In-Plane Lateral Response of a Full-Scale Masonry

Subassemblage with and without an Inorganic

Matrix-Grid Strengthening System
N. Augenti1; F. Parisi2; A. Prota3; and G. Manfredi4
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/15/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: A full-scale unreinforced masonry (URM) wall with an opening was tested under in-plane lateral loading. The wall was first
subjected to monotonically increasing displacements until a moderate damage level was reached. The damaged specimen was then cyclically
tested up to almost the same maximum drift attained during the monotonic test to investigate the effects of previous damage on its nonlinear
response. Finally, the masonry wall was repaired with inorganic matrix-grid (IMG) composites and subjected to a cyclic displacement-
controlled test up to a near-collapse state. Most of the observed damage developed in the spandrel panel affecting both lateral resistance
and strength degradation. Rocking of piers governed lateral stiffness and hysteretic response, which was characterized by low residual dis-
placements and recentering behavior. The comparison between the experimental force-displacement curves demonstrated that the IMG
strengthening system was able to provide energy dissipation capacity to the spandrel panel, restoring load-bearing capacity of the as-built
wall, and delaying strength degradation that was indeed observed at larger displacements. Bilinear idealizations of force-displacement
curves allowed the identification of displacement ductility, global overstrength, and strength reduction factor of the tested wall systems.
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000193. © 2011 American Society of Civil Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Full-scale tests; Masonry; Walls; Rehabilitation; Composite materials; Load bearing capacity;
Softening; Ductility.
Author keywords: Full-scale tests; Masonry; Walls; Rehabilitation; Composite materials; Load-bearing capacity; Softening; Ductility.

Introduction
On-site inspections after severe earthquakes have shown that
unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings suffer frequently most part
of damage within spandrel panels, namely the horizontal masonry
components between two consecutive piers. In-plane resistance of
URM walls with openings under horizontal seismic actions is con-
siderably affected by these structural components. Nevertheless,
the most advanced seismic codes do not provide any rule to account
for nonlinear response of spandrel panels within simplified models
on the basis of the discretization of walls into different types of
macroelements (Magenes and Della Fontana 1998; Brencich et al.
1998; Augenti 2000). Spandrel panels are typically considered to
be secondary structural elements into seismic design and assess-
ment procedures.
1
Associate Professor of Structural Engineering, Dept. of Structural
Engineering, Univ. of Naples Federico II, Via Claudio 21, P.O. Box
I-80125, Naples, Italy. E-mail: augenti@unina.it
2
Ph.D. Candidate in Seismic Risk, Dept. of Structural Engineering,
Univ. of Naples Federico II, Via Claudio 21, P.O. Box I-80125, Naples,
Italy (corresponding author). E-mail: fulvio.parisi@unina.it
3
Assistant Professor of Structural Engineering, Dept. of Structural
Engineering, Univ. of Naples Federico II, Via Claudio 21, P.O. Box
I-80125, Naples, Italy. E-mail: aprota@unina.it
4
Full Professor of Structural Engineering, Dept. of Structural Engineer-
ing, Univ. of Naples Federico II, Via Claudio 21, P.O. Box I-80125, Naples,
Italy. E-mail: gamanfre@unina.it
Note. This manuscript was submitted on August 5, 2010; approved on
November 14, 2010; published online on November 1, 2010. Discussion
period open until January 1, 2012; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Composites for
Construction, Vol. 15, No. 4, August 1, 2011. ©ASCE, ISSN 1090-0268/
2011/4-578–590/$25.00.
Both EC8 (CEN 2004) and the new Italian Building Code (IBC
2008) specify that spandrel panels can be included in the capacity
model of a URM building structure only in the presence of tie-rods,
or reinforced concrete (RC) ring floor beams, at the top and lintels
well-bonded to the adjoining piers at the bottom. This is the case of
URM buildings specifically designed for earthquake resistance. For
them, EC8 and IBC allow to predict both flexural and shear resis-
tance of spandrel panels through formulas derived for pier panels.
Although these seismic codes suggest to perform a frame analysis
of walls with openings, FEMA 356 (FEMA 2000) allows to carry
out simplified calculations under the “strong spandrel–weak pier”
assumption. This approach cannot be applied to existing masonry
buildings of historic urban centers located in Italy and the rest of
Europe because usually they have just wooden, or steel, lintels to
support gravity loads. No adequate anchorage length is given to
lintels for providing flexural resistance against seismically induced
bending moments. Moreover, the “weak spandrel–strong pier”
assumption is also unrealistic because it results in full uncoupling
of piers.
A preliminary theoretical study by Cattari and Lagomarsino
(2008) has revealed that interlocking phenomena at the spandrel
panel–pier interface provide significant flexural resistance to the
spandrel panel, even in the absence of tension-resistant elements.
That resisting mechanism is also considered into FEMA 306 (ATC
1998), which provides analytical procedures to define ultimate
bending moment and shear force in both uncracked and damaged
conditions. Although potential failure mechanisms in spandrel pan-
els are almost equal to those of piers, that is, sliding shear, diagonal
cracking, and flexural toe crushing (Magenes and Calvi 1997;
Tomaževič 2000), low axial forces and high moment and shear de-
mands induced by seismic horizontal actions and the boundary

578 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / JULY/AUGUST 2011

J. Compos. Constr. 2011.15:578-590.

 conditions owing to spandrel-pier interlocking, may produce a
rather different nonlinear response.
The spandrel-pier interaction in URM walls depends on their
own length-to-width ratios, their relative flexural and shear strength
and stiffness, and the magnitude of gravity loads. If a strengthening
system is applied to spandrel or pier panels, their interaction may be
altered resulting in different failure modes and collapse mechanism
of the wall. A negative change in failure mechanisms was observed
by Benedetti et al. (1998, 2001), which carried out shaking-table
tests on brick masonry building models before and after strength-
ening of spandrels with RC bands. The energy absorption and
dissipation capacity was observed to be high in the case of as-built
specimens and low in the case of repaired specimens. The former
specimens suffered large damage to spandrels, whereas the latter
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/15/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
experienced premature collapse because damage developed within
piers. Therefore, Benedetti et al. (2001) suggested designing devi-
ces that allow highly energy-consuming damage to spandrel beams,
although controlling it. In this context, interesting new applications
involve the use of composite materials in seismic retrofitting of
URM structures.
The effectiveness of fiber-reinforced polymers, used in the form
of both laminates and near-surface mounted bars, has been assessed
for brick masonry buildings by Moon et al. (2007) that found sig-
nificant improvements in in-plane resistance and spandrel-to-pier
continuity over increased lateral displacements. Nonetheless, resin-
based composites are affected not only by sensitivity to high
temperatures, moisture impermeability, and flammability, but also
by poor bond to the existing masonry substrate. These problems are
solved by mortar-based matrix materials whose advantages have
been recently assessed for different masonry types to improve both
in-plane and out-of-plane earthquake resistance of masonry build-
ings (Prota et al. 2006; Papanicolau et al. 2008). Among natural
stonemasonry types, tuff masonry, which is composed by tuff
stones and mortar joints, is affected by high porosity so mortar-
based matrix materials are very attractive for its strengthening.
Because tuff masonry buildings represent a large part of the
existing building inventory (including cultural heritage construc-
tions) in countries located in the Mediterranean area, they are to
be preserved especially in earthquake-prone regions.
The present study focuses on tuff masonry walls with openings.
To investigate the in-plane nonlinear response of perforated
masonry walls without RC tie beams and well-bonded lintels
(i.e., the case of spandrels in existing buildings), lateral loading
tests on a full-scale tuff masonry system have been carried out;
the tested subassemblage was supposed to be taken out from a typ-
ical multistory wall with a series of vertically aligned openings. The
wall system geometry and the applied vertical forces simulating
gravity loads were designed to avoid any predefined boundary con-
dition for the spandrel and to develop most of the damage within
the spandrel panel above the opening.
The first lateral loading test was conducted on the as-built wall
system to observe the nonlinear response up to the first significant
cracking (namely, a permanent damage) of the spandrel.
A second test was carried out on the damaged wall to prelimi-
narily evaluate residual response properties of predamaged URM
buildings subjected to earthquake sequences.
Finally, a further lateral loading test was performed on the wall
specimen up to a near-collapse state, after repairing of the piers and
strengthening of the spandrel with an innovative external reinforce-
ment system consisting of inorganic matrix-grid (IMG) composites
applied on both sides of the wall. The main scope of this experi-
mental test was to assess the effectiveness of the proposed strength-
ening technique for retrofit and upgrading of URM structures and
rapid remedial works during seismic emergency scenarios. The test
JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / JULY/AUGUST 2011 / 579
J. Compos. Constr. 2011.15:578-590.
was primarily aimed at confirming that the IMG strengthening
system installed on the spandrel could allow improving the energy
dissipation capacity of spandrels according to suggestions by
Benedetti et al. (2001). At the same time, this retrofitting system
was also chosen to ensure structural upgrading in compliance to
the principles of minimum intervention and reversibility that are
mandatory for historical buildings.
Experimental Program
Mechanical properties of the constituent materials of both tuff
masonry and the IMG strengthening system were first determined
through different laboratory tests (Augenti and Parisi 2010). After-
ward, a full-scale masonry wall with an opening was built up and
tested under in-plane lateral loading with and without IMG com-
posites. Three displacement-controlled lateral loading tests were
conducted in a quasi-static mode to capture softened nonlinear
response: the first was monotonic and the others were cyclic.
Design of Tested Specimen
The design of the tested specimen and the test setup was conducted
considering the monotonic behavior of the URM wall system; a
simplified analytical prediction of lateral load-bearing capacity
was carried out to that end. Macroelement modeling of the wall
system was carried out by defining the following macroelements:
two pier panels, namely the vertical macroelements; a spandrel
panel, which was the horizontal macroelement located above the
opening; and two joint panels connecting the piers with the span-
drel panel. The wall system was then idealized as an assemblage of
the aforementioned macroelements that were geometrically defined
by extending the contour lines of the opening in both horizontal and
vertical directions.
The analytical formulation proposed by Augenti and Parisi
(2009) for static pushover analysis of standard masonry buildings
and individual walls with openings was employed within a trial-
and-error testing design procedure aimed at reaching damage
within the spandrel panel without any sliding mechanism at
the base of the piers. The nonlinear incremental static procedure
used for the tested specimen was force-based and response-
controlled to capture postpeak strength degradation on the force-
displacement curve.
Different values of compressive strength and elastic moduli
were assumed for spandrel and pier panels according to those listed
in Table 1 for tuff masonry. The unit weight of tuff masonry was
set to 16 kN=m3 , whereas two-limit mean values of both tensile
and sliding shear strengths at zero-confining stress were assumed:
τ 0;min ¼ 0:05 MPa and τ 0;max ¼ 0:10 MPa. To include kinematic
compatibility between piers, nonlinear force-displacement curves
were defined through a deformation-based approach. The peak
lateral resistance of the macroelements was computed as the mini-
mum between those corresponding to toe crushing (Augenti 2000),
sliding shear (Magenes and Calvi 1997), and tensile diagonal
cracking (Turnšek and Čačovič 1970). Under these hypotheses,
the lateral resistance of the URM wall system was estimated to
be 185.46 kN and 189.97 kN for the minimum and maximum shear
strength, respectively.
IMG composites were selected for repairing of the spandrel
panel because they do not increase mass or stiffness while provid-
ing shear strength and ductility. In view of seismic applications,
these characteristics ensure no significant increase in the global
strength demand or modification in the distribution of seismic
actions between the walls. A moderate increase in stiffness was de-
tected by Prota et al. (2006) only in the case of strengthening with
 Table 1. Mechanical Properties of Tuff Units, Mortar, Tuff Masonry, and IMG Constituents
Tensile strength
Material f t (MPa)
Yellow tuff units 0.23
Pozzolana-like mortar 1.43
Tuff masonry (compression jj to mortar bed joints) — 3.85
Tuff masonry (compression ⊥ to mortar bed joints)
IMG system matrix 6.00
IMG system grid 1,276
two grid plies of cementitious matrix-grid (CMG) composites on
both sides of the wall. Conversely, a brittle behavior and a lower
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/15/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
strength increase were observed when the CMG grid was applied
just on one side of masonry panels. Based on those results, the
IMG system selected for the tested wall was realized with one
ply on both sides of the spandrel.
As-Built Specimen Geometry and Material Properties
The as-built specimen was a single-leaf tuff masonry wall with an
opening [Fig. 1(a)]. It consisted of two URM piers connected by a
spandrel panel resting on a wooden lintel with bond length of
150 mm at both sides. The wall was globally 5.10 m long,
3.62 m high, and 0.31 m thick. To apply axial forces to the piers
ensuring structural continuity with an ideal overlying story, three
masonry layers were constructed over the piers. Both piers and
the spandrel panel had a length of 1.70 m, whereas the height
of the latter was equal to 1.00 m. The masonry layers were alter-
nated to get discontinuous vertical mortar joints with a thickness of
10 mm. In the context of a macroelement idealization of the wall
(Augenti 2000), the pier and spandrel panels had an aspect height-
to-length ratio of 1.35 and 1.7, respectively. Therefore, the inter-
sections between piers and spandrel, namely the joint panels
assumed to be rigid and infinitely resistant in simplified seismic
analysis methods, were each 1:70 × 1:00 × 0:31 m in size.
The tuff masonry was realized with yellow tuff stones
(150 × 300 × 100 mm in size) from a quarry near Naples, Italy,
and a hydraulic mortar composed of natural sand and pozzolana-
like reactive aggregates with a water–sand ratio by weight of
1∶6:25. Tuff stones were characterized by uniaxial compression
tests on cubic specimens with edge length of 70 mm, whereas
mortar was characterized through similar tests on specimens with
Fig. 1. Specimen geometry (dimensions in mm): (a) as-built; and (b) IMG-repaired
580 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / JULY/AUGUST 2011
J. Compos. Constr. 2011.15:578-590.
Compressive strength Young’s modulus Shear modulus
f c (MPa) E (GPa) G (GPa)
4.13 1.54 0.44
2.50 1.52 0.66
2.07 0.86
3.96 2.22 0.92
16.0 8.00 —
— 72.0
dimensions 40 × 40 × 160 mm. Augenti and Parisi (2010) also
estimated mechanical properties of the entire tuff masonry
(assumed as a unique “equivalent homogeneous material”) through
two series of uniaxial compression tests along the directions
parallel and orthogonal to the mortar bed joints of prisms
(610 × 650 × 150 mm in size). The tuff units used for masonry
prisms had the same dimensions of those employed for the tested
wall and were bonded to one another through pozzolana-like mor-
tar joints with a thickness of 10 mm. The instrumentation and the
testing procedure used for masonry prisms were in compliance with
American standards, which are specifically devoted to real-time
measurements.
Different constitutive models were separately derived for the
aforementioned loading directions to characterize the full nonlinear
behavior of masonry by including orthotropy in a simplified mode.
The mechanical properties of tuff units, mortar, and tuff masonry
are listed in Table 1. Masonry parameters are distinguished for
compressive loading along the directions parallel and orthogonal
to the mortar bed joints. In the macroelement modeling of the per-
forated URM wall, these loading directions were associated with
the spandrel and the piers, respectively. The mortar used is classi-
fied as M2.5 by IBC, whereas the whole tuff masonry exceeded the
referential interval of [1.4 MPa, 2.4 MPa] suggested by IBC for
existing masonry buildings in the absence of specific mechanical
characterization tests. Young’s and shear moduli of masonry were
higher than those related to tuff units and mortar as shown in
Table 1. This unusual characteristic is a consequence of the
pozzolanic nature of the mortar. In fact, pozzolana is a fine sandy
volcanic ash characterized by mechanical properties that increase
significantly with time and moisture level. The presence of mois-
ture within the porous tuff units induces a gradual stiffening of the
 pozzolanic mortar and hence, of the whole masonry. This special
feature gives an explanation of the good preservation of ancient
Roman constructions.
Repaired Specimen Geometry and Material Properties
The fiber-reinforced composite material employed for the external
strengthening of the masonry wall consisted of a special two-
component inorganic matrix and a glass fiber net. The former
was made of hydraulic lime and sand (ratio by weight 1∶3) added
with glass fibers (ratio by total weight 1∶10) and mixed with
latex and water (ratio by weight 2∶1). The glass fiber-reinforced
matrix ensured higher ductility and tensile strength resulting in a
high-performance composite. The grid was a bidirectional alkali-
resistant glass coated net with texture 25 × 25 mm, unit weight
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/15/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
of 225 g=m2 , and ultimate strain less than 2%. Also mechanical
properties of the IMG composite are listed in Table 1.
The IMG strengthening system was applied at both sides of the
wall spandrel [Fig. 1(b)]. Cracks induced by the previous tests
within the spandrel panel were filled with mortar [Figs. 2(a) and
2(b)]. The masonry was suitably prewetted and the mortar was
troweled onto both sides of the specimen with a 5-mm-thick
layer. The fabric sheet was firmly hand-pressed into the wet
binder with the fibers aligned to the mortar bed joints of the wall
[Fig. 2(c)]. The overlapping length of grids was 100 mm. Finally, a
second layer of pozzolana-like mortar was applied to the specimen
by troweling a further 5-mm-thick layer [Fig. 2(c)]. The nominal
thickness of the IMG system was then equal to approximately
10 mm. The strengthening system involved the first stone layer
below the spandrel to ensure anchorage.
Test Setup and Instrumentation
Fig. 3 shows the experimental setup employed for the lateral
loading tests on the masonry wall. To rigidly connect the specimen
with the laboratory strong floor, RC beams with dimensions
Fig. 2. (a)–(b) Filling of cracks with mortar injections; and (c)–(d) application of the IMG system (images courtesy of the authors)
JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / JULY/AUGUST 2011 / 581
J. Compos. Constr. 2011.15:578-590.
1;700 × 310 × 200 mm were realized below the piers and were cast
to Ω-shaped steel plates. The latter were in turn bolted to squared
holes of the laboratory floor slab.
Two different reaction systems were installed to apply vertical
and horizontal loads to the masonry wall. The former consisted
of two transverse steel frames located at the centerlines of the ma-
sonry piers and allowed to apply vertical forces simulating gravity
loads on the specimen. Bidirectional hydraulic jacks with maximum
capacity of 500 kN were placed over rigid steel beams and were put
in contrast with the cap beams of the transverse frames. The rigid
steel beams placed over the piers of the specimen were employed
to get rather uniform distribution of normal stresses throughout
cross sections of the piers. Two teflon, that is, polytetrafluoroethy-
lene (PTFE), layers were placed between the jacks and the rigid
steel beams to avoid any frictional resisting force at the interface.
The lateral loading was applied through a horizontal servocon-
trolled hydraulic actuator (maximum capacity of 500 kN and stroke
of
250 mm) bolted to a nonprismatic reaction wall having a lat-
eral load-carrying capacity of 250 kN and a corresponding horizon-
tal displacement equal to 0.77 mm. A suspension system was
installed to provide further support to the actuator. The reaction
wall had a rigid base fixed to the laboratory slab through four steel
bars, each pretensioned at 400 kN. The other end of the horizontal
actuator was pinned at a perforated steel plate, which in turn, for
cyclic tests only, allowed to employ six steel bars (18-mm diameter)
aimed at applying force at the opposite end of the specimen. These
bars ran along the wall spandrel at both sides of the wall. Finally,
three steel beams were bolted to the columns of the transverse
frames at both sides of the masonry wall to prevent potential
out-of-plane failure modes. Such mechanisms were not detected
during the tests owing to zero-eccentricity of the lateral load at
the actuator plate. Because the columns were loaded in tension
owing to the pushing forces at the jacks, the transverse reaction
system was in a stable condition.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/15/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 3. Experimental setup
A load cell with capacity of 200 kN was positioned between the
central part of the horizontal actuator and its rigid end plate. This
cell was employed to get real-time measurements of the actual hori-
zontal force applied to the specimen. Linear variable differential
transformers (LVDTs) and string potentiometers were installed.
LVDTs were placed at the end cross sections of the spandrel
and pier panels to obtain information about flexural deformations.
Potentiometers were mounted along the diagonals of the pier and
spandrel panels to capture shearing deformations. The joint panels
were not instrumented as their behavior was expected to be rigid
because of the wall geometry. This assumption was confirmed by
the tests. Figs. 4(a) and 4(b) show the arrangement of the displace-
ment transducers on the front and back side of the specimen,
respectively. Lateral displacements were measured at the opposite
side of the wall through a potentiometer transducer tagged as PT#1.
The displacement readings at this horizontal potentiometer were
associated with the lateral force readings at the load cell to plot
the force-displacement curve for each test. Indeed, the aforemen-
tioned readings were considered to be more accurate than load and
stroke readings at the horizontal actuator.
Loading Protocols
The quasi-static tests on the masonry wall consisted of two stages:
in the former, vertical forces of 200 kN were applied to the piers by
the hydraulic jacks to simulate gravity loads; in the latter, the wall
was subjected to in-plane lateral loading through the horizontal ac-
tuator, whereas the vertical forces on the piers were kept constant.
Because the test model was regarded as a single-degree-of-freedom
(SDOF) structure from a dynamic standpoint, quasi-static testing
was believed to be effective for the simulation of the seismic action
(Calvi and Kingsley 1996). The tests were performed in displace-
ment control to capture strength degradation and cumulative
damage in the postpeak softening range. The lateral force was
modulated by the computer program of the data acquisition system
in a way to obtain the target displacement time history. Load
and deformation measurements were recorded at a sampling rate
of 5 Hz.
582 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / JULY/AUGUST 2011
J. Compos. Constr. 2011.15:578-590.
The first lateral loading test was carried out on the plain
masonry wall under monotonically increasing displacements.
Two initial displacement cycles between 0.15 and 0.25 mm were
applied on the specimen to reach good contrast between it and the
actuator. The lateral force at the actuator was then applied to
increase displacements at a constant rate of 0:01 mm=s up to a
displacement reading at the actuator of 28 mm (corresponding
to an interstory drift ratio, θ, of approximately 1%).
The second test was performed under cyclic displacements up to
a moderate damage level, which was defined as cracking involving
not only the spandrel panel but also a limited part of the piers. The
horizontal actuator was driven at a displacement rate of 0:35 mm=s
in a way to attain increasing amplitudes in seven different blocks
and repeated three times at each amplitude peak. The increment
was set to 5.6 mm so the target maximum displacement was
39.2 mm (i.e., θ equal to approximately 1.2%).
Finally, the specimen repaired with the IMG system was tested
under 15 cyclic displacement blocks up to a lateral displacement of
84 mm (i.e., θ equal to approximately 2.8%). The displacement rate
was set to 0:35 mm=s in the first seven blocks and to 0:70 mm=s in
the last eight blocks. In Fig. 5, the time histories programmed in the
computer (input) are compared with those measured (response).
Damage Patterns
Lateral loading induced damage especially to the spandrel panel
without involving the adjacent joint panels. Fig. 6(a) shows the
damage pattern observed after the monotonic test on the as-built
wall. Once the piers cracked at their base, vertical cracks owing
to flexure occurred at the end sections and in the middle of the
spandrel panel. As the lateral displacement increased, piers’ rock-
ing was more evident and diagonal shear cracking took place in the
spandrel panel.
Fig. 6(b) demonstrates that load reversals induced horizontal
cracks at the base of the piers attributable to rocking response
and extensive tensile shear failure along the other diagonal of
the spandrel panel. The latter suffered shear sliding failure along
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/15/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 4. Arrangement of displacement transducers (dimensions in mm): (a) front side; and (b) back side
Fig. 5. Comparison between input and response displacement time
histories
the first mortar bed joint. Slight masonry crushing occurred at the
compressed toes of the piers at larger displacements.
The cyclic lateral loading test on the repaired wall demonstrated
the effectiveness of the external reinforcement with IMG compo-
sites on both sides of weak spandrels. Although rocking failure of
the piers was still detected also at small displacement levels, frac-
ture propagation in the spandrel panel diverged from the pattern
observed during the previous tests resulting in spread horizontal
cracking [Fig. 6(c)]. Extensive horizontal cracking and masonry
crushing attributed to rocking of the piers were identified when
the wall was subjected to larger displacements. At the near-collapse
state, transverse splitting of the masonry was also detected in the
JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / JULY/AUGUST 2011 / 583
J. Compos. Constr. 2011.15:578-590.
spandrel panel. Such a failure mode consisted of vertical cracking
and involved the masonry from the top to the second layer above
the wooden lintel.
In all tests, the role of the wooden lintel was fundamental be-
cause it supported the masonry above and constrained the spandrel
panel in transmitting the applied load between the piers. This
resulted in damage accumulation within the spandrel panel even
at large displacements. Damage to the spandrel panel after the
monotonic test on the as-built wall, cyclic test on the predamaged
wall, and cyclic test on the repaired wall can be observed in
Figs. 7(a)–7(c), respectively. Moreover, Fig. 7(d) shows a detail
of the transverse splitting that occurred at the near-collapse state
of the wall. This failure mechanism has never been observed in
the past for walls with openings and is currently under study.
Nevertheless, it is expected to be caused by high compression
forces acting along the mortar bed joints that induce a significant
strength reduction in the masonry. In spite of the large deformation
and cracking of the repaired spandrel panel, no debonding was
observed during the test. Although the bond strength of the
IMG system was not characterized because it was out of the scope
of this study, the spread cracking shown in Fig. 7(c) suggests a uni-
form distribution of stresses at the matrix-substrate interface
because of a satisfactory anchorage of the inorganic matrix to
the masonry substrate.
A uniform cracking was also observed during past diagonal
compression tests on tuff masonry panels strengthened with
CMG composites on both sides (Prota et al. 2006). This type of
 cracking occurred for panels strengthened on both sides with two
grid plies per side, whereas the shear failure of masonry or the
rupture of the CMG system reinforcement occurred for panels
strengthened with one ply per side. The ability of the IMG system
to suffer uniform cracking even in the presence of one ply per panel
side could be considered an indicator of good performance in terms
of energy dissipation capacity, which allows a higher strength in-
crease. The absence of one ply per side in the IMG system com-
pared with the CMG system was probably balanced by a tensile
strength of the inorganic mortar (6.00 MPa) higher than that of
the cementitious mortar used by Prota et al. (4.58 MPa; 2006).
Increasing damage to piers from the monotonic test to the
second cyclic test is shown from Figs. 8(a)–8(d). Fig. 8(a) demon-
strates a small horizontal crack at the base of the right pier
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/15/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(front side of the wall) attributable to its rocking response.

Fig. 8(b) shows early crushing after the cyclic test on the predam-
aged wall, whereas Figs. 8(c) and 8(d) give a good explanation of
large rocking-induced cracking with early splitting and extensive
masonry crushing in the left pier (front side of the wall), respec-
tively. Crack width at the pier base exceeded 25 mm. An interesting
view of the repaired wall at the near-collapse state is illustrated in
Fig. 9(a), in which the rocking of the piers and the corresponding
drift demands on the spandrel panel are particularly evident.
Finally, Fig. 9(b) gives a better idea of the heavy damage suffered
by the spandrel panel and its deformed shape at the maximum drift
attained in the test.

Analysis of the Experimental Force-Displacement

Curves
Fig. 6. Damage patterns: (a) monotonic test on as-built wall; (b) cyclic
Quasi-static testing allowed to obtain global response parameters of
test on predamaged wall; and (c) cyclic test on repaired wall
the masonry wall with and without an IMG strengthening system.

Fig. 7. Damage to the spandrel panel: (a) monotonic test on as-built wall; (b) cyclic test on predamaged wall; (c)–(d) cyclic test on repaired wall
(images courtesy of the authors)

584 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / JULY/AUGUST 2011

J. Compos. Constr. 2011.15:578-590.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/15/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 8. Damage to piers: (a) small rocking-induced cracks during monotonic test on as-built wall; (b) early crushing during cyclic test on predamaged
wall; (c) large rocking-induced cracks; and (d) heavy crushing during cyclic test on repaired wall (images courtesy of the authors)

Fig. 9. (a) Near-collapse state of the repaired wall; and (b) damage and deformed shape of the spandrel panel (images courtesy of the authors)

In all tests, the relationship between the resisting force and the
given lateral displacement was rather linear before flexural crack-
ing occurred in the piers. As the displacement demand increased,
the resisting force increased in different modes depending on the
specimen characteristics. The cracking point in the experimental
force-displacement diagrams (the envelopes for cyclic tests) was
defined at a lateral stiffness reduction of 10%. Such a computation
was carried out by monitoring the ratio between the secant lateral
stiffness K, defined as the ratio between the measured resisting
force H and the relevant given displacement d, and the simple mov-
ing average at each force step. In this way, significant variations in
stiffness were identified and the secant lateral stiffness at cracking
was defined as the ratio between the estimated cracking force H cr
and the relevant displacement d cr .
Fig. 10(a) shows the experimental force-displacement diagram
for the monotonic test. The lateral stiffness of the as-built wall
changed significantly when flexural cracks formed at the base of
the piers. This rocking-type damage could be approximately asso-
ciated with the cracking force and interstory drift ratio listed in
Table 2, whose relevant elastic stiffness is 50:76 kN=mm. As
the lateral displacement increased, the stiffness of the as-built wall
was rather constant up to the attainment of the maximum resisting
force H max ¼ 184 kN at a displacement of 19:74 mm (i.e., θH max
equal to 0.65%). The experimental lateral resistance confirmed the
value predicted through a simplified macroelement analysis of the
as-built wall (namely approximately 185 kN) for the minimum
shear strength of masonry. At this performance state of the wall,
the occurrence of diagonal cracking in the spandrel panel induced
an instantaneous resistance drop of approximately 15%. At larger
displacements, lateral resistance began to rise again up to a resisting
force H θ max ¼ 172 kN at a displacement of 27.18 mm (i.e., θmax
equal to 0.89%). Strength degradation factor C sd , defined as the

JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / JULY/AUGUST 2011 / 585

J. Compos. Constr. 2011.15:578-590.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/15/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 10. Experimental force-displacement diagrams: (a) monotonic test on as-built wall; (b) cyclic test on predamaged wall; (c) cyclic test on repaired
wall; and (d) envelopes
Table 2. Global Experimental Response Parameters of the Tested Specimens
Interstory drift
Cracking force ratio at cracking Peak force
Specimen H cr (kN) θcr (%) H max (kN)
As-built 99 0.06 184
(0:5 H max )
Predamaged 97 0.07 155
(0:6 H max )
Repaired 91 0.07 189
(0:5 H max )
ratio between H θ max and H max according to Tomaževič (2000), was
approximately 0.93. Actual drifts in the postelastic range were
lower than those associated with the horizontal displacements
imposed at the actuator owing to some deformability sources in
the test setup (Fig. 5).
Hysteretic force-displacement diagrams in Figs. 10(b) and 10(c)
demonstrate that global in-plane response of the wall was essen-
tially governed by the rocking motion of the piers. Although this
type of mechanical behavior allowed large displacements, low
residual displacements, and wall recentering, diagonal shear failure
in the spandrel panel affected the maximum resistance of the wall.
Indeed, no considerable differences in the global response were de-
tected up to the cracking of piers (Table 2). The elastic stiffness was
estimated to be 47.89 and 44:36 kN=mm for the predamaged and
repaired wall systems, respectively. Conversely, the maximum re-
sistance of the predamaged wall was rather different from those of
the as-built and repaired specimens. This outcome is clearly shown
in Fig. 10(d), in which the experimental force-displacement curve
for monotonic test is compared to the envelopes of the cyclic tests.
The maximum resisting force computed for the predamaged wall
was rather equal to that computed for the as-built wall at the
occurrence of diagonal cracking in the spandrel panel (that is,
157 kN). As displacement increased during the cyclic test on
586 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / JULY/AUGUST 2011
J. Compos. Constr. 2011.15:578-590.
Interstory drift Force at
ratio at peak maximum interstory drift Maximum interstory
force θH max (%) ratio H θ max (kN) drift ratio θmax (%)
0.65 172 0.89
0.57 146 1.10
1.11 159 2.46
the predamaged wall, the resisting force reduced to 146 kN at
a maximum displacement of 33.51 mm (i.e., θmax equal to
1.10%). For the predamaged wall, C sd was 0.95 and strength
degradation was caused by cyclic damage accumulation. In fact,
load reversals induced diagonal shear cracking also along the
other diagonal of the spandrel panel resulting in a significant loss
of integrity to withstand deformations in the opposite loading
orientation.
Data processing for the cyclic test on the repaired wall demon-
strated that the external reinforcement with IMG composites at both
sides of the spandrel allowed not only the restoration of the load-
bearing capacity of the as-built wall, but also the shifting of strength
degradation at larger displacement levels. Actually, C sd was esti-
mated to be 0.85, but it was associated with a maximum displace-
ment of 75.06 mm (corresponding to θmax of 2.46%), that is, more
than twice the maximum drift imposed to the predamaged wall. In
all tests, C sd was higher than the typical coded value of 0.8, which
is assumed to define displacement capacity and to compute dis-
placement demand of building structures at the life safety limit state
(CEN 2004; IBC 2008). The dramatic improvement in the lateral
response of the predamaged wall can be preliminarily explained as
follows: (1) the IMG system was able to bridge existing cracks of
the predamaged wall and to ensure the lack of debonding failure at
 the matrix-substrate interface; (2) the failure mode of the spandrel
panel changed from brittle diagonal shear cracking to ductile hori-
zontal uniform cracking; (3) the cyclic behavior of the composite
system was quite stable; and (4) the IMG system did not induce any
modification in the stiffness of the spandrel panel, and hence in the
spandrel-piers interaction, so the rocking response of the piers led
to large displacement capacity, allowing recentering behavior of
the wall. The spread fracture process within the spandrel panel
could be associated with the presence of a grid (rather than a
few fiber sheets) and glass fibers within the inorganic matrix.
Nevertheless, a comprehensive study on the physics that stands
behind the structural behavior of the composite material is needed
to substantiate these observations.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/15/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Bilinear Idealization of the Experimental
Force-Displacement Curves
The experimental force-displacement diagrams were approximated
as bilinear to characterize the response of an idealized SDOF sys-
tem. The idealized bilinear force-deformation diagrams are exten-
sively reported in the literature as a simplified method of evaluating
the in-plane seismic response of masonry walls especially under
cyclic loading (Shing et al. 1989; Magenes and Calvi 1997;
Vasconcelos and Lourenço 2009). In this study, two linearization
procedures were used to estimate the ultimate force, interstory drift
ratio at yielding θe (corresponding to d e ), elastic stiffness, displace-
ment ductility, overstrength factor, and strength reduction factor.
These estimates are reported in Table 3 in which, for each speci-
men, the first and second lines refer to the linearization procedures
by Tomaževič (2000) and IBC (2008), respectively. Displacement
ductility is a useful characteristic that makes possible the reduction
of elastic seismic design actions, because it gives an indication of
the ability of the structure to dissipate the earthquake input energy.
To compute displacement ductility as μ ¼ d u =d e , the ultimate dis-
placement d u was defined as the experimental value corresponding
to the minimum strength degradation observed during the tests and
hence to a resisting force reduction of 5%. This assumption derived
from the fact that strength degradation was lower than that typically
considered in seismic codes (that is, 20%), and different values of
C sd were computed for the tested specimens. It is also underlined
that the bilinear idealization for the as-built and predamaged walls
was aimed at reaching some hints on displacement ductility
and strength reduction factors, because they related to moderate
Table 3. Response Parameters of Idealized SDOF Models, Overstrength Factor, and Strength Reduction Factor
Interstory drift
Ultimate force ratio at Elastic stiffness
Specimen H u (kN) yielding θe (%) K e (kN=mm)
As-built 162.15 0.10 50.76
(0:88 H max )
170.86 0.19 29.45
(0:93 H max )
Predamaged 146.73 0.10 47.89
(0:95 H max )
147.99 0.12 41.04
(0:96 H max )
Repaired 176.89 0.13 44.36
(0:94 H max )
188.37 0.30 20.74
(H max )
JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / JULY/AUGUST 2011 / 587
J. Compos. Constr. 2011.15:578-590.
damage levels. The computation of these seismic capacity param-
eters was useful especially to compare the global performances of
the tested models and to discuss current coded values.
The first linearization procedure was established on the
assumption of elastic stiffness equal to the experimental secant
stiffness at cracking. The latter was equal to 0:5H max for the as-built
and repaired specimens and 0:6H max for the predamaged specimen.
Yielding displacement was computed by imposing equal areas
below the actual and idealized curves (Tomaževič 2000). The ulti-
mate force of the idealized system was derived as the product of the
assumed elastic stiffness for the computed yielding displacement.
In this way, the ultimate resistance of the idealized envelope was
evaluated by assuming equal energy dissipation capacity of the
actual and idealized wall systems.
The second bilinear idealization procedure used in this study is
reported in IBC (2008) and EC8 (CEN 2004). These building codes
suggest the assumption of cracking at 0:7H max . The elastic stiffness
is then computed as the ratio between the idealized cracking
force and the corresponding displacement identified on the actual
force-displacement curve. The yielding displacement is derived
by assuming equal areas below the actual and idealized force-
displacement diagrams.
The idealized force-displacement diagrams derived for the
tested specimens are shown in Figs. 11(a)–11(c). The ratio between
the ultimate and maximum resisting forces (values in round paren-
theses in Table 3) was found to be 0.88–0.93 for the as-built wall,
0.95–0.96 for the predamaged wall, and 0.94–1.00 for the repaired
wall. The first interval related to the as-built wall is consistent
with past experimental results on URM walls by, among others,
Sheppard and Lutman (1988), which found a mean value equal
to 0.9. Different predictions of ultimate force, interstory drift ratio
at yielding, and displacement ductility were obtained for the as-
built and repaired walls through the bilinear idealization procedures
(Table 3). Conversely, their values were quite similar for the pre-
damaged wall. For the as-built and repaired walls, secant stiffness
at 0:7H max was approximately one-half of its counterpart used in
the first bilinear idealization procedure (i.e., the estimate of the
experimental stiffness at cracking). This was not the case of the
predamaged wall because the elastic stiffnesses used in the two bi-
linear idealization procedures were very similar owing to the pres-
ence of a postcracking branch with high stiffness. As a result, the
elastic stiffness predicted through IBC for the predamaged wall was
apparently higher than the relevant values computed for the other
specimens. The latter were characterized by lower postcracking
Strength
Displacement Overstrength reduction
ductility μ factor Ω factor R
8.51 1.64 6.56
[Rμ ¼ 4:00]
4.68 1.73 5.00
[Rμ ¼ 2:89]
10.94 1.51 6.88
[(Rμ ¼ 4:57]
9.29 1.52 6.37
[Rμ ¼ 4:19]
10.99 1.95 8.95
[Rμ ¼ 4:58]
4.82 2.08 6.12
[Rμ ¼ 2:94]

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/15/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 11. Idealized force-displacement diagrams: (a) as-built wall;
(b) predamaged wall; and (c) repaired wall
stiffness. The clear presence of a postcracking branch led to
different, even if rather high, values of displacement ductility for
the as-built and repaired walls. It is emphasized that Tomaževič
(2000) proposed a trilinear idealization of experimental force-
displacement curves to improve consistency between the SDOF
system representation and the actual structure response.
The overstrength factor of the wall system, denoted as Ω in
Table 3, was defined as the ratio between the ultimate and cracking
forces. Its average values were 1.7, 1.5, and 2.0 for the as-built,
predamaged, and repaired walls, respectively. IBC provides a value
of 1.4 for single-story URM buildings and 1.3 for single-story
reinforced masonry (RM) buildings.
Strength reduction factor was computed for each tested speci-
men. According to IBC (2008) and Uang (1991), the total strength
reduction factor, R, to be used in linear seismic analysis was
defined as ductility-related strength reduction factor Rμ (bracketed
values inpTable 3) multiplied by Ω. The former factor was evaluated
as Rμ ¼ ð2μ  1Þ according to the “equal energy rule” typically
assumed for low-period structures like masonry buildings (Uang
1991). Although the as-built and predamaged walls were subjected
to medium displacement demands, their ductility-related strength
reduction factors were quite high. It is worth noting that the average
values of Rμ for the as-built and damaged walls were 3.4 and 4.4
respectively, whereas an average value equal to 3.8 was found for
588 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / JULY/AUGUST 2011
J. Compos. Constr. 2011.15:578-590.
the repaired wall. Conversely, IBC provides Rμ -values of 2.0
for URM buildings and 2.5–3.0 for RM buildings. Instead, EC8
(CEN 2004) provides a strength reduction factor equal to
1.5–2.5 for earthquake-resistant URM buildings, 1.5 for URM
buildings not designed for seismic actions, and 2.5–3.0 for RM
buildings. In this context, the bilinear idealization procedure by
Tomaževič (2000) was more appropriate to capture the main
features of the global nonlinear response of the walls, especially for
the predamaged wall.
Although both displacement ductility and strength reduction
factor estimated for the as-built and predamaged walls are not to
be considered actual “supply” parameters, all linearization proce-
dures used in this study led to strength reduction factors higher than
those provided by EC8 (CEN 2004) and IBC (2008). Regardless of
the particular linearization method used in this study, the benefits
of the IMG strengthening system were clear not only in high supply
displacement ductility but also in providing high strength reduction
factors. The estimation of these capacity parameters was affected
by the truncation of the experimental force-displacement curve at a
lateral displacement significantly lower than the maximum dis-
placement attained during the test. The effectiveness of the IMG
system can be fully expressed by considering the entire postpeak
degrading branch (i.e., a force reduction of approximately 15%).
In this case, the linearization procedure by Tomaževič (2000)
led to μ ¼ 19:16, Rμ ¼ 6:11, Ω ¼ 1:92, and R ¼ 11:73, whereas
the procedure provided by EC8 (CEN 2004) and IBC (2008)
led to μ ¼ 8:67, Rμ ¼ 4:04, Ω ¼ 1:98, and R ¼ 8:02. These values
are significantly higher than those presented in Table 3 for the same
force reduction percentage (i.e., 5%).
Conclusions
Three in-plane lateral loading tests on a full-scale masonry
wall with an opening were presented and discussed. After the
experimental program was illustrated, damage patterns observed
during the tests were described. Finally, the experimental force-
displacement curves were analyzed and idealized as bilinear
diagrams to get some preliminary hints on nonlinear response of
the walls in terms of displacement ductility, overstrength, and
strength reduction factor.
In all tests, the spandrel panel affected both lateral resistance and
strength degradation of the wall and suffered the most damage.
Although the wooden lintel above the opening had a low anchorage
length, it played an important role in the load transfer between the
piers because it forced the masonry of the spandrel panel to absorb
and to dissipate input energy. Rocking of piers governed lateral
stiffness and hysteretic response, which was characterized by
low residual displacements and recentering behavior. No damage
was detected in the spandrel-pier nodal zones.
The IMG strengthening system was able to provide energy dis-
sipation capacity to the spandrel panel, restoring load-bearing
capacity of the as-built wall, and delaying strength degradation that
was indeed observed at larger displacements. The IMG system
behaved as an energy dissipation device for the spandrel panel
although allowing damage control in the piers. No debonding
phenomenon was detected, demonstrating the satisfactory compat-
ibility of the inorganic matrix with the porous substrate (i.e., tuff
masonry).
Displacement ductility, overstrength factor, and strength reduc-
tion factor were quite high not only for the repaired wall but also for
the as-built and predamaged walls, even if they were subjected just
to moderate drift demands. In fact, both overstrength and strength
 reduction factors were always higher than those suggested by
current seismic codes.
The reversibility of the IMG strengthening system makes it
an attractive tool for earthquake protection of cultural heritage
masonry buildings, in which principles of minimum intervention
are mandatory and their application is carefully checked by national
offices for historical heritage preservation. Ease of installation gives
the possibility of using IMG composites also for urgent remedial
works on damaged buildings during earthquake sequences.
Further experimental research is needed for the following
purposes: (1) to collect reliable estimates of displacement ductility,
global overstrength, and strength reduction factors for URM
systems made of natural and artificial masonry; and (2) to assess
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/15/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
the beneficial effects (such as, mitigation of out-of-plane collapse
modes and favorable interaction between orthogonal walls) that
the IMG strengthening system could provide if applied along the
whole perimeter of a masonry building.
Acknowledgments
This research was carried out in the framework of the ReLUIS-DPC
2005-2008 project (Line 1—Evaluation and reduction of the vul-
nerability of masonry buildings) funded by the Italian Department
of Civil Protection.
Notation
The following symbols are used in this paper:
C sd = strength degradation factor (¼ H θ max =H max );
d = lateral displacement of the subassemblage;
d cr = lateral displacement of the subassemblage at cracking;
d e = yielding lateral displacement of the idealized
SDOF system;
d u = ultimate lateral displacement of the idealized
SDOF system;
E = Young’s modulus;
f c = compressive strength;
f t = tensile strength;
G = shear modulus;
H = resisting force of the subassemblage;
H cr = cracking force of the subassemblage;
H max = maximum resisting force of the subassemblage;
H u = ultimate force of the idealized SDOF system;
H θ max = resisting force of the subassemblage at the maximum
interstory drift ratio;
K = secant lateral stiffness of the subassemblage at a given
displacement (¼ H=d);
K cr = secant lateral stiffness of the subassemblage at cracking
(¼ H cr =d cr );
K e = elastic stiffness of the idealized SDOF system;
R = total strength reduction factor of the subassemblage
(¼ Rμ Ω);
Rμ = ductility-related strength reduction factor of the
p
subassemblage (¼ ð2μ–1);
θ = interstory drift ratio of the subassemblage;
θcr = cracking interstory drift ratio of the subassemblage;
θe = yielding interstory drift ratio of the idealized SDOF
system;
θH max = interstory drift ratio of the subassemblage at the
maximum resisting force;
θmax = maximum interstory drift ratio of the subassemblage;
JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / JULY/AUGUST 2011 / 589
J. Compos. Constr. 2011.15:578-590.
μ = displacement ductility of the idealized SDOF system
(¼ d u =d e );
τ 0;min = minimum shear strength of masonry at zero-confining
stress;
τ 0;max = maximum shear strength of masonry at zero-confining
stress; and
Ω = overstrength factor of the subassemblage (¼ H u =H cr ).
References
ATC. (1998). FEMA 306: Evaluation of earthquake damaged concrete and
masonry wall buildings, Applied Technology Council, Redwood City,
CA.
Augenti, N. (2000). Il calcolo sismico degli edifici in muratura, UTET,
Turin, Italy (in Italian).
Augenti, N., and Parisi, F. (2009). “Non-linear static analysis of masonry
structures.” Paper No. S4-01, Proc., 13th Italian National Conf. on
Earthquake Engineering, Bologna, Italy.
Augenti, N., and Parisi, F. (2010). “Constitutive models for tuff masonry
under uniaxial compression.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 22(11), 1102–1111.
Benedetti, D., Carydis, P., and Limongelli, M. P. (2001). “Evaluation of the
seismic response of masonry buildings based on energy functions.”
Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 30(7), 1061–1081.
Benedetti, D., Carydis, P., and Pezzoli, P. (1998). “Shaking table tests on 24
masonry buildings.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 27(1), 67–90.
Brencich, A., Gambarotta, L., and Lagomarsino, S. (1998). “A macroele-
ment approach to the three-dimensional seismic analysis of masonry
buildings.” Proc., 11th European Conf. on Earthquake Engineering
(CD ROM), Paris.
Calvi, G. M., and Kingsley, G. R. (1996). “Problems and certainties in the
experimental simulation of the seismic response of MDOF structures.”
Eng. Struct., 18(3), 213–226.
Cattari, S., and Lagomarsino, S. (2008). “A strength criterion for the
flexural behaviour of spandrels in un-reinforced masonry walls.”
Proc., 14th World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, Paper
No. 05-04-0041.
Comité Européen de Normalisation (CEN). (2004). “Eurocode 8: Design of
structures for earthquake resistance—Part 1: General rules, seismic
actions and rules for buildings.” EN 1998-1:2004, Comité Européen
de Normalisation, Brussels, Belgium.
FEMA. (2000). “Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation
of buildings.” FEMA 356, Washington, DC.
Italian Building Code (IBC). (2008). “Norme Tecniche per le Costruzioni.”
D.M. 14.01.2008, Italian Ministry of Infrastructures and Transportation,
Rome (in Italian).
Magenes, G., and Calvi, G. M. (1997). “In-plane seismic response of brick
masonry walls.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 26(11), 1091–1112.
Magenes, G., and Della Fontana, A. (1998). “Simplified non-linear seismic
analysis of masonry buildings.” Proc., British Masonry Society, Vol. 8,
190–195.
Moon, F. L., Yi, T., Leon, R. T., and Kahn, L. F. (2007). “Testing of a full-
scale unreinforced masonry building following seismic strengthening.”
J. Struct. Eng., 133(9), 1215–1226.
Papanicolau, C. G., Triantafillou, T. C., Papathanasiou, M., and Karlos, K.
(2008). “Textile reinforced mortar (TRM) versus FRP as strengthening
material of URM walls: Out-of-plane cyclic loading.” Mater. Struct.,
41(1), 143–157.
Prota, A., Marcari, G., Fabbrocino, G., Manfredi, G., and Caldea, C.
(2006). “Experimental in-plane behavior of tuff masonry strengthened
with cementitious matrix-grid composites.” J. Compos. Constr., 10(3),
223–233.
Sheppard, P., and Lutman, M. (1988). “Estimation of expected seismic vul-
nerability: A simple methodology for medium sized groups of older
buildings.” Seismic risk assessment and design of building structures,
A. Koridze, ed., Omega Scientific, Wallingford, UK, 47–62.
Shing, P. B., Noland, J. L., Klamerus, E., and Spaeh, H. (1989). “Inelastic
behavior of concrete masonry shear walls.” J. Struct. Eng., 115(9),
2204–2225.
 Tomaževič, M. (2000). “Earthquake-resistant design of masonry build-
ings.” Series on innovation in structures and construction, A. S.
Elnashai, and P. J. Dowling, eds., Vol. 1, Imperial College Press,
London.
Turnšek, V., and Čačovič, F. (1970). “Some experimental results on the
strength of brick masonry walls.” Proc., 2nd Int. Brick and Block
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/15/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Masonry Conf., Stoke-on-Trent, UK, 149–156.
Uang, C. (1991). “Establishing R (or Rw ) and C d factors for building
seismic provisions.” J. Struct. Eng., 117(1), 19–28.
Vasconcelos, G., and Lourenço, P. B. (2009). “In-plane experimental
behavior of stone masonry walls under cyclic loading.” J. Struct.
Eng., 135(10), 1269–1277.

590 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / JULY/AUGUST 2011

J. Compos. Constr. 2011.15:578-590.