Consolidation and reinforcement of stone walls using a reinforced repointing grid

A. Borri, M. Corradi and E. Speranzini

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, School of Engineering, University of Perugia, Via Duranti, 93 - 06125 Perugia, Italy

A. Giannantoni
Servizi di Ingegneria srl Via delle Industrie 54 S. Eraclio di Foligno (PG)

ABSTRACT: A new technique for reinforcing rubble stone masonry walls (double and triple-leaf walls), when it is required to keep the fair-face masonry. The reinforcement technique consists of a continuous mesh made of tiny steel cords embedded perfectly in the mortar joints after a first repointing, and anchored to the wall by means of galvanized steel eyebolts driven into the facing. A second repointing covers the cords and the heads of the eyebolts completely. This leads to genuine reinforced fair-face masonry in which, as already confirmed by the first experiments, the compression, shear and flexural strength are increased, effective transverse connection between the facings of the masonry due to the presence of the eyebolts and also the capacity to withstand tensile stresses. The reinforcement is non-invasive and reversible, and is aimed at integrating the masonry rather than transforming it. It is compatible with preservation of the material of which the artefact is made and is long-lasting in view of the materials used, which are very resistant to aggression. The analysis of this reinforcement/upgrading work has led to the formulation of practical criteria for sizing the reinforcement and to the assessment of the strength of the reinforced panel. 1 INTRODUCTION The consolidation and strengthening of vertical masonry elements of masonry buildings that are subjected not only to their own weight but also to possible dynamic stresses (seismic events, wind), constitute one of the most important reinforcement works for achieving an adequate level of safety. This is because poor quality referred to the mechanical features of the masonry (compressive strength, shear strength, etc.), in particular in ancient buildings, has often been the cause of collapsing or of serious damage, for example (although not only) during seismic events. Another element that has a particular impact on the seismic behaviour of a masonry construction is the connection between vertical walls and between these and the horizontal elements. If these connections are present and effective, they can allow the construction to respond adequately, in the form of box-like behaviour, to dynamic stress, without losing the balance of single portions. In the absence of these connections, each single element (a wall, floor slab, etc.) will be more vulnerable, since it will be free to collapse separately from the rest of the construction. Various different techniques are used currently to reinforce masonry constructions. Among the works for strengthening wall panels it is possible to recall here the following: A) works for restoring the internal continuity of masonry which has developed cracks, such as local rebuilding operations on the masonry or insertions of metal bars. B) works connecting the various masonry elements to one another, in addition to the sewing mentioned above. It is possible to mention here circling with strips of composite material (FRP: Fiber Reinforced Polymers, based on carbon fibre, glass fibre or other materials), which is particularly effective and not very invasive. A negative aspect is the fact that the reinforcement remains visible, so that it is not very suitable for fair-face walls. C) works aimed at reinforcing the masonry. Here it is possible to mention: C1) injection into the masonry of mixtures (typically cement or lime-based grouts), having the purpose of filling the empty spaces inside the wall panels, and also of replacing the original mortar, which is often not very solid. This technique, however, is not very effective in the case of walls with a low index of voids (which is a fairly frequent occurrence). Also, it is not easy to investigate the actual spreading of the mortar injected into the panel. C2) ferro-cement, consisting of making two thin reinforced concrete walls connected to one another by means of metal connectors. This technique is often

used to reinforce irregular or poor-quality masonrywork and is undoubtedly very effective from the mechanical point of view, however it is very invasive. The internal masonry is lost from every point of view, not only because it is no longer visible but above all since it is subject in time to rapid deterioration. Another negative aspect is that the new wall panel is far stiffer than the original one (and this often has a negative impact on the structural behaviour of the building). C3) Another technique used is that of deep repointing of the mortar joints. This consists of stripping the joints in the masonry by removing the original poor-quality mortar for a depth of several centimetres (typically 6 to 8 centimetres) and then repointing the joints with a good quality mortar. If this rienforcement is carried out on both sides of the wall facing and the facing is not very thick, it has a good degree of effectiveness. If the masonry is made of bricks, it is also possible to insert small metal bars into the joints (reinforced repointing). These can increase the strength of the panel considerably. It is clear, however, that even minor irregularities in the fabric of the wall will lead to the need to cut the bricks, which is out of keeping with the principles of preservation of old buildings. In the case of irregular masonry (stones of different shapes and sizes giving rise to irregularly shaped joints) reinforced repointing is not suitable, since even if the diameter of the reinforcement rods is small, the rods cannot follow the irregular shapes of the joints. C4) Another recently suggested technique consists basically of a system of tie-rods leading out in the three orthogonal directions (CAM system Dolce at al.). The tie-rods can also be tensioned. This technique is definitely very effective in mechanical terms and improves the monolithic quality and the mechanical behaviour of the body of the wall, however it cannot often be proposed for old buildings, since it has a strong impact on preservation of the old material. The main aim of the technique suggested in this paper is to eliminate or at least reduce the problems referred to above. The system proposed can be used both at local level, that is to say for single walls of existing buildings (and also for boundary walls such as, by way of example, town walls), and at global level, that is to say as a system for reinforcing a masonry construction in its overall behaviour, with particular but not sole reference to behaviour during seismic events. The system can be used to treat masonry, whether regular or irregular, without causing the impact and without the invasiveness of other techniques. It is therefore particularly suitable for fair-face walls of buildings listed due to their historical and architectural features.

The improvements that can be achieved do not consist simply of improvement of the mechanical characteristics of the wall treated in this way. Indeed, in addition to strengthening the wall panel, the reinforced skeleton of the continuous mesh introduced into the wall (and which has been given the name of Reticolatus) also connects the contiguous wall elements to one another (adjacent orthogonal walls, horizontal elements, foundations, etc), thus forming a genuine system for reinforcing the whole masonry building. The small size of the reinforcing elements and the ease with which they can be fitted into the mortar joints also enables widespread use, thus avoiding harmful and dangerous concentrations of stress, such as those that occur, for example, when metal rods are used. 2 DESCRIPTION OF THE SYSTEM To sum up, the system consists of a continuous mesh made of tiny cords made of high strength steel, inserted perfectly into the mortar joints and thus embedded in the wall in a natural way (that is to say without intervening on the stone parts). This reinforcing technique can be used equally on regularly shaped walls (made of bricks or worked stone blocks) or irregular (rubble and barely cut stone) walls (multi leaf walls). It is in any case in the latter case that it is often more necessary to improve the mechanical properties of the wall, making this technique more interesting. This is because the possibilities provided by other current techniques (repointing without reinforcements or grout injection into walls that are unsuitable since they are very compact) may not be very effective or may be invasive and therefore unacceptable from the point of view of preservation (ferro-cement).

Figure 1. Coil of high strength steel cords.

The system is based on the use of materials easy to find on the market even if commonly used for other purposes, that is to say: a) High strength steel cords, which can be made from coils to be found on the market. The coils are about 30 cm wide (Fig. 1) and variable in length

from 15 m up to 1500 m, and consist of a series of cords arranged parallel to one another (Fig. 2) and held together by a polyester mesh.

filaments) give rise to high bonding and compatibility between the cords and the mortar surrounding them. This ensures excellent mechanical behaviour of the stone-mortar-cord assembly. What is more, because the cords are so small, they can easily be bent into shape as required in order to pass them through the joints between the various pieces of stone forming the wall (Fig. 5). Cords made of composite material have similar characteristics.

(a) (b) Figure 2. (a) 3X2 cord , (b) 3SX cord.

It is easy to pull the steel cords out from the strip so as to use them separately for the application suggested here. It is also possible, in any case, to use other materials, such as composite materials (cables or cords), provided it is possible to use a cement or lime-based mortar as a matrix. b) galvanized steel eyebolts (Fig. 3), also available on the market, normally used in mountaineering for providing a grip in rock faces. Basically, these are pointed rods that can be driven into the facing, with hooks or rings on their ends through which cables can be passed.

Figure 5. Reciprocal confinement of the stone-mortar-cord system.

Figure 3. Close-up showing the hooking of steel eyebolts.

As an alternative, it is also possible to use small galvanized steel rods with threaded ends enabling the cord to be held in place by means of a metal washer and a locking nut (Fig. 4).

Figure 4. Close-up of hooking system of threaded bars with washers and nuts.

The most interesting property of the cords used in the proposed system is the fact that the very small size of the cords (typical average diameter 1 mm) and their shape, formed by wrapping the single steel filament around each other helically (typically 3 or 4

The eyebolts or threaded rods have two purposes: on the one hand they provide fixed points for anchoring the cords in the wall facing, on the other they create connections between the two sides of the wall, thus helping it to behave as a monolith. The procedure for reinforcing a single wall panel using the system suggested here is carried out in the following stages: strip the mortar joints for a depth of 6-8 cm; wash the stripped joints; repoint with mortar (cement or lime-based mortar); insert the eyebolts or the rods, typically 4 per square metre, arranged as regularly as possible according to a square mesh and driving them in far enough to involve the opposite facing, leaving the head below the surface on which the work is being carried out (at a depth of at least 3-4 cm); insert the cords into the stripped joints, passing them trough the hooks of the eyebolts or behind the washers of the rods, proceeding in a horizontal or vertical direction all over the facing being treated. If the length of the single cords is insufficient, they can be joined together with resin or, simply, overlapped against each other for a length of about 20 cm; if considered necessary to further increase the strength of the panel it is possible to apply additional cords diagonally, both in one direction and in the other; repoint the joints again with mortar, so as to cover up completely both the cords and the heads of the eyebolts or of the rods. Upon completing the operations described above, a grid-like pattern (irregularly shaped) made of metal or of composite material will have been ob-

tained. It will be perfectly incorporated into the wall facing but not visible from outside, and capable of giving the panel the mechanical characteristics (shear strength, tensile strength and compression strength) it needs to withstand both static and dynamic stresses.

Anchorage at the top

cords

cords

Anchorage at the bottom Connection between walls

Figure 7. Close-up of a corner area

Anchorage at the top cords

Figure 6. The two reinforced masonry facings enclose the inner masonry work.

To understand the effectiveness of this treatment, it is possible to compare it with the ferro-cement technique. The end result of this technique is to confine the masonry between two new thin reinforced concrete walls (the two layers of plaster consisting of cement mortar, reinforced with metal netting, on the two sides of the masonry and connected to one another). With the technique suggested here, the result is absolutely comparable in terms of effectiveness but the original facing remains visible and perfectly intact, and its ability to transpire remains unaffected. Indeed, here again there are two new resisting walls (several centimetres thick) connected to one another that enclose the masonry between them (Fig. 6), but these are actually the original external facings which have become genuine layers of reinforced masonry (reinforced wall facings) thanks to the grid of metal cords inserted discreetly but intimately into the joints. Moreover, in addition to considerably increasing the tensile (and shear) strength of the masonry, this grid also has the beneficial effect of confining the pieces of stone, that are enclosed within the circuits of the cords. To reinforce the whole masonry construction using the proposed system, it is possible to proceed as follows. At the ends of the wall panel, the cords can be folded in so that they also take in the opposite surface side of the same panel. In the case of a corner panel, they can also be folded over to take in the panel at right-angles (Figs 7-8), thus connecting the vertical elements at right-angles to one another in a particularly effective manner (since they create an extensive connection).

Figure 8. Folded and anchored cords.

As far as concerns the bottom part of the panel (e.g. in the foundations), the cords can be anchored effectively by folding them around the pieces of stone at the bottom of the panel (Figs 7-8) or connecting them to the foundations (if any) by means of connectors, as the case may be. At the top, the cords can be connected to the metal or RC tie (if any), or, for example, in boundary town walls, folded over the coping so that they reach the other side of the wall. As a result of these operations, each single wall was reinforced locally, and all the different elements were connected to one another, giving rise to a construction in which the resisting system now consisted of a masonry reinforced to a widespread extent. To sum up, the system presented here calls for a netting structure with flexible sides consisting of the cords mentioned above, which can be positioned according to paths corresponding to the joints between the elements of the wall and which can be anchored to pre-established points of the latter by means of metal eyebolts or transverse rods. Since the sides of the netting are flexible and pass through the hooks or the rings of the transverse elements without being an actual part of them, it is possible to arrange them precisely along the joints (previously stripped) of the

elements forming the masonry, however they are arranged. 3 FIELDS OF APPLICATION AND EXPECTED BENEFITS As already mentioned, the proposed technique is suitable for treating rubble stone walls when, for reasons of preservation, the fair-face wall is required to be retained and at the same time non-invasive reversible and effective reinforcement is required. Typically, therefore, some of the structural problems of old buildings and archaeological assets can be solved in a manner capable of meeting the need for the highest safety standards combined with the requirements relating to protection and preservation. The proposed technique complies with the principles underlying the protection f historical buildings, since it is: - compatible with preservation of the material of which the building is made, as it is able to adapt and integrate perfectly into the walls; - long-lasting, since the materials used have a high resistance to chemical and physical aggression and to weathering; - intended to integrate the structure without transforming it; - non-invasive; - reversible (or at least removable); - compliant with the principle of the least upgrading work. It is easy to identify the possible advantages from the mechanical point of view. They concern: 1) improved mechanical characteristics, that is to say compressive strength and shear strength, and also flexural strength in relation to stresses on the same and at right-angles to the plane of the masonry; 2) the ability to connect extensively any damages, the vertical walls to one another and the vertical walls to the horizontal elements; 3) giving the masonry the tensile strength that, in the case of irregular masonry (where the vertical joints are often aligned) cannot even benefit from the chain effect present in regular walls with properly staggered orthostats and joints; 4) transverse connections between the facings of the masonry, since the eyebolts or the transverse rods are arranged as artificial stones capable of making the wall panel act as a monolith. They do this by contrasting detachment of the facings from one another and providing adequate tensile strength (also necessary in the presence of vertical loads only and shear strength (necessary in the event of stresses that tend to make the wall panel tilt over, and therefore to make the facings slide in respect of one another).

4 EARLY EXPERIMENTS In order to investigate the effectiveness of the reinforcement technique described above, a series of tests were planned. After a description of the materials used, the first results of the tests are reported on below. 4.1 Fibre characterization The fibres used during the experiment were supplied by Hardware LLC. One peculiarity of these materials is their macroscopic structure. Indeed, all the fibres are made up of high-resistance steel filaments covered with a layer of brass to prevent oxidation of the metallic fibres. The specifications of the cords used are shown in Table 1.
Table 1: 3X2 cord mechanical properties. Fibre type 3X2 cord Cord diameter (mm) 0.89 2 Cross section area (mm ) 0.620 1539 Failure tensile load (N) 206842 Youngs modulus (E) (MPa) 2479 Failure stress (MPa) Elongation at failure (%) 2.1

4.2 Tests with flat jacks In the tests with double jacks, portions of walls about 50 cm high were subjected to compression on a single vertical axis. Masonry walls were tested while subjected to compression using two flat jacks (Fig. 9). During the test measurements were recorded the load history, maximum compression stress max , and deflections of some points using centesimal transducers. An equivalent normal stiffness E1/3 was then calculated:

E1 / 3 =

0.33 max

1/ 3

(1)

where 1/3 is the normal strain corresponding to 33% of the maximum stress max reached. Figure 9 shows the results for the first tests carried out using double jacks.
Table 2: Results of the tests with flat jacks. Reinforcement Index Max compression stress (MPa) 0.595 0.807 0.857 1.261 1.312 Youngs modulus E1/3 (MPa) 480 393 512 486 2416

Un-reinforced Deep repointing Deep repointing Reinforced repointing Reinforced repointing

URM 01 REP 02 REP 03 SRE 04 SRE 05

On analysing the results, it is possible to state that deep repointing of the joints, reinforced with metal fibres, is capable of increasing significantly the

compressive strength max of the masonry. On comparing these results with those concerning the nonreinforced masonry and those for masonry reinforced with repointing alone, increases in the resistance were found of 116% and 50% respectively (Tab.2). As far as concerned the normal modulus of elasticity E1/3, the results of the tests with flat jacks showed that deep repointing of the joints on its own is not capable of causing significant increases of the modulus of elasticity. This was probably because the mortar used for repointing the joints was based on hydraulic lime. As far as concerns the manner in which the masonry elements between the two flat jacks failed, it was seen that a series of vertical cracks formed between the two flat jacks. Furthermore, there was no substiantial differentiation of the type of failure between the un-reinforced masonry (URM), the repointed masonry (REP) and the masonry reinforced with metal fibres (SRE). While in the cases of the unreinforced masonry and of the repointed joints the breakage occurred with a small number of fairly large vertical cracks, in the case of the masonry repointed with metal fibres a larger number of smaller vertical cracks occurred. This indicates an improvement in the mechanical behaviour of the masonry.
14
SRE 05

k =u =

Pmax A 2

(2)

where P is the diagonal compressive load generated by the hydraulic jack and A is the area of the horizontal cross-section of the panel and u is the ultimate shear strength. Furthermore it is possible to calculate the shear stiffness G1/2 (secant value of the modulus at 1/2 of the peak load) defined as:

G1 / 2 =

1/ 2 i 1/ 2 i

(3)

where 1/2 is the angular strain at 1/2 maximum load, i and i are respectively the initial shear stress (i = 0.002 N/mm2) and strain values due to an application of a pre-load.
Table 3: Results of diagonal compression tests. Reinforcement Un-reinforced Deep repointing Reinforced repointing Index DC 01 DC 02 DC 03 Shear strength k (MPa) 0.029 0.039 0.063 Shear modulus G1/2 (MPa) 541 1403 653

12
SRE 04

Vertical stress [kg/cm ]

10
REP 03 REP 02

URM 01

0 0,000

0,002

0,004 Normal strain

0,006

0,008

0,010

Figure 9. - diagram resulting from the tests with double flat jacks.

The next experiments will investigate the increases in shear strength and flexural strength. It is planned to carry out on-site diagonal compression tests on un-reinforced and reinforced panels, and also loading tests on panels that will first be reinforced, cut and then tilted over, positioning them horizontally. They will then be tested up to breaking point by applying vertical loads. 4.3 Shear tests The diagonal test was performed on site on panels of 1200x1200 mm dimension with sections of different thickness and morphology. The load is given by hydraulic jacks. The test is defined by ASTM E 519-81 Standard. It is possible to calculate the characteristic strength of the masonry k through:

The average thickness of the masonry turned out to be about 53 cm. The material used was a roughly cut calcareous stone (double leaf masonry wall). Of the three panels obtained for the diagonalcompression test, the first (DC01) was tested without strengthening, to determine its mechanical characteristics. The remaining two were consolidated respectively with deep repointing of mortar joints (DC02), and Reticolatus technique (DC03). The panel strengthened with metal fibers shows an increase in strength k compared to the unstrengthened panel, of approximately 117%. The panel reinforced with only deep repoiting of mortar joints did not cause an appreciable increase in terms of shear strength k compared to an un-strengthened similar panel (+34%). This shows the inefficiency of this strengthening method for the particular masonry texture to which it had been applied, especially due to the high thickness of walls (Tab. 3). The obtained value of the shear elastic modulus G1/2 was equal to 541 MPa for un-strengthened panel, while it reached 1403 MPa in the case of strengthened panel with deep repointing. 5 MODELLING AND TESTS In order to design a reinforcement work of a wall panel with the proposed system, it is thought that following vertical and horizontal loads the collapse mechanisms may be summarised, basically, as fol-

lows: shear, sliding-shear and flexion for actions in the plane and out of the plane of the panel (Fig. 10). The steel cords were arranged over an extensive area on both outside surfaces of the panel, contributing towards reinforcing the masonry in order to withstand the formation of these collapsing mechanisms. This creates a genuine reinforced wall in which the compressive stress is absorbed by the stone wall and the tensile stress by the cords.

FLEXURAL
SLIDING SHEAR

depends on the thickness of the compressed thin wall and on the depth of stripping. On the average, if the depth of stripping is 6 to 8 mm, the limit may be estimated at 10-12 mm. With regard to flexion due to action out of the plane of the panel, all the bars arranged on the stressed wall contribute in the same manner to the traction effort (Fig. 11). In flexion on the plane, the cords in the tensile area react differently depending on their position (Fig. 12). Their contributions can be calculated concentrating the area of the re-acting rods in the centre of mass of the tensile bars.
barycentre of the tensile bars
P M

bar

t1

(a)

(c)
t2

SHEAR

Figure 10. Typical failure modes of unreinforced masonry walls: sliding shear failure (a), shear failure (b), flexural failure following subjecting to inplane loading and out-of-plane (b) loading (c).

d d-x x

ftd

0.85 fmd

To size /check the reinforcement elements, it is possible to use a study of the generic cross-section, applying the hypothesis of a flat cross-section guaranteed by the monolithic character that the panel acquires following insertion of the transverse elements, eyebolts and threaded bars. 5.1 Flexural strength The proof with combined compressive and bending stress, for loads both on the plane and out of the plane of the panel, can be conducted as for any heterogeneous cross-section. t
P M
bar

Figure 12. Wall subjected to in-plane loading.

5.2 Shear strength For the shear check, since the formation of the resisting lattice is guaranteed by the presence of the vertical rods, the design resistance is supplied by the sum of the shear strength of the masonry VRd,m plus the shear strength consequent to the tensile strength of the reinforcements VRd,t (CNR-DT 200/2004):

f VRd = VRd ,m + VRd ,t = dt vd Rd

f + 0.6dAtw td Rd

1 (4) p t

t1

t2

d d-x x

ftd

0.85 fmd

Figure 11. Wall subjected to out-of-plane loading.

Take a diagram of the compressive stresses of 0.85 fmd and extended to the portion of cross-section for a depth of 60 to 80% of the distance of the neutral axis of the compressed edge up to a maximum limit that

where: d is the distance between the compressed edge and the centre of mass of the tensile bars, t is the thickness of the wall reacting to shear, Atw is the area of the cords arranged parallel to the shear action, pt is the main value of the pitch of the bars, fvd and ftd are the design shear resistance of the masonry and the design tensile resistance of the cords respectively, Rd is a coefficient for the resistant model. The sliding-shear mechanism becomes significant in isolated walls where limited friction resistance is generated due to the small axial load. In this mechanism, the vertical cords have an essential role in that they prevent sliding along the horizontal mortar courses of one part of the masonry in respect of the other, when the horizontal thrust has exceeded the friction resistance along the mortar joint.

The sliding shear strength of the reinforced panel originates from the combination of two resisting mechanisms: the shear transmitted by friction from the masonry VRd,m and the shear consequent to the tensile strength of the reinforcements VRd,ts. As an alternative, to carry out a cautious check, the sliding shear strength can be assessed conservatively using the following relationship (Tassios 1988):

1 VRd , slid = 1.3 Atw Rd

( f td f md )0.5

(5)

ticularly suitable for fair-face walls of buildings listed due to their historical or architectural value. The effectiveness of the proposed technique was investigated by means of a series of tests with double flat jacks, subjecting the masonry to vertical compression and diagonal compression tests (shear tests). Based on the results obtained, it was possible to note an improvement of the mechanical behaviour of the masonry and it was noted that deep repointing of joints with metal fibres is capable of increasing compressive strength significantly, even doubling it as compared with the non-reinforced masonry. REFERENCES
ASTM E 519-81. 1981. Standard Test Method for Diagonal Tension (Shear) in Masonry Assemblages, American Society for Testing Materials. Binda, L., Modena, C., Baronio, G. & Abbaneo, S. 1997. Repair and investigation techniques for stone masonry walls, Construction and Building Materials, Elsevier, 11, (3), 133142. Cecchi, A., Milani, G. & Tralli, A. 2004. In-plane loaded CFRP reinforced masonry walls: Mechanical characteristics by homogenisation procedures, Composites Science and Technology, (64), 13-14, 2097-2112. Chiostrini, S. & Vignoli, A. 1994. In-situ determination of the strength properties of masonry walls by destructive shear and compression tests, Masonry International, 7, (1) 87-96. Corradi, M., Borri, A. & Vignoli, A. Strengthening techniques tested on masonry structures struck by the Umbrian-Marche earthquake of 1997-1998, Construction and Building Materials, Elsevier, 16, (4), 229-239, 2002. Corradi, M., Tedeschi, C., Binda, L. & Borri, A. Experimental evaluation of shear and compression strength of masonry wall before and after reinforcement: deep repointing, Construction and Building Materials, Elsevier (in press). Dolce, M. & Marnetto R. CAM technology, patent. Elgawady, M.A., Lestuzzi, P. & Badoux, M. Analytical model for the in-plane shear behavior of URM walls retrofitted with FRP, Composites Science and Technology, Elsevier, (66), 459474, 2006. Eshani, M.R. 1997. Strengthening of earthquake damaged masonry structures with composite materials, Non-metallic (FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete Structures, Proceedings of the second international RILEM Symposium FRPRCS-2, L. Taerwe Ed., E & FN Spon, London, England, 681-687. Eurocode 6. 1995. Design of masonry structures Part 1-1: General rules for buildings Rules for reinforced and unreinforced masonry. ENV 1996-1-1. Gabor, A., Bennati, A., Jacquelin, E. & Lebon, F. 2006. Modelling approaches of the in-plane shear behaviour of unreinforced and FRP strengthened masonry panels, Composite Structures, Elsevier, (74), 277288. Tassios, P. T. 1988. Masonry mechanics , Liguori Publ., Napoli, (Italian Translation). Tomazevic, M. & Alih, V. 1993. The strengthening of stonemasonry walls by injecting the masonry-friendly grouts. 7th European Conf. On Earthquake Engineering, 1, 10-20. Turnsek, V. & Sheppard, P. F. 1980. The shear and flexural resistance of masonry walls, Proc. of the research conf. on earthquake engineering., Skopje. Vintzileou, E. & Tassios, T.P. 1995. Three-leaf stone masonry strengthened by injecting cement grouts, Journal of Structural Engineering, 121, (5), 848-856.

where: Atw is the area of the cords arranged perpendicular to the shear action, and fmd is the design compression resistance of the masory. 6 CONCLUSIONS The technique suggested for reinforcing masonry is intended mainly for constructions with an irregular (stone double or triple leaf walls) masonry texture, such as stone walls, in order to eliminate or at least reduce the problems of the techniques adopted for regular walls. The reinforcement technique consists of inserting a continuous grid of small high strength steel cords into the mortar joints. The nodes of the cords are secured by means of metal rods transverse to the wall facing. The result is that of a reinforced masonry, for which there is an increase in compressive, shear and flexural strength, and an effective transverse connection between the leaves of the masonry. The improvement does not concern solely the mechanical characteristics of the masonry thus treated, but affects the whole masonry construction, since in addition to reinforcing the wall panel, the skeleton of the continuous grid inside the masonry connects the various contiguous masonry walls to one another, thus forming a genuine complete reinforcement system. Furthermore, the small size of the reinforcement cords and the fact that they are easy to insert into the mortar joints makes it possible to apply this treatment on a widespread basis, that avoids dangerous concentrations of stress such as those that occur, for example, when using metal rods. The suggested system can be used both at local level, that is to say for single wall panels of existing buildings or also for boundary town walls, and at global level, that is to say as a system for reinforcing a masonry construction, improving its overall behaviour. The upgrading work is not very invasive, is reversible and integrates the masonry rather than replacing it. It is compatible with preservation of the original material of the building and long-lasting thanks to use of very durable materials and is therefore par-