2018 KourisTriant PREPRINT

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/328133521
State-of-the-art on strengthening of masonry structures with textile

reinforced mortar (TRM)
Article in Construction and Building Materials · November 2018

DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.08.039
CITATIONS READS
135 764
2 authors:
Leonidas Alexandros Kouris Thanasis Triantafillou

European Commission University of Patras
37 PUBLICATIONS 631 CITATIONS 158 PUBLICATIONS 10,834 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Innovative Seismic and Energy Retrofitting of the Existing Building Stock (iRESIST+) View project
Stability of Structures View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Leonidas Alexandros Kouris on 05 December 2020.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

1 STRENGTHENING MASONRY BUILDINGS USING TEXTILE-REINFORCED
2 MORTAR: DESIGN METHODS
3 Leonidas Alexandros S. Kouris1 and Thanasis C. Triantafillou2
4 Abstract. This investigation treats the problem definition and proposes guidelines for seismi-
5 cally upgrading masonry buildings using textile-reinforced mortar (TRM). The TRM technique
6 in the form of externally applied jackets is appropriate for protecting masonry structures be-
7 cause it can provide sufficient strength and deformation capacity while it satisfies the compat-
8 ibility, reversibility and durability requirements. Theoretical models are developed based on
9 analytical equations using the material properties of masonry and TRM. In-plane flexure and
10 shear failure modes are treated separately for biaxial stress. Then, the capacity against out-of-
11 plane loads is estimated for the overturning, horizontal and vertical flexural collapse mecha-
12 nisms. The proposed design methods apply to the ultimate limit state design. The theoretical
13 models are validated using experimental data and the models are found reliable and reasonably
14 conservative. Results of this study would improve the understanding of the performance and
15 mechanisms of TRM under seismic loading. Recommendations for structural design and a se-
16 ries of guidelines for designers are also provided.
17 Keywords: Analytical models, in-plane design, out-of-plane design, seismic retrofitting, tex-
18 tile-reinforced mortar (TRM), unreinforced masonry.
1
PhD, Research Associate, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Patras, Greece. Patras GR-26504,
Greece. e-mail: lakouris@upatras.gr
2
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Patras, Greece. Patras GR-26504, Greece. e-mail:
ttriant@upatras.gr
Leonidas Alexandros S. Kouris and Thanasis C. Triantafillou
19 INTRODUCTION
20 Extensive research has been carried out to upgrade masonry structures in terms of strength
21 and deformation capacity using composite materials (Triantafillou and Fardis 1997;
22 Triantafillou 1998a,b; Krevaikas and Triantafillou 2005a; Fossetti and Minafò 2017). Over re-
23 cent years, experimental works and in-situ applications have demonstrated that fiber reinforced
24 polymers (FRP) are an effective means for strengthening and/or repair of masonry (e.g.
25 Triantafillou 1998a; Olivito et al. 2014). Their critical advantages against conventional steel
26 reinforcement, mostly related to durability and compatibility, have been thoroughly addressed
27 (e.g. Bakis et al. 2002; Triantafillou 2016a) and will not be further discussed here. Textile re-
28 inforced mortars (TRM) have attained a growing popularity in respect to FRPs, due to (i) better
29 compatibility, (ii) more favorable deformation capacity and, (iii) conformity with the reversi-
30 bility requirement when historic unreinforced masonry (URM) structures are to be strengthened
31 (Papanicolaou et al. 2007, 2008, 2011; Garmendia et al. 2011; de Felice et al. 2014; de Felice
32 2016; Gries et al. 2016; Triantafillou 2016a). TRM jackets are made of two components: an
33 inorganic matrix (i.e. the mortar) and the fiber grid (textile). The construction is usually done
34 in two phases (e.g. Babatunde 2017): (i) application of a first layer of mortar as a base where
35 the textile is embedded, followed by (ii) the next layer of mortar. The thickness of each layer
36 may vary from 2 - 4 mm but when applied to a rough substrate such as stone masonry this can
37 reach locally a thickness of even 50 mm.
38 Experimental investigations on the in-plane and the out-of-plane response of both "tradi-
39 tional" (historic) and "modern" typologies of masonry walls reinforced with TRM have shown
40 a considerable increase of the load and displacement capacities. Traditional masonry is mainly
41 made of stonework masonry or solid brickwork masonry assembled with lime mortars, whereas
2
42 modern masonry is made of hollow brickwork, mainly clay but also cement and other various
43 types, assembled using cement-based mortars.
44 In-plane diagonal compression tests of modern masonry wallettes have investigated the ef-
45 ficiency of various TRM schemes (such as single / double sided jackets etc.): 9 solid clay brick
46 walls (Babaeidarabad et al. 2014c), 12 two-leaf brickwork walls (Ismail and Ingham 2014), 6
47 one-leaf brick masonry walls (Koutas et al. 2014), 12 clay brick masonry walls (Sagar et al.
48 2017). In-plane tests of 12 one-leaf brickwork cantilever piers and spandrel beams have also
49 been performed with various aspect ratios and axial load levels (Papanicolaou et al. 2007). Re-
50 garding the out-of-plane performance, three point tests (Papanicolaou et al. 2008; Sagar et al.
51 2017) or, four point tests (Harajli et al. 2010; Babaeidarabad et al. 2014b; Valluzzi et al. 2014;
52 Martins et al. 2015; Sagar et al. 2017) or, in some cases a uniform pressure using a hydraulic
53 system (Bui and Limam 2014) have been performed in various types of masonry walls com-
54 posed of natural, concrete or brick units. Moreover, the beneficial combined effect of seismic
55 (using TRM) and thermal upgrading has been investigated by Triantafillou et al. (2017).
56 For traditional masonry in-plane diagonal compression tests have been carried out for tuff
57 masonry brickwork (Prota et al. 2006; Faella et al. 2010; Parisi et al. 2013; Marcari et al. 2017).
58 Pier-spandrel assemblages of traditional solid clay and tuff masonry units have been tested to
59 study their interaction (Parisi et al. 2011; Ismail and Ingham 2016). The out-of-plane capacity
60 of traditional type masonry walls with solid units has been evaluated carrying out three point
61 tests (Shermi and Dubey 2017) or, applying a uniform pressure (Mosallam 2007; Ferreira et al.
62 2016).
63 It should be pointed out that the behaviour of the strengthened URM using TRM is improved
64 in terms of displacement and strength capacities in respect to URM strengthened with FRP as
65 reported in Papanicolaou et al. (2011).
3
66 Modelling techniques regarding the in-plane response of masonry retrofitted with TRM have
67 suggested: the strut and tie model (Krevaikas and Triantafillou 2005b; Koutas et al. 2014), ap-
68 plication of the macro-mechanical techniques and summation of the URM and TRM capacities
69 (Parisi et al. 2011; Babaeidarabad et al. 2014a; Sagar et al. 2017), detailed finite element (FE)
70 models based on the homogenisation technique (Lignola et al. 2009; Parisi et al. 2011;
71 Kyriakides et al. 2012; Basili et al. 2016; Anil et al. 2017; Wang et al. 2017) or, taking into
72 account the discontinuities due to local cracking (Greco et al. 2017).
73 For the out-of-plane bending several models have been proposed: (i) based only on the frac-
74 ture of TRM (Harajli et al. 2010), (ii) or taking into account also masonry crushing (Mosallam
75 2007; Babaeidarabad et al. 2014b; Babatunde 2017).
76 While for FRPs analytical models have become widely accepted (e.g. Minafò et al. 2017),
77 there is no such a model for TRM. Existing codes do not cover the design matter with a sys-
78 tematic approach and there are only sparse examples such as ICBO (2001) and ACI (2013). In
79 this paper, a unified analytical approach appropriate for the design and assessment of TRM-
80 strengthened masonry structures in both in-plane and out-of-plane actions is considered taking
81 into account the failure modes of the system: masonry crushing and failure of TRM. Closed
82 form solutions are developed and technical recommendations are suggested. The presentation
83 of the proposed methodology follows the rationale of the design methods of the Eurocodes
84 based on the partial safety factors. However, the contribution of the paper relies on the proposed
85 equations whereas safety factors may apply or not depending on the philosophy of the standards
86 followed in each country. The suggested model is verified against single element experiments
87 (i.e. walls and spandrel beams). The results confirm an effective estimation of the failure mech-
88 anism and show reliable evaluation of the strength capacity.
4
113 ANALYTICAL CONSIDERATIONS
114 Materials elasto-plastic stress-strain behaviour
115 The assumptions of homogeneity, isotropy and linear elasticity prior to cracking of the mor-
116 tar are made to simplify the mathematical treatment. In addition, the existence of a plane stress
117 field can often be justified for thin masonry walls (i.e. when thickness is less than one tenth of
118 the in-plane dimensions). The following assumptions are also made:
119 1. Plane sections are assumed to remain plane up to failure.
120 2. The tensile strength of masonry and mortar are neglected.
121 Regarding assumption (2) it should be noted that high-cement based mortars may have a
122 non-negligible tensile strength. In this case, the models should be modified accordingly. There-
123 fore, the proposed analytical solution is applicable for predicting the maximum wall strength of
124 slender walls where plane stress conditions prevail. However, for historic masonry, this ratio
125 sometimes is larger than 0.1. Clearly, the higher the ratio, the higher the shear deformations
126 through thickness of the wall, the rougher is the approximation and the less uniform the shear
127 stress field in the orthogonal direction. In such cases special care should be given to ensure the
128 TRM wrapping of the jackets around the piers to prevent disintegration of the walls.
129 Uniaxial tensile coupon testing of TRM jackets is available (de Felice et al. 2014; Larrinaga
130 et al. 2014; Ascione et al. 2015; De Santis and de Felice 2015; Mechtcherine et al. 2016; Bilotta
131 et al. 2017). The idealized stress-strain curve for TRM is presented in Figure 1Figure 1. Multi- Μορφοπο
132 ple cracking of the reinforced mortar is assumed to occur at a strain level εt0 following the
133 initiation of cracking and local debonding. Owing to the fact that a multiple cracking behaviour
134 is observed, this is simulated by an elastic-plastic model denoted as IIa (multiple cracking) state
135 following the initial I (uncracked) state. The third branch of the stress envelope (state IIb) after
136 εt1 becomes again linear, although the post-debonding elastic modulus is reduced. This is
5
158 characterised by the fiber elastic modulus Et = ftk/εtuk, where ftk is the characteristic strength and
159 εtuk is the characteristic strain at failure. Therefore, the elastic modulus E(εt) may vary from Eu
160 (the uncracked elastic modulus of the TRM section) to Et according to Equation (1(1):
 Eu , 0   t   t1

  E
E =  Eu t0 ,  t0   t   t1 = u  t0 (1a,b,c)
 t Et

 Et ,  t1   t   tud
161 In Figure 1Figure 1 γt is the partial safety factor for the textile applicable to both stresses and Μορφοπο
162 strains. Until reliable experimental calibration is carried out to derive suitable values for
163 strength and strain uncertainties, the partial safety factor can be assumed γt =1.5. It should be
164 noted that TRM failure may occur in various ways, one of them being the tensile fracture of the
165 textile. Other possible mechanisms of TRM failure are the debonding of the jacket (with cohe-
166 sive failure either in the substrate or in the matrix), or the sliding of the textile in the matrix
167 (Ascione et al. 2015). Therefore, the maximum (limiting) strain that TRM can sustain is taken
168 equal to the lowest of the ultimate strain, εtu, and the strain at debonding, εtb (in the order of
169 0.3%): εt,lim = min(εtu, εtb). Moreover, the experimental results show that fracture or sliding of
170 the textile are more likely to occur than debonding of the jacket (Bilotta et al. 2017). For carbon
171 textile, cementitious mortars and modern brickwork, the limiting strain of TRM approaches the
172 textile strength (Ascione et al. 2015).
173 The Eurocode 6 design strength model of masonry (CEN 2004) is adopted. The stress-strain
174 diagram, shown for the sake of completeness in Figure 2Figure 2, is parabolic-plastic. Common Μορφοπο
175 strain design values can be assumed for masonry: εm1 = 0.2% and εmu = 0.35%.
176 In-plane failure modes
177 Retrofitted walls with TRM and subjected to in-plane actions may present a bending or shear
178 failure mode. The former occurs due to the combined action of moment and axial force. In
6
204 slender walls flexure prevails while in squat ones shear dominates. Another possible failure
205 mode is the initial local/total debonding. Therefore, the bonding strength limits the bending and
206 shear strength. Finally, theoretically separation of masonry leaves for historic multi-leaf walls
207 may appear. In the total absence of experimental data for the latter failure mode it is not further
208 examined. The common design practice to separate the flexural design from that of the shear is
209 followed here although their action is simultaneous. The analytical design framework proposed
210 by Triantafillou (2016b) is adopted: (i) a cross section model is used for flexure/axial force
211 assuming a partial safety factor γRd = 1.0; (ii) a truss-analogy model is adopted for shear forces
212 assuming a partial safety factor γRd = 1.2.
213 Flexural failure
214 The flexural failure appears as masonry toe crushing and/or failure of the TRM due to frac-
215 ture or debonding depending, on their relative strength. The textile fracture when the material
216 strength is reached may be preceded by the debonding when the bond length is not sufficient
217 (Askouni and Papanicolaou 2017). The flexural capacity (MRd) of a strengthened masonry wall
218 may be calculated applying a cross-sectional analysis (Figure 3Figure 3). Μορφοπο
219 In reversed loading, the alternation of the tension zone yields in the elimination of the
220 uncracked area, unless the maximum attained strain of the textile εt is less than εt1. Therefore,
221 in Figure 3Figure 3 the stress distribution of TRM is assumed linear with a constant inclination Μορφοπο
222 Et ≤ E ≤ Eu according to Equation (1(1) with negligible loss of accuracy. The required TRM
223 quantity is calculated from the mechanical properties of masonry and TRM, the wall dimen-
224 sions (length l, thickness d, see Figure 3Figure 3) and the value of the applied axial force (NEd). Μορφοπο
225 Failure is defined in terms of deformation, when either masonry reaches its compression
226 strain limit εmu or the TRM fails in tension reaching εt,lim, whichever comes first. Bond models
227 depend on all the three components: the substrate, the textile and the matrix. Experimental and
228 analytical formulas have been presented for the bond of specific types of TRMs (e.g. carbon
7
248 textile embedded in cement based matrix (Ascione et al. 2015; D’Ambrisi et al. 2013; de Felice
249 et al. 2014) or other types of materials (Alecci et al. 2016; Askouni and Papanicolaou 2017;
250 Malena et al. 2017; Ortlepp et al. 2006). The total TRM area in the section is At = tt∙l∙n, where
251 n is the number of strengthened sides (1 or 2) and tt represents the thickness of TRM on each
252 side of the wall.
253 For the case of a masonry wall fully covered by TRM (Figure 3Figure 3), and considering Μορφοπο
254 the parabolic-plastic stress–strain relationship for masonry shown in Figure 2Figure 2 (with εm1 Μορφοπο
255 = 0.2% and εmu = 0.35% unless specific values have been experimentally determined), the force
256 equilibrium between the compressive force Fc of masonry, the tensile force Ft of TRM and the
257 axial load NEd acting on the section will be:
Fc = N Ed + Ft ,
Fc = k1 f md x  d
(2a,b,c)
1l−x
Ft = At td
2 l
258 In Equation (2a,b,c)(2a,b,c) it is assumed that the masonry parabolic stress distribution can
259 be idealised by a rectangular block (shown in dashed line) using the coefficient k1 which is a
260 function of the masonry maximum strain εm and ranging: k1 = {k1(εm) | εm ϵ [0, 0.0035] →[0,
261 0.8]}. The compressive strength of masonry is denoted as fmd, x is the compression zone depth
262 shown in Figure 3Figure 3 and the maximum stress in the TRM is denoted as σtd. Substituting Μορφοπο
263 Equations (2(2b,c) in (2(2a), the normalised neutral axis ξ is found equal to:
1
N Ed +  td At
x
= = 2 (3)
l k f d l + 1  A
1 md td t
2
264 In Equation (3)(3) there are two unknowns: (i) the maximum tensile TRM stress σtd ≤ ftd
265 (design strength of TRM) and (ii) the coefficient k1. At the same time, the strain compatibility
266 (Figure 3) gives rise to the following equation:
8
l−x 1− 
t =  m = m (4)
x 
284 Using Equations (3)(3) and (4)(4) and the material models it is possible to determine the
285 neutral axis depth x for a certain stress field (MEd, NEd) and applying a trial and error loop since
286 the equations are non-linear.
287 The effective mechanical ratio ωt of the reinforcement offered by the TRM in the respective
288 direction is defined as follows:
At  mu E
t = (5)
l  d f md
289 In Equation (5)(5) E refers to the elastic modulus of TRM (Figure 1Figure 1 and Equation Μορφοπο
290 (1(1)). The section presents the optimum exploitation of the TRM for a balanced failure of
291 masonry in crushing (εm = εmu) and the textile (εt = εt,lim). The normalised neutral axis for a
292 balanced failure ξbal = xbal/l is given in Equation (6)(6):
 mu
bal = (6)
 t ,lim +  mu
293 The compressive Fc,bal and the tensile Ft,bal forces corresponding to xbal using Equations
294 (2(2b,c) are estimated; if Fc,bal = NEd + Ft,bal, then a balanced failure occurs; if Fc,bal < NEd +
295 Ft,bal (compressive axial load NEd assumed positive in the inequality), then the section will fail
296 only in toe crushing of masonry; if Fc,bal > NEd + Ft,bal, then tensile failure of the TRM will
297 precede (due to fracture or debonding).
298 The normalised moment resistance of the section μRd = γRd∙ΜRd/(d∙l2∙fmd) is estimated assum-
299 ing moment equilibrium of the cross section (γRd = 1.0):
l  l x
 Rd   Rd = Fc  − k2 x  + Ft  +  (7)
2 
6 3  
300 i. Toe crushing of masonry
9
301 For the case that compression failure of masonry comes first, then εm = εmu and the normal-
302 ised neutral axis ξ defined in Equation (3)(3) is as follows:
1 v −  + v 2 + 2 ( k − v ) 
2 =
 t  Ed t Ed t 1 Ed
 (8)
2  k1 − 
 2
303 In Equation (8(8) the relative axial stress is denoted as vEd = NEd/(fmd ∙d∙l). Clearly, since εm
304 = εmu it is also σtd = fmd. Equation (8(8) is produced dividing the numerator and the denominator
305 of the right side of Equation (3)(3) by l∙d∙fm and solving by ξ2. The normalised moment re-
306 sistance μRd from Equation (7)(7) will be:
(1 −  ) (1 + 2 ) + 1 k  1 − 2k  (9)
2
1
Rd = t 1 ( 2 )
12  2
307 Equation (9)(9) is produced dividing Equation (7)(7) by (d∙l2∙fmd). A detailed example of the
308 calculation for a wall failing in toe crushing is presented in Appendix A1.
309 ii. Failure of TRM (by fracture or debonding)
310 For the case that failure of the TRM precedes (εt = εt,lim), the normalised neutral axis ξ is as
311 follows:
1 1 − bal
vEd + t
2 bal
1 = (10)
1 1 − bal
k1 + t
2 bal
312 while the normalised moment resistance μRd is:
1 1 − bal 1
Rd = t (1 −  )(1 + 2 ) + k1 (1 − 2k2 ) (11)
12 bal 2
313 For this latter case that εm < εmu the rectangular stress block coefficients take the values k1
314 and k2 as follows:
10
  1000 
1000 m  0.5 − 12  m  ,if  m  0.002
  
k1 = 
1 − 2
,if 0.002   m  0.0035

 3000  m
(12a,b)
 8 − 1000 m
 4 ( 6 − 1000 ) ,if  m  0.002
 m
k2 = 
1000 m ( 3000 m − 4 ) + 2 ,if 0.002    0.0035
 2000 m ( 3000 m − 2 ) m

315 A detailed example of the calculation for a beam failing in debonding is presented in Ap-
316 pendix A2.
317 Shear failure
318 The shear resistance (VRd) of masonry walls strengthened with TRM is estimated as the sum
319 of the masonry shear resistance contribution (VRd,m) and the TRM shear resistance contribution
320 (VRd,t) up to the maximum value (VRd,max) corresponding to compression failure of the struts in
321 the truss.
322 URM may fail in diagonal cracking or shear sliding (Indirli et al. 2013; Betti et al. 2015).
323 The former type occurs in a stepwise form along bed and head joints or crossing masonry units
324 when their strength is comparable to that of the mortar. However, this type of shear failure is
325 eliminated in masonry walls strengthened with TRM: typically the crack pattern is characterised
326 by horizontal cracks parallel to the bed joints due to slippage (Babaeidarabad et al. 2014b) or,
327 in the case of tuff masonry, there is a uniform widespread cracking along the diagonal (Prota et
328 al. 2006). Based on this experimental behaviour, the masonry contribution is considered assum-
329 ing only the case of shear sliding failure which is compatible with the failure mode of the
330 strengthened wall (Faella et al. 2010). However, it is underlined that others (e.g. Parisi et al.
331 2011; Babaeidarabad et al. 2014a) have also taken into account the diagonal cracking shear
332 strength of masonry.
11
352 VRd,t for textiles with two orthogonal directions may be estimated on the basis of the simple
353 truss analogy modeling approach of Eurocode 6 (CEN 2004), using Equation (13(13) (γRd =
354 1.2):
1 VRd , m + VRd ,t

VRd =  min 
 Rd 
VRd ,max
VRd , m = f vd  d  l
(13a,b,c,d)
VRd ,t = 0.9  l (n  tt ) f td
VRd ,max
= 2 MPa
d l
355 In Equation (13(13c) tt is the thickness of the TRM jacket (and n is the number of the jacketed
356 sides). Moreover, fvd is the design shear strength of masonry and ftd is the design strength of
357 TRM.
358 Summary of the in-plane design procedure
359 The moment capacity of the cross section described in Equations (9(9) and (11(11) has two
360 components: the first component is the TRM contribution and the second one is the masonry
361 contribution. In Figure 4Figure 4 the trend of each contribution and their sum is plotted versus Μορφοπο
362 the neutral axis for constant ωt = 0.1 and ξbal = 0.19: as can be seen for small values of ξ the
363 masonry contribution is smaller than the TRM one. On the contrary, the masonry contribution
364 goes increasingly high with ξ, whereas the TRM contribution diminishes rather quickly. For
365 masonry failure (ξ>ξbal), the moment resistance is higher than that for TRM failure.
366 The flowchart in Figure 5Figure 5 presents schematically the design procedure. The in-plane Μορφοπο
367 design/assessment procedure is summarised in the next steps:
368 i. Estimation of ξbal using Equation (6(6) and ωt using Equation (5(5).
369 ii. Estimation of the failure mode comparing Fc,bal, Ft,bal and NEd forces using Equations (2(2b,c)
370 and xbal.
12
395 iii. Depending on the failure mode, estimation of ξ using either Equation (8(8) for toe crushing
396 of masonry, or Equation (10(10) for fracture of TRM, or Equation (6(6) for balanced failure.
397 A loop is necessary for toe crushing to estimate the compatible elastic modulus E of TRM
398 (with εt), while for textile fracture to estimate the compatible values of k1 and k2 (with εm).
399 iv. Depending on the failure mode, estimation of μRd using either Equation (9(9) for toe crushing
400 of masonry, or Equation (11(11) for fracture of TRM. For a balanced failure both are valid.
401 The moment resistance of the section is ΜRd = μRd∙(d∙l2∙fmd)/γRd.
402 v. Estimation of the shear strength using Equation (13(13).
403 Out-of-plane failure modes
404 Masonry walls subjected to out-of-plane actions may present a vertical or horizontal bending
405 failure mode (Figure 6Figure 6) or may overturn if there is insufficient support in the perpen- Μορφοπο
406 dicular direction. The vertical flexure occurs when the support is at least at the top and bottom
407 extremities of the pier due to vertical out-of-plane moment. The horizontal failure mode appears
408 in long spanning walls in the form of vertical cracks. The overturning may appear in cantilever
409 walls, roof gable walls or when multiple in-plane cracking creates conditions of free standing
410 support at some critical part tending to separate from the rest of the structure. For vertical and
411 horizontal out-of-plane design also, the analysis framework proposed by Triantafillou (2016b)
412 is adopted.
413 Overturning
414 The TRM requirement for the out-of-plane overturning is estimated applying moment equi-
415 librium of the static and inertia forces (Ewing and Kariotis 1981; Abrams et al. 1996). Forces
416 are shown in Figure 7Figure 7: Pd is the gravitational force acting at the center of mass (denoted Μορφοπο
417 as C.M. in Figure 7Figure 7; moreover, a gravitational force P1d acting at the top of the wall is Μορφοπο
418 transferred from any possible superstructure. The total vertical force is NEd = Pd + P1d.
13
435 Horizontal forces Qd and Q1d are assumed to be a ratio α of the vertical forces, where a∙g is the
436 peak acceleration at the base of the wall: Qd = a∙ Pd and Q1d = a∙ P1d.
437 Static limit condition should occur when the compressive stress at the toe reaches the com-
438 pressive strength (Lagomarsino and Resemini 2009). The stress distribution on the contact sur-
439 face is shown in Figure 2Figure 2: the lever arms are calculated taking into account the Μορφοπο
440 distribution of the compressive stresses. The TRM requirement needed to avoid the overturning
441 can be evaluated as:
H d 
( d − k2 x ) Ftd = Qd + HQ1d −  − k2 x  ( Pd + P1d ) (14)
2 2 
442 In Equation (14(14) H is the height of the wall (Figure 7Figure 7) and the center of mass is Μορφοπο
443 assumed to be at a height H/2 (if this is not the case Equation (14(14) should be modified ac-
444 cordingly). The compression zone x has a width equal to:
N Ed
x= (15)
k1 f md l
445 In Equation (15(15) l is the length of the wall in the perpendicular direction. Combining
446 Equations (14)(14), (15)(15) and (17(17c) the required TRM thickness is:
 t Ftd
tt =  Rd
l  f trm
1 k2
− vEd
H a  Pd  2 k1
Ftd =  + P1d  − vEd dl
(16a,b)
d 1 − k2 v  2  k
1 − 2 vEd
Ed
k1 k1
447 Vertical and horizontal flexural failure
448 The flexural capacity (MRd) of masonry walls strengthened with TRM is estimated following
449 a similar cross-sectional analysis (Figure 8Figure 8). Likewise in-plane bending failure, the out- Μορφοπο
450 of-plane flexural failure appears in the form of either masonry toe crushing or tensile TRM (due
14
469 to fracture or debonding), whichever precedes. The strain limits for TRM and masonry are de-
470 rived from the respective material laws presented in Figure 1Figure 1 and Figure 2Figure 2 Μορφοπο
Μορφοπο
471 respectively. The reinforcement requirement of the textile as At = tt∙l, where tt represents the
472 thickness of TRM on the tension side of the wall.
473 The equilibrium of forces between the compressive action Fc of masonry, the tensile force
474 Ft of TRM and the external axial load NEd acting on the member's cross section should be
475 (Figure 8Figure 8): Μορφοπο
Fc = N Ed + Ft ,
Fc = k1 f m x  l (17a,b,c)
Ft = At t
476 Having neglected any possible arching effect, the axial force for horizontal flexure should
477 be zero.
478 The strain compatibility is given in Equation (4)(4) and repeated here:
d−x
t = m (18)
x
479 Substituting Equations (17(17b,c) in (17(17a), the normalised neutral axis ξ = x/d is found
480 equal to:
N Ed +  td At
= (19)
k1 f md d  l +  td At
481 The neutral axis for balanced failure is estimated from the normalised neutral axis xbal =
482 ξbal∙d, given in Equation (6(6). Comparing the compressive Fc,bal and the tensile Ft,bal forces
483 corresponding to xbal using Equations (17(17b,c) the failure mode is defined:
484 (i) a balanced failure occurs if Fc,bal = NEd + Ft,bal;
485 (ii) the section will fail only in toe crushing of masonry if Fc,bal < NEd + Ft,bal;
486 (iii) tensile failure of the TRM will precede if Fc,bal > NEd + Ft,bal.
15
487 The normalised moment resistance of the section μRd = γRd∙ΜRd/(l∙d2∙fmd) is estimated assum-
488 ing moment equilibrium in the middle of the cross section (γRd = 1.0):
d  d x
 Rd   Rd = Fc  − k2 x  + Ft  +  (20)
2   6 3
489 i. Toe crushing of masonry
490 For the case that compression failure of masonry comes first the normalised neutral axis ξ is
491 as follows:
2 =
1 v −  + ( vEd − t )
2
+ 4k1t 
2k1  Ed t  (21)
492 The effective mechanical ratio ωt of the reinforcement is given in Equation (5(5). The nor-
493 malised moment resistance μRd will be:
1  (1 −  )  (22)
Rd =  t + k1 (1 − 2k2 )
2  
494 A detailed example of the calculation is presented in Appendix A3.
495 ii. Failure of TRM (by fracture or debonding)
496 For the case that TRM failure precedes, the normalised neutral axis ξ is as follows:
1  1 − bal 
1 =  t + vEd  (23)
k1  bal 
497 while the normalised moment resistance μRd is:
1 1 − bal 
Rd =  t + k1 (1 − 2k2 ) (24)
2  bal 
498 For this latter case that εm < εmu, the rectangular stress block coefficients k1 and k2 should
499 be evaluated using Equations (12a,b)(12a,b).
500 Summary of the out-of-plane design procedure
16
525 The flowchart in Figure 5Figure 5 applies also to the out-of-plane design procedure (apart Μορφοπο
526 from the shear failure which is replaced with the overturning; step (i) below). The out-of-plane
527 design/assessment procedure is summarised in the next steps:
528 i. Estimation of the overturning capacity using Equation (16(16).
529 ii. Estimation of ξbal using Equation (6(6) and ωt using Equation (5(5).
530 iii. Estimation of the failure mode comparing Fc,bal, Ft,bal and NEd forces using Equations
531 (17(17b,c) and xbal.
532 iv. Depending on the failure mode, estimation of ξ using either Equation (21(21) for toe
533 crushing of masonry, or Equation (23(23) for failure of TRM, or Equation (6(6) for
534 balanced failure. A loop is necessary for toe crushing to estimate the compatible elas-
535 tic modulus E of TRM (with εt), while for textile failure to estimate the compatible
536 values of k1 and k2 (with εm).
537 v. Depending on the failure mode, estimation of μRd using either Equation (22(22) for
538 toe crushing of masonry, or Equation (24(24) for failure of TRM. For a balanced
539 failure both are valid. The moment resistance of the section is ΜRd = μRd∙(d∙l2∙fmd)/γRd.
540 EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION
541 A series of 10 masonry specimens reinforced with TRM has been tested in cyclic in-plane
542 actions (Papanicolaou et al. 2007) and 4 specimens in cyclic out-of-plane loading (Papanicolaou
543 et al. 2008). These test results are used as a benchmark to validate the analytical design and
544 assessment procedures. The results will be confirmed by a larger number of analyses as soon
545 as further test results will become available.
546 For the sake of completeness, the main experimental data and results are repeated here and
547 the reader is referred for a detailed description to the respective publications. In both test series
548 (in-plane and out-of-plane) the thickness d of the specimens is 0.085 m equal to the
17
574 corresponding brick size. The compressive strength of masonry, constructed with single wythe
575 running bond, is 4.3 or 2.0 MPa parallel or perpendicular to the bed joints and the respective
576 elastic moduli are 1.94 and 1.7 GPa.
577 The in-plane tests involve three different groups: (a) piers sized 0.8 m ∙ 1.3 m (l∙L), (b) piers
578 sized 0.4 m ∙ 1.3 m (l∙L), and (c) spandrels sized 0.4 m ∙ 1.3 m (l∙L), where L is the length of
579 each wall. Moreover, four different levels of axial load have been applied to the specimens
580 ranging from 0% to 25% of their axial capacity and the application of jacketing was double
581 sided with one or two layers of textile. Therefore, the test campaign includes a considerable
582 variability in aspect ratios and axial loads of the specimens. The textile applied for strengthen-
583 ing the walls has a nominal thickness 0.047 mm (obtained from the smeared distribution of
584 fibers), tensile strength 3350 MPa and elastic modulus 225 GPa in each orthogonal direction.
585 The TRM jacket is constructed using one or two layers of textile (hence tt = 0.047 mm or 0.094
586 mm) using a 2 mm thick (per layer) cementitious mortar with compressive strength 31.36 MPa.
587 The in-plane experimental capacities in terms of shear force are presented in Figure 9Figure Μορφοπο
588 9 with blue markers (stars for the push direction of loading and squares for the pull) while, in
589 red markers (circles) are depicted the analytically estimated capacities using the previous meth-
590 odology. The moment capacities are given in Table 1Table 1. Two detailed examples of the
591 calculations for a pier from the first group and a beam are presented in Appendices A1,2.
592 The failure mode estimation is correct for all specimens. In all but one case the analytical
593 procedure is conservative albeit no more than 30% (i.e. analytical shear capacity > 0.7∙experi-
594 mental median value). The standard deviation is as much as 9%. Obviously, the methodology
595 is able to capture well enough the capacity of the specimens given the simplifications regarding
596 the material relationships. The largest discrepancy appears for the single-layer specimen with
597 high axial load (25% of its compressive capacity) of piers; the mean experimental peak load
598 (i.e. positive and negative values) is 39.8 kN, whereas the respective analytical capacity is 26.84
18
623 kN. These values yield an underestimation as high as 33%. This specimen had a complete com-
624 pressive crushing of masonry whereas the TRM jacket at this point buckled outwards. It is
625 important to note that for this specimen the experimental discrepancy between the peak values
626 of the push and pull directions is 38%. It is worth noting that the analytical capacities fit better
627 with the experimental ones for walls with two layers of textile per side rather than with one.
628 Regarding the out-of-plane tests, two different configurations have been tested representing
629 horizontal and vertical flexure respectively. All specimens had dimensions 0.4 m ∙ 1.3 m (l∙L).
630 The walls had two textile layers on each side or only one.
631 The out-of-plane experimental peak shear forces are shown Figure 10Figure 10 (blue stars Μορφοπο
632 for loading in the push direction and blue squares for loading in the pull direction) in compari-
633 son with the corresponding analytical values (red circles) and in terms of moments in Table
634 1Table 1. A detailed example of the calculations for a spandrel is presented in Appendix A3.
635 In this case the analytical estimation is less conservative than for the in-plane design. A
636 general remark is that specimens with one textile layer are better correlated than their counter-
637 parts with two layers on each side of the pier. In one case the analytical estimation exceeds 10%
638 the maximum experimental capacity.
639 CONCLUSIONS
640 This analytical investigation aimed to propose a TRM strengthening design and assessment
641 procedure for in-plane and out-of-plane loads; failure modes are described and moment and
642 shear capacities are predicted. The following conclusions can be drawn:
643 i. Two basic modes of failure have been considered; compressive failure of masonry
644 toe and tensile fracture of TRM. Moreover, the debonding of the TRM has also been
645 considered.
646 ii. Design equations are developed for each failure mode.
19
647 iii. Maximum exploitation of the reinforcement is achieved for a balanced failure, i.e. a
648 simultaneous crushing of masonry toe and tensile fracture of the TRM. TRM failure
649 depends on the relative strengths of the textile, the matrix and the substrate.
650 iv. The analytical design methodology is verified against an experimental campaign of
651 pier and spandrel beams subjected to cyclic loads. The failure modes were identified
652 successfully. The analytical model is found to correlate with a reasonable conserva-
653 tism with existing experimental capacities. Considering the complexity of masonry
654 the method can be assumed reliable.
655 APPENDIX A
656 In the following, calculation examples of the moment and shear capacities of URM walls
657 strengthened with TRM are presented, using material properties obtained from tests
658 (Papanicolaou et al. 2007, 2008). The capacities of the retrofitted walls are computed for: (i) a
659 pier failing in-plane due to masonry crushing (pier A_M210%), (ii) a beam failing in-plane due
660 to TRM debonding (C_M1), and (iii) a beam failing out-of-plane due to masonry crushing
661 (B_M1).
662 A1. In-plane capacity of a cantilever wall with masonry crushing failure
663 Pier dimensions: 0.8 m ∙ 1.3 m ∙ 0.085 m (l∙L∙t).
664 Strengthened on both sides: jacket thickness tjacket = 4 mm, compressive strength of mortar
665 fmortar = 31.36 MPa, elastic modulus of mortar 5300 MPa.
666 TRM properties (double layers): tt = 2∙0.047 = 0.094 mm, ft = 3350 MPa and Et = 225 GPa.
667 URM properties: fm = 2.0 MPa and Em = 1.70 GPa.
668 Normalised axial load vEd = 10% → NEd = 0.8 m ∙ 0.085 m ∙ 0.10 ∙ 4.3∙103 kPa = 29.24 kN.
20
669 Effective wall thickness (estimated taking into account the TRM layers) from strain compat-
670 ibility: deff = d + n∙tjacket∙(Εmortar/Εm) ≈ d+n∙tjacket∙(fmortar/fm) = 0.085+2∙0.004∙(31.36/2.0) =0.21
671 m.
672 Textile area: At = tt∙l∙n = 0.094∙10-3∙0.8∙2= 15.04∙10-5 m2.
673 Maximum TRM tensile strain: εtud = 3.35/225 = 0.0149. Assuming that debonding is sup-
674 pressed: εt,lim = εtud = 0.0149.
675 State I TRM elastic modulus (uncracked section): strain compatibility→
676 Eu = Et + Emortar∙tjacket/tt = 225 + 5.3∙0.004/0.094∙10-3 = 450 GPa.
677 Cracking initiation stress assuming εt0 = 0.002: σt,tr,d = 0.002∙450∙103 = 900 MPa.
678 Strain at the end of state IIa: Equation (1(1) → εt1 = 0.002∙450/225=0.004.
0.0035
679 Balanced neutral axis: Equation (6)(6) → bal = = 0.19 →xbal = 0.19∙0.8 =
0.0149 + 0.0035
680 0.152 m.
681 Equation (2a,b,c)(2a,b,c)→ Fc,bal=0.8∙4300∙0.152∙0.21 = 109.80 kN,
682 Ft = 0.5∙(0.8 – 0.152)∙7.52∙10-5∙3350000/0.8 = 102.03 kN
683 → 29.24 + 102.03 > 109.8 → the failure mode is masonry toe crushing.
684 Effective mechanical ratio ωt of the reinforcement (assuming E = Et):
At  mu E 15.04 10−5 0.0035  225 103

685 Equation (5)(5) → t = = = 0.35
l  d eff f m 0.8  0.21 2.0
686 Neutral axis: Equation (8)(8) →
687 2 =

1
 0.1 − 0.35 + 0.12 + 2  0.35 ( 0.8 − 0.1)  =
0.35  
1
 1.25 ( )
−0.25 + 0.01 + 0.42 = 0.32
2  0.8 − 
 2 
688 Stress level of TRM:
21
0.8 − 0.32  0.8

689 Equation (4)(4) →  t = Et  t = 225 103  0.0035 = 1673MPa >σt,tr,d → As-
0.32  0.8
690 sumption about Et correct. Moreover, σt/ft = 1673/3350 = 0.5.
691 Normalised moment resistance μRd: Equation (9)(9) →
0.35 (1 − 0.32 ) (1 + 2  0.32 ) 1

2
692  Rd = + 0.8  0.32 (1 − 2  0.4  0.32 ) = 0.069 + 0.095 = 0.164

12 0.32 2
693 Therefore, the moment capacity of the wall at the base should be ΜRd = μRd∙(deff∙l2∙fm) =
694 0.164∙0.21∙0.82∙2000 = 44.08 kNm. The respective shear force is VRd = ΜRd / h = 44.08 / 1.3 =
695 33.91 kN.
696
697 A2. In-plane capacity of a spandrel beam with TRM debonding
698 Beam dimensions: 0.4 m ∙ 1.3 m ∙ 0.085 m (l∙L∙d).
699 Strengthened on both sides: jacket thickness tjacket = 4 mm, compressive strength of mortar
700 fmortar = 31.36 MPa, elastic modulus of mortar 5300 MPa.
701 TRM properties (single layer): tt = 0.047 mm, ft = 3350 MPa and Et = 225 GPa.
703 Normalised axial load vEd = 0% →NEd = 0 kN.
705 ibility: deff = d + n∙tjacket∙(Εmortar/Εm) ≈ d + n∙tjacket∙(fmortar /fm) = 0.085 + 2∙0.004∙(31.36/4.3) =
706 0.143 m.
707 Textile area: At = tt∙l∙n = 0.047∙10-3∙0.4∙2= 3.76∙10-5 m2.
708 Maximum TRM tensile strain: εtud = 3.35/225 = 0.0149. Assuming that debonding is sup-
709 pressed: εt,lim = εtud = 0.0149.
710 Cracking initiation stress: σt,tr,d = 0.002∙450∙103 = 900 MPa.
22
0.0035
0.0149 + 0.0035
712 0.076 m.
713 Equation (2a,b,c)(2a,b,c)→ Fc,bal = 0.8∙4300∙0.076∙0.143 = 37.39 kN,
714 Ft = 0.5∙(0.4 – 0.076)∙3.76∙10-5∙3350000/0.4 = 51 kN > 37.39 kN
715 → the failure mode is masonry toe crushing.
716 Effective mechanical ratio ωt of the reinforcement (assuming E = Et): Equation (5)(5) →
At  mu E 3.76 10−5 0.0035  225 103

717 t = = = 0.12
l  d eff f m 0.4  0.143 4.3
718 Neutral axis (assumption k1 = 0.8): Equation (8)(8) →
719 2 =

1
0.12 
(
 −0.12 + 2  0.12  0.8 =) 1
1.48
( −0.12 + 0.44 ) = 0.22
2  0.8 − 
 2 
1 − 0.22
720 Equation (4)(4) →  t = Et  t = 225 103  0.0035 = 2792 MPa > σt,tr,d → Assumption
0.22
721 about Et correct. Moreover, εt = 0.0035∙(1-0.22)/0.22 = 0.0124 very close to εtud. Therefore,
722 debonding is possible to occur (which actually happened) and therefore, εt,lim< εtud.
723 If debonding is suppressed the normalised moment resistance μRd: Equation (9)(9) →
0.12 (1 − 0.22 ) (1 + 2  0.22 ) 1

2
724  Rd = + 0.8  0.22 (1 − 2  0.4  0.22 ) = 0.040 + 0.073 = 0.113

12 0.22 2
725 Therefore, the moment capacity of the wall at the base should be ΜRd = μRd ∙(deff∙l2∙fm) =
726 0.113∙0.143∙0.42∙4300 = 11.12 kNm. The respective shear force is VRd = 4∙ΜRd / L = 4∙11.12 /
727 1.3 = 34.21 kN.
728
729 A3. Out-of-plane capacity of a simply supported beam with masonry crushing failure
23
730 Spandrel dimensions: 0.4 m ∙ 1.3 m ∙ 0.085 m (l∙L∙d).
731 Jacket thickness tjacket = 4 mm, compressive strength of mortar fmortar = 31.36 MPa, elastic
732 modulus of mortar 630 MPa.
733 TRM properties: tt = 0.047 mm, ft = 3350 MPa and Et = 225 GPa.
735 Normalised axial load vEd = 0% →NEd = 0 kN.
737 ibility: deff = d + tjacket∙(Εmortar/Εm) ≈ d + tjacket∙(fmortar/fm) = 0.085 + 0.004∙(31.36/4.3) = 0.114 m.
738 Textile area: At = tt∙l = 0.047∙10-3∙0.4= 1.88∙10-5 m2.
739 Maximum TRM tensile strain (assuming that debonding is suppressed): εt,lim = 3.35/225 =
740 0.0149.
741 Cracking initiation stress: σt,tr,d = 0.003∙279∙103 = 836 MPa.
0.0035
0.0149 + 0.0035
743 0.152 m.
744 Equation (17a,b,c)(17a,b,c) → Fc,bal = 0.4∙4300∙0.152∙0.114 = 29.8 kN, Ft = 1.88∙10-
745 5
∙3350000 = 62.98 kN → 29.8 < 62.98 + 0 → the failure mode is masonry crushing.
746 Effective mechanical ratio ωt of the reinforcement (assuming E = Et): Equation (5)(5) →
At  mu E 1.88 10 −5 0.0035  225 103

747 t = = = 0.075
l  d eff f m 0.4  0.114 4.3
748 Neutral axis: Equation (21)(21) →
749 2 =
1
2  0.8
( −0.075 + 0.0752 + 4  0.8  0.075 = )
1
1.6
( −0.075 + 0.5) = 0.26
750 Stress level of TRM:
24
0.4 − 0.26  0.4

751 Equation (18)(18) →  t = Et  t = 225 1030.0035 = 2240MPa >σt,tr,d → As-
0.26  0.4
752 sumption about Et correct.
753 Normalised moment resistance μRd: Equation (22)(22) →
 (1 − 0.26 ) 
754 Rd = 0.5  0.075 + 0.8  0.26 (1 − 2  0.4  0.26 )  = 0.19
 0.26 
755 Therefore, the moment capacity of the wall at the base should be ΜRd = μRd ∙(deff2∙l∙fm) =
756 0.19∙0.1142∙0.4∙4300 = 4.25 kNm. The respective shear force is VRd = 4∙ΜRd / L = 4∙4.25 / 1.3
757 = 13.08 kN.
758 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
759 The first author wishes to gratefully acknowledge the financial support by the EU Commis-
760 sion in the framework of the Marie Curie ITN ENDURE.
Notation list
The following symbols are used in this paper:
At = TRM area; VRd = shear resistance;
d= wall thickness; VRd,m = shear resistance of masonry;
E= TRM elastic modulus at any state; VRd,t = shear resistance of TRM;
Emortar = mortar elastic modulus; VRd,max = maximum shear resistance;
Et = TRM elastic modulus at state IIb x= depth of neutral axis;
(cracked);
Eu = TRM elastic modulus at state I xbal = depth of neutral axis for a bal-
(uncracked); anced failure;
Fc = compressive force of masonry; α= inertial coefficient of gravitational
forces;
Fc,bal = compressive force of masonry for γt = partial safety factor for TRM;
a balanced failure;
Ft = tensile force of TRM; γRd = partial safety factor for design
models;
Ftd = design tensile force of TRM; εm = masonry strain ;
Ft,bal = tensile force of TRM for a bal- εm1 = masonry strain before the per-
anced failure; fectly plastic branch;
fmd = design compressive strength of εmu = masonry strain at failure;
masonry;
fmortar = mortar compressive strength; εt = strain of TRM;
ftd = design strength of TRM; εtu = TRM strain at failure;
25
ftk = characteristic TRM strength at fi- εtud = design TRM strain at failure;
ber failure;
ftd = design TRM strength at fiber fail- εt0 = strain at the beginning of multiple
ure; cracking of TRM (end of state I);
fvd = design shear strength of masonry; εt1 = strain at the end of multiple crack-
ing of TRM (end of state IIa);
G= shear modulus of masonry;
H= height of wall; εtb = TRM strain at debonding ;
k1 = rectangular block coefficient; εt,lim = maximum (limiting) strain of
TRM;
k2 = rectangular block coefficient for εtuk = characteristic TRM strain at fiber
the resultant compressive force; failure (end of state IIb);
l= section length; μRd = normalised moment resistance;
L= length of wall; vEd = normalized axial load;
MRd = design flexural capacity (in-plane ξ= normalised neutral axis;
or out-of-plane);
NEd = design axial load; ξ1 = normalised neutral axis due to
TRM fracture or debonding;
n= number of jackets; ξ2 = normalised neutral axis due to toe
crushing of masonry;
Pd = gravitational force at the center of ξbal = normalised neutral axis for a bal-
mass; anced failure ;
P1d = gravitational force at the top of ρURM = specific weight of masonry;
the wall;
tt = thickness of TRM ; σtd = maximum design stress in the
TRM;
Qd = inertial force at the center of σt,tr,k = characteristic strain of TRM at
mass; multiple cracking;
Q1d = inertial force at the top of the ωt = effective mechanical ratio of the
wall; reinforcement;
761 REFERENCES
762 Abrams, D. P., Angel, R., and Uzarski, J. (1996). “Out-of-plane strength of unreinforced masonry infill
763 panels.” Earthquake Spectra, 12(4), 825–844.
764 Alecci, V., De Stefano, M., Luciano, R., Rovero, L., and Stipo, G. (2016). “Experimental Investigation
765 on Bond Behavior of Cement-Matrix–Based Composites for Strengthening of Masonry Structures.”
766 Journal of Composites for Construction, 20(1), 4015041.
767 American Concrete Institute (ACI). (2013). “Design and construction guide of externally bonded FRCM
768 systems for concrete and masonry repair and strengthening. ” ACI 549, Farmington Hills, MI.
769 Anil, Ö., Durucan, C., Kara, M. E., and Başeğmez, Ö. (2017). “Nonlinear three-dimensional FE analyses
26
770 of RC beams retrofitted using externally bonded CFRP sheets with or without anchorages.”
771 Journal of Adhesion Science and Technology, 31(7), 770–786.
772 Ascione, L., de Felice, G., and De Santis, S. (2015). “A qualification method for externally bonded Fibre
773 Reinforced Cementitious Matrix (FRCM) strengthening systems.” Composites Part B:
774 Engineering, 78, 497–506.
775 Askouni, P. D., and Papanicolaou, C. G. (2017). “Experimental investigation of bond between glass
776 textile reinforced mortar overlays and masonry: the effect of bond length.” Materials and
777 Structures/Materiaux et Constructions, 50(2), https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-017-1033-7.
778 Babaeidarabad, S., Arboleda, D., Loreto, G., and Nanni, A. (2014a). “Shear strengthening of un-
779 reinforced concrete masonry walls with fabric-reinforced-cementitious-matrix.” Construction and
780 Building Materials, 65, 243–253.
781 Babaeidarabad, S., Caso, F. De, and Nanni, A. (2014b). “Out-of-Plane Behavior of URM Walls
782 Strengthened with Fabric-Reinforced Cementitious Matrix Composite.” Journal of Composites for
783 Construction, 18(4), 4013057.
784 Babaeidarabad, S., De Caso, F., and Nanni, A. (2014c). “URM Walls Strengthened with Fabric-
785 Reinforced Cementitious Matrix Composite Subjected to Diagonal Compression.” Journal of
786 Composites for Construction, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 18(2), 4013045.
787 Babatunde, S. A. (2017). “Review of strengthening techniques for masonry using fiber reinforced
788 polymers.” Composite Structures, 161, 246–255.
789 Bakis, C. E., Bank, L. C., Brown, V. L., Cosenza, E., Davalos, J. F., Lesko, J. J., Machida, A., Rizkalla,
790 S. H., and Triantafillou, T. C. (2002). “Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Composites for Construction—
791 State-of-the-Art Review.” Journal of Composites for Construction, 6(2), 73–87.
792 Basili, M., Marcari, G., and Vestroni, F. (2016). “Nonlinear analysis of masonry panels strengthened
793 with textile reinforced mortar.” Engineering Structures, 113, 245–258.
794 Betti, M., Galano, L., Petracchi, M., and Vignoli, A. (2015). “Diagonal cracking shear strength of
795 unreinforced masonry panels: a correction proposal of the b shape factor.” Bulletin of Earthquake
796 Engineering, 13(10), 3151–3186.
27
797 Bilotta, A., Ceroni, F., Nigro, E., and Pecce, M. (2017). “Experimental tests on FRCM strengthening
798 systems for tuff masonry elements.” Construction and Building Materials, 138, 114–133.
799 Bui, T. T., and Limam, A. (2014). “Out-of-plane behaviour of hollow concrete block masonry walls
800 unstrengthened and strengthened with CFRP composite.” Composites Part B: Engineering, 67,
801 527–542.
802 CEN. (2004). Eurocode 6: Design of masonry structures; Part 1: General rules for buildings. EN 1996,
803 Brussels.
804 D’Ambrisi, A., Feo, L., and Focacci, F. (2013). “Experimental and analytical investigation on bond
805 between Carbon-FRCM materials and masonry.” Composites Part B: Engineering, 46, 15–20.
806 Ewing, R. D., and Kariotis, J. C. (1981). “Methodology for mitigation of seismic hazards in existing
807 unreinforced masonry buildings: Wall testing, out-of-plane.” Methodology for Mitigation of
808 Seismic Hazards in Existing Unreinforced Masonry Buildings: Diaphragm Testing, ABK, El
809 Segundo, CA.
810 Faella, C., Martinelli, E., Nigro, E., and Paciello, S. (2010). “Shear capacity of masonry walls externally
811 strengthened by a cement-based composite material: An experimental campaign.” Construction
812 and Building Materials, 24(1), 84–93.
813 de Felice, G. (2016). “Pros and cons of mortar-based composites for strengthening historic structures.”
814 Structural Analysis of Historical Constructions: Anamnesis, diagnosis, therapy, controls -
815 Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Structural Analysis of Historical
816 Constructions, SAHC 2016.
817 de Felice, G., De Santis, S., Garmendia, L., Ghiassi, B., Larrinaga, P., Lourenço, P. B., Oliveira, D. V.,
818 Paolacci, F., and Papanicolaou, C. G. (2014). “Mortar-based systems for externally bonded
819 strengthening of masonry.” Materials and Structures/Materiaux et Constructions, 47(12), 2021–
820 2037.
821 Ferreira, T. M., Costa, A. A., Arêde, A., Varum, H., and Costa, A. (2016). “In situ out-of-plane cyclic
822 testing of original and strengthened traditional stone masonry walls using airbags.” Journal of
823 Earthquake Engineering, 20(5), 749-772.
28
824 Fossetti, M., and Minafò, G. (2017). “Comparative experimental analysis on the compressive behaviour
825 of masonry columns strengthened by FRP, BFRCM or steel wires.” Composites Part B:
826 Engineering, 112, 112-124.
827 Garmendia, L., San-José, J. T., García, D., and Larrinaga, P. (2011). “Rehabilitation of masonry arches
828 with compatible advanced composite material.” Construction and Building Materials, 25(12),
829 4374–4385.
830 Greco, F., Leonetti, L., Luciano, R., and Trovalusci, P. (2017). “Multiscale failure analysis of periodic
831 masonry structures with traditional and fiber-reinforced mortar joints.” Composites Part B:
832 Engineering, 118, 75–95.
833 Gries, T., Raina, M., Quadflieg, T., and Stolyarov, O. (2016). Manufacturing of textiles for civil
834 engineering applications. Textile Fibre Composites in Civil Engineering, (T. C. Triantafillou, ed.),
835 3-24.
836 Harajli, M., ElKhatib, H., and San-Jose, J. T. (2010). “Static and Cyclic Out-of-Plane Response of
837 Masonry Walls Strengthened Using Textile-Mortar System.” Journal of Materials in Civil
838 Engineering, 22(11), 1171–1180.
839 ICBO. (2001). Acceptance criteria for concrete and reinforced and unreinforced masonry strengthening
840 using externally bonded fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP), Composite Systems - AC125. Ac125.
841 Indirli, M., Kouris, L. A. S., Formisano, A., Borg, R. P., and Mazzolani, F. M. (2013). “Seismic damage
842 assessment of unreinforced masonry structures after the Abruzzo 2009 earthquake: The case study
843 of the historical centers of L’Aquila and Castelvecchio Subequo.” International Journal of
844 Architectural Heritage, 7(5), 536–578.
845 Ismail, N., and Ingham, J. M. (2014). “Polymer textiles as a retrofit material for masonry walls.”
846 Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Structures and Buildings, 167(1), 15–25.
847 Ismail, N., and Ingham, J. M. (2016). “In-plane and out-of-plane testing of unreinforced masonry walls
848 strengthened using polymer textile reinforced mortar.” Engineering Structures, 118, 167–177.
849 Koutas, L., Triantafillou, T., and Bousias, S. (2014). “Analytical Modeling of Masonry-Infilled RC
850 Frames Retrofitted with Textile-Reinforced Mortar.” Journal of Composites for Construction,
29
851 19(5), 1–14.
852 Krevaikas, T. D., and Triantafillou, T. C. (2005a). “Masonry Confinement with Fiber-Reinforced
853 Polymers.” Journal of Composites for Construction, 9(2), 128–135.
854 Krevaikas, T. D., and Triantafillou, T. C. (2005b). “Computer-aided strengthening of masonry walls
855 using fibre-reinforced polymer strips.” Materials and Structures/Materiaux et Constructions,
856 38(275), 93–98.
857 Kyriakides, M. A., Hendriks, M. A. N., and Billington, S. L. (2012). “Simulation of unreinforced
858 masonry beams retrofitted with engineered cementitious composites in flexure.” Journal of
859 Materials in Civil Engineering, 24(5), 506–515.
860 Lagomarsino, S., and Resemini, S. (2009). “The assessment of damage limitation state in the seismic
861 analysis of monumental buildings.” Earthquake Spectra, EERI, 25(2), 323–346.
862 Larrinaga, P., Chastre, C., Biscaia, H. C., and San-José, J. T. (2014). “Experimental and numerical
863 modeling of basalt textile reinforced mortar behavior under uniaxial tensile stress.” Materials and
864 Design, 55, 66–74.
865 Lignola, G. P., Prota, A., and Manfredi, G. (2009). “Nonlinear Analyses of Tuff Masonry Walls
866 Strengthened with Cementitious Matrix-Grid Composites.” Journal of Composites for
867 Construction, 13(4), 243–251.
868 Malena, M., Focacci, F., Carloni, C., and de Felice, G. (2017). “The effect of the shape of the cohesive
869 material law on the stress transfer at the FRP-masonry interface.” Composites Part B: Engineering,
870 110, 368-380.
871 Marcari, G., Basili, M., and Vestroni, F. (2017). “Experimental investigation of tuff masonry panels
872 reinforced with surface bonded basalt textile-reinforced mortar.” Composites Part B: Engineering,
873 108, 131–142.
874 Martins, A., Vasconcelos, G., Fangueiro, R., and Cunha, F. (2015). “Experimental assessment of an
875 innovative strengthening material for brick masonry infills.” Composites Part B: Engineering, 80,
876 328–342.
877 Mechtcherine, V., Schneider, K., and Brameshuber, W. (2016). Mineral-Based Matrices for Textile-
30
878 Reinforced Concrete. Textile Fibre Composites in Civil Engineering, 25-44.
879 Minafò, G., D’Anna, J., Cucchiara, C., Monaco, A., and La Mendola, L. (2017). “Analytical stress-strain
880 law of FRP confined masonry in compression: Literature review and design provisions.”
881 Composites Part B: Engineering, 115, 160-169.
882 Mosallam, A. S. (2007). “Out-of-plane flexural behavior of unreinforced red brick walls strengthened
883 with FRP composites.” Composites Part B: Engineering, 38(5–6), 559-574.
884 Olivito, R. S., Tedesco, A., Codispoti, R., and Spadea, G. (2014). Strengthening Strategies of a
885 Historical Masonry Construction. Key Engineering Materials, 627-634.
886 Ortlepp, R., Hampel, U., and Curbach, M. (2006). “A new approach for evaluating bond capacity of
887 TRC strengthening.” Cement and Concrete Composites, 28(7), 589–597.
888 Papanicolaou, C. G., Triantafillou, T. C., Karlos, K., and Papathanasiou, M. (2007). “Textile-reinforced
889 mortar (TRM) versus FRP as strengthening material of URM walls: in-plane cyclic loading.”
890 Materials and Structures, 40(10), 1081–1097.
891 Papanicolaou, C. G., Triantafillou, T. C., Papathanasiou, M., and Karlos, K. (2008). “Textile reinforced
892 mortar (TRM) versus FRP as strengthening material of URM walls: Out-of-plane cyclic loading.”
893 Materials and Structures, 41(1), 143–157.
894 Papanicolaou, C., Triantafillou, T., and Lekka, M. (2011). “Externally bonded grids as strengthening
895 and seismic retrofitting materials of masonry panels.” Construction and Building Materials, 25(2),
896 504–514.
897 Parisi, F., Iovinella, I., Balsamo, A., Augenti, N., and Prota, A. (2013). “In-plane behaviour of tuff
898 masonry strengthened with inorganic matrix-grid composites.” Composites Part B: Engineering,
899 45(1), 1657–1666.
900 Parisi, F., Lignola, G. P., Augenti, N., Prota, A., and Manfredi, G. (2011). “Nonlinear Behavior of a
901 Masonry Subassemblage Before and After Strengthening with Inorganic Matrix-Grid Composites.”
902 Journal of Composites for Construction, 15(5), 821–832.
903 Prota, A., Marcari, G., Fabbrocino, G., Manfredi, G., and Aldea, C. (2006). “Experimental In-Plane
904 Behavior of Tuff Masonry Strengthened with Cementitious Matrix–Grid Composites.” Journal of
31
905 Composites for Construction, 10(3), 1081–1097.
906 Sagar, S. L., Singhal, V., Rai, D. C., and Gudur, P. (2017). “Diagonal Shear and Out-of-Plane Flexural
907 Strength of Fabric-Reinforced Cementitious Matrix–Strengthened Masonry Walletes.” Journal of
908 Composites for Construction, 21(4), 4017016.
909 De Santis, S., and de Felice, G. (2015). “Tensile behaviour of mortar-based composites for externally
910 bonded reinforcement systems.” Composites Part B: Engineering, 68, 401–413.
911 Shermi, C., and Dubey, R. N. (2017). “Study on out-of-plane behaviour of unreinforced masonry
912 strengthened with welded wire mesh and mortar.” Construction and Building Materials, 143, 104–
913 120.
914 Triantafillou, T. C. (1998a). “Strengthening of masonry structures using epoxy-bonded FRP laminates.”
915 Journal of Composites for Construction, 2(2), 96–104.
916 Triantafillou, T. C. (1998b). “Composites: a new possibility for the shear strengthening of concrete,
917 masonry and wood.” Composites Science and Technology, 58(8), 1285–1295.
918 Triantafillou, T. C. (2016a). Strengthening of existing masonry structures: concepts and structural
919 behavior. Textile Fibre Composites in Civil Engineering, (T. C. Triatafillou, ed.), 361-374.
920 Triantafillou, T. C. (2016b). Strengthening of existing masonry structures: design models. Textile Fibre
921 Composites in Civil Engineering, (T. C. Triantafillou, ed.), 375-388.
922 Triantafillou, T. C., and Fardis, M. N. (1997). “Strengthening of historic masonry structures with
923 composite materials.” Materials and Structures/Materiaux et Constructions, 30(8), 386-396.
924 Triantafillou, T., Karlos, K., Kefalou, K., and Argyropoulou, E. (2018). “An innovative structural and
925 energy retrofitting system for masonry walls using textile reinforced mortars combined with
926 thermal insulation.” RILEM Bookseries, 15, 752–761.
927 Valluzzi, M. R., da Porto, F., Garbin, E., and Panizza, M. (2014). “Out-of-plane behaviour of infill
928 masonry panels strengthened with composite materials.” Materials and Structures/Materiaux et
929 Constructions, 47(12), 2131–2145.
930 Wang, X., Ghiassi, B., Oliveira, D. V., and Lam, C. C. (2017). “Modelling the nonlinear behaviour of
931 masonry walls strengthened with textile reinforced mortars.” Engineering Structures, 134, 11–24.
32
932
933
934
33
935 Table 1. Comparison between analytical and experimental moment capacities in kNm.
Experiment
l # vEd Analy- Failure
Diff.
layers [%] sis mode
[m] Push Pull Ave.
0.8 1 10 41.9 39.7 40.8 34.8 0.85 Crush
0.8 2 10 50.9 47.1 49.0 43.8 0.89 Crush
0.8 1 2.5 32.9 31.6 32.2 27.7 0.86 Crush
0.8 2 2.5 46.2 47.1 46.7 44.2 0.95 Crush
In-plane
0.4 1 25 15.0 10.9 12.9 8.7 0.67 Crush

0.4 2 25 15.5 14.0 14.8 12.6 0.86 Crush
0.4 1 10 13.6 10.1 11.8 8.7 0.74 Crush
0.4 2 10 19.5 15.4 17.5 12.9 0.74 Crush
0.4 1 0 12.6 10.4 11.5 11.1 0.96 Debondinga
0.4 2 0 19.1 15.0 17.1 16.1 0.94 Crush
0.4 1 0 4.0 3.3 3.6 3.9 1.09 Crush
Out-of-
plane
0.4 2 0 4.9 4.0 4.5 5.4 1.21 Crush

0.4 1 0 6.0 4.7 5.3 4.2 0.79 Crush
0.4 2 0 9.6 7.1 8.4 6.1 0.73 Crush
936 a
The capacity is estimated without taking debonding into account.
937
34
938 List of figure captions
939 Figure 1. Design strength model of textile reinforced mortar (Triantafillou 2016b).
940 Figure 2. Design stress-strain model of masonry.
941 Figure 3. Cross-section analysis of in-plane loaded members at the ultimate limit state (after Triantafillou
942 2016b).
943 Figure 4. Normalised moment versus neutral axis: (a) the two components and, (b) the sum of them.
944 Figure 5. Flowchart of in-plane design/assessment.
945 Figure 6. Out-of-plane failure modes: (a) vertical flexure, (b) horizontal flexure.
946 Figure 7. Overturning of a cantilever wall.
947 Figure 8. Cross-section analysis of an out-of-plane loaded member at the ultimate limit state (after Triantafillou
948 2016b).
949 Figure 9. Comparison between in-plane analytical and experimental results.
950 Figure 10. Comparison between out-of-plane analytical and experimental results.
35
View publication stats

2018 KourisTriant PREPRINT

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2018 KourisTriant PREPRINT

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

State-of-the-art on strengthening of masonry structures with textile

Article in Construction and Building Materials · November 2018

Leonidas Alexandros Kouris Thanasis Triantafillou

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Stability of Structures View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

2 MORTAR: DESIGN METHODS

3 Leonidas Alexandros S. Kouris1 and Thanasis C. Triantafillou2

16 ries of guidelines for designers are also provided.

18 tile-reinforced mortar (TRM), unreinforced masonry.

37 reach locally a thickness of even 50 mm.

43 types, assembled using cement-based mortars.

65 reported in Papanicolaou et al. (2011).

72 account the discontinuities due to local cracking (Greco et al. 2017).

75 2007; Babaeidarabad et al. 2014b; Babatunde 2017).

88 anism and show reliable evaluation of the strength capacity.

113 ANALYTICAL CONSIDERATIONS

114 Materials elasto-plastic stress-strain behaviour

119 1. Plane sections are assumed to remain plane up to failure.

120 2. The tensile strength of masonry and mortar are neglected.

172 textile strength (Ascione et al. 2015).

176 In-plane failure modes

212 assuming a partial safety factor γRd = 1.2.

213 Flexural failure

252 side of the wall.

257 axial load NEd acting on the section will be:

266 (Figure 3) gives rise to the following equation:

286 the equations are non-linear.

288 direction is defined as follows:

292 balanced failure ξbal = xbal/l is given in Equation (6)(6):

297 precede (due to fracture or debonding).

299 ing moment equilibrium of the cross section (γRd = 1.0):

300 i. Toe crushing of masonry

302 ised neutral axis ξ defined in Equation (3)(3) is as follows:

306 sistance μRd from Equation (7)(7) will be:

309 ii. Failure of TRM (by fracture or debonding)

312 while the normalised moment resistance μRd is:

314 and k2 as follows:

316 pendix A2.

317 Shear failure

321 the truss.

332 strength of masonry.

358 Summary of the in-plane design procedure

367 design/assessment procedure is summarised in the next steps:

370 and xbal.

401 The moment resistance of the section is ΜRd = μRd∙(d∙l2∙fmd)/γRd.

402 v. Estimation of the shear strength using Equation (13(13).

403 Out-of-plane failure modes

441 can be evaluated as:

444 cordingly). The compression zone x has a width equal to:

447 Vertical and horizontal flexural failure

472 thickness of TRM on the tension side of the wall.

475 (Figure 8Figure 8): Μορφοπο

480 equal to:

484 (i) a balanced failure occurs if Fc,bal = NEd + Ft,bal;

489 i. Toe crushing of masonry

493 malised moment resistance μRd will be:

494 A detailed example of the calculation is presented in Appendix A3.

495 ii. Failure of TRM (by fracture or debonding)

497 while the normalised moment resistance μRd is:

499 be evaluated using Equations (12a,b)(12a,b).

500 Summary of the out-of-plane design procedure