Construction and Building Materials 40 (2013) 1038–1045

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

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

Shear strength of brick masonry walls assembled with different types of mortar
Valerio Alecci, Mario Fagone, Tommaso Rotunno ⇑, Mario De Stefano
Department of Construction and Restoration, University of Florence, 50121 Florence, Italy

h i g h l i g h t s

" Brick masonry walls assembled with different kinds of mortar are tested.
" Shear tests on triplets and diagonal compression tests on panels are performed.
" The shear strength under zero normal stress is the parameter obtained.
" A comparison between the values of the shear strength is presented.

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

Article history: The prediction of masonry shear strength, by direct way, requires appropriate experimental tests on trip-
Received 8 May 2012 lets, in line with standard EN 1052-3, or diagonal compression tests on panels according to ASTM 509-
Received in revised form 16 November 2012 2010 and RILEM LUMB6. In the present paper the results of an experimental investigation, carried out
Accepted 22 November 2012
by these two types of tests on brick masonry walls assembled with different kinds of mortar are reported.
Available online 28 December 2012
A comparison between the values of the masonry shear strength, calculated applying the three formu-
las available in literature for the diagonal compression test data, and those obtained by laboratory tests
Keywords:
on shear triplets, is presented.
Masonry
Shear strength
Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Experimental test

1. Introduction
Masonry constructions still constitute today a large part of the
building stock throughout the world. The historical and artistic
heritage as well as the ‘‘common’’ residential buildings in the old
urban and rural city centres are usually made of masonry.
Masonry material can scarcely bear tensile stress and it is,
therefore, known as no-tension material. Furthermore, as it is a
heterogeneous material, its mechanical behaviour depends on
the geometric texture and the properties of the constituent
materials.
In the last decades, seismic events which hit and badly damaged
large areas of high density masonry buildings (such as the Umbria
and Abruzzo regions in Italy) have increased the interest of the sci-
entific community towards more appropriate modelling strategies
to assess the seismic vulnerability of such buildings.
Although structural engineers are developing even more
sophisticated numerical procedures, the ‘‘accuracy’’ of the model-
ing results always depends on the correct identification of a few
mechanical parameters required to characterize masonry material.
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: rotunno@unifi.it (T. Rotunno).
The shear strength under zero normal stress is one of these param-
eters; its exact definition plays a crucial role in the prediction of
masonry behaviour under seismic actions.
Italian Seismic Code [1] in line with Eurocode 6 [2], allows to
determine the shear characteristic strength fvk0 either through an
estimate using a pre-calculated table of values or by a direct way
which requires appropriate experimental tests on triplets, in line
with standard EN 1052-3 [3].
For existing masonry walls, Eurocode 8 [4] suggests the direct
determination of this parameter by diagonal compression tests
according to ASTM 509-2010 [5] and RILEM LUMB6 [6]
specifications.
Diagonal compression tests are performed on new masonry
walls also, as available in literature [7–11] and suggested by Italian
Guidelines [12].
Although the diagonal compression test is largely used, the
interpretation of the test outcomes and the formula to calculate
the masonry shear strength according to ASTM 509-2010 and RI-
LEM LUMB6 specifications have been questioned by several
researchers; currently, various interpretations of the test results
and different formulas are available in literature [13,14].
In the context of the seismic design of new masonry construc-
tions, the shear strength can be determined by two different kinds
of tests, shear triplets and diagonal compression. The former is

0950-0618/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.11.107
 V. Alecci et al. / Construction and Building Materials 40 (2013) 1038–1045
preferred due to the simplicity of test setting and even for provid-
ing test data without any doubt of interpretation.
On the other hand, on existing masonry buildings, the shear
triplet test is hardly performable. On the contrary, the diagonal
compression test is currently executed, even though it is invasive
[4,15,16], but, as explained above, such test data is subject to var-
ious interpretations which involve different formulas [13,17].
All the facts described above show that the determination of
masonry shear strength is a not straightforward operation. Two
types of tests can be used to determinate this parameter: shear
tests on triplets and diagonal compression tests on panels. The for-
mer is performable only on new masonry structures, the latter
both on new and existing ones. Concerning the new masonry con-
structions it is worth pointing out that neither the seismic interna-
tional Codes nor the scientific community provide univocal
instructions about the most appropriate type of test to be carried
out. In fact, even in the specific literature there still does not exist
a comparative study of the experimental outcomes, obtained by
the two types of tests, in order to provide precise operative
instructions.
Therefore, in this context, it becomes necessary to perform an
experimental investigation by using the two different proce-
dures, aimed at comparing the data results and their mechanical
interpretation also in reference to the complexity of the tests
setting.
In the present paper the results of an extensive experimental
investigation performed by shear tests on triplets and diagonal
compression tests on square panels, are reported. The experimen-
tal results obtained using both the types of tests on the same kind
of brick masonry assemblages are compared. For the diagonal com-
pression test data analysis, the three formulas available in litera-
ture were applied in order to evaluate the degree of accuracy of
such formulas.
Experimental tests, carried out at the Constructions and Resto-
ration Department Laboratory of the University of Florence, were
performed on brick masonry specimens of various sizes assembled
with mortar of different composition.
2. Determination of masonry shear strength by direct way
2.1. Diagonal compression test
The diagonal compression test on masonry panels is defined by
ASTM E519-2010 and RILEM LUMB6 specifications. According to
these standards, the masonry shear strength must be determined
by loading a square panel in compression along one diagonal, until
failure.
(a)
Fig. 1. Mohr’s circles: (a) pure shear stress state; and (b) stress state by Eq. (4).
1039
The nominal size of this panel cannot be less than 1.2  1.2 m2
(ASTM E519-2010) or less than four units wide (standard RILEM
LUMB6); the thickness depends on the wall type being tested.
The diagonal compression test can be carried out in a labora-
tory, on made-to-measure masonry panels, and in situ, on a por-
tion of masonry opportunely cut and isolated from the rest of the
existing masonry wall. Only in the in situ tests, the panel remains
anchored to the rest of the masonry wall by a 0.7 m part of the low-
er horizontal edge. The failure usually occurs with the specimen
splitting apart parallel to the direction of the load. Cracks, starting
from its centre, develop along the mortar joints and, in some cases,
through the blocks.
In the standard interpretation of the test, as provided by both
the specifications, it is assumed that the stress state at the centre
of the panel is of pure shear and the principal directions coincide
with the two diagonals of the panels. This stress state is properly
represented by Mohr’s circle shown in Fig. 1a.
The principal tensile stress is equal to shear stress and can be
calculated as:
P
rI ¼ smax ¼ 0:707 ð1Þ
An
where P is the applied load and An is the net area of the specimen,
equal to:
 
wþh
An ¼ t ð2Þ
2
being t the wall thickness and w and h the face dimensions.
Finally, the masonry shear strength value is determined by the
formula (1), by assuming term P equal to the load value at failure
Pult:
0:707Pult
s0 ¼ ð3Þ
An
A different interpretation of the test results is obtained modeling
the masonry panel as if it is an isotropic and homogeneous material
and running a linear elastic analysis: the results highlight that the
stress state at the centre of the specimen is not a pure shear state,
although the principal directions still coincide with the two diago-
nals of the panels. This interpretation gives the values of the princi-
pal stress state localized at the centre of the panel as:
P P
rI ¼ 0:5 ; rII ¼ 1:62 ð4Þ
An An
The relative Mohr’s circle is plotted in Fig. 1b.
As available in literature, the stress state (4) has two different
interpretations for evaluating the masonry shear strength. The first
(b)
1040 V. Alecci et al. / Construction and Building Materials 40 (2013) 1038–1045

Fig. 2. Failure modes of specimens subjected to triplet tests.

interpretation assumes the value of the masonry shear strength be 3.1. Mechanical properties of the component materials
equal to the ultimate principal tensile stress:
In order to define the mechanical properties of the bricks, uni-
Pult
s0 ¼ rI ¼ 0:5 ð5Þ axial compression tests on six specimens of 20  20  40 mm3
An
size, obtained by cutting common bricks produced by San Marco
The second interpretation of the elastic solution, starting from Laterizi Terreal Italy Srl, were performed.
the value of the ultimate principal tensile stress rI and adopting With regard to the mortar, the composition of the mixtures
the Turnsek–Cacovic criterion [18], provides the masonry shear used to assemble both the panels and the triplets is reported in
strength by the following formula: Table 1.
  The mortar components were mixed by means of a kneading
1 P ult Pult
s0 ¼ 0:5 ¼ 0:33 ð6Þ machine with the gradual addition of water until the achievement
1:5 An An
of the optimum consistency.
As required by EN 1015-11 [19] three prismatic specimens of
2.2. Triplet test 160  40  40 mm3 size for each type of mortar were produced.
After 28 days of curing, these were subjected to bending tests on
The triplet test, defined by EN 1052-3 [3], covers the determina- three points. Subsequently, the two stumps, produced by the
tion of shear strength by testing no less than six specimens consti- rupture of each prism, were subjected to uniaxial compression
tuted by blocks and mortar joints. tests.
The test can be performed following two different procedures In Table 2 the average values of the brick compressive strength
(A and B) with or without lateral pre-compression. Expected failure and of the mortars compressive and flexural strength are reported.
modes for this kind of test are illustrated in Fig. 2.
In particular, referring to the first two modes (A/1 and A/2), the 3.2. Panel geometry and loading conditions for the diagonal
failure occurs with the separation of the mortar from the brick, due compression test
to the weakness of the brick–mortar interface. The use of a low
strength mortar to constitute bed joints provides a failure in the In order to carry out a wide experimental campaign on masonry
mortar layer (B mode). Finally, when high strength mortar with walls assembled with different types of mortar, small-scale panels
good adhesive property is used, the specimen fails with cracks (1:2.5) were realized and tested after 28 days of curing. On the
passing through one or both bricks (‘‘C’’ and ‘‘D’’ modes). other hand, only three full-scale panels assembled with cement–
The shear strength fvoi of each specimen is calculated as follows: lime mortar were realized. Of the latter, the first panel was tested
F i;max after 28 days of curing, in order to compare the data results with
fv oi ¼ ð7Þ those obtained on the small-scale panels, while the remaining
2Ai
two were tested after 90 days of curing in order to evaluate possi-
where Fi,max is the ultimate load and Ai is the specimen area parallel ble age-related effects. Overall, the tests were conducted on 18 sin-
to the mortar joint. gle leaf brick masonry panels, divided into four groups as described
The characteristic shear strength fvok is determined by the fol- below:
lowing formula:
fv ok ¼ 0:7  fv o ð8Þ Table 1
The composition of the mixtures used for mortars.
being fvo the average strength value.
Mortar Water/cement/lime/sand (weight ratio)

3. Experimental tests Lime mortar (CA) 2/–/2/8

Cement–lime mortar (MB) 2/1/1/8
Cement mortar (CE) 2/2/–/8
The experimental investigation was organized in three phases:
the first was devoted to the characterization of the component
materials, the second to the diagonal compression tests and the
third to the triplet tests.
Table 2
In particular, regarding the component materials, tests on brick Average values of the brick compressive strength and of the mortars compressive and
specimens and mortar specimens of different types (lime, cement– flexural strength.
lime and cement) were carried out.
Brick Lime mortar Cement–lime mortar Cement mortar
Concerning both the diagonal compression tests and the triplet
rc (MPa) 17 0.96 2.75 8.33
tests, 18 panels and 18 triplets respectively were produced and
rf (Mpa) – 0.17 0.89 2.63
tested.
 V. Alecci et al. / Construction and Building Materials 40 (2013) 1038–1045 1041

Fig. 3. Metallic shoes.

Six panels in scale 1:2.5 of 400  400  50 mm3 size (code

‘‘PaCA1–PaCA6’’), assembled with lime mortar joints and real- Fig. 4. The apparatus of diagonal compression test.
ized according to RILEM LUMB6 specifications.
Six panels in scale 1:2.5 of 400  400  50 mm3 size (code
‘‘PaCE1–PaCE6’’), assembled with cement mortar joints and Six specimens assembled with cement mortar joints (code
realized according to RILEM LUMB6 specifications. ‘‘TpCE1–TpCE6’’).
Three panels in scale 1:2.5, of 400  400  50 mm3 size (code Six specimens assembled with cement–lime mortar joints (code
‘‘PaMB1–PaMB3’’), assembled with cement–lime mortar joints ‘‘TpMB1–TpMB6’’).
and realized according to RILEM LUMB6 specifications.
Three panels in scale 1:1, of 1200  1200  120 mm3 size (code Triplet tests were carried out using a displacement control de-
‘‘PaGMB1–PaGMB3’’), assembled with cement–lime mortar vice made up of a rigid frame with a screw jack, which can be con-
joints and realized according to ASTM E519-2010 specifications. trolled through a flywheel. Displacements were imposed at a
uniform rate until the failure. The use of a displacement control de-
Two apparatuses with the same test mechanism but different in vice allowed to observe the whole loading history.
size, depending on the dimensions of the masonry element to be This test apparatus is schematized in Fig. 5. A metallic plate and
tested, were used. Both the apparatuses were constituted by a rigid cylinder of 15 mm, respectively in thickness and in diameter, were
frame in which the specimen was positioned. The centered and positioned under the lateral bricks of the specimen. The load was
plumb placement of the panel was guaranteed by two metallic applied on the top of the central brick by a spherical hinge placed
shoes (Fig. 3) fixed at the two corners of the diagonal coinciding on a double metallic plate with interposed two metallic cylinders
with the load direction. The metallic shoes, carefully designed, of 120 mm in length (equal to the brick width).
were anchored to the lower beam of the frame, one, and interposed The 18 triplets were tested without lateral compression loads,
between the upper corner of the panel and the load cell, the other. as indicated in the procedure B of the EN 1052-3 specifications.
The metallic shoes had the function of distributing the load on a
larger surface avoiding concentration of compression stresses
and, consequently, local failures at the corners. The spaces between
the specimen and the side-confining metallic shoe were filled with
gypsum capping material. The load was applied using a displace-
ment control device in order to describe the whole load path. Dis-
placements were imposed at a uniform rate until the failure.
Two displacement transducers were placed on the top of the pa-
nel; 2 X transducers were positioned on the lateral faces along the
directions of the two diagonals (Fig. 4).

3.3. Geometry of the triplets and relative loading conditions

The triplet tests were conducted on 18 specimens, each of

which was realized with three bricks and two mortar joints, as
indicated in EN 1052-3 specifications. The 18 triplets were divided
into three groups:

Six specimens assembled with lime mortar joints (code

‘‘TpCA1–TpCA6’’). Fig. 5. The apparatus of the triplet test (UNI EN 1052-3).
1042 V. Alecci et al. / Construction and Building Materials 40 (2013) 1038–1045

3.4. Results of the diagonal compression tests along a non-diagonal direction (indicated with ‘‘ND’’) (Fig. 7). In
this last case, the failure occurs because the load exceeds the
Masonry panels subjected to diagonal compression tests
showed two different failure modes: cracks developed along the
load direction (indicated with ‘‘D’’) (Fig. 6), as could be expected
in the case of a diagonal compression test, and cracks developed

Fig. 9. Panel PaCE1: load–displacement diagram.

Fig. 6. Diagonal compression test: failure mode D.

Fig. 7. Diagonal compression test: failure mode ND. Fig. 10. Panel PaMB1: load–displacement diagram.

Fig. 8. Panel PaCA3: load–displacement diagram. Fig. 11. Panel PaGMB2: load–displacement diagram.
 V. Alecci et al. / Construction and Building Materials 40 (2013) 1038–1045 1043

Table 3
Results of the diagonal compression tests.

Group code Specimen code Maximum load (N) Shear strength Eq. (3) (MPa) Shear strength Eq. (5) (MPa) Shear strength Eq. (6) (MPa) Failure mode
PaCA PaCA1 4136 0.157 0.103 0.068 ND
PaCA2 2558 0.096 0.064 0.042 ND
PaCA3 3499 0.133 0.087 0.058 ND
PaCA4 3401 0.129 0.085 0.056 ND
PaCA5 3597 0.142 0.090 0.059 ND
PaCA6 3195 0.121 0.080 0.053 ND
Average 3397 0.130 0.085 0.056 –
PaCE PaCE1 41,846 1.572 1.046 0.690 D
PaCE2 58,359 2.183 1.459 0.963 D
PaCE3 31,497 1.172 0.787 0.520 D
PaCE4 48,451 1.804 1.211 0.800 D
PaCE5 44,110 1.660 1.102 0.728 D
PaCE6 42,683 1.678 1.067 0.704 D
Average 44,491 1.678 1.112 0.734 –
PaMB PaMB1 8281 0.371 0.207 0.137 ND
PaMB2 9359 0.427 0.234 0.154 ND
PaMB3 6713 0.303 0.168 0.111 ND
Average 8117 0.367 0.203 0.134 –
PaGMB PaGMB1 86,828 0.420 0.301 0.199 ND
PaGMB2 140,042 0.670 0.486 0.321 ND
PaGMB3 135,632 0.654 0.471 0.311 ND
Average 120,834 0.581 0.419 0.277 –

Table 4
Results of the triplet tests.

Group Specimen Maximum Shear strength Eq. (7) Failure

code code load (N) (MPa) mode
TpCA TpCA1 2328 0.039 A/1
TpCA2 4661 0.077 A/1
TpCA3 1585 0.026 A/1
TpCA4 2489 0.041 A/1
TpCA5 1983 0.033 A/1
TpCA6 2807 0.047 A/1
Average 2642 0.044 –
TpCE TpCE1 28,071 0.468 A/2
TpCE2 33,588 0.559 A/2
TpCE3 35,080 0.585 A/2
TpCE4 35,679 0.595 A/2
TpCE5 32,136 0.536 A/2
TpCE6 26,645 0.444 A/2
Average 31,866 0.531 – Fig. 12. Triplet test: failure mode A/1.
TpMB TpMB1 15082.2 0.256 A/2
TpMB2 16405.2 0.279 A/2
TpMB3 8281.1 0.141 A/1
TpMB4 8124.2 0.138 A/1
TpMB5 7242.2 0.123 A/1
TpMB6 19610.8 0.334 A/2
Average 11932.7 0.212 –

tensile strength of the mortar used to realize the joints. However, it

cannot be excluded that the stress distribution before failure corre-
sponds to that of the model described in Section 2.1: this reason
made it possible, although with a higher degree of approximation,
to still apply the formulas (3)–(6).
It can be observed that the ‘‘D’’ failure mode has occurred exclu-
sively on the panels with cement mortar (PaCE) joints (Fig. 6).
Moreover, the maximum load values recorded for this group of
specimens are significantly greater than those recorded in both
the other cases (PaCA and PaMB).
Fig. 13. Triplet test: failure mode A/2.
The specimens assembled with lime mortar and those assem-
bled with cement–lime mortar have maximum load values that
closely resemble each other. The load–displacement diagrams a brittle failure, while the other diagrams, concerning the speci-
(Figs. 8–11) show the differences described above. In particular, mens with lime mortar and cement–lime mortar, show a descend-
the diagram recorded for the specimen with cement mortar shows ing path after the maximum load.
1044 V. Alecci et al. / Construction and Building Materials 40 (2013) 1038–1045
It should be specified that in the case of the tests performed on
the three panels in scale 1:1 (PaGMB), the execution of the tests
was interrupted after reaching the maximum load, therefore the
diagram (Fig. 11) does not describe the post-peak behaviour.
3.5. Results of the triplet tests
The results of the triplet tests are summarized in Table 4. For
each specimen, the maximum load, the shear strength calculated
by the formula (7) and the failure mode (A/1 or A/2 as illustrated
in Figs. 2–13) are reported. It can be observed that the maximum
load values reflect the mechanical properties of the mortars used
(Table 2).
3.6. Remarks
The experimental investigation was carried out on different
kinds of brick masonry walls by using the two types of shear tests
in order to compare the data results. Furthermore, the outcomes
obtained by the diagonal tests were analyzed in the light of the dif-
ferent interpretations provided in the literature, as reported in
Section 2.1.
The two types of tests are different from each other with regard
to the specimen assemblage, the test setting and the interpretation
of the data results. The triplet specimen can be made very easily
and the relative test can be performed using minimal apparatus.
This test procedure is particularly suitable for new masonry walls.
On the contrary, the diagonal compression test is more onerous
on new masonry walls, due to the panel and apparatus setting,
while it is suitable for existing masonry walls, although its execu-
tion requires the partial demolition of the wall.
Concerning the interpretation of the test outcomes, it is possible
to highlight that the triplet shear test allows the evaluation of the
adhesion between mortar and brick and the measuring of the shear
strength by the only available formula (7).
On the other hand, the shear strength, by diagonal test, can be
determined by different formulas as described in Section 2.1.
The experimental results obtained by using both types of tests
evidence that the masonry shear strength values depend on the
mortar: in fact the shear strength value for masonry assembled
with lime mortar is lower than that made with cement–lime mor-
tar; the highest shear strength value is obtained on the cement
mortar brick masonry.
In particular, as regards the diagonal compression tests, the
experimental results reported in Table 3 show substantial differ-
ences between the shear strength values determined by the three
interpretations described in Section 2.1.
It is worth noting that, for all the types of masonry tested, the
shear strength value determined by the diagonal compression test
using formula (6) is very close to the one calculated by formula (7)
on the data resulting from the triplet test.
Furthermore, these values, though not coincident, are the clos-
est to those tabulated in Eurocode 6, where the fvko term values are
estimated relating to different types of mortar and masonry units.
In particular, in the case of the tested cement mortar, fallen within
the M9 class, the masonry strength value calculated by formula (6)
(0.73 MPa) is significantly higher than the value estimated by
Eurocode 6 table (0.2 MPa). On the contrary, in the case of lime
and cement–lime mortar, fallen within the M1 and M2.5 mortar
classes, the mean values of the masonry shear strengths calculated
by formula (6), respectively equal to 0.06 MPa and 0.13 MPa, fall
approximately within the range estimated by Eurocode 6 (from
0.1 MPa to 0.2 MPa).
Therefore, referring to the diagonal compression test, it can be
considered that the value of the shear strength of masonry walls
calculated by formula (6) is the more reliable one.
4. Conclusion
In the present paper, the results of an experimental investiga-
tion aimed at evaluating masonry shear strength, under zero nor-
mal stress, are reported. For this goal, Eurocode 6 requires shear
tests on masonry triplets, while Eurocode 8 requires diagonal com-
pression tests on masonry walls. The triplet test can be performed
on new brick masonry structures, while the diagonal compression
test can also be used on existing masonry walls.
The former is very straightforward and the resulting data can be
easily interpreted, the latter, on the other hand, is more onerous
and the data can be subject to various interpretations: in Sec-
tion 2.1 three different formulations, as available in literature,
are reported.
This study was carried out in order to assess significant differ-
ences between the two types of tests pointing out the problem of
choosing the test more suitable to determine the masonry shear
strength. For this aim, the experimental campaign was carried
out using both types of tests, as provided by current codes (Euro-
code 6, Eurocode 8), on three different kinds of masonry made of
bricks alternated with lime mortar, cement–lime mortar and ce-
ment mortar. When masonry specimens were subjected to triplet
tests, the shear strength value was determined by applying the
only available formula while, in case of masonry specimens tested
for diagonal compression, the shear strength value was calculated
applying the three formulas available in literature. The results
pointed out a clear correlation between the masonry strength
and the mechanical properties of the components.
The comparison between the shear strength values determined
using both types of tests on the three types of masonry provides a
significant result: the strength values obtained by triplet tests are
in good measure along the line of the results determined by diag-
onal tests and calculated by formula (6). This formula is obtained
by adopting the Turnsek and Cacovic criterion referring to the
stress state at the centre of a panel modeled as an isotropic and
homogeneous material. Furthermore, these values are the closest
to those tabulated in Eurocode 6. Accordingly, in order to predict
the shear strength of brick masonry panels, one can consider for-
mula (6) more suitable than formulas (3) and (5).
Concerning the choice of the more appropriate type of test, the
facts that emerged from the present experimental study permit to
assert that the triplet test is very straightforward and provides reli-
able data results and, accordingly, it can be considered the more
convenient as well as more suitable one. Of course, other experi-
mental tests, now in the planning phase, will be useful for further
validation of the present results.
References
[1] EC6, Eurocode EN 1996. European Union norm on construction. Design of
masonry structures.
[2] D.M. del 14 gennaio 2008. Norme Tecniche per le Costruzioni; 2008 [in Italian].
[3] EN 1052-3. Methods of test for masonry. Part 3: Determination of initial shear
strength. European standard; 2007.
[4] EC8, Eurocode EN 1998. European Union norm on construction. Design of
structures for earthquake resistance.
[5] ASTM E519-2010. Standard test method for diagonal tension (shear) in
masonry assemblages. American Society for Testing Material; 2010.
[6] RILEM LUMB6. Diagonal tensile strength tests of small wall specimens (1991)0.
Rilem recommendations for the testing and use of constructions materials.
RILEM; 1994: p. 488–9.
[7] Calderini C, Cattari S, Lagomarsino S. The use of the diagonal compression test
to identify the shear mechanical parameters of masonry. Constr Build Mater
2010;24:677–85.
[8] Corradi M, Tedeschi C, Binda L, Borri A. Experimental evaluation of shear and
compression strength of masonry wall before and after reinforcement: deep
repointing. Constr Build Mater 2008;22:463–72.
[9] 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 2006;10:223–33.
 V. Alecci et al. / Construction and Building Materials 40 (2013) 1038–1045
[10] Valluzzi MR, Tinazzi D, Modena C. Shear behavior of masonry panels
strengthened by FRP laminates. Constr Build Mater 2002;16:409–16.
[11] Mahmood H, Ingham JM. Diagonal compression testing of FRP-retrofitted
unreinforced clay brick masonry wallettes. J Compos Constr 2011;14:810–20.
[12] Circolare n.617 del 2 febbraio 2009. Istruzioni per l’Applicazione Nuove Norme
Tecniche Costruzioni; 2009 [in italian].
[13] Binda L, Cardani G, Castori G, Corradi M, Saisi A, Tedeschi C. Procedure
sperimentali per la determinazione delle caratteristiche della muratura. In:
Borri A, editor. Manuale delle murature storiche – vol. I. Roma: Tipografia del
Genio Civile; 2011. p. 316–8.
[14] Chiostrini S, Galano L, Vignoli A. On the determination of strength of ancient
masonry walls via experimental tests. In: Proc. of the 12th world conference
on earthquake engineering (CD-ROM). New Zealand: Auckland; 2000 [paper
no. 2564].
1045
[15] Borri A, Castori G, Corradi M, Speranzini E. Shear behavior of unreinforced and
reinforced masonry panels subjected to in situ diagonal compression tests.
Constr Build Mater 2011;25:4403–14.
[16] Corradi M, Borri A, Vignoli A. Experimental study on the determination of
strength of masonry walls. Construct Build Mater 2003;17:325–37.
[17] Brignola A, Frumento S, Lagomarsino S, Podestà S. Identification of shear
parameters of masonry panels through the in situ diagonal compression test.
Int J Archit Heritage 2009;3(1):52–73.
[18] Turnašek V, Cacovic F. Some experimental results on the strength of brick
masonry walls. In: Proc. of the 2nd international brick masonry
conference. United Kingdom: Stoke-on-Trent; 1971 [p. 149–56].
[19] EN 1015-11. Methods of test for mortar for masonry. Determination of
flexural and compressive strength of hardened mortar. European Standard;
2007.