Shear Behavior of Masonry Panels Strengthened by FRP Laminates
Shear Behavior of Masonry Panels Strengthened by FRP Laminates
Shear Behavior of Masonry Panels Strengthened by FRP Laminates
Abstract
The present experimental study, performed on brick masonry panels strengthened by Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP) laminates,
was aimed to investigate the efficiency of an alternative shear reinforcement technique. A series of nine unreinforced masonry
(URM) panels and 24 strengthened panels have been subjected to diagonal compression tests. Different reinforcement
configurations were evaluated. Experimental results pointed out that FRP reinforcement applied only at one side of the panels did
not significantly modify the shear collapse mechanisms (diagonal splitting) of the URM; while double-side configurations
provided a less brittle failure and a noticeable ultimate capacity increase. Performances of the different reinforcement configurations
are compared in terms of strength and mechanism of failure; finally, experimental results are also used to calibrate existing
analytical formulations for ultimate shear strength prediction.
䊚 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
0950-0618/02/$ - see front matter 䊚 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 9 5 0 - 0 6 1 8 Ž 0 2 . 0 0 0 4 3 - 0
410 M.R. Valluzzi et al. / Construction and Building Materials 16 (2002) 409–416
Table 1
Physical and mechanical characteristics of the FRP laminates
tests. The characteristic compressive strength of five Therefore, the Coulomb equation representing the dry
specimens was found to equal 8.83 MPa. Indirect tensile friction mechanism during joint sliding is:
tests (splitting test) on five specimens provided an
average value equal to 0.95 MPa; thus, the correspond- fvsfv0qms0s0.66q1.36s0 (1)
ing tensile strength can be adopted to equal 0.76 MPa. Compression tests with load cycles performed on
Mortar used for the masonry panels had the following
masonry panels, having nominal dimensions of
mix composition: 380 kgym3 of inorganic binder; 1140
51=51=12 cm, revealed a characteristic compressive
kgym3 of sand (Dmaxs4.8 mm); and waterybinder
strength of 5.56 MPa, a modulus of elasticity of 1400
ratios0.7. The flexural and compressive standard tests
MPa (referred to the 30% of the ultimate load) and a
on six specimens (40=40=160 mm3, after a period of
28 days of curing) revealed an average strength equal masonry Poisson ratio equal to nxzsy´x y ´zs0.03 and
to 1.48 (hence, the corresponding tensile is approx. 1.19 nyzsy´y y ´zs0.03 (referred to a transversal, x or y,
MPa) and 6.03 MPa, respectively. and the vertical direction z, respectively).
Interface friction characteristics along the mortar The FRP laminates involved in the experimental work
joints are referred to previous works involving the same consist in carbon, glass or polyvinyl-alcohol unidirec-
materials w3x. During those tests, 12 triplets where tested tional fibers embedded in epoxy resin, according with
with four different levels of confining stress (0.05, 0.1, the wet lay up technique. Their main mechanical char-
0.3 and 0.5 MPa). acteristics, declared by the manufacturer, are shown in
Interpolating the experimental points obtained on the Table 1.
friction vs. confining stresses, it was possible to detect, Pull-off test were performed in order to evaluate the
according with the Coulomb criterion, the parameters FRP-brick adhesion strength under actions orthogonal
describing the shear strength f v for sliding along a to the bond surface. The average tensile strength of six
mortar joint: the cohesion f v0 and the dry friction specimens is equal to 0.44 MPa; in all cases the rupture
coefficient m. was due to detachment of the brick superficial skin.
Bond strength along the fiber direction was deter- of solid clay bricks (5.5=25=12 cm) and have 10-
mined by pulling two consecutive bricks connected by mm-thick mortar joints.
a stretched FRP strip. The measured average strength of Twenty-four of them have been strengthened by dif-
five specimens was equal to 2.50 MPa; again, detach- ferent FRP materials: nine with CFRP; 10 with GFRP
ment occurred within the brick superficial skin. and five with PVAFRP (see Fig. 1).
Due to the small size of the samples and the bricks
3. Specimen description
friableness, it was necessary to cut the loading diagonal
A series of 33 masonry panels having nominal dimen- corners, obtaining a plane transferring areas of 12=12
sions of 51.5=51=12 cm were built. They were made cm.
Table 2
Description of the specimens
Unreinforced panels PNR 1, PNR 2, PNR 3,PNR 4, PNR 5, PNR 6, PNR 7, PNR 8, PNR 9
Squared grid strengthening configuration panels
CFRP Double-side (1 layer of 1.2 cm) PR 1 Carb 2F
PR 2 Carb 2F
PR 3 Carb 2F
Single side (1 layer of 2.4 cm) PR 1 Carb 1F
PR 2 Carb 1F
GFRP Double-side (2 layers of 3 cm) PR 1 Glass 2F
PR 2 Glass 2F
PR 3 Glass 2F
Single side (4 layers of 3 cm) PR 1 Glass 1F
PR 2 Glass 1F
PR 3 Glass 1F
PVAFRP Double-side (4 layers of 5.5 cm) PR 1 PVA 2F
PR 2 PVA 2F
PR 3 PVA 2F
Single side (6 layers of 7.5 cm) PR 1 PVA 1F
PR 2 PVA 1F
Diagonal strengthening configuration panels
CFRP Double-side (1 layer of 1.7 cm) PRD 1 Carb 2F
PRD 2 Carb 2F
Single side (2 layers of 1.7 cm) PRD 1 Carb 1F
PRD 2 Carb 1F
GFRP Double-side (3 layers of 2.8 cm) PRD 1 Glass 2F
PRD 2 Glass 2F
Single side (6 layers of 2.8 cm) PRD 1 Glass 1F
PRD 2 Glass 1F
412 M.R. Valluzzi et al. / Construction and Building Materials 16 (2002) 409–416
Table 3
Experimental tests results
In order to study the influence of the eccentricity of Moreover, two configurations of the reinforcing sys-
the strengthening, the strips were applied on both sides tem were investigated: strips as grid arrangement or
or only at one side of the panels; in the latter case, the application of diagonal strips orthogonal to the loaded
FRP thickness was doubled to maintain the FRP amount diagonal. The same reinforcement amount was applied
constant. for the two different configurations, for each kind of
M.R. Valluzzi et al. / Construction and Building Materials 16 (2002) 409–416 413
Fig. 3. Single-side reinforced panel failure mode: diagonal splitting In all these cases, the failure mechanism consisted in
with a single large crack on the unreinforced side. Notice the bending sudden loss of collaboration between reinforcement and
along the free diagonal. substrate, due to either de-lamination (peeling) of the
superficial part of masonry or rupture of the FRP strips
reinforcing material, so that the ‘stiffness by mechanical (see Fig. 4).
ratio’ rE can be maintained for the two mentioned Grid-reinforced specimens determined spread-cracks
arrangements. patterns, whereas a clear splitting crack appeared in all
The design reinforcement criterion of the FRP amount the diagonally reinforced panels. The ultimate strength
was based on the expectation of an increase of the 50% increase was noticeable in almost all cases; while only
of the URM ultimate shear strength by applying the the CFRP-reinforced panel was seriously affected by
principal tensile stress limitation method on the homog- de-lamination.
enized section (following the Frocht theory, as in Yokel The URM typical sudden failure was noticeably cor-
and Fattal w5x). rected by the FRP strengthening, especially by the grid
As a consequence, due to the different mechanical configuration, where crack wide spreading provided
characteristics of the fibers, each test condition is char- sufficient signals of incipient crisis well before collapse.
acterized by a different width of the strips and different Deformations increased visibly up to failure, and the
number of layers to be glued (see Figs. 1 and 2). The global behavior resulted was less brittle, as shown in
panel typologies are shown in Table 2. Figs. 5 and 6 (up to 80% of the ultimate load, when
sensors have been removed).
4. Experimental results
Fig. 8. Comparison between experimental and analytically predicted shear strength for URM and FRP-strengthened panels.
members (´frp,e is the effective FRP strain). On the basis as it can noticeably affect the FRP strengthening
of the present experimental database it would be possible effectiveness.
to provide a better calibration of the r factor for
masonry; in fact, by measuring the effective strain for 6. Conclusions
each different FRP type it is possible to newly determine
all coefficients of Eq. (6) by polynomial interpolation. The contribution of FRP strips on the shear behavior
Note that f vk0 wEqs. (2) and (3)x is obtained by sliding of clay brick wallets has been investigated; far from
tests on triplets, whereas f 9vk0 wEq. (4)x is obtained by being exhaustive, the results of the present study indi-
diagonal compressive tests. cated that asymmetrical applications (single-side rein-
VRdsfvktdq0.9drfrpftkt (2) forcement) on masonry panels offer a limited
effectiveness.
where: The diagonal configuration is more efficient in terms
fvksfvk0qms0; (3) of shear capacity than the grid set up; however, the
latter offers a better stress redistribution that causes a
B E
VRdsD0.9tlf9vk0y1.5qy1qs0yf9vk0Gq0.4Arftk
C F
(4) crack spreading and a less brittle failure.
In most cases, less stiff FRP material appeared to be
VRdsfvktdq0.9drfrpEfrpr´frp,ut more effective both in terms of ultimate strength and
(rsefficiency factor) (5) stiffness (not reported for brevity) increase of the panels.
That was due to the particular design criterion used
r´frp,us´frp,es0.0119y0.0205ŽrfrpEfrp.
(weaker material has a larger adhesion area), and also
q0.0104ŽrfrpEfrp.2 (6) to the fact that stiffer material is more vulnerable to de-
The comparison among the experimental and the bonding, especially when the number of plies increase.
predicted values of the shear strength is reported in Fig. Presently, our effort is oriented to formulate a relation
8. The efficiency factor given by Eq. (6) appears to be involving stiffness, thickness, width and number of
excessively conservative as it provides very low shear layers of FRP to quantify the susceptibility of the
strengths, so a better calibration of the formula is reinforcement to de-bond.
necessary. Anyway, despite the same mechanical param- Low increments in the shear strength, in the particular
eter rE was maintained for diagonal and grid set-up, as experience here described, are also attributable to the
mentioned before, the related shear strength differed of peeling occurring in the portions next to the applied
more than 40% for the two configurations. Therefore, compressive loads (where high stress causes premature
for a better calibration of the r factor, also the geomet- cracks) and to the peculiar lower tensile strength of the
rical reinforcement arrangement should be considered, bricks, which causes splitting failure through them as
416 M.R. Valluzzi et al. / Construction and Building Materials 16 (2002) 409–416