JOINT CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS

7th International Conference on Urban Earthquake Engineering (7CUEE) &

5th International Conference on Earthquake Engineering (5ICEE)
March 3-5, 2010, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo, Japan

STRENGTHENING OF MASONRY INFILL PANELS WITH GRP FABRIC

FOR OUT-OF-PLANE SEISMIC LOADS

Luiza Dihoru1), Adam Crewe2), Olafur Oddbjornsson3), and Colin Taylor4)

1) Research Associate, Earthquake Engineering Research Centre, University of Bristol, UK

2) Senior Lecturer, Earthquake Engineering Research Centre, University of Bristol, UK
3) Postdoctoral Student, Earthquake Engineering Research Centre, University of Bristol, UK
3) Professor, Earthquake Engineering Research Centre, University of Bristol, UK
Luiza.Dihoru@bristol.ac.uk, A.J.Crewe@bristol.ac.uk, O.Oddbjornsson@bristol.ac.uk , Colin.Taylor@bristol.ac.uk

Abstract: The seismic behaviour of masonry structures strengthened with fibre-reinforced polymer (FRP) materials has
received very little attention experimentally and theoretically. This paper outlines an experimental investigation of the
potential for FRP strengthening of unreinforced masonry (URM) infill panels. Various options for FRP strengthening of
masonry infill panels are compared, and results from a series of full scale push-over and seismic tests conducted at Bristol
University are presented. The test results are compared with estimates of their vulnerability produced by a simplified
analytical model. This research therefore aimed at developing a methodology for modelling the behaviour of infill panels
taking account of the FRP reinforcement of the infill panels.

The strengthening methodology finally adopted involved the removal of excess mortar from the masonry surface using a
wire brush followed by roller application of a primer. Pre-cut GRP (Glass fibre Reinforced Polymer) fabric strips were
saturated with a laminating resin while lying on a horizontal surface. The GRP strips were then rolled onto the walls
followed by the roller application of a resin top coat to bond the fabric to the wall. In all cases both sides of the masonry
panels were treated in the same manner. It was discovered that it was important to lap the GRP fabric at least 75mm over
boundaries to secure panel into the structural frame. Using this methodology the experimental tests showed that the GRP
reinforcement significantly increased the lateral load capacity, the ductility and stiffness of the panels. There were also
noticeable changes in crack patterns, strain distributions and the failure mechanisms of the panels. The change in the
stiffness of the panels was probably the most important consequence of the GRP application as this had the effect of
increasing the natural frequency of the panels, effectively “detuning” them from earthquake spectral content. In fact the
strength and stiffness increases recorded were so great that engineering calculations are arguably not necessary if it is
possible to ensure proper specification and quality of application for the GRP. Because the application procedure was very
simple and also relatively cheap GRP strengthening of masonry infill panels is a realistic retrofitting technique.

However some caution must be exercised if GRP is to be used to strengthen masonry infill panels. For example, although
the panel itself is significantly stronger, this strengthened panel may act in in-plane shear with frame and generate adverse
forces in frame. This may have the effect of moving a potential failure from the panels into the structural frame. Also fire
resistance and other environmental factors must be considered before FRP strengthening of unreinforced masonry infill
panels could be widely adopted.

1. INTRODUCTION Velasquez-Dimas et. al. I 2000, Tumialan et al. 2003,

Many of the existing buildings in Europe today are
unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings and have features
that could threaten lives under extreme events like
high-winds or earthquakes. There has been an
unprecedented growth in research in the area of composites
in the last 30 years (Bakis et al. 2002), resulting in a wide
range of high-strength, light-weight and environmentally
resistant materials available at low costs. Numerous
investigators have explored the potential use of FRP on
concrete and on masonry structures under in-plane or
out-of-plane monotonic loading. Previous experimental
studies have shown increases in capacity and ductility of the
FRP reinforced structures (Tikalsky et al. 1995,
Krevaikas and Triantafillou 2005). However their behaviour
under seismic loading has been addressed very little by the
experimentalists with most testing being „simulated
earthquake loading‟ (large number of cyclic tests) e.g.
Ehsani et al. 1999. Simple analytical methods to assess the
out-of-plane behaviour of URM or FRP-reinforced panels
were developed based on the flexural theory of masonry
present in the building codes (Velasquez-Dimas et. al., II,
2000, Hamilton and Dolan, 2001). The general trend has
been to adapt the monotonic loading assessment methods for
seismic loading as well, but the developed analytical models
have not been validated through dynamic experimentation. A
need to evaluate the mechanical behaviour under truly
seismic conditions has emerged. This study was meant to fill
the gap in the existing knowledge on the dynamic behaviour
of FRP reinforced masonry. Four full-scale quasi-static tests
and four full-scale shaking table tests on both unreinforced
and reinforced specimens were performed. The experimental
observations on pre-cracking and post-cracking behaviour
provided more understanding on the reinforcement
requirements associated with a seismically-sound system. A
software tool capable of predicting the mechanical response
of masonry walls was employed and the results from the
simulation were compared with the experimental ones.
2. PREVIOUS WORK IN THE FIELD
The rationale for using FRP reinforcement on masonry
structures has been investigated by many researchers in
relation to the advantages and the disadvantages of the
materials employed and their application methods. Factors
like cost, functionality during and after retrofit, seismic risk
and aesthetics were part of the evaluation criteria. The cost
of strengthening, the possible alteration of functionality of
the building, the increase of inertia and seismic forces by the
addition of mass and the possible overloading of the existing
foundation have been topical issues since the early „70s,
when the FRPs started to spread beyond the niche
applications in the aerospace and defence areas to become
an increasingly cheaper option in the construction industry
(Bakis et al. 2002). In practice, the choice of a particular
FRP material, the reinforcement ratio, the location and the
orientation of reinforcement have been dictated by the
orientation and the intensity of the principal stress field and
by crude approximations of the ultimate strength conditions.
The preferred method of reinforcement has been with
FRP strips or continuous jackets applied on the masonry
surface using a layer of epoxy-based resin. Detailed concepts
on the effectiveness of the method were first developed by
Triantafillou and Fardis (1993, 1997). In 1994, Schwegler
(1994) reported the first results of a full-scale in-plane and
out-of-plane cyclic testing of masonry walls reinforced with
carbon fibre polymers. A large number of studies have since
focused on the in-plane and/or the out-of-plane monotonic
loading of reinforced masonry. Results from walls subjected
to monotonic (Albert et al. 2001, Hamilton and Dolan 2001)
and cyclic (Ehsani et al.1999, Kuzic et al. 2003) tests have
demonstrated that the presence of the FRP increases the
capacity of panels and changes the crack patterns and failure
modes. It has been shown that when out-of-plane bending
dominates, horizontally applied strips of FRP may offer a
considerable strength increase, while in the case of in-plane
bending, high reinforcement ratios placed near the highly
stressed zones could offer the solution. The use of anchorage
and clamping of the FRP strips to prevent end-peeling has
also been addressed and many researchers have focused on
special strengthening techniques which result in a more
economical use of materials (Triantafillou et al 1992,
Lamanna et al. 2001).
The main mechanisms of failure have been identified as
being the FRP delamination in flexure, FRP delamination in
shear, brick crushing and FRP rupture. The occurrence of
these events has been shown to be largely dependent on the
type of loading, the panel boundary conditions and the
reinforcement layout. Ehsani et al (1999) reported on
half-scale masonry walls reinforced with glass fibre fabrics
and subjected to cyclic out-of-plane loading. Their findings
show that the mode of failure is controlled by tensile failure
when wider and lighter composite fabrics are used and by
delamination when stronger ones are used. The specimens
were capable of supporting a lateral load of 32 times the
weight of the wall and deflected as much as 2% of the wall
height. Arching of the panels was observed when low
reinforcement ratios were used and then the reinforced panel
cracking patterns more closely resembled the ones exhibited
by the URM walls. Arching is reported as a main resistance
mechanism in URM panels subjected to out-of-plane loads.
Taylor (1998) carried out shaking table tests on 13 URM
specimens with various boundary conditions. The panels
showed a highly non-linear and chaotic behaviour dependent
on the boundary conditions and the input motion. A
frequency response shift followed the panel‟s stiffness
degradation under dynamic loading. The top and bottom
supported panels cracked at table accelerations ranging
between 0.33-1.89 g. A need to address these issues for
FRP-reinforced masonry emerged. This study presents data
and observations from full-scale seismic tests (LessLoss
2006) of URM control specimens and FRP-reinforced walls
that were performed at Bristol under the European funded
LESSLOSS framework (Risk Mitigation for Earthquakes
and Slides Project no. GOCE -CT-2003-505488). The aim of
the research was to establish the true response of the
FRP-reinforced structures and to supply experimental data
for the development of modelling tools.
3. OBJECTIVES AND TEST STRATEGY
The research programme at Bristol University
investigated the quasi-static and the seismic behaviour of
FRP-reinforced masonry panels of various strengthening
ratios. The strengthening ratio represents the ratio between
the reinforced area and the total area of the wall surface,
Qualitative and quantitative data of dynamic response were
gathered. The experimental results were compared with
simulated dynamic results obtained via CRAMP (Cracked
Response Analysis of Masonry Panels, Taylor 1998), a
simplified analytical model whose features are described in
Section 8. The specific experimental layouts and the
objectives associated with each of the tests are listed below.
STU1 (unreinforced, 3 cycles monotonic loading):
1. Control specimen for static tests
2. Investigate cracking mechanisms and compare data with
Taylor(1998) results and CRAMP simulations
3. Load, deflection, arching force data
STU2 (unreinforced, 3 cycles monotonic loading):
1. Improvement of boundary conditions
2. Compare with STU1 results and CRAMP simulations
3. Load, deflection, arching force data
STR1 (100% reinforced, continuous jacket on tensile
face, 3 cycles monotonic loading):
1. Investigate quasi-static response
2. Compare response with URM response
3. Inspiration for future FRP layout design
4. Comparison with CRAMP simulations
5. Load, deflection, strain, arching force data
STR2 (100% reinforced, continuous jacket on tensile
face. FRP fabric attached to the soffit of the top and
bottom beams to prevent sliding, 3 cycles monotonic.
loading):
1. Improvement of boundary conditions
2. Investigate quasi-static response and reproducibility
3. Compare response with URM and STR1 response
4. Inspiration for future FRP layout design
5. Comparison with CRAMP simulations
6. Load, deflection, strain, arching force data
SEU1 (unreinforced, exploratory tests, seismic tests):
1. Investigate the modal parameters of URM
2. Investigate seismic response of URM
3. Compare with Taylor (1998) and CRAMP simulations
4. Load, deflection, arching force data
SER1 (100% reinforced, continuous jacket on both faces,
exploratory tests, seismic tests):
1. Investigate the modal parameters of FRP-URM
2. Investigate seismic response
3. Compare data with SEU1 and CRAMP simulations
4. Load, deflection, strain, arching force, frequency
response data
5. Inspiration for future FRP layout design
SER2 (60% reinforced, vertical strips on both faces,
exploratory tests, seismic tests):
1. Lower the stiffness to achieve cracking and better cost /
strength ratio
2. Investigate the modal parameters
3. Investigate cracking mechanisms & seismic response
4. Compare data with SER1, SEU1 and CRAMP
simulations
5. Load, deflection, arching force, frequency response data
6. Inspiration for future FRP layout design
SER3 (40%, reinforced, vertical strips on both faces,
exploratory tests, seismic tests):
1. Lower the stiffness to achieve cracking and better cost /
strength ratio
2. Investigate the modal parameters
3. Investigate cracking mechanisms & seismic response
4. Compare data with SER1, SER2, SEU1 and CRAMP
simulations
5. Load, deflection, arching force, frequency response data
6. Conclusions and recommendations for FRP layout
design
Although both the masonry and the FRP exhibit a
brittle type of failure, their combination was expected to
show increased load-carrying capacity and ductility caused
by the elastic deformation of fibres and the shear transfer in
the resin connection layer. Beside the strength benefits, the
intention was to investigate reinforcement patterns that
would lead to slowly-progressing modes of failure. The
typical sudden collapse of unreinforced masonry or the
explosive failure of the FRP needed to be replaced with a
slow and energy dissipative process e.g. FRP delamination.
It was believed that the layout of the FRP and the
reinforcement ratios could be used as control factors in
triggering the failure mechanisms.
Four full-scale quasi-static tests and four full-scale
seismic tests were performed. The research concentrated on
the simplest case of a panel supported top and bottom only,
with the vertical sides being unrestrained. All specimens
were single-wythe, top and bottom supported panels (size
3000 x 2000 x 100 mm) aimed at providing information on
 mechanisms of the failure modes
the following aspects of mechanical response:
 crack patterns and strain profiles
 influence of the FRP lay-out and reinforcement ratio on
 influence of the loading characteristics on the
the mechanical response
 evolution of panel stiffness and modal parameters
mechanical response
under seismic loading
4. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAMME
4.1 Material tests
Material tests were performed according to BS EN
1052-1:1999 „Methods of test for masonry‟ using a standard
cube test machine. The following material properties were
 brickwork density
investigated prior to the masonry panel construction:
 brick units compression capacity
 mortar compression capacity
 compressive strength of the brick mortar assemblage
 modulus of rupture of the brick-mortar assemblage
(tests on three brick prisms)
 stress-strain behaviour of the brick-mortar assemblage
(see figure 1)
Experimental stress-strain behaviour of masonry prisms -test no.6
20
15
stress (MPa)
10
5
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
strain (%)
Figure 1. Material tests on masonry prisms, prior to STR1
4.2 Masonry Panels
The masonry panels were built within a pin-jointed
steel frame fabricated from 254x254 universal column
sections. The sections were stiffened by thick plates welded
longitudinally between the flanges on both sides of the
beams in order to prevent the flange flexure. The specimens
for the pseudo-static tests were located parallel to the
laboratory reaction wall where the hydraulic actuator was
mounted. A load distribution beam consisting of a steel
square plate and two steel rollers was employed to distribute
the load onto the central area of the wall.
The specimens for the seismic tests were built off the
shaking table and left to cure using standard practices. Each
masonry wall was built in two lifts. Mortar was packed on
wall surface using a foam roller and by applying
hand-pressure. The change of fabric colour from white to
transparent yellow was used as an indication that saturation
was reached. A final layer of laminating resin was applied on
the FRP fabric for full saturation, protection and
instrumentation purposes. The FRP layouts are shown in
Figures 2 to 4. The FRP fabric was applied 21 days after
the building of the wall. The testing took place at min. 10
days after the FRP installation. A photo of the SER2 panel
(60% reinforcement) is shown in Figure 5.
2000

the top side of the wall to fill the gap caused by shrinkage.
The walls were left for 21 days to cure. When the specimens
were cured, they were bolted onto the shaking table and
instrumented.
3000
4.3 FRP Materials
When selecting the FRP materials for reinforcement of Figure 2. Layout of FRP fabric for masonry panels STR1,
panels, the main parameters that are generally taken into STR2, and SER1
account are the specific strength (tensile strength/specific
gravity) or the specific stiffness (modulus of
elasticity/specific gravity). The carbon fibre composites (CF)
exhibit better specific strength and specific stiffness values 2000
than their competitors. However, when the seismic
behaviour of the retrofitted system comes into play, the
systems‟ ductility and capacity of energy absorption become
important. Fibre ductility increases from carbon to aramid
300
and further to glass. For this reason a glass-fibre fabric 3000
system was selected for reinforcement (manufacturer:
EXCHEM LTD-UK). Figure 3. Layout of FRP fabric for masonry panel SER2
Discrete strips or continuous jackets of FRP fabric were
used. Samples using various reinforcement ratios were tested.
Preliminary observations on the first tests were meant to lead
2000
to the selection of reinforcement ratios in further
experiments. The lay-out of the FRP was chosen in relation
to the boundary conditions of the panel. The URM panels
(STU1, STU2) failed with a horizontal cracking line at the 300
midheight of the panel. In order to prevent this failure caused 3000

by arching in vertical plane, the FRP fabric was applied with Figure 4. Layout of FRP fabric for masonry panel SER3
its fibres running in the vertical direction.
The FRP application procedure started with the
preparation of masonry surface for primer application.
Particular attention was paid to cleaning the joints and to
removal of excessive mortar from the wall surface. The
surface was cleaned with a wire brush and checked for tool
marks and other surface variation problems. A dual system
that could be used as a primer and as a laminating resin was
employed (Selfix MPA 22 Laminating Resin, Exchem Ltd.)
A foam roller was used to apply a thin layer of primer on the
wall surface (average primer consumption 1 kg/ 5 m2). The Figure 5. SER2 panel ready for testing (60% reinforcement)
primer was used to minimise the porosity of the wall surface
and to provide a good bonding substrate for the resin. 4.4 Instrumentation
Pre-cut FRP strips of 300 mm by 1960 mm were saturated CELESCO type PT101 cable-extension position
with resin (average resin consumption: 1 kg/3 m2) while transducers were employed to measure out-of-plane
lying on a horizontal surface. They were then applied to the deflections. The transducers were placed at midheight and at
positions symmetrically-located about the centerline. The RDP 628-type strain gauge amplifier module. Four other
bodies of the transducers were fixed to a rigid frame RDP 628-type strain gauge amplifiers were used for the load
standing parallel to the wall surface, and for the static tests cells in the columns and for the load cell on the actuator axis.
on wooden plates bolted on the laboratory wall (parallel to For the seismic tests, the SETRA accelerometer signals were
the masonry panel). amplified by a set of three Fylde 245GA mini-amplifiers.
Four load cells were incorporated in the four bolts The amplified acceleration signals were supplied to a FERN
attaching the top beam to the frame columns to measure the EF6 multi-channel programmable filter. A common cut-off
panel arching forces. The load cells measured the arching frequency of 80 Hz was set for all the channels. Diagrams
forces on the wall. The top beam was separated from the top slowing locations of the key instrumentation are shown in
of the column by washers around the instrumented bolts. figure 6.
Vishay type CEA-06-250UW-350 strain gauges were
used to record the FRP tensile strain at midheight and at 4.5 Input Motions
locations symmetrically located about the centerline. The Exploratory tests were used to determine the modal
strain gauges were mounted on the FRP fabric in areas parameters of the specimens. The resonant frequency of the
located on top of a brick unit. All the strain gauges employed first mode of vibration and the viscous damping of the
had uniaxial wiring and 350 ohm resistors. They were specimen were the main parameters of interest. The
quarter-bridge type, therefore a strain gauge amplifier (RDP exploratory tests used broadband (0-100 Hz) random noise
628-type) was used to complete the bridge. applied on the out-of-plane axis only (Y axis). The driving
One 200 kN load cell was mounted on the same axis signal was generated by an Advantest 9211C FFT Servo
with the hydraulic actuator to measure the applied Analyzer and had „RMS‟ (Root Mean Square) voltage
out-of-plane force during the monotonic tests. values ranging from 35 mV to 150 mV, which in
SETRA type 141A accelerometers were used to acceleration terms corresponded to 0.035-0.150g. The signal
measure wall accelerations and the table accelerations. The amplitude was increased from one exploratory test to another,
accelerometers had a calibrated range of +/-8g. Three in order to observe the dependency of wall frequency
accelerometers were installed on the shaking table (X, Y, Z response on the driving input.
directions) while other three were installed on the panel. A An elastic response spectrum for soil type B acc. to
seventh accelerometer was installed on the frame‟s top Eurocode 8 was used in the seismic tests. Acceleration,
beam. a (chan10) Top beam
beam
velocity and displacement time histories were generated to
az(chan6)
match the Eurocode 8 response spectrum. The displacement
awt(chan7)
time history was used to drive the shaking table.
awm(chan8)

awb(chan9)
ax(chan4) Wall

ay(chan5)
5. QUASI-STATIC TESTS

STU1 and STU2 (quasi-static tests on unreinforced

Shaking table
panels): The URM wall cracked along an horizontal line
situated at the midheight of the wall (Figure 7a) This
cracking pattern was observed by other researchers and it is
Fc (chan 8) Fc (chan 6) considered typical for top-and-bottom-supported masonry
panels. The main resistance mechanism was arching of the
F c (chan 9) Fc (chan 7) panel with increasing of contact forces between panel and
top and bottom supports.

STR1 and STR2 (quasi-static tests on reinforced

e top (chan 11)
2000
dtop (chan 1) panels): The presence of the FRP brought changes to the

 sequence of occurrence of the failure mechanisms

e mid (chan 12) following aspects of mechanical response:
dmid (chan 2)

 masonry cracking pattern

e bottom (chan 13)

 lateral deflection profile

dbottom (chan 3)

 distribution of strains in the masonry substrate

3000  mechanical parameters: loading capacity, stiffness,
„pseudo-ductility‟
Figure 6. Instrumentation lay-out
The FRP was a unidirectional fabric with vertical glass
An RDP 600-type modular electronics system supplied fibres oriented perpendicular to the wall supports. The
the excitation voltage for the displacement transducers and orientation of fibres (which have very high tensile strength:
the load cells. The completion of the bridge and the 1090 N/mm2) prevented the initiation of vertical strains in
excitation voltage for the strain gauges was made via an the masonry, therefore no horizontal crack was formed in the
initial stage of loading. The low compressive strength of
masonry (approx. 18 N/mm2 – as measured in the material
tests) caused an early vertical crack to occur at the
mid-width of the panel. The interlaminar resin gave way and
caused the fabric to tear in the vertical direction (Figure 7b).
The strain gauge situated at midheight was damaged
following the propagation of rupture in the FRP along the
vertical direction.
(a) (b)
Figure 7. Failure modes for a) unreinforced panel, b) 100%
reinforcement
An important experimental observation was that the
vertical FRP strips changed the way the panel arched. Wall
flexure in the vertical plane was no longer possible and the
panel therefore started arching in the horizontal plane.
The main failure modes identified during the STR1 and
STR2 tests were: flexural failure, shear failure and FRP
debonding. Flexural failure was triggered by the crushing of
the masonry in compression and by the rupture of the FRP in
tension. Initial cracking occurred at the interface of mortar
and masonry. The initial cracking was delayed by the
presence of the FRP. Since the tensile strength of the
masonry was lower than that of the epoxy resin (55 MPa),
the failure line appeared first in the masonry. The vertical
crack in the masonry caused the wall to slide while a
differential displacement in the shear plane developed. The
shear failure mechanism resulted in the FRP debonding
alongside the masonry crack. The FRP fabric situated above
the opening crack of the masonry started to deform and
broke in tension vertically. Debonding of the FRP laminate
from the masonry substrate was triggered by the central
vertical crack in the masonry and propagated at first
vertically, then multiaxially towards the final stages of
loading. It was noticed that part of the concrete brick
faceshell remained attached to the laminate. This showed
that the resin-masonry connection was stronger than the
tensile strength of the masonry. End-debonding of the FRP
was expected as a main failure mode, but this did not occur.
The strength and stiffness of the STR walls increased
dramatically in comparison to the STU specimens. A 2.6
times increase in maximum strength was recorded (see
figure 8).
The elastic behaviour of the FRP under loading was
obvious. The first loading cycle (R1) was almost a straight
line. There was very little degradation of stiffness due to
repeated loading, again because the FRP behaved elastically
up to failure. Overall, the FRP presence caused an increase
in capacity (from 13.5 kN to 35 kN) with confinement of the
lateral deflections from 30 mm (STU1) to 24 mm (STR1).
In the STR2 test the FRP fabric was folded and glued to
the soffit of the top and bottom beams in order to prevent
sliding. Arching took place in the horizontal plane. Cracking
occurred at midwidth in the vertical direction. The FRP
broke at the interface between the wall and the top beam due
to wall sliding. The cracking pattern was a vertical line
situated at the middle of the panel. The main observation
coming out of this test was that by attaching the FRP jacket
to the soffit of the top beam the sliding of the wall could be
prevented. This created uniform boundary conditions for the
top and bottom interfaces which lead to a vertical failure line
situated at the midwidth of the panel.
40
35 R-collapse
R4
30
out-of-plane load (kN)
25
20 R2 R3
15
R1
U2 U-collapse
10
U1
5
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
midheight deflection (mm)
Figure 8. Loading curves during static testing (STU1
-unreinforced wall, STR1 reinforced wall)
The slenderness ratio (height/thickness) is an important
factor of influence for the out-of-plane behaviour of
masonry walls. This ratio accounts for the ability of the
masonry wall to be controlled by the flexural capacity rather
than the shear capacity. The larger the slenderness ratio, the
smaller the maximum out-of-plane load becomes. The STU
and STR walls had a slenderness ratio of 20. When h/t > 30
the arching mechanism becomes insignificant.
6. SEISMIC TESTS
6.1 Exploratory tests
The dynamic properties of a structure are defined by its
mode shape, damped natural frequency and damping for
each mode of vibration over some frequency range of
interest. The exploratory tests carried out prior and during
the seismic testing revealed information about these
parameters for URM and reinforced panels in intact or
cracked form. The driving signal (0-100 Hz random noise)
was generated by an Advantest 9211C FFT Servo Analyzer,
which was also employed to acquire the signals from the
accelerometer on the shaking table (Y direction) and the
accelerometers situated at midheight and at quarter heights
on the wall. The analyser computed the frequency response
function (FRF) between the input and the output signals at
the points of interest on the wall (figure 9). The frequency
response function was calculated using windowed signal
data using a rectangular window function. The rectangular
window function chosen was zero-valued outside the chosen
frequency interval. A rectangular window function has
proved to work well in the low dynamic range, when the
signals have comparable strengths and frequencies. The FRF
measurements were processed using curve-fitting algorithms
that take the experimentally measured FRFs and fit to them
an analytical function using a least squared error technique.
The poles of the transfer function were used to compute the The lateral deflections recorded midheight on the panel
viscous damping for various modes of vibration. The are shown in figure 11 and in detail in figure 12.
damping values for the URM wall (SEU1) were 0.3% to Experiment, SEU1-110
300
4.3% while for a reinforced wall (SER1) damping values
varied from 4.8% to 22%. In both these cases panels were
200

midheight deflection (mm)

intact when the measurements were taken. Other panels had
similar damping values. 100
FRF - URM - top quarter height - test11-VFK-010
5

4.5 f1=12 Hz ; Hab=4.47 0

4

3.5 -100
3
Hab (lin Mag)

2.5 -200
10 15 20 25 30
2
time (s)
1.5

1
Figure 11. Midheight deflection measured in test SEU1_110
0.5 Experiment, SEU1-110
0
40
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
frequency (HZ)

Figure 9. FRF - SEU1 test (intact wall) 20

midheight deflection (mm)

Table 1 shows how the natural frequency of vibration 0
increased from 12 Hz for the URM panel (SEU1) up to 30.3
Hz for the reinforced panel with maximum reinforcement -20
ratio (SER1). Lowering the reinforcement ratio from 100%
to 40% lead to a shift in the natural frequency from 30.3 Hz -40
to 15 Hz. The evolution of panel stiffness during testing
occurred in parallel with a measurable shift in panel‟s natural
-60
frequency . 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
time (s)

Table 1. Evolution of panel‟s natural freq. during seismic testing Figure 12. Midheight deflection measured in test SEU1_110
– detailed view
Test Reinf. Uncracked Cracked Cracking table
natural natural acceleration or Simulation, SEU1-110
frequency frequency max. table 40
(Hz) (Hz) acceleration
30
SEU1 None 12.0 7.5 cracking: 1.18g
midheight deflection (mm)

(SEU1_60), 20
collapse: 2.4g 10
SER1 100% 30.3 uncracked max : 3.53g
0
reinf. (SER1_130)
SER2 60% 28.6 uncracked max : 2.28g -10

reinf. (SER2_120) -20

SER3 40% 15.0 8.2 cracking: 2.44g -30
reinf. (SEU3_80)
-40
10 12 14 16 18 20 22
6.2 Seismic tests and CRAMP simulations - URM time (s)

Particular attention was given to tests SEU1_65 that Figure 13. Simulated midheight deflection in test SEU1_110
lead to the URM wall cracking and SEU1_110 that lead to
its collapse. The table acceleration reached 2.44g in A simulated evolution of wall displacement with time is
SEU1_110 (Figure 10). presented in figure 13. The equivalent velocity data was also
3
Expriment, SEU1-110 calculated using CRAMP. The dynamic response of the wall
2
could then be uniquely defined at any point in time by its
instant velocity and displacement. The
support acceleration(g)

displacement-velocity plot, called the „phase-space diagram‟

1

can reveal interesting information about system‟s stability

0

-1
and about the dynamic parameter values that cause the wall
-2
to collapse (figure 14).
-3
10 15 20
time(s)
25 30
Under seismic excitation, the wall response follows a
Figure 10. Shaking table acceleration in test SEU1_110 constantly changing path in the phase-space diagram. The
path resembles an ellipse that changes size within an The wall velocity, which could provide information on
envelope that borders the domain of the wall‟s stability. the wall‟s kinetic energy in addition to its total energy, was
When the dynamic path escapes the borders, the wall also considered a parameter of interest. The wall velocity
becomes unstable and will collapse. was not measured directly but it could be approximated by
Simulation, SEU1-110 integrating the measured acceleration data. However, the
simple integration of the acceleration data is in general a
2
process that generates bias and drift in the output, unless
suitable safeguarding measures are taken through filtering. A
wall velocity (m/s)

1 more sophisticated method of approximation was proposed

0 by Stoten (2001) and it involves the use of both acceleration
and displacement data. The displacement data are only
-1
reliable in the lower frequency range (typically 0-30 Hz)
-2 because of the problem of resolving small-amplitude high
0.05
40 frequency deflections even with high accuracy LVDT
0
20 systems. However, acceleration data are reliable in the
midheight displacement (m) -0.05 0 time (s) medium-high frequency range, i.e. up to 50 Hz on the
Figure 14. Simulated phase space diagram with time shaking table. Hence, the two types of signals could be
coordinates for test SEU1_110 combined for the velocity prediction over the entire
frequency range. A composite filter was used which
An interesting part of the SEU1 test was shake consisted of a low-pass Butterworth filter for displacement
SEU1_65, when the imposed seismic input lead to cracking. data and a high-pass Butterworth filter for acceleration data.
The input motion lasted for 40 s and accelerations up to The filtered velocity components (figure 18) were combined
1.175 g were recorded by the Y-axis accelerometer mounted to yield the velocity history over the full frequency range.
on the shaking table. After this particular test, the wall Fusion of kinetic data for filtering wall velocity
0.8
accelerometers were removed for protection. yvcomp
0.6 yvd
The experimental results were compared to simulated
yva-filtered, yvd-filtered, yv-compositefilter (m/s)

yva
data obtained from CRAMP. The simulations used the same 0.4
table motion input used in the experiments. The main
0.2
features of CRAMP simulation: wall parameters: height: 2 m,
thickness: 0.1 m, width: 3 m, mass density: 2200 kg/m3, 0
compressive strength: 4.8 MPa, max strain: 0.006, ultimate
-0.2
strain: 0.0065, damping ratio: 4.3 %. Top and bottom
supports of very high stiffness, no sliding allowed. -0.4

Displacement, acceleration and force data for the wall

-0.6
were obtained through direct measurement (e.g. figures
15-17). -0.8

Experiment, SEU1-65 Simulation, SEU1-65

10 10 -1
10 15 20 25 30
time (s)
midheight deflection (mm)

midheight deflection (mm)

5 5

0
0
Figure 18. Components for composite filtering of wall
-5
velocity (SEU1_65)
-5

-10
-10
10 15 20
time (s)
25 30 10 15 20
time (s)
25 30
6.3 Seismic tests and simulations - reinforced panels
Figure 15. Midheight deflection in test SEU1_65 (left- (SER1, SER2, SER3)
measured, right-simulated)
40
Experiment, SEU1-65
150
Experiment, SEU1-65
The 100% reinforced SER1 panel withstood
arching force north face (kN)

accelerations of up to 3.53g without cracking. The panel

20
arching force south (kN)

100

-20
50
behaved like a highly-stiff rigid block and no significant
0

lateral deflections or arching forces were recorded. The

-40

-60 -50
10 15 20 25 30 10 15 20 25 30
time (s) time (s)
imposed shaking table displacement history was increased
Figure 16. Measured arching forces in test SEU1_65 (left - from 2% up to 130%, the performance limit of the shaking
north, right - south) table.
0
Simulation, SEU1-65
60
Simulation, SEU1-65
The 60% reinforced SER2 panel also withstood
arching force, north face (kN)

arching force south face (kN)

-10 50

-20 40
accelerations of up to 2.28g without cracking. It is worth
-30

-40
30
mentioning that the URM panel collapsed at 2.4g. Therefore,
20

-50 10 the presence of the FRP lead to a significant capacity

-60
10 15 20
time (s)
25 30
0
10 15 20
time (s)
25 30
increase. The SER2 test did not lead to any cracks in the
Figure 17. Simulated arching force in test SEU1_65 (left – panel and it was stopped at a table displacement
north, right - south) amplification factor of 120%. Minor deflections with the
average ranging from +2 to -2 mm and max peak of 8.4 mm Table 2. Summary of relevant results from seismic testing
were recorded. Arching was limited by the vertical strips of
Test Reinf. Cracking table Cracking Max.
the FRP and low arching forces were recorded. acceleration or mid-height
The first cracks in the 40% reinforced SER3 panel max/col. table deflection
appeared at accelerations of around 2.44g in the acceleration
unreinforced areas of the panel as step-like lines propagating SEU1 None cracking: 1.175g cracked 8 mm
diagonally from the corners of the FRP strips. Table (SEU1_65), (SEU1_65)
collapse: 2.4g brought to 42 mm
displacement amplification factors ranging from 2% to 80% (SEU1_110) collapse (SEU1_110)
were used. The lateral deflections recorded during the 80% SER1 100% max : 3.53g un-cracked 7.1 mm
test are shown in figure 19. At this point the top and bottom (SER1_130) (SER1_130)
connections became loose and the test was stopped in order SER2 60%. max : 2.28g un-cracked 8.1 mm
to protect the shaking table. (SER2_120) (SER2_120)
SER3 40%. cracking: 2.44g cracked 26 mm
Experiment, SER3-80 (SEU3_80) (SER3_80)
15
wall deflection at midheight(mm)

10

5
8. ANALYTICAL WORK

0 The modelling of the masonry panels built upon an

-5 existing model for predicting the seismic behaviour of URM
panels (Taylor 1998). The URM model is embedded in the
-10 CRAMP program (Cracked Response Analysis of Masonry
-15 Panels) available in both Ryan-Macfarland FORTRAN
v2.43 and MATLAB 6.5. The main features of the CRAMP
-20

 The masonry panel is considered as a SDOF system

model are given below:
-25
12 14 16 18 20
which exhibits residual strength due to arching action
time(s)
(simple case: rigid top and bottom supports, horizontal
Figure 19. Wall deflection in test SER3_80
 Strip analysis technique (each vertical strip consists of
crack along the wall length)

 Non-linear dynamic analysis. Equation of motion solved

two segments that join at the location of the crack)
7. CONCLUSIONS - EXPERIMENTAL TESTS

 Seismic behaviour depicted in a velocity-displacement

using a step-by-step formulation
The URM walls cracked along a horizontal fracture line,
typical for their boundary conditions. The crack pattern for
diagram („phase-space-diagram‟)
 Capacity assessment method based on spectral velocity
the URM walls was the same in both the static and the
seismic tests. Arching in vertical plane was the main
and spectral displacement
resistance mechanism in the URM walls.
The FRP application procedure proved to be a simple
The FRP panel consists of an URM panel with two
one, which did not require highly-skilled personnel to
purely-elastic FRP membranes attached on its faces (figure
accomplish. The entire reinforcement activity took on
20). Its mechanical behaviour changes its nature if the FRP
average 5 hrs for each panel.
delamination is to be considered.
The FRP reinforced panel subjected to monotonic t a

out-of-plane loading withstood forces that were 2.7 times masonry

Fc

larger than the maximum load taken by the URM walls. 

A summary of relevant data from seismic testing is s

arm
presented in Table 2. The reinforced panels exhibited
increased load-carrying capacity. A layout of vertical FRP FR
p +d p
strips limited the panel arching in the vertical plane. A
relatively low reinforcement ratio of 40% was sufficient to con_length

bring sufficient strength and ductility to the reinforced wall


Fc
dx
(SER3_80, a = 2.44 g, first cracks) in order to cope with
seismic forces that previously caused the collapse of the
URM wall (SEU1_110, a = 2.4 g).
P(t) p
Higher reinforcement ratios (60% and 100%) lead to a Fc FRP plate
dramatic increase of the panel‟s stiffness and natural adhesive

frequency of vibration. Panel flexure was completely

Figure 20. Modelling of top and bottom FRP reinforced
prevented and the walls systems behaved like rigid blocks
panels within CRAMP
exhibiting very small lateral deflections.
 homogeneous layers, no slip between layers, composite
Main assumptions in pre-debonding analysis:
 tensile resistance of the FRP is transmitted through shear
action between layers
 longitudinal stresses uniformly distributed over the layer
in the adhesive
 stresses normal to the interface are ignored
thickness
 conditions of instantaneous equilibrium apply
 equal curvature of the masonry and the FRP
 crack in masonry occurs when: ε masonry = ε ult masonry
 FRP layer elastically deformed (Hookian)
Main assumptions in debonding analysis:
 sharply-defined boundary at the end of the FRP and
 longitudinal stresses uniformly distributed over the layer
adhesive layers
 both normal and tangential interfacial stresses considered
thickness
 debonding: steady-state process caused by normal
 conditions of instantaneous equilibrium apply
interfacial stresses
 equal curvature of the masonry and the undetached FRP
 debonding starts when: τ adhesive = τ max adhesive
wrap
Since the FRP material will never reach its max tensile
strength (1099 N/mm2), it is fair to say that the FRP
membranes behave hookian during testing and that no
rupture of fibres takes place.
9. CONCLUSIONS
This study has shown the efficacy of a relatively simple
method of reinforcing unreinforced masonry infill panels
with glass fibre FRP laminates. Provided the reinforcement
covers at least 60% of the surface area of the panel
(preferably 100%), and the reinforcement overlaps the
surrounding frame by at least 75mm, the reinforced panel
gains a significant amount of strength to out-of-plane
seismic loads. So great are the strength and stiffness
increases that, for typical panel configurations, it appears
unlikely that a strengthened panel would suffer significant
distress during an earthquake due to out-of-plane loads.
(Note, however, that this study has not considered combined
in-plane and out-of-plane loading.) The evidence derived
from this study suggests that this kind of FRP strengthening
can simply be specified, rather than requiring detailed
engineering calculations for its justification.
The method of application of the FRP reinforcement is
very simple, requiring minimal training. It is within the
ability of a semi-skilled builder, subject to appropriate
supervision. The chosen glass fibre based materials are
relatively cheap.
Acknowledgements:
This research was part of the LESSLOSS (Risk
Mitigation for Earthquakes and Slides) project, funded by
the European Union under grant no. GOCE
-CT-2003-505488. Their financial support is gratefully
appreciated.
References:
Albert M.L., Elwi A.E., Cheng J.J.R.. (2001) “Strengthening of
unreinforced masonry walls using FRPs”, J. Compos. for Constr.,
Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 76-84.
Bakis C.E., Bank L.C., Brown V.L., Cosenza E., Davalos J.F.,
Lesko J.J., Machida A., Rizkalla S.H., Triantafillou T.C. (2002)
“Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Composites for Construction –
State-of-the-Art Review”, J. Compos. for Constr., Vol. 6, No. 2,
pp. 73-87.
Ehsani M.R., Saadatmanesh H, Velasquez-Dimas, J.I. (1999)
“Behaviour of retrofitted URM walls under simulated
earthquake loading”, J. Compos. for Constr., Vol. 3, No.3, pp.
134-142.
Hamilton H.R. , Dolan C.W. (2001) “Flexural Capacity of Glass
FRP Strengthened Concrete Masonry Walls”, J. Compos. for
Constr., Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 170-178.
Krevaikas T.D. and Triantafillou T.C. (2005) “Masonry
Confinement with Fiber-Reinforced Polymers”, J. Compos. for
Constr., Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 128-135.
Kuzic M.D., Elwi A.E., Cheng J.J.R. (2003) “Cyclic flexure tests of
masonry walls reinforced with glass fiber reinforced polymer
sheets”, J. Compos. for Constr., Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 20-30.
Lamanna A.J., Bank L.C., Scott D.W. (2001) “Flexural
strengthening of reinforced concrete beams using fasteners and
fiber reinforced polymer strips”, ACI Struct. J., Vol. 98, No. 3,
pp. 368-376.
LessLoss (2006) Deliverable 50 “Technical report on the design of
FRP reinforcement of masonry infill walls against transverse
movement”, Subproject 7, “Techniques and methods for
vulnerability reduction”. Lessloss Project - Risk mitigation for
earthquake and landslides integrated project – EU Project No.:
GOCE-CT-2003-505488.
Schwegler G. (1994) “Masonry construction strengthened with fiber
composites in seismically endangered zones”, Proceedings of
the 10th European Conf. on Earthquake Engineering,
Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Stoten D.P. (2001) „Fusion of kinetic data using composite filters‟,
Proc. Inst. Mech. Engrs, Vol. 215(I), pp. 483-497.
Taylor C. (1998) “Seismic performance of masonry panels for
Nuclear Electric plc”, EERC Project Report NE395/RP/6,
Bristol, United Kingdom.
Tikalsky P.J., Atkinson R.H, Hammons M.I. (1995) Journal of
Structural Engineering, Vol. 121, No.2, pp. 283-289.
Triantafillou T.C., Deskovic N., Deuring M. (1992] “Strengthening
of concrete structures with prestressed FRP sheets”, ACI Struct.
J., Vol. 89, No. 3, pp. 235-244.
Triantafillou T.C., Fardis M.N. (1993) “Advanced composites as
strengthening materials of historic structures”, IABSE Symp. on
Structural Preservation of the Architectural Heritage,
International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering,
Lisbon, Portugal.
Tumialan J.G., Galati N., Nanni A. (2003) “Field Assessment of
Unreinforced Masonry Walls Strengthened with Fiber
Reinforced Polymer Laminates”, Journal of Structural
Engineering, Vol. 129, No. 8, pp. 1047-1056.
Velasquez-Dimas J.I., Ehsani M.R., Saadatmanesh H. (2000) “Out
of plane behaviour of brick masonry walls strengthened with
fiber composites”, ACI Struct. J., Vol. 97, No. 5, pp. 377-387.
Velasquez-Dimas J.I., Ehsani M.R., II. (2000) “Modelling
Out-of-Plane Behaviour of URM Walls Retrofitted with Fiber
composites”, J. Compos. for Constr., Vol. 4, No.4, pp. 172-18.