8th International Masonry Conference 2010 in Dresden

Effectiveness of a masonry strengthening technique made with

a GFRP-mesh-reinforced mortar coating

GATTESCO, N.1; DUDINE A.2

ABSTRACT:
In the paper the results of a broad experimental investigation carried out on masonry specimens
strengthened with a thin mortar coating on both surfaces reinforced with a glass fiber reinforced
polymer (GFRP) mesh are presented. A parametric study is carried out considering five different
GFRP meshes, three different types of mortar for the masonry, four different types of masonry. In
particular solid brick masonry 250 mm and 380 mm thick, two leaf brick masonry with rubble mound
structure and rubble stone masonry were considered.
A detailed preceding study was carried out to design the connection device to be used to join the
mortar coating to the masonry, so as to optimize the effectiveness of the strengthening technique.
Numerous square masonry specimens subjected to diagonal compression up to the collapse
evidenced a good effectiveness of the strengthening technique. In fact a significant increase of the
tensile strength was noted with particular concern to rubble stone masonry. Considerable was also
the residual tensile strength after the formation of diagonal cracks up to large values of the strain.

Keywords: Unreinforced masonry buildings, diagonal compression test, brick masonry, strengthening
techniques.

NOTATION
b,t width and thickness of the specimen, respectively;
c,t average diagonal strain in the load direction and perpendicular to load direction, respectively;
spl average tensile strain perpendicular to the load direction at the onset of cracking;
P diagonal load;
Pmax maximum diagonal load;
P05 diagonal load corresponding to a diagonal strain equal to 0.005;
(R),(U) subscripts for reinforced and unreinforced, respectively;
I principal tensile stress;
I,5 principal tensile stress corresponding to 5 mm crack opening;
fb brick compressive strength.

1 INTRODUCTION
The most part of the existing buildings in the centre of European cities is made with unreinforced solid
brick or stone masonry walls. A huge number of different types of texture may be found for stone
masonry walls concerning the dimensions and the shape of stone elements (dimension, rubble, cut,
cobblestone, etc.), their arrangements (course, erratic), the type of stone (sandstone, limestone, tuff,

1)
Associate Professor, University of Trieste, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, [email protected]
2)
Research Fellow, University of Trieste, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, [email protected]

th
8 International Masonry Conference Dresden 2010 1
N. GATTESCO, A. DUDINE

etc.) and the mortar grade. Frequently these buildings are made with multiple leaf walls with or
without effective connections among leaves.
If these buildings are subjected to earthquakes, severe horizontal forces occur to the walls both in-
plane (shear action) and out-of-plane (flexural action). But the shear resistance of the masonry walls
of existing buildings is rather low so that limited resistance capacity to earthquake may be attained
due to the shear collapse of piers and spandrels. Moreover, the action perpendicular to the masonry
walls may cause local damage due to the activation of various out-of-plane mechanisms, with moving
of rigid masonry blocks (wall overturning, horizontal/vertical flexion, corner overturning, gable
collapse, etc.).
The out-of-plane action may be considerably reduced through effective connections with in-plane
strengthened floors (e.g. [1-2]); in such a way it is possible to guarantee the structural integrity of the
building and to avoid that the occurrence of local mechanism may anticipate the global collapse of the
structure. So to increase the structural capacity of buildings and make them able to resist earthquakes
it is necessary to improve the shear resistance of the masonry walls.
Various techniques to increase the shear resistance of masonry walls have been used in the last few
decades: grout injections, reinforced-cement coating, fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) jacketing. The
grout injection technique consists in filling the voids in the masonry through cement or epoxy grout [3];
the reinforced-cement coating technique consists of applying reinforced concrete coatings onto both
faces of a wall connected together with steel bars passing through the masonry wall [4]. The FRP
jacketing is a relatively new technique and consists in applying FRP laminates on both faces of the
wall. In particular two types of FRP composites are employed: uni-directional glass/carbon/aramid
FRP and glass FRP mesh; the former are sheet laminates that are glued to the surface of the wall
through epoxy resin [5, 6], the latter consists in applying a glass fiber reinforced polymer (GFRP)
mesh embedded in a hydraulic lime mortar.
The grouting injection technique was extensively used to effectively strengthen two leaf stone
masonry buildings after earthquakes (Friuli 1976, Irpinia 1980, Marche-Umbria 1997, Slovenia 1998-
2004, etc.), but such a technique is not adequate for one leaf solid brick masonry or dimension stone
masonry. Also the reinforced-cement coating technique was used extensively and showed good
performances but some problems of corrosion of the steel mesh arose some years after the
application. So recently strengthening techniques that can be used for all types of walls and that
adopt non metallic materials as reinforcement were proposed (FRP jacketing).
Significant research studies aimed to comprehend the effectiveness of the strengthening technique
for masonry walls based on the application of FRP unidirectional laminates were carried out in the last
decade [e.g. 5-7]. Differently, very limited studies were carried out on the strengthening technique
based on the use of GFRP meshes [8].
The aim of this research work is to investigate extensively the effectiveness of the strengthening
technique for masonry walls that uses GFRP meshes. So a broad experimental investigation was
carried out on masonry samples considering different types of masonry elements (solid bricks and
rubble stones), different types of mortar and different grid dimension for the GFRP mesh. Some tests
on masonry reinforced with steel meshes and similar mortar coating were also carried out in order to
allow comparing the effectiveness of the considered strengthening technique with the one that used a
steel mesh.

2 EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION
Numerous diagonal compression tests were carried out to determine the tensile resistance of different
types of masonry arranged with various strengthening configurations.
2.1. Strengthening technique
The strengthening technique considered in this study concerns the application of a GFRP mesh on
both faces of the masonry wall and embedded in a mortar coat.
The GFRP mesh is formed with long fibres of glass that are coated with a thermo-hardening resin
(vinyl ester epoxy and benzoyl peroxide as catalyst); the composite wires are weaved to form the
mesh by twisting the resin impregnated transversal fibres across the longitudinal wires.

2 8th International Masonry Conference Dresden 2010

 Effectiveness of masonry strengthening technique made with a GFRP-mesh-reinforced mortar coating

The application procedure of the strengthening technique concerns the following phases: a) removal
of the existing plaster and the mortar from the joints between elements, 10-15 mm deep, on both wall
faces, b) application of a layer of cement scratch coat, c) execution of passing through holes, 25 mm
diameter, to allow for connectors insertion, d) application of the GFRP mesh on both faces, e)
insertion of L-shaped GFRP connectors (8x12 mm) and injection of thixotropic epoxy resin inside the
holes to fix the connectors, f) application of the new coating made with lime and cement mortar (30
mm thickness).
The L-shaped connectors are lap spliced inside the hole; 6 connectors per square meter are provided.
In Fig. 1a an example of application of the GFRP mesh on the masonry is displayed; in Fig. 1b the
detail of the connector is evidenced.

(a) (b)

Figure 1. Proposed strengthening technique: (a) GFRP mesh application, (b) detail of the GFRP
connector.

2.2. Material characteristics

The masonry specimens were made considering solid brick elements and rubble stone elements. The
bricks were subjected to compression test and showed an average resistance fb = 44.0 MPa. Three
types of hydraulic lime mortar were used for masonry specimens: type A, B, C, whereas one lime-
cement mortar was used for the surface coating of all specimens of strengthened masonry. In Table 1
the mix design of the mortars and the average compressive resistance after 28 days air curing,
determined by testing cylindrical samples (100 mm diameter, 100 mm height), are reported.
Six masonry samples (250x250x400 mm) made with solid bricks and the hydraulic mortar type A and
C were subjected to compression tests after 28 days air curing. The compressive strength and the
elastic modulus were equal to 11.43 MPa and 3469 MPa, respectively, for samples with mortar type
A, and equal to 14.42 MPa and 4234 MPa, respectively, for samples with mortar type C. No
compression tests on samples of stone masonry were carried out. The elastic modulus was measured
in the stress range between 10% to 40% of the peak value.
The mechanical characteristics of the GFRP mesh and the connectors used in the masonry
specimens built for tests are summarized in Table 2. In the tests were used GFRP meshes with three
different grid dimensions (33x33 mm, 66x66 mm, 99x99 mm) and two diverse net fiber size for the
mesh wires: 3.8 mm2 for type S and 7.6 mm2 for type D. The average percentage of fiber section in
the cross section of mesh wires is approximately 50%. The cross section of L-shaped connectors was
8x12 mm with 60% the percentage of fibers. In the table, for the mesh, the tensile resistances of
longitudinal and transversal grid wires are reported; the longitudinal wires have parallel fibers,
whereas the fibers of transversal wires are twisted. The twisted fiber wires showed an appreciably
lower tensile resistance with respect to parallel fiber wires. This is probably due to the different
tension occurring in each fiber during the tensile test, because of the twisting, so that not all fibers
reach the ultimate resistance at the same time.

8th International Masonry Conference Dresden 2010 3

N. GATTESCO, A. DUDINE

As stated in the preceding section, connectors are lap spliced inside a hole crossing the masonry
specimen with 200 mm overlap and injecting an epoxy grout. Three tests samples were made to test
the effectiveness of the connector splice. In all tests, carried out after 28 days air curing of the
masonry and 7 days air curing of the injected grout, no slip was recorded and the tensile rupture of
the bar was reached.

Table 1. Binder dosage and compressive strength of mortars.

Binder dosage Compressive
Mortar type hydraulic lime cement strength
[kg/m3] [kg/m3] [MPa]
Masonry mortar
A 320 - 3.04
B 250 - 2.60
C 390 - 6.12

Coating mortar
Cement temper 300 100 7.92

Table 2. Tensile resistance of GFRP elements.

Tensile resistance
GFRP elements
[kN]
2
Mesh, Type "S" (glass fibers 3.8 mm )
Parallel fibers 4.47
Twisted fibers 3.54
2
Mesh, Type "D" (glass fibers 7.6 mm )
Parallel fibers 8.49
Twisted fibers 5.21
2
Connectors (glass fibers 57.6 mm )
Section 8x12mm 36.01

2.3. Specimen description

The scope of the study was to evidence the effectiveness of the strengthening technique described in
Section 2.1, so that a broad experimental investigation on 62 masonry square specimens (1160x1160
mm) was planned considering the influence of different parameters: block elements, mortar type,
mesh grid. Some specimens strengthened with steel meshes were also tested as reference. In
particular the specimens tested concern: 20 solid brick masonry samples 250 mm thick, 18 solid
bricks samples 380 mm thick, 12 two-leaf solid brick masonry samples with rubble-mound structure
inside 120+140+120 mm thick and 12 rubble stone masonry samples 400 mm thick.
Two types of mortar were used in all groups of specimens: A and C in the first group and A and B in
the other groups. The most part of the specimens were strengthened using five different GFRP
meshes: type S with grids 33x33 mm, 66x66 mm and 99x99 mm, type D with grids 66x66 mm and
99x99 mm. Six specimens were reinforced with steel meshes: 5 150x150 mm and 6 200x200 mm.
Two specimens were tested for each case so to check the repeatability of the results. The
unstrengthened masonry specimens were subjected to tests without applying any plaster on the
surfaces. The thickness of the surface mortar coating used for strengthened specimens was 30 mm.
The characteristics of specimens tested are summarized in Table 3. The specimens are named with
an alphanumeric identifier split in three parts: the first two letters distinguish the masonry group (MD =
solid brick masonry 250 mm thick, MT = solid brick masonry 380 mm thick, MS = two-leaf solid brick
with rubble mound structure, MP = rubble stone masonry), in the second group the number
distinguishes the couple of equal specimens and the letter indicate the mortar type, in the third group

4 8th International Masonry Conference Dresden 2010

 Effectiveness of masonry strengthening technique made with a GFRP-mesh-reinforced mortar coating

of characters the letter distinguishes the mesh material (F = GFRP, S = steel), the number indicate
the grid dimension and the last letter distinguishes the GFRP mesh wire (S or D). The unreinforced
specimens do not have the third group of characters and the specimens with the reinforced coating
applied on one side only have a letter L added at the right of the identifier.
2.4. Experimental apparatus
The effectiveness of the strengthening technique was evidenced carrying out diagonal compression
tests on the masonry specimens indicated in Table 3. An appropriate experimental apparatus was
designed so to allow applying the load without moving the specimen.
The specimens, in fact, were built on a timber bench and after curing, part of the bench was removed
so to allow placing the steel device for applying the load at one of the bottom corner of the specimen.
The device has an angle welded to a robust H-shape profile and stiffened with a series of ribs, to
avoid deformation of the angle. A second similar device was applied at the opposite corner of the
specimen. Finally a third device was connected to the bottom device through four steel bars so to
allow providing a diagonal force with a hydraulic jack interposed between the top devices.
In Figure 2 the details of the experimental apparatus are shown as well as a picture of the apparatus
mounted on a specimen. In the figure are also indicated the two couples of potentiometer transducers
(T1-T3, T2-T4) used to measure the deformation of the specimen along the diagonals. The hydraulic
jack was activated with a hand pump and the applied force was measured with a pressure transducer.
All the transducers were connected to an electronic acquisition unit interfaced with a computer.
Appropriate software allowed showing both the loading procedure and the load-displacement diagram
during testing.

Table 3. Specimen characteristics.

Specimen Mortar Strengthening tecnique Specimen Mortar Strengthening tecnique

Solid brick masonry (thickness 250 mm) Solid brick masonry (thickness 380 mm)
MD-1A MT-1A
A - A -
MD-2A MT-2A
MD-1A-F33S MT-1A-F33S
A GFRP Mesh S (33x33mm) A GFRP Mesh S (33x33mm)
MD-2A-F33S MT-2A-F33S
MD-1A-F66S MT-1A-F66S
A GFRP Mesh S (66x66mm) A GFRP Mesh S (66x66mm)
MD-2A-F66S MT-2A-F66S
MD-1A-F99S MT-1A-F66SL
A GFRP Mesh S (99x99mm) A GFRP Mesh S (66x66mm), single side
MD-2A-F99S MT-2A-F66SL
MD-1A-S150 MT-1A-F66D
A Steel Mesh Φ5 (150x150mm) A GFRP Mesh D (66x66mm)
MD-2A-S150 MT-2A-F66D
MD-1A-S200 MT-1A-F99D
A Steel Mesh Φ6 (200x200mm) A GFRP Mesh D (99x99mm)
MD-2A-S200 MT-2A-F99D
MD 1C MT-1A-S150
C - A Steel Mesh Φ5 (150x150mm)
MD 2C MT-2A-S150
MD-1C-F33S MT-1B
C GFRP Mesh S (33x33mm) B -
MD-2C-F33S MT-2B
MD-1C-F66S MT-1B-F99D
C GFRP Mesh S (66x66mm) B GFRP Mesh D (99x99mm)
MD-2C-F66S MT-2B-F99D
MD-1C-F99S
C GFRP Mesh S (99x99mm)
MD-2C-F99S

Two leaf solid brick masonry with rubble-mound structure Rubble stone masonry
MS-1A MP-1A
A - A -
MS-2A MP-2A
MS-1A-66S MP-1A-33S
A GFRP Mesh S (66x66mm) A GFRP Mesh S (33x33mm)
MS-2A-66S MP-2A-33S
MS-1A-99S MP-1A-66S
A GFRP Mesh S (99x99mm) A GFRP Mesh S (66x66mm)
MS-2A-99S MP-2A-66S
MS-1B MP-1A-66SL
B - A GFRP Mesh S (66x66mm), single side
MS-2B MP-2A-66SL
MS-1B-33S MP-1A-66D
B GFRP Mesh S (33x33mm) A GFRP Mesh D (66x66mm)
MS-2B-33S MP-2A-66D
MS-1B-66S MP-1B
B GFRP Mesh S (66x66mm) B -
MS-2B-66S MP-2B

8th International Masonry Conference Dresden 2010 5

N. GATTESCO, A. DUDINE

Figure 2. Experimental apparatus.

2.5. Test results

As stated above 62 masonry specimens were subjected to compression diagonal test. The loading
procedure includes a sequence of loading-unloading cycles with steps of 25 kN up to reaching the
peak load, then the test was tentatively controlled at displacement steps.
The four groups of specimens were tested after at least 28 days air curing of both masonry and
coating. Some mortar specimens were tested at the same time of the compression diagonal tests but
did not evidenced appreciable differences in strength.
For each group of specimens it was first tested the couple of unstrengthened samples and then the
different types of strengthened specimens. The curves representing the diagonal load P in function of
the average diagonal strain in the load direction c concerning some specimens of the four groups are
plotted in Figure 3. In particular the curves displayed in Figure 3a refer to solid brick masonry with 250
mm thickness, the curves plotted in Figure 3b concern solid brick masonry specimens with 380 mm
thickness, the curves displayed in Figure 3c refer to two-leaf solid brick masonry with rubble-mound
structure and the curves plotted in Figure 3d concern rubble stone masonry specimens.
The curves were stopped at a value of the compressive strain equal to 0.005 because it corresponds
approximately to the occurrence of masonry spalling in the compression tests on masonry samples.
The behaviour of unreinforced brick masonry (250 mm and 380 mm) evidenced a sudden drop in
resistance after the occurrence of the diagonal crack, conserving a very limited residual resistance
(Figure 3a,b). The diagonal cracks follow the mortar joints and no bricks were broken. The reinforced
specimens evidenced a considerable increment of the peak resistance and, after the diagonal crack
occurred, the curves show a plastic behaviour with a very limited softening (Figure 3a,b). When the
average compressive strain reached 0.005 the residual resistance was in almost all cases greater
than 50% of the peak value.
The specimens with a stronger GFRP mesh evidenced a lower negative slope of the curves after
peak (MD-2A-F33, MD-2A-F66, MT-1A-F33S, MT-1A-F66D). The curves of the specimens reinforced
with the steel mesh showed a behaviour comparable with that of specimens strengthened with GFRP
mesh (Figure 3a,b). Similar results were obtained also for specimens made with two-leaf brick
masonry and rubble mound structure. Actually, in these cases, a more pronounced drop in resistance
was noted after the occurrence of the diagonal crack (Figure 3c). However, a residual resistance
greater than 50% of the peak value was also noted at c=0.005. In the unstrengthened specimens,
besides the diagonal crack, formed also vertical cracks in the plane of the masonry separating the
three masonry layers (side leafs and internal rubble mound structure).

6 8th International Masonry Conference Dresden 2010

 Effectiveness of masonry strengthening technique made with a GFRP-mesh-reinforced mortar coating

600 600
MT-1A
Solid brick masonry MD-2A Solid brick masonry
MT-1A-F33S
(thickness 250mm) MD-2A-F33S (thickness 380mm)
MT-1A-F66S
500 MD-2A-F66S 500
MT-1A-F66D
MD-1A-F99S MT-1A-F99D

diagonal load P [kN]

diagonal load P [kN]

MD-2A-S150 MT-1A-S150
400 MD-2A-S200 400

300 300

200 200

100 100

0 0
0.000 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005
compressive strain c compressive strain c
(a) (b)
600 600
two leaf solid brick masonry MS-2A rubble stone masonry MP-2A
with rubble-mound structure MS-1A-F66S MP-1A-F33S
500 500
MS-1A-F99S MP-2A-F66S
diagonal load P [kN]
diagonal load P [kN]

MP-1A-F66D

400 400

300 300

200 200

100 100

0 0
0.000 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005
compressive strain c compressive strain c
(c) (d)
Figure 3. Diagonal load versus compressive strain curves: (a) solid brick masonry (250 mm), (b)
solid brick masonry (380 mm), (c) two leaf solid brick masonry, (d) rubble stone masonry.

The unreinforced specimens made with rubble stones did not show any sudden drop in resistance
after the maximum load but only a slowly decreasing in resistance (Figure 3d). The behaviour of
reinforced specimens showed a softening branch after the maximum load value with a very low slope,
especially in the case strengthened with a GFRP mesh type D (66x66 mm grid). A crack pattern
similar to that of brick specimens was found also for rubble stone masonry specimens.
The specimens with on one side coating showed lower effectiveness and deformed out of the plane.

3 ANALYSIS OF THE RESULTS

The diagonal compression tests provide useful data for the evaluation of the shear resistance of
masonry piers. The following relation is used for determining the shear resistance V of masonry piers
0
V  I  b  t  1  (1)
I

where b and t are the width and the thickness of the pier, 0 is the stress due to vertical loads and I
is the principal tensile stress. Such a stress I may be derived from the results of diagonal
compression tests, considering the observations and suggestions reported in [9].

8th International Masonry Conference Dresden 2010 7

N. GATTESCO, A. DUDINE

Table 4. Diagonal compression test results.

Pmax P05 σI εspl σI,5 σI (R) / σI (U) σI,5 (R) / σI,5 (U)
Specimen
[kN] [kN] [MPa] [‰] [MPa] [MPa] [MPa]
Solid brick masonry (thickness 250 mm)
MD-1A 214.19 19.65 0.369 0.18 0.035 - -
MD-2A 169.54 15.23 0.292 0.24 0.032 - -
MD-1A-F33S 389.37 224.27 0.671 0.12 0.534 2.03 15.91
MD-2A-F33S 371.73 244.47 0.641 0.14 0.597 1.94 17.79
MD-1A-F66S 372.48 251.57 0.642 0.33 0.488 1.94 14.55
MD-2A-F66S 419.78 173.86 0.724 0.54 0.488 2.19 14.54
MD-1A-F99S 422.95 134.06 0.729 0.27 0.438 2.20 13.06
MD-2A-F99S 400.34 180.96 0.690 0.30 0.389 2.09 11.59
MD-1A-S150 324.56 152.29 0.560 0.58 0.334 1.69 9.94
MD-2A-S150 339.34 221.86 0.585 0.19 0.466 1.77 13.89
MD-1A-S200 406.77 214.18 0.701 0.72 0.423 2.12 12.59
MD-2A-S200 397.97 220.38 0.686 0.22 0.413 2.07 12.31
MD 1C 275.10 21.24 0.474 0.15 0.037 - -
MD 2C 238.80 24.57 0.412 0.12 0.039 - -
MD-1C-F33S 420.80 229.16 0.726 0.22 0.450 1.64 11.83
MD-2C-F33S 412.89 211.34 0.712 0.44 0.543 1.61 14.28
MD-1C-F66S 474.58 226.13 0.818 0.59 0.458 1.85 12.05
MD-2C-F66S 505.96 170.06 0.872 0.55 0.456 1.97 11.99
MD-1C-F99S 469.56 113.29 0.810 0.13 0.314 1.83 8.26
MD-2C-F99S 539.67 234.05 0.930 0.43 0.522 2.10 13.73

Solid brick masonry (thickness 380 mm)

MT-1A 258.86 46.12 0.294 0.22 0.062 - -
MT-2A 312.59 57.32 0.355 0.32 0.071 - -
MT-1A-F33S 478.82 299.04 0.543 0.28 0.323 1.68 4.88
MT-2A-F33S 481.97 300.09 0.547 0.21 0.373 1.69 5.63
MT-1A-F66S 530.38 312.10 0.602 0.34 0.387 1.86 5.86
MT-2A-F66S 434.51 267.67 0.493 0.23 0.358 1.52 5.41
MT-1A-F66SL 385.85 - 0.438 - - 1.35 -
MT-2A-F66SL 349.10 - 0.396 - - 1.22 -
MT-1A-F66D 548.27 381.23 0.622 0.36 0.457 1.92 6.91
MT-2A-F66D 575.38 307.38 0.653 0.20 0.432 2.01 6.54
MT-1A-F99D 457.39 214.98 0.519 0.11 0.284 1.60 4.29
MT-2A-F99D 414.42 214.84 0.470 0.16 0.293 1.45 4.43
MT-1A-S150 498.02 235.57 0.565 0.12 0.357 1.74 5.39
MT-2A-S150 404.12 258.68 0.458 0.13 0.336 1.41 5.07
MT-1B 242.67 39.86 0.275 0.20 0.053 - -
MT-2B 285.98 43.78 0.324 0.15 0.059 - -
MT-1B-F99D 413.92 154.72 0.470 0.13 0.257 1.57 4.60
MT-2B-F99D 315.69 171.69 0.358 0.17 0.228 1.19 4.07

Two leaf solid brick masonry with rubble-mound structure

MS-1A 221.92 71.69 0.252 0.07 0.084 - -
MS-2A 202.63 64.18 0.230 0.04 0.083 - -
MS-1A-66S 354.68 197.32 0.402 0.15 0.255 1.67 3.06
MS-2A-66S 338.88 155.08 0.384 0.11 0.208 1.60 2.49
MS-1A-99S 370.49 179.15 0.420 0.07 0.235 1.75 2.82
MS-2A-99S 309.55 175.41 0.351 0.11 0.215 1.46 2.57
MS-1B 177.48 53.71 0.201 0.07 0.072 - -
MS-2B 170.40 49.55 0.193 0.05 0.068 - -
MS-1B-33S 292.30 144.10 0.332 0.09 0.218 1.68 3.11
MS-2B-33S 301.05 142.53 0.341 0.23 0.219 1.73 3.13
MS-1B-66S 249.94 176.48 0.284 0.34 0.243 1.44 3.47
MS-2B-66S 252.85 173.56 0.287 0.76 0.206 1.45 2.94

Rubble stone masonry

MP-1A 135.66 61.75 0.102 0.98 0.067 - -
MP-2A 126.36 49.90 0.095 0.34 0.051 - -
MP-1A-33S 388.01 245.37 0.293 1.07 0.257 2.96 4.37
MP-2A-33S 359.97 266.61 0.272 1.42 0.225 2.75 3.82
MP-1A-66S 331.89 256.43 0.250 0.97 0.201 2.53 3.42
MP-2A-66S 366.35 233.29 0.276 0.73 0.219 2.80 3.72
MP-1A-66SL 196.47 - 0.148 - - 1.50 -
MP-2A-66SL 189.81 - 0.143 - - 1.45 -
MP-1A-66D 410.68 307.57 0.310 1.12 0.271 3.13 4.61
MP-2A-66D 398.24 313.31 0.300 1.30 0.262 3.04 4.44
MP-1B 117.19 42.87 0.088 1.19 0.048 - -
MP-2B 114.99 39.76 0.087 0.37 0.041 - -

8 8th International Masonry Conference Dresden 2010

 Effectiveness of masonry strengthening technique made with a GFRP-mesh-reinforced mortar coating

In particular the following relationship has to be used

P
I    . (2)
bt

The coefficient  is equal to 0.5, for solid brick masonry, and  is equal to 0.35, for rubble stone
masonry [9]. With Equation (2) it is possible to evaluate the equivalent principal tensile stress I as a
function of the tensile strain for all tests carried out in this study. The main results concerning all
specimens tested are summarized in Table 4.
In Figure 4a,b the curves of the principal tensile stress I versus the average tensile strain t,
concerning the specimens made with solid bricks (250 mm) and with rubble stones, are plotted. The
average tensile strain is determined from the displacement measured by the transducers in the
direction perpendicular to the force direction. Actually this displacement is mainly due to the opening
of diagonal cracks. The maximum tensile strain indicated in the plots corresponds to approximately 5
mm crack width.
In the second and third columns of Table 4 are reported the maximum load Pmax and the residual
resistance P05 at an average compressive strain c equal to 0.005. The maximum equivalent principal
tensile stress I and the corresponding tensile strain spl (splitting strain) are reported in column four
and five, respectively. In the sixth column of Table 4 the residual equivalent tensile stress I,5 at a
crack opening equal to 5 mm is reported. Finally, in the last two columns of the table, the ratio
between the equivalent principal tensile stress of the strengthened specimens and the principal
tensile stress of unreinforced specimens evaluated at peak value and in correspondence of a crack
width equal to 5 mm are listed, respectively.
The maximum equivalent principal tensile stress of strengthened specimens with respect to that of
unstrengthened specimens resulted almost doubled, for solid brick masonry (250 mm), approximately
60% greater, for solid brick masonry (380 mm) and two-leaf brick with rubble-mound structure and
almost three times, for rubble stone masonry. The residual tensile stresses at a crack width equal to 5
mm of strengthened specimens, with respect to those unreinforced, is from 4 times, for rubble stone
masonry to more than 12, for 250 mm thick solid brick masonry.
These results show a good effectiveness of the strengthening technique with GFRP reinforced
surface mortar coatings due to the significant increase in maximum resistance and to the
considerable energy dissipating capacity after the occurrence of the cracks.

0.75 0.75
Solid brick masonry rubble stone masonry MP-2A
(thickness 250mm)
[MPa]

[MPa]

MP-1A-F33S
MP-2A-F66S
MP-1A-F66D
I

0.50 0.50
principal tensile stress

principal tensile stress

MD-2A
MD-2A-F33S

0.25 MD-2A-F66S 0.25

MD-1A-F99S
MD-2A-S150
MD-2A-S200

0.00 0.00
0.000 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005
tensile strain t tensile strain t
(a) (b)

Figure 4. Principal tensile stress – tensile strain curves: (a) solid brick masonry (thickness 250mm),
(b) rubble stone masonry.

8th International Masonry Conference Dresden 2010 9

N. GATTESCO, A. DUDINE

4 CONCLUSIONS
A broad experimental campaign was carried out on four groups of masonry specimens strengthened
with a mortar coating reinforced with GFRP meshes. The groups concern: a) solid brick masonry 250
mm thick, b) solid masonry 380 mm thick, c) two-leaf solid bricks with rubble-mound structure, d)
rubble stone masonry. Three different types of lime mortars and five different GFRP meshes were
used for masonry specimens. Moreover, for comparison, some specimens strengthened with a
coating reinforced with steel meshes were also considered.
Diagonal compression tests were carried out to evidence the effectiveness of the strengthening
technique applied which allowed drawing the following conclusions.
The equivalent maximum principal tensile strength of strengthened samples with respect to
unstrengthened ones resulted almost doubled in the group of solid brick masonry 250 mm thick and
around 1.6 times greater for the groups of solid bricks 380 mm thick and two-leaf solid bricks with
rubble-mound structure. For rubble stone masonry the increase in strengthened specimens was
almost tripled.
At the formation of diagonal crack the tensile resistance did not suddenly drop down, as occurred for
brick unstrengthened samples, but reduced gradually maintaining significant residual resistance up to
large values of the deformation (50% of the peak value at 5 mm crack opening).
Good effectiveness of the strengthening technique may be considered and the failure of the wires of
the GFRP mesh started to occur when the crack opening was more than 10 mm.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This paper is based on part of the results of a research project financed by the composite engineering
factory FibreNet s.r.l., Udine, Italy. The useful help provided by Dr. Andrea Cernigoi, technician of the
Laboratory of Testing Materials, University of Trieste, during the execution of tests is gratefully
acknowledged.

REFERENCES
[1] Tomazevic, M.; Weiss, P.: Lutman, M.; Influence of floors and connection of walls on seismic
resistance of old brick masonry buildings, Institute for testing and research in materials and
structures, ZAG, Ljubljana, 1994.
[2] Gattesco, N.; Macorini, L.; Benussi, F.; High reversibility strengthening techniques for wooden
floors to improve the seismic resistance of ancient masonry buildings, XII Conference “Seismic
Engineering in Italy”, ANIDIS 2007, 10-14 june 2007, Pisa.
[3] Tomazevic, M.; Apih, V.: The strengthening of stone masonry walls by injecting the masonry-
friendly grouts, European Earthquake Engineering, 1, 10-20, 1993.
[4] Tomazevic, M.; Sheppard, P.; The strengthening of stone-masonry buildings for revitalizing in
seismic regions, 7th European Conference on Earthquake engineering, Athens, Vol. 5, 285-282,
1982.
[5] Valluzzi, M.R.; Tinazzi, D; and Modena, C.: Shear behaviour of masonry panels strengthened
by FRP laminates, Construction and Building Materials, Elservier, (16), 409-416, 2002.
[6] Triantafillou, T.C.: Strengthening of masonry structures using epoxy-bonded FRP laminates,
Journal of Composite Construction ASCE, 2(2), 96-104, 1998.
[7] Aiello, M.A.; Micelli, F.; Valente, L.; Masonry confinement by using composite reinforcement,
Proc. 4th International Conference on Conceptual Approach to Structural Desing, Venice, 2007.
[8] Corradi, M.; Borri, A.; and Vignoli, A.: Experimental evaluation of the in-plane shear behaviour of
masonry walls retrofitted using conventional and innovative methods, Journal of the British
Masonry Society, 21(1), 29-42, 2008.
[9] Brignola, S.; Frumento, S.; Lagomarsino, S.; Podestà, S.; Identification of shear parameters of
masonry panels through the in-situ diagonal compression test, Int. J. of Arch. Herit., 3, 52-73,
2009.

10 8th International Masonry Conference Dresden 2010