IN-PLANE SHEAR REINFORCEMENT OF MASONRY PANELS WITH HIGH STRENGTH STEEL CORDS

Prof Antonio Borri, Giulio Castori & Marco Corradi University of Perugia Dept of Civil and Environmental Engineering Via Duranti, 93 - 06125 Perugia Italy gcastori@strutture.unipg.it KEYWORDS: Masonry panels, Strengthening, Steel Cords ABSTRACT In the area of the reinforcing techniques most widely used at present, the use of new materials may contribute significantly to the solution of different structural problems. The aim of this paper is to analyze the results of a new series of tests, designed to find the experimental values for the shear strength and stiffness of masonry panels reinforced with high-strength steel cords embedded in a cementitious matrix (SRG: Steel Reinforced Grout). More than 30 solid brick panels were constructed in the laboratory and then were strengthened with various types of steel cords according to differing schemes. Diagonal compression tests were carried out on the panels in order to measure shear strength, stiffness and ductility. The purpose of the tests was to analyze the effectiveness of the intervention, above all as a technique of seismic upgrading against in plane mechanisms of collapse. The results of the experiments carried out show a significant increase in strength and shear stiffness, with interesting implications for the practical utilization of the technique studied. INTRODUCTION A great deal of experimental research has been carried out in the past few years in order to study the shear behaviour of masonry structures. This research has highlighted the low strength of historic masonry structures to seismic stress and therefore questions both the shear and tensile strength of masonry walls. Starting in the 1990s, an extensive experimental investigation of masonry panels obtained from buildings in Tuscany was carried out by Chiostrini et al. (2000). Other experimental research to evaluate the mechanical behavior of masonry structures was carried out by Turnsek et al. (1980), Sheppard (1985), Chiostrini et al. (1994), Anzani et al. (1998) and finally by Corradi et al. (2002) on panels obtained from buildings hit by the Umbria Marche earthquake. Far fewer have been the experiments carried out to determine the efficacy of various techniques of shear strength reinforcement of masonry walls, such as the use of grout injections, ferro cement, deep repointing of mortar joints and, among the latest investigations, the use of composite materials based on carbon, glass or aramidic fibers. The injectability of masonry walls was studied by Baronio et al. (1992). Other reinforcing techniques have been analyzed by Modena (1994), Binda et al. (2000) and Borri et al. (2008). Corradi et al. (2003) have instead analyzed the case of the reinforcing of historic masonry walls through the use of composite strips. None of the above mentioned shear reinforcing techniques presents such an advantage as to be preferred a priori to another, however each can be effective for specific masonry work or in the solution of a particular problem. Among the latest techniques, the use of composite materials FRP (Fiber Reinforced Polymers) for reinforcement of masonry panels can result in significant increases in shear strength, without causing excessive increases in shear stiffness. The long term effectiveness of these upgrading works can, however, be compromised by the environmental aging or low fire resistance of the epoxy resins used to glue the fibers to the masonry surfaces. A possibly interesting development in the use of composites regards innovative materials, based on high strength steel wires forming cords that are embedded in either an epoxy (Steel Reinforced Polymer) or cementitious (Steel Reinforced Grout) matrix. The use of these materials in seismic upgrading works presents some interesting aspects; there are several

advantages related to this strengthening technique: steel wires have reduced cost when compared to carbon fibers, in addiction impregnation of wires in cementitious matrix may overcome fire endurance problems and reduce material and installation costs. MATERIALS CHARACTERIZATION (1) Characterization of the masonry mortars The panels were constructed using two types of mortar, one cement based and the other based on hydraulic lime (ratio sand/binder = 2/1 in volume). To obtain the mechanical properties of the materials, flexural and compressive strength tests were performed. As for flexural strength tests six prismatic specimens (1604040 mm) were used for each type of mortar. Accordingly, the mean value of the flexural strength was 0.59 MPa for the hydraulic lime mortar and 3.56 MPa for the cement mortar. Compression tests were performed on twelve specimens, obtained from the flexural test specimens by breaking each prism into two halves. The compression strength is equal to 2.56 MPa for the hydraulic lime mortar and 10.75 MPa for the cement mortar. (2) Characterization of the bricks Sandblasted bricks (250x125x55 mm) were used for the construction of the masonry walls. The mechanical characteristics of the bricks were also obtained by means of compression and bending tests carried out on six samples each. Uniaxial compression tests gave a mean strength of 32.27 MPa, whereas the mean value of the bending tensile strength was 0.81 MPa. (3) Characterization of the steel cords The two types of steel cords used in this research are a product of Hardwire LLC and include 3X2 and 3SX type. The 3X2 type is made by twisting five individual wires together (three straight filaments wrapped by two filaments at a high twist angle). The 3SX type is made by twisting three identical wire filaments together at a longer than usual lay length and then over wrapping the bundle with a single filament. Characterization test results were used to specify the properties of the steel cords (Table 1). Table 1: Properties of steel cords. Steel cords Property 3X2 3SX Cross sectional area (mm) 0.620 0.810 Elastic modulus (MPa) 160000 143000 Tensile load (N/mm) 242 635 Strain to failure (%) 1.55 1.16 INTERACTION BETWEEN MASONRY AND STEEL CORDS (1) Pull tests The feasibility of steel cords as reinforcing phase for composite materials may be affected by a number of factors that include relatively large diameter of the cords, twisting of the wires in the cords, and even more importantly, the roughness of cord matrix interface. Unavoidable porosity of SRG, particularly along the cord matrix interface with its rough surface, may contribute in fact to an imperfect bonding between cords and matrix. According to this, in order to investigate the local shear stress slip behavior a series of pull tests was performed. In particular the most common form of pull test, where the specimen is restrained at the loaded end and the reinforcement is pulled, was chosen for these tests. Experimental work consisted of twenty-one specimens. Two groups of specimens were casted for this part of research, representing different type of cementitious grout. More in detail, a two component mortar (Mapei, Mapefinish) based on high strength cements (series GM) and a 1:1 mix of sand and cement mortar, based on small (series GS) or big (series GB) diameter aggregates, were used. For both groups the type of brick units and steel cords were kept constant. Sandblasted bricks (25012055 mm)

were used, whereas the steel cords used for the experiments were 3X2 type. The laminates were provided in a low density (with 1.6 cords/cm) strips 50 mm wide and 500 mm long.

a) Figure 1: Pull tests specimens.

b)

All tests were conducted using a close loop load configuration, where no external reaction is required (Figure 2). A direct tensile force was applied to the reinforcement using a 100 kN manual hydraulic jack. To transfer the load to the strip, two steel plates were used to provide a reaction against the jack and to spread the load evenly across the strip width. Both plates, in fact, had a central square hole, through which the jack was placed, and were bolted together to secure the free end of the sheet. Before placing the specimens in the testing apparatus a 20 mm thick steel restraining plate and a 5 mm thick piece of ply wood, both with a small gap to allow the reinforcement to pass through, were placed on top of the specimen. This restraining plate provides full restraint at the loaded end of the specimen.
STEEL PLATE WITH CENTRAL SQUARE HOLE

HYDRAULIC JACK

STEEL FLAT PLATE

CONCRETE BLOCKS CONCRETE BLOCKS SRG STRIP

STEEL RESTRAINING PLATE

PLY WOOD

SOLID CLAY BRICKS

Figure 2: Test setup scheme for pull tests. Two different failure modes were detected, namely: failure in cord matrix interface (a) and failure in overlay (b). All specimens GM tested failed with the same failure mode, denoted above as failure mode (a), i.e. they failed by sliding shear along the cord matrix interface (Figure 3a). Conversely, both specimens GS and GB failed with two different modes, namely, a group of specimens failed in cord matrix interface, while the remainder failed in the overlay, i.e. they failed in the masonry substrate matrix interface (Figure 3b). Closer inspection of the reinforcement after debonding in the brick showed that a thin layer of masonry (between 1 and 5 mm), near the loaded end, was still attached to its surface, indicating that, in such a region, failure was in the masonry itself.

a) b) Figure 3: Pull tests failure mode: a) failure in cord matrix interface; b) failure in overlay. As for specimens GM, the mean value of the failure load (196 N/mm) was 81% of steel cord strength, that indicates a not perfect bonding between cord\s and matrix. For series GS, although a common cementitious grout rather than fiber reinforced grout was used, the failure load (277 N/mm) increased of approximately 41% with respect to series GM, denoting a good interface bond between the steel cords and the matrix. Finally, series GB showed a lower (-14%) mean value of the failure load (239 N/mm) with respect to series GS. However, even in this case, the interface bond between the steel cords and the matrix was satisfactory (the mean value of the failure load was 98% of the steel cord strength). Specimen Matrix Type Failure load (N/mm) Failure load/ Tensile strength Failure mode Specimen Matrix Type Failure load (N/mm) Failure load/ Tensile strength Failure mode Specimen Matrix Type Failure load (N/mm) Failure load/ Tensile strength Failure mode Table 2: Pull test results. Series GM GM.01 GM.02 GM.03 GM.04 GM.05 GM.06 GM.07 Mapefinish 194 148 188 189 224 189 233 0.80 a 0.61 a 0.78 a 0.78 0.93 0.78 0.96 a a a a Series GS GS.01 GS.02 GS.03 GS.04 GS.05 GS.06 GS.07 1:1 mix of sand and cement mortar (small diameter aggregates) 212 297 284 295 306 260 282 0.87 b 1.23 a 1.17 a 1.22 1.26 1.07 1.16 a a a a Series GB GB.01 GB.02 GB.03 GB.04 GB.05 GB.06 GB.07 1:1 mix of sand and cement mortar (big diameter aggregates) 244 230 284 201 229 190 294 1.00 a 0.95 a 1.17 a 0.83 a 0.95 a 0.78 b 1.21 a

EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM (1) Test Matrix A total of thirty-one solid brick masonry panels (515510125 mm) were manufactured for this experimental program. Seventeen walls were built with hydraulic lime mortar and the remaining ten with cement mortar (Table 3). All the specimens, except the control ones, were strengthened using medium density, high strength steel cords (type 3SX and 3X2). In order to study the influence of the eccentricity of the strengthening, the strips were applied on both sides or only at one side of the panels. Moreover the strip widths varied between 25 mm and 50 mm.

Specimen PRN 1 PRN 2 PRN 3 PRN 4 PRN 5 PRN 6 PRN 7 PRN 8 PRN 9 PRN 10 PRN 11 PRN 12 PRN 13 PRN 14 PRN 15 PRN 16 PRN 17 PRC 1 PRC 2 PRC 3 PRC 4 PRC 5 PRC 6 PRC 7 PRC 8 PRC 9 PRC 10 PRC 11 PRC 12 PRC 13 PRC 14

Table 3: Description of the specimens. Mortar Type Reinforcement Reinforced Type Sides Hydraulic Lime Hydraulic Lime Hydraulic Lime Hydraulic Lime Hydraulic Lime Hydraulic Lime Hydraulic Lime 3SX 2 Hydraulic Lime 3SX 2 Hydraulic Lime 3SX 2 Hydraulic Lime 3SX 2 Hydraulic Lime 3SX 1 Hydraulic Lime 3SX 1 Hydraulic Lime 3X2 2 Hydraulic Lime 3X2 2 Hydraulic Lime 3X2 2 Hydraulic Lime 3X2 1 Hydraulic Lime 3X2 1 Cement Cement Cement 3X2 2 Cement 3X2 2 Cement 3X2 2 Cement 3X2 2 Cement 3X2 2 Cement 3X2 1 Cement 3SX 2 Cement 3SX 2 Cement 3SX 2 Cement 3SX 2 Cement 3SX 2 Cement 3SX 1

Reinforcement width (mm) 50 50 25 25 50 50 25 25 50 50 50 50 50 50 25 25 50 50 50 50 25 25 50

The same configuration of the reinforcing system was investigated for all the panels: strips as grid arrangement (Figure 4). More in detail, the reinforcing system is made up of two strips placed centrally (one horizontally, the other vertically) together with four other strips (two horizontal and two vertical) positioned 50 mm from the edge of the panel. The main function of the strips positioned along the edges of the panel was principally to anchor the two central ones, which were more stressed, rather than contribute to the reinforcement.

a) b) Figure 4: Reinforcement layout: a) 50 mm wide strips; b) 25 mm wide strips. (2) Test Setup The diagonal compression load is applied on the corners of the walls via a hydraulic actuator and controlled by a load cell. The experimental setup for the diagonal compression is presented in Figure 5. A single cycle of monotonically increasing loads at a speed of 0.50.7 kN/sec was applied to test the panels. The force was applied to the wall by steel shoes placed at the top corner, and transmitted to similar shoes at the bottom corner. The displacements of compressed and stretched diagonals of masonry panels are measured by two LVDT transducers.

Figure 5: Geometrical configuration and boundary conditions for masonry panels tested in diagonal compression. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS (1) Panels constructed with hydraulic lime mortar As expected from the material characterization, all the unreinforced specimens presented brittle failure due to splitting along the loaded diagonal, with crackings that appear suddenly only in the mortar joints (Figure 6a). As for the reinforced panels, the failure mechanism involved the crisis of mortar joints and, only in a limited central area, of bricks in compression (Figure 6b). The diagonal compression tests highlighted that the cementitious grout used to glue the cords to the masonry surface worked efficiently. In fact cords did not detach until failure of the panel was reached. This essentially depends on the particular type of failure, which did not involve the tensile failure of the steel cords. Cords remained attached to the cementitious matrix, which in turn had detached from the masonry once the masonry was completely crushed.

a) b) Figure 6: Failure modes: a) splitting along the loaded diagonal (unreinforced panels); b) masonry crushing with consequent detachment of the steel cords (reinforced panels). The average value of the shear strength capacity of the unreinforced panels, used as reference value for the comparison with the strengthened specimens results, is equal to 0.094 MPa. Reinforcement using 3SX and 3X2 cords resulted in a strong increase in shear strength. Of particularly significant interest, with respect to the maximum shear stress (max), is the category of the panels reinforced with 3SX cords (50 mm wide) placed on both sides of the masonry panel. The greatest increase in shear strength, (+315%) was measured on these panels (Table 4). Table 4: Panels constructed with hydraulic lime mortar: experimental results. Reinforced Reinforcement width max max,reinf / Specimen Reinforcement sides (mm) (MPa) max,unrreinf PRN 1-2-3-4-5-6 0.094 PRN 7, PRN 8 3SX 2 50 0.390 4.15 PRN 9, PRN 10 3SX 2 25 0.340 3.62 PRN 11, PRN 12 3SX 1 50 0.209 2.22 PRN 13, PRN 14 3X2 2 25 0.225 2.40 PRN 15 3X2 2 50 0.278 2.96 PRN 16, PRN 17 3X2 1 50 0.250 2.66 G1/3 (MPa) 36 377 92 344 39 397 337

Figure 7 shows the stress strain curves for the ten panels constructed using hydraulic lime mortar.
0,5
PRN7

0,4 Shear stress (MPa)

PRN10 PRN8

0,3
PRN12

PRN15

PRN9

PRN17

0,2
PRN16 PRN11

PRN13

PRN14

PRN12

0,1

0 0,000

0,005

0,010

0,015 Angular strain

0,020

0,025

0,030

Figure 7: Stress strain diagram of panels constructed with hydraulic lime mortar.

(2) Panels constructed with cement mortar The unreinforced panels reach a crisis due to the opening of cracks which pass through the thickness of the wall along the compressed diagonal. These cracks, differently from the panels with a hydraulic lime mortar, also involve the solid bricks. The reinforced panels present a failure mode similar to that of the unreinforced panels. As to the steel cords, for the most part these remain adherent to the masonry panel surfaces, while localized detachments, in some cases extensive, can be observed near the cracks in the masonry wall along the compressed diagonal. The notable diagonal compression stresses in the tests determine, in some cases, limited crushing of the masonry wall, resulting in small expulsions of brick fragments. The results of these tests, given in Table 5, highlight different stiffness and shear strength, for both the unreinforced as well as the reinforced panels, when compared to the tests on specimens with a hydraulic lime mortar. In particular, the average shear strength of the two unreinforced panels was 0.540 MPa, while significant increases resulted in shear stiffness. These values were notably higher (up to 5-20 times as much) than the panels using a hydraulic lime mortar. In fact, the cement mortar is characterized by a tensile strength which, though immodest, determines a strong increase in the stiffness and shear strength of the masonry wall. Therefore, the reinforcing action of the steel cords is less significant when compared to that on the panels using a hydraulic lime mortar. In Table 5 it can be seen that there is little difference in the increase in shear strength between the types of reinforcement experimented. Shear stiffness increased up to 103%, while average increases of 55% were measured for shear strength. Table 5: Panels constructed with cement mortar: experimental results. Reinforced Reinforcement width max max,reinf / G1/3 Specimen Reinforcement sides (mm) (MPa) max,unrreinf (MPa) PRC 1, PRC 2 0.540 987 PRC 3, PRC 4, PRC 5 3SX 2 50 0.804 1.49 5750 PRC 6, PRC 7 3SX 2 25 0.917 1.70 6429 PRC 8 3SX 1 50 0.740 1.37 5021 PRC 9, PRC 10, PRC 11 3X2 2 25 0.738 1.37 2874 PRC 12, PRC 13 3X2 2 50 0.865 1.60 1797 PRC 14 3X2 1 50 1.093 2.03 2273 In Figure 8 and Figure 9 is given the stress strain curves, respectively for the panels reinforced with 3X2 and 3SX cords, and a comparison with the unreinforced panels. It can be observed that the reinforced panels are also characterized by a greater apparent ductility when compared to those unreinforced.
1,2
PRC5 PRC8 PRC7

1 Shear stress (MPa)

0,8
PRC3

PRC4

0,6

PRC2 PRC

0,4
PRC1

0,2

0 0 0,001 0,002 0,003 Angular strain 0,004 0,005 0,006

Figure 8: Stress strain diagram of panels constructed with cement mortar and reinforced with 3X2 cords.

1,2
PRC1 PRC11 7

1 Shear stress (MPa)

PRC12

0,8
PRC14 PRC9

0,6
PRC2 PRC101 0 PRC1

0,4

0,2

0 0 0,001 0,002 0,003 Angular strain 0,004 0,005 0,006

Figure 9: Stress strain diagram of panels constructed with cement mortar and reinforced with 3SX cords. ANALYSIS OF THE RESULTS Analytical models available in literature to evaluate the shear strength of unreinforced masonry (URM) shear walls are here reported. All of them are based on the linear effects superposition, which derive from the implicit assumption of plastic stress redistribution. Even though the latter assumption is not properly introduced when dealing with composites, at present no more appropriate approaches are available. According to this, the maximum strength obtained during the tests was compared with those given by the formulas for reinforced masonry proposed by Eurocode (Eurocode 6, 1996): Vcr = where: f vk = f vko + 0.4 0 by Tomazevic (Tomazevic et al, 1993):
Vcr = 0.9tl
* f vk 0 1 + * 0 + 0.4A r,h f yk b f vk 0

f vk td

+ 0.9d

r,h tf yk s

(1)

(2)

and by Triantafillou (Triantafillou, 1998):

Vcr = f vk td + 0.9d r,h E r r r,u t

where:

(3)

r r,u = r,e = 0.0119 0.0205 ( r,h E r ) + 0.0104 ( r,h E r )

The symbols used in the formulations are as follows: Vcr is the critical lateral load; t is the wall thickness, l its length, d = 0.8l is the effective depth; b is the shear stress distribution coefficient (= 1.5 for parabolic distribution); m and s are coefficients (= 1) from Eurocode 6; 0 is the design compressive stress; r,h is the horizontal reinforcement ratio computed on the wall section; Ar,h is the area of the horizontal

reinforcement, fyk is the characteristic tensile stress of the reinforcement, Er is the reinforcement elastic modulus and r,u is the reinforcement tensile ultimate strain. Note that the characteristic initial shear strength of masonry (fvk0) should be determined from sliding tests in accordance with EN 1052-3. In the absence of such data, it has been determined from the values given in Eurocode. Conversely, the value of the characteristic initial shear strength (f*vk0) of Eq. (2) has been obtained by diagonal compressive tests. Also, the formulation (3) considers a factor of efficiency r, which depends on the failure mode (reinforcement rupture or debonding). The expression of r, given by the Eq. (3), was found by Triantafillou (Triantafillou, 1998) for concrete members (r,e is the effective reinforcement strain). On the basis of the present experimental database it would be possible to provide a better calibration of the r factor for masonry; in fact, by measuring the effective strain for each different reinforcement type it is possible to newly determine all coefficients of Eq. (3) by polynomial interpolation.
1,2

1,0 0,877 0,792

0,981

Shear strength (N/mm2)

0,8

0,571

0,714

0,518

0,501

0,501

0,496

0,6 0,390 0,438

0,518

0,571

0,4

0,340

0,456

0,268

0,278

0,239

0,239

0,2

0,0 EUROCODE 6 EUROCODE 6 EUROCODE 6 EUROCODE 6 EUROCODE 6 EUROCODE 6 PRN 15 PRN 11-12 PRN 13-14 PRN 16-17 PRN 7-8 PRN 9-10 TOMAZEVIC TOMAZEVIC TOMAZEVIC TOMAZEVIC TOMAZEVIC TOMAZEVIC TRIANTAFILLOU TRIANTAFILLOU TRIANTAFILLOU TRIANTAFILLOU TRIANTAFILLOU TRIANTAFILLOU

0,209

0,225

0,250

0,268

0,456

a)

1,061

1,093

1,2

0,957

1,0 0,865 0,794 0,804

0,872

0,917

Shear strength (N/mm2)

0,8 0,668

0,738

0,651

0,651

0,610

0,598

0,740 0,581 0,598

0,6 0,440

0,536

0,440

0,536

0,411

0,4

0,2

0,0 PRC 9-10-11 EUROCODE 6 EUROCODE 6 EUROCODE 6 EUROCODE 6 PRC 12-13 PRC 3-4-5 PRC 6-7 EUROCODE 6 PRC 14 PRC 8 EUROCODE 6 TOMAZEVIC TOMAZEVIC TOMAZEVIC TOMAZEVIC TOMAZEVIC TRIANTAFILLOU TRIANTAFILLOU TRIANTAFILLOU TRIANTAFILLOU TRIANTAFILLOU TOMAZEVIC TRIANTAFILLOU

b) Figure 10: Correlation between experimental and predicted strength: a) PRN tests; b) PRC tests.

0,411

0,581

The comparison among the experimental and the predicted values of the shear strength is reported in Figure 10. As for the PRN tests, from this analysis it is clear that both the formula proposed by Eurocode and Triantafillou overestimate the strength of the reinforced masonry, particularly excessive for the contribution of the reinforcement. Conversely, the formula proposed by Tomazevic appears to be more conservative as it provides lower shear strengths. As for the PRC tests, despite the same mechanical parameter E was maintained, with respect to the PRN tests, there is an underestimation of the strength. Also, despite the same amount of reinforcement was maintained for one side e two sides set up, both in PRN and PRC tests the related shear strength differed, in some cases, of more than 10 20% for the two configurations. Therefore, for a better calibration of the formulas, also the geometrical reinforcement arrangement should be considered, as it can noticeably affect the composite strengthening effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS Reinforcement of masonry panels using steel cords presents numerous positive characteristics and the results of the experimental research carried out even in the differentiation of the various tests supplied interesting results, highlighting practical limits and solutions. The use of a cementitious grout in place of the epoxy resins normally utilized in the FRP reinforcements presents some positive characteristics, including lower material and installation costs and a higher fire resistance. Although the cementitious grout is characterized by lower shear and tensile strength compared to the epoxy resins, it is able to carry out its job of tranferring the stresses between the masonry and the steel cords, guaranteeing the effectiveness of the reinforcement. There were significant increases in strength and shear stiffness for both 3X2 and 3SX cords and the collapse of the panels occurred due to either shear failure or a partial detachment between the cementitious matrix and the masonry support. The technique was more effective if the reinforcement was applied on low shear strength masonry (constructed using a hydraulic lime mortar). In all cases, the steel cords determined significant increases in the shear stiffness and ductility of the masonry panels. Research must still be carried out on various aspects of the utilization of SRG composites, such as the role of the size of the reinforcing mesh and the joining between the panel faces. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to acknowledge the Department of Civil Protection Consorzio RELUIS for supporting this collaborative research. REFERENCES Anzani, A., Baronio, G. and Binda, L. (1998), Multiple leaf stone masonry as a composite: the role of materials on its behavior and repair, Incomarech Raphael 97/E/412 PACT 55, 177-212. Baronio, G., Binda, L. and Modena, C. (1992), Criteria and methods for the optimal choice of grouts according to the characteristics of masonries, International workshop CNR-GNDT, Effectiveness of injection techniques for retrofitting of stone and brick masonry walls in seismic areas, Milan, Italy, 139157. Binda, L., Penazzi, D., Tedeschi, C. and Baronio, G. (2000), Deep repointing of rubble stone masonries in seismic areas, Final report of Maintenance of pointing in historic buildings: decay and replacement EU contract ENV 4-CT98-710. Borri, A., Binda, L., Corradi M. and Tedeschi, C. (2008), Experimental evaluation of shear and compression strength of masonry wall before and after reinforcement: deep repointing, Construction and Building Materials, Elsevier, Vol. 22, No. 4, 463-472. Chiostrini, S. and Vignoli, A. (1994), In-situ determination of the strength properties of masonry walls by destructive shear and compression tests, Masonry International, Vol. 7, No. (3), 87-96. Chiostrini, S., Galano, L. and Vignoli, A. (2000), On the determination of strength of ancient masonry walls via experimental tests, Proceedings of the 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand, Paper No. 2564.

Corradi, M., Borri, A. and Vignoli, A. (2002), Strengthening techniques tested on masonry structures struck by the Umbrian-Marche earthquake of 1997-1998, Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 16, No. 4 , 229-239. Corradi, M., Borri, A. and Vignoli, A. (2003), Experimental study on the determination of strength of masonry walls, Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 17, 325-337. ENV 1996-1-1 (1996), Eurocode 6: design of masonry structures. Modena, C. (1994), Repair and upgrading techniques of unreinforced masonry structures utilized after the Friuli and Campania-Basilicata earthquake, Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 10, No. 1. Sheppard, P.F. (1985), In-situ test of the shear strength and deformability of an 18th century stone and brick masonry wall, Proceedings of the 7th International Brick/Block Masonry Conference, Melbourne, Australia, 149-160. Tomazevic, M., Lutman, M. and Petrovic, L. (1993), In plane behavior of reinforced masonry walls subjected to cyclic lateral loads, Report to the Ministry of Science and Technology of Republic of Slovenia, parts 1 and 2, Liubljana, Slovenia. Turnsek, V. and Sheppard, P.F. (1980), The shear and flexural resistance of masonry walls, Proceedings of the Research Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Skopje. Triantafillou, TC. (1998), Strengthening of masonry structures using epoxy-bonded FRP laminates, Journal of Composite Constructions, ASCE, Vol. 2, No. 2, 96-104.