Construction and Building Materials 181 (2018) 335–346

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Review

A review of the use of stainless steel for masonry repair and

reinforcement
Marco Corradi ⇑, Andrea Di Schino, Antonio Borri, Riccardo Rufini
Department of Engineering, University of Perugia, Via Duranti, 92, 06125 Perugia, Italy

h i g h l i g h t s

This paper analyses retrofitting methods based on the use of stainless steel.

The chemical stability and the compatibility with masonry make stainless steel suitable for unprotected applications.

Stainless steel bars, cords and profiles have been used to reinforce or repair masonry members.

Reinforced structures presented enhanced behavior and increased structural response.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper focuses on the recent evolution of the utilization of stainless steel profiles for repair and rein-
Received 27 March 2018 forcement of historic masonry structures, which are often subjected to dynamic in-plane shear and out-
Received in revised form 4 June 2018 of-plane loading when struck by an earthquake. The conservation of the building heritage affords many
Accepted 5 June 2018
challenges to structural engineers and architects. Increase in static and dynamic load-capacity, compat-
Available online 13 June 2018
ibility of repair materials with historic masonry material, reversibility of reinforcement interventions,
limited increase in mass, preservation of the fair-faced aspect of the masonry are examples of common
Keywords:
issues showing the complexity of the design problem. The use of stainless steel alloys in structural engi-
Historic masonry
Stainless steel alloys
neering applications is not a new idea, but civil engineers have a limited knowledge of these alloys. This
Mechanical testing paper sets out the development of the retrofitting methods based on the use of stainless profiles and pre-
Repair and reinforcement techniques sents a review of experimental studies carried out into the mechanical behaviour of masonry structures
reinforced using stainless steel. A number of cases are considered and discussed (shear reinforcement of
wall panels, crack stitching, transversal connection of multi-leaf walls and retrofit of towers and chim-
neys) and conclusions are drawn from the reported studies.
Ó 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 336
2. Stainless steels: Material types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 336
3. Reinforcement methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339
3.1. Shear reinforcement of wall panels (CAM system) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339
3.2. Shear reinforcement of wall panels (Reticulatus system). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339
3.3. Reinforcement of masonry columns. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 340
3.4. Local repair (crack stitching) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341
3.5. Reinforcement of chimneys and towers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 342
3.6. Reinforcement of multi-leaf walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343
4. Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345
Conflict of interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345

⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: marco.corradi@unipg.it (M. Corradi).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.06.034
0950-0618/Ó 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
336 M. Corradi et al. / Construction and Building Materials 181 (2018) 335–346
1. Introduction
Stainless steel components are used increasingly for structural
applications, mainly for new constructions. However, the term
stainless steel is confusing as it refers to a large number of diverse
alloys with substantial different mechanical properties. There are
three main alloys used for structural applications: the ferritic, the
austenitic and the more recent duplex stainless steels [1–3].
With regard to the use of stainless steel for repair and reinforce-
ment of historic masonry constructions, there are many desirable
characteristics which can be exploited in a wide range of construc-
tion applications.
The chemical stability (i.e. the characteristic corrosion resis-
tance), the specific strength (material’s strength divided by its den-
sity), the compatibility with historic masonry make this family of
alloys suitable for outdoor, unprotected applications, in seismic
prone areas and this class of materials of interest for structural
engineers and conservators for a significant number of possible
applications.
First applications of stainless steel date back to the beginning
of the 20th century, when the use of austenitic steel alloys was
first experimented. An example of an interesting early application
is the steel tie used to reinforce and stabilize the dome of St
Paul’s Cathedral in London in the 1920s [4]. For some reasons,
the engineering community has paid more attention to the use
of FRPs (Fiber Reinforced Polymers) and very little, by compar-
ison, attention to the use of stainless steel, when the latter mate-
rial has been in the market for longer time and in many
applications. The similarity of stainless steel with more tradi-
tional steel (having less novelty and thus producing less interest),
the initial high cost of these alloys, the common exaggerated
belief of the outstanding properties of FRPs, the stronger commer-
cialization of the FRP products for repair and reinforcement of
masonry structures can be likely considered as the main causes
of this lack of attention.
However, the annual consumption of stainless steel alloys
recently increased dramatically, surpassing the growth rate of
other materials, and approximately 14% of this is now used in con-
struction [5].
In this context, the conservation of the architectural heritage
became, especially in Europe, an important issue, given its value
in terms of social, cultural and economic history. Some historic
structures, because of their importance, are often protected by
being in the guardianship of the state or local authorities (Conser-
vation Bodies, Municipalities, Regional Governments); these struc-
tures are mostly masonry structures dating from before 1920s.
Local authorities always require to use a repair and restoration
practice designed around the principal aim of preservation of as
much of the original masonry structure as possible (Minimal Inter-
vention), to use compatible new materials and reversible retrofit-
ting methods (i.e. reinforcements should be removable without
damaging the pre-existing masonry).
The high seismic hazard level of south-east countries of Europe
and the need for cost-effective solutions are other critical factors to
consider for successful reinforcement and repair of historic
masonry structures [6,7]. However, effective retrofitting methods
are sometimes the antithesis of compatibility and reversibility,
and structural engineers have to find creative compromises. This
encouraged research on the use of new materials and methods
for repair and reinforcement of buildings.
The importance of this field of research has been also recog-
nised through recent strategic investments in research and skills,
supported by the European Commission (Horizon H2020 call)
and national government funding (ReLuis in Italy, Heritage Lottery
Fund in UK, Aristion project in Greece, etc.).
One critical factor to consider is the very poor quality of historic
masonry material used to construct ordinary buildings. It is known
that masonry has a good structural response in compression but
has very limited shear and tensile strengths. Poor-quality masonry
(i.e. rubble and pebble stone masonry, constituting multi-leaf walls
assembled with inconsistent mortars made with a natural aerial
lime) is very common in historic constructions.
This often limited and made difficult the engineers’ work. In
many applications, the solution was to use FRPs, often composed
of thin fibres of carbon and glass, bonded with strong adhesives
(i.e. epoxy resins) to the deficient masonry material. Several stud-
ies demonstrate that it is possible to reinforce or repair masonry
structures using composite materials.
However, more recently, research addressed the problem of
durability and the sustainable characteristics of composite materi-
als when used to reinforce historic buildings and a number of crit-
icisms were raised: poor compatibility with standard construction
materials, reduced durability of the resins, fibres degradation, reli-
ance on oil (both carbon fibres and epoxy adhesives are made from
a pitch derived from oil processing), unsatisfactory outcomes of the
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), health and safety issues, difficulties in
removal (reversibility) [8–11].
For these reasons, conservation bodies and local authorities
often prohibit or limit the use of organic (epoxy) adhesives and
composite materials on buildings under their supervision.
The use of stainless steel can solve some of the above problems.
Stainless steel reinforcement is usually applied by means of
mechanical connectors (without the use of resins) or embedded
with lime mortars, its degradation on the long-term is much lower
compared to composite materials or standard steel [12–15],
complete reversibility can often be achieved and the isotropy of
the stainless steel material may represent a solution for multi-
directional loading actions, typical for a structure subjected to
static (gravity) and dynamic (earthquake) loads. Furthermore,
stainless steel alloys may be readily recycled and are highly
durable. Their high ductility and tensile strength are important
characteristics when used for structural applications in seismic
prone areas, and their attractive appearance and inherent
corrosion resistance, even when located in harsh surroundings
are additional key features. However, these alloys have not been
widely utilized in practice due to a lack of knowledge of their
structural behavior and cost limitations.
The objective of this study is to provide the spectrum of the
experimental research and practical applications carried out on
historic masonry buildings retrofitted using stainless steel profiles.
Different successful retrofitting techniques will be described in
some detail and applications to important listed monuments will
be demonstrated. However, some limitations and constraints still
exist, from both the mechanical and practical side. These early suc-
cesses coupled with others like these, resulted in an expansion of
use of stainless steel reinforcement in seismic applications not only
for shear walls but numerous other masonry members as well. In
this paper we briefly describe some possible future approaches
both in terms of new stainless steel materials and innovative retro-
fitting techniques. These solutions can be viewed as interesting
possibilities for the application of stainless steel to reduce the
seismic vulnerability of masonry buildings.
2. Stainless steels: Material types
Stainless steels are basically Fe (Iron) alloys with Cr (Chro-
mium) addition as the main alloying element (typically between
10 and 20%), favoring corrosion resistance by means of surface oxi-
dation and protection. Their corrosion resistance is about 200
times higher than that of common carbon steel.
 M. Corradi et al. / Construction and Building Materials 181 (2018) 335–346
The addition of other chemical elements, for example Ni, Mo
and Ti, is quite common for special purposes. These elements
strongly affect the microstructure evolution, the mechanical
behavior and the corrosion resistance. Corrosion resistance can
be improved by reducing Carbon (C) content and increasing some
other specific elements to the alloy.
Stainless steels can be divided into the following groups and
main steel chemical compositions are reported in Table 1:

Austenitic: austenitic steels are the greatest part of the general
stainless steel market. Main uses of such materials food pro-
cessing equipment, utensils for kitchen and medical equipment.
They are easily weldable and are usually divided into three fam-
ilies: Cr-Ni (300 series), Mn-Cr-Ni-N (200 series) and specialty
alloys. This family of material is non-magnetic and not heat-
treatable [16].

Ferritic: ferritic steels are characterized by very low Ni content,
Cr in the range 12–17%, C in very low percentage (<0.1%). Some
other alloying elements (e.g. Mo, Al, Ti) are often added. The
main characteristic of this family of materials is the combina-
tion of good ductility and formability. However, the behavior
at high-temperatures is relatively poor in comparison to auste-
nitic materials. Some ferritic stainless grades (for example 409
and 405) are cheaper than many other stainless steels. These
materials are magnetic but are not heat treatable.

Martensitic: martensitic steels are characterized by Cr in the
range 11–17%, Ni < 0.4% and high C content (1.2% C). The carbon
content of this hardenable steel has a strong effect on its forma-
bility and weldability. Preheating and post-welding heat treat-
ment is required to achieve the target properties and reduce
cracks formation. Martensitic stainless steels, e.g. 403, 410,
410NiMo and 420, are magnetic and heat-treatable. Main
applications of these stainless steels are in knives, cutting tools,
dental and surgical equipment.
Table 1
Stainless steels major alloy element compositions from EN10088 [minimum values in
(%)] [17,18].
Steel designation Type Cr Ni Mo
(Chromium) (Nickel) (Molybdenum)
1.4016 Ferritic 17.0 – –
1.4301 Austenitic 17.0 8.0 – the stainless steel world, is strongly affected by the application
1.4462 Duplex 21.0 4.5 2.5
Fig. 1. Examples of microstructures in stainless steels. a) austenitic stainless steel b) duplex stainless steel, bcc (body cubic center): ferritic phase; fcc (face cubic center)
austenitic phase.
337

Duplex: mainly adopted in chemical plants and piping applica-
tions. Duplex stainless steels are characterized by about 22–25%
Cr and 5% Ni with Mo and N addition. Such materials show
higher yield strength and stress corrosion cracking resistance
in chloride containing environments than austenitic stainless
steels. Due the presence of two crystallographic phases (ferrite
and austenite) in this family of steels high strength is achieved
together a high ductility (Fig. 1) [19].

Precipitation Hardening: this is a chromium-nickel stainless
also containing Al, Cu and Ti as alloying elements. These ele-
ments allow the material to be hardened by a solution and
aging heat treatment. If considered in the aged condition they
can show both austenitic or martensitic microstructure.
Prices of such materials are strongly dependent steel chemical
compositions, in particular on Ni content (hence on the corrosion
resistance). Nowadays (Jan 2018) typical prices are as following:
1. Ferritic steels: 1600 €/ton (EN 1.4016); 2. Austenitic steels:
2350 €/ton (EN 1.4301); 3. Duplex steels: 6500 €/ton (EN 1.4462).
In the case of particular aggressive environments, higher Ni con-
tents are required (>50%). Ni super-alloys are considered with
prices >9000 €/ton.
The parameter commonly defined in order to compare the cor-
rosion resistance of different steel grades is the Pitting Resistance
Equivalent Number (PRE), depending on steel chemical composi-
tion according to the following:
PRE ¼ Crð%Þ þ 3:3  Moð%Þ ð1Þ
In general, if PRE-value increases, the corrosion resistance of the
steel is improved. If PRE is higher than 32 the material is consid-
ered corrosion resistant to seawater. Furthermore, a PRE-value
40 for duplex steels by the EN ISO 15,156 [21] as well as by the
American NACE [22] for use in hydrogen sulfide environments as
in the case of oil and gas extraction industries. From the above con-
siderations, it appears that the key parameter for stainless steels
application is the proper combination of mechanical properties
and corrosion resistance (PRE), strongly depending on the steel
microstructure (Figs. 2 and 3). It is clear that moving from ferritic
steels towards austenitic and then duplex steels, the combination
yield strength/elongation is generally improved. At the same time
the corrosion resistance (PRE parameter) is increased.
This means that the steel grade selection, in the framework of
in terms of stress/elongation/environment requirements. If we
consider as a reference value 275 MPa yield strength (typical of
338 M. Corradi et al. / Construction and Building Materials 181 (2018) 335–346

Fig. 2. Indicative graph of corrosion resistance (PRE) vs. yield strength [20].

Fig. 3. Indicative graph of . corrosion resistance (PRE) vs. elongation capacity for different stainless steel grades [20].

the standard JR275 grade [27] usually adopted for civil applica-
tions) an elongation of 40% is found in the case of ferritic stainless
steels and of about 60% in the case of austenitic steels.
The type of application and the stress/elongation capacities of
stainless steel have a critical influence on the choice of steel grade.
Limited ductility is in general required for interventions of confine-
ment of masonry columns, while this mechanical parameter is
more important when the application is the shear or flexural rein-
forcement of wall panels. Ductility is also important for crack
stitching as it can facilitate a better stress distribution at interface
between original masonry-mortar-reinforcing bar. The corrosion
resistance (PRE) is critical for outdoor or unprotected applications:
this is the case of mechanically attached stainless steel profiles
used to reinforce deficient masonry structures (see Section 3.5).
The yield strength is closely related to the strength of the masonry
material: it is often useless to use high-strength stainless alloys for
applications on low-strength masonry structures, as it is difficult to
keep the compatibility of deformations between the two material
during loading.
It is also worth to be mentioned that the alloy cost increases as
moving from ferritic to austenitic and then duplex stainless steels,
being the price mainly depending on the alloying elements cost
(mainly on Ni market fluctuations) rather than on the process (flat
products instead of long products).
 M. Corradi et al. / Construction and Building Materials 181 (2018) 335–346
The elongation improvement moving from ferritic to austenitic
stainless steels implies also an increase of Charpy-V energy. In
Fig. 4 the impact energy dependence on test temperature is
reported for austenitic and ferritic stainless steels: it has to be
mentioned that higher impact energy values are found in the case
of stainless steels if the same temperature is considered. Further-
more, no ductile-brittle transition temperature is detected in the
case of the austenitic stainless steels, making them the best candi-
dates for low temperature applications (e.g. cryogenic tanks). On
the other hand, no differences in terms of elastic modulus are
found moving between different stainless steel families.
In general, the high elongation values of all stainless steels
make them suitable to be formed, so making stainless steel profiles
available for the construction market (Fig. 5). In addition, stainless
steel can be welded (due to its low carbon content) making welded
tubes available in the market.
3. Reinforcement methods
3.1. Shear reinforcement of wall panels (CAM system)
At the beginning of 21th century, a reinforcement method,
known as CAM system (acronym of Active Confinement of
Fig. 4. Impact toughness behavior of stainless steels [23].
Fig. 5. Example of stainless steel profiles on the construction market [24–27].
339
Masonry), has been proposed by Dolce et al. [28,29]. It consists
of stainless steel ribbons (0.75–0.80 mm thick and 18–20 mm
wide) (Fig. 6). These are used as tie rods opposing to both deforma-
tion and disconnection of wall panels. The plastic deformation of
the stainless steel ribbons and the capability of the system to con-
fine both low-quality and cracked walls, can produce a significant
increase of masonry lateral load capacity and ductility. The appli-
cation of the ribbons requires drilling of small transverse holes
(30–50 mm diameter) in the wall. The centre-to-centre distance
of the holes (typically between 700 and 1500 mm) and the number
of overlying steel ribbons depend on the mechanical characteristics
of the original masonry.
Special connection devices are also used to pre-stress the rib-
bons. These are applied all along the masonry load-bearing walls,
both horizontally and vertically, to improve not only the in-plane
lateral capacity but also the flexural (out-of-plane) resistance. All
mounting holes are countersunk at the ends to reduce local stress
concentration and to mitigate damage near the ribbon contact
points (Fig. 6).
More than 70 one-brick thick masonry elements, 900  900 
120 mm, made of tuff stones or solid bricks, have been realized
and tested by Dolce et al. [28,29]. The test results have shown a sig-
nificant increase of the shear strength of the strengthened panels
between +10% and +50% with respect to the unstrengthened ones.
Furthermore, the effectiveness of the technique has been success-
fully tested within an extensive experimental investigation on a
shaking table.
Recently, several laboratory tests were carried out on very low-
quality masonry [30,31]. These results also demonstrated the abil-
ity of the CAM reinforcement method of increasing the ductility of
the reinforced masonry members, highly improving their struc-
tural response during seismic events. Limited information was pro-
vided about the type of stainless alloy used for reinforcement.
3.2. Shear reinforcement of wall panels (Reticulatus system)
Another reinforcement technique for shear walls is the Reticu-
latus method [32]. It consists in the insertion in the mortar joints,
stripped to a depth of 40–60 mm, of stainless steel cords (typically
1–3 mm diameter) (Fig. 7). This allows to preserve the fair-faced
aspect of the masonry walls, as the cords are embedded with
new mortar into the pre-existing horizontal (bed joints) and
340 M. Corradi et al. / Construction and Building Materials 181 (2018) 335–346
Fig. 6. Reinforcement of shear walls: CAM method [28,29]: a) example of an application, b) detail of the joints, c) typical reinforcement layout.
Stainless Steel
Cord
Stainless steel bar (5-6 mm-diameter)
Nut
Restraint
Fig. 7. Detail of a transversal connection in the Reticulatus method [32].
vertical joints. The cords may be arranged to form a semi-square
mesh. The mesh size depends on the diameter/mechanical proper-
ties of the used cord and on the required improvement of masonry
shear strength. Typically, the opening size is 300–500 mm. 50% of
mesh nodes are also connected to the other face of wall by means
of transverse stainless steel solid bars (using 5–8 mm diameter
rods), in a number of 5–6 per m2 according to the scheme in
Fig. 8. The cords are arranged in vertical and horizontal directions,
forming approximately square meshes, the dimensions of which,
normally 300–500 mm wide, depend on the size of the stones
and the quality/mechanical properties of the pre-existing masonry
material. The authors did not provide sufficient information about
the type of stainless steel used in this application.
The solid bars are characterized by an eyelet-shaped end in
which the cords can slide: thus it is possible to apply a moderate
tension by pushing the bar into the hole, so as to make the cord
immediately functional (under tension). When the thickness of
the walls is such as to prevent the use of bars passing through
the entire thickness of the masonry (typically for walls with a
thickness of 600 mm and more), the connection can be made with
bars about 2/3 as long as the thickness of the wall, anchored with
the injecting of non-shrink high-strength mortar. A final layer of
new mortar, which completely covers both the cords and the eye-
lets of the solid bars, makes the reinforcement completely invisible
and to preserve the fair-faced aspect of the masonry. In order to
achieve an adequate increment in the wall lateral capacity, the
inventors suggests that the cord reinforcement should be applied
on both wall sides.
On-site testing has been conducted by Corradi et al. [32].
Results clearly demonstrate that it is possible to increase the lat-
eral load capacity of stonework wall panels by using this tech-
nique. Increases between 70 and 170% in shear strength
compared to unstrengthened panels have been measured.
3.3. Reinforcement of masonry columns
With regard to the use of stainless steel for confinement of
masonry columns, Borri et al. [33,34] proposed a retrofitting
method by using stainless cords inserted into the mortar bed
joints. This is suitable for reinforcing facing perfectly-cut stone or
brick columns of listed buildings and for buildings of historical or
architectural interest in general. The technique consists in raking
out the mortar joints of the columns to a depth of approx. 15
mm (being careful to remove only the damaged mortar) and, if
the cross section of the column is non-circular, in rounding their
corners up to a radius of 20 mm to avoid stress concentration
(Fig. 9). After rounding, steel angles can be located at the column’s
corners and the joint surface is well prepared with new
high-strength mortar (or epoxy resin) to provide smooth surface
to facilitate pre-tensioning of the cords. Then a 3–4 mm diameter
stainless steel cord is reduced to the needed length and inserted
in a transversal hole in the masonry column. This cord is then used
 M. Corradi et al. / Construction and Building Materials 181 (2018) 335–346 341

Stainless Steel Cord

Nodes/Connectors

(a)

Multi-leaf
(b)
Stone-masonry

Fig. 8. Reinforcement of shear walls: Reticulatus method: a) example of an application, b) detail of the joints [32].

Fig. 9. Confinement of square-cross section columns using stainless steel cords [33].

to wrap the column (once or twice) according to different strength-
ening schemes. In order to increase the column’s sectional area
effectively confined with the cord, two funnel-shaped steel devices
can be placed at both ends of each hole and then, passing the cords
through such devices (Fig. 10). This will further reduce stress
concentration and facilitate tensioning of the cords.
The ends of each stainless steel cord are connected to a mechan-
ical device (Fig. 11), needed to pre-stress the cord with a tensile
force. This in turn will confine the masonry material and will pro-
duce a compressive load-capacity increment of the masonry col-
umn. The authors suggest that the tensile load should have a
magnitude of approx. one tenth of the ultimate cord tensile capac-
ity, since an higher value might cause some local damage to the
masonry joints during the load application phase. During tensile
loading, cords are bonded to the column by injecting the holes
and pointing the mortar bed joints, which completely covers the
reinforcement. After about 24 h of curing time the tensile load
can be removed.
3.4. Local repair (crack stitching)
Damage on historic masonry constructions is usually associated
with high tensile demand, due to foundation settlement or moder-
ate to severe earthquakes, which lead to in-plane or out-of-plane
failure. These phenomena often cause large cracks or the separa-
tion of adjacent weakly connected wall leaves. It is common for
structural engineers to study and design solution concepts for a
local repair of portions of cracked masonry. The well-known stone
masonry indenting (‘‘cuci e scuci” in Italian, i.e. replacing cracked
stones and rebuilding sections of masonry in the area near the
crack) is often inappropriate as it causes a re-distribution of the
vertical stresses in the masonry material, leaving the new added
masonry uncompressed and unconnected with the pre-existing
one.
In this area, another interesting and relatively new technique
used to repair cracked brickwork or, more rarely, stone masonry
consists of the near surface insertion or mounting of twisted
342 M. Corradi et al. / Construction and Building Materials 181 (2018) 335–346
Fig. 10. Detail of the funnel-shaped steel device and stainless steel cord.
Fig. 11. Pre-stressing of the stainless steel cords inside the bed joints.
stainless steel bars to bond cracked walls or different unconnected
wall panels. This method is not new: many codes of practice
[35,36] provide provisions for the use bed joint reinforcement in
new masonry construction, this usually being in the form of stain-
less steel bars. However, its application for repair or reinforcement
of historic masonry is more recent.
Helical stainless steel reinforcing bars, with high tensile proper-
ties, are often used for strengthening and stabilising masonry in
remedial situations. The helical bars are typically bonded into mor-
tar joints or cut slots at pre-determined levels in the masonry using
an inorganic matrix (a thixotropic lime-based or cementitious
grout) (Fig. 12). The mechanical interlocking between the stainless
steel bar and the grout is the core element of this reinforcing sys-
tem, making it such a versatile and well-known masonry repair
system.
This retrofitting technique has been the subject of study of sev-
eral researchers. The overall effectiveness of the method was stud-
ied by Ismail and Ingham [37], finding that repairing not only
increased the strength of the cracked unreinforced walls to 434%,
when compared to the strength of the cracked walls, but also lar-
gely increased the ductility capacity of the walls (Fig. 13). Moreira
et al. [38] tested the pull-out behaviour of twisted stainless steel
bars in mortar joints, demonstrating the high bonding characteris-
tics of the bars in mortar (Fig. 12). These authors found that two
Fig. 12. Example of a helical stainless steel reinforcing bar [38].
failure modes were possible: the pull-out failure and the yielding
of the steel bar. Bond stress-slip curves were obtained for different
combinations of bar diameters, pre-drilled hole diameters and
anchorage lengths, considering only the pull-out failure. Recently,
Petersen et al. [39] proposed a method for a Finite element mod-
elling of unreinforced masonry shear walls strengthened using
twisted steel bars, providing a valuable method for design pur-
poses. This retrofitting technique, mainly used for crack stitching
in brickwork walls, has been successfully applied on listed build-
ings with the approval of the statutory conservation authorities
in many countries [40–43].
3.5. Reinforcement of chimneys and towers
With regard to masonry chimneys, an interesting solution has
been proposed by Jurina [44–46]. Industrial chimneys are very
common in many parts of Europe. In the 19th century, the indus-
trial revolution facilitated the expansion of a wide range of indus-
tries and chimneys provided the needed ventilation for hot flue
gases and smoke. These tall structures are usually made of solid
bricks and cement-based mortar. Typically, no render is applied
on them (Fig. 14).
Until recently, these structures were demolished and replaced
with new metal or composite ones. However, the growing interest
for industrial archaeology has led local authorities and conserva-
tion bodies to promote repair and reinforcement of these struc-
tures. The thermal load, produced by the high temperature gases,
is typically the main cause of the crack pattern. Vertical cracks,
mainly located near the mid-point (Half height) of the chimney
are common. In this context, Jurina proposed to apply stainless
rigid steel rings inside the chimneys (Fig. 15).
Jurina et al. [47] also proposed to apply a similar strengthening
scheme for the reinforcement and repair of civic and bell masonry
towers. This can be used for towers with octagonal and circular
cross section and it consists in the application of stainless steel
cords wound helicoidally both in a clockwise and anticlockwise
direction (Fig. 16). Cords are mechanically connected to the side
 M. Corradi et al. / Construction and Building Materials 181 (2018) 335–346 343

Fig. 13. Example of an on-site application of twisted stainless steel bars: a) insertion of the bar in the bed joint, b) detail of the reinforced joint [37].

Fig. 15. Detail of stainless steel plate inserted inside the chimney [46].

Fig. 14. Typical damage of brickwork chimneys.

walls of the tower, using appropriate anchor sleeves or connectors.

According to the author, these cords are able to absorb the stresses
produced by the internal vaults and arches, and the horizontal load
induced by the wind and seismic actions.

3.6. Reinforcement of multi-leaf walls

Multi-leaf walls are very common in many parts of Europe.

These are typically made of barely-cut or pebble stone masonry
with or without an inner rubble core (double- or triple-leaf wall,
respectively) [48]. During an earthquake their structural response
is often very poor and it is frequent that the external wall leaves
detach and collapse by overturning (Figs. 17 and 18).
Recently, Corradi et al. [49] proposed a new retrofitting tech-
nique to overcome this problem. The aim is to increase the level Fig. 16. Example of an intrados reinforcement of an octagonal mediaeval tower
of connection between adjacent wall leaves by inserting artificial using stainless steel cords [47].
344 M. Corradi et al. / Construction and Building Materials 181 (2018) 335–346

connectors (Fig. 19). The connectors are made of stainless steel

rods, with a diameter of 12–20 mm depending on the quality of
the masonry material and thickness of the wall, inserted in a fabric
sleeve (Fig. 20).
According to the authors, the method of application of the arti-
ficial connectors involves a multi stage process: 1. Drilling of the
wall panels from one side only with full-thickness holes, using a
diamond core drill bit to remove a cylinder of existing masonry
material (typically 70–90 mm diameter); 2. Insertion of the stain-
less steel rod inside the hole; 3. Application of a fabric sleeve to
be injected (step No. 5) with a cement-based grout at high-
pressure (3–5 atm, depending on the quality of the masonry mate-
rial). 4. Pre-tensioning of the stainless steel rod up to 10–20% of the
rod yielding strength using an appropriate mechanical device, 5.
Injection of grout; 6. Curing of the grout (varying between 12
and 20 days); 7. Removal of the pre-tensioning device.
In order to activate a mechanical interlocking between the new
connector and the masonry substrate, the hole can be countersunk
Fig. 17. Out-of-plane collapse mechanism of the external leaf of a stone masonry
at both ends up to a diameter 90% greater than the diameter of the
wall [49].
hole. The effect of pre-tensioning and countersinking is able to pro-
duce a confinement of the masonry material and thus can increase
the level of connection between wall leaves.
The use of a fabric sleeve can prevent unexpected scattering and
wastefulness of the grout between the masonry. The sleeve is able
to expand, moulding itself into the shape and voids within the wall,
providing a better bonding (mechanical interlocking) with the
preexisting masonry. Although the use of cement is generally

Fig. 18. Horizontal load capacities for multi-leaf walls (single, double and triple-
leaf) [49]. Fig. 20. Detail of the threaded stainless steel rod and the fabric sleeve [49].

Double-leaf wall

Hole countersinking
Pre-tensioning

16 70-90
40
Threated steel rod Confinement effect
Injection grout
Fabric sleeve

300-600
Fig. 19. Detail of the transversal connector (dimensions in mm) [49].
 M. Corradi et al. / Construction and Building Materials 181 (2018) 335–346
detrimental for architectural heritage, the high-strength cement-
based grout is used here for its thixotropic properties and its low
porosity, critical for the transmission of the shear loads between
the masonry leaves. It should be also pointed out that the quantity
of grout is extremely low.
As the anchoring system relies on the interlocking with the
masonry material, no front plates are needed and the disruption
to the architectural features is maintained to a minimum. A further
interesting characteristic of this retrofitting method is that the
reinforcing system is based on the use of materials easy to find
on the construction market (threaded stainless steel rods, fabric
bag-cases, cement-based grout).
4. Conclusions
The last two decades have been critical for total earthquake
deaths, loss and damage to the architectural heritage. Seismic
events in southern Europe, Middle East, Iran, Japan, New Zealand
and north Africa destroyed or damaged thousands of heritage
masonry structures. A main cause of deaths in earthquakes is the
large extent areas of poor quality masonry developed throughout
the world. In these areas the reconstruction and repair is underway
but engineers and architects are facing many challenges and new
retrofitting methods are often needed.
Today high performance stainless steel alloys can challenge not
only traditional construction materials, but also more modern
composite materials. Interesting features of stainless steel in
masonry reinforcement and repair are the resistance to corrosion,
high mechanical properties (especially in tension), compatibility
with masonry and the reversibility of the retrofitting intervention.
However, limited knowledge exists about stainless steel alloys,
especially to people working on reinforcement of historic masonry.
The term stainless steel is sometimes confusing as it refers to a
large number of diverse alloys with substantially different
mechanical properties.
This paper summarizes the key features used in the develop-
ment of new retrofitting methods for masonry shear panels, repair
of cracked walls, connection of multi-leaf walls and confinement of
masonry columns.
It can be concluded that the amount of experience varies with
the perceived economic and safety benefits. Academic research
has been conducted starting from late 1990s and a review of the
main retrofitting techniques was reported in this paper, although
the need for brevity prevents all topics from being fully addressed.
The type of used stainless steel was often omitted by the propo-
nents in their scientific publications or reports. However, experi-
mental campaigns and field applications are increasing in
number and long-term experience with these alloys is rapidly
accumulating.
Given the limitations and recommendations from heritage con-
servation organizations and statutory bodies in their efforts to pre-
vent the use of non-compatible, non-durable materials and non-
reversible retrofitting interventions on the monuments in their
portfolio and the increasing interest to ensure that architectural
heritage remain in use for future generations, stainless steel may
represent a viable solution. However, little knowledge is available
on the use of stainless steel alloys for repair and reinforcement of
historic masonry. Several studies were not properly presented in
international scientific journals and some interesting research out-
comes can only be acceded in local languages (mainly in Italian).
Limited knowledge also exists in the Civil Engineering community
about different types, characteristics and grades of stainless steel
and this complicates the technicians work.
With regard to reinforcement of shear walls, two retrofitting
techniques were described in this paper. Both of them demon-
345
strated to be effective in increasing the lateral load-capacity and
shear stiffness of historic wall panels.
The use of stainless steel cords, embedded in the mortar joints,
was investigated with the aim at increasing the compressive
capacity of non-circular masonry columns by confinement effect.
Another interesting and relatively new technique to repair
cracked brickwork consists in the near surface insertion or mount-
ing of twisted stainless steel bars to bond cracked walls or different
unconnected wall panels. The use of helical stainless steel reinforc-
ing bars, with high tensile properties, is discussed and it is demon-
strated how this can strengthen and stabilise masonry in remedial
situations.
Finally, an application of stainless steel rods used to increase
the level of connection between adjacent wall leaves was also
reported and described.
It would be naive to suggest that stainless steel alloys will dis-
lodge traditional construction materials from their dominant role,
but for several applications (and repair and reinforcement of his-
toric masonry is likely to be one of the most promising) these
alloys may spark an interest amongst engineers and technicians.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to record their appreciation to Mr. Marco
Frigo of Outokumpu. The authors are also grateful for continuing
support from colleagues in the Department of Engineering (Univer-
sity of Perugia).
References
[1] G. Gedge, Structural uses of stainless steel—buildings and civil engineering, J.
Constr. Steel Res. 64 (2008) 1194–1198.
[2] G. Gedge, Duplex steels for durable bridge construction, The International
Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering (IABSE) Conference, 2007.
Weimar, Germany.
[3] N.R. Baddoo, B. Burgan, Structural Design of Stainless Steel, Steel Construction
Institute, London, 2001. SCI P291.
[4] J.F. McGurn, Stainless steel reinforcing bars in concrete, Proceedings of the
Intern. Conference of Corrosion and Rehabilitation of Reinforced Concrete
Structures FHWA, 1998. Orlando, Florida, USA.
[5] N.R. Baddoo, Stainless steel in construction: a review of research, applications,
challenges and opportunities, J. Constr. Steel Res. 64 (2008) 1199–1206.
[6] A. Bayraktar, N. CoSkun, A. Yalçin, Damages of masonry buildings during the
July 2, 2004 Doğubayazit (Ağri) earthquake in Turkey, Eng. Fail. Anal. 13 (2007)
147–157.
[7] G. Brandonisio, G. Lucibello, E. Mele, A. De Luca, Damage and performance
evaluation of masonry churches in the 2009 L’Aquila earthquake, Eng. Fail.
Anal. 34 (2013) 693–714.
[8] W. Chu, L. Wu, V.M. Karbhari, Durability evaluation of moderate temperature
cured E-glass/vinylester systems, Compos. Struct. 66 (2004) 367–376.
[9] F. Micelli, A. Nanni, Durability of FRP rods for concrete structures, Constr. Build.
Mat. 18 (2004) 491–503.
[10] Y. Chen, J.F. Davalos, I. Ray, H.Y. Kim, Accelerated aging tests for evaluations of
durability performance of FRP reinforcing bars for concrete structures,
Compos. Struct. 78 (2007) 101–111.
[11] V.M. Karbhari, J.W. Chin, D. Hunston, B. Benmokrane, T. Juska, R. Morgan, J.J.
Lesko, U. Sorathia, D. Reynaud, Durability gap analysis for fiber-reinforced
polymer composites in civil infrastructure, J. Compos. Constr. ASCE 7 (2003)
238–247.
[12] E. Krempl, An experimental study of room-temperature rate sensitivity, creep
and relaxation of AISI 304 stainless steel, J. Mech. Phys. Solids 27 (5–6) (1979)
363–375.
[13] L. Gardner, The use of stainless steel in structures, Prog. Struct. Eng. Mater. 7
(2) (2005) 45–55.
[14] M. Tendo, T. Takeshita, T. Nakazawa, H. Abo, Room temperature creep behavior
of austenitic stainless steels, Stainless Steels 1 (1991) 487–493.
[15] ISO 3506-1:1998 Mechanical properties of corrosion resistant stainless steel –
Part 1: Bolts, screws and studs. International Standards Organization, 1998.
[16] R. Sanstrom, H. Bergqvist, Temperature dependence of tensile properties and
strengthening of nitorgen alloyed austenitic stainless steels, Scand. J. Metal. 6
(1977) 156–169.
346 M. Corradi et al. / Construction and Building Materials 181 (2018) 335–346
[17] EN10088 Part 1, Stainless steels Part 1 – List of stainless steels, BSI, 1995.
[18] EN10088 Part 2, Stainless steels. Technical delivery conditions for sheet/plate
and strip of corrosion resisting steels for general purposes, BSI, 2005.
[19] International Molybdenum Association, Practical guidelines for the fabrication
of duplex stainless steels, 2001.
[20] http://www.outokumpu.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/Outokumpu-Product-
Range-Wallchart.pdf, (accessed 19 feb. 2018).
[21] European Standard EN ISO 15156-1:2015, NACE MR0175 Petroleum and
natural gas industries – Materials for use in H2S-containing environments in
oil and gas production – Part 1: General principles for selection of cracking-
resistant materials.
[22] National Association of Corrosion Engineers, NACE, TM-01-69:1995 (R2000) –
Laboratory Corrosion Testing of Metals.
[23] G. Di Caprio, Gli acciai inossidabili, 2003, Hoepli ed.
[24] European Standard EN 10025-1:2004 Hot rolled products of structural steels.
General technical delivery conditions.
[25] Stainless steel products, Montanstahl, https://www.montanstahl.com
(accessed 1 June 2018).
[26] Stainless steel products, Helifix reinforcements, https://www.helifix.com
(accessed 1 June 2018).
[27] Stainless steel products, Stainless UK Ltd, https://www.stainless-uk.co.uk/
(accessed 1 June 2018).
[28] M. Dolce, D. Nigro, F.C. Ponzo, R. Marnetto, The CAM system for the retrofit of
masonry structures, in: Proceedings of the 7th International Seminar on
Seismic Isolation, Passive Energy Dissipation and Active Control of Vibrations
of Structures, Assisi, 2001, pp. 2–5.
[29] M. Dolce, F.C. Ponzo, M. Di Croce, C. Moroni, F. Giordano, D. Nigro, R. Marnetto,
Experimental assessment of the CAM and DIS-CAM systems for the seismic
upgrading of monumental masonry buildings, Proceedings of the 1st
International Conference on Protection of Historical Constructions, Rome,
Italy, 2009.
[30] R. Marnetto, A. Vari, M. Leonori, Conservare l’edilizia in muratura: il sistema
CAM-Cuciture Attive dei Manufatti, 1th ed., Preprogetti S.r.l., Rome, 2014.
[31] N. Spinella, P. Colajanni, A. Recupero, Experimental in situ behaviour of
unreinforced masonry elements retrofitted by pre-tensioned stainless steel
ribbons, Constr. Build. Mater. 73 (2014) 740–753.
[32] M. Corradi, A. Borri, G. Castori, R. Sisti, The Reticulatus method for shear
strengthening of fair-faced masonry, Bull. Earth. Eng. (2016) 1–25.
[33] A. Borri, G. Castori, M. Corradi, Masonry confinement using steel cords, J.
Mater. Civ. Eng. 25 (2013) 1910–1919.
[34] A. Borri, G. Castori, M. Corradi, Strengthening of fair face masonry columns
with steel hooping, Mater. Struct. 47 (2014) 2117–2130.
[35] Masonry Standards Joint Committee. Building code requirements for masonry
structures (TMS 402-11/ACI 530-11/ASCE 5-11), The Masonry Society, Boulder,
CO, 2011.
[36] TEK 12-2B, Joint reinforcement for concrete masonry, National Concrete
Masonry Association (NCMA), 2005.
[37] N. Ismail, J.M. Ingham, In-situ and laboratory based out-of-plane testing of
unreinforced clay brick masonry walls strengthened using near surface
mounted twisted steel bars, Constr. Build. Mater. 36 (2012) 119–128.
[38] S. Moreira, L.F. Ramos, B. Csikai, P. Bastos, Bond behaviour of twisted stainless
steel bars in mortar joints, 9th International Masonry Conference, 2014.
Guimarães, Portugal.
[39] R.B. Petersen, N. Ismail, M.J. Masia, J.M. Ingham, Finite element modelling of
unreinforced masonry shear wallets strengthened using twisted steel bars,
Constr. Build. Mater. 33 (2012) 14–24.
[40] G. Barluenga, F. Estirado, R. Undurraga, J.F. Conde, F. Agua, M.Á. Villegas, M.
García-Heras, Brick masonry identification in a complex historic building, the
Main College of the University of Alcala, Madrid (Spain), Constr. Build. Mater.
54 (2014) 39–46.
[41] A.H. Akhaveissy, G. Milani, A numerical model for the analysis of masonry
walls in-plane loaded and strengthened with steel bars, Int. J. Mech. Sci. 72
(2013) 13–27.
[42] R. Chmielewski, L. Kruszka, Application of selected modern technology
systems to strengthen the damaged masonry dome of historical St. Anna’s
Church in Wilanów (Poland), Case Studies, Constr. Mater. 3 (2015) 92–101.
[43] B. Balduzzi, D. Mazza, D. Papis, Ch. Rossi, P.P. Rossi, Experimental and
numerical analysis for the strengthening intervention of the bell-tower of St.
Sisto’s Church in Bergamo, in: P.B. Lourenço, P. Roca, C. Modena, S. Agrawal
(Eds.), Structural Analysis of Historical Constructions, 2012. New Delhi, India.
[44] L. Jurina, Tecniche di cerchiatura di colonne in muratura, Structural 164 (2010)
38–49 [in Italian].
[45] L. Jurina, Cerchiatura di strutture murarie: tecniche tradizionali ed innovative,
Ingenio (2015) 1–35 [in Italian].
[46] L. Jurina, M. Mazzoleni, Un sistema di‘‘ cerchiatura interna” per il
consolidamento di ciminiere in muratura. Tercer Colloquio Latinoamericano
sobre Rescate y Preservaciòn del Patrimonio Industrial, Santiago del Cile, 2001,
pp. 13–16.
[47] L. Jurina, M. Jadicicco Spignese, L’acciaio inossidabile nel consolidamento delle
strutture, In Progettare e costruire con l’acciaio inossidabile, Milano, 2000, [in
Italian].
[48] M.R. Valluzzi, F. Da Porto, C. Modena, Behavior and modeling of strengthened
three-leaf stone masonry walls, Mater. Struct. 37 (4) (2004) 184–192.
[49] M. Corradi, A. Borri, E. Poverello, G. Castori, The use of transverse connectors as
reinforcement of multi-leaf walls, Mater. Struct. 50 (2017) 1–14.