USE OF FIBRE REINFORCED POLYMERS TO IMPROVE SEISMIC RESISTANCE OF MASONRY

N.G. SHRIVE Killam Memorial Professor Department of Civil Engineering University of Calgary Calgary, Alberta CANADA

ABSTRACT
Fibre Reinforced Polymers (FRPs) constitute a class of advanced composite materials which have the potential to change significantly masonry rehabilitation and strengthening. Their light weight means that they do not alter the mass of a structure and thus the inertial forces from seismic excitation. Their strength and, in the case of sprayed Glass FRP, their toughness, indicate that they can alter the load deformation response considerably for the better. Further testing is required, but FRPs open an exciting new line of possibilities for masonry.

1.

INTRODUCTION

Fibre Reinforced Polymer (FRPs) are a class of advanced composite materials that emanated from the aircraft and space industries. They have been used extensively in the medical, sporting goods, automotive and small ship industries and are now finding uses elsewhere. Over the past few years there has been extensive research into their potential applications in the construction industry. Recent special issues of journals like Construction and Building Materials [1] and the Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering (CJCE) [2] have been devoted exclusively to the use of FRPs in construction, while the American Society of Civil Engineers has a journal dedicated to the subject the Journal of Composites for Construction [3]. In the former, there is no mention of masonry; in the CJCE issue there is only one paper (co-authored by this writer), and only half-a-dozen articles on masonry appear in seven volumes of the ASCE Journal. The main emphasis in research has been on reinforced concrete structures strengthening deteriorated

198

SSMICA 2004 - 6 Congresso Nacional de Sismologia e Engenharia Ssmica

structures, particularly beams and columns and substituting FRP rods as reinforcement in new construction. The underlying objective is to provide longer service life by avoiding problems associated with steel corrosion or increasing the load capacity of older or deficient structural members. Holloway [4] gives an overview of many applications in FRP and FRP/traditional material composite structures: he like many others, does not mention masonry. As there are more masonry structures in the world than concrete, masonry researchers have not been oblivious to the opportunity, but have not examined the possibilities as rapidly or extensively as in the concrete arena. In a recent review [5], Lissel and Gayevoy cite only 47 references (in English), although there are others in other languages as indicated for example, in Lourenco and Pocas Martins [6], and there has been continuing publication over the last year. The purpose here therefore is to provide a brief introduction to FRPs, to examine research results pertinent to the possible performance of masonry subject to seismic loading and to make suggestions as to possible avenues of further research. 2. FIBRE REINFORCED POLYMERS

FRPs consist of high strength fibres embedded in a resin matrix. The fibres are usually Carbon (CFRPs), Glass (GFRPs) or Aramid (AFRPs). The fibres are strong many times stronger than steel in the longitudinal direction and generally weak laterally. Typically the fibres show no ductility, so FRPs are linear elastic to failure. CFRPs have the highest modulus, around 150 GPa, and strengths in the range of 2500-3000 MPa. The properties of FRPs have been summarized in various publications (e.g. [7]), and are continually improving. Recent introductions involve combinations of fibres to provide non-linear responses to stress attempts to achieve some ductility in the material. FRPs not only have the advantage of very high strength over conventional materials, but are also light weight and highly durable in many environments. The light weight makes rehabilitation techniques much easier as heavy handling equipment is not needed in constricted spaces. The high durability is very attractive for applications where steel deteriorates rapidly (e.g. corrosion of reinforcing bars in bridges and parkades). One drawback is the susceptibility of the resin in FRPs to ultraviolet light. The resin slowly becomes brittle often seen in plastic objects as they weather over the years when exposed to sunlight. Thus, FRP must be protected from exposure to direct sunlight which can easily be achieved indoors and with paint. New resin formulations are being developed which will not suffer from this problem. A second unavoidable disadvantage of FRPs is their degradation under heat, and their lack of fire resistance. At the service temperature of most structures, the binding resins are stable, but as the temperature increases, the resin breaks down and evaporates. Sayed Ahmed and Shrive [8] showed that at 500C it only took two hours for the resin to evaporate from CFRP tendons, to leave the carbon fibres as a package of uncooked spaghetti. The effect of lower temperatures, was less drastic. Fire retardants can be sprayed over the FRPs to provide some fire resistance but this is one area where further work is necessary.

N.G. SHRIVE

199

For the construction industry, FRPs are available in sheets, strips, tendons (for pre-or posttensioning) and reinforcing bars and meshes. If all the fibres are aligned in the longitudinal direction of the sheet, strip, tendon or rod, then highly anisotropic behaviour is obtained. Very high strength and much greater stiffness occur in that direction compared to others. Some sheets are now available with multidirectional fibres, providing more orthotropic properties, and other structures can be specifically filamentwound to give desired multidirectionality to the fibres [9]. FRPs and their fabrication techniques are evolving quite rapidly: the price relative to other material options is dropping. The economics of using FRPs are thus improving, whether it be for rehabilitation of old structures or for use in new construction. FRPs can therefore be more-or-less selected in form and property for a particular intended use. This then leads to the third area of concern for the use of FRPs in composite construction: how to bind the FRP to the structures. In some instances this is not too problematic, for example with a GFRP mesh which can be embedded in fresh concrete. However in many instances, there has been need to develop new understanding and new techniques. For example, to increase the bond strength between GFRP rods and concrete, some rods were produced with sand embedded on the surface. Delamination of strips and sheets from the underside of concrete beams can be the limiting condition in design, requiring new anchorage techniques and design methods [10]. Surface preparation is very important to the success of FRP application as unfilled cracks or unsmoothed irregularities can cause premature debonding. This poses a concern for masonry which must be investigated to determine the essential requirements for positive results. 3. FRPS IN MASONRY

Research into the use of FRPs in masonry has been reasonably wide ranging, with the same issues in mind as with concrete. From the durability perspective, GRFPs have been examined as possible substitution for steel ties in cavity wall construction [11, 12]. The use of GFRP to make connectors between intersecting walls has been broached [13]. Such approaches might well be able to improve the ability of masonry not to disintegrate under seismic loading. Undoubtedly, further work is warranted. Post-tensioning has also been investigated [14, 15]. A major problem has been anchorage of the tendons. Standard anchors for steel tendons rupture CFRP tendons very easily, so new anchorage systems are under development (e.g: [16, 17]). Post-tensioning increases both the cracking moment of resistance and the ultimate moment of masonry walls, so has some attraction for application in seismic areas. However, there would be a need in design to have some component of the masonry fail in a stable manner at ultimate rather than the prestressing tendon. Of greatest interest with respect to seismic applications are the studies on strengthening walls, columns and arches/vaults with FRPs.

200

SSMICA 2004 - 6 Congresso Nacional de Sismologia e Engenharia Ssmica

3.1. Walls Various researchers have examined the use of various FRPs to enhance masonry wall performance under monotonic or seismic loading [16-32]. Initial work centred on bonding FRPs to the tension side of clay-brick beams subject to bending [16]. Large increases in both load and strain capacity to failure were observed, with the amounts depending on the quantity and type of the FRP used. Further testing followed, leading to reverse cyclic loading on halfscale reinforced brick walls with GFRP strips bonded to both sides of the walls. The ultimate flexural strength of the walls was increased up to 32 times the self weight of the wall as applied pressure. The walls resisted deformations up to 14 times that permitted in the relevant specifications, with inelastic behaviour being observed. Triantafillou [21] also tested wallettes in both in-plane and out-of-plane bending. He used perforated clay units as opposed to the solid ones above. The out-of-plane bending wallettes reinforced with CFRP strips failed through masonry crushing, whereas in-plane loading caused the CFRP laminates to peel off. The theoretical model of performance was verified, with a set of graphs provided to determine load increases. Seible [22] reported on the retrofit of damaged masonry walls. These were from the US-Japan TCCMAR 5-story full-scale reinforced masonry building test. The building consisted of two reinforced concrete masonry walls on each story. The walls were coupled at each floor level through a precast, prestressed concrete floor system. The seismic load excitation was provided at each floor level and at the roof. The structure was subject to progressively increasing limit states from simulated earthquake ground motions, rather than predetermined lateral load patterns. The walls were then repaired with carbon FRP laminates: further testing indicated the repair improved performance. Hollow (unreinforced) concrete masonry walls were tested, retrofitted with CFRP laminates on both sides of the walls and retested by Gergely and Young [23]. Three walls were tested with in-plane reverse cyclic loading and three with out-of-plane loading. The addition of the CFRP increased capacity in terms of displacement by a factor of 4 in shear and 8 in bending, but 31 times in load. The authors emphasized that it is the ability of the FRPs to resist tension that is the main contributing factor to the increase in capacity of the walls. This is a similar finding to others, both for shear and bending of brick work [24-26] and blockwork [27-28] under monotunic loading. Capozucca [29] tested clay masonry shear walls with flanges under axial and lateral load. The flanges were then repaired with CFRP sheets. The lateral load was not applied dynamically, but nevertheless the finding was that the repairs were highly effective in increasing stiffness and ultimate loads. Unreinforced blockwork was tested at the University of Alberta, first with an examination of how various widths, thicknesses and patterns of GFRP sheets improved bending stiffness and strength [30]. Subsequently a reduced number of combinations was applied to both faces of steel-reinforced walls subject to reverse cyclic bending [31]. The conclusion was that amount of GFRP reinforcement on the surface of the walls was the most significant parameter in determining the behaviour of the wall. The walls maintained structural integrity throughout the tests. The failure modes were examined carefully and a numerical model developed [32] to predict behaviour given the failure modes observed. This model provided good agreement with

N.G. SHRIVE

201

the experimental results, which provides confidence that economical design methods can be developed for reinforcing masonry with the new materials. One issue that remains with all of the tests to date, is that where only one side was reinforced, monotonic tests were performed, or repeat tests, where that side was the tension side in bending. Where reverse cycling was employed, reinforcing was applied to both sides of the masonry. This is unsightly and would be unacceptable in the repair of a historical building. Hence there is a need to consider how to achieve the increases in strength and resilience that appear possible, but through application of materials on one side of the wall only (the side that would be hidden from view). 3.2. Columns Much less work has been done on columns than on walls. However significant effort has been put into strengthening plain and reinforced concrete columns (e.g. [33-37]). The consensus is that simply wrapping a column with an FRP wrap is a passive form of strengthening [10]. The wrap is laid with the fibre direction circumferential so that maximum resistance against circumferential expansion of the column is offered. However, the interaction between the wrap and the column is such that the wrap is not activated until the concrete is actually dilating substantially as it is failing [38]. The same was found for masonry columns [39]. Early work on concrete found that round columns were most effectively confined and that the sharp corners of square columns caused premature failure of the wrap. This was confirmed in masonry [40]. Minimum radii for the corners of concrete columns have been recommended [41] to avoid this problem, so bull-nosed units were used for the corners of some columns, and others had the corners chamfered [39]. The columns were initially loaded to cracking, and then rehabilitated with CFRP wrap [39]. Failure loads exceeded the initial cracking loads considerably, but there was not much increase in strain capacity. Failure appeared to be initiated by complete crushing of the mortar joints, causing wrinkles in the wrap Figure 1, followed by explosive disruption of the CFRP wrap Figure 2.

(a) (b) Figure 1. Wrapped masonry columns at peak load develop wrinkles in the wrap (a), which are associated with crushing of the mortar joint (b) (Courtesy of M. Masia).

202

SSMICA 2004 - 6 Congresso Nacional de Sismologia e Engenharia Ssmica

The material first rips vertically, then very rapidly circumferentially at failure of both concrete Figure 3 and masonry columns, providing a very exciting end to the test. This mode three failure of the wrap is along the weakest direction of a linearly-aligned FRP laminate between the fibres. Recent tests on concrete columns sprayed with CFRP, such that the fibre orientation in the plane of the column surface is random, have shown that the increased toughness against the rapid propagation of a circumferential tear Figure 4 increases the strain capacity immensely (Figure 5) [42]. Spraying is a simple and cheap way of applying FRP, and the increase in toughness against cracking in any direction may well be of benefit in numerous applications. Hence this technique warrants much further investigation.

Figure 2. Failure can be explosive as demonstrated by the extensive damage in these columns. Circumferential rips in the CFRP wrap are visible on inspection (Courtesy of M. Masia).

Figure 3. The circumferential tearing of the wrap is clear in this view of a failed concrete column (Courtesy of B. Scholefield).

N.G. SHRIVE

203

Figure 4. With sprayed GFRP, there is considerably increased toughness against crack propagation, both parallel to the direction of compression and circumferentially as the concrete dilates. This column has failed with no disintegration (Courtesy of B. Scholefield).

Circumferential Strain Vs Axial Stress 120.00

100.00

Axial Stress (MPa)

80.00

60.00

40.00

GFRP 2mm Spray CFRP 2mm Wrap GFRP 2mm Wrap

20.00

50 Mpa Reinforced Concrete Column

0.00 0 5000 10000 Circumferential Microstrain (ue) 15000 20000

Figure 5. There is a highly significant increase in axial strain capacity with the sprayed GFRP [42]. 3.3. Arches (vaults) In the restoration of damaged historical structures there may well be the need to strengthen masonry arches or vaults. There have been a few sets of monotonic tests on the effect of FRP reinforcement on such structures [43-49]. The use of different width FRP strips alters the failure mechanism of the arch [43]. A simple theoretical model, in which the FRP is treated as a tension tie-rod and the masonry an assembly of rigid blocks which can only transmit compression at their contact points, was quite successful in predicting the behaviour. The model can be used to select the width of FRP which will result in the best strength gain while inducing failure through FRP delamination rather than masonry crushing [43,44]. The only

204

SSMICA 2004 - 6 Congresso Nacional de Sismologia e Engenharia Ssmica

dynamic tests on vaults the author is aware of [45], showed that the reinforcing the extrados of barrel vaults restored the natural frequency of the first mode of vibration almost to that of the undamaged masonry. However, the damping characteristics were not restored, and the authors note that the application of the GFRP fabric did not re-establish the original vault geometry due to cracks and displacements from the loads causing the original damage. They also noted the importance of obtaining good bond. Indeed, debonding of extrados reinforcement was found not to occur if there is sufficient intrados reinforcement to cause failure by crushing, sliding or FRP rupture [45]. Debonding occurs if failure is by the formation of a mechanism. As long as the strengthening technique is sufficient to avoid debonding, considerable strength gain can be achieved. An analytic model was developed to help determine the amount and location of FRP for best strengthening [46]. Valluzzi et al [47] found that failure could occur in a vault strengthened with laminates for one of three reasons: crushing of the masonry, debonding of the FRP or sliding of a mortar joint due to shear. The presence of the reinforcing altered the mechanism of formation of plastic hinges. They studied the behaviour of arches strengthened with CFRP or GFRP laminates placed either on the intrados or the extrados. Strengthening the extrados revealed a brittle mode of failure sliding between the bricks and mortar close to the springing point. This could be resisted with the application of further material at that site. Placing FRPs on the intrados led to a ductile failure caused by progressive debonding of the laminate. A simple model was also proposed to analyse the failures. A more complex analytic method using constrained optimization has also been proposed [48]. The results suggest that significant increases in strength can be obtained from small amounts of FRP placed strategically on the intrados. Anchorage at the abutments was found to be critical, with thin laminates being more effective than thicker ones. Numerical modelling of FRP strengthened arches shows promise [49], as a tool for improving our understanding of the interplay between the properties, amount and location of the FRP with the properties and dimensions of the masonry. FE analysis lends itself to providing significant insight given the large number of variables, so long as the materials and the bond between them can be modelled well. 4. CONCLUSION

There is great potential for the use of FRPs to strengthen and rehabilitate masonry with respect to seismic loading. The materials are light weight and very strong. The former is advantageous in not adding weight to the structure while the latter can be very advantageous if used intelligently. However, strength might not be the primary criterion. It may be that toughness is of more importance, since seismic excitation can induce both in-and out-of-plane loading. Reinforcement designed to deal with the known types of load we can apply in the laboratory may not fare so well under the multiple loading scenario in an earthquake. Cracks propagate rapidly and easily between the fibres in uni-directional laminates leading to potentially brittle failures. A layer of a material like sprayed short-fibre GFRP might be more capable of not cracking and not permitting collapse of the masonry. In new masonry, specially designed FRP connectors, which again have higher toughness in maintaining integrity in the structure need to be developed.

N.G. SHRIVE

205

Since so little has been done, but what has been investigated shows exciting promise, further work is needed to explore the many possibilities of improving the performance of masonry, both new and old, under seismic loading. 5. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors work in this area has been funded by the Intelligent Sensing for Innovative Structures (ISIS) Network of Centres of Excellence ISIS Canada. This support is gratefully acknowledged, as are the efforts of the students and fellow involved. 6. REFERENCES

[1] Special Issue of Fibre-Reinforced Polymer Composites in Construction. Construction and Building Materials, 17, 6-7, pp. 363-516, 2003. [2] Special Issue of Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 27(5), 2000 [3] American Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of Composites for Construction, since 1997. [4] Holloway, L.C. - The Evolution of and the Way Forward For Advanced Polymer Composites in the Civil Infrastructure. Construction and Building Materials, 17, 365-378, 2003. [5] Lissel, S.L., Gayevoy, A. - The Use of FRPs in Masonry: A State of the Art Review. Proc. International Conference on the Performance of Construction Materials, pp. 12431252, 2003. [6] Lourenco, P.B., Pocas Martins, J.P. - Strengthening of the Architectural Heritage with Composite Materials. Proc. Composites in Constructions, Figueiras et al (eds), Swets and Zeitlinger, pp. 571-576, 2001. [7] Sayed-Ahmed, E.Y. and Shrive, N.G. - A New Shed Anchorage System For PostTensioning Applications Using Carbon Fibre Reinforced Plastic Tendons. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 25, pp. 113-127, 1998. [8] Sayed-Ahmed, E.Y. and Shrive, N.G. - Smart FRP Prestressing Tendons: Properties and Prospects. Proc. Second Middle East Symposium on Structural Composites for Infrastructure Applications, pp. 80-93, 1999. [9] Ibrahim, S., Polyzois, D., Hassan, S.K. - Development of Glass Fiber Reinforced Plastic Poles for Transmission and Distribution Lines. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 27(5), pp. 850-858, 2000. [10] Task Group 9.3 - Externally Bonded FRP Reinforcement For RC Structures, fib, CEB-FIP Technical Report, fib Bulletin 14, 2001. [11] Burdette, J.Q. Hamid, A.A, Larralde, J. - Development of Plastic-Reinforced Wall Ties. The Masonry Society Journal, 14, 2, pp. 37-44, 1996. [12] Straka, V. - Performance of Glass Fibre Reinforced Composite Masonry Ties. Proc., Sixth International Masonry Conference, Masonry (9), British Masonry Society, pp. 441-450, 2002. [13] Lissel, S.L., Shrive N.G. and Page, A.W. - Shear In Plain, Frp Bed Joint Reinforced, and Post-Tensioned Masonry. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 27, pp. 1021-1030, 2000.

206

SSMICA 2004 - 6 Congresso Nacional de Sismologia e Engenharia Ssmica

[14] Reda Taha, M.M. and, Shrive, N.G. - New Concrete Anchors for CFRP Post-Tensioning Tendons, Part I: State-of-the-art Review/ Design. ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 100, No. 1, pp. 86-95, 2003. [15] Reda Taha, M.M. and, Shrive, N.G. - New Concrete Anchors for CFRP Post-Tensioning Tendons, Part II: Development and Experimental Investigation. ACI Structural Journal Vol. 100, No. 1, pp. 96-104, 2003. [16] Ehsani et al - Flexural Behaviour of Masonry walls Strengthed with Composite Fabrics. ACI Int. Symp. On FRP Reinforcement for Concrete Structures, ACI SP-138, pp. 497-507, 1993. [17] Ehsani, M.R., Saadatmanesh, H. - Seismic Retrofit of URM Walls with Fiber Composites. The Masonry Society Journal, 14(2), pp. 63-72, 1996. [18] Ehsani, M.R., Saadatmanesh, H. - Seismic Retrofit of URM Walls with Fiber Composites, The Masonry Society Journal, 14, 2, pp. 63-72, 1996. [19] Ehsani, M.R., Saadtmanesh, H., Al-Saidy, A. - Shear Behaviour of URM Retrofitted With FRP Overlays. Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE, 1(1), pp. 17-26, 1997. [20] Ehsani, M.R., Saadtmanesh, H., Velazquez-Dimas, J.I. - Behaviour of Retrofitted URM Walls Under Simulated Earthquake Loading. Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE 3(3), pp. 134-142, 1999. [21] Triantafillou, T.C. - Strengthening of Masonry Structures Using Epoxy-Bonded FRP Laminates. Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE, 22, 2, pp. 96-103, 1998. [22] Seible, F. - Repair and Seismic Retest of a Full-Scale Reinforced Masonry Building. Proc. 6th Int. Conference on Structural Faults and Repair, 3, pp. 229-236, 1995. [23] Gergely, J., Young, D.T. - Masonry Wall Retrofitted With CFRP Materials. Proc. Composites in Constructions, Figueiras et al (eds), Swets and Zeitlinger, pp. 565-569, 2001. [24] Almusallam et al - Behaviour of Unreinforced Masonry Walls (URM) Strengthened With FRP Composite Materials. 46th International SAMPE Symposium, pp. 473-484, 2001. [25] Mosallam et al - Experimental Investigation on the Out-of-Plane Response of Unreinforced Brick Walls Retrofitted With FRP Composites. 46th International SAMPLE Symposium, pp. 1364-1369, 2001. [26] Gilstrap, J.M., and Dolan, C.W. - Out-of-Plane Bending of FRP-Reinforced Masonry Walls. Composites Science and Technology, 58, pp. 1277-1284, 1998. [27] Hamoush et al - Out-of-Plane Behaviour of Surface-Reinforced Masonry Walls. Construction and Building Materiasl, 16, pp. 341-351, 2002. [28] Hamilton, H.R.. III, and Dolan, C.W. - Flexural Capacity of Glass FRP Strengthened Concrete Masonry Walls. Journal of Composites for Construction, SCE, pp. 170-178, 2001. [29] Capozucca, R. - Brickwork Masonry Walls Reinforced by CFRP. Proc. 9th Canadian Masonry Symposium, Fredericton, Canada, 2001. [30] Albert, M.L., Elwi, A.A., Cheng, J.J.R. - Strengthening of Unreinforced Masonry Walls Using FRPs. Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE, 5, 2, pp. 76-84, 2001. [31] Kuzik, M.D., Elwi, A.A., Cheng, J.J.R. - Cyclic Flexure Tests of Masonry Walls Reinforced With GFRP Sheets. Proc. 9th Canadian Masonry Symposium, on CD ROM, 2001. [32] Kuzik, M.D., Elwi, A.A., Cheng, J.J.R - Numerical Model for Flexure Response of Masonry Walls Reinforced With GFRP Sheets. Proc. 9th Canadian Masonry Symposium, on CD-ROM, 2001. [33] Priestley, M.J.N., Seible, F., and Fyfe, E. - Column Seismic Retrofit Using Fiberglass/Epoxy Jackets. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Advanced

N.G. SHRIVE

207

Composite Materials in Bridges and Structures, Sherbrooke, Que. Edited by K. W. Neale and P. Labossiere. Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, Montreal, Que., pp. 287-298, 1992. [34] Pessiki et al. - Axial Behaviour of Reinforced Concrete Columns Confined With FRP Jackets. ASCE Journal of Composites for Construction, 5(4): 237-245, 2001. [35] Rochette, P., and Labossiere, P. - Axial Testing of Rectangular Column Models Confined With Composites. Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE 4(3): 129-136, 2000. [36] Saadatmanesh, H., Ehsani, M.R., and Jin, L. - Seismic Strengthening of Circular Bridge Pier Models With Fibre Composites. ACI Structural Journal, 93(6): 639-647, 1996. [37] Parvin, A., and Wang, W. - Behaviour of FRP Jacketed Concrete Columns Under Eccentric Loading. Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE 5(3): 146-152, 2001. [38] Shrive et al. - Strengthening of Concrete Columns with Carbon Fibre Reinforced Polymer Wrap. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 30: 543-554, 2003. [39] Masia, M.J., Shrive, N.G. - Carbon Fibre Reinforced Polymer Wrapping for the Reabilitation of Masonry Columns. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 30: 734-744, 2003. [40] Micelli et al. - Confinement of Natural Block Masonry Columns Using Fibre reinforced Polymer Rebars and Laminates. In Proceedings of the 9th Canadian Mansonry Symposium, Fredericton, N.B., 4-6 June 2001. Edited by P.H. Bischoff, J.L. Dawe, A.B. Schriver, and A.J. Valsangar. Department of Civil Engineering, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, N.B. CD-ROM., 2001. [41] Theriault, M., and Neale, K.W. - Design Equations for Axially Loaded Reinforced Concrete Columns Strengthened With Fibre Reinforced Polymer Wraps. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 27: 1011-1020, 2000. [42] Scholefield, B.W.J. - Rehabilitation of Reinforced Concrete Columns By Various Methods. M.Sc. Thesis. University of Calgary. 2003. [43] Briccoli Bati. S., and Rovero, L. - Consolidation of Masonry Arches with Carbon-Fiber Reinforced Plastics. Proc. of the 12th Intl Brick/Block Masonry Conference, Madrid, pp. 1571-1582, 2000. [44] Briccoli Bati, S., Rovero, L. - Experimental Validation of A Proposed Numerical Model for the FRP Consolidation of Masonry Arches. Historical Constructions-Proc. of the 3rd Intl Seminar, Guimaraes, Portugal. pp. 1057-1066, 2001. [45] Barbieri et al. - Dymanic Behaviour of Masonry Vaults Repaired with FRP: Experimental Analysis. Proceedings of the 6th International Mansonry Conference, London, UK, pp. 716. 2002. [46] Foraboschi, P. - Debonding of FRP External Reinforcement Expoxy-Bonded to Masonry Vaults. Proc. Composites in Construction, Portugal, pp. 583-588, 2001. [47] Foraboxhi, P. - Strengthening of Masonry Arch Bridges Using Advanced Composite Materials. Proc. Composites in Construction, Portugal, pp. 577-582, 2001. [48] Valluzzi, M.R., Valdemarca, M., and Modena, C. - Behavior of Brick Masonry Vaults Strengthened by FRP Laminates. Journal of Composites for Construction, SCE, pp. 163169, 2001. [49] Chen, J.F. - Load-Bearing Capacity Masonry Arch Bridges Strengthened With Fiber Reinforced Polymer Composites. Advances in Structural Engineering, 5(1), pp. 37-44, 2001.

208

SSMICA 2004 - 6 Congresso Nacional de Sismologia e Engenharia Ssmica