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

net/publication/233792028

Seismic assessment of a CFRP-strengthened masonry chimney

Article  in  ICE Proceedings Structures and Buildings · January 2009

DOI: 10.1680/stbu.2009.162.5.291

CITATIONS READS

19 1,147

4 authors, including:

Salvador Ivorra Jose M. Adam

University of Alicante // University of Bristol Universitat Politècnica de València
203 PUBLICATIONS   2,391 CITATIONS    180 PUBLICATIONS   2,424 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Building Resilient - Robustness (https://b-resilient.webs.upv.es) View project

RC columns repaired with cementitious mortars View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Salvador Ivorra on 24 March 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Proceedings of the Institution of
Civil Engineers
Structures and Buildings 162
October 2009 Issue SB5
Pages 291–299 Francisco J. Pallarés Salvador Ivorra Luis Pallarés Jose M. Adam
doi: 10.1680/stbu.2009.162.5.291 Lecturer, Departamento de Senior Lecturer, Lecturer, ICITECH, Lecturer, ICITECH,
Fı́sica Aplicada, Universidad Departamento de Ingenierı́a Departamento de Ingenierı́a Departamento de Ingenierı́a
Paper 800102 Politécnica de Valencia, Spain de la Construcción, Obras de la Construcción y de la Construcción y
Received 15/12/2008 Públicas e Infraestructura Proyectos de Ingenierı́a Civil, Proyectos de Ingenierı́a Civil,
Accepted 23/07/2009 Urbana, Universidad de Universidad Politécnica de Universidad Politécnica de
Alicante. Spain Valencia. Spain Valencia, Spain
Keywords: brickwork & masonry/
dynamics/field testing & monitoring

Seismic assessment of a CFRP-strengthened masonry chimney

F. J. Pallarés PhD, S. Ivorra PhD, L. Pallarés PhD and J. M. Adam PhD

Valencia (Spain), like many other once industrial cities,
contains a large number of old industrial chimneys,
located in areas of urban growth in the city centre.
These chimneys often receive official protection owing
to their historical or local interest. As they were
originally designed to withstand only their own weight
combined with the force of the wind, those located in
seismically active areas may be at risk of collapse. Hence
akla yatkn
it is advisable to measure their resistance to seismic
action and to determine the appropriate type of
strengthening, should this be considered necessary. This
paper briefly presents the results of an experimental
study used to calibrate a numerical model of an
industrial masonry chimney. From this calibrated model
results of a seismic study are presented, in which the
karsi konulan
peak ground acceleration withstood by the chimney is
calculated and an assessment is made of the efficiency of
using carbon-fibre-reinforced polymer (CFRP) arranged
in vertical strips as protection against seismic motions.
Finally, conclusions are given as to the arrangement of
CFRP strengthening on the chimneys.
to earthquakes, which were not taken into consideration when
they were designed. The resistance of the chimneys to seismic
actions had been studied previously by Ghobarah and
Baumber 1 and Pallarés et al., 2,3 and indications were obtained
of the failure modes and earthquakes that they could
withstand. The present paper offers the first approach to the
study of their structural strengthening in order to increase their
resistance to seismic actions. The objectives were to find out
whether strengthening configurations based on vertical carbon-
fibre-reinforced polymer (CFRP) bands are valid for increasing
earthquake resistance and to determine the height to which the
chimney stack must be strengthened. The CFRP bands were
placed on the external surface of the chimney because they
would be easier to place in case of strengthening and can be
painted if desired to preserve the appearance of the chimney,

1. INTRODUCTION
Industrial chimneys are structural elements often found in
parts of the world that experienced the effects of the Industrial
Revolution in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The
steam boilers and furnaces that formed part of many industrial
processes needed tall chimney stacks to expel the harmful
smoke and gases well above ground level and also to aid in the
yakma combustion process. To attain these two objectives, the type of
chimney studied in this paper was designed and built with
ceramic bricks and lime or cement mortar. An example of this
type can be seen in Figure 1.

Later urban development in the cities meant that many of the

factories and their chimneys became surrounded by dwelling
houses and were demolished to make way for further growth.
Many of these constructions have been lost in this way. Many
local authorities have, however, preserved them for their
eski of
historical interest as relics eserler
the past, so that at the present
time it is possible to see examples close to residential buildings,
as can be seen in Figure 1.

The wish to preserve these historical relics and the fact that
Figure 1. A protected industrial chimney beside a block of
they are often located beside residential buildings with which flats
they could possibly interact, led to the study of their resistance

Structures and Buildings 162 Issue SB5 Seismic assessment of a masonry chimney strengthened with CFRP Pallarés et al. 291
Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:
IP: 158.42.250.70
On: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 17:52:00
 providing better mechanical properties and performances than
internal arrangement. An example of this external
strengthening can be observed in the masonry chimney of the
CTW chemical plant in Muttenz-Basel (Switzerland). 4 A
detailed study was not made of the strengthening thickness;
work in this area was limited to estimating approximate values.
In other ongoing studies, the thickness and other materials and
strengthening configurations are at present being investigated
in order to find the optimum structural strengthening against
seismic actions.
2. EXPERIMENTAL TEST
The chimney chosen as the subject for this study is illustrated
in Figure 2(a). Its geometric and mechanical characteristics
were obtained by non-destructive tests and a numerical model
was then calibrated in order to carry out numerical tests with
seismic actions.
The geometrical dimensions are given in Figure 2(b). Some of
the mechanical characteristics used in the numerical analysis
were obtained after calibrating the results of the non-
destructive tests. The calibration of the numerical model was
performed by a procedure similar to that used by Ivorra and
Pallarés5 and Ivorra et al., 6 in which similar structures were
experimentally tested. This consists of varying the mechanical
parameters until the natural frequencies measured in the actual
structure coincided with those calculated for the model. As can
be seen in Figures 3(a), 3(b) and 3(d), four accelerometers were
placed at different heights (two at the top and two at two-
thirds of the height, at right angles) on the chimney. Vibrations
were registered due to ambient excitation and to the excitation
produced by an impulsive force produced by an impact
hammer.
Accelerations were registered using seismic accelerometers
such as that shown in Figure 3(c). A Fourier analysis was
carried out on the output signals to obtain the natural
frequencies of the first vibration modes. The filtered result can
be seen in Figure 4, with frequency values for the first and
second vibration modes of 1.07 and 3.32 Hz respectively. The
damping value (1.6%) was obtained from the logarithm
decrement of the amplitudes.

Section view

2·54
2

1·51 0·32
0·88

2·02

4·26
36·2

Plan view
2·09

3·84

(a) (b)

Figure 2. (a) The industrial chimney studied; (b) geometry (dimensions in m)

292 Structures and Buildings 162 Issue SB5 Seismic assessment of a masonry chimney strengthened with CFRP Pallarés et al.
Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:
IP: 158.42.250.70
On: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 17:52:00
 Accelerometers

2H/3 Chimney
section

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Figure 3. (a) Accelerometers installation; (b) sketch of the installation; (c) installed accelerometer; (d) plan view: accelerometers at
right angles

attempting the strengthening of real cases for proper

calibration of the numerical model.
Power spectrum: (m/s)2

⫺4
1·60 ⫻ 10
1·40 ⫻ 10⫺4
1·20 ⫻ 10⫺4
1·00 ⫻ 10⫺4 4. NUMERICAL TEST
8·00 ⫻ 10⫺5
6·00 ⫻ 10⫺5
sonlu
4·00 ⫻ 10⫺5 4.1. Finite element model
2·00 ⫻ 10⫺5 There are different types of approaches for modelling a ayrk
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 masonry chimney. Komodromos et al. 10 use the discrete elemanlar
Frequency: Hz element method to study ancient columns under earthquake yöntemi
Figure 4. Spectral analysis excitations with interesting results; however, the finite element
method is used here to model unreinforced and strengthened
masonry chimneys. 11,12 As can be seen in Pallarés, 13 masonry
chimneys can be modelled by using one-dimensional (1D)
3. MASONRY PROPERTIES elements, shell elements or solid elements. In order to capture
belirtildigi gibi
As indicated by Kidder, 7 the materials used in the construction cracking expansion in a detailed way through the thickness
of the chimney show a wide variation in the strength of the and height, and because the software used only allows the
masonry depending on many different factors that can even cracking criterion to be used with solid elements, a three-
include the worker that made the bricks. Since no laboratory dimensional (3D) model (with solid elements) has been used in
test data are available for the chimney materials, the numerical this paper.
modelling was performed using typical strength values and
properties obtained from bibliographical references dealing The finite element method was used to evaluate the response of
with the materials used for building chimneys at the time of the structure to seismic actions, generating the model that can
construction (e.g. Esselborn 8 and Álvarez 9 ). These values were be seen in Figure 5. The model is formed by 18 100 elements
lowered slightly to allow for the possible weakening of the (maximum dimension ¼ 0.15 m), 25 100 nodes and 73 192
mortar in the joints with the passing of time. kenetliat the
active degrees of freedom, assumed to be clamped
ground level and applying symmetry conditions according to
The masonry characteristics were thus calculated to be as follows the direction of the seismic action. A dense mesh was chosen
so as appropriately to register cracking in the chimney, as can
(a) uniaxial compressive strength: fc ¼ 6.500 kN/m2 be seen in Figures 5(b) and 5(c). Soil–structure interaction was
(b) uniaxial tensile strength: ft ¼ 200 kN/m2 not considered in the calculations.
(c) elasticity modulus: E ¼ 6.5 3 105 kN/m2
(d) Poisson ratio:
¼ 0.2 4.2. Seismic load
(e) density: r ¼ 1600 kg/m 3 The seismic action is introduced as an acceleration–time
history compatible with the response spectrum indicated by
NCSE-02 14 for a peak ground acceleration equivalent to 0.06 g,
As has been previously mentioned, the elasticity modulus in which is the figure corresponding to the city of Valencia
the numerical model was adjusted so the natural frequencies of (Spain). The elastic response spectrum is shown in Figure 6(a)
the first and second vibration modes obtained from the multiplied by the soil coefficient (‘medium’ soil is assumed,
experimental tests coincided with the theoretical values of the type III) using the default damping value of 5%, which is
numerical model with an error lower than 4% and 12% modified accounting for the measured damping as proposed in
respectively, which are considered acceptable for this case. The the Standard. Figure 6(b) shows one of the five accelerograms
density of the material should be accurately estimated when used in the computations for a peak ground acceleration of

Structures and Buildings 162 Issue SB5 Seismic assessment of a masonry chimney strengthened with CFRP Pallarés et al. 293
Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:
IP: 158.42.250.70
On: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 17:52:00

(a)
Figure 5. Model generated by finite element method:
(a) geometry; (b) mesh; (c) section
1·4
Spectral acceleration: m/s2
behaviour including cracking and crushing capabilities in
masonry using as failure condition the Willam–Warnke
criterion, 17 which was developed for concrete under triaxial
conditions in the tension and compression regime. According to
this criterion, a conical failure type surface is defined with
curved meridians and non-circular base section in the principal
stress state, so that the strength depends on the hydrostatic as
well as deviatoric stress state. If the material at an integration birlesme
point fails in uniaxial, biaxial or triaxial compression (principal
stresses are in compression), the material is assumed to crush at
bozulma of the structural integrity
that point and complete deterioration
boyutthat the
of the material is assumed to such an extent
katki
contribution of the element to the stiffness at the integration
point in question is ignored. If one of the principal stresses is
tension, a crack is created at the integration point and
considered through modification of the stress–strain relations
by introducing a plane of weakness in a direction normal to the
crack face. Once a crack plane develops, the crack orientation
(b) (c) remains fixed. If the crack closes, then all compressive stresses
normal to the crack plane are transmitted across the crack. A
shear transfer coefficient (t ) is introduced to represent a shear
stiffness reduction factor for those subsequent loads which
induce sliding (shear) across the crack face. If the crack closes,
then all compressive stresses normal to the crack plane are
transmitted across the crack and shear transfer is introduced
through the c coefficient for a closed crack. t ¼ 0.15 and
c ¼ 0.75 are used for the open and closed cracks respectively

1·2
(see Betti and Vignoli 18 ). A default multiplier equal to 0.6,
1·0 affecting the tensile strength after cracking and improving
yaklasma
convergence, and secant modulus are used to account for the
0·8
tensile stress relaxation, according to the ANSYS manual. 16
0·6

0·4
Figure 7 shows the triaxial envelope surface and the failure
0·2 curve in the biaxial case, similar to that presented by Page 19
0 for the behaviour of masonry under biaxial stress. The two
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 main strength parameters needed to define the failure surface
Period: s
are the ultimate tensile strength ( ft ) and the ultimate
(a)
compressive strength ( fc ), obtained previously in accordanceuygunluk
0·50
0·40 with the bibliography cited. alinti yapilmis
kaynak dizini
Acceleration: m/s2

0·30
0·20
0·10
0
5 to obtain the failure mode and the peak ground acceleration
⫺0·10 0
⫺0·20
⫺0·30
⫺0·40
Time: s
Figure 6. Artificially generated accelerogram (a ¼ 0.04 g)
0.04 g, generated artificially following the technique described
by Vanmarcke and Gasparini. 15 Loads are linearly interpolated
for each substep from the values of the previous load step to
the values of the current load step in the numerical analysis.
4.3. Finite elements, cracking criterion and global failure
The chimney model and computations were performed with the
commercial software ANSYS version 11.0 using 3D (SOLID65)
solid elements 16 with eight nodes and three degrees of freedom
per node. This element allows the consideration of non-linear
Accelerograms such as that in Figure 6 are introduced into the
base nodes and a time domain non-linear analysis is performed
10 15 20
that causes the collapse of the structure.
The global failure or collapse of the chimney is defined in this
paper in the following sense. When the transient analysis is
(b)
finished for an earthquake a small static load is applied on the
top of the chimney (in each direction) and a static analysis is
carried out without considering the self-weight load. If the
chimney is not able to provide enough tensile stresses to
equilibrate this load due to cracking, it is assumed that the
seismic load caused deep damage to the chimney and failure is
considered, so a strengthening technique should be adopted.
This is a conservative method of establishing whether
significant kalinti
residual lateral load capacity, rather than collapse
exists, since the self weight is neglected and its consideration
could provide significant lateral load capacity. It is, however,
reasonable to proceed with the strengthening since these
chimneys are in the middle of cities and beside buildings.
Failures related to soil or rocking of the chimney from the base
are not considered, assuming perfect clamped conditions.

294 Structures and Buildings 162 Issue SB5 Seismic assessment of a masonry chimney strengthened with CFRP Pallarés et al.
Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:
IP: 158.42.250.70
On: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 17:52:00
 σzp Ghobarah and Baumber 1 and Pallarés et al.,2 and shown Figure
⫺ gevrek
8. The response is characterised by brittle behaviour and very
fc
limited deformation. Figure 9(a) shows the location of one
point at two-thirds of the height and another at the top of the
σx p ⫽ σ y p ⫽ σ z p
chimney, for which lateral displacements are drawn in Figure
9(b). This figure will be referenced below when the
strengthening is considered.
σy p
⫺
fc
σx p
⫺ 5. STRENGTHENING USING CFRP
fc Octahedral plane

(a)
5.1. Description
These chimneys were designed and built without considering the
σy p effects of seismic actions, so that some type of strengthening is
Cracking necessary for their preservation in zones prone to earthquakes.
Cracking
fc
ft σx p
Masonry structures can be strengthened in many different
ways. Fibre-reinforced polymer (FRP) is being successfully used
Cracking

to protect both concrete and masonry structures against

cyclical and seismic forces. 20,21 FRP adds little extra mass to a
structure but considerably enhances strength and stiffness and
is easy to install as compared with other strengthening
techniques.

Crushing
Studies are currently being carried out to optimise FRP
materials and design to protect chimneys adequately against
(b)
seismic events. The current paper describes a system using thin
CFRP straps attached vertically to the external chimney
Figure 7. (a) Triaxial envelope surface; (b) biaxial envelope
similar to that described by Page 19 surface, acting in much the same way as the steel
reinforcement in concrete. The strengthening dimensions are

4.4. Numerical test results

Applied accelerations were gradually raised until chimney
failure occurred in the sense previously explained. A peak
ground acceleration value of 0.06 g was reached, showing the
crack pattern displayed in Figure 8 for one of the seismic
motions. Cracking can be noted at the chimney base but also
higher up (at roughly two-thirds of the chimney height),
caused by the frequency content of the accelerogram that
excites higher-order modes of vibration, as indicated by

Y
X
(a)

0·08 Top-w FRP 2/3-w/o FRP

0·06
Displacement: m

0·04

0·02

0·00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
⫺0·02

⫺0·04

Y ⫺0·06
Time: s
Y X
Z (b)
X
(a) (b) Figure 9. (a) Location of node at two-thirds and top of the
height, and cracking; (b) lateral displacements of nodes at
Figure 8. Scheme of final chimney cracking two-thirds and top of the height

Structures and Buildings 162 Issue SB5 Seismic assessment of a masonry chimney strengthened with CFRP Pallarés et al. 295
Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:
IP: 158.42.250.70
On: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 17:52:00
 usually small, since CFRP has good mechanical properties and
is relatively expensive.
5.2. Strengthening layout
The basic CFRP characteristics used for the computations were
200 GPa elasticity modulus and a yield strength of 2500 MPa.
The CFRP strengthening was arranged vertically with rotational
symmetry angles Æ ¼ 908, 458 and 308 respectively. The
significance of this angle (Æ) can be seen in Figure 10 for the
case of Æ ¼ 458. Also studied were the effects of strengthening
the chimney against earthquakes in the lower third of its height
only (up to 10 m), lower two-thirds (up to 20 m) and
approximately its entire height (up to 30 m). The thickness of
the straps was initially fixed at 1.8 mm, with a width of 20 cm.
Although these parameters were not the objective of the study,
thickness was gradually increased during the computations to
determine the amount of strengthening necessary to resist
specific seismic forces. Figure 10 shows the chimney studied
and the arrangement of the straps up to a height of 20 m and
458 of rotational symmetry angle, while Figure 11 shows
X cracking. For stronger earthquakes cracks are expected at this
(a)
Y X
Z
(b)
α accelerograms were used, as recommended in NCSE-02. 14
(c)
Figure 10. (a) Longitudinal section of the strengthened
chimney, (b) top view and (c) rotational symmetry angle of
the strengthening (Æ ¼ 458)
296 Structures and Buildings 162 Issue SB5 Seismic assessment of a masonry chimney strengthened with CFRP
Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:
IP: 158.42.250.70
On: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 17:52:00
examples of some of the strengthening layouts tested. The
straps are supposed to be fixed to nodes at ground level,
contributing to avoiding global overturning and cracking at
ground level from the beginning of the earthquake.
5.3. Finite elements
To represent the strengthening behaviour, two types of finite
element were used: Shell41, 16 having membrane stiffness with
‘tension only’ option and three degrees of freedom per node,
and Link8, 16 a 3D uniaxial tension–compression element with
three degrees of freedom at each node. In the end the study
was carried out using the Link8 element since this gave better
results. According to this, the area assigned to the element was
that corresponding to straps 20 cm wide and 1.8 mm thick and
elastic–plastic behaviour with yield stress ¼ 2500 MPa.
kayis mesafesi
Debonding, slippage of the adhesive between the fibre and
masonry, was not considered as a possible failure mode, not
even failures related to the adhesive, so perfect bonding is
assumed.
5.4. Test results
Figure 12 shows the changes in cracking caused by including
strengthening (Æ ¼ 458) up to a height of 20 m for the seismic
value (a ¼ 0.06 g) that had caused the failure of the
unstrengthened chimney (see Figure 8). Very few cracks can be
seen at the base and cracking is very light at the CFRP
boundary at the 20 m mark. It is to be noted that the cracks
that appear at this point could be attributed to numerical
aspects for this peak ground acceleration, since there is a
change in stiffness where the strengthening ends and cracks
are concentrated in a very narrow band. No cracks are located
at any point in the chimney above the strengthening, so that it
can be concluded that the chimney is practically free of
height. Figure 13 displays lateral displacements on two nodes
of a chimney strengthened up to two-thirds of the height,
Æ ¼ 458, and 0.9 mm thickness of the strengthening. The
stiffening effect provided by the strengthening can be observed
when compared with Figure 9(b), significantly reducing lateral
displacements for the same seismic movement (especially for
1.8 mm strengthening).
When peak ground acceleration was increased by 20% to
0.072 g, however, chimney failure occurred. Also, when CFRP
was increased slightly (Æ ¼ 308 instead of Æ ¼ 458), resistance
to the 0.072 g seismic event did not improve, as failure also
occurred. Table 1 presents the results of the tests as regards the
conclusions that can be drawn concerning the layout and
volume of the strengthening. For each of the results shown five
ispanyann
Results are arranged from lesser to greater degrees of chimney afadi
strengthening, with an indication of whether or not the
chimney resisted the peak ground acceleration specified.
As the tests were carried out, certain configurations were
discarded until those that resisted the seismic loads were
obtained. For this reason not all configurations were given the
same number of tests.
From the results of the numerical tests, several conclusions can
be made. These are outlined in the following subsections.
Pallarés et al.
 Y X Y X
Z Z

Y Y
Z X Z X

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Figure 11. (a) Strengthening up to a height of 10 m with Æ ¼ 908; (b) strengthening up to a height of 20 m with Æ ¼ 908;
(c) strengthening up to a height of 30 m with Æ ¼ 308 (top view); (d) strengthening up to a height of 10 m with Æ ¼ 908 (top view)

Top–0·9 mm 2/3–0·9 mm Top–1·8 mm 2/3–1·8 mm

0·08

0·06
Displacement: m

0·04

0·02

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
⫺0·02

⫺0·04

⫺0·06
Time: s

Figure 13. Lateral displacements on nodes at the top and at

two-thirds of the height of the chimney, strengthening for
Æ ¼ 45, up to two-thirds and 0.9 mm thickness

the non-strengthened case. Also, the angle of incidence of the

seismic action is the most favourable for the strengthening
applied, so that any other angle of incidence of the seismic
action would be more unfavourable. This factor is not
considered to be so important in the configurations with
Æ ¼ 458 and Æ ¼ 308.

Y 5.4.2. Strengthening with Æ ¼ 458. This strengthening

Y configuration is adequate to increase the capacity of resistance
Z X to seismic events. With light strengthening (test 8) resistance is
X
Z achieved to a force equal to that which caused failure of the
unstrengthened chimney, although not to a force of 0.072 g
Figure 12. Isometric view: slight cracking, both at the base and (20% higher), unless comparatively heavy CFRP strengthening
at two-thirds of chimney height is applied (test 11).

When strengthening was applied to a height of 10 m, cracks

5.4.1. Strengthening with Æ ¼ 908. This strengthening is
clearly inadequate (tests 1 and 2) because it does not produce
yetersiz
an increase in the resistance to ultimate seismic load,
obtaining failures for the same peak ground acceleration as in
were observed at the top of the chimney due to excitation of
the second and third vibration modes. It was therefore decided
to limit the study to strengthening applied to heights of 20 m
and 30 m.

Structures and Buildings 162 Issue SB5 Seismic assessment of a masonry chimney strengthened with CFRP Pallarés et al. 297
Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:
IP: 158.42.250.70
On: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 17:52:00
 Test Reinforcement Height Thickness of Peak ground Resists
number angle Æ reinforced: reinforcement: acceleration: seismic load
m mm m/s2

1 90 10 1.8 0.06 g No
2 90 20 1.8 0.06 g No
3 45 10 1.8 0.07 g No
4 45 10 1.8 0.10 g No
5 45 20 0.9 0.06 g Yes
6 45 20 0.9 0.13 g No
7 45 20 0.9 0.08 g No
8 45 20 0.9 0.06 g Yes
9 45 20 1.8 0.10 g No
10 45 20 1.8 0.07 g No
11 45 20 18 0.07 g Yes
12 45 30 5 0.07 g No
13 30 20 1.8 0.07 g No
14 30 20 3.6 0.07 g Yes
15 30 20 3.6 0.08 g No
16 30 20 5 0.07 g Yes
17 30 20 5 0.08 g No
18 30 20 10 0.08 g Yes
19 30 30 1.8 0.07 g No
20 30 30 3.6 0.08 g No
21 30 30 3.6 0.10 g No
22 30 30 5 0.08 g No

Table 1. Tests performed

5.4.3. Strengthening with Æ ¼ 308. From the results obtained

in the test 14 it is concluded that strengthening to a height of
20 m is sufficient to resist seismic events 20% more powerful
than those which cause failure of the unstrengthened chimney,
with a strengthening thickness of up to 3.6 mm. Since no
cracks were observed in the upper section, the results from this
tesir of strengthening
group of tests also demonstrate the efficacy
up to 30 m to avoid failure in the upper third of the structure
due to excitation of the higher-order modes.

Figure 14 shows the cracking results for different strengthening

and seismic events.

In all cases there is cracking at the base. Test 19, with

strengthening up to a height of 30 m, presents no cracking at
20 m but was not able to resist the seismic action. The results
from tests 11 and 18, with heavier strengthening compared
with the others, show that the changes in the overall stiffness
of the structure due to the strengthening affected the
fundamental structure frequencies and the seismic response
itself. This should be borne in mind when applying heavy
strengthening, as even the failure mode may be affected.

6. CONCLUSIONS
Y Y Y
Masonry chimneys that were not designed to withstand seismic
actions have been declared protected structures in many cities Z X Z X Z X
throughout the world. The present study is a continuation of (a) (b) (c)
previous work and is involved with testing the suitability of
applying vertical CFRP straps with varying angle of rotational Figure 14. Final state of cracking for cases: (a) test 16; (b) test
14; (c) test 19
symmetry to the chimneys up to different heights to enable
them to resist a certain level of seismic actions, improving the
response of the structure. A conservative method of The results of the numerical tests made it possible to conclude
establishing whether any residual load capacity exists after that CFRP can be used to increase the seismic strength of
seismic loading has been developed similar to push-over masonry chimneys and change the failure modes. It was
analysis. determined that, at the very least, strengthening should be

298 Structures and Buildings 162 Issue SB5 Seismic assessment of a masonry chimney strengthened with CFRP Pallarés et al.
Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:
IP: 158.42.250.70
On: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 17:52:00
 applied at 458 of rotational symmetry angle to a minimum of
two thirds of the total height of the structure, but that it would
be advisable to place strengthening at 308 rotational symmetry
angle. Even though strengthening up to half of the structure
height proved to be effective, it should be extended up to two-
thirds of the chimney height to avoid cracks in the upper
section owing to excitation of the higher vibration modes. In
this way it is possible to avoid the collapse of the chimney
crown or damage to weakened parts of the structure, which is a
common occurrence in this type of chimney. At the present
time studies are being carried out on different layouts and
strengthening materials of varying thickness with the aim of
obtaining maximum strengthening performance.
The results obtained from this study are theoretical and based
on the assumption that no debonding is produced on the
interface between the CFRP and the masonry. This type of
failure is common when reinforcing with fibres, so checks in
the shear transfer in this sense should be taken into account.
Furthermore, the connection with the foundation is assumed
not to fail.
REFERENCES
1. GHOBARAH A. and BAUMBER T. Seismic response and retrofit
of industrial brick masonry chimneys. Canadian Journal of
Civil Engineering, 1992, 19, No. 1, 117–128.
2. PALLARÉS F. J., AGÜERO A., and MARTÍN M. Seismic
behaviour of industrial masonry chimneys. International
Journal of Solids and Structures, 2006, 43, No. 7-8, 2076–
2090.
3. PALLARÉS F. J., AGÜERO A. and IVORRA S. A comparison of
different failure criteria in a numerical seismic assessment
of an industrial brickwork chimney. Materials and
Structures, 2009, 42, No. 2, 213–226.
4. DÍEZ J. Refuerzo de estructuras de fábrica. International
Meeting on Restoration and Management of the Built
Heritage. REHABEND, 2007, pp. 311–318. In Spanish.
5. IVORRA S. and PALLARÉS F. J. Dynamic investigations on a
masonry bell tower. Engineering Structures, 2006, 28, No.
5, 660–667.
6. IVORRA S., PALLARÉS F. J. and ADAM J. M. Dynamic
behaviour of a modern bell tower – a case study.
Engineering Structures, 2009, 31, No. 5, 1085–1092.
7. KIDDER F. E. Building Construction Part 1. William
Comstock, New York, 1898.
8. ESSELBORN C. General Construction Treatise. Building
Construction. Gustavo Gili, Buenos Aires, 1952. In Spanish.
9. ÁLVAREZ A. Engineering Handbook. Adrián Romo, Madrid,
1904. In Spanish.
10. KOMODROMOS P., PAPALOIZOU L. and POLYCARPOU P.
Simulation of the response of ancient columns under
harmonic and earthquake excitations. Engineering
Structures, 2008, 30, No. 8, 2154–2164.
11. GENTILE C. and SAISI A. Ambient vibration testing of
historic masonry towers for structural identification and
damage assessment. Construction and Building Materials,
2007, 21, No. 6, 1311–1321.
12. AOKI T., SABIA D. and RIVELLA D. Influence of experimental
data and FE model on updating results of a brick chimney.
Advances in Engineering Software, 2008, 39, No. 4, 327–
335.
13. PALLARÉS F. J. Contribución al análisis sı́smico de
chimeneas industriales de obra de fábrica mediante el
método de los elementos finitos. PhD thesis. Universidad
Politécnica de Valencia, 2005. In Spanish.
14. MINISTERIO DE FOMENTO. Normativa de Construcción
Sismorresistente: Parte General y Edificación (NCSE-2002),
Madrid, 2002. In Spanish.
15. VANMARCKE E. H. and GASPARINI D. A. Simulated
Earthquake Motions Compatible with Prescribed Response
Spectra. Department of Civil Engineering, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1976,
Report 76-4.
16. ANSYS Theory Reference 11.0. ANSYS Inc., Canonsburg,
USA, 2006.
17. WILLAM K. J. and WARNKE E. D. Constitutive model for the
triaxial behaviour of concrete. Proceedings, International
Association of Bridge and Structural Engineering, ISMES,
Bergamo, 1974.
18. BETTI M. and VIGNOLI A. Modelling and analysis of a
Romanesque church under earthquake loading: Assessment
of seismic resistance. Engineering Structures, 2008, 30,
No. 2, 352–367.
19. PAGE A. W. The biaxial compressive strength of brick
masonry. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers.
Part 2, 1981, 71, 893–906.
20. ALMUSALLAM T. H. and Al-SALLOUM Y. A. Behavior of FRP
strengthened infill walls under in-plane seismic loading.
Journal of Composites for Construction, 2007, 11, No. 3,
308–318.
21. CORTE G. D., FIORINO L. and MAZZOLANI F. M. Lateral-
loading tests on a real RC building including masonry
infill panels with and without FRP strengthening. Journal
of Materials in Civil Engineering, 2008, 20, No. 6, 419–
431.

What do you think?

To comment on this paper, please email up to 500 words to the editor at journals@ice.org.uk
Proceedings journals rely entirely on contributions sent in by civil engineers and related professionals, academics and students. Papers
should be 2000–5000 words long, with adequate illustrations and references. Please visit www.thomastelford.com/journals for author
guidelines and further details.

Structures and Buildings 162 Issue SB5 Seismic assessment of a masonry chimney strengthened with CFRP Pallarés et al. 299
Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:
IP: 158.42.250.70
On: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 17:52:00
View publication stats