G. Castori et al.
Construction and Building Materials 299 (2021) 124276
positive structural response against out-of-plane bending loads. How­
ever, in real applications, it is common that double-sided reinforcement
cannot be applied, for example for the requirement to keep the stones or
the bricks visible (fair-face aspect), or for frequently encountered con­
straints inside the buildings (partition walls, the desire of avoid use
disruption, high costs of restoring i.e. re-plastering, re-painting of the
walls, modifications of the electrical and water systems). As a conse­
quence, structural engineers are often forced to design single-sided
reinforcement.
Figs. 12 and 13 show the shear stress-angular strain curves for stone
and brickwork specimens. It can be noted that single-sided reinforce­
ment (Fig. 14) produced an increase in the lateral load capacity of 88
and 71%, for stone and brickwork specimens. On opposite, for the shear
modulus a decrement in magnitude was recorded: hoverer this may
depend on the method used to calculate this mechanical parameter
(Fig. 4) and on the resisting mechanism of reinforced walls panels.
During the initial loading phase, the masonry material, which has
bigger resisting sectional area and is stiffer that the reinforcement, is
able to resist to the diagonal load. However, by increasing the diagonal
load, the masonry starts cracking and the tensile stresses are more and
Fig. 11. Unreinforced wall panels: (a) MAT-01-U, (b) PIE-01-U.
Fig. 12. Envelope curves for the brickwork panels: shear stress (τ) versus angular strain (γ).
8
more sustained by the GFRP reinforcement. As a consequence, while
unreinforced specimens exhibit an abrupt loss of shear stiffness after
cracking, for single-sided reinforced ones this is smoother. This implies
that the bi-linear approximation method used for shear modulus
calculation is able to better “capture” the structural response of unre­
inforced wall panels compared to reinforced ones. Fig. 15 shows this
limitation for PIE-03-S test.
Table 5 shows the increment in terms of lateral load capacity and
shear modulus for all reinforcement layout. This table also compares test
results from the campaign with the suggested multiplication factors
suggested by the Italian Seismic code (NTC 2018). This is actually the
only national building code where FRCM–reinforcement of pre-existing
masonry buildings is considered, using a simplified approach consisting
in the application of a multiplication factor to be applied to the me­
chanical properties (compressive and shear strengths, Young’s and shear
moduli) of the unreinforced existing masonry. The Italian code only
suggests double-sided reinforcement, which is clearly to be preferred to
prevent second order effects resulting from a single-sided application (i.
e. out-of-plane wall deflections, asymmetric stress distribution, etc.). In
real practice, it is common to apply a single-sided reinforcement.
G. Castori et al. Construction and Building Materials 299 (2021) 124276

Fig. 13. Envelope curves for the stone panels: shear stress (τ) versus angular strain (γ).

3.2.2. Double-sided FRCM reinforcement

The wall panels with high GFRP-to-masonry ratio (double-sided
reinforcement) exhibited the highest strength and stiffness increment,
compared to URM specimens, as shown in Figs. 12 and 13. After the
development of the diagonal shear cracks, the loading continued up to
an angular strain of about 0.002, and then unloaded for safety consid­
erations. Typically, double-sided reinforced specimens exhibited an ul­
timate strength 203 and 167 percent higher than that of the
unstrengthened brickwork and stone walls, respectively.
Furthermore, it can be noted that the data collected during the
experimental testing showed very good repeatability between identical
masonry specimens. All wall panels experienced shear failure, but this
was different from the one recorded for unreinforced specimens. Typical
diagonal shear cracks can be seen in Fig. 16: a large number of parallel,
45◦ inclined, diagonal cracks formed along the compressed wall diago­
nal, while for unreinforced specimens only one large diagonal crack
normally developed.
The Italian Seismic Code underpredicts the shear strength by a factor
Fig. 14. Single-sided retrofit.
of 1.3 to 2, with the largest error occurring for the brickwork wall
panels. However, this code adopts a very simplified design approach, not
considering, for example, the reinforcement ratio.

4. Shear behavior of FRCM–reinforced masonry: Numerical

approach

To validate the modeling method, an ad hoc numerically-based two-

step procedure has been used. A preliminary step (Step 1: Calibration
process) involved a series of FE analyses carried out at the scale of the
constituents (brick units, mortar, reinforcement matrix and FRCM
strengthening). This was necessary to define the material parameters
given the discontinuous nature of masonry. The results of Step 1 and the
experimental data (reported in Section 3) were used as input data for a
refined micromodeling of both unreinforced and reinforced brickwork
walls (Step 2: FE model). It is worth noting how these two conceptually
related steps must not be intended as a one-way process, but feedback to
the results of the FE analysis have to come from an iterative check of the
evidences emerged during the calibration process.

Fig. 15. PIE-03-S test: shear stress vs. angular strain plot.

9
G. Castori et al. Construction and Building Materials 299 (2021) 124276

Fig. 16. Failure modes: (a) Unreinforced brickwork panel, (b) cracks on the double-sided reinforced wall.

Fig. 17. Willam-Warnke yield surface: (a) meridian plane (let ξ the hydrostatic stress invariant); (b) deviatoric plane.

10
G. Castori et al. Construction and Building Materials 299 (2021) 124276

4.1. Calibration process (Step 1) ⎧

⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
To achieve a reliable numerical reference, the first step of the pro­ ⎨
Eβt [
posed procedure was aimed at defining the resistance parameters of the σ ij = Dck
ijhk εhk ⇒ Dck
ijhk = δih δjk
⎪
⎪ 2(1 + ν)
⎪
constituent materials not derived directly from the experimental char­ ⎪
⎪
⎩
acterization. Several FE models were carried out, using the ANSYS FEM [ ]
package, to reproduce the main mechanical properties of both masonry ]
+δik δjh cracking direction
Eν
δij δhk
components (i.e. solid bricks and bedding mortar) and the reinforce­ (1 + ν)(1 − ν)
ment, made of glass fibers embedded into a cementitious matrix.
Brick units, mortar and reinforcement matrix were modelled as a E [ ]
meshed FE continuum of eight-noded 3D isoparametric elements of + δih δjk + δik δjh other directions (12)
2(1 + ν)
hexahedral shape (Solid 65), allowing the treatment of non-linear
behavior through the assumption of isotropic multilinear stress–strain
curves, modified according to the quality of the different materials [45]. where Dck
ijhk represents the constitutive matrix of the active cracks, i.e.,
The tensile and compression responses were studied by assuming a
the ones which were not completely closed.
linear softening in tension and a tri-linear curve, characterized by a bi-
Conversely, if the cracks are re-closed and consequently all
linear strain hardening followed by a residual plateau in the post-peak
compressive stresses perpendicular to the crack faces can be transmitted
range, in compression.
across the cracks, then the constitutive relationship becomes:
Prior to failure, the response is elastic and is governed by the
⎧
following equation: ⎪
⎪
⎪
[ ] ⎪
⎪
Eν E [ ] ⎨[ Eν
]
Eβc [
σij = Dijhk εhk ⇒ Dijhk = δij δhk + δih δjk + δik δjh ck ck
σ ij = Dijhk εhk ⇒ Dijhk = δij δhk + δih δjk
(1 + ν)(1 − 2ν) 2(1 + ν) ⎪
⎪ (1 + ν)(1 − 2 ν) 2(1 + ν)
⎪
⎪
(10) ⎪
⎩
[ ]
where the constitutive matrix (Dijhk) is characterized by two constants, ] Eν E [
+δik δjh cracking direction δij δhk + δih δjk
the Poisson ratio (υ) and Young’s modulus (E), whose values, due to the (1 + ν)(1 − 2ν) 2(1 + ν)
lack of experimental data (Section 2.3.1), were estimated via FEM
simulation (i.e. by extensive numerical trials and matching FE and ]
experimental results). Since it was not possible to use strain gauges to + δik δjh other directions
measure the strain, the calibration of the two constant values has
required sensitivity analyses.
The material response over the elastic range of both masonry com­ (13)
ponents (i.e. solid bricks and bedding mortar) and cementitious matrix In case of crushing, the stiffness of the corresponding element was
was then accomplished by accounting for both cracking and crushing assumed to be negligible along all principal directions, implicating that
failure modes through the use of the Rankine criterion combined with the element can be computationally omitted.
the Willam and Warnke (W-W) model [46–47]. The adopted yielding Numerical models were developed to simulate the set-up of both
surface (having a parabolic trace in the meridian plane (Fig. 17a) and an three-point bending (Fig. 18a) and uniaxial compressive (Fig. 18b) tests.
elliptical curve for interpolating the intermediate failure meridian be­ The predictive performances of the proposed FE models were subse­
tween the two extremes (tension and compression meridians) on the quently compared with the experimental results to obtain all those
deviatoric plane (Fig. 17b)), can be defined by two (rather than five) material properties not deriving directly from the experimental
material parameters: the uniaxial compressive (fc) and tensile (ft) characterization.
strength (experimentally measured). When the hydrostatic stress is The values of the elastic parameters (E and υ) and the shear reduction
limited by (√3)fc, the other three parameters (theoretically required) factors (βt and βc) were varied until the failure strength and the vertical
can be assumed as follows: and lateral displacements of the specimens, after each characterization
fcb = 1.2fc f1 = 1.45fc f2 = 1.725fc (11) test, matched the results obtained from the FE models. The calibrated
material properties used for the computational models (Step 2) are
where fcb is the biaxial compressive strength, and f1 and f2 represent the illustrated in Table 6.
compressive strength of a biaxial and uniaxial compression state Regarding the FRCM strengthening, among the various modeling
superimposed on the hydrostatic state of stress. This model is able to strategies adopted in literature (smeared or discrete representation), it
simulate the shear behavior using two additional shear reduction factors was decided to use a discrete element approach [48–49]. A rigorous
(βt and βc) for those subsequent loads that cause sliding across the crack method should involve the full modeling of the fiberglass textiles
face for open (βt) or re-closed (βc) cracks. Since it was not possible to embedded in the mortar coating, also considering their fragile behavior
experimentally measure these parameters, their values were evaluated and the possible slippage of the grid inside the matrix. As the compu­
via FEM simulation by means of sensitivity analyses1. tational difficulties would be more than obvious even for small scale
The yielding surface was completed using cut-off failure conditions. structures, a simplification of the model appeared to be necessary. Not
The stress-strain relations were modified using a plane of weakness taking into account any possible slippage phenomenon between mortar
normal to the crack face. For the cracking direction, both normal and matrix and yarns, the glass grid was discretized as a continuous bi-
shear stiffness were reduced, the tensile strength suddenly dropped to directional grid of non-linear truss elements (using two-noded tension-
zero and the constitutive law can be re-written as: only bar elements, LINK180) perfectly bonded to the masonry support.
This because, as confirmed experimentally (see section 4), FRCM com­
posite delamination on entire walls was unlike and failure was instead
driven by tensile rupture of the wires. As observed during full scale test,
in fact, once the tensile strength of the mortar matrix was reached,
1
several cracks started to open determining a progressive decrease of the
In [47], the recommended range was: 0 (complete loss of shear transfer, i.e.,
elastic stiffness, until the ultimate stress was reached. Being the matrix
smooth crack) ≤ βt ≤ βc ≤ 1 (no loss of shear transfer, i.e., rough crack)

11
G. Castori et al. Construction and Building Materials 299 (2021) 124276

Fig. 18. FE modeling of characterization test set-ups: a) three point bending test; b) compressive test.

Fig. 19. Finite element modeling of single lap shear test set-ups.

Fig. 20. Geometric configuration and discretization of brickwork masonry specimens.

12
G. Castori et al. Construction and Building Materials 299 (2021) 124276

Fig. 21. Comparison between experimental and numerical damage maps: (a) unstrengthened specimens; (b) strengthened specimens.

completely cracked, tensile actions transfer to the grid, which started to yarn),a FE model (Fig. 19) was also developed with the aim at repro­
be subjected to not negligible levels of stresses up to failure. ducing the double lap shear test set-up of a previous laboratory inves­
Adopting a shared node approach, the connection between the glass tigation2 to obtain the value of the missing material properties. The
grid and the mortar coating meshes was achieved treating the glass value adopted for fdeb,yarn in the FE analysis (fdeb,yarn = 622 MPa) was
yarns as a slave material merged to the surrounding master material found through an iterative trial-and-error process aimed at equating the
(mortar coating). It is worth noting that, as a consequence, the step of experimental and numerical values of the failure load and the rein­
the truss elements in the FEM was lower than the real grid spacing of the forcement strain at maximum load, respectively.
reinforcing system (ranging from 30 to 50 mm for Type 1 and Type 2,
respectively) and thus, to account for the equivalent amount of rein­
4.2. FE model (Step 2)
forcement, the cross-section area of the glass yarns was decreased
accordingly.
The second step was performed at a structural level (based on the
The glass yarns were assumed unable to withstand compressive
material relationships previously determined (Step 1)) into a detailed
stresses, in order to disregard unrealistic instability phenomena, and
micromodeling of both unreinforced and FRCM-reinforced brickwork
perfectly elastic in tension. Accordingly, prior to failure, the initial
specimens.
linear-elastic phase is governed by:
Instead of adopting a macro-modeling strategy based on the use of a
masonry continuum with homogenized properties, masonry was regar­
• the tangential stiffness: k = EglassAyarns
ded as a heterogeneous material, where blocks, joints and FRCM
strengthening were meshed separately. To reproduce the experimental
where Eglass is the Young’s modulus of the fiberglass fibers, whereas
cracking pattern, an approach based on the use of a 3D mesh was
Ayarn is the cross-section area of the yarns, whose values were deter­
preferred in order to take into account the out-of-plane deformations
mined experimentally
induced by the strengthening. The FE mesh of the panels periodically
repeating arrangement was adjusted so as to have at least three brick
• the failure strength: fu = min{fu,yarn; fdeb,yarn}
elements along the panel height, two elements along the thickness of
each bed joint (it is worth noting that a coarser mesh – a single element
where fu,yarn and fdeb,yarn are the tensile rupture and debonding
along the thickness – was used for the head joint) and again two ele­
strength of the reinforcing grid, respectively (whose values were again
ments across the mortar coating. This allowed to capture the more
determined experimentally
critical details avoiding distorted meshes and identification of shear lock
As for the post-peak behavior, it was assumed that, after the first yarn
reaches its ultimate strength (fu), the failure is instantaneous (brittle
mechanism) and the stress immediately drops off to zero. 2
Experimental tests were performed on single lap joints realized with a glass
Without characterization test results for the debonding strength (fdeb,
grid bonded along the center line of the front of a single clay brick.

13
G. Castori et al.
effects. Fig. 20 shows the FE model: it consists of 165,619 elements and
107,064 nodes, with 320,044 degrees of freedom (DOF).
Force-controlled analyses were carried out on both unreinforced and
strengthened panels. The load initially included the panel own weight,
and subsequently a monotonic load at the top corner, with the opposite
corner fully constrained.
To investigate the reliability of the proposed modeling approach, the
predicted collapse mechanisms have been compared with those
observed experimentally, by checking the evolution of the damage
pattern at different load stages. In agreement with experimental evi­
dence, the numerical failure mode of unreinforced panels was charac­
terized by a brittle failure concentrated close to the panel’s diagonal line
of symmetry, after the peak shear stress was reached. As shown in
Fig. 21a, this failure mode was governed by the low strength of the
bedding mortar, which caused a high level of damage of both bed and
head joints (zig-zag pattern) anticipating the brick failure as found
experimentally. Also for reinforced walls, the FE models adeguately
simulated the strengthening effect of FRCM. Because of the partially
continuous nature of the FRCM composite system (rather than discon­
tinuous like in FRP strip reinforcement), the tensile stresses were uni­
formly redistributed on the entire surface allowing to preserve the global
integrity of the reinforced walls at relatively high level of the shear load
(Fig. 21b). The effect of the GF (Glass Fibres) grid was to improve the
structural behavior of the panel in withstanding both compressions and
tensions, avoiding damage localization and thus inhibiting the brittle
behavior observed for unreinforced specimens.
A further validation of the proposed modeling strategy was obtained
by comparing the results of the numerical load-carrying capacity with
those obtained experimentally. A reasonable fitting was observed be­
tween numerical and experimental results (Tab. 7). The lower capacity
results of the FE model (the deviations between the experimental and
predicted values was found to be no >14%.) for the double-sided
strengthened specimens can be attributed to the model strategy adop­
ted for the strengthening system (discrete element approach), which was
unable to simulate properly the interface tensile stresses from masonry
to GF grid. On the contrary, the model did not fully capture the out-of-
plane deformations of the single-sided reinforcement, which can explain
the higher load-carrying capacity of FE models (+12%) in comparison
with the experimental results (with the exception of MAT-05-S test,
where a lower ultimate load was numerically observed).
5. Conclusions
From the results of this experimental campaign on the shear response
of masonry wall panels reinforced with FRCM jacketing subjected to
static-cyclic lateral (in-plane) loading the following conclusions can be
drawn:
• A series of 12 masonry specimens were tested in this investigation.
These specimens were reinforced to represent a potential rehabili­
tation method to enhance their ability to withstand an earthquake.
Single- and double sided FRCM reinforcement were used and
experimented.
• Test results have demonstrated that FRCM-reinforcement for both
stone and brickwork wallettes can cause a significant increment of
the lateral-load capacity. For single-sided reinforcement the lateral
load capacity typically increased by a factor of 2, while up to 3 was
noted for double-sided reinforcement.
• Actually, the only design code providing instructions for the appli­
cation of FRCM reinforcement of historic rubble stone and brickwork
masonry is the recent Italian Seismic Code. However, test results
have shown that the Italian design provisions are conservative for
FRCM-reinforced shear walls by a factor of 1.3 and 2 for stone and
brickwork, respectively.
Future research should be conducted to evaluate the effect of FRCM
14
Construction and Building Materials 299 (2021) 124276
reinforcement on high-thickness (>500 mm) shear walls and on
different types of masonry typologies and stone/brick arrangements.
Experimental study should be completed to evaluate the structural
response of FRCM-reinforced triple-leaf shear walls. It would be inter­
esting to apply the Italian design provisions to a larger set of reinforced
masonry walls, also considering the corrective factors suggested by the
above mentioned standard.
As for the numerical results, after calibrating the FE model with
characterization test data and then using the experimental data obtained
from diagonal tension tests to validate the proposed two-step non-linear
numerical procedure, the authors were suggested and generally felt to
have sufficient evidence base for the use of such a procedure in the
simulation of brick masonry reinforced with FRCM strengthening.
Although it constitutes only a first step toward the complete under­
standing of the macroscale structural behavior of the reinforced panels
and can clearly be optimized (e.g. model is not used in other studies (e.g.
parametric) or in comparison with data obtained by other researchers),
when appropriately applied, the presented procedure (Steps 1 and 2)
represents a sound basis for selecting this kind of intervention strategy as
well as controlling their efficiency.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful for the support of Kimia Co., Perugia, Italy
for providing the reinforcement materials used in the experimental
program. The authors would like to thank Alessio Molinari and Giordano
Bisciotti and the technical staff of the Structures Laboratory (Lastru) of
the University of Perugia, Italy for their help with this project.
Funding
The authors acknowledge the support of Kimia Inc. (Perugia, Italy).
References
[1] G. Falcone, A. Mendicelli, F. Mori, S. Fabozzi, M. Moscatelli, G. Occhipinti,
E. Peronace, A simplified analysis of the total seismic hazard in Italy, Engineering
Geology 267 (2020) 105511, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2020.105511.
[2] P. Zimmaro, G. Scasserra, J.P. Stewart, T. Kishida, G. Tropeano, M. Castiglia,
P. Pelekis, Strong ground motion characteristics from 2016 Central Italy
earthquake sequence, Earthquake Spectra 34 (4) (2018) 1611–1637.
[3] Italian Senate, Report No. 01077470 (2017) Earthquakes. Central Italy 2016,
Emilia 2012, L’Aquila 2009: reconstruction resources and laws, Rome, Italy.
[4] Dina F. D’Ayala, Sara Paganoni, Assessment and analysis of damage in L’Aquila
historic city centre after 6th April 2009, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 9 (1)
(2011) 81–104.
[5] Kazuhiko Kawashima, Ömer Aydan, Takayoshi Aoki, Ichizo Kishimoto,
Kazuo Konagai, Tomoya Matsui, Joji Sakuta, Noriyuki Takahashi, Sven-
Peter Teodori, Atsushi Yashima, Reconnaissance investigation on the damage of
the 2009 L’Aquila, Central Italy earthquake, Journal of Earthquake Engineering 14
(6) (2010) 817–841.
[6] Luigi Sorrentino, Serena Cattari, Francesca da Porto, Guido Magenes,
Andrea Penna, Seismic behaviour of ordinary masonry buildings during the 2016
central Italy earthquakes, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 17 (10) (2019)
5583–5607.
[7] J. Gustavo, N. Galati, A. Nanni, Fiber-reinforced polymer strengthening of
unreinforced masonry walls subject to out-of-plane loads, ACI Structural Journal
100 (3) (2003) 321–329.
[8] E. Hamed, O. Rabinovitch, Out-of-plane behavior of unreinforced masonry walls
strengthened with FRP strips, Composites Science and Technology 67 (3-4) (2007)
489–500.
[9] J.I. Velazquez-Dimas, M.R. Ehsani, Modeling out-of-plane behavior of URM walls
retrofitted with fiber composites, Journal of Composites for Construction 4 (4)
(2000) 172–181.
[10] T.T. Bui, A. Limam, V. Sarhosis, M. Hjiaj, Discrete element modelling of the in-
plane and out-of-plane behaviour of dry-joint masonry wall constructions,
Engineering Structures 136 (2017) 277–294.
G. Castori et al.
[11] Marco Corradi, Antonio Borri, Giulio Castori, Romina Sisti, The Reticulatus method
for shear strengthening of fair-faced masonry, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering
14 (12) (2016) 3547–3571.
[12] Claudio D’Ambra, Gian Piero Lignola, Andrea Prota, Elio Sacco,
Francesco Fabbrocino, Experimental performance of FRCM retrofit on out-of-plane
behaviour of clay brick walls, Composites Part B: Engineering 148 (2018) 198–206.
[13] T. D’Antino, F.G. Carozzi, P. Colombi, C. Poggi, Out-of-plane maximum resisting
bending moment of masonry walls strengthened with FRCM composites,
Composite Structures 202 (2018) 881–896.
[14] P.B. Shing, M. Schuller, V.S. Hoskere, In-plane resistance of reinforced masonry
shear walls, Journal of structural Engineering 116 (3) (1990) 619–640.
[15] Anastasios Drougkas, Pere Roca, Climent Molins, Experimental analysis and
detailed micro-modeling of masonry walls subjected to in-plane shear, Engineering
Failure Analysis 95 (2019) 82–95.
[16] Garbin, E., Valluzzi, M.R., Modena, C., & Oliveira, D.V., & Lourenço, P.B. (2006).
Experimental investigation on the structural behaviour and strengthening of three-
leaf stone masonry walls, In Proceedings of Structural Analysis of Historical
Constructions – SAHC, New Delhi 2006.
[17] M. Corradi, A. Borri, A. Vignoli, Experimental evaluation of in-plane shear
behaviour of masonry walls retrofitted using conventional and innovative
methods, Masonry International 21 (1) (2008) 29.
[18] A. Borri, G. Castori, M. Corradi, E. Speranzini, Shear behavior of unreinforced and
reinforced masonry panels subjected to in situ diagonal compression tests,
Construction and Building Materials 25 (12) (2011) 4403–4414.
[19] Sachin B. Kadam, Yogendra Singh, Bing Li, Strengthening of unreinforced masonry
using welded wire mesh and micro-concrete–Behaviour under in-plane action,
Construction and Building Materials 54 (2014) 247–257.
[20] Hernan Santa-Maria, Pablo Alcaino, Repair of in-plane shear damaged masonry
walls with external FRP, Construction and Building Materials 25 (3) (2011)
1172–1180.
[21] A. Gabor, A. Bennani, E. Jacquelin, F. Lebon, Modelling approaches of the in-plane
shear behaviour of unreinforced and FRP strengthened masonry panels, Composite
structures 74 (3) (2006) 277–288.
[22] K.M.C. Konthesingha, M.J. Masia, R.B. Petersen, N. Mojsilovic, G. Simundic, A.
W. Page, Static cyclic in-plane shear response of damaged masonry walls retrofitted
with NSM FRP strips–An experimental evaluation, Engineering Structures 50
(2013) 126–136.
[23] S. Saileysh Sivaraja, T.S. Thandavamoorthy, S. Vijayakumar, S.
Moses Aranganathan, A.K. Dasarathy, Preservation of historical monumental
structures using fibre reinforced polymer (FRP)-case studies, Procedia Engineering
54 (2013) 472–479.
[24] Venice Charter (1964) International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration
of Monuments and sites, (ICOMOS). In Proceedings of the 2nd International
Congress of Architects and Technicians oh Historical Monuments, Venice, Italy.
[25] ICOMOS–ISCARSAH Committee (2003) ICOMOS Charter—Principles for the
analysis, conservation and structural restoration of architectural heritage. In
Proceedings of the ICOMOS 14th General Assembly and Scientific Symposium,
Victoria Falls, Zimbabwe (Vol. 2731).
[26] Borri, A., & Corradi, M. (2019). Architectural heritage: A discussion on
conservation and safety. Heritage, 2(1), 631-647.
[27] F. Stazi, M. Giampaoli, M. Rossi, P. Munafò, Environmental ageing on GFRP
pultruded joints: comparison between different adhesives, Composite Structures
133 (2015) 404–414.
[28] S. Marouani, L. Curtil, P. Hamelin, Ageing of carbon/epoxy and carbon/vinylester
composites used in the reinforcement and/or the repair of civil engineering
structures, Composites Part B: Engineering 43 (4) (2012) 2020–2030.
15
Construction and Building Materials 299 (2021) 124276
[29] S. Babaeidarabad, G. Loreto, D. Arboleda, A. Nanni, FRCM-strengthened CMU
masonry walls subjected to out-of-plane load, Mason Soc J 32 (1) (2014) 69–84.
[30] Susanna Casacci, Cristina Gentilini, Angelo Di Tommaso, Daniel V. Oliveira, Shear
strengthening of masonry wallettes resorting to structural repointing and FRCM
composites, Construction and Building Materials 206 (2019) 19–34.
[31] Catherine G. Papanicolaou, Thanasis C. Triantafillou, Kyriakos Karlos,
Myrto Papathanasiou, Textile-reinforced mortar (TRM) versus FRP as
strengthening material of URM walls: in-plane cyclic loading, Materials and
structures 40 (10) (2007) 1081–1097.
[32] C. Buratti, E. Belloni, L. Lunghi, A. Borri, G. Castori, M. Corradi, Mechanical
characterization and thermal conductivity measurements using of a new’small hot-
box’apparatus: innovative insulating reinforced coatings analysis, Journal of
Building Engineering 7 (2016) 63–70.
[33] Zuhair Al-Jaberi, John J. Myers, Mohamed A. ElGawady, Pseudo-static cyclic
loading comparison of reinforced masonry walls strengthened with FRCM or NSM
FRP, Construction and Building Materials 167 (2018) 482–495.
[34] Francesca Giulia Carozzi, Alessandro Bellini, Tommaso D’Antino, Gianmarco de
Felice, Francesco Focacci, Łukasz Hojdys, Luca Laghi, Emma Lanoye,
Francesco Micelli, Matteo Panizza, Carlo Poggi, Experimental investigation of
tensile and bond properties of Carbon-FRCM composites for strengthening masonry
elements, Composites Part B: Engineering 128 (2017) 100–119.
[35] Alessandro Bellini, Seyedmohammad Kahangi Shahreza, Claudio Mazzotti, Cyclic
bond behavior of FRCM composites applied on masonry substrate, Composites Part
B: Engineering 169 (2019) 189–199.
[36] ASTM, E. (2007). 519-07. Standard Test Methods for Diagonal Tension (Shear) in
Masonry,” American Society of Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA.
[37] RILEM. LUMB6 – Diagonal tensile strength tests of small wall specimens. Technical
Report, RILEM; 1994.
[38] BS EN 771-1 (2011) Specification for masonry units. Clay masonry units.
[39] M. Corradi, A. Borri, A. Vignoli, Experimental study on the determination of
strength of masonry walls, Construction and building materials 17 (5) (2003)
325–337.
[40] ASTM C348 – 21, Standard Test Method for Flexural Strength of Hydraulic-Cement
Mortars.
[41] ASTM C349 – 18 Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Hydraulic-
Cement Mortars (Using Portions of Prisms Broken in Flexure).
[42] Italian Building Code (2018) Norme tecniche per le Costruzioni – NTC 2018, Rome,
Italy (in Italian).
[43] M. Corradi, A. Borri, A database of the structural behavior of masonry in shear,
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 16 (9) (2018) 3905–3930.
[44] S. Boschi, L. Galano, A. Vignoli, Mechanical characterisation of Tuscany masonry
typologies by in situ tests, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 17 (1) (2019)
413–438.
[45] M. Corradi, G. Castori, A. Borri, Repairing brickwork panels using titanium rods
embedded in the mortar joints, Constr Build Mater 206 (2020) 19–34.
[46] Willam KJ, & Warnke ED. Constitutive model for the triaxial behaviour of concrete.
In Proceeding of the International Association for Bridge and Structural
Engineering, Bergamo, Italy; 1975.
[47] C.V. Uday Vyas, B.V. Venkatarama Reddy, Prediction of solid block masonry prism
compressive strength using FE model, Mat Struct 43 (2010) 719–735.
[48] E. Bertolesi, G. Milani, C. Poggi, Simple holonomic homogenization model for the
non-linear static analysis of in-plane loaded masonry walls strengthened with
FRCM composites, Compos Struct 158 (2016) 291–307.
[49] J. Scacco, B. Ghiassi, G. Milani, P.B. Lourenço, A fast modeling approach for
numerical analysis of unreinforced and FRCM reinforced masonry walls under out-
of-plane loading, Compos B Eng 180 (2020), 107553.