Construction and Building Materials 163 (2018) 643–655

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Experimental results on mechanical behaviour of metal anchors in

historic stone masonry
Rosana Muñoz a,⇑, Paulo B. Lourenço b, Susana Moreira c
a
Faculty of Architecture, Federal University of Bahia, Rua Caetano Moura, 121, Federação, 40210-905 Salvador, Bahia, Brazil
b
ISISE, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Minho, Campus de Azurém, 4800-058 Guimarães, Portugal
c
Department of Civil Engineering, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú - PUCP, Av. Universitaria 1801, San Miguel, 32, Lima, Peru

h i g h l i g h t s

Pull-out tests were carried out to characterize the adhesive behaviour of anchors.

Adhesive fastenings seemed to present better results than the mechanical ones.

Prediction formulas for axial forces were more appropriate for adhesive fastening.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Ancient buildings constructed in stone masonry often deteriorate and partially collapse, with only their
Received 25 April 2017 façades and/or lateral walls remaining. This work provides a study of the mechanical behaviour of
Received in revised form 28 October 2017 anchors used as connections between existing walls and new members, for purpose of strengthening
Accepted 10 December 2017
of historic stone masonry buildings. The paper addresses a comparative analysis between an experimen-
tal campaign and analytical formulations for ultimate load prediction. To obtain practical results, pull-out
tests were carried out with adhesive and mechanical metallic anchors in stone masonry walls con-
Keywords:
structed in laboratory. The results allow conclusions on the most efficient connections in terms of
Anchors
Pull-out test
adhesion.
Shear forces Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Stone masonry
Tensile forces

1. Introduction restraint-only fasteners will be used [2]. Fasteners may utilize

Many existing historic buildings are made of coursed and rub-
ble stone masonry, and experience structural damage arising from
internal or external factors, such as the action of environmental
agents or earthquakes, leaving only their façades. In order to pre-
vent these from collapsing, due to their historical, architectural
or other value, temporary or permanent structural shoring is often
proposed, or new structural members, interconnecting with these
old façades, are constructed to preserve them [1].
Anchoring systems between historic masonry and a new struc-
ture can be made in various ways, and using a wide range of mate-
rials. The type of fastener depends mostly on two aspects: a)
should the façade serve as an element for supporting the load
within the new construction, load-bearing fasteners will be used;
b) should the façade be braced by the new structure, only support-
ing its own weight and with the wind load acting directly upon it,
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: munoz.rosana@ufba.br (R. Muñoz), pbl@civil.uminho.pt
(P.B. Lourenço), smoreira@pucp.edu.pe (S. Moreira).
through fixing systems or anchors. The latter are the object of this
work and include: bonded anchors, expansion anchors or undercut
anchors [2]. The Construction Fixings Association has published a
guidance note [3] supporting the identification of the types recom-
mended for masonry. According to this publication, only bonded
anchors and thin-walled sleeve expansion anchors types are rec-
ommended for brick and stone masonry. In the case of stone
masonry, with certain limitations, it is possible to adopt shield
expansion and undercut anchors.
There are two generic types of bonded anchors, one using resin,
also known as a chemical anchor, and the other using cement
based matrixes. In addition, there are two types of resin anchor
systems: capsule based and injection systems. In the capsule sys-
tem, when an anchor rod is inserted, the various capsule compo-
nents are mixed together. The injection system contains two
compartments that are mixed in a special mixer nozzle, which
pumps the mixture into the hole drilled for the anchor. Cementi-
tious anchors use a cement based grout to bond the anchor [3].
Grout is a fluid material with similar properties to mortar or

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.12.090
0950-0618/Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
644 R. Muñoz et al. / Construction and Building Materials 163 (2018) 643–655
concrete, which performs well at high temperatures and in humid
conditions [2]. Both connections require a curing period to attain
resistance; this period is shorter in chemical anchors. Resin bonded
anchors, generally used when a fast setting time is required, work
with small diameter drill holes (typically 10 to 25% larger than the
diameter of the fastener); while in anchors using grout, the drill
hole diameter should be between 150 and 200% of the fastener
diameter [4].
Expansion anchors widen in their installation and fall into two
categories: torque controlled and deformation controlled. In the
torque controlled, the movement of tightening the nut or bolt acti-
vates the expansion mechanism, whereas the degree of expansion
in the deformation controlled is determined by the relative dis-
placement of the expansion cone within a sleeve. Undercut fasten-
ers resemble small pegs and expand at the lower end [2]. In
general, mechanical anchorage is based on friction between the
sides of the hole and the fastener lugs for the transfer of loads.
Fig. 1 illustrates the main types of anchors recommended for brick
and stone masonry, according to the guidance note of The Con-
struction Fixings Association [3].
The present paper presents an experimental campaign investi-
gating the behaviour of steel anchors in stone masonry. The objec-
tive is a comparative analysis, in terms of ultimate load, between
the results of pull-out tests, using two types of anchoring systems
with metallic fasteners (anchors bonded with resin and cementi-
tious grout, and mechanical anchors) fixed on stone masonry walls
constructed in a laboratory, and the results of analytical values
from literature.
Anchors are required to resist forces in two directions. Pull-out
forces are those that act in the direction of the axis of the fastener,
while shear forces are those that act at right angles to the axis of
the fastener. To assess the anchors performance, the pull-out labo-
ratory tests for the stone masonry metallic fasteners were con-
ducted in two ways: firstly, with the pulling actuator positioned
in the direction of the fastener axis and, secondly, with the actuator
inclined 30° from that axis.
The methodological approach includes a short literature review
and an experimental campaign including: a) definition of the lay-
ing mortar to be used in the laboratory constructed walls; b) char-
acterization of the materials used; c) construction of the stone
masonry walls; d) execution of diagonal and uniaxial compression
tests and pull-out tests on masonry; and e) analysis of the results,
including a comparative evaluation between experimental and
analytical values. The present work allows to choose the most effi-
cient anchor in terms of adhesion to stone masonry, using mechan-
ical and bonded fastenings.
2. Theoretical aspects of metallic anchors subject to tension and
shear
The use of anchors is usually associated with features such as:
the stabilization of cracked or deformed masonry; the connection
Fig. 1. Bonded anchors: (a) capsule-type bonded anchor for resin; (b) injection-type bonded anchor for resin and grout. Torque-controlled expansion anchors: (c) thick-
walled sleeve; (d) through bolt. Deformation-controlled expansion anchors: (e) [3].
between new and existing structures or structural members; the
transfer of tensile forces, for example, during construction; the
strengthening of walls and foundations; and the strengthening to
support dynamic loads [5].
Strengthening masonry with the use of metallic anchors subject
to tension has occurred for centuries and is often accepted in the
conservation of cultural built heritage and in operations arising
from repair and strengthening. Below, analytical expression of
the estimated values of capacity of anchors to tensile and shear
forces are presented. These have been obtained from formulas for
pull-out tests, and are available in different norms. A large number
of underlying models was specifically developed for concrete;
however, analogies may be made for stone masonry. The formulas
address the predicted load resulting from tensile tests and com-
bined tensile and shear tests. Tables are presented for the chemical
and mechanical anchors selected for this work.
It is noted that the theoretical basis given is associated with the
experimental study developed, which consisted of only one anchor
per wall, located at its centre and at a large distance from the
edges.
2.1. Resistance to tensile loading
The analytical formulation for tensile loading was established
according to the mode of potential anchor failure, namely: a) steel
anchor failure; b) cone failure in the substrate; c) pull-out failure;
d) combined pull-out and substrate cone failure; e) splitting failure
(cross section) and f) blowout failure [6,7], as shown in Fig. 2.
The anchor capacity depends on the properties of the existing
materials and on the technology applied [5]. The characteristic
anchor resistances’ (NRk) formulas given below consider the main
modes of failure, according to the bibliographic research, using
adhesive anchoring. Detailed information regarding the expres-
sions and symbols used may be found in the specific references.
For metal failure, referenced in this article as T1, the character-
istic resistance, for concrete and masonry are
NRk ¼ 0:75:As :f u ð1Þ
NRk ¼ 0:90:As :f y ð2Þ
The T1 characteristic resistance is provided by the effective
cross section of the bolt (As) and the steel ultimate tensile strength
(fu). [8–11]. ACI 318 recommends using a coefficient of 0.75 [9],
while ACI 530 proposes using yielding strength (fy) rather than
ultimate strength and applying a reduction coefficient of 0.90
[12]. Anchor steel failure is rarely seen in masonry applications,
and occurs in cases in which anchorage depth and masonry resis-
tance are significant [13].
For cone failure (T2), most studies involve concrete as substrate.
The characteristic resistance is calculated by [8]
0:5 1:5
NRk ¼ k:ðf ck cube Þ :hef :ðAc;N =A0c;N Þ ð3Þ
 R. Muñoz et al. / Construction and Building Materials 163 (2018) 643–655 645

Fig. 2. Failure modes associated with tensile loading: (a) anchor; (b) substrate cone; (c) pull-out anchor; (d) combined pull-out and cone; (e) cross section of substrate
material; (f) lateral cone [6,7].

This failure mode generally occurs at short anchorage depth and NRk ¼ so :p:do :hef ð5Þ
low concrete resistance. In general, the fastener capacity is influ-
For this type of T3 failure, fib Bulletin 58 [6], EN 1992-4 [7] and
enced by the concrete strength, the proximity to other fasteners
TR 029 [8] adopt the tension model of uniform adherence to
and edges, as well as the presence of cracks [14]. Eq. (3) depends
describe the behaviour at the interface between the fastener and
on: a k value of 7.2 N0.5/mm0.5 for cracked concrete and 10.1 N0.5/
the grout (Eq. (4)) and the grout and the concrete (Eq. (5)). Both
mm0,5 for non-cracked [8]; the concrete strength (N/mm2) for
resistances depend on effective anchorage length hef, and take into
200 mm cubes and an effective anchorage length of hef (mm).
consideration different diameters: d, for the fastener and do for the
When the fastening is located near the edge or there are cone inter-
drill hole, both in millimetres. The resistances also differ in terms
sections, a capacity reduction is taken into account through the
of the uniform adhesive stress: the first uses the nominal value s
introduction of the geometric factor Ac,N/A0c,N, where Ac,N is the pro-
at the fastener/grout interface and the second uses the so value
jected area of the fastening or group of fastenings on the concrete
at the grout/concrete interface. The disadvantage of this method
surface and A0c,N is the concrete projected by a fastener, not limited
is the scarce information about the adhesive stress at the interface,
by edges or the influence of adjacent fasteners. For an individual fas-
since this is affected by internal, hard to control, factors, as well as
tener not located on an edge, the Ac,N area becomes equal to A0c,N. A0c,N
by external ones, such as the condition of the drill hole during
is the concrete area of an individual fastener at a distance from the
installation. Where necessary, these equations may be multiplied
edges, on the concrete surface, envisaging the cone as a pyramid
by the Ac,N/A0c,N factor.
whose height is equal to embedment depth hef, is given by 9.h2ef
In the laboratory, the failure of the fastener/grout interface may
[8,10], as shown in Fig. 3.
be ascertained by the defined displacement of the tension element
In the case of chemical anchors, pull-out failure in a fastener
in the free area, since the displacement of injected material reflects
occurs between the adhesive and the surface, or between the adhe-
a failure at the interface between the material and the drill hole
sive and the fastener [14]. The characteristic resistance for the
(substrate material). Studies suggest that adhesion between the
interface between the fastener and the bond is expressed by [15]
injected material and the face of the drill hole depends on the sub-
NRk ¼ s:p:d:hef ð4Þ strate’s water absorption capacity. Furthermore, adhesion length,
injection time and the influence of joints must be taken into con-
The formula for the interface between the bond and the surface sideration [5]. Giuriani [17] admits a minimum value of s = 2 MPa.
concrete is [16] For combined pull-out and cone failure (T4), the characteristic
resistance for concrete is [8]

NRk ¼ s:p:d:hef :ðAc;N =A0c;N Þ ð6Þ

Can also be calculated by [15]

þ p:s:d:ðhef  hc Þ
2 0:5
NRk ¼ 0:85:hc :ðf cc;200 Þ ð7Þ

where fcc,200 represents the concrete strength measured on cubes

with a side length of 200 mm, hef the effective embedment length
and hc is the cone depth. If hef > hc,
h i
NRk ¼ s:p:d= 1:7:ðf cc;200 Þ
0:5
ð8Þ

The ETAG 029 – European Technical Approval Guidelines for

metal injection anchors in masonry have Annex C [11], which
addresses adhesive anchoring for brick masonry. Since the beha-
viour of stone masonry is not similar to concrete, additional con-
siderations must be made. There are three of such aspects in
ETAG 029: brick breakout failure, pull-out of one brick and the
influence of joints.
Material strength must be taken into account for brick breakout
failure. In terms of pull-out of one brick, the characteristic resis-
tance of an anchor, NRk,pb, (vertical joints are designed to be filled
with mortar) is calculated as follows:

Fig. 3. Concrete cone and A0c,N area for an individual fastener [8,10].
NRk;pb ¼ 2:lbrick :bbrick :ð0:5:f v ko þ 0:4:rd Þ þ bbrick :hbrick :f v ko ð9Þ
646 R. Muñoz et al. / Construction and Building Materials 163 (2018) 643–655
with: NRk,pb the characteristic resistance for pull-out of one brick,
lbrick the brick length, bbrick the brick width, hbrick the brick height,
rd the design compressive stress perpendicular to the shear and fvko
the initial shear strength according to EN 1996-1-1 [18], see Table 1.
In terms of the influence of the masonry joints, the following
must be considered [11]: a) the characteristic strength may only
be used if the wall has filled mortar joints; b) if the wall is designed
with unfilled mortar joints, then the characteristic strength may
only be used if the minimum edge distance to the vertical joints
is observed. If this minimum edge distance in not guaranteed, then
the characteristic strength must be reduced by a factor of 0.75.
Regarding the load capacity in mechanical anchors, the failure
modes may be related to the fastener (see Eqs. (1) and (2)), the
cone or to pull-out, or even to cracks in the cross section of the
material [6]. The characteristic strength relating to cone failure
(T5) can be calculated by [6]
0:5 1:5
NRk ¼ k:ðf ck Þ :hef
In T5 cone failure, according to the fib Bulletin 58, the k value is
7.0 N0.5/mm0.5 for cracked concrete and 11.0 N0.5/mm0.5 for non-
cracked [6]. In EN 1992-4 [7], these values are 7.7 and 11.0; or
7.2 and 10.1, respectively, according ETAG 001[10]. The fck is the
characteristic concrete cylinder strength at 28 days.
For pull-out failure (T6) the formula is [7]
NRk ¼ k:p
2 2
:ðdh  d Þ:f ck =4
Mechanical anchor pull-out failure occurs at moderate embed-
ment depth in low resistance concrete or in drill holes with diam-
eters above those of the fasteners [14] and depends on the type and
form of fastener [10]. The T6 formula for concrete is a function of k,
whose value is 7.5 for fissured concrete and 10.5 for non-fissured
[7]. This also depends on the area of fastener support Ah, which
takes into consideration the diameter of the fastener’s head dh
and the diameter of fastener d. Another failure mode characteristic
of mechanical anchors, and which occurs in the cross section, may
be avoided during the installation of the fastener, providing there
is sufficient distance between edges and fasteners [6].
Table 1
Initial shear strength according to EN 1996-1-1 [18].
Brick type Mortar strength fvko (N/mm2)
Clay brick M2.5 to M9 0.2
M10 to M20 0.3
All other types M2.5 to M9 0.15
M10 to M20 0.2
Fig. 4. Failure modes associated with shear loading: (a) steel failure; (b) pry-out or pull-out failure; (c) concrete edge failure [6,7].
2.2. Resistance to combined tension and shear load
Failure modes associated with shear loading are: a) steel failure,
b) pry-out or pull-out failure and c) edge failure [6,7], as seen in
Fig. 4. Steel failure is often accompanied by crushing and spalling
of the concrete ahead of the anchor. Pry-out failure is caused by
rotation of the anchor, while concrete edge failure mode is charac-
terized by the formation of a cone-shaped fracture surface.
In relation to shear strength, there are four failure modes for
adhesive or mechanical fasteners in concrete: a) steel failure with
shear load without lever arm; b) steel failure with shear load with
lever arm; c) concrete pry-out failure and d) concrete edge failure
[6,10,11]. In all cases, the design value of the shear load must be
below or equal to the characteristic resistance (VRk) divided by
their respective coefficients.
Characteristic resistance for steel failure with shear load with-
out lever arm (T7) is expressed by [10]
ð10Þ
V Rk ¼ 0:5:As :f u ð12Þ
This formula resembles Eq. (1), with changes to the coefficient.
For steel failure with shear load with lever arm (T8), the charac-
teristic resistance according ETAG 001[10] can be calculated by
V Rk ¼ aM :MRk =l ð13Þ
In this failure mode, T8, the characteristic resistance of an
anchor, VRk, is given by the MRk characteristic bending resistance
ð11Þ
of individual anchor lever arm, l which is the distance between
the shear load and the concrete surface, while aM depends on the
anchor’s degree of restraint at the side of the application fixture
and is judged according to good engineering practice. For no
restraint aM is equal to 1 and for full restraint aM is equal to 2
[10]. Characteristic bending can be calculated thus as:
MRk ¼ M0Rk :ð1  NSd =NRd Þ ð14Þ
M0Rkis the characteristic bending resistance of an individual
anchor and may be obtained by
M0Rk ¼ 1:2:W el :f u ð15Þ
where Wel is the elastic section modulus of the anchor,
NSd is the value of design action and NRd is the value of design
resistance.
NRd ¼ NRk =cMs ð16Þ
NRk is the characteristic resistance of a single anchor or an
anchor group. The NRk value is obtained with the T5 formula.
cM is the partial safety factor for material with a value of 1.25
for failures with lever arms [10].
 R. Muñoz et al. / Construction and Building Materials 163 (2018) 643–655
For concrete pry-out failure (T9), the characteristic resistance
can be obtained by [10]
k:NRk
In this case, anchors may fail due to a concrete pry-out failure at
the side opposite to the load direction. The NRk value is also
obtained using the T5 formula. The k values are 1 for an effective
height below 60 mm or 2 for effective heights equal to or above
this value [10].
Concrete edge failure, another mode of failure, needs not be ver-
ified for groups with no more than four anchors, when the edge
distance in all directions is ten times greater than the effective
height and sixty times that of the fastener’s diameter.
For combined tension and shear loading the following must be
satisfied [10]:
bN < 1
bV < 1
bN þ bV < 1:2; for solid masonry
where bN (bV) is the ratio between design action and design resis-
tance for tension (shear) loading.
In general, the above equations yield conservative results. More
accurate results are obtained by equation [10]:
ðbN Þa þ ðbV Þa < 1:0
with: a = 2.0 if NRd and VRd are governed by steel failure, and a = 1.5
for all other failure modes.
In relation to chemical anchors for brick masonry, ETAG 029
[11] requires that the following must be observed: failure of the
metal part, shear load without lever arm; failure of the metal part,
shear load with lever arm; local brick failure; brick edge failure;
one brick push out and joint influence. For the characteristic resis-
tance of an anchor, in case of brick edge failure VRk in anchors in
solid masonry, the following expression may be used [11]:
0:5 0:2 0:5
V Rk ¼ k:ðdnom Þ :ðhnom =dnom Þ :ðf b Þ :c1:5
1 ðNÞ
with: k = 0.25 if the load direction is towards the free edge, k = 0.45
if the load direction is parallel to the free edge, with dnom as the out-
side diameter of the anchor in millimetres, hnom as the overall
anchor embedment depth in millimetres, fb as the normalized mean
compressive strength of the masonry unit in N/mm2 and c1 is the
edge distance closest to the edge in millimetres.
If the load is directed towards the free edge and the wall is not
designed with mortar joints (so no load transfer is provided to
other units in the wall), then the following conditions are fulfilled:
c1  h/1.5 and c1  hbrick/3, where h is the thickness of the member
and hbrick the height of the brick.
The characteristic resistance of an anchor or a group of anchors
in the case of one brick push out on the free edge of a wall is cal-
culated as follows:
V Rk ¼ ð2:lbrick :bbrick Þ:ð0:5:f v ko þ 0:4:rd Þ
with lbrick the brick length, bbrick the brick width, fvko the initial
shear strength (see Table 1) and rd the design compressive stress
perpendicular to the shear. If 2 mm to 5 mm masonry joints are
not visible, the characteristic resistances VRk have to be reduced
by a factor of 0.75. Joints thicker than 5 mm must be designed as
a free edge. If the masonry joints are visible (e.g. on an unplastered
wall), the following aspects must be taken into account: a) the char-
acteristic resistance may only be used if the wall is designed with
mortar joints; b) mortarless joints have to be designed as a free
edge. Resistance to combined tension and shear loading must be
calculated as described above.
647
Over time, several experimental works have been undertaken to
identify the resistance of anchors with metallic fasteners [5,14–
16]. Recently, studies on this subject have focused specifically on
ð17Þ
masonry [5,19–23] and on strengthening structures subject to
earthquakes [24–26] and dynamic pressure [27]. The present study
focuses on old stone masonry, of great relevance for the conserva-
tion and restoration of ancient and historic buildings.
3. Experimental investigation
Experimental activities were conducted in the laboratories of
the University of Minho, in Guimarães, Portugal. Stone masonry
specimens were built, simulating historic masonry, and mechani-
cal characterization tests were conducted on materials, masonry
assembly and fasteners.
ð18Þ
3.1. Material characterization
ð19Þ
The materials used in the research were: stone, mortar com-
ð20Þ posed of hydraulic lime and sand, and anchoring systems supplied
by HILTI. Granite stone was used for the masonry, with a unit size
about 20 and 30 cm, extracted from a quarry in the north of Portu-
gal. The following tests were carried out for stone characterization
in five specimens: elastic modulus, based on EN 12390-13 [28];
uniaxial compression [29]; uniaxial tension, following ASTM D
ð21Þ 2936 [30], and water absorption by immersion [31]. The average
value obtained for each parameter, followed by the respective vari-
ation coefficient (CV) in (%), are presented in Table 2.
The results of the elastic modulus and uniaxial compression
tests were highly variable, since they addressed weathered stone
and sound stone, ranging from 14.6 GPa to 43.4 GPa for the elastic
modulus and from 28.7 MPa to 86.7 MPa for compressive strength.
Weathered stone was prevalent in the construction of the walls,
with an average elastic modulus and compressive strength of
23.9 GPa (CV 34.4%) and 47.3 MPa (CV 37.4%), respectively.
It is known that laying mortar made of air lime has a constitu-
tion similar to historic mortar, however its use in humid environ-
ð22Þ
ments and locations with limited carbon dioxide is restricted [32].
Air lime mortar hardens slowly and, therefore, hydraulic lime was
used. Cement mortars present a final aspect very different from
historic mortar, and contain soluble salts that are prone to crystal-
lization, contributing to its degradation. These mortars are also
excessively stiff, have a limited wall drying capacity, and exhibit
unnecessary over strength [33].
According to Veiga and Santos [32], when free of salts, hydraulic
lime mortar constitutes an adequate solution for restoration works,
principally those located in humid zones or in direct contact with
water. The first author [33] lays out certain requirements for the
characterization of restoration mortars, both for plaster and unit
laying. The values for the latter are presented in Table 3.
The mortar used in the present experimental campaign is com-
posed by natural hydraulic lime NHL 3.5 [34], from SECIL, and sand,
from a quarry, whose granulometric curve, obtained by EN 933-1
ð23Þ [35], is shown in Fig. 5, in a 1:2.5 proportion by volume. The quan-
tity of water was defined by consistence fresh mortar test [36]
based on the desired slump flow for restoration mortar, around
145 to 155 mm, according to Veiga and Santos [32].
Table 2
Results of the granite characterization tests.
Elastic Compressive Tensile Water absorption by
modulus strength (MPa) strength immersion (%)
(GPa) (MPa)
34.6 (32.6) 68.7 (29.7) 6.2 (12.3) 1.04 (3.1)
648 R. Muñoz et al. / Construction and Building Materials 163 (2018) 643–655
Table 3
Established requirements for laying mortar in historic buildings. Adapted from Veiga [33].
Mechanical properties (MPa)
Tensile strength Compressive strength Elastic modulus
0.40–0.80 0.60 – 3.00 3000–6000
Fig. 5. Granulometric curve of the sand used in this research.
Simultaneously with the construction of the walls, mortar spec-
imens were moulded for the following tests: elastic modulus [28],
uniaxial compression and flexure [37], adhesive strength [38] and
performance in water (absorption by capillarity [39] and immer-
sion [40]) at 28 days, the date of the initial masonry test. During
curing, the specimens remained in the same location as the walls
under construction and were therefore subject to the same tem-
perature and humidity conditions. The results of these tests may
be found in Table 4.
The results in Table 4 agree with the recommendations in
Table 3, except for the capillarity coefficient, which is 22% above
the proposed maximum value. The coefficient was calculated as
specified in EN 1015-18 [39], which considers the difference
between the mass measured at 90 and at 10 min. According to
Tavares [41], a time scale between 10 and 90 min to determine
the capillarity coefficient is not suitable for lime based mortars,
since at 90 min its absorption is already close to saturation, as also
found here. Based on bibliographic references, this author suggests
an interval of between zero and 5 min as the most suitable, since
this provides the greatest absorption and the largest pores fill with
water more quickly. In this case, the new capillarity coefficient is
1.00 kg/m2.min1/2 (CV 10.1%), which falls within the limits given
in Table 3.
3.2. Preparing the masonry
Because the sizes of the walls for the pull-out tests had to be
representative of historic masonry and compatible with the space
available, a height limit of 1.20 m was defined. Wall thickness fol-
lowed references [42] and was set at 0.40 m. A width of 0.80 m was
calculated, based on the expected diameter of the failure cone as a
result of the metallic fastener pull-out, per the standards and
guidelines consulted [8,10,11] and as shown in Fig. 3. The provi-
sions for the walls followed the recommendations for historic
masonry [42].
Table 4
Mechanical and physical properties of the mortar used in the 28-day study (CV in (%)).
Mechanical properties (MPa)
Tensile strength Compressive strength Elastic modulus Adhesive strength
0.71 (14.0) 1.63 (14.2) 3150 (11.9) 0.15 (3.9)
Capillarity coefficient (kg/m2.min1/2)
Adhesive strength
0.10–0.50 1.0–1.5
Two walls for each type of anchorage were prepared (chemical,
grout and mechanical), giving a total of 6 test walls per pull-out
material for the tensile tests (W_STONE_1 to W_STONE_6) and 6
for the combined tension-shear test (W_STONE_7 to
W_STONE_12). In addition, walls were prepared to characterize
the masonry in relation to compression, tension and shear, in line
with Table 5. The size and quantities of the walls followed the stan-
dards and recommendations established in ASTM/E519M – 15 [43],
LUMB6 [44], ASTM C1314 – 16 [45] and EN 1052-1 [46].
3.3. Masonry characterization
Following a 28-day wall curing period, diagonal compression
and axial compression tests were carried out. Diagonal compres-
sion (Fig. 6a and b) was tested with the displacement control on
both sides and speed of deformation at 3 l/sec. This test assessed
the tensile and shear strength of the prisms, considering assumed
isotropic elastic properties. The same displacement and speed
parameters were used in the axial compression test
(Fig. 6c and 6d). Cracking in the walls subject to diagonal compres-
sion occurred in a progressive and stepped manner. In the case of
axial compression, conical cracks were formed, as illustrated in
ASTM C1314 – 16 [45].
Test results, in terms of averages and coefficients of variation,
presented as percentages (%), can be found in Table 6. The final
two columns refer to the average compression strength for 0.40
m thick prisms (A) and 0.20 m thick walls (B).
In these values, one can see some similarity with the result (1.7
MPa) for axial compression in stone masonry presented by Moreira
[24], with the same granite stone, although there is divergence in
terms of tension and shear, 0.14 MPa and 0.29 MPa respectively.
These values are about 65% higher than those obtained here, which
may be explained by the different mortar used. The mortar compo-
sition plays a much more relevant role in the tension and shear
mechanical performance of masonry, than in compression. Moreira
used a mortar composition with a proportion of 1:3:10:6 (cement:
hydraulic lime: river sand: clay-rich sand) [24].
3.4. Pull-out tests
The pull-out tests were made with 10 mm diameter metallic
fasteners from HILTI, as shown in Table 7, in line with substrate
suitability, length (l) and effective embedment (hef). It is noted
that, in the same way as in the pull-out tests, in order to drill the
holes and position the anchors, the wall was subjected to 0.2
MPa compression, so as to reproduce the confinement effect asso-
ciated with the vertical compression of a real wall.
Resin was injected using equipment from HILTI Portugal (bat-
tery dispenser Hilti HDE 500-A22), and MAPEFILL P grout from
the company MAPEI was injected manually with a syringe. For
Performance in water
Capillarity Coefficient (kg/m2.min1/2) Water absorption by immersion (%)
1.83 (11.0) 26.5 (0.71)
 R. Muñoz et al. / Construction and Building Materials 163 (2018) 643–655 649

Table 5 Table 6
Size and quantities of walls used in the experimental campaign and their respective Average strength of tested walls.
tests.
Tensile Shear Compressive Compressive
Size (width x length x height) (m) Quantity Tests Strength strength strength (A) (MPa) strength (B) (MPa)
(MPa) (MPa)
0.30  0.80  0.80 3 Diagonal compression
0.40  0.60  0.80 3 Axial compression 0.08 (18.3) 0.18 (17.4) 1.71 (19.7) 1.76 (20.0)
0.20  0.40  0.40 5 Axial compression
0.40  0.80  1.20 12 Pull-out

the latter, a screw-nut was welded to the end of the fastener to
provide a centred fit within the drill hole, achieve appropriate
adhesion and position the injection and air exit tubes (Fig. 7) in
order to ensure that the 20-mm diameter drill hole (which, as sta-
ted, is the double of the fastener diameter) was effective filled.
Once the fasteners were placed, and after the curing period for
the chemical and grout anchors, the pull-out tests were carried out.
To prevent wall displacement during the test, the same was fixed
to the steel frame using a metallic structure, threaded rebar and
washers (Fig. 8a) on the cementitious mortar bed for the applica-
tion of the reaction load (Fig. 8b). The static scheme adopted con-
sidered all the panel faces supported.
A spherical plain bearing connected the fastener to the actuator.
Five Linear Variable Differential Transformers (LVDTs) were fixed
to the wall in order to measure wall displacement in the areas
inside and outside the expected circular base of the cone that
occurs when the fastener is pulled out. The LVDT positions are pre-
sented generically in Fig. 9. The fifth transducer was fixed on the
actuator’s upper face.
The criterion for stopping the test was based on the horizontal
fastener displacement reaching 20 mm. Fig. 10 illustrates the
masonry test setups with the actuator in a horizontal (a) and
inclined (b) position, while Fig. 11 shows typical load displacement
diagrams for mechanical (a), chemical (b) and cementitious grout
(c) anchors.
4. Results
The results obtained from the pull-out tests with the actuator
both horizontal and inclined are presented in Tables 8–10, which
also provide the strength, calculated for the associated type of fail-
ure, as addressed in Section 2 above. Failure identification was
based on the displacement results obtained from the LVDTs posi-

(a) pre-test (b) failure pattern

(c) pre-test (d) failure pattern

Fig. 6. Diagonal compression tests (a) and (b) and axial compression test (c) and (d).
650 R. Muñoz et al. / Construction and Building Materials 163 (2018) 643–655

Table 7
Specifications for the anchors used in the masonry.

Metallic anchor Chemical anchor Grout anchor

Type l (mm) hef (mm) Type l (mm) hef (mm) Type l (mm) hef (mm)
HUS 3 Fastener 100 85 Resin HIT-RE 500; 190 150 Mapefill P Grout; 190 150
HIT-V-8.8 M10x190 HIT-V-8.8 M10x190 Fastener
Fastener

Fig. 7. System used for the grouted anchor.

tioned on the walls and on a visual inspection undertaken during

and after the test. Fig. 12 shows all the failure modes observed.
In these tables, the type of failure is classified in line with Sec-
tion 2, with the resistance calculated according to the formulas for
horizontal actuator (Eq. (1)–(11)) and inclined actuator (Eq. (12)–
(23)). In the equations that included compressive reinforced con-
crete strength, this was substituted for compressive masonry
Fig. 9. LVDT positions in the specimen (units in meter).
strength, providing an average of the values for columns (A) and
(B) in Table 6. In addition, k values of 7.2 for the adhesive anchors
and 7.0 for the mechanical ones were assumed, in order to take

Fig. 8. System for fixing the wall to the portico: (a) side view; (b) front view.
 R. Muñoz et al. / Construction and Building Materials 163 (2018) 643–655 651

Fig. 10. Pull-out tests with the actuator in the horizontal (a) and 30° inclined (b) positions.

W_STONE_1 W_STONE_2 W_STONE_3

Load (kN)

Load (kN)
20 20
Load (kN)

20
10 10
0 0 0
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)
(a) (b) (c)
Fig. 11. Typical load (kN)  displacement (mm) for (a) mechanical, (b) chemical and (c) cementitious grout anchors.

Table 8
Pull-out test results with horizontal actuator.

Wall panels Type of Maximum axial load Average Horizontal anchor Type of Nominal load value Average Average N /
fastener obtained on pull-out Np Np (kN) displacement at Np failure (Estimated value) N (kN) N (kN) Average Np (%)
(kN) (mm)
W_STONE_1 Mechanical 12.6 11.9 2.2 T5 5.5 5.2 44
W_STONE_4 Mechanical 11.2 17.2 T4 5.0
W_STONE_2 Chemical 19.0 27.1 4.2 T2 17.4 13.5 50
W_STONE_5 Chemical 35.2 9.1 T4 9.7
W_STONE_3 Grout 16.9 22.9 4.2 T3 10.8 14.1 62
W_STONE_6 Grout 29.0 10.0 T2 17.4

Table 9
Pull-out test results with inclined actuator.

Wall panels Type of fastener Load obtained on Maximum axial load obtained Maximum shear load obtained Average (kN) Average Vp (kN)
pull-out Np (kN) on pull-out Np (kN) on pull-out Vp (kN)
W_STONE_9 Mechanical 9.6 8.3 4.8 10.2 5.9
W_STONE_11 Mechanical 14.0 12.1 7.0
W_STONE_8 Chemical 28.6 24.8 14.3 26.8 15.4
W_STONE_10 Chemical 33.1 28.7 16.6
W_STONE_7 Grout 26.5 23.0 13.3 24.0 13.8
W_STONE_12 Grout 28.8 25.0 14.4

Table 10
Pull-out test results with inclined actuator (continuation from previous table).

Wall panels Type of failure, Nominal load value Shear load value Average Average Combined tension and N/Np V/Vp
tension and shear (Estimated value) N (kN) (Estimated value) V (kN) N (kN) V (kN) shear (see Eq. (21)) (%) (%)
W_STONE_9 T6 and T8/T9 1.2 4.4 1.2 4.4 (17.65)1.5 + (2.84)1.5 = 78.9 12 75
W_STONE_11 T6 and T8/T9 1.2
1.5 1.5
W_STONE_8 T3 and T8/T9 13.0 13.0 (1.66) + (2.84) = 6.9 49 28
W_STONE_10 T3 and T8/T9 13.0
W_STONE_7 T3 and T8/T9 13.0 54 32
W_STONE_12 T3 and T8/T9 13.0
652 R. Muñoz et al. / Construction and Building Materials 163 (2018) 643–655

Fig. 12. Observed failure modes: (a) W_STONE_1; (b) W_STONE_4; (c) W_STONE_2; (d) W_STONE_5; (e) W_STONE_3; (f) W_STONE_6; (g) W_STONE_9; (h) W_STONE_11;
(i) W_STONE_8; (j) W_STONE_10; (k) W_STONE_7; (l) W_STONE_12.
 R. Muñoz et al. / Construction and Building Materials 163 (2018) 643–655 653

into account the least favourable situation; while resistance in the Table 11
grout/masonry interface, so, was taken as 2.3 MPa for cracked con- Np and Vp values for all the panels obtained in the pull-out tests.

crete [8]. Since the fastener was centred and more than 3hef away Wall panels Type of fastener Np (kN) Vp (kN)
from the edges, the Ac,N/A0c,N relation was equal to one. W_STONE_1 Mechanical 12.6 –
The resistance of the W_STONE_4 panel was calculated accord- W_STONE_4 11.2 –
ing to the T4 equation (combined pull-out and cone failure), pro- W_STONE_9 8.3 4.8
viding a value of 5.0 kN. Since no formulas seem available for W_STONE_11 12.1 7.0
Average values (CV in%) 11.0 (17.3) 5.9 (26.3)
this type of failure in mechanical anchors, this equation provides W_STONE_2 Chemical 19.0 –
a reasonable approximation. As seen in Fig. 12, the failure was W_STONE_5 35.2 –
more typical of stone breakout than cone failure, and the resistance W_STONE_8 24.8 14.3
was calculated according to Eq. (9), making an analogy with brick W_STONE_10 28.7 16.6
Average values (CV in%) 26.9 (25.2) 15.5 (10.3)
breakout failure. In this case, fvko equal to 0.15 N/mm2 was adopted
W_STONE_3 Grout 16.9 –
with stone size equal to 20 mm. The result was 12.0 kN, which was W_STONE_6 29.0 –
consistent with the test findings. Still, the decision was to include W_STONE_7 23.0 13.3
the least favourable value in the table. W_STONE_12 25.0 14.4
For the panels tested with the actuator inclined, the axial and Average values (CV in%) 23.5 (21.5) 13.9 (6.0)

shear loads were calculated by force decomposition according to

an actuator angle of 30° from the horizontal. The lever arm and
the bending moment from which it resulted were considered. Ana-
lysing Fig. 12, it is possible to see a pattern in the type of failure
characterized by fastener flexure and stone fissuring at the fastener
location (failures T8 and T9) connected to the fastener pull-out (T3
and T6, according to type of fastener).
For the T3 calculation s0 = 2.3 MPa, d0 = 12 mm and hef = 150
mm were assumed, while for the T6 calculation, k = 7.2 and the
average compressive strength of the masonry were adopted. The
value from Eq. (13) was 4.4 kN considering N to be equal to 12.5
kN, calculated according to EN 1991 [47] and EN 1990 [48]. The
resistance is equal to 17.4 kN (T5), with an a value of 1 and the
lever arm equal to 2 mm. For Eq. (17), the value was 3.5 kN with
k = 2. The least favourable values obtained from these formulas
are given in Table 6.
Taking stone breakage into consideration, VR was calculated
with Eq. (22), resulting in 18.9 kN. For this calculation, the values
adopted were k = 0.45, dnom 15 mm, hnom 150 mm, fb = 1.74 N/
mm2 and c1 = 300 mm. In the column for combined activity, Eq.
(21) presented in Section 2 was used, considering bN (bV) to be
the ratio between action and resistance for tension (shear) loading
and a equal to 1.5 for the failure modes.
5. Discussion and analysis of findings
Two types of analyses for the results obtained above are shown.
Firstly, based on a comparison of the experimental campaign
results and, secondly, a comparison of these values with the pre-
dictive expressions for the loads obtained from the literature and
presented in Section 2.
Table 11 includes all the results for the axial and shear forces
obtained in the laboratory pull-out tests. Comparing the average
loads for the three types of fasteners, it is observed that the chem-
ical and cementitious grout anchors performed similarly in terms
of adhesion, with maximum forces differing only 15%. Since stone
masonry includes many specificities (stone size and layout, joint
irregularities, and others) and the specimens are all unique, the dif-
ference found seems not to be relevant. It is known that masonry
properties present a reasonable scatter and different failure modes
can be obtained with similar collapse loads. It is believed that the
numbers of tests are reasonable, and the average value is represen-
ative evaluation of loads between the three different types of
anchorage, not considering the failures modes, which, again, are
very variable for stone masonry.
The difference with the mechanical anchors is rather large but
the embedment length is much lower (85 vs 150 mm), which also
affects the failure mechanism in light of the stone unit dimensions.
When the results are normalized by this length the mechanical Np
and Vp can be adjusted by 150/85, reading 19.4 kN and 10.4 kN,
which are more comparable to the adhesive anchors. Still, it can
be stated that the performance of adhesive anchors seems to be
better, and they also allow longer embedment lengths.
It is further stressed that the magnitude of the coefficients of
variation may be explained by factors such as: a) presence of inter-
nal voids, leading to the displacement of the adhesive part and
reduced contact with the fastener; b) different absorption by the
substrate of some of the water in the grout, altering resistance;
c) heterogeneity of the stone masonry, resulting in anchors fixed
either only on stone or on stone and mortar; d) manual application
of grout, which may not be uniform on all walls; e) inadequate
cleaning of the drill holes and/or inadequate wetting of some
masonry.
The prediction formulas for the axial forces were more appro-
priate for the adhesive fastening than those aimed at the mechan-
ical anchors, although most of the formulas were specific for
concrete substrate (Table 12). The models for the mechanical con-
nections, in particular, did not take into consideration the type of
fastener, its shape and grooves, or differences in friction. In relation
to shear force, the predictive formulas were more appropriate for
mechanical fasteners (75%, see Table 12). When the formulas for
brick failure were used (Equations (9) and (22)) the values were
more consistent with those resulting from the experimental cam-
paign. In this way, recalculating the Vk/Vp relationship with a
VRk value of 18.9 kN (final column in Table 12), shear formulas that
may be more appropriate for adhesive fastenings may be found. In
Combined Tension and Shear, the values are quite different from
the ones expected 1.2 (see Eq. (20)), indicating that the predictive
formulas for this combination were not appropriate. Taking a VRk
Table 12
Relationship between characteristic values and values obtained in the pull-out tests
(Tables 8 and 10).

tative of the capacity in terms of maximum force, also taking into Type of fastener N/Np (%) V/Vp (%) Recalculated Vk/Vp values (%)
account the high cost involved in the experimental campaign and Mechanical 44 – –
size of the specimens. The representativeness in terms of displace- Mechanical 12 75 321
ments is lower and that these are likely to depend on the failure Chemical 50 – –
mode. It is noted that: (a) the variations in terms of load are small; Chemical 49 28 123
Grout 62 – –
(b) the walls were all different and irregular due to the heterogene- Grout 54 32 137
ity of the material. The average was calculated to make a compar-
654 R. Muñoz et al. / Construction and Building Materials 163 (2018) 643–655
value of 18.9 kN, bV will be 0.66 and the relationships will have
values still far from ideal.
The results indicate, clearly, that the analytical formulas found
in the literature need to be revised, namely in the definition of
the semi-empirical coefficients appropriate for masonry and for
the distinct constituent materials. The results also indicate that
the formulas are conservative, which is a positive result, even if
they seem overly conservative.
6. Conclusions
This research adds critical experimental information about the
behaviour of three types of anchoring (chemical, grout and
mechanical) on stone masonry. In terms of anchor adhesion on
the fastener/masonry interface, there is limited knowledge of
mechanical behaviour, not only on the analytical field (in the
development of predictive models, particularly those for historic
masonry), but also on the experimental field. Thus, the heterogene-
ity of masonry implies requires additional studies.
Some conclusions can be drawn from experimental research.
Adhesive fastenings seemed to present better results than the
mechanical ones. Considering the absolute average value of axial
load, both with the actuator in horizontal (introducing only normal
forces to the anchor) and inclined position (introducing normal
and shear forces to the anchor), the chemical anchors presented
better performance in terms of adhesion. This can also be noted
in average values of ultimate load. Different anchors displacements
and failure modes of the masonry were observed for the same type
of bonding, emphasizing the heterogeneity of stone masonry.
The available prediction formulas for the axial forces were more
appropriate for the adhesive fastenings. For shear force, these for-
mulas were more appropriate for mechanical fasteners. Whether to
determine tensile strength, shear strength or combined anchor
strength, the formulations in the literature to calculate resistance
are mostly based on studies relating to concrete. Existing beha-
viour models provided conservative approximations of the experi-
mental results and further validation is required, namely in
relation to semi-empirical constants in the formulations and resis-
tance for masonry interfaces.
The results obtained in this paper are limited to the topology of
the masonry used, the materials used, the curing conditions and
the age at which the models were tested. Materials were selected
to reproduce similar old stone masonry, based on the literature,
but no tests were done to identify how weathered the specimens
were compared to the historic buildings constructed with the
stone used. Despite these limitations, this work is a relevant step
in the investigation of the mechanical behaviour of anchorage in
historic stone masonry. A gap in this knowledge was identified
and other works seem needed to give further information.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the Coordination for the
Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (Coordenação de Aper-
feiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior: CAPES), a Brazilian public
agency for the promotion of research, which supported the first
author’s postdoctoral work; the University of Minho and the tech-
nicians at the Structures Laboratory; and HILTI Portugal, for pro-
viding the fasteners and equipment involved in the study.
References
[1] C. Gorse, D. Highfield, The Construction of New Buildings Behind Historic
Façades, Chapman & Hall, London, 1991.
[2] M. Bussel, D. Lazarus, P. Ross, Retention of Masonry Façades – Best Practice
Guide, CIRIA C579, London, 2003.
[3] CFA Guidance Note, Fixtures for the retention of masonry façades,
Construction Fixtures Association, London, 2004.
[4] R. Cook, J.L. Burtz, M.H. Ansley, Design Guidelines and Specifications for
Engineered Grouts, Report of University of Florida, Gainsville, Florida, 2003.
[5] B. Gigla, F. Wenzel, The Bond Strength of Supplementary Injection Anchors in
Historic Masonry. Proceedings of the 5th International Masonry Conference,
British Masonry Society, England, 1998. pp. 327–336.
[6] CEB Design of anchorages in concrete. Fib Bulletin 58, 2011.
[7] prEN 1992-4 Eurocode 2 – Design of concrete structures - Part 4: Design of
fastenings for use in concrete. CEN/TC 250 N 1342, 2015.
[8] TR 029 – Design of Bonded Anchors. EOTA European Organisation for Technical
Assessment, 2010.
[9] ACI 318 – Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-05).
ACI Committee 318, 2005.
[10] ETAG 001 – Guideline for European Technical Approval of Metal Anchors for
Use in Concrete - Annex C: Design Methods for Anchorages. EOTA European
Organisation for Technical Assessment, 2010.
[11] ETAG 029 – Guideline for European Technical Approval of Metal Injection
Anchors for Use in Masonry - Annex C: Design Methods for Anchorages. EOTA
European Organisation for Technical Assessment, 2013.
[12] ACI 530 – Building Code Requirements for Masonry Structures (ACI 530-05).
Masonry Standards Joint Committee, 2005.
[13] F. Arifovic, M.P. Nielsen, Strength of Anchors in Masonry, Report of Technical
University of Denmark, Denmark, 2004.
[14] G.S. Cheok, L.T. Phan, Post-installed anchors – A literature review, National
Institute of Standards and Technology, Maryland, USA, 1998.
[15] R.A. Cook, J. Kunz, W. Fuchs, R.C. Konz, Behavior and design of single adhesive
anchors under tensile load in uncracked concrete, ACI Struct. J. 95 (1998) 9–26.
USA.
[16] N.A. Zamora, R.A. Cook, R.C. Konz, G.R. Consolazio, Behavior and design of
single, headed and unheaded, grouted anchors under tensile load, ACI Struct. J.
100 (2) (2003) 222–230. USA.
[17] E. Giuriani, Consolidamento degli edifici storici, UTET, 2012.
[18] EN 1996-1-1 Design of masonry structures - Part 1-1: General rules for
reinforced and unreinforced masonry structures. European Committee for
Standardization, Brussels, 2005.
[19] B. Gigla, Bond strength of injection anchors as supplementary reinforcement
inside historic masonry, in: Proceedings of the 13th International Brick and
Block Masonry Conference, Amsterdam, 2004.
[20] B. Gigla, Comparison of failure of injection anchors as supplementary
reinforcement inside masonry and concrete, in: Proceedings of the 8th
International Masonry Conference, Dresden, 2010.
[21] B. Gigla, Structural design of supplementary injection anchors inside masonry,
in: Proceedings of the 15th International Brick and Block Masonry Conference,
Florianópolis, Brazil, 2012.
[22] A. Braimah, R. Guilbeault, E. Contestabile, Strain rate behavior of adhesive
anchors in masonry, Eng. Struct. 67 (2014) 96–108.
[23] L. Contrafatto, R. Cosenza, Behaviour of post-installed adhesive anchors in
natural stone, Constr. Build. Mater. 68 (2014) 355–369.
[24] S.M.T. Moreira Seismic retrofit of masonry-to-timber connections in historical
constructions (doctoral thesis), University of Minho, Guimarães, Portugal,
2015.
[25] S. Paganoni, Dissipative Anchor Devices for the Seismic Retrofit of Heritage
Buildings (doctoral thesis), University of Bath, United Kingdom, 2015.
[26] A. Hamdan, W. Jäger, Experimental investigation of grouting anchor to
strengthen the natural stone historical masonry walls under seismic
actions, in: Proceedings of the 8th International Masonry Conference,
Dresden, 2010.
[27] FEMA P-750 – Recommended Seismic Provisions for New Buildings and Other
Structures. National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, National
Institute of Building Sciences, Washington, USA, 2009.
[28] EN 12390-13 Testing hardened concrete – Part 13: Determination of secant
modulus of elasticity in compression. European Committee for
Standardization, France, 2012.
[29] EN 1926 Natural stone test methods. Determination of compressive strength.
European Committee for Standardization, Portugal, 2000.
[30] ASTM D 2936 Standard Test Method for Direct Tensile Strength of Intact Rock
Core Specimens. United States, 2004.
[31] EN 13755 Natural stone test methods. Determination of water absorption at
atmospheric pressure. European Committee for Standardization, Portugal,
2005.
[32] M.R. Veiga, A.R. Santos, As argamassas de cal hidráulica natural na reabilitação,
in: Proceedings of 5o PATORREB – Conferência sobre Patologia e Reabilitação
de Edifício. Porto, Portugal, 2015.
[33] M.R. Veiga, Argamassas para revestimento de paredes de edifícios antigos.
Características e campo de aplicação de algumas formulações correntes, in:
Proceedings of 3° ENCORE – Encontro sobre Conservação e Reabilitação de
Edifícios, LNEC, Lisboa, Portugal, 2003.
[34] BS EN 459-1 Building lime. Part 1: Definitions, specifications and conformity
criteria. BSI Standards Publication, England, 2010.
[35] BS EN 933-1. Tests for geometrical properties of aggregates. Determination of
particle size distribution. Sieving method, BSI Standards Publication, England,
2012.
[36] EN 1015-3 Methods of test for mortar for masonry – Part 3: Determination of
consistence of fresh mortar (by flow table), European Committee for
Standardization, Brussels, 1999.
 R. Muñoz et al. / Construction and Building Materials 163 (2018) 643–655
[37] EN 1015-11 Methods of test for mortar for masonry – Part 11: Determination
of flexural and compressive strength of hardened mortar, European
Committee for Standardization, Brussels, 1999.
[38] EN 1015-12 Methods of test for mortar for masonry – Part 12: Determination
of adhesive strength of hardened rendering and plastering mortars on
substrates European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, 2000.
[39] EN 1015-18 Methods of test for mortar for masonry - Part 18: Determination
of water absorption coefficient due to capillary action of hardened mortar,
European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, 2002.
[40] E 394 Concrete – Determination of the absorption of water by immersion.
Standard specification of LNEC – National Laboratory for Civil Engineering,
Portugal, 1993.
[41] M.L.A. Tavares, Conservação e o Restauro de Revestimentos Exteriores de
Edifícios Antigos, Technical University of Lisbon (PhD in Architecture), Lisbon.
Portugal, 2009.
655
[42] J.E. Segurado, Alvenaria e cantaria, Livraria Bertrand, Lisbon, Portugal, 1908.
[43] ASTM E519/E519M – 15 Standard Test Method for Diagonal Tension (Shear) in
Masonry Assemblages, ASTM International, USA, 2015.
[44] LUMB6 Diagonal tensile strength tests of small wall specimens. RILEM TC 76-
LUM, USA, 1991.
[45] ASTM C 1314 – 16 Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Masonry
Prisms, ASTM International, USA, 2016.
[46] EN 1052-1 Methods of test for masonry. Determination of compressive
strength, BSI Standards Publication, England, 1999.
[47] EN 1991 Actions on Structures, European Committee for Standardization,
Brussels, 2002.
[48] EN 1990 Basis of structural design, European Committee for Standardization,
Brussels, 2002.