Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
h i g h l i g h t s
Effectiveness of a commonly used strengthening technique for unreinforced masonry is examined for its in-plane behaviour.
The presented technique is economical and easy to use.
Increase in strength, and ductility was observed in strengthened URM specimen.
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: About one third of the world population lives in unreinforced masonry (URM) structures, URM is certified
Received 12 July 2017 as the most vulnerable building during earthquake. Hence there is a necessity to find a suitable economic
Received in revised form 24 March 2018 solution to strengthen the URM structures so that they can resist earthquake load. The present experi-
Accepted 10 April 2018
mental study aims at investigating the behaviour of URM and URM strengthened with welded wire mesh
(WWM) as reinforcing material and 1:3 cement : coarse sand mortar. A series of 6 unreinforced masonry
(URM) panels and 18 reinforced panels were constructed using two different types of mortar and were
Keywords:
subjected to diagonal axial compression tests. Three types of WWM which are locally available in market
Unreinforced masonry
In-plane behaviour
have been used in this study. Test results show significant increase in strength, ductility, with useful
Welded wire mesh suggestions for practical utilization of this technique.
Strengthening Ó 2018 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Ductility
Stiffness
1. Introduction magnitude depends on the type of diaphragm i.e., how the wall
is connected with the roof.
Unreinforced masonry (URM) structures are the most common The recent earthquakes have created a necessity to review the
and oldest form of building construction technique existing in the capability of existing structures during earthquake, and to find a
world. In most of the developed and developing countries masonry suitable strengthening technique to strengthen a newly constructed
is still being widely used in practice due to its low cost and easy masonry structure or to retrofit an existing old structure. Various
construction technique. URM is unquestionably recognized as the rehabilitation and retrofitting techniques are available to enhance
type of construction most vulnerable to earthquakes. Most of the the seismic performance of URM buildings. These techniques
existing URM buildings seem to be the oldest buildings which tend include application of fiber reinforced polymers (FRP), ferrocement
to be at great risk during earthquake. In most cases masonry struc- overlay (surface coating), shotcrete overlay, center core technique,
tures are constructed without any consideration for seismic load- grout injection, application of steel elements, bed joint reinforce-
ing resulting in huge loss of life as experienced in the past ment, post tensioning, etc. A review of various rehabilitation and ret-
earthquakes (Bhuj 2001, Kashmir 2005, Uttarkashi 1991, Killari rofitting methods and their advantages and disadvantages may be
1993). During earthquake, URM buildings experience seismic load- found elsewhere [15,2,32,22,25,27,20,11,13,19,20,25,27,29,35].
ing both in-plane and out-of-plane. However, their relative These well-established techniques need to be verified for local mate-
rials and building system commonly used in practice. Among all
available options, ferrocement overlay is a technique which is easy
⇑ Corresponding author at: Central Building Research Institute, Roorkee, India. in application, rapid in construction and very low in cost, especially
E-mail addresses: shermi@cbri.res.in (C. Shermi), dubeyfeq@iitr.ac.in (R.N. in developing countries with no heavy machinery and high-level
Dubey).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.04.081
0950-0618/Ó 2018 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
196 C. Shermi, R.N. Dubey / Construction and Building Materials 178 (2018) 195–203
Nomenclature
skilled workers. In this technique, steel welded wire mesh (WWM) is conventional and modern techniques [32]. In this technique textile
connected or anchored to the surface of masonry through bolts/ grid of fibres is bonded to the surface of masonry using specially
screws/ steel rods subsequently covered with plaster coating. developed mortars. The grid form of the fibres has similarity with
Strengthening of masonry using FRP, steel cord, steel grid, poly- WWM and results in good bond with the masonry.
mer grid etc. has been widely used in practice. In this study an
attempt has been made to strengthen the URM using WWM and 2. Experimental program
1:3 mortar. Ferrocement is a commonly used strengthening system.
This is a cementitious composite layer laminated with metallic 2.1. Material properties
mesh and has advantages such as a high tensile strength-to-
weight ratio and superior cracking behaviour [35,30,25,8], [10], Tests were performed to characterize the mechanical properties
[21,31]. An extensive study has been carried out on usage of fibre of the material used in this investigation. Two types of cement
reinforced cementitious material (FRCM) and textile reinforcement sand mortar ratio (1:4 and 1:6) which are widely used in practice
for strengthening/ retrofitting of masonry. Various researchers have in India have been chosen for this study. The test samples were
studied the in-plane and out-of-plane behaviour masonry strength- constructed using brick of size 230 mm 110 mm 70 mm. The
ened with FRCM and textile reinforcement [31,32,16,14,13,17,1,36]. masonry test samples of set 1,3,4 and 5 were constructed using
The bond behaviour of fibre when bonded to masonry has also been 10 mm thick 1:4 cement sand mortar and sample set 2,6,7 and 8
studied by D’Ambrisi et al. [15]. were constructed using 1:6 cement sand mortar as per conven-
Kadam [25] has previously used ferrocement as a strengthening tional construction practice with the help of a local mason. English
material in URM using different reinforcement percentage and var- bond with alternate header and stretcher was used to construct the
ious anchoring technique and found that WWM along with micro masonry samples. Mechanical properties of the materials were
concrete increases the in-plane shear capacity of masonry effec- studied as per ASTM standards. Compressive strength test of mor-
tively. Prawel [33] showed that ferrocement overlays increased tar cube was carried out as per ASTM C109-11 [3]. The compressive
the efficiency of diagonal tensile strength, stiffness and deforma- strength of brick was obtained in accordance with ASTM C67-11
tion capacity of masonry panels. The strength enhancement in [6] and compressive strength of masonry was estimated in accor-
brick masonry columns by encasing with precast ferrocement dance with ASTM C1314-11 [4]. The tensile strength of WWM
revealed that the cracking and failure stresses of column with pre- was obtained as per ASTM A370-11 [7]. The test results are repre-
cast ferrocement jackets have substantially been increased com- sented in Tables 1 and 2.
pared to control specimens while exhibiting much ductile
response. Ferrocement is found to be an effective system in out- 2.1.1. Mixing, casting and curing of masonry specimens
of-plane strengthening of unreinforced two-way masonry walls. The in-plane shear behaviour of URM panels of two types of
Very few studies are available in strengthening of masonry with mortar ratio (1:4 and 1:6) and masonry panels strengthened with
ferrocement, but a considerable number of researches have been welded wire mesh (25 mm, 38 mm, 50 mm spacing) and cement
carried out in reinforced concrete structures with ferrocement. It mortar. The descriptions of test samples are given in Table 3. Eight
is evident from literature that ferrocement is an effective material unreinforced specimen and twenty four reinforced specimens were
for strengthening of both masonry and concrete [33]. It is found to tested under in-plane shear. Different cement sand mortar ratio
be most effective and economical, easy to use and like FRP rein- (1:4 and 1:6) which are commonly used in India have been chosen
forcement it does not require application of epoxy. for this study. WWM of various spacing 25 mm; 38 mm; 50 mm
Textile reinforced mortar is another promising technique which are commonly available in local market were chosen as
for masonry retrofit which combines the advantages of both reinforcement to strengthen URM. The WWM was reinforced
Table 1
Mechanical properties of masonry.
Table 2
Mechanical properties of WWM reinforcement.
WWM Dia of wire COV Elastic Modulus COV Ultimate Deformation COV Ultimate Tensile Strength COV
spacing (mm) (%) [MPa] (%) [%] (%) [MPa] (%)
25 mm 2.07 4.24 14,905 12.24 14.76 13.7 873 13.82
38 mm 2.45 3.89 26,750 13.2 7.89 12.86 936 12.97
50 mm 3.20 4.32 32,790 13.67 8.5 13.45 1005 13.56
in-between rich 1:3 cement coarse sand mortar. Anchorage was cement slurry surface to level the uneven masonry surface as well
provided between WWM and the masonry with the help of 4 as to provide better grip for the WWM and second layer of mortar.
mm diameter mild steel rod as per IS 13935 [23] codal The mortar surface was roughened with the help of a steel wire
recommendation. brush. The WWM was placed and anchored with the help of a 4
The experimental program consisted of 8 sets of specimen out mm diameter mild steel rod, the rods were bent over the WWM
of which two sets were of URM and 6 sets of reinforced masonry. on the two sides in opposite direction, the drill hole was grouted
All specimens were of two wythe thickness as in practice, all load with the help of a high pressure grout pump, to hold the rod in
bearing walls are constructed with two wythe thickness. The spec- position. A layer of cement grout was applied above the WWM,
imen size and details are given in Figs. 1 and 2. All the test sam-
ples were constructed and cured as per site condition. The test
samples to be strengthened were strengthened after its curing
period.
3. Strengthening procedure
Table 3
Specimen details.
above this another layer of 1:3 cement sand mortar was applied applied on the opposite corners of the panels using a 250 Ton
and the surface was levelled. The sequential process of strengthen- capacity INSTRON closed loop UTM. The experimental test setup
ing is shown in Fig. 3. The strengthened panels were cured under can be seen in Fig. 4. Displacement controlled compression load-
normal site condition for another 28 days. ing was applied on the test sample with the help of two steel
shoes placed at the top and bottom of the specimen. The rate
4. Instrumentation and test setup of loading was set such that the test is completed within 2 min.
The specimens were transported and placed in position with
ASTM E519-10 [5] standard guidelines were used to investi- the help of a hand operated crane. Two linear variable differential
gate the in-plane diagonal shear strength of unreinforced and transducers (LVDT) were used to measure the displacement in both
reinforced specimens. The diagonal compression load was vertical and horizontal directions. The LVDTs were fixed on the test
C. Shermi, R.N. Dubey / Construction and Building Materials 178 (2018) 195–203 199
Fig. 4. Test setup and arrangement of instruments on control specimens and on strengthen specimens.
samples with the help of screw and clamp (Fig. 4). The LVDTs were
connected to a data acquisition system facilitating synchronized
measurement of load and deflection.
where,
t = the thickness of the panel,
L = length of the panel,
H = height of the panel,
P = diagonal force measured experimentally
Fig. 6. High strength mortar retrofitted panel with 25 mm, 38 mm and 50 mm WWM.
Fig. 7. Low strength mortar retrofitted panel with 25 mm, 38 mm and 50 mm WWM.
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006
Shear Strain %
Fig. 8. URM specimen.
1.6
1.4
Shear Stress [MPa]
1.2
0.8
0.6
RDSS-10
0.4 RDSS-11
0.2 RDSS-12
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Shear Strain %
Fig. 10. High strength mortar specimen reinforced with 38 mm spacing WWM and
coarse sand mortar 1:3.
Fig. 13. Low strength mortar specimen reinforced with 38 mm spacing WWM and
coarse sand mortar 1:3.
1.2
1
Shear Stress [MPa]
0.8
0.6
0.4
RDSS-22
RDSS-23
0.2
RDSS-24
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Shear Strain %
Fig. 14. Low strength mortar specimen reinforced with 50 mm spacing WWM and
Fig. 11. High strength mortar specimen reinforced with 50 mm spacing WWM and coarse sand mortar 1:3.
coarse sand mortar 1:3.
5.3. Bilinear idealization
6. Conclusions
Table 4
Experimental results of shear-compression tests.
qH = Horizontal reinforcement Ratio; qV = Vertical Reinforcement ratio; pmax = maximum applied load; smax = maximum shear stress; dy = yield drift; du = ultimate drift
corresponding to 0.8s; l = ductility specimen damaged before testing.
Conflict of interest
carried out to study the effect of mortar type (1:4 and 1:6), which [1] L. Ascione, G. de Felice, S. De Santis, A qualification method for externally
is commonly used in practice, on URM as well as on reinforced bonded Fibre Reinforced Cementitious Matrix (FRCM) strengthening systems,
Compos. B Eng. 78 (2015) 497–506.
masonry panels. Same reinforcement technique (WWM) was used [2] M. Ashraf, A.N. Khan, A. Naseer, Q. Ali, B. Alam, Seismic behavior of
to strengthen URM panels but with different spacing (25 mm, 38 unreinforced and confined brick masonry walls before and after ferrocement
mm and 50 mm) of reinforcement which is commonly available overlay retrofitting, Int. J. Arch. Heritage 6 (6) (2012) 665–688.
[3] ASTM. Standard test method for compressive strength of hydraulic cement
in local market. The influence of various types of reinforcement mortars (using 2-in. or [50-mm] cube specimens). ASTMC109/C109M2011b.
has been studied. Based on the observations, following conclusions [4] ASTM. Standard test method for compressive strength of masonry prisms.
are arrived at. ASTM C1314–112011d.
[5] ASTM. Standard Test Method for Diagonal Tension (Shear) in Masonry
Assemblages. ASTM E519/E519M 2010a
The behaviour of URM specimens in diagonal shear test has been [6] ASTM. Standard test method for sampling and testing brick and structural clay
observed as combination of diagonal failure and sliding shear tile. ASTM C67–112011c.
[7] ASTM. Standard Test Methods and Definitions for Mechanical Testing of Steel
failure modes. These URM specimens failed in a sudden brittle
Products. ASTM A 370–112011a.
manner, by formation of cracks along the loaded diagonal. [8] K. Bajpai, D. Duthinh, Bending performance of masonry walls strengthened
The proposed reinforcement technique confines the masonry with near-surface mounted FRP bars, in: 9th North American Masonry
well intact between the WWM along with thin mortar layers. Conference, 2003, pp. 1–4.
[9] F. Bencardino, G. Spadea, R.N. Swamy, Strength and ductility of reinforced
The shear strength of strengthened specimen has increased at concrete beams externally reinforced with carbon fiber fabric, Struct. J. 99 (2)
at an order of 4 when compared to URM specimens. (2002) 163–171.
C. Shermi, R.N. Dubey / Construction and Building Materials 178 (2018) 195–203 203
[10] F. Bencardino, G. Spadea, R.N. Swamy, RC beams strengthened with CFRP [24] S.B. Kadam, Y. Singh, B. Li, Strengthening of unreinforced masonry using
laminates subjected to shear loading regime. In Proceedings of the 1st welded wire mesh and micro-concrete–Behaviour under in-plane action,
International Conference on IMTCR–04, Lecce, Italy, 2004, pp. 6–9. Constr. Build. Mater. 54 (2014) 247–257.
[11] A. Borri, G. Castori, M. Corradi, Shear behavior of masonry panels strengthened [25] S.B. Kadam, Y. Singh, B. Li, Out-of-plane behaviour of unreinforced masonry
by high strength steel cords, Constr. Build. Mater. 25 (2) (2011) 494–503. strengthened using ferrocement overlay, Mater. Struct. 48 (10) (2015) 3187–
[12] A. Borri, G. Castori, M. Corradi, R. Sisti, Masonry wall panels with GFRP and 3203.
steel-cord strengthening subjected to cyclic shear: an experimental study, [26] A. Kalali, M.Z. Kabir, Experimental response of double-wythe masonry panels
Constr. Build. Mater. 56 (2014) 63–73. strengthened with glass fiber reinforced polymers subjected to diagonal
[13] F.G. Carozzi, C. Poggi, Mechanical properties and debonding strength of Fabric compression tests, Eng. Struct. 39 (2012) 24–37.
Reinforced Cementitious Matrix (FRCM) systems for masonry strengthening, [27] P.B. Lourenço, J. Barros, Size effect on masonry subjected to out-of-plane
Compos. B Eng. 70 (2015) 215–230. loading, in: 12 th Int. Brick/Block Masonry Conf. Proc., Vol. 2, 2000, pp. 1085–
[14] F.G. Carozzi, G. Milani, C. Poggi, Mechanical properties and numerical 1098.
modeling of Fabric Reinforced Cementitious Matrix (FRCM) systems for [28] P.B. Lourenço, L. Avila, G. Vasconcelos, J.P.P. Alves, N. Mendes, A.C. Costa,
strengthening of masonry structures, Compos. Struct. 107 (2014) 711–725. Experimental investigation on the seismic performance of masonry buildings
[15] A. D’Ambrisi, L. Feo, F. Focacci, Experimental and analytical investigation on using shaking table testing, Bull. Earthq. Eng. 11 (4) (2013) 1157–1190.
bond between Carbon-FRCM materials and masonry, Compos. B Eng. 46 (2013) [29] G. Marcari, G. Manfredi, A. Prota, M. Pecce, In-plane shear performance of
15–20. masonry panels strengthened with FRP, Compos. B Eng. 38 (7) (2007) 887–
[16] G. De Felice, S. De Santis, L. Garmendia, B. Ghiassi, P. Larrinaga, P.B. Lourenço, 901.
C.G. Papanicolaou, Mortar-based systems for externally bonded strengthening [30] A.S. Mosallam, Out-of-plane flexural behavior of unreinforced red brick walls
of masonry, Mater. Struct. 47 (12) (2014) 2021–2037. strengthened with FRP composites, Compos. B Eng. 38 (5) (2007) 559–574.
[17] S. De Santis, G. de Felice, Tensile behaviour of mortar-based composites [31] C.G. Papanicolaou, T.C. Triantafillou, M. Papathanasiou, K. Karlos, Textile
for externally bonded reinforcement systems, Compos. B Eng. 68 (2015) reinforced mortar (TRM) versus FRP as strengthening material of URM walls:
401–413. out-of-plane cyclic loading, Mater. Struct. 41 (1) (2008) 143–157.
[18] M.S. Donduren, R. Kanit, I. Kalkan, O. Gencel, Influence of special plaster on the [32] C. Papanicolaou, T. Triantafillou, M. Lekka, Externally bonded grids as
out-of-plane behavior of masonry walls, Earthquakes Struct. 10 (4) (2016) strengthening and seismic retrofitting materials of masonry panels, Constr.
769–788. Build. Mater. 25 (2) (2011) 504–514.
[19] M.A. ElGawady, P. Lestuzzi, M. Badoux, Aseismic retrofitting of unreinforced [33] S.P. Prawel, H.H. Lee, The performance of upgraded brick masonry piers
masonry walls using FRP, Compos. B Eng. 37 (2) (2006) 148–162. subjected to in-plane motion, in: Proceedings of the 8th international Brick/
[20] M. ElGawady, P. Lestuzzi, M. Badoux, A review of conventional seismic Block Masonry Conference, Dublin, Ireland, 1988.
retrofitting techniques for URM, in: 13th International brick and block [34] C. Shermi, R.N. Dubey, Study on out-of-plane behaviour of unreinforced
masonry conference, Amsterdam, Vol. 10, No. 10, 2004. masonry strengthened with welded wire mesh and mortar, Constr. Build.
[21] K. Galal, N. Sasanian, Out-of-plane flexural performance of GFRP-reinforced Mater. 143 (2017) 104–120.
masonry walls, J. Compos. Constr. 14 (2) (2010) 162–174. [35] K.H. Tan, M.K.H. Patoary, Strengthening of masonry walls against out-of-plane
[22] A.A. Hamid, R.G. Drysdale, Flexural tensile strength of concrete block masonry, loads using fiber-reinforced polymer reinforcement, J. Compos. Constr. 8 (1)
J. Struct. Eng. 114 (1) (1988) 50–66. (2004) 79–87.
[23] IS: 13935, Indian standard seismic evaluation, repair and strengthening of [36] T.C. Triantafillou, C.G. Papanicolaou, P. Zissimopoulos, T. Laourdekis, Concrete
masonry building-guidelines, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India, confinement with textile-reinforced mortar jackets, ACI Struct. J. 103 (1)
2009. (2006) 28.