10th IMC

th
10 International Masonry Conference
G. Milani, A. Taliercio and S. Garrity (eds.)
Milan, Italy, July 9-11, 2018

OUT-OF-PLANE BEHAVIOUR OF IN-PLANE DAMAGED MASONRY

INFILLS STRENGTHENED USING FIBRE REINFORCED MATRIX
N. Ismail1, T. El-Maaddawy2, N. Khattak2, K.Q. Walsh3, and J.M. Ingham4
1
School of Engineering Technology, Wellington Institute of Technology,
Wellington, New Zealand. najif.ismail@weltec.ac.nz
2
Civil and Environmental Engineering, UAE University,
Al Ain, United Arab Emirates. tamer.maaddawy@uaeu.ac.ae, nouman@uaeu.ac.ae
3
Civil & Environmental Engineering & Earth Sciences, University of Notre Dame,
Indiana, USA. kq.walsh@gmail.com
4
Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Auckland,
Auckland, New Zealand. j.ingham@aukland.ac.nz

Keywords: Out-of-plane, Residual, Strength, Damaged, Infill, Fibre reinforced, Matrix.

Abstract. Buildings constructed of reinforced concrete frames with masonry infill (RCFMI) are
comprised of unreinforced masonry walls that are tightly infilled into the space between the reinforced
concrete frames. Poor seismic performance of RCFMI buildings has been observed during past earth-
quakes and it has been repeatedly acknowledged that damage to masonry infills, in many cases, re-
stricted the subsequent use of the buildings despite the main frames having sustained no more than
minor structural damage. Partial or complete out-of-plane (OOP) collapse of masonry infills has also
been frequently observed following large earthquakes, often causing collateral damage to surrounding
properties and injuries to passers-by. Despite these concerns, limited literature exists on the residual
OOP strength of in-plane (IP) damaged infill walls, particularly those that have been strengthened
using fibre reinforced matrix (FRCM) prior to the earthquake. Therefore, an experimental program
was undertaken to evaluate the residual OOP capacity of IP damaged FRCM strengthened infill walls
constructed using un-grouted unreinforced hollow core concrete masonry. A total of eight single bay
RCFMI assemblies were constructed, including one non-retrofitted control specimen and with the re-
mainder strengthened by applying diagonally oriented FRCM bands with varying widths onto both
wall faces. The variables investigated were FRCM type and width of the applied FRCM band. The
RCFMI assemblies were subjected to reversed cyclic displacement-controlled IP loading gradually
increasing to 1% storey drift, to develop damage that would be expected from a moderate earthquake.
The IP damaged RCFMI assemblies were then subjected to gradually increasing OOP loading to as-
sess their residual capacity. Performance metrics that were observed and measured included observed
damage patterns, failure mechanisms, force-displacement response, displacement ductility, and stiff-
ness characteristics.

© 2018 The International Masonry Society (IMS).

Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of 10th ICM.

2200
 Najif Ismail, Tamer El-Maaddawy, Nouman Khattak, Kevin Q. Walsh and Jason M. Ingham

1 INTRODUCTION
Reinforced concrete frames with hollow core concrete masonry infill (RCFMI) panels con-
structed in full contact with the frame have been widely used in low to high seismic risk re-
gions around the world as the main lateral load resisting system in residential apartment,
industrial, and commercial buildings. Despite having a significant influence on the seismic
behaviour of a RCFMI building, in the majority of pre-1980s non-ductile RCFMI buildings,
these infills were either neglected in the design or had not been designed to sustain the seis-
mic forces which they may be subjected to due to their stiffness. It is now widely acknowl-
edged that, in addition to in-plane (IP) loads, out-of-plane (OOP) loading may result in partial
or complete collapse (see Fig. 1b) of infill panels, with this effect exacerbated when an infill
panel pre-damaged in the IP direction is subsequently subjected to OOP loading or when the
infill panel experiences concurrent IP and OOP loading. The OOP collapse of the infill, with
shedding of masonry into streets or egress routes, poses a significant safety hazard to passer-
by and occupants of the building.
One option to alleviate the hazard described above is the introduction of a strengthening in-
tervention capable of delaying the onset of IP damage and allowing a controlled ductile fail-
ure mode. Such an infill strengthening intervention is thus expected to increase strength,
displacement capacity, and energy-dissipation capacity, and to decrease the rate of strength
degradation. Numerous strengthening techniques have been developed and used over time to
limit damage to infill panels in RCFMI buildings. One relatively new composite material is
fibre reinforced cementitious matrix (FRCM), which consists of high strength dry fibre grid
embedded within an inorganic cementitious matrix. In this system, the matrix used to transfer
stresses between the substrate and the surface applied fibre grid reinforcement has been re-
ported to outperform epoxy-based organic matrices used in conventional fibre reinforced pol-
ymer applications [1]. The development of FRCM is advancing rapidly and several technical
articles have been published on its performance in the last few decades (e.g. [2] and [3]).
However, the seismic performance of FRCM strengthened RCFMI is not well established in
the previous experimental research. In particular, literature on the performance of FRCM
strengthened masonry infill panels when subjected to sequential IP-OOP loading is scarce.
Hence, an experimental program to investigate the OOP behaviour of IP-damaged FRCM
strengthened hollow core concrete masonry infill panels (referred to as infill panels hereafter)
was undertaken in this study.

Joint shear
Lateral loading Rebar pullout
Beam hinging Veneer OOP failure
Corner crushing

Column Diagonal tension

cracking Joint sliding

Stair cracking/sliding

Infill OOP failure

Frame-infill separation

(a). RCFMI damage patterns (b). OOP failure of masonry infills during the 2009
L’Aquila earthquake [4]
Figure 1: IP and OOP damage of masonry infilled frames.

2201
 Najif Ismail, Tamer El-Maaddawy, Nouman Khattak, Kevin Q. Walsh and Jason M. Ingham

An infill panel subjected to IP loading can exhibit a sliding shear, diagonal cracking, or toe
crushing failure mode (see Figure 1a). The governing failure mode is likely to be influenced
by the mechanical characteristics of the infill masonry and the bounding concrete frame, the
infill aspect ratio, and the infill boundary conditions. Sliding shear occurs along mortar joints
(either along a bed joint or a diagonal stair-step joint) when a combination of weak mortar and
strong bricks are used, whereas diagonal cracking through masonry units and mortar is likely
to occur when the principal tensile stress at the centroid of a panel having strong mortar and
weak bricks reaches the masonry modulus of rupture. Such tensile cracking propagates from
the centre region towards the loaded corners along a diagonal orientation. In a flexure domi-
nated failure modes, rocking to high drift levels can lead to crushing at the compressed corner.
Numerous studies have investigated the OOP behaviour of infill panels both experimental-
ly and analytically. Timoshenko [5] proposed using the theory of elastic-plate analysis, which
was later modified by others (e.g. [6-8]) to incorporate two-way action by using the modified
yield-line approach. However, both the elastic-plate analysis and the yield line approach re-
lied on the tensile strength of masonry that is only physically active until crack initiation and
therefore fails to explain the high resistance to OOP forces beyond first cracking, (i.e., in the
non-linear range). Thomas [9] introduced the concept of arching action based on the results of
an experimental program, which was validated in several subsequent studies (e.g. [10-11]).
The results of the above mentioned studies led to one-way spanning masonry beam idealisa-
tion with rigid supports being used widely to represent the arching effect analytically. Dawe
and Seah [12] studied OOP behaviour of nine hollow core concrete masonry infilled steel
frames using finite element analysis and pseudo-static testing. The results of their study sug-
gested that masonry compressive strength, infill panel dimensions, and frame rigidity have
significant effects on the OOP behaviour of infill panels and on the governing damage pat-
terns.
In general, the seismic behaviour of un-damaged infill panels has been well researched but
the OOP behaviour of pre-damaged infill panels is not yet well–understood. Abrams et al. [13]
reported experimental program involving OOP testing of eight full-scale RCFMI assemblies,
with infills constructed using clay bricks and hollow core concrete masonry. Based on exper-
imental results, OOP strength reduction factors were proposed to be used accounting for prior
IP damage. However, these factors were determined based on limited test results and one of
the recommendations of the study was to study this aspect further. The OOP strength descent
due to prior damage was noted to be significant when infill walls were slender, which was at-
tributed to the absence of arching action. Henderson et al. [14] investigated the effect of se-
quential bidirectional loading and reported OOP damage to cause significant IP stiffness
degradation but otherwise to have limited effect on IP strength. Whereas, prior in-plane dam-
age (0.4% drift) reduced the OOP capacity by 20% and increased the OOP deformation by
65% at the same magnitude of applied OOP force when compared to that from the one tested
un-damaged.
Calvi and Bolognini [15] also performed sequential IP-OOP tests on RCFMI assemblies
containing hollow clay brick infill panels by first loading test assemblies up to two IP drift
levels, being 0.1-0.4% (corresponding to serviceability limit state or immediate occupancy
performance criteria) and 1.2% (corresponding to ultimate limit state or life safety perfor-
mance criteria). The IP damaged infill panels were then loaded in OOP direction until col-
lapse on a shake table. The analogous pseudo-acceleration required to induce OOP collapse in
undamaged infill panels was 2.5 g, which was reduced by 73% and 82% when tested after
been loaded to an IP drift of 0.4% and 1.2% respectively. Some other studies [e.g. 4, 16-21]
have also performed OOP testing of IP damaged infill panels, resulting in similar results.

2202
 Najif Ismail, Tamer El-Maaddawy, Nouman Khattak, Kevin Q. Walsh and Jason M. Ingham

Few experimental programs also investigated the behaviour of RCFMI assemblies when
subjected to concurrent IP-OOP loading. Flanagan and Bennett [22] studied the simultaneous
application of IP and OOP forces to structural clay tile masonry infilled steel frames. Com-
bined effect of thrust force due to OOP loading and strut mechanism due to IP loading caused
crushing of tiles in the bottom course, resulting in OOP capacity reduction of 43%. Even after
notable damage, the infill panels remained stable and continued to sustain more damage until
OOP collapse. Komaranemi et al. [23] tested three half-scaled clay brick RCFMI assemblies
by subjecting these to slow cyclic IP displacement cycles and OOP ground motions using
shake table. The infill panels were reported to maintain structural integrity and remain stable
in OOP direction even when severely damaged. In-plane damaged infill panels were noted to
exhibit OOP rocking leading to OOP collapse, which was attributed to displacement instabil-
ity rather than fracture under inertial forces.
Da porto et al. [17] studied the behaviour of non-ductile FRCM strengthened RCFMI as-
semblies under sequential IP-OOP loading. The experimental program involved testing of
eight full scale strengthened RCFMI assemblies. The strengthening systems considered were:
1). special lime-based plaster with geo-polymer binder; 2). FRCM without anchors; and 3).
FRCM anchored to the surrounding frame. The specimens were subjected to first IP cyclic
loading (with the drift amplitude gradually increased up to 1.2%) and then to a monotonic
OOP loading applied to destruction. It was concluded that application of special plasters and
FRCM strengthening systems did not significantly change the initial stiffness or maximum IP
resistance of the reference frame but significantly improved the deformation capacity, energy
dissipation capacity, and strength retention.

2 EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
The performance of FRCM systems containing three different fibre reinforcements (i.e. al-
kali resistant glass, carbon, and basalt) as a seismic strengthening solution was investigated
herein. An experimental program involved sequential IP-OOP testing of eight RCFMI assem-
blies, consisting of one as-built control specimen and seven specimens strengthened using
varying FRCM configurations. The test assemblies were first subjected to quasi-static IP cy-
clic loading to create known level of IP damage, representing ultimate strength limit state
event loading. Afterwards, the IP-damaged RCFMI assemblies were subjected to a gradually
increasing monotonic OOP load. This represented a situation when a RCFMI pre-damaged
during a large earthquake experiences an aftershock with an orientation perpendicular to the
main event, such as that observed during the 2010/2011 Christchurch earthquake sequence
[18]. The OOP load was applied monotonically at four points wherein each load point was
located at the middle third of the length as well as height of the infill panel.

2.1 Test assembly details

A single story high one bay non-ductile ordinary moment resisting reinforced concrete
frame with hollow core concrete masonry infill was selected as a prototype structure to repli-
cate details prevalent in non-ductile RCFMI buildings. Test assemblies were chosen to be
two-third scale models representing a single interior bay of a 3-4 story high RCFMI building.
Typical reinforcement detailing adopted in non-ductile RCFMI buildings built prior to the in-
troduction of the modern seismic design provisions (i.e. pre-1980s) was used. The infill bay
aspect ratio (length to height ratio) of 1.4 and frame to infill strength ratio (Vframe/Vinfill) of 0.7
was selected, representing a strong frame-weak infill configuration. Test assembly geometry,
reinforcement details, and strain gage locations are shown in Figure 2. The test assemblies
were given the notation IF-N or RFX-Y-N. Where I refers to infilled; F refers to frame; R re-

2203
 Najif Ismail, Tamer El-Maaddawy, Nouman Khattak, Kevin Q. Walsh and Jason M. Ingham

fers to retrofitted; X represents fibre type i.e. basalt (B), carbon (C), and glass (G); Y denotes
FRCM configuration; and N denotes test number. Table 1 provides the test specimens details.
A

3D12 2D12 170

200 R6-130 2D12

330
R6-130 3D12
Strain Gauges

2300 1670 1670

B C

2270
R10-200
Cavity for anchors 2D12 3D16
R10-200 2D12

3D16 300
D - Deformed bars (Grade 500)
R - Round bars (Grade 300) Section A
N.T.S
170 R6-130 R6-130
R6-130 6D12 230
6D12 6D12
830 230 2270 230 830
4390 170
Section B Section C
N.T.S N.T.S

Figure 2: Test assembly geometry (in mm), and reinforcement details with location of strain gauges.

S. No Test panel FRCM FRCM band width FRCM thickness FRCM thickness
type (mm) (mm) (mm)
1 BF-1 - - - -
2 IF-2 - - - -
3 RFG-D3-3 AR Glass 986 10 15
4 RFG-D6-4 AR Glass 493 10 15
5 RFC-D3-5 Carbon 986 10 15
6 RFC-D6-6 Carbon 493 10 15
7 RFB-D3-7 Basalt 986 10 15
8 RFB-D6-8 Basalt 493 10 15
9 RFB-FU-9 Basalt Full face 10 15
Table 1: Test specimen details.

2.2 Material properties

Deformed steel reinforcement bars having a nominally specified diameter of 12 mm (D12)
and a tensile yield strength of 500 MPa were used as longitudinal bars, whereas round steel
reinforcement bars with 6 mm (R6) nominal specified diameter and a yield strength of
270 MPa were used as transverse reinforcement. The steel bars used were tested for tensile
strength in accordance with ASTM-A615 [24]. Ready-mixed concrete having a nominal
strength of 25 MPa was used to construct the concrete elements of the RCFMI assemblies.
Fifteen cylinders, each being 150 mm in diameter and 300 mm high, were casted from each
batch of concrete mixture delivered. Of these, ten were tested for 28 days compression
strength in accordance with ASTM-C39 [25] whilst the remaining five replicate cylinders

2204
 Najif Ismail, Tamer El-Maaddawy, Nouman Khattak, Kevin Q. Walsh and Jason M. Ingham

were tested for indirect tensile strength in accordance with ASTM-C496 [26]. The concrete
slump was determined in accordance with ASTM-C143 [27], which was found to be 115 mm.
Two concrete cores of 100 mm diameter were taken from each tested RCFMI assembly us-
ing a Hilti diamond coring tool DD 120. The drilled cores were caped using sulphur and were
tested for compression strength in accordance with ASTM C42 [28]. Hollow core concrete
masonry infill panels were constructed following a staggered stack bond pattern using a ce-
ment-sand mortar with a by volume ratio of 1:3. The masonry mortar was used to fill the gap
between the masonry infill and the top beam, whilst the masonry was constructed hard against
columns. The concrete masonry units were 400×200×150 mm3 in size and had a void to gross
area ratio of 0.4. Five masonry units were tested for compression strength in accordance with
ASTM-C140 [29]. The masonry units exhibited splitting failure associated to tensile rupture
of the webs connecting the two faces rather than crushing. Three replicate 50 mm cubes were
casted from each batch of masonry mortar mixed, which were tested for compression strength
in accordance with ASTM-C109 [30]. Constituent concrete, masonry, steel reinforcement,
and mortar properties are shown in Table 2.

Material Concrete D12 bars R6 bars Masonry Matrix

Property fʹc fʹcd fʹct Ec fy fu fy fu fʹb fʹj fʹcj
(units) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (GPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
ASTM C39 C42 C496 - A615 A615 A615 A615 C140 C109 C109
standard
No. of tests 10 18 05 - 03 03 03 03 05 05 15
Average 25.7 26.0 2.15 23.8 513 662 274 302 7.23 4.53 43.1
CoV (%) 11.2 7.40 4.60 - 6.21 3.24 4.21 3.21 9.20 4.10 4.03
Where: fʹc = concrete cylinder compressive strength; fʹcd = compressive strength of drilled concrete cores;
fʹct = concrete split cylinder tensile strength; Ec = concrete modulus of elasticity; fy = steel tensile yield strength;
fu = steel ultimate tensile strength; fʹb = masonry unit compressive strength; fʹj = mortar compressive strength;
f′cj = compressive strength of FRCM matrix; and CoV = coefficient of variation.
Table 2: Mechanical properties of concrete, steel, masonry, and FRCM matrix.

Three different types of FRCM systems were used to strengthen the RCFMI assemblies,
with each FRCM system consisting of a reinforcement fabric woven of dry fibres and a ce-
mentitious matrix. The types of fibre fabric used included alkali resistant (AR) glass, carbon,
and basalt. The cementitious matrix derives strength from hydration of cementitious and poz-
zolonic materials and was reinforced using polyvinyl fibres to allow thicker application with-
out shrinkage/temperature cracking. Typically, three matrix cubes were casted for each batch
of prepared FRCM matrix, which were later tested for compression strength. Physical charac-
teristics of FRCM materials are given in Table 3.

Fabric ρf ρm tr Ft εu Ef f′cj (MPa)

Type (g/m2) (g/cm3) (mm) (kN/m) (%) (GPa) Mean CoV
Glass 420 2.50 0.09 105 2.0 32 40.0 4.9
Carbon 170 1.83 0.05 240 2.0 252 50.9 1.7
Basalt 250 2.75 0.04 60 1.8 89 38.5 5.5

Where: ρf = density of fabric in g/m2; ρm = density of fibre; tr = approximate thickness of a fabric roving;
Ft = tensile strength of fibre grid per running meter; εu = rupture strain of the fabric; Ef = fabric modulus of elas-
ticity; f′cj = compressive strength of FRCM matrix; and CoV = coefficient of variation.
Table 3: Mechanical properties of FRCM fibres and matrix.

2205
 Najif Ismail, Tamer El-Maaddawy, Nouman Khattak, Kevin Q. Walsh and Jason M. Ingham

2.3 Strengthening application

RCFMI assemblies were left for curing for 28 days and then their surface was cleaned and
brought to saturated surface dry condition (see Fig. 5a). The two-component matrix was pre-
pared by mixing the liquid and dry components continuously for 3-5 minutes until a con-
sistent thixotropic consistency was achieved (see Fig. 5b). Approximately 7-10 mm thick
matrix layer was uniformly applied onto the substrate surface (see Fig. 5c) using a flat metal
trowel. The fibre fabric was cut (see Fig. 5d) in appropriate sizes and lightly pressed into wet
matrix layer. The second finishing layer of 5-7 mm thick matrix was then applied, and surface
was trowel finished to ensure consistent thickness (see Fig. 5e) of approximately 12-15 mm.
An overlap splicing of 152 mm was used as suggested by ACI-549 [31], if required. The
strengthened RCFMI assemblies (see Fig. 5f) were left to cure in ambient condition for an-
other 28 days prior to testing.

(a). prior to strengthening (b). FRCM matrix mixing (c). first matrix layer

(d). FRCM textile cutting (e). final matrix layer (f). strengthened RCFMI
Figure 5: Strengthening of test assemblies.

2.4 Test setup details

The foundation beam of RCFMI assemblies was anchored to strong floor using M20 an-
chors and two custom made steel safety frames were fabricated in OOP direction to provide
lateral restraint to the test assemblies. A rigid steel posttensioning yoke, two 32 mm diameter
high strength threaded steel rods, and a steel roller (placed between the yoke and the column
top) were used to apply an axial load of 120 kN to each column to represent gravity load on
each column equivalent to the load of three stories. Each posttensioned threaded rod was
locked at the top end above the posttensioning yoke and at the bottom to a hinge mounted
steel tie-down yoke, which were further anchored to the strong floor.
A 500 kN hydraulic cylinder and a 500 kN load cell were used to stress the posttensioning
threaded rods. The IP loading was applied to the top beam of the test assemblies using a
500 kN capacity servo-hydraulic actuator mounted to a 2000 kN capacity rigid steel reaction
frame. The actuator had a built-in load cell and a set of four displacement transducers. The
actuator swivel head was connected to two 50 mm thick steel plates using four threaded steel

2206
 Najif Ismail, Tamer El-Maaddawy, Nouman Khattak, Kevin Q. Walsh and Jason M. Ingham

rods, with one steel plate placed on each end of the top beam of the test assembly (see Fig. 6a).
Of the commonly used loading histories e.g. those proposed by ATC-24 [32] and FEMA-461
[33], the loading history proposed by FEMA-461 [33] was adopted for the IP testing herein.
After IP testing, the actuator and IP loading assembly was removed whilst the column axial
load was retained. The OOP loading assembly consisted of a spreader steel assembly, a
500 kN hydraulic cylinder, and a 500 kN load cell (see Fig. 6b). At loading assembly-infill
contact points, square/cuboid wooden pieces were glued. The four contact points were located
at the middle third of the masonry infill wall (see Fig. 6c). For OOP tests, a gradually increas-
ing monotonic load was applied at a load rate manually maintained to roughly 0.01 mm/sec.
Test was frequently paused to check/note damage development.
For IP testing, the lateral displacement was measured using three linear variable displace-
ment transducers (LVDT) attached at the bottom, mid-height and top of the test assembly.
The top lateral displacement was calculated by subtracting the sliding (if any) measured using
the bottom LVDT from the lateral displacement measured using the top most LVDT.

Rigid Reaction 830 230 2270

900
230 830

Frame Post-tensioning yoke

Post-tensioning yoke
Swivel head 25mm thick MS plate
Actuator Rollers
Load Cell
32Ø threaded bars
50 thick MS plate Lateral supports 50 thick MS plate

557
757 757 757
100

Coupler 857 Coupler

657

557
100

32Ø threaded bars 32Ø threaded bars

100
Anchor rods 100x100 RHS
557

100x100 RHS
Hinge Steel Plate Hinge

STRONG FLOOR
Tie-down yokes Tie-down yokes

(a). IP loading arrangement

Wooden
Piece
Load Cell
LVDT-1 LVDT-2

Cage Jack
LDS

LVDT-3 LVDT-4

Hinges

(b). OOP loading arrangement (c). Location of LVDT at loading points

Figure 6: Test setup details (in mm).

2207
 Najif Ismail, Tamer El-Maaddawy, Nouman Khattak, Kevin Q. Walsh and Jason M. Ingham

For OOP testing, 4 LVDTs having a gage length of 200 mm were mounted near each con-
tact point to measure displacement at the loaded face (see Fig. 6c). One draw-wire displace-
ment transducer was installed exactly at the mid-point of the masonry infill on the rear face.
Tensile strain in steel reinforcement bars at potential hinge regions was monitored throughout
the testing using 5 mm long steel strain gages.

3 TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Test results for both IP load test and OOP load test are presented in Table 4. The IP testing
was only continued to a maximum in-plane drift of 0.8% - 1.25% for strengthened specimen
and peak strength and post peak behaviour had not been obtained. The IP testing replicated
the damage these frames would have underwent during a large main earthquake event. Read-
ers are cautioned that the IP loads reported in the Table 4 are not the ultimate IP strengths.

Test assembly IP Testing OOP Testing

Vu,i Δu,i Vcr,o Vu,o pu,o Δu,o Ki,o
S. No Test Panel V/Vo V/Vo
(kN) (%) (kN) (kN) (kPa) (mm) (kN/mm)
1 BF-1 58 2.5 - - - - - - -
2 IF-2 168 2.0 - 24.0 45.70 - 12.05 26.63 10.04
3 RFG-D3-3 206 1.2 1.23 26.0 75.81 1.7 19.99 9.93 13.0
4 RFG-D6-4 221 0.8 1.31 28.0 90.42 2.0 23.85 9.13 46.7
5 RFC-D3-5 236 0.8 1.40 25.0 88.68 1.9 23.39 9.27 31.3
6 RFC-D6-6 231 0.8 1.38 20.0 85.18 1.9 22.47 17.31 16.1
7 RFB-D3-7 290 0.8 1.73 30.0 86.05 1.9 22.7 9.33 25.0
8 RFB-D6-8 335 0.8 1.99 20.0 76.81 1.7 20.26 3.84 65.0
9 RFB-FU-9 258 0.6 1.53 31.0 91.67 2.0 24.18 6.13 56.4

Where: Vu,i = maximum recorded IP load; Δu,i = maximum IP displacement; V/Vo= retrofitted frame to as-built
frame strength ratio; Vcr,o = OOP cracking load; Vu,o = maximum OOP load; pu,o = maximum OOP pressure; and
Δu,o = average maximum OOP displacement; Ki,o = initial OOP stiffness.
Table 4: Experimental IP and OOP results.

3.1 Induced IP damage

In as-built tested RCFMI assembly, crack opening at the infill-frame interface was noted dur-
ing the 0.3% drift cycle, following which a stair shape crack was noted during the 0.6% drift
cycle. At a drift of 1.0% new diagonal cracks were noted in the infill. The infill underwent
further cracking during subsequent drift cycles until shear sliding along the bed joint one
course above the infill mid height was noted at during 1.75% drift cycle.
In general, in all FRCM strengthened specimens, cracking initiated at the bottom masonry-
frame interface characterised by infill-frame separation. This separation crack was noticed at a
lateral drift of about 0.4-0.6% in each of the strengthened specimens. Other typical damage
patterns observed during IP testing were cracking (mostly diagonal) in the surface of FRCM
mortar at the location where FRCM crossed the mortar joints located in closer to the infill
centroid. The number of cracks reduced as the FRCM band width increased, which was at-
tributed to stress re-distribution inside FRCM matrix whilst restraining crack openings in the
substrate. Slippage at FRCM-masonry interface, fibre rupture, or deboning of FRCM was not
observed in any of the tests, however signs of slippage at fibre-matrix interface was noticed in
specimens strengthened with carbon and glass FRCM. In specimen RFB-FU-9, only minor
crack was noted during the IP testing at the bottom infill-frame interface at a lateral drift of
0.6%. Figure 7 shown the induced IP damage at the beginning of OOP testing.

2208
 Najif Ismail, Tamer El-Maaddawy, Nouman Khattak, Kevin Q. Walsh and Jason M. Ingham

(a). RFG-D3-3 (b). RFG-D6-4 (c). RFC-D3-5

(d). RFC-D6-6 (e). RFB-D3-7 (f). RFB-D6-8

Figure 7: IP damage noted at the beginning of OOP testing (values shown are % drift).

3.2 Observed OOP damage patterns and force-displacement response

Observed crack patterns during OOP testing are shown in Figure 8. The observed cracks
have been classified into three types: horizontal cracks, vertical cracks, and diagonal cracks.
OOP load-displacement curves for test specimens are shown in Figure 9, where the horizontal
axis represents the average OOP displacement recorded using the five LVDTS and the verti-
cal axis represents total force applied through the loading assembly. The crack initiation
points were also plotted on the load-displacement curves.
In the as-built tested frame, a horizontal crack developed in bed joint immediately above
the mid height at a lateral OOP load of 24 kN. This is when arching action (since the wall was
shorter in vertical direction) started to play its role, which was confirmed from noted increase
in strain values measured from gages installed onto reinforcement steel inside the top beam.
At a lateral load of 38 kN and a displacement of 16.2 mm, crushing of vertical mortar joints
was also observed in the central region of the infill, evidencing two-way bending action. At a
displacement of 23.7 mm, compressive crushing of concrete masonry units was noted in the
bottom courses. OOP strength dropped to 30 kN at a deflection of 26.6 mm when crushing of
masonry was evident (see Fig. 9a). The deflection in top beam was much larger than that in
columns (stiffened due to applied axial loads) and therefore masonry crushing in horizontal
direction was more severe than vertical direction. After this deflection, continuous decline in
OOP strength was noted until large masonry fragments slid along mortar joints and collapsed
outwards. The observed damage patterns in as-built tested RCFMI are shown in Figure 8a.
FRCM cracking in RFG-D3-3 was noted at OOP load of 26 kN and mid-region displace-
ment of 2 mm, with horizontal cracking in mortar bed joint immediately above mid-height
also noted. FRCM reinforcement, acting in tension, resisted further crack opening. At an OOP
load of 53 kN, a horizontal crack opened in mortar joint immediately below mid-height. The-
se cracks further widened, and few new horizontal cracks developed in vicinity of existing
cracks when OOP loading was further increased. This indicated that the vertical arching was
in action. However, closer to the conclusion of OOP test, some vertical or slightly diagonal
cracks due to horizontal arching mechanism were also noticed (see Fig. 8b).

2209
 Najif Ismail, Tamer El-Maaddawy, Nouman Khattak, Kevin Q. Walsh and Jason M. Ingham

Bed Joint Opening

Sliding
Masonry Crushing
opening
(a). IF-2 (b). RFG-D3-3 (c). RFG-D6-4

(d). RFC-D3-5 (e). RFC-D6-6 (f). RFB-D3-7

(g). RFB-D6-8 (h). RFB-FU-9

Figure 11: Failure patterns (values marked are in kN).

In specimen RFC-D3-5, the first horizontal crack in the surface of FRCM closer to the
mid-height appeared at an OOP load of 25 kN. After this crack the slope of the graph changed
and a vertical crack at an OOP load of 50 kN developed. At a load of 68 kN and displacement
4.6 mm some diagonal cracks appeared in the FRCM composite, which further reduced the
stiffness. New cracks appeared at the loads of 80 kN and 85 kN (see Fig. 8d).
In specimen RFC-D6-6, the first horizontal crack in the surface of FRCM appeared at load
of 20 kN, with corresponding displacement of 1.24 mm, in the bed joint location between
third and fourth course from the top. Diagonal cracks were first noted to develop in the
FRCM at 50 kN and some vertical cracks in masonry were first observed at lateral loading of
75 kN (see Fig. 8e). In specimen RFB-D3-7, horizontal cracks in FRCM appeared at the loca-
tion where it crossed the bed joints immediately above and below the mid height at applied
OOP loads of 30 kN and 50 kN, respectively. Some minor vertical cracks in FRCM at the lo-
cation of head joints were also noticed. Further horizontal cracks were observed to develop
near existing horizontal cracks at an applied OOP load of 80-85 kN (see Fig. 8f).
In specimen RFB-D6-8, a diagonal crack first appeared in the FRCM at a lateral load of
20 kN that could be noticed in the load-displacement curve as the point where the slope of
force-displacement curve changed. Another diagonal crack appeared on opposite side of the
first crack at a load of 26 kN (see Fig. 8g). At a lateral load of 42 kN a diagonal and a vertical
crack were observed causing stiffness degradation noted in the force displacement curve. Ob-
served crack patterns in RFB-D6-8 are shown in Figure 8g. Test assembly RFB-FU-9 (which
had no visible damage), behaved more like a tilt up reinforced slab showing two way bending

2210
 Najif Ismail, Tamer El-Maaddawy, Nouman Khattak, Kevin Q. Walsh and Jason M. Ingham

action. The first micro horizontal crack in the surface of FRCM appeared at load of 31 kN,
which was located at mid-height. Diagonal cracking was noted to initiate at 60 kN that fol-
lowed extension of existing cracks further towards diagonal corners on further loading. The
damage development and crack patterns observed in test assembly RFB-FU-9 are shown in
Figure 8h.

(a). IF -2 (b). RFG-D3-3 (c). RFG-D6-4

(d). RFC-D3-5 (e). RFC-D6-6 (f). RFB-D3-7

(g). RFB-D6-8 (h). RFB-FU-9

Figure 9: Experimental force-displacement curves.

Figures 10a and 10b show the combined push-over curves obtained from IP and OOP testing,
respectively. Abrams et al. [13] proposed Equation 1 to estimate the residual OOP strength of
IP damaged infill walls in RCFMI assemblies.

(1)

where = a dimensionless parameter calculated as a function of the wall slenderness ratio

(h/t); R1 = reduction factor accounting for prior in-plane damage (calculated using Eq. 2); and
R2 = reduction factor for bounding frame stiffness (calculated using Eq. 3).

2211
 Najif Ismail, Tamer El-Maaddawy, Nouman Khattak, Kevin Q. Walsh and Jason M. Ingham

(2)

(3)

(4)

where Δ = the maximum in-plane inter-storey drift experienced by RCFMI assembly;

Δcr = cracking drift; and EI = the flexural stiffness of the smallest member of the surrounding
reinforced concrete frame. The analytical method [13] overestimated the OOP capacity (i.e.
28 kPa) for the as-built tested RCFMI assembly, which was 2.3 times the experimental value
(i.e.12 kPa).

(a). IP testing (b). OOP testing

Figure 10: Combined IP and OOP pushover curves.

3.3 OOP stiffness

Figure 11a show the maximum recorded OOP displacement. The OOP stiffness of infills
was calculated as the secant modulus to the point on load–displacement curve corresponding
to crack development, which was determined to occur at an approximate OOP deflection of
0.5-0.6 mm. Figure 11b shows curves for secant stiffness of FRCM strengthened and as-built
tested RCFMI assemblies at different damage states. It can be noted that the FRCM strength-
ened RCFMI assemblies exhibited higher initial stiffness compared to that tested without
FRCM strengthening but a steep stiffness degradation was noted to directly relate to damage
level noted.

4 CONCLUSIONS
An experimental program was undertaken to investigate the effect of FRCM strengthening
on structural performance of RCFMI assemblies when subjected to sequential IP-OOP load-
ing. For this purpose, a total of eight (two-third scaled) non-ductile reinforced concrete frames
infilled tightly with hollow core concrete masonry were constructed, of which seven were
strengthened using FRCM. The test assemblies were first subjected to quasi-static IP cyclic
loading to a drift level to cause a known level of damage in the walls and then subjected to
sequential gradually increasing monotonic OOP loading. Three different types of fibre rein-
forcements, including alkali resistant glass, carbon and basalt, were applied to test assemblies
using varying configurations. Overall, it can be stated that FRCM was effective in improving
the seismic performance of non-ductile RCFMI buildings. The following key conclusions
were drawn based on the observations and experimental results.

2212
 Najif Ismail, Tamer El-Maaddawy, Nouman Khattak, Kevin Q. Walsh and Jason M. Ingham

(a). OOP profile (b). OOP stiffness

Figure 11: OOP profile of the infill wall at maximum load.

 Damage patterns observed during the sequential OOP testing of as-built infill confirmed
the presence of classical arching mechanism, with horizontal cracks closer to the mid-
height developing first and vertical cracks due to horizontal arching action showing up
later. Tow-way bending resulted in crushing of mortar in joints that lead to loss of arch-
ing action and masonry fragments started to collapse outward. FRCM strengthening de-
layed the onset of OOP cracking, instigated a more controlled failure mode with damage
level limited to that corresponding to a performance criterion somewhere between imme-
diate occupancy and life safety.
 Typical failure modes observed in the FRCFM strengthened specimens were cracking
(mostly diagonal) in the surface of FRCM mortar at the location where FRCM crossed
the mortar joints, with these cracks starting from the central region and then propagating
towards corners. The number of cracks were reduced as the FRCM band width was in-
creased, which was attributed to stress re-distribution inside FRCM matrix whilst re-
straining crack openings in the substrate. Slippage at FRCM-masonry interface, fibre
rupture, or deboning of FRCM was not observed in any of the tests, however signs of
slippage along the fibre-matrix interface were noticed in grids with larger openings.
 The residual OOP strength of FRCM strengthened infills ranged between 1.7-2.0 times
that of the control specimen. All FRCM types behaved similarly in composite form, irre-
spective of the strength of individual fibre girds. However, basalt fibre grid was found to
be the best amongst the three tested, which could possibly be due to the smaller opening
size of the mesh that thus provide more contact area between the fibres and the matrix.
 It can be seen in the experimental results that the increase in the width of the FRCM di-
agonal bands beyond one third of the diagonal length has no significant contribution in
increasing the lateral strength of the frames. Therefore, it can be stated that strengthening
of RCFMI assemblies can be more economically done by applying a diagonal band of
FRCM with a width equal to a fraction of the infill diagonal length instead of applying it
to the full face of the infill wall. The most efficient FRCM configuration was a band with
width equal to one-sixth of the diagonal length. This will make the strengthening process
economical.
 A much larger initial OOP stiffness was noticed for the FRCM strengthened specimens
ranging from 15 to 60 kN/mm compared to 10 kN/mm noted for as-built tested specimen.

2213
 Najif Ismail, Tamer El-Maaddawy, Nouman Khattak, Kevin Q. Walsh and Jason M. Ingham

However, the reported stiffness values were highly sensitive to the damage level and
were observed to decline sharply with increasing damage level.
 The analytical equations proposed by Abrams et al. overestimate the OOP strength of
masonry infill frames with prior infill damage (about 2.3 times).

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

Financial support for this study was provided by the United Arab Emirates University under
the research grant G00001603.

REFERENCES
[1] ACI 549.4R-13, Guide to design and construction of externally bonded fabric-
Reinforced Cementitious Matrix (FRCM) systems for repair and strengthening concrete
and masonry structure. Structural use of unreinfroced masonry. American Concrete In-
stitute: 2013.
[2] N. Ismail, J.M. Ingham, In-plane and out-of-plane testing of unreinforced masonry
walls strengthened using polymer textile reinforced mortar. Engineering Structures, 118,
167-177, 2016.
[3] O. Awani, T. El-Maaddawy, N. Ismail, Fabric-reinforced cementitious matrix: A prom-
ising strengthening technique for concrete structures. Construction and Building Mate-
rials, 132, 94-111, 2017.
[4] A. Furtado, H. Rodrigues, A. Arêde, H.Varuma, Experimental evaluation of out-of-
plane capacity of masonry infill walls. Engineering Structures, 111, 48-63, 2016.
[5] S.P. Timoshenko, S. Woinowsky-Krieger, Theory of plates and shells, McGraw-Hill,
1959.
[6] R.G. Drysdale, A.S. Essawy, Out-of-plane bending of concrete block walls. Journal of
Structural Engineering, 114(1), 121-133, 1988.
[7] B. Haseltine, H. West, J. Tutt, The resistance of brickwork to lateral loading – Part 2:
Design of walls to resist lateral loads. The Structural Engineer, 55(10), 22-430, 1977.
[8] A.W. Hendry, The lateral strength of unreinforced brickwork. The Structural Engineer,
51(2), 43-50, 1973.
[9] F. Thomas, The strength of brickwork. The Structural Engineer, 31(2), 35-46, 1953.
[10] E. McDowell, K. McKee, E. Sevin, Arching action theory of masonry walls. Journal of
the Structural Division, 82(2), 1-8, 1956.
[11] C. Anderson, Arching action in transverse laterally loaded masonry wall panels. The
Structural Engineer, 62(1), 12, 1984.
[12] J. Dawe, C. Seah, Out-of-plane resistance of concrete masonry infilled panels. Canadi-
an Journal of Civil Engineering, 16(6), 854-864, 1989.
[13] D.P. Abrams, R. Angel, J. Uzarski, Out-of-plane strength of unreinforced masonry infill
panels. Earthquake Spectra, 12(4), 825-844, 1996.

2214
 Najif Ismail, Tamer El-Maaddawy, Nouman Khattak, Kevin Q. Walsh and Jason M. Ingham

[14] R.C. Henderson, K.E. Fricke, W.D. Jones, J.E. Beavers, R.M. Bennett, Summary of a
large-and small-scale unreinforced masonry infill test program. Journal of Structural
Engineering, 129(12), 1667-1675, 2003.
[15] G.M. Calvi, D. Bolognini, Seismic response of reinforced concrete frames infilled with
weakly reinforced masonry panels. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 5(02), 153-185,
2001.
[16] F. Akhound, G. Vasconcelos, P.B. Lourenço, C.A.O.F. Palha, L.C. Silva, In-plane and
out-of plane experimental characterization of RC masonry infilled frames. Proc. 6th In-
ternational Conference on Mechanics and Materials in Design, Inegi-Feup, 2015, 427-
440.
[17] F. da Porto, G. Guidi, N. Verlato, C. Modena, Effectiveness of plasters and textile rein-
forced mortars for strengthening clay masonry infill walls subjected to combined in-
plane/out-of-plane actions. Mauerwerk-European Journal of masonry, 19(5), 334-354,
2015.
[18] S.H. Potter, J. S. Becker, D.M. Johnston, K.P. Rossiter, An overview of the impacts of
the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquakes. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduc-
tion, 14, 6-14, 2015.
[19] I.S. Misir, O. Ozcelik, S.C. Girgin, U. Yucel, The behavior of infill walls in RC frames
under combined bidirectional loading. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 20(4), 559-
586, 2016.
[20] M.F.P. Pereira, M.F. Pereira, J.E Ferreira, P.B. Lourenço, Behavior of masonry infill
panels in RC frames subjected to in plane and out of plane loads. Proc. 7th Internation-
al Conference on Analytical Models and New Concepts in Concrete and Masonry Struc-
tures, Kraków, Poland, June 13-15, 2011.
[21] S. Hak, P. Morandi, G. Magenes, Out-of-plane experimental response of strong mason-
ry infills. Proc. 2nd European Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology,
Turkey (Istanbul), 2014.
[22] R.D. Flanagan, R.M. Bennett, Bidirectional behavior of structural clay tile infilled
frames. Journal of Structural Engineering, 125(3), 236-244, 1999.
[23] S. Komaraneni, D.C. Rai, V. Singhal, Seismic behavior of framed masonry panels with
prior damage when subjected to out-of-plane loading. Earthquake Spectra, 27(4), 1077-
1103, 2011.
[24] ASTM-A615: 2016: Standard specification for deformed and plain carbon-steel bars
for concrete reinforcement. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA. 2016.
[25] ASTM-C39: 2017: Standard test method for compressive strength of cylindrical con-
crete specimens. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA. 2017.
[26] ASTM-C496: 2011: Standard test method for splitting tensile strength of cylindrical
concrete specimens. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA. 2011.
[27] ASTM-C143: 2015: Standard test method for slump of hydraulic-cement concrete.
ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA. 2015.
[28] ASTM-C42: 2016: Standard test method for obtaining and testing drilled cores and
sawed beams of concrete. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA. 2016.

2215
 Najif Ismail, Tamer El-Maaddawy, Nouman Khattak, Kevin Q. Walsh and Jason M. Ingham

[29] ASTM-C140: 2015: Standard test methods for sampling and testing concrete masonry
units and related units. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA. 2015.
[30] ASTM-C109: 2016: Standard test method for compressive strength of hydraulic cement
mortars (using 2-in. Or 50-mm cube specimens). ASTM International: West Con-
shohocken, PA. 2016.
[31] ACI-549.4: 2013: Guide to design and construction of externally bonded fabric-
reinforced cementitious matrix (FRCM) systems for repair and strengthening concrete
and masonry structures. American Concrete Institute: Michigan, USA. 2013.
[32] ATC-24: 1992: Guidelines for cyclic seismic testing of components of steel structures
for buildings. Applied Technology Council: Redwood City, California. 1992.
[33] FEMA-461: 2007: Interim protocols for determining seismic performance characteris-
tics of structural and nonstructural components through laboratory testing. Federal
Emergency Management Agency: Redwood City, CA. 2007.

2216

View publication stats