Strengthening of Masonry Infill Panels W
Strengthening of Masonry Infill Panels W
Strengthening of Masonry Infill Panels W
Abstract: The seismic behaviour of masonry structures strengthened with fibre-reinforced polymer (FRP) materials has
received very little attention experimentally and theoretically. This paper outlines an experimental investigation of the
potential for FRP strengthening of unreinforced masonry (URM) infill panels. Various options for FRP strengthening of
masonry infill panels are compared, and results from a series of full scale push-over and seismic tests conducted at Bristol
University are presented. The test results are compared with estimates of their vulnerability produced by a simplified
analytical model. This research therefore aimed at developing a methodology for modelling the behaviour of infill panels
taking account of the FRP reinforcement of the infill panels.
The strengthening methodology finally adopted involved the removal of excess mortar from the masonry surface using a
wire brush followed by roller application of a primer. Pre-cut GRP (Glass fibre Reinforced Polymer) fabric strips were
saturated with a laminating resin while lying on a horizontal surface. The GRP strips were then rolled onto the walls
followed by the roller application of a resin top coat to bond the fabric to the wall. In all cases both sides of the masonry
panels were treated in the same manner. It was discovered that it was important to lap the GRP fabric at least 75mm over
boundaries to secure panel into the structural frame. Using this methodology the experimental tests showed that the GRP
reinforcement significantly increased the lateral load capacity, the ductility and stiffness of the panels. There were also
noticeable changes in crack patterns, strain distributions and the failure mechanisms of the panels. The change in the
stiffness of the panels was probably the most important consequence of the GRP application as this had the effect of
increasing the natural frequency of the panels, effectively “detuning” them from earthquake spectral content. In fact the
strength and stiffness increases recorded were so great that engineering calculations are arguably not necessary if it is
possible to ensure proper specification and quality of application for the GRP. Because the application procedure was very
simple and also relatively cheap GRP strengthening of masonry infill panels is a realistic retrofitting technique.
However some caution must be exercised if GRP is to be used to strengthen masonry infill panels. For example, although
the panel itself is significantly stronger, this strengthened panel may act in in-plane shear with frame and generate adverse
forces in frame. This may have the effect of moving a potential failure from the panels into the structural frame. Also fire
resistance and other environmental factors must be considered before FRP strengthening of unreinforced masonry infill
panels could be widely adopted.
brickwork density
1. Lower the stiffness to achieve cracking and better cost / investigated prior to the masonry panel construction:
the top side of the wall to fill the gap caused by shrinkage.
The walls were left for 21 days to cure. When the specimens
were cured, they were bolted onto the shaking table and
instrumented.
3000
4.3 FRP Materials
When selecting the FRP materials for reinforcement of Figure 2. Layout of FRP fabric for masonry panels STR1,
panels, the main parameters that are generally taken into STR2, and SER1
account are the specific strength (tensile strength/specific
gravity) or the specific stiffness (modulus of
elasticity/specific gravity). The carbon fibre composites (CF)
exhibit better specific strength and specific stiffness values 2000
than their competitors. However, when the seismic
behaviour of the retrofitted system comes into play, the
systems‟ ductility and capacity of energy absorption become
important. Fibre ductility increases from carbon to aramid
300
and further to glass. For this reason a glass-fibre fabric 3000
system was selected for reinforcement (manufacturer:
EXCHEM LTD-UK). Figure 3. Layout of FRP fabric for masonry panel SER2
Discrete strips or continuous jackets of FRP fabric were
used. Samples using various reinforcement ratios were tested.
Preliminary observations on the first tests were meant to lead
2000
to the selection of reinforcement ratios in further
experiments. The lay-out of the FRP was chosen in relation
to the boundary conditions of the panel. The URM panels
(STU1, STU2) failed with a horizontal cracking line at the 300
midheight of the panel. In order to prevent this failure caused 3000
by arching in vertical plane, the FRP fabric was applied with Figure 4. Layout of FRP fabric for masonry panel SER3
its fibres running in the vertical direction.
The FRP application procedure started with the
preparation of masonry surface for primer application.
Particular attention was paid to cleaning the joints and to
removal of excessive mortar from the wall surface. The
surface was cleaned with a wire brush and checked for tool
marks and other surface variation problems. A dual system
that could be used as a primer and as a laminating resin was
employed (Selfix MPA 22 Laminating Resin, Exchem Ltd.)
A foam roller was used to apply a thin layer of primer on the
wall surface (average primer consumption 1 kg/ 5 m2). The Figure 5. SER2 panel ready for testing (60% reinforcement)
primer was used to minimise the porosity of the wall surface
and to provide a good bonding substrate for the resin. 4.4 Instrumentation
Pre-cut FRP strips of 300 mm by 1960 mm were saturated CELESCO type PT101 cable-extension position
with resin (average resin consumption: 1 kg/3 m2) while transducers were employed to measure out-of-plane
lying on a horizontal surface. They were then applied to the deflections. The transducers were placed at midheight and at
positions symmetrically-located about the centerline. The RDP 628-type strain gauge amplifier module. Four other
bodies of the transducers were fixed to a rigid frame RDP 628-type strain gauge amplifiers were used for the load
standing parallel to the wall surface, and for the static tests cells in the columns and for the load cell on the actuator axis.
on wooden plates bolted on the laboratory wall (parallel to For the seismic tests, the SETRA accelerometer signals were
the masonry panel). amplified by a set of three Fylde 245GA mini-amplifiers.
Four load cells were incorporated in the four bolts The amplified acceleration signals were supplied to a FERN
attaching the top beam to the frame columns to measure the EF6 multi-channel programmable filter. A common cut-off
panel arching forces. The load cells measured the arching frequency of 80 Hz was set for all the channels. Diagrams
forces on the wall. The top beam was separated from the top slowing locations of the key instrumentation are shown in
of the column by washers around the instrumented bolts. figure 6.
Vishay type CEA-06-250UW-350 strain gauges were
used to record the FRP tensile strain at midheight and at 4.5 Input Motions
locations symmetrically located about the centerline. The Exploratory tests were used to determine the modal
strain gauges were mounted on the FRP fabric in areas parameters of the specimens. The resonant frequency of the
located on top of a brick unit. All the strain gauges employed first mode of vibration and the viscous damping of the
had uniaxial wiring and 350 ohm resistors. They were specimen were the main parameters of interest. The
quarter-bridge type, therefore a strain gauge amplifier (RDP exploratory tests used broadband (0-100 Hz) random noise
628-type) was used to complete the bridge. applied on the out-of-plane axis only (Y axis). The driving
One 200 kN load cell was mounted on the same axis signal was generated by an Advantest 9211C FFT Servo
with the hydraulic actuator to measure the applied Analyzer and had „RMS‟ (Root Mean Square) voltage
out-of-plane force during the monotonic tests. values ranging from 35 mV to 150 mV, which in
SETRA type 141A accelerometers were used to acceleration terms corresponded to 0.035-0.150g. The signal
measure wall accelerations and the table accelerations. The amplitude was increased from one exploratory test to another,
accelerometers had a calibrated range of +/-8g. Three in order to observe the dependency of wall frequency
accelerometers were installed on the shaking table (X, Y, Z response on the driving input.
directions) while other three were installed on the panel. A An elastic response spectrum for soil type B acc. to
seventh accelerometer was installed on the frame‟s top Eurocode 8 was used in the seismic tests. Acceleration,
beam. a (chan10) Top beam
beam
velocity and displacement time histories were generated to
az(chan6)
match the Eurocode 8 response spectrum. The displacement
awt(chan7)
time history was used to drive the shaking table.
awm(chan8)
awb(chan9)
ax(chan4) Wall
ay(chan5)
5. QUASI-STATIC TESTS
35 R-collapse
R4
30
(a) (b) 20 R2 R3
reinforcement 10
U1
5
flexure in the vertical plane was no longer possible and the Figure 8. Loading curves during static testing (STU1
panel therefore started arching in the horizontal plane. -unreinforced wall, STR1 reinforced wall)
The main failure modes identified during the STR1 and
STR2 tests were: flexural failure, shear failure and FRP The slenderness ratio (height/thickness) is an important
debonding. Flexural failure was triggered by the crushing of factor of influence for the out-of-plane behaviour of
the masonry in compression and by the rupture of the FRP in masonry walls. This ratio accounts for the ability of the
tension. Initial cracking occurred at the interface of mortar masonry wall to be controlled by the flexural capacity rather
and masonry. The initial cracking was delayed by the than the shear capacity. The larger the slenderness ratio, the
presence of the FRP. Since the tensile strength of the smaller the maximum out-of-plane load becomes. The STU
masonry was lower than that of the epoxy resin (55 MPa), and STR walls had a slenderness ratio of 20. When h/t > 30
the failure line appeared first in the masonry. The vertical the arching mechanism becomes insignificant.
crack in the masonry caused the wall to slide while a
differential displacement in the shear plane developed. The
shear failure mechanism resulted in the FRP debonding 6. SEISMIC TESTS
alongside the masonry crack. The FRP fabric situated above
the opening crack of the masonry started to deform and 6.1 Exploratory tests
broke in tension vertically. Debonding of the FRP laminate The dynamic properties of a structure are defined by its
from the masonry substrate was triggered by the central mode shape, damped natural frequency and damping for
vertical crack in the masonry and propagated at first each mode of vibration over some frequency range of
vertically, then multiaxially towards the final stages of interest. The exploratory tests carried out prior and during
loading. It was noticed that part of the concrete brick the seismic testing revealed information about these
faceshell remained attached to the laminate. This showed parameters for URM and reinforced panels in intact or
that the resin-masonry connection was stronger than the cracked form. The driving signal (0-100 Hz random noise)
tensile strength of the masonry. End-debonding of the FRP was generated by an Advantest 9211C FFT Servo Analyzer,
was expected as a main failure mode, but this did not occur. which was also employed to acquire the signals from the
The strength and stiffness of the STR walls increased accelerometer on the shaking table (Y direction) and the
dramatically in comparison to the STU specimens. A 2.6 accelerometers situated at midheight and at quarter heights
times increase in maximum strength was recorded (see on the wall. The analyser computed the frequency response
figure 8). function (FRF) between the input and the output signals at
The elastic behaviour of the FRP under loading was the points of interest on the wall (figure 9). The frequency
obvious. The first loading cycle (R1) was almost a straight response function was calculated using windowed signal
line. There was very little degradation of stiffness due to data using a rectangular window function. The rectangular
repeated loading, again because the FRP behaved elastically window function chosen was zero-valued outside the chosen
up to failure. Overall, the FRP presence caused an increase frequency interval. A rectangular window function has
in capacity (from 13.5 kN to 35 kN) with confinement of the proved to work well in the low dynamic range, when the
lateral deflections from 30 mm (STU1) to 24 mm (STR1). signals have comparable strengths and frequencies. The FRF
In the STR2 test the FRP fabric was folded and glued to measurements were processed using curve-fitting algorithms
the soffit of the top and bottom beams in order to prevent that take the experimentally measured FRFs and fit to them
sliding. Arching took place in the horizontal plane. Cracking an analytical function using a least squared error technique.
The poles of the transfer function were used to compute the The lateral deflections recorded midheight on the panel
viscous damping for various modes of vibration. The are shown in figure 11 and in detail in figure 12.
damping values for the URM wall (SEU1) were 0.3% to Experiment, SEU1-110
300
4.3% while for a reinforced wall (SER1) damping values
varied from 4.8% to 22%. In both these cases panels were
200
3.5 -100
3
Hab (lin Mag)
2.5 -200
10 15 20 25 30
2
time (s)
1.5
1
Figure 11. Midheight deflection measured in test SEU1_110
0.5 Experiment, SEU1-110
0
40
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
frequency (HZ)
Table 1. Evolution of panel‟s natural freq. during seismic testing Figure 12. Midheight deflection measured in test SEU1_110
– detailed view
Test Reinf. Uncracked Cracked Cracking table
natural natural acceleration or Simulation, SEU1-110
frequency frequency max. table 40
(Hz) (Hz) acceleration
30
SEU1 None 12.0 7.5 cracking: 1.18g
midheight deflection (mm)
(SEU1_60), 20
collapse: 2.4g 10
SER1 100% 30.3 uncracked max : 3.53g
0
reinf. (SER1_130)
SER2 60% 28.6 uncracked max : 2.28g -10
Particular attention was given to tests SEU1_65 that Figure 13. Simulated midheight deflection in test SEU1_110
lead to the URM wall cracking and SEU1_110 that lead to
its collapse. The table acceleration reached 2.44g in A simulated evolution of wall displacement with time is
SEU1_110 (Figure 10). presented in figure 13. The equivalent velocity data was also
3
Expriment, SEU1-110 calculated using CRAMP. The dynamic response of the wall
2
could then be uniquely defined at any point in time by its
instant velocity and displacement. The
support acceleration(g)
-1
and about the dynamic parameter values that cause the wall
-2
to collapse (figure 14).
-3
10 15 20
time(s)
25 30
Under seismic excitation, the wall response follows a
Figure 10. Shaking table acceleration in test SEU1_110 constantly changing path in the phase-space diagram. The
path resembles an ellipse that changes size within an The wall velocity, which could provide information on
envelope that borders the domain of the wall‟s stability. the wall‟s kinetic energy in addition to its total energy, was
When the dynamic path escapes the borders, the wall also considered a parameter of interest. The wall velocity
becomes unstable and will collapse. was not measured directly but it could be approximated by
Simulation, SEU1-110 integrating the measured acceleration data. However, the
simple integration of the acceleration data is in general a
2
process that generates bias and drift in the output, unless
suitable safeguarding measures are taken through filtering. A
wall velocity (m/s)
yva
data obtained from CRAMP. The simulations used the same 0.4
table motion input used in the experiments. The main
0.2
features of CRAMP simulation: wall parameters: height: 2 m,
thickness: 0.1 m, width: 3 m, mass density: 2200 kg/m3, 0
compressive strength: 4.8 MPa, max strain: 0.006, ultimate
-0.2
strain: 0.0065, damping ratio: 4.3 %. Top and bottom
supports of very high stiffness, no sliding allowed. -0.4
5 5
0
0
Figure 18. Components for composite filtering of wall
-5
velocity (SEU1_65)
-5
-10
-10
10 15 20
time (s)
25 30 10 15 20
time (s)
25 30
6.3 Seismic tests and simulations - reinforced panels
Figure 15. Midheight deflection in test SEU1_65 (left- (SER1, SER2, SER3)
measured, right-simulated)
40
Experiment, SEU1-65
150
Experiment, SEU1-65
The 100% reinforced SER1 panel withstood
arching force north face (kN)
100
-20
50
behaved like a highly-stiff rigid block and no significant
0
-60 -50
10 15 20 25 30 10 15 20 25 30
time (s) time (s)
imposed shaking table displacement history was increased
Figure 16. Measured arching forces in test SEU1_65 (left - from 2% up to 130%, the performance limit of the shaking
north, right - south) table.
0
Simulation, SEU1-65
60
Simulation, SEU1-65
The 60% reinforced SER2 panel also withstood
arching force, north face (kN)
-10 50
-20 40
accelerations of up to 2.28g without cracking. It is worth
-30
-40
30
mentioning that the URM panel collapsed at 2.4g. Therefore,
20
10
5
8. ANALYTICAL WORK