Σχεδιασμός Ενεμάτων Βιζηλαίουarchitectural Heritage

International Journal of Architectural Heritage
Fo
rP
Three-leaf masonry in compression, before and after

grouting: A review of literature
ee
Journal: International Journal of Architectural Heritage

rR
Manuscript ID: UARC-2009-0207.R2
Manuscript Type: Original Article

ev
Date Submitted by the

16-Jul-2010
Author:
Complete List of Authors: Vintzileou, Elizabeth; National Technical University of Athens,

ie
Structural Engineering
Three-leaf masonry, grouting, tripartite grout, hydraulic lime based

Keywords:
w
grout, compressive strength

On
ly
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/uarc Email: pbl@civil.uminho.pt; pere.roca.fabregat@upc.edu

Page 1 of 116 International Journal of Architectural Heritage
1
2
3
Mechanics of three-leaf masonry before and after grouting
4
5
6 E.Vintzileou1
7
8
9
10 ABSTRACT
11
12 This paper summarizes the available experimental results related to the behaviour of three-leaf
13
masonry: The behaviour and the failure mechanism of this type of masonry under compression is
14
15
studied. The effect of the mechanical properties of tripartite and hydraulic lime based grout on the
16
Fo
17
mechanical properties of masonry in compression is investigated. Simple formulae are given for the
18
19
estimation of the compressive strength of three-leaf masonry after grouting.
20
rP
21
22
23 Keywords: Three-leaf masonry; grouting; tripartite grout; hydraulic lime based grout; compressive
24
ee
25 strength.
26
27
28
rR
29 1. INTRODUCTION
30
31 Three-leaf (stone or brick) masonry constitutes a construction type that is very common in structures
32
33 belonging to the built cultural heritage in Europe: Two external leaves (made of stone or brick
ev
34
35 masonry) are constructed with a void of varying thickness between them. The space between the two
36
iew
37 external leaves is filled with a loose, low strength material made of small pieces of stones and/or bricks
38
39 and mortar. This type of masonry is very vulnerable to various actions. In fact, as the bond between the
40
41 external and the interior leaves is deteriorated or lost with time (either due to decay of the materials or
42
43 due to vertical and horizontal in- and out-of-plane actions), masonry does not behave as a whole. The
On
44
45 slenderness of the external leaves (that resist the major part of any imposed action) is increased and the
46
47 probability of severe damages or even collapse is enhanced (Figure 1). Thus, the survival of
ly
48
49 monuments and urban nuclei may be seriously endangered.
50
51 Grouting is one of the most commonly applied intervention techniques, to re-instate the collaboration
52
53 between external and internal leaves in three-leaf masonry, as well as to improve the mechanical
54
55
56
57
1
58 Elizabeth Vintzileou, Associate Professor, Department of Structural Engineering, Faculty of Civil
59 Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, Laboratory of Reinforced Concrete, 5, Iroon
60 Polytechniou Str., GR 15773 Zografou, Greece, Tel.: +30 210 7721272, fax: +30 210 7721273, e-mail:
elvintz@central.ntua.gr
1
International Journal of Architectural Heritage Page 2 of 116
1
2
3 properties of the interior weak leaf mainly. This technique was proven to be efficient and it is well
4
5 accepted by Conservators, although it is clearly a non-reversible technique.
6
7 Due to the importance of the subject, considerable research effort was devoted to this technique during
8
9 the last almost three decades, both to design grouts adequate for injection into small voids and cracks
10
11 and to measure the enhanced mechanical properties of masonry after grouting.
12
13 This paper offers a survey of the literature related to the mechanical properties of three-leaf masonry in
14
15 compression, before and after grouting. A short review of the development of various types of grouts
16
Fo
17 is, however, included, to highlight the main trends in this field and to justify the emphasis given in this
18
19 paper to tripartite and to hydraulic lime based grouts.
20
rP
21
22
23 2. HYDRAULIC GROUTS
24
Grouts are injected with the purpose to fill cracks and voids of masonry and (to some extent) pores of
ee
25
26
27 the in situ materials; they are in the vast majority of the cases hydraulic binders. In fact, the application
28
rR
29 of organic binders in historic masonries is questionable, if not prohibited, mainly due to the
30
31 unfavourable in-time development of both physical and mechanical properties of organic binders, as
32
33 well as due to their physical-chemical incompatibility with the in situ materials. Thus, in the
ev
34
35 mechanical tests reviewed in this paper, hydraulic binders are used, since they are both from the
36
chemical-physical and the mechanical viewpoints more adequate for use in historic masonries.
iew
37
38
39 Hydraulic binders may be subdivided into two main categories, namely cement based grouts and
40
41 hydraulic lime based grouts. Pure cement grouts that constitute the first application of grouts to
42
43 masonry structures were proven inadequate for filling the small size voids and cracks of historic
On
44
45 masonries (inadequate injectability due to clogging). This drawback of pure cement grouts led Paillre
46
47 et al. (1984, 1986 and 1989), Aitcin et al. (1984), and Miltiadou (1990) to the addition of ultra fine
ly
48
49 materials (on the basis of specific granularity criteria). In this way, grouts of both high injectability and
50
51 adequate mechanical properties were developed. On the other hand, the need for a wide range of
52
53 mechanical properties of grouts to be available (in order to serve the specific needs of each historic
54
structure) was recognized. Thus, binary grouts (mixes of cement and hydrated lime, natural or artificial
55
56
pozzolans, silica fume, etc.) and ternary grouts (cement, hydrated lime and natural or artificial
57
58
pozzolans) were developed. The cement percentage was varying between 50% and 75%. Grouts of this
59
60
type reach compressive strengths between 10,0 to 30,0 N/mm2 with tensile strength range of 1,2 to 3,0
2
1
2
3 N/mm2 (Miltiadou, 1990) and they were proven to be efficient in enhancing the mechanical properties
4
5 of masonry to which they are injected (Vintzileou et al., 1995). Nevertheless, mechanical tests (see
6
7 Section 3.4) did not confirm the need for grouts with high cement content. Furthermore, grouts with
8
9 reduced cement content are expected to be beneficial for the protection of mosaics, frescoes and
10
11 decorative elements on masonry surfaces, as physical-chemical incompatibility with the in situ
12
13 materials is prevented. Thus, enhanced durability of the intervention is expected (Kalagri et al, 2010).
14
15 Thus, researchers were led to the development and investigation of alternative mixes, namely ternary
16
Fo
17 grouts containing reduced content of adequate type of cement.

18
19 Ternary grouts composed of more than two constituents, namely cement (in a reduced percentage, say
20
rP
21 30% to 50%), lime, pozzolans (natural or artificial), ultra fine materials (such as fly ash or silica fume),
22
23 were developed. As for the obtained mechanical properties, for a cement content of 30%wt.,
24
compressive strengths as high as 10,0 N/mm2 and tensile strengths of the order of 3,0 N/mm2 can be
ee
25
26
27 reached (Toumbakari, 2002 and Vintzileou et al., 2008).
28
rR
29 It is only recently that the use of hydraulic lime based grouts (pure hydraulic lime or in combination
30
31 with a pozzolanic material) was investigated, although their similarity with the in situ materials may
32
33 offer a promising solution, provided that they prove to be mechanically efficient as well (see Section
ev
34
35 3.4). Valluzzi (2000) developed hydraulic lime based grouts with a compressive strength between 3,0
36
and 5,0 N/mm2 (at the age of 2 months), whereas in a recent work (Vintzileou et al., 2008) the
iew
37
38
39 hydraulic lime grout that was developed reached, at the age of six months, a compressive strength of
40
41 6,4 N/mm2, and a flexural strength equal to 3,9 N/mm2.
42
43 Hydraulic grouts injected to masonry specimens presented in this paper comply with a set of
On
44
45 requirements, namely rheological (injectability, i.e. penetrability into fine cracks and voids, according
46
47 to the design, and sufficient fluidity for the grout to be diffused into masonry, as well as stability),
ly
48
49 physical (low hydration heat, limited shrinkage, adequate hardening time and hygroscopic properties),
50
51 chemical (e.g. resistance to expansion and chemical stability of the products of chemical reactions) and
52
53 mechanical requirements that are related to the desirable mechanical properties of the grouted masonry
54
(i.e. strength and deformability characteristics), depending on the actual state of masonry, the actions to
55
56
be imposed, the overall scheme of interventions, etc.
57
58
59
60
3
1
2
3 3. MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF MASONRY BEFORE AND AFTER GROUTING
4
5 3.1. Available experimental data
6
7 Despite of the importance of the subject, the experimental data available in the literature are rather
8
9 limited in number. It should be noted that only experimental results obtained from testing squat
10
11 specimens (thus, representative of the behaviour of masonry-material and not masonry-wall) are
12
13 summarised and commented upon.
14
15 Vintzileou et al. (1995), Toumbakari (2002), Valluzzi (2000), Binda et al. (2006), Oloveira et al. (2006)
16
Fo
17 and Vintzileou et al. (2008) have tested three-leaf stone or brick masonry wallettes in compression
18
19 before grouting or after grouting as well. Table 1 presents the mix proportions of grouts used to inject
20
rP
21 the specimens. The grouts cover a wide range of combinations of materials (from cement-based to pure
22
23 natural hydraulic lime grouts), as well as a wide range of basic mechanical properties. In Table 2,
24
geometrical characteristics of the wallettes, as well as mechanical properties of materials used for the
ee
25
26
27 construction of specimens are given, along with the main experimental findings.
28
rR
29
30
31 3.2. Mechanics of three-leaf masonry in compression, before and after grouting
32
33 When three-leaf masonry is subjected to compression, the applied load is resisted mainly by the
ev
34
35 external leaves. In fact, (Figure 2), the compressive strength (as well as the modulus of elasticity) of the
36
filling material is normally by an order of magnitude smaller than that of the external leaves. By way of
iew
37
38
39 consequence, as proven experimentally by Egermann (1993), as well as by Binda et al. (2006), the
40
41 external leaves carry the larger part of the applied load. Furthermore, due to the incompatibility of
42
43 deformations of the leaves, (a) the bond between masonry leaves and filling material may be broken
On
44
45 and (b) the external leaves are subject to horizontal (out-of-plane) deformations due to the larger lateral
46
47 dilatancy of the filling material. The latter is, on the contrary, under the beneficial confinement offered
ly
48
49 by the external leaves, thus improving somehow its poor mechanical properties. This behaviour leads to
50
51 the failure mode that was observed in all specimens subjected to compression (Figure 3): As the load
52
53 on masonry increases, cracking is initiated both on the faces of the wallettes and within their thickness.
54
Vertical cracks on faces of the specimens pass through mortar joints or they cross also stones and
55
56
bricks, depending on the relative strengths of the materials. On the other hand, transverse (vertical)
57
58
cracks appear along the interface between the external and the internal leaves mainly, whereas in a
59
60
number of cases, cracks open within the filling material as well. The mechanism leading to the failure
4
1
2
3 of masonry can be detected if one observes the development of the vertical cracks in masonry. In fact,
4
5 as shown in Table 2, the opening of transverse cracks is significantly larger than the opening of those
6
7 appearing on the faces of masonry. This shows clearly that once transverse cracks are formed, each leaf
8
9 behaves almost independently from the others. As the slenderness of each leaf is substantially larger
10
11 than that of the entire element, out-of-plane deformation of the external leaves becomes apparent, as
12
13 the compression load increases. This phenomenon is accentuated by the horizontal deformations
14
15 imposed to the external leaves by the filling material (Figure 2).
16
Fo
17 When masonry is grouted (using a high injectability grout) all voids and cracks are filled down to a size
18
19 of some tenths of millimetre. The major part of the injected material improves the behaviour of the
20
rP
21 filling material, as well as that of the interfaces, whereas, secondarily, the properties of the external
22
23 leaves are also enhanced. Thus, masonry is more or less homogenized. As a result, (a) the contribution
24
of the filling material to the resistance against the compression load is increased. Thus, the stresses on
ee
25
26
27 the external leaves are reduced. On the other hand, (b) the difference in the deformability properties of
28
rR
29 the leaves decreases. Thus, the additional horizontal deformations on the external leaves, due to the
30
31 lateral dilatancy of the filling material are also reduced. Last but not least (c) the grout contributes to
32
33 the enhancement of the bond along the interfaces between consecutive leaves. As a result, the opening
ev
34
35 of (critical) transverse cracks is delayed and the compressive strength of masonry is enhanced. The
36
delay in the appearance of transverse cracks is observed in experimental results. In fact, as shown in
iew
37
38
39 Table 2, although before grouting, transverse crack openings (wtrans) of the order of several millimetres
40
41 were measured at the moment of attainment of the compressive strength of ungrouted masonry (fwc,0),
42
43 for the same value of compressive stress, the opening of transverse cracks in the grouted wallettes
On
44
45 (wtrans,fwc0) is practically equal to zero. Nevertheless, when the resistance of (grouted) interfaces is
46
47 reached, separation between leaves takes place and the final mechanism of failure is similar to that
ly
48
49 occurring in masonry before grouting or in thick single-leaf masonry.
50
51 The effect of grouting on stiffness and overall deformability characteristics of masonry is an important
52
53 issue and it is commented upon in Sections 3.3 and 3.4.
54
55
56
3.3. Mechanical properties of masonry before grouting
57
58
Table 2 summarizes experimental results regarding the compressive strength of masonry before
59
60
grouting. The following comments can be made:
5
1
2
3 (a) The compressive strength of masonry units is not a decisive parameter for the compressive
4
5 strength of ungrouted masonry: Compare, for example, the values of compressive strength of
6
7 masonry measured by Vintzileou et al. (1995) on wallettes made of stones having compressive
8
9 strength equal to 100N/mm2, with those obtained by Toumbakari (2002) (for compressive strength
10
11 of stones equal to 55 N/mm2). On the contrary,
12
13 (b) It seems that the compressive strength of mortar and that of the filling material affect more the
14
15 compressive strength of masonry. In fact, as shown in Table 2, the wallettes tested by Toumbakari
16
Fo
17 (2002) reached, in general, higher compressive strengths than the wallettes tested by Vintzileou et
18
19 al. (1995) thanks to the higher compressive strength of both filling material and mortar.
20
rP
21 (c) The values of the compressive strength of masonry, measured on identical wallettes, present a
22
23 difference of approximately 30% between the minimum and the maximum value. This fact is taken
24
into account in Section 4, when the estimation of the compressive strength of masonry is
ee
25
26
27 attempted.
28
rR
29 (d) The ratio of modulus of elasticity (measured at a stress level approximately equal to 0,3fwc,0) to
30
31 compressive strength of ungrouted masonry seems to be very scattered (Figure 4). However, as it
32
33 is the case for modern masonries as well, most of the values of this ratio lie between 500 and 1500.
ev
34
35 (e) The values of vertical strain corresponding to the compressive strength of masonry before grouting
36
are very scattered (Figure 5) and, hence, hard to predict on the basis of a simple mechanical model.
iew
37
38
39
40
41 3.4. Mechanical properties of masonry after grouting
42
43 (a) The data of Table 2 prove that, as in the case of the compressive strength of masonry before
On
44
45 grouting, a difference of the order of 30% is observed between the minimum and the maximum
46
47 compressive strength after grouting within each individual series of tests. This affects the degree of
ly
48
49 accuracy that should be sought for, when estimating the compressive strength of grouted masonry
50
51 through any model (be it empirical or analytical).
52
53 (b) Figure 6 shows the relationship between the compressive strength of the grout and the respective
54
compressive strength of grouted masonry. One may observe that there is a clear tendency of the
55
56
compressive strength of grouted masonry to increase (almost linearly) with increasing compressive
57
58
strength of grout, fgr,c, when the latter does not exceed 10N/mm2 approximately. For higher, fgr,c
59
60
values, no significant further enhancement of the compressive strength of masonry is observed. It
6
1
2
3 should be noted that grouts with a compressive strength up to approximately 10 N/mm2 are ternary
4
5 grouts with reduced cement content (less than 50%wt.) or hydraulic lime based grouts, whereas
6
7 cement based grouts exhibit compressive strengths between 15 N/mm2 and 30 N/mm2. This
8
9 important observation insinuates that the key property governing the mechanical properties of
10
11 grouted masonry is not the compressive strength of the grout.
12
13 (c) Toumbakari (2002) made the working hypothesis that the key parameter for the improvement of
14
15 the mechanical properties of three-leaf masonry is the bond properties of the interfaces between
16
Fo
17 grout and in situ materials, as improved bonding properties along the external leaves to filling
18
19 material interfaces contribute to delayed opening of transverse cracks that (as described in Section
20
rP
21 3.2) lead to failure of masonry. In fact, shear tests on such interfaces (Toumbakari, 2002) have
22
23 proven that the maximum bond resistance obtained by (lower compressive strength) ternary grouts
24
was equal or even higher than the bond resistance of (higher compressive strength) cement grout to
ee
25
26
27 in situ materials interfaces. This result was fully confirmed by a systematic experimental
28
rR
29 investigation conducted by Adami et al. (2006). Both direct tension and shear tests on grout to
30
31 stone or brick interfaces proved the improved behaviour of (low to medium strength) ternary
32
33 grouts as compared to cement grout. As bond properties depend on the tensile strength of the
ev
34
35 binding material, one may expect a better correlation between the compressive strength of the
36
grouted masonry and the tensile strength of the grout. A first positive sign for the validity of this
iew
37
38
39 assumption is the fact that, as shown in Tables 1 and 4, as well as in Figure 7, the ratio between
40
41 compressive and tensile strength of grout is not constant. On the contrary, there is a clear tendency
42
43 of the fgr,t/fgr,c ratio to increase for decreasing compressive strength of the grout. It should be noted
On
44
45 that, as shown in the same Figure 7, for compressive strength of grout varying between 3,0 and
46
47 10,0 N/mm2 (corresponding to ternary and to hydraulic lime based grouts), the values of the
ly
48
49 fgr,t/fgr,c ratio vary between 0,20 and 0,60. It is not, however, possible to find a relationship between
50
51 the compressive strength of the grout and the fgr,t/fgr,c ratio, since the behaviour of masonry in
52
53 compression depends on other parameters as well.
54
(d) Furthermore, in Figure 8 the experimental compressive strength values are plotted against the
55
56
tensile strength of the respective grout. Taking into account the differences from one series of tests
57
58
to the others (in geometry, quality of materials used, construction details, etc.), the quite linear
59
60
correlation between fwc,s and fgr,t may be considered as satisfactory. This result (a) explains the fact
7
1
2
3 that high compressive strength grouts are not as efficient as it might be expected from the
4
5 mechanical point of view and, more important, (b) it proves that ternary and hydraulic lime based
6
7 grouts, that satisfy durability requirements (Kalagri et al., 2010), may also enhance the mechanical
8
9 properties of three-leaf masonry to a level that complies with the bearing capacity requirements set
10
11 for historic structures.
12
13 (e) The experimental results show that, in general, the stiffness of the grouted masonry (expressed by
14
15 means of the modulus of elasticity) is higher than the stiffness of the ungrouted wallettes.
16
Fo
17 Although the respective experimental results are quite scattered, the vast majority of Ewc,s/Ewc,0
18
19 values do not exceed 1,60. Furthermore, the data of Table 2 show that strength enhancement is
20
rP
21 higher than stiffness enhancement. Thus, the ratio between the modulus of elasticity and the
22
23 compressive strength of masonry after grouting is, as a rule, smaller than the same ratio before
24
grouting.
ee
25
26
27 (f) Another important finding is illustrated in Figure 9: When a medium to low strength grout is used,
28
rR
29 i.e. a grout with reduced cement content or a hydraulic lime based grout, the strain corresponding
30
31 to the compressive strength of the grouted masonry is larger than that of the ungrouted masonry.
32
33 The opposite occurs in case of cement-based grouts. It seems, therefore, that grouting with cement-
ev
34
35 based mixes leads to more brittle behaviour of masonry, whereas ternary and hydraulic lime based
36
grouts allow masonry to sustain larger compressive strains before its maximum resistance is
iew
37
38
39 reached. This is another sign in favour of the use of mild grouts rather than stronger ones.
40
41
42
43 4. PREDICTION OF COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF THREE-LEAF MASONRY BEFORE
On
44
45 AND AFTER GROUTING
46
47 Analytical modelling of three-leaf masonry walls using finite element methods was attempted by
ly
48
49 several researchers (see i.a. Binda et al., 1991, Binda et al., 1994, Binda et al., 2006, Oliveira et al.,
50
51 2006). In several cases, the researchers were able to reproduce experimental stress-strain curves quite
52
53 accurately. Nevertheless, such valuable works, although they contribute to the understanding of the
54
behaviour of three-leaf masonry, did not yield simple yet sound engineering models that could be used
55
56
in the design of interventions to historic masonries by means of grouts. Thus, there is still a need for
57
58
simple physical models that would allow for the compressive strength of three-leaf masonry before and
59
60
after grouting to be predicted. Although in case of major monuments it may be possible or advisable to
8
1
2
3 conduct tests, in order to determine the mechanical properties of masonry in a reliable way, in the
4
5 general case of interventions either to less important historic structures or to buildings belonging to
6
7 urban nuclei, neither the time nor the funds are available for such an experimental campaign.
8
9 Therefore, the availability of simple (but physically sound) formulae is of great practical importance.
10
11 In what follows, an attempt is made to apply to the available experimental results existing formulae, as
12
13 well as to improve them, taking into account the observed behaviour, as described in the previous
14
15 sections.
16
Fo
17
18
19 4.1. Estimation of the compressive strength of three-leaf masonry before grouting
20
rP
21 Simple available formulae allowing for the estimation of the compressive strength of three-leaf
22
23 masonry after grouting, require the compressive strength of masonry before grouting to be estimated as
24
well. For this purpose, Valluzzi (2004) suggests that the compressive strength of the external leaves can
ee
25
26
27 be measured in situ, applying the flat jacks technique. The compressive strength of the filling material
28
rR
29 can be measured in the laboratory, on cores taken in situ. Subsequently, an engineering model is
30
31 needed, in order to calculate the compressive strength of three-leaf masonry.
32
33 The simple model, proposed by Egermann (1993) could be used for this purpose. According to this
ev
34
35 model, the compressive strength of the three-leaf masonry is calculated as the weighted sum of the
36
compressive strength of the external and the internal leaves (Equation 1). In addition, it is taken into
iew
37
38
39 account (in an empirical way, though) that the filling material is confined by the external leaves,
40
41 whereas the strength of the external leaves is reduced due to the lateral dilatancy of the filling material.
42
43 Thus, the following equation was derived:
On
44
45 V V
46 f wc ,0 = e efc,e + i if c,i (1)
47 Vw Vw
ly
48
49 where,
50
51 Ve denotes the volume of the external leaves,
52
53 Vi denotes the volume of the filling material,
54
55 Vw denotes the total volume of masonry,
56
57 fc,e denotes the compressive strength of the external leaves,
58
59 fc,i denotes the compressive strength of the filling material,
60
9
1
2
3 e<1.0 and i>1.0 are empirical coefficients taking into account the interaction between external leaves
4
5 and infill material.
6
7 As stated by Egermann himself, the actual state of knowledge does not allow for accurate estimation of
8
9 the values of e and i.
10
11 Tassios (2004) derived closed formulae for the estimation of the compressive strength of ungrouted
12
13 masonry, based on the model by Egermann (1993) and taking into account the available experimental
14
15 data. Formulae by Tassios proved to predict rather satisfactorily (Figure 10) the compressive strengths
16
Fo
17 measured by Valluzzi (2000), Toumbakari (2002), Binda et al. (2006), Oliveira et al. (2006) and
18
19 Vintzileou et al. (1995).
20
rP
21
22
23 4.2. Estimation of the compressive strength of three-leaf masonry after grouting
24
(a) In Vintzileou et al. (1995), a simple formula is developed, allowing for the calculation of the
ee
25
26
27 compressive strength of three-leaf masonry after grouting. The development of the formula is based on
28
rR
29 the following assumption: Grouting does not affect significantly the mechanical properties of the
30
31 external leaves. In reality, when masonry is cracked, grout fills the cracks, as well as voids in the
32
33 mortar and, to some extent, also pores of the materials. Nevertheless, it is on the safe side to assume
ev
34
35 that through grouting, the initial compressive strength of the external leaves is only re-instated. On the
36
contrary, grouting contributes to the substantial improvement of mechanical properties of the infill. The
iew
37
38
39 strength enhancement of the infill is taken proportional to the square root of the compressive strength
40
41 of the grout (as an indicator of its tensile strength), as failure of masonry is due to the opening of
42
43 vertical cracks. This type of failure is governed by the tensile strength of the materials rather than by
On
44
45 their compressive strength. The contribution of the strengthened infill material to the compressive
46
47 strength of masonry is proportional to the ratio Vi/Vw (Vi denotes the volume of infill material in the
ly
48
49 total volume, Vw, of the wall). Thus, the following formula was derived:
50
51 Vi f gr ,c
52 f wc,i = f wc,0 (1 + 1,25 ) (2)
53 Vw f wc,0
54
55 This formula was applied to the available experimental results presented in Table 2 (Figure 11 and
56
57 Table 3). It seems that, in general, the formula overestimates the compressive strength of grouted
58
59 masonry. However, if a Rd value equal to 1,35 is applied, the formula can yield safe values for the
60
design of grouted three-leaf masonry.
10
1
2
3
4
5 (b) Valluzzi (2004) offers a modified version of Equation (2). On the basis of her systematic testing of
6
7 cylinders made of filling material and grouted with hydraulic lime based grouts, an empirical formula
8
9 was proposed for the prediction of the compressive strength of the grouted infill material, as follows:
10
11 1,18
12 fi,s = 0,31f gr ,c (3)
13
14 Thus, the compressive strength of the compressive strength of masonry is calculated using the
15
16 following expression:
Fo
17
18
Vi fi ,s
19 f wc,i = f wc ,0 (1 + ) (4)
20 Vw f wc ,0
rP
21
22 Equation (4) overestimates the compressive strength of grouted three-leaf masonry in most of cases
23
24 (Figure 12). Thus, to yield values adequate for the design of grouted masonry, a Rd value equal to 1,80
ee
25
26 should be applied to the predicted values.
27
28
rR
29
30 (c) The available results from testing cylinders made of filling material before and after grouting (Table
31
32 4), i.e. results by Miltiadou (1990), Valluzzi (2004), Vintzileou et al., 2008, as well as Kalagri et al.
33
ev
34 (2010), were evaluated, in order to derive an expression for the compressive strength of grouted filling
35
36 material. Taking into account (i) the observations made in Section 3.4 and (ii) the fact that there is a
iew
37
38 clear trend to apply only ternary or hydraulic lime based grouts to historic masonry, an effort is made to
39
40 relate the compressive strength of the grouted filling material with the tensile strength of the grout only
41
42 for those cylinders that were grouted with either ternary or hydraulic lime based grout. Thus, the
43
On
44 following expression was derived:

45
46 fi,s = 1,60 + 0,50f gr , t (5)
47
ly
48
49 where,
50
fgr,t denotes the tensile strength of the grout.
51
52
The comparison of predicted fi,s (using equ. (5)) and experimental values is shown in Figure 13. It
53
54
seems that the predicted values fit quite accurately with the experimental ones.
55
56
Thus, based on the assumption adopted in Vintzileou et al. (1995), equation (4) can be applied, with fi,s
57
58
taken from equation (5). The application of this alternative expression to the available experimental
59
60
11
1
2
3 results is shown in Figure 14. This expression seems to offer a rather conservative estimation of the
4
5 compressive strength of grouted masonry that can be used in design.
6
7
8
9 5. CONCLUSIONS
10
11 The survey of literature presented in this paper allows for the following conclusions to be drawn:
12
13 1. Three-leaf masonry subjected to compression exhibited in all cases the same behaviour and the
14
15 same failure mode. Although there is a significant inherent scatter of the experimental data, the
16
Fo
17 effect of parameters, such as mechanical properties of constituent materials, strength of filling

18
19 material, etc., on the compressive strength of ungrouted masonry was detected and explained.
20
rP
21 2. The positive effect of grouting on the compressive strength of three-leaf masonry, as well as on its
22
23 overall behaviour was proven by the totality of experimental results. Furthermore,
24
3. The preponderance of ternary and hydraulic lime based grouts was demonstrated, as they offer
ee
25
26
27 significant enhancement of compressive strength, associated with substantial increase of the strain
28
rR
29 at strength. On the contrary, cement based grouts (of equal injectability and significantly higher
30
31 compressive strength) do not contribute to further increase of the compressive strength of masonry,
32
33 whereas they lead to a rather brittle behaviour.
ev
34
35 4. The advantages of ternary and hydraulic lime based grouts (due to their improved bond properties
36
with the in situ materials) become more important due to the durability ensured by the use of
iew
37
38
39 materials that are compatible with the existing ones from the physical-chemical point of view.
40
41 5. Simple empirical formulae, based, however, on the Mechanics of three-leaf masonry were proven
42
43 adequate for the prediction of the compressive strength of grouted masonry. It should be noted,
On
44
45 however, that further research is needed towards the development of physical models able to
46
47 describe the behaviour of three-leaf masonry before and after grouting.
ly
48
49
50
51 6. REFERENCES
52
53 1. Adami C.-E., Vintzileou E., 2006. Interventions to historic masonries: Investigation of the bond
54
mechanism between stones or bricks and grouts. Submitted to Materials and Structures, RILEM.
55
56
2. Binda L., Fontana A., Anti L. 1991. Load transfer in multiple-leaf masonry walls. Proceedings, 9th
57
58
International Brick Block Masonry Conference, pp. 1488-1497.
59
60
12
1
2
3 3. Binda L., Fontana A., Mirabella Roberti G. 1994. Mechanical behaviour and stress distribution in
4
5 multiple-leaf walls. Proceedings, 10th International Brick Block Masonry Conference, pp. 51-59.
6
7 4. Binda L., Pina-Henriques J., Anzani A., Fontana A., Lourenco P.B. 2006. A contribution for the
8
9 understanding of load-transfer mechanisms in multi-leaf masonry walls : Testing and modelling.
10
11 Elsevier, Engineering Structures, 28, pp. 1132-1148
12
13 5. Egermann R. 1993. Investigation on the load bearing behavior of multiple leaf masonry.
14
15 Proceedings IABSE Symposium Structural Preservation of the Architectural Heritage, Rome,
16
Fo
17 pp. 305-312.
18
19 6. Kalagri A., Miltiadou-Fezans A., Vintzileou E. (2010) Design and evaluation of hydraulic lime
20
rP
21 grouts for the strengthening of stone masonry historic structures, accepted for publication in
22
23 RILEM Materials and Structures.
24
7. Oliveira D.V., Lourenco P.B. (2006) Experimental behaviour of three-leaf stone masonry walls,
ee
25
26
27 Conference and Brokerage Event, The Construction Aspects of Built Heritage Protection,
28
rR
29 Dubrovnik, Croatia, 14-17 October, pp. 355-362.

30
31 8. Paillre A.-M., Guinez R. (1984). Recherche dune formulation de coulis base de liants
32
33 hydrauliques pour linjection dans les fines fissures et les cavits, Bull. liaison Laboratoire des
ev
34
35 Ponts et Chausses, 130, pp. 51-57
36
9. Paillre A.-M., Serrano J.-J., Buil M. (1986), Possibilits offertes par lemploi dultrafines
iew
37
38
39 siliceuses dans les coulis, Bull. liaison Laboratoire des Ponts et Chausses, 141, pp. 123-125
40
41 10. Paillre A.-M., Buil M., Miltiadou A.-E., Guinez R., Serrano J.-J. (1989). Use of silica fume and
42
43 superplasticizers in cement grouts for injection of fine cracks, 3rd International Conference on the
On
44
45 use of fly ash, silica fume, slag and natural pozzolans in concrete, Trodheim, Norway, pp. 1131-
46
47 1157.
ly
48
49 11. Miltiadou A. 1990. Etude des coulis hydrauliques pour la rparation et le renforcement des
50
51 structures et des monuments historiques en maonnerie. Thse de doctorat, Ecole Nationale des
52
53 Ponts et Chausses, Paris, France. Published in 1991 by LCPC in Collection Etudes et recherches
54
des Laboratoires des Ponts et Chausses, srie Ouvrages dart, ISSN 1161-028X, Paris, France
55
56
12. Tassios,T.P. 2004. Rehabilitation of three-leaf masonry. In Evoluzione nella sperimentazione per
57
58
le costruzioni, Seminario Internazionale, 26 Sept- 3Oct., Centro Internationale di Aggiornamento
59
60
Sperimentale Scientifico (CIAS)
13
1
2
3 13. Toumbakari E.-E. 2002. Lime-pozzolan-cement grouts and their structural effects on composite
4
5 masonry walls. Doctor Thesis, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.
6
7 14. Valluzzi M.-R. 2000. Comportamento meccanico di murature storiche consolidate con materiali e
8
9 tecniche a base di calce. Doctor Thesis, University of Trieste.
10
11 15. Valluzzi M.-R. 2004. Consolidamento di murature in pietra. Iniezioni di calce idraulica naturale.
12
13 Collana Scientifica REFICERE, Gruppo Editoriale Faenza Editrice S.p.a., 128pp.
14
15 16. Valluzzi M.-R., da Porto F., Modena C. 2001. Behaviour of multi-leaf stone masonrry walls
16
Fo
17 strengthened by different intervention techniques. Proceedings 3rd International Seminar on

18
19 Structural Analysis of Historical Constructions, Lourenco P.B., Roca P. (ed.), pp. 1023-1032.
20
rP
21 17. Vintzileou, E. and Tassios, T.P. 1995. Three-leaf stone masonry strengthened by injecting cement
22
23 grouts. Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol.121, No.5, May, pp. 848-856.
24
18. Vintzileou E., Miltiadou-Fezans A. 2008 Mechanical properties of three-leaf stone masonry
ee
25
26
27 grouted with ternary or hydraulic lime based grouts, Engineering Structures, Volume 30, Issue 8,
28
rR
29 Pages 2265-2276
30
31
32
33
ev
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
On
44
45
46
47
ly
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
14
1
2
3
FIGURE CAPTIONS
4
5
6 Figure 1. Due to the loss of bond between external leaves and filling material, the opening of
7
8 a diagonal crack during an earthquake led to partial collapse of the exterior leaf of the wall.
9
10 Figure 2. Stresses and deformations in external leaves and filling material in a three-leaf
11
12 masonry subjected to compression (out-of-scale)
13
14 Figure 3. Typical failure mode of three-leaf masonry in compression (Vintzileou et al., 2006)
15
16
Figure 4. Modulus of elasticity of ungrouted masonry, normalized to the compressive
Fo
17
18
19 strength of masonry vs. compressive strength of ungrouted masonry
20
rP
21 Figure 5. Relationship between the compressive strength of ungrouted masonry and

22
23
24 the corresponding strain.
ee
25
26 Figure 6. Relationship between the compressive strength of the grout and the obtained
27
28
compressive strength of grouted masonry.
rR
29
30
31 Figure 7. Ratio of tensile to compressive strength of grout as a function of the
32
33 compressive strength of the grout
ev
34
35
36 Figure 8. Relationship between the tensile strength of grout and the obtained
iew
37
38 compressive strength of grouted masonry.
39
40 Figure 9. Relationship between the compressive strength of grout and the strain at
41
42
43 strength of grouted masonry normalized to the respective strain of ungrouted
On
44
45 masonry.
46
47 Figure 10. Comparison between experimental and predicted (Tassios, 2004) values of
ly
48
49
50 the compressive strength of ungrouted masonry.
51
52 Figure 11. Comparison between predicted and experimental strength enhancement,
53
54
55
based on Equation (2)
56
57 Figure 12. Comparison between predicted and experimental strength enhancement,
58
59 based on Equation (4). The compressive strength of grouted filling material is
60
calculated from Equation (3)
15
1
2
3
Figure 13. Comparison between experimental and predicted values of compressive
4
5
6 strength of grouted filling material (equation (5)).
7
8 Figure 14. Comparison between predicted and experimental strength enhancement, based on
9
10 Equation (4). The compressive strength of grouted filling material is calculated from Equation
11
12
(5)
13
14
15
16
Fo
17 TABLE CAPTIONS
18
19 Table 1. Mix proportions and mechanical properties of grouts used to inject three-leaf
20
rP
21 masonry specimens
22
23 Table 2. Geometrical and mechanical properties of wallettes and main experimental findings
24
ee
25
Table 3. Comparison between experimental and predicted values of compressive strength
26
27
28 Table 4. Summary of experimental results on the mechanical properties of ungrouted and
rR
29
30 grouted filling material
31
32
33
ev
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
On
44
45
46
47
ly
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
16
1
2
3 Table 1. Mix proportions and mechanical properties of grouts used to inject three-leaf masonry
4 specimens
5
6 Grout Mix proportions (wt) Mechanical
7 designation properties
8 Lime Silica Pozzolan Cement Super- Water fgr,c(1) fgr,t(2)
9 fume plasticizer (N/mm ) (N/mm2)
2
10 Vintzileou et al. (1995)
11 A 0.0 25.0 0.0 75.0 1.33 90.0 30.0 2.5
12 B 27.5 22.5 0.0 60.0 1.66 100.0 13.0 1.4
13 Toumbakari (2002)
14
13b0 17.5 0.0 52.5 30.0 7.3 1.7
15
13b10 17.5 10.0 42.5 30.0 9.0 1.1
16
Cb0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 19.5 4.5
Fo
17
Valluzzi (2004)
18
FEN-X/B 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.23 0.35
19
Commercial
20
product
rP
21
FEN- 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.10 -(3)
22
X/A+F
23
24
Vintzileou et al. (2006)
Ternary 25.0 0.0 45.0 30.0 1.0 80.0 8.16 2.2
ee
25
26 grout
27 NHL based 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 80.0 4.5 2.5
28 grout
Notes: (1) compressive strength of grout at the age of testing masonry specimens, (2) flexural strength
rR
29
30 of grout at the age of testing masonry specimens, (3) value not given in the respective publication
31
32
33
ev
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
On
44
45
46
47
ly
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
17
1
2
3
4
6
7 Wallette Dimensions te/ti/te fc,units fm,c fi,c fgr,c/fgr,t Vgr/Vw fwc,0 fwc,i Ew0 Ews wu,0 wu,s
(m) (N/mm2) (N/mm2) (N/mm2) (N/mm2) (%) (N/mm2) (N/mm2) (N/mm2) (N/mm2) () ()
Fo
8
Vintzileou/Tassios (1995)
9
1(1) 0.6x0.4x1.2 130/140/130 100 1.70 0.15 30/2.5 43.8 2.10 3.10 7000 6250 0.00104 0.0006
10
2 0.6x0.4x1.2 130/140/130 100 1.70 0.15 - - 1.30 - 2706 - - -
11
12
13
3(1)
4
5
0.6x0.4x1.2
0.6x0.4x1.2
0.6x0.4x1.2
130/140/130
130/140/130
130/140/130
100
100
100 rP 1.70
1.70
1.70
0.15
0.15
0.15
30/2.5
30/2.5
30/2.5
67.0
31.75
34.72
2.40
1.60
1.70
4.30
-
4.20
5000
4442
5670
5971
-
7778
0.00141
0.0008
0.0028
0.0011
-
0.0012
14
15
16
6
7
8
0.6x0.4x1.2
0.6x0.4x1.2
0.6x0.4x1.2
130/140/130
130/140/130
130/140/130
100
100
100
1.70
1.70
1.70 ee 0.15
0.15
0.15
13/1.4
30/2.5
13/1.4
29.8
29.8
29.8
1.35
-
-
4.05
3.70
3.00
5625
-
-
8438
15413
3333
0.00058
-
-
0.0010
0.0009
0.0009
17
18
19
Toumbakari (2002)
BC1
BC2
0.6x0.4x1.2
0.6x0.4x1.2
90/220/90
90/220/90
25
25
3.40
3.40
1.00
1.00 rR 7.3/1.7
9.0/1.1
31.0
23.0
-
2.41
5.04
3.15
-
729.6
2238.2
1564.9
-
0.00312
0.00242
0.00254
20
21
BC3
BC4
BC5(1)
0.6x0.4x1.2
0.6x0.4x1.2
0.6x0.4x1.2
90/220/90
90/220/90
90/220/90
25
25
25
3.40
3.40
3.40
1.00
1.00
1.00
19.5/4.5
7.3/1.7
7.3/1.7 ev
19.0
25.0
2.09
2.18
2.28
2.91
3.00
3.86
1018.3
1097.6
1144.9
1404.8
1040.4
1170.2
0.00185
0.00234
0.00231
0.00155
0.00294
0.00314
iew
22
SC1 0.6x0.4x1.2 130/140/130 55 3.40 1.00 9.0/1.1 50.0 2.02 3.25 720.4 1622.2 0.00142 0.00355
23
SC2 0.6x0.4x1.2 130/140/130 55 3.40 1.00 19.5/4.5 46.0 2.09 3.36 1138.7 1558.6 0.00165 0.00233
24 SC3 0.6x0.4x1.2 130/140/130 55 3.40 1.00 7.3/1.7 2.65 3.51 1374.8 1187.6 0.00173 0.00245
25 SC4 0.6x0.4x1.2 130/140/130 55 3.40 1.00 7.3/1.7 30.0 2.71 3.29 1443.3 1014.5 0.00211 0.00349
26 Valluzzi, da Porto, Modena (2001)
27
28
29
5I1
6I1
13I1
0.8x0.5x1.4 180/140/180
0.8x0.5x1.4
0.8x0.5x1.4
180/140/180
180/140/180
164
164
164
1.57
1.57
1.57
5.1/0.8
5.1/0.8
5.1/0.8
54.2
54.2
41.5
1.45
1.95
-
On
2.49
2.49
2.54
2390
2029
-
2273
3093
3992
0.00363
0.00457
-
0.00726
0.00571
0.00991
30
31
32
33
1I2
8I2
16I2
12I1T
14I1R
0.8x0.5x1.4
0.8x0.5x1.4
0.8x0.5x1.4
0.8x0.5x1.4
0.8x0.5x1.4
180/140/180
180/140/180
180/140/180
180/140/180
180/140/180
164
164
164
164
164
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
3.2/0.4
3.2/0.4
3.2/0.4
5.1/0.8
5.1/0.8
54.2
47.8
47.8
54.2
60.6
1.97
1.91
-
-
-
2.57
1.82
2.48
2.59
2.14
1450
1559
-
-
-
ly3449
2367
1223
1336
1617
0.0062
0.00622
-
-
-
0.00625
0.0072
0.0107
0.00818
0.00821
34
35 17I1RT 0.8x0.5x1.4 180/140/180 164 1.57 5.1/0.8 47.8 - 3.06 - 1772 - 0.00824
Vintzileou, Miltiadou-Fezans (2006)
36
1 1.0x0.45x1.2 190/120/140 25 4.35 0.15 4.5/2.5 32.8 1.82 3.00 1000 1200 -
37 2 1.0x0.45x1.2 190/120/140 25 4.35 0.15 8.16/2.2 40 1.74 3.75 1440 1550 0.0016 0.0025
38 3 1.0x0.45x1.2 190/120/140 25 4.35 0.15 4.5/2.5 36.4 2.26 3.73 1500 1300 0.0025 0.0039
39 Oliveira, Lourenco (2006)
40
41
42
43
44 18
45 URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/uarc Email: pbl@civil.uminho.pt; pere.roca.fabregat@upc.edu
46
47
1
2
3
4
5 1W1 0.6x0.3x1.1 100/100/100 52.2 2.9 0.29 2.4 2125 0.0027
6 1W2 0.6x0.3x1.1 100/100/100 52.2 2.9 0.29 1.7 2125 0.00165
7 2W1 0.6x0.3x1.1 100/100/100 52.2 2.9 0.29 1.4 2125 0.0033
Fo
8
Noto 0.31x0.51x0. 170/170/170 20.6 9.2 4.1 5.8 1770 0.0035
9 straight 82
10 Noto 0.31x0.51x0. 170/170/170 20.6 9.2 4.1 6.45 2085 0.0041
11
12
13
keyed 82
rP
14
15
16 ee
17
18
19
rR
20
21
ev
iew
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
On
30
31
32
33
ly
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44 19
46
47
1
2
3 Table 2 (contd.)
4
5
Wallette wvert wtrans wtrans, wtrans,fwci Ew0/ Ews/ fwc,s fwc,i/ Ews/ Ew0 wu,s/
6 (mm) (mm) (mm) fwc,0 fwc,0 wu,0
fwc,0
7 (mm)
8 Vintzileou/Tassios (1995)
9 1 1.00 0.231 0.00 0.00 3333 1048 1.48 0.89 0.58
10 2 0.27 - - 2081
11 3 3.00 2083 1389 1.80 1.19 0.78
12 4 2.533 - - 2776
13 5 1.50 7.59 0.00 1.035 3335 1852 2.47 1.37 0.43
14 6 1.81 0.00 1.325 4167 2083 3.00 1.50 1.72
15 7 - - 1.3 4166
8 - - 0.125 1111
16
Fo
Toumbakari (2002)
17
BC1 1.17 444
18 BC2 7.07 0.15 5.04 302.7 497 1.31 2.14 0.81
19 BC3 2.69 0.86 2.59 487.2 483 1.39 1.38 0.84
20 BC4 2.32 0.38 4.03 503.5 347 1.38 0.95 1.26
rP
21 BC5 2.00 0.03 1.80 502.1 303 1.69 1.02 1.36

22 SC1 2.89 0.03 2.19 356.6 499 1.61 2.25 2.50
23 SC2 6.9 0.01 0.60 544.8 464 1.61 1.37 1.41
24 SC3 3.63 0.51 2.33 518.8 338 1.32 0.86 1.42
SC4 2.84 1.01 2.98 532.6 308 1.21 0.70 1.65
ee
25
27 5I1 2.25 0.002 4.59 1648 913 1.72 0.95 2.00
28 6I1 9.2 0.0015 8.55 1040 1242 1.28 1.52 1.25
13I1 0.06 13.85 1572
rR
29
1I2 3.97 0.16 3.67 736 1342 1.30 2.37 1.00
30
8I2 5.9 0.04 4.95 816 1300 0.95 1.52 1.16
31 16I2 0.11 9.45 493
32 12I1T 0.02 7.95 516
33 14I1R 0.01 9.8 756
ev
34 17I1RT 0.0005 10.95 579

35 Vintzileou, Miltiadou-Fezans (2006)
36 1 0.78 8.2 0.0 3.2 550 400 1.65 1.20 -
2 0.26 4.8 0.0 1.3 828 413 2.16 1.08 1.56
iew
37
38 3 1.55 4.0 0.0 2.6 655 349 1.65 0.87 1.36
39
40 Notation
41 te Thickness of external leaf (leaves)
42 ti Thickness of filling material
43 fc,units Compressive strength of masonry units (stones or bricks)
On
44 fm,c Compressive strength of mortar

45 fi,c Compressive strength of filling material before grouting
46 fgr,c/fgr,t Compressive strength of grout/flexural strength of grout (measured at the age of testing
47 the respective wallettes)
Vgr/Vw Volume of grout reported to the volume of masonry
ly
48
49 fwc,0 Compressive strength of masonry before grouting
50 fwc,i Compressive strength of masonry after grouting
51 Ew0 Modulus of elasticity of masonry before grouting, measured at ~30% of the respective
52 compressive strength
53 Ews Modulus of elasticity of masonry after grouting, measured at ~30% of the respective
55 wu,0 Strain at fwc,0
56 wu,s Strain at fwc,i
57 wvert Opening of vertical cracks at mid-height of the face of ungrouted wallette, at fwc,0
58 wtrans Opening of transverse cracks at mid-height of ungrouted wallette, at fwc,0
59 wtrans, fwc,0 Opening of transverse cracks at mid-height of grouted wallette, at fwc,0
60 wtrans,fwci Opening of transverse cracks at mid-height of grouted wallette, at fwc,I
Note: (1) Specimens with transverse masonry leaves
20
1
2
3 Table 3. Comparison between experimental and predicted values of compressive strength
4
5 Wallette Vinf/Vw fgr,c/fgr,t fwc,0 fwc,i fwc,i/ pred. fwc,i pred. fwc,i pred. fwc,i
6 (N/mm2) (N/mm2) (N/mm2) fwc,0 (N/mm2) (N/mm2) (N/mm2)
7 Equ.(2) Equ.(3, 4) Equ.(5,4)
9 1 0.35 30/2.5 2.10 3.10 1.48 4.49 8.10
10 2 0.35 - 1.30 -
11 3 0.35 30/2.5 2.40 4.30 1.80 4.80 8.40
12 4 0.35 30/2.5 1.60 -
5 0.35 30/2.5 1.70 4.20 2.47 4.10 7.70
13
6 0.35 13/1.4 1.35 4.05 3.00 2.97 3.59
14
7 0.35 30/2.5 - 3.70 4.10
15 8 0.35 13/1.4 - 3.00 3.27
Fo
17 BC1 0.55 7.3/1.7 - 5.04

18 BC2 0.55 9.0/1.1 2.41 3.15 1.31 4.47 4.69 2.64
19 BC3 0.55 19.5/4.5 2.09 2.91 1.39 5.12 7.76 3.10
20 BC4 0.55 7.3/1.7 2.18 3.00 1.38 4.04 3.96 2.80
rP
21 BC5 0.55 7.3/1.7 2.28 3.86 1.69 4.14 4.06 2.86

22 SC1 0.35 9.0/1.1 2.02 3.25 1.61 3.33 3.47 2.40
23 SC2 0.35 19.5/4.5 2.09 3.36 1.61 4.02 5.70 2.73
24 SC3 0.35 7.3/1.7 2.65 3.51 1.32 3.83 3.78 2.97
SC4 0.35 7.3/1.7 2.71 3.29 1.21 3.89 3.84 3.03
ee
25
Valluzzi, da Porto, Modena (2001)
26
5I1 0.28 5.1/0.8 1.45 2.49 1.72 2.24 2.04 1.84
27
6I1 0.28 5.1/0.8 1.95 2.49 1.28 2.74 2.54 2.24
28 13I1 0.28 5.1/0.8 - 2.54
rR
29 1I2 0.28 3.2/0.4 1.97 2.57 1.30 2.59 2.31 2.22

30 8I2 0.28 3.2/0.4 1.91 1.82 0.95 2.54 2.25 2.17
31 16I2 0.28 3.2/0.4 - 2.48
32 12I1T 0.28 5.1/0.8 - 2.59
33 14I1R 0.28 5.1/0.8 - 2.14
ev
34 17I1RT 0.28 5.1/0.8 - 3.06

36 1 0.27 4.5/2.5 1.82 3.00 1.65 2.54 2.31 2.24
2 0.27 8.16/2.2 1.74 3.75 2.16 2.70 2.74 2.16
iew
37
38 3 0.27 4.5/2.5 2.26 3.73 1.65 2.98 2.75 2.60
39
40
41
42
43
On
44
45
46
47
ly
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
21
1
2
3 Table 4. Summary of experimental results on the mechanical properties of ungrouted and grouted
4 filling material
5 Mechanical Mechanical properties Mechanical properties of grouted cylinders
6 properties of of grout
7 ungrouted
8 cylinders
9 Test fi,c Ei fgr,c fgr,t fic,s Ei,s f E
10 (MPa) (GPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (GPa)
11 Valluzzi (2004)(1)
12 C7-C8 (0.15) 3.23 0.35 0.82 0.343 (5.47)
13 C9-10(A) (0.15) 3.23 0.35 0.80 0.245 (5.33)
14 C11-C12 (0.15) 5.10 1.99 1.518 (13.27)
15 C13(A) (0.15) 5.10 2.15 1.201 (14.33)
16 C14-C15 (0.15) 3.21 1.43 1.499 (9.53)
Fo
17 C17-C18 (0.15) 3.65 1.38 1.253 (9.20)

18 C27-C28 (0.15) 3.35 1.71 1.747 (11.40)
19 C26(A) (0.15) 3.35 1.39 1.354 (9.27)
20 Miltiadou (1990)
rP
21 Voids 32% 1.71 3.87 30.00(2) 2.50 13.4 20.45 7.84 5.28
22 30.00(3) 2.50 17.0 15.30 9.94 3.95
23 13.00(2) 1.40 9.5 19.80 5.56 2.45
24 Voids 40% 0.48 1.10 30.00(2) 2.50 8.8 13.70 18.33 12.45
ee
25 30.00(3) 2.50 10.5 10.5 21.87 9.55

26 13.00(2) 1.40 16.3 16.60 33.95 15.10
27 DTRR-HMC (work in progress)(4)
28 (A) T 0.15 10.58 3.13 3.24 1.36 21.6
rR
29 (B) 0.15 6.36 3.87 2.79 1.38 18.6

30 NHL5+SP
31 (C) NHL5 0.15 6.00 2.70 3.27 0.79 21.8
32 (D) Chaux 0.15 6.72 1.05 3.29 1.78 21.93
33 blanche+SP
ev
34 (E) Calx 0.15 2.88 1.08 2.74 0.94 18.27

35 Romana
36 (F) Calce 0.15 2.49 0.65 2.28 1.12 15.20
iew
37 Albazzana
38 (G) Unilit 0.15 2.53 0.98 2.01 0.445 13.40
39 B Fluid 0
40 (1) Percentage of voids~40%. The strength of the filling material before grouting was not measured. It is
41 estimated on the basis of the mechanical properties of constituent materials and taking into account
42 the percentage of voids
43 (2) Injection of undamaged cylinders
On
44 (3) Injection of pre-damaged cylinders

45 (4) Average percentage of voids: (A) (7 cylinders)=39.5%, (B) (5 cylinders)=42.2%, (C) (6
46 cylinders)=41.30%, (D) (3 cylinders)=42%, (E) (3 cylinders)=38%, (F) (2 cylinders)=35.5%, (G)
47 (2 cylinders)=42.5%
ly
48 fi,c, Ei: compressive strength and modulus of elasticity of the ungrouted cylinder,
49 fgr,c and fgr,t: compressive and flexural strength of the grout
50 fic,s and Ei,s: compressive strength and modulus of elasticity of the grouted cylinder
51 f= fic,s/ fi,c, E=Ei,s/Ei
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 Figure 1. Due to the loss of bond between external leaves and filling material, the opening of a
11 diagonal crack during an earthquake led to partial collapse of the exterior leaf of the wall.
12
13
14
15
16
Fo
17
18
19
20
rP
21
22
23
24
ee
25
26
27
28
rR
29
30
31
32
33
ev
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
On
44
45
46
47
ly
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
23
1
2
3 N/Aw e e
4 i e/Ee i/Ei
5
6
7
8 fe,Ee, e Fe
9
fi,Ei, i Fi
10
11
12
13 te ti te te' ti'
14 te =te(1+ e e/Ee)
'
15 ti'=ti(1+ ii/Ei)
16 Figure 2. Stresses and deformations in external leaves and filling material in a three-leaf masonry
Fo
17 subjected to compression (out-of-scale)

18
19
20
rP
21
22
23
24
ee
25
26
27
28
rR
29
30
31
32
33
ev
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
On
44
45
46
47
ly
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13 FACE 1 SIDE 1 FACE 2 SIDE 2
14
16
Fo
17
18
19
20
rP
21
22
23
24
ee
25
26
27
28
rR
29
30
31
32
33
ev
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
On
44
45
46
47
ly
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
25
1
2
3 Vintzileou et al., 1995
Toumbakari et al., 2002
4 Valluzzi, 2000
Vintzileou et al., 2006
5 Oliveira, Lourenco, 2006
6 2.8
7
2.6
8
9 2.4
10
2.2
fwc,0(N/mm2)
11
12 2
13 1.8
14
15 1.6
16
Fo
1.4
17
1.2
18 0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250
19 Ew,0/fwc,0
20
rP
21 Figure 4. Modulus of elasticity of ungrouted masonry, normalized to the compressive strength of

22 masonry vs. compressive strength of ungrouted masonry
23
24
ee
25
26
27
28
rR
29
30
31
32
33
ev
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
On
44
45
46
47
ly
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
26
1
2
3
4 Toumbakari, 2002
Valluzzi, 2000
Binda et al., 2006
7 6.5
8 6
9 5.5
10 5
11 4.5
fwc,0(N/mm2)
12 4
13 3.5
14
3
15
2.5
16
Fo
2
17
1.5
18
1
19 0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008
20 wu,0
rP
21 Figure 5. Relationship between the compressive strength of ungrouted masonry and the corresponding
22 strain.
23
24
ee
25
26
27
28
rR
29
30
31
32
33
ev
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
On
44
45
46
47
ly
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
27
1
2
3
Toumbakari, 2002
5 Valluzzi, 2000
5.5
7
8 5
9 4.5
10 4
11
3.5
12
fwc,i(N/mm2)
13 3
14 2.5
15
2
16
Fo
17 1.5
18 1
19 0.5
20
rP
0
21 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
22 fgr,c(N/mm2)
23 Figure 6. Relationship between the compressive strength of the grout and the obtained compressive
24 strength of grouted masonry.
ee
25
26
27
28
rR
29
30
31
32
33
ev
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
On
44
45
46
47
ly
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
28
1
2
4 Toumbakari, 2002
Valluzzi, 2000
DTRR, 2006
6
7 30
8
9 25
10
11 20
fgr,c(N/mm )
12
13 15
14
15
10
16
Fo
17
18 5
19
20 0
rP
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

21
Figure 7. Ratio of tensile to compressive strengthf of/fgrout as a function of the compressive strength of
22
the grout
23
24
ee
25
26
27
28
rR
29
30
31
32
33
ev
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
On
44
45
46
47
ly
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
29
1
2
4 Toumbakari, 2002
5 Valluzzi, 2000
6 5.5
7
8 5
9
4.5
10
11 4
fwc,i(N/mm2)
12
13 3.5
14
3
15
16 2.5
Fo
17
18 2
19
1.5
20 0 1 2 3 4 5
rP
21 fgr,t(N/mm2)
22 Figure 8. Relationship between the tensile strength of grout and the obtained compressive strength of
23 grouted masonry.
24
ee
25
26
27
28
rR
29
30
31
32
33
ev
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
On
44
45
46
47
ly
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
30
1
2
4 Toumbakari, 2002
Valluzzi, 2000
6 2.5
7
8
2
9
10
11 1.5
wu,s/wu,0
12
13
14 1
15
16
Fo
0.5
17
18
19 0
20 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
rP
21 f (N/mm2)
22 Figure 9. Relationship between the compressive strength of grout and the strain at strength of grouted
23 masonry normalized to the respective strain of ungrouted masonry.
24
ee
25
26
27
28
rR
29
30
31
32
33
ev
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
On
44
45
46
47
ly
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
31
1
2
3 6.5
4 6
5 5.5
6
5
7 Rd~1.50
4.5
8
(fwc,0)exp(N/mm2)
9 4
10 3.5
11 3
12 2.5
13 2
14 1.5
15
1
16
Fo
17 0.5
18 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5
19 (fwc,0)pred(N/mm2)
20
rP
21 Figure 10. Comparison between experimental and predicted (Tassios, 2004) values of the compressive
22 strength of ungrouted masonry.
23
24
ee
25
26
27
28
rR
29
30
31
32
33
ev
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
On
44
45
46
47
ly
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
32
1
2
4 Toumbakari, 2002
5 Valluzzi, 2000
6 3
7
8
2.5
9 Rd~1.35
10
2
11
(fwc,i/fwc,0)exp
12
13 1.5
14
15 1
16
Fo
17 0.5
18
19 0
20 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
rP
(fwc,i/fwc,0)pred
21
22
23 Figure 11. Comparison between predicted and experimental strength enhancement, based on Equation
24 (2)
ee
25
26
27
28
rR
29
30
31
32
33
ev
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
On
44
45
46
47
ly
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
33
1
2
4 Toumbakari, 2002
5 Valluzzi, 2000
6
5
7
8
9 4
10
11 Rd~1.80
12 3
(fwc,i/fwc,0 )exp
13
14
2
15
16
Fo
17 1
18
19
20 0
rP
0 1 2 3 4 5
21 (fwc,i/fwc,0)pred
22
23
(4). The compressive strength of grouted filling material is calculated from Equation (3)
ee
25
26
27
28
rR
29
30
31
32
33
ev
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
On
44
45
46
47
ly
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
34
1
2
3
4 4
5
6 3.5
7
8 3
9
exp.fi,s (N/mm )
2.5
10
11 2
12
13 1.5
14
15 1
16
Fo
17 0.5
18
0
19 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
2
20 Figure 13. Comparison between experimentalpred.f (N/mm ) values of compressive strength of grouted
and predicted
rP
21 filling material (equation (5)).

22
23
24
ee
25
26
27
28
rR
29
30
31
32
33
ev
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
On
44
45
46
47
ly
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
35
1
2
3 Toumbakari, 2002
4 Valluzzi, 2000
6 2.5
7
8
9
2
10
11
12
13 wc,i wc,0 exp. 1.5
14
15
16 1
Fo
17
18
19 0.5
20
rP
21
22
0
23 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
24 (f /f )
ee
25
Figure 14. Comparison between predicted and experimental strength enhancement, based on Equation
26
27
28
rR
29
30
31
32
33
ev
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
On
44
45
46
47
ly
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
36
1
2
3
Three-leaf masonry in compression, before and after grouting: A review of
4
5
6 literature
7
8 E.Vintzileou1
9
10
11
12 ABSTRACT
13
15
16 masonry: The behaviour and the failure mechanism of this type of masonry under compression is
Fo
17
18 studied. The effect of the mechanical properties of ternary and hydraulic lime based grout on the
19
20 mechanical properties of masonry in compression is investigated. Simple formulae are proposed for the
rP
21
22 estimation of the compressive strength of three-leaf masonry after grouting.
23
24
ee
25
26 Keywords: Three-leaf masonry; grouting; ternary grout; hydraulic lime based grout; compressive
27
28 strength.
rR
29
30
31
32 1. INTRODUCTION
33
ev
35
iew
37
39
external leaves is filled with a loose, low strength material made of small pieces of stones and/or bricks
40
41
and mortar. This type of masonry is very vulnerable to various actions. In fact, as the bond between the
42
43
On
external and the interior leaves is deteriorated or lost with time (either due to decay of the materials or
44
45
due to vertical and horizontal in- and out-of-plane actions), masonry does not behave as a whole. The
46
47
slenderness of the external leaves (that resist the major part of any imposed action) is increased and the
ly
48
49
probability of severe damages or even collapse is enhanced (Figure 1). Thus, the survival of
50
52
54
56
57
1
58 Elizabeth Vintzileou, Professor, Department of Structural Engineering, Faculty of Civil Engineering,
59 National Technical University of Athens, Laboratory of Reinforced Concrete, 5, Iroon Polytechniou
60 Str., GR 15773 Zografou, Greece, Tel.: +30 210 7721272, fax: +30 210 7721273, e-mail:
1
1
2
4
6
8
9 the last almost three decades, to design grouts adequate for injection into small voids and cracks, to
10
11 measure the enhanced mechanical properties of masonry after grouting, as well as to model the
12
13 behaviour of three-leaf masonry.
14
15 In this paper, the published experimental data regarding the behaviour of three-leaf masonry in
16
Fo
17 compression (before and after grouting) are evaluated with the purpose of identifying the main
18
19 parameters that affect the efficiency of grouting. Furthermore, this literature survey leads to the
20
rP
21 formulation of a simple empirical formula allowing for the estimation of the compressive strength of
22
23 masonry after grouting. A short review of the development of various types of grouts is, also, included,
24
to highlight the main trends in this field and to justify the emphasis given in this paper to tripartite and
ee
25
26
27 to hydraulic lime based grouts.
28
rR
29
30
32
33 Grouts are injected with the purpose to fill cracks and voids of masonry and (to some extent) pores of
ev
34
36
of organic binders in historic masonries is questionable, if not prohibited, mainly due to the
iew
37
38
40
42
On
44
45 chemical-physical and the mechanical viewpoints more adequate for use in historic masonries.
46
ly
48
50
52
54
et al. (1984, 1986 and 1989), Aitcin et al. (1984), and Miltiadou (1990) to the addition of ultra fine
55
56
materials (on the basis of specific granularity criteria). In this way, grouts of both high injectability and
57
58
adequate mechanical properties were developed. On the other hand, the need for a wide range of
59
60
mechanical properties of grouts to be available (in order to serve the specific needs of each historic
2
1
2
3 structure) was recognized. Thus, binary grouts (mixes of cement and hydrated lime, natural or artificial
4
5 pozzolans, silica fume, etc.) and ternary grouts (cement, hydrated lime and natural or artificial
6
7 pozzolans) were developed. The cement percentage was varying between 50% and 75%. Grouts of this
8
9 type reach compressive strengths between 10,0 to 30,0 N/mm2 with tensile strength range of 1,2 to 3,0
10
12
14
16
Fo
18
20
rP
21 materials is prevented and, hence, enhanced durability of the intervention is expected (Kalagri et al,
22
23 2010). Thus, researchers were led to the development and investigation of alternative mixes, namely
24
ternary grouts containing smaller than in binary grouts content of adequate type of cement.
ee
25
26
27 Ternary grouts composed of more than two constituents, namely cement (in a percentage of 30% to
28
rR
29 50%), lime, pozzolans (natural or artificial), ultra fine materials (such as fly ash or silica fume), were
30
31 developed. As for the obtained mechanical properties, for a cement content of 30%wt., compressive
32
33 strengths as high as 10,0 N/mm2 and tensile strengths of the order of 3,0 N/mm2 can be reached
ev
34
35 (Toumbakari, 2002 and Vintzileou et al., 2008).
36
It is only recently that the use of hydraulic lime based grouts (pure hydraulic lime or in combination
iew
37
38
40
42
On
44
45 and 5,0 N/mm2 (at the age of 2 months), whereas in a recent work (Vintzileou et al., 2008) the
46
ly
48
50
52
54
to the design, and sufficient fluidity for the grout to be diffused into masonry, as well as stability),
55
56
physical (low hydration heat, limited shrinkage, adequate hardening time and hygroscopic properties),
57
58
chemical (e.g. resistance to expansion and chemical stability of the products of chemical reactions) and
59
60
mechanical requirements that are related to the desirable mechanical properties of the grouted masonry
3
1
2
3 (i.e. strength and deformability characteristics), depending on the actual state of masonry, the actions to
4
5 be imposed, the overall scheme of interventions, etc.
6
7
8
10
12
14
16
Fo
18
20
rP
21 Vintzileou et al. (1995), Toumbakari (2002), Valluzzi (2000), Valluzzi et al. (2004), Binda et al.
22
23 (2006), Oliveira et al. (2006) and Vintzileou et al. (2008) have tested three-leaf stone or brick masonry
24
wallettes in compression before grouting or after grouting as well. Table 1 presents the mix proportions
ee
25
26
27 of grouts used to inject the specimens. The grouts cover a wide range of combinations of materials
28
rR
29 (from cement-based to pure natural hydraulic lime grouts), as well as a wide range of basic mechanical
30
31 properties. In Table 2, geometrical characteristics of the wallettes, as well as mechanical properties of
32
33 materials used for the construction of specimens are given, along with the main experimental findings.
ev
34
35
36
3.2. Mechanics of three-leaf masonry in compression, before and after grouting
iew
37
38
40
42
43 filling material is normally by an order of magnitude smaller than that of the external leaves. By way of
On
44
46
ly
48
50
52
54
by the external leaves, thus improving somehow its poor mechanical properties. This behaviour leads to
55
56
the failure mode that was observed in all specimens subjected to compression (Figure 3): As the load
57
58
on masonry increases, cracking is initiated both on the faces of the wallettes and within their thickness.
59
60
4
1
2
3 bricks, depending on the relative strengths of the materials. On the other hand, transverse (vertical)
4
5 cracks appear along the interface between the external and the internal leaves mainly, whereas in a
6
7 number of cases, cracks open within the filling material as well. The mechanism leading to the failure
8
10
12
14
15 behaves almost independently from the others. As the slenderness of each leaf is significantly larger
16
Fo
18
20
rP

22
24
of some tenths of millimetre. The major part of the injected material improves the behaviour of the
ee
25
26
28
rR
30
31 of the filling material to the resistance against the compression load is increased. Thus, the stresses on
32
ev
34
36
lateral dilatancy of the filling material are also reduced. Last but not least (c) the grout contributes to
iew
37
38
40
42
43 delay in the appearance of transverse cracks is observed in experimental results. In fact, as shown in
On
44
46
ly
48
50
52
54
occurring in masonry before grouting or in thick single-leaf masonry.
55
56
The effect of grouting on stiffness and overall deformability characteristics of masonry is an important
57
58
issue and it is commented upon in Sections 3.3 and 3.4.
59
60
5
1
2
3 3.3. Mechanical properties of masonry before grouting
4
5 Table 2 summarizes experimental results regarding the compressive strength of masonry before
6
7 grouting. The following comments can be made:
8
10
12
14
16
Fo

18
20
rP
22
24
al. (1995) thanks to the higher compressive strength of both filling material and mortar.
ee
25
26
28
rR
29 difference of approximately 30% between the minimum and the maximum value. This fact,
30
31 attributed to the inherent scatter of the behaviour of masonry, is expected to affect the accuracy of
32
33 formulae developed with the purpose to predict the compressive strength of three-leaf masonry
ev
34
35 (see Section 4).
36
(d) The ratio of modulus of elasticity (measured at a stress level approximately equal to 0,3fwc,0) to
iew
37
38
40
42
On
44
45 are very scattered (Figure 5) and, hence, hard to predict on the basis of a simple mechanical model.
46
47
ly
48
50
52
54
compressive strength after grouting within each individual series of tests. This affects the degree of
55
56
accuracy that should be sought for, when estimating the compressive strength of grouted masonry
57
58
through any model (be it empirical or analytical), as shown in Section 4.
59
60
6
1
2
4
5 compressive strength of grouted masonry. One may observe that there is a clear tendency of the
6
7 compressive strength of grouted masonry to increase (almost linearly) with increasing compressive
8
9 strength of grout, fgr,c, when the latter does not exceed 10N/mm2 approximately. For higher, fgr,c
10
11 values, no significant further enhancement of the compressive strength of masonry is observed. It
12
14
15 grouts with cement content smaller than 50%wt. or hydraulic lime based grouts, whereas cement
16
Fo
17 based grouts exhibit compressive strengths between 15 N/mm2 and 30 N/mm2. This important
18
19 observation insinuates that the key property governing the mechanical properties of grouted
20
rP
21 masonry is not the compressive strength of the grout.

22
24
the mechanical properties of three-leaf masonry is the bond along the interfaces between grout and
ee
25
26
27 in situ materials, as improved bonding properties along the external leaves to filling material
28
rR
29 interfaces contribute to delayed opening of transverse cracks that (as described in Section 3.2) lead
30
31 to failure of masonry. In fact, shear tests on such interfaces (Toumbakari, 2002) have proven that
32
33 the maximum bond resistance obtained by (lower compressive strength) ternary grouts was equal
ev
34
35 or even higher than the bond resistance of (higher compressive strength) cement grout to in situ
36
materials interfaces. This result was fully confirmed by a systematic experimental investigation
iew
37
38
39 conducted by Adami et al. (2006). Both direct tension and shear tests on grout to stone or brick
40
41 interfaces proved the improved behaviour of (low to medium strength) ternary grouts as compared
42
43 to cement grout. As bond properties depend on the tensile strength of the binding material, one
On
44
45 may expect a better correlation between the compressive strength of the grouted masonry and the
46
47 tensile strength of the grout. A first positive sign for the validity of this assumption is the fact that,
ly
48
49 as shown in Tables 1 and 4, as well as in Figure 7, the ratio between compressive and tensile
50
51 strength of grout is not constant. On the contrary, there is a clear tendency of the fgr,t/fgr,c ratio to
52
53 increase for decreasing compressive strength of the grout. It should be noted that, as shown in the
54
same Figure 7, for compressive strength of grout varying between 3,0 and 10,0 N/mm2
55
56
(corresponding to ternary and to hydraulic lime based grouts), the values of the fgr,t/fgr,c ratio vary
57
58
between 0,20 and 0,60. It is not, however, possible to find a relationship between the compressive
59
60
7
1
2
3 strength of the grout and the fgr,t/fgr,c ratio, since the behaviour of masonry in compression depends
4
5 on other parameters as well.
6
7 (d) Furthermore, in Figure 8 the experimental compressive strength values are plotted against the
8
9 tensile strength of the respective grout. Taking into account the differences from one series of tests
10
11 to the others (in geometry, quality of materials used, construction details, etc.), the quite linear
12
13 correlation between fwc,s and fgr,t may be considered as satisfactory. This result (a) explains the fact
14
16
Fo
18
20
rP
22
24
(e) The experimental results show that, in general, the stiffness of the grouted masonry (expressed by
ee
25
26
28
rR
30
32
ev
34
36
grouting.
iew
37
38
40
41 i.e. a grout with cement content smaller than 50% wt. or a hydraulic lime based grout, the strain
42
43 corresponding to the compressive strength of the grouted masonry is larger than that of the
On
44
45 ungrouted masonry. The opposite occurs in case of cement-based grouts. It seems, therefore, that
46
47 grouting with cement-based mixes leads to more brittle behaviour of masonry, whereas ternary and
ly
48
49 hydraulic lime based grouts allow masonry to sustain larger compressive strains before its
50
51 maximum resistance is reached. This is another sign in favour of the use of mild grouts rather
52
53 than stronger ones.
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
8
1
2
4
6
7 Analytical modelling of three-leaf masonry walls, using finite element methods, was attempted by
8
10
12
14
15 behaviour of three-leaf masonry, did not yield simple yet sound engineering models that could be used
16
Fo
17 in the design of interventions to historic masonries by means of grouts. Thus, there is still a need for
18
19 simple physical models that would allow for the compressive strength of three-leaf masonry before and
20
rP
21 after grouting to be predicted. Although in case of major monuments it may be possible or advisable to
22
24
general case of interventions either to less important historic structures or to buildings belonging to
ee
25
26
28
rR
30
32
ev
34
35 sections.
36
iew
37
38
40
42
43 masonry after grouting, require the compressive strength of masonry before grouting to be estimated as
On
44
45 well. For this purpose, Valluzzi (2004) suggests that the compressive strength of the external leaves can
46
ly
48
50
52
54
model, the compressive strength of the three-leaf masonry is calculated as the weighted sum of the
55
56
57
58
account (in an empirical way, though) that the filling material is confined by the external leaves,
59
60
9
1
2
4
6
7
V V
8 f wc ,0 = e efc,e + i if c,i (1)
9
Vw Vw
10
11
where,
12
13
Ve denotes the volume of the external leaves,
14
16
Fo

18
20
rP

22
24
ee

26
28
rR

30
32
ev
34
36
iew
38
39 Vintzileou et al. (1995). The use of a partial safety factor, Rd, equal to 1,50 is needed to calculate
40
41 compressive strength values adequate for design.
42
43
On
44
46
47 (a) In Vintzileou et al. (1995), a simple formula is developed, allowing for the calculation of the
ly
48
50
52
54
56
58
59 contrary, grouting contributes to the substantial improvement of mechanical properties of the infill. The
60
strength enhancement of the infill is taken proportional to the square root of the compressive strength
10
1
2
4
6
7 their compressive strength. Thus, the square root of the compressive strength of the grout is used (as an
8
9 indicator of its tensile strength. The contribution of the strengthened infill material to the compressive
10
12
14
15
16 Vi f gr ,c
f wc,i = f wc,0 (1 + 1,25 ) (2)
Fo
17 Vw f wc,0
18
19
rP
21
23
24
masonry. However, if a Rd value equal to 1,35 is applied, the formula can yield safe values for the
ee
25
26
27
28
rR
29
(b) Valluzzi (2004) and Valluzzi et al. (2004) offer a modified version of Equation (2). On the basis of
30
31
her systematic testing of cylinders made of filling material and grouted with hydraulic lime based
32
33
ev
grouts, an empirical formula (based on the results by Valluzzi [2004] and Vintzileou et al. [1995]) was
34
35 proposed for the prediction of the compressive strength of the grouted infill material, as follows:
36
iew
37
1,18
38 fi,s = 0,31f gr ,c (3)
39
41
43
On
44
Vi fi ,s
45 f wc,i = f wc ,0 (1 + ) (4)
46 Vw f wc ,0
47
ly
48 Equation (4) seems to overestimate the compressive strength of grouted three-leaf masonry in most of
49
50 cases (Figure 12). Thus, to yield values adequate for the design of grouted masonry, a Rd value equal to
51
52 1,80 should be applied to the predicted values.
53
54 It seems, therefore, that equation (2) can be applied to predict the compressive strength of grouted
55
56 three-leaf masonry. The application of a reasonably low partial safety factor (=1,35) allows for sensibly
57
58 conservative strength values to be taken into account. It should be noted that equation (2) is applicable
59
60 to masonries grouted using any type of grout (binary, ternary and hydraulic lime based grouts).
11
1
2
3
4
5 (c) In an attempt to correlate the compressive strength of grouted infill material (and, by way of
6
7 consequence, of the compressive strength of grouted three-leaf masonry) and the tensile strength of the
8
9 grout, the available results from testing cylinders made of filling material before and after grouting
10
11 (Table 4) were evaluated. It was proven that such a correlation is inevitably limited to ternary and to
12
13 hydraulic lime based grouts (i.e. to grouts with low and medium mechanical properties) that exhibit
14
15 rather high ratios of tensile to compressive strength. Thus, the evaluation was limited to the results by
16
Fo
17 Kalagri et al. (2010). It should be noted that limiting the evaluation to ternary and to hydraulic lime
18
19 based grouts is legitimate, since there is a clear trend to apply only ternary or hydraulic lime based
20
rP
21 grouts to historic masonry. Thus, the following expression was derived allowing for the compressive
22
23 strength of the grouted filling material to be calculated:
24
ee
25 fi,s = 1,60 + 0,50f gr , t (5)

26
27
28 where,
rR
29
30 fgr,t denotes the tensile strength of the grout due to bending
31
32 The comparison of predicted fi,s (using equ. (5)) and experimental values is shown in Figure 13. It
33
ev
34 seems that the predicted values fit quite accurately with the experimental ones.
35
36
iew
37
38
39
results is shown in Figure 14. This expression seems to offer a rather conservative estimation of the
40
41
compressive strength of grouted masonry and it can be applied with a partial safety factor, Rd, equal to
42
43
On
unity.
44
45 Although the experimental data show clearly the dependence of the compressive strength of grouted
46
47 masonry on the tensile strength of the grout, one has to take into account that (a) for the time being,
ly
48
49 there is no established method for testing the tensile strength of grouts and (b) the tensile strength of
50
51 grouts and mortars (even of concretes) is a property sensitive to numerous parameters (such as curing
52
53 conditions, age, environmental conditions, etc.). It seems, therefore, to be more appropriate to base the
54
55 estimation of the compressive strength of grouted masonry on the (more reliable and stable property,
56
57 i.e. on the) compressive strength of the grout. Thus, the use of equation (2) may yield sensibly
58
59 conservative compressive strength values of grouted masonry.
60
12
1
2
3 5. CONCLUSIONS
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Fo

18
19 3. The preponderance of ternary and hydraulic lime based grouts was demonstrated, as they offer
20
rP
22
24
compressive strength) do not contribute to further increase of the compressive strength of masonry,
ee
25
26
28
rR
30
31 with the in situ materials) become more important due to the durability ensured by the use of
32
ev
34
36
adequate for the prediction of the compressive strength of grouted masonry. It should be noted,
iew
37
38
40
42
43
On
44
45 6. REFERENCES
46
ly
48
49 mechanism between stones or bricks and grouts. Submitted to Materials and Structures, RILEM.
50
51 2. Binda L., Fontana A., Anti L. 1991. Load transfer in multiple-leaf masonry walls. Proceedings, 9th
52
53 International Brick Block Masonry Conference, pp. 1488-1497.
54
3. Binda L., Fontana A., Mirabella Roberti G. 1994. Mechanical behaviour and stress distribution in
55
56
multiple-leaf walls. Proceedings, 10th International Brick Block Masonry Conference, pp. 51-59.
57
58
59
60
13
1
2
4
6
8
10
12
13 pp. 305-312.
14
16
Fo
17 grouts for the strengthening of stone masonry historic structures, to be published in RILEM
18
19 Materials and Structures (published on line, 14.01.10).
20
rP
21 7. Oliveira D.V., Lourenco P.B. (2006) Experimental behaviour of three-leaf stone masonry walls,
22
24
Dubrovnik, Croatia, 14-17 October, pp. 355-362.
ee
25
26
28
rR
30
32
33 9. Paillre A.-M., Serrano J.-J., Buil M. (1986), Possibilits offertes par lemploi dultrafines
ev
34
36
10. Paillre A.-M., Buil M., Miltiadou A.-E., Guinez R., Serrano J.-J. (1989). Use of silica fume and
iew
37
38
40
42
43 1157.
On
44
46
ly
48
50
51 des Laboratoires des Ponts et Chausses, srie Ouvrages dart, ISSN 1161-028X, Paris, France
52
12. Tassios,T.P. 2004. Rehabilitation of three-leaf masonry. In Evoluzione nella sperimentazione per
53
54
55
56
57
58
13. Toumbakari E.-E. 2002. Lime-pozzolan-cement grouts and their structural effects on composite
59
60
masonry walls. Doctor Thesis, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.
14
1
2
4
6
8
10
11 16. Valluzzi M.-R., da Porto F., Modena C. 2004 Behavior and modelling of strengthened three-leaf
12
13 stone masonry walls. Materials and Structures, Vol. 37, pp. 184-192.
14
16
Fo

18
19 18. Vintzileou E., Miltiadou-Fezans A. 2008 Mechanical properties of three-leaf stone masonry
20
rP
22
23 Pages 2265-2276
24
ee
25
26
27
28
rR
29
30
31
32
33
ev
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
On
44
45
46
47
ly
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
15
1
2
3 FIGURE CAPTIONS
4
5 Figure 1. Due to the loss of bond between external leaves and filling material, the opening of a diagonal
6
7 crack during an earthquake led to partial collapse of the exterior leaf of the wall.
8
10
12
14
16
Fo

18
20
rP
21 strain.
22
24
strength of grouted masonry.
ee
25
26
27 Figure 7. Ratio of tensile to compressive strength of grout as a function of the compressive strength of
28
rR
29 the grout
30
32
33 grouted masonry.
ev
34
36
masonry normalized to the respective strain of ungrouted masonry.
iew
37
38
40
42
On
44
45 (2)
46
ly
48
49 (4). The compressive strength of grouted filling material is calculated from Equation (3)
50
51 Figure 13. Comparison between experimental and predicted values of compressive strength of grouted
52
53 filling material (equation (5)). Experimental values are taken from Table 4 (Kalagri et al., 2010).
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
16
1
2
3 TABLE CAPTIONS
4
6
7 specimens
8
10
12
14
15 filling material
16
Fo
17
18
19
20
rP
21
22
23
24
ee
25
26
27
28
rR
29
30
31
32
33
ev
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
On
44
45
46
47
ly
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
17
1
2
4 specimens
5
2
11 A 0.0 25.0 0.0 75.0 1.33 90.0 30.0 2.5
12 B 27.5 22.5 0.0 60.0 1.66 100.0 13.0 1.4
14
13b0 17.5 0.0 52.5 30.0 7.3 1.7
15
13b10 17.5 10.0 42.5 30.0 9.0 1.1
16
Cb0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 19.5 4.5
Fo
17
Valluzzi (2004)
18
FEN-X/B 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.23 0.35
19
Commercial
20
product
rP
21
FEN- 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.10 -(3)
22
X/A+F
23
24
Ternary 25.0 0.0 45.0 30.0 1.0 80.0 8.16 2.2
ee
25
26 grout
27 NHL based 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 80.0 4.5 2.5
28 grout
rR
29
31
32
33
ev
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
On
44
45
46
47
ly
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
18
1
2
3
4
6
Fo
8
9
1(1) 0.6x0.4x1.2 130/140/130 100 1.70 0.15 30/2.5 43.8 2.10 3.10 7000 6250 0.00104 0.0006
10
2 0.6x0.4x1.2 130/140/130 100 1.70 0.15 - - 1.30 - 2706 - - -
11
12
13
3(1)
4
5
0.6x0.4x1.2
0.6x0.4x1.2
0.6x0.4x1.2
130/140/130
130/140/130
130/140/130
100
100
100 rP 1.70
1.70
1.70
0.15
0.15
0.15
30/2.5
30/2.5
30/2.5
67.0
31.75
34.72
2.40
1.60
1.70
4.30
-
4.20
5000
4442
5670
5971
-
7778
0.00141
0.0008
0.0028
0.0011
-
0.0012
14
15
16
6
7
8
0.6x0.4x1.2
0.6x0.4x1.2
0.6x0.4x1.2
130/140/130
130/140/130
130/140/130
100
100
100
1.70
1.70
1.70 ee 0.15
0.15
0.15
13/1.4
30/2.5
13/1.4
29.8
29.8
29.8
1.35
-
-
4.05
3.70
3.00
5625
-
-
8438
15413
3333
0.00058
-
-
0.0010
0.0009
0.0009
17
18
19
Toumbakari (2002)
BC1
BC2
0.6x0.4x1.2
0.6x0.4x1.2
90/220/90
90/220/90
25
25
3.40
3.40
1.00
1.00 rR 7.3/1.7
9.0/1.1
31.0
23.0
-
2.41
5.04
3.15
-
729.6
2238.2
1564.9
-
0.00312
0.00242
0.00254
20
21
BC3
BC4
BC5(1)
0.6x0.4x1.2
0.6x0.4x1.2
0.6x0.4x1.2
90/220/90
90/220/90
90/220/90
25
25
25
3.40
3.40
3.40
1.00
1.00
1.00
19.5/4.5
7.3/1.7
7.3/1.7 ev
19.0
25.0
2.09
2.18
2.28
2.91
3.00
3.86
1018.3
1097.6
1144.9
1404.8
1040.4
1170.2
0.00185
0.00234
0.00231
0.00155
0.00294
0.00314
iew
22
SC1 0.6x0.4x1.2 130/140/130 55 3.40 1.00 9.0/1.1 50.0 2.02 3.25 720.4 1622.2 0.00142 0.00355
23
SC2 0.6x0.4x1.2 130/140/130 55 3.40 1.00 19.5/4.5 46.0 2.09 3.36 1138.7 1558.6 0.00165 0.00233
24 SC3 0.6x0.4x1.2 130/140/130 55 3.40 1.00 7.3/1.7 2.65 3.51 1374.8 1187.6 0.00173 0.00245
25 SC4 0.6x0.4x1.2 130/140/130 55 3.40 1.00 7.3/1.7 30.0 2.71 3.29 1443.3 1014.5 0.00211 0.00349
27
28
29
5I1
6I1
13I1
0.8x0.5x1.4 180/140/180
0.8x0.5x1.4
0.8x0.5x1.4
180/140/180
180/140/180
164
164
164
1.57
1.57
1.57
5.1/0.8
5.1/0.8
5.1/0.8
54.2
54.2
41.5
1.45
1.95
-
On
2.49
2.49
2.54
2390
2029
-
2273
3093
3992
0.00363
0.00457
-
0.00726
0.00571
0.00991
30
31
32
33
1I2
8I2
16I2
12I1T
14I1R
0.8x0.5x1.4
0.8x0.5x1.4
0.8x0.5x1.4
0.8x0.5x1.4
0.8x0.5x1.4
180/140/180
180/140/180
180/140/180
180/140/180
180/140/180
164
164
164
164
164
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
3.2/0.4
3.2/0.4
3.2/0.4
5.1/0.8
5.1/0.8
54.2
47.8
47.8
54.2
60.6
1.97
1.91
-
-
-
2.57
1.82
2.48
2.59
2.14
1450
1559
-
-
-
ly3449
2367
1223
1336
1617
0.0062
0.00622
-
-
-
0.00625
0.0072
0.0107
0.00818
0.00821
34
35 17I1RT 0.8x0.5x1.4 180/140/180 164 1.57 5.1/0.8 47.8 - 3.06 - 1772 - 0.00824
36
1 1.0x0.45x1.2 190/120/140 25 4.35 0.15 4.5/2.5 32.8 1.82 3.00 1000 1200 -
37 2 1.0x0.45x1.2 190/120/140 25 4.35 0.15 8.16/2.2 40 1.74 3.75 1440 1550 0.0016 0.0025
38 3 1.0x0.45x1.2 190/120/140 25 4.35 0.15 4.5/2.5 36.4 2.26 3.73 1500 1300 0.0025 0.0039
40
41
42
43
44 19
46
47
1
2
3
4
5 1W1 0.6x0.3x1.1 100/100/100 52.2 2.9 0.29 2.4 2125 0.0027
6 1W2 0.6x0.3x1.1 100/100/100 52.2 2.9 0.29 1.7 2125 0.00165
7 2W1 0.6x0.3x1.1 100/100/100 52.2 2.9 0.29 1.4 2125 0.0033
Binda et al. (2006)
Fo
8
Noto 0.31x0.51x0. 170/170/170 20.6 9.2 4.1 5.8 1770 0.0035
9 straight 82
10 Noto 0.31x0.51x0. 170/170/170 20.6 9.2 4.1 6.45 2085 0.0041
11
12
13
keyed 82
rP
14
15
16 ee
17
18
19
rR
20
21
ev
iew
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
On
30
31
32
33
ly
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44 20
46
47
1
2
3 Table 2 (contd.)
4
5
fwc,0
7 (mm)
9 1 1.00 0.231 0.00 0.00 3333 1048 1.48 0.89 0.58
10 2 0.27 - - 2081
11 3 3.00 2083 1389 1.80 1.19 0.78
12 4 2.533 - - 2776
13 5 1.50 7.59 0.00 1.035 3335 1852 2.47 1.37 0.43
14 6 1.81 0.00 1.325 4167 2083 3.00 1.50 1.72
15 7 - - 1.3 4166
8 - - 0.125 1111
16
Fo
Toumbakari (2002)
17
BC1 1.17 444
18 BC2 7.07 0.15 5.04 302.7 497 1.31 2.14 0.81
19 BC3 2.69 0.86 2.59 487.2 483 1.39 1.38 0.84
20 BC4 2.32 0.38 4.03 503.5 347 1.38 0.95 1.26
rP
21 BC5 2.00 0.03 1.80 502.1 303 1.69 1.02 1.36

22 SC1 2.89 0.03 2.19 356.6 499 1.61 2.25 2.50
23 SC2 6.9 0.01 0.60 544.8 464 1.61 1.37 1.41
24 SC3 3.63 0.51 2.33 518.8 338 1.32 0.86 1.42
SC4 2.84 1.01 2.98 532.6 308 1.21 0.70 1.65
ee
25
27 5I1 2.25 0.002 4.59 1648 913 1.72 0.95 2.00
28 6I1 9.2 0.0015 8.55 1040 1242 1.28 1.52 1.25
13I1 0.06 13.85 1572
rR
29
1I2 3.97 0.16 3.67 736 1342 1.30 2.37 1.00
30
8I2 5.9 0.04 4.95 816 1300 0.95 1.52 1.16
31 16I2 0.11 9.45 493
32 12I1T 0.02 7.95 516
33 14I1R 0.01 9.8 756
ev
34 17I1RT 0.0005 10.95 579

36 1 0.78 8.2 0.0 3.2 550 400 1.65 1.20 -
2 0.26 4.8 0.0 1.3 828 413 2.16 1.08 1.56
iew
37
38 3 1.55 4.0 0.0 2.6 655 349 1.65 0.87 1.36
39
40 Notation
On

ly
48
Note: (1) Specimens with transverse masonry leaves
21
1
2
4
7 Equ.(2) Equ.(3, 4) Equ.(5,4)
8 Vintzileou, Tassios (1995)
9 1 0.35 30/2.5 2.10 3.10 1.48 4.49 8.10
10 2 0.35 - 1.30 -
11 3 0.35 30/2.5 2.40 4.30 1.80 4.80 8.40
12 4 0.35 30/2.5 1.60 -
5 0.35 30/2.5 1.70 4.20 2.47 4.10 7.70
13
6 0.35 13/1.4 1.35 4.05 3.00 2.97 3.59
14
7 0.35 30/2.5 - 3.70 4.10
15 8 0.35 13/1.4 - 3.00 3.27
Fo
17 BC1 0.55 7.3/1.7 - 5.04

18 BC2 0.55 9.0/1.1 2.41 3.15 1.31 4.47 4.69 2.64
19 BC3 0.55 19.5/4.5 2.09 2.91 1.39 5.12 7.76 3.10
20 BC4 0.55 7.3/1.7 2.18 3.00 1.38 4.04 3.96 2.80
rP
21 BC5 0.55 7.3/1.7 2.28 3.86 1.69 4.14 4.06 2.86

22 SC1 0.35 9.0/1.1 2.02 3.25 1.61 3.33 3.47 2.40
23 SC2 0.35 19.5/4.5 2.09 3.36 1.61 4.02 5.70 2.73
24 SC3 0.35 7.3/1.7 2.65 3.51 1.32 3.83 3.78 2.97
SC4 0.35 7.3/1.7 2.71 3.29 1.21 3.89 3.84 3.03
ee
25
Valluzzi, da Porto, Modena (2004)
26
5I1 0.28 5.1/0.8 1.45 2.49 1.72 2.24 2.04 1.84
27
6I1 0.28 5.1/0.8 1.95 2.49 1.28 2.74 2.54 2.24
28 13I1 0.28 5.1/0.8 - 2.54
rR
29 1I2 0.28 3.2/0.4 1.97 2.57 1.30 2.59 2.31 2.22

30 8I2 0.28 3.2/0.4 1.91 1.82 0.95 2.54 2.25 2.17
31 16I2 0.28 3.2/0.4 - 2.48
32 12I1T 0.28 5.1/0.8 - 2.59
33 14I1R 0.28 5.1/0.8 - 2.14
ev
34 17I1RT 0.28 5.1/0.8 - 3.06

36 1 0.27 4.5/2.5 1.82 3.00 1.65 2.54 2.31 2.24
2 0.27 8.16/2.2 1.74 3.75 2.16 2.70 2.74 2.16
iew
37
38 3 0.27 4.5/2.5 2.26 3.73 1.65 2.98 2.75 2.60
39
40
41
42
43
On
44
45
46
47
ly
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
22
1
2
4 filling material
7 ungrouted
8 cylinders
11 Valluzzi (2004)(1)
12 C7-C8 3.23 0.35 0.82 0.343
13 C9-10(A) 3.23 0.35 0.80 0.245
14 C11-C12 5.10 1.99 1.518
15 C13(A) 5.10 2.15 1.201
16 C14-C15 3.21 1.43 1.499
Fo
17 C17-C18 3.65 1.38 1.253

18 C27-C28 3.35 1.71 1.747
19 C26(A) 3.35 1.39 1.354
20 Miltiadou (1990)
rP
21 Voids 32% 1.71 3.87 30.00(2) 2.50 13.4 20.45 7.84 5.28
22 30.00(3) 2.50 17.0 15.30 9.94 3.95
23 13.00(2) 1.40 9.5 19.80 5.56 2.45
24 Voids 40% 0.48 1.10 30.00(2) 2.50 8.8 13.70 18.33 12.45
ee
25 30.00(3) 2.50 10.5 10.5 21.87 9.55

26 13.00(2) 1.40 16.3 16.60 33.95 15.10
27 Kalagri et al. (2010) (4)
28 (A) T 0.15 10.58 3.13 3.24 1.36 21.6
rR
29 (B) 0.15 6.36 3.87 2.79 1.38 18.6

30 NHL5+SP
31 (C) NHL5 0.15 6.00 2.70 3.27 0.79 21.8
32 (D) Chaux 0.15 6.72 1.05 3.29 1.78 21.93
33 blanche+SP
ev
34 (E) Calx 0.15 2.88 1.08 2.74 0.94 18.27

35 Romana
36 (F) Calce 0.15 2.49 0.65 2.28 1.12 15.20
iew
37 Albazzana
38 (G) Unilit 0.15 2.53 0.98 2.01 0.445 13.40
39 B Fluid 0
On

ly
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Fo
17
18
19
20
rP
21
22
23
24
ee
25
26
27
28
rR
29
30
31
32
33
ev
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
On
44
45
46
47
ly
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
24
1
2
3 N/Aw e e
4 i e/Ee i/Ei
5
6
7
8
9 fe,Ee, e Fe
10 fi,Ei, i Fi
11
12
13 te' ti'
te ti te
14
15 te'=te(1+ e e/Ee)
16 ti'=ti(1+ ii/Ei)
Fo
19
20
rP
21
22
23
24
ee
25
26
27
28
rR
29
30
31
32
33
ev
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
On
44
45
46
47
ly
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
15
16
Fo
18
19
20
rP
21
22
23
24
ee
25
26
27
28
rR
29
30
31
32
33
ev
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
On
44
45
46
47
ly
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
26
1
2
3
4
6 Valluzzi, 2000
9 2.8
10
11 2.6
12
13 2.4
14
15 2.2
fwc,0(N/mm2)
16
Fo
17 2
18
19 1.8
20
rP
21 1.6
22
23 1.4
24
1.2
ee
25
0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250
26 Ew,0/fwc,0
27
masonry vs. compressive strength of ungrouted masonry
rR
29
30
31
32
33
ev
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
On
44
45
46
47
ly
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
27
1
2
3
5 Toumbakari, 2002
6 Valluzzi, 2000
Oliveira, Lourenco, 2006
8
Binda et al., 2006
9 6.5
10
11 6
12
13 5.5
14 5
15
16 4.5
fwc,0(N/mm2)
Fo
17
4
18
19 3.5
20
rP
21 3
22
2.5
23
24 2
ee
25
26 1.5
27 1
28 0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008
rR
29 wu,0
30
31
33 strain.
ev
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
On
44
45
46
47
ly
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
28
1
2
3
5 Toumbakari, 2002
6 Valluzzi, 2000
5.5
8
9 5
10
11 4.5
12
4
13
14 3.5
fwc,s(N/mm2)
15
16 3
Fo
17 2.5
18
19 2
20
1.5
rP
21
22 1
23
24 0.5
ee
25 0
26 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
27 fgr,c(N/mm2)
28
rR
29
30
Figure 6. Relationship between the compressive strength of the grout and the obtained compressive
31
32
33
ev
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
On
44
45
46
47
ly
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Toumbakari, 2002
8
Valluzzi, 2000
9
10
Kalagri et al., 2010
11
12 30
13
14
15
16
25
Fo
17
18
19 20
fgr,c(N/mm2)
20
rP
21
22 15
23
24
ee
25
26 10
27
28
rR
29 5
30
31
32
0
33 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
ev
34
fgr,t/fgr,c
35
iew
37 the grout
38
39
40
41
42
43
On
44
45
46
47
ly
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
30
1
2
4 Toumbakari, 2002
5 Valluzzi, 2000
7 5.5
8
9 5
10
11 4.5
12
13 fwc,i (N/mm2)
4
14
15
3.5
16
Fo
17
18 3
19
20 2.5
rP
21
22 2
23
24 1.5
ee
25 0 1 2 3 4 5
26 fgr,t (N/mm2)
27
rR
29 grouted masonry.
30
31
32
33
ev
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
On
44
45
46
47
ly
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
31
1
2
3
4
5 Toumbakari, 2002
6 Valluzzi, 2000
8 2.5
9
10
11
12 2
13
14
15
1.5
wu,s/wu,0
16
Fo
17
18
19 1
20
rP
21
22
23 0.5
24
ee
25
26 0
27 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
28 fgr,c(N/mm2 )
rR
29
30
Figure 9. Relationship between the compressive strength of grout and the strain at strength of grouted
32
33
ev
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
On
44
45
46
47
ly
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
32
1
2
3
Vintzileou et al. 1995
4 Toumbakari, 2002
5 Valluzzi, 2000
7 Binda et al., 2006
8
6.5
9
10 6
11
12 5.5
13 5
14
15 4.5
Rd=1.50
16
(fwc,0)exp (N/mm2)
4
Fo
17
18 3.5
19 3
20
rP
21 2.5
22
2
23
24 1.5
ee
25
1
26
27 0.5
28
rR
29 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
30 (fwc,0)pred (N/mm2)
33
ev
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
On
44
45
46
47
ly
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
33
1
2
3
4
5
Toumbakari, 2002
6
7 Valluzzi, 2000
9 3
10
11
2.5
12
13 Rd~1.35
14 2
15
(fwc,i/fwc,0)exp
16
Fo
17 1.5
18
19
20 1
rP
21
22
23 0.5
24
ee
25
0
26 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
28
rR
30 (2)
31
32
33
ev
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
On
44
45
46
47
ly
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
34
1
2
3
4
5 Toumbakari, 2002
6 Valluzzi, 2000
8 5
9
10
11
12 4
13
14
15 Rd~1.80
16 3
(fwc,i/fw c,0 )exp
Fo
17
18
19
20 2
rP
21
22
23
24 1
ee
25
26
27
28 0
rR
29 0 1 2 3 4 5
30 (fwc,i/fwc,0 )pred
31
ev
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
On
44
45
46
47
ly
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
35
1
2
3
4
5
3.5
6
7
8 3
9
10
2.5
11
12 (fi,s)exp (N/mm2)
13 2
14
15
16 1.5
Fo
17
18 1
19
20
rP
21 0.5
22
23
0
24 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
ee
25 (fi,s)pred (N/mm2)
28
rR
29
30
31
32
33
ev
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
On
44
45
46
47
ly
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
36
1
2
3
4
5 Toumbakari, 2002
6 Valluzzi, 2000
8
9 2.5
10
11 2
12
(fwc,s/fwc,0)exp.
13 1.5
14
15
16
1
Fo
17
18 0.5
19
20 0
rP
21 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

22 (fwc,s/fwc,0)pred
ee
25
26
27
28
rR
29
30
31
32
33
ev
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
On
44
45
46
47
ly
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
37
1
2
3
4
PAPER ENTITLED MECHANICS OF THREE-LEAF MASONRY
5 BEFORE AND AFTER GROUTING
6 RESPONSE TO THE COMMENTS OFFERED BY THE REVIEWERS
7
8
9
The author of this paper wishes to thank the Reviewers for their
10 valuable comments that allowed for the preparation of the actual,
11 hopefully, improved version of the paper.
12
13
14
I. EDITORIAL COMMENTS
15 (a) Actually, the values in brackets referring to tests by Valluzzi
16 were just assumed taking into account the material properties
Fo
17 published in her work. As those values are not used within the
18
19
paper and as they do not appear in the original publication,
20 they are deleted from Table 4.
rP
21 (b) In Reference 6, the emphasis is placed on the properties of

22 grouts and grouted filling material. Therefore, the content of
23
24
that paper is different from that of the present paper. In the
paper by Kalagri, Miltiadou and Vintzileou, only in the final
ee
25
26 Section 5 there are some limited data taken from the present
27 paper (obviously, with due reference).
28
rR
29
30 II. REVIEWER 1
31 (a) It is absolutely true that the use of cement-based grouts in
32 historic masonries is now practically abandoned. This,
33
ev
34
undoubtedly positive, situation is due to two reasons: [i] to
35 the physical and chemical incompatibility of cement grouts
36 with the in-situ materials and [ii] to the fact that the results of
iew
37 mechanical tests prove that cement grouts are not more

38
39
efficient than lower strength (but physico-chemically
40 compatible) grouts in enhancing the mechanical properties of
41 masonry. These aspects are clearly commented upon in the
42 paper.
43
On
44
(b) Reference to the work by Valluzzi, da Porto and Modena was
45 modified. Now reference to their paper published in M+S is
46 made.
47 (c) Regarding the so-called low cement content of 30%, the
ly
48
49
author wishes to make to following commens: [i] There is no
50 specification in Greece allowing or imposing the use of a
51 minimum percentage of cement in grouts to be injected to
52 historic structures. On the contrary, National Authorities are
53
54
very cautious with the use of materials that are not
55 (physically and/or chemically) compatible with the in situ
56 ones. On the other hand, [ii] the mix proportions of the grout
57 to be applied in each individual case are selected taking also
58
59
into account the needs of the specific historic structure in
60 terms of enhancement of mechanical properties of masonry.
Thus, in some cases, ternary grouts (with 30% cement) were

1
2
3
4
applied. It should be noted, however, that those ternary
5 grouts have passed series of exhaustive laboratory (and in
6 situ) tests (fluidity, penetrability, etc., durability tests and
7 mechanical tests) before their application. In order to reach a
8
9
satisfactory physical-chemical compatibility of ternary grouts
10 with in situ materials, white Danish cement was used. That
11 cement (with low alkali content and high sulphate resistance)
12 was proven to fulfill all Standards requirements related to
13
14
durability properties. Relevant data are available and could be
15 made available to the Reviewer, if considered appropriate.
16 However, [iii] the Reviewer is absolutely right in pointing out
Fo
17 that a cement content of 30% cannot be considered as low.

18
19
Therefore, the wording in the text was adequately modified.
20 (d) The Reviewer offers a general comment regarding the use of
rP
21 medium or low strength grouts in cultural heritage assets,

22 taking into account the efficiency of grouts in enhancing the
23
24
compressive strength of masonry. The author shares the
Reviewers opinion and this appears clearly in several places
ee
25
26 in the paper.
27 (e) Data from the papers by Oliveira et al. and Binda et al. were
28
used in Figures 4, 5 and 10 (where experimental data
rR
29
30 regarding masonry before grouting are evaluated.
31 (f) As mentioned previously (Editor comments), the data in
32 brackets were deleted from Table 4.
33
ev
34
(g) The Reviewer makes a valuable comment by expressing
35 doubts regarding the reliability of the tensile strength of
36 grouts. Actually, there is not Standard available regarding the
iew
37 experimental evaluation of this (very sensitive) mechanical

38
39
property. In the data referred to in this paper, the tensile
40 strength of grouts due to bending was measured (by testing
41 40x40x160 [mm] specimens in bending), with-perhaps-
42 exception of the value given by Valluzzi. The author shares
43
On
44
the opinion that it would be better to express the compressive
45 strength of masonry in terms of the compressive strength of
46 all constituent materials (grout included). Nevertheless, one
47 cannot neglect the following aspects:
ly
48
49
[i] The key parameter leading to compressive strength
50 enhancement of grouted masonry is indeed the enhanced
51 strength of the filling material and the enhanced bond
52 between the added and the in situ materials. However, tests
53
54
show clearly that those properties depend on the tensile
55 rather than on the compressive strength of the grout. This
56 was depicted also in the formula proposed by Vintzileou and
57 Tassios (1995), where the square root of the compressive
58
59
strength of grout is used (as an indicator of its tensile
60 strength).

1
2
3
4
[ii] As the ratio between the compressive and the tensile
5 strength of concrete, mortar and grout is not constant (it is
6 higher for higher compressive strength), one could seek for
7 an expression relating that ratio in function of the
8
9
compressive strength of the grout. Nevertheless, this would
10 be an artifice, since-again-the tensile strength of the material
11 would be taken into account implicitly and not explicitly.
12 Another alternative would be to provide separate equations
13
14
for various categories of grouts (with narrow limits), having
15 approximately the same ration between compressive and
16 tensile strength. The available experimental results (at least
Fo
17 the published ones) being rather limited for such a statistical

18
19
evaluation by groups, the author of this paper did not prefer
20 this alternative. However,
rP
21 [iii] Recognizing the relevance of the Reviewers comment,

22 the author has modified accordingly the last paragraph of
23
24
Section 4.
(h) Figures 10 and 13 were completed with reference to the
ee
25
26 experimental data they are based upon.
27 (i) The Reviewer is absolutely right in observing that the
28
experimental results used in Figure 12 are not the same with
rR
29
30 those used in Figure 14. Actually, this is clearly stated in the
31 original text of the paper. The reason for which also the
32 results by Vintzileou and Tassios (1995) were used in Figure
33
ev
34
12 is that Valluzzi did so in her work for the validation of
35 equation (3) that she has proposed. Actually, this is shown in
36 Figure 39 (p. 70) of her publication entitled Consolidamento
iew
37 di murature in pietra. Iniezioni di calce idraulica naturale,

38
39
REFICERE, 2004. On the contrary, in Figure 14, only data
40 from testing filling material grouted with low strength grouts
41 were used. The respective references are now added in Figure
42 14.
43
On
44
(j) Axes labels in Figures 7, 9, 13 and 14 have been added.
45 (k) No Rd factor is shown in Figure 14, because it seems that the
46 provisions of the respective formula are conservative enough
47 and, hence, a partial safety factor equal to 1,0 could be
ly
48
49
considered. This is now clearly stated in the paper.
50
51
52
53
54
III. REVIEWER 2
55 (a) The general comment of the Reviewer is pointing out that the
56 models presented in the paper are actually empirical. This is
57 absolutely true and this is clearly stated in the paper.
58
59
Furthermore, in the Literature there are published works
60 dealing with modeling of the behaviour of three-leaf masonry.
However, as stated in the paper, those efforts did not yet

1
2
3
4
yield a tool easy to be applied by the Engineer who wishes to
5 predict the compressive strength of a grouted three-leaf
6 masonry. Therefore, the author believes that simple empirical
7 formulae are still needed.
8
9
(b) Comment No 2: The title of the paper was modified, as the
10 Reviewers comment is relevant.
11 (c) Comment No 3: The Introduction was modified in the revised
12 form of the paper.
13
14
(d) Comment No 4: To the best of authors knowledge, in the
15 tests on masonry wallettes, the vertical and the horizontal
16 deformations are measured more or less using the same
Fo
17 instrumentation (i.e. vertically and horizontally positioned

18
19
LVDTs with a reference measuring length covering a large
20 portion of the height and the length of the specimen
rP
21 respectively). Therefore, it is believed that the observed

22 scatter is not due to the experimental procedure; it is
23
24
attributed to the inherent scatter of the mechanical properties
of masonry.
ee
25
26 (e) Comment No 5: The comment on the scatter of measured
27 compressive strength values does not lead to any specific
28
measure. It is only mentioned to show that the use of any
rR
29
30 empirical or analytical formula for the prediction of the
31 compressive strength of masonry will inevitably be liable to a
32 rather pronounced scatter. This is now clear in the paper.
33
ev
34
(f) Comment No 6: In the opinion of the author, the dependence
35 of the compressive strength of grouted masonry on the tensile
36 strength of the grout is explained in the text. Actually, (i)
iew
37 experimental results show very clearly the validity of this

38
39
assumption and (ii) as mentioned in the paper, one of the
40 major effects of grouting is the enhancement of bond between
41 in situ materials. However, bond depends on the tensile
42 (rather than on the compressive) strength of the binding
43
On
44
material (the grout, in the examined case).
45 (g) The two experimental values taken from Toumbakari (2002)
46 plotted in Figure 8, do actually seem not to fit into the linear
47 relationship between the compressive strength of the grouted
ly
48
49
masonry and the tensile strength of the grout. Those two
50 points refer to wallettes injected with rather high strength
51 ternary grouts (fgr,c=19,5 MPa). The author cannot offer an
52 explanation for the observed scatter.
53
54
(h) As for the scatter of the results by Toumbakari on Figure 9, in
55 the opinion of the author, this scatter is not larger than the
56 one observed in the experimental results from other sources.
57 (i) Missing axes labels are now appearing in all Figures.
58
59
60

1
2
3
4
PAPER ENTITLED THREE-LEAF MASONRY IN COMPRESSION,
5 BEFORE AND AFTER GROUTING: A REVIEW OF LITERATURE
6 RESPONSE TO THE COMMENTS OFFERED BY THE REVIEWERS
7
8
9
REVIEWER 1
10 (a) Author should explain the selection of data in diagrams (figs
11 10 to 14) considered for the identification of Rd factors. See
12 in particular Fig. 11 (but also 10): besides experimental
13
14
results contained by the line, there are many others, which
15 are not included in the correlation (Rd should be higher). But
16 again, in Fig. 12, all data (from high strength and low
Fo
17 strength grouts) are compared; in ref. 16, the authors remark

18
19
that those equations (3 and 4) are only for grouts having a
20 certain ratio (rather low) with the compressive strength of
rP
21 original walls, therefore, the comment just after eq4 is

22 misleading and arbitrary. This part should be corrected
23
24
according to Ref. 16 or eliminated, as already suggested. As a
general comment, it is remarked that compared data are still
ee
25
26 not homogeneous among them, therefore, the proposed
27 approach as unique formulation for design could be dangerous
28
(at least in countries different from Greece).
rR
29
30 The comment of the Reviewer is a multifold one and, thus, it calls
31 for a multifold response:
32 1. The data used in Figure 10 regard the compressive strength of
33
ev
34
wallettes before grouting. Thus, all data available to the author
35 were included to this figure. As for the selected Rd=1.50, only
36 one experimental result is lower than the predicted one, divided
iew
37 by 1,50. Therefore, no further increase of the proposed Rd value

38
39
is needed.
40 2. Figure 11 regards the application of equation (2). That equation
41 was derived by Vintzileou and Tassios, on the basis of their
42 results on testing wallettes grouted with high compressive
43
On
44
strength grouts. Therefore, the respective experimental data are
45 also included in the Figure. As for the proposed Rd value, again,
46 practically only one experimental point is out of the dotted line.
47 However, as the Reviewer insists on using higher Rd values, a
ly
48
49
slight increase (from 1,35 to 1,40) seems to leave more clearly
50 only one datum out of the comparison.
51 3. As mentioned in the previous response of the author to
52 Reviewers comments, the reason for which experimental data by
53
54
Vintzileou and Tassios appear in Figure 12 is that Valluzzi did so
55 in her work for the validation of equation (3) that she has
56 proposed. Actually, this is shown in Figure 39 (p. 70) of her
57 publication entitled Consolidamento di murature in pietra.
58
59
Iniezioni di calce idraulica naturale, REFICERE, 2004.
60 Nevertheless, the Reviewer is right in observing that the data
used for validation of equations (3) and (4) are different and this

1
2
3
4
should be rectified. Thus, in the revised version of the paper,
5 results by Vintzileou and Tassios are not included in Figure 12.
6 This does not seem to affect the proposed Rd value, that
7 remains equal to 1,80 (leaving one experimental point lower
8
9
than the predicted compressive strength value, as it is the case
10 for the data in Figures 10 and 11).
11
12 (b) For the sake of clarity, it would be better to say that the
13
14
origin of experimental data (especially for tensile strength of
15 grouts) is different among researchers. Where available, the
16 experimental source of these data should be specified in the
Fo
17 paper.
18
19
Regarding tensile strength of grouts tested by Vintzileou and
20 Tassios (1995), Toumbakari (2002), Vintzileou and Miltiadou
rP
21 (2008), it is known that flexural tests were carried out on

22 40x40x160 [mm] specimens. This is now clearly stated in the
23
24
paper. As for the work carried out by Valluzzi, Modena and Da
Porto, various types of tension tests on grouts are reported. The
ee
25
26 respective type of test is now indicated in the Tables of the paper
27 where relevant.
28
rR
29
30 (c) It is suggested again to show the trend line of Rd in Figure
31 14, as it could be rather significant in comparison with the
32 previous Figs.
33
ev
34
As the comparison between experimental and predicted values of
35 compressive strength for grouted masonry is quite satisfactory, no
36 specific Rd value is needed (Rd is practically equal to 1,0).
iew
37 Nevertheless, to account for the Reviewers comment, a rather

38
39
conservative value of Rd=1,10 is now used in Figure 14.
40
41
42
43
On
44
45
46
47
ly
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

1
2
3
Three-leaf masonry in compression, before and after grouting: A review of
4
5
6 literature
7
8 E.Vintzileou1
9
10
11
12 ABSTRACT
13
15
16 masonry: The behaviour and the failure mechanism of this type of masonry under compression is
Fo
17
18 studied. The effect of the mechanical properties of ternary and hydraulic lime based grout on the
19
20 mechanical properties of masonry in compression is investigated. Simple formulae are proposed for the
rP
21
22 estimation of the compressive strength of three-leaf masonry after grouting.
23
24
ee
25
26 Keywords: Three-leaf masonry; grouting; ternary grout; hydraulic lime based grout; compressive
27
28 strength.
rR
29
30
31
32 1. INTRODUCTION
33
ev
35
iew
37
39
external leaves is filled with a loose, low strength material made of small pieces of stones and/or bricks
40
41
and mortar. This type of masonry is very vulnerable to various actions. In fact, as the bond between the
42
43
On
external and the interior leaves is deteriorated or lost with time (either due to decay of the materials or
44
45
due to vertical and horizontal in- and out-of-plane actions), masonry does not behave as a whole. The
46
47
slenderness of the external leaves (that resist the major part of any imposed action) is increased and the
ly
48
49
probability of severe damages or even collapse is enhanced (Figure 1). Thus, the survival of
50
52
54
56
57
1
58 Elizabeth Vintzileou, Professor, Department of Structural Engineering, Faculty of Civil Engineering,
59 National Technical University of Athens, Laboratory of Reinforced Concrete, 5, Iroon Polytechniou
60 Str., GR 15773 Zografou, Greece, Tel.: +30 210 7721272, fax: +30 210 7721273, e-mail:
1
1
2
4
6
8
9 the last almost three decades, to design grouts adequate for injection into small voids and cracks, to
10
11 measure the enhanced mechanical properties of masonry after grouting, as well as to model the
12
13 behaviour of three-leaf masonry.
14
15 In this paper, the published experimental data regarding the behaviour of three-leaf masonry in
16
Fo
17 compression (before and after grouting) are evaluated with the purpose of identifying the main
18
19 parameters that affect the efficiency of grouting. Furthermore, this literature survey leads to the
20
rP
21 formulation of a simple empirical formula allowing for the estimation of the compressive strength of
22
23 masonry after grouting. A short review of the development of various types of grouts is, also, included,
24
to highlight the main trends in this field and to justify the emphasis given in this paper to tripartite and
ee
25
26
27 to hydraulic lime based grouts.
28
rR
29
30
32
33 Grouts are injected with the purpose to fill cracks and voids of masonry and (to some extent) pores of
ev
34
36
of organic binders in historic masonries is questionable, if not prohibited, mainly due to the
iew
37
38
40
42
On
44
45 chemical-physical and the mechanical viewpoints more adequate for use in historic masonries.
46
ly
48
50
52
54
et al. (1984, 1986 and 1989), Aitcin et al. (1984), and Miltiadou (1990) to the addition of ultra fine
55
56
materials (on the basis of specific granularity criteria). In this way, grouts of both high injectability and
57
58
adequate mechanical properties were developed. On the other hand, the need for a wide range of
59
60
mechanical properties of grouts to be available (in order to serve the specific needs of each historic
2
1
2
3 structure) was recognized. Thus, binary grouts (mixes of cement and hydrated lime, natural or artificial
4
5 pozzolans, silica fume, etc.) and ternary grouts (cement, hydrated lime and natural or artificial
6
7 pozzolans) were developed. The cement percentage was varying between 50% and 75%. Grouts of this
8
9 type reach compressive strengths between 10,0 to 30,0 N/mm2 with tensile strength range of 1,2 to 3,0
10
12
14
16
Fo
18
20
rP
21 materials is prevented and, hence, enhanced durability of the intervention is expected (Kalagri et al,
22
23 2010). Thus, researchers were led to the development and investigation of alternative mixes, namely
24
ternary grouts containing smaller than in binary grouts content of adequate type of cement.
ee
25
26
27 Ternary grouts composed of more than two constituents, namely cement (in a percentage of 30% to
28
rR
29 50%), lime, pozzolans (natural or artificial), ultra fine materials (such as fly ash or silica fume), were
30
31 developed. As for the obtained mechanical properties, for a cement content of 30%wt., compressive
32
33 strengths as high as 10,0 N/mm2 and tensile strengths of the order of 3,0 N/mm2 can be reached
ev
34
35 (Toumbakari, 2002 and Vintzileou et al., 2008).
36
It is only recently that the use of hydraulic lime based grouts (pure hydraulic lime or in combination
iew
37
38
40
42
On
44
45 and 5,0 N/mm2 (at the age of 2 months), whereas in a recent work (Vintzileou et al., 2008) the
46
ly
48
50
52
54
to the design, and sufficient fluidity for the grout to be diffused into masonry, as well as stability),
55
56
physical (low hydration heat, limited shrinkage, adequate hardening time and hygroscopic properties),
57
58
chemical (e.g. resistance to expansion and chemical stability of the products of chemical reactions) and
59
60
mechanical requirements that are related to the desirable mechanical properties of the grouted masonry
3
1
2
3 (i.e. strength and deformability characteristics), depending on the actual state of masonry, the actions to
4
5 be imposed, the overall scheme of interventions, etc.
6
7
8
10
12
14
16
Fo
18
20
rP
21 Vintzileou et al. (1995), Toumbakari (2002), Valluzzi (2000), Valluzzi et al. (2004), Binda et al.
22
23 (2006), Oliveira et al. (2006) and Vintzileou et al. (2008) have tested three-leaf stone or brick masonry
24
wallettes in compression before grouting or after grouting as well. Table 1 presents the mix proportions
ee
25
26
27 of grouts used to inject the specimens. The grouts cover a wide range of combinations of materials
28
rR
29 (from cement-based to pure natural hydraulic lime grouts), as well as a wide range of basic mechanical
30
31 properties. In Table 2, geometrical characteristics of the wallettes, as well as mechanical properties of
32
33 materials used for the construction of specimens are given, along with the main experimental findings.
ev
34
35
36
3.2. Mechanics of three-leaf masonry in compression, before and after grouting
iew
37
38
40
42
43 filling material is normally by an order of magnitude smaller than that of the external leaves. By way of
On
44
46
ly
48
50
52
54
by the external leaves, thus improving somehow its poor mechanical properties. This behaviour leads to
55
56
the failure mode that was observed in all specimens subjected to compression (Figure 3): As the load
57
58
on masonry increases, cracking is initiated both on the faces of the wallettes and within their thickness.
59
60
4
1
2
3 bricks, depending on the relative strengths of the materials. On the other hand, transverse (vertical)
4
5 cracks appear along the interface between the external and the internal leaves mainly, whereas in a
6
7 number of cases, cracks open within the filling material as well. The mechanism leading to the failure
8
10
12
14
15 behaves almost independently from the others. As the slenderness of each leaf is significantly larger
16
Fo
18
20
rP

22
24
of some tenths of millimetre. The major part of the injected material improves the behaviour of the
ee
25
26
28
rR
30
31 of the filling material to the resistance against the compression load is increased. Thus, the stresses on
32
ev
34
36
lateral dilatancy of the filling material are also reduced. Last but not least (c) the grout contributes to
iew
37
38
40
42
43 delay in the appearance of transverse cracks is observed in experimental results. In fact, as shown in
On
44
46
ly
48
50
52
54
occurring in masonry before grouting or in thick single-leaf masonry.
55
56
The effect of grouting on stiffness and overall deformability characteristics of masonry is an important
57
58
issue and it is commented upon in Sections 3.3 and 3.4.
59
60
5
1
2
3 3.3. Mechanical properties of masonry before grouting
4
5 Table 2 summarizes experimental results regarding the compressive strength of masonry before
6
7 grouting. The following comments can be made:
8
10
12
14
16
Fo

18
20
rP
22
24
al. (1995) thanks to the higher compressive strength of both filling material and mortar.
ee
25
26
28
rR
29 difference of approximately 30% between the minimum and the maximum value. This fact,
30
31 attributed to the inherent scatter of the behaviour of masonry, is expected to affect the accuracy of
32
33 formulae developed with the purpose to predict the compressive strength of three-leaf masonry
ev
34
35 (see Section 4).
36
(d) The ratio of modulus of elasticity (measured at a stress level approximately equal to 0,3fwc,0) to
iew
37
38
40
42
On
44
45 are very scattered (Figure 5) and, hence, hard to predict on the basis of a simple mechanical model.
46
47
ly
48
50
52
54
compressive strength after grouting within each individual series of tests. This affects the degree of
55
56
accuracy that should be sought for, when estimating the compressive strength of grouted masonry
57
58
through any model (be it empirical or analytical), as shown in Section 4.
59
60
6
1
2
4
5 compressive strength of grouted masonry. One may observe that there is a clear tendency of the
6
7 compressive strength of grouted masonry to increase (almost linearly) with increasing compressive
8
9 strength of grout, fgr,c, when the latter does not exceed 10N/mm2 approximately. For higher, fgr,c
10
11 values, no significant further enhancement of the compressive strength of masonry is observed. It
12
14
15 grouts with cement content smaller than 50%wt. or hydraulic lime based grouts, whereas cement
16
Fo
17 based grouts exhibit compressive strengths between 15 N/mm2 and 30 N/mm2. This important
18
19 observation insinuates that the key property governing the mechanical properties of grouted
20
rP
21 masonry is not the compressive strength of the grout.

22
24
the mechanical properties of three-leaf masonry is the bond along the interfaces between grout and
ee
25
26
27 in situ materials, as improved bonding properties along the external leaves to filling material
28
rR
29 interfaces contribute to delayed opening of transverse cracks that (as described in Section 3.2) lead
30
31 to failure of masonry. In fact, shear tests on such interfaces (Toumbakari, 2002) have proven that
32
33 the maximum bond resistance obtained by (lower compressive strength) ternary grouts was equal
ev
34
35 or even higher than the bond resistance of (higher compressive strength) cement grout to in situ
36
materials interfaces. This result was fully confirmed by a systematic experimental investigation
iew
37
38
39 conducted by Adami et al. (2006). Both direct tension and shear tests on grout to stone or brick
40
41 interfaces proved the improved behaviour of (low to medium strength) ternary grouts as compared
42
43 to cement grout. As bond properties depend on the tensile strength of the binding material, one
On
44
45 may expect a better correlation between the compressive strength of the grouted masonry and the
46
47 tensile strength of the grout. A first positive sign for the validity of this assumption is the fact that,
ly
48
49 as shown in Tables 1 and 4, as well as in Figure 7, the ratio between compressive and tensile
50
51 strength of grout is not constant. On the contrary, there is a clear tendency of the fgr,t/fgr,c ratio to
52
53 increase for decreasing compressive strength of the grout. It should be noted that, as shown in the
54
same Figure 7, for compressive strength of grout varying between 3,0 and 10,0 N/mm2
55
56
(corresponding to ternary and to hydraulic lime based grouts), the values of the fgr,t/fgr,c ratio vary
57
58
between 0,20 and 0,60. It is not, however, possible to find a relationship between the compressive
59
60
7
1
2
3 strength of the grout and the fgr,t/fgr,c ratio, since the behaviour of masonry in compression depends
4
5 on other parameters as well.
6
7 (d) Furthermore, in Figure 8 the experimental compressive strength values are plotted against the
8
9 tensile strength of the respective grout. Taking into account the differences from one series of tests
10
11 to the others (in geometry, quality of materials used, construction details, etc.), the quite linear
12
13 correlation between fwc,s and fgr,t may be considered as satisfactory. This result (a) explains the fact
14
16
Fo
18
20
rP
22
24
(e) The experimental results show that, in general, the stiffness of the grouted masonry (expressed by
ee
25
26
28
rR
30
32
ev
34
36
grouting.
iew
37
38
40
41 i.e. a grout with cement content smaller than 50% wt. or a hydraulic lime based grout, the strain
42
43 corresponding to the compressive strength of the grouted masonry is larger than that of the
On
44
45 ungrouted masonry. The opposite occurs in case of cement-based grouts. It seems, therefore, that
46
47 grouting with cement-based mixes leads to more brittle behaviour of masonry, whereas ternary and
ly
48
49 hydraulic lime based grouts allow masonry to sustain larger compressive strains before its
50
51 maximum resistance is reached. This is another sign in favour of the use of mild grouts rather
52
53 than stronger ones.
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
8
1
2
4
6
7 Analytical modelling of three-leaf masonry walls, using finite element methods, was attempted by
8
10
12
14
15 behaviour of three-leaf masonry, did not yield simple yet sound engineering models that could be used
16
Fo
17 in the design of interventions to historic masonries by means of grouts. Thus, there is still a need for
18
19 simple physical models that would allow for the compressive strength of three-leaf masonry before and
20
rP
21 after grouting to be predicted. Although in case of major monuments it may be possible or advisable to
22
24
general case of interventions either to less important historic structures or to buildings belonging to
ee
25
26
28
rR
30
32
ev
34
35 sections.
36
iew
37
38
40
42
43 masonry after grouting require the compressive strength of masonry before grouting to be estimated as
On
44
45 well. For this purpose, Valluzzi (2004) suggests that the compressive strength of the external leaves can
46
ly
48
50
52
54
model, the compressive strength of the three-leaf masonry is calculated as the weighted sum of the
55
56
57
58
account (in an empirical way, though) that the filling material is confined by the external leaves,
59
60
9
1
2
4
6
7
V V
8 f wc ,0 = e efc,e + i if c,i (1)
9
Vw Vw
10
11
where,
12
13
Ve denotes the volume of the external leaves,
14
16
Fo

18
20
rP

22
24
ee

26
28
rR

30
32
ev
34
36
iew
38
39 Vintzileou et al. (1995). The use of a partial safety factor, Rd, equal to 1,50 is needed to calculate
40
41 compressive strength values adequate for design.
42
43
On
44
46
47 (a) In Vintzileou et al. (1995), a simple formula is developed, allowing for the calculation of the
ly
48
50
52
54
56
58
59 contrary, grouting contributes to the substantial improvement of mechanical properties of the infill. The
60
strength enhancement of the infill is taken proportional to the square root of the compressive strength
10
1
2
4
6
7 their compressive strength. Thus, the square root of the compressive strength of the grout is used (as an
8
9 indicator of its tensile strength. The contribution of the strengthened infill material to the compressive
10
12
14
15
16 Vi f gr ,c
f wc,i = f wc,0 (1 + 1,25 ) (2)
Fo
17 Vw f wc,0
18
19
rP
21
23
24
masonry. However, if a Rd value equal to 1,40 is applied, the formula can yield safe values for the
ee
25
26
27
28
rR
29
(b) Valluzzi (2004) and Valluzzi et al. (2004) offer a modified version of Equation (2). On the basis of
30
31
systematic testing of cylinders made of filling material and grouted with hydraulic lime based grouts,
32
33
ev
an empirical formula (based on the results by Valluzzi [2004] and Vintzileou et al. [1995]) was
34
35 proposed for the prediction of the compressive strength of the grouted infill material, as follows:
36
iew
37
1,18
38 fi,s = 0,31f gr ,c (3)
39
41
43
On
44
Vi fi ,s
45 f wc,i = f wc ,0 (1 + ) (4)
46 Vw f wc ,0
47
ly
48 Equation (4) seems to overestimate the compressive strength of grouted three-leaf masonry in most of
49
50 cases (Figure 12). Thus, to yield values adequate for the design of grouted masonry, a Rd value equal to
51
52 1,80 should be applied to the predicted values.
53
54 It seems, therefore, that equation (2) can be applied to predict the compressive strength of grouted
55
56 three-leaf masonry. The application of a reasonably low partial safety factor (=1,40) allows for sensibly
57
58 conservative strength values to be taken into account. It should be noted that equation (2) is applicable
59
60 to masonries grouted using any type of grout (binary, ternary and hydraulic lime based grouts).
11
1
2
3
4
5 (c) In an attempt to correlate the compressive strength of grouted infill material (and, by way of
6
7 consequence, of the compressive strength of grouted three-leaf masonry) and the tensile strength of the
8
9 grout, the available results from testing cylinders made of filling material before and after grouting
10
11 (Table 4) were evaluated. It was proven that such a correlation is inevitably limited to ternary and to
12
13 hydraulic lime based grouts (i.e. to grouts with low and medium mechanical properties) that exhibit
14
15 rather high ratios of tensile to compressive strength. Thus, the evaluation was limited to the results by
16
Fo
17 Kalagri et al. (2010). It should be noted that limiting the evaluation to ternary and to hydraulic lime
18
19 based grouts is legitimate, since there is a clear trend to apply only ternary or hydraulic lime based
20
rP
21 grouts to historic masonry. Thus, the following expression was derived allowing for the compressive
22
23 strength of the grouted filling material to be calculated:
24
ee
25 fi,s = 1,60 + 0,50f gr , t (5)

26
27
28 where,
rR
29
30 fgr,t denotes the tensile strength of the grout due to bending
31
32 The comparison between predicted fi,s (using equ. (5)) and experimental values is shown in Figure 13.
33
ev
34 It seems that the predicted values fit quite accurately with the experimental ones.
35
36
iew
37
38
39
results is shown in Figure 14. This expression seems to offer a rather conservative estimation of the
40
41
compressive strength of grouted masonry and it can be applied with a partial safety factor, Rd, equal to
42
43
On
1,10.
44
45 Although the experimental data show clearly the dependence of the compressive strength of grouted
46
47 masonry on the tensile strength of the grout, one has to take into account that (a) for the time being,
ly
48
49 there is no established method for testing the tensile strength of grouts and (b) the tensile strength of
50
51 grouts and mortars (even of concretes) is a property sensitive to numerous parameters (such as curing
52
53 conditions, age, environmental conditions, etc.). It seems, therefore, to be more appropriate to base the
54
55 estimation of the compressive strength of grouted masonry on the (more reliable and stable property,
56
57 i.e. on the) compressive strength of the grout. Thus, equation (2) may yield sensibly conservative
58
59 compressive strength values of grouted masonry, provided that the calculated values are divided by the
60
Rd value equal to 1,40.
12
1
2
3 5. CONCLUSIONS
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Fo

18
19 3. The preponderance of ternary and hydraulic lime based grouts was demonstrated, as they offer
20
rP
22
24
compressive strength) do not contribute to further increase of the compressive strength of masonry,
ee
25
26
28
rR
30
31 with the in situ materials) become more important due to the durability ensured by the use of
32
ev
34
36
adequate for the prediction of the compressive strength of grouted masonry. It should be noted,
iew
37
38
40
42
43
On
44
45 6. REFERENCES
46
ly
48
49 mechanism between stones or bricks and grouts. Submitted to Materials and Structures, RILEM.
50
51 2. Binda L., Fontana A., Anti L. 1991. Load transfer in multiple-leaf masonry walls. Proceedings, 9th
52
53 International Brick Block Masonry Conference, pp. 1488-1497.
54
3. Binda L., Fontana A., Mirabella Roberti G. 1994. Mechanical behaviour and stress distribution in
55
56
multiple-leaf walls. Proceedings, 10th International Brick Block Masonry Conference, pp. 51-59.
57
58
59
60
13
1
2
4
6
8
10
12
13 pp. 305-312.
14
16
Fo
17 grouts for the strengthening of stone masonry historic structures, to be published in RILEM
18
19 Materials and Structures (published on line, 14.01.10).
20
rP
21 7. Oliveira D.V., Lourenco P.B. (2006) Experimental behaviour of three-leaf stone masonry walls,
22
24
Dubrovnik, Croatia, 14-17 October, pp. 355-362.
ee
25
26
28
rR
30
32
33 9. Paillre A.-M., Serrano J.-J., Buil M. (1986), Possibilits offertes par lemploi dultrafines
ev
34
36
10. Paillre A.-M., Buil M., Miltiadou A.-E., Guinez R., Serrano J.-J. (1989). Use of silica fume and
iew
37
38
40
42
43 1157.
On
44
46
ly
48
50
51 des Laboratoires des Ponts et Chausses, srie Ouvrages dart, ISSN 1161-028X, Paris, France
52
53 12. Tassios,T.P. 2004. Rehabilitation of three-leaf masonry. In Evoluzione nella sperimentazione per
54
55
56
57
58
13. Toumbakari E.-E. 2002. Lime-pozzolan-cement grouts and their structural effects on composite
59
60
masonry walls. Doctor Thesis, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.
14
1
2
4
6
8
10
11 16. Valluzzi M.-R., da Porto F., Modena C. 2004 Behavior and modelling of strengthened three-leaf
12
13 stone masonry walls. Materials and Structures, Vol. 37, pp. 184-192.
14
16
Fo

18
19 18. Vintzileou E., Miltiadou-Fezans A. 2008 Mechanical properties of three-leaf stone masonry
20
rP
22
23 Pages 2265-2276
24
ee
25
26
27
28
rR
29
30
31
32
33
ev
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
On
44
45
46
47
ly
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
15
1
2
3 FIGURE CAPTIONS
4
5 Figure 1. Due to the loss of bond between external leaves and filling material, the opening of a diagonal
6
7 crack during an earthquake led to partial collapse of the exterior leaf of the wall.
8
10
12
14
16
Fo

18
20
rP
21 strain.
22
24
ee
25
26
28
rR
29 the grout
30
32
33 grouted masonry.
ev
34
36
masonry normalized to the respective strain of ungrouted masonry.
iew
37
38
40
42
On
44
45 (2)
46
ly
48
50
52
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
16
1
2
3 TABLE CAPTIONS
4
6
7 specimens
8
10
12
14
15 filling material
16
Fo
17
18
19
20
rP
21
22
23
24
ee
25
26
27
28
rR
29
30
31
32
33
ev
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
On
44
45
46
47
ly
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
17
1
2
4 specimens
5
2
11 A 0.0 25.0 0.0 75.0 1.33 90.0 30.0 2.5
12 B 27.5 22.5 0.0 60.0 1.66 100.0 13.0 1.4
14
13b0 17.5 0.0 52.5 30.0 7.3 1.7
15
13b10 17.5 10.0 42.5 30.0 9.0 1.1
16
Cb0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 19.5 4.5
Fo
17
Valluzzi (2004)
18
FEN-X/B 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.23 0.35
19
Commercial
20
product
rP
21
FEN- 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.10 -(3)
22
X/A+F
23
24
Ternary 25.0 0.0 45.0 30.0 1.0 80.0 8.16 2.2
ee
25
26 grout
27 NHL based 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 80.0 4.5 2.5
28 grout
rR
29
31
32
33
ev
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
On
44
45
46
47
ly
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
18
1
2
3
4
6
Fo
8
9
1(1) 0.6x0.4x1.2 130/140/130 100 1.70 0.15 30/2.5 43.8 2.10 3.10 7000 6250 0.00104 0.0006
10
2 0.6x0.4x1.2 130/140/130 100 1.70 0.15 - - 1.30 - 2706 - - -
11
12
13
3(1)
4
5
0.6x0.4x1.2
0.6x0.4x1.2
0.6x0.4x1.2
130/140/130
130/140/130
130/140/130
100
100
100 rP 1.70
1.70
1.70
0.15
0.15
0.15
30/2.5
30/2.5
30/2.5
67.0
31.75
34.72
2.40
1.60
1.70
4.30
-
4.20
5000
4442
5670
5971
-
7778
0.00141
0.0008
0.0028
0.0011
-
0.0012
14
15
16
6
7
8
0.6x0.4x1.2
0.6x0.4x1.2
0.6x0.4x1.2
130/140/130
130/140/130
130/140/130
100
100
100
1.70
1.70
1.70 ee 0.15
0.15
0.15
13/1.4
30/2.5
13/1.4
29.8
29.8
29.8
1.35
-
-
4.05
3.70
3.00
5625
-
-
8438
15413
3333
0.00058
-
-
0.0010
0.0009
0.0009
17
18
19
Toumbakari (2002)
BC1
BC2
0.6x0.4x1.2
0.6x0.4x1.2
90/220/90
90/220/90
25
25
3.40
3.40
1.00
1.00 rR 7.3/1.7
9.0/1.1
31.0
23.0
-
2.41
5.04
3.15
-
729.6
2238.2
1564.9
-
0.00312
0.00242
0.00254
20
21
BC3
BC4
BC5(1)
0.6x0.4x1.2
0.6x0.4x1.2
0.6x0.4x1.2
90/220/90
90/220/90
90/220/90
25
25
25
3.40
3.40
3.40
1.00
1.00
1.00
19.5/4.5
7.3/1.7
7.3/1.7 ev
19.0
25.0
2.09
2.18
2.28
2.91
3.00
3.86
1018.3
1097.6
1144.9
1404.8
1040.4
1170.2
0.00185
0.00234
0.00231
0.00155
0.00294
0.00314
iew
22
SC1 0.6x0.4x1.2 130/140/130 55 3.40 1.00 9.0/1.1 50.0 2.02 3.25 720.4 1622.2 0.00142 0.00355
23
SC2 0.6x0.4x1.2 130/140/130 55 3.40 1.00 19.5/4.5 46.0 2.09 3.36 1138.7 1558.6 0.00165 0.00233
24 SC3 0.6x0.4x1.2 130/140/130 55 3.40 1.00 7.3/1.7 2.65 3.51 1374.8 1187.6 0.00173 0.00245
25 SC4 0.6x0.4x1.2 130/140/130 55 3.40 1.00 7.3/1.7 30.0 2.71 3.29 1443.3 1014.5 0.00211 0.00349
27
28
29
5I1
6I1
13I1
0.8x0.5x1.4 180/140/180
0.8x0.5x1.4
0.8x0.5x1.4
180/140/180
180/140/180
164
164
164
1.57
1.57
1.57
5.1/0.8*
5.1/0.8*
5.1/0.8*
54.2
54.2
41.5
1.45
1.95
-
On
2.49
2.49
2.54
2390
2029
-
2273
3093
3992
0.00363
0.00457
-
0.00726
0.00571
0.00991
30
31
32
33
1I2
8I2
16I2
12I1T
14I1R
0.8x0.5x1.4
0.8x0.5x1.4
0.8x0.5x1.4
0.8x0.5x1.4
0.8x0.5x1.4
180/140/180
180/140/180
180/140/180
180/140/180
180/140/180
164
164
164
164
164
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
1.57
3.2/0.4
3.2/0.4
3.2/0.4
5.1/0.8*
5.1/0.8*
54.2
47.8
47.8
54.2
60.6
1.97
1.91
-
-
-
2.57
1.82
2.48
2.59
2.14
1450
1559
-
-
-
ly3449
2367
1223
1336
1617
0.0062
0.00622
-
-
-
0.00625
0.0072
0.0107
0.00818
0.00821
34
35 17I1RT 0.8x0.5x1.4 180/140/180 164 1.57 5.1/0.8* 47.8 - 3.06 - 1772 - 0.00824
36
1 1.0x0.45x1.2 190/120/140 25 4.35 0.15 4.5/2.5 32.8 1.82 3.00 1000 1200 -
37 2 1.0x0.45x1.2 190/120/140 25 4.35 0.15 8.16/2.2 40 1.74 3.75 1440 1550 0.0016 0.0025
38 3 1.0x0.45x1.2 190/120/140 25 4.35 0.15 4.5/2.5 36.4 2.26 3.73 1500 1300 0.0025 0.0039
40
41
42
43
44 19
46
47
1
2
3
4
5 1W1 0.6x0.3x1.1 100/100/100 52.2 2.9 0.29 2.4 2125 0.0027
6 1W2 0.6x0.3x1.1 100/100/100 52.2 2.9 0.29 1.7 2125 0.00165
7 2W1 0.6x0.3x1.1 100/100/100 52.2 2.9 0.29 1.4 2125 0.0033
Binda et al. (2006)
Fo
8
Noto 0.31x0.51x0. 170/170/170 20.6 9.2 4.1 5.8 1770 0.0035
9 straight 82
10 Noto 0.31x0.51x0. 170/170/170 20.6 9.2 4.1 6.45 2085 0.0041
11
12
13
keyed 82
rP
(*) The value of the tensile strength of grout due to bending is not given. The value of tensile strength under direct tension is listed instead.
14
15
16 ee
17
18
19
rR
20
21
ev
iew
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
On
30
31
32
33
ly
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44 20
46
47
1
2
3 Table 2 (contd.)
4
5
fwc,0
7 (mm)
9 1 1.00 0.231 0.00 0.00 3333 1048 1.48 0.89 0.58
10 2 0.27 - - 2081
11 3 3.00 2083 1389 1.80 1.19 0.78
12 4 2.533 - - 2776
13 5 1.50 7.59 0.00 1.035 3335 1852 2.47 1.37 0.43
14 6 1.81 0.00 1.325 4167 2083 3.00 1.50 1.72
15 7 - - 1.3 4166
8 - - 0.125 1111
16
Fo
Toumbakari (2002)
17
BC1 1.17 444
18 BC2 7.07 0.15 5.04 302.7 497 1.31 2.14 0.81
19 BC3 2.69 0.86 2.59 487.2 483 1.39 1.38 0.84
20 BC4 2.32 0.38 4.03 503.5 347 1.38 0.95 1.26
rP
21 BC5 2.00 0.03 1.80 502.1 303 1.69 1.02 1.36

22 SC1 2.89 0.03 2.19 356.6 499 1.61 2.25 2.50
23 SC2 6.9 0.01 0.60 544.8 464 1.61 1.37 1.41
24 SC3 3.63 0.51 2.33 518.8 338 1.32 0.86 1.42
SC4 2.84 1.01 2.98 532.6 308 1.21 0.70 1.65
ee
25
27 5I1 2.25 0.002 4.59 1648 913 1.72 0.95 2.00
28 6I1 9.2 0.0015 8.55 1040 1242 1.28 1.52 1.25
13I1 0.06 13.85 1572
rR
29
1I2 3.97 0.16 3.67 736 1342 1.30 2.37 1.00
30
8I2 5.9 0.04 4.95 816 1300 0.95 1.52 1.16
31 16I2 0.11 9.45 493
32 12I1T 0.02 7.95 516
33 14I1R 0.01 9.8 756
ev
34 17I1RT 0.0005 10.95 579

36 1 0.78 8.2 0.0 3.2 550 400 1.65 1.20 -
2 0.26 4.8 0.0 1.3 828 413 2.16 1.08 1.56
iew
37
38 3 1.55 4.0 0.0 2.6 655 349 1.65 0.87 1.36
39
40 Notation
On

ly
48
21
1
2
3
4
Table 3. Comparison between experimental and predicted values of compressive strength
5
8 Equ.(2) Equ.(3, 4) Equ.(5,4)
9 Vintzileou, Tassios (1995)
10 1 0.35 30/2.5 2.10 3.10 1.48 4.49 8.10
11 2 0.35 - 1.30 -
12 3 0.35 30/2.5 2.40 4.30 1.80 4.80 8.40
13 4 0.35 30/2.5 1.60 -
14 5 0.35 30/2.5 1.70 4.20 2.47 4.10 7.70
15 6 0.35 13/1.4 1.35 4.05 3.00 2.97 3.59
16 7 0.35 30/2.5 - 3.70 4.10
Fo
8 0.35 13/1.4 - 3.00 3.27
17
Toumbakari (2002)
18 BC1 0.55 7.3/1.7 - 5.04
19 BC2 0.55 9.0/1.1 2.41 3.15 1.31 4.47 4.69 2.64
20 BC3 0.55 19.5/4.5 2.09 2.91 1.39 5.12 7.76 3.10
rP
21 BC4 0.55 7.3/1.7 2.18 3.00 1.38 4.04 3.96 2.80

22 BC5 0.55 7.3/1.7 2.28 3.86 1.69 4.14 4.06 2.86
23 SC1 0.35 9.0/1.1 2.02 3.25 1.61 3.33 3.47 2.40
24 SC2 0.35 19.5/4.5 2.09 3.36 1.61 4.02 5.70 2.73
SC3 0.35 7.3/1.7 2.65 3.51 1.32 3.83 3.78 2.97
ee
25
26 SC4 0.35 7.3/1.7 2.71 3.29 1.21 3.89 3.84 3.03
28 5I1 0.28 5.1/0.8* 1.45 2.49 1.72 2.24 2.04 1.84
6I1 0.28 5.1/0.8* 1.95 2.49 1.28 2.74 2.54 2.24
rR
29
13I1 0.28 5.1/0.8* - 2.54
30
1I2 0.28 3.2/0.4 1.97 2.57 1.30 2.59 2.31 2.22
31
8I2 0.28 3.2/0.4 1.91 1.82 0.95 2.54 2.25 2.17
32 16I2 0.28 3.2/0.4 - 2.48
33 5.1/0.8*
ev
12I1T 0.28 - 2.59

34 14I1R 0.28 5.1/0.8* - 2.14
35 17I1RT 0.28 5.1/0.8* - 3.06
iew
37 1 0.27 4.5/2.5 1.82 3.00 1.65 2.54 2.31 2.24

38 2 0.27 8.16/2.2 1.74 3.75 2.16 2.70 2.74 2.16
39 3 0.27 4.5/2.5 2.26 3.73 1.65 2.98 2.75 2.60
40 (*) Tensile strength of grout (direct tension)
41
42
43
On
44
45
46
47
ly
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
22
1
2
4 filling material
7 ungrouted
8 cylinders
11 Valluzzi (2004)(1)
12 C7-C8 3.23 0.35 0.82 0.343
13 C9-10(A) 3.23 0.35 0.80 0.245
14 C11-C12 5.10 1.99 1.518
15 C13(A) 5.10 2.15 1.201
16 C14-C15 3.21 1.43 1.499
Fo
17 C17-C18 3.65 1.38 1.253

18 C27-C28 3.35 1.71 1.747
19 C26(A) 3.35 1.39 1.354
20 Miltiadou (1990)
rP
21 Voids 32% 1.71 3.87 30.00(2) 2.50 13.4 20.45 7.84 5.28
22 30.00(3) 2.50 17.0 15.30 9.94 3.95
23 13.00(2) 1.40 9.5 19.80 5.56 2.45
24 Voids 40% 0.48 1.10 30.00(2) 2.50 8.8 13.70 18.33 12.45
ee
25 30.00(3) 2.50 10.5 10.5 21.87 9.55

26 13.00(2) 1.40 16.3 16.60 33.95 15.10
27 Kalagri et al. (2010) (4)
28 (A) T 0.15 10.58 3.13 3.24 1.36 21.6
rR
29 (B) 0.15 6.36 3.87 2.79 1.38 18.6

30 NHL5+SP
31 (C) NHL5 0.15 6.00 2.70 3.27 0.79 21.8
32 (D) Chaux 0.15 6.72 1.05 3.29 1.78 21.93
33 blanche+SP
ev
34 (E) Calx 0.15 2.88 1.08 2.74 0.94 18.27

35 Romana
36 (F) Calce 0.15 2.49 0.65 2.28 1.12 15.20
iew
37 Albazzana
38 (G) Unilit 0.15 2.53 0.98 2.01 0.445 13.40
39 B Fluid 0
On

ly
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Fo
17
18
19
20
rP
21
22
23
24
ee
25
26
27
28
rR
29
30
31
32
33
ev
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
On
44
45
46
47
ly
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
24
1
2
3 N/Aw e e
4 i e/Ee i/Ei
5
6
7
8
9 fe,Ee, e Fe
10 fi,Ei, i Fi
11
12
13 te' ti'
te ti te
14
15 te'=te(1+ e e/Ee)
16 ti'=ti(1+ ii/Ei)
Fo
19
20
rP
21
22
23
24
ee
25
26
27
28
rR
29
30
31
32
33
ev
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
On
44
45
46
47
ly
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
15
16
Fo
18
19
20
rP
21
22
23
24
ee
25
26
27
28
rR
29
30
31
32
33
ev
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
On
44
45
46
47
ly
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
26
1
2
3
4
6 Valluzzi, 2000
9 2.8
10
11 2.6
12
13 2.4
14
15 2.2
fwc,0(N/mm2)
16
Fo
17 2
18
19 1.8
20
rP
21 1.6
22
23 1.4
24
1.2
ee
25
0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250
26 Ew,0/fwc,0
27
masonry vs. compressive strength of ungrouted masonry
rR
29
30
31
32
33
ev
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
On
44
45
46
47
ly
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
27
1
2
3
5 Toumbakari, 2002
6 Valluzzi, 2000
Oliveira, Lourenco, 2006
8
Binda et al., 2006
9 6.5
10
11 6
12
13 5.5
14 5
15
16 4.5
fwc,0(N/mm2)
Fo
17
4
18
19 3.5
20
rP
21 3
22
2.5
23
24 2
ee
25
26 1.5
27 1
28 0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008
rR
29 wu,0
30
31
33 strain.
ev
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
On
44
45
46
47
ly
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
28
1
2
3
5 Toumbakari, 2002
6 Valluzzi, 2000
5.5
8
9 5
10
11 4.5
12
4
13
14 3.5
fwc,s(N/mm2)
15
16 3
Fo
17 2.5
18
19 2
20
1.5
rP
21
22 1
23
24 0.5
ee
25 0
26 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
27 fgr,c(N/mm2)
28
rR
29
30
Figure 6. Relationship between the compressive strength of the grout and the obtained compressive
31
32
33
ev
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
On
44
45
46
47
ly
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
29
1
2
3
4
5
7 Toumbakari, 2002
8 Valluzzi, 2000
9
Kalagri et al., 2010
10
11 30
12
13
14 25
15
16
Fo
20
17
fgr,c(N/mm2)
18
19 15
20
rP
21
22 10
23
24
5
ee
25
26
27
28 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
rR
29 fgr,t/fgr,c
30
32 the grout
33
ev
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
On
44
45
46
47
ly
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
30
1
2
4 Toumbakari, 2002
5 Valluzzi, 2000
7 5.5
8
9 5
10
11 4.5
12
13 fwc,i (N/mm2)
4
14
15
3.5
16
Fo
17
18 3
19
20 2.5
rP
21
22 2
23
24 1.5
ee
25 0 1 2 3 4 5
26 fgr,t (N/mm2)
27
rR
29 grouted masonry.
30
31
32
33
ev
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
On
44
45
46
47
ly
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
31
1
2
3
4
5 Toumbakari, 2002
6 Valluzzi, 2000
8 2.5
9
10
11
12 2
13
14
15
1.5
wu,s/wu,0
16
Fo
17
18
19 1
20
rP
21
22
23 0.5
24
ee
25
26 0
27 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
28 fgr,c(N/mm2 )
rR
29
30
Figure 9. Relationship between the compressive strength of grout and the strain at strength of grouted
32
33
ev
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
On
44
45
46
47
ly
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
32
1
2
3
Vintzileou et al. 1995
4 Toumbakari, 2002
5 Valluzzi, 2000
7 Binda et al., 2006
8
6.5
9
10 6
11
12 5.5
13 5
14
15 4.5
Rd=1.50
16
(fwc,0)exp (N/mm2)
4
Fo
17
18 3.5
19 3
20
rP
21 2.5
22
2
23
24 1.5
ee
25
1
26
27 0.5
28
rR
29 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
30 (fwc,0)pred (N/mm2)
33
ev
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
On
44
45
46
47
ly
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
33
1
2
3
4
Toumbakari, 2002
5
6 Valluzzi, 2000
8 3
9
10
11 2.5
12 Rd~1.40
13
14 2
(fwc,i/fwc,0)exp
15
16
Fo
17 1.5
18
19
20 1
rP
21
22
23 0.5
24
ee
25
26 0
27 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
rR
30 (2)
31
32
33
ev
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
On
44
45
46
47
ly
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
34
1
2
3
4
5
6 Toumbakari, 2002
7 Valluzzi, 2000
9
10
11 5
12
13
14 4
15
16
Fo
17 Rd~1.80
3
(fwc,i/fwc,0)exp
18
19
20
rP
21
22 2
23
24
ee
25 1
26
27
28
rR
29 0
30 0 1 2 3 4 5
32
ev
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
On
44
45
46
47
ly
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 3.5
8
9 3
10
11
12 2.5
13
(fi,s)exp (N/mm2)
14 2
15
16
Fo
17 1.5
18
19
1
20
rP
21
22 0.5
23
24
0
ee
25 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

26 (fi,s)pred (N/mm2)
rR
29
30
31
32
33
ev
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
On
44
45
46
47
ly
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
36
1
2
3
4
5
6 Toumbakari, 2002
7 Valluzzi, 2000
9
10 2.5
11 Rd~1.10
12
13 2
(fwc,s/fwc,0)exp.
14
15 1.5
16
Fo
17
18 1
19
20
0.5
rP
21
22
23 0
24 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
ee
25
26 (fwc,s/fwc,0)pred
27
28
rR
31
32
33
ev
34
35
36
iew
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
On
44
45
46
47
ly
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
37

Σχεδιασμός Ενεμάτων Βιζηλαίουarchitectural Heritage

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Σχεδιασμός Ενεμάτων Βιζηλαίουarchitectural Heritage

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

International Journal of Architectural Heritage

Three-leaf masonry in compression, before and after

Journal: International Journal of Architectural Heritage

Manuscript ID: UARC-2009-0207.R2

Manuscript Type: Original Article

Date Submitted by the

Complete List of Authors: Vintzileou, Elizabeth; National Technical University of Athens,

Three-leaf masonry, grouting, tripartite grout, hydraulic lime based

grout, compressive strength

URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/uarc Email: pbl@civil.uminho.pt; pere.roca.fabregat@upc.edu

17 grouts containing reduced content of adequate type of cement.

44 following expression was derived:

17 effect of parameters, such as mechanical properties of constituent materials, strength of filling

29 Dubrovnik, Croatia, 14-17 October, pp. 355-362.

17 strengthened by different intervention techniques. Proceedings 3rd International Seminar on

21 Figure 5. Relationship between the compressive strength of ungrouted masonry and

21 BC5 2.00 0.03 1.80 502.1 303 1.69 1.02 1.36

34 17I1RT 0.0005 10.95 579

44 fm,c Compressive strength of mortar

17 BC1 0.55 7.3/1.7 - 5.04

21 BC5 0.55 7.3/1.7 2.28 3.86 1.69 4.14 4.06 2.86

29 1I2 0.28 3.2/0.4 1.97 2.57 1.30 2.59 2.31 2.22

34 17I1RT 0.28 5.1/0.8 - 3.06

17 C17-C18 (0.15) 3.65 1.38 1.253 (9.20)

25 30.00(3) 2.50 10.5 10.5 21.87 9.55

29 (B) 0.15 6.36 3.87 2.79 1.38 18.6

34 (E) Calx 0.15 2.88 1.08 2.74 0.94 18.27

44 (3) Injection of pre-damaged cylinders

17 subjected to compression (out-of-scale)

21 Figure 4. Modulus of elasticity of ungrouted masonry, normalized to the compressive strength of

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

21 filling material (equation (5)).

21 imposed to the external leaves by the filling material (Figure 2).

17 of stones equal to 55 N/mm2). On the contrary,

21 masonry is not the compressive strength of the grout.

17 Vw denotes the total volume of masonry,

21 fc,i denotes the compressive strength of the filling material,

25 and infill material.

29 the values of e and i.

25 fi,s = 1,60 + 0,50f gr , t (5)

17 overall behaviour was proven by the totality of experimental results. Furthermore,

17 grouts. Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol.121, No.5, May, pp. 848-856.

17 masonry vs. compressive strength of ungrouted masonry

21 BC5 2.00 0.03 1.80 502.1 303 1.69 1.02 1.36

34 17I1RT 0.0005 10.95 579

44 fm,c Compressive strength of mortar

17 BC1 0.55 7.3/1.7 - 5.04

21 BC5 0.55 7.3/1.7 2.28 3.86 1.69 4.14 4.06 2.86

29 1I2 0.28 3.2/0.4 1.97 2.57 1.30 2.59 2.31 2.22

34 17I1RT 0.28 5.1/0.8 - 3.06

17 C17-C18 3.65 1.38 1.253

25 30.00(3) 2.50 10.5 10.5 21.87 9.55

29 (B) 0.15 6.36 3.87 2.79 1.38 18.6

34 (E) Calx 0.15 2.88 1.08 2.74 0.94 18.27

44 (3) Injection of pre-damaged cylinders

21 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

21 (b) In Reference 6, the emphasis is placed on the properties of

37 mechanical tests prove that cement grouts are not more

URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/uarc Email: pbl@civil.uminho.pt; pere.roca.fabregat@upc.edu

17 that a cement content of 30% cannot be considered as low.

21 medium or low strength grouts in cultural heritage assets,

37 experimental evaluation of this (very sensitive) mechanical

URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/uarc Email: pbl@civil.uminho.pt; pere.roca.fabregat@upc.edu