Seismic Response Analysis of a Reinforced Concrete

Block Shear Wall Asymmetric Building

Paul Heerema 1; Marwan Shedid 2; and Wael El-Dakhakhni, M.ASCE 3

Abstract: This paper presents detailed analyses of experimental results pertaining to the cyclic behavior of a reduced-scale reinforced
masonry (RM) asymmetric building with walls aligned in two orthogonal directions. The current study focuses on analyzing the influence
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Selcuk Universitesi on 02/02/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

of twist, as a system-level effect, on the displacement and strength demands of the building’s individual seismic force resisting system (SFRS)
wall components. The study evaluates the individual wall contributions to the overall building response characteristics within both the elastic
and the inelastic response phases. Documentation of the compressive strains at the wall toes is also presented and correlated to
the damage levels anticipated for each wall. In addition, the building center of rotation and center of strength are determined and the
corresponding twist angles and moments and building torsional stiffness values are evaluated throughout the loading history. Moreover,
the trends of stiffness degradation for the walls and for the building are presented, and the relationship between the individual walls’
and building’s stiffness is discussed. Finally, the trends of energy dissipation increase with increased building displacement ductility are
established for different system-level ductility levels. The information presented in this paper is expected to provide useful benchmarking
data that can contribute to the understanding of RM system-level response and how it compares to the behavior of individual RM SFRS
components. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001140. © 2014 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Cyclic loads; Ductility; Reinforced masonry; Shear wall; Seismic loads; System-level performance; Concrete and
masonry structures.

Introduction may lead to inaccurate quantification of the overall building

Reinforced masonry (RM) buildings are typically constructed of
equally spaced walls that have the same prescriptive detailing
requirements and were built with concrete masonry units (CMU)
of the same size. Nevertheless, most RM buildings are composed
of walls with different characteristics (i.e., cross-sectional shapes,
length, and aspect ratios) comprising the seismic force resisting
system (SFRS). Subsequently, under seismic loads, such RM struc-
tural wall would differ in several characteristics including strength,
displacement capabilities, curvature and displacement ductility,
energy dissipation, and stiffness and strength degradation trends.
When such RM walls, with significantly different characteristics,
are combined within the same building SFRS, the building re-
sponse to earthquake excitation is more complex than the behavior
of its individual wall components (Paulay 2000). This complexity
may be further amplified due to the difficulty in quantifying the
overall building strength and corresponding lateral displacements
and drifts as well as the effects of the building twist on the response
of the individual walls and the subsequent load redistribution dur-
ing the building inelastic loading phase. As such, this complexity
1
Ph.D. Candidate, Dept. of Civil Engineering, McMaster Univ.,
Hamilton, ON, Canada L8S 4L7. E-mail: heeremp@mcmaster.ca
2
Assistant Professor, Structural Engineering Dept., Ain Shams Univ.,
Cairo, Egypt (corresponding author). E-mail: marwan.shedid@eng.asu
.edu.eg
3
Martini Mascarin and George Chair in Masonry Design, Dept. of Civil
Engineering, McMaster Univ., Hamilton, ON, Canada L8S 4L7. E-mail:
eldak@mcmaster.ca
Note. This manuscript was submitted on September 4, 2013; approved
on June 16, 2014; published online on August 18, 2014. Discussion period
open until January 18, 2015; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engineer-
ing, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445/04014178(12)/$25.00.
system-level inelastic response characteristics.
During the first phase of an ongoing research program con-
ducted at McMaster University Shedid et al. (2009, 2010,
2011), Banting and El-Dakhkhani (2012, 2014) considered that
the response of individual RM walls can, to a great extent, represent
the response of the entire RM building SFRS, scaled-up by the
number of walls, in terms of the overall load-displacement relation-
ship. Under such assumption, seismic performance parameters, de-
termined for individual wall components could also represent those
of the building at the system-level. Theoretically, the expected
overall load-displacement response of a RM shear wall building
constructed with different walls can be directly generated by super-
imposing the load-displacement relationships of the individual
walls. However, in the case of asymmetrical shear wall buildings,
where twist is inevitable, it might be difficult to develop/generate
the complete building load-displacement relationship unless the
floor twist angles and center of rotations and strengths are accu-
rately quantified throughout the building loading history. However,
wall stiffness would significantly vary from the elastic to the inelas-
tic phases, which would subsequently influence the position of the
building floors’ center of rotations and strengths and the subsequent
load redistribution following damage of each wall.
Compared to evaluating individual RM wall component’s
responses, studies focusing on the behavior of RM building systems
are scarce (Abrams 1986; Seible et al. 1993, 1994; Tomaževič and
Weiss 1994; Zonta et al. 2001; Stavridis et al. 2011), since
testing a complete full-scale RM building in a laboratory environ-
ment is both expensive and impractical. As such, reduced-scale
tests have been used successfully in RM component evaluation
(Abboud et al. 1990; Tomaževič and Velechovsky 1992; Tena-
Colunga and Abrams 1996), where it was shown that masonry
models scaled down to 1=5th scale yielded excellent correlation
between the scaled masonry materials, assemblages and compo-
nents, and their corresponding full-scale counterparts.

© ASCE 04014178-1 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng.
 The current study represents a major part of a larger research pro-
gram that is divided into three test and analysis phases as follows:
Phase I—testing of the individual RM shear wall components (as
reported by Siyam et al. 2012, 2013); Phase II—testing similar walls
within a building with its floor slabs detailed to facilitate isolating,
and thus investigating the effects of, the twist on the response of the
walls and the building (as reported in the current study); Phase III—
investigating the additional effects of wall coupling on the building
and wall response (which is currently under investigation by the au-
thors). Within this context and possible effects of material variabil-
ity, this research phase division is thought to facilitate evaluating the
different effects of the system twist and component coupling on the
overall RM system-level seismic performance.
The present analyses are focused on evaluating the influence of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Selcuk Universitesi on 02/02/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
twist, as a system-level effect, on the response of the RM SFRS
components, where, within a RM building, each shear wall would
be subjected to significantly different displacement/strength de-
mands throughout the building’s loading history. These different
strength demand levels are functions of the interaction between
the system-level twist response and the resulting displacement de-
mands imposed on each wall component and the subsequent load
redistribution following different component damage.
More specifically, this paper presents analysis of experimental
results of a two-story third-scale RM wall building tested under
fully reversed quasi-static loading. The building consisted of eight
RM shear walls with different cross-sectional shapes, dimensions,
and reinforcements. The walls aligned along the loading direction
were positioned to generate a center of rotation eccentricity (from
the center of mass where the load was applied) of approximately
25% of the building width (based on elastic analysis), and the
orthogonal walls were positioned to ensure a torsionally restrained
system with the floor slabs intentionally slotted (Heerema et al.
2014) to minimize wall coupling. Discussion pertaining to the dif-
ferent wall contributions to the building lateral resistance and the
influence the orthogonal walls and those aligned along the loading
direction on the building displacements and rotations will also be
presented. In addition, the shift of the building center of rigidity/
rotation (CR ) throughout the loading history will be quantified.
Finally, the building stiffness degradation and energy dissipation
due to the cyclic loading will be presented and compared to the
corresponding component contributions.
Summary of the Experimental Program
The experimental program adopted herein was designed to evaluate
some key aspects of RM system-level seismic performance through
testing a third-scale two-story wall building made up of eight walls
and two floor slabs. The scaled building [shown in Fig. 1(a) with
the top slab removed for clarity] was 2.16 m high, including the two
(2.4 × 2.4 m) slotted floor slabs (to minimize wall coupling), and
was constructed on a 3.0 × 3.0 m RC foundation prestressed to the
structural laboratory floor. The building was tested under quasi-
static loading until failure using a servo-controlled hydraulic actua-
tor that applied the load along the N-S direction [−(ve) and +(ve)
directions, respectively]. The walls were placed to produce a CR
eccentricity to enforce building twist and to engage the building
torsional response. As can be seen from the building plan shown
in Fig. 1(b), this was accomplished by placing the flanged Wall
(W8) on the west side of the building and the two shorter rectan-
gular Walls (W1 and W2) on the east side of the building with the
rectangular Wall (W5) aligned along the loading direction. The
other four orthogonal Walls (W3, W4, W6, and W7) were used
to enhance the building torsional stiffness and resistance.
© ASCE 04014178-2
J. Struct. Eng.
The building wall designs fall under the Moderately Ductile
SFRS category of the CSA S304.1 (CSA 2004b). The wall design
also corresponds to the Special Reinforced Masonry Shear Wall
SFRS category in the MSJC (2013). It is important to note that
the focus of the current study was not to compare the response
of the individual walls with that predicted by current codes, as this
was covered in detail elsewhere (Siyam et al. 2012, 2013). Instead,
the focus of the current study was to compare the component-level
(individual) wall responses to their response at the system-level
(i.e., in a building) and the subsequent interaction between the
system-level twist and the component-level displacement and
strength demands.
The average strength of ten four-block-high-by-one-block-long
grouted masonry prisms, tested in accordance with CSA S304.1
(CSA 2004a), was 18.2 MPa (c:o:v ¼ 5.1%). The average tensile
strength of five D7 (45 mm2 ) deformed bars (used for the vertical
wall reinforcement), and of five W1.7 (11 mm2 ) bars (used for the
horizontal wall reinforcement) were 489 MPa (c:o:v ¼ 2.2%) and
686 MPa (c:o:v ¼ 4.4%), respectively. The wall properties and
their predicted ultimate strengths, are presented in Table 1. The
building was instrumented with 120 displacement potentiometers
to track the wall deformations and the building rotations and
displacements. Full details of the experimental program and test
results can be found elsewhere (Heerema et al. 2014).
Load Distribution
Buildings with asymmetrical plans are subjected to torsional-
induced rotations (twist) as well as direct translation under seismic
loads. As such, these buildings typically require three key locations
to be identified, namely: the CM (the center of mass), the CR (the
center of rotation/rigidity as mentioned earlier), and the center of
strength (CV ). In a typical elastic analysis of the torsional effects on
a building response, only the CM and the CR locations are of in-
terest but when buildings respond within their inelastic range,
which is expected under seismic loads, the CV location is as im-
portant as different components of the SFRS reach their capacities
at different displacement levels.
The hysteretic loops for the building shown in Fig. 1(c) show the
relationship between the recorded lateral load resistance of the
building and the top lateral displacement of the building at its roof
center of mass (CM ) (where Wall W5 was located). As such, the
actual displacement of Wall W5 could be directly determined from
the figure. However, due to the twist resulting from the eccentricity
between the point of load application (i.e., at the CM ) and the build-
ing CR , the displacements of the Walls W1, W2, and W8 were de-
termined using a set of potentiometers used to track the building
rotations and its displacements in both orthogonal directions.
Priestley et al. (2007) suggested the simple geometrical expres-
sion given in Eq. (1) to determine the displacement, Δi , of different
walls (components) within a building with stiffness and strength
eccentricities based on the CM displacement, ΔCM , the slab twist
angle, θ, and the eccentricity of the center of strength, ev
Δi ¼ ΔCM þ θðxi − ev Þ ð1Þ
Knowing the slab twist angle (rotation), the ΔCM in the direction
of loading, and the displacements of any other point on the slab
(and subsequently the slab rotation), the eccentricity, evx , of the
CV (presented in Table 2 as a percentage of the building structural
width or the distance between Walls W1 and W8 web centerlines),
could be calculated throughout the loading history using Eq. (1).
Based on these values, the displacements of the geometrical centers
of the walls aligned along the loading direction (Walls W1, W2, and
J. Struct. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Selcuk Universitesi on 02/02/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a)

(b) (c)

Fig. 1. Test building: (a) 3D schematic; (b) wall configuration in plan and expected displacement mode; (c) cyclic load-displacement relationship

Table 1. Wall Details and Specification

Vertical reinforcement Horizontal reinforcement
Height Length Aspect Predicted
Wall Type (mm) (mm) ratio φv (mm) ρv (%) φh (mm) ρh1 (%)a ρh2 (%)b strength (kN)
W1 Rectangular 2,160 598 3.61 7.6 0.59 3.8 0.26 0.14 13.4
W2 Rectangular 2,160 598 3.61 7.6 0.59 3.8 0.26 0.14 13.4
W3 Rectangular 2,160 465 4.64 7.6 0.61 3.8 0.26 0.14 8.4
W4 Rectangular 2,160 465 4.64 7.6 0.61 3.8 0.26 0.14 8.4
W6 Rectangular 2,160 465 4.64 7.6 0.61 3.8 0.26 0.14 8.4
W7 Rectangular 2,160 465 4.64 7.6 0.61 3.8 0.26 0.14 8.4
W5 Rectangular 2,160 1,533 1.41 7.6 0.55 3.8 0.26 0.14 81.2
W8 Flanged 2,160 1,533 1.41 7.6 0.61 3.8 0.26 0.14 114.5
a
First story.
b
Second story.

W8) were calculated and presented in Table 2. Similarly, but
orthogonal to the loading direction, the displacements of the
geometrical centers of the orthogonal Walls W3, W4, W6, and
W7 (in their own planes) were calculated and also presented in
Table 2.
The relationship between the normalized building load and the
corresponding individual in-plane wall top displacements, shown in
Fig. 2(a), indicated that there were significant differences between
the top displacement values of the walls aligned along the loading
direction for all CM displacement levels. This would result in im-
mobilized strengths for the shear walls with low displacement de-
mands compared to other walls with higher displacement demands.
Therefore, ignoring the effect of twist and combining the strength
of all walls assuming similar displacement levels or assuming that

© ASCE 04014178-3 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng.
 Table 2. Building and Individual Walls Loads and Displacements
Building CM Walls aligned along the loading directions Orthogonal walls
%Drift W1 and W2 W5 W8 W6 and W7 W3 and W4
(along %Drift
loading (orthogonal Load QT Rotation evx Drift Load Drift Load Drift Load ΣQi Drift Load Drift Load
direction) direction) (kN) (θ°) (% width) (%) (kN) (%) (kN) (%) (kN) (in-plane) ΣQi =QT (%) (kN) (%) (kN)
2.45 −0.63 154.1 1.97 5.5 4.22 5.0 2.45 10.0 0.74 117.0 138.0 0.90 −2.22 −8.3 0.95 8.0
1.98 −0.54 192.4 1.49 5.8 3.33 10.8 1.98 40.0 0.67 118.0 179.6 0.93 −1.73 −8.6 0.65 6.7
1.64 −0.46 223.0 1.21 5.4 2.72 12.1 1.64 65.0 0.60 116.0 206.2 0.92 −1.43 −8.8 0.50 5.1
1.32 −0.33 234.4 0.92 6.5 2.16 13.4 1.32 82.0 0.51 110.0 220.8 0.94 −1.06 −8.2 0.40 4.1
0.99 −0.21 238.3 0.62 8.5 1.58 14.6 0.99 88.0 0.42 105.0 225.2 0.94 −0.71 −7.4 0.29 2.9
0.75 −0.14 231.5 0.43 8.9 1.16 14.0 0.75 90.0 0.35 95.0 213.0 0.92 −0.48 −5.0 0.20 2.1
0.49 −0.08 200.9 0.27 8.8 0.75 13.8 0.49 82.0 0.24 80.0 186.6 0.93 −0.28 −2.9 0.13 1.3
0.30 −0.04 150.0 0.16 15.0 0.46 9.5 0.30 68.0 0.14 60.0 147.0 0.98 −0.15 −1.6 0.08 0.8
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Selcuk Universitesi on 02/02/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0.17 −0.02 107.0 0.09 13.5 0.26 6.8 0.17 48.0 0.08 45.0 106.6 1.00 −0.09 −0.9 0.05 0.5
0.12 −0.01 88.2 0.06 20.3 0.18 5.5 0.12 40.0 0.05 38.0 89.0 1.01 −0.05 −0.6 0.04 0.4
0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 18.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0
−0.11 −0.01 −89.6 −0.06 16.6 −0.18 −5.5 −0.11 −36.0 −0.05 −35.0 −91.0 1.02 0.03 0.4 −0.05 −0.6
−0.15 −0.02 −108.2 −0.08 8.1 −0.23 −6.5 −0.15 −44.0 −0.08 −42.0 −103.0 0.95 0.05 0.5 −0.08 −0.8
−0.27 −0.03 −149.8 −0.13 17.8 −0.41 −9.0 −0.27 −64.0 −0.13 −54.0 −143.0 0.95 0.06 0.6 −0.13 −1.4
−0.41 −0.06 −201.1 −0.22 10.0 −0.63 −13.5 −0.41 −74.0 −0.22 −71.0 −187.0 0.93 0.10 1.0 −0.23 −2.4
−0.63 −0.10 −231.1 −0.38 7.0 −0.98 −15.0 −0.63 −80.0 −0.30 −96.0 −216.0 0.93 0.18 1.8 −0.39 −4.0
−1.00 −0.21 −250.0 −0.62 11.5 −1.62 −14.4 −1.00 −76.0 −0.41 −103.0 −223.8 0.90 0.27 2.8 −0.69 −7.2
−1.32 −0.35 −243.5 −0.92 6.3 −2.16 −13.0 −1.32 −58.0 −0.51 −108.0 −220.0 0.90 0.38 3.9 −1.09 −8.2
−1.64 −0.41 −221.8 −1.09 12.3 −2.75 −12.0 −1.64 −56.0 −0.57 −110.0 −205.0 0.92 0.46 4.7 −1.29 −8.6
−1.97 −0.46 −191.0 −1.48 5.3 −3.29 −10.0 −1.97 −40.0 −0.58 −112.0 −177.0 0.93 0.51 5.2 −1.43 −8.7
−2.46 −0.52 −155.9 −1.91 7.4 −4.23 −5.0 −2.46 −5.0 −0.70 −114.0 −138.0 0.89 0.66 6.8 −1.71 −8.6

100% 100%
% Contribution to building resistance

W1&W2
75%
Normalized total building load

W5
W8 80%
50%
W8
25% 60%

0%
40% W5
–25%

–50% 20%

–75% W2
0% W1
–100% 2.5 1.6 1.0 0.5 0.2 0.0 –0.2 –0.4 –1.0 –1.6 –2.5
–5 –4 –3 –2 –1 0 1 2 3 4 5
(a) (c) % Drift of building CM
% Drift

150 1.0
Contribution to building resistance

@ Max.
100
0.8 load
Lateral load (kN)

50
0.6
C W1
0
W2
A 0.4 B
–50 W5
B A W8
W1&W2 0.2
–100
C W5
W8
–150 0.0
–5 –4 –3 –2 –1 0 1 2 3 4 5 –5 –4 –3 –2 –1 0 1 2 3 4 5
(b) % Drift (d) % Drift at building CM

Fig. 2. Relationships between (a) building load and displacement of walls aligned along the loading direction; (b) load and displacement of walls
aligned along the loading direction; (c) percent contribution of wall strength in building capacity; (d) building load and individual wall contribution
in load resistance

© ASCE 04014178-4 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng.
 all walls have simultaneously reached their ultimate capacities Contributions of Orthogonal Walls
(i.e., fully plastic behavior) would yield an inaccurate prediction
The relationship between the normalized building resistance and
of the overall building resistance. To overcome this, the individual
corresponding displacements of the orthogonal walls, shown in
wall resistance values corresponding to their calculated displace-
Fig. 3(a), indicate that the displacements of Walls W3 and W4 were
ments are listed in Table 2 (based on the results reported by Siyam
higher during the −(ve) loading direction compared to Walls W6
et al. 2012, 2013). The arrows relating Figs. 2(a and b) demonstrate
and W7 that experienced the same but in the +(ve) direction. This
the process used to relate the individual wall displacements at
indicated that the CR was closer to Walls W3 and W4 during load-
different building loading levels with their corresponding strength
ing in the +(ve) direction, which resulted in smaller displacements,
using the data generated by Siyam et al. (2012, 2013). As can be
and that the CR was closer to Walls W6 and W7 during loading in
seen, upon reaching the building maximum capacity (correspond-
the −(ve) direction [exaggerated displaced wall positions are
ing to 1% drift), the individual walls were subjected to different
depicted in Fig. 1(a)]. In an approach similar to that adopted for
displacement demands as a result of the building twist. Such dis-
the walls aligned along the loading direction, the resistances of
placements impose different strength and displacement demands on
the orthogonal walls corresponding to their evaluated displace-
the walls, with Walls W1 and W2 already past their points of maxi-
ments were also estimated based on the results of the individual
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Selcuk Universitesi on 02/02/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

mum capacities and Walls W5 and W8 at about 98 and 92% of their

maximum capacities, respectively [refer to the arrows in the −(ve)
direction of loading in Fig. 2(b)]. In the post-peak loading phase,
and corresponding to about 40% strength degradation in the build-
ing capacity, Walls W1 and W2 maintained only 11% of their
capacities, whereas Wall W5 maintained 33% of its capacity.
However, based on the displacement of Wall W8, this wall barely
reached its ultimate capacity [refer to the arrows in the +(ve) direc-
tion of loading in Fig. 2(b)], and thus its full displacement capacity
was never mobilized.
Contributions of Walls Aligned along the
Loading Direction
On average, the calculated contribution of the walls aligned along
the loading direction to the experimentally determined building re-
wall tests (Siyam et al. 2012, 2013). These resistances and their
corresponding wall top displacements were presented in Table 2
and in Fig. 3(b) in which it can be observed that Walls W3 and
W4 reached their maximum capacities during loading in the
−(ve) direction, whereas Walls W6 and W7 reached the same
but in the +(ve) direction. It can also be inferred that these walls
responded within their elastic range until the building reached its
maximum capacity. Beyond this point, these walls contributed
more to the building resistance mechanism due to the larger dis-
placement demands in their own plane that resulted from the sig-
nificant building twist following Walls W1, W2, and W5 reaching
their capacities. Subsequently, it is hypothesized that the developed
100%
75%
Normalized total building load

sistance throughout the test was about 94%, and it was noticed that
this ratio was slightly higher at early phases of loading as shown in 50% W3&W4
Fig. 2(c). This is attributed to the fact that these walls were not
25% W6&W7
damaged and the level of twist was not significant, thus resulting
in a lesser engagement of the orthogonal walls within the building 0%
load resistance mechanism. However, once significant damage de-
–25%
veloped within the aforementioned walls, higher twist angle devel-
oped as a result of the torsional stiffness degradation, which –50%
consequently led to engaging the orthogonal walls within the load
resistance mechanism as will be discussed later. The contributions –75%
of the walls aligned along the loading direction to the building re- –100%
sistance was evaluated and presented in Fig. 2(d). The figure shows –2.5 –2.0 –1.5 –1.0 –0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
that the contributions of Walls W5 and W8 to the building resis- (a) % Drift in orthogonal direction
tance were almost constant until the point where the maximum
building capacity was reached at about 1% drift (at the CM of
9 100%
the building roof). When Wall W5 reached its maximum capacity
and entered into its strength degradation phase, the contribution of
6 67%
Wall W8 to the building resistance increased until failure of the Normalized wall load (%)
building was imminent. On the other hand, the contributions of
Lateral load (kN)

Walls W1 and W2 were essentially constant throughout the loading 3 33%

history due to their high displacement capacity and slow strength
degradation, as could be observed from the extended plateau within 0 0%
W3&W4
their load-displacement relationships.
The analysis showed that, on average, Walls W1 and W2 together –3 W6&W7 –33%
contributed about 14%, whereas Walls W5 and W8 provided
approximately 40% each of the building resistance up to the point –6 –67%
where the maximum building capacity was reached as shown by
Points A, B, and C, respectively, on Fig. 2(d). At that point, Walls –9 –100%
W1, W2, and W5 had already attained their ultimate capacities and –2.5 –2.0 –1.5 –1.0 –0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
(b) % Drift in orthogonal direction
were damaged. Subsequently, with load distribution and increased
top displacements, the demand on Wall W8 increased, and the CR
Fig. 3. Load-displacement relationships between (a) building load
shifted toward Wall W8 within the building post-peak loading phase
and orthogonal wall displacement; (b) orthogonal wall load and
resulting in increasing the share of Wall W8 of the building resis-
displacement
tance to about 65% and decreasing that of Wall W5 to about 20%.

© ASCE 04014178-5 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng.
 forces in the orthogonal walls contributed to building twist resis-
tance as it provided a torsionally restrained system (Priestley et al.
2007), which facilitated almost full utilization of the capacities of
the walls aligned along the loading direction (except for Wall W8 as
explained earlier), which subsequently enhanced the overall build-
ing performance by delaying its strength degradation and increas-
ing its displacement capacity.
Building Twist Response Characteristics
It has been shown that the peak response displacements at the
opposite sides of asymmetric buildings may neither occur simulta-
neously nor correspond to the peak torsional moments (Priestley
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Selcuk Universitesi on 02/02/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
et al. 2007). As such, it would be essential to determine the level
of building twist (rotations) and the CR locations throughout the
building loading history. Using the displacements of the floor slabs,
the twist angles of the roof slab (Table 2) were generated through-
out the loading history (see Fig. 4 for samples of the roof twist
at the end of select loading cycles). The twist angles for load cycles
in both load directions for the same drift levels were approximately
the same, which was confirmed by the symmetrical load-
displacement response of the building up to failure. The relation-
ship between the normalized building load and the roof slab
rotation was generated and presented in Fig. 5(a), where it can
be seen that the slab rotation angle gradually increased with in-
creased top displacement up to the building maximum capacity
(corresponding to approximately 1% roof drift). At that load level,
which was accompanied by significant damage in Walls W1, W2,
and W5, the slab twist increased significantly with increased dis-
placement and almost doubled at 7 and 11% (9% on average) build-
ing strength degradation during loading in the +(ve) and −(ve)
directions of loading, respectively, corresponding to a roof CM drift
level of 1.6%. The roof slab twist significantly increased during the
post-peak loading phase, following the developed damage in Walls
W1, W2, and W5, as evident from Fig. 5(a).
The building roof CR location, based on elastic analysis, was
calculated to be at a distance of 465 mm (23.5% of the distance
between the outermost walls) from the building CM . The relation-
ship between the angle of twist, θ, the twist moment,
M twist ¼ Q × eR;x , where Q is the building resistance and eR;x is
the CR eccentricity in the x-direction, and the effective building
torsional stiffness, J R;eff , can be determined (Priestley et al. 2007)
using
Cycle during
RC slab
+(ve) direction
rotation
of loading
4 0.27°
6 0.66°
10 1.26°
14 1.91°
Original position
(a)
Fig. 4. Slab rotation at selected loading cycles: (a) +(ve) direction; (b) −(ve) direction
© ASCE
θ ¼ Q × eR;x =J R;eff ð2Þ
The effective torsional stiffness defined by Priestley et al. (2007)
could be evaluated based on the elastic stiffness of the components
(walls) in the direction of loading after division by the ductility
level when such components are responding within their inelastic
phase. In the current study, the effective wall stiffness values could
be calculated at each loading phase since the individual wall dis-
placements and their corresponding resistances were determined
(Table 3). The secant stiffness was used to determine the effective
torsional stiffness [given by Eq. (3)] and, in combination with
Eq. (2), the eccentricities, eR;x and eR;y of the CR as will be dis-
cussed next
J R;eff ¼ Σky ðx − eR;x Þ2 þ Σkx ðy − eR;y Þ2 ð3Þ
Knowing the stiffness of all walls and the slab twist at each load-
ing step as well as wall location and the building resistance, the
value of eR;x could be determined by solving Eqs. (2) and (3),
assuming eR;y ¼ 0 (because of the symmetrical orthogonal wall
arrangement with respect to the building CM ). Once eR;x was
determined, both the twist moment, M twist ¼ Q × eR;x and the
effective torsional stiffness, J R;eff can be calculated at each loading
phase as shown in Table 3.
The relationship between the twist moment generated around
the building CM and the building drift calculated (also at CM ),
shown in Fig. 5(b), indicate that, although the building capacity
started to degrade at approximately 1% drift [refer to Fig. 1(b)],
the twist moment values increased until 1.8% drift. This is attrib-
uted to the shift of the CR (as will be discussed later) that resulted in
increasing the moment arm, which masked the effect of the load
reduction. Ultimately, the twist moments decreased toward the
end of the test due to the significant reduction in the building re-
sistance. It can be observed from the Fig. 5(b) that the building
rotational response was symmetrical, indicating identical twist
characteristics were in both loading directions.
In order to determine the trend of the torsional stiffness degra-
dation with increased drift, the relationships between the normal-
ized twist moment and the roof slab rotation, and between the
normalized torsional stiffness and the roof slab rotation were gen-
erated as shown in Figs. 5(c and d), respectively. Again, the twist
behavior of the building was almost identical during loading in both
directions, and the trend of variation of the torsional stiffness of the
building during both directions of loading was similar due to the
Cycle during
RC slab
–(ve) direction
rotation
of loading
4 0.22°
6 0.61°
10 1.17°
14 1.78°
Original position
(b)
04014178-6 J. Struct. Eng.
J. Struct. Eng.
 100% 100

75% 75

Twisting moment at CM (kN.m)

Normalized building load
50% 50
25% 25
0% 0
–25% –25
–50% –50
–75% –75
–100% –100
–3.00 –2.00 –1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 –3 –2 –1 0 1 2 3
(a) Slab rotation (Degree) (b) % Drift of building CM
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Selcuk Universitesi on 02/02/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

100% 100%

75%

f ess
Normalized twisting moment

80%

Normalized rotational stiffn

50%
@ Max. looad
25% (
(1% Drift)
60%
0%

–25% 40%

–50%
20%
–75%

–100% 0%
–3.0 –2.0 –1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 –3.0 –2.0 –1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
(c) Slab rotation (Degree) (d) Slab rotation (Degree)

Fig. 5. Relationship between (a) normalized building load and slab rotation; (b) twisting moment and % drift at building CM ; (c) normalized twisting
moment and slab rotation; (d) normalized rotational building stiffness and slab rotation

Table 3. Building Twist Response Characteristics

Walls aligned along the loading directions Orthogonal walls
Building W1 and W2 W5 W8 W3 and W4 W6 and W7
Rotation Stiffness kx Stiffness, ky Stiffness, ky Stiffness, ky Stiffness, kx Stiffness, kx eRX Mtwist J R;eff
Load (kN) (θ°) (kN=mm) (kN=mm) (kN=mm) (kN=mm) (kN=mm) (kN=mm) (% width) (kN · m) (kN · m=rad)
154.1 1.97 11.27 0.05 0.19 7.39 0.39 0.17 0.24 73.5 2,134
192.4 1.49 16.58 0.15 0.93 8.14 0.47 0.23 0.21 79.9 3,068
223.0 1.21 22.28 0.21 1.83 9.06 0.49 0.29 0.19 83.8 3,976
234.4 0.92 32.66 0.29 2.88 10.17 0.56 0.36 0.17 80.4 5,003
238.3 0.62 52.02 0.43 4.12 11.92 0.63 0.50 0.15 71.9 6,625
231.5 0.43 76.81 0.56 5.53 12.49 0.72 0.56 0.13 59.9 7,946
200.9 0.27 121.73 0.86 7.72 14.63 0.72 0.71 0.12 50.0 10,685
150.0 0.16 180.06 0.95 10.56 20.02 0.72 0.82 0.13 37.5 13,838
107.0 0.09 226.90 1.22 13.28 27.20 0.72 0.82 0.13 26.9 17,259
88.2 0.06 461.17 1.42 16.09 33.80 0.72 0.82 0.13 22.2 22,458
0.0 0.00 — — — — — — 0.13 0.0 —
−89.6 −0.06 429.81 1.45 16.22 36.17 0.82 0.72 0.13 −22.8 22,933
−108.2 −0.08 278.52 1.31 13.61 26.80 0.82 0.72 0.12 −25.4 17,978
−149.8 −0.13 198.89 1.02 11.20 20.72 0.82 0.72 0.11 −32.6 14,472
−201.1 −0.22 148.29 1.00 9.63 15.72 0.82 0.72 0.11 −43.5 11,324
−231.1 −0.38 103.10 0.71 6.65 14.63 0.62 0.72 0.13 −60.8 9,184
−250.0 −0.62 55.07 0.41 4.07 12.15 0.48 0.67 0.15 −74.1 6,808
−243.5 −0.92 31.76 0.28 2.87 10.20 0.36 0.56 0.17 −81.7 5,091
−221.8 −1.09 24.90 0.20 1.83 9.46 0.31 0.52 0.18 −81.1 4,252
−191.0 −1.48 19.17 0.14 0.94 9.32 0.28 0.51 0.22 −83.8 3,254
−155.9 −1.91 13.78 0.05 0.19 7.77 0.23 0.47 0.24 −74.4 2,237

© ASCE 04014178-7 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng.
 3.0
2.0
% Dtift at building CM
1.0
0.0
–1.0
–2.0
–3.0
0.0 0.1 0.2
Eccentricity of CR / building width
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Selcuk Universitesi on 02/02/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 6. Relationship between the drift at building CM and the ratio of
the eccentricity of the center of rotation with respect to building width
normal to direction of loading (distance between W1 and W8)
symmetrical distribution of the building orthogonal walls. At the
building maximum capacity (corresponding to 1% roof drift),
the torsional stiffness of the building decreased to 30% of its initial
value and further to about 10% toward the conclusion of the test
(corresponding to 2.5% roof drift). This is consistent with the wall
damage sequence where, close to reaching the building maximum
capacity, the damage of Walls W1 and W2 and W5 was higher than
that in Wall W8, which subsequently led to the steeper stiffness
degradation of the former walls compared to the latter. This in turn
resulted in a continuous increase of the eR;x as shown in Fig. 6.
This variation of the eR;x with total building load showed
no significant change up to the point of the maximum building
capacity. Damage in Walls W1, W2, and W5 resulted in increased
demand on Wall W8, and, due to increased building twist angle,
resulted in engaging the orthogonal walls as well within the load
resisting mechanism. As was shown in Fig. 3, at the maximum
building capacity in the North −(ve) direction, the loads resisted
by Walls W3 and W4 were relatively low, corresponding to about
40% of their own capacities [refer to the horizontal dashed arrows
in Fig. 3(b)], whereas the loads generated in Walls W6 and W7
were much higher and corresponded to about 80% of their own
capacities [refer to the horizontal dashed arrows in Fig. 3(b)].
At the conclusion of the test (corresponding to approximately
50% building strength degradation) during loading in the South
+(ve) direction, Walls W3 and W4 almost reached 85% of their
ultimate capacities, whereas Walls W6 and W7 were already within
their post-peak loading phase and experience about 8% strength
degradation.
During the early loading phases, the difference between loads
generated in the orthogonal walls was not significant, indicating
that the walls resisted loads mainly within their elastic range. At
later loading phases, engaging these walls was more significant
and coincided with significant twist and higher displacements, forc-
ing the walls to respond within their inelastic range and to reach
their ultimate capacity. Although the value of eR;y was assumed
zero, as the symmetrical orthogonal walls were identical, it was
expected that eR;y would vary at higher building displacement lev-
els and with respect to the loading direction as well. During the
post-peak loading phase in the +(ve) direction, Walls W6 and
W7 had developed more horizontal bed joint cracks with Walls
W3 and W4 experiencing the same during the −(ve) loading.
It is hypothesized that, at higher drift levels, similar to the ob-
servations reported by Stavridis et al. (2011) and Panagiotou et al.
(2011) regarding wall coupling, the orthogonal walls developed
© ASCE
partial coupling with the walls aligned along the loading direction
through the slotted RC slabs. Such partial coupling would result in
subjecting the orthogonal walls to compressive or tensile forces
(depending on the wall location and the loading direction). This
system-level effect would in turn result in increasing the effective
stiffness of Walls W3 and W4 (acting as flanges under compres-
sion) compared to that of Walls W6 and W7 (acting as flanges/ties
under tension) during loading in the +(ve) direction and vice-versa
during loading in the −(ve) direction. Subsequently, and despite
having geometrically identical cross sections, the significant incon-
sistency in the orthogonal wall stiffness would result in eR;y shift.
This hypothesis might explain the reduction of the strength ratio
0.3 0.4
(between the sum of the calculated strengths of the walls aligned
along the loading direction and the overall recorded building resis-
tance) with increased building roof CM drift as can be observed
from Table 2. It can also be hypothesized that eR;y shift might have
resulted from the shift of the effective shear areas of Walls W1, W2,
W5, and W8 toward their flexural compression zones when their
respective flexural tensile zones developed cracks.
Component-Level and System-Level Performance
Characteristics
Wall Toe Strains
The average strain values over several segments along the wall
height were calculated based on the measurements of the vertical
displacement potentiometers attached at each wall ends. The aver-
age masonry compressive strains based on the readings of the
potentiometer attached at the mid-height of the second and fourth
courses above the foundation were presented for the walls aligned
along the loading direction in Fig. 7 corresponding to the building
load level. The average strain measurements over the lower four
courses were discontinued at later loading phases due to face shell
spalling at the wall toes leading to detachment of the potentiometer
anchors. The calculated compressive strains were presented in
Table 4 for both the North (N) and South (S) wall toes for the walls
aligned along the loading direction corresponding to the mid-height
of two segments studied covering the bottom 100 mm and 232 mm
(corresponding to the mid-height of the 2nd and 4th courses, re-
spectively). The strains were averaged over these segments and
were labeled as N (or S) @50 (or 116) where the N or S indicate
the wall toe side and the 50 or the 116 refer to the mid-height of the
lower 100 and 232-mm segments, respectively.
Comparing the compressive strains calculated at the toes of
Walls W1, W2, and W5 corresponding to maximum building
capacity with those reported by Siyam et al. (2012, 2013) for
the similar walls tested individually, showed that the recorded strain
levels corresponded to the wall post-peak phases. On the other
hand, and by similar comparison, compressive strains calculated
for Wall W8 showed that it did not reach its ultimate capacity,
which was also consistent with the level of wall displacement
demands throughout the building loading history. In addition,
the level of damage in the walls at the building maximum capacity
confirmed the reported values and observation. It is worth noting
that the significantly high strain values recorded for Wall W5 dur-
ing loading in the +(ve) direction might be attributed to an acciden-
tally ungrouted cell discovered partway during the test at the end of
the second course (from the base) at the S toe of Wall W5.
Stiffness Degradation
To assess the building stiffness degradation in the loading direction
with increased roof displacements, the building secant stiffness,
04014178-8 J. Struct. Eng.
J. Struct. Eng.
 300 300

200 200

Total Building Load (kN)

Total Building Load (kN)

100 100

0 0
N@116mm
N@116mm
N@50mm
–100 N@50mm –100
S@116mm
S@116mm
S@50mm
S@50mm
–200 –200
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Selcuk Universitesi on 02/02/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

–300 –300
–0.015 –0.012 –0.009 –0.006 –0.003 0.000 –0.015 –0.012 –0.009 –0.006 –0.003 0.000
(a) Strain (mm/mm) (b) Strain (mm/mm)

300 300

200 200
Total Building Load (kN)

Total Building Load (kN)

100 100

0 0
N@116mm N@116mm
N@50mm N@50mm
–100 S@116mm –100
S@116mm
S@50mm S@50mm
–200 –200

–300 –300
–0.015 –0.012 –0.009 –0.006 –0.003 0.000 –0.015 –0.012 –0.009 –0.006 –0.003 0.000
(c) Strain (mm/mm) (d) Strain (mm/mm)

Fig. 7. Compressive masonry strain for walls aligned along the loading direction: (a) W1; (b) W2; (c) W5; (d) W8

Table 4. Compressive Strains at the Toes of the Walls Aligned along the Loading Directions at the Building Maximum Load
Wall W1 W2 W5 W8
Loading direction +(ve) −(ve) +(ve) −(ve) +(ve) −(ve) +(ve) −(ve)
ε @50 mm 0.0040 0.0039 0.0049 0.0035 0.0084 0.0049 0.0031 0.0031
ε @116 mm 0.0021 0.0020 0.0030 0.0019 0.0048 0.0027 0.0017 0.0017

defined as the ratio between the resistance and the corresponding less than 50% of their initial stiffness values at approximately 0.5%
wall and building CM displacements, were used. To facilitate drift and to about 20% at approximately 1.5% drift.
drawing conclusions, the building and wall stiffness values were It might be interpreted from Fig. 8(a) that the algebraic summa-
all normalized with respect to the building’s initial stiffness. The tion of the stiffness of individual walls aligned along the loading
trend of stiffness degradation with increased building top drift direction would be higher than that of the entire building at higher
(at the CM ) was presented in Fig. 8(a) for the walls aligned along displacement levels. As such, it should be emphasized that the wall
the loading direction, which shows that the trends of stiffness stiffness values were plotted against the drift recorded at building
variation for the building and all walls, except for Wall W8, were CM (which resulted in different top wall drifts due to twist) rather
similarly characterized by a significant degradation at low drift than against the individual wall absolute drifts demands when
levels. acting as components of the building SFRS. For simplicity, the
The experimentally determined secant stiffness values for the building capacity and stiffness can be determined using
building and the walls aligned along the loading direction were nor- QBuilding ¼ ΣQw;i where∶ i ¼ 1,2; 5,8 ð4Þ
malized again but his time with respect to the corresponding initial
stiffness values of each. The variation of normalized wall stiffness, kBuilding × ΔCM ¼ ΣkW;i × Δi where∶ i ¼ 1,2; 5,8 ð5Þ
in both loading directions, with respect to each wall’s displacement
and drift levels is presented in Fig. 8(b) and it shows a similar trend kBuilding ¼ ΣkW;i × Δi =ΔCM ¼ ½ΣðkW;i × Δi Þ
=ΔCM
of stiffness degradation for the building and for the test walls. The
stiffness values for the building and the walls degraded rapidly to where∶ i ¼ 1,2; 5,8 ð6Þ

© ASCE 04014178-9 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng.
 100% 100%

Stiffness normalized to building intial

Building Building

80% W1&W2 80% W1&W2

Normalized Stiffness
W5 W5

60% W8 60% W8

stiffness 40% 40%

20% 20%

0% 0%
–3 –2 –1 0 1 2 3 –3 –2 –1 0 1 2 3
(a) % Drift of building CM (b) % Drift of building CM
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Selcuk Universitesi on 02/02/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

1.0
Stiffness of walls/ Building stiffness

0.8
W8

0.6

0.4
W5

0.2

W2
0.0 W1
–2.5 –1.6 –1.0 –0.4 –0.2 0.0 0.2 0.5 1.0 1.6 2.5
(c) % Drift at building CM

Fig. 8. (a) Relationship between stiffness normalized to building initial stiffness and % drift at CM ; (b) relationship between normalized stiffness
and % drift at CM ; (c) ratio of summation of walls stiffness to building stiffness

where FBuilding and FWi are the force developed in the building and the interaction between the system-level twist response and the re-
in Wall i, respectively, kBuilding and kWi are the secant stiffness of sulting displacement demands imposed on each wall component
the building and Wall i, respectively, and ΔCM and Δi are the dis- and the subsequent load redistribution following different compo-
placement of the building CM or Wall i, respectively. nent damage. As such, the analysis showed that the variation in the
Plotting the results of Eq. (6), assuming that the effective stiff- inelastic response characteristics of the different walls comprising
ness of each wall was its secant stiffness value multiplied by the the building’s SFRS as well as the wall stiffness and strength
ratio between its own displacement to that of the building roof contributions to those of the building are all factors that should
CM , indicated that the summation of the effective stiffness values be considered when evaluating the overall system-level response
of walls aligned along the loading direction would be on average characteristics. Subsequently, it might be reasonable to assume that,
approximately 95% of that calculated for the building, as shown when utilizing adequate analysis tools that account for the effect
in Fig. 8(c). This observation also confirmed that during initial of the twist and the inelastic wall response, currently available
loading, the walls aligned along the loading direction were the methods to estimate the overall building stiffness and strength
main contributors to the building resistance mechanism [refer to are considered adequate.
Fig. 2(c)], whereas at later phases of loading, Walls 1, 2, and 5 were
damaged, and, with increased building twist, the effect of the
orthogonal walls became more significant. Energy Dissipation
Figs. 2(c) and 8(c) show that the summations of the stiffness and Energy dissipation through hysteretic damping, Ed , is an important
strength of the walls aligned along the loading direction up to build- aspect in seismic design since it reduces the amplitude of the seis-
ing maximum load are both about 95% of those calculated for the mic response and, therefore, reduces the ductility and strength
building at different displacement levels. However, this was based demands of the structure. The energy dissipation, Ed , can be rep-
on using wall stiffness and strength values corresponded to their resented, as suggested by Hose and Seible (1999), by the area en-
own displacement levels within the building (system), rather than closed within the force-displacement curve at each displacement
simply to that of the building’s CM . As expected, under building level. The normalized energy dissipation values, Ed·N , for the build-
twist, each wall would be subjected to significantly different ing at different displacement levels, defined as the ratio between the
displacement/strength demands throughout the building’s loading energy dissipation at a certain post-yield displacement level and the
history. These different demand levels are in turn functions of energy dissipation at yield, Ed;y , were plotted against the calculated

© ASCE 04014178-10 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng.
 % Drift at building CM
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00
24
20
Normalized Energy Dissipation
16
Building
yield level
12
8
4 resistance, as opposed to 36 and 40% of building resistance at 1.0
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Selcuk Universitesi on 02/02/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
0 With significant damage in Walls W1, W2, and W5, the roof
0 2 4 6
Displacement ductility
Fig. 9. Variation of normalized energy dissipation with building
displacement ductility and drift
displacement ductility values and the percentage drift of the build-
ing roof CM in Fig. 9. The energy dissipation was normalized to
monitor its increase trend after yielding. The drift level correspond-
ing to yielding of the idealized bilinear relationship of the nonlinear
load-displacement envelope of the building was 0.5%, as reported
by Heerema et al. (2014). This drift level was determined based on
initial yielding identified in the nonlinear load-displacement rela-
tionship of the building corresponding to 75% of maximum capac-
ity (0.4% drift at the building CM ). As such, using similar triangles,
and with the idealized strength of the bilinear load-displacement
relationship calculated to be equal to 95% of the experimental
building maximum capacity, the idealized yield drift was equal
to 0.4% × 0.95=0.75 ¼ 0.5%.
The figure showed that for low displacement ductility levels up
to μΔ ¼ 1.5 (corresponding to 0.75% drift at the building roof CM ),
the trend of increase of the normalized energy dissipation was rel-
atively insignificant. However, for higher displacement ductility
levels (μΔ > 1.5), the normalized energy dissipation increased sig-
nificantly, which was evident from the slope of both lines before
and after the μΔ ¼ 1.5 threshold. This trend is similar to that of RM
structural walls with different cross-sectional shapes (Shedid et al.
2009, 2010; Banting and El-Dakhakhni 2014). As can be seen in
the figure, the ratios between Ed·N and μΔ (representing the slope of
the relationship) are almost 2.4 for μΔ values less than or equal to
1.5 and 5.1 for μΔ values greater than 1.5. The results clearly show
that significant energy dissipation levels could be expected from
RM shear wall buildings subsequent to cracking, reinforcement
yielding, and inelastic deformations. This would significantly re-
duce the seismic demand due to the increased hysteretic damping
in the building inelastic response phase.
Conclusions
The paper presented detailed analyses of experimental test results
of a reduced-scale fully grouted reinforced masonry asymmetric
building under quasi-static loading. The in-plane displacements
of each wall were evaluated throughout the loading history and
the corresponding individual wall resistance levels at each loading
phase were established (based on their individual test results).
The two weaker and less stiff Walls W1 and W2 provided
© ASCE
approximately 14% of the building resistance up to the point where
the maximum building capacity was reached, whereas the two
stronger/stiffer Walls W5 and W8 contributed, on average, approx-
imately 40% each to the building resistance. At higher displace-
ment levels, Walls W1, W2, and W5 reached their maximum
capacities and started to experience significant damage. This sub-
sequently led to shifting the CR toward stronger, stiffer, and undam-
aged Wall W8, which significantly increased its strength demand,
thus increasing its contribution to the building resistance at 1.6%
drift at building CM by approximately 12% (about 52% of building
resistance, as opposed to 43 and 38% of building resistance at 1.0
and 0.5% drift, respectively) accompanied by approximately 10%
reduction in the contribution of Wall W5 (about 30% of building
and 0.5% drift, respectively).
slab twist significantly increased with increased loading and
almost doubled between 1.0 and 1.6% drift level (measured at
the building CM ). Nevertheless, the twist behavior of the building
was almost identical during loading in both directions, resulting in
identical trends of variation of the torsional stiffness of the build-
ing under both loading directions as well. However, at 1% drift, the
torsional stiffness of the building decreased to 30% of that at initial
loading phase and further decreased to about 10% at the end of the
test (at approximately 2.5% drift). With the increased roof slab
twist as a result of the damage experienced by the walls aligned
along the loading direction, and their subsequent torsional stiffness
degradation, the orthogonal walls were engaged within the build-
ing load resistance mechanism resulting in a torsionally restrained
SFRS.
For low displacement ductility levels up to 1.5 (corresponding
to 0.75% drift at building roof CM ), the increase of the normalized
energy dissipation was moderate. However, for higher displace-
ment ductility levels (μΔ > 1.5), the normalized energy dissipation
increased significantly which was evident from the slope of both
lines before and after the μΔ ¼ 1.5 threshold.
Although a typical RM building would be constructed with
walls utilizing the same block size and following the same pre-
scriptive detailing requirements, walls with different aspect ratios,
will possess different (component-level) inelastic response charac-
teristics, and the expected building (system-level) response will be
influenced by, but not exactly the same as, the individual wall
responses. The overall system-level response at the inelastic phase
would further be complicated with the inclusion of the building
twist effects. As such, unless the considered building is com-
pletely symmetrical and constructed with essentially identical
walls, assuming complete resemblance between the system-level
and the component-level response is not justified. This fact
highlights the importance of system-level studies where, although
individual component test results facilitate drawing basic conclu-
sions pertaining to individual wall responses, there will always
be variations in component-level displacement and strength de-
mands, and thus component performances, within the same SFRS
system.
Finally, the reported results provide useful benchmarking data
that can be further utilized by other researchers to calibrate inelastic
response models. Such models can be used in conjunction with
dynamic analyses under different level of ground motion records
to further contribute to the understanding of system-level response
and how it compares to the behavior of individual system compo-
nents. Such studies would also provide some answers on how the
results would possibly affect building code requirements and future
engineering practice.
04014178-11 J. Struct. Eng.
J. Struct. Eng.
 Acknowledgments
Financial support was provided through the Natural Sciences and
Engineering Research Council (NSERC) of Canada. This study
forms a part of an ongoing research program in McMaster Univer-
sity Centre for Effective Design of Structures (CEDS) funded
through the Ontario Research and Development Challenge Fund
(ORDCF) as well as an Early Researcher Award (ERA) grant, both
are programs of the Ministry of Research and Innovation (MRI).
Provision of mason time by Ontario Masonry Contractors Associa-
tion (OMCA) and Canada Masonry Design Centre (CMDC) is ap-
preciated. The provision of the scaled blocks through a grant from
the Canadian Concrete Masonry Producers Association (CCMPA)
is gratefully acknowledged.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Selcuk Universitesi on 02/02/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Notation
The following symbols are used in this paper:
CM = building center of mass;
CR = building center of rotation;
CV = building center of strength;
Ed = building energy dissipation;
EdN = normalized building energy dissipation;
ev = eccentricity of building center of strength;
eR = eccentricity of building center of rotation;
J R;eff = effective building torsional stiffness;
K = wall stiffness (Q=Δ);
M twist = building twisting moment (Q × eR;x );
Q = building lateral resistance;
θ = the angle of twist of building roof slab;
ΔCM = displacement of building center of mass;
μΔ = displacement ductility;
ρh = ratio of steel reinforcement in horizontal direction; and
ρv = ratio of steel reinforcement in vertical direction.
References
Abboud, B. E., Hamid, A. A., and Harris, H. G. (1990). “Small-scale
modeling of concrete block masonry structures.” ACI Struct. J.,
87(2), 145–155.
Abrams, D. (1986). “Measured hysteresis in a masonry building system.”
Proc., 3rd U.S. Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, Earthquake Engi-
neering Research Institute, Oakland, CA.
Banting, B., and El-Dakhakhni, W. (2012). “Force- and displacement-based
seismic performance parameters for reinforced masonry structural walls
with boundary elements.” J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-
541X.0000572, 1477–1491.
Banting, B., and El-Dakhakhni, W. W. (2014). “Seismic performance
quantification of reinforced masonry structural walls with boundary
elements.” J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000895,
04014001.
Canadian Standards Association (CSA). (2004a). “CSA standards on con-
crete masonry units.” CSA A165, Mississauga, ON, Canada.
Canadian Standards Association (CSA). (2004b). “Design of masonry
structures.” CSA S304.1-04, Mississauga, ON, Canada.
© ASCE 04014178-12
J. Struct. Eng.
Heerema, P., Shedid, M., and El-Dakhakhni, W. (2014). “Response of a
reinforced concrete block shear wall structure to simulated earthquake
loading.” 9th Int. Masonry Conf., Guimarães, Portugal.
Hose, Y., and Seible, F. (1999). “Performance evaluation database for con-
crete bridge components, and systems under simulated seismic loads.”
PEER Rep. 1999/11, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center,
College of Engineering, Univ. of California, Berkley, CA.
Masonry Standards Joint Committee (MSJC). (2013). “Building code re-
quirements for masonry structures.” TMS 402/ASCE 5/ACI 530, ASCE,
Reston, VA.
Panagiotou, M., Restrepo, J. I., and Conte, J. P. (2011). “Shake-table test of
a full-scale 7-story building slice. Phase I: Rectangular wall.” J. Struct.
Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000332, 691–704.
Paulay, Y. (2000). “A simple displacement compatibility-based seismic
design strategy for reinforced concrete buildings.” 12th World Conf.
on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, New Zeland.
Priestley, N., Calvi, G., and Kowalsky, M. (2007). Displacement-based
seismic design of structures, IUSS Press, Pavia, Italy.
Seible, F., Hegemier, G., Priestley, M., Kingsley, G., Igarashi, A., and
Kurkchubasche, A. (1993). “Preliminary results from the TCCMAR
5-storey full scale reinforced masonry research building test.” Masonry
Soc. J., 12(1), 53–60.
Seible, F., Priestley, M., Kingsley, G., and Kurkchubasche, A. (1994).
“Seismic response of full scale five storey reinforced masonry build-
ing.” J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1994)120:3(925),
925–946.
Shedid, M., El-Dakhakhni, W., and Drysdale, R. (2009). “Inelastic behav-
ior of reinforced concrete masonry shear walls: Analysis.” Eng. Struct.,
31(9), 2032–2044.
Shedid, M., El-Dakhakhni, W., and Drysdale, R. (2010). “Characteristics of
rectangular, flanged, and end-confined reinforced concrete masonry
shear walls for seismic design.” J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)ST
.1943-541X.0000253, 1471–1482.
Shedid, M., El-Dakhakhni, W., and Drysdale, R. (2011). “Seismic response
modification factors for reinforced masonry structural walls.” J. Per-
form. Constr. Facil., 10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000144, 74–86.
Siyam, M., El-Dakhakhni, W., and Drysdale, R. G. (2012). “Seismic behav-
iour of reduced-scale two-storey reinforced concrete masonry shear
walls.” 15th Int. Brick and Block Masonry Conf. (CD-ROM),
Florianópolis, Brazil.
Siyam, M., El-Dakhakhni, W. W., and Drysdale, R. (2013). “Ductility of
coupled reinforced masonry shear walls.” 12th Canadian Masonry
Symp. (CD-ROM), Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Stavridis, A., et al. (2011). “Shake-table tests of a 3-story, full-scale
masonry wall system.” ACI Masonry Seminar, American Concrete
Institute (ACI), Farmington Hills, MI.
Tena-Colunga, A., and Abrams, D. P. (1996). “Seismic behaviour of struc-
tures with flexible diaphragms.” J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-
9445(1996)122:4(439), 439–445.
Tomaževič, M., and Velechovsky, T. (1992). “Some aspects of testing
small-scale masonry building models on simple earthquake simulators.”
Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 21(11), 945–963.
Tomaževič, M., and Weiss, P. (1994). “Seismic behavior of plain-and re-
inforced-masonry buildings.” J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-
9445(1994)120:2(323), 323–338.
Zonta, D., Zanardo, G., and Modena, C. (2001). “Experimental evaluation
of the ductility of a reduced-scale reinforced masonry building.” Mater.
Struct., 34(10), 636–644.
J. Struct. Eng.