Construction and Building Materials 211 (2019) 594–604

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Stainless steel strip – A proposed shear reinforcement for masonry wall

panels
Antonio Borri, Marco Corradi, Giulio Castori, Alessio Molinari ⇑
University of Perugia, Department of Engineering, Via Duranti 93, 06125 Perugia, Italy

h i g h l i g h t s

This paper analyses a new retrofitting method based on the use of stainless steel strips.

The chemical stability and the compatibility with masonry make stainless steel suitable for unprotected applications.

Strips have been used to reinforce and repair the masonry members.

Reinforced structures presented enhanced behavior and increased mechanical properties.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Earthquakes can cause serious damage to historic masonry structures. Masonry reinforcement has been
Received 6 August 2018 widely studied by proposing different retrofitting methods. However it is sometimes difficult to combine
Received in revised form 10 March 2019 the need for effective retrofitting, with high reversibility and low impact. The use of compatible-to-
Accepted 14 March 2019
masonry, chemically stable and durable reinforcement materials in another difficult task. In this area,
Available online 27 March 2019
the use of stainless steel strips, as a method for reinforcing existing masonry by increasing its tensile
strength and ductility, is proposed in this paper. With the aim at reproducing the in-plane seismic load-
Keywords:
ing, 10 wall panels were tested in one-sense cyclic shear in the laboratory. Stainless steel strips were
Historic masonry
Retrofitting methods
mechanically attached on both panel’s sides using metal anchor bolts to the masonry substrate along
Laboratory testing the stretched diagonal and panel’s structural response was recorded and studied. The reinforcement
Stainless steel installation procedures, the panel’s structural behavior in terms of stiffness, ductility and strength were
Shear strength described in detail in the paper. It is demonstrated that this retrofitting technique can enhance the
mechanical behavior of the wall panels. Finally, an analysis of the features of the proposed technique
indicates that it is likely to offer some advantages over some commonly-used retrofitting methods. A
design procedure is also proposed and discussed in the paper.
Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction However, while significant progress was made towards to

Masonry has been used for centuries for residential and public
buildings. The most used materials for construction were stones
and fired bricks, assembled using weak lime mortars [1,2]. As a
consequence, there is an abundance in Europe of ordinary masonry
constructions and fine historic buildings.
However, earthquakes can produce serious damage to masonry
structures [3–7]. Strengthening and conservation of the architec-
tural heritage is a major task for architects and structural engi-
neers. As the craft of masonry developed from Medieval period,
different masonry typologies were introduced and used [8–11].
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: alessio.molinari@unipg.it (A. Molinari).
protecting and insulation methods, the poor performance of
masonry when struck by a seismic event remained an issue. The
consequence of this variability in masonry typologies is a large
scattering of its mechanical properties, making this material one
of the most variable within construction materials [12,13].
With regard to the in-plane behavior of masonry wall panels,
several studies have demonstrated that the use of weak lime mor-
tars has a critical effect on the shear properties [14,15]. Historic
masonry buildings in southern Europe often consist of hard or soft
stones, assembled with a weak lime mortar. During a seismic
event, diagonal cracking occurs in the mortar joints for low values
of the seismic loads [16,17].
In order to increase the lateral capacity of these buildings,
several retrofitting methods have been proposed in the past. All
interventions, traditional and innovative, will need to be weighed

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.03.197
0950-0618/Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 A. Borri et al. / Construction and Building Materials 211 (2019) 594–604
against the advantages of improving the structural stability of the
building, compatibility and reversibility characteristics.
The application of one or two layers of a Reinforced Concrete
(RC) coating is a well-known seismic retrofitting technique: a steel
wire square-mesh (typically 150x150 mm) is inserted into the coat-
ings and steel rods are used to connect transversally the layers
(Fig. 1). This method is easy to install and it produces high increases
in strength and stiffness, but its application is highly debatable
[18,19]. It is not surprising, therefore, that RC coating is the most
common retrofitting intervention on masonry. Although this
method can be very effective, it is irreversible and the use of a hard
impermeable cement mortar may cause deterioration of the
masonry material. Furthermore, by applying this retrofitting tech-
nique, the fair-faced aspect of the masonry cannot be preserved.
Recently, cement coatings and steel mesh have been replaced
with soft, more compatible lime mortars and composite grids
[20,21].
A recent development of this retrofitting method also consists
in the use of composite sheets inserted into thin layers of lime
mortar. FRCMs (Fabric-Reinforced Cementitious Matrix) have been
tested both in the laboratory and on-site and demonstrated to be
effective in increasing the lateral capacity of wall panels [22–24].
Another traditional retrofitting method is core rubble grouting
(Fig. 2a) [25–27]. This method can be highly effective. However
not all masonry typologies can be injected with grout for the low
volume of voids in the walls and a preventive analysis of this prob-
lem is recommended. Grout injection can be also used to give
structural support and cohesion to individual stone elements,
either on its own or in conjunction with joint repointing.
Joint repointing with new mortar is another traditional retrofit-
ting technique (Fig. 2b). This is widely used to repair deteriorated
stone masonry buildings, especially when open to the weather.
However, cement pointing, which is nonporous, traps moisture
and it may cause the softer stones to crack [28]. The use of deep
lime pointing is an effective retrofitting method, but its effective-
ness is limited to thin walls [29].
Since seismic forces are inertial, retrofitting interventions
should not add new mass to the buildings. This is an important lim-
itation of RC coating and core rubble grouting. With this in mind,
researchers proposed in the 1990s and 2000s the use of FRPs (Fiber
Reinforced Polymers) [30–34]. FRPs are usually directly applied to
Fig. 1. Shear reinforcement of a wall panel using the traditional steel wire square-
mesh (typically 150  150 mm) inserted into a cement coating.
595
the masonry walls on one or both sides after the removal of the
pre-existing plasters. Adhesion is typically strong and the FRP is
able to increase the wall’s tensile strength. First applications to wall
panels included bonding of the total wall surface. Recently FRPs
have been used to create bonded diagonal turnbuckles (Fig. 2c).
Unidirectional FRPs plates are typically 100–300 mm wide.
However, recent research also underlines some drawbacks and
advises prudence on the use of bonded FRP materials in a general-
ized manner for seismic reinforcement of historic masonry: appli-
cation of FRPs is not reversible, compatibility with pre-existing
masonry is low and long-term behavior poor [35,36]. Recent exper-
imental campaigns have demonstrated that reductions up to 40%
in tensile strength are likely to occur when FRPs are exposed to
humid or aggressive environments. Research has also shown that
risk of skin irritation, dermatitis, serious poisoning or corrosive
effect in lungs or in eyes is elevated for workers.
However, severe code restrictions typically remain where
requirements imposed by conservation bodies must be met. Poly-
mer resins (typically, epoxies) are often used to bond the compos-
ite materials (plates, sheets, strips and grids) to the masonry
substrate. Past researches have demonstrated that wall panels
can be effectively reinforced or repaired using epoxy-bonded FRPs.
Fire resistance requirements could also represent a critical prob-
lem for the use of FRPs. The critical temperatures of FRPs are likely
to be much lower than for metals, due to softening of the poly-
meric matrix resin used in the FRPs’ fabrication and installation.
2. The reinforcement method
The proposed reinforced method is centered on the use of stain-
less steel strips. In the last decade, several applications of stainless
steel were proposed for repair and retrofit of historic masonry [37–
39]. The chemical stability and high mechanical properties of stain-
less steel, the typical reversibility and limited mass addition of the
retrofitting interventions with this material are critical positive
characteristics, making stainless steel of interest for structural
engineers and agencies involved in the preservation of cultural
heritage.
According to Venice Charter for the conservation and restora-
tion of monuments [40], the preservation and the conservation of
a historic masonry fabric should fall within the ideal condition of
‘‘minimum intervention”, i.e. the least degree of intervention con-
sistent with conservation and valorization of the cultural heritage
value of the fabric. The use of stainless steel strips is along the
guidelines of the Venice Charter: the stainless steel strips can be
easily removed, if needed, and a very limited and localized damage
is caused by hole drilling used for strip installation.
Because historic masonry buildings are at risk of significant
damage during earthquakes, this experimental investigation is
mainly focused on shear tests, carried out in the laboratory using
10 wall panels. First test results were initially presented at confer-
ence level to get feedback from scientific community in the area of
earthquake engineering [41].
The basic idea is to strengthen the panels using mechanically
attached stainless steel strips, applied along the panel diagonals,
on both sides. These strips can be easily applied and removed,
the use of stainless steel guarantees a satisfactory long term behav-
ior of the reinforcement, also for outdoor and unprotected applica-
tions. This technique can be also applied in conjunction with other
reinforcement methods (i.e. joint repointing or core rubble grout-
ing) and it is of interest when the masonry fair-faced aspect has
to be preserved. The strips can be applied using standard anchor
bolts and/or steel passing-through rods.
This retrofitting method can be equally used on squared or
multi-leaf rubble stone walls. Rubble and ashlar stone walls are
596 A. Borri et al. / Construction and Building Materials 211 (2019) 594–604

Fig. 2. Shear reinforcement of a wall panel, traditional methods: a) core rubble grouting, b) deep joint repointing, c) use of FRPs.

common in many parts of Europe, but typically exhibit a very poor

structural response when in-plane loaded with horizontal loads:
for these walls the need for an effective retrofitting is more impor-
tant, increasing the interest of the proposed retrofitting method,
also considering that other alternative retrofitting techniques
may result non-effective or overly invasive or irreversible, and
therefore improper from the point of view of conservation.
Furthermore, the proposed method uses cheap materials, easy
to find on the construction market. These are frequently utilised
for other structural applications (stainless steel strips, steel rods
and anchor bolts). The phases for reinforcing a wall, using the
method described here, are the following: 1. removal of pre-
existing plasters (if any); 2. strip and repoint of the mortar joints
for a depth of 2–3 cm (or more, if needed) using new mortar; 3.
holes drilling (to be cleaned with compressed air); 4. application
of the stainless strips, 4. application of the steel bolts or rods,
arranged as regularly as possible (the distance between the bolts
Fig. 3. A virtual layout of a reinforced building. The steel reinforcement is visible
– typically 300–400 mm – highly depends on the buckling beha-
and unprotected.
viour, this could be calculated with the method used for metal
structures); 5. use of steel nuts to fix the strips.
Fig. 3 shows a virtual layout of the application of the proposed
reinforcement method on a fair-faced stone masonry building. The 3. Experimental investigation
philosophy is somehow similar to the well-know and ancient
method of reinforcement with iron/steel ties commonly used to 3.1. Mechanical properties of the masonry and reinforcement
prevent the overturning of the facades, where the reinforcement
is left exposed and unprotected. Mechanical tests were initially conducted to characterize the
When through rods are used to connect the strips on the wall fac- properties of the materials (masonry and stainless steel reinforce-
ings, a further end result of this technique is to confine the masonry, ments) used in this investigation. The following subsections report
also having a positive effect on the compressive wall capacity. With the results of the mechanical testing on both the masonry (brick,
the technique suggested here, the original facings remains visible stone and mortar) and the reinforcement (stainless steel strip
and intact, and its ability to transpire also remains unaffected. and anchor bolts).
 A. Borri et al. / Construction and Building Materials 211 (2019) 594–604 597

3.1.1. Masonry Table 2

A weak mortar, common in historic constructions, was used for Mechanical properties of stainless steel strip.

panel construction. This had a lime: sand: cement volume ratio of Type SAE 304
1:2:0.15. Mortar samples with dimensions 160  40  40 mm Weight Density (kg/m )3
7984
were first tested in bending. Compressive tests were performed Thickness (mm) 3.35*
on the resulting halves, according to ASTM [42,43] standard spec- Young’s Modulus (GPa) 199.1 (3.2)
ifications. A compressive strength of 6.61 MPa was measured and Yield Strength (MPa) 648 (5.3)
Tensile Strength (MPa) 797 (6.1)
the CoV (Coefficient of Variation) was 23.2%. For the bending tests,
*
a strength of 0.22 MPa was recorded (CoV 19.3%). These results are Nominal thickness is 3 mm, Coefficient of Variation in ().
consistent with the typical mechanical properties of a historic mor-
tar [44].
The test brickwork wall panels were constructed using solid the strips, were tested in tension for mechanical characterization.
bricks (brick dimensions: 250  120  55 mm). The compressive Four fibreglass tabs, each 40  30  2 mm, were bonded to the
strength of brick was obtained in accordance with ASTM C67 strip ends to form coupons with nominal 120 mm gauge length.
[45], by testing 10 bricks. This was 25.3 MPa with a CoV of 14.9%. Both tensile load and tensile strains (using a 50 mm gauge length
These wall panels were constructed using approx. 10 mm thick mechanical extensometer) were recorded during the tensile tests.
bed joints as per conventional site construction practice in Italy The results provided a yield (at 0.2% offset) and a tensile strengths
with the help of a local experienced mason. Flemish bond with of 648 and 797 MPa, respectively. The coupons also provided lon-
alternate header and stretcher was used in construction. Bending gitudinal elastic modulus values (Young’s modulus) which varied
strength of solid bricks was also measured: this was 6.04 MPa with from 187.3 to 204.1 GPa. The average mechanical properties of
a CoV of 16.1%. However, the limited number of tested specimens the coupon tests are given in Table 2: these values are consistent
(only 3) could affect the reliability of these values. with the ones given in the producer’s data sheet.
The stone work panels were constructed using compact (weight
density 2538 kg/m3) white-colored calcareous stone. In order to 3.1.3. Steel anchors
reproduce in the laboratory a historic stone wall, the masonry Two types of steel connectors have been used to apply the strips
typology was made of ashlar (barely-cut) stone masonry, with along the panel diagonals: anchor bolts or threaded rods. Both
minimal dressing, constructed in courses. The thickness of the types of connector were made of grade 8.8 (as defined by ISO
stone work wall was approx. 300 mm. Stone samples were also 898 standard [47]) steel. Bolts were only fixed to the stone or
tested in compression: test results from 6 samples show a high bricks, while steel rods (300–350 mm in length) were used to
compressive strength of 35.1 MPa, with a CoV of 17.1%. The test mutually connect the strips on both sides of the wall panels (pass-
results are represented in Table 1. By comparing the compressive ing through connectors).
and bending strengths of the constituent materials (mortar, brick Metric coarse 8 mm-diameter (M8) bolts, 100 mm in length,
and stone) it can be noted that the mortar is clearly the weakest were first used. Hexagon heads were cut off before the test and
material, with a strength minimum 74% lower compared to the 8.8 grade M8 nuts were applied to fix the strips. For both types
corresponding brick or stone one. This is often consistent with of connector, the producers declare in the data sheet a characteris-
the scenario of a historic masonry construction. tic tensile yield and ultimate strengths of 640 and 800 MPa, respec-
tively. Using Von Mises yield criterion, the characteristic shear
strength is 462 MPa and a ultimate shear load-capacity of
3.1.2. Stainless steel strips
18.57 kN per each bolt or rod. It should be noted that the use of
Stainless steel strips, type SAE (AISI) 304 (according to EN
steel bolts and rods with stainless steel strips is not recommended
10088 [46]), were used for shear reinforcement of the wall panels.
due to galvanic corrosion.
The strips were only applied along the diagonals in tension on both
panel sides. It was assumed a negligible contribution of the strips
3.2. Test layout and calculation of the shear parameters
when applied along the diagonals in compression, given the satis-
factory response of masonry in compression. Eight stainless steel
The shear response was recorded from a diagonal tension test
coupons, 200  30  3 mm in nominal dimensions, cut off from
method of loading in compression opposite corners of a square
wall panel to cause tensile failure perpendicular to the direction
Table 1 of the compressive load. The diagonal tension test of masonry
Mechanical parameters of constituent materials. assemblages is normalized in ASTM E519 [48] standard and it is
Mortar Brick Stone widely used to estimate the masonry shear strength (Fig. 4a). The
wall panel is inserted into a steel loading frame constituted of dif-
Weight density – 1613 2538
(kg/m3)
ferent steel profiles. A single-acting hydraulic loading jack, which
Mix design (lime: 1:2:0.15 – – is connected to a pump, is fitted into the frame and a compressive
sand: cement) load is applied to the panel at an angle of 45 degrees to the diago-
Sample dimensions 160  40  40* 250  120  55* 100  100  100* nal of the panel. Typically, the steel profiles are: two I-section steel
(mm)
sections, two steel loading shoes (applied at the panel’s corners)
Compressive 6.61 25.3 35.1
Strength (MPa) and four steel rods (Fig. 4b).
Young’s modulus – 7565 – Four inductive transducers (LVDT) mounted diagonally on the
(MPa) wall panel and a pressure gage were utilized to record the strains
Sample Size 6 10 6
and the applied load, respectively. Diagonal load was applied in
Compressive 23.2 14.9 17.1
Strength CoV (%)
cycles with increasing amplitudes (increment of 10 kN per each
Bending Strength 0.22 6.04 – cycle) until the wall panel fails (Fig. 5).
(MPa) Shear cracking typically begins from a central point in the
Sample Size 3 3 – masonry wall panel when the principal tensile stress surpasses
CoV (%) 19.3 16.1 –
the masonry tensile strength. The shear cracks develops diagonally
*
Nominal dimensions. towards the panel’s corners (loading shoes). According to the
598 A. Borri et al. / Construction and Building Materials 211 (2019) 594–604

LVDT

Wall Panel Diagonal

Compressive
Load a) b)
Fig. 4. Layout of a diagonal tension test: a) load and contact instrumentation position, b) general view.

reported in the RILEM recommendations [49], the maximum stres-

ses are located at the centroid of the wall panel:

rx ¼ ry ¼ 0:56 PAmax
n
ð5Þ
rxy ¼ 1:05 PAmax
n

In this study, a secant shear modulus was computed using two

load values at 3% and 33% of the maximum diagonal load Pmax and
the corresponding angular strains (c0.03Pmax and c0.33Pmax):

rxy 1:05ð0:33Pmax  0:03Pmax Þ

G¼ ¼ ð6Þ
c An ðc0:33Pmax  c0:03Pmax Þ

Fig. 5. Typical load history of a shear test. 3.3. Reinforcement application

In this experimental work, two stainless steel strips were used

RILEM formulation [49] the masonry shear strength s0 can be eval- to reinforce each wall panel. Each strip was 40  1000 mm, with
uated as: a nominal thickness of 3 mm. These were centrally applied along
the panel’s stretched diagonals. 12 mm-diameter boreholes were
ft
s0 ¼ ð1Þ drilled by machine both in the wall panel and the stainless steel
1:5 strip (four holes/wall side; center-to-center distance 300 mm). To
where ft is the tensile strength of the masonry material: prevent phenomena of slippage between the masonry substrate
and the strips, the holes in the wall panels were only drilled in
Pmax
f t ¼ 0:5 ð2Þ the stones/bricks without damaging the weak mortar joints. Com-
An
pressed air was then used to clean the holes and to remove any
Pmax is the maximum compressive force and An is the net area of the loose particles and dust.
wall panel, given by: To increase the level of connection between the bolts and the

 wall panels, before the insertion of the anchor bolts, boreholes
wþh
An ¼ t ð3Þ were filled with small quantities of epoxy resin. It should be noted
2 that the use of epoxy resins here, while not fully reversible, was
where t is the thickness, w and h are the panel’s width and the very limited and it could be replaced, if required, with a cement
height. grout. However, it is worth noting the effectiveness of the bolted
The aim of this experiment is also to measure the shear or rigid- connection is critical for the functionality of the proposed rein-
ity modulus G of masonry. By using Eq. (4), it is possible to calcu- forcement method: phenomena of slippage between the masonry
late the angular strain c: and the strip could compromise its effectiveness. Dry anchor bolts

 could be also used. However, the choice between epoxy resin,
jDV j þ jDHj
c ¼ jec j þ jet j ¼ ð4Þ cement grout or dry connection depends on the quality of the
S masonry and the type/dimensions of the anchor bolts.
where DV and DH and are the diagonal shortenings and extensions,
respectively and S is gage length (this is the relative distance 3.4. Test results
between two control points along the panel’s diagonals, S = approx.
75–80 cm). Ten wall panels have identical surface dimensions
Different methods exist in the literature for the calculation of (890  890 mm), but different thicknesses (250 mm for brickwork
the deformation characteristics of masonry in shear [50,51]. When panels and 300 mm for stone work ones) (Fig. 6). A test code used a
the panel is in-plane loaded along a diagonal, using the model letter designation of ST or BR for stone and brickwork masonry,
 A. Borri et al. / Construction and Building Materials 211 (2019) 594–604 599

122

50

122
0
30
00
10
880

0
30
Anchor Bolts
Wall Panel 880x880 mm
Thickness:
250 mm (brick panels)
300 mm (stone panels)
Stainless Steel Strip
1000x40x3 mm

880 Diagonal
a) Load
b)
Fig. 6. a) Stone and brick panels before testing, b) Reinforced panel (dimensions in mm).

respectively, and UNR or SSP for unreinforced and strip-reinforced
panels.
For unreinforced masonry, shear failure of masonry was typi-
cally observed. Two wall panels were tested. A very low shear
strength s0 was measured: this was 0.0342 and 0.0674 MPa for
stone and brickwork panel, respectively. When the wall panel
was subjected to the diagonal load, shear stresses formed in all
panel’s areas with a typical diagonal orientation. As soon as the
wall panel could not further withstand the diagonal load, shear
cracks started opening from the centroid of the panel, producing
large plastic deformations along the diagonals. The propagation
of cracks towards the steel shoes was a non-brittle phenomenon,
with cracks mainly forming at interface block-mortar.
Tables 3 and 4 show the results of stone and brick masonry pan-
els. Reinforced wall panels are divided in two groups: panels ST-
SSP05 and ST-SPP06 were reinforced with mechanically attached
steel strips only using 100 mm bolts (non-passing through connec-
tors), while for panels ST-SSP07 and ST-SPP08 two 350 mm
through steel rods were used to mutually connect the ends of the
strips on the two panel sides (Fig. 7). For the first two panels, an
increment in the lateral capacity of 39.9% was measured. Failure
occurred in a similar way compared to unreinforced stone wall
panels: cracking in the mortar joints started developing in the cen-
ter of the panel and propagated along the diagonal in compression.
However for the same level of diagonal load, the magnitude of the
shear strain was very different and this difference increased with
the load: if we consider a diagonal load of 12.5 kN (corresponding
to a stress level of 0.05 MPa), shear strain was 0.00010 for unrein-
forced panel and 0.00009 for the reinforced ones. On opposite, for
load level of 25 kN (0.10 MPa), shear strain was 0.00263 for unre-
inforced panel and 0.00048 for the reinforced ones. It is evident
that contribution of the strip activated progressively and has
become more influential when the masonry started cracking.
Similar, but slightly smaller lateral capacity increments were
found for reinforced brickwork panels (Fig. 8). This result was
not obvious. The main difference between a rubble stone and a
brickwork panel is not only given by the different shear strengths
(in this work, these were 0.0342 and 0.0674 MPa, respectively), but
also by the different stress distribution caused by the dimensions
and shape of the blocks (larger and more randomly oriented for a
rubble stone panel) (Fig. 9). It should be also highlighted that the
same type of mortar was used for panel construction, while the
tensile and compressive strengths of the stone material were much
higher compared to the ones of the bricks.
Brickwork panels reinforced with non-passing through bolts
exhibited a lateral capacity increment of 37.6%, while this was
53.9% when through steel rod connectors were used. From the
analysis of the results in terms of shear stiffness (i.e. shear modulus
G), it can noted that the strip reinforcement did not cause signifi-
cant increments in stiffness. While the panel behavior in compres-

Table 3
Results of tested carried out on stone masonry panels.

Test No. Max Load Pmax (kN) Pmax, reinforced/Pmax, unreinforced (%) Shear Strength s0 (MPa) Angular Strain at 0.33 Pmax (‰) Shear Modulus (MPa)
ST-UNR01 27.4 – 0.0342 0.04361 556
ST-SSP05 31.7 115.7 0.0396 0.16342 256
ST-SSP06 45.0 164.2 0.0562 – –
(mean) (38.3) (139.9) (0.0479) (0.16342) (256)
ST-SSP07* 47.7 174.1 0.0596 0.24342 241
ST-SSP09* 58.4 213.1 0.0874 0.25420 329
(mean) (53.0) (193.6) (0.0735) (0.2) (285)
*
With through-rod connections.

Table 4
Results of tested carried out on brickwork panels.

Test No. Max Load Pmax (kN) Pmax, reinforced/Pmax, unreinforced (%) Shear Strength s0 (MPa) Angular Strain at 0.33 Pmax (‰) Shear Modulus (MPa)
BR-UNR02 45.0 – 0.0674 0.04504 1061
BR-SSP03 73.5 163.3 0.1101 0.04134 1909
BR-SSP04 50.4 112.0 0.0755 0.02497 530
(mean) (61.9) (137.6) (0.0928) (0.03315) (1219)
BR-SSP08* 77.3 171.8 0.1158 0.9478 118
BR-SSP10* 61.2 136.0 0.0917 0.0970 1122
(mean) (69.2) (153.9) (0.1037) (0.5224) (620)
*
With through rod connections.
600 A. Borri et al. / Construction and Building Materials 211 (2019) 594–604

Fig. 7. Strain response of stone panels.

Fig. 8. Strain response of brickwork panels.

sion is not affected at all by the application of the steel reinforce-
ment, an effect was recorded in traction. However, since the two
diagonal strains are not similar in magnitude (the compressive
strain is typically much higher, especially during the initial semi-
elastic phase), a reduction of the tensile diagonal strain due to
the application of the reinforcement had little effect on the value
of the shear modulus. Furthermore, it could be noted that, by dril-
ling the holes for bolt/rod installation, a damage was induced in
the masonry material able to cause higher compressive strains
and thus leading to a reduction of the shear modulus of the rein-
forced wall panels.
By comparing the response of the diagonals in traction of unre-
inforced and reinforced panels, the effect of the reinforcement can
be better investigated. Fig. 10 shows the plots of the diagonal
shortenings (positive values) and elongations (negative values)
for two typical tests. For the unreinforced wall panel (BR-UNR02)
the diagonal elongations in the elastic phase are small but not neg-
ligible. By increasing the diagonal load the magnitude of the elon-
gations progressively increases. This seems to indicate that mortar
cracking occurs from the beginning of the test, and this increases
with the diagonal load. On opposite, for the reinforced wall panel
(BR-SSP03), diagonal elongations are equal to zero up to a shear
stress of approx. 0.2 MPa (corresponding to a diagonal load of
42 kN) as cracking is likely prevented by the stainless steel strip.
For this level of the diagonal load, cracking starts developing in
the mortar joints or/and in the area around the bolts.
For reinforcement of brick work panels BR-SSP08 and BR-SSP10,
and stone panels ST-SSP07 and ST-SSP09, passing through connec-
tors were used. These through rods mutually connected the strips
on both sides of each panel. The use of through connectors seems
 A. Borri et al. / Construction and Building Materials 211 (2019) 594–604
Fig. 9. Typical failure modes of URM samples: a) brickwork panels (with schematic view of the failure mode); b) stone panels.
Elongaons
Shortenings
a)
Fig. 10. Diagonal deformations vs. shear stress for tests No. BR-UNR02 (a) and BR-SSP03 (b).
to be beneficial for the functionality of the proposed method, as it
likely reduced the stress concentration in the area around the
holes. The lateral load-capacity of wall panels reinforced with
stainless strips applied with through connectors was 10–30%
higher compared to the case when bolts were used for connection.
4. Design method
With regard to the use, and consequent design method, of this
technique for shear reinforcement of historic buildings, there are
several difficulties to consider.
The first critical information is the uncertainty regarding the
mechanical characteristics of the masonry to reinforce. These could
be obtained by doing on-site characterization tests, but these are
typically expensive and landlords and conservation bodies do not
easily authorize these tests. Alternatively, available data could be
used. However, this information is difficult to find in the scientific
literature, also considering the large number of historic masonry
typologies, and few national and international standards give indi-
cations of the masonry shear strength and expected strength
increases after reinforcement [52].
With regard to the design methods for in-plane reinforcement
of historic buildings, only few standards in Italy and Greece give
operational indications on this. Recently, new formulations for
the design of FRP-reinforced masonry have been proposed [53,54].
However the suggested design methods are often excessively
simplistic. For example, the new Italian Building Code [52] suggests
a simplified method to estimate the mechanical parameters of rein-
forced masonry [limited to some traditional reinforcement meth-
ods, i.e. grout injections and RC coatings]. This method is based on
the application of a multiplication factor of the mechanical param-
601
Elongaons
Shortenings
b)
eters of URM masonry. Clearly, this method does not consider the
thickness of the walls, the quality and quantity of the reinforcement
materials. However, such simplified approach has undoubted
advantages: it can be easily used by engineers and architects for
both numerical and analytical calculations. Reinforced masonry
cab be modeled as an homogenous and isotropic material (similar
to URM masonry), by only changing its mechanical properties.
Using a similar approximated approach and taking into consid-
eration the results of the experimental investigation given in
Tables 3 and 4, we note that the proposed retrofitting method
resulted more effective for ashlar stone masonry, i.e. for a low-
quality masonry. For this masonry typology, an increment of the
lateral capacity up to 113% was recorded. On opposite, for brick-
work masonry increments ranged between 12 and 71.8%.
Based on this, and also considering the limited number of tests,
a multiplication factors of 1.8 and 1.3 could be proposed for
stainless-steel-reinforced irregular (ashlar) stone masonry and
solid brick masonry with lime based mortar, respectively. It is
worth noting that through-rod connections between the strips
may be fundamental for the functionality of the proposed retrofit-
ting method.
Another simplified approach to the design problem is typically
made by using the Strut and Tie scheme. By doing this, it is possible
to effectively represent complex stress distributions as triangu-
lated schemes (Fig. 11) [55,56]. The Truss and Tie method has been
developed in the late 19th century by Ritter and Morsch from a
pin-jointed truss analogy model to analyze deep reinforced con-
crete beams. This method is actually used in Eurocode 2 to design
members with shear reinforcement [57]. With the truss analogy,
the Strut and Tie scheme can be also applied to steel-strip rein-
forced masonry members.
602 A. Borri et al. / Construction and Building Materials 211 (2019) 594–604
Fig. 11. Example of discretization using the strut-and-tie method of masonry
building.
Tie
(Strip and
Masonry)
Strut (Masonry)
Wall Panel Joint
Fig. 12. Strut-and-tie scheme for a masonry wall panel.
The main assumption of this method is that cracked masonry
resist shear by a masonry strut, and the stainless steel strip and
the masonry material are assumed to provide the tensile truss ele-
ment (Fig. 12). This method is based on the lower bound plasticity
theorems and it able to provide the most conservative lateral
capacity value for the reinforced wall panel. However, the lateral
capacity of the reinforced masonry cannot be easily computed, as
this is given by both the masonry and the stainless steel strip.
A recent development of Truss and Tie method has been
recently proposed by the American Concrete Institute (ACI) [50].
For a shear-controlled failure mode, the method used by the ACI
is based on the separation of the total shear load Vu carried by a
reinforced panel into two components, given by the contribution
of an equivalent URM wall (VURM) and the increase in shear capac-
ity due to strengthening (Vf) (Fig. 13):
V u ¼ V URM þ V f
Axial
Load N
Shear
Force Vu
heff
Fig. 13. Conceptual method for calculation of the stainless diagonal reinforcement.
We have been trying to use this method for the design of the
strip reinforcement. According to the ACI guide, the shear strength
of an URM wall Vbjs (bed-joint sliding failure mode) can be calcu-
lated using:
V bjs ¼ v mL An ð8Þ
0:75v tL þ ANn
v mL ¼ 0:75 ð9Þ
1:5
is the corresponding stress and where N is the vertical compressive
force acting on the wall panel vtl is the lower-bound shear strength
of the masonry (s0 in Eq. (1)), and An is the horizontal cross sectional
area [50]. Clearly, the method proposed by ACI can be used without
modifications when the aim is to estimate the lateral capacity of
URM masonry.
Tensile cracks start developing when tensile stresses near the
panel’s centroid exceed its ultimate tensile strength. Using the
Lateral Force principal tensile stress theory and design approach commonly
adopted for FRP reinforcement of the ACI formulation [50], the
shear capacity due to diagonal tension Vdt is:

sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
L N=An
V dt ¼ v mL An 1þ ð10Þ
heff v mL
where L is the wall length, heff is the height to resultant of lateral
force.
The nominal shear capacity of the wall is:
 
V URM ¼ min V bjs ; V dt ð11Þ
For the calculation of the increase in shear capacity due to
strengthening (Vf), modifications are needed to the method sug-
gested by the ACI guide. This guide uses an environmental reduc-
tion factor CE (=0.65) to take into account for uncertainties
regarding ageing of composite materials and matrices.
For the strip reinforcement, uncertainties are related to the
clearance and slippage phenomena between strip and bolt, also
facilitated by the plastic deformations of the connections/substrate
mortars (embedment of the bolts in the mortar, bending and plas-
tic deformations of the bolts). For this reason, we introduced a
functionality reduction factor KE. This coefficient has been cali-
brated using experimental results, by considering square wall pan-
els, having different dimensions (900, 1200 and 3000 mm) and
different wall thicknesses (250, 300 and 400 mm) with a masonry
shear strength vtl ranging between 0.034 and 0.067 MPa, and a
compressive stress of 0.08, 0.15 and 0.25 MPa. Results of this anal-
ysis indicates that KE should be assumed equal to 0.4. Reader is
alerted that more test results will be necessary to define and cali-
ð7Þ
brate this value. By assuming that the axial strain of the stainless
N/A n
V URM Vf
 A. Borri et al. / Construction and Building Materials 211 (2019) 594–604
strip is constant along the width, the tensile force in the strip, and
considering a functionality reduction KE = 0.4.
 panels should be tested and more analysis is needed to take into
f fu ¼ K E f fu
efu ¼ K E efu

where f fu and efu are the stainless steel yield strength and corre-
sponding conventional tensile strain [400–800 MPa (depending on
the strength class of the stainless steel) and 0.2%, respectively].
V f ¼ Astrip Ef efu cosa
where Astrip is the total area of the strips, Ef is the Young’s modulus
of stainless steel and a is the angle of inclination of the diagonal
stainless steel strip to the horizontal.
5. Conclusions
Experimental studies have been presented that identify the role
of a shear reinforcement made of stainless steel strips in the
response of masonry wall panels to lateral loads. The stainless steel
reinforcement can be easily applied and removed; it adds a very
limited quantity of new mass to the retrofitted building and it does
not highly change building structural response.
The test results clearly show that mechanically attached stain-
less steel strips account for an enhancement of the shear behavior
of the reinforced wall panels. Tested wall panels were made of
solid brick or rubble stone masonry and a lime mortar was used
for construction.
The shear load-capacity of the unreinforced panels seems
highly governed by the quality of the mortar. Diagonal cracking
always occurred at the interface block - mortar, with typical low
values of the overall shear strength of the masonry material.
With regard to reinforced wall panels, increments of the lateral
load capacity up to 113% (compared to un-reinforced panels) were
recorded with a mean increment of the lateral capacity of 45.7 and
66.7% for brickwork and stone panels, respectively.
Although the same strips were used for reinforcement of all
panels, its effectiveness was greater for stone work panels: this
was probably due to the lower lateral capacity of the unreinforced
stone panels, making the reinforcement more effective for this type
of masonry.
Strips were applied using steel bolts and/or passing through
steel rods. This connection seems to be critical for the functionality
of the retrofitting method proposed in this paper. It is advised to
drill the boreholes directly in the stones/bricks (and not in the
mortar) or to use through connectors.
The use of through connectors seems to be beneficial for the
functionality of the proposed retrofitting method: an higher capac-
ity increment (53.9 and 93.6% compared to brick- and stone work
un-reinforced panels, respectively) was measured for these rein-
forced panels.
Finally, with regard to the panels’ deformation characteristics,
test results are showing that the application of strips has a limited
effect on the shear stiffness for low lateral loads. Hole drilling could
cause a reduction of the shear modulus, but more tests will be nec-
essary to demonstrate this. The stainless steel strips seems to con-
tribute more in the post-elastic phase, after the formation of
diagonal cracks in the masonry. This could be considered as posi-
tive as the application of the strip reinforcement does not reduce
the deformation capacity and change the stiffness ratios between
different structural elements of a building.
Furthermore, a design method has been proposed and cali-
brated, using the experimental results. This is an useful tool for
design of retrofitting interventions of heritage masonry construc-
tions: to take into account local failures near the bore-holes, an
environmental reduction factor has been introduced.
603
Before using this retrofitting method, more tests will be neces-
sary to confirm the results of this research. In detail, larger wall
ð12Þ account the stress concentration in the areas near the steel
connectors.
Declaration of interest
None.
ð13Þ
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the staff of the LASTRU
laboratory of the University of Perugia, Italy, and the support from
the Italian Ministry for Research and Education, in funding this
research, through the project ‘‘ReLUIS 2017-Linea murature” and
ReLUIS SISMA 2016.
References
[1] L. Rovero, F. Fratini, The Medina of Chefchaouen (Morocco): s survey on
morphological and mechanical features of the masonries, Construct. Build.
Mater. 47 (2013) 465–479.
[2] M. Rota, A. Penna, G. Magenes, A framework for the seismic assessment of
existing masonry buildings accounting for different sources of uncertainty,
Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 43 (2014) 1045–1066.
[3] D.F. D’Ayala, S. Paganoni, Assessment and analysis of damage in L’Aquila
historic city centre after 6th April 2009, Bull. Earth. Eng. 9 (2011) 81–104.
[4] R. Cardoso, M. Lopes, R. Bento, Seismic evaluation of old masonry buildings.
Part I: Method description and application to a case-study, Eng. Struct. 27
(2005) 2024–2035.
[5] A. Coburn, R. Spence, Earthquake Protection, Wiley and Sons, 1992.
[6] G. Magenes, A. Penna, A. Galasco, M. Rota, Experimental characterization of
stone masonry mechanical properties, 8th International Masonry Conference,
2010. Dresden, Germany.
[7] S. Mastrodicasa, Dissesti statici delle strutture edilizie: diagnosi,
consolidamento, istituzioni teoriche, Hoepli, Milan, 1978 [in Italian].
[8] M. Kržan, S. Gostič, S. Cattari, V. Bosiljkov, Acquiring reference parameters of
masonry for the structural performance analysis of historical buildings, Bull.
Earth. Eng. 13 (2015) 203–236.
[9] F. Karantoni, G. Bouckovalas, Description and analysis of building damage due
to Pyrgos, Greece earthquake, Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 16 (1997) 141–150.
[10] A. Giuffrè, Letture sulla meccanica delle murature storiche, Kappa, Rome, 1999
[in Italian].
[11] A. Borri, M. Corradi, G. Castori, A. De Maria, A method for the analysis and
classification of historic masonry, Bull. Earth. Eng. (2015) 1–19.
[12] L. Binda, A. Saisi, Research on historic structures in seismic areas in Italy, Prog.
Struct. Mat. Eng. 7 (2005) 71–85.
[13] L. Binda, G. Cardani, A. Saisi, A classification of structures and masonries for the
adequate choice of repair, in: Proc. International RILEM Workshop on Repair
for Historic Masonry, Delft, 2005, pp. 20–34.
[14] V. Turnšek, P.F. Sheppard, The shear and flexural resistance of masonry walls,
Research Conference on Earthquake Eng., 1980. Skopje, Macedonia.
[15] M.R. Valluzzi, F. Da Porto, C. Modena, Behavior and modeling of strengthened
three-leaf stone masonry walls, Mater. Struct. 37 (2004) 184–192.
[16] P. Morandi, G. Magenes, L. Albanesi, Mechanical characterization of different
typologies of masonry made with thin shell/web clay units. 12th Canadian
Masonry Symposium, 2013, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
[17] A. Borri, G. Castori, M. Corradi, Evaluation of shear strength of masonry panels
through different experimental analyses. 14th Int. Conference Structural
Faults & Repair-2012. Edinburgh, Scotland.
[18] B. Ghiassi, M. Soltani, A performance-based method for seismic evaluation of
masonry walls strengthened with RC layers, January 2012, Conference: 15h
WCEE, Volume: 2007.
[19] M. Ashraf, A. Khan, A. Naseer, Q. Ali, B. Alam, Seismic behavior of unreinforced
and confined brick masonry walls before and after ferrocement overlay
retrofitting, Int. J. Archit. Heritage 6 (2012) 665–688.
[20] A. Prota, G. Marcari, G. Fabbrocino, G. Manfredi, C. Aldea, Experimental in-
plane behavior of tuff masonry strengthened with cementitious matrix-grid
composites, J. Compos. Constr. ASCE 10 (2006) 223–233.
[21] F. Micelli, M.S. Sciolti, M. Leone, M.A. Aiello, A. Dudine, Shear behaviour of fiber
reinforced mortar strengthened masonry walls built with limestone blocks
and hydraulic mortar, in: Modena, da Porto, Valluzzi (Eds.), Brick and Block
Masonry – Trends, Innovations and Challenges, Taylor & Francis Group,
London, 2016. ISBN 978-1-138-02999-6.
[22] F.G. Carozzi, C. Poggi, Mechanical properties and debonding strength of Fabric
Reinforced Cementitious Matrix (FRCM) systems for masonry strengthening,
Compos. B Eng. 70 (2015) 215–230.
604 A. Borri et al. / Construction and Building Materials 211 (2019) 594–604
[23] L. Ascione, G. de Felice, S. De Santis, A qualification method for externally
bonded Fibre Reinforced Cementitious Matrix (FRCM) strengthening systems,
Compos. B Eng. 78 (2015) 497–506.
[24] G.P. Lignola, C. Caggegi, F. Ceroni, S. De Santis, P. Krajewski, P.B. Lourenço, M.
Morganti, C.C. Papanicolaou, C. Pellegrino, A. Prota, L. Zuccarino, Performance
assessment of basalt FRCM for retrofit applications on masonry, Compos. B
Eng. 128 (2017) 1–18.
[25] A.C. Isfeld, E. Moradabadi, D.F. Laefer, Uncertainty analysis of the effect of
grout injection on the deformation of multi-wythe stone masonry walls,
Construct. Build. Mater. 126 (2016) 661–672.
[26] L. Binda, C. Modena, G. Baronio, A. Gelmi, Experimental qualification of
injection admixtures used for repair and strengthening of stone masonry
walls. 10th international brick/block masonry conference, 1994. Calgary,
Canada.
[27] M. R. Valluzzi, F. da Porto, C. Modena, Behaviour of multi-leaf stone masonry
walls strengthened by different intervention techniques, in: P.B. Lourenço, P.
Roca (Eds.), Historical Constructions, , Guimarães, 2001.
[28] E. Vintzileou, A. Miltiadou-Fezans, Mechanical properties of three-leaf stone
masonry grouted with ternary or hydraulic lime-based grouts, Eng. Struct. 30
(2008) 2265–2276.
[29] M. Corradi, C. Tedeschi, L. Binda, A. Borri, Experimental evaluation of shear and
compression strength of masonry wall before and after reinforcement: deep
repointing, Construct. Build. Mater. 22 (2008) 463–472.
[30] M. Corradi, A. Borri, A. Vignoli, Experimental evaluation of in-plane shear
behavior of masonry walls retrofitted using conventional and innovative
methods, Masonry Int. 21 (2008) 29–42.
[31] A. Gabor, A. Bennani, E. Jacquelin, F. Lebon, Modelling approaches of the in-
plane shear behavior of unreinforced and FRP strengthened masonry panels,
Compos. Struct. 74 (2006) 277–288.
[32] M.R. Valluzzi, C. Tinazzi, C. Modena, Shear behaviour of masonry panels
strengthened by FRP laminates, Construct. Build. Mater. (2002) 409–416.
[33] A. Gabor, E. Ferrier, E. Jacquelin, P. Hamelin, Analysis and modelling of the in-
plane shear behaviour of hollow brick masonry panels, Construct. Build. Mater.
20 (2006) 308–321.
[34] B. Luccioni, V.C. Rougier, In-plane retrofitting of masonry panels with fibre
reinforced composite materials, Construct. Build. Mater. 25 (2011) 1772–1788.
[35] I. Papayianni, V. Pachta, Earth block houses of historic centers. A sustainable
upgrading with compatible repair materials, Proc. Environ. Sci. 38 (2017) 274–
282.
[36] L. Righetti, A. Borri, M. Corradi, Sustainable strengthening techniques for
masonry structures, 12th International Conference on Structural Repair and
Rehabilitation 2016, Porto, Portugal.
[37] M. Corradi, A. Di Schino, A. Borri, R. Rufini, A review of the use of stainless steel
for masonry repair and reinforcement, Construct. Build. Mater. 181 (2018)
335–346.
[38] M. Dolce, D. Nigro, F.C. Ponzo, R. Marnetto, The CAM system for the retrofit of
masonry structures, 7th international seminar on seismic isolation, passive
energy dissipation and active control of vibrations of structures, 2001. Assisi,
Italy.
[39] R. Sisti, G. Castori, M. Corradi, A. Borri, The Reticulatus method for shear
strengthening of fair-faced masonry, Bull. Earth. Eng. (2016) 1–25.
[40] Venice Charter, International charter for the conservation and restoration of
monuments and sites. International Council on Monuments and Sites
(ICOMOS), Venice, (1964) Italy.
[41] A. Borri, M. Corradi, G. Castori, M. Molinari, Reversible shear strengthening of
wall panels with mechanically attached stainless strips, 16th European
Conference on Earthquake Engineering (16ECEE), Thessaloniki, Greece, 18–
21 June 2018.
[42] ASTM C348 Standard test method for flexural strength of hydraulic-cement
mortars, 2002.
[43] ASTM C349 Standard test method for compressive strength of hydraulic
cement mortars (Using Portions of Prisms Broken in Flexure), 2002.
[44] J. Valek, R. Veiga, Characterization of mechanical properties of historic mortars
– testing of irregular samples, WIT Trans. Built Environ. 83 (2005).
[45] ASTM C67 Standard test methods for sampling and testing brick and structural
clay tile, 2002.
[46] EN 10088-1 (2005). Stainless steels. List of stainless steels.
[47] ISO 898-1 (2013). Mechanical properties of fasteners made of carbon steel and
alloy steel – Part 1: Bolts, screws and studs with specified property classes –
Coarse thread and fine pitch thread.
[48] ASTM E519/E519M (2010) Standard Test Method for Diagonal Tension (Shear)
in Masonry Assemblages.
[49] RILEM LUMB6-Diagonal tensile strength tests of small wall specimens. Tech
Rep, RILEM, 1994.
[50] ACI 440.7R-10: Guide for the Design and Construction of Externally Bonded
Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Systems for Strengthening Unreinforced Masonry
Structures.
[51] A. Brignola, S. Frumento, A. Lagomarsino, Identification of shear parameters of
masonry panels through the in-situ diagonal compression test, Int. J. Archit.
Heritage 3 (2008) 52–73.
[52] Italian Building Code, Guidelines, 27.7.2018, Istruzioni per l’applicazione delle
«Nuove Norme Tecniche per le Costruzioni» di cui al decreto ministeriale 17
gennaio 2018, Italian Ministry of Infrastructures and Transportation, Rome,
Italy [in Italian].
[53] A. Prota, G. Manfredi, F. Nardone, Assessment of design formulas for in-plane
FRP strengthening of masonry walls, J. Compos. Constr. 12 (2008) 643–649.
[54] P. Alcaino, H. Santa-Maria, Experimental response of externally retrofitted
masonry walls subjected to shear loading, J. Compos. Constr. 12 (2008) 489–
498.
[55] P. Roca, A. Viviescas, M. Lobato, C. Díaz, I. Serra, Capacity of shear walls by
simple equilibrium models, Int. J. Archit. Heritage 5 (2011) 412–435.
[56] A. Drougkas, P. Roca, C. Molins, Experimental analysis and detailed micro-
modeling of masonry walls subjected to in-plane shear, Eng. Fail. Anal. 95
(2019) 82–95.
[57] EN 1992-1-1, Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures, Part 1-1: General
rules for buildings.