## 2 Materials and Methods  
### Test Specimens  
In this study, four single-story, full-scale, fully grouted RMSWs were tested to evaluate the seismic performance. Table 1 summarizes the dimensions, reinforcement details, and studied parameters of the specimens. The configuration details of the specimens are illustrated in Figure 1. The research parameters of this study were construction method and type of cross section. All the specimens were vertically loaded with an axial compressive stress of 1.05 MPa, which is 5% of the masonry compressive strength. The horizontal reinforcement was uniformly embedded in bond beams with a spacing of 400 mm along the wall height and terminated with 90 degree hooks at the ends of the walls. The horizontal reinforcement ratio of the specimens was 0.132% based on the gross area. The walls were denoted as PCMW, CMW, PCMWT, and CMWT, respectively. PCMW denoted the masonry walls constructed with a prefabricated technique and CMW denoted cast-in-place masonry walls. Compared to the rectangular cross-sectional walls (PCMW and CMW), the T-shaped section specimens (PCMWT and CMWT) had one flange at each end of the wall. The vertical joint was designed at the middle of the specimen. The reinforcement configuration at the vertical joint was comprised of four vertical reinforcement and distributed stirrups, which were designed to satisfy the requirements of strong connection and weak member according to [28]. Spiral stirrups were placed at the ends of the walls with a height of five courses, as shown in Figure 1a-d.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Wall ID**} & **H** & \multirow{2}{*}{**L (mm)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**d (mm)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Flange**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Reinforcement Details**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Axial**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Construction**} \\  & & & & & **(mm)** & & & **Horizontal** & \(\rho_{\textbf{h}}\) **(\%)** & **Vertical** & \(\rho_{\textbf{v}}\) **(\%)** & \(\sigma_{\textbf{n}}\) **(MPa)** & **Method** \\ \hline PCMW & 2790 & 2390 & 190 & - & 2 CS@400 & 0.132 & \begin{tabular}{c} 6C16 + 4C8 + \\ 4C14 \\ \end{tabular} & 0.443 & 1.05 & Prefabricated \\ \hline CMW & 2790 & 2390 & 190 & - & 2 CS@400 & 0.132 & \begin{tabular}{c} 6C16 + 6C8 \\ 4C14 \\ \end{tabular} & 0.330 & 1.05 & Cast-in-place \\ \hline PCMMT & 2790 & 2390 & 190 & 590 & 2 CS@400 & 0.132 & \
\begin{tabular}{c} 6C16 + 4C8 + \\ 4C14 \\ \end{tabular} & 0.415 & 1.05 & Prefabricated \\ \hline CMWT & 2790 & 2390 & 190 & 590 & 2 CS@400 & 0.132 &
\begin{tabular}{c} 6C16 + 8C8 \\ 4C14 \\ \end{tabular} & 0.330 & 1.05 & Cast-in-place \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 1: Dimensions and reinforcement details of the test walls.  
Figure 1: _Cont._  
Considering the lab conditions, including the lab space, capacity of the actuator, and predicted shear-dominated failure mode, all the walls were heavily reinforced in the vertical direction with a vertical reinforcement ratio from 0.330% to 0.443%. The distributed vertical reinforcement was located at the center of vertical cell. As a result, the ratio of theoretical flexural strength and shear strength based on the equation proposed by GB 50003-2011 was approximately 1.2 for the rectangular walls and 1.4 for the T-shaped walls. The vertical reinforcements were anchored to the foundation and bottom concrete beams with a sufficient length to prevent anchoring failure.  
Figure 1: Configuration and reinforcement details of test specimens: (**a**) Front view of PCMW; (**b**) Front view of CMW; (**c**) Front view of PCMWT; (**d**) Front view of CMWT; (**e**) Reinforcement configuration of PCMW; (**f**) Reinforcement configuration of CMW; (**g**) Reinforcement configuration of PCMWT; (**h**) Reinforcement configuration of CMWT.