Construction and Building Materials 16 (2002) 409–416

Shear behavior of masonry panels strengthened by FRP laminates

M.R. Valluzzi*, D. Tinazzi, C. Modena
Department of Constructions and Transportation Engineering, University of Padova, Via Marzolo, 9-35131 Padova, Italy

Received 6 July 2001; accepted 31 May 2002

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.

Keywords: Brick masonry; Shear behavior; FRP laminates

1. Introduction behavior of the strengthening material itself; therefore,

The Italian traditional masonry works, which represent
a large part of its historical heritage, are particularly
susceptible to in-plane shear actions.
As is known, in URM brittle, shear rupture occurs
either as a diagonal splitting or as step-pattern sliding
along the mortar joints, depending on the characteristics
of the constituent materials (mortar and bricks). There-
fore, in order to predict properly the masonry shear
capacity, it is necessary to first identify the most antic-
ipated failure mechanism, based on the knowledge of
the involved materials.
Presently, small diameter steel bars are successfully
used as reinforcement in masonry retrofitting, and sev-
eral field applications on heavily loaded historical struc-
tures have been presented w1x.
Nowadays, FRPs represent a new opportunity to
restoring ambit, with considerable development in URM
strengthening. A key problem is represented by FRP’s
up-to-failure linear elastic behavior, which prevents the
ductility of the system being based on the plastic
*Corresponding author. Tel.: q39-049-827-5576; fax: q39-049-
827-5604.
E-mail address: valluzzi@caronte.dic.unipd.it (M.R. Valluzzi).
redistribution-derived theories are not applicable. Con-
sequently, investigations on alternative mechanisms pro-
viding sufficient signals of incipient collapse are
required.
A certain number of FRP masonry strengthening
applications have already been performed, involving
either FRP bars and laminates, but few analytical or
experimental research works have investigated the
effectiveness and reliability of that new technology w2–
4 x.
In the present experimental work, which was per-
formed on coupon-size masonry panels, the diagonal
compressive test has been chosen to simply simulate the
in-plane shear phenomenon.
2. Materials characterization
As mentioned, masonry mechanical properties depend
on the characteristics of the constituent elements (bricks
and mortar), as well as on the workmanship and the
interface interaction within the assemblage. Thus, an
extensive program of tests, ranging from the units to the
assemblages scale, was performed.
The main mechanical properties of the bricks were
determined by unidirectional compressive and tensile

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
Type of fiber High tensile
strength
carbon
(CFRP)
Density (kgym3) 1820
Equivalent thickness (mm) 0.165
Characteristic tensile strength (MPa) 3430
Tensile modulus of elasticity (GPa) 230
Ultimate strain (%) 1.5
tests. The characteristic compressive strength of five
specimens was found to equal 8.83 MPa. Indirect tensile
tests (splitting test) on five specimens provided an
average value equal to 0.95 MPa; thus, the correspond-
ing tensile strength can be adopted to equal 0.76 MPa.
Mortar used for the masonry panels had the following
mix composition: 380 kgym3 of inorganic binder; 1140
kgym3 of sand (Dmaxs4.8 mm); and waterybinder
ratios0.7. The flexural and compressive standard tests
on six specimens (40=40=160 mm3, after a period of
28 days of curing) revealed an average strength equal
to 1.48 (hence, the corresponding tensile is approx. 1.19
MPa) and 6.03 MPa, respectively.
Interface friction characteristics along the mortar
joints are referred to previous works involving the same
materials w3x. During those tests, 12 triplets where tested
with four different levels of confining stress (0.05, 0.1,
0.3 and 0.5 MPa).
Interpolating the experimental points obtained on the
friction vs. confining stresses, it was possible to detect,
according with the Coulomb criterion, the parameters
describing the shear strength f v for sliding along a
mortar joint: the cohesion f v0 and the dry friction
coefficient m.
Fig. 1. Single-side strengthening patterns.
Glass Polyvinyl-
type E alcohol
(GFRP) (PVAFRP)
2600 1300
0.115 0.07
1700 1400
65 29
2.8 6
Therefore, the Coulomb equation representing the dry
friction mechanism during joint sliding is:
fvsfv0qms0s0.66q1.36s0 (1)
Compression tests with load cycles performed on
masonry panels, having nominal dimensions of
51=51=12 cm, revealed a characteristic compressive
strength of 5.56 MPa, a modulus of elasticity of 1400
MPa (referred to the 30% of the ultimate load) and a
masonry Poisson ratio equal to nxzsy´x y ´zs0.03 and
nyzsy´y y ´zs0.03 (referred to a transversal, x or y,
and the vertical direction z, respectively).
The FRP laminates involved in the experimental work
consist in carbon, glass or polyvinyl-alcohol unidirec-
tional fibers embedded in epoxy resin, according with
the wet lay up technique. Their main mechanical char-
acteristics, declared by the manufacturer, are shown in
Table 1.
Pull-off test were performed in order to evaluate the
FRP-brick adhesion strength under actions orthogonal
to the bond surface. The average tensile strength of six
specimens is equal to 0.44 MPa; in all cases the rupture
was due to detachment of the brick superficial skin.
 M.R. Valluzzi et al. / Construction and Building Materials 16 (2002) 409–416 411

Fig. 2. Double-side strengthening patterns.

Bond strength along the fiber direction was deter-
mined by pulling two consecutive bricks connected by
a stretched FRP strip. The measured average strength of
five specimens was equal to 2.50 MPa; again, detach-
ment occurred within the brick superficial skin.
3. Specimen description
A series of 33 masonry panels having nominal dimen-
sions of 51.5=51=12 cm were built. They were made
of solid clay bricks (5.5=25=12 cm) and have 10-
mm-thick mortar joints.
Twenty-four of them have been strengthened by dif-
ferent FRP materials: nine with CFRP; 10 with GFRP
and five with PVAFRP (see Fig. 1).
Due to the small size of the samples and the bricks
friableness, it was necessary to cut the loading diagonal
corners, obtaining a plane transferring areas of 12=12
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

Panel type Cracking Crack Failure % Failure mode

Load pattern load
(kN) (kN)
Unreinforced masonry panels
PNR 1 – – 75.5 Splitting
PNR 2 – – 90.0 Splitting
PNR 3 – – 91.2 Splitting
PNR 4 – – 127.9 Splitting
PNR 5 – – 77.1 Splitting
PNR 6 – – 93.2 Splitting
PNR 7 – – 93 Splitting
PNR 8 – – 121.6 Splitting
PNR 9 – – 137.3 Splitting
Average 100.7 Ref.
Single-side reinforced panels
PR 1 Carb 1F – Sharp diag. 91.6 Splitting
PR 2 Carb 1F – Sharp diag. 90.0 Splitting
Average 90.8 y9.8
PR 1 Glass 1F – Sharp diag. 94.6 Splitting
PR 2 Glass 1F 86.0 Sharp diag. 99.1 Splitting
PR 3 Glass 1F – Sharp diag. 94.0 Splitting
Average 95.9 y4.8
PR 1 PVA 1F – Sharp diag. 102.0 Splitting
PR 2 PVA 1F – Sharp diag. 100.0- –
Average 101 q0.3
PRD 1 Carb 1F – Sharp diag. 112.8 Splitting
PRD 2 Carb 1F – Sharp diag. 119.8 Splitting
Average 116.3 q15.5
PRD 1 Glass 1F 113.8 Sharp diag. 115.3 Splitting
PRD 2 Glass 1F 108.1 sharp diag. 108.3 Splitting
Average 111.8 q11.0
Double-side reinforced panels
PR 1 Carb 2F – Spread diag. 100.5 DLM at lower corner
PR 2 Carb 2F 104.6 Spread diag. 113.3 DLM sup.qRTT centr.
PR 3 Carb 2F – Spread diag. 98.5 DLM lower, sides A and B
Average 104.1 q3.4
PR 1 Glass 2F – Spread diag. 106.7 DLM up. and low. corner
PR 2 Glass 2F 120.5 Spread diag. 135.4 RTT side A
PR 3 Glass 2F – Spread diag. 103.0 DLM low. side A and B
Average 115.0 q14.2
PR 1 PVA 2F – Spread diag. 148.5 DLM at lower corner
PR 2 PVA 2F 130.5 Spread diag. 150.4 DLM at lower corner
PR 3 PVA 2F – Spread diag. 146.0 DLM low. side A and B
Average 148.3 q47.3
PRD 1 Carb 2F – Spread diag. 143.1 DLM up. and low. side A
PRD 2 Carb 2F 125.3 Spread diag. 149.4 DLM inf.qRTT centr.
Average 146.3 q45.3
PRD 1 Glass 2F – Spread diag. 170.3 DLM low. side A
PRD 2 Glass 2F 133.2 Spread diag. 180.0 DLM inf. sides A and B q
RTT centr. side A
Average 175.2 q74.0

In order to study the influence of the eccentricity of
the strengthening, the strips were applied on both sides
or only at one side of the panels; in the latter case, the
FRP thickness was doubled to maintain the FRP amount
constant.
Moreover, two configurations of the reinforcing sys-
tem were investigated: strips as grid arrangement or
application of diagonal strips orthogonal to the loaded
diagonal. The same reinforcement amount was applied
for the two different configurations, for each kind of
 M.R. Valluzzi et al. / Construction and Building Materials 16 (2002) 409–416
Fig. 3. Single-side reinforced panel failure mode: diagonal splitting
with a single large crack on the unreinforced side. Notice the bending
along the free diagonal.
reinforcing material, so that the ‘stiffness by mechanical
ratio’ rE can be maintained for the two mentioned
arrangements.
The design reinforcement criterion of the FRP amount
was based on the expectation of an increase of the 50%
of the URM ultimate shear strength by applying the
principal tensile stress limitation method on the homog-
enized section (following the Frocht theory, as in Yokel
and Fattal w5x).
As a consequence, due to the different mechanical
characteristics of the fibers, each test condition is char-
acterized by a different width of the strips and different
number of layers to be glued (see Figs. 1 and 2). The
panel typologies are shown in Table 2.
4. Experimental results
The samples were subjected to diagonal compression
test, and both vertical and horizontal deformations were
measured by displacement transducers. Quantitative
results are summarized in Table 3, where abbreviations
are as follows: DLM means de-lamination of FRP
stripes, RTT means FRP tensile rupture; the location of
the possible concentration of the rupture is also indicat-
ed. In the following, a description of the different panel
typology behaviors is given:
4.1. Plane panels
As expected from the material characterization and
the triplet test results, all the unreinforced specimens
presented brittle failure due to splitting along the loaded
diagonal.
The average failure load, used as reference value for
the comparison with the strengthened specimens results,
is equal to 100.7 kN.
413
4.2. Single-side strengthening
Splitting failure with a clear diagonal crack pattern
was also obtained in all single-side reinforced panels,
whereas ultimate load was in many cases lower than the
reference. The samples exhibited a clear bending defor-
mation during the loading phases along the unreinforced
diagonal; as a consequence, the main damage was
concentrated on the unreinforced side (see Fig. 3). That
bending phenomenon was caused by a noticeable differ-
ence of stiffness on the opposite sides as a result of the
asymmetrical reinforcement. Among the one-side rein-
forced specimens, diagonal strengthening configuration
always revealed a higher effectiveness than the squared
grid set-up.
4.3. Double-side strengthening
In all these cases, the failure mechanism consisted in
sudden loss of collaboration between reinforcement and
substrate, due to either de-lamination (peeling) of the
superficial part of masonry or rupture of the FRP strips
(see Fig. 4).
Grid-reinforced specimens determined spread-cracks
patterns, whereas a clear splitting crack appeared in all
the diagonally reinforced panels. The ultimate strength
increase was noticeable in almost all cases; while only
the CFRP-reinforced panel was seriously affected by
de-lamination.
The URM typical sudden failure was noticeably cor-
rected by the FRP strengthening, especially by the grid
configuration, where crack wide spreading provided
sufficient signals of incipient crisis well before collapse.
Deformations increased visibly up to failure, and the
global behavior resulted was less brittle, as shown in
Figs. 5 and 6 (up to 80% of the ultimate load, when
sensors have been removed).
5. Analysis of the results
An FEM simulation was implemented by means of a
commercially available code to validate the assumptions
on stress distributions corresponding to the different
strengthening configurations of the panels. Results are
Fig. 4. Double-side reinforced panel failure mode: either peeling in
the anchoring zones or rupture of the fibers are reached depending on
both the reinforcement stiffness and bonding area.
414 M.R. Valluzzi et al. / Construction and Building Materials 16 (2002) 409–416

Fig. 5. Stress–strain diagram of panels reinforced with carbon-FRP

strips in a diagonal configuration, either on one or both sides. Values
refers to the average measurement on the opposite faces.

shown in Fig. 7 in terms of principal tensile stress

(splitting stress). According to the Frocht theory, in
URM panels the highest splitting stresses are concen-
trated in the core, whilst partial stress relocation is given
by the diagonal reinforcement. Finally, the squared grid
reinforcement configuration presents a more uniform
distribution of stress on the panel, while stress peaks
are shifted toward anchoring zones.
Analytical models available in literature to evaluate
the shear strength VRd of URM shear walls are here
reported. All of them are based on the linear effects
superposition, which derive from the implicit assumption
of plastic stress redistribution. Even though the latter
assumption is not properly introduced when dealing with
FRP, at present no more appropriate approaches are
available. Formulations (2) and (4) (ENV, Eurocode 6
w6x and Tomazevic et al. w7x, respectively) are proposed
for masonry reinforced with steel bars; whereas formu-
lation (5) w4x is introduced specifically for FRP. Essen- Fig. 7. FEM simulation: highest splitting stress in the core of the URM
tially, they are the sum of the original masonry shear panel; partial stress relocation with diagonal reinforcement; and shift-
ing of stress peaks to anchoring areas with squared grid reinforcement
distribution.

capacity and the reinforcement effect, which is reduced

Fig. 6. Stress–strain diagram of panels reinforced with glass-FRP
strips in a diagonal configuration, either on one or both sides. Values
refers to the average measurement on the opposite faces.
for FRPs to take into account different issues descending
from their non-ductile behavior. Particularly, in the
mentioned formulas are included the characteristic
strength of the masonry f vk and the geometrical and the
mechanical characteristics of the masonry wall and of
the reinforcement (t is the wall thickness, l its length,
ds0.8l is the effective depth; rfrp is the FRP ratio
computed on the wall section; Ar is the area of the
reinforcement; f tk is the characteristic tensile stress of
the FRP; ´frp,u is the FRP tensile ultimate strain). In
particular, the formulation (5) considers a factor of
efficiency r, which depends on the failure mode (FRP
rupture or de-bonding). The expression of r, given by
the Eq. (6), was found by Triantafillou w4x for concrete
 M.R. Valluzzi et al. / Construction and Building Materials 16 (2002) 409–416
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
of the present experimental database it would be possible
to provide a better calibration of the r factor for
masonry; in fact, by measuring the effective strain for
each different FRP type it is possible to newly determine
all coefficients of Eq. (6) by polynomial interpolation.
Note that f vk0 wEqs. (2) and (3)x is obtained by sliding
tests on triplets, whereas f 9vk0 wEq. (4)x is obtained by
diagonal compressive tests.
VRdsfvktdq0.9drfrpftkt
where:
fvksfvk0qms0;
B E
VRdsD0.9tlf9vk0y1.5qy1qs0yf9vk0Gq0.4Arftk
C F
VRdsfvktdq0.9drfrpEfrpr´frp,ut
(rsefficiency factor)
r´frp,us´frp,es0.0119y0.0205ŽrfrpEfrp.
q0.0104ŽrfrpEfrp.2
The comparison among the experimental and the
predicted values of the shear strength is reported in Fig.
8. The efficiency factor given by Eq. (6) appears to be
excessively conservative as it provides very low shear
strengths, so a better calibration of the formula is
necessary. Anyway, despite the same mechanical param-
eter rE was maintained for diagonal and grid set-up, as
mentioned before, the related shear strength differed of
more than 40% for the two configurations. Therefore,
for a better calibration of the r factor, also the geomet-
rical reinforcement arrangement should be considered,
415
as it can noticeably affect the FRP strengthening
effectiveness.
6. Conclusions
The contribution of FRP strips on the shear behavior
of clay brick wallets has been investigated; far from
being exhaustive, the results of the present study indi-
cated that asymmetrical applications (single-side rein-
(2) forcement) on masonry panels offer a limited
effectiveness.
The diagonal configuration is more efficient in terms
(3) of shear capacity than the grid set up; however, the
latter offers a better stress redistribution that causes a
(4) crack spreading and a less brittle failure.
In most cases, less stiff FRP material appeared to be
more effective both in terms of ultimate strength and
(5) stiffness (not reported for brevity) increase of the panels.
That was due to the particular design criterion used
(weaker material has a larger adhesion area), and also
(6) to the fact that stiffer material is more vulnerable to de-
bonding, especially when the number of plies increase.
Presently, our effort is oriented to formulate a relation
involving stiffness, thickness, width and number of
layers of FRP to quantify the susceptibility of the
reinforcement to de-bond.
Low increments in the shear strength, in the particular
experience here described, are also attributable to the
peeling occurring in the portions next to the applied
compressive loads (where high stress causes premature
cracks) and to the peculiar lower tensile strength of the
bricks, which causes splitting failure through them as
416 M.R. Valluzzi et al. / Construction and Building Materials 16 (2002) 409–416
main failure mechanism. Nevertheless, bricks used rep-
resent the most common typology in Italy.
Alternative anchoring methods appear to be a key
issue to evaluate during further experimentations in
order to prevent loss of effectiveness due to de-bond.
The type of test conducted and the specimen dimen-
sions appear an easy and efficient system to check
elementary strengthening configurations.
Finally, the application of Triantafillou’s formula wEq.
(5)x requires further calibrations, especially for failure
mechanisms affecting the efficiency parameter and the
configuration of reinforcement. Anyway, until new
approaches to predict the shear capacity are available, a
better definition of the efficiency factor r appears to be
the right direction to follow.
Acknowledgments
All the materials used in the research, including the
fibers and the adhesion system, were supplied by Mod-
ern Advanced Concrete (MAC S.p.A.) of Treviso, Italy.
References
w1x Binda L, Modena C, Valluzzi MR. Mechanical effects of bed
joints steel reinforcement in historic masonry structures. Struc-
tural faultsqrepair. Engineering Techics Press, Edinburgh, UK:
1999.
w2x Tinazzi D, Arduini M, Modena C, Nanni A. FRP-structural
repointing of masonry assemblages. Ottawa, Canada: ACMBS
III, 2000.
w3x Valluzzi MR, Modena C, Marchetti M. Shear strengthening of
masonry panels using FRP. Proceedings of the Twelfth IB2MaC
Conference. Madrid, Spain: 2000.
w4x Triantafillou TC. Strengthening of masonry structures using
epoxy-bonded FRP laminates. J Compos Constr ASCE
1998;2(2):96 –104.
w5x Yokel FY, Fattal GS. Failure hypothesis for masonry shear
walls. J Struct Div 1976;102(ST3):515 –32.
w6x ENV 1996-1-1. Eurocode 6: design of masonry structures.
1996.
w7x Tomazevic M, Lutman M, Pertrovic L. In plane behavior of
reinforced masonry walls subjected to cyclic lateral loads.
Report to the Ministry of Science and Technology of Republic
of Slovenia, parts 1 and 2. Liubljana, Slovenia, 1993.