In-plane shear performance of masonry panels strengthened with FRP

Giancarlo Marcari
a
, Gaetano Manfredi
a
, Andrea Prota
a,
*
, Marisa Pecce
b
a
Department of Structural Analysis and Design, University of Naples Federico II, Italy
b
Engineering Department, University of Sannio, Italy
Received 17 July 2006; received in revised form 20 November 2006; accepted 26 November 2006
Available online 30 January 2007
Abstract
The opportunities provided by the use of Fiber Reinforced Polymers (FRPs) composites for the shear strengthening of tu masonry
structures were assessed on full-scale panels subjected to in-plane shear-compression tests at the ENEL HYDRO S.p.A laboratory,
ITALY. Tu masonry specimens have been arranged in order to simulate both mechanical and textural properties typical of buildings
located in South-Central Italian historical centres. In this paper, the outcomes of the experimental tests are presented. The monotonic
shear-compression tests were performed under displacement control and experimental data have provided information about in-plane
behaviour of as-built and FRP strengthened tu masonry walls. Failure modes, shear strength, displacement capacity and post-peak
performance are discussed.
2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: A. Fibres; B. Mechanical properties; D. Mechanical testing
1. Introduction
Tu is a rock composed of volcanic particles, com-
pacted, cemented or welded into a rm, consolidated state.
Physical and mechanical properties of tu units vary widely
according to quarry locations. Tu was largely used as a
construction material in seismic areas like Italy, Turkey,
Japan and Armenia. In particular, the yellow tu repre-
sents a very attractive material from a technological point
of view due to its outstanding workability, low cost, good
mechanical and physical properties (i.e. thermal and acous-
tic insulation), as well as availability. In Southern Italy, tu
masonry buildings built over the last two centuries are usu-
ally 34 storeys high with regularly spaced bearing walls,
having regular openings and orthogonal inner walls. Typi-
cally, load-bearing walls include both faced and solid
arrangements. The former consists of two external regular
facades made by irregularly formed blocks running in a low
strength pozzolanic mortar (mix of ground lime and volca-
nic ash). Following an old building technique, the inner
core was lled with roughly squared tu blocks, and some
transversal stones partially linking the two facades. More-
over, oor structures and lintels were traditionally wooden,
without any wall-ties provided to connect the walls.
The 1980 Irpinia earthquake revealed the high seismic
vulnerability of such buildings which resulted in severe
damage. Experimental studies carried out by Faella et al.
[1] on load bearing tu panels conrmed the low energy-
dissipation capacity and severe strength degradation of tu
masonry panels under cyclic loading. From the 1980s a lot
of eort has been made and more resources are currently
being devoted to restoration and seismic retrotting of
existing masonry structures.
In the last two decades, the interest in seismic repair and
retrotting of existing structures has led to the development
of specic and non-invasive architectural and engineering
strategies. Within this context, eld implementation of
Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP) strengthening techniques
has become reasonably widespread as a suitable solution
in addition to traditional ones. Key characteristics of com-
posites include low inuence on the global mass, high
strength-to-weight ratios, minimum durability concerns,
1359-8368/$ - see front matter 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compositesb.2006.11.004
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +39 0817683534; fax: +39 0817683491.
E-mail address: aprota@unina.it (A. Prota).
www.elsevier.com/locate/compositesb
Composites: Part B 38 (2007) 887901
ease of handling, exibility and fast installation that
improve on-site productivity, and have a low impact on
building functions. Moreover, advanced composites can
be a promising solution for seismic retrotting of structural
walls, and are also very eective in post-earthquake repair
of damaged masonry structures. The benets in performing
FRP-based techniques become of particular relevance when
low-impact approaches based on non-intrusive methods are
demanded [2].
Many studies at various levels have been carried out to
investigate the in-plane performance of masonry panels
strengthened by composites and made of: concrete blocks
or bricks [38], calcareous stones and bricks [911]. In
the present paper, a comprehensive experimental research
on full-scale tu masonry panels strengthened with FRP
and subjected to in-plane loading is presented. Tests were
performed at the ENEL HYDRO S.p.A. Laboratory in
Bergamo, Italy.
2. Research objective
The test programme has focused on the in-plane shear
performance of tu masonry panels strengthened by FRP
composites. Results are intended to contribute to the
knowledge of in-plane behaviour of tu structures in view
of seismic strengthening using composites. The experimen-
tal outcomes provide a database of results about how ber
texture, density and type could inuence the strength and
ductility performance of strengthened elements. This set
of information could provide a reference for the calibration
of formulas for the design and assessment of masonry ret-
rotted with composite materials.
3. Material and panel characterization
Compression tests were carried out on tu and mortar
samples rst; then, uniaxial compression tests on masonry
panels were also conducted up to failure in order to evalu-
ate the strength and the deformability properties of the as-
built panels. Results are summarized in the following
sections.
3.1. Materials
Tu units 100 250 400 mm were taken from the same
local quarry to avoid high scattering in mechanical
strength. Pre-wetting of the units was carried out prior to
construction to avoid the mortar drying out due to the high
water absorption properties of tu, resulting in poor bond.
Uniaxial compression test on masonry units were per-
formed using twelve 100-mm cube specimens. A mean com-
pressive strength f
c
= 2.1 MPa, and a coecient of
variation of 10% were obtained.
The selection of mortar mixture was based on the
mechanical properties of typical mortar used in the past
for tu masonry buildings. In particular, the mortar mix
proportion was as follows: 310 kg/m
3
binder, 1245 kg/m
3
sand, 195 kg/m
3
water. Mortar prisms were cast using the
same batch used to build the specimens, and stored and
cured under the same conditions for 28 days. Twenty-four
40-mm cubes were used for compression test, respectively.
An average compressive strength f
m
= 2.00 MPa was
exhibited with a coecient of variation of 28%.
3.2. Compression behavior
The same geometry was selected for specimens subjected
to either uniaxial compression or shear-compression tests.
The aim was to reproduce the typical load-bearing walls
which can be observed in old tu buildings located in
Southern Italy, including historical architecture. The pan-
els consisted of two-layered walls with the inner lled with
mortar and chips from yellow tu blocks. The overall
dimensions of the tested panels were: 1570 mm height,
1480 mm width and 530 mm depth, with an aspect
height-to-width ratio of 1.06, commonly found in multisto-
rey buildings. The details of the specimen dimensions are
given in Fig. 1a.
Masonry units were overlapped on alternate courses and
transverse stones connected to the external layers. An oset
of connecting stones was also ensured throughout the
height of the panel, as can be seen in Fig. 1b. The stones
were laid in a running bond so that a nal mortar joint
thickness of about 10 mm mortar was attained. The area
of the horizontal gross section of the specimen was
A
t
= 0.784 m
2
, while the net area A
n
was 0.517 m
2
, which
corresponded to about 66% of the total area, A
t
. A total
of 21 panels were built and allowed to cure for 28 days.
Two were tested in uniaxial compression under displace-
ment control using two pairs of double-acting hydraulic
jacks (capacity of 250 kN in tension and 1000 kN in com-
pression). Vertical and horizontal displacements were mea-
sured by LVDTs placed on both faces, over gauge lengths
of one-third of the height and one-third of the width of the
panel. Tests were performed at a loading rate of 0.005 mm/s,
and were stopped as soon as signicant damage was
observed.
Visible cracking began at random points along the
height of the panels at approximately 80% of the ultimate
load. These cracks slightly propagated up and down both
sides just as the ultimate load was reached [12]. The panels
exhibited at failure the typical vertical cracks through the
units and the mortar joints induced by the dierent defor-
mability of the mortar and tu units.
An average compressive strength f
wc,m
equal to 1.4 MPa
was measured over the net cross-sectional area. The fact
that the compressive strength of the masonry assemblage
(i.e. tu units assembled with mortar) is lower than the
strength of both constituents (i.e. units and mortar), is typ-
ical of faced structural walls made of tu stones, where the
particular texture, the shape of stones, the poor mechanical
properties of materials and the workmanship could
strongly aect the structural behavior of the masonry as
a composite system [13].
888 G. Marcari et al. / Composites: Part B 38 (2007) 887901
Fig. 2 presents the experimental constitutive relation-
ships between the compressive strength f
wc
, and both hor-
izontal e
h
(negative strains) and vertical e
v
(positive
strains) deformations of a typical panel. The average defor-
mations, e
v
and e
h
, have been computed as the average dis-
placement on the two sides over the nominal gauge length
along vertical and horizontal directions, respectively. The
experimental curves are plotted up to a strength degrada-
tion of 20% below the maximum strength.
Up to about 50% of the peak strength, a relatively linear
relationship is noted between compressive stress and verti-
cal strain, while low values of the horizontal strain were
observed because of the initial settlement of the specimen
along the bed joints. From this stage the curve suddenly
changed in slope and experienced stiness degradation
(hardening phase), due to the vertical cracking. In the
post-peak branch, vertical stress decreases with increasing
strain, and thus the typical softening behaviour of quasi-
brittle materials was experienced.
During the loading process, the horizontal strain e
h
to
vertical strain e
v
ratio is aected by the cracking phenome-
non as the load increased. In particular, analysis on the
apparent Poissons ratio variation over the increased load-
ing suggests that a linear elastic approach could be appro-
priate up to vertical stresses less than about 50% of the
peak strength. Based on this observation, the modulus of
elasticity of each panel, E
m
, has been calculated as secant
modulus in the range (0.10.4) f
wc,m
. on the f
wc
e
v
curves,
in accordance with Eurocode 6 [14] requirements. The
experimental elastic modulus of the as-built panels
approached a mean value of 630 MPa.
4. Shear-compression tests
The test matrix of shear-compression tests was based on
the following panels:
four as-built panels (control specimens);
four strengthened with cross pattern Carbon FRP
(CFRP) strips (Fig. 3a);
four strengthenedwithgridpatternCFRPstrips (Fig. 3b);
three strengthened with cross pattern Glass FRP (GFRP)
strips (Fig. 3a);
four strengthened with grid pattern GFRPstrips (Fig. 3b).
The shear-compression tests were performed in two dif-
ferent steps. First a uniformly distributed axial load was
applied up to a level of vertical pre-stress equal to 0.5 MPa
on the top of the panel. Such a value simulated the service
gravity loads that typically act at the lowest storeys of old
tu masonry buildings. The resultant axial load (400 kN)
was kept constant during the test. Then, a shear load was
applied up to failure under monotonic displacement control,
at a loading rate of 2 mm/s. Shear load application was
stopped as the panels began showing evident failures.
The test set-up was designed in order to reproduce static
and kinematic boundary conditions which can be easily
interpreted, and provide the basic behavioural parameters
such as strength, cracking pattern and deformation charac-
teristics at various states of performance for both as-built
and FRP strengthened panels. The test setup allowed
panels to be tested as xed at both ends, so that the upper
6
5
4
3
2
1
148
1
5
7
2
5
2
5
2
5
2
5
2
5
2
5
40 12
53
Cavity filled with
rubber stones and mortar
4
0
12 12 40 40 40
Even levels
148
1
2
5
34
0
12
12
5
3
40 40 40 12
Odd levels
1
2
148
40 12 40 40
a b
Fig. 1. Geometry of the panel (a), and stacking sequence (b).
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
f
wc
[MPa]
h
[1 0
-3
]
v
[10
-3
]
N
Fig. 2. Experimental stressstrain relationship of the as-built panels.
G. Marcari et al. / Composites: Part B 38 (2007) 887901 889
and lower compressive resultants have opposite sign eccen-
tricities, increasing with the growth of the shear force. An
overview of the test setup and instrumentation is shown
in Fig. 4. The xed support condition was assured by a sys-
tem based on a set of LVDTs placed in the middle and at
the end of the upper steel beam transmitting to the balancer
actuator located at the opposite end. By driving the piston
of the balancer actuator, the upper steel beam was kept
horizontal during the tests.
Four vertical servo-controlled actuators applied axial
compression to the specimens, and a third one was posi-
tioned horizontally and supported by a heavily braced
reaction frame to apply horizontal monotonic deforma-
tions. The axial load was transferred to the specimen
through a sti steel beam and a sti concrete beam
1500 550 300 mm placed at the top of the panel. The
space between the specimen and the top beam was then
lled with fast setting and shrinkage free mortar.
The masonry panels were founded on a sti concrete
support 150 550 300 mm. The specimen was xed on
the test oor, and lateral steel anges were used to prevent
sliding of the support block relative to the strong oor. The
specimens were extensively instrumented. The instrumenta-
tion arrangement was designed in order to measure loads,
shear deformation of the panel and strain proles of
FRP strips. To this end, load cells, linear variable dieren-
tial transducers (LVDTs) and strain gauges were used. In
particular, six LVDTs measured in-plane displacements
on the tested panels; one was used to monitor out-of-plane
displacements; two measured the horizontal and vertical
displacements relative to the base of the panel to monitor
if any eect of sliding or uplift of the foundation occurred.
Fig. 3 indicates a sketch of the strain gage locations and
Fig. 4 the LVDT positions on the panel.
5. Theoretical strength and stiness prediction of as-built
masonry panels
The expected lateral strength associated with diagonal
cracking of the as-built panels (i.e., V
t
) was calculated
according to the formula presented in Italian Seismic Code
[15]. Referring to existing tu masonry panels built with
low-strength masonry constituents, the predicted masonry
shear strength (diagonal tensile strength) is taken equal
to s
0
= 0.042 MPa (Table 11.D.1. of [15]), corresponding
to an average compressive strength f
u
= 1.2 MPa. It is
4
5
0
3
5
0
2
6
4
5
2
6
2
5
8
250 490 490
1
3
5
7
1 2 3
8 7 6
4 5
4
2
6
8
Strain gauges
FRP sheet
(Both sides)
FRP sheet
(Both sides)
Strain gauges
a b
Fig. 3. Reinforcement layout: (a) Cross layout and (b) grid layout.
3750
HYDRAULIC
ACTUATOR
HYDRAULIC
ACTUATOR
STRONG FLOOR
LOAD CELL
+
REACTION FRAME
HEB 600
CYL INDRICAL HINGE
L
V
D
T
L
V
D
T
STEEL LOAD BEAM
HEB 600 HYDRAULIC ACTUATORS
BALANCER ACTUATOR
+
LVDT
CYLINDRICAL HINGE
Fig. 4. Apparatus for testing panels.
890 G. Marcari et al. / Composites: Part B 38 (2007) 887901
underlined that this value is very close to that obtained
experimentally and discussed in the section above (i.e.
1.4 MPa). Therefore, V
t
can be easily computed using
the following relationship provided in [15], based on the
Turnseks failure model [16]:
V
t
B t
1:5s
od
b

1
r
0
1:5s
od
r
; b
H
B
; 1 6 b 6 1:5
1
where t = thickness of the panel (530 mm), r
0
= design
value of compression stress taken as the level of pre-com-
pression N/(Bt) = 0.5 MPa, H = height of panel supposed
xed at both ends (1570 mm), and B = width of panel
(1480 mm). Assuming an aspect ratio b = 1.1 (H/B =
1.06), for a vertical load N = 400 kN Eq. (1) provides V
t
equal to135 kN.
The expected lateral strength associated with in-plane
exural failure of the as-built panels (i.e., V
f
) can be evalu-
ated according to [15], which is based on the assumptions
of a panel xed at both ends and a rectangular masonry
compression stress block. The formula takes the form:
V
f

B
2
t r
0
H
1
r
0
k f
u;d

2
where f
u,d
= design compressive strength of masonry
(1.2 MPa) and k = 0.85 which takes into account the verti-
cal stress distribution at the compressed toe [17] (r
0
, H and
t are those above dened).
For an axial load N = 400 kN, Eq. (2) provides V
f
equal
to 188 kN. The minimum value between V
t
and V
f
should
be assumed as the theoretical lateral strength of the panel.
The behaviour of the as-built panel is therefore controlled
by shear rather than in-plane exure and the theoretical
ultimate capacity is equal to 135 kN.
The elastic theoretical stiness of the panel under hori-
zontal displacement was computed assuming the xed-xed
end boundary. The moment of inertia was calculated using
the gross uncracked section; the secant modulus of elastic-
ity determined from compression tests (i.e., 630 MPa) was
used, whereas the shear modulus was taken as one sixth
of the secant modulus of elasticity (i.e., shear modulus
equal to 105 MPa). Based on these properties an initial
stiness of 37.8 kN/mm was computed.
6. FRP properties and strengthening layout
For the design of the FRP strengthening of the panels
no guideline was available when tests have been conducted.
The objective was to assess the inuence of the following
parameters:
the type of ber: CFRP vs. GFRP;
the FRP layout: cross layout (i.e., strips oriented along
the diagonals as in Fig. 3) vs. grid layout (i.e. strips at
0/90 as depicted in Fig. 3);
the ber density.
It was also decided that the same amount of FRP mate-
rial would have been installed on each face of every panel
in order to prevent an eccentric stiness and strength distri-
bution that may cause twisting. The mechanical properties
of FRP sheets provided by the manufacturer are listed in
Table 1.
For the design of the FRP layouts the following criteria
have been used. The panel strengthened with grid layout
(Fig. 3) realized with one ply (i.e., low density) of GFRP
sheets (i.e., thickness of one ply equal to 0.11 mm) was used
as reference; considering three horizontal strips 200 mm
wide on each face, it was assumed that the anchoring
devices could allow the FRP to attain at least 30% of its
ultimate tensile capacity before intermediate debonding
could occur. Therefore, the GFRP horizontal strips could
provide a contribution to the shear capacity equal to about
52 kN. Since the vertical strips were not anchored at top
and bottom of the panel, it was assumed that the shear con-
tribution of masonry remained equal to that of the as-built
panel calculated above (i.e. 135 kN). Therefore, the GFRP
grid layout with one ply (i.e., low density) could provide a
shear strength increase in the order of about 40%; this lay-
out is denoted with G3 in Table 2. Then, two other panels
were strengthened with the same layout but doubling the
number of plies (i.e., high density) in order to assess the
inuence of ber density; conguration G4 (Table 2) was
then achieved. Similarly, conguration C3 and C4 (Table
2) were designed considering one ply (i.e., low density)
and two plies (i.e., high density) of CFRP, respectively;
the comparison with G3 and G4 would allow evaluating
the inuence of type of ber, even though the slight dier-
ence in ply thickness should be accounted (i.e., 0.110 for
GFRP and 0.167 for CFRP) in doing so.
The same criterion was used to design the cross cong-
urations (Fig. 3); one ply and two plies of 200 mm wide
strips installed on each face realized congurations G1
and G2, or C1 and C2 (Table 2), respectively, depending
on the use of GFRP or CFRP. It was recognized that the
ber percentages along horizontal and vertical directions
were much lower than those corresponding to the same
type of ber with same density but installed in grid layout;
however, in this way the inuence of dierent layouts (grid
vs. cross) could be assessed.
The following notation is used in the following to desig-
nate dierent specimens:
as-built panels are P#1, P#2, P#3, and P#4;
FRP strengthened panels are denoted by a three letters
code where: rst letter is C or G depending if CFRP
Table 1
Mechanical properties of FRP reinforcement
Type of
FRP
Elastic modulus
E
frp
[GPa]
Ultimate
deformation e
frp
[%]
Ultimate tensile
strength f
frp
[MPa]
Carbon 230 1.5 3450
Glass 66 2.0 1320
G. Marcari et al. / Composites: Part B 38 (2007) 887901 891
or GFRP strips were installed; second is a number
depending on FRP pattern and density; third distin-
guishes one (i.e., either a or b) of the two specimens
identically strengthened (i.e., two equal specimens were
tested for each conguration with only exception for
GFRP cross pattern with low density of bers).
The geometrical reinforcement ratio in one direction is
dened as percentage of the total cross-sectional area of
FRP in that direction over the corresponding gross sec-
tional area of the panel. Hence q
H
is equal to A
frp,h
/Ht
and q
v
is equal to A
frp,v
/Bt, where A
frp,h
and A
frp,v
are
the cross sectional area of FRP both horizontally and ver-
tically. In Table 2 values of q
h
and q
v
are reported for
groups of strengthened panels. Anchoring of plies was
ensured by applying on each side bonded FRP stirrups
that enclose the diagonal and vertical strips at their ends,
as can be seen in Fig. 5. To avoid stress concentration at
the edges of the plies, section corners of panels were
rounded to a radius of 20 mm before applying composite
material.
Composite materials were installed with wet lay-up sys-
tem. The wall was thoroughly cleaned from dust and an
epoxy primer layer was applied to the support at rst.
Then, a layer of putty was applied in order to level the
uneven surfaces of the wall. The dry bers were put on
the wet support, and epoxy mixture was applied using a
hand held paint roller to the specimen surface until com-
plete fabric saturation was ensured. Then, a second coat
of adhesive was put on, which after hardening enabled
the newly formed ply to become integral part of the
strengthened member. Any excess of epoxy was removed
and minimum air voids were trapped by running the roller
several times on the wet sheets. When plies were doubled,
the above procedure was the same. The FRP composite
material was allowed to cure at least ten days before test-
ing. Generally, the bond between the externally surface-
bonded FRP and the masonry substrate plays a key role
in order to ensure an adequate load carrying capacity to
the whole composite system. The panel surfaces were pre-
treated by a proper coating primer in order to improve
the adhesion of the FRP plies to masonry substrate.
7. Failure modes
A summary of the experimental observations regarding
crack pattern and failure modes of panels subjected to
shear-compression tests is given in the present section with
respect to groups of specimens.
Table 2
Experimental results of shear-compression tests
Panel Type of strengthening Horizontal reinforcement
ratio q
H
(%)
Vertical reinforcement
ratio q
v
(%)
V
max
(kN)
Mean (kN) d
Vmax
(mm)
d
Vmax
/H
(%)
Mean
(%)
Rupture
of bers
P#1 91.8 132 6.4 0.41 0.51
P#2 136.7 10.9 0.69
P#3 123.0 8.5 0.54
P#4 176.0 6.2 0.39
C1a Carbon Low FRP
density Cross
0.012 0.012 156.7 172.8 15.3 0.97 1.02 No
C1b 0.012 0.012 188.9 16.6 1.06 No
C2a Carbon High FRP
density Cross
0.023 0.023 180.6 203.8 14.3 0.91 0.96 No
C2b 0.023 0.023 227.0 15.9 1.01 No
C3a Carbon Low FRP
density Grid
0.024 0.026 187.9 198.2 20.9 1.33 1.35 No
C3b 0.024 0.026 208.5 21.5 1.37 No
C4a Carbon High FRP
density Grid
0.048 0.052 235.8 220.4 17.3 1.07 1.18 No
C4b 0.048 0.052 205.0 20.1 1.28 No
G1a Glass Low FRP
density Cross
0.008 0.008 155.8 155.8 9.70 0.62 0.62 Yes
G2a Glass High FRP
density Cross
0.015 0.016 179.5 163.4 8.5 0.54 0.50 No
G2b 0.015 0.016 147.4 7.1 0.45 Yes
G3a Glass Low FRP
density Grid
0.016 0.017 199.2 196.2 14.1 0.90 0.86 Yes
G3b 0.016 0.017 193.3 12.9 0.82 No
G4a Glass High FRP
density Grid
0.032 0.034 222.1 215.0 8.7 0.55 0.59 Yes
G4b 0.032 0.034 208.0 9.7 0.62 Yes
Fig. 5. U-wrap system for cross layout (left) and grid layout (right).
892 G. Marcari et al. / Composites: Part B 38 (2007) 887901
7.1. As-built panels
All the as-built panels exhibited a shear dominated
response, as expected. A sketch of the typical crack pattern
of the unreinforced specimens is given in Fig. 6. This type
of response was characterized by the development of early
cracks through the vertical mortar joints started at mid-
height of the wall, that were then followed by cracks in
the stones. Under increasing deformation, diagonal cracks
propagated through the masonry and tended to concen-
trate in a diagonal band along the compression strut that
formed in the walls.
7.2. Panels strengthened with cross pattern
and low FRP density
These panels (i.e., C1 and G1 types in Table 1) failed in
shear, as can be seen in Fig. 7a and b. Wide cracks
extended throughout the masonry and developed along
the shear band within the strengthened area, whilst second-
ary cracks appeared in the area without FRP and close to
the loaded edge. Damage was also characterized by detach-
ment and spalling of stones on the opposite side to the
loading point, as it can be seen in Fig. 7a. However, the
integrity of the walls at the ultimate stage was ensured by
the FRP reinforcement.
When GFRP was used, crack propagation was accom-
panied by debonding of the plies in tension and buckling
of the plies under compression. Buckling started at rst,
followed by local debonding of the plies in tension far from
the end of the sheets, caused by overstressing near the
masonry cracks. At ultimate, the compressed plies almost
fully buckled (Fig. 8a), while the presence of the horizontal
reinforcement inhibited the full debonding of the tensile
plies on both sides of the panels. Consequently the panels
held further loads by a truss mechanism [18], until rupture
of the tensile plies occurred (Fig. 8b). The surface treat-
ment of tu stones gave a good FRP-masonry bond behav-
iour, since bond failure consisted of cohesive failure in the
stone layer near the surface.
When CFRP was used, debonding and buckling of plies
developed similarly to the previous case, but tensile rupture
did not occur.
7.3. Panels strengthened with cross pattern
and high FRP density
These panels (i.e., C2 and G2 types in Table 2) showed
diagonal cracks spread along the shear band characteristic
of the shear mode of failure. Since high compressive stres-
ses at the base corner were attained (compared to low FRP
strengthened walls), masonry crushing at the base of the
compression strut was displayed as the horizontal load
increased. Consequently, it could be stated that they had
a exure/shear type of failure. Fig. 7c and d illustrate typ-
ical wall cracking patterns after testing. The damage
implied also localized cracked zone near the loaded edge
and spalling of stones on the other side.
Panels strengthened with GFRP experienced wider
cracks compared to those strengthened with CFRP. This
is due to the lower elastic modulus of GFRP, which led
to a low eectiveness of the reinforcement in restraining
the opening of diagonal cracks.
For all panels the compressed strips buckled as the hori-
zontal displacement increased. Debonding of the tensile plies
started near mid-height, then spread gradually above and
belowthe middle brick stones. However the U-wrap anchor-
age systemavoided their complete debonding. In the case of
GFRP, the panel G1a exhibited the rupture of a tensile strip.
7.4. Panels strengthened with grid pattern
and low FRP density
These panels (i.e., C3 and G3 types in Table 2) exhibited
shear dominated response. Initially, tiny cracks arose Fig. 6. Typical crack pattern of the as-built panel.
a b
d
c
Fig. 7. Typical crack pattern of panels strengthened with cross layout. (a)
C1 type panels low CFRP density, (b) G1 type panels low GFRP
density, (c) C2 type panels high CFRP density and (d) G2 type panels
high GFRP density.
G. Marcari et al. / Composites: Part B 38 (2007) 887901 893
randomly on both sides. Upon increasing deformation up
to the end of the test, sub-vertical tiny cracks spread slowly
over the whole surface along the compressive strut (Fig. 9a
and b). No specimens displayed masonry crushing in the
base corner, whilst cracks were detected at the bottom-left
corner of the panel, due to the local eect induced by the
loading plate. The presence of the horizontal plies avoided
spalling of the lateral stones. The panels strengthened with
GFRP were characterized by wider-open diagonal cracks
compared to those strengthened using CFRP (see Fig. 9a
and b). Crack propagation within the masonry was accom-
panied by debonding of the plies. Buckling of the compres-
sion strips occurred rst, it started from mid-height and
progressively grew up along the strips. Generally localized
debonding of the tensile plies was rst observed in the cen-
tral strip, followed by localized debonding of the other
under increasing deformation. At failure, G3a and G3b
panels showed the rupture of the tensile plies at dierent
Fig. 8. Typical photographs of the panels strengthened with cross layout.
a b
d c
Fig. 9. Typical crack pattern of panels strengthened with cross layout. (a)
C3 type panels low CFRP density, (b) G3 type panels low GFRP
density, (c) C4 type panels high CFRP density and (d) G4 type panels
high GFRP density. Fig. 10. Damage of panels strengthened with grid pattern.
894 G. Marcari et al. / Composites: Part B 38 (2007) 887901
locations, as can be seen in Fig. 10a, while no tensile rup-
ture of plies was experienced when CFRP was used.
7.5. Panels strengthened with grid pattern
and high FRP density
These panels (C4 and G4 types in Table 2) exhibited a
combined exural-shear failure. Sub-vertical cracks devel-
oped over a larger area, compared to that of the panels
C3 and G3, and propagated mainly along the compressive
band of the panel, with simultaneous crushing of the com-
pressed corner (Fig. 9c and d). Stretching of the horizontal
strips increased the tendency for web splitting of the
masonry; at failure wide cracks ran in a stepped pattern
through the wall thickness, as can be seen in Fig. 10c and d.
G4a and G4b panels suered severe damage and showed
the rupture of the tensile plies; however, the integrity of
the walls at ultimate stage was ensured by the FRP
reinforcement.
It is noted that for all panels strengthened by grid pat-
tern (i.e., C3, C4, G3, and G4 types in Table 2), debonding
of the vertical strips strongly aected the debonding of
those horizontal; this was conrmed by strain gauge mea-
surements. However, the anchoring system combined with
an eective surface treatment avoided the full debonding of
the horizontal strips and ensured adequate anchorage of
those vertical (i.e. see Fig. 10b).
8. Strength and displacement capacity
This section discusses how design parameters, such as
the strengthening pattern, amount of FRP and type of
FRP aect the overall performances of tested panels in
terms of shear strength and deformation capacity. A selec-
tion of curves depicting shear-horizontal displacement rela-
tionships is given in Fig. 11, while a summary about all
panels can be found in Table 2.
8.1. As-built panels
The shear-horizontal displacement curves for panels
P#1 and P#4 are shown in Fig. 11; these two curves
include those of the remaining two panels (i.e., P#2 and
P#3). For panel P#1 there was a drastic decrease in initial
stiness after a load level of about 30 kN, and the lowest
peak load (i.e., 91.8 kN) within as-built panels was
reached. Panel P#4 had a higher initial stiness and pro-
vided the highest peak load (i.e., 176 kN) within as-built
panels. The mean value of the maximum horizontal load
V
max
of 132 kN (Table 2) is associated with a coecient
of variation of 0.26 indicating a high scatter of strength
results; this experimental shear capacity is very close to
the above computed theoretical shear strength (i.e.,
135 kN).
In addition to strength performance, it is also important
to analyze the deformation capacity of the panels which is
the reference parameter within a Performance-Based
seismic Design (PBD) approach to masonry structures.
PBD is based on the prediction of an acceptable level of
damage, typically described as specic performance levels
(e.g. collapse prevention, life safety, immediate occu-
pancy), for dened levels of earthquake ground shaking
[19,20]. Nowadays, standard provisions such as FEMA
356 [21] incorporate a performance-based design method-
ology for seismic rehabilitation of the existing masonry
buildings.
Particularly, assuming d
Vmax
as the horizontal displace-
ment corresponding to the maximum shear strength V
max
,
and recalling that H is the height of the panel, the maxi-
mum drift d
Vmax
/H (%) denes the so-called life safety limit
state [20]; its evaluation is of interest for a possible use in
non-linear static procedures or pushover analysis of exist-
ing masonry structures. Experimental maximum drift val-
ues are reported in Table 2. The as-built panels showed a
mean maximum drift equal to 0.51%.
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
225
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Horizontal displacement [mm]
H
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l

l
o
a
d

V

[
k
N
]
G4b
C3b
C2a
As-built
G2a
G1a
Fig. 11. Horizontal displacement vs. horizontal load relationships for the selected panels.
G. Marcari et al. / Composites: Part B 38 (2007) 887901 895
8.2. Strengthened panels
Experimental results summarized in Table 2 illustrate
that the shear behaviour of panels was signicantly
enhanced by the proposed strengthening technique. A com-
parison between selected as-built panels and strengthened
specimens is given in Fig. 11. The behavior of strengthened
panels shows rst an approximately linear branch before
masonry cracking; then, a non linear branch up to the max-
imumstrength followed by a softening response is observed.
Generally, a more rapid strength degradation was observed
for panels that failed in shear (see panels: C3a and C3b; G1a
and G1b in Fig. 11). Besides, the inuence of the FRP sys-
tem determines a more unstable softening response with
respect to as-built panels, due to the debonding phenome-
non and the tensile rupture of the plies (the latter in the case
of GFRP). In fact, panels strengthened with GFRP suered
a drop in load resistance on the post-peak branch due to the
tensile rupture of the sheets. However, stress redistribution
ensured the load-carrying capacity up to large deforma-
tions. From results presented in Table 2, the lowest shear
strength increase corresponded to panels strengthened with
low GFRP density and cross layout (i.e., 18.1%), while the
maximumgain was reached by those strengthened with high
CFRP density and grid layout (i.e., 67.1%). In the case of
cross pattern, CFRP always led to higher gains in shear
strength than GFRP. It is observed that an almost equal
strength increase was given by both low and high density
of GFRP, while CFRP was more eective when high den-
sity was used. In the latter, the shear strength increase was
almost double that of low CFRP density.
The dierences between CFRP and GFRP in terms of
shear strength became less signicant when a grid pattern
was used; however the shear strength improved when the
amount of shear reinforcement increased. Gain in strength
increased by about 50% for low density of GFRP and
CFRP, and about 65% for high density of GFRP and
CFRP. It can be seen that reinforcement with high density
of CFRP and cross pattern (i.e., type C2 panels in Table 2)
led to a shear strength increase fairly close to those with
low density of CFRP and GFRP, and grid pattern (i.e.,
C3 and G3 types in Table 2). Therefore, the shear strength
of the shear-dominated wall panels could be adequately
improved by a suitable design of the FRP amount and
strengthening pattern. Particularly, the high density of
FRP and disposition of the shear reinforcement by grid
pattern led to changes in the type of failure from shear to
shear/exure. Thus, the specimens increased their exural
moment capacities, enabling the horizontal load to gener-
ally increase more than for panels which failed in shear.
This process continued until the shear strength of the wall
was attained and full diagonal cracks developed as in the
shear failure mode. It can be noted that for panels C2,
C4, G2, and G4 the masonry strength was very close to
the predicted exural strength (i.e., 188 kN).
In terms of displacements, the CFRP reinforcement sig-
nicantly increased signicantly the maximumdrift (ranging
between 0.91%and 1.37%). Even though the maximumdrift
decreased as more FRP was installed, for each type of CFRP
strengthening pattern (i.e., cross and grid) the average values
of d
Vmax
/H were very similar regardless on the amount of
reinforcement. Therefore, the following mean values of
d
Vmax
/H could be conservatively assumed: 0.96% for cross
pattern, 1.18% for grid pattern. With the exception of one
case (i.e. panel G2b), the GRFP reinforcement also
increased the maximum drift. Similarly to CFRP, the maxi-
mum drift reduced as the GFRP percentage increased. The
low density determined increases of the maximum drift by
about 22%and 69%for cross and grid patterns, respectively;
the high density GFRP reinforcement almost did not change
the maximum drift in the case of cross pattern, whereas an
increase of about 16% was achieved with grid pattern. For
both CFRP and GFRP the grid pattern was more eective
than the cross pattern in order to improve the displacement
capacity of strengthened panels.
8.3. Comparative strength analysis
In order to perform a comparative analysis of test results
accounting for dierent Young modulus of composite strips
(Table 1) and for dierent layout (i.e. cross and grid), values
recorded by LVDTs and strain gages have been analyzed.
As shown in Fig. 12 that depicts a typical trend of strains
along the panel diagonals derived from LVDTs readings,
the experimental evidence conrmed that, under these load
conditions (Fig. 4), the FRP strips along diagonal 1 are in
tension whereas those placed along diagonal 2 are in com-
pression. As shown in Fig. 13 depicting a typical trend of
strains recorded by strain gages 4 and 5 (Fig. 3), horizontal
strips in grid layout are in tension. Based on these consider-
ations, q
EFF
is dened as the eective percentage of FRP
that contributes to the lateral strength of the panel. For
cross layout, q
EFF
is computed as the horizontal component
of the area of FRP strips placed on both faces along diago-
nal 1 divided by the product Ht; in doing so, it is assumed
that the contribution of the component of the compressive
FRP strips to the ultimate lateral strength can be neglected.
For grid layout, q
EFF
is equal to above dened q
H
. The
product of q
EFF
times the Young modulus (i.e., E
f
) of the
FRP represents a measure of the eective axial stiness of
the external reinforcement.
The relationship between the eective axial stiness and
the mean value of the experimental mean strength is shown
in Fig. 14. It can be observed that such relationship is
almost linear up to an eective axial stiness of about
15 MPa. For larger values, the addition of eective FRP
area does not increase the strength that exhibit an almost
constant trend. This suggests the following remark for pan-
els with eective axial stiness larger than 15 MPa and grid
layout (i.e., C3, C4, and G4 types): the vertical strips not
eectively anchored at top and bottom of the panels did
not increase signicantly their exural capacity that repre-
sented the upper bound for the strength increase due to
FRP. For this reason, values of the eective FRP area
896 G. Marcari et al. / Composites: Part B 38 (2007) 887901
larger than that corresponding to the transition from shear-
dominated behavior to exural-dominated behavior were
not fully exploited due to the attainment of the as-built
exural capacity. In general, the presence of FRP had
0
30
60
90
120
150
180
210
-0.0025 -0.0020 -0.0015 -0.0010 -0.0005 0.0000

a
[mm/mm]
V
[KN]
V
4 5
5
2
6
2
5
8
2
6
4
Strain gage 5 Strain gage 4
Fig. 13. Typical strain gages measurements on horizontal strip: the example of panel G3a.
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
-0.0030 -0.0020 -0.0010 0.0000 0.0010 0.0020 0.0030
[mm/mm]
V
[KN]
V
Diag. 2
V
Diag. 1
Fig. 12. Typical LVDTs measurements: the example of panel C1b.
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
190
200
210
220
230
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120
E
f

EFF
(MPa)
E
x
p
e
r
i
m
e
n
t
a
l

m
e
a
n

s
t
r
e
n
g
t
h
,

k
N
V
t
, theoretical lateral strength corresponding to diagonal cracking of as-built panel
V
f
, theoretical lateral strength corresponding to flexural failure of as-built panel
C4 type
C3 type
C2 type
G4 type
G3 type
C1 type
G2 type
G1 type
P type
Fig. 14. Experimental mean strength vs. eective axial stiness relationship.
G. Marcari et al. / Composites: Part B 38 (2007) 887901 897
probably a benecial eect on keeping the integrity of the
masonry system and this eect can justify the strength val-
ues of panels C2, C3, C4, and G4 slightly larger than the
theoretical value corresponding to exural failure of the
as-built panel (see Fig. 14).
Some important remarks can be made with respect to
panels characterized by eective axial stiness less than
15 MPa. G3 panels (i.e., grid layout) having an eective
axial stiness of 10.56 MPa show a strength increase of
about 48.6% which is about double of that provided by
G2 panels (i.e., cross layout) having about half eective
axial stiness (i.e., 4.95 MPa); therefore, the eect of
GFRP appears to be independent on the layout and it
seems to be proportional to the eective axial stiness; this
would suggest that similar strains are attained by the
GFRP strips at failure of the panels.
G3 (i.e., grid layout) and C1 (i.e., cross layout) panels
have similar eective axial stiness (i.e., 10.56 MPa and
13.8 MPa, respectively); however, the mean strength
increase provided by C1 panels (i.e., 30.9%) is signicantly
lower than that given by G3 panels (i.e., 48.6%) even though
their eective axial stiness is about 23% less. Based on the
above remarks about the inuence of layout, it seems that
similar eective axial stiness provide dierent strength
increase depending on the Young modulus of the bers.
This consideration appears to be consistent with the dier-
ent failure mode of G3 and C1 panels and particularly with
the fact that the former showed rupture of the bers at fail-
ure of the panels. It could be concluded that as the external
reinforcement is more mechanically compatible with the
substrate (i.e., low Young modulus) the composite action
between substrate and FRP is more eective at the point
that ber rupture can be attained before debonding.
9. Bilinear idealization
It is well-known that response of masonry walls is
strongly nonlinear also for low load levels. In order to
investigate the main aspects of the inelastic behaviour of
the specimens, the actual behaviour is idealized with a
bilinear curve [22]. Bilinearization of the actual response
of the panels represents a useful and common approach
followed by code provisions currently available worldwide
[15,21,23] to assess the structural performance of existing
masonry structures by nonlinear static procedures. In this
section, the inelastic characteristics of the panel behaviour
such as elastic stiness, ductility and ultimate strength are
evaluated for seismic design and assessment purposes of
tu masonry structures. Particularly, the experimental
response of all panels is analysed by a simple bilinear
forcedisplacement relationship, according to [15]. The
bilinear idealization has been obtained by ensuring that
the areas below the actual and bilinear idealized curve were
equal, in accordance also with technical literature [24]. The
bilinear idealization was conducted only on some panels
whose selection was based on the availability of all data
necessary to perform the described procedure. For all the
selected panels an equivalent bilinear curve was dened
according to Fig. 15. The calculated parameters of the
bilinear curves are summarized in Table 3.
9.1. Elastic stiness
The initial loading curve for a panel with bilinear force
displacement relationship Vd is shown in Fig. 11. The
elastic stiness of the panel is Kel, and it is dened as the
secant stiness of the linear elastic branch until the occur-
rence of the rst cracks. The denition of the lateral load
V
cr
associated with the rst sign of structural damage of
the panel is conventional, because response of masonry
panels is strongly nonlinear also at low level of loads.
Therefore, the elastic stiness of the panels is here related
to a reference load level corresponding to 70% of the max-
imum shear force V
max
, according to [15].
In terms of the elastic stiness of the as-built panels, the
results obtained are very variable. Values of Kel range
0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 20 22.5 25
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Displacement (mm)
H
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l

l
o
a
d

V

(
k
N
)

Experimental curve
Bilinearization
V
u
cr
V
max
V
0.8Vmax
cr el

Vmax

u
Fig. 15. Experimental curve and corresponding bilinear force-displacement relationship for the panel G1a.
898 G. Marcari et al. / Composites: Part B 38 (2007) 887901
between 21.1 kN/mm for P#1 and 46.2 for P#4, with a
mean value of 29.8 kN/mm and a coecient of variation
of 0.37, revealing the high scatter in results, typical of tests
on masonry. This mean value is equal to about 79% the
above computed theoretical stiness (i.e., 37.8 kN/mm).
This discrepancy can be justied by two main reasons:
the fact that the theoretical value has been computed based
on the uncracked cross-section which yields a stier behav-
iour; the exibility of the boundary conditions at smaller
lateral displacements already recognized in previous tests
[25].
From Table 3 the Kel of the strengthened panels varied
with the FRP type and pattern. A moderate increase of
stiness was observed only in the case of panel G4b, while
negligible eects corresponded to the remaining FRP lay-
outs. Considering the scatter in results for the as-built pan-
els, it can be said that the FRP appears to have a negligible
inuence on the initial stiness of the masonry, which
means that the distribution of seismic forces on load-bear-
ing masonry panels in a multi-storey building is not signif-
icantly modied.
9.2. Ultimate load and ductility
The ultimate shear force V
u
is obtained by ensuring that
the areas below the actual and the bilinear curve are equal.
Consequently, the idealised elastic limit del (yielding dis-
placement) is simply evaluated from del = V
u
/Kel. As
reported in Table 3, the ultimate horizontal load of the
as-built panels approached a mean value of 120.9 kN, very
close to 0.9 V
max
, in accordance with the technical litera-
ture [2628]. The ultimate load of the strengthened panels
varied with the FRP layout, but it always corresponds to
about 90% of the relevant maximum shear strength. Partic-
ularly the maximum ultimate strength of about 190 kN was
displayed by both CFRP and GFRP grid layout, while the
lowest V
u
= 141.8 kN was provided by the panel strength-
ened with GFRP low density and cross layout.
The inelastic deformation of the panels can be assessed
in terms of ductility factor l, expressed as du/del, where
du is dened as the displacement corresponding to a
strength degradation of 20% below the ultimate strength
V
max
, according to technical literature [24,29]. It is under-
lined that the signicant strength increases do not deter-
mine signicant changes to the inelastic deformation
capacity of strengthened panels whose ductility is substan-
tially very similar to that of the as-built panels (Table 3).
10. Conclusions
The in-plane behaviour of full scale tu masonry panels
with dierent FRP strengthening pattern has been studied
under monotonic shear-compression loading in quasi-static
test facility. Based on the presented results the following
remarks are outlined: T
a
b
l
e
3
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
o
f
t
e
s
t
r
e
s
u
l
t
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
s
e
l
e
c
t
e
d
p
a
n
e
l
s
P
a
n
e
l
T
y
p
e
o
f
s
t
r
e
n
g
t
h
e
n
i
n
g
H
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l
r
e
i
n
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
q
H
(
%
)
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
r
e
i
n
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
q
v
(
%
)
V
m
a
x
(
k
N
)
B
i
l
i
n
e
a
r
i
d
e
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
V
c
r
=
0
.
7
V
m
a
x
(
k
N
)
V
l
=
0
.
8
V
m
a
x
(
k
N
)
K
e
l
(
k
N
/
m
m
)
l
=
d
u
/
d
e
l
(
k
N
)
V
u
(
k
N
)
P
#
1

9
1
.
8
6
4
.
3
7
3
.
4
2
1
.
1
2
9
.
8
3
.
0
3
.
9
8
4
.
6
(
9
2
%
V
m
a
x
)
P
#
2

1
3
6
.
7
9
5
.
7
1
0
9
.
4
2
5
.
4
4
.
0
1
2
4
.
4
(
9
1
%
V
m
a
x
)
P
#
3

1
2
3
.
0
8
6
.
1
9
8
.
4
2
6
.
3
4
.
6
1
1
3
.
1
(
9
2
%
V
m
a
x
)
P
#
4

1
7
6
.
0
1
2
3
.
2
1
4
0
.
8
4
6
.
2
3
.
8
1
6
1
.
8
(
9
1
%
V
m
a
x
)
C
2
a
C
a
r
b
o
n
H
i
g
h
F
R
P
d
e
n
s
i
t
y
C
r
o
s
s
0
.
0
2
3
0
.
0
2
3
1
8
0
.
6
1
2
6
.
4
1
4
4
.
5
2
1
.
9
2
1
.
9
3
.
1
3
.
1
1
6
4
.
3
(
9
1
%
V
m
a
x
)
C
3
b
C
a
r
b
o
n
L
o
w
F
R
P
d
e
n
s
i
t
y
G
r
i
d
0
.
0
2
4
0
.
0
2
6
2
0
8
.
5
1
4
5
.
9
1
6
6
.
8
2
8
.
0
2
8
.
0
3
.
5
3
.
5
1
9
0
.
1
(
9
1
%
V
m
a
x
)
G
1
a
G
l
a
s
s
L
o
w
F
R
P
d
e
n
s
i
t
y
C
r
o
s
s
0
.
0
0
8
0
.
0
0
8
1
5
5
.
8
1
0
9
.
1
1
2
4
.
6
3
1
.
5
3
1
.
5
3
.
6
3
.
6
1
4
1
.
8
(
9
1
%
V
m
a
x
)
G
2
a
G
l
a
s
s
H
i
g
h
F
R
P
d
e
n
s
i
t
y
C
r
o
s
s
0
.
0
1
5
0
.
0
1
6
1
7
9
.
5
1
2
5
.
6
1
4
3
.
6
2
9
.
7
2
9
.
7
3
.
7
3
.
7
1
6
5
.
1
(
9
2
%
V
m
a
x
)
G
4
b
G
l
a
s
s
H
i
g
h
F
R
P
d
e
n
s
i
t
y
G
r
i
d
0
.
0
3
2
0
.
0
3
4
2
0
8
.
0
1
4
5
.
6
1
6
6
.
4
4
0
.
7
4
0
.
7
3
.
4
3
.
4
1
9
1
.
3
(
9
2
%
V
m
a
x
)
G. Marcari et al. / Composites: Part B 38 (2007) 887901 899
the shear strength of the wall panels is considerably
improved by FRP. Large eective axial stiness of the
FRP strips determined that the original failure mode
of the panels clearly changed from shear to a shear/ex-
ural mode; consequently substantial gains in lateral
strength were achieved up to the threshold of the value
corresponding to as-built exural capacity. Low eective
axial stiness did not generate such transition; in these
cases, strength increases proportional to the eective
axial stiness were measured;
the elastic stiness of FRP strengthened panels was not
substantially modied by the external reinforcement;
large increases of lateral strength were attained without
modifying signicantly the inelastic deformation capac-
ity of FRP strengthened panels whose ductility was
slightly lower than that of as-built panels;
the data obtained within the presented experimental
campaign seem to indicate that, for similar eective axial
stiness, the lower Young modulus allows GFRP strips
to be more compatible with the masonry substrate than
CFRP, thus resulting in larger strength increases. This is
consistent with the fact that tensile failure of GFRP
strips was generally reached, while no tensile rupture
was detected for CFRP.
Acknowledgements
This research was funded by the Italian Ministry of Re-
search under a contract with the ENEL HYDRO S.p.A.
The strengthening of the specimens was provided by MA-
PEI S.p.A., Milano, Italy. The contributions of Dr. Bal-
samo and Messrs. Balconi and Zaaroni of MAPEI
S.p.A. are acknowledged. Special thanks go to Dr. Giulia
Bergamo, Dr. Marina Eusebio and Dr. Franco Ravasio
of ENEL HYDRO S.p.A. who were responsible for the
practical aspects in relation to testing of the wall speci-
mens. The authors gratefully acknowledge the cooperation
rendered by Dr. Pasquale Palumbo from ENEL HYDRO
S.p.A. in the development of tests on panels. The analysis
of test results was developed within the activities of Rete
dei Laboratori Universitari di Ingegneria Sismica ReL-
UIS for the research program funded by the Dipartimento
di Protezione Civile Progetto Esecutivo 20052008.
References
[1] Faella G, Manfredi G, Realfonzo R. Cyclic behaviour of tu
masonry walls under horizontal loading. In: Proceedings of 6th
Canadian Masonry Symposium, June. Saskatoon, Canada: Univ of
Saskatchewan; June 1992. p. 31727.
[2] Cosenza E, Iervolino I, Guglielmo E. Seismic Performance Improve-
ment of the Bell Tower in Serra S. Quirico by Composites. In:
FRPRCS-6 Int. Symposium, Singapore: CD-ROM; 2003.
[3] Hartley A, Mullins G, Sen R. Repair of concrete masonry block wall
using carbon ber. In: Proceedings of the Advanced Composite
materials in Bridges and Structures, Montreal, Quebec: Canadian
Society for Civil Engineering (CSCE); 1996. p. 795802.
[4] Albert ML, Cheng JJR, Elwi A. Rehabilitation of Unreinforced
masonry Walls with Externally applied Fiber Reinforced Polymers.
University of Alberta, Department of Civil Engineering, Structural
Engineering Report No. 225, October 1998.
[5] Hamilton III, HR, Holberg A, Caspersen J, Dolan CW. Strength-
ening Concrete masonry with FRP, ACI Special Publication. In: 4th
International Symposium on Fiber-Reinforced Polymer for rein-
forced Concrete structures (FRPCRS-4), ACI, Farmington Hills, MI;
1999. p. 110315.
[6] Grando S, Valluzzi MR, Modena C, Tumialan JC. Shear strength-
ening of UMR clay walls with FRP systems. In: Crivelli Visconti,
editor, Advancing with Composites 2003, 2003, p. 17985.
[7] Stratford T, Pascale G, Manfroni O, Bonglioli B. Shear strength-
ening Masonry Panels with Sheet Glass-Fiber Reinforced Polymer.
J Compos Constr, ASCE 2004;8(5):43443, October.
[8] Hamid AA, El-Dakhakhni WW, Hakam ZHR, Elgaaly M. Behav-
iour of composite unreinforced masonry-ber-reinforced polymer
wall assemblages under in-plane loading. J Comp for Construction,
ASCE 2005;9(1):7383, February.
[9] Christensen JB, Gilstrap J, Dolan CW. Composites materials
reinforcement of existing masonry walls. J Archit Engrg 1996;2:
14562.
[10] Valluzzi MR, Tinazzi D, Modena C. Shear behaviour of masonry
panels strengthened by FRP laminates. Constr Build Mater 2002;
16(7):40916, October.
[11] Corradi M, Borri A, Vignoli A. Experimental study on the deter-
mination of strength of masonry walls. Constr Build Mater 2003;17:
22939.
[12] Drysdale R, Hamid A, Baker LR. Masonry structures: Behaviour
and Design. second ed. Boulder, Colorado: The Masonry Society;
1999.
[13] Croci G. Conservazione e restauro strutturale dei beni architetto-
nici. Torino: Utet Libreria; 2001 [in Italian].
[14] Eurocode 6. Design of masonry structures, EN 1996; 2001.
[15] Ordinanza n. 3431. (OPCM). Ulteriori modiche ed integrazioni
allordinanza del Presidente del Consiglio dei Ministri n. 3274 del 20
marzo 2003, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri; 2005 [in Italian].
[16] Turnsek V, C

acovic F. Some experimental results on the strength of

brick masonry walls. In: Proc of the 2nd Intern. Brick Masonry
Conference, Stoke-on-Trent; 1971. p. 14956.
[17] Magenes G, Calvi GM. In-plane seismic response of brick masonry
walls. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1997;26:
1091112.
[18] Zhao T, Zhang CJ, Xie J. Experimental Study on Earthquake
Strengthening of Brick walls with Continuos Carbon Fibre Sheet.
Masonry International, The British masonry Society, London, UK
2003;16(1):215.
[19] Klingner RE. Performance-based design of masonry structures. In:
Bozorgnia Y, Bertero VV, editors. Earthquake Engineering: From
Engineering Seismology to Performance-Based Engineering. USA:
CRC Press LLC; 2004.
[20] Bosiljkov V, Page A, Bokan-Bosiljkov V, Z

arnic R. Performance
Based Studies of In-plane-Loaded Unreinforced Masonry Walls.
Masonry international 2003;16(2):3950.
[21] FEMA. Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation
of Buildings, Rep. FEMA 356, November, Washington, DC, Federal
Emergency Management Agency; 2000.
[22] Tomazevic M, Lutman M. Seismic behavior of masonry walls:
modelling of hysteretic rules. J of Structural Engineering, ASCE
1996;122(9):104854.
[23] Eurocode 8. Design provisions for earthquake resistance of structures
Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings, EN
1998-1. January 2003.
[24] Tomazevic M. Earthquake-Resistant design of masonry buildings.
Series in innovation in structures and construction, vol. 1. Lon-
don: Imperial College Press; 1999.
[25] Chen SWJ, Hidalgo PA, Mayes RL, Clough RW, McNiven HD.
Cyclic Loading Tests of Masonry Single Piers Height to width ratio
900 G. Marcari et al. / Composites: Part B 38 (2007) 887901
of 1, vol. 2. EERC Report UCB/EERC-78/27. Berkeley: University
of California Earthquake Engineering Research Center; 1978.
[26] Tomazevic M, Lutman M. Seismic resistance of reinforced masonry
walls. In: Proc 9th World Conf on Earthquake Engrg, vol. 6. (Japan
Association for Earthquake disaster Prevention, Tokio-Kyoto, 1988);
1988. p. 10914.
[27] Benedetti D, Benzoni GM. Seismic vulnerability index versus damage
for unreinforced masonry buildings. Proc Int Conf on Reconstruction
Restoration and Urban Planning of Towns and regions in seismic
Prone areas (ANIACAP, IZIIS; UNESCO), Skopje; 1985. p. 33347.
[28] Tomazevic M, Z

arnic R. The behaviour of horizontally reinforced

masonry walls subjected to cyclic lateral in-plane reversals. Proc 8th
European Conf on Earthquake Engrg 1984;4:18.
[29] Voon KC, Ingham JM. Experimental In-Plane Shear Strength
Investigation of Reinforced Concrete Masonry Walls. J Struct Engrg
2006;132(3):4008.
G. Marcari et al. / Composites: Part B 38 (2007) 887901 901