See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/255589344

PROVISIONAL DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR THE STRENGTHENING OF MASONRY

STRUCTURES SUBJECT TO IN-PLANE LOADING

Article · January 2007

CITATIONS READS

4 289

5 authors, including:

Nestore Galati Antonio Nanni

58 PUBLICATIONS   647 CITATIONS   
University of Miami
468 PUBLICATIONS   8,902 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Claudio Modena
University of Padova
315 PUBLICATIONS   4,037 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Fiber Reinforced Cementitious Matrix (FRCM) systems for strengthening of existing concrete and masonry structures View project

Durability of GFRP rebars in seawater environments View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Antonio Nanni on 26 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 458

Papers contained in these Proceedings

have been reviewed in accordance with
the policies of The Masonry Society

PROVISIONAL DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR THE STRENGTHENING OF

MASONRY STRUCTURES SUBJECT TO IN-PLANE LOADING

Enrico Garbin1, Nestore Galati2, Antonio Nanni3, Claudio Modena4, Maria Rosa Valluzzi5

Abstract
Masonry structures constitute a large percentage of the current buildings in most countries
around the world. Structural weakness or overloading, dynamic vibrations, settlements, and
in-plane and out-of-plane deformations can cause failure of unreinforced masonry (URM)
structures. URM buildings have features that, in case of overstressing, can threaten human
lives. These include unbraced parapets, inadequate connections to the roof, floor and slabs,
and the brittle nature of the URM elements. Organizations such as The Masonry Society
(TMS) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) have determined that
failures of URM walls result in more material damage and loss of human life during
earthquakes than any other type of structural element. In the last years, a growing interest
has been direct to the application of FRP (Fiber Reinforced Polymer) materials as
strengthening materials because they may provide solutions for the strengthening of masonry
due to their easy application and their favourable structural performances. Nowadays few
design guidelines are available to apply FRP on masonry structures. This paper presents a
proposal for design recommendations for shear strengthening of unreinforced masonry walls
with FRP systems. The proposed design protocol is within existing building codes for
traditional materials and takes into account the recent experimental researches. The adopted
methodology offers a rational attempt of in-plane upgrade of structural masonry walls with
bonded FRP systems.

1
PhD Candidate, Department of Structural and Transportation Engineering, University of Padova, Via Marzolo
9, 35131, Padova, Italy. E-mail: garbin@dic.unipd.it . Tel.: +39 049 827 5631
2
Research Engineer, Center for Infrastructure Engineering Studies University of Missouri-Rolla, 223
Engineering Research Lab, 65409 Rolla, Missouri - USA. E-mail: galati@umr.edu . Tel.: 573-341-6223
3
Full Professor, Department of Structural Analysis and Design, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy. E-
mail: antonio.nanni@unina.it . Tel.: +39 081 768 3687
4
Full Professor, Department of Structural and Transportation Engineering, University of Padova, Via Marzolo 9,
35131, Padova, Italy. E-mail: modena@dic.unipd.it . Tel.: +39 049 827 5613
5
Assistant Professor, Department of Structural and Transportation Engineering, University of Padova, Via
Marzolo 9, 35131, Padova, Italy. E-mail: valluzzi@dic.unipd.it . Tel.: +39 049 827 5576

440
 459

Introduction
Recent earthquakes have shown that performance of unreinforced masonry (URM) walls are
often not adequate. As masonry buildings, in various typologies, represent a large part of the
existing building stock, significant experimental research has been carried out in the last few
decades to investigate the cause of damage and develop technologies suitable for seismic
retrofit and rehabilitation of existing masonry buildings (Tomaževič 2000). These and other
factors, such as change in use, design or construction imperfections, deterioration-related
damage, or requirement of upgrading of lateral strength from modern building code, prompt
the structural repair or strengthening of masonry buildings.

Repair and strengthening of existing masonry structures has been traditionally done using
conventional materials and construction techniques. Externally bonded steel plates,
reinforced concrete overlays, grouted cell reinforcements, and external post-tensioning are
just some of the many traditional techniques available. Moreover, innovative techniques of
applying FRP (Fibre Reinforced Polymer) materials on civil structures have been developed
in the last years. FRP composites in the form of laminates or bars can provide viable
solutions of strengthening of URM walls subjected to overloading both in out-of-plane and in-
plane directions. FRP materials have many advantages, as high strength and durability,
improved corrosion resistance, lower installation costs, on-site versatility of use, and
minimum changes in the member size after repair, but especially the very low weight in
comparison to traditional retrofitting techniques. In fact, traditional techniques often add high
quantities of weight to the structures, which change their seismic behaviour and can require
expensive upgrades of the foundations (Lissel 2003; Triantafillou 1998).

Nowadays, due to the great variability of masonry properties, few guidelines, still in progress,
are available for the design of FRP strengthening systems applied on masonry structures
(ACI 440M 2004; CNR-DT200 2004). Design rules are proposed by other guidelines
concerning FRP applied on concrete (ACI 440.1R-03 2003; ACI 440.2R-02 2002; Fib Bulletin
14 2001). Moreover, for historical masonry structures specific considerations have to be
taken into account to prevent any aesthetics alteration of the structures (Modena 1997).

Past researches on FRP reinforcement systems have shown a good correlation between the
flexure or the out-of-plane behaviour and the strength design approach (Triantafillou 1998;
Lissel 2003; Tumialan 2003; Hamilton 2001). Moreover, previous investigations have
demonstrated that shear capacities of URM walls can be remarkably increased by the use of
FRP composites (Schwegler 1996; Li 2001; Tumialan 2001; Hamid 2005). Glass Grid
Reinforced Polyurea (GGRP) was successfully used by Yu et al. (2004) to strengthen URM
walls subject to in-plane loads. Some authors have reported an improvement of the shear
performance both for cross and grid layout of strengthening and continuum retrofitting (Lissel
2003; Valluzzi 2002; Micelli 2003; Marcardi 2003; Gu 2003; Stratford 2004, Capozucca 2004;
ElGawady 2005; Li 2004; Grando 2003; Secondin 2003; Turco 2003). Only few authors have
reported a minor improvement in the shear strength and a noticeable difference in the post
crack phase with larger deformation than the URM case (Lissel 2003; Marshall 2000). In
(Valluzzi 2002) different behaviours for single or double side of strengthening configuration
have been detected. Moreover, the authors have noticed that an appropriate FRP

441
 460

development length have to be designed like in (Micelli 2003), despite the bond behaviour of
FRP strips bonded on masonry is still studied (Ceroni 2003; Corradi 2004; Basilio 2005,
Aiello 2006). Furthermore, in (Lissel 2003; Marshall 2000) the difference between the
diagonal and the shear-compression test are pointed out, the authors concluded that for
future research the second test set-up should be used. Finally, besides the necessity of
further experimental researches, the FRP materials have already shown their great possibility
(Lissel 2003; Bakis 2002), allowing their introduction in the masonry field.

Based on the above mentioned experimental contribution and codes (ACI 440M 2004; CNR-
DT200, 2004), a provisional design for structural masonry walls strengthened with FRP
systems under in-plane loads is proposed. It is worth to notice that in modern masonry
construction the bearing walls behave as a shear walls as well, thereby being subjected, in
addition, to vertical compressive stresses (Schneider 1980); hence these walls will be
denominated as structural walls. The proposed recommendations given in this paper apply
only for rectangular cross-sections. The walls here considered are in plane loaded masonry
walls and the main failure modes examined for unreinforced walls are: sliding shear, diagonal
cracking and flexural failure. The flexural and shear strengthening systems considered are
FRP laminates, Near Surface Mounted (NSM) FRP bars and Glass Grid Reinforced Polyurea
(GGRP). The strength design approach of reinforced masonry members is adopted. The
recommendations are based on principles of equilibrium and compatibility and on the
constitutive laws of the materials. Some basic details are suggested, although they need
further development.

Design philosophy
Strength design methodology

The adopted strength design approach of reinforced masonry members is in agreement with
the Building Code Requirements for Masonry Structures (ACI 530-02 2002) and with other
ACI documents on masonry (ACI 530.1-02 “Specification for Masonry Structures’, ACI 530-02
“Commentary on Building Code Requirement for Masonry Structures”, ACI 530.1-02
“Commentary on Specification for Masonry Structures”). A similar strength design approach
can be developed on the framework of Eurocode6 using a suitable adaptation.

The strength reduction factors, φ, given in Building Code Requirements for Masonry
Structures (ACI 530-02 2002), together with the load factors given in ASCE 7-98 (2000)
“Minimum Design Loads for Building and Other Structures” are considered.

Design materials properties

As for materials, masonry and FRP systems are considered. Masonry properties should be
obtained from the Building Code Requirements for Masonry Structures (ACI 530-02 2002) or
equivalent codes or as provided by the producers. Concerning the FRP systems, the material
properties are those provided by the manufacturers.

442
 461

FRP Design Material Properties

The FRP material is considered linear elastic up to failure. The material properties
guaranteed by the manufacturers should be considered as initial values that do not include
the effects of long-term exposure to the environment. As long-term exposure to various type
of environments can reduce the tensile strength and creep rupture and fatigue endurance of
the FRP systems, the material properties used in design equations should be reduced based
on the type and level of environment and loads exposure. Equations [1] to [2] take into
account the environment exposure providing the design tensile properties. To be consistent
with ACI codes, the design tensile strength, f fu , and the design rupture strain, ε fu , are
determined according to ACI 440.2R-02 (2002).

f fu = CE f fu* [1]
ε fu = CE ε*fu [2]

Where CE is the environment reduction factor summarized in Table 1. The code CNR-DT200
(2004) provides the same values for the coefficient CE . f fu* is the guaranteed tensile strength
of FRP provided by the manufactures, ε *fu is the guaranteed rupture strain of the FRP
system. The design modulus of elasticity is assumed to be the same as the average value
reported by the manufacturers: E f = E f ,ave .

Table 1. Environment reduction factors

Exposure condition Fibre type Environment reduction factor CE
Carbon 0.95
Masonry, interior
Glass 0.75
exposition
Aramid 0.85
Carbon 0.85
Masonry, exterior
Glass 0.65
exposition
Aramid 0.75
Carbon 0.85
Masonry, aggressive
Glass 0.50
environment
Aramid 0.70

Reduction for debonding at ultimate

FRP debonding can occur if the force in the FRP can not be sustained by the interface
between the FRP system and the substrate. In order to prevent the FRP debonding, a
limitation should be placed on the stress and strain level developed in the laminate. This
limitation should be computed by means of bond analytical/numerical model or by means of
experimental tests, as it depends on the anchor length and the material properties of the
masonry and FRP system. In this design guideline a simplify approach is considered, where
the FRP debonding in flexure or shear is accounted through a parameter km , and a minimum
anchor length of 300 mm is required for the FRP system (CNR-DT200 2004): FRP laminates
and FRP bars with a maximum diameter of 10 mm. The effective design strength and strain,

443
 462

f fe and ε fe , of the FRP material are determined by the equations [3] and [4]. The values for
the parameter km are summarized in Table 2, they are based on test results on unreinforced
masonry (URM) walls strengthened with GGRP, FRP laminates and NSM FRP bars
(Tumialan et al., 2003; Galati et al., 2004; Yu et al., 2004). It is noticed that in the case of
GGRP laminates it is reasonable to conservatively assume km = 0.65 for the case of FRP
laminates applied on puttied masonry.

f fe = km f fu = kmCE f fu* [3]

ε fe = km ε fu = kmCE ε*fu [4]

Table 2. km Factors for different strengthening systems

Strengthening System Limitations Resin Type km
GGRP - Polyurea 0.65
If putty is used Epoxy 0.65(1)
FRP Laminates
If putty is not used Epoxy 0.45(1)
FRP rectangular bars, Groove having the
same height of the bar and width 1.5 times Epoxy 0.65(2)
the one of the bar
NSM FRP Bars FRP circular bars, Square groove 1.5 times
Epoxy 0.35(2)
the diameter of the Bar(4)
FRP circular bars, Square groove 2.25 times Epoxy /
0.55(2)
the diameter of the Bar LMCG(3)
(1)
Based on Tumialan et al., 2003; (2)Based on Galati et al. 2004; (3)Latex Modified Cement Grout; (4)Latex
Modified Cementitious Grout can not be used with a standard square groove having dimensions 1.5 times
the diameter of the bar

Reductions for creep rupture at service

Walls subjected to sustained load such as retaining or basement walls, creep rupture
considerations need to be taken into account (ACI 440.2R-02 2002). In such cases, for
serviceability assessment, the designed admissible tensile stress, f f ,s , should not exceed the
values given in Table 3. For comparison in Table 3 are reported also the values provided by
CNR-DT200 (2004), which are less conservative than those chosen and provided by ACI
440.2R-02 (2002).

Table 3. f f , s for different fibre types

Fiber Type ACI 440.2R-02 CNR-DT200
Carbon 0.55 f fu 0.80 f fu
Glass 0.20 f fu 0.30 f fu
Aramid 0.30 f fu 0.50 f fu

Masonry

Masonry, as composite material, shows a nonlinear behavior in compression and a negligible

tensile strength. The stress resultant for masonry should be determined from an appropriate
non-linear stress-strain relationship or by a rectangular stress block suitable for the particular

444
 463

level of strain in the masonry. In this guideline the stress block has dimensions γf m' and β1 c
(see Figure 2). Alternatively to Building Code Requirements for Masonry Structures (ACI 530-
02 2002), where the values of β1 and γ are equal to 0.8, the expressions shown in equation
[5] can be assumed (Galati 2003):

⎡⎛ ε ⎞ ⎛ ε ⎞⎤ ⎛ ⎛ε ⎞ 2
⎞
4 ⎢⎜ m' ⎟ − tan −1 ⎜ m' ⎟ ⎥ ln ⎜1 + ⎜ m' ⎟ ⎟
⎜ ε ⎟
⎝ εm ⎠ ⎝ ε m ⎠⎦ ⎝ ⎝ m⎠
β 1= 2 − ⎣ and γ = 0.90 ⎠ [5]
⎛ εm ⎞ ⎛ ⎛ εm ⎞ ⎞ ⎛ εm ⎞
2

⎜ ' ⎟ ln ⎜ 1 + ⎜ ' ⎟ ⎟ β ⎜ ' ⎟

⎝ εm ⎠
1
⎝ ε m ⎠ ⎝⎜ ⎝ ε m ⎠ ⎠⎟

where ε m' = (1.71 f m' ) / Em , tan −1 ( ε m / ε m' ) is computed in radians, f m' is the specified
compressive stress of masonry, c the distance from extreme compression fibre to the neutral
axis, ε m' the strain level in the masonry at the stress f m' and ε m the strain in masonry. The
strength and the modulus of elasticity of the masonry, Em , can be computed as
recommended in the Building Code Requirements for Masonry Structures (ACI 530-02 2002)
as Em = 700 f m' , for clay masonry and Em = 900 f m' , for concrete masonry. The maximum usable
strain, εmu, at the extreme compressive side is assumed to be 0.0035 for clay masonry and
0.0025 for concrete masonry.

Design procedure
General considerations

The most relevant in-plane loads for masonry walls are the seismic actions. In case of
earthquake the structure will be subject to a series of cyclic horizontal forces, which will often
cause high additional bending and shear stresses in the walls, exceeding the elastic range of
the masonry materials. Structural walls, which are the basic resisting element to seismic
loads, may be damaged, and if they have not been properly designed and detailed to
withstand inelastic deformation and to dissipate energy, the induced inertia forces might
cause heavy damage or even collapse of the building (Tomaževič, 2000).

According to the results of earthquake damage analysis, three types of mechanisms and
failure modes can be detected in unreinforced structural masonry walls when subjected to in-
plane loads: sliding shear failure (see Figure 1a), diagonal cracking mode (see Figure 1b),
flexural failure (see Figure 1c). The mechanisms depend on the geometry of the wall
(height/width ratio) and quality of materials, but also on boundary restraints and loads acting
on the wall (Tomaževič, 2000).

445
 464

Figure 1. Typical failure modes of unreinforced masonry walls, subjected to in-plane loads:
a) Sliding Shear failure; b) Shear failure; c) Flexural failure, with masonry crushing at the
corner (Tomaževič 2000)

In terms of design, masonry strengthened with externally bonded FRP systems may be
treated following the procedure of modern design codes. Frequently, masonry strengthened
by FRP materials is considered as reinforced concrete structures because of lack of specific
knowledge (Triantafillou, 1998). The failure modes for FRP strengthened walls subject to in-
plane loads can be summarized as:
• FRP debonding due to shear transfer mechanisms at the interface (masonry/FRP
debonding may occur before flexural failure). Debonding starts from the shear cracks or
from the horizontal flexural cracks.
• Flexural failure, which can be either by rupture of the FRP laminate or masonry crushing.
Typically, flexural failure in masonry walls strengthened at high reinforcement ratio is due
to compressive crushing. FRP rupture is less desirable than masonry crushing, as it that
can provide some ductility to the failure mode (Triantafillou, 1998). Both failure modes are
acceptable in governing the design of in-plane loaded walls.
• Shear Failure, which can be either sliding shear failure or diagonal cracking mode.

The FRP reinforcement is considered working only in tension, neglecting any compressive
strength. The FRP reinforcement can either be applied on one or both sides of the walls.
Based on the principles of capacity design, undesirable modes of failure in the masonry walls
should be avoided. The application of FRP reinforcement can modify the failure mode from
brittle shear to flexural failure.

Nominal flexural strength

As mentioned, concerning flexural strength the FRP rupture is less desirable than masonry
crushing. If possible, the nominal flexural strength should be smaller than the shear strength.
Where combined bending and axial forces are encountered, the simple interaction formula
shown in equation [6] can be used as ultimate strength design criteria (Schneider 1980). This
approach is very conservative, and nondimensional interaction curves may be developed for
structural masonry walls.

Pu M
+ u ≤1 [6]
φ Pn φ M n

446
 465

In the equation [6] Pu is the factored axial load, Pn the nominal axial strength, M u the
factored moment at section, M n the nominal moment capacity, φ the strength reduction
factor.

The computations are based on the equilibrium of force and strain compatibility. The
geometry of the uncracked cross-section is given in Figure 2-b. The distribution of strain and
stress in the FRP reinforced masonry for a rectangular section under out-of-plane and axial
loads are shown in Figure 2-c. The nominal axial strength, Pn , (Figure 2) should be evaluated
according to the Building Code Requirements for Masonry Structures (ACI 530-02 2002).

As indicated in Figure 2-c, in all calculations the tensile contribution of the FRP is limited to
the reinforcement further away from the compression zone. The contribution of the other
reinforcements subject to tension may be included. Using the stress distribution for a cracked
masonry cross-section subject to flexural and axial load, the equations of equilibrium and
compatibility are given as in the following:

( γf ) (β c ) t − P = A f
m
'
1 u f f [7]
⎛ l βc⎞ ⎛ l⎞
Mn = ( γf ) ( β c ) t ⎜ −
'
m 1 ⎟+ A f
1
f f ⎜d − ⎟ [8]
⎝2 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2⎠
εm εf εm + ε f
= = [9]
c d −c d

Where Af is the area of the FRP reinforcements working in tension. M n and Pn are related to
the centre of gravity, G, of the uncracked cross-section.

Failure mode
The flexural capacity of a load bearing wall strengthened with FRP systems is dependent on
the failure mode, which can be governed by masonry crushing or FRP rupture/debonding.
The failure mode can be determined by comparing the FRP reinforcement ratio, Θ f , (Eq. [10]
) to the balanced reinforcement ratio, Θ fb , (Eq. [11]).
Af
Θf = [10]
td
f m' ⎡ ε mu P ⎤ f '⎡ E f ε mu P ⎤
Θ fb = ⎢γ β1 − u ' ⎥ = m ⎢γ β1 − u '⎥ [11]
f fe ⎣⎢ ε mu +ε fe td f m ⎦⎥ f fue ⎣⎢ E f ε mu + f fe td f m ⎦⎥

If the reinforcement ratio is below the balanced ratio ( Θ f < Θ fb ), FRP rupture/debonding
failure mode governs the failure. Otherwise, ( Θ f > Θ fb ) masonry crushing is predominant.

URM Walls Strengthened with FRP Laminates URM Walls Strengthened with NSM FRP Bars

447
 466

Pu Af = n tf wf Reinforced Masonry Pu Reinforced Masonry

(a) Section (c) (a) Af
Section (c)
Mu sf Wf Mu
l sf
vu l
vu
t t

tf d d
d-c c d-c c
h h
εf εf

εm εm

l ff ff
l
(b) Y
β1c = a (b) Y
β1c = a
r r
t t
X
G
ff γ fc' G X
ff γ fc'
d N.A. d N.A.

Figure 2. Wall under in-plane loads, (a) forces acting on the wall, (b) geometric parameters
of the uncracked section, (c) internal strain and stress distribution for a horizontal rectangular
section

Nominal flexural capacity

When Θ f > Θ fb , the failure initiates by crushing of the masonry, and the stress distribution in
the masonry can be approximated with a rectangular stress block defined by the parameters
β1 and γ. Based on the equations from [7] to [9] , the following equations can be derived:

⎛ a⎞ ⎛ l⎞ ⎛ a⎞ ⎛ l a⎞
M n = ( γf m' ) at ⎜ d − ⎟ − Pu ⎜ d − ⎟ = Af f f ⎜ d − ⎟ + Pu ⎜ − ⎟ [12]
⎝ 2⎠ ⎝ 2⎠ ⎝ 2⎠ ⎝2 2⎠

a = β1 c =
( Af f f + Pu ) [13]
γ f m' t
β d −a
f f = E f ε mu 1 [14]
a

In the case of masonry crushing, the following values for the stress in the FRP reinforcement
, f f , and the distance from extreme compression fibre to the neutral axis, c , can be obtained:

⎛ ⎛ E f ε mu
2
⎞ ⎛ γβ1 f m' Pu ⎞ ⎛ E f ε mu Pu ⎞ ⎞⎟
ff = ⎜
P
⎜⎜ ⎜⎜ − u ⎟⎟ + ⎜⎜ − ⎟⎟ E f ε mu − ⎜⎜ + ⎟⎟ ⎟ ≤ f fue [15]
⎝ 2 2 Af ⎠ ⎝ Θ f A f ⎠ ⎝ 2 2 Af ⎠ ⎟⎠
⎝
⎡ 2 ⎤
Θ f d ⎢ ⎛ E f ε mu
a P ⎞ β1 γ f m' ⎛E ε Pu ⎞ ⎥
c= = ' ⎢ ⎜
− u ⎟⎟ + E f ε mu − ⎜ f mu − ⎟ [16]
β1 β1 γ f m ⎜⎝ 2 2 Af ⎠ Θf ⎜ 2
⎝ 2 Af ⎟⎠ ⎥
⎣⎢ ⎦⎥

FRP debonding or failure:

When Θ f < Θ fb the failure of the wall is starts by rupture/debonding of the FRP, and the
equivalent stress block depends on the maximum strain reached by the masonry. In this case

448
 467

an iterative process, based on the equations from [7] to [9], should be used to determine the
equivalent stress block.

Nominal shear strength

The design shear strength for in-plane wall shall be in accordance with Eq. [17]:

φVn ≥ Vu [17]

where Vn is the nominal shear strength, Vu the factored shear at section. Following the
Building Code Requirements for Masonry Structures, the nominal shear capacity can be
evaluated as [18]:

Vn = Vm + Vm , f [18]

where Vm is the masonry shear capacity and Vm , f the shear capacity provided by the FRP
system. The nominal shear capacity, Vn , shall not exceed the following limits according to the
Building Code Requirements for Masonry Structures (ACI 530-02 2002). The shear strength
provided by the masonry shall be computed using equation [19]. The value of M / V t should
not be taken greater than 1.0.

⎡ ⎛ M ⎞⎤ P
Vm = ⎢ 4.0 − 1.75 ⎜ ⎟ ⎥ An f m' + [19]
⎣ ⎝ V d ⎠⎦ 4

Where M is the maximum moment at the section under consideration, V is the

corresponding shear force, d the distance from the extreme compression fibre to the centroid
of tension reinforcement, and P is the axial load.

Shear resistance provided by the FRP system:

Following the Building Code Requirements for Masonry Structures, and avoiding the failure of
the masonry compression struts, the shear resistance provided by the FRP system can be
determined as in the equation [20], when a strut and tie model can be guaranteed by the
presence of vertical and horizontal FRP reinforcements, with horizontal reinforcements
spaced at a distance equal to s in the vertical direction.

Af f fe d
Vm , f = 0.5 [20]
s
When the shear resistance is provided by the FRP system placed only in the horizontal or
vertical direction the shear strength provided by FRP reinforcements can be computed as:

Vm , f = kv Af f fu [21]

449
 468

where the parameter kv accounts for the orientation angle of the fibres with respect to the
direction of the failure surface opening, here simply assumed equal to 45°. The parameter kv
should be determined experimentally and related to the specific FRP and masonry wall
application. In absence of a comprehensive experimental campaign the conservative kv
factors presented in Table 4 can be used. They are valid when the anchor length, la , equal or
higher than the effective length, le , is provided, as illustrated in Figure 3. In absence of any
experimental and analytical evaluation, the anchor length should be set no less than 300 mm
(CNR-DT200 2004) from the cracked section, or suitable anchor systems should be adopted.

FRP Laminates in the horizontal direction NSM FRP Bars in the vertical direction
la ≥ le

la ≥ le

Figure 3. Some examples of minimum anchor length needed for shear design.

Table 4. kv Factor for different FRP systems

Adhesive Concrete Clay
FRP System Strengthening Layout
Type Masonry Masonry
GGRP One or Both Sides Polyurea 0.5(1) 0.5(1)
FRP Laminates One Side Epoxy 0.2(2) 0.6(2)
FRP Laminates Both Sides Epoxy 0.3(2) 0.8(2)
NSM FRP Bars not in the Bed Joints One Side Epoxy 0.3(3) 0.7(3)
NSM FRP Bars not in the Bed Joints Both Sides Epoxy 0.5(3) 0.8(3)
NSM FRP Bars not in the Bed Joints
One or Both Sides LMCG 0.6(3) 0.6(4)
(Groove 2.25 Diameter of the bar)
NSM FRP Bars in the Bed Joints
One or Both Sides Epoxy 0.4(2) 0.6(2)
(FRP Structural Repointing)
NSM FRP Bars in the Bed Joints,
One or Both Sides LMCG 0.6(2) 0.6(5)
Groove 2.25 Diameter of the bar
(1)
Based on experiments (Yu, 2004); (2) Based on experiments (Grando, 2002); (3) No experimental evidence. It is
conservative to assume the same value as for FRP Laminates; (4) No experimental evidence. It is conservative to
assume the same value as for FRP Laminates; (5) No experimental evidence. This value was reasonably
assumed to be conservative, based on the results on the concrete masonry.

Conclusions
The design methodology proposed in this paper offers a first rational attempt to be
considered by engineers interested in in-plane upgrade of masonry walls with externally
bonded FRP systems. The case of structural walls was considered. Additional experimental

450
 469

work as well as a reliability analysis are needed in order to determine a more comprehensive
set of design factors. Actual research work concerns the definition of a large set of values for
the parameter kv and the practical use of the proposed provisional guidelines through the
development of simulated designs.

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support of the National Science
Foundation Industry/University Cooperative Research Center – Repair of Bridges and
Buildings with Composites (RB2C), Bondo Corporation and Techfab for their financial
support.

References
ACI 440M 2004: ACI 440M Guide Draft-1, “Guide for the Design and Construction of
Externally Bonded FRP System for Strengthening Unreinforced Masonry
Structures”, ACI Committee 440, USA, 2004, ACI, 80 pp.
ACI 440.1R-03 2003: ACI 440.1R-03, “Guide for the Design and Construction of Concrete
Reinforcement with FRP Bars”, ACI Committee 440, USA, 2003, ACI, 42 pp.
ACI 440.2R-02 2002: ACI 440.2R-02, “Guide for the Design and Construction of Externally
Bonded FRP Systems for Strengthening Concrete Structures”, ACI Committee 440,
USA, 2002, ACI, 45 pp.
ACI 530-02 2002: ACI 530-02, “Building Code Requirements for Masonry Structures”, ACI
Committee 530, USA, 2002, ACI, 58 pp.
ASCE 7-98 2000: ASCE 7-98, “Minimum Design Loads for Building and Other Structures”,
Structural Engineering Institute of the ASCE, USA, 2000, 352 pp.
Aiello 2006: Aiello, M.A.; Sciolti, S.M., “Bond analysis of masonry structures strengthened
with CFRP sheets”, Construction and Building Materials, No. 20, 2006, Elsevier,
pp. 90–100
Bakis 2002: Bakis, C.E.; Bank, L.C.; Brown, V.L.; Cosenza, E.; Davalos, J.F.; Lesko, J.J.;
Machida, A.; Rizkalla, S.H.; Triantafillou, T.C. “Fiber-Reinforced Polymer
Composites for Constrution – State-of-the-Art Review”, Journal of Composites for
Construction, Vol. 6, Iss. 2, May 2002, pp. 73-87
Basilio 2005: Basilio, I.; Oliveira, D.; and Lourenço, P.B., “Experimental Characterization
of FRP-Masonry interface behaviour”, Proc. of the 5th Int. Conference AMCM 2005,
Gliwice, Ustroń, Poland, 2005, 8 pp. (CD-ROM)
Capozucca 2004: Capozucca, R. and Pascucci, V., “Shear behaviour of masonry Panels
strengthened by CFRP”, Proc. of the Mechanics of Masonry Structures with FRP-
materials: Modeling, Testing, Desing, Control, Venezia, Italy, 6-8 December 2004,
Ed. Cortina, pp. 95-105
Ceroni 2003: Ceroni, F.; Pecce, M.; Manfredi, G.; and Marcari G., “Experimental bond
behaviour in masonry elements externally reinforced with FRP laminates”, Proc. of
the International Conference Composite in Constructions-CCC2003, Cosenza, Italy,
September 16-19, 2003, Ed. Bios, pp. 313-318

451
 470

Corradi 2004: Corradi, M.; Scatizzi, S.; and Vignoli, A., “Debonding problems of FRP
materials applied to masonry walls”, Proc. of the Mechanics of Masonry Structures
with FRP-materials: Modeling, Testing, Design, Control, Venezia, Italy, 6-8
December 2004, Ed. Cortina, pp. 29-41
CNR-DT 200 2004: CNR-DT 200, “Istruzioni per la Progettazione, l’Esecuzione ed il
controllo di Interventi di Consolidamento Statico mediante l’utilizzo di Compositi
Fibrorinforzati, Materiali, strutture in c.a. e in c.a.p., strutture murarie”, final Draft,
Rome, Italy, 13 July 2004, Ed. CNR, 164 pp. (in Italian)
ElGawady 2005: ElGawady, M.; Lestuzzi, P. and Badoux, M., “In-Plane Seismic
Response of URM Walls Upgraded with FRP”, Journal of Composites for
Construction, Vol. 9, Iss. 6, November/December 2005, pp. 524-535
Fib Boulletin 14 2001: Fib Boulletin 14, “Externally bonded FRP reinforcement for RC
structures”, Lausanne, Switzerland, July 2001, Fib (Federation Internationale du
Beton)
Galati 2003: Galati N., “Out-of-Plane behaviour of masonry walls strengthened with FRP
materials”, PhD Thesis, University of Lecce, 2003, pp. 196
Grando 2003: Grando, S.; Valluzzi, M.R.; Tumialan, J.G.; and Nanni A., “Shear
Strengthening of UMR Clay Walls whit FRP Systems”, Proc. of the 6th International
Symposium on Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete
Structures (FRPRCS-6), Singapore, Malaysia, 8-10 July 2003, pp. 1229-1238
Gu 2003: Gu, X.L.; Ouyang, Y.; Zhang, W.P.; and Ye, F.F., “Seismic behaviour of
masonry structural walls strengthened with CFRP plates”, Proc. of the Sixth
International Symposium on FRP Reinforcement for Concrete Structures (FRPRCS-
6), Singapore, Malaysia, 8-10 July 2003, pp. 1259-1268
Hamid 2005: Hamid, A.A.; El-Dakhakhni, W.W.; Hakam, Z.H.R.; and Elgaaly, M.,
“Behavior of Composite Unreinforced Masonry–Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Wall
Assemblages Under In-Plane Loading”, Journal of Composites for Construction,
Vol. 9, Iss. 1, February 2005, pp. 73-83
Hamilton 2001: Hamilton, H.R. and Dolan, C.W., “Flexural Capacity of Glass FRP
Strengthened Concrete Masonry Walls”, Journal of Composites for Construction,
Vol. 5, No. 3, August 2001, pp. 170-178
Li 2001: Li, T.; Silva, P.F.; Belarbi, A.; and Myers, J.J., “Retrofit of Un-Reinforced Infill
Masonry Walls with FRP”, Proc. of the CCC 2001 Composites in Construction,
Porto, Portugal, October 10-12, 2001. 6 pp. (CD-ROM)
Li 2004: Li, T.; Galati, N.; and Nanni, A., “In-Plane Resistance of UMR Walls with Opening
Strengthened by FRP Composites”, Proc. of the Advance Composites Materials in
Bridges and Structures, Calgary, Alberta, July 20-23, 2004, 10 pp., (CD-ROM)
Lissel 2003: Lissel, S.L., “The use of FRP’s in masonry: a state of the art review”, Proc. of
the International Conference on Performance of Construction Materials in the New
Millennium (ICPCM), Cairo, Egypt, 18-20 February 2003, Vol. 2, pp.1243-1252
Marcardi 2003: Marcardi, G.; Manfredi, G.; and Pecce, M, “Experimental behaviour of
masonry panels strengthened with FRP sheets”, Proc. of the Sixth International
Symposium on FRP Reinforcement for Concrete Structures (FRPRCS-6),
Singapore, Malaysia, 8-10 July 2003, pp. 1209-1218

452
 471

Marshall 2000: Marshall, O.S.; Sweeney, S.C.; and Trovillion J.C., “Performance Testing
of Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Composite Overlays for Seismic Rehabilitation of
Unreinforced Masonry Walls”, ERDC/CERL Technical Report, TR-00-
18/ADA381207, June 2000, US Army Corps of Engineers, pp. 60
Micelli 2003: Micelli, F., and Ombres, L., “Natural masonry strengthened with CFRP:
experiments and modelling on wall panels”, Proc. of the International Conference
Composite in Constructions-CCC2003, Cosenza, Italy, September 16-19, 2003, Ed.
Bios, pp. 325-330
Modena 1997: Modena, C., “Criteria for cautious repair of historic building. A valuation and
strengthening of existing masonry structures”, Binda L. and Modena C., 1997, Ed.
RILEM
Schneider 1980: Schneider R.R. and Dickey W.L., “Reinforced Masonry design”, Prentice-
Hall, Inc., Englewood cliffs, New Jersey, pp. 166-167, 180-184, 204-210
Schwegler 1996: Schwegler, G.; Kelterborn, P., “Earthquake Resistance of Masonry
Structures strengthened with Fiber Composites”, Proc. of the 11th World Conf. on
Earthquake Eng., Acapulco, Mexico, 1996, 6 pp. CD-ROM.
Stratford 2004: Stratford, T.; Pascale, G.; Manfroni, O.; and Bonfiglioli, B., “Shear
strengthening masonry panels with sheet Glass-Fiber Reinforced Polymer”, Journal
of Composites for Construction, Vol. 8, Iss. 5, October 2004, pp. 434-444
Secondin 2003: Secondin, S., “Masonry Reinforced with FRP Systems”, Report CIES 03-
43, Center for Infrastructures Engineering Studies, University of Missouri-Rolla, MO,
2003, (campus.umr.edu/rb2c).
Tomaževič 2000: Tomaževič, M., “Earthquake-Resistant Design of Masonry Buildings”,
2000, Ed. Elnashai A.S. & Dowling P.J., Imperial College Pres, pp. 268
Triantafillou 1998: Triantafillou, T.C., “Strengthening of Masonry Structures Using Epoxy-
Bonded FRP Laminates”, Journal of Composites for Construction, Vol. 2, Iss. 2,
May 1998, pp. 96-103
Tumialan 2001: Tumialan, J.G.; Morbin, A.; Nanni, A.; and Modena, C., “Shear
Strengthening of Masonry Walls with FRP Composites”, Proc. of the COMPOSITES
2001 Conv. and Trade Show, Composites Fabricators Assoc., Tampa, FL, October
3-6, 2001, 6 pp. (CD-ROM).
Tumialan 2003: Tumialan, J.G.; Galati, N.; and Nanni, A., “FRP Strengthening of UMR
Walls Subject to Out-of-Plane Loads”, ACI Structures Journal, 2003, Vol. 100, No.
3, May-June, pp.312-329
Turco 2003: Turco, V., “The NSM GFRP Bars Method for Strengthening of Masonry Walls:
Experimental Analysis on the Influence of the Embedding Material”, Report CIES
03-41, Center for Infrastructures Engineering Studies, University of Missouri-Rolla,
MO, 2003, (campus.umr.edu/rb2c).
Valluzzi 2002: Valluzzi, M.R.; Tinazzi, D.; and Modena, C., “Shear behavior of masonry
panels strengthened by FRP laminates”, Construction and Building Materials, 2002,
Vol. 16, pp. 109-416
Yu 2004: Yu, P.; Silva, P.F.; and Nanni, A., Application of Bondo Polyurea in Structural
Strengthening of RC Beams and UMR Walls, Final Report, Report No. CIES 01-49,
Center for Infrastructure Engineering Studies, University of Missouri-Rolla, MO,
August 2004, (campus.umr.edu/rb2c).

453

View publication stats