar and face shell
mortar beddings when net bearing areas were consid-
ered. Grouting, geometrical properties of the units, and
the type of bedding specified will affect the cross sec-
tional area and should be accounted for.
Grouted brick masonry
The preceeding discussion noted the transverse
action of the grout as it influences strength and the
analytical procedure for defining the load-moment
For personal use only.
interaction diagram for a short column or wall. Similar
principles are applicable to the case of hollow or solid
clay units combined with grout since once again differ-
ences in elastic properties, strengths, and maximum
strains will come into ~ l a v .
Composite brick and block wythes witlz grout
The ultimate capacity for this relatively complex wall
type can follow the above discussion for multi-wythe
grouted block masonry. Unreinforced composite
brick-concrete block walls with a inortar collar joint
instead of a grouted cavity were tested by Yokel et al.
(197 1) and by Redmond and Allen (1975).
Shape of the stress-strain curve
The shape of the stress-strain curve has a significant
effect on the short column or wall load-moment inter-
action diagram (Turkstra and Ojinaga 1976). Masonry
in its many structural forms displays varying degrees of
nonlinearity. Unfortunately, no systematic study of the
stress-strain curve for grouted masonry has been
found. One objective of such a study could be the devel-
opment of stress block parameters appropriate to the
different masonry types.
A review of available experimental data for un-
grouted masonry (Eskenazi et al. 1976) leads to the
conclusion that clay brick masonry stress-strain curves
display moderate nonlinearity when made with the
stronger mortar types but can be nonlinear when weak
mortars are employed; Powell and Hodgkinson (1976)
measured both ascending and descending parts of the
curve. On the other hand, concrete block masonry is not
greatly affected by the type of mortar used and a linear
stress-strain distribution is often a valid assumption.
Sources of data relating to the stress-strain curve for
grouted hollow concrete block masonry include Yokel
et al. (1970), Hatzinikolas (1978), Hamid et al. (1978),
Boult (1979), and Feeg et al. (1979). Yokel et al.
concluded that a linear assumption was justified and yet
other studies such as those by Boult and Hamid et al.
would suggest a certain degree of nonlinearity.
Anderson and Hoffman (1969) reported on tests of
reinforced brick masonry columns. They proposed a
stress-strain curve similar to that of reinforced con-
crete but nevertheless concluded that it was necessary to
establish this curve more precisely by testing.
The Mexico City design code for masonry (lnstituto
de lngenieria 1977) specifies that unless tests are car-
ried out, the stress-strain curve of masonry can be
taken as linear up to failure. As remarked earlier, this
assumption leads to conservative load-moment inter-
action diagrams. While awaiting more definitive exper-
imental and analytical studies on the stress-strain prop-
erties of masonry in its varied forms the use of a linear
stress-strain curve assumption is therefore suggested
here. In modern limit state codes, the approximation
implied in any analysis or design procedure can easily
be considered by choosing an appropriate value of the
performance factor, +.
Ultimate strain in cornpressiorz
The ultimate strain in compression determines the
maximum stress attained in thebertical steel and thus its
contribution to carrying loads. The effect of ties and the
amount of vertical reinforcing steel are also important
to this topic.
Single-wythe walls constructed with hollow masonry
units whose cores are grouted and reinforced are of
special concern. As noted earlier, the difference in elas-
tic properties of grout and masonry causes a transverse
interaction between the two materials that can lead to
ultimate compressive stresses lower than the strength of
either material when tested separately. Confinement of
the grout cores and prevention of reinforcing steel buck-
ling is difficult to achieve in this case. Nevertheless,
tests by Hatzinikolas (1978) and Yokel et al. (1970)
demonstrated that vertical steel could contribute to the
bearing capacity under axial and eccentric loads.
Cranston and Roberts (1976) tested reinforced block-
work walls as beams and found that compressive strains
comparable in magnitude with concrete values could be
expected. However, under axial compression, experi-
mental evidence points to much lower values of ulti-
mate strain. A reasonable lower bound value can be set
at 0.001 or simply at the value given by the ratio of
compressive strength to initial tangent modulus, f;:,/E,
(typically 0.001 -0.00 133); the latter follows directly
from the linear stress-strain hypothesis, which is par-
ticularly appropriate for concrete block masonry. This
 OJINAGA AND TURKSTRA 87

single value of strain would model the important axial used. Evaluation of much earlier tests by Lyse (1933)
load case while being conservative for eccentric loads and Withey (1934) as well as those for unreinforced
or flexure. columns by Talbot and Abrams (1908) would sug-
An ultimate strain value of 0.00 1 or fA/E, for single- gest the use of fA,/E, (typically 0.0015-0.002) as the
wythe grouted core walls can be compared with test ultimate strain. Under flexural strain gradients, higher
data from Hatzinikolas (1978). In the case of short wall strains are possible but use of the single value,%/E,,, is
specimens without joint reinforcement, partially conservative as well as simplifying the analysis when
grouted and reinforced with either three No. 9, three used in conjunction with the linear stress-strain
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Queensland on 11/23/14

No. 6 , or three No. 3 reinforcing bars, the respective assumption.

percentages of yield capacity attained in axial compres- Some consideration must be given to the size of main
sion were approximately 46, 64, and 78%. ~ s s u m a~ n bars, ~ ties, and tie spacing. In CSA-S304 (Canadian
compressive strain of 0.001 implies a utilization of Standards Association 1978), no upper limit is set on
about 49% of the yield strength. The contribution to the size of bar in a vertical load-bearing member, while
total axial capacity of the three No. 9 bars (approxi- the minimum tie requirement is for a No. 9 ASW4
mately I % of the gross area) was about 20%. However, (0.1483 in diameter) wire at a spacing not exceeding 16
for one axially loaded full size wall (height-to-thickness bar diameters, 48 tie diameters, or the smallest column
ratio of 15.87) with three No. 9 bars, a maximum steel dimension. Comparing these amounts to those used by
strain of only 5.1 x lo-' was measured, thus indicating Lyse, by Withey, as well as by Anderson and Hoffman,
about 24% efficiency. This particular test wall is con- the S304 requirement seems low. Lyse, for example,
a
sidered unusual on two accounts; firstly, two other full placed in ties in 4 in mortar joints at spacings varying
size walls of slendernesses 17.97 and 24.24, also rein- from every joint to every fourth joint; the minimum
forced with three No. 9 bars, failed at considerably lateral reinforcement in Withey's tests consisted of in
higher loads (average of 25% higher); secondly, the ties at 15 in; Anderson and Hoffman used $ in ties in the
For personal use only.

steel load-strain curve presented extends up to a load joints at every third brick course to enclose four No. 5
of 240 kip and a corresponding steel strain of 0.0005, longitudinal bars. The Uniform Building Code (1976)
a
whereas the ultimate capacity of the wall is given as requires minimum in diameter ties and, for the highest
315 kip. seismic zone, the maximum spacing is 8 in for the full
Present code provisions for reinforced walls (Cana- height of the column; the largest bar allowed is a No. 10
dian Standards Association 1978; Uniform Building and for Nos. 8 , 9 , and 10, $ in ties must be used.
Code 1976), neglect the contribution of vertical steel to
axial load capacity unless confining tie reinforcement is Strain gradierzt efleect
provided as in columns. The tests by Hatzinikolas show The concept of a strain gradient effect in masonry
that the steel can contribute to capacity even though it arose from the testing of short wall or prism sections
may not be fully effective. Clause 12.6.5 in the Canadi- under eccentric loads. Applying the equations of statics
an Standard (Canadian Standards Association 1977) for for a material with a linear stress-strain relationship
reinforced concrete states that and no tensile strength, it was found that stresses at the
Vertical reinforcement need not be provided with lateral outer compressive edge had to be higher than the ulti-
ties if such reinforcement is 0.01 times the gross concrete mate strength under pure compression for equilibrium
area or less, or where such reinforcement is not required to be satisfied. Turkstra and Thomas (1978) analyzed
as compression reinforcement, and if the diameter of the interaction of a masonry unit and mortar under
reinforcement does not exceed 16 mm (No. 15) or 4 the eccentric loads by finite elements. Recalling that fail-
concrete cover, whichever is greater. ure under pure compression is by splitting caused by
A similar stipulation to limit the amount of steel in lateral tensile stresses induced in the masonry units,
single-wythe grouted core masonry walls is also sug- they concluded that the strain gradient effect could be
gested here, at least until more testing is carried out. explained by the localized nature of tensile stresses
The case of grouted, reinforced multi-wythe walls under eccentric loads and that, in contrast to the axial
and columns is less critical in terms of defining an load case, ". . .lateral tensile stresses in the lengthwise
ultimate compressive strain; ties and the mass of mate- direction increase with load and to a lesser extent with
rial surrounding the reinforcing steel can more effec- load eccentricity. "
tively confine the grout and prevent steel from buckling Tests have actually shown that the magnitude of the
at relatively lower strain values. Anderson and strain gradient effect varies with eccentricity and ma-
Hoffman (1969) considered an ultimate compressive sonry type. Results from different studies have, how-
strain of 0.003 while employing the strength method for ever, not always agreed on the magnitude or variation
reinforced concrete. Nevertheless, they noted that test- of the strain gradient factor; thus test conditions also
ing was necessary to justify the stress-strain curve affect the results.
 C A N . J . CIV. ENG. VOL. 9. 1982

1 Load (k~pl
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Queensland on 11/23/14

1
ULTIMATE COMPRESSIVE
STRAIN 2 0 001

WEAK A X I S
INTERAtTlON CURVES
For personal use only.

Moment ( k ~ p -~n I Ib l Moment ( k ~ -p 1 n 1

FIG. 2. Effcct of ultimate conlprcssive strain: ( ( I ) heavily reinforced; ( b ) light reinforcement.

1 Load (kip)

,RECT. STRESS BLOCK rn

grouted cell
-3 r e - b a r

N A.
compressive
straln =0003

ult. compressive straln

equal t o 0.001

I 50 too 150 200

FIG. 3. Effect of assunlptions related to strcss-strain bchaviour.

250 3oo (kip-in)
Moment
 OJINAGA AND TURKSTRA
*5 re-bars
mortar
grout
\
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Queensland on 11/23/14
FIG.4. Conditions assumcd for tcsts by Yokcl et (11.
u;:,=1890 psi; E,,, = 1500 ksi:f ; = 60 ksi; E, = 29 500 ksi).
In a subsequent section of the paper, test data are
analyzed according to the principles stated earlier but
no strain gradient factor is applied even though it would
improve the agreement of theory and data. Yokel el ~ l .
(1971) presented the equations of statics for unrein-
forced masonry sections including a constant strain
gradient factor, but before such equations or other
equivalent procedures are developed for unreinforced
and reinforced masonry the strain gradient factor clearly
has to be defined with greater precision.
Short section capacity - effect of basic assumptions
For personal use only.
The above discussion centered on the nature of the
stress-strain curve including ultimate stresses, strains,
and its shape; certain workable conclusions were reach-
ed. The effect of these conclusions on the load-
moment interaction diagram of a short column or wall
section can be examined, at least theoretically.
Effect of the ~rltirrlntestr.nirz irz cwnpr-ession
Two hypothetical cases are examined: an over-
reinforced and an under-reinforced grouted, concrete
block wall. The distinction between these cases lies in
whether Or the yields in tension llnder pure
bending conditions. While assuming a linear stress-
strain curve up to failure, the ultimate strain in com-
pression was taken as either 0'001 Or O'Oo2 for each
case; in earlier discussions, an ultimate strain of 0.001
or j;b/Eo was suggested for this particular construction
type.
The over- and under-reinforced walls are shown in
Fig. 2u and b, respectively. In the first case, the rnaxi-
mum strain has a significant effect at low eccentricities.
The lower ultimate strain also results in conservative
estimates of the pure bending Inornent capacity. The
effects on the under-reinforced wall's interaction curve,
on the other hand, are seen in Fig. 20 to be minimal.
Effect of n linear- sir-ess-strain di.stri0~rtionvs. n r-ec-
tarlg~rlarstress Block
Plotted in Fig. 3 are the load-moment interaction
diagrams for the linear and equivalent stress block
hypotheses. The ultimate compressive strain for the
linear case is 0.001 whereas the stress block compu-
89
3 50
200
,,,
,,,
50
I I
/
5o ioo 150 200 250
'rlOYEN1 ABOUT '.VEAK AXIS b lhl~-#nl
5, SholT section capacity by Yokel et (,I, Anal-
ysis: linear strcss-strain: I;:, = 1890 psi; f ; = 60 000 psi;
ultimate compl.cssivcstrain = 0.001.
tations assume 0.003, with the block defined by f;:, and
a factor of 0.85 applied to the depth to the neutiil axis;
a small reinforcement ratio was chosen for comparison.
The approximation inherent in a linear stress-strain
distribution, apart from having some experimental jus-
tification, especially for hollow concrete block masonry
(Yokel et f l / , 1970. 1971), is seen to be conservative.
On the other hand, recognition of nonlinear behaviour
as implied by appropriate stress block parameters is
clearly seen to be favourable under eccentric loads.
Slenderness effects
A moment curvature analysis modelling nonlinear-
ity, tensile strength, and material or instability failures
would probably give the best analytical prediction of
the effects of slenderness on strength. This rather com-
plex type of analysis is, however, not suitable as a
normal design procedure.
The moment magnifier procedure in the form ad-
vanced by MacGregor et n l . (1970) accounts for slen-
derness effects in reinforced concrete colulnn design.
A significant parameter in this method is the section
rigidity, El, a parameter affected by material non-
linearity, cracking, and creep. In a follow-up paper by
MacGregor et 01. (1975). the procedure was reevalu-
ated by comparing the results with those of a more
 90 CAN. J . CIV. ENG VOL. 9 , 1982

*3. *6
] TEST
or 9
' re-bars grout

THEORY
\ \mortar

damaged '
I
before test 0 e
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Queensland on 11/23/14

FIG.7. Conditions assumed for tests by Hatzinikolas

V;:,
= 1200 psi. from test results corrccted for small differ-
ence in net areas; E,,, = 1300 ksi;]'>= 60 ksi (59.5 tested);
E, = 29 500 ksi (27 700 tested).

Load ( k l p l
damaged

350
0 10 l o o t hlgh walls

X 20
For personal use only.

1 I I I

1 /12 1/6 1/4 1/3

END ECCENTRICITY ( r t I

FIG.6. Results of analysis for Yokel et rrl. tests. Mean =

1.19; coefficient of variation = 0.22; n = 26 (damaged tests
omitted).

rigorous analytical solution. Comparisons covered the

range of variables and details particular to reinforced
concrete columns. Due to this fact, these latter results
are not directly transferable to reinforced masonry. For
example, the formula for El given by MacGregor et (11.
includes a contribution from the concrete area in the
form of a factor, EclG,and another contribution from
the steel, E,l,,where E, and E, are the moduli of elas-
ticity of concrete and steel respectively, IG is the inertia Moment (kip - i n ) about Weak AXIS 6
of the gross concrete section, and 1, is the inertia con-
tribution due to the steel. When the steel is placed along FIG.8. Shoit wall capacity for tests by Hatzinikolas.
opposite edges, the second component can be signifi-
cant. For typical reinforced masonry walls, however, (Turkstra and Ojinaga 1976, 1978; Ojinaga and
the sole steel layer would probably be placed in the Turkstra 1980) dealing with the slenderness problem in
center of the cross section and therefore be considered unreinforced masonry, the moment magnifier theory
ineffective in the latter formulation. A variation on the was found to have some shortcomings and a more direct
basic moment magnifier method was presented by approach was suggested. Based on this work, the fol-
Hatzinikolas ( 1978) for reinforced masonry. The major lowing formulas defining the effective inertia near fail-
difference with the above lay in defining the critical ure are advanced for reinforced members.
member capacity, PC,,as a function of the eccentricity For single curvature bending, 0 5 e l l e l 5 + I,
of loading and of the tensile strength of masonry.
Alternatively, in previous work by the authors
 OJINAGA AND TURKSTRA

MEAN : 167 COV r 0.42 4 3 TESTS

MEAN = 1 50 COV r 0 32 TESTS WITH e,/e2? 0
THEORY
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Queensland on 11/23/14

1 2 3 4 5 5 _1 .1/2 0 t1

&
OE TESTS END ECCENTRICITY RATIO, =,/el

FIG. 9. Results of analysis for tests by Hatzinikolas.

For personal use only.

or more conservatively, contributions to the lateral deflection from the first

1 if any, the maximum bending moment acting along the
4 [IENDI+ [END?]
and for double curvature bending, - I 5 ellel r 0,
41 [I,,,,, + 2lcr + I1
[2] I,,,. = lesser of 1
4 [[END?+ 21cr + II
where lENDl = inertia of the net section at the top or
bottom end taking eccentricity into account, I,,,? =
same as above for end 2 , I = net section inertia includ-
ing the contribution, if any, of steel area transformed to
equivalent masonry, and I,, = section inertia under pure
moment.
These formulas are based on an idealized failure pat-
tern for a member under single or double curvature
bending (Ojinaga and Turkstra 1980). Use of I,, implies
that, in the limit, the inertia at the critical section just
prior to failure is at least equal to the value of the pure
moment. The steel can contribute to the inertia even if
it is in the middle of the cross section because, when the
eccentricity of the load cracks the section, the centroid
moves away from the center of the steel. For colunlns,
the steel can again contribute significantly, as noted
previously.
The proposal is to use the effective inertia given by
[ l ] or [2], and the initial elastic modulus of the material,
in linear elastic deflection equations that give an esti-
mate of the deflected shape near failure. Adding the
order effects due to end moments and transverse loads,
- can be computed. The combina-
wall or column height
tion of axial load and maximum moment can then be
checked for safety against the short column strength.
Analysis of test data
The short column load-moment capacity and a
method accounting for the effects of slenderness form
the basis for predicting the ultimate strength of slender
load-bearing walls or columns. The conclusions con-
cerning these matters as outlined above are now evalu-
ated against slender concrete block walls tested by
Yokel et u l . (1970) and by Hatzinikolas (1978). Data
for short reinforced concrete masonry columns given by
Feeg et n l . (1979) are also examined. For the reasons
stated earlier, no strain gradient factor was applied for
eccentric load cases although doing so along with con-
sideration of nonlinear stress-strain behaviour would
improve the agreement of theory and test.
Analysis of tests b?~Yokel et al.
The cross section and material properties employed
in the analysis of test results by Yokel et al. (1970) are
shown in Fig. 4. Except for the initial tangent modulus,
which was not given for the grouted block system, these
were taken directly from the report. The compressive
strength is based on tests for ungrouted prisms. This
contradicts the principle stated previously of using
grouted prism tests, but is considered reasonable in this
 92 CAN. J . CIV. ENG. VOL. 9. 1982

TABLE I. Analysis of colurnn test results by k e g rri. (1979)

Thcory
ult~niatc Test
F + F ultirnatc Test
-
A, F, A,,, F,,,
(in') (kip) (in') (kip) (kip) (kip) Theory
AI. I 1.76
A1.2 1.76
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Queensland on 11/23/14

A1.3 1.76
A2.1 I .76
A2.2 I .76
A3.1 1.76
A3.2 1.76
A4.1 1.76
A4.2 1.76
B2.1 1.76
B2.2 1.76
B2.3 1.76
B2.4 1.76
B2.5 I .76
B3.1 I .76
B3.2 I .76
B3.3 I .76
B4.1 2.40
B4.2 2.40
For personal use only.

B5.1 2.40
B5.2 2.40
B6.1 3.16
B6.2 3.16
B7.1 3.00
B7.2 3.00
Dl. 1 1.76
Dl .2 I .76
D2.1 1.76

Mean
Coefficient of variation
No.r~s:f;:, = 1820 psi: area of masonry = A,,,,,, - A,; A,;,*,,,, = (l5.625)' = 244 in'; f ; = 7-9 000 x
f;:,/E,,, = 35.2 ksi.

case because of the relative strengths of the block and
the grout in the cells, and from an examination of
results for axially loaded walls not greatly affected by
slenderness. All tests were performed with one end
allowed to rotate and the othcr lying flat; the theoretical
calculations thus usecl an eccentricity ratio, e , / e ? ,equal
to -0.5, along with pinned ends.
Results of the analysis are given in Figs. 5 and 6. The
load-moment interaction curve considered an ultimate
compressive strain of 0.001, which is reasonable when
the stress-strain curves for axially tested, 10 ft high
walls are examined. The strain gradient effect is most
apparent in the 10 and 16 ft high walls where slender-
ness effects were least noted. Notwithstanding the inev-
itable scatter, the theory is appropriate, on average, for
this data set where the effective height-to-radius-of-
gyration ratio, kLlr, varied by up to about 90.
Alzalysis of tests 1?\' Hutzi~zikolas
Wall and material properties used in analyzing the
tests performed by Hatzinikolas (1978) are shown in
Fig. 7. The effective net section was deduced from
cross sectional areas referred to in the study; the corn-
pressive strength is approxiinately that obtained from
grouted unreinforced short walls. Height-to-thickness
ratios varied from about 6 to 24, with most slender
walls testcd in symmetrical single curvature. The
applied eccentricity varied up to a maximum of 3.5 in
for a nominal 8 in thick wall.
In computing effective second moments of areas for
the various loading cases, grout and block materials
were treated as one since, as noted earlier, a trans-
formed section analysis may be inappropriate due to the
transverse interaction of these two materials. The steel,
however, was transformed but no adjustment was made
 OJINAGA AND TURKSTRA
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Queensland on 11/23/14
TEST
THEORY
FIG. 10. Frequency vs. tcstltheory ratio for walls analyzed. Mean = 1.49, coefficient of variation = 0.41. 11 = 69 (2
damaged omitted); mean = 1.40, coefficient of variation = 0.33, 11 = 66 (2 damaged. and rcsults > 3 omitted).
For personal use only.
for the area of grout displaced. Interaction diagrams are
presented in Fig. 8.
Analytical results are summarized in Fig. 9. The pro-
cedure appears conservative and variability is high if
one considers all results grouped together; however, for
the critical single curvature case, comprising most test
results, both the mean test-to-theory ratio and its coeffi-
cient of variation are improved. The neglect of a strain
gradient effect andlor nonlinear behaviour, as well as
inaccuracies related to material and cross sectional
properties, can explain part of the conservatisnl noted.
Also of possible significance, especially for test cases
giving rise to expected material failures near the loaded
ends of the wall (e,/c, < O), may have been the effect
of bond beams employed at these locations.
Column tests by Feeg et al.
Feeg et al. (1979) tested some short concrete block
columns. These had a nominal 16 in square cross sec-
tion and were constructed from standard 8 in wide
blocks or special 16 in pilaster units. Most specimens
were fully grouted and the steel area varied from 0.72
to 1.29% of the gross section. The number of main
vertical bars was also a variable in this test series; the
maximun~bar size used was a number 8. Ties of several
diameters up to $ in were placed in the mortar joint
around the section or acljacent to the vertical steel.
In the present analysis, the compressive strength,
J;:, was assumed equal to the average of three fully
grouted but unreinforced columns with a height-to-
thickness ratio of about 4; this results inJ;:, = 1820 psi
(range 1690- 1920) for a gross area of 244 in'. Tcsts
on the steel indicated an average yield strength, fk, of
about 53 ksi for 40 ksi nominal and 67 ksi (2 test re-
sults) for 60 ksi nominal stccl. The initial n~odulusof
the masonry was reported at about 1500 ksi.
The comparison of test to theory is presented in
Table 1. As suggested earlier thc ultimate analytical
compressive strain was taken as j,:,/E,,, (0.0012), thus
limiting the contribution of the vertical steel to total
capacity; not considered was the favourable effect of
the ties, which was noted in the study. The maximum
load carried by the steel amounts to about 20% of total
capacity. In terms of the mcan test-to-theory ratio and
coefficient of variation. the same favourable trend
found for axially loaded specimens in the studies by
Hatzinikolas (1978) and Yokel et al. (1970) can be
noted.
Summary of cotrzj)arisotz with test res~llts
Analytical results for all wall tests are plotted in
Fig. 10. The theory is conservative especially for sym-
metrical single curvature (e,/c, = + 1 ) loading cases.
Although the degree of conservatism could be re-
duced by accounting for nonlinear behaviour including
a strain gradient effect, the theory can also be judged in
the light of moment magnifier theory results found by
MacGregor et al. (1975) for reinforced concrete col-
umns; considering short term loads, mean test-to-theory
ratios of 1.3 1 and 1.39, with corresponding coefficients
of variation of 23.5 and 25.2%, were found for two
formulas relating to the effective section rigidity, EI.
 94 CAN. J . CIV. ENG. VOL. 9, 1982
Conclusions
The major objective stated in the introduction was to
arrive at a procedure for predicting the ultimate strength
of reinforced masonry bearing walls and columns. The
two principal components of the procedure are a reason-
able estimate of the short member capacity as defined
by a load-moment interaction diagram and the reduc-
tion in strength due to slenderness.
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Queensland on 11/23/14
In defining the short section interaction diagram var-
ious factors were discussed, including the many struc-
tural forms which reinforced masonry can take, how the
compressive strength can be defined, ultimate compres-
sive strains, the effect of ties, and the different ana-
ly tical assumptions possible. Stress- strain nonlinearity
and the existence of a strain gradient effect were also
discussed. Considering the limited knowledge avail-
able, and with some experimental justification. a simple
linear analysis was proposed, with the ultimate strain in
compression equal to the compressive strength divided
by the initial tangent modulus.
The method proposed to account for slenderness
effects is based on a prior evaluation of the same prob-
lem for unreinforced masonry. Basically, the proce-
For personal use only.
dure aims at estimating the ultimate deflected shape
using a first order analysis with an effective section
rigidity, E l , that accounts for cracking and the shape of
the deflection curve.
The complete method, including definition of a short
section interaction diagram and calculation of slender-
ness effects, was applied to published test data. Empha-
sizing once again that consideration of nonlinear effects
such as strain gradient fictors would improve the pre-
diction of strength, the basic theory was found to be
conservative, especially for cases of symmetrical single
+
curvature (el/@?= 1); the fundamental axial load case
was, however, correctly modelled.
ANDERSON, D. E., and HOFFMAN, E. S. 1969. Design of
brick masonry columns. 1r1 Designing, engineering and
constructing with masonry products. International Confer-
ence on masonry structural systems, University of Texas,
pp. 94-100.
BOULT,B. F. 1979. Concrete masonry prism testing. Journal
of the American Concrete Institute, 76, pp. 513-535.
BRETTLE, H. J. 1969. Ultin~atcstrength design of reinforced
brickwork piers in compression and biaxial bending.
Uniciv Report No. R.49, University of New South Wales,
Kensington, N.S.W., Australia.
BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION. 1978. Code of practice for
structural use of masonry. Part 1, unreinforced masonry.
BS 5628, London.
CANADIAN STANDARDS ASSOCIATION. 1977. Code for the
design of concrete structures for buildings. National
Standard of Canada CAN3-A23.3-M77, Rexdale, Ont.
1978. Masonry design and construction for buildings.
National Standard of Canada CAN3-S304-M78, Rexdale,
Ont.
CRANSTON, W. B., and ROBERTS. J. J . 1976. The structural
behaviour of concrete masonry - reinforced and unrein-
forced. The Structural Engineer. 54, pp. 423-436.
DRYSDALE, R. G., SALLAM.E. A,. and KARALUK, E.
1976. Design of masonry walls and columns for com-
bined axial load and bending moment. Proceedings, First
Canadian Masonry Symposium, University of Calgary,
pp. 394-408.
ESKENAZI, A,, OJINAGA, J., and TURKSTRA, C. J. 1975.
Some mechanical properties of brick and block masonry.
Structural Masonry Series 75-2, Department of Civil En-
gineering, McGill University, Montreal, P.Q., 75 p.
FEEG, C., LONGWORTH, J., AND WARWARUK, J. 1979.
Effects of reinforcement detailing for concrete masonry
columns. Department of Civil Engineering, Structural
Engineering Report No. 76. University of Alberta,
Edmonton, Alta.
HAMID,A. A,, DRYSDALE, R. G., and HEIDEBRECHT. A. C .
1978. Effect of grouting on the strength characteristics of
concrete block masonry. Proceedings. North American
Masonry Conference, University of Colorado, Boulder,
pp. 11-1 to 11-17.
HASELTINE. B. A. 1978. A design guide for reinforced and
prestressed brickwork. Proceedings, North American
Masonry Conference, University of Colorado, Boulder,
pp. 30-2 to 30-14.
HATZINIKOLAS, M. 1978. Concrete masonry walls. Ph.D.
thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of
Alberta, Edmonton, Alta.
lNsTITUT0 DE ~ N G E N I E R1977.
~ A . Diseno y construcci6n de
estructuras de mamposteria. (Spanish.) Universida Nacio-
nal Autonoma de Mexico, Publication No. 403, Mexico,
D.F.
ISAACS,H. 1975. The ultimate compressive strength of
hollow concrete block masonry. Constructional Review,
48(2).
LYSE,1. 1933. Tests on reinforced brick masonry columns.
Journal of the American Ceramic Society, 16, pp.
584-597.
MACGREGOR, J. G., BREEN,J. E., and PFRANG, E. 0. 1970.
Design of slender concrete columns. Journal of the
American Concrete Institute, 67, pp. 6-28.
MACGREGOR, J. G., OELHAFEN. U. H.. and HAGE,S. E.
1975. A re-examination of the El value for slender col-
umns. In Reinforced concrete columns. American Concrete
Institute Publication SP-50, Paper No. SP-5-1, pp. 1-40.
MAURENBRECHER, A. H. P. 1978. Use of the prism test to
determine compressive strength of masonry. Proceedings,
North American Masonry Conference, University of
Colorado, Boulder, pp. 9 1- 1 to 9 1-1 3.
MAYES,R.L., CLOUGH,R. W., HIDALGO, P. A,, and
MCNIVEN,H. D. 1978. Seismic research on multistory
masonry buildings, University of California, Berkeley,
1972 to 1977. Proceedings. North American Masonry
Conference, University of Colorado, Boulder, pp. 53-1 to
53-19.
OJINAGA, J., and TURKSTRA, C. J . 1980. The design of plain
masonry walls. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 7,
pp. 233-242.
 OJINAGA AND TURKSTRA 95

POWELL, B., and HODGKINSON, H. R. 1976. The determina- magnifier method applied to brick walls. Proceedings. 4th
tion of stresslstrain relationship of brickwork. Proceedings. International Brick-Masonry Conference. Belgium. pp.
4th International Brick-Masonry Conference, Belgium. 4.b.3 to 4.b.3-4.
pp. 2.a.5 to 2.a.5-5. 1978. The design of plain masonry: A study of alter-
READ,J . B., and CLEMENTS, S. W. 1972. The strength of natives. Department of Civil Engineering and Applied
concrete block walls. phase 11: Under uniaxial loading. Mechanics, Structural Masonry Series No. 78-2, McGill
Technical Rept. No. 42.473, Cement and Concrete Associ- University, Montreal, Quc.
ation. London. UNIFORM BUILDING CODE.1976. International Conference of
REDMOND, T. B., and ALLEN,M. H. 1975. Compressive Building Officials, Whittier, CA.
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Queensland on 11/23/14

strength of composite brick and concrete masonry walls. I n WITHEY,M. 0 . 1934. Tests on reinforced brick masonry
Masonry: past and present. American Society for Testing columns. Proceedings, Amcrican Society for Testing Mate-
and Materials, STP 589, pp. 195-232. rials, 34, Part 11, pp. 387-405.
ROBERTS, J . J . 1975. The behaviour of vertically reinforced YOKEL,F. Y.. MATHEY,R. G., and DIKKERS, R. D. 1970.
concrete blockwork subject to lateral loading. Cement and Comprcssivc strength of slender concrete masonry walls.
Concrete Association, Technical Report 42.506, London. National Bureau of Standards, Building Science Series 33,
SELF,M. W. 1975. Structural properties of load-bearing con- Washington. DC.
crcte masonry. I n Masonry: past and prcscnt. American 197 1 . Strength of masonry walls undcr comprcssivc
Society for Testing and Materials, STP 589, pp. 233-254. and transvcrse loads. National Bureau of Standards, Build-
STRUCTURAL CLAY PRODUCTSINSTITUTE.1969. Recom- ing Science Series 34, Washington, DC.
mended practice for engineered brick masonry. McLean,
VA.
TALBOT,A. N., and ABRAMS, D. A. 1908. Tests of brick Appendix - Metric equivalents
columns and terra cotta block columns. University of 1 in = 25.4 m m
Illinois Engineering Experiment Station, Bulletin No. 27, I ft = 304.8 mm
Urbana, IL..
I pound = 4.448 N
TURKSTRA. C . , and THOMAS, G. 1978. Strain gradient effects
For personal use only.

in masonry. Proceedings, North Amcrican Masonry I kip = 4.448 kN

Conference. University of Colorado, Boulder, pp. 22-1 to I ksi = 6.89 MPa
22-2 1. 1 kip-in = 1 12.98 kN-mrn
TURKSTRA, C. J . , and OJINAGA, J. 1976. The moment- 1 psi = 6.89 kPa = 6 . 8 9 x lo-' N / m m 2