95

ARTICLE
Experimental testing of slender load-bearing masonry walls
with realistic support conditions
Clayton Pettit, Erum Mohsin, Carlos Cruz-Noguez, and Alaa Elwi

Abstract: Slender, load-bearing masonry walls with slenderness ratios (h/t) greater than 30 are required to be designed as
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from cdnsciencepub.com by UNIV CALGARY on 03/15/22

pinned-pinned elements according to North American provisions for masonry, CSA S304-14 and TMS 402-16. This provision
neglects the contribution of the reactive stiffness of the foundation to the strength of the wall and its effect on the redis-
tribution of bending moments along its height. Eight full-scale masonry walls were built with different degrees of base stiff-
ness and tested under an eccentric axial load. The results of the tests showed an increased load-bearing capacity and
decreased deflections with increased rotational base stiffness. Experimental data were used to determine key design param-
eters, including the effective flexural rigidity and moment distribution along the height of the walls. Comparing the values
of effective flexural rigidity determined from experimental results to code provisions, it was found that both codes tend to
underestimate the effective flexural rigidity of the walls.
Key words: masonry wall, slender, out-of-plane, full-scale testing, base stiffness.
Résumé : Les murs en maçonnerie minces et porteurs dont le rapport d’élancement (hauteur/épaisseur, h/t) est supérieur à
30 doivent être conçus comme des éléments articulés conformément aux dispositions nord-américaines relatives à la
maçonnerie, à la norme CSA S304-14 et à la norme TMS 402-16. Cette disposition ne tient pas compte de la contribution de
la rigidité réactive de la fondation à la résistance du mur et son effet sur la redistribution des moments de flexion le long de
For personal use only.

sa hauteur. Huit murs en maçonnerie en grandeur réelle ont été construits avec différents degrés de rigidité de la base et
mis à l’essai sous une charge axiale excentrée. Les résultats des essais ont montré une portance accrue et une diminution
des déformations avec une rigidité de base de rotation accrue. Des données expérimentales ont été utilisées pour déter-
miner les paramètres clés de conception, y compris la rigidité de flexion efficace et la répartition des moments le long de la
hauteur des murs. En comparant les valeurs de rigidité de flexion effective déterminées à partir des résultats expérimen-
taux aux dispositions du code, on a constaté que les deux codes tendent à sous-estimer la rigidité à la flexion effective des
murs. [Traduit par la Rédaction]
Mots-clés : mur en maçonnerie, mince, hors plan, essais en grandeur réelle, rigidité de la base.

1. Introduction
Current North American standards for masonry design (CSA
S304-14 (CSA 2019); TMS 402-16 (MSJC 2016)) define a slender ma-
sonry wall as having an effective height-to-thickness (kh/t) ratio
(also referred to as the slenderness ratio) greater than 30. The
greater the slenderness ratio of a wall, the more susceptible it is
to slenderness effects. Slenderness effects are critical, as they
may lead to premature material failure (crushing) or instability
(buckling). Experimental studies of slenderness effects in full-
scale specimens have proven challenging because of the inherent
difficulties in testing walls with high slenderness ratios while
using realistic block sizes. As a result, conventional code provi-
sions for slender masonry walls are based on a small set of testing
data (Yokel et al. 1970, 1971; Hatzinikolas et al. 1978a, 1978b; ACI-SEASC
Task Committee on Slender Walls 1982), and the resulting design
guidelines for slender masonry walls tend to be conservative.
The study of masonry walls has proven challenging owing to
the unique material nonlinearity of the assemblage components
(block, mortar, and grout) as well as their interactions with one
another. Therefore, the estimation of the compressive strength
0
of the masonry assemblage (fm ), a key component in many design
provision equations, remains ambiguous. Although the testing
of masonry prisms is universally accepted as a viable means to
determine the compressive strength of the masonry assemblage,
designers often use prescriptive values of fm 0
available in design
provisions (Table 4 in CSA S304 and Table 2 in TMS 402), as prism
testing can be rather difficult and time-consuming. Some studies
have focused on calibrating such tables, and other studies have
been conducted to determine empirical relationships between
the component compressive strength and the assemblage com-
pressive strength through experimental programs (Khalaf et al.
1994; Sarangapani et al. 2005; Ross 2013; Fortes et al. 2015, 2018).
Research on slenderness effects experienced by load-bearing
masonry walls began in the 1970s when Yokel et al. (1970, 1971)
developed an experimental program to test reinforced masonry
walls with various slenderness ratios (20, 32, and 40) in a single
curvature. All wall specimens were tested under eccentric axial
load and fixed-pinned boundary conditions. Comparing the test
results to design provisions at the time (National Concrete Masonry
Association 1968), it was found that the flexural capacity was under-
estimated by up to a factor of 6 for walls with kh/t ratios of 20 and

Received 2 May 2020. Accepted 28 January 2021.

C. Pettit, C. Cruz-Noguez, and A. Elwi. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
E. Mohsin. Bridge Office, Highway Standards Branch, Ontario Ministry of Transportation, St Catharines, ON, Canada.
Corresponding author: Clayton Pettit (email: cpettit@ualberta.ca).
© 2021 The Author(s). Permission for reuse (free in most cases) can be obtained from copyright.com.

Can. J. Civ. Eng. 49: 95–108 (2022) dx.doi.org/10.1139/cjce-2020-0297 Published at www.cdnsciencepub.com/cjce on 3 February 2021.
 96
Fig. 1. Moment redistribution.
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from cdnsciencepub.com by UNIV CALGARY on 03/15/22
32 and overestimated the flexural capacity for walls with kh/t of
40. This overestimation was attributed to stability issues, as large
displacements were observed under small increases in load. It
For personal use only.
was also found that even though the boundary condition at the
base of the walls was designed to restrict rotation, rotation of the
base was still observed. From this, it was concluded that any base
stiffness was quickly degraded under relatively small amounts of
rotation.
Walls in double curvature were later tested by Hatzinikolas
et al. (1978a, 1978b). The program tested 68 masonry walls under
pinned-pinned boundary conditions. The slenderness ratios for
the test specimens ranged from 12 to 22. Concentrated moments
were applied at each end through an eccentric axial load at the
top of the wall and an adjustable pin at the base of the wall to cre-
ate a bottom eccentricity. Walls in double curvature exhibited a
much higher load-carrying capacity (up to a factor of 4) than the
walls in a single curvature. However, the failure mode of the
walls in double curvature was found to be much more explosive
than that in a single curvature. This was due to snap-through
buckling, as walls in double curvature would buckle in the first
mode at failure (i.e., shifting from double to single curvature). To
prevent this sudden failure, design provisions began to limit the
axial stress that could be applied to a wall.
As demands for taller walls grew, concerns regarding the stabil-
ity and failure modes of slender masonry walls have increased.
To address these concerns, the American Concrete Institute (ACI)
and the Structural Engineers Association of Southern California
(SEASC) jointly tested 30 full-scale reinforced concrete and ma-
sonry wall panels under combined axial and lateral loading in
1982. Of the 30 panels tested, nine were constructed using con-
crete masonry units (CMU) with slenderness ratios of 29, 36, and
48. All the walls were tested using pinned-pinned boundary con-
ditions. The findings from this study allowed for the determina-
tion of allowable deflection limits, confirming that a ductile
response was achieved with under-reinforced sections, and estab-
lished limitations on the axial loads to be applied to the walls.
The findings of this study formed the basis of modern North
American slender wall design provisions.
Both CSA S304 and TMS 402 assume a pinned base for very slen-
der walls in CSA S304 and TMS 402. This provision was a result of
the SEASC testing, which included only pin-ended specimens.
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 49, 2022
Although rotational stiffness at the base of the wall would naturally
be provided by the foundation on which the wall is constructed,
neglecting this rotational stiffness has been traditionally consid-
ered realistic, because it is assumed that under repeated cyclic
loading, a wall will experience sufficient degradation at the bot-
tom courses, effectively becoming a hinge and releasing the base
moment. However, as experimental programs focusing on the
behavior of CMU masonry walls have focused on pinned-pinned
boundary conditions (Liu and Dawe 2001; Liu and Hu 2007; Bean
Popehn et al. 2009), the validity of this assumption has not been
verified.
Recent studies (Isfeld et al. 2019; Pettit 2020) suggest that the
stiffness at the base can significantly reduce the out-of-plane
deflections, as the moment profile along the height of the wall is
redistributed by the reactive moment at the base. Figure 1 sche-
matically shows the effect of moment redistribution on a wall
subjected to an eccentric axial load at the top of the wall and
lateral load located at the midspan, which is a typical loading
scenario of walls. Accounting for the base rotational stiffness
creates an inflection point, reducing the effective wall length,
which increases the critical buckling load of the wall. The total
moment at the midspan of the wall at a given load also decreased.
In the study by Pettit (2020), four wall specimens (slenderness ra-
tio of 12) had varying degrees of base stiffness (0, 2300, 5000, and
9500 kNm/rad). The walls were tested under a non-reversed cyclic
lateral load and a gravity load. It was observed that walls with a
base stiffness experienced up to an 84% increase in load-carrying
capacity, 89% reduction in base rotation, and a 40% reduction in
midspan deflection compared to the pinned-pinned control wall.
Diminishing returns were also observed as the relative increase
in lateral load capacity compared to the control wall was 67%,
84%, and 83% for the 2300 , 5000 , and 9500 kNm/rad specimens,
respectively. Upon monitoring the base of the wall for possible
degradation under cyclic loading, no significant damage was
observed, indicating that the pinned base assumption may be
conservative. Although promising, neither study tested any speci-
mens with a slenderness ratio greater than 30.
This study aims to provide experimental evidence on the influ-
ence of rotational base stiffness on the key structural parameters
of slender masonry walls. To accomplish this task, the rotational
stiffness provided by a foundation at the base of the wall was
Published by Canadian Science Publishing
 Pettit et al. 97

evaluated as a function of the foundation, geometry, and soil Fig. 2. Wall specimen cross-section.
properties. From this, critical values of rotational stiffness were
selected and incorporated with specialized fixtures into eight
slender masonry walls. The walls were divided into two groups of
four. One group had a slenderness ratio of 28.6, and the other had
a slenderness ratio of 33.9. All walls were tested under an eccen-
tric axial load. No lateral load was applied to the walls. The
results were analyzed to study the effect of rotational stiffness on
the load-bearing capacity, deflections, moment redistribution,
and effective flexural rigidity.

2. Experimental program Fig. 3. Concrete wall base. [Colour online.]

Eight full-size, slender reinforced masonry walls with reactive

support conditions were tested under various axial loads and
fixed eccentricities. The tests were conducted in two groups. The
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from cdnsciencepub.com by UNIV CALGARY on 03/15/22

first group consisted of four walls with a slenderness ratio of (h/t)

of 28.6, and the second group consisted of four walls with h/t =
33.9. The selected slenderness ratios fall slightly above and below
the masonry code definitions of a slender wall (h/t = 30), in which
design provisions become increasingly stringent (CSA S304-14;
TMS 402-16). Within each group, the rotational stiffness provided
at the base of each wall varied during testing, including a pinned-
pinned case.

2.1. Test specimens

The walls were built using standard 20 cm concrete masonry
units (CMU) with a specified compressive strength of 15 MPa.
Specimens were 1.2 m (3 courses) and varied in height. Four wall
specimens were built to a height of 5.0 m (25 courses), while four
For personal use only.

were 6.0 m (30 courses) high. The flexural reinforcement con-

sisted of 2-15M steel rebar with the two cells containing the fully
grouted reinforcement. The horizontal reinforcement consisted
of No. 9 (3.8 mm) gauge ladder-type bed joint reinforcement and
was placed every second course. Typical cross-sectional details of
the specimens are shown in Fig. 2. It should be noted that
although the heights of the masonry walls were 5.0 m and 6.0 m,
the top and bottom fixtures created an additional 0.43 m of
height resulting in an effective height between the two points of
rotation of 5.43 m and 6.43 m, respectively.
All walls were constructed on 1190 mm long and 200 mm wide
concrete prisms confined with two steel channels (Fig. 3). The
concrete prism featured a series of holes to facilitate the attach-
ment of the HHS arm used to simulate the base stiffness (dis-
cussed in detail in Section 3.3.3) through high-strength bolts. For
dowel action between the wall and concrete base, 2-15M steel
dowels spaced at a distance of 600 mm were welded to a 19 mm
thick steel plate that was in turn welded to the top of the confin-
ing steel channels within the concrete base. The weld thickness
used for welding the steel reinforcing bars to the plate was
designed to provide sufficient strength to develop the yield stress
in the bars. These dowels would then be full-tension lap spliced
with flexural reinforcement. Another lap splice was located at
the mid-height of the wall to ensure the continuity of reinforce-
ment throughout.
2.2. Material properties
The material properties of the mortar and grout were deter-
mined through axial compressive testing of six 2-in (50 mm) mor-
tar cubes and three 4-in (101 mm) grout cylinders. Type S mortar
and coarse grout were used for all joints during wall and prism
construction. All molds were filled with mortar and grout used
during the construction of the wall specimens. Each mold was
cured for 28 days before testing. Results indicated an average
peak compressive strength of 38.8 MPa and 32.4 MPa for the mor-
tar and grout, respectively. The compressive strength of the ma-
0 directly proportional to the elastic modulus, and the moment
sonry assemblage (fm ) was determined using prism tests. A total
of 10 (five hollow and five grouted) five-course prisms were con-
structed in running bonds using the same materials as the
masonry walls. The 28-day compressive strength for the grouted
and hollow prisms was 10.2 MPa and 14.6 MPa, respectively. The
moduli of elasticity for the grouted and hollow prisms were
7379 MPa and 14 335 MPa, respectively. Table 1 summarizes the
material properties of the masonry assemblage, along with the
coefficient of variation and standard deviation of the peak com-
pressive strength.
It is observed that both the coefficient of variation for both the
grout and grouted prism specimens exceed the CSA S304 and
A179 specified limits of 15%. This scatter does not affect the TMS
402 based calculations, as these are based on the hollow prism
0
strength (fm;ug ). For CSA S304, the grouted prism strength affects
the calculation of the two parameters explored in this study: the
predicted moment capacity of the wall and the elastic modulus
0
of the masonry (Em). While the scatter of fm;g does not affect
the moment capacity calculations, as the compression block is
within the face shell in all instances and the moment capacity
0
depends on fm;ug only, the effect of the scatter in the elastic modu-
lus of masonry should be noted. This is important because Em is
later used to calculate the effective flexural rigidity, which is
then used to determine the moment magnification factor, as
discussed in Sections 4.6 and 4.7. However, as the calculation of
0
the elastic modulus is not entirely dependent on fm;g (Em ¼

0 0

850 ag fm;g þ auh fm;ug where a g and a ug are the ratios of the
grouted and ungrouted cross-sectional area to the total cross-
sectional area, respectively), the scatter in the Em is not as sub-
0
stantial as the scatter in fm;g . For instance, as 56% of the total
cross-sectional area of the specimens tested was considered
grouted (a g = 0.56), the scatter of the elastic modulus is reduced
to approximately 10%. It was concluded that the influence of this
scatter is not significant, as the effective flexural rigidity is not
magnifier is not directly proportional to the effective flexural
rigidity.

Published by Canadian Science Publishing

 98 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 49, 2022

Table 1. Material properties of the masonry assemblage.

Peak compressive Modulus of Coefficient of Standard
Specimen strength (MPa) elasticity (MPa) variation (%) deviation (MPa)
Mortar 38.8 – 6.2 2.4
Grout 32.4 – 17.9 5.8
Grouted prism 10.2 7379 18.2 1.8
Hollow prism 14.6 14335 6.4 0.9

Fig. 4. Test setup.

Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from cdnsciencepub.com by UNIV CALGARY on 03/15/22
For personal use only.

All walls had Gr. 400 15M (nominal diameter and area of 15 mm
and 200 mm2, respectively) steel rebar from the same batch.
Standard tensile tests following ASTM E8 (ASTM 2016) were con-
ducted to determine the material properties of the rebar and
weldable rebar (dowels). The results indicated an average yield
strength (fy) of 423 MPa and 403 MPa and an ultimate strength of
568 MPa and 567 MPa for the rebar and weldable rebar, respec-
tively. The coefficient of variation in the yield strength of the
rebar was 1.4%. The measured values of the modulus of elasticity
for the rebar and weldable rebar were 215000 MPa and 201000 MPa,
respectively.
2.3. Test setup
The test setup used in this experimental program consisted of
a system for the application of an eccentric vertical load at the
top of the wall, a lateral bracing system, and a bottom fixture to
simulate the base rotational stiffness (Figs. 4 and 5).
2.3.1. Lateral bracing system
Lateral support was provided at the top loading point to con-
trol the lateral movement of the wall specimen through a steel
column fixed to a strong floor. Two lateral braces were installed
between the stiff column and the top pin assembly using an
eyebolt.
The bottom support of the wall specimen was provided through
an assembly that consisted of a 150 mm diameter steel shaft sup-
ported by a spherical bearing at each end. The spherical bearings
were pressed into large steel housings, which had provisions to
bolt into T-slots at the base of the testing machine. The assembly
was fitted with fixtures that allowed it to freely rotate to simulate
a pinned connection and to simulate a reactive stiffness, as dis-
cussed in Section 3.3.3.
2.3.2. Vertical load application
An MTS hydraulic ram with a capacity of 6000 kN was used to
apply an eccentric axial load to the top of the wall specimens
through a pin-type arrangement. The axial load was transferred
from the machine to the wall using a C-shaped steel cradle.
2.3.3. Foundation stiffness
The rotational support stiffness R at the base of the wall speci-
mens was simulated by attaching an HSS steel beam to the bot-
tom assembly through a fully fixed connection, while the other
end of the beam was simply supported on the strong floor (Fig. 6).
The moment of inertia and length of the steel member were cho-
sen to provide rotational support stiffness levels typical of strip
foundations, using the analysis model described next.
A finite-element (FE) analysis model developed using OpenSEES
(McKenna and Fenves 2001) was used to determine the stiffness of
the foundation, including the presence of soil. Concrete strip foot-
ings were selected in this study as the prototype foundation, as they
are commonly used for masonry walls in soils with moderate to
high load-bearing capacity (Fig. 7). Pile foundations, found in areas
with softer soils, are not part of the scope of this study, and their
rotational mechanisms are likely to be significantly different.
The magnitude of the rotational restraint that strip founda-
tions provide at the base of the wall is a function of the soil prop-
erties and foundation geometry. Two wall types were considered
in the calculation of the rotation stiffness: slender, single-story
masonry walls, and multi-story, non-slender masonry walls. Slen-
der, single-story masonry walls are typically subjected to smaller
gravity loads than their multi-storey counterparts; however, they
are more susceptible to bending owing to their longer unsup-
ported spans. Therefore, the design of tall walls is often governed
by the flexural moment, with relatively small shear forces at the

Published by Canadian Science Publishing

 Pettit et al.
Fig. 5. Completed test setup. [Colour online.]
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from cdnsciencepub.com by UNIV CALGARY on 03/15/22
For personal use only.
Fig. 6. Simulation of base rotational stiffness. [Colour online.]
base. Coupled with the fact that these walls are typically sub-
jected to low gravity loads, this results in smaller foundation
widths compared to those of non-slender walls. In the latter, the
design is often governed by the axial bearing capacity due to
large gravity loads in the wall or significant shear forces arising
from their shorter spans. Three different foundation sizes were
chosen for analysis (denoted as “light,” “medium,” and “robust”),
along with three different soil types of varying modulus of sub-
grade reaction (56 000 kN/m3, 76 000 kN/m3, and 108 000 kN/m3).
In this study, the strip foundations were modelled as a 2D
series of nodes along the base and height of the foundation
99
Fig. 7. Shallow strip footing foundations.
connected by nonlinear beam-column elements (Fig. 8a). The con-
stitutive material behavior of the elements was defined using the
Concrete02 material model in OpenSEES. The model is a Kent and
Park (1971) concrete model with degrading linear unloading/
reloading stiffness as per the work of Karsan and Jirsa (1969). A
concrete compressive strength (fc0 ) of 30 MPa was specified for all
elements in the model. The soil-structure interaction was cap-
tured by defining a series of springs along the base of the founda-
tion (Li 2016). With a linear response for the soil assumed, the
soil-foundation interaction was captured by connecting each
node along the base of the foundation with another node at
the same coordinates through a zero-length beam element. The
elastic properties were defined for zero-length elements. The
Published by Canadian Science Publishing
 100 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 49, 2022

Fig. 8. (a) Finite element foundation model and (b) moment–rotation relationship. [Colour online.]
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from cdnsciencepub.com by UNIV CALGARY on 03/15/22

stiffness of each spring was calculated to correspond to the modu- Table 2. Numerically determined support stiffness.
lus of the subgrade reaction of the soil multiplied by the tributary
Base Strip footing Modulus of
area of the footing corresponding to each spring.
stiffness dimensions subgrade
To determine the rotational stiffness of the foundation, a moment
(kNm/rad) (mm) Soil type reaction (kN/m3)
was specified at the top node of the foundation (Fig. 8a), and the
rotation at the top of the foundation was monitored. With the 1000 Clayey medium 56 000
soil properties and the concrete in the foundation being assumed dense sand
elastic while all nonlinearity occurs in the wall itself, the rela-
tionship between the applied moment and foundation rotation
is linear (Fig. 8b). The slope of the applied moment – foundation
For personal use only.

rotation relationship was defined as the rotational stiffness (R).

Soil types were chosen to produce the most extreme cases
while remaining practical. Analyzing all possible parameter com-
binations (Mohsin 2005), the rotational stiffness ranged from
500 to 12 000 kNm/rad. The robust foundations of non-slender
multi-story masonry walls in strong soils provided the largest
rotational stiffnesses, ranging from 9000 to 12 000 kNm/rad.
Medium-sized foundations in soils with average strength ranged 5000 Medium and 76 000
between 3500 and 6000 kNm/rad. Light foundations in softer dense sand
soils were the smallest, ranging between 500 and 3000 kNm/rad.
Based on these results and experimental constraints, three rota-
tional stiffness values were chosen for this investigation: 1000,
5000, and 10 000 kNm/rad. These values cover a practical range
of the foundation rotational stiffness values found in practice.
Table 2 presents the strip footing dimensions and soil types asso-
ciated with these rotational stiffness values.
The value of the rotational support stiffness provided by the
HSS section was determined using a simple numerical model
created in the FE program OpenSEES. Within the model, a simple
supported HSS section was subjected to an increasing end 10 000 Dense sand 108 000
moment (Fig. 9) until the rotation of the section at the location of
the end moment reached a value of 1 rad. The rotational stiffness
of the section is defined as the moment required to cause this
rotation. To achieve the desired values of support stiffness listed
in Table 2, the unsupported span of the beam was varied, with
shorter and longer spans providing larger and smaller values of
rotational support stiffness, respectively. The material properties
of the HSS section were assumed to be elastic with an elastic mod-
ulus of 200 000 MPa. The details of the selected spans and their
respective rotational stiffnesses are listed in Table 3.

2.4. Instrumentation and loading protocol

The vertical load and vertical arm travel of the testing machine
were captured using a pressure transducer and an integral dis-
placement transducer. Horizontal displacements of the wall
specimen were recorded using eight displacement transducers
placed along the wall height. Three rows of strain gauges were
mounted on the bottom dowels of the wall. Each reinforcing bar
was fitted with six strain gauges, three on each face, placed
approximately at the bottom, middle, and top course of the wall.
Six rotation meters were used to monitor the rotational displace-
ment during testing (Fig. 4).

Published by Canadian Science Publishing

 Pettit et al. 101

Fig. 9. Finite element model of HSS sections. [Colour online.] Table 4. Summary of test results.
Support Base Maximum Midspan
stiffness Peak load moment moment deflection
Specimen h/t (kNm/rad) (kN) (kNm) (kNm) (mm)
W1 28.6 0 527 – 43.0 27.3
W2 28.6 1000 758 –24.1 60.8 28.8
W3* 28.6 5000 968 –40.5 62.6 22.8
W4* 28.6 10 000 818 –45.6 53.2 14.9
W5 33.9 0 481 – 35.9 27.0
W6 33.9 1,000 607 –21.6 50.1 32.2
W7 33.9 5,000 746 –48.5 51.3 28.2
Table 3. Simulated base rotational stiffness. W8 33.9 10 000 804 –61.4 52.1 26.5
Rotational *Walls failed with crushing of the top course.
stiffness HSS HSS section
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from cdnsciencepub.com by UNIV CALGARY on 03/15/22

Specimen (kNm/rad) section span (m)

W1, W5 0 – –
specimen at failure was 968 kN with a midspan deflection of
W2, W6 1000 HSS 1021026.3 1.85
22.8 mm. No cracks were observed prior to failure. The specimen
W3, W7 5000 HSS 15215213 2.50
failed before the peak load with the sudden crushing of the top
W4, W8 10 000 HSS 15215213 1.25
course and opening of the bed joint between the second and
third courses from the top.
Specimen W4 was tested at 10 000 kNm/rad at the base. Speci-
Each specimen was vertically loaded at the top of the displace- men W4 was also unable to reach a peak load before failure
ment control. Two rates were used to trace responses. A rate of occurred. At failure, a peak load of 818 kN was recorded with a
0.19 mm/min was used up to the maximum load while a compara- midspan deflection of 14.9 mm. Similar to specimen W3, the
tively higher rate, that is, 0.5 mm/min, was used in the post-failure specimen failed prior to the peak load owing to the sudden crush-
region of the response to ensure the testing of each wall was ing of the top course. No horizontal cracks were observed prior
completed in a single day. Owing to the safety concerns associ- to the failure.
For personal use only.

ated with failing a slender masonry wall, tests would be stopped

once failure was judged to be near. In all tests, the eccentricity
of the axial load at the top of the wall was set at 1/3 of the total
thickness of the wall, while the nominal zero eccentricity of the
bottom of the wall was set for all tests. However, it should be
noted that as the test progressed, the point of load application
shifted owing to the rotation of the top of the wall.
3. Experimental results
3.1. Load displacement response
The structural response parameters obtained for the wall speci-
mens are presented in Table 4. Both the maximum and support
moments were determined from the last recorded data point
before the tests were stopped owing to safety concerns, while the
midspan deflection listed was measured at peak load. The maxi-
mum moment was determined by adding the corresponding
primary (from the eccentric axial load) and secondary moments
(from the PD effects and support stiffness), while the base moment
was determined by multiplying the rotational stiffness of the speci-
men by the rotation of the base at failure.
3.1.1. Group I (h/t = 28.6)
Specimen W1 was tested as a pinned-pinned wall and acted as
the reference wall for the group. W1 was able to achieve a peak
load of 527 kN with a midspan deflection of 27.3 mm with no sig-
nificant damage, except for horizontal cracking that appeared at
the midspan of the wall (bottom of course 13). The test continued
until wall failure at a midspan deflection of 134 mm. The mode of
failure was compression crushing of the masonry slightly above
the midpoint of the wall (course 14).
Specimen W2 was tested with a 1000 kNm/rad rotational sup-
port at the base. The peak load of this specimen was 758 kN, with
a corresponding midspan deflection of 29 mm. Horizontal cracks
were observed at the top and bottom bed joints of course 5. The
specimen reached a midspan deflection of 72.1 mm before the
test was stopped.
Specimen W3 was tested at 5000 kNm/rad at the base. W3 failed
prior to the post-peak softening branch. The peak load of the
3.1.2. Group II (h/t = 33.9)
The first specimen tested for Group II was W5, which featured
no simulated support stiffness and acted as a reference wall for
the group. Specimen W5 recorded a peak load of 481 kN with a
corresponding midspan deflection of 27.0 mm. Cracking was
observed in course 15. Loading continued until the midspan of
W5 reached 112 mm when the test was stopped owing to safety
concerns.
Specimen W6 had a simulated support stiffness of 1000 kNm/rad.
The peak load and midspan deflection at the peak load were 607 kN
and 32.2 mm, respectively. Significant cracking was observed at
peak load. The midspan deflection reached a value of 76.9 mm.
Specimen W7 had a support stiffness of 5000 kNm/rad. Speci-
men W7 recorded a peak load of 746 kN and a corresponding mid-
span deflection of 28.2 mm. The first horizontal cracks appeared
at course 17, and the following peak load appeared on courses 17
to 27. The midspan deflection when the test was stopped was
121 mm.
Specimen W8 had a support stiffness of 10 000 kNm/rad. The
peak load and midspan deflection at the peak load were 804 kN
and 26.5 mm, respectively. Horizontal cracks appeared shortly af-
ter the peak load and were located at the midspan of the wall
(course 20). The wall reached a midspan deflection of 32.5 mm
before the test was stopped.
3.2. Loadbearing capacity
The load – midspan displacement histories of the specimens
are shown in Figs. 10a and 10b for Group I and Group II,
respectively.
Figure 10 shows that the presence of a rotational base stiffness
significantly increases the loadbearing capacity of the walls.
Increasing the rotational base stiffness from 0 kNm/rad (W1 and
W5) to 1000 kNm/rad (W2 and W6) resulted in an increase of
43.8% and 26.2% in load-carrying capacity in Groups I and II,
respectively. However, as the level of rotational base stiffness is
increased, the increase in load-carrying capacity diminishes. The
relative increase in load-carrying capacity when increasing the
level of rotational base stiffness from 1000 kNm/rad (W2 and W6)

Published by Canadian Science Publishing

 102
Fig. 10. Load – midspan deflection response: (a) Group I and (b) Group II.
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from cdnsciencepub.com by UNIV CALGARY on 03/15/22
Fig. 11. Total moment profile at 250 kN of axial load: (a) Group I and (b) Group II.
For personal use only.
to 5000 kNm/rad (W3 and W7) was 27.7% and 22.9% for Groups I
and II respectively. When increasing the level of rotational base
stiffness from 5000 kNm/rad (W3 and W7) to 10 000 kNm/rad (W4
and W8), the relative increase in load-carrying capacity was
–15.5% and 7.8% for Groups I and II respectively. The rationale for
specimen W3 having a higher load-carrying capacity than speci-
men W4 is that specimen W4 failed locally at the top of the wall
prior to peak load due to inadequate anchorage between the wall
and the fixture.
It should be noted that this study did not include the lateral
loads. This is significant because lateral loads often govern slen-
der wall design, as their resulting moments are a function of
the wall height. Lateral loads would result in additional deflec-
tions and second-order effects, resulting in a lower load-bearing
capacity.
3.3. Moment distribution
The first-order moment was determined using statics (eq. 1),
while the second-order moment was determined by multiplying
the midspan deflection by the axial load (eq. 2). The reactive
moment at the base of the wall was determined by multiplying
the measured rotation by the rotational base stiffness (eq. 3). The
total moment profiles (the superposition of the primary, second-
ary, and base stiffness profiles) were plotted at an identical axial
load of 250 kN (Fig. 11) for all the walls. This load was chosen as it
represents approximately 10% of the compressive capacity of the
wall specimen cross-section, which is the maximum allowable
axial load for walls with h/t > 30 in CSA S304-14 (CSA 2019).
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 49, 2022
 
x
ð1Þ Mfo ¼ PA e
h
ð2Þ Mso ¼ PAþSW D
   
x x
ð3Þ Mbs ¼ Ru 1  ¼ P0 l 1 
h h
where PA is the applied axial load, e is the eccentricity of the axial
load, x is the distance from the base of the wall to the point of in-
terest, h is the height of the wall, PA+SW is the combination of the
applied axial load and the self-weight of the masonry at the point
of interest, D is the deflection at the point of interest, R is the
rotational base stiffness, u is the base rotation, P 0 is the load cell
reaction of the moment arm, and l is the length of the moment
arm.
Figure 11 shows that the presence of a rotational base stiffness
redistributes the moment along the wall height compared to a
pinned-pinned case, with negative moments near the base. The
level of moment redistribution increases with the level of rota-
tional base stiffness. Specimens with high base stiffness (W4
and W8) experience much larger negative moments at the base
compared to specimens with smaller levels of base stiffness (W2
and W6).
When a base stiffness is present, an inflection point is created
in the moment diagram. The position of the inflection point
moves higher along the wall with increased rotational base
Published by Canadian Science Publishing
 Pettit et al. 103

Fig. 12. Deflection profile at 250 kN of axial load: (a) Group I and (b) Group II.
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from cdnsciencepub.com by UNIV CALGARY on 03/15/22

Table 5. Midspan moment reduction, P = 250 kN.

Moment contribution (kNm)
Slenderness Support stiffness First Second First + Base Midspan moment
Specimen ratio (kNm/rad) order order second order stiffness reduction (%)
W1 28.6 0 7.92 1.41 9.33 – –
W2 28.6 1000 7.92 1.18 9.10 –1.02 11.2
W3 28.6 5000 7.92 0.90 8.82 –3.36 38.1
W4 28.6 10 000 7.92 1.00 8.92 –5.85 65.6
W5 33.9 0 7.92 1.82 9.74 – –
For personal use only.

W6 33.9 1000 7.92 1.61 9.53 –1.05 11.0

W7 33.9 5000 7.92 1.34 9.26 –3.58 38.7
W8 33.9 10 000 7.92 1.27 9.19 –7.33 79.8

stiffness. For example, specimen W2 (rotational base stiffness of
1000 kNm/rad) has an inflection point located approximately
350 mm from the base of the wall, whereas specimen W4 (rota-
tional base stiffness of 10 000 kNm/rad) had an inflection point
located approximately 2100 mm from the base of the wall.
3.4. Deflection profiles
Figures 12a and 12b show the deflection profiles of the Group I
and II walls, respectively, at an axial load of 250 kN. In general,
both Group I and II walls experience smaller deflections as the
base rotational stiffness is increased, with the exception of speci-
men W4. This was attributed to the experimental observation
that specimen W4 experienced a loss of contact between the top
of the wall and the loading beam on the tension side owing to
inadequate anchorage. This resulted in increased eccentricity at
the top, which caused additional moments and deflections. The
decrease in deflection with increased base stiffness is due to the
fact that the rotational stiffness at the base forces the wall into
double curvature, stiffening the walls. Specimens without rota-
tional base stiffness experienced up to 4-times more deflection
than those with high levels of base stiffness.
Comparing the deflection profiles of the wall specimens of
Groups I and II, it is seen that Group II experiences higher deflec-
tions than Group I. This is expected because of the higher slen-
derness of the walls in Group II.
3.5. Midspan moment
Table 5 compares the midspan moments in the walls at an axial
load of 250 kN. The total moment at the midspan for pinned-
pinned with eccentric load at the top wall can be calculated as
the sum of the first- and second-order moments, as PAe/2 +
PA+SWDms. Without a base stiffness, there is no moment redistrib-
ution, and this is the final design moment for the wall. However,
because of the presence of a base stiffness, moment redistribu-
tion occurs, and the total moment at the midspan of the wall is
equal to PAe/2 + PA+SWDms – Ru /2. Thus, the moment at the mid-
span was reduced by an amount of Ru /2. Table 5 shows the
moment reduction at the midspan for the walls determined
experimentally.
Table 5 also shows that as the rotational base stiffness of the
wall increases, the midspan moment reduction also increases.
This is expected because higher levels of rotational base stiffness
result in higher levels of moment redistribution. Comparing
specimens from Groups I and II, specimens from Group II exhib-
ited a larger second-order moment compared to Group I with the
same level of rotational base stiffness. This is reasonable, as the
higher slenderness ratio of Group II resulted in larger deflections
and, in turn, larger second-order moments.
3.6. Effective flexural rigidity
3.6.1. Design provisions
Effective flexural rigidity is a key parameter in determining
the second-order effects of slender masonry walls. Although simi-
lar in that both design provisions utilize the elastic modulus of
the masonry (Em) and both the gross and cracked moment of iner-
tia (Io/In and Icr, respectively) in the calculation of the effective
flexural rigidity (EIeff), several distinctions between the two provi-
sions can be found. Table 6 lists the equations used within each
code provision to determine the effective flexural rigidity.
In the formulas listed above, e is the virtual eccentricity, ek is
0
the kern eccentricity, fm is the compressive strength of the ma-
sonry assemblage, b is the total width of the cross-section, bg and
bug are the grouted and ungrouted widths of the cross-section
respectively, t is the thickness of the unit, tf is the thickness of
the flange, taken as 36.2 mm as recommended by Drysdale and
Hamid (2005), n is the modular ratio between the steel and

Published by Canadian Science Publishing

 104 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 49, 2022

Table 6. Design provisions for the effective flexural rigidity.

CSA S304-14 TMS 402-16
Effective flexural rigidity (EIeff)
  
ev  ek (4b) EIeff ¼ f0:75Em In for Mu < Mcr Em Icr for Mu  Mcr
(4a) EIeff ¼ Em 0:25Io  ð0:25Io  Icr Þ
2ek
Effective flexural rigidity limits
(5) EIeff ¼ f Em Icr  0:25Em Io –

Elastic modulus of the masonry (Em)

0 0
(6a) Em ¼ 850fm (6b) Em ¼ 900fm
Gross moment of inertia (Io/In)
   
bg t3 bug t3 bug ðt  2tf Þ3 bg t3 bug t3 bug ðt  2tf Þ3
(7a) Io ¼ þ  (7b) In ¼ þ 
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from cdnsciencepub.com by UNIV CALGARY on 03/15/22

12 12 12 12 12 12
Cracked moment of inertia (Icr)
 
bc3 2 bc3 Pf
(8a) Icr ¼ þ nAs ðd  cÞ (8b) Icr ¼ þ n As þ ðd  cÞ2
3 3 fy
Cracked neutral axis (c)
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi

As fy þ Pf
ðnAs Þ2 þ 2nbAs d  nAs (9b) c¼ 0 b
(9a) c¼ 0:64fm
b

Table 7. Moment of inertia comparison. TMS 402 calculation. The measured peak loads exceeded those
corresponding to the maximum allowable axial loads in both
Ig/In Icr
provisions.
( 107 mm4) ( 107 mm4)
The effective flexural rigidity at the midspan of the specimens
For personal use only.

Support Peak by each standard was determined using eq. 4a in Table 8, and
stiffness load eq. 4b in Table 6. The moments of inertia are listed in Table 7, and
Specimen (kNm/rad) h/t (kN) CSA TMS CSA TMS the kern eccentricity (ek) was determined by dividing the section
W1 0 28.6 527 57.2 57.2 3.7 18.0 modulus (Se) by the effective area (Ae) of the cross-section, while
W2 1000 28.6 758 57.2 57.2 3.7 39.7 the virtual eccentricity formulation (ev = Mfp/Pf) simplifies such
W3 5000 28.6 968 57.2 57.2 3.7 76.8 that the virtual eccentricity is equal to the load eccentricity (ev =
W4 10 000 28.6 818 57.2 57.2 3.7 48.4 e) because of the loading condition of the wall specimens (Mfp =
W5 0 33.9 481 57.2 57.2 3.7 15.4 Pfe). As per CSA S304 requirements, a stiffness limit state factor
W6 1000 33.9 607 57.2 57.2 3.7 23.7 ( f er ) of 0.75 was applied to each value of effective flexural rigidity
W7 5000 33.9 746 57.2 57.2 3.7 38.2 to account for the variation in stiffness along the height of the
W8 10 000 33.9 804 57.2 57.2 3.7 46.3 wall. In the TMS 402 provisions, additional parameters needed
within the effective flexural rigidity calculation include the
cracking moment Mcr (eq. 10) and the maximum first-order
moment Mu, which for this loading scenario can be taken as the
masonry materials (n = Es/Em), As is the area of steel reinforcement, applied axial load multiplied by the eccentricity of the load. It
and d is the distance from the extreme compressive fibre of the was found that in all instances, the applied moment exceeded
cross-section to the steel reinforcement. It is noted that in both that of the cracking moment, resulting in the TMS prediction of
design standards, the equations for the moment of inertia neglect EIeff to be limited to EmIcr.
the presence of webs. This is a conservative simplification, as the loss  
in the moment of inertia (3.7% for the specimens tested) is negligible. Pf
ð10Þ Mcr ¼ þ fr Sn
Table 7 compares the values of both gross and cracked moments An
of inertia as calculated by each standard using the equations
defined in Table 6. For the gross moment of inertia, defined as Ig where Pf is the factored axial load, An is the net area of the cross-
and In in CSA S304 and TMS 402, respectively, the standards utilize section, fr is the modulus of rupture, and Sn is the section modulus
the same formula. As the section is uncracked at this instance, the of the cross-section. Table 8 summarizes the calculated effective
centroid of the cross-section coincides with the location of the rein- flexural rigidities for both the standards. TMS 402 consistently pre-
forcing steel, and thus the influence of the steel and axial load dicted larger values of EIeff when compared to those calculated
within the gross moment of inertia calculation is ignored. The two using the CSA S304 standard. This is a result of the inclusion of the
provisions diverge when calculating the cracked moment of iner- axial load within the cracked moment of the inertia term in TMS
tia. In the CSA S304 provisions, the cracked neutral axis (c) is calcu- 402. Thus, the increase in loadbearing capacity is directly included
lated based on a linear stress distribution (assuming service in the TMS calculations, resulting in an increased effective flexural
conditions), while the cracked neutral axis in the TMS 402 provi- rigidity with increased load-bearing capacity, unlike the CSA S304
sions is calculated based on a nonlinear stress distribution (assum- standard, in which the effective flexural rigidity remains independ-
ing ultimate limit state conditions). Another difference is the ent of the load-bearing capacity.
inclusion of an axial load term in the cracked moment of inertia
equation in the TMS 402 provisions, whereas this is not done 3.6.2. Analytical prediction of flexural rigidity
in S304. As this study focused on the effective flexural rigidity An estimate of the flexural rigidity of the specimens at peak
(flexural rigidity at peak load), the peak axial load was used in the load, or effective flexural rigidity, was calculated by solving

Published by Canadian Science Publishing

 Pettit et al. 105

Table 8. Code based effective flexural rigidity.

CSA S304 EIeff limits TMS 402 EIeff limits
( 1012 N·mm2) ( 1012 N·mm2) EIeff ( 1012 N·mm2)
Support stiffness
Specimen (kNm/rad) h/t eq. 4a 0.25EmIg EmIcr 0.75EmIn EmIcr CSA S304 TMS 402
W1 0 28.6 0.95 1.1 0.29 4.7 2.0 0.95 2.0
W2 1000 28.6 0.95 1.1 0.29 4.7 4.4 0.95 4.4
W3 5000 28.6 0.95 1.1 0.29 4.7 8.5 0.95 8.5
W4 10 000 28.6 0.95 1.1 0.29 4.7 5.4 0.95 5.4
W5 0 33.9 0.95 1.1 0.29 4.7 1.7 0.95 1.7
W6 1000 33.9 0.95 1.1 0.29 4.7 2.6 0.95 2.6
W7 5000 33.9 0.95 1.1 0.29 4.7 4.2 0.95 4.2
W8 10 000 33.9 0.95 1.1 0.29 4.7 5.1 0.95 5.1
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from cdnsciencepub.com by UNIV CALGARY on 03/15/22

Table 9. Effective flexural rigidity comparison.

Effective flexural rigidity Experimental to
( 1012 N·mm2) predicted ratio
Support stiffness
Specimen h/t (kNm/rad) Experimental CSA S304 TMS 402 CSA S304 TMS 402
W1 28.6 0 3.6 0.95 2.0 3.8 1.8
W2 28.6 1000 6.4 0.95 4.4 6.7 1.5
W3 28.6 5000 11.5 0.95 8.5 12.1 1.4
W4 28.6 10 000 14.7 0.95 5.4 15.5 2.7
W5 33.9 0 5.2 0.95 1.7 5.5 3.1
W6 33.9 1000 7.3 0.95 2.6 7.7 2.8
For personal use only.

W7 33.9 5000 10.3 0.95 4.2 10.8 2.5

W8 33.9 10 000 13.0 0.95 5.1 13.7 2.5

 
the elastic differential equation governing the beam-column 1 sinðkxÞ x
ð13Þ uðxÞ ¼ R u  þ þ ðPAþSW Þe
behavior: EIk2 sinðkhÞ h
   

sinðkxÞcosðkhÞ x
@2 @ 2 uðxÞ @ 2 uðxÞ  1þ  cosðkhÞ 
ð11Þ EI þ PAþSW ¼ qðxÞ sinðkhÞ h
@h2 @h2 @h2

where h is the height of the wall; EI is the flexural rigidity; PA+SW
is the compressive axial load due to a combination of the applied
axial load and the self-weight of the masonry; u(x) is the deflec-
tion at distance x from the base of the wall; and q(x) is the later-
ally distributed load function acting on the wall.
With the absence of a lateral load in this study, the q(x) term in
eq. 11 was taken as zero. The effects of the axial load eccentricity
and rotational base stiffness were accounted for through the
boundary conditions required to solve the differential equation.
For a simply supported masonry wall subjected to an eccentric
axial load at the top and a reactive boundary condition at the bot-
tom, the following boundary conditions were defined:
ð12aÞ uð0Þ ¼ 0
ð12bÞ uðhÞ ¼ 0
Ru
ð12cÞ u00 ð0Þ ¼
EI
PA e
ð12dÞ u00 ðhÞ ¼
EI
where R is the value of the rotational stiffness at the base of the
wall; u is the slope at the base of the wall; and e is the eccentricity
of the compressive axial load. Solving eq. 11 results in the follow-
ing expression:
where
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
PAþSW
ð14Þ k¼
EI
Referring to eq. 13, it is seen that if the deflection and axial load
at a specific point, along with the wall height, base rotational
stiffness, and base rotation are known, the flexural rigidity (EI)
can be determined. As the flexural rigidity varies with the height
of the wall, the value of EI obtained from eq. 13 corresponds to
the value of EI at a specific location in which the deflection and
axial load were measured, allowing the capture of phenomena
such as tensile cracking to be effectively accounted for in the
evaluation of EI as the input load and deflection of the point are
dependent on such phenomena.
Using experimental values of midspan deflection, axial load,
wall height, base stiffness, and base rotation at peak load, the
effective flexural rigidity of the test specimens was estimated by
iterating the values of EI until both sides of eq. 13 were satisfied.
Such value of EI is termed “experimental.” Table 9 shows the ex-
perimental effective flexural rigidity at the midspan of the wall
obtained through the solution of the differential equation using
test data and a comparison with the relevant code provisions.
It can be seen that the experimental EI increases with an increase
in the rotational base stiffness. The presence of the base rotational
stiffness decreases the moment at the midspan of the wall, allowing
the wall to carry an additional axial load before failure occurs. This
additional axial load stiffens the wall at the critical section, thereby
increasing the moment of inertia as cracking is delayed.

Published by Canadian Science Publishing

 106 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 49, 2022

Table 10. CSA S304 design moment at the midspan of the wall (P = 250 kN).
Support stiffness MT,CSA MT,exp
Specimen h/t (kNm/rad) k Pcr (kN) Cm (kNm) (kNm) MT,CSA/MT,exp
W1 28.6 0 1.00 320 0.60 21.7 9.3 2.33
W2 28.6 1000 0.90 395 0.55 11.9 8.1 1.47
W3 28.6 5000 0.72 617 0.43 5.7 5.5 1.04
W4 28.6 10 000 0.61 860 0.40 4.5 3.1 1.45
W5 33.9 0 1.00 228 0.60 Instability 9.7 –
W6 33.9 1000 0.90 281 0.55 39.3 8.5 4.62
W7 33.9 5000 0.72 439 0.42 7.7 5.7 1.35
W8 33.9 10 000 0.56 726 0.40 4.8 1.9 2.53

Comparing the experimental results to the design provisions, the determination of the total moment of the wall (MT,CSA, eq. 15).
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from cdnsciencepub.com by UNIV CALGARY on 03/15/22

it is seen that both codes underestimate the experimental effec-
tive flexural rigidity of the wall with CSA S304 being the more
conservative of the two provisions. This is a result of TMS 402,
including the effects of the axial load in the calculation of the
cracked moment of inertia. CSA S304 neglects the effects of the
axial load, and the calculation of the cracked moment of inertia
is only a function of the cross-section properties. This resulted in
a constant effective flexural rigidity for all the eight wall speci-
mens. Another key difference is the reduction factor ( f er ) of 0.75
used in CSA S304 for effective flexural rigidity. This further
decreases the already lower effective flexural rigidity predicted
by CSA S304 compared to TMS 402.
Although TMS 402 accounts for the effects of axial load, the
standard is limited in that it does not account for the gradual deg-
For personal use only.
The effective length factor used in the determination of the criti-
cal buckling load (Pcr, eq. 16) reduces the wall height based on the
magnitude of rotational stiffness found at each end of the wall,
resulting in a larger buckling load and, in turn, a smaller total
design moment. Based on the ratio of moments at each end of
the wall, the Cm factor accounts for alternate loading conditions
such as an eccentric axial load, as was the case in this study. To
determine the effectiveness of these parameters in predicting
the wall response, the total moment at the midspan of the
wall calculated using CSA S304 (MT,CSA) was compared to that
obtained during the experiment (MT,exp). It should be noted that
TMS 402 does not include these parameters as it is explicitly
stated that the provided expressions in the provision are derived
for pinned walls under a uniform distributed load; thus, total

radation of EIeff from 0.75EmIn to EmIcr (eq. 4b) based on wall load-
ing. Instead, designers are led to use EmIcr for all situations where
the applied moment exceeds the cracking moment. This often
results in the cracked moment of inertia being used in situations
where the actual moment of inertia is significantly larger. CSA
S304 accounts for this transition through the virtual eccentricity
(ev) parameter in eq. 4a.
Based on the observations above, the following recommenda-
tions were made to improve the accuracy of the predicted effec-
tive flexural rigidity. In the CSA standard, the determination of
the cracked moment of inertia should be modified to reflect a
nonlinear stress distribution in the masonry at the ultimate load,
as opposed to the currently assumed serviceability stress distri-
bution. This is due to the definition of the effective flexural rigid-
ity being determined at the peak load, a point at which the stress
in the masonry is highly nonlinear. The cracked moment of iner-
tia expression should also be modified to include the effects
of axial loads, because the current equation for the cracked
moment of inertia is derived from masonry beams where axial
loads are rare. This inclusion can be done in a similar manner to
TMS, in which the effects of axial load are included by artificially
converting the axial load into an equivalent amount of steel rein-
forcement. The limitations of the stiffness factor ( f er ) should
also be considered. This could be accomplished by neglecting the
use of this parameter if the effective flexural rigidity is taken as
EmIcr, as this is the minimum value of stiffness a wall may exhibit;
thus, a further reduction is unnecessary. In the TMS 402 provi-
sions, an equation similar to eq. 4a should be implemented to
account for the gradual decrease in flexural stiffness from Mu to
Mcr. As seen in the CSA S304 section of Table 8, the effective flex-
ural rigidity (EIeff) of the midspan at peak load was significantly
larger than the limit of EmIcr, concluding that the TMS 402 use of
EmIcr for all cases where Mu > Mcr may be overly conservative.
3.7. Design moment
To account for base stiffness and loading conditions other
than a uniformly distributed load, CSA S304 includes both an
effective length factor (k) and moment diagram factor (Cm) in
moment comparisons are made using CSA S304 only. Table 10
summarizes the key parameters used to determine the total
moments at an axial load (P) of 250 kN. The k and Cm factors were
estimated using the moment profile of the wall (Fig. 11). The ex-
perimental total moment (MT,exp) was determined by summing
the first, second, and base moments in Table 5, while the Mfo and
EIeff parameters are listed in Tables 5 and 8, respectively. It should
be noted that if the total moment at peak load was to be deter-
mined, CSA S304 would predict instability for all eight wall speci-
mens because the influence of the axial load on the effective
flexural rigidity is not considered.
2 3
Cm
ð15Þ MT;CSA ¼ Mfo 6  7
4 P 5
1
Pcr
p 2 EIeff
ð16Þ Pcr ¼
ðkhÞ2
 
M1
ð17Þ Cm ¼ 0:6 þ 0:4  0:4
M2
Several observations are presented in Table 10. Comparing
MT,CSA/MT,exp, it is seen that walls without a base stiffness (k = 1.0)
present the lowest correlation with the experimental results.
This is interesting because the total moment of the wall is
directly proportional to the effective flexural rigidity of the wall,
indicating that the effective flexural rigidity used was overly con-
servative. This is reinforced by CSA S304, which predicts a critical
buckling load of less than 250 kN in specimen W5, indicating
that the wall experiences instability, which is inconsistent
with the experimental results. Comparing walls with base stiff-
ness, the correlation of MT,CSA, and MT,exp appears to improve.
This is largely due to the significant increase in the critical buck-
ling load due to the inclusion of the k factor. It is also seen that
the Cm factor improves the accuracy of the results, as the

Published by Canadian Science Publishing

 Pettit et al.
correlation between CSA S304 and the experiment increased
with base stiffness until the Cm limit of 0.4 is reached with speci-
mens W4 and W8. Finally, the influence of wall slenderness also
appears to influence the correlation between the values pre-
dicted by CSA S304 and those observed in the experiment, as the
correlation of Group II (h/t = 33.9) walls is noticeably worse than
those in Group I (h/t = 28.6). This can be attributed to the same
value of effective flexural rigidity used for both the Group I and II
walls. From the observations concerning walls with base stiffness
above, it can be concluded that the estimation of the total
moment at the midspan of the wall with moderate accuracy is
possible if the values of k and Cm can be estimated from the struc-
tural details of the foundation used.
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from cdnsciencepub.com by UNIV CALGARY on 03/15/22
4. Conclusion
Based on the experimental testing of slender masonry walls
with varying levels of base rotational stiffness, the following con-
clusions were drawn:
1. The effect of the base stiffness on the loadbearing masonry
walls is significant. Walls with a base stiffness demonstrate a
higher load-bearing capacity and smaller midspan deflections
compared to pinned-pinned walls. However, additional test-
ing should be performed using cyclic loads to investigate the
degradation of the base under repeated rotational demands.
In addition, tests should incorporate the effects of lateral
loads.
For personal use only.
2. The moment redistribution caused by the presence of a rota-
tional base stiffness can significantly decrease the negation of
the second-order effects experienced by a wall as the moment
magnification factors for wall specimens were less than 1 for
all walls with a base stiffness.
3. The Canadian and US designs for provisions for masonry
structures tend to underestimate the effective flexural rigid-
ity of slender masonry walls. Comparing values obtained
from the experimental program to both provisions, the
experimentally obtained values were up to 12-times larger
than code provisions with the Canadian code being much
more conservative than the US code.
4. Sources of conservatism in the estimation of EIeff in the Cana-
dian provisions include neglecting the axial load in the
cracked moment of inertia calculations along with the incor-
poration of a stiffness limit state factor ( f er ). Looking at the
US provisions, TMS 402, a source of conservatism, is the limi-
tation of EIeff to EmIcr once the applied moment exceeds that
of the cracking moment as a more gradual transition from
EmIn to EmIcr should be considered.
5. The inclusion of the Cm and k factors in the determination of
the total moment in CSA S304 effectively accounts for the
influence of the base stiffness with moderate accuracy.
It should be noted that the conclusions above are limited to
masonry walls subjected to an eccentric axial load and may not
necessarily reflect the behavior of walls subjected to both lateral
loads and gravity loads. It is expected that if a lateral load was to
be included, the moment profile would resemble that in Fig. 1,
where the maximum moment would be located close to the
midspan of the wall rather than at the top of the wall, as seen in
this study. This, in turn, would significantly affect the moment
redistribution of the wall, as the maximum moment of the
wall would be reduced by the rotational base stiffness. Code-
based predictions would also change as the magnitude of the Cm
factor increases, resulting in a larger prediction of second-order
effects.
107
Acknowledgements
This research was funded by the Natural Sciences and Engineering
Research Council of Canada (NSERC) and the University of Alberta.
The authors would also like to acknowledge the assistance received
to conduct this project from the Masonry Contractors Association of
Alberta (MCAA-North). Thanks are due to the former University of
Alberta I.F Morrison Laboratory Technicians Mr. Richard Helfrich
and Mr. Larry Burden for their knowledgeable technical assistance
during the experimental phase of the project.
References
ACI-SEASC Task Committee on Slender Walls. 1982. Test report on slender
Walls. American Concrete Institute and the Structural Engineers Associa-
tion of Southern California (ACI-SEASC), Los Angeles, Calif.
ASTM. 2016. Standard test methods for tension testing of metallic materials.
Standard ASTM E8. ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials)
International, West Conshohocken, Pa.
Bean Popehn, J.R., Schultz, A.E., and Tanner, J.E. 2009. Influence of second
order effects on slender, unreinforced masonry walls. In Proceedings of
the 11th Canadian Masonry Symposium, Toronto, Ont., 31 May–3 June
2009.
CSA. 2019. Design of masonry structures. Standard CSA – S304-14 (R2019).
Canadian Standards Association (CSA), Rexdale, Ont.
Drysdale, R.G., and Hamid, A.A. 2005. Masonry structures: behaviour and
design. Canadian Masonry Design Centre, Mississauga, Ont.
Fortes, E., Parsekian, G., and Fonseca, F. 2015. Relationship between the
compressive strength of concrete masonry and the compressive strength
of concrete masonry units. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering,
ASCE, 27(9): 04014238. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001204.
Fortes, E., Parsekian, G., Fonseca, F., and Camacho, J. 2018. High-strength
concrete masonry walls under concentric and eccentric loadings. Journal
of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 144(6): 04018055. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ST.
1943-541X.0001978.
Hatzinikolas, M., Longworth, J., and Warwaruk, J. 1978a. Concrete masonry
walls. University of Alberta – Structural Engineering Report No. 70.
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Alberta,
Edmonton, Alta.
Hatzinikolas, M., Longworth, J., and Warwaruk, J. 1978b. Experimental data
for concrete masonry walls. University of Alberta – Structural Engineering
Report No. 71. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univer-
sity of Alberta, Edmonton, Alta.
Isfeld, A.C., Mu € ller, A.L., Hagel, M., and Shrive, N.G. 2019. Analysis of safety
of slender concrete masonry walls in relation to CSA S304-14. Canadian
Journal of Civil Engineering, 46(5): 424–438. doi:10.1139/cjce-2018-0210.
Karsan, I.D., and Jirsa, J.O. 1969. Behavior of concrete under compressive
loadings. Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, 95(12): 2543–4563.
doi:10.1061/JSDEAG.0002424.
Kent, D.C., and Park, R. 1971. Flexural members with confined concrete.
Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, 97(7): 1969–1990. doi:10.1061/
JSDEAG.0002957.
Khalaf, F., Hendry, A., and Fairbairn, D. 1994. Study of the compressive
strength of blockwork masonry. Structural Journal, 91: 367–374.
Li, W. 2016. Axial and lateral behavior of helical piles under static loads. M.Sc.
thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University
of Alberta, Edmonton, Alta.
Liu, Y., and Dawe, J.L. 2001. Experimental determination of masonry beam-
column behaviour. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 28(5): 794–803.
doi:10.1139/l01-047.
Liu, Y., and Hu, K. 2007. Experimental study of reinforced masonry walls
subjected to combined axial load and out-of-plane bending. Canadian
Journal of Civil Engineering, 34(11): 1486–1494. doi:10.1139/L06-167.
McKenna, F., and Fenves, G., 2001. The OpenSees Command Language Manual:
version 1.2. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Center, University of California,
Berkeley, Calif. Available from http://opensees.berkeley.edu [Accessed 1 May
2020].
MSJC. 2016. Building requirements and specifications for masonry struc-
tures. Standard TMS 402/602-16. The Masonry Society, Longmont, Colo.
Mohsin, E. 2005. Support stiffness effect on tall load bearing masonry walls.
Ph.D. thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Uni-
versity of Alberta, Edmonton, Alta.
NCMA. 1968. Specification for the design and construction of load-bearing
concrete masonry. National Concrete Masonry Association, Arlington, Va.
Pettit, C. 2020. Effect of rotational base stiffness on the behaviour of load-
bearing masonry walls. M.Sc. thesis, Department of Civil and Environ-
mental Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alta.
Ross, M. 2013. Recalibration of the unit strength method for determining
the compressive strength of grouted concrete masonry. M.Sc. thesis,
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of
Alberta, Edmonton, Alta.
Published by Canadian Science Publishing
 108 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 49, 2022

Sarangapani, G., Venkatarama Reddy, B., and Jagadish, K. 2005. Brick-mortar Io moment of inertia about the walls’ gross cross-sectional
bond and masonry compressive strength. Journal of Materials in Civil En- area (CSA S304)
gineering, ASCE, 17(2): 229–237. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2005)17:2(229).
Yokel, F., Mathey, R., and Dikkers, R. 1970. Compressive strength of slender k effective length coefficient
concrete masonry walls. Building Science Series 33. Building Research Di- l length of the moment arm
vision, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, DC. LL applied lateral load
Yokel, F., Mathey, R., and Dikkers, R. 1971. Strength of masonry walls under Mbs rotational base stiffness moment
compressive and transverse loads. Building Science Series 34. Building
Research Division, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, DC. Mcr cracking moment
Mfo first-order moment
Mfp maximum factored primary moment
List of symbols Mso second-order moment
Mu applied moment
Ae effective net area (CSA S304) MB moment at the bottom of the wall
An effective net area (TMS 402) MT moment at the top of the wall
b total width of the masonry wall MT,CSA total moment as calculated by CSA S304
bg grouted width of the masonry wall MT,exp total moment as determined from the experiment
bug ungrouted width of the masonry wall
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from cdnsciencepub.com by UNIV CALGARY on 03/15/22

M1 moment at the base of the wall

c cracked neutral axis M2 moment at the top of the wall
Cm moment diagram factor n modular ratio
d distance from the extreme compressive fibre of the Pcr critical buckling load
masonry cross-section to the centroid of the reinforcing Pf factored applied axial load
steel PA applied axial load
Em modulus of elasticity of masonry PA+SW combination of applied axial load and self-weight
Es modulus of elasticity of steel P 0 measured axial load of the load cell at the end of the
EI flexural rigidity moment arm
EIeff effective flexural rigidity q(x) distributed lateral load function over the height of the
e axial load eccentricity wall
ek kern eccentricity R rotational base stiffness
ev virtual eccentricity Se section modulus (CSA S304)
fr modulus of rupture Sn section modulus (TMS 402)
fy yield strength of steel
For personal use only.

t wall (block) thickness

fc0 compressive strength of concrete tf face shell thickness
0
fm compressive strength of masonry assemblage u(x) deflection of the wall at point x
h wall height x arbitrary point along the wall measured from the base
Icr moment of inertia about the walls’ cracked cross- D out-of-plane deflection of the wall
section Dms midspan out-of-plane deflection of the wall
In moment of inertia about the walls’ gross cross-sectional u rotation at the base of the wall
area (TMS 402)

Published by Canadian Science Publishing