experimental analysis of shear walls submited to …

15th International Brick and BlockMasonry Conference

Florianópolis – Brazil – 2012

EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF SHEAR WALLS SUBMITED TO VERTICALAND HORIZONTAL LOADS

Nascimento Neto, Joel Araújo1; Corrêa, Márcio Roberto Silva2

1 PhD, Senior Lecturer, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte, Civil Engineering Department,[email protected]

2 PhD, Associate Professor, São Carlos Engineering School, University of Sao Paulo, [email protected]

The masonry construction system is widely used in the world, mainly in developing countries.In Brazil the construction of tall masonry buildings of up to 23 floor levels is usual, whichemphasizes the importance of refining the analysis models commonly used in structuraldesigns. Therefore, full knowledge of shear wall behavior is the first stage to developing moreaccurate mathematical models. Thus, the authors of this work developed an experimentalprogram in 1:3 small scale shear wall models submitted to vertical and horizontal forces.Moreover, these experiments were performed with perforated and non-perforated-panels. Ingeneral, the research studies commonly show results that evaluate strength and stiffness lossof panels with openings related to the ones without opening and with the same overalldimensions. However, in the present study the panels with openings consisted of two shearwalls without an opening (individual panels) and joined by a lintel, resulting in panels withdifferent overall dimensions from the individual ones. The obtained results showed horizontalforces versus horizontal displacement curves and also the individual stiffness of each panel.This investigation enables quantifying the expressive increasing stiffness due to the lintels,thus enabling to improve the individual shear wall model adopted by structural engineers.

Keywords: Structural masonry, Shear walls, Experimental analysis, Small scale model.

INTRODUCTION

This paper addresses a part of a broader program, developed at São Carlos School ofEngineering – EESC, to study the behavior of structural masonry using small scale models.Under this program thee lines of research evaluate the effect of settlements , the interactionbetween orthogonal walls, and the behavior of panels with openings (coupled by lintels)typical of doors and windows. The results presented herein evaluate the behavior ofcomposite panels with typical door openings.A study by Abrams (1986) conducted full-scale tests of a two-storey reinforced masonrybuilding. The building was subjected to cyclic horizontal forces in the second slab appliedthrough hydraulic actuators. This experiment produced results that enabled to evaluate theonset of visible cracking, the pattern of these cracks and their distribution between the wallsof the building. Along the same line of experimental research, the Japan–United Statescoordinated program was instrumental for the research on the behavior of panels, highlighting









INTRODUCTION










INTRODUCTION




the study presented by Seible (1987), regarding the test of a full scale five-storey building. Asin Abrams’ study, the building was subjected to cyclic horizontal forces. The main objectivewas to evaluate the overall structural behavior as well as a few individual elements, in order toverify model calculations adopted by the new codes of that country.

In the specific case of panels with openings, some authors, as for instance Elshafie (1998),consider a panel without opening and evaluate the effect and various types of openings on thebehavior of this panel. In contrast, in our study the panels with openings were treated as twopanels, each with similar sizes to a previously analyzed individual panel, now coupled by alintel. This approach to the problem was adopted so that in future works, computer programsthat use beam elements to model the panel can be used.

Shedid et al (2008) conducted full-scale tests on panels with no openings for height/lengthratio equal to 2. The panels were constructed with varying reinforcement rates to preventshear rupture and enable the formation of plastic hinges at the base, as described by Ibrahimand Suter (1999) and Voon and Ingham (2006).1 The main conclusions of the study are: theflexural strength of the panel increased, as expected, to higher reinforcement rates andincreased pre-compression intensity, being more sensitive to reinforcement ratio variations,the onset of the vertical reinforcement flow was delayed to higher rates of verticalreinforcement and pre-compression intensity; the panel ductility was reduced with theaddition of the reinforcement ratio and pre-compression, thus more sensitive to thereinforcement ratio variations. These results, according to the author, confirm that reinforcedmasonry panels designed to present the typical bending behavior show a ductile behavior andlittle strength degradation, within the usual limits of displacement considered.

Studies that use full-scale models are, however, very expensive, and several studies have beenconducted using small scale models, the following can be cited: Abrams (1988); Chen (1988);Abboud et al. (1990); Ghanem (1992, 1993); Elshafie (1998); Camacho (2000);Santos (2001); and Nascimento Neto (2003, 2004).

Mohammed and Hughes (2011) conducted tests using models at four different scales (1:6,1:4, 1:2 and the full-scale prototype) to evaluate possible scale effects under differentloadings. The following tests were conducted: compressive strength with triplets; shearstrength of mortar joints; normal and parallel flexural strength to the bed joint; bond strengthof mortar joints, and diagonal compression strength. From the results, the authors noted thatin the case of full-scale compressive strength tests a scale effect was found for models 1:6 and1:4, but not for models 1:2 and 1:1. For the shear strength of mortar joints, there was astrength increase tendency with increasing scale. For normal flexural strength, there weredifferences in the results, but these could not be associated with an effective scale effect,while in parallel flexural strength, a smooth decrease in strength with decreasing scale wascharacterized. As for the joints bond, the scale effect was also described only for the reducedmodels, corresponding to an increase in strength with increasing scale. Finally, the diagonalcompression tests did not show an occurrence of the scale effect.

1 Apud Shedid et al (2008).



















In a paper that addresses a brief review of masonry shear wall modeling, Dhanasekar (2011)discussed the theoretical concepts related to the behavior of reinforced and unreinforcedmasonry, the modeling strategies commonly adopted (types of finite elements and the use ofcontact elements, types of discretization of the material, use of fracture and damagemechanics); as well as the numerical methods to be used (solving techniques and physicalnonlinearity of the material with the Finite Element Method; new types of finite elements,other numerical methods that may be adopted). Among the author’s concluding remarks, theincomplete understanding of the behavior of shear walls panels is emphasized, although this isa widely studied subject by researchers, and the urgency to review some code texts to maketheir regulations safer.

Finally, it can also be said that the literature mostly shows studies on reinforced panels, withfew approaches regarding unreinforced panels. Thus, the work presented here contributes tothe study of unreinforced masonry panels with openings.

PRELIMINAR TESTSPrior to the shear walls, tests to characterize the construction materials used wereperformed. The characterization tests are as follows:

- Determination of gross and net areas of the block resulting in: Agross = 4538 mm2

and Anet = 2474 mm2;- Full-scale compressive strength of cylindrical mortar and grout specimens (15 cm x

30 cm): for the grout a total of seven specimens were tested, yielding average strength equalto 56.1 MPa and Young modulus equal to 32.4 GPa, and nine for the mortar resulting inaverage strength of 10 MPa and Young modulus equal to 13.8 GPa;

- Compressive strength of blocks and prisms of three blocks obtaining the followingvalues: average strength and Young modulus of the blocks equal to 31.18 MPa and 8.5 GPa,respectively, for a total of 6 blocks, and average compressive strength of prisms equal to10.06 MPa, with a total of 18 prisms tested. Both results referred to the gross area.

Additional details regarding these tests may be obtained at Nascimento Neto (2003, 2004).

SHEAR WALL CONFIGURATIONSThe tests were conducted using panels with and without door openings, as shown in Figure 1– Shear walls tested: (a) Individual or without opening; (b) Composite with door opening.(Dimensions in milimeters).

. The height of the individual panel was of 885 mm and the width of 402 mm, dimensions alsoadopted for the continuous portions of the panels with an opening, which also had adequatelintels. These continuous portions correspond to the masonry stretches delimited by slabs andlocated next to the opening. Two panels were tested for the same type, differentiated by thepresence of any grout and vertical reinforcement . The first and last rows of panels were gluedto the respective slabs (epoxy glue) to ensure that the cracking occurred exclusively in themasonry.



























(a) (b)Figure 1 – Shear walls tested: (a) Individual or without opening; (b) Composite with

door opening. (Dimensions in milimeters).

The pre-compression intensity applied was determined based on the requirements of theBrazilian standard NBR 10837, obtaining the theoretical value equal to 1.65 MPa for thegross area of the wall. Erro! Fonte de referência não encontrada. shows the identificationof the settings of the panels tested.

Table 1 – Description of the models.

Description Opening Grout and vertical reinforcement

yes noPISG1 No xPICG1 No xPPSG1 Yes xPPCG1 Yes x

TEST INSTRUMENTATION AND ACCOMPLISHMENTDisplacement transducers were used to measure the displacements and strains, whosedisposition is illustrated in Figure 1. The numbers indicated in pairs correspond to thesymmetrical arrangement on both sides of the panel. With the arrangement in Figure 1b thehorizontal (T1, T2, T3, T4 and T5) and transversal (T24 and T25) displacements of the panelwere measured; longitudinal (T8, T9, T10, T11, T12, T13, T14 and T15) and diagonal (T16,T17, T18 and T19) strains of the continuous portions and of the lintels (T20, T21, T22 andT23); as well as to monitor the opening of cracks (T6, T7, T26 and T27).

As for the individual panels, transducers were placed for measuring displacements and strainsbased on what was chosen for those with a door opening.

7a

4a

2a3a

5a6a

10a

8a9a

13a12a11a

1a

885

402











7a

4a

2a3a

5a6a

10a

8a9a

13a12a11a

1a

885

402

885

402 885

309

7a

4a3a2a1a

6a5a

13a

10a9a8a

12a11a

753











885

402 885

309

7a

4a3a2a1a

6a5a

13a

10a9a8a

12a11a

753



(a) (b)Figure 1 – Instrumentation adopted: (a) Individual panel and (b) Panel with door

opening.

Figure 3 – Test configuration.

illustrates the final layout of the test apparatus, whose implementation is given in accordancewith the following sequence:

- Application of prior vertical load: using hydraulic jacks, three cycles of loadintensity equal to 8 kN were applied to promote the accommodation of the panel;

- Vertical loading for the pre-compression model: with the same equipment from theprevious step, loads of sufficient intensity were applied to submit the models to the stipulatedpre-compression;

- Application of horizontal force until the total collapse of the panel: the horizontalforce was applied monotonically to the top slab using a hydraulic actuator with displacementcontrol.

The instrumentation readings were recorded in a computer via automatic data acquisition.More detailed information about the assembly and tests can be found atNascimento Neto (2003).





opening.











opening.










The pre-compression was applied to the continuous portions using hydraulic actuators, asshown in Figure 3 – Test configuration.

, in order to be as close as possible to the estimated theoretical value. The intensities of thesepre-compressions were kept constant throughout the test, showing the following averagevalues for the gross area of the walls:

- Panels PISG1 and PICG1 with 1.67 MPa and 1.60 MPa, respectively;- Panel PPSG1: wall P1 with 1.77 MPa and wall P2 with 1.83 MPa;- Panel PPCG1: wall P1 with 1.64 MPa and wall P2 with 1.82 MPa.

SHEAR WALLS MEASUREMENTSTo assess the differences in stiffness between the individual panel and the composite panel,the results of the PISG1 model were compared against of the PPSG1 model, both withoutgrouting and reinforcement, and also model PICG1 against model PPCG1, both with groutingand vertical reinforcement. Figure 4 – Horizontal displacements at the top of shear walls:(a) Models without grout and vertical reinforcement and (b) Models with grout and verticalreinforcement.(a) illustrates the horizontal displacements of the non-grouted models, curves (1) and (2), anda third graph obtained by multiplying by 2 the records of the horizontal force of modelPISG1. In this case, it can be seen that the composite panel had both the stiffness as well asthe strength greater than twice the individual panel. This indicates that the composite paneldoes not correspond merely to doubling the strength and stiffness of the individual panel, as iscommonly adopted in structural designs of buildings. A similar trend can be observed in thegrouted models, Figure 4 – Horizontal displacements at the top of shear walls: (a) Modelswithout grout and vertical reinforcement and (b) Models with grout and verticalreinforcement.(b). Moreover, it is important to highlight the higher ductility of the grouted models (withreinforcement).

As for the curve (2) in Figure 4 – Horizontal displacements at the top of shear walls:(a) Models without grout and vertical reinforcement and (b) Models with grout and verticalreinforcement.

(a), which refers to the panel without vertical reinforcement, the predominantly horizontalportion is due to the panel’s rigid body motion with the extension of horizontal cracking at thebase, which cannot be associated with any effective ductility.



















(a)(b)

Figure 4 – Horizontal displacements at the top of shear walls: (a) Models without groutand vertical reinforcement and (b) Models with grout and vertical reinforcement.

Erro! Fonte de referência não encontrada. contains some numerical results associated withthe curves in Figure 4 – Horizontal displacements at the top of shear walls: (a) Modelswithout grout and vertical reinforcement and (b) Models with grout and verticalreinforcement.

. The values of initial stiffness are shown, according to the slopes of the trend lines of theinitial portion of the curves, the forces and respective displacements corresponding to the firstvisible crack, the maximum horizontal forces measured in the test and respectivedisplacements, as well as the displacements recorded at the panels’ colapse.

It was observed that the rigidities of the composite models are greater than triple thecorresponding individual models. As for models PISG1 and PPSG1, the composition resultedin a panel with stiffness 3.46 times greater, corresponding to an increase of 73% at twice thestiffness of the panel PISG1. As for models PICG1 and PPCG1 the composite panel showedthe stiffness 3.65 times greater, corresponding to an increase of 83% at twice the stiffness ofthe panel PICG1. These results indicate an increase in stiffness slightly greater for the groutedpanels.

In the design of buildings it is common to consider, for this type of panel, that the totalstiffness corresponds to the sum of stiffness of each panel disregarding the masonry portionabove the door opening. The results presented here highlight the conservative nature of thisconsideration.

Another point to highlight refers to the emergence of the first visible crack at the base of thewalls. It was observed that the increase of these forces, equal to 3.10 and 3.60 times formodels with and without grout, respectively, are the same order of magnitude as the initialstiffness increases. As expected, the composition also resulted in a significant increase in themaximum force measured in the tests. The models without grouting showed a differenceequal to 3.72 times in favor of the composite panel, which corresponds to an increase of 86%

0

3

6

9

12

15

18

21

24

27

30

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Ho

r izo

nt a

l Fo

r ce

(kN

)

Horizontal displacement (mm)

PPSG1: T1 (1)

PISG1: T1 (2)

2*PISG1: T1 (3)

(1)

(2)

(3)



(a)(b)







0

3

6

9

12

15

18

21

24

27

30

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Ho

r izo

nt a

l Fo

r ce

(kN

)

Horizontal displacement (mm)

PPSG1: T1 (1)

PISG1: T1 (2)

2*PISG1: T1 (3)

(1)

(2)

(3)

0

3

6

9

12

15

18

21

24

27

30

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Ho

r izo

nt a

l Fo

rce

(kN

)

Horizontal Displacement (mm)

PPCG1: T1 (4)

PICG1: T1 (5)

2*PICG1: T1 (6)

(4)

(5)

(6)



(a)(b)







0

3

6

9

12

15

18

21

24

27

30

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Ho

r izo

nt a

l Fo

rce

(kN

)

Horizontal Displacement (mm)

PPCG1: T1 (4)

PICG1: T1 (5)

2*PICG1: T1 (6)

(4)

(5)

(6)



at twice the strength of the individual panel. For the grouted models this difference was equalto 2.57 times, corresponding to 28% increase in the doubled resistance of the individual panel.It is important to mention that a greater intensity was expected for the maximum horizontalforce of the model PPCG1. The occurrence of cracking between the top slab and the masonryin the region of the lintel, with the intensity of the horizontal force close to 24 kN, may haveinfluenced the final result of this model. The analysis of Figure 6 – Lintels of composite shearwalls: (a) Strain measurements; (b) Cracking on PPSG1 model and (c) Cracking on PPCG1model.

below explains this fact. Finally, there is the proximity of the displacements corresponding tothe maximum horizontal force of the test, with values around 5.3 mm, and also the slightincrease in those displacements until the moment of complete rupture of the panels, except formodel PPCG1 that exhibited drup, 32% greater than dmax, indicating a certain ductility.

Table 2 – Resume of shear wall results.

Model Initial Stiffness(kN/mm)

Ffis.(kN)

Fmáx.(kN)

dmáx.(mm)

drup.(mm)

PISG1 4.45 5.8 7.3 4.1 4.3PPSG1 15.42 18.0 27.2 5.2 5.3PICG1 4.45 7.0 10.7 5.6 5.8PPCG1 16.26 25.0 25.7 5.3 7.0

Comments:- Ffis.: Horizontal force corresponding to the appearance of the first visible crack at the base

of the panels;- Fmax.: Maximum intensity of the horizontal force recorded during the test;- dmáx.: Horizontal displacement corresponding to Fmax;- drup.: Horizontal displacement recorded at the end of each test.

LINTEL MEASUREMENTSFigure 6 – Lintels of composite shear walls: (a) Strain measurements; (b) Cracking on PPSG1model and (c) Cracking on PPCG1 model.

(a) illustrates the strains measured at the ends of the lintels. It should be noted that thetransducers T20-T21 were not arranged and oriented in a region with possible tensile loads.The purpose of this instrumentation was to monitor a possible separation between the top slaband the masonry in the lintel region and the horizontal compression at the bottom of the lintel,at the compressed corner of the opening.

By observing the Figure, one can see that the traction region of both lintels had stretches closeto the intensity of 21 kN of the horizontal force, in which the deformation in model PPSG1remained approximately constant, with a value equal to 0.08 mm, and there was aconsiderable stretching increase in the lintel of model PPCG1, with a value equal to 0.18 mmat the colapse of the panel. Thus, one can say that the lintel of the grouted model was able toabsorb greater tensile strength intensities.

With the records of the transducers T20-T21 it is seen that up to the intensity of the horizontalforce equal to 15 kN there was practically no strain on the lintel of model PPSG1. When thehorizontal force reached the intensity of 18 kN, there was a shortening that increasedsubstantially from 21 kN, with maximum value of -0.13 mm. It is interesting to note that this







Ffis.(kN)

Fmáx.(kN)

dmáx.(mm)

drup.(mm)














Ffis.(kN)

Fmáx.(kN)

dmáx.(mm)

drup.(mm)










effect coincides with the steady stretches of transducers T22-T23, indicating a redistributionof efforts in the region pulled to the right into the compressed region to the left. Instead,shortening was recorded on the lintel of model PPCG1 from the beginning of horizontalloading, reaching a maximum shortening equal to -0.2 mm.

The mobilization of the composite concrete/masonry section of the lintel in both modelsshould be emphasized, evidenced by the cracking that occurred in the slab, as illustrated byFigure 6 – Lintels of composite shear walls: (a) Strain measurements; (b) Cracking on PPSG1model and (c) Cracking on PPCG1 model.

(b) and (c). The sudden change is also seen, the shortening to lengthening, recorded bytransducers T20-T21 in the model PPCG1, indicating the separation between the slab and themasonry in the region of the lintel and the composite section masonry/concrete not effective.It is also worth noting that after the separation occurred, the stretches recorded by T20-T21were the same order of magnitude as those recorded for T22-T23, indicating that the lintelwas symmetrically requested, as expected.

The results indicated that the lintel in both models was in great demand, with the lintel ofmodel PPCG1 more intense, given the lengthening and shortening measured. Furtherevidence of this intense request was the cracking, Figure 6 – Lintels of composite shear walls:(a) Strain measurements; (b) Cracking on PPSG1 model and (c) Cracking on PPCG1 model.

(b) and (c), vertical cracks were observed in the region of the lintel at the corner of theopening (flexion tension); sloped cracking in the compressed opening corner region(compression rod) and horizontal cracking in the central portion of the lintel (shear in the bedjoint). Similarly, there was the mobilization of the concrete/masonry composite section,evidenced by cracking in the top slab.

(a)

0369

12151821242730

-2,5E-01 -1,5E-01 -5,0E-02 5,0E-02 1,5E-01 2,5E-01 3,5E-01

Ho

rizo

ntal

For

ce (

kN)

Total strain (mm)

PPSG1: T20-T21 (1) PPCG1: T20-T21 (2)

PPSG1: T22-T23 (4) PPCG1: T22-T23 (3)

(1)

(2) (4) (3)








(a)

0369

12151821242730

-2,5E-01 -1,5E-01 -5,0E-02 5,0E-02 1,5E-01 2,5E-01 3,5E-01

Ho

rizo

ntal

For

ce (

kN)

Total strain (mm)

PPSG1: T20-T21 (1) PPCG1: T20-T21 (2)

PPSG1: T22-T23 (4) PPCG1: T22-T23 (3)

(1)

(2) (4) (3)








(a)



(b) (c)Figure 6 – Lintels of composite shear walls: (a) Strain measurements; (b) Cracking on

PPSG1 model and (c) Cracking on PPCG1 model.

CONCLUSIONSThe study presented in this work assessed the behavior of individual and composite panelsforming typical door openings. The analysis and discussion of the results were based onconsidering that the panels with an opening can be idealized as two individual panelsconnected by lintels. From these tests the following can be concluded:

- The initial stiffness of the composite panels was greater than triple the individualpanels. Thus, one can state that the doubled stiffness for the panels studied, commonlyadopted in building design, appears to be quite conservative;

- For the composite panels, there was slightly higher increase in initial stiffness in theone that had grouting and vertical reinforcement, while for the individual panel this valueremained practically unchanged;

- The onset of cracking was delayed in the composite panels, when compared to theindividual panel;

- As for the individual panels, there was an increase in the intensity of the maximumhorizontal force applied to the panel that had grout and vertical reinforcement. This effect wasnot evident in the composite panel, which may have been influenced by the cracking thatoccurred between the slab and the last row of the panel in the lintel region;

- The composite panels showed maximum displacements of the same order ofmagnitude as the individual panel;

- If properly connected to the top slab, the lintels can mobilize the compositeconcrete/masonry section, giving greater rigidity to the assembly and enabling to use a lowerreinforcement ratio in bending design.

The general conclusion is that lintels are vitally important in the mobilization of compositepanels, which can substantially increase the strength and stiffness of building bracing systems.This is very important in the design of tall buildings, where the effects of wind can:undermine the use of structural masonry due to the occurrence of very high compressionstresses; leading to the use of block/prism that have greater compressive strength thannecessary; result in vertical reinforcement to absorb the tensile stresses that are larger thannecessary. Moreover, when the lintels are included in the model it must be reinforced withweb reinforcement, because they are heavily requested by shear stresses, especially thosepositioned on the door opening.

REFERENCESAbboud, B. E.; Hamid, A. A.; Harris, H. G. (1991). “ Small-scale modelling of concrete bockmasonry structures”. ACI Structural Journal, v.87, n.2, Mar.-Apr.





























Abrams, D. P. (1986). “Lateral resistance of a two-story block building”. In: ASCEStructures Congress, New Orleans, USA, September 15-18. Technical session: Advances inanalysis of structural masonry.

Abrams, D. P. (1988). “Dynamic and static testing of reinforced concrete masonry structures”.The Masonry Society Journal (TMS), January-June.

Camacho, J. S.; Bertolino Jr., R.; Andolfado, R. P. (2000). “An experimental investigation ofcorrelations between prototypes and small-scale modelling of ceramic block masonry”. In:International Brick/Block Masonry Conference, 12th , Madri, Spain, 25-28 June.

Chen, H. –L.; Shah, S. P. (1988). “Test of model masonry single pier under dynamic shakingand quasistatic cyclic loading. masonry: materials, design, construction and maintenance”. In:HARRIS, H. A. (Ed.). Mansory: materials, design, construction and maintenance.Philadelphia: American Society for Testing and Materials. ASTM STP 992, p.145-165.

Dhanasekar, M. (2011). “Review of modeling of masonry shear”. Int. Adv. Eng. Sci. Appl.Math. February 2011.

Elshafie, H.; Hamid, A.; Okba, S. And Nash, E. (1998). ”Lateral response or reinforcedmasonry shear walls with door openings: an experimental study”. In: Candian MasonrySymposium, 8th, May 31 – June 3. Jasper, Alberta.

Ghanem, G. M.; Essawy, A S.; Hamid, A. A. (1992). “Effect of steel distribution on thebehavior of partially reinforced masonry shear walls”. In: Candian Masonry Symposium, 6th,Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada, 15-17 June.

Ghanem, G. M.; Salama, A. E.; Elmagd, S. A.; Hamid, A. A. (1993). “Effect of axialcompression on the behavior of partially reinforced masonry shear walls”. In: North AmericanMasonry Conference, 6th, June 6-9, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.

Ibrahim, K., and Suter, G. (1999). “Ductility of concrete masonry shear walls subjected tocyclic loading.” 8th North American Masonry Conference.

Mohammed, A. and Hughes, T. G. (2011). “Protorype and model masonry behavior underdifferent loading conditions”. Materials and Structures (2001). 44:53-65.

Nascimento Neto, J. A.; Cappuzzo Neto, V.; Corrêa, M. R. S.; Ramalho, M. A. (2004).“Experimental study of hollow blockwork walls using small-scale models”. In: AustralasianMasonry Conference, 2004, Newcastle, Australia. Australasian Masonry Conference, 7.

Nascimento Neto, J. A. (2003). Estudo de painéis com abertura constituídos por alvenariaestrutural de blocos. São Carlos. 319p. Tese (Doutorado) - Escola de Engenharia de SãoCarlos, Universidade de São Paulo.

Santos, F. A. (2001). Efeito do não-preenchimento de juntas verticais no desempenho de

































edifícios em alvenaria estrutural. 154p. Tese (Doutorado) – Programa de Pós-Graduação emEngenharia de Produção, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina.

Seible, F.; Yamazaki, Y.; Kaminosono, T and Teshigawara, M. (1987). “The japanese 5-storyfull scale reinforced concrete masonry test – Loading and instrumentation of the testbuilding”. The Masonry Society Journal (TMS). July – December.

Shedid, M. T.; Drysdale, R. G. and El-Dakhakhni, W. W. (2008). “Behavior of Fully GroutedReinforced Concrete Masonry Shear Walls Failing in Flexure: Experimental Results”. Journalof Structural Engineering, Vol. 134, No. 11, November 1, 2008.

Voon, K., and Ingham, J. (2006). “Experimental in-plane shear strength investigation ofreinforced concrete masonry walls.” Journal of Structural Engineering, 132(3), 400–408.













experimental analysis of shear walls submited to …

Documents