Flexural Strengthening of Masonry Walls with External
Composite Bars
Kunwar Bajpai1 and Dat Duthinh2
Unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings constitute an
important part of the building stock, and are vulnerable to
earthquakes. According to Tumialan et al. (2001), 96% of
the URM buildings in California need seismic retrofitting,
at a cost of US $4 billions. Retrofitting has proven to be
effective: a survey of URM bearing-wall buildings after
the Northridge Earthquake (1994) showed that, of the
inspected buildings, 67% of the unretrofitted buildings
suffered some damage, compared with 55% of the
retrofitted buildings [Lizundia et al. (1997)]. Although
masonry walls have failed out-of-plane much more
frequently than they have in-plane, more research and
testing have focussed on improving in-plane than out-of-
plane wall capacity.
The objective of the present research is the
strengthening of concrete masonry walls against out-of-
plane bending using external fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP)
bars embedded in grooves cut into the face of the masonry
and mortar joints. For this purpose, eight concrete masonry
beams were tested in four-point bending. They covered a
range of reinforcement ratio, orientation of reinforcement,
and extent of grouting. The innovation of this program is
that we were able to consistently develop very close to
the full tensile strength of the reinforcement. Similar past
test programs that used FRP flexural reinforcement were
often confronted with debonding of the FRP, which led to
premature beam failure and contributed to the conclusion
that the design formulas for flexure of steel-reinforced
masonry beams were not applicable to FRP-reinforced
beams. Following a review of the relevant literature, the
paper will cover results of tensile, bond and bending tests,
and compare measurements with predictions of ultimate
flexural strength.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Two traditional techniques that address out-of-plane
deficiencies in walls that are too high for their thickness
are diagonal bracing and strongbacks. More recent wall
strengthening methods, such as applying shotcrete to a
wall surface, or grouting reinforcing bars within vertical
cores drilled through an URM wall, have been extensively
implemented on the West Coast of the US. Other
techniques, such as adhering high-strength fabric or
surface coating, have seen more limited use.
1 strength direction parallel to the shorter of the vertical or
Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur, India 208 016.
2 horizontal wall span. Prior to application, the wall surfaces
National Institute of Standards and Technology,
Gaithersburg, MD. USA 20899-8611.
TMS Journal September 2003
In the surface coating technique, a thin concrete or
cement plaster coating is sprayed or parged on one or
both sides of an URM wall [Alcocer et al. (1996), Hutchison
et al. (1984), Irimies and Crainic (1993), Prawel and Lee
(1990)]. Reinforcing steel, in the form of cloth or strips, is
embedded in the coating, which is attached to the wall
with a series of connectors, in addition to surface bonding.
The coating is usually thicker than 13 mm (½ in.), and its
tensile strength is less than half of the masonry
compressive strength to ensure that, in out-of-plane
flexural failures, it will yield before the masonry crushes.
The reinforcement of the surface coating can consist
of FRP. Kolsh (1998) strengthened concrete and masonry
structures by first applying a layer of polymer modified
cement - the matrix - to the surface, then pressing a textile
fabric of carbon or glass fibers onto the fresh cement. He
repeated these steps as required before applying a final
cover of polymer-modified cement. A carbon fiber cement
matrix (CFCM) overlay with three carbon fabric layers was
4.5 mm (0.18 in.) thick and had a modulus of elasticity of 10
GPa (1,450 ksi). Kolsh strengthened a masonry wall (3 m x
3 m x 0.24 m or 118 in. x 118 in. x 9.4 in.) with the CFCM
system and bent it out-of-plane with a 2 m x 2 m (79 in. x 79
in.) pressure bag. The wall was able to withstand a static
load comparable to that caused by a lateral acceleration of
three times that of gravity. Flexural tests of (cast) concrete
beams also showed significant increase in strength (4 times)
and ultimate deflection (10 times) compared with
unreinforced beams.
The cement paste matrix is non combustible, protects
the embedded fibers against direct fire exposure, and has
proven bond characteristics with concrete or masonry
substrates, but limited bond with carbon fibers. The method
of application, however, allows mechanical interlock
between matrix and fibers as well as adhesion. Thus, the
factor limiting the strengthening effect of an overlay is, in
fact, the bond strength of the surface of the member. This
method has the advantage of low mass compared with
steel plates, and of good fire resistance compared with
FRP overlays that use an organic resin.
The adhered fabric technique offers the advantage of
low mass, minimum disturbance to wall fixtures, and easy
installation. Fabric strips are applied to one or both sides
of the masonry wall and aligned with their principal
are sandblasted and cleaned of any loose particles, loose
69
masonry units are reset and any cracks are filled with mortar
paste or grouted. The fabric is pressed against an uncured
epoxy previously applied to the wall surface. A second
coating of epoxy is applied over the fabric, and successive
strips of fabric are added, when required, with sufficient
overlap to ensure full development. Finally, an ultra-violet
protective coating is applied over the fabric on any wall
surface exposed to sunlight. Depending on the amount of
FRP used, retrofitted walls can support 24 times [Ehsani
and Sadaatmanesh (1996)], and even up to 32 times their
own weight in out-of-plane bending, with ultimate
deflections up to 1/40 of wall height [Ehsani et al. (1999)],
or 3.6 times the maximum allowable according to MSJC
(2002) (maximum δs /h = 0.007 = 1/140).
Hamoush et al. (2001) illustrate the danger of over-
reinforcing (between 3.6 and 4.4 times the balanced ratio)
against out-of-plane bending without proper regard for
shear strengthening. (At the balanced ratio, the
reinforcement in tension and the masonry in compression
fail simultaneously when the ultimate load is reached.) Of
eleven concrete masonry wall specimens reinforced with
FRP against blast and tested to failure with an air bag, ten
failed in shear. The only specimen that failed in bending
had an air bubble between the FRP fabric and the masonry,
due to poor alignment of the masonry units. The 1.2 m x 1.8
m (48 in. x 72 in.) walls achieved span to maximum ultimate
deflection ratios of 185 to 240.
In contrast, Hamilton and Dolan (2001) reinforced
two tall walls (1.2 m x 4.7 m or 48 in. x 185 in.) and four short
walls (0.6 m x 1.8 m or 24 in. x 72 in.) to 26% and 13% of their
balanced ratio respectively. The specimens were loaded
by an air bag and failed by delamination and/or fracture of
the E-glass fabric. The tall walls achieved a ratio of span
to maximum ultimate deflection of 55 to 59. General flexural
strength design equations similar to those used in
reinforced concrete design overpredicted the actual
capacity by no more than 20%.
Albert et al. (2001) reinforced ten walls (4 m x 1.2 m
or 157 in. x 48 in.) with carbon strips or fabric and tested
them under four-point bending. Despite the large shear
span to depth ratio of 6, flexure-shear was the mode of
failure for most of the tests. Reinforced walls could carry
up to 50 times more load than unreinforced ones, and
achieved a ratio of span to ultimate deflection of 40. The
authors used a triangular compressive stress distribution
in the flange of the masonry unit, but their predictions for
loads and deflections did not agree well with experimental
measurements.
Velazquez-Dimas and Ehsani (2000) tested seven half-
scale brick masonry walls loaded with air bags in cyclic
out-of-plane bending. The reinforcement consisted of
glass-fiber fabric covering a range from below to above
balanced ratio. They concluded that ultimate strength
70
analysis similar to ACI 318 methods for the bending of
reinforced concrete (RC) beams did not work. This is not
surprising since the tensile reinforcement never reached
the tensile strength used in the analysis, as some beams
failed by debonding of the reinforcement and others failed
by crushing of the masonry. Velazquez-Dimas and Ehsani
proposed an elastic analysis that produced good results
for first crack and first delamination stages. At ultimate,
however, the method gave unconservative, poor
predictions of loads (average relative error [prediction –
measurement] / measurement 32%, standard deviation of
relative error 74%) and worse predictions of deflections.
Triantafillou (1998) presented design equations and
normalized interaction equations for the strength of
masonry walls reinforced with externally bonded FRP strips
and subjected to out-of-plane bending, in-plane bending,
or in-plane shear in conjunction with axial stresses. When
out-of-plane bending response dominates, as in the case
of upper story levels, where axial loads are low, the increase
in bending capacity attributable to the FRP reinforcement
is quite high. For high axial loads, the out-of-plane bending
capacity decreases as the amount and stiffness of the
reinforcement increase. The reason is, failure is governed
by crushing of the masonry, and not by rupture of the FRP,
which only occurs for very low reinforcement ratios. In a
reinforced wall, the bending capacity decreases as the axial
load increases, which is not always true for an unreinforced
wall.
Nanni and his colleagues at the University of
Missouri-Rolla mounted FRP bars near the surface of
concrete beams and masonry walls, in pre-cut grooves, to
strengthen them in bending and shear. They coined the
term “structural repointing” for this technique, which
requires less surface preparation, and results in less
appearance change than the adhered fabric technique
[Tumialan et al. (2001)]. De Lorenzis and Nanni (2002)
bonded 9.5 mm (3/8 in.) and 13 mm (½ in.) diameter glass or
carbon fiber bars, ribbed or sand-coated, to square grooves
cut in the tensile face of concrete beams. They measured
the bond between cast concrete and FRP bar by hinged
beam tests and observed three modes of failure: splitting
of the epoxy cover, cracking of the concrete surrounding
the groove, and pullout of the FRP bars. Ribbed bars
exhibited better bond than sand-coated ones. Larger
groove size, and thus, thicker cover, led to higher bond
strength when failure was controlled by splitting of the
epoxy cover, but had no effect when failure occurred by
pullout. Optimum groove sizes were 19 mm (¾ in.) for 9.5
mm (3/8 in.) bars and 25 mm (1 in.) for 13 mm (½ in.) bars. If
the groove was deep enough to cause failure to occur in
the concrete, then concrete tensile strength became a
significant parameter. De Lorenzis and Nanni proposed a
bond stress-slip relationship and recommended further
study of epoxy resins with higher tensile strength.
TMS Journal September 2003

Figure 1—Bar A (Ribbed) and Bar B (Sand-Coated)
The objective of the present research was to establish
the effectiveness of and provide design guidance for near
surface mounted rods in strengthening concrete masonry
walls for out-of-plane flexure. Preliminary tests aimed at
measuring the tensile strength and bond strength of the
FRP bars used. Next, flexural tests were performed, and
results compared with predictions.
TENSILE TESTS
This research used glass-FRP bars of two different
sizes and from two different manufacturers (A and B). Bars
A had circular ribs on a smooth surface finish, whereas
bars B were sand-coated and had a helical fiber tow on the
surface (Figure 1). Since FRP bars are much stronger axially
than radially, one must be especially careful in tensile tests
in not damaging the bars at the grips. The ends of the
tensile specimens were encased in steel tubes [Castro and
Carino (1998)] 25 mm (1 in.) in diameter and 200 mm (8 in.)
in length, with rubber washers inserted for alignment. The
space between the bar and the tube was filled with an
expansive grout cement for the 6.5 mm (1/2 in.) bars, or a
mortar made with high-strength gypsum cement and ASTM
C 778 20-30 sand for the 9.5 mm (3/8 in.) bars. The lengths
of the bars between the tubes were 205 mm (8 in.) for the
6.5 mm (1/2 in.) bars and 380 mm (15 in.) for the 9.5 mm (3/8
in.) bars.
The specimens were loaded at the rate of 18 kN/min
(4,000 lbf/min), and strain in the middle portion of the bars
was recorded with an extensometer that was removed near
ultimate load to avoid damage to the instrument. The
average bar cross sectional area was measured by the
immersion method (ASTM D 618-96). Table 1 shows the
tensile test results of three replicate specimens for each
type and size bar. The stress-strain curves were linear up
to failure, which occurred by rupture of fibers in the middle
portion of the bars (Figure 2). The modulus of elasticity
was calculated by fitting a straight line over the stress-
strain curve. Bars B#3 had lower tensile strength than the
other bars.

Table 1. Results of Tensile Tests of Glass FRP Bars

Cross Sectional Tensile Modulus of Calculated

Specimen Area Strength Elasticity Ultimate
mm2 (10-3 in2) MPa (ksi) GPa (ksi) Strain %
A#3-1 78.2 (121) 811 (118) 38.8 (5,630)
A#3-2 77.5 (120) 795 (115) 38.7 (5,610)
A#3-3 78.0 (121) 786 (114) 38.2 (5,540)
Mean A#3 77.9 (121) 797 (116) 38.6 (5,600) 2.06
St. Dev. A#3 0.26 (0.40) 13 (1.8) 0.32 (46)
A#2-1 36.8 (57.0) 783 (114) 38.0 (5,510)
A#2-2 35.4 (54.9) 822 (119) 38.1 (5,520)
A#2-3 36.7 (56.9) 822 (119) 38.1 (5,520)
Mean A#2 36.3 (56.3) 809 (117) 38.1 (5,520) 2.12
St. Dev. A#2 0.78 (1.2) 23 (3.3) 0.058 (8.4)
B#3-1 85.2 (132) 633 (92) 39.4 (5,710)
B#3-2 82.7 (128) 663 (96) 38.9 (5,640)
B#3-3 82.3 (128) 678 (98) 37.9 (5,500)
Mean B#3 83.4 (129) 658 (95) 38.7 (5,610) 1.70
St. Dev. B#3 1.57 (2.4) 23 (3.3) 0.76 (110)
B#2-1 33.8 (52.4) 807 (117) 41.2 (5,970)
B#2-2 34.8 (53.9) 777 (113) 41.2 (5,970)
B#2-3 33.7 (52.2) 788 (114) 38.8 (5,630)
Mean B#2 34.1 (52.9) 791 (115) 40.4 (5,860) 1.96
St. Dev. B#2 0.61 (0.95) 15 (2.2) 1.4 (200)

TMS Journal September 2003 71


Figure 2—Tensile Failure of FRP Bar by Fiber Rupture
Following characterization of the tensile behavior of
the FRP bars, their bond to masonry and mortar was
investigated.
BOND TESTS
Since a loss of bond would render the FRP bars
ineffective in strengthening, it is important to ensure
sufficient anchorage length and to improve bond if
necessary, in order to develop the tensile strength of the
bar. Figure 3 shows the set-up for the bond tests performed
in the present research as a prerequisite to using FRP bars
for external strengthening of concrete masonry walls in
flexure and in shear. Each test specimen consisted of two
masonry prisms placed at a clear spacing of 405 mm (16 in.)
and connected by two parallel bars 1,220 mm (48 in.) long.
Each prism consisted of two concrete masonry units joined
185 mm
Load Cell Hydraulic Jack
A
A
LVDT
Extensometer
Figure 3b—Test Setup for Determining Bond Strength
72
Epoxy
Mortar
FRP Bar
Section A-A
Figure 3a—Bonding of FRP Bar to Masonry and Mortar
Joint
by mortar. FRP bars of two different sizes, 9.5 mm (3/8 in.)
and 6.5 mm (¼ in.) in diameter from two different
manufacturers were bonded to the prisms in grooves cut
along the mortar joint. The grooves were square in cross
section and measured 19 mm (¾ in.) to the side for the 9.5
mm (3/8 in.) bars and 13 mm (½ in.) for the 6.5 mm (¼ in.)
bars. The grooves were cut wide enough so all mortar was
removed, thus ensuring that bars were bonded with epoxy
to masonry units on two sides of the groove (Figure 3a).
The FRP bar was bonded to one prism along the full length
of the mortar joint, but to the other, only along a length of
185 mm (7.3 in.), or slightly less than half the masonry unit
length. This length was chosen because shear walls often
crack along mortar joints, and thus, in running bond
masonry, the minimum distance from the edge of a shear
wall to the first vertical crack is half the length of a masonry
unit. It is therefore desirable to develop the tensile strength
of the bar over half a unit length.
After the adhesive had cured as specified by the
manufacturer, the concrete prisms were pushed apart with
Steel Plate
Concrete
Masonry Prism
FRP Bar
Epoxy Paste
Steel Support Block
TMS Journal September 2003
Table 2. Mechanical Properties of Epoxies and Mortar Mixture

Adhesive Tensile Strength % Elongation Compressive Strength

MPa (psi) MPa (psi)
Epoxy #1 13.8 (2,000) 4.0 55.3 (8,020)
Epoxy #2 34.6 (5,020) 1.8 67.7 (9,820)
Mortar mixture — — 29.5 (4,280)

Table 3. Bond Test Results for Various Adhesives with Bar A#3
Adhesive Ultimate Load, kN (lbf) % of Bar Strength Failure Mode
Epoxy #1 17.8 (4,000) 29 Epoxy split
Epoxy #2 20.2 (4,540) 33 Epoxy split
Mortar mixture 17.6 (3,960) 28 Bond failed

a hydraulic jack placed in series with a load cell.
Symmetrical loading was ensured by monitoring the strain
on each bar with extensometers and re-positioning the load
if necessary. Further, linear variable differential transformers
(LVDT) measured the displacement and slip of each bar
with respect to the masonry unit, at the loaded and the free
ends of the bonded segment.
achieved higher bond strength than bars A, which had
circular ribs on a smooth surface finish. [This conclusion
differs from that of De Lorenzis and Nanni (2002) for cast
concrete.] As Figure 4 shows, no slip occurred at the free
end of the bars. In all cases, half a masonry unit length was
insufficient to develop the strength of the bars.

A first test series was aimed at measuring the relative

performance of three systems: two epoxies and a latex-
modified mortar made in the following proportion: 2.04 kg
sand; 0.68 kg cement; and 0.379 L acrylset polymer. Table
2 lists the compressive strength of the mortar mixture
measured according to ASTM C39 after 14 days of air cure,
and the mechanical properties of the two epoxies according
to the manufacturer. Table 3 shows the bond test results
for bar A#3 to concrete masonry using the three systems.
Since only one test was performed per system, no
assessment of uncertainty could be made. Epoxy #2, being
superior, was selected for further work.

A second series of tests evaluated the bond

performance of Epoxy #2 with the four types of FRP bars.
The results, which are summarized in Table 4, showed that
smaller bars achieved higher bond strength relative to their
tensile strength. This is expected, as smaller bars have a
higher ratio of perimeter to cross sectional area than larger Figure 4—Strain and Slip in Bond Tests of Bars B#3-1
bars. Test results also showed that bars B, which were (1 kN = 0.2248 kip and 1 m = 3.28 ft = 39.37 in.)
sand-coated with a helical fiber tow on the surface,

Table 4. Bond Strength of FRP Bars with Concrete Masonry using Epoxy #2
FRP Bar Ultimate Load, kN (lbf) % of Bar Strength Failure Mode
Epoxy #1 17.8 (4,000) 29
A#3-1 20.2 (4,540) 33
B#3-1 23.9 (5,370) 44 Epoxy split
A#2-1 15.8 (3,550) 54
A#2-2 16.9 (3,800) 58
B#2-1 18.4 (4,140) 68

TMS Journal September 2003 73

Table 5. Bond Strength of B#2 FRP Bars Bonded with Short Fiber Reinforced Epoxy
FRP Bar Ultimate Load, kN (lbf) % of Bar Strength Failure Mode
B#2-1 25.2 (5,670) 93 Bar ruptured; adhesive
B#2-2 26.3 (5,910) 97 and concrete split
B#2-3 21.0 (4,720) 78 Concrete failed in shear.

In a third series of tests, the epoxy was reinforced BENDING TESTS

with 3 mm (0.12 in.) long glass fibers at a volume fraction of
5%. Test results are shown in Table 5. In two tests, the
bars failed in tension, at 93% and 97% of the uniaxial tensile
strength. In a third test, failure was in the concrete masonry
unit, by shear near the bond line. Thus, reinforcing the
epoxy with short glass fibers enhances significantly its
strength and allows the 6.5 mm (¼ in.) bars to develop
close to their full strength in half a masonry unit length. In
the last two series of tests, the number of repeats was
insufficient to assess measurement uncertainty.
Having developed an efficient reinforcing system with
known tensile and bond characteristics, the investigators
applied the system to reinforcing walls. Masonry walls
can bend out-of-plane when subjected to lateral loads
caused by wind, earthquake or blast. Since masonry is
weak in tension, reinforcing is sometimes required to
enhance flexural resistance.
Specimen Description
Two reinforcing configurations were tested: in
Series 1, the FRP reinforcing bars were parallel to the
mortar bed joints, and in Series 2, perpendicular to them.
For each series, two narrow beams (two course wide)
2.85 m x 0.40 m x 0.20 m (112 in. x 16 in. x 8 in.) and two
wide beams (four course wide) 2.85 m x 0.80 m x 0.20 m
(112 in. x 32 in. x 8 in.) were tested. The narrow beams
were each reinforced with a single bar in the middle of
the tensile face, while the wide beams were each
reinforced with three bars (Figures 5 and 6). The bars
were installed in 13 mm (½ in.) square grooves and
bonded along the entire length of the beams with epoxy
reinforced with short glass fibers as described above.

Grout

194 mm
FRP bar

1016 mm 610 mm 1016 mm

2845 mm
Elevation

394 mm FRP bar

Bottom

FRP bar

797 mm FRP bar

FRP bar

Figure 5—Out-of-Plane Bending Test of Concrete Masonry Walls, Series 1: Narrow Beam and Wide Beam with FRP
Bars Parallel to Mortar Bed Joints (1 mm = 0.03937 in.)

74 TMS Journal September 2003

 194 mm
1016 mm 610 mm
2845 mm
Elevation
394 mm
Bottom
800 mm
Figure 6—Out-of-Plane Bending Test of Concrete Masonry Walls, Series 2: Narrow Beam and Wide Beam with FRP
Bars Perpendicular to Mortar Bed Joints (1 mm = 0.03937 in.)
Test Set-Up
The beams were tested under four-point bending, with
the bottom supports 2.65 m (104 in.) apart and the top
loads 0.61 m (24 in.) apart. A steel tubular beam was used
to spread the load from the testing machine to the two
loading points. Steel rollers and steel bearing pads 102
mm x 102 mm x 13 mm (4 in. x 4 in. x ½ in.) bonded to the
masonry with a fast setting gypsum cement transferred
the loads and reactions to the test beam.
The testing machine was of the screw-driven type
and the beams were loaded at a cross-head speed of 1.5
mm/min, except for Beam 1 which was loaded at 0.6 mm/
min. An LVDT measured the midspan deflection and three
TMS Journal September 2003
FRP bar
1016 mm
FRP bar
FRP bar
FRP bar
FRP bar
strain gages mounted at midspan and 0.61 m (24 in.) from
the bar ends monitored the strains in each FRP bar. Data
were acquired at a sampling frequency of 10 Hz. For the
first (narrow) beam that was tested, the cells in the masonry
units at the support points and load points were grouted
in order to prevent localized failure of the face shells. That
beam failed unexpectedly in shear, so all subsequent beams
had all their cells grouted to prevent that problem from
recurring.
Nominal Flexural and Shear Strengths
The flexural strength of masonry beams under-
reinforced with steel can be predicted by the ACI ultimate
strength method [MSJC (2002)], which is also used here
75
for FRP-reinforced masonry beams. Equilibrium of forces in shear, and not loaded axially is given by MSJC (2002):
requires: Vn A V A
= 0.386 x n 2 or n = 56 x n2
A f fu = (0.80 fm′ ) (0.80c)b
(4)
(1) N mm lbf in.
where Af is the cross sectional area of reinforcement with where An is the net cross sectional area of the masonry
tensile strength fu , fm′ is the masonry compressive beam. Similarly, the nominal shear strength of running bond
strength, b the beam width, and c the compression depth. masonry grouted solid, not reinforced in shear, and not
loaded axially is given by MSJC (2002):
The ultimate moment, assuming reinforcement Vng A Vng A
= 0.621 x n 2 or = 90 x n2 (5)
ruptures before concrete crushes, is given by: N mm lbf in.
Mn = A f fu ( d − 0.40c) (2)
where Mn is the nominal flexural strength and d the beam Table 6 shows the various parameters and the
depth. calculated nominal shear and flexural strengths for a narrow
beam (two-course wide) and a wide beam (four-course
The balanced ratio of reinforcement is obtained by wide). The wide beam has 1.5 times the ratio of reinforcement
simultaneously setting the compressive strain in the of the narrow beam. Experimentally, the ultimate moment
masonry equal to 0.0025 and the tensile strain in the FRP and shear force are caused by the applied load and the
equal to 0.0196 (Table 1, Bar B#2). The compression depths dead load of the beam:
in this case were 6.8 mm (0.27 in.) for the narrow beams and wL2 P g wL2
Me′ = Me + = e + (6)
10.0 mm (0.40 in.) for the wide beams compared to a flange 8 2 8
nominal thickness of 32 mm (1.25 in.).
P + wL
Ve′ = e (7)
For this test configuration, the load at flexural failure 2
is calculated by: where Me′ is the ultimate moment, Me the ultimate applied
2 Mn moment, w the dead load per unit length, L the beam span,
Pn = (3) Pe the applied load, and Ve′ the ultimate shear force.
g
where g is the beam shear span.
In Table 6, ρbu and ρbg are the balanced reinforcement
In flexural tests, it is important to ensure that shear ratios for ungrouted and grouted beams respectively,
failure does not occur. The nominal shear strength of whereas ρ u and ρ g are the corresponding actual
running bond masonry not solidly grouted, not reinforced reinforcement ratios. The dead load is calculated using a
density of 1,920 kg/m3 (120 lb/ft3) for both the masonry
Table 6. Beam Flexural and Shear Strengths

Units Narrow beam Wide beam

g mm (in.) 1,016 (40) 1,016 (40)
b mm (in.) 394 (15.5) 797 (31.4)
wg kN/m (lbf/ft) 1.56 (107) 3.11 (213)
Af mm2 (in.2) 34 (0.053) 102 (0.158)
fu MPa (ksi) 790 (115) 790 (115)
f m’ MPa (psi) 15.8 (2290) 15.8 (2,290)
An mm2 (in.2) 25,000 (38.8) 50,000 (77.5)
Ag mm2 (in.2) 76,400 (118) 154,600 (240)
ρ bu % 0.31 0.31
ρ bg % 0.10 0.10
ρu % 0.14 0.20
ρg % 0.045 0.066
c (Eq.1) mm (in) 6.8 (0.27) 10.0 (0.40)
Mn (Eq.2) kN · m (kip · ft) 5.10 (3.76) 15.10 (11.14)
Pn /2 (Eq.3) kN (lbf) 4.99 (1122) 14.74 (3,314)
Vn (Eq.4) kN (lbf) 9.67 (2173) 19.30 (4,340)
Vng (Eq.5) kN (lbf) 15.53 (3492) 31.03 (6,975)

76 TMS Journal September 2003

Table 7. Compressive Strength of Masonry Units Test Results
MPa psi
Specimen 1 16.32 2,367 Figures 7 and 8 show the load-midspan deflection
curves for the narrow and wide beams, respectively. Cracks
2 12.98 1,883
developed along mortar joints in the tension flange of the
3 18.04 2,617 units due to flexure and flexure-shear and caused the load
Mean 15.78 2,289 to drop momentarily because testing was done at constant
Standard Deviation 2.57 373 cross-head speed. The beam behavior can be approximated
by two straight lines characterized by a pre-cracked
units and grout. The masonry compressive strength was stiffness and a much smaller cracked stiffness. The first
measured according to ASTM C140 and averaged 15.8 MPa beam tested was a narrow beam from Series 1, and had
(2,290 psi) for three specimens (Table 7). grout only in the cells directly loaded. Flexure and flexure-
shear cracks reduced the area available to resist shear to

Figure 7—Load-Deflection Curves for Narrow Beams with One FRP Bar Parallel (Series 1) or Perpendicular (Series 2)
to Mortar Joints (1 kN = 0.2248 kip and 1 mm = 0.03937 in.)

Figure 8—Load-Deflection Curves for Wide Beams with Three FRP Bar Parallel (Series 1) or Perpendicular (Series 2)
to Mortar Joints (1 kN = 0.2248 kip and 1 mm = 0.03937 in.)

TMS Journal September 2003 77

 All subsequent beams were fully grouted to increase
their shear resistance and they all failed in flexure by
sudden rupture of the FRP tensile reinforcement. Table 8
shows the ultimate load and moment, ultimate midspan
deflection δu , FRP bar strains and ratios of measured to
predicted ultimate moments or loads for all beams tested.

On average, for the beams that failed in flexure by bar

rupture, the bars attained at midspan εm /εu = 89% of the
ultimate strain εu achieved in a pure tension test. εm is the
FRP bar strain at ultimate moment. The non-uniformity in
loading within each bar, where load was transferred from
the masonry and mortar through the epoxy by shear on ¾
Figure 9—Shear Failure of Ungrouted Narrow Beam of the bar circumference, contributed to lowering the failure
1//n strain below the bar ultimate tensile strain.

the compression flange only, resulting in unexpected shear
failure of the masonry at an applied load of 6.2 kN (1,390
lbf) or only 43% of the nominal shear strength (Equation
(4)) and a midspan deflection of 49 mm (1.93 in.) [Figure 9].
These corresponded to three times the dead load of the
masonry and a ratio of span to deflection of 54.
Table 8. Ultimate Loads, Moments, Deflections and Strains
The MSJC (2002) equations, which are based on tests
of steel-reinforced masonry, provide a conservative
estimate of the flexural strength of FRP externally (under-)
reinforced concrete masonry beams. The average ratio of
measured to calculated strength for the seven grouted
beams was 1.36, with a coefficient of variation of 5.4%.

Beam Pe M e′ δu εm
M e′ Ve′ L
kN kN · m mm ε m, εu
% ε m, %
Mn Vn δu
(lbf) (kip · ft) (in.) Middle Middle End

1 //n* 6.2 3.79 0.74 0.43 49.0 54 0.397 20 0.347

(1,390) (2.80) (1.93)
2 //n# 11.1 7.00 1.37 61.2 43 Not recorded
(2,500) (5.16) (2.41)
3 //w 32.7 19.33 1.28 53.0 50 1.889 96 0.903
(7,350) (14.26) (2.09)
4 //w 34.2 20.09 1.33 60.0 44 1.675 86 0.034
(7,690) (14.82) (2.36)
5 ⊥n 12.5 7.71 1.51 73.0 36 1.878 96 0.118
(2,810) (5.69) (2.87)
6 ⊥n 11.6 7.25 1.42 69.6 38 1.887 96 0.040
(2,610) (5.35) (2.74)
7 ⊥w 33.2 19.58 1.30 66.0 40 1.757 90 0.945
(7,460) (14.44) (2.60)
8 ⊥w 34.4 20.19 1.34 62.0 43 1.435 73 0.924
(7,730) (14.89) (2.44)
Mean+ 1.36 63.5 42 1.754 89
(2.50)
St.dev 0.073 6.63 4.6 0.179 9.1
(0.26)
COV 0.054 0.10 0.11 0.10 0.10
* Failed in shear. Reinforcing bars were either // or ⊥ to bed joints; n = narrow, w = wide.
#

+
Mean, standard deviation and coefficient of variation (COV) were calculated for beams 2 to 8 for moment ratio
and deflection, and for beams 3 to 8 for bar strain.

78 TMS Journal September 2003

For the narrow beams, that ratio was 1.43, with a COV of
4.9 %, whereas for the wide beams, it was 1.31, with a COV
of 2.1 %. The narrow beams and the wide beams were
reinforced to 45 % and 66 % of balanced ratio respectively.
At flexural tensile failure, the maximum compressive strain
in the wider beams was closer to the ultimate uniaxial
compressive strain of the masonry than for the narrow
beams. Since the calculated flexural strength assumes a
rectangular compressive stress distribution, which is only
applicable when concrete reaches its ultimate compressive
strain, the different reinforcement ratios result in different
levels of conservativenss in the calculated strengths. The
range of reinforcement ratios used here is practical, and
the design formulas are judged conservative, but not overly
so.
Furthermore, substantial deflection was achieved at
ultimate (mean ratio of span to maximum deflection = 42,
coefficient of variation = 11%). There was no difference in
behavior between reinforcement parallel or perpendicular
to the mortar bed joints. The unexpected shear failure of
ungrouted Beam 1, at only 43% of the nominal shear
strength, requires further investigation.
CONCLUSIONS
The strengthening of epoxy with short glass fibers
allows close to full strength development of 6.5 mm (¼ in.)
glass-FRP bars in 185 mm (7.3 in.) or less than half a concrete
masonry unit length. This fiber-reinforced epoxy should
be effective for other types of bars as well.
With full anchorage assured, externally bonded FRP
bars provide an efficient method of strengthening masonry
walls against out-of-plane bending. For under-reinforced
beams (45% and 66% of balanced ratio for the narrow and
wide beams tested), beam flexural failure was consistently
initiated by tensile rupture of the reinforcement.
The MSJC (2002) equations that are based on tests of
steel-reinforced masonry provide a conservative estimate
of the flexural strength of FRP externally (under-) reinforced
concrete masonry beams and walls. The ratio of measured
to calculated strength was 1.36 on average, with a
coefficient of variation of 5.4 %. As the reinforcement ratio
increases, the level of conservativeness of the design
equations decreases slightly. There was no difference in
behavior, however, between reinforcement parallel or
perpendicular to the mortar bed joints.
REFERENCES
Albert, M. L., Elwi, A. E., and Cheng, J. J. R., “Strengthening
of Unreinforced Masonry Walls Using FRP,” ASCE
Journal of Composites for Construction, V. 5, No. 2, May
2001, pp. 76-84.
TMS Journal September 2003
Alcocer, S.M., Ruiz, J., Pineda, J.A., and Zepeda, J.A.,
“Retrofitting of Confined Masonry Walls with Welded Wire
Mesh,” Proceedings of the 11th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, June 1996, Elsevier Science,
Paper No. 1471.
American Society for Testing and Materials, “Standard
Methods of Sampling and Testing Concrete Masonry
Units,” ASTM C 140-96, West Conshocken, PA, 1996.
American Society for Testing and Materials, “Test Method
for Compressive Strength of Hydraulic Cement Mortar,”
ASTM C109, West Conshocken, PA, 1995.
American Society for Testing and Materials, “Standard
Practice for Conditioning Plastics for Testing,” ASTM D
618-96, West Conshocken, PA, 1996.
Castro, P.F., and Carino, N., “Tensile and Nondestructive
Testing of FRP Bars,” ASCE Journal of Composites for
Construction, February 1998, V. 2, No. 1, pp. 17-27.
De Lorenzis, L., and Nanni, A., “Bond Between Near-
Surface Mounted Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Rods and
Concrete in Structural Strengthening,” ACI Structural
Journal, March-April 2002, V. 99, No. 2, pp. 123-132.
Ehsani, M.R., and Sadaatmanesh, H., “Seismic Retrofit of
URM Walls with Fiber Composites,” TMS Journal, V. 14,
No. 2, December 1996, pp. 63-72.
Ehsani , M.R., Saadatmanesh, H., and Velazquez-Dimas J.I.,
“Behavior of Retrofitted URM Walls under Simulated
Earthquake Loading,” ASCE Journal of Composites for
Construction, V. 3, No. 3, August 1999, pp. 134-142.
Hamilton, H.R., and Dolan, C.W., “Flexural Capacity of
Glass FRP-Strengthened Concrete Masonry Walls,” ASCE
Journal of Composites for Construction, V. 5, No. 3, August
2001, pp. 170-178.
Hamoush, S., Mc Ginley, M.W., Mlakar, P., Scott, D., and
Murray, K., “Out-of-Plane Strengthening of Masonry Walls
with Reinforced Composites,” ASCE Journal of
Composites for Construction, V. 5, No. 3, August 2001, pp.
139-145.
Hutchison, D.L., Yong, P.V.F. and McKenzie, G.H.F.,
“Laboratory Testing of a Variety of Strengthening Solutions
for Brick Masonry Wall Panels,” Proceedings of the 8th
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, V. 1, 1984,
pp. 575-582.
Irimies, M., and Crainic, L., “Behavior of Repaired/
Strengthened Unreinforced Masonry Shear Walls,”
Proceedings of the 6 th North American Masonry
Conference, June 1993, pp. 555-563.
79
Kolsh, H., “Carbon Fiber Cement Matrix (CFCM) Overlay
System for Masonry Strengthening,” ASCE Journal of
Composites for Construction, V. 2, No. 2, May 1998, pp.
105-109.
Lizundia, B., W.T. Holmes, M. Longstreth, and A. Kren,
“Development of Procedures to Enhance the Performance
of Rehabilitated URM Buildings,” , NIST GCR 97-724-1,
National Institute of Standards and Technology,
Gaithersburg, MD, 1997.
Masonry Standards Joint Committee (MSJC) , Building
Code Requirements for Masonry Structures and
Commentary (ACI 530-02/ASCE 5-02/TMS 402-02),
American Concrete Institute International, Farmington
Hills, MI, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston,
VA, and The Masonry Society, Boulder, CO, 2002.
Prawel, S.P., and Lee, H.H., “The Performance of Upgraded
Brick Masonry Piers Subjected to In-Plane Motion,”
Proceedings of the 4 th US National Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Palm Springs, CA, May 1990, V.
3, pp. 273-282.
The Masonry Society, Masonry Designer’s Guide, Boulder,
CO, 1999.
Triantafillou, T., “Strengthening of Masonry Structures
Using Epoxy-Bonded FRP Laminates,” ASCE Journal of
Composites for Construction, V. 2, No. 2, May 1998, pp.
96-104.
Tumialan, G., Micelli, F., and Nanni, A., “Strengthening of
Masonry Structures with FRP Composites,” Structures
Congress, Washington D.C., May 2001.
Velazquez-Dimas, J.I., and Ehsani, M.R., “Modeling out-
of-plane Behavior of URM Walls Retrofitted with Fiber
Composites,” ASCE Journal of Composites for
Construction, V. 4, No. 4, November 2000, pp. 172-181.
80
NOTATIONS
Af cross sectional area of flexural reinforcement.
Av cross sectional area of shear reinforcement.
Avg shear cross sectional area of grouted beam.
b beam width.
c beam compression depth.
d beam depth, from extreme compression fiber to
centroid of reinforcement.
fu tensile strength of FRP reinforcing bar.
fm′ masonry compressive strength.
fmg grouted masonry compressive strength.
g beam shear span.
L beam span.
M e ultimate applied moment.
Me′ ultimate moment, including applied and dead loads.
Mn calculated nominal flexural strength.
Pe applied load.
Pn load corresponding to Mn.
Ve′ ultimate shear force, including applied and dead
loads.
Vn calculated nominal shear strength.
w dead load per unit length.
δs deflection at midspan under service loads.
δu midspan deflection at ultimate load.
εm FRP bar strain at ultimate moment.
εu ultimate tensile strain of FRP bar.
ρ bu balanced reinforcement ratio for ungrouted beam.
ρ bg balanced reinforcement ratio for grouted beam.
ρ u reinforcement ratio for ungrouted beam.
ρ g reinforcement ratio for grouted beam.
TMS Journal September 2003