Sie sind auf Seite 1von 9

Construction and Building Materials 178 (2018) 195–203

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials


journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

In-plane behaviour of unreinforced masonry panel strengthened with


welded wire mesh and mortar
C. Shermi a,b,⇑, R.N. Dubey a
a
Earthquake Engineering Department, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, Roorkee, India
b
Central Building Research Institute, Roorkee, India

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

Symbol Explanation g gauge length


fb compressive strength of brick c shear Strain
fc compressive strength of mortar qH horizontal reinforcement ratio
fm compressive strength of masonry qV vertical reinforcement ratio
t thickness of the panel pmax maximum applied load
L length of the panel smax maximum shear stress
H height of the panel dy yield drift
P diagonal force measured experimentally du ultimate drift corresponding to 0.8s
s shear stress l ductility specimen damaged before testing
DV diagonal shortening along the axis of applied force
DH diagonal elongation measured perpendicular to the axis
of applied force

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.

Property Standard Test Reference Average Value COV


Compressive strength of brick (fb) ASTM C67-11 10 N/mm2 15.23%
Cube compressive strength of 1:4 cement-sand mortar (fc) ASTM C109/C109M-11 2.5 N/mm2 13.25%
Cube compressive strength of 1:6 cement-sand mortar (fc) ASTM C109/C109M-11 1.45 N/mm2 15.5%
Compressive strength of 1:4 brick masonry (fm) ASTM C1314-11 3.95 N/mm2 14.2%
Compressive strength of 1:6 brick masonry (fm) ASTM C1314-11 2.17 N/mm2 12.24%
Elastic modulus of 1:4 brick masonry (Em) ASTM C1314-11 2540 N/mm2 14.2%
Elastic modulus of 1:6 brick masonry (Em) ASTM C1314-11 2280 N/mm2 12.24%
C. Shermi, R.N. Dubey / Construction and Building Materials 178 (2018) 195–203 197

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

The test samples were strengthened as per IS 13935 [23]. Holes


were drilled at an interval of 300 mm on the test samples for
inserting 4 mm diameter mild steel rod for anchorage in the later
stage of strengthening. These 4 mm rods pass through the drilled
holes and transfer the shear at the WWM masonry interface
through dowel action. The samples to be strengthened were ini-
tially watered and cleaned with the help of a steel wire brush to
remove dirt if any. Then a layer of cement grout slurry was applied
with the help of a paint brush to provide better bond between the
mortar and the masonry surface. Initially the drill holes were
closed with the help of steel rod as shown in Fig. 3 to avoid block- All dimensions are in mm
age at the time of application of first layer of mortar. A layer of 10
mm thick 1:3 cement coarse sand mortar was applied above the Fig. 1. Unreinforced specimen size details.

Table 3
Specimen details.

Set Specimen Mortar Ratio Thickness of Jacketing Strengthening


Set-1 UDSS-1 1:4 – URM panel
UDSS-2 –
UDSS-3 –
Set-2 UDSS-4 1:6 – URM panel
UDSS-5 –
UDSS-6 –
Set-3 RDSS-7 1:4 20 mm on each side URM panel strengthened with 25 mm WWM and 1:3 cement sand mortar
RDSS-8 20 mm on each side
RDSS-9 20 mm on each side
Set-4 RDSS-10 1:4 20 mm on each side URM panel strengthened with 38 mm WWM and 1:3 cement sand mortar
RDSS-11 20 mm on each side
RDSS-12 20 mm on each side
Set-5 RDSS-13 1:4 20 mm on each side URM panel strengthened with 50 mm WWM and 1:3 cement sand mortar
RDSS-14 20 mm on each side
RDSS-15 20 mm on each side
Set-6 RDSS-16 1:6 20 mm on each side URM panel strengthened with 25 mm WWM and 1:3 cement sand mortar
RDSS-17 20 mm on each side
RDSS-18 20 mm on each side
Set-7 RDSS-19 1:6 20 mm on each side URM panel strengthened with 38 mm WWM and 1:3 cement sand mortar
RDSS-20 20 mm on each side
RDSS-21 20 mm on each side
Set-8 RDSS-22 1:6 20 mm on each side URM panel strengthened with 50 mm WWM and 1:3 cement sand mortar
RDSS-23 20 mm on each side
RDSS-24 20 mm on each side
198 C. Shermi, R.N. Dubey / Construction and Building Materials 178 (2018) 195–203

All dimensions are in mm


Fig. 2. Specimen reinforcement and size details.

Fig. 3. Stages showing strengthening of unreinforced specimen with WWM.

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.

5. Analysis and discussion of experimental results

The global response of masonry is generally defined in terms of


stress and strain. The shear stress can be obtained from the exper-
imentally measured diagonal force taken by the masonry sample
using the formula
0:707P
s¼1 ð1Þ
2
tðL þ HÞ

where,
t = the thickness of the panel,
L = length of the panel,
H = height of the panel,
P = diagonal force measured experimentally

The shear strain is calculated using the formula


Fig. 5. URM specimen after testing.
DV þ DH
c¼ ð2Þ
g
relatively higher than set 1 specimens. Set 5 specimen experienced
where, a average maximum load of 295 kN, after this cracks initiated and
DV = diagonal shortening along the axis of applied force, degradation of load started. In set 6, initial crack initiated at an
DH = diagonal elongation measured perpendicular to the axis of average maximum load of 172 kN. The cracks further widened
applied force, resulting in spalling of mortar layer with degradation of load. Set
g = gauge length, which is normally kept same for both 7 specimen failed at an average maximum load of 183 kN. Set 8
directions specimen failed at an average maximum load of 194 kN. In case
of all strengthened specimen (set 3,4,5,6,7 and 8) wider cracks
The stress v/s strain graph plotted for selected samples can be were seen along the thickness of the wall indicating complete fail-
seen in Figs. 8–13. ure of mortar joints, the bricks did not slide off indicating good
anchorage due to the external reinforcement provided. Though
5.1. Test observations and failure modes the external mortar layer failed and debonding of mesh was
observed in set 5 specimens, the mesh did not come off due to
The unreinforced specimen showed a typical brittle failure the anchorage provided. The mesh layer did not detach even after
(Fig. 5) showing cracks only in the mortar joints, whereas the rein- the masonry sample has completely failed, shows a composite
forced specimen showed a ductile failure. The experimental obser- behaviour. FEMA 356 says that if the reinforcement provided in
vation showed that the reinforcement in both sides of the panel either side of a masonry wall is connected through reinforcement
worked effectively along with the anchorage provided. Cracks ini- (anchorage), it acts as a single composite material.
tiated in the diagonal region, indicating more stress concentration
in that region, further the cracks either propagated towards the 5.2. Influence on strengthening
corner i.e., along the sides, propagation of crack varied in each case
(Figs. 6 and 7). In general cracks initiated in set 3 specimens after The average shear capacity of set 1 and set 2 specimens were
attaining an average load of 217 kN, degradation of load was 0.54 MPa and 0.07 MPa respectively, and that of set 3, set 4, set
observed after this point. In case of set 4 specimen, an average 5, set 6, set 7 and set 8 was 1.02 MPa, 1.27 MPa, 1.3 MPa, 0.80
maximum of 256 kN was experienced by the specimen, which is MPa, 0.85 MPa, 0.91 MPa respectively. The reinforced specimens
200 C. Shermi, R.N. Dubey / Construction and Building Materials 178 (2018) 195–203

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.

0.7 AVG UDSS 1,2,3


AVG UDSS 4,5,6
0.6
Shear Stress [MPa]

0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006
Shear Strain %
Fig. 8. URM specimen.

showed a significant increase in strength compared to unrein-


forced specimens. The set 3,4 and 5 specimens were able to take
more stress compared to other reinforced specimens (set 6,7 and Fig. 9. High strength mortar specimen reinforced with 25 mm spacing WWM and
8). This was due to the high mechanical property of mortar used coarse sand mortar 1:3.
in set 3,4 and 5 but the specimens of set 6,7 and 8 were able to
withstand more stress compared to its control specimen i.e., set
2. The Figs. 5–7 show the failure modes of selected reinforced exhibiting a ductile behaviour, whereas the conventional URM
and unreinforced specimens. The effectiveness of reinforcement panels exhibited a brittle failure. The increase in ductility is clearly
is evident from this. quantified in Table 4. While comparing the behaviour of both URM
The initial stiffness of the strengthened panels was high due to and strengthened panel, it is much clear that the strengthening
the high strength mortar with encompassing reinforcement. The technique used in this study has behaved stiffer initially, when fail-
stiffness degradation started as crack initiated in the external ure initiated, it has behaved in a ductile manner confirming its
coarse sand jacket, after which the panels started behaving in a duc- effective use for strengthening of existing URM masonry.
tile manner. It is clear from Figs. 9–14 that the initial stiffness of 1:6 Figs. 8–14 show the shear stress - strain curve obtained based
masonry specimen was lower than that of 1:4 masonry specimen. on the experimental test data. It can be seen that the reinforced
It was observed from the experimental investigation that the samples showed a linear elastic response initially and then gradu-
strengthened specimen behaved as a single composite material ally softened as the failure initiated.
C. Shermi, R.N. Dubey / Construction and Building Materials 178 (2018) 195–203 201

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

The masonry is highly nonlinear, in order to investigate the


main aspects of the inelastic behaviour of the samples, the actual
behaviour is idealized with the help of a bilinear curve [29]. Bilin-
earization of curves is widely recommended by all codal provisions
worldwide [29] to assess an existing masonry structures by nonlin-
ear static procedure. In this study, the ultimate strength and duc-
tility is evaluated for seismic design and assessment of masonry
structures. The bilinear idealization has been obtained by ensuring
that the areas below the actual and bilinear idealized curve were
equal, and in agreement with [29,11]. For all the reinforced panels,
an equivalent bilinear curve was defined with reference to Fig. 15.
The calculations are given in Table 4.

6. Conclusions

This experimental investigation was aimed at to find an alter-


nate solution for strengthening the existing masonry structure
Fig. 12. Low strength mortar specimen reinforced with 25 mm spacing WWM and using a cost effective economic material, which can be easily used
coarse sand mortar 1:3. in practice without any practical difficulty. Experiments were
202 C. Shermi, R.N. Dubey / Construction and Building Materials 178 (2018) 195–203

Table 4
Experimental results of shear-compression tests.

Specimen qH qV Reinforcement Spacing Pmax smax s/s0 dy du l = du/dy Mean


(%) (%) [mm] [kN] [MPa] l
UDSS-1 0 0 – 105.0 0.647 – – – – –
UDSS-2 121.0 0.744 – – – –
UDSS-3 37.0 0.22 – – – –
UDSS-4 0 0 – 11.5 0.07 – – – – –
UDSS-5 11.1 0.068 – – – –
UDSS-6 – – – – – –
RDSS-7 0.10 0.10 25 276.90 1.28 2.38 2.20 4.48 2.03 5.90
RDSS-8 184.93 0.86 1.60 0.36 1.54 4.27
RDSS-9 191.86 0.89 1.65 0.19 2.17 11.42
RDSS-10 0.12 0.12 38 274.50 1.49 2.77 0.19 2.23 11.73 11.28
RDSS-11 267.65 1.25 2.32 0.19 2.38 12.52
RDSS-12 227.43 1.06 1.97 0.18 1.73 9.61
RDSS-13 0.11 0.11 50 292.00 1.47 2.74 0.17 2.22 13.05 12.14
RDSS-14 315.00 1.30 2.42 0.22 0.745 3.38
RDSS-15 278.00 1.13 2.10 0.22 4.40 20.0
RDSS-16 0.10 0.10 25 139.41 0.65 9.28 0.37 0.1 3.7 4.18
RDSS-17 149.34 0.69 9.97 0.23 1.02 4.43
RDSS-18 229.87 1.07 15.28 0.38 1.68 4.42
RDSS-19 0.11 0.11 38 184.10 0.86 12.28 0.42 1.1 2.62 4.48
RDSS-20 180.40 0.84 12.04 0.195 1.18 6.05
RDSS-21 186.05 0.86 12.41 0.17 0.81 4.76
RDSS-22 0.12 0.12 50 175.40 0.82 11.71 0.17 1.05 6.17 9.49
RDSS-23 218.60 1.02 14.57 0.10 1.78 17.80
RDSS-24 189.65 0.88 12.68 0.39 1.76 4.5

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.

 The ductility ratio of URM specimen after strengthening


increased up to 2 to 5 times.
 The relative increase in shear strength due to strengthening is
much higher compared to the other procedures reported in lit-
erature. This is mainly due to the much lower shear strength of
the original URM.
 The technique is more effective in case of low strength masonry
mortar (1:6) compared to high strength masonry mortar (1:4).
 The WWM reinforced samples showed significant increase in
shear strength and ductility compared to unreinforced masonry
specimen.

Conflict of interest

As far as the author is concerned, there is no conflict of interest.


Fig. 15. Bilinear Curve.
References

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.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen