## 3 Numerical Evaluation
### Validation of Numerical Model: Comparison with Experimental Results  
The central strain and stress derived from the simulation analysis of each specimen are summarized in Table 5. The simulation analysis results collected from the nodes are shown in Figure 11. The central strain and stress data were collected from the node above the lower fixed bracket, where the greatest damage was observed during the shaking table test. Based on the study by [PERSON] et al. (2019), cracking was considered to occur when the strain exceeded 0.00015 [42]. To estimate the stress causing the destruction of the masonry wall, the tensile strength of the mortar was calculated. Based on the measured compressive strength of the mortar (16 MPa), its tensile strength was estimated to be 0.8 MPa by assuming a typical ratio of tensile to compressive strength for cement-based mortar. This estimate follows the empirical range of 1/10 to 1/20 commonly reported in the literature. In this study, a conservative value at the lower end of this range (1/20) was adopted [43]. The failure of the specimens, as identified through stress analysis in the simulation, first occurred at PGA values of 0.5 g, 0.7 g, and 0.8 g for the MWN, MWP2, and MWPF5 specimens, respectively. The PGA values at which failure occurred in the numerical analysis closely matched those observed in the shaking table tests. Figure 12 presents stress contours at the PGA levels where initial failure was identified in the numerical simulation, as summarized in Table 5. For the MWP2 and MWPF5 specimens, stress localization corresponding to the onset of cracking appears clearly at 0.7 g and 0.8 g, \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Tangential** & & **Cohesive Behavior** & \\  & **Behavior** & & & \\ \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Stiffness of Joint in the**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Stiffness of Joint in the**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Stiffness of Joint in the**} \\  & **Friction** & **Normal Direction** & **First Shear Direction** & **Second Shear Direction** \\  & **Coefficient** & **Knn** & **Kss** & **Ktt** \\  & & **(N/mm2)** & **(N/mm2)** & **(N/mm2)** \\ \hline Brick-Brick & 0.75 & 63 & 25 & 25 \\ \hline Brick-STPU, & & & & \\ Brick-GFRP & 0.06 & 4160 & 1750 & 1750 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Properties for joint interfaces in shaking table test simulation [37; 41]. Figure 11: Simulation data measured node. respectively. In contrast, the MWN specimen did not exhibit failure within the applied PGA range; thus, a representative contour at 0.4 g is provided to illustrate the early-stage stress development. As shown in Figure 5, the experimentally observed cracks in the MWP2 specimen initiated in the immediate vicinity above the lower fixed steel bracket and propagated diagonally upward. This damage pattern was consistently observed across all specimen types. Similarly, the numerical stress distribution in Figure 12, corresponding to the MWP2 specimen, shows the highest stress concentrated in the same region. This close agreement between the experimental and numerical results confirms the model's ability to accurately capture the damage concentration zones and overall failure behavior under out-of-plane seismic loading. Although good correlation was observed at 0.3 g for most specimens, as shown in Figure 13, noticeable deviations were observed in the MWPF5 specimen (Figure 13c). This deviation can be attributed to the localized debonding between the GFRP and the masonry substrate, which occurred only on one side of the specimen. Although GFRP sheets were attached to both the front and back faces of the wall, slight debonding was observed on only one face during the experiment. This asymmetric debonding likely resulted in uneven stiffness and increased displacement in the negative loading direction. Such localized failure was not explicitly modeled in the numerical analysis, which assumed perfect bonding between materials on both faces.