Journal Pre-proofs

Experimental response of masonry walls in-plane loading strengthened with

GFRP strips

R. Capozucca, E. Magagnini

PII: S0263-8223(19)32268-8
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2019.111735
Reference: COST 111735

To appear in: Composite Structures

Received Date: 12 June 2019

Revised Date: 18 November 2019
Accepted Date: 25 November 2019

Please cite this article as: Capozucca, R., Magagnini, E., Experimental response of masonry walls in-plane loading
strengthened with GFRP strips, Composite Structures (2019), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.
2019.111735

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover
page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will
undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing
this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be
discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

© 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

 Experimental response of masonry walls in-plane loading
strengthened with GFRP strips
by
R. Capozucca1 and E. Magagnini2

ABSTRACT

In Italian seismic areas brickwork or stone masonry walls are commonly present in historic

buildings. In recent years, the strengthening of masonry walls with external bonded (EB) fibre

reinforced polymers (FRPs) has been increased to improve the tensile capacity of masonry that is

normally weak. Many aspects of this strengthening method are not yet completely known; in

particular, the debonding mechanisms of FRP strips need to be analysed through more

investigation.

The objectives have been, on one side, to investigate the behaviour of single-story shear brickwalls

under in-plane loading with and without strengthening by Glass-FRP strips and, on the other hand,

to analyze the mechanisms of debonding. Two experimental walls, built with historic solid clay

bricks in scale 1/3rd, were subjected to precompression to simulate actual loading condition in

masonry building for service loads and tested under cyclic shear force. One was strengthened after

damage with EB GFRP strips - and then once again - subjected to the same loading until failure;

another one was strengthened with GFRP strips without damage and subjected to the same path of

loading until failure. The response of both models are presented and compared; finally, failure

mechanisms are discussed.

Keywords: Masonry; external bounded strengthening; GFRP strip; cyclic shear tests; debonding
failure.

1 Professor of Struct. Engineering, Struct.Section DICEA, Polytechnic University of Marche, Ancona, ITALY, phone
+39.071.2204570 fax +39.071.2204576 r.capozucca@univpm.it
2 PhD Eng., Struct.Section DICEA, Polytecnic University of Marche, Ancona, ITALY, phone +39.071.2204570 fax

+39.071.2204576 e.magagnini@pm.univpm.it
1. INTRODUCTION

After last earthquakes of 2016 and 2017 that invested a large area of Apennine Mountains in the

center of Italy where many historic towns are located a large amount of masonry buildings were

destructed or damaged. A duty that regards mostly civil structural engineers is now the preservation

of cultural architectural heritage. Historic masonry walls have often demonstrated weaknesses under

earthquake motion, as documented in various reports concerning damage due to the earthquakes

which hit a number of Italian regions in the last decades, such Umbria-Marche, 1997-98 [1];

L’Aquila, 2009; Emilia, 2012; Lazio, Marche and Umbria, 2016-2017.

In the last decades numerous researchers have focused on the study of load-bearing walls under

seismic action in order to verify strengthening solutions designed to prevent collapse and/or severe

damages of masonry structures. During seismic action, shear stresses usually give rise to diagonal

cracking (Fig. 1). Loss of strength of shear walls after cracking often leads to the ruin of the entire

building. Knowledge regarding the behaviour of masonry walls under horizontal motion of soil is,

without doubt, the basis for preserving both monumental historic masonry buildings and/or minor

masonry buildings. The shear behaviour of brickwork walls has been investigated by various

researchers through experimental investigations since the last century [2-6]. Because of their nature

and very different methods of construction, masonry structures of historic buildings present a

number of typical and practical aspects that limits the application of modern codes and building

standards [7,8]. Firstly, the material of brick and/or stone as even mortar are in general

characterized by mechanical parameters different from material of modern brickwork masonry;

moreover, the shear strength of unreinforced masonry is mostly conditioned by the weak mortar of

joints. Over the last years many experimental works [9-17] have been carried out on strength and

behaviour of historic masonry subjected to shear [11,14,15]; other works theoretically analysed

historic monumental elements under vibration [18-20], further many researches have been

developed by numerical modelling with Finite Element Method (FEM) [21-29] obtaining useful
results. Nevertheless, the analysis of behaviour of masonry walls under compression and shear

loading still requires investigation.

Recently, the strengthening techniques with composite materials able to improve the strength and

ductility to masonry structures under seismic actions have increased [30-32].

External bonded (EB) fibre reinforced polymers (FRPs) have seen remarkable development; the

main objective of the FRPs applied in the rehabilitation of masonry walls is to give tensile capacity

to masonry that it is normally weak to tensile stress [33-36]. The use of FRPs present a number of

advantages in comparison with traditional materials due to their high tensile strength, low specific

weight and excellent resistance against aggressive environmental actions; in Italy a Code of Practice

for practitioners was edited to serve as a guideline for FRPs use [37] in the strengthening of

masonry structures that supplies formulas and suggestions for practice. However, many aspects of

this strengthening method are not yet thoroughly known; in particular, the debonding mechanism of

FRP strips [38-40] needs to be analysed more by experimental data. If we examine the masonry

walls invested by earthquake, they are subjected to alternate tensile-compression stresses, so that

the bond of FRP strips may decrease both by damage due to cracking of masonry compromising the

tensile strength or by phenomenon of local delamination buckling with detachment of FRP strip

from masonry surface. The use of EB FRP strips raises opening new venues for theoretical and

numerical analyses [41-45].

In this paper, the behaviour of walls built in scale [2,10] with historic solid clay bricks, with and

without strengthening by diagonal EB Glass - FRP strips, is experimentally analysed [39, 40]. In the

tests described here, two wall models, W1 and W2, were subjected to combined vertical constant

load and cyclic shear force. One was strengthened after damage with EB GFRP strips and then once

again subjected to the same loading until failure; another one was strengthened with EB GFRP

strips without damage and subjected to the same path of loading until failure. Wall model

responses, both unreinforced and strengthened, are analysed and compared.

Finally, the failure mechanism due to delamination of GFRP strips under shear tests has been

discussed.

2. EXPERIMENTAL TESTS

2.1. Brickwork models and set up

The investigation described in this paper is a part of a large activity on the analysis of the behaviour

of shear walls strengthened with FRP strips [33,39]; in this paper authors describe the combined

compression and shear tests on two walls un-strengthened and strengthened with GFRP strips.

Experimental results obtained may point out any aspects that are relevant in the strengthening of

shear walls. Static tests were performed on two wall models, obtained from full scale handmade

bricks measuring 50÷60mm∙150mm∙300mm recovered from the restoration of a historic XVIII

century building from the south of Marche Region in Italy, invested by earthquake in 2016. In order

to determine historic bricks’ resistance to compression, tests were carried out on brick samples that

were characterized by different typologies of clay bricks: red bricks (R), when with high percentage

of iron content; orange (O) and yellow (Y), with the low percentages. Nine specimens, three for

each chromatic type of dimensions approximately 60mm∙55mm∙60mm, have been tested by

compression; the results are contained in Table 1, which lists average values of compressive

strength, fb,av. As known, historic masonry walls often built with clay units of low compression

strength may be dangerously damaged under loading by local cracking mechanisms.

The dimensions of tested models, identified as W1, W2, built with solid clay bricks in scale 1/3rd

are shown in Figure 2(a); the width of web was about 50mm. It is known from literature that

Benjamin and Williams (1958) [2] investigated the shear behaviour of full-scale and model brick

masonry walls. Their results led to the important conclusion that the scale effect has no significance

on the ultimate strength in shear. Further a set of experimental research tests was carried out on

brick wall models, clearly showing that the strength of full scale in shear can be conveniently

predicted through testing on small-scale models [3,10]. The masonry wall models were tested under

combined compression and cyclic shear load as described below. The choice of using double T
shape sections was connected to the need to avoid bending cracking at the base of the wall model so

that failure is initiated only due to shear.

A cement: lime: sand (1:1:5) mortar by volume was used for the construction of the walls with

historic solid bricks in scale. Three prismatic specimens measuring 40mm∙40mm∙160 mm were

made in order to establish the strength of mortar, and flexural and compressive tests were performed

[46,47].

The mortar was characterized by the following average values of strength: compressive strength,

fm≈3.5N/mm2, and bending tensile strength, fmt=1.8N/mm2. Brickwork wallettes of 200mm∙200mm

in plane and thickness of 50mm, were tested under compression until failure; the obtained average

compressive strength was fw≈13.5N/mm2 with Young’s modulus of elasticity, Ew =8550 N/mm2

and Poisson ratio .

Shear tests involved only one model without strengthening, W1, while W2 model was strengthened

by GFRP strips just before cyclic shear tests; diagonal GFRP strips were glued on only one web

surface. W1 after damage due to diagonal cracking has been also strengthened with GFRP strips in

the same way of W2. The unreinforced wall (U-W1) damaged and reinforced (DR-W1) and wall

W2 reinforced (R-W2) have been subjected to the same pre-compression normal stress equal to

σv=1.2N/mm2, kept constant during the cyclic shear loading. The experimental compression and

shear test set-up is shown in Figures 2(a) and (b). Vertical loads, P1 and P2, were applied to the wall

through a load distribution system by three hydraulic jacks to a steel plate placed on the top of the

model. The steel plate, positioned on the top of the wall, distributes both vertical load and

horizontal cyclic load to brickwork wall. The horizontal load, F, was applied using double phase

jack. Bases to measure vertical strains were located at five positions along the length, labelled A, B,

C on the web. Measuring bases were also used to evaluate principal strains in the centre of the wall;

for this reason, Rosetta (D-E-F) was positioned in order to monitor the evolution of the wall’s

strains completely every cyclic load. The measurement of lateral deflection under horizontal cyclic

load was achieved using three inductive linear displacement transducers (LVTDs) (Fig. 2(a)).
LVTDs no. 1 and 2 were applied on each flange in order to measure maximum displacement from

top of the wall equal about 25mm.

2.2. Results of test on unreinforced wall W1

Unreinforced wall model (U-W1) was tested in a first phase under combined vertical load and

cyclic horizontal shear force, F, up to cracking damage controlling deflection at stages till damage;

deflection and strains were also measured at various steps. Six complete loading cycles with an

increase of about ±5kN for each cycle have been performed up to a lateral force equal to 55 kN.

After the sixth cycle, wall U-W1 was subjected to other two load steps with increasing load only in

the positive direction. The first crack appeared when wall was subjected to a horizontal load value

equal to F+=30.66 kN. Table 2 contains the main deflection values recorded for W1 model for

horizontal loads equal to F+= 55kN and F-=50kN (cycle no. 6) before the diagonal failure.

The cracks occurred at the mortar-brick interface and showed a prevalently diagonal trend with an

angle of about π/4. The test was carried out up to horizontal forces value equal to about F+u=

62.1kN and  mm for U-W1, with an average shear stress value, referred for the resistant area

of the web, equal to τu ≅1.90 N/mm2. In Figure 3 the experimental diagrams of cyclic load, F, vs

deflection, , at the top of the model wall (LVDT no. 2) is shown. The diagonal cracking

distribution of wall model W1 is shown in Figure 4.

2.3. Results of test on strengthened walls

The wall model W1 damaged and, after, strengthened was subjected to same loading path. The wall

was strengthened with glued GFRP strips following the wet lay-up technique. The material used to

strengthen models is a composite characterized by glass fibres mainly made up of silica (SiO2) in

tetrahedral structure (SiO4) with aluminum oxides and metallic ions in various proportions. An

epoxy resin was adopted as the matrix; the epoxy resin presented an average tensile strength equal

to fresin=30N/mm2 and Young’s modulus Eresin=1760 N/mm2. The glass fibres were soaked with

epoxy resin as a polymer matrix offering high adhesion (Kimitech EP-IN), with a density of

ρ=1.08g/cm3. Tables 3 and 4 contain the experimental geometric data relative to the samples
investigated and the experimental results obtained from tensile tests according to ASTM D 3039;

Figure 5 shows a view of one specimen of GFRP experimentally tested at failure. The walls

subjected to shear tests have been strengthened adopting six diagonal GFRP strips with inclination

of ±π/4 glued only one surface of web (Fig. 6); with width of 50 mm, thickness tGFRP≈1.2mm and

experimental value of Young’s modulus equal to EGFRP=64GPa (Tab. 4). Applying the

strengthening with GFRP, a series of operations have been done: preparing of support; applying a

primer obtained by mixing two components; applying a primer and a layer of adhesive. In addition

to all the instruments used for the test on the unreinforced model, six strain gauges (Figs. 7(a) and

(b)) were also used in order to record strain values along the GFRP strips.

The damaged and strengthened wall model (DR-W1) was subjected to the same vertical

precompression σv=1.2N/mm2 and loaded by cyclic shear force, F, until failure.

The test was carried out with the same procedure adopted for the test on the unreinforced wall:

horizontal shear force was applied with increasing intensity cycles with an increase of ±5kN for

each cycle. Fifteen complete loading cycles were applied to DR-W1 model. During the 16th cycle,

wall DR-W1 was subjected to increasing load until failure. During the first loading cycles, panel

DR-W1 initially presented linear elastic behaviour and no new cracks, not even small ones,

appeared. Load cracking was reached during the 9th cycle equal to F=40kN. The wall reached

failure at the 16th cycle at a horizontal load value of approximately F=92.2kN.

In Figure 8 experimental diagrams force, F, vs lateral deflection,  for all cycles are shown. The

first crack appeared when wall was subjected to a horizontal load very close to the value measured

in the unreinforced wall. The cracks occurred at the mortar-brick interface and showed a prevalently

diagonal trend with an angle of about π/4. The maximum value of shear load reached the value

about F+=92.00kN with a lateral deflection  ≅  mm. From an initial analysis of the cracking,

one could certainly state that at failure the crack pattern is a typical shear failure with diagonal slits

passing through the mortar joints. However, the crack pattern differs from the one noticed in the
unreinforced test panel. The strengthened panel shows more widespread cracking when compared

to the unreinforced panel, as can be seen in Figure 9(a).

The failure mechanism of the strengthened DR-W1 wall concerned the delamination of the GFRP

fibre with debonding of the diagonal strips due to tension. The mechanism of debonding appears as

the failure mechanism because, after the loss of planarity of surface of wall due to cracks (Fig.

9(b)), GFRP strip become to detach and failed along its section. In Figures 9(b) it can be seen the

reinforced surface with the detail of the failure of the GFRP strip on the main diagonal, near the

point of application of the strain gauge no. E1. From Figure 9(b) it is possible to note also a thick

crack of masonry web, normal to the direction of GFRP strip on diagonal. In Table 5, the strain

values recorded on the diagonal axis of GFRP strips of DR-W1 model for horizontal force up to

value F=90 kN (cycle no.15) are shown.

Shear test on the W2 model undamaged and strengthened (R-W2) with the GFRP strips on one side

was carried out using the same methodology and with the same loading path as the DR-W1 model.

Also in this case, six GFRP strips, with a width of 50mm have been arranged for the strengthening

of W2 model. The same instruments used in DR-W1 to measure deflection and vertical strain were

adopted here, with six strain gauges E1,…,E6 placed on the main diagonals of the GFRP strips.

Eleven complete loading cycles were applied to R-W2 model. The wall was without cracking until

the 10th cycle and the first crack appeared for a load equal to F+≅37.0 kN. While the crack pattern

became widespread and diffuse at the maximum value of the shear load about F-=55kN (Fig. 10). In

Figure 11 experimental diagrams force, F, vs lateral deflection,  for all cycles of loading are

shown. In this case, more factors have influenced the damage mechanisms and strength capacity of

strengthened wall R-W2; after the diagonal cracking, when the tensile capacity of masonry has been

increased, detachment of GFRP strips (Fig. 12(a), (b)) happened close to the bottom of wall with

cracks on the mortar joints of flange; collapse of R-W2 wall model has been assumed at value of

horizontal load equal about F-≅55kN with complete detachment of GFRP strip due to compression

(Fig. 12(b)) and displacement of flange with damage of masonry (Fig. 12(a)).
From load-displacement diagrams, it can be noticed how the strengthening of the GFRP equipped

wall led to a strong increase in the lateral deflection capacity with increase in ductility. The increase

in resistance is low, due mainly to the mechanism of damages both of GFRP strip that may be

considered as delamination buckling under compressive stresses and cracking of masonry flange.

3. COMMENTS ON EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

First comment regards the energy that has been dissipated under tests from strengthened walls. The

experimental diagrams cyclic force, F, vs lateral deflection,  permit to evaluate the dissipated

energy during the cyclic shear test both for un-strengthened model, U-W1, and strengthened wall

models, DR-W1 and R-W2 (Figs. 13(a) and (b)). The energy may be evaluated with the integral of

experimental diagrams at ultimate cycles considering the formula:

𝛿+
𝐸 = ∫𝛿𝑚𝑎𝑥
― 𝐹(𝛿)𝑑𝛿 (1)
𝑚𝑖𝑛

For strengthened walls, EDR and ER are the energy values for strengthened walls, respectively, DR-

W1 and R-W2; EU, is the energy value for U-W1 calculated, at cycle no.8. The ratios between

energy values, EDR/EU and ER/EU, are quite similar and about 3.0. This ratio permits to note that it is

possible to obtain a good increase of the energy dissipation capacity by strengthening the masonry

with GFRP strips.

The phase of first cracking of strengthened walls DR-W1 and R-W2 happened at similar value of

horizontal shear force equal about F=37.0 kN÷40kN; after this value of shear force, F, the value of

recorded strains on GFRP strips (Fig. 14) increased quickly and the shear capacity depends mostly

by the tensile strength of GFRP strips able also to limit the thickness of cracks.

Further the results obtained by tests on DR-W1 and R-W2 walls, allow observing that the

strengthening of masonry with GFRP strips changes its potential damage modifying the mechanical

response and the failure mechanism. In particular, the strengthening conferred to the masonry,

above all, a greater capacity to undergo ample horizontal deflection and, hence, to dissipate energy

through the progression of ample and widespread cracking. In fact, what is mainly observed in both
cases investigated is a strong increase in lateral deflection with an increase of ductility. Comparing

the deflections at failure, we obtain the ratios of experimental deflection values for strengthened

walls with an increase equal to about u,DR/u,U = 1.80, for DR-W1, and u,UR/u,U = 2.50, for R-W2,

may be calculate.

Compressive strength of historic bricks influences the resistance of the structural elements with the

formation of possible local cracking mechanisms that may cause a brittle failure. This aspect

focuses on the great influence of mechanic parameters on the response of historic walls under

loading and further on the cracking behaviour of masonry in the bond mechanism between GFRP

strengthening and masonry surface. In the case of historical brickwork masonry, the local cracking

development can cause both local debonding mechanisms of tensile GFRP strips and buckling

delamination as happened for specimen R-W2.

Other important consideration can be developed from the analysis of principal directions and

deformations using strain Rosetta at the center of the wall models. Measurements of the

displacements of Rosetta have been recorded during the test up to a value of horizontal load equal

to 20 kN as shown in Table 6 for the R-W2 wall model. It is known that it is possible to determine

the strain components and principal strains εp, εq with inclination angle θ. Figures 15(a) and (b)

show the principal directions of strains (R-W2) for 2 cycles of horizontal load, F=15kN and

F=20kN for R-W2 wall. It follows that the principal directions of normal stresses are

experimentally variously inclined as consequence of many aspects: stresses’ distribution;

interactions between the mortar joints, their thickness and the direction of the applied compressive

and shear forces; influence of glued GFRP strips, etc.

4. DISCUSSION ON BOND OF GFRP STRIPS

The bond of the strengthening plays an important role in the oversell efficiency of the system and it

will be further analysed below by strain measures recorded during the tests. The loss of resistance

of the FRP-masonry joint system can occur in various modalities: detachment of the composite

material, involving a superficial film of the wall surface; along the contact surface of the wall
material and the adhesive; at contact between the thin layer of adhesive and the composite and

finally, inside the same composite for interlaminate failure [38]. Generally, resistance to tension-

shear of the adhesive layer is high so that collapse of the joint occurs due to the detachment of a part

of the sublayer of masonry, which remains glued on the FRP strips.

Experimental investigations suggest that one of failure mode of FRP-to-historic masonry joints is

delamination failure occurring at a plane located a few millimetres from the surface of the masonry.

As known, the ultimate load of strengthening with EB GFRP strips depends strongly on the fracture

energy, Gf , which can be evaluated by shear stress-slip laws.

A theoretical analysis to predict bond capacity of EB GFRP-strips on brickwork masonry,

considering a simplified elastic model, has been developed [48] assuming GFRP strip as the

adherent material subjected to axial and shear deformations. Masonry may be assumed as an

adherent material with porosity while polymer adhesive as an ideal intermediate element, between

GFRP strip and brickwork, subjected to shear stresses. The width, thickness, Young’s modulus and

shear modulus of the intermediate layer are denoted by bm, tm, Em and Gm, respectively; the adherent

superficial layer with thickness t1 and the ideal intermediate element of thickness tm are supposed of

elastic material.

Theoretical analysis allows to obtain the following maximum value of the interfacial fracture

energy, Gf, i.e. the total external energy supply per unit of area required to create and propagate

delamination along the GFRP strip-to brickwork masonry bonded joint:

1 1 𝑡𝑚 𝑃2
𝐺𝑓 = 2 ∙ 𝜏𝑚𝑎𝑥 ∙ 𝑢𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 2 ∙ 𝐺𝑚 ∙ 𝜏2𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 2 ∙ 𝑏2 ∙ 𝐸 ∙ 𝑡1
(2)
1 1

and the value of load capacity, P, of superficial glued layer of GFRP strip can be expressed as it

follows:

𝑃 = 𝑏1 ∙ 2 ∙ 𝐸1 ∙ 𝑡1 ∙ 𝐺𝑓 (3)

where b1, t1 and E1 are respectively the width, the thickness and the Young’s modulus of the

adherent superficial layer.

From investigation on GFRP to-historic masonry joints subjected to pull-out tests [38] has been

evaluated that the range of fracture energy value necessary to reach the delamination process is

Gf≅0.21N/mm÷0.52N/mm.

The experimental maximum value of tensile load on the GFRP strip at main diagonal in the wall

DR-W1, may be estimated with reference to the recorded strain values (Fig. 16). The maximum

values of the tensile experimental load applied to GFRP strip, TGFRP, may be evaluated with the

following relation:

𝑇𝐺𝐹𝑅𝑃 = 𝜀𝑚𝑎𝑥 ∙ 𝐸𝐺𝐹𝑅𝑃 ∙ 𝑏𝐺𝐹𝑅𝑃 ∙ 𝑡𝐺𝐹𝑅𝑃 (4)

considering the experimental maximum value of strain, max; the value of tensile force TGFRP on

GFRP strip is about TGFRP≅16 kN for an estimate thickness of tGFRP≅1.0mm with max≅5  10-3 at

strain gauge E5 (Fig. 16). Considering also the higher value of Gf=0.52 N/mm and comparing

results of Eqs. (3) and (4), it is possible to confirm that the process of delamination was reached for

GFRP strip in wall DR-W1 during shear tests.

The wall RW2 subjected to experimental test reached the maximum shear force equal to F-= 55kN.

As already underlined above, strip of GFRP closed to point of strain gauge E6 lost bond to masonry

surface with a mechanism of delamination under compression (Fig. 12(b)). The horizontal forces, F,

with double versus determine alternatively both tensile and compression stresses in the masonry

web and strengthening by EB GFRP. Although masonry can carry out main part of compressive

force for his greater thickness, also GFRP strip is subjected to a part of compression. Delamination

buckling becomes sometimes the main damage mechanism for the strengthening glued to historic

masonry surface.

A simplified theoretical model that may be used to analyse the buckle response has been proposed

[39]. GFRP strip is assumed as an elastic beam embedded in an elastic medium and subjected to

compressive forces at the ends. The strip may buckle under a system of loads, P, due to compressive

forces and load reactions, q, of ideal springs of constant k (Fig. 17).

The constant k has dimension of a force on unit length and unit displacement; it depends on the

width b1 of strips by the relation k=k0∙b1. The problem can be approached according to the energy

method following the Rayleigh’s procedure [49]; the critical buckling load determined by energy

method may be expressed as it follows:

(5)

where: EI = bending rigidity of GFRP strip and l = length of detachment.

The value of Pcr may be expressed as dimensionless value dividing for and the Eq. (5) may

be rewritten as:
𝑃𝑐𝑟
𝑘𝐸𝐼
= 𝑡2 + ()
1
𝑡
(6)

2∙𝛽∙𝑙 𝑘
being 𝑡 = 𝜋
and 𝛽 a dimension coefficient: 𝛽 = 4 .
4𝐸𝐼

The function (6) has a minimum for t=1; so that the smallest load Pcr for any length is equal to:

𝑃𝑐𝑟 = 2 𝑘𝐸𝐼 (7)

By experimental test on R-W2 wall model, it is possible to estimate the value of Pcr and the value of

constant k. Strain values of GFRP strip on compressive principal diagonal at the beginning of

delamination process for horizontal force F-≈55kN may be assumed as εmax≈1 ∙ 10-3. So that the Pcr

of GFRP strip may be estimated by:

𝑃𝑐𝑟 = 𝜀𝑚𝑎𝑥 ∙ 𝐸𝐺𝐹𝑅𝑃 ∙ 𝐴𝐺𝐹𝑅𝑃 ≈ 3200𝑁 (8)

with AGFRP area of section equal to 50mm2.

Comparing Eqs. (7) and (8), we obtain the constant equal about k ≈9.6 N/mm2; it is representative of

ideal spring’s modulus. By the following formula:

𝜋 1 𝐸𝐼
𝑙= ∙ =𝜋∙4
2 𝛽 𝑘
(9)

we obtain the smallest length l of delamination zone equal to l≈40mm.

5. CONCLUSIONS

This paper presents an experimental investigation on historical brickwork walls, with and without

GFRP strips, to analyze the response under combined loading of compression and shear; further the

damage mechanisms has been describe. The adopted models provide the reinforcement only on one

side because usually in historical and monumental buildings it is not always possible to intervene on

both sides of the walls. The main results are the following:

- the strengthening by GFRP strips led to an increase in resistance only for one of the models

investigated (DR-W1), while in the case of panel R-W2 failure mechanisms are activated

with the reduction of the ultimate strength; however for both specimens what is mainly

observed is an increase of lateral deflections and ductility;

- failure of the walls strengthened with GFRP strips occurred with cracking of the masonry

and the failure of the GFRP strips after local loss of bond;

- the strengthening by the GFRP strips led to an increase in deformation energy due to wider

load cycles;

- the strengthening by the GFRP strips of one tested wall highlighted debonding mechanism

resulting from local instability of the strengthening’s strip glued.

Further the experimental results allow to focus attention on the use of composite GFRP strips to

increase the resistance of the cross walls that is conditioned by cracking of masonry; it however

does allow to confide in a major displacement capacity even if possible local phenomenon of

instability of the strengthening can cause brittle failure resulting from debonding mechanisms.

Acknowledgement

This research was supported by research funds provided by Polytechnic University of Marche. The

authors would like to express their gratitude to the students and technicians who collaborated in the

development of the experimental research.

List of symbols

U = index for unreinforced condition

DR, R = index for damaged and reinforced condition; index for reinforced condition
fb = compressive strength of brick
fm = compressive strength of mortar
fmt = bending tensile strength of mortar
fw = compressive strength of masonry
Ew = Young’s modulus of masonry
 = Poisson coefficient of masonry
F = experimental shear load
Ρ1,P2 = compressive loads on wall
σ = average vertical stress
ε = strain
δ = lateral deflection for wall in the principal plane
τ = average shear stress
fresin = tensile strength of epoxy resin
Eresin = Young’s modulus of epoxy resin
AGFRP = equivalent cross-section of GFRP strip
bm,tm = width and thickness of adhesive layer
Em,Gm = moduli of adhesive layer
 = density
t1,tGFRP = thickness of GFRP strip
E1,EGFRP = Young’s modulus of GFRP strengthening
P = load on GFRP strip
EI = bending rigidity
Gf = fracture energy
k = modulus of springs
Pcr = buckling load of GFRP strip
E = energy value
References
1. Codice di Pratica per gli interventi di miglioramento sismico nel restauro del patrimonio
architettonico Regione Marche.(in Italian) 2007, Editors: Doglini F. and Mazzotti P.

2. Benjamin R., Williams H.A. The behaviour of one-story brick shear walls, Jour. of Struct.
Division ASCE. 1958. 84(1723): 1-30.

3. Hendry A.W., Sinha B.P. Shear tests on full scale single storey brickwork structures
subjected to pre-compression. Civil Engineering and Public Works Review. 1971. 1339-
1334.

4. Turnesec V., Cacovic F. Some experimental results on the strength of brick masonry walls.
In: Proc. 2nd Int. Brick Masonry Conf., Stoke on Trent 1971, UK, 149-156.

5. Mann W., Muller H. Failure of shear-stressed masonry. In: Proc. of the British ceramic
society. 1980. vol. 27: 223-235.

6. Tomazevic M. Earthquake-resistant design of masonry buildings. London Imperial College

Press, 1999.

7. EC6. 1995. Design of Structures for earthquake resistance, Part 1-1: general rules for
buildings – rules for reinforced and un-reinforced masonry ENV 1996 1-1: Bruxels: CEN.

8. EC8. 2004. Design provisions for earthquake resistance of structures. Part 1-1: general rules,
seismic actions and rules for buildings. ENV 1998-1:2004, Bruxels: CEN.

9. Schubert P., Bohne. Schubfestigkeit von Mauerwerk aus Leichtbetonsteinen. das Mauerwerk
Heft 3. Ernst & John 2002. 98-102.

10. Capozucca R., Sinha B.P. Strength and Behaviour of Historic Masonry under Lateral
Loading. In: Proc. 13th IBMaC, Amsterdam. 2004. vol. 1: 277-284.

11. Magenes G., Calvi G.M. In-plane seismic response of brick masonry walls. Earthq Eng
Struct Dyn. 1997; 26(11):1091–112.

12. Capozucca R. Shear behavior of historic masonry made of clay bricks. Open Construction
and Building Technology Journal. 2001. 5, Special Issue 1: 89-96.

13. Pina-Henriques J., Lourenço P.B., Binda L., Anzani A. Testing and modelling of multiple-
leaf masonry walls under shear and compression. In: Proc 4th SAHC Padua, Italy. 2004.
299–312.

14. Calderini C., Cattari S., Lagomarsino S. The use of the diagonal compression test to identify
the shear mechanical parameters of masonry. Construction and Building Materials. 2010.
24:677-685.

15. Calderini C., Cattari S., Lagomarsino S. In-plane strength of unreinforced masonry piers.
Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 2009. 38(2):243–67.
16. Anthoine A., Magonette G., Magenes G. Shear compression testing and analysis of brick
masonry walls. In: Proceedings of the 10th European conference on earthquake engineering,
Vienna; 1995. 1657–62.

17. Corradi M., Borri A., Vignoli A. Experimental study on the determination of strength of
masonry walls. Constr Build Mater 2003. 17: 325–37.

18. Cabboi A., Gentile F., Saisi A. From continuos vibration monitoring to FEM-based damage
assessment: application on a stone -masonry tower. Construction and Building Materials.
2017. 156: 252–65.

19. Cabboi A., Magalhaes F., Gentile C., Cunha A.M.F. Automated modal identification and
tracking: application to an iron arch bridge. Struct Control Health Monit. 2017. 24(1): e1854.

20. Valente M., Milani G. Non linear dynamic and static analyses on eight historical masonry
towers in the Nord-East of Italy. Engineering Structures. 2016. 114: 241–70.

21. Valente M., Milani G. Damage assessment and partial failure mechanisms activation of
historical masonry churches under seismic actions: three case studies in Mantua. Eng Fail
Anal. 2018. 92: 495–519. 


22. Milani G., Valente M. Failure analysis of seven masonry churches severely damaged during
the 2012 Emilia-Romagna (Italy) earthquake: non linear dynamic analyses vs conventional
static approaches. Eng Fail Anal. 2015. 54: 13–56.

23. Acito M., Bocciarelli M., Chesi C., Milani G. Collapse of the clock tower in Finale Emilia
after the May 2012 Emilia Romagna earthquake sequence: numerical insight. Eng Struct.
2014. 72: 70–91.

24. Lourenço P. Computations of historical masonry constructions. Progress in Structural

Engineering and Materials. 2002. 4(3): 301-319.

25. Milani G., Lourenço P.B., Tralli A., Homogenised limit analysis of masonry walls part I:
failure surfaces, Comput. Struct. 84 (3–4) (2006) 166–180.

26. Milani G., Taliercio A., In-plane failure surfaces for masonry with joints of finite thickness
estimated by a method of cells-type approach, Comput. Struct. 150 (2015) 34–51.

27. Milani G. Simple lower bound limit analysis homogenization model for in- and out-of-plane
loaded masonry walls. Construction & Building Materials, 2011, 25: 4426–4443.

28. Cecchi A., Milani G. A kinematic FE limit analysis model for thick English bond masonry
walls. International Journal of Solids and Structures, 2008, 45(5): 1302-1331.

29. Bertolesi E., Milani G., Poggi C. Simple holonomic homogenization model for the non-linear
static analysis of in-plane loaded masonry walls strengthened with FRCM composites.
Composite Structures, 2016, 158: 291–307.

30. Triantafillou TC. Strengthening of masonry structures using epoxy-bonded FRP laminates,
1998; Jour. Composites for Construction, 2(5): 96-104.
31. Ehsani M., Saadatmanesh H., Velazquez-Dimas J. Behavior of retrofitted URM walls under
simulated earthquake loading. J. Compos. Constr. ASCE. 1999. 3(3): 134-42.

32. Shrive N.G. The use of fibre reinforced polymers to improve seismic resistance of masonry.
Construction and Building Materials. 2006. 20: 269-277.

33. Capozucca R. Experimental analysis of historic masonry walls reinforced by CFRP under in-
plane cyclic loading, Composite Structures. 2011. 94: 277-289.

34. Foraboschi P. Strength Assessment of Masonry Arch Retrofitted using Composite

Reinforcements. Masonry International. 2001. 15(1): 17-25.

35. Borri A., Avorio A. Problemi di collegamento tra materiali FRP e strutture murarie. In: Proc.
Mechanics of Mas. Struct.s Strengthened with FRP-Materials, 2000. Venezia, 179-188.

36. Aiello M.A., Sciolti M.S. Analysis of bond performance between FRP sheets and calcarenite
stones under service and ultimate conditions. Masonry International. 2008. 21(1): 15-28.

37. CNR-DT 200/2004. Guide for the design and construction of externally bonded FRP systems
for strengthening existing structures. [In Italian]

38. Capozucca R. Experimental FRP/SRP-historic masonry delamination. Composite Structures.

2010. 92: 891-903.

39. Capozucca R. Double-leaf masonry walls under in-plane loading strengthened with
GFRP/SRG strips. Engineering Structures. 2016. 128: 453-473.

40. Oliveira D., Basilio I., Lourenço P. Experimental bond behavior of FRP sheets glued on
brick masonry. J Compos. Constr. ASCE. 2011. 15:32-41.

41. Fedele R., Milani G. A numerical insight into the response of masonry reinforced by FRP
strips. The case of perfect adhesion. Compos. Struct. 2010. 92: 2345-57.

42. Ghiassi B., Marcari G., Oliveira D.V., Lourenço P. Numerical analysis of bond behavior
between masonry bricks and composite materials. Eng. Struct. 2012. 43: 210-20.

43. Grande E., Imbimbo M., Sacco E. Simple Model for the Bond Behavior of Masonry
Elements Strengthened with FRP. Journal of Composites for Construction, 2011, 15(3): 354-
363.

44. Grande E., Imbimbo M., Sacco E. Modeling and numerical analysis of the bond behavior of
masonry elements strengthened with SRP/SRG. Composites: Part B, 2013, 55: 128–138.

45. Grande E., Milani G. Modeling of FRP-strengthened curved masonry specimens and
proposal of a simple design formula. Composites Structures, 2016, 158: 281-290.

46. Italian Code for Constructions DM 17/01/2018. Norme Tecniche per le Costruzioni. (In
Italian).

47. UNI EN 1015-11:2007. Methods of test for mortar for masonry - Part 11: Determination of
flexural and compressive strength of hardened mortar, 2007.
 48. Capozucca R., Ricci V. Bond of GFRP strips on modern and historic brickwork masonry.
Composite Structures. 2016. 140: 540-555.

49. Den Hartog J. P. Advanced Strength of Materials. Dover Publications Inc. 1987.

Experimental response of masonry walls in-plane loading

strengthened with GFRP strips
by
R. Capozucca and E. Magagnini

R. Capozucca: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Formal Analysis, Investigation,

Writing - Review & Editing, Supervision, Project administration

E. Magagnini: Formal Analysis, Investigation, Writing - Review & Editing, Visualization.

Experimental response of masonry walls in-plane loading

strengthened with GFRP strips

List of Tables:

Table 1 Experimental results from compression test on cubic historic bricks.

Table 2 Exp. deflection values for specimen U-W1 at cycle no.6 before cracking failure.
Table 3 Exp. dimensions of GFRP specimens.
Table 4 Exp. results by tensile tests on GFRP specimens.
Table 5 Exp. recorded strains on GFRP diagonal strips in DR-W1 (cycle no.15).
Table 6 Displacements,  recorded by “Rosetta” (R-W2).
 Table 1 – Experimental results from compression test on cubic historic bricks.
Type of Section Weight Pu σb σav.
specimen (mm²) (g) (kN) (N/mm²) (N/mm²)
R1 3300 348 159.10 48.2
R2 3360 364 128.80 38.3
42.0
R3 3327 352 130.53 39.2
O1 3420 315 66.24 19.4
O1 3480 313 75.74 21.7
21.0
O1 3540 315 76.54 21.6
Y1 3355 303 66.00 19.6
Y2 3327 299 61.31 18.4
20.4
Y3 3327 293 77.00 23.1

Table 2 - Exp. deflection values for specimen U-W1 at cycle no.6 before cracking failure.
 Lateral load* 1 2 3
F (kN) (mm) (mm) (mm)
-5 0.300 -0.344 0.047
15 -0.028 0.038 0.019
30 -0.378 0.444 -0.009
40 -0.641 0.741 -0.028
45 -0.794 0.913 -0.038
50 -1.022 1.181 -0.047
55 -1.388 1.581 -0.063
50 -1.528 1.719 -0.063
40 -1.453 1.628 -0.059
30 -1.222 1.378 -0.053
10 -0.931 1.053 -0.034
5 -0.853 0.959 -0.028
0 -0.709 0.794 -0.019
-5 -0.581 0.647 -0.009
-15 -0.316 0.347 0.006
-20 -0.125 0.128 0.019
-30 0.131 -0.163 0.038
-35 0.266 -0.319 0.050
-40 0.394 -0.463 0.059
-50 0.594 -0.691 0.075
-40 0.678 -0.750 0.078
-30 0.569 -0.647 0.078
-15 0.394 -0.447 0.066
-5 0.241 -0.278 0.053
0 0.225 -0.259 0.053
*Positive and negative signs of the lateral load depend on the direction of force F.

Table 3 – Exp. dimensions of GFRP specimens.

Measured
Width Area Equivalent Area
Composite thickness
Specimen
Material t
b Af AGFRP
[mm] [mm] [mm2] [mm2]
TG1 GFRP1 1.17 14.38 16.82 5.18
TG2 GFRP1 1.22 15.12 18.45 5.44

1. FIDGLASS UNI 300 HT 73

Table 4 - Exp. results by tensile tests on GFRP specimens.

 Maximum Exp. Ultimate Density* Exp.
Type
Composite Load strength strain* Modulus
Specimen of
Material Fmax σGFRP εGFRP  EGFRP
failure
[N] [N/mm²] (%) g/m2) [GPa]
TG1 GFRP 6365 1229.5 2.00 300 - AGM
TG2 GFRP 7169 1317.1 2.00 300 64.0 AGM
[*] values declared by the manufacturer.

Table 5 - Exp. recorded strains on GFRP diagonal strips in DR-W1 (cycle no.15).
Recorded Strain (10-6)
F (kN)
E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6
0 918 1963 971 -596 -1692 -568
5 759 1751 826 -509 -1490 -455
10 571 1494 640 -399 -1220 -313
15 282 1107 345 -223 -738 -93
20 36 751 70 -49 -268 103
25 -268 386 -189 131 305 287
30 -467 157 -351 263 663 413
56 -548 47 -423 320 829 468
70 -877 -364 -719 569 1537 704
80 -1084 -654 -946 767 2102 882
90 -1501 -1349 -1394 1215 3586 1234
80 -1537 -1455 -1453 1268 3799 1259
70 -1535 -1456 -1453 1269 3800 1259
56 -1534 -1456 -1453 1268 3799 1258
 50 -1409 -1402 -1390 1199 3630 1200
40 -1290 -1333 -1309 1105 3410 1131
30 -950 -1081 -1032 807 2757 913
20 -740 -853 -803 582 2286 731
10 -504 -548 -526 321 1738 498
5 -411 -432 -428 235 1545 415
0 -324 -335 -349 168 1383 349
-5 -231 -228 -264 100 1223 280
-10 -81 -19 -106 -18 980 162
-20 273 573 264 -273 422 -94
-30 638 1404 674 -541 -195 -355
-40 951 2136 996 -744 -710 -569
-50 1121 2550 1167 -850 -989 -692
-56 1354 3196 1430 -997 -1452 -886
-70 1733 4350 1899 -1232 -2205 -1205
-90 2939 -7712 4555 -2416 -3243 -1936
-70 2886 -7712 4565 -2348 -2930 -1797
-56 2704 -7712 4212 -2199 -2778 -1624
-50 2644 5811 4110 -2155 -2736 -1577
-40 2389 4828 3658 -1957 -2546 -1374
-30 2148 4182 3320 -1796 -2381 -1212
-20 1876 3575 2963 -1623 -2178 -1031
-10 1399 2708 2361 -1322 -1766 -708
-5 1283 2483 2177 -1231 -1632 -610
0 1125 2289 2013 -1164 -1499 -525

Table 6 – Displacements,  recorded by “Rosetta” (R-W2).

D E F
Exp. Forces
mm·10-5 mm·10-5 mm·10-5
First Phase
Compression Force 2.923 3.162 3.259
NTOT=33.5(kN)

Second Phase
Compression and D E F
Shear Force
F (kN) mm·10-5 mm·10-5 mm·10-5
0.5 2.900 3.141 3.229
-0.5 2.945 3.145 3.268
2.5 2.928 3.141 3.254
-2.5 2.875 3.140 3.236
5 2.948 3.139 3.247
 -5 2.854 3.129 3.212
10 2.936 3.139 3.219
-10 2.892 3.140 3.221
12.5 2.975 3.153 3.202
-12.5 2.893 3.140 3.202
15 2.973 3.124 3.192
-15 2.844 3.156 3.204
20 2.927 3.136 3.219
-20 2.839 3.141 3.221

Declaration of interests

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have

appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

☐ The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be

considered as potential competing interests:

 Experimental response of masonry walls in-plane loading strengthened with GFRP

strips

List of Figures:

Figure 1 Damage of historic masonry walls under shear loading during earthquake October 2016
(Visso, Marche region, Italy).
Figure 2 (a) Geometrical dimensions of brickwork wall models W1 and W2 with dauble T shape
section and instrumentations; (b) set up of unreinforced wall (U-W1) under in plane
cyclic shear loading.
Figure 3 Exp. diagrams cyclic force, F, vs lateral deflection, , at LVDT no. 2 (U-W1).
Figure 4 Diagonal cracking distribution of unreinforced wall U-W1.
Figure 5 View of experimental failure by tensile tests: (a) GFRP specimen – failure type AGM
(Angled, Gage, Middle).
Figure 6 Phase of preparation of wall surface with application of the two-component primer.
Figure 7 (a) DR-W1 with strain gauges E1,…,E6 on the GFRP strips of main diagonals; (b)
view of strengthened side.
Figure 8 Exp. diagrams cyclic force, F, vs lateral deflection, , at LVDT no. 2 (DR-W1).
Figure 9 Exp. failure views: (a) cracking failure on the unreinforced surface of web; (b) failure
with detachment of GFRP strip (DR-W1).
Figure 10 Experimental crack distribution after cycle 11 for F-max=55kN (R-W2).
Figure 11 Exp. diagrams cyclic force, F, vs lateral deflection, , at LVDT no. 2 (R-W2).
Figure 12 (a) Experimental failure of R-W2; (b) detail of delamination buckling of GFRP strip.
Figure 13 Exp. diagram cyclic force, F, vs lateral deflection, , for (a) DR-W1 (cycle no. 15) and
(b) for R-W2 (cycle no. 10).
Figure 14 Exp. strain values evaluated on diagonal GFRP strips in R-W2 at points (a) E1, E2, E3
and (b) E4, E5 and E6.
Figure 15 Principal directions by strains for R-W2 under cyclic shear tests: (a) F=15kN and (b)
F=20kN.
Figure 16 Exp. diagrams tensile strain values, ε, recorded during the shear test of for positive
values +F vs distance on diagonal line DR-W1.
Figure 17 Model to analyse the delamination buckling of GFRP strip.
Figure 1 – Damage of historic masonry walls under shear loading during earthquake October 2016
(Visso, Marche region, Italy).
(a)

(b)
Figure 2 - (a) Geometrical dimensions of brickwork wall models W1 and W2 with dauble T shape

section and instrumentations; (b) set up of unreinforced wall (U-W1) under in plane cyclic shear

loading.

Figure 3 - Exp. diagrams cyclic force, F, vs lateral deflection,  at LVDT no. 2 (U-W1).
 Figure 4 - Diagonal cracking distribution of unreinforced wall U-W1.

Figure 5 - View of experimental failure by tensile tests: (a) GFRP specimen – failure type AGM
(Angled, Gage, Middle).

Figure 6 – Phase of preparation of wall surface with application of the two-component primer.

(a)
 (b)

Figure 7 – (a) DR-W1 with strain gauges E1,…,E6 on the GFRP strips of main diagonals; (b) view

of strengthened side.

Figure 8 - Exp. diagrams cyclic force, F, vs lateral deflection, , at LVDT no. 2 (DR-W1).
 (a) (b)
Figure 9 - Exp. failure views: (a) cracking failure on the unreinforced surface of web; (b) failure
with detachment of GFRP strip (DR-W1).

Figure 10 – Experimental crack distribution after cycle 11 for F-max=55kN (R-W2).

 Figure 11 - Exp. diagrams cyclic force, F, vs lateral deflection, , at LVDT no. 2 (R-W2).

(a) (b)
Figure 12 – (a) Experimental failure of R-W2; (b) detail of delamination buckling of GFRP strip.
(a)
 (b)

Figure 13 - Exp. diagram cyclic force, F, vs lateral deflection, , for (a) DR-W1 (cycle no. 15) and
(b) for R-W2 (cycle no. 10).
(a)

(b)
Figure 14 – Exp. strain values evaluated on diagonal GFRP strips in R-W2 at points (a) E1, E2, E3

and (b) E4, E5 and E6.

(b)

Figure 15 - Principal directions by strains for R-W2 under cyclic shear tests: (a) F=15kN and (b)

F=20kN.
Figure 16 - Exp. diagrams tensile strain values, ε, recorded during the shear test of for positive
values +F vs distance on diagonal line DR-W1.
Figure 17 - Model to analyse the delamination buckling of GFRP strip.