Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1842–1860

www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Modelling and analysis of FRP-strengthened masonry panels

Ernesto Grande a , Gabriele Milani b , Elio Sacco a,∗
a Department of Mechanics, Structures and Environments, University of Cassino, Via G. Di Biasio 43, 03043 Cassino, Italy
b Department of Engineering, University of Ferrara, Via Saragat 1, 44100 Ferrara, Italy

Received 21 March 2007; received in revised form 3 October 2007; accepted 3 December 2007
Available online 22 January 2008

Abstract

The aim of this paper is the development of suitable mechanical models able to reproduce and, hence, to predict the response of masonry
structures. In particular, the study is addressed to the modelling of strengthened masonry structures in which the introduction of new types
of reinforcement, particularly the FRP (fibre-reinforced plastic) materials, strongly affects the structural response through complex interaction
mechanisms between masonry and strengthening elements.
In this paper two different approaches able to model the behaviour of un-reinforced and reinforced masonry structures are proposed. The first
one is based on a micro-mechanical and multiscale analysis combined with the use of the kinematic and static theorems of the limit analysis;
in this case a rigid-perfectly plastic constitutive relationship is considered for the masonry material and for the FRP–masonry interaction. The
second approach is based on the use of macroscopic models. In this case, the constitutive relationship for the masonry material accounts for the
softening effect throughout the use of a smeared crack approach. Moreover, different modelling strategies and constitutive laws are adopted for
the FRP-reinforcement addressing particular regard to the delamination phenomenon.
Numerical computations are developed for un-strengthened and FRP-strengthened masonry panels. The obtained results, in terms of the global
response of the examined panels, are compared with the data available from experimental tests and interesting aspects are remarked.
c 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Masonry; FRP reinforcement; Constitutive modelling; Structural analysis; Validation

1. Introduction of-thumb or empirical formulae adopted to evaluate the

Civil and historical masonry constructions can present
significant states of degradation due to the action of different
possible causes. In fact, the damage of masonry structures
can be induced by degradation of the construction materials,
deficiencies in the design and action of new loading conditions.
As a consequence, the evaluation of the structural safety state of
masonry buildings represents an important task for the engineer.
Although the masonry construction technique is very old, the
analysis of masonry buildings is still a difficult problem, despite
the fact that many efforts have been done by civil engineering
researchers in this field.
In fact, in the last decades, the scientific community has
demonstrated great interest in the development of sophisticated
numerical tools as an opposition to the tradition of rules-
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +39 0776 2993659; fax: +39 0776 2993392.
E-mail address: sacco@unicas.it (E. Sacco).
safety of masonry buildings. In particular, nonlinear models
implemented in suitable finite elements formulations currently
represent the most common advanced strategy to simulate the
structural behaviour of masonry structures.
The problem of performing reliable analyses becomes
even more important when a decision is required about
the opportunity of repairing the construction and to design
the strengthening. Moreover, in the last decades the use of
innovative FRP (fibre-reinforced plastic) materials for the
strengthening of masonry structures has received great interest
in the scientific and industrial world. The main problem in the
development of accurate stress analysis for masonry structures
is the definition and the use of suitable material constitutive
laws. In the last twenty years several authors, (e.g. van Zijl [1],
Berto et al. [2], Pietruszczak and Ushaksaraei [3]), have
proposed different modelling strategies to predict the structural
response of masonry structures and, consequently, to assess the
safety level of existing buildings.

c 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

0141-0296/$ - see front matter
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.12.007
 E. Grande et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1842–1860 1843

Notation t(k) Versor perpendicular to s(k)

tFRP FRP thickness
The following symbols are used in this paper: u ix x (u iyy ) ith node horizontal (vertical) velocity
E
ũ M,i Masonry velocity in the direction of the
Aeq (Ain ) Assembled equality (inequality) constraints reinforcement
matrix for the lower bound LP problem uss Vector of interface directions velocities
eq
à Assembled equality constraints matrix for the U Assembled vector of kinematic unknowns (UB
upper bound LP problem limit analysis)
A(i) Area of the ith triangular element X LP optimization variables
b Body force xs Abscissa measuring points on rollers
beq (bin ) Right-hand sides of equality (inequality) con- (k)
Xi j (y) Vector containing geometrical information of the
straints for LP problems unit cell and subdomain
eq
b̃ Right-hand sides of equality (inequality) con- Y M (∂Y M ) Unit cell (boundary of the unit cell)
straints for the upper bound LP problem α Macroscopic model, parameter which controls
b f (b) Width of FRP (width of the support) the shear stress contribution to the failure
c1 Constant; assumed equal to 0.015 in Eq. (14) β Macroscopic model, parameter which controls
CTE (CTI ) Assembled right-hand sides of masonry lin- the coupling between the normal stress values
earized failure surface inequalities in continuum γ Macroscopic model, parameter which controls
(interfaces) the shear stress contribution to failure
CTI FRP (CTFRP ) Assembled right-hand sides of masonry/FRP γM Partial safety factor for masonry
interface (FRP) linearized failure surface inequal- γfd Reducing code factor, assumed equal to 1.2 or 1.5
ities Γ̇ E Interface jump of velocities field of element E
E (i) Typical triangular element in FE limit analysis Γ Fd Design specific fracture energy of the FRP-
E FRP Young’s modulus of FRP reinforcement strengthened masonry
fb Ultimate shear strength of the interface 0̇ Assembled masonry/FRP interface jump of
f d+f ( f d−f ) Failure tensile (compressive) strengths of the velocities field
reinforcement corresponding to the failure of the ∆u I Jump of velocities vector at each interface
FRP or to the delamination of the FRP–masonry
∆vi (∆u i ) Normal (tangential) jump of velocity on an
interface.
interface, node i
f mk Characteristic value of the compressive strength (k)
ϑs Angle of the kth FRP strip with respect to the
of masonry
horizontal direction
f f dd Design bond strength
λ Load multiplier
f mtm Masonry average tensile strength I FRP ,ass
f f dd,rid Reduced value of the design bond strength λ̇ Assembled masonry/FRP interface plastic mul-
G f cx (G f cy ) Fracture energies in the compression range tiplier rates
FRP,ass
for x- (y-) direction λ̇ Assembled FRP plastic multiplier rates
(q) −(q)
G f x (G f y ) Fracture energies in the tension range for x- λ̇ E FRP (λ̇ E FRP ) FRP plastic multiplier rates, element E,
(y-) direction node q associated to τ (q) = f bd (τ (q) = − f bd )
lb Bond length of FRP elements +(q) −(q)
λ̇ E FRP (λ̇ E FRP ) Masonry/FRP interface plastic multiplier
le Optimal bond length of FRP elements I I
(k) (q)
lw kth FRP strip width rates, element E, node q associated to σss = f d+f
(k) (q)
ls kth FRP strip length (σss = f d−f )
Ls Supports length σ Microscopic in-plane stress tensor
m and n Generic triangular elements σ ss Reinforcement stress vector
nΣ = [α11 α22 α12 ]T Versor in the macroscopic stress σ Reference yield strength
space 6(Σi j ) Macroscopic in-plane stress tensor (i j compo-
(k)
NE Typical node of an element E, kth FRP strip nent)
Si j Vector of global linearly independent unknowns σcx (σcy ) uniaxial compressive strengths along x (y)
in the homogenization model σt x (σt y ) uniaxial tensile strengths along along x (y)
Sk Failure surface of component k (kth subdomain), σxNx (σxNy ) [σ yy N ] Horizontal, (vertical) [shear] stress on

corresponding to bricks or mortar a node N of an element

S block (S mortar ) Block (mortar) failure surface τ Interface shear stress
S̃ hom Homogenized material strength domain τ (k) Tangential stress acting at the interface masonry/kth
s (k) kth FRP strip thickness FRP strip
s(k) Direction versor of the kth FRP strip τb Shear stress at the interfaces
1844 E. Grande et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1842–1860
ϕ̇ Rotation velocity at the supports
Ω Generic masonry wall
Ωf Reinforced part of a wall
Ωm Un-reinforced part of a wall
Taking into account the heterogeneity of the masonry
material, which results from the composition of blocks joined
together by mortar beds, the models proposed in the literature
can be categorized in the three different classes briefly
described below.
• Micro-models consider the units and the mortar joints
separately, characterized by different constitutive laws;
thus, the structural analysis is performed by considering
each constituent of the masonry material. The mechanical
properties that characterize the models adopted for units and
mortar joints, are obtained through the experimental tests
conducted on the single material components (compressive
test, tension test, bending test, etc.). This approach leads
to structural analyses characterized by great computational
effort; in fact, in a finite element formulation framework,
both the unit blocks and the mortar beds have to be
discretized, obtaining a problem with a high number of nodal
unknowns. Nevertheless, this approach can be successfully
adopted for reproducing laboratory tests (e.g. Lofti and
Shing [4], Giambanco and Di Gati [5], Alfano and
Sacco [6]).
• Micro–macro models consider different constitutive laws
for the units and the mortar joints; then, a homogenization
procedure is performed by obtaining a macro-model for
masonry which is used to develop the structural analysis.
Also in this case, the mechanical properties of units and
mortar joints are obtained through experimental tests. The
micro–macro models appear very appealing, as they allow
us to derive in a rational way the stress–strain relationship
of the masonry, accounting in a suitable manner for
the mechanical properties of each material component.
Moreover, this approach can lead to effective models
(e.g. Luciano and Sacco [7], Milani et al. [8,9]).
• Macro-models, or macroscopic models, are based on the
use of phenomenological constitutive laws for the masonry
material; i.e. the stress–strain relationships adopted for
the structural analysis are derived by performing tests on
masonry, without distinguishing the blocks and the mortar
behaviour. A macroscopic model could be unable to describe
in a detailed manner some micro-mechanisms occurring in
the damage evolution of masonry, but it is very effective
from a computational point of view when structural analyses
are performed [10,11].
With the aim of reproducing the behaviour of FRP-
strengthened masonry panels, in this paper two models,
based on a micro–macro and a macromodelling approach are
presented, adopting different constitutive laws and yielding
criteria both for masonry and FRP strengthening.
The first model relies on a homogenized limit analysis
approach. The homogenized strength domain of masonry is
obtained by means of a simple equilibrated and admissible
micro-mechanical model. The unit cell is subdivided into
a finite number of subdomains and for each subdomain, a
polynomial expansion of the micro-stress field is assumed.
In this way a lower bound approximation of masonry
failure surface is obtained, numerically solving a standard
linear programming problem for several assigned directions
of the macro-stress field. The macroscopic strength domain
so recovered is finally implemented in limit analysis FE
(finite elements) codes (both lower and upper bound) and
entire un-reinforced and reinforced walls are analyzed at the
collapse. FRP strips contribution is taken into account by
assuming that masonry and FRP layers interact by means of
interfacial tangential actions. Furthermore, a limited tensile
strength for the reinforcement is also considered. In this way,
the delamination phenomenon is taken into account in the
framework of limit analysis only in an approximate way.
It can be remarked that the limit analysis approach is based
on the use of a perfectly plastic material response of masonry,
FRP and of FRP–masonry interface, i.e. the softening effect
cannot be considered in this framework. As a consequence, the
first approach could fail in some cases.
Therefore, more sophisticated models able to take into
account masonry damage can be adopted. In fact, the masonry
is characterized by a typical softening behaviour, essentially
due to the formation and growth of the cracks in the bricks
and mortar joints. Indeed, masonry shows a softening behaviour
not only in tension, but also in compression and in the case
of shear stresses, i.e. when the mode II fracture is active. This
latter mechanism consists of a slip of the brick–mortar interface
under shear loads.
In the nonlinear FE method, the presence of the
strain softening results in several computational troubles
as localization and spurious mesh sensitivity [12]. With
the purpose to overcome such difficulties, many authors
have proposed the introduction of mathematical conditions
(localization limiters) in the material model. In particular, a
simple and quite effective technique able to prevent the mesh
objectivity and localization is the crack band model proposed
by Bazant [12]. In this case, a regularization of the energy
dissipation is achieved by assuming that the inelastic work
is uniformly distributed over an equivalent length h which is
related to the area of a finite element.
A further modelling problem is related to the simulation
of FRP-reinforcement behaviour, which are possibly glued on
the masonry external surfaces. Indeed, the FRP strips behave
as a linear-elastic material until a perfectly brittle failure
occurs; some modelling difficulties can arise when the possible
decohesion between the FRP and the masonry is considered.
Different approaches can be developed in order to reproduce the
presence of the FRP strengthening and its possible decohesion.
On the basis of the above discussion, a macroscopic model
accounting for the damage and softening is also adopted in
this paper to reproduce the behaviour of reinforced masonry
structures. Nowadays, several FE codes include the possibility
to perform nonlinear analyses by considering the material
damage and softening. However, the use of these codes is not
 E. Grande et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1842–1860 1845

Fig. 1. Model adopted for the homogenized limit analysis approach. (a) Heterogeneous model; (b) un-reinforced masonry homogenization; (c) macroscopic
approach (masonry homogenized + FRP).

always easy, particularly when new structural features must be detailed description of the examined cases, particular regard
simulated. In fact, in these cases, it is important to exploit the has been addressed both to the phase of parameter setting and
capabilities of the codes developing suitable strategies based on to the comparison between experimental and analytical results.
the combination of special elements available in the FE codes. Finally in the Section 5 of the paper, concluding remarks are
In this paper, the commercial nonlinear FE code DIANA reported, reviewing the proposed models features in the light of
9.1 [13] has been used; different numerical models obtained the obtained results.
from the combination of constitutive laws and special features
implemented in DIANA are adopted to simulate the behaviour 2. Limit analysis with homogenization model
of the reinforced masonry, with a critical discussion of the use
of the available elements. In this section, a homogenization approach combined with
In particular, two different models, denoted as MA and limit analysis suitable for the evaluation of the collapse loads
MB, are assumed for the masonry material. Model MA and failure mechanisms of FRP-reinforced masonry panels is
is an orthotropic elastic-perfectly plastic continuum model presented.
with a Hoffmann failure criterion, whereas Model MB is The application of FRP strips on masonry (Fig. 1(a)) is
an orthotropic softening continuum model including a Hill- treated by adopting a simplified multistep approach.
In the first step, denoted here as micro-scale (Fig. 1(b)),
type yield criterion in compression and a Rankine-type yield
un-reinforced masonry, regarded as a periodic heterogeneous
criterion in tension (see [10]). For FRP-strengthened panels,
material, is substituted with a homogeneous macroscopic
only Model MB is adopted for masonry.
Regarding the behaviour of the layer between masonry material using a homogenization technique. In particular, an
and the FRP strengthening, it can be simulated by adopting estimation of the homogenized un-reinforced masonry strength
“special” elements (interface elements) which connect the domain is obtained by means of a micro-mechanical model
nodes of the mesh of panel to the nodes of the FRP elements based on the lower bound theorem of limit analysis, as proposed
or, in a simplified manner, adopting “special” constitutive laws by Milani et al. [8,9].
In the second step, macro-scale (Fig. 1(c)), FRP-
for FRP-strengthening elements. In this paper, for the FRP
reinforcement strips are introduced on the already homogenized
strips, two different models, denoted as MRA and MRB, are
masonry material.
used. Both models consider the reinforcement perfectly glued
Adopting an associated flow rule for the constituent
to the masonry support. In model MRA the reinforcement is
materials, a lower bound approximation of the homogenized
modelled by a linear-elastic constitutive relation, whereas in
strength domain S hom of un-reinforced masonry can be
model MRB a bilinear constitutive relation characterized by
obtained, as proved in Ref. [8], by solving the following
brittle behaviour is adopted, assuming different values of the
problem:
axial strength of the FRP elements. In both cases, the FRP
strips are modelled using truss elements directly connected to Z
 1
the nodes of the mesh of the panels.  6 = hσ (y)i = σ (y)dY M (a)
|Y M | Y M


The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 the 
σ (y) · n(y) antiperiodic on ∂Y M (b)


micro–macro model is presented, deriving the upper and lower ∂ S hom = max{Σ }| (1)
divσ (y)
  = 0 onblock YM (c)
bounds of the collapse load. In Section 3 the macro modelling 
σ (y) ∈ S ∀y ∈ block
(d)

with

approach is described, presenting two material models for the σ (y) ∈ S mortar ∀y ∈ mortar


masonry and for the FRP–masonry interface. Section 4 deals

with numerical applications regarding five un-strengthened where Y M and ∂Y M are the unit cell and its boundary, re-
and FRP-strengthened masonry walls. In this part, after a spectively (Fig. 1(b)); h·i is the average operator; ∂ S hom is the
1846 E. Grande et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1842–1860

 
max
1 4k
  
  X
[Σ11 Σ22 Σ12 ] = λnΣ =

 
 

 











 Z h Y k=1
  
(k) (k) (k)
i
max{λ} σ11 σ22 σ12 dY (a)
  
∂ S̃ hom = P ≡ [Σ11 Σ22 Σ12 ]T |
  such that  Y
(k)
  
σi j = X(k) (y) SiTj y ∈ Y k (b)

 
 


 
 


 
 

 (k)
σ ∈ S k k = 1, . . . , 4k max (c)

 

 

Box I.

Fig. 2. Subdivision of the elementary cell in subdomains for the micro-mechanical model.

boundary of S hom ; S block and S mortar represent the bricks and
the mortar strength domains, respectively.
Condition (1)(a) defines the macroscopic stress Σ as an
average of the microscopic stress σ on the periodic cell,
whereas condition (1)(b) represents the continuity of the micro-
stress vector between two adjacent unit cells. Condition (1)(c)
imposes micro-equilibrium on the cell and condition (1)(d)
represents the material admissibility for blocks and mortar,
respectively.
An approximate but satisfactory estimation of masonry
homogenized strength domain S̃ hom can be obtained by
adopting the simplified micro-mechanical model [8,9]. One-
fourth of the periodic unit cell is subdivided into nine
geometrical elementary entities (subdomains), as shown in
Fig. 2, so that the whole cell is subdivided into 36 subdomains.
A plane stress state is assumed for masonry and polynomial
distributions of degree m are assumed a priori for the stress
components within each subdomain. In this way, (m + 1)(m +
2)/2 unknowns for each subdomain representing polynomial
coefficients are introduced.
In order to reduce the number of unknowns, continuity of
the stress vector at each internal interface between adjacent
subdomains, equilibrium equations inside each subdomain and
anti-periodicity conditions are imposed. In this way, the typical
i jth component (i, j = 1, 2) of the micro-stress in the kth
subdomain can be written as:
(k) (k)
σi j = Xi j (y)SiTj y ∈ Yk
(k)
where, for each value of i and j, Xi j (y) is a vector which
contains only geometrical information of the unit cell and of the
subdomain and Si j is the vector of global linearly independent
unknowns.
Since the polynomial stress field in Eq. (2) is equilibrated
and satisfies periodicity conditions, problem (1) reduces to the
(non)linear programming problem given in Box I.
In Box I
• ∂ S̃ hom is the boundary of the approximate homogenized
strength domain S̃ hom ;
 T
• P ≡ Σ11 Σ22 Σ12 is a typical point of the surface
∂ S̃ hom ;
T
• nΣ = α11 α22 α12 is a unit vector in the macroscopic
stress space Σ11 Σ22 Σ12 , such that λnΣ represents a
macroscopic stress state belonging to ∂ S̃ hom ;
• S k stands for the set of admissible stresses of the component
(unit or mortar) belonging to the kth geometrical subdomain.
A refined piecewise linear approximation of ∂ S̃ hom can be
obtained by collecting a sufficient number of stress states P on
∂ S̃ hom , evaluated by solving problem given in Box I.
In this way, a lower bound approximation of the
homogenized masonry strength domain is recovered. Such
strength domain is implemented in lower and upper bound FE
limit analysis codes and static and kinematic limit analyses of
masonry structures reinforced with FRP strips (structural level)
are performed.
2.1. The lower bound approach
(2)
In this section, a 2D lower bound FE limit analysis
procedure, based on a modification of the equilibrated
triangular element proposed by Sloan [14], is presented.
 E. Grande et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1842–1860 1847

Fig. 3. Geometry of a typical reinforced masonry wall, FE discretization and geometrical properties of FRP strips.

Fig. 4. Linear stress interpolation inside a triangular element and continuity of the stress vector on the edge between adjacent elements.

A reinforced masonry wall Ω = Ω f ∪ Ωm is considered, actions due to the presence of the reinforcement strips:
with Ωm and Ω f the un-reinforced and reinforced part of Ω
respectively. The reinforcement is constituted by FRP strips; t div σ + tb − 2τ = 0 (3)
(k) (k)
the typical kth strip is characterized by width lw , length ls where b denotes the body forces and τ is the interface shear
(k)
and fibre direction identified by the angle ϑs , as schematically stress vector. As a linear interpolation is chosen for the stress
reported in Fig. 3. The unit vectors that are parallel and state within each element, 2 equilibrium equations can be
orthogonal to the fibre direction of the kth strip are denoted written for each element, one for the x-direction and one for
by s(k) and t(k) respectively. A finite element discretization is the y-direction. Such equations can be re-written in terms of the
performed by ensuring that there are no elements in which the nodal unknown stresses and of the shear actions τ (i) as follows:
masonry is only partially reinforced, as shown in Fig. 3.
(k)
 
Thus, a typical element E (i) ∈ Ω f is constituted by a central tA(i)
eq σ
(i)
= −tb(i) + 2R ϑ S τ (i) (4)
masonry layer of thickness t, subjected to a plane stress state,
and by two additional external FRP layers of thickness s (k) . where:
It is assumed that only shear stresses τ (i) with direction s(k)
h i
η1 ζ1 η2 ζ2 η3 ζ3
• A(i)
eq =
1
2A(i) 0
0
ζ1 η1 0
0
ζ2 η2 0
0
ζ3 η3 , with
(see Fig. 3) can act at the interface between the masonry and
the reinforcement. In a typical element E (k) ∈ Ωm , the stress ζ i = x j − xk , η i = yk − y j , i = 1, 2, 3; k = 2, 3, 1; j =
is assumed varying linearly, in agreement with the assumption 3, 1, 2;
adopted in Ref. [14]. • A(i) is the area of the ith element;
 iT
(k) (k) (k)
  h   
In this way, 9 unknown nodal stress parameters are • R ϑ S = cos ϑ S sin ϑ S ;
introduced for each element, so that 3 stress parameters
(i.e. σxNx σxNy σ yyN
, see Fig. 4) are associated at each node • σ (i) , b(i) represent the 9 nodal unknown stresses and the
(k) body forces vector relative to the ith element, respectively.
N E of an element. Statically admissible stress discontinuities
can occur between adjacent triangles, assuming only the stress Regarding the external FRP layers of the typical element
vector continuous at interfaces. E (i) ∈ Ω f , only the stress σss parallel to the fibre direction
For each E (i) ∈ Ω f , 2 equilibrium equations for the central is assumed acting, whereas the other stresses are enforced to
masonry layer are imposed by taking into account the shear be zero, i.e. σtt = σts = 0, as reported in Figs. 3 and 5.
1848 E. Grande et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1842–1860

Fig. 5. Shear stress distribution on masonry/FRP interface. (a) masonry layer, (b) FRP layer.

Furthermore, the stress component σss is assumed varying programming problem is derived at a structural level:
linearly inside each FRP element. n T T o
max λ|Aeq XT λ = beq , Ain XT λ ≤ bin
 
Equilibrium is satisfied by imposing the following additional (6)
equality constraint inside each element, that corresponds to
impose the equilibrium along the directions s: where λ is the load multiplier at failure and X contains
h i the (assembled) masonry in-plane stress parameters, the
s (i) η1(i) η2(i) η3(i) σss (1,i) (2,i)
σss (3,i) T = −2A(i) τ (i)
σss reinforcement stress vector σ ss and the interfaces shear

stress vector τ . Matrices Aeq and Ain collect the coefficients
(5)
of the equilibrium equations, previously discussed, and the
where: coefficients of admissibility inequalities, respectively, whereas
(i) beq and bin are the corresponding right-hand sides.
• ηq = t¯k − t¯j , q = 1, 2, 3; k = 2, 3, 1; j = 3, 1, 2
(Fig. 5).
2.2. The upper bound approach
Additional constraints on the nodal stresses of each FRP
element are imposed in order to ensure the continuity of the The upper bound approach adopted in this section is
stress vector along the edges of adjacent triangles. based on the formulation originally developed by Sloan and
It can be demonstrated (Fig. 5(a)) that such condition is Kleeman [15], which assumes a triangular discretization of the
(3,i) (3, j) (2,i) (1, j)
satisfied by imposing σss = σss and σss = σss where domain and possible discontinuities of the velocity field along
i and j are adjacent elements with common nodes (3, i) ≡ the edges of adjacent triangles.
(3, j) and (2, i) ≡ (1, j). For each element E, two velocity unknowns per node i, u ix x
Admissibility conditions for the reinforcement layers are and u iyy (one along x and one along y, see Fig. 6(a)) are
imposed on σss stress for each element in the form − f d−f ≤ introduced.
(r,i)
σss ≤ f d+f ∀i r = 1, 2, 3 where f d+f and f d−f are the Jumps of velocities at interfaces are supposed to vary
failure tensile and compressive strengths of the reinforcement linearly, thus four unknowns collected in the vector ∆u I =
respectively, corresponding to the failure of the FRP or to the [∆v1 ∆u 1 ∆v2 ∆u 2 ]T are introduced at each interface. The
delamination of the FRP–masonry interface. In a similar way components of the vector ∆u represent the normal ∆vi
(i)
shear  interface actions τ are assumed to satisfy the inequality and tangential ∆u i jumps of velocities (with respect to the
τ (i)  ≤ f b ∀i where f b is the ultimate shear strength of
the interface, evaluated according to the indications contained
in [22] (Appendix B).
Equilibrium constraints, boundary conditions on stresses
and admissibility conditions for masonry, FRP and interfaces
masonry/FRP are suitably assembled and the following linear
discontinuity direction) evaluated at nodes i = 1 and i = 2
of the interface (see Fig. 6(b)).
For any pair of nodes lying on the interface between
two contiguous elements m and n, the tangential and normal
velocity jumps can be written in terms of the Cartesian nodal
velocities of elements m − n; thus, four linear equations for
 E. Grande et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1842–1860 1849

Fig. 6. Upper bound limit analysis. (a) field of velocities and plastic multipliers rates. (b) jump of velocities on interfaces.

  
E,ass I,ass I FRP ,ass FRP,ass
min CTE λ̇ + CTI λ̇ + CTFRP λ̇ + CT λ̇


 I FRP
( eq eq
à U = b̃
such that

I FRP ,ass

I,ass E,ass FRP,ass
λ̇ λ̇ ≥ 0 λ̇ ≥ 0 λ̇

≥0 ≥0
(9)

In Eq. (9) CTE and CTI represent the assembled right-

hand sides of the inequalities which determine the lin-
earized failure surface of the homogenized material in the
continuum and in the interfaces, respectively. CTI FRP and
CTFRP are the assembled right-hand sides of the inequali-
Fig. 7. Field of velocities on FRP and on the interfaces masonry/FRP.
ties which determine the linearized failure surfaces of the
each interface are obtained by assuming the form: interface masonry/FRP and of FRP, respectively. U =
E,ass I,ass I FRP ,ass FRP,ass
[u M λ̇ ∆u I,ass λ̇ 0̇ λ̇ uss λ̇ ] is the
eq eq eq
A11 u Em + A12 u En + A13 ∆u I =0 (7) assembled vector of kinematic unknowns and collects the vec-
tors of assembled nodal velocities u M , elements plastic multi-
where u Em and u En are vectors with six components, collecting E,ass
eq
the velocities of elements m and n, respectively, and A11 , A12 ,
eq plier rates λ̇ , jump of velocities on interfaces ∆u I,ass , inter-
I,ass
eq
A13 are matrices which depend only on ϑ the angle (Fig. 6(b)). face plastic multiplier rates λ̇ , masonry/FRP interface jump
Further kinematical variables are introduced, as schemati- of velocities 0̇, masonry/FRP interface plastic multiplier rates
I FRP ,ass
cally shown in Fig. 7, in order to model the effect of the FRP λ̇ , FRP velocities uss and FRP plastic multiplier rates
FRP,ass
strengthening. A sliding mode between masonry and FRP is λ̇ .
E
considered by introducing a linear field 0̇ of interfacial jump The terms CTI FRP λ̇
I FRP ,ass
and CTFRP λ̇
FRP,ass
in Eq. (9) are
(i)
of velocities inside each element E ∈ Ω f . On the other hand,
the total power dissipated at masonry/FRP interfaces and on
a possible plastic dissipation due to the failure of the FRP sub-
FRP, respectively. Within each triangle E of area A, it can be
jected to axial stresses is taken into account, hence a linear field
shown that the power dissipated at the interface masonry/FRP
uss of velocities inside each FRP element, acting along the fibre
(k) is expressed by the linear equation:
direction ϑs is introduced.
E
The following compatibility constraint involving uss , 0̇ 3
AX  
E
and ũ M occur for each node i ∈ E (i) , with E (i) ∈ Ω f , see PIEFRP =
+(q) −(q)
f b λ̇ E FRP + λ̇ E FRP (10)
Fig. 7: 3 q=1 I I

E E
u ss,i = ũ M,i + Γ̇iE (8) +(q) −(q)
where λ̇ E FRP and λ̇ E FRP are the plastic multiplier rates of the
I I
E represents the velocity in the brickwork, evaluated
where ũ M,i triangle E associated to node q and corresponding to plastic
along strips directions at node i. dissipation on interfaces when τ (q) = f b and τ (q) = − f b ,
After assemblage operations, a linear programming problem respectively.
is obtained, in which the objective function consists in the In a similar way, the power dissipated in the FRP material
minimization of the total internal dissipated power: can be written as:
1850 E. Grande et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1842–1860
Fig. 8. Anisotropic Rankine–Hill model implemented in DIANA [13]. (a) Rankine–Hill yield condition. (b) Hardening–softening law for Hill criterion. (c) Softening
law for Rankine criterion.
3 
AX +(q) −(q)

E
PFRP = f d+f λ̇ E FRP + f d−f λ̇ E FRP
3 q=1
(q) −(q)
where λ̇ E FRP and λ̇ E FRP are the plastic multiplier rates of the
triangle E associated to node q and corresponding to plastic
(q) (q)
dissipation of FRP when σss = f d+f and σss = f d−f
respectively.
eq eq
Finally, Ã and b̃ in Eq. (9) denote the overall constraints
matrix and constraints right-hand sides, respectively, and
collect velocity boundary conditions, relations between velocity
jumps on interfaces and elements velocities, constraints for
plastic flow in velocity discontinuities, constraints for plastic
flow in continuum and compatibility conditions among uss , 0̇
and u M .
It could be remarked that a typical drawback of the
application of limit analysis theorems to the study of masonry
structures is represented by the assumption of an infinite ductile
behaviour of the material. Even if limit analysis results fit well
experimental collapse loads in many cases of technical interest,
it should be verified whether too large strains, incompatible
with the masonry behaviour, occur in the structure. Therefore,
more sophisticated models, able to take into account masonry
damage and the interface decohesion, are adopted in the
following section.
3. Macro-modelling approach
With the aim of simulating the structural behaviour of
masonry material, FRP strengthening and the interaction
between masonry/FRP elements, different models for the un-
strengthened and FRP-strengthened panels have been adopted.
In the case of un-strengthened panels, two different
models labelled as Model MA and Model MB have been
proposed for the masonry. Model MA is an orthotropic elasto-
plastic continuum model, whereas Model MB is a softening
anisotropic elasto-plastic continuum model.
For what concerns the FRP-strengthened panels, the Model
MB has been adopted to simulate the behaviour of the masonry
material, whereas for the FRP strips, two different models
have been used, labelled as Model MRA and Model MRB.
In Model MRA a linear-elastic constitutive relation for the
FRP elements has been adopted, whereas in Model MRB
a bilinear constitutive relation (brittle behaviour), assuming
different values of the axial strength of the FRP elements,
(11) has been used. In both models, the FRP truss elements have
been considered directly connected to the nodes of the mesh
of panels without using interface elements. The choice to avoid
the use of interface elements is justified in the following.
3.1. Un-strengthened panels: Model MA and Model MB
The two adopted nonlinear constitutive models used for
simulating the behaviour of masonry are characterized by
different yielding criteria and nonlinear behaviour.
Model MA is an orthotropic elasto-plastic continuum model
with Hoffmann yield condition [16] and characterized by an
elastic-perfectly plastic behaviour in tension and compression.
The adopted yield condition is an extension of the Hill
model [17] and it can describe different yield strength in tension
and compression. An associate flow rule is adopted for this
yield criterion. The reader is referred to Hoffmann [16] and
DIANA [13] for further details.
In this model the effect of softening behaviour of masonry is
neglected. For this reason a further model, including different
softening laws in tension and compression, is adopted in the
case of Model MB.
Model MB is based on the studies conducted by
Lourenço [10] and it consists of an extension of classic
formulations of isotropic quasi-brittle materials. In this model,
different yield functions for tension and compression behaviour
are considered: a Hill-type yield criterion in compression
and a Rankine-type yield criterion in tension. A graphical
representation in terms of the full stress vector is shown in
Fig. 8, where the material axes are assumed to be defined by the
bed joints direction (x-direction) and the head joints direction
(y-direction).
The yield surface adopted in the compression region is a
rotated centred ellipsoid in the full-plane stress space and it
is characterized by different compressive strengths along the
material axes. The nonlinear behaviour of the Model MB is
characterized in compression by a parabolic hardening followed
by parabolic/exponential softening and in tension by an
exponential tensile softening. In both tensile and compression
behaviour, different fracture energies for vertical and horizontal
axis are considered (i.e. G f cx and G f cy for compression; G f x
and G f y for tension).
 E. Grande et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1842–1860
Summarizing, the two presented masonry models are
characterized by different features. The first model (MA)
is simpler and it allows us to determine the values of
the parameters governing the model by means of standard
experimental tests. The second model (MB) is more complete
as it accounts for the special orthotropic character of the
masonry and, moreover, it considers the softening behaviour;
on the other hand, the evaluation of all the parameters (seven
strength parameters and five inelastic parameters) governing
the model requires the development of nonstandard laboratory
tests.
3.2. FRP-strengthening models: Model MRA and Model MRB
One of the most important aspects in the application of
composite materials for strengthening structural elements is
the adhesion between the reinforcing and reinforced materials.
In particular, when delamination from the support occurs, the
effectiveness of the reinforcement vanishes. This phenomenon
is very complex to model, because it involves materials with
different properties (masonry, FRP and glue layer) and depends
on several parameters. Some experimental and numerical
investigations have been conducted in the last decades for
concrete structures but only in the last few years the decohesion
problem has been investigated for masonry structures [18–21].
Experimental studies demonstrated that the decohesion occurs
because of the failure of the masonry material; in fact, the
delaminated FRP presents a not negligible layer of masonry
material on the debonded surface.
A rigorous methodology to directly take into account in a
numerical model the behaviour of the layer between masonry
and the FRP reinforcement is the use of the interface model
concept. According to this model, the forces acting on the
interface are related to the relative displacement of the two sides
(masonry and FRP). The use of this model is rather complex
because it implies the knowledge of the parameters that define
the behaviour of the FRP/masonry layer. In fact, even if from
the experimental tests available in the technical literature some
common aspects have emerged, such as for instance the quasi-
brittle behaviour and the mechanisms of separation of the FRP
from the bricks surfaces, the heterogeneity of the masonry
material and the reduced number of performed tests, do not
allow us to have at disposal a sufficiently wide data set to
completely assess the interface behaviour.
In [22], a simplified approach is proposed to evaluate
the delamination phenomenon. In fact, it is suggested to
evaluate the maximum strength f f dd of FRP elements using
the following relation if the bond length lb is smaller than the
optimal bond length le :
 
lb lb
f f dd,rid = f f dd 2− (12)
le le
or, the following relation if lb ≥ le :
s damage appears unreliable.
1 2 · E FRP · Γ F K
f f dd = √ (13)
γ f d γM tFRP
1851
where all the symbols are defined in the list of symbols at
the end of the paper. Here it is worth noting that γ f d is a
factor that takes into account the modality of the application
of the reinforcement system (it is assumed to be equal to 1.20
if the reinforcement is applied according to the indications
contained in chapter 2 of [22]), or equal to 1.5 if this condition
is not satisfied; γ M is the partial safety factor for masonry
material [23], assumed to be equal to 1.0 for q obtaining the
E FRP ·tFRP
characteristic value of bond strength; le = 2· f mtm is the
optimal bond length of FRP corresponding to the minimal bond
length able to carry the maximum anchorage force.
In the code, the term Γ Fk is also introduced and it represents
the characteristic value of the specific fracture energy of the
FRP strengthened masonry. In particular, when the debonding
involves the first masonry layers, in [22] the following relation
is proposed:
p
Γ Fk = c1 f mk · f mtm [ f in N/mm2 ] (14)
where all the symbols are defined in the list of symbols at the
end of the paper.
In the light of these considerations, two different models
have been adopted for the FRP elements in the framework of
a macro-modelling approach. In the first model (denoted as
MRA) a linear-elastic behaviour has been considered while in
the second one (denoted as MRB), an elastic-brittle behaviour
has been adopted.
It is worth noting that, for both the adopted MRA and
MRB models, truss elements have been used for FRP,
imposing a “perfect adhesion” between the nodes of trusses
and the corresponding nodes of the mesh of the panels, so
avoiding relative displacements between the masonry and the
reinforcement. The delamination phenomenon between FRP
and masonry support has been accounted in a simplified
manner, i.e. adopting special constitutive laws for truss
elements. This choice could be questionable but it simplifies
the numerical model and, moreover, it allows us to obtain
solutions which are in satisfactory agreement with experimental
evidences.
In principle, as announced above, an enhanced modelling
could require the use of interface elements to model the
behaviour of FRP/masonry interaction.
Indeed, several interface constitutive laws are implemented
in commercial computer codes, which are commonly based on
the assumption that damage state of the interface elements is
function of the history of the relative displacements occurring
between the nodes of the interface and it does not depend on
the damage evolution of the support material.
On the other hand, experimental evidences show that FRP
decohesion occurs because of the damage of a consistent layer
of masonry support. In this way, the mechanical properties of
this layer depend on mechanical properties of the masonry and
on its actual state, e.g. on the level of damage of the masonry
support. As a consequence, a structural model which does
not consider the coupling between the interface and masonry
This implies that sophisticated models affecting the complex
FRP/support interaction mechanisms should be developed.
1852 E. Grande et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1842–1860
Fig. 9. Geometric dimensions [mm] and FRP strip arrangement of the examined panels.
Moreover, a further important aspect which is not
well reproduced by classic modelling approaches could be
remarked. Indeed, the damage of the masonry material is
generally treated by considering continuous models. For
instance, the masonry model adopted in this paper is based on
the smeared crack approach with strain softening. The main
feature of this method consists of representing fracture in a
smeared manner [24]: the effect of infinitely many parallel
cracks of infinitely small opening, that are considered to be
continuously distributed over the finite element, is modelled
by reducing the material stiffness and strength in the direction
normal to the cracks after the peak of strength of the material
has been reached.
When a certain level of damage occurs in the masonry,
macro-cracks start to develop. The presence of the fractures
induces local stress concentrations at the interface layer
bridging the crack, leading to local redistributions of the
interface stresses. This phenomenon could influence the bond
strength and, hence, the overall behaviour of reinforcement and
it could be not properly reproduced by considering continuous
damage models.
As a final comment, it could be emphasized that masonry
structures contain heterogeneities, i.e. discontinuities, which
are due to the presence of mortar joints. Of course, such
discontinuities cannot be considered adopting a homogeneous
continuum model.
For all these reasons, the proposed very simple, but quite
satisfactory, models are adopted throughout this paper to
reproduce the FRP and FRP–masonry interface behaviour.
4. Numerical applications
On the basis of the proposed models and numerical
approaches, several nonlinear analyses have been performed
with reference to un-strengthened and FRP-strengthened
panels. The obtained results in terms of the global response of
the panels, have been compared with the data available from
experimental tests.
4.1. Experimental cases
Five masonry panels with and without CFRP (Carbon FRP)
strips reinforcement are examined (Fig. 9). Two typologies
of panels with different dimensions and geometric aspect are
considered: a panel without openings of dimensions 290 ×
270 mm2 , here denoted as PAN-A and a panel of dimensions
416 × 414 mm2 , labelled as PAN-B with a central rectangular
hole of dimensions 184 × 156 mm2 . Different CFRP strip
arrangements characterize both PAN-A and PAN-B: horizontal
strips (PAN-A1), symmetrical diagonal strips (PAN-A2) and
asymmetrical diagonal strips (PAN-B1), see Fig. 9.
For these panels, several results are available from a previous
experimental investigation conducted by Milani et al. [25]. The
 E. Grande et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1842–1860
Fig. 10. Mechanical properties adopted in the homogenisation model for mortar joints reduced to interfaces.
Table 1
Mechanical characteristics of the components of the panels
Brick average compressive strength ( f b-m )
Mortar average compressive strength ( f c-m )
Masonry average compressive strength ( f m-m )
Fibre C1-30 tensile strength ( f t-RP )
Table 2
Masonry mechanical parameters (Model MA)
Young’s modulus along x-direction (E x x )
Young’s modulus along y-direction (E yy )
Poisson’s ratio (νx y )
Shear modulus (G x y )
Mass density (γm )
Compressive strength (σcx ; σcy )
Tensile strength (σt x ; σt y )
Shear strength (τx y )
experimental tests were performed by statically increasing the
external load applied through steel plates located on the upper
part of panels as shown in Fig. 9.
The obtained results in terms of pushover curves (i.e. load
applied versus displacement measured through displacement
transducers fixed on the steel plates that transfer the load
to the panel [25]) show key aspects induced by the
CFRP reinforcement on the global response of the panels.
Furthermore, the examination of the cracks path during and
after the tests shows important information both on the
effectiveness of the numerical model here proposed and on the
contribution of the reinforcement.
4.2. Parameters setting
The mechanical parameters adopted for the proposed models
are shown from Tables 1–4. These parameters have been
deduced both from experimental tests [25] and from theoretical
considerations, also by making use of the indications contained
in [22].
In particular, uniaxial compressive tests were conducted on
bricks, mortar and masonry specimens in order to determine
material compressive strengths, according to the Italian
Code [23]. For the mortar material, classified by the Italian
code as M4, preliminarily bending tests were conducted on
specimens of dimensions 40×40×160 mm3 and the resulting 6
samples obtained after failure in bending were tested to uniaxial
1853
15.66 MPa
2.13 MPa
6.76 MPa
3430 MPa
1412 MPa
1050 MPa
0.1762
367 MPa
1.6E−9 N s2 /mm
6.67 MPa
0.7 MPa
0.33 MPa
Fig. 11. Comparison among homogenized strength domain, Hoffmann
anisotropic failure surface and Rankine–Hill failure surface in the principal
stress state.
compression. The reinforcement is constituted by high-strength
carbon fibre ribbons (commercial identification: Mbrace Fibres
C1-30”) with nominal tensile strength value furnished by the
manufacture (MAC S.p.A.).
Regarding the parameters used in the numerical applications,
two different strategies have been adopted to deduce masonry
and FRP mechanical parameters.
The mechanical properties of the bricks and mortar,
obtained from the experimental tests, have been firstly
used in the homogenization approach (see Table 1 and
Fig. 10). Subsequently, adopting the homogenization technique
proposed in [8,9] and with reference to an elementary masonry
cell, some of the mechanical parameters adopted for masonry
material in the phenomenological approach (Model MA and
Model MB) have been obtained. Nevertheless, since no
information both on the fracture energy and the parameters α,
β, γ were available (see Model MB), these parameters have
been chosen according to the experimental results obtained
by Lurati and Thurlimann [26] and Van der Pluijm [27,28]
on masonry specimens characterized by similar mechanical
properties.
In Fig. 11, a comparison among the strength domain
obtained by the homogenization approach, the Hoffmann and
the Rankine–Hill criterion is reported. It can be emphasized a
1854 E. Grande et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1842–1860

Table 3
Masonry mechanical parameters (Model MB, MRA, MRB)
Young’s Modulus along x-direction (E x x ) 1412 MPa
Young’s Modulus along y-direction (E yy ) 1050 MPa
Poisson’s ratio (νx y ) 0.1762
Shear modulus (G x y ) 367 MPa
Mass density (γm ) 1.6E − 9 N s2 /mm
Tensile Strength along x-direction (σt x ) 8.0E–1 MPa
Tensile strength along y-direction (σt y ) 2.0E–1 MPa
Compressive strength along x-direction (σcx ) 8.0 MPa
Compressive strength along y-direction (σcy ) 6.67 MPa
Fracture energy in tension along x-direction (G f x ) 2.0E − 2 N mm/mm2
Fracture energy in tension along y-direction (G f y ) 2.0E − 2 N mm/mm2
Fracture energy in compression along x-direction (G f cx ) 5.00 N mm/mm2
Fracture energy in compression along y-direction (G f cx ) 10.0 N mm/mm2
Factor that determines the shear stress contribution to the tensile failure (α) 1.73
Factor which couples the normal compressive stresses (β) −1.05
Factor which controls shear stress contribution to compressive failure (γ ) 1.2
Factor that specifies the equivalent plastic strain corresponding to the peak compressive stress (k p ) 8.0E–4

Fig. 12. Schematic representation of the bond length of FRP truss element number 5 and values of the design bond strength along FRP strips.

good agreement between all the admissible stress sets. Some
differences occur in certain regions particularly for the Hoffman
strength domain.
For what concerns the mechanical parameters adopted for
strengthening elements, two different constitutive laws have
been considered. In the case of the Model MRA, a linear-
elastic behaviour has been assumed with a stiffness value
equal to Young’s modulus of the FRP-strengthening (E FRP =
160,000 MPa) and without limiting the axial strength of
FRP elements. In the case of model MRB, an elastic-brittle
behaviour has been considered by adopting an elastic stiffness
value equal to Young’s modulus of the FRP strengthening
and different values for the strength of the FRP elements. In
particular, the strength of FRP elements has been evaluated
according to the relations (12) and (13) and for each truss
element (node-to-node of the mesh of the panel) the bond length
lb has been assumed equal to the distance between the middle
section of the truss element and the closest edge of the FRP
(Fig. 12). In Fig. 12 the values of the bond strength of the
FRP elements have been depicted for PAN-A1 and PAN-A2
reporting on the horizontal axis the FRP element number of the
FE model. It is noticeable that the truss elements near the edges
of the panel present strength values less than the design value
f f dd .
 E. Grande et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1842–1860 1855

Table 4
FRP-strengthening mechanical parameters (Model MRA, MRB)
Thickness of FRP reinforcement (tFRP ) 0.2 mm
Elastic modulus of FRP reinforcement (E FRP ) 160,000 MPa
Factor c1 [22] (c1 ) 0.015
Factor γ f d [22] (γ f d ) 1.2
Factor γ M [23] (γ M ) 1
Fracture energy [22] (Γ F K ) 0.073 N/mm
Design bond strength [23] ( f f dd ) 164 MPa

Fig. 13. Mesh used in the homogenized limit analysis approach. (a) PAN-A1
series. (b) PAN-A and PAN-A2 series.
For PAN-B1 (Fig. 9), because of the small length of the
diagonal FRP strips, the axial strength of the trusses has been
assumed the same for all the elements of each diagonal strip.
In particular, the average values of the axial strengths of the
trusses of each strip have been assumed (i.e. f f dd = 90 MPa
for the truss elements of the longer strip and f f dd = 79 MPa
for the truss elements of shorter strip).
4.3. Comparison between experimental and numerical results
In this section, the accuracy of the numerical results obtained
by means of both the micro–macro and phenomenological
approaches proposed in Sections 2 and 3, respectively, are
assessed through a comparison with experimental results.
The first set of analyzed examples refers to the series PAN-
A, PAN-A1 and PAN-A2 (Fig. 9), consisting of masonry panels
acting as deep beams.
Fig. 14. External force-point P vertical displacement. Comparison between
numerical and experimental results. (a) PAN-A series. (b) PAN-A1 series. (c)
PAN-A2 series.
The second set of numerical simulations refers to the series
PAN-B and PAN-B1 (Fig. 9) and they regard a masonry
wall with a central rectangular opening subjected to a vertical
concentrated load applied on the top edge.
For what concerns limit analysis simulations, a linearized
Lourenço and Rots [29] failure criterion for joints reduced to
interfaces has been used, see Fig. 10 for a synopsis of the
mechanical properties adopted. It is worth noting that joints
compressive strength f c adopted in the numerical simulations
is assumed equal to the experimental masonry compressive
strength value, because of the fact that both 3D effects and
brittle behaviour of bricks cannot be reproduced with the
rigid-plastic homogenization approach at hand. According to
experimental data, see Table 1, for bricks a Mohr–Coulomb
1856 E. Grande et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1842–1860

Fig. 15. PAN-A, PAN-A1, PAN-A2 series numerical results from the homogenized limit analysis approach: stress distribution at collapse and field of velocities at
collapse. Detail A: crushing failure of the supports. Detail B: shear failure under the point of application of the load. Detail C: diagonal failure. Detail D: flexional
behaviour of the support due to the horizontal reinforcement. Details E: enhancement of panel diagonal strength due to inclined reinforcement.

failure criterion in plane stress has been adopted with f c =
15.66 N/mm2 and, as usually assumed, f t = 1/10 f c . It
is worth underlining that experimental evidences show that
tensile strength ranges between 1/10 and 1/20 of compressive
strength. Despite this relatively wide variability, numerical
computations show that, in the worst case, the difference
between failure loads for the examples analyzed in this paper
obtained by assuming respectively 1/20 and 1/10 is lower
than 10%. Such a small difference is mainly a consequence
of the failure mechanisms of the analyzed panels, which
primarily involve masonry compressive crushing and shear
failure. Finally, a linearization of the homogenized failure
surface with 50 planes was used for performing both static and
kinematics limit analyses.
For the macro-modelling approach, the nonlinear static
analyses (push-over) have been performed by adopting, for the
discretization of the panels, four and three-node isoparametric
plane stress finite elements. In this case, during the incremental-
iterative procedure, the external load was increased at each
iteration by directly increasing the external force vector. The
 E. Grande et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1842–1860 1857

arc-length method was adopted and the linear stiffness iteration

method was used, adopting the energy norm criterion to check
the convergence at each step.

4.3.1. Panels PAN-A, PAN-A1 and PAN-A2

Experimental load–displacement curves for the three series
of panels here analyzed show that the introduction both of
a horizontal reinforcement (PAN-A1) and a double diagonal
reinforcement (PAN-A2) results in an increase of the ultimate
load.
It is worth noting that (Fig. 13) all the series were placed
on two steel plates of length L s equal to 40 mm, disposed at
the lower edge extremes and positioned on little steel rollers
allowing rotation of the supports.
In the FE limit analysis code, the effect introduced by the
steel rollers was considered imposing for the lower bound a
R L /2
bending moment on the supports M = t −Ls s /2 Σ yy xs dxs equal
to zero, where L s is the support length, t is the masonry
thickness, Σ yy is the vertical stress in correspondence with
the edges of the elements adjacent to the support and xs is
a horizontal abscissa measuring support length with origin in
correspondence with the middle of the support (see Fig. 13(a),
where the triangular mesh used in the limit analysis approach
for PAN-A1 series is shown).
In a dual manner with respect to the lower bound approach,
in the upper bound approach, a rotation velocity ϕ̇ was allowed
on the supports constraining vertical velocities of the nodes Fig. 16. External force-point P vertical displacement. Comparison between
belonging to the support to have a linear dependence on vertical numerical and experimental results. (a) PAN-B series. (b) PAN-B1 series.
velocities vs− and vs+ = −vs− of the nodes with abscissa
xs = ±L s /2, so that ϕ̇ = 2vs− /L s (see Fig. 13(b), where the For the strengthened panel PAN-A1, it is worth noting
triangular mesh used in the limit analysis approach for PAN-A that the macroscopic anisotropic plasticity model with elasto-
and PAN-A2 series is shown). brittle behaviour of the FRP elements (Model MRB), exhibits
In the macro-modelling approach it was observed that a force–displacement curve in excellent agreement with
the rotation allowed by the steel rollers does not affect the experimental data, also in the post-peak range. On the other
numerical results. Consequently, in order to simplify the used hand, the use of an elastic behaviour for FRP strengthening
models, steel rollers have not been modelled both in the un- leads to a strength value of the panel and to a corresponding
strengthened (PAN-A) and the strengthened panels (PAN-A1 displacement greater than the experimental ones (the difference
and PAN-A2). in terms of strength is about 12% while in terms of displacement
In Fig. 14, (i) the force–displacement curves of the point of it is about 21%).
application of the external load (centre of the steel plate) from
In contrast to PAN-A results, in this case the limit analysis
the phenomenological approach, (ii) the ultimate load from the
approach gives strength values similar to experimental ones (the
lower and upper bound limit analysis and (iii) the experimental
maximum difference is about 23% for the lower bound and only
force–displacement curves are reported for all the panels of the
3% for the upper bound).
series PAN-A.
For the un-strengthened panel (PAN-A), it is interesting to The results obtained for PAN-A2 case show that MRA and
notice that the results obtained by using the limit analysis MRB models give almost identical results both in terms of
code and the Model MA (elastic-perfectly plastic) of the peak-strength and post-peak behaviour (the difference between
macro-modelling approach are almost identical and furnish a the experimental and theoretical strength value is equal to 4%).
strength value less than the experimental one. In particular the Limit analysis gives strength values less than the experimental
maximum difference between the theoretical and experimental ones (the difference between experimental and numerical
strength values is equal to 36% corresponding to the case failure loads is equal to 24% for the upper bound approach and
of lower bond limit analysis approach. On the other hand, 35% for the lower bound).
the theoretical force–displacement curve obtained from the In Fig. 15 the deformed shapes at collapse and the principal
anisotropic plasticity model (Model MB) compares well with stress distribution at the ultimate state obtained by means of the
the experimental data. In particular, the peak-strength, the limit analysis approach are reported for PAN-A, PAN-A1 and
stiffness and the softening behaviour are well reproduced. PAN-A2 series respectively.
1858 E. Grande et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1842–1860

Fig. 17. PAN-B series numerical results. (a) macroscopic model MA, stress distribution at collapse at maximum load level. (b) macroscopic model MA, deformed
shape at maximum load level. (c) homogenized limit analysis approach, stress distribution at collapse. (d) homogenized limit analysis approach, field of velocities
at collapse. Detail A: compressive failure and formation of a compressed pier under the area of application of the load.

As the lower and upper bound FE simulations show, in PAN-
A1 series the horizontal strip acts as a tie. Even though the
two-strut model of the un-strengthened case remains essentially
unchanged, both the compressed sections increase as well as
the intensity. In PAN-A2 series the principal stress distribution
at collapse and the failure field of velocities result in a
change both of the direction of the compressed struts and
in the failure mechanism. The deformed shape at collapse
shows compression near the supports, shear under the load and
delamination of the diagonal reinforcement.
4.3.2. Panels PAN-B and PAN-B1
Experimental results collected for PAN-B and PAN-B1
series show that the introduction of the FRP reinforcement does
not determine a significant improvement of the load bearing
capacity. In fact, failure occurs in both cases for compression
of the vertical masonry strut under the point of application of
the load. This is captured by the numerical models adopted in
this paper.
In Fig. 16, the external force–displacement curves of the
point of application of the load are reported, as well as the
failure load obtained by means of the lower and upper bound
FE limit analyses.
For both PAN-B and PAN-B1, the adopted theoretical
approaches lead to results which are in good agreement
with the experimental data (the maximum difference between
the experimental and theoretical strength values is less than
16% corresponding to the lower bound approach adopted for
PAN-B).
In the case of the un-strengthened panel (PAN-B) it
is interesting to notice that the force–displacement curves
obtained from the macroscopic plasticity models MA and MB
differ both in terms of peak-strength and stiffness values. In
particular, the curve obtained from the Model MA shows a
stiffness reduction that starts from a load value equal to 43%
of the peak-strength of the panel. This effect was not observed
during experimental tests.
Similarly to PAN-A1 series, in the case of PAN-B1 it is
worth noting that the macroscopic anisotropic plasticity model
with elasto-brittle behaviour of the FRP elements (Model
MRB), exhibits a force–displacement curve in good agreement
with experimental data. On the contrary, the adoption of an
elastic behaviour for the FRP strips furnishes a limit load of
the panel and a corresponding displacement greater than the
experimental ones (the difference in terms of load is about 9%
while in terms of displacement is about 10%). On the other
 E. Grande et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1842–1860 1859

Fig. 18. PAN-B1 series numerical results. (a) macroscopic model MRB, stress distribution at collapse at maximum load level. (b) macroscopic model MRB,
deformed shape at maximum load level. (c) homogenized limit analysis approach, stress distribution at collapse. (d) homogenized limit analysis approach, field of
velocities at collapse. Detail A: the inefficient disposition of the reinforcement leads to a stress distribution at collapse similar to the un-reinforced case.

hand, also limit analysis predictions of the ultimate load are in
good agreement both with experimental data and Model MRB.
Finally, in Figs. 17 and 18 the deformed shapes at collapse
and the principal stress distribution at the ultimate state
obtained both with the limit analysis and the macroscopic
approach are reported for PAN-B and PAN-B1. These results
confirm that the introduction of FRP strengthening does not
affect the stress distribution.
5. Conclusions
With the aim of reproducing the structural response of
un-strengthened and FRP-strengthened masonry panels, in
this paper a homogenized limit analysis and a macroscopic
phenomenological approach have been adopted using different
constitutive laws and yielding criteria.
In the modelling process, particular regard has been
addressed to the phase of parameter setting and to the modelling
strategy adopted to reproduce masonry/FRP interaction
phenomena. Simplified models able to take into account the
delamination of the FRP from the support have been proposed
both for the macroscopic and the limit analysis approach, also
considering the indications contained in [22].
With the aim of assessing the adopted theoretical models,
the obtained results in terms of force–displacement curves and
ultimate load have been compared with the experimental ones.
Deformed shapes at collapse and principal stress distribution at
the ultimate state have also been reported.
In all the examined cases, the macroscopic phenomenolog-
ical approach based on an orthotropic plasticity model for ma-
sonry and on an elastic-brittle behaviour for FRP strengthening,
reproduces the experimental behaviour well both for pre- and
post-peak range.
On the other hand, also the adoption of a homogenization
limit analysis leads to ultimate load values in some cases in
good agreement with the experimental ones.
Both experimental failure loads and load–displacement
curves are satisfactorily reproduced with all the adopted
models. However, the post-peak behaviour is captured well
only when brittle phenomena are taken into account, i.e. when
models MB and MRB are used.
The proposed models are able to capture the resistant
mechanism of un-strengthened and FRP-strengthened masonry
panels. In particular, information about the load capacity and
the post-peak behaviour (i.e. the ductility) can be deduced in
order to assess the efficacy of the reinforcing system. It is also
important to underline that the simplified approach proposed to
take into account the contribution of the reinforcement is able
to reproduce the delamination process of the FRP strengthening
when the strips are not mechanically fixed to the masonry
1860 E. Grande et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1842–1860
support and the delamination process starts from the free edges
of the strips. In fact, in this case the delaminated parts of the
strips are no more in contact with the masonry support and, as
a consequence, they are not able to contribute to the strength
of the panel. On the contrary, when the ends of the FRP strips
were mechanically fixed to the surface of the panels this leads
to a resistant mechanism of the FRP strips quite different: the
parts of the strips that are not in contact with the masonry
support continue to contribute to the strength of panel till the
FRP tensile strength is reached. In this case a different model
must be chosen.
Acknowledgement
This research has been possible thanks to the financial
supports of the project RELUIS from the Italian Ministry of
the Civil Protection.
References
[1] van Zijl G. Computational modelling of masonry creep and shrinkage.
Ph.D. thesis. Delft (The Netherlands): Delft University of Technology;
2000.
[2] Berto L, Saetta A, Scotta R, Vitaliani R. An orthotropic damage model
for masonry structures. International Journal for Numerical Methods in
Engineering 2002;55:127–57.
[3] Pietruszczak S, Ushaksaraei R. Description of inelastic behaviour of
structural masonry. International Journal on Solids and Structures 2003;
40:4003–19.
[4] Lofti HR, Shing BP. Interface model applied to fracture of masonry
structures. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 1994;120:63–80.
[5] Giambanco G, Di Gati L. A cohesive interface model for the structural
mechanics of block masonry. Mechanics Research Communications
1997;24(5):503–12.
[6] Alfano G, Sacco E. Combining interface damage and friction in a
cohesive-zone model. International Journal for Numerical Methods in
Engineering 2006;68(5):542–82.
[7] Luciano R, Sacco E. Homogenization technique and damage model for
old masonry material. Int J Solids and Structures 1997;34(4):3191–208.
[8] Milani G, Lourenço PB, Tralli A. Homogenised limit analysis of masonry
walls. Part I: failure surfaces. Computer Structures 2006;84:166–80.
[9] Milani G, Lourenço PB, Tralli A. Homogenised limit analysis of masonry
walls. Part II: structural examples. Computer Structures 2006;84:181–95.
[10] Lourenço PB. Continuum model for masonry: parameter estimation and
validation. ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering 1998;124(6):642–52.
[11] Marfia S, Sacco E. Numerical procedure for elasto-plastic no-tension
model. International Journal for Computational Methods in Engineering
Science and Mechanics 2005;6:187–99.
[12] Bazant ZP. Fracture and size effect in concrete and other quasibrittle
materials. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 1998.
[13] DIANA 9.1. Displacement analysis finite element software. Version 9.1.
Delf (The Netherlands): TNO-Building Division; 2000.
[14] Sloan SW. Lower bound limit analysis using finite elements and
linear programming. International Journal for Numerical and Analytical
Methods in Geomechanics 1988;12:61–77.
[15] Sloan SW, Kleeman PW. Upper bound limit analysis using discontinuous
velocity fields. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering
1995;127(1–4):293–314.
[16] Hoffmann O. The brittle strength of orthotropic materials. Journal on
Computational Mathematics 1967;1:200–6.
[17] Hill R. A theory of the yielding and plastic flow of anisotropic materials.
London (UK): Proc. Roy. Soc.; 1947.
[18] Roko K, Boothby TE, Bakis CF. Failure modes of sheet bonded fiber
reinforced to brick masonry. In: Proceedings of the fourth international
symposium on fiber reinforced polymer for RC structures. ACI, SP-188.
1999.
[19] Casareto M, Olivieri A, Romelli A, Lagomarsino S. Bond behaviour of
FRP laminates adherent to masonry. In: Proceedings of the international
conference advancing with composites. 2003.
[20] Ceroni F, Pecce MR, Manfredi G, Marcari G. Experimental bond
behaviour in masonry elements externally reinforced with FRP
laminates. In: Proceedings of the international conference composites in
constructions. 2003.
[21] Aiello MA, Sciolti SM. Bond analysis of masonry structures strengthened
with CFRP sheets. Journal of Construction and Building Materials 2006;
20:90–100.
[22] CNR-DT200. Guide for the design and construction of externally bonded
FRP systems for strengthening existing structures. Italy: C N R, National
Research Council; 2006.
[23] D.M.LL.PP. (1987) Norme tecniche per la progettazione, esecuzione e
collaudo degli edifici in muratura e per il loro consolidamento. Italy. 1987.
[24] Rashid YR. Analysis of prestressed concrete pressure vessels. Nuclear
Engineering Design 1968;7(4):334–5.
[25] Milani G, Rotunno T, Sacco E, Tralli A. Failure load of FRP strengthened
masonry walls: Experimental results and numerical models. Structural
Durability and Health Monitoring 2006;2(1):29–50.
[26] Lurati F, Thurlimann B. Tests in concrete masonry walls. Report no. 8401-
3. Zurich (Switzerland): Institute of Structural Engineering, ETH Zurich;
1990.
[27] van der Pluijm R. Material properties of masonry and its components
under tension and shear. In: Proc. 6th Canadian masonry symposium.
1992.
[28] van der Pluijm R. Shear behaviour of bed joints. In: Hamid AA, Harris
HG, editors, Proceedings of the 6th North American masonry conf.,
Philadelphia (PA, USA): Drexel University; 1993.
[29] Lourenço PB, Rots J. A multi-surface interface model for the analysis
of masonry structures. Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE 1997;
123(7):660–8.