G. Castori et al.

Construction and Building Materials 299 (2021) 124276

50-ton
Hydraulic Cylinder

Steel Shoe
Contact Instrumentation
LVDT transducer

Steel Rod Tie

Wall Panel
Brickwork
1200x1200x250 mm

H-shaped
Steel Profile

Fig. 3. Shear test setup.

and
τ (
A
)
γy = 2 γu − (9)
Shear Stress τu
1.05 F/A n
where τu and γu are the maximum shear stress and the corresponding
Principal Stress σI angular strain, respectively, calculated in correspondence of Fmax. It can
be noted thatγ y is calculated by imposing a condition of energy equality,
-1.62 F/An 0.5 F/A n
σ i.e. the equality between the area (A) underlying the diagram of the
experimental curve (solid black line in Fig. 5) and that underlying the
Principal Stress σII bilinear diagram (dashed lines). This underlying area has been calcu­
lated up to an angular strain of γu.

Fig. 4. Representation of stress state at the panel’s centroid, using the

2.3. Materials properties
Mohr circle.

2.3.1. Masonry material

Solid un-sanded standardized (in accordance with EN771 [38])
bricks have been used for the construction of the shear walls. These were
τ ≅ σ xy (8) clay, durable, high strength, solid engineering bricks (240x120x55 mm
in dimensions), available on the construction market in Italy and

Fig. 5. The method used for the calculation of the shear modulus of elasticity Gbil.

4
G. Castori et al.
manufactured by Toppetti Company (located in Masserano, Italy) to
cope with exposure to aggressive conditions (product denomination
“Mattone Pieno”). The mechanical properties of the bricks are summa­
rized in Table 2: to note a high compressive (38.75 MPa) and flexural
(3.61 MPa) strengths.
It is important to discuss the brickwork bonding pattern, as this may
have a critical effect on the lateral strength and deformation capacity of
the wall panels. Shear cracks are inclined at 45◦ and typically develop in
the bed and head mortar joints (as the mortar is normally weaker than
the bricks in historic walls) following a zig-zag pattern. The used
bonding pattern is shown in Fig. 6: it can be noted an alternate use of
stretchers and headers on the brick courses. This a common bonding
pattern historically used in Italy, and it is similar to the well-known
Flemish bond.
Stone walls were assembled using barely-cut calcareous, high density
stones. The objective was to simulate typical traditional stone masonry
constructions, which are common not only in Italy but also in many
other European and Middle East countries. Usually river-bed pebbles
and other local stones found on the fields were collected and re-used in
construction, following multi-centennial old building practices. Stone
samples have not been tested at the laboratory, but available literature
data from testing on this type of stone demonstrate high mechanical
properties: compressive strength 45–60 MPa, flexural strength 5–15
MPa, weight density 2200–2400 kg/m3 [39].
A low-cement bedding mortar was used for the construction of stone
and brickwork panels (mix design by weight: 80% sand, 15% lime, 5%
Portland cement). This was mechanically characterized in compression
and bending. In total 12 bending and 24 compression tests were con­
ducted. 40x40x160 mm prisms were tested at the laboratory and the
following strength values were found: mean compressive strength 2.69
MPa (standard deviation 0.278 MPa), flexural strength 0.76 MPa
(standard deviation 0.184 MPa) [40–41]. The failure tests were initially
carried out in three-point bending (central point load) after 28 days from
the date of casting, and subsequently the mortar prisms, broken in
flexure, were tested in compression. The choice of using a low-strength
bedding mortar was motivated by the desire or reproducing a historic
mortar, typically weak and deformable.
2.3.2. Meshes
Two types of Alkali Resistant fiberglass textiles have been used to
Table 2
Bricks and mortars properties. Standard deviation in ().
Brick Dimensions (mm) 240x120x55
Compressive strength (MPa) 38.75 (3.57)
Flexural strength (MPa) 3.61 (0.45)
Bedding mortar Compressive strength (MPa) 2.69 (0.21)
Flexural strength (MPa) 0.76 (0.184)
Mortar coating Compressive strength (MPa) 9.83 (1.02)
Type A Flexural strength (MPa) 2.19 (0.39)
Mortar coating Compressive strength (MPa) 25.6 (2.72)
Type B Flexural strength (MPa) 5.71 (0.89)
Fig. 6. (a) Used materials for wall construction: Solid bricks (240x120x55 mm); (b) Bonding pattern; (c) Uncut or barely-cut calcareous irregular stone.
5
Construction and Building Materials 299 (2021) 124276
reinforce the masonry wall panels. The mesh spacing (i.e. the aperture
size) is 50 and 30 mm for Type 1 and Type 2, respectively. In both cases
these are made of a square grid pre-impregnated mesh. Fig. 7 shows a
detail of the mesh: it can be noted the warp and weft wire components
used in weaving to turn the fiberglass fiber into the meshed fabric and
the joint at their intersection. In the weft direction (horizontal in Fig. 7),
a single strand made of un-twisted fiberglass filament was used, while
for warp direction 6 or 4 twisted strands were employed.
To prevent buckling and debonding of the FRCM from the masonry
substrate, through L-shaped connectors (unequal leg angles, 100x200
mm) have been applied (Fig. 8a). These were also made of fiberglass (the
producer declares in the data sheet a tensile load capacity of 18.9 kN,
diameter 8 mm, Young’s modulus 80 GPa). The longest connector leg
has been inserted into a 12 mm-diameter hole drilled in the masonry and
filled with the same mortar used for the coating (Fig. 8b). A total number
of 4 connectors were used for reinforced panels (2.8 connectors/m2).
Two types of mortars were used for the coating: Both are ready-to-
use mortars, having a special fibre-reinforced composition. Mortar
Type A is a lime (hydraulic) mortar and the producer (Kimia ltd.) reports
in the data sheet a compressive strength >15 MPa. Mortar Type B is a
cement mortar with a compressive strength >25 MPa. Table 2 also
shows the test results from mechanical characterization for the two
mortars used for coating. The thickness of each mortar coating was
20–25 mm and 30–40 mm for brickwork and stone masonry walls,
respectively (Fig. 9).
2.4. Retrofitting method
To reinforce the wall specimens, two types of fibrous meshes have
been used. The mechanical properties of the reinforcement, the mesh
geometry and the cement matrices used to bond them to the masonry
substrate are shown in Table 3, respectively. Because the main function
of the cement matrix is not only to encapsulate and protect the fibers,
but also to facilitate the transfer, by shear, of the tensile stresses acting in
the masonry, the choice of the cementitious mortar is critical: this should
be workable (easy to apply, able to penetrate and embed the fibres), non-
shrinkable, viscous enough to avoid drips due to its application on
vertical surfaces (i.e. walls), with a pot-life (working time) sufficiently
long to allow for multiple layers of reinforcement, if needed (Table 4).
3. Test results
3.1. Unreinforced specimens
Table 6 shows the values of the maximum shear (diagonal) force,
Fmax, recorded during the testing for both unreinforced and reinforced
specimens. Load was applied in cycles of increasing magnitude up to
failure (Fig. 10). The total number of the load cycles as well as the shear
modulus are also given in this table (Table 7).
The masonry shear strength τ 0 for each wall panel together with a
description of the masonry material, and type of reinforcement are also
shown. Unreinforced wall panels of both Series (brick (MAT) and stone
G. Castori et al. Construction and Building Materials 299 (2021) 124276

30 mm
50 mm

(a) (b)
50 mm 35 mm

Fig. 7. The two types of fiberglass mesh used for reinforcement: (a) Type 1, (b) Type 2.

Fig. 8. Reinforcement materials and application: (a) 200x100 mm fiberglass L-shaped connectors, (b) the mesh reinforcement before the application of the second
layer of mortar coating.

(PIE) work) failed through shear cracking and accordingly developed a

diagonal crack along the bed and head joints (zig-zag pattern). This
failure denotes shear cracking at the mortar joints of the wallette which
Brickwork
afterwards begins to behave as a rigid body rotating and translating
wall,
about the diagonal shear crack, i.e. without further demolition of the thickness
specimen. Fig. 11 shows the shear stress vs. angular strain plots for 240 mm
unreinforced specimens: it should be noted that the maximum value of Ready-to-use
angular strain (0.77 and 1.12 ‰ for MAT-01-U and PIE-01-U, respec­ mortar coating,
thickness 25-30 mm
tively) is not a significant parameter for the analysis, given the method
of application of the diagonal load (manually, using a pump). This in­
duces a pseudo-ductility (i.e. a horizontal plateau of the stress–strain Low cement 100x200 mm
curve) with limited mechanical significance. The main parameters to bedding 8 mm diameter
mortar L-shaped
consider are the capacity load, which was similar for both panels (67.03
Fiberglass rod
and 73.8 kN), the shear modulus (1080 and 2092 MPa for MAT-01-U and
PIE-01-U, respectively) and the failure mode. The diagonal shear crack
Fiberglass
of the brickwork panel was made of horizontal and vertical alternating
mesh
segments along the mortar joints, while, for stone masonry panel, this
was more inclined given the irregular shape of the stone blocks.
Fig. 9. Detail of single-sided reinforcement (brickwork wall panel).
The strength and stiffness values of unreinforced specimens are
consistent with the typical mechanical characteristics found in the

6
G. Castori et al. Construction and Building Materials 299 (2021) 124276

Table 3 scientific literature for traditional historic masonry in Italy [42–44].

Two types of fiberglass mesh used for reinforcement: physical and mechanical
properties.
3.2. Reinforced specimens
Type 1 Type 2

Mesh Material Fiberglass, AR Fiberglass, AR Reinforced wall panels consisted of ten wall specimens. Four were
Weight density (dry fiber) (g/m2) 235 465
made of rubble stones and the remaining six of solid bricks. FRCM
Weight density (pre-preg) (g/m2) 335 581
Mesh size (mm) 50x50 35x30 reinforcement was applied to virgin, i.e. undamaged walls.
Mesh unit tensile strength (kN/ 63 110
m) 3.2.1. Single-sided FRCM reinforcement
Single Young’s modulus (GPa) 72 72 Single-sided reinforcement should be avoided, as it produces unde­
Cord
Elongation at failure (%) 3.5 1.5
sirable second order effects to the structural responses of the shear walls
Tensile strength (MPa) 727 1270 (asymmetry in the stress distribution on the wall cross sections, likely
out-of-plane deformations in shear walls). The double-sided reinforce­
AR = Alkali Resistant
ment also activates the so-called “sandwich-panel” behavior, with a

Table 4
Results of shear tests.
Designation Wall Thickness Single- or Double sided No. of loading Maximum diagonal Masonry Tensile Masonry Shear Shear Modulus
(mm) Reinforcement cycles Load Fmax (kN) Strength ft (MPa) Strength τ 0 (MPa) Gbil (MPa)

MAT-01-U 240 – 7 67.03 0.116 0.077 1080

MAT-02-D 291 Double 14 204.9 0.353 0.236 1490
MAT-03-S 260 Single 9 100.2 0.175 0.117 1052
MAT-04-D 297 Double 14 199.8 0.350 0.233 2512
MAT-05-S 270 Single 10 113.4 0.200 0.133 2703
MAT-06-S 267 Single 10 120.9 0.211 0.141 1624
MAT-07-S 265 Single 10 120.9 0.208 0.138 1834
PIE-01-U 245 – 7 73.80 0.126 0.084 2092
PIE-02-D 303 Double 13 182.3 0.309 0.206 2034
PIE-03-S 285 Single 11 136.1 0.233 0.155 954
PIE-04-D 307 Double 14 209.6 0.363 0.242 876
PIE-05-S 293 Single 11 138.2 0.240 0.160 1902

Table 5
Summary of the test results, in terms of δτ = Fmax,reinf/Fmax,URM and δG = Gbil,
reinf/Gbil,URM ratios.

Designation Material & Reinforcement Experimental NTC 2018

δτ δG δτ δG

PIE-U Stone, URM 1.0 1.0 1.0

PIE-D Stone, double-sided 2.675 0.695 2.0
PIE-S Stone, single-sided 1.88 0.685 –
MAT-U Brickwork, URM 1.0 1.0 1.0
MAT-D Brickwork, double-sided 3.035 1.94 1.5
MAT-S Brickwork, single-sided 1.712 1.667 –

Fig. 10. Example of the cycling loading protocol.

Table 6
Table 7
Material properties of masonry components and reinforcement matrix deter­
Predicted versus experimental versus load-carryng capacities.
mined via FEM simulation .
Designation Single- or Double Predicted Experimental Error of
Young’s Modulus Poisson ratio Shear
sided load load capacity the model
(MPa) (–) transfer
Reinforcement capacity Fmax,exp (kN) Fmax,FE/
coefficient
Fmax,FE (kN) Fmax,exp
(βt) (βc)
MAT-01-U – 65.69 67.03 0.98
Solid brick properties 9000 0.20 0.5 1.0 MAT-02-D Double (Type 1) 176.25 204.9 0.86
Bedding mortar properties 320 0.15 0.2 0.5 MAT-03-S Single (Type 1) 112.5 100.2 1.12
Reinforcement matrix (mortar) 9600 (Type A) 0.17 (Type 0.2 0.5 MAT-04-D Double (Type 2) 172.5 199.8 0.87
properties 19800 (Type B) A) MAT-05-S Single (Type 2) 112.5 113.4 0.99
0.21 (Type MAT-06-S Single (Type 1) 135.0 120.9 1.12
B) MAT-07-S Single (Type 2) 135.0 120.9 1.12

7
G. Castori et al.
positive structural response against out-of-plane bending loads. How­
ever, in real applications, it is common that double-sided reinforcement
cannot be applied, for example for the requirement to keep the stones or
the bricks visible (fair-face aspect), or for frequently encountered con­
straints inside the buildings (partition walls, the desire of avoid use
disruption, high costs of restoring i.e. re-plastering, re-painting of the
walls, modifications of the electrical and water systems). As a conse­
quence, structural engineers are often forced to design single-sided
reinforcement.
Figs. 12 and 13 show the shear stress-angular strain curves for stone
and brickwork specimens. It can be noted that single-sided reinforce­
ment (Fig. 14) produced an increase in the lateral load capacity of 88
and 71%, for stone and brickwork specimens. On opposite, for the shear
modulus a decrement in magnitude was recorded: hoverer this may
depend on the method used to calculate this mechanical parameter
(Fig. 4) and on the resisting mechanism of reinforced walls panels.
During the initial loading phase, the masonry material, which has
bigger resisting sectional area and is stiffer that the reinforcement, is
able to resist to the diagonal load. However, by increasing the diagonal
load, the masonry starts cracking and the tensile stresses are more and
Fig. 11. Unreinforced wall panels: (a) MAT-01-U, (b) PIE-01-U.
Fig. 12. Envelope curves for the brickwork panels: shear stress (τ) versus angular strain (γ).
Construction and Building Materials 299 (2021) 124276
more sustained by the GFRP reinforcement. As a consequence, while
unreinforced specimens exhibit an abrupt loss of shear stiffness after
cracking, for single-sided reinforced ones this is smoother. This implies
that the bi-linear approximation method used for shear modulus
calculation is able to better “capture” the structural response of unre­
inforced wall panels compared to reinforced ones. Fig. 15 shows this
limitation for PIE-03-S test.
Table 5 shows the increment in terms of lateral load capacity and
shear modulus for all reinforcement layout. This table also compares test
results from the campaign with the suggested multiplication factors
suggested by the Italian Seismic code (NTC 2018). This is actually the
only national building code where FRCM–reinforcement of pre-existing
masonry buildings is considered, using a simplified approach consisting
in the application of a multiplication factor to be applied to the me­
chanical properties (compressive and shear strengths, Young’s and shear
moduli) of the unreinforced existing masonry. The Italian code only
suggests double-sided reinforcement, which is clearly to be preferred to
prevent second order effects resulting from a single-sided application (i.
e. out-of-plane wall deflections, asymmetric stress distribution, etc.). In
real practice, it is common to apply a single-sided reinforcement.