Tumialan, G., P.C. Huang, A. Nanni, and P.
Silva, "Strengthening of Masonry Walls with Structural Repointing," Non-Metallic Reinforcement for Concrete Structures - FRPRCS-5, Cambridge, July 16-18, 2001.
Strengthening of Masonry Walls by FRP Structural Repointing
GUSTAVO TUMIALAN, Doctoral Student, University of Missouri-Rolla, USA, PEI-CHANG HUANG, General Manager, CO-FORCE, Taiwan, ANTONIO NANNI, Professor, University of Missouri-Rolla, USA, and PEDRO SILVA, Visiting Assistant Professor, University of Missouri-Rolla, USA
INTRODUCTION Unreinforced Masonry (URM) walls are prone to failure and collapse during a major seismic event representing one of the main causes of injuries and loss of human lives. In this context, the search of effective and affordable techniques to strengthen URM walls is an urgent need. Repointing is a traditional retrofitting technique, commonly used in the masonry industry, which consists in replacing missing mortar in the joints. The term “structural” is added to describe a strengthening method aimed at restoring the integrity and/or upgrading the capacity of walls. This is achieved by placing into the joints deformed Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP) rods, which are bonded to the masonry wall by a suitable paste. In addition to improving structural performance (Tinazzi, 2000) this technique offers other advantages, namely; the surface preparation is reduced and aesthetics is preserved. This paper consists of two parts. The first part deals with the study of the shear behavior of URM walls strengthened using a method denominated “FRP Structural Repointing”. The test results of an experimental program are presented. Four specimens were tested under diagonal loads. The results showed that by using the FRP Structural Repointing technique, the shear strength of URM masonry walls was significantly increased. The second part presents a methodology to estimate the shear capacity of walls strengthened by the aforementioned technique. It was shown that the suggested protocol provided adequate values. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM Materials A total of four masonry walls were manufactured for this experimental program, which were built with 6x8x16 in. (150x200x400 mm) concrete blocks in a stack bond pattern. The dimensions of the walls were 64 in. by 64 in (1.6 m. by 1.6 m.). All the walls were built by a qualified mason to not introduce additional variables, such as handwork and different mortar workability that may arise from the construction of the specimens. The mortar used was Type N. The compressive strength of masonry obtained from the testing of prisms was 2090 psi (14.4 MPa). The walls were strengthened with Glass FRP rods having a diameter of ¼ inches (6.25 mm.), a tensile strength of 120 ksi (827 MPa) and modulus of elasticity of 5900 ksi (40.7 MPa). The GFRP rods were embedded into an epoxy-based paste with the following mechanical properties: the compressive strength was 12.5 ksi (86.1 MPa), the tensile strength was 4 ksi (27.5 MPa), and the modulus of elasticity was 450 ksi (3.1 GPa). Test Specimens One URM wall, Wall 1 was the control specimen for this test series. Wall 2 was strengthened with GFRP rods at every horizontal joint. Wall 3 was strengthened with GFRP rods in a grid pattern, which means that the rods were placed in every vertical and horizontal joint. For Wall 4 the amount of reinforcement was similar to that of Wall 3 but the reinforcement was
Table 1. which usually cannot be larger than 3/8 inches (9. In addition the aesthetic of masonry is preserved. July 16-18.
. A. Figure 1 illustrates the strengthening procedure. Huang. The method itself is simpler since the surface preparation is reduced (sandblasting and puttying) is not required." Non-Metallic Reinforcement for Concrete Structures .FRPRCS-5.C. (3) embedding the rods in the joint and (4) retooling.Tumialan. 2001. Strengthening by Structural Repointing
(d) Installation of GFRP Rods
The diameter size of the GFRP rods is limited by the thickness of the mortar joint. "Strengthening of Masonry Walls with Structural Repointing..4 mm. which consists of: (1) cutting out part of the mortar using a grinder. The GFRP rods were placed into the joints by using a technique known as tuck pointing. whereas the vertical reinforcement was placed in the back side of the wall. To ensure a proper bonding between the epoxy-based paste and masonry. (2) filling the joints with a epoxy-based paste. P. G. Cambridge. it is recommendable to remove the dust by means of an air blower once the grinding of the mortar joints has been completed. and P.
distributed in the two sides of the wall.).
(a) Grinding of Joints
(b) Masking of Masonry to avoid Staining
(c) Application of Epoxy-based Paste Figure 1. The horizontal reinforcement was installed in the front side. Matrix for Experimental Program Specimen Reinforcement Wall 1 Wall 2 Wall 3 Wall 4 None #2 GFRP Rods #2 GFRP Rods #2 GFRP Rods
Front Side None
Back Side None None None Every Vertical Joint
Every Horizontal Joint Every Horizontal and Vertical Joint Every Horizontal Joint
Strengthening Procedure Structural repointing offers advantages compared to the use of FRP laminates. Nanni. Table 1 illustrates the matrix used for this experimental program. Silva.
Huang. 4c and 4d). the force was applied to the wall by steel shoes placed at the top corner. the tensile forces in the rods bridging the diagonal crack increased the shear capacity of the walls. crack opening curves registered at the front and back sides for the four tested walls. The data acquired by the load cell and the Linear Variable Differential Transducers (LVDTs) were collected by a DAYTRONIC data acquisition system at a frequency of one point per second.. Nanni. P.6 kN). In these strengthened walls. the stability of the system can be verified. except in the control wall. Two 30-ton-capacity hydraulic jacks activated by a manual pump were used to generate the load along the diagonal of the wall being tested. When loading. Thus.C.7 kN). and as expected the capacity of Wall 1 was sensitive to the weaker planes along the bed and head joints (see Figure 4a) with cracks developing only in these joints. A. A total of four LVDTs were used to collect displacements in the walls. 2001. forced the formation of diagonal cracks running through the masonry units (see Figures 4b. Cambridge. G. A couple of LVDTs was placed on each side of the walls. the presence of the reinforcement. and transmitted to similar steel shoes at the bottom corner through high strength steel rods. Figure 2 shows an overall view of the test setup. An initial cycle for a low load was performed in every wall to verify that both the mechanical and electronic equipment were working properly. Test Setup
(b) Specimen being tested
The load was applied in cycles of loading and unloading. and P. with an average load of 53 kips (235. "Strengthening of Masonry Walls with Structural Repointing.Tumialan. 3 and 4 was approximately the same.FRPRCS-5. The maximum loads in Walls 2." Non-Metallic Reinforcement for Concrete Structures . Silva.
Test Setup The specimens were tested in a closed loop fashion.
. July 16-18. It can be observed that at about 10 kips (44. Wall 1 maximum capacity was registered at about 26 kips (115. The latter one was placed to register the crack opening.
(a) Overall View Figure 2.5 kN) all the four test specimens experienced a reduction in their initial stiffness. By applying the load by cycles. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS Figure 3 illustrates the load vs. One oriented along the line force and the other perpendicular to the line.
which was more evident in Wall 3 (see Figure 5a). and P. A.Tumialan. Envelopes of Load vs. Wider cracks were mostly observed in the unstrengthened (back) side or where minimum amount of reinforcement was placed such as in Wall 4.
Figure 3. P. 2001. this fact could cause injuries or loss of human life during a seismic event. It should be noted that these cracks were not visible until the peak load was reached. Cambridge. typical of a dominated shear failure. Specimens after Failure
(d) Wall 4
In Wall 1 the failure was brittle. Huang.. In a real building. Crack Opening
(a) Wall 1
(b) Wall 2
(c) Wall 3 Figure 4. Silva. which
. On the other hand. July 16-18. In this wall some material come loose after the ultimate load was reached that could potentially fail due to any out-of-plane loading. in all the strengthened walls no loose material was observed." Non-Metallic Reinforcement for Concrete Structures . at the final state. G. Nanni.FRPRCS-5. "Strengthening of Masonry Walls with Structural Repointing.C. In addition the strengthened walls tilted to the direction of the strengthened face.
The crack produced by debonding of the masonry units from the mortar in the back side. Comparing the recorded crack widths in the front and back sides.. 2001. Cambridge. The shear strength of a wall strengthened with FRP systems can be quantified by adding a third term to account for the contribution of the new reinforcement: (1) Vn = Vm + Vs + Vf Calculation of Vf Vf depends on the shear contribution of reinforcing rods developing their full tensile capacity and rods being debonded. Nanni. Huang. the strength developed in the GFRP rods is assumed to be half of the ultimate tensile strength. two areas can be identified in a masonry panel (see Figure 6). It will be assumed for the estimation of the maximum shear strength that since neither debonding nor breaking of the GFRP rods were observed.
. 2000) were reduced in half. G. traveled through the wall thickness until debonding of the epoxy-based paste from the masonry units (see Figure 5b). the crack growth in the unstrengthened or less strengthened back side increased at a higher rate than the strengthened front side.
(a) Strengthened Wall after Failure Figure 5." Non-Metallic Reinforcement for Concrete Structures . Mechanism of Failure
(b) Crack Propagation
Mechanism of Failure In the strengthened walls. In similar way. EVALUATION OF SHEAR STRENGTH OF STRENGTHENED WALLS The nominal shear strength of a masonry wall can be estimated as the sum of the shear contributions of the masonry and the steel shear reinforcement. Thus. The following assumptions are considered: • Inclination angle of the shear cracks constant and equal to 45°. • Constant distribution of bond stresses along the FRP rods at ultimate. P. It is important to highlight that the observed mechanism defers from that where debonding is observed along the three epoxy paste-masonry interfaces of the groove.C. as shown in Figure 3.FRPRCS-5. and P. July 16-18. At this point the wall fails because the tensile stresses are not longer transferred to the rods. A. the bond stresses estimated by a previous investigation (De Lorenzis. the failure was produced by the loss of bonding between the epoxybased paste and the masonry units. Silva.
was strengthened with GFRP rods in the horizontal and vertical joints placed in one side of the wall. "Strengthening of Masonry Walls with Structural Repointing.Tumialan.
Huang. P. 2001.. thus: τ b A f = f fu A b
π d2 b τb ( π d b Le ) = f fu 4 Then the effective length can be expressed as: df L e = b fu 4 τb
Shear in Bond Controlled Region (Vb) The number of rods (rb) in the bond controlled region can be quantified as: L rb ' = e (3a) s rb = 2rb’ (3b) The value obtained using equation (3a) is rounded to the immediate inferior integer. • The spacing between rods is the layer height.Tumialan. Effective Length Le By equilibrium the force due to the bonding stress is equal to the force generated by the tensile stresses in the rod. July 16-18. the assumption of constant bond stresses at ultimate may not result adequate." Non-Metallic Reinforcement for Concrete Structures . "Strengthening of Masonry Walls with Structural Repointing. Nanni. In this case.C. Le is defined as the length at which the rod breaks. A. Silva. and can be derived from Figure 7:
Le Figure 7. and P. thereby.
• The ultimate bond strength is reached in all the rods intersected by the crack at ultimate.FRPRCS-5. Controlling areas to calculate Vf The bond behavior is dependent on the type of the rod.
. Cambridge. G.
Bond Controlled Region
Rupture Controlled Region
Bond Controlled Region
Figure 6. the value of the average bond strength would depend on the bonded length and could be computed from the local bond stress–slip relationship of the given type of FRP rod.
" Non-Metallic Reinforcement for Concrete Structures . "Strengthening of Masonry Walls with Structural Repointing.. and P. Following the same criterion. calculated in the most unfavorable crack position (minimum total length). the bond stresses are limited to half of those estimated by De Lorenzis. July 16-18. 2000). 1997) as follows: Vm = C d A mv f 'm = 1.5(0.2 Computation of VF As previously mentioned. Finally.5 in2 Then. Thus: * f fu = C E f fu (8)
* where ffu is the guaranteed ultimate tensile strength of the FRP rod as reported by the manufacturer.8)(120 ksi)] = 48ksi
τb ≤ 0. the material properties used in design equations should be reduced based on the environmental exposure condition by an appropriate environmental reduction factor CE (ACI-440. Huang.
The shear force resisted by the FRP rods in this region can be calculated as: Vb = n π d bτ b L t (4) where all these parameters are known: n = number of the strengthened sides of the wall (1 or 2) τb = assumed bond stress (De Lorenzis. Cambridge. strengthened with GFRP rods at every horizontal joint in one side is presented. Silva.C. P. Nanni. 2001. the shear force resisted by the FRP rods in both regions can be estimated as: Vf = Vb + Vt (9)
EXAMPLE OF CALCULATION OF NOMINAL SHEAR STRENGTH The validation of the strengthening of Wall 2.2 (222 in 2 ) 2090 psi = 12180 lbs = 12.5[(0.45 ksi ) = 0.225 ksi
. Computation of Vm The net area of a concrete block with dimensions of 6x8x16 in. the net area of the horizontal masonry section: A mv = 4 (55. the strength in the rods is limited to half of the ultimate tensile strength.5 in 2 ) = 222 in 2 The contribution of masonry to the shear strength is computed by the 1997 Unified Building Code (UBC. including the mortar in one of the head joints is: Acb = 55. G.Tumialan. 2000) Lt = sum of the bonded lengths of all the rods crossed by the crack.FRPRCS-5. A. thus:
* ffu ≤ CEffu = 0. The value of Lt is calculated as: L t = rb s
Shear in Rupture Controlled Region (Vt) The number of rods (rt) in the rupture controlled region can be quantified as: rt = r – rb The shear force resisted by the FRP rods in this region are calculated as: Vt = n rt Ai f fu
Since long-term exposure to various types of environments may reduce the tensile properties of the FRP reinforcement.2 kips where according to UBC the nominal shear strength coefficient Cd is estimated as 1.
8 kips Finally the capacity of the strengthened wall is: Vst = Vm + VF = 12.05in 2 )(48 ksi) = 12 kips The shear contribution of the GFRP rods estimated from Eq. = Vmax sin 45o = (51.8 kips = 27.7 . Silva. It is observed that the presented methodology provides reasonable values. and to the light of the results (Walls 3 and 4). "Strengthening of Masonry Walls with Structural Repointing.
.0 kips By comparing the horizontal component of the ultimate loads with the expected loads the following results are found: 1 Control Wall 1: Vm-exp. to be consistent with the approach previously described. when implementing a design protocol for walls strengthened by structural repointing the contribution of the vertical FRP reinforcement can be neglected.8kips Calculation of Vt: The rods in the “rupture-controlled” area are the remaining rods. then rb' = 1 s 8 From Eq. (4).1kips ) = 18. and P. P. Even though it is recognized that the vertical steel increases the shear strength of internally reinforced walls. (3b): rb = 2rb’ = 2 (1) = 2 rods in the ”bond-controlled” area. A." Non-Metallic Reinforcement for Concrete Structures .3in > spacing ' s' = 8 in 4 τb 4(0.225ksi ) Thus.8 for GFRP rods in a closed space environment. Cambridge.C. in design its contribution is commonly not considered. (9) is: Vf = Vb + Vt = 2.2 kips + 14. Similarly.4kips ) = 36. G. Nanni.
CE is equal to 0. (7): Vt = nrr Ai f fu = (1)(5rods)(0.. from Eq. so-called “bond-controlled” and “rupture-controlled” areas are considered.225 ksi )(16in) = 2.Tumialan. 2001.8 kips + 12 kips = 14. (6): rt = r – rb = 7 – 2 =5 rods From Eq. Huang.FRPRCS-5.3kips 2 Figure 6 illustrates the correlation between the expected and experimental shear strengths. Also. July 16-18. Calculation of Vb Determine Lt: The effective length can be calculated from equation 2 as follows: df (0. (3a) the number of rods in the “bond-controlled” area is: L 13.25in )(0.3 rb ' = e = = 1. thus in Eq. the shear force carried by the rods in this region is: Vb = n π d b τb L t = (1)(π)(0.25in )(48 ksi ) L e = b fu = = 13.5kips 2 1 Strengthened Wall 2: Vst-exp. = Vmax sin 45 o = ( 26. From Eq. with the understanding that neither debonding nor breaking of the rods were observed.
L. 175 pp. Due to its premature characteristic and negative effects. A potential way to prevent it would be to place of vertical FRP reinforcement on the masonry infill. Harold Martin and Mr. exhibited similar behavior.
Figure 6. Rolla. • It was demonstrated that the methodology for the computation of the nominal shear strength of strengthened walls by structural repointing provided a reasonable and conservative fit with the experimental data. Huang. Department of Civil Engineering. Cambridge. distributed in one or two faces. Expected and Theoretical Shear Strengths Alternatively to the diagonal tension failure. this kind of failure should be avoided. this fact can avoid injuries or loss of human life due to catastrophic failures." Non-Metallic Reinforcement for Concrete Structures . “Masonry Codes and Specifications. and P. that of Mr. However. Whittier. “Strengthening of RC Structures with Near-Surface Mounted FRP Rods. May 2000. • Walls strengthened with same amount of reinforcement. especially. Missouri. Nanni. The authors would like to acknowledge the support of the Rolla Technical Institute (RTI). 1997. • In contrast with URM Walls.Tumialan. The resulting horizontal crack divides the infill wall in two parts. A. 2001. which would act as a dowel action.FRPRCS-5. CA. In a real building. The University of Missouri – Rolla. ICBO. Jason Cox.” in UBC97. Chapter 21. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This research study was sponsored by the National Science Foundation Industry/University Cooperative Research Center at the University of Missouri–Rolla. This failure mechanism is commonly known as Knee Brace or Joint-Slip. strengthened walls were stable after failure.
. a crack along a horizontal joint can be observed at a lower load level in infill masonry walls. G..C. the contribution of the vertical reinforcement may be fully realized in larger walls were more vertical reinforcing rods bridge the diagonal crack. De Lorenzis.” MSc Thesis. Silva. REFERENCES International Conference of Building Officials. July 16-18. "Strengthening of Masonry Walls with Structural Repointing. P.. CONCLUSIONS The following conclusions can be drawn from this research program: • Remarkable improvements of about 100% in wall capacity were registered.
. “Strengthening of Masonry Walls with FRP Rods and Laminates. "Strengthening of Masonry Walls with Structural Repointing. July 16-18. M. Canada.Tumialan. Silva.C. American Concrete Institute (ACI). G. A. Cambridge. Nanni. Arduini.” (document under review). P." Non-Metallic Reinforcement for Concrete Structures . and P. Huang. C.” Third International Conference on Advanced Composite Materials in Bridges and Structures. Tinazzi. Modena. Nanni.FRPRCS-5.. “Guide for the Design and Construction of Concrete Reinforced with FRP Bars. 2001. August 2000. Committee 440. Ottawa. and A.