Innovative and Eco-friendly Solutions for the Seismic

Retrofitting of Natural Stone Masonry Walls with Textile

Reinforced Mortar: In- and Out-of-Plane Behavior
P. D. Gkournelos1; L. D. Azdejkovic2́ ; and T. C. Triantafillou, M.ASCE3
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Institute of Technology, Calicut on 08/05/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: The application of textile-reinforced mortars (TRM) on masonry walls constructed with natural stones was studied through a set of
medium-scale experiments. Fourteen experiments were carried out in total, including in- and out-of-plane cyclic tests as well as two different
strengthening configurations. The first consisted of a TRM made of a natural hydraulic lime (NHL) mortar, combined with a natural flax-fiber
textile, while for the latter, a novel alkali-activated material (AAM) geopolymer mortar combined with basalt textile was employed. The use
of such low-carbon footprint materials instead of conventional ones makes these systems environmentally friendlier, in line with the modern
requirements for lowering CO2 emissions. Both solutions led to a substantial increase of the load-bearing capacity, up to 70% for both in- and
out-of-plane experiments. Stiffness and energy dissipation characteristics of the masonry elements were improved as well. If some durability
related issues of both configurations and feasibility ones of AAMs are addressed, they could provide good candidates for application in real-
life structures. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0001173. © 2021 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Alkali-activate materials; Basalt; Flax; In-plane loading; Masonry; Natural fibers; Natural stone; Out-of-plane loading;
Seismic retrofitting; Textile-reinforced mortar.

Introduction and Background
Before the widespread adoption of reinforced concrete (RC), unrein-
forced masonry (URM) was the main building material for thousands
of years. Natural stones played the role of the bricks, and low-strength,
lime-based mortars often provided the connection between them.
Nowadays, the few pure-masonry structures that are constructed are
made of industrially produced clay bricks of well known properties.
Nonetheless, several natural-stone masonry buildings still exist, and
often constitute a significant part of each country’s cultural heritage,
thus making their preservation for future generations quite important.
The lack of an engineered approach to the design of such structures
has led to structural damage and failures on several occasions in the
past and has made clear their need of structural retrofitting.
Various strengthening techniques have been proposed over
the past decades. Experimental research has focused almost exclu-
sively on three-leaf walls, in which the two outer leaves are made
of stone masonry blocks and the middle one contains a much weaker
filler material; this is the most common configuration found in prac-
tice. The most widely used strengthening scheme is the injection of a
cementitious grout inside the body of masonry, to fill all the voids,
particularly in the middle, weaker layer. Numerous experiments
have been performed and a considerable increase in the vertical
1
Ph.D. Candidate, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Patras, Patras
26500, Greece (corresponding author). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000
-0002-9054-3900. Email: panagiotisgournelos@gmail.com
2
Ph.D. Candidate, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Patras, Patras
26500, Greece. Email: lazar@upatras.gr
3
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Patras, Patras 26500,
Greece. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0263-3955. Email: ttriant@
upatras.gr
Note. This manuscript was submitted on March 4, 2021; approved on
September 8, 2021; published online on November 10, 2021. Discussion
period open until April 10, 2022; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Composites
for Construction, © ASCE, ISSN 1090-0268.
and diagonal compression capacity of stone masonry specimens ret-
rofitted with cement/lime-based grouts has been demonstrated (Vint-
zileou and Tassios 1995; Kalagri et al. 2010). Moreover, the use of
transversal steel and glass fiber–reinforced polymer (GFRP) ties
has also been explored via vertical compression tests and found to
be effective in increasing the capacity and reducing deformations
(Valluzzi et al. 2001; Oliveira et al. 2012). Recently, shake-table
tests were performed to assess the out-of-plane behavior of retrofitted
stone masonry walls (Giaretton et al. 2017); grout injection in com-
bination with transversal steel ties resulted in a three-fold increase of
the maximum achieved peak ground acceleration. Finally, grout in-
jection has also been applied as a repair technique in rubble stone ma-
sonry specimens, previously damaged by in-plane tests (Miranda
et al. 2017). The strengthening scheme not only restored the initial
mechanical characteristics of the specimens, but also improved
their behavior under cyclic loads.
A viable alternative is the global improvement of a building’s
behavior via the enforcement of a box-type response. Such a re-
sponse can be achieved only if the floor and roof diaphragms are
stiff enough and well connected to the walls they are supported
on. Moreover, reliable wall-to-diaphragm connections can also pre-
vent out-of-plane failures so that the full in-plane capacity of the
walls can be realized. Shaking table tests have been carried out
on full-scale, 2-story specimens and have verified the efficiency
of this retrofitting technique (Magenes et al. 2014).
The application of a reinforcing layer on top of the outer faces of
a masonry element is another way to enhance both its in- and
out-of-plane behavior. RC plastering and shotcrete constitute two
very logical choices in this direction. Because only the outer wall
segments are practically affected, pairing this technique with trans-
versal steel ties is highly recommended. Experimental testing has
shown that this strengthening scheme can effectively improve the
resistance, ductility, and postcollapse behavior of retrofitted ele-
ments subjected to in-plane cyclic loading with axial compression
(Pinho et al. 2012). Innovative materials of fibrous nature (sheets
and textiles) can also be employed as external reinforcement.

© ASCE 04021061-1 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 2022, 26(1): 04021061

 Their attachment to the masonry substrate can be realized with ei-
ther epoxy resins or inorganic matrices. In the former case, the re-
sulting material is called fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP), while in
the latter case textile-reinforced mortar (TRM). TRMs are thought
to be more appropriate for application on masonry elements for a
number of reasons, including their better compatibility with masonry
substrates, fire behavior, and ease of application (Papanicolaou et al.
2007, 2008). These materials can also be found in the literature
under different names, such as textile-reinforced concrete (TRC)
or fabric-reinforced cementitious matrix (FRCM).
Usually, textile fibers are made of carbon or glass, but lately ba-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Institute of Technology, Calicut on 08/05/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
salt and natural fibers have gathered more support. Various re-
searchers have already applied natural fiber (e.g., flax, hemp)
textiles on masonry wallettes made of clay bricks and studied
their shear and bond behavior (Menna et al. 2015; Abbass et al.
2020; Ferrara et al. 2020; Trochoutsou et al. 2021). These studies
have highlighted the potential of such strengthening applications
using environmentally friendly materials. To the best of our knowl-
edge, utilization of natural fiber textiles in strengthening of stone
masonry walls is examined in this paper for the first time.
TRMs have been studied extensively as strengthening materials
of masonry over the past years and their efficiency has already been
proved. When used as overlays, they are extremely effective in in-
creasing both the in- and the out-of-plane resistance of unreinforced
masonry elements, as it has been evidenced by various researchers
around the world (Lignola et al. 2009; Harajli et al. 2010; Parisi
et al. 2011; Babaeidarabad et al. 2014; Valluzzi et al. 2014). More-
over, they have also been successfully used to confine masonry
columns, in which case both their axial strength and deformation
capacity were reported to significantly increase (Koutas and
Bournas 2020). Lately, the combination of TRMs with thermal
insulation was proposed as a means to simultaneously achieve
structural and energy retrofitting of existing masonry elements
(Triantafillou et al. 2017, 2018). The efficiency of this method
was demonstrated both in mechanical and economical terms
(Gkournelos et al. 2019, 2020). Specifically for stone masonry
walls, research has shown that TRM-strengthened elements exhibit
considerably higher in-plane lateral resistance, stiffness, displace-
ment capacity, and improved postfailure behavior (Pinho et al.
2015; Tomaž evič et al. 2015). Shake-table tests have also shown
that the out-of-plane response of TRM-retrofitted walls is substan-
tially improved, as a two-fold increase of the maximum sustained
peak ground acceleration (PGA) has been reported in the literature
(De Santis et al. 2019).
With a constant increase of greenhouse gases emission, the
need for a sustainable, eco-friendly alternative cementitious mate-
rial is growing. There has been significant amount of research dur-
ing the last several decades for providing an alternative binder
system to ordinary Portland cement. Davidovits (1991) first de-
fined the now widely used term “geopolymer” for a binder system
based on a high-aluminosilicate and low-calcium content materials.
Buchwald et al. (2003) and Shi et al. (2006) defined binder systems
where solid silicate powders are activated by alkaline metals,
namely alkali-activated materials (AAMs). Provis (2014) provided
the full classification of AAMs, with respect to the chemical content
of the mixing materials. A significant amount of research has ad-
dressed the application of AAMs as a repair material and a matrix
material in TRMs. The flexural strengthening of reinforced con-
crete beams with external reinforcing combined with geopolymer
was carried out and tested by Menna et al. (2013), resulting in a
very good adhesion of geopolymer to concrete substrate and to
steel mesh. Tamburini et al. (2017) combined a metakaolin/blast
furnace slag-based AAM grout with four different type of textiles,
providing the necessary characterization data for TRM application
© ASCE 04021061-2
J. Compos. Constr., 2022, 26(1): 04021061
to masonry elements. The behavior of natural masonry wall ele-
ments strengthened with alkali-activated textile reinforced mortar
is investigated here for the first time.
In the study presented in this paper, the in- and out-of-plane be-
havior of TRM-strengthened stone masonry walls was evaluated
through a series of cyclic tests. Two different strengthening config-
urations were applied; the first made use of a natural hydraulic lime
(NHL) mortar combined with a flax-fiber textile, while for the sec-
ond, a metakaolin-ladle furnace slag-based AAM mortar was de-
veloped and used in combination with a basalt-fiber textile. It is
interesting to point out that both proposed retrofitting schemes
are cement free, therefore considerably more eco-friendly than sim-
ilar techniques that make use of conventional materials.
Experimental Program
Materials and Specimens
Α total of 14 natural stone masonry walls were constructed by an
experienced mason. Stones of irregular shape, up to about
150 mm, were used, combined with a general-purpose masonry
mortar, which was made on site using cement, lime putty, sand,
and water, in a ratio of 1:1:5:0.75 by volume (or 1:0.5:3.6:0.27
by weight). The walls consisted of two outer leaves of natural
stones and a middle layer that was filled with smaller stone frag-
ments and building mortar, similar to the building practice. Three
different types of specimens were constructed, to be used in the
same number of distinct testing configurations. Five slender speci-
mens of 1,200 × 400 × 150 mm (height × width × thickness) were
employed in three-point in-plane bending tests. Three more speci-
mens of the same geometry were used in three-point out-of-plane
bending tests, along with two thicker ones, which were measuring
1,200 × 400 × 220 mm. Finally, four squat specimens of 1,100 ×
1,000 × 150 mm were constructed to be tested in in-plane cyclic
shear. All the walls were built inside the laboratory and were air-
cured for 6 months. Fig. 1 shows the geometric configurations of
the constructed specimens.
Two different TRM-based strengthening configurations were
employed in the testing campaign. The first used materials of nat-
ural origin, namely a flax-fiber textile and an NHL mortar, hence
the resulting strengthening material is referred to as natural TRM
(NTRM). For the second, a cement-free, in-house developed geo-
polymer mortar was combined with a basalt textile; this configura-
tion is referred to as alkali-activated TRM (AATRM). TRM
strengthening was applied approximately 6 months after the con-
struction of the masonry walls using the following multistep wet
lay-up procedure. First, any protruding mortar was removed and
the wall’s surface was cleaned and wetted. Then, a first layer of
the mortar was spread and roughened using a metal trowel. The
first textile was bonded on the surface by hand pressure, so that
mortar would come through between the rovings. These two last
steps were repeated whenever more than one layer would be ap-
plied. After the application of the final textile layer, mortar was
used to cover the surface, which was levelled with a smooth
metal trowel.
The testing campaign included three different experiment
types: (1) three-point, in-plane tests, (2) three-point, out-of-plane
tests, and (3) shear, in-plane tests. For cases (1) and (2), slender
specimens were used, whereas the squat ones were employed in
case (3). A cyclic loading protocol was used in all the tests and
axial loads were applied simultaneously by a second actuator.
The type of strengthening (NTRM versus AATRM), the posi-
tioning of the reinforcement (single-sided versus double-sided),
J. Compos. Constr.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Institute of Technology, Calicut on 08/05/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 1. Geometry of slender and squat stone masonry wall specimens (dimensions in mm).

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 2. Schematic representation of test types.

Table 1. Test matrix naming convention: the middle part of the name describes the
mortar (NHL or AAM) and the two side parts after the under-
Configurations
scores indicate the number of layers and the type of textile
Axial load Strengthening used. For example, 1BF_AAM_1BF refers to a wall strength-
Test type Wall ID (kN) scheme ened at both sides with one layer of basalt-fiber textile embedded
in an AAM mortar. Finally, the trailing notation _V0 denotes a
Slender in-plane Control 30 None
Cyclic three-point 3NF_NHL_3NF 30 NTRM
specimen without axial load and _th denotes a thicker specimen
bending with constant 1BF_AAM_1BF 30 AATRM in the case of out-of-plane tests.
axial force. 2BF_AAM 30 AATRM It is important to note that the number of layers of the strength-
Wall thickness: 1BF_AAM_1BF_V0 0 AATRM ening schemes was selected so that the two configurations would
150 mm [Fig. 2(a)] yield a similar strength increase (as much as possible), while at
the same time be reasonable to apply. The preliminary material
Out-of-plane Control 30 None
Cyclic three-point 3NF_NHL_3NF 30 NTRM
characterization experiments of textiles and TRM coupons showed
bending with constant 3NF_NHL_3NF_th 45 NTRM that the basalt textile was around three times stronger in tension
axial force. 1BF_AAM_1BF 30 AATRM than the flax one (see next section); tensile test results of 1-month-
Wall thickness: 1BF_AAM_1BF_th 45 AATRM old TRM coupons were taken into account, as these were the only
150 mm | 220 mm ones available at the time of strengthening. Therefore, a three-layer
[Fig. 2(b)] strengthening (per side) was used for the NTRM configuration and
Squat in-plane Control 70 None
a single-layer for the AATRM. This resulted in similar strength in-
Cyclic shear test with 3NF_NHL_3NF 70 NTRM crease in the case of the in-plane experiments on slender specimens
axial force. 1BF_AAM_1BF 70 AATRM and the out-of-plane experiments, while in the case of in-plane ex-
Wall thickness: 2BF_AAM 70 AATRM periments on squat specimens the AATRM-based configuration re-
150 mm sulted in a considerably higher strength increase.
[Fig. 2(c)] Finally, the level of axial load was selected so that the resultant
axial stress would be equal to 0.5 MPa for all conducted tests. This
yields axial conditions similar to real-world structures for column
and the effect of axial load were parameters that were explored in and wall-like specimens due to gravity loads and corresponds to
the in-plane experiments on slender walls. The variables ex- roughly 5% of their axial capacity.
plored in the in-plane tests on the squat specimens and the
out-of-plane tests on the slender specimens were again the type NHL and Flax
of strengthening and the wall thickness. Table 1 provides details For the NTRM strengthening solution, an NHL-based mortar was
for each one of the 14 specimens. In this table, the Wall ID col- combined with a flax-fiber textile. The mortar comprised of NHL
umn reveals the strengthening configuration using the following of the highest quality (bagged NHL5) sand and water in

© ASCE 04021061-3 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 2022, 26(1): 04021061

 Table 2. Alkali-activated mortar mix design (kg per m3 of mortar)
Ladle furnace Marble
K2SiO3 KOH Water Metakaolin slag Sand filler
363.5 99.6 193.9 412.4 206.2 976.6 76.0

Table 3. Cost comparison of TRM solutions

Cost (€/m2)

(a) TRM type Description Mortar Textile Total

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Institute of Technology, Calicut on 08/05/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Control OPC-based mortar with one layer 18.00 5.90 23.90

of glass textile
NTRM NHL-based mortar with three 10.20 43.50 53.70
layers of flax textile
AATRM AAM-based mortar with one 24.00 3.50 27.50
layer of basalt textile

2 mm) and an inert marble-powder filler were used as aggregates,

(b)
Fig. 3. (a) Flax; and (b) basalt textile.
proportions 1:2:0.7 (mortar:sand:water) by volume (or 1:1.5:0.26
by weight), resulting in plastic consistency and good workability,
with a retention period of approximately 45 min in ambient temper-
atures (25°C). A commercial textile, made of uncoated flax-fiber
rovings in two orthogonal directions, at a mesh spacing equal to
14 mm, was used. This textile is balanced in the two directions
with a total area weight of 215 g/m2 and 1,500 TEX (Fig. 3).
The life cycle assessment (LCA) of lime-based mortars has been
studied extensively by other authors (Moropoulou et al. 2006;
Kenneth and Miller 2012). The production of NHL generates
greenhouse gasses (approximately 0.8 kg of CO2 per 1 kg of
binder) of similar amount with ordinary Portland cement (OPC)
(Huntzinger and Eatmon 2009; Kenneth and Miller 2012). How-
ever, in the case of NHL-based systems, calcium hydroxide slowly
absorbs the carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, with a potential to
reabsorb up to 90% of the CO2 emitted during the calcination process
(Berge 2009). The environmental impact of textiles made of flax fibers
has been analyzed thoroughly by Le Duigou et al. (2011). This study
has shown superiority of flax-fiber textiles when compared with glass-
fiber ones in most of the environmental indicators analyzed (e.g.,
greenhouse gasses, acidification, ozone layer depletion, terrestrial
and fresh water ecotoxicity). Therefore, the NTRM-strengthening
scheme comprised of NHL and flax-fiber textile is environmentally
friendlier compared with a conventional strengthening scheme consist-
ing of OPC-based mortar and glass-fiber textile.
AAM and Basalt
For the AATRM-strengthening solution an in-house developed mix
of AAM was combined with basalt-fiber textile. Metakaolin
(commercial, bagged material) and ladle furnace slag (a local
waste material) were used in 2:1 weight ratio as precursors. Potas-
sium silicate solution (K2SiO3) and potassium hydroxide (KOH)
pellets were chosen as activators. Activators were dissolved in
water and mixed at least 1 day before preparing the mortar, in
order to cool down. The mortar preparation was done by mixing
precursors with the activator solution first. When a homogeneous
paste had been formed, aggregates were added and everything
was mixed, forming a fresh AAM. To obtain better rheological
properties, siliceous river sand (with maximum particle size of
providing a good workability with retention period of around 45
mins in ambient temperatures (25°C). The detailed mix design of
the AAM is presented in Table 2. It is acknowledged that the mortar
preparation procedure is quite complicated and not easy to apply in
situ. Nonetheless, the authors believe that further research and de-
velopment in the field could provide solutions in the future to ad-
dress these issues, such as premixed and bagged dry mixes.
A commercial textile, made of PVC-coated basalt-fiber rovings
positioned in two orthogonal directions, at a mesh spacing equal to
25 mm, was used in the AATRM strengthening system. This textile
is balanced in two directions, with a total weight of 350 g/m2 and
TEX 2000 (Fig. 3).
The uprising development of alkali-activated binders through-
out both academic institutions and industry is driven by tremendous
need for sustainable, low-carbon footprint alternatives to Portland
cement. The environmental impact of AAMs is highly dependent
on the mix design of the mixture. Thus, through the utilization of
waste materials, the environmental impact of AAMs is significantly
reduced. Authors that analyzed the LCA of AAMs consent that this
group of materials have a lower global warming potential (GWP)
than OPC (Habert and Ouellet-Plamondon 2016). Geopolymer
mixes comprising fly ash and blast furnace slag have a greenhouse
gas emissions reduction of 45% and 80%, respectively, when com-
pared with OPC-based materials (Habert et al. 2011). In the case of
metakaolin-based geopolymers, this reduction is 25% (Heath et al.
2014). Further development of AAM technology combined with
design that takes into account the environmental impact of the mix-
ture could lead us to an eco-friendly alternative to OPC (Weil et al.
2009). The design of the geopolymer mix used in the AATRM
strengthening scheme (Table 2) was carried out focusing on me-
chanical characteristics, yet 33% of the total precursor mass is an
unprocessed waste material, collected from a landfill.
Cost Comparison
A basic cost comparison was carried out between the two strength-
ening solutions as well as a control one, currently popular in the
Greek market, consisting of a commercial cement-based mortar
and one layer of glass textile. The number of layers adopted for
this comparison were chosen according to the assumptions pre-
sented earlier; one layer of glass textile was assumed for the control
configuration, as, according to the manufacturer, its characteristics
were similar to those of the employed basalt textile. The results are
presented in Table 3.
The considerably increased final cost of the NTRM solution is
attributed to the high cost of natural-fibers textile, a material that

© ASCE 04021061-4 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 2022, 26(1): 04021061

 Table 4. Compressive strength of masonry materials
Average Standard
Dimensions in compressive deviation CoV
Material mm (b × t × h) strength (MPa) (MPa) (%)
Stones 40 × 34 × 88 85.7 4.9 5.7
41 × 33 × 85
29 × 39 × 71
Building 24 × 41 × 50 11.8 2.6 22
mortar 45 × 40 × 50
25 × 33 × 52
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Institute of Technology, Calicut on 08/05/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Wallette 400 × 140 × 485 12.6 4.8 38
400 × 140 × 474
400 × 140 × 403
is not produced in large quantities and is not used in the construc-
tion sector. The cost of the AAM mortar is also higher than the
other two due to the high concentration of the activating chemicals;
further optimization of the mix design could lower this price con-
siderably. In any case, it is noted that the reported prices are prac-
tically limited to the specific experimental campaign and may differ
significantly for applications in different countries.
Material Characterization and Durability Assessment
Many tests were performed in order to fully characterize all the ma-
terials that were used in the experimental program. Moreover, the
TRM configurations were also assessed in terms of their durability
performance, to identify whether there is any drop in the tensile
strength of textiles after their exposure to strongly alkaline environ-
ments. The drop of strength of basalt-fiber textile was observed dur-
ing the cyclic tests of natural stone walls strengthened with
AATRM and, therefore, investigating the durability of both
strengthening solutions had become a logical addition to material
characterization. The sections that follow provide all the details
for each different material.
Stone Masonry Walls
All the different materials that make up the final wall assemblies,
namely stones, building mortar, and small wallettes, were tested in
compression. The specimens were extracted directly from the larger
control specimens, after they were tested. All control specimens ex-
hibited a single flexural crack at the section of the maximum bending
moment, where all damage was concentrated, and a stable postcrack-
ing response. Stones and mortar were carefully retrieved away from
those sections and formed into a prismatic shape using a diamond-
saw cutter, while the wallettes were formed using the two intact
parts (close to the supports) of the in- or out-of-plane tested slender
walls, which were tested in three-point bending. For all cases, three
specimens were used, and testing was carried out shortly after testing
the walls themselves. Stone and mortar specimens were tested in a
servohydraulic testing machine in displacement control mode at a
constant loading rate equal to 0.01 mm/s. Wallette compression
tests were carried out according to EN 1052-1 (CEN 1999b), using
a 4,000 kN loading-capacity testing machine. The results of the com-
pression tests are presented in Table 4. The increased standard devia-
tion values of the building mortar and wallette strengths are attributed
to the geometric irregularities of the bed and head joints, as well as to
the fact that mortar mixing was done manually.
Flax and NHL-Based TRM
The flax textile was tested in tension both alone and as a single-
layer TRM, that is in combination with the NHL-based mortar.
© ASCE 04021061-5
J. Compos. Constr., 2022, 26(1): 04021061
Table 5. NTRM mechanical properties
Average values after (standard
Num. of deviation in parentheses)
specimens each
Material Property time 1 month 3 months 6 months
Flax Ft (kN/m)a 4 16.0 (1.0)
textile ft (MPa)b 54.1 (3.4)
ɛtu (%)c 1.4 (0.1)
NHL ft (MPa)d 3 1.5 (0.1) 1.3 (0.3) 1.5 (0.3)
mortar fc (MPa)d 6 4.2 (0.2) 3.8 (0.7) 4.5 (1.1)
NTRM Ft (kN/m)a 4 8.1 (1.4) 6.5 (0.4) 5.8 (0.7)
ft (MPa) 27.4 (4.7) 22.0 (1.4) 19.6 (2.4)
ɛtu·s (%)e 5.9 (1.0) 5.3 (1.9) 3.1 (0.8)
a
Tensile strength per running meter for one layer of textile.
b
Tensile strength for one layer of textile, based on a smeared fiber
distribution.
c
Tensile strain at rupture.
d
Tensile and compressive strength, respectively.
e
Tensile strain at initiation of slippage.
The TRM experiments were repeated three times, after 1, 3, and
6 months to examine the effect of the alkaline environment on
the textile’s properties. Moreover, the NHL mortar was tested in
flexure and compression according to EN 1015-11 (CEN 1999a)
to evaluate its tensile and compressive strength. Table 5 gives the
evolution of material properties over a 6-month period.
It is important to note that in all the TRM experiments the ob-
served failure mode was slippage of the textile, thus the fibers
were not fully activated. This is mainly attributed to the fact that
the fibers were uncoated and the connection between the longitudi-
nal and the transverse ones was extremely weak; perpendicular rov-
ings were simply held together with weak stitching. Apart from
that, there seems to be a clear declining trend for the TRM’s tensile
strength with time (30% drop after 6 months), which implies that
the already insufficient connection between the individual rovings,
and the mortar weakens even further with time. This behavior con-
stitutes a major issue, which must be addressed thoroughly to fully
verify the viability of the proposed strengthening system. Develop-
ment of coating-based solutions could potentially mitigate this
problem.
Basalt and AAM-based TRM
The same set of experiments were performed to assess the behavior
of the basalt AATRM. TRM and mortar testing was done in shorter
intervals, namely after 7, 14, 28, and 90 days, as the evolution of
the material degradation was faster in this case. The results from
the respective tests are summarized in Table 6.
Contrary to the NTRM experiments, the failure mode observed
in all the AATRM tests was fiber rupture. It is interesting that the
tensile strength measured in the TRM tests was significantly
lower, even after 1 week of exposure compared with strengths ob-
tained from the textile tests. High concentration of activators in the
mix caused high alkalinity of the mortar in fresh state (measured pH
close to 14). This led to a substantial decrease of strength during the
first 7 days of curing, while later tests did not reveal any further
strength deterioration. Therefore, the PVC coating did not prove
to be an appropriate protective measure for such applications.
The results of basalt textile tensile tests were quite scattered, but
degradation of basalt fibers due to the exposure to alkaline environ-
ment was unquestionable, similar to the findings of other authors
(Tang et al. 2018). However, if a proper alkali-resistant coating is
provided, textiles of any kind could potentially be combined with
AAM mortars of low hydroxide concentration.
J. Compos. Constr.
 Table 6. AATRM mechanical properties
Average values after (standard deviation in parentheses)

Material Property Num. of specimens each time 7 days 14 days 28 days 90 days
Basalt textile Ft (kN/m)a 4 47.9 (17.6)
ft (MPa)b 846 (310)
ɛtu (%)c 1.64 (0.30)
AAM mortar ft (MPa)d 3 5.9 (0.8) 6.8(0.3) 5.8 (0.5) 7.0 (0.5)
fc (MPa)e 6 43.0 (2.3) 48.5 (2.7) 49.2 (3.4) 53.9 (2.5)
AATRM Ft (kN/m)a 4 27.7 (1.2) 33.4 (1.3) 27.4 (0.5) 27.0 (5.0)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Institute of Technology, Calicut on 08/05/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ft (MPa)b 489 (21) 590 (23) 484 (9) 477 (88)

ɛtu (%)b 1.5 (0.1) 1.3 (0.2) 1.4 (0.1) 0.8 (0.3)
Note: a–eAs in Table 5.

was used for the testing of squat specimens. The squat walls
were tightly inserted in a U-section steel beam, which was then
filled with epoxy resin, thus providing reliable fixing conditions.
The axial load was applied using a stiff, steel I-section beam and
the vertical actuator. Finally, horizontal displacements were im-
posed at the top of the wall using the horizontal actuator and a
set of steel rods.
In all the experiments performed, the same displacement time-
history was used as given in Fig. 5. The tests started with two
slow cycles at 0.02 mm/s, followed by three faster ones at
0.1 mm/s, and the final ones at 0.5 mm/s. The displacement incre-
ment was held constant and equal to 2 mm, which translates to a
0.2% of equivalent drift added per cycle.
Load measurements were obtained directly from the actuators’ load
(a) cells, while displacements at locations of interest were measured using
a videoextensometer in combination with a potentiometer for redun-
dancy purposes and to validate the videoextensometer readings. A
camera was placed 3 m in front of the specimen and connected to a
computer, which via a dedicated software tracked in real-time the dis-
tance between two specified points; one was placed on the element at
the point of interest (notice the black marks in Fig. 4) and another at a
fixed place on the strong frame. That way, the displacements were ac-
curately monitored externally and not affected by local failures or
cracks that would occur during the experiments. The complete testing
configuration is presented in Fig. 6.

(b)

Fig. 4. (a) Test setup for slender; and (b) squat specimens. Experimental Results and Discussion

Experimental Procedure and Setup
The primary experimental program presented in this paper con-
sisted of cyclic in- and out-of-plane tests, performed in a strong
frame, using simultaneously two servohydraulic actuators. The
first actuator was operated in force control and was used to keep
the axial load constant, while the second one was operated in dis-
placement control, and was employed to impose the lateral dis-
placement time history. Slender and squat specimens were tested
using two different setups, as shown in Fig. 4. The former speci-
mens were subjected to three-point cyclic bending, using the hori-
zontal actuator for the application of the axial load and the vertical
one for imposing the lateral displacements. A set of metallic hinges,
sections, and steel rods ensured the rotational freedom at the sup-
ports and midspan, and also made possible the application of neg-
ative (upwards) piston displacements. That same configuration was
used for both in- and out-of-plane tests. Α simpler configuration
The results obtained from the main experimental program are thor-
oughly discussed in the following sections. An overview is also
presented in the Table 7, which includes the peak load values,
the displacements at failure (defined at the point of abrupt load
drop, or a 20% load reduction, in case of a gradual postpeak behav-
ior), the dissipated energy at the end of selected cycles, and the ob-
served failure modes.
In-Plane Tests on Squat Walls
The control specimen [Fig. 7(a)] exhibited a stable rocking behav-
ior, resulting in typical, flag-shaped load-displacement hysteresis
loops. A flexural crack appeared at the base of the wall, as soon
as tensile stresses, due to the lateral loading, overcame the axial
compressive stresses due to the applied axial force. From that
point on, the load reached a plateau, and no further increase was
observed. Stable loops with a gradual drop of load followed until
the experiment was terminated.

© ASCE 04021061-6 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 2022, 26(1): 04021061

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Institute of Technology, Calicut on 08/05/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 5. Time history of the piston displacement.

Table 7. Overview of test results

Displacement at
Peak load (kN) failure (mm)a,b
Dissipated energy
Specimen ID Push Pull Push Pull (kN mm) Failure mode
In-plane squat Cycle 4 Cycle 10
Control 44.0 46.2 — — 457.4 3,046.6 Rocking
1BF_AAM_1BF 74.8 65.2 4.1 4.3 650.7 3,096.4 Textile rupture (push)
2BF_AAM 72.1 66.3 5.9 4.4 717.3 3,467.8 Textile rupture (push)
3NF_NHL_3NF 54.8 53.9 22.3 25.0 604.1 3,784.8 Fiber slippage
In-plane slender Cycle 3 Cycle 7
Control 31.2 35.0 — — 358.7 1,804.8 Rocking
1BF_AAM_1BF 52.5 52.7 2.3 2.0 554.6 2,798.3 Textile rupture (push)
2BF_AAM 49.7 49.6 4.0 3.6 391.4 1,923.2 Textile rupture (push)
3NF_NHL_3NF 54.1 54.1 17.3 19.2 480.7 3,239.9 Fiber slippage
1BF_AAM_1BF-V0 32.1 25.8 1.3 2.5 252.8 — Textile rupture (push)
Out-of-plane Cycle 3 Cycle 10
Control 16.4 17.6 13.9 20.1 192.9 1,945.3 Flexure/Crushing
1BF_AAM_1BF 27.1 24.9 10.0 4.3 295.4 2,588.3 Textile rupture (pull)
1BF_AAM_1BF_th 44.0 37.0 8.1 3.7 384.3 3,842.3 Textile rupture (pull)
3NF_NHL_3NF 26.0 24.7 24.7 36.0 317.7 3,053.6 Fiber slippage
3NF_NHL_3NF_th 56.0 46.7 13.9 — 696.3 6,969.4 Textile rupture (push)
a
Corresponding to sudden load reduction or to displacement at 80% of the peak load in case of gradual postpeak reduction.
b
Top displacement for in-plane squat tests; midspan displacement for all the other tests.

Specimens 1BF_AAM_1BF and 2BF_AAM [Figs. 7(b and c)]
behaved similarly. Their lateral load capacity and initial stiffness
were significantly higher, when compared with the control speci-
men, by 60% and 270%, respectively. However, in both experi-
ments, a sudden drop of load was observed at the third and
fourth cycle, as the textile fibers started to break. From that point
on, the behavior became identical to that of the control specimen,
with a stable, gradually decreasing response. The fiber rupture is
clearly easily visible in Fig. 8(a).
Finally, specimen 3NF_NHL_3NF had a quite different re-
sponse. Compared with walls with the AATRM-strengthening
scheme, it exhibited a 26% lower capacity and 20% lower initial
stiffness; still those values were higher than the control specimen
by 20% and 220%, respectively. The failure mode was also
different, as no rupture but rather fiber slippage occurred. This
agreed with the material characterization tests, which also dis-
played fiber slippage and no rupture. This behavior, although it
means that the material cannot be fully activated, is much more
gradual and controlled. Fig. 8(b) shows the single flexural crack
that was formed during the experiment and around which slippage
of the fibers occurred.
Regarding the energy dissipation characteristics after ten cycles,
all specimens behaved quite similarly. The NTRM solution slightly
outperformed the AATRM ones, with the single-sided configura-
tion being marginally superior to the double-sided one. The satis-
factory behavior of the single-sided configuration is very
important and promising as it can be much more easily applied
on existing buildings.

© ASCE 04021061-7 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 2022, 26(1): 04021061

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Institute of Technology, Calicut on 08/05/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 6. Experimental testing configuration.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e)

(f) (g)

Fig. 7. In-plane squat specimen results: (a–d) load versus displacement hysteresis loops; (e) envelope curves; (f) stiffness; and (g) cumulative energy
versus loading cycles.

© ASCE 04021061-8 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 2022, 26(1): 04021061

 (a) (b)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Institute of Technology, Calicut on 08/05/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 8. Failure modes of (a) NTRM-; and (b) AATRM-reinforced in-plane squat specimens.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f)

(g) (h)

Fig. 9. In-plane slender results: (a–e) load versus displacement hysteresis loops; (f) envelope curves; (g) stiffness; and (h) cumulative energy versus
loading cycles.

© ASCE 04021061-9 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 2022, 26(1): 04021061

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Institute of Technology, Calicut on 08/05/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f)

(g) (h)

Fig. 10. Out-of-plane results: (a–e) load versus displacement hysteresis loops; (f) envelope curves; (g) stiffness; and (h) cumulative energy versus
loading cycles.

In-Plane Tests on Slender Walls
The slender control specimen [Fig. 9(a)] behaved very similarly
to the squat control specimen in the sense that after crack forma-
tion, it exhibited a stable rocking behavior, resulting in typical,
flag-shaped load-displacement hysteresis loops. A flexural crack
appeared at the midspan, as soon as tensile stresses, due to the
vertical displacement of midspan, overcame the axial compres-
sive stresses due to the applied horizontal force. From that
point on, no further increase was observed and stable loops
with a gradual drop of load followed, until the experiment was
terminated.
Specimens 1BF_AAM_1BF and 2BF_AAM [Figs. 9(b and c)]
have shown similar behavior to the respective squat wall speci-
mens. The lateral load capacity and initial stiffness were also signif-
icantly higher, when compared with the control specimen, by
approximately 150% and 200%, respectively. A sudden drop of
load was observed during the second cycle due to fiber rupture in
case of 1BF_AAM_1BF, while in case of 2BF_AAM specimen
the textile fibers started to break during the third cycle, resulting
in a significant load drop, proving that single-sided configuration
behaves in a more ductile manner compared with the double-sided
one. From that point on, the behavior became identical to that of the

© ASCE 04021061-10 J. Compos. Constr.

J. Compos. Constr., 2022, 26(1): 04021061

 control specimen. In addition, specimen 1BF_AAM_1BF-V0 (same
as 1BF_AAM_1BF, but without axial load) also behaved in a brittle
manner [Fig. 9(e)], having an 81.7% load drop during the second
cycle. A peak load of 32.1 kN was recorded, quantifying the in-
crease of strength achieved by applying this strengthening config-
uration [Fig. 9(a)].
Finally, specimen 3NF_NHL_3NF [Fig. 9(d)] had a quite dif-
ferent response when compared with the case of walls with the
AATRM strengthening scheme, while its behavior was very
similar to that of the corresponding squat specimen. It exhibited
around 3.5% higher capacity and 62% lower initial stiffness
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Institute of Technology, Calicut on 08/05/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
compared with AATRM-retrofitted walls, while the strength
and initial stiffness were increased compared with the control
specimen by 123% and 170%, respectively. The failure mode
was similar to the respective squat specimen, resulting in failure
due to the fiber slippage.
Due to the premature rupture of basalt fibers embedded in the
alkaline mortar matrix, the energy dissipated by specimens
strengthened with AATRM was significantly lower than the energy
dissipated by the walls strengthened with NTRM, which
completely agrees with the squat wall testing results. Overall, it
can be concluded that walls strengthened with the NTRM-based
retrofitting scheme have a better seismic behavior.
Out-of-Plane Tests
Out-of-plane cyclic tests were analyzed for slender thin walls
[Figs. 10(a–c)] and slender thick walls [Fig. 10(d and e)], sepa-
rately. The strengthened thick walls exhibited higher loads dur-
ing the experiments, compared with their respective thin
specimens. Asymmetric shape of all load-displacement dia-
grams had been formed do to the high self-weight of specimens
and the test setup itself. During the transition from minimum dis-
placement (pull direction upward) to the neutral position of
specimens in every cycle, the partial closure of cracks at the
top surface was recurring due to the self-weight action, forming
irregular flag shaped diagrams, presented in Fig. 10.
Results of cyclic out-of-plane test for the slender control speci-
men are presented in Fig. 10(a). The general behavior was quite
similar to the behavior of control specimens tested in-plane, de-
scribed earlier, with a slight difference in ending cycles and the fail-
ure mode. After forming the crack, the load reached a plateau, and
no further load increase was observed. Stable loops with a gradual
drop of load followed, forming a non-symmetric flag-shaped dia-
gram until the cumulative load drop of more than 20% was reached
due to the toe crushing at the midspan.
Specimens 1BF_AAM_1BF and 1BF_AAM_1BF_th [Figs. 10(b
and c)] behaved similarly. The lateral load capacity and initial
stiffness of 1BF_AAM_1BF was significantly higher when com-
pared with the control specimen by 165% and 175%, respectively.
However, in both experiments (1BF_AAM_1BF and
1BF_AAM_1BF_th), a sudden drop of load occurred during the
third cycle, as the textile fibers started to rupture. From that point
on, the load capacity gradually decreased, responding in the same
manner as the control specimen.
On the other hand, specimens that were strengthened with
NTRM had again a quite different response when compared with
the ones with the AATRM strengthening scheme. 3NF_NHL_3NF
and 3NF_NHL_3NF_th specimens [Figs. 10(d and e)] had similar
initial stiffness compared with the AATRM-retrofitted walls. In
terms of strength, specimen 3NF_NHL_3NF exhibited around
96% of the strength of 1BF_AAM_1BF, while compared with the
control specimen, the strength increase was about approximately
160%. The failure in case of 3NF_NHL_3NF was caused by
© ASCE 04021061-11
J. Compos. Constr., 2022, 26(1): 04021061
Fig. 11. Fiber rupture in thick out-of-plane NTRM-strengthened
specimen.
fiber slippage, similarly to the NTRM-strengthened specimens
that were tested in-plane. Finally, the response of the specimen
3NF_NHL_3NF_th [Fig. 10(e)] was very similar to the
3NF_NHL_3NF specimen, with the maximum sustained load
being 27% higher than 1BF_AAM_1BF_th. The phenomenon of
late activation of fibers was observed identically to the other
NTRM-strengthened specimens, which is in full agreement with
the material characterization tests results. Unlike the other
NTRM-strengthened test specimens, specimen 3NF_NHL_3NF_th
failed by rupture of the natural fibers (Fig. 11).
The walls strengthened with natural fibers have shown much
higher ductility compared with the ones strengthened with basalt fi-
bers. Regarding the energy dissipation characteristics after 10 cy-
cles, the NTRM solution had better performance than the
AATRM one, having 182% and 118% higher results in case of
thick and thin specimens, respectively. Consequently, it can be con-
cluded that the NTRM-strengthened walls performed significantly
better than the AATRM-strengthened ones in out-of-plane tests.
Conclusions
An extensive experimental program was conducted to evaluate the
efficiency of two different TRM-strengthening configurations on
masonry walls constructed with natural stones. The former con-
sisted of an AAM-based mortar combined with a basalt textile
and the latter of an NHL-based mortar reinforced with a flax-fiber
textile. The use of alternative materials was preferred in order to
propose novel and more sustainable retrofitting solutions.
The AATRM-strengthening scheme resulted in a significant in-
crease in both strength and stiffness. However, all specimens failed
early, during the first cycles, a development that is partly attributed
to the fact that the basalt textile lost a significant amount of its capacity
within the alkaline environment of the AAM mortar. This durability-
related issue probably stems from the fact that the textile coating was
not adequate in terms of its alkali resistance. Therefore, for similar ap-
plications, alkali-resistant (AR) textiles, which are guaranteed to operate
well in harsh alkaline environments, should be preferred.
The idea of retrofitting existing stone masonry walls with natu-
ral fiber textiles was also explored and resulted in considerable im-
provements in strength, stiffness, and energy dissipation. Textiles
J. Compos. Constr.
 were embedded in an NHL-based mortar, resulting in a final prod-
uct with significantly reduced carbon footprint. Fibers could not be
fully activated in most cases and slippage would occur, something
that could probably be avoided by a better connection between per-
pendicular rovings and their coating with some eco-friendly mate-
rial, which could also provide additional alkali protection to the
fibers. Yet, it is acknowledged that this slippage resulted in a
pseudo-yielding response and consequently increased energy
dissipation.
Masonry strengthening using TRM solutions is a promising tech-
nique when it comes to the seismic strengthening of existing struc-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Institute of Technology, Calicut on 08/05/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
tures. The ease at which this technique can be paired with novel,
low-carbon footprint materials paves the way for future experimental
projects combining various materials. The proposed AATRM and
NTRM configurations have yielded some interesting and promising
results, but further investigation is needed to improve these systems
and make the most out of the employed materials.
Data Availability Statement
The data from the in- and out-of-plane experiments of this study are
available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Acknowledgments
The research work was partially supported by the Hellenic Foundation
for Research and Innovation (HFRI) under the HFRI PhD Fellowship
Grant (Fellowship No. 62). This project has received funding
from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation
program under grant agreement No 813596 DuRSAAM.
References
Abbass, A., P. B. Lourenço, and D. V. Oliveira. 2020. “The use of natural
fibers in repairing and strengthening of cultural heritage buildings.”
Mater. Today:. Proc. 31: S321–S328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr
.2020.02.206.
Babaeidarabad, S., F. De Caso, and A. Nanni. 2014. “Out-of-plane behav-
ior of URM walls strengthened with fabric-reinforced cementitious ma-
trix composite.” J. Compos. Constr. 18 (4): 04013057. https://doi.org
/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000457.
Berge, B. 2009. The ecology of building materials. 2nd ed. Amsterdam,
Netherlands: Elsevier.
Buchwald, A., C. Kaps, and M. Hohmann. 2003. “Alkali-activated binders
and Pozzolan cement binders—Compete binder reaction or two sides of
the same story ?” In Proc., 11th Int. Congress on the Chemistry of
Cement, 1238–1247. Accessed February 25, 2021. https://www
.researchgate.net/publication/228500946.
CEN (European Committee for Standardization). 1999a. Methods of test for
mortar for masonry. Part 11: Determination of flexural and compres-
sive strength of hardened mortar. EN 1015-11. Brussels, Belgium:
CEN.
CEN (European Committee for Standardization). 1999b. Methods of test
for masonry. Part 1: Determination of compressive strength. EN
1052-1. Brussels, Belgium: CEN.
Davidovits, J. 1991. “Geopolymers—Inorganic polymeric new materials.”
J. Therm. Anal. 37 (8): 1633–1656. https://doi.org/10.1007
/BF01912193.
De Santis, S., G. De Canio, G. de Felice, P. Meriggi, and I. Roselli. 2019.
“Out-of-plane seismic retrofitting of masonry walls with textile rein-
forced mortar composites.” Bull. Earthquake Eng. 17 (11): 6265–
6300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-019-00701-5.
Ferrara, G., C. Caggegi, E. Martinelli, and A. Gabor. 2020. “Shear capacity
of masonry walls externally strengthened using Flax-TRM composite
© ASCE 04021061-12
J. Compos. Constr., 2022, 26(1): 04021061
systems: Experimental tests and comparative assessment.” Constr.
Build. Mater. 261: 120490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat
.2020.120490.
Giaretton, M., M. R. Valluzzi, N. Mazzon, and C. Modena. 2017.
“Out-of-plane shake-table tests of strengthened multi-leaf stone ma-
sonry walls.” Bull. Earthquake Eng. 15 (10): 4299–4317. https://doi
.org/10.1007/s10518-017-0125-7.
Gkournelos, P. D., D. A. Bournas, and T. C. Triantafillou. 2019. “Combined
seismic and energy upgrading of existing reinforced concrete buildings
using TRM jacketing and thermal insulation.” Earthquake Struct. 16:
625–639. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2019.16.5.625.
Gkournelos, P. D., T. C. Triantafillou, and D. A. Bournas. 2020.
“Integrated structural and energy retrofitting of masonry walls: Effect
of in-plane damage on the out-of-plane response.” J. Compos.
Constr. 24 (5): 04020049. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943
-5614.0001066.
Habert, G., J. B. D’Espinose De Lacaillerie, and N. Roussel. 2011. “An en-
vironmental evaluation of geopolymer based concrete production:
Reviewing current research trends.” J. Cleaner Prod. 19 (11): 1229–
1238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.03.012.
Habert, G., and C. Ouellet-Plamondon. 2016. “Recent update on the envi-
ronmental impact of geopolymers.” RILEM Tech. Lett. 1: 17. https://doi
.org/10.21809/rilemtechlett.2016.6.
Harajli, M., H. ElKhatib, and J. T. San-Jose. 2010. “Static and cyclic
out-of-plane response of masonry walls strengthened using textile-
mortar system.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 22 (11): 1171–1180. https://doi
.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000128.
Heath, A., K. Paine, and M. McManus. 2014. “Minimising the global
warming potential of clay based geopolymers.” J. Cleaner Prod. 78:
75–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.04.046.
Huntzinger, D. N., and T. D. Eatmon. 2009. “A life-cycle assessment of
Portland cement manufacturing: Comparing the traditional process
with alternative technologies.” J. Cleaner Prod. 17 (7): 668–675. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.04.007.
Kalagri, A., A. Miltiadou-Fezans, and E. Vintzileou. 2010. “Design and
evaluation of hydraulic lime grouts for the strengthening of stone ma-
sonry historic structures.” Mater. Struct. 43 (8): 1135–1146. https://
doi.org/10.1617/s11527-009-9572-1.
Kenneth, I., and A. Miller. 2012. “Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of
hemp-lime wall constructions in the UK.” Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 69:
1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2012.09.001.
Koutas, L. N., and D. A. Bournas. 2020. “Confinement of masonry
columns with textile-reinforced mortar jackets.” Constr. Build.
Mater. 258: 120343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020
.120343.
Le Duigou, A., P. Davies, and C. Baley. 2011. “Environmental impact anal-
ysis of the production of flax fibres to be used as composite material re-
inforcement.” J. Biobased Mater. Bioenergy 5 (1): 153–165. https://doi
.org/10.1166/jbmb.2011.1116.
Lignola, G. P., A. Prota, and G. Manfredi. 2009. “Nonlinear analyses of tuff
masonry walls strengthened with cementitious matrix-grid composites.”
J. Compos. Constr. 13 (4): 243–251. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
CC.1943-5614.0000007.
Magenes, G., A. Penna, I. E. Senaldi, M. Rota, and A. Galasco. 2014.
“Shaking table test of a strengthened full-scale stone masonry building
with flexible diaphragms.” Int. J. Archit. Heritage 8 (3): 349–375. https://
doi.org/10.1080/15583058.2013.826299.
Menna, C., D. Asprone, M. Durante, A. Zinno, A. Balsamo, and A. Prota.
2015. “Structural behaviour of masonry panels strengthened with an in-
novative hemp fibre composite grid.” Constr. Build. Mater. 100: 111–
121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.09.051.
Menna, C., D. Asprone, C. Ferone, F. Colangelo, A. Balsamo, A. Prota, R.
Cioffi, and G. Manfredi. 2013. “Use of geopolymers for composite ex-
ternal reinforcement of RC members.” Composites, Part B 45 (1):
1667–1676. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2012.09.019.
Miranda, L., J. Milosevic, and R. Bento. 2017. “Cyclic behaviour of stone
masonry walls strengthened by grout injection.” Mater. Struct. 50 (1):
1–17. https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-016-0911-8.
Moropoulou, A., C. Koroneos, M. Karoglou, E. Aggelakopoulou, A.
Bakolas, and A. Dompros. 2006. “Life cycle analysis of mortars and
J. Compos. Constr.
 its environmental impact.” Mater. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc. 895: 145–150.
https://doi.org/10.1557/proc-0895-g06-02.
Oliveira, D. V., R. A. Silva, E. Garbin, and P. B. Lourenço. 2012.
“Strengthening of three-leaf stone masonry walls: An experimental re-
search.” Mater. Struct. 45 (8): 1259–1276. https://doi.org/10.1617
/s11527-012-9832-3.
Papanicolaou, C. G., T. C. Triantafillou, K. Karlos, and M. Papathanasiou.
2007. “Textile-reinforced mortar (TRM) versus FRP as strengthening
material of URM walls: In-plane cyclic loading.” Mater. Struct.
40 (10): 1081–1097. https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-006-9207-8.
Papanicolaou, C. G., T. C. Triantafillou, M. Papathanasiou, and K. Karlos.
2008. “Textile reinforced mortar (TRM) versus FRP as strengthening
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Institute of Technology, Calicut on 08/05/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
material of URM walls: Out-of-plane cyclic loading.” Mater. Struct.
41 (1): 143–157. https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-007-9226-0.
Parisi, F., G. P. Lignola, N. Augenti, A. Prota, and G. Manfredi. 2011.
“Nonlinear behavior of a masonry subassemblage before and after strength-
ening with inorganic matrix-grid composites.” J. Compos. Constr. 15 (5):
821–832. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000203.
Pinho, F. F. S., V. J. G. Lúcio, and M. F. C. Baião. 2012. “Rubble stone
masonry walls in Portugal strengthened with reinforced micro-concrete
layers.” Bull. Earthquake Eng. 10 (1): 161–180. https://doi.org/10.1007
/s10518-011-9280-4.
Pinho, F. F. S., V. J. G. Lucio, and M. F. C. Baiao. 2015. “Rubble stone
masonry walls strengthened by three-dimensional steel ties and
textile-reinforced mortar render, under compression and shear loads.”
Int. J. Archit. Heritage 9 (7): 844–858. https://doi.org/10.1080
/15583058.2013.878413.
Provis, J. L. 2014. “Introduction and scope.” In Vol. 13 of Alkali activated
materials, edited by J. L. Provis, and J. S. J. van Deventer, 1–9. Berlin:
Springer International Publishing.
Shi, C., P. V. Krivenko, and D. Roy. 2006. Alkali-activated cements and
concretes. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.4324
/9780203390672.
Tamburini, S., M. Natali, E. Garbin, M. Panizza, M. Favaro, and M. R.
Valluzzi. 2017. “Geopolymer matrix for fibre reinforced composites
aimed at strengthening masonry structures.” Constr. Build. Mater.
141: 542–552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.03.017.
© ASCE 04021061-13
J. Compos. Constr., 2022, 26(1): 04021061
Tang, C., H. Jiang, X. Zhang, G. Li, and J. Cui. 2018. “Corrosion behavior
and mechanism of basalt fibers in sodium hydroxide solution.”
Materials 11 (8): 1381. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma11081381.
Tomaž evič , M., M. Gams, and T. Berset. 2015. “Strengthening of stone
masonry walls with composite reinforced coatings.” Bull. Earthquake
Eng. 13 (7): 2003–2027. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-014-9697-7.
Triantafillou, T. C., K. Karlos, P. Kapsalis, and L. Georgiou. 2018.
“Innovative structural and energy retrofitting system for masonry
walls using textile reinforced mortars combined with thermal insulation:
In-plane mechanical behavior.” J. Compos. Constr. 22 (5): 04018029.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000869.
Triantafillou, T. C., K. Karlos, K. Kefalou, and E. Argyropoulou. 2017.
“An innovative structural and energy retrofitting system for URM
walls using textile reinforced mortars combined with thermal insulation:
Mechanical and fire behavior.” Constr. Build. Mater. 133: 1–13. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.12.032.
Trochoutsou, N., M. Di Benedetti, K. Pilakoutas, and M. Guadagnini.
2021. “Bond of flax textile-reinforced mortars to masonry.” Constr.
Build. Mater. 284: 122849. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat
.2021.122849.
Valluzzi, M. R., F. da Porto, E. Garbin, and M. Panizza. 2014.
“Out-of-plane behaviour of infill masonry panels strengthened with
composite materials.” Mater. Struct. 47 (12): 2131–2145. https://doi
.org/10.1617/s11527-014-0384-6.
Valluzzi, M. R., F. da Porto, and C. Modena. 2001. “Behaviour of multi-
leaf stone masonry walls strengthened by different intervention techni-
ques.” In Proc., Historical Constructions: Possibilities of Numerical
and Experimental Techniques, edited by P. B. Lourenço, and
P. Roca, 1023–1032. Accessed February 25, 2021. https://www
.researchgate.net/publication/242759983.
Vintzileou, E., and T. P. Tassios. 1995. “Three-leaf stone masonry strength-
ened by injecting cement grouts.” J. Struct. Eng. 121 (5): 848–856.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1995)121:5(848).
Weil, M., K. Dombrowski, and A. Buchwald. 2009. “Life-cycle analysis
of geopolymers.” In Geopolymers: Structures, processing, properties
and industrial applications, 194–210. Sawston, UK: Woodhead
Publishing.
J. Compos. Constr.