In-Plane Seismic Response of URM Walls

Upgraded with FRP

Mohamed A. ElGawady, M.ASCE1; Pierino Lestuzzi2; and Marc Badoux3

Abstract: Recent earthquakes have shown the vulnerability of unreinforced masonry 共URM兲 buildings, which have led to an increasing
demand for techniques to upgrade URM buildings. Fiber reinforced polymer 共FRP兲 can provide an upgrading alternative for URM
buildings. This paper presents results of dynamic tests investigating the in-plane behavior of URM walls upgraded with FRP 共URM-FRP兲.
These tests represent pioneer work in this area 共dynamic and in-plane兲. Five half-scale walls were built, using half-scale brick clay units,
and upgraded on one face only. Two moment/shear ratios 共1.4 and 0.7兲, two mortar types 共M2.5 and M9兲, three composite materials
共carbon, aramid, and glass兲, three fiber structures 共plates, loose fabric, and grids兲, and two upgrading configurations 共diagonal “X” and full
surface shapes兲 were investigated. The test specimens were subjected to a series of synthetic earthquake motions with increasing
intensities on a uniaxial earthquake simulator. The tests validate the effectiveness of the one side upgrading: the upgrading technique
improved the lateral resistance of the URM walls by a factor ranging from 1.3 to 2.9; however, the improvement in the lateral drift was
less significant. Moreover, no uneven response was observed during the test due to the single side upgrading. Regarding the upgrading
configurations, the bidirectional surface type materials 共fabrics and grids兲 applied on the entire surface of the wall 共and correctly anchored兲
can help postpone the three classic failure modes of masonry walls: rocking 共“flexural failure”兲, step cracking, and sliding 共“shear
failures”兲. Additionally, in some situations, they will postpone collapse by “keeping the bricks together” under large seismic deformations.
On the other hand, the diagonal “X” shape was less successful and premature failure was developed during the test.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲1090-0268共2005兲9:6共524兲
CE Database subject headings: Walls; Masonry; Dynamic tests; Seismic effects; Retrofitting; Composite materials.

Upgrading of Unreinforced Masonry Walls with
Composite Materials
Recently, several researchers have explored the potential use of
fiber reinforced polymer 共FRP兲 on unreinforced masonry 共URM兲
walls. Ehsani et al. 共1999兲 increased the out-of-plane resistance of
URM walls, during static cyclic tests, as much as 32 times the
weight of the wall using FRP. The increase in out-of-plane resis-
tance of URM walls has been demonstrated by others 共e.g., Albert
et al. 2001兲. However, the increase in the in-plane lateral resis-
tance of URM walls upgraded with FRP 共URM-FRP兲 was deter-
mined to be less significant than the increase in the out-of-plane
resistance. During static cyclic tests, Schwegler 共1994兲 increased
1
Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Dept. of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, The Univ. of Auckland, Private bag 92019, New Zealand;
formerly, PhD Candidate, Applied Computing and Mechanics
Laboratory 共IS-IMAC兲, School of Architecture, Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, 1015 Lausanne
共EPFL兲, Switzerland 共corresponding author兲. E-mail: melg003@ec.
auckland.ac.nz
2
Lecturer, IS-IMAC-ENAC-EPFL, 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland.
E-mail: pierino.lestuzzi@epfl.ch
3
IS-BETON-ENAC-EPFL, 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland; formerly,
Professor. E-mail: marc.badoux@epfl.ch
Note. Discussion open until May 1, 2006. Separate discussions must
be submitted for individual papers. To extend the closing date by one
month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Managing Editor.
The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and possible
publication on December 11, 2003; approved on February 15, 2005. This
paper is part of the Journal of Composites for Construction, Vol. 9, No.
6, December 1, 2005. ©ASCE, ISSN 1090-0268/2005/6-524–535/$25.00.
the in-plane lateral resistance of URM walls by a factor of 1.7,
while Abrams and Lynch 共2001兲 increased the in-plane lateral
resistance by a factor of 3.
In addition, the FRP upgrading technique could increase the
lateral drift. In the case of upgrading for out-of-plane failure,
drifts as much as 2.5% were reached 共Ehsani et al. 1999兲. These
high drifts have been consistently explored by others 共e.g., Albert
et al. 2001兲. For in-plane, Schwegler 共1994兲 increased the lateral
in-plane drift of URM-FRP by a factor of 3, while Abrams and
Lynch 共2001兲 indicated that the FRP has no effect on the lateral
drift of URM walls. Recently, Holberg and Hamilton 共2002兲
achieved a lateral drift of 1.7%. This high level of lateral drift was
achieved by using a ductile connection between the URM-FRP
and its footing. However, in some cases drift was limited to 0.6%
due to the eccentricity caused by this connection, which resulted
in out-of-plane failure. An extensive literature review for using
FRP for retrofitting of masonry walls maybe found in ElGawady
et al. 共2004兲
Experimental Program
The dynamic experimental program investigates the effectiveness
of composite materials as externally bonded upgrading materials
for the in-plane upgrading of URM walls. The experimental tests
included two phases: the first phase consists of testing five-
reference URM specimens until a predefined degree of damage
occurred; the second phase consists of upgrading these reference
specimens, using one layer of FRP on one face, then retesting
them. Table 1 summarizes the tested specimens. The results of the
first phase are reported in ElGawady et al. 共2003兲 and the results

524 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2005

Table 1. Tested Specimens
Mortar Fiber reinforced
Specimen Description type polymer configuration
L1-REFEa Reference specimen Strong —
L1-WRAP-G-Fa Specimen L1-REFE after upgrading with fabrics of glass 共SikaWrap-300G 0/90兲 Strong Full surface
L1-LAMI-C-Ia Specimen has been upgraded with plates of carbon fiber 共Sika CarboDur S512兲 Strong —
L1-WRAP-G-Xa Specimen L1-LAMI-C-I after taking off the carbon plates and reupgrading Strong Diagonal 共X兲
the specimen with fabrics of glass fiber 共SikaWrap-300G 0/90兲
L2-REFE Reference specimen Weak —
L2-GRID-G-F Specimen L2-REFE after upgrading with grids of glass 共MeC Grid G4000兲 Weak Full surface
S1-REFE Reference specimen Strong —
S1-LAMI-C-X Specimen S1-REFE after upgrading with plates of carbon 共Sika CarboDur T兲 Strong Diagonal 共X兲
S1-WRAP-G-F Specimen S1-LAMI-C-X after taking off the carbon plates and upgrading it Strong Full surface
with fabrics of glass 共SikaWrap-300G 0/90兲
S2-REFE Reference specimen Weak —
S2-WRAP-A-F Specimen S2-REFE after upgrading with fabrics of aramid 共SikaWrap-400A 0/90兲 Weak Full surface
a
The normal forces increased due to the absence of the railcar springs.

of the second phase are the object of this paper. During the second
phase, one of the squat walls was upgraded using two different
materials 共S1-LAMI-C-X and S1-WRAP-G-F兲; this results in a
total of six upgraded specimens 共Table 1兲. The paper aims to
present effects of different upgrading parameters 共configuration,
material, and structure兲 on specimens’ behavior. In addition, the
experimental results could serve as a data base for development
of a future design model.
Test Specimens
Test specimens were intended to represent structures built in the
mid-20th century in Central Europe 共Fig. 1兲; half-scale single
wythe walls were constructed using half-scale hollow clay ma-
sonry units 共Fig. 2兲. The test specimens had two aspect ratios
共Fig. 3兲: slender walls “L family” with effective moment/shear
ratio of 1.4 and squat walls “S family” with effective moment/
shear ratio of 0.7; also, two mortar types were used: Type 1 was a
strong mortar 共M9兲 and Type 2 was a weak mortar 共M2.5兲. The
average compressive strengths were 7.2 and 5.7 MPa for masonry
assemblages built using mortar Types 1 and 2, respectively. In
addition, different types of FRP 共Table 2兲 and upgrading configu-
ration 共Table 1兲 were used to upgrade the specimens. As shown in
Table 1, all the specimens were upgraded on the entire surface of
a single side except Specimens L1-LAMI-C-I, L1-WRAP-G-X,
and S1-LAMI-C-X. Specimen L1-LAMI-C-I was especially de-
signed to investigate the shear behavior of a slender URM wall by
increasing its flexural resistance with minimal increase of shear
resistance by the addition of two vertical Carbon FRP 共CFRP兲
plates 共50 mm wide by 1.2 mm thick兲 on one side. At the end of
testing L1-LAMI-C-I, the vertical plates of CFRP were taken off
and the specimen reupgraded using diagonal bands of glass FRP
共GFRP兲. For the other two specimens 共L1-WRAP-G-X, and S1-
LAMI-C-X兲, Fig. 4 shows the upgrading details. A test specimen
was constructed on a precast reinforced concrete 共RC兲 footing.
After allowing the specimen to cure 共from 3 to 7 days兲, a precast
RC head beam was fixed at the top of the specimen using strong
mortar 共M20兲. Anchorage failure of the FRP was prevented by
clamping the FRP ends to the specimen’s footing and head beam
using steel plates and screw bolts. In addition, the FRP had an
anchorage length 共over the RC head beam and foundation兲 of
approximately 150 mm.
Test Setup
The specimens were tested on the uniaxial earthquake simulator
of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich 共ETHZ兲
共Fig. 5兲. The test setup was designed to simulate the structural
features of the building shown in Fig. 1 共Lestuzzi et al. 1999 and
ElGawady et al. 2003兲. In this typical Swiss building, the normal
force is carried by slender columns and bearing walls, while the
bearing walls resist all the lateral force. The tributary areas of the
floors belonging to the bearing wall for gravity load are different
from the areas for horizontal mass inertia forces. To apply the

Fig. 1. Reference building with external structural unreinforced

masonry walls. Circle highlights structural wall considered for
dynamic tests Fig. 2. Scaled brick dimensions 共millimeters兲

JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2005 / 525

 Fig. 3. Wall dimensions 共meters兲: 共a兲 slender and 共b兲 squat

same structural concept the calculated gravity load 共due to the hibit the same acceleration response spectrum. The walls were
reinforced concrete slab, flooring, and live load兲 was applied di- subjected to dynamic excitations 共test runs兲 of nominal increasing
rectly to the test specimens by two external post-tension bars, the intensity; the increment was usually 10% of acceleration. In the
inertia force will be generated by a 12 Mg mass. This mass was following sections, each test run is followed by brackets which
placed on rails mounted on a separate steel structure. include the percentage of the applied acceleration in this test run.
Table 3 summarizes the earthquake type and the corresponding
number of test runs as well as the maximum nominal earthquake
Loading System
intensity for each test specimen.
The head beam was connected to the movable mass and the foot-
ing pad was clamped to the shaking table platform 共Fig. 6兲. For
normal force, superimposed gravity load of approximately 30 kN Experimental Results
was simulated using two external post-tensioning bars of 13 mm
diameter. This was in addition to 12 kN of self-weight from steel The averages of the absolute maximum and minimum lateral
elements at the wall top 共due to the test setup兲, RC head beam, forces and drifts as well as the mode of failure for each test
and masonry panel weight; this normal force corresponded to a specimen are presented in Table 3. In addition, the peaks mea-
compression stress of 0.35 MPa. In addition, springs were used sured forces, displacements, and drifts in the south 共negative兲 and
with the post-tensioning bars. These springs were used since dur- north 共positive兲 directions are given in Tables 4 and 5.
ing testing L1-WRAP-G-F and L1-WRAP-G-X and due to in-
crease of the wall height as a result of opening of flexural cracks
the post-tensioning force increased many times. Table 3 indicates
the initial and maximum post-tensioning force for each test speci-
men. In addition, Fig. 7 shows the change in the post-tensioning
force before and after the use of the springs.

Dynamic Excitations
The displacement inputs of the shaking table were based on syn-
thetic acceleration time-histories compatible with Eurocode 8
共CEN 1994兲 for rock soil Type A and with a peak ground accel-
eration of 1.6 m / s2, the earthquake lasted approximately 14 s.
Three main types of synthetic earthquakes were used for the tests.
The first 共UG1, Fig. 8兲 was for lower accelerations 共up to about
120% of the reference spectrum兲 and used larger table displace-
ments. For higher accelerations and because of the limitations on
the table displacements, other synthetic earthquakes with smaller
table displacements had to be used 共UG1R and UG1RR兲. These Fig. 4. Diagonal upgrading 共millimeters兲: 共a兲 L1-WRAP-G-X and
supplementary earthquakes were derived from the first and ex- 共b兲 S1-LAMI-C-X

526 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2005

 Fig. 5. Test setup with slender specimen

In general, the FRPs improved the lateral resistance of the 1. The wall started to rock, during test Run 10 共130%兲, at the
retrofitted specimens. In order to evaluate such improvement, the wall footing and a small opening roughly 1 mm width was
lateral resistances of the upgraded specimens are compared to observed between the masonry wall and its footing. This
those of the appropriate reference specimens 共Fig. 9兲. Neverthe- crack corresponded to a drift of 0.12% and a lateral load of
less, it is difficult to fairly evaluate the enhancement in the ulti- 60% of the specimen lateral resistance. The delamination
mate drift due to the upgrading, as the URM reference specimens process began in a few points during test Run 12 共150%兲 and
did not reach their ultimate drift. Different failure modes occurred continued until test Run 17 共200%兲.
during the tests: flexural 共slender specimens with full surface cov- 2. The grid started to rupture in tension at the bottom northern
erage, i.e., L1-WRAP-G-F and L2-GRID-G-F兲; shear-flexural side of L2-GRID-G-F during test Run 18 共210%兲. The grid
共slender specimen diagonal upgrading, i.e., L1-WRAP-G-X兲; completely ruptured at the bottom sides of L2-GRID-G-F
FRP rupture due to debonding 共squat specimen with diagonal
upgrading, i.e., S1-LAMI-C-X兲; or no failure at all 共squat speci-
mens with full surface coverage, i.e., S1-WRAP-G-F and
S2-WRAP-A-F兲. Fig. 10 shows these different modes of failure.
In the following sections detailed descriptions of two specimens
共a slender and a squat兲 are given followed by a brief description
of the other specimens. More details maybe found in ElGawady
et al. 共2003兲.

Specimen L2-GRID-G-F
L2-GRID-G-F is a slender specimen which was upgraded on the
entire surface of a single side using a grid of GFRP. The speci-
men’s average lateral resistance was 49.3 kN; under the same
normal forces, the average lateral resistance of the appropriate
reference specimen 共L2-REFE兲 was 15.4 kN. At the test end, the
average of the ultimate lateral resistance of L2-GRID-G-F re-
duced to 47.5 kN and for L2-REFE increased to 17.8 kN. This
means that the FRP enhanced the lateral resistance by a factor of
approximately 2.9. The specimen behavior during the tests was as
follows: Fig. 6. Slender specimen ready to test

JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2005 / 527

Table 2. Fiber Reinforced Polymer 共FRP兲 Used in Experimental Program
Fiber FRP Warpa Weftb ft E ␧ Epoxy Application
Commercial name orientation 共type兲 共g / m2兲 共g / m2兲 共MPa兲 共GPa兲 共%兲 type method
SikaWrap-400A 0/90 Bidirectional Fabrics of Aramid 205 205 2,880 100 2.8 — —
SikaWrap-300G 0/90 Bidirectional Fabrics of glass 145 145 2,400 70 3.0 Sikadur-330 Dry layup
MeC Grid G4000 Bidirectional Grid of glass 139 119 3,450 72 4.0 — —
Sika CarboDur S512c Unidirectional Plates of carbon 93 — 2,800 165 1.7 Sikadur-30 Wet layup
Sika CarboDur Tc Unidirectional Plates of carbon 26 — 2,400 135 1.6 — —
a
Weight of fiber in the warp direction.
b
Weight of fiber in the weft direction; f t = FRP tensile strength; E = Young’s modulus; and ␧ = Ultimate strain.
c
Composite properties.

关Fig. 11共a兲兴 during test Run 19 共220%兲. Also, a masonry
failure was observed in the bottom southern side 关Fig. 11共b兲兴.
The average peak drift during test Run 19 was approximately
1% which was approximately two times the drift for test
Run 18, while the lateral force reduced slightly from 51 kN
共test Run 18兲 to 47 kN 共test Run 19兲. By the end of test
Run 19, the specimen reached its ultimate capacity due to
flexural failure at the first brick course. Note that rocking was
responsible for the high drift of this specimen. This could be
confirmed by examination of the vertical LVD Ts through the
specimen. The specimen was 1,570 mm long by 1,633 mm
high. By multiplying the algebraic difference of the mea-
sured vertical displacement time-history by 1,633/ 1,570, an
estimate of the horizontal displacement time-history caused

Table 3. Main Test Results

P
Specimen Upgrading Number 共kN兲
Specimen height Earthquake of test E.I. F ⌬ Failure
name 共mm兲 Material Configuration type runs 共%兲 Initial Final 共kN兲 共mm兲 mode
L1-REFE 1,600 — — UG1 11 100 30 90 31 11.8 R
GRFP UG1 11 120

L1-WRAP-G-F 1,600 Full face 30 88 57 14.2 R

Fabric UG1R 13 230

L2-REFE 1,600 — — UG1 14 100 30 44 16 13.0 R

GRFP UG1 5 120

L2-WRAP-G-F 1,600 Full face 30 43 48 16.1 MF

Grid UG1R 14 220
CFRP 2 vertical UG3 12 120

L1-LAMI-C-I 1,600 29 35 31 5.3 RS

Plates Plates UG1R 8 170
GRFP UG1 12 120

L1-WRAP-G-X 1,600 X pattern 27 112 42 17.4 FS

Fabric UG1R 14 230
UG1 11 120

S1-REFE 700 — — 30 45 29 2.3 RS

UG1R 14 230
GFRP UG1R 8 250

S1-WRAP-G-F 700 Full face 29 33 74 2.1 NF

Fabric UG1RR 26 470
UG1 7 120

S2-REFE 700 — — 30 38 28 2.3 RS

UG1R 15 260
CFRP UG1R 24 280

S1-LAMI-C-X 700 XX pattern 29 37 36 3.3 FD

Plates UG1RR 5 270
UG1R 8 260
AFRP

S2-WRAP-A-F 700 Full face UG1RR 18 470 30 32 72 0.9 NF

Fabric
UG1RRR 4 230
Note: E.I.⫽maximum nominal earthquake intensity; P⫽post-tensioning force; F, ⌬⫽maximum of the average of the absolute peak lateral resistances and
relative displacement measured in both directions, respectively; R⫽rocking; MF⫽masonry compression failure and fiber rupture; RS⫽rocking and shear;
FS⫽fiber rupture due to shear failure; NF⫽no failure was reached; and FD⫽fiber rupture due to bonding;

528 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2005


Fig. 7. Sample of variations in post-tensioning forces with spring
共L2-GRID-G-F兲 and without spring 共L1-WRAP-G-F兲
by rocking was made. Fig. 12 presents a sample of such
estimation for the last test run. The comparison with the
maximum measured lateral displacements shows that rocking
is responsible for approximately 83% of the lateral displace-
ments; therefore, the contribution of the shear deformation to
the total lateral displacements is limited to 17%.
Specimen S1-LAMI-C-X
Specimen S1-LAMI-C-F 关Fig. 4共b兲兴 is a squat specimen and was
upgraded in a double diagonal shape 共XX兲 on one side using
special thermo-plastic plates of CFRP 共12 mm wide by 1.4 mm
thick兲. Under a normal force of 47.0 kN, the specimen average
lateral capacity was 36.0 kN; under the same normal force the
corresponding reference specimen had an average lateral resis-
tance of 26.9 kN. This means that the FRP enhanced the lateral
resistance by approximately a factor of 1.3. The maximum drift
Fig. 8. Spectrum-compatible synthetic earthquake 共UG1 for 100% intensity兲
JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2005 / 529
was approximately 0.5%. However, the specimen started to
fail when anchorage failure was observed in plate Number 1
关Fig. 10共f兲兴 since no steel plates were used in this specimen. The
following comments describe the specimen behavior during the
test:
1. A slight rocking over the RC foundation was observed at a
drift of 0.1% and a lateral load of 61% of the specimen
lateral resistance. A crack of 0.2 mm width was observed in a
head joint in the second brick course during test Run 15
共220%兲. In the next test run 共230%兲, the anchorage of plate
Number 1 关Fig. 10共f兲兴 failed at the wall footing. Plate
Number 1 was then repaired with a fast hardening epoxy and
the bottom ends of the four CFRP plates were fixed with
steel plates.
2. The anchorage of plate Number 1 failed during test Run 29
共270%兲; in the next test run, plate Number 3 bricked down
and the test was stopped. By the end of the test, several shear
cracks, with widths varied between 0.3 mm for a crack pass-
ing through brick and 1.2 mm for a crack passing through
head joints, occurred.
Specimen L1-WRAP-G-F
L1-WRAP-G-F was a slender specimen which was upgraded on
the entire surface of a single side using fabrics of GFRP. Speci-
men L1-WRAP-G-F behaved similarly to L2-GRID-G-F during
the beginning of the test; after that, the post-tensioning force in-
creased in the case of L1-WRAP-G-F due to increase of the wall
height as a result of opening of flexural cracks and the absence of
the springs. Under a normal force of approximately 57.0 kN the
average lateral resistance was about 43.6 kN. Under approxi-
Table 4. Summary of Peak Measured Forces and Displacements in South Direction
Pmax Pc Pd Fmin Fc Fd ⌬min ⌬c ⌬d Dmin Dc Dd
Specimens 共kN兲 共kN兲 共kN兲 共kN兲 共kN兲 共kN兲 共mm兲 共mm兲 共mm兲 共%兲 共%兲 共%兲 Fc / Fmin Fd / Fmin ⌬c / ⌬min ⌬d / ⌬min
L1-WRAP-G-F 88 — 33 65 — 23 15.6 — 1.6 0.95 — 0.10 — 0.35 — 0.10
L2-GRID-G-F 43 31 31 48 26 31 12.4 1.8 2.4 0.76 0.11 0.15 0.54 0.65 0.15 0.19
L1-WRAP-G-X 112 29 74 39 14 39 17.8 0.9 10.5 1.09 0.06 0.64 0.36 1.00 0.05 0.59
S1-WRAP-G-F 33 — 29 76 — 44 2.2 — 0.7 0.31 — 0.10 — 0.58 — 0.32
S2-WRAP-A-F 32 — — 75 — — 0.9 — — 0.13 — — — — — —
S1-LAMI-C-X 35 30 32a 37 24 34a 3.4b 0.7 1.6a 0.47 0.09 0.22a 0.65 0.92 0.21 0.47
Note: P⫽post-tensioning force; F⫽lateral resistance; ⌬⫽lateral relative displacement; and D⫽lateral drift; c⫽cracking; and d⫽delamination.
a
Anchorage failure.
b
Ultimate displacement at the end of the last test run.

mately the same normal force the average lateral resistance of the
appropriate reference specimen 共L1-REFE兲 was 16.9 kN. At the
test end, when the normal force increased up to 99.5 kN the av-
erage lateral resistance slightly increased to 57.3 kN. This shows
that the high normal force has an insignificant effect on the lateral
resistance of URM-FRP; by contrast, the lateral resistance of the
reference specimen 共L1-REFE兲 increased to approximately
30.6 kN. This means that the FRP enhanced the lateral resistance
by a factor ranging from approximately 1.9 to 2.6 depending on
the normal force considered. The maximum drift was approxi-
mately 1%. At the test end, the specimen failed in flexural due to
FRP tensile failure and masonry compressive failure at the first
brick course.
Specimen L1-WRAP-G-X
Specimen L1-WRAP-G-X was a slender specimen which was
upgraded in a diagonal shape 共X兲 on one side using fabrics of
GFRP. In the first phase of the dynamic tests, this wall had been
tested as a special reference specimen L1-LAMI-C-I 共ElGawady
et al. 2003兲. Due to the first test, there were many step cracks
passing through the mortar joints; these cracks affected the be-
havior of specimen L1-WRAP-G-X. The specimen’s average lat-
eral resistance, under a normal force of approximately 57 kN,
increased to 25.7 kN. Under approximately the same normal
force, the average lateral resistance of the appropriate reference
specimen was 16.9 kN. This means that the FRP enhanced the
lateral resistance by approximately a factor of 1.5. The maximum
drift was approximately 1.1%. The GFRP failed at the masonry
panel mid-height at the intersection between the two diagonal
bands.
Specimens S1-WRAP-G-F and S2-WRAP-A-F
Both specimens were squat; however, while S1-WRAP-G-F was
built using mortar Type 1, S2-WRAP-A-F was built using mortar
Type 2. S1-WRAP-G-F and S2-WRAP-A-F were upgraded using
fabrics of glass and aramid FRP, respectively, where the upgrad-
ing was applied on the entire surface of one side. Both of the
specimens did not reach their ultimate limit state, as the test was
interrupted because the maximum force capacity of the shaking
table hydraulic jack was reached. Within the range of the test, the
behavior of both specimens was to a certain degree identical. The
average lateral resistance of S1-WRAP-G-F was 74.1 kN, while
the average lateral resistance of S2-WRAP-A-F was 72.0 kN;
under approximately the same normal force the average lateral
resistances of the appropriate reference specimens 共S1-REFE and
S2-REFE兲 were 28.5 and 28.2 kN, respectively. This means that
the FRP enhanced the lateral resistance by at least a factor of 2.6.
At the test end, S1-WRAP-G-F had a drift of 0.3% and
S2-WRAP-A-F had a drift of 0.1%. The main difference between
the behaviors of the two specimens was that during testing Speci-
men S1-WRAP-G-F some delamination appeared. Such delami-
nation did not appear during testing Specimen S2-WRAP-A-F.
Discussion and Comparison
of Experimental Results
The FRPs increased the lateral resistance of the upgraded speci-
mens by a factor ranging from 1.3 to 2.9 times the lateral resis-
tance of the reference specimens. In addition, using mechanical
anchorage 共steel plates兲 succeed in avoiding anchorage failure.

Table 5. Summary of Peak Measured Forces and Displacements in North Direction

Pmax Pc Pd Fmax Fc Fd ⌬max ⌬c ⌬d Dmax Dc Dd
Specimens 共kN兲 共kN兲 共kN兲 共kN兲 共kN兲 共kN兲 共mm兲 共mm兲 共mm兲 共%兲 共%兲 共%兲 Fc / Fmax Fd / Fmax ⌬c / ⌬max ⌬d / ⌬max
L1-WRAP-G-F 88 — 33 50 — 25 12.8 — 1.8 0.78 — 0.11 — 0.50 — 0.14
L2-GRID-G-F 43 31 31 47 30 34 19.7 1.9 2.3 1.20 0.12 0.14 0.64 0.72 0.10 0.12
L1-WRAP-G-X 112 29 74 45 11 32 17.0 1.0 10.3 1.04 0.06 0.63 0.24 0.71 0.06 0.60
S1-WRAP-G-F 33 — 29 73 — 36 2.0 — 0.7 0.28 — 0.10 — 0.49 — 0.35
S2-WRAP-A-F 32 — — 69 — — 0.8 — — 0.11 — — — — — —
S1-LAMI-C-X 35 30 32a 35 20 30a 3.2b 0.6 1.3a 0.45 0.08 0.18a 0.57 0.86 0.19 0.41
Note: P⫽post-tensioning force; F⫽lateral resistance; ⌬⫽lateral relative displacement; D⫽lateral drift; c⫽cracking; and d⫽delamination.
a
Anchorage failure.
b
Ultimate displacement at the end of the last test run.

530 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2005


Fig. 9. Improvements in lateral resistance of upgrading specimens in
comparison with appropriate reference specimens under normal force
共Newton兲 of 57 kN
Fig. 10. Failure modes of specimens 共a兲 L2-GRID-G-F; 共b兲 L1-WRAP-G-F; 共c兲 L1-WRAP-G-X; 共d兲 S1-WRAP-G-F; 共e兲 S2-WRAP-A-F;
and 共f兲 S1-LAMI-C-X
JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2005 / 531
Also, the epoxy used in this test gave a good interface behavior,
since all specimens except for S1-WRAP-G-F and S1-LAMI-C-X
reached the end of the test without significant delamination. The
behavior of the tested specimens could be better explored with a
sample of the hysteretic curves of the tested walls 共Fig. 13兲. In
general the hysteresis shows very limited energy dissipation. This
reflects the fact that FRP is effective in increasing the seismic
resistance but it has limited capability of increasing the energy
dissipation. Thus upgrading using FRP could be effective for im-
mediate occupation performance level. It is interesting to note
that although both slender specimens 共L1-WRAP-G-F and
L2-GRID-G-F兲 upgraded using the same reinforcement ratio 共in
the vertical direction兲 and material type 共GFRP兲, the specimens
upgraded with grid material dissipated more energy dissipation
than the fabric. During the test, the rupture of fabrics was very
soon after the first crack 共in the fabrics兲 while the propagation of
cracks in the case of the grid was relatively slower. This slow
rupture propagation leads to a slight increase in the energy dissi-
pation 关Figs. 13共a and b兲兴. This higher energy dissipation existed
only during this test run 共due to FRP rupture兲; in the earlier test
runs, no such higher energy dissipation existed. The hysteresis
loops of specimen L1-WRAP-G-X shows the mixed modes of

Fig. 11. L2-GRID-G-F at test end 共a兲 grid rupture in bottom western
south side and 共b兲 masonry failure in bottom eastern south side
failure of this specimen. The shear cracks which developed in the
specimen before upgrading using GFRP lead to such mixed
modes of failure. In addition, these existing cracks lead to the low
resistance of this specimen. However, for specimens upgraded on
the entire surface no effect of the existing cracks in the masonry
panels on the specimens behavior have been observed. This
means that after a real earthquake it is not recommended to up-
grade cracked URM walls using only diagonal bands of FRP. The
hysteresis loops of Specimen S1-WRAP-C-X show that the speci-
men behaved approximately linearly until debonding of CFRP
started. After that, limited nonlinearity appeared and CFRP rup-
ture took place. For full surface upgraded squat specimens
共S1-WRAP-G-F and S2-WRAP-A-F, Figs. 13共e and f兲, the hys-
teresis loops are approximately linear due to the absence of any
significant damage. However, the presence of limited delamina-
tion during testing Specimen S1-WRAP-G-F lead to limited non-
linearity in the hysteresis of this specimen.
As shown in the first phase of this experimental program 共test-
532 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2005
Fig. 12. Measured lateral relative displacement and estimated lateral
displacement due to rocking
ing the reference specimens兲 the effect of changing mortar com-
pressive strength has an insignificant effect on lateral strength and
drift 共ElGawady et al. 2003兲. Thus, the actual differences between
the specimens were the aspect ratio and FRP parameters. In order
to examine the effects of different parameters, the envelopes of all
the test runs are presented in Fig. 14共a兲 for slender specimens and
Fig. 14共b兲 for squat specimens. The envelope is obtained by plot-
ting the average of the absolute peak lateral force in the south and
north directions from each test run against the average of the
absolute peak wall drift in north and south directions. The peak
lateral force values are normalized by 128.7 kN, the weight sum
of the 12 Mg movable mass, the head beam, half of the masonry
panel, and the other test setup steel elements at the wall top. The
ultimate lateral drifts of retrofitted specimens were dependent of
the aspect ratio and mostly independent of the reinforcement ratio
the 共␳兲. For slender specimens 共L1-WRAP-G-F, L2-GRID-G-F,
and L1-WRAP-G-X兲 the ultimate drifts were approximately 1%.
For squat specimens 共S1-WRAP-G-F, S2-WRAP-A-F, and
S1-LAMI-C-X兲, it is difficult to confirm this conclusion since the
specimens 共S1-WRAP-G-F, S2-WRAP-A-F兲 did not reach their
ultimate strength due to the test setup capacity. However,
the measured maximum drift for the squat retrofitted specimens
ranged from 0.1 to 0.5%. Ongoing static cyclic tests are carried
out by the writers to study the behavior of similar squat
specimens.
One of the important factors which plays an essential role in a
real upgrading project is the influence of the upgrading on build-
ing stiffness. The increase in building stiffness could lead to a
higher seismic demand. The comparisons between initial stiffness
of the upgraded specimens show that the different upgrading con-
figurations and materials slightly influenced the initial stiffness of
the tested specimens 共Fig. 14兲. However, the secant stiffness of
the upgraded specimens at failure was influenced by the upgrad-
ing configuration and reinforcement ratio. In addition, as
mentioned all the upgraded specimens were originally tested as
reference specimens and several cracks had developed in the ref-
erence specimens. Despite these developed cracks, the upgrading
was able to recover the initial stiffness. For example, Fig. 15
shows a comparison between Specimen L2-REFE 共reference
specimen兲 and Specimen L2-GRID-G-F 共upgraded specimen兲.
The figure shows a typical nonlinear elastic behavior of slender
masonry wall failed in flexural with limited energy dissipation.
After upgrading and besides the increase in the lateral resistance,
the FRP approximately recovered the initial stiffness of the speci-
men. It is interesting to note that after grid rupture, the wall began
to rock with a capacity that was reduced to that associated with
the URM specimen.
Fig. 13. Hysteretic curves: 共a兲 L1-WRAP-G-F; 共b兲 L2-GRID-G-F; 共c兲 L1-WRAP-G-X; 共d兲 S1-LAMI-C-X; 共e兲 S2-WRAP-A-F;
and 共f兲 S1-WRAP-G-F

JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2005 / 533


Fig. 14. Normalized lateral force versus wall drift: 共a兲 slender
specimens and 共b兲 squat specimens
It is worth noting that strain measurements shows that FRP
strains at failure are many times lower than the nominal values.
Just before failure, the maximum vertical strain for the GFRP
fabrics was 1.2% 共the nominal ultimate strain for fabric fiber is
3%兲, while for GFRP grids was 2.5% 共the nominal ultimate strain
for grid fiber is 4%兲. For the other retrofitting materials, no strains
at failure were recorded since the FRP did not fail in tension
共either debonding and anchorage or no failure at all兲.
Summary and Conclusions
Six half-scale URM test specimens were upgraded using different
types of FRP and were subjected to a series of simulated earth-
quake motions on an earthquake simulator. The observed behav-
ior of this set of URM-FRP leads to the following findings:
1. The FRP upgrading is promising; it improved the wall lateral
resistance by a factor of 1.3–2.9. Expectedly, the increased
ratio is higher for lower normal force. Under high normal
force, the lateral resistance of the reference specimen
increases, approximately linearly with the increment in the
normal force, while the increase in the normal force has an
insignificant effect on the resistance of the upgraded
specimens.
2. Within the test conditions, one sided upgrading was success-
ful. No out-of-plane or uneven response of the walls was
observed. Some asymmetries in the LVD transducers were
recorded in the case of squat specimens. However, further
investigations are required for squat walls in the ultimate
range. Also, during the test a very rigid RC head beam was
used. This head beam could influence such out-of-plane re-
sponse. No such rigid RC beam exists in many real situa-
tions.
534 / JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2005
Fig. 15. Superposition of hysteretic loops of reference specimen
共L2-REFE兲 and upgraded specimen 共L2-GRID-G-F兲
3. For slender specimens and from a serviceability-limit-state
standpoint, the fibers enhanced the cracking resistance of the
upgraded specimens by a factor of 2.0 or more.
4. The ultimate drifts were independent of the reinforcement
ratio and reinforcement type 共grid or fabric兲. The ultimate
drifts were dependent on the aspect ratio and the upgrading
configuration; moreover, the X shape-upgrading configura-
tion had the maximum drift of all the specimens.
5. In some cases there was debonding of the fibers in the form
of white spots. This debonding occurred at different lateral
load levels, which ranged from 50 to 80% of the ultimate
load resistance.
6. The fabric prevented falling of debris from the wall after
failure, thus preventing possible injuries to occupants in the
vicinity of the wall in the event of a real earthquake.
7. The mortar compressive resistance had little influence on the
URM-FRP lateral resistance.
Acknowledgments
The financial support provided by SIKA and the Swiss Commis-
sion for Technological Innovation 共CTI兲 is gratefully acknowl-
edged. Appreciation is also extended to ETHZ for the use of
the testing facility. The fabrication of the half-scale bricks by
MORANDI is acknowledged.
References
Abrams, D. P., and Lynch, J. M. 共2001兲. “Flexural behavior of retrofitted
masonry piers.” Proc., KEERC-MAE Joint Seminar on Risk Mitiga-
tion for Regions of Moderate Seismicity, Ill.
Albert, M. L., Elwi, A. E., and Cheng, J. J. R. 共2001兲. “Strengthening of
unreinforced masonry walls using FRPs.” J. Comp. Constr., 5共2兲,
76–84.
Comite Euro-International du Béton 共CEN兲. 共1994兲. “Design provisions
 for earthquake resistance of structures.” Eurocode 8, Lausanne, Swit-
zerland.
Ehsani, M. R., Saadatmanesh, H., and Velazquez-Dimas, J. I. 共1999兲.
“Behavior of retrofitted URM walls under simulated earthquake load-
ing.” J. Comp. Constr., 3共3兲, 134–142.
ElGawady, M. A., Lestuzzi, P., and Badoux, M. 共2004兲. “A review of
retrofitting of unreinforced masonry walls using composites.” Proc.,
4th International Conf. on Advanced Composite Materials in Bridges
and Structures, CSCE, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
ElGawady, M. A., Lestuzzi, P., and Badoux, M. 共2003兲. “Dynamic tests
on URM walls before and after upgrading with composites.” Experi-
mental Rep., Publication No. 1, IMAC ENAC, EPFL, Switzerland.
JOURNAL OF COMPOSITES FOR CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2005 / 535
Holberg, M., and Hamilton, R. 共2002兲. “Strengthening URM with GFRP
composites and ductile connections.” Earthquake Spectra, 18共1兲,
63–84.
Lestuzzi, P., Wenk, T., and Bachmann, H. 共1999兲. “Dynamic tests of RC
structural walls on the ETH earthquake simulator.” Rep. No. 240,
Dept. of Civil, Environmental and Geomatics Engineering, Institute of
Structural Engineering, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich,
Switzerland.
Schwegler, G. 共1994兲. “Masonry construction strengthened with fiber
composites in seismically endangered zones.” Proc., 10th ECEE,
Vienna, Austria, 2299–2303.