Out-of-plane exural behavior of unreinforced red brick walls

strengthened with FRP composites

Ayman S. Mosallam
Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, University of California, Irvine, CA 92604, USA
Received 20 March 2006; accepted 27 July 2006
Available online 27 December 2006
Abstract
This paper presents the results of a study focused on evaluating the out-of-plane exural behavior of two ber reinforced polymer
(FRP) composite systems for strengthening unreinforced red brick masonry walls. The full-scale tests followed the International Code
Council Evaluation Service (ICC-ES) AC 125 procedure. In the experimental program, a total of four full-scale destructive tests were
conducted on UMR red brick walls. One wall specimen was used as control (as-built) specimen without composites, and the remaining
three wall specimens were strengthened with either E-glass/epoxy or carbon/epoxy composite systems with dierent ber architecture.
The eect of applying a cross-ply laminate on the ultimate failure mode has been investigated. Full-scale experimental results conrmed
the eectiveness of the FRP composite strengthening systems in upgrading the out-of-plane exural structural performance of URM
walls. In addition, an analytical model was developed to predict the ultimate load capacity of the retrotted walls. The analytical mod-
eling is based on deformation compatibility and force equilibrium using simple section analysis procedure. A good agreement between
the experimental and theoretical results was obtained.
2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: A. Laminates; B. Delamination; D. Mechanical testing; E. Lay-up (manual); Infrastructure
1. Introduction
In general, unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings per-
form poorly in earthquakes. Two types of failure are com-
monly encountered in URM buildings subjected to seismic
forces. The rst failure mode occurred in in-plane shear
that are designed to form the lateral load resisting system
of the building. The other type of failure is due to out-of-
plane bending stresses caused by seismic inertial forces.
The excessive out-of-plane bending is also a major reason
for the loss of load carrying capacity of URM walls.
Fig. 1 shows a typical failure of unreinforced red brick wall
due to excessive out-of-plane seismic forces. Composites
oer an attractive strengthening protocol for existing and
historical unreinforced masonry structures.
In the past few decades, composites have successfully
been used in dierent construction applications including
strengthening of reinforced concrete, steel and timber
structures. An in-depth review of dierent applications of
composites in repair and rehabilitation is discussed by
Mosallam [1]. Lately, several studies have been conducted
on evaluating the use of polymeric composites for repair
and strengthening both unreinforced and reinforced
masonry walls subjected to seismic, wind and lateral earth
pressure. The advantages of using composite materials in
this application are (i) ease of application, (ii) preservation
of the geometrical and architectural details of the walls, (iii)
their high strength-to-weight ratio, and (iv) their high resis-
tance to corrosion as compared to metallic strengthening
systems. This paper presents a summary of experimental
and theoretical results of a study that was conducted to
characterize the out-of-plane exural behavior of unrein-
forced masonry walls externally strengthened with ber
reinforced polymeric (FRP) composite laminates.
1359-8368/$ - see front matter 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compositesb.2006.07.019
E-mail address: mosallam@uci.edu
www.elsevier.com/locate/compositesb
Composites: Part B 38 (2007) 559574
2. Related work
The use of composites in strengthening masonry started
initially at the Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials
Testing and Research (EMPA) in Du bendorf, Switzerland.
One of the pilot studies in the area was reported by Schwe-
gler [2]. Based on the results of this pilot study, a testing
program on load-bearing masonry walls of a six-story
building strengthened with carbon/epoxy laminates was
performed [3]. Gilstrap and Dolan [4] reported the results
of an experimental study focused on evaluating the struc-
tural behavior of unreinforced masonry walls strengthened
externally with dierent types of composites. Both small-
and large-scale tests were conducted with varying bound-
ary conditions. The walls were tested under both line and
concentrated uniform loading conditions. Albert et al. [5]
conducted a similar experimental investigation on the fea-
sibility of using polymeric composites as an external
strengthening system for masonry walls. In their study,
the performance of both undamaged and slightly damaged
wall specimens was evaluated. Several parameters were
used in their study including composite type, amount of
applied composite, ber architecture of the overlay and
the loading regime. Ganz et al. [6] studied four types of
composites systems for wall strengthening, namely:
chopped E-glass/epoxy, chopped E-glass/polyester, E-glass
composite fabric cloth with epoxy resin, and E-glass fabric
cloth with polyester resin. The results of the study showed
signicant non-linearity in loaddeection relationships
due to the eect of delamination between the composites
and the masonry. The behavior of tested strengthened
masonry beams with was studied analytically [7]. The cyclic
exural behavior of masonry walls reinforced with glass/
epoxy composites was investigated by Velazquez-Dimas
et al. [8] and Kuzik et al. [9]. Tan and Patoary [10] con-
ducted a large experimental program on 30 masonry walls
strengthened using three dierent ber-reinforced polymer
(FRP) systems. However, the loading regime that was used
was concentrated on a portion of the wall. Al-salloum and
Almusallam [11] conducted a study on the behavior of
unreinforced masonry strengthened with composites. Sev-
eral wall specimens were subjected to out-of-plane and
in-plane loads. As reported, a signicant strength increase
was observed for all strengthened wall specimens. Turco
et al. [12] evaluated both the exural and shear strengthen-
ing of un-reinforced masonry using FRP bars. The results
of the study indicated the potential of this technique for
masonry strengthening applications. Similar studies were
conducted by other researchers (e.g. El-Dakhakhni et al.
[13], Hamoush et al. [14], Hamilton and Dolan [15], Laur-
sen et al. [16]). Ghobarah and Galal [17] studied the out-of-
plane behavior of FRP strengthened masonry walls with
openings. Recently, Korany and Drysdale [18] developed
an unobtrusive composite rehabilitation technique using
exible carbon/epoxy cables, mounted near the surface of
the facade walls in epoxy-lled grooves in the bed and head
joints.
3. Objective and motivations
The majority of historical structures including buildings,
arches, bridges and chimneys that requires immediate
repair and/or strengthening are made of red clay bricks
with low-strength mortar. To date, limited work has been
published on the behavior of red brick walls retrotted with
FRP composites. In addition, several studies highlighted
the major inuence of the loading pattern on the ultimate
performance of laboratory-tested wall panels. Hence, it is
critical to accurately simulate the inertial forces generated
by seismic activities that are responsible for the excessive
out-of-plane forces applied to the masonry walls. Line- or
concentrated loading of a wall specimen produces stress
concentration elds that accelerate the strength degrada-
tion of the weak aging mortar lines resulting in inaccurate
laboratory-simulated performance and premature failure
as compared to the actual eld performance. The prema-
ture failure of the mortar lines due to the application of line
and/or concentrated loads generates high shear stresses on
the laminate. This shear stress concentration adversely
aects the strength of the composite laminate and increases
the possibility of initiating premature local laminate frac-
ture and/or debonding at these locations. In order to
accurately simulating the applied loads generated from
seismic action, and avoid these potential premature failure
modes, a uniform hydrostatic pressure was employed in
this study.
In most cases, both in-plane shear and out-of-plane ex-
ural upgrades are required to upgrade the seismic perfor-
mance of old and historical unreinforced masonry
structures. In order to fulll these demands, multidirec-
tional composite systems are required (e.g. cross-ply,
angle-ply or quasi-isotropic lamination) to achieve opti-
mum retrot design. To date, no work has been published
to evaluate the coupling eect of composite reinforcements
applied in the dierent directions for each demand. This
eect issue is investigated and discussed in this paper. In
Fig. 1. Failure of unreinforced red brick wall due to out-of-plane seismic
forces [Nisqually Earthquake, 28 February 2001].
560 A.S. Mosallam / Composites: Part B 38 (2007) 559574
addition, this is one of the rst studies where all test
procedures are conrmed with the requirements of the
International Code Council-Evaluation Service (ICC-ES)
Acceptance Criteria AC 125 [19].
4. Experimental program
4.1. Wall specimens
A total of four unreinforced red bricks large-scale wall
specimens were constructed and tested to failure. The
dimensions of the walls were 2.64 m 2.64 m (8.67 ft
8.67 ft) and one brick wide. Large wall dimensions were
selected to avoid scale eects and to reect the actual per-
formance of a weak masonry wall under out-of-plane ex-
ural loading conditions. Table 1 describes the wall
specimens evaluated in this study. As mentioned earlier,
the International Code Council-Evaluation Service (ICC-
ES) Acceptance Criteria AC 125 [19] procedures were fol-
lowed for all tests.
4.2. Mortar
Standard Type-S mortar was used in constructing these
walls. The mortar was mixed to the proportion specica-
tion of ASTM C-270 Standard. The average compressive
strength of the mortar was obtained by testing six
50.8 mm (2
00
) diameter 101.6 mm (4
00
) high cylinders
taken from the same batch used in fabricating the wall
specimens. The average strength f
0
m
of the mortar on
the day of the tests was 21.37 MPa (3100 psi).
4.3. Red bricks
Common red clay bricks (Castaic) readily available from
building suppliers were used. The nominal dimensions were
20.32 cm (8 in.) 10.16 cm (4 in.) 5.72 cm (2
1
4
in.). Two
types of tests were conducted on the red bricks: (i) a unit
brick compression test to determine the ultimate compres-
sive strength (refer to Fig. 2), and (ii) a prism test (refer to
Fig. 3) to determine the combined compressive strength of
Table 1
Description of wall specimens
Test ID Specimens description
Control unreinforced
WCONT-U As-built wall no composites
Retrot: carbon/epoxy
WC-RET-02 2 Plies of unidirectional carbon/epoxy laminate parallel to edge supports [0]
2
WC-RET-090 1 Ply of unidirectional carbon/epoxy in each orthogonal direction (perpendicular to edge supports direction) [0/90]
1
Retrot E-glass/epoxy
WE- RET-02 3 Plies of unidirectional E-glass/epoxy laminate parallel to edge supports [0]
3
Fig. 2. Compression test for unit red clay bricks.
Fig. 3. Setup and results of the prism test.
A.S. Mosallam / Composites: Part B 38 (2007) 559574 561
the unit bricks and mortar. The average compressive
strength obtained from unit brick tests is 25.00 MPa
[3.63 ksi]. A lower average strength value of 16.0 MPa
[2.33 ksi] was obtained from the prism tests.
4.4. Composite materials
Both carbon/epoxy and E-glass/epoxy composite sys-
tems were evaluated. Specications for each system compo-
nent including bers and epoxies, and certications for
random sampling in accordance with requirements of
ICC-ES (AC85 [20]) were obtained. This procedure is crit-
ical to ensure that all the o-the-shelf composites materials
used in laboratory testing are true representation of mate-
rials to be used in the eld.
4.5. Test setup
All specimens were tested in a water-bag structural
frame as shown in Fig. 4. The hydraulic pressure load
was applied uniformly to each specimen until ultimate fail-
ure occurred (refer to Fig. 5). The applied pressure was
controlled via a data acquisition computer program con-
nected directly to the loading frame. The load followed
a cyclic loading/unloading regime, which was designed
specically for these tests. In all tests a loading rate of
3.45 kPa/min (72 psf/min) was used. The wall specimens
were simply supported only on two parallel sides while
the other two sides were unsupported (refer to Fig. 4).
A calibrated pressure transducer was used to control
and measure the applied water pressure for all tests. All
data was monitored and recorded using a computerized
data acquisition system, which also provides real-time
monitoring of data during testing. Deection and strain
data were measured using linear variable dierential trans-
ducers (LVDTs) and electronic strain gages, respectively.
Deection and strain data were collected using a comput-
erized data acquisition system. Stress/strain (r/e) and
load/deection (P/d) curves were developed for each spec-
imen and both localized and ultimate failure modes were
recorded and then analyzed. Fig. 6 shows the boundary
conditions and the locations of dierent deection and
strain gages.
4.6. Strengthening schemes
Three categories of walls were tested: (i) two (as-built)
control walls, (ii) two carbon/epoxy retrotted walls
(WC-RET-02 and WC-RET-0/90) with dierent lamina-
tion schedules, and (iii) an E-glass/epoxy retrotted wall
(WE-RET-02). The following sections summarize the nd-
ings of each test group.
4.7. Control (as built) tests
At rst, an as built, unstrengthened brick wall specimen
was tested to provide a baseline for comparison with other Fig. 4. Out-of-plane water bag wall test rig.
Fig. 5. Typical hydrostatic pressure loading of wall specimens.
562 A.S. Mosallam / Composites: Part B 38 (2007) 559574
FRP strengthened specimens. No external composite rein-
forcement is used (except of two 76.2 mm (3
00
) single cross-
laminates adhered to the compression surface to avoid
failure while transporting the specimen to the test rig).
The control wall was subjected to several cycles of uni-
form pressure. The self-weight of the wall specimen was
subtracted from the values of the applied uniform pres-
sures. As the out-of-plane pressure was applied, the as-
built wall specimen exhibited a near-linear behavior up
to a pressure intensity of 3.30 kPa (69.10 psf), after which
behavior became non-linear until failure occurred. The ulti-
mate load capacity of this specimen was 6.5 kPa (136 psf),
with an associated mid-height deection at the maximum
load of 45.41 mm (1.79
00
). After reaching this ultimate load,
rapid stiness and strength degradations were observed,
and the ultimate deection at the total collapse was about
77.30 mm (3.04
00
).
The failure initiated around mid-span and started with
development of a mortar line crack that propagated across
the width of the specimen. As the load increased, the size of
the cracks increased and a total sudden collapse occurred.
Figs. 7 and 8 show the ultimate failure of the as-built wall
specimen and the pressure/deection behavior measured at
dierent locations, respectively.
4.8. Strengthened walls tests
In order to evaluate the FRPcomposite systems eective-
ness in strengthening unreinforced brick walls, three full-
scale retrotted specimens with dierent composite systems
and ber architectures, described earlier, were evaluated. In
Fig. 6. Locations of deection and strain gages for strengthened wall specimens.
Fig. 7. Ultimate failure mode of the as-built specimen.
A.S. Mosallam / Composites: Part B 38 (2007) 559574 563
designing the strengthened specimens, the limit-states were
based on the composites systems mechanical properties,
especially the rupture strain of both carbon/epoxy e
c
u

1:25% and the E-glass/epoxy e
E
u
2:20%, as well as the
extreme brick ber compressive strain for strain compatibil-
ity requirements.
4.8.1. Unreinforced brick walls retrotted with carbon/epoxy
composite laminates
A total of two unreinforced/undamaged specimens fabri-
cated at the same time, with same materials, and by the same
contractor as for the as-built specimen, were instrumented
and tested to failure under the same out-of-plane uniformly
distributed loading condition. Two ber architectures were
evaluated: (i) two unidirectional laminates covering the
entire wall (0)
2
, and (ii) two cross-ply laminates (0/90)
1
.
The reason of using the second ber architecture is that in
general retrot cases, the wall will be exposed to both in-
plane as well as to out-of-plane seismic loads, and it is not
obvious what would be the eect of this multidirectional
ber architecture on the overall performance of the retrot-
ted wall. A sucient gap was provided between the wall
edges and the supporting steel channels to prevent any pos-
sibility of developing arching action in the test specimens.
Fig. 8. Pressuredeection curves for the as-built brick wall.
Fig. 9. Pressure/deection curves for unidirectional [0]
2
carbon/epoxy strengthened brick wall specimen (WC-RET-02).
564 A.S. Mosallam / Composites: Part B 38 (2007) 559574
4.9. Cyclic and ultimate behavior of [0]
2
carbon/epoxy
strengthened unreinforced brick wall specimen (WC-RET-
02)
The wall specimen was subjected to several loading/
unloading cycles up to 39.76 kPa (830.45 psf), after which
a ramp load (3.45 kPa/min or 72 psf/min) was applied up
to the ultimate failure of the wall specimen. The rst crack-
ing sound was heard at a load level of about 27.17 kPa
(567.47 psf). This can be attributed to stretching of the
bers due to the unevenness of the wall surface and the
mortar lines as well the stiness incompatibility of
the two materials (composites/bricks). The behavior was
linear from a load level of about 39.76 kPa (830.45 psf)
and up to failure as shown in Fig. 9. From this gure,
one can see that both LVDT 3 and LVDT 4 reading were
identical (Refer to Fig. 6 for gages locations.) which con-
rms the accuracy of the deection measurements and
the symmetrically applied loading condition. The ultimate
laminate strain at failure was 0.71% as shown in Fig. 10.
This strain is 57% of the rupture strain of the carbon/epoxy
composite system (e
u
= 1.25%).
The ultimate load capacity of this specimen was
74.43 kPa (1554 psf) which is 12 times the capacity of the
as-built specimen. The associated mid-height out-of-plane
deection was 87 mm (3.422 in.). The ultimate failure mode
was a combination of a compressive failure of the bricks
followed by a cohesive failure of the carbon epoxy lami-
nates as shown in Figs. 11 and 12, respectively.
4.10. Cyclic and ultimate behavior of [0/90]
1
carbon/epoxy
strengthened unreinforced brick wall specimen (WC-RET-
090)
There were two main reasons behind the selection of this
ber architecture. Although, the wall resists out-of-plane
uniform pressure loading in one-way action (in this study,
walls were supported at only two parallel sides as shown in
Fig. 6), in the common eld application both in-plane and
out-of-plane reinforcements for an unreinforced wall are
typically required. For this reason, it was decided to use
this cross-ply [0/90] lay-up in order to: (i) investigate
the one-way, out-of-plane exural response of the brick
wall specimen when strengthened with one single eec-
tive laminate of carbon/epoxy system, and (ii) to evaluate
the eect of the presence of the 90 laminate to both the
service performance and ultimate failure mode of brick
walls. From rst glance, one may expect that the 90 lam-
inate may not contribute to both the structural perfor-
mance of the one-way load-resisting path. However, test
results obtained from this study indicated that this scheme
may alter the ultimate mode of failure by suppressing the
expected longitudinal separation of the eective lami-
nates (in the 0-direction) and force these laminate to work
0.000 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007 0.008
Strain
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
p
s
f
)
0
2500
5000
7500
10000
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
k
P
a
)
SG-1
SG-4
SG-5
SG-6
SG-7
SG-8
Carbon/Epoxy (0
o
)
2
Fig. 10. Pressure/strain curves for the unidirectional [0]
2
carbon/epoxy strengthened brick wall specimen (WC-RET-02).
Fig. 11. The combined failure mode of brick compression failure and
laminate cohesive failure.
A.S. Mosallam / Composites: Part B 38 (2007) 559574 565
together. The contribution of the 90-ply was shown to be
eective and is considered to be a contributing factor in
determining the ultimate failure mode of this specimen.
The cross-ply actually acts as a cross-support which forces
the 0-degree laminated strips to deform as a single wide
laminate. This prevents the 0-degree separation between
the unidirectional laminates that was observed in specimen
strengthened with two plies of unidirectional carbon/epoxy
composites described earlier (refer to Fig. 12).
This specimen achieved the highest performance, with
respect to the resulting ductile failure that was observed
for this specimen. Test results indicated that, even with a
single eective laminate of carbon/epoxy system, an
appreciable increase in the wall strength was achieved.
For example, the ultimate capacity of this specimen was
60.58 kPa (1265 psf) compared to 6.52 kPa (136.2 psf),
and 74.43 kPa (1554 psf) of as-built wall, and the wall spec-
imen strengthened with two unidirectional layers carbon/
epoxy system, respectively. This ultimate capacity is about
81% of specimen WC-RET-02 and 9.22 times the strength
of the as-built specimen. The maximum mid-height deec-
tion at failure was 98 mm (3.859 in.).
Fig. 13 shows the pressure/deection behavior of this
specimen. The strain at failure of this specimen was 1%,
Fig. 12. Ultimate failure mode of the unidirectional laminated (only on one side) red brick wall specimen.
Fig. 13. Cyclic performance of the cross-ply carbon/epoxy strengthened brick wall specimen (WC-RET-090).
566 A.S. Mosallam / Composites: Part B 38 (2007) 559574
which is about 83% of the measured rupture strain of the
carbon/epoxy system. This is another indication of the
merit of using the cross-ply is that it succeeded in increasing
the eciency of the external FRP composite reinforcement
system (the ultimate strain is 16.9% higher than specimen
WC-RET-02). Fig. 14 shows that pressure/strain curves
for the composite laminate of specimen WC-RET-090.
The ultimate failure mode was similar to the two-ply
unidirectional wall specimen, which is a combination of
compression failure of the bricks and a cohesive failure of
the composite laminates. However, and due to the suppress-
ing action of the cross-ply, the failure was more ductile and
no longitudinal separation between the laminated
strips (parallel to the unsupported free edges) was observed.
Figs. 15 and 16 show the ultimate failure modes of this
specimen.
Fig. 14. Pressure/strain curves for the cross-ply carbon/epoxy strengthened brick wall specimen (WC-RET-090).
Fig. 15. Ultimate failure mode of the cross-ply eective laminate on one
side of brick wall specimen (WC-RET-090).
Fig. 16. Compression failure of the red bricks at ultimate load of cross-ply
carbon/epoxy strengthened wall specimen WC-RET-090.
A.S. Mosallam / Composites: Part B 38 (2007) 559574 567
4.11. Cyclic and ultimate behavior of [0]
3
E-glass/epoxy
strengthened brick wall specimen (WE-RET-02)
For this wall specimen, a total of three unidirectional
plies of E-glass/epoxy were applied covering the entire
tension surface of the brick wall specimen. The unidirec-
tional bers were aligned parallel to the free-edges of the
unreinforced wall specimen (refer to Fig. 6). The behavior
of this specimen was similar to the retrotted specimen
WC-RET-02. Figs. 17 and 18 show the loading/unloading
pressure/deection behavior of this specimen at service
loading conditions (In this paper, service load is dened
as 40% of the ultimate capacity of the wall specimen which
equals to 30.12 kPa (628 psf). At this pressure load level,
ne hair cracks were observed at three locations.). For the
ultimate load tests, specimens were subjected to a constant
ramp load up to failure. The maximum central deection
at failure was 91.7 mm (3.612
00
). The ultimate capacity of
this wall was 75.29 kPa (1572 psf) as shown in Fig. 19. This
capacity is 11.54 times the out-of-plane ultimate capacity of
the control, unstrengthened wall specimen. The strain at
failure of the mid-height surface laminate was 1.07% (refer
to Fig. 20), which translates to about 48% of the experimen-
tally obtained rupture strain of the E-glass/epoxy FRP
Fig. 17. Pressure/deection curves of the unidirectional [0]
3
E-glass/epoxy strengthened unreinforced brick wall specimen at low cyclic load (WE-RET-
02).
0.0000 0.0005 0.0010 0.0015 0.0020
Strain
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
p
s
f
)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
k
P
a
)
SG-1
SG-3
SG-4
SG-5
SG-6
SG-7
SG-8
E-glass/Epoxy - Service Load
Fig. 18. Pressure/strain curves unidirectional [0]
3
E-glass/epoxy strengthened unreinforced brick wall specimen at low cyclic load level (WE-RET-02).
568 A.S. Mosallam / Composites: Part B 38 (2007) 559574
composite system. Although the E-glass/epoxy inherently
exhibits lower stiness properties compared to carbon/
epoxy-type laminates, the average stiness increase in the
linear range of this wall, as compared to the as-built spec-
imen, was about 60% higher. The failure mode was dier-
ent from the carbon/epoxy specimens. For this specimen
(in addition to the combined mode of failure of compres-
sive failure of the bricks followed by cohesive failure of
the E-glass/epoxy laminate that was observed in all preced-
ing tests), a tensile fracture of the laminate did occur as
shown in Figs. 21 and 22. This can be attributed to the rel-
atively lower tensile strength of E-glass/epoxy laminates as
compared to carbon/epoxy laminates.
5. Theoretical modeling
An analytical model was developed to predict the ulti-
mate load of the retrotted specimens. The analytical
model used in this study is based on simple section analysis
procedures similar to that used for analyzing reinforced
concrete beams. However, new parameters have been used
for masonry wall based on available experimental data (e.g.
[21,22]). The rst part of the analysis is to dene the mate-
rial properties. The stressstrain curve for brick-mortar
blocks under compression is as shown in Fig. 23. The curve
consists of two distinct regions: a parabolic relationship up
to the maximum compressive strength, f
0
m
, and a linear
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Deflection (inch)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
p
s
f
)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Deflection (mm)
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
k
P
a
)
E-glass/Epoxy - Ultimate Load
Deflection-1
Deflection-2
Deflection-3
Deflection-4
Deflection-5
Fig. 19. Pressure/deection curves unidirectional [0]
3
E-glass/epoxy strengthened brick wall test specimen at high load levels (WE-RET-02).
0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010 0.012
Strain
0
500
1000
1500
2000
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
p
s
f
)
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
k
P
a
)
SG-1
SG-3
SG-4
SG-5
SG-6
SG-7
SG-8
E-glass/Epoxy - Ultimate Load
Fig. 20. Pressure/strain curves unidirectional [0]
3
E-glass/epoxy strengthened unreinforced wall specimen at high load levels (WE-RET-02).
A.S. Mosallam / Composites: Part B 38 (2007) 559574 569
descending branch up to the ultimate compressive strain,
e
mu
. The rst region of the stressstrain curve is assumed
polynomial in the form:
f
m
Ae
n
m
Be
m
C 1
The four unknowns in Eq. (1) are determined from the fol-
lowing boundary conditions:
i f
m
0:0 at e
m
0:0
ii f
m
f
0
m
at e
m
e
mo
iii df
m
=de
m
E
m
at e
m
0:0
iv df
m
=de
m
0:0 at e
m
e
mo
2
The equations of the stressstrain curve have been deter-
mined to be:
For 0 < e
m
< e
mo
:
f
c
E
m
e
m
1
1
n
e
m
e
mo

n1
" #
3
n
E
m
e
mo
E
m
e
mo
f
0
m
4
For e
mo
< e
m
< e
mu
:
f
m
f
0
m
E
d
e
m
e
mo
5
E
d

0:5f
0
m
e
mu
e
mo

6
The parameters of the previous stressstrain curve are gi-
ven as [21,22]:
f
0
m
31 MPa (4500 psi); e
mo
= 0.002; e
mu
= 0.0035; E
m
=
19.28 GPa (2.8 10
6
psi); and f
mf
0:5f
0
m
.
Based on experimental evidences, it is appropriate to
assume the FRP composites to be linear elastic up to fail-
ure as shown in Fig. 24. The properties for both carbon/
epoxy and E-glass/epoxy systems used in this study are pre-
sented in Table 2.
The section analysis procedures adopted in this study
are based on the following assumptions:
Tensile strength of the brick-mortar blocks is ignored.
Tensile resistance of the FRP laminates can be neglected
in the transverse direction.
The area of the FRP laminates is enough for the failure
of the specimen to be due to masonry crushing rather
than ber fracture.
Plane section before bending remains plane after bend-
ing, and hence a linear strain distribution can be
assumed along the section.
In order to perform the section analysis, it is necessary
to develop parameters describing the equivalent rectangu-
lar stress block shown in Fig. 25. These parameters can
be determined by integrating the stressstrain curve for
brick-mortar blocks in compression, as follows:
b 2 1
R
emu
0
f
m
e
m
de
m
e
mu
R
e
mu
0
f
m
de
m
" #
0:88 7
c
R
emu
f
m
de
m
bf
0
m
e
mu
0:8 8
6. Numerical example
In the following example, the proposed analytical
approach is used to predict the out-of-plane capacity of a
red brick wall strengthened with two unidirectional plies
of carbon/epoxy composite system. Dimensions, boundary
conditions, loading pattern, composite lay-up and proper-
ties are identical to those used for wall specimen WC-
RET-02 evaluated in this study (refer to Fig. 6). The
following are the step-by-step analytical procedures for
predicting the exural capacity of this wall.
6.1. Strengthened wall information
Wall dimensions: 2.64 m 2.64 m (104
00
104
00
).
Brick wall thickness: 101.6 mm (4
00
).
Fig. 21. Large mid-height deection of unidirectional [0]
3
E-glass/epoxy
strengthened brick wall specimen (WE-RET-02).
570 A.S. Mosallam / Composites: Part B 38 (2007) 559574
Composite system: Carbon/epoxy (CFRP) wet lay-up
system (refer to Table 2).
CFRP ply unit thickness = t
p
= 0.584 mm (0.02
00
).
Number of unidirectional plies = n = 2.
Fig. 22. Ultimate combined failure mode of unidirectional [0]
3
E-glass/epoxy strengthened unreinforced brick wall specimen (WE-RET-02).
Compressive Strain
C
o
m
p
r
e
s
s
i
v
e

S
t
r
e
s
s
d
E
mo
m
f
f
m
/
f
mf
m
mu
m
Fig. 23. Stressstrain model for brick-mortar blocks in compression.
Fig. 24. Stressstrain model for typical FRP laminates.
Table 2
Properties of composite materials
Composite system Ply thickness,
t
p
, mm [in.]
On-axis tensile modulus,
E
j
, GPa [10
6
psi]
On-axis tensile strength,
f
ju
, MPa [10
3
psi]
On-axis tensile ultimate
strain, e
u
(%)
Unidirectional
carbon/epoxy
0.584 [0.023] 103.4 [15.06] 1245.83 [180.7] 1.25
Unidirectional
E-glass/epoxy
1.143 [0.045] 18.47 [2.679] 424.70 [61.6] 2.20
A.S. Mosallam / Composites: Part B 38 (2007) 559574 571
Total thickness of CFRP laminate = t
j
= t
p
n.
Ultimate CFRP on-axis tensile strain = e
j
= 1.25%
(refer to Table 2).
CFRP on-axis tensile modulus = E
j
= 103.4 GPa
(15.06 Msi).
CFRP on-axis tensile strength = f
ju
= 1245.83 MPa
(180.7 ksi).
Boundary conditions: Simply supported on the two
opposing sides (sides perpendicular to ber directions
as shown in Fig. 6).
6.2. Analytical procedures
1. Calculation of neutral axis depth (refer to Fig. 25):
h = 4
00
+ 0.046
00
/2 = 4.023 in. (102.2 mm),
a = bc = 0.88c,
C cf
0
m
ab = 0.8 3.629 ksi a 104
00
= 301.93a,
T = A
j
f
j
= A
j
E
j
e
j
= 104
00

(2 0.023
00
) 15,060 e
j
= 72,047e
j
.
From strain compatibility:
e
j
= 0.0035(h/c 1) = 0.01239/a 0.0035,
T = 892,663a 252.17.
From equilibrium:
C = T or
301.93a = T = 892,663a 252.17
from which:
a = 1.35
00
(34.34 mm).
2. Check of CFRP allowable strain:
e
j
= 0.00567,
e
ju
= f
ju
/E
j
= 0.0125 > e
j
ok. Thus, failure is due to
masonry crushing rather than ber fracture.
3. Calculation of ultimate moment and maximum load:
M
u
= ultimate exural capacity = cf
0
m
abh a=2
A
j
f
ju
h a=2, or
M
u
= 1366.22 kip-in. (154.36 N m),
w
u
= ultimate unit load = 8M
u
/L
2
= 1.01 kip/in.
(177.055 kN/m),
P
u
= ultimate load capacity = 1.011 kip/in. 104
00
=
105.14 kip (467.44 kN),
p
u
= ultimate uniform pressure = 105.14 kip s/
(104
00
)
2
= 1399.2 psf (66.94 kPa).
From this simple analysis, the predicted ultimate pres-
sure was slightly less than the ultimate pressure obtained
from the actual test p
Exp
u
1554 psf=74:43 kPa. However,
the 10% deviation from the experimental ultimate pressure
is in the conservative side which is desirable.
Similar procedures were used to predict the other two
specimens evaluated in this study. Table 3 presents a com-
parison between the predicted and experimentally obtained
ultimate pressure values for the three strengthened walls
evaluated in this study.
7. Conclusions and summary of results
The results of this study conrmed the eectiveness of
both the E-glass/epoxy and carbon/epoxy FRP composite
strengthening systems in upgrading the out-of-plane ex-
ural structural performance of unreinforced brick walls.
The strength gains resulted from adding the composite sys-
tems was appreciable as shown in Figs. 2628. The failure
modes of specimens were due to a combination of compres-
sion failure of red bricks followed by a cohesive failure as
described earlier. The coupling eect of in-plane and out-
of-plane reinforcements is shown to have positive eects
on both the out-of-plane capacity and the ductility of the
retrotted wall specimen. Furthermore, due to the sup-
pressing action provided by the orthogonal ply (applied
in the direction parallel to the support), end-of-strip longi-
tudinal separation (parallel to unsupported free edges as
shown in Fig. 12) observed in unidirectional reinforced
wall (specimen WC-RET-02), was eliminated. Based on
these observations, it is recommended that in order to
achieve optimal out-of-plane performance of strengthened
brick walls, cross-ply lamination schedule should be used.
This will be satised in the case where both out-of-plane
Table 3
Summary of theoretical analysis for retrotted specimens
Specimen
conguration
Experimental
maximum
load,
p
Experimental
ultimate
,
kPa (psf)
Theoretical
maximum
load, p
Theoretical
ultimate
,
kPa (psf)
p
Theortical
ultimate
p
Experimental
ultimate
(0)
2
Carbon/
epoxy
74.4 (1554) 67.0 (1397) 0.90
(0/90)
1
Carbon/epoxy
60.6 (1265) 53.0 (1107) 0.87
(0)
3
E-glass/
epoxy
75.3 (1572) 55.0 (1148) 0.73
Fig. 25. Stress and strain distribution for section analysis.
572 A.S. Mosallam / Composites: Part B 38 (2007) 559574
and in-plane composite reinforcements are provided. How-
ever, if only out-of-plane reinforcement is required, it is
recommended to add a lighter orthogonal ply (about 10
15%) of the major exural composite reinforcement
demand. Additional research is needed in order to accu-
rately determine the optimum percentage of orthogonal
polymer composites reinforcements.
The simple analytical approach developed in this study
was successful in predicting the experimental ultimate
out-of-plane exural behavior of the walls. However, the
accuracy of predicting the experimental results varied (refer
to Table 3). For example, the highest correlation between
analytical and experimental results was achieved for the
wall specimen strengthened with unidirectional carbon/
epoxy composites. This can be attributed to the straight-
ness of the carbon fabrics, used in this study, resulting in
a better representation of the composite mechanical prop-
erties that were used in the analytical modeling. On the
other hand, the analytical results obtained for walls
strengthened with cross-ply carbon/epoxy and E-glass/
epoxy composite laminates were relatively less accurate as
compared to the experimental results. The possible reason
behind this deviation for the cross-ply carbon/epoxy
strengthened wall is the fact that the eect of the orthogo-
nal ply was ignored in the analysis. As shown in Table 3,
the analytical results for the E-glass/epoxy strengthened
wall was about 30% less than the capacity observed in
the test. This can be attributed to ignoring the kinking
eect and ber misalignment of the E-glass fabrics used
in this study. More research is needed to develop analytical
models capable of including both the eect of the orthogo-
nal lamination as well as kinking eects.
Fig. 26. Ultimate capacity comparison for all wall specimens.













0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
U
l
t
i
m
a
t
e

M
i
d
-
H
e
i
g
h
t

D
e
f
e
l
c
t
i
o
n

(
i
n
c
h
)
As-Built E-glass (0) Carbon (0)
Carbon (0/90)
1 2 3
Fig. 27. Comparison of mid-height deection at ultimate for all wall specimens.
A.S. Mosallam / Composites: Part B 38 (2007) 559574 573
Acknowledgement
The FRP materials used in the study was provided by
Edge Structural Composites Inc.
References
[1] Mosallam AS. Composites in construction. Handbook of materials
selection. NY, USA: John Wiley Publishing Co.; 2002, 53 p [Chap-
ter 45].
[2] Schwegler G. Verstarken von Mauerwerk mit Faserverbundwerkst-
oen in seismisch gefahrdeten Zonen, Dissertation ETH Zu rich No.
10672, Published by Eidgeno ssische Materialpru fungs- und Fors-
chungsanstalt, CH-8600 Du bendorf, as EMPA-Report Nr. 229, 1994.
[3] Schwegler G. Verstarkung von Mauerwerkbauten mit CFK. Lamel-
len, Sonderdruck aus, Schweizer Ingenieur und Architekten, Nr. 44,
1996.
[4] Gilstrap JM, Dolan CW. Out-of-plane bending of FRP-reinforced
masonry walls. Compos Sci Technol J 1998;58:127784.
[5] Albert LM, Elwi AE, Cheng JJ. Strengthening of unreinforced
masonry walls using FRPs. ASCE J Compos Constr 2001;5(2):7684.
[6] Ganz HR, Kiss RM, Jai J, Kollar LP, Krawinkler H. Masonry
strengthened with ber reinforced plastics subjected to combined
bending and compression. Part I Model. J Compos Mater 2001.
[7] Kiss RM, Kollar LP, Jai J, Krawinkler H. Masonry strengthened
with FRP subjected to combined bending and compression. Part II:
Test results and model predictions. J Compos Mater 2002;36(9):
104962.
[8] Velazquez-Dimas J, Ehsani MR, Saadatmanesh H. Cyclic behavior
of retrotted URM wall. In: Proceedings of the 2nd int conf on
composite in infrastructure (ICCI), Tucson, Arizona, 1998.
[9] Kuzik MD, Elwi AE, Cheng JJ. Cyclic exure tests of masonry walls
reinforced with glass ber reinforced polymer sheets. ASCE J
Compos Constr 2003;7(1):2030.
[10] Tan KH, Patoary MKH. Strengthening of masonry walls against out-
of-plane loads using ber-reinforced polymer reinforcement. ASCE J
Compos Constr 2004;8(1):7987.
[11] Al-Salloum YA, Almusallam TH. Load capacity of concrete masonry
block walls strengthened with epoxy-bonded GFRP sheets. J Compos
Mater 2005;39(19):171944.
[12] Turco V, Secondin S, Morbin A, Valluzzi MR, Modena C. Flexural
and shear strengthening of un-reinforced masonry with FRP bars.
Compos Sci Technol 2006;66:28996.
[13] El-Dakhakhni WW, Hamid AA, Hakam ZHR, Elgaaly M. Hazard
mitigation and strengthening of unreinforced masonry walls using
composites. Compos Struct 2006;73:45877.
[14] Hamoush SA, McGinley MW, Mlakar P, Scott D, Murray K. Out-
of-plane strengthening of masonry walls with reinforced composites.
ASCE J Compos Constr 2001;5(3):13945.
[15] Hamilton III HR, Dolan CW. Flexural capacity of glass FRP
strengthened concrete masonry walls. ASCE J Compos Constr
2001;5(3):1708.
[16] Laursen PT, Seible F, Hegemier GA. Seismic retrot and repair of
reinforced concrete with carbon overlays. Report no. SSRP-95101,
University of California, San Diego, 1995.
[17] Ghobarah A, Galal K. Out-of-plane strengthening of unreinforced
masonry walls with openings. ASCE J Compos Constr
2004;8(4):298305.
[18] Korany Y, Drysdale R. Rehabilitation of masonry walls using
unobtrusive FRP techniques for enhanced out-of-plane seismic
resistance. J Compos Constr 2006;10(3):21322.
[19] International Code Council-Evaluation Service (ICC-ES). Acceptance
criteria for concrete and reinforced and unreinforced masonry
strengthening using ber-reinforced polymer (FRP) composite systems
(AC125), July 2003 [http://icc-es.org/criteria/pdf_les/ac125.pdf].
[20] International Code Council-Evaluation Service (ICC-ES). Accep-
tance criteria for test reports (AC85), July 2003 [http://icc-es.org/
criteria/pdf_les/ac85.pdf].
[21] Fattal SG, Gattaneo LE. Structure performance of masonry walls
under compression and exure, National Bureau of Standards
(NIST), Washington, DC, 1976.
[22] Triantallou TC. Strengthening of masonry structures using epoxy-
bonded FRP laminates. ASCE J Compos Constr 1998;2(2).
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
M
a
x
i
m
u
m

L
a
m
i
n
a
t
e

T
e
n
s
i
l
e

s
t
r
a
i
n

(



)
As-Built E-glass (0)
3 Carbon (0)
2 Carbon (0/90)
1
Fig. 28. Comparison between mid-span tensile strains at ultimate load for all wall specimens.
574 A.S. Mosallam / Composites: Part B 38 (2007) 559574