Composites Science and Technology 58 (1998) 1277±1284
# 1998 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved
PII: S0266-3538(98)00007-4
OUT-OF-PLANE BENDING OF FRP-REINFORCED MASONRY
WALLS
J. M. Gilstrap & C. W. Dolan*
University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY 82071, USA
(Received 31 July 1997; accepted 9 January 1998)
Abstract
High-performance ®bers are being widely researched for
repair and rehabilitation in civil engineering structures.
The potential bene®ts, liabilities, and architectural con-
siderations regarding the use of high-performance ®bers
for reinforcing masonry structures are discussed with an
emphasis on out-of-plane bending. Examples are provided
of structure reinforcement and repair by the use of ®ber
based systems. Test programs are described and test
results are included. # 1998 Published by Elsevier
Science Ltd. All rights reserved
Keywords: A. ®bers, A. carbon, A, aramid, masonry,
reinforcement, FRP
1 INTRODUCTION
Masonry buildings have historically been designed with
little or no regard for the e€ects of seismic loadings.
Recent earthquakes in California, Japan, and other
areas of the world have demonstrated that these older
masonry structures are extremely susceptible to the for-
ces imposed during such an event. In the early 1970s,
the building-code requirements for lateral support of
newly designed masonry buildings were increased by as
much as 50%. With each new earthquake, reinforce-
ment strategies have been updated. However, existing
masonry buildings still remain at risk because, with few
exceptions, these older structures have not been
improved to meet the current standards. The upgrading
of such structures has become a priority in the ®eld of
earthquake engineering.
Current methods of retro®tting masonry structures
have proved to be e€ective, but have many drawbacks.
These methods usually include the addition of framing
elements such as steel columns, pilasters, beams, or sur-
face treatments such as shotcrete or ferrocement to
increase the strength and ductility of the walls. Such
procedures are often time consuming to apply, not cost-
*To whom correspondence should be addressed. Fax: 1-940-
458-7417.
1277
Printed in Great Britain
0266-3538/98 $Ðsee front matter
e€ective, add signi®cant mass to the structure, encroach
upon available working space, and adversely a€ect the
aesthetics of the repaired area and in many cases the
building as a whole. The extra mass added to the structure
can also increase the earthquake-induced inertia forces
and may require strengthening of the footings as well.
These problems may be overcome by using ®ber-
reinforced plastics (FRP) reinforcement instead of the
conventional methods. Because of the corrosion of
metal reinforcement in concrete structures, alternative
procedures are being studied and FRP products have
proved to be a successful solution. Supporting research
and development in the use of FRP for reinforcement,
repair and strengthening was conducted for reinforced
concrete applications. The American Concrete Institute
committee report `Fiber-Reinforced Plastic Reinforce-
ment for Concrete Structures'1 contains a detailed
description of research to date, material properties and
manufacturing processes. Examples of FRP reinforce-
ment for concrete structures include many of the col-
umn wrapping systems used in California and several
prestressed concrete bridges constructed in Japan2 and
Canada.3
While extensive research was conducted and reported
for reinforced and prestressed concrete structures, much
less has been reported for masonry structures. The
objective of this paper is to provide an overview of FRP
reinforcement, problems in unreinforced masonry
structures, and to examine the state-of-the-art research
being conducted for retro®t and repair of these struc-
tures. Particular emphasis will be placed on the masonry
research conducted at the University of Wyoming.
2 FRP REINFORCEMENT
FRP reinforcement for masonry structures usually uses
long, high-performance ®bers as the basis for the rein-
forcement systems. The long ®bers di€erentiate FRP
from the short-®ber systems such as glass-®ber-rein-
forced concrete. The di€erentiation is essential to the
discussion, because the long ®bers are capable of
carrying substantial loads and can function similarly to
1278 J. M. Gilstrap, C. W. Dolan
conventional reinforcement. In order to maintain com-
patible deformations with the masonry structure, high-
performance ®bers are usually preferred for these
applications. High-performance ®bers include aramid,
glass, and carbon and are preferred for structural
applications. These ®bers provide strength and sti€ness
to the FRP reinforcement. A bonding matrix is used to
create a composite reinforcement system. Typical resin
bonding agents are polyester, vinylester, or epoxy. The
physical characteristics of some typical composite FRP
reinforcement are given in the following sections.
High-performance ®bers refer to the strength and
sti€ness properties of small diameter synthetic ®bers. A
high sti€ness is needed in order to develop a high stress
for a small strain. Each type of ®ber has an individual
tensile strength in excess of 2.0 GPa (300 ksi). The ®ber
modulus of elasticity will vary from approximately one
third of the modulus of steel to one and a quarter times
that of steel. Typically, FRP stresses are computed on
the gross area of the composite section. In a typical
FRP rod type reinforcing element, approximately 30 to
50% of the cross-section is the resin binder. The
strength of the FRP reinforcement is determined solely
by the ®ber content since the resin matrix adds little to
the total strength. Since the ®bers make up only a portion
of the composite cross-section, the strength is determined
by the percentage of ®ber present in the section.
Table 1 contains typical physical properties for high
performance ®bers and FRP composites (from Dolan4
and Iyer5). It is important to realize that the ®ber prop-
erties are based on short sample tests and are not indi-
cative of the strength or sti€ness properties of the FRP
composite. The strength of long ®ber bundles will be
lower as a result of the greater probability of micro-
defects occurring in the longer ®bers, di€erential load
sharing between ®bers, the presence of resins, and the
inability of the ®bers to redistribute loads at high stress
levels. The maximum attainable composite stress is
approximately 20 to 40% lower than the individual ®ber
strength.6 Consequently, the ultimate tensile strain is
similarly lowered. The modulus of elasticity of an FRP
composite may be approximated by using the rule of
mixtures. The volume fraction of ®ber in FRP reinfor-
cement, vf, is the portion of cross-section that is ®ber.
The remaining cross-section is the polymer binder. If Ef
is the modulus of elasticity of the ®ber and Em is the
modulus of elasticity of the matrix, then the composite
modulus of elasticity, Ec, is approximately
Table 1. Representative FRP properties
Fiber Fiber tensile Fiber modulus
type strength GPa (ksi) GPa (ksi)
aramid 3.66 (525) 125 (18,000)
carbon 3.66 (525) 228 (33,000)
E-glass 2.10 (300) 75 (11,000)
Note: The composite properties vary with the manufacture quality control and FRP con®guration. The above values are repre-
sentative of industry products. However, speci®c properties must be ascertained prior to initiation of design. The composite values
assume a volume fraction of approximately 0.65.
Ec ˆ Ef vf ‡ Em 1 ÿ vf † 1†
The stress/strain behavior of FRP reinforcement is
nearly linear to failure. This means that the reinforce-
ment must be classi®ed as brittle. The yield strain of
grade 60 reinforcement is approximately 0.002. This is
about one tenth of the ultimate strain available in FRP
reinforcement. The consequences of this are that con-
crete and masonry units reinforced with FRP continue
to gain strength until there is either bond failure, rup-
ture of the reinforcement, or secondary compression
failure of the concrete or masonry. Those members that
would be considered `under-reinforced' have load-
de¯ection behavior similar to corresponding steel rein-
forced members. As the reinforcement ratios increase,
the ¯exural members become progressively more brittle.
There are several other important properties of FRP
that must be considered in the design process including
the fact that the high performance ®bers have relatively
low shear strength. While steel shear strength may be
45% of the tensile strength, the high performance ®ber
shear strength is often less than 10% of the tensile
strength. The low shear strength is signi®cant when
considering the size of FRP reinforcement. Lack of
shear capacity limits the amount of load that may be
transferred to the core of a large diameter rod. Conse-
quently, the axial stress capacity of FRP reinforcement
drops o€ with increasing bar diameter.7 This behavior
favors small diameter rods, sheets, or ¯at bar FRP
shapes.
The coecients of thermal expansion for the ®bers
also vary considerably. Glass has a coecient of ther-
mal expansion similar to concrete. Carbon ®ber's long-
itudinal coecient of thermal expansion is close to zero
and aramids have negative coecients of thermal
expansion. Complicating their applications as bonded
reinforcement in concrete and masonry structures is the
phenomenon that the longitudinal and transverse
coecients of thermal expansion are di€erent. The
transverse coecients of thermal expansion may be
double that of concrete. This may lead to a deteriora-
tion of bond capacity if the reinforcement in a structure
is cycled through excessive temperature ranges.
Research in Canada suggests retro®t applications are
only marginally a€ected by thermal e€ects.8
One important characteristic of high performance
®bers that di€erentiates them from steel reinforcement
is the loss of strength under sustained load. A ®ber
Composite tensile Composite modulus Strain at
strength GPa (ksi) GPa (ksi) failure
1.54 (220) 84 (12,000) 0.024
1.75 (250) 132 (19,000) 0.012
0.83 (120) 49 (7,000) 0.03
 Out-of-plane bending of FRP-reinforced masonry walls
stressed to 80±90% of its static strength will fail in ten-
sion at some ®nite time. This behavior, called creep-
rupture, results in a limitation of the maximum sus-
tained load that may be applied to FRP reinforcement.
Rostasy and other researchers suggest that the max-
imum sustained load applied to FRP reinforcement
must be less than 50 percent of the static tensile
strength.9 The primary implication of creep-rupture is in
structural applications where the FRP is subjected to
sustained high loads. These included prestressing instal-
lations. Bonded reinforcement for seismic retro®t is not
a€ected by creep-rupture phenomenon.
In addition, high performance ®bers may be pre-
fabricated into fabrics and tapes without resins. The
fabrics and tapes are designed to favor the high perfor-
mance ®ber physical properties in one direction, or they
may be symmetric with equal properties in both direc-
tions. Calculation of fabric and tape strength is based
on the actual ®ber area. This approach is used because
fabrics are laid-up and resin-impregnated in place. No
®eld control is exercised on the resin volume. Conse-
quently, there are no usable de®nitions of volume
fraction.
3 FAILURE ZONES FOR MASONRY
BUILDINGS
The design approach to successfully retro®tting an
under-reinforced masonry building is to analyze the
seismic response of the structure and then ®nd ways to
strengthen the weak links in the existing system without
drastically changing the building or creating collapse
mechanisms. Typical weak links include in-plane failure
of the masonry, out-of-plane wall failure, and connec-
tions between the walls and the ¯ooring.
3.1 In-plane failure
In-plane resistance of unreinforced masonry walls is
based on mortar strength and brick proportions. If the
forces are strong enough to exceed the in-plane strength
capacity of the wall, a shear failure will occur. This
failure mode is characterized by brittle tensile cracking
through the mortar and the masonry unit and a sudden
loss of lateral load capacity.10 The most common type
of strengthening for in-plane resistance is the ®lling of
the voids in the blocks. This procedure is time consum-
ing and often not feasible. Other proven techniques
include the addition of shotcrete or steel bracing or FRP
diagonal bracing.
3.2 Out-of-plane failure
Seismic loadings induce out-of-plane bending of walls
between the restraining ¯oors. Analysis of the failure
modes must take into account many di€erent factors,
such as boundary conditions, wall compressive
strengths, joint tensile strengths, wall sti€ness, and
applied loadings. Walls will typically remain stable
1279
under dead load and after cracking if they are within the
speci®ed height-to-thickness ratio. If the slenderness
ratio is exceeded, the wall needs bracing by either a
horizontal brace or vertical columns. Parapets, chim-
neys, and similar elements extending above the topmost
line of restraint are most vulnerable to out-of-plane
forces.
3.3 Connections
Earthquake forces cause walls to push against and pull
away from the ¯oors that they are connected to. Failure
to have a secure connection between the two elements
can cause failure by falling brick as well as ¯oor col-
lapse. This type of problem can be corrected and work
can be performed while the building is occupied.
Restraint of out-of-plane bending and tension ties
between the walls and the ¯oors are required to reduce
the risk of collapse. For these applications, a sheet or
fabric reinforcement is the most e€ective.
4 STRUCTURAL REINFORCEMENT
4.1 Fabric reinforcement
The reinforcement of masonry structures, especially for
retro®t, entails placement of the reinforcement on the
surface of the structure. This raises numerous technical
issues. These issues include the de®nition of the fabric
con®guration, the bonding agent, adhesion to the
masonry, in-plane strengthening, and out-of-plane
strengthening. These topics are examined in the follow-
ing sections.
4.2 Fabric con®guration
Numerous fabric con®gurations are available for exter-
nally reinforcing masonry. These include a chopped
®ber mat, a woven fabric, and individual tapes. Chop-
ped ®ber mats provide a random orientation of the
®bers and are useful for transferring in-plane shear
stresses. Provided there is sucient overlap of the ®bers,
the chopped mats can also provide out-of-plane ¯exural
capacity. Woven fabrics provide two directional orien-
tation of the ®bers. The weaving gives the fabric con-
struction integrity that is useful for ®eld handling and
application. Tapes allow narrower bands of sections to
be wrapped or surfaces to be discretely reinforced.
In all cases, the designer must give some attention to
the surface being reinforced. Large smooth surfaces are
equally adaptable to all fabric types. Surfaces requiring
substantial smoothing or removal of mortar ®ns may
consider tape solutions to minimize ®eld work. The
presence of corners or tight bends further complicates
the selection of ®ber type because glass and carbon
®bers are less moldable than aramid ®bers. Woven
fabrics or unprocessed unidirectional sheets are required
for these conditions. Cured FRP laminates generally do
not have sucient ¯exibility to conform to corner
geometry.
1280 J. M. Gilstrap, C. W. Dolan
4.3 In-plane shear
Hamid conducted small scale studies on in-plane and
out-of-plane bending of externally reinforced
masonry.11 Chopped ®berglass mats were placed on 1/3
scale hollow concrete masonry units and tested for in-
plane shear, out-of-plane bending and axial load. The
chopped glass was bonded to the masonry with a Sika-
dur1 35 epoxy. Each sample was approximately 265 mm
(10.5 in.) square. The tests indicated that the in-plane
shear increased approximately 300% for diagonal loads
and 800% for loads parallel to the bedding plane.
Full scale concrete masonry unit walls on a four story
masonry test building at San Diego State University
were retro®tted with carbon ®ber fabric following
application of seismic loading. After retro®tting, the
repaired walls were reported to have a greater capacity
than the original construction.
Simple shear tests of three bricks connected with
®berglass fabric were conducted by Ehsani.12 The bricks
were surface bonded and one brick was positioned
higher than the adjacent bricks. Application of a normal
load provided direct shear on the fabric. The shear
capacity was increased by the use of the fabric.
4.4 Out-of-plane bending
Tests on out-of-plane bending of unreinforced masonry
examined the use of externally bonded fabric reinforce-
ment on beam elements made of several clay bricks.
Ehsani manufactured 1.185 m (3.9 ft) long beams of
individual brick reinforced with ®berglass fabric.13 This
series of tests indicated that the beams would have lin-
ear load de¯ection behavior until failure. Two types of
epoxy were evaluated and up to three layers of glass
fabric were applied. All test specimens were manu-
factured and tested in a horizontal position.
Research at the University of Wyoming examined
placement of various composite fabrics on single wythe
clay brick walls using di€erent types of adhesives. The
tests examined reinforcement of small beams and var-
ious sizes of wall panels to gain an understanding of
adhesive workability, fabric placement techniques, and
reinforcement e€ectiveness. Carbon and aramid FRP
reinforcement products and a variety of resins were
obtained from di€erent manufacturers. The goals of the
study were to gather information on the reinforcement
techniques so that eventually a design procedure for
FRP retro®ts of masonry structures can be developed.
The tests were divided into two di€erent phases. The
®rst phase of the research was speci®ed to evaluate
adhesives using small scale brick beam tests. For each of
the resin products, a brick beam test was conducted.
The tests were designed to allow a rapid evaluation of
adhesive responsiveness, workability, and to obtain
basic ¯exural response for prediction of the wall
strength. Each beam consisted of six bricks bonded
together with mortar and externally reinforced with one
or two layers of Kevlar 49, see Fig. 1. The bricks were
cleaned by hand scrubbing. The beams were supported
Fig. 1. Partial beam with Kevlar sheet reinforcement adhered
to the bottom of the beam.
at their ends and loaded until failure with a center point
load. The maximum ¯exural strength, failure mode, and
behavior of the resin and Kevlar fabric was recorded.
The four adhesives tested were: Sikadur 35 Hi-Mod LV
Epoxy, Sikadur 35 Hi-Mod Epoxy Gel, Dow Derakane
411-350, Dow Derakane 8084, and Mater Builders
Concresive Resin. Results from these tests were used to
compile load data for larger scale wall test predictions
and to select which resins would be used for the wall
tests. The adhesive selection process is discussed later in
this section.
The second phase of the project was retro®t and test-
ing of unreinforced masonry walls. Di€erent sizes of
walls were reinforced using various types of FRP rein-
forcement and adhesives. Walls were loaded using uni-
form and line loading techniques and varying end
restrains. The reinforcements used were aramid fabric
and tapes, and carbon tow-sheets and carbon straps.
The project was designed to test six walls in such a
manner that after each test a re-evaluation of the appli-
cation techniques would take place thus optimizing the
use of each material.
The ®rst round of testing was done using full sheets of
aramid fabric that literally blankets the surface like wall
paper. This method was chosen to utilize the two direc-
tional strength of the ®bers for maximum performance
of the reinforcement. Two 1.31.3 m walls were cleaned
using wire brushes and retro®tted in the vertical posi-
tion to simulate job site application. The ®rst wall used
a Sika gel type adhesive and the second a lower modulus
Dow adhesive. The walls were allowed to set up for a
week before testing occurred. To facilitate testing, the
walls were placed horizontally on the test frame and a
vertical static load was applied. The walls were simply
supported on all sides with the reinforced side facing
down. A load was applied though a loading plate at the
center of the wall. A 50 mm thick Styrofoam pad was
used to distribute the load throughout the wall. The
load was applied using a MTS 250 kN actuator and a
ramp loading. The total load was applied in less than
4 min. A constant strain loading was applied to the wall
sample.
 Out-of-plane bending of FRP-reinforced masonry walls
The two directional out-of-plane wall test required
establishment of a load distribution system. The classi-
cal approach would be to use an air bag loading to
assure a uniform load distribution. The air bag, aside
from being unwieldy, did not allow a rapid loading rate.
This lead to the examination of the compressive capa-
city of Dow Styrofoam as a loading medium. Compres-
sive tests indicated that the deformation of the foam
sheets would result in a quasi-uniform load distribution
over the wall surface. Therefore a 50 mm thick foam
blanket was placed under a 600600 mm loading
platen.
The results indicated that out-of-plane wall strength
was increased signi®cantly using FRP reinforcement.
Failure occurred when the loading produced high bond
stresses between the Kevlar fabric and the masonry
substrate causing delamination of the reinforcement and
a ¯exure collapse of the wall. The delamination was
because of poor bonding between either the FRP and
the adhesive in the case of the gel or the adhesive and
the wall with the Derakane adhesive. Cracks formed
during the tests suggested that strength could be pre-
dicted using a yield line analysis for the wall, assuming
that the tensile strength of the reinforcement could be
mobilized. Figure 2 shows the failure modes of the walls
and Fig. 3 shows the yield line models. Table 3 describes
the failure moments and modes along with predicted
values from the yield line theory (Samples 2 and 3 for
these walls). The variability of delamination stresses
made numerical strength predictions unreliable. A clo-
ser examination of Table 3 suggests that if the full ten-
sile capacity of the composite material may be
developed, then the ¯exural capacity of the wall may be
predicted.
To assess delamination performance, the next phase
of testing used the properties of parallel ®ber tapes
instead of continuous fabrics. To reduce variability, wall
surface preparation was improved by sand blasting the
surface and thus improving the adhesive application.
Brick beam tests were again conducted to evaluate this
method of application. The goal of the beam tests was
to rupture the tapes before bond failure occurred. It was
concluded that for better bonding to occur, the fabric
would be applied midway through the adhesive pot life
which allowed the adhesive to set up with the beam
surface before applying the reinforcement. Beam tests
showed that carefully applied FRP tapes produced fail-
Table 2. Reinforced wall test setups
Sample # Reinforcement material Adhesive type
1 None None
2 Kevlar fabric Sika 35 Gel
3 Kevlar fabric Dow 8084
4 Carbon tow sheet Henkel VCX
5 Kevlar tape Sika 32
6 Kevlar tape Master builders
7 Carbon tape Sika 30
1281
Fig. 2. Kevlar sheet reinforced wall supported on all sides.
ure resulting from tape rupture, thus optimizing e€ec-
tiveness of reinforcement.
Wall tests were conducted by adhering the tapes at
third points on the wall in both the transverse and
longitudinal directions. Two 1.3 m long by 0.79 m wide
walls elements were tested using similar high viscosity
adhesives from di€erent manufacturers. The walls were
again cured for one week before testing. Tests were
conducted in the same manner as before with the
exception that they were simply supported and loaded
at midspan. The test span length is 1.2 m, Fig. 4.
Results, given in Table 3 (Samples 5 and 6), show that
this technique is an e€ective way of increasing ¯exural
capacity of the walls. Using tapes, strengths are
increased while the amount of FRP is signi®cantly
decreased saving material costs and application time.
Using a tape system the failure mode was rupture of the
tape followed by a secondary compression failure.
For the ®nal two walls, carbon tow sheet (supplied by
Tonen Corporation) and carbon straps (supplied by
Sika Corporation) were used to compare the e€ective-
ness of di€erent FRP materials. The tow sheet was
applied in two layers each 500 mm wide. The applica-
tion procedure was provided by the manufacturer and
required more surface preparation. The carbon straps
were 50 mm wide and 1.5 mm thick. They were applied
at the third points width of the wall as with the Kevlar
tapes. These carbon reinforcements were e€ective and
comparable to Kevlar tapes. The strength provided by
the carbon samples over-reinforced the sample sections.
Therefore, failure was governed by the compression
strength of the wall. The predicted strength in Table 3 is
Wall size m(in) Loading technique
1.31.3 (5252) Uniform load
1.31.3 (5252) Uniform load
1.31.3 (5252) Uniform load
1.30.79 (5231) Uniform load
1.30.79 (5231) Uniform load
1.30.79 (5231) Uniform load
1.30.56 (5222) Line load
1282 J. M. Gilstrap, C. W. Dolan

Fig. 3. Wall Support Con®gurations.

Table 3. Reinforced wall results

Sample # Predicted moment Actual moment Failure mode Mu/Mpredicted
N-m mÿ1 (lb-ft ftÿ1) N-m mÿ1 (lb-ft ftÿ1)
1 405 (90) Ð Collapse
2 20550 (4600) 3300 (750) Delamination/¯exure 0.16
3 20551 (4600) 2200 (500) Delamination/¯exure 0.11
4 33300 (7500) 23000 (5100) Brick crushing 0.68
5 7000 (1600) 9900 (2200) Rupture/¯exure 1.38
6 7000 (1600) 10300 (2300) Rupture/¯exure 1.44
7 25000 (5600) 8900 (2000) Flexure 0.36
7 11000 (2580) 8900 (2000) Delamination±shear 0.81

based on the tensile capacity of the reinforcement. This
dramatically a€ects the strength/prediction ratios.
Development of design guidelines for the maximum
reinforcement ratios are needed to prevent over-predic-
tion of retro®tting capacity.
4.5 Flexural Results
It should be noted that di€erent sample sizes, loadings,
and end constraints were used during these pilot tests.
Hence, the testing of walls was di€erent, with some
walls being supported on all sides and some simply
supported. The carbon strap wall was tested using a line
load rather than a uniform load owing to the avail-
ability of lab equipment. Predicted values are found
using yield line analysis or simple bending theory based on
the tensile strength capacity of the composite used. The
test results do not include the dead weight of the wall.
Samples 2 and 3 (Kevlar Fabric) failed by gross dela-
mination of the fabric. Therefore the predicted values
signi®cantly overstate the capacity of the reinforcement.
This is expected for this failure mode. Sample 4 (Tonen±
Forca tow sheet) failed by crushing the masonry. The
predicted strength is based on the tensile capacity of the
tow sheet. The over-prediction of strength is expected
and suggests that the tow sheet is very e€ective. Guide-
lines for sheet spacing or reinforcement ratios are needed
for most ecient use of these composite materials. Sim-
ply blanketing the wall is not their most e€ective use.
Samples 5 and 6 (Kevlar tapes) under-estimated the
wall strength. This is partly because of the conservative
estimation of the actual tape strength based on indivi-
dual tape tests. The Kevlar tape properties were
obtained by bonding an aluminum tab to the end of a
bare fabric. The tape was then tested in uniaxial tension.
Tapes impregnated with resin should have better load
carrying properties than bare fabric. The original logic
to testing bare fabric was that the tapes would not be
well-aligned on the wall and, consequently, the bare
fabric test would provide a lower bound result. The wet
lay-up process aligned the tapes better than anticipated.
This is re¯ected in the under-prediction of strength.
Fig. 4. Masonry beam test setup.
 Out-of-plane bending of FRP-reinforced masonry walls
Sample 7 (Sika strap) has two predictions. The ®rst
prediction is based on a ¯exural failure using the full
tensile capacity of the strap. Since the specimen failed
because of shear delamination of the brick, this predic-
tion over-estimated the capacity. The second prediction
is based on the Sika recommendation for shear capacity
in concrete. This is much closer to the actual behavior.
For a longer wall, the full development length of the
strap could be mobilized. For the shorter wall, determi-
nation of a shear capacity is needed.
4.6 Adhesive results
Selection of adhesives for strengthening or retro®tting
of masonry walls requires very careful attention as seen
from the tables. A brick beam test is recommended to
qualify any installation process. The beam test validates
adhesive compatibility and bond development. The
beam should be at least 1 m long. The masonry may be
perpendicular to the reinforcement or may be in a run-
ning bond alignment. A successful test should result in
tension failure of the composite reinforcement.
The Sikadur 32 epoxy was found to adequately bond
the fabric and brick. However, the epoxy's low viscosity
allowed the adhesive to ¯ow to the bottom of the wall. The
result was good beam tests but erratic coverage on the
vertical wall surface. A Dow 8084 vinylester resin was
evaluated because of its lower modulus and its superior
adhesion to Kevlar. Like the low viscosity Sika, the
vinylester ¯owed to the bottom of the test sample. The
vinylester penetrated the fabric and gave a high gloss
surface but did not bond well to the clay brick. Sikadur
Gel was also evaluated. It did not penetrate the fabric but
provided superior adhesion to the clay brick. The Henkel
product is suggested for use with carbon tow sheets and
performed well. Master Builders Concresive adhesive also
performed well and was easy to use.
Vinylester is a styrene based adhesive. Tests at the
University of Wyoming indicated that the styrene
vapors were quite strong and required substantial
ventilation. It is doubtful that retro®tting using styr-
ene based adhesives could be conducted in operating
buildings. The epoxies did not have corresponding
fumes.
The research concluded that a gel or high viscosity
adhesive is required for vertical and overhead surfaces
and that the fabric weave should be opened to allow
greater penetration of the adhesive into the fabric.
Initial wall tests at Wyoming failed by delamination of
the fabric from the masonry. This was caused by exces-
sive fabric strength, incomplete penetration of the
adhesive to the substrate or the fabric, or improper
substrate preparation.
5 ARCHITECTURAL CONSIDERATIONS
Architectural implications of composite reinforcing on
masonry walls were also evaluated with the University
1283
of Wyoming research. Signi®cant architectural and
structural issues remain to be resolved. These issues
include substrate preparation, ®re resistance of the fab-
ric and adhesive, durability of bonded systems that form
impermeable barriers on masonry walls, ®nish treat-
ment on exposed surfaces, and shear resistance of
strengthened walls at intersection edges. These issues
were discussed in detail in a paper by Christensen.14
Because the use of composite materials is new to the
building industry, there is little precedent for approval
in the major building codes (Uniform Building Code,
Standard Building Code, and the National Building
Code). Presently UBC has a draft speci®cation for FRP-
based rehabilitation out for peer review.
One issue that must be addressed is the ®re resistance
of the FRP materials. ASTM E 84 addresses ®re resis-
tance on interior applications. If the interior is pro-
tected, e.g. supported by a masonry wall, then a bonded
fabric may be acceptable for a thin fabric overlay.
Initial ®re research at EMPA in Switzerland suggests
that the Carbon tapes did survive a one hour ®re. The
straps tested in Switzerland had ®re protective overlays
at the ends of the straps. The carbon charred but did
not delaminateÐsimilar to the behavior of a glued
laminated timber beam.
The issue of moisture retention in the concrete or
masonry must also be addressed when applying bonded
fabric. If the FRP-adhesive system forms a complete
vapor barrier, deterioration of the adhesive bond can
occur on the substrate. This deterioration may not be
visible and could render the strengthening useless over
time. Bonding to both sides of a dry wall should provide
satisfactory results. A similar deterioration may occur if
the wall surface is exposed to large variation in tem-
perature or freeze±thaw conditions when a small moist-
ure layer is present at the substrate interface. Tapes
provide a signi®cant level of moisture relief in high
moisture situations.
6 CONCLUSIONS
FRP reinforcement was successfully used to reinforce
masonry walls. Fabrics of high performance ®bers
externally bonded to masonry structures provide sig-
ni®cant increases in in-plane and out-of-plane strength
and load carrying capacity. At the present time, these
applications are in the demonstration stage. Formal
design guidance for out-of-plane bending is evolving.
For under-reinforced conditions, reinforced concrete or
masonry ¯exural theory may be used to predict strength
gains. Over-reinforcing leads to over-prediction of
strength. Therefore, reinforcement ratio limits need to
be de®ned to limit the reinforcement quantity. Kevlar
and carbon tapes and sheets performed satisfactorily.
Critical performance characteristics de®ning the demar-
cation between over and under-reinforcement still need
to be de®ned.
1284 J. M. Gilstrap, C. W. Dolan
Architectural considerations have been consigned to
lesser importance caused by the urgency of providing
safe structures in seismic areas. Nonetheless, the light
weight of FRP fabrics, the ease of application and the
adaptability to a number of architectural ®nishes suggests
that these materials will be widely used in the future.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Research at the University of Wyoming was sponsored
under a grant from the National Science Foundation
(MSS 9114592 and Wyoming EPSCoR) with industrial
support from E. I. DuPont, Tonen Corporation, and
Sika Chemicals. The opinions, ®ndings and recommen-
dations of this work are those of the authors and do not
necessarily re¯ect the views of the National Science
Foundation and other sponsors.
REFERENCES
1. Fiber reinforced plastic reinforcement for concrete struc-
tures-state-of-the-art report, ACI Committee 440, Amer-
ican Concrete Institute, Detroit MI, 1995.
2. Nanni, A. and Dolan, C. W. FRP reinforcement for con-
crete structures. International Symposium, SP-138,
American Concrete Institute, Detroit MI, 1993.
3. Grant, L., Tadros, G. and Rizkalla, S., Toward develop-
ment of bridges in the next century. Proceedings of the
Second International RILEM Symposium (FRPRCS-2),
August 1995, p. 654.
4. Dolan, C. W., Kevlar reinforced prestressing for bridge
decks, transportation research record, No. 1290, Third
Bridge Engineering Conference, Denver Co., Transporta-
tion Research Board, 1991, p. 68.
5. Iyer, S. L. and Anigol. M., Testing and evaluating
®berglass, graphite, and steel prestressing cables for
pretensioned beams. Advanced Composite Materials in
Civil Engineering Structures, ASCE, 1991, p. 44.
6. Phoenix, S. L., Statistical theory for strength of twisted
®ber bundles with applications to yarns and cables. Tex-
tile Research Journal, 1979, 49(7), 407±423.
7. Faza, S. and Gangaroa, H., Bending response of beams
reinforced with FRP rebars for varying concrete
strengths. Advanced Composite Materials in Civil Engi-
neering Structures, ASCE, 1991, p. 262.
8. El-Badry, M. (ed.), Advanced Composite Materials in
Bridges and Structures, Second International Conference,
Canadian Society of Civil Engineers, Montreal, QUE,
Canada, 1996.
9. Budelmann, H. and Rostasy, F. S., Creep rupture beha-
vior of FRP elements for prestressed concrete Ð phe-
nomenon, results and forecast models. International
Symposium on Fiber Reinforced Plastics for Concrete
Structures, SP-138, American Concrete Institute, Detroit
MI, 1991, p. 87.
10. Avvakumovits, Otto. Seismic evaluation and retro®tting
of existing unreinforced masonry buildings. Proceedings
of Structural Congress XIII, Boston MA, 1995, pp. 1821±
1824.
11. Hamid, A., Larralde, J. and Salama, A., Properties of
hollow concrete masonry reinforced with ®berglass com-
posite, ®ber reinforced plastics for concrete structures.
International Symposium, SP-138, American Concrete
Institute, Detroit MI, 1991, p. 465.
12. Ehsani, M. R., Strengthening of earthquake-damaged
masonry structures with composite materials. Second
International Conference on Fiber Reinforced Plastic
Reinforcement for Reinforced Concrete Structures. Ghent,
Belgium, August, 1995.
13. Ehsani, M., Saadatmanesh, H., Abdelghany, I. H. and
Elkafarwy, W., Flexural behavior of masonry walls
strengthened with composite fabrics. International Sym-
posium on Fiber Reinforced Plastics for Concrete Struc-
tures, SP-138, American Concrete Institute, Detroit MI,
1991, p. 497.
14. Christensen, J. B., Gilstrap, J. M. and Dolan, C. W.,
Composite materials reinforcement of existing masonry
walls. J. Architectural Eng., 1996, 2(2), 63.