SEISMIC STRENGTHENING OF MASONRY IN BUILDINGS AND

CULTURAL HERITAGE

Ramiro A. SOFRONIE
Professor
University of Bucharest
Bucharest
Romania

ABSTRACT

The paper presents a summary of research results regarding seismic protection of masonry
buildings. The issue of masonry and starting data of research are first discussed. The summary
of laboratory tests gives a general view of the concepts and methods used in the experimental
work carried out during a decade and followed by numerical validation. Then, the paper
successively presents the sandwich effect, the polymer grids as reinforcement, the method of
reinforcing masonry in bed layers, confining masonry, homogenisation and shaping of masonry
buildings, the snap of whip effect, the resistance of masonry to jerks, shocks and environmental
actions, and finally the design approach of masonry composed with polymer grids.

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Use of masonry

In the first century of the third millennium masonry is the construction material mostly used for
buildings and structures. It has been constantly employed during centuries in spite of the
developing new and advanced technologies. Nowadays, more than 60% of social buildings and
90% of cultural heritage buildings are made of masonry. This widely spread use of masonry is
motivated by two reasons: 1) The composing materials of masonry are everywhere easy
available; 2) the manpower and labour productivity are supported by gravity. The masonry
became so familiar that it is used even in seismic prone areas.
82 SÍSMICA 2004 - 6º Congresso Nacional de Sismologia e Engenharia Sísmica

1.2. History of Science

It is assumed that masonry consisting of burned clay bricks and lime mortars has been invented
about 9,000 years ago somewhere in a Palestinian region poor in stone but rich in clay. There
are proofs that masonry was widely used in the Plain of Shinar where famous ziggurats as
hexahedral towers were erected. They were pyramidal, stepped temple towers that is an
architectural and religious structure characteristic of the major cities of Mesopotamia. The
legendary Tower of Babel built about 1100 B.C.E. has been associated with the ziggurat of the
great temple of Marduk in the City of Babylon.

1.3. The Bible

Three technical facts of scientific interest are clearly mentioned in the holy book: 1) Clay
mixed with straw was burnt to produce lightweight porous bricks (Exodus 5, 7-9). 2) Lime was
currently used for mortars (Genesis 11, 3). 3) The plumb wire was known and used as a device
for masonry. The influence of gravity on masonry during its erection and service was
consciously recognised (Amos 7, 7-8).

1.4. Cultural heritage buildings

Masonry is the main construction material used for city walls. Historians consider that the
walled cities have marked the beginning of civilization. Castles, churches and mosques with
their vaults, steeples and towers were also easily shaped with the aid of masonry. Masonry was
used by the Romans also to bridges, aqueducts and viaducts. The three lobed plan of the
Eastern Churches built in seismic areas is also due to masonry.

1.5. Does masonry hide a secret?

This is a natural question. Indeed, how it was possible that such simple construction material
like masonry, put into work anytime, everywhere and by anyone with the only aid of a plumb
wire could last so long without even being a composite material. Due to such questions
masonry was the most searched construction material from all the available ones. During the
last century it was many times micro and macro modelled by both mathematical and physical
tools but no special disclosure has been reported yet.

1.6. History of technology

Modern masonry essentially differs from the original one. After the Industrial Revolution of
the 18th century, in order to increase the bearing capacity of masonry, two changes occurred:
the weak porous bricks were replaced by strong ceramic bricks while in mortars the cement
took the place of lime. Later, in 19th and 20th centuries, from ergonomic reasons, the ceramic
solid bricks were replaced with cored bricks which are even more ceramic than the formers.
Thus, the specific weight of masonry decreased to 16kN/m3 or even less while labour
productivity increased almost five times, and the profit accordingly. Nowadays, this type of
masonry is world wide spread although it is too brittle for seismic prone areas. The question is
whether the factories producing cement and ceramic bricks to be closed and people in seismic
Ramiro A. SOFRONIE 83

prone areas return to the porous bricks with lime mortars without disclosing the secret of
millennial masonry?

2. PRELIMINARY REMARKS

2.1. Original masonry

It could be defined as an association of elastic porous bricks and ductile lime mortars
wherefrom a non-homogeneous and anisotropic artificial stone results. Since the bricks are
produced by burned clay and the mortars based on lime are dry the two materials are
compatible, and their mechanical proprieties are complementary. In addition, the strength of
lime mortars is lower than that of porous bricks what is in accordance with the basic rule of
binding. The coefficient of linear thermal expansion of original masonry, α = 0.4x10-1 ºC-1, is
2.5 times smaller than that of concrete what means the two materials cannot be associated each
others in any way.

2.2. Modern masonry

It could be defined as an association of brittle ceramic bricks and brittle cement mortars
wherefrom a non-homogeneous and anisotropic artificial stone results. Since the bricks are
produced by burned clay while the mortars based on cement are wet the two materials are
incompatible or antagonist and their mechanical proprieties are no longer complementary but
only comparable as brittleness. In addition, the strength of cement mortars is higher than that of
ceramic bricks and therefore against the basic rule of binding. The coefficient of linear thermal
expansion of modern masonry, α= 10-1 ºC-1, is almost identical with that of concrete what
means the two materials can be always associated each other.

2.3. Composite material

Neither original masonry nor modern masonry is a composite material because none of them
does obey St. Venant’s Principle of geometric continuity of strains. Bricks and mortars always
deform differently. This is why the two types of masonry cannot be reinforced with fibbers, for
instance. All the attempts failed a priori.

2.4. Cored bricks

The ceramic cored bricks used in modern masonry are thin walled units. Their surface in
contact with mortars in bed layers is sometimes less than 50% of that of solid bricks what
involves high concentrations of normal and tangential stresses. In addition the thermal isolation
qualities, often claimed by builders of modern masonry, are not true as long as the cement
mortars, containing water of constitution, are used. The only reason for using cored bricks is of
ergonomic nature and consists in their high labour productivity. This is why they are called
efficient bricks.
84 SÍSMICA 2004 - 6º Congresso Nacional de Sismologia e Engenharia Sísmica

2.5. Terminology

Modern masonry is in fact a lightweight concrete preserving but the colour of masonry.
Lowering the specific weight of concrete from 28kN/m3 to 16kN/m3 an artificial stone very
brittle but with lower inertia is obtained. It should be called more accurately MASCRETE
while the term MASONRY is further preserved for the original material. Mascrete can be
reinforced or prestressed like any concrete with steel bars but never with polymer grids
according to Romanian Patent [1]. On the other hand, synthetic reinforcement is proper for
brick masonry with lime mortars there where steel and RC does not apply.

3. SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TESTS

3.1. Static tests

INCERC Iasi, Romania: 1D-12 short columns and 2D-18 panel walls, 1995/96 [2-4].

3.2. Pseudo-dynamic tests

3.2.1. LNEC Lisbon, Portugal: 2D – 4 reduced scale infill panels 1997 [5].

3.2.2. JRC Ispra, Italy: 2D – 4 full scale infill panels, 1998/99 [6-9].

3.3. Seismic tests

3.3.1. Enel.Hydro Seriate, Italy: 3D - 10 models as follows:

• Two models of masonry without RC members and two storey, 1996/97 [10-14].
• Two models of RC frame with masonry infill and two storey, 1998/99 [15-23].
• Three models of masonry with cored bricks, RC slab as roof and one storey, 2001/03
• [24-29].
• Three models of masonry with solid bricks, wooden roof and one storey, 2001/03
[30-35].

3.3.2. LNEC Lisbon, Portugal: 3D – 2 models ready for testing on June 2004 [36].
Ramiro A. SOFRONIE 85

Figure 1: Reinforcing masonry in columns at each or second bed layer

Figure 2: Reinforcing masonry in wall panels at second bed layer

Figure 3:Masonry in columns and wall panels confined by wrapping around with polymer grids
86 SÍSMICA 2004 - 6º Congresso Nacional de Sismologia e Engenharia Sísmica

3.4. Anti-terror and environmental tests

Enel Hydro Seriate, Italy: 3D – 1 model tested to shock. January 2003 [37].
INCERC Iasi, Romania: 2D – 3 models tested to shock and thermal transfer, March 2003 [38-
39].
ASTRA Ploiesti, Romania: 3D – 1 real masonry building submitted to military explosions,
May 2003 [40].

3.5. Numerical validation.

The philosophy of above testing programs was based on a relativity approach. It consisted in
planning as much as possible comparable models and then, after testing, comparing the results
obtained in the same conditions of loading or exciting. All testing programs were kept under
analytical and numerical control. That means the tests were not at random. The aims of tests
were precise, and the results always checked up. SAP 2000 was used as computing program.
The cracks resulted by tests were mapped on the fields of principal stresses. It was made a clear
distinction between the normal phenomena caused by seismic actions and the influence of
boundary conditions imposed by modelling on the shaking table.

4. THE SANDWICH EFFECT

When a structural member of masonry is loaded concentrations of stresses occur around some
structural faults, like vertical joints between bricks. As a consequence, under those stresses
reaching their limit values in the lime mortar of bed layers, plastic strains are resulting.
Spontaneously, and according to the Principle of minimum compulsion of Gauss-Hamilton, the
stresses located around geometrical imperfections are gradually redistributed to neighbouring
less heavily loaded areas. By this phenomenon of self-adaptation under the permanent action of
gravity the original masonry protects itself against overloading and consequently becomes long
lasting. Since 2000 this phenomenon was called sandwich effect [15]. With the aid of Prandtl’s
Mathematical Theory of Plasticity published in 1923 was calculated the expulsion force
developing in bed layers under vertical and lateral actions. The phenomenon is a consequence
of the complementarities between elastic bricks and plastic mortars. It is the mark of a genuine
masonry. Any masonry without such outstanding quality is only an ordinary artificial stone and
not longer a true masonry. Once the sandwich effect discovered it should be put under control.
There is a rather large field where such complementarity between elastic bricks and plastic
mortars works. However, only in a narrow domain that effect is optimum. For practical
purposes it can be controlled with the aid of polymer grids.

5. POLYMER GRIDS

There are strong reasons to associate the polymer grids, specially produced by Netlon Ltd. in
Blackburn, UK, for RichterGard System, with masonry as follows:
Ramiro A. SOFRONIE 87

Figure 4: Details of anchoring the grids around the opening, inside of the model with cored brick
masonry, and the strips of grids confining the vaults in the other model with solid brick masonry

Figure 5: Model confined by wrapping around on external surfaces with special care for vaults
and openings. The role of fixing devices is to ensure good coverage on both sides of grids
during plastering. Their function ceases after hardening of mortar. Equidistance of fixing
devices is important.

5.1. Mechanical reasons: 1) Both materials have elastic and plastic proprieties in the same
proportions; 2) The grids and masonry obey similar laws of deformation what means they have
almost the same Young modules of elasticity, and the Neumann ratio of equivalence
n=Egrid/Emasonry is 1(one) or near to it; 3) The available grids have convenient levels of strength
and high capacity of dissipation of the induced energy.
88 SÍSMICA 2004 - 6º Congresso Nacional de Sismologia e Engenharia Sísmica

5.2. Geometric reasons: 1). The grids are shaped as bars of equal strength to tension and
developed in their both principal directions according to the topologic law of isomorphism. 2).
The ribs are stiff enough to transmit beside tension stresses also shear stresses while the joints
are solid and together with the ribs are integrated in grids. 3). The apertures of grids are shaped
by four continuously connected hyperbola, and their small dimensions of only 39x39 mm
ensure a uniformly distribution of stresses as Bernoulli’s Principle requires.

5.3. Physical and environmental reasons: 1).The grids are inert to all chemicals found in
mortars and has no solvents at ambient temperatures. 2). The grids were certificated by
INCERC Iasi, Romania for thermal actions and mechanical shocks. 3) The durability of grids is
guaranteed by producer for a normal service of 120 years.

5.4. Eurocode 8, prEN 1998-3:200X, by clauses C.5.1.1. (3), C.5.1.1. (4), C.5.1.1. (5) and
C.5.1.8, at pages 70-72, formally recognises polymer grids as reinforcement for masonry.

6. REINFORCING MASONRY IN BED LAYERS

The aim of reinforcement in bed layer is to prevent “the sandwich effect” in the masonry of
new buildings. That effect occurs only in lime and lime-cement mortars. Cement mortars
without lime or another similar ductile component do not develop such effect. Polymer grids
with integrated solid joints, as it was described above, are the most appropriate as
reinforcements for that purpose. They also compensate the lack of strength of lime mortars and
bring much more strength than cement mortars. The mechanism of stress transfer from mortars
to grids takes place by anchoring. The phenomenon of anchoring is not influenced by the
thermal expansion proprieties of grids. The stresses due to loads are concentrating around
joints wherefrom are distributed to ribs. Since grid joints are not far from each other the
distribution of stresses is rather uniform. Only shear and tension stresses are transmitted by
grids due to a spontaneous phenomenon of self-control. Such mechanism of stress transfer
essentially differs from that known in reinforced concrete where “the clamping effect” occurs.
It is based on the shear stresses developed around the lateral surfaces of the cylindrical bars of
steel as a consequence of concrete shrinkage. The adherence of concrete to steel is possible
only because the two materials have the same coefficients of thermal expansion. Masonry
reinforced with polymer grids in bed layers does not become a composite material but its
bearing capacity to compression and shear forces increases. It is worth mentioning that as a
consequence of reinforcing masonry in bed layers the 45º inclined cracks no longer occur.
Often the same thing happens even when not all horizontal joints of masonry are reinforced but
only some, for instance, at three or five bed joints. However, the polymer grids act only in
horizontal planes in spite of the fact that some of their effects are also felt on vertical
directions. The cost of one cubic meter of masonry reinforced in bed layers increases by only
0.6% in comparison with the cost of one cubic meter of plain masonry. This method of
reinforcing masonry was patented in Romania since 1995 (Figures 1-3).
Ramiro A. SOFRONIE 89

Figure 6: Wall panel of cored brick masonry confined by wrapping around with grids

Figure 7: Wall panel of cored bricks masonry confined with polymer grids after tests

Figure 8: Hysteresis diagrams for plain (in blue) and reinforced (in red) masonry
90 SÍSMICA 2004 - 6º Congresso Nacional de Sismologia e Engenharia Sísmica

Figure 9: Envelope curves for the two panels of plain and reinforced masonry

7. CONFINING MASONRY

The aim of confining is to develop three directional stresses of compression in masonry of both
new and existing buildings. The bearing capacity of masonry increases several times due to
existing internal reserves of strength and also to the strength of grids. The confinement of
masonry is induced by wrapping around with polymer grids and then by rendering either
building bodies as such or only some of their structural members. Confined masonry becomes
a composite material fulfilling the requirements of St.Venant Principle. The outstanding
advantage of confining is the uniform distribution of stresses. Any attempts of stress
concentrations around some structural faults are annihilated by the plastic deformations of lime
in render mortars. In order to make these advantages true, the adherence of render to masonry
surface should be perfect. The joints between bricks should be deepened about to 15 mm, and
the grids should be fixed at the same distance to masonry surface to be equally and uniformly
covered on their both sides. The grids are joined by overlapping and no special devices except
the fixing ones are necessary. The function of fixing devices will cease after four weeks when
the render has hardened, and they would never be put in the position to develop concentrations
of stresses around them. The thickness of plaster must be 18 to 24 mm and no more. Since all
the strength comes from grids only lime or lime-cement plaster is recommended. The polymer
grids can also be easily bent around outer corners or when the openings for doors and windows
are bordered. Some special care is necessary when inner corners are met. If it is not possible to
avoid such cases the grids should be fixed with bolts crossing the whole thickness of walls on
both directions of corners. Obviously, in new buildings masonry can be both reinforced and
confined while in existing buildings only confined. The cost of one cubic meter of confined
masonry increases by about 6% in comparison with the cost of one cubic meter of plain
masonry. This method has been also patented in Romania since 1995 (Figures 4-9).
Ramiro A. SOFRONIE 91

8. HOMOGENISATION OF MASONRY BUILDINGS

In the case of new buildings when the masonry is reinforced and confined with polymer grids
the structural members of reinforced concrete are no longer necessary and can be eliminated.
This means both technical improvements and cost lowering. Indeed, during earthquakes the
columns and beams of reinforced concrete act as concentrators of stresses and their cooperation
with masonry structural members like walls or infills cannot be assessed. Such mixed buildings
are strongly non-homogeneous and with great non-uniformities in the distribution of masses
what is against the “Basic principles of conceptual design”, clause A3, provided by
Eurocode 8. This structural solution of compromise, when masonry was associated with
reinforced concrete, was accepted so many years because no alternative was available. From
now on, by composing masonry with polymer grids the progress in seismic protection of
masonry buildings as well as of masonry infills in buildings and structures has become
possible.

9. SHAPING OF MASONRY BUILDINGS

Structural irregularities in plan and elevation are according to Eurocode 8 for both new and
existing buildings of special interest because they generate strong concentrations of stresses.

Figure 10: Horizontal cracks developed in the confined masonry of model as a consequence of
“the snap of whip” effect during the tests on shaking table
92 SÍSMICA 2004 - 6º Congresso Nacional de Sismologia e Engenharia Sísmica

4.5 ATz
4
Acceleration [a/g]

3.5 A11z
3
2.5 A12z
2
1.5 A13z
1
A14z
0.5
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Test number

Figure 11: Induced and peak accelerations on vertical direction of the model with cored brick
masonry reinforced only in bed layers. The acceleration recorded at the top of model by A13z
at the 11th test is 17 times higher than the acceleration of shaking table recorded by ATz.

11 ATz
10
9
8 A11z
Acceleration [a/g]

7
6 A12z
5
4 A13z
3
2
1 A14z
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25
Test number
Figure 12: Induced and peak accelerations on vertical direction of the model with cored brick
masonry reinforced in bed layers and confided by wrapping around with polymer grids. The
acceleration recorded at the top of model by A13z at the 11th test is 5 times higher than the
acceleration of shaking table recorded by ATz.

Theory of dislocation explains how and why severe failures occur to such buildings. By
confining the masonry of the existing buildings the effects of irregularities can be mitigated
and good safety factors at convenient costs could be obtained. However, the most important
achievement consists in shaping the new masonry buildings with the requested irregularities by
considering the opportunity of reinforcing and/or confining masonry with polymer grids.
Ramiro A. SOFRONIE 93

10. SNAP OF WHIP EFFECT

Eurocode 8 and all national codes are deeply concerned about the torsion effects of seismic
actions on irregular buildings and lots of preventing provisions are available. It is caused by
yaw moment in vertical direction, and some of the Eastern Churches in Romania have been
protected since 1512 against its destructive effects. However, there is another phenomenon also
dangerous consisting in the amplification of seismic response on the vertical direction of
buildings. Paradoxically, it is not mentioned in any code. Because of its extreme violence it is
known as “the snap of whip” and was identified during the tests carried out on the shaking
table on full scale 3D models of masonry buildings. The effects of the amplification
phenomenon were materialized by horizontal cracks in masonry as well as by violent
upheavals of the buildings from their foundations. This amplification of seismic response is
caused by pitch and roll moments against their horizontal axes and is typical for masonry
buildings without reinforced concrete columns. The confinement of the external surfaces of the
building walls with polymer grids proved to be an effective measure of protection against the
snap of whip effect. Not only local concentrations of stresses are prevented by confining but all
structural members concur to increase the stiffness of buildings (Figures 10-12).

11. RESISTANCE OF REINFORCED MASONRY TO JERKS AND SHOCKS

Earthquakes, mainly the strong ones, are dangerous for masonry buildings because the
occurrence of jerks may crush the ceramic bricks or even cause dislocations of some structural
members. Jerks are due to sudden variations in time of accelerations and they were first used
by Jacobi in his doctoral thesis in Mathematics presented on August 13, 1825. For human
beings the lower threshold is 30 m/s3, and for an earthquake of IX degree on Mercalli scale the
jerk reaches 496 m/s3. If the masonry is reinforced or confined with polymer grids, under jerk
actions they behave elastically. Between two consecutive changes of acceleration there is no
time for grids to develop plastic deformations and therefore their ductile qualities are not used.
The induced energy by earthquakes is dissipated only by the friction forces. The comparative
tests carried out on the shaking table have shown that during the ultimate limit state the model
of masonry with solid bricks resisted better than the model of masonry with cored bricks.
Indeed, in the first case the solid bricks remained undamaged and the grids were torn off, what
is easy to repair by replacing the synthetic reinforcement. In the second case the bricks were
crushed and the grids remained undamaged what can not be repaired without evacuating all the
rubble and replacing it with new masonry. The other tests carried out on several different
models and submitted to shocks, according to ISO 7892/1998, have shown a rapid amortisation
of the induced oscillations by their equal distribution in all directions. The tests also correspond
to the requirement of the clause 2.9.6., in Eurocode 8. This is why the masonry reinforced and
confined with polymer grids seems appropriate as an anti-terror protection (Figures 13-18).
94 SÍSMICA 2004 - 6º Congresso Nacional de Sismologia e Engenharia Sísmica

Figure 13: Position of TNT explosive over the ground in front of the wall reinforced with grids

Figure 14: Plan of the masonry building and the positions of accelerometers

Figure 15: The broken window and the damage plaster reinforced with polymer grids
Ramiro A. SOFRONIE 95

Figure 16: The reinforcement of plaster not affected by the explosion of 1kg TNT

12. RESISTANCE OF REINFORCED MASONRY TO ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIONS

Comparative tests have been carried out on three panels of plain masonry, masonry reinforced
with steel grids and masonry reinforced with polymer grids. It was successively determined:
thermal conductivity, resistance to thermal transfer, thermal transmittance, thermal
permeability and the equivalent thermal conductivity, all according to the European codes. The
results have shown that masonry with polymer grids has normal physical characteristics which
are stable for large fields of variation of the environmental factors.

13. DESIGN APPROACH OF MASONRY COMPOSED WITH POLYMER GRIDS

RichterGard System is a holistic concept consisting in the examination, analysis, design and
technical assistance for the installation, completion, monitoring and maintenance of masonry in
buildings and structures located in seismic prone areas. Obviously, for such an advanced
concept there is a corresponding program of analysis and design. It is based on the relative
positions of the two intrinsic centres, gravity centre CG and stiffness or rotation centre CR,
both allowing global analysis of the building bodies and detailed analysis of each structural
member. For the new buildings the concept also allows a seismic shaping while for the existing
buildings only the putting into value of all real reserves of strength and stiffness. A special
computing program supports all the above mentioned analyses in accordance with the existing
European and Romanian national codes. A recent geological map printed by the European
Seismological Commission shows that seismic movements could also occur in some plains of
Belgium, Germany and Netherlands that formerly were considered quiet. Those regions are
called zones of low seismic intensity (Figures 19-20).
96 SÍSMICA 2004 - 6º Congresso Nacional de Sismologia e Engenharia Sísmica

14. CONCLUSION

The answer to the former question is negative. The factories producing cement and ceramic
bricks have been saved by the polymer grids and they should not be closed. Once the
millennial secret of masonry disclosed and recognised as true in seismic prone areas, the
ceramic solid or cored bricks associated with lime or lime-cement mortars can be further used
provided that they be reinforced and/or confined with polymer grids according to RichterGard
System. This is a revolutionary system addressed to clever, honest and courageous people so as
it should be properly understood, trustingly recognised and accordingly promoted. The system
easily applies to new and existing buildings, including those of cultural heritage, being more
expeditious and cost effective than any of the known techniques. In the case of new buildings it
allows to eliminate heavy and expensive structural members of reinforced concrete while in the
case of existing buildings often the lodgers should not be evacuated. The system is based on an
advanced concept of design what allows to reach the highest safety for the investment paid.

Figure 17: Crushed cored bricks behind integer reinforcement after tests on shaking table

Figure 18: Torn reinforcement in front of integer solid brick masonry after test on shaking table
Ramiro A. SOFRONIE 97

Figure 19: Case study two storey old masonry building in Bucharest, July 2001

Figure 20: Case study two storey new masonry building in Bucharest, July 2003

15. REFERENCES

[1] Sofronie, R.; Feodorov, V. – “Method of seismic reinforcement of masonry works”

Romanian Patent Office RO 112373 B1, Bucharest 1995.
[2] Sofronie, R. - “Antiseismic reinforcement of masonry works” in Proceedings of the
International Conference “New Technologies in Structural Engineering.” July 1997,
Lisbon, Portugal, p.373-380.
[3] Sofronie, R.; Popa, G. – “The behaviour of polymer grids as reinforcement” in
Proceedings of the XIIIth FIP Congress and Exhibition. May 23–29, 1998, Amsterdam,
the Netherlands, p.45-48.
[4] Sofronie, R. – “Innovative method for repair masonry buildings” in Saving Buildings in
Central and Eastern Europe. Proceedings of the IABSE Colloquium. June 4-5, 1998,
Berlin, Report p. 166-167; CD-Rom: Paper 2168.
98 SÍSMICA 2004 - 6º Congresso Nacional de Sismologia e Engenharia Sísmica

[5] Pires et al. – “Experimental study of the behavior under horizontal actions of repaired
masonry infilled R/C frames” in Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Sept. 1998, Paris, CD-ROM: Paper PIRESO.
[6] Sofronie, R.; Popa, G. – “Confined structures of reinforced masonry” in Proceedings of
the 11th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Sept. 1998, Paris, CD-Rom:
Paper SOFCSO.
[7] Sofronie et al. – “Three-lobed churches paraseismically shaped.” MONUMENT-98 in
Proceedings of the Workshop on Seismic Performance of Monuments. November 12-18,
1998, Lisbon, Portugal, p.259-266.
[8] Sofronie, R.; Bolander Jr., J.E. – “Innovative structural system for masonry buildings”
in Proceedings of IAHS World Congress on Housing. June 1-7, 1999, San Francisco,
California, Vol. IV, p. 929-936.
[9] Sofronie et al. – “Geometrical approach of restoring the monuments.” ASSISI-99 in
Proceedings of the International Workshop on Seismic Performance of Built Heritage in
Small Historic Centres. April 22-24, 1999, Assisi, Italy, p. 379 – 387.
[10] Sofronie, R. – “Rehabilitation of masonry buildings and monuments” in Proceedings of
the IABSE Symposium. August 25-27, 1999, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, CD ROM paper
1234, Report p.264-265.
[11] Sofronie et al. – “Long term behaviour of three-lobed churches” in Proceedings of the
IASS 40th Anniversary Congress. Sept.20-24, 1999, Madrid, Spain, Vol. II, p. I23-I30.
[12] Sofronie, R. – “Design concepts of irregular buildings” in Proceedings of the Second
European Workshop on the seismic behaviour of asymmetric and setback structures.
October 8-10, 1999, Istanbul, Turkey, Vol. I, p. 293-302.
[13] Sofronie, R.; Bolander Jr., J.E. – “Repair and strengthening of masonry buildings” in
Proceedings of the Third Japan-Turkey Workshop on Earthquake Engineering.
February 21-25, 2000, Istanbul, Turkey, Vol. I, p.359-370.
[14] Sofronie et al. – “Restoring techniques based on polymer grids” in Proceedings of the
5th International Congress on Restoration of Architectural Heritage FIRENZE 2000.
September 17-24, 2000, Florence, Italy, p.152-163.
[15] Sofronie, R. – “Geogrids for reinforcing masonry buildings and structures” in
Proceedings of the Second European Geosynthetics Conference & Exhibition EURO-
GEO, October 15-18, 2000 Bologna, Italy, p. 847-852, CD-ROM paper #213.
[16] Sofronie et al. – “An integrated approach for enhancement of eastern cultural heritage”
in Proceedings of the 4th European Commission Conference on Research for Protection,
Conservation and Enhancement of Cultural Heritage: OPPORTUNITIES FOR
EUROPEAN ENTERPRISES. November 22-24, 2000, Strasbourg, France, paper #5.
[17] Juhasova et al. – “Seismic resistance of reinforced masonry infills” in Proceedings of
the Workshop on Mitigation of Seismic Risk – Support to Recently Affected European
Countries. November 27-28, 2000, Hotel Villa Carlotta, Belgirate (VB), Italy, paper
#42.
[18] Severn et al. – “Mitigation of seismic risk by composing masonry structures” in
Proceedings of the Workshop on Mitigation of Seismic Risk – Support to Recently
Affected European Countries. November 27-28, 2000, Hotel Villa Carlotta, Belgirate
(VB), Italy, paper #43.
[19] Sofronie, R.; Bolander Jr., J.E. – “New repair and rehabilitation technologies for
masonry buildings.” Rehabilitating and Repairing the Buildings and Bridges of the
Ramiro A. SOFRONIE 99

Americas: Hemispheric Workshop Directions. April 23 & 24, 2001, Mayaguez, Puerto
Rico, paper #24.
[20] Sofronie et al. – “Dynamic Behaviour of Church Steeples” in Proceedings of the 2nd
International Congress on STUDIES ON ANCIENT STRUCTURES. 9-13 July 9-13,
2001, Yildisz Technical University of Istanbul, Turkey, p. 399-410.
[21] Sofronie, R. – “Vulnerability of Romanian Cultural Heritage to Hazards and Prevention
Measures” in Proceedings of the ARCCHIP Workshop ARIADNE 4, August 18-24,
2001, Trest, Czech Republic p. 1-16.
[22] Sofronie, R. – “Strengthening and restoration of Eastern Churches” in Proceedings of th
International Congress of ICOMOS and UNESCO “Two thousands years, and more, in
the history of structures and architecture”, September 10-12, 2001, Paris, France
[23] Sofronie et al. – “Civil structures of reinforced masonry without rc-structural members”
in Proceedings of the National Convention on Structural Failures and Reliability of
Civil Structures. December 6-7, 2001, University of Architecture, Venice, Italy, p.347-
358.
[24] Sofronie, R. – “Repair and retrofitting masonry buildings” in Proceedings of the 12th
European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, September 9-13, 2002, Barbican
Centre, London UK, Paper Reference #183.
[25] Sofronie, R. – “Use of polymer grids in masonry retrofitting”. Special Session on
Advances in earthquake experimental studies in Proceedings of the 12th European
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, September 9-13, 2002, Barbican Centre,
London UK, Paper Reference #5.
[26] Sofronie, R. – “Masonry irregular buildings reinforced with polymer grids” in
Proceedings of the 3rd European Workshop on Seismic Behaviour of Irregular and
Complex Structures. September 17-18, 2002, Florence, Italy, paper #18.
[27] Juhasova, E.; Sofronie, R. – “Retrofitting techniques for masonry buildings in seismic
areas” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Earthquake Loss Estimation
and Risk Reduction. October 24-26, 2002, Bucharest, Romania, paper # 5.
[28] Sofronie, R. – “Retrofitting and strengthening techniques for damaged buildings” in
Proceedings of the International Conference on Earthquake Loss Estimation and Risk
Reduction, October 24-26, 2002, Bucharest, Romania, poster #10.
[29] Sofronie, R. – “Masonry and the defiance of technology” in Proceedings of the National
Convention on Engineering and Law: “Forensic Engineering, Tasks and Responsibilities
in the Building Process”. December 5-6, 2002, University of Architecture, Venice, Italy.
[30] Sofronie, R.; Juhasova, E. – “Contribution of the integrity and energy dissipation to the
seismic response”. The Bulletin of the European Association for Earthquake
Engineering. December 2002, Istanbul, Turkey, Volume 21, p.29-30.
[31] Sofronie, R. – “Lessons from natural catastrophes for higher education” in Proceedings
of the First International Conference on Environmental and Research Assessment.
March 23-27, 2003, Bucharest, paper #076, p.611-626.
[32] Sofronie, R.; Juhasova, E. – “Seismic strengthening of masonry” in SECED Newsletter,
London, Volume 16, No. 4, May 2003, p 6-7.
100 SÍSMICA 2004 - 6º Congresso Nacional de Sismologia e Engenharia Sísmica

[33] Sofronie, R. – “Seismic protection and retrofitting of the masonry buildings” in

Proceedings of the SEE4: Seismology and Earthquake Engineering Conference. May
12-14, 2003 Tehran, Iran, Topic VR.
[34] Sofronie et al. – “Retrofitting the masonry of cultural heritage buildings” in Proceedings
of the Fifth National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, May 26-30, 2003,
Istanbul, Turkey, Paper AE-013.
[35] Sofronie, R. – “Theoretical basis of reinforcing masonry with polymer grids” in
Proceedings of the Fifth National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, May 26-30,
2003, Istanbul, Turkey, Paper AE-021.
[36] Sofronie R. – “Enhancing seismic resistance and durability of natural stone masonry” in
Proceedings of the ECOLEADER Workshop, July 9-10, 2003, Bucharest, Romania,
paper #1.
[37] Sofronie, R. – “Anti-terror tests on specimens of masonry reinforced with polymer grids
and their lessons” in Proceedings of the ECOLEADER Workshop, July 9-10, 2003,
Bucharest, Romania, paper #2.
[38] Sofronie, R. – Application of reinforcing techniques with polymer grids for masonry
buildings. August 28, 2003, ENEL-ISMES, Bergamo Italy, Report No.5, CASCADE
Project, 283p.
[39] Sofronie, R. – “Amplification phenomenon of seismic response revealed by the tests on
shaking table of masonry models reinforced with polymer grids” in Proceedings of the
ECOLEADER WORKSHOP, September 18-19, 2003, Lisbon, Portugal, paper #12.
[40] Sofronie, R. – “Use of the RichterGard System in Cultural Heritage” in Proceedings of
the ICOMOS/ISCARSAH Annual Meeting, October 17-18, 2003, Rome, Italy, paper #4.