Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Procedia Engineering 14 (2011) 2094–2102

The Twelfth East Asia-Pacific Conference on Structural Engineering and Construction

Experimental Study on Wall-Frame Connection of Confined

Masonry Wall
Wira Wijaya1, Dyah Kusumastuti2, Made Suarjana2, Rildova2, and Krishna
Pribadi2
1
Graduate student, Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Institute of Technology Bandung, Indonesia
2
Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Institute of Technology Bandung, Indonesia

Abstract

Four full-scale (3m × 3m) confined masonry wall specimens that represented simple house wall panels in Indonesia
were subjected to cyclic in-plane lateral load. The construction of the specimens, including reinforcement assemblies,
concreting, and brick-laying, followed the common construction practice in Indonesia. A specimen with no anchorage
between the wall and the reinforced concrete frame was chosen as a benchmark model. The other specimens were
varied in the details of wall-frame connection, i.e. zigzag (toothing) connection, short anchor between column and
wall, and continuous anchorage from column to column. The models were then subjected to cyclic in-plane lateral
loads, which represents earthquake loads, with increasing amplitude until collapsed. The behavior of these specimens
was then evaluated and compared. The parameters evaluated were crack patterns and failure mechanism of the wall
panel, loading capacity, and energy dissipation. The study revealed that zigzag connection and short anchor did not
improve the performance of the confined masonry wall; instead they were more likely to reduce the performance of
the wall. Cracks and failures of the two specimens were initiated by vertical crack on the face of the wall-frame
connection, which then reduced the confinement of the wall. Therefore, the final failure mode followed sliding shear
patterns on the bed joint of brick-mortar, which produced more brittle failure. Conversely, continuous anchorage
strengthened the confinement, thus the diagonal crack patterns were observed on the wall and the strut and tie
mechanism between the wall and the confining column was developed. Therefore, this specimen shows more ductile
behavior as well as higher lateral load capacity. In conclusion, the study shows that installing proper wall-frame
connection strategies is crucial in improving the structural performance.

Keywords: Confined Masonry Wall, Wall-frame Connections, Collapse Mechanism.

1. INTRODUCTION

The classifications of masonry wall are described in the Eurocode 6 (1996) and FEMA 306 (1998).
Eurocode 6 classifies masonry wall into three categories: Unreinforced Masonry, Confined Masonry, and
Reinforced Masonry. FEMA 306 categorizes masonry wall into three groups: Reinforced Masonry,

1877–7058 © 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2011.07.263
 Wira Wijaya et al. / Procedia Engineering 14 (2011) 2094–2102 2095

Unreinforced Masonry, and Infilled Frame. Using both references, there are differences between confined
masonry and infilled wall (infilled frame on FEMA) in terms of construction methods and lateral
resistance mechanisms.
Infilled walls are usually constructed on buildings that have more than one story, in which frame
construction preceded the construction of the infilled masonry wall. The lateral resistance mechanism of
such structure is largely contributed by the frame, whereas the infilled wall provides additional stiffness
and strength to the frame.
As for confined masonry wall, the construction is initiated by the construction of masonry wall and
then followed by construction of the confining frame. This type of wall is commonly used as a panel wall
in simple, one- to two-story housing in developing countries, such as Indonesia. For this particular type of
wall, the lateral resistance mechanism is mostly contributed by the wall, provided that the wall has strong
confinement. The confinement plays significant role in maintaining the wall integrity in order to develop
optimum lateral resistance.
The installation of wall-frame connections on a confined masonry wall has been introduced to preserve
the frame confinement to the wall and to improve the overall seismic performance of the structure.
Although many numerical studies have been conducted on the subject, few experimental studies were
carried out to study the effect of such connections on the structure. Therefore, an experimental study on
wall-frame connections on a masonry wall confined by reinforced concrete frame was conducted.

2. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM

2.1. Material Properties

Brick materials used for specimens were clay bricks with moderate quality, and the dimension of the
bricks used was 55x100x205 (mm). Mortar space in between bricks was 15mm thick with mortar mixture
of 1:5 for cement and sand respectively, adding 100% water from the cement volume. The concrete frame
mixture was of 1:2:3 for cement, sand and aggregate respectively with water being added as much as
100% from the cement volume. The frame reinforcements were plain rebars with I8 for stirrups/hoops
and I10 for longitudinal reinforcement. Material properties obtained from testing of materials are
presented in Table 1.

2.2. Test Specimens

The specimens used for the experiment were four full-scale (3m x 3m) confined masonry walls as
described in Table 2 and illustrated in Error! Reference source not found. to Error! Reference source
not found.. Model A represented the common practice without anchorage. Model B used short (32 cm)
I8 anchorage for every six layers of bricks. Model C utilized zigzag end surface of the brick wall for
additional connection from the wall to the frame. Model D used two continuous column to column I8
anchorages in addition to short anchorages as used in Model B. The continuous anchors were placed
every 1 m height of the wall.
The beams and columns for all specimens were 150 mm x 150 mm. The reinforcement was plain bar
I10 for longitudinal reinforcement and I8 for stirrups/hoops. The beam-column joints used 40d
development length with hook

.
2096 Wira Wijaya et al. / Procedia Engineering 14 (2011) 2094–2102

Table 1: Material properties

Number of Average Compressive / Standard Deviation

No Material Test
Samples Tensile Strength (MPa) (MPa)
1 Brick compressive strength 10 4.16 0.6
2 Concrete mortar compressive strength 8 8.74 2.88
3 Concrete compressive strength 14 18.08 2.71
4 Brick-mortar bonding 8 0.203 0.077
5 I8 bar tension strength 3 350.97 23.54
6 I10 bar tension strength 3 317.34 31.63

Table 2: Specimens details

No Model Wall-Frame Connection

1 A (Common Practice) -
2 B (Short Anchorage) Brick-column anchor I8 @ 6 brick layer, anchor length 32cm
3 C (Zigzag Connection) -
2 continuous column to column anchor I8, and @6 brick layers I8 -
4 D (Continuous Anchorage)
32cm

40 d 40 d

3000 3000
150 2700 150 150 2700 150
150

150

Beam & Column 150 x 150

3000

3000

Beam & Column 150 x 150

2850

2850

? 8-6 layers of brick

Main : 4 ? 10
Main : 4 ? 10 Stirrup : ? 8 - 200
Stirrup : ? 8 - 200
295

295

3900 3900

Model A (Common Practice) Model B (Anchorage)

40 d
40 d
3000
3000
150 2700 150
150 2700 150
150
150

?8
continous
Beam & Column 150 x 150
3000
3000

2850

Beam & Column 150 x 150

? 8-6 layers of brick
2850

Main : 4 ? 10
?8
Main : 4 ? 10 Stirrup : ? 8 - 200
continous
Stirrup : ? 8 - 200
295
295

3900 3900

Model C (Zigzag Connection) Model D (Continous Anchorage)

Figure 1: Test specimens

 Wira Wijaya et al. / Procedia Engineering 14 (2011) 2094–2102 2097

Load Cell

Reaction Wall
Figure 2: Test setup

Figure 2 presents the arrangement of the test set up. Strain gauges were installed on the reinforcement
bars and LVDT (Linear Variable Displacement Transducers) were used to measure the displacement.

2.3. Testing Procedure

The experiment was conducted by applying in-plane quasi-static cyclic lateral loads. The lateral load
was applied on the specimen’s beam, using displacement control based on the measured deformation of
the top of the specimens. Loading history was applied following ACI 374.1-05 recommendation as
presented in Figure 3. The experiment was conducted until the structure collapsed or reached 5% drift.
Error! Reference source not found. shows the testing of the specimen.

150 5

4
100
3

2
50
Displacement (mm)

1
Drift (%)

0 0

-1
-50
-2

-3
-100
-4

-150 -5
Cycle

Figure 3: Loading scheme diagram Figure 4: Testing of specimen

2098 Wira Wijaya et al. / Procedia Engineering 14 (2011) 2094–2102

3. TEST RESULT AND DISCUSSION

3.1. Crack Patterns and Modes of Failure

In general, initial cracks on the wall panel appeared at 2 mm lateral displacement (drift 0.067%). The
crack pattern showed that Model C (zigzag connection) developed mostly sliding shear crack at the upper
half of the wall. Other models showed similar confining effect on the wall and were able to develop
diagonal crack mechanism and formed compression strut (Figure 5).
Actuator Actuator

1 1
1 1 2 2
2 2 3 3
3 3 4 4
4 4 5 5
5 5 6 6
6 6 7 7
7 7 8
8
8 8 9
9
9 9 10
10
10 10
11 11
11 11
12 12
12 12
13 13
13 13
14 14
14 14
15 15
15 15
16 16
16 16
17 17
17 17
18 18
18 18
19 19
19 19
20 20
20 20
21 21
21 21
22 22 22
22
23 23 23
23
24 24 24
24
25 25 25 25
26 26 26 26
27 27 27 27
28 28 28 28
29 29 29 29
30 30 30 30
31 31 31 31
32 32 32 32
33 33 33 33
34 34 34 34
35 35 35 35
36 36 36 36
37 37 37 37
38 38 38 38
39 39 39 39
40 40 40
40
41 41
41 41

MODEL A MODEL B
Actuator
Actuator
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 1 1
4
2 2
5 5
3 3
6 6
4 4
7 7
5 5
8 8
6 6
9 9
7 7
10 10
8 8
11 11
9 9
12 12 10
10
13 13 11 11
14 14 12 12
15 15 13 13
16 16 14 14
17 17 15 15
18 18 16 16
19 19 17 17
20 20 18 18
21 21 19 19
22 22 20 20
23 23 21 21

24 24 22 22
25 23 23
25
26 24 24
26
25 25
27 27
26 26
28 28
27 27
29 29
28 28
30 30
29 29
31 31
30 30
32 32
31 31
33 33
32 32
34 34 33
33
35 35 34
34
36 36 35 35
37 37 36 36
38 38 37 37
39 39 38 38
40 40 39 39
41 41 40 40
41 41

MODEL C MODEL D

Figure 5: Crack patterns

Figure 8 shows that Models A and B have similar type of crack patterns. However, in Model B there is
a shift in the weak point of the masonry from the column face to the front of the anchor.
The inability of the cracks on the masonry wall to close perfectly at zero drift added the volume of the
wall panel, which then pushed the columns outward. The confining columns were then bent out in the
wall plane (bulging effect). Bulging effect on the confining columns subsequently weakened the
confinement and thus reduced the wall strength.
Model D (continuous anchorage) which has reinforcement on wall and columns succeeded in
preventing large cracks on the wall and produced strong confinement during the experiment. The strong
confinement has enable Model D to develop compression strut in both directions and therefore develop
optimum lateral resistance (Figure 6).

3.2. Lateral Capacity

Figure 7 shows hysteretic loops of each specimen and Figure 8 shows the envelope of the hysteretic
loop for all specimens. Due to brittle and unisotropic characteristics of the wall as mentioned previously,
most of the specimens display asymmetrical form of envelope hysteretic curve, which indicates different
 Wira Wijaya et al. / Procedia Engineering 14 (2011) 2094–2102 2099

behavior towards push and pull loading. The lateral capacity used will be defined by the minimum lateral
capacity between push and pull loadings.
Summary of the hysteretic behavior for all specimens is presented in Table 3. Compared to Model A,
additional short anchor on Model B slightly improve the lateral strength of the wall. Model D with
continuous anchorage has the highest lateral load capacity due to strong confinement. However, Model C
revealed that zigzag connection did not improve the lateral load capacity and this specimen has the lowest
capacity of all models.
Tension Tension

Confinement on wall

Confinement on wall
Tension
(Continous Anchor)

Tension
(Continous Anchor)

a. Without continuous anchorage b. With continuous anchorage

(Model A, B, C) (Model D)

Figure 6: Bulging effect on the confining columns

6 6
MODEL A MODEL B
4 4

2 2
Force (tonf)

Force (tonf)

0 0

-2 -2 Hysteretic Curve
Envelope
-4 Hysteretic Curve -4
Envelope

-6 -6
-120 -80 -40 0 40 80 120 -120 -80 -40 0 40 80 120
Displacement (mm)
Displacement (mm)

6 8
MODEL C
6 MODEL D
4
4
2
2
Force (tonf)

Force (tonf)

0 0

-2
-2

Hysteretic Curve -4 Hysteretic Curve

-4 Envelope
Envelope
-6

-6
-8
-120 -80 -40 0 40 80 120
-120 -80 -40 0 40 80 120
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)

Figure 7: Specimens hysteretic loops

2100 Wira Wijaya et al. / Procedia Engineering 14 (2011) 2094–2102

Force (tonf) 0

-2

-4

-6

-8
-120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Displacement (mm)
A (Benchmark Practice) B (Anchorage)
C (Zigzag Connection) D (Continous Anchorage)

Figure 8: Envelope curve of hysteretic loops

Table 3: Hysteretic behavior of specimens

Lateral Load Drift at Max Drift at Drift at Ultimate (80% Max

MODEL
Capacity (tonf) Load (%) Yield (%) Load) (%)
A (Common Practice) 5.09 0.75 0.26 1.08
B (Anchorage) 5.44 0.97 0.34 1.82
C (Zigzag Connection) 4.26 1.40 0.54 2.46
D (Continuous Anchorage) 6.7 1.00 0.30 2.02

3.3. Input Energy and Energy Dissipation

The cumulative input energy Einp is defined as the cumulative work of the actuator from the beginning
of the test to the final displacement amplitude (destination drift ratio). Work of the actuator in one loading
cycle 'Einp is calculated as the area under the positive and negative part of hysteretic loop (Figure 9). The
amount of dissipated energy in one cycle of loading was calculated as the area inside a single hysteretic
loop.
+ ( , + ('

' '

(, ('

D E

Figure 9: (a) Input energy in one loading cycle; (b) Dissipated hysteretic energy in one loading cycle
 Wira Wijaya et al. / Procedia Engineering 14 (2011) 2094–2102 2101

Table 4: Cumulative input energy and dissipated energy

Drift 0 - 3.5%
MODEL
Input Energy (kN-mm) Dissipated Energy (kN-mm) % Dissipated

A (Common Practice) 196294.40 142274.09 72.48

B (Anchorage) 231386.35 172393.32 74.50
C (Zigzag Connection) 178407.42 128681.59 72.13
D (Continuous Anchorage) 283188.49 211173.52 74.57

70000.00 60000.00

60000.00
50000.00

50000.00
Energy (kN-mm)

Energy (kN-mm)
40000.00
40000.00

30000.00
30000.00

20000.00 20000.00

10000.00
10000.00

0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190
0.025
0.033
0.040
0.050
0.067
0.100
0.133
0.200
0.250
0.350
0.500
0.750
1.000
1.400
1.750
2.200
2.750
3.500

0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190

0.025
0.033
0.040
0.050
0.067
0.100
0.133
0.200
0.250
0.350
0.500
0.750
1.000
1.400
1.750
2.200
2.750
3.500
Drift(%)

A (Benchm Prac) B (Anchor) Drift(%)

A (Benchm Prac) B (Anchor)
C (Zigzag) D (Cont Anch)
C (Zigzag) D (Cont Anchor)

Figure 10: Cumulative input energy Figure 11: Cumulative dissipated energy

Table 4 and Figure 10 and 15 show that up to drift 3.5%, the highest input energy was produced by
Model D with 283.2 kN-m. Model D also shows the highest dissipated energy, with 74.6% energy
dissipation. Although Model B developed somewhat lower input energy and dissipated energy, the
percentage of energy dissipation is comparable to Model D. However, additional zigzag connection on
Model C seems to have no significant influence on its input and dissipated energy, compared to Model A.
It appears that the presence of anchorage (short and continuous) requires more input energy to cause
damage to the specimens.

4. CONCLUSION

The behavior of four confined reinforced masonry walls with variations of wall-frame connection
details in resisting in-plane lateral cyclic loads was investigated experimentally.
2102 Wira Wijaya et al. / Procedia Engineering 14 (2011) 2094–2102

The study revealed that zigzag connection and short anchor did not improve the performance of the
confined masonry wall; instead it is more likely to reduce the performance of the wall. Crack patterns and
failures on the brick wall were initiated by vertical crack on the face of wall-frame connections, which
then reduced the confinement of the wall. Therefore, the final failure mode followed sliding shear patterns
on the bed joint of bricks-mortar, thus reducing the structural performance. Conversely, continuous
anchorage strengthened the confinement of the wall and allowed the development of diagonal crack
patterns. As a result, the strut and tie mechanism between the wall and the confining column was able to
develop as lateral load resistance mechanism. Therefore, better structural performance was observed for
this specimen. The study shows that installing proper wall-frame connection strategies is crucial in
improving the structural performance.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The study is partially supported by the Directorate General of Higher Education, Ministry of National
Education through Research Competitive Grant Program Batch I No. 164/SP2H/PP/DP2M/V/2009 and
“Collaborative Research in Feasible and Affordable Seismic Construction” conducted by Center for
Disaster Mitigation, Institute of Technology Bandung (CDM ITB, Indonesia), Research Institute for
Human Settlement (RIHS, Indonesia), and Building Research Institute (BRI, Japan). The supports are
gratefully acknowledged.

REFERENCES

[1] ACI Committee 374 (2005). “Acceptance Criteria for Moment Frames Based on Structural Testing and Commentary” (ACI
374.1-05), American Concrete Institute.
[2] BSSC. (2003). “NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures”
(FEMA-450) Part 1: Provisions, Building Seismic Savety Council, Washinton DC.
[3] European Committee of standardization (CEN) (1996). “Design of Masonry Structures. Part 1-1: General Rules for
Buildings-Reinforced and unreinforced Masonry”. ENV 1996 1-1 Eurocode 6, UK
[4] FEMA 306 (1998), “Evaluation of Earthquake Damage Concrete and Masonry Wall Buildings, Basic Procedures Manual”,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
[5] 7RPDåHYLþ, M. (1999), “Earthquake-Resistant Design of Masonry Buildings”, Imperial Collage Press.
[6] 7RPDåHYLþ, M., Lutman, M., and Petkovic, L., (1996), “Seismic Behavior of Masonry Walls: Experimental Simulation”, J.
Struct. Eng,.ASCE, 122(9).1048–1054.