Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 776792

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct
Experimental tests and numerical modeling of reinforced masonry arches
Ilaria Cancelliere, Maura Imbimbo, Elio Sacco

DiMSAT, Department of Mechanical, Structural and Environmental Engineering, School of Engineering, University of Cassino, Via G. Di Biasio 43, 03043 Cassino, FR, Italy
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 3 March 2009
Received in revised form
16 October 2009
Accepted 1 December 2009
Available online 12 January 2010
Keywords:
Masonry arches
FRP strengthening
Experimental tests
Modeling
a b s t r a c t
The present paper deals with the experimental campaign and the numerical modeling of reinforced
masonry arches strengthened with fiber reinforced plastic (FRP) strips. The mechanical properties of
masonry material constituents, clay bricks and mixed mortar, are determined through laboratory tests.
The experimental response of unreinforced and reinforced arches is investigated. A nonlinear elastic
constitutive law for the masonry material is proposed; in particular, the stressstrain relationship is
characterized by no-tensile strength and by a quadratic response with exponential post-peak softening in
compression. The FRP reinforcement is modeled as a no-compressive material with uniaxial linear elastic
constitutive relationship in tension, until a limit strength response characterized by brittle collapse. A
beam finite element is developed and a numerical procedure, based on the NewtonRaphson method, is
implemented to solve the nonlinear structural problem. The question of the proper setting of the material
parameters to consider in the numerical analyses is addressed. Results obtained using the numerical
procedure are compared with the experimental ones in order to assess the ability of the proposed
procedure and of the model in predicting the failure mechanisms and the global structural response.
2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Masonry arches and vaults constitute fundamental constructive
elements of ancient buildings throughout the world. Additionally,
many ancient arches and vaults constructions are of considerable
historical and architectural importance.
Due to their ages or for accidental causes, these structures can
suffer from several types of damage, so that the contribution of
strengthening materials and repair techniques may be required to
reestablish their performances and to prevent the brittle collapse
of the masonry in possible future hazardous conditions. Some of
the traditional consolidation techniques of masonry arches, widely
adopted in the world, guarantee an adequate improvement in
strength, stiffness and ductility, but they are often short-lived
and labor-intensive and could violate aesthetic requirements or
conservation and restoration needs.
In the last 20 years, significant research activities have
been performed to investigate the possibility of an appropriate
exploitation of innovative materials, such as FRP materials, for
strengthening masonry constructions.
The fiber reinforced plastic (fiber reinforced plastic) strength-
ening system presents several well-known benefits over con-
ventional reinforcement materials including negligible specific

Corresponding author. Tel.: +39 0776 2993659; fax: +39 0776 2993392.
E-mail addresses: ilaria.cancelliere@unicas.it (I. Cancelliere),
mimbimbo@unicas.it (M. Imbimbo), sacco@unicas.it (E. Sacco).
weight, corrosion immunity, high tensile strength and simplicity of
application. Moreover, their flexibility and adaptability to curved
and rough surface, such as historical masonry arches tend to be, al-
lowa wide range of interventioninseveral damagedconditions [1].
Although masonry arches and vaults represent important
structural elements in ancient and historical constructions and
several practical applications of FRP for the reinforcement of
curvedelements have beendevelopedinthe world, a quite reduced
number of studies have been devoted to the analysis of the
strengthening of arches and vaults using FRP materials. Moreover,
it could be emphasized that both theoretical and experimental
studies for curved structural elements have been mainly carried
out in Italy.
Briccoli Bati and Rovero [2], Briccoli Bati et al. [3] and Aiello
et al. [4] developed experimental investigations of strengthened
masonry arches, emphasizing that the application of FRP sheets
increases the strength of the structure, significantly modifying the
collapse mechanism and the corresponding collapse load.
Triantafillou [5] developed a first formulation of a model
for the evaluation of the ultimate strength of strengthened
FRP masonry section under combined compressive and bending
stresses. Como et al. [6] applied the limit analysis theorems
in order to evaluate the collapse of reinforced arches. Valluzzi
et al. [7] presented the results of experimental researches on
brick masonry vaults strengthened at their extrados or at their
intrados by fiber reinforced polymer strips, investigating on the
collapse mechanisms due to masonry crushing, detachment of the
fibers and sliding along a mortar joint due to the shear stresses.
0141-0296/$ see front matter 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2009.12.005
I. Cancelliere et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 776792 777
Chen [8] presented a method for the evaluation of the limit load-
bearing capacity of masonry arch bridges strengthened with FRP.
Experimental tests and finite element analyses of masonry arches
made of blocks in dry contact and strengthened with FRP materials
have been developed by Luciano et al. [9], where the effectiveness
of strengthening and the ability of the numerical modeling to
reproduce the experimental behavior of reinforced arches were
demonstrated. Basilio et al. [10] proposed a numerical study for
semicircular unstrengthened and strengthened masonry arches, in
order to evaluate the effectiveness of different FRP strengthening
proposals.
Foraboschi [11] presented a methodology that describes a
different mechanism characterizing the collapse behavior of brick
masonry arches and vaults strengthened with FRP laminates.
Ianniruberto and Rinaldi [12,13] investigated the influence of the
presence of FRP on the collapse behavior of a structure when
reinforcements are placed at the extrados or at the intrados.
Basilio [14] developed numerical and experimental studies
of clay brick masonry, strengthened with glass or carbon FRP,
examining in detail the FRPmasonry local interface behavior.
Baratta and Corbi [15] illustrated the static behavior of a no-tensile
masonry arch model and investigated the effect of reinforcements
made of FRP strips characterized by different lengths. Caporale
et al. [16] reported the application of limit analysis of single and
multi-span arch bridges unreinforced and reinforced with flexible
FRP strips applied on the intrados and/or on the extrados of
the arch. Chen et al. [17] approached a modified mechanism to
estimate the load capacity of masonry arches strengthened with
near-surface reinforcements failing with a four-hinge mechanism
to prevent premature failure by ring separation.
Micromechanical studies have been developed by consider-
ing the reinforced masonry as a composite material, whose con-
stituents are the blocks, the mortar and the FRP. Marfia and
Sacco [18] developed a micromechanical investigation for evaluat-
ing the response of a one-dimensional masonry element, consider-
ing the damage and plasticity of the block and the mortar and also
the decohesion of the FRP fromthe masonry. Marfia et al. [19] pro-
posed a stress analysis of reinforced masonry arches based on the
complementary energy and implemented a numerical procedure
within a dual formulation of the arc-length method.
The present paper deals with the experimental and numerical
analysis of masonry arches strengthened with extrados FRP strips.
Reinforcements on the extrados or on the intrados are adopted
to improve the behavior of historical and monumental structures.
In particular, even if intrados reinforcements are simpler to apply,
extrados strengthening is widely adopted in the reinforcement
of vaults and domes, but also of arches presenting valuable
decorations on their intrados. Moreover, the application of FRP
strengthening at the extrados leads to a better mechanical
response with respect to the decohesion phenomenon. Indeed, the
present research was inspired by a real study case. In fact, the
tested arches are representative of one of the arches belonging to
the arcade located at the last floor of an historical building. The
actual arcade is composed of round arches that are very damaged
and, hence, need to be strengthened. Due to aesthetic reasons, the
FRP sheets can be applied only on the extrados. Moreover, the
rebuilding of the roof is executed during the restoration works;
thus, in such a case, the application of the FRP on the extrados does
not induce many complications and extra works.
Experimental results of the performed tests on unreinforced
and FRP reinforced masonry arches are presented and a numerical
procedure able to predict the arches mechanical behavior is
proposed.
The first part of the paper reports the experimental results.
The physical and mechanical properties of the masonry material
constituents are investigated through experimental tests. More-
over, some experimental tests have been carried out on unrein-
forced and FRP reinforced masonry arches. Two arch specimens
were tested under monotonic non-symmetrical vertical load ap-
plied nearness the key section. The main experimental results,
widely described and discussed in this first part of the paper,
showed that the collapse of the unreinforced masonry arches is
generally induced by the formationof a sufficient number of hinges
that turns the structure into a mechanism, while, for the FRP rein-
forced arches, the presence of the FRP strips deeply modifies their
static behavior. In fact, in this last case, the FRP reinforcement,
placed in the tensile zones of the masonry inhibits the opening of
the hinges and, consequently, the response of the FRP strengthened
section, subjected to axial force and bending moment, depends on
the masonry compression strength and on the tensile strength of
the fibers.
In the second part of the paper, a material model is proposed
and a numerical procedure is developed. In fact, on the basis of
the experimental results discussed in the first part of the paper, it
derives the necessity to develop a suitable masonry model for FRP
reinforced masonry, which takes into account the possibility of the
collapse for both tensile and compressive stresses; in other words,
while for unreinforced arches the collapse is mainly due to the
limited, often negligible, tensile strength, for arches strengthened
with FRP materials, the limited compressive strength of the
masonry plays a fundamental role in their structural response.
Thus, the masonry material is modeled as a no-tension material
witha limitedcompressive strength. Inparticular, the stressstrain
relationship for masonry in compression is characterized by a
quadratic function, then the compressive softening behavior is
described by an exponential function in which the compressive
stress gradually decreased to zero. The proposed constitutive law
is elastic, i.e. the strain and stress state does not depend on the
loading history, but only on the actual load condition.
The FRP reinforcement is modeledas a no-compressive material
with uniaxial linear elastic constitutive relationship in tension,
until a limit strength response characterized by brittle collapse.
A displacement formulation is developed in order to solve the
nonlinear unreinforced and reinforced masonry arch problems; a
three-node beamfinite element based on the Timoshenkos theory
is implemented in a NewtonRaphson procedure able to solve the
nonlinear algebraic problem.
Finally, comparisons of the experimental results with the
predictions of the numerical model are presented for the
unreinforced and the FRP reinforced arches, demonstrating the
robustness of the proposed procedure and the ability of the model
to simulate the experimental behavior.
2. Experimental tests
The experimental tests were performed on two semicircular
masonry arches subjected to monotonic vertical load applied on
the extrados surface nearness the key section. Each tested arch,
schematically reported in Fig. 1, had a radius r = 456 mm, a
width w = 255 mm, a ring thickness t = 120 mm, a total height
h = 510 mm, an abutment angle = 8

, a horizontal distance
of loading section from the reference system d
f
= 140 mm
and a distance between the abutments d
a
= 900 mm. The load
was increased until the collapse mechanism was activated; then,
the applied load was removed and the arch was strengthened
with FRP. Indeed, the strengthening system was applied on the
unloaded arches, in order to simplify the experimental operations.
The applicationof the reinforcement was executedonthe damaged
structures andthe results allowto evaluate the enhancement of the
structural response of the arches due to the application of the FRP
strips. On the other hand, the use of FRP strengthening appeared
778 I. Cancelliere et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 776792
Fig. 1. Geometrical data of the tested arches.
Table 1
Specimens sizes and compressive test results for the bricks.
Specimen Depth (mm) Length (mm) Height (mm) Area (mm
2
) Failure load (kN) Strength f
bi
(N/mm
2
)
1 55 56 55 3080 127.88 41.52
2 55 55 54 3025 107.92 35.68
3 56 55 55 3080 125.14 40.63
4 55 55 55 3025 104.94 34.69
5 55 55 54 3025 110.89 36.66
6 55 55 55 3025 126.24 41.73
particularly indicated to prevent failure of the masonry structure
subjected to accidental causes or hazardous conditions.
The arches were built using standard clay bricks and mixed
mortar and, when reinforced, carbon fiber strips with epoxy
matrix. The thickness of mortar bonds was variable, wider at the
extrados, which is commonly used when clay (not natural) bricks
are adopted.
Each arch was located under a steel testing frame. The abut-
ments were restrained to place the equivalent static configuration
of restrained joints beam, i.e. displacements restrained in both or-
thogonal directions. A conventional numeration of bricks from left
to right was introduced, as shown in Fig. 1. The load system was
characterizedby a non-symmetrical vertical force appliednearness
to the key section over the brick number 14.
Each specimen was loaded until the opening of hinges, i.e. the
beginning of the four-hinge failure mechanism. Then, the extrados
surface was strengthened with FRP strip and the strengthening
structure retested until failure.
2.1. Materials
Laboratory tests were performed on the clay bricks and mixed
mortar to determine their mechanical properties.
For what concerns the reinforcement, the mechanical proper-
ties were given by the manufacturer.
2.1.1. Clay bricks
Standard clay brick cubic specimens were prepared in order to
determinate the compressive strength [20]. The compressive test
was performed on 6 cubic specimens extracted by one of the series
of the standard clay bricks. The dimensions and the compressive
strengths of the specimens are reported in Table 1.
The brick specimens exhibited a not perfectly symmetrical
hourglass failure, because of the heterogeneous nature of the
bricks. The average compressive strength results and the charac-
teristic compressive strength are reported in Table 2.
Analogously, classical indirect tensile tests were performed on
6 specimens [21]. The indirect tensile test described in the Italian
code UNI 8942 (November 1986) is a splitting test. The brick is
Table 2
Characteristic compressive strength of the bricks.
Average
compressive
strength,

f
b
(N/mm
2
)
Standard
deviation, s
(N/mm
2
)
Variation
coefficient, c
v
Characteristic
compressive strength,
f
bk
(N/mm
2
)
38.50 3.16 0.08 31.12
subjected to two opposite line loads acting in the middle of the
brick, as illustrated in Fig. 2. The test can be interpreted as a
modification of the Brazilian test. Due to the loading condition,
the brick is subjected to a tensile stress state along the direction
orthogonal to the loading plane.
In Table 3, the dimensions and the tensile strengths of the
specimens are reported. Note that the indirect tensile strength is
determined for each specimen by the formula:
f
vi
=
2F
vi
b
b
h
b
(1)
where F
vi
is the external applied load; h
b
and b
b
are the specimen
height and length, respectively. The average and the characteristic
indirect tensile strengths are reported in Table 4.
The elastic secant modulus of the bricks was determined by
performing 3 + 3 tests; in particular, 3 specimens were used
for evaluating the compressive strength and the remaining 3
specimens to determine the elastic secant modulus [22]. Finally,
the elastic secant modulus of the standard clay bricks, which is
assumed to be an isotropic material, was obtained by averaging
the elastic secant modulus of the three specimens: E
b
=
16 000 N/mm
2
.
2.1.2. Mixed mortar
The mortar was prepared by mixing different constituents in
proportion by weight: 2.80 kg of gray pozzolana, which is used as
aggregate, 0.93 kg of lime, 0.80 kg of pozzolanico cement, 1.66 kg
of water.
The choice to adopt mixed mortar was due to the possibility
to simulate the behavior of old masonry characterized by low
mechanical properties for the mortar.
I. Cancelliere et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 776792 779
h
1
b
1
h
1
= 5 mm
b
1
= 10 mm
b
l
2
l
2

h
2
Fig. 2. Brick indirect tensile test.
Table 3
Specimens sizes and indirect tensile test results for the bricks.
Specimen Depth b
b
(mm) Length w
b
(mm) Height h
b
(mm) Failure load F
vi
(kN) Strength f
vi
(N/mm
2
)
1 117 255 55 38.82 3.84
2 117 255 55 31.80 3.15
3 117 255 55 45.01 4.45
4 117 255 55 24.74 2.45
5 117 255 55 37.84 3.74
6 117 255 55 30.54 3.02
Table 4
Characteristic indirect tensile strength of the bricks.
Average indirect
tensile strength,

f
v
(N/mm
2
)
Standard
deviation, s
(N/mm
2
)
Variation
coefficient, c
v
Characteristic indirect
tensile strength, f
vk
(N/mm
2
)
3.44 0.71 0.21 1.79
During the building phase of the arches, some standard
mortar prismatic samples have been collected. Three mixtures
were needed for each arch; therefore, three standard prismatic
specimens were sampled for each mixture. Consequently, the
total number of prismatic specimens were 18. After 28 days of
curing, the bending test was performed on 3 mixture specimens
for each arch, therefore six flexural tests were executed [23]. The
flexural tensile strength has been evaluated applying the following
expression:
R
fi
=
1.5F
fi
l
m
b
3
m
(2)
where F
fi
is the external applied load, b
m
is the length of the side of
the prismatic square base specimen and l
m
is the distance between
the instrumental supports.
The dimensions of the specimens and their flexural strengths
obtained by the tests are reported in Table 5. The average value of
the six specimens bending strength represents the mortar flexural
strength: R
f

= 2.5 N/mm
2
.
The compressive test was performed on the 6 semi-prismatic
samples, [23]. These samples were obtained by halving the original
prismatic specimens as a result of the executed flexural tests.
The compressive strength is obtained as:
R
ci
=
F
ci
1600
(3)
where F
ci
is the external applied load in Newton and 1600 mm
2
is
the contact area of the square plate present between the prismatic
specimen and compressive apparatus plate, as illustrated in Fig. 3.
Table 6 reports the overall compressive test results. Conse-
quently, the mortar compressive strength was obtained averaging
the compression strength of the 12 specimens: R
c

= 8.80 N/mm
2
.
The elastic secant modulus of the mortar was determined by
the same procedure applied for the standard clay bricks [22]. Three
reference specimens were tested to evaluate the compression
strength and the same number of specimens were used to
determine the elastic secant modulus of the mortar used for each
arch. The elastic secant modulus of standard mortar specimen
was obtained averaging the elastic secant modulus corresponding
to the totality of the 12 specimens collected during the building
phases of the arches: E
m

= 3100 N/mm
2
.
Table 7 reports the tests carried out for masonry constituents
and the obtained mechanical parameters. It can be observed that,
although most of the mechanical properties of the brick are better
that those of the mortar, the value of the indirect tensile strength
of the brick is lower than the flexural tensile strength of the
mortar. Indeed, it should be remarked that the values of indirect
and flexural tensile strengths cannot be directly compared, as
illustrated in [24].
2.1.3. FRP strip
The FRP strengthening system consists of a carbon unidirec-
tional fiber strip impregnated on-site with an epoxy resin. The di-
mensions of FRP strip were: thickness 0.17 mmand width 100 mm,
while the length was correlated to the geometrical dimension of
the surface to be reinforced. The strip is characterized by a thin
texture on the lateral surfaces that ensures the fibers stability dur-
ing the application process, made of thermoplastic material. The
manufacturer specified for the carbon fibers a tensile strength of
3900 N/mm
2
, an elastic tensile modulus of 230 000 N/mm
2
, an
elongation at failure of 1.5%. The epoxy resin, as suggested by the
manufacturer, was used both as adhesive to the masonry arch and
as matrix. The epoxy paste was prepared by mixing the two com-
ponents (resin and hardener) in 4:1 proportion by weight with a
power mixer.
2.2. Instrumental setup
The instrumental set up consisted of measurement displace-
ment instruments, mechanical comparators and potentiometers;
application and acquisition load instruments, hydraulic jack and
loadcell, (hj andlc, respectively); analogical displacement and data
acquisition system.
The eccentric load was applied by the hydraulic jack. The
load cell was placed between the extrados of the arch and the
hydraulic jack. Three potentiometers and two comparators were
utilized. In particular, two potentiometers were positioned at
the arch key with a vertical and horizontal orientation, (pc and
780 I. Cancelliere et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 776792
Fig. 3. Mortar flexural and compressive tests.
Table 5
Mortar flexural tests results.
Arch Specimen Depth b
m
(mm) Length w
m
(mm) Height h
m
(mm) Distance l
m
(mm) F
fi
(N) R
fi
(N/mm
2
)
1
1 40 160 40 100 1009 2.36
2 40 160 40 100 1118 2.62
3 40 160 40 100 1106 2.59
2
1 40 160 40 100 1151 2.70
2 40 160 40 100 1136 2.66
3 40 160 40 100 971 2.27
Table 6
Mortar compressive test results.
Arch Semi-prismatic specimen Depth b
m
(mm) Length w
m
(mm) Height h
m
(mm) F
ci
(N) R
ci
(N/mm
2
)
1
1.1 40

= 80 40 14636 9.14
1.2 40

= 80 40 15116 9.45
2.1 40

= 80 40 13110 8.19
2.2 40

= 80 40 13569 8.48
3.1 40

= 80 40 14414 9.01
3.2 40

= 80 40 13166 8.23
2
1.1 40

= 80 40 15739 9.84
1.2 40

= 80 40 15754 9.85
2.1 40

= 80 40 13369 8.36
2.2 40

= 80 40 14194 8.87
3.1 40

= 80 40 13650 8.53
3.2 40

= 80 40 14006 8.75
Table 7
Mechanical parameters for brick and mortar.
Material Test Standard (N/mm
2
)
Brick
Compressive strength, f
bk
UNI EN 772/1 31.12
Indirect tensile strength, f
vk
UNI 8942/3 1.79
Elastic modulus, E
b
UNI 6556 16000
Mixed mortar
Flexural tensile strength, R
f
UNI/EN 1015/11 2.5
Compressive strength, R
c
UNI/EN 1015/11 8.80
Elastic modulus, E
m
UNI 6556 3100
pco, respectively), one comparator was placed near the vertical
potentiometer at the arch key, (cc), one potentiometer and
comparator was applied in correspondence of the loaded section,
displaced along the vertical direction, (pf and cf, respectively).
Each arch was subjected to different loading cycle. During the
experimental execution, the applied load and the displacements
were continuously recorded by the data acquisition system.
Moreover, for every loading cycle the displacement values, at each
fixed loading step, were acquired by both the potentiometers and
comparators in order to validate the reliability of the data. Fig. 4
illustrates the full instrumental set up.
2.3. Experimental results
2.3.1. Unreinforced masonry arches
For semicircular masonry arches without any reinforcement
and under the application of the external eccentric load, four
I. Cancelliere et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 776792 781
a
b
Fig. 4. Instrumental set up: (a) front and back view of the arch; (b) extrados view of the arch.
hinges are expected to occur. The hinges, which behave like
pins [11], turn the structure into a mechanism. The pins divide the
arch into blocks that can rotate one with respect to the other.
The experimental program carried out on of the unreinforced
arches was aimed to identify the maximum load capacity and the
collapse mechanism.
In Fig. 5, the hinges mode mechanism of failure, corresponding
to the ultimate load of about 500 N, is illustrated.
In particular, in correspondence of the ultimate load, four
alternate hinges, two at the extrados and two at the intrados, were
formed.
The experimental sequence of hinges formation observed
during the tests was the same as that described in [14], both
through experimental and numerical investigation. It is worthy
to observe the position of the pinned sections which occurred
between the brick/mortar interface, as shown in Fig. 5(b). The
hinges were due to the decohesion between the mortar and the
brick. Indeed, the tensile failure occurred at the mortarbrick
interface and the associated tensile strength of the interface
was very low and it was not strongly influenced by the
tensile strength of the mortar and brick. Hence, a satisfactory
modeling approximation leads to neglect the tensile strength of
the mortarbrick interface. This aspect is accounted for by the
proposed model, illustrated in the following, which considers the
masonry as a homogeneous material, characterized by no tensile
strength.
The data acquisition system allowed the elaboration of the
loaddisplacement diagram, which is reported in Fig. 6 with
reference to the loaded section.
2.3.2. Masonry arches strengthened with FRP
Then, the two tested arches were strengthened with a single
FRP strip applied at the extrados of the masonry surface. The
application of this kind of reinforcement modifies the classical
mechanism of the unreinforced masonry arch. In fact, the failure
caused by the formation of the four hinges is avoided due to
the presence of the FRP strip on the extrados surface which
forbids the formation of unilateral hinges positioned on the
opposite surface. As a consequence, the collapse of the structure
is due to other mechanisms, which involve the limit strength of
the constituent materials (masonry and reinforcement) and the
structural interactions of them at the local level, i.e. masonry
crushing, tensile failure of the composite fibers, sliding along
the mortar joint due to the shear stresses, detachment of the
fibers. The application of FRP at the extrados, instead of the
intrados, allows to obtain an enhanced behavior of this kind of
strengthening with respect to the decohesion phenomenon. In
fact, the equilibrium in transversal direction of the infinitesimal
element of the FRP subjected to tensile stress, applied at the
extrados of the reinforced arch, reveals that the interaction
normal stresses occurring between the FRP and the arch are in
compression.
During the tests, the first visible cracks were located in the
brick and mortar joints beneath the applied load, as shown in
Fig. 7(b). Notable transversal cracks were detected on the extrados
masonry surface; moreover, lengthwise cracks were observed in
correspondence of the spring of the structure opposite to the
loading location. In particular, the extrados boundary cracks were
stitched by the FRP reinforcement; on the contrary, a progressive
propagation of the intrados cracks were observed during the test,
(see Fig. 7(c)). Proximally to the collapse event, the increment of
the vertical sliding of the loaded brick allowed a decrement in the
applied load. The failure of the arches was characterized by the
masonry crashing that took place in sections that were cracked
but stitched by the reinforcement. The collapse of this part of the
structure caused the decohesion of the reinforcement, as shown
in Fig. 7(d). The arches failed under a load of about 100 times the
ultimate load of the unreinforced specimens.
Fig. 8 reports the diagramof the appliedforce versus the vertical
displacement corresponding to the loaded section. The different
response of the two arches can be attributed to the possible
different conditions occurred during the construction; mainly, the
two arches were built by two different workers.
3. Numerical model
A model of masonry beam, strengthened with FRP laminate is
developed; the study is limited to the case of plane problem.
The beam model is based on the Timoshenkos theory. The
Timoshenko beam model is able to better describe the kinematics
of the beam with respect to the classical EulerBernoulli model.
This aspect could be important in the cases of arches which are
characterized by high values of the ratio height of the cross-section
over the overall length, as it occurs for the tested arches. A local
coordinate system is introduced, with the x-axis along the beam
782 I. Cancelliere et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 776792
a
b
Fig. 5. (a) Four-hinge failure mechanism observed during the experimental program, Arch 1 and Arch 2, respectively; (b) position of the pinned sections.
Fig. 6. Loaddisplacement diagram of the loaded section.
axis and y-axis such that the plane xy represents the flexural plane
of the beam. The FRP reinforcements A
+
and A

, applied on the
masonry beam, are positioned at y = y

and y = y
+
, respectively.
3.1. Kinematics of the beam
Considering the classical Timoshenkos constraints on the beam
kinematics, i.e. the cross-sections remain plane after deformation
but not normal to the deformed beam longitudinal axis, the
displacement field assumes the following representation form:
u
x
= u(x) + y(x)
u
y
= v(x)
u
z
= 0.
(4)
The displacement vector d =
_
u v
_
T
is introduced, with u(x)
the axial displacement, v(x) the transversal displacement and (x)
the rotation of the cross-section assumed positive when clockwise.
The non-trivial straincomponents are the normal and shear strains
obtained as:
=
0
+ y = v

+ (5)
where
0
= u

is the axial strain, =

is the curvature, is
the transversal shear strain and the apex indicates the derivative
with respect to x. The kinematical parameters are organized in the
vector =
_

0

_
T
:
= Ld L =
_
_
_
_
_
_
d
dx
0 0
0
d
dx
0
0 1
d
dx
_

_
. (6)
3.2. Constitutive equations
In order to describe the behavior of the reinforced masonry, it
is necessary to introduce the constitutive behavior of the masonry,
I. Cancelliere et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 776792 783
a
b c
d
Fig. 7. (a) Deformed configuration of the arch close to the collapse load observed during the experimental program; (b) vertical sliding of the loaded brick; (c) intrados and
extrados cracks; (d) collapsed reinforced arch.
Fig. 8. Loaddisplacement diagram of the loaded section.
of the FRP reinforcement and of the interface joining the masonry
with the reinforcement.
The masonry material is characterized by very low strength in
tension. Thus, in the following, the masonry is modeled as a no-
tension material with a limited compressive strength. In particular,
a nonlinear elastic constitutive relationship is considered for
the masonry material as the one initially proposed by Lucchesi
et al. [25] and, more recently, adopted by Marfia et al. [26]. This
approachis simple andit canbe consideredeffective for monotonic
loading condition, when local unloading does not occur in any
point of the structure. When the loading cannot be considered
monotonic, the use of an elasto-plastic no-tension model or
more complex constitutive relationships are required, as the ones
presented by Marfia and Sacco in Refs. [26,27], where a model
and numerical procedures were proposed and several numerical
applications were developed.
784 I. Cancelliere et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 776792
0
-0.5
-1
-1.5
-2
-2.5
-3
-3.5
-4
-0.025 -0.02 -0.005 0 -0.015

-0.01
Fig. 9. Stressstrain relationship of the masonry considering different values of k.
The lack of tensile response results in the admissibility
condition for normal stress
M
0, where the condition

M
= 0 can be defined as a limit or collapse condition and
in this case the strain has an indefinite non negative value. The
compression strength is denoted as
y
. The constitutive model
can be developed by considering in compression a stressstrain
relationship characterized by a quadratic function of the strain
until the strain
k
is reached; then, an exponential function is
considered. Finally, the constitutive equation is written in the
form:

M
=
_

_
exp () if <
k
E
M
_


2
4
y
_
if
k
0
0 if 0 <

M
=
_
G
M
if 0
0 if 0 <
(7)
where E
M
and G
M
are the Young and shear moduli, respectively,

y
=
y
/E
M
, and and are material parameters determined
as function of the damage energy G
c
. The softening strain
k
and
the two material parameters and are related by the following
equations ensuring the continuity of the stressstrain relationship
(7) with its first derivative:

k
= 2
y
(1 + k), =
k

y
(1 k
2
)
=

y
(1 k
2
)
exp
_
2
y
(1 + k)
_
(8)
with0 < k < 1. The quantity k is set as a functionof the dissipation
(damage energy):
G
c
=
_

k

exp () d +
_
0

E
M
_


2
4
y
_
d
= E
M

2
y
(1 + k)
2
_
(k 1)
2
k
+
2
3
(2 k)
_
. (9)
Once the damage energy G
c
is assigned, the parameter k is
evaluated solving the nonlinear equation (9) and
k
, and are
determined using formulas (8).
In Fig. 9, the stressstrain diagrams obtained by considering
E
M
= 10 000 N/mm
2
,
y
= 3.5 N/mm
2
and four different
values for the damage energy, G
c
= 0.05 N/mm
2
, G
c
=
0.10 N/mm
2
, G
c
= 0.50 N/mm
2
and G
c
= 12.25 N/mm
2
,
are plotted. In the same figure, the circles denote the points
corresponding to the strain
k
and the associated stress. It can
be noted the simplicity of the constitutive law in setting the
fundamental parameters governing the masonry response, i.e. the
Fig. 10. Stressstrain relationship considered for the FRP reinforcement.
elastic modulus, the compressive strength and the softening
branch.
Furthermore, it can also be remarked that both the normal and
tangential stresses,
M
and
M
, do not depend on the specific strain
history and, moreover, that the collapse for shear stress can occur
only when there is a failure in normal direction.
A uniaxial no-compressive strength and linear-elastic behavior
in tension, with a limit value
f ,u
of the tensile strain, is assumed
for the FRP reinforcement. The stressstrain relationship is written
in the form:

R
= E
R
( ) =

E
R
() (10)
where E
R
is the elastic modulus of the FRP reinforcement; the strain
and the secant modulus

E
R
() are recovered from the relations:
if < 0 =

E
R
() = 0
if 0
f ,u
= 0

E
R
() = E
R
if
f ,u
< =

E
R
() = 0.
(11)
In Fig. 10, the brittle stressstrain response considered for the FRP
material is schematically reported.
Regarding the interface joining the masonry with the reinforce-
ment, perfect adhesion is assumed between the masonry and the
FRP.
3.3. Cross-section behavior
The cross-section of the masonry beams typically presents a
very regular geometry. The cross-section A
M
of the masonry is split
into three parts:
the no-reagent part for which > 0, denoted as A
nt
;
the compressed part for which
k
0, denoted as A
1
;
the compressed part for which <
k
, denoted as A
2
.
In order to determine the parts A
nt
, A
1
and A
2
, the neutral axis
y = y
n
and the axis delimiting the quadratic-exponential change
of stressstrain relationship y = y
k
, for which the strain attains
I. Cancelliere et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 776792 785
Fig. 11. Parts in the typical cross-section of the arch.
the values zero and
k
, respectively, are determined:
0 =
0
+ y
n
y
n
=

k
=
0
+ y
k
y
k
=

k

0

.
(12)
Taking into account relations (12), the axes defining the parts
A
nt
, A
1
and A
2
, are determined as:
> 0
_
y
1s
= min(y
d
, max(y
u
, y
n
))
y
1i
= y
2s
= min(y
d
, max(y
u
, y
k
))
y
2i
= y
u
(13)
< 0
_
y
1s
= y
2i
= min(y
d
, max(y
u
, y
k
))
y
1i
= min(y
d
, max(y
u
, y
n
))
y
2s
= y
d
(14)
= 0
_
y
1s
= y
d
y
1i
= y
2i
= y
2s
= y
u
if
0
>
k
_
y
1s
= y
1i
= y
2s
= y
d
y
2i
= y
u
if
0

k
.
(15)
In Fig. 11, the parts A
nt
, A
1
and A
2
in the typical cross-section of
the arch are schematically illustrated and the coordinates y
u
and
y
d
defining the cross-section are reported.
Due to the relationships (7), taking into account the first of
formulas (5), the explicit expressions of normal stresses in parts
A
1
and A
2
of the masonry section are:

M1
= E
M
_

0


2
0
4
y
+ y
_


0

2
y
_
y
2

2
4
y
_
y
1i
y < y
1s

M2
=

exp ( (
0
+ y))
y
2i
y y
2s
.
(16)
The resultants in the masonry beam S
M
=
_
N
M
M
M
T
M
_
T
,
i.e. the axial force, the bending moment and the shear resultant,
are determined as:
N
M
= N
M1
+ N
M2
=
_
y
1s
y
1i

M1
b dy +
_
y
2s
y
2i

M2
b dy
M
M
= M
M1
+ N
M2
=
_
y
1s
y
1i
y
M1
b dy +
_
y
2s
y
2i
y
M2
b dy
T
M
=
_
y
2s
y
1i

M
b dy
(17)
where denotes the shear correction factor and
N
M1
=
_
y
1s
y
1i

M1
b dy
= E
M
_
A
1
_

0


2
0
4
y
_
+ S
1
_


0

2
y
_
I
1

2
4
y
_
M
M1
=
_
y
1s
y
1i
y
M1
b dy
= E
M
_
S
1
_

0


2
0
4
y
_
+ I
1
_


0

2
y
_
J
1

2
4
y
_
(18)
if = 0
N
M2
=
b

[exp ( (
0
+ y
2i
)) exp ( (
0
+ y
2s
))]
M
M2
=
b

2
[exp ( (
0
+ y
2i
)) (1 + y
2i
)
exp ( (
0
+ y
2s
)) (1 + y
2s
)]
(19)
if = 0
N
M2
= b
y
2i
y
2s
exp (
0
)
M
M2
= b
y
2
2i
y
2
2s
2
exp (
0
)
(20)
and
T
M
= G
M
(A
1
+ A
2
) (21)
with A
i
, S
i
, I
i
and J
i
, i = 1, 2, the area, the first momentum, the
second momentum and the third momentum of the part A
i
of the
masonry cross-section.
The resultants S
R
=
_
N
R
M
R
T
R
_
T
acting in the reinforced
beam due to the presence of the FRP are obtained as:
S
R
= C
R
() C
R
() =
_
_

E
R
A
R

E
R
S
R
0

E
R
S
R

E
R
I
R
0
0 0 0
_
_
(22)
with
A
R
= A
+
R
+ A

R
S
R
= y
+
A
+
R
+ y

R
I
R
= (y
+
)
2
A
+
R
+ (y

)
2
A

R
.
(23)
Note that the bending and the shear stiffnesses of the FRP
reinforcements are neglected.
Finally, the resultants acting on the reinforced beam are
obtained as:
S = S
M
+ S
R
=
_
N
M
+ N
R
M
M
+ M
R
T
M
_
. (24)
3.4. Finite element approximation
Adiscussionondisplacement based or mixed formulationbeam
elements was presented, for instance, in the book by Crisfield [28].
Reddy [29] developed superconvergent locking-free Timoshenkos
beam finite element based on the interdependent interpolation as
well as assumed strain formulation, extending the procedure also
for the third-order beam theory.
A finite beam element based on the displacement formulation
is proposed in the following. It is a three-node element in
which, the transverse displacement v is approximated using
cubic interpolation, the rotation and the axial displacement
u are approximated using Lagrange quadratic interpolation. In
786 I. Cancelliere et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 776792
Fig. 12. Schematization of the beam finite element.
particular, the following representation forms are introduced for
the displacement vector d:
d = N

d
N =
_

1
0 0
2
0 0
3
0 0 0
0
1
0 0
2
0 0
3
0 0
0 0
1
0 0
2
0 0
3

_
(25)
where

d =
_
u
1

1
v
1
u
2

2
v
2
u
3

3
v
3

_
T
is
the vector of the nodal displacement parameters, i.e. the axial
displacements, the transversal displacements and the rotations of
the cross-sections about the z- axis, at the i-th node, as reported
in Fig. 12. The interpolation function is a bubble cubic function
characterized zero values at the three nodes of the element.
The explicit form for the interpolation function in the parent
element is:

1
=
1
2
( 1)
2
=
1
2
( + 1)
3
= 1
2
= ( + 1)( 1)
(26)
with 1 1. It could be emphasized the consistency of
the chosen approximation for the displacement field. In fact, as
the rotation and the axial displacement u are both interpolated
by quadratic functions, the curvature and the axial strain
0
are
both linear functions. As consequence, the axial-bending coupling,
due to the use of the nonlinear constitutive relationship, can be
correctly accounted for and the solution of Eqs. (12) can lead to
satisfactory results.
Due to the interpolation formula (25) and Eqs. (5), the
kinematical parameter vector takes the form:
= B

d
B = LN =
_

1,x
0 0
2,x
0 0
3,x
0 0 0
0
1,x
0 0
2,x
0 0
3,x
0 0
0
1

1,x
0
2

2,x
0
3

3,x

,x
.
_
. (27)
The finite element for the complete beam model is recovered
developing the variational formulation, i.e. writing the virtual
displacement statement.
In particular, it results:
0 =
_
L

T
S dz
_
L
d
T
p dz (28)
where pis the vector of distributedexternal forces. Due to the finite
element approximation, i.e. taking into account formulas (25) and
(27), the variational form (28) leads to the algebraic equation:
R
e
=
_
L
B
T
S
_

d
_
dz
_
L
N
T
p dz + P
T
2
S
2
P
T
1
S
1
(29)
with P
1

d = d
1
and P
2

d = d
2
, d
1
and d
2
denoting the
displacement vector evaluated at nodes 1 and 2, respectively. The
vector R
e
represents the residual at elemental level, which is equal
to zero in solution. Assembling all the element residual vector
Fig. 13. Mortar joints irregularities.
the whole residual vector is obtained, which is zero in solution.
The solution of the nonlinear algebraic problem is determined
by implementing the NewtonRaphson method. In fact, recalling
Eqs. (17)(21), the tangent stiffness, at element level, is determined
as:
K
e
t
=
R
e

d
=

d
_
L
B
T
S
_

d
_
dz
=
_
L
B
T
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
N

0
N

0
M

0
M

0
0 0
T

_
B

d dz. (30)
The presented displacement beam finite element has been
implemented in the code Feap [30].
4. Comparison experimentalnumerical results
4.1. Setting of the model parameters
A fundamental problem in the numerical simulation of the
experimental tests, is the correct setting of the geometrical and
material data of the construction. Indeed, regarding the masonry
arches, at least the following four questions arise:
1. Setting of the arch cross-section in correspondence of the
mortar joints.
The cross-sections of the arch in correspondence of the mortar
joints are reduced because of construction defects. It has been
observed a significant differences in the size of the effective
mortar cross-section from one joint to another. Fig. 13 highlights
the defects and irregularities of the mortar joints. Averaging the
defects, in the numerical simulation the geometrical section of the
arches was reduced of 6 mm in height and width, with respect to
the theoretical section.
2. Definition of the material properties of the mortar.
It is important to emphasize that the mortar compressive
strength obtained from standard specimens according to the
laboratory procedures is greater than the one corresponding to
the actual mortar joints enclosed in the built and tested arches.
In fact, the arch mortar joint material is characterized by more
defects and voids, due to the bricklayer construction adopted
procedure, than the material prepared in the laboratory. Previous
experimental experiences showed that the compressive strength
was about one of half the strength obtained by standard tests.
Furthermore, it must be noted that the conditions of mortar
curing inside the standard prisms and inside the arches were
different; this fact also significantly modifies the performances of
the mortar [31]. Recently, with the aim of investigating on the real
I. Cancelliere et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 776792 787
Fig. 14. Masonry unit cell.
material properties of mortar inside the constructions, tests on not
vibrated mortar specimens have been performed [32].
3. Analysis of the brickmortar interaction to evaluate the
confinement effect on the mortar.
Another important element is the confinement effect on
the mortar in the masonry. It is known that, under uniaxial
compressive loading, mortar tends to expand laterally more than
bricks, because of its lower stiffness. Adhesion between bricks and
mortar causes a confinement effect on the mortar which delays
its failure. The main consequence of this effect is a compressive
strengthof the masonry greater thanthe mortar andlower thanthe
brick. In the case of eccentric compressive load [33], the adhesion
between bricks and mortar interests a reduced cross-section with
respect to its geometrical size. Thus, the confinement effect is
lower than the case of the axial load, and the masonry compressive
strength tends to the mortar one. This represents an important
aspect in the analysis of masonry arches strengthened with FRP
materials; in fact, the typical cross-section of the reinforced arch
is subjected to eccentric loading conditions.
In order to investigate the confinement effect corresponding
to the axial or eccentric loading condition a two-dimensional
linear finite element analysis of the masonry was developed. In
particular, the masonry was considered a periodic heterogeneous
material so that, the repetitive cell, schematically reported in
Fig. 14, was considered. Due to the symmetry conditions of the
assemblage of mortar joints and bricks, the analysis of the masonry
was limited to one half of the unit cell.
FEManalyses were performed, evaluating the average transver-
sal strain in the mortar layer. Half of the unit cell was discretized
adopting a regular mesh of four-node plane stress elements. Three
sets of analyses were developed.
Initially, computations were performed by considering differ-
ent unit cells characterized by different ratios of the two sides, sub-
jected to uniformdisplacements on the boundary by the side of the
mortar, as shown in Fig. 15(a); thus, in this case, the axial loading
condition was simulated for cells with different slenderness.
Then, the real size of the block was considered, while the
different dimensions of the mortar were assumed; uniform
displacements were prescribed on the boundary by the side of
the mortar, as represented in Fig. 15(b); in this case, the cell is
subjected to eccentric load.
Finally, in order to simulate the unit cell subjected to an average
axial strain and curvature, a linear displacement distribution was
prescribed on the boundary by the side of the mortar for different
dimensions of the mortar, as represented in Fig. 15(c).
Twelve different dimensions of the unit cell or of the mortar
joint, l
x
, were considered; Fig. 16 reports the value of the average
transversal strain of the mortar versus the parameter l
x
. It can
be remarked that, the confinement effect reduces when the
eccentricity increases; in the limit that dimension l
x
goes to zero,
the value of mortar transversal strain tends to zero, i.e. there is no
confinement on the mortar. Thus, in the numerical simulations, the
compressive strength of the masonry was assumed equal to the
compressive strength of the mortar.
Table 8
Mechanical parameters calibrated for the numerical analyses.
Material Parameter Value
Masonry
Cross-section, b
M
h
M
119 249 (mm
2
)
Compressive strength,
M
3.5 (N/mm
2
)
Elastic modulus, E
M
10000 (N/mm
2
)
Parameter function of damage energy, G
c
for a mesh of 40
elements
k 0.0001
Softening strain,
k
0.00070
0.285714
3.5007(N/mm
2
)
FRP
Cross-section, b
R
h
R
1000.17 (mm
2
)
Tensile strength,
R
3900 (N/mm
2
)
Elastic modulus, E
R
230000 (N/mm
2
)
Yield and ultimate tensile strain,
f ,u
0.01695
4. Elastic modulus and fracture damage energy.
Youngs modulus, E
M
, was determined by adopting a homog-
enization procedure for the layered materials. The size of the
masonry section considered for the homogenization is: h
M
=
65 mm; b
M
= 119 mm; w
M
= 249 mm. In particular, the value
of h
M
was obtained summing the height of the brick h
b
= 55 mm
to the average height of the mortar joint: h
m
= 10 mm. Finally, the
elastic modulus of homogenized masonry results:
E
M
=
(h
b
+ h
m
)
_
h
b
E
b
+
h
m
E
m
_

= 10 000 N/mm
2
(31)
where E
b
and E
m
are the elastic moduli of the brick and mortar,
respectively.
The evaluation of the parameter G
c
is complex. In the
computations, a quite high value for G
c
is adopted, in order
to recover a reduced softening effect and to simulate the first
part of the response of the reinforced arches, where softening is
not present. The graph of the stressstrain law adopted for the
computations is reported by a continuous curve in Fig. 9.
A further important aspect is the possible strong mesh
sensitivity of the finite element solution due to the softening
stressstrain law proposed in Section 3.2. This problem can be
overcome by properly setting the value of the parameter G
c
, as a
function of the material damage energy and also of the element
size, according to crack band model proposed by Bazant [34], which
represents a simple and quite effective technique able to prevent
the mesh objectivity and localization.
Different regular meshes have been adopted for the computa-
tions; in fact, numerical results are obtained by considering 10, 20,
30, 40, 60 and 80 three-node beam elements. The size of the ele-
ments varies from 162.10 mm, for the case of 10 elements mesh,
to 20.22 mm, for the case of 80 elements mesh.
Finally, Table 8 reports the geometrical and material data
considered for the numerical simulations.
4.2. Unreinforced masonry arches
Fig. 17 reports the comparison between the experimental re-
sults and numerical simulation in terms of the applied concen-
trated force versus the vertical displacement of the loaded section.
In this figure, the ultimate load evaluated also by the kinemati-
cal theorem of the limit analysis is reported. It can be remarked
the satisfactory agreement betweenthe obtainednumerical results
and the experimental ones. Inparticular, boththe nonlinear behav-
ior, the ultimate load and collapse mechanism are well predicted.
It can be remarked that the numerical results does not depend
strongly on the mesh size. Moreover, the value numerically
determined of the limit load reduces decreasing the mesh size and,
for meshes with more than 30 elements, it results lower than the
788 I. Cancelliere et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 776792
l
x
l
x
l
x
a b c
Fig. 15. Half of the unit cell; the three performed analyses.
lx [mm]
a
v
e
r
a
g
e

t
r
a
n
s
v
e
r
s
a
l

s
t
r
a
i
n

i
n

t
h
e

m
o
r
t
a
r

.
Fig. 16. Average transversal strain in the mortar vs. length of loaded zone of the unit cell.
Fig. 17. Unreinforced arch: limit analysis, experimental and numerical results.
value obtained by the limit analysis. This fact can be explained
remarking that the limit analysis theorem considers the position
of the hinges at the extrados or at the intrados, whilst in the finite
element procedure the typical section rotates around the neutral
axis, which is very close to the arch surface, but it is not on the
surface.
Further numerical analysis were performed in order to
investigate the sensitivity of the model to the variation of the
mechanical parameters assumedfor the masonry. Infact, inFigs. 18
and 19 the mechanical response of the unreinforced arch is
reported for three different values of the elastic modulus and for
three different values of the strength of the masonry material,
I. Cancelliere et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 776792 789
Fig. 18. Numerical response of the unreinforced arch for different values of the masonry elastic modulus (analysis performed by considering a mesh of 40 elements and the
mechanical parameters reported in Table 8 excluding E
M
).
Fig. 19. Numerical response of the unreinforced arch for different values of the masonry compressive strength (analysis performed by considering a mesh of 40 elements
and the mechanical parameters reported in Table 8 excluding
M
).
respectively. Fig. 18 shows that the value of the elastic modulus
can influence the initial elastic response of the unreinforced arch,
while does not play any role in the evaluation of the limit load, as it
could be expected. Moreover, Fig. 19 remarks that the behavior of
the arch is absolutely not influenced by the compressive strength
of the masonry.
Fig. 20 depicts the trust curve when the external load is close
to the ultimate load leading the structure to the collapse. In the
same figure, the position of the four hinges are reported; one is
located under the load cell on the extrados, two at the springs on
the intrados, one at the left bottom of the arch on the extrados.
The theoretical position of the hinges and the consequent failure
mechanism are in very good agreement with the ones observed
during the experimental campaign.
4.3. Masonry arches strengthened with FRP
The experimental campaign demonstrated that the collapse of
FRP strengthened arch is due to a mechanism characterized by
crushing of masonry and, then, shear failure. In Fig. 21, the value
of the applied force is plotted versus the vertical displacement
of the loaded section comparing the numerical and experimental
results. It can be emphasized that, although the proposed model
does not account for the shear failure, the numerical results
are in good agreement with experimental ones, capturing the
nonlinear behavior and the maximum load. In fact, the collapse
load is well predicted. Both numerical and experimental data
agree in assessing at approximately 100 times the original value
the increment of the loading capacity of the structure due to
the presence of the extrados FRP reinforcement. The post-critical
response could not be satisfactorily reproduced because of the lack
of shear failure of the model.
As for the case of unreinforced arch, sensitivity analyses of the
model to the elastic modulus and to the compressive strength of
the masonry were performedfor the reinforcedarch. InFigs. 22 and
23, the mechanical response of the reinforced arch is reported for
three different values of the elastic modulus and for three different
values of the strength of the masonry material, respectively.
Figures show that the value of the elastic modulus does not play
a significant role in the response of the reinforced arch, while
the compressive strength of the masonry strongly influences the
nonlinear behavior of the arch.
This effect is due to the fact that the collapse of reinforced
arch occurs because the attainment of the ultimate compressive
strength of the masonry material leading to the crush of blocks.
Moreover, the numerical model as well as the experiment
results show the structural response improvements of masonry
arches reinforced with FRP. In fact, comparing the numerical
790 I. Cancelliere et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 776792
a
b
Fig. 20. Thrust line and hinges arrangement of (a) unreinforced and (b) reinforced
arches, corresponding to the vertical displacement of the loaded section equal to
0.40 mm, for a mesh of 40 elements.
data of unstrengthened and FRP-strengthened arches, it can be
observed that the FRP reinforcement at extrados surface of arches
produces an increasing both in terms of the load-bearing capacity
(strength) and in terms of the ultimate displacement (ductility).
Finally, the numerical computations reveal that the imple-
mented procedure is stable and at each load step converges easily
to the solution.
It can be remarked that the numerical results does not depend
strongly on the mesh size.
5. Conclusions
In the present paper, the results of an experimental investi-
gation and a numerical modeling of reinforced masonry arches
strengthened with FRP strip are described and discussed.
The experimental analysis concerns arches that can be found
in certain parts of buildings. Moreover, it can be regarded also
as a model scale test. It is evident that the behavior of full scale
arches could be significantly different from the response of a
scale arch. In fact, the strengthened arch reaches the collapse
because of the compressive failure, which involves the softening
of the material; as a consequence, scale effects have to be
expected.
Indeed, the objective of the paper is twice: to verify the
enhancement of the response of the strengthened arches with the
unstrengthened ones; to develop and assess a numerical model for
the analysis of the unreinforced and FRP-reinforced arches. With
this aim in mind, it could be argued that if the proposed numerical
model is able to simulate the behavior of the tested arches, it can
be adopted to analyze full scale arches.
The first objective is quite evident, i.e. the FRP-strengthening
systemis really effective for vaults andcurvedstructures, as proved
by several experimental evidences reported in the literature. The
experimental campaign, in fact, confirms the effectiveness of the
FRP extrados strip reinforcement for masonry arches both in
terms of the load-bearing capacity and the ultimate displacement.
Moreover, it is shown that the application of the composite strip
significantly modifies the collapse mechanismof the strengthened
arches.
Furthermore, the experimental part of the paper is fundamental
in order to assess the ability of the numerical model to reproduce
the mechanical response of the arches. The paper proposes a
mechanical model and a numerical procedure which well predict
the behavior of the unreinforced and reinforced masonry arches.
Thus, the validation by the experimental results demonstrates
the skill of the developed procedure to capture the major
features of the strengthened curved structures. The position of
the hinges observed in the unreinforced tested arches is well
confirmed by the numerical results. The comparison among the
collapse behavior of the reinforced arches, evaluated with the
experimental campaign and the numerical simulations, gives very
satisfactory results both in terms of failure mode and collapse load
values.
The mechanical models of masonry and FRP strip are treated
separately and this allows to choose a different constitutive model
for masonry without modifying the reinforcement model and vice
versa, or change both the constitutive models independently from
each other. This aspect gives a certain degree of versatility to the
proposed mechanical model and stimulates further research in the
future.
F(v)
Fig. 21. Reinforced arch: comparison of experimental and numerical results.
I. Cancelliere et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 776792 791
Fig. 22. Numerical response of the reinforced arch for different values of the masonry elastic modulus (analysis performed by considering a mesh of 40 elements and the
mechanical parameters reported in Table 8 excluding E
M
).
Fig. 23. Numerical response of the reinforced arch for different values of the masonry compressive strength (analysis performed by considering a mesh of 40 elements and
the mechanical parameters reported in Table 8 excluding
M
).
Finally, it can be concluded that:
the increase of the bearing load due to the use of FRP materials
is huge and, perhaps, there is no other possible strengthening
systems that can lead to similar results;
the proposed numerical model can be considered as a
satisfactory tool for engineers and designers involved in the
analysis and rehabilitation of masonry arches.
Acknowledgement
The financial support of the Consorzio RELUIS (Department of
Civil Protection) is gratefully acknowledged.
References
[1] Triantafillou TC, Fardis MN. Strengthening of historic masonry structures with
composite materials. Mater Struct 1997;30:48696.
[2] Briccoli Bati S, Rovero L. Consolidation of masonry arches through sheets of
long carbon fibers composites. In: Proceeding of the first national conference
on mechanics of masonry structures strengthened with FRP materials:
Modelling, testing, design, control. 2000. p. 5364.
[3] Briccoli Bati S, Rapallini M, Tralli A. Behavior of fiber reinforced barrel
vaults under reversed cycles of spring settlements. In: Proceeding of the first
national conference on mechanics of masonry structures strengthened with
FRP materials: Modelling, testing, design, control. 2000. p. 6574.
[4] Aiello MA, Galati N, La Tegola A. Collapse load of masonry arches strengthened
with FRP sheets. In: Proceeding of the first national conference on mechanics
of masonry structures strengthened with FRP materials: Modelling, testing,
design, control. 2000. p. 7584.
[5] TriantafillouTC. Strengthening of masonry structures using epoxy-bondedFRP
laminates. J Compos Constr ASCE 1998;2:96104.
[6] Como M, Ianniruberto U, Imbimbo M. The capacity of masonry arches
strengthened with FRP sheets. In: Proceeding of the first national conference
on mechanics of masonry structures strengthened with FRP materials:
Modelling, testing, design, control. 2000. p. 15564.
[7] Valluzzi MR, Valdemarca M, Modena C. Behavior of brick masonry vaults
strengthened by FRP laminates. J Compos Constr ASCE 2001;1639.
[8] Chen JF. Load-bearing capacity of masonry arch bridges strengthened with
fiber reinforced polymer composites. Adv Struct Eng 2002;5:3744.
[9] Luciano R, Marfia S, Sacco E. Reinforcement of masonry arches by FRP
materials. In: ICCI02, International conference on FRP composites in
infrastructures. 2002.
[10] Basilio I, Oliveira D, Loureno P. Optimal FRP strengthening of masonry arches.
In: 13th International brick and block masonry conference. 2004.
[11] Foraboschi P. Strengthening of masonry arches with fiber-reinforced polymer
strips. J Compos Constr ASCE 2004;191201.
[12] Ianniruberto U, Rinaldi Z. Ultimate behaviour of masonry arches reinforced
with FRP at the intrados: Comparison between analytical and numerical
models. In: Proceedings of the international seminar on structural analysis
of historical constructionsPossibilities of numerical and experimental
tecniques. SACH. 2004.
[13] Ianniruberto U, Rinaldi Z. Systems of arches and columns strengthened
with FRP at the extrados. In: Proceedings of the international seminar on
structural analysis of historical constructionsPossibilities of numerical and
experimental tecniques. SACH. 2004.
792 I. Cancelliere et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 776792
[14] Basilio I. Strengthening of arched masonry structures with composite
materials. Ph.D. thesis. School of Engineering, University of Minho; 2007.
[15] Baratta A, Corbi O. Stress analysis of masonry vaults and static efficacy of FRP
repairs. Int J Solids Struct 2007;44:802856.
[16] Caporale A, Luciano R, Rosati L. Limit analysis of masonry arches with
externally bonded FRP reinforcements. Comput Methods Appl Mech Engrg
2006;196:24760.
[17] Chen Y, Ashour AF, Garrity SW. Modified four-hinge mechanism analysis for
masonry arches strengthened with near-surface reinforcement. Eng Struct
2007;29:186471.
[18] Marfia S, Sacco E. Modeling of reinforced masonry elements. Int J Solids Struct
2001;38:417798.
[19] Marfia S, Ricamato M, Sacco E. Stress Analysis of Reinforced Masonry Arches.
Int J Comput Methods Eng Sci Mech 2008;9:7790.
[20] UNI EN 771-1. Specification for masonry unitsPart 1: Clay masonry units.
Ente Nazionale Italiano di Unificazione; 2005 [in Italian].
[21] UNI 8942-3. Clay bricks and blocks. Test methods. Ente Nazionale Italiano di
Unificazione; 2005 [in Italian].
[22] UNI 6556. Tests for concrete. Evaluation of the secant elastic modulus in
compression. Ente Nazionale Italiano di Unificazione; 1976 [in Italian].
[23] UNI EN1015-11. Tests for mortar for masonry constructions. Evaluation of the
flexural and compressive strength of the mortar. Ente Nazionale Italiano di
Unificazione; 2001 [in Italian].
[24] Garbin E. Characterization of bed joint reinforced brick masonry subjected to
compression. Ph.D. thesis. School of Engineering, University of Trento; 2008.
[25] Lucchesi M, Padovani C, Zani N. Masonry-like solids with bounded compres-
sive strength. Int J Solids Struct 1996;33:196194.
[26] Marfia S, Sacco E. Numerical procedure for elasto-plastic no-tension model. Int
J Comput Methods Eng Sci Mech 2005;6:18799.
[27] Marfia S, Sacco E. Computational modeling of FRP reinforced cementitious
beams. Mech Adv Mater Struct 2006;13:33953.
[28] Crisfield MA. Non-linear finite element analysis of solids and structures,
advanced topics. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1998.
[29] Reddy JN. On the derivation of the superconvergent Timoshenko beam finite
element. Int J Comput Civil Struct Engng 2000;1(2):7184.
[30] Zienkiewicz OC, Taylor RL. The finite element method. 4th ed. London:
McGraw-Hill; 1991.
[31] Oliveira D. Experimental and numerical analysis of blocky masonry structures
under cyclic loading. Ph.D. thesis. School of engineering, University of Minho;
2007.
[32] Domde N, Pons G, Sellier A, Fritih Y. Mechanical behaviour of ancient
masonry. Mater Struct 2009;42:12333.
[33] Brencich A, Gambarotta L. Mechanical response of solid clay brickwork under
eccentric loading. Part I: Unreiforced masonry. Mater Struct 2005;38:25766.
[34] Bazant ZP. Fracture and size effect in concrete and other quasibrittle materials.
Boca Raton: CRC Press; 1998.