Construction and Building Materials 190 (2018) 1133–1153

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

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

Experimental investigation of out-of-plane behaviour of URM wallettes

strengthened using welded wire mesh
P.K.V.R. Padalu a, Y. Singh a,⇑, S. Das b
a
Dept. of Earthquake Engineering, IIT Roorkee, India
b
Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Windsor, Canada

h i g h l i g h t s g r a p h i c a l a b s t r a c t

Efficacy of strengthening using

welded wire mesh (WWM) is
established.

Effect of the orientation, shear span,
and reinforcement ratio is studied.

Generalized parameters to compare
results of different studies are
proposed.

Simple beam theory shown to predict
the moment capacity accurately.

Various failure modes of
strengthened masonry are explained.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper presents an experimental study on unreinforced masonry (URM) wallettes strengthened using
Received 3 March 2018 welded wire mesh (WWM) reinforcement. A total of 8 URM and 28 strengthened wallettes along with
Received in revised form 8 August 2018 their constituent materials are tested in two orthogonal directions, under two-point out-of-plane loading.
Accepted 26 September 2018
The variables examined are loading direction, reinforcement ratio and effect of shear span. To compare
the results of the present study with the past studies, six non-dimensional parameters are defined and
examined for their suitability in identifying the generalized behaviour of the wallettes. The variation
Keywords:
of non-dimensional parameters based on the geometric and material properties of the tested wallettes,
Unreinforced masonry
Strengthening
in different studies is discussed. The strengthening technique enhances the flexural strength of the wal-
Welded wire mesh lettes up to 9.4 times, deformability up to 61 times, and energy absorption capacity up to 1024 times, as
Out-of-plane behaviour compared to the URM wallettes. A comparison with analytical results shows that the ordinary beam the-
ory predicts the flexural strength with reasonable accuracy.
Ó 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction when it is subjected to lateral loads like an earthquake, the resis-

Unreinforced masonry (URM) structures comprise a significant
fraction of the building stock, as masonry is commonly used as civil
engineering construction material in various parts of the world. It
is a preferred material for construction, due to its good sound and
thermal insulation and ease of construction and remoulding. It
usually performs well when subjected to gravity loads. However,
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: ppkvr49@gmail.com (P.K.V.R. Padalu), yogendra.eq@gmail.
com (Y. Singh), sdas@uwindsor.ca (S. Das).
tance is comparatively low, primarily due to its low tensile
strength. From the post-earthquake surveys conducted in the past,
it is identified that the out-of-plane collapse of masonry walls as
one of the predominant modes of failure in unreinforced masonry
(URM) buildings [1,2]. Out-of-plane failure of URM walls is even
more common in case of high ceiling buildings and buildings with
flexible floors/roof [3–6]. Inadequate anchorage of roof diaphragm
into masonry wall can cause loss of support and out-of-plane fail-
ure of walls (Fig. 1). Long span diaphragms can also cause excessive
out-of-plane flexure in walls leading to vertical cracks and collapse

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.09.176
0950-0618/Ó 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1134 P.K.V.R. Padalu et al. / Construction and Building Materials 190 (2018) 1133–1153

Fig. 1. URM building wall collapsed in out-of-plane action (Nepal Earthquake,
2015) due to flexible roof and inadequate anchorage of walls with floor/roof.
of walls. Further, the seismic vulnerability of URM walls to out-of-
plane loads is greatly increased by concurrent in-plane damage.
The slenderness of the wall also greatly influences the out-of-
plane failure. Consequently, a number of strengthening techniques
have evolved over the years to increase the out-of-plane perfor-
mance of walls and to avoid brittle failure.
Some of the available strengthening techniques to improve the
out-of-plane seismic behaviour of existing URM walls include: (i)
basalt fiber ropes used for stitching the masonry panels, which
improve the safety of the walls against vertical bending mecha-
nism [7], (ii) hollow CFRP pultruded carbon tubes wrapped with
longitudinal and spiral stainless steel fabrics to increase the bond
of the reinforcing system with mortar and the masonry substrate
[8], (iii) fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) composites used as an over-
lay [9–15], (iv) near surface mounted FRP bars, where FRP is
inserted into grooves cut into the masonry, and helps to retain
the original appearance of walls [16,17], (v) externally bonded
(EB) grids, consisting of textile or fiber mesh bonded on the
masonry substrate [18–20], (vi) post-tensioning by tendons placed
inside the core cavities located at the wall centre-line or at discrete
locations [21], (vii) engineered cement composites (ECC), where
strain hardening property is imparted using cement-synthetic fibre
composite directly sprayed onto URM walls [22,23], (viii) steel
reinforced grout using connectors, which provides an effective con-
nection between the cross-walls and the main wall, preventing
overturning in out-of-plane direction [24], and (ix) reinforcement
in form of welded wire mesh (WWM), used as seismic belts at
the lintel level, to reduce the vertical span and the resulting out-
of-plane bending moment [25–28].
The strengthening technique using WWM is an economical and
simple method for retrofitting of existing URM buildings [29]. The
efficacy of the use of WWM as a strengthening technique had been
explored by Kadam et al. (2014) [30]. Their results showed that the
URM panels exhibit sudden brittle failure, while strengthened pan-
els failed in a relatively ductile fashion and exhibited a significant
increase in the flexural strength. The study observed that the bend-
ing strength of the URM panels depends on the direction of loading,
i.e. bending tension perpendicular or parallel to the bed-joints.
However, for the strengthened panels, the bending capacity is
practically independent of the direction of loading, as the capacity
is governed by the reinforcement. Recently, Shermi and Dubey
(2017) [31] studied the out-of-plane behaviour of the URM con-

Table 1
Summary of past experimental studies on out-of-plane behaviour of URM wallettes strengthened using Welded Wire Mesh (WWM).

Reference Kadam et al. (2014) [30] Shermi and Dubey (2017) [31]
Dimensions, l  b  t (mm) 930  400  110 1000  500  230
Orientation Perpendicular and Parallel to bed-joint Perpendicular to bed-joint
Type of brick Solid clay unit Solid clay unit
Size of brick unit (mm) 230  110  70 230  110  70
Mortar proportion Cement-sand mortar (1:6) Cement-sand mortar (1:6) and (1:4)
Type of bond Stretcher bond English bond
fb (N/mm2) 21.07 10
fj (N/mm2) 2.45 2.5 (for 1:4 cement-sand mortar) and 1.45 (for 1:6 cement-sand mortar)
fm (N/mm2) 3.72 3.95 (for 1:4 cement-sand mortar) and 2.17 (for 1:6 cement-sand mortar)
Em (N/mm2) 2184 NA
Test method Two-point loading Two-point loading
Loading type Monotonic Monotonic
Strengthening material type WWM + Micro-concrete WWM + Mortar
Number of strengthened faces 2 2
Diameter of WWM (mm) 2.42 2, 2.5, and 3
Details of overlay 25 mm thick on either side 20 mm thick on either side
Grid space, a x b (mm) 35  35 25  25, 38  38, and 50  50
Diameter of dowel bar (mm) 4 4
fmax (N/mm2) 850 873, 936, and 1005
Ultimate deformation of WWM (%) NA 14.76, 7.89, and 8.5
Ewwm (N/mm2) 127,230 14,905, 26,750, and 32,790
q(%) 0.29 0.1 and 0.12
Test variables Anchorage of reinforcement, direction of loading Proportion of mortar, reinforcement ratio
Observed failure mode DB, TZ, FC, MCC, WR DB, DSF, WR, AF, CC, HJF
Increase in flexural strength Upto 10 times of URM Upto 20 times of URM
Increase in flexural rigidity NA NA
Increase in ductility NA Upto 3 times of URM

Note: l, b, and t denote the length, width and thickness, respectively, of unreinforced masonry specimens; fb = compressive strength of brick unit; fj = compressive strength of
mortar cubes; fm = compressive strength of masonry prism; Em = modulus of elasticity of masonry prism; fmax = maximum tensile strength of WWM; Ewwm = modulus of
elasticity of WWM; q= total longitudinal reinforcement ratio; DB = debonding of bed-joints at or near mid-span; TZ = toothed type failure with zig-zag plane; FC = flexural
crack; MCC = micro-concrete crushing; WR = wire rupture; DSF = diagonal shear failure; AF = anchorage failure; CC = cracks in compression zone; HJF = head joint failure;
NA = not available.
 P.K.V.R. Padalu et al. / Construction and Building Materials 190 (2018) 1133–1153 1135

structed with varying strength of mortar and strengthened using

different reinforcement ratios of WWM. The study concluded that
the flexural strength and ductility of masonry is greatly enhanced
using WWM strengthening. The details of these two studies on the
out-of-plane behaviour of URM panels strengthened using WWM
are summarized in Table 1, including specimen details, material
properties, loading details, test variables, and observed failure
modes.
There are only a few studies available on efficacy and behaviour
of the technique of strengthening URM walls using WWM. With
the current knowledge, it is difficult to draw generalized conclu-
sions about the performance of URM walls strengthened with
WWM, when the properties of URM and WWM vary. Hence, the
present work focuses on quantitative assessment of the effect of
WWM strengthening with two different reinforcement ratios.
The effect of shear span on the failure modes has also been inves-
tigated. The present work also focuses on developing a generalized
methodology for comparison of the results of different tests.
The mechanical properties of all the constituent materials and Fig. 2. Stress–strain curves of the bricks used in the study.
the one-way out-of-plane bending strength of the strengthened
URM wallettes have been investigated experimentally. The non-
linear stress–strain curves for WWM have been obtained by per- was found to vary between 0.0049 and 0.0084 and modulus of
forming a direct tension test. The four-point bending (two-point elasticity of brick, Eb was found to range in between 3155 and
loading) test has been carried out on URM and strengthened wal- 8340 N/mm2. The water absorption test on bricks was also per-
lettes in two orientations, i.e. bending tension parallel to bed joints formed for assessment of the quality of bricks and their bond with
(representing wall spanning in horizontal direction) and bending mortar. The water absorption of bricks varied from 12.26 to
tension perpendicular to bed-joints (representing wall spanning 16.27%. The cement-sand mortar consisted of 1 part of Pozolana
in the vertical direction). The load–displacement curves and failure Portland cement and 4 parts of sand by volume. The natural sand
modes of wallettes are studied in detail. Different parameters gov- obtained from a local river was used to prepare the cement mortar
erning the out-of-plane capacity of the strengthened URM wal- mix. The grading curve of sand (Fig. 3) was obtained by sieving the
lettes have been identified. The analytical strength of dry sample using a set of sieves following the guidelines of ASTM
strengthened wallettes has also been determined from the D6913/D6913M-17 [34] and was found to fall under Grading Zone
mechanical properties of the constituent materials using beam the- – IV of IS 383 [35]. The water-cement ratio of 0.48 was maintained
ory. A number of non-dimensional parameters have also been for preparation of mortar. The compressive strength test was car-
explored for their suitability to represent the generalized beha- ried out on 75 mm mortar cubes as per ASTM C109/C109M-16a
viour of the specimens tested in the present study and those by [36] after 28 days of curing. The compressive strength, fj for mortar
earlier researchers. used in the study, varied from 10.82 to 18.60 N/mm2 (Fig. 4). The
strain corresponding to maximum strength in the mortar cubes
was recorded to vary from 0.0076 to 0.0122 and modulus of elas-
2. Experimental programme ticity of mortar, Ej was found to vary between 3052 and 8053 N/
mm2. The strength of the bricks and mortar used in the present
The experimental investigation in the present study was carried study is higher than that reported in the earlier studies on URM
out in two phases. In the first phase, mechanical characterization of strengthened using WWM [30,31], however, it is within the range
the constituent materials (brick, mortar cube, masonry prism, reported by Kaushik et al. (2007) [37]. Kadam et al. (2014) [30] and
WWM) using uni-axial compression and tension tests was carried
out. In the second phase, unreinforced and strengthened masonry
wallettes of solid clay bricks with two different reinforcement
ratios were subjected to two-point flexural loading.

2.1. Mechanical characterization of constituent materials

Tests were carried out to determine the behaviour of locally

procured solid clay brick units, mortar cubes, and masonry prisms,
under uni-axial compression. Brick units and mortar cubes were
subjected to compressive loading by 3000 kN load capacity
hydraulically operated testing machine at a rate of 900 N/s,
whereas, the masonry prisms were tested using 5000 kN automatic
servo controlled universal testing machine (UTM) at a rate of
0.03 mm/s. The modulus of elasticity of URM and its constituent
materials is obtained from the stress–strain curves, from the chord
modulus corresponding to the 5% and 33% of the maximum com-
pressive strength of the specimens [32].
The compressive strength, fb of the 229  109  72 mm size
bricks used in the study was determined in accordance with ASTM
C67-17 [33]. It ranged from 22.43 to 31.29 N/mm2 (Fig. 2). The
strain corresponding to maximum strength in the brick specimens Fig. 3. Grading curve of the sand used in the study.
1136 P.K.V.R. Padalu et al. / Construction and Building Materials 190 (2018) 1133–1153

Fig. 4. Stress–strain curves of the cement-sand mortar used in the study.
Shermi and Dubey (2017) [31] have not reported the modulus of
elasticity of the bricks and cubes, however, the modulus obtained
in the present study are within the range reported by Kaushik
et al. (2007) [37].
The brick masonry was characterized by testing prisms of size
227  228  544 mm with a height to thickness ratio of 2.38,
under monotonic uni-axial compression in accordance with ASTM
C1314-16 [38]. The test-setup and the stress-strain curves of
masonry prisms are shown in Fig. 5. The prism specimens are
denoted by P-i, where i denotes the specimen number. The vertical
displacement between two points in the middle of the masonry
prism at a gauge length of 160 mm was measured by a linear vari-
able differential transformer (LVDT). The majority of the masonry
prisms failed due to vertical splitting cracks in face shell separation
failure mode, (Fig. 6(a)), whereas, some of the prisms also failed in
the semi-conical break (Fig. 6(b)) and cone and split mode (Fig. 6
(c)). These failure modes have been defined as per the guidelines
of ASTM C1314-16 [38]. The value of compressive strength of
masonry, fm varied from 5.96 to 9.39 N/mm2. The strain corre-

Fig. 5. Details of the masonry prism test: (a) test setup; (b) stress–strain curves for masonry prisms.

Fig. 6. Failure modes of masonry prisms in uni-axial compression test: (a) vertical splitting crack along the height of specimen, P-5; (b) cone and split of specimen, P-6; (c)
semi-conical break of specimen, P-3.
 P.K.V.R. Padalu et al. / Construction and Building Materials 190 (2018) 1133–1153 1137

sponding to maximum strength recorded in the prisms was found

to vary between 0.0023 and 0.0032 and modulus of elasticity of
masonry, Em was found to vary between 2477 and 4219 N/mm2.
The strength of the masonry prism in the present study is higher
than that reported in the past studies [30,31], however, it is within
the range reported by Kaushik et al. (2007) [37]. The modulus
obtained in the present study is higher than Kadam et al. (2014)
[30], however, the modulus obtained in the present study are
within the range reported by Kaushik et al. (2007) [37]. Shermi
and Dubey (2017) [31] did not report the modulus of elasticity of
the masonry prism. The experimentally obtained mechanical prop-
erties of masonry and its constituent materials are presented in
Table 2.
In the present study, two types of WWM with 25 and 50 mm
grid spacing in two different lots supplied by a local manufacturer
have been used (Fig. 7(a) and (b)). The diameter of wires in 25 mm
grid WWM was measured to be 2.97 mm for both Lot-1 and Lot-2,
whereas for 50 mm grid WWM, the values are measured as
Fig. 8. Direct tension test setup for welded wire mesh.
2.96 mm for Lot-1, and 2.69 mm for Lot-2. The actual mesh spacing
was measured as 30  33 mm (for 25 mm grid spaced WWM), and
46  52 mm (for 50 mm grid spaced WWM). Dowel bars (Fig. 7(c))
of diameter 3.99 mm were used for tying the WWM with the in mm, and i denotes the specimen number (refer Table 3 and
masonry substrate. The tensile behaviour of WWM has been deter- Fig. 9). The specimens of Lot-2 have been differentiated from Lot-
mined from direct tensile test (Fig. 8) in accordance with ASTM 1 by placing an apostrophe (’). The test was performed on a tensile
A370-17a [39]. Each specimen is identified by an alphanumeric testing machine of 100 kN capacity at a rate of 5 mm per minute.
string WB-i, where W denotes the WWM, B denotes the grid size The modulus of elasticity of WWM is found out from the bi-

Table 2
Average mechanical properties of masonry and its constituent materials (COV shown in parentheses).

Material Size Number of specimens Compressive Peak strain Modulus of elasticity Water absorption [%]
tested strength [N/mm2] [N/mm2]
Brick unit 229  109  72 10 26.16 (0.12) 0.0063 (0.17) 6056 (0.22) 13.93 (0.08)
Mortar cube 75  75  75 10 14.75 (0.14) 0.0099 (0.14) 5266 (0.26) –
Masonry prism 227  228  544 6 7.62 (0.18) 0.0027 (0.11) 3375 (0.16) –

Fig. 7. Materials used for strengthening of wallettes: (a) 25 mm grid spaced welded wire mesh (W25); (b) 50 mm grid spaced welded wire mesh (W50); (c) 4 mm diameter
dowel bars.
1138 P.K.V.R. Padalu et al. / Construction and Building Materials 190 (2018) 1133–1153

Table 3
Average mechanical properties of welded wire mesh (COV shown in parentheses).

Property 25 mm grid WWM (W25) 50 mm grid WWM (W50)

Type Lot-1 Lot-2 Lot-1 Lot-2
Number of specimens tested 7 6 6 6
Diameter [mm] 2.965 2.969 2.956 2.685
Gauge length [mm] 115 125 215 195
Rate of loading [mm/min] 5 5 5 5
Maximum strength, fmax [N/mm2] 902.94 (0.04) 612.67 (0.17) 795.14 (0.02) 659.21 (0.13)
Yield strength, fy [N/mm2] 844.81 (0.03) 584.81 (0.16) 762.55 (0.02) 595.73 (0.14)
Yield strain, ey 0.0126 (0.05) 0.0068 (0.21) 0.0081 (0.06) 0.0051 (0.20)
Ultimate strain, eu 0.0177 (0.32) 0.0117 (0.49) 0.0211 (0.65) 0.0124 (0.64)
Modulus of elasticity, Ewwm [N/mm2] 67,254 (0.04) 87,161 (0.17) 94,440 (0.05) 123,221 (0.21)

(a) 25 mm grid mesh of Lot-1 (b) 50 mm grid mesh of Lot-1

(c) 25 mm grid mesh of Lot-2 (d) 50 mm grid mesh of Lot-2

Fig. 9. Stress–strain curves for welded wire mesh used in the study.

linearized stress–strain curve as the secant modulus corresponding
to the yield.
From the stress–strain curves (Fig. 9), it is observed that the
WWM specimens have shown significant non-linear behaviour
with much lower ductility in comparison to structural steel and
steel rebar. The maximum tensile strength, fmax of W25 varied from
833 to 944 N/mm2 and 517 to 829 N/mm2 for Lot-1 and Lot-2,
respectively, whereas for W50, it ranged from 772 to 810 N/mm2
for Lot-1 and 531 to 769 N/mm2 for Lot-2. The yield strength, fy
obtained from the bi-linearized stress–strain curves of W25 for
Lot-1 and Lot-2 varied from 795 to 877 N/mm2 and 463 to 768 N/
mm2, respectively, whereas for W50, it ranged from 742 to 780 N/
mm2 for Lot-1 and 509 to 715 N/mm2 for Lot-2. The yield strain
recorded in the W25 for Lot-1 and Lot-2 was found to vary from
0.0112 to 0.0133 and 0.0049 to 0.0090, respectively, whereas, for
W50, it varied from 0.0075 to 0.0089 for Lot-1 and 0.0031 to
0.0063 for Lot-2. The ultimate strain recorded in the W25 for Lot-
1 and Lot-2 were found to vary from 0.0135 to 0.0207 and 0.0079
to 0.0162 respectively, whereas, for W50, it varied from 0.0150 to
0.0273 for Lot-1 and 0.0085 to 0.0176 for Lot-2. The modulus of
elasticity, Ewwm of W25 for Lot-1 and Lot-2 were found to vary from
63,287 to 70,962 N/mm2 and 61,465 and 111,978 N/mm2, respec-
tively, whereas for W50, it varied from 87,602 to 101,835 N/mm2
for Lot-1 and 95,679 to 165,372 N/mm2 for Lot-2.
The average mechanical properties of WWM are listed in Table 3.
From the table, it can be seen that the strength of WWM is signifi-
cantly higher and the modulus of elasticity is lower as compared to
mild steel. It has to be noted that the WWM used in the present
study was procured from the local market at different times and
sourced from different manufacturers. The chemical composition
 P.K.V.R. Padalu et al. / Construction and Building Materials 190 (2018) 1133–1153 1139

and manufacturing process of the used WWM are unknown. It has
not only mechanical properties different than steel, the quality con-
trol also appears to be poor. The difference in mechanical properties
of different lots and grid spacing of WWM can be attributed to their
different sources, resulting in perhaps different chemical composi-
tion and method of manufacture. However, a similar order of vari-
ation in strength, modulus of elasticity and ultimate strain of WWM
have been observed in the past studies [30,31].
2.2. Flexural test
2.2.1. Specimen preparation and strengthening procedure
The experimental investigation consisted of total 10 sets of
specimens, in which 2 sets were of URM (control specimens) and
8 sets were of URM strengthened using WWM. Five sets of the wal-
lettes were tested with tension parallel to the bed-joints, whereas
another five sets were tested with tension perpendicular to the
bed-joints (Table 4). Two different dimensions of strengthened
wallettes were tested and designated as Series-A (Set-3 to 6 with
shear span to depth ratio = 1.17) and Series-B (Set-7 to 10 with
shear span to depth ratio = 2.24). All the masonry wallettes were
constructed by an experienced mason using solid clay bricks and
cement-sand mortar of 1:4 proportion in English bond pattern
with mortar joint nominal thickness as 10 mm. The details of the
specimen geometry are shown in Fig. 10.
The masonry wallettes are strengthened as per the guidelines of
IS 13935:2009 [29]. A layer of 15 mm thick cement-sand mortar
was plastered on the masonry substrate, and it was allowed to cure
for 3 days. Next, the WWM was applied on both the faces and
dowel bars were used to connect WWM to the masonry wallette
(Fig. 10). For the monolithic composite action of the URM and
WWM, it was crucial that the interface has adequate shear
strength. The main purpose of the dowel bars passing through
the URM and anchored to the WWM on both faces were to facili-
tate the transfer of shear stress at the interfaces. The dowel bars
were placed in a zig-zag pattern at the time of constructing the

Table 4
Wallette dimensions and details.

Set Type Specimen Dimensions [mm] Type of WWM used nl q ¼ nbtl Al EIgross [kN-m2]
Length (l) Width (b) Thk. (t)
S-1 URM (shear-span to depth UD-1 1187 479 229 – – – –
ratio = 1.48) UD-2 1189 486 228 – – –
UD-3 1195 483 230 – – –
UD-4 1190 484 228 – – –
Average 1190 483 229 – – –
S-2 UL-1 1222 473 227 – – –
UL-2 1225 480 230 – – –
UL-3 1223 485 232 – – –
UL-4 1220 475 228 – – –
Average 1223 478 229 – – –
S-3 Strengthened Series – A SD-25-1 1244 496 299 25 mm grid WWM of Lot-1 15 0.140 3729
(shear-span to depth SD-25-2 1253 497 297 15 0.140 3662
ratio = 1.17) SD-25-3 1260 498 284 15 0.147 3208
SD-25-4 1265 495 285 15 0.147 3223
Average 1256 497 291 15 0.143 3456
S-4 SL-25-1 1247 488 308 15 0.138 4010
SL-25-2 1250 490 295 15 0.143 3538
SL-25-3 1252 488 290 15 0.146 3347
SL-25-4 1250 500 290 15 0.143 3430
Average 1250 492 296 15 0.143 3581
S-5 SD-50-1 1265 495 280 50 mm grid WWM of Lot-1 10 0.099 3056
SD-50-2 1265 500 288 10 0.095 3359
SD-50-3 1265 500 280 10 0.098 3087
SD-50-4 1235 505 285 10 0.095 3288
Average 1258 500 283 10 0.097 3198
S-6 SL-50-1 1242 485 293 10 0.097 3431
SL-50-2 1250 480 285 10 0.100 3125
SL-50-3 1250 490 290 10 0.097 3361
SL-50-4 1247 487 300 10 0.094 3698
Average 1247 486 292 10 0.097 3404
S-7 Strengthened Series – B SD-25-10 1685 505 290 25 mm grid WWM of Lot-2 15 0.142 3464
(shear-span to depth SD-25-20 1695 495 285 15 0.147 3223
ratio = 2.24) SD-25-30 1710 505 285 15 0.144 3288
Average 1697 502 287 15 0.144 3325
S-8 SL-25-10 1760 505 285 25 mm grid WWM of Lot-1 15 0.144 3288
SL-25-20 1755 500 290 15 0.143 3430
SL-25-30 1760 505 285 15 0.144 3288
Average 1758 503 287 15 0.144 3335
S-9 SD-50-10 1690 500 290 50 mm grid WWM of Lot-2 10 0.078 3430
SD-50-20 1680 500 285 10 0.079 3255
SD-50-30 1710 500 285 10 0.079 3255
Average 1693 500 287 10 0.079 3313
S-10 SL-50-10 1760 500 285 10 0.079 3255
SL-50-20 1760 510 285 10 0.078 3320
SL-50-30 1750 500 285 10 0.079 3255
Average 1757 503 285 10 0.079 3277

Note: nl is the number of reinforcing wires along the span on tension face; q is total longitudinal reinforcement ratio in percentage provided on both the faces of the wallette;
Al denotes the cross-sectional area of one wire in the longitudinal direction; EIgross is the gross flexural rigidity.
1140 P.K.V.R. Padalu et al. / Construction and Building Materials 190 (2018) 1133–1153
Fig. 10. Details of specimen geometry and strengthening details: (a) URM wallette – bending tension perpendicular to bed-joints; (b) URM wallette – bending tension parallel
to bed-joints; (c) strengthened wallette – bending tension perpendicular to bed-joints; (b) strengthened wallette – bending tension parallel to bed-joints (For dimensions and
reinforcement details, refer Table 4).
masonry wallettes. In a field strengthening application, the dowels
are to be placed in the existing walls through holes drilled for this
purpose and grouted after placing the dowels. This was not fol-
lowed in the experimental study to avoid damage to the small size
wallettes caused by drilling. The total reinforcement ratio, q in lon-
gitudinal direction (along the span) for different sets of wallettes is
shown in Table 4. The effective tensile reinforcement provided in
wallettes varying from 0.04 to 0.07%. The wires of the WWM, par-
allel to the bending span were bent at the ends of the wallettes to
provide proper anchorage. This anchorage simulates the continu-
ous application of WWM belts in actual practice of retrofit of build-
ings. Finally, the second layer of 15 mm thick cement-sand mortar
was applied and the surface was finished. All the specimens were
cured for next 28 days. Figs. 11 and 12 show the sequential proce-
dure of strengthening the URM wallettes with WWM for tests in
the two orientations.
The URM test wallettes are designated as UD-i and UL-i, where
U denotes the URM wallette, D denotes the bending tension per-
pendicular to bed-joints, L denotes the bending tension parallel
to bed-joints, and i denotes the specimen number of a specific
set. The strengthened test wallettes are designated as SD-B-i and
SL-B-i, where S denotes the strengthened masonry wallette using
WWM, and B denotes the grid size. An apostrophe (’) is used to dis-
tinguish Series-B specimens from the Series-A specimens.
2.2.2. Test set-up and instrumentation
ASTM E518/E518M-15 [40] standard guidelines have been used
to investigate the out-of-plane flexural strength of the URM and
strengthened wallettes using two-point loading setup, shown in
Fig. 13(a) and (b). All the masonry wallettes were simply sup-
ported, with an effective span of 1020 mm for Series-A wallettes
and 1500 mm for Series-B wallettes. Steel rods of 25 mm diameter
were used to support the masonry wallette and also to apply the
load. These rods were extended over the full width of the wallettes.
The wallettes were also subjected to their self-weight as an out-of-
plane uniformly distributed load. For URM and Series-A wallettes,
the two point loads were applied at an equal spacing of 340 mm
from the supports, using a 300 kN capacity flexural testing
machine, whereas for Series-B wallettes, the spacing was increased
to 650 mm. Care was taken in transporting the masonry wallettes
from the place of construction to the testing machine, as the
masonry is very fragile, due to its low tensile strength. The vertical
(out-of-plane) deformation of the wallettes was measured at the
mid-span of the wallette using a 50 mm stroke linear variable dif-
ferential transformer (LVDT) (Fig. 13(c)). The synchronised mea-
surement of load and displacements was made using a loadcell
and LVDTs connected to the data acquisition system (Fig. 13(d)).
3. Results and discussion
All the masonry wallettes were tested to failure and the beha-
viour was obtained in the form of load–displacement curves. The
maximum load and corresponding mid-span displacement are
shown in Table 5. The test results including failure modes, orthog-
onal strength ratio, flexural strength, ductility, and rigidity are dis-
cussed in the following sections.
 P.K.V.R. Padalu et al. / Construction and Building Materials 190 (2018) 1133–1153 1141

Fig. 11. Sequential process of preparing specimens of URM strengthened using WWM, for testing in bending tension perpendicular to bed-joints: (a) placing of WWM before
construction of wallette to provide anchorage at the bottom face; (b) laying the bricks in English bond pattern; (c) application of cement slurry on the wallette surface to have
a proper bond; (d) application of first layer of 1:4 cement-sand mortar; (e) Roughening the surface for enhanced bond; (f) anchorage (inter-connection) of WWM using dowel
bars; (g) application of second layer of 1:4 cement-sand mortar; (h) finished strengthened wallette.

3.1. Load-displacement curves and failure modes
The load–displacement curves for the tested specimens are
shown in Figs. 14 and 15, and the corresponding failure modes
are shown in Figs. 16 and 18, for wallettes subjected to bending
tension perpendicular and parallel to bed-joints, respectively. In
URM wallettes subjected to bending tension perpendicular to
bed-joints, a sudden brittle failure was observed due to debonding
of the mortar from the brick unit along the bed-joint (Fig. 16(a))
indicating weak interfacial bond. This is in agreement with the past
studies by Kadam et al. (2014) [30], and Shermi and Dubey (2017)
[31]. The average maximum load was measured as 5.31 kN and the
corresponding mid-span displacement was 0.27 mm. For bending
tension parallel to bed-joints, it was observed that cracks initiated
in the head joints and progressed through the units in the alternate
courses (Fig. 18(a)). This failure pattern is in contrast to the toothed
failure with zig-zag failure plane observed by Kadam et al. (2014)
[30], indicating a stronger mortar used in the present study (1:4
cement-sand mortar used in the present study as compared to
1:6 in the study by Kadam et al. (2014) [30]). The average maxi-
mum load observed in this case was 12.05 kN corresponding to
the mid-span displacement of 1.14 mm.
For the strengthened wallettes, the maximum load carrying
capacity and the corresponding deflections (Figs. 14(c)–(f) and 15
(a)–(d)) are much higher than those for URM wallettes. For bending
tension perpendicular to bed-joints, all the Series-A wallettes with
25 mm grid wire mesh (W25), either failed in sliding shear along a
bed joint or due to diagonal shear crack, joining the support and
the loading line (Fig. 16(b)). For Series-A wallettes strengthened
with 50 mm grid wire mesh (W50), flexural failure was observed
in two wallettes (SD-50-2 and SD-50-4), sliding shear failure was
observed in one wallette (SD-50-1), and diagonal shear failure
was observed in one wallette (SD-50-3) (Fig. 16(c)), The shear fail-
ure of the specimens can be mainly attributed to the fact that these
are being tested in horizontal position without any axial force. The
low shear span to depth ratio (1.17) in these specimens, is also
responsible for shear failure. Therefore, Series-B wallettes were
tested with an increased shear span to depth ratio of 2.24. In two
of the Series-B wallettes strengthened using W25, (SD-25-10 and
SD-25-20 ) flexural failure was observed, whereas a diagonal shear
failure was observed in one of the wallettes (SD-25-30 ) (Fig. 16
(d)). In case of Series-B wallettes strengthened using W50, all the
specimens failed in flexure (Fig. 16(e)). It is interesting to note that
the flexural failure is brittle, whereas the shear failure has some
ductility (Figs. 14 and 15). The brittle flexural failure accompanied
by a rupture of WWM (Fig. 17(a)), can be attributed to very low
reinforcement ratio in the strengthened specimens, resulting in a
very shallow depth of the neutral axis. On the other hand, in case
of shear failure, the gradual sliding was resisted by the catenary
action of the WWM, resulting in a slightly ductile failure (Fig. 17
1142 P.K.V.R. Padalu et al. / Construction and Building Materials 190 (2018) 1133–1153

Fig. 12. Sequential process of preparing specimens of URM strengthened using WWM, for testing in bending tension parallel to bed-joints: (a) laying of bricks; (b)
constructed URM wallete in English bond pattern; (c) application of cement slurry on the wallette surface to have a proper bond; (d) application of first layer of 1:4 cement-
sand mortar; (e) Roughening the surface for enhanced bond (f) anchorage (inter-connection) of WWM using dowel bars; (g) application of second layer of 1:4 cement-sand
mortar; (h) finished strengthened wallette.

(b)). The average maximum load for the Series-A wallettes
strengthened with W50 (q = 0.097%) and W25 (q = 0.143%) was
measured as 81.62 kN and 105.03 kN, respectively, and the corre-
sponding mid-span displacement was 7.17 mm and 16.69 mm,
respectively. Similarly, for Series-B wallettes strengthened using
W50 (q = 0.079%) and W25 (q = 0.144%), the average maximum
load was measured as 34.48 kN and 59.73 kN, respectively, and
the corresponding mid-span displacement was 6.2 mm and
10.8 mm, respectively.
For bending tension parallel to bed-joints, the failure in all the
Series-A wallettes strengthened with W25 as well as W50 meshes,
occurred in the flexural mode (Fig. 18(b) and (c)). For all Series-B
wallettes strengthened using W25, failure was initiated by flexural
cracking but sliding shear occurred after a significant cracking of
the section (Fig. 18(d)). On the other hand, all the wallettes
strengthened with 50 mm grid wire mesh failed in flexure
(Fig. 18(e)). The average maximum load for the Series-A wallettes
strengthened with W50 (q = 0.097%) and W25 (q = 0.143%) was
measured as 92.39 kN and 131.17 kN, respectively, and the corre-
sponding mid-span displacement was 4.98 mm and 7.89 mm,
respectively. Similarly, for Series-B wallettes strengthened using
W50 (q = 0.079%) and W25 (q = 0.144%), the average maximum
load was measured as 37.18 kN and 72.24 kN, respectively, and
the corresponding mid-span displacement was 4.49 mm and
10.25 mm, respectively.
3.2. Orthogonal strength ratio
The orthogonal strength ratio (OSR) was determined as the ratio
of flexural tensile strength parallel to bed-joints to that for perpen-
dicular to bed-joints, as shown in Table 5. The OSR was then used
to determine the degree of anisotropy in the masonry. The gross
area modulus of rupture, R (also called flexural tensile strength)
was determined in accordance with ASTM E518/E518M-15 [40]
using Eq. (1).


Pmax þ 34 Ps l
R¼ ð1Þ
bt2
In above equation, Pmax is the maximum applied load recorded by
the testing machine, and this includes the weight of loading fixtures
 P.K.V.R. Padalu et al. / Construction and Building Materials 190 (2018) 1133–1153
Fig. 13. Flexural test set-up and loading arrangement: (a) for wallettes of Series-A (shear span to depth ratio = 1.17); (b) for wallettes of Series-B (shear span to depth
ratio = 2.24); (c) location of LVDT (d) console for control and data acquisition system.
being transferred to the specimen; Ps is the self-weight of the wal-
lette; and l, b, and t denote the span, average width and thickness of
wallette, respectively.
As shown in Table 5, for Series-A wallettes, the use of effective
tensile reinforcements of only 0.05% and 0.07% resulted in 7.7 and
9.4 times increase in the flexural tensile strength of URM wallettes
loaded perpendicular to bed-joints, whereas for Series-B wallettes,
these increases were observed to be 4.6 and 7.7 times of URM,
when tension reinforcement of 0.04% and 0.07% has been used.
For wallettes loaded parallel to bed-joints, the flexural strength
of Series-A wallettes were increased by 4.2 and 5.7 times of
URM, whereas for Series-B wallettes, these increases were
observed to be 2.6 and 4.7 times.
The average OSR for URM panels is found to be 1.98, which is
within the limit for clay brick masonry as reported by Drysdale
[41]. The OSR reduced significantly in case of strengthened wal-
lettes. For Series-A strengthened wallettes, it has been found to
be 1.08 and 1.21 for W50 and W25, respectively. Similarly, for
Series-B strengthened wallettes, the OSR has been observed to be
1.12 and 1.24 for W50 and W25, respectively. The significantly
reduced (approaching unity) OSR in case of strengthened wallettes
indicates that the strength is mostly governed by the WWM rein-
forcement and the contribution of the anisotropic URM is much
less. However, the OSR in case of W25 is somewhat higher than
that in case of W50. This contradictory observation can be
explained considering the different failure modes in the two cases.
In case of W25 reinforcement, most of the wallettes failed in shear
or flexural shear, increasing the contribution of masonry in the
overall strength.
1143
3.3. Flexural rigidity and deformation capacity
The experimentally recorded load versus displacement curves
are non-linear which make it difficult to identify the definite yield
and ultimate points. Hence, the experimental load–displacement
curves have been idealized as elastic-perfectly plastic bi-linear
curves (Fig. 19) to determine the ductility and rigidity. The initial
stiffness has been obtained as secant stiffness at 60% of the ideal-
ized yield strength value. The values of idealized yield load, Py
and ultimate load, Pu have been defined considering the area bal-
ance corresponding to 20% loss of strength (i.e. 0.8Pmax) after the
maximum experimental force value is reached [42]. The corre-
sponding displacements are identified as the yield displacement,
Dy and ultimate displacement, Du respectively. The ductility ratio,
l is then determined as:
Du
l¼ ð2Þ
Dy
The effective flexural rigidity, EIeff of the composite section is
obtained from the slope of the elastic portion of the idealized
moment–curvature curve using Eq. (3).
My
EIeff ¼ ð3Þ
/y
In this equation, My of the tested wallette, considering the geometry
of the loading arrangement, (i.e. simply supported beam subjected
to concentrated loads including the self-weight of wallette) can be
obtained as
1144 P.K.V.R. Padalu et al. / Construction and Building Materials 190 (2018) 1133–1153

Table 5
Summary of the flexural test results.

Set Type Specimen Ps [kN] Pmax [kN] Dpeak [mm] R [MPa] Rs/Ru OSR ec [kN-mm]
S-1 URM (shear-span to depth UD-1 2.60 4.85 0.26 0.32 – 1.98 1.47
ratio = 1.48) UD-2 2.64 5.39 0.27 0.35 – 1.61
UD-3 2.66 5.13 0.28 0.33 – 1.46
UD-4 2.63 5.88 0.27 0.37 – 1.61
Average 2.63 5.31 0.27 0.34 – 1.54
S-2 UL-1 2.62 7.82 0.88 0.49 – 5.13
UL-2 2.70 11.80 0.96 0.67 – 10.15
UL-3 2.75 13.45 1.66 0.73 – 17.74
UL-4 2.64 15.15 1.04 0.85 – 17.15
Average 2.68 12.05 1.14 0.68 – 12.54
S-3 Strengthened Series – A SD-25-1 3.69 101.86 19.48 2.94 8.56 1.21 1715
(shear-span to depth SD-25-2 3.70 112.98 12.51 3.31 9.65 1527
ratio = 1.17) SD-25-3 3.56 98.78 17.76 3.18 9.28 1547
SD-25-4 3.57 106.50 17.01 3.43 10.01 1519
Average 3.63 105.03 16.69 3.22 9.37 1577
S-4 SL-25-1 3.75 136.67 11.27 3.76 5.50 1090
SL-25-2 3.61 133.20 6.91 3.98 5.83 673
SL-25-3 3.54 127.90 6.31 3.98 5.83 728
SL-25-4 3.63 126.90 7.09 3.85 5.64 554
Average 3.63 131.17 7.89 3.89 5.70 761
S-5 SD-50-1 3.51 77.06 8.10 2.60 7.57 1.08 593
SD-50-2 3.64 87.81 5.18 2.76 8.05 416
SD-50-3 3.54 81.56 11.29 2.72 7.92 729
SD-50-4 3.55 80.07 4.10 2.49 7.26 304
Average 3.56 81.62 7.17 2.64 7.70 510
S-6 SL-50-1 3.53 96.66 4.65 2.96 4.34 354
SL-50-2 3.42 81.73 4.87 2.70 3.96 306
SL-50-3 3.55 92.34 5.74 2.88 4.22 390
SL-50-4 3.64 98.84 4.66 2.89 4.23 403
Average 3.54 92.39 4.98 2.86 4.19 363
S-7 Strengthened Series – B SD-25-10 4.94 63.37 11.85 2.66 7.82 1.24 620
(shear-span to depth SD-25-20 4.78 63.22 14.39 2.82 8.29 845
ratio = 2.24) SD-25-30 4.92 52.59 6.16 2.35 6.91 286
Average 4.88 59.73 10.80 2.61 7.68 584
S-8 SL-25-10 5.07 70.97 10.33 3.21 4.72 688
SL-25-20 5.09 71.88 10.52 3.16 4.65 736
SL-25-30 5.07 73.86 9.89 3.33 4.90 796
Average 5.07 72.24 10.25 3.23 4.75 740
S-9 SD-50-10 4.90 35.52 5.75 1.58 4.65 1.12 188
SD-50-20 4.79 34.99 7.06 1.60 4.71 216
SD-50-30 4.87 32.93 5.78 1.54 4.53 169
Average 4.85 34.48 6.20 1.57 4.63 191
S-10 SL-50-10 5.02 35.77 4.16 1.71 2.51 167
SL-50-20 5.12 36.65 4.73 1.72 2.53 251
SL-50-30 4.99 39.13 4.57 1.85 2.72 148
Average 5.04 37.18 4.49 1.76 2.59 189

Note: Ps is the self-weight of the test wallette; Pmax is the maximum applied out-of-plane load; Dpeak is the displacement corresponding to maximum load; Rs and Ru denotes
the modulus of rupture of strengthened and URM wallettes, respectively; OSR is the orthogonal strength ratio; ec denotes the energy absorption capacity.

 
l Py Ps the ultimate point (Pu, Du), defined earlier. Table 5 shows that
My ¼ þ ðFor Series - A wallettesÞ ð4Þ
2 3 4 the use of 50 mm and 25 mm wire mesh resulted in 331 and
1024 times, respectively, increase in values of ec for Series-A wal-
 
l 13Py P s lettes, and 124 and 379 times, respectively for Series-B wallettes,
My ¼ þ ðFor Series - B wallettesÞ ð5Þ as compared to the URM, when loaded perpendicular to bed-
4 15 2
joints. When loaded parallel to bed-joints, this increase was
The yield curvature, /y of the composite section can be obtained as: observed to be 29 and 61 times, respectively, for Series-A and 15
and 59 times, respectively for Series-B wallettes. This increase in
48Dy
/y ¼ 2
ð6Þ the energy absorption capacity of strengthened wallettes is indica-
5l tive of the enhanced expected performance of masonry walls
Table 6 shows that for strengthened wallettes, the moment against out-of-plane earthquake forces, after WWM strengthening.
capacity, and effective rigidity are dependent on the direction of The lower relative increase in case of wallettes loaded parallel to
loading as well as on the amount of tension reinforcement. The bed-joints is due to both higher ductility of the URM and relatively
experimentally obtained rigidity has been compared with the ana- lower ductility of the strengthened masonry, when loaded parallel
lytically estimated values later in the article. to bed joints. As discussed earlier, the shear failure in case of load-
ing perpendicular to bed-joints resulted in somewhat ductile beha-
3.4. Energy absorption capacity viour due to catenary action of WWM. On the other hand, in case of
loading parallel to bed joints, the relatively higher shear strength
The energy absorption capacity, ec of the wallettes has been avoided shear failure and the strengthened wallettes failed in a
quantified from the area under load–displacement curve up to brittle manner due to rupture of WWM.
 P.K.V.R. Padalu et al. / Construction and Building Materials 190 (2018) 1133–1153 1145

Fig. 14. Load-displacement curves of URM and strengthened wallettes of Series-A (shear span to depth ratio = 1.17): (a) URM wallettes tested perpendicular to bed-joints; (b)
URM wallettes tested parallel to bed-joints; (c) wallettes strengthened using W25 of lot-1, tested perpendicular to bed-joints; (d) wallettes strengthened using W25 of lot-1,
tested parallel to bed-joints; (e) wallettes strengthened using W50 of lot-1, tested perpendicular to bed-joints; (f) wallettes strengthened using W50 of lot-1, tested parallel to
bed-joints.

4. Comparison with past studies
The experimental results of the present study have been com-
pared with the past studies [30,31] to derive generalized conclu-
sions which can be used in design. For this purpose, results of
total 66 strengthened specimens have been compared. These spec-
imens have varying geometric properties such as: the aspect ratio
(l/b) varying from 2.0 to 3.5; the b/t ratio varies from 1.76 to 2.81;
the l/t ratio varies from 3.70 to 6.16. The material properties also
vary: brick compressive strength, fb varies from 10 to 26.16 N/
mm2; the mortar compressive strength, fj varies from 1.45 to
14.75 N/mm2; the masonry compressive strength, fm varies from
2.17 to 7.62 N/mm2; and the modulus of elasticity, Em of the
masonry varies from 2184 to 3375 N/mm2. The reinforcement ratio
used in longitudinal direction varies from 0.079 to 0.29%; the max-
imum tensile strength, fmax of reinforcement used varies from 613
1146 P.K.V.R. Padalu et al. / Construction and Building Materials 190 (2018) 1133–1153

Fig. 15. Load-displacement curves of strengthened wallettes (Series-B: shear span to depth ratio = 2.24): (a) wallettes strengthened using W25 of lot-2, tested perpendicular
to bed-joints; (d) wallettes strengthened using W25 of lot-1, tested parallel to bed-joints; (e) wallettes strengthened using W50 of lot-2, tested perpendicular to bed-joints; (f)
wallettes strengthened using W50 of lot-2, tested parallel to bed-joints.

to 1005 N/mm2; and the modulus of elasticity, Ewwm of the rein- M

mf y ¼ ð9Þ
forcement varies from 14,905 to 123,221 N/mm2. qf y bt2
As the different specimens have quite different geometric and
material properties, the test results cannot be compared directly. In these equations, M is the maximum moment capacity, and mfm
To compare the experimental results, six non-dimensional param- and mfy are the normalized moment capacities with respect to the
eters are defined, as the normalized moment (m); flexural strength compressive strength of masonry, fm and yield strength of the rein-
 forcement, fy, respectively. The normalized stiffness, j is defined as:
ratio (M), shear strength ratio (V ), normalized rigidity (j), rigidity
ratio (K), and ductility ratio (l). These parameters are compared EIeff
j¼   ð10Þ
with respect to the orientation of wallette, equivalent reinforce- bt3
Em 12
ment ratio, b, and the mortar used.
As the yield strength of the WWM of different lots in the pre- The flexural strength ratio (M) is obtained as:
sent study and that used in other studies [30,31] varies signifi-
Mexp
cantly, the equivalent reinforcement ratio, b has been defined in M¼ ð11Þ
M anal
terms of equivalent area of mild steel having yield strength,
fy = 250 N/mm2, as a basis to compare the experimental results of where Mexp and Manal are the maximum out-of-plane bending
the different studies. moment capacities of the masonry wallettes, obtained from tests
qf y and from an analytical model, respectively.
b¼ ð7Þ A number of analytical models are available in the literature for
250
calculating flexural strength using the strain compatibility method
The moment capacity of the specimens has been normalized in two for strengthened specimens. Velazquez-Dimas and Ehsani (2000)
ways: (i) using the compressive strength of masonry, and (ii) using [43] reported that the ultimate strength method overestimates
yield strength of reinforcement, given as the flexural capacity of strengthened URM walls. They assumed
M the behaviour of wall as linearly elastic up to failure, since the
mf m ¼ ð8Þ composites do not have any ductility. Tumialan et al. (2003) [9]
f m bt 2
determined the theoretical flexural capacity of a composite
strengthened masonry based on strain compatibility, internal force
 P.K.V.R. Padalu et al. / Construction and Building Materials 190 (2018) 1133–1153 1147

Fig. 16. Failure modes of masonry wallettes in bending tension perpendicular to bed-joints: (a) URM; (b)* strengthened specimens of Series-A, using W25 of Lot-1; (c)*
strengthened specimens of Series-A, W50 of Lot-1; (d)# strengthened specimens of Series-B, W25 of Lot-2; (e)# strengthened specimens of Series-B, using W50 of Lot-2.
(Note: * Shear span to depth ratio = 1.17; #Shear span to depth ratio = 2.24).

equilibrium, and controlling mode of failure. In their study, a para-
bolic distribution was used for compressive stresses in the compu-
tation of the flexural capacity of the strengthened walls. The
maximum usable strain used in their study was 0.0035 for clay
masonry. Tan and Patoary (2004) [44] derived the moment capac-
ity for the strengthened masonry wall based on strain compatibil-
ity with a linear strain distribution across the section, and the
parabolic compressive stress block of masonry bricks was replaced
by an equivalent rectangular stress block. Mosallam (2007) [45]
developed an analytical model to predict the ultimate flexural load
of unreinforced red brick walls strengthened using composites.
Their model was based on section analysis by taking the stress–
strain curve for brick–mortar blocks under compression as para-
bolic up to the maximum compressive strength followed by a lin-
ear descending branch. However, the stress block was replaced by
an equivalent rectangular stress block. Hrynyk and Myers (2008)
[46] proposed an analytical model to estimate the ultimate out-
of-plane capacity for strengthened URM arching walls. Their model
was based on assumptions of rigid-body deformations and small
displacements, calibrated using experimental data and the results
showed good predictions. Hamed and Rabinovitch (2007, 2010)
[47,48] developed an analytical model for flexural capacity of
masonry walls strengthened with externally bonded composite
materials by incorporating non-linear behaviour of the materials.
Their model considers the failure criteria that account for crushing
and shear failures of the masonry unit and the mortar joints, as
well as the failures of the strengthening system. Galal and Sasanian
(2010) [49] proposed a method of calculating the deflection of
1148 P.K.V.R. Padalu et al. / Construction and Building Materials 190 (2018) 1133–1153
Fig. 17. Failure of WWM reinforcement: (a) rupture of wires in masonry wallettes failing in flexure; (b) catenary action of wires in masonry wallettes failing in shear.
strengthened masonry walls incorporating the effect of flexural
cracks to the deflections predicted by cracked-section analysis.
Elsanadedy et al. (2016) [14] developed an analytical model to pre-
dict the ultimate moment capacity of URM strengthened walls by
considering the different failure modes and using force equilibrium
and strain compatibility.
In the present study, the section analysis procedure based on
simple beam theory has been developed using linear profile of
strain, and the equivalent compressive stress block for masonry,
as shown in Fig. 20. The contribution of masonry in tension and
WWM in compression was neglected as the wires of the WWM
are very thin and expected to buckle in compression. The equiva-
lent stress block parameters, c and b1 have been considered as
0.855 and 0.822, respectively, based on MSJC [32]. The analysis is
based on the strain compatibility and the force equilibrium. With
these assumptions, the out-of-plane flexural capacity of the
strengthened wallette can be calculated as
 
b c
M anal ¼ Af f y d  1
2 where the experimental flexural rigidity, (EIeff)exp has been obtained
where Af = nl  Al is total cross-sectional area of WWM reinforce-
ment applied on tension face; nl is number of reinforcing wires
along the span; Al is cross-sectional area of one reinforcing wire;
fy is yield stress in WWM; and c is depth of neutral-axis, which
can be determined using Eq. (13).
Af f y
c¼
cf m b1

The shear strength ratio (V ) is obtained as:
V exp
V¼
V anal
where Vexp and Vanal are the maximum out-of-plane shear force
capacity of the masonry wallettes, obtained from tests and from
an analytical model, respectively. In Eq. (14), Vexp of the composite
section considering the geometry of the loading arrangement is
obtained as
1
V exp ¼ ðPmax þ Ps Þ ð15Þ
2
In the present study, the contribution of WWM in shear
strength has been ignored and the ultimate shear capacity has
been assumed to be contributed by the masonry alone. For
masonry of solid units, the shear strength may be estimated using
Eq. (3.23) of Building code requirements for masonry structures (MSJC
2011) [32]. Considering the absence of axial force, and conserva-
tively putting the ratio of Mu/Vud equals to 1.0, the equation can
be simplified as
qffiffiffiffiffiffi
V anal ¼ 0:083ð4:0  1:75ÞAn fm ð16Þ
where An = b  t is the net cross-sectional area of masonry wallette.
Similarly, the stiffness ratio (K) has been defined as:


EIeff exp
K¼
 ð17Þ
EIeff anal
ð12Þ
using Eq. (3), and the analytical flexural stiffness, (EIeff)anal has been
obtained from the slope of the elastic portion of the bi-linearized
analytical moment–curvature (M/) curve. To obtain the analytical
M/ curves, section analysis similar to that illustrated in Fig. 20 has
been performed using the experimentally obtained stress–strain
curves for the masonry and the reinforcement.
The comparison of experimental and analytical capacities for
ð13Þ
WWM strengthened masonry wallettes for different failure modes
is shown in Table 7. Further, Table 8 compares the average values
of the above mentioned non-dimensional parameters with the
available studies. It can be observed from the tables that the values
ð14Þ of the normalized moment capacities, mfm and mfy vary significantly,
among the three considered studies. Further, with an increase in
the equivalent reinforcement ratio, b, the normalized moment
capacity, mfm in some of the tests carried out by Shermi and Dubey
(2017) [31] is increasing for higher strength (1:4 cement-sand)
mortar, whereas it is decreasing for the lower strength (1:6
cement-sand) mortar. In the present study, mfm increases with an
 P.K.V.R. Padalu et al. / Construction and Building Materials 190 (2018) 1133–1153 1149

Fig. 18. Failure modes of masonry wallettes in bending tension parallel to bed-joints: (a) URM; (b)* strengthened specimens of Series-A, W25 of Lot-1; (c)* strengthened
specimens of Series-A, W50 of Lot-1; (d)# strengthened specimens of Series-B, of Lot-1; (e)# strengthened specimens of Series-B, using W50 of Lot-2. (Note: * Shear span to
depth ratio = 1.17; # Shear span to depth ratio = 2.24).

increase in the equivalent reinforcement ratio, b, for higher
strength mortar. On the other hand, the normalized moment
capacity, mfy decreases with increase in b, in all the studies, except
in one case. In other words, no specific trend is observed in varia-
tion of mfm and mfy, indicating that these parameters do not provide
a strong basis for comparison of the results of different studies.
On the other hand, it is interesting to note that the average flex-
ural strength ratio (M) obtained from all the three studies are close
to unity (varying from 0.77 to 1.5) except for those wallettes in the

present study, which failed in shear. The values of V obtained from
all the three studies are widely scattering (0.5 to 1.46) and no fixed
pattern has been found, even for the same mode of failure. In case
of the specimens failing in flexural-shear mode in the present
study and those failing in shear (only for wallettes constructed
using high strength mortar) in the study conducted by Shermi

and Dubey (2017) [31], both M and (V ) are close to unity. These
observations show that the analytically estimated flexural capacity
has a good agreement with the experimental results, but the same
is not true for the shear capacity. This is mainly due to the large
variability in shear capacity of URM of a given compressive
strength, in absence of axial load.
For the normalized rigidity, j (representing equivalent rigidity
of the cracked section in comparison with the gross section), signif-
icant variation (0.11 to 0.63) is observed between different studies
(Table 8). This shows that the effective rigidity, EIeff is significantly
affected by the thickness of specimen, properties of URM, rein-
1150 P.K.V.R. Padalu et al. / Construction and Building Materials 190 (2018) 1133–1153

in different studies. Since all the specimens, in all the three studies,
are highly under-reinforced, it has been observed that, in general,
the ductility ratio increases with the reinforcement ratio.

5. Conclusions

The out-of-plane behaviour of 8 URM and 28 masonry wallettes

strengthened using WWM, has been studied. Failure modes, load–
displacement curves, strength, rigidity and ductility of the tested
specimens are studied and compared with the past studies. For
the purpose of comparison of different studies conducted using dif-
ferent material and geometric properties, six non-dimensional
parameters have been defined and their suitability in deriving
the generalized conclusions has been examined. Following are
the conclusions of the study:
Fig. 19. Bi-linear idealization of load–displacement curve.

The failure of URM wallettes in flexure test was observed to be
sudden and brittle. After the development of the first crack, the
forcement ratio, and properties of reinforcement. A similar conclu- wallettes were not able to sustain any further load. In URM wal-
sion can also be drawn by comparing the rigidity ratio, K which lettes, subjected to bending tension perpendicular to bed-joints,
shows much higher dispersion (varying from 0.52 to 4.75). This the failure occurred by de-bonding of bed-joints at the interface
indicates that it is difficult to estimate the rigidity of the strength- with mortar. However, for the wallettes subjected to bending
ened specimens reliably using the beam theory. tension parallel to bed joints, failure occurred due to cracking
The ductility ratio, l has also shown significant variation (1.45 of head joints and splitting of brick units. The orthogonal
to 4.7) in different studies, primarily due to different stress–strain strength ratio has been observed as 1.98, which is in agreement
behaviour of reinforcement and different failure modes observed with the past studies.

Table 6
Strength, deformation and rigidity characteristics, based on the bi-linear idealization.

Set Type Specimen Py [kN] Pu [kN] My [kN-m] Dy [mm] Du [mm] /y [per meter] EIeff [kN-m2]
S-3 Strengthened Series – A SD-25-1 91.14 94.90 16.01 5.46 20.98 0.0504 318
(shear-span to depth SD-25-2 99.57 105.47 17.44 3.74 16.14 0.0345 505
ratio = 1.17) SD-25-3 77.02 91.61 13.58 3.34 19.19 0.0308 441
SD-25-4 80.59 100.18 14.19 3.73 18.30 0.0344 412
Average 87.08 98.04 15.31 4.07 18.65 0.0375 419
S-4 SL-25-1 121.90 131.96 21.11 6.56 11.98 0.0605 349
SL-25-2 118.00 118.00 20.44 5.32 7.48 0.0491 416
SL-25-3 120.00 120.00 20.77 5.50 7.67 0.0507 409
SL-25-4 112.00 112.00 19.42 6.50 7.55 0.0600 324
Average 117.98 120.49 20.43 5.97 8.67 0.0551 375
S-5 SD-50-1 72.44 72.44 12.80 2.85 9.02 0.0263 487
SD-50-2 82.62 82.62 14.42 3.54 5.86 0.0327 441
SD-50-3 62.58 77.19 11.12 3.25 11.93 0.0300 371
SD-50-4 68.68 74.29 12.05 2.50 4.54 0.0231 522
Average 71.58 76.64 12.60 3.04 7.84 0.0280 455
S-6 SL-50-1 80.00 83.50 13.97 3.25 5.10 0.0300 466
SL-50-2 70.00 73.20 12.26 3.50 5.42 0.0323 379
SL-50-3 79.20 79.20 13.83 4.30 6.15 0.0397 349
SL-50-4 87.50 87.50 15.26 3.50 5.35 0.0323 472
Average 79.18 80.85 13.83 3.64 5.51 0.0336 417
S-7 Strengthened Series – B SD-25-10 49.76 60.54 17.00 4.09 12.95 0.0175 974
(shear-span to depth SD-25-20 56.35 59.91 19.11 3.65 16.03 0.0156 1227
ratio = 2.24) SD-25-30 47.00 47.00 16.68 4.30 8.10 0.0183 909
Average 51.04 55.82 17.59 4.01 12.36 0.0171 1037
S-8 SL-25-10 62.00 62.00 21.55 3.00 11.30 0.0128 1684
SL-25-20 63.00 63.00 21.89 3.10 12.00 0.0132 1655
SL-25-30 67.00 67.00 23.18 4.60 13.60 0.0196 1181
Average 64.00 64.00 22.21 3.57 12.30 0.0152 1507
S-9 SD-50-10 27.82 32.22 9.86 2.40 6.74 0.0102 963
SD-50-20 25.00 33.72 8.93 2.00 7.90 0.0085 1046
SD-50-30 24.35 30.28 8.72 2.06 7.09 0.0088 992
Average 25.72 32.07 9.17 2.15 7.24 0.0092 1000
S-10 SL-50-10 26.26 35.29 9.34 1.13 5.02 0.0048 1936
SL-50-20 30.52 34.28 10.74 1.90 6.07 0.0081 1324
SL-50-30 30.46 35.87 10.70 1.55 4.95 0.0066 1618
Average 29.08 35.15 10.26 1.53 5.35 0.0065 1626

Note: Py and Pu are the yield and ultimate load; My is the yield moment; Dy and Du are the yield and ultimate displacement; /y is the yield curvature; EIeff is the effective
flexural rigidity.
 P.K.V.R. Padalu et al. / Construction and Building Materials 190 (2018) 1133–1153 1151

Fig. 20. Section analysis of strengthened masonry.

Table 7
Comparison of experimental and analytical capacity for WWM-strengthened wallettes.
 
Set Type Specimen Failure mode Shear strength [kN] Flexural strength [kN-m] V M
Experimental Analytical Experimental Analytical Experimental/ Experimental/
Analytical Analytical
S-3 Strengthened Series – A SD-25-1 SS 52.44 58.79 17.70 23.45 0.89 0.76
(shear-span to depth SD-25-2 SS & DS 58.00 58.91 19.59 23.32 0.98 0.84
ratio = 1.17) SD-25-3 DS 50.83 59.03 17.16 22.47 0.86 0.76
SD-25-4 DS 54.69 58.67 18.47 22.52 0.93 0.82
Average – 53.99 58.85 18.23 22.94 0.92 0.79
S-4 SL-25-1 FC 69.87 57.84 23.63 24.02 1.21 0.98
SL-25-2 FC 68.08 58.08 23.02 23.17 1.17 0.99
SL-25-3 FC 65.39 57.84 22.11 22.84 1.13 0.97
SL-25-4 FC 64.93 59.26 21.95 22.86 1.10 0.96
Average – 67.07 58.26 22.68 23.22 1.15 0.98
S-5 SD-50-1 SS 39.94 58.67 13.46 13.56 0.68 0.99
SD-50-2 FC 45.37 59.26 15.30 13.88 0.77 1.10
SD-50-3 DS 42.21 59.26 14.23 13.56 0.71 1.05
SD-50-4 FC 41.50 59.86 13.99 13.77 0.69 1.02
Average – 42.26 59.26 14.24 13.69 0.71 1.04
S-6 SL-50-1 FC 49.78 57.49 16.80 14.06 0.87 1.19
SL-50-2 FC 42.26 56.89 14.25 13.74 0.74 1.04
SL-50-3 FC 47.62 58.08 16.07 13.95 0.82 1.15
SL-50-4 FC 50.91 57.72 17.18 14.34 0.88 1.20
Average – 47.64 57.54 16.08 14.02 0.83 1.15
S-7 Strengthened Series – B SD-25-10 FC 33.88 39.08 21.42 16.14 0.87 1.33
(shear-span to depth SD-25-20 FC 33.73 38.14 21.34 15.89 0.88 1.34
ratio = 2.24) SD-25-30 DS 28.45 38.91 17.90 15.90 0.73 1.13
Average – 32.02 38.71 20.22 15.97 0.83 1.27
S-8 SL-25-10 FSC 37.64 38.91 23.87 22.55 0.97 1.06
SL-25-20 FSC 38.12 38.69 24.18 22.89 0.99 1.06
SL-25-30 FSC 39.09 38.91 24.81 22.55 1.00 1.10
Average – 38.28 38.83 24.29 22.66 0.99 1.07
S-9 SD-50-10 FC 19.94 38.69 12.36 9.10 0.52 1.36
SD-50-20 FC 19.63 38.52 12.17 8.97 0.51 1.36
SD-50-30 FC 18.60 38.52 11.50 8.97 0.48 1.28
Average – 19.39 38.58 12.01 9.01 0.50 1.33
S-10 SL-50-10 FC 20.02 38.52 12.43 8.97 0.52 1.39
SL-50-20 FC 20.51 39.29 12.73 8.97 0.52 1.42
SL-50-30 FC 21.70 38.52 13.52 8.97 0.56 1.51
Average – 20.74 38.78 12.89 8.97 0.54 1.44

Note: SS = sliding shear; DS = diagonal shear failure; FC = flexural crack; FSC = flexural-shear crack; V is the shear strength ratio; M is the flexural strength ratio.

For the strengthened wallettes with 25 mm grid WWM, 50% of
the failures were initiated due to shear sliding along the bed
joints or diagonal shear cracks, which was later restrained by
the reinforcing wires, through catenary action. This type of fail-
ure can mainly be attributed to the low shear span in the four-
point horizontal bending without any axial force. On the other
hand, in case of the masonry wallettes strengthened using
50 mm grid WWM, flexural failure was observed in majority
of the specimens, resulting in rupture of the reinforcing wires.
The interesting observation was that the flexure failure was
brittle, whereas, the shear failure was relatively ductile. This
non-conventional behaviour can be attributed to the very low
reinforcement ratio (q = 0.079 and 0.143% in case of W50 and
W 25, respectively) and the catenary action of WWM against
1152 P.K.V.R. Padalu et al. / Construction and Building Materials 190 (2018) 1133–1153

Table 8
Comparison with past studies (COV shown in parentheses).
  
Specimen Mortar Referencea Test Specimen b mfm mfy M V j K l
Type Orientationb Identifier
Strengthened Cement-sand Shermi D Set-6 0.35 0.14 0.36 1.50 1.21 0.29 4.75 1.92
(1:6) (0.19) (0.19) (0.19) (0.19) (0.38) (0.38) (0.13)
Set-7 0.45 0.12 0.23 1.21 1.02 0.23 1.81 3.28
(0.13) (0.13) (0.13) (0.13) (0.09) (0.09) (0.25)
Set-8 0.48 0.08 0.14 0.77 0.67 0.31 2.03 2.44
(0.24) (0.24) (0.24) (0.24) (0.32) (0.32) (0.36)
Kadam D S3 and S4 0.99 0.18 0.27 0.84 1.46 0.43 0.52 1.76
(0.14) (0.14) (0.14) (0.14) (0.16) (0.16) (0.16)
L S5 and S6 0.17 0.25 0.79 1.37 0.63 0.75 2.51
(0.15) (0.15) (0.15) (0.14) (0.16) (0.16) (0.23)
Cement-sand Present D S-9 0.19 0.04 0.62 1.33 0.50 0.30 2.53 3.40
(1:4) Study (0.02) (0.03) (0.03) (0.03) (0.06) (0.03) (0.14)
L S-10 0.04 0.67 1.44 0.54 0.50 4.11 3.61
(0.04) (0.04) (0.04) (0.04) (0.16) (0.15) (0.16)
Shermi D Set-3 0.35 0.08 0.38 1.05 0.94 0.15 4.19 1.79
(0.08) (0.08) (0.08) (0.08) (0.24) (0.24) (0.39)
Set-4 0.45 0.09 0.31 0.95 1.00 0.14 1.87 2.28
(0.07) (0.07) (0.07) (0.06) (0.11) (0.11) (0.38)
Set-5 0.48 0.08 0.25 0.80 0.87 0.11 1.21 1.47
(0.18) (0.18) (0.18) (0.18) (0.18) (0.08) (0.01)
Present D S-5 0.30 0.05 0.48 1.04 0.71 0.14 1.22 2.58
Study (0.03) (0.04) (0.04) (0.05) (0.12) (0.12) (0.33)
L S-6 0.05 0.53 1.15 0.83 0.12 1.08 1.52
(0.04) (0.05) (0.06) (0.07) (0.10) (0.13) (0.04)
D S-7 0.34 0.06 0.58 1.27 0.83 0.31 2.01 3.15
(0.08) (0.08) (0.08) (0.08) (0.15) (0.13) (0.33)
D S-3 0.48 0.06 0.36 0.79 0.92 0.12 1.04 4.70
(0.05) (0.05) (0.05) (0.05) (0.18) (0.16) (0.15)
L S-4 0.07 0.44 0.98 1.15 0.11 0.91 1.45
(0.02) (0.01) (0.01) (0.04) (0.14) (0.11) (0.17)
L S-8 0.49 0.08 0.48 1.07 0.99 0.45 3.65 3.53
(0.02) (0.02) (0.02) (0.02) (0.15) (0.15) (0.12)

Note: aShermi = Shermi and Dubey (2017) [31], Kadam = Kadam et al. (2014) [30]. bOrientation of masonry wallettes, D denotes the bending tension perpendicular to bed-
joints, whereas L denotes parallel to bed-joints; b is the equivalent reinforcement ratio;mfm and mfy are the normalized maximum moment capacities using the compressive
strength of masonry and yield strength of WWM reinforcement, respectively; j is the normalized rigidity; K is the rigidity ratio; and l is the ductility ratio.

shear failure. The low reinforcement ratio resulted in very shal-
low neutral axis depth causing sudden rupture of the reinforc-
ing wires. A slight increase in the reinforcement ratio (W50 to
W25) resulted in the shear capacity being exceeded by the flex-
ural capacity, and the catenary action of the WWM delaying the
failure.

The results of the present study indicate that the observed
strength of strengthened panels is dependent not only on the
ratio of tension reinforcement but also on the direction of load-
ing. This observation is contrary to the study conducted by
Kadam et al. (2014) [30], which found that the strength of the
strengthened panels is independent of the direction of loading.
This difference in the two studies can be explained by consider-
ing the slenderness of the specimens. The Kadam et al. (2014)
[30] study was based on single wythe (110 mm) thick panels,
whereas, the present study is based on two-wythe thick speci-
mens (The loading spans in the two studies are close). The slen-
der specimens in the study by Kadam et al. (2014) [30], failed in
flexure in all the cases, whereas the less slender specimens in
the present study failed in flexure or shear, depending on the
direction of loading and reinforcement ratio, resulting in differ-
ent strength in the two directions of loading.

The experimental study demonstrated that WWM strengthen-
ing is highly effective against out-of-plane loads with consider-
ably enhanced flexural strength. The flexural strength
(equivalent modulus of rupture) of the strengthened wallettes
increased up to 9.4 and 5.7 times compared to URM wallettes,
for bending tension perpendicular and parallel to the bed-
joints, respectively. The energy absorption capacity of the
strengthened wallettes increased up to 61 and 1024 times of
that of URM wallettes, for bending tension parallel and perpen-
dicular to the bed-joints, respectively.

The applied strengthening method significantly improved the
deformability of the wallettes by undergoing large displace-
ments before failure under out-of-plane action. The maximum
mid-span displacement of strengthened wallettes was up to 9
and 61 times higher than that for the corresponding URM wal-
lettes for bending tension parallel and perpendicular to the bed-
joints, respectively. Further, the strengthened wallettes showed
a ductility up to 3.6 and 4.7 for bending tension parallel and
perpendicular to the bed-joints, respectively.

It has been observed that the flexural strength ratio, M serves as
a reasonably accurate basis for comparison of the results of dif-
ferent studies. It is interesting to note that that the average
value of M considering all the specimens of different studies,
is close to unity (1.06), indicating that the flexural capacity of
the strengthened masonry wallettes can be estimated with rea-
sonable accuracy using the simple beam theory and the
masonry compression block parameters of MSJC. However, a
similar accuracy could not be achieved in case of shear capacity
and effective rigidity, which show larger dispersion with rein-
forcement ratio and direction of loading.
The present study is based on small-scale specimens in one-
way out-of-plane bending. The study establishes the efficacy of
the WWM strengthening in enhancing the flexural strength and
ductility of URM. The application of this strengthening technique
for seismic loading can be further ascertained by extending the
study to full-scale test specimens in two-way bending under cyclic
loading.
 P.K.V.R. Padalu et al. / Construction and Building Materials 190 (2018) 1133–1153
Conflict of interest
We wish to confirm that there are no known conflicts of interest
associated with this publication and there has been no significant
financial support for this work that could have influenced its
outcome.
Acknowledgement
The research work contained in this article is supported by Min-
istry of Human Resource Development (MHRD), Government of
India, through a research fellowship to the first author. The authors
gratefully acknowledge the funding agency for the support.
References
[1] M. Javed, A.N. Khan, A. Penna, G. Magenes, Behaviour of masonry structures
during the Kashmir 2005 Earthquake, Proceedings of the 1st European
Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology (a joint event of the
13th E, CEE & 30th General Assembly of the ESC). Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.
[2] D.C. Rai, V. Singhal, S.B. Raj, S.L. Sagar, Performance of residential buildings
during the M 7.8 Gorkha (Nepal) earthquake of 25 April 2015, Curr. Sci. 109
(11) (2015) 2126–2135.
[3] M. Tomaževic, M. Lutman, T. Velechovsky, The influence of rigidity of floor on
the seismic behaviour of old stone-masonry buildings, Eur. Earthquake Eng. 3
(1991) 28–41.
[4] G. Magenes, A. Penna, M. Rota, A. Galasco, I. Senaldi, Shaking table test of a full-
scale stone masonry building with flexible diaphragms, Int. J. Arch. Heritage 8
(3) (2014) 349–375.
[5] I. Senaldi, G. Magenes, A. Penna, A. Galasco, The effect of stiffened floor and
roof diaphragms on the experimental seismic response of a full-scale
unreinforced stone masonry buildings, J. Earthquake Eng. 18 (3) (2014) 407–
443.
[6] E. Vintzileou, C. Mouzakis, C.E. Adami, L. Karapitta, Seismic behaviour of three-
leaf stone masonry buildings before and after interventions: shaking table
tests on a two-storey masonry model, Bull. Earthq. Eng. 13 (10) (2015) 3107–
3133.
[7] F. Monni, E. Quagliarini, S. Lenci, F. Cleminti, Dry masonry strengthening
through basalt fibre ropes: experimental results versus out-of-plane actions,
Eng. Mater. 624 (2015) 584–594.
[8] G. Maddaloni, D.M. Ludovico, A. Balsamo, A. Prota, Out-of-plane experimental
behaviour of T-shaped full scale masonry wall strengthened with composite
connections, Compos. Part-B: Eng. 93 (2016) 328–343.
[9] J.G. Tumialan, N. Galati, A. Nanni, Field assessment of unreinforced masonry
walls strengthened with fiber reinforced polymer laminates, J. Struct. Eng. 129
(8) (2003) 1047–1056.
[10] E. Hamed, O. Rabinovitch, Out-of-plane behaviour of unreinforced masonry
walls strengthened with FRP strips, Compos. Sci. Technol. 67 (2007) 489–500.
[11] C.R. Willis, Q. Yang, R. Seracino, M.C. Griffith, Damaged masonry walls in two-
way bending retrofitted with vertical FRP strips, Constr. Build. Mater. 23
(2009) 1591–1604.
[12] M.A. Haddad, E. Shaheen, G.A. Parsekian, D. Tilleman, N.G. Shrive,
Strengthening of a concrete masonry wall subject to lateral load with
sprayed glass-fibre-reinforced polymer, Can. J. Civ. Eng. 37 (2010) 1315–1330.
[13] H. Derakhshan, D. Dizhur, M.C. Griffith, J.M. Ingham, In situ out-of-plane
testing of as-built and retrofitted unreinforced masonry walls, J. Struct. Eng.
140 (6) (2014) 04014022.
[14] H.M. Elsanadedy, Y.A. Al-Salloum, Z.M. Al-Zaheri, S.H. Alsayed, H. Abbas,
Behaviour and design aspects of FRP-strgthened URM walls under out-of-
plane loading, J. Compos. Constr. 20 (6) (2016) 04016048.
[15] R.S. Nehzad, M.Z. Kabir, Experimental investigation on out-of-plane behaviour
of GFRP retrofitted masonry panels, Constr. Build. Mater. 131 (2017) 630–640.
[16] Y. Korany, R. Drysdale, Rehabilitation of masonry walls using unobtrusive FRP
techniques for enhanced out-of-plane seismic resistance, J. Compos. Constr. 10
(3) (2006) 213–222.
[17] N. Ismail, J.M. Ingham, In-situ and laboratory based out-of-plane testing of
unreinforced clay brick masonry walls strengthened using near surface
mounted twisted steel bars, Constr. Build. Mater. 36 (2012) 119–128.
[18] C.G. Papanicolaou, T.C. Triantafillou, M. Papathanasiou, K. Karlos, Textile
reinforced mortar (TRM) versus FRP as strengthening material of URM walls:
out-of-plane cyclic loading, Mater. Struct. 41 (1) (2008) 143–157.
[19] A. D’Ambrisi, M. Mezzi, A. Caporale, Experimental investigation on polymeric
net-RCM reinforced masonry panels, Compos. Struct. 105 (2013) 207–215.
1153
[20] N. Ismail, J.M. Ingham, In-plane and out-of-plane testing of unreinforced
masonry walls strengthened using polymer textile reinforced mortar, Eng.
Struct. 118 (2016) 167–177.
[21] N. Ismail, J.M. Ingham, Cyclic out-of-plane behaviour of slender clay brick
masonry walls seismically strengthened using posttensioning, J. Struct. Eng.
138 (2012) 1255–1266.
[22] M. Kyriakides, M. Hendriks, S. Billington, Simulation of unreinforced masonry
beams retrofitted with engineered cementitious composites in flexure, J.
Mater. Civ. Eng. 24 (5) (2012) 506–515.
[23] Y. Lin, D. Lawley, L. Wotherspoon, J.M. Ingham, Out-of-plane testing of
unreinforced masonry walls using ECC shortcrete, Structures 7 (2016) 33–42.
[24] S.D. Santis, P. Casadei, G.D. Canio, G. Felis, M. Malena, M. Mongelli, I. Roselli,
Seismic performance of masonry walls retrofitted with steel reinforced grout,
Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 45 (2015) 229–251.
[25] A.S. Arya, Repair and strengthening of damaged stone houses after Dhamar
Earthquake of Dec. 1982, Proceedings of the 9th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering. Tokyo-Kyoto, Japan, 1988.
[26] A.S. Arya, Seismic retrofitting of stone houses in Marathwada Area, India,
Proceedings of the 11th world conference on earthquake engineering.
Acapulco, Mexico, 1996.
[27] P. Agarwal, Experimental Study of Seismic Strengthening and Retrofitting
Measures in Masonry Buildings Ph.D., University of Roorkee, Roorkee, 1999.
[28] R. Sinha, S. Brzev, Housing Report-Unreinforced Brick Masonry Building with
Reinforced Concrete Roof Slab. World Housing Encyclopedia, 21st ed., EERI and
IAEE, 2002.
[29] IS Indian Standard 13935, 2009. Indian standard code of evaluation, repair and
strengthening of masonry building.
[30] S.B. Kadam, Y. Singh, B. Li, Out-of-plane behaviour of unreinforced masonry
strengthened using ferrocement overlay, Mater. Struct. 48 (10) (2014) 3187–
3203.
[31] C. Shermi, R.N. Dubey, Study on out-of-plane behaviour of unreinforced
masonry strengthened with welded wire mesh and mortar, Constr. Build.
Mater. 143 (2017) 104–120.
[32] MSJC Masonry Standards Joint Committee, ACI American Concrete Institute,
Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers, The
Masonry Society, ACI 530-02/ASCE 5-02/TMS 402-02, 2002. Building code
requirements for masonry structures.
[33] ASTM American Society for Testing Materials C67-17, 2017. Standard test
method for sampling and testing brick and structural clay tile.
[34] ASTM American Society for Testing Materials D6913/D6913M-17, 2017.
Standard test methods for particle-size distribution (gradation) of soils using
sieve analysis.
[35] IS Indian Standard 383, 2016. Indian standard code coarse and fine aggregate
for concrete – specification.
[36] ASTM American Society for Testing Materials C109/C109M-16a, 2016.
Standard test method for compressive strength of hydraulic cement mortars
(using 2-in. or [50-mm] cube specimens).
[37] H.B. Kaushik, D.C. Rai, S.K. Jain, Stress-strain characteristics of clay brick
masonry under uniaxial compression, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 19 (9) (2007) 728–
739.
[38] ASTM American Society for Testing Materials C1314-16, 2016. Standard test
method for compressive strength of masonry prisms.
[39] ASTM American Society for Testing Materials A 370-17a, 2017. Standard test
methods and definitions for mechanical testing of steel products.
[40] ASTM American Society for Testing Materials E518/E518M-15, 2015. Standard
test methods for flexural bond strength of masonry.
[41] R.G. Drysdale, A.A. Hamid, L.R. Baker, Masonry Structures: Behaviour and
Design, The Masonry Society, Boulder, Colorado, USA, 1999.
[42] ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers 41-1, 2017. Seismic evaluation and
retrofit of existing buildings.
[43] J.I. Velazquez-Dimas, M.R. Ehsani, Modeling out-of-plane behavior of URM
walls retrofitted with fiber composites, J. Compos. Constr. 4 (4) (2000) 172–
181.
[44] K.H. Tan, M.K.H. Patoary, Strengthening of masonry walls against out-of-plane
loads using fiber-reinforced polymer reinforcement, J. Compos. Constr. 8 (1)
(2004) 79–87.
[45] A.S. Mosallam, Out-of-plane flexural behavior of unreinforced red brick walls
strengthened with FRP composites, Compos. Part-B 38 (5–6) (2007) 559–574.
[46] T.D. Hrynyk, J.J. Myers, Out-of-plane behavior of URM arching walls with
modern blast retrofits: Experimental results and analytical model, J. Struct.
Eng. 134 (10) (2008) 1589–1597.
[47] E. Hamed, O. Rabinovitch, Out-of-plane behavior of unreinforced masonry
walls strengthened with FRP strips, Compos. Sci. Technol. 67 (3–4) (2007)
489–500.
[48] E. Hamed, O. Rabinovitch, Failure characteristics of FRP strengthened masonry
walls under out-of-plane loads, Eng. Struct. 32 (8) (2010) 2134–2145.
[49] K. Galal, N. Sasanian, Out-of-plane flexural performance of GFRP-reinforced
masonry walls, J. Compos. Constr. 14 (2) (2010) 162–174.