Engineering Structures 207 (2020) 110249

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Experimental and numerical evaluation of confined masonry walls T

retrofitted with engineered cementitious composites
⁎
Mingke Deng, Shuo Yang
School of Civil Engineering, Xi'an University of Architecture and Technology, Xi'an 710055, China

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This study presents experimental and numerical research on the in-plane behavior of unreinforced confined
Confined masonry walls masonry walls retrofitted using engineered cementitious composite (ECC) coatings. The experimental results,
Engineered cementitious composite (ECC) obtained from cyclic loading tests, demonstrated that this retrofitting technique effectively increased the lateral
Retrofitting strength of the walls and changed the failure modes under specific conditions. Simplified micro finite element
Cyclic loading
models were established, in which non-thickness cohesive elements were used to represent the mortar joints, and
Finite element analysis
the material model of the mortar was implemented in a subroutine and linked with ABAQUS finite element
software using the VUMAT interface. The mechanical behaviors of the ECC were simulated using the concrete
damaged plasticity model. The predictive capacity of the numerical models was verified through a comparable
study between the simulation results and experimental data. The models, which were applied under monotonic
loading, could adequately reproduce the main behavior of the experimental specimens. Subsequently, a nu-
merical sensitivity analysis was conducted, the results of which suggested that the in-plane behavior of the
retrofitted walls were significantly affected by the tensile properties of the ECC, and that all walls were affected
by the mortar strength mainly in terms of the cracking load and stiffness.

1. Introduction layers, fabric embedded in the inorganic matrices, and ferrocement or

Traditional unreinforced masonry structures are characterized by an
inadequate seismic performance, which has been verified by a con-
siderable number of earthquake disaster investigations. This poor be-
havior is generally attributed to the inappropriate properties exhibited
by the masonry under tensile stress. In this context, unreinforced ma-
sonry structures can be combined with vertically and horizontally re-
inforced concrete elements (confining elements) to form the confined
masonry (CM) structures, which have the benefit of providing efficient
confinement for masonry walls and improving the deformation cap-
ability of the structures [1–3]. Nevertheless, CM walls can also suffer
from serious damage when the spacing of the tie columns (vertical
elements) is excessively large or the masonry panel confined by the tie
elements is fabricated using a low-strength mortar [4–6]. On the other
hand, unreinforced CM structures may also be vulnerable during rare
earthquake events. For these reasons, particularly with older con-
structions, retrofitting approaches should be applied to enhance the
performance of confined masonry structures.
During the last decades, extensive retrofitting techniques have been
proposed for masonry structures and validated experimentally. With
these retrofitting approaches, the use of externally bonded composite
fiber-reinforced cementitious coatings as the strengthening systems has
recently received increased attention. In [7], four full-scale initially
damaged brick masonry walls were repaired using externally bonded
carbon fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) strips and tested under in-plane
cyclic loading up to failure. In [8], three hollow clay brick masonry
walls were first tested to predefined degree of damage and then retro-
fitted using FRPs, and one wall was directly upgraded with FRP after
construction. These experimental results exhibited that the load bearing
and deformation capacity of the repaired/strengthened walls were si-
milar or better than that of the original ones. Türkmen et al. [9] per-
formed an experimental campaign in which the retrofitted clay brick
masonry wallettes were subjected to the diagonal compression to assess
the effectiveness of the single-sided fabric-reinforced cementitious
matrix (FRCM) overlay on the in-plane behavior of the walls. Cyclic in-
plane loading tests on the FRCM strengthened non-ductile RC frames
with masonry infill have been presented in [10], where the effects of
the different FRCM configurations on the lateral strengths and de-
formation capacity of the retrofitted infilled frames were assessed. The
results of the cyclic loading tests on CM walls retrofitted with ferroce-
ment and GFRP were presented in [11], where the transformation of the
failure mode of the walls after strengthening was emphasized. In [12],

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: shuoyang@live.xauat.edu.cn (S. Yang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.110249
Received 5 July 2019; Received in revised form 15 December 2019; Accepted 15 January 2020
0141-0296/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Deng and S. Yang
the masonry walls produced from aerated concrete and hollow brick
retrofitted with steel fiber reinforced concrete (SFRC) panels were
tested under the diagonal compression, and the strengths and energy
capacity of these strengthened walls were discussed. From the results of
the above tests on the retrofitted structural elements using cementitious
composites, it can be concluded that the application of such approaches
can improve the stiffness, lateral strength, and energy dissipation of the
masonry members.
In addition, a numerical analysis of these techniques for a seismic
retrofitting of the masonry structures has been emphasized and applied
for many years [13–17]. Regarding a finite element (FE) modeling of
the retrofitted masonry members, one aspect of this subject is the es-
tablishment of a numerical model of the masonry. A modeling of the
masonry structural elements can be categorized into the detailed
micro-, simplified micro-, and macro-numerical models [13,17–19].
With a detailed micro modeling approach, the masonry units, the
mortar and the brick-mortar interface are modeled in detail with dis-
tinct properties, generally using continuum elements accompanied with
discontinuous elements or contacts. Consequently, despite the capacity
to capture the complex cracking patterns of the masonry, considerably
high computational costs are required, and the method is generally used
to simulate relatively small masonry elements to determine all possible
realistic crack patterns. In this context, a simplified micro modeling
approach has been proposed and implemented [20,21]. With this ap-
proach, the mortar and the adjacent brick-mortar interface are lumped
into a zero-thickness interface element, in which the tensile, shear, and/
or crushing failures of the masonry can be regarded. The units are ex-
panded by half the mortar joint thickness to keep the geometry of the
specimen unchanged. For the macro models, the continuum elements,
homogenized by the nonlinearity of the masonry, are used to establish
the integration of all components in the masonry. The material of the
masonry in this type of the model is generally assumed by the softening
anisotropic elastic-plastic model with a Rankine-type criterion under
tension following a smeared crack approach [16,22]. This approach is
commonly used for practical purposes where the general behavior of
the components is the main subject of interest [23] and is particularly
effective for an investigation of the average responses of the masonry
elements from the viewpoint of computational efficiency.
Another important aspect is the appropriate modeling of strength-
ening overlays and of the interface between the masonry substrates and
overlays. In the literature, simulations of the masonry panels retrofitted
with FRP have been extensively investigated and applied. In terms of
modeling the FRP strips or grids for strengthening, the element type,
the material model, and the interface between the FRP and the masonry
substrate have been areas of focus in numerous studies. In [24], the FRP
strips are directly tied to the masonry substrate, assuming a full bond
between the surface of the masonry and the FRP. The constitutive
material models selected for the FRP are characterized by the elastic
behavior of the lamina without fracture and delamination failures.
Singh et al. [25] adopted an orthotropic plasticity model developed
from the Hill-type yield criterion to simulate the anisotropic nature of
the FRP. Plane-stress quadrilateral elements were used to establish the
model of the FRP strips, the nodes of which are directly connected to
the nodes of the units in the masonry. Considering the debonding
failure of the strips, the tensile properties of the FRP were calibrated to
reflect the nonlinearity of the FRP-masonry interface. To model the
behavior of composite materials consisting of fabrics embedded into a
cementitious matrix, which is generally called textile reinforced mortar
(TRM), some researchers have used a micro-modeling approach, by
which the matrix and the fiber mesh are modeled separately, to es-
tablish additional elements representing the strengthening material and
to tie the masonry substrate elements when assuming a perfect bond
between them [15,16,26]. The quadrilateral plane stress elements or
shell elements are usually adopted for the matrix model, in which the
model of the reinforcement grid based on an equivalent smeared dis-
tribution of the fibers is embedded. For the material model of the
2
Engineering Structures 207 (2020) 110249
matrix, a smeared crack approach can be used with a softening under
tension and plasticity during compression, whereas the linear elastic
behavior up to a fracture without a compressive strength is applied for
the composite grid material. During the past few years, the modeling
approaches of fiber reinforced concrete used as the strengthening ma-
terial have also been investigated and validated. S. Dehghan et al.
[17,27] conducted numerical studies on the in-plane shear behavior of
both solid and perforated masonry walls retrofitted with SFRC through
3D finite element modeling. In these studies, based on the fact that the
constitutive model of the FRC is similar to that of concrete, the concrete
damage plasticity (CDP) model inserted into ABAQUS [28], which is
commonly adopted to simulate brittle or quasi-brittle materials, such as
concrete, was used to reproduce the nonlinear behavior of the FRC.
The engineered cementitous composite (ECC) is characterized by
the pseudo strain hardening performance induced from multiple
cracking under tension [29,30]. In addition, the multiple cracking of
this material that occurs under shearing can be exhibited through an
Ohno shear test [31] and an Iosipescu shear [32]. Based on these ad-
vantages, the ECC has already been proposed as an externally bonded
material for the retrofitting of masonry elements [33–36]. The test re-
sults demonstrate that the shear resistance, the lateral stiffness, and the
structural ductility of the retrofitted structural elements are sig-
nificantly improved. In addition, the numerical models of the ECC-
retrofitted masonry elements proposed by some researchers have been
validated and have provided insight into the enhanced performance of
the structural elements retrofitted by this material. To reproduce the
nonlinear behavior of the ECC as a strengthening layer to enhance the
out-of-plane behavior of the masonry, S. Pourfalah et al. [37] employed
a multi-linear plastic material model, of which the tensile behavior is
represented by the tri-linear stress–strain curve. In [38], precast ECC
plates for retrofitting the masonry beam on the tension and/or com-
pression side were simulated using the CDP model with ABAQUS,
where the plastic parameters used for the ECC were obtained through a
sensitivity analysis or were set as the default values of ordinary con-
crete. The smeared rotating crack material model [39] and multi-sur-
face Rankine-Rankine plasticity-based model [40] have also been
adopted for the material model of the ECC. These material models were
validated based on the results of the in-plane monotonic or cyclic
loaded retrofitted masonry elements. In these numerical models of the
ECC-retrofitted masonry members mentioned above, several ap-
proaches were adopted to account for the ECC-masonry interface, in-
cluding the establishment of nonlinear interface elements between the
ECC and the masonry elements, allowing a Coulomb-friction behavior
with tensile debonding, and a coupling of the nodes of the ECC and
masonry elements when assuming a full bond between them.
In this study, the structural efficiency of the retrofitting technique
using ECC coatings applied to the CM walls, the investigations of which
are still rare in the literature, is assessed through in-plane cyclic lateral
loading tests conducted on 12 test specimens. A numerical investigation
of all experimental specimens as a validation of the numerical models
developed for the ECC-retrofitted CM walls under in-plane monotonic
loading was carried out, in which the simplified micro model and the
CDP model (ABAQUS/Explicit [28]) were adopted to simulate the
mechanical behavior of the masonry and the ECC. A good agreement
between the load-displacement curves obtained from the experimental
tests and the simulation, and the consistency of the failure modes, was
observed. Finally, the numerical sensitivity analyses were implemented
to investigate the effects of the ECC with different tensile constitutive
laws and the variation in the mortar strength on the in-plane behavior
of unretrofitted and retrofitted CM walls. The corresponding findings,
which should be further verified by extended experiences, may con-
tribute to the knowledge of the practical design for retrofitting of the
CM walls using the ECC.
M. Deng and S. Yang Engineering Structures 207 (2020) 110249

2. Experimental investigation
The main objective of the experimental campaign is to assess the
effectiveness of the retrofitting techniques for CM walls using externally
troweled ECC coatings. First, the mechanical properties of the ECC for
strengthening were quantified through the cubic compression test, the
uniaxial compression test, and the uniaxial tension test. Subsequently,
12 test walls, which were designed to be approximately 1/2 reduced-
scale models, were tested under a combination of a constant vertical
load and an in-plane reversed cyclic loading, and the obtained behavior
of the ECC-retrofitted walls including different strengthening schemes
(single-sided troweling and double-sided troweling) were assessed
though the lateral strength, the failure mode and the deformation ca-
pacity. In the next section, the corresponding primary results of the
experimental campaign are addressed.
2.1. Specimen configurations and material properties
According to the common configurations of load bearing masonry
walls in typical low- to medium-rise masonry buildings, all specimens
were designed to be 2300 mm long, 1370 mm high, and 240 mm thick
(two-leaf), resulting in a height to length aspect ratio of 0.6, as shown in
Fig. 1a. The reduced-scale models were adopted considering the lim-
itation of the test setup. The sectional dimensions of the horizontal and
vertical confining elements were 240 (width) × 120 (depth) mm. On
the top surface of the bottom beam, a groove 35 mm thick was applied
to anchor the half thickness of the lowest course of the masonry panel
to prevent the premature sliding between the wall and bottom beam.
The tie elements have four Φ 12 (12 mm diameter) longitudinal bars
with a yield strength of 372 MPa and an ultimate tensile strength of
405 MPa, and Φ 6 (6.5 mm diameter) stirrups with a yield strength of
338 MPa and an ultimate tensile strength of 405 MPa. The stirrups were
intensively spaced at both ends of the tie elements and equally spaced
at other parts of them. The details of the reinforcement in the confining
elements are shown in Fig. 1b. The longitudinal reinforcement ratio of
the tie columns was chosen to improve the bending capacity of the
walls and make it more likely that the walls will exhibit a diagonal
tension failure under shear-compression loading. To guarantee the
connection between the masonry panel and tie columns, the masonry
infill was fabricated prior to the casting of the concrete for the tie
elements. In addition, three Φ 4 (4 mm diameters) steel wire meshes of
400 mm in length were used for the connection between the RC col-
umns and the masonry wall, equally spaced across the toothed interface
between them at each end of the wall.
Table 1 summarizes the characteristics of all test walls. In each
group of wall specimens, masonry panels constructed using a cement-
lime mortar of different strengths, containing an average cube com-
pressive strength of 1.89 and 9.29 MPa, are included. A compression

1
120

120
1250

1250
2 2 3 (4) 3 (4)
400

400
1
350 2300 350 350 2300 350

(a)
2 12 2 12 2 12
6@200
240 50

2 12 6@200

2 12 2 12
Filled groove Sec (2-2)
2 12 2 12
240 50

6@200
15

2 20
8@200 2 12 2 12
ECC coating (full coverage)
Filled groove
2 20 Sec (3-3) 2 12
2 12
240 50

440 6@200
15

Sec (1-1) 2 12 2 12
ECC coating (on single side)
Filled groove
Sec (4-4)
(b)
Fig. 1. Configurations and dimensions of the specimens (mm): (a) facades of unreinforced and retrofitted CM walls, and (b) details of the retrofitting schemes and
reinforcement of the confining elements.

3
M. Deng and S. Yang Engineering Structures 207 (2020) 110249

Table 1
Design of the tested specimens.
Specimen Wall state Retrofitting pattern Compressive strength of the mortar Vertical stress (MPa)

Unretrofitted group
CW-1-1 Unretrofitted — 1.89 0.3
CW-1-2 Unretrofitted — 1.89 0.5
CW-2-1 Unretrofitted — 9.29 0.3
CW-2-2 Unretrofitted — 9.29 0.5

Single-sided group
SCW-1-1 ECC-retrofitted Covering one side of the wall 1.89 0.3
SCW-1-2 ECC-retrofitted Covering one side of the wall 1.89 0.5
SCW-2-1 ECC-retrofitted Covering one side of the wall 9.29 0.3
SCW-2-2 ECC-retrofitted Covering one side of the wall 9.29 0.5

Double-sided group
DCW-1-1 ECC-retrofitted Full coverage of the coatings 1.89 0.5
DCW-1-2 ECC-retrofitted Full coverage of the coatings 1.89 0.6
DCW-2-1 ECC-retrofitted Full coverage of the coatings 9.29 0.3
DCW-2-2 ECC-retrofitted Full coverage of the coatings 9.29 0.5

test for the mortar of each mortar strength level was carried out on
twenty four 70.7 mm cubes. All masonry walls were constructed using
solid clay bricks with nominal dimensions of 240 × 115 × 53 mm
(length × width × height) using a bond in which the stretchers and
headers alternate in every course resulting in a discontinuity of the
head joints. The average compressive strength of the brick is 13 MPa.
The thickness of the head and bed mortar joints is approximately
10 mm. The confining elements were fabricated using concrete with an
average cubic compressive strength of 35.1 MPa. A compression test of
the concrete was conducted on nine 100-mm cubes. For the retrofitted
walls, four walls were retrofitted with an ECC coating on one side, and
another four walls were retrofitted on both sides. To reduce the possi-
bility of a delamination between the ECC coating and the wall, 15 mm
thick overlays were troweled from the front (back) surface to the left
and right ends of the wall successively. To obtain an adequate bond
between the coatings and wall surfaces, the masonry panels were pre-
wetted, and the surfaces of the confining elements were chiseled prior
to strengthening. The bottom of the ECC coatings was also anchored to
the groove of the bottom beams to exploit the shear performance of the
material as much as possible. Details of the retrofitting schemes are
shown in Fig. 1b. The ECC used for strengthening in this study was
prepared using a 1.7% volume fraction of polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) fi-
bers. According to the tensile stress–strain curves obtained from the
uniaxial tensile tests, the average tensile strength with initial cracking
σcr and the average ultimate tensile strength σtu of the ECC coatings can
be determined to be 5.38 and 6.00 MPa, respectively. The ultimate
tensile strain can reach 0.3%. The details of the test setup, configuration
of the specimen, loading procedure for the uniaxial tensile test of the
ECC are the same as those in [36]. The average cube and uniaxial
compressive strength of the ECC coatings are 66.5 and 57.4 MPa, re-
spectively, which were obtained from the compression tests in ac-
cordance with JGJ/T 70-2009 [41].
2.2. Test setup and loading protocol
The overall view of the test setup and the layout of the specimen are
shown in Fig. 2. The test walls were subjected to the in-plane cyclic
loading using a double-hinged servo-controlled hydraulic actuator re-
acting against the reaction wall. A pre-compression was applied to the
wall using a vertical jack connected to the steel frame. The top of the
wall was free to rotate, and the bottom was fixed to the floor of the
laboratory. Constant vertical stresses of 0.3 MPa, 0.5 MPa, and 0.6 MPa
were chosen to represent the overburden loads of the walls on the first
floor of common multi-storey masonry buildings. A steel beam con-
nected to the vertical jack was placed on the top of the wall to distribute
the vertical load.
The layout of the test instruments is depicted in Fig. 3. Six linear
variable differential transformers (LVDTs) were installed to measure the
horizontal, vertical, and diagonal in-plane displacements of the walls.
One LVDT, installed at the tie beam level and the center of the walls (on
the retrofitted side for single-sided retrofitted walls), measured the
horizontal displacement of the specimens relative to the strong floor of
the laboratory (LVDT-1). Two LVDTs were diagonally attached to the
walls (on the unretrofitted side for the single-sided retrofitted walls) to
record the diagonal deformations (LVDT-2, LVDT-3). Two LVDTs were
installed near the left and right ends of the wall to measure the vertical
deformations induced by the bending or rocking of the walls (LVDT-4,
LVDT-5). Finally, LVDT-6 was installed at the end of the bottom beam
to monitor the probable sliding of the specimen with respect to the
strong floor. In addition, some strain gauges were attached to the
longitudinal and transverse reinforcement at the key locations to record
the amount of strain at different loading stages. During the tests, the
lateral load of the walls was continuously controlled and monitored by
a load cell, and the cracking patterns were detected and marked at each
loading stage.
The loading procedure consisted of two phases, namely, forced- and
displacement-controlled cycles. Prior to the cracking, which was de-
tected through a visual inspection during the tests, the applied lateral
load was gradually increased in 40-kN load increments. Next, the
loading scheme changed to the displacement-controlled stage with drift
increments of 0.15%. The loading stopped during the failure state of the
walls, during which the lateral load decreased to lower than 85% of the
maximum lateral load recorded during the test or a collapse of the walls
possibly occurred. The loading scheme is shown in Fig. 4.
2.3. Discussion of the test results
2.3.1. Unretrofitted walls
From the cracking process of the unretrofitted CM walls treated as
the control specimens, some common characteristics can be seen. The
walls showed a practically linear behavior until some fine stepped shear
cracks formed in the central part or at the top corner of the walls. Next,
the lateral load continued to increase until the peak load was reached,
accompanied by a propagation of the existing cracks. As the displace-
ment increased, some other cracks occurred resulting in the formation
of a network of shear cracks, in addition, two appropriately diagonal
primary shear cracks completely formed, predominately moving
through the bed and head joints. From the hysteretic response of the
unretrofitted walls, as shown in Fig. 5, it can be seen that at the larger
displacement during the phase in which the lateral strength degraded,
the lateral resistance and the stiffness of the wall did not clearly de-
crease, indicating the efficient confinement effect provided by the tie
elements on the masonry panel. The average maximum resistances of
the unretrofitted walls CW-1-1, CW-1-2, CW-2-1 and CW-2-2 obtained

4
M. Deng and S. Yang Engineering Structures 207 (2020) 110249

Fig. 2. Test setup.

from the tests are 161.7, 191.2, 220.2, and 232.0 kN, respectively. It is First cracking
1.05
indicated that the peak lateral strength of the unretrofitted walls in- 0.90
creased with an increase in the mortar strength level or the vertical 0.75
Force control Displacement control
stress level. The displacements of the walls at a state of failure were 0.60
large, indicating that the tie elements can considerably improve the 0.45
deformation capacity of the masonry walls, as reported previously 0.30
Drift (%)

[42–44]. During the last cycles of the test, the primary shear cracks 0.15
widened and a crushing of the masonry at the top corner of the wall
occurred. In general, the failure modes of all unretrofitted walls were −0.15
characterized by diagonal tension cracking. In addition, for the un- −0.30
retrofitted walls constructed using high strength mortar, more splitting −0.45
cracks appeared on the bricks near the tie columns. The failure modes −0.60
−0.75 1 cycle for each 3 cycles for each
of all unretrofitted walls are shown in Fig. 6. force level displacement level
−0.90

2.3.2. Retrofitted walls

For the single-sided retrofitted CM walls, the behavior was nearly
linear elastic until the initial cracking occurred. The first visible cracks
initiated on the unretrofitted face of the walls, and the cracks initiated
on the coatings appeared practically at the same time. As the damage
pattern of the walls during the initial cracking phase, minor fine cracks
appeared on the coatings and the stepped cracks went through the
mortar joints, propagating from the upper corner to the central part of
the walls. As the displacement increased, some inclined cracks formed
on the strengthening coatings and appeared on the unretrofitted face of
the walls, predominately going through the mortar joints. The hys-
teretic behavior of the single-sided retrofitted walls is shown in Fig. 5.
From the hysteretic response curves, it can be seen that the shape of the
loops was more widened compared with that of the unretrofitted walls
−1.05 Time
Fig. 4. Loading protocol.
characterized by an obvious pinching phenomenon. It can be seen that
the average lateral loads corresponding to the initial cracking are ap-
proximately 318 kN, 380 kN, 360 kN, and 440 kN for the specimens
SCW-1-1, SCW-1-2, SCW-2-1, and SCW-2-2, respectively, and their
maximum increase is approximately 166% compared to that of un-
retrofitted walls. As the maximum lateral load was reached, the dis-
placements of the walls were reduced compared with those of un-
retrofitted walls. The average lateral resistances of specimens SCW-1-1,
SCW-1-2, SCW-2-1, and SCW-2-2 are 318, 412, 389, and 449 kN, ob-
taining peak strength increases of 96%, 116%, 77%, and 94%,

Fig. 3. Instrumentation scheme illustrated by the single-sided retrofitted specimen: elevation views of (a) retrofitted side and (b) unretrofitted side.

5
M. Deng and S. Yang
Fig. 5. Hysteretic responses of all specimens under cyclic loading.
compared with that of their unretrofitted counterparts, respectively. It
can be concluded that the lateral strength of the single-sided retrofitted
walls increased with an increase in the mortar strength level or the
vertical stress level, which is similar to that obtained from the experi-
mental results of unretrofitted walls. For all single-sided retrofitted
walls, the crossed primary shear cracks formed completely on both
sides of the wall at a displacement of 4–6 mm. The primary stepped
cracks continued to widen and some other fine cracks formed and
propagated across the previously formed primary shear cracks. This
resulted in that the central part of the strengthening coatings, enclosed
by shear cracks intersecting each other, detached from the masonry
substrate and the lateral strength of the walls gradually deteriorated. At
a displacement level of 10 mm for all single-sided retrofitted walls, at
the intersection of the diagonal cracks, the cracked part of the
strengthening coating buckled or nearly delaminated, ripping off a thin
layer of the masonry substrate, and the test ended. In general, ap-
proximately diagonal tension cracks occurred on the retrofitted side of
the walls, whereas stepped cracks propagating through the mortar
joints dominated the crack pattern of the unretrofitted side, as shown in
Fig. 7. Nevertheless, it can be observed that the stepped cracks did not
extend to the retrofitted side of the wall by removing the strengthening
6
Engineering Structures 207 (2020) 110249
coating from the wall, indicating the effective confinement for the walls
provided by the strengthening coating. In addition, the lateral dis-
placements of the single-sided retrofitted walls at the end of the test are
considerably reduced compared with those of the unretrofitted walls.
Nevertheless, the resistances of the former at failure are higher than or
close to those of the latter.
The behavior of the double-sided retrofitted walls was similar to
that of the single-sided retrofitted walls before cracking, where the
initial cracking loads of the former increased by 235%, 102%, 99%, and
100% compared to the corresponding values of unretrofitted walls. The
initial fine cracks were detected at the bottom of the strengthening
coatings for all double-sided retrofitted walls, after which the hysteretic
loops exhibited a slight degradation in the lateral stiffness, as shown in
Fig. 5. As the displacement increased, some discontinuous fine cracks
initiated and propagated from the top corner of the walls to the mid-
point of the bottom on the surface of the strengthening coatings for
specimens DCW-1-1 and DCW-1-2. When the maximum lateral load was
reached, minor fine cracks completely formed along the approximately
diagonal direction on the surfaces of the coatings. The strengthening
coatings exhibited a multi-cracking phenomenon during the pre-peak
process of the loading. As shown in Fig. 5, the average lateral
M. Deng and S. Yang
Fig. 5. (continued)
resistances of specimens DCW-1-1 and DCW-1-2 are 562 and 571 kN,
achieving strength increases of 247% and 199% compared with that of
unretrofitted walls, respectively. It is indicated that the lateral strengths
of the double-sided retrofitted walls, in which a diagonal-tension failure
occurred, are almost the same even though the walls were subjected to
the vertical loads of different levels. In the post-peak loading phase,
some discontinuous inclined cracks formed near the primary shear
cracks, and the cracked parts of the coatings, located in the central
position of the walls on one side, gradually detached from the masonry
substrate. The displacements of the two retrofitted walls under different
vertical loads at failure are significantly decreased compared with those
of the unretrofitted walls. From the hysteretic response of the speci-
mens DCW-1-1 and DCW-1-2, it can be observed that the loops have a
less obvious pinching phenomenon and are more widened when com-
pared with those of the unretrofitted walls. The failure modes of spe-
cimens DCW-1-1 and DCW-1-2 are shown in Fig. 8. By removing the
cracked coatings, it can be seen that the approximately diagonal cracks
propagated through the brick and mortar along a practically identical
path of the cracks formed on the coatings. For specimens DCW-2-1 and
DCW-2-2, the tensile cracks continued to propagate toward the center
of the bottom of the wall after the initial cracking. The lateral stiffness
evidently decreased and the lateral strength increased slightly to reach
7
Engineering Structures 207 (2020) 110249
the maximum lateral resistance. Owing to the occurrence of a pre-
mature failure within the local region of the groove used to anchor the
bottom of the wall, the average lateral strength of specimen DCW-2-1
reached only 390 kN, which is almost the same as that of specimen
SCW-2-1. The average maximum lateral resistance of the specimen
DCW-2-2 is 603 kN obtaining an increase of 160% compared to that of
the unretrofitted wall. During the subsequent process of loading, it can
be seen that the tensile cracks almost extended over the entire length of
the wall bottom with no obvious reduction in the lateral strength for
specimen DCW-2-1, indicating that the wall exhibited a rocking failure
mode at the end of the test. For specimen DCW-2-2, the lateral strength
degraded gradually after the peak load. During the last cycles of the
test, a slight toe crushing and spalling of the coatings at the bottom
corner of the wall occurred, accompanied by a local medium fracture of
the groove at the bottom of the wall. As shown in Fig. 5, the hysteretic
response curves of specimens DCW-2-1 and DCW-2-2 have inverse “s”
shaped loops characterized with high residual displacements, sug-
gesting a feature of sliding included in the failure modes of these walls.
In the case of sliding, the ultimate displacement of the specimen DCW-
2-1 will be substantially higher than the experimental value if the wall
is continued to be loaded, as discussed in [45]. Since the vertical load
applied to the specimen DCW-2-2 increased, the toe crushing occurred
M. Deng and S. Yang
Fig. 6. Failure modes of specimens (a) CW-1-1, (b) CW-1-2, (c) CW-2-1, and (d) CW-2-2.
resulting in a limited deformation capacity of this wall. The failure
patterns of specimens DCW-2-1 and DCW-2-2 are shown in Fig. 8.
3. Numerical modeling
Because of the expensive and time-consuming process of experi-
mental testing, the finite element method can usually be used to thor-
oughly understand the behavior of unreinforced and retrofitted ma-
sonry walls under in-plane loading. Moreover, numerical modeling can
be considered to conduct a parametric analysis investigating the effects
of different parameters, such as various strengthening schemes and a
wide range of conditions the walls are subjected to, on the response of
the walls. In this study, the general purpose finite element package
ABAQUS was used to establish three-dimensional finite element
models, in which the simplified micro modeling approach was adopted
for reproducing the behavior of the test walls and relevant expanded
analyses, considering its acceptable computational costs (10–20 h of
CPU time was used for all models in this study) and the capacity of
reproducing the actual crack patterns of the masonry. To establish the
FE models of the masonry infill, a solid panel was first modeled with the
same geometry as its prototype, and cohesive elements were then in-
serted into the position of the mortar joints and replaced in the middle
of the bricks to form potential cracks via a code complied using the
Python script. In this way, the time-consuming process of generating
the meshed models was avoided, and a correct sequencing of the
number of nodes for the interface elements was easily guaranteed. In
addition, the cohesive elements intersect with voids and share the
nodes of adjacent elements to allow a co-ordination of the deformation,
which was previously verified to be reliable [24]. Regarding the ana-
lysis technique applied, an explicit analysis procedure was adopted for
the current problem because of the highly nonlinear behaviors of the
masonry and the strengthening coating. The deterioration of these
materials often results in convergence difficulties in an implicit analysis
algorithm, whereas an explicit analysis is capable of adequately pro-
cessing such degradation. In addition, for a quasi-static analysis, the
selected loading rate must be controlled to ensure a small ratio of the
kinetic energy to the internal energy of the entire model.
8
Engineering Structures 207 (2020) 110249
3.1. Mesh and boundary conditions
In these 3D finite element models, bricks (expanded units) and
mortar joints are modeled separately according to the simplified micro
modeling approach, as described in the previous section. The model
employed (1) the zero-thickness cohesive elements (COH3D8) to re-
present the mortar joints and potential cracks to capture the fracturing
of bricks, (2) the first-order, reduced integration hexahedral continuum
elements (C3D8R) with an hourglass control for the bricks and concrete
of the confining elements constructed around the masonry panel, (3)
the 8-node linear hexahedral continuum elements (C3D8) for the ECC
coatings, considering that the hourglass modes, appearing in the coat-
ings modeled with C3D8R, can be avoided absolutely in this way
founded through trial and error, (4) the Timoshenko beam elements
(B31) for the steel wires used for connecting the tie columns and the
masonry panel, and linear 2-node 3D-truss elements (T3D2) for the
longitudinal steel rebars and stirrups. As observed in the experimental
results, no separation occurred at the toothed interface between the tie
columns and the masonry panel throughout the entire test process, and
thus the interface between them was modeled with a tie constraint. For
the model of the retrofitted walls, because the experimental results
showed that the debonding failure of the strengthening layers does not
occur until the failure state of the wall is approached, in which the
debonding effects can be considered in the model by modifying the
softening branch of the tensile constitutive law for the ECC, the coating
models were assumed to be tied to the masonry elements in the nu-
merical models. The reinforcement was embedded inside the concrete
material, which assumes full compatibility between the reinforcement
and the concrete. Based on the results of the mesh convergence study, a
solid element with a width and length of 20 mm and a thickness of
30 mm was used for the expended units and the confining elements;
meanwhile, a solid element of 15 mm in the thickness direction with the
same geometry as the substrate masonry elements was used for the ECC
coatings. The details of the mesh convergence study are described in the
following sections. A typical numerical model and the corresponding
meshed components are shown in Fig. 9.
In terms of boundary conditions, the base and both ends of the
bottom beam were assumed to be constrained in all directions of the
M. Deng and S. Yang Engineering Structures 207 (2020) 110249

Fig. 7. Cracking patterns of single-sided retrofitted walls at a displacement of 8 mm: (a) unretrofitted and (b) retrofitted surfaces of SCW-1-1 in the push loading
direction; (c) unretrofitted and (d) retrofitted surfaces of SCW-1-2 in the pull loading direction; (e) unretrofitted and (f) retrofitted surfaces of SCW-2-1 in the pull
loading direction; and (g) unretrofitted and (h) retrofitted surfaces of SCW-2-2 in the push loading direction.

translational degrees of freedom. The constant vertical pressure was
uniformly applied to the top of the cap beam, and a linearly incremental
monotonic displacement load was applied to the end nodes of the upper
bond beam elements, as shown in Fig. 10. For the models of the ret-
rofitted CM walls, it should be noted that the lateral displacement load
was not applied to the strengthening coatings tied on the front and back
sides of the walls, and the vertical pressure was not applied to the
coatings, which is the same as in the experiments conducted. The
monotonic horizontal displacement protocol was adopted based on the
acceptable accuracy and smaller computation costs compared with the
cyclic displacement loading, as indicated in previous studies
[13,46–48].
3.2. Material models used in the numerical analysis
The concrete damage plasticity (CDP) model, as mentioned in the
section above, was adopted to simulate the nonlinear mechanical be-
havior of the ECC. The CDP model considers both tensile cracking and

9
M. Deng and S. Yang Engineering Structures 207 (2020) 110249

Fig. 8. Failure modes of specimens (a) DCW-1-1, (b) DCW-1-2, (c) DCW-2-1, and (d) DCW-2-2.

compressive crushing, which is usually characterized through an iso-
tropic scalar damage evaluation. The yield function proposed by
Lubliner et al. [49] and developed by Lee and Fenves [50] is adopted in
this model and is represented by the surface of the effective stress space,
the evaluation of which is accomplished through the strain softening
(stiffening) law of the material under tension and the strain hardening
followed by the strain softening law during compression, which are
commonly combined with the damage index in the loading and un-
loading regimes, as depicted in Fig. 11. The uniaxial stress–strain re-
lation of the ECC under compression is represented by the curve pro-
posed by Sargin [51], in which the compressive strain corresponding to
the peak strength is set to 0.4%, as dipicted in Fig. 12a. The uniaxial
tensile stress–strain curve is simplified through a tri-linear model, in-
cluding linear elastic, strain hardening, and strain softening stages,

Fig. 9. The FE model of the single-sided retrofitted specimen: (a) meshed model of the retrofitted CM wall, (b) meshed part of the ECC coating, (c) meshed model of
reinforcement, and (d) models of the mortar and potential cracks.

10
M. Deng and S. Yang Engineering Structures 207 (2020) 110249

its asymptote, is set to the default value of 0.1.

Fig. 10. The boundary conditions of the numerical model.
σt
σ t0
E0
wt = 0
wt = 1
(1 − d c ) E0 (1 − d t )(1 − d c ) E0
wc = 1
wc = 0
E0
Fig. 11. The uniaxial load cycle combined with the damage indexes and stiff-
ness recovery factors.
where the tensile strain at failure can take into account the tensile
fracture energy, which is independent of the mesh size [52] (Fig. 12b).
In addition, the Drucker Prager hyperbolic function is used for the non-
associated potential. There are five plasticity parameters used to define
the CDP model, namely, the dilation angle (ψ), eccentricity parameter
(ε), ratio of the biaxial compressive strength to the uniaxial compressive
strength (fb0/fc0), ratio of the second invariant of the deviatoric stress
tensor in tensile meridians to that in compressive meridians (Kc), and
viscosity parameter. Because the simulations were conducted by an
explicit solver, the viscosity parameter was set to zero. Another four
parameters, required to completely define the yield surface as well as
the non-associated potential, are as follows:
• The eccentricity ε, which controls the deviation of the potential from
60
Compressive stress (MPa)
• Parameter K , which is involved in the yield function and used to
c
define the shape of the failure surface in the deviatoric plane, is set
to the default value of 0.667.
• The ratio fb0/fc0, which is one of the parameters used to define the
yield function, can be obtained through an input parameter identi-
fication approach proposed in the available literature [53,54]. As
demonstrated in these studies, the path of the stress can significantly
influence the optimum values of the input parameters of the CDP
model. Therefore, four standard tests, namely, the uniaxial com-
pression test, the uniaxial tensile test, the four-point bending test,
and the Iosipescu shear test, were simulated to calibrate the para-
meter fb0/fc0. It was found that the numerical results match the
experimental or theoretical results with a minimum average error as
the fb0/fc0 were set as 1.05. More detailed descriptions of these ex-
perimental tests are provided in the literature [32,55].
• The dilation angle ψ, which is involved in the non-associated po-
tential and measured in the p-q plane at a high confining pressure, is
set as 36°, which is also based on the parameter identification ap-
proach mentioned above [53,54].
A comparison between the experimental and theoretical results and
the numerical results obtained from the models with fb0/fc0 = 1.05 and
ψ = 36° is shown in Fig. 13. It is worth noting that, because the
(1 − d t ) E0
minimum average error was used for identification of the parameters,
ε the curves numerically obtained are not exactly coincident with the
corresponding curves derived experimentally or empirically.
In addition to the ECC coating, the CDP model was also used to
simulate the nonlinear behavior of the extended units and the concrete,
as implemented in previous studies [56–58]. The values of ψ, ε, fb0/fc0,
and Kc for both materials were set to 30°, 0.1, 1.16, and 0.667, re-
spectively, which were found to be appropriate to match the numerical
results with the experimental results. To simulate the crushing of the
masonry under compression, the uniaxial compressive stress–strain
curve proposed by Kaushik et al. [59] was used to represent the uniaxial
compressive behavior of the expanded units. Considering that the ten-
sile behavior of the brick is mainly dependent on the localized cracks,
the linear elastic behavior in the pre-cracking stage followed by a bi-
linear softening stress-crack displacement curve [60] was used to define
the tensile model of the units, where the area under the post-peak curve
represents the tensile fracture energy of the material, contributing to
the mesh objectivity of the numerical results. The constitutive model for
the units under compression and that of the post-peak phase under
tension are shown in Fig. 14. The compressive behavior model proposed
by Sargin was also used to represent the compressive behavior of the
concrete, where the compressive strain corresponding to the peak
strength can be calculated using the mechanical parameters of the
concrete according to the Chinese code GB 50010-2010 [61]. The
σtu
σcr GfI : Mode I fracture energy

50 lch : Characteristic length

Tensile stress (MPa)

of the element
40 2GfI
ε f = εtu +
σ tu lch
30
GfI
20 lch

10

0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 εcr εtu εf
Compressive strain (%) Tensile strain (%)
(a) (b)
Fig. 12. The constitutive laws used for the ECC under (a) uniaxial compression and (b) uniaxial tension.

11
M. Deng and S. Yang Engineering Structures 207 (2020) 110249

Fig. 13. Comparison of load-displacement or stress–strain curves and cracking patterns obtained from tests or an empirical equation and numerical analysis for (a)
ECC dog-bone specimen under uniaxial tension [55], (b) ECC beam under four-point bending [55], (c) ECC Iosipescu specimen under a constant shear load acting on
the center of the specimen [32], and (d) ECC prismatic model under uniaxial compression.

average tensile stress-strain curve between cracked and non-cracked
concrete was used to define the tensile behavior of the concrete, ac-
counting for the tension stiffening effect after cracking [62].
In the CDP model, the degradation of the material stiffness can be
considered based on the damage indexes in tension and compression
regimes, as shown in Fig. 11. The hysteretic response of the structural
elements can be substantially affected by the input damage parameters,
as indicated in [58]. Based on the fact that the monotonic displacement
load was applied to the numerical models, it can be appropriately as-
sumed that the deterioration of the material is not primarily dominated
by the damage parameters. Therefore, no damage variables were con-
sidered in all models applied in this study.
The material constitutive model of the longitudinal reinforcement
averaged in the cracked and non-cracked regions of the concrete, the

12
M. Deng and S. Yang Engineering Structures 207 (2020) 110249

Fig. 14. The constitutive laws used for the units under (a) uniaxial compression and (b) uniaxial tension.

equations of which can be found in [63], was adopted to account for the experimental results in [65]. The selection of values for αb was carried
bond-slip effect in the modeling of the reinforcement embedded in the out by matching the ascending branch of the load-displacement curves
concrete elements. Nevertheless, for simplicity, the ideal elastic-plastic obtained from the analysis, using the models of unretrofitted speci-
model was used for the tensile stress–strain relationship of the stirrups mens, to that of the experimental tests with generally consistent slopes.
and steel wires. Meanwhile, the values of αh for the head joints are set slightly smaller
For the pre-peak behavior of the interface elements, the bond than the values of αb for the bed joints, considering the effect of the
stress–slip relationship behaves non-linearly up to the peak strength, as non-fully filled mortar used in the former. The relationship of the two
indicated in other studies [64,65]. Accordingly, the bilinear shear factors was assumed to be αh = 0.7 αb in this case, based on the fact
stiffness is adopted in the pre-peak phase of the shear regime, and the that the lateral strength of the unretrofitted walls obtained from the
stiffness of the interfacial components in the models can be determined analysis will severely decrease if the values of the factors selected for
as follows: the bed and head joints are too small. The final values selected, which
1 Em Eb are also adopted for the models of all retrofitted walls, are listed in
kn = Table 2; τx and τy are the shear stresses in the in-plane and out-of-plane
h m Eb − Em (1)
directions, respectively, and τcr is the cracking shear strength which can
e 1 Gm Gb be calculated based on the tensile strength ft and the normal stress σn
⎧ k sx,y = hm G b − G m
, τx2 + τy2 ⩽ τcr
[65].
⎨ k cr = α k e , τx2 + τy2 > τcr The post peak behavior of the mortar joints and the potential cracks
b,h sx,y
⎩ sx,y (2)
are defined using the 3D multi-surface yield function, isotropic soft-
σn ening, and the associated and non-associated flow rules. This yield
τcr = ft 1 +
ft (3) function, which has been assessed and developed by numerous re-
searchers [20,21,69], generally involves three components, namely, the
e
where kn is the normal stiffness and is the elastic shear stiffness in
k sx,y tension cut-off for the tension failure, the Mohr-Coulomb criterion for
the in-plane and out-of-plane directions, respectively. The calculation the shear failure, and the compression cap for the compressive failure of
method of these three parameters is the same as that of [18]; in addi- the masonry. The associated flow rules are used for the evolution of the
tion, Em and Gm are the equivalent elastic normal and shear modulus of tensile strength, whereas the non-associated flow rules are considered
the mortar joints, respectively, which can be calculated as follows by
referring to [66]:
Table 2
HEb Em Summary of the interface parameters.
Ew =
nhb Em + (n − 1) h m Eb (4)
Symbol Bed joints Head joints Potential
where Ew is the elastic modulus of the masonry, which can be de- cracks
High Low High Low
termined using Ew = 550 fm [59]; fm = the prism compression strength strength strength strength strength
of the masonry which can be calculated through the relationship
fm = 0.78f10.5 (1 + 0.07f2 ) , in which f1 and f2 are the average compressive Tension regime kn (N/ 56.58 33.11 30.51 28.72 900
strength of the brick and mortar, respectively [67]; H, hb, hm, and n are mm3)
ft/MPa 0.27 0.12 0.09 0.04 0.6
the height of the masonry assemblage, thickness of the bricks, thickness 0.068 0.022 0.04 0.018 0.075
GfI (N/
of the mortar joints, and stacking amounts, respectively; and Eb and Gb
mm)
are the elastic normal and shear modulus of the bricks, respectively.
Shear regime e 24.60 14.40 13.26 12.48 900
k sx,y
The value of Eb can be calculated based on the relationship
(N/
Eb = 4467f10.22 in accordance with [68], and the value of Gb can be
mm3)
obtained from G b = Eb [2(1 + v b)], where the Poisson’s ratio vb is c0/MPa 0.38 0.17 0.12 0.06 1.3
cr
adopted in accordance with [20]. In addition, k sx,y is the post-cracking cr/MPa 0.02 0.01 0.007 0.004 0.08
shear stiffness in the in-plane and out-of-plane directions, respectively. tanφ0 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.70
Because there is no accurate estimation of the experimental shear de- tanφr 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65
tanψ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
formation corresponding to the peak shear strength, which can be used
cr cr GfII (N/ 0.68 0.22 0.40 0.18 0.70
to calculate k sx,y , as described in [65], the value of k sx,y can be de-
e mm)
termined by multiplying k sx,y with different constant factors (αb,h) for αb 0.11 0.18 – – –
the bed and head joints, and the values should be set differently be- αh – – 0.08 0.13 –
tween the low- and high-strength mortar joints, with reference to the

13
M. Deng and S. Yang Engineering Structures 207 (2020) 110249

τs
Shear regime
c
Tension
regime
σn
ft

(a) (b)
Fig. 15. Yield surface without the cap mode for (a) 2D and (b) 3D models.

Table 3 c
Mechanical parameters of ECC, bricks, and concrete. tan φ = tan φ0 + (tan φr − tan φ0) ⎛⎜1 − exp ⎛⎜− 0II usp ⎞⎟ ⎞⎟
⎝ ⎝ Gf ⎠⎠ (8)
Material Elastic Non-linear

c
E/MPa ν fcm/MPa fcr/MPa ftu/MPa εtu(%) Gf (N/mm) σs (usp) = cr + (c0 − cr ) exp ⎜⎛− 0II usp ⎞⎟
⎝ Gf ⎠ (9)
ECC 17,182 0.15 57.40 5.38 6.00 0.30 2.0
Brick 7854 0.15 3.18 (4.64) – 0.60 – 0.15 and for the non-associated plastic potential,
Concrete 29,400 0.20 22.33 – 2.23 – –
g2 = τx2 + τy2 + σn tan ψ − c0 (10)
Note: The value in the bracket represents the parameters for specimens of high
mortar strength. where σt, u np , and GfI are the normal tensile stress, normal plastic dis-
placement, and mode-Ⅰ fracture energy, respectively; φ0, φr, c0, cr, usp ,
and GfII are the initial and residual friction angle, initial and residual
cohesion, shear plastic displacement, and mode-Ⅱ fracture energy, re-
spectively; and ψ is the dilatancy angle, which controls the uplift upon
shearing.
The values of the aforementioned input parameters in the interface
elements are summarized in Table 2. The value of c0 for the bed joints
can be calculated based on the relationship c0 = 0.125 f2 according to
the masonry structure code of China (GB 50003–2011) [67]. Con-
sidering the fact that the head joints are not completely filled, the co-
hesion is assumed to be less than that of the bed joints. The ratio of the
value of c0 for the head joints to that for the bed joints is assumed to be
1/3, which is determined through a calibration and based on the ap-
propriate accordance of the cracking patterns of the numerical models
and the tested walls. The elastic normal and shear stiffness of the head
joints can then be derived using Eqs. (1) and (2). The value of c0 for the
Fig. 16. Effect of mesh density on load-displacement curves. potential cracks is selected with reference to the literature [21,66] and
combined with some adjustments. The values of the residual cohesion
for the evolution of the shear strength and the compressive strength. for the mortar joints and the potential cracks are calculated based on
Because the compressive failure of the masonry was simulated through the relationship cr = 0.06c0 with reference to previous studies [65,70].
the softening behavior of the expended units under compression, the The tensile strength for the mortar joints is determined by the re-
elastic behavior was assumed for the cohesive elements under com- lationship ft = c0/1.4 with reference to [20]. The initial and residual
pression in this simulation, and the yield surfaces without the cap mode friction angles for the mortar joints and the potential cracks can be
(Fig. 15) were employed herein. The user subroutine written in Fortran obtained from the values explicitly mentioned in previous studies
and the interface of VUMAT were used to implement these material [20,70]. The values of the mode-Ⅰ and mode-ⅠI fracture energies for the
models. The formulations of the yield surfaces are as follows: mortar joints and the potential cracks can be determined based on the
For the tension cut-off, available studies [21,66,71] and the relative stable descending branch
of the load-displacement curves obtained from the analysis.
f1 (σ , u np) = σt − σtu (u np) (5) The mechanical properties of the ECC, bricks, and concrete are
summarized in Table 3, where E and ν are the elastic modulus and
Poisson’s ratio; fcm and ftu are the uniaxial compressive strength and the
f ultimate tensile strength; and fcr and εtu are the initial cracking strength
σtu = ft exp ⎛⎜− tI u np ⎞⎟
⎝ G f ⎠ (6) and the ultimate tensile strain of the ECC coatings, respectively; and Gf
is the tensile fracture energy of the ECC or the bricks. For the ECC, the
whereas for the shear failure criterion, value of E can be derived from the elastic stage of the experimental
tensile stress–strain curves. The value adopted for the Poisson’s ratio
f2 (σ , usp) = τx2 + τy2 + σn tan φ − σs (usp) (7) follows the value used in [37]. The value of the tensile fracture energy
is selected in accordance with that proposed in [52]. The remaining

14
M. Deng and S. Yang Engineering Structures 207 (2020) 110249

Fig. 17. Comparison between lateral load-displacement curves obtained from the FE analysis and envelope curves in the push direction extracted from the ex-
perimental results.

parameters can be determined through the aforementioned mechanical 1

) = u̇(i - 12 ) + Δt (i + 1) + Δt (i) (i)
u ̇ (i + 2 u¨
tests of the ECC. For the bricks, the value of E is set equal to that of Eb 2 (11)
and the value of v is set equal to vb, which can be obtained through the
i+ 1
aforementioned approaches. The value of fcm is set equal to the prism u(i + 1) = u(i) + Δt (i + 1) u̇( 2 ) (12)
compression strength of the masonry calculated using the previously
where u̇ and ü are the velocity and acceleration vector respectively,
provided relationship. The values of ftu and Gf can be selected with
corresponding to the equations of motion. The superscript i refers to the
reference to the available literature [60,72], and finally through an
extensive calibration processes against the test results. For concrete, the
1 1
(
increment number, meanwhile i − 2 and i + 2 refer to the mid ) ( )
increment values. This method generally uses a large number of small
values of all parameters can be determined by the recommended values
time increments to ensure the accuracy of the analysis. In addition, the
or the relevant empirical equations provided by the concrete structure
time increment should be less than the stability limit calculated by the
code of China (GB 50010–2010) [61].
element-element estimation as follows:
Le
3.3. Analysis algorithm Δtmax ⩽
Cd (13)

ABAQUS/EXPLICIT, which has been validated and employed as the
solver for the quasi-static analysis of the masonry [21,56], was chosen
for the numerical analysis in this study. The explicit analysis procedure
uses the central difference method (CDM) to integrate the equations of
the motion for the nonlinear problem. Because no iterations are needed
to find the displacements to satisfy the equations, this procedure has
been mostly used to solve the dynamic or quasi-static problems invol-
ving complicated nonlinear constitutive laws, and is particularly ef-
fective for the prediction of the post-peak deterioration of the materials.
The explicit central difference integration rules are as follows [28]:
where Le is the smallest element characteristic length in the model and
Cd = E ρ is the current effective wave velocity, of which E and ρ are
the modulus of elasticity and the density of the element respectively.
4. Validation of the model
4.1. Convergence study
A mesh convergence study was first conducted on the aforemen-
tioned numerical models. The analysis for the model of the specimen

15
M. Deng and S. Yang Engineering Structures 207 (2020) 110249

Fig. 17. (continued)

Table 4
Comparison of stiffness, lateral strength, and displacement of the experimental and FE results.
Specimen Pmax,EXP (kN) Pmax,FE (kN) Pmax,EXP/Pmax,FE Δu,EXP (mm) Δu,FE (mm) Δu,EXP/Δu,EF

CW-1-1 163.4 163.1 1.00 12.0 23.6 0.51

CW-1-2 190.7 199.8 0.95 17.0 19.1 0.89
CW-2-1 217.8 234.1 0.93 10.0 11.3 0.88
CW-2-2 243.6 263.9 0.92 20.0 16.6 1.20
SCW-1-1 317.9 327.9 0.97 4.0 7.4 0.54
SCW-1-2 436.8 414.5 1.05 6.0 7.0 0.86
SCW-2-1 417.9 414.0 1.01 6.0 4.7 1.28
SCW-2-2 441.4 447.6 0.99 7.0 5.5 1.27
DCW-1-1 588.9 586.4 1.00 6.0 6.6 0.91
DCW-1-2 577.6 584.3 0.99 7.0 7.0 1.00
DCW-2-1 416.1 433.8 0.96 6.3a 6.7a 0.94
DCW-2-2 635.0 596.1 1.07 7.9 8.5 0.93
Avg 0.99 0.93
C.O.V (%) 0.05 0.26

Note: Pmax,EXP and Pmax,FE are the experimental peak load in the push direction and the numerical peak load, respectively, and Δu,EXP and Δu,FE are the experimental
displacement in the push direction at failure and the numerical displacement at failure, respectively.
a
The value is the maximum displacement where a 20% reduction in the lateral resistance was not reached.

CW-1-1 under monotonic loading was used as an example. The ex- (length × width × height), respectively. A comparison of the numer-
pended units and the concrete component of the confining elements ical load-displacement curves and the experimental envelope curve of
were discretized by the solid elements of 60 × 30 × 30 mm, the specimen in the push direction are shown in Fig. 16. The former can
30 × 30 × 30 mm, 20 × 20 × 30 mm, and 20 × 20 × 20 mm be extracted from the reaction force of the tie-beam end and the

16
M. Deng and S. Yang Engineering Structures 207 (2020) 110249

(a) CW-1-1 (b) CW-1-2

(c) CW-2-1 (d) CW-2-2

(e) SCW-1-1

(f) SCW-1-2
Fig. 18. Crack patterns of the numerical models at failure for unretrofitted specimens and double-sided retrofitted specimens, and at a displacement of 8 mm for
single-sided retrofitted specimens.

displacement of the unique node in the center of the tie beam, which is accuracy of the results, a mesh size of 20 × 20 × 30 mm was adopted
the same with the experimental tests. The latter was obtained from for the units and confining elements.
aforementioned hysteretic curves for the first loading cycle of each
load/displacement level in the push direction. It can be seen that the
differences between these cases are not remarkable except for that of 4.2. Numerical-experimental comparison
60 × 30 × 30 mm. To balance the computational costs and the
The experimental envelope curves in the push direction and the

17
M. Deng and S. Yang
(g) SCW-2-1
(h) SCW-2-2
(i) DCW-1-1
(k) DCW-2-1
Fig. 18. (continued)
numerical load-displacement curves are presented in Fig. 17. This
figure illustrates the curves extracted from the analysis are capable of
capturing the primary features and match the variation trend of the
experimental load-displacement curves. Because the anchored region of
the specimen DCW-2-1 was prematurely damaged, as mentioned above,
the peak load is largely overestimated by the numerical model without
adjustments to the material parameters input as compared with the
experimental results. Therefore, a lower performance of the material
18
Engineering Structures 207 (2020) 110249
(j) DCW-1-2
(l) DCW-2-2
was assumed for the bottom of the coating models to make the nu-
merical result to be generally consistent with that of the experiment. In
addition, considering the scattering of the material properties, an ap-
propriate adjustment of the tensile properties of the ECC coatings was
conducted on the numerical model of the specimen DCW-2-2 to achieve
a good matching of the failure modes for the simulation and experi-
mental test. Finally, a tensile strength of 6.5 MPa and a reduced tensile
fracture energy are adopted, based indirectly on a trial and error
M. Deng and S. Yang Engineering Structures 207 (2020) 110249

σ t0 = 5 MPa performance of the retrofitted walls changes by controlling the tensile

σt0 Case 1
ε tu = 0.5%
Case 2
0.8σt0
0.6σt0 Case 3
εtu 3ε 5ε
tu tu
Fig. 19. Tensile stress-strain relationships used for the sensitivity analysis.
calibration. Table 4 summarizes the comparison between the FE and
test results in terms of the maximum resistance and the displacement
corresponding to a failure state in which the lateral load reduced to
80% of the peak lateral strength of the specimens. The average value of
Pu,EXP/Pu,FE is 0.99 with a C.O.V. of 0.05, and the average value of
Δu,EXP/Δu,FE is 0.93 with a C.O.V. of 0.26. This indicates that the FE
models are capable of estimating the maximum resistance with an ac-
ceptable accuracy, although accompanied with a relative high variation
in the comparison of the displacement during a failure state.
The crack patterns combined with a contour plot of the tensile
equivalent plastic strain (PEEQT) at failure, or with specific displace-
ment levels obtained from the FE analysis, are shown in Fig. 18 for all
specimens. Because a monotonic displacement load was implemented,
only the cracks in the push direction are detected in the numerical
models. As indicated from this figure, the failure mode is dominated by
the diagonal cracking for the FE models of unretrofitted CM walls,
which is similar to that of the tested specimens. For the models of all
single-sided retrofitted walls and double-sided retrofitted walls of a low
mortar strength, the diagonal cracking of the strengthening coatings are
satisfactorily captured. For the models of double-sided retrofitted walls
of high mortar strength, the crack band is localized at the bottom of the
wall, indicating that the rocking and sliding failure modes can also be
captured well with these numerical models. A more ductile behavior
without significant reduction in the lateral strength is obtained from
some of the FE analyses for the retrofitted walls, which is associated
with the fact that the tie connection between the strengthening coating
model and the masonry substrate model inappropriately captures the
premature debonding failure of the strengthening coatings, even if the
properties of the strengthening coatings were equivalently modified
when accounting for the delamination effects.
5. Sensitivity analysis results and discussion
To investigate the influence of the variation in the input material
parameters on the behavior of the retrofitted walls, the sensitivity of
certain parameters in the material models was investigated through a
numerical analysis. Based on the fact that it remains uncertain how the
properties of the ECC coatings, the uniaxial tensile models with dif-
ferent ultimate tensile strengths and ultimate tensile strains are applied
for a parametric analysis. As observed from previous experimental re-
sults [73], for a normal mixture proportion of PVA-ECC, the ECC ma-
terial generally contains a high ultimate tensile strength accompanied
with a low ultimate tensile strain, and vice versa. Thus, three different
constitutive laws of the ECC under tension (Fig. 19), given according to
the nature of the material mentioned above, are used in the numerical
model of the strengthening coatings, where the initial cracking
strengths are both set to 80% of the ultimate tensile strengths and the
mode-I fracture energy that represents the area under the descending
branch of the stress–strain curve is set as 2.0 N mm for all constitutive
laws. In addition, the uniaxial compressive strength of case 1 is set to
60 MPa and the uniaxial compressive strengths of cases 2 and 3 are both
set to 50 MPa. The elastic modulus of case 1 is set to 15 GPa, while the
modulus of cases 2 and 3 are both set to 13 GPa corresponding to the
lower compressive strength. In addition, to extensively investigate the
influence of the mortar strength level on the in-plane behavior of the
CM walls and the effectiveness of this retrofitting technique, which can
be considered an auxiliary device for the experimental tests on the
retrofitted walls of different mortar strengths, the parameters defining
the shape of the yield surface of brick-mortar interfaces, including the
tensile strength and the cohesion combined with the fracture energy,
are also used as the variables of another group of the sensitivity ana-
lyses. Table 5 summarizes the values of the parameters for the material
model of mortar joints used in the sensitivity analysis. The compressive
strengths of the bed joints were selected to represent the weak mortar,
intermediate mortar, and strong mortar, respectively. The fracture en-
ergy of the mortar joints selected was reliable because the values fall
within the range of variation for this parameter, as reported in a pre-
vious study [71]. The values of the factor αb,h for the weak mortar and
intermediate mortar were set equal to those of the experimental spe-
cimens of a low mortar strength, and the values of αb,h were set equal to
those specimens of a high mortar strength. The remaining parameters
can be derived from the compressive strength of the bed joints through
the relationships mentioned in Section 3.2.
The numerical models of single- and double-sided retrofitted walls
subjected to the vertical stress of 0.5 MPa, whose dimensions and ma-
terial properties for confined masonry walls are the same as those of the
specimen CW-1-2, were used for a sensitivity analysis of the variation in
the ECC tensile properties. In addition, the numerical models of single-
and double-sided retrofitted walls with the same mechanical properties
as the ECC model reported in Table 3, subjected to a vertical stress of
0.5 MPa, were used for the analysis of unretrofitted and retrofitted
walls with a variation of the mortar joint parameters. The mechanical
properties of the brick units and tie columns are set to the same values
as those of the experimental specimens. The objective of using a ma-
sonry substrate model constructed with a low strength mortar in the
former analysis and applying the vertical stress of 0.5 MPa to the top of
all models is to make it even more possible for the retrofitted wall
models to exhibit a diagonal tension failure.

Table 5
Summary of the mortar joint parameters used in the sensitivity analysis.
Type of the mortar Position Cube compressive strength f2 Tensile strength ft Initial cohesion c0 Residual cohesion cr Fracture Energy (N/mm)
(MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
GfI GfII

Weak Bed joints 2.5 0.14 0.20 0.012 0.028 0.28

Head joints 0.28 0.047 0.066 0.004 0.023 0.23

Intermediate Bed joints 5.0 0.20 0.28 0.017 0.060 0.60

Head joints 0.56 0.067 0.093 0.006 0.028 0.28

Strong Bed joints 7.5 0.24 0.34 0.020 0.068 0.68

Head joints 0.75 0.079 0.11 0.007 0.03 0.3

19
M. Deng and S. Yang Engineering Structures 207 (2020) 110249

Fig. 20. Sensitivity analysis when varying the tensile properties of the ECC coatings for (a) single- and (b) double-sided retrofitted walls.

Table 6
Lateral strengths obtained from the experimental tests and sensitivity analysis when varying the constitutive law of the ECC under tension.
Specimen/model Retrofitting scheme Tensile behavior of ECC Pmax (kN) ΔPC∗− C3 ΔPC∗ - C2 ΔPC∗ - C1
Pmax - REF Pmax - REF Pmax - REF

SCW-1-2 (REF) Single-sided retrofitting Reported in Table 3 436.8 (push direction) 68.0% 56.1% 38.6%
SCW-C1 Case-1 363.2 29.4% 17.5% —
SCW-C2 Case-2 329.8 11.9% — —
SCW-C3 Case-3 307.2 — — —
DCW-1-1 (REF) Double-sided retrofitting Reported in Table 3 588.9 (push direction) 102.4% 73.9% 41.5%
DCW-C1 Case-1 509.7 60.8% 32.4% —
DCW-C2 Case-2 448.0 28.5% — —
DCW-C3 Case-3 393.7 — — —
CW-1-2 Unretrofitted — 190.7 (push direction) — — —

Note: Pmax is the experimental or numerical peak load; ΔPC∗− C1, ΔPC∗− C2 , and ΔPC∗− C3 are the differences in the peak loads between an experimental and numerical
model and the retrofitted walls using the ECC of cases 1-3, respectively; Pmax-REF represents the peak load of the reference specimen CW-1-2.

Table 7
Displacements at failure obtained from the experimental tests and sensitivity analysis when varying the constitutive law of the ECC under tension.
Specimen/model Retrofitting scheme Tensile behavior of ECC δmax (mm) ΔδC∗ - EXP ΔδC∗ - C1 ΔδC∗ - C2
δmax - REF δmax - REF δmax - REF

SCW-1-2 (REF) Single-sided retrofitting Reported in Table 3 6.0 (push direction) — — —

SCW-C1 Case-1 8.2 12.9% — —
SCW-C2 Case-2 16.1 59.4% 46.5% —
SCW-C3 Case-3 17.2 65.9% 52.9% 6.5%
DCW-1-1 (REF) Double-sided retrofitting Reported in Table 3 6.0 (push direction) — — —
DCW-C1 Case-1 9.9 22.9% — —
DCW-C2 Case-2 12.4 37.6% 14.7% —
DCW-C3 Case-3 14.2 48.2% 25.3% 10.6%
CW-1-2 Unretrofitted — 17.0 (push direction) — — —

Note: δmax is the experimental or numerical displacement at failure corresponding to a decrease in the lateral strength of the walls to 80% of the maximum resistance
previously recorded; ΔδC∗ - EXP , ΔδC∗ - C1, and ΔδC∗ - C2 are the differences in the displacements at failure between a numerical model and the retrofitted walls using the
ECC employed in the experiments and the ECC of cases 1 and 2, respectively; δmax-REF represents the displacement of the reference specimen CW-1-2 at failure.

Fig. 22. Cracking and peak loads of unretrofitted and retrofitted wall models
for the sensitivity analysis.

The lateral load-displacement curves obtained from the numerical

Fig. 21. Sensitivity analysis when varying the properties of the mortar joints.
sensitivity analysis varying the ECC properties are shown in Fig. 20.
Accordingly, the peak strengths of the walls and the displacements at
failure in the sensitivity analysis are summarized in Tables 6 and 7.
From the analysis results, it can be seen that the properties of the ECC
can significantly influence the lateral resistance of the retrofitted walls.
The increases in resistances of the double-sided retrofitted walls when

20
M. Deng and S. Yang
Fig. 23. Influence of the compressive strength of mortar on the lateral strengths
for unretrofitted and retrofitted walls.
varying the tensile constitutive models of the ECC from cases 1–3 are
more obvious than that of the single-sided retrofitted walls. Regarding
the influence of the ECC on the deformation capacity of the retrofitted
walls, it is worth noting that the displacements of the retrofitted walls
at failure are not increased compared with those of unretrofitted walls,
as both the experimental and numerical results demonstrate. Never-
theless, it can be seen from the numerical load-displacement curves that
the residual lateral strengths of the retrofitted walls in the state where
the lateral load decreases to 85% of the maximum resistance are con-
siderably higher than the lateral strength of the unretrofitted walls,
which is similar to that exhibited by the experimental results, indicating
that the damage are mostly localized in the local region of the retro-
fitted walls, and thus the masonry panel confined by tie elements and
the strengthening coatings still holds a considerable bearing capacity.
When the ultimate tensile strain of the ECC exceeds 0.5%, the ultimate
displacements can be clearly improved, particularly for single-sided
retrofitted walls.
The lateral load-displacement curves obtained from the sensitivity
analysis of the variation in the cube compressive strength of the mortar
joints are shown in Fig. 21. The cracking loads of all models, at which
the initial diagonal cracking occurs, and the peak loads of all models are
shown in Fig. 22. In these figures, U indicates unretrofitted walls, S
shows single-sided retrofitted walls, D represents for double-sided ret-
rofitted walls, W indicates a weak mortar, I is an intermediate mortar,
and H is a strong mortar. The failure patterns of all models in the
sensitivity analysis are a diagonal tension failure. From these curves
obtained from the analysis, it can be seen that the strength of the mortar
slightly influences the response curves of the retrofitted wall models
before cracking. The effects of the mortar strength on the cracking load
and the post-cracking lateral stiffness of all wall models are non-neg-
ligible. The cracking stiffness of the wall models containing the strong-
mortar elements considerably increased compared with that of the re-
maining wall models. For unretrofitted wall models and retrofitted
models containing the elements of weak and intermediate mortar joints,
the ascending region of the load-displacement curves between the
cracking and peak is more apparent compared with that of the retro-
fitted models containing strong-mortar elements. As shown in Fig. 22,
the cracking loads differ between the models of different mortar
strengths. The variation in the cracking loads of the retrofitted walls is
less than that of the unretrofitted walls. The ratios of the cracking load
to the peak load fall within the range of 0.92–0.97 for unretrofitted wall
models and retrofitted models containing the elements of weak and
intermediate mortar joints. However, the cracking loads almost coin-
cide with the peak loads for the retrofitted models of strong mortar. In
addition, the lateral strengths of all models of the sensitivity analysis
and of the models for the experimental specimens subjected to a vertical
stress of 0.5 MPa are shown in Fig. 23. It should be noted that the
lateral strength of the double-sided retrofitted wall model with a mortar
21
Engineering Structures 207 (2020) 110249
strength of 9.29 MPa differs from that of the model for the specimen
DCW-2-2 used in the section 4.2 because no adjustment of the ECC
tensile properties is carried out for the former to make a diagonal
tension failure occur. It can be seen that the increase in the lateral
strengths for all wall models decreases with an increase in the mortar
strength. When the mortar strength of the wall is greater than 5.0 MPa,
the increments of the lateral strengths for retrofitted walls owing to the
increase in the mortar strength are insignificant.
6. Conclusions
An experimental study was carried out to assess the efficiency of the
retrofitting technique using ECC coatings applied to unreinforced con-
fined masonry (CM) walls, in which four unretrofitted walls and eight
ECC-retrofitted walls were tested under in-plane cyclic loads. To extend
the analysis of the experimental tests, three-dimensional micro finite
element models of the experimental specimens were established and
calibrated based on the test results, and a numerical sensitivity analysis
for the effect of the ECC tensile properties and the strength degree of the
mortar on the in-plane response of the walls was then carried out using
the proposed modeling approaches. Some conclusions drawn from the
experimental and numerical analyses are as follows:
(1) Applying an ECC coating on one or both sides of a CM walls is an
effective retrofitting technique for improving its in-plane perfor-
mance. An ECC coating toweled on one side and on both sides of the
wall can increase the lateral strengths within the range of 94–116%
and 77–247%, respectively.
(2) As indicated in the experimental and numerical analysis results, the
displacement of retrofitted walls at failure is moderately less than
that of unretrofitted walls. On the other hand, the residual lateral
strengths of retrofitted walls at failure are substantially higher than
the maximum lateral strengths of unretrofitted walls.
(3) The proposed finite element models are capable of reproducing the
in-plane response of the retrofitted CM walls with an acceptable
accuracy, although some deviation can be detected from comparing
the ultimate displacements of the experimental walls with those of
their numerical counterparts. The crack patterns of all test CM walls
and the change in failure mechanisms of the walls owing to a ret-
rofitting are captured well by the numerical models. It can also be
concluded from the numerical results that the concrete damage
plasticity (CDP) model in ABAQUS, combined with the calibration
of the input plasticity parameters, can be used to simulate the in-
plane behavior of the ECC under a monotonic shear-compression
load.
(4) With regard to the sensitivity of the numerical results to various
tensile constitutive laws of the ECC, it is suggested that the ultimate
tensile strength of the ECC can significantly influence the maximum
resistance of the retrofitted walls. The ultimate tensile strain of the
ECC has a considerable effect on the deformation capacity of the
retrofitted walls. Furthermore, the results obtained from a numer-
ical sensitivity analysis of the variation in the mortar strength in-
dicate that the increase in the lateral strengths for all walls de-
creases with an increase of the mortar strength. The influence of the
mortar strength on the cracking load and cracking stiffness of the
retrofitted walls is not negligible. If the compressive strength of the
mortar used for the walls is greater than 5.0 MPa, the increments in
the lateral strengths induced by the increase in the mortar strength
are negligible for the retrofitted walls when using the ECC coatings,
as characterized by a tensile strength of 6.0 MPa.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Mingke Deng: Conceptualization, Methodology, Resources,
Supervision, Project administration, Funding acquisition. Shuo Yang:
Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Formal analysis,
M. Deng and S. Yang
Investigation, Resources, Writing - original draft, Writing - review &
editing, Project administration.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declared that there is no conflict of interest.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to acknowledge the funding support provided
from National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No.
51878545).
References
[1] Liu XH, Zhang HX, Liu JW, Liu LQ. The seismic behavior of the brick masonry
buildings strengthened with reinforced concrete structural columns. J Build Struct
1981;6:47–55.
[2] Tomaževič M, Klemenc I. Verification of seismic resistance of confined masonry
buildings. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 1997;26(10):1073–88.
[3] Riahi Z, Elwood KJ, Alcocer SM. Backbone model for confined masonry walls for
performance-based seismic design. J Struct Eng ASCE 2009;135(6):644–54.
[4] Wu H. Study on seismic performance and earthquake damage mechanism control of
masonry school buildings PhD thesis Chengdu: Southwest Jiaotong University;
2013.
[5] Cai GC, Su QW, Tsavdaridis KD, Degée H. Simplified density indexes of walls and
tie-columns for confined masonry buildings in seismic zones. J Earthq Eng
2018:1–23.
[6] Yekrangnia M, Bakhshi A, Ghannad MA. Force-displacement model for solid con-
fined masonry walls with shear-dominated failure mode. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn
2017;46(13):2209–34.
[7] Santa-Maria H, Alcaino P. Repair of in-plane shear damaged masonry walls with
external FRP. Constr Build Mater 2011;25(3):1172–80.
[8] ElGawady MA, Lestuzzi P, Badoux M. Static cyclic response of masonry walls ret-
rofitted with fiber-reinforced polymers. J Compos Constr ASCE 2007;1(50):50–61.
[9] Türkmen ÖS, De Vries BT, Wijte SNM, Vermeltfoort AT. In-plane behaviour of clay
brick masonry wallettes retrofitted with single-sided fabric-reinforced cementitious
matrix and deep mounted carbon fibre strips. Bull Earthq Eng 2019:1–41.
[10] Ismail N, El-Maaddawy T, Khattak N. Quasi-static in-plane testing of FRCM
strengthened non-ductile reinforced concrete frames with masonry infills. Constr
Build Mater 2018;186:1286–98.
[11] El-Diasity M, Okail H, Kamal O, Said M. Structural performance of confined ma-
sonry walls retrofitted using ferrocement and GFRP under in-plane cyclic loading.
Eng Struct 2015;94:54–69.
[12] Buyukkaragoz A. Shear behavior of aerated concrete and hollow brick walls
strengthened with steel fiber-reinforced concrete panels. Mech Adv Mater Struct
2019:1–9.
[13] Shakib H, Dardaei S, Mousavi M, Rezaei MK. Experimental and analytical evalua-
tion of confined masonry walls retrofitted with CFRP strips and mesh-reinforced PF
shotcrete. J Perform Constr Fac ASCE 2016;30(6):04016039.
[14] Mantawy IM, Okail H, Abdelrahman A. In-plane lateral load behaviour of confined
masonry walls retrofitted using carbon-fibre-reinforced polymers. Int J Mason Res
Innov 2017;2(1):61–82.
[15] Lignola GP, Prota A, Manfredi G. Nonlinear analyses of tuff masonry walls
strengthened with cementitious matrix-grid composites. J Compos Constr ASCE
2009;13(4):243–51.
[16] Wang X, Ghiassi B, Oliveira DV, Lam CC. Modelling the nonlinear behaviour of
masonry walls strengthened with textile reinforced mortars. Eng Struct
2017;134:11–24.
[17] Najafgholipour MA, Dehghan SM, Kamrava AR. In-plane shear behavior of masonry
walls strengthened with steel fiber-reinforced concrete overlay. Asian J Civ Eng
2018;19(5):553–70.
[18] Lourenço PB, Rots JG. Multisurface interface model for analysis of masonry struc-
tures. J Eng Mech ASCE 1997;123(7):660–8.
[19] D'Altri AM, de Miranda S, Castellazzi G. Sarhosis V. A 3D detailed micro-model for
the in-plane and out-of-plane numerical analysis of masonry panels. Comput Struct
2018;206:18–30.
[20] Lourenco PB. Computational Strategies for masonry structures. PhD thesis. Delft;
1996.
[21] Aref AJ, Dolatshahi KM. A three-dimensional cyclic meso-scale numerical proce-
dure for simulation of unreinforced masonry structures. Comput Struct
2013;120:9–23.
[22] Grande E, Imbimbo M, Sacco E. Finite element analysis of masonry panels
strengthened with FRPs. Compos B Eng 2013;45(1):1296–309.
[23] Lourenço PB, Rots JG, Blaauwendraad J. Continuum model for masonry: parameter
estimation and validation. J Struct Eng 1998;124(6):642–52.
[24] Zhang S, Yang DM, Sheng Y, Garrity SW, Xu LH. Numerical modelling of FRP-
reinforced masonry walls under in-plane seismic loading. Constr Build Mater
2017;134:649–63.
[25] Singh M, Stavridis A. Nonlinear Analysis of Unreinforced Masonry Structures
Strengthened with FRP Strips under In-Plane Lateral Loads. 1th International
22
Engineering Structures 207 (2020) 110249
Conference on Natural Hazards & Infrastructure, Chania, Greece; 2016.
[26] Garofano A, Ceroni F, Pecce M. Modelling of the in-plane behaviour of masonry
walls strengthened with polymeric grids embedded in cementitious mortar layers.
Compos B Eng 2016;85:243–58.
[27] Dehghan SM, Najafgholipour MA, Kamrava AR, Khajepour M. Application of or-
dinary fiber-reinforced concrete layer for in-plane retrofitting of unreinforced ma-
sonry walls: test and modelling. Sci Iran 2018;25.
[28] Simulia DS. ABAQUS 6.13 user’s manual, providence, RI, USA: DS SIMULIA Corp;
2013.
[29] Li VC, Leung CK. Steady-state and multiple cracking of short random fiber com-
posites. J Eng Mech ASCE 1992;118(11):246–2264.
[30] Pan ZF, Wu C, Liu JZ, Wang W, Liu JW. Study on mechanical properties of cost-
effective polyvinyl alcohol engineered cementitious composites (PVA-ECC). Constr
Build Mater 2015;78:397–404.
[31] Li VC, Mishra DK, Naaman AE, Wight JK, LaFave JM, Wu HC, et al. On the shear
behavior of engineered cementitious composites. Adv Cem based Mater
1994;1(3):142–9.
[32] GPAG, Van Zijl. Improved mechanical performance: shear behaviour of strain-
hardening cement-based composites (SHCC). Cem Concr Res 2007;37(8):1241–7.
[33] Kyriakides MA, Billington SL. Cyclic response of nonductile reinforced concrete
frames with unreinforced masonry infills retrofitted with engineered cementitious
composites. J Struct Eng ASCE 2013;2:04013046.
[34] Lin YW, Wotherspoon L, Scott A, Ingham JM. In-plane strengthening of clay brick
unreinforced masonry wallettes using ECC shotcrete. Eng Struct 2014;66:57–65.
[35] Dehghani A, Nateghi-Alahi F, Fischer G. Engineered cementitious composites for
strengthening masonry infilled reinforced concrete frames. Eng Struct
2015;105:197–208.
[36] Deng MK, Yang S. Cyclic testing of unreinforced masonry walls retrofitted with
engineered cementitious composites. Constr Build Mater 2018;177:395–408.
[37] Pourfalah S, Cotsovos DM, Suryanto B. Modelling the out-of-plane behaviour of
masonry walls retrofitted with engineered cementitious composites. Comput Struct
2018;201:58–79.
[38] Singh SB, Patil R, Munjal P. Study of flexural response of engineered cementitious
composite faced masonry structures. Eng Struct 2017;150:786–802.
[39] Koutromanos I, Shing PB. Numerical study of masonry-infilled RC frames retrofitted
with ECC overlays. J Struct Eng ASCE 2014;140(7):04014045.
[40] GPAG, Van Zijl, de Jager DJA. Improved ductility of SHCC retrofitted unreinforced
load bearing masonry via a strip-debonded approach. J Build Eng 2019;24:100722.
[41] JGJ/T 70-2009. Standard for test method of basic properties of construction mortar.
Beijing (CN); 2009.
[42] Tomaževič M, Klemenc I. Seismic behaviour of confined masonry walls. Earthq Eng
Struct Dyn 1997;26(10):1059–71.
[43] Pourazin K, Eshghi S. In-plane behavior of a confined masonry wall. TMS J
2009;27:21–34.
[44] Tomaževič M. Earthquake-resistant design of masonry buildings. Innovations in
structures and construction. London; 1999.
[45] Magenes G, Calvi GM. In-plane seismic response of brick masonry walls. Earthq Eng
Struct Dyn 1997;26(11):1091–112.
[46] Gattesco N, Amadio C, Bedon C. Experimental and numerical study on the shear
behavior of stone masonry walls strengthened with GFRP reinforced mortar coating
and steel-cord reinforced repointing. Eng Struct 2015;90:143–57.
[47] Medeiros P, Vasconcelos G, Lourenço PB, Gouveia J. Numerical modelling of non-
confined and confined masonry walls. Constr Build Mater 2013;41:968–76.
[48] Wang GJ, Li YM, Zheng NN, Ingham JM. Testing and modeling the in-plane seismic
response of clay brick masonry walls with boundary columns made of precast
concrete interlocking blocks. Eng Struct 2017;131:513–29.
[49] Lubliner J, Oliver J, Oller S, Onate E. A plastic-damage model for concrete. Int J
Solids Struct 1989;25(3):299–326.
[50] Lee J, Fenves GL. Plastic-damage model for cyclic loading of concrete structures. J
Eng Mech ASCE 1998;124(8):892–900.
[51] Sargin M. Stress-Strain relationships for concrete and analysis of structural concrete
sections. Canada: Ontario; 1971.
[52] Zhang YX, Ueda N, Nakamura H, Kunieda M. Behavior investigation of reinforced
concrete members with flexural strengthening using strain-hardening cementitious
composite. ACI Struct J 2017;114(2):417.
[53] Labibzadeh M. Damaged-plasticity concrete model identification for prediction the
effects of CFRPs on strengthening the weakened RC two-way slabs with central,
lateral and corner openings. Int J Struct Eng 2015;6(3):240–68.
[54] Labibzadeh M, Zakeri M, Shoaib AA. A new method for CDP input parameter
identification of the ABAQUS software guaranteeing uniqueness and precision. Int.
J. Struct. Integr 2017;8(2):264–84.
[55] Dai J. Experimental study on the mechanical behavior of HDC and shear perfor-
mance of HDC beams. PhD thesis. Xi’an University of Architecture and Technology,
Xi’an; 2017.
[56] Dhanasekar M, Haider W. Explicit finite element analysis of lightly reinforced
masonry shear walls. Comput Struct 2008;86(1–2):15–26.
[57] Agnihotri P, Singhal V, Rai DC. Effect of in-plane damage on out-of-plane strength
of unreinforced masonry walls. Eng Struct 2013;57:1–11.
[58] Minaie E, Moon FL, Hamid AA. Nonlinear finite element modeling of reinforced
masonry shear walls for bidirectional loading response. Finite Elem Anal Des
2014;84:44–53.
[59] Kaushik HB, Rai DC, Jain SK. Stress-strain characteristics of clay brick masonry
under uniaxial compression. J Mater Civil Eng 2007;19(9):728–39.
[60] Park K, Paulino GH, Roesler JR. Determination of the kink point in the bilinear
softening model for concrete. Eng Fract Mech 2008;75(13):3806–18.
[61] GB 50010-2010. Code for design of concrete structures. Beijing (CN): 2010.
M. Deng and S. Yang
[62] Maekawa K, Pimanmasn A, Okamura H. Non-linear mechanics of reinforced con-
crete; 2014.
[63] Dehestani M, Mousavi SS. Modified steel bar model incorporating bond-slip effects
for embedded element method. Constr Build Mater 2015;81:284–90.
[64] Rahman Ataur, Ueda T. Experimental investigation and numerical modeling of peak
shear stress of brick masonry mortar joint under compression. J Mater Civil Eng
2013;26(9):04014061.
[65] Rahgozar A, Hosseini A. Experimental and numerical assessment of in-plane
monotonic response of ancient mortar brick masonry. Constr Build Mater
2017;155:892–909.
[66] Abdulla KF, Cunningham LS, Gillie M. Simulating masonry wall behaviour using a
simplified micro-model approach. Eng Struct 2017;151:349–65.
[67] GB 50003-2011. Code for design of masonry structures. Beijing (CN); 2012.
23
Engineering Structures 207 (2020) 110249
[68] Liu GQ. The research on the basic mechanical behavior of masonry structure. PhD
thesis. Hunan University, Changsha; 2005.
[69] Lotfi HR, Shing PB. Interface model applied to fracture of masonry structures. J
Struct Eng ASCE 1994;120(1):63–80.
[70] Atkinson RH, Amadei BP, Saeb S, Sture S. Response of masonry bed joints in direct
shear. J Struct Eng ASCE 1989;115(9):2276–96.
[71] Stavridis A, Shing PB. Finite element modeling of nonlinear behavior of masonry-
infilled RC frames. J Struct Eng ASCE 2010;136(3):2285–96.
[72] Angelillo M, Lourenço PB, Milani G. Masonry behaviour and modelling. In:
Angelillo M, editor. Mechanics of masonry structures. Vienna: Springer; 2014, p.
1–26.
[73] Li VC, Wang SX, Wu C. Tensile strain-hardening behavior of polyvinyl alcohol en-
gineered cementitious composite (PVA-ECC). ACI Mater J 2001;98(6):483–92.