Structures 57 (2023) 105124

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/structures

Prediction of the additional compressive strength due to

PBO-FRCM-confinement of brick-masonry depending on the stiffening
effect caused by different discontinuous wrappings: new
design-oriented perspective
Francesco Campolongo, Alessio Cascardi *, Luciano Ombres
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Calabria, Cosenza 87036, Italy

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Fabric Reinforced Cementitious Mortar (FRCM) is an innovative composite system able to strength or rehabilitate
Masonry masonry members with an efficacy, which is affected by the mechanical and geometrical properties of its con­
Confinement stituents: matrix and fabric. Since one of the most appreciated benefits of FRCM is the breathability, the
FRCM
discontinuous application is commonly not considered in the retrofitting. On the other side, the thickness of the
Design-oriented model
Fiber
matrix may be considerable (ranging between 10 and 30 mm) implying an over-weight and over-stiffness which
Testing may influence the seismic response of the structure in a detrimental manner; especially when dealing with
Column column confinement. Consequently, the experimental evidence and the proper design for the partially wrapping
with FRCMs is currently lacking.
For this reason, the present research reports on an experimental and analytical investigation about PBO
(polybenzoxazoles) FRCM-confinement of clay-brick based masonry columns by varying the confinement scheme.
The aim is to evaluate the effectiveness of the confinement in terms of axial bearing load capacity and ductility
and, at the same time, focusing on the parameters related to the confining scheme showing how these affect the
results. Two columns were tested unconfined as lower-bound reference; six columns (i.e. three couples) were
partially confined respectively with 3, 4 and 5 wraps having the same width and lastly, a further couple was
fully-jacketed as upper-bound reference. The findings evidenced that an appreciable gain in axial strength and
deformability was ensured. On the other side, the axial stiffness increased proportionally to the number of
confining wraps.
Thus, a new analytical model was herein proposed considering the geometry of the confining scheme, as well
as the stiffening effect related to it. In particular, a novel effectiveness coefficient (namely KE) is evaluated
affecting the theoretical confining pressure based on the axial stiffness of the FRCM confined masonry. The
comparison with the own and other available experimental data confirmed the reliability of the proposal which
wants to offer a new perspective for the design of the FRCM partial confinement of masonry that needs further
investigations to be confirmed by including a variety of masonry and FRCM typologies.

use of Reinforced Concrete (RC) jacket [4,5], which largely gained both
the strength and ductility of unreinforced masonry (URM) while
1. Introduction
enlarging the weight and stiffness (see Fig. 1). Similar effects were met
adopting the steel jacketing with further disadvantage related to the
Masonry buildings are typically vulnerable structures especially in
durability of the intervention because of the corrosion phenomena [6].
seismic-prone zones due to the lateral forcing or the overloading often
In the last decades, the consideration of the Fiber Reinforced Polymers
experienced during the serviceability modifications [1–3]. In such cases,
(FRPs) in the field of the structural strengthening has grown consider­
the columns are focused members to be strengthened. Over the time,
ably [7–11]. The reason is detectable in the beneficial capacity of the
different methods have been proved to improve the axial capacity of the
FRP-confinement to be effective while not altering the weight and
masonry by means of confinement technique. First attempt involved the

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: alessio.cascardi@unical.it (A. Cascardi), luciano.ombres@unical.it (L. Ombres).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2023.105124
Received 17 May 2023; Received in revised form 22 August 2023; Accepted 23 August 2023
Available online 4 September 2023
2352-0124/Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of Institution of Structural Engineers. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
F. Campolongo et al. Structures 57 (2023) 105124

Nomenclature confinement system [-];

kH is the coefficient of efficiency in the horizontal direction
Symbols [-];
Am is the cross-sectional area of confined masonry column Kmat is the dimensionless coefficient to account for inorganic
[mm2]; matrix [-];
b,h are the dimensions of confined member cross section kV is the coefficient of efficiency in the vertical direction [-];
[mm]; M1 is the mortar used to bind the clay units [-];
b’, h’ are the dimensions of confined member cross section, M2 is the mortar used to cap the columns [-];
minus rounding corners [mm]; M3 is the stabilized inorganic (cement-based) mortar used to
bf is width of the FRCM reinforcement [mm]; the FRCM-confinement [-];
Co.V. is the coefficients of variation [-]; nf is the total number of FRCM layers [-];
D diagonal of the square or rectangular section [mm]; s’f is the center to center spacing to adjacent jackets [mm];
E0 is the longitudinal elastic modulus of the unconfined sf is the net spacing between two jackets [mm];
masonry (and confined) [MPa]; tf thickness of FRCM strips [mm];
Ec is the longitudinal elastic modulus of the confined masonry tmat is the thickness of FRCM matrix [mm];
[MPa]; α1 is a strength increment coefficient (confinement) useful to
Ef is the modulus of elasticity of fiber itself [MPa]; calculate fmcd [-];
fb,mat is the bending strength of the FRCM-matrix [MPa]; α2, α3 are strength increment coefficients (confinement) useful to
fc,mat is the compression strength of the FRCM-matrix [MPa]; calculate k’ [-];
ffu is the tensile strength of the fiber itself [MPa]; α4 is a strength increment coefficient (confinement) useful to
fl is the confining lateral pressure [MPa]; calculate kmat [-];
fl,eff is the effective confining pressure [MPa]; β is the proposed increment coefficients useful to calculate γ
fm is the axial strength of the un-confined samples [MPa]; according to Eq. (14) [-];
fmc is the axial strength of the confined samples [MPa]; γ is the ratio of the unconfined to confined column stiffnesses
fmc,lim is the proposed upper bound for the prediction of the [-];
compressive strength gain [MPa]; γm is the partial factor for materials and products [-];
fmcd is the characteristic compressive strength of FRCM- εfu is the ultimate strain of the fiber itself [mm/mm];
confined masonry [MPa]; εud,rid is the calculation strain of the FRCM composite [mm/mm].
fmd is the design compressive strength of masonry [MPa]; εuf is the ultimate tensile strain of dry fibers [mm/mm];
gm is the mass density of the masonry [kg/m3]; ηa is the environmental conversion factor [-];
k’ dimensionless coefficient of strength increase µ is the ductility index [-];
(confinement) [-]; ρmat is the matrix reinforcement ratio (confinement) [-];
kE is the proposed coefficient to consider the stiffness of the

unconfined portions allow the breathability while the confined ones

Fig. 1. Emulative example for the RC-jacketing of a masonry column sup­
porting a vault.
stiffness of the member. In fact, FRPs require a fiber sheet having
negligible thickness and weight. On the other side, the use of epoxy-
based matrix does not allow the masonry to “breath” as in origin
anymore; so, humidity may occur easily. In order to cover this draw­
back, the removal of the confinement can be performed [12] or alter­
natively a discontinuous wrapping may be achieved [13]. In fact,
upgrade the URM’s compressive strength proportionally to the
geometrical percentage of reinforcement, as well as the number of
layers. This application is currently well-known and practicable thanks
to the availability of many scientific papers reporting the experimental
evidence of the efficiency of the discontinuous FRP-confinement and, on
the other hand, the design-oriented codes which provide well-
established analytical formulations based on empirical calibration.
Similar exploitations were achieved for the case of RC-columns;
[14–17].
More recently, a new family of composites has been studied: Fabric
Reinforced Cementitious Mortar (FRCM); [18–27]. It consists of a
(commonly) non-metallic fiber mesh embedded into an inorganic
mortar (generally lime- or cement-based). The main advantage is the
compatibility with masonry substrate since the FRCM-matrix may be
selected in order to have mechanical properties similar to the mortar of
the existing masonry including porosity, dielectric power, breathability,
etc. On the contrary, the additional weight and stiffness are considered a
disadvantage; [28–30]. In this scenario, the FRCM-confinement was
conceived in the full-scheme because the breathability is not an issue.
The use of a fabric instead of a sheet implies a less amount of fiber per
unit of matrix volume. So, the FRCM needs a multi ply confinement to be
competitive with the single layer in the FRP-solution. Multi-ply FRCM
confinement means also thicker FRCM-matrix, as well as axial stiffness.
To sum up, a partially FRCM-confinement can meet the expectation of
the practitioners when the breathability of the masonry must be pre­
served, additional axial strength and ductility are both asked and the
gain in axial stiffness need to be not excessive. This option is nowadays
ignored for two main reasons:

2
F. Campolongo et al.
1. lack of experimental evidence;
2. lack of proper design-oriented model.
For this reason, the present research aims to act as first attempt to
cover this large necessity by proposing a new experimental program
involving a series of small-scaled masonry column targeted to provide
evidence of the efficiency of the strengthening and, at the same time,
analyze the influencing parameter for analytical formulation purpose.
2. State-of-knowledge
FRCM, also known with the acronyms TRM (Textile Reinforced
Mortar) [31] and SRG (Steel Reinforced Grout) [32], exhibit satisfactory
mechanical performances and valuable durability properties; they also
have significant potential for structural applications, offering relatively
high strength to weight ratio, low maintenance requirements and ease of
installation and removability. These features made FRCM increasingly
used as a strengthening system of masonry and RC-structures [33–35].
In FRCM, the main role of the fibers is to bear the tensile stresses. On the
other hand, the mortar has multiple responsibility in keeping the fabric
together, protecting it from environment’s aggressive agents, adminis­
tering the stress transfer from the substrate to the fabric and also
providing rigidity to the composite system. Thus, the mortar properties
have an influential role in exploiting the potential FRCM structural
performance; consequently, in case of poor-quality mortar, the effec­
tiveness of the strengthening can be limited or even compromised.
Furthermore, in the eventuality of the matrix cracking, a detrimental
slippage may occur, [36].
Since the content of fibers used for the confining systems must
accomplish design requirements, a continuous configuration of the
reinforcement is more often adopted. Indeed, masonry columns are
usually confined with FRCM/TRM or SRG jackets along their entire
height (fully wrapped); an alternative confining solution is the discon­
tinuous one, according to which columns can be wrapped with longi­
tudinally intermittent (i.e. spaced) FRCM/TRM or SRG wraps.
Discontinuous confinement proposes an optimal design solution for
masonry columns reinforcement requiring a limited increase of strength
and deformation, but also in historic buildings where less invasive
intervention is required. During recent years, a high number of experi­
mental and theoretical research was carried out to investigate the per­
formances of FRCM-confined masonry columns; these studies mostly
refer to fully wrapped masonry columns (e.g. in [37–40]).
In [28], Cascardi et al. presented the results of an experimental
investigation into the effect of the properties of the inorganic matrix on
the behavior of FRCM-confined masonry columns. The study aimed to
contribute to the understanding of the potential use of FRCM composites
in the retrofitting of masonry structures. The study involved the testing
of ten half-scale FRCM-confined masonry columns, which were con­
structed using standard tuff bricks and lime mortar. The columns were
reinforced with same types of glass fibers fabric and with varying
properties of the inorganic matrix, including different types of cement
and pozzolanic additives. The columns were subjected to axial
compression tests to investigate their load-bearing capacity, deforma­
tion behavior, and failure modes. The results of the tests showed that the
use of FRCM composites can significantly improve the load-bearing
capacity and ductility of masonry columns. The properties of the inor­
ganic matrix were also found to have a significant effect on the behavior
of the FRCM-confined masonry columns. In fact, higher mortar grade
resulted in higher peak loads and greater deformation capacities
compared to the use of poor-quality mortar. The failure modes of the
FRCM-confined masonry columns were also investigated. The unrein­
forced columns failed primarily due to the crushing of the masonry
units, while the FRCM-confined columns exhibited different failure
modes depending on the stiffness of the used inorganic matrix. The
columns reinforced with low-grade mortar exhibited a more ductile
behavior, through a gradual reduction in load capacity and increasing
3
Structures 57 (2023) 105124
deformation until eventual collapse. The initial elastic modulus was
comparable with the un-confined column. On the other side, the col­
umns reinforced with high-grade cement exhibited a more brittle
behavior, with a sudden drop in load capacity and little deformation
prior to collapse. The strength gain was more evident, as well as the gain
in initial stiffness. The authors concluded that the properties of the
inorganic matrix (thickness, strength and stiffness) have a significant
effect on the behavior of FRCM-confined masonry columns and should
be carefully considered in the design of retrofitting strategies.
In 2021, a round robin test, carried out to investigate the behavior of
masonry columns confined with FRCM systems, was conducted [35].
The study aimed to evaluate the performance of different FRCM systems,
including variations in the fiber type (glass and steel), type of masonry
(tuff- and clay-based) and number of ply (1, 2 and 3) to provide rec­
ommendations for the design of retrofitting strategies for masonry
structures. The strength and ductility gains were both found evident and
proportional to the number of plies, as well as the geometrical per­
centage of fiber. The efficiency of the confinement was more manifest
for the lower strength of the reference column; i.e. the tuff-based. In
terms of stiffness, the glass-based system was able to increase these
properties linearly with the number of confining plies having a relevant
thickness varying form 10 mm to 25 mm. on the contrary, the steel-
based system has more modes effect in stiffening the masonry since
the used mortar thickness was negligible when compared with the
dimension of the column cross-section. Again, a stiffness relation with
the FRCM-confinement efficiency was detected.
The behavior of clay-brick masonry columns confined with the
(polybenzoxazoles) PBO-FRCM system through both theoretical and
experimental investigations is reported in [41]. The authors introduce
the concept of FRCM composites, which comprise high-strength fabric
reinforcement embedded in a cementitious matrix, and outline their
advantages over other retrofitting materials, including their ease of
installation, compatibility with masonry structures, and improved
durability and resistance to environmental effects. In the experimental
part of the study, a series of half-scale masonry columns were con­
structed and tested under axial compression. The confinement was
archived both in fully and partially wrapping by varying the number of
plies; i.e. 1, 2 and 3. The test results show that the FRCM-confined
columns have improved load-bearing capacity, ductility, and energy
dissipation capacity compared to the unreinforced columns. The results
indicate that increasing the number of FRCM layers and using full-
wrapping, the columns can lead to improved confinement effective­
ness. In the theoretical part of the study, the authors develop an
analytical model based on existing proposals to simulate the behavior of
FRCM-confined masonry columns under axial compression. The model
considered the properties of both the masonry and FRCM materials, as
well as their interaction. The model was then validated using experi­
mental the results. The study highlights the potential of using a vertical
efficiency factor, based on the FRP-theory, to reach an improved accu­
racy of the prediction with a maximum scatter between theoretical and
experimental outcome about 25%. Further improvement can be found
considering the stiffness effect related to the FRCM-jacket.
Further experimental results were obtained by the authors on clay
brick masonry columns partially confined with FRCM jackets as stated in
[42]. The confining system (basalt-FRCM, SRG) and the number of the
confining layers (i.e., 1, 2, and 3) were the varied parameters. The au­
thors found that increasing the number of FRCM/SRG layers led to an
increase in the peak load and deformation capacity of the columns.
Moreover, it was concluded that the peak load values decrease with the
increase of the confining strips thickness (i.e. with the increase of the
axial rigidity of the strips). This result was related to the vertical spacing
of the FRCM-wraps.
Studies and research about this topic are still very limited; the in­
formation available in the technical literature still does not provide an
in-depth understanding of the structural performances of FRCM partially
confined masonry columns. From the design code side, DT 215/2018
F. Campolongo et al.
[43] and DT 200R1/2013 [44] are commonly used for the FRCM and
FRP systems, respectively. In particular, the latter proposes a geometric-
based coefficient aimed to account the reduced efficacy of the partially
confined column neglecting to the stiffness of the confinement since the
thickness of the FRP-matrix (generally epoxy-based resins) has negli­
gible thickness. In case of FRCM-confinement the DT 215/2018 by
Italian CNR does not consider the eventuality of a partially confine
column. The proposed factor for FRP cannot be sufficient for an accurate
prediction as already proved in [41]. All the experimental evidence goes
in the direction that an influence of the FRCM-stiffness on the confine­
ment efficiency is reliable, especially in case of partial wrapping.
In this scenario, the innovative contribution of the present work is to
investigate the mechanical role of FRCM discontinuous confinement
applied to masonry columns; to this end, a specific experimental
investigation was conducted. Ten small-scale square-section specimens
were tested under monotonic axial loading until collapse, and the
effectiveness of the discontinuous confinement was investigated as the
column stiffness varied (which varies with the geometric configuration
of the reinforcement). The experimental results were compared with the
theoretical models contained in the Italian standards DT 215/2018 and
DT 200R1/2013. However, these neglects the variation of columns’
stiffness and consequently underestimate the experimental values. So,
the aim of the paper is to propose a new analytical model that considers
columns’ stiffness variation. However, to verify the effectiveness of the
proposed model it will be necessary to apply it to a much larger database
of experimental results.
3. Experimental investigation
The experimental investigation first included the material testing for
the characterization of the mechanical properties and then the structural
elements, in the forms of small-scale columns (250x250x485 mm3),
under uniaxial compression (load with negligible eccentricity).
3.1. Materials
The considered masonry was clay brick with lime-based mortar made
up. In order to impose the load on a uniform surface, capping was
assessed by means of a stiff mortar layer at the top and bottom side of the
columns (20 mm thick each). The single brick unit has dimensions
250x120x55 mm3. Standard compression tests were performed on six
55 mm-edges cubes cut from the bricks; the average compressive
strength was 28.30±2.10 MPa in accordance with [45]. In Table 1 the
compression (fc,mat) and flexural tensile (fb,mat) strengths of the mortar
used to bind the clay units (M1) and the one used to cap the columns
(M2), both determined by standard tests in accordance to [46], are re­
ported. The M1 was selected in order to meet a high strength masonry,
differently from [41] and [42]. Concerning the confining system, a PBO-
FRCM (polybenzoxazoles) was adopted (see [47]) consisting of an un­
balanced fabric (areal weight of 70 g/m2 and 18 g/m2 in the longitudinal
and transverse direction, respectively), embedded in a stabilized inor­
ganic (cement-based) mortar (M3) whose properties are reported again
in Table 1. The PBO fiber yarns are spaced 10 mm with an equivalent
thickness of 0.045 mm in the longitudinal direction and 20 mm with an
equivalent thickness of 0.012 mm in the transversal direction. The me­
chanical properties of dry textile in the longitudinal direction were
evaluated in accordance with [48] in terms of Elastic Modulus (Ef),
tensile strength (ffu) and ultimate strain (εfu) and they were equal to 218
±12 GPa, 3409±452 MPa and 1.56±0.2 %, respectively.
Table 1
Compression and flexural tensile strength of the mortars.
Label Unit M1 M2 M3
fb,mat (Co.V.) [MPa] 1.9 (4%) 8.6 (3%) 4.5 (6%)
fc,mat (Co.V.) [MPa] 5.2 (4%) 34.1(3%) 24.8 (8%)
4
Structures 57 (2023) 105124
Furthermore, a total of five Direct Tensile (DT) tests were carried out
on PBO-FRCM coupons (50x6x500 mm3) to evaluate the mechanical
response of the composite systems, according to [49]. The coupons were
equipped with four PVC tabs at the ends having 50x2x100 mm3 di­
mensions in order to distribute uniformly the gripping force. Tensile
stress-axial strain curves are illustrated in Fig. 2. All the specimens
exhibited a three-phases tensile behavior as expected when dealing with
gripping method. In particular, in the first phase the coupon showed no
crack, and the behavior was mainly dominated by the mortar properties
resulting in a stiff linear trend. When the first crack opened within the
mortar, the second phase was recognized also because characterized by
a series of zig-zag response having a reduced trend pendency with
respect to the first phase. In fact, the cracks continued to open and
develop along the entire coupon with an orientation and spacing which
depended on the fabric mesh size. Lastly, the third phase clearly intro­
duced a new pendency having a linear elastic behavior and brittle fail­
ure. As evident, this phase was dominate by the properties of the fabric
(matrix fully damaged and not working for the tensile response
anymore). This phase was the largest among the three approximating
the tensile behavior of the dry fabric. So, the average values for the third
phase in terms of stress, strain and elastic modulus were 1434.64±254
MPa, 1.25±0.35% and 114.72±8 GPa, respectively. Thus, the efficiency
factor, assumed as the ratio between the tensile strength of the FRCM on
the dry fabric, was found equal to 42%.
Before the installation of the FRCM-jacket, the columns were pre­
pared by wetting all the surfaces in order to clean the dust (able to
contrast the bond) and, at the same time, avoid the water absorption
from the FRCM-mortar to the masonry. In a later moment, the internal
layer of FRCM-mortar (3 mm thick) was applied to the masonry. The
fabric mesh was disposed onto this layer, pushing carefully to control the
penetration of the mortar through the open grid, and wrapped around
the column. The second layer of FRCM-mortar (again 3 mm thick) was
used to cover the fabric.
3.2. Test layout
The designation CX1L-PBOn (N) was used to identify the specimens:
CX indicates the type of confinement (CC for column confined with
continuous wrapping, CD for column confined with discontinuous
wrapping), 1L the single-layer reinforcement, PBO the type of fiber, n
the number of stripes in each column (n = 1 means full wrapping, which
is avoided in the case) and N the series of test. Lastly, the UCS label
identifies the un-confined column. In Table 2 the details of the speci­
mens in terms the width of the composite stripe bf and the ratio s’f/sf,
being s’f and sf the center to center spacing to adjacent jackets and the
net spacing between two jackets, respectively, are reported. Moreover,
kV is the coefficient of efficiency in the vertical direction according to
[44] ranging in 0 and 1 where assuming the unconfined and fully
Fig. 2. Tensile stress-axial strain curves obtained by DT tests.
F. Campolongo et al. Structures 57 (2023) 105124

Table 2
Geometric characteristics of the confinement system.
Database Specimen scheme of bf s’f sf s’f/sf kV

designation confinement (mm) (mm) (mm) (-) (-)

own UCS (I) – – – – – –

UCS (II)
CC1L-PBO (I) Continuous 445 – – – 1
CC1L-PBO (II)
CD1L-PBO5 (I) Discontinuous 55 31.30 86 0.36 0.88
CD1L-PBO5 (II)
CD1L-PBO4 (I) 61 118 0.51 0.77
CD1L-PBO4 (II)
CD1L-PBO3 (I) 117.50 172.50 0.68 0.59
CD1L-PBO3 (II)

[46] UCS – – – – – –
CDP-1L Discontinuous
CDP-2L 150 150 300 0.50 0.49
CDP-3L

confined respectively, while the values in between are the different level
of discontinuous scheme. In the Fig. 3 the confinement configuration is
illustrated. Furthermore, the data carried out from [41] were added in
the same table in order to perform a further comparison with the own
results.
3.3. Test set-up
Fig. 4 illustrates the test set-up of confined columns. All the tests
were conducted in displacement control at a rate of 0.2 mm/min as used
also in [37], up to failure. A hydraulic jack and a load-cell of 3000 kN
were used imposed and record the load levels, respectively. A couple of
rigid steel plates (20 mm thick) was located at the top and bottom of the
specimens for load distribution. In fact, these plates receive the
compression by the hydraulic jack and transfers it uniformly to the
column. The load verticality was ensured by the capping. In order to
detect the post-peak behavior, the softening phase was analyzed up to a
conventional collapse. The latter being generally identified on the
softening branch when the measured force was approximately 80% of
the peak load. The vertical displacements were measured by two LVDTs
(Linear Variable Displacement Transducers) placed in two opposite
corners. Further LVDTs (having a measuring base equal to 150 mm)
were located at the mid-eight of the columns in the horizontal direction
involving both the confined and unconfined areas (in case of discon­
tinuous wrapping) in order to check the crack opening. Displacement
acquisition was carried out through the use of a control unit with a data
acquisition frequency of 1 Hz.
4. Test results and discussion
The own findings are reported in Table 3 in terms of axial strength for
both the un-confined and confined samples and ratio of these strengths
aimed to provide an indication of the FRCM-confinement efficiency in
terms of strength gain. Similarly, the computation was performed for the
longitudinal elastic modulus of the masonry (unconfined and confined)
in order to evaluate the stiffening effect due to the different amount of
FRCM applied around the columns volume. The modulus was computed
according to the secant regarding the data recoded at 5% and 40% of the
peak stress and, anyway in a stress range where no relevant macroscopic
cracks were detected according to the horizontal LVDTs (see Fig. 4).
Lastly, the ductility index µ was calculated aiming to evaluate the ben­
efits in terms of deformability due to the FRCM-confinement. In the light
of the data elaboration, the efficiency of the confinement was demon­
strated to be valuable in all case with the maximum value reached by the
full wrapping exhibiting an average over strength about 90%. The
discontinuous schemes provide an appreciable strength increment in a
direct proportional to the number of FRCM-wraps. Comparable trend
was met in terms of longitudinal modulus. Trivially, the amount of
FRCM-matrix affected the stiffening effect. So, the full-confined samples
manifested a stiffness gain equal to 52%; while 45%, 33% and 19% was
recoded for the 5, 4 and 3 wraps, respectively. In this sense, a correlation
between the additional stiffness and the additional strength ensured by
the FRCM-confinement manifested. Furthermore, the ductility was
found also coherent: the maximum gain was guaranteed by the full-
confinement and a gradual decrement was recorded proportionally to
the number of FRCM-wraps for the partially confinement. Just in the
case of CD1L-PBO3 (II), an anomalous ductility value was reached due to
a failure mode involving mainly the un-confined regions which shown to
not developed after the peak stress. Furthermore, the results from [41]
were found consistent with the own and coherently they were reported
in the same table. It must be remarked that, for the added results, the Ec
was calculated according to the initial elastic behavior showing a linear
trend with an approximation higher than 97%; which may be different
to the secant modulus referring to the peak point as reported in [41].
The collapse configurations of all the tested specimens are illustrated
in Fig. 5. The failure of the unconfined column was characterized by

Fig. 3. A) geometry of the sample (dimensions in mm) and b) confining schemes from left to right respectively: cc1l-pbo; cd1l-pbo3; cd1l-pbo4 and cd1l-pbo5.

5
F. Campolongo et al. Structures 57 (2023) 105124

Fig. 4. Scheme of the test set-up: continuous (right) and discontinuous (left) wrapping.

Table 3
Main experimental results obtained.
Database Specimen designation fm fmc fmc/fm E0 EC EC/E0 μ =
εcu − εc
100
εc
(MPa) (MPa) (-) (MPa) (MPa) (-) (%)

own UCS (I) 11.79 12.26 – – 1110 1275 – – 20 20.5

UCS (II) 12.72 1441 21
CC1L-PBO (I) – – 23.41 23.25 1.90 – – 1749 1936 1.52 24 29.5

CC1L-PBO (II) 23.10 2122 45

CD1L-PBO5 (I) 20.64 20.21 1.65 1616 1855 1.45 24 27.5
CD1L-PBO5 (II) 19.77 2093 31
CD1L-PBO4 (I) 19.26 19.57 1.60 1570 1693 1.33 15 25.0
CD1L-PBO4 (II) 19.88 1816 35
CD1L-PBO3 (I) 18.19 18.21 1.49 1457 1519 1.19 22 17.5
CD1L-PBO3 (II) 18.22 1581 13

[46] UCS 5.19 – – 1510 – –

CDP-1L – 6.97 1.34 – 1818 1.21 –
CDP-2L 7.41 1.43 2112 1.40
CDP-3L 10.20 2.05 2869 1.90

Fig. 5. Failure modes.

6
F. Campolongo et al.
crushing of the masonry with a sub-vertical crack developed along the
longitudinal direction and sporadic cases of material expulsion for the
sample named UCS (II) which manifested a lower bearing capacity (see
Fig. 6). In case of full-confined column, the typical corner effect domi­
nated the failure of the sample with a large crack opening along the
entire height. The fabric remained almost un-cut, so it tended to slip
within the matrix in agreement with the column shortening. As a
consequence, a large ductility was registered as visible in Fig. 6 by
comparing the post-peak behavior with both the other confined and un-
confined columns. In the case of the partially confined samples, the
failure mode was some how in between the full- and un-confined. In fact,
the FRCM-free regions were crushed (arching effect), while the confined
ones induce the corner failure. It was noticed that the higher is the
number of FRCM-wraps the more was the failure dominated by the
corner effect with high values of strength, stiffness and ductility. To sum
up, as the load increased, the crack pattern of the masonry substrate
extended to the entire un-strengthened layer, while a series of vertical
cracks began to appear on the composite strips, particularly in the
overlap zone. All the experimental curves demonstrated a first linear
ascending branch up to the peak load followed by a decreasing branch
until the brittle collapse.
5. Analytical investigation
The retrofitting of existing masonry structures has become a pressing
issue due to the increasing number of seismic events and the need to
improve the structural performance of aging buildings. FRCM-systems
have been shown to be an effective solution for the confinement of
masonry columns, enhancing their strength, ductility, and durability.
However, there is still a need for accurate and reliable analytical models
to predict the efficiency of FRCM-confinement for various configura­
tions per different masonry types. In this section, a new analytical model
for the prediction of the efficiency of FRCM-confinement, based on a
comprehensive experimental investigation of clay brick masonry col­
umns partially confined with FRCM composites, is proposed. The model
is calibrated and validated against the own experimental results, and its
accuracy and effectiveness are assessed through a sensitivity analysis.
The proposed model provides a useful tool for the design and optimi­
zation of FRCM retrofitting interventions for masonry structures,
contributing to the development of more sustainable and resilient built
environments.
5.1. Critical review on the available design-oriented theory for FRCM-
confinement
To determine the design strength of confined columns using an
FRCM-systems, it is possible to consider on two main design codes: the
Fig. 6. Axial stress-axial strain diagrams.
7
Structures 57 (2023) 105124
Italian proposal by the CNR DT-215/2018 [43], or the alternative by the
American Concrete Institute – ACI 549.4R-13, [50]. However, both
models are characterized by a crucial issue: refer exclusively to contin­
uous confinement systems. Compressively, a previous technical docu­
ment by the CNR accounted the option of the discontinuous wrapping
when dealing with FRP-composites; i.e. DT-200 R1/2013 [44]. On the
basis of the understating of these available codes, a CNR – DT-215/2018
modification is following proposed by introducing a new efficiency
factor carried out by the laboratory observations and experimental re­
sults reported in the previous sections. With awareness that outcomes
are still very limited, a calibration of the empirical-based model is per­
formed having the scope of highlight the issue pushing the future
research in stressing the investigations for a more reliable prediction of
the FRCM-confinement in discontinuous scheme.
The CNR DT-215/2018 model’s target is the prediction of the FRCM-
confined axial strength of the masonry in full-wrapping configuration
(fmc) according to Eqs. (1) to (11). The key-parameter to be quantified is
f1,eff or rather the effective confining pressure. The latter is based on the
popular theory by Mander et al. [51], which considers the concrete
confinement as a function of the axial strain and lateral strain of the
concrete itself. The model also includes several parameters, such as the
concrete compressive strength, the reinforcing steel ratio, and the
confinement coefficient (efficiency level), to predict the stress-strain
response of confined concrete. The principle of effective confinement
pressure was then detailed in [52,53] including several parameters, such
as the concrete compressive strength, the FRP jacket thickness and
strength, and the ratio of the FRP jacket area to the concrete cross-
sectional area. The vertical efficacy in case of discontinuous FRP-
confinement was then considered in [54]. In the case of columns of
circular cross sections, for the calculation of the effective confinement
pressure exerted by the FRP-jacket, fib provides a confinement effec­
tiveness coefficient less than 1.0 for a confinement by partial wrapping
and equal to 1.0 for a confinement by full wrapping in agreement with
Mander et al. and [44]. Furthermore, being fmd the compressive strength
of unconfined masonry, k’ dimensionless coefficient that accounts for
the increase in strength based on the type of masonry needs to be
computed. At this scope, the CNR DT 215 (see List of symbols) suggests
the use of α2 and α3 coefficients with assigned values in the absence of
proven experimental results able to determine differently (see Eq. (2)).
k’ is calculated knowing the – gm – mass density of the masonry
expressed kg/m3. The matrix effect is also considered in Eqs. (5) and (6).
Definitely the confining pressure in Eq. (4) requires alteration in order to
evaluate the effective contribution. In the Italian DT-200 R1/2013, the
model used for organic matrix-based composites, the equation for
calculating the effective confining pressure varies (Eq. (8)). In fact, this
can be defined as the product of the coefficient of horizontal efficiency
taking into account the effectively confined area as illustrated in Fig. 7
F. Campolongo et al. Structures 57 (2023) 105124

Fig. 7. Arching effect for prismatic cross-section in FRCM-confined column.

(kH); and the coefficient of vertical efficiency for the level of discon­ Finally, the aspect related to the stiffening provided by the retrofit­
tinuous wrapping (kV), as experienced in [41]: being pf’ the net distance ting material is traditionally neglected because the available confine­
between the reinforcement bands (it is equal to sf’, see Fig. 3). In such a ment theories and codes are FRP-based except for the matrix effect
way the so-called arching effect is properly considered. The arching effect introduced in [43]. Reasonably the FRPs have shown the ability not to
in column confinement refers to the phenomenon where the lateral alter the axial stiffness of the confined column given the negligible
confinement of a reinforced concrete column causes the masonry core to thickness of the epoxy matrix needed for their application. However,
arch, or bulge outward, under load. When a column is subjected to axial this characteristic cannot be slavishly translated for the case of use of
compression, the surrounding FRCM-reinforcement provides lateral FRCM-systems. The non-negligible thickness, especially in the case of
confinement to the core. This confinement increases the strength and multi-winding, and the nature of the inorganic matrix both stiffen the
stiffness of the column and prevents the concrete from undergoing large original elastic modulus of the masonry in proportion to the level of
deformations. However, as the column is loaded, the masonry core may effective discontinuous confinement (kV). For this reason, a new
begin to bulge outward due to the combined effects of axial compression empirical calibration is proposed in the next section being a starting-point
and lateral confinement. This bulging causes the masonry to arch, for a new perspective in design purpose.
creating a compressive membrane that redistributes the load to the [ ( )α1 ]
fl,eff
surrounding reinforcement. The arching effect is more pronounced in fmcd = fmd • 1 + k′ • (1)
fmd
columns with higher reinforcement ratios, smaller aspect ratios, and
lower slenderness ratios. It is also affected by the shape and stiffness of ( g )α3
(2)
m
the confinement system, the quality of the masonry, and the loading k′ = α2 •
1000
history of the column. Understanding the arching effect is important for
designing and analyzing masonry columns, as it can significantly affect fl,eff = kH • fl (3)
the behavior and strength of columns under load. In principle, the
effective confine volume of column is computed by considering 100% as 2 • nf • tf • Ef • εud,rid
fl = (4)
full-confined (effectively) and 0% unconfined (see again Fig. 3). In fact, D
the efficiency of column confinement varies depending on the geometry ( )
of the cross-section of the column. In general, circular cross-sections εuf
εud,rid = min kmat • ηa • ; 0, 004 (5)
tend to be more efficient for confinement than rectangular ones. Cir­ γm
cular columns (generally RC-made) have a more uniform stress distri­ ( )2
bution under axial loads, which results in a more effective confinement kmat = α4 ρmat •
fc,mat
≤1 (6)
by the horizontal reinforcement. The circular shape also reduces the fmd
occurrence of stress concentrations and potential failure modes, such as
4 • tmat
shear failure, which can occur more readily in rectangular columns. ρmat = (7)
Rectangular cross-section columns, on the other hand, have more cor­ D
ners and edges, which can lead to stress concentration and potential fl,eff = keff • fl = kH • kv • fl (8)
failure modes, such as diagonal tension failure. However, rectangular
columns can be more efficient for lateral loads, as they have a greater b′2 + h′2
moment of inertia and can resist bending more effectively than circular kH = 1 − (9)
3 • Am
columns. Moreover, the level of confinement in reinforced concrete
columns can vary from full- to partial-confinement, depending on the Am = b • h (10)
degree of lateral reinforcement provided. Full-confinement occurs when
the entire cross-section of the column is enclosed by lateral reinforce­ ( pf ′ )2
ment, while partial-confinement occurs when only a portion of the cross- kv = 1 − (11)
2•D
section is enclosed. The efficiency of column confinement is higher for
full than for partial confinement. This is because full confinement pro­ 5.2. The proposed model – PM
vides more uniform lateral pressure on the concrete, which leads to a
more effective confinement of the core of the column. In partial The herein experiment proposes as its main objective the develop­
confinement, the lateral reinforcement only covers a portion of the ment of a new empirical analytical model for calculating the strength of
column cross-section, which can result in non-uniform lateral pressure confined masonry elements using FRCM. In particular, the theoretical
and reduced effectiveness of the confinement. This can lead to prema­ model currently used in Italy (DT-215/2018) was reviewed to consider
ture failure of the column due to the occurrence of stress concentrations the variation of the stiffness of the confined columns as the geometric
and potential failure modes, such as shear or diagonal tension failure. configuration of the discontinuous systems changes. Accordingly,

8
F. Campolongo et al.
attention was drawn to the equation provided in the regulations for
calculating the effective confining pressure according to Eqs. (12) to
(16).
[ ( )α1 ]
fmc fl,eff
= 1 + k′ • ≤ fm,lim (12)
fm fmd
fl,eff = keff • fl = kH • kv • kE • fl (13)
kE = (1 − γ)β (14)
E0
γ= (15)
Ec
γ = − 0.33KV + 1 (16)
The proposed model, labelled PM, is inspired by the DT-200 R1/2013
standard made for organic matrix systems where the confining pressure
is multiplied exclusively by two coefficients, kH and kv, both of which
refer to the geometric configuration of the reinforcement. In fact, the
beforementioned kH represents the horizontal efficiency, while kV de­
pends on the development of the reinforcement system along the lon­
gitudinal axis of the confined element. So, the change in stiffness of the
confined element as the geometric configuration changes is not
considered in the existing model. Accordingly, an implementation of a
new coefficient kE (E means longitudinal elastic modulus) is introduced
to consider the change in stiffness and it is derived from an observation
obtained in the analysis phase of the experimental results. In fact, as can
be seen in Fig. 8 (data from Table 3) the high linear correlation (i.e.
98%) between the vertical efficacy factor kV and the stiffness increment
computed as the γ = E0/Ec. Consequently, the kE coefficient can be
calculated according to Eq. (14).Fig. 9.
The value of kE may range between 0 (negligible added stiffness by
the FRCM-jacket) and 1 (high added stiffness by the FRCM-jacket).
Accordingly, in the case of non-confinement, the kE-coefficient assume
null value, as well as, the effective confining pressure. The β-coefficient
can be considered unitary in the conducted formulation in the absence of
experimental results attesting to different values. The best fit regarding
the own and available (21) data was performed in term of probability
density function of the experimental on theoretical ratio. The advantage
is the possibility to evaluate, at the same time, the accuracy and preci­
sion of the predictions varying β in the following domain [0.35; 0.45;
0.60; 0.8; 1]. In fact, the more accurate value corresponds the to the less
flatten bell-curve (β = 0.35); while the more precise is detectable when
the symmetry axis of the gaussian distribution overlap the perfect pre­
diction value, or rather 1. As evident, the β = 0.45 satisfy the selection
criterion and is here adopted for the prediction of the experimental
results.
Fig. 8. Comparison between the geometric coefficient and the variance of
stiffness (own data).
9
Structures 57 (2023) 105124
Fig. 9. Calibration of the β-coefficient.
6. Experimental versus theoretical comparison
The comparison between experimental and theoretical results is a
fundamental aspect of scientific research. The experimental program
herein reported involved the collection of data through observation or
measurement, while the theoretical part proposed a new predictive set
of equations to explain the behavior of FRCM-system in confinement of
masonry column. While both methods are valuable in their own right,
there are distinct differences between the two approaches that make it
necessary to compare and contrast their results. In this section, the
differences between experimental and theoretical results are focused.
The strengths and limitations of the PM are both centered. By comparing
the results of these two approaches, scientists can gain a better under­
standing of the underlying principles that govern the studied phenom­
ena for further research in a new proposed perspective concerning the
design for FRCMs in order to develop more and more accurate
predictions.
The results obtained for the tested columns during the experimental
campaign and the diagrams comparing the strengths obtained with the
existing theoretical model and those obtained with the PM are reported
in Table 4 and Fig. 10, respectively. For the CNR-DT 215 model the α2
and α3 were calibrated equal to 3.5 and 4.6 (being gm = 1600 kg/m3)
according to the provisions of the technical document since an unusual
joint mortar was used for manufacturing the columns (M1). The addition
of the results from [41] was also adopted for the comparison.
The CNR-DT 215 provided 0.89±0.05, 0.87 and 0.87 for the average
± standard deviator, median and mode of the experimental on theo­
retical ratio. On the other side the PM resulted with the corresponding
values of 0.99±0.03, 0.98 and 0.97. Furthermore, the linear correlation
between the experimental and predicted results passed from 96% to 99%
regarding the CNR-DT 215 and the PM (see again Fig. 10). Likely, the
scatter range of the foreseen with respect to the x = y axes (i.e. perfect
prediction) improved from 10% to 5%. Definitely, the PM was found
more accurate and precise with respect to the competitor as also illus­
trated in Fig. 11 where the probability density functions characteristic of
the two compared modes demonstrated a less flat and, at the same time,
closeness to the 1-value (i.e. perfect prediction) of the average.
The validity of the introduced formulation refers, at the moment, to
very limited database of tested columns, therefore, further in­
vestigations and experimentations are necessary to verify the reliability
of the newly introduced coefficient.
7. Robustness and sensitivity analysis
Robustness and sensitivity analysis are two important concepts in the
field of engineering and applied sciences. These two techniques are used
to analyze the behavior of an analytical model under different condi­
tions in order to identify its strengths and weaknesses. Robustness
F. Campolongo et al. Structures 57 (2023) 105124

Table 4
Results of experimentation, theorical model and proposed model (PM).
Database Specimen Experimental Average CNR-DT 215 Exp/Theo PM Exp/PM

designation fmc (MPa) fmc (MPa) (-) fmc (MPa) (-)

own CC1L-PBO (I) 23.41 23.25 24.64 0.94 24.64 0.94

CC1L-PBO (II) 23.10
CD1L-PBO5 (I) 20.64 20.21 23.87 0.85 20.25 1.00
CD1L-PBO5 (II) 19.77
CD1L-PBO4 (I) 19.26 19.57 23.13 0.85 19.23 1.02
CD1L-PBO4 (II) 19.88
CD1L-PBO3 (I) 18.19 18.21 21.73 0.84 17.5 1.04
CD1L-PBO3 (II) 18.22

[46] CDP-1L 6.97 – 6.75 1.03 6.24 1.12

CDP-2L 7.41 8.51 0.87 7.69 0.96
CDP-3L 10.20 10.61 0.96 9.77 1.04

Fig. 10. Experimental vs Theoretical comparison: CNR-DT215 (left) and PM (right).

the greatest impact on the system’s performance.

Fig. 11. Analytical models’ comparison in term of probability density function
for the experimental on theoretical ratio.
analysis is the study of how a system performs under adverse conditions
or when subjected to disturbances. In other words, it is the ability of a
system to maintain its performance even in the presence of uncertainties
or unexpected inputs. Robustness analysis is important because it helps
us understand the resilience of a model and its ability to handle un­
foreseen situations. Sensitivity analysis, on the other hand, is the study
of how a system responds to changes in its input variables. It is the study
of how sensitive the output of a system is to changes in its inputs.
Sensitivity analysis is important because it helps us understand how a
model reacts to changes and allows us to identify which variables have
The robustness and sensitivity analyses for the PM is reported in
Fig. 12a-d in terms of the studied values of kE with respect to the
compressive strength gain, i.e. the FRCM-confinement efficacy.
Different parameters were varying in ranges reliable with real case
application. Sensitivity is appreciable in each single boxes by comparing
the different trend lines, while robustness is evaluable comparing all the
boxes. First of all, the PM exhibited higher robustness with respect to the
Ef and D parameters evidencing a limited variation (see Fig. 12 c and d).
On the contrary the compressive strength of the un confined masonry
mostly reduced the robustness as visible in Fig. 12a. based on this
observation an upper bound for the prediction of the compressive
strength gain is herein proposed for Eq. (12), namely fmc,lim, equal to 1.5.
threshold over that the robustness is compromised.
Furthermore, the fm was also the parameter to influence the sensi­
tivity of the model by manifesting relevant variation passing from 4 to
12 MPa in a non-linear proportion; similarly to Ef passing from 65 to 310
GPa (see again Fig. 12 a and c). It must be remarked that the present
analysis has the scope of evaluating the data even if the dataset has not
sufficient dimensions for a definite design purpose. The main aim is to
highlight the contribution of the stiffening effect. In this sense, the
perform ed analysis on the PM is to be considered a starting point for
further research.
8. Conclusions and future challenge
The paper presents the results of an experimental investigation
conducted on clay brick masonry columns confined with PBO-FRCM
systems varying the number of composite strips with the double goal

10
F. Campolongo et al.
Fig. 12. Robustness and sensitivity analysis varying different parameters: a) fm, b) fmat, c) Ef and d) D.
of proposing a new empirical formulation for the more accurate pre­
diction of the FRCM-confined columns, especially in partially wrapping
configuration. Obtained results evidenced that:
• the FRCM partially confined columns manifested a gain in terms of
axial strength, ductility and stiffness in between the results con­
cerning the un-confined and fully-confined columns proportionally
to the number of confining strips. Coherent results were also
confined in [41].
• The CNR-DT 215 predictive model was found able to properly fore­
see the results. Nonetheless, an upgrading proposal was herein
evaluated based on the experimental observations which demon­
strate that a high correlation exists between the axial strength and
stiffness of the confine masonry. A novel coefficient (KE) accounting
the stiffness gain was calibrated based on both own and available
data.
• The experimental versus theoretical comparison demonstrated the
ability of the proposed model in improving the predictions of the
axial strength when compared with the CNR-DT 215 in term of mean,
median, mode and linear correlation between the ratio between the
actual and predicted outcomes.
• Parametric analysis was also performed with the aim of showing the
validity of the proposed model which was found consistent and
reliable with respect to the confinement mechanism.
11
Structures 57 (2023) 105124
Further investigation is needed to confirm the proposed design-
oriented model by varying the number of reinforcement layers, the
type of fibers and type of masonry.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] Saretta Y, Sbrogio L, Valluzzi MR. Seismic response of masonry buildings in
historical centres struck by the 2016 Central Italy earthquake. Calibration of a
vulnerability model for strengthened conditions. Construction and Building
Materials 2021;299:123911.
[2] Elghazouli, A. Y., Bompa, D. V., Mourad, S. A., & Elyamani, A. (2022, August).
Seismic performance of heritage clay brick and lime mortar masonry structures. In
Progresses in European Earthquake Engineering and Seismology: Third European
Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology–Bucharest, 2022 (pp. 225-
244). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
[3] Cianchino G, Masciotta MG, Verazzo C, Brando G. An Overview of the Historical
Retrofitting Interventions on Churches in Central Italy. Applied Sciences 2022;13
(1):40.
[4] Kog YC, Ong KCG, Yu CH, Sreekanth APV. Reinforced concrete jacketing for
masonry columns with axial loads. Materials Journal 2001;98(2):105–15.
[5] Deng M, Li T. Masonry columns strengthened with bar mesh highly ductile fiber
reinforced concrete (BMHDC) jacket under concentric and eccentric loads.
Construction and Building Materials 2020;237:117606.
F. Campolongo et al.
[6] Borri A, Castori G, Corradi M. Masonry confinement using steel cords. Journal of
Materials in Civil Engineering 2013;25(12):1910–9.
[7] Aiello MA, Micelli F, Valente L. FRP confinement of square masonry columns.
Journal of Composites for Construction 2009;13(2):148–58.
[8] Faella C, Martinelli E, Camorani G, Aiello MA, Micelli F, Nigro E. Masonry columns
confined by composite materials: Design formulae. Composites Part B Engineering
2011;42(4):705–16.
[9] Micelli F, Di Ludovico M, Balsamo A, Manfredi G. Mechanical behaviour of FRP-
confined masonry by testing of full-scale columns. Materials and Structures 2014;
47:2081–100.
[10] Sandoli A, Ferracuti B, Calderoni B. FRP-confined tuff masonry columns: regular
and irregular stone arrangement. Composites Part B Engineering 2019;162:
621–30.
[11] Witzany J, Čejka T, Zigler R. Failure mechanism of compressed short brick masonry
columns confined with FRP strips. Construction and Building Materials 2014;63:
180–8.
[12] Cascardi A, Dell’Anna R, Micelli F, Lionetto F, Aiello MA, Maffezzoli A. Reversible
techniques for FRP-confinement of masonry columns. Construction and Building
Materials 2019;225:415–28.
[13] Cascardi A, Lerna M, Micelli F, Aiello MA. Discontinuous FRP-confinement of
masonry columns. Frontiers in Built Environment 2020;5:147.
[14] Zeng JJ, Liao J, Ye YY, Guo YC, Zheng Y, Tan LH. Behavior of FRP spiral strip-
confined concrete under cyclic axial compression. Construction and Building
Materials 2021;295:123544.
[15] Saljoughian A, Mostofinejad D. Corner strip-batten technique for FRP-confinement
of square RC columns under eccentric loading. Journal of Composites for
Construction 2016;20(3):04015077.
[16] Ye YY, Liang SD, Feng P, Zeng JJ. Recyclable LRS FRP composites for engineering
structures: Current status and future opportunities. Composites Part B Engineering
2021;212:108689.
[17] Liao J, Zeng JJ, Jiang C, Li JX, Yuan JS. Stress-strain behavior and design-oriented
model for FRP spiral strip-confined concrete. Composite Structures 2022;293:
115747.
[18] Carozzi FG, Poggi C. Mechanical properties and debonding strength of Fabric
Reinforced Cementitious Matrix (FRCM) systems for masonry strengthening.
Composites Part B Engineering 2015;70:215–30.
[19] Ascione L, de Felice G, De Santis S. A qualification method for externally bonded
Fibre Reinforced Cementitious Matrix (FRCM) strengthening systems. Composites
Part B Engineering 2015;78:497–506.
[20] D’Ambrisi A, Feo L, Focacci F. Experimental and analytical investigation on bond
between Carbon-FRCM materials and masonry. Composites Part B Engineering
2013;46:15–20.
[21] Carozzi FG, Bellini A, D’Antino T, de Felice G, Focacci F, Hojdys Ł, et al.
Experimental investigation of tensile and bond properties of Carbon-FRCM
composites for strengthening masonry elements. Composites Part B Engineering
2017;128:100–19.
[22] Hojdys Ł, Krajewski P. Tensile Behaviour of FRCM Composites for Strengthening of
Masonry Structures—An Experimental Investigation. Materials 2021;14(13):3626.
[23] Turk, A. M. (2013). Seismic response analysis of masonry minaret and possible
strengthening by fiber reinforced cementitious matrix (FRCM) materials. Advances
in Materials Science and Engineering, 2013.
[24] Zampieri P, Simoncello N, Gonzalez-Libreros J, Pellegrino C. Evaluation of the
vertical load capacity of masonry arch bridges strengthened with FRCM or SFRM
by limit analysis. Engineering Structures 2020;225:111135.
[25] Mercedes L, Bernat-Maso E, Gil L. In-plane cyclic loading of masonry walls
strengthened by vegetal-fabric-reinforced cementitious matrix (FRCM) composites.
Engineering Structures 2020;221:111097.
[26] Liu S, Yin S, Jing L. Fracture energy analysis on the fabric–matrix interface for the
bond system of fabric-reinforced cementitious matrix (FRCM)-masonry substrate.
Composite Interfaces 2021;28(12):1203–20.
[27] Donnini J, Corinaldesi V. Mechanical characterization of different FRCM systems
for structural reinforcement. Construction and Building Materials 2017;145:
565–75.
[28] Cascardi A, Micelli F, Aiello MA. FRCM-confined masonry columns: Experimental
investigation on the effect of the inorganic matrix properties. Construction and
Building Materials 2018;186:811–25.
[29] Cascardi A, Longo F, Micelli F, Aiello MA. Compressive strength of confined
column with Fiber Reinforced Mortar (FRM): New design-oriented-models.
Construction and Building Materials 2017;156:387–401.
12
Structures 57 (2023) 105124
[30] Cascardi A, Aiello MA, Triantafillou T. Analysis-oriented model for concrete and
masonry confined with fiber reinforced mortar. Materials and Structures 2017;50:
1–15.
[31] Kouris LAS, Triantafillou TC. State-of-the-art on strengthening of masonry
structures with textile reinforced mortar (TRM). Construction and Building
Materials 2018;188:1221–33.
[32] Ferretti F, Mazzotti C. FRCM/SRG strengthened masonry in diagonal compression:
experimental results and analytical approach proposal. Construction and Building
Materials 2021;283:122766.
[33] De Felice G, De Santis S, Garmendia L, Ghiassi B, Larrinaga P, Lourenço PB, et al.
Mortar-based systems for externally bonded strengthening of masonry. Materials
and Structures 2004;47(12):2021–37.
[34] Nerilli F, Ferracuti B. A tension stiffening model for FRCM reinforcements
calibrated by means of an extended database. Composite Structures 2022;284:
115100.
[35] Aiello MA, Bencardino F, Cascardi A, D’Antino T, Fagone M, Frana I, et al. Masonry
columns confined with fabric reinforced cementitious matrix (FRCM) systems: A
round robin test. Construction and Building Materials 2021;298:123816.
[36] Longo F, Cascardi A, Lassandro P, Aiello MA. Energy and seismic drawbacks of
masonry: A unified retrofitting solution. Journal of Building Pathology and
Rehabilitation 2021;6:1–24.
[37] Sneed L, Baietti G, Fraioli G, Carloni C. Compressive Behavior of Brick Masonry
Columns Confined with Steel-Reinforced Grout Jackets. Journal of Composites for
Construction, ASCE 2019;23(5):04019037.
[38] Di Ludovico M, Cascardi A, Balsamo A, Aiello MA. Uniaxial experimental tests on
full-scale limestone masonry columns confined with glass and basalt FRCM
systems. Journal of Composites for Construction 2020;24(5):04020050.
[39] Napoli A, Realfonzo R. Compressive Strength of Masonry Confined by FRCM
Systems: Assessment of Existing Models and New Proposals. Procedia Structural
Integrity 2023;44:2182–9.
[40] Carloni C, Mazziotti C, Savoia M, Subramaniam KV. Confinement of masonry
columns with FRCM composites. Key Eng Mat 2015;624:644–51.
[41] Aiello MA, Cascardi A, Ombres L, Verre S. Confinement of masonry columns with
the FRCM-system: Theoretical and experimental investigation. Infrastructures
2020;5(11):101.
[42] Ombres L, Guglielmi M, Verre S. Structural Performances of Clay Brick Masonry
Columns Partially Confined with FRCM/SRG Composites. In: Key Engineering
Materials Trans Tech Publications Ltd 2022:297–304.
[43] National Research Council. Guide for the design and construction of externally
bonded fibre reinforced inorganic matrix systems for strengthening existing
structures. CNR-DT 215/2018. Rome, Italy, CNR, 2020.
[44] National Research Council. (2004). Instructions for the Design, Execution and
Control of Static Consolidation Interventions through the use of Fibre-reinforced
Composites. CNR-DT 200/2004.
[45] EN 1926:2007 – Natural stone test methods – Determination of uniaxial
compressive strength.
[46] EN 1015-11:27. Methods of test for mortar for masonry – Part 11: Determination of
flexural and compressive strength of hardened mortar. CEN.
[47] Ruregold, –web Site, 2022. www.ruregold.com. (Accessed November 2022).
[48] EN ISO 13934_1:2013. Textiles — Tensile properties of fabrics — Part 1:
Determination of maximum force and elongation at maximum force using the strip
method.
[49] Consiglio Superiore dei Lavori Pubblici – Servizio Tecnico Centrale, Linea Guida
per la identificazione, la qualificazione ed il controllo di accettazione di compositi
fibrorinforzati a matrice inorganica (FRCM) da utilizzarsi per il consolidamento
strutturale di costruzioni esistenti, Roma, dicembre 2018. [In Italian].
[50] ACI 549.4R-13. Guide to design and construction of externally bonded fabric-
reinforced cementitious matrix (FRCM) systems for repair and strengthening
concrete and masonry structures. ACI: 549.4R-13. Farmington Hills, Mich.:
American Concrete Institute. 2013.
[51] Mander JB, Priestley MJ, Park R. Theoretical stress-strain model for confined
concrete. Journal of Structural Engineering 1988;114(8):1804–26.
[52] Lam L, Teng JG. Design-oriented stress–strain model for FRP-confined concrete.
Construction and Building Materials 2003;17(6–7):471–89.
[53] Lam L, Teng JG. Design-oriented stress-strain model for FRP-confined concrete in
rectangular columns. Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites 2003;22(13):
1149–86.
[54] Fédération internationale du Béton – fib. (2001). “Externally bonded
FRPreinforcement for RC structures” Bulletin No. 14, Technical Rep., Lausanne,
Switzerland.