You are on page 1of 12

Guardar este documento

Ttulo: Out-of-plane behavior of surface-reinforced masonry walls


Autores: Sameer Hamoush , Mark McGinley , Paul Mlakar and Muhammad J . Terro
Ttulo: Construction and Building Materials. 16.6 (Sept. 2002): p341. FromExpanded Academic ASAP.
Tipo de documento: Article
Texto completo:
Abstract
This paper presents the results of an experimental programdesigned to evaluate the out-of-plane shear strength of masonry wall system; and to evaluate of the influence of
the area of externally bonded FRP composites on the shear strength of the system. Eighteen compact masonry wall panels (3' x 2' x 8", 900 x 600 x 200 mm) were tested
for static out-of-plane loads. Nine panels were reinforced by one layer of WEB `S-Glass' fiber-reinforcing systemattached to the tension side of the wall, while the
remaining nine were reinforced with two layers of composite overlay on the tension side. The influence of the overlay's embedded length (the distance between the support
and the overlay's end) on the shear strength was also investigated. The variables evaluated included three layout configurations and two reinforcement ratios. Three
different distances between the overlay end and the adjacent support were tested, 0, d/4 (d is the block unit thickness) and d/2. Both one and two layers of WEB fibers
were used and three specimens were evaluated for each variable. An MTS machine was used to test each panel under four-point load conditions. The failure loads,
mid-span deflection, fiber-end slippage and failure modes were recorded. Based on the results of the experimental program, it appears that the out-of-plane shear strength
of the concrete masonry wall systems is constant over the range of variables tested. The measured shear strength of the masonry wall specimens evaluated in this program
indicates that the code defined shear strengths may not be as conservative as assumed.
Keywords: Shear strength; Out-of-plane; Concrete masonry; Fiber reinforced composites; Experimental testing
1. Introduction
Retrofitting masonry walls with fiber-reinforced composites has been shown to increase the out-of-plane flexural strength of the systemand minimize the damage due to
failure by allowing for greater ductility of the wall and therefore greater energy absorption. However, recent research performed by Hamoush and McGinley [1] indicated
that the out-of-plane failure of unreinforced masonry walls retrofitted by external fiber reinforcement might be controlled by the shear strength of the systemat the
supports. These test results also indicated that the shear strength at failure was inconsistent for all walls tested. It was concluded by this study that the dowel action of the
retrofitting fibers might have been a contributing factor to the measured inconsistency in the shear strength at failure.
Other researchers such as Marshall et al. [2] have investigated the use of overlaying fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) composite systems to strengthen un-reinforced
masonry (URM) and brick wall panels. They investigated the out-of-plane strength of the retrofitted system. They concluded the FRP systems maintained the structural
integrity of the repaired walls after failure.
Ehasani et al. [3] and Ehsani et al. [4] conducted an experimental study on three half-scale un-reinforced brick walls retrofitted with graphite (FRP) vertical composite
strips. The walls were tested under cyclic out-of-plane loading. They showed that the tested specimens were capable of supporting out-of-plane loads of a magnitude of up
to 32 times the weight of the tested wall. At failure, the deflection of each wall was as much as 2% of the wall height. Although both the unrepaired brick walls and the
retrofitted walls both exhibited brittle behavior, the two systems were capable of dissipating some energy. The study concluded that the GFRP FRP composite strips are a
good systemfor retrofitting URM walls for lateral loads caused by seismic forces.
Hamilton and Dolan [5] performed a series of tests on unreinforced concrete masonry walls strengthened with FRP composites. The composite systemwas attached to the
tension side. The objective of their research work was to develop a general approach to provide design guidelines to strengthen concrete masonry walls with FRP. In their
study, retrofitted masonry wall systems were tested for flexure under out-of-plane static loading. The test results indicated that the flexural strength of FRP retrofitted
masonry systems may be controlled by either the fracture of the FRP, shear or tension in the masonry, or by delamination of the reinforcing FRP systems.
Lee et al. [6] developed an analytical tension-stiffening model for fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) sheets bonded to reinforced concrete. This model was based on
equilibriumand the assumption of a linear relationship between bond stress and slip. They performed tests of both small and large-scale specimens comprised of concrete,
CFRP sheets and epoxy. The study concluded that the experimentally measured crack opening deformations matched those predicted by the model with reasonable
accuracy. Also, it was concluded that the interfacial slip modulus, for concrete/FRP combinations, was independent of the type of FRP sheet.
Triantafillou [7] presented systematic numerical analysis procedures for predicting short termstrength of masonry walls strengthened with externally bonded FRP
laminates, under monotonic out-of-plane bending, in-plane bending and in-plane shear. An experimental programincluding testing 12 small wall specimens was performed
to validate the analysis and showed that strengthening of masonry wall with externally bonded FRP laminates appears to be an effective method for retrofitting. It was also
noted that when out-of-plane bending response dominates, the increase in the bending capacity is quite high.
Marshall et al. [8] evaluated techniques for seismic retrofitting un-reinforced masonry walls. The research focused on the applicability FRP composite materials systems for
strengthening URM walls. Unreinforced masonry walls have shown poor performance in past earthquakes. In their study, new 4' x 4' double width brick wall panels with
FRP composite reinforcing applied to one face were constructed and tested under out-of-plane loading. In addition, the shear performance of different widths and
thicknesses of FRP composites applied across the mortar joints of brick triplets (three brick high prisms with the center brick offset by half an inch) were evaluated. It was
concluded fromthe research that the seismic rehabilitation of URM brick walls with FRP composites shows great potential. It is also concluded that the strength of the
joints is a function of the width of the FRP composite overlay. With application of multiple layers of FRP, the shear strength of the mortar joints increased sufficiently to
cause the failure to occur in the brick.
Bizindavyi and Neale [9] investigated the development length needed to achieve full strength in the connection between concrete and FRP composite overlays. An
experimental programand theoretical study were used to evaluate the bond between the concrete and FRP composites. They showed good agreement between their
analytical model and measured behavior. They concluded that full development is achievable with a proper selection of the composite systemand the surface preparation of
the concrete.
Fromthe studies presented, it appears that using FRP composites to strengthen URM walls may be an effective way to enhance the wall's flexural strength. However, the
shear strength of the masonry wall systemmay limit the effectiveness of this retrofit technique. This paper presents the results of an experimental programdesigned to
evaluate the out-of-plane shear strength of masonry wall systems reinforced with externally bonded FRP composites.
2. Testing program
Eighteen, 3' x 2' x 8" (900 x 600 x 200 mm) hollow concrete masonry walls were fabricated under laboratory conditions and tested. Nine walls were reinforced externally
by one layer of glass fiber composites on the tension side of the wall, and the remaining nine were similarly reinforced with two layers of external glass fiber reinforcement.
Hollow, 8" (200 mm) concrete masonry units, complying with The American Society Of Testing and Materials (ASTM) Specification C90 [10] and ASTM C270 Type S
mortar was used to construct the walls.
2.1. Materials
Nine batches of mortar type `S' were mixed during wall fabrication. Three standard 2" cubes were made fromeach of the batches and compression tested as described in
Gale Power Search - Documento http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE|A92081515&v=2.1&markList=...
1 de 12 13/09/2011 02:18 p.m.
ASTM C780 [11]. The average compressive strength of the mortar obtained fromtesting of the cubes was 1500 psi (10.34 MPa).
2.2. Fibers and bonding adhesives
The un-reinforced masonry wall specimens were strengthened with a continuous WEB fabric (primary glass fabric) overlay and a Tyfo S Hi-Clear epoxy matrix. The WEB
fibers were attached to the walls using Tyfo S epoxy resin. The Tyfo S epoxy resin consisted of two parts of Tyfo A and B which were mixed in a ratio of 100:42 by
volume, as required for the standard Tyfo S products.
Two different fiber reinforcement areas were evaluated in the testing programand the mechanical properties of the two composite material configurations are shown in
Table 1.
2.3. Specimen preparation
The surfaces of the masonry wall specimens were sand blasted using an air gun to clean and prepare the surface for the FRP overlays. Attention was focused on cleaning
the joints and removing excessive mortar fromthe wall surface. A low-pressure water jet was applied to the sand blasted surface to remove the remaining dust. The water
jet was applied at least 24 h prior to application of the composite overlay. Fig. 1a, b show the wall elevation and the cross-section with the actual dimensions.
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
A painting roller was used to apply the epoxy to the prepared surface. The roller was saturated with epoxy, and then applied to the cleaned wall surface. The WEB fiber
mats were pre-cut to 24" x 28" (600 x 700 mm), 24" x 32" (600 x 800 mm) and 24" x 36" (600 x 900 mm) sizes. The pre-cut fabric mats were placed on the top of the
rolled epoxy and then more epoxy was applied to the surface of the fabric. Attention was focused on clearing all bubbles between the fabric and wall surface. During the
application of the epoxy, the change of fabric color fromwhite to yellow indicted that saturation had been reached.
2.4. Test set-up
Each of the wall specimens was tested in a simply supported beamconfiguration in an effort to evaluate the out-of-plane shear strength of the retrofitted masonry system.
A clear span of 36" (900 mm) was used for all walls. Two point loads, spaced 9" (225 mm) fromthe supports and at 18" (450 mm) centers, were applied to the specimens
through distributing beams and wood bearing strips. Loads were applied monotonically to failure. Fig. 2 shows the test apparatus with a specimen ready for test.
[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]
Before placing the wall specimens in the supports, the fabric overlay was trimmed with a grinder to ensure that a uniformdistance was maintained fromthe fabric end and
the test supports. This trimming was conducted after the bonding epoxy had been cured.
2.5. Testing apparatus
A servo-controlled hydraulic MTS 110 kip (490 kN) actuator was used to apply a load to the specimens. The walls were simply supported at the two sides with circular
solid pipe supports. A fast setting gypsumwas used to level each specimen on the two supporting pipes to insure a uniformdistribution of the support loads along the width
of the specimen and to prevent any force concentration due to imperfections in wall construction.
2.6. Instrumentation and data acquisition
Four LVDTs and a load cell were used to monitor the response of the specimens to the applied transverse loads. Two LVDTs were placed so that they measured the
interfacial movement between the masonry blocks and the fiber composite overlay at the end of the walls. The remaining two LVDTs measured the mid-span deflection on
each side of the wall specimen. Readings of load, displacements and deflections were recorded by a computerized data acquisition systemand stored in an Excel
spreadsheet file.
2.7. Testing procedures
The testing procedures were performed as described below:
1. A small initial load was applied to insure complete contact of the specimen with the two supports and to allow the gypsumto seat.
2. Once the wall had full contact, the load was released and an initial reading of loads and deflection was recorded.
3. The loading was then re-applied at a steady rate in increments of 500 pounds and held steady for a minimumof 1 min.
4. At each loading increment, the specimen was inspected visually for any distress and initiation of cracks.
3. Test results
One of the principal focuses of this investigation was on the load deformation characteristics of the fiber reinforced concrete masonry wall systems. The testing program
evaluated six different configurations of wall specimens, each set consisting of three walls. Set 1 consisted of Walls 1, 2 and 3 and investigated walls with two layers of fiber
reinforcement overlay extended to a distance of d/4 fromsupports (d is the depth of the block wall). Set 2 consisted of Walls 4, 5 and 6, and investigated walls with two
layers of fiber reinforcement overlay extended to a distance of d/2 fromsupports. Set 3 consisted of Walls 7, 8 and 9, and investigated walls with two layers of fiber
reinforcement overlay extended to the supports. Set 4 consisted of Walls 10, 11 and 12, and investigated walls with one layer of fiber reinforcement overlay extended to a
distance of d/4 fromsupports. Set 5 consisted of Walls 13, 14 and 15, and investigated walls with one layer of fiber reinforcement overlay extended to the supports. Finally,
Set 6 consisted of Walls 16, 17 and 18, and investigated walls with one layer of fiber reinforcement overlay extended to a distance of d/2 fromsupports.
The influence of the two experimental variables (reinforcement ratios and fiber length) on the wall failure loads and deformation are shown in Figs. 3-8. Fig. 3 shows the
loads vs. the deflection for specimens of Set 1. The load deflection is shown to be linear elastic up to failure of the specimen, for all walls of Set 1, although Wall 2
supported more loads than either Wall 1 or Wall 3. The average failure load for the three walls was 5891 pounds (26.27 kN). It was noted that the amount of slippage at
the fiber ends of the specimens was extremely small, and no significant interfacial slip was measured for the stress levels evaluated.
[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]
The load deflection curves shown in Fig. 4 (Set 2) are shown to be linear elastic up to failure for Walls 4 and 5. Wall 6 revealed more ductile behavior than either Wall 4 or
Wall 5. The average failure load for the three walls was 5934 pounds (26.46 kN).
[FIGURE 4 OMITTED]
The load deflection curves shown in Fig. 5 (Set 3) exhibit non-linear behavior with a continuously reducing slope. The average failure load for the three walls was 5298
pounds (23.62 kN).
Gale Power Search - Documento http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE|A92081515&v=2.1&markList=...
2 de 12 13/09/2011 02:18 p.m.
[FIGURE 5 OMITTED]
Fig. 6 shows the load vs. the deflection for the wall specimens of Set 4. The load deflection of this configuration is shown to be non-linear up to failure. Wall 11 supported
more loads than either Walls 10 or 12, and the average failure load for the three walls was 5470 pounds (24.4 kN).
[FIGURE 6 OMITTED]
The load deflection curves in Fig. 7 (Set 5) show the nonlinear behavior of Walls 13, 14 and 15. Wall 13 revealed more ductile behavior than either Wall 14 or Wall 15. The
average failure load for the three walls was 5676 pounds (25.3 kN).
[FIGURE 7 OMITTED]
The load deflection curves in Fig. 8 (Set 6) show that Walls 16, 17 and 18 exhibited essentially linear behavior up to failure. The average failure load for the three walls was
5888 pounds (26.26 kN).
[FIGURE 8 OMITTED]
Table 2 summarizes the experimental results for the 18 specimens tested, including the maximumloads and the corresponding average mid-span deflection obtained by
averaging the two LVDT reading at each side of each specimen.
Table 3 summarizes the failure loads, the calculated shear stress at the measured maximumloads, and the observed mode of failure for all the wall specimens tested. It can
be noted that three specimens failed in a typical diagonal shear failure (Type 1 failure, see Fig. 9). The remaining 15 specimens failed by opening of the mortar joint in the
shear area, followed by the formation of a diagonal shear crack that extended fromthe vertical joint to the point of the concentrated load (Type 2 failure, see Fig. 10). Final
failure occurred when the block web crack met the interface between the fiber and the masonry blocks and then propagated along the interface to the fiber composite end.
[FIGURES 9-10 OMITTED]
4. Discussion of experimental results
A review of Table 2 shows that the average load of walls with 28-inch fiber reinforcement (distance to support =d/2) is slightly higher than that of walls with 32-inch fiber
reinforcement (distance to support =d/4). Also, walls with 32-inch fiber reinforcement support slightly higher average loads than that with 36-inch fibers (distance to
support =0). The load deflection behavior of walls with the shorter fibers varied significantly, for the three walls tested. The variation in behavior can be noted clearly in
Fig. 4. Also, although the behavior of all three of the short fiber walls is basically linear elastic up to failure, Wall 6 shows some ductility prior to its failure.
Fig. 3 shows that the load deflection curves of walls with longer FRP (fiber closer to the support) are more consistent and exhibit more ductility than that of the shorter
overlays. Even greater consistency in behavior occurs with walls with 36-inch FRP overlays (Fig. 5). Also, ductility increases with the longer composite overlays. This
behavior suggests that the two-layer overlay and longer embedment lengths allow the wall systemto act more as an integrated systeman the more uniformfibers dominate
the behavior. With shorter overlays (larger distances to the support), the failure is controlled more by the more variable individual strength of the blocks located in the
critical stress area.
Table 3 shows that the average load of walls with 28-inch single layer fiber reinforcement (distance to support =d/2) is higher than that of walls with 32-inch and 36-inch
single layer fiber reinforcement. However, contrary to the two layer trends, walls with 36-inch fiber reinforcement (distance to support =0) had a higher average load than
those with 32-inch fibers (distance to support =d/4). It appears that the load deflection behavior of walls with one layer of FRP composite is different than that of the walls
with two layers of FRP composites. Walls with shorter single layer overlays exhibit behavior that is very consistent up to failure, for all three walls tested. However, with an
increase in the overlay length, the variation in load deflection behavior can be clearly noted, see Fig. 7. This difference may be attributed to a lower contribution of the FRP
to the overall behavior of the systemwith the single overlay layer. With shorter overlays, the strength is controlled basically by the strength of masonry blocks and the FRP
overlay does not appear to significantly contribute to the shear strength of the assembly. The wall behavior shown in Figs. 6 and 8 suggest that FRP contribution increases
as the length of the overlay increases.
It can be noted that when the FRP overlay is extended to the supports, the wall specimens with the two layered overlay systems appear to the behave as a fully integrated
system, while the wall specimen with a single layered overlay systemdoes not have as uniforma behavior.
In contrast, when shorter FRP overlay systems were used, the two-layered systems appear to contribute slightly to the wall systembehavior, while the one layered system
does not show significant contribution to the systemshear behavior.
5. Analytical evaluation
The analytical evaluation of the strengthened masonry wall systems was focused on three aspects of behavior, the flexural strength of the composite system, the shear
strength of the masonry blocks, and finally the contribution of the overlays on the ultimate shear strength of the system.
5.1. The flexural strength of the composite systems
A simplified analytical method was developed to predict the ultimate strength of the fiber reinforced masonry wall systems. The method was based on the following
assumptions: (1) linear strain distribution through the full depth of the wall; (2) small deformations; (3) no tensile strength in the masonry blocks, (4) no slip between the
fiber reinforced composites and the masonry wall, and (5) plane sections remained plane.
The stress--strain relationship of the fiber reinforced composite systems was generally considered to be linear elastic up to failure, while the stress--strain behavior of the
masonry block is modeled as and idealized uniformstress block at failure. The ultimate compression strain in the masonry blocks was assumed to be 0.003.
Fromthe internal force equilibriumand assuming a linear distribution for the section strains, the flexural strength capacity was determined (see Fig. 11). It should be noted
that the compressive strength of the masonry assembly, ([f'.sub.m]) was 1200 psi (8.28 MPa), supplier specification based on the plant testing, and the elastic modulus of
the FRP composite systemwas 4000 ksi (27.6 GPa). The ultimate strain of the fibers was assumed to be 0.02, while the ultimate stress is taken as 60 ksi (414 MPa).
[FIGURE 11 OMITTED]
In the experimental program, each wall was simply supported at the two ends with a clear span of 3 feet (900 mm). The actual width of each specimen was 1.5 feet (450
mm). Based on the above assumptions, the ultimate strength of the composite wall systems that causes compression failure of the masonry blocks was achieved at a loading
level, V, of:
V =16 Kips (71.75 kN) for the one layer WEB configuration; and
V =30.5 Kips (136.75 kN), for two layers WEB configuration.
An example of calculation of the nominal moment ([M.sub.n]) of one layer is given below: the thickness of the WEB layer =0.014 inch (0.356 mm)
Gale Power Search - Documento http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE|A92081515&v=2.1&markList=...
3 de 12 13/09/2011 02:18 p.m.
[A.sub.f] =(0.014)(24) =0.336 [inch.sup.2] (217 [mm.sup.2])
Strain equilibrium: [[epsilon].sub.f] =(0.003)(d - x)/x
is assumed to be less than the ultimate elongation. The force equilibriumgives a =1.02 inch (25.9 mm). Using a =1.02 inches, the FRP fails before the concrete crushes.
The ultimate force in the FRP is 20.16 Kips. The moment is calculated as
[M.sub.n] =12.02 Kip feet (53.9 kN m)
[M.sub.n] =V x 9/12
V =16 Kips (71.35 kN)
It should be noted that the unreinforced walls would be expected to have a moment capacity between 0.7 and 2.0 kip ft depending on what is assumed to be the modulus of
rupture of the masonry assembly.
5.2. The shear strength of the masonry walls
The shear strength of the masonry wall systems is evaluated based on the maximumshear stress in the web of the blocks at failure using standard elastic theory. The shear
stress was evaluated in the masonry blocks and not in the mortar joints, since all the observed cracks appeared to be initiated in the web of the masonry blocks near the
support. It should be noted that the fiber reinforced composite overlays extended over all the mortar joints of each wall specimen. Since the block appeared to fail in shear,
the contribution of the external reinforcement to the shear strength was ignored for this calculation.
The calculated shear failure stresses of the walls are not uniformand varied as is common for masonry systems. Tables 3 and 4 show the evaluated shear stress at failure
for the 18 wall specimens. The ratios of shear stress at the measured failure load to the code allowable shear stress generally fall within the three to five range typically
assumed for this ratio, although the ratios do tend to the higher side. It should be noted that the calculations summarized in Tables 3 and 4 are based on the moment of
inertia of 665 [inch.sup.4] (27679.4 [cm.sup.4]) for the entire wall and first a moment of area of 112 [inch.sup.3] (1835 [cm.sup.3]) (see Fig. 1). It can be also be noted
fromTable 4 that the shear strength of the masonry walls at failure varies and that some of this variation may be attributed to dowel action of the external reinforcements.
The shear calculation is performed based on the shear formula:
[tau]=VQ/I(B-b)
(fromFig. 1b), where [tau] =shear stress in the member at the neutral axis, V =shear force, b =total width of the cells, B =total width of the wall, and Q is the first
moment of the areas fromthe neutral axis of the solid portion of the blocks.
Using the actual dimensions leads to b =(23.25"-6")=17.25" (440 mm), B-b=(23.25-17.25)=6" (150 mm).
6. Recommendations and conclusions
This investigation involved conducting an experimental programdesigned to evaluate the out-of-plane shear strength of masonry wall systemreinforced with externally
bonded FRP composites. Eighteen compact masonry wall panels (3' x 2' x 8", 900 x 600 x 200 mm) were tested for out-of-plane static loads. The results of this
investigation suggests the following conclusions:
1. Strengthening of un-reinforced masonry walls by externally bonded composite overlays contributes to the flexural performance of the walls.
2. Adding more than one layer of FRP overlay increases the structural integrity of the systemand appears to reduce the variation in the behavior of the retrofitted walls,
especially when the overlays are extended to the supports.
3. When a single layer overlay is used, the distance of the overlay fromthe support has only a minor influence on the behavior of the retrofitted system.
4. There appeared to be no significant effect of the reinforcement fiber area and the amount of fiber extension to the support on the shear strength of the wall assembly.
However, the highly variable nature of the masonry shear strength may have hidden less pronounced influences.
Tabl e 1
Mat er i al pr oper t i es of t he f i ber used i n t he exper i ment al pr ogr am
Composi t e WEB and
mat er i al s Tyf o Hi - Cl ear epoxy
Ul t i mat e t ensi on st r engt h 60 ksi ( 414 MPa)
Ul t i mat e el ongat i on 2. 0%
El ast i c modul us 4000 ksi ( 27 580 MPa)
Desi gn t hi ckness 0. 014 i nch ( 0. 4 mm) per l ayer
Tabl e 2
Resul t s of t he wal l speci men t est s
Spec. Rei nf . Di st ance Maxi muml oads Aver age
no. l ayer s of f i ber def l ect i on
t o suppor t s at max l oads
( l b) ( kN) ( i n) ( mm)
1 2L d/ 4 14802. 32 65. 84 0. 097 2. 47
2 2L d/ 4 11504. 11 51. 17 0. 0823 2. 10
3 2L d/ 4 9039. 535 40. 21 0. 0688 1. 75
4 2L d/ 2 11204. 85 49. 84 0. 131 3. 33
5 2L d/ 2 12578. 96 55. 95 0. 106 2. 71
6 2L d/ 2 11821. 66 52. 59 0. 177 4. 49
7 2L 0 9269. 774 41. 23 0. 106 2. 69
8 2L 0 10450. 48 46. 49 0. 127 3. 22
9 2L 0 12068. 97 53. 69 0. 139 3. 53
l 0 1L d/ 4 10605. 11 47. 17 0. 113 2. 87
11 1L d/ 4 11196. 07 49. 80 0. 148 3. 76
Gale Power Search - Documento http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE|A92081515&v=2.1&markList=...
4 de 12 13/09/2011 02:18 p.m.
12 1L d/ 4 11014. 12 48. 99 0. 128 3. 25
13 1L 0 10148. 78 45. 14 0. 159 4. 05
14 1L 0 12682. 37 56. 41 0. 102 2. 60
15 1L 0 11226. 07 49. 94 0. 120 3. 05
16 1L d/ 2 11600. 45 51. 60 0. 108 2. 75
17 1L d/ 2 13032. 36 57. 97 0. 127 3. 23
18 1L d/ 2 10696. 28 47. 58 0. 109 2. 76
d `wal l dept h' = 7. 625 i n = 194 mm.
Tabl e 3
Resul t s of t he shear cal cul at i ons of t he masonr y wal l syst ems
Spec. Maxi mum Shear st r ess Mode of f ai l ur e
no. shear
f or ce ( V)
( l b) ( kN) ( psi ) ( MPa)
1 7401 32. 92 208 1. 43 Type 2 Shear
2 5752 25. 59 162 1. 12 Type 2 Shear
3 4520 20. 11 127 0. 88 Type 1 Shear
4 5602 24. 92 158 1. 09 Type 2 Shear
5 6290 27. 98 177 1. 22 Type 1 Shear
6 5911 26. 29 166 1. 14 Type 1 Shear
7 4635 20. 62 130 0. 90 Type 2 Shear
8 5225 23. 24 147 1. 01 Type 2 Shear
9 6035 26. 85 170 1. 17 Type 2 Shear
10 5301 23. 58 149 1. 03 Type 2 Shear
11 5598 24. 90 158 1. 09 Type 2 Shear
12 5507 24. 50 155 1. 07 Type 2 Shear
13 5074 22. 57 143 0. 99 Type 2 Shear
14 6341 28. 21 178 1. 23 Type 2 Shear
15 5613 24. 97 158 1. 09 Type 2 Shear
16 5800 25. 80 163 1. 12 Type 2 Shear
17 6516 28. 98 183 1. 26 Type 2 Shear
18 5348 23. 79 151 1. 04 Type 2 Shear
1 i nch = 25. 4 mm, 1 pound = 4. 46 N, 1 psi = 6. 896 kPa.
Tabl e 4
Compar i son bet ween shear st r ess t o t he r at i o code al l owabl e
Spec. Shear st r ess Aver age shear SCOV ( a) Rat i o t o code
no. ( psi ) ( MPa) st r ess ( psi ) ( %) al l owabl e ( b)
[ MPa] ( [ F. sub. v] =
37 psi )
[ 0. 255 MPa]
1 208 1. 43 166 24. 1 5. 62
2 162 1. 12 [ 1. 14] 4. 38
3 127 0. 88 3. 43
4 158 1. 09 167 5. 71 4. 27
5 177 1. 22 [ 1. 15] 4. 78
6 166 1. 14 4. 89
7 130 0. 90 149 13. 5 3. 51
8 147 1. 01 [ 1. 03] 3. 97
9 170 1. 17 4. 595
10 149 1. 03 154 2. 98 4. 03
11 158 1. 09 [ 1. 06] 4. 27
12 155 1. 07 4. 19
13 143 0. 99 161 11. 00 3. 87
14 178 1. 23 [ l . l l ] 4. 81
15 158 1. 09 4. 27
16 163 1. 12 166 9. 76 4. 41
17 183 1. 26 [ 1. 14] 4. 946
18 151 1. 04 4. 1
Over al l aver age = 160 psi = 1. 10
MPa
1 i nch = 25. 4 mm, 1 pound = 4. 46 N, 1 psi = 6. 896 kPa.
( a) COV = coef f i ci ent of var i at i on = st andar d devi at i on/ mean ( as a
%) .
( b) Bui l di ng code r equi r ement s f or masonr y st r uct ur es, ACI 530. 1-
99/ ACSE 6- 99/ TMS 602- 99.
References
[1] Hamoush S, McGinley M. Out-of-plane strengthening of masonry walls by reinforced composite, final report, no. 4-41156. North Carolina A&T State University, 1998.
[2] Marshall OS, Sweeney SC, Trovillion J C. Army Corps of Engineers special publication. Illinois: Construction Engineering Research Laboratory (CERL), 1998.
[3] Ehasni MR, Saddatmanesh H, Velazquez-Dimas J I. Behavior of retrofitted URM walls under simulated earthquake loading. J Composite Construct 1999;3(3):134-42.
Gale Power Search - Documento http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE|A92081515&v=2.1&markList=...
5 de 12 13/09/2011 02:18 p.m.
[4] Ehsani MR, Saadatmanesh H, Al-Saidy A. Shear behavior of URM retrofitted with FRP overlays. J Composite Construct 1997;1(1):17-25.
[5] Hamilton HR, Dolan CW. Flexural capacity of glass FRP strengthened composite masonry walls. J Composite Construct 2001;5(3):170-8.
[6] Lee YJ , Boothby TE, Bakis CE, Nanni A. Slip modulus of FRP sheets bonded to concrete. J Composites Construct 1999;3(4):161-7.
[7] Triantafillou TC. Strengthening of masonry structures using epoxy bonded FRP laminated. J Composite Construct 1998;2(2):107-15.
[8] Marshall OS, Sweeney SC, Trovillion J C. Seismic rehabilitation of unreinforced masonry walls. Illinois: Construction Engineering Research Laboratory (CERL), 1998.
[9] Bizindavyi L, Neale KW. Transfer lengths and bond strengths for composites bonded to concrete'. J Composite Construct 1999;3(4):153-60.
[10] The American Society for Testing and Materials. ASTM C90 standard specification for load bearing concrete masonry units, ASTM annual book of standards. West
Conshohochen, PA: ASTM, 1999.
[11] The American Society for Testing and Materials. ASTM C780 test method for prognostication and construction evaluation of mortars for plain and reinforced unit
masonry, ASTM annual book of standards. West Conshohochen, PA: ASTM, 1999.
Sameer Hamoush (a), *, Mark McGinley (a), Paul Mlakar (b), Muhammad J . Terro (c)
(a) Architectural Engineering Department, North Carolina A&T State University, Greensboro, NC 27411, USA
(b) Construction and Materials Division, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, USA
(c) Civil Engineering Department, Kuwait University, Safat 1300, Kuwait
* Corresponding author. Fax: +1-336-334-7126.
Received 15 February 2001; received in revised form12 February 2002; accepted 17 April 2002
Hamoush, Sameer^McGinley, Mark^Mlakar, Paul^Terro, Muhammad J.
Cita de fuente
Hamoush, Sameer, et al. "Out-of-plane behavior of surface-reinforced masonry walls." Construction and Building Materials Sept. 2002: 341+. Gale Power Search. Web.
13 Sep. 2011.
Document URL
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?&id=GALE%7CA92081515&v=2.1&u=sureste08&it=r&p=GPS&sw=w
Nmero de documento de Gale: GALE|A92081515
Inicio de pgina
Gale Power Search - Documento http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE|A92081515&v=2.1&markList=...
6 de 12 13/09/2011 02:18 p.m.
Gale Power Search - Documento http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE|A92081515&v=2.1&markList=...
7 de 12 13/09/2011 02:18 p.m.
Gale Power Search - Documento http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE|A92081515&v=2.1&markList=...
8 de 12 13/09/2011 02:18 p.m.
Gale Power Search - Documento http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE|A92081515&v=2.1&markList=...
9 de 12 13/09/2011 02:18 p.m.
Gale Power Search - Documento http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE|A92081515&v=2.1&markList=...
10 de 12 13/09/2011 02:18 p.m.
Gale Power Search - Documento http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE|A92081515&v=2.1&markList=...
11 de 12 13/09/2011 02:18 p.m.
Gale Power Search - Documento http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE|A92081515&v=2.1&markList=...
12 de 12 13/09/2011 02:18 p.m.

You might also like