Journal of Earthquake Engineering

ISSN: 1363-2469 (Print) 1559-808X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ueqe20

Experimental Study of Solid and Hollow Clay

Brick Masonry Walls Retrofitted by Steel Fiber-
Reinforced Mortar Coating

Luca Facconi, Fausto Minelli, Sara Lucchini & Giovanni Plizzari

To cite this article: Luca Facconi, Fausto Minelli, Sara Lucchini & Giovanni Plizzari
(2018): Experimental Study of Solid and Hollow Clay Brick Masonry Walls Retrofitted
by Steel Fiber-Reinforced Mortar Coating, Journal of Earthquake Engineering, DOI:
10.1080/13632469.2018.1442264

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2018.1442264

Published online: 02 Mar 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ueqe20
JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING
https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2018.1442264

Experimental Study of Solid and Hollow Clay Brick Masonry

Walls Retrofitted by Steel Fiber-Reinforced Mortar Coating
Luca Facconi , Fausto Minelli , Sara Lucchini, and Giovanni Plizzari
DICATAM—Department of Civil Engineering, Architecture, Land, Environment and Mathematics, University of
Brescia, Brescia, Italy

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

An experimental study including reverse quasi-static cyclic tests on solid Received 1 February 2017
and hollow Unreinforced Masonry walls strengthened with thin steel Accepted 28 November 2017
fiber-reinforced mortar (SFRM) coating is herein presented. Three types KEYWORDS
of mortars containing nano-silica and three different typologies of short Masonry Walls; Solid Clay
high-strength steel fibers are used. Bricks; Hollow Clay Bricks;
Compared to traditional coating techniques, the proposed strength- Cyclic Tests; Strengthening;
ening method adopts a thin layer (25 mm tick) of SFRM anchored on the Coating; Steel Fiber-
wall surface by means of steel connectors. Reinforced Mortar; Lateral
Results show that this novel technique provides significant enhance- Resistance
ment in terms of strength and stiffness. Critical considerations on the in-
plane lateral resistance of masonry walls are reported.

1. Introduction
Unreinforced Masonry (URM) has been one of the most used construction materials
worldwide irrespective of the seismic hazard related to the construction sites. However, in
the last decades, several national and international codes (NTC 2008, 2008; EN 1998-1,
2004; ATC, FEMA-273, 1997) have progressively introduced new provisions for designing
or retrofitting buildings to provide an adequate seismic resistance.
It is well known that the low-tensile resistance is the main unfavorable mechanical
property that makes URM structures vulnerable to both in-plane and out-of-plane seismic
actions (D’Ayala and Speranza, 2003; Bommer et al., 2004; Como, 2013; Javed et al., 2015).
The growing attention paid by structural design codes to the safety of URM against
seismic actions and the considerable number of heavy earthquakes recently occurred,
led many research studies to continuously develop and improve retrofitting techniques for
enhancing the seismic behavior of masonry buildings.
The traditional and most widespread retrofitting technologies can be grouped in
some main categories: (a) coating containing a reinforcing mesh (i.e., ferro-cement,
reinforced plaster, textile reinforced mortar, etc.) (Aldea et al., 2007; Franklin et al.,
2003; Tomaževič et al., 2012; Papanicolaou et al., 2008); (b) shotcrete overlays (Kahn,
1984; Lin et al., 2010c); (c) grout and epoxy injection (Binda et al., 1994); (d) FRP
laminate reinforcement (Triantafillou, 1998; Valluzzi et al., 2002; Tomaževič et al.,
2009); (e) external reinforcement and post-tensioning (Rai and Goel, 1996; Ganz,

CONTACT Fausto Minelli fausto.minelli@unibs.it

Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/ueqe.
© 2018 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
2 L. FACCONI ET AL.

1993). Compared to other techniques, reinforced coating is generally characterized by

some advantages as the ability of considerably improving the in-plane and out-of-plane
resistance as well as the drift capacity of the structure, the moderate cost, the low
technological level required during construction and the limited increase of the global
mass of the building (El Gawady et al., 2004). On the contrary, reinforced coating
necessarily requires a significant time labor for placing reinforcement and, where a
conventional steel mesh is used, minimum cover requirements must be fulfilled in
order to avoid bar corrosion and to ensure durability.
As an alternative to reinforcing meshes, mortar coting can be reinforced by means of
short steel fibers randomly distributed in the mortar matrix. The use of fibers in substitu-
tion of reinforcing meshes generally allows reducing the time for the construction of
coating. When substituting a conventional steel wire mesh, a further advantage of steel
fibers is represented by the possibility of reducing the coating thickness, since the mini-
mum cover requirements for rebars are no longer necessary. Moreover, unlike conven-
tionally reinforced mortar/concrete, the improved tensile toughness provided by fibers
leads to a better control of the cracking process.
The literature reports an increasingly number of works concerning tests on URM walls
strengthened with steel fiber reinforced concrete/mortar coating. Besides the techniques
adopting conventional concrete/mortar materials (Hutchison et al., 1984; Sevil et al., 2011;
Messali et al., 2017), many studies proposed the use of high performance cementitious
composites, like the ECCs (Engineered Cementitious Composites) (Li, 2003; Kim et al.,
2003), in order to improve the in-plane (Bae et al., 2010) and the out-of-plane (Lin et al.,
2010b) capacity of URM walls. Because of generally good masonry-to-coating bond
properties, ECCs coatings have been tested without using connection devices able to
anchor the overlay to the masonry surface (Dehghani et al., 2015; Lin et al., 2010a). In
spite of this, some authors recommended to install steel connectors (e.g., dowels, bolts,
etc.) specifically designed to better control coating detachment and improve the coating-
masonry bond (Bae et al., 2010; Kyriakides and Billington, 2014; Lin et al., 2014).
The experimental work reported in this manuscript represents the completion of a
comprehensive study on full scale URM walls, whose preliminary results were discussed in
(Facconi et al., 2015). In more detail, the research proposed the use of a thin coating, made
of a high performance aluminate based mortar, for strengthening or repairing masonry
walls. The mortar overlays were applied on one or both sides of the specimen with a
thickness of 25 mm. High-strength steel fibers randomly embedded in the mortar matrix
were used as a unique reinforcement. To assess the effectiveness of the proposed strength-
ening technique, a total of 10 walls, including two not-strengthened, six strengthened, and
two repaired specimens, were tested under lateral reverse cyclic loads. Both solid and
hollow clay brick masonry materials were employed.

2. Experimental Program and Test Setup

The experimental program concerned 10 tests on full scale URM walls made of both
solid (SCB) and hollow (HCB) clay bricks. The specimens represented a cantilever
bearing wall of a typical two-story masonry building constructed during the “50s–70s”
of the 20th century. The main properties of the walls are summarized in Table 1. The
first four specimens, i.e., MW1, MW2-ST, MW3-ST and MW1-R, were tested in the
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 3

Table 1. Summary of the experimental program.

Specimen Brick type Specimen type Coating properties Connection type
MW1* Solid clay Not-strengthened Control specimen–no coating applied –
MW2-ST* Solid clay Strengthened – Mortar type: SFRM1 A
– Numbers of layers: 2
MW3-ST* Solid clay Strengthened – Mortar type: SFRM1 B
– Numbers of layers: 2
MW1-R* Solid clay Repaired – Mortar type: SFRM1 A
– Numbers of layers: 2
MW4-ST Solid clay Strengthened – Mortar type: SFRM2 C
– Numbers of layers: 2
MW5-ST Solid clay Strengthened – Mortar type: SFRM3 C
– Numbers of layers: 2
MW6-ST Solid clay Strengthened – Mortar type: SFRM2 B
– Numbers of layers: 2
MW6-ST(1L) Solid clay Strengthened – Mortar type: SFRM2 B
– Numbers of layers: 1
MWH1 Hollow clay Not strengthened – Control specimen–no coating applied –
MWH1-R Hollow clay Repaired – Mortar type: SFRM3 D
– Numbers of layers: 2

*Specimen tested in the first part of the experimental campaign (see Facconi et al., 2015)

former part of this research (see (Facconi et al., 2015)), whereas the remaining 6 are
here presented for the first time.
All the specimens presented a length of about 3000 mm and a height of 1970 mm. In more
detail, the double wythe SCB masonry walls were 3070 mm long (L), 1970 mm high (H),
230 mm wide (t) and were built with 10 mm thick mortar joints. The brick pattern adopted
for the SCB masonry walls is fully detailed in (Facconi et al., 2015). On the contrary, the 2995
(L) x 1970 (H) x 240(t) mm HCB masonry (see Figure 1) consisted of vertically perforated
clay bricks (Figure 1b) laid in a single wythe with 10 mm thick mortar joints. All the
specimens were built by fully filling both head and bed joints with mortar.
As highlighted in Table 1, the test specimens have been divided into three main
typologies, with respectively named as not-strengthened, strengthened (ST), and repaired
(R). The term not-strengthened is referred to a specimen without coating whereas the
term strengthened refers to the walls reinforced with coating. The repaired walls were built
by using coating for repairing the control specimens, i.e., MW1 and MWH1, previously
tested up to a post-peak load lower than 90% of the peak load. All the specimens were
retrofitted or repaired with a 25 mm thick layer of steel fiber reinforced mortar (SFRM)
coating applied on both sides (2 layers) of the wall. Considering the little damage observed
at the end of the cyclic test, one of the two coating layers was removed from the surface of
wall MW6-ST and the obtained specimen (MW6-ST(1L)) was tested again. Therefore, wall
MW6-ST(1L) was the only specimen strengthened by a single layer of SFRM.
The properties of the three types of SFRM adopted, i.e., SFRM1, SFRM2, and SFRM3
are presented in Section 3.2.
Four types of masonry-to-coating connections were adopted to prevent buckling or
delamination of coating during test. About SCB walls, the anchors (Figure 2) were placed
in pre-drilled holes at 500 mm spacing both in horizontal and vertical direction in order to
get a total of four anchors per square meter. The connection type A consisted of a 8 mm
4 L. FACCONI ET AL.

190mm

240mm
200mm

(a) (b)

Figure 1. Schematization of a hollow clay brick masonry wall: test rig (a) and view of a typical hollow
clay unit (b).

Figure 2. Masonry-to-coating connection details.

diameter (ϕ) threaded steel bar provided with a steel anchor. To ensure stress diffusion on
the coating surface, a 50x50x10 mm3 steel plate was bolted to the steel bar and clamped on
the external surface of coating (Figure 2). The connection type B was made of a 6 mm
diameter self-tapping steel screw (Figure 3a) having a 25x25x0.6 mm3 steel fender washer
placed in the middle of the coating thickness. The connection type C presented the same
self-tapping screw adopted by the connection B but a larger (50x50x1.8 mm3) anchor steel
plate. Finally, for the HCB walls, a nylon wall plug (commercially available) provided with
a 6 mm diameter steel screw (Figure 3b) was used. The obtained connection, named as
type D, had a 50x50x1.8 mm3 steel plate placed within the coating thickness.
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 5

Self-tapping zinc coated steel screw (length = 132mm; diameter = 6mm) Nylon wall plug (length = 140mm; diameter = 8mm)

Zinc coated steel screw (length = 145mm; diameter = 6mm)

(a) (b)

Figure 3. View of the self-tapping steel screw (a) and the nylon wall plug with steel screw (b).

Note that the connection type A was initially developed in order to investigate possible
effective solutions to connect masonry to coating. However, considering its unaesthetic
features, this solution is not suitable for real field applications, including strengthening of
residential URM buildings. The method used to apply the SFRM coating on one or both sides
of the wall was the same for all specimens. The wall surface was cleaned, manually scratched
by a hammer and then brushed with a wire-brush machine to improve the surface roughness.
The natural high surface roughness of the hollow clay bricks allowed to avoid this preliminary
procedure before retrofitting specimen MWH1. Then, the wall surface was moistened with
water and a first thin layer (about 5–6 mm thick) of mortar not containing fibers was manually
spread on it before installing the masonry-to-coating connections according to the layout of
Figure 2. After that, different layers of SFRM were consecutively applied by a trowel until a
total coating thickness of 25 mm was achieved. Eventually, in order to limit shrinkage cracks,
water was sprayed on the coating surface for at least three days after coating application.
All the masonry panels were placed on a concrete foundation connected to the
laboratory floor and capped with a reinforced concrete beam. No mechanical devices
were adopted to connect the masonry panels to both the foundation and the cap beam.
However, an improved interface adhesion was obtained by laying a 20-mm thick layer of
mortar M20 (mortar classification according EN 1996–1-1 (Eurocode 6 (EN 1996-1-1),
2004)) between the masonry panel and the concrete elements.
Figure 1 also depicts the test rig adopted to carry out the quasi static cyclic tests on the
masonry walls. The loading frame was designed to apply a lateral load by an electro-
mechanic jack acting at the top of the wall and connected to the cap beam by a hinged
connection. The specimens were investigated under a constant axial load (N) of 250 kN,
representing the gravity load acting at the first floor of a typical two-story masonry
building. The axial load was applied by the vertical hydraulic jack placed at the top of
the distributor steel beams (Figure 1). The vertical jack was controlled in such a way that
the load remained centered and constant during testing. In order to reproduce cantilever
boundary conditions the cap beam was left free to rotate.
A total of 19 transducers, installed according to the layout of Figure 4, were used. The
lateral displacement was detected at the top left and right of the wall by Linear Variable
Displacement Transducers (LVDTs) installed on both the masonry panel (LH, RH) and the
cap beam (LHT, RHT). The transducer RSB measured the relative horizontal displacement
between the wall footing and the strong floor. Four potentiometers (BRD, BLD, TLD, TRD)
were used to measure the deformation along the diagonal on both sides of the panel. The
LVDTs named as RR and RL detected the wall uplift on the front and back side of the
6 L. FACCONI ET AL.

Figure 4. Instrumentation set-up.

specimen. Moreover, two potentiometers (LS, RS) were installed to measure the displacements
along the vertical sides of the specimen (Figure 4).
After applying the axial load, the specimens were subjected to reverse cycles with an
increasing drift amplitude. Each cycle was repeated at least two times up to a lateral drift
of 0.5%. After that, when it was possible, a series of triplets were carried out. The typical
loading history is shown in Figure 5.

1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
Drift [%]

0.0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617
Cycles
Figure 5. Typical test loading program of the masonry walls.
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 7

3. Material Properties
3.1. Masonry Properties
The masonry walls were built by using both solid and hollow clay bricks having
dimensions 230x110x50 mm3 and 240x200x190 mm3, respectively. The compression
tests performed according to EN 772–1:2011 (EN 772-1:2011, 2011) provided a normal-
ized mean compressive strength (fb) of solid brick equal to 12 MPa. About hollow
bricks, the mean compressive strength parallel to the holes was 2.0 MPa (CV = 5%)
whereas the compressive strength perpendicular to the holes was equal to 0.2 MPa
(CV = 9%). Note that hollow bricks were characterized by a quite high percentage of
voids (58%). To simulate the typical properties of existing masonry buildings, the
10 mm thick bed and head joints were filled with weak mortar (cement: hydraulic
lime: sand–1:2:9 by volume). The mass density of the composite material was 1900 kg/
m3 for solid brick masonry and about 760 kg/m3 for hollow brick masonry. Flexural
and compressive tests were performed according to EN 1015–11 (EN 1015-11:2007,
2007) in order to determine the mean compressive strength (fm) and the flexural
strength (i.e., the Modulus Of Rupture–MOR) of mortar. A total of 21 and 19 prismatic
specimens (dimensions: 160x40x40 mm3) were prepared during the construction of the
solid and hollow brick walls, respectively. The former provided a mean MOR of
1.55 MPa (CV = 11%) and an fm of 4.20 MPa (CV = 15%); the latter were characterized
by a mean MOR of 1.86 MPa (CV = 8%) and an fm of 4.35 MPa (CV = 19%).
Therefore, according to Eurocode 6 (Eurocode 6 (EN 1996-1-1), 2004), the adopted
masonry mortar can be classified as M2.5.
To determine the compressive strength of masonry, a series of uniaxial tests on masonry
wallets were carried out according to the test set-up suggested by EN 1052–1: 2001 (EN
1052–1: 2001, 2001). As shown in the test set-up schematization of Figure 6, four types of
specimens were investigated. The samples WSH and WSV were made with SCBs laid
according to the brick pattern depicted in Figure 6a and b, respectively. The masonry wallets

Figure 6. Set-up of the compression tests on masonry wallets: horizontal SCBs (a); vertical SCBs (b);
HCBs with vertical holes (c); HCBs with horizontal holes (d).
8 L. FACCONI ET AL.

shown in Figure 6c and d consisted of HCBs laid with vertical (WHV) and horizontal (WHH)
holes, respectively. The vertical stress (fv) vs. strain (εv) curves obtained from the compression
tests for each type of specimen are reported in Figure 7. Note that σv has been calculated as the
ratio between the axial force (F) and the gross section area (Agw) of the masonry wallet.
Table 2 summarizes the values of the compressive strength (fv,m), the strain at peak (ε0)
and the secant modulus of elasticity (Em) resulting from the compression tests. The latter
was calculated as the secant slope of the compressive stress–strain curve from the origin to
1/3 of fv,m. According to the test results, the compressive strength of specimen WSH was
only 7% higher than that of the specimen WSV. On the contrary, when considering
hollow brick masonry, the compressive strength of specimen WHV was about 7.6 times
higher than that of specimen WHH. By comparing the hollow brick specimens with the
solid brick ones, considerably lower strength and stiffness were observed.

3.2. SFRM Properties

Two types of aluminate based mortars containing nano-silica were used to strengthen the
URM walls. The two materials, named, respectively, as M1 and M2, were reinforced with
randomly diffused high-strength steel fibers having different geometrical and material
properties. The actual composition of the dry-mix mortars presented in Table 3 is

6
Vertical stress (fv) [MPa]

4
WSH
WSV
3 WHV
WHH
2

0
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004

Vertical strain ( v) [-]

Figure 7. Uniaxial compression stress–strain curves of SCB and HCB wallets.

Table 2. Masonry properties obtained from uniaxial compression tests.

Sample fv,m ε0 Em
[MPa] [mm/m] [MPa]
WSH 6.1 (CV = 10%) 2.40 4200
WSV 5.7 (CV = 15%) 3.70 2400
WHV 2.3 (CV = 14%) 0.56 5900
WHH 0.3 (CV = 11%) 0.75 500
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 9

Table 3. Composition of the dry-mix mortars.

Compounds % by weight
M1
Aluminum oxide (Al2O3) 40–60
Calcium aluminates 20–30
Calcium oxide (CaO) 6–24
Silicon dioxide (SiO2) 0.1–4.7
Nano-silica 0.2–0.4
M2
Aluminum oxide (Al2O3) 50–80
Calcium aluminates 15–35
Silica aluminates 3–6
Silicon dioxide (SiO2) 0.1–4.7
Nano-silica 0.1–0.5

patented, so only approximate ranges of the real compound contents can be published. To
prepare mortar M1 and M2, 22% and 20% (by weight) of water were, respectively, added
to the premixed powder and then mixed by an electric hand-held mixer. During the
mixing phase, 64 kg/m3 (0.82% by volume) of steel fibers were added to the batch. The
specific unit weight of hardened mortar was 1900 kg/m3 and 2100 kg/m3 for mortar M1
and M2, respectively.
In addition to their good tensile mechanical properties, mortar M1 and M2 were,
respectively, characterized by very high and medium water-proof and water–vapor perme-
ability properties, which are both very important especially in case of retrofitting inter-
ventions on existent masonry buildings having humidity and capillarity moisture
problems.
Three types of steel fibers (see Table 4) were used, leading to three different SFRM
materials referred to as SFRM1, SFRM2, and SFRM3. The fiber content selected for the
three materials was chosen after a series of preliminary pilot tests in which workability,
stability and mechanical performances related to different fiber contents were investigated.
In order to determine the flexural and compressive strength of mortar (see Table 5), a
series of 40x40x160 mm3 prismatic specimens were prepared and tested after 28 days,
according to EN 1015–11 (EN 2007-11:2007). Results allowed to determine the mean
compressive cubic strength (fcm,cube) and the mean flexural strength (fctm,flex). The cylind-
rical compressive strength (fcm) reported in Table 5 was conventionally calculated as the
83% of the cubic strength.
The tensile fracture behavior of SFRM was investigated by three point bending tests
(3PBT) on notched beams performed under CMOD (Crack Mouth Opening
Displacement) control. The beam geometry (also reported in Table 5) and the test set-
up were quite similar to that (150x150x500 mm3) required by EN 14651 (EN 14651-5,

Table 4. Fiber properties.

Material designation SFRM1 SFRM2 SFRM3
Steel type High-carbon Stainless steel High-carbon
Tensile strength [MPa] >2800 >2370 >2800
Length (Lf) [mm] 15 13 32
Diameter (Øf) [mm] 0.40 0.35 0.40
Aspect ratio (Lf/Øf) [–] 38 37 80
Shape Double hooked-end Crimped Double hooked-end
10 L. FACCONI ET AL.

Table 5. SFRM properties.

Material designation SFRM1 SFRM2 SFRM3
Mortar M1 M1 M2
fcm,cube [MPa] 49.2 (CV = 15.3%) 60.8 (CV = 1.9%) 35.2 (CV = 2.5%)
fcm [MPa] 40.8 50.4 29.2
Ecm [MPa] 25,950 (CV = 8.2%) 26,400 (CV = 6.6%) 23,170 (CV = 7.1%)
fL,m [MPa] 2.54 (CV = 8.0%)* 3.57 (CV = 14.0%)** 3.76 (CV = 14.0%)**
fR,1m [MPa] 4.70 (CV = 7.8%)* 5.58 (CV = 12.0%)** 7.16 (CV = 12.0%)**
fR,2m [MPa] 4.52 (CV = 6.85%)* 4.52 (CV = 12.0%)** 8.29 (CV = 20.0%)**
fR,3m [MPa] 3.32 (CV = 10.7%)* 3.21 (CV = 12.0%)** 8.23 (CV = 20.0%)**
fR,4m [MPa] 2.36 (CV = 7.8%)* 2.38 (CV = 9.0%)** 7.73 (CV = 20.0%)**
*Data obtained from tests on 30x150x500 mm3 notched beams.
**Data obtained from tests on 40x150x500 mm3 notched beams.

2005) for testing Fiber Reinforced Concrete, except for the width of the specimens. Thus,
the beams had a height of 150 mm, a span length of 500 mm and a notch depth of 25 mm
but, unlike the standard test, the samples made with the SFRM1 had a width of 30 mm
whereas the ones prepared with the SFRM2 and 3 had a width of 40 mm. The reduced
width of the specimens was adopted to represent the small thickness of coating and to
consider the prevalent 2D orientation of steel fibers promoted by the technique herein
investigated. Despite the use of 30 mm thick beams did not cause instability issues, the
width of the specimens used for testing the SFRM2 and 3 was increased to 40 mm to
further improve the out-of-plane stability of samples.
Table 5 summarizes the mean values of the limit of proportionality fL,m and of the
residual strengths fR1, fR,2, fR,3, fR,4, corresponding to CMOD values of 0.5, 1.5, 2.5, and
3.5 mm, respectively (EN 14651-5, 2005). The test results proved that the three fiber-
reinforced mortar materials presented a strain-hardening behavior under flexure and a
significantly high tensile toughness. Moreover, compared to the materials SFRM1 and 2
that achieved the maximum residual strengths in the CMOD range 0.5–2.5 mm, SFRM3
exhibited a high post-cracking resistance even for larger crack openings
(CMOD4 = 3.5 mm). This fact could be explained by considering the higher length of
the steel fibers adopted for SFRM3 (Table 4).
The main differences between the three types of fiber-reinforced mortar were related to
their compressive behavior. In fact, the compressive strength and the elastic modulus of
material SFRM3 were, respectively, more than 28% and 11% lower than those exhibited by
material SFRM1 (and, similarly, by SFRM2). These reduced properties were intentionally
adopted to get a better structural compatibility between coating and HCB masonry, being
the latter considerably weaker than SCB masonry.

4. Test Results and Discussion

4.1. Solid Clay Brick Masonry Walls
The lateral load (V)–deflection (δ) hysteretic curves obtained from the tests on SCB
masonry walls are plotted in Figure 8. Moreover, Table 6 reports the main test results
related to both the positive (+) and the negative (-) loading direction, i.e., the initial secant
stiffness evaluated in the displacement range 0–0.25 mm (K+s, K−s), the lateral load at peak
(V+peak, V−peak), the lateral deflection at peak (δ+peak, δ−peak), the maximum lateral deflec-
tion achieved at the end of the test (δ+max, δ−max) and the failure mode. The cracking load
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 11

-1.2 -0.9 -0.6 -0.3 0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 -1.2 -0.9 -0.6 -0.3 0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2
300 250
250 V [kN] 200 V [kN]
200 150
MW4-ST MW5-ST
150 100
100
50
50
Drift [%] 0 Drift [%]
0
δ [mm] -50 δ [mm]
-50
-100 -100
-150 -150
-200 -200
-250 -250
-300 -300
-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25

-1.2 -0.9 -0.6 -0.3 0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 -1.2 -0.9 -0.6 -0.3 0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2
300 300
250 V [kN] 250 V [kN]
200 200
MW6-ST MW6-ST-(1L)
150 150
100 100
50 50
Drift [%] Drift [%]
0 0
δ [mm] δ [mm]
-50 -50
-100 -100
-150 -150
-200 -200
-250 -250
-300 -300
-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25

Figure 8. Lateral load (V)—drift/displacement (δ) cyclic response of the SCB masonry walls.

is assumed to be the lateral load that caused the formation of the first flexural cracks at the
bottom side of the masonry panel.
The hysteretic responses of the specimens MW1, MW1-R, MW2-ST and MW3-ST were
deeply analyzed and discussed in a previous work (Facconi et al., 2015) and, thus, they will
not be reported in the following. The discussion below will consider the experimental results
related to the remaining 6 test walls, i.e., MW4-ST, MW5-ST, MW6-ST, MW6-ST(1L),
MWH1, and MWH1-R. However, for the sake of completeness, the results reported in
Table 6 summarize the main data provided by the entire experimental study.
Both the strengthened and the repaired specimens (see Table 6) exhibited a rocking
failure mode that was initiated by a flexural crack placed along the wall base. Figure 9b
reports a typical view of the damages related to the rocking mechanism occurred in the
strengthened SCB walls. Note that, as already observed in Facconi et al. (2015), the
theoretical value of the lateral load resisted by rocking is 214 kN.
12 L. FACCONI ET AL.

Table 6. Summary of main test results.

K+s K−s δ−peak
(ΔK+s) (ΔK−s) V+peak V−peak δ+peak (Drift δ+max δ−max
[kN/ [kN/ (ΔV+peak) (ΔV−peak) (Drift %) (Drift %) (Drift %)
Test wall mm] mm] [kN] [kN] %) [mm] [mm] [mm] Failure mode
MW1 208 209 167 148 2.9 3.8 5.1 5.2 Diagonal shear—toe
(0.14)# (0.18)# (0.25)# (0.25)# crushing
MW2-ST 396 361 225 167 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.1 Rocking
(+90%)* (+73%)* (+35%)* (+13%)* (0.06)# (0.05)# (−76%)* (−79%)*
(0.06)# (0.06)#
MW3-ST 280 256 218 206 1.4 1.5 10.0 10.0 Rocking
(+35%)* (+23%)* (+31%)* (+39%)* (0.07)# (0.07)# (+96%)* (+92%)*
(0.48)# (0.48)#
MW1-R 368 487 206 208 3.0 1.2 3.2 1.8 Rocking
(+77%)* (+133%) (23%)* (+41%)* (0.14)# (0.06)# (−37%)* (−65%)*
* (0.15)# (0.09)#
MW4-ST 250 260 233 219 23.3 21.0 24.4 21.0 Rocking
(+20%)* (+24%)* (+40%)* (+48%)* (1.13)# (1.01)# (+378%) (+304%)*
* (1.01)#
(1.18)#
MW5-ST 357 232 222 211 20.7 3.8 24.3 24.6 Rocking
(+72%)* (+11%)* (+33%)* (+43%)* (1.00)# (0.18)# (+376%) (+373%)*
* (1.19)#
(1.17)#
MW6-ST 428 439 248 221 20.2 19.5 20.2 19.5 Rocking
(+105%) (+110%) (+49%)* (+49%)* (0.98)# (0.94)# (+296%) (+275%)*
* * * (0.94)#
(0.98)#
MW6-ST 251 225 222 216 8.0 9.6 12.0 12.4 Rocking
(1L) (+20%)* (+8%)* (+33%)* (+46%)* (0.39)# (0.46)# (+135%) (+138%)*
* (0.602)#
(0.58)#
MWH1 78 100 124 164 4.1 3.9 7.8 8.3 Diagonal shear–toe
(0.20)# (0.19)# (0.38)# (0.40)# crushing
MWH1-R 120 188 200 205 8.3 3.0 16.4 12.6 Rocking
(+54%) (+88%) (+61%)** (+25%)** (0.40)# (0.15)# (+110%) (+52%)*
** ** * (0.61)#
(0.81)#
*Relative increment compared to the reference specimen MW1.
**Relative increment compared to the reference specimen MWH1.
#Lateral drift (%).

Figure 9. Failure pattern of the specimen MW1 (a) and typical failure mode of the strengthened SCB
masonry walls (b).
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 13

Specimens MW3-ST and MW4-ST exhibited a similar symmetric hysteretic response

and reached the rocking resistance. No cracks were detected on the coating surface but,
compared to the specimen MW4-ST, wall MW3-ST presented more severe damages of the
compressed toes. This fact can be proved by considering the clear reduction of the lateral
stiffness that characterized the load–deflection response of panel MW3-ST for lateral
deflections ranging between ±2.5 m and ±10 mm.
In spite of the rocking failure mode exhibited both in the positive and in the negative
loading direction, walls MW5-ST and MW6-ST presented an asymmetric hysteretic
response. About specimen MW5-ST, the positive curve consisted of a first linear branch
that had a knee point at a load level of 143 kN. The latter connected the first part of the
curve with a second softer branch that gradually achieved the maximum capacity of the
wall. On the contrary, the negative curve remained basically linear up to a negative load of
about 200 kN. The response the specimen MW6-ST was similar to that exhibited by the
wall MW5-ST. Again, no cracks appeared on the coating surface of both samples.
Considering the few damages affecting specimen MW6-ST, one of the two coating
layers was carefully removed from the wall surface and the obtained specimen, named as
MW6-ST(1L), was tested again. The resulting load–deflection response pointed out the
ability of the single mortar overlay to increase the wall capacity up to the onset of the
rocking mechanism. About the positive loading direction, the response was characterized
by a clear reduction of the post-peak lateral resistance, which can be explained with the
progressive expulsion of bricks from the compressed toe due to masonry crushing. As
proved by the horizontal plateau, the response in the negative direction achieved the
maximum rocking resistance and remained stable till the end of the test.
The lateral load–drift curves of Figure 10 represent the envelopes of the hysteretic
curves obtained from the whole experimental study, including specimens reported in
(Facconi et al., 2015). Compared to the unstrengthened specimen MW1, the improvement
of the lateral capacity observed for all the retrofitted or repaired specimens ranged from
23% (wall MW1-R) to a maximum of 49% (wall MW6-ST) (see Table 6). As shown in
Table 6, the mortar overlays allowed to increment the initial secant stiffness (Ks) of the
unstrengthened wall. Despite the similar properties of coating, i.e., thickness and mortar
young’s modulus, the increment of the initial stiffness appeared to be rather variable and
not related to the size of the anchor plate of the coating-to-masonry connection. The
highest initial stiffnesses were achieved by the walls adopting connection type A (external
plate, bolted connection), which assured a more effective coating-to-masonry clamping
action than that provided by connections B and C. Specimens adopting connection B and
C were characterized by similar increment of initial stiffness, which ranged from a
minimum of 20% (wall MW4-ST) to a maximum of 72% (wall MW5-ST). The only
exception is represented by wall MW6-ST, which achieved a considerably high increment
of the initial stiffness (>105%) despite connection type B was employed. Unlike the other
test walls, specimen MW5-ST presented a small increment (+11%) of the initial stiffness
only in the negative direction, confirming the above-mentioned asymmetry. About wall
MW6-ST(1L), the increment of the initial stiffness was about 20% and 8% in the positive
and negative direction, respectively. As expected, its initial stiffness was approximately
equal to 54% of that exhibited by specimen MW6-ST having two coating layers.
The rather significant variability in the initial stiffness may be partly explained with the
local lack of adhesion at the masonry-to-coating interface due to shrinkage, which affected
14 L. FACCONI ET AL.

250
V [kN]
150
200 V [kN]
100 MW1
150 50 MW2-ST
MW3-ST
0
MW1-R
100 -50
Drift [%]
MW4-ST
-100 MW5-ST
50 MW6-ST
-150
-1.5E-02 0.0E+00 1.5E-02 MW6-ST(1L)
0
Drift [%]
-50
-100
-150
-200
-250
-1.2 -0.8 -0.4 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2
Figure 10. Lateral load–drift envelopes related to the SCB masonry specimens.

the portions of coating located along the wall edges. This finding deserves further
investigation aiming at improving the coating application procedure, particularly in the
curing phase. In addition, one should consider that the variability of stiffness values is
related to the scatter of the masonry mechanical properties.
Except for specimens MW2-ST and MW1-R, whose tests were stopped right after the
achievement of the rocking resistance, the maximum lateral deflection reached by the
strengthened walls was significantly higher (from +96% to +382%) than that of wall MW1.
It is worth noting that the response of wall MW5-ST, made of SFRM3 (mortar type
M2), was a bit different compared to that of specimens MW4-ST and MW6-ST, both
strengthened with the SFRM2. Looking at the negative loading direction, a higher degra-
dation exhibited by wall MW5-ST was noticed for lateral drifts lower than −0.2%. This can
be attributed to the lower compressive strength of material SFRM3 (about −40%), causing
a quicker deterioration of the compressed toes.

4.2. Hollow Clay Brick Masonry Walls

The hysteretic response of the HCB masonry wall MWH1 is depicted in Figure 11. First
cracking occurred at 19 kN and 48 kN in the positive and negative direction, respectively.
The first part of the response was linear until diagonal cracks started to grow in the central
area of the specimen causing a gradual loss of stiffness that anticipated the attainment of
the maximum capacity. The response after the peak presented a progressive reduction of
the lateral stiffness and capacity due to the formation of new shear cracks as well as
crushing of the compressed toes. As shown by the failure pattern of Figure 12a, the brittle
failure of the bottom-left toe caused the interruption of the test.
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 15

-1.2 -0.9 -0.6 -0.3 0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 -1.2 -0.9 -0.6 -0.3 0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2
250 250
200 V [kN] 200 V [kN]

150 150
MWH1 MWH1-R
100 100
50 50
Drift [%] Drift [%]
0 0
[mm] [mm]
-50 -50
-100 -100
-150 -150
-200 -200
-250 -250
-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25

Figure 11. Lateral load (V)–drift/displacement (δ) cyclic response of the HCB masonry walls.

Figure 12. Actual view of the damage pattern of the specimens MWH1 (a). Schematization of the thin
cracks detected on the coating surface of specimen MWH1-R (b).

Specimen MWH1-R was obtained by repairing the pre-damaged specimen MWH1 with
a 25 mm thick layer of mortar SFRM3 applied on both sides of the wall. Moreover, SFRM3
was also employed to fill the gaps resulting from cracks due to crushing of units located in
the bottom toes. As proved by the load deflection response of Figure 11 and by the data
reported in Table 6, the adopted strengthening technique allowed the specimen to achieve
the rocking resistance. Once the maximum capacity was reached, very thin (~0.1 mm) and
widespread cracks (Figure 12b) appeared on the coating surface on both sides of the wall.
Unlike the retrofitted walls made of solid bricks (see Section 4.1), whose coating did not
exhibit any cracks, the test on specimen MWH1-R better exploited the tensile toughness of
SFRM, which participated in much more extent in the resistance mechanisms because of
the lower strength and stiffness of HCB masonry compared to SCB masonry.
16 L. FACCONI ET AL.

The crack pattern in the coating consisted in well diffused micro-cracks with no
significant localization (except at failure). Furthermore, new crushing cracks were
observed especially at the bottom-right toe that was not considerably damaged during
the test on the unstrengthened specimen. The test was stopped when crushing failure at
the bottom-right corner initiated.
The response of the two members is compared in the lateral load–drift envelope
diagram of Figure 13. It appears that the SFRM3 coating improved of at least 54% the
initial stiffness of the pre-damaged wall and led to a minimum improvement of 25% of the
lateral capacity (Table 6). The slight reduction of the resistance observed in the final stage
of the test was related to the gradual damage of bricks located at the compressed toes.
Finally, the ductility of the wall was improved as well. In fact, the maximum deflection
was increased of about 110% in the positive direction and 52% in the negative direction.

5. Lateral Resistance of URM Walls: comparison between Different Code

Models
International codes provide different models for predicting the lateral capacity of URM
walls. For instance, Eurocode 6 (Eurocode 6 (EN 1996-1-1), 2004) (clause 6.2) estimates
the value of the shear resistance by the following relationship:
VR ¼ fv  t  lc (1)
where VR is the lateral resistance of the wall, t is the wall width, lc = 3·(L/2-e) is the length
of the compressed part at the base of the wall ignoring any portion in tension, e = VR ·Heff/
(N + W) is the eccentricity of the axial load and fv is the shear strength of masonry

250
V [kN]
200 120
V [kN]

60
150
0
100 Drift [%]

-60
MWH1
50 MWH1-R
-120
-3.0E-02 0.0E+00 3.0E-02
0
Drift [%]
-50
-100
-150
-200
-250
-1.0 -0.6 -0.2 0.2 0.6 1.0
Figure 13. Lateral load–drift envelopes related to the HCB masonry specimens.
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 17

evaluated in correspondence of the compressed part of the wall. The latter turns out from
the equation:
fv ¼ fvo þ 0:4  σ d (2)
where fvko < 0.065 fb is the characteristic initial shear strength under zero compressive
stress, fb is the normalized compressive strength of bricks reported in Section 3.1 (12 MPa
for solid units and 2 MPa for hollow units), δd is the compressive stress perpendicular to
shear acting in the member on the considered resisting section. The shear strength fvko is
here assumed equal to 0.2 MPa for SCB masonry and 0.13 MPa for HCB masonry (see
Eurocode 6, clause 3.6.2). Note that the length lc must be determined by assuming a linear
distribution of stresses in the compressed area of the wall.
Unlike Eurocode 6, FEMA 273 (ATC, FEMA-273, 1997) evaluates the lateral capacity of
URM walls as the minimum of two different resistances related to shear and flexural
failure:
 
0:75  0:75  vte þ PACEn
Vbjs ¼  An (3)
1:5
L
Vr ¼ 0:9  α  PCE  (4)
Heff
where Vbjs [lbf] is the resistance corresponding to the bed-joint sliding shear strength, vte
[psi] is the expected average bed-joint sliding shear strength, An [inch2] is the area of net
mortar/grouted section, PCE [lbf] is the vertical load resulting from the sum of the axial
load and the dead weight of the member and α =0.5 (fixed-free cantilever wall).
Considering that tests were performed without collar joints, the 0.75 factor on vte
(Equation 5) can be waived. As suggested by the guidelines, the default value of vte is
0.19 MPa for running bond masonry in good conditions (i.e., SCB masonry). On the
contrary, for ungrouted masonry in good conditions (i.e., HCB masonry) the default value
for vte is 0.076 MPa (ATC ASCE/FEMA 356, 2000). In order to evaluate the shear
resistance, section An can be evaluated in the compressed area of the wall lc, as required
by Eurocode 6. Moreover, when predicting the rocking resistance, the load PCE = N + W
has been used, i.e., 276 kN (62048 lbf) for MW1 and 261 kN (58676 lbf) for MWH1.
As an alternative to the previous models suggested by codes, the shear capacity of
masonry walls can be calculated by analytical models based on the limit analysis. As
discussed in Facconi et al. (2015), the lateral resistance of the reference wall MW1 can be
predicted by the analytical model proposed by Roca (2006), which provides a lateral
resistance of 175 kN. This analytical prediction reasonably agreed with the observed
resistance V+peak (Table 6) but, on the contrary, it yields a 18% overestimate of the
capacity in the negative direction. The rocking resistance of the SCB masonry walls
strengthened with coating was also estimated by a simple equilibrium about the com-
pressed toe (see the discussion reported in Facconi et al., 2015). The resulting capacity
(Vr = 214 kN) was in a good agreement with the maximum resistance achieved by all the
members strengthened with two coating layers. Similar considerations can be done for the
wall MW6-ST(1L), whose analytical rocking resistance (Vr = 211 kN) was about 4% lower
than the experimental one. The same analytical models can be adopted to estimate the
resistance of the HC masonry specimens. About the reference wall MWH1, which failed in
18 L. FACCONI ET AL.

diagonal shear with toe crushing, the lateral resistance (Vs) determined according to the
Roca’s model is:
  
Heff 1
Vs ¼ N  tan α  1   tan α  ¼ 148kN for m
2L 1  m=L
 L  Heff  tan α ¼ 1163mm (5)
where N = 250 kN is the axial load; m = N/(t∙fm) = 453 mm; t = 240 mm is the wall width;
L = 2995 mm is the wall length, Heff = 1970 mm: fm = 2.3 MPa is the masonry compressive
strength; tanα = slope of the struts = tanϕ+c/σN = 0.93; σN = 0.36 MPa is the average
vertical strength acting at the wall mid height. Considering that the friction angle ϕ was
not experimentally determined, a reasonable value of 30° was considered for the purpose
of this calculation. Moreover, the cohesion c was assumed equal to the initial shear
strength at zero compression (fvo = 0.065 fb = 0.13 MPa) suggested by Eurocode 6
(Eurocode 6 (EN 1996-1-1), 2004) for masonry made with clay bricks and mortar owning
to the strength class M2.5. The lateral capacity predicted by Equation (5) is 7% lower than
the observed capacity V+peak and 22% higher than the capacity V–peak (see Table 6).
As highlighted by the following equilibrium, the observed maximum capacity of the
wall MWH1-R agrees very well with the maximum flexural capacity of the member:
L
Vr ¼ ðN þ WÞ  ¼ 195kN (6)
2  Heff
where Vr = lateral load resisted by rocking; N = axial load = 250 kN; W = wall dead weight
(masonry + SFRM coating + RC cap beam) = 20 kN; Heff = 2070 mm (height to the
resultant of the lateral force).
Table 7 summarizes the lateral resistances of the URM walls MW1 and MWH1
predicted by the analytical formulations proposed by the code provisions.
Compared to the experimental response of both specimens, both Eurocode 6 and
FEMA 273 provide a lateral capacity basically equal to the average between V+ and V–.
However, some considerations on the models proposed by the codes and the adopted
mechanical parameters have to be highlighted.
The friction model proposed by Eurocode 6 is acceptable only when shear sliding
failure occurs and, as a consequence, it cannot be considered reliable when other mechan-
isms, like diagonal failure, take place. Therefore, for the case herein considered, the good
results provided by Eurocode could be only a coincidence. For a more accurate and
reliable prediction of the URM walls capacity, other analytical models, like those based
on diagonal tension shear failure, should be employed in addition to the verification
approach proposed by Eurocode 6. FEMA 273 estimates the shear resistance by means of

Table 7. Main results obtained from the tests on the masonry walls.
Specimen
Lateral resistance Unit MW1 MWH1
Experimental V+ [kN] 167 124
V– [kN] 148 164
Roca VR [kN] 175 148
Eurocode 6 VR [kN] 158 140
FEMA 273 Vbjs [kN] 162 144
Vr [kN] 185 170
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 19

an empirical friction model calibrated by experimental tests on a limited number of brick

masonry members. It appears that the verification section An, which is here assumed equal
to lc·t, is not clearly described by the guidelines, which do not give any suggestion on the
procedure to adopt for determining it. Furthermore, the default value of vte does not take
into account neither the mortar strength nor the brick resistance. The latter may be
significant especially in case of hollow block masonry, whose percentage of voids and
compressive strength of units may affect the shear strength of mortar joints, leading to
different values as compared to those generally observed for SCB masonry.
International codes do not provide clear formulations for predicting the lateral capacity
of masonry walls strengthened with SFRM coating. The simple formulation used herein to
predict the lateral capacity of the strengthened walls considered only the rocking mechan-
ism observed during the tests. Future study will be carried out to develop a formulation
able to predict the shear resistance of masonry walls strengthened with SFRM coating.

6. Concluding Remarks
A comprehensive experimental study including reverse quasi-static cyclic tests on full scale
URM walls strengthened with thin SFRM coating was presented in this paper. Both solid
(SCB) and hollow (HCB) clay brick masonry samples were tested. Three types of mortars
containing nano-silica and three different typologies of short high-strength steel fibers
were used for constructing the mortar coating applied to the masonry walls.
The results of the tests highlighted the following main remarks:

(1) About SCB masonry, the adoption of the proposed strengthening technique
allowed changing the failure mode from the shear-flexure mechanism, which
characterized the unstrengthened wall MW1, to the rocking mechanism exhibited
by all the strengthened specimens. The improvement of the lateral capacity
observed for all the retrofitted specimens ranged from 23% (wall MW1-R) to 49%
(wall MW6-ST), irrespective of the SFRM type adopted. The maximum flexural
capacity was reached also by the specimen retrofitted with a single coating (MW6-
ST(1L)).
The lateral stiffness of the repaired sample MW1-R was similar to that of the other
retrofitted specimens especially for lateral deflections lower than ±0.5 mm (drift of
0.02%). For higher values of lateral displacement, the repaired wall presented lower
stiffness.

(2) The compressive strength of SFRM affected the cyclic response of the SCB walls.
Compared to specimens MW4-ST and MW6-ST, both strengthened with mortar
SFRM2 (higher compressive strength), the response of wall MW5-ST, strengthened
with mortar SFRM3 (lower compressive strength), presented a lower lateral capa-
city and an earlier degradation of lateral resistance. The latter were due to the
higher degradation of the compressed toes of mortar coating resulting from the
lower compressive strength.
(3) The proposed technique proved to be effective even when used for strengthening
HCB masonry walls. A minimum capacity and stiffness improvement of 25% and
20 L. FACCONI ET AL.

54% was observed for the repaired wall MWH1-R with respect to the unstrength-
ened wall MWH1. As occurred for the SCB masonry walls, the observed failure
mechanism switched from the diagonal shear to rocking motion.
(4) The adopted curing procedure together with steel fibers used as the only reinforce-
ment of coating allowed to avoid the formation of visible shrinkage cracks, con-
firming the ability of steel fibers to improve the shrinkage behavior.
(5) Considering that all retrofitted SCB walls achieved the rocking capacity, the SFRM
coatings did not present visible surface cracks at the end of the tests. On the
contrary, the weaker HCB masonry walls experienced more severe damages, leading
to the formation of a diffused micro-crack pattern on the surface of the wall
MWH1-R, without crack localization in the SFRM coating. This fact proves the
ability of SFRM to enhance structural durability.
(6) The analytical formulations proposed by Eurocode 6, FEMA 273, and Roca pro-
vided a reasonable estimation of the lateral capacity of both SCB and HCB masonry
walls, with the Roca’s model being the most consistent with the observed failure
mechanisms.

No clear influence for the two fiber types was observed. Except for specimen MWH1-R, no
cracking occurred on the coating and, therefore, the different post-cracking properties of
FRC materials could not be exploited.
Overall, considering structural, economic, and technological aspects, based on the
results of this study, connection type C (D in hollow brick masonry), mortar M2, and
SFRM3 with corresponding fibers (except in masonries exposed to high humidity) are
recommended.

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Delta Phoenix s.r.l. for the financial contribution to this research
work. The authors also thank Eng.s Silvia Albrici, Michele Facchinetti, Daniele Mangili, Marta
Pagani, Annalisa Raimondi, Lucia Tinti and Marta Vacchelli for their contribution in performing
the tests and post-processing data.
Finally, the authors are also grateful to RELUIS for supporting the present research within the
project DPC/ReLUIS 2014.

Funding
This work was supported by the Delta Phoenix s.r.l.

ORCID
Luca Facconi http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2202-5439
Fausto Minelli http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4554-4285
Giovanni Plizzari http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2897-4969
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 21

References
Aldea, C. M., Mobasher, B. and Jain., N. [2007] Cement-Based Matrix-Grid System for Masonry
Rehabilitation, SP244-9, ACI Special Publications, Farmington Hills, MI, pp. 141–155.
ATC ASCE/FEMA 356. [2000]. “Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of
buildings,” FEMA Publication 356, Applied Technology Council (ATC), Washington, DC, USA.
ATC, FEMA-273. [1997] NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings. Basic
Procedures Manual, Applied Technology Council (ATC), Washington, DC, USA.
Bae, B.-I., Park, B.-K., Choi, H.-K. and Choi, C.-S. [2010] “Performance enhancement effect of
unreinforced masonry walls using sprayable ECC,” In: Proceedings of FraMCoS-7, May 23-28,
pp. 1817–1823.
Binda, L., Modena, C., Baronio, G. and Gelmi, A. [1994] “Experimental qualification of injection
admixtures used for repair and strengthening of stone masonry walls,” Proc., 10th Int. Brick/
Block Masonry Conf., Calgary, Vol. 2, pp. 539–548, July.
Bommer, J. J., Magenes, G., Hancock, J. and Penazzo, P. [2004] “The influence of strong-motion
duration on the seismic response of masonry structures,” Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 2, 1–
26. doi:10.1023/B:BEEE.0000038948.95616.bf
Como, M. [2013] Statics of Historic Masonry Constructions, Vol. 1. Springer, Berlin. ISBN 978-3-
319-24567-6
D’Ayala, D. and Speranza, E. [2003] “Definition of collapse mechanisms and seismic vulnerability of
historic masonry buildings,” Earthquake Spectra August, 19(3), 479–509. doi:10.1193/1.1599896
Dehghani, A., Nateghi-Alahi, F. and Fischer, G. [2015] “Engineered cementitious composites for
strengthening masonry infilled reinforced concrete frames,” Engineering Structures 105, 197–208.
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2015.10.013
El Gawady, M., Lestuzzi, P. and Badoux, M. [2004] “A review of conventional seismic retrofitting
techniques for URM,” Proc., 4th Int. Conf. on Advanced Composite Materials in Bridges and
Structures, Calgary, Alta, Canada.
EN 1015-11. [2007] Methods of Test for Mortar for Masonry - Part 11: Determination of Flexural and
Compressive Strength of Hardened Mortar, European Committee for Standardization, Brussels,
Belgium.
EN 1052-1. [2001] Methods of Test for Masonry.: Determination of Compressive Strength, European
Committee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium.
EN 14651-5. [2005] Precast Concrete Products––Test Method for Metallic Fibre Concrete––
Measuring the Flexural Tensile Strength, European Standard, European Committee for
Standardization, Brussels, Belgium.
EN 1998-1. [2004] Eurocode 8. Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance––Part 1: General
Rules, Seismic Actions and Rules for Buildings, European Committee for Standardization,
Brussels, Belgium.
EN 772-1. [2011] Methods of Tests for Masonry Units - Part 1: Determination of Compressive
Strength, European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium.
Eurocode 6 (EN 1996-1-1). [2004] Design of Masonry Structures - Part 1-1: Common Rules for
Reinforced and Unreinforced Masonry Structures, European Committee for Standardization,
Brussels, Belgium.
Facconi, L., Conforti, A., Minelli, F. and Plizzari, G. [2015] “Improving shear strength of unrein-
forced masonry walls by nano-reinforced fibrous mortar coating,” Materials and Structures 48(8),
2557–2574. doi:10.1617/s11527-014-0337-0
Franklin, S., Lynch, J. and Abrams, D. P. [2003] Performance of Rehabilitated URM Shear Walls:
Flexural Behavior of Piers, CD-ROM, Mid-America Earthquake Center, University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL.
Ganz, H. R. [1993] “Strengthening of masonry structures with post-tensioning,” In: Proceedings of
the Sixth North American Masonry Conference. pp. 645–655.
Hutchison, D., Yong, P. and McKenzie, G. [1984] Laboratory Testing of a Variety of Strengthening
Solutions for Brick Masonry Wall Panels, 8th WCEE, USA. pp. 575–582.
22 L. FACCONI ET AL.

Javed, M., Magenes, G., Alam, B., Khan, A. N., Ali, Q. and Syed, A. M. [2015] “Experimental seismic
performance evaluation of unreinforced brick masonry shear walls,” Earthquake Spectra 31(1),
215–246. doi:10.1193/111512EQS329M
Kahn, L. [1984] Shotcrete Retrofit for Unreinforced Brick Masonry, 8th WCEE, USA. pp. 583–590.
Kim, Y., Kong, H.-J. and Li, V. [2003] “Design of engineered cementitious composite suitable for
wet-mixture shotcreting,” ACI Materials Journal 100(6), 511–518.
Kyriakides, M. A. and Billington, S. L. [2014] “Behavior of unreinforced masonry prisms and beams
retrofitted with engineered cementitious composites,” Materials and Structures 47(9), 1573–1587.
doi:10.1617/s11527-013-0138-x
Li, V. C. [2003] “On engineered cementitious composites (ECC),” Journal of Advanced Concrete
Technology 1(3), 215–230. doi:10.3151/jact.1.215
Lin, V. W. J., Quek, S. T., Nguyen, M. P. and Maalej, M. [2010a] “Strengthening of masonry walls
using hybrid-fiber engineered cementitious composite,” Journal of Composite Materials 44(8),
1007–1029. doi:10.1177/0021998309346186
Lin, Y. W., Lawley, D. and Ingham, J. [2010b] “Seismic strengthening of an unreinforced masonry
building using ECC shotcrete,” In 8th International Masonry Conference. International Masonry
Society.
Lin, Y. W., Lawley, D., Wotherspoon, L. and Ingham, J. M. [2010c] “Seismic retrofitting of an
unreinforced masonry building using ECC shotcrete,” The New Zealand Concrete Industry
Conference 2010, Wellington, New Zealand, pp. 7–9. October.
Lin, Y. W., Wotherspoon, L., Scott, A. and Ingham, J. M. [2014] “In-plane strengthening of clay
brick unreinforced masonry wallettes using ECC shotcrete,” Engineering Structures 66, 57–65.
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.01.043
Messali, F., Metelli, G. and Plizzari, G. [2017] “Experimental results on the retrofitting of hollow
brick masonry walls with reinforced high performance mortar coatings,” Construction And
Building Materials 141: 619–630.
NTC 2008. [2008] “Decreto Ministeriale 14/1/2008: norme tecniche per le costruzioni,” Ministry of
Infrastructures and Transportations, G.U.S.O. n.30 on 4/2/2008; [in Italian].
Papanicolaou, C. G., Triantafillou, T. C., Papathanasiou, M. and Karlos, K. [2008] “Textile rein-
forced mortar (TRM) versus FRP as strengthening material of URM walls: out-of-plane cyclic
loading,” Materials and Structures 41, 143–157. doi:10.1617/s11527-007-9226-0
Rai, D. and Goel, S. [1996] “Seismic strengthening of unreinforced masonry piers with steel
elements,” Earthquake Spectra 12, 845–862. doi:10.1193/1.1585913
Roca, P. [2006] “Assessment of masonry shear walls by simple equilibrium models,” Construction
and Building Materials 20(4), 229–238. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2005.08.023
Sevil, T., Baran, M., Bilir, T. and Canbay, E. [2011] “Use of steel fiber reinforced mortar for seismic
strengthening,” Construction and Building Materials 25(2), 892–899. doi:10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2010.06.096
Tomaževič, M., Gams, M. and Berset, T. [2012] “Seismic strengthening of stone masonry walls with
polymer coating,” Proc., 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering (15 WCEE), Lisbon,
Portugal, pp. 24–28. September.
Tomaževič, M., Klemenc, I. and Weiss, P. [2009] “Seismic upgrading of old masonry buildings by
seismic isolation and CFRP laminates: a shaking-table study of reduced scale models,” Bulletin of
Earthquake Engineering 7(1), 293–321. doi:10.1007/s10518-008-9086-1
Triantafillou, T. C. [1998] “Strengthening of masonry structures using epoxy-bonded FRP lami-
nates,” Journal of Composites for Construction 2(2), May, 96–104. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0268
(1998)2:2(96)
Valluzzi, M. R., Tinazzi, D. and Modena, C. [2002] “Shear behavior of masonry panels strengthened
by FRP laminates,” Construction and Building Materials 16, 409–416. doi:10.1016/S0950-0618
(02)00043-0