Page 1 of 8

THE USE OF GFRP GRIDS FOR STRUCTURAL REHABILITATION OF

MASONRY ELEMENTS

Francesca Giulia CAROZZI
Research Assistant
Politecnico di Milano
P.zza L. da Vinci, 32 20133 Milan (Italy)
carozzi@stru.polimi.it

Pierluigi COLOMBI
Associate Professor
Politecnico di Milano
P.zza L. da Vinci, 32 20133 Milan (Italy)
colombi@stru.polimi.it

Christian DI FEO
Research Assistant
Politecnico di Milano
P.zza L. da Vinci, 32 20133 Milan (Italy)
difeo@stru.polimi.it

Antonino MONTALBANO
Technical Service
Sika Italia s.p.a.
Via Einaudi, 6 20068 Peschiera Borromeo (MI) (Italy)
montalbano.antonino@it.sika.com

Carlo POGGI
Full Professor
Politecnico di Milano
P.zza L. da Vinci, 32 20133 Milan (Italy)
poggi@stru.polimi.it

Abstract
This paper illustrates the use of FRP materials to reinforce existing masonry buildings,
including buildings of historical and architectural value. In this work an innovative technique
(glass fibres reinforced plastic grid applied by cement or lime based mortars) to improve the
structural behaviour of masonry elements is analyzed. This paper illustrates the preliminary
results of an ongoing experimental research project at the LPM of the Politecnico di Milano.
The work is divided in 3 parts. In the first one the reinforcing technique is illustrated and the
mechanical properties of the GFRP grid and cement or lime based mortars are evaluated. In
the second one the debonding strength of the reinforcing system is investigated. Finally, in the
third one, the proposed reinforcing technique is compared to a standard system which makes
use of CFRP wraps and epoxy resin. In the conclusions the advantages and disadvantages of
the reinforcing system are discussed.
Keywords: masonry, GFRP grid, experimental technique, debonding of external
reinforcement, cement and lime mortars

Page 2 of 8

1. Introduction
This paper illustrates the use of glass fiber reinforced polymer (GFRP) grid combined with
cement or lime based mortar to reinforce masonry buildings with historical and architectural
value. Comparing to steel, timber or concrete historical structures, masonry structures poses
different problems since the designer should take into account the complexity of the structure
geometry, the variety of used materials and the changes that building have experienced over
the time. Design of strengthening system should include solutions which are compatible with
existing materials, reversible and with minimum impact on the building historical value.
This work is motivated by the back analysis of buildings damaged during 2009 earthquake in
LAquila (Italy) which has shown the necessity to reinforce both structural and non structural
elements such as partition walls. Since the reinforcing system should be compatible with
materials from both the physical and chemical point of view and also reversible or at least
removable, this research investigates the possibility of usage of GFRP grid applied to the
substrate by cement or lime mortars.
Several experimental researches have been carried out in the past on masonry elements
strengthened by steel, GFRP and CFRP grid in combination with mortars or epoxy resin.
Capozucca [1], Briccoli Bati et al. [2], Faella et al. [3] has investigated the problem of
debonding of the reinforcement system from the substrate from both experimental and
analytical point of view. On the other hand, seismic retrofitting of masonry wall by FRP grid
reinforced mortars was also investigated in the literature. Tomazevic et al. [4], El Gawady et
al. [5] and Papanicolau et al. [6] performed dynamic tests on reinforced masonry panel with
FRP grids or wrap embedded in a mortar layer. Several authors [7] analysed durability and
compatibility between historical masonries and different FRP reinforcing systems,
investigating the effects of aggressive environmental conditions.
An experimental program was recently started at the LPM of the Politecnico di Milano on the
reinforcement of masonry structures by GFRP grid with an SBR coating (SikaWrap

-350G
Grid) applied to masonry elements by a cementitious (Sika

MonoTop-722 Mur) or a lime

based mortars (Sika

R-I-Z). In particular the use of a lime base mortar was investigated in

order to fulfil the compatibility requirement as stated before.
The mechanical properties of the reinforcement components were first investigated and in
particular the tensile strength of the GFRP grid in the warp and the weft directions and the
compressive and flexural strength of the mortars were experimentally evaluated. Also the
properties of fresh mortars were measured but they are out of the scope of present work.
In order to investigate the debonding strength of the reinforcing systems, double shear lap
pull-push tests were performed on a reinforcement strips bonded to the opposite side of a
single brick. Different types of clay brick were investigated, i.e. historical and modern bricks,
in order to evaluate the influence of surface roughness on the debonding load.. A custom
testing rig were designed and realized to perform the debonding tests.
For comparison purposes, a reinforcement system realized by CFRP wrap and epoxy resin
(SikaDur

-330) was investigated. The CFRP wrap consisted of one layer of 300 g/m
2

unidirectional textile bonded to the masonry elements by thixotropic epoxy resin (SikaDur

-
330).
2. The experimental program
In the following preliminary results of an ongoing experimental program at the LPM of the
Politecnico di Milano are presented. The program consists of 3 phases. In the first one the
mechanical properties of the components of the reinforcing systems (FRP materials and
mortars) were evaluated. In the second one the debonding strength of the reinforcing system
were measured by double shear lap tests. Finally, in the third one the effectiveness of
mechanical devices to improve the debonding strength (GFRP or CFRP chords) will be
Page 3 of 8

investigated. This last phase is out of the scope of the present work and it will not be
documented in the following.
2.1 Characterization of the reinforcement components
The first phase of the experimental program included the characterization of the
reinforcement components, i.e. the GFRP grid (SikaWrap

-350G Grid) and the cementitious

(Sika

MonoTop-722 Mur) and the lime based (Sika

R-I-Z) mortar (see Figure 1).

a) b)
Figure 1. Characterization of the reinforcement components: a) strips of GFRP grid and b) bending test
of a mortar specimen

2.1.1 GFRP grid
Tensile tests were performed on single roving in the warp and weft direction (5 specimens in
each direction). Tensile test was also performed on a grid strip of width 5cm, again in the
warp and roving directions (5 specimens in each direction). Tests were carried out using an
Instron 2kN and an MTS 250kN machines. In order to avoid local damage of the specimens
during the tensile tests, special fibreglass tabs were used (see Figure 1). The experimental
results are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. Characterization of GFRP grid
Test type
Mean failure
load [kN]
Roving in the warp direction 1,11
Roving in the weft direction 1,03
Grid strip of width 5cm (3 rovings in the warp direction) 3,36
Grid strip of width 5cm (4 rovings in the weft direction) 4,24

2.1.2 Cement and lime based mortar
Two types of mortars were considered, i.e. a cementitious and a lime based mortar. In both
cases, the mechanical properties were investigated and in particular the compressive and
flexural strength were determined (see Table 2). In particular 6 specimens were tested for
both cementitious and lime based mortar. Also the properties of fresh mortar were measured
but they are out of the scope of the present work and it will be not documented in the
following.
Page 4 of 8


Table 2. Characterization of compressive and flexural strength
Test type
Mean compression
strength [N/mm
2
]
Mean flexural strength
[N/mm
2
]
Cementitious mortar
Sika

MonoTop 722 Mur

27,13 8,38
Lime based mortar
Sika

R-I-Z
2,75 1,03

2.2 Characterization of the reinforcement systems: debonding strength
Experimental tests were performed on pull-push double lap joints realized by GFRP grid
bonded to the two sides of a single brick. The specimens included two types of clay bricks,
i.e. historical and modern bricks and two types of mortars, i.e. a cementitious and a lime
based mortar. For comparison purposes, a reinforcement system realized by CFRP wraps and
epoxy resin (SikaDur

-330) was also investigated. Different bond lengths (5, 10 and 15cm)
and reinforcing widths (3cm to 8cm) were also considered in order to investigate the effect of
these parameters on the debonding strength. An MTS250 testing machine was used and a
special test rig was designed and realized to perform the double shear lap debonding test (see
Figure 2). Tests layout are summarized in Table 3.


a) b)
Figure 2. Double shear lap debonding test: a) test rig and b) specimen at failure

Table 3. Layout of the sxperimental tests
Brick type Reinf. type
Resin/mortar
type
Bond length
[cm]
Reinf. width
[cm]
Modern brick GFRP grid Cem. mortar 5 - 10 - 15 5
Historical brick GFRP grid Lime mortar 10 - 15 5
Modern brick GFRP grid Lime mortar 10 - 15 5
Modern brick CFRP wrap Epoxy resin
5
10
15
3 - 6
3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 8
4 - 6
Page 5 of 8


2.2.1 GFRP grid and cementitious mortar
Test results are reported in Table 4 while the load-displacement graphs for different bond
length are shown in Figure 3a. The bond length has a clear influence on the failure load and
failure mode. As illustrated in Figure 3b the failure load increases with the bond length while
shorter reinforcements (5cm and 10cm) showed grid slippage before the tensile failure of the
GFRP grid. On the other hand for longer reinforcements the failure mode was tensile failure
of the GFRP grid without grid slippage (see Figure 4). In any case debonding of the
reinforcement from the substrate was never achieved. The optimum bond seems to be 15cm
with a mean failure load of 4.06kN.

Table 4. Tests results of the system with GFRP grid and cementitious mortar
Test N Bond length
[cm]
Failure load
[kN]
Mean failure
load [kN]
Failure mode
Ce 5 - 1 5 0,90
1,06
Slippage of the
GFRP grid
Ce 5 - 2 5 0,93
Ce 5 - 3 5 1,08
Ce 5 - 4 5 1,34
Ce 5 - 5 5 1,03
Ce 10 - 1 10 2,37
2,63
Slippage and then
tensile failure of
the GFRP grid
Ce 10 - 2 10 2,63
Ce 10 - 3 10 2,75
Ce 10 - 4 10 2,57
Ce 10 - 5 10 2,81
Ce 15 - 1 15 3,79
4,06
Tensile failure of
the GFRP grid
Ce 15 - 2 15 4,47
Ce 15 - 3 15 3,78
Ce 15 - 4 15 3,17
Ce 15 - 5 15 4,50
Ce 15 - 6 15 3,95
Ce 15 - 7 15 4,78


a) b)
Figure 3. Tests results of the system with GRFP grid and cementitious mortar: a) load-displacement
graph and b) bond length effect
Page 6 of 8


a) b)
Figure 4. Debonding failure mode of the system with GRFP grid and cementitious mortar: a) bond length
5cm and b) bond length 15cm

2.2.2 GFRP grid and lime based mortar
Tests results are reported in Table 5. Tests were mainly performed (see Table 3) with
historical clay brick (6 specimens) and, for comparison purposes, additional tests (2
specimens) were performed by modern clay brick.

Table 5. Tests results of the system with GFRP grid and lime based mortar
Test N
Bond length
[cm]
Failure load
[kN]
Mean failure
load [kN]
Failure mode
Ca 10 - 1 H 10 1,91
1.50
Debonding of the
reinforcement
from the substrate
Ca 10 - 2 H 10 0,36
Ca 10 - 3 H 10 2,25
Ca 10 4M 10 1,04 1.04
Ca 15 1H
15 1,38
1.73
Failure of the
mortar layer
Ca 15 2H
15 2,66
Ca 15 3H 15 1,16
Ca 15 5M 15 0,5 0.5
Note: H indicated historical brick and M modern brick


a) b)
Figure 5. Tests results for GRFP grid and lime based mortar: a) load-displacement graph and b) failure
mode (bond length 10cm)

Page 7 of 8

The load-displacement graph is reported in Figure 5a. The relevant graph clearly illustrate the
effect of the brick type on the failure load. Historical bricks with irregular surface showed in
fact a greater failure load compared to modern bricks with a smooth surface (see Table 5).
The failure mode (see Figure 5b) was debonding of the reinforcement from the substrate
together with, for greater bond length, tensile failure of the mortar layer. Also in this case the
optimum value of the bond length seems to be 15cm but the relevant failure load is equal to
1,73kN which corresponds to 45% of the failure load of the reinforcing system with
cementitious mortar.
2.2.3 CFRP wrap and epoxy resin
For comparison purposed, tests were performed with reference to a reinforcing system
realized by CFRP wrap and epoxy resin in according to CNR DT200/2004 [8]. Tests included
specimens with different bond length and reinforcement width in order to evaluate the
influence of these parameters on the debonding strength. Failure mode in all cases was
reinforcement delamination from the substrate with a thin brick layer attached to the
reinforcement. Test results are reported in Table 6 while the load-displacement graphs are
illustrated in Figure 6. In particular Figure 6a illustrates the effect of reinforcement width for
a bond length equal to 10cm while Figure 6b illustrates the effect of bond length for a
reinforcement width of 6cm. The optimum bond length and reinforcement width seems to be
equal to 10cm and 6cm, respectively (see Table 6). The relevant failure load is equal to
28.11kN which much greater than the failure load of the reinforcing system with cementitious
or lime based mortar.

Table 6. Tests results on system with CFRP wrap and epoxy resin
Reinf. width [cm]

Bond length [cm]
3 4 5 6 8
5 10,11kN - - 21,26kN -
10 15,32kN 12,95kN 21,04kN 28,11kN 22,49kN
15 - 9,37kN - 26,23kN -


a) b)
Figure 6. Tests results for CFRP wrap and epoxy resin: a) load-displacement graph for different
reinforcement width and b) load-displacement curve for different bond length.
Page 8 of 8

3. Discussion and conclusions
Results of the experimental tests showed that different reinforcement configurations clearly
exhibit different failure modes and different debonding forces.
Reinforcing system based on cementitious mortar showed failure modes associated to GFRP
grid slippage and/or tensile failure.
Since the lime based mortar has low mechanical characteristics the failure mode of the
relevant reinforcing system was associated to debonding of the reinforcement from the
substrate and failure of the mortar.
Failure mode of specimens with epoxy resin and CFRP wrap was in all cases reinforcement
delamination with a thin brick layer attached to the reinforcement.
Testing of strengthening system with epoxy resin and CFRP wrap has shown better
performances compared to reinforcing systems with cementitious or lime based mortar.
Anyway these reinforcing system doses not fulfill the requirements of compatibility and
reversibility with historical masonry structures.

4. Acknowledgements
The financial support to the first author from Regione Lombardia and Sika Italia s.p.a. and to
the third author from the Reluis project is gratefully acknowledged.

5. References
[1] CAPOZUCCA, R., Experimental FRP/SRP-historic masonry delamination,
Composite Structures, Vol. 92, 2010, pp. 891-903.
[2] BRICCOLI BATI, S., ROVERO, L., TONIETTI, U. Strengthening masonry arches
with composites materials, Journal of Composites for Construction, Vol. 11(1), 2007,
pp. 33-41.
[3] FAELLA, C., MARTINELLI, E., NIGRO E., PACIELLO, S., Shear capacity of
masonry walls externally strengthened by a cement-based composite material: an
experimental campaign, Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 24, 2010, pp. 84-93.
[4] TOMAZEVIC, M., WEISS, P., Displacement capacity of masonry buildings as a basis
for the assessment of behavior factor: an experimental study, Bulletin of Earthquake
Engineering, Vol. 8, 2010, pp. 1267-1294.
[5] EL GAWADY, M. A., LESTRUZZI, P., BADOUX, M., Aseismic retrofitting of
unreinforced masonry walls using FRP, Composites: part B, Vol. 37, 2006, pp. 148-
162.
[6] PAPANICOLAU C., G., TRIANTAFILLOU, T., C, PAPATHANASIOU, M,
KYRIAKOS, K., Textile reinforced mortars (TRM) versus FRP as strengthening
materials of URM walls: out-of. plane cyclic loading, Vol. 41, 2008, pp. 143-157.
[7] VALLUZZI, M.R., GARBIN, E., PANIZZA, M., BINDA, L., TEDESCHI, C.,
Moisture and Temperature Influence on FRP Masonry Bonding, XII DBMC, April
2011
[8] CNR DT 200/2004, Guide for the design and construction of externally bonded FRP
systems for strengthening existing structures materials, RC and PC structures,
masonry structures, Italian National Research Council, 2004. Available from
http://www.cnr.it/Englishversion/CNR/Activities/RegulationCertification.html