Strengthening of Infill Masonry Walls with FRP Materials

Dillon S. Lunn1 and Sami H. Rizkalla, F.ASCE2

Abstract: This paper evaluates the effectiveness of different externally bonded glass fiber–reinforced polymer (GFRP) systems for increas-
ing the out-of-plane resistance of infill masonry walls to loading. The research included a comprehensive experimental program comprising
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MANIPAL INST OF TECHNOLOGY on 08/24/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

14 full-scale specimens, including four unstrengthened (control) specimens and 10 strengthened specimens. To simulate the boundary
conditions of infill walls, all specimens consisted of a reinforced concrete (RC) frame, simulating the supporting RC elements of a building
superstructure, which was infilled with solid concrete brick masonry. The specimens were loaded out-of-plane using uniformly distributed
pressure to simulate the differential (suction) pressure induced by a tornado. Parameters investigated in the experimental program included
aspect ratio, FRP coverage ratio, number of masonry wythes, and type of FRP anchorage. Test results indicated that the type of FRP anchor-
age had a significant effect on the failure mode. Research findings concluded that GFRP strengthening of infill masonry walls is effective in
increasing the out-of-plane load-carrying capacity when proper anchorage of the FRP laminate is provided. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-
5614.0000088. © 2011 American Society of Civil Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Fiber reinforced polymer; Walls; Masonry; Rehabilitation; Composite materials; Anchorages; Lateral
pressure.
Author keywords: Fiber-reinforced polymers; Walls; Masonry; Rehabilitation; Composite materials; Anchorages; Lateral pressure.

Introduction
Many existing unreinforced masonry structures, including infill
masonry walls, are vulnerable to extreme loading out-of-plane.
Out-of-plane collapse of these structures is often catastrophic,
and extreme loading events can lead to severe property damage
and loss of life. Many existing masonry structures need retrofitting
to reduce the risk of collapse under extreme loading such as
the differential pressure caused by a tornado. Conventional
strengthening techniques are often time-consuming, costly, and
add significant weight to the structure (Triantafillou 1998). These
limitations have driven the development of alternatives such as
fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) strengthening systems, which are
lightweight, can be rapidly applied, and do not require prolonged
evacuation of the structure.
A variety of FRP strengthening systems has been demon-
strated to increase the out-of-plane load-carrying capacity of
masonry walls (e.g., Galati et al. 2006; Bajpai and Duthinh
2003; Carney and Myers 2003; Kuzik et al. 2003; Tumialan et al.
2003; Albert et al. 2001; Hamilton and Dolan 2001; Hamoush et al.
2001; Velazquez-Dimas and Ehsani 2000; Ehsani et al. 1999). Most
research to date has focused on one-way behavior, using
1
Graduate Research Assistant, Dept. of Civil, Construction, and Envir-
onmental Engineering, North Carolina State Univ., 2414 Campus Shore
Dr., Campus Box 7533, Raleigh, NC 27695 (corresponding author).
E-mail: dslunn@ncsu.edu
2
Distinguished Professor, Dept. of Civil, Construction, and Environ-
mental Engineering, North Carolina State Univ., 2414 Campus Shore
Dr., Campus Box 7533, Raleigh, NC 27695. E-mail: sami_rizkalla@
ncsu.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on July 17, 2009; approved on
November 3, 2009; published online on November 6, 2009. Discussion
period open until September 1, 2011; separate discussions must be
submitted for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Com-
posites for Construction, Vol. 15, No. 2, April 1, 2011. ©ASCE, ISSN
1090-0268/2011/2-206–214/$25.00.
simple supports at the top and bottom of the test walls without
restraining the remaining two sides. Failure modes observed in
these studies include debonding of the FRP laminate from the
masonry substrate, masonry crushing in the compression zone,
tensile rupture of the FRP laminate, flexural-shear failure near
the support, sliding shear failure along a bed joint, and localized
masonry collapse. Although simply supported boundary conditions
are well-suited for the study of some types of masonry walls, they
do not behave like infill masonry wall boundaries, which
typically consist of a mortar interface between the masonry infill
and the supporting concrete structural elements. One key difference
is the possibility of two-way behavior. To account for this, some
studies have used lateral restraint on all four sides of the walls
(Willis et al. 2009; Korany and Drysdale 2006; Ghobarah and
Galal 2004; Tan and Patoary 2004; Gilstrap and Dolan 1998).
This allows for two-way bending, but does not account for the
possibility of arching action that can significantly enhance the lat-
eral load-carrying capacity of masonry infills, especially in walls
with small height-to-depth ratios, which are common for multiple
wythe systems. Although arching action is rarely relied on in
design, it can be an important contribution to the reserve load-
carrying capacity of masonry infills; and is thus an important
factor to consider in strengthening applications. One study, by
Patoary and Tan (2003), tested the blast resistance of masonry
infill walls strengthened with various types of FRP. The study
utilized steel angles along the perimeter of the infill to provide
mechanical anchorage for the FRP and found that FRP strengthen-
ing provided significant improvement in the response of the walls
to out-of-plane loading.
This paper provides an evaluation of the effectiveness of
different externally bonded glass fiber–reinforced polymer
(GFRP) systems used to strengthen infill masonry walls to in-
crease their out-of-plane resistance to loading, based on accurate
simulation of the boundary conditions of infill masonry
walls.

206 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2011

J. Compos. Constr., 2011, 15(2): 206-214

 Experimental Program
The experimental program included 14 full-scale specimens
(2440 mm high and 2440 to 3910 mm wide), including four
unstrengthened (control) specimens and 10 strengthened speci-
mens. All specimens comprised a reinforced concrete (RC) frame
(cast monolithically), which was used to simulate the supporting
RC elements of a building superstructure. The frame was later in-
filled with solid lightweight concrete brick masonry with a nominal
brick size of 92 mm wide by 194 mm long by 57 mm high and a
nominal mortar thickness ranging from 10 to 13 mm. The RC frame
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MANIPAL INST OF TECHNOLOGY on 08/24/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
properties of the masonry components, the RC frame, and the
GFRP laminate are provided in Table 1. The material properties
of the masonry components varied significantly from specimen
to specimen and are given in detail in Lunn (2009).
The parameters investigated include the aspect ratio, FRP cover-
age ratio, number of masonry wythes, and the three types of FRP
anchorage shown in Fig. 1. The aspect ratio, width to height, was
varied from 1.0 to 1.6 to explore the varying degrees of two-way
action. The FRP coverage ratio is the percentage of the surface area
of the exterior face of the outer wythe that was covered with uni-
directional GFRP in the vertical (V) and horizontal (H) directions,

cross section was 300 mm deep and 300 to 500 mm wide, depend-
ing on the aspect ratio of the infill, and the collar joint
between the two wythes was 19 mm wide for double wythe spec-
imens. The strengthened specimens were reinforced with ex-
ternally bonded GFRP sheets applied to the exterior tension face
of the outer wythe of the masonry infill. The average material
respectively. This percent coverage varied from 50% in both direc-
tions to 100% in both directions. Both single and double wythe
specimens were tested. For double wythe specimens, the collar
joint between the two wythes was either intentionally filled with
mortar or left empty for comparison purposes. Three different
anchorage systems were used. The first provided anchorage by

Table 1. Typical Material Properties of Test Specimens

Material Property ASTM method Average test value
Individual bricks Compressive strength C140-08 21.9 MPa
Type S mortar Compressive strength C109-08 14.5 MPa
Masonry prisms Compressive strength C1314-07 16.5 MPa
RC frame Compressive strength C39-05 52.0 MPa
GFRP Ultimate tensile strength D3039-08 575 MPaa
GFRP Elongation at break D3039-08 2.2%a
GFRP Tensile modulus D3039-08 26.1 GPaa
GFRP Laminate thickness N/A 1.27 mma
a
Provided by the manufacturer under the designation typical test value.

Fig. 1. FRP anchorage systems: (a) FRP overlap onto RC frame; (b) no overlap onto RC frame; (c) shear restraint anchorage system (elevation);
(d) shear restraint anchorage system (top view)

JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2011 / 207

J. Compos. Constr., 2011, 15(2): 206-214

 overlapping the GFRP sheets onto the RC frame. For comparison
and considering that not all existing masonry infills are flush with
the supporting RC boundary elements, the second anchorage sys-
tem terminated the GFRP sheets at the outer edge of the masonry
with no overlap onto the RC frame. After it was determined that
these specimens failed prematurely in a shear sliding mode, the
final five specimens were tested with the third anchorage system
in which mechanical anchorage was provided by a steel shear
restraint anchorage system applied to three sides.
A profile view and a photograph of the test setup are shown in
Fig. 2. The test specimens were loaded using uniformly distributed
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MANIPAL INST OF TECHNOLOGY on 08/24/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
GFRP sheets provided an understanding of the extent to which
the GFRP was being utilized in resisting the applied pressure.
Linear potentiometers were used to determine the relative displace-
ment between the two wythes for double wythe specimens with no
fill in the collar joint. The displacement measured gave an indica-
tion of the extent to which the two wythes deflect together or
independently. A Vishay System 5000 data acquisition system
was used to electronically record the data with a frequency of
one reading per second.
Test Results

pressure to simulate out-of-plane differential pressure (suction)

induced by a tornado in one direction. Although various other types
of extreme loading (such as high wind pressure) can produce For each specimen, the elastic pressure limit and the ultimate
out-of-plane forces in either direction, this experimental program applied pressure were determined, as shown in Fig. 3 for a typical
focuses on simulating the differential pressure induced by a pressure-deflection relationship. In this study, the elastic limit
tornado, which will always be a suction pressure. An airbag corresponds to the pressure that induced a major loss in stiffness.
was used to apply uniformly distributed static pressure in incre- The magnitude of the elastic limit was determined based on the
ments up to failure. After each pressure increment, the specimen change in stiffness of the brick wall, as defined by the slopes of
was unloaded to the service pressure prior to proceeding to the next the pressure-deflection curve. The ultimate applied pressure was
pressure increment. The airbag was placed between the brick walls determined as the maximum measured pressure sustained before
and the laboratory reaction wall. The laboratory reaction wall is a collapse of the brick walls.
strong wall fixed to the laboratory strong floor, both of which are Results of the experimental program defined three distinct fail-
extremely rigid compared to the test specimens. The concrete ure modes: flexural, shear sliding, and GFRP debonding, as shown
frames were secured to the reaction wall using high strength steel in Fig. 4. All failures observed were the result of one or more of
bars spaced 915 mm on center. This system was used to simulate
the rigidity of existing RC structural members. Test specimens were
supported by a 460-mm deep steel wide flange beam to achieve
alignment with the holes in the laboratory reaction wall.
The applied pressure was measured using a pressure transducer
connected to the airbag outflow. In addition to the pressure trans-
ducer, a manometer was used to verify the static pressure in the bag.
String potentiometers were used to measure the deflection at
selected locations on the test specimens to provide the out-of-plane
displacement profile of the wall along a vertical line at midspan, to
determine the degree of symmetry in the displacement behavior,
and to determine the slip between the masonry and the RC frame.
Electrical resistance strain gages were attached to the outer surface
of the GFRP sheets in the direction of the fiber orientation to
measure the strain during loading. The strain measured in the Fig. 3. Elastic limit and ultimate applied pressure

Fig. 2. Test setup: (a) profile view of test setup; (b) photograph of test setup

208 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2011

J. Compos. Constr., 2011, 15(2): 206-214

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MANIPAL INST OF TECHNOLOGY on 08/24/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 4. Failure modes: (a) flexural failure; (b) shear sliding failure; (c) FRP debonding failure; (d) no failure for the shear restrained specimens
these modes. The type of FRP anchorage was found to greatly
influence the failure mode. Unstrengthened (control) specimens
failed in the flexural mode, characterized by the formation of a
main horizontal or vertical crack (or both). The single wythe con-
trol specimen with aspect ratio 1.2 collapsed after the formation of a
main horizontal crack, with the bottom subpanel rotating about the
axis of the bottom support. The double wythe control specimens
experienced an initial horizontal crack, followed by the formation
of a main vertical crack which then dominated the behavior, as
shown in Fig. 4(a). The out-of-plane displacement profiles suggest
that the double wythe control specimens developed arching action
spanning the horizontal direction. This was unusual given the as-
pect ratios (1.0 and 1.2), but it is likely the result of inadequate
support at the top interface between the masonry infill and the
RC frame attributable to shrinkage cracks and a lack of mortar fill.
Because the infill was unable to develop vertical arching action, it
then formed an arching mechanism spanning the horizontal direc-
tion. This also explains the cruciform crack pattern. Strengthened
specimens in which the FRP reinforcement was terminated at the
outer edge of the masonry with no overlap onto the RC frame failed
in the shear sliding mode, characterized by a large relative slip be-
tween the masonry and the RC frame, as shown in Fig. 4(b). The
FRP stiffened the wall panel and held it together as a single unit,
which was then able to slide out of the frame in a rigid body
fashion. Strengthened specimens with the GFRP sheets overlapped
onto the RC frame failed in a debonding mode characterized by
the delamination of the GFRP sheets, beginning at the interface
JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2011 / 209
J. Compos. Constr., 2011, 15(2): 206-214
between the masonry and the RC frame, as shown in Fig. 4(c).
Debonding observed in this experimental program was always
the result of the relative slip between the masonry infill and the
RC frame attributable to shear sliding. Specimens that were
mechanically anchored using the steel shear restraint anchorage
system withstood over three times the design pressure (a tornado
induced differential pressure of 8.3 kPa) without any visible signs
of distress, as shown in Fig. 4(d).
In most instances, the strain in the FRP for specimens without
overlap of the FRP reinforcement onto the RC frame did not exceed
0:0005 mm=mm, indicating that the FRP was not highly activated,
as shown in Fig. 5(a). This is the result of the shear sliding failure in
which the infill walls slid out of the RC frame in a rigid body fash-
ion without developing substantial flexural strain. The strain in the
FRP for specimens with overlap reached up to 0:007 mm=mm, as
shown in Fig. 5(b), indicating that the FRP was utilized to a much
greater extent than the corresponding specimens without overlap.
The presence of the overlap delayed shear sliding and allowed
greater flexural strain to develop in the FRP prior to debonding
in the overlapped region.
Typical out-of-plane displacement profiles are shown in Figs. 6
and 7. In these figures, a solid line connects the displacement
between locations at which the out-of-plane displacement was mea-
sured, and a dashed line gives an approximate profile based on vis-
ual observations for locations in which the displacement was not
measured. The measured out-of-plane displacement profiles for the
control specimens were consistent with flexural behavior, in which
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MANIPAL INST OF TECHNOLOGY on 08/24/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 5. Typical strain in GFRP sheets: (a) strengthened specimen without overlap S4-1.2-NO; (b) strengthened specimen with overlap S1-1.2-O

there was significant displacement at midheight, but far less dis-
placement between the masonry infill and the RC frame at the
top and bottom, as shown in Fig. 6(a). The out-of-plane displace-
ment profiles for strengthened specimens without shear restraint
were consistent with shear sliding of the masonry infill along
the mortar bed joints at the top and bottom supports, as shown
in Figs. 6(b) and 6(c). The behavior is characterized by a large rel-
ative slip between the masonry infill and the RC frame at the top
and bottom supports. The presence of shear restraints restricts the
relative slip between the masonry infill and the RC frame, as shown
in Fig. 6(d). The out-of-plane displacement profiles for a double
wythe control specimen along a vertical line at midspan and along
a horizontal line at midheight are shown in Figs. 7(a) and 7(b),
respectively. Comparing the two figures, it is apparent that arching
action for this specimen is much more likely to have occurred in the
horizontal direction than in the vertical direction, because there is
less slip between the masonry infill and the RC frame in this
direction, which increases the likelihood that clamping forces could
be developed at this interface.
The influences of the various test parameters are shown in Fig. 8.
Overlapping the GFRP onto the RC frame more than doubled
the lateral load-carrying capacity of the double wythe control

Fig. 6. Typical out-of-plane displacement profiles: (a) control specimen C1-1.2; (b) strengthened specimen without overlap S1-1.6-SR*; (c) strength-
ened specimen with overlap S2-1.2-O; (d) strengthened specimen with steel shear restraint S2-1.6-SR

210 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2011

J. Compos. Constr., 2011, 15(2): 206-214

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MANIPAL INST OF TECHNOLOGY on 08/24/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 7. Out-of-plane displacement profile comparison: (a) control specimen C2-1.2 (vertical); (b) control specimen C2-1.2 (horizontal)

specimen; however, the specimen without overlap provided no sig-
nificant increase in strength, as shown in Fig. 8(a). The central
string potentiometer for specimen S4-1.2-NO was removed prior
to collapse to prevent damage to the instrument, but the maximum
pressure achieved upon reloading was only slightly greater (32 kPa)
than that of the control specimen (30 kPa). Both double wythe spec-
imens had vastly greater strength than the single wythe specimen;
however, there was little difference between the double wythe spec-
imens with and without fill in the collar joint, as shown in Fig. 8(b).
A specimen with an aspect ratio of 1.2 had a greater stiffness and a
higher load-carrying capacity than the corresponding 1.4 aspect
ratio specimen, as shown in Fig. 8(c). Somewhat surprisingly,
the specimen without overlap of the FRP reinforcement onto the
reinforced concrete frame with a smaller percent coverage out-
performed the corresponding specimen with a higher percent cover-
age, as shown in Fig. 8(d). This is likely attributable to the greater
flexural strength of the specimen with a greater percentage of
GFRP. The greater flexural strength allowed the specimen to be-
have more like a rigid body and thus limited the ability of the speci-
men to develop significant clamping forces at the bottom bed joint

Fig. 8. Influence of parameters: (a) influence of FRP anchorage system; (b) influence of number of wythes; (c) influence of aspect ratio; (d) influence
of FRP coverage ratio (no overlap)

JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2011 / 211

J. Compos. Constr., 2011, 15(2): 206-214

 Table 2. Summary of Results
FRP anchorage Specimen Aspect Number Collar joint GFRP % Elastic limit Ultimate applied Failure
system ID ratio (w/h) of wythes fill coverage (V/H) (kPa) pressure (kPa) modea
N/A (control) C1-1.0 1.0 Double Solid None 17 58 FH-FV
C1-1.2 1.2 Single N/A None 6 6 FH
C2-1.2 1.2 Double Solid None 21 30 FH-FV
C3-1.2 1.2 Double No fill None 27 37 FH-FV
Overlapped onto RC frame S1-1.2-O 1.2 Double Solid 50=50 44 68 SS-D
S2-1.2-O 1.2 Single N/A 50=50 10 12 SS-D
S1-1.4-O 1.4 Double Solid 50=50 39 51 SS-D
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MANIPAL INST OF TECHNOLOGY on 08/24/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

No overlap onto RC frame S3-1.2-NO 1.2 Single N/A 50=50 10 10 SS

S4-1.2-NO 1.2 Double Solid 50=50 12 32 SS
S5-1.2-SR* 1.2 Double No fill 50=50 31 48 SS
S6-1.2-SR* 1.2 Double No fill 75=50 23 23 SS
S1-1.6-SR* 1.6 Double No fill 50=50 22 31 SS
S2-1.6-SR* 1.6 Double No fill 100=100 19 19 SS
Shear restrained S5-1.2-SR 1.2 Double No fill 50=50 > 27 — NF
S6-1.2-SR 1.2 Double No fill 75=50 > 27 — NF
S7-1.2-SR 1.2 Double No fill 100=100 39 52 SS
S1-1.6-SR 1.6 Double No fill 50=50 > 27 — NF
S2-1.6-SR 1.6 Double No fill 100=100 > 27 — NF
a
Failure modes: FH = flexural with main horizontal crack; FV = flexural with main vertical crack; SS = shear sliding; D = FRP debonding; NF = No failure.

to resist shear sliding. Poor bond at the mortar interface between the
wall and the RC frame attributable to variability in construction
may also have contributed to this difference.
A summary of the experimental results is given in Table 2. All
shear restrained specimens reached an applied pressure of 27 kPa
with no visible signs of damage. These specimens are given the
failure code “NF” for “No Failure,” because the test was terminated
after they successfully resisted an applied pressure of 27 kPa. Four
of these specimens (S5-1.2-SR, S6-1.2-SR, S1-1.6-SR, S2-1.6-SR)
were retested without the shear restraints. The FRP reinforcement
for these four specimens was terminated at the boundary between
the masonry infill and the RC frame, and thus, the results of this
second phase of testing with no shear restraints are included with
the results of the other strengthened specimens, without overlap of
the reinforcement onto the RC frame. In the table, this second phase
of testing is denoted by an “*” following the specimen ID.
Working Stress Analysis
The working stress analytical approach was used to determine the
flexural behavior of the infill wall with respect to the reinforced
concrete frame up to the elastic limit of the applied pressure.
The method specifies an allowable stress for both the masonry
and the FRP material. For the masonry, the allowable stress is based
on a 2=3 reduction of the measured compressive strength in accor-
dance with the Masonry Standards Joint Committee (MSJC)
Masonry Code (2005). The effective allowable stress for the
FRP sheets is based on a reduction of the rupture stress based
on a bond-dependent coefficient for flexure of 0.225, as described
in detail in Lunn (2009). The cross section is analyzed in a state
of pure bending for two failure cases. The first assumes that
the masonry reaches its allowable stress while the strain in the
FRP is below the allowable limit, and the second assumes that
the FRP material reaches its allowable stress first. The minimum
of the moment resistances from the two cases is selected as the
maximum allowable moment. Using this moment resistance, the
uniformly distributed pressure, qe , to cause the maximum allowable
moment is determined based on the geometry and boundary
conditions of the wall. This pressure is calculated for two cases:
the first assuming the worst case scenario, in which the lateral sup-
port from the vertical edges is negligible and the wall is simply
supported one way in the vertical direction, and the second assum-
ing that the wall behaves as a rectangular plate element simply sup-
ported by the four sides. Timoshenko and Woinowsky-Krieger
(1959) provided the coefficient, β, governing the maximum inter-
nal bending moment for vertical bending of rectangular plates as a
function of the aspect ratio width/height (w/h). The allowable
applied uniformly distributed pressure, qe , for a given moment
resistance, M r , and height, h, is given by Eq. (1).
Mr
qe ¼ ð1Þ
ðβÞh2
The results of both cases were then compared to the measured
elastic limit, to determine the extent to which the working stress
approach could be used to predict the elastic limit for the various
types of FRP anchorage systems. The allowable applied pressure,
based on the working stress analysis for both cases, was compared
to the measured elastic limit of the applied pressure from the
experimental testing, as shown in Fig. 9. The figure shows that
the elastic analysis for Case II, in which the walls are treated as
rectangular plate elements that are simply supported on the four
sides, leads to a better prediction of the elastic limit of the applied
pressure, compared to the previous assumption of vertical bending
only. The results of this analysis capture the differences resulting
from the different aspect ratios much better than those of the pre-
vious assumption. This analysis under-predicted the elastic limit of
strengthened specimens with overlap of the FRP reinforcement
onto the reinforced concrete frame, and the specimen tested to fail-
ure with mechanical anchorage provided by the shear restraint sys-
tem. However, the analysis overpredicted the elastic limit of some
of the strengthened specimens without overlap of the FRP
reinforcement onto the reinforced concrete frame. This is because
these specimens failed prematurely, attributable to shear sliding of
the masonry out of the RC frame.

212 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2011

J. Compos. Constr., 2011, 15(2): 206-214

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MANIPAL INST OF TECHNOLOGY on 08/24/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 9. Comparison between the measured elastic limit and predicted applied pressure for the two cases: (a) Case I: vertical bending only; (b) Case II:
two-way plate bending
Conclusions
The externally bonded GFRP strengthening system for infill
masonry walls is effective if proper anchorage of the FRP laminate
is provided. Overlapping the FRP reinforcement onto the RC frame
was very effective for double wythe specimens, but less so for
single wythe specimens. Overlapping the reinforcement provides
lateral restraint of the mortar interface between the masonry infill
and the RC frame. In double wythe specimens, this appeared to
delay the shear sliding mode of failure long enough to develop
arching action, which further increased the resistance to shear slid-
ing. In single wythe specimens, however, because of the greater
height-to-thickness ratio, arching action was not developed, and
thus the presence of the overlap did not increase the lateral
load-carrying capacity much beyond the shear sliding capacity.
Mechanically anchoring the FRP using steel shear restraints was
found to be very effective. All specimens strengthened in this
way achieved more than three times the design pressure without
any visible signs of distress. It is not advisable to strengthen infill
masonry walls with FRP sheets that terminate at the mortar inter-
face between the masonry infill and the RC frame (i.e., without
overlap), unless some additional anchorage or shear restraint is
provided.
Simulating the actual boundary conditions of masonry infill
walls was of great importance in understanding the actual strength
gains that are achievable with FRP strengthening. Studies using
artificial simple supports are not ideally suited for investigating
masonry infills. These studies were often able to develop the full
rupture strain of the FRP or the full crushing strain of the masonry
(e.g., Galati et al. 2006; Bajpai and Duthinh 2003; Carney and
Myers 2003). This experimental program, using the actual boun-
dary conditions of masonry infill walls, showed that premature fail-
ure attributable to shear sliding was more likely in strengthened
masonry infills and occurred long before rupture or crushing.
The risk of shear sliding failure is greatly reduced for structures
in which steel bars are inserted as dowels between the infill
masonry wall and the supporting RC frames; however, many
existing masonry infill walls do not utilize this beneficial practice.
Using the relatively rigid concrete frame allowed for the formation
of arching action in several of the unstrengthened specimens. This
accurately simulated the reserve strength of many existing masonry
infills that would not be considered in design or if the experimental
program had used simple supports. Even with these reductions, the
GFRP strengthening system (with proper anchorage) was shown to
be effective for masonry infill walls.
JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2011 / 213
J. Compos. Constr., 2011, 15(2): 206-214
The analytical study revealed that a reasonably accurate predic-
tion of the elastic limit of the applied pressure was achievable using
a working stress analysis approach that analyzed the infill wall as a
plate element that was simply supported on all four sides.
Acknowledgments
The writers would like to gratefully acknowledge the assistance of
the following: Zachery Smith, Fyfe Co. LLC, California; Bud
Starnes, Lawrence Llibre, and Clifford Davis, Duke Energy Corp.,
South Carolina; Greg Lucier and Vivek Hariharan, North Carolina
State University, North Carolina.
References
Albert, M. L., Elwi, A. E., and Cheng, J. J. R. (2001). “Strengthening of
unreinforced masonry walls using FRPs.” J. Compos. Constr., 5(2),
76–84.
ASTM. (2005). “Standard test method for compressive strength of cylin-
drical concrete specimens.” C39-05, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2007). “Standard test method for compressive strength of masonry
prisms.” C1314-07, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2008a). “Standard test method for compressive strength of
hydraulic cement mortars (using 2-in. or [50-mm] cube specimens).”
C109-08, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2008b). “Standard test methods for sampling and testing concrete
masonry units and related units.” C140-08, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2008c). “Standard test method for tensile properties of
polymer matrix composite materials.” D3039-08, West Conshohocken,
PA.
Bajpai, K., and Duthinh, D. (2003). “Bending performance of masonry
walls strengthened with near-surface mounted FRP bars.” Proc., 9th
North American Masonry Conf., Masonry Society, Boulder, CO,
1052–1063.
Carney, P., and Myers, J. J. (2003). “Shear and flexural strengthening
of masonry infill walls with FRP for extreme out-of-plane loading.”
Proc., Architectural Engineering 2003 Conf., ASCE, Reston, VA,
246–250.
Ehsani, M. R., Saadatmanesh, H., and Velazquez-Dimas, J. I. (1999).
“Behavior of retrofitted URM walls under simulated earthquake
loading.” J. Compos. Constr., 3(3), 134–142.
Galati, N., Tumialan, G., and Nanni, A. (2006). “Strengthening with FRP
bars of URM walls subject to out-of-plane loads.” Constr. Build.
Mater., 20(1), 101–110.
Ghobarah, A., and Galal, K. E. M. (2004). “Out-of-plane strengthening of
unreinforced masonry walls with openings.” J. Compos. Constr., 8(4),
298–305.
 Gilstrap, J. M., and Dolan, C. W. (1998). “Out-of-plane bending of
FRP-reinforced masonry walls.” Compos. Sci. Technol., 58, 1277–
1284.
Hamilton, H. R., III, and Dolan, C. (2001). “Flexural capacity of glass
FRP strengthened concrete masonry walls.” J. Compos. Constr.,
5(3), 170–178.
Hamoush, S. A., McGinley, M. W., Mlakar, P., Scott, D., and Murray, K.
(2001). “Out-of-plane strengthening of masonry walls with reinforced
composites.” J. Compos. Constr., 5(3), 139–145.
Korany, Y., and Drysdale, R. (2006). “Rehabilitation of masonry walls
using unobtrusive FRP techniques for enhanced out-of-plane seismic
resistance.” J. Compos. Constr., 10(3), 213–222.
Kuzik, M. D., Elwi, A. E., and Cheng, J. J. R. (2003). “Cyclic flexural tests
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MANIPAL INST OF TECHNOLOGY on 08/24/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
of masonry walls reinforced with glass fiber reinforced polymer sheets.”
J. Compos. Constr., 7(1), 20–30.
Lunn, D. S. (2009). “Behavior of masonry infill walls strengthened with
FRP materials.” M.S. thesis, North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC.
Masonry Standards Joint Committee (MSJC). (2005). “Building code
requirements for masonry structures.” ACI 530-05/ASCE 5-05/TMS
402-05, Masonry Society, Boulder, CO.
214 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2011
J. Compos. Constr., 2011, 15(2): 206-214
Patoary, M. K. H., and Tan, K. H. (2003). “Blast resistance of prototype
in-built masonry walls strengthened with FRP systems.” Proc., 6th Int.
Symp. on FRP Reinforcement for Concrete Structures (FRPRCS-6),
World Scientific, Singapore, 1189–1198.
Tan, K. H., and Patoary, M. K. H. (2004). “Strengthening of masonry
walls against out-of-plane loads using fiber-reinforced polymer
reinforcement.” J. Compos. Constr., 8(1), 79–87.
Timoshenko, S., and Woinowsky-Krieger, S. (1959). Theory of plates and
shells, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Triantafillou, T. C. (1998). “Strengthening of masonry structures using
epoxy-bonded FRP laminates.” J. Compos. Constr., 2(2), 96–104.
Tumialan, J. G., Galati, N., and Nanni, A. (2003). “Fiber-reinforced
polymer strengthening of unreinforced masonry walls subject to
out-of-plane loads.” ACI Struct. J., 100(3), 321–329.
Velazquez-Dimas, J. I., and Ehsani, M. R. (2000). “Modeling out-of-plane
behavior of URM walls retrofitted with fiber composites.” J. Compos.
Constr., 4(4), 172–181.
Willis, C. R., Yang, Q., Seracino, R., and Griffith, M. C. (2009). “Damaged
masonry walls in two-way bending retrofitted with vertical FRP strips.”
Constr. Build. Mater., 23(4), 1591–1604.