Earthquake strengthening of

masonry buildings using

fibre grid reinforced
matrices
N. Ismail
Seismic Solutions Limited, Waterloo, Lower Hutt
Wellington Institute of Technology, Lower Hutt

C. Harris
Mapei New Zealand Limited, Mt. Wellington, Auckland.

ABSTRACT
Clay brick unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings, which in North America are referred to as URM bearing
wall buildings, pose major safety risk to people during an earthquake. Having that been seen in the 2010/2011
Canterbury earthquake sequence, the Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Act 2016 sets time
frames to strengthen or remove earthquake-prone URM buildings. A number of techniques have been used in
New Zealand to earthquake strengthen URM buildings. Of these, fibre grid reinforced cementitious matrix
(FRCM) is one that offers high strength to weight ratio but with better resistance to corrosion, alkalis, and high
temperature compared to their counterpart epoxy bonded polymer sheets. A number of recent experimental
programs have investigated the performance and effectiveness of FRCM as a strengthening solution, which
has seen the development of rational design procedures. This paper discusses a summary of a testing program
undertaken to characterise one well-developed FRCM system, which is currently available in New Zealand
and have been used in earthquake strengthening applications. Provided are FRCM material properties; axial,
flexural, and shear capacities of the FRCM-strengthened URM structures. An analytical framework was
presented to evaluate the strength of FRCM strengthened URM walls, with example design calculations. This

Design of earthquake strengthening solution for masonry buildings using fibre reinforced matrices

2018 NZSEE Conference 1

manuscript supplement a developed excel based spreadsheet calculator that would be made available to New
Zealand practicing engineers to design FRCM strengthening solutions.

1 INTRODUCTION
Unreinforced clay brick masonry (URM), owing to its composite and anisotropic nature, exhibit limited ductility and quasi-brittle
behaviour. In New Zealand, URM was construction method mainly used early last century. Buildings constructed with URM usually
have a number of inherent structural features that make them prone to earthquake forces, which can often be addressed with the
introduction of a strengthening intervention. It is well established that URM buildings perform poorly in large magnitude earthquakes,
having been seen in the 2010/2011 Christchurch earthquake series (Lisa et al. 2014). The majority of prevailing un-strengthened URM
buildings in New Zealand are generally found to be earthquake-prone and need to be strengthened under the Earthquake Prone Building
Act 2016. Fabric-reinforced cementitious matrix (FRCM) systems for application in earthquake strengthening of URM structures are
an alternative to traditional techniques such as epoxy bonded fibre-reinforced polymers, steel plate bonding, section enlargement, and
external post-tensioning etc. A FRCM system consists of one or more layers of cementitious matrix reinforced with dry fibres in the
form of an open grid pattern fabric, which when adhered to masonry structural members acts as supplemental, externally bonded
reinforcement. This paper addresses briefly the use of a range of well-developed FRCM systems available in New Zealand; their unique
material properties; and recommendations on their design in New Zealand context. The presented recommendations on design are
based on the assessment guidelines published by New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering (NZSEE 2017) and the FRCM
design guidelines published by the American Concrete Institute (ACI 2013), which are based on an extensive experimental and
analytical research and years of industry experience of the committee members. In New Zealand, a number of experimental
investigations have been undertaken at the University of Auckland on full scale FRCM strengthened URM assemblages, further details
about the experimental studies can be found in Ismail (2012), Ismail & Ingham (2014), and Ismail & Ingham (2016).

2 MATERIAL PROPERTIES
2.1 URM material properties
Table 1: Brick and mortar properties based on scratch testing.
It is recommended to undertake either laboratory based testing of
Scratches with* Brick Mortar Mortar Mortar co-
extracted URM assemblages or in-situ testing of URM walls to strength strength Cohesion efficient of
determine the URM material properties. However, if the (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) friction
extraction of URM sections is not possible then individual brick
Finger tip - 1.0 0.1 0.3
and mortar samples can be tested to estimate URM material
properties. It is typical to use a density of 1800 kg/m3 and the Finger nail - 2.0 0.3 0.3
maximum useable compressive strain of 0.0035 for New Zealand (easily)
URM. Tables C8.3 and C8.4 (reproduced here for quick reference Finger nail - 3.5 0.5 0.6
as Table 1) given in section 8 of the assessment guidelines
Aluminium pick 14 7.0 0.7 0.8
(NZSEE 2017) can be used, in the absence of any experimental
values. Empirical relations proposed in the assessment guideline 10 cents coin 26 - - -
to get other URM material properties of interest based on None of above 33 - - -
individual brick and mortar properties are given in Table 2.
Table 2: Empirical relationships to get URM material properties.
Constituent stress-strain model proposed by Kaushik et al. Material property Symbol Relationship Units
(2007) was found to match well with the experimental stress-
Brick tensile strength fʹr fʹr = 0.12 f'b MPa
strain behaviour obtained for New Zealand URM materials (see
Figure 1). To construct a stress-strain curve for New Zealand URM comp. strength fʹm f'm = 0.75 f'b0.75 f'j0.3 MPa
URM, the following three step procedure (modified from URM elastic modulus Em Em = 300 f'm MPa
Kaushik et al. (2007) to match New Zealand URM behaviour)
URM shear modulus Gm Gm = 0.4 Em MPa
can be used.
URM flexural strength fʹfb f'fb = 0.025 f'j MPa

Design of earthquake strengthening solution for masonry buildings using fibre reinforced matrices

2018 NZSEE Conference 2

1. Use mortar compressive strength (fʹj), URM compressive strength (fʹm), and URM modulus of elasticity (Em) in Equation 1 to get
the strain at maximum strength (εʹm).
′
0.21𝑓𝑚
′ =
𝜀𝑚 (1)
0.25
𝑓𝑗′ .𝐸𝑚 0.7

2. Develop the parabolic portion of the stress-strain curve using

Equation 2 i.e. from origin to the point when post-peak
strength drops to 0.9fʹm.
𝜀𝑚 𝜀 2
𝑓𝑚 = 𝑓𝑚′ [2 ′ −( 𝑚
′ ) ] (2)
𝜀𝑚 𝜀𝑚

3. Develop the linear portions of the stress-strain curve i.e.

URM strength drops linearly to 0.2fʹm at a strain value of Figure 1: Stress-strain behaviour model for New Zealand URM
2.75εʹm and then becomes horizontal. materials

2.2 FRCM material properties

Two different types of FRCM matrices were considered herein, referred to as high performance fibre reinforced pozzolonic reaction
based thixotropic cementitious matrix (Maxi), and a lime based matrix (Restauro). Three types of bidirectional grid pattern fabrics
(made of carbon, basalt or alkali resistant glass fibres) were considered as reinforcement, with polymeric coatings applied to fibres to
increase long-term durability of the mesh and ease of handling and installation. The fabrics consist of primary-direction and secondary-
direction strands connected perpendicularly. Mechanical properties of these FRCM matrix and fabric are given in Table 3 and Table 4,
respectively.
Table 3: Mechanical properties of FRCM matrices.

Matrix type Dry density Compressive strength Elastic modulus Shear strength Adhesion to URM
(kg/m3) (MPa) (GPa) (MPa) (MPa)

HDM Planitop Maxi 1850 25.0 10.0 0.15 2.00

HDm Planitop Restauro 1900 15.0 8.00 0.80 0.15

Table 4: Mechanical properties of FRCM fibre grids.

Fibre grid type Tensile strength Effective area of fibres Tensile strength Elastic modulus Ultimate tensile strain
(kN/m) (mm2/m) (MPa) (GPa) (%)

Carbon (C170) 240 48.0 5000 252 2.00

Basalt (B250) 60.0 38.9 1542 89.0 1.80

Glass (G120) 30.0 23.5 1276 72.0 1.80

Glass (G220) 45.0 35.3 1276 72.0 1.80

The mechanical effectiveness and performance of FRCM systems are strongly influenced by the ability of the cementitious matrix to
saturate dry fibres, the bond between the matrix and fibres, and the bond between the matrix and the substrate. It is noted that FRCM
is a system where all constituents are developed and tested in accordance with accepted international standards e.g. AC434 (ICC-ES
2013) and may not be created by randomly selecting and mixing products available in the marketplace. Therefore, qualification of
composite behaviour of the FRCM system needs be investigated through an experimental campaign comprising of tensile tests on
FRCM coupons (see Figure 2a) following the AC434 (ICC-ES 2013) instructions. Tensile behaviour of a FRCM coupon can be
idealised using bi-linear approximation (see Figure 2b). The experimental tensile stress-strain curve with idealised bi-linear curves for
three mainly used FRCM systems are shown in Figures 2c to 2e. For the three combinations reported, the recommended design input
parameters are given in Table 5.

Figure 2: Experimental stress-strain behaviour of FRCM coupons

Design of earthquake strengthening solution for masonry buildings using fibre reinforced matrices

2018 NZSEE Conference 3

 ffu

ff (N/mm2)
Ef
fft
Textile only
Efe
FRCM Linear
Ef*
FRCM Bilinear
FRCM Experimental

εft εfu
εf (mm/mm)
(c). Restauro & B250
(b). bilinear idealisation

(a). FRCM composite testing setup (d). Maxi & G220 (e). Restauro & G220
Table 5: Mechanical properties of FRCM composite for use in design.

FRCM System Effective area of fibres Tensile strength Cracked elastic modulus Ultimate tensile strain
Af (mm2/m) ffu (MPa) Ef (GPa) εfu (%)

Maxi & G220 44.2 857 51.3 1.67 (0.19)*

Restauro & G220 44.2 937 48.9 1.87 (0.13)*

Restauro & B250 45.4 1436 70.9 1.99 (0.25)*

*experimentally derived values and standards deviation given within brackets.

The strain value for use in design (εfd) is calculated as the average value minus one standard deviation, whereas FRCM elastic modulus
(Ef) is simply the average value. Effective tensile stress level in the FRCM reinforcement attained at failure is calculated using Equation
3, where the maximum permitted strain for flexural reinforcement and shear reinforcement are set to 0.012 and 0.004, respectively.
ffe = εfe . Ef where εfe = εfd ≤ 0.004 (for shear) or ≤ 0.012 (for flexure) (3)

3 DESIGN OF FRCM STRENGTHENING SOLUTION

The design philosophy presented herein is based on limit-state design principles to provide acceptable safety levels and is based on
the following assumptions.

 URM and FRCM are strain compatible

 Plane sections remain plane after loading
 The maximum usable compressive strain (εmu) in the masonry is 0.0035 or from field tests
 FRCM composite exhibit a bilinear behaviour where FRCM contribution prior to cracking is neglected
 Primary fibre strands are oriented perpendicular to the applied shear force/bending moment
 Effect of FRCM strengthening on the global behaviour of the building has been considered in the design

3.1 In-plane behaviour of FRCM strengthened URM walls

Typical earthquake induced failure modes observed in URM walls include rocking of piers, toe crushing, vertical/diagonal cracking
around openings (due to discontinuity in a perforated URM wall), horizontal bed-joint sliding, diagonal tensile cracking (through mortar
only or through mortar and bricks both). Of these, the first three failure modes are flexural controlled and the last two are shear
controlled. A rocking failure mode involves opening of flexural cracks at the top and the bottom of piers and subsequent rigid body
rocking of these piers about their compression toes. Toe crushing can also occur when rocking continues for several cycles and URM

Figure 3: Typical in-plane failure modes in URM walls with strong joint regions

Design of earthquake strengthening solution for masonry buildings using fibre reinforced matrices

2018 NZSEE Conference 4

in toe regions reaches its compressive strength. Instinctively, piers with high axial stress and subjected to repeated cycles of large drift
levels would be more likely to experience toe crushing. The sliding along bed or step joint is more commonly observed in URM walls
built using strong bricks and weak mortar, with such mode initiated when principle tension stress in the applied stress state exceeds the
collective tension strength of the joints (i.e. sum of cohesion and friction). Diagonal tensile cracking through brick units results from a
complex mechanism and is typically observed in URM walls with large over burden stresses and constructed using strong mortar and
relatively weak bricks. Typical New Zealand URM buildings, however, are likely to have a strong brick-weak mortar configuration
and therefore are likely to undergo diagonal cracking through mortar joints only. The seismic behaviour of perforated URM walls is
explained by dividing these into piers, spandrels, and joint regions. Of these, piers or spandrels undergo damage more frequently than
the joint regions. Typical in-plane failure modes for solid and perforated URM walls are shown in Figure 3, which have been drawn
using definitions and failure modes explained in technical literature. For weak piers-strong spandrels configuration (see Fig. 3b)
strengthening of piers and for weak spandrels-strong piers configuration (see Fig. 3c) strengthening of spandrels would be beneficial.

Diagonal tensile cracking

Diagonal tensile cracking
Wall sliding Flexural cracking

Bed joint sliding

Bed joint sliding

Diagonal tensile cracking

Rocking Toe crushing

(a). solid URM wall (b). strong spandrel-weak piers (c). weak spandrels-weak piers

Figure 4: Flowchart to analyse the nominal in-plane strength of FRCM strengthened URM walls

Design of earthquake strengthening solution for masonry buildings using fibre reinforced matrices

2018 NZSEE Conference 5

The proposed procedure for in-plane strength evaluation is shown below in Figure 4. To determine whether spandrel failure will occur
before pier failure, an equivalent frame analysis can be undertaken and sway index values for each spandrel/pier node be determined
in accordance with the procedure details in the assessment guidelines can be used. An additive design approach is adopted in the FRCM
design guidelines (ACI 2013) to evaluate the in-plane shear strength of a FRCM strengthened URM bracing panel (pier or spandrel),
in which the nominal shear strength of the strengthened panel (Vns) is evaluated as the sum of contributions from URM (Vm) and from
horizontal FRCM reinforcement (Vfd) as shown in Equation 4.
Vns=Vfd+ Vm (4)
where Vm = contribution from masonry to nominal shear strength of the wall, which is taken as the minimum of the nominal capacity
corresponding to the diagonal tension failure mode (Vdt), the rocking failure mode (Vr), the bed-joint sliding failure mode (Vs), and the
toe crushing failure mode (Vtc). Equations 5 to 9 can be used to estimate the masonry contribution in accordance with the procedure
proposed in the assessment guidelines (NZSEE 2017).
Vm = Min (Vdt, Vtc, Vs, Vr) (5)
𝑓𝑎
𝑉𝑑𝑡 = 𝑓𝑑𝑡 𝐴𝑛 𝛽√1 + (6)
𝑓𝑑𝑡
where and 𝑓𝑎 = axial stress at the crack location (base).
𝐿𝑤 𝑓𝑎
𝑉𝑡𝑐 = (𝛼𝑃 + 0.5𝑃𝑤 ) ( ) (1 − ) (7)
ℎ𝑒𝑓𝑓 0.7𝑓′𝑚
𝐿𝑤
𝑉𝑟 = 0.9(𝛼𝑃 + 0.5𝑃𝑤 ) ( ) (8)
ℎ𝑒𝑓𝑓

𝑉𝑠 = 0.7 (𝑡𝑛𝑜𝑚 𝐿𝑤 𝑐 + 𝜇𝑓 (𝑃 + 𝑃𝑤 )) (9)

where 𝑓𝑑𝑡 = URM diagonal tensile strength; 𝐴𝑛 = net effective area of wall in shear; 𝛽 = non-linear stress distribution factor;
𝛼 = boundary condition factor taken 0.5 for fixed-fixed and 1.0 for fixed-free; 𝑃 = lower bound gravity actions acting at the top of the
wall; 𝑃𝑤 = wall self-weight; 𝐿𝑤 = wall length; ℎ𝑒𝑓𝑓 = effective wall height; 𝑓′𝑚 = masonry compression strength; 𝑓𝑎 = axial stress at
the crack location (base); 𝑡𝑛𝑜𝑚 = nominal wall thickness; 𝑐 = masonry cohesion; and 𝜇𝑓 = masonry coefficient of friction. The shear
controlled failure modes (i.e. sliding and diagonal cracking) are resisted by the horizontal fibres of FRCM fabric. The design tensile
strength in the FRCM shear reinforcement (ffv) is calculated using Equation 10.
ffv = Ef. εfv where εfv = εfd ≤ 0.004 (10)
where Ef = elastic modulus of cracked composite FRCM layer; and εfv = design strain for shear reinforcement (horizontal strands) at
failure. FRCM is preferably applied on both sides of the URM wall for reasons of symmetry and effectiveness. When applied only on
one side, eccentricity may result in out-of-plane torsional stresses. The contribution of FRCM composite material to the nominal shear
strength of the FRCM strengthened wall (Vfd) is calculated using Equation 11.
Vfd = 2 nf . wf ( ffv . Af ) ≤ 1.5Vm (11)
where nf = number of composite FRCM layers; wf = width of FRCM strip; and Af = effective cross section of fibres.
The nominal flexural strength of FRCM strengthened URM wall depends on the controlling failure mode. Typical failure modes for a
FRCM strengthened URM wall are: toe crushing in compression; de-bonding of the FRCM composite from URM substrate; slippage
of the fibre mesh within the cementitious matrix; and tensile rupture of the fibre mesh. Rocking and toe crushing are often intrinsically
linked and the failure is defined by overturning of the URM wall and simultaneous crushing of the compressed wall toe. Rocking of
URM panels/walls can be mitigated by the introduction of FRCM vertical fibres developed into foundation (or the URM panel below)
that thus increases toe crushing capacity as well (see Figure 5a). It is important to recognise that attaining the drift required to initiate
toe crushing without exceeding ultimate strain in FRCM fibres is not possible and therefore FRCM failure is assumed to be the
governing failure mode. The strain profile as shown in Figure 5b can be used to develop Equation 12, which can be used to calculate
the neutral axis depth (CIP).
𝑐𝐼𝑃
𝜀𝑚 (𝑐𝐼𝑃 ) = 𝜀𝑓𝑑 ′ ( ) (12)
𝐿𝑤 −𝑐𝐼𝑃
where 𝜀𝑚 (𝑐𝐼𝑃 ) = maximum masonry compression strain at failure; 𝜀𝑓𝑑 ′ = design tensile strain in FRCM composite at failure; and
𝐿𝑤 = length of wall. Equation 13 can be used to calculate the nominal flexural strength of the FRCM strengthened URM wall.
𝐿𝑤 𝛽1 𝑐𝐼𝑃 2
𝑀𝑛 = (𝑃 + 𝑃𝑤 ) ( − ) + . 𝑓𝑓𝑒 . 𝐴𝑓 . (𝐿𝑤 − 𝑐𝐼𝑃 )2 (13)
2 2 3

where 𝛽1 = equivalent rectangular stress block parameter; and 𝑓𝑓𝑒 = effective tensile stress in FRCM composite at failure. Finally, the
lateral force (Vnf) required to result in flexural failure can be calculated using Equation 14, where α1 = boundary condition factor and
is taken equal to 0.5 or 1.0 for a fixed-fixed and fixed-free wall, respectively.
𝑀𝑛
𝑉𝑛𝑓 = (14)
𝛼1 .ℎ𝑒𝑓𝑓

Figure 5: IN-plane loaded FRCM strengthened wall at failure (flexural controlled)

Design of earthquake strengthening solution for masonry buildings using fibre reinforced matrices

2018 NZSEE Conference 6

 P
nf.Af.Ef.ffd′(Lw-cIP)
Vnf
P+Pw
Lw/2
cIP
ffd′ β.cIP
Pw
γ.f′m
heff

0.5Lw εfd′ γ.f′m.β.cIP

cIP
εm(cIP) ≤ 0.0035
β.cIP
Lw-cIP cIP
γ.f′m Lw

T = nf.Af.Ef.ffd′(Lw-cIP) Cc = γ.f′m.β.cIP
(a). free body diagram (b). stress and strain profile at the base

3.2 Out-of-plane behaviour of FRCM strengthened URM walls

In general, out of plane loaded URM walls with a height-to-thickness ratio (heff/tnom) of greater than 14 behave as a simply supported
element, or nearly so, and thus arching action can be neglected. An arching mechanism can potentially develop in a URM wall with a
height-to-thickness ratio of less than 8 and must be accounted for by using the approach adopted in BS 5628.1 or similar. The proposed
procedure for out-of-plane strength evaluation is shown below in Figure 6.

Figure 6: Flowchart to analyse the nominal out-of-plane strength of FRCM strengthened URM walls

The design out-of-plane flexural strength of a FRCM strengthened URM wall can be calculated as the sum of two individual
contributions from URM and the FRCM reinforcement. However, the contribution from URM to out of plane flexural strength for

Design of earthquake strengthening solution for masonry buildings using fibre reinforced matrices

2018 NZSEE Conference 7

typical low strength mortar is minimal and was ignored herein. When one-way spanning URM walls are subjected to out of plane
loading, vertical strands of FRCM reinforcement located on tension side resist the crack opening and thus contribute to the flexural
strength of the wall (see Fig. 7 for stress and strain profiles at failure). Following similar approach as explained earlier in the previous
section and using beam theory the nominal out-of-plane flexural strength of a FRCM strengthened URM wall (𝑀𝑛 ) can be determined
using Equation 15.
𝑡𝑛𝑜𝑚 𝑐 𝑤𝑓 𝑡𝑛𝑜𝑚
𝑀𝑛 = 𝛾𝑓𝑚′ 𝛽1 𝑐𝑢 ( − 𝛽1 𝑢 ) + 𝑛𝑓 𝐴𝑓 𝑓 (15)
2 2 𝑠𝑓 𝑓𝑒 2
where 𝛾 = equivalent stress block parameter; 𝛽1 = equivalent stress block parameter; 𝑐𝑢 = neutral axis depth when subjected to out-
of-plane loading; and 𝑠𝑓 = spacing of FRCM strips, if not applied to full surface. The governing failure mode assumption made to
develop the relationship is checked using Equation 16 and the maximum force transferred by the FRCM to the masonry substrate is
also checked to not exceed the ultimate strength of the FRCM reinforcement using Equation 17.
𝑐𝑢
𝜀𝑚 = 𝜀𝑓𝑑 ( ) ≤0.0035 (16)
𝑡𝑛𝑜𝑚 −𝑐𝑢

𝑤𝑓
𝐴𝑓 . ε𝑓𝑒 . 𝐸𝑓 . ≤ 𝐹𝑓𝑢 (17)
𝑠𝑓
where 𝐹𝑓𝑢 = maximum allowable force to be transferred from FRG to masonry substrate. Out-of-plane shear strength of the FRCM
strengthened wall (Vno) can be checked using empirical Equation 18.
300𝐴𝑛
𝑉𝑛𝑜 = 𝑀𝑖𝑛 { 3.8𝐴𝑛 √𝑓 ′ 𝑚 (18)
56𝐴𝑛 + 0.45𝑃
𝑙𝑏𝑓 𝑖𝑛2
where 𝑉𝑛𝑜 = nominal out-of-plane shear strength in 𝑓𝑡
; 𝐴𝑛 = net area of URM wall resisting shear in ; 𝑓 ′ 𝑚 = masonry compressive
𝑓𝑡
𝑙𝑏𝑓
strength in psi; and 𝑃 = axial load acting at wall top in 𝑓𝑡
. Note that the equation is in US customary units.

4 CONCLUSIONS
Behaviour of individual FRCM constituent material was discussed with its relation to composite behaviour of the built up FRCM layers
when bonded to URM substrates. Possible failure modes and mechanisms for as-built and FRCM strengthened URM walls were
discussed and standard committee endorsed design equations were explained by relating these back to underpinning engineering
principles. Analytical approaches to evaluate the in plane and out of plane strength of FRCM strengthened URM walls were presented,
with reference to internationally accepted guidelines/ standards. The presented design philosophy has been used to produce an
automated excel spreadsheet that would be provided to New Zealand design engineers for their reference. As such, it is an attempt to
provide guidelines, or at least a starting point for discussion, on the design of FRCM strengthening solutions for earthquake prone
URM buildings.

5 REFERENCES
ICC-ES. 2011. Acceptance criteria for masonry and concrete strengthening using fiber-reinforced cementitious matrix
(FRCM) composite systems (AC434). ICC Evaluation Services.
ACI. 2013. Guide to design and construction of externally bonded fabric-reinforced cementitious matrix (FRCM) systems
for repair and strengthening concrete and masonry structures (ACI549.4R). Farmington Hills: American Concrete
Institute.
Ismail, N. 2012. Selected strengthening techniques for the seismic retrofit of unreinforced masonry buildings. PhD Thesis,
Auckland: The University of Auckland.
Ismail, N. & Ingham, J. M. 2016. In-plane and out-of-plane testing of masonry walls strengthened using polymer textile
reinforced mortar. Engineering Structures, 118: 167-177.
Kaushik, H. B., Rai, D. C. & Jain, S. K. 2007. Stress-strain characteristics of clay brick masonry under uniaxial
compression. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 19(9): 728–739.
Ismail, N. & Ingham, J. M. 2014. Polymer textiles as a retrofit material for masonry walls. Structures and Buildings,
167(1): 15-25.
Moon, L., Dizhur, D., Senaldi, I., Derakhshan, H., Griffith, M., Magenes, G. & Ingham, J. 2014. The demise of the URM
building stock in Christchurch during the 2010–2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence. Earthquake Spectra, 30(1):
253-276.
NZSEE. 2017. The Seismic Assessment of Existing Buildings (the Guidelines). Wellington: New Zealand Society for
Earthquake Engineering.

Design of earthquake strengthening solution for masonry buildings using fibre reinforced matrices

2018 NZSEE Conference 8

6 DESIGN EXAMPLES
6.1 Evaluation of In-plane strength of FRCM strengthened URM walls

6.1.1 Determine seismic demand, material properties, and select FRCM configuration

6.1.1.1 Seismic demand as per the assessment guidelines

In-plane load demand for pier/wall, V* = 44.5 kN
Factored axial load acting at the top of the wall, P = 25 kN
Pier/wall self-weight, 𝑃𝑤 = 𝛾𝑚 ℎ𝑒𝑓𝑓 𝐿𝑤 𝑡𝑛𝑜𝑚
𝑃𝑤 = 18 × 0.23 × 1.4 × 1.7
𝑃𝑤 = 9.85 𝑘𝑁
(𝑃 + 0.5 𝑃𝑤 )
Axial stress at wall/pier mid-height, fa =
𝐴𝑛
(25+0.5×18×0.23×1.4×1.7)
fa = = 0.093 MPa
0.32

6.1.1.2 URM wall geometry

Effective pier/wall height, heff = 1700 mm
Pier/wall length, Lw = 1400 mm
Effective pier/wall thickness, tnom = 230 mm
Pier/wall plan area, An = tnom × Lw = 0.23 × 1.4 = 0.32 m2

6.1.1.3 URM mechanical properties

URM mortar compression strength, fʹj = 3.50 MPa
URM cohesion, c = 0.50 MPa
URM coefficient of friction, μf = 0.6
URM compressive strength, fʹm = 12.6 MPa
URM ultimate compressive strain, εmu = 0.0035
URM Elastic modulus, Em = 3770 MPa
URM tensile strength, fʹfb = 0.09 MPa

6.1.1.4 FRCM mechanical properties

Values obtained from experimental results for selected FRCM materials i.e. Mapegrid B250 with Planitop HDM Restauro
Effective area of FRCM reinforcement, Af = 0.0454 mm2/mm or 45.4 mm2/m
FRCM Modulus of elasticity, Ef = 70.9 GPa
FRCM Ultimate tensile strain , εfu = 0.02 mm/mm
FRCM Ultimate tensile strength, ffu = 1436 MPa
Design FRCM tensile strain, εfd = 0.017

6.1.1.5 Used FRCM Configuration

Number of Mapei FRCM layers, nf = 1
Width of Mapei FRCM strip, wf = 1400 mm
Spacing of Mapei FRCM strips, sf = 1400 mm
6.1.2 Determine nominal shear strength of FRCM strengthened URM walls

6.1.2.1 Calculate pier/wall as-built diagonal tension strength, Vdt

URM diagonal tension strength, fdt = 0.5c + fa.μf
fdt = 0.5 × 0.5 + 0.09 × 0.6 = 0.31 MPa or 306 kPa
The pier/wall aspect ratio, heff/lw = 1.7/1.4 = 1.21
1.00−0.67
Stress distribution factor, 𝛽 = 1. − 0.21( ) linear interpoltation = 0.86
1.5−1.0

𝑓𝑎
𝑉𝑑𝑡 = 𝑓𝑑𝑡 𝐴𝑛 𝛽√1 +
𝑓𝑑𝑡
0.09
𝑉𝑑𝑡 = 306 × 0.32 × 0.86√1 + = 84.7√1.30
0.30
𝑉𝑑𝑡 = 96.5 kN

Design of earthquake strengthening solution for masonry buildings using fibre reinforced matrices

2018 NZSEE Conference 9

6.1.2.2 Calculate pier/wall as-built toe crushing strength, Vtc
Boundary condition factor, α = 1.0 for fixed-fixed condition
𝐿𝑤 𝑓𝑎
𝑉𝑡𝑐 = (𝛼𝑃 + 0.5𝑃𝑤 ) ( ) (1 − )
ℎ𝑒𝑓𝑓 0.7𝑓′𝑚
1.4 0.093
𝑉𝑡𝑐 = (1.0 × 25+0.5×18×0.23×1.4×1.7) ( ) (1 − )
1.7 0.7 × 12.6
𝑉𝑡𝑐 = (25 + 4.93)(0.82)(1-0.01) = 24.4 kN

6.1.2.3 Calculate pier/wall as-built rocking strength, Vr

𝐿𝑤
𝑉𝑟 = 0.9(𝛼𝑃 + 0.5𝑃𝑤 ) ( )
ℎ𝑒𝑓𝑓
1400
𝑉𝑟 = 0.9(25 + 4.93) ( ) = 22.2 𝑘𝑁
1700

6.1.2.4 Calculate pier/wall as-built sliding strength, Vs

𝑉𝑠 = 0.7 (𝑡𝑛𝑜𝑚 𝐿𝑤 𝑐 + 𝜇𝑓 (𝑃 + 𝑃𝑤 ))
𝑉𝑠 = 0.7 × (230 × 1.4 × 0.50 + 0.6 × (25 + 9.85))
𝑉𝑠 = 127.3 𝑘𝑁

6.1.2.5 Calculate as-built nominal strength of URM wall (i.e. masonry shear contribution)
Vm = Min (Vdt; Vtc; Vr; Vs)
Vm = Min (96.5; 24.4; 22.2; 127.3)
Vm = 22.2 kN
The shear controlled failure modes are only diagonal tension and sliding and only these values can be used in shear strength
calculation, whilst the flexural strength is checked later in section 6.1.13.

6.1.2.6 Calculate dependable FRCM strain and stress at failure when resisting shear forces
Design tensile strain (shear), 𝜀𝑓𝑣 = 𝑀𝑖𝑛 (𝜀𝑓𝑑 , 0.004) = 0.004
Design tensile strength (shear), 𝑓𝑓𝑣 = 𝐸𝑓 . 𝜀𝑓𝑣
𝑓𝑓𝑣 = 70900 × 0.004 = 284 𝑀𝑃𝑎

6.1.2.7 Calculate the total shear contribution from FRCM strengthening solution
Probable shear capacity contribution from FRCM reinforcement
𝑤𝑓
𝑉𝑓 = 2𝑛𝑓 . 𝐴𝑓 . . 𝑓𝑓𝑣 . 𝐿𝑤
𝑠𝑓
1000
𝑉𝑓 = 2 × 1 × 0.0454 × × 284 × 1.4 × 10−3
1000
𝑉𝑓 = 36.1 kN
Design shear strength contribution from FRCM Vfd = Min (Vf;1.5Vm)
Vfd = Min (36.1; 1.5×22.2) = 33.3 kN

6.1.2.8 Determine nominal shear (in-plane) strength of the FRCM strengthened URM wall
𝑉𝑛𝑠 = 𝑉𝑚 + 𝑉𝑓𝑑
𝑉𝑛𝑠 = 22.2 + 33.3 = 55.5 𝑘𝑁
6.1.3 Determine nominal flexural (in-plane) strength of the FRCM strengthened URM wall
The New Zealand assessment guidelines suggest that the toe crushing failure mode typically does not pose a life-safety risk and
therefore may not be a governing failure mode for as-built walls. However, it must be avoided when designing a strengthening
intervention, using engineering analysis. It is worth noting that attaining drift levels typically required to cause rocking instability or
toe crushing is not possible until the FRCM strands developed into URM wall below or foundations rupture and therefore FRCM
rupture is assumed to be the governing failure mode herein. Stress block parameters for FRCM rupture failure mode are: γ = 0.7 and
β = 0.7.
𝑐𝐼𝑃
𝜀𝑚 (𝑐𝐼𝑃 ) = 𝜀𝑓𝑑 ′ ( )
𝐿𝑤 −𝑐𝐼𝑃
Fix the compressive strain in masonry at failure to 0.002 to ensure the FRCM rupture prior to masonry crushing
𝑐𝐼𝑃
0.002 = 0.012 ( )
1400−𝑐𝐼𝑃
cIP = 200 mm
𝐿𝑤 𝛽1 𝑐𝐼𝑃 2
𝑀𝑛 = (𝑃 + 𝑃𝑤 ) ( − ) + . 𝑓𝑓𝑑 . 𝐴𝑓 . (𝐿𝑤 − 𝑐𝐼𝑃 )2
2 2 3

Design of earthquake strengthening solution for masonry buildings using fibre reinforced matrices

2018 NZSEE Conference 10

 1.4 0.7 × 0.2 2 851 × 45.4
𝑀𝑛 = (34.9) ( − )+ × × (1.4 − 0.2)2
2 2 3 1000
𝑀𝑛 = 21.9 + 25.8 × 1.44 = 59.0 kN.m
𝑀𝑛
𝑉𝑛𝑓 =
𝛼. ℎ𝑒𝑓𝑓
59.0
𝑉𝑛𝑓 = = 69.4 kN
0.5 × 1.7
6.1.4 Determine nominal in-plane strength of the FRCM strengthened URM wall
𝑉𝑛𝑠 = 𝑀𝑖𝑛( 𝑉𝑛𝑠 , 𝑉𝑛𝑓 )
𝑉𝑛𝑠 = 𝑀𝑖𝑛 (55.5; 69.4) = 55.5 kN
Therefore, the nominal shear capacity of the FRCM strengthened URM pier/wall, 𝑉𝑛𝑠 = 55.5 kN
6.1.5 Check that in-plane capacity of FRCM strengthened pier/wall (Vn) is more than the ULS seismic demand (V*)
𝜑𝑉𝑛 > V ∗
1.0 × 55.5 > 45.0
The ULS has been verified.

6.2 Evaluation of out-of-plane strength of FRCM strengthened URM walls

6.2.1 Determine seismic demand, material properties, and select FRCM configuration

6.2.1.1 Seismic demand as per the assessment guidelines

Out-of-plane load demand for pier/wall, v* = 12.6 kN/m2
Out-of-plane load demand for pier/wall, M* = 11.5 kN.m/m
Factored axial load, P = 30 kN
Pier/wall self-weight, 𝑃𝑤 = 𝛾𝑚 ℎ𝑒𝑓𝑓 𝐿𝑤 𝑡𝑛𝑜𝑚
𝑃𝑤 = 18 × 0.23 × 1.0 × 2.7 = 11.2 𝑘𝑁
(P + 0.5 Pw )
Axial stress at wall/pier mid-height, fa =
An
(30+0.5×11.2)
fa = = 0.155 MPa or 154.8 kPa
0.23

6.2.1.2 URM wall geometry

Effective pier/wall height, heff = 2700 mm
Pier/wall length ,Lw = 1000 mm (considering simple vertical span)
Effective pier/wall thickness, tnom = 230 mm
Pier/wall plan area, An = tnom × Lw = 0.23 × 1.0 = 0.23 m2
First moment of area for pier/wall, So = (tnom)2 /6 = 0.0088 m3

6.2.1.3 URM mechanical properties

Same as sections 6.1.1.3.

6.2.1.4 URM mechanical properties

Same as sections 6.1.1.4.

6.2.1.5 Used FRCM Configuration

Number of Mapei FRCM layers, nf = 1
Width of Mapei FRCM strip, wf = 1000 mm
Spacing of Mapei FRCM strips, sf = 1000 mm
6.2.2 Determine nominal out-of-plane flexural strength of FRCM strengthened URM walls

6.2.2.1 Calculate dependable FRCM strain and stress at failure when resisting shear forces
𝜀𝑓𝑒 = 𝑀𝑖𝑛 (𝜀𝑓𝑑 , 0.012) = 0.012
𝑓𝑓𝑒 = 𝐸𝑓 . 𝜀𝑓𝑒
𝑓𝑓𝑒 = 70900 × 0.012 = 851 𝑀𝑃𝑎

6.2.2.2 Calculate the neutral axis depth, fix γ = 0.7 and β1 = 0.7
Boundary condition factor, α = 1.0 for fixed-fixed condition

Design of earthquake strengthening solution for masonry buildings using fibre reinforced matrices

2018 NZSEE Conference 11

 𝑤𝑓
(𝑃 + 𝑛𝑓 . 𝐴𝑓 . .𝑓 )
𝑠𝑓 𝑓𝑒
𝑐𝑢 =
(𝛾. 𝛽1 . 𝑓 ′ 𝑚 )
1000
(30 + 1 × 0.0454 × × 851)
𝑐𝑢 = 1000 = 11.1 mm
(0.7 × 0.7 × 12.6)

6.2.2.3 Calculate nominal flexural strength of FRCM strengthened URM wall

𝑡𝑛𝑜𝑚 𝑐 𝑤𝑓 𝑡𝑛𝑜𝑚
𝑀𝑛 = 𝛾. 𝛽1 . 𝑓′𝑚 . 𝑐𝑢 × ( − 𝛽1 . 𝑢 ) + 𝑛𝑓 . . 𝐴𝑓 . 𝑓𝑓𝑒 .
2 2 𝑠𝑓 2
230 11.1 1000 230
𝑀𝑛 = 0.7 × 0.7 × 12.6 × 11.1 × ( − 0.7 × )+1× × 0.0454 × 851 ×
2 2 1000 2
𝑀𝑛 = 68.53 × (111.1) + 38.6 × (115) = 1206.4 𝑁. 𝑚
𝑀𝑛 = 12.06 kN.m

6.2.2.4 Verify failure mode is FRCM rupture and not masonry compression crushing
𝑐𝑢
𝜀𝑚 = 𝜀𝑓𝑑 ( ) ≤ 0.35%
𝑡𝑛𝑜𝑚 − 𝑐𝑢
11.1
𝜀𝑚 = 0.0174 ( ) = 0.0009 = 0.09% < 0.35%
230 − 11.1
Failure mode assumption has been verified.

6.2.2.5 Calculate the cracking moment and perform safety check for minimum FRCM strength to perform
𝑀𝑐𝑟 = (𝑓′𝑓𝑏 + 𝑓𝑎 ) × 𝑆𝑜

𝑀𝑐𝑟 = 2.13 𝑘𝑁. 𝑚

6.2.2.6 Check if ∅𝑚 𝑀𝑛 ≥ 1.3𝑀𝑐𝑟

Mn = 12.06 kN.m >1.3𝑀𝑐𝑟 = 2.78 kN. m

𝑤𝑓
6.2.2.7 Check if 𝐴𝑓 . 𝜀𝑓𝑒 . 𝐸𝑓 . ≤ 𝐹𝑓𝑢
𝑠𝑓
1 𝑘𝑁 𝑘𝑁
0.0454 × 0.012 × 70900 × = 38.6 < 𝐹𝑓𝑢 = 60.0
1000 𝑚 𝑚
6.2.3 Determine nominal out-of-plane shear strength of FRCM strengthened URM walls
𝑘𝑁
300𝐴𝑛 = 300 × 6.9 × 0.23 = 476
𝑚
𝑘𝑁
𝑉𝑛 = 𝑀𝑖𝑛 3.8𝐴𝑛 √𝑓 ′ 𝑚 = 3.8 × 83 × 0.23 × √12.6 = 258
𝑚
𝑘𝑁
{ 56𝐴𝑛 + 0.45𝑃 = 56 × 6.9 × 0.23 + 0.45 × 16.8 = 96.3 𝑚
𝑉𝑛 = 96.3 𝑘𝑁/𝑚
The inputs have been converted to US Customary units by multiplying with conversion factors coloured in red above.
m2 1550 in2
where: 1 = ; 1 MPa = 145 psi; and 1 kN = 225 lbf.
m 3.28 ft

Design of earthquake strengthening solution for masonry buildings using fibre reinforced matrices

2018 NZSEE Conference 12