8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 1/109
i
SEISMIC RETROFITTING OF UNREINFORCED LOAD BEARING BRICK WALLS
IN HISTORIC BUILDINGS USING FIBER-REINFORCED POLYMER STRINGS
by
Onur Seren
B.S. , Civil Engineering, Boğaziçi University, 2009
Submitted to the Institute for Graduate Studies in
Science and Engineering in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of
Master of Science
Graduate Program in Civil Engineering
Boğaziçi University
2013
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 2/109
ii
SEISMIC RETROFITTING OF UNREINFORCED LOAD BEARING BRICK WALLS
IN HISTORIC BUILDINGS USING FIBER-REINFORCED POLYMER STRINGS
APPROVED BY:
Assoc. Prof. Cem Yalçın . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(Thesis Supervisor)
Assis t. Prof. Kutay Orakçal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Assoc. Prof. Ercan Yüksel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
DATE OF APPROVAL: 15.01.2013
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 3/109
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my grat itude to everyone who contributed the development of
this research. I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my advisor Assoc. Prof. Dr.
Cem Yalçın for his valuable help in instructing, guiding and supporting me throughout theduration of this thesis.
Also, I would like to thank the members of my Master’s thesis examinationcommittee; Assist. Prof. Ku tay Orakçal, and Assoc. Prof. Ercan Yüksel, for their in-depth
comments and advice.
I would like to thank Assist. Prof. Ahmet Anil Dindar for his important contribution
to the analysis stage of this study with the software he developed.
Civil Engineer Ali Bayraktar and Hafez Keypour from SGM Construction provided
required materials and contributed this research financially, which is highly appreciated.
Special thanks to my friends Tevfik Terzioğlu, Hasan Altun and Furkan Çelenli fortheir assistance and suggestions during the construction and testing of the specimens, and
to the technicians, Hasan Şenel, Hamdi Ayar, Ümit Melep and Mesut Kardaş for theirhelp
in the experimental phase of this research.
I would like to thank my supervisors Ramiz Soylu and Tayfun Bayramkaya from
SURYAPI End. Tic. A.Ş. for their patience and tolerance at work for the time required forthis thesis to be completed.
Finally, I would like to thank my family and my love Ece Uçar for their continuoussupport and encouragement.
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 4/109
iv
ABSTRACT
SEISMIC RETROFITTING OF UNREINFORCED LOAD BEARING
BRICK WALLS IN HISTORIC BUILDINGS USING FIBER-
REINFORCED POLYMER STRINGS
Most of the historical buildings and monuments in the world are unreinforced
masonry (URM) type and they are vulnerable to seismic actions. Considering the seismic
activities in the regions where historical masonry structures are located, their structural
assessment and rehabilitation or retrofitting if necessary against seismic forces are needed
in order to preserve them for future generations. International organizations such as
UNESCO (United Nations educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) and
ICOMOS (International Council on Monuments and Sites) try to increase the awareness in
need for preserving these world-heritage structures. However, historical masonry structures
still need retrofitting techniques that are much different than that of buildings that were
built using conventional construction practice since the architectural features of the historic
buildings must remain unchanged after the retrofitting process. Therefore, conventional
methods have been used in retrofitting works are not suitable for such purposes. In this
study, the use of carbon fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP) strings placed in mortar joints
for strengthening of URM structures was investigated. Nearly full-scaled four URM brick
wall specimens with aspect ratio of 1.00 were tested under varying axial load and cyclic
lateral loading. Two of the specimens were tested as control specimens while other two
specimens were retrofitted with horizontally-oriented CFRP strings. Also, one of the tested
control specimens were repaired and retrofitted and re-tested in order to see the effect of
this retrofitting technique after substantial damage occurred. Test results showed that
energy dissipation capacity of the wall specimens were enhanced with the proposed
technique. In addition, the crack openings due to shear effects were minimized while
keeping the historic and aesthetical view of the structures intact, since they were directly
placed inside the mortar joints and debonding of strings were prevented. However, nosignificant increase in the lateral load carrying capacity of the specimens was observed.
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 5/109
v
ÖZET
TARİHİ BİNALARDAKİ DONATISIZ TUĞLA - YIĞMA YÜK
TAŞIYICI DUVARLARIN FİBER TAKVİYELİ POLİMER İPLER
İLE SİSMİK GÜÇLENDİRMESİ
Yeryüzündeki birçok tarihi bina ve anıtın kâgir oluşu bu yapıları sismik etkilere karşı
savunmasız kılmaktadır. Tarihi yapıların konumlandığı bölgelerdeki sismik aktiviteler gözönünde bulundurulduğunda; yapısal durum değerlendirme, iyileştirme ve gerekligörüldüğünde sismik etkilere karşı güçlendirme çalışmalarının yapılması, bu yapılarıngelecek nesillere aktarılabilmesi adına zorunluluk arz etmektedir. UNESCO ve ICOMOS
gibi uluslararası organizasyonlar , dünya mirası olarak nitelendirilen bu yapıların geleceknesillere aktarılabilmesi adına gerekli farkındalığın oluşturulması için çalışmalaryürütmektedirler.Ancak, tarihi kâgir yapılar için, güçlendirme sonrası tarihi doku ve
mimari özelliklerin korunması gerektiğinden, diğer yapılarda kullanılan tekniklerden farklıyöntemlere ihtiyaç duyulmaktadır. Bu nedenle, tarihi kâgir yapıların güçlendirmeçalışmalarında kullanılan konvansiyonel teknikler, bahsi geçen zorunlulukların sağlanması konusunda yetersiz kalmaktadır . Bu tez çalışmasında, fiber takviyelikarbon polimer iplerin
(CFRP) derz aralarında çekme elemanı olarak kullanılmasıyla donatısız tuğla-yığma yapıların depreme karşı güçlendirilmesi konusunda çalışılmıştır. Bu yöntemin etkinliği,gerçek ölçeğe yakın, 1.00 narinlik oranına sahip donatısız tuğla duvarnumuneleriyle,
değişen düşey ve periyodik yatay yük tesirleri altında test edilmiştir . Numunelerden ikisikontrol numunesi olar ak kullanılırken, diğer iki numune, derz aralarına yatay d oğrultuda yerleştirilen CFRP ipler ile güçlendirilmiştir. Ayrıca, kontrol numunelerinden biri,
güçlendirme yönteminin ağır hasarlı bir yapıda etkisini incelemek adına, test edildikten
sonra tamir ed ilip güçlendirilmiş ve yeniden test edilmiştir. Test sonuçları, numunelerinenerji sönümleme kabiliyetlerinin önerilen güçlendirme tekniği ile arttığını göstermiştir. Buna ek olarak, CFRP ipler in doğrudan derz aralarına uygulanması ve sıyrılmalarınınönlenmesi numunelerde kesme etkisiyle oluşan çatlakların azal masını sağlarken, yapınıntarihi ve estetik görünümünü korumuştur. Ancak, yapılan testlerde numunelerin yatay yüktaşıma kapasitelerinde belirgin bir artış tespit edilememiştir.
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 6/109
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .............................................................................................. iii
ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................... iv
ÖZET……........................................................................................................................ v
LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... ix
LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................... xiv
LIST OF SYMBOLS ...................................................................................................... xvi
LIST OF ACRONYMS/ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................. xvii
1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1
1.1. General ................................................................................................................ 1
1.2. Problem Definition .............................................................................................. 2
1.3. Literature Review ................................................................................................ 6
1.3.1. Mechanical Properties of URM Structures and Their Components ......... ... 6
1.3.2. Seismic In Plane Behavior of URM Structures ......................................... 7
1.3.3. Testing of Masonry Structures for Seismic Assessment .......................... 10
1.3.4. Conventional Retrofitting Techniques for Historical URM Structures
Against Seismicity .................................................................................. 11
1.3.4.1. Filling of Cracks Using Grout and Epoxy Injections............. ...... 11
1.3.4.2. External Jacketing by Shotcreting .............................................. 12
1.3.4.3. Confining URM Using RC Tie Columns and Beams ......... ......... 13
1.3.4.4. Post-Tensioning With Steel Ties ................................................ 13
1.3.5. Evaluation of the Performance FRP Retrofitted Historical URM
Structures with FRP................................................................................ 14
1.4. Research Significance and Rationale .................................................................. 17
1.5. Objective and Scope .......................................................................................... 17
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 7/109
vii
1.6. Methodology ..................................................................................................... 18
1.7. Report Outline ................................................................................................... 19
2. EXPERIMENTAL SETUP ......................................................................................... 20
2.1. Description of Testing Program ......................................................................... 20
2.2. Description of Test Setup ................................................................................... 20
2.2.1. Typology of Specimens .......................................................................... 20
2.2.2. Placement of CFRP Strings on Specimens .............................................. 23
2.2.3. Test Setup and Instrumentation ............................................................... 24
3. EXPERIMENTAL STUDY ........................................................................................ 28
3.1. General .............................................................................................................. 28
3.2. Test Observations .............................................................................................. 28
3.2.1. Specimen BW0....................................................................................... 28
3.2.2. Specimen BW1-C ................................................................................... 30
3.2.3.
Specimen BW2-RR ................................................................................ 34
3.2.4. Specimen BW3-R1 ................................................................................. 37
3.2.5. Specimen BW4-R2 ................................................................................. 39
3.3. Analysis of Test Results ..................................................................................... 43
3.3.1. Normalized Lateral Load versus Drift Level Relationship ......... .......... .... 43
3.3.2. Vertical Load versus Lateral Load Relationship ......... ......... .......... ......... . 46
3.3.3. Moment-Base Rotation Relationship ...................................................... 47
3.3.4. Lateral Force-Shear Deformation Relationship ....................................... 54
3.3.5. Rigidity – Drift Level Relationship ......................................................... 59
3.3.6. Energy Dissipation – Drift Level Relationship ........................................ 62
4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................... 67
4.1. Summary ........................................................................................................... 67
4.2. Conclusions ....................................................................................................... 67
4.3. Recommendations.............................................................................................. 68
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 8/109
viii
APPENDIX A: CRACK PATTERNS ............................................................................. 70
A.1. Specimen BW1-C ......... ......... .......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .......... ......... ......... ... 70
A.2. Specimen BW2-RR ......... ......... .......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .......... ......... ......... 74
A.3. Specimen BW3-R1 ......... ......... ......... ......... .......... ......... ......... ......... .......... ......... . 78
A.4. Specimen BW4-R2 ......... ......... ......... ......... .......... ......... ......... ......... .......... ......... . 82
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 88
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 9/109
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1. Wrong application of concrete lintel on masonry load carrying walls. ......... 3
Figure 1.2. Wrong application of reinforced concrete retaining wall with masonry
load carrying walls...................................................................................... 3
Figure 1.3. Wrong application of strengthening with steel clamping. ......... .......... ......... 4
Figure 1.4. Wrong application of strengthening with steel profiles at facade of
structure. ..................................................................................................... 4
Figure 1.5. A representative sketch for a sample application of CFRP strings. ......... ..... 5
Figure 1.6. In-plane failure modes of laterally loaded URM wall (a) shear failure;
(b) sliding failure; (c) rocking failure (d) toe crushing (ElGawady et al. ,
2007). ......................................................................................................... 7
Figure 1.7. Assumptions for rocking strength calculation of a wall (Magenes and
Calvi, 1997). ............................................................................................... 8
Figure 1.8. Shear tests for masonry structural elements (Bosiljkov et al. , 2010). ......... 10
Figure 1.9. FRP retrofit details for wallettes specimens (Mahmood and Ingham,2011).16
Figure 2.1. Test setup.................................................................................................. 20
Figure 2.2. FRP band layout. ......... .......... ......... ......... ......... .......... ........ .......... ......... ... 21
Figure 2.3. Brick wall & foundation joint detail. .......... ......... ......... ......... .......... ......... . 22
Figure 2.4. Repairing of BW2-RR specimen. .......... ......... .......... ......... ......... ......... ...... 22
Figure 2.5. Placement of FRP strings, Horasan mortar removal process. ......... ......... ... 23
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 10/109
x
Figure 2.6. Epoxy application on CFRP strings and BW3-R1 from the construction
site. ........................................................................................................... 23
Figure 2.7. Preparation of BW4-R2........... ......... .......... ......... ......... .......... ........ .......... . 24
Figure 2.8. Vertical actuator, RC beam and test specimen joint detail. ......... ......... ...... 25
Figure 2.9. Brick wall and RC beam joint detail. .......... ......... ......... ......... .......... ......... . 25
Figure 2.10. The displacement based loading protocol used in the tests. ......... ......... ...... 26
Figure 2.11. Sensor layout. .......... ......... ......... ......... .......... ......... ......... ......... .......... ....... 27
Figure 3.1. Setup and deformations of BW0 at first test. ........ .......... ......... ......... ......... 29
Figure 3.2. Deformations on BW0 at the second test. ......... ......... ......... ......... .......... .... 29
Figures 3.3. Setup and deformations on BW0 at the third test. ......... ......... .......... ......... . 30
Figure 3.4. Shear cracks and crushing at the toes of BW1-C. ......... ......... .......... ......... . 31
Figure 3.5. Lateral load versus top displacement for specimen BW1-C. .......... ......... ... 32
Figure 3.6. Lateral force-shear displacement relationship for BW1-C (DG1-2). ......... . 33
Figure 3.7. Lateral force-shear displacement relationship for BW1-C (DG3-4). ......... . 33
Figure 3.8. Shear cracks and crushing at the toes of BW2-RR. ........ .......... ......... ......... 35
Figures 3.9. Lateral load versus top displacement for specimen BW2-RR. ......... .......... . 35
Figure 3.10. Lateral force-shear displacement relationship for BW2-RR (DG1-2). ........ 36
Figure 3.11. Lateral force-shear displacement relationship for BW2-RR (DG3-4). ........ 36
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 11/109
xi
Figure 3.12. Shear cracks, crushing at the toes of BW3-R1, and de-bonding of strings. . 38
Figure 3.13. Lateral load versus top displacement for Specimen BW3-R1. ................ ... 38
Figure 3.14. Lateral force-shear displacement relationship for BW3-R1 (DG1-2). ........ 39
Figure 3.15. Lateral force-shear displacement relationship for BW3-R1 (DG3-4). ........ 39
Figure 3.16. Shear cracks, crushing at the toes of BW4-R2, and rupture of strings. ....... 41
Figure 3.17. Rupture of strings and location of strings. ......... .......... ......... ......... ......... ... 41
Figure 3.18. Lateral load versus top displacement for specimen BW4-R2. ......... .......... . 41
Figure 3.19. Lateral force-shear displacement relationship for BW4-R2 (DG1-2). ........ 42
Figure 3.20. Lateral force-shear displacement relationship for BW4-R2 (DG3-4). ........ 42
Figure 3.21. Normalized lateral load vs. drift level for BW1-C. ........ .......... ......... ......... 44
Figure 3.22. Normalized lateral load vs. drift level for BW2-RR. .......... ......... ......... ...... 44
Figure 3.23. Normalized lateral load vs. drift level for BW3-R1. .......... ......... ......... ...... 45
Figure 3.24. Normalized lateral load vs. drift level for BW4-R2. .......... ......... ......... ...... 45
Figure 3.25. Backbone curves of all specimens for normalized lateral load-drift
relationship. .............................................................................................. 46
Figure 3.26. Comparison of vertical load vs. lateral load relationship for all
specimens. ................................................................................................ 47
Figure 3.27. Vertical displacement readings and base rotation measurement. ........ ........ 48
Figure 3.28. Moment-base rotation relationship for BW1-C at first level. ......... ......... ... 48
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 12/109
xii
Figure 3.29. Moment-base rotation relationship for BW1-C at second level. ......... ........ 49
Figure 3.30. Moment-base rotation relationship for BW1-C at third level. ......... .......... . 49
Figure 3.31. Moment-base rotation relationship for BW2-RR at first level. ........ .......... . 50
Figure 3.32. Moment-base rotation relationship for BW2-RR at second level. .......... .... 50
Figure 3.33. Moment-base rotation relationship for BW2-RR at third level. ......... ......... 50
Figure 3.34. Moment-base rotation relationship for BW3-R1 at first level. ........ .......... . 51
Figure 3.35. Moment-base rotation relationship for BW3-R1 at second level. ......... ...... 51
Figure 3.36. Moment-base rotation relationship for BW3-R1 at third level. ......... ......... 52
Figure 3.37. Moment-base rotation relationship for BW4-R2 at first level. ........ .......... . 52
Figure 3.38. Moment-base rotation relationship for BW4-R2 at second level. ......... ...... 53
Figure 3.39. Moment-base rotation relationship for BW4-R2 at third level. ......... ......... 53
Figure 3.40. Shear deformation measurement. .......... ......... .......... ......... ......... ......... ...... 54
Figure 3.41. Lateral force-shear deformation curves for BW1-C (DG1-2). ......... .......... . 55
Figure 3.42. Lateral force-shear deformation for BW1-C (DG3-4). .......... ......... ......... ... 55
Figure 3.43. Lateral force-shear deformation relationship for BW2-RR (DG1-2). ......... 56
Figure 3.44. Lateral force-shear deformation relationship for BW2-RR (DG3-4). ......... 56
Figure 3.45. Lateral force-shear deformation relationship for BW3-R1 (DG1-2). ......... . 57
Figure 3.46. Lateral force-shear deformation relationship for BW3-R1 (DG3-4). ......... . 57
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 13/109
xiii
Figure 3.47. Lateral force-shear deformation relationship for SP4- R2 (DG1-2). .......... . 58
Figure 3.48. Lateral force-shear deformation relationship for BW4-R2 (DG3-4). ......... . 58
Figure 3.49. Comparison of normalized lateral force-shear deformation backbone
curves. ...................................................................................................... 58
Figure 3.50. Stiffness and energy calculations.............. ......... .......... ......... ......... ......... ... 59
Figure 3.51. Rigidity-drift level relationship for BW1-C. ......... .......... ......... ......... ......... 60
Figure 3.52. Rigidity-drift level relationship for BW2-RR. ......... .......... ......... ......... ...... 60
Figure 3.53. Rigidity-drift level relationship for BW3-R1. ......... ......... .......... ........ ........ 60
Figure 3.54. Rigidity-drift level relationship for BW4-R2. ......... ......... .......... ........ ........ 61
Figure 3.55. Superposed rigidity-drift level relationship for all specimens. ........ .......... . 61
Figure 3.56. Cumulative energy dissipation-drift level relationship for BW1-C. ........... 62
Figure 3.57. Cumulative energy dissipation-drift level relationship for BW2-RR. ......... 63
Figure 3.58. Cumulative energy dissipation-drift level relationship for BW3-R1........... 63
Figure 3.59. Cumulative energy dissipation-drift level relationship for BW4-R2........... 64
Figure 3.60. Comparison of all specimens for cumulative energy dissipation. ......... ...... 64
Figure 3.61. Loop-wise normalized energy dissipation ratio vs. drift level
relationship. .............................................................................................. 65
Figure 3.62. Cumulative normalized energy dissipation ratio vs. drift level
relationship. .............................................................................................. 65
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 14/109
xiv
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1. Max. lateral load and drift levels of under incremental vertical load sets
for BW1-C ................................................................................................ 31
Table 3.2. Max. lateral load and drift levels of under incremental vertical load sets
for BW2-RR. ............................................................................................ 34
Table 3.3. Max. lateral load and drift levels of under incremental vertical load sets
for BW3-R1. ............................................................................................. 37
Table 3.4. Max. lateral load and drift levels of under incremental vertical load sets
for BW4-R2. ............................................................................................. 40
Table A.1. Observations of specimen BW1-C. ......... .......... ......... ......... ......... .......... .... 70
Table A.2. Observations of specimen BW1-C (cont.). ......... .......... ......... ......... ......... ... 71
Table A.3. Observations of specimen BW1-C (cont.). ......... .......... ......... ......... ......... ... 72
Table A.4. Observations of specimen BW1-C (cont.). ......... .......... ......... ......... ......... ... 73
Table A.5. Observations of specimen BW2-RR. .......... ......... ......... ......... .......... ......... . 74
Table A.6. Observations of specimen BW2-RR (cont.). ......... .......... ......... ......... ......... 75
Table A.7. Observations of specimen BW2-RR (cont.). ......... .......... ......... ......... ......... 76
Table A.8. Observations of specimen BW2-RR (cont.). ......... .......... ......... ......... ......... 77
Table A.9. Observations of specimen BW3-R1. ......... ......... .......... ......... ......... ......... ... 78
Table A.10. Observations of specimen BW3-R1 (cont.). ......... ......... .......... ........ .......... . 79
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 15/109
xv
Table A.11. Observations of specimen BW3-R1 (cont.). ......... ......... .......... ........ .......... . 80
Table A.12. Observations of specimen BW3-R1 (cont.). ......... ......... .......... ........ .......... . 81
Table A.13. Observations of specimen BW4-R2. ......... ......... .......... ......... ......... ......... ... 82
Table A.14. Observations of specimen BW4-R2 (cont.). ......... ......... .......... ........ .......... . 83
Table A.15. Observations of specimen BW4-R2 (cont.). ......... ......... .......... ........ .......... . 84
Table A.16. Observations of specimen BW4-R2 (cont.). ......... ......... .......... ........ .......... . 85
Table A.17. Observations of specimen BW4-R2 (cont.). ......... ......... .......... ........ .......... . 86
Table A.18. Observations of specimen BW4-R2 (cont.). ......... ......... .......... ........ .......... . 87
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 16/109
xvi
LIST OF SYMBOLS
b Pier aspect ratio
c Global strength parameter
D Pier length
D Effective uncracked section of masonry wall panel
D1-2 Diagonal distances of deformed shape of the wall panel
DG 1-4 Readings of sensors for shear displacement
f tu Diagonal tensile strength of masonryf u Compressive strength of masonry
hR,L Initial length of rocking LVDTs
H0 Effective pier length
K Vertical stress distribution coefficient
Lwidth Width of the specimens
p Mean vertical stress
P Axial loadR 1-2 Retrofitting number
R 1-6 Readings of sensors for rocking measurement
t Pier thickness
Vd Ultimate shear load
V r Maximum shear strength under rocking
Y Height and width of wall panel
αv Shear ratio
ΔR,L Displacement reading of LVDT
εR,L Strain due to rocking
γ Base rotation angle
μ Sliding coefficient
ψ Boundary condition parameter for masonry wall panels
σv Mean vertical stress
τu Average ultimate shear stress
θ Rotation angle
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 17/109
xvii
LIST OF ACRONYMS/ABBREVIATIONS
BW Brick wall
CFRP Carbon fiber reinforced polymer
CR# Crack number
EB Externally bonded
FRP Fiber reinforced polymer
GFRP Glass fiber reinforced polymer
ICOMOS International Council on Monuments and SitesLVDT Linear variable differential transformer
NSM Near surface mounting
RC Reinforced concrete
RR Repaired and retrofitted
SR Surface repointing
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
OrganizationURM Unreinforced masonry
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 18/109
1
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. General
It is of great importance, due to the probability of strong seismic event occurrence
being high in the near future, to determine the seismic safety of historical masonry
structures and to improve and spread the technical knowledge for strengthening, especially
considering our country which experienced the devastating earthquakes in the year 1999.
Masonry structures are usually rigid, highly resistant against compressive stresses, but in
horizontal direction effect, especially in plane and out of plane forces induced by
earthquakes, are very weak and could get severe damages. Therefore, they are be classified
as brittle in nature and one of the most vulnerable among the different types of structural
buildings under seismic loads. Besides, masonry structures are one of the oldest types
among the historical buildings and it is necessary to preserve them for contributing
common heritage of mankind. For that reason, restoration of historical buildings in the
earthquake zones, and continuously strengthening them is a major necessity.
According to Calvi et al . (1996), lateral load resistance of masonry structures is
highly dependent on shear resistance of in-plane walls. In addition, shear resistance of in-
plane walls are directly related to its constituents; masonry brick, binding unit=mortar
ability and workmanship. Therefore, improvement techniques should target these
constituents’ bonding and adhesion capacities (Somerset al ., 1996). For the historical
building cases, the chosen method of seismic retrofitting must preserve the architecturaland historical features of the structure. A variety of techniques have been applied for
strengthening historical masonry structures. However, most of the methods do not take into
account the historical features of the building, which leads incompatible views of the
interior and exterior facades and thus, losing the entire historical features of the structure.
Use of lightweight materials, especially fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) composites
in the form of strips or sheets, have a significant role in the development of repairing andstrengthening of civil engineering structures due to their superior properties such as cost
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 19/109
2
effectiveness, high tensile strength and ease of application. In this study, by taking the
advantages of using FRP and the necessity of preserving architectural and historical
features of the structures into account, placing carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP)into the brick masonry load carrying structural wa lls’ joints may offer the optimum
strengthening technique for historic unreinforced masonry structures.
1.2. Problem Definition
Historic and older buildings are vulnerable against forces induced by earthquakes
due to their well-known brittle and inflexible behavior. Furthermore, solid mass and heavy
weight of the materials used in these buildings could increase the probability of
counteracting with high seismic forces. Therefore, severe damage followed by collapse
mechanism could be observed in structural supports, walls, floors, stairs and other
structural members.
Under earthquake effect, tension zones become critical for the load carrying walls in
historical buildings. Considering low tensile resistance capacity of bricks and mortar,
diagonal cracking could start developing and rapidly propagate within the member or wall
element. Therefore, reinforcement against tension is needed to be implemented within the
members during repairing and renovation of the structure. However, since the architectural
and historic condition of the existing structure is needed to be preserved, the retrofitting
method should not give any damage or alter its architectural and historic condition (Arun
G.,2005; Altın et al. , 2005).
There are conventional methods used for retrofitting and restoration of historical
buildings. The tension capacity of the critical or damaged sections on the structural
members are generally increased by means of additional reinforced concrete or steel
supporting members, steel clamping, jacketing with plaster (Bayraktar, 2006). Although
these methods are commonly used in Turkey, they have serious disadvantages such as
difficulty in application and causing damage on historical and architectural view of the
structures. Also, the integrity of the structures no longer exists after these applications.
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 20/109
3
Examples of wrong applications of retrofitting and restoration works are presented in the
Figures 1.1 to 1.4.
Figure 1.1. Wrong application of concrete lintel on masonry load carrying walls.
Figure 1.2. Wrong application of reinforced concrete retaining wall with masonry
load carrying walls.
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 21/109
4
Figure 1.3. Wrong application of strengthening with steel clamping.
Figure 1.4. Wrong application of strengthening with steel profiles at facade ofstructure.
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 22/109
5
As it is seen from the above figures, wrong applications have damaged or altered the
structures permanently in terms of historical and architectural point of view. Also, the
structural continuity and integrity of the structures are disturbed by these applications.Therefore, more practical and efficient techniques are needed in retrofitting of historical
structure.
In order to overtake the excessive tensile forces developed in load carrying walls,
CFRP strings could be used as tension elements. The application differs from other
conventional techniques since the CFRP strings are embedded into mortar joints
horizontally and vertically which is also called as structural repointing (SR). Infunctionality point of view, it does not affect the structure visually and at the same time it
provides high durability against tension due to the high strength capacity of CFRP
(Tumialan and Nanni, 2002).
Representative application of CFRP strings shown in Figure 1.5.
CFRP strings in horizontal direction
Reinforcing Plaster
Existing wall
CFRP strings in vertical direction
Figure 1.5. A representative sketch for a sample application of CFRP strings.
This research investigates and evaluates the performance of CFRP strings as a means
for seismic strengthening technique that are horizontally placed between the joints of
unreinforced masonry brick walls. The wall specimens represent the load carrying walls of
a historical building and they are constructed with blend brick and Horasan mortar which
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 23/109
6
are the common construction materials exist in historical buildings in Anatolia region of
Turkey (Arioglu and Acun, 2006).
1.3. Literature Review
1.3.1. Mechanical Properties of URM Structures and Their Components
Behavior of masonry assemblage is highly dependent on the characteristics and
interface of their constituents. Usually, masonry walls have high compressive strength
whereas their tensile strength capacity is low. Besides, non-homogeneity of masonry units
and complexity of the interaction between masonry unit and mortar make it hard to predict
the lateral load capacity of these structures. Therefore, understanding these properties is
important for going further in seismic in-plane behavior of URM structures.
There are various researches on identifying the mechanical properties of masonry
structures both in individual material case and their interaction as masonry member: brick
unit and mortar, and shear/tensile bond strength and interface friction (McNary and
Abrams, 1985; Binda et al. , 1994; Atkinson et al ., 1994).
McNary and Abrams (1985) studied on different types of mortars and brick units that
vary in strength. Compression tests were performed for indicating the effect of
confinement in increasing compressive strength and ductility of mortar. In addition, the
tensile strength of mortar found to be negligible compared to its compressive strength. Rad(1978) examined the variation of compressive strength of different types of brick units. In
these studies, it was found to be that compressive strength of brick units on average was 2
to 3 times larger than the tensile strength. It is found that typical compressive strengths of
clay bricks range between 8.60 MPa and 17.20 MPa (Rad, 1978).
The interface between mortar and brick unit is ruled by two mechanisms; bonding
due to chemical interaction and friction. Thus, depending on the mechanism, two main
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 24/109
7
types of failures are associated with brick-unit mortar interface which are tension (mainly
governed by chemical bond) and shear (mainly ruled by friction).
1.3.2. Seismic In Plane Behavior of URM Structures
According to Vas concelos and Lourenço (2009), with the condition of prevented outof plane failure, resistance of URM structures against seismic action was sustained by in
plane behavior of masonry walls. In an earthquake, in-plane walls could deform or fail due
to diagonal shear failure, rocking at toe sections of the walls, sliding shear deformation
along bed joint and compression failure (toe crushing) (Magenes and Calvi, 1997).
Analytical studies were performed in the scope of experimental researches for
identifying the failure mechanisms due to in-plane forces that are subjected to URM walls
in terms of material properties, geometry and boundary conditions of the structures as seen
in Figure 1.6.
In general, rocking failure tends to prevail among other mechanism for masonry
walls that have slender geometry whereas sliding failure tends to occur in squat walls
(Magenes and Calvi, 1992; Abrams, 1992). Shear failure (i.e. diagonal cracking) prevails
over sliding and rocking failure mechanisms in masonry walls that have moderately
slender geometry with increase in vertical load (Mahmoud et al. , 1995; Bosilijkov et al .,
2003).
Figure 1.6. In-plane failure modes of laterally loaded URM wall (a) shear failure; (b)
sliding failure; (c) rocking failure (d) toe crushing (ElGawady et al. , 2007).
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 25/109
8
Assumptions and maximum rocking strength evaluation of a URM wall under static
in-plane loading ( V r ) could be determined by Equation 1.1 with reference to Figure 1.7.
2
0
1 1
2 2r u v u
D t p p Dt p pV
H Kf Kf
(1.1)
In the above equation, D is the pier length, H 0 is the effective pier height, t is the pier
thickness, p=P/(D t ) is the mean vertical stress on the pier due to the axial load P , K is a
coefficient which takes the vertical stress distribution at the compressed toe (a common
assumption is an equivalent rectangular stress block with K =0.85) into account, f u is the
compressive strength of masonry. The effective height H 0 is determined by the boundary
conditions of the wall and is related to the shear ratio of αv which was expressed in
Equation 1.2.
0'
=v
H M H
VD D D
(1.2)
Figure 1.7. Assumptions for rocking strength calculation of a wall (Magenes and Calvi,
1997).
The parameter ψ has a value of 1.00 if the piers is fixed on one end and free to rotate
at the other end. If the pier is fixed at both ends, ψ has a value of 0.50 (Magenes and Calvi,
1997).
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 26/109
9
Shear strength associated to diagonal cracking is expressed by Turnsek and
Cacovic’s model which simply considers the masonry wall as elastic, homogenous and
isotropic structural material as a function of diagonal tensile strength ( f tu) in Equation 1.3.
tu 1 , ,1.0 1.5d
tu
f Dt p hV b b
b f l (1.3)
Here, b is the empirically based parameter that represents the pier aspect ratio
(Turnsek and Cacovic, 1971).
In addition, diagonal cracking due to mortar bed and head joint failure could be
formulated in the form of ultimate shear strength which is based on Mohr-Coulomb
approach, as indicated in Equation 1.4.
u vc (1.4)
Evaluation of ultimate load, V d , of a wall could be calculated with Equation 1.5.
1.5
1 3d
v
P p c pV Dt c Dt c Dt
c Dt p
(1.5)
Where D is the effective un-cracked section mentioned in Equation 1.6 with respect
to Figure 1.7 (Magenes and Calvi, 1997).
01 1
' 3 32 2
v
H V V D D D D
P P D
(1.6)
However, it was noted that these formulations describe local phenomenon and failure
envelopes and they cannot be directly used as a shear failure criteria for masonry (Calvi et
al. , 1996). But, the researchers briefly explained the strength characterization of URM
walls subjected to seismic forces. Therefore, direct experimental studies on structural
member, which is the wall panels in this case, is necessary for identifying the conventional
tensile strength f tu.
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 27/109
10
1.3.3. Testing of Masonry Structures for Seismic Assessment
Monitoring the performance and shear resistance of masonry members due to in-
plane forces induced by seismic loading could be done by simulating the static or
kinematic boundary conditions. Application of a monotonic or cyclic shear force (or
displacement) under a certain axial load have been generally used in the literature (Abrams
P, 2001; D’Ayalaet al ., 1997; Tomazevic and Lutman, 1993; Magenes G, 1992; Manfredi
et al ., 1992; Calvi et al ., 1996). Testing arrangements commonly used for cyclic and
monotonic loading are presented in Figure 1.8. Although these test setups do not simulate
the real conditions, the required behavioral parameters for seismic evaluation and
performance analysis of masonry structures are sustained by these setups.
Figure 1.8. Shear tests for masonry structural elements (Bosiljkov et al. , 2010).
In addition to quasi-static loading tests, dynamic test procedures are applied on brick
masonry as well (Magenes and Calvi, 1994). According to the experiments by Calvi et al .,
(1996), although the seismic excitation is resembled better in dynamic tests, quasi-static
loading tests prevail since inducing of large loads to specimen, observing crack patterns
and measuring displacements and forces are easier compared to dynamic tests. On the
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 28/109
11
contrary, masonry specimens under quasi-static loading exhibit more damage and lower
strengths compared to dynamic tests which could be defined as conservative. Therefore,
both testing techniques could result in differences in the evaluation of stiffness andstrength parameters of URM brick walls (Calvi et al. , 1996).
1.3.4. Conventional Retrofitting Techniques for Historical URM Structures Against
Seismicity
The need for preserving, restoring and strengthening of historical structures againstseismicity has been noticed for years. Development in interventions for strengthening
techniques has been followed by international collaborations since the Athens Charter for
the Historic Monuments 1931 (ICOMOS 1931). The general requirement for the
strengthening techniques are; being reversible in means of application and preserving the
character and features of the structures. In this section, by taking the expectations into
account, frequently used conventional strengthening and retrofitting techniques will be
reviewed.
1.3.4.1. Filling of Cracks Using Grout and Epoxy Injections. This technique has been
commonly used for filling the cracks and voids within the multi-wythe masonry structures
for maintaining the integrity. As a grout material, both epoxy resin and cement based
grouts could be used for injection. The methodology for this technique could be defined as
the following steps (Hamid et al .,1999; Calvi and Magenes,1994; Schuller et al .,1994):
As a first step, injection docks should be anchored in the determined sections. Then,
the openings around the docks and other cracks should be sealed.
Cracks and other openings should be cleaned with water by injecting water from the
docks.
Finally, grout should be injected with low injection pressure.
A case study was carried by Perret et al ., (2002) which evaluates the performance ofhigh strength cement grout in a 130-year old masonry bridge pier. According to in-situ
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 29/109
12
pullout bond and sonic tomographic tests, grouting technique managed to increase the
performance of the tested pier. Furthermore, studies of Schuller (1984) showed that this
technique could increase the compressive strength of URM walls up to 0.8 of the un-retrofitted masonry compressive strength. A real application of this technique was studied
by Valluzzi et al ., (2002) in Modena, Italy for the Bell Tower of Cathedral of Monza.
Although different studies on this technique proved that a significant increase in
ultimate load capacity is acquired, correct application requires a comprehensive pre-study
on composition of the type of grout and its penetration into the structure. In addition, sonic
tests should be conducted in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the technique during theapplication (Valluzzi, 2007).
1.3.4.2. External Jacketing by Shotcreting. The principle of jacketing technique for
strengthening reinforced concrete (RC) structures is also valid for masonry structures as
well. Masonry members under excessive compression are confined by either reinforced
concrete units or steel plates. Since the treatment is practiced on the surface, the historical
and architectural features of the structure are highly affected by this technique.
Other than RC and steel members, ferrocement, reinforced plasters, and shotcrete
could be used.
Ferrocement could be defined as mesh of fine rods placed in a high-strength mortar
matrix. Abrams and Lynch (2001) found that lateral resistance of masonry walls that had
been retrofitted by ferrocement technique increased by a factor of 1.5 (Abrams and Lynch,2001).
In contrast to ferrocement intervention, high strength reinforcing steel is covered by a
thin plaster layer in reinforced plaster surface treatment technique. Shepperd and Tercelj
(1980) studied on this technique and in the reference of diagonal compression and static
cyclic loading experiment results, it was found that in-plane resistance of masonry walls is
linearly proportional with the thickness of the application, mortar strength and
reinforcement quality whereas, it is inversely proportional with the damage condition of
the structure (Sheppard and Tercelj, 1980).
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 30/109
13
Similar to reinforced plaster technique, this technique was applied by spraying the
cement based shotcrete on masonry wall surface that covered with steel reinforcing bar
mesh. Studies showed that this technique increased the ultimate load capacity of theretrofitted walls (Kahn, 1984; Abrams and Lynch, 2001).
1.3.4.3. Confining URM Using RC Tie Columns and Beams. Use of vertical RC tie
columns that are constructed at intersections of masonry walls and connected to tie beams
is one of the frequently used conventional techniques. Simply, confinement is maintained
by these RC members where it leads to improvement in ductility and structural integrity of
masonry. However, effect of this technique in the increase of ultimate lateral load capacity
of masonry walls is found to be insignificant except very squat walls (Chuxian et al . 1997,
Zhang et al . 1997, Zezhen et al . 1984).
1.3.4.4. Post-Tensioning With Steel Ties. Retrofitting of historical masonry structures by
post tensioning with steel ties could be either applied externally or internally. Basics of this
technique depend on compensating the tensile stresses on masonry due to lateral loads by
the compressive forces used for post tensioning. Among the other conventional techniques,
externally post-tensioning with steel ties prevails since being relatively reversible, ease in
application and efficient. On the contrary, aesthetical view of the structures is highly
disturbed by this method. Besides, steel bars used in the tendons for post tensioning
without grout cover could be susceptible to corrosion.
Application of this technique requires a socketing section on the structure that could
be either filled with grout (Rosenboom and Kowalsky 2003, Al-Manaseer and Neis 1987)
or left empty (Mojsilovic and Marti, 2000). Orientation of the tendons could be both in
vertical and horizontal direction. Studies on vertical post-tensioning proved that, this
method was effective in increasing the ultimate load capacity of the walls against both in-
plane and out-of-plane forces. The contribution of horizontal post-tensioning in ultimate
load capacity of masonry walls was experimentally studied by Page and Huizer (1994) and
analytically by Karantoni and Fardis (1992). The results from both researches found to be
there were no significant improvement.
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 31/109
14
1.3.5. Evaluation of the Performance FRP Retrofitted Historical URM Structures
with FRP
The use of FRP has been increasing in various industries with discovering the
effectiveness of these materials in strength, durability, and workability. FRP materials have
been already introduced to structural engineering by means of strengthening reinforced
concrete structures which extensive research could be found about in literature. For
retrofitting and strengthening of URM historical structures with FRP, studies mainly
focused on the structural walls and in-plane panels.
Use of FRP in reinforced concrete is followed by strengthening of masonry
structures both in out-of-plane and in-plane under cyclic loading, in the form of carbon
laminates (Schwegler, 1994; Abrams and Lynch, 2001). Schwegler studied on retrofitting
configuration with FRP laminates and compared single-side retrofitting with double side
retrofitting of squad specimens. The studies of Schwegler concluded by the finding that
full surface coverage and inclined plates were the best configuration (Schwegler, 1994).
Another retrofitting technique with FRP laminates were studied on cracked specimen
with diagonal configuration for seismic retrofitting of URM historical structures. The
studies showed that proposed technique with the diagonal configuration was unsuccessful
(ElGawady et al , 2005a). Similar study on both damaged and non-damaged specimens
showed that retrofitting with diagonal configuration was effective only in non-damaged
specimen case (Zhao et al , 2003).
In-plane static cyclic loading performance of URM walls that had been retrofitted
with FRP were evaluated before and after retrofitting procedure (ElGawady et al , 2007).
As URM wall specimen, one-half scale single-wythe walls that had been constructed using
half-scale hollow clay brick and weak mortar. Three specimens were tested as reference
specimens. Later on, the damaged specimens were retrofitted by FRP on the surface and
tested again. One specimen was retrofitted directly after the construction stage and tested.
In total, seven specimens were tested. Experiment results proved that for particularspecimens, lateral load capacity were increased after retrofitting by a factor of 1.4 to 5.9.
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 32/109
15
Besides, it was found that the severity of the existing damage in the specimen before
retrofitting had an influence in the ultimate lateral strength of the specimen after
retrofitting. Furthermore, it was observed that cracking load and pattern were effectivelycontrolled after FRP retrofitting.
Performance of in-plane shear behavior of URM that strengthened by near surface
mounted (NSM) CFRP strings was experimentally investigated (Petersen et al ., 2010). In
this study, different orientation of CFRP strings was tested including effect of
nonsymmetrical reinforcement. Dimension of all solid clay brick panel specimens was
1.2m x 1.2m (aspect ratio of 1.00) whereas unidirectional pultruded CFRP strings were15mm wide and 2.8mm thick. CFRP strings were glued using epoxy, into rectangular
grooves which were 20mm deep and 6mm wide and had been cut into surface of the
masonry panels by a circular saw. Seven URM panels with and four URM panels without
FRP strengthening were tested under diagonal shear compression test. The test results
proved that vertical orientation of CFRP strings prevented sliding failure effectively. In
addition, it was found to be nonsymmetrical reinforcement didn’t cause any change in in-
plane behavior of URM panels. Furthermore, it was observed that diagonal cracking was
prevented by horizontal oriented CFRP strings.
More recent study that examine the effectiveness of FRP systems as a seismic retrofit
intervention for in-plane loaded URM walls under seismic effects was done by Mahmood
and Ingham (2011). Seventeen URM wallettes were retrofitted with externally bonded
(EB) glass FRP fabrics (GFRP), EB pultruded carbon FRP (CFRP) plates, or near-surface
mounted pultruded CFRP rectangular bars. Dimension of specimens were classified in
three stages (1170mm x 1170mm x 225mm for Stage 1 and Stage 2, 1170mm x 1075mm x
225mm for Stage 3) with aspect ratios of 1.00 and 1.08. By taking architectural features of
façade into account, FRP retrofitting was only practiced on single surface of the wallettes.
The orientation of FRP that had been used in the experimental study was presented in
Figure 1.9. Specimens were tested under diagonal compression.
According to the test results, up to 325% increase in shear strength was observed for
FRP retrofitting. However, it was noted that out-of-plane displacements were observed in
one façade retrofitted specimens. In addition, positive effect of vertical and diagonal FRP
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 33/109
16
orientation in preventing sliding failure was examined, whereas horizontal orientation of
FRP used with weak mortar found to be ineffective. Furthermore, insignificant change in
stiffness with FRP retrofitting was noted (Mahmood and Ingham, 2011).
Figure 1.9. FRP retrofit details for wallettes specimens (Mahmood and Ingham,2011).
Mossallam and Banerjee (2011) tested unreinforced concrete masonry unit walls that
had 1:1 aspect ratio and externally retrofitted with FRP bands. Six specimens were tested
under the action of cyclic lateral load and vertical gravity load. Increase in lateral load
capacity was obtained for all retrofitted specimens according to the test results. In addition,
especially in retrofitted specimens, governing failure mechanism was observed to be
compression at toe sections (Mossallam and Banerjee, 2011).
In addition to all, dynamic tests for evaluating the in-plane behavior of URM walls
that retrofitted with FRP were performed (ElGawady et al ., 2005a,b). Glass fiber
reinforced polymer (GFRP) and CFRP were applied either oriented diagonally or covering
the all surface of the specimen. Both studies confirmed that lateral load capacities of the
specimens were increased. In addition, rocking mechanism prevailed in geometrically
slender specimens whereas shear cracking with some degrees of rocking was dominantly
observed in squat specimens. Besides, it was found to be the retrofitting materials did not
change the fundamental frequencies and initial st iffness of the specimens (ElGawady et al .,
2005a,b).
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 34/109
17
The intervention in FRP retrofitting of URM structures has great potential and a wide
research area. Common understanding of the mentioned researches is FRP retrofitting of
URM walls have influence in lateral load capacity of these structures. Besides, diagonalcracking and other in-plane failure mechanisms due to forces generated by seismic actions
could be prevented or controlled. However, nearly all applications require great surface
area on the structure which could result loss in aesthetical view and features in the
historical structures case. Therefore, studies on this issue should continue.
1.4. Research Significance and Rationale
The aim of this current research is to strengthen unreinforced masonry brick, load
carrying structural walls of older and historical structures against seismicity without
changing or affecting their architectural and historical features. The proposed technique in
this research is the retrofitting of load carrying masonry brick structural walls’ joints withfiber reinforced polymer, FRP strings. Strengthening methods that could positively affect
the tensile capacity of masonry members such as proposing use of high bonding and tensile
strength capacity mortar, use of GFRP, having different orientation of FRP strings other
than horizontal position or change in typology of wall formation are out of the scope of this
study. In addition, out-of-plane strengthening of the URM walls was not investigated.
An experimental research was carried on near full-scaled unreinforced load carrying
masonry brick walls in same typology. It aimed to evaluate and validate the performance
of proposed strengthening technique under in-plane cyclic lateral force action whether such
a technique is suitable for seismic strengthening of older and historical masonry structures
located in seismic regions.
1.5. Objective and Scope
This experimental study was mainly focused on the development and evaluation of
an applicable FRP retrofitting technique that increase the lateral load (shear) capacity of
structural walls of historical masonry buildings.
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 35/109
18
The objectives of this study could be summarized as follows:
To evaluate the performance of FRP strings in increasing the lateral load capacity ofURM structural walls under the effect of seismic loading by comparing the test
results of retrofitted and post-strengthened specimen with control specimen,
To evaluate the performance of FRP strings in in-plane shear behavior of URM brick
walls,
To increase the resistance of URM brick walls against diagonal cracking,
To identify the effects of varying vertical load on unreinforced masonry structural
walls in lateral load capacity, To identify different failure mechanisms on masonry structural walls under cyclic
loading case,
To show FRP bands maintain the integrity in between masonry load carrying walls in
the structure properly.
In this study, unreinforced masonry structural wall specimens were tested under
varying vertical load and reversed cyclic loading. At the first phase of the study, a controlspecimen was tested in order to determine the behavior and natural lateral load capacity of
the member. As a second step, the first specimen had been repaired and strengthened, and
then was tested in order to compare the performance of the technique in post-strengthening
with control specimen. As a third step, second specimen that had been retrofitted by
mentioned technique was tested in order to evaluate and compare its performance with
control specimen. Fourth and final step was to test final specimen that had been retrofitted
by the same technique in addition to enhanced bonding of CFRP strings.
1.6. Methodology
This study investigates the actual behavior of unreinforced masonry brick structural
walls and evaluates the performance of CFRP string retrofitting that is developed for
improving the seismic behavior of historical masonry structures without damaging their
architectural and historical features.
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 36/109
19
First of all, literature related with strengthening of historical masonry structures was
reviewed. Then, four specimens with the same typology, in other terms same formation of
bricks and use of same material, were produced. In scope of literature review, availablefacilities at the Structural Laboratory of Bogazici University were determined and a
preliminary test was conducted. According to the results of this test, the most suitable
testing conditions were determined. First three specimens were tested with the established
testing conditions and the results were compared. Fourth and the final specimen was
improved in order to prevent debonding of CFRP strings, and with this specimen the final
test was conducted.
1.7. Report Outline
This thesis presents the experimental research on the seismic behavior of
unreinforced load carrying URM structural walls and evaluation of retrofitting of these
members by using CFRP strings.
Brief information about the mechanical behavior of unreinforced load carrying
masonry structural walls under seismic action, literature review and previous studies
aiming strengthening historical masonry structures, and the objectives of the study with the
methodology are given in Chapter 1. In Chapter 2, experimental setup with the details of
construction, instrumentation and testing procedure is provided. Analysis on experimental
results, discussions and comparisons according to these results are presented in Chapter 3.
Finally, Chapter 4 gives a summary of the study, indicates the final outcomes, and
recommendations for further studies.
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 37/109
20
2. EXPERIMENTAL SETUP
2.1. Description of Testing Program
The experimental investigation is aimed to test the behavior of unreinforced brick
walls under seismic loading. And hence, the evaluation of the performance of CFRP
strings in increasing the shear capacity of the specimens is aimed. Therefore, four single-
storey unreinforced brick wall specimens of 1:1 aspect ratio were tested subjected to cyclic
quasi-static loadings with the variation of axial load. This setup has been adopted from
several research programs (Magenes and Calvi 1997; Bosiljkov et al ., 2003) and altered to
suit this experimental research. The test setup is shown schematically in Figure 2.1.
Figure 2.1. Test setup.
2.2. Description of Test Setup
2.2.1. Typology of Specimens
Four brick wall specimens with 2.00 meters high and 2.00 meters wide and 0.19
meter thick were prepared in two batches. The dimensions of the specimens were chosen
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 38/109
21
such that they could be successfully tested with the available facilities in the Structural
Laboratory of Bogazici University. A special type of mortar, Horasan that was used in the
Anatolian region for centuries, is used to build the walls.
Specimens were named in terms of their masonry unit constituent name (brick), test
number and initial letter of their condition. Accordingly, BW1-C refers to first tested brick
wall which was used as control specimen whereas BW2-RR stands for second tested brick
wall which is repaired and retrofitted. Similarly, BW3-R1 is the third tested brick wall with
retrofitting. And, BW4-R2 is the fourth tested brick wall with retrofitting.
One specimen (BW0) was tested for optimization of test setup. Second specimen
(BW1-C) was tested as it is, and later it was repaired, retrofitted (BW2-RR), and tested
again, while the other two (BW3-R1, BW4-R2) were only retrofitted and then tested.
CFRP strings were used as main retrofitting technique. They were horizontally inserted
between the brick elements and inside the mortar. A total of three lines at the top and three
lines at the bottom of the specimen with 20 cm offset of the strings were placed. The
middle portion of the walls is left non-retrofitted since the formation of shear cracks are
first expected to propagate at the corners of the top and the bottom sections (Figure 2.2).
Figure 2.2. FRP band layout.
Specimens were constructed on previously-built reinforced concrete foundations that
were designed for the experimental evaluation of the lateral load behavior of squat
structural walls by Terzioğlu T. (2011). The reinforced concrete structural wall had beenremoved from its foundation while the vertical reinforcement steel bars at 20-30 cm height
was kept in order to maintain a fixed support mechanism and prevent any premature
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 39/109
22
sliding of the brick wall. Two holes were drilled on bricks that were laid on the first two
rows, as seen on Figure 2.3. Thus, sliding of the brick walls from the foundation was
prevented.
Figure 2.3. Brick wall & foundation joint detail.
First four specimens (BW0, BW1-C, BW2-RR, BW3-R1) were built in 2010 within
the same batch whereas fourth specimen, BW4-R2 was prepared more recently, in 2012,with different FRP string arrangement.
BW1-C was repaired after testing (BW2-RR). Damaged sections were rebuilt and
specimen was retrofitted with CFRP strings as shown in Figure 2.4.
Figure 2.4. Repairing of BW2-RR specimen.
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 40/109
23
2.2.2. Placement of CFRP Strings on Specimens
After the unreinforced brick wall was built, Horasan mortar on the surface of the
selected three layers at the top and bottom portions of the wall was slightly removed as
seen in Figure 2.5. These sections were cleaned with wire brush in order to make the
surface suitable for interaction with CFRP strings.
Figure 2.5. Placement of FRP strings, Horasan mortar removal process.
Figure 2.6. Epoxy application on CFRP strings and BW3-R1 from the construction
site.
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 41/109
24
On the other side, CFRP strings with 5 meters of length each, were fully covered
with epoxy binder, BASF MBT-MBRACE, and left to dry for approximately 5 minutes.
Drying process is necessary for hardening of the CFRP strings which enables them to getthe desired shape. After the drying process was done, the CFRP strings were placed
horizontally in the specified sections where the Horasan mortar had been removed as
shown in Figure 2.6. The CFRP strings should be as tight as possible and should fully
cover the section. As a final step, Horasan mortar was applied on the sections that had been
reinforced with CFRP strings.
BW4-R2 was retrofitted during the construction stage since it was experienced fromtests of BW3-R1 and BW2-RR that the lateral load capacity of the specimen did not
decrease due to removal process of mortar for CFRP retrofitting. Two steel re-bars were
placed at two ends of the wall without anchoring to the foundation and CFRP strings were
tied around these re-bars in order to provide proper confinement and also minimize
possible slip of the CFRP strings from the mortar joint during testing as seen in Figure 2.7.
Therefore, the continuity of FRP strings was maintained.
Figure 2.7. Preparation of BW4-R2.
2.2.3. Test Setup and Instrumentation
Varying pre-compression loads were applied using a servo-controlled verticalactuator with a maximum capacity of 1000 kN, with reaction on the strong floor by means
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 42/109
25
of vertical pre-stressing cables, which kept the vertical load approximately constant. The
lateral load was applied based on the displacement-control criteria via the horizontal
actuator which had a capacity of 250 kN and connected to the reaction wall. Both thevertical and horizontal loads were transmitted by means of a reinforced concrete beam that
had been designed in a way that it could be easily placed on and removed from the top of
the wall (Figure 2.9). A set of steel rollers were used between the vertical actuator and the
reinforced concrete beam in order to allow relative displacement between the vertical
actuator and the beam (Figure 2.8).
Figure 2.8. Vertical actuator, RC beam and test specimen joint detail.
Figure 2.9. Brick wall and RC beam joint detail.
In any quasi-static cyclic loading, the specimens were subjected to predetermined
numbers of displacement-controlled loading cycles. Under a certain vertical load set, three
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 43/109
26
cycles of the same amplitude in story drift were repeated and then displacement amplitude
was increased (Figure 2.10). Loading cycles were applied until the specimens reached their
yield strength under a certain vertical load case. Depending on the vertical load,approximately 15-21 reversed cycles were applied throughout the test for a specific vertical
load set. All data were recorded by using data acquisition system. Crack propagation,
rocking mechanism, de-bonding and other failures were also recorded.
Figure 2.10. The displacement based loading protocol used in the tests.
Critical sections where displacement was expected to be observed had been
instrumented by Linear Variable Differential Transformers (LVDTs) as it is seen in Figure
2.11.
Six LVDTs’ were placed at two sides of the specimens in order to measure
deformations due to rocking, One LVDTs was placed to control and measure any relative displacement between
top beam and the specimens,
Two LVDTs were mounted for measuring the top displacement of beam,
Two LVDTs were placed on the beam diagonally for measuring the diagonal
displacements between the beam and the foundation,
Two LVDTs were placed on the specimens diagonally for measuring the diagonal
displacements between the top and bottom parts of the specimens,
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 44/109
27
One LVDT was placed on the strong floor for measuring any relative displacement
of foundation and the strong floor.
All of the LVDTs were connected to the data acquisition system.
Figure 2.11. Sensor layout.
In order to investigate the contribution of applied vertical load in the lateral load
capacity of the specimens, five different vertical load sets were determined (from 50 kN to250 kN). At each vertical load set, lateral load cycles were applied until yielding was
observed in the lateral load capacity in order to prevent any damage that could occur on the
specimens. Here, yielding is referred as lateral load capacity to stay constant for increasing
target displacement where rocking mechanism is observed.
After the tests were completed for each vertical load set, the test procedure was
followed until the specimens failed due to shear cracking under 300 kN vertical load.
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 45/109
28
3. EXPERIMENTAL STUDY
3.1. General
In this section, test results and observations related to behavior of URM wall
specimens during experiments will be given. In addition, performance evaluation of each
specimen in terms of deformations, crack formations, energy dissipation, lateral load-
displacement hysteresis response, and failure modes are presented. At last, effectiveness of
proposed technique will be discussed by means of ultimate drift level and lateral load,
energy dissipation and stiffness degradation.
3.2. Test Observations
In this section, observations related with the tests and the results obtained from the
instrumentation are presented for each specimen. Basically, lateral force versus topdisplacement and diagonal displacement relationships are provided.
3.2.1. Specimen BW0
There were three distinct tests were applied on this specimen for understanding the
behavior of the specimen and optimizing the test setup.
The first test was conducted under the weight of two heavy concrete blocks,
positioned on top of the beam as dead load. The dead load due to the weight of these
blocks was measured approximately 30 kN. In this test (Figure 3.1), no shear and crushing
were observed. Rocking mechanism was prevailed and horizontal cracks were observed at
the toe section of the specimen. Maximum lateral load of 33.96 kN was reached at 0.75 %
drift level. The test was ended at 1.75 % drift level since only rocking mechanism was
developed rather than diagonal shear cracking which was desired failure mode.
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 46/109
29
Figure 3.1. Setup and deformations of BW0 at first test.
At the second test, a hydraulic jack was used for inducing vertical load which was
increased from 100 kN to 250 kN in four sets. However, during the cyclic loading tests, it
was observed that the hydraulic jack’s position waschanging at push and pull cycles which
led varying vertical load instead of desired constant load. Under 250 kN vertical load,110.79 kN lateral load capacity was recorded at 1.75 % drift level. Rocking was observed
at all drift levels during the test (Figure 3.2). Furthermore, V-shaped crack which followed
the mortar and brick joints, and crushing of the toe sections of BW0 at the same drift and
lateral load level were observed. The second test was ended at 1.75 % drift level.
Figure 3.2. Deformations on BW0 at the second test.
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 47/109
30
The third test was aimed to stabilize the vertical load on BW0 by means of spherical
steel rollers which would allow the hydraulic jack to move freely at the displacement
cycles.
The objective of this test was to determine whether the spherical steel rollers would
properly function. Hence, only one vertical load set was applied which was 200 kN. In this
set, 89.90 kN in the push direction was recorded as the highest lateral load capacity at 1.00
% drift level. Rocking mechanism at 0.60% drift level was observed at the sections of
BW0 where the V-shaped cracks had been formed in the second test (Figure 3.3). Besides,
V-shaped cracks became longer whereas shear cracks were started to propagate at the bottom corners of BW0 at 0.75 %. The test was ended at 1.25 % drift level since the lateral
load capacity of BW0 was decreased by 50%. Throughout the test, variation of vertical
load was prevented which figured out that use of steel rollers provided the desired loading
conditions.
Figures 3.3. Setup and deformations on BW0 at the third test.
3.2.2. Specimen BW1-C
As it was mentioned previously, this specimen belonged to control specimen.
Incremental vertical load started with 50 kN and ended with 300 kN. The pre-determined
target displacement cycles were followed until yielding is observed in lateral load vs.
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 48/109
31
displacement relationship for each incremental vertical load sets (50 kN to 250 kN). The
variation of maximum lateral load and the target displacement cycle is given in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1. Max. lateral load and drift levels of under incremental vertical load sets for
BW1-C
VerticalLoad [kN]
Max. LateralLoad [kN]
Max. TopDisplacement
[mm] Drift Level [%]
50 33.05 2.6370 0.15
100
46.50
3.1155
0.15
150 62.00 4.1276 0.20
200 75.25 5.1546 0.25
250 87.46 5.9219 0.30
At 300 kN vertical load set, when the drift level reached to 0.30%, rocking
mechanism was observed at the toe sections of the wall. At 0.50% drift level, crushing was
started at the toe sections due to increasing rocking mechanism. At 0.60% drift level,
where maximum lateral load capacity was reached to 116.48 kN, shear cracks started to
propagate whereas crushing at the toe sections started to increase. After this drift level,
lateral load capacity started to decrease. At 1.25 % drift level, depth of shear cracks
reached to their maximum and total crushing of the toe sections was observed (Figure 3.4).
The cyclic loading set was ended at this drift level.
Figure 3.4. Shear cracks and crushing at the toes of BW1-C.
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 49/109
32
The lateral load versus displacement relationship of specimen BW1-C under 300 kN
vertical load is provided in Figure 3.5. Pinching effect could be clearly observed in the
hysteresis curves. In addition, stiffness degradation was occurred during the repeatedcycles of drift levels. Decrease in strength started after 20 mm lateral displacement.
Figure 3.5. Lateral load versus top displacement for specimen BW1-C.
According to Equation 1.1, maximum rocking load, V r , is found to be 139 kN.
Average compressive strength was taken as 12.9 MPa according to studies of Rad (1978).
In addition, K was taken as 0.85 whereas boundary condition ψ was taken as 1.00 since the
specimen was fixed only at one end. In the tests, it was observed that rocking mechanism
was started at 0.075% drift level under 43.42 kN lateral force action.
Crack patterns and load history are provided in Table A.1. at Section A.1.
As it was indicated in S ection 2.2.3, four diagonal LVDT’s were located forrecording the diagonal di splacements. Readings from these LVDT’s on BW1-C are
provided in Figures 3.6 and 3.7. Measurements obtained from diagonal LVDTs on wall
panel are classified as DG1-2 whereas other two measurements are presented in the name
of DG3-4.
From Figure 3.7, in every push and pull cycles, almost symmetric diagonaldisplacements were recorded. In contrast to Figure 3.7, shear displacement hysteresis
PUSH
PULL
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 50/109
33
cycles were predominantly remained in the tension zone as indicated in Figure 3.6. This
could be related with lack of reinforcement which would have provided resistance against
the movement. In addition, in the elastic region, displacement values corresponded tomaximum lateral load values tend to be close to y-axis of the graph. This could show that
the specimen exhibited a rigid body motion in this region which resulted in rocking
mechanism. As the lateral force-shear displacement curves shifted away from y-axis,
excessive damage on the specimen was expected.
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
Shear Displacement [mm]
Lateral Force [kN]
Shear 2
Shear 1
Figure 3.6. Lateral force-shear displacement relationship for BW1-C (DG1-2).
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
Shear Displacement [mm]
Lateral Force [kN]
Shear 4
Shear 3
Figure 3.7. Lateral force-shear displacement relationship for BW1-C (DG3-4).
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 51/109
34
3.2.3. Specimen BW2-RR
As it was defined in previous chapter, specimen BW1-C was repaired after the
experiment and reinforced with FRP strings. In Table 3.2 variation of maximum lateral
load and the target displacement for each incremental vertical load set are given:
Table 3.2. Max. lateral load and drift levels of under incremental vertical load sets for
BW2-RR.
VerticalLoad [kN] Max. Lateral
Load [kN]
Max. TopDisplacement
[mm] Drift Level [%]
50 30.28 9.9153 0.50
100 41.28 12.3051 0.60
150 53.02 15.1375 0.75
200 71.36 18.2106 1.00
250
78.71
15.2749
0.75
In this specimen, the quality of workmanship in repairing was not good enough for
recovering the cracks fully. There were sections where the cracks had been formed at
previous test were still visible and couldn’t be repaired.
Horizontal cracks due to rocking mechanism were first observed at 0.50 % drift level
under 50 kN vertical load set. At 0.75% drift level under 250 kN vertical load, additional
shear cracks started to form at the same time with rocking mechanism.
In 300 kN vertical load set, at 0.75 % drift level, 90.02 kN was measured as
maximum lateral load capacity in the push direction. Shear cracks that had been formed in
250 kN vertical load set grew longer and additional shear cracks were also observed.
Crushing at the toe sections of the specimen was started at this drift level (Figure 3.8). In
addition, rocking started at 0.075% drift level that corresponded to 32.44 kN of lateral
force.
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 52/109
35
The test was ended at 1.00 % drift level due to the 40% decrease in lateral load
capacity which was 53.12 kN.
Figure 3.8. Shear cracks and crushing at the toes of BW2-RR.
The lateral load versus displacement relationship of specimen BW2-RR under 300
kN vertical load is provided in Figure 3.9. Compared to previous specimen, load
deformation hysteresis cycles in specimen BW2-RR became fuller and no pinching effect
was observed. However, lateral load capacity stayed under the previous specimen BW1-
C’s lateral load capacity due to low quality of repairing workmanship.
Figures 3.9. Lateral load versus top displacement for specimen BW2-RR.
Lateral force versus shear displacement relationship for BW2-RR is presented in
Figures 3.10 and 3.11.
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 53/109
36
From Figure 3.10, symmetric lateral force-shear displacement curves were obtained
which was a result of free movement of the specimen in push and pull cycles. For the pull
cycle case, it was observed that maximum diagonal displacement values tended to be closeto vertical axis whereas they were away from vertical axis in the push cycles. That could
be related with the existing un-repaired deformations on the wall which could alter the
behavior of the specimen in push and pull cycles. Furthermore, distance of the maximum
values from vertical axis is relatively larger than the ones in BW1-C. That could be related
with the excessive deformation occurred on this specimen.
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
Shear Displacement [mm]
Lateral Force [kN]
Shear 2Shear 1
Figure 3.10. Lateral force-shear displacement relationship for BW2-RR (DG1-2).
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
Shear Displacement [mm]
Lateral Force [kN]
Shear 4
Shear 3
Figure 3.11. Lateral force-shear displacement relationship for BW2-RR (DG3-4).
Crack patterns and load history are provided in Table A.5 at Section A.2.
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 54/109
37
3.2.4. Specimen BW3-R1
BW3-R1 is the first retrofitted specimen. The same test procedure was applied as
before. The variation of maximum lateral load and the target displacement cycle for each
incremental vertical load case are given in Table 3.3.
Table 3.3. Max. lateral load and drift levels of under incremental vertical load sets for
BW3-R1.
VerticalLoad [kN] Max. Lateral
Load [kN]
Max. TopDisplacement
[mm] Drift Level [%]
50 40.26 4.0943 0.20
100 47.49 3.1165 0.15
150 63.90 3.9578 0.20
200 78.18 5.0151 0.25
250
93.67
6.1320
0.30
In 300 kN vertical load set, at 0.30% drift level, rocking mechanism was observed at
the toe sections of the specimen. At 0.50% drift level maximum lateral load capacity was
reached to 119.32 kN. At this level, shear cracks started to propagate whereas crushing at
the toe sections tended to increase. At proceeding drift levels, lateral load capacity started
to decrease. At 1.50 % drift level the cyclic loading set was ended at which crushing and
shear cracks reached up their maximum. In addition, rocking started under 67.62 kN of
lateral force at 0.10% drift level.
However, in this test, it was realized that the CFRP strings was de-bonded just before
lateral load capacity was reached at its maximum drift level of 0.50% in push direction
(Figure 3.12). Since there were no signs of de-bonding on the lateral load vs. displacement
diagram before that level, this failure couldn’t be predicted. De-bonding of CFRP strings
was highly due to low bonding of the strings with mortar and bricks. A stronger epoxy
resin that would maintain the desired bonding should have been used. Alternatively, strings
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 55/109
38
should have been located without any overlapping from the corners of the specimen as it
would be at a continuous wall.
Figure 3.12. Shear cracks, crushing at the toes of BW3-R1, and de-bonding of strings.
Figure 3.13. Lateral load versus top displacement for Specimen BW3-R1.
The lateral load versus displacement relationship of specimen BW3-R1 under 300
kN vertical load is provided in Figure 3.13. Compared to BW1-C control specimen, up to
10 mm displacement, the load deformation hysteresis cycles exhibited a rigid behavior.
However, after the de-bonding of CFRP strings at 0.50 % drift level, with increase in shear
cracks and crushing at toe sections, pinching effect was observed at load deformation
hysteresis cycles.
According to Figures 3.14 and 3.15, similar lateral force versus shear displacement
relationship was obtained from both DG1-2 and DG3-4. In Figure 3.14, it could be seen
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 56/109
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 57/109
40
The variation of maximum lateral load and the target displacement cycle for each
incremental vertical load case are given in Table 3.4.
Table 3.4. Max. lateral load and drift levels of under incremental vertical load sets
for BW4-R2.
VerticalLoad [kN]
Max. LateralLoad [kN]
Max. TopDisplacement
[mm] Drift Level [%]
50 25.90 4.5122 0.25
100 42.62 5.0979 0.25
150 48.68 4.1052 0.20
200 68.78 5.2647 0.25
250 72.64 5.5787 0.30
The first horizontal cracks due to rocking mechanism were observed at 0.30% drift
level under 50 kN vertical load set. Similarly, first crushing cracks at toe sections wereexamined again in this vertical set at 0.075% drift level. However, this crack was
developed due to stress concentration around the screw that was attached to the specimen
for holding at that section. Therefore, the type of this crack was differed from other crush
cracks that had been observed in previous specimens.
In 300 kN vertical load set, maximum lateral load capacity was reached at 0.60%
drift level which was 90.16 kN at push. First local diagonal hair line cracks were
developed at 0.15% drift level. Moreover, diagonal shear cracks at upper-sides of BW4-R2
were examined at 0.60% drift level. Furthermore, rupture of CFRP strings at the bottom
line was observed at that drift level which was followed by a sudden decrease in lateral
load capacity. Crushing at toe sections on the right from front of BW4-R2 was observed
after the rupture of CFRP strings. In addition, out-of-plane deformation was recorded
towards to the surface where the ruptured CFRP strings were located.
The test was ended at 0.75% drift level due to the decrease in the lateral load
capacity (Figures 3.16 and 3.17).
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 58/109
41
During the experiment, it was observed th at rocking mechanism didn’t prevailamong other failure modes for low levels of lateral displacement.
Figure 3.16. Shear cracks, crushing at the toes of BW4-R2, and rupture of strings.
Figure 3.17. Rupture of strings and location of strings.
Figure 3.18. Lateral load versus top displacement for specimen BW4-R2.
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 59/109
42
The lateral load versus displacement relationship of specimen BW4-R2 under 300
kN vertical load is provided in Figure 3.18. Compared to BW1-C and BW3-R1 specimens,
the load deformation hysteresis cycles became fat and specimen exhibited a rigid behavior.Stiffness and strength degradation could be clearly observed at 13.93 mm that corresponds
to rupture of CFRP strings.
In contrast to previous specimens, BW4-R2 remained its integrity in terms of
deformation. But, the maximum lateral load capacity in this specimen couldn’t overwhelmthe others. That could be explained by the difference in batches which specimens had been
prepared (BW0, BW1-C, BW3-R1 were constructed in the first batch and BW4-R2 prepared in the second batch).
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
Shear Displacement [mm]
Lateral Force [kN]
Shear 2
Shear 1
Figure 3.19. Lateral force-shear displacement relationship for BW4-R2 (DG1-2).
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
Shear Displacement [mm]
Lateral Force [kN]
Shear 4
Shear 3
Figure 3.20. Lateral force-shear displacement relationship for BW4-R2 (DG3-4).
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 60/109
43
In Figures 3.19 and 3.20, it was observed that shear deformations were recorded
mostly in compression zone for push and pull cycles in contrast to control specimen. This
could be explained by the contribution of CFRP strings in restricting the movementtowards tension zone. In addition, it could be stated that restricted movement at tension
zone resulted in diagonal compression.
Crack patterns and load history are provided in Table A.13 at Section A.4.
3.3. Analysis of Test Results
In this section, analysis of test results will be provided. Normalized lateral load
versus drift level envelopes, lateral force-shear deformation, and moment-base rotation
relationships of the wall specimens will be presented. In addition, lateral load versus drift
level backbone curve, energy dissipation and change in rigidity graphs for all specimens
will be compared.
3.3.1. Normalized Lateral Load versus Drift Level Relationship
Normalized lateral load versus drift level graphs are provided for each specimen in
Figures 3.21 to 3.24. Hysteresis loops that stayed under 80% of the maximum lateral load
value at both push and pull cycle regions were neglected.
From Figure 3.21, it could be observed that yielding of specimen BW1-C started
after 0.25% drift level which corresponded to 85% of the maximum lateral load capacity.
Yielding plateau continued up to 1.00% drift level where lateral load capacity started to
decrease. At 1.25% drift level, lateral load capacity decreased up to 80% of the maximum
value. Furthermore, slope of the curves drastically decreases after 0.50% drift level which
resulted decrease in rigidity.
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 61/109
44
Figure 3.21. Normalized lateral load vs. drift level for BW1-C.
Figure 3.22. Normalized lateral load vs. drift level for BW2-RR.
In BW2-RR, increase in lateral load capacity continued linearly up to 0.60% drift
level where yielding started to be observed after this point (Figure 3.22). Maximum lateral
load capacity was reached at 0.75% drift level. After this drift level, load capacity startedto decrease. The behavior of BW2-RR could be defined as rigid by taking small change in
the slope of the load – drift level curves into account. In other terms, loss in rigidity was
controlled in BW2-RR.
From Figure 3.23, yielding of BW3-R1 could be seen at 0.30% drift level where the
slope of load-drift level curves started to decrease slightly. In addition, 90% of maximum
load capacity was reached at that drift level. At 0.50% drift level, maximum load capacity
was reached. Prior to that level; de-bonding of CFRP strings had been recorded. After that
level, decrease in slope of the load-drift level curves was increased. At 1.00% drift level,
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 62/109
45
85% of the maximum load capacity was recorded. 80% of the maximum load capacity was
observed at 1.25% drift level where the test was stopped.
Figure 3.23. Normalized lateral load vs. drift level for BW3-R1.
Figure 3.24. Normalized lateral load vs. drift level for BW4-R2.
In Figure 3.24, linear increase in lateral load capacity was observed up to 0.25% drift
level. After this level of drift, slope of load-drift level curves started to change slightly.
Increase in lateral load capacity continued up to 0.60% drift level where maximum load
capacity was reached. A sudden decrease in lateral load capacity was recorded which was
initiated with the rupture of the CFRP strings at that drift level. According to Figure 3.37.,
it could be stated that BW4-R2 exhibited a rigid behavior in general.
Backbone curves for lateral load versus displacement curves for all specimens are
given in Figure 3.25.
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 63/109
46
Figure 3.25. Backbone curves of all specimens for normalized lateral load-drift
relationship.
As it is seen from Figure 3.25, a smooth S-shape could be observed from backbone
curves for BW1-C, BW3-R1, and BW4-R2 whereas curve for BW2-RR is almost linear
with smaller slope. In addition, BW1-C, BW3-R1, and BW4-R2 showed similar behavior
in terms of normalized lateral force versus top displacement relationship.
3.3.2. Vertical Load versus Lateral Load Relationship
Results from incremental vertical load sets were analyzed to show effect of increased
vertical load in lateral load capacity.
As it had been expected, the lateral load capacities of all specimens were increased
with increasing vertical load. Comparison of all four specimens was provided in Figure
3.26.
In Figure 3.26, it is clearly seen that, there is a linear relationship between lateral load
capacity and the vertical load for all specimens. Here, lateral load capacity refers to the
recorded lateral load at yield point in each vertical load set explained in Chapter 2. In
addition, it could be stated that, BW1-C and BW3-R1, which were constructed in the same
batch, exhibited nearly same behavior in terms of lateral load capacity under incremental
vertical loading sets. Moreover, the fourth specimen, BW4-R2, showed relatively lower
capacity compared to BW1-C and BW3-R1.
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 64/109
47
Figure 3.26. Comparison of vertical load vs. lateral load relationship for all
specimens.
According to compression tests on clay bricks, an average compressive strength of
12.9 MPa was taken as reference for this study (Rad, 1978). By assuming a square cross
section for a unit brick wall (190mm x 190mm), an ultimate vertical load capacity of 465
kN was found for the specimens. Thus, it could be stated that, up to 65% of ultimate
vertical load capacity increase, lateral load capacity increases linearly.
3.3.3. Moment-Base Rotation Relationship
Six LVDT’s were instrumented on both sides of the specimens for measuringdisplacements due to rocking mechanism. These LVDT’s could be grouped into threelevels which each level could refer to three distinct plane of base rotation due to rocking
mechanism. Rotation calculation for each rotation level can be done using Equation 3.1
according to Figure 3.27.
Li Ri
Li Ri
Li Ri
width width
= tan' tan'
i
h h
L L
(3.1)
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 65/109
48
h L1
h L2
h L3
h R1
h R2
h R3
ε Li
ε Ri
L width
γ
Figure 3.27. Vertical displacement readings and base rotation measurement.
Sub-indices i in Equation 3.1 refers to the number of the level of base rotation
described previously. Δ is the displacement measured from corresponding LVDT wheresub-indices R and L are representing the position of LV DT’s (right or left). Similarly,h is
the initial length of corresponding LVDT located on the right or left side of the specimens.
ε is the calculated strain value for each base rotation level. Moment was calculated with
respect to the toe section of the specimens. The moment-base rotation relationships for all
specimens are presented in Figures 3.28 to 3.39.
Figure 3.28. Moment-base rotation relationship for BW1-C at first level.
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 66/109
49
Figure 3.29. Moment-base rotation relationship for BW1-C at second level.
Figure 3.30. Moment-base rotation relationship for BW1-C at third level.
From Figures 3.28 to 3.30, base rotations were observed for both push and pull
cycles at all levels in BW1-C. However, rotations were remained in -0.9 x 10 -4 and 0.3 x
10 -4 radians which could be classified as small rotations. Shifts in moment-base rotation
curves indicate a permanent deformation due to rotations which are induced by rocking
mechanism. At maximum moment level (239.0 kN.m both in push and pull cycles), base
rotations of -0.12 x10 -4, -0,23 x10 -4, and 0.04 x10 -4 radians were obtained in first, second
and third levels respectively in pull cycles. For the push cycles, at maximum moment level,
base rotations were calculated as -0.07 x10 -4, 0.03 x10 -4, and 0.26 x10 -4 radians in first,
second and third levels respectively.
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 67/109
50
Figure 3.31. Moment-base rotation relationship for BW2-RR at first level.
Figure 3.32. Moment-base rotation relationship for BW2-RR at second level.
Figure 3.33. Moment-base rotation relationship for BW2-RR at third level.
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 68/109
51
From Figures 3.31 to 3.33, rotations in the limits of -0.3 x 10 -4 and 0.0 radians were
obtained in BW2-RR. In addition, compared to other two levels, rotations, and hence
deformations, in the third level were relatively higher, which pointed out rockingmechanism at that level. In push cycles, base rotations of -0.05 x 10 -4, -0.06 x 10 -4, and -
0.13 x 10 -4 radians were obtained in first, second, and third levels respectively at maximum
moment. For the pull cycle case, rotations were calculated as -0.06 x 10 -4, -0.07 x 10 -4, and
-0.13 x 10 -4 radians in first, second, and third level respectively.
Figure 3.34. Moment-base rotation relationship for BW3-R1 at first level.
Figure 3.35. Moment-base rotation relationship for BW3-R1 at second level.
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 69/109
52
Figure 3.36. Moment-base rotation relationship for BW3-R1 at third level.
In BW3-R1, from Figures 3.34 to 3.36, rotations were remained in the limits of -0.2
x 10 -4 and 0.2 x 10 -4 radians. Compared to control specimen, no significant difference in
rotations was observed in all levels for BW3-R1. In push cycles, -0.05 x 10 -4, 0.13 x 10 -4,
and -0.02 x 10 -4 radians of rotations were obtained in first, second, and third levels.
Similarly, in pull cycles, -0.05 x 10 -4, 0.06 x 10 -4, and 0.02 x 10 -4 radians of rotations were
calculated under maximum moment in first, second, and third levels respectively.
Figure 3.37. Moment-base rotation relationship for BW4-R2 at first level.
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 70/109
53
Figure 3.38. Moment-base rotation relationship for BW4-R2 at second level.
Figure 3.39. Moment-base rotation relationship for BW4-R2 at third level.
In BW4-R2, from Figures 3.37 to 3.39, rotations were predominantly remained in the
limits of -0.2 x 10 -4 and 0.2 x 10 -4 radians. In the second level, base rotations were
relatively smaller than the ones in first and third levels. Under maximum moment, -0.13 x
10 -4, 0.08 x 10 -4, and -0.17 x 10 -4 radians of rotations were calculated in first, second, and
third levels respectively at push cycles. Similarly, in pull cycles, -0.11 x 10 -4, -0.08 x 10 -4,
and 0.01 x 10 -4 radians of rotations were obtained in first, second, and third levels
respectively under the maximum moment. Compared to control specimen, shifts in base
rotations were controlled and minimized in all levels for BW4-R2.
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 71/109
54
3.3.4. Lateral Force-Shear Deformation Relationship
As it was indicated in section 2.2.3., four diagonal LVDT’s were located forrecording diagonal displacements. The readings from these LVDT’s could be used incalculations for shear deformations by using Equation 3.2 with reference to Figure 3.40.
D2
D1
Y
Y
θ
Defromed Shape
Undefromed Shape
Figure 3.40. Shear deformation measurement.
2 2 2 21 2 = tan'
2
D Y D Y
Y
(3.2)
D1 and D2 refers to the deformed length of diagonal LVDT’s.
According to Equation 3.2, two types of deformation angles for each specimen were
calculated: Shear deformation angle of wall panel that obtained from readings of diagonal
LVDTs on the specimen (DG1-2), and deformation which was calculated by using
readings from diagonal LVDTs on reinforced concrete beam and foundation (DG3-4).
Lateral force versus shear deformation relationships are presented in Figures 3.41 to 3.48.
From Figure 3.41, it could be seen that, -2.00 x 10 -3 and 2.25 x 10 -3 radians of shear
deformations in push and pull cycles respectively was observed at 110 kN lateral force
level. This level of lateral force was obtained around 0.25% drift level (Figure 3.5). After
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 72/109
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 73/109
56
Figure 3.43. Lateral force-shear deformation relationship for BW2-RR (DG1-2).
Figure 3.44. Lateral force-shear deformation relationship for BW2-RR (DG3-4).
In Figure 3.45, shear deformation values stayed between -1.00 x 10 -3 and 1.80 x10 -3
radians until 116 kN lateral force level. After that level, which corresponded to 0.30% drift
level according to Figure 3.20, shear deformation angle started to increase and shifts in
lateral force-shear deformation curves were observed. Similar to previous tests, shear
deformations calculated for the reinforced concrete members found to be close to the ones
for wall panel (Figure 3.46). A maximum shear deformation of 0.01 radians was recorded
at the final pull cycle (Figure 3.45).
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 74/109
57
Figure 3.45. Lateral force-shear deformation relationship for BW3-R1 (DG1-2).
Figure 3.46. Lateral force-shear deformation relationship for BW3-R1 (DG3-4).
In Figures 3.47 and 3.48, it was seen that up to a lateral force of 90 kN, shear
deformation angles remained between -1.00 x 10 -3 and 2.85 x 10 -3 radians in push and pull
cycles respectively. After that level, shear deformations started to increase. At 85 kN
lateral force level, shear deformations were observed around -4.00 x 10 -3 radians which
were followed by sudden increase in shear deformation angles. This increase could be
explained by the rupture of FRP strings which occurred at 0.60% drift level under 90.16
kN lateral force (Figure 3.18). After the rupture of FRP strings, maximum shear
deformation of -6.95 x 10 -3 radians was reached.
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 75/109
58
Figure 3.47. Lateral force-shear deformation relationship for SP4- R2 (DG1-2).
Figure 3.48. Lateral force-shear deformation relationship for BW4-R2 (DG3-4).
Figure 3.49. Comparison of normalized lateral force-shear deformation backbone
curves.
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 76/109
59
In general, it could be summarized that maximum shear deformation of wall panels
stayed within the range of -0.01 and 0.01 radians which could be classified as small shear
deformations. Comparison of normalized lateral force-shear deformation relationship backbone curves is provided in Figure 3.49. From Figure 3.49, in push cycles, at 80% of
the maximum lateral force level, BW1-C and BW4-R2 have almost zero shear deformation
whereas -1.5 x 10 -3 radians of shear deformation was reached for BW3-R1 at the same
level. Especially at the push direction and at the pull direction in general, compared to
control specimen, lower shear deformations were observed in retrofitted specimens for the
same lateral force level.
3.3.5. Rigidity – Drift Level Relationship
Rigidity of the specimens could be calculated from the slope of lateral force versus
displacement and drift level curves in the elastic region which are presented in Section 3.2.
A representative sketch for definition of rigidity is given in Figure 3.50. Rigidity
calculations were performed until the lateral load capacity of the specimens decreased
down to 80% of the maximum value.
Figure 3.50. Stiffness and energy calculations.
Change in rigidity with increasing drift level for all specimens is presented from
Figures 3.51 to 3.54.
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 77/109
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 78/109
61
Figure 3.54. Rigidity-drift level relationship for BW4-R2.
Comparison of rigidity versus drift level and displacement relationship is provided in
Figure 3.55.
Figure 3.55. Superposed rigidity-drift level relationship for all specimens.
It is observed that BW2-RR has the lowest rigidity among other specimens. This
could be explained by poor repairing workmanship and existence of unrepaired cracks on
the specimen. On the other hand, there is no significant difference between BW3-R1,
BW4-R2 and control specimen BW1-C in terms of rigidity versus drift level and
displacement relationship.
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 79/109
62
3.3.6. Energy Dissipation – Drift Level Relationship
Cumulative dissipated energy could be defined as the total area under the hysteresis
loops in lateral force and displacement response as it is illustrated in Figure 3.50.
Accordingly, the hysteresis loops in lateral force and displacement response are discretized
and the area under each loop is calculated. From Figure 3.56 to Figure 3.59, cumulative
energy dissipation versus displacement and drift level response is provided. In the analysis,
calculations were performed until the lateral load capacity decreases down to 80% of the
maximum recorded value. Therefore, ultimate cumulative energy dissipation levels vary
for all specimens due to varying number of cycles that remained within specified the
limits.
It is observed from Figure 3. 56 that, up to 0.50% drift level, 3,291 kN·mm energywas dissipated. Cumulative energy dissipation reached to 16,000 kN·mm at the final driftlevel.
Figure 3.56. Cumulative energy dissipation-drift level relationship for BW1-C.
From Figure 3.57, a cumulative energy of 2,339 kN·mm up to 0.50% drift level was
recorded. Compared to control specimen, cumulative energy dissipation was decreased by
a factor of 0.72 at this drift level. At the final drift level, 8,41 9 kN·mm cumulative energylevel was reached.
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 80/109
63
Figure 3.57. Cumulative energy dissipation-drift level relationship for BW2-RR.
From Figure 3.58, up to 0.50% drift level, 4,455 kN·mm cumulative energydissipation was reached. Compared to control specimen, cumulative energy dissipation was
increased by a factor of 1.36 at this drift level. At the final drift level, 12,462 kN·mmenergy was recorded.
Figure 3.58. Cumulative energy dissipation-drift level relationship for BW3-R1.
For specimen BW4-R2, it c ould be stated that, 5,498 kN·mm cumulative energy wasdissipated up to 0.50% drift level (Figure 3.59). Compared to control specimen, cumulative
energy dissipation was increased by a factor of 1.68 at this drift level. However, ultimate
cumulative dissipa ted energy was recorded as 7,206 kN·mm at the final drift.
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 81/109
64
Figure 3.59. Cumulative energy dissipation-drift level relationship for BW4-R2.
In Figure 3.60, comparison of energy dissipation response of all specimens is
provided.
Figure 3.60. Comparison of all specimens for cumulative energy dissipation.
Up to 0.60% drift level, the maximum cumulative energy was dissipated by BW4-
R2. Similarly, BW3-R1 also exhibited better performance compared to BW1-C and BW2-
RR in the same region. After 0.60% drift level, due to the rupture of FRP strings and
decrease in lateral load capacity of BW4-R2 down to 80% of the maximum recorded value,
comparison of cumulative energy dissipation is not available for this specimen. Although
FRP strings on BW3-R1 were de-bonded at 0.50% drift level, cumulative energy
dissipation was larger than BW1-C. BW2-RR showed the poorest performance in energydissipation.
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 82/109
65
Normalized energy was simply evaluated by taking the ratio between the area of each
force-displacement curve and the area of the rectangle that enclosed the maximum
boundaries of the corresponding cycle (Figure 3.50). In addition, same ratio for cumulativeenergy dissipation was also evaluated. Accordingly, loop-wise and cumulative normalized
energy dissipation ratio versus displacement and drift level relationship of all specimens is
compared.
Figure 3.61. Loop-wise normalized energy dissipation ratio vs. drift level
relationship.
Figure 3.62. Cumulative normalized energy dissipation ratio vs. drift level
relationship.
From Figures 3.61 and 3.62, it was observed that retrofitted specimens BW3-R1 andBW4-R2 performed better in terms of energy dissipation at each loading cycle.
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 83/109
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 84/109
67
4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1. Summary
This study investigated use of CFRP strings in the joints of unreinforced masonry
brick walls in historic structures as a near surface retrofitting technique which would
preserve the historic and architectural features of the structures. An experimental study was
carried out on four nearly real-scaled unreinforced masonry brick walls subjected to cyclic
lateral loads at Structural Engineering Laboratory of Boğazici University. The effect of proposed strengthening technique on seismic behavior and lateral load capacity of the
specimens was evaluated. In addition, effect of vertical load on lateral load capacity was
examined.
4.2. Conclusions
The main objectives of the research were to improve seismic behavior of
unreinforced masonry brick walls while preservation of historic and aesthetic features of
the structures are maintained. The following conclusions could be derived from the results
and analysis of the experimental study.
Pinching effect in the lateral force versus top displacement relationship was
eliminated in the last retrofitted specimen BW4-R2, which provided larger
dissipation of energy under cyclic loading.
Cumulative energy dissipation was increased in the retrofitted specimens compared
to control specimen by a factor of 1.68, and 1.36 for BW4-R2 and BW3-R1,
respectively, at 0.50 drift level. This factor was found to be 0.72 for the repaired
specimen BW2-RR. However, loop-wise and cumulative normalized energy
dissipation curves showed that, BW2-RR performed better in dissipating the
encountered energy compared to BW1-C.
Compared to control specimen, crack propagation and deformation resistance were
enhanced in the last retrofitted specimen. Diagonal displacements were restrained
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 85/109
68
which compelled compressive reaction at the retrofitted specimen. In other terms,
confinement effect was provided by CFRP strings. Rupture of CFRP strings proved
that excessive tension was encountered by the proposed technique. In addition,crushing at toe sections were controlled due to the confinement effect of CFRP
strings.
Rotations were minimized by the proposed technique which also means rocking
mechanism was also controlled.
No significant difference in rigidity of retrofitted specimens was observed compared
to control specimen. Due to poor repairing workmanship, BW2-RR had the lowest
rigidity value at each drift level compared to other specimens. Due to the aspect ratio, failure modes of rocking, diagonal cracking (shear failure)
and toe crushing were simultaneously observed in all specimens except the last
retrofitted specimen, BW4-R2. In addition, rocking mechanism prevailed among the
other failure mechanisms in control and first retrofitted specimens.
Effect of vertical load on the lateral load capacity was verified by tests carried out
under incremental vertical load sets. It was proved that, increase in vertical load up to
65% of its ultimate, increased the lateral load capacity of all specimens. According to Eq (1.1), maximum rocking strength of the specimens was estimated as
139.20 kN. In all specimens, maximum lateral load capacity stayed below this value.
Therefore, by taking the deformation patterns and estimated rocking force into
account, it could be stated that failure mode of the specimens were not pure rocking.
No significant increase in lateral load capacity due to proposed technique was
obtained.
Due to de-bonding of CFRP strings in BW3-R1, a solid comparison with controlspecimen couldn’t be done in terms of lateral load capacity and rotation.
As it was aimed, application of the proposed technique didn’t damage the existingwall specimens in aesthetical and functionality point of view.
4.3. Recommendations
In this study, single orientation of CFRP strings was examined in one typology and
one aspect ratio of brick walls. Further experimental research with different
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 86/109
69
orientations of CFRP strings in varying formations and aspect ratios of specimens is
needed. In addition, for solid verification of improvements due to proposed
technique, number of the tested specimen should increase. Use of CFRP strings in the middle section of the wall could provide better
confinement at that part of the specimens. Besides, use of vertical CFRP strings in
both sides of the wall could prevent rocking mechanism in retrofitted specimens
significantly.
Density of CFRP strings used in the brick wall specimens is another parameter that
would affect seismic behavior of the specimens. Therefore, this parameter should
also be investigated in further studies. All specimens should be built in the same batch if it is possible. If several batches
required for the construction phase, at least one control specimen should be prepared
for each batch.
In order to avoid de-bonding and thus increase the confinement effect, moderate
strength of mortar instead of Horasan mortar or high strength epoxy on CFRP strings
could be used in specimens for further studies.
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 87/109
70
APPENDIX A: CRACK PATTERNS
A.1. Specimen BW1-C
Table A.1. Observations of specimen BW1-C.
DriftLevel
[%]
Observations (Vertical Load: 300 kN) Crack Pattern
0.035
Max. lateral load: (+) 23.57 kN (Push)
(-) 26.89 kN (Pull)
No additional cracks were observed.
0.050
Max. lateral load: (+) 31.50 kN (Push)
(-) 31.70 kN (Pull)
No additional cracks were observed.
0.075
Max. lateral load: (+) 43.42 kN (Push)
(-) 40.44 kN (Pull)
Hairline cracks on mortar due to shear was
observed locally.
0.100
Max. lateral load: (+) 58.81 kN (Push)
(-) 52.56 kN (Pull)
Local small hairline cracks were observed
both on brick and mortar.
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 88/109
71
Table A.2. Observations of specimen BW1-C (cont.).
DriftLevel[%]
Observations (Vertical Load: 300 kN) Crack Pattern
0.150
Max. lateral load: (+) 76.56 kN (Push)
(-) 68.66 kN (Pull)
Additional local hairline cracks were
observed both on brick and mortar.
0.200
Max. lateral load: (+) 89.34 kN (Push)
(-) 80.39 kN (Pull)
Horizontal cracks started to get longer at toe
sections.
0.250
Max. lateral load: (+) 98.11 kN (Push)
(-) 89.31 kN (Pull)
New diagonal cracks started to propagate
parallel to old ones at corner sections.
Besides, rocking mechanism started at toe
sections.
0.300
Max. lateral load: (+) 106.75 kN (Push)
(-) 96.53 kN (Pull)
Rocking mechanism continued. Diagonal
cracks got wider and longer.
0.400
Max. lateral load: (+) 111.90 kN (Push)
(-) 103.49 kN (Pull)
Vertical cracks and crushing of toe sections
were observed. In addition, diagonal cracks
at lower part of the wall started to get longer
to the upper direction by following themortar-brick joints.
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 89/109
72
Table A.3. Observations of specimen BW1-C (cont.).
DriftLevel[%]
Observations (Vertical Load: 300 kN) Crack Pattern
0.500
Max. lateral load: (+) 115.13 kN (Push)
(-) 109.42 kN (Pull)
Diagonal cracks at upper right part of the
wall at front got longer and wider. Rocking
mechanism continued.
0.600
Max. lateral load: (+) 116.49 kN (Push)
(-) 113.77 kN (Pull)
Diagonal cracks got longer. Upper-right part
of the wall from front started to separate
0.750
Max. lateral load: (+) 114.55 kN (Push)
(-) 116.73 kN (Pull)
Crushing at toe sections started to get
severe.
Diagonal cracks got longer and wider.
1.000
Max. lateral load: (+) 115.27 kN (Push)
(-) 115.04 kN (Pull)
Diagonal cracks tended to unit at the middle
of the wall. Crushing at the toe sections
increased significantly.
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 90/109
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 91/109
74
A.2. Specimen BW2-RR
Table A.5. Observations of specimen BW2-RR.
DriftLevel[%]
Observations (Vertical Load: 300 kN) Crack Pattern
0.035
Max. lateral load: (+) 20.71 kN (Push)
(-) 29.04 kN (Pull)
After repairing, there were cracks thatcouldn’t be repaired from the previous test.
No additional cracks were observed.
0.050
Max. lateral load: (+) 25.43 kN (Push)
(-) 30.20 kN (Pull)
No additional cracks were observed.
0.075
Max. lateral load: (+) 27.32 kN (Push)
(-) 32.44 kN (Pull)
Horizontal cracks were observed at middle
– left and right side of the wall from front
due to rocking.
0.100
Max. lateral load: (+) 32.23 kN (Push)
(-) 35.60 kN (Pull)
Diagonal shear cracks (CR1) started to form
at upper left side of the wall from front.
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 92/109
75
Table A.6. Observations of specimen BW2-RR (cont.).
DriftLevel[%]
Observations (Vertical Load: 300 kN) Crack Pattern
0.150
Max. lateral load: (+) 37.73 kN (Push)
(-) 42.25 kN (Pull)
Vertical crack started to propagate from the
previously damaged section at upper-right
of the wall from front.
0.200
Max. lateral load: (+) 43.00 kN (Push)
(-) 47.65 kN (Pull)
Vertical cracks at middle section started to
form. Diagonal cracks at upper-left got
longer.
0.250
Max. lateral load: (+) 49.27 kN (Push)
(-) 57.03 kN (Pull)
Horizontal cracks at rocking sections got
longer. Additional diagonal cracks started to
form at middle section of the wall.
0.300
Max. lateral load: (+) 59.68 kN (Push)
(-) 65.48 kN (Pull)
Diagonal cracks started to propagate at
lower-right part of the wall from front.
0.400
Max. lateral load: (+) 73.94 kN (Push)
(-) 72.61 kN (Pull)
Additional vertical and horizontal cracks
were observed at the middle section of the
wall. Diagonal cracks continued to elongate.
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 93/109
76
Table A.7. Observations of specimen BW2-RR (cont.).
DriftLevel[%]
Observations (Vertical Load: 300 kN) Crack Pattern
0.500
Max. lateral load: (+) 83.52 kN (Push)
(-) 80.55 kN (Pull)
Additional diagonal cracks formed at upper
and lower right side of the wall from front.
Second line of horizontal cracks started to
propagate at lower left side under the first
horizontal crack.
0.600
Max. lateral load: (+) 88.81 kN (Push)
(-) 83.38 kN (Pull)
Diagonal cracks united the diagonal cracks
at middle - left section. Diagonal cracks at
lower sides started to form. Horizontalcrack on the mortar surface was observed at
middle section.
0.750
Max. lateral load: (+) 90.02 kN (Push)
(-) 86.45 kN (Pull)
Crushing at lower left side from front got
severe. In addition, crushing with diagonal
cracks at middle section was also observed.
Diagonal cracks at upper part of the wall
from front got wider and longer.
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 94/109
77
Table A.8. Observations of specimen BW2-RR (cont.).
DriftLevel[%]
Observations (Vertical Load: 300 kN) Crack Pattern
1.000
Max. lateral load: (+) 86.04 kN (Push)
(-) 83.05 kN (Pull)
Toe section at left side from front totally
crushed. Diagonal cracks propagated from
upper corners were united at the middle
section of the wall. Horizontal cracks at
mortar joints got deeper which resulted in
FRP strings to be seen on the surface.
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 95/109
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 96/109
79
Table A.10. Observations of specimen BW3-R1 (cont.).
DriftLevel[%]
Observations (Vertical Load: 300 kN) Crack Pattern
0.200
Max. lateral load: (+) 91.11 kN (Push)
(-) 93.98 kN (Pull)
CR2: Vertical crack at middle section of the
wall was observed.
0.250
Max. lateral load: (+) 99.81 kN (Push)
(-) 100.97 kN (Pull)
CR3 & CR4: Vertical cracks parallel to
CR2 were propagated at middle section of
the wall.
0.300
Max. lateral load: (+) 106.40 kN (Push)
(-) 104.42 kN (Pull) CR5: Diagonal shear crack was formed at
upper-left of the wall from front.
0.400
Max. lateral load: (+) 115.45 kN (Push)
(-) 111.47 kN (Pull)
CR6: Horizontal cracks at mortar joints at
corners of the lower section of the wall were
formed due to rocking. CR5 started to
propagate towards to upper corner of the
wall at left side from front.
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 97/109
80
Table A.11. Observations of specimen BW3-R1 (cont.).
DriftLevel[%]
Observations (Vertical Load: 300 kN) Crack Pattern
0.500
Max. lateral load: (+) 119.32 kN (Push)
(-) 113.96 kN (Pull)
CR6: Horizontal cracks got longer. CR5
started to propagate towards to middle
section of the wall from front. CR7 & CR8:
Diagonal shear crack was formed at upper-
right section of the wall. De-bonding of
FRP strings observed in this drift level
0.600
Max. lateral load: (+) 118.61 kN (Push)
(-) 112.17 kN (Pull)
CR7 & CR8 & CR4 started to get wider and
longer. CR9 was formed diagonally parallelto CR8. CR10 propagated from lower-right
side of the wall from front.
0.750
Max. lateral load: (+) 117.56 kN (Push)
(-) 108.28 kN (Pull)
Crushing started to be observed at toe
sections of the wall. CR8 was continued to
get larger towards to middle section of the
wall. Additional vertical cracks occurred at
middle section.
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 98/109
81
Table A.12. Observations of specimen BW3-R1 (cont.).
DriftLevel[%]
Observations (Vertical Load: 300 kN) Crack Pattern
1.000
Max. lateral load: (+) 109.34 kN (Push)
(-) 99.31 kN (Pull)
Crushing at toes section increased. Diagonal
cracks were united with vertical cracks at
middle sections. Diagonal cracks at lower
corners of the wall got longer and wider.
1.250
Max. lateral load: (+) 92.41 kN (Push)
(-) 81.29 kN (Pull)
Lower – right section of the wall was totally
crushed. Diagonal cracks at lower sections
united with the vertical cracks at middle
section. Remarkable X shaped crack wasobserved.
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 99/109
82
A.4. Specimen BW4-R2
Table A.13. Observations of specimen BW4-R2.
DriftLevel[%]
Observations (Vertical Load: 300 kN) Crack Pattern
0.035
Max. lateral load: (+) 28.93 kN (Push)
(-) 35.85 kN (Pull)
No additional cracks were observed.
0.050
Max. lateral load: (+) 33.87 kN (Push)
(-) 43.65 kN (Pull)
No additional cracks were observed.
0.075
Max. lateral load: (+) 43.59 kN (Push)
(-) 50.89 kN (Pull)
No additional cracks were observed.
0.100
Max. lateral load: (+) 53.69 kN (Push)
(-) 60.00 kN (Pull)
CR78: Flexural crack at brick
CR79: Flexural crack at brick (Back)
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 100/109
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 101/109
84
Table A.15. Observations of specimen BW4-R2 (cont.).
DriftLevel[%]
Observations (Vertical Load: 300 kN) Crack Pattern
0.250
Max. lateral load: (+) 77.37 kN (Push)
(-) 76.88 kN (Pull)
CR98,101,102,103,109,110,112: Hairline
shear crack at brick.
CR 104,108,113: Flexural crack at brick.
CR 105: Crushing
(Front)
(Back)
0.300
Max. lateral load: (+) 81.69 kN (Push)
(-) 79.82 kN (Pull)
LVDT’s for top displacement started to bend.
CR14 started to increase in length and in
width.
(Front)
(Back)
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 102/109
85
Table A.16. Observations of specimen BW4-R2 (cont.).
DriftLevel[%]
Observations (Vertical Load: 300 kN) Crack Pattern
0.300
Max. lateral load: (+) 81.69 kN (Push)
(-) 79.82 kN (Pull)
LVDT’s for top displacement started to
bend.
CR14 started to increase in length and in
width.
(Front)
(Back)
0.400
Max. lateral load: (+) 85.92 kN (Push)
(-) 83.53 kN (Pull)
Out-of-plane deformation started to be
observed. Shear cracks at top-corner
sections (CR14 and CR54 at back face of
the wall) continued to propagate. (Front)
(Back)
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 103/109
86
Table A.17. Observations of specimen BW4-R2 (cont.).
DriftLevel[%]
Observations (Vertical Load: 300 kN) Crack Pattern
0.500
Max. lateral load: (+) 89.10 kN (Push)
(-) 84.33 kN (Pull)
Out-of-plane deformation continued.
Diagonal shear cracks at top sections (CR14
& CR52 at back, CR13,60,82 at front)
spreaded. (Front)
(Back)
0.600
Max. lateral load: (+) 90.16 kN (Push)
(-) 82.23 kN (Pull)
Diagonal shear cracks and out-of-plane
deformation increased.
Rupture of FRP strings at right – bottom
part from back view of specimen was
observed.
(Front)
(Back)
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 104/109
87
Table A.18. Observations of specimen BW4-R2 (cont.).
DriftLevel[%]
Observations (Vertical Load: 300 kN) Crack Pattern
0.750
Max. lateral load: (+) 86.39 kN (Push)
(-) 77.48 kN (Pull)
Crushing at toe sections got severe.
Out-of-plane deformation reached its
maximum level.
Right toe of the wall at front was relatively
less damaged and remained intact compared
to left toe at front.
Due to safety concerns, test was stopped.
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 105/109
88
REFERENCES
Abrams, D. P., and J. M. Lynch, 2001, “Flexural Behavior Of Retrofitted Masonry Piers .” Proceedings Of KEERC-MAE Joint Seminar On Risk Mitigation For Regions Of
Moderate Seismicity , University of Illinois, August 5-8, Urbana III. Mid-America
Earthquake Center.
Abrams, D. P., 1992, “Strength And Behaviour Of Unreinforced Masonry Elements ”, 10th
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering , Madrid, July 19-24, Taylor &Francis, Spain.
Al-Manaseer, A., and V. Neis, 1987, “Load Tests On Post-Tensioned Masonry Wall
Panels ”, ACI Structural Journal , Vol. 84, No. 6, pp. 467-472.
Altın, S., F. Kuran, M. E. Kara, and Ö. Anıl, 2005 “Yığma Yapıların Rehabilitasyonu İçin
Bir Yöntem”, Yığma Yapıların Deprem Güvenliğinin Arttırılması Çalıştayı, OrtaDoğu Teknik Üniversitesi, February 17, Ankara.
Arıoglu N, and S. A. Acun, 2006, “R esearch About A Method For Restoration Of
Traditional Lime Mortars And Plasters: A Staging System Approach ”, Building and
Environment , Vol. 41, No. 9, pp. 1223 – 1230.
Arun G., 2005, “Yığma Kagir Yapı Davranışı”, Yığma Yapıların Deprem Güvenliğinin
Arttırılması Çalıştayı, Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi, February 17, Ankara.
Atkinson R.H., B. P. Amadei, S. Saeb, S. Sture, 1989, “ResponseOf Masonry Bed-Joint In
Direct Shear,” Journal of Structural Engineering-ASCE , Vol. 115, No. 9, pp. 2276-
2296.
Bayraktar, A., 2006 Tarihi Yapıların Analitik İncelenmesi Ve Sismik Güçlendirme
Metodları, Beat Basım Yayın, Istanbul.
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 106/109
89
Bati, S. B., L. Rovero, and U. Tonietti, 2007, "Strengthening Masonry Arches With
Composite Materials." Journal Of Composites For Construction , Vol. 11, No. 1, pp.
33-41.
Binda, L., G. M. Roberti, C. Tiraboschi, and S. Abbaneo, 1994, “Measuring MasonryMaterial Properties,”US-Italian Workshop On Guidelines For Seismic Evaluation
and Rehabilitation Of Unreinforced Masonry Buildings , NCEER Technical Report,
No.21, State University of New York, Buffalo, July.
Bosiljkov V, A. Page, V. Bokan-Bosiljkov, R. Zarnic, 2003, “Performance Based StudiesOn In-Plane Loaded Unreinforced Masonry Walls ”, Masonry International , Vol. 16,
No. 2, pp. 39 – 50.
Bosiljkov, V., A. W. Page, V. Bokan-Bosiljkov, and R. Žarnić, 2010, “Evaluation Of the
Seismic Performance Of Brick Masonry Walls ”. Structural Control And Health
Monitoring , Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 100 – 118.
Calvi G. M., G. R. Kingsley, and G. Magenes, 1996, “Testing Of Masonry Structures For
Seismic Assessment ”, Earthquake Spectra , Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 145-162.
Christensen, J., J. Gilstrap, and C. W. Dolan, 1996. “Composite Materials Reinforcement
Of Existing Masonry Walls ”, Journal Of Architectural Engineering , Vol. 2, No. 2, p.
63.
Chuxian, S., L. Guiqiu, W. Wenchao, 1997, “The Design Of Brick Masonry Structure
With Concrete Column ”, 11th International Brick And Block Masonry Conference ,
Shanghai, October 14-16, China Association for Engineering Construction
Standardization, China.
D’Ayala, D., R. Spence, C. S. Oliveira, and A. Pomonis, 1997 , “Earthquake Loss
Estimation For Europe’sHistoric Town Centers ”, Earthquake Spectra , Special Issue
On Earthquake Loss Estimation , Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 773 – 793.
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 107/109
90
ElGawady M. A., P. Lestuzzi, M. Badoux, 2005, “Aseismic Retrofitting Of Unreinforced
Masonry Walls Using FRP ”, Composites Part B: Engineering , Vol. 37, No. 2 – 3,
April 2005 – March 2006, pp. 148-162.
ElGawady, M. A., P. Lestuzzi, and M. Badoux, 2005, “In-Plane Seismic Response Of
URM Walls Upgraded With FRP.” Journal Of Composites For Construction , Vol. 9,
No. 6, pp. 524 – 535.
ElGawady, M. A., P. Lestuzzi, M. Badoux, 2006, “Shear Strength Of URM Walls
Retrofitted Using FRP ”. Engineering Structures , Vol. 28, No. 12, pp. 1658-1670.
ElGawady, M. A., P. Lestuzzi, and M. Badoux, 2007, "Static Cyclic Response Of Masonry
Walls Retrofitted With Fiber-Reinforced Polymers." Journal Of Composites For
Construction , Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 50-61.
Karantoni, F. V., M. N. Fardis, 1992, “Effectiveness Of Seismic Strengthening Techniques
For Masonry Buildings ”, Journal Of Structural Engineering-ASCE , Vol. 118, No. 7,
pp. 1884-1902.
Magenes G, G.M. Calvi, 1992, “Cyclic Behaviour Of Brick Masonry Walls ”, 10th World
Conference On Earthquake Engineering , Madrid, July 19-24, Taylor & Francis,
Spain.
Magenes, G., and G. M. Calvi, 1997. “In-Plane Seismic Response Of Brick Masonry
Walls. ” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics , Vol. 26, No. 11, pp. 1091 –
1112.
Mahmoud A.D., A.A. Hamid, S.A. El Magd, 1995, “Lateral Response Of Unreinforced
Solid Masonry Shear Walls: An Experimental Study ”, 7th Canadian Masonry
Symposium , Hamilton, June 5-7, Department of Civil Engineering, McMaster
University.
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 108/109
91
Mahmood, H., and J. M. Ingham, 2011, "Diagonal Compression Testing Of FRP-
Retrofitted Unreinforced Clay Brick Masonry Wallettes." Journal Of Composites
For Construction , Vol. 15, No. 5, pp. 810-820.
McNary, W. S., and D. P. Abrams, 1985, “MechanicsOf Masonry In Compression ,” Journal Of Structural Engineering , Vol. 111, No. 4, pp. 857-870.
Mojsilovic, N, P. Marti, 2000, “Load TestsOn Post-Tensioned Masonry Walls ”, TMS
Journal , Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 65-70.
Mossallam A., S. Banerjee, 2011, “Enhancement In In-Plane Shear Capacity Of
Unreinforced Masonry (URM) Walls Strengthened With Fiber Reinforced Polymer
Composites ”, Composites Part B: Engineering , Vol. 42, No. 6, pp. 1657 – 1670.
Petersen, R. B., M. J. Masia, and R. Seracino, 2010. "In-Plane Shear Behavior Of Masonry
Panels Strengthened With NSM CFRP Strips. I: Experimental Investigation."
Journal Of Composites For Construction , Vol. 14, No. 6, pp. 754-763.
Rosenboom, O., and M. Kowalsky, 2003, “Investigation Of Alternative Details For
Seismic Design Of Post-Tensioned Clay Masonry Walls ”, Ninth North American
Masonry Conference , Clemson, June 1-4, TMS, South Caroline. USA.
Sheppard, P., S. Tercelj, 1980, “The Effect Of Repair And Strengthening Methods For
Masonry Walls ”, Proceedings Of The Seventh World Conference On Earthquake
Engineering , Istanbul, September 8-13, Turkish National Committee on Earthquake
Engineering, Istanbul, Turkey.
Somers, P., D. Campi, W. Holmes, B. E. Kehoe, R. E. Klingner, B. Lizundia, and B.
Schmid, 1996 “Unreinforced Masonry Buildings ”, Earthquake Spectra , Vol. 12, No.
S1, pp. 195-217.
Terzioglu, T., 2011, Experimental Evaluation Of The Lateral Load Behavior Of Squat
Structural Walls , M.S. Thesis, Boğaziçi University, Istanbul.
8/10/2019 Onur SEREN (03.02.13)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onur-seren-030213 109/109
92
Tomazevic, M., and M. Lutman, 1993, In-Plane Behavior Of Reinforced Masonry Walls
Subjected To Cyclic Lateral Loads – Part Two: Analysis of Test Results , Report
ZRMK/PI-92/08, Institute for Testing and Research in Materials and Structures,Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Tumialan, J. G., and A. Nanni, 2002, “Strengthening Of Masonry Walls With FRP Bars ”Composites Fabricator Magazine , March 2002, pp. 1-9.
Turnsek, V., and F. Cacovic, 1971, “SomeExperimental Results On The Strength Of Brick
Masonry Walls ”, Proceedings of the Second International Brick MasonryConference , Stoke-on-Trent, April 12-15, British Ceramic Research Association,
England.
Vasconcelos, G., and P. B. Lourenço. 2009, "In-Plane Experimental Behavior Of Stone
Masonry Walls Under Cyclic Loading." Journal of Structural Engineering , Vol. 135,
No. 10, pp. 1269-1277.
Zhao, T., J. Xie, and H. Li, 2003, “StrengtheningOf Cracked Concrete Block Masonry
Walls Using Continuous Carbon Fiber Sheet .” Ninth North American Masonry
Conference , Clemson, June 1-4, TMS, South Caroline, USA.