buildings

Article
Simplified Design of Masonry Ring-Beams
Reinforced by Flax Fibers for Existing
Buildings Retrofitting
Mariateresa Guadagnuolo * and Giuseppe Faella
Department of Architecture and Industrial Design, Università degli Studi della Campania “Luigi Vanvitelli”,
Abbazia di San Lorenzo ad Septimum, Via S. Lorenzo, 81031 Aversa, Italy; giuseppe.faella@unicampania.it
* Correspondence: m.guadagnuolo@gmail.com




Received: 6 December 2019; Accepted: 11 January 2020; Published: 15 January 2020


Abstract: Seismic events have repeatedly highlighted the vulnerability of existing masonry buildings.
Seismic retrofitting is frequently focused on improving the connection between walls and roof for
ensuring behavior able to resist loads from any horizontal direction. This paper deals with the design
of masonry ring-beams made of clay bricks reinforced by natural fibers. Various solutions to ensure
a masonry building box-behavior are possible, but this is a good combination of both static and
conservation requirements, as it allows the use of bio-composites and grouts. It is a relevant possible
alternative to the traditional reinforced concrete ring-beams, which are proven to be very ineffective
under earthquakes. A simplified model for designing clay brick beams reinforced by flax fibers
is provided, and a comparison with customary and traditional floor/roof masonry ring-beams is
carried out.

Keywords: masonry buildings; earthquakes; retrofitting; ring-beams; flax fibers

1. Introduction
Earthquakes constantly highlight the high seismic vulnerability of existing masonry buildings:
they usually have got great resistance against loads-inducing compression (self-weight, dead and
live loads), but low capacity against seismic loads which frequently induce incompatible stress
states [1–5]. Most historic buildings frequently present unreliable behavior under earthquakes because
of detachments and loss of connections among walls and floors [6,7]. In this context, one goal of seismic
retrofitting is the improvement of the building unitary response, ensuring a box-behavior. Roofs could
be “adequately but not excessively” stiffened in their plane to supply enough distribution capacity of
seismic forces among walls, but, above all, walls and floors have to be efficiently connected each other
to ensure the capability to withstand horizontal loads and prevent out-of-plane failures [8,9].
Over the past years, the introduction of slabs and ring-beams in reinforced concrete (so versatile
and modern as far from the masonry mechanical behavior), the loss of sensibility in understanding
the historic building behavior and the lack of knowledge on old materials and techniques often
produced inadequate retrofitting, unable to achieve their main purpose, sometimes with catastrophic
consequences [3,10–12].
A suitable retrofitting can be achieved through floor tie-rods and ring-beams in reinforced masonry
at the roof level. The main aim of this paper is therefore to compare the strength capacity of masonry
ring-beams made of clay bricks reinforced by flax fiber fabrics to one of the more widespread and
traditional techniques.
Ring-beams subjected to loads which are both orthogonal and parallel to bed joints and designed
by both a simple and quick procedure and a more refined finite element modeling, are analyzed.

Buildings 2020, 10, 12; doi:10.3390/buildings10010012 www.mdpi.com/journal/buildings

Buildings 2020, 10, 12 2 of 15

Masonry Ring-Beams Reinforced by Natural Fibers

Floor ring-beams develop an important role in the seismic behavior of masonry buildings:
they connect orthogonal walls, receive the horizontal loads due to earthquakes from floors and
convey them to walls, undergo thrusts from roof beams, favor the structure box behavior thwarting
out-of-plane failures [13]. Solutions based on several materials are available to achieve some of these
needs: each has its advantages and disadvantages, whereby some static performances prevail.
Concrete ring-beams can bear large axial and bending forces, but are too heavy and stiff;
additionally, they are not capable of adequately distributing vertical loads on the underlying masonry
because of their high stiffness. The high stiffness may cause redistribution of vertical compressive
stresses, and some masonry portions could result in becoming unloaded and prone to being unstable
during earthquakes; additionally, the high stiffness can modify the natural vibration mode of masonry
walls, thus inducing local high stresses in the masonry below [14–18]. Furthermore, such a strengthening
technique was frequently combined with new r/c floor slabs, adding masses to the building structure,
increasing the earthquake-induced inertia forces, and consequently, the stresses in masonry walls.
Moreover, the analysis of damages due to several earthquakes showed that the high stiffness of r/c
beams and roofs, combined with inadequate connections to the underlying masonry walls, induced
the out-of-plane failure of masonry walls [19]. Roofs monolithically poured with ring-beams in case of
r/c are very stiff in their plane, and under earthquakes, have different behavior from the underlying
masonry. The connection of r/c ring-beams with underlying walls would be effective only if it is made
through proper and diffuse vertical perforations. The latter, however, can be particularly invasive and
unsuitable in the case of poor masonry in terms of quality or blocks arrangement. Fiber-reinforced
masonry ring-beams are an ordinary continuation of the masonry below (joined to it by a mortar layer),
have similar deformation characteristics, and if necessary, can be well connected to the underlying
walls by folding up the reinforcement fabrics on the vertical faces of the walls. This last connection
is a specific advantage of the use of fabrics as reinforcement. The connection of ring-beams to the
roof can, on the other hand, be carried out using the same techniques adopted for masonry beams
reinforced by steel bars, which are now common in the strengthening of masonry structures [17,20].
Finally, as well as for mechanical reasons, concrete is incompatible with many masonry types for
chemical-physical reasons.
On the other hand, reinforced brick masonry beams can be used for retrofitting the masonry
buildings because of their well-matched mechanical properties, suitable compressive strength,
availability, good compatibility, durability and low cost.
Following the rules of environmental protection, several composites based on natural fibers
started to be more widespread as a tool for strengthening masonry buildings; and different fibers have
been introduced in civil engineering [21–23]: bamboo, hemp, flax, jute, sisal, coir and cotton.
Fiber-reinforced composite materials based on natural fibers have advantages in terms of high
tensile strength and lightness, as shown in the researches performed by Speranzini and Agnetti in
2012 [24] and earlier in 2010 [25], as well as in terms of production costs, pollution emissions and
energy consumption for their production and disposal [21,26,27]. Besides, the cost of the disposal at
the end of their life is generally significantly cheaper than the one of artificial composite materials.
Therefore, composites reinforced by natural fibers have attracted the interest of researchers over
the last years [28–37], and if all of the positive features associated with the use of natural fibers are
evaluated with the advantages of inorganic matrices, the use of these new sustainable composites
is revealing to be a promising area of research and application. In fact, by using inorganic matrices
instead of the organic ones, the compatibility with masonry substrates is improved [38] if compared
to the more traditional fiber-reinforced polymers [39]. Furthermore, these strengthening systems
can be applied in a wet environment [38,40,41], in the presence of dust, and they also exhibit good
performance at elevated temperatures.
This paper focuses the attention on the retrofitting of existing masonry buildings through roof
masonry ring-beams reinforced by flax fibers, and on the possibility of using simple numerical
Buildings 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 15

This
Buildings paper
2020, 10, 12focuses
the attention on the retrofitting of existing masonry buildings through3 roof of 15
masonry ring-beams reinforced by flax fibers, and on the possibility of using simple numerical
procedures for their design. Such beams allow overcoming many of the now well-known problems
procedures for their design.
that were recognized Such
to be due beams
to r/c allow
beams. Thisovercoming
strengtheningmany of thewas
system now well-known
recently problems
studied in some
that were recognized to be due to r/c beams. This strengthening system was recently
researches by other Authors [42–46], while the validation of this reinforcement solution for masonry studied in
some
beamsresearches
was verifiedby by
other Authors [42–46],
experimental tests on while the beams
full-scale validation of thisby
reinforced reinforcement solution
glass fiber-reinforced
for masonry beams was verified by experimental tests on full-scale beams
polymer composite [28]. Several specimens were tested under cyclic flexure and long duration reinforced by glass
fiber-reinforced polymer composite [28]. Several specimens were tested under cyclic
loading. The results [28] show that such types of reinforced masonry ring-beams can be convenientlyflexure and long
duration loading. traditional
used to substitute The resultsr/c[28] show thatwith
ring-beams, suchan types of reinforced
advantage in lowermasonry ring-beams
weight and can be
better material
conveniently
compatibility. used to substitute traditional r/c ring-beams, with an advantage in lower weight and
better material compatibility.
2. Materials and Methods
2. Materials and Methods
Ring-beams for
for seismic
seismicretrofitting
retrofittingofofmasonry
masonrybuildings
buildingsat at
thethe
roof level
roof areare
level supported
supportedby the
by
below masonry piers, and are subject to bending moment in correspondence
the below masonry piers, and are subject to bending moment in correspondence of of the underlying
underlying
windows; sometimes
windows; sometimes they
they are
are built
built above the existing spandrel beams. Figure 1a,b respectively show
reinforced masonry ring-beams under loads orthogonal and parallel to the bed bed joints.
joints. In the second
case, the masonry wall is stressed
stressed out
out of
of the
the plane
plane under
under seismic
seismic loading.
loading

(a) (b)

Figure 1. Reinforced masonry

1. Reinforced masonry beams
beams differently loaded with respect to the
the bed
bed joints:
joints: (a) Loads
orthogonal to the mortar layers;
layers; (b)
(b) Loads
Loads parallel
parallel to
to the
the mortar
mortar layers.
layers.

2.1. Materials
2.1. Materials
The geometry of the analyzed beams was determined according to the wall geometry of typical
The geometry of the analyzed beams was determined according to the wall geometry of typical
masonry buildings frequently found in seismic areas of Southern Italy [47]. Therefore, the beam width
masonry buildings frequently found in seismic areas of Southern Italy [47]. Therefore, the beam
is constantly assumed equal to 600 mm, whereas the height is varied by varying the brick height
width is constantly assumed equal to 600 mm, whereas the height is varied by varying the brick
and the number of clay bricks layers: the latter is varied from a minimum of three to a maximum of
height and the number of clay bricks layers: the latter is varied from a minimum of three to a
six. A reinforcing layer formed by flax fiber fabric is always interposed among them, and a natural
maximum of six. A reinforcing layer formed by flax fiber fabric is always interposed among them,
hydraulic lime mortar mix is used to produce fiber-reinforced, cementitious matrix composite materials.
and a natural hydraulic lime mortar mix is used to produce fiber-reinforced, cementitious matrix
Solid and hollow commercial clay bricks for masonry structures are considered: all of them are
composite materials.
250 mm long and 115 mm wide, while the height varies: the solid bricks are 60 mm thick, while
Solid and hollow commercial clay bricks for masonry structures are considered: all of them are
the hollow ones are 60 mm and 120 mm thick. The normalized compressive strengths of bricks are
250 mm long and 115 mm wide, while the height varies: the solid bricks are 60 mm thick, while the
summarized in Table 1.
hollow ones are 60 mm and 120 mm thick. The normalized compressive strengths of bricks are
High-strength, flax fiber fabrics (unidirectional double layer) 0.267 mm thick are used as
summarized in Table 1.
reinforcement. The main properties of flax fabric impregnated with mortar are reported in Table 2.
Even the elastic moduli are kept constant: 4000 MPa for clay bricks and 43,000 MPa for flax
fibers. The material partial factors used to compute the corresponding design strengths are determined
according to the Italian technical regulation in force, as it provides the values for both masonry
and fibers. For masonry of class 2 (built with the availability of specific qualified and experienced
Buildings 2020, 10, 12 4 of 15

personnel under inspection) made of bricks of category I (units with declared compressive strength
and probability of failure not greater than 5%) and mortar with prescribed composition, the partial
factor γm is equal to 2.7 [48]. For fiber-reinforced systems in which only materials are certified (type A
applications), and for which the most likely failure is considered to be due to composite detachment,
the partial factor γf is equal to 1.5 [49]. All of the above values are used in both the simplified and the
finite element modeling.

Table 1. Mechanical characteristics of commercial solid and clay bricks.

Brick Thickness [mm] Brick Type Load Direction and Compressive Strength [MPa]
60 Solid clay brick In plane: 34.07
60 Solid clay brick Out of plane: 11.64
60 Hollow clay brick In plane: 27.38
60 Hollow clay brick Out of plane: 6.69
120 Hollow clay brick In plane: 25.62
120 Hollow clay brick Out of plane: 3.88

Table 2. Properties of flax fabric impregnated with mortar.

Type MOE [MPa] Tension [MPa] Density [g/m3 ] Equivalent Thickness [mm] Elongation at Failure [%]
Bidirectional 43,000 532 430 0.267 2.34

2.2. Methods
The seismic safety verification and the strengthening design of masonry buildings can be performed
through 3D and 2D finite element models [50] or by simplified models, where piers and spandrel
beams are modeled by one-dimensional elements, as advised by several codes [48]. In the latter case,
reinforced masonry ring-beams at the roof level could be modeled by further beams, assigning them
adequate behavioral characteristics and load-bearing capacity in terms of axial force, shear force and
bending moment.
Within a simplified approach, the capacity in terms of axial and shear force is immediately
determined, whereas the evaluation of the bending capacity requires a simplified but suitable
procedure to compute the resisting moment.
In this context, the reinforced ring-masonry beams can be designed similarly to the RC ones:
therefore, in this paper, the classical technical beam theory used to calculate the strength of RC beam
cross-sections is adapted to the masonry section reinforced by flax fibers [51,52]. The ultimate strength
under bending stresses is computed by considering a linear elastic behavior for both reinforcement and
masonry units [53]. This allows a quick sizing of reinforced masonry beams under loads orthogonal
and parallel to the mortar joints in the retrofitting of existing masonry structures.
Therefore, the simplified design of masonry sections reinforced by flax fibers is simply performed
under the customary basic assumptions of the flexural theory: (i) plane sections remaining plane
(Bernoulli’s principle); (ii) strains in bricks and reinforcing fibers are equal at the same level, provided
that the bond between fiber-reinforced cementitious matrix composites and bricks is sufficient to keep
them acting together under the different load stages (no slip can occur between the two materials);
(iii) brittle behavior for both materials (materials are linearly elastic and do not deform plastically);
(iv) materials are assumed to be isotropic and homogeneous; (v) tensile strength of bricks may be
neglected; (vi) fiber composite does not resist to compression.
The assumption regarding the bond between bricks and fiber reinforced cementitious matrix
composite materials is a well-established hypothesis for this reinforcing technique, and is also based on
excellent results achieved in experimental researches. In Codispoti et al. [34], Cevallos et al. [46] and
Olivito et al. [54] it is shown that flax fiber reinforced cementitious matrix have a good bond behavior
with the masonry support; it is also shown how flax fibers made full use of their mechanical properties
in the composite during the tests performed.
Buildings 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 15

on excellent results achieved in experimental researches. In Codispoti et al.[34], Cevallos et al.[46]

and Olivito et al. [54] it is shown that flax fiber reinforced cementitious matrix have a good bond
behavior with the masonry support; it is also shown how flax fibers made full use of their mechanical
Buildings 2020, 10, 12 5 of 15
properties in the composite during the tests performed.
The hypothesis concerning the compressive strength of masonry (brittle behavior) requires a
deepening, since it isconcerning
The hypothesis consideredthe onecompressive
of the moststrengthimportant assumptions.
of masonry It isbehavior)
(brittle known that the
requires
manufacturing
a deepening, since of clay and
it is shale masonry
considered one ofunits (raw important
the most materials, assumptions.
production technique It is known and that
bakingthe
temperature) strongly influences their sizes and physical properties.
manufacturing of clay and shale masonry units (raw materials, production technique and baking Commercial clay bricks are
usually produced
temperature) by extrusion
strongly influences molding, and frequently
their sizes and physical exhibit an almost
properties. linear stress–strain
Commercial clay bricks curveare
up to the
usually maximum
produced strength, molding,
by extrusion and a sudden drop in exhibit
and frequently stress an values
almost after thestress–strain
linear peak, with curve a small up
increment in strains. The softening behavior of clay bricks after the
to the maximum strength, and a sudden drop in stress values after the peak, with a small increment in peak stress is extensively
described
strains. The in several research
softening behavior papers [55].bricks
of clay It is aafter
salient
thefeature
peak stressof these quasi-brittledescribed
is extensively materialsinbecause
several
of the progressive internal crack growth. This is due to material defects (flaws
research papers [55]. It is a salient feature of these quasi-brittle materials because of the progressive and voids), inclusions
and micro-cracks
internal crack growth.arising from
This the shrinkage
is due to materialduring defectsthe burning
(flaws process.inclusions
and voids), Initially, the
andmicro-cracks
micro-cracks
are stable
arising fromand thegrow only when
shrinkage duringthe the compressive
burning process. loadInitially,
is increased. Around the
the micro-cracks arepeak
stablestress,
and growthe
formation of macro-cracks starts: they are unstable and result in a sudden
only when the compressive load is increased. Around the peak stress, the formation of macro-cracks decrement of stresses and
the localization
starts: of cracking
they are unstable in small
and result in azones
sudden only, whereas
decrement of the rest and
stresses of thethe brick unloads
localization [55]. This
of cracking in
behavior
small zones is inonly,
contrast to the
whereas thecast
restand press
of the historic
brick unloadsbrick units
[55]. This that have lower
behavior strengthstoand
is in contrast the acast
larger
and
capacity of deformation
press historic in uniaxial
brick units that have lower strain, with aand
strengths more evident
a larger and of
capacity stable inelastic in
deformation response.
uniaxial
Furthermore,
strain, with a it wasevident
more often observed
and stable that most ofresponse.
inelastic the burntFurthermore,
clay brick prisms it wasfail due
often to the formation
observed that most
of vertical
of the burnt splitting
clay brickcracks
prisms fail alongduetheir
to theheight
formation [56]. Finally,splitting
of vertical the commonly
cracks along assumed bilinear
their height [56].
compressive stress–strain
Finally, the commonly curvesbilinear
assumed for burnt clay bricks
compressive masonry is
stress–strain also for
curves attributed
burnt clayto brick
brickscracking
masonry
and mortar
is also nonlinearities.
attributed In the case
to brick cracking andunder
mortar examination,
nonlinearities. it was considered
In the case under more conservative
examination, to
it was
assume a linear behavior without nonlinear excursions, and also
considered more conservative to assume a linear behavior without nonlinear excursions, and also because the realization of a beam
reinforced
because the with flax fibers
realization ofwould
a beamrequire
reinforcedsomewhat
with flaxthinfibers
layerswould
of mortar,
requirethatsomewhat
inevitablythin allow minor
layers of
inelastic adaptability.
mortar, that inevitably allow minor inelastic adaptability.
Under
Underthe theabove
aboveassumptions,
assumptions,the theequations
equationsfor forcomputing
computing the resisting
the resisting bending
bending moments
moments of of
a
ring-beam
a ring-beam reinforced
reinforcedbyby flax fibers
flax fibers areare
thethefollowing
following (Figure
(Figure 2).2).

Figure
Figure2.2.Cross-section
Cross-sectionofofreinforced
reinforcedmasonry
masonryring-beam:
ring-beam:geometric
geometricparameters.
parameters.(a)(a)Bending
Bendingdue
dueto
to
loads
loadsorthogonal
orthogonaltotothe
thebed
bedjoints;
joints;(b)
(b)Bending
Bendingdue
duetotoloads
loadsparallel
parallelto
tothe
thebed
bed joints.
joints.

The beam
The beam isis subjected
subjected to
to pure
pure bending,
bending, because
because only
only vertical
vertical loads
loads act.
act. The
Theneutral axisy,y,
neutralaxis
measured from extreme compressive fiber, can be computed using the balance of all forces
measured from extreme compressive fiber, can be computed using the balance of all forces acting on acting on
thebeam
the beamcross-section
cross-section(Figure
(Figure2a):
2a):

nb nf
by2 X X
+ +ℎbh f nn − − + ℎ − ℎ di ==00
 
− nn − n y + bh d − nbh (1)(1)
22 f b b f i f
i=1 i = nb + 1

where b is the section width, nf is the total number of layers of reinforcing fiber, hb is the thickness of
where b is the section width, nf is the total number of layers of reinforcing fiber, hb is the thickness of
bricks, hf is the thickness of each fiber layer, nb is the number of clay bricks fully or partially compressed,
bricks, hf is the thickness of each fiber layer, nb is the number of clay bricks fully or partially compressed,
n is the ratio of the modulus Eb of clay bricks to the modulus Ef of the reinforcing flax fiber, di is the
distance of the center of each fiber layer from the upper edge of the section (numbered from the top of
the section).
Buildings 2020, 10, 12 6 of 15

The resisting bending moment is provided by:

nb n f −1
by2 fc bh f fc X hf bh f ft
! X
2
MR = − ( y − di ) + bh f ft h − − y − hb +   ( di − y ) 2 (2)
3 y 2 hf
i=1 h− 2 − y − hb i = nb + 1

where h is the total height of the ring-beam, fc is the compressive strength of bricks at the section upper
edge and ft is the tensile strength of the lowest fiber, in the stressed direction.
The computation of neutral axis and resisting bending moment requires an iterative solution:
such a solution involves that one of the two strengths fc and ft is equal to the design strength of the
corresponding material, while the other one is lower.
If the masonry beam is subjected only to loads parallel to the bed joints, clay bricks and flax fibers
are loaded differently with respect to the previous case. The neutral axis y (measured from extreme
compressive fiber) is computed by the following equation (Figure 2b), being the beam subjected to
pure bending:  
h − n f h f − nn f h f y2 + 2nn f h f by − nn f h f b2 = 0 (3)

The resisting moment is provided by:

 
h − n f h f y2 fc n f h f ( b − y ) 2 ft
MR = + (4)
3 3
In this paper, the resisting bending moment of several reinforced masonry cross-sections is
computed by the above equations and by a more refined 3D finite element modeling. In the latter
case, a 3600 mm long beam is considered, with the aim of comparing the resistant bending moment
of the mid-span cross-section of the beam under the same working conditions considered in the
simplified model (achieving maximum compressive strength in the upper bricks or maximum tensile
strength in the reinforcement fiber fabrics). A simply supported (pinned-hinged) beam is modeled
when loads act orthogonally to the bed joints (Figure 3). In the case of bending due to loads parallel
to the bed joints, the nodes at the beam vertical ends are constrained by hinge bearings, and the
nodes at the lower ends are constrained by roller bearings (Figure 4). In both cases, the absence of
further constraints in the lower nodes of the beam is due either to the presence of possible windows
(the ring-beam works as a spandrel beam) or to a conservative assumption necessary to calculate the
bending moment. The bricks are modeled by eight-node solid elements, considering the compressive
strength of Table 1. Each brick has been divided into four solid elements: two in the direction of
greatest length (and arranged in the longitudinal development direction of the beam) and two in height.
The FEM analyses are performed using the computer program MidasGen® , using the well-known
Drucker–Prager failure criterion [57], as a smooth version of the Mohr–Coulomb yield surface, suitable
for materials that exhibit volumetric plastic deformations. The cohesion c and the friction angle ϕ are
assumed equal to 0.14 MPa and 45◦ , respectively [58–60]. The flax fibers are placed inside the mortar
beds as a fiber-reinforced cementitious matrix composite, and are modeled through “tension only”
elements (Table 2). No slip is considered possible between bricks and fiber-reinforced cementitious
matrix composites, since the bond is sufficient to keep them acting together under the different
load stages, as previously explained for the simplified procedure. The FEM model is composed of
minimum 1260 and maximum 3180 elements, due to the variation in the number of clay bricks layers.
Figures 3 and 4 show the model of beams made of five layers of solid bricks 60 mm thick (therefore
with four layers of fiber-reinforced cementitious matrix composite).
Buildings 2020,
Buildings 2020, 10,
10, 12
x FOR PEER REVIEW 77 of
of 15
Buildings 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 15

Figure 3.
3. Finite
Finite Element
Element Model
Model (FEM):
(FEM): constraints
constraints of
of a beam
beam made
made by
by five
five layers
layers of
of solid
solid clay
clay bricks
bricks
Figure
Figure 3. Finite Element Model (FEM): constraints of aa beam made by five layers of solid clay bricks
60 mm
60 mm thick
thick for
for loading
loading orthogonal
orthogonal to
to the
the bed
bed joints.
joints.
60 mm thick for loading orthogonal to the bed joints.

Figure 4. Finite Element Model: constraints of a beam made by five layers of solid clay bricks 60 mm
Figure 4. Finite Element Model: constraints of a beam made by five layers of solid clay bricks 60 mm
Figure 4. loading
thick for Finite Element
parallelModel: constraints
to the bed joints. of a beam made by five layers of solid clay bricks 60 mm
thick for loading parallel to the bed joints.
thick for loading parallel to the bed joints.
3. Results
3. Results
3. Results
The resisting bending moment of several masonry cross-sections is computed through both the
The resisting
simplified Equations bending
(2) and moment
(4) and of of several
the masonry cross-sections
more complete iselement
computed through both the
The resisting bending moment several masonry nonlinear
cross-sections finiteis computed modeling
through previously
both the
simplified Equations
introduced. (2) and (4) and
Subsequently, the more complete nonlinear finite element modeling previously
simplified Equations (2) and the firstthe
(4) and values
moreare compared
complete to thefinite
nonlinear oneselement
of the ring-beams made by
modeling previously
introduced.
other materials. Subsequently, the first values are compared to the ones of the ring-beams made by other
introduced. Subsequently, the first values are compared to the ones of the ring-beams made by other
materials.
In the FEM analysis, a uniformly distributed load acting in the vertical direction over the entire
materials.
upper In the FEM analysis, a increased
uniformlyindistributed load acting in the vertical direction over the entire
Insurface
the FEM of the beam is
analysis, a uniformly the case of loads
distributed perpendicular
load acting to the mortar
in the vertical direction layers,
overintheaddition
entire
upper surface
to the beam of the beam is increased in the case of loads perpendicular to the mortar layers, in
upper surfaceself-weight.
of the beamInisthe case of in
increased loads
the parallel to theperpendicular
case of loads mortar layers,tothe thedistributed
mortar layers, load in is
addition
applied into
thethe beam
horizontal self-weight.
direction In
over the
the case
entireof loads
front parallel
surface of to
the the mortar
beam. The layers,
bending the distributed
moments are
addition to the beam self-weight. In the case of loads parallel to the mortar layers, the distributed
load is applied
computed in the horizontal
by integrating the normal direction over the
stresses over
acting entire
in entire
the front surface
mid-span of the beam.
cross-section The bending
load is applied in the horizontal direction the front surface of the of the masonry
beam. The bendingbeam
moments
when oneare are
of twocomputed
materials by integrating the normal stresses acting in the mid-span cross-section of the
moments computed by (clay brick and
integrating flax fiber)
the normal reaches
stresses its failure
acting in thecondition.
mid-span cross-section of the
masonry beam
The beam
beamwhen when
failure one of
is of two materials
usually computed (clay brick andaflax fiber) reaches itsdefined
failure condition.
masonry one two materials (clayassuming
brick and flax maximum
fiber) reaches strain,its as the strain
failure condition.
The
corresponding beam failure is usually computed assuming a maximum strain, defined asstress
the instrain
The beam to stress is
failure equal
usuallyto a predetermined
computed assuming percentage (usually strain,
a maximum 80%) ofdefined
the peakas the strain the
corresponding
post-peak region. to stress
This equal
assumption to a predetermined
of failure strain percentage
does not (usually
apply in 80%)
the caseofofthe
thepeak stress
examined in the
burnt
corresponding to stress equal to a predetermined percentage (usually 80%) of the peak stress in the
post-peak
clay region. This
brick masonry, since,assumption
as previously of failure
reported,strain
afterdoes not apply
reaching the peakin the case of the examined
stress, burnt
post-peak region. This assumption of failure strain does not apply in the case aofsudden drop in burnt
the examined stress
clay brick
valuebrick masonry,
is frequently since, as previously reported, after reaching the peak stress, a sudden drop in
clay masonry,observed since, as with a smallreported,
previously increment in strains.
after reaching Thereafter, the strain
the peak stress, could increase
a sudden drop in
stress value
with avaluehigher is frequently observed with a small increment in strains. Thereafter, the strain could
stress is rate due to observed
frequently the evident crushing
with a smallofincrement
masonry, in and this should
strains. not bethe
Thereafter, allowed
strain incouldthe
increase
ring-beams with a
studied higher rate
in this due to the evident crushing of masonry, and this should not be allowed
increase with a higher ratepaper,
due towhich shouldcrushing
the evident be used as ofstrengthening
masonry, andelements. this should Thisnotexplains
be allowedwhy
ainbrittle
in
the ring-beams
behavior isstudied
the ring-beams
studied
assumedin inforthis
this
paper, which
masonry,
paper, and which
should be used as
an elastic
shouldcalculation
be used aswithout
strengthening
post-critical
strengthening
elements.
behavior
elements.
This
Thisis
explains
advised: why why a
therefore, brittle behavior
the behavior
failure condition is assumed for
is assumed masonry, and
to correspond an elastic calculation
to the achievement without
of maximum post-
explains a brittle is assumed for masonry, and an elastic calculation without post-
critical compressive
design behavior is advised:intherefore, the failure condition is assumed to correspond to the
critical behavior is strengthadvised: therefore, bricks or tensile strength
the failure in flax fiber
condition fabrics. to
is assumed correspond to the
achievement
Figure 5 of of maximum
shows design compressive
the load-displacement strength
curve strength
(computed in bricks or tensile strength in flaxoffiber
achievement maximum design compressive in at the mid-span)
bricks or tensileofstrength
a beam in made five
flax fiber
fabrics.
layers of solid bricks 60 mm thick (and then four layers of impregnated flax fibers) subjected to loads
fabrics.
Figure 5 shows
orthogonal the load-displacement curve (computed at the mid-span) of a beam made of five
Figure to the mortar
5 shows beds (vertical loading).
the load-displacement curve (computed at the mid-span) of a beam made of five
layers of solid bricks 60 mm thick (and then four layers of impregnated flax fibers) subjected to loads
layers of solid bricks 60 mm thick (and then four layers of impregnated flax fibers) subjected to loads
orthogonal to the mortar beds (vertical loading).
orthogonal to the mortar beds (vertical loading).
 Buildings 2020,
Buildings 10, x12FOR PEER REVIEW
2020, 10, 88of
of 15
15
Buildings 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 15

25
25 Loading orthogonal to the bed joints
Loading orthogonal to the bed joints

Load per unit length [kN/m]

20

Load per unit length [kN/m]

20

15
15

the strength of the lower

10 impregnated flaxlower
fabric is achieved
the strength of the
10 impregnated flax fabric is achieved

5
5 Beam made of 5 layers
ofBeam
solid clay
madebricks
of 5 60 mm thick
layers
0 of solid clay bricks 60 mm thick
0 20 40 60 80 100
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Displacement [mm]
Displacement [mm]
Figure 5. FEM: load-displacement curve for masonry beam reinforced by flax fiber under vertical
Figure
Figure5.5.FEM:
loads. FEM:load-displacement curve for
load-displacement curve formasonry
masonrybeam
beam reinforced
reinforced by by
flaxflax
fiberfiber under
under vertical
vertical loads.
loads.
The figure
The figure shows
shows the the load
load atat which
which the the design
design tensile
tensile strength
strength of of the
the lower
lower layer
layer ofof flax
flax fiber
fiber
The figure shows
reinforcement
reinforcement is the load
is achieved,
achieved, at which
while
while the the design
the maximum
maximum tensile strength
compressive
compressive stressof
stress inthe
in thelower
the brickslayer
bricks of flax
is lower
is lower than
thanfiber
the
the
reinforcement
design one. is
This achieved,
condition while the
corresponds maximum
to the compressive
failure conditionstress
in in
the the bricks
simplified
design one. This condition corresponds to the failure condition in the simplified method. After this is lower
method. than
After the
this
design
point,one.
point, as This increase,
as loads
loads conditionthe
increase, corresponds
the other layers
other layersto the failure
of flax
of flax condition
fibers
fibers in the
reach their
reach their simplified
design
design method.
strength
strength and the
and After
the this
vertical
vertical
point, as loads increase,
displacements
displacements increase very
increase the other
very layers of flax fibers reach their design strength and the vertical
quickly.
quickly.
displacements
Figure 6 increase
shows thevery
Figure 6 shows the distribution ofquickly.
distribution of normal
normal stresses
stresses in
in the
the same
same beambeam as as Figure
Figure 55 when
when the the lowest
lowest
flaxFigure
flax fiber 6 shows
fiberfabric
fabric the distribution
isisreaching
reaching thethe
design oftensile
design normal stresses
strength.
tensile in the
The
strength. same
normal
The normal beam
stresses as
inFigure
stressesthein 5 when
mid-span
the the lowest
cross-section
mid-span cross-
flax
are fiber
also fabric
shown is
in reaching
the Figure. theA design
neutral tensile
axis at strength.
about 60 The
mm normal
from the stresses
extreme
section are also shown in the Figure. A neutral axis at about 60 mm from the extreme compressive in the mid-span
compressive fiber cross-
can be
section are
identified, also
and shown
the in the
integration Figure.
of such A neutral
normal axis at
stresses about
leads 60
to amm from
resistant the extreme
bending
fiber can be identified, and the integration of such normal stresses leads to a resistant bending moment compressive
moment equal to
fiber
25.63
equalcan tobe
kNm. identified,
25.63It can
kNm. and
beIt canthe
remarkedbeintegration of such
thenormal
that the simplified
remarked that stresses
procedure
simplified leads toprovides
provides
procedure a resistant
the neutral bending
axis
the at 49moment
neutral mm at
axis from
49
equal
the to 25.63
extreme kNm.
compressiveIt can be remarked
fiber and a that
resistant the simplified
bending procedure
moment
mm from the extreme compressive fiber and a resistant bending moment equal to 21.27 kNm. equal provides
to 21.27 the
kNm. neutral axis at 49
mm from the extreme compressive fiber and a resistant bending moment equal to 21.27 kNm.

Figure 6. Distribution
Figure 6. Distributionof
ofnormal
normalstresses
stresses [MPa]
[MPa] in the
in the mid-span
mid-span cross-section
cross-section of theofFEM
the masonry
FEM masonry
beam.
Figure
beam. 6. Distribution of normal stresses [MPa] in the mid-span cross-section of the FEM masonry
beam.
Figure 7 shows the resisting bending moments in beams made by several brick types and loaded
Figure 7 to
orthogonally shows thejoints
the bed resisting bending
(bending moments
in vertical in beams
planes). Themade by several
moments brickastypes
are plotted and loaded
the beam height
Figure 7 shows
orthogonally to thethe resisting
bed bending moments
joints (bending in planes).
in vertical beams made by severalare
The moments brick types and
plotted loaded
as the beam
orthogonally to the bed joints (bending in vertical planes). The moments are plotted as the beam
 Buildings2020,
Buildings 2020,10,
10,12
x FOR PEER REVIEW of15
9 of 15

height (that is, the number of brick layers) varies. The continuous lines show the bending moments
(that is, theby
provided number of brick
the FEM model layers) varies.
analysis, the The continuous
dotted lines the lines
ones show the by
obtained bending momentsprocedure.
the simplified provided
by
The red lines represent solid brick masonry (SB), the black lines hollow brick masonry (HB).The red
the FEM model analysis, the dotted lines the ones obtained by the simplified procedure.
lines represent solid brick masonry (SB), the black lines hollow brick masonry (HB).

70 120
Loading orthogonal to the bed joints Loading orthogonal to the bed joints
60
SB 60 100
HB 120

Resisting moment [kNm]

Resisting moment [kNm]

50
HB 60
80
FEM modelling
40 FEM modelling
60
30 Simplified modelling
Simplified modelling
40
20

10 20

0 0
240 300 360 420 480 600 720 840

Beam height [mm] Beam height [mm]

(a) (b)

Figure7.7.Resisting
Figure Resistingbending
bendingmoments
momentsofofmasonry
masonrybeams
beamsreinforced
reinforcedby
byflax
flaxfibers
fibersfor
forloads
loadsorthogonal
orthogonal
totothe bed joints: (a) solid and hollow bricks 60 mm thick; (b) hollow bricks 120 mm thick.
the bed joints: (a) solid and hollow bricks 60 mm thick; (b) hollow bricks 120 mm thick.

The curves in Figure 7a show that as the number of brick layers increases, the simplified procedure
The curves in Figure 7a show that as the number of brick layers increases, the simplified
underestimates the resisting moment with respect to FEM analysis, mainly in the case of bricks 60 mm
procedure underestimates the resisting moment with respect to FEM analysis, mainly in the case of
thick. The error is still bounded within about 20%, except for the masonry beam made by seven layers
bricks 60 mm thick. The error is still bounded within about 20%, except for the masonry beam made
of solid bricks 60 mm thick.
by seven layers of solid bricks 60 mm thick.
This is due to the different hypothesis on the clay brick behavior, since a linear behavior is assumed
This is due to the different hypothesis on the clay brick behavior, since a linear behavior is
in the simplified model, while in the FEM model, the bricks are assumed to behave nonlinearly. In both
assumed in the simplified model, while in the FEM model, the bricks are assumed to behave
models, the flax fibers work at maximum design strength, and the position of the neutral axis is almost
nonlinearly. In both models, the flax fibers work at maximum design strength, and the position of the
the same. Therefore, for the same compression resulting force, in the FEM model, the bricks contribute
neutral axis is almost the same. Therefore, for the same compression resulting force, in the FEM
more to the resisting moment, having a higher centrifugation (the resulting compression has a greater
model, the bricks contribute more to the resisting moment, having a higher centrifugation (the
distance from the neutral axis).
resulting compression has a greater distance from the neutral axis).
This effect is lower in the case of bricks 120 mm thick (see Figure 7b), since the compression
This effect is lower in the case of bricks 120 mm thick (see Figure 7b), since the compression force
force is centrifuged even in the simplified model. On the other hand, it has been seen that assuming
is centrifuged even in the simplified model. On the other hand, it has been seen that assuming an
an elastic–plastic behavior in the simplified model (as often assumed for the masonry piers) would
elastic–plastic behavior in the simplified model (as often assumed for the masonry piers) would tend
tend to overestimate the capability of the masonry ring-beam, as the number of clay bricks is small,
to overestimate the capability of the masonry ring-beam, as the number of clay bricks is small, that is
that is in situations that have a greater recurrence in daily practice.
in situations that have a greater recurrence in daily practice.
Figure 8 shows the load-displacement curve (computed at the mid-span) of the same beam of
Figure 8 shows the load-displacement curve (computed at the mid-span) of the same beam of
Figures 5 and 6 subjected to loads parallel to the mortar beds (horizontal loading). The Figure shows
Figure 5 and 6 subjected to loads parallel to the mortar beds (horizontal loading). The Figure shows
the load level at which the most compressed bricks reach the design compressive strength: beyond
the load level at which the most compressed bricks reach the design compressive strength: beyond
this threshold, the response of the beam is no longer linear and the horizontal displacements increase
this threshold, the response of the beam is no longer linear and the horizontal displacements increase
rapidly. Such a threshold also corresponds to the failure condition used in the simplified method.
rapidly. Such a threshold also corresponds to the failure condition used in the simplified method.
Figure 9 shows the resisting bending moments in beams loaded in the direction parallel to the bed
Figure 9 shows the resisting bending moments in beams loaded in the direction parallel to the
joints (bending in horizontal planes). The curves show that, in this case, the two design approaches
bed joints (bending in horizontal planes). The curves show that, in this case, the two design
lead to similar values for beams made by solid or hollow bricks 60 mm thick (Figure 9a), and different
approaches lead to similar values for beams made by solid or hollow bricks 60 mm thick (Figure 9a),
values in beams made by hollow bricks 120 mm thick (see Figure 9b).
and different values in beams made by hollow bricks 120 mm thick (see Figure 9b).
Under these working conditions of masonry beams (loads parallel to the bed joints), the resisting
moment is controlled by the brick strength, while even the flax fibers at the maximum distance from
the neutral axis do not offer their maximum resistance. Therefore, the two models provide different
neutral axis positions, which correspond to different contributions of bricks and flax fiber fabrics, and
then to different resisting moments, mostly in the case of hollow bricks 120 mm thick.
In conclusion, Figures 7 and 9 show an adequate capacity of the simplified modeling in assessing
the resistant bending moments of masonry ring-beams reinforced by flax fibers, mainly for beams
 Buildings 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 15
Buildings 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 15

made by solid or hollow bricks 60 mm thick. This allows us, for example, to use this approach in the
made by solid or hollow bricks 60 mm thick. This allows us, for example, to use this approach in the
simplified modeling of an entire building structure, such as the masonry frame model usually used
simplified modeling
Buildings 2020, 10, 12 of an entire building structure, such as the masonry frame model usually used
10 of 15
to perform pushover analyses [61,62].
to perform pushover analyses [61,62].
40
40

Horizontal load per unit length [kN/m]

Loading parallel to the bed joints

Horizontal load per unit length [kN/m]

Loading parallel to the bed joints

30
30

20
20

the most compressed bricks

the most compressed
achieve the designbricks
strength
10 achieve the design strength
10
Beam made of 5 layers
Beam
of solidmade of 5 layers
clay bricks 60 mm thick
0 of solid clay bricks 60 mm thick
0 0 2 4 6 8
0 2 4 6 8
Displacement [mm]
Displacement [mm]
Figure 8. FEM: load-displacement curve for a masonry beam reinforced by flax fiber under horizontal
Figure 8. FEM:
Figure 8. load-displacement curve forcurve
FEM: load-displacement a masonry
for a beam reinforced
masonry beam by flax fiber by
reinforced under
flaxhorizontal
fiber under
loads.
loads.
horizontal loads.

70 50
70 Loading parallel to the bed joints 50
Loading parallel to the bed joints
60 Loading parallel to the bed joints Loading parallel to the bed joints
60 40
Resisting moment [kNm]

Resisting moment [kNm]

40
Resisting moment [kNm]

Resisting moment [kNm]

50
50

40 FEM modelling 30
30
40 FEM modelling SB 60 FEM modelling HB 120
SB 60 FEM modelling HB 120
30 Simplified modelling
20
30 Simplified modelling
HB 60 20
20 HB 60
20 Simplified modelling
10 Simplified modelling
10 10
10

0 0
0 240 300 360 420 0 480 600 720 840
240 300 360 420 480 600 720 840
Beam height [mm] Beam height [mm]
Beam height [mm] Beam height [mm]
(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure
Figure 9.
9. Resisting
Resisting the
thebending
bending moments
moments of
ofmasonry
masonrybeams
beams reinforced
reinforced by
by flax
flax fibers
fibers for
for loads
loads parallel
parallel
Figure 9. Resisting the bending moments of masonry beams reinforced by flax fibers for loads parallel
to
to the
the bed joints: (a)
bed joints: (a) solid
solid and
and hollow
hollow bricks
bricks 60 mm thick;
60 mm thick; (b)
(b) hollow
hollow bricks
bricks 120
120 mm
mm thick.
thick.
to the bed joints: (a) solid and hollow bricks 60 mm thick; (b) hollow bricks 120 mm thick.
4. Discussion
Under these working conditions of masonry beams (loads parallel to the bed joints), the resisting
4. Discussion
moment is controlled by the brick strength, while even the flax fibers at the maximum distance from
Figure 10 compares the resisting bending moments computed for masonry beams made of solid
Figure
the neutral10 compares
axis do notthe resisting
offer bending moments
their maximum computed
resistance. Therefore,for the
masonry beams provide
two models made ofdifferent
solid
clay bricks 60 mm thick, reinforced by flax fibers (FFRG), with the ones calculated for two customary
clayneutral
bricks 60
axismm thick, reinforced
positions, by flax fibers
which correspond (FFRG), with
to different the ones calculated
contributions of bricks for
andtwoflaxcustomary
fiber fabrics,
alternatives in different materials: clay masonry beams reinforced by stainless bars (R/M) and
alternatives
and then to in different
differentresisting
materials: clay masonry
moments, mostly in beams reinforced
the case of hollowby stainless
bricks 120 mm barsthick.
(R/M) and
reinforced concrete beams (R/C). The first is a strengthening technique that has partially spread in
reinforced concrete beams (R/C). The first isana adequate
strengthening technique that has partially
modelingspread in
recent times, and the second, as previously reported, should be excluded in the retrofittinginofassessing
In conclusion, Figures 7 and 9 show capacity of the simplified
existing
recent
the times, andbending
resistant the second, as previously
moments of masonryreported, should be
ring-beams excludedby
reinforced inflax
the retrofitting
fibers, mainlyof existing
for beams
masonry buildings, although it is widespread.
masonry
madeThe buildings,
by solid although it is widespread.
beamsorhavehollowthebricks
same60 mm thick.
geometry as This
that allows us, for
reinforced byexample, to use
flax fibers. this approach
In both cases they in are
the
The beams
simplified have the
modeling of same
an geometry
entire building asstructure,
that reinforced
such as by
the flax fibers.
masonry In both
frame modelcases theyused
usually are to
reinforced by three 16 mm diameter stainless steel bars both at the upper and lower edge, a
reinforced
perform by three 16 mm diameter
pushover stainless steel bars both at the upper and lower edge, a
framework widelyanalyses
used in [61,62].
everyday practice for strengthening existing masonry buildings; this
framework widely used in everyday practice for strengthening existing masonry buildings; this
reinforcement
4. Discussion is kept constant as the height of the beam varies.
reinforcement is kept constant as the height of the beam varies.
The resistant bending moment of reinforced concrete beams is computed using the usual
TheFigure
resistant
10 bending themoment of bending
reinforced concrete beams is computed beamsusing the usual
assumptions ofcompares
r/c beam theory, resisting
i.e., the moments
parabola–rectangle computed
diagramfor formasonry
concrete undermade of solid
compression
assumptions
clay the
bricks of r/c
60 mm beam theory, i.e.,
thick, reinforced the parabola–rectangle
byfor
flax diagram
fibers (FFRG),Cylindrical for
with the ones concrete under
calculated compression
for two
and bilinear stress–strain relation reinforcement. concrete strength of 20customary
MPa and
andalternatives
the bilinearinstress–strain relationclay
different materials: for masonry
reinforcement.
beamsCylindrical
reinforced by concrete
stainlessstrength of 20
bars (R/M) MPa
and and
reinforced
concrete beams (R/C). The first is a strengthening technique that has partially spread in recent times,
Buildings 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 15
Buildings 2020, 10, 12 11 of 15
235 MPa yield strength stainless steel are assumed. In this regard, it should be noted that the design
tensile force provided by three 16 mm diameter bars is very close to that provided by the considered
andfibers.
flax the second, as previously
The partial reported,
factors for materialshould be excluded
strength are equal in
to the
1.50retrofitting
for concreteof and
existing
1.15 masonry
for steel
buildings,
[48]. although it is widespread.

50 60

Loading orthogonal to the bed joints Loading parallel to the bed joints
R/C 50

Resisting moment [kNm]

40 R/C
Resisting moment [kNm]

R/M
R/M 40
30 FFRG
FFRG
30

20
20

10
10

0 0
120 180 240 300 360 120 180 240 300 360

Beam height [mm] Beam height [mm]

(a) (b)
Figure
Figure 10.
10. Comparison
Comparisonamong
amongthe theresisting
resisting moments
moments ofof ring-beams
ring-beams in
in several
several materials:
materials: (a)
(a) loads
loads
orthogonal to the bed joints; (b) loads parallel to the bed joints.
orthogonal to the bed joints; (b) loads parallel to the bed joints.

In
The masonry
beams have beams thereinforced
same geometry by stainless
as thatsteel bars, the
reinforced by linear distribution
flax fibers. In bothof stresses
cases they forare
masonry
reinforcedand by bilinear
three 16 relation
mm diameter for steel are adopted,
stainless assuming
steel bars both at the a maximum
upper andallowable
lower edge, strain of 0.002
a framework
and
widely 0.01,
usedrespectively,
in everyday(as required
practice by numerousexisting
for strengthening building codes).buildings;
masonry Partial factors for materialis
this reinforcement
properties
kept constant of 2.70 forheight
as the masonry andbeam
of the 1.15 for steel are assumed.
varies.
The
The comparison
resistant bending of Figure moment10a (bending in vertical
of reinforced concrete planes)
beams shows that the masonry
is computed using thebeams usual
reinforced
assumptions by of flax
r/c fibers have slightly
beam theory, i.e., thelower resistant moments
parabola–rectangle diagram thanforthe other ones.
concrete underThe resisting
compression
moments rise with
and the bilinear increasing relation
stress–strain the beam forheight because ofCylindrical
reinforcement. the increasing number
concrete of fiber
strength layers
of 20 MPawithand
the
235beam heightstrength
MPa yield for FFRG and thesteel
stainless largerarebars centrifugation
assumed. for R/M
In this regard, and R/C.
it should be noted that the design
When
tensile force the beams are
provided by loaded
three 16inmm the diameter
horizontalbarsplane, the resistant
is very close to thatmoment of the
provided byones reinforced
the considered
by
flaxflax fibers
fibers. The is partial
much lower,factorsespecially
for material in strength
the case ofarelowequalbeams, and
to 1.50 forincreases much
concrete and more
1.15 with [48].
for steel the
beamIn height (see Figure 10b). This is due to the larger number of fiber layers
masonry beams reinforced by stainless steel bars, the linear distribution of stresses for masonry which, in the case of
thick beams, relation
and bilinear contribute to theareresistant
for steel adopted, moment,
assuming while in other allowable
a maximum cases the strain
reinforcement
of 0.002 and is kept
0.01,
constant.
respectively, (as required by numerous building codes). Partial factors for material properties of 2.70
The above
for masonry and results,
1.15 for however,
steel aredo not deny that masonry ring-beams reinforced by flax fiber fabrics
assumed.
can be Thea comparison
valid alternative of Figure to traditional
10a (bending r/cinring-beams thatshows
vertical planes) recentthatearthquakes
the masonry have
beamsshown to be
reinforced
unsuitable
by flax fibers forhavestrengthening
slightly lower existing masonry
resistant momentsstructures.
than the The increment
other ones. The of resisting
bricks and composite
moments rise
layers allows achieving
with increasing the beam ring-beams
height becauseof size ofand
the height
increasingablenumber
to develop resisting
of fiber layersmoments
with the sufficient
beam height to
provide
for FFRGalland of the larger
needs bars in the seismic retrofitting
centrifugation for R/M ofand historic
R/C. buildings (connection of orthogonal
walls,When
distribution
the beams of thearethrusts
loadeddue in theto roof beams,plane,
horizontal building thebox behavior,
resistant momentthwarting
of the of out-of-plane
ones reinforced
failures of below
by flax fibers walls).
is much lower, especially in the case of low beams, and increases much more with the
beam height (see Figure 10b). This is due to the larger number of fiber layers which, in the case of thick
5. Conclusions
beams, contribute to the resistant moment, while in other cases the reinforcement is kept constant.
The above results, however,
The strengthening of existingdomasonry
not denybuildings
that masonryoftenring-beams
requires the reinforced by flax
construction fiber fabrics
of ring-beams
can
at theberoofa valid
level alternative
to improve to thetraditional
connectionr/c ring-beams
among orthogonalthat recent earthquakes
walls, obtain havebox
a building shown to be
behavior,
unsuitable for strengthening existing masonry structures. The increment
distribute the roof thrusts among the below walls, thwarting the out-of-plane failure of walls. For of bricks and composite
layers allows
several years, achieving
r/c ring-beams ring-beams
were built,of size
butand height able
numerous to develop
recent earthquakesresisting
have moments
proven sufficient
not to be to a
provide solution.
suitable all of the The needs r/cinbeams,
the seismic
in fact,retrofitting of historic
have stiffness oftenbuildings (connection
disproportionate andof orthogonal
unjustified walls,
for the
distribution
function to beof the thrustsand
fulfilled, due present
to roof beams, building
mechanical andbox behavior,
physical thwarting of out-of-plane
incompatibility with the masonry failures
of below
material. walls).
The paper shows that masonry ring-beams reinforced by flax fiber fabrics can be a valid
alternative, since they allow the achievement of the aforementioned main purposes that are necessary
Buildings 2020, 10, 12 12 of 15

5. Conclusions
The strengthening of existing masonry buildings often requires the construction of ring-beams
at the roof level to improve the connection among orthogonal walls, obtain a building box behavior,
distribute the roof thrusts among the below walls, thwarting the out-of-plane failure of walls. For several
years, r/c ring-beams were built, but numerous recent earthquakes have proven not to be a suitable
solution. The r/c beams, in fact, have stiffness often disproportionate and unjustified for the function to
be fulfilled, and present mechanical and physical incompatibility with the masonry material.
The paper shows that masonry ring-beams reinforced by flax fiber fabrics can be a valid alternative,
since they allow the achievement of the aforementioned main purposes that are necessary to improve
the seismic capacity of existing masonry buildings: it is shown that these beams develop resisting
bending moments in both the horizontal and vertical planes similar to those of other more common or
less reliable beam solutions. Furthermore, the availability of adequate resisting moments is coupled
with deformation characteristics which are more compatible with the ones of the below masonry walls.
Masonry ring-beams reinforced by flax fibers are also a particularly suitable solution for retrofitting
monumental masonry structures. They fully respond to requests of normative documents concerning
the Seismic Risk Prevention of Cultural Heritage, where it is generally advised that the seismic
improvement of historically–artistically relevant structures must be mandatorily achieved through
interventions that enhance the seismic capacity without changing the main features of the structure.
Masonry ring-beams reinforced by flax fibers fully comply with this request due to their high mechanical
compatibility with historical masonry structures, to be both respectful of the original building system
(in terms of materials and structural system) and completely reversible.
The paper also shows how simple analytical procedures are sufficient to design the aforementioned
flax fiber-reinforced masonry beams. The beams can be designed according to the classical technical
beam theory used to design r/c and masonry beam cross-sections, adapted to masonry sections
reinforced by several layers of flax fibers. The hypotheses underlying this calculation are then
illustrated and discussed in the paper, and it is shown how it allows a quick sizing under loads
orthogonal and parallel to the bed joints.
Finally, comparisons among the resisting moments computed for masonry beams made of solid
clay bricks reinforced by flax fibers, and the ones computed for two customary alternatives in different
materials (that is, clay masonry beams reinforced by stainless bars and reinforced concrete beams),
are shown and discussed.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, M.G. and G.F.; methodology, M.G. and G.F.; software, G.F.; validation,
M.G.; formal analysis, M.G.; resources, M.G.; data curation, M.G.; writing—original draft preparation, M.G.;
writing—review and editing, M.G. and G.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Acknowledgments: The contribute of Ministry of Education, University and Research and particularly the Basic
Research Activities Fund (FFABR) is gratefully acknowledged.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the
study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to
publish the results.

References
1. Gesualdo, A.; Cennamo, C.; Fortunato, A.; Frunzio, G.; Monaco, M.; Angelillo, M. Equilibrium formulation
of masonry helical stairs. Meccanica 2017, 52, 1963–1974. [CrossRef]
2. Como, M. Statics of Historic Masonry Constructions; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2013.
3. Bergamasco, I.; Gesualdo, A.; Iannuzzo, A.; Monaco, M. An integrated approach to the conservation of the
roofing structures in the Pompeian domus. J. Cult. Herit. 2018, 31, 141–151. [CrossRef]
4. Marcari, G.; Manfredi, G.; Prota, A.; Pecce, M. In-plane shear performance of masonry panels strengthened
with FRP. Compos. Part B 2007, 38, 887–901. [CrossRef]
Buildings 2020, 10, 12 13 of 15

5. Park, J.; Towashirapornb, P.; Craigc, J.I.; Goodnod, B.J. Seismic fragility analysis of low-rise unreinforced
masonry structures. Eng. Struct. 2009, 31, 125–137. [CrossRef]
6. Cattari, S.; Degli Abbati, S.; Ferretti, D.; Lagomarsino, S.; Ottonelli, D.; Tralli, A. Damage assessment of
fortresses after the 2012 Emilia earthquake (Italy). Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2014, 12, 2333–2365. [CrossRef]
7. De Matteis, G.; Brando, G.; Corlito, V.; Criber, E.; Guadagnuolo, M. Seismic vulnerability assessment of
churchs at regional scale after the 2009 L’Aquila earthquake. Int. J. Mason. Res. Innov. 2019, 4, 174–196.
[CrossRef]
8. Faella, G.; Frunzio, G.; Guadagnuolo, M.; Donadio, A.; Ferri, L. The Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem:
Non-destructive tests for the structural knowledge. J. Cult. Herit. 2012, 13, e27–e41. [CrossRef]
9. Guadagnuolo, M.; Aurilio, M.; Tafuro, A.; Faella, G. Analysis of local mechanisms through floor spectra for
the preservation of historical masonries. A case study. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on
Computational Methods in Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Crete, Greece, 24–16 June 2019.
10. Buonocore, G.; Gesualdo, A.; Monaco, M.; Savino, M.T. Improvement of Seismic Performance of Unreinforced
Masonry Buildings using Steel Frames. Civ. Comp Proc. 2014, 106. [CrossRef]
11. Gesualdo, A.; Monaco, M. Seismic vulnerability reduction of existing masonry buildings. Modelling of
retrofitting tecniques. In Urban Habitat Construction under Catastrophic Events; CRC Press, Taylor & Francis
Group: London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2010; Volume 1, pp. 853–858.
12. Guadagnuolo, M.; Faella, G.; Donadio, A.; Ferri, L. Integrated evaluation of the Church of S. Nicola di Mira:
Conservation versus safety. NDT E Int. 2014, 68, 53–65. [CrossRef]
13. Guadagnuolo, M.; Donadio, A.; Faella, G. Out-of-plane failure mechanism of masonry buildings corners.
In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Structural Analysis of Historical Constructions (SAHC),
Wroclaw, Poland, 15–17 October 2012; ISBN 9788371252167.
14. Binda, L.; Gambarotta, L.; Lagomarsino, S.; Modena, C. A multilevel approach to the damage assessment
and seismic improvement of masonry buildings in Italy. In Seismic Damage to Masonry Buildings; Balkema:
Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 1999; pp. 170–195.
15. Borri, A.; De Maria, A. Alcune considerazioni in materia di analisi e di interventi sugli edifici in muratura
in zona sismica. In Proceedings of the XI Congresso Nazionale “L’ingegneria Sismica in Italia”, ANIDIS,
Genoa, Italy, 25–29 January 2004.
16. Furukawa, A.; Ohta, Y. Failure process of masonry buildings during earthquake and associated casualty risk
evaluation. Nat. Hazards 2009, 49, 25–51. [CrossRef]
17. Magenes, G.; Penna, A.; Senaldi, I.E.; Rota, M.; Galasco, A. Shaking table test of a strengthened full-scale
stone masonry buildings with flexible diaphragms. Int. J. Archit. Herit. 2014, 8, 349–375. [CrossRef]
18. Borri, A.; Sisti, R.; Corradi, M.; Giannantoni, A. Experimental analysis of masonry ring beams reinforced
with composite materials. In Brick and Block Masonry—Trends, Innovations and Challenges; da Porto, F.,
Valluzzi, M.R., Eds.; Taylor & Francis Group: London, UK, 2016.
19. Sisti, R.; Di Ludovico, M.; Borri, A.; Prota, A. Damage assessment and the effectiveness of prevention:
The response of ordinary unreinforced masonry buildings in Norcia during the Central Italy 2016–2017
seismic sequence. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2019, 17, 5609–5629. [CrossRef]
20. D’Ayala, D.F.; Paganoni, S. Seismic Strengthening Strategies for Heritage Structures. Encycl. Earthq. Eng.
2014. [CrossRef]
21. Corradi, S.; Isidori, T.; Corradi, M.; Soleri, F.; Olivari, L. Composite Boat Hulls with Bamboo Natural Fibres.
Int. J. Mater. Prod. Technol. 2009, 36, 73–89. [CrossRef]
22. Hebel, D.E.; Heisel, F.; Javadian, A. Engineering Bamboo—The new composite reinforcement. In Proceedings
of the 1st Annual International Conference on Architecture and Civil Engineering, ACE, Singapore,
18–19 March 2013; GSTF: Singapore, 2013; pp. 94–100.
23. Hebel, D.E.; Javadian, A.; Wielopolski, M.; Schlesier, K.; Heisel, F.; Griebel, D. Process-Controlled
Tensile Properties of Newly Developed Bamboo Composite Materials. In Symposium Bio-Based Composites;
CompositesWeek@Leuven and TexComp-11: Leuven, Belgium, 2013.
24. Speranzini, E.; Agnetti, S. Structural performance of natural fibers reinforced timber beams. In Proceedings of
the 6th International Conference on FRP Composites in Civil Engineering, CICE, Rome, Italy, 13–15 June 2012.
25. Speranzini, E.; Tralascia, S. Engineered lumber: LVL and Solid Wood Reinforced with Natural Fibres.
In Proceedings of the World Conference on Timber Engineering, WCTE, Riva del Garda, Italy, 20–24 June
2010; p. 798.
Buildings 2020, 10, 12 14 of 15

26. Lopresto, V.; Leone, C.; De Iorio, I. Mechanical characterisation of basalt fibre reinforced plastic. Compos. Part B
2011, 42, 717–723. [CrossRef]
27. Kromer, K.H. Physical properties of flax fibre for non-textile-use. Res. Agric. Eng. 2009, 55, 52–61. [CrossRef]
28. Borri, A.; Castori, G.; Grazini, A. Retrofitting of masonry building with reinforced masonry ring-beam.
Constr. Build. Mater. 2009, 23, 1892–1901. [CrossRef]
29. Borri, A.; Giannantoni, A.; Grazini, A. Cordoli di sommità realizzati con laterizio lamellare in FRP.
In Proceedings of the XI Convegno Nazionale: L’ingegneria Sismica in Italia, Genova, Italy, 25–29 January
2004.
30. Borri, A.; Castori, G.; Corradi, M. Masonry confinement with SRP composites. In Proceedings of the
International Conference on Structural Analysis of Historical Constructions, SAHC, Wroclaw, Poland, 15–17
October 2012; pp. 1771–1779, ISBN 978-8371252167.
31. Sisti, R.; Corradi, M.; Borri, A. An experimental study on the influence of composite materials used to
reinforce masonry ring beams. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 122, 231–241. [CrossRef]
32. Yan, L.B.; Chouw, N.; Jayaraman, K. Flax fibre and its composites—A review. Compos. Part B 2014, 56,
296–317. [CrossRef]
33. Dittenber, D.B.; GangaRao, H.V.S. Critical review of recent publications on use of natural composites in
infrastructure. Compos. Part A 2012, 43, 1419–1429. [CrossRef]
34. Codispoti, R.; Oliveira, D.V.; Olivito, R.S.; Lourenço, B.P.; Fangueiro, R. Mechanical performance of natural
fiber-reinforced composites for the strengthening of masonry. Compos. Part B Eng. 2015, 77, 74–83. [CrossRef]
35. Murali Mohan Rao, K.; Mohana Rao, K.; Ratna Prasad, A.V. Fabrication and testing of natural fibre composites:
Vakka, sisal, bamboo and banana. Mater. Des. 2010, 31, 508–513. [CrossRef]
36. Pickering, K.L. Properties and Performance of Natural-Fibre Composites, 1st ed.; Woodhead Publishing Limited:
Cambridge, UK, 2008.
37. Kwiecień, A. Strengthening of masonry using natural fibers bonding with highly deformable adhesives.
GSTF J. Eng. Technol. 2015, 3, 103.
38. American Concrete Institute (ACI). 549.4R-13. Guide to Design and Construction of Externally Bonded
Fabric-Reinforced Cementitious Matrix (FRCM) Systems for Repair and Strengthening Concrete and Masonry
Structures; ACI: Farmington Hills, MI, USA, 2013.
39. Ghiassi, B.; Marcari, G.; Oliveira, D.; Lourenço, P. Water degrading effects on the bond behavior in
FRP-strengthened masonry. Compos. Part B 2013, 54, 11–19. [CrossRef]
40. Fallís, G.J. Innovation for Renovation: Cementitious Matrix is Used to Bond High-strength Polymeric Mesh
to Concrete and Masonry. Concr. Int. 2009, 31, 62–64.
41. International Union of Laboratories and Experts in Construction Materials, Systems and Structures (RILEM).
Technical Committee (TC) 201. In Textile Reinforced Concrete, State-of-the-Art Report; Brameshuber, W., Ed.;
RILEM: Aachen, Germany, 2006.
42. Cevallos, O.; Olivito, R. Effects of fabric parameters on the tensile behaviour of sustainable cementitious
composites. Compos. Part B 2015, 69, 256–266. [CrossRef]
43. Cevallos, O.; Olivito, R.; Codispoti, R.; Ombres, L. Flax and polyparaphenylene benzobisoxazole cementitious
composites for the strengthening of masonry elements subjected to eccentric loading. Compos. Part B 2015,
71, 82–95. [CrossRef]
44. Olivito, R.; Cevallos, O.; Carrozzini, A. Development of durable cementitious composites using sisal and flax
fabrics for reinforcement of masonry structures. Mater. Des. 2014, 57, 258–268. [CrossRef]
45. Olivito, R.; Cevallos, O.; Codispoti, R. Experimental Analysis of Masonry Elements Strengthened with
NFRC Composites Subjected to Eccentric Loading. In Proceedings of the International Conference on
Composites/Nano Engineering, ICCE-22, Saint Julian’s, Malta, 14 October 2014.
46. Cevallos, O.; Olivito, R.; Codispoti, R. Experimental Analysis of Repaired Masonry Elements with Flax-FRCM
and PBO-FRCM Composites Subjected to Axial Bending Loads. Fibers 2015, 3, 491–503. [CrossRef]
47. Guadagnuolo, M.; Faella, G. Floor masonry beams reinforced by BFRG Innovation on advanced composite
materials for strengthening of masonry structures. In Proceedings of the XIII International Forum “Le Vie
dei Mercanti”—Heritage and Technology Mind Knowledge Experience, Aversa-Capri, Italy, 11–13 June 2015.
48. M.I.T. D.M. 17 gennaio 2018—Aggiornamento delle Norme Tecniche per le Costruzioni. Italy,
2018. Available online: https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/gu/2018/02/20/42/so/8/sg/pdf (accessed on
14 January 2020).
Buildings 2020, 10, 12 15 of 15

49. M.I.T. Linee guida per la progettazione, l’esecuzione ed il collaudo di interventi di rinforzo di
strutture di c.a., c.a.p. e murarie mediante FRP; Consiglio Superiore Lavori Pubblici 24.07.2009. Italy,
2009. Available online: http://cslp.mit.gov.it/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=90&Itemid=1
(accessed on 14 January 2020).
50. Faella, G.; Giordano, A.; Guadagnuolo, M. Unsymmetric-plan masonry buildings: Pushover vs. nonlinear
dynamic analysis. In Proceedings of the 9th US National and 10th Canadian Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Toronto, ON, Canada, 25–19 July 2010.
51. Pecce, M.; Ceroni, F.; Prota, A.; Manfredi, G. Response prediction of RC beams externally bonded with
steel-reinforced polymers. J. Compos. Constr. 2006, 10, 195–203. [CrossRef]
52. Triantafillou, T.C. Strengthening of masonry structures using epoxy-bonded FRP laminates. J. Compos. Constr.
1998, 2, 96–104. [CrossRef]
53. Borri, A.; Castori, G.; Grazini, A.; Giannantoni, A. Performance of masonry elements strengthened with
steel reinforced grout. In Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Fiber-Reinforced Polymer
Reinforcement for Concrete Structures (FRPRCS-8), Patras, Greece, 16–18 July 2007.
54. Olivito, R.S.; Codispoti, R.; Cevallos, O. Bond behavior of Flax-FRCM and PBO-FRCM composites applied
on clay bricks: Experimental and Theoretical study. Compos. Struct. 2016, 146. [CrossRef]
55. Lourenço, P.B. Experimental and numerical issues in the modelling of the mechanical behaviour of masonry.
In Structural Analysis of Historical Constructions II; Roca, P., González, J.L., Oñate, E., Lourenço, P.B., Eds.;
CIMNE: Barcelona, Spain, 1998.
56. Singh, S.B.; Munjal, P. Bond strength and compressive stress-strain characteristics of brick masonry. J. Build.
Eng. 2017, 9, 10–16. [CrossRef]
57. Drucker, D.C.; Prager, W. Soil mechanics and plastic analysis for limit design. Q. Appl. Math. 1952, 10,
157–165. [CrossRef]
58. Page, A.W. The strength of brick masonry under biaxial tension-compression. Int. J. Mason. Constr. 1983, 3,
26–31.
59. Köksal, H.O.; Jafarov, O.; Doran, B.; Karakoç, C. Modeling of the Shear Behavior of Unreinforced and
Strengthened Masonry Walls. In Proceedings of the 15 WCEE World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Lisboa, Portugal, 24–28 September 2012.
60. Betti, M.; Galano, L.; Vignoli, A. Finite element modelling for seismic assessment of historic masonry
buildings. In Earthquakes and Their Impact on Society; D’Amico, S., Ed.; Springer Natural Hazards: Cham,
Switzerland, 2016; pp. 377–415. [CrossRef]
61. Guadagnuolo, M.; Faella, G. Comparative seismic response of masonry buildings modelled by beam and solid
elements. In Proceedings of the 16th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 16WCEE, Santiago, Chile,
9–13 January 2017.
62. Formisano, A.; Marzo, A. Simplified and refined methods for seismic vulnerability assessment and retrofitting
of an Italian cultural heritage masonry building. Comput. Struct. 2017, 180, 13–26. [CrossRef]

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).