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

net/publication/363537015

In-Plane/Out-of-Plane interaction in masonry infills strengthening with

Textile Reinforced Mortar

Conference Paper · September 2022

CITATIONS READS

0 4

7 authors, including:

Maria Teresa De Risi André Filipe Furtado

University of Naples Federico II University of Porto
81 PUBLICATIONS   881 CITATIONS    152 PUBLICATIONS   1,372 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Hugo Rodrigues José Melo

University of Aveiro University of Porto
416 PUBLICATIONS   4,403 CITATIONS    69 PUBLICATIONS   665 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Seismic assessment of existing bridge with hollow piers View project

Special Issue " Assessment and Retrofitting of Building Structures: Experimental Testing and Modelling" in Applied Sciences [IF: 2.474] View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Maria Teresa De Risi on 14 September 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 3rd EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON
EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING & SEISMOLOGY
BUCHAREST, ROMANIA, 2022

In-Plane/Out-of-Plane interaction in masonry infills strengthening with

Textile Reinforced Mortar

De Risi Maria Teresa - University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy, e-mail: mariateresa.derisi@unina.it
Furtado André - University of Porto, Porto, Portugal, e-mail: afurtado@fe.up.pt
Rodrigues Hugo - University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal, e-mail: hrodrigues@ua.pt
Melo José - University of Porto, Porto, Portugal, e-mail: e-mail: josemelo@fe.up.pt
Verderame Gerardo Mario - University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy, e-mail: verderam@unina.it
Arêde António - University of Porto, Porto, Portugal, e-mail: e-mail: aarede@fe.up.pt
Varum Humberto - University of Porto, Porto, Portugal, e-mail: hvarum@gcloud.fe.up.pt

Abstract: Infills in existing reinforced concrete buildings are often vulnerable to seismic
actions perpendicular to their plane (OOP actions), especially if also in-plane (IP) damage is
present. This study aims at experimentally testing under OOP loading masonry infills that
suffer or not previous IP damage, in their as-built conditions and in the presence of a TRM-
based strengthening solution. Then, the very few predictive equation proposals for the OOP
strength of TRM-strengthened infilled frames, available in the literature, will be discussed
and applied.

Keywords: TRM-strengthening, infills walls, IP/OOP interaction, experimental campaign,

strength prediction

1. Introduction

Masonry infills in Reinforced Concrete (RC) buildings are generally widely used with an
enclosure function in residential buildings. It is well known that a reliable seismic design
and assessment of RC buildings should consider infills geometrical and mechanical
properties. One of the main issues concerning infills is their vulnerability to horizontal
actions perpendicular to their plane (hereinafter referred to as out-of-plane, or OOP,
actions), especially when also in-plane (IP) damage is present. Quite recently, research
works have studied possible strengthening strategies to reduce the vulnerability of the
infills panels due to OOP loading, testing different techniques, such as: (i) traditional
reinforcing plasters (e.g., Angel et al., 1994; Calvi and Bolognini, 2001); (ii) mortar bed
joints reinforcement with steel bars (e.g. Lourenço et al, 2016); (iii) engineering
cementitious composites for plastering (e.g., Kyriakides and Billington, 2014); (iv) Fiber
Reinforced Polymers (FRP) wrapping (e.g., Hrynyk and Myers, 2009); (v) or Textile
Reinforced Mortars (TRM) as innovative reinforcing platers (e.g. Koutas and Bournas,
2019; Minotto et al., 2020; Furtado, 2020). The TRM strengthening technique combines an
inorganic matrix (eventually fiber-reinforced mortars) with embedded coated or uncoated
fiber mesh (made up of glass, carbon, or basalt fibers, among others). It leads to a reduced
thickness for the strengthening plaster. It could be integrated with thermal insulation
solutions (Bournas, 2018). It presents a good performance in terms of durability and
intervention effectiveness (e.g. De Risi et al., 2020).
Thus, this study aims to enrich the experimental data currently available through
experimental OOP tests on masonry panels that suffer or not previous medium-level IP
damage, with and without the use of a TRM-based strengthening solution. Then, the very
few predictive equation proposals for the OOP strength of TRM-strengthened infilled
frames, available in the literature, will be analysed and applied to the tested specimens. De
Risi et al. (2020, 2022) present a detailed analysis of the data herein presented.

2. Experimental campaign

The performed testing campaign was made up of four quasi-static OOP tests of full-scale
masonry infill walls built with hollow clay horizontal bricks. The effectiveness of the TRM
strengthening solution is assessed under pure OOP loadings and with combined IP-OOP
loading sequence. Two reference (i.e., as-built) specimens are tested under OOP loadings
without strengthening, one without a previous IP loading (specimen AB-OOP) and the
other with prior IP damage (specimen AB-IPOOP). The two remaining walls (R3-OOP and
R3-IPOOP) are strengthened with TRM using a glass-fibre textile mesh combined with a
common mortar. The strengthened specimen R3-OOP is subjected to a pure OOP test,
while the specimen R3-IPOOP is subjected to an IP-OOP loading test sequence.
The RC frame has the same properties for all the tests, as shown in Figure 1. The average
cubic compressive strength (fcm) was equal to 22.9 MPa. The average steel bars yield
strength is 535MPa for ϕ8mm bars, 526MPa for the ϕ12mm bars, and 532MPa for the
ϕ16mm bars. The masonry infill walls are realized with hollow clay horizontal bricks
110mm thick, 200mm height and 300mm width. The panel slenderness (infill height-to-
thickness ratio, Hw/tw) is equal to 20.9. A glass-fibre bi-directional mesh (1 layer in the
panel, double-layer along the infill-frame interfaces) is selected for strengthening the walls
for specimens R3-OOP and R3-IPOOP (only on the exterior side), with 10cm overlapping
among adjacent sheets (see Figure 1b). Its weight is 185 g/m2 (150 g/m2 if untreated). The
nominal tensile strength of the mesh is equal to 40.0 kN/m. Plastic connectors are used to
keep the position and fix the textile mesh to the masonry panel. Preformed L-shaped
connectors made up of fibreglass and epoxy resin are used to fix the mesh to the RC frame
elements (see Figure 1b). Mortar for plastering has a Young modulus of 8500 MPa and a
(nominal) compressive strength after 28 days equal to 8 MPa.

(a) (b)
Fig. 1 - RC frame dimensions and detailing (a) and strengthening solution details (b) (length in meters; bars diameters in
mm).
 2.1. Test setup

The quasi-static IP cyclic test consisted of applying a horizontal displacement history at half
the height of the RC frame's upper beam through a hydraulic actuator, connected to a steel
reaction structure. Three push-pull cycles were performed for each target drift (0.1%, 0.2% and
0.3%). After IP testing, OOP tests were performed through a distributed OOP loading through
twenty-eight pneumatic actuators that mobilized the entire infill panel surface, resorting to
wood plates (one per actuator) placed between the actuators the panel. Two half cycles were
performed for each OOP target displacement. Several linear variable displacement transducers
(LVDTs) were used to measure the panel's OOP displacements along five horizontal and
vertical alignments, as shown in Figure 2. Six displacement transducers monitor the OOP
displacements of columns and beams. The instrumentation used to monitor the RC frame's
displacements and deformations during the IP test consisted of displacement transducers and
LVDTs located along the columns’ height and in centre of the top beam-cross section.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Fig. 2 – Experimental setup for OOP loading (a,b), and IP loading (c). Instrumentation for OOP tests (d).

3. Experimental results

The results of the IP force (FIP)-displacement (dIP) response are discussed in terms of initial
lateral stiffness and maximum peak load. About the OOP force (FOOP)-displacement (dOOP)
response, results will be discussed for four specific conditions: i) first cracking (when the first
visible crack in the wall develops) - FOOP,crack and dOOP,crack; ii) peak load (when the maximum
OOP load is reached) - FOOP,max and dOOP,max; iii) conventional failure (corresponding to a
strength drop of 20% after the peak load) - FOOP,conv and dOOP,conv; and iv) ultimate stage
(corresponding to the panel OOP collapse or the last step of the test). The reference OOP
displacement measurement is the infill panel centre's displacement (“control node”). The OOP
drift (driftOOP) is computed as the panel “control node” OOP displacement (dOOP) divided by
half of the panel height.
 3.1. Test AB-OOP

The as-built specimen AB-OOP was tested under OOP loadings only. The resulting force-
displacement response is plotted in Figure 3. This specimen presented an initial stiffness equal
to 19.49kN/mm, until its first (diagonal) crack (at driftOP=0.29% and FOOP=23.03kN). After
cracking, the OOP strength continued to increase up to a drift of 2.97% when it reached the
maximum peak load of 61.70kN. A five-linear hinge cracking was visible, typically of a panel
four-border constrained. Crushing of the bricks of the corner was observed. The OOP strength
remained relatively constant up to a drift of 3.90% when the wall's detachment from the
bottom RC beam occurred, causing a sudden force drop. The conventional failure occurred for
the drift of 3.97%, and the ultimate stage (“collapse”) at 4.09% drift.
Out-of-plane drift at control node (%)
0.00 0.87 1.74 2.61 3.48 4.35 5.22

70 AB-OOP (As-built) Cracking point

No previous IP drift Peak Load
Ultimate stage
Conventional failure
60
Out-of-plane force FOOP (kN)

50

40

30

20

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Out-of-plane displacement at control node dOOP (mm)
(a) (b)
Fig. 3 – Test AB-OOP: OOP response (a) and final damage state (b)

3.2. Test AB-IPOOP

The specimen AB-IPOOP is first subjected to an IP quasi-static loading test, which applies a
horizontal displacement at the top of the frame to introduce low/medium damage on the panel.
The maximum pre-defined target IP displacement is 8.4mm. The force-displacement response
curve showed an initial panel stiffness equal to 483.8kN/mm. The maximum peak load is
achieved for the positive displacement direction for a (nominal) IP drift of 0.20%, reaching
141.6kN. The maximum strength of 109.6kN is reached for a drift of 0.1% in the negative
direction. After that, a slight drop is observed in the negative displacement direction. The same
phenomenon is not observed in the positive displacement direction, where a 25% force drop is
found until reaching +105kN.
Out-of-plane drift at control node (%)
0.00 0.87 1.74 2.61 3.48 4.35 5.22

70 AB-IPOOP (As-built) Cracking point

Previous IP drift: 0.3% Peak Load
Ultimate stage
Conventional failure
60
Out-of-plane force FOOP (kN)

50

40

30

20

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Out-of-plane displacement at control node dOOP (mm)
(a) (b)
Fig. 4 – Test AB-IPOOP: OOP response (a) and final damage state (b)
In the following OOP test (see Figure 4), at the panel mid-height, a first horizontal crack is
observed for a dOOP,crack equal to 0.40%, and a corresponding force of 23.44kN. The initial
panel stiffness is 5.33kN/m. After that, the peak load is reached for a value equal to 61.70kN
and a related drift of 3.07%. At this stage, diagonal cracks develop from the top to the bottom
of the wall and the previous ones increase their thickness. Then, a sudden strength drop occurs
due to the panel's detachment from the bottom RC beam leading to the wall collapse. The
ultimate condition is achieved at 4.09% of OOP drift, corresponding to a force equal to
24.35kN. It was defined for this specimen that the conventional collapse occurred for an OOP
drift of 3.07% (Figure 4).

3.3. Test R3-OOP

The strengthened panel R3-OOP was subjected to a pure OOP test and presented an initial
stiffness equal to 34.02kN/mm. A first horizontal crack developed at the panel mid-height for a
driftOOP,crack equal to 0.14%, corresponding to an OOP force of 32.49kN. The OOP force
increased up to the maximum peak load of 92.8kN (driftOOP=2.99%) and remained almost
constant until driftOOP=3.76%. Then, a sudden reduction of the strength occurred up to 28kN,
when the test was stopped. The conventional failure occurred for an OOP drift equal to 3.80%.
The TRM plaster detached from the upper RC beam, but it remained still connected along the
adjacent columns. The connectors were still in-situ at the end of the test, but the glass fiber
mesh around them was locally cut, both in the top and bottom parts of the wall.
Out-of-plane drift at control node (%)
0.00 1.74 3.48 5.22 6.96 8.70 10.43 12.17

100 R3-OOP (Strengthened) Cracking point

No previous IP drift Peak Load
Ultimate stage
Conventional failure
Out-of-plane force FOOP (kN)

80

60

40

20

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Out-of-plane displacement at control node dOOP (mm)

(a) (b)
Fig. 5 – Test R3-OOP: OOP response (a) and final damage state (b)

3.4. Test R3-IPOOP

For this test, the first and second IP target displacements were successfully reached at
(nominal) 0.1% and 0.2% of target drift. Then, an unexpected problem occurred during the IP
test, and the third target displacement (0.3%) was only achieved once (for the positive loading
direction first). The initial stiffness of the IP force-displacement of the wall R3-IPOOP was
equal to 140.56kN/mm. The lateral strength gradually increases to 262kN in the positive
displacement direction for an IP drift of 0.3%. On the contrary, the strength was 200kN for a
corresponding IP drift of 0.16% in the negative loading direction.
After the IP test, the strengthened wall R3-IPOOP was subjected to the OOP test. The initial
stiffness was equal to 18.56kN/mm until reaching the first crack for an OOP drift of 0.08% and
a corresponding force of 20.90kN. After that, a gradual increase of the OOP load was observed
until reaching a maximum strength of 88.67kN, corresponding to an OOP drift of 3.04%. For
the OOP drift of 3.50%, the wall sudden total collapse was observed without any previous
degradation. The collapse mechanism observed at the end of the test is characterized by the
strengthened wall's total expulsion. The concentration of stresses around the connectors leads
to the cut of the fibermesh all around the connectors, similarly to the test R3-OOP, and the
strengthened wall behaves as a rigid body out of its plane.
Out-of-plane drift at control node (%)
0.00 0.87 1.74 2.61 3.48 4.35 5.22

100 R3-IPOOP (Strengthened) Cracking point

Previous IP drift:0.3% Peak Load
Ultimate stage
Conventional failure
Out-of-plane force FOOP (kN)

80

60

40

20

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Out-of-plane displacement at control node dOOP (mm)
(a) (b)
Fig. 6 – Test R3-IPOOP: OOP response (a) and final damage state (b)

3.5. Comparisons and remarks

Table 1 summarises the main results of the previously commented OOP tests.
Table 1. Main experimental results of OOP tests
Parameter AB-OOP AB-IPOOP R3-OOP R3-IPOOP
KOOP (kN/m) 19.49 5.33 34.02 18.56
FOOP,crack (kN) 23.03 23.44 32.49 20.90
FOOP,max (kN) 52.12 61.70 92.84 88.67
driftOOP,crack (%) 0.29 0.40 0.14 0.08
driftOOP,max (%) 2.97 3.01 2.99 3.04
driftOOP,conv (%) 3.07 3.97 3.80 3.57
driftOOP,ult (%) 4.09 4.19 11.21 4.06

First, it can be noted that the TRM strengthening increases the initial OOP stiffness (KOOP).
The specimens R3-OOP and R3-IPOOP achieved KOOP that was 1.75 and 5.33 times
higher than AB-OOP and AB-IPOOP, respectively. The damage caused by the previous IP
test reduces in both situations (non-strengthened and strengthened conditions) the initial
OOP stiffness of the walls, as expected. In the as-built specimen, the initial stiffness
reduces by about 72%. Concerning the strengthened walls, the previous IP drift reduces the
initial stiffness by about 45%.
The first cracking occurred for a lower OOP drift in the strengthened panels. The first
crack is observed for a drift of 0.08% for the panel R3-IPOOP, about 43% lower than R3-
OOP and 80% lower than AB-IPOOP. The drift corresponding to the first visible crack
development for test AB-OOP was about 27% lower than the one reached by AB-IPOOP.
Regarding the force caught in the first cracking stage, the maximum one is reached by R3-
OOP, as expected, with 32.49kN, namely about 1.55, 1.38 and 1.41 times higher than R3-
IPOOP, AB-IPOOP and AB-OOP, respectively. The lowest force got at this stage is
achieved by AB-OOP with 23.03kN. A minor difference is obtained between AB-OOP and
AB-IPOOP in terms of peak load (only 1%).
All the specimens (non-strengthened and strengthened) reach the maximum peak load for
similar OOP drift demands, namely between 2.97% and 3.04%. Again, the TRM
strengthening increases the maximum strength capacity by about 78% and 44% in both
cases of no-previous IP damage and previous IP damage, respectively.
The TRM strengthening allowed the wall to reach high OOP drift levels at “conventional
collapse” (or “ultimate” condition), driftOOP,ult, in case of strengthened wall R3-OOP (i.e.
without previous damage); on the contrary, for R3-IPOOP test, the wall reached a
driftOOP,ult of 4.06% (about 3% lower than the AB-IPOOP).
Lastly, it should also be noted that, for the OOP tests presented herein, the analysis of
damage at the end of the tests showed that the overlap length between two adjacent
fiberglass mesh sheets adopted (10 cm) was sufficient, since no evidence of a failure due to
an insufficient transfer of forces was observed until collapse (i.e. the collapse of each wall
was due to other phenomena, as commented above). Nevertheless, a further improvement
of the strengthening effectiveness should aim at avoiding the cut of the fiber mesh all
around the TRM-to-frame connectors. Therefore, a higher number of textile sheets or a
fiber mesh characterized by a higher tensile strength could be applied along the infill-frame
interfaces. Alternatively, a lower tensile demand in the fiber mesh around the connectors
should be obtained, reducing the spacing among the connectors or using a continuous
anchorage system.

4. OOP strength prediction

As well known, current codes worldwide, such as Eurocode 8 (CEN, 2005) or Italian D.M.
2018, require that the OOP strength of masonry infills should be higher than the OOP load
acting on them. Nevertheless, to the current state of the art, very few proposals exist in the
literature about the OOP strength of masonry infills, especially if they are reinforced with
steel meshes or TRM-based techniques. More in detail, this work investigates the
effectiveness of four simple strength models currently existing in the literature, namely:
- Model 1 (Mod 1) – suggested by Eurocode 6 (CEN, 2006) for masonry walls;
- Model 2 (Mod 2) – proposed by Di Domenico et al. (2019; 2021);
- Model 3 (Mod 3) – proposed by Morandi et al. (2013), without strength reduction due
to the IP damage;
- Model 4 (Mod 4) – as Mod 3 but considering the strength reduction (R) due to IP
damage, according to Morandi et al., 2013, different for the as-built or the strengthened
specimens and modified herein based on data by Minotto et al. (2020) for strengthened
specimens (as explained in De Risi et al, 2022).
Models 1 and 2 are basically useful to predict the OOP strength of masonry walls or infills,
respectively, without strengthening strategies.
Model 1 suggests that the maximum OOP distributed load (qmax) can be estimated based on
a one-way (vertical) arch resisting mechanism, and thus the maximum horizontal
uniformly distributed load (qmax) can be defined as in Eq. (1) (where fmv is the vertical
compressive strength of masonry):

(1)

Model 2 proposes to estimate the OOP strength (Fmax) as reported in Eq. (2), accounting for
both the horizontal and the vertical arch resisting mechanisms:

(2)
The terms and (with i=1,2,3) are suggested by the model’s Authors based on
regressions of numerical outcomes. fmh and Lw are the horizontal compressive strength of
masonry and the panel length, respectively. A further coefficient must be applied to Fmax in
Eq. (2) to account for previous IP damage. Thus, herein, the empirical proposal by Di
Domenico et al. (2021) has been applied for tests with previous IP damage.
Models 3 and 4 have been proposed by Morandi et al. (2013) for strengthened masonry
infills (with a reinforcing mesh). It was based on the assumption that a good prediction of
qmax could be obtained if the strength contribution due to the vertical arch mechanism
(evaluated with a slight modification of the Eurocode 6’s proposal) is added to the
maximum flexural contribution due to the applied exterior retrofit mesh/plaster. Morandi et
al. (2013)’s proposal is the first simple proposal predicting the OOP strength of TRM-
strengthened weak infills from the current literature. It was developed based on the
experimental data related to tests by Calvi and Bolognini (2001), where masonry infills
were strengthened with a traditional reinforcing plaster (i.e., plaster plus reinforcing steel
bidirectional mesh). According to Model 3, the maximum OOP distributed load for a
strengthened infill can be estimated as in Eq. (3):

(3)

where Ar and fy represent the total cross sectional area of the vertical reinforcing mesh in
tension and its yielding strength, respectively.
Model 4 considered herein is a further development of Model 3, which can also account for
the IP damage, basically depending on the max IDRIP level.
In what follows, Models 1 and 2 have been applied to as-built specimens only. On the
contrary, Models 3 and 4 apply to both the as-built and the strengthened specimens. Model
3 is applied only for not-previously IP damaged specimens. Additionally, note that, due to
the differences in the OOP setup used in different campaigns, the models predictions have
been “corrected” (when necessary) to take into account the adopted OOP loading shape, as
suggested in Di Domenico et al. (2019). Lastly, nominal properties for the reinforcing
mesh have been used in these predictions.
The above described predicting models have been applied to the experimental tests
analysed in this work, along with two further tests performed by the authors (R1-OOP and
R2-OOP) on the same RC frame, infill typology and material properties, but where
strengthening TRM used a fiber-reinforced (hereinafter, “ductile”) mortar (for details, see
De Risi et al, 2020).
The resulting predicted-to-experimental strength ratio is shown in Figure 7. First, it can be
noted that the considered models significantly underestimate the OOP strength
experimentally measured for the as-built specimens with and without IP damage (AB-OOP
and AB-IPOOP). Then, regarding the strengthened specimens, it is worth mentioning that
(in absence of the experimental tensile behaviour of the whole TRM system) the strength
contribution due to the TRM could be divided in two contributions: (i) one due to the
plaster - which can affect the actual strenght, above all in case of “ductile” (or fiber-
reinforced) mortars; (ii) the other one due to the embedded fiber mesh. Their maximum
contribution to the OOP strength cannot be contemporary (as computed herein in cases
“Mod 3-all” and “Mod 4-all” in Figure 7b) due to strain compatibility issues. Therefore,
Model 3 and Model 4 have been also applied by considering the tensile contribution of the
plaster only (“Mod 3-OP” and “Mod 4-OP”) and, on the other hand, the tensile
contribution of the fiber mesh only (“Mod 3-ON” and “Mod 4-ON”), as shown in Figure
7b. Fmax,test is generally significantly overestimated for the strengthened specimens when
both the plaster and the mesh contributions are contemporary considered, except in case of
Model 4 applied to the R3-IPOOP test. However, it should be noted that the same model
overestimated the maximum OOP load for the same test in absence of IP damage (R3-
OOP) by about 50%. Additionally, based on tests reported herein, if the fiber mesh only is
considered in the flexural additional term in Eq. (3), a quite conservative estimate of the
maximum OOP load is always obtained.
3.0 3.0
Mod 1 Mod 3-all
2.5 2.5
Fmax,pred/Fmax,test (-)

Fmax,pred/Fmax,test (-)
Mod 4-all
Mod 2 Mod 3-OP
2.0 2.0
Mod 4-OP
1.5 1.5
Mod 3-ON
1.0 1.0 Mod 4-ON

0.5 0.5

0.0 0.0

(a) (b)
Fig. 7 – Predicted-to-experimental strength ratio for tests performed by the authors according to different strength
models.

5. Conclusions

This study aimed at enriching the currently available experimental data with the analyses
of four experimental tests on masonry panels under out-of-plane (OOP) actions, which
suffer or not a previous in-plane (IP) damage, with and without the use of a TRM-based
strengthening solution. Two tests (AB-OOP and AB-IPOOP) were representative of as-
built thin infills, made up of horizontally hollow clay bricks and common mortar for bed
joints; the other two tests (R3-OOP and R3-IPOOP) represented the same infills mentioned
before with a reinforcing plater made up of common mortar and an embedded glassfiber
bidirectional mesh fixed with L-shape glass-fibre connectors to the RC frame surrounding
structure. The OOP tests revealed that the TRM increases the initial stiffness up to 5.33
times. The first crack is observed for lower OOP drift demands for panels strengthened
with TRM. The maximum OOP strength increased 78% and 44% in without previous
damage and with previous damage, respectively, by using TRM. It was observed that the
TRM strengthening allowed the wall to reach high OOP drift levels in the case of the
strengthened wall R3-OOP (i.e. without previous damage), but the same was not observed
for R3-IPOOP, in which the wall reached a maximum drift of 4.06% (about 3% lower than
the than corresponding as-built panel, AB-IPOOP). The use of L-shape GFRP connectors
revealed to be a fragile solution in the case of an IP-OOP loading.
Lastly, the very few predictive proposals for OOP strength of TRM-strengthened infilled
frames have been analysed. They were applied to the experimental tests analysed in this
work, along with two further tests performed by the authors (R1-OOP and R2-OOP) on the
same RC frame, infill typology and material properties, but where strengthening TRM used
a fiber-reinforced (hereinafter, “ductile”) mortar. About strengthened specimens, Morandi
et al. (2013)’s proposal, the only simple formulation currently available specifically for
strengthened infill panels, in absence of previous IP damage, generally overestimates the
OOP strength, if mortar and mesh contributions are contemporary considered, due to the
 violation of compatibility issues. This is especially true when only specimens retrofitted
with fiber-reinforced mortars are considered (R2-OOP, R3-OOP). On the contrary, a
conservative prediction by Morandi et al. (2013)’s proposal is obtained when it is applied
considering only the strength contribution of the reinforcing mesh.
Additional effort is strongly required to estimate the OOP strength of masonry infills
strengthened by TRM, to provide reliable practice-oriented design tools for the use of the
TRM strengthening technique for infills. Similarly, predictive tools are also needed for the
whole OOP response of TRM-strengthened infills, to quantify numerically the beneficial
effect of the TRM technique in terms of displacement capacity.

References

- Angel, R., Abrams, D. P., Shapiro, D., Uzarski, J. and Webster, M. (1994) Behaviour of reinforced
concrete frames with masonry infills, University of Illinois Engineering Experiment Station. College of
Engineering. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
- Bournas, D. A. (2018). Concurrent seismic and energy retrofitting of RC and masonry building
envelopes using inorganic textile-based composites combined with insulation materials: A new concept.
Composites Part B: Engineering, 148, 166-179.
- Calvi, G. M. and Bolognini, D. (2001). Seismic response of reinforced concrete frames infilled with
weakly reinforced masonry panels, Journal of Earthquake Engineering 5(2), 153–185.
- CEN, 2005, Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance - Part 1-1: General rules, seismic
actions and rules for buildings, B. European Committee for Standardization, Belgium, 2005
- D.M., 2018, Decreto Ministeriale: norme tecniche per le costruzioni, Gazzetta Ufficiale della Repubblica
Italiana, n. 42, 20 febbraio (in Italian).
- De Risi, M. T., Furtado, A., Rodrigues, H., Melo, J., Verderame, G. M., Arede, A., Varum, H.,
Manfredi, G. (2020). Experimental analysis of strengthening solutions for the out-of-plane collapse of
masonry infills in RC structures through textile reinforced mortars. Engineering Structures, 207, 110203.
- De Risi, M. T., Furtado, A., Rodrigues, H., Melo, J., Verderame, G. M., Arêde, A., Varum H., Manfredi,
G. (2022). Influence of textile reinforced mortars strengthening on the in-plane/out-of-plane response of
masonry infill walls in RC frames. Engineering Structures, 254, 113887.
- Di Domenico, M., De Risi, M. T., Ricci, P., Verderame, G. M., & Manfredi, G. (2021). Empirical
prediction of the in-plane/out-of-plane interaction effects in clay brick unreinforced masonry infill walls.
Engineering Structures, 227, 111438.
- Di Domenico, M., Ricci, P., & Verderame, G. M. (2019). Predicting the out-of-plane seismic strength of
unreinforced masonry infill walls. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 25(9), 1788-1825.
- Hrynyk, T. D., & Myers, J. J. (2008). Out-of-plane behavior of URM arching walls with modern blast
retrofits: Experimental results and analytical model. Journal of structural engineering, 134(10), 1589-
1597.
- Koutas, L. N., & Bournas, D. A. (2019). Out-of-plane strengthening of masonry-infilled RC frames with
textile-reinforced mortar jackets. Journal of Composites for Construction, 23(1), 04018079.
- Kyriakides, M. A., & Billington, S. L. (2014). Cyclic response of nonductile reinforced concrete frames
with unreinforced masonry infills retrofitted with engineered cementitious composites. Journal of
Structural Engineering, 140(2), 04013046.
- Lourenço, P. B., Leite, J. M., Paulo‐Pereira, M. F., Campos‐Costa, A., Candeias, P. X., & Mendes, N.
(2016). Shaking table testing for masonry infill walls: unreinforced versus reinforced solutions.
Earthquake engineering & structural dynamics, 45(14), 2241-2260.
- Minotto, M., Verlato, N., Donà, M., & da Porto, F. (2020). Strengthening of In-plane and Out-of-plane
capacity of thin clay masonry infills using textile-and fiber-reinforced mortar. Journal of Composites for
Construction, 24(6), 04020059.
- Morandi, P., Hak, S., & Magenes, G. (2013). Simplified out-of-plane resistance verification for slender
clay masonry infills in RC frames. Proceedings of the XV ANIDIS, L’Ingegneria Sismica in Italia,
Padua, Italy, 30.

View publication stats