applied

sciences
Article
Compressive and Diagonal Tension Strengths of Masonry
Prisms Strengthened with Amorphous Steel Fiber-Reinforced
Mortar Overlay
Ji-Hoon Yu 1 and Ji-Hun Park 2, *

1 Hanwool Structural Engineering, Seoul 04589, Korea; [email protected]

2 Division of Architecture and Urban Design, Incheon National University, Incheon 22012, Korea
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +82-32-835-8474

Abstract: A technique for strengthening masonry walls by plastering with amorphous steel fiber-
reinforced mortar (ASFRM) is investigated through compressive and diagonal tension tests for
masonry prisms. The vertical joint between masonry units was not completely filled with mortar
to mimic poor workmanship, which is typically reflected in low-cost buildings. The test variables
include the number and thickness of mortar overlays, fiber volume fraction, and additional reinforce-
ment using glass fiber mesh or shear connectors. In most strengthened specimens, the ASFRM is not
damaged but separated from the masonry prisms after its maximum strength is reached. Additional
tests for the bond strength between the ASFRM overlay and masonry surface are conducted to
evaluate its contribution to the strengthening effects. Based on experimental observations, equations
for predicting the compressive and diagonal tension strengths of masonry prisms strengthened with
ASFRM are proposed. The compressive strength can be predicted more accurately by considering the





 asymmetrical distribution of compressive stress when strengthening is performed on only one side.
Citation: Yu, J.-H.; Park, J.-H. The diagonal tension strength after strengthening can be predicted by incorporating the contribution
Compressive and Diagonal Tension of the bond strength between the ASFRM overlay and masonry prism to the initial strength.
Strengths of Masonry Prisms
Strengthened with Amorphous Steel Keywords: masonry prism; fiber-reinforced mortar; amorphous steel fiber; compressive strength;
Fiber-Reinforced Mortar Overlay. diagonal tension strength
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5974. https://
doi.org/10.3390/app11135974

Academic Editor: André Furtado 1. Introduction

Unreinforced masonry is a representative structural component that is vulnerable to
Received: 27 May 2021
earthquakes. Significant structural damage and collapse of masonry buildings accompa-
Accepted: 24 June 2021
Published: 27 June 2021
nied by significant property loss and casualties were observed in many past earthquake
events [1,2]. One reason for such severe damage is that many masonry buildings are
composed of unreinforced masonry walls, as these buildings were designed before the
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
establishment of seismic design codes or are exempted from seismic design requirements
published maps and institutional affil-
owing to their relatively small sizes. Masonry supports gravity loads effectively by its
iations. compressive strength but cannot sustain combined stresses owing to its low tensile strength
and brittle behavior. Diverse modeling techniques have been developed for unreinforced
masonry structures using refined finite elements or macro-elements [3]. In addition, inno-
vative survey techniques using 3D laser scanning or digital photogrammetry have been
developed and combined with seismic performance assessment based on the finite element
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
modeling [4,5].
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
Considering the vulnerability of unreinforced masonry buildings is necessary; how-
distributed under the terms and
ever, a retrofit technique that enables a low-cost and short duration construction is required
conditions of the Creative Commons to promote the voluntary retrofit of such buildings, which are typically privately owned.
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// Among the many retrofit techniques for masonry buildings, strengthening masonry walls
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ by attaching or plastering reinforcement materials such as fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP)
4.0/).

Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5974. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11135974 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5974 2 of 23

or mortar reinforced with a fiber mesh is advantageous in that implementation can be per-
formed outside the building, thereby enabling retrofitting while the buildings are occupied.
Yang et al. [6] tested masonry walls strengthened with glass fiber grids and prestressed
steel bars subjected to cyclic loading. Ismail et al. [7] tested masonry wallettes reinforced
with twisted steel bars inserted in grooves formed on mortar joints or brick surfaces and
evaluated the improvement in ductility. Silva et al. [8] verified the strength and ductility
of unreinforced masonry strengthened with lime grout injection. Taghdi et al. [9] and
Darbhanzi et al. [10] attached steel strips to existing masonry walls in a diagonal or vertical
direction and anchored their ends to adjacent existing structural components. Ghiassi
et al. conducted both numerical and experimental studies on the bond-slip behavior of
FRP materials for strengthening masonry [11]. Bae et al. [12] conducted cyclic loading
tests on masonry walls strengthened with FRP sheets. Choi et al. [13] sprayed engineered
cementitious composites reinforced with polyvinyl alcohol fibers on masonry walls and
observed an increase in the strength and ductility under cyclic loading. In addition,
D’Ambrisi et al., Almeida et al., Mustafaraj et al. and Benedetti [14–17] investigated diverse
strengthening techniques for masonry walls by plastering high-strength mortar or mortar
reinforced with diverse fibers or meshes such as carbon fiber mesh, polymeric net, and glass
fiber reinforced polymer mesh. Krevaikas, and Ombres and Verre investigated confinement
effect obtained with fabric reinforced cementitious mortar jackets for masonry columns
experimentally and proposed methods to predict enhanced axial strengths [18,19].
This study investigates the performance and key mechanical properties of masonry
strengthened with an amorphous steel fiber-reinforced mortar (ASFRM) overlay. Among
the various fibers used in concrete or mortar mixtures, amorphous steel (AS) fibers are
adopted because of their superior bonding characteristics and relatively short and thin
shapes, which are suitable for plastering small thicknesses. Although existing studies have
typically utilized mortar overlays reinforced with grid-type meshes, only AS fibers are used
as the main reinforcement material in this study. The mesh can be excluded because steel
fibers exhibit high strength and stiffness compared with organic fibers such as polyethylene
(PE) and polypropylene. Hence, the installation of the proposed ASFRM overlay can be
completed via merely plastering and is easier to accomplish around the opening compared
with the installation of meshes.
In previous studies by the authors, a recommended mixing ratio for an ASFRM was
derived, and the corresponding strengthening effects were demonstrated for masonry
prisms, which were created with good workmanship, i.e., both bed and head joints were
filled compactly with mortar [20]. However, in actual bricklaying, sufficient mortar is
spread on the bed joints only, and efforts to fill head joints are insufficient. In this study,
masonry prisms in hollow red clay bricks whose head joints were intentionally not filled
were strengthened and tested to reproduce the bricklaying practice. Various test variables
were considered, including the number and thickness of mortar overlays, fiber volume
fraction, and additional reinforcement using mesh or shear connectors. In addition, tests
for the bond strength between the ASFRM overlay and masonry surface were conducted
to evaluate the contribution of the bond strength to the diagonal tension strength. The test
results were combined with other experimental results of masonry in solid concrete bricks
reported by Yu et al. [21,22] to derive design equations for the compressive and diagonal
tension strengths. The design equations consider the asymmetrical stress distribution
and the contribution of bond strength to the compressive strength based on experimental
observations.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: First, a test program including the
experimental setup, material properties, and specimen characteristics is described. Second,
the test results for compressive, diagonal tension, and bond strengths are described in
terms of improved strength and damage characteristics. Third, design equations to predict
enhanced strength are proposed based on experimental observations and verified with the
test results. Finally, strength modification factors based on the statistics of the test results
are presented.
 Second, the test results for compressive, diagonal tension, and bond strengths are de-
scribed in terms of improved strength and damage characteristics. Third, design equa-
tions to predict enhanced strength are proposed based on experimental observations and
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5974 verified with the test results. Finally, strength modification factors based on the statistics
3 of 23
of the test results are presented.

2. Experimental Program
2. Experimental Program
Tests for the compressive and diagonal tension strengths of hollow red clay brick
Tests for the compressive and diagonal tension strengths of hollow red clay brick
masonry prisms were conducted to investigate the strengthening effects of the ASFRM. In
masonry prisms were conducted to investigate the strengthening effects of the ASFRM.
addition, the bond strength at the interface of the ASFRM overlay and masonry layer was
In addition, the bond strength at the interface of the ASFRM overlay and masonry layer
measured to evaluate the contribution of the bond strength to the diagonal tension
was measured to evaluate the contribution of the bond strength to the diagonal tension
strength. The test setup, test variables, and preparation of the specimens are described in
strength. The test setup, test variables, and preparation of the specimens are described in
this section.
this section.
2.1.
2.1.Test
TestSetup
SetupandandInstrumentation
Instrumentation
2.1.1.
2.1.1.Test
Testfor
forCompressive
Compressiveand and Diagonal
Diagonal Tension
Tension Strength
Tests
Tests for
for the
the compressive
compressive and and diagonal
diagonal tension
tension strengths
strengths of
of masonry
masonry prisms
prisms were
were
conducted
conductedin inaccordance
accordancewith withASTM
ASTMC1314C1314and andASTM
ASTME519 E519[23,24].
[23,24].The
Thetest
testsetup
setupcom-
com-
prising
prising aa universal
universal testing
testing machine
machine for for the
the compressive
compressive strength
strength and
and diagonal
diagonal tension
tension
strength is shown
strength shownininFigure
Figure 1a,b, respectively.
1a,b, respectively.For For
diagonal tension
diagonal strength
tension tests, V-shaped
strength tests, V-
zigs satisfying
shaped the requirements
zigs satisfying of ASTM
the requirements E519 were
of ASTM E519used
weretoused
support a masonry
to support prism
a masonry
rotated
prism by 45◦by
rotated at45°
theattop
theand
topbottom. The monotonic
and bottom. The monotonicloading protocol
loading was applied
protocol with
was applied
displacement
with displacementcontrol at 1atand
control 1 and0.60.6
mm/min
mm/minfor forthe
thecompressive
compressive andand diagonal tension
tension
strengthtests,
strength tests,respectively.
respectively. Monotonic
Monotonicloading
loadingwas wasterminated
terminated when
whenthetheresistance
resistance of
ofthe
the
specimen decreased to less than 70%
specimen decreased to less than 70% of the peak.of the peak.

(a) (b)
Figure
Figure 1.
1. Test setup for
Test setup for determining
determiningstrengths
strengthsofofmasonry
masonryprisms:
prisms:(a)(a)Compressive
Compressive strength;
strength; (b)(b)
di-
diagonal tensionstrength.
agonal tension strength.

The
Thecompressive
compressivedeformation
deformationof ofthe
theprism
prismwaswasmeasured
measuredusing
usinglinear
linearvariable
variabledis-
dis-
placement
placementtransducers
transducers(LVDTs)
(LVDTs)installed
installedononthe
thefront
frontand
andback
backof
ofthe
thespecimens
specimensin incom-
com-
pressive
pressivestrength
strengthtests.
tests.Vertical
Verticaland
andhorizontal
horizontaldeformations
deformationswere
weremeasured
measuredusing
usingLVDTs
LVDTs
attached
attachedto
tothe
thefront
frontandandback
backof
ofthe
thespecimens
specimensin inthe
thediagonal
diagonaltension
tensiontests.
tests.Deformations
Deformations
were
were measured
measured at at the
the front
front and
and back
back of the specimens and averaged. The The compressive
compressive
and
anddiagonal
diagonaltension
tensionstrengths
strengthsasaswell
wellasasthe
theelastic
elasticand
andshear
shearmoduli
moduliwere
were calculated
calculated in
in
accordancewith
accordance withASTM
ASTMC1314C1314and
andASTM
ASTM E519,
E519, asas described
described by
by Yu
Yu et al. [21].

2.1.2.Test
2.1.2. Testfor
forBond
BondStrength
Strength
Thetest
The testsetup
setuptoto determine
determinethe the bond
bond strength
strength at
at the
the interface
interface between
between thethe ASFRM
ASFRM
overlay and masonry layer is illustrated in Figure 2. The test specimen was the
overlay and masonry layer is illustrated in Figure 2. The test specimen was the same prism same prism
usedin
used inthe
thetests
testsfor
forthe
thecompressive
compressivestrength;
strength;however,
however, thethe specimen
specimen was
was set
set up
upwith
withbed
bed
joints in the vertical direction. The masonry unit in the middle of the prism was loaded
by pushing downward, and supports were installed below both the left- and right-hand
side masonry units in the specimen. For the strengthened specimen, vertical loading was
applied only to the masonry unit to avoid loading the ASFRM overlay directly.
 joints in the vertical direction. The masonry unit in the middle of the prism was loaded by
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5974
pushing downward, and supports were installed below both the left- and right-hand 4side of 23
masonry units in the specimen. For the strengthened specimen, vertical loading was ap-
plied only to the masonry unit to avoid loading the ASFRM overlay directly.

(a) (b)
Figure
Figure2.2.Test setup
Test forfor
setup determining bond
determining strength
bond between
strength masonry
between layer
masonry and and
layer ASFRM overlay:
ASFRM (a)
overlay:
Loading scheme;
(a) Loading (b) Instrumentation.
scheme; (b) Instrumentation.

2.2.Test
2.2. TestVariables
Variablesand
andCharacteristics
CharacteristicsofofSpecimens
Specimens
2.2.1.Test
2.2.1. Testfor
forCompressive
CompressiveandandDiagonal
DiagonalTension
TensionStrengths
Strengths
Thetest
The testprogram
programused
usedtotoinvestigate
investigatethe
thestrengthening
strengtheningeffects
effectsofofthe
theASFRM
ASFRMoverlay
overlay
in terms of the compressive and diagonal tension strengths is summarized in Table 1.1.The
in terms of the compressive and diagonal tension strengths is summarized in Table The
meaning of the notations used for the specimens is provided in the footnote of Table 1.1.
meaning of the notations used for the specimens is provided in the footnote of Table
Varioustest
Various testvariables
variableswere
wereconsidered
consideredtotoinvestigate
investigatethe
theoverlay
overlayandandinstallation
installationdetails
details
more comprehensively for strengthening the red clay hollow brick masonry. The basic
more comprehensively for strengthening the red clay hollow brick masonry. The basic test
test variables were the number of sides strengthened with the ASFRM on masonry prisms
variables were the number of sides strengthened with the ASFRM on masonry prisms
(one or both sides) and the thickness of the mortar overlay (20 or 30 mm). The glass fiber
(one or both sides) and the thickness of the mortar overlay (20 or 30 mm). The glass fiber
mesh used by Almeida et al. [15] was applied to a number of specimens, of which some
mesh used by Almeida et al. [15] was applied to a number of specimens, of which some
were reinforced with glass fiber mesh only (D-NM-30S and D-NM-30B), whereas others
were reinforced with glass fiber mesh only (D-NM-30S and D-NM-30B), whereas others
were reinforced with both AS fibers and glass fiber mesh (D-SFM-30S and B, D-SFM-30S).
were reinforced with both AS fibers and glass fiber mesh (D-SFM-30S and B, D-SFM-30S).
Although AS fibers were applied to most specimens as a reinforcement material for mortar
Although AS fibers were applied to most specimens as a reinforcement material for mor-
overlays, PE fibers combined with a glass fiber mesh used in Lee et al. (2008) [25] replaced
tar overlays, PE fibers combined with a glass fiber mesh used in Lee et al. (2008) [25] re-
AS fibers in some specimens to perform a comparison (D-PEM-30S and D-PEM-30B). In
placed AS fibers in some specimens to perform a comparison (D-PEM-30S and D-PEM-
addition, shear connectors were installed at the interface between the ASFRM overlay
30B). In addition, shear connectors were installed at the interface between the ASFRM
and masonry layer for a number of specimens under diagonal tension tests to provide
overlay andresistance
additional masonry inlayer for a to
addition number of specimens
bond strength under diagonal
of the strengthening tension
mortar tests to
(D-SFA-30S
provide additionalCommercially
and D-SFA-30B). resistance in addition
availabletoscrew
bondbolts
strength
wereofadopted
the strengthening
for the shear mortar (D-
connector,
SFA-30S and D-SFA-30B). Commercially available screw bolts were adopted
and four screw bolts per overlay-to-masonry interface were installed in drilled holes andfor the shear
connector,
filled withand fourresin.
epoxy screw bolts per overlay-to-masonry interface were installed in drilled
holes and filled with epoxy resin.
Table 1. Test program and specimens.
Table 1. Test program and specimens.
FRM Glass Fiber Shear Overlay 1 Number of
Type of Test FRM Fibers Glass Fiber Connector
Shear Overlay Thick- Specimen Name 1 Number of
Type of Test Overlay Fibers Mesh Thickness Specimen Name Specimens
Overlay Mesh Connector ness Specimens
- - - - - C-P 3
- - - - - C-P 3
- - 20 C-SF-20S 2
One side ASF - - - - 20
30 C-SF-20S
C-SF-30S 23
Compressive One side ASF O - - - 30
30 C-SFM-30S
C-SF-30S 32
Compressive - O - - 20
30 C-SF-20B
C-SFM-30S 22
Two sides ASF - - 30 C-SF-30B 3
- - 20 C-SF-20B 2
O - 30 C-SFM-30B 1
Two sides ASF - - 30 C-SF-30B 3
O - 30 C-SFM-30B 1
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5974 5 of 23

Table 1. Cont.

FRM Glass Fiber Shear Overlay Number of

Type of Test Fibers Specimen Name 1
Overlay Mesh Connector Thickness Specimens
- - - - - D-P 3
- O - 30 D-NM-30S 2
- - 20 D-SF-20S 2
- - 30 D-SF-30S 3
One side ASF
- O 30 D-SFA-30S 2
O - 30 D-SFM-30S 2
Diagonal tension PE O - 30 D-PEM-30S 2
- O - 30 D-NM-30B 2
- - 20 D-SF-20B 2
- - 30 D-SF-30B 3
Two sides ASF
- O 30 D-SFA-30B 2
O - 30 D-SFM-30B 2
PE O - 30 D-PEM-30B 2
1Specimen name: (Example) C-SFM-30S. C: Compressive; D: Diagonal tension; P: Plain; SF: Amorphous steel fiber; PE: Polyethylene, N:
non-fiber; M: reinforced with mesh; A: Reinforced with anchor; 20: 20 mm thickness; 30: 30 mm thickness; S: one side; B: two sides.

2.2.2. Test for Bond Strength

The test program to determine the bond strength between the ASFRM overlay and
masonry layer is summarized in Table 2. The expected plane of bond failure in the specimen
strengthened with the ASFRM overlay set, as shown in Figure 2, included a mortar bed
joint between masonry units; this is because the compressive force exerted on the middle
masonry unit was transferred to the supports through both the bed joint and overlay-to-
masonry interface. Therefore, masonry prisms without ASFRM overlays were included in
the specimens to measure the bed joint shear strength between the masonry units.

Table 2. Test program and specimen for bond strength tests.

Number of Specimens
Type of the Brick B-P B-SF-30S B-SF-30B
(Plain) (One-Side Overlay) (Two-Side Overlay)
Clay brick 3 3 3

2.3. Preparation of Specimens

2.3.1. Mixing Ratio of ASFRM
The mixing ratio of the fiber-reinforced mortar (FRM) is listed in Table 3. The proper-
ties of the AS fiber were those reported by Yu et al. [20]. The mixing ratio of the ASFRM
used in this study was based on previous experimental studies. Yu et al. recommended a
mixing ratio that considers both strength and suitability for performing plastering based
on flow tests, suitability tests for plastering, and compressive and tensile strength tests [20].
Regarding the mixing ratio of polyethylene fiber-reinforced mortar (PEFRM), the fiber
volume fraction is the same as that of the ASFRM, and the water-to-cement ratio is based
on the suitability test for plastering, similar to that of the ASFRM. The mechanical proper-
ties of both types of FRMs are provided in Table 3. The strength and elastic modulus of
the ASFRM were higher than those of the PEFRM. In particular, the tensile strength was
doubled by using AS fibers compared with using PE fibers.
 Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5974 6 of 23

Table 3. Mixing ratio and properties of fiber reinforced mortar [22].

Table 3. Mixing ratio and properties of fiber reinforced mortar [22].
Strength Modu
Cement: Fiber Volume
Strength (MPa)
Fiber W/C (%) 2
Modulus of Elas
Cement: Sand
2
1 Fiber Volume Fraction (MPa)
(%) 3
Fiber 1 W/C (%) 3 Compressive Elasticity
Tensile (M
Sand Fraction (%)
Compressive Tensile (MPa)
ASF 1:1 35 2.0 63 7.7 92
ASF 1:1 35 2.0 63 7.7 9260
PE 1:1 38 2.0 49 3.8 78
PE 1:1 38 2.0 49 3.8 7843
1 Volume ratio; 2 Water–cement weight ratio; 3 Volume ratio to mortar.
1 2 3
Volume ratio; Water–cement weight ratio; Volume ratio to mortar.

2.3.2. Masonry Prisms

2.3.2. Masonry Prisms
Masonry prismsMasonry prismscompressive
for conducting for conducting compressive
and diagonal and
tension diagonal
strength teststension
were strengt
created in accordance with ASTM C1314 and ASTM E519, respectively, as illustrated in as illu
were created in accordance with ASTM C1314 and ASTM E519, respectively,
in red
Figure 3. Hollow Figure
clay3.bricks
Hollowhaveredanclay bricks
average have an average
compressive compressive
strength of 25.8 MPa. strength
The of 25.
The cement-to-sand ratio of mortar for joints between masonry
cement-to-sand ratio of mortar for joints between masonry units is 1:5, which was adopted units is 1:5, whi
adopted considering construction field practice in Korea, although
considering construction field practice in Korea, although 1:3 is prescribed in the Korean 1:3 is prescribed
Korean Construction
Construction Specifications [26]. TheSpecifications
average 28-day[26].compressive
The averagestrength
28-day compressive
of the joint strength
joint
mortar was 10.5 MPa. mortar was 10.5 MPa.

(a) (b)
Figure
Figure 3. 3. Masonry
Masonry prism
prism specimens:Prism
specimens: Prism for
for (a)(a) compression
compression test
test and
and (b)(b) diagonal
diagonal tension
tension test.
test.

In the Korean
In the Korean construction construction
practice practicethere
of bricklaying, of bricklaying,
is a lack ofthere is atolack
efforts of efforts to f
fill head
joints
joints with mortar. with mortar.
Therefore, fillingTherefore, fillingwith
the head joints the head joints
mortar waswith mortar was
intentionally intentionally a
avoided
to reproduce thetobricklaying
reproduce the bricklaying
practice. practice.
In addition, theIn addition,
mortar was the mortar
spread was spread
on only half of on only
the area of the bed joint.ofAfter
the area completing
the bed the completing
joint. After bricklaying,the
thebricklaying,
joints on thethe
front side
joints onofthe front
the masonry prism
the masonry prism were filled with finishing mortar, whereas the otherasside was
were filled with finishing mortar, whereas the other side was not,
observed from observed
field practice
fromfor exterior
field masonry
practice walls,masonry
for exterior because the inside
walls, of thethe
because outer
inside of th
wall faces an insulator in most
wall faces buildings
an insulator in and
mosthas no additional
buildings and hasfinishing.
no additional finishing.

2.3.3. Strengthened
2.3.3.Masonry PrismsMasonry Prisms
Strengthened
Strengthened masonry prismsmasonry
Strengthened were created
prismsbywere
plastering
createdthe
byASFRM 28 dthe
plastering after the 28 d a
ASFRM
completion of bricklaying. The ASFRM was plastered three times with an interval
completion of bricklaying. The ASFRM was plastered three times with an of 24 h interval
until a target thickness of 20 or 30 mm was achieved. Before each plastering, a sufficient
until a target thickness of 20 or 30 mm was achieved. Before each plastering, a su
amount of wateramount
was sprayed ontowas
of water the sprayed
surface ofonto
the specimen.
the surfacePrimer
of theinspecimen.
plain mortar was in plain
Primer
plastered and roughened
was plastered and roughened to enhance bond between the masonryThe
to enhance bond between the masonry layer and ASFRM. layer and A
process of implementing proposed strengthening technique to masonry prism specimens is
The process of implementing proposed strengthening technique to masonry prism
illustrated in Figure 4a–d. More information regarding the implementation of the ASFRM
mens is illustrated in Figure 4a–d. More information regarding the implementation
overlay is available in Yu et al. (2021) [21]. The PEFRM was plastered on masonry prisms
ASFRM overlay is available in Yu et al. (2021) [21]. The PEFRM was plastered on m
in the same manner as the ASFRM. For specimens with glass fiber mesh, the mesh was
prisms in the same manner as the ASFRM. For specimens with glass fiber mesh, th
embedded by plastering ASFRM over as shown in Figure 4e. For specimens with shear
was embedded by plastering ASFRM over as shown in Figure 4e. For specimen
connectors, the shear connectors were installed in four drilled holes with an embedment
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5974 7 of 23
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 24

shear
depthconnectors,
of 20 mm the shear
using connectors
epoxy resin. were
Steelinstalled in fourhead
screws with drilled
andholes withdiameters
shank an embed-of 10 and
ment
6 mm, respectively, were installed in four drilled holes with an embedment depthofof 20 mm
depth of 20 mm using epoxy resin. Steel screws with head and shank diameters
10 and 6 mm, respectively, were installed in four drilled holes with an embedment depth
using epoxy resin, then ASFRM was plastered as shown in Figure 4f. Strengthening was
of 20 mm using epoxy resin, then ASFRM was plastered as shown in Figure 4f. Strength-
conducted on the 28th day after bricklaying was completed. All tests were performed 28 d
ening was conducted on the 28th day after bricklaying was completed. All tests were per-
after strengthening.
formed 28 d after strengthening.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f)

Figure 4. Implementation of strengthened masonry prisms: (a) Wetting bare prisms; (b) Plastering
plain mortar primer; (c) Roughening the plain mortar primer using wire brush; (d) Plastering ASFRM
on the mortar primer; (e) Implementing additional mesh by plastering ASFRM; (f) Masonry prisms
with shear connectors after the primary plastering of ASFRM.
 Figure 4. Implementation of strengthened masonry prisms: (a) Wetting bare prisms; (b) Plastering
plain mortar primer; (c) Roughening the plain mortar primer using wire brush; (d) Plastering AS-
FRM on the mortar primer; (e) Implementing additional mesh by plastering ASFRM; (f) Masonry
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5974 prisms with shear connectors after the primary plastering of ASFRM. 8 of 23

3. Test Results
3.1. Test for Compressive Strength
3. Test Results
Thefor
3.1. Test stress–strain
Compressivecurves obtained from the tests for compressive strength are plotted
Strength
in Figure 5. The compressive strength and elastic modulus based on the stress–strain
The stress–strain curves obtained from the tests for compressive strength are plotted
curves are summarized in Table 4. All the stresses in the strengthened specimen were
in Figure 5. The compressive strength and elastic modulus based on the stress–strain
calculated based on the cross-sectional area of the bare masonry prism for a consistent
curves are summarized in Table 4. All the stresses in the strengthened specimen were
comparison. The average compressive strength and elastic modulus for the bare prisms
calculated based on the cross-sectional area of the bare masonry prism for a consistent
were 11.9 and 1780 MPa, respectively. The compressive strength increased to 14.5 MPa
comparison. The average compressive strength and elastic modulus for the bare prisms
(22% increase) for C-SF-30S strengthened on one side with a 30 mm ASFRM overlay, and
were 11.9 and 1780 MPa, respectively. The compressive strength increased to 14.5 MPa
29.8 MPa (150% increase) for C-SF-30B strengthened on both sides with the same overlay
(22% increase) for C-SF-30S strengthened on one side with a 30 mm ASFRM overlay, and
thickness. The effect of the symmetrical strengthening scheme was more than double that
29.8 MPa (150% increase) for C-SF-30B strengthened on both sides with the same overlay
of the added cross-sectional area. Similarly, increasing the thickness of the ASFRM over-
thickness. The effect of the symmetrical strengthening scheme was more than double that
lay from
of the 20 tocross-sectional
added 30 mm enhanced area.the compressive
Similarly, strength
increasing more effectively
the thickness when overlays
of the ASFRM overlay
were applied to both sides of the prism. It can be presumed that
from 20 to 30 mm enhanced the compressive strength more effectively when overlays the uneven distribution
were
of normal stress in the cross section due to unsymmetrically plastered
applied to both sides of the prism. It can be presumed that the uneven distribution of ASFRM resulted in
low efficiency of strengthening, which will be addressed in derivation
normal stress in the cross section due to unsymmetrically plastered ASFRM resulted in lowof design equations
later. By adding
efficiency glass fiberwhich
of strengthening, meshwillto the ASFRM overlay,
be addressed the compressive
in derivation strengthlater.
of design equations in-
creased by 2.4 MPa for strengthening on one side but decreased by
By adding glass fiber mesh to the ASFRM overlay, the compressive strength increased by 7.3 MPa for strength-
ening
2.4 MPa onfor
both sides; therefore,
strengthening on onetheside
glass
butfiber mesh did
decreased notMPa
by 7.3 yieldfora strengthening
consistent positive ef-
on both
fect.
sides;The overallthe
therefore, tendency of improvement
glass fiber mesh did not in the aelastic
yield modulus
consistent waseffect.
positive similar
Theto overall
that in
the compressive
tendency strength. Hence,
of improvement it is unnecessary
in the elastic modulus was to use both the
similar AS fiber
to that in theand glass fiber
compressive
mesh together.
strength. Hence, it is unnecessary to use both the AS fiber and glass fiber mesh together.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 5.
Figure 5. Compressive
Compressive stress–strain
stress–straincurve:
curve:(a)
(a)C-SF-20S
C-SF-20Sand
andC-SF-20B;
C-SF-20B;(b)(b)
C-SF-30S and
C-SF-30S C-SF-30B;
and (c)(c)
C-SF-30B; C-SFM-30S andand
C-SFM-30S C-
SFM-30B.
C-SFM-30B.

Table 4. Compressive strength test result.

Table 4. Compressive strength test result.
Average Rate of Increase (%)
Average Rate of Increase (%)
Specimens Peak Compressive Compressive
Specimens 𝑬𝒎 (MPa) 𝑬𝒎
Load (kN) StrengthPeak
(MPa) Compressive Strength Compressive
Em (MPa) Em
Load (kN) Strength (MPa) Strength
C-P 204 11.9 1780 - -
C-P 204 11.9 1780 - -
C-SF-20S 227 C-SF-20S 13.3227 1980
13.3 1980 11.8 11.8 11.2 11.2
C-SF-30S 248 C-SF-30S 14.5248 14.5
2250 2250 21.8 21.8 26.4 26.4
C-SFM-30S 290 C-SFM-30S 16.9290 16.9
2040 2040 42 42 14.6 14.6
C-SF-20B 364 21.3 3950 79 121.9
C-SF-30B 511 29.8 3790 150 112.9
C-SFM-30B 385 22.5 2600 89.1 46.1

The damage states of the specimens after compressive failure are shown in Figure 6.
Most specimens exhibited similar patterns of failure. First, cracks occurred on the lateral
side of the masonry before reaching the maximum stress. Subsequently, additional cracks
 C-SF-20B 364 21.3 3950 79 121.9
C-SF-30B 511 29.8 3790 150 112.9
C-SFM-30B 385 22.5 2600 89.1 46.1

Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5974 9 of 23

The damage states of the specimens after compressive failure are shown in Figure 6.
Most specimens exhibited similar patterns of failure. First, cracks occurred on the lateral
side of the masonry before reaching the maximum stress. Subsequently, additional cracks
occurred
occurredatatthe
theinterface
interfacebetween
betweenthethemasonry
masonrylayerlayerand
andASFRM
ASFRMoverlay
overlayasasthe
thestress
stress
decreased.
decreased.InInaddition,
addition,asasshown
shownininFigure
Figure6b,6b,for
forC-SF-30S,
C-SF-30S,thetheASFRM
ASFRMoverlay
overlaydiddidnot
not
crack,
crack,unlike
unlikethe
themasonry,
masonry,andandthe
thetop
topofofthe
theprism
prismstrengthened
strengthenedononone
oneside
sideinclined
inclined
significantly
significantlyowing
owingtotothe
theimbalance
imbalanceininstrength
strengthandandstiffness
stiffnessbetween
betweenthe
thetwo
twolayers.
layers.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure
Figure6.6.Damage
Damagestate
stateafter
aftertermination
terminationofofcompression
compressiontests:
tests:(a)(a)C-P;
C-P;(b)
(b)C-SF-30S;
C-SF-30S;(c)(c)C-SF-30B.
C-SF-30B.

3.2.Test
3.2. Testfor
forDiagonal
DiagonalTension
TensionStrength
Strength
Thestress–strain
The stress–straincurves
curvesfrom
fromthethetests
testsfor
forthe
thediagonal
diagonaltension
tensionstrength
strengthareareplotted
plotted
ininFigure
Figure7.7.The Thediagonal
diagonaltension
tensionstrength
strengthand andshear
shearmodulus
modulusbased
basedononthe
thestress–strain
stress–strain
curvesare
curves aresummarized
summarizedininTable Table5.5.AllAllthe
thestresses
stressesininthe
thestrengthened
strengthenedspecimen
specimenwere were
calculated based on the cross-sectional area of the bare masonry prism,
calculated based on the cross-sectional area of the bare masonry prism, similar to the com- similar to the
compressive strength tests. The average diagonal tension strength and
pressive strength tests. The average diagonal tension strength and shear modulus for the shear modulus for
the bare prisms were 0.29 and 1410 MPa, respectively. Strengthening
bare prisms were 0.29 and 1410 MPa, respectively. Strengthening with the ASFRM overlay with the ASFRM
onoverlay
one side onimproved
one side improved
the diagonal thetension
diagonal tension
strength strength of
of D-SF-20S D-SF-20S
and D-SF-30Sand D-SF-30S
to 2.34 and
2.47 MPa, respectively; however, the thickness of the overlay did not have a significant a
to 2.34 and 2.47 MPa, respectively; however, the thickness of the overlay did not have
significant
effect, effect, as
as observed inobserved in the two specimens.
the two specimens. Strengthening Strengthening usingmaterial
using the same the sameon material
both
on both sides of the specimen resulted in a diagonal tension strength that was two times
sides of the specimen resulted in a diagonal tension strength that was two times higher
higher than that achieved by strengthening on one side; moreover, the thickness of the
than that achieved by strengthening on one side; moreover, the thickness of the overlay
overlay resulted in a significant improvement in the diagonal tension strength, as observed
resulted in a significant improvement in the diagonal tension strength, as observed for D-
for D-SF-20B and D-SF-30B.
SF-20B and D-SF-30B.
Table 5. Diagonal tension strength test results.

Average Rate of Increase (%)

Specimens Peak Diagonal Tension Gm Diagonal Tension
Gm
Load (kN) Strength (MPa) (MPa) Strength
D-P 11.9 0.29 1410 - -
D-NM-30S 87.2 2.11 2210 628 56.7
D-SF-20S 96.7 2.34 3690 707 162
D-SF-30S 102 2.47 1920 752 36.2
D-SFA-30S 102 2.46 2840 748 101
D-SFM-30S 111 2.7 2340 831 66
D-PEM-30S 80.2 1.94 1870 569 32.6
D-NM-30B 141 3.41 10,000 1080 609
D-SF-20B 212 5.13 6940 1670 392
D-SF-30B 330 8.0 14,100 2660 900
D-SFA-30B 260 6.3 10,800 2070 666
D-SFM-30B 265 6.41 8260 2110 486
D-PEM-30B 257 6.23 6230 2050 342
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5974 10 of 23
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 24

(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e) (f)

Figure 7.
Figure 7. Diagonal
Diagonaltension
tensionstress–shear strain
stress–shear curves:
strain (a) D-NM-30S
curves: and and
(a) D-NM-30S D-NM-30B; (b) D-SF-20S
D-NM-30B; and D-SF-20B;
(b) D-SF-20S (c) D-SF-
and D-SF-20B; (c)
30S and D-SF-30B; (d) D-SFA-30S and D-SFA-30B; (e) D-SFM-30S and D-SFM-30B; (f) D-PEM-30S and D-PEM-30B.
D-SF-30S and D-SF-30B; (d) D-SFA-30S and D-SFA-30B; (e) D-SFM-30S and D-SFM-30B; (f) D-PEM-30S and D-PEM-30B.

Table 5. Diagonal
Strengthening usingtension strengthastest
the ASFRM, results.to D-SF-30S and D-SF-30B, resulted in
applied
a higher strength compared with strengthening using only Rate
Average
a glass fiber mesh-reinforced
of Increase (%)
mortar overlay, as applied to D-NM-30S and D-NM-30B, respectively. The difference in
Specimens Peak Diagonal Tension Diagonal Tension
strength increased, particularly when strengthening was performed on both𝑮𝒎
𝑮𝒎 (MPa) sides. By
Load (kN) Strength (MPa) Strength
adding a glass fiber mesh to the ASFRM overlay, the diagonal tension strength increased by
D-P 11.9
0.23 MPa compared 0.29
with strengthening 1410 -
on one side in D-SF-30S and D-SFM30S;- however,
D-NM-30S 87.2
it decreased by 1.59 2.11MPa compared 2210 with strengthening 628 56.7
on both sides in D-SF-30B and
D-SF-20S D-SFM30B. Therefore,
96.7 2.34 the glass fiber mesh
3690 did not exert a 707 consistent positive effect
162 on the
D-SF-30S diagonal
102 tension strength.
2.47 The overall tendency
1920 of the improvement
752 in the shear
36.2modulus
was similar to that in the diagonal tension strength. Specimens D-SFA-30S and D-SFA-30B,
D-SFA-30S 102 2.46 2840 748 101
whose shear connectors were installed between the ASFRM overlay and masonry, did not
D-SFM-30S 111 2.7
yield significant improvements in the 2340
diagonal tension strength831 compared with 66 specimens
D-PEM-30S 80.2
D-SF-30S and D-SF-30B,1.94 which had no1870 569
shear connectors. Specimens strengthened32.6with the
D-NM-30B ASFRM achieved 3.41
141 higher diagonal tension10,000 strengths compared 1080 with those strengthened
609
D-SF-20B with the PEFRM, particularly
212 5.13 for strengthening
6940 on one side.
1670 392
The damage states of the specimens after failure in the diagonal tension strength tests
D-SF-30B 330 8.0 14,100 2660 900
are shown in Figure 8. Prisms without strengthening failed and exhibited cracks along the
D-SFA-30B 260
joints, as shown in6.3 Figure 8a. However, 10,800
the mortar overlay 2070
reinforced with only666
a glass
D-SFM-30B 265 6.41
fiber mesh, as in D-NM-30S 8260
and D-NM-30B, was damaged, 2110 486
unlike the other strengthened
D-PEM-30B specimens, as shown
257 6.23 in Figure 8b. In6230 contrast, cracks were 2050not observed on the 342 ASFRM
overlay for D-SF-30S, as shown in Figure 8c, where the masonry layer exhibited a few cracks
on the masonry unitusing
Strengthening and separation
the ASFRM, between the to
as applied bed joint and
D-SF-30S masonry
and D-SF-30B,units, as shown
resulted in a
in Figure
higher 8d. Instead
strength of a clear
compared withdiagonal crack on
strengthening the masonry
using layerfiber
only a glass and mesh-reinforced
ASFRM overlay,
cracks
mortaroccurred
overlay, onas the lateral
applied to side of the masonry
D-NM-30S before the
and D-NM-30B, maximum load
respectively. The was reached,
difference in
as shown in Figure 9. Subsequently, additional cracks appeared at
strength increased, particularly when strengthening was performed on both sides. By the interface between
 are shown in Figure 8. Prisms without strengthening failed and exhibited cracks along the
joints, as shown in Figure 8a. However, the mortar overlay reinforced with only a glass
fiber mesh, as in D-NM-30S and D-NM-30B, was damaged, unlike the other strengthened
specimens, as shown in Figure 8b. In contrast, cracks were not observed on the ASFRM
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5974
overlay for D-SF-30S, as shown in Figure 8c, where the masonry layer exhibited a few 11 of 23
cracks on the masonry unit and separation between the bed joint and masonry units, as
shown in Figure 8d. Instead of a clear diagonal crack on the masonry layer and ASFRM
overlay, cracks occurred on the lateral side of the masonry before the maximum load was
reached, as shown
the masonry in Figure
layer 9. Subsequently,
and ASFRM overlay additional cracks
as the load appearedBased
decreased. at the interface
on the observed
between the masonry layer and ASFRM overlay as the load decreased. Based on the ob-
failure mode, it was assumed that the bond strength between the ASFRM and masonry
served failure mode, it was assumed that the bond strength between the ASFRM and ma-
dominated the diagonal tension failure owing to the high tensile strength of the ASFRM,
sonry dominated the diagonal tension failure owing to the high tensile strength of the
thereby rendering the diagonal tension strength sensitive to the number of strengthened
ASFRM, thereby rendering the diagonal tension strength sensitive to the number of
sides rather sides
strengthened than rather
the thickness
than theofthickness
the overlay.
of theHowever, the specimen
overlay. However, strengthened on
the specimen
both sides was
strengthened sensitive
on both to the
sides was thickness
sensitive ofthickness
to the the overlay,
of thewhich is likely
overlay, which due to the direct
is likely
resistance
due of the
to the direct ASFRMofoverlay.
resistance the ASFRM overlay.

Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 24

Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 24
(a) (b)

(c) (d)
(c) (d)
Figure 8. Damage state observed on front or back side after termination of diagonal tension tests:
Figure 8. Damage state observed on front or back side after termination of diagonal tension tests:
(a) D-P;8.(b)
Figure D-NM-30B;
Damage state (c) D-SF-30S
observed on(ASFRM
front or overlay);
back side(d) D-SF-30S
after (masonry
termination layer). tension tests:
of diagonal
(a)D-P;
(a) D-P;(b)(b) D-NM-30B;
D-NM-30B; (c) D-SF-30S
(c) D-SF-30S (ASFRM
(ASFRM overlay);
overlay); (d) D-SF-30S
(d) D-SF-30S (masonry
(masonry layer). layer).

(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure 9. Damage state observed on lateral side after termination of diagonal tension tests: (a) D-SF-
Figure
30S; (b)9.D-SF-30B.
Figure Damage
9. Damagestate observed
state on lateral
observed side after
on lateral sidetermination of diagonal
after termination tension tests:
of diagonal (a) D-SF-
tension tests: (a) D-SF-
30S; (b) D-SF-30B.
30S; (b) D-SF-30B.
3.3. Test for Bond Strength
3.3. Test
Thefor Bond Strength
maximum loads from the bond strength tests are summarized in Table 6. The
damageThestate
maximum loads fromafter
of the specimens the failure
bond strength
is showntests are summarized
in Figure 10. As shownininTable
Figure6. 10a,
The
damage
the bare state
prismoffailed
the specimens
at the bedafter failure
joints is shown
between in Figureunits
the masonry 10. As shownwhich
through in Figure
the 10a,
test
the bare
load wasprism failed atFigure
transmitted. the bed
10bjoints
showsbetween
that thethe masonry
prism units through
strengthened on onewhich the test
side failed at
load was
both transmitted.
the bed joints andFigure 10b shows that the prism
the overlay-to-masonry strengthened
interface. Meanwhile, onFigure
one side
10cfailed
showsat
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5974 12 of 23

3.3. Test for Bond Strength

The maximum loads from the bond strength tests are summarized in Table 6. The
damage state of the specimens after failure is shown in Figure 10. As shown in Figure 10a,
the bare prism failed at the bed joints between the masonry units through which the test
load was transmitted. Figure 10b shows that the prism strengthened on one side failed at
both the bed joints and the overlay-to-masonry interface. Meanwhile, Figure 10c shows
that the prism strengthened on both sides failed in the masonry unit at the side with a
relatively low strength material, as the load transmitted by the overlay increased and the
hole in the inside brick was partially filled during bricklaying. The load transfer and stress
at the overlay-to-masonry interfaces are illustrated in Figure 11. The overlay-to-masonry
interfaces can be classified into side and middle interfaces. The test load was transmitted
from the middle interface to the two side interfaces through the overlay. The area of the
interface considered in the calculation of the bond strength was doubled for strengthening
on both sides, as shown in Figure 11b. To calculate the bond strength at the overlay-to-
masonry interface, the load transmitted through the bed joints directly was subtracted from
the total load resisted by the strengthened specimen as follows:

Pτ = P − Pj , (1)

where P, Pτ , and Pj denote the total load (kN), load shared by the overlay-to-masonry
interface (kN), and load shared by the bed joint (kN), respectively. The bond strength at
the overlay-to-masonry interface was calculated considering the number of interfaces, as
follows:
P − Pj Pτ
τaver,S = = (2)
2Ao 2Ao
P − Pj Pτ
τaver,B = = , (3)
4Ao 4Ao
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW
where τaver,S 14 of
and τaver,B denote the bond strength (MPa) at the overlay-to-masonry 24
interface
for strengthening on a single side and on both sides, respectively. Ao denotes the interface
area (mm2 ) between the adjacent masonry units.
Table 6. Bond strength test results for masonry prisms.
Table 6. Bond strength test results for masonry prisms.
Maximum Load (kN)
Type of
Specimen B-P Maximum Load (kN)B-SF-30B
B-SF-30S
Bricks
Type of (Plain) (One-Side Overlay) (Two-SideB-SF-30B
Overlay)
Specimen B-P B-SF-30S
Bricks
1 15.3
(Plain) 33.5 Overlay) (Two-Side
(One-Side 55 Overlay)
2 1 17.3
15.3 27.333.5 52.8 55
Clay brick
Clay brick 3 2 17.3
20.1 38.627.3 59.7 52.8
3 20.1 38.6 59.7
Average 17.6 33.1 55.8
Average 17.6 33.1 55.8

(a) (b) (c)

Figure
Figure10.
10.Damage
Damagestate after
state termination
after of bond
termination strength
of bond tests:
strength (a) B-P;
tests: (b) SF-30S;
(a) B-P; (c) SF-30B.
(b) SF-30S; (c) SF-30B.
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5974 (a) (b) (c) 13 of 23

Figure 10. Damage state after termination of bond strength tests: (a) B-P; (b) SF-30S; (c) SF-30B.

(a) (b)
Figure
Figure11.
11.Transfer of test
Transfer loadload
of test through mortar
through joints joints
mortar and interface betweenbetween
and interface masonrymasonry
layer andlayer
AS- and
FRM overlay: (a) Strengthening on one side; (b) strengthening on both sides.
ASFRM overlay: (a) Strengthening on one side; (b) strengthening on both sides.
The
Thebond
bondstrengths
strengths of the overlay-to-masonry
of the overlay-to-masonryinterface
interfacecalculated
calculatedusing
usingEquations
Equations(1)–(3)
(1)–(3) are summarized in Table 7. The bond strengths for strengthening on one side and
are summarized in Table 7. The bond strengths for strengthening on one side and both
both sides were 0.716 and 0.884 MPa, respectively. The lower bond strength by strength-
sides were 0.716 and 0.884 MPa, respectively. The lower bond strength by strengthening on
ening on one side is attributable to the normal stress exerted on the interface due to the
one side is attributable to the normal stress exerted on the interface due to the eccentricity
eccentricity between the interface and the line of action for loading. In addition, bond
between the interface and the line of action for loading. In addition, bond strength tests
were conducted for concrete masonry strengthened with the same ASFRM overlay in
another study [22], the results of which are presented in Table 7 and used to predict the
diagonal tension strength in the following section.

Table 7. Bond strengths for overlay-to-masonry interface.

B-SF-30S B-SF-30B
Type of (One-Side Overlay) (Two-Side Overlay)
Bricks Interface Bond τaver,S Interface Bond τaver,B
Load (kN) (MPa) Load (kN) (MPa)
Red clay 15.6 0.716 38.3 0.884
Concrete [22] 11.7 0.540 53.0 1.22

4. Design Equations for Strengthening with ASFRM Overlay

Design equations for strengthening with the ASFRM overlay are proposed herein to
predict the compressive and diagonal tension strengths based on the test results. The equa-
tions are based on the test results for the hollow red clay brick masonry described herein
as well as additional test results for concrete brick masonry presented by Yu (2021) [22],
who used the same test and analysis methodology as that used in this study. The number
of strengthened sides is considered an important variable in the derivation of the design
equations based on test observations. The lower-bound strength Q L as well as the ex-
pected strength Q E for a retrofit design in accordance with ASCE 41-17 [27] are proposed
considering the mean and standard deviation of the test result, as follows:

Q E = X × Q E,o (4)

s
Q L = X − s × Q E,o = (1 − ) × Q E , (5)
X
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5974 14 of 23

where Q E,o is the nominal strength predicted using the proposed design equation; X and s
are the mean and standard deviation of the test strength-over-nominal strength ratio for
individual specimens, respectively.

4.1. Design Equations for Compressive Strength

4.1.1. Strengthening on One Side
The compressive strength for prims strengthened on one side was calculated based
on the stress distribution assumed in the unsymmetrical cross-section composed of the
masonry layer and single-sided ASFRM overlay. This is because most of the damage was
concentrated on the masonry layer rather than on the ASFRM overlay, as shown in Figure 6,
since the unsymmetrical cross-section was formed by strengthening on one side only. The
peak resistance of a strengthened prism in compression is expressed by the sum of the
contributions from the masonry layer and ASFRM overlays, as follows:

Pm
PR = Pm + PASFRM = , (6)
β

where PR , Pm , and PASFRM denote the total resistance, resistance of the masonry layer, and
resistance of the ASFRM overlay, respectively. Similar to Equation (6), PR can be expressed
by β, which is the fraction of the resistance by the masonry layer over the total resistance,
expressed as follows:
Pm Pm
β= = . (7)
PR Pm + PASFRM
To calculate β, the stress distribution was determined for the transformed cross-section
illustrated in Figure 12 based on the elastic modulus ratio between the ASFRM overlay and
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW
masonry, which is expressed as follows: 16 of 24

E ASFRM
n= , (8)
Em
𝑛= , (8)
where n denotes the elastic modulus ratio; E is the elastic modulus from the test of bare
where 𝑛 denotes the elastic modulus ratio; 𝐸 is themelastic modulus from the test of bare
prisms,i.e.,
prisms, i.e.,1780
1780 MPa
MPa forfor
the the hollow
hollow red brick
red clay clay masonry,
brick masonry, and
and 4570 MPa4570
for MPa for the concrete
the con-
brickbrick
crete according to Yu
according to Yuet al. [22];
et al. E ASFRM
[22]; 𝐸 is the elasticmodulus
the elastic modulus forfor ASFRM
ASFRM (9260 MPa), as
(9260
listedas
MPa), inlisted
Tablein3.Table 3.

Figure
Figure12.
12.Transformed section
Transformed of prisms
section strengthened
of prisms on one side.
strengthened on one side.

The
Thedistribution of normal
distribution stress instress
of normal the cross
in section for asection
the cross prism strengthened
for a prism onstrengthened
one on
side in compression was determined by the compressive force and bending moment
one side in compression was determined by the compressive force and bending moment
caused by the eccentric test loading with respect to the centroid of the transformed section,
caused
as by the
illustrated eccentric
in Figure test
13. The loadingstress
parabolic withdistribution
respect tointhe centroid
Figure 13 wasof the transformed section,
approximated
as illustrated
using in Figure
an equivalent 13. The
rectangular parabolic
stress stressthe
block, where distribution
compressive instress
Figurewas130.8𝑓′
was approximated
,
using isan
which in equivalent
accordance withrectangular
TMS 402 [28].stress
Theblock, where
equivalent stressthe compressive
block depth denoted by was 0.8 f 0 m ,
stress
𝑎 can beisdetermined
which basedwith
in accordance on theTMS
following moment
402 [28]. Theequilibrium
equivalentequation between
stress block the denoted by
depth
two
a can areas denoted by 𝐴 based
be determined and 𝐴onlocated on the left moment
the following and right equilibrium
sides of the loading axis, between the
equation
respectively, as shown in Figure 14:
0.8𝑓′ 𝐴 𝑒 = 0.8𝑓′ 𝐴 𝑒 , (9)

where 𝑒 and 𝑒 represent the distances from the loading axis to the centroids of 𝐴 and
𝐴 , respectively. The value of 𝑎 can be obtained by solving Equation (9) after substituting
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5974 15 of 23

two areas denoted by A1 and A2 located on the left and right sides of the loading axis,
respectively, as shown in Figure 14:

0.8 f 0 m A1 e1 = 0.8 f 0 m A2 e2 , (9)

where e1 and e2 represent the distances from the loading axis to the centroids of A1 and
A2 , respectively. The value of a can be obtained by solving Equation (9) after substituting
expressions in a for A2 and e2 based on Figure 14. The compressive resistance shared by
the masonry layer and ASFRM overlay can be calculated using Equations (10) and (11),
respectively, when a is larger than the masonry layer thickness but smaller than the total
thickness including the ASFRM overlay.

Pm = 0.8 f 0 m Am (10)

PASFRM = 0.8 f 0 m ( a − tm )b ASFRM , (11)

where Am is the cross-sectional area of the masonry layer, and b ASFRM is the width of
the ASFRM overlay transformed into the masonry material. Therefore, the compressive
strength of a masonry prism strengthened on one side with the ASFRM overlay can be
expressed as follows by incorporating Equations (7), (10) and (11) and the cross-sectional
area prior to strengthening:
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 24
σm Am + ( a − tm ) × b ASFRM
σE,o = = σm × , (12)
β Am

where 𝜎σE,o
where and 𝜎
, and are the
σm are the compressive
compressive strengths
strengthsofof
the strengthened
the masonry
strengthened prism
masonry prism and
and
barebare masonry
masonry prism,
prism, respectively.
respectively.

Figure 13. Stress distribution for strengthening on one side for compressive strength test.
Figure 13. Stress distribution for strengthening on one side for compressive strength test.
 Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5974 16 of 23

Figure 13. Stress distribution for strengthening on one side for compressive strength test.

Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 24

Figure14.
Figure Detailedtransformed
14.Detailed transformedsection
sectionfor
forcalculating
calculatingequivalent
equivalent stress
stress block.
block.

The
Thecompressive
compressivestrengths
strengthspredicted
predictedusing
usingEquation
Equation(12) (12)and
andthethecorresponding
correspondingtest test
strengths
strengthswere
werecompared,
compared,asasshownshownininFigure
Figure15,15,ininwhich
whichthe thetrend
trendlines
linesforforboth
boththe
the
expected
expectedand
andlower-bound strengthsbased
lower-bound strengths basedon onEquations
Equations (4)(4)
andand(5)(5)
areare plotted,
plotted, respec-
respectively.
tively. Thestrengths
The test test strengths forstrengthened
for the the strengthened masonry
masonry prismsprisms
in redin red
clayclay bricks
bricks andand con-
concrete
crete bricks
bricks werewere 0.891.17
0.89 and andtimes
1.17 times the corresponding
the corresponding nominal nominal
predicted predicted
strength,strength, re-
respectively.
spectively. In other
In other words, words,(12)
Equation Equation (12) overestimates
overestimates the compressivethe compressive
strength afterstrength after
strengthening
for the red clay
strengthening forbrick masonry
the red by approximately
clay brick 10%; therefore,10%;
masonry by approximately the value obtained
therefore, needs
the value
to be reduced
obtained needs by a factor
to be reducedof 0.89
by abefore
factor more
of 0.89test datamore
before are acquired.
test data For strengthening
are acquired. For
on both sides,on
strengthening the expected
both sides, and lower-bound
the expected compressive strengths
and lower-bound compressive with respect to
strengths the
with
nominal
respect to strength
the nominalare summarized in Tables 8 and
strength are summarized in 9.
Tables 8 and 9.

(a) (b)
Figure
Figure15.
15.Predicted
Predictedand
andtest
testcompressive
compressivestrengths
strengthsfor
forprisms
prismsstrengthened
strengthenedon
onone
oneside:
side:(a)
(a)Red
Red
clay brick masonry; (b) concrete brick masonry.
clay brick masonry; (b) concrete brick masonry.

Table 8. Nominal strength and modification factors for red clay brick masonry.
Table 8. Nominal strength and modification factors for red clay brick masonry.
Expected Lower-Bound
Nominal Strength
Nominal Expected Lower-Bound
Type of Test Strength Strength
Type of Test Strength
(𝑸𝑬,𝒐 ) Strength Strength
(QE,o ) ) 𝑬)
(QE(𝑸 (𝑸𝑳 ))
(Q L
One side
One side Equation
Equation(12)
(12) 0.89𝑄 ,
0.89Q 0.77𝑄
0.77Q ,
Compressive E,o E,o
Compressive Two sides Equation (13) 0.83𝑄 , 0.73𝑄 ,
Two sides Equation (13) 0.83Q E,o 0.73Q E,o
Diagonal tension 1 1 Equation (14) 1.15𝑄 , 0.92𝑄 ,
Diagonal tension Equation (14) 1.15Q E,o 0.92Q E,o
1 Diagonal tension strength shall be limited by upper bound expressed in Equation (15).
1Diagonal tension strength shall be limited by upper bound expressed in Equation (15).

Table 9. Nominal strength and modification factors for concrete brick masonry.

Expected Lower-Bound
Nominal Strength
Type of Test Strength Strength
(𝑸𝑬,𝒐 )
(𝑸𝑬 ) (𝑸𝑳 )
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5974 17 of 23

Table 9. Nominal strength and modification factors for concrete brick masonry.

Nominal Expected Lower-Bound

Type of Test Strength Strength Strength
(QE,o ) (QE ) (QL )
One side Equation (12) 1.17Q E,o 1.0Q E,o
Compressive
Two sides Equation (13) 1.04Q E,o 0.94Q E,o
Diagonal tension 1 Equation (14) 1.12Q E,o 0.86Q E,o
1 Diagonal tension strength shall be limited by upper bound expressed in Equation (15).

4.1.2. Strengthening on Both Sides

The compressive strength of masonry prisms strengthened on both sides can be calcu-
lated based on Equation (6) and experimental observations. In tests for the compressive
strength, masonry prisms strengthened on both sides experienced compressive failure in
the masonry layer and cracks at the masonry-to-overlay interface in the strength degra-
dation region beginning at the strength cap in the load–displacement curves. Cracks or
other damages were not observed on the ASFRM overlay. Based on the experimental
observations, it was assumed that the full compressive strength of the ASFRM overlay was
not developed, and that only a fraction of the strength corresponding to the ultimate strain
of the masonry layer contributed to the total compressive strength. Therefore, the total
compressive strength is expressed as follows, assuming that the ASFRM remains elastic:

A ASFRM
σE,o = σm + E ASFRM ε mu , (13)
Am

where E ASFRM is the elastic modulus of the ASFRM (as summarized in Table 3); ε mu is the
ultimate strain of the masonry layer, for which 0.0035 and 0.0025 were applied to the red
clay bricks and concrete bricks, respectively, in accordance with TMS 402 [28].
The compressive strengths predicted using Equation (13) and the corresponding test
strengths were compared, as shown in Figure 16, in which the trend lines for both the
expected and lower-bound strengths based on Equations (4) and (5) are shown. The ratios of
the test strength over the nominal strength were 0.83 and 1.04 for the strengthened masonry
prisms in red clay bricks and concrete bricks, respectively. In other words, Equation (13)
overestimates the compressive strength by approximately 17% after the red clay brick
masonry was strengthened; therefore, it needs to be reduced by a factor of 0.83 before
more test data are acquired. The overestimation is attributable to the assumption of elastic
behavior in the ASFRM masonry. Nonetheless, the accuracy of the predicted compressive
strength is expected to be improved by determining the elastic modulus corresponding to
ε mu in a more sophisticated manner, e.g., using the secant modulus at the critical strain. For
strengthening on both sides, the expected and lower-bound compressive strengths with
respect to the nominal strength are summarized in Tables 8 and 9.
 masonry was strengthened; therefore, it needs to be reduced by a factor of 0.83 before
more test data are acquired. The overestimation is attributable to the assumption of elastic
behavior in the ASFRM masonry. Nonetheless, the accuracy of the predicted compressive
strength is expected to be improved by determining the elastic modulus corresponding to
𝜀 in a more sophisticated manner, e.g., using the secant modulus at the critical strain.
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5974 18 of 23
For strengthening on both sides, the expected and lower-bound compressive strengths
with respect to the nominal strength are summarized in Tables 8 and 9.

(a) (b)
Figure
Figure16.
16.Predicted
Predictedand
andtest
testcompressive
compressivestrengths
strengthsfor
forprisms
prismsstrengthened
strengthenedon
onboth
bothsides:
sides:(a)
(a)Red
Red
clay brick masonry; (b) concrete brick masonry.
clay brick masonry; (b) concrete brick masonry.

4.2.Design
4.2. DesignEquations
Equationsfor forDiagonal
DiagonalTension
TensionStrength
Strength
InInmost
mostmasonry
masonryprismsprismsstrengthened
strengthenedwith withan anASFRM
ASFRMoverlay
overlayfor fordiagonal
diagonaltension
tension
tests,cracks
tests, crackswere
weredeveloped
developed only
only in in
thethe masonry
masonry layer,
layer, as shown
as shown in Figure
in Figure 8c,d.8c,d. This
This fail-
failure
ure occursoccurs because
because of theofprincipal
the principal
tensiletensile
stress stress
in the in the diagonal
diagonal direction,
direction, and theand the
corre-
corresponding strength can be determined as the sum of the diagonal
sponding strength can be determined as the sum of the diagonal tension strength of the tension strength
of the masonry
masonry layer andlayer
the and
sumthe sum stress
of bond of bond stress
along along
a strip of aunit
strip of unit
width width
in the mainindiagonal
the main
diagonal of the interface between the masonry layer and ASFRM
of the interface between the masonry layer and ASFRM overlay, as illustrated in Figure overlay, as illustrated
in assuming
17, Figure 17,that
assuming that the shear
the horizontal horizontal
stressshear
in thestress in the
masonry masonry
prism prism isTherefore,
is negligible. negligible.
an equation for the diagonal tension strength comprising the two components is proposedis
Therefore, an equation for the diagonal tension strength comprising the two components
proposed
as follows:as follows:
First, First, stress
the bond the bond stress is assumed
is assumed to exhibittoa exhibit
parabolica parabolic distribution,
distribution, in which in
which the stresses increase from zero at the corner to the peak at the center
the stresses increase from zero at the corner to the peak at the center of the specimen. The of the specimen.
The peak
peak bond bond
stressstress
𝜏 τis
max is assumed
assumed to beto1.5
betimes
1.5 times the average
the average bondbond stress.
stress. Therefore,
Therefore, the
the diagonal tension strength for a strengthened masonry prism is defined as the sum of
the diagonal tension strength of the bare masonry prism and the average interface bond
stress exerted in the area of unit width, in accordance with Figure 17, as follows:
√
2 2
ns 2 b (1) 3 τmax + Sm (1) t b
SE,o = = Sm + ns 0.71 τaver , (14)
t (1) t

where SE,o is the expected diagonal tension strength for the masonry prism strengthened
with an ASFRM overlay; Sm is the diagonal tension strength for a bare masonry prism
obtained from tests; b and t are the width and thickness of the bare masonry prism,
respectively, as illustrated in Figure 17. In addition, ns equals 1 or 2 for strengthening on
one side or both sides, respectively. Finally, τaver is the average bond strength, which can
be expressed as 2/3τmax for the parabolic stress distribution, and can be obtained from the
test, as summarized in Table 7.
 where 𝑆 , is the expected diagonal tension strength for the masonry prism strengthened
with an ASFRM overlay; 𝑆 is the diagonal tension strength for a bare masonry prism
obtained from tests; 𝑏 and 𝑡 are the width and thickness of the bare masonry prism, re-
spectively, as illustrated in Figure 17. In addition, 𝑛 equals 1 or 2 for strengthening on
one side or both sides, respectively. Finally, 𝜏 is the average bond strength, which can
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5974 19 of 23
be expressed as 2/3𝜏 for the parabolic stress distribution, and can be obtained from
the test, as summarized in Table 7.

Figure
Figure17.
17.Distribution
Distributionof
ofstress
stresscontributing
contributingto
todiagonal
diagonaltension
tensionstrength
strength for
for strengthened
strengthened prisms.
prisms.

The
Thediagonal
diagonaltension
tensionstrengths
strengthspredicted
predicted using
using Equation
Equation (14) (14) and
andthethecorresponding
corresponding
test strengths were compared, as shown in Figure 18, in which
test strengths were compared, as shown in Figure 18, in which specimens strengthenedspecimens strengthenedwith
with a 30-mm-thick
a 30-mm-thick ASFRM ASFRM overlay
overlay on oneon side
one and
side both
and both
sidessides
werewere included,
included, and spec-
and specimens
imens with anchors
with anchors for shearforconnectors
shear connectors were excluded.
were excluded. The trend The trend
lines lines the
for both for expected
both the andex-
pected and lower-bound
lower-bound strengths basedstrengths based on(4)
on Equations Equations
and (5) are(4)shown
and (5)inare shown
Figure 18.in Figure
The 18.
average
The average
ratios ratios
of the test of theover
strength test strength
the nominal over the nominal
strength were 1.15strength
and 1.12were for1.15 and 1.12 for
the strengthened
the strengthened
masonry prisms in masonry
red clayprisms in red
bricks and clay bricks
concrete bricks,and concrete Hence,
respectively. bricks, Equation
respectively.(14)
underestimates
Hence, Equationthe (14)diagonal strength the
underestimates conservatively. The effect
diagonal strength of filling theThe
conservatively. vertical joint
effect of
partially
filling thewhen plastering
vertical the ASFRM
joint partially when might havethe
plastering contributed
ASFRM might to thehave
underestimation
contributed to of
the
the
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW diagonal tension
underestimation strength;
of the this
diagonal is because
tension S in
strength;
m Equation
this is (14)
because is 𝑆
based inon the strength
Equation (14)
21 of 24
isobtained
based on from
thespecimens with weak
strength obtained fromvertical mortarwith
specimens joints. The vertical
weak expectedmortar
and lower-bound
joints. The
diagonal and
expected tension strengths diagonal
lower-bound are summarized
tension in Tables 8are
strengths andsummarized
9, respectively.in Tables 8 and 9,
respectively.
Equation (14) assumes that the ASFRM overlay does not fail after the peak load is
reached. However, diagonal cracks were formed on the ASFRM overlay at the peak load
in the case of concrete brick masonry strengthened on both sides. Therefore, the diagonal
tension strength calculated using Equation (14) must be limited by an upper bound.

(a) (b)
Figure
Figure18.
18. Predicted
Predictedand
andtest
testdiagonal
diagonaltension
tensionstrengths:
strengths:(a)
(a)Red
Redclay
claybrick
brickmasonry;
masonry;(b)
(b) concrete
concrete
brick masonry.
brick masonry.

Assuming that assumes

Equation (14) the masonry layer
that the and the
ASFRM ASFRM
overlay overlay
does failafter
not fail simultaneously,
the peak load the
is
upper bound
reached. of the diagonal cracks
However, tensionwere
strength canon
formed bethe
defined
ASFRMas the sum at
overlay of the
the peak
diagonal
load
tension strengths
in the case of both
of concrete elements,
brick masonry as strengthened
follows: on both sides. Therefore, the diagonal
tension strength calculated using Equation (14) must be 𝐴 limited by an upper bound.
𝑆 , =𝑆 +𝑆 (15)
𝐴
where 𝑆 , is the upper bound to the diagonal tension strength; 𝑆 is the diago-
nal tension strength of the ASFRM; 𝐴 and 𝐴 are the cross-sectional areas of the
masonry layer and ASFRM overlay, respectively. The upper bound strengths are repre-
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5974 20 of 23

Assuming that the masonry layer and the ASFRM overlay fail simultaneously, the
upper bound of the diagonal tension strength can be defined as the sum of the diagonal
tension strengths of both elements, as follows:

A ASFRM
SE,upper = Sm + S ASFRM (15)
Am

where SE,upper is the upper bound to the diagonal tension strength; S ASFRM is the diagonal
tension strength of the ASFRM; Am and A ASFRM are the cross-sectional areas of the masonry
layer and ASFRM overlay, respectively. The upper bound strengths are represented by
vertical and horizontal broken lines in Figure 18, where SE,upper1 and SE,upper2 correspond
to the specimens strengthened on one side and both sides, respectively. The tensile strength
of the ASFRM provided in Table 3 was used instead of S ASFRM to calculate SE,upper1
and SE,upper2 because of insufficient actual test data. Most of the calculated and tested
strengths for the specimens strengthened on both sides were higher than SE,upper2 in
both Figure 18a,b. In particular, the difference was more significant for the concrete brick
masonry. As mentioned above, the unintentional filling of the vertical joint via the ASFRM
during the construction of specimens might enhance the actual bare prism strength Sm (as
expressed in Equations (14) and (15)). In addition, the accuracy of Equation (14) would
have been improved if actual tests for S ASFRM were performed.

4.3. Applicability to Seismic Retrofit Design

The proposed design equations are intended to be applied to the retrofit design of
unreinforced masonry walls directly. This is because the toe-crushing, diagonal tension,
and bed-joint sliding strengths for unreinforced masonry walls are calculated using the
compressive and diagonal tension strengths provided in ASCE 41-17 [27]. However, in
the toe-crushing failure, compressive failure is concentrated only in the localized area,
unlike the compression failure of masonry prisms in this study. Figure 17 and Equation (14)
for diagonal tension failure assume square masonry prisms; therefore, the distribution of
bond stress must be redefined for the rectangular shape of masonry prisms. In the case of
masonry walls dominated by bed-joint sliding failure, whether such a failure mode can
develop in an unreinforced masonry shear wall strengthened with an ASFRM as well as
the quantification of the strengthening effect are yet to be elucidated. Therefore, additional
studies based on experiments or numerical analyses are necessitated to apply the proposed
design equations to actual unreinforced masonry walls with various aspect ratios.

5. Conclusions
A technique for strengthening masonry walls by plastering an ASFRM was investi-
gated by performing compressive and diagonal tension tests for masonry prisms created
using hollow red clay bricks and by reproducing poor workmanship. Various test variables
associated with the composition of the overlay and interface were considered in the test
program. The equations for the nominal compressive and diagonal tension strengths
and the empirical modification factors to obtain the expected and lower-bound strengths
were proposed and verified using test data. The results of this study can be summarized
as follows:
Strengthening poorly constructed masonry prisms using the ASFRM overlay was
effective for both the compression and diagonal tension, but more efficient for the latter. The
compressive and diagonal tension strengths increased by 150% and 2660%, respectively, by
plastering the ASFRM on 0.5B red clay brick masonry. In terms of the design variables for
retrofit, the thickness of the ASFRM overlay had a negligible effect on both the compressive
and diagonal tension strengths in the tests, whereas strengthening on both sides was much
more effective than strengthening on one side. Similarly, using the glass fiber mesh and
shear connectors did not yield significant enhancements in terms of strength compared
with plastering only the ASFRM with the same thickness.
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5974 21 of 23

Owing to the relatively high strength of the ASFRM overlay, the specimen failed in the
masonry layer first, and then cracks were formed at the interface between the masonry and
overlay. Therefore, the elastic modulus ratio affecting the load share between the two layers
and the bond strength between the masonry and overlay are vital to strength prediction.
Consequently, the proposed strength equations predicted the test results with considerable
accuracy. However, additional experiments or numerical analyses are necessary to verify
the assumptions underlying the proposed design equations with an extended range of test
variables, as well as to utilize these equations in the retrofit design of actual unreinforced
masonry walls with various aspect ratios or subjected to stress concentration.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, J.-H.P.; software, J.-H.Y.; formal analysis, J.-H.Y.; inves-
tigation, J.-H.Y.; writing—original draft preparation, J.-H.Y.; writing—review and editing, J.-H.P.;
supervision, J.-H.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This work was supported by the Korea Agency for Infrastructure Technology Advancement
(KAIA) grant funded by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport (Grant 21CTAP-C152105-03).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Notation

A ASFRM Cross-sectional area for the ASFRM overlay

Am Cross-sectional area of the masonry layer in a strengthened prism
Ao Interface area between the adjacent masonry units
A1 Area located on the left-hand side of the loading axis in a masonry prism under
compression
A2 Area located on the right-hand side of the loading axis in a masonry prism under
compression
a Equivalent stress block depth
bm Width of the masonry layer
E ASFRM Elastic modulus of ASFRM
Em Elastic modulus of a bare prism
e1 Distance from the loading axis to the centroids of A1
e2 Distance from the loading axis to the centroids of A2
n Elastic modulus ratio
ns Number of strengthened sides on the masonry prism
P Total load in the compression test
PASFRM Compressive resistance by the ASFRM overlay in the strengthened prism
Pj Load shared by the overlay-to-masonry interface
Pm Compressive resistance by the masonry layer in the strengthened prism
PR Total compressive resistance of the strengthened masonry prism
Pτ Load shared by the overlay-to-masonry interface
QE Expected strength
Q E,o Nominal strength predicted by the proposed design equation
QL Lower bound strength
S ASFRM Diagonal tension strength of the ASFRM
SE,o Expected diagonal tension strength for the strengthened masonry prism
SE,upper Upper bound to the diagonal tension strength
SE,upper1 Upper bound to the diagonal tension strength for the specimen strengthened on a
single side
SE,upper2 Upper bound to the diagonal tension strength for the specimen strengthened on
both sides
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5974 22 of 23

Sm Diagonal tension strength for the bare masonry prism obtained from tests
s Standard deviation of the test strength-over-nominal strength ratio for individual
specimen
tm Thickness of the masonry layer
tms Thickness of the strengthened masonry prism
X Standard deviation of the test strength-over-nominal strength ratio for individual
specimen
β Fraction of the compressive resistance by the masonry layer over the total resistance
ε mu Ultimate strain of the masonry layer
σ Normal stress in the section of the masonry prism
σE,o Compressive strength for the strengthened masonry prism
σM Flexural stress in a section of the masonry prism
σm Compressive strength for the bare masonry prism
τaver Average bond strength between the ASFRM and masonry layer
τaver,B Bond strength at the overlay-to-masonry interface for strengthening on both sides
τaver,S Bond strength at the overlay-to-masonry interface for strengthening on a single side
τmax Peak bond stress

References
1. FEMA P-774. Unreinforced Masonry Buildings and Earthquakes; FEMA: Washington, DC, USA, 2009.
2. Doğangün, A.; Ural, A.; Livaoğlu, R. Seismic performance of masonry buildings during recent earthqukes in Turkey. In
Proceedings of the 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering (14WCEE), Beijing, China, 12–17 October 2008; pp. 1–8.
3. D’Altri, A.M.; Sarhosis, V.; Milani, G.; Rots, J.; Cattari, S.; Lagomarsino, S.; Sacco, E.; Tralli, A.; Castellazzi, G.; Miranda, S.
Modeling strategies for the computational analysis of unreinforced masonry structures: Review and classification. Arch. Comput.
Methods Eng. 2020, 27, 1153–1185. [CrossRef]
4. Korumaz, M.; Betti, M.; Conti, A.; Tucci, G.; Bartoli, G.; Bonora, V.; Korumaz, A.G.; Fiorini, L. An integrated Terrestrial Laser
Scanner (TLS), Deviation Analysis (DA) and Finite Element (FE) approach for health assessment of historical structures. A
minaret case study. Eng. Struct. 2017, 153, 224–238. [CrossRef]
5. Funari, M.F.; Spadea, S.; Lonetti, P.; Fabbrocino, F.; Luciano, R. Visual programming for structural assessment of out-of-plane
mechanisms in historic masonry structures. J. Build. Eng. 2020, 31, 101425. [CrossRef]
6. Yang, K.H.; Mun, J.H.; Hwang, S.H. Cyclic shear behavior of masonry walls strengthened with prestressed steel bars and glass
fiber grids. Compos. Struct. 2020, 238, 1–12. [CrossRef]
7. Ismail, N.; Petersen, R.B.; Masia, M.J.; Ingham, J.M. Diagonal shear behavior of unreinforced masonry wallettes strengthened
using twisted steel bars. Constr. Build. Mater. 2011, 25, 4386–4393. [CrossRef]
8. Silva, B.; Benetta, M.D.; da Porto, F.; Modena, C. Experimental assessment of in-plane behaviour of three-leaf stone masonry
walls. Constr. Build. Mater. 2014, 53, 149–161. [CrossRef]
9. Taghdi, M.; Bruneau, M.; Saatcioglu, M. Seismic retrofitting of low-rise masonry and concrete walls using steel strips. ASCE J.
Struct. Eng. 2000, 126, 1017–1025. [CrossRef]
10. Darbhanzi, A.; Marefat, M.S.; Khanmohammadi, M. Investigation of in-plane seismic retrofit of unreinforced masonry walls by
means of vertical steel ties. Constr. Build. Mater. 2014, 52, 122–129. [CrossRef]
11. Ghiassi, B.; Marcari, G.; Oliveira, D.V.; Lourenço, P.B. Numerical analysis of bond behavior between masonry bricks and
composite materials. Eng. Struct. 2012, 43, 210–220. [CrossRef]
12. Bae, B.I.; Yun, H.J.; Choi, C.S.; Choi, H.K. Evaluation of shear strength of unreinforced masonry walls retrofitted by fiber reinforced
polymer sheet. J. Korea Concr. Inst. 2012, 24, 305–313. [CrossRef]
13. Choi, H.K.; Bae, B.I.; Choi, C.S. Lateral resistance of unreinforced masonry walls strengthened with engineering cementitious
composite. Int. J. Civil. Eng. Korea 2016, 14, 411–424. [CrossRef]
14. D’Ambrisi, A.; Mezzi, M.; Caporale, A. Experimental investigation on polymeric net-RCM reinforced masonry panels. Compos.
Struct. 2013, 105, 207–215. [CrossRef]
15. Almeida, J.A.P.P.; Pereira, E.N.B.; Barros, J.A.O. Assessment of overlay masonry strengthening system under in-plane monotonic
and cyclic loading using the diagonal tensile test. Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 94, 851–865. [CrossRef]
16. Mustafaraj, E.; Yardim, Y. In-plane shear strengthening of unreinforced masonry walls using GFRP jacketing. Period. Polytech. Civ.
Eng. 2018, 62, 330–336. [CrossRef]
17. Benedetti, A. In plane behaviour of masonry walls reinforced with mortar coatings and fibre meshes. Int. J. Archit. Herit. 2019, 13,
1029–1041. [CrossRef]
18. Kreivakais, T. Experimental study on carbon fiber textile reinforced mortar system as a means for confinement of masonry
columns. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 208, 723–733. [CrossRef]
19. Ombres, L.; Verre, S. Analysis of the Behavior of FRCM Confined Clay Brick Masonry Columns. Fibers 2020, 8, 11. [CrossRef]
20. Yu, J.-H.; Park, J.-H. Investigation of Steel Fiber-Reinforced Mortar Overlay for Strengthening Masonry Walls by Prism Tests.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 6395. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5974 23 of 23

21. Yu, J.H.; Myeong, S.J.; Park, J.H. Enhancement of compressive and shear strength for concrete masonry prisms with steel
fiber-reinforced mortar overlay. J. Earthq. Eng. Soc. Korea 2021, 25, 21–32. [CrossRef]
22. Yu, J.H. Retrofit Effects of Steel Fiber-Reinforced Mortar Plastered on Unreinforced Masonry Walls. Master’s Degree, Incheon
National University, Incheon, Korean, 2021.
23. ASTM C1314. Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Masonry Prisms; ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA,
USA, 2014.
24. ASTM E519/E519M. Standard Test Method for Diagonal Tension (Shear) in Masonry Assemblages; ASTM International: West Con-
shohocken, PA, USA, 2015.
25. Lee, S.K.; Ju, Y.K.; Lee, S.S.; Song, H.Y. A study on the dynamic and durability properties of high-ductile mortar using reinforced
fiber. J. Reg. Assoc. Archit. Inst. Korea 2008, 1, 931–936.
26. Korea Construction Standards 41 16 01. Plaster Work; Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport: Seoul, Korea, 2018.
27. ASCE 41-17. Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings; ASCE: Reston, VA, USA, 2017.
28. TMS 402. Building Code Requirements for Masonry Structures; The Masonry Society: Longmont, CO, USA, 2012.