# Development of a System for Cyclic Shear Tests on Full-Scale Walls
## 2 Materials and Methods  
### The Specimens  
As the designed system is not exclusive to the typology of the panels tested, the extensive experimental campaign will not be addressed in this paper, but the main results of two representative specimens tested (in-plane and out-of-plane shear) will be presented in Section 5, aiming to illustrate and analyze the main test system's outputs.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline
**References** & **Type of Experimental Setup** & **Description** \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{[27]} & & They performed in-plane cyclic shear tests of undressed double-leaf stone masonry panels. Two of the actuators apply an axial load to the specimen, while the third one is used to impose horizontal displacements to the top of the pier. Since a double bending configuration was chosen for all tests, the vertical rotation of the top steel beam was prevented by implementing a 'hybrid’ control of the vertical actuators (they were forced to apply a constant total axial load and maintain the same vertical displacement). Specimens showing the same geometric configuration were tested for different levels of compression. \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{[28]} & & Quasi-static tests were conducted on full-scale specimens to confirm the ductile behavior of the proposed wall pairs. The top and bottom ends of the reinforced concrete columns were connected by mechanical pins to a top steel girder and a strong floor. The top steel girder was driven by a 1000 kN actuator to impose the lateral drift cycles on the specimens. \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{[29]} & & The above test (ASTM Standard C1531) is an experimental technique aimed at studying the shear-sliding behavior of brick masonry (the jack is positioned within the masonry in places where brick units are removed). The work investigated the capability of the shove test in determining the shear strength parameters of brick masonries and highlighted the main advantages and disadvantages of the various testing methods. \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 1: _Cont._For the experimental campaign, 15 walls were constructed with a height near 2.30 m (\(\sim\)2.20 m for CEB masonry and \(\sim\)10 cm for reinforced concrete beam at the top). The option for carrying out tests on full-scale specimens aimed at avoiding noise effects and distortions behavior between elements as reinforcement and masonry panels [12,30,31].  
Twelve walls had a C-shaped cross-section (Figure 1) with 100 cm width and 12.5 cm thickness (six for in-plane cyclic shear tests and six for out-of-plane shear tests), and three had an L-shaped cross-section with 62.5 cm width and 25 cm thickness. They were constituted by soil-cement blocks (with two holes) in the proportion 8:1, vertical 10 mm diameter A500 steel bars (within five filled holes in C sections and within nine filled holes in L sections), horizontal 6 mm diameter A500 steel bars (in four 55 cm-spaced levels, starting from the top), and soil-cement mortar in the proportion 5:1. All of the specimens were built on a 60 cm height reinforced concrete base and designed with the same layout and materials.