Composites Part B: D.A. Pohoryles, D.A. Bournas
Composites Part B: D.A. Pohoryles, D.A. Bournas
Composites Part B: D.A. Pohoryles, D.A. Bournas
Composites Part B
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compositesb
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Significant damage to existing reinforced concrete (RC) frame structures during recent earthquakes has high
Textile reinforced mortar lighted the potential detrimental effect of non-structural masonry infills. Several experimental studies have hence
Seismic retrofit investigated the use of composite materials for in-plane retrofitting to reduce the risk of brittle collapse of the
Infilled RC frames
infills. In this review, the state-of-the-art on strengthening infilled RC frames with textile-reinforced mortars
Masonry infills
Macro-model
(TRM), a new class of composite material consisting of open-mesh textiles embedded in a cementitious matrix, is
presented, highlighting the great potential of this retrofit solution for large-scale interventions on the existing
building stock. A database of experimental results is compiled to evaluate the effect of different parameters on
the effectiveness of the retrofitting applications. The stiffness of the fibre material, as well as the angle of
application are found to be crucial factors. To ensure adequate analytical modelling for predicting the retrofitted
behaviour, a macro-model, using an additional tensile tie to account for the TRM, is first calibrated by means of
the experimental data gathered from the literature. Correlation between experimental parameters and the ob
tained effective strain is then assessed and an empirical formulation of effective strain in terms of fibre stiffness
and retrofit amount is finally proposed.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (D.A. Pohoryles), [email protected] (D.A. Bournas).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2019.107702
Received 31 July 2019; Received in revised form 6 November 2019; Accepted 12 December 2019
Available online 13 December 2019
1359-8368/© 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
D.A. Pohoryles and D.A. Bournas Composites Part B 183 (2020) 107702
2. Background
2
D.A. Pohoryles and D.A. Bournas Composites Part B 183 (2020) 107702
Table 1
Summary of composite retrofit applications in the literature.
Type Layout Strengthening material Fibre direction Examples
number of textile layers per side (nt), the angle of the fibres (αT) and the of a 2/3-scale three-storey fully infilled RC frame retrofitted with TRM.
anchorage used (steel ties or bolts, textile anchors or no anchorage). The The aim of the retrofit was to achieve a more ductile failure mechanism
main experimental results are also shown, including the shear capacity with a regular displacement demand along the height of the structure.
of the retrofitted specimen (Vexp), the difference in capacity to the The scheme consisted of applying two layers of glass TRM (G-TRM) in
control specimen (ΔVexp), the drift at maximum (Δmax), as well as the the first storey and one layer in the second and third storeys, using
observed damage patterns. The damage patterns of interest include previously tested textile anchors [43] at the perimeter of the infills.
infill-related damage, namely crushing of bricks in the corners (CC), Moreover, the column-ends were wrapped with TRM to prevent column
horizontal sliding (HS), infill detachment from the frame (ID), diagonal shear failure observed in the control specimen.
cracking (DC), but also TRM related damage including partial debond The as-built specimen failed in a brittle single-storey mechanism,
ing (PTB) and rupture of fibres (PTR), as well as RC frame damage, such with damage concentrated in the ground storey. As shown in Table 3, for
as joint shear failure (JS), column shear failure (CS) and column bar the ground storey, diagonal cracking along the infill surface was
buckling (CB). The main damage observation from the control and observed, with spalling of the bricks closer to the corners, and finally
respective retrofitted specimens for all studies is summarised schemat shearing of the columns at the top corner. The retrofitted structure
ically in Table 3. It is important to note that in all cases the failure of instead presented a behaviour characterised by a regular distribution of
retrofitted frames occurred at much larger values of drift compared to lateral storey displacements along the height of the structure, which led
their respective control specimens. to an enhanced deformation capacity (þ52%). Shear damage to the
Initial work by Koutas et al. [29] consisted of cyclic tests up to failure columns was successfully prevented by the local TRM jacketing. The use
3
D.A. Pohoryles and D.A. Bournas Composites Part B 183 (2020) 107702
Note: fibres: G: glass; C: carbon; B: basalt; S: steel; damage: CC: corner crushing; HS: horizontal sliding; ID: infill detachment; DC: diagonal cracking; CS: column shear; CB: column bar buckling; PTR: partial TRM rupture;
Observed damage and hence ensured an adequate lateral load resisting system with a good
infill-frame connection up to localised rupture of the TRM fibres at the
CC; HS; PTR
DC; CC; HS
CC; DC; ID
DC;HS;ID*
interface. Looking at the results in Table 2, an increased lateral strength
DC;CS;ID*
DC;HS*
DC;CS*
DC; CB
ID; DC
ID; DC
ID; DC
(þ54%) and initial stiffness (two-fold) were observed for the retrofitted
CC; ID
ID*
ID structure. The cracking pattern on the TRM surface indicated horizontal
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
sliding of the bricks. After removal of the retrofitting material, signifi
cant corner crushing was observed in the underlying infill. The observed
1.00%
1.50%
0.29%
0.18%
0.29%
0.19%
0.26%
0.18%
0.90%
0.75%
0.75%
1.00%
0.84%
0.78%
0.69%
0.98%
0.82%
damage appears to indicate that the TRM retrofit successfully confined
Δmax
the infill wall and allowed it to ultimately reach crushing of the bricks,
/
/
/
without losing full integrity of the wall up to large levels of lateral
displacement. The test on a three-storey specimen also highlighted that a
10.7%
2.0%
9.2%
54.2%
66.3%
25.1%
29.6%
22.6%
31.6%
40.5%
37.5%
72.6%
99.4%
53.6%
25.0%
15.4%
11.0%
29.8%
28.5%
non-uniform distribution of lateral displacements, leading to soft-storey
ΔVexp
0.1%
%
retrofit consisted of two layers of TRM on each face of the infill wall,
extended onto the columns and using five fabric anchors applied
Anchor
fibre
fibre
steel
steel
steel
steel
localised forces in the corners of the infilled frame, the control specimen
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
1% drift with 79.2 kN lateral force was observed. The TRM retrofit
45
αT
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
�
ensured the corner crushing and joint shear mechanisms were pre
vented. TRM jacketing of the infill ensured crushing of the bricks was
nt
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
mm
observed.
25
25
10
10
10
10
25
25
20
20
20
20
25
25
25
25
25
8
8
8
252
252
114
114
114
114
114
90
90
90
72
72
32
32
89
89
89
Ef
specimens was assessed in this study. Two test series were conducted,
using stronger masonry mortar for the first four specimens (two control
GþS
BþS
BþS
BþS
Fibre
and two retrofitted) and a weaker mortar to bind the bricks in the latter
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
C
C
B
B
B
four. As shown in Table 2, for the textile, a combined glass and steel fibre
mesh was used for one specimen, while a basalt and steel fibre mesh was
used for the other three. The influence of the inorganic binder used for
10.4
MPa
fm,inf
5.7
2.5
2.7
2.7
2.4
2.4
1.4
1.4
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
7.8
8.0
7.5
9.6
the TRM was also investigated with high strength mortar (fm,f ¼ 5.4
MPa) used for two retrofitted specimens (3-GC-NR and 4-GC-FN), while
for two other specimens (6-BG-NR and 8-BC-NR), a low strength gypsum
mm
110
120
120
120
120
140
140
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
tinf
75
76
76
76
76
76
1.1 MPa). The gypsum plaster has the benefit of being more environ
mentally friendly and being able to capture volatile organic pollutants.
36.3
40.6
34.5
34.5
34.5
34.5
36.5
36.5
36.3
36.3
36.3
36.3
36.3
36.3
36.3
29.5
29.5
29.5
29.5
29.5
Finally, anchorage of the mesh to the upper beams using steel-ties was
PTD: partial TRM debonding; * includes out-of-plane damage.
θ
�
compared to 1.2% for the higher strength mortar. For the specimen with
2/3
1/3
1/2
1/2
2/3
2/3
2/3
2/3
2/3
2/3
2/3
1/2
1/2
1/2
1/2
1/2
1
1
1
1
weaker masonry mortar, horizontal sliding was observed for the control
and retrofitted specimens. For the three unanchored specimens, limited
local detachment of the TRM was observed. This ultimately led to
SRG-2-2-A
RFG-D3-3
RFG-D6-4
RFC-D3-5
RFC-D6-6
RFB-D3-7
RFB-D6-8
Specimen
RFB-Fu-9
3-GC-NR
6-BG-NR
8-BC-NR
4-GC-FN
DU0–90
DA0–90
SU0–90
SA0–90
DA45
TRM
was prevented in the specimen with steel tie anchorage. Despite the
reduction in damage, the recorded results in Table 2 indicate that in-
plane strength and stiffness were not affected by the retrofit. Still, pre
Akhoundi
Koutas
Ismail
Selim
Sagar
4
D.A. Pohoryles and D.A. Bournas Composites Part B 183 (2020) 107702
Table 3
Observed final damage in control and retrofit frames in the literature.
Study Control TRM-retrofitted
Koutas [29]
Selim [41]
Akhoundi [44]
Ismail [42]
Sagar [40]
Note:
subsequent out-of-plane tests, with higher residual strength recorded Ismail et al. [42] performed cyclic tests on infilled 2/3-scaled frames
compared to the control specimens. with three different TRM layouts, including an orthogonal full-surface
More recently, Akhoundi et al. [38,44] tested two G-TRM retrofitted application and two diagonal band configurations with varying width
frames, using a commercial and a custom-made braided textile, (one-sixth and one-third of the diagonal length of the infill). The latter
respectively. The braided textile, previously tested on masonry [45], diagonal band application is similar to the application of FRP strips for
was specifically designed to maximise the mechanical interlock between infill strengthening (see Table 1). For the diagonal application, the effect
textile mesh and mortar. To enhance the effectiveness of the retrofit, of three different fibre materials was evaluated (carbon, basalt and
twelve glass fibre connectors through the infill and four connectors at glass), while the orthogonal application employed B-TRM only. A low
the interfaces to each RC member were used for anchorage. As shown in extend of damage was observed for all retrofitted specimens. Some
Table 2, next to a significant increase in initial stiffness, strength in infill-frame separation was observed in all cases and for the diagonal
creases of 25% and 30% were obtained for the commercial and braided application of TRM, cracks perpendicular to the strips were observed to
TRM. The commercial TRM surface was fully cracked along the diagonal form at drift levels above 0.3%. For the full-face TRM retrofit, only
after testing, while the braided TRM specimen only presented infill minor cracks appeared in the bottom interface and a small extend of
detachment cracks at the interfaces. After removal of the jacket diagonal cracks was observed on the TRM surface, with limited
post-testing, crushing of the infill corners was observed for both speci debonding. The initial stiffness of the specimens was not found to be
mens, but more extensively for the specimen using a commercial TRM. significantly affected by the retrofit, with differences between 5% up to
No diagonal cracks in the brick infill were observed. Overall, the use of 24% observed. Interestingly, the stiffness was found to be higher for the
the braided textile achieved the same global behaviour as the com specimens with the thinner TRM strips. In terms of lateral load capacity,
mercial material, while reducing the amount of visible damage large increases in capacity were observed for all specimens. The increase
significantly. in width of the diagonal TRM layers was not found to significantly affect
5
D.A. Pohoryles and D.A. Bournas Composites Part B 183 (2020) 107702
this strength increase and the behaviour of the full-surface retrofit was cracking was delayed for larger levels of drifts for all retrofitted speci
similar to the diagonal strengthening layout. Interestingly, despite the mens. This reduction in in-plane damage was generally found to
carbon textile having the highest strength of the three fibre materials, improve the out-of-plane residual capacity significantly [39,40].
the highest strength increase was obtained with the basalt TRM (þ99%). Cracking at the interface to the frame was observed for all retrofitted
For the carbon TRM the peak was reached at a load 40% higher than the specimens, indicating that separation of the infill from the frame cannot
control specimen, while the glass TRM retrofit achieved a slightly lower be prevented, albeit it was significantly delayed in most cases. It is worth
increase of up to 32%. noting that strengthening with orthogonal fibre orientation is effective
Finally, Sagar et al. [40] looked at the interaction of in- and in preventing diagonal shear cracks, but cannot prevent sliding shear as
out-of-plane damage in masonry infilled RC frames with TRM retrofit observed in specimens with relatively low strength masonry mortar [29,
ting. Six single-storey, half-scale frames were tested under cyclic 39].
in-plane loading, with out-of-plane testing on a shake table carried out at
different levels of in-plane drift. The TRM was applied in a single layer to 3. Analytical modelling
the outer face of the infills only. The investigated parameters were the
angle of the fabric mesh (orthogonal vs �45� in Table 1), the contri The effectiveness of TRM retrofitting was highlighted by various
bution of mechanical anchors, as well as the sequence of fabric place experimental campaigns in the literature. Albeit limited, the experi
ment. In direct bond tests, the latter was found to affect bond strength, mental data gathered on TRM strengthened frames is used here to
with a direct application of the textile on the wall having a higher bond develop an empirical equation for effective strain for simplified macro-
strength (0.83 MPa) compared to 0.63 MPa obtained for the conven modelling applications. Macro-modelling of infilled frames is a well-
tional “sandwich application”, with a base layer of mortar applied first studied topic in the scientific literature, with multiple approaches
on the infill. In three specimens, mechanical anchors (steel bolts) were leading to an appropriate representation of their response [e.g.:46–50].
installed and a tighter mesh size of the fabric (8 mm instead of 25 mm) For TRM-strengthened infills, finite-element modelling approaches have
was used at the frame-infill interface to improve the transfer of forces to been investigated [51,52]. Reliable simplified models are however
the anchors, but also to strengthen the interface. The experimental re important to facilitate the use of TRM for the existing building stock.
sults focused on the interaction of in-plane damage and out-of-plane However, only one macro-model for TRM retrofits developed by Koutas
behaviour, with a reduction in connection between frame and infill et al. [53] can be found in the literature. This model was calibrated for
observed due to out-of-plane plane damage. For the anchored speci effective strain in the textile using the first available experiments [29].
mens, a better out-of-plane behaviour was observed, however, without With the range of new experimental results, a modification of the model
anchorage, the connection between frame and infill was significantly parameters is hence proposed. The analytical model used consists of a
reduced. This also meant that the in-plane behaviour displayed a more single strut model in compression with an additional tensile tie, ac
gradual strength degradation for the specimens with anchorage. The counting for the added strength from the retrofit in tension described in
specimens with orthogonal TRM application presented a more ductile 3.1 and 3.2.
and dissipative behaviour. In general, strength increase was very similar
for all retrofitted specimens, with values close to þ30%.
3.1. Infill strut model
2.3. Main observations
Here the empirical equation for the calculation of the equivalent
strut width (w) by Mainstone [48,54] is taken, as it is not only widely
Based on the reviewed experimental campaigns a number of inter
used in the literature [e.g.:55–57], but also suggested in the FEMA 306
esting observations can be made. Firstly, in terms of retrofit application,
[58] guidelines. For the maximum strength of the infill w can be
TRM was generally applied with one or two layers on both sides of the
expressed by Equation (1):
wall, with the exception of Sagar et al. [40] who tested a one-sided
intervention. It is note-worthy that even in the one-sided configura w ¼ 0:56ðλ⋅HÞ 0:875
⋅dm ½m� (1)
tion, a significant in-plane strength increase was obtained despite
additional out-of-plane damage. Applying the fibres at an angle ach In which H is the height of the frame, dm the diagonal length, and λ
ieved higher strength increase then equivalent orthogonal applications represents the relative panel-to-frame stiffness, defined based on the
[40,42], as it also controls the shear sliding of the infill and is applied in elastic moduli of the infill and the concrete framing members, Em and Ec,
the direction of largest tensile strain. In terms of anchorage, steel ties respectively, in Equation (2) by Stafford Smith and Carter [59]:
and bolts, as well as fibre anchors have been used. Compared to sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
4 Em ⋅t⋅sin 2 θ � �
non-anchored specimens, anchorage was found to prevent or delay TRM λ¼ m 1 (2)
4⋅Ec ⋅I⋅hw
debonding [e.g.:39], retrofits with anchorage were hence found to give
the highest strength increase. Still, significant increase was also
observed without any anchorage [e.g.:42]. Where t is the wall thickness, hw is the wall height, and I is the second
In terms of materials, as shown in Table 2, a variety of fibre materials moment of area of the column. To obtain the maximum sustained shear
have been used in the experimental campaigns, including Carbon (C), force, the maximum compressive stress carried by an area of infill
Basalt (B), Glass (G) and Steel (S) fibres. The retrofit applications were defined from the equivalent strut width, w, and the actual infill thick
made with a range of orthogonal mesh sizes between 8 and 25 mm, the ness, t, is calculated. The maximum compressive stress can be defined
thickness per layer of TRM (textile þ mortar) is between 4 and 20 mm according to multiple failure mechanisms, however, corner crushing is
and the elastic moduli range from 13.8 GPa for softer glass textiles to generally seen to be the most crucial to define the maximum force
252 GPa for stiffer carbon textiles. The effectiveness of the retrofit was developed in the infill, while other mechanisms like sliding shear usually
found to be affected more by the stiffness of the fibres than the amount precede this state [58]. A commonly adopted empirical equation
of material applied [42]. Moreover, the stiffest textiles were found not to formulated by Decanini et al. [60] is chosen here. Such an approach is
provide the highest strength increase and therefore glass or basalt tex compatible with the chosen strut width definition and is based on the
tiles would appear to be more cost effective than carbon. The textile vertical infill compressive strength fm,inf, the strut angle θ and the rela
mesh was found to have an effect on visible damage and strength in tive panel-to-frame stiffness λ, as given by Equation (3):
crease, with an increased mechanical interlock with the mortar for 1:12⋅fm;inf ⋅sin θ⋅cos θ
fmθ ¼ (3)
braided textiles. K1⋅ðλ⋅HÞ 0:12
þ K2⋅ðλ⋅HÞ0:88
Finally, in terms of observed damage mechanisms, generally
6
D.A. Pohoryles and D.A. Bournas Composites Part B 183 (2020) 107702
Where K1 and K2 are empirical parameters defined based on the values Table 4
Equations for estimated mechanical properties.
of λ [60].
Infill Property Equation Source
7
D.A. Pohoryles and D.A. Bournas Composites Part B 183 (2020) 107702
Fig. 3. Calibrated effective strain and experimental increase in lateral capacity for each retrofitted specimen.
Table 5
Correlation between experimental parameters and the effective strain (r-value).
θ ρt Ef fm,inf
formulated using the full data set, as well as the data set excluding the
specimens retrofitted with diagonal TRM bands. As shown in Fig. 4, the
factors in the two equations are very similar, however, a higher
goodness-of-fit (R2) is obtained when looking at the fully wrapped
specimens only, for which Equation (8) is obtained:
1:40⋅ρ �
εeff ¼ pffiffiffiffiffi t R2 ¼ 0:86 (8)
Ef
8
D.A. Pohoryles and D.A. Bournas Composites Part B 183 (2020) 107702
a simplified analytical model, using a macro-model based on a pair of [14] Umair S, Numada M, Amin M, Meguro K. Fiber reinforced polymer and
polypropylene composite retrofitting technique for masonry structures. Polymers
compressive strut and tensile tie. The definition of effective strain was
2015;7:963–84. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym7050963.
found to be crucial in the development of the tensile tie model and [15] Binici B, Ozcebe G, Ozcelik R. Analysis and design of FRP composites for seismic
factors affecting the effective strain were determined. Based on a cor retrofit of infill walls in reinforced concrete frames. Compos B Eng 2007;38:
relation study on experimental parameters to the calibrated effective 575–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2006.08.007.
[16] Triantafillou TC, Papanicolaou CG, Zissimopoulos P, Laourdekis T. Concrete
strain, an empirical equation for effective strain based on the TRM area confinement with textile-reinforced mortar jackets. ACI Struct J 2006;103:28–37.
ratio and elastic modulus was proposed. https://doi.org/10.14359/15083.
The empirical equation provided a relatively good fit, however it [17] Koutas LN, Tetta Z, Bournas DA, Triantafillou TC. Strengthening of concrete
structures with textile reinforced mortars: state-of-the-art review. J Compos Constr
highlighted that currently only limited experimental data is available. 2019;23:03118001. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000882.
Moreover, a majority of the experimental data comes from scaled [18] Ebead U, Shrestha KC, Afzal MS, El Refai A, Nanni A. Effectiveness of fabric-
specimens, and it was shown in previous research that scaling has a non- reinforced cementitious matrix in strengthening reinforced concrete beams.
J Compos Constr 2017;21:04016084. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-
proportional effect to retrofit effectiveness for composite materials [68, 5614.0000741.
69]. There is also a lack of data for a wider range of TRM area ratios and [19] Pino V, Hadad HA, De Caso y Basalo F, Nanni A, Ebead UA, El Refai A. Performance
frame aspect ratios. To develop more precise and reliable macro-models, of FRCM-strengthened RC beams subject to fatigue. J Bridge Eng 2017;22:
04017079. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0001107.
a systematic testing campaign and detailed finite-element modelling are [20] Del Vecchio C, Di Ludovico M, Balsamo A, Prota A. Seismic retrofit of real beam-
hence required. Future work will further look at considering the increase column joints using fiber-reinforced cement composites. J Struct Eng 2018;144:
of compressive strut force as a result of TRM jacketing, which may 04018026. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001999.
[21] Elsanadedy HM, Abbas H, Almusallam TH, Al-Salloum YA. Organic versus
constitute a strengthening mechanism of importance.
inorganic matrix composites for bond-critical strengthening applications of RC
structures – state-of-the-art review. Compos B Eng 2019;174:106947. https://doi.
Declaration of competing interest org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2019.106947.
[22] Raoof SM, Bournas DA. TRM versus FRP in flexural strengthening of RC beams:
behaviour at high temperatures. Constr Build Mater 2017;154:424–37. https://doi.
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.07.195.
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence [23] Kouris LAS, Triantafillou TC. State-of-the-art on strengthening of masonry
the work reported in this paper. structures with textile reinforced mortar (TRM). Constr Build Mater 2018;188:
1221–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.08.039.
[24] Giaretton M, Dizhur D, Garbin E, Ingham JM, da Porto F. In-plane strengthening of
Acknowledgements clay brick and block masonry walls using textile-reinforced mortar. J Compos
Constr 2018;22:04018028. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-
5614.0000866.
The work of this study was carried out under the European Com [25] Triantafillou TC, Karlos K, Kefalou K, Argyropoulou E. An innovative structural and
mission, Joint Research Centre (JRC) Exploratory Research project energy retrofitting system for URM walls using textile reinforced mortars combined
iRESISTþ. with thermal insulation: mechanical and fire behavior. Constr Build Mater 2017;
133:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.12.032.
[26] Triantafillou TC, Karlos K, Kapsalis P, Georgiou L. Innovative structural and energy
References retrofitting system for masonry walls using textile reinforced mortars combined
with thermal insulation: in-plane mechanical behavior. J Compos Constr 2018;22:
[1] De Luca F, Verderame GM, G� omez-Martínez F, P�erez-García A. The structural role 04018029. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000869.
played by masonry infills on RC building performances after the 2011 Lorca, Spain, [27] Gkournelos PD, Bournas DA, Triantafillou TC. Combined seismic and energy
earthquake. Bull Earthq Eng 2014;12:1999–2026. https://doi.org/10.1007/ upgrading of existing reinforced concrete buildings using TRM jacketing and
s10518-013-9500-1. thermal insulation. Earthq Struct 2019;16:625–39. https://doi.org/10.12989/
[2] Fikri R, Dizhur D, Walsh K, Ingham J. Seismic performance of reinforced concrete EAS.2019.16.5.625.
frame with masonry infill buildings in the 2010/2011 Canterbury, New Zealand [28] Bournas DA. Concurrent seismic and energy retrofitting of RC and masonry
earthquakes. Bull Earthq Eng 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-018-0476-8. building envelopes using inorganic textile-based composites combined with
[3] Kouris LA, Borg RP, Indirli M. The L’Aquila Earthquake, April 6th, 2009: a review insulation materials: a new concept. Compos B Eng 2018;148:166–79. https://doi.
of seismic damage mechanisms. In: Proc. Final conf. COST action C26 urban org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2018.04.002.
habitat constr. Catastrophic events, Mazzolani, FM September; 2010. p. 16–8. [29] Koutas L, Bousias S, Triantafillou T. Seismic strengthening of masonry-infilled RC
[4] Ricci P, De Luca F, Verderame GM. 6th April 2009 L’Aquila earthquake, Italy: frames with TRM: experimental study. J Compos Constr 2015;19:04014048.
reinforced concrete building performance. Bull Earthq Eng 2011;9:285–305. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000507.
[5] CTCV. Report on types of structural frames, related enclosure wall systems, and [30] Koutas LN, Bournas DA. Out-of-Plane strengthening of masonry-infilled RC frames
requirements for the construction systems. Portugal: Centro Tecnol� ogico da with textile-reinforced mortar jackets. J Compos Constr 2019;23:04018079.
Cer^amica e do Vidro (CTCV); 2015. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000911.
[6] Varum H. Seismic assessment, strengthening and repair of existing buildings. PhD [31] Furtado A, Rodrigues H, Melo J, Ar^ede A, Varum H. Experimental assessment of
Thesis. University of Aveiro; 2003. strengthening strategy to improve the masonry infills out-of-plane behaviour
[7] Altın S, Anıl O,
€ Kopraman Y, Ç Belgin. Strengthening masonry infill walls with through textile reinforced mortar. Comput Methods Struct Dyn Earthq Eng 2019:
reinforced plaster. Proc Inst Civ Eng Struct Build 2010;163:331–42. https://doi. 19. Crete, Greece: ECCOMAS.
org/10.1680/stbu.2010.163.5.331. [32] Breveglieri M, Camata G, Spacone E. Strengthened infilled RC frames: continuum
[8] Korkmaz SZ, Kamanli M, Korkmaz HH, Donduren MS, Cogurcu MT. Experimental and macro modeling in nonlinear finite element analysis. Compos B Eng 2018;151:
study on the behaviour of nonductile infilled RC frames strengthened with external 78–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2018.05.042.
mesh reinforcement and plaster composite. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 2010;10: [33] Valluzzi MR, da Porto F, Garbin E, Panizza M. Out-of-plane behaviour of infill
2305–16. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-10-2305-2010. masonry panels strengthened with composite materials. Mater Struct 2014;47:
[9] Koutromanos I, Kyriakides M, Stavridis A, Billington S, Shing PB. Shake-table tests 2131–45. https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-014-0384-6.
of a 3-story masonry-infilled RC frame retrofitted with composite materials. [34] Ayatar ME, Canbay E, Binici B. Strengthening of reinforced concrete frames with
J Struct Eng 2013;139:1340–51. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943- engineered cementitious composite panels. Proc Inst Civ Eng Struct Build 2018:
541X.0000689. 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1680/jstbu.18.00001.
[10] Kyriakides MA, Billington SL. Cyclic response of nonductile reinforced concrete [35] Dehghani A, Nateghi-Alahi F, Fischer G. Engineered cementitious composites for
frames with unreinforced masonry infills retrofitted with engineered cementitious strengthening masonry infilled reinforced concrete frames. Eng Struct 2015;105:
composites. J Struct Eng 2014;140:04013046. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE) 197–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2015.10.013.
ST.1943-541X.0000833. [36] Li Y, Zhu J, Wang Z. Investigation on mechanical properties of masonry infill wall
[11] Almusallam TH, Al-Salloum YA. Behavior of FRP strengthened infill walls under in- strengthened with ECC. KSCE J Civ Eng 2019;23:295–306. https://doi.org/
plane seismic loading. J Compos Constr 2007;11:308–18. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s12205-018-5424-2.
10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0268(2007)11:3(308). [37] Yaman TS, Canbay E. Seismic strengthening of masonry infilled reinforced concrete
[12] Erol G, Karadogan HF. Seismic strengthening of infilled reinforced concrete frames frames with steel-fibre-reinforced mortar. Proc Inst Civ Eng Struct Build 2014;167:
by CFRP. Compos B Eng 2016;91:473–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1680/stbu.11.00076.
compositesb.2016.01.025. [38] Akhoundi F, Vasconcelos G, Lourenço P, Silva LM, Cunha F, Fangueiro R. In-plane
[13] Spyrakos CC, Maniatakis CA, Smyrou E, Psycharis IN. FRP strengthened brick- behavior of cavity masonry infills and strengthening with textile reinforced mortar.
infilled RC frames: an approach for their proper consideration in design. Open Eng Struct 2018;156:145–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.11.002.
Constr Build Technol J 2012;6:306–24. https://doi.org/10.2174/ [39] da Porto F, Guidi G, Verlato N, Modena C. Effectiveness of plasters and textile
1874836801206010306. reinforced mortars for strengthening clay masonry infill walls subjected to
9
D.A. Pohoryles and D.A. Bournas Composites Part B 183 (2020) 107702
combined in-plane/out-of-plane actions. Mauerwerk 2015;19:334–54. https://doi. [55] Chrysostomou CZ, Asteris PG. On the in-plane properties and capacities of infilled
org/10.1002/dama.201500673. frames. Eng Struct 2012;41:385–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
[40] Sagar SL, Singhal V, Rai DC. In-plane and out-of-plane behavior of masonry-infilled engstruct.2012.03.057.
RC frames strengthened with fabric-reinforced cementitious matrix. J Compos [56] Perrone D, Leone M, Aiello MA. Non-linear behaviour of masonry infilled RC
Constr 2019;23:04018073. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943- frames: influence of masonry mechanical properties. Eng Struct 2017;150:875–91.
5614.0000905. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.08.001.
[41] Selim M, Okten C, Ozkan M, Gencoglu. Behavior of RC frames with infill walls [57] Tanganelli M, Rotunno T, Viti S. On the modelling of infilled RC frames through
strengthened by cement based composites. International Society of Offshore and strut models. Cogent Eng 2017;4:1371578. https://doi.org/10.1080/
Polar Engineers; 2015. 23311916.2017.1371578.
[42] Ismail N, El-Maaddawy T, Khattak N. Quasi-static in-plane testing of FRCM [58] FEMA, editor. FEMA 306 - evaluation of earthquake damaged concrete and
strengthened non-ductile reinforced concrete frames with masonry infills. Constr masonry wall buildings: basic procedures manual. Redwood City, CA, USA: ATC;
Build Mater 2018;186:1286–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. 1998.
conbuildmat.2018.07.230. [59] Stafford Smith B, Carter C. A method of analysis for infilled frames. Proc Inst Civ
[43] Koutas L, Pitytzogia A, Triantafillou TC, Bousias SN. Strengthening of infilled Eng 1969;44:31–48. https://doi.org/10.1680/iicep.1969.7290.
reinforced concrete frames with TRM: study on the development and testing of [60] Decanini LD, Fantin GE. Modelos simplificados de la mampostería incluida en
textile-based anchors. J Compos Constr 2014;18:A4013015. https://doi.org/ porticos. J Argent Ing Estructural 1986;2:817–36.
10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000390. [61] Pohoryles DA, Melo J, Rossetto T, Fabian M, McCague C, Stavrianaki K, et al. Use
[44] Akhoundi F, Vasconcelos G, Lourenço P, Vasconcelos G, Lourenço P. In-plane of DIC and AE for monitoring effective strain and debonding in FRP and FRCM-
behavior of infills using glass fiber shear connectors in textile reinforced mortar retrofitted RC beams. J Compos Constr 2017;21:04016057. https://doi.org/
(TRM) technique. Int J Struct Glass Adv Mater Res 2018;2:1–14. https://doi.org/ 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000715.
10.3844/sgamrsp.2018.1.14. [62] Triantafillou T, Antonopoulos C. Design of concrete flexural members strengthened
[45] Vasconcelos G, Abreu S, Fangueiro R, Cunha F. Retrofitting masonry infill walls in shear with FRP. J Compos Constr 2000;4:198–205. https://doi.org/10.1061/
with textile reinforced mortar. Lisbon, Portugal: Proc. 15th World Conf. Earthq. (ASCE)1090-0268(2000)4:4(198).
Eng.; 2012. p. 10. [63] Bilotta A, Ceroni F, Lignola GP, Prota A. Use of DIC technique for investigating the
[46] Crisafulli FJ, Carr AJ, Park R. Analytical modelling of infilled frame structures-a behaviour of FRCM materials for strengthening masonry elements. Compos B Eng
general review. Bull N Z Soc Earthq Eng 2000;33:30–47. 2017;129:251–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2017.05.075.
[47] Fardis MN, Panagiotakos TB. Seismic design and response of bare and masonry- [64] CEN BS. EN 1996-1-1:2005 Eurocode 6. Design of masonry structures - Part 1-1:
infilled reinforced concrete buildings. Part II: infilled structures. J Earthq Eng general rules for reinforced and unreinforced masonry structures. London: BSI;
1997;1:475–503. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469708962375. 2005.
[48] Mainstone RJ. On the stiffness and strengths of infilled frames. Proc Inst Civ Eng [65] American Concrete Institute, American Society of Civil Engineers, Masonry
1971;49:230. Society, Masonry Standards Joint Committee. TMS 402-11/ACI 530-11/ASCE 5-11
[49] Rodrigues H, Varum H, Costa A. Simplified macro-model for infill masonry panels. - building code requirements and specification for masonry structures. Boulder,
J Earthq Eng 2010;14:390–416. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632460903086044. Co.; Farmongton Hills, Mi.; Reston, Va.: the masonry Society; American concrete
[50] Furtado A, Rodrigues H, Ar^ ede A, Varum H, Grubi�si�c M, Sipo�
� s TK. Prediction of the institute. American Society of Civil Engineers; 2013.
earthquake response of a three-storey infilled RC structure. Eng Struct 2018;171: [66] ACI. ACI 549.4R - guide to design and construction of externally bonded fabric-
214–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.05.054. reinforced cementitious matrix (FRCM) systems for repair and strengthening
[51] Basili M, Marcari G, Vestroni F. Nonlinear analysis of masonry panels strengthened concrete and masonry structures. Farmington Hills, Mich.: American Concrete
with textile reinforced mortar. Eng Struct 2016;113:245–58. https://doi.org/ Institute; 2013.
10.1016/j.engstruct.2015.12.021. [67] Ceroni F, Salzano P. Design provisions for FRCM systems bonded to concrete and
[52] Filippou CA, Kyriakides NC, Chrysostomou CZ. Numerical modeling of masonry- masonry elements. Compos B Eng 2018;143:230–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
infilled RC frame. Open Constr Build Technol J 2019;13:135–48. https://doi.org/ compositesb.2018.01.033.
10.2174/1874836801913010135. [68] Choudhury AM, Deb SK, Dutta A. Study on size effect of fibre reinforced polymer
[53] Koutas L, Triantafillou TC, Bousias SN. Analytical modeling of masonry-infilled RC retrofitted reinforced concrete beam–column connections under cyclic loading.
frames retrofitted with textile-reinforced mortar. J Compos Constr 2015;19: Can J Civ Eng 2013;40:353–60. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjce-2012-0041.
04014082. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000553. [69] Pohoryles DA, Melo J, Rossetto T, Varum H, Bisby L. Seismic retrofit schemes with
[54] Mainstone RJ. Supplementary note on the stiffness and strength of infilled frames. FRP for deficient RC beam-column joints: state-of-the-art review. J Compos Constr
Current Paper CP 13/74 Build Res Establ Lond 1974. 2019;23:03119001. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000950.
10