Proceedings of the Institution of
Civil Engineers
Construction Materials 160
May 2007 Issue CM2
Pages 4755
doi: 10.1680/coma.2007.160.2.47
Paper 06-00004
Received 14/11/2006
Accepted 27/7/2007
Keywords: Francesco Micelli
buildings, structures & Assistant Professor,
design/columns/composite Department of Innovation
structures Engineering,
University of Lecce, Italy
Strengthening masonry columns: steel strands versus FRP
F. Micelli and A. La Tegola
Masonry structures are prone to brittle failure due to seismic
forces or compressive overloads. A novel retrofitting
technique is presented for the confinement of masonry
columns subjected to compressive loads. The use of steel
strands immersed in a cementitious matrix is described in
terms of the mechanical properties of steel-confined
columns. The structural behaviour of steel-confined
columns was also compared with that of fibre-reinforced
plastic (FRP)-confined columns. Experimental results
showed the effectiveness of the proposed technique in
terms of structural efficiency and installation procedure.
The mechanical behaviour of steel-confined masonry and
FRP-confined masonry was found to be very similar. The
advantages of the proposed techniques with respect to
confinement with FRP consist of the use of a cementitious
matrix that does not require specialised labour and dry
surface, allows moisture migration through the masonry
surface of the column, is not prone to premature
degradation or debonding under fire events, and is easily
removable with mechanical tools without damaging the
masonry core.
1. INTRODUCTION
Examples of collapse of masonry structures under compressive
overloads are well known all over the world either under seismic
forces or static loads.1,2 In historical buildings it may be that
masonry columns are not able to carry axial overloads and then
sudden collapse may occur due to the brittle nature of masonry
and its viscous behaviour.
When structural analysis of ancient buildings highlights
deficiencies in columns under high compressive loads, a fast and
effective strengthening process needs to be developed to avoid
dramatic consequences.
In this field the traditional techniques for rehabilitation of
masonry columns by means of reinforced concrete (RC) or steel
jacketing have been largely used in the past and recent studies
have furnished results on the stressstrain relationship of
RC-jacketed masonry columns.3 These well-known techniques
may sometimes be inadequate for applications that should
preserve architectural heritage with historical value.
Confinement with polymeric matrix or fibre-reinforced plastic
(FRP) composites presents significant advantages with respect to
traditional confinement techniques: the cross-sectional
Construction Materials 160 Issue CM2
Downloaded by [ Universidade do Estado do Amazonas] on [20/03/17]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
Antonio La Tegola
Professor,
Department of Innovation
Engineering,
University of Lecce, Italy
dimensions of the column do not increase, which permits
compliance with architectural restraints; the mass of the column
does not increase, which means that the seismic behaviour of the
building remains unchanged; the low weight of FRP materials
implies that the installation procedure is faster, easier and less
dangerous for the operator than implementation of traditional
confining techniques. Modern techniques of confinement consist
of wrapping with FRP sheets or laminates. They were introduced
in engineering practice as an innovative confinement technique
during the last decade as an alternative to wood or steel ties
adopted in the past. A small number of test results related to FRP-
confined masonry are currently available, but further research is
necessary to develop design codes and recommendations that are
easily accepted by practitioners. In recent years laboratory tests
on FRP-confined masonry by using carbon-fibre-reinforced
plastic (CFRP) and glass-fibre-reinforced plastic (GFRP) sheets
confirmed theoretical expectations and were very
encouraging.46 Significant increases in terms of strength and
ductility were observed. For columns with square or rectangular
section, external confinement with sheets does not produce a
fully confined area with respect to the whole cross-section of the
column. In these cases it was found that the use of internal bars
glued in the transverse direction may increase the effectiveness of
external confinement.7
Recent scientific studies have shown the advantages of using new
strengthening techniques that employ steel-reinforced grouts
and steel-reinforced polymers.8 The first applications were tested
on beams subjected to flexural loads,9 in which the bond
behaviour led to a critical issue.10 Many other types of
strengthening solutions using steel-reinforced polymers or
cement matrix are now the object of scientific studies.
In this study an innovative technology for confinement of
compressed masonry square columns is presented and proposed.
This new technique involves the use of steel strand wires as the
reinforcing device and a cementitious matrix that is assigned to
transfer the stress to the steel fibres, provide their protection and
create a homogeneous substrate for external plaster. Steel
strands that were used in this research are already available as
tyre reinforcement in the automotive industry. Thus the
proposed solution also produces a technology transfer from the
automotive to the civil engineering market. The effectiveness in
terms of long-term behaviour and costs makes the proposed
technique very attractive since the use of stainless steel and the
alkaline environment of the grout furnish a strong protection
Strengthening masonry columns: steel strands versus FRP Micelli La Tegola 47
 against galvanic corrosion. The employment of traditional
devices without the need of FRP-certified workers greatly
reduces the cost of the strengthening process that leads to
innovation in terms of results and materials, but is traditional in
terms of cost analysis.
The strengthening process presented herein is based on external
confinement as used for external FRP-wrapping. The results of
this research allowed a comparison between the new technique
and those using FRP composites, in terms of mechanical
properties and technological aspects. Even if the use of FRP
produces easy and fast results, and their mechanical properties
ensure an adequate amount of strengthening, the authors believe
that the new technique can still be more attractive. This may be
true since the use of a cementitious matrix does not require
certified operators, does not require dry surfaces that are not
easily found in porous masonry blocks, allows the moisture
migration that occurs in natural masonry, is easily removable
and provides more protection against fire. Moreover the steel
fibres are less prone to mechanical damage during handling and
installation, and they do not require the accurate finishing of the
section geometry and masonry surface that is necessary when
FRP sheets are installed.
In this study seven half-scale columns were tested after
mechanical characterisation of used materials; unconfined
columns were taken as reference specimens; external
confinement with CFRP sheets and steel strands was studied; an
additional specimen was also tested after strengthening with both
external CFRP sheets and internal CFRP bars. The appropriate
insertion of FRP bars, as shown in the following, may
significantly improve the structural behaviour of the masonry
assemblage by delaying tensile rupture and expulsion of the
blocks under the transverse tensile stresses that accompany axial
compression. The use of bars represents a significant contribution
to confinement of columns with non-circular cross-sections, for
which external wrapping is less effective and sometimes
completely inapplicable (e.g. columns with cross-shaped or star-
shaped cross-sections).
3$95 MPa was measured for the flexural strength, with standard
deviation of 0$77 MPa. Mortar specimens were subjected to
compression test according to UNI EN 196-1, and a compressive
strength of 6$78 MPa was measured, with standard deviation of
0$51 MPa. The mortar used in this research was classified as M3,
according to the Italian national code for masonry buildings.
Five 70 mm ! 70 mm ! 70 mm blocks of calcareous stone (the
same as that used to build the columns) were tested under uniaxial
compression using a 150 kN universal testing machine, with a
cross-head displacement rate of 2 mm/min. A compressive strength
of 2$24 MPa resulted, with a standard deviation of 0$36 MPa.
Five CFRP specimens were prepared and tested according to
ASTM D3039;12 epoxy-bonded steel tabs were used to grip the
specimens in the anchorage zone. Testing was performed in
displacement-control mode using a 150 kN universal testing
machine, with a cross-head displacement rate of 2 mm/min. An
electrical extensometer was used to measure the strain of CFRP
under tensile force. The mechanical properties of CFRP are
reported in Table 1. The experimental properties were found to be
in good agreement with those furnished by the manufacturer.
Two types of stainless steel strands were used as confining
devices; the different properties in terms of dimensions and
cross-section between the two strand types are reported in
Table 2. Testing was performed in displacement-control mode
using a 150 kN universal testing machine, with a cross-head
displacement rate of 2 mm/min. The anchorage region was
built by using steel tubes in which the specimens were glued
with epoxy resin. An electrical extensometer was used to
measure the strain of the steel under tensile force and tensile
rupture was observed in gauge length for all specimens. The
mechanical properties of the steel strands are reported in
Table 3. Experimental properties were found to be in good
agreement with those furnished by the manufacturer who
produces these strands, which are used as reinforcement for
tyres in the automotive industry. Fig. 1 illustrates the

Experimental tests have shown that the mechanical properties of Tensile Elastic
steel-confined and FRP-confined masonry are almost identical, strength: modulus: Ultimate
when the same amount of reinforcement is used. That the use of Specimen MPa GPa strain: %
internal bars increases the effects of confinement will be shown
CFRP 1 4722 238$40 1$98
herein. In all cases the compression tests on confined columns CFRP 2 4750 247$77 1$92
were stopped after large deformations without load increase and CFRP 3 4680 241$20 1$94
far from the tensile rupture of confining fibres. Confined CFRP 4 4756 245$38 1$94
columns showed structural integrity even after extensive CFRP 5 4890 239$08 2$05
damage had occurred in the masonry core; cyclic loading was Average value 4760 242$37 1$96
Standard deviation 71 3$64 0$05
also applied and carrying capacity remained the same after COV: % 1$5 1$5 2$3
successive loading.
Table 1. Mechanical properties of CFRP (ASTM D-3039)12

2. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAMME AND SPECIMENS

The characterisation of the materials included compression tests Cross-section: No. of Diameter of
on masonry blocks, flexural and compression tests on mortar Specimen mm2 wires wire: mm
prisms and tensile tests on CFRP specimens and steel strands (DG,
DG-1 1$122 27 0$23
made with 27 steel wires, and DP, made with six steel wires). DG-2
DP-1 0$249 6
In order to measure the flexural strength of the mortar used to DP-2
build the columns, five 40 mm ! 40 mm ! 160 mm mortar
Table 2. Properties of steel strands
specimens were tested according to UNI EN 196-1.11 A value of

48 Construction Materials 160 Issue CM2 Strengthening masonry columns: steel strands versus FRP Micelli La Tegola

Downloaded by [ Universidade do Estado do Amazonas] on [20/03/17]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Ultimate load: Tensile strength: Ultimate Yielding stress: Strain at Elastic modulus:
Specimen kN MPa strain: % MPa yielding: % GPa

DG-1 3$10 2762 3$60 2300 2$30 112

DG-2 2$93 2607 3$00 1950 1$70 131
Average value 3$01 2685 3$30 2125 2$00 122
Standard deviation 0$12 109 0$42 247 0$42 13
COV: % 4$06 4 12$86 12 21$21 11
DP-1 0$67 2703 2$00 2140 1$30 196
DP-2 0$65 2622 2$30 2130 1$60 152
Average value 0$66 2663 2$15 2135 1$45 174
Standard deviation 0$01 57 0$21 7 0$21 31
COV: % 2$13 2 9$87 0 14$63 18

Table 3. Mechanical properties of steel strands

mortar, two columns labelled

5200
as C1 and C2 were wrapped
4800 CFRP with CFRP, and one column
4400 labelled as F-B was wrapped
4000
with CFRP and strengthened
DG
with internal CFRP bars with a
3600
DP diameter of 8 mm.
3200
Stress: MPa

2800 The amount of steel

reinforcement that was used
2400
for confinement of S1 and S2
2000
specimens was computed in
1600 order to have the same amount
1200 of CFRP confinement in terms
800 of ultimate strength. From
technical data furnished by the
400
manufacturers, the ultimate
0
load of DP and DG strands was
0000 0005 0010 0015 0020 0025 0030 0035 0040 0045 0050
respectively 665 and 2922 N,
Strain: m e
which means an ultimate load
Fig. 1. Stressstrain curves for steel and CFRP reinforcement of 3587 N when steel strands
are coupled together. Ultimate
comparison between the stressstrain curves for steel and load per unit length for CFRP was 1766 N/cm, which means that
carbon reinforcement. The yielding stress of the steel strands for the total height of the column the ultimate load of two CFRP
was observed to be higher than that of common steel used in layers was 222 491 N. Thus the total number of coupled strands
construction and low strain anticipated the tensile rupture. It is (DP C SG) was computed as
evident from Fig. 1 that the mechanical behaviour of the two 222 491
materials under tensile forces is very similar, even if the stress nZ Z 62
3587
strain curve of CFRP was linearly elastic until rupture. As
expected from theory, the elastic modulus of DP was higher which furnished a spacing between the steel strands of 1 cm.
than DG, since it is known that stiffness decreases as soon as Specimens S1 and S2 that were reinforced with SRC were
the number of wires increases. prepared in two steps as shown in Fig. 3: first the steel
strands were positioned as a spiral around the column, then
Seven columns with square cross-section were built to be cement mortar was placed. These operations did not require
tested as mid-scale specimens under uniaxial compression. The specialised workers and the results were obtained easily
dimensions of the blocks used to build the columns were and quickly.
5 cm ! 10 cm ! 15 cm as illustrated in Fig. 2. Construction
methods typically used in southern Italy were followed to Specimens F1 and F2 were prepared by using the manual wet lay-
simulate the columns that are found in real buildings. The up technique: first an epoxy primer was used to prepare the
thickness of the mortar joints was about 2$5 mm. lateral surface of the column, then epoxy adhesive was placed
and the first carbon layer was bonded and pressed by a steel
The test variables included type of confining reinforcement roller; the same operations were repeated for the second layer of
(steel-reinforced cement (SRC) and CFRP) and scheme of carbon fibre.
confinement (effect of internal confinement by using CFRP bars).
Two unstrengthened columns were tested as reference specimens Specimen F-B was strengthened with internal CFRP bars and
(C1 and C2), two columns labelled as S1 and S2 were external CFRP sheets; in this case two holes were placed
strengthened with steel strands externally bonded with a cement transversely to the vertical axis of the column on each course of

Construction Materials 160 Issue CM2 Strengthening masonry columns: steel strands versus FRP Micelli La Tegola 49

Downloaded by [ Universidade do Estado do Amazonas] on [20/03/17]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Specimens F1 and F2, which
were externally wrapped with
CFRP sheets, had an ultimate
load of 228 and 233 kN,
respectively, which was 37 and
40% higher than the

10
15

corresponding control

63
specimens. Although the crack

10
pattern could not be observed
15

because of wrapping (see

10
Fig. 5(b)), the progressive
damage was indicated by a
10 10 10 15 15
typical noise. Failure occurred

5
in a pseudo-ductile fashion:
after the maximum load was
reached, displacement
continued to increase while the
load remained approximately
constant. It was decided that the
test would be stopped when the
relative displacement of the
column faces was over 20 mm;
namely when the average axial
compressive strain would be
equal to 3%.

Specimen F1 was unloaded in

Fig. 2. Geometry of columns (dimensions in cm)
blocks. The bars were inserted in the holes and bonded to
masonry using an epoxy adhesive.
All specimens were tested under axial compression load by
means of a 200 t hydraulic jack reacting against a closed-loop
reaction frame. Two linear variable displacement transducers and
a dial gauge were used to monitor the displacement of the upper
face of the column and an additional dial gauge measured the
displacement of the support beam to derive the net deformation.
Load was recorded by means of a 150 t load cell, and electric
strain gauges were applied on the CFRP sheet in the direction of
the fibres, perpendicular to the loading direction, at different
locations, namely 30 and 45 cm high from the base of the
columns on all sides of the columns. Load, strains and
displacements were all recorded by a data acquisition system.
Friction between steel plates and masonry was minimised by
using MylarTM sheets. Fig. 4 is a picture of the test set-up.
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Control specimens C1 and C2 failed at a load of 157 and 172 kN,
respectively, corresponding to an average ultimate compressive
stress of 1$85 MPa. Vertical cracks formed in the specimens under
compressive load; the cracks increased in number and
propagated as the applied load increased until failure. Vertical
and transverse deformations were very limited and failure
occurred in a brittle fashion. The crack pattern at failure is shown
in Fig. 5(a) for specimen C2. It can be observed that the cracking
pattern was regular, with cracks following a continuous vertical
line. This is due to the action exerted by the mortar that
eliminated local defects which usually generate stress
concentration between the blocks.
the plastic range of the
mechanical behaviour and was
reloaded in order to see the
residual capacity of the column in carrying the load and storing
elastic energy. Deformation capacity was greatly increased in
comparison with the columns that had not been strengthened; a
growth of 900% was reached in ductility without reaching the
collapse of the specimens. The strain in carbon fibre was detected
by electrical strain gauges, which showed a maximum strain less
than 0$30% in all cases, which in turn means that the strength
capacity of CFRP was exploited only for a small part of the whole
capacity. After testing, the CFRP wrap was cut in order to inspect
the state of the inner material. All blocks appeared severely
damaged and some of them had broken into small pieces and dust.
During the loading process the axial displacement of the
column also produced local buckling of carbon fibres as illustrated
in Fig. 5(b).
Specimens S1 and S2, which were externally reinforced with an
SRC system, had an ultimate load of 226 and 229 kN,
respectively, which was about 38% higher than the
corresponding control specimens. A crack pattern was observed
in the external cement layer; the progressive damage was
indicated by the increasing number and width of the cracks.
Failure occurred in a pseudo-ductile fashion: after the maximum
load was reached, displacement continued to increase whereas
the load remained approximately constant. During the loading
process in the plastic range, enlarged cracks in the external
cement layer caused expulsion and spalling of concrete as
illustrated in Fig. 5(c). Specimen S1 was unloaded in the plastic
range of mechanical behaviour and was reloaded in order to
observe the residual capacity of the column in carrying the load
and storing elastic energy. In this case the deformation capacity
was also greatly increased in comparison with the columns that

50 Construction Materials 160 Issue CM2 Strengthening masonry columns: steel strands versus FRP Micelli La Tegola

Downloaded by [ Universidade do Estado do Amazonas] on [20/03/17]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 CFRP-confinement did not
influence the stiffness of the
column, since the thickness of
the strengthening device was
negligible with respect to the
geometry of the column. This
was not true when confinement
was provided by the SRC system
as the thickness of the cement
layer was about 8 mm, which
produced an increase of the
cross-section of about 10% in
terms of area. This explains the
significant increase in terms of
stiffness that is visible in the
curves of Fig. 7, in which the
axial deformation is reduced
along the first linear branch of
the curves.

From the curves in Fig. 6 it is

clear that when load increased,
all curves showed a knee point
which produced a second
plastic branch that was
negligible in unconfined
masonry and showed a
softening branch with low
Fig. 3. Preparation of SRC columns ultimate axial displacement.
The second plastic branch was
had not been strengthened and a growth of 1700% in ductility almost flat in all cases, except for the case of the SB specimen, in
was reached without any collapse of the specimens. which a hardening region is visible in the first part. This
behaviour is very important in terms of structural ductility since
Specimen F-B, which was strengthened with both external CFRP it is evident that the column can store a large quantity of
sheets and internal CFRP bars (diameter Z 8 mm), showed a peak deformation energy even if the carrying capacity can not
compressive load of 261 kN, corresponding to an ultimate
strength of 2$90 MPa. This can be explained by assuming a larger
region of FRP-confined masonry with respect to S and F
specimens, since the presence of the bars also induced a triaxial
stress state in those regions far from the corners, which were not
effectively confined by the external sheets. The loading process
was stopped earlier with respect to the other tests, since the
structural response in the plastic range was the same for S and F
specimens.

All experimental results related to peak load and compressive

strength are summarised in Table 4. It can be seen that significant
increments of load-carrying capacity and axial deformability
were reached in all cases.

Curves of load plotted against displacement, which were recorded

during compression tests, are shown in Fig. 6 for all specimens. It is
clear from the curves that the presence of confinement played a
significant role in changing the mechanical properties of the
columns. The first branch of the curve does not show any influence
due to the presence of external CFRP wraps, or in the case of the
simultaneous presence of CFRP sheets and internal bars. This can be
explained by the fact that the confinement action was passive and
so the elastic pressure exerted by the FRP was generated only when
the lateral strain of the masonry core increased as the compressive
Fig. 4. Experimental set-up
load increased. As expected, under service loads the presence of the

Construction Materials 160 Issue CM2 Strengthening masonry columns: steel strands versus FRP Micelli La Tegola 51

Downloaded by [ Universidade do Estado do Amazonas] on [20/03/17]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 (a) (b) (c)

Fig. 5. Failure under compressive load

Compressive Strength Axial strain Maximum tensile strain

Specimen Peak load: kN strength: MPa increase: % increase: % in carbon fibres: %

C1 157$11 1$75
C2 175$20 1$95
Average 166$15 1$85
S1 225$66 2$51 35$82 O 900
S2 229$34 2$55 38$03 O 1700
Average 227$50 2$53 36$92
F1 228$08 2$53 37$27 O 590 0$19
F2 233$04 2$59 40$26 O 900 0$28
Average 230$56 2$56 38$77 0$24
F-B 260$85 2$90 57$00 O 350 0$31

Table 4. Test results

increase. In seismic regions this means that energy can be stored
in the structure that is damaged but this does not lead to a
structural collapse. From the curves it is noticeable that the two
different techniques produced the same effects after the knee
point of the curves. The CFRP and SRC systems both produced a
change in the properties of the compressed column, inducing the
presence of a plastic region that represents a new capacity of the
element in terms of ductility. The strength was also increased
without significant differences, since the confinement action
exerted by the two systems was the same; in both cases the
ultimate strength of the confining materials was beyond reach.
Fig. 8 shows the strain measured in CFRP sheets in the direction
of the fibres placed perpendicularly with respect to the principal
integrity. This behaviour was similar to that of a stiff sand-bag
when it is compressed from the top.
The experimental results highlighted that both strengthening
systems produced significant effects in enhancing the structural
response of masonry columns built with calcareous stone blocks.
The typical brittle failure of unreinforced masonry was avoided
300
250
200
Load: kN

axis of the column, and it is clear that the carbon fibres were far 150
F2
from tensile rupture. F1
S-2
100
C1
An important issue related to the seismic capacity of the columns C2
can be observed from Fig. 9(a) and (b) in which the curves show 50 S1
the effects of cyclic loading for S1 and F1 specimens. The FB
0
carrying capacity of the columns did not decrease since the 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40
reloading cycle took over until the peak load recorded in the first Displacement: mm
cycle. This means that the column became a system that was able
Fig. 6. Load plotted against displacement curves
to dissipate energy without losing its strength and structural

52 Construction Materials 160 Issue CM2 Strengthening masonry columns: steel strands versus FRP Micelli La Tegola

Downloaded by [ Universidade do Estado do Amazonas] on [20/03/17]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 300 250

250 200

200
Stress: MPa

150

Load: kN
150
100
100
S-1
50
050 F2
S-1
0
000
000 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Strain: % Displacement: mm
(a)
Fig. 7. Increase of stiffness in S specimens 250

200

250
150

Load: kN
200
100
150
Load: kN

50
100 F1
0
50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Displacement: mm
0
0 400 800 1200 1600 2000 2400 2800 (b)

Strain: me
Fig. 9. Cyclic loading for S1 and F1 specimens
Fig. 8. Strain in CFRP sheetsspecimen F2

fm f
and the structural element exhibited ductility due to its capacity 1 sm Z 2 3 K m 32
3o m 32o m
to store strain energy, which is a fundamental issue when seismic
forces are applied. where fm is the strength of plain masonry and 3o is the strain at
peak load for plain masonry. When lateral strain is avoided by a
Due to the technological advantages related to the use of SRC confinement action represented by an elastic pressure fl, the
with respect to FRP (no need of specialised labour, no need for constitutive law of masonry dramatically changes in terms of
dry surfaces, no need for strict control of moisture and peak load and ultimate strain
temperature conditions or fire protection), the proposed
fm;c f
technique may be developed and easily adopted all over the 2 sm;c Z 2 3 K m;c 32
world when pilot tests are made on a specific type of masonry. 3o;c m 32o;c m

where fm,c is the strength of confined masonry and 3o,c is the

A study was also conducted in order to calibrate the design
formulae proposed by the Italian Research Council (CNR)
and recently developed for FRP strengthening,13 and also for
the case of confinement with steel wires immersed in a
cement matrix. The basic assumptions are related to the
inelastic and non-linear behaviour of masonry, even for
small values of strain. The stressstrain behaviour may differ
according to the type of blocks and mortars, especially in
the field of historical buildings made of natural blocks and
mortar with different mechanical properties in different
regions of the structure. The stressstrain behaviour of
compressed masonry was largely studied through laboratory
tests, and important issues are highlighted: in the first
region with low strain values the behaviour is linear; the
linearity gradually disappears up to a peak load (hardening
branch); after peak load a softening branch shows how the
stress decreases as soon as strain increases up to the
ultimate value. A parabolic constitutive diagram is often
proposed in the literature10,14
strain at peak load for confined masonry.
The compressive strength in confined masonry may be expressed
as the unconfined strength increased by the effective lateral
pressure
3 fmc Z fmk C k 0 keff fl
where k 0 is a hardening factor that depends on the type of
masonry blocks, fl is the lateral pressure and keff is a term that
limits the effectiveness of the confinement action to a portion of
the entire cross-section, and depends on the geometry of the
column. This term expresses the ratio between the confined
volume of the column and the total volume of the column
Vc;eff
4 keff Z
Vm
where keff can be expressed as the product of a horizontal
effectiveness factor kH and a vertical effectiveness factor kV

Construction Materials 160 Issue CM2 Strengthening masonry columns: steel strands versus FRP Micelli La Tegola 53

Downloaded by [ Universidade do Estado do Amazonas] on [20/03/17]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

b
b'
45
b'
b
Unconfined region
Fig. 10. Effectiveness of external confinement
5 keff f1 Z kH kV f1
When continuous wrapping is applied then kV Z 1. With
reference to the cross-section reported in Fig. 10, the effectively
confined cross-section can be easily computed.
The horizontal effectiveness factor is furnished by the ratio between
the confined area and the total area of the cross-section Am
b 02 C d 02
6 kH Z keff Z 1K
3Am
where b 0 and d 0 are the dimensions illustrated in Fig. 10.
The maximum lateral pressure is computed as
7 f1 Z rf Ef 3fd;rid
where rf is the ratio of the reinforcement, Ef is the
longitudinal elastic modulus of the reinforcement and 3fd,rid is
the maximum effective strain that is achievable in the
longitudinal direction of reinforcement fibres, which is
reduced according to the design code with respect to the
ultimate strain of the fibres.
For a square-shaped section the value of rf is computed as
2As
8 rf Z
bs
where As is the cross-section of the reinforcement, b is the
dimension of the cross-section and s the spacing between two
successive fibres.
According to the material properties and geometry of the
columns, the design equations developed for FRP by the Italian
CNR were also applied to the steel-confined columns and the
results are reported in Table 5.
rf Z 2A bs
s
3fd;rid
f1 Z rf Ef 3fd;rid 0 2 0 2
kH Z keff Z 1K b 3A Cd
f 01 Z kH f1
m
0 gm
k Z 1250 (gm is the specific weight)
fmck Z fmk C k 0 f10
Table 5. Design values for SRC-confined columns
54 Construction Materials 160 Issue CM2 Strengthening masonry columns: steel strands versus FRP
Downloaded by [ Universidade do Estado do Amazonas] on [20/03/17]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
Even if the number of experimental data is not sufficiently wide
to allow important conclusions, it is clear from these preliminary
tests that the design equations used for the confinement of
FRP are conservative in the case of steel-confined columns. This
can be easily explained by observing that the FRP and steel
strands used in this application are materials with similar
mechanical properties. The mechanism of confinement is
activated in the same way in the presence of either steel or CFRP;
the elastic pressure is exerted when lateral expansion of the
column becomes significant in both cases.
4. CONCLUSIONS
In this study the use of new materials and technologies for the
external confinement of masonry columns was explored. The
proposed new technique that employs steel strands, as used in
the automotive industry for tyre strengthening, immersed in a
cementitious matrix was also compared with the use of other
innovative materials such as carbon FRP systems.
Experimental tests were conducted on columns with square cross-
section, made with calcareous stone, to measure the effectiveness of
confinement in terms of compressive strength, displacement
capacity and energy absorption capacity. The same amount of
reinforcement was used in all cases to better compare the different
techniques, except for the case of the S-B column in which internal
CFRP bars were added to increase the confined area.
Compression tests showed the non-linear behaviour of plain and
confined masonry; in the first case an initial pseudo-linear
branch of the load plotted against displacement curve was
followed by a non-linear region up to the peak load, then a brittle
failure occurred with a narrow post-peak region. Masonry
columns confined by external FRP sheet or fibre-reinforced
cement showed a pseudo-linear curve that was almost coincident
with the curves of control specimens, and this is predictable in
the case of passive confinement. The first region of the curve was
wider than that for plain masonry and so it is acceptable to
increase the service load in the case of strengthened masonry. As
soon as the load increases, the lateral strain also increases, which
requires the confinement device to develop its elastic pressure.
The damage level inside the masonry core increased at higher
loads, but the presence of the confinement avoided brittle failure
and the column maintained its structural integrity. Thus, after the
peak load a long plastic plateau was achieved without load
increases, which implied a large capacity of the structure to store
energy without reaching collapse. Unloading and successive
reloading showed that the mechanical properties of the columns
did not change; in fact they maintained their peak strength.
Insertion of FRP bars in the transverse direction has been
demonstrated to provide further strength to the column, which
was explained by computing the effectively confined area that
was increased with respect to the case of external confinement.
9$14 ! 10K4
0$004 The design equations that were developed for FRP-confined
0$54 MPa masonry by the Italian National Research Council were also
0$5
0$27 MPa applied to the case of steel-confined masonry, and it was seen
that the validity was extended to those cases.
1$39
1$95 MPa
From the results of this study it is clear that the use of steel
strands and cement mortar matrix in the field of structural
Micelli La Tegola
 strengthening can be encouraged either for future research or
applications in the field.
REFERENCES
1. GORI R. (ed.). Proceedings of the Italian National Conference
on Structural Failures and Reliability of Civil Structures,
Venezia, 67 December 2001.
2. OCCHIUZZI A. and FABBROCINO G. (eds). Proceedings of the
International Conference on Structural Diseases and
Reliability, Naples, 1516 May 2003.
3. MICELLI F, DE LORENZIS L and LA TEGOLA A. FRP-confined
masonry columns under axial loads: experimental results
and analytical model. Masonry International Journal, 2004,
17, No. 3, 95108.
4. KOG Y. C., ONG K. C. G., YU C. H. and SREEKANTH P. V. Reinforced
concrete jacketing for masonry columns with axial loads.
ACI Materials Journal, 2001, 98, No. 2, 105115.
5. FAELLA C., MARTINELLI E., PACIELLO S. and NIGRO E. Experimental
tests and theoretical models on tuff masonry bricks and
columns confined with C-FRP sheets. Proceedings of the
IMTCR04 International Conference on Innovative Materials
for Construction and Restoration, Lecce, Italy, 69 June 2004,
Vol. 2, 343359.
6. AIELLO M. A., MICELLI F. and VALENTE L. Circular masonry
columns confined with FRP. Proceedings of Composites in
Construction CCC2005 3rd International Conference, Lyon,
1113 July 2005, 485492.
7. MICELLI F., DE LORENZIS L., GALATI N. and LA TEGOLA A.
Confinement of natural block masonry columns using fiber
reinforced polymer bars and laminates. Proceedings of the
9th Canadian Masonry Symposium, Fredericton, Canada,
46 June 2001, CD-Rom.
8. HUANG X., BIRMAN V., NANNI A. and TUNIS G. Properties and
potential for application of steel reinforced polymer and steel
reinforced grout composites. Composites Part B, 2005, 36,
No. 1, 7382.
9. BARTON B., WOBBE E., DHARANI L. R., SILVA P., BIRMAN V., NANNI
A., ALKHRDAJI T. and THOMAS J. Characterization of reinforced
concrete beams strengthened by steel reinforced polymer and
grout (SRP and SRG) composites. Materials Science &
Engineering A, 2005, 412, No. 12, 129136.
10. MATANA M., NANNI A., DHARANI L., SILVA P. and TUNIS G. Bond
performance of steel reinforced polymer and steel.
Proceedings of the International Symposium on Bond
Behaviour of FRP in Structures (BBFS 2005), pp. 125132.
11. UNI (ENTE NAZIONALE DI UNIFICAZIONE). Methods of Testing
Cement. Determination of Strength. UNI, Milan, Italy, 2005,
EN 196-1 (in Italian).
12. AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TESTING AND MATERIALS. Standard Test
Method for Tensile Properties of Polymer Matrix Composite
Materials. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA,
USA, 2000, ASTM D 3039.
13. CNR (ITALIAN NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL). Instruzioni per la
Progettazione, lEsecuzione, ed il Controllo di Interventi di
Consolidamento Statico Mediante lUtilizzo di Compositi
Fibrorinforzati. CNR, Rome, 2004, Technical Document
200/2004 (in Italian).
14. GRIMM C. T. Strength and related properties of brick masonry.
Journal of Structural Division, ASCE, 1975, 123, No. 1,
217231.

What do you think?

To comment on this paper, please email up to 500 words to the editor at journals@ice.org.uk
Proceedings journals rely entirely on contributions sent in by civil engineers and related professionals, academics and students. Papers
should be 20005000 words long, with adequate illustrations and references. Please visit www.thomastelford.com/journals for author
guidelines and further details.

Construction Materials 160 Issue CM2 Strengthening masonry columns: steel strands versus FRP Micelli La Tegola 55

Downloaded by [ Universidade do Estado do Amazonas] on [20/03/17]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.