Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Composite Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruct
Institute of Construction Engineering, University of Transport and Communications, 3 Cau Giay, Lang Thuong, Dong Da, Ha Noi, Viet Nam
Universit de Lyon, Ecole Nationale dIngnieurs de Saint-Etienne (ENISE), Laboratoire de Tribologie et de Dynamique des Systmes (LTDS), UMR 5513, 58 rue Jean Parot, 42023
Saint-Etienne Cedex 2, France
c
LGCIE, Universit Claude Bernard LYON 1, 82 bd Neils Bohr, 69622 Villeurbanne, France
b
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Available online 2 July 2015
Keywords:
Masonry wall
Strengthening
FRP
TRC
Shear behaviour
a b s t r a c t
This experimental study focuses on the behaviour of hollow concrete brick masonry walls, especially
walls reinforced with composite materials under in-plane loading conditions. This work is a step towards
dening reliable seismic strengthening solutions. Indeed, in France, more stringent seismic design
requirements for building structures have been considered with the replacement of old design codes.
Thus, an experimental program has been performed at the laboratory scale. Six walls have been submitted for shearcompression tests ve walls are reinforced by (1) bre-reinforced polymer (FRP) strips
using E-glass and carbon fabrics and/or (2) a textile-reinforced concrete (TRC), and the last wall acts as a
reference. It is noted that the composite strips are mechanically anchored into the foundations of the
walls to improve their efciency. All of the walls share the same boundary and compressive loading
conditions, which are representative of a seismic solicitation. Nevertheless, masonry wall performances
and anchor efciency are only evaluated under monotonic lateral loadings. A comparative study on global
behaviour and on local mechanisms is performed and, in particular, highlights that the mechanical
anchor systems play an important role in improving the behaviour of reinforced walls (by FRP and
TRC) and that the solutions for strengthening by TRC permit the upgrade of the walls ductility with a
lower strength compared with the solutions with FRP.
2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Masonry has a long history as a building technique. Even if reinforced concrete and steel prevail in the modern structures,
masonry units are also used. In France, a signicant part of buildings is erected with hollow concrete blocks. However, a relatively
important manufacturing tolerance and a design with large holes
give these blocks and even more to hollow concrete block structures a complex behaviour. Therefore, it is obvious that we
should pay attention to these structures in a seismic context, particularly when a seismic hazard assessment has been revised, leading to a tightening of the safety rules in France.
Indeed, past earthquakes have revealed that unreinforced
masonry structures can suffer extensive damage. Their vulnerability often lays in the weakness of mortar joints in tension and shear,
which are adversely and highly subjected to shear stresses during
earthquakes [1,2].
Corresponding author. Tel.: +33 4 77 43 75 38; fax: +33 4 78 43 33 83.
E-mail address: amir.si-larbi@enise.fr (A. Si Larbi).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2015.06.057
0263-8223/ 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
924
2. Experimental program
2.1. Masonry walls
A series of six walls has been built with the same dimension
given in the Fig. 1. It should be mentioned that all of the specimens
were built by a professional mason and must be considered to be in
compliance with the practices. The hollow concrete block units,
whose dimensions are 500 mm long, 200 mm high and 75 mm
thick, belong to Group 2 according to Eurocode 6, with a strength
class B40 (characteristic compression strength of 4 MPa).
However, these blocks have been halved lengthwise before being
assembled to make walls dimensions compatible with the limited
means of the laboratory in terms of space and actuator capacity
(Block work size at reduced scale: 250 200 75 mm3).
The compressive strength of the individual masonry blocks has
been determined and ranges from 4 to 10 MPa (6.5 MPa on average
with a standard deviation of 2.33). These blocks are assembled
with a mortar composed of Portland cement (CEM I 52.5) and sand
in the proportion 1:3 with a water/cement ratio equal to 0.5.
Mortar test prisms of 40 40 160 mm3 were tested for compressive and exural strengths. At 31 days, these strengths are 48 MPa
and 10 MPa, respectively.
2.2. Reinforcement
2.2.1. Strengthening materials
Two types of composites have been used: the rst composite is
a bre-reinforced polymer (FRP) while the latter composite is a
textile-reinforced cementitious composite (TRC).
2.2.1.1. FRP composite. The bre-reinforced composite materials
consist of a two-component epoxy matrix and bi-directional fabrics made of either carbon (CFRP) or glass (GFRP). Their mechanical
characteristics have been measured on six specimens according to
ISO 527-1. The obtained results are listed in Table 1.
2.2.1.2. TRC composite. Knowledge on TRC composites is notably
less signicant than knowledge relating to FRP. However, it is
Table 1
Mechanical characteristics of composites.
Composite
strengthening
system
Nominal
thickness
(mm)
Young
modulus
(GPa)
Tensile
strength
(Mpa)
Ultimate
strain (lm/
m)
CFRP
GFRP
0.48
1.7
105
7.2
1700
100
16000
13.800
Textile reinforcement
*
**
Nature of bres
TEX
Fibre diameter
Number of
lament/yarn
Knitted grid size
Tensile strength (yarn)
Glass-AR
1200*
19 lm*
1600*
Grain size
Silica-fume
Thixotropy
Shrinkage
<2 mm*
Yes*
Yes*
0*
5 5 mm*
1102 MPa*
5 MPa**
40 MPa*
Young modulus
74,000 MPa*
Tensile strength
Compressive
strength
Young modulus
1700 MPa*
Provided properties.
Laboratory characterisation.
925
Given the existing solutions and their well-established performances (easy application and high strength), only connection
solutions based on carbon bres and an epoxy resin have been considered. The anchorage system (MAPEI) is an anchor made from
monodirectional carbon bres with at least 36 yarns, each including 12,000 bres. The anchorage strength given by the manufacturer is 30 kN at the ultimate limit state.
2.2.3. Strengthening congurations
The denition of strengthening patterns must be part of a
strategy aimed at nding a balance between lateral strength
and energy dissipation capacity [14]. Thus, the objective in reinforcing a structure is to improve its strength capacity, to enhance
its ductility, or both.
According to this strategy, different strengthening congurations with TRC and FRP composites have been proposed. The
reinforcing material is always applied symmetrically on both wall
surfaces.
The experimental program consists of testing six masonry walls
to failure, including an unreinforced wall (as the reference specimen) and ve TRC or FRP-reinforced specimens (see Fig. 4). With
FRP composites, three strengthening patterns have been proposed.
The rst wall, referenced CGRW, has been reinforced with both carbon bre-reinforced polymer (CFRP) and glass bre-reinforced
polymer (GFRP) to signicantly improve strength capacity. Each
side of both faces is reinforced by a continuous sheet, is comprised
of two glass layers over a width of 400 mm along the entire height
of the masonry and is combined with two discontinuous carbon
sheets, which are 1410 mm long and 60 mm wide; the horizontal
distance between these two carbon sheets is 100 mm. The two
remaining walls, for their part, have been reinforced by either
CFRP sheets (CRW wall) or GFRP sheets (GRW wall) to combine
strength capacity and ductility.
Concerning TRC solutions, embedding glass fabrics (rather than
carbon fabrics) in an epoxy matrix tends to produce composites
with better energy dissipation capacities. Thus, it is appropriate
to take advantage of this property in the context of reinforcing
masonry walls. This choice to use only glass bres is more appropriate because it adds value to TRC materials (compared with
carbonepoxy composites), which achieves a smaller ecological
footprint and has fewer problems with the hygiene and safety conditions for workers.
As a consequence, it is clear that without overlooking the
loadbearing capacity, it is desirable to increase the ductility of reinforced walls, which is the main motivation of our choices. In the
rst pattern (TRCW1 wall), only one TRC layer, 1410 mm high
and 200 mm wide, is applied on each side of both faces.
However, in the second selected pattern, the main objective is to
improve the dissipation capacities, so a vertical strip is applied in
the middle of the wall. Each strip is made of three TRC-layers,
which are 1410 mm high and 200 mm wide.
2.2.4. Application of strengthening systems and anchor placement
FRP/TRC reinforcements have been laid up. First of all, wall
surfaces have been cleaned to remove dust and loose materials,
which could disturb the bond between the masonry wall and its
reinforcements. The application of a strengthening system rst
involves covering the wall with a layer of epoxy resin (FRP) or mortar (TRC). Then, the fabric (FRP) or textile (TRC) is placed along the
wall and is pressed against the resin or mortar. A second layer of
resin or mortar is eventually applied to ensure fabric impregnation.
For walls reinforced with several layers, the last two steps are
repeated as necessary.
These reinforcements are anchored to the foundation because of
the CFRP structural connections. An anchorage anchor is composed
of two parts: the anchorage strictly speaking and the whip. The
926
Ediss
1
dcr :V cr dVmax dcr V max V cr du dVmax V max
2
V du
The ductility coefcient, obtained by dividing the ultimate horizontal displacement (du) by the elastic displacement (dcr), reects the
deformation capacity of shear walls in the post-elastic zone. This
parameter is a decisive criterion for paraseismic construction.
From these results, it appears that reinforced walls achieve substantially higher ultimate loads than the reference unreinforced
wall, regardless of reinforcement type. Shear strength increases
927
URW
TRCRW2
TRCRW1
CRW
GRW
CGRW
Spreader beam
Load cell
Hydraulic jack
Load cell
Post-tension rod
Wall
Beams
Reaction wall
Threaded rod
928
Fig. 6. Curves of load versus horizontal displacement at the top of the wall.
particular with FRP materials and to a lesser extent with TRC materials. By contrast, the size of the linear zone is strongly subordinated to the adopted reinforcements nature and conguration.
Indeed, according to experimental results (Vcr indicator seems
irrelevant or at least unsuitable for results obtained in the present
case and presented as loaddisplacement curves), overall, wall
macroscopic damage is delayed, except for the TRCW1 wall whose
reinforcement ratio is low.
In the rst stage, the discernible increase in initial stiffness may
be attributed to the ability of the reinforcement (mainly when its
axial stiffness is sufcient) to bridge emerging microcracks and
cracks because of a suitable load transfer.
2.7. Ultimate displacement and ductility
Furthermore, it is important to note that the ultimate displacement is a minimum (except for the CGRW wall) maintained when
compared with the reference wall. This emphasises the interest of
chosen reinforcement solutions and a priori attests to the usefulness of anchorages between footings and walls.
It is also worth noting that two reinforced walls (TRCW2 and
GRW) see a tangible increase, of approximately 36% in their ultimate displacements. Walls are likely subject to exural mechanisms, which induce normal tensile stresses in reinforcements.
Thus, the ultimate displacement capacity of strengthened masonry
walls is, among other factors, certainly conditioned by the axial
stiffness of reinforcements, which can explain at least partially
the increase in stiffness for these reinforced walls.
The decrease in ultimate displacement is peculiar to the CGRW
wall because anchorages have certainly been involved in the wall
failure (see below). As mentioned previously, the ductility factor
(l = du/dcr) plays a crucial role in assessing the seismic behaviour
of masonry walls in particular because it reduces the number
of elastic seismic design actions. Table 3 highlights that
TRC-reinforced walls exhibit nearly the same ductility factor as
an unreinforced wall. In contrast, for the FRP-reinforced walls case,
if lateral strength clearly increases, the ultimate ductility coefcient is low compared with an unreinforced wall (Fig. 8d and
Fig. 10). This may be related to the capacity that TRC composites
have, unlike FRP composites, to crack, to follow masonry wall
displacements and potentially to absorb wall damage, which
thus remains controlled.
Needless to say, the above assumptions require a more elaborate experimental campaign to be validated, but some of the proposed explanations will also be reviewed regarding available
data at the local scale.
929
URW
CGRW
CRW
GRW
TRCRW1
TRCRW2
CFRP
GFRP
CFRP
GFRP
TRC
TRC
t R bR
(mm2)
AR
qv lt
qv :ER
(MPa)
Vcr = (70%Vmax)
(kN)
dcr
(mm)
Vmax
(kN)
dVmax
(mm)
Vu = (80%Vmax)
(kN)
du
(mm)
0.48 60
1.7 400
0.48 60
1.7 400
3 200
9 200
3.82
82,020
7.88
35.79
0.88
3.66
11.25
51.13
4.59
8.39
9.00
40.90
12.98
8.70
0.3
3.52
3.31
13.98
31,316
50,702
4854
22,135
22.40
35.53
8.61
18.92
2.50
3.06
0.75
1.07
32.00
50.75
12.30
27.03
9.94
8.89
5.85
7.32
25.60
40.60
9.84
21.62
13.20
17.70
12.80
17.60
l = du/
dcr
Ediss
(kN mm)
Failure modes
8.97
9.78
14.78
2.38
123.90
285.30
Flexural
Flexural + shear
8.96
11.61
11.48
17.68
5.28
5.78
17.07
16.45
324.26
708.24
133.49
403.80
Flexural + shear
Flexural + shear
Flexural + shear
Flexural + shear
Kel
(kN/
mm)
P
tR - thickness of composite band; bR - width of composite band; AR - total cross section area of strengthening (= bR :tR ); l and t- width and thickness of masonry wall; qv vertical reinforcement ratio.
Fig. 8. Comparative diagrams of the different indicators (a-strength capacity, b-stiffness, c-ultimate displacement, d-ductility coefcient, e-dissipation energy).
930
for the CRW wall (which is a typical shear failure pattern), even
along the edge of the unreinforced zone (in particular for GRW
wall), thus reecting that reinforcements can bridge cracks and
also inuence their propagation.
Nevertheless, the collapse of these walls (or very marked deterioration) occurs by the crushing of the lower right corner (highly
subject to compression) and ends and by the splitting of the
extreme unit block. With the failure of this block, the wall tends
to turn about the right toe, as found for an unreinforced wall
(Fig. 12(b) and (c)).
Fig. 10. Reassessment of ultimate ductility factors by using the experimental elastic
limit rather than the conventional one.
Crushing of the
compressive brick
Cracks of mortar
joints
the bottom of the wall which could explain, even partially, the
observed failure mode.
As a consequence, the use of anchorage devices certainly
improves the lateral strength of reinforced walls. However, to
avoid sudden ultimate failures of walls and to ensure sufcient
energy dissipation capabilities, an anchorage design cannot be
decoupled from the stiffness or reinforced walls (taking into
account both reinforced surface area and strengthening materials).
The other two FRP-reinforced walls are not affected by anchor
failure and show similar damage mechanisms.
These walls exhibit coupled shearexure failure modes. In
both specimens, shear cracks initiate in the middle of the wall
(unreinforced zone) and propagate along the compressed diagonal
Crushing of
the
compressive
brick
Crack of FRP
Local debonding
s
propa
gation
Crack Crushing of
the
s
propa compressive
brick
gation
Failure of anchors
(a)
(b)
(c)
Fig. 12. Failure modes and damage mechanisms for FRP-reinforced walls: (a)- sudden failure of CGRW wall; (b) and (c)- coupled shearexure failure of CRW and GRW walls.
931
Macro-crack of TRC
Multi-cracks of TRC
(a)
(b)
Fig. 13. Failure modes and damage mechanisms for TRC-reinforced walls (a)- TRCRW1 wall and (b)- TRCRW2 wall.
Fig. 14. Evolutions of strains in FRP reinforcements along wall length for CGRW wall (a): GRW wall (b) and CRW wall (c).
3. Conclusions
The present experimental study has focused on masonry walls
reinforced by TRC and FRP composites that are subject to monotonic in-plane combined shearcompression tests. The main ndings are as follows:
- Reinforcements, regardless of their nature and the adopted layout diagram (provided that reinforcement ratio is sufcient),
enable us to extend the structural integrity eld of masonry
walls.
- TRC reinforcements lead to lower performance levels than FRP
reinforcements in terms of lateral strength capacity, but they
signicantly increase their ductility capacity.
- TRC and GFRP seem to be more appropriate than CFRP in terms
of ultimate displacement capacity.
- A low TRC reinforcement ratio only marginally modies global
masonry wall performances.
- Dissipation mechanisms, which differ between FRP and
TRC-reinforced walls, have been claried; in particular, they
diffuse dissipation processes (micro-cracks) in TRC
composites.
- Anchorage systems are appropriate (and technologically possible) to improve the in-plane performances of reinforced
masonry walls.
- Reinforcement design is limited by the compressive strength of
concrete hollow blocks.
932
References
[1] Fallahi A, Alaghebadian R, Miyajima M. Microtremor measurements and
building damage during the Changureh-Avaj, Iran earthquake of June 2002. J
Nat Disaster Sci 2003;25(3):3746.
[2] Klingner R. Behavior of masonry in the Northridge (US) and Tecoman-Colima
(Mexico) earthquakes: lessons learned, and changes in design provisions.
6_Congresso Nacional de Sismologia e Engenharia Sismica, Guimares,
Portugal; 2004.
[3] Capozucca R. Experimental analysis of historic masonry walls reinforced by
CFRP under in-plane cyclic loading. Compos Struct 2011;94:27789.
[4] Lanivschi CE. State of the art for strengthening masonry with Fibre Reinforced
Polymers. Buletinul Institutului Politehnic Din IASI Publicat de Universitatea
Tehnica, Gheorghe Asachi din Iasi Tomul LVIII (LXII), Fasc. 2, 2012 Sectia
ConstrucTII. Arhitechtura.
[5] Lunn Dillon S, Rizkalla SH, Maeda S, Ueda T. FRP anchorage systems for inll
masonry structures; APFIS 2012 Hokkaido University Japan, 24 february
2012.
[6] Bernat E, Gil L, Roca P, Escrig C. Experimental and analytical study of TRM
strengthened brickwork walls under eccentric compressive loading. Constr
Build Mater 2013;44:3547.
[7] Carozzi FG, Milani G, Poggi C. Mechanical properties and numerical modeling
of fabric reinforced cementitious matrix (FRCM) systems for strengthening of
masonry structures. Compos Struct 2014;107:71125.
[8] Papanicolaou CG, Triantallou TC, Karlos K, Papathanasiou M. Textilereinforced mortar (TRM) versus FRP as strengthening material of URM walls:
in-plane cyclic loading. Mater Struct 2007;40:108197.
[9] Papanicolaou CG, Triantallou T, Lekka M. Externally bonded grids as
strengthening and seismic retrotting materials of masonry panels. Constr
Build Mater 2011;25:50414.
[10] da Porto Franca, Mosele Flavio. Claudio Modena in-plane cyclic behaviour of a
new reinforced masonry system: experimental results. Eng Struct
2011;33:258496.
[11] Prota A, Marcari G, Fabbrocino G, Manfredi G, Aldea C. Experimental in-plane
behavior of tuff masonry strengthened with cementitious matrix-grid
composites. J Compos Constr ASCE 2006;10(3):22333.
[12] Contamine R, Si Larbi A, Hamelin P. Contribution to direct tensile testing of
textile reinforced concrete (TRC) composites. Mater Sci Eng: A
2011;528:858998.
[13] Contamine R, Si Larbi A, Hamelin P. Identifying the contributing mechanisms
of textile reinforced concrete (TRC) in the case of shear repairing damaged and
reinforced concrete beams. Eng Struct 2013;46:44758.
[14] Davidovici: Risque sismique: renforcer des btiments existants; ENIT
October 2008.
[15] Tomazevic M, Lutman M, Petkovic L. Seismic behavior of masonry walls:
experimental simulation. J Struct Eng ASCE 1996;122(9):10407.
[16] Magenes G, Calvi GM. In-plane seismic response of brick masonry walls.
Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 1997;26:1091112.
[17] Mahmood H, Ingham JM. Diagonal compression testing of FRP-retrotted
unreinforced clay brick masonry wallettes. J Compos Constr ASCE
2011;15(5):81020.
[18] Banholzer B. Bond behaviour of a multi-lament yarn embedded in a
cementious matrix [Philosophy doctoral thesis]. Schriftenreihe Aachener
Beitrge zur Bauforschung. Institut fr Bauforschung der RWTH Aachen
2004; 12.