Accepted Manuscript

Experimental performance of FRCM retrofit on out-of-plane behaviour of clay brick

walls

Claudio D'Ambra, Gian Piero Lignola, Andrea Prota, Elio Sacco, Francesco
Fabbrocino

PII: S1359-8368(18)30135-5
DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2018.04.062
Reference: JCOMB 5670

To appear in: Composites Part B

Received Date: 12 January 2018

Revised Date: 8 April 2018
Accepted Date: 27 April 2018

Please cite this article as: D'Ambra C, Lignola GP, Prota A, Sacco E, Fabbrocino F, Experimental
performance of FRCM retrofit on out-of-plane behaviour of clay brick walls, Composites Part B (2018),
doi: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2018.04.062.

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to
our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please
note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all
legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

EXPERIMENTAL PERFORMANCE OF FRCM RETROFIT ON

OUT-OF-PLANE BEHAVIOUR OF CLAY BRICK WALLS

PT
Claudio D’Ambra1, Gian Piero Lignola1, Andrea Prota1, Elio Sacco1, and

RI
Francesco Fabbrocino2

SC
1
Department of Structures for Engineering and Architecture, University of Naples Federico II
Via Claudio 21, 80125 Naples, Italy
e-mail: claudio.dambra@unina.it, glignola@unina.it, aprota@unina.it, elio.sacco@unina.it

U
2
Department of Engineering, Telematic University Pegaso
Piazza Trieste e Trento 48, 80132 Napoli, Italy
AN
e-mail: francesco.fabbrocino@unipegaso.it
M

Keywords: Masonry wall, clay brick, out-of-plane, repair, FRCM.

D

Abstract. In this paper the capacity of an innovative composite basalt grid with

inorganic matrix (FRCM) has been evaluated both in terms of repairing pre-damaged
TE

and strengthening clay brick walls under out-of-plane loads. Experimental tests have
EP

been performed on full scale clay brick walls subjected to out-of-plane loads. A wall,

damaged after a test, has been repaired by means of basalt FRCM. A similar wall has
C

been tested directly, without pre-damage, after strengthening by means of FRCM. This
AC

allowed to remark the effect of retrofitting pre-damaged and new walls. To simulate a

non-uniform out-of-plane behaviour of the wall, two adjacent edges of the wall have

been constrained and the other two were left free while a pointwise normal force has

been applied at the free opposite corner of the wall. The purpose of this work was to

assess the potentiality of FRCM to recover the capacity of a wall after significant
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

damage and to increase the global response of strengthened wall not previously

damaged. The experimental results demonstrated that the externally bonded

strengthening was able to prevent a brittle failure and it was not affected by debonding;

ultimate load of the retrofitted wall almost doubled with respect to the unreinforced

PT
configuration, despite complex stress state, and that the failure was governed by shear

sliding at higher displacement levels.

RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 1 Introduction

2 Clay brick masonry walls are frequently used as infills in reinforced concrete frames;

3 generally, they are non-structural elements and their seismic capacity is neglected in the

4 evaluation of vulnerability. The masonry infill walls play a fundamental role in the global

PT
5 response of RC buildings [1], mainly with their in-plane behaviour. Recent earthquakes

RI
6 confirmed the vulnerability of masonry infill walls to seismic loads (Fig.1), mainly due to

7 their reduced out-of-plane capacity. Consequently, masonry walls subjected to out-of-plane

SC
8 loading represent a significant source of risk in terms of injuries and economic losses and

9 damages, and this highlighted the need to consider their specific behaviour in the evaluation

10 of seismic vulnerability.
U
AN
M
D
TE
EP

Fig. 1. A reinforced concrete structure damaged by recent 2016 earthquake, Visso (MC) Italy
C

11 Moreover, the current studies [2-4], showed an increase of the out-of-plane vulnerability of
AC

12 masonry infill walls to the combined action of in-plane seismic load.

13 An interesting and promising technique for the reinforcement and strengthening of masonry

14 walls against injuries and damages due to the in-plane and out-of-plane mechanisms

15 activation is the application of composite grids into inorganic mortar layers onto the surface

16 of masonry walls.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

17 To combine the advantages of high performance materials, i.e. the grids, with the good

18 compatibility of the mortar with the masonry substrate, i.e. the matrix, a fiber grid has been

19 embedded in cement or pozzolanic-based mortar (FRCM materials). This innovative solution

20 represents an evolution of the traditional steel reinforced plaster usually adopted to improve

PT
21 performances of masonry walls, but it has the significant advantage of easy installation and of

22 using thinner layers of plaster preventing, thus, relevant increments of mass and stiffness for

RI
23 the retrofitted wall. Numerical and experimental studies have evidenced that such a

24 retrofitting technique can be very effective to increase capacities of masonry walls and vaults

SC
25 in terms of both strength and ductility [5-14] mainly subjected to uniaxial bending loads. The

U
26 extensive range of performances exhibited by the retrofitted walls is due to the wide
AN
27 availability on the market of several types of FRCM systems, using different types of mortar

28 and fibers (grids) [15-17]. Experimental evidences remarked that the overall behaviour of
M

29 retrofitted walls is strongly influenced by the mortar layer used for embedding the grid, both

30 in terms of stiffness and strength of the retrofitted wall, especially when walls are
D

31 characterized by low thickness and low strength masonry [18]. On the other hand, the need to
TE

32 reduce as much as possible the thickness of the mortar layer, in order to minimize the
EP

33 ‘impact’ of the intervention and not to change significantly mass and stiffness, can lead to

34 technological problems in the application of the grid.

C

35 In this paper the out-of-plane behaviour of clay brick walls has been studied and the efficacy
AC

36 of FRCM system as out-of-plane strengthening system has been evaluated performing an

37 experimental program on full scale infill walls at the laboratory of the Department of

38 Structures for Engineering and Architecture at the University of Naples “Federico II” [19].
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
Fig. 2. Experimental test: specimen and setup

SC
39 Specific boundary conditions have been adopted in the experimental tests to induce double

40 bending in the wall; in fact, two consecutive edges were restrained at different degrees

U
41 allowing to prevent the activation of the simple uniaxial (cylindrical) bending of the wall (Fig.
AN
42 2). This type of boundary condition aimed to simulate the complex stress state inside a

43 concrete frame where the level of constraint is different among edges and presence of
M

44 openings could impair a simple uniaxial flexural behaviour. In fact, in the common condition
D

45 depicted in Fig. 1, the basis of the wall can be considered as simply supported on the floor
TE

46 while the top is scarcely constrained to the beam, so that it can be assumed here as free.

47 Concerning the constraints on the lateral edge, one side is connected to another orthogonal
EP

48 wall, while the other side is free due to the presence of openings and can be considered as

49 free. The load due to the seismic excitation would be considered as distributed over the wall,
C

50 but it is simulated by a more demanding concentrated force in the free corner for laboratory
AC

51 convenience. Moreover, such a setup is aimed at evaluating complex state of stresses in the

52 out-of-plane behaviour of the masonry infill. In fact, the experimental outcomes aim to be

53 benchmarks for future validation of numerical analyses where the stress state in the masonry

54 wall is more complex than uniaxial bending and the mortar (bed and head) joints are involved

55 in the load transfer in different ways.

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

56 Three types of tests have been considered; initially, an unreinforced wall (URMW) has been

57 tested to estimate its out-of-plane capacity and failure mode, applying an incremental load in

58 displacement control till the wall collapse was reached. To repair the damage in the mortar

59 joints produced after the first test, they have been repointed with inorganic matrix; then, a

PT
60 layer of basalt FRCM has been applied on the entire wall. The repaired masonry wall

61 (RPMW) has been tested again. Finally, the same strengthening system has been applied on a

RI
62 new wall, denoted as reinforced masonry wall (RFMW), to assess any different behaviour

63 compared to the RPMW.

SC
64 The paper is organized as follows: in Section 2 the experimental setup is illustrated, providing

U
65 the material properties; Section 3 describes the results of the experimental tests; in Section 4,
AN
66 a discussion on the comparison of results obtained for unreinforced and reinforced walls is

67 reported. Finally, in Section 5 some conclusive remarks on the experimental program are
M

68 given.
D

69 2 Experimental tests
TE

70 The experimental investigation consisted on out-of-plane tests on full scale unreinforced and

71 FRCM reinforced clay brick masonry walls. In particular, the overall dimensions of the
EP

72 masonry walls are approximately 1515 mm × 1755 mm × 120 mm. Each wall is made of

73 twenty seven rows, each with six bricks having size 55 mm × 120 mm × 250 mm. The mortar
C
AC

74 for the bed joints is about 10 mm thick and it is composed by 75% of sand, 22.5% of Portland

75 cement and 2.5 % of calcium hydroxide.

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

76 2.1 Material properties

77 Mechanical properties of mortar for joints and mortar as matrix of the grids were determined

78 by means of experimental tests according to EN 1015-11 [20] standard. Tensile and

79 compressive strengths were evaluated by means of bending and compressive tests.

PT
80 2.1.1 Mortar for joints

81 9 mortar prisms with dimensions 40 mm × 40 mm × 160 mm were tested in flexure with

RI
82 three-point bending; then, 18 blocks, obtained from failed mortar specimens in flexure, were

SC
83 subjected to compression tests. The 28-day tensile average strength obtained from the flexural

84 tests was equal to 2.32 MPa with coefficient of variation (CoV) 12.14%; while the

U
85 compressive average strength was 11.76 MPa with CoV=6.39%.
AN
86 2.1.2 Mortar for matrix

87 A premixed bi-component pozzolanic based grout made also of hydraulic natural lime, sand,
M

88 special additives, polymers, and short glass fibers spread in the matrix has been used as
D

89 matrix. The tensile and compressive average strengths after 28-day were 6.60 MPa with
TE

90 CoV=1.10% and 14.5 with CoV=8.80%, respectively.

91 2.1.3 Clay brick

EP

92 The mechanical properties of the clay bricks are taken directly from technical data of the

93 producer. The average compressive strength is equal to 30 MPa, while the tensile strength is 6
C

94 MPa.
AC

95 2.1.4 Basalt grid

96 The basalt grid has a square mesh having dimension 6 mm × 6 mm made of basalt fibers,

97 whose equivalent thickness of dry fabric is 0.039 mm. The elastic modulus of the dry fibers is

98 89 GPa and the nominal tensile strength is 1542 MPa.

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

99 2.2 Experimental setup

100 Unlike other experimental researches as [21-,23], where a single uniaxial bending stress state

101 has been considered, in this experimental program a specific boundary condition has been

102 adopted to induce a complex stress state characterized by a double bending to evaluated the

PT
103 behaviour of the FRCM system for a bidirectional stress state. The experimental setup

104 consisted of two steel profiles to provide the lateral restraints and a steel square plate to

RI
105 spread the point load, limiting the localization effects. Two UPN profiles on two consecutive

SC
106 edges provide to restrained the wall; the basis of the wall was supported on the floor by a

107 UPN 280, while the lateral edge was constrained by a UPN 180 fixed in three points to a rigid

U
108 steel frame and having length of 1800 mm (see Fig. 3). To connect the masonry wall and the
AN
109 steel profiles, a mortar layer has been used simulating a simple support at the base, while on

110 the lateral side the constraint was more similar to a clamped one. The load perpendicular to
M

111 the plane of the wall was applied on the left top corner, by means of a steel plate of
D

112 dimensions 300 mm × 300 mm with a thickness of 10 mm to prevent premature failure of the
TE

113 wall corner due to the load localization. The jack pushed the wall from its rear side. To

114 prevent local cracking along the fixed edge, the free space between UPN profiles and masonry
EP

115 was filled by mortar (Fig. 4).

C
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1420
1515 UPN 180 740
Steel Plate LVDT D LVDT G
300

300
Point Load

LVDT E LVDT F

1755 1800

PT
1670

890

RI
LVDT M LVDT L
LVDT A

SC
1600

(a) (b)
Fig. 1. Experimental Setup for out-of-plane test: a) Rear view; b) Front view

116
U
It is worth noting that a double bending in vertical and horizontal directions developed due to
AN
117 the asymmetric lateral constraints and the behaviour was significantly biaxial. To avoid more

118 complex test setup and reduce uncertainties, no symmetry constraints were applied at the free
M

119 edges, so the wall does not strictly represent a quarter of a wider wall. However, this does not
D

120 limit the validity of the test because the setup is able to induce a complex shear and bending
TE

121 stress state in two planes, providing a very demanding state to the wall, to check the

122 suitability of FRCM to retrofit out-of-plane a wall even under so demanding stress state.
EP

123 Moreover, as discussed in the Introduction, the proposed setup can simulate the response of

124 the wall represented, for instance, in Fig. 1.

C

125
AC

Brick UPN 180 Steel frame

UPN 180
Mortar
Brick
200
UPN 280
200
Mortar
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

(a) (b)
Fig. 4. UPN profiles: (a) Base constraint, (b) Lateral constraint

126 In particular, the experimental test has been performed on:

127 - a unreinforced wall (URMW);

128 - a reinforced wall obtained by repairing the previously damaged unreinforced URMW

PT
129 one (RPMW);

130 - a strengthened wall obtained by applying the reinforcement system on an undamaged

RI
131 unreinforced one (RFMW).

SC
132 The reinforcements for the second and third test have been accomplished applying the

133 innovative system made of inorganic matrix and basalt grid, FRCM, on one surface of the

134
U
wall. In particular, the RPMW test has the objective to evaluate the recovery capacity of the
AN
135 system when FRCM is applied on the pre-damaged wall URMW, after the mortar joints of the

136 damaged wall have been repaired (deep skiving, about 20 mm, of the damaged joints followed
M

137 by joints repointing with inorganic matrix). The RFMW test is performed for evaluating the
D

138 improvement of the mechanical response of the masonry wall obtained by applying the
TE

139 FRCM system bonded on an undamaged wall.

140 The installation procedure involved the following steps:

EP

141 • a layer of inorganic matrix was applied on a side of the wall to fill the masonry

142 superficial defects;

C

143 • one ply of basalt grid was applied on the first layer of inorganic matrix, while it was
AC

144 still wet (with an overlapping of 500 mm between two grids);

145 • a further layer of inorganic matrix was, then, applied to complete the composite

146 system (see Fig.5).

147 Due to the specific constraint and loading condition, monotonic up to failure, that have been

148 adopted for the experimental setup, the double bending state leads to a complete surface
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

149 which is subjected to tensile state in both the directions. Thus, the FRCM system was applied

150 only on one side, the tensile side of the wall in terms of the bending behaviour, because it is

151 usually assumed that FRCM does not provide contribution in compression.

Overlapping
First layer of

PT
inorganic matrix

RI
SC
Basalt grid

U
Basalt grid
AN
Second layer of
inorganic matrix
M
D

1000
TE

1000
500
Fig. 5. Installation procedure Rear View
EP

152 In the developed experimental program, two phases have been considered in each test:

153 1. initially, a low intensity loading-unloading has been performed for settling and
C

154 estimating the initial stiffness of the walls;

AC

155 2. then, monotonic increasing load was applied up to failure.

156 The tests were carried out under displacement control with a slow displacement rate provided

157 by a manually operated jack (Fig. 6) and were stopped at the complete failure of the walls.

158 Seven linear displacement transducers (LVDTs) were installed on two alignments on the

159 walls; in particular, four LVDTs (F,G,D,E) were applied orthogonally to the plane of the wall
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

160 in order to estimate the out-of-plane displacements in different locations, while two LVDTs

161 (M,L) were applied parallel to the wall to monitor the rigid base rotation at the vertical axis of

162 the point load.

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M

Fig. 6. Spreader plate to apply the point load at the free corner.
D

163 3 Experimental results

TE

164 For all the tests, a non-uniform behaviour has been observed due to the particular loading and
EP

165 boundary conditions. A biaxial flexure with a double curvature is testified by the

166 displacements at failure, shown in Fig. 7. In fact, it can be noted that the behaviour of LVDTs
C

167 E and D (vertical line at 740 mm from the lateral constraint) is completely different from the
AC

168 behaviour obtained by LVDTs F and G (vertical line at 1420 mm from the lateral constraint).

169 The comparison (i.e. different displacements of the vertical line) of LVDTs F and G with the

170 relative rigid rotation line shows the effective bending displacement of the wall. The

171 displacement line due to rigid rotation, ∆rot, has been derived from the vertical displacements

172 LVDTL and LVDTM, recorded respectively by LVDTs L and M, as follows:

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

LVDTL − LVDTM
173 ∆ rot = H arctan
d

174 where d represents the distance between LVDTs L and M.

175 For the repaired (RPMW) and reinforced wall (RFMW), the displacements recorded by the

176 LVDTs demonstrated a different failure mode with respect to unreinforced wall (URMW);

PT
177 indeed, the higher displacements recorded by LVDT G with respect to LVDT D indicate a

RI
178 rotation of the portion of the wall around the vertical constraint between the upper and lower

179 parts of the wall. In particular a sliding of a part of the wall has been recorded already at

SC
180 lower load values by LVDT E and LVDT G (Fig. 7 (a,c,e)), as showed by failure mode

181 observed on front view of the wall (Fig. 7 (d,f)).

2000
U (URMW)
AN
LVDT D LVDT G

1500
M
height (mm)

1000 LVDT E
LVDT F
D

500
TE

Rigid Rotation
Line (F - G)
Line (E - D)
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
EP

displacement (mm)
(a) (b)
2000 (RPMW)
C

LVDT D LVDT G

1500
AC
height (mm)

1000 LVDT E
LVDT F

500
Rigid Rotation
Line (F - G)
Line (E - D)
0
0 20 40 60 80
displacement (mm)
(c) (d)
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

2000
LVDT D LVDT G
(RFMW)

1500
height (mm)

1000 LVDT E
LVDT F

PT
500
Rigid Rotation
Line (F - G)
Line (E - D)

RI
0
0 20 40 60 80
displacement (mm)
(e) (f)

SC
Fig. 7. Experimental results: (a) LVDT displacement at failure (URMW); (b) Failure Mode rear view and side
view (note that cracked joints were removed intentionally before the strengthening intervention) (URMW); (c)
LVDT displacement at failure (RPMW); (d) Failure Mode: Front View, and side view (RPMW); (e) LVDT
displacement at failure (RFMW); (f) Failure Mode: Front View, and side view (RFMW).

182
U
The cracks of unreinforced wall (URMW) have been localized in mortar joints; indeed, a
AN
183 diagonal crack has been found on the rear (tensile) side of the wall from the eighteenth to the
M

184 twenty-fourth row of bricks; moreover, a horizontal crack has been found on front

185 (compressed) side from the eighteenth line of bricks, as shown in Fig. 7 (b).
D

186 In the repaired wall (RPMW), micro-cracks have been observed on the strengthening system,
TE

187 while two diagonal cracks, on the mortar joints, have been localized on the front side (Fig. 7

188 (d)). An ascending diagonal crack also aroused from twenty-third line of bricks along the
EP

189 mortar joints characterized the failure mode of the reinforced wall (RFMW) (Fig. 7 (f)).
C

190 For both repaired (RPMW) and reinforced wall (RFMW), the sliding recorded at the end of
AC

191 the test has generated a detachment of the reinforcement system localized on the diagonal

192 crack.

193 4 Comparison of results

194 In this section the results obtained by the tests are compared to investigate on the effect of the

195 FRCM system.

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

196 Different failure modes have been found in the three tests. Indeed, on the unreinforced wall

197 (URMW) a diagonal crack situated on the rear side of the wall, from the eighteenth to the

198 twenty-fourth line of bricks, determined the collapse of the system; on the repaired (RPMW)

199 and reinforced wall (RFMW) three different crack systems, on the front side of the wall

PT
200 (opposite to FRCM), for the three branches of the force-displacement curve occurred. A

201 different diagonal crack system developed for each of the three transition load values. For the

RI
202 repaired wall (RPMW), at a load of about 4.5 kN a diagonal crack from the twentieth to the

203 eighth row of bricks (black line in Fig. 8 (b)) determined a partition of the wall with a first

SC
204 change of stiffness of the system. At the peak load, a clear sliding of the upper region started

U
205 and caused a diagonal crack from the third to the nineteenth row of bricks (blue line Fig. 8
AN
206 (b)). For the reinforced wall (RFMW) the cracks recorded, on front side, at different force

207 values determined a different partition of the wall.

M

208 Both the tests were stopped while an almost frictional behaviour was ongoing in large

209 displacements, due to exhaustion of displacement capacity of the testing system, which was
D

210 barely compatible with the vertical stability of the wall. It is noted that the sliding occurred
TE

211 not in a single row but along diagonal cracks being the sliding displacements larger at
EP

212 locations farther from the lateral constraint.

C
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Fig. 8. Failure Modes: (a) rear view of Unreinforced Wall (URMW), (b) front view of Repaired Wall (RPMW)
(opposite to FRCM); (c) front view of Reinforced wall (RFMW)

213 The displacements recorded by LVDTs for all tests are compared in Fig. 9, the unreinforced

214 wall (URMW) showed a brittle behaviour, a slightly nonlinear initial branch is followed by a

215 sudden load drop. An almost continuous reduction of stiffness has been recorded during the

PT
216 test, as illustrated in Fig. 9 (a,c,e,g). A significant displacement capacity has been observed

217 for the repaired wall (RPMW); in fact, three branches with different stiffnesses have been

RI
218 recorded during the test, at all monitored locations (Fig. 9 (a,c,e,g)). The first elastic branch is

SC
219 followed by a less stiff branch, while in the last horizontal branch only a sliding of the upper

220 portion of the wall has been recorded. A behaviour similar to the repaired wall (RPMW) has

221
U
been shown by reinforced wall (RFMW), but a lower stiffness of the first branch has been
AN
222 recorded. Also in this test it is possible to individuate three branches, the first two involving

223 flexural behaviour and the last one is an horizontal plateau governed by sliding of the upper
M

224 portion of the wall (Fig. 9 (a,c,e,g)).

D

7.0 7.0
TE

6.0 6.0

5.0 5.0
Force (kN)

Force (kN)

4.0 4.0
EP

3.0 3.0
LVDT G LVDT G
2.0 2.0
C

URMW URMW
1.0 RPMW 1.0 RPMW
RFMW RFMW
AC

0.0 0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
displacement (mm) displacement (mm)
(a) (b)
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

7.0 7.0
6.0 6.0

5.0 5.0

Force (kN)
4.0 4.0
Force (kN)

3.0 3.0
LVDT D 2.0 LVDT D

PT
2.0
URMW URMW
1.0 RPMW 1.0 RPMW
RFMW
RFMW
0.0

RI
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
displacement (mm) displacement (mm)
(c) (d)

SC
7.0 7.0
6.0 6.0

U
5.0 5.0
Force (kN)

4.0 4.0
Force (kN)

AN
3.0 3.0
LVDT F
2.0
LVDT F 2.0
URMW
M

URMW RPMW
1.0 RPMW 1.0
RFMW
RFMW
0.0 0.0
D

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
displacement (mm) displacement (mm)
TE

(e) (f)
7.0 7.0
6.0 6.0
EP

5.0 5.0
Force (kN)

4.0 4.0
Force (kN)

3.0 3.0
LVDT E LVDT E
2.0
AC

2.0
URMW
URMW
1.0 RPMW
1.0 RPMW
RFMW
RFMW
0.0 0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
displacement (mm) displacement (mm)
(g) (h)
Fig. 9. Experimental results: (a) Curve force vs LVDT G displacements; (b) Trilinear curve force vs LVDT G
displacements; (c) Curve force vs LVDT D displacements; (d) Trilinear curve force vs LVDT D displacements;
(e) Curve force vs LVDT F displacements; (f) Trilinear curve force vs LVDT F displacements; (g) Curve force
vs LVDT E displacements; (h) Trilinear curve force vs LVDT E displacements .
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

225 In Fig. 9 (b,d,f,h) the (approximated) trilinear curves in terms of force vs LVDTs

226 displacements are compared reporting the variation of the stiffness recorded during the tests.

227 Two branches for unreinforced wall (URMW) and three branches for repaired (RPMW) and

228 reinforced wall (RFMW) were found; in particular, the first branches represent the elastic

PT
229 behaviour of the whole wall, exceeding the capacity of the mortar joints determined a

230 partition of the wall with a reduction of the global stiffness (second branch).

RI
231 For all tests the cracks have been localized mainly on mortar joints, the application of the

232 FRCM system allowed to obtain an increase of the strength and of the displacements of the

SC
233 walls. In Fig.9 and in Table 1 the obtained increments in terms of force and displacement are

U
234 compared. AN
235 The sliding of the upper region of the wall is shown by the third branch of the curve, where

236 high displacements without increases of force have been recorded. The significant values of
M

237 the three branches are summarized in Table 1: for each branch the stiffness, the maximum

238 force and the maximum displacements are reported. As it can be observed, similar stiffness
D

239 for the second branch has been found for each test, the vertical internal constraint provided by
TE

240 the FRCM system allowed to get forces and displacements of the second branches. In general,
EP

241 the effect of the internal axial stresses induced by FRCM system (even in all the vertically

242 unloaded infills) influenced mainly the mortar joints. In fact, all the figures illustrating the
C

243 failure modes remarked the significant role of the mortar joints and, mainly, of the mortar to
AC

244 brick interfaces on the wall behaviour.

First branch Second branch Third branch

Test LVDT K1 F1 d1 K2 F2 d2 K3 F3 d3 ∆(K1-K2)
N/mm kN mm N/mm kN mm N/mm kN mm %
G 460 5,9 51,3 9,9 n.a. n.a. n.a. -89%
D 808 3,4 114,8 5,2 n.a. n.a. n.a. -86%
URMW 2,7 2,9
F 825 3,3 114,0 5,1 n.a. n.a. n.a. -86%
E 1487 1,8 252,3 2,7 n.a. n.a. n.a. -83%
G 471 8,2 96,9 31,5 0 62,0 -79%
RPMW 3,9 6,0 6,0
D 819 4,7 187,6 16,8 0 31,7 -77%
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

F 861 4,5 171,0 17,7 0 29,7 -80%

E 1522 2,5 208,2 13,1 0 23,8 -86%
G 273 8,1 83,9 46,0 0 67,7 -69%
D 549 4,0 172,2 22,6 0 33,4 -69%
RFMW 2,2 5,3 5,3
F 594 3,7 174,3 22,1 0 31,6 -71%
E 1052 2,1 264,6 14,2 0 20,7 -75%
245 Table 1 Experimental results.

246 The unreinforced wall (URMW) and repaired wall (RPMW) showed a similar initial stiffness,

PT
247 but the application of the strengthening system allowed to attain higher values of lateral force,

RI
248 Fmax, and displacement, dmax. The lower stiffness values recorded during the reinforced wall

249 (RFMW) test are due to the natural variability of masonry performance.

SC
250 The damage of the unreinforced wall (URMW) is expected to influence (i.e. to reduce slope

U
251 of) the first branch of the repaired wall (RPMW), but the contribution of joints repointing
AN
252 with the mortar of the matrix and the FRCM system allowed to recover the same stiffness

253 recorded for the first branch of unreinforced wall (Table 1). For this reason, it is expected that
M

254 the reinforced wall (RFMW) would have a higher stiffness, because there is no initial

255 reduction of stiffness due to pre-damage; however, experimental evidences found that the
D

256 initial stiffness of RFMW was lower than the one of URMW. In addition, it is expected that
TE

257 the FRCM system does not reduce the initial stiffness of the wall. Thus, this reduced stiffness
EP

258 of the RFMW and both URMW and RPMW reasonably can be justified by the previously

259 mentioned natural variability of the wall response. Indeed, the activation of the FRCM system
C

260 is expected to occur mainly after exceeding the unreinforced masonry wall capacity, i.e. in
AC

261 correspondence of the second branch of the mechanical response of the wall.

262 Although different displacements and behaviours have been observed for the three types of

263 tests at failure it can be in any case declared that the strengthening system allowed to obtain a

264 ductile response compared to the unreinforced wall.

265 In Fig. 10 the displacements recorded on line E – D (vertical line at 740 mm from the lateral

266 boundary) and on line F – G (on the vertical line of the point load) were compared. In
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

267 particular, in Fig. 10 (a) the displacement at the failure of the tests are compared,

268 demonstrating that the repaired (RPMW) and reinforced (RFMW) walls show the same

269 deformed shape, i.e. the double curvature caused by the lateral constraints determined the

270 lower displacements of the line D – E. However, the different behaviour of the tests is due to

PT
271 different locations of LVDTs with respect to the position of the main cracks. In the

272 unreinforced wall (URMW) (Fig. 10 (b,c)) the upper part monitored by LVDTs G and D is

RI
273 sliding with respect to the lower part. Conversely, in the case of repaired wall (RPMW), the

274 middle portion connected in the corner with the loaded point and characterized by inclined

SC
275 cracks due to particular constraints layout (Fig. 10 (b)), is subjected to sliding, so that LVDT

U
276 D shows a similar displacement as LVDT E and much smaller than LVDT G. A similar
AN
277 behaviour in terms of displacements has been showed also by the reinforced wall (RFMW). In

278 fact, it is noted that shear deformability yields mainly to linear displacement profiles, while
M

279 flexural deformability to more complex displacement profiles, but the vertical profiles are

280 influenced also by rigid rotations due to particular hinge-like constraint evolving with the
D

281 increase of load.

TE

2000 2000
LVDT D
LVDT D LVDT G
LVDT G
EP

1500 1500
height (mm)

height (mm)
C

LVDT E 1000 1000

LVDT E LVDT F
AC

LVDT F

z 500 500
URMW URMW
RPMW RPMW
x RFMW RFMW
y 0 0
0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80
displacement (mm) displacement (mm)
(a) (b) (c)
Fig. 10. LVDT displacement: (a) 3d View, (b) Line E-D, (c) Line F-G
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

282 5 Conclusions

283 Aim of this paper was the evaluation, by means of experimental tests, of the effectiveness of

284 FRCM systems in improving the out-of-plane capacity of a pre-damaged and a new masonry

285 wall. Three different tests on two masonry walls were considered, an unreinforced wall has

PT
286 been tested till the collapse; then, the damaged wall has been repaired and the strengthening

287 system has been applied on rear side of the repaired wall. A second, similar, wall has been

RI
288 tested without pre-damage and directly strengthened by means of FRCM. This allowed to

SC
289 remark the effect of FRCM pre-damaged and new walls. The setup was conceived to provide

290 a biaxial bending coupled with shear, hence a non-uniform complex stress state in the wall.

U
291 The experimental tests showed a progressive stiffness reduction of the unreinforced masonry
AN
292 wall demonstrating the progressive damage of the joints, the cracks localized in the mortar,

293 the other elements of the wall, i.e. the bricks, remained substantially in their elastic state. A
M

294 simple restoration of the most cracked joints, intentionally removed and filled with the same
D

295 mortar of the FRCM matrix, allowed to restore the stiffness of the repaired masonry wall. The
TE

296 axial stresses induced by the strengthening system improved the mechanical characteristics of

297 the interface between clay brick and mortar joints, as they were found to be the elements
EP

298 governing the failure mode. A trilinear curve force vs displacement describes the typical

299 behaviour of the repaired and reinforced walls, where the variation of the stiffness between
C

300 the first and second branch represents the partition of the wall. Even if the two walls were
AC

301 built as practically identical, natural variability was recorded on the initial stiffness of the two

302 walls. The former wall, tested in unreinforced configuration, had a stiffness higher than the

303 latter, reinforced without any pre-damage. Tests at failure were monotonic and FRCM was

304 applied on the tensile side only; in real applications the retrofit system can be applied to both

305 sides, but it can be considered effective on the tensile side only, while in compression it can
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

306 be assumed to be not effective due to its slenderness and susceptibility to buckling in

307 compression. To prevent buckling, mechanical connectors can be applied improving the

308 capacity in tension too, but it is not considered yet in this phase of the experimental program.

309 In conclusion, the FRCM system proved to be able to almost double the out-of-plane strength

PT
310 of the wall and its lateral displacement capacity despite the complex shear coupled to bending

311 biaxial stress state, not impacting significantly on mass and stiffness of the wall. It can be

RI
312 remarked that the strengthening system significantly changed the failure mechanism of the

313 wall, due to the complex state of stress arising because of the double bending due to the

SC
314 specific considered loading condition that could be very close to real situations.

315 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
U
AN
316 The authors would like to thank Giovanbattista Borretti and Antimo Fiorillo for their support
M

317 in test execution.

318 This research has been possible thanks to the financial support of the ReLUIS project from
D

319 the Italian Department of the Civil Protection.

TE

320 The FRCM strengthening of the walls was supported by MAPEI Spa., Milan, Italy.

321
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

322 REFERENCES

323 [1] P. Ricci, M. T. De Risi, G. M. Verderame, and G. Manfredi, “Procedures for calibration

324 of linear models for damage limitation in design of masonry-infilled RC frames,” Earthq.

325 Eng. Struct. Dyn., vol. 45, no. 8, pp. 1315–1335, Jul. 2016.

PT
326 [2] S. Hak, P. Morandi, G. Magenes, and T. J. Sullivan, “Damage Control for Clay Masonry

327 Infills in the Design of RC Frame Structures,” J. Earthq. Eng., vol. 16, no. sup1, pp. 1–

RI
328 35, Jan. 2012.

SC
329 [3] F. da Porto, G. Guidi, M. Dalla Benetta, and N. Verlato, “Combined In-Plane/Out-of-

330 Plane Experimental Behaviour of Reinforced and Strengthened Infill Masonry Walls,”

U
331 12th Canadian Masonry Symposium. pp. 1–11, 2013.
AN
332 [4] M. R. Valluzzi, F. da Porto, E. Garbin, and M. Panizza, “Out-of-plane behaviour of infill

333 masonry panels strengthened with composite materials,” Mater. Struct., vol. 47, no. 12,
M

334 pp. 2131–2145, Dec. 2014.

D

335 [5] G. P. Lignola, A. Prota, and G. Manfredi, “Nonlinear Analyses of Tuff Masonry Walls
TE

336 Strengthened with Cementitious Matrix-Grid Composites,” J. Compos. Constr., vol. 13,

337 no. 4, pp. 243–251, Mar. 2009.

EP

338 [6] F. Parisi, G. P. Lignola, N. Augenti, A. Prota, and G. Manfredi, “Nonlinear Behavior of a

339 Masonry Subassemblage Before and After Strengthening with Inorganic Matrix-Grid
C

340 Composites,” J. Compos. Constr., vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 821–832, Jan. 2011.
AC

341 [7] V. Giamundo, G. P. Lignola, G. Maddaloni, A. Balsamo, A. Prota, and G. Manfredi,

342 “Experimental investigation of the seismic performances of IMG reinforcement on

343 curved masonry elements,” Compos. Part B Eng., vol. 70, pp. 53–63, 2015.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

344 [8] V. Giamundo, G. P. Lignola, G. Maddaloni, F. da Porto, A. Prota, and G. Manfredi,

345 “Shaking table tests on a full-scale unreinforced and IMG-retrofitted clay brick masonry

346 barrel vault,” Bull. Earthq. Eng., vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 1663–1693, Jun. 2016.

347 [9] A. Garofano, F. Ceroni, and M. Pecce, “Modelling of the in-plane behaviour of masonry

PT
348 walls strengthened with polymeric grids embedded in cementitious mortar layers,”

349 Compos. Part B Eng., vol. 85, pp. 243–258, Feb. 2016.

RI
350 [10] G. Ramaglia, G. P. Lignola, A. Balsamo, A. Prota, and G. Manfredi, “Seismic

351 Strengthening of Masonry Vaults with Abutments Using Textile-Reinforced Mortar,” J.

SC
352 Compos. Constr., vol. 21, no. 2, p. 4016079, Apr. 2017.

U
353 [11] G. Lignola, C. D’Ambra, A. Prota, and F. Ceroni, “Modelling of tuff masonry walls
AN
354 retrofitted with inorganic matrix–grid composites,” in Brick and Block Masonry, CRC

355 Press, 2016, pp. 2127–2135.

M

356 [12] F. Fabbrocino, I. Farina, V. P. Berardi, A. J. M. Ferreira, and F. Fraternali, “On the

357 thrust surface of unreinforced and FRP-/FRCM-reinforced masonry domes,” Compos.

D

358 Part B Eng., vol. 83, pp. 297–305, Dec. 2015.

TE

359 [13] G. Carpentieri, F. Fabbrocino, M. De Piano, V. P. Berardi, L. Feo, and F. Fraternali,

EP

360 “Minimal mass design of strengthening techniques for planar and curved masonry

361 structures,” in Proceedings of the VII European Congress on Computational Methods in

C

362 Applied Sciences and Engineering (ECCOMAS Congress 2016), 2016, pp. 2210–2219.
AC

363 [14] G. Carpentieri, M. Modano, F. Fabbrocino, L. Feo, and F. Fraternali, “On the minimal

364 mass reinforcement of masonry structures with arbitrary shapes,” Meccanica, vol. 52, no.

365 7, pp. 1561–1576, May 2017.

366 [15] C. Caggegi, F. G. Carozzi, S. De Santis, F. Fabbrocino, F. Focacci, Ł. Hojdys, E.

367 Lanoye, and L. Zuccarino, “Experimental analysis on tensile and bond properties of PBO
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

368 and aramid fabric reinforced cementitious matrix for strengthening masonry structures,”

369 Compos. Part B Eng., vol. 127, pp. 175–195, Oct. 2017.

370 [16] S. De Santis, F. Ceroni, G. de Felice, M. Fagone, B. Ghiassi, A. Kwiecień, G. P.

371 Lignola, M. Morganti, M. Santandrea, M. R. Valluzzi, and A. Viskovic, “Round Robin

PT
372 Test on tensile and bond behaviour of Steel Reinforced Grout systems,” Compos. Part B

373 Eng., vol. 127, pp. 100–120, Oct. 2017.

RI
374 [17] G.P. Lignola, C. Caggegi, F. Ceroni, S. De Santis, P. Krajewski, P. B. Lourenço, M.

375 Morganti, C. (Corina) Papanicolaou, C. Pellegrino, A. Prota, and L. Zuccarino,

SC
376 “Performance assessment of basalt FRCM for retrofit applications on masonry,” Compos.

U
377 Part B Eng., May 2017. AN
378 [18] V. Giamundo, V. Sarhosis, G. P. Lignola, Y. Sheng, and G. Manfredi, “Evaluation of

379 different computational modelling strategies for the analysis of low strength masonry
M

380 structures,” Eng. Struct., vol. 73, pp. 160–169, Aug. 2014.

381 [19] C. D'Ambra, G.P. Lignola, F. Fabbrocino, A. Prota, E. Sacco; "Repair of Clay Brick
D

382 Walls for out of Plane Loads by Means of FRCM", Key Engineering Materials, Vol. 747,
TE

383 pp. 358-365, 2017.

EP

384 [20] EN 1015-11, “Methods of Test for Mortar for Masonry – Part 11: Determination of

385 Flexural and Compressive Strength of Hardened Mortar,” 2006.

C

386 [21] H. Derakhshan, M. C. Griffith, and J. M. Ingham, “Airbag testing of multi-leaf

AC

387 unreinforced masonry walls subjected to one-way bending,” Eng. Struct., vol. 57, pp.

388 512–522, Dec. 2013.

389 [22] D. Dizhur, M. Griffith, and J. Ingham, “Out-of-plane strengthening of unreinforced

390 masonry walls using near surface mounted fibre reinforced polymer strips,” Eng. Struct.,

391 vol. 59, pp. 330–343, Feb. 2014.

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

392 [23] S. Babaeidarabad, F. De Caso, and A. Nanni, “Out-of-Plane Behavior of URM Walls

393 Strengthened with Fabric-Reinforced Cementitious Matrix Composite,” J. Compos.

394 Constr., vol. 18, no. 4, p. 4013057, Aug. 2014.

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC