Tesi Maria Ricamato

Università degli Studi di Cassino
Facoltà di Ingegneria
Dottorato di Ricerca in Ingegneria Civile

XX Ciclo
Numerical and experimental analysis of

masonry arches strengthened with FRP
materials
Maria Ricamato
Cassino, Novembre 2007

University of Cassino
Department of Engineering
Graduate School in Civil Engineering
XX Cycle - November 2007
Numerical and experimental analysis of masonry

arches strengthened with FRP materials
Maria Ricamato
Supervisor: Prof. Elio Sacco
Coordinator: Prof.ssa Maura Imbimbo
2
To my mother and my father,
with love
3
Acknowledgements
Three years ago this day seemed very distant, instead today I am working for
concluding my PhD thesis. At the end of this experience, first the financial supports
of the Italian National Research Council (CNR) and of The Laboratories University
Network of Seismic Engineering (RELUIS) are gratefully acknowledged.
My greatest thanks is for my “Scientific fathers”: Prof. Giovanni Romano for
having directed me towards the research and Prof. Elio Sacco for giving me the
opportunity to improve my scientific and technical knowledge, for the work done
under his supervision and for his useful suggestions.
I would like to thank Prof.ssa Sonia Marfia for the fruitful discussions and also
Prof.ssa Maura Imbimbo and Prof. Raimondo Luciano for their disposal.
I would like to express my gratitude to Prof. Olivier Allix of the ENS of Cachan
(France), who gave me the opportunity to spend part of my PhD under his
supervision. This period was very important for my experience, both from a
professional and personal point of view. A special thanks to Ing. Pierre Gosselet, for
his help to overcome many difficulties that I encountered with the multiscale
methods and to the LMT who “hosted” me for 6 months, in particular thanks to
Beatrice Faverjon who represented always a reference point also for human aspect.
I would like to express my deep and sincere gratitude to my friends and
colleagues Ernesto Grande and Veronica Evangelista, who spent several days with
me working hardly.
Many thanks to DIMSAT, LAPS and Geolab Sud staff.
I would like to remember all my friends for their friendship whenever I needed it.
Finally a great thank to my family: my mother Francesca and my father Lucio,
for their love and support, my brother Nicandro for his humor that in times of
distress has been able to give me the courage to continue.
My gratitude to my Franco cannot be summarized in few rows: I will never forget
his love, his patience and his continuous support in what I do...
4
INDEX
Acknowledgements.......................................................................................................4
1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................9
1.1. Early static theories of the arch.......................................................................12
1.2. Motivations of the research and outline of the thesis......................................15
2. MASONRY MATERIAL.......................................................................................18
2.1. Introduction.....................................................................................................18
2.2. Mechanical behavior .......................................................................................19
2.3. Masonry modelling .........................................................................................23
2.4. No-tension material model..............................................................................25
3. FRP COMPOSITE MATERIALS FOR STRENGTHENING
MASONRY STRUCTURES......................................................................................28
3.1. Introduction.....................................................................................................28
3.2. Mechanical behavior .......................................................................................29
3.2.1. Alkaline ambient effects..........................................................................34
3.2.2. Humidity effects ......................................................................................35
3.2.3. Extreme temperature and thermal cycle effects ......................................35
3.2.4. Frost-thaw cycles effects .........................................................................35
3.2.5. Temperature effects.................................................................................35
3.2.6. Viscosity and relaxation effects ..............................................................36
3.2.7. Fatigue effects .........................................................................................36
3.3. Masonry structures reinforced with FRP materials.........................................36
3.4. Collapse mechanism for reinforced structures................................................38
4. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM .............................................................................40
4.1. Introduction.....................................................................................................40
4.2. Setup and instrumentations .............................................................................40
4.3. Preliminary experimental campaign ...............................................................42
4.4. Materials used in the experimental program...................................................44
4.5. Standard clay brick..........................................................................................44
5
4.5.1. Cubic compressive test............................................................................45
4.5.2. Indirect tensile test...................................................................................49
4.5.3. Elastic secant modulus ............................................................................53
4.6. Mortar..............................................................................................................59
4.6.1. Compressive tests ....................................................................................59
4.6.2. Elastic secant modulus ............................................................................62
4.7. Reinforcement material...................................................................................64
4.8. Experimental test on the arches ......................................................................69
4.9. Arch laying......................................................................................................69
4.10. Arch preparation ...........................................................................................72
4.11. Experimental campaign: Arch 1....................................................................74
4.11.1. Collapse mechanism description ...........................................................76
4.11.2. Load-displacements curves ...................................................................78
4.12. Experimental campaign: Arch 2....................................................................83
4.12.2. Load-displacements curves ...................................................................85
4.13. Experimental campaign: Reinforced arch.....................................................88
4.13.1. Application of the FRP reinforcement ..................................................88
4.13.2. Test organization ...................................................................................91
4.13.4. Load-displacement curves.....................................................................95
5. MODELING AND NUMERICAL PROCEDURES..............................................99
5.1. Introduction.....................................................................................................99
5.2. Masonry constitutive models ........................................................................100
5.2.1. Model 1..................................................................................................100
5.2.2. Model 2..................................................................................................103
5.3. FRP constitutive model.................................................................................105
5.4. Limit analysis................................................................................................107
5.5. Arch model....................................................................................................109
6
5.5.1. Governing equation of the arch .............................................................110
5.5.2. Kinematics of the arch...........................................................................111
5.5.3. Cross section..........................................................................................111
5.6. Stress formulation .........................................................................................114
5.6.1. Complementary energy .........................................................................117
5.6.2. Arc-length technique .............................................................................120
5.7. Displacement formulation.............................................................................125
5.7.1. Kinematics.............................................................................................127
5.7.2. Finite element implementation..............................................................128
5.8. Post-computation of the shear stresses..........................................................131
5.9. Numerical results ..........................................................................................135
5.9.1. Models and numerical procedures assessment......................................135
5.9.2. Experimental surveys numerical results................................................141
5.9.2.1. Comparison 1.................................................................................141
5.9.2.2. Comparison 2.................................................................................146
6. MULTISCALE APPROACHES ..........................................................................156
6.1. Introduction...................................................................................................156
6.2. Methods based on the homogenization.........................................................157
6.2.1. Theory of homogenization for periodic media......................................158
6.3. Methods based on the super-position............................................................159
6.3.1. Variational multiscale method...............................................................160
6.4. Methods based on the domain decomposition ..............................................160
6.4.1. Primal approach.....................................................................................161
6.4.2. FETI method..........................................................................................165
6.4.3. Mixed method: the micro-macro approach ...........................................166
6.5. Numerical results ..........................................................................................169
CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................................175
APPENDIX: RELUIS SCHEDE ..............................................................................177
NOTATIONS............................................................................................................187
7
REFERENCES .........................................................................................................189
8
1. INTRODUCTION
Numerous ancient constructions are made of masonry material that is one of the
oldest building material. Many ancient and historical masonry buildings are
characterized by the presence of arches and vaults. In particular the arch is a
fundamental constructive element having both load-bearing and ornamental function.
The “false arch” was one of the first constructive elements. It was realized by flat
stones placed on top of each other that created a stepwise arch. The constructive
technique was refined during the centuries, also introducing the use of the mortar to
joint the stones or the bricks.
The Egyptian and the Babylonians introduced the use of arches in civil constructions,
the Assyrians constructed the first vaults in masonry buildings, the Etruscans used
arches in order to realize the first masonry bridges.
The Romans made large use of masonry arches and vaults for the constructions, not
only of buildings but also of roads, bridges, aqueducts and amphitheatres, as
illustrated in Fig. 1.1.
Fig. 1.1: The Colosseum, Roma.
9
On the contrary, cult buildings were made using columns and architraves, as for
Greeks temples. One of the most representative cult building is the Pantheon of
Roma, characterized by the presence of a very well-known vaulted structure (Fig.
1.2).
Fig. 1.2: The Pantheon, Roma.
Moreover, Romans constructed arches also as monuments, like the “triumphal

arches”, e. g. the arch of Janus in Rome and the Triumphal arch in Paris (neoclassical
version of the ancient triumphal arches of the Roman Empire).
Fig. 1.3: The arch of Janus in Rome and Triumphal arch in Paris.
During the Middle-Age both the Byzantine architecture in the East and the Romanic
one in the West still adopted the Roman round arches.
10
The Goths, in the 13th century, substituted the semicircular arch with the pointed
arch. A main characteristic of the Gothic structures is the lightness of the buildings,
obtained by the introduction of flying buttresses and towers. The Cathedral of Milan
is an example of Gothic structure, Fig. 1.4.
Fig. 1.4: Cathedral of Milan.
During the Renaissance, the churches assumed a great structural interest. In

particular the Church of S. Maria del Fiore in Florence and the Basilica di S. Pietro,
Fig. 1.5, represent great examples of regular shapes and geometrical symmetry due to
the use of vaults.
Fig. 1.5: S. Maria del Fiore and Basilica di S. Pietro.
Then no relevant or innovative solution concerning the structural conception were

developed, but still today the arch is a fundamental structural element and its use has
11
been extended to all types of construction by the use of “new” material, like
reinforced concrete and steel.
1.1. Early static theories of the arch

The arch is one of the most interesting structural elements in the construction history
because of its intuitive static behavior. During the centuries, many studies were
developed on the more appropriate shape of the arch, but only in the 17th century a
static theory of the arch was proposed.
The Romans used systematically the arch realizing structure both of great value and
strong impact. The Roman scientist, Vitruvio, identified the main characteristics of
the arch and wrote ten books De Architectura, in which both the theory and the
practice concerning with the art of construction were presented. Vitruvio discussed
about the presence of the thrust of the vault on the supporting columns and walls. He
has also understood the functioning of the arched structures, suggesting to realize
strong and massive supports in order to contrast the thrust of the arches and vaults.
In the 13th century, Leon Battista Alberti wrote the De Re Aedificatoria, motivating
the use of arched structures with the aim of increasing both of the spans and the
bearing capability.
A more refined theory was attributed to the constructors of the Middle-Age: its main
characteristic is the approximation of the arch shape by the thrusts line. Also the
geometrical rule to determine the thickness of the piers was attributed to them. This
theory was the only respected during the Renaissance. Leonardo Da Vinci (1452 -
1519) developed some ideas and intuitions three centuries later. He asserted “…arco
non è altro che una fortezza causata da due debolezze imporochè l’arco negli edifici
è composto di due quarti di circolo, I quali quarti circoli ciascuno debolissimo per se
desidera cadere e opponendosi alla ruina l’uno dell’altro, le due debolezze si
12
convertono in un’unica fortezza…l’arco non si romperà se la corda dell’archi di fori
non toccherà l’arco di dentro…”.
Fig. 1.6: Leonardo’s intuitive static scheme for the arch.
This theory for which the arch is assimilate to two beams was reproposed by Caplet
in the 18th century.
The first significant theory of the arch was attributed to the mathematician
astronomer Philippe de La Hire (1670 - 1718). In its treatise Traitè De Mécanique,
posthumous published in 1730, he underlined the wedge mechanism of the arch.
According to him, the arch results subdivided in blocks and each block can be
considered like a piece of wedge incident on the mortar joints. Its model was the first
approach in the static theory of the arch that considers the masonry structure like a
rigid system of solids geometrically defined and with an own weight, neglecting the
frictional phenomenon. Two problems were faced by de La Hire: the vaults
equilibrium independent of its piers and the determination of the piers dimensions
considering the vault thrusts. The first problem lead, in the years, to the method of
polygon of the forces, while, concerning the second problem, he developed the basis
of the limit analysis.
In the 1785, Mascheroni, in the Nuove ricerche sull’equilibrio delle volte, proposed a
collapse mechanism of the arch characterized by the formation of intrados cracks at
key, of extrados cracks at springers and of intrados cracks at piers extremities, as
schematically illustrated in Fig. 1.7.
13
Fig. 1.7: Mascheroni’s collapse mechanism.
In the 19th century the method of the successive resultants was diffused. It was
adopted to study short span symmetric arches symmetrically loaded. It is based on
the definition of the thrusts line contained inside the third medium. The thrusts line
can be regarded as an indicator of stability: if it is not coincident with the center-line
of the arch, there is eccentricity and the arch thickness must be such that the
eccentricity remains inside the section.
The early method characterized by a collapse analysis was the method of Mery. This
method is based on the limit analysis and it is applicable only if the assumed collapse
mechanism occurs. It can be used if the arch is semicircular and its thickness is
constant, the maximum span of the arch is 8-10 metres, the arch is made of an
homogeneous material in order to be schematized by a rigid body, the arch is
symmetric and symmetrically loaded. The method of Mery can be applicable using
the parallelogram rule. In order to verify the part of the arch included between the
key and the springers, the arch must be subdivided in blocks of different dimensions.
Established the loads agent on each block, the resultants of loads are determined and
the thrusts line can be obtained applying the parallelogram rule again and again.
In the 1833, Moseley in the On a new principle in static called the principle of least
pressure enounced the least pressure principle for the determining the thrusts line of
the arch. In 1867 Winkler wrote a treatise on the thrusts line of the arch based on the
elasticity theory developed in those years.
14
Recently, in 1982, Heyman in The masonry arches enounced the safe theorem of the
limit analysis particularized for the masonry arches. According to him, it is necessary
to determine at least one line of thrusts contained inside the thickness of the arch to
ensure that the structure is safe. On the other hand, it is sufficient a small variation in
the position of the line of thrusts, e. g. caused by loading increase, to allow the
formation of localized cracks. As consequence, the hinges formation can occur and a
kinematical mechanism can be activate. Generally, the collapse mechanism occurs
for formation of four hinges, two at extrados and two at intrados alternatively
located.
1.2. Motivations of the research and outline of the thesis

The preservation of historical and ancient buildings and monuments requires the
definition of intervention methodologies for the maintenance and consolidation. The
definition of these methods must reflect on one hand the structural safety, on the
other hand the respect of the original structure. The masonry arch is essential and
unique in the historic heritage. Some of the consolidation techniques of masonry
arches, widely adopted in the recent years, can alter the nature and original structural
working of the arch and they also introduce extraneous elements not compatible with
the materials and traditional techniques. More recently, for the protection and
maintenance of ancient and historical buildings, the use of innovative materials, such
as composites, received great interest because of their possible advantages in terms
of low weight, simplicity of application, high strength in the fiber directions,
immunity to corrosion and reduced invasiveness. In particular, they appear
particularly indicated for the maintenance and rehabilitation of ancient structures
because they do not substantially violate the principles of the Carta di Venezia.
After the earthquakes of 1997 (Umbria and Marche), an intensive research activity
was developed for the definition of some rules for the design of the strengthening of
15
masonry arches by FRP. In 2003 the CNR, The National Council of Researches,
established that it was necessary to elaborate a text containing the instructions for the
Design and Construction of Externally Bonded FRP Systems for Strengthening
Existing Structures, in order to give to engineers the guidelines for the use of fiber-
composite materials for the reinforcement of concrete and masonry structures. In the
year 2004 a full text “CNR DT/200” was published in Italian and then in English
with the name. It could be emphasized that the DT200 is the first code in the world
which contains a Chapter completely dedicated to the use of FRP for the
strengthening of masonry structures.
The present PhD thesis is aimed to derive and to develop some simple strategies to
study the response of unreinforced and reinforced masonry arches. In particular, the
aim is to formulate simple and effective procedures that the engineers can use for the
design of the reinforcements of masonry arches, evaluating the safety of the
structure. In order to validate the effectiveness of the developed models and
procedures, an experimental campaign on un-reinforced and reinforced masonry
arches is conduced. Moreover, a more sophisticate numerical procedure, based on the
multiscale analysis, is developed.
Finally, the dissertation concerns with three macro-arguments: the experimental
program, the modeling and numerical procedures development and the multiscale
analysis.
In Chapter 2 a general overview on the modeling of masonry material is given. The
different modeling strategies are also discussed, underlining the main advantages of
each approach.
Chapter 3 analyzes the FRP properties. In particular an excursus on FRP material
“history” is made and its physical and mechanical characteristics are presented.
Chapter 4 contains the description of the experimental program. In order to
characterize the nonlinear behavior of the masonry material, the physical and
mechanical properties of masonry material constituents are investigated through
experimental test. Moreover an experimental campaigns is realized on unreinforced
16
and reinforced masonry arches. The adopted procedure for testing the arches is
described and the experimental results are discussed.
In Chapter 5 the modeling of masonry materials and FRP and the developed
numerical procedures are illustrated. In particular the masonry material is assumed as
a no-tensile material with a limited compressive strength, while the reinforcement is
considered as an linear elastic material. Two different approaches are developed: a
stress formulation, based on the complementary energy, and a displacement
formulation, characterized by the implementation of a three node beam finite element
based on the Timoshenko’s theory. Several numerical analysis are conduced in order
to validate the models and the developed numerical procedure. The numerical results
are also put in comparison with experimental results both available in literature and
obtained during the experimental campaign.
Chapter 6 illustrates a brief introduction to the multiscale methods; in particular the
domain decomposition methods are analyzed.
At the end, a summary and final conclusions, which can be deduced from this
research, are given.
17
2. MASONRY MATERIAL
2.1. Introduction
The masonry material is one of the oldest building material, as confirmed by the
historical heritage. The development of adequate stress analyses for masonry
structures represents an important task not only to verify the stability of masonry
constructions, as old buildings, historical town and monumental structures, but also
to properly design effective strengthening and repairing works. In fact, many of
masonry structures have been suffered from the accumulated effects of material
degradation, aging, overloading and foundation settlements. For this reason, the
rehabilitation and the maintenance of existing masonry structures represent an
important topic. In the years several studies have been developed related to masonry
structures, i.e. [1] - [38], mainly devoted to the development of new restoration
technologies and, moreover, to the definition of effective computational procedure
for reliable stress analyses.
It could be emphasized that the analysis of masonry structures is not simple at least
for several reasons:
the masonry material can be considered as a composite material obtained by
assembling bricks by means of mortar joints;
the masonry material presents a strongly nonlinear behavior, so that linear
elastic analyses generally cannot be considered as adequate;
the structural schemes which can be adopted for the masonry structural
analyses are more complex than that adopted for concrete or steel framed
structures, as masonry elements are often modeled by two- or three-
dimensional elements.
18
As a consequence, the behavior and the analysis of masonry structures still represent
one of the most important research field in civil engineering, receiving great attention
from the scientific and professional community; for instance, in Reference [1]
several specific problems related to the design and behavior of old and mainly new
masonry constructions are discussed.
In this chapter a brief discussion on the main aspects concerning the mechanical
behavior of the masonry material, i.e. [2] - [5], is reported.
2.2. Mechanical behavior

The mechanical behavior of the masonry material presents complex aspects due to
the fact that it is a composite material made of units of natural or artificial origin
(irregular stones, ashlars, adobes, bricks and blocks) jointed by dry or mortar joints
(commonly clay, lime or cement based mortar). The units can be jointed together
using mortar or just by simple superposition obtaining different combinations that
can be classified [6] in stone masonry and bricks masonry, as illustrated in Fig. 2.1
and Fig. 2.2, respectively.
(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 2.1: Stone masonry (a) rubble masonry, (b) ashlar masonry, (c) coursed ashlar masonry.
19
Fig. 2.2: Brick masonry, (a) common bond, (b) cross bond, (c) Flemish bond, (d) stack bond, (e)
stretcher bond.
The heterogeneity of the masonry material, which depends on the assemblage of its
constituents (brick and mortar, as previously seen), leads to a complex structural
behavior. Generally, the behavior of the masonry is intermediate between the
behavior of the brick and mortar, as shown in Fig. 2.3.
Mortar
Masonry
Brick σ
Fig. 2.3: Qualitative stress-strain diagram in uniaxial tension and compression.
In Tab. 2.1 the mechanical characteristics of the masonry constituents are reported.
20
Mortar Brick
Compression 3.0 - 30.0 6.0 - 80.0
Strength [MPa]
Tensile Strength 0.2 - 0.8 1.5 - 9.0
[MPa]
Tensile Modulus (8.0 - 20.0) (15.0 - 25.0)
[MPa] 103.0 103.0
Poisson’s coefficient 0.10 - 0.35 0.10 - 0.25
Tab. 2.1: Mortar and brick mechanical characteristics.
While the bricks properties are generally defined on the base of brick type, the
mortar mechanical properties depend strongly as much on the natural materials of
which it is constituted as on the procedures of manufacturing; indeed, the mortar
strength is influenced a lot by the binder and the dosage. According to the Italian
Code 20/11/1987 (Norme tecniche per la progettazione, esecuzione e collaudo degli
edifici in muratura e loro consolidamento) and the previous and successive rules,
four classes of mortar have been specified, as reported in Tab. 2.2.
Class Kind of Composition

Mortar Cement Common Water Sand Pozzolana
lime lime
M4 Grout - - 1 3 -
M4 Pozzolana - 1 - - 3
mortar
M4 Cement lime 1 - 2 9 -
M3 Cement lime 1 - 1 5 -
M2 Mortar of 1 - 0.5 4 -
cement
M1 Mortar of 1 - - 3 -
cement
Tab. 2.2: Mortar classes.
21
Subjected to a uniaxial load, the masonry material has a stress-strain curve that
presents a brittle failure, characterized by a compression stress failure value greater
than the tensile one, as illustrated in Fig. 2.4. In particular, it can be individuated the
following characteristic features:
compression
OA that is essentially linear; AB characterized by a nonlinear behavior,
increasing until the maximum value of the compression stress; BC,
decreasing feature with nonlinear behavior and softening;
tension
OI very short feature that has a linear behavior and IL decreasing feature.
Moreover, the point B represents the peak load and the point C represents the point
in correspondence of which the masonry material collapses in compression.
I L
O ε
Fig. 2.4: Stress - strain masonry curve.
An important feature, common to all cohesive materials, is the occurrence of

softening, which is defined as a progressive decrease of the mechanical strength
under continuous imposed displacement, after the load peak. Softening behavior is
experimentally observed in uniaxial compressive, tensile and shear failure.
22
2.3. Masonry modelling
The main problem in the development of accurate stress analysis for masonry
structures is the definition and the use of suitable material constitutive laws. In the
last twenty years several authors, (i.e. van Zijl [7], Berto et al. [8], Pietruszczak and
Ushaksaraei [9]), have proposed different modelling strategies to predict the
structural response of masonry structures and, consequently, to assess the safety level
of existing buildings.
Taking into account the heterogeneity of the masonry material, which results
composed by blocks joined by mortar beds, the models proposed in literature can be
framed in the three different classes briefly described below.
Micro-models consider the units and the mortar joints separately,
characterized by different constitutive laws; thus, the structural analysis is
performed considering each constituent of the masonry material. The
mechanical properties that characterize the models adopted for units and
mortar joints, are obtained through experimental tests conducted on the
single material components (compressive test, tension test, bending test,
etc.). This approach leads to structural analyses characterized by great
computational effort; in fact, in a finite element formulation framework,
both the unit blocks and the mortar beds have to be discretized, obtaining a
problem with a high number of nodal unknowns. Nevertheless, this
approach can be successfully adopted for reproducing laboratory tests (i.e.
Lofti and Shing [10], Giambanco and Di Gati [11], Alfano and Sacco [12]).
Micro-macro models consider different constitutive laws for the units and
the mortar joints; then, a homogenization procedure is performed obtaining
a macro-model for masonry which is used to develop the structural analysis.
Also in this case, the mechanical properties of units and mortar joints are
obtained through experimental tests. The micro-macro models appear very
appealing, as they allow to derive in a rational way the stress-strain
23
relationship of the masonry, accounting in a suitable manner for the
mechanical properties of each material component. Moreover, this approach
can lead to effective models, with reduced computational effort for a
structural analysis (i.e. Luciano and Sacco [13], Milani et al. [14], [15]). On
the other hand, the non-linear homogenization procedure required to recover
a macro model could induce some theoretical or computational difficulties
[16].
Macro-models are based on the use of phenomenological constitutive laws
for the masonry material; i.e. the stress-strain relationships adopted for the
structural analysis are derived performing tests on masonry, without
distinguishing the blocks and the mortar behaviour. A phenomenological
model could be unable to describe in a detailed manner some micro-
mechanisms occurring in the damage evolution of masonry, but it is very
effective from a computational point of view when structural analyses are
performed [17], [18].
The linear elastic model is the simplest approach to the analysis of masonry
structures. In the linear elastic model the material exhibits an infinite linear elastic
behavior, both in compression and tension. The structural response obtained under
the hypothesis of linear elastic behavior, although often not completely reliable for
ancient constructions [19], can be of great help; in fact, the linear analysis requires
few input data and it is less demanding, in terms of computer resources and
engineering time used when compared with non-linear models. Moreover, for
masonries characterized by significant tensile strength, linear analysis can provide a
reasonable description of the process leading to the crack pattern.
24
2.4. No-tension material model
Because of the very low tensile strength of many masonries with respect to the
compressive strength, a no-tension model is often adopted; it is based on the
assumption of zero the tensile strength of the material, as illustrated in Fig. 2.5,.
The no-tension material (NTM) model (i.e. [20] and [21]) leads to a realistic
approximation for the evaluation of the mechanical response of the masonry
material. In fact, the collapse mechanism of old masonry constructions is often due to
the opening of cracks in tensile zones. The use of the no-tension model allows to
compute the limit carrying load for masonry structures invoking the limit analysis
theorems.
ε
O
Fig. 2.5: Linear elastic model with no tensile strength.
The no-tension material model is based on the fundamental hypothesis that the
tensile strength is zero while it considers a linear elastic behavior in compression.
The no-tension model presents the following very special properties: a convex strain
energy function governing the stress-strain relationship exists, thus the constitutive
law results to be reversible and there is no energy dissipation for the crack formation
and evolution.
25
The question regarding the safety of the no-tension approach with respect the
fracture mechanics solution was discussed by Bazant [22], who proved that the no-
tension model is not always safe with respect to the fracture mechanics approach.
The problems considered by Bazant concern the case of fractured rocks,
characterized by the presence of a preexistent localized crack; for old masonry
structures, which present sufficiently densely distributed microcracks, the no-tension
model can be considered reliable.
The no-tension material model received and still receives great attention by many
researchers to study the behavior of old masonry structures. Indeed, the statement
”no tension material” was proposed by Zienkiewicz et al. [23] to study the behavior
of fractured rocks. Then, several studies were developed regarding the NTM from a
mechanical, i.e. [24] - [28], mathematical [29] and computational point of view,
developing displacement, i.e. [30] - [32], as well as stress and mixed variational
formulations, i.e. [33] - [35]. It could be emphasized that, although the NTM presents
and apparent simplicity, its numerical treatment is not trivial.
The assumption of a masonry linear elastic behavior in compression can be
considered adequate only when the evaluation of the load carrying capacity of the
structure occurs for a collapse mechanism accompanied by very low compressive
stresses; on the contrary, when the compression strength plays a significant role in
the evaluation of the structural collapse load, the no-tension model appears
inadequate. This case may occur, for instance, for shear masonry panels, building
walls and strengthened arches, where the presence of
the reinforcement can prevent the formation of hinges.
A first proposal of a no-tension model with limited compressive strength has been
presented in Reference [36]. The model proposed by Lucchesi and coworkers is
based on two fundamental assumptions: the stress-strain relation is again
hyperelastic, so that the crushing of the material is considered to be reversible, and
the inelastic strain in compression is always orthogonal to the fracture strain. Indeed,
the crushing strain is quite irreversible in character and it could not also be
26
orthogonal to the fracture strain, during the whole loading history. As matter of fact,
the compression failure is affected by progressive damage and inelastic irreversible
strain. In order to derive a simple and effective model, Marfia and Sacco [18]
developed a no-tension model which accounts for the inelastic behavior in
compression, considering a plasticity model which neglect the damage and softening
effects. The derived model appears appropriate for the description of the material
crushing when limited values of the compressive strain arise.
The elasto - plastic model is characterized by a first linear elastic feature OA and a
plateau with a constant stress DE, as schematically illustrated in Fig. 2.6.
Fig. 2.6: Elasto - plastic model.
A delicate point is the determination of the point D: it can be fixed to avoid to

underestimate the masonry stress and to ensure a safe state, far from point E. The
possibility to determine the collapse load of masonry and the irreversible nature of
strains in the plateau DE for cyclic load are the principal characteristics of this model
[37].
27
3. FRP COMPOSITE MATERIALS FOR
STRENGTHENING MASONRY STRUCTURES
3.1. Introduction
In the last decades the use of innovative materials, such as composites, received great
interest because of their possible advantages in terms of low weight, simplicity of
application, high strength in the fibers direction, immunity of corrosion and quite
reduced invasiveness. The use of Fiber Reinforced Polymers (FRP), that are a class
of composite materials characterized by the combination of high-strength fibers and a
matrix, is growing in the different fields of the engineering. Initially adopted for
applications in aircraft and space industries, FRP have been used in the medical,
sporting goods, automotive and small ship industries (see Fig. 3.1) due to their high
strength in the fibers direction.
Fig. 3.1: Ordinary FRP devices and appliances.
28
The greater reduction of the fibers prices, due to their increasing use and to an
optimization of the production processes, have recently concurred to their diffusion
also in the field of the civil constructions. In particular, they appear particularly
indicated for the maintenance and rehabilitation of ancient structures because they do
not substantially violate the principles of the Carta di Venezia, as they can be
considered (quite) reversible and distinguishable.
3.2. Mechanical behavior

The FRP are composite materials constituted by two phases: polymeric matrix and
high-strength fibers. The two phases are visible at microscope and they present
mechanical and geometrical properties sufficiently different, as consequence the
composite has mechanical properties different from those of the constituents ones.
The nature of every phase influences significantly the final properties of the
composite; however, in order to obtain a composite with a high mechanical
resistance, it is not sufficient to use only resistant fibers: it is also necessary to
guarantee a good adhesion between the matrix and the reinforcement. The adhesion
is usually guaranteed by the employment of a third component, called interface or
interphase, applied in a much thin layer on the surface of fibers, between fibers and
matrix, as schematically illustrated in Fig. 3.2.
29
INTERFACE
FIBER
MATRIX
Fig. 3.2: FRP phases.
The interphase, whose characteristics are fundamental for the good use of the
material in structural applications, is usually a thin and monoatomic layer. In fact, the
lack of adhesion between fiber and matrix is one of the causes of the structural
yielding of the composite materials.
The organic matrices guarantee the transfer of the stresses between the surrounding
structure and the fibers embedded in it, protecting these last ones from the
aggressions of the external agents and from mechanical hit. The matrices, more used
for the fabrication of FRP, are the polymeric ones made up of thermosetting resins.
These resins are available in shape partially polymerized and they are liquid or dense
at ambient temperature. The resins, mixed with an opportune reagent, polymerize
until becoming a vitreous solid material. The matrices have various advantages: they
are characterized by capacity of impregnation of the fibers, by optimal adhesive
properties, by good resistance to the chemical agents. Their main limitations are the
temperatures of exercise, limited from the upper by the vitreous transition
temperature, the brittle failure, the sensibility to the humidity in phase of application
on the structure. The epoxy resins are the more utilized: they have a good resistance
to the humidity and the to chemical agents and optimal adhesive property.
30
The fibers more used for composite materials employed in the applications of the
civil engineering are: glass (Fig. 3.4), carbon (Fig. 3.3), and aramidic (Fig. 3.5)
fibers.
Fig. 3.3: Carbon fibers at microscope.
Fig. 3.4: Glass fibers.
Fig. 3.5: Aramidic fiber.
The glass fibers have an elevated resistance to the corrosion, an elastic modulus
lower than those of carbon and aramidic fibers, a quite reduced resistance to the
abrasion, a discreet strength to plastic slip and to fatigue. In order to promote the
adhesion between fibers and matrix and to protect fibers from the action of the
alkaline agents and from the humidity, the fibers undergo special treatments. In the
31
operations of manipulation before the phase of impregnation great caution is
necessary. For their easy damage during the treatments, they are covered from a
protecting film that inhibit the installation of acid dioxides contained in the air,
which, otherwise, would penetrate in the microscopic voids present on the surface.
The aramidic fibers are of organic nature and they are characterized by an elevated
resistance to the manipulation operations. The modulus and the tensile strength are
intermediate between those of carbon and glass fibers, while the compressive
resistance is approximately equal to 1/8 of the tensile one. They are characterized
also by an elevated degree of anisotropy that favors the localized rupture with
consequent instability. They can be degraded for extended exposure to the solar light
and it is preferable not to use them at temperatures greater than 150°C for problems
of material oxidation. Moreover, they are sensitive to the humidity.
The carbon fibers are used for the fabrication of composite materials with elevated
performances; they are distinguished for the high modulus and resistance. They
exhibit a behavior with brittle failure. The crystalline structure of the graphite is
hexagonal, with carbon atoms organized in structures essentially planar, tied from
interaction transverse forces of van der Waals.
The precursors of carbon fibers are the polyacrylonitrile (PAN) and the Rayon fibers.
Starting from these, through a process of carbonization combined with thermal
processes and the sizing process, two types of carbon fibers are produced: the High
Strength (HS) and the High Modulus (HM).
The carbon fibers are often dealt with epoxy materials that prevent the abrasion,
increase the workability and realize a good compatibility with the matrices made up
of epoxy resins. The principal properties, as tensile modulus and tensile strength, of
some fibers used for composite materials are reported in Tab. 3.1.
32
Tensile Tensile strength Failure Coefficient of Density
modulus [Gpa] [Mpa] strain [%] thermal expansion [g/cm^3]
Fiber E-glass 72 - 80 3445 4.8 5 - 5.4 2.5 - 2.6
Fiber S-glass 85 4585 5.4 1.6 - 2.9 2.46 - 2.49
Graphite fiber (high modulus) 390 - 760 2400 - 3400 0.5 - 0.8 -1.45 1.85 - 1.9
Graphite fiber (low modulus) 240 - 280 4100 - 5100 1.6 - 1.73 -0.6 - -0.9 1.75
Aramid fiber 62 - 180 3600 - 3800 1.9 - 5.5 -2 1.44 - 1.47
Polymeric matrix 2.7 - 3.6 40 - 82 1.4 - 5.2 30 - 54 1.10 - 1.25
Steel 206 250 - 400 (yield) 20 - 30 10.4 7.8

350 - 600 (failure)
Tab. 3.1: Properties of FRP constituents.
The most common shape for the composite materials is the laminate one. The
laminates are constituted by two or more overlapped thin layers, called lamina, (see
Fig. 3.6).
x
2 x=1 X
1
1
x
2
2
Fig. 3.6: Laminate constituted by more laminas.
The main advantage of laminates is the maximum freedom in the disposition of

fibers. In each plane, the direction of fibers can be chosen in order to obtain the
desired physical and mechanical characteristics of the laminates. On the basis of the
mechanical properties that have to be conferred to the laminate, different types of
fibers can be adopted. For instance, hybrid laminates are obtained by assembling
layers of epoxy resin reinforced by aramidic and carbon fibers, or by alternating
layers of epoxy resin with aramidic or aluminum fibers. The orientation of fibers is
one of the main aspects that determines the behavior of the composite material. A
33
disposition of unidirectional fibers, as schematically illustrated in Fig. 3.7, leads to
an orthotropic response of the lamina.
Fig. 3.7: Laminate with unidirectional fibers.
With this type of disposition, the best mechanical properties is obtained in the
direction of fibers. A bidirectional disposition confers to the composite mechanical
characteristics which depends on the chosen fiber direction.
Beyond to the orientation also the length, the shape, the composition and the
percentage in volume of fibers, the mechanical properties of the resin and the
interface influence the response of the composite.
The mechanical properties (strength, strain, tension modulus) of some FRP systems
degrade in presence of determined environmental conditions, i.e. alkaline ambient,
extreme humidity, temperatures, thermal cycles.
3.2.1. Alkaline ambient effects

The pores of the material that must be reinforced content water that can degrade the
resin and the interphase. It is necessary that the resin complete the curing before the
exposition to alkaline ambient.
34
3.2.2. Humidity effects
The main effects connected to the absorption of humidity regard the resins; they are
plasticization, reduction of vitreous transition temperature, strength and stiffness
reduction. The absorption of humidity depends by the kind of resin, the composition
and number of laminas, the curing conditions, the interphase and the processing.
3.2.3. Extreme temperature and thermal cycle effects

The main effects of temperature are connected to the viscous answer of the
composite. At the service temperature of most structures, the resins are stable, but
when the temperature increases, the resin breaks down and evaporates; the composite
performances strongly decrease when the temperature exceeds the vitreous transition
one. The thermal cycle have not deleterious effects, even if they can favor the
formation of micro-fractures.
3.2.4. Frost-thaw cycles effects

The exposition to frost-thaw cycles do not influence the performance of the
composites, but can reduce those of the resin and the interphase, because of the
separation between fibers and matrix.
3.2.5. Temperature effects

The increasing of the temperature involves a gradual degradation of the mechanical
properties of composite in terms both of tensile strength and stiffness.
35
3.2.6. Viscosity and relaxation effects
In a composite material, viscosity and relaxation depend from the properties of resin
and fibers. The presence of fibers reduces the viscosity of the resin; the worse effect
occurs when the load is applied in the direction orthogonal to the fibers or when the
composite is characterized from one low percentage in volume of fibers. The
viscosity can be reduced if it is assured a low stress in exercise.
3.2.7. Fatigue effects

The performances of FRP under fatigue are very good and they are connected to the
composition of matrix. In the unidirectional composites, fibers have got little defects
and, consequently, they contrast the formation of fractures. Moreover the
propagation of eventual fractures is limited from the action explicated from the fibers
staying in the adjacent zones.
3.3. Masonry structures reinforced with FRP materials

In the last years, a significant research activities has been performed to investigate on
the possibility to adopt composite materials as reinforcement of the masonry
buildings. Starting from the earliest works, Triantafillou and Fardis [38], several
studies have been devoted to the evaluation of the advantages in terms of resistance
and ductility, for the use of FRP for the strengthening of masonry constructions.
Indeed, researches demonstrate that the use of FRP for the strengthening of masonry
structures is very effective for different structural elements as masonry panels, but
also arches and vaults.
36
Several researches have been oriented to the analysis of masonry walls reinforced by
FRP sheets or laminates, subjected to in-plane and out-of-plane loads. The possibility
of adopting FRP composites for strengthening of masonry was initially investigated
by Croci et al. [39]. They presented the results of experimental tests performed on
wall specimens reinforced by vertical FRP materials. Experimental investigations on
the use of epoxy-bonded glass fabrics were developed by Saadatmanesh [40] and by
Ehsani [41]. Luciano and Sacco [13], [42] and Marfia and Sacco [43] proposed
micromechanical models to study the behavior of masonry elements reinforced with
FRP sheets. Cecchi et al. [44] developed a homogenization technique to evaluate the
overall behavior of reinforced masonry walls.
Experimental tests, performed by Schwegler [45] and Laursen et al. [46],
demonstrated the significant improvement of the in-plane shear capacity and the
important increase of the ductility of masonry walls strengthened with FRP
laminates. Triantafillou [47] and Velazquez et al. [48] developed experimental
studies, showing that the flexural capacity of masonry walls can be drastically
increased strengthening the panels with FRP laminates. Olivito and Zuccarello [49]
presented the durability of masonry structures reinforced by FRP subjected to low
cycle fatigue.
In the last few years great interest was devoted to the reinforcement of masonry
arches and vaults, probably as a result of the recent Umbria- Marche seismic events.
In fact, aramidic fiber reinforced composites were adopted to restore the vaults of the
Basilica di S. Francesco d’Assisi [50] and the Chiesa di San Filippo Neri, in Spoleto
[51]. Como et al. [52] applied the limit analysis theorems in order to evaluate the
collapse of reinforced arches. Olivito and Stumpo [53] proposed a numerical and
experimental analysis of vaulted masonry structures subjected to moving load.
Briccoli Bati and Rovero [54] and Aiello et al. [55] developed experimental
investigations on reinforced masonry arches, emphasizing that the application of
sheets or laminates of composite materials significantly increases the strength of the
structure, modifying the collapse mechanism and the corresponding collapse load.
37
Chen [56] presented a method to calculate the limit load-bearing capacity of masonry
arch bridges strengthened with FRP. Experimental tests and finite element analyses
of masonry arches made of blocks in dry contact and reinforced by FRP materials
have been developed by Luciano et al. [57], demonstrating the effectiveness of
strengthening. Foraboschi [58] presented mathematical models for studying the
possible failure modes of masonry arches and vaults with FRP reinforcement.
Ianniruberto and Rinaldi [59] investigated on the influence of the presence of FRP to
the collapse behavior of the structure when reinforcements are placed at the extrados
or at the intrados of the arch.
It can be emphasized that the collapse of masonry elements is generally induced by
the opening of fractures due to the limited strength in tension. The presence of the
FRP reinforcement, placed in the tensile zones of the masonry structure, inhibits the
opening of the fractures; thus, a compression state can occur for bent elements, and
the failure for crushing can be activated. As a consequence, a suitable masonry
model for reinforced masonry should take into account the possibility of the collapse
for compression, i.e. a limited compressive strength for the masonry material should
be considered.
3.4. Collapse mechanism for reinforced structures

When a masonry structure is reinforced, the collapse mechanism changes with
respect to the unreinforced one. Indeed, the collapse of a reinforced masonry
structure can occur for the activation of different failures: opening of cracks in the
masonry for tensile stresses, crushing of masonry in compression, shear failure of the
masonry, decohesion of the FRP from the masonry and failure of the reinforcement,
i.e. [54], [60] and [61]. While the unreinforced masonry collapses generally for
activation of mechanisms due to the very limited tensile strength of the masonry or
for shear failure, for reinforced masonry the limited compressive strength of the
38
masonry and the delamination phenomenon can play fundamental roles in the overall
collapse of the structure.
Crushing of masonry in compression and reinforcement failure are strictly connected
to the mechanical properties of masonry and reinforcement fibers respectively, while
the decohesion phenomenon regards the interface masonry-FRP. The adhesion
between masonry and composite is a very relevant factor in the masonry
reinforcement by laminas or woven. The debonding can regard both laminas and
woven applied on the extrados or intrados surface of the reinforced element. The
understanding of the debonding mechanism is very important for the successful
application of the external FRP reinforcement; it is necessary to know when
debonding initiates and the parameters that influence it. The decohesion can be
classified in Plate-end debonding (it initiates at a plate-end and propagates inwards)
and Intermediate crack debonding (it initiates at a crack in the structure mid-span
zone and then it propagates towards the nearest zones).
39
4. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
4.1. Introduction
The experimental program was realized at LAPS, Laboratories of Structural Analysis
and Design of University of Cassino, with the collaboration of the Geolab Sud of San
Vittore del Lazio. The experimental tests were performed at the Geolab laboratory
and part of the instrumentation was supplied by them.
In order to determine the correct setup of the used instrumentation it was necessary
to perform a preliminary experimental campaign on a steel beam.
4.2. Setup and instrumentations

Several instrumentations were necessary to perform the experimental program; in
particular, the devices to determine displacements, the strain gauges, the hydraulic
jack to apply the external load, the load cells and the data acquisition system were
used. Two instruments were adopted to determine the displacements: comparators
and potentiometers.
The comparator used in the experimental program is a dial gauge; the instrument
bases its functionality on the displacement of a cylindrical rod that can be flow into a
tubular guide for a maximum value of 100 mm. It is positioned on the interested
surface, so the tracer point is in contact with the surface of the specimen subjected to
the measurement.
The potentiometer has the same performances of the dial gauge; it is composed by a
cylindrical rod that can move into a tubular guide until 100 mm. On the extremity of
40
the rod there is a magnet that fixes the potentiometer to the interested surface on
which a metallic element has been previously glued.
The load was applied by an hydraulic jack and it was measured by two electric load
cells. The load cells have a maximum value of 50 kN and 500 kN respectively; they
are constituted by an inox steel body with an electronic device that allows to convert
the mechanical tensile or compressive load into an electric signal. There is an
optional plate that allows a more homogeneous load repartition on the body cell. The
electronic device is constituted by resistive strain-gauges connected by an electric
Wheatstone bridge.
In the experimental program, two electric digital data acquisition systems, Leane and
Wshay, were used. When it is subjected to load, each load cell emits an electric
differential signal which is transmitted by a connector to the data acquisition system;
the aim of data acquisition system is the data elaborations, i.e. the conversion of the
electric signal into mechanical engineering quantities. So the data acquisition system
allows the measurement by the manual or automatic data acquisition. The Washay is
a model P3 Strain Indicator and Recorder; it is portable and alimented by battery; its
data acquisition is manual. The measurements obtained by this data acquisition
system were used to verify the correct working of the Leane data acquisition system.
Leane is a portable data acquisition system characterized by electric and battery
alimentation. The data acquisition system has seven modules and four channels for
each one; in total it is possible to have 28 acquisitions at the same time. In the
experimental program, Leane was used for the acquisition in continuous of the
potentiometers and of the cell load of 5 t. The Leane acquisitions are transmitted to a
PC by a cable and then, the results can be worked out by a software given by the
Leane.
41
4.3. Preliminary experimental campaign
This preliminary experimental campaign was necessary to validate the data
acquisition system Leane, in particular to verify that the in continuous displacements
acquisition did not depend on the potentiometers position on the data acquisition
system channel and they were not different from the displacements measured using
the comparators. It was necessary to calibrate a new load cell of 50 kN, called in the
following as small load cell. The load values of the 50 kN load cell acquired with the
Leane are in accordance with those measured by the 500 kN load cell, called in the
following as great load cell, acquired with the Wshay. The specimen of preliminary
tests campaign was a steel beam and the tests were organized in TEST A
(potentiometer calibration and displacement acquisition crosscheck), TEST B (small
load cell calibration) and TEST C (small load cell acquisition by Leane crosscheck).
TEST A
The aim of the test A was the potentiometers calibration and the crosscheck of the
correct displacements acquisition obtained by the potentiometer connection to the
different channels of Leane.
The potentiometers were connected to data acquisition system Leane to have the
displacements in correspondence of each load variation, in continuous. As previously
seen, with Leane it is possible to have 28 acquisitions; the steel beam was subjected
to 6 load cycles, called Test 1, Test 2, Test 3, Test 4, Test 5 and Test 6, characterized
by the same load steps. In every load cycle, the potentiometer position on the data
acquisition system module was changed to validate the different acquisitions
obtained for every module and to validate the acquisitions obtained for every
different channel of each module.
In the Test A it can be pointed out that the difference between the various
displacement acquisitions is in all the cases lower than 0.1 mm. The channel 4 of the
42
module 1 does not work. The difference between the displacement values registered
by potentiometers and comparators is satisfactory.
TEST B
This campaign had the aim to calibrate the new small load cell. It was possible to put
in comparison the acquisitions obtained from the small load cell and the acquisitions
obtained by the great load cell, both connected with the data acquisition system
Wshay.
The maximum error of test resulted equal to 1%; thus, it can be pointed out that the
new small cell works in good accordance with the normalized great one.
TEST C
This campaign had the aim to verify the correct functionality of the small cell
connected with the data acquisition system Leane.
The Test C puts in evidence that the difference between the manual and automatic
acquisition of the load is, on average, lower than 2%.
43
4.4. Materials used in the experimental program
The determination of the physical and mechanical properties of the materials used in
the experimental program is necessary to understand the behavior of reinforced
masonry arches. In the following the properties of the masonry material constituents
and of the reinforcement are presented.
The masonry material is composed by standard clay bricks and mixed mortar. At
LAPS, Laboratories of Structural Analysis and Design of University of Cassino, with
the collaboration of the Geolab Sud of San Vittore del Lazio, an experimental
program both on standard clay brick and mortar was performed.
For what concerns the reinforcement, it is composed by carbon fibers and epoxy
matrix and their properties were given by the manufacturer.
4.5. Standard clay brick

In the experimental program, standard clay bricks (Fig. 4.1) were used.
Fig. 4.1: Standard clay brick.
44
In order to determine its main mechanical properties, the standard clay brick was
subjected to several experimental tests. In particular, a cubic compressive test, an
indirect shear test and a test to individuate the elastic secant modulus were
performed.
4.5.1. Cubic compressive test

Standard clay brick cubic specimens were prepared in order to determinate the
compressive strength, in accordance with UNI 8942/3. This code gives the guidelines
for the determination of the unitary load of compressive failure strength, that has to
be determined on a fixed number of specimens with prefixed geometric
characteristics. According to the code, the tests have to be performed on cubic
specimens with orthogonal faces and parallel plane of the bedding plane, as
Fig. 4.2: Cubic specimen extrapolated by standard clay brick.
The specimens were located on the Galdabini SUN 60 that is a universal testing
machine with a 600 kN nominal capacity, used in displacement control. A series of
pre-loading tests finalized to set the machine and to position the specimens into its
slabs were realized before the compressive test. The failure load was obtained from
45
the yielding load of every specimen. Then the other parameters necessary to
characterize the test results were determined:
average compressive strength:
∑f bi
fb = i =1
(4.1)
n
where fbi is the result of the single test and n is the number of test results;
standard deviation:
∑( f − fbi )
n 2
b
s= i =1
(4.2)
n
variation coefficient:
s
cv = (4.3)
fb
characteristic value:
fbk = f b (1 − kcv ) (4.4)
where k is the fractile coefficient, fixed by normative in function of the number of

tested specimens.
The compressive test was realized on 6 cubic specimens extracted by one of the
series of the standard clay brick; their dimensions are reported in Tab. 4.1.
46
Specimen Deep Length Heigth
[number] [mm] [mm] [mm]
1 55 56 55
2 55 55 54
3 56 55 55
4 55 55 55
5 55 55 54
6 55 55 55
Tab. 4.1: Specimens size.
A carton layer was interposed at the top of the specimen in order to distribute the
compressive stress. The specimen was allocated into the press, Fig. 4.3.
Fig. 4.3: Specimen positioning.
The specimen was subjected to an axial load acting perpendicular to the bedding
plane until its failure, Fig. 4.4.
47
Fig. 4.4: Typical failure of the specimen.
The failure load and the compressive strength were determined for each specimen, as
reported in Tab. 4.2
Specimen Area Failure Compressive

[number] [mm2] load [kN] strength (fb)
[kN/mm2]
1 3080 127.883 0.0415
2 3025 107.918 0.0357
3 3080 125.144 0.0406
4 3025 104.944 0.0347
5 3025 110.894 0.0366
6 3025 126.239 0.0417
Tab. 4.2: Compressive test results.
The considered specimens exhibited a hourglass failure, Fig. 4.5, not perfectly
symmetrical because of the heterogeneous nature of the bricks.
48
Fig. 4.5: Hourglass specimens failure.
The characteristic compressive strength was determined, using equations (4.1), (4.2),
(4.3) and (4.4) and in accordance with the code for which k=2.33 if n=6; the results
are reported in Tab. 4.3.
Average compressive Standard deviation Variation Characteristic

strength [N/mm2] [N/mm2] coefficient compressive strength
(fbk) [N/mmq]
38.5 7.47 0.23 14.9
Tab. 4.3: Characteristic compressive strength.
4.5.2. Indirect tensile test

The indirect tensile test was realized in accordance with UNI 8942/3, which gives the
guidelines for the determination of the yielding load of specimens subjected to a
uniform load applied on the middle surface of the specimen, as schematically
49
F
Fig. 4.6: Indirect tensile test scheme.
The code prescribes that this test has to be performed on specimens with a low
drilling percentage (the limit is fixed at 30%). The test was performed using the
Galdabini SUN 60 and it was executed with constant load increments until the
failure. In order to diffuse the load two steel beam, whose dimensions were fixed by
the code, were interposed between the specimen faces and the steel plates of the
machine, as illustrated in Fig. 4.7.
Fig. 4.7: In direct tensile test particular.
The indirect tensile test was realized on 6 specimens whose dimensions are reported
in Tab. 4.4.
50
Specimen Deep Length Heigth
[number] [mm] [mm] [mm]
1 117 255 55
2 117 255 55
3 117 255 55
4 117 255 55
5 117 255 55
6 117 255 55
Tab. 4.4: Specimen dimensions.
Initially a pre-loading was imposed to setup the Galdabini SUN 60 , then the constant
load increments were applied. Each specimen was subjected to compression load up
to failure. The failure occurred along the direction of load application considering the
front view, as represented in Fig. 4.8.
Fig. 4.8: Specimen failure.
Analogously to the compressive test, the following quantities were determined:

average tensile strength
mean deviation
variation coefficient
characteristic value.
The indirect tensile strength was determined for each specimen by formula:
51
2t
fv = (4.5)
π bh
where t is the external applied load in Newton; h and b are the specimen height and
length respectively, expressed in mm.
The failure load and the indirect tensile strength were determined for each specimen,
as reported in Tab. 4.5.
Specimen Area Failure Indirect tensile

[number] [mm2] load strength (fv)
[kN] [kN/mm2]
1 14025 38816 3.84
2 14025 31800 3.15
3 14025 45008 4.45
4 14025 24739 2.45
5 14025 37841 3.75
6 14025 30543 3.02
Tab. 4.5: Indirect tensile test results.
The characteristic indirect tensile strength was computed and the results are reported
in Tab. 4.6.
Average indirect tensile Mean deviation Variation Characteristic indirect

strength [N/mm2] [N/mm2] coefficient tensile strength (fvk)
[N/mm2]
3.44 0.71 0.21 1.79
Tab. 4.6: Characteristic indirect tensile strength.
52
4.5.3. Elastic secant modulus
In order to evaluate the elastic secant modulus a test was realized in accordance with
the prescription of UNI 6556 rule. The specimens extrapolated by standard clay
bricks were prismatic; in fact, the rule prescribes that the tests has to be performed on
cylindrical or prismatic with square base specimens. The test was realized using the
universal testing machine Galdabini SUN 60.
In order to evaluate the elastic secant modulus, the code prescribes the use of 3 + 3
specimens. In particular, 3 specimens were used for evaluating the compressive
strength, and the others 3 to determine the elastic secant modulus. The test was
organized in two phases.
During the first phase, 3 specimens were obtained by standard clay brick and their
size was 5x5x15 cm. Each specimen was allocated into the universal testing machine
and it was loaded until its compressive load failure, as represented in Fig. 4.9.
Fig. 4.9: Positioning into the universal testing machine of the reference specimen.
The average failure load value of the i-th set of specimens was determined as:
53
3
∑N
j =1
f
j
N if = (4.6)
3
After this test, the load values representing the extremes of the loading-unloading
cycles were determined using the average failure load values, recovered by equation
1 i
(4.6). In accordance with the UNI 6556 rule, the maximum load is N 3 = N f , the
3
1 ⎛ N + 2 N0 ⎞
base load is N 0 = N 3 and the intermediate loads are N1 = ⎜ 3 ⎟ and
10 ⎝ 3 ⎠
N 2 = ( 2 N1 − N 0 ) . Consequently the load cycles are defined as
cycle 1: N 0 → N1 → N 0 , cycle 2: N 0 → N 2 → N 0 and cycle 3: N 0 → N 3 → N 0 .

In the second phase, further 3 specimens were tested. The bricks for evaluating the
elastic secant modulus were prepared. The brick surface was cleaned and the area,
where the strain-gauge were applied, was dry sanded, removing all the eventually
incrustations, as illustrated in Fig. 4.10.
Fig. 4.10: Brick surface preparation.
54
In order to simplify the strain-gauge application, guidelines were traced on the brick
surface; then the resin was applied, as represented in Fig. 4.11, and the strain-gauge
was positioned along the guidelines previously traced, as illustrated in Fig. 4.12.
Fig. 4.11: Resin application.
Fig. 4.12: Strain-gauge application.
Each specimen was allocated into the universal testing machine and all the strain-
gauge was connected with the data acquisition system. The load cell also was
connected to the data acquisition system to know the applied load at each loading
step, as represented in Fig. 4.13.
55
Fig. 4.13: Specimen positionating.
For every specimen the elastic secant modulus was determined. The procedure can
be schematically described as:
1. the base load N0 was fixed;
2. the base mean strain ε 0 was determined;
3. the maximum load of the cycle Ni was fixed;
4. loading phase was performed: N 0 → N i ;
5. the mean strain ε i in correspondence of the maximum load was determined;
6. unloading phase was performed: N i → N 0 ;
σi −σ0
7. the elastic secant modulus was determined as Es = where
εi − ε0
Ni N
σi = , σ 0 = 0 and A is the specimen base area.
A A
The results elaboration for all the specimens are reported in Tab. 4.7, Tab. 4.8 and
Tab. 4.9.
56
Ni σi Δσ ε Δε Es Es
[N] [N/mm2] [N/mm2] [N/mm2] [N/mm2]
4150 1.6600 0.000087
16740 6.6960 5.0360 0.000351 0.000264 19075.7576
4230 1.6920 0.000098
4230 1.6920 0.000098
28350 11.3400 9.6480 0.000616 0.000518 18625.4826 18529.5551
4330 1.7320 0.000112
4330 1.7320 0.000112
41670 16.6680 14.9360 0.000947 0.000835 17887.4251
4230 1.6920 0.000110
Tab. 4.7: Results elaboration for specimen 1.
2 2 2
[N] [N/mm ] [N/mm ] [N/mm ] [N/mm2]
4110 1.6440 0.000163
16510 6.6040 4.9600 0.000520 0.000357 13893.5574
4150 1.6600 0.000182
4150 1.6600 0.000182
28610 11.4440 9.7840 0.000912 0.000730 13402.7397 13486.40448
4070 1.6280 0.000191
4070 1.6280 0.000191
40630 16.2520 14.6240 0.001302 0.001111 13162.9163
4030 1.6120 0.000192
2 2 2
[N] [N/mm ] [N/mm ] [N/mm ] [N/mm2]
4090 1.6360 0.000113
16230 6.4920 4.8560 0.000407 0.000294 16517.0068
4090 1.6360 0.000117
4090 1.6360 0.000117
27420 10.9680 9.3320 0.000669 0.000552 16905.7971 16786.7196
4130 1.6520 0.000115
4130 1.6520 0.000115
40630 16.2520 14.6000 0.000977 0.000862 16937.3550
4070 1.6280 0.000113
57
The elastic secant modulus of standard clay brick was obtained as the average value
of the elastic secant modulus of every specimen and it is Es ≅ 16000 N / mm 2 .
58
4.6. Mortar
The mortar used to realize the three arches belongs to the M3 class, in accordance
with the Italian Code Ministerial Decree of 20/11/1987. The mortar is constituted by:
2800 g of pozzolana;
933 g of lime, Calcisernia, Contrada Tiegno, Isernia;
800 g of pozzolanico cement Duracem 32.5 R, Colleferro, Roma;
1.66 l of water.
In literature this mortar is classified as mixed because it is constituted by two
binders: cement and lime.
4.6.1. Compressive tests

The specimens were realized with the mortar described previously. Three specimens
of 40x40x160 mm3 were prepared using a normalized sand, as represented in Fig.
4.14.
Fig. 4.14: Preparation of mortar.
59
The mortar was prepared by mechanical mixing and successively compacted using a
normalized vibrating device as illustrated in Fig. 4.15.
Fig. 4.15: Device to mix the mortar and normalized vibrating device.
After 28 days of seasoning, the specimens were subjected to a bending test. The
specimen was allocated into the universal testing machine with a lateral face on the
support rollers and the longitudinal axis orthogonal to the supports. The vertical load
was applied on the specimen lateral face and it was uniformly increased with a
maximum ratio of 20 Kg / cm 2 s until the failure, as represented in Fig. 4.16.
60
Fig. 4.16: Bending failure of mortar specimen.
In this way two semi-prismatic specimens were obtained and they were successively
subjected to the compressive test.
In order to determine the compressive behavior of the mortar, the semi-prismatic
specimen was tested, as shown in Fig. 4.17.
Fig. 4.17: Compressive test: test setup and typical compressive failure.
61
The tests were performed with the universal testing machine Galdabini SUN 60 and
the results are reported in Tab. 4.10.
Specimen 1 2 3
Size [cm] 4x4x16 4x4x16 4x4x16
Weigth [g] 432.4 430.6 430.5
Compressive strength
4.8094 4.7038 4.7438 4.7675 4.6219 4.7975
[N/mm2]
Tab. 4.10: Mortar compressive strength.
4.6.2. Elastic secant modulus

The elastic secant modulus of the mortar was carried out. The procedure was exactly
the same that was realized for the standard clay brick. Three reference specimens for
each mixture were tested. Therefore, the final results are schematically reported in
Tab. 4.11 and Tab. 4.12 for the mixtures one, two and three and for mixtures four,
five and six, respectively.
62
ε0 N0 εi Ni ε0s N0s εp εe E Em0 E
Cycle
[10^-6] [N] [10^-6] [N] [10^-6] [N] [10^-6] [10^-6] [N/mm^2] [N/mm^2] [N/mm^2]
-79.67 420.00 -258.67 1690.00 -88.00 420.00 -8.33 -250.33 3170.77
Cycle 1 3137.54
-88.00 420.00 -266.67 1690.00 -103.00 440.00 -15.00 -251.67 3104.30
Mixture 1
-103.00 440.00 -475.67 3020.00 -137.33 420.00 34.33 -510.00 3186.27
Cycle 2 3242.20 3229
-137.33 420.00 -502.33 3000.00 -158.33 460.00 -21.00 -481.33 3298.13
-150.67 440.00 -699.00 4230.00 -183.00 420.00 32.33 -731.33 3256.04

Cycle 3 3308.49
-183.00 420.00 -754.00 4290.00 -217.33 420.00 -34.33 -719.67 3360.93
-58.67 420.00 -247.67 1690.00 -83.00 420.00 -24.33 -223.33 3554.10
Cycle 1 3377.97
-83.00 420.00 -244.33 1690.00 -83.33 440.00 -0.33 -244.00 3201.84
Mixture 2
-83.33 420.00 -463.33 3060.00 -139.33 400.00 -56.00 -407.33 4081.42

Cycle 2 3752.33 3563
-139.33 400.00 -500.33 3060.00 -157.67 420.00 -18.33 -482.00 3423.24
-157.67 420.00 -713.67 4310.00 -223.00 420.00 -65.33 -648.33 3750.00

Cycle 3 3557.91
-223.00 420.00 -747.67 4310.00 -248.33 420.00 -25.33 -722.33 3365.83
-67.00 420.00 -283.50 1670.00 -74.50 420.00 -7.50 -276.00 2830.62
Cycle 1 -74.50 420.00 -269.50 1670.00 -80.50 420.00 -6.00 -263.50 2964.90 2885.74
-80.50 420.00 -283.00 1670.00 -90.50 420.00 -10.00 -273.00 2861.72
Mixture 3
-90.50 420.00 -500.50 2840.00 -101.50 420.00 -11.00 -489.50 3089.89 3061
Cycle 2 3144.63
-101.50 420.00 -514.00 2840.00 -142.75 420.00 -41.25 -472.75 3199.37
-142.75 420.00 -777.50 4230.00 -212.75 420.00 -70.00 -707.50 3365.72

Cycle 3 3153.22
-212.75 420.00 -847.00 4230.00 -250.00 420.00 -37.25 -809.75 2940.72
Tab. 4.11: Results elaboration for mortar specimen 1.
ε0 N0 εi Ni ε0s N0s εp εe E Em0 E

Cycle
[10^-6] [N] [10^-6] [N] [10^-6] [N] [10^-6] [10^-6] [N/mm^2] [N/mm^2] [N/mm^2]
-82.33 420.00 -330.67 1630.00 -95.00 420.00 -12.67 318.00 2378.14
Cycle 1 2316.68
-95.00 420.00 -348.67 1630.00 -108.33 420.00 -13.33 335.33 2255.22
Mixture 4
-108.33 420.00 -570.00 2820.00 -137.00 420.00 -28.67 541.33 2770.94

Cycle 2 -137.00 420.00 -574.67 2820.00 -137.00 420.00 0.00 574.67 2610.21 2690.57 2688
-137.00 420.00 -774.67 4130.00 -175.67 420.00 -38.67 736.00 3150.48

Cycle 3 3055.92
-175.67 420.00 -806.33 4130.00 -199.00 420.00 -23.33 783.00 2961.37
-69.33 420.00 -299.67 1590.00 -98.33 420.00 -29.00 270.67 2701.66
Cycle 1 2658.97
-98.33 420.00 -296.00 1590.00 -114.83 420.00 -16.50 279.50 2616.28
Mixture 5
-114.83 420.00 -518.67 2820.00 -135.67 420.00 -20.83 497.83 3013.06

Cycle 2 2963.78 2880
-135.67 420.00 -533.00 2820.00 -154.00 420.00 -18.33 514.67 2914.51
-154.00 420.00 -774.67 4110.00 -184.00 420.00 -30.00 744.67 3097.02

Cycle 3 3018.08
-184.00 420.00 -784.67 4110.00 -184.00 420.00 0.00 784.67 2939.15
-59.33 420.00 -243.33 1650.00 -67.83 420.00 -8.50 -234.83 3273.60
Cycle 1 3194.02
-67.83 420.00 -256.00 1650.00 -77.00 420.00 -9.17 -246.83 3114.45
Mixture 6
-77.00 420.00 -436.67 2860.00 -108.00 420.00 -31.00 -405.67 3759.24

Cycle 2 3617.56 3367
-108.00 420.00 -473.33 2880.00 -139.00 460.00 -31.00 -442.33 3475.89
-139.00 460.00 -741.67 4110.00 -232.67 440.00 -93.67 -648.00 3520.45

Cycle 3 3288.71
-232.67 440.00 -781.00 4110.00 -263.33 420.00 -30.67 -750.33 3056.97
Tab. 4.12: Results elaboration for mortar specimen 2.
The mortar elastic secant modulus results equal to Es ≅ 3100 N/mm 2 .
63
4.7. Reinforcement material
In this experimental program the used reinforcement system is the woven SikaWrap-
300C NW. It is constituted by carbon fibers impregnated on-site with an epoxy resin
of type SikaDur 330.
The woven was chosen because it can be easily adapted to the curvilinear surface of
the arch. On the lateral surfaces the woven has a thin texture, that safeguards the
fibers stability during the application process, made of thermoplastic material, as
shown in Fig. 4.18.
Fig. 4.18: SikaWrap-300C NW
The fibers of the woven are unidirectional. In the following the properties of
unidirectional carbon fiber provided by the manufacturer are reported.
64
65
66
The epoxy resin SikaDur 330 was used both as adhesive to the masonry arch and as
matrix. The resin is constituted by two-component, it is 100% solid and grey color.
The properties of the resin are reported below.
67
68
4.8. Experimental test on the arches
The experimental campaign on masonry arches was conduced on a set of two arches
having the same geometrical characteristics and realized with the same materials.
The aims of this campaign is the evaluation of the mechanical response of
unreinforced and reinforced arches. In particular, the main aim is the validation of
the numerical model developed to individuate the behavior of the masonry arch
reinforced by FRP.
4.9. Arch laying

The arch was realized using the standard clay brick and mixed mortar previously
seen. The laying of the arch was at LAPS, Laboratories of Structural Analysis and
Design of University of Cassino, with the collaboration of Geolab Sud of San Vittore
del Lazio.
The reference arch is an incomplete circular arch with the abutment angle Φ = 8o , the
mean radius of 516 mm, a cross section of 120x250 mm2. It is loaded with a vertical
increasing force applied in correspondence of the brick number 14, as schematically
69
F
11 12 13 14
9 10 15
8 16
7 17
6 18
5 19
4 20
3 21
2 22
r
1 23
O X
Y
Fig. 4.19: Reference arch.
The first step was the construction of a steel centering, Fig.4.20 and in Fig. 4.21.
Fig.4.20: Arch centering.
Fig. 4.21: Geometrical characteristics of centering.
70
The centering was positioned on a temporary support. The standard clay bricks were
embedded in water and then they were put on the centering. Initially, the bricks at the
extremities were positioned. Then, the springs were constrained, Fig. 4.22.
Fig. 4.22: Constraint of the springs.
The mortar was mixed and the others bricks were positioned on the centering, spaced
out by mortar joints, Fig.4.23
Fig.4.23: Construction of the arch.
When the last brick was posed, the external surface of the arch was polished to
eliminate the eventual excessive mortar. The realized arch was seasoned for 28 days.
71
4.10. Arch preparation
The arch was positioned under the steel frame for the test. The springers were
clamped. All the bricks were numbered from left to right. The instrumentation was
positioned on the arch: the displacements acquisition was obtained by comparators
and potentiometers, the applied load was read by load cells and all the data were
registered by the data acquisition system Leane. In particular the potentiometer p2
(p_c) and p3 (p_c_o) were positioned at the arch key, in vertical and horizontal
direction, respectively. The potentiometer p4 (p_f) was positioned in correspondence
of the loaded section., with a vertical direction. Moreover two comparators were
utilized, one in correspondence of the arch key (c_c), one in correspondence of the
force application (c_f), as schematically illustrated in Fig. 4.24, in Fig. 4.25 and in
Fig. 4.26.
Fig. 4.24: Arch front and back view.
72
Fig. 4.25: Arch extrados view.
Fig. 4.26: Displacements measurement system.
The load was applied by the hydraulic jack. On the surface of brick number 14 a
plate was applied in order to make easier the positioning of the load cell and the
application of the external load; for the unreinforced arch the small cell was used.
The applied load and the displacements were acquired in continuous by their
connection to the data acquisition system Leane. Moreover for every loading cycle
the displacement values, at each fixed loading step, were acquired by both the
potentiometers and comparators in order to validate the reliability of the data.
73
4.11. Experimental campaign: Arch 1
Three loading-unloading cycles, called Cycle I, II and III respectively, were
performed applying the external load by the hydraulic jack in correspondence of the
brick number 14. Two loading-unloading cycles, called Cycle IV and V respectively,
were performed applying the external load by a normalized set of weights. The
displacements were acquired by potentiometers and comparators and the applied load
intensity was determined by the small cell. Summarizing, the test organization was
been the following:
cycle I: external load applied by the hydraulic jack;
cycle II: external load applied by the hydraulic jack;
cycle III: external load applied by the hydraulic jack;
cycle IV: external load applied by normalized set of weights;
cycle V: external load applied by normalized set of weights.
Cycle I.
During the first cycle the following hinges opening occurred:
hinge at the extrados between bricks 13-14, interface 14, in correspondence
of a load value equal to F ≅ 350 N ;
hinge at the intrados between bricks 8-9, interface 8, in correspondence of a
load value equal to F ≅ 400 N ;
hinge at the extrados between bricks 1-2, interface 1, in correspondence of a
hinge at the intrados between bricks 18-19, interface 18, in correspondence
of a load value equal to F ≅ 550 N .
74
Fig. 4.27: Arch 1, cycle I, experimental test.
Fig. 4.28: Arch 1, cycle I, hinges formation.
Cycle II and Cycle III.

During the second and the third cycle the opening of hinges occurred in
correspondence of an applied load lower than in the first cycle. The first cycle peak
load equal to FPL ≅ 600 N decreased in the cycle II and cycle III to a value close to
400N . This reduction is due to a significant reduction of masonry tensile strength.
Cycle IV and cycle V.

Those cycles were done to verify the acquisition in continuous of the applied load
intensity; therefore the load was applied by a normalized set of weights.
75
Fig. 4.29: Arch 1, cycle IV.
The limit load reached during the cycle IV was the same of the value obtained in the
second and third cycle. In the cycle V the collapse mechanism occurred applying a
load greater than 450N .
Fig. 4.30: Arch 1, cycle V, collapse mechanism.
4.11.1. Collapse mechanism description

The collapse mechanism occurred consequently to the hinges formation. The hinges
formation occurred in the points where the pressure curve overlaps the arch intrados
or extrados, as schematically reported in Fig. 4.31.
76
Fig. 4.31: Arch 1, hinges formation scheme.
The hinges opening deternined the subdivision of the arch in blocks. The arch
collapse mechanism was characterized by the displacements of the blocks, as
schematically illustrated in Fig. 4.32 and in . Fig. 4.33.
Fig. 4.32: Arch 1, collapse mechanism scheme.
77
Fig. 4.33: Arch 1, cycle V, particular of the collapse mechanism.
4.11.2. Load-displacements curves

The cycles I, II and III were acquired in continuous by the data acquisition system
Leane and the acquired data are reported in Fig. 4.34.
-700.00
Cycle I
Cycle II
-600.00 Cycle III
-500.00
-400.00
F [N]
-300.00
-200.00
-100.00
0.00 240.00 480.00 720.00 960.00 1200.00 1440.00 1680.00

0.00
t [s]
Fig. 4.34: Arch 1, loading-unloading cycles.
78
The kinematical mechanism was confirmed by the data acquired by potentiometers.
In Fig. 4.35 and in Fig. 4.36 the load-displacement curves relative to the arch key are
reported.
-700.00
Cycle I
Cycle II
-600.00
Cycle III
-500.00
-400.00
F[N]
-300.00
-200.00
-100.00
2.40 2.20 2.00 1.80 1.60 1.40 1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00
0.00
w [mm]
Fig. 4.35: Arch 1, load-displacement curve for the horizontal key displacements.
79
-700.00
Cycle I
Cycle II
Cycle III -600.00
-500.00
-400.00
F [N]
-300.00
-200.00
-100.00
2.40 2.20 2.00 1.80 1.60 1.40 1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00
0.00
v [mm]
Fig. 4.36: Arch 1, load-displacement curve for the vertical key displacements.
A pushing action, characterized by a counter-clockwise spin and a vertical

displacement towards the bottom, was exercised by the block 1 on the arch. This
displacement was read by the potentiometer connected with the point in which the
load was applied. In Fig. 4.37 the load-displacement curves relative to the vertical
displacements of the point in which the load was applied are reported.
80
-700.00
Cycle I
Cycle II
-600.00 Cycle III
-500.00
-400.00
F [N]
-300.00
-200.00
-100.00
0.00 -0.50 -1.00 -1.50 -2.00 -2.50 -3.00 -3.50 -4.00 -4.50 -5.00 -5.50 -6.00 -6.50
0.00
v [mm]
Fig. 4.37: Arch 1, load-displacement curve for the vertical displacements

in correspondence with the point in which the load has been applied.
The cycle I presents a peak load greater than the others cycles, as illustrated in Fig.
4.37. This reduction of the peak load could be a consequence of the decrease of the
masonry tensile strength from the cycle I to the last one.
In order to validate the potentiometers acquisitions, the measurements read by
comparators were put in comparison with the measurements registered by the data
acquisition system Leane, obviously in the same loading condition. The acquired
data are reported in Tab. 4.13 and Tab. 4.14.
F p_c c_c v_p_c v_c_c D_c p_f c_f v_p_f v_c_f D_f Error_p_c Error_p_f
[N] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm]
0.00 74.73 25.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 53.04 19.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
196.12 74.70 25.52 -0.03 -0.01 0.02 52.89 19.22 -0.15 -0.13 0.02 0.67 0.13
294.18 74.72 25.54 -0.01 0.01 0.02 52.74 19.05 -0.30 -0.30 0.00 2.00 0.00
392.24 74.77 25.62 0.04 0.09 0.05 52.59 18.88 -0.45 -0.47 0.02 1.25 0.04
490.30 74.81 25.67 0.08 0.14 0.06 52.51 18.78 -0.53 -0.57 0.04 0.75 0.08
588.36 74.89 25.82 0.16 0.29 0.13 52.30 18.55 -0.74 -0.80 0.06 0.81 0.08
Tab. 4.13: Arch 1, Cycle I, potentiometers and comparators data.
81
F p_c c_c v_p_c v_c_c D_c p_f c_f v_p_f v_c_f D_f Error_p_c Error_p_f
[N] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm]
0.00 25.81 74.97 0.00 0.00 0.00 18.86 52.64 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
137.28 25.81 74.97 0.00 0.00 0.00 18.76 52.57 -0.10 -0.07 0.03 0.00 0.30
196.12 25.82 74.95 0.01 -0.02 0.03 18.60 52.41 -0.26 -0.23 0.03 3.00 0.12
294.18 25.86 75.00 0.05 0.03 0.02 18.44 52.28 -0.42 -0.36 0.06 0.40 0.14
392.24 25.96 75.05 0.15 0.08 0.07 18.07 51.95 -0.79 -0.69 0.10 0.47 0.13
490.30 26.14 75.50 0.33 0.53 0.20 17.13 51.13 -1.73 -1.51 0.22 0.61 0.13
Tab. 4.14: Arch 1, cycle II, potentiometers and comparators data.
The errors in the displacements evaluation decreases with the increase of the
displacement values. The potentiometer under the arch key p_c makes an error
greater than the error made by potentiometer p_f because the achieved measurement
and the error of the instrument have the same order of magnitude.
82
4.12. Experimental campaign: Arch 2
Three loading-unloading cycles, called cycle I, II and III respectively, were carried
out applying the external load by the hydraulic jack connected with the brick number
14. The displacements were acquired by potentiometers and comparators; indeed the
applied load intensity was acquired by the small cell. Summarizing, the test
organization was the following:
cycle I: external load applied by the hydraulic jack;
cycle II: external load applied by the hydraulic jack;
cycle III: external load applied by the hydraulic jack.
Cycle I.
During this cycle the following hinges opening occurred:
hinge at the extrados between bricks 13-14, interface 14, in correspondence
of a load value equal to F ≅ 400 N ;
hinge at the intrados between bricks 7-8, interface 7, in correspondence of a
hinge at the extrados between bricks 1-2, interface 1, in correspondence of

a load value equal to F ≅ 500 N ;
hinge at the intrados between bricks 19-20, interface 20, in correspondence
of a load value equal to F ≅ 550 N .
83
Fig. 4.38: Arch 2, cycle I, experimental test.
Fig. 4.39: Arch 2, cycle I, hinges formation.
Cycle II and cycle III.

During the second and the third cycle the opening of the hinges occurred in
correspondence of an applied load lower than in the first cycle one. The peak load
decreased significantly from the value equal to FPL ≅ 550 N obtained in the first
cycle to a value equal to 450N obtained in the third cycle.

The hinges formation determined the arch subdivision in blocks. The collapse
mechanism occurred for relative displacements between the blocks. During the test
the same collapse mechanism, characterizing the Arch 1, occurred: the raising of the
second and third block, contrasting the pushing action towards the bottom.
84
4.12.2. Load-displacements curves
The load related to cycles I, II and III were acquired in continuous by the data
acquisition system Leane and the acquired data are reported in Fig. 4.40.
-700
Cycle I
-600
CycleII
Cycle III
-500
-400
-300
F [N]
-200
-100
0 240 480 720 960 1200 1440 1680 1920 2160 2400 2640 2880 3120
0
t [s]
Fig. 4.40: Arch 2, loading-unloading cycles.
In Fig. 4.41 and in Fig. 4.42 the load-displacement curves relative to the arch key are
reported.
85
-600
Cycle I
Cycle II
Cycle III -500
-400
-300
F [N]
-200
-100
2.00 1.80 1.60 1.40 1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00
0
100
w [mm]
Fig. 4.41: Arch 2, load-displacement curve for the horizontal key displacements.
-600
Cycle I
Cycle II -500
Cycle III
-400
-300
F [N]
-200
-100
1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00

0
100
v [mm]
Fig. 4.42: Arch 2, load-displacement curve for the vertical key displacements.
In Fig. 4.43 the load-displacement curves relative to the vertical displacements in the
point in which the load was applied are reported.
86
-630
Cycle I
CycleII
-530 Cycle III
-430
-330
F [N]
-230
-130
0.00-30 -0.50 -1.00 -1.50 -2.00 -2.50 -3.00 -3.50 -4.00 -4.50 -5.00 -5.50 -6.00 -6.50 -7.00 -7.50
70
v [mm]
Fig. 4.43: Arch 2, load-displacement curve for the vertical displacements

in correspondence with the point in which the load has been applied.
Because of the decrease of the masonry tensile strength, the peak load of the cycle I
is greater than the one obtained in the others cycles, as illustrated in Fig. 4.43.
87
4.13. Experimental campaign: Reinforced arch
The experimental campaign on reinforced arches was performed only on the arch 2
because of the ominous collapse of the arch 1.
The instrumentations used for the experimental test on the reinforced arch was the
same used for the unreinforced arches.
4.13.1. Application of the FRP reinforcement

The FRP application was executed according to the codes (ACI 1999, fib TG 9.3
2001, JSCE 2001, etc.). The main phases of the reinforcement application were the
following:
Surface preparation: the surface where the reinforcement was applied was
suitable prepared. The arch surface was cleaned in order to remove every
imperfection present on it and every contamination of chemical nature.
Subsequently, it was necessary to fill the surface of the arch in order to
render it flat; when the FRP was applied on the arch surface, it was
completely clean, free from fats and oils and dry. At the end, the guides
lines to install the FRP were traced. In order to avoid that the epoxy resin
strewed over all the extrados surface, an adhesive tape was applied; it
delimited the field of reinforcement application (Fig. 4.44).
88
Fig. 4.44: Surface preparation.
Epoxy resin preparation: the epoxy resin was constituted by two

component; the first one, called A, was white and the other, called B, was
grey. Initially the two components were agitated separately, then they were
mixed according with the technical card. The mixture was good, and
therefore usable, when the colorful strips of the mixture were not more
visible. In Fig. 4.45 this process is illustrated.
Fig. 4.45: Epoxy resin preparation.
Epoxy resin application: the epoxy resin was applied on the arch surface
using a roller, as illustrated in Fig. 4.46.
89
Fig. 4.46: Epoxy resin application.
FRP application: the woven was measured and pre-cut before its application
on the arch surface. It was placed on the surface and gently pressed into the
epoxy resin, as illustrated in Fig. 4.47.
Fig. 4.47: FRP application.
Applying epoxy resin to FRP surface: a second coat of epoxy resin was
applied on the woven surface.
Consolidation process control: after 48 hours the applied reinforcement was
examined to verify the presence of empties.
90
4.13.2. Test organization
Three loading-unloading cycles, called cycle I, II and III respectively, were
performed applying the external load by the hydraulic jack in correspondence with
the brick number 14. The displacements were acquired by potentiometers and
comparators; the applied load intensity was acquired by the small cell during the first
cycle and by the great load cell in the other cases. Summarizing, the test organization
was the following:
cycle I: maximum external load applied F ≅ 5000 N ;
cycle II: maximum external load applied F ≅ 25000 N ;
cycle III: external load applied until the reinforced arch collapse.
Cycle I.
During this cycle the following phenomena occurred:
FRP delamination in correspondence of the mortar joint between bricks 13-
14 for a load value equal to F ≅ 3000 N , as illustrated in Fig. 4.48;
cracks under the brick 14, in correspondence of a load value equal to
F ≅ 3500 N .
Fig. 4.48: Reinforced arch, cycle I, local delamination phenomenon at joint mortar.
91
Cycle II.
During this cycle the following aspects can be pointed out:
increase of the crack opening in correspondence of the brick 14, as
illustrated in Fig. 4.49;
formation of a mortar tooth between bricks 13-14 and bricks 14-15 in
correspondence of a load value equal to F ≅ 4000 N ;
vertical sliding of brick 14 in correspondence of a load value equal to
F ≅ 4500 N ;
breakaway of the bricks 14 for a load F ≅ 16000 N ;
breakaway of the mortar tooth between bricks 14-15 in correspondence of a
great increase of crack opening at the brick 14 in correspondence of a load
value equal to F ≅ 22000 N .
Fig. 4.49: Reinforced arch, cycle II, cracks on brick 14.
Cycle III.
During the third cycle the following aspects can be pointed out:
great increase of crack opening at the brick 14 in correspondence of a load
value equal to F ≅ 39000 N ;
cracks on the surface of the bricks 6 and 7 in correspondence of a load value
equal to F ≅ 42000 N , as represented in Fig. 4.50;
92
cracks on the surfaces of the bricks 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 in correspondence of
a load equal to F ≅ 50000 N , as illustrated in Fig. 4.51;
collapse of the reinforced arch in correspondence with a load greater than
50000N , as represented in Fig. 4.52 and Fig. 4.53.
Fig. 4.50: Reinforced arch, cycle III, cracks formation on bricks surface.
Fig. 4.51: Reinforced arch, cycle III, intrados and extrados arch
surface view before the collapse.
93
Fig. 4.52: Reinforced arch, cycle III, arch collapse.
Fig. 4.53: Reinforced arch, after the collapse.
94
The reinforcement prevents the classic masonry arch collapse mechanism; the FRP
presence on the extrados surface, in fact, does not allow the hinges formation at the
intrados because it prevents the cracks opening at the extrados. During the tests, the
application of a concentrated load determined the presence of visible cracks on the
surface of the brick 14 in correspondence of a load value little than the load for
which the cracks on the other bricks occurred. The left part of the arch, from brick 1
to 14, was more significantly damaged than the right part of the arch, from brick 15
to 23. The collapse was preceded by the cracks opening on lateral and intrados
surfaces of all the bricks from 2 to 14. When the collapse occurred, the FRP
delamination under the bricks 13 and 14, the vertical sliding of the brick 14, the
crush of bricks from 8 to 13 and the partial crush of bricks from 2 to 7 took place.
4.13.4. Load-displacement curves

The data were acquired in continuous during the three loading-unloading cycles by
the data acquisition system Leane. The acquired data are reported in Fig. 4.54.
95
-60000
Cycle I
-55000
Cycle II
-50000 Cycle III
-45000
-40000
-35000
-30000
F [N]
-25000
-20000
-15000
-10000
-5000
0 480 960 1440 1920 2400 2880 3360 3840 4320 4800 5280 5760
0
t [s]
Fig. 4.54: Reinforced arch, loading-unloading cycles.
The presence of the reinforcement induced an horizontal displacement in

correspondence of the arch key, that became more significant in proximity of the
collapse load. The load-displacement curves for the horizontal and the vertical key
displacements are reported in Fig. 4.55 and in Fig. 4.56, respectively; while in Fig.
4.57 the load-displacement curve for the vertical displacement connected with the
point of load application is reported.
96
-55000
Cycle I
-50000
Cycle II
Cycle III -45000
-40000
-35000
-30000
F [N]
-25000
-20000
-15000
-10000
-5000
6.0 5.5 5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 -0.5 -1.0 -1.5 -2.0
0
5000
w [mm]
Fig. 4.55: Reinforced arch, load-displacement curve for the horizontal key displacement.
-55000
Cycle I
-50000
Cycle II
-45000 Cycle III
-40000
-35000
-30000
F [N]
-25000
-20000
-15000
-10000
-5000
2 1 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 -8 -9 -10 -11 -12 -13 -14 -15
0
5000
v [mm]
Fig. 4.56: Reinforced arch, load-displacement curve for the vertical key displacement.
97
-55000
-50000
-45000
-40000
-35000
-30000
F [N]
-25000
-20000
Cycle I
-15000
Cycle II
-10000 Cycle III
-5000
0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 -8 -9 -10 -11 -12 -13 -14 -15 -16 -17 -18 -19 -20
0
5000
v [mm]
Fig. 4.57:Reinforced arch, load-displacement curve for the vertical displacements in

correspondence with the point in which the load has been applied.
During the test, the first loading-unloading cycle was characterized by arrangement
phase in which a push due to the bricks at extremities determined an horizontal
sliding of the arch; unfortunately it was not possible to measure it because there was
not the suitable instrumentation.
The presence of reinforcement has increased a lot the load-bearing of the arch, in
particular the arch strength is 100 times higher.
98
5. MODELING AND NUMERICAL PROCEDURES
5.1. Introduction
In this chapter the modeling and the numerical procedures developed to study the
behavior of unreinforced and reinforced masonry arches are presented. In particular,
two approaches able to solve nonlinear problems are illustrated: the first one is based
on the stress formulation and the second one is based on the displacement
formulation. In the stress formulation, the structural problem is faced and solved
developing a complementary energy approach. A numerical procedure, based on a
new formulation of the arc-length method, proposed by Riks in the framework of the
displacement approach [62], is developed. In the displacement approach, a three
nodes finite element based on the Timoshenko’s theory is implemented into FEAP
code [63]. The nonlinear problem is solved by the application of the finite element
method.
Moreover, a new post-computation technique of the stresses at the masonry-FRP
interface is proposed, which takes into account the heterogeneity of the masonry
material, responsible of local stress concentration. The proposed post-computation of
the FRP-masonry interface stresses is based on a simplified approach of the
multiscale method. In fact, once the stress analysis is performed on the homogenized
model of the arch, a micromechanical study is developed, considering the different
materials which constitute the masonry, i.e. the block, the mortar and the FRP
reinforcement.
Numerical applications are developed to assess the effectiveness of the proposed
models. Numerical results are put in comparison with the experimental results
available in the literature and with new experimental evidences obtained at the
99
LAPS. Moreover the unreinforced masonry arches numerical results are put in
comparison with those obtained by the application of the limit analysis.
5.2. Masonry constitutive models

The masonry material is modeled as a no-tension material with a limited compressive
strength. In particular, a nonlinear elastic constitutive relationship is considered for
the masonry material as the one proposed by Lucchesi et al. [36]. This approach is
simple and it can be considered effective for monotonic loading condition, when
local unloading does not occur in any point of the structure. When the loading cannot
be considered monotonic, the use of an elasto-plastic no-tension model is required, as
the one presented in Reference [18], where a model and a numerical procedure were
proposed and several numerical applications for reinforced masonry panels and
arches were developed. The structural behavior of the reinforced arch is determined
developing a variational formulation based on the complementary energy, i.e.
adopting a stress approach. In fact, for the analysis of elements made of no-tension
material, the solution of the structural problem, if it exists, is unique in terms of
stress, while it could be not unique in terms of displacements, as proved by Lucchesi
et al. [36].
5.2.1. Model 1
The masonry material is modeled as a masonry like material, assuming a behavior
characterized by no-tension response with limited strength in compression, Fig. 5.1.
The lack of tensile response gives an admissibility condition for stresses:
σM ≤ 0 (5.1)
100
The condition σ M = 0 can be defined as a limit or collapse condition and in this case
the strains have an indefinite non negative value.
The compression strength is denoted as σy. The adopted model is simple, but very
effective for a wide class of problems, as emphasized in literature.
σM
εy ε
σy
E D
Fig. 5.1: Masonry constitutive model, model 1.
In Fig. 5.1 it can be individuated the following features:

feature OD: linear elastic;
feature DE: ideal plastic.
In terms of deformations, there are three distinctive features:
feature OD: elastic reversible strain;
feature DE: inelastic irreversible strain;
point E: yield strain.
It is assumed the existence of the following form for the complementary energy
density governing the stress-strain relationship:
1 1 2
ψ M (σ M , τ M ) = σ M 2 + I Σ (σ M ) + τ (1 − h (σ M ) ) (5.2)
2 EM 2GM
101
where EM and GM are the elastic and the shear modulus of masonry respectively, I Σ
is the indicator function of the admissible set Σ = ⎡⎣σ y , 0 ⎤⎦ , assuming the following
values:
I Σ = 0 if σ M ∈ Σ
(5.3)
I Σ = +∞ otherwise
and h (σ M ) is the Heaviside’s function, assuming the following values:
h (σ M ) = 1 if σ M ≥ 0
(5.4)
h (σ M ) = 0 otherwise
σM
Fig. 5.2: Masonry complementary energy density.
102
As consequence of the existence of the potential (5.2), that is schematized in Fig. 5.2,
the normal and tangential stresses, σ M and τ M , do not depend on the specific strain
history and they can be determined by the formulas:
σ M = 0⎫
⎬ if ε > 0
τM = 0 ⎭
σ M = EM ε ⎫
⎬ if ε y < ε ≤ 0 (5.5)
τ M = GM γ ⎭
σ M = EM ε y ⎫⎪
⎬ if ε ≤ ε y
τ M = GM γ ⎪⎭
where ε y = σ y / EM is the limit strain in compression and σ y is the compressive
strength. A simple shear stress-strain behavior is assumed; in fact, it is nonlinear

elastic in the part of the cross-section in compression. In this way the possible
collapse due to shear sliding cannot be reproduced.
5.2.2. Model 2
In order to improve the model previously presented, it is considered a constitutive
law characterized, for small values of the strain, by a quadratic relationship between
the stress and the strain, as the one proposed for the concrete by the Eurocode 2.
Thus, for ε ≤ ε y , the stress-strain relationship is:
σ M = αε 2 + βε + μ (5.6)
The following conditions are imposed on the relationship (5.6):
103
ε =0 , σM =0
ε =0 , σM '= E
(5.7)
ε = εy , σM =σy
ε = εy , σM '=0
Solving equations (5.7) with respect to α , β , μ and ε y , it results:
σy 2σ y 2σ y
α =− β= μ = 0 εy = (5.8)
ε y2 εy E
Substituting solution (5.8) into the equation (5.6):
σy 2
σM = − ε + Eε for ε y ≤ ε ≤ 0 (5.9)
ε y2
Finally, the normal and tangential masonry stresses, σ M and τ M , can be determined
by the formulas:
σ M = 0⎫
⎬ if ε > 0
τM = 0 ⎭
σ M = αε 2 + βε ) ⎫⎪
⎬ if ε y < ε ≤ 0 (5.10)
τ M = GM γ ⎪⎭
σ M = σ y ⎪⎫
⎬ if ε ≤ ε y
τ M = GM γ ⎪⎭
in which α and β assume the values reported in expressions (5.8).

Also in this case the possible collapse due to shear sliding cannot be captured. The
constitutive relationship is schematically illustrated in Fig. 5.3.
104
σM
εu εy ε
σy
Fig. 5.3: Masonry constitutive model, Model 2.
5.3. FRP constitutive model

Design of FRP reinforcement should ensure that the FRP system is always in tension.
In fact, compression FRP is unable to increase the performance of the strengthened
masonry member due to its small area compared to that of compressed masonry.
Moreover, FRP in compression may be subjected to debonding due to local
instability.
A uniaxial linear elastic response is assumed for the FRP reinforcement, as illustrated
in Fig. 5.4.
105
brittle failure
σ
Fig. 5.4: FRP constitutive model.
The stress-strain relationship is:
σ R = ER ε (5.11)
where ER is the elastic modulus of the FRP reinforcement. The corresponding

complementary energy is:
1
ψ R (σ R ) = σ R2 (5.12)
2 ER
106
5.4. Limit analysis
In this section a brief discussion both on the plastic collapse theorems and limit
analysis is presented.
Numerous studies have been made on the theory of plasticity since the Hill’s [64],
[65] and Prager’s and Hodge’s [66] works.
The aim of the limit analysis is to evaluate the load capacity and the collapse
mechanism of structures. Considering the limit behavior of the material, through a
definition of a yield function ϕ in terms of stresses, it is assumed that if ϕ < 0 the
material remains in the elastic phase, if ϕ = 0 the material becomes plastic and if
ϕ > 0 the stress state is inadmissible. The set ϕ = 0 is called the yield surface and
the conditions ϕ ≤ 0 represent the admissible stresses. According to the definition of
ϕ , all points that are inside or on the yield surface are admissible, while all points
located outside the yield surface are inadmissible. When the stress state belong to the
yield surface and the plastic behavior is activated, it is necessary to define the flow
direction. According to the classical limit analysis theory [67], the yield surface is
convex and the flow direction is normal to the yield surface. The normality condition
assures that the energy dissipated by the flow is the maximum possible. The
normality condition is very important because it introduces great simplifications in
the limit analysis theory and it is the base of the limit analysis theorems.
For a structure, it is possible to define a statically admissible state (safe state) for
which the internal stresses are in equilibrium with the external forces and the yield
conditions are fulfilled in all the points. Making a proportional loading analysis, it is
necessary to define q , that is the base variable load, λ , the definite positive load
factor and λ q , the variable load applied on the structure. The applied load can be
increased from zero until a limit value for the structure, through the use of the load
factor. This limit value is called the safety factor. In the limit analysis theory, the
107
static and kinematical theorems are proved; moreover, the uniqueness theorem can
be also proved.
The static theorem, also called lower-bound theorem, affirms that the safety factor is
the largest of all statically admissible load factors. In other words, if it is possible to
find a statically admissible stress field for a given load factor. Consequently the
structure is in a safe condition under that load level.
The kinematical theorem, also called upper-bound theorem, ensures that the safety
factor is the smallest of all the kinematically admissible load factors.
Finally, for the uniqueness theorem the largest factor defined by the static theorem is
equal to the smallest factor defined by the kinematical theorem.
The use of those fundamental theorems requires the adoption of specific hypotheses,
particularly for masonry structures. Among these, the non tensile strength, the
infinite compressive strength, the absence of sliding failure and the small
displacements.
In the following the kinematical theorem is applied to the case of unreinforced
masonry structures considering the no-tensile strength of the masonry.
108
5.5. Arch model
The arch model is based on the theory of curvilinear beam. Several shear
deformation beam theories are available in literature. In the following the
Timoshenko’s beam theory, [68] and [69], is considered; it is widely used in
structural analysis, as it accounts for the transverse shear deformation in a simple and
effective manner.
The compatibility, the equilibrium and the constitutive equations governing the
problem of the arch are available in literature; herein, only the final results are
reported.
Two coordinate systems are introduced: a global system (O, x, y, z) and a local
system (x*, y*, z*), with x* and y* rotated of an angle θ with respect to y, as
schematically illustrated in Fig. 5.5.
Fig. 5.5: Arch global and local systems.
A typical infinitesimal part of the arch is reported in Fig. 5.6. The quantities in the
local coordinate system are computed as function of the ones represented in the
global system using a rotation matrix R. The local radius of the arch is indicated as
R, while s denotes the curvilinear abscissa.
109
O z
T
M
N q*
p*
z*
s
y y*
T+dT
M+dM
N+dN
dθ
Fig. 5.6: Infinitesimal arch element.
5.5.1. Governing equation of the arch

The arch is assumed subjected to a permanent and to a variable loading p and λ q ,
respectively, with λ the load multiplier. Thus, the equilibrium equations written in
the local coordinate system take the form:
Δc + p* + λq* = 0 (5.13)
where
⎡ d 1⎤
⎢ ds 0
R⎥ ⎧N ⎫ ⎧ ps * ⎫ ⎧ qs * ⎫
⎢ ⎥
⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪
Δ=⎢ 0 −1⎥ c = ⎨ M ⎬ p* = ⎨0 ⎬ q* = ⎨0 ⎬
d
⎢ ds ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪p *⎪ ⎪q * ⎪
⎩T ⎭ ⎩ r ⎭ ⎩ r ⎭
⎢− 1 0
d⎥
⎢⎣ R ds ⎥⎦
110
with N, M and T the stress resultants and ps*, qs* and pr*, qr* the tangential and radial
distributed components of the loads. Note that p* and λ q* are the permanent and
variable loads vectors represented in the local coordinate system.
5.5.2. Kinematics of the arch

The kinematics of the typical cross section of the arch is defined by the transversal
and the axial displacements, v* and w0* respectively, and by the rotation ϕ. The
compatibility equations are:
% * =d
Δη (5.14)
where
⎡ d 1⎤
⎢ ds 0
R⎥ ⎧ w0* ⎫ ⎧ε 0 ⎫
⎢ ⎥
%Δ = ⎢ 0 d ⎥ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪
0 η = ⎨ϕ ⎬ d = ⎨ χ ⎬
*
⎢ ds ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎪v* ⎪ ⎪γ ⎪
⎩ ⎭ ⎩ ⎭
⎢− 1 1
d⎥
⎣⎢ R ds ⎥⎦
in which γ representing the shear deformation, ε0 the axial strain and χ the bending
curvature.
5.5.3. Cross section

The cross sections of the arches typically present very regular geometry; thus,
without loosing in generality, a rectangular cross section is considered in the
111
following. In accordance with the local coordinate system introduced above, the
section lies in the x*y* plane, with x* and y* principal inertial axes.
In the determination of the overall behavior of the reinforced masonry arch section, a
perfect adhesion between masonry and FRP is assumed.
The strain at a point of the section is:
ε = ε 0 + y* χ (5.15)
The section AM of the masonry is split in three parts:

the no-reagent part for which ε > 0 , denoted as Ant;
the compressed part for which ε y < ε ≤ 0 , denoted as Ae;
the compressed part subjected to a constant stress for which ε ≤ ε y , denoted
as Ap.
In order to determine the parts Ant, Ae and Ap, the neutral and the plasticity axes
y* = yn* and y* = ym* , for which the strain attains the values zero and ε y ,
respectively, are determined:
ε0
0 = ε 0 + yn* χ ⇒ yn* = −
χ
(5.16)
ε −ε
ε y = ε0 + y χ
*
⇒ y = y 0
*
m m
χ
Two possible cases can occur, schematically illustrated in Fig. 5.7, depending on the
sign of the curvature.
112
AFRP AFRP
Fig. 5.7: Axes position for positive and negative curvature.
The axes defining the compressed parts of cross section are determined as:
χ ≥0
⎧ h
⎪ y1 = −
⎪ 2
Ap : y1 ≤ y ≤ y3 ⎪⎪ ⎧h ⎧ h * ⎫⎫ (5.17)
⎨ y2 = min ⎨ , max ⎨− , yn ⎬⎬
Ae : y3 < y ≤ y2 ⎪ ⎩2 ⎩ 2 ⎭⎭
⎪ ⎧h ⎫⎫
⎪ y3 = min ⎨ , max ⎧⎨− , ym* ⎬⎬
h
⎪⎩ ⎩2 ⎩ 2 ⎭⎭
χ <0
⎧ ⎧h ⎧ h * ⎫⎫
⎪ y1 = min ⎨ , max ⎨− , yn ⎬⎬
⎪ ⎩2 ⎩ 2 ⎭⎭
Ap : y3 ≤ y ≤ y2 ⎪⎪ h (5.18)
⎨ y2 =
Ae : y1 ≤ y < y3 ⎪ 2
⎪ ⎧h ⎧ h * ⎫⎫
⎪ y3 = min ⎨ , max ⎨− , ym ⎬⎬
⎪⎩ ⎩2 ⎩ 2 ⎭⎭
113
5.6. Stress formulation
In this section only the Model 1 is considered for masonry. Thus the section AM of
the masonry is specialized into:
Ant where ε > 0 and, as consequence of equations (5.5), σ M = 0 τ M = 0 ;
Ae where εy < ε ≤ 0 and, as consequence of equations (5.5),
σ M = EM ε τ M = GM γ ; in the compressed part of the cross-section,

characterized by a linear stress-strain relation, the normal stress is
represented as σ M = σ 0 + y *σ 1 ;
Ap where ε ≤ ε y and σ M = EM ε y τ M = GM γ .
The resultants in the reinforced masonry are:
⎧ ⎫
⎪ ∫ σ y dA + ∫ (σ 0 + y*σ 1 ) dA + N R ⎪
⎪A p Ae ⎪
⎧ ⎫
N ⎪ ⎪
⎧ cˆ ⎫ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ * ⎪
c = ⎨ ⎬ = ⎨ M ⎬ = ⎨ ∫ y σ y dA + ∫ y* (σ 0 + y *σ 1 ) dA + M R ⎬
⎩T ⎭ ⎪ T ⎪ ⎪ Ap Ae ⎪ (5.19)
⎩ ⎭ ⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ A ∪∫ A M
τ dA
⎪
⎩e p ⎭
Developed, the formulas (5.19) become:
⎧σ y Ap + Aeσ 0 + Seσ 1 + N R ⎫
⎪ ⎪
c = ⎨σ y S p + Seσ 0 + I eσ 1 + M R ⎬ (5.20)
⎪ ⎪
⎩τ M AS ⎭
where AS = χT ( Ae + Ap ) is the shear area, χT is the shear correction factor, Se and Sp
are the static moments of elastic and plastic part, respectively, Ie is the inertial
moment of elastic part, NR and MR are the stress resultants due to the reinforcement.
114
Because of the perfect adhesion between the masonry arch and the reinforcement, the
resultants of the stresses at the top ( y * = − h / 2 ) and the bottom ( y * = h / 2 )
reinforcements are expressed as:
⎛ h⎞
N R + = n0 ⎜ σ 0 − σ 1 ⎟ AR +
⎝ 2⎠
(5.21)
⎛ h⎞
N R − = n0 ⎜ σ 0 + σ 1 ⎟ AR −
⎝ 2⎠
with n0 = E R / EM the homogenization coefficient; so that the resultants of the

reinforcements are:
N R = n0 (σ 0 AR + σ 1S R )
(5.22)
M R = n0 (σ 0 S R + σ 1 I R )
where
AR = AR+ + AR−
S R = h / 2 ( AR+ − AR− ) (5.23)
I R = ( h / 2)
2
(A
+
R + AR− )
Formulas (5.23) represent the area, the static and the moment of inertia, respectively,
of the FRP.
It can be emphasized that the parts Ant, Ae and Ap are not known a priori, but they
have to be determined as functions of the kinematical quantities ε0 and χ.
Setting:
115
⎧σ ⎫ ⎧ Ap ⎫ )
σ = ⎨ 0 ⎬ , Q = σ y ⎨ ⎬ , J = J% + J ,
⎩σ 1 ⎭ ⎩S p ⎭
(5.24)
⎡A Se ⎤ ) ⎡A SR ⎤
J% = ⎢ e ⎥ , J = n0 ⎢ R
⎣ Se Ie ⎦ ⎣ SR I R ⎥⎦
from expression (5.20), taking into account equations (5.22), the values of σ 0 and
σ 1 are obtained as:
σ = H ( cˆ − Q ) (5.25)
where H = J −1 .
It can be emphasized that, because of expression (5.25), the stress in the masonry as
well as the stress in the reinforcement can be expressed as function of the stress
resultants N and M. In particular, the stress in the elastic part of the masonry section
and on the reinforcements is determined as:
σ M = H ( cˆ − Q ) • Y
N R + = n0 H ( cˆ − Q ) • Y + AR + (5.26)
N R − = n0 H ( cˆ − Q ) • Y − AR −
where Y = {1 y * } , Y + = {1 h / 2} and Y − = {1 − h / 2} , while the symbol •

T T T
indicates the scalar product.
116
5.6.1. Complementary energy
In this section the elastic problem is faced and solved developing an energy
approach. The complementary energy of the structure is defined as:
Ψ (σ , τ ) = ∫ ψ (σ ,τ ) dV + ∫ ψ (σ ) dV
M R
VM VR
(5.27)
⎛ σ2 τ2 ⎞ σ2
= ∫⎜ + ⎟ dV + ∫ dV
VM ⎝
2 EM 2GM ⎠ VR
2 ER
where VM and VR are the masonry and the reinforcement volume, respectively. In
particular, the complementary energy in the masonry and in the reinforcement
domains can be written in the form:
⎡ 1 ⎛ ⎞⎤
⎢ 2 EM ⎜⎝ A∫e ∫A y ⎟⎟⎥⎥
θf
⎢ ⎜ σ M
2
dA + σ 2
dA
⎠ ⎥ R dθ
∫V ψ M (σ M ,τ M ) dV = θ∫ ⎢ 1 p
i ⎢ ⎥
⎢ + 2G ∫ τ M 2 dA
M
⎥
⎣ M Ae ∪ Ap ⎦ (5.28)
⎡ 1 ⎤
θf ⎢
H ( cˆ − Q ) ⊗ H ( cˆ − Q ) • J% ⎥
2 EM
=∫⎢ ⎥ R dθ
θi
⎢ σ 2
A T 2 ⎥
⎢+ + ⎥
y p S
⎣⎢ 2 EM 2GM AS ⎦⎥
θf
1
∫ ψ (σ ) dV = θ∫ 2E ∫ σ
2
R R R dA ds
VR R AR
(5.29)
i
θf
n0 )
= ∫ H ( cˆ − Q ) ⊗ H ( cˆ − Q ) • J R dθ
θi 2 ER
117
with θi and θ f the angles defining the initial and the final section of the arch.
Finally, the complementary energy is obtained as:
⎡ 1 σ y 2 Ap ⎤
θf ⎢ H ( ˆ
c − Q ) (
⊗ H ˆ
c − Q ) • J + ⎥
⎢ 2 EM 2 EM ⎥
Ψ ( cˆ , T ) = ∫ R dθ (5.30)
θi
⎢ T2 ⎥
⎢+ ⎥
⎢⎣ 2GM AS ⎥⎦
The solution of the problem is determined minimizing the complementary energy

(5.30) under the equilibrium constraint. In fact, the equilibrated stress resultants
admit the following representation form:
h
c = c p + λc q + ∑ xi ci
i =1
⎧ h
⎫
⎧ h
⎫ ⎪
⎪ N p + λ N q + ∑ xi N i ⎪
⎪cˆ p + λ cˆ q + ∑ xi cˆ i ⎪ ⎪
i =1
⎪ (5.31)
⎪ ⎪ h
⎪
⎬ = ⎨ M p + λ M q + ∑ xi M i ⎬
i =1
=⎨ h
⎪T + λT + x T ⎪ ⎪ ⎪
⎪⎩ p q ∑ i i
⎪
⎭ ⎪
i =1
h ⎪
⎪ T p + λTq + ∑ xiTi ⎪
i =1
⎩ i =1 ⎭
with c p a field of stress resultants equilibrated with permanent loads p, cq a field of
stress resultants equilibrated with variable loads q, ci with i=1,..,h fields of self-
equilibrated stress resultants and xi with i=1,..,h statically unknown parameters. The
number h of self-equilibrated stresses depends on the structural system and on the
constraint conditions.
Substituting the representation form (5.31) into the complementary energy (5.30), the
stationary condition of complementary energy with respect to the unknown minimum
118
parameters x1, x2,.., xh is enforced in order to solve the elastic problem. The typical
stationary equation takes the form:
⎡ 1 ⎛⎛ h
⎞ ⎞ ⎤
⎢ H ⎜ ⎜ cˆ p + λcˆ q + ∑ xi cˆ i ⎟ − Q ⎟ • cˆ j ⎥
θ f ⎢ EM ⎝⎝ i =1 ⎠ ⎠ ⎥
∂Ψ ⎢ ⎥ R dθ
∂x j θ∫i ⎢ T j ⎜⎛ Tp + λTq + ∑ xiTi ⎟⎞
0= = h (5.32)
⎥
⎢ ⎝ i =1 ⎠ ⎥
⎢+ ⎥
⎣ GM AS ⎦
which correspond to a kinematical compatibility equation. In fact, denoting as:
θf
⎛ 1 T jTp ⎞
sp = ∫ ⎜ H cˆ p • cˆ j + ⎟ R dθ
θ i ⎝ EM GM AS ⎠
θf
⎛ 1 T jTq ⎞
sq = ∫ ⎜ Hcˆ q • cˆ j + ⎟ R dθ
θf
(5.33)
⎛ 1 T jTi ⎞
si = ∫ ⎜ Hcˆ i • cˆ j + ⎟ R dθ
θf
1
sQ = ∫
θ E M
Q • cˆ j R dθ
i
the compatibility equation (5.32) takes the form:
h
s p + λ s q + ∑ xi si − sQ = 0 (5.34)
i =1
where s p , s q , si and sQ are vectors of h components which assume the physical
meaning of the displacement associated to the permanent and variable loadings p and
119
q, to the self-equilibrated stress resultants ci and to the additive stresses due to the
inelastic behavior of the masonry material.
It can be emphasized that, because of the considered nonlinear constitutive laws, the
vectors s p , s q , si and sQ depend on the solution, in fact they depend on the partition
of the section AM of the masonry into the no-reagent part Ant, the elastic part Ae and
the plastic part Ap, i.e. s p = s p ( Ae , Ap ) , s q = s q ( Ae , Ap ) , si = si ( Ae , Ap ) and
sQ = sQ ( Ae , Ap ) .
The integration of equations (5.32) and (5.33) can be performed considering the arch
composed of a number of nT parts in each of which the positions of the axes defined
by y1, y2 and y3 are taken constant.
5.6.2. Arc-length technique

The considered constitutive law for the masonry material, characterized by limited
strength in compression with no-tensile response, leads to solve a nonlinear problem
governed by equation (5.32). It could be remarked that, because of the elastic
character of the constitutive equations for both the masonry and the reinforcement,
the solution of the structural problem does not depend on the loading history, so that
the stress state can be computed once the loading is assigned. Although the
constitutive equations are not written in evolutive form, a numerical procedure able
to solve the nonlinear problem (5.32) is developed considering the loading applied in
several steps. In such a way, each loading step results easier to solve and, moreover,
it is possible to define the behavior of the structure along the whole monotone
loading path. In this context, the compatibility equation (5.34) can be written in the
form:
120
s = s p ( Ae , Ap ) + ( λn + Δλ ) s q ( Ae , Ap ) +
(5.35)
+ ∑ ( xi ,n + Δxi ) si ( Ae , Ap ) − sQ ( Ae , Ap ) = 0
h
i =1
Furthermore, it is possible to define a limit load for the structure, i.e. a load
multiplier λ which induces the collapse of the arch. In order to evaluate the whole
nonlinear structural response of the arch and to compute the limit load, the arc-length
technique is considered.
The arc-length procedure is often developed in the framework of displacement or
mixed formulation of the structural problem. In the following, a new version of the
arc-length technique, based on the stress formulation, is proposed. In particular, the
developed arc-length procedure is based on the kinematical compatibility equation
(5.35) and on a constraint equation.
The nonlinear equation (5.35) is solved developing an iterative procedure within
each load step. Thus, denoting by the superscript k the solution at the k-th iteration,
the new solution is determined developing equation (5.35) in Taylor series:
h
∂s ∂s
s = sk + ∑ δ xi + δλ
i =1 ∂xi s =s k ∂λ s =sk
(5.36)
= s k + K k δ x + S k δλ = 0
where
121
( ) ( ) (
s k = s p Ae k , Ap k + λn + Δλ k s q Ae k , Ap k )
( ) ( ) ( )
h
+ ∑ xi ,n + Δxi k si Ae k , Ap k − sQ Ae k , Ap k
i =1
⎡ ∂s1 ∂s1 ⎤ ⎧ ∂s1 ⎫

⎢ ... ⎥ ⎪ ∂λ k ⎪
⎢ ∂x1 s =sk ∂xhs =s k ⎥ ⎪ s =s ⎪
(5.37)
⎢ . . ⎥ ⎪ . ⎪
⎢ ⎥ ⎪ ⎪
Kk = ⎢ . .... . ⎥ S =⎨ . ⎬
k
⎢ . ⎥ ⎪ . ⎪
⎢ ⎥ ⎪ ⎪
⎢ ∂s ∂sh ⎥ ⎪ ∂sh ⎪
⎢ h .... ⎥ ⎪ ⎪
⎢⎣ ∂x1 s =sk ∂xh s =sk ⎥⎦ ⎩ ∂λ s =sk ⎭
The new solution is determined solving equation (5.36):
δ x = − ( K k ) s k − ( K k ) S k δλ k = δ x k + δ x t k δλ
−1 −1
(5.38)
so that the variation of statically unknown parameters results:
Δx = Δx k + δ x = Δx k + δ x k + δ xt k δλ k (5.39)
The updating of the geometrical quantities Ae and Ap is performed computing the
neutral and the plasticity axes, solving equation (5.16), and then (5.17) or (5.18).
Note that the kinematical parameters present in formulas (5.16) are evaluated solving
the resultant constitutive equations in a typical section of the arch:
⎧Nk ⎫ ⎛ ⎡ Ae k Se k ⎤ ⎡A S R ⎤ ⎞ ⎧ε 0 k ⎫
⎨ k⎬ = ⎜⎢ k k ⎥
+ n0 ⎢ R ⎟⎨ ⎬ (5.40)
I R ⎥⎦ ⎟⎠ ⎩ χ k ⎭
E M ⎜
⎩M ⎭ ⎝ ⎣ Se Ie ⎦ ⎣ SR
122
The constraint equation required in the arc-length method is defined choosing a
suitable control parameter. In particular, it is assumed as control parameter the
maximum variation of bending curvature evaluated on all the cross sections of the
arch. Thus, it is set:
χ% = max Δχ (θ ) (5.41)
θi ≤θ ≤θ f
and the constraint equation is assumed of the form:
χ% 2 − Δl 2 = 0 (5.42)
where Δl is a given length of the radius considered to follow the mechanical

response path of the structure.
For a fixed value of the angle θ , i.e. in the typical cross-section, solving equation
(5.40) with definition (5.41), it is set:
2
⎡ k⎛ h
⎞ ⎤
⎢ 21 ⎜
H
⎝
Δ λ N q + ∑ Δxi N i ⎟ ⎥
⎠ ⎥
( χ% ) =⎢
2 i =1
/ EM2 (5.43)
⎢ ⎛ h
⎞ ⎥
⎢ + H 22 ⎜ Δλ M q +∑ Δxi M i ⎟ ⎥
⎣⎢ ⎝ i =1 ⎠ ⎦⎥
On the other hand, as it is Δλ = Δλ k + δλ , equation (5.43) becomes:
( ) (δλ n ( ) (δλ m
2 2
( χ% ) + n ) + H 22 k + m)
2 2 2
= H 21k λ λ
(5.44)
+2 H 21k H 22 k (δλ nλ + n )(δλ mλ + m )
where:
123
( )
h
n = ∑ Δxi k + δ xi k N i + Δλ k N q
i =1
( )
h
m = ∑ Δxi k + δ xi k M i + Δλ k M q
i =1
h
(5.45)
nλ = N q +∑ δ x N i k
t ,i
i =1
h
mλ = M q +∑ δ xtk,i M i
i =1
Equation (5.42), taking into account formula (5.44), can be written in the form:
δλ 2 a1 + δλ a2 + a3 = 0 (5.46)
where:
( ) ( )
2 2
a1 = nλ 2 H 21k + mλ 2 H 22 k + 2nλ mλ H 21k H 22 k
( ) ( )
2 2
a2 = 2nλ n H 21k + 2mλ m H 22 k +2nλ m H 21k H 22 k
(5.47)
+2n mλ H 21
k
H 22 k
( ) ( )
2 2
a3 = H 21k n 2 + H 22 k m 2 + 2n m H 21k H 22 k − Δl 2
Equation (5.46) is solved with respect to δλ , leading to the determination of two

roots, δλ1 and δλ2 . The solution is chosen according to the cylindrical method, such
that δλ = δλ2 if c2 > c1 and it is δλ = δλ1 otherwise, with
124
( )
h
a4 = ∑ Δxi k δ xi k + Δxi k
i =1
h
a5 = ∑ Δxi k δ xi k (5.48)
i =1
c1 = a4 + a5δλ1
c2 = a4 + a5δλ2
The load multiplier and the statically unknown parameters increments are updated
setting:
Δλ = Δλ k + δλ
(5.49)
Δx = Δx k + δ x = Δx k + δ x k + δλ δ xt k
The iteration process within each loading step is performed until the residual r = s
is greater than a fixed tolerance.
5.7. Displacement formulation

The displacement formulation approach has been developed considering both Model
1 and Model 2. In this section, only the Model 2 is described.
The section AM of the masonry is specialized into:
Ant where ε > 0 and, as consequence of equations (5.10), σ M = 0 τ M = 0 ;
Ae where εy < ε ≤ 0 and, as consequence of equations (5.10),
σ M = αε 2 + βε τ M = GM γ ;
Ap where ε ≤ ε y and σ M = σ y τ M = GM γ .
The resultants in the reinforced masonry are:
125
⎧ ⎫
⎪ ∫ σ y dA + ∫ (αε 2 + βε ) dA + N R ⎪
⎪A p Ae ⎪
⎧N ⎫ ⎪ ⎪
⎧ cˆ ⎫ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ * ⎪
c = ⎨ ⎬ = ⎨ M ⎬ = ⎨ ∫ y σ y dA + ∫ y (αε + βε ) dA + M R ⎬
* 2
(5.50)
⎩T ⎭ ⎪ T ⎪ ⎪ Ap Ae ⎪
⎩ ⎭ ⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ A ∪∫ A M
τ dA
⎪
⎩e p ⎭
The axial resultant and bending moment are computed as:
N= ∫σ dA + ∫ (αε + βε ) dA + N R
2
y
Ap Ae
∫ ⎡⎣⎢α (ε + y* χ ) + β (ε 0 + y* χ ) ⎤ dA + N R
2
= σ y Ap + (5.51)
Ae
0
⎦⎥
= σ y Ap + A% ε 0 + S% χ + N R
M= ∫ yσ dA + ∫ y (αε + βε ) dA + M R
* * 2
y
Ap Ae
⎡α ( ε + y * χ )2 + β ( ε + y* χ ) ⎤ dA + M
= σ ySp + ∫y
*
(5.52)
Ae
⎣⎢ 0 0
⎦⎥ R
= σ y S p + S%ε 0 + I% χ + M R
respectively, where
A% = ∫ (αε
Ae
0 +α y* χ + β ) dA = (αε 0 + β ) A e +αχ Se (5.53)
S% = ∫ (αε
Ae
0 y* + 2α y*2 + β y* ) dA = (αε 0 + β ) Se + αχ I e (5.54)
126
)
I% = ∫ (α y χ + β y*2 + αε 0 y*2 ) dA = (αε 0 + β ) I e + αχ I
*3
(5.55)
Ae
and AS = χT ( Ae + Ap ) is the shear area, χT is the shear correction factor, NR and MR
are the stress resultants due to the reinforcement.
5.7.1. Kinematics
The kinematics of the Timoshenko beam theory, schematically illustrated in Fig. 5.8,
can be expressed as
u1 = 0
u2 = v (5.56)
u3 = w + yϕ
Fig. 5.8: Timoshenko’s beam theory.
The strain field is given by
ε0 = w'
χ =ϕ ' (5.57)
γ = v '+ ϕ
127
Note that the prime on a variable indicates its derivative with respect to z . The
kinematics strain vector is introduced as
⎛d ⎞
⎜ 0 0 ⎟
⎧ε 0 ⎫ ⎧ w ' ⎫ ⎜ dz ⎟ ⎧ w⎫ ⎧ w⎫
⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ d ⎟⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪
d = ⎨χ ⎬ = ⎨ ϕ ' ⎬ = ⎜ 0 0 ⎨v ⎬ = L⎨v ⎬ (5.58)
⎜ ⎟
dz ⎪ ⎪
⎪ γ ⎪ ⎪v '+ ϕ ⎪ ⎜ ⎟ ⎩ϕ ⎭ ⎪ϕ ⎪
⎩ ⎭ ⎩ ⎭ d ⎩ ⎭
⎜ 0 1 ⎟⎟
⎜
⎝ dz ⎠
5.7.2. Finite element implementation

A discussion on displacement based or mixed formulation beam elements was
presented by Crisfield [70], [71]. Reddy, [72]-[74], developed superconvergent (i.e. ,
yields exact nodal values) locking-free Timoshenko’s beam finite element based on
the interdependent interpolation as well as assumed strain formulation. In the same
paper, Reddy extended the procedure to develop a locking-free finite element for the
third-order beam theory. A consistent beam finite element was proposed in reference
[75].
The conventional finite element model of the Timoshenko’s beam is obtained by
using Lagrange interpolation of v and ϕ . For example, linear interpolation of both
v and ϕ is known to yield a finite element that exhibits locking. Reduced integration
of the shear stiffness alleviates this problem, but does not yield exact values of the
displacements at the nodes without using a large number of elements. Here, we
consider an alternative interpolation of the dependent variables that yields a locking-
free finite element. In particular, the transverse displacement v is approximated
using the Hermite’s cubic interpolation, the rotation ϕ and the axial displacement w
are approximated using Lagrange quadratic interpolation:
128
w = N1w w1 + N 2w w2 + N 3w w3
v = N1v v1 + N 2v v2 + N1θ θ1 + N 2θ θ 2 (5.59)
ϕ = N1ϕϕ1 + N 2ϕϕ2 + N 3ϕϕ3
where θ1 = −v '(0) and θ 2 = −v '( L) . Note that vi and θi are the transversal
displacements and the slopes of the i − th node, respectively, with i = 1, 2 , and ϕi are
the rotations of the cross-sections about the x axis, corresponding to the i − th node,
with i = 1, 2, 3 , as schematically represented in Fig. 5.9.
x w1 ϕ3 w2 z
v1 y v2
θ1 θ2
ϕ1 ϕ2
Fig. 5.9: Beam finite element.
In compact form, formulas (5.59) can be expressed as
⎧ w⎫
⎪ ⎪
u = ⎨v ⎬ = NU (5.60)
⎪ϕ ⎪
⎩ ⎭
where
129
⎛ N1w 0 0 0 N 2w 0 0 0 N 3w 0 0 0 ⎞
⎜ ⎟
N=⎜ 0 N1v N1θ 0 0 N 2v N 2θ 0 0 0 0 0 ⎟
⎜ 0 0 0 N1ϕ 0 0 0 N 2ϕ 0 0 0 N 3ϕ ⎟⎠
⎝
(5.61)
U = {w1 v1 θ1 ϕ1 v2 θ 2 ϕ 2 0 0 ϕ3 }
T
w2 w3
with
1
N1w = ξ (ξ − 1)
2
1
N 2w = ξ (ξ + 1) (5.62)
2
N3 = 1 − ξ 2
w
(ξ + 2)(ξ − 1) 2
N v
1 =
4
(ξ − 2)(ξ + 1) 2
N 2v =−
4
(5.63)
θ L(ξ + 1)(ξ − 1) 2
N1 =−
8
L(ξ − 1)(ξ + 1) 2
N 2θ =−
8
1
N1ϕ = ξ (ξ − 1)
2
1
N 2ϕ = ξ (ξ + 1) (5.64)
2
ϕ
N3 = 1 − ξ 2
⎛ L⎞ 2
and ξ = ⎜ z − ⎟ , z ∈ [0, L] .
⎝ 2⎠L
130
The beam finite element was implemented in the code FEAP, developing an iterative
numerical procedure able to solve the nonlinear arch problem. The proposed
procedure is based on the secant stiffness method, and it allows to determine the
solution of a nonlinear problem as solution of an opportune sequence of linear
problems. A scheme of the numerical procedure is reported:
1) Initially the reagent section is all the geometrical section;
2) The nodal displacement are calculated;
3) At the generic cross section the deformations are noted;
4) Noted the deformations, the neutral and plasticity axes position can be
valuated;
5) The new reagent section with its elastic and plastic part is defined;
6) Defined the reagent section the procedure comes back to step 2.
The procedure iterates from step 2 to 6 until the residue, computed as the difference
between the external forces and those determined by the state of deformation of the
structure, is lower than a fixed tolerance.
5.8. Post-computation of the shear stresses

The computation of the stresses at the FRP-masonry interface can be very important
as they are responsible for the decohesion of the reinforcement from the masonry.
It can be remarked that, because of the heterogeneity of the masonry material, the
stresses at the interface can present local concentrations. Thus, the normal and shear
stresses at the interface, σ d and τ d respectively, can be computed as the sum of two
quantities: the first ones σ T and τ T are evaluated enforcing the equilibrium condition
of the FRP for a typical infinitesimal element of the arch, the second ones σ h and τ h
correspond to the local normal and shear stress concentration due to the masonry
material heterogeneity.
131
With reference to Fig. 5.10, the normal and the shear stresses at the extrados and
intrados masonry-FRP interfaces can be computed as:
2 N R− 2 dN R−
σ T− = τ T− =
b ( 2R − h ) b ( 2 R − h ) dθ
(5.65)
2 N R+ 2 dN R+
σ =−
+
τ =−
+
b ( 2R + h ) b ( 2 R + h ) dθ
T T
with evident meaning of the symbols.
N R+
bτ T+
bσ T− bσ T
+
N R−
h bτ T−
R+
2
N R+ + dN R+
dθ N R− + dN R−
O
h
R−
2
Fig. 5.10: Normal and shear stress at the masonry-FRP interface.
Indeed, because of the heterogeneity of the masonry, also when the stress resultants
in a reinforcement is constant, stresses can occur at the interface. In order to evaluate
the stresses profile due to the material heterogeneity, a micromechanical analysis of
the reinforced masonry is developed. In particular, it is assumed that the masonry is a
periodic heterogeneous material.
Because of the symmetry of the repetitive cell with respect to the plane orthogonal to
the local beam axes (see Fig. 5.11), the study can be limited to a half of the cell,
132
considering an elastic interface joining the FRP reinforcement to the masonry
governed by the relationship:
⎧τ h ⎫ ⎡ Kτ 0 ⎤ ⎧ sτ I ⎫
⎨ ⎬=⎢ ⎨ ⎬ (5.66)
⎩σ h ⎭ ⎣ 0 Kσ ⎦⎥ ⎩ sσ I ⎭
where Kτ and Kσ are the tangential and normal stiffness respectively, while sτ I
and sσ I are the relative displacements in the tangential and normal direction.
Block Mortar Block Mortar
ym
yn
FRP FRP
Half cell
Half cell
Unit cell
Fig. 5.11: Stresses acting on the mortar joint of the masonry unit cell.
The unit cell is subjected to the normal stresses derived from the structural analysis;
in particular, the stresses computed from the structural analysis are applied on the
mortar joint, as illustrated in Fig. 5.11. A two-dimensional finite element analysis is
performed of the unit cell in the framework of plane stress analysis, evaluating the
normal and the shear stress profiles at the interface.
As the post-computation of the stress profiles at the masonry FRP interface should be
performed for several sections of the arch and for different values of the loading
level, a simple numerical strategy is developed. Let nj be the number of nodes of the
section where the stresses are applied, nj pre-analyses are developed determining the
relative displacements occurring between the FRP and the masonry due to a unit
133
force acting on a single node. The results of the analyses are organized in an
influence matrix G, whose i-th column represents the results of the micromechanical
analysis due to a unit force applied at the i-th node.
Once a loading step is selected and a section of the arch is considered, the structural
analysis allows to compute the normal stress profile in the mortar joint, which is
considered as an external distributed load for the unit cell. The distributed load is
transformed in equivalent nj nodal forces following the classical finite element
procedure, defining the vector F. The vector of the relative displacements s I due to
the actual distribution of the normal stresses acting on the mortar joint is determined
by the matrix product:
s I = GF (5.67)
Thus, the normal and shear stresses can be computed substituting the values of the
relative displacements obtained by expression (5.67) into equation (5.66). The
obtained stresses must be added to the quantities determined by formulas (5.65).
134
5.9. Numerical results
In this section, the obtained numerical results are presented. The numerical results
deal with the stress formulation and the displacement formulation. The reliability of
the nonlinear elastic constitutive law (Model 1), compared with Model 2 is tested.
The effectiveness of the numerical procedure is also experienced. Moreover the
results obtained by the application of the kinematical theorem of the limit analysis
are illustrated. Finally a comparison between numerical and experimental results is
proposed.
5.9.1. Models and numerical procedures assessment

The aim of this analysis is the assessment of the stress and displacement
formulations.
A round clamped-clamped arch is considered, so that it results three times statically
undetermined; the arch is subjected to a vertical downward distributed load of
intensity p=10 N/mm and to a horizontal distributed load q=1 N/mm amplified by the
multiplier λ. The geometry and the mechanical properties of the adopted materials
are reported in the following:
Geometry
o masonry: round arch with radius R=5000 mm and rectangular cross-
section with dimensions b=300 mm and h=1000 mm;
o FRP: the thickness is assumed t=0.17 mm, which corresponds to one
layer of composite, while the width is taken bFRP=200 mm.
Materials
o masonry: the Young’s modulus is set Em=15000 MPa, which
corresponds to rock blocks, while the Poisson ration is n=0.2 and the
shear modulus is Gm=6250 MPa; the limit strength in compression is set
sy=7.5 MPa;
135
o FRP: the Young modulus of the carbon-fiber is EFRP=400000 MPa.
In order to assess the effectiveness of the proposed masonry model and to verify the
robustness of the numerical procedure based on the complementary energy approach
within the dual version of the arc-length technique, displacement finite element
analyses are carried out considering the no-tension elasto-plastic masonry model
implemented in the code FEAP. Thus, the numerical results obtained by the stress
formulation of the nonlinear elastic model are put in comparison with the ones
carried out by the displacement approach, based an elasto-plastic open-ended model.
The computations are performed setting nT=300 for the stress approach, while a
mesh of 60 elements is considered for the displacement finite element formulation.
Initially, the response of the un-reinforced arch is studied. In Fig. 5.12, the value of
the multiplier λ of the distributed horizontal load is plotted versus the horizontal
displacement vk computed at the key of the arch. The results are reported adopting
the following acronyms:
NT no-tension material with unlimited compressive strength;
NTP no-tension material with limited compressive strength;
EC complementary energy approach;
FEM elasto-plastic displacement finite element formulation.
136
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
λ
1.50
1.00
NT EC
0.50 NT FEM
NTP EC
NTP FEM
0.00
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00
vk [mm]
Fig. 5.12: Un-reinforced arch modeled considering a no-tension material

with unlimited and limited compressive strength.
It can be emphasized that all the computed solutions are in very good agreement. In
particular, it can be remarked that there is not significant differences when unlimited
or limited compressive strength is considered; in fact, because of the no-tensile
capacity of the material, the collapse of the arch occurs for the formation and
opening of hinges located at the extrados and at the intrados of the arch. As a
consequence, the limited strength in compression does not play a significant role in
the overall behavior of the arch. Moreover, the stress approach demonstrates to be
effective and robust in the developed computations.
Then, the case of arch reinforced at the extrados is studied. As in the previous
analyses, several computations are performed and the obtained results are put in
comparison. In Fig. 5.13, the plot of the multiplier λ of the horizontal load versus the
horizontal displacement vk of the key section is reported.
137
18.00
16.00
14.00
12.00
10.00
λ
8.00
6.00
4.00 NT EC
NT FEM
2.00 NTP EC
NTP FEM
0.00
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00
vk [mm]
Fig. 5.13: Reinforced arch modeled considering a no-tension material

with unlimited and limited compressive strength.
Once again, it can be remarked the ability of the stress approach to reproduce the
nonlinear response of the reinforced arch: the results obtained adopting the nonlinear
elastic model does not significantly differs from the ones obtained considering the
elasto-plastic model, so that it can be claimed that the loading history does not
influence in this case the response of the arch. The differences of the results obtained
considering unlimited or limited strength in compression can be remarked. In fact,
when the arch is reinforced at the extrados, the hinges at the intrados cannot occur as
the crack openings at the extrados are not allowed and the limited strength in
compression of the masonry material plays a fundamental role in the response of the
arch.
Moreover, looking at Fig. 5.12 and Fig. 5.13, it can be noted the effectiveness of the
reinforcement in the overall behavior of the arch.
Then, computations are performed considering the arch reinforced by 1, 2, 5, 10 and
15 FRP layers, subjected to a vertical distributed load of intensity p = 100 N/mm and
to the increasing distributed horizontal load, simulating the effect of an earthquake
138
on the structure. In Fig. 5.14 the curves concerning the horizontal load multiplier
versus the horizontal displacement of the key section are reported for the un-
reinforced and for the reinforced arch.
80.00
70.00 15 FRP layers
10 FRP layers
60.00
5 FRP layers
50.00
2 FRP layers
λ 40.00
80
1 FRP layer
70
60
30.00
50
40
λ
20.00 30
Unreinforced 20
10.00 10
Compressive masonry failure 0

0.00 1000.00 2000.00 3000.00 4000.00 5000.00 6000.00 7000.00 8000.00
Tensile FRP failure vk [m m ]
0.00
0.00 50.00 100.00 150.00 200.00 250.00 300.00 350.00 400.00
vk [mm]
Fig. 5.14: Collapse loading for the un-reinforced and reinforced arch.
In that figure, the diagram load multiplier vs horizontal displacement is reported

considering two different scales for the displacements: in the main Figure the
maximum displacement is set equal to 400 mm, while in the boxed image the
maximum displacement is greater. Indeed, in both the considered scales, the reached
displacements are much greater than the admissible ones obtained considering the
limited compressive deformation of the masonry and the tensile strength of the FRP
reinforcement.
In fact, the boxed figure is reported only to evaluate the limit load multiplier in the
case of un-reinforced and reinforced arch, λ≈13 and λ≈73 respectively, when no care
is taken to the limited compressive deformation of the masonry and tensile strength
of the FRP. In this case, the limit load for the un-reinforced and reinforced arch is
due to the no-tensile response and to the plastic constitutive relationship of the
139
masonry, respectively. It can be remarked that the limit load for the reinforced arch
does not depend on the number of FRP layers. Finally, it could be emphasized that
the limit load is attained for very high values of the displacements, so that the
classical assumption of small displacements and small deformations could be not
valid anymore. As a consequence, from the developed numerical computations, it
can be concluded that the classical limit analysis is not applicable to evaluate the
maximum loading capability of reinforced arch.
In the main scale of Fig. 5.14, the loading levels, with the corresponding values of
the horizontal displacements, which induce the tensile failure of the FRP
reinforcement and the reached limit compressive strain for the masonry, are reported
with a square and a triangle, respectively. In particular, in the developed
computations, the tensile failure of the FRP is set as σR,y=3500 MPa while the limit
compressive strain for the masonry is taken εu=0.0035.
When only 1 FRP layer is applied to reinforce the arch, the tensile failure of the
reinforcement occurs before the compressive masonry collapse; increasing the
number of FRP layers, a gradual inversion of the failure mechanism of the two
materials can be noted. In correspondence of 15 FRP layers, the compressive
collapse of masonry occurs before the FRP tensile failure. In particular, the following
results are obtained:
1 FRP layer λ≈23 masonry failure λ≈15 FRP failure
It can be concluded that the reinforcement at the extrados of the arch is very effective
from a structural viewpoint as its presence is able to enhance the performances of the
arch with respect to horizontal loading.
140
5.9.2. Experimental surveys numerical results
The numerical results are put in comparison with experimental results both available
in literature and obtained by the experimental program realized at LAPS of Cassino.
5.9.2.1. Comparison 1
In this section the experimental evidences carried out by Briccoli Bati and Rovero
[54] and numerical results obtained adopting the numerical procedures are illustrated.
A reinforced masonry arch is studied and the geometry and mechanical properties of
the adopted materials are:
Geometry
o masonry: arch with radius R=865 mm, rectangular cross-section b=100
mm and h=100 mm and clamped at 30o and 150o; the arch is composed
assembling hollow clay masonry units of thickness 25 mm, joined by a
mortar layer of 4 mm.
o FRP: reinforcement applied at the whole intrados of the arch, with
thickness t=0.17 mm, which corresponds to one layer of composite, and
width bFRP=50 mm.
Materials
o masonry: the Young’s modulus of the hollow clay masonry units and of
the mortar are 1785 MPa and 133 MPa, respectively, so that the overall
modulus of the masonry is set Em=680 MPa, while the Poisson ration is
n=0.2 and the shear modulus is Gm=283 MPa;
o FRP: the Young modulus of the carbon-fiber is EFRP=230000 MPa.
The structure is subjected to an increasing concentrate force F applied at the key of

the arch. The experimental test shows that the arch failure occurs for crushing of the
masonry in compression. As consequence, the compressive strength of the masonry
plays a fundamental role in the overall behavior of the arch.
141
In Reference [54], the compressive strength of masonry, strongly governed by the
mortar strength, is evaluated testing some specimens and it results in the range
between 7 and 8 MPa. It can be pointed out that this value is reasonably higher than
the strength of the masonry constituting the arch, because of the possible
imperfections occurring during the construction of the arch, mainly in the key. In
particular, the thickness of the mortar bed between two blocks is not the same in
whole experimental arch tested in Reference [54], and in correspondence of the key
of the arch there is a great reduction of bed mortar. As a consequence, it is found that
the arch tested in the laboratory presents some initial geometrical defects in the
heterogeneities of the masonry, which induces localization phenomena that
significantly reduced the compressive strength of the masonry material with respect
to the value obtained on “perfect” specimens. Indeed, some difficulties arise in the
evaluation of the limit compressive strength and the limit failure strain, which are
necessary to study the arch and to understand its behavior. It can be reasonably
assumed that the compressive strength in the masonry arch is reduced from 1/4 to 1/3
with respect to the strength deduced by the specimen tests. Thus, the masonry
strength could be set in the range between 1.75 and 2.67 MPa
In order to numerically reproduce the behavior of the arch, a parametric analysis is
carried out considering different values of the limit compression strength σy in the
range from 2.04 to 6.80 MPa.
In Fig. 5.15, the comparison between the load-displacement curves obtained by
experimental investigation and by numerical analyses is reported.
142
7.00
6.50
6.00
5.50
5.00
4.50
4.00
F [kN] 3.50
3.00
2.50
σy = 2.04 Mpa
2.00
σy = 2.72 Mpa
1.50 σy = 3.40 Mpa
1.00 σy = 6.80 Mpa
0.50 Experimental results
0.00
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00
vk [mm]
Fig. 5.15: Comparison 1, reinforced arch subjected to a concentrate force.
For the different values of limit compression strength σy, it is computed the
minimum strain επ/2 and the tensile stress in the reinforcement σR evaluated at the
key section, i.e. for θ=π/2, when the experimental collapse load of the arch F=6.5 kN
is reached. In particular, it results:
επ/2=-0.02538 and σR=1387 MPa when σy=2.04 MPa,
επ/2=-0.00602 and σR=965 MPa when σy=6.80 MPa.
It can be emphasized that, in any case, the FRP stress is lower than its failure
strength assumed to be 3500 MPa.
Looking at Fig. 5.15, the numerical results are in good agreement with the
experimental ones when the strength of the masonry is set equal to 2.04 MPa, i.e.
belonging to the range announced above taking into account the material
imperfection.
143
As consequence of the above arguments, it can be concluded that the comparison
between the numerical and experimental results can be considered satisfactory; in
fact, it shows the effectiveness of the simple proposed model, which can be able to
predict the collapse load. Of course, as the model does not consider any softening
effect in compression, the post-critical behavior of the arch characterized by a quite
brittle response once the maximum load is reached, cannot be numerically
reproduced.
As discussed in section 5.8, it can be very interesting to evaluate the normal and,
mainly, the shear stresses at the interface between the FRP and the masonry, in order
to predict the possibility of decohesion of the reinforcement.
In Fig. 5.16, the shear stress profile evaluated close to the key section is reported
when the external force is F=1 kN. In particular, as the key section is subjected to a
concentrate force and, as consequence, to a very special stress state, the shear
stresses are computed for a unit cell at a distance of about the section height from the
key section.
τd
0.60
τT
τh
0.50
shear stress [MPa]
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00
z* [mm]
Fig. 5.16: Shear stresses for F=1 kN.
144
In this Figure the decohesion shear stresses τ d and the single contributes τ T and τ h ,
due to the equilibrium condition of the FRP for a typical infinitesimal element of the
arch and to the local shear stress concentration due to the masonry material
heterogeneity, respectively, are reported. The curve of the decohesion shear stresses
presents a maximum values in correspondence of the brick-mortar section because of
the different consistency of the brick and the mortar and it shows that the contribute
to the value of the shear stresses of the variation of the normal force into the
reinforcement is less significant than the effect of the material heterogeneity.
In Fig. 5.17, the comparison between the shear stresses obtained for different values
of the applied force is illustrated. In particular, the considered force intensities are
F=1 kN, F=3 kN and F=5 kN; it is evident that increasing the value of the applied
force, it corresponds a nonlinear increment of the shear stress.
2.00
F = 1 kN
1.80 F = 3 kN
F = 5 kN
1.60
1.40
1.20
shear stress
1.00
[MPa]
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00
z* [mm]
Fig. 5.17: Shear stresses for different force intensities.
Moreover, for the considered case study, it can be noted that in correspondence of
F = 5 kN , the maximum shear stress reaches the value τ d ≈ 1.8 MPa in the brick.
This value can be considered safe for the brick which, according to the experimental
145
investigations [54], is characterized by a limit strength in tension and in compression
of 1.7 MPa and 17.39 MPa, respectively. On the other hand, experimental evidences
demonstrated that the collapse of the arch occurred with no delamination effects.
The decohesion of the FRP from the masonry support could be accounted for
considering a suitable interface model a numerical procedure able to predict and
reproduce the nonlinear phenomenon [12] and [16].
5.9.2.2. Comparison 2
In this section the numerical results are put in comparison with the experimental
results obtained during the experimental campaign realized at LAPS of University of
Cassino.
The studied arch is schematically reported in Fig. 5.18.
146
11 12 13 14
9 10 15
8 16
7 17
6 18
5 19
4 20
3 21
2 22
1 23
O Z
Re
Ri
c
f
i Z
O
Fig. 5.18: Reinforced arch geometrical model.
In accordance with the introduced global system, the geometrical characteristics of

the arch are:
147
R ext = 576.07 mm
Rint = 456.07 mm
R ext + Rint
RG = (5.68)
2
ϑi = 8°, ϑ f = 172°
ϑC = ϑ f − ϑi
where R ext , Rint and RG are the external, internal and center-line radii respectively;
ϑi , ϑ f and ϑC are the initial, final and central angle, respectively.

A very fine mesh is considered for the arch, which was subdivided in 100 linear
finite elements.
The mechanical properties of each masonry constituents have been reported in
chapter 4.
In the picture reported in Fig. 5.19 it can be noted the defects and the irregularities.
In fact, a significant reduction of the size of the cross section of the arch is noted in
the mortar.
Fig. 5.19: Mortar joints irregularities.
148
It was observed that the geometrical variation of mortar joints is comprised between
0.2 mm and 0.7 mm. Moreover, it was noted that the external part of the mortar was
characterized by very low mechanical properties, as it was possible to damage the
mortar by hands. Thus, the considered reagent masonry mortar section was reduced
of 0.7 mm in height and width, with respect to the geometrical section. The size of
homogenized reagent section is: bh = 70.5mm , hh = 106mm and lh = 241mm .
The elastic modulus of homogenized masonry was determined assuming:
1) elastic-linear brick constitutive relationship: σ b = Ebε b ;
2) elastic-linear mortar constitutive relationship: σ m = Emε m ;
3) same stress for brick and mortar;
4) elastic-linear masonry constitutive relationship: σ M = EM ε M .
Enforcing the equilibrium and congruence conditions:
σM = σb = σm (5.69)
ε bbb + ε mbm = ε M (bb + bm ) (5.70)
Substituting the constitutive relationship into equation (5.69):
Ebε b = Emε m = EM ε M (5.71)
which gives:
EM
εb = εM (5.72)
Eb
Substituting the expression (5.72) into equation (5.70) it results:
149
EM E
ε M ( bb + bm ) = ε bbb + ε mbm = ε M bb + M ε M bm (5.73)
Eb Em
Thus, the elastic modulus of masonry is:
EM =
( bb + bm ) (5.74)
⎛ bb bm ⎞
⎜ + ⎟
⎝ Eb Em ⎠
In this specific case, EM ≅ 8300 N mm 2 . This computed value for EM is greater

than the true value of the elastic modulus of the masonry; in fact the mortar
specimens realized and tested into the laboratories are characterized by mechanical
properties significantly greater than those of the mortar joints.
EM
The shear modulus is calculated in classic way: GM = ≅ 3400 N mm 2 .
2(1 + ν )
The arch was considered clamped at springs. It is subjected to the its weight and to
an additional increasing force applied at section corresponding to the angle ϑ ≅ 70o .
Initially the unreinforced arch is studied. The numerical results are obtained
considering for masonry both Model 1 and Model 2. In Fig. 5.20 all the results are
reported. It can be observed that there is not a substantial difference between the use
of Model 1 and Model 2.
150
-800
-750
-700
-650
-600
-550
-500
-450
F [N]
-400
-350
-300
-250 Experimental Arch 1

Experimental Arch 2
-200
FEAP, model 1
-150
FEAP, model 2
-100 Safe theorem
-50
0.00 -0.20 -0.40 -0.60 -0.80 -1.00 -1.20 -1.40 -1.60 -1.80
0
vk [mm]
Fig. 5.20: Comparison 2, unreinforced arch load-displacement curve.
The numerical model approximates in a satisfactory manner the limit load of the
masonry arch.
The limit load of the arch was calculated also by applying of the kinematical theorem
of the limit analysis, on the base of collapse mechanism characterized by the four
hinges formation at extrados or at intrados. The hinges position was obtained by
minimizing the lading factor. The position of the hinges is compared with the ones
obtained from the results determined using the finite element approach. In Tab. 5.1
the hinges position is reported.
151
Element Node Angle Hinge angle Radius
[number] [number] [°] [rad] [°] [rad] [mm]
39 39.16 0.6831
20 40 39.9800 0.6974 51.6070
41 40.80 0.7117
87 78.52 1.3697
44 88 79.3400 1.3840 51.6070
89 80.16 1.3983
143 124.44 2.1708
72 144 125.2600 2.1851 51.6070
145 126.08 2.1994
199 170.36 2.9718
100 200 171.1800 2.9861 51.6070
201 172.00 3.0004
Tab. 5.1: Hinges position.
According to the hinges position, the arch was subdivided in three blocks, called
block 1, block 2 and block 3. In Fig. 5.21 are schematically illustrated the position of
hinges that coincides with the arch relative or absolute centers of rotation.
152
Fig. 5.21: Comparison 2, unreinforced arch kinematical mechanism.
Determined the position of arch relative and absolute centers, the vertical
displacement components can be traced on the horizontal fundamental. The itself
weight of each one block is:
Block 1: P=187.82 N;
Block 2: P=219.13 N;
Block 3: P=219.13 N;
Applying the virtual work and considering that the external load must be equilibrated
by the action of block 2 and 3, it has:
Lve = − PIη I + PIIη II + PIIIη III = FLIMη LIM (5.75)
Solving equation (5.75) the limit load is determined:
Lve = 0 ⇒ FLIM = 591.87 N (5.76)
153
In Fig. 5.20 it can observe that the limit load is not different from the limit load
determined using the proposed finite element approach.
Then, the reinforced arch was studied using the finite element formulation. The
following further input data are considered:
dimensions of FRP woven: height tFRP=0.17 mm and width LFRP=100 mm;
mechanical properties of FRP: EFRP = 230000 N mm 2 ;
homogenization coefficient (considering the perfect adhesion between

EFRP
masonry and reinforcement): n0 = ≅ 27 .
EM
The kinematical mechanism of the unreinforced masonry arch is not possible for the
reinforced arch. In fact, the presence of reinforcement does not allow the cracks
opening on the reinforced side of the arch, consequently the hinges formation on the
opposite side is prevented. In Fig. 5.22 the load-displacement curves for the
reinforced arch are reported.
-55000
-50000
-45000
-40000
-35000
-30000
F [N]
-25000
-20000
-15000 Experimental reinforced arch

FEAP, model 1
-10000 Compressive masonry failure
FEAP, model 2
-5000
-1 -3 -5 -7 -9 -11 -13 -15 -17 -19 -21 -23 -25 -27 -29 -31 -33 -35
0
vk [mm]
Fig. 5.22: Comparison 2, reinforced arch load-displacement curve.
154
The numerical results agree very well with experimental curve, in particular when
the Model 2 for the masonry material is adopted.
The collapse of the reinforced arch determined during the laboratory tests occurred
because of a shear mechanism; in fact, the sliding of the brick under the applied force
occurred, leading to the crushing of masonry. This type of mechanisms is not
accounted for in the proposed model, so that the limit collapse displacement cannot
be numerically evaluated.
155
6. MULTISCALE APPROACHES
6.1. Introduction
The aim of this chapter is to introduce multilevel strategies. Generally, we talk of
multilevel strategies when we have a global “ macroscopic” problem, associated to a
coarse solution, and a local “microscopic” problem, associated to a finer mesh in a
limited zone of interest.
In literature there are three families of multilevel approach: the methods based on the
homogenization, these based on super-position and these based on decomposition of
domain.
The reference problem is a problem of classic mechanics: the quasi-static study of a
little perturbation on the body Ω , subjected to an imposed displacement field u d on
part ∂Ω1 of its surface, to a surface forces field Fd on the complementary part
∂Ω 2 = ∂Ω \ ∂Ω1 and to a volume force field called f d , as illustrated in Fig. 6.1.
Fd
∂Ω 2
fd
∂Ω1
Ω
ud
Fig. 6.1: Multiscale approaches, reference problem.
156
We suppose the material is linear elastic, except explicit mention; K is the Hook’s
tensor, u is the displacement field, σ is the Cauchy stress field and ε is the
deformation field; thus the reference problem can be written as:
Kinematics admissibility:
u = u d on ∂1Ω
1 (6.1)
ε=
2
( ∇u + ∇uT ) in Ω
Static admissibility:
divσ + f d = 0 in Ω
(6.2)
σ n = Fd on ∂ 2 Ω
Constitutive relationship:
σ = Kε in Ω (6.3)
6.2. Methods based on the homogenization

The most famous multiscale methods are based on the homogenization theory. The
first works on this technique were analytic or semi-analytic studies on the
macroscopic behavior structures from some “effective” medium quantities [77] -
[80]. These methods could not enable to analyze the local effects. Then the
microscopic level was introduced by the “Unit cell methods” [81] - [83], in order to
obtain a local solution into a Representative Volume Element. Finally, the periodic
media theory [84] - [87], based on the asymptotic analysis has proposed a really
157
multiscale approach: it enables to obtain a local solution from one macroscale
problem and one microscale problem.
6.2.1. Theory of homogenization for periodic media

The homogenization technique is applied when a problem can be schematized by a
repeated unit cell; indeed the fundamental hypothesis is the periodicity. This repeated
unit cell is called RVE, Representative Volume Element and has shown in Fig. 6.2a
and Fig. 6.2b; in particular Fig. 6.2a shows the generic body that can be schematized
by its repeated part and Fig. 6.2b shows the RVE.
Fd
X2 Y2 RVE
Y1
X1 ud
X3 Y3
a) b)
Fig. 6.2: Homogenization technique.
Two representative scales were introduced: a macroscale with the position vector Xi
(i = 1, 2, 3) defined on the body Ω and a microscale with the position vector Yi (i =
1, 2, 3) defined on the RVE; the smallness parameter Z = X / Y put in comparison
the two scales.
The homogenization methods are based on the following assumptions:
158
Periodicity;
Solution is periodic in statistic sense;
The macroscopic fields are constant in the RVE.
Obviously these assumptions are not verified in the neighbourhood of boundaries and
when the heterogeneities of the material are not small enough with respect to the
dimensions of the macrostructure.
The displacement solution is u = u(x, y ) . The idea is to develop the solution into
asymptotic form as:
uiε (x, y ) = uio (x, y ) + ε ui1 (x, y ) + ε 2 ui2 (x, y ) L (6.4)
Analogously the asymptotic form of the stress field is:
σ ijε (x, y ) = ε −1σ ij−1 (x, y ) + σ ijo (x, y ) + εσ ij1 (x, y ) + ε 2σ ij2 (x, y ) + L (6.5)
Once injected inside the equilibrium and constitutive equations, these developments
lead to a succession of problem at different orders. In this way the macroscopic field
uio and the microscopic field ui1 can be determined.
6.3. Methods based on the super-position

The homogenization approaches permit to pass from the macrolevel to the microlevel
defining the macroscale problem and analyzing it at the microscale. The methods
based on the superposition do a different thing: they superpose a microscopic
enrichment into the interest zone for the solution of the macroscopic problem.
159
6.3.1. Variational multiscale method
This method was initially proposed by Hughes [88]: all the elements problem are not
soluble numerically, as Hughes said. The microscopic effects that are not “soluble”
can not be represented by finite elements size superior to the microstructure size.
Hughes has proposed a superposition principle that permit to consider the effects of
the small cell at macroscopic level. Solving the local problem, the small elements
effects are condensed to the macroscopic level, obtaining a quasi-exact solution for
the macroscopic problem. The solution of the problem is decomposed into a
macroscopic and microscopic part, called u M and u m respectively:
u = uM + um (6.6)
The choice for the approximation of u m is very important; a good solution is to

utilize the Green’s function.
6.4. Methods based on the domain decomposition

When the microstructure is analyzed two cases can occur: the analysis of only an
interest zone with a fine mesh, it is the case of a local-global analysis for which a
natural separation between a coarse and fine zone occurs. The other case occurs
when the fine mesh is for all the structure; it happens when the structure is strongly
heterogeneous. Then the direct solution is very complex and it is necessary to apply
domain decomposition by the subdivision in sub-structures of the initial structure.
The presence of sub-structures permits the resolution of small interface problem.
The decomposition domain methods are subdivided in three great families: the
primal approaches (Balancing Domain Decomposition Method, BDDM, [89]), the
dual approaches (Finite Element Tearing Interconnecting, FETI, [90]) and the mixed
160
theory (based on the Lagrange’s algorithm [91] or on the LATIN [92]. In every case
the solution is based on the application of an iterative procedure. In order to obtain a
quickly numerical solution the problem of the propagation of a global information
must be solved. This implies the grew up of a coarse problem to verify the partial
transmission condition into the sub-structures. In the first case (primal approaches) a
force condition is imposed, for the dual approaches the condition is imposed on the
partial verification of displacements, in the mixed approaches the conditions are
imposed both forces and displacements.
6.4.1. Primal approach

Considering the reference problem illustrated in section 6.1, let us consider a
partition of the domain Ω in two substructures Ω(1) and Ω(2) , as illustrated in fig.
6.3.
Γ
Ω (2)
Ω(1)
Fig. 6.3: Two subdomain decomposition.
161
The interface between the two substructures is defined as Γ = ∂Ω(1) ∩ ∂Ω(2) and the
equations governing the reference problem can be rewritten on the restrictions
Ω(1) and Ω(2) of Ω :
⎧ divσ ( s ) + f ( s ) = 0 in Ω( s )
⎪
⎪ σ = a : ε(u ) in Ω
(s) (s) (s) (s)
⎪
s = 1 o 2 ⎨ 2ε = ∇u ( s ) + ∇u ( s )T in Ω ( s ) (6.7)
⎪σ ( s ) • n ( s ) = F ( s ) on ∂Ω ∩ ∂Ω( s )
⎪ d 1
⎪⎩ u = u d on ∂Ω 2 ∩ ∂Ω( s )
(s) (s)
The interface connection conditions are the continuity of displacements:
u (1) = u (2) on Γ (6.8)
and the stresses equilibrium:
σ (1)n (1) + σ (2)n (2) = 0 on Γ (6.9)
Of course the system constituted by equations (6.7), (6.8) and (6.9) is exactly the
same as the system represented by equations (6.1), (6.2) and (6.3). In reality, a
structure can be decomposed in N subdomains denoted Ω ( s ) . In this case three
interfaces are defined: the interface between two subdomains
Γ (i , j ) = Γ ( j ,i ) = ∂Ω( i ) ∩ ∂Ω( j ) , the complete interface of one subdomain (local
interface) Γ ( s ) = U j Γ ( s , j ) and the geometric interface at the complete structure scale
(global interface) Γ = U s Γ ( s ) .
Defined the interfaces, the reference problem can be discretized in order to obtain a
classical finite element solution:
162
Ku = f (6.10)
In order to rewrite equations (6.10) in a domain decomposed context, to introduce
λ ( s ) , the reaction imposed by neighbouring subdomains on subdomain (s). This
reaction is defined in the whole subdomain, but it assumes non-zero value only on its
interface. For every subdomain a local equilibrium condition is defined as:
K ( s )u ( s ) = f ( s ) + λ ( s ) (6.11)
On the interface, a global equilibrium condition and a global condition of continuity

of displacements are defined as:
∑As
t λ (s) = 0
(s) (s)
(6.12)
∑As
t u(s) = 0
(s) (s)
(6.13)
where t ( s ) and A( s ) are the local trace operator (restriction from Ω ( s ) to Γ ( s ) which
permits to cast data from a complete subdomain to its interface) and the assembly
operator (it is a strictly Boolean operator) respectively. The aim of this method is to
write the interface problem in terms of one unique unknown: the interface
displacement field ub. the problem can be solved introducing the primal Schur
complement S p( s ) . The basic idea for every subdomain is to condense its behavior on
its interface. Let consider the local equilibrium of a subdomain under interface
loading:
K ( s )u ( s ) = λ ( s ) = t ( s ) λ b( s ) (6.14)
163
In order to separate the internal and boundary degree of freedom system (6.14)
assumes the following form:
⎡ K ii( s ) K ib( s ) ⎤ ⎧ui( s ) ⎫ ⎧ 0 ⎫

⎢ (s) (s) ⎥ ⎨ (s) ⎬ = ⎨ (s) ⎬ (6.15)
⎣ K bi K bb ⎦ ⎩ub ⎭ ⎩λb ⎭
from the first line it is obtained:
ui( s ) = − K ii( s ) −1 K ib( s )ub( s ) (6.16)
Then the Gauss elimination of ui( s ) furnishes the primal Schur complement S p( s ) :
(K (s)
bb − K bi( s ) K ii( s ) −1 K ib( s ) ) ub( s ) = S p( s )ub( s ) = λb( s ) (6.17)
Moreover if the subdomain is also loaded on internal degree of freedom the

condensation of the equilibrium at the interfaces gives:
S p( s )ub( s ) = bp( s )
(s)
K u (s)
= f (s)
⇒ (6.18)
bp( s ) = f b( s ) − K bi( s ) K ii( s ) −1 f i ( s )
Using the primal Schur complement, the primal formulation of the interface problem
assumes the form:
S p ub = ( AS p◊ AT )ub = Ab ◊p = b p (6.19)
◊
Where the superscript denotes the row-block repetition of local vectors and the
diagonal-block repetition of matrices and S p = ∑ s A( s ) S p( s ) A

( s )T
is the global primal
Schur complement of the decomposed structure.

164
Primal approach comes with an efficient preconditioner, called the Neuman-Neuman
preconditioner, enriched by a coarse problem associated to the well posedness of
local problems with imposed forces on the interfaces. This preconditioner and its
associated coarse problem is very similar to realizing a dual step as described in next
section.
6.4.2. FETI method

This method searches by an iterative procedure a field of forces that is continuous a
priori at the interfaces to guarantee the continuity of displacements at convergence,
in other words the interface problem is formulated in terms of one unique unknown
interface stresses field. The field of stresses must verify the equilibrium constrain of
every sub-domain with the respect of external loads because of the local problem is
well posed. Thus an iterative procedure is necessary; it is based on the conjugated
gradient and its projection is associated to the equilibrium constraint of each sub-
domain. This projection can be considered as a macroscopic coarse problem that
guarantees the rigid motions continuity at every iteration into the interface. For this
reason the FETI method is considered as a multiscale strategy of calculus. But this
macroscopic problem might be too poor because it is only associated to the rigid
motions. In order to exceed this reef, the method was improved by the FETI 2 [93]:
some additional constraints on the displacement field are introduced to guarantee the
continuity at the interface middle. The projection becomes an enhanced macroscopic
problem. A more recent version is called FETI-DP (Dual-Primal FETI Method [94]).
The performances obtained with FETI method are very remarkable, but they are
connected to the appropriate chosen of the pre-conditioner for the algorithm of
resolution. This chosen depends essentially from the analyzed problem and it is
possible because of the generality of the method. A classic chosen is that to consider
as pre-conditioner a lumped or Dirichlet. For the heterogeneous structures the
165
Reference is [95]; for preconditioning and enhanced macroscopic problems based on
the reuse of Krylov’s subspaces in a multiresolution context, References [96] and
[97].
6.4.3. Mixed method: the micro-macro approach

The principle of the mixed method is to rewrite the interface conditions in terms of a
new local interface unknown, which is a linear combination of interfaces stresses and
displacements. Mixed methods give a mechanical behavior to the interface and in the
case of perfect interfaces it can be mechanically interpreted as the insertion of
springs to connect the subdomains.
The method is characterized by a micro-macro approach, i.e. [98] - [100]. The mixed
formulation is indicated for the analysis of structures that are strongly heterogeneous,
i.e. [101] and [102], and for the study of the nonlinearities, i.e. [103] and [104].
The characteristics of the method are the subdivision in sub-structures, the
introduction of the multiscale effect only at interface level, where the stresses and the
displacements are split into “macro” contributions and “micro” complements, and the
satisfaction of the transmission conditions a priori by the interfaces macro stresses.
So, the initial structure is subdivided in sub-structures subjected to the actions of the
neighboring, as illustrated in Fig. 6.4.
166
FE
F E’
ΩE ΩE’
WE
W E’
ΓEE’
Fig. 6.4: Sub-domains decomposition.
Consequently to the micro and macro separation, the force and displacement field are
expressed in function of the micro and macro part:
F = FEm + FEM
(6.20)
W = WEm + WEM
The micro and macro quantities must satisfy the splitting of the virtual work:
∫
Γ EE '
F • Wd Γ = ∫
Γ EE '
FEm • WEm d Γ + ∫
Γ EE '
FEM • WEM d Γ (6.21)
At each interface the macro projector is defined as:
F M = Π ΓMEE ' (F)

F m = Π ΓmEE ' (F)
(6.22)
W M = Π MΓ ( W)
EE '
W = Π Γ (W)
m m
EE '
The projector can be chosen in order to extract the linear part from the interface
quantity. Finally the interface forces must satisfy the transmission conditions a priori
167
(in the case of perfect interfaces, macro-displacement can also be made continuous a
priori).
To solve this problem the LATIN method [92] is applied. The LATIN method is an
iterative resolution technique which takes into account the whole time interval
studied. At each iteration, an homogenized macroproblem, defined over the whole
time-space domain, is solved as well as a set of independent microproblems which
are linear evolution problems defined within each substructure or at boundaries
between the substructures. The LATIN method, illustrated in Fig. 6.5, is based on the
idea of dealing the difficulties separately, splitting the equations in two subsets:
⎧Static and kinematic admissibility:

⎪ (σ , F ), (ε , W ) ∀M ∈ Ω
⎪
Ad ⎨
E E E E E
(6.23)
⎪ Macro equilibrium:
⎪⎩ FEM + FEM' = 0
⎧ Dissipation law of each substructure

Γ⎨ (6.24)
⎩The behavior and equilibrium at interfaces
Ad is the space of the global linear equations defined, while G is the space of the local
nonlinear equations.
168
sn+1/2
E+
E-
sn+1 sn
sref.
Fig. 6.5: LATIN scheme for one iteration.
The solution of the problem is obtained by an iterative scheme. Each iteration

consists of a local step and a linear step: the method permits to find a solution that
verifies alternatively the equations of the first and second set of equations and at last
it converges towards the solution sref.
6.5. Numerical results

In this simple example a clamped beam, schematically illustrated in Fig. 6.6,
subjected to an horizontal pressure was analyzed. Two tests were performed: the first
one with the use of a single material and the second one with two different materials.
The results obtained with the application of FETI method and of the mixed method
were put in comparison.
The beam properties are reported in the following:
Geometrical characteristics:
o Brick: rectangular cross section, b=100 mm and h=100 mm;
o Mortar: rectangular cross section, b=4 mm and h=100 mm;
o External load: horizontal pressure P=10 MPa.
169
Mechanical properties:
o Brick: E=1785 MPa; n=0.2;
o Mortar: E=1785 MPa; n=0.2.
P
L
Fig. 6.6: Beam scheme.
The mesh is reported in Fig. 6.7, while in Fig. 6.8 it is remarked the single
sub-domain considered.
Fig. 6.7: Beam mesh.
Fig. 6.8: Beam sub-domain.
Two analysis are effected, with the application of the FETI method and the
mixed method. In the following figures are reported the displacement and
stress fields; the results are the same for the two methods.
170
Fig. 6.9: Case 1, displacement field for FETI.
Fig. 6.10: Case 1, displacement field for the mixed method.
Fig. 6.11: Case 1, stress field for FETI.
Fig. 6.12: Case 1, stress field for the mixed method.
171
The same clamped beam, schematically illustrated in Fig. 6.6, subjected to the same
horizontal pressure was re-analyzed considering different mechanical properties for
the two materials:
Geometrical characteristics:
o Brick: rectangular cross section with b=100 mm; h=100 mm;
o Mortar: rectangular cross section with b=4 mm; h=100 mm;
o External load: horizontal pressure P=10 MPa.
Mechanical properties:
o Brick: E=1785 MPa; n=0.2;
o Mortar: E=113 MPa; n=0.2.
In this case it is evident that the second material is effectively more deformable and
at interface some local effects are visible, as illustrated in the following.
Fig. 6.13: Case 2, displacement field for FETI.
Fig. 6.14: Case 2, stress field for FETI.
172
Also in this case the analysis was conduced by the mixed method and the results are
perfectly the same, as illustrated in Fig. 6.15 and Fig. 6.16.
Fig. 6.15: Case 2, displacement field for the mixed method.
Fig. 6.16: Case 2, stress field for the mixed method.
Moreover these results were put in comparison with the classical theoretical results
and with the results obtained by FEAP using the implemented three nodes finite
element; in particular in Tab. 6.1 and in Tab. 6.2 are reported the axial displacement
values for the first and second case, respectively.
FETI MIXED FEAP THEORIC

w [mm] ≈5.58 ≈5.88 ≈5.83 ≈5.83
Tab. 6.1: Case 1 results.
FETI MIXED FEAP THEORIC

w [mm] ≈11.16 ≈9.07 ≈12.53 ≈12.53
Tab. 6.2: Case 2 results.
All the results are in good accordance.
173
The conclusion after the study of this simple example is the possibility of applying
these methods to analyze reinforced masonry arches, reducing the solution of a great
problem into the solution of a set of simplest problems. In fact, once defined the
mesh, with a manual or automatic mesh generator, the subdivision in subdomains is
immediate and the study of the single sub-structure could become simple enough, in
terms both of numerical procedures and computational resource requirement. It must
be emphasized that the domain decomposition methods are adapted to parallel
processing, consisting of independent tasks having their own data that can be
allocated to the various processors of the system. The DDM offer a framework where
different design services can provide the models of their own parts of a structure,
each assessed independently, and they can evaluate the behavior of the complete
structure just setting specific behavior at interfaces. From an implementation point of
view, often programming DDM can be added to existing solvers as an upper level of
current code.
174
CONCLUSIONS
The research activity presented in this thesis work has been focused on the
experimental and numerical analysis of masonry arches strengthened with fiber
reinforced plastic (FRP) materials.
The experimental program regarded different tests performed on both masonry
constituents (bricks and mortar) and structures (unstrengthened and FRP-
strengthened arches). From the performed tests, important aspects concerning the
effect of the FRP reinforcement on the structural response of masonry arches was
observed. In fact, comparing the behavior of unstrengthened and FRP-strengthened
arches, it was observed that the application of FRP at extrados surface of arches
produces an increase both in terms of load-bearing capacity (strength) and in terms of
ultimate displacement (ductility). These effects are related to the collapse
mechanism. In fact, while in the case of unreinforced arches the collapse is due to the
formation of the classic four hinges, the FRP-strengthening prevents the crack
opening at the extrados, i.e. the presence of hinges at intrados, and leads to a collapse
mechanism characterized by shear and crushing failure of masonry.
On the basis of the experimental observations and in order to understand further
aspects concerning the nonlinear response of FRP-strengthened masonry arches, in
the second part of the thesis numerical analyses have been developed. In particular,
two models have been considered for the masonry material; both the models assume
the masonry material characterized by no-tension behavior and limited compressive
strength. For reduced values of the compressive strain, the first one considers a linear
stress strain relationship, while the second one considers a quadratic relationship. In
order to solve the nonlinear unreinforced and reinforced masonry arch problem, a
stress formulation, based on the complementary energy, and a displacement
formulation, based on the implementation of a three nodes finite element into the
FEAP code, have been developed.
175
Moreover, as the delamination phenomenon between the FRP and the masonry
support can play an important role in terms of FRP-strengthening contribution, an
effective procedure, based on a simplified approach of the multiscale method for the
evaluation of the normal and tangential stresses at the interface has been developed.
Moreover, in the context of the multiscale approaches, the domain decomposition
methods are analyzed.
Numerical applications based on the use of the proposed models have been
developed with reference to the performed experimental tests. The comparison
between the numerical and the experimental results demonstrated the ability of the
proposed models to reproduce the global and local response of unstrengthened and
FRP-strengthened arches. In particular, while in the case of the unstrengthened
arches the two proposed models give the same results, in the case of the FRP-
strengthened arch substantial differences occur between the two considered models.
In fact, in this case the second model gives the best results both in terms of pre and
post-peak behavior.
176
APPENDIX: RELUIS SCHEDE
MODELLO PER LA DESCRIZIONE

SINTETICA DI PROVE SPERIMENTALI
STRUTTURE/ELEMENTI STRUTTURALI
IN MURATURA
SPERIMENTAZIONE DI ARCHI IN
MURATURA CON E SENZA RINFORZO IN
FRP
CANCELLIERE ILARIA, RICAMATO MARIA, SACCO ELIO
177
ISTRUZIONI
Il modello è diviso in quattro sezioni:

1) Dati generali della prova sperimentale (G)
2) Descrizione elemento/ struttura testata (D)
3) Proprietà dei materiali (M)
4) Risultati della prova (R)
La compilazione delle prime due sezioni richiede l’inserimento di figure con fotografie e/o disegni
che si ritengono utili alla comprensione del setup di prova.
La sezione materiali è basata su tabelle da compilare con i risultati disponibili per mattoni, malta e
muratura. Cliccando sulle relative tabelle si apre una finestra di Excel in cui sono disponibili tutti i
comandi dell’applicazione. In alternativa è possibile copiare nello stesso spazio una qualsiasi tabella
dai contenuti analoghi a quella già predisposta.
La sezione finale non ha un formato prestabilito e la sua compilazione è lasciata agli autori della
prova.
E’ possibile inserire in ciascuna sezione tutte le pagine necessarie alla descrizione della prova e dei
risultati. La numerazione delle pagine ha il formato:
codice sezione/N. totale di pagine della sezione – numero progressivo di pagina
178
DATI GENERALI DELLA PROVA SPERIMENTALE
Arco Portale Volta Cupola Pannello Colonna Altro
• Oggetto della Prova X

• Autori Cancelliere Ilaria, Ricamato Maria, Sacco Elio
• Data di Esecuzione Luglio - Settembre 2007
• Sede Laboratorio Laboratorio di Progettazione Strutturale LaPS, Università di Cassino

Cancelliere I. “Analisi numerica e sperimentale di archi in muratura rinforzati con
FRP”, Tesi di Laurea specialistica in Ingegneria Civile, Università di Cassino (FR),
Ottobre 2007
• Riferimento Bibliografico Ricamato M. “Numerical and experimental analysis of masonry arches
strengthened with FRP materials”, Tesi di Dottorato, Università di Cassino,
Novembre 2007
Messa in opera dell’arco
Esecuzione della prova sperimentale sull’arco non rinforzato
Esecuzione della prova sperimentale sull’arco rinforzato
179
DESCRIZIONE SETUP DI PROVA
Geometria e Vincoli
Re 576.07 [mm]
Ri 456.07 [mm]
Rb 516.07 [mm]
Fi 8 [°] 0.1396 [rad]
Ff 172 [°] 3.0004 [rad]
Fc 164 [°] 2.8609 [rad]
Vincoli
L’arco è stato fissato alla base tramite elementi di contrasto per la realizzazione di una condizione di incastro.
Note: Il carico è stato applicato mediante un martinetto idraulico disposto in posizione eccentrica. Tra l’estradosso
dell’arco e il martinetto è stata posizionata la cella di carico.
Sono stati utilizzati tre potenziometri e due comparatori: un potenziometro e un comparatore in direzione verticale in
corrispondenza del martinetto; un potenziometro ed un comparatore in direzione verticale in chiave dell’arco; un
potenziometro in direzione orizzontale posizionato in chiave.
180
PROPRIETA’ DEI MATERIALI
MATTONI
Descrizione Dimensioni
Prova di Resistenza
(Tipo, Marca, Forno d'origine) nell'elemento strutturale
Resistenza misurata Norma di riferimento N. Prove Dimensione campione Media Scarto
compressione D.M.20/11/1987 6 55x55x55 38,5 Mpa 7,47
Risultati sui singoli campioni

Mattoni pieni in laterizio denominati Numero campione Resistenza NOTE
"di Salerno". Cava e fornace 3 1 41,5 rottura a clessidra
250x120x55 mm
ubicate nel comune di Salerno 2 35,7 rottura a clessidra
(Italia). 3 40,06 rottura a clessidra
4 34,7 rottura a clessidra
181
MALTA
Spessore
Descrizione dei letti di malta Prova di Resistenza
nell'elemento strutturale
Resistenza misurata Norma di riferimento N. Prove Dimensione campione Media Scarto
flessione UNI-EN 196/1 3 40x40x160 2,53
flessione UNI-EN 196/1 3 40x40x160 2,54
compressione D.M.20/11/1987 6 40x40x80 8,75
compressione D.M.20/11/1987 6 40x40x80 9,03
Numero campione Resistenza NOTE

1 2,36
2 2,62
3 2,59
Malta bastarda: pozzolana, calce il valore medio misurato
aerea, cemento pozzolanico sulla struttura messa in 1 2,69
(Duracem 32.5R) ed acqua opera è pari a 15 mm. 2 2,66
3 2,27
1 9,147
2 9,4475
3 8,1937
4 8,4806
5 9,008
6 8,22
1 9,83
2 9,85
3 8,355
4 8,87
5 8,53
6 8,75
182
MURATURA
Prova di Resistenza
Resistenza misurata Tipo di prova
(trazione, (compressione diagonale, Norma di riferimento N. Prove Dimensione campione Media Scarto
compressione, taglio) compressione, etc..)
NOTE
Numero campione Resistenza
(modalità di rottura, etc..)
Descrizione della prova

(modalità di applicazione del carico, diagrammi carico spostamento, setup di prova, figure del campione, etc..)
183
FIBRE
Descrizione:
Metodo di prova
proprietà unità di misura Note
normativa di riferimento
Spessore (lamina) 0.17 mm

larghezza 100 mm
lunghezza 162 mm
Geometria della sezione (barre, cavi)
Area nominale (barre, cavi) mm2
Perimetro nominale (barre, cavi) mm
Colore nero
fibra 1.80 g/cm3
densità ISO 1183-1:2004 (E)
matrice 1.31 g/cm3
in peso %
Contenuto in fibra ISO 11667:1997 (E)
in volume %
ISO 11357-2:1999(E) (DSC)
Temperatura di transizione vetrosa della resina (Tg) ISO11359-2:1999(E) (TMA)
Temperatura limite massima di utilizzo °C

Conducibilità elettrica S/m
Modulo di elasticità normale a trazione 230GPa ISO 527-4,5:1997(E)
Resistenza a trazione (valore medio) 3900 MPa ISO 527-4,5:1997(E)
Resistenza a trazione (valore caratteristico) MPa ISO 527-4,5:1997(E)
Deformazione a rottura a trazione 1.5 % ISO 527-4,5:1997(E)
Modulo di elasticità normale a compressione (barre) GPa ISO 14126:1999(E)
Resistenza a compressione (barre) (valore medio) MPa ISO 14126:1999(E)
Resistenza a compressione (barre) (valore caratteristico) MPa ISO 14126:1999(E)
Deformazione a rottura per compressione (barre) % ISO 14126:1999(E)
Resistenza a creep ISO 899-1:2003(E)
Rilassamento (barre, cavi)

Aderenza: tensione tangenziale (barre, cavi) Prova di pull-out
184
RESINA
Descrizione resina:
(nome commerciale, mono o bicomponente, pasta o liquida, tipologia di utilizzo ed ogni altra informazione generale ritenuta utile)
caratteristiche della resina non miscelata

unità di
proprietà comp. A comp. B miscela metodo di prova note
misura
colore bianco grigio grigio
ISO 2555:1989(E)
viscosità a 25° Pa s ISO 3219:1993(E)
indice di tissotropia ASTM D2196-99

densità g/cm3 1.31 ISO 1675:1985(E)
rapporto di in volume 4:1
miscelazione in peso %
condizioni di tempo mesi
stoccaggio
temperatura
(contenitore °C
siggillato)
caratteristiche della resina miscelata
condizioni di miscelazione:
condizioni di applicazione:
unità di
proprietà metodo di prova normativa di riferimento note
misura
tempo di lavorabilità (a 35°) 30 min ISO 10364:1993(E)
a 5°C min ISO 9396:1997 (E)
tempo di gelo a 20°C ISO 2535:2001 (E)
ISO 15040:1999 (E)
a 35°C
temperatura minima di applicazione 10°C
tempo min
picco esotermico ISO 12114:1997 (E)
temperatura °C
tempo di completa a 5°C
reticolazione (full a 20°C min ISO 12114:1997 (E)
core) a 35°C
proprietà della resina reticolata
condizioni di stoccaggio:
precauzioni d'uso e sicurezza:
proprietà unità di temperatura valore metodo di prova
misura di prova normativa di
riferimento
stagionato stagionato
5gg. a 22°C 1 ora a 70°C
ritiro volumetrico ISO 12114:1997 (E)
coefficiente di dilatazioe termica 10-6 °C-1 ISO 11359-2:199 (E)
ISO 11357-2:1999 (E) (DSC)

temperatura di transizione vetrosa, Tg °C ISO11359-2:1999(E) (TMA)
ASTM E 1640 (DMA)
modulo di elasticità normale a trazione Gpa ISO 527:1993 (E)
resistenza a trazione Mpa ISO 527:1993 (E)
185
RISULTATI DELLA PROVA
F(v) in corrispondenza della forza

-700.00
Ciclo I
Ciclo II
Ciclo III
-600.00
-500.00
-400.00
F [N]
-300.00
-200.00
-100.00
0.50 0.00 -0.50 -1.00 -1.50 -2.00 -2.50 -3.00 -3.50 -4.00 -4.50 -5.00 -5.50 -6.00 -6.50 -7.00
0.00
100.00
v [mm]
Cinematismo di collasso e curva forza - spostamento (relativa ai tre cicli di carico e scarico
effettuati) per l’arco non rinforzato.
Immagini relative alle fasi di prova dell’arco rinforzato.
F(v) in corrispondenza della forza

-60000
Ciclo I
Ciclo II
Ciclo III
-50000
-40000
-30000
F [N]
-20000
-10000
6 5 4 3 2 1 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 -8 -9 -10 -11 -12 -13 -14 -15 -16 -17 -18 -19 -20 -21 -22 -23
0
10000
v [mm]
Curva forza - spostamento (relativa ai tre cicli di carico e scarico effettuati) per l’arco rinforzato.
Note
186
NOTATIONS
The following notation were used throughout the text:
Vectors and tensors

Quantities
Scalar a
Vector a
Second order tensor A
Third order tensor &&
A
Operators
Inner product •
Vectorial product ×
Dyadic product ⊗
Gradient operator Δ
187
Matrices and columns
Quantities
Scalar a
⎧a1 ⎫
⎪ ⎪
Column a=⎨M⎬
⎪a ⎪
⎩ i⎭
Line a = {a1 L ai }
Matrix A = ⎡⎣ Aij ⎤⎦
Operators
Matrix product AB
Transposition AT
Inversion A −1
Any notation which has not been explicitly defined in this section will be explained
at its first point of use.
188
REFERENCES
[1] Drysdale R.G., Hamid A.A., Baker L.R., Masonry Structures, behavior and
design, Prentice Hall, 1994.
[2] Olivito R. S. and Stumpo P., Fracture mechanics in the characterization of
brick masonry structures, Int. J. of Materials and Structures, Vol. 34, 217-
223, 2001.
[3] Hilsdorf H. K., Masonry materials and their physical properties,
Proceedings of the international conference on planning and design of tall
buildings, Vol. III. Bethlehem, Pennsylvania: Lehigh University, 981–1000,
1972.
[4] Carbone I. V., Fiore A. and Pistone G., Le costruzioni in muratura, Hoepli,
Milano, 2001.
[5] Hendry W., Sinha P. B. and Davies S. R., Progetto di strutture in muratura,
Pitagora Editrice, Bologna, 2002.
[6] Lourenço P.B., Experimental and numerical issues in the modelling of the
mechanical behavior of masonry, P. Roca et al. (eds): Structural Analysis of
Historical Constructions II CIMNE, Barcelona, 57-91, 1998.
[7] Van Zijl G., Computational modelling of masonry creep and shrinkage,
PhD thesis, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands 2000.
[8] Berto L., Saetta A., Scotta R., Vitaliani R., An orthotropic damage model
for masonry structures, Int. Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering,
Vol. 55, 127-157, 2002.
[9] Pietruszczak S. and Ushaksaraei R., Description of inelastic behaviour of
structural masonry, Int. J. Solids and Structures; Vol. 40, 4003-4019, 2003.
[10] Lofti H.R. and Shing B.P., Interface model applied to fracture of masonry
structures, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 120, 63-80, 1994.
189
[11] Giambanco G. and Di Gati L., A cohesive interface model for the structural
mechanics of block masonry, Mechanics Research Comunications, Vol.
24(5), 503-512, 1997.
[12] Alfano G. and Sacco E., Combining interface damage and friction in a
cohesive-zone model, International Journal for Numerical Methods in
Engineering, Vol. 68(5), 542-582, 2006.
[13] Luciano R, Sacco E. Homogenization technique and damage model for old
masonry material. Int. J. Solids and Structures, Vol. 34 (4), 3191-3208,
1997.
[14] Milani G., Lourenço P.B., Tralli A., Homogenized limit analysis of masonry
walls. Part I: failure surfaces, Comp. Struct., Vol. 84, 166-180, 2006.
[15] Milani G., Lourenço P.B., Tralli A., Homogenised limit analysis of masonry
walls. Part II: structural examples, Comp. Struct., Vol. 84, 181-195, 2006.
[16] Marfia S., Ricamato M., Sacco E., Micro-macro approach for the analysis
of masonry arches reinforced by FRP materials, In progress, 2007.
[17] Lourenço P.B., Continuum model for masonry: parameter estimation and
validation, ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 124 (6), 642-652,
1998.
[18] Marfia S. and Sacco E., Numerical procedure for elasto-plastic no-tension
model, Int. J. for Computational Methods in Eng. Science and Mechanics,
Vol. 6, 187-199, 2005.
[19] Macchi G., General methodology. The combined use of experimental and
numerical techniques inside a single study, P. Roca et al. (eds): Structural
Analysis of Historical Constructions. CIMNE, Barcelona, 10-23, 1997.
[20] Heyman J., The stone skeleton, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ.Press,
1962.
[21] Heyman J., The safety of masonry arches, International Journal of
Mechanical Sciences, 2, 363-385, 1966.
190
[22] Bazant Z.P., Is no-tension design of concrete or rock structures always
safe? Fracture analysis, J Struct. Engrg. ASCE, Vol. 122, 2-10, 1996.
[23] Zienkiewicz O.C., Vallapian S., King I.P., Stress analysis of rock as a
NOTENSION material, Geotechnique, 18, 1968.
[24] Romano G. and Romano M., On the solution of structural problems with
unilateral constitutive relations, Rendiconti di Matematica dell Accademia
dei Lincei, Vol. 68 (8), 104-113, 1979.
[25] Romano G. and Sacco E., No-tension materials: constitutive equations and
structural analysis (in Italian), Istituto di Scienza delle Costruzioni,
University of Naples, Internal Report, 350, 1984.
[26] Del Piero G., Constitutive equations and compatibility of external loads for
linear elastic masonry-like materials, Meccanica, Vol. 24, 150-162, 1989.
[27] Angelillo M., Constitutive relations for no-tension materials, Meccanica,
Vol. 28 (3), 221- 229, 1993.
[28] Angelillo M. and Olivito R.S., Sul comportamento meccanico di pareti in
mattoni, Giornale del Genio Civile, 1-3, 1992.
[29] Giaquinta M. and Giusti E., Researches on the equilibrium of masonry
structures, Arch. Rat. Mech. Analysis, Vol. 88, 359-392, 1988.
[30] Sacco E., Modeling and analysis of structures made of no-tension materials
(in Italian), Rendiconti di Matematica dell Accademia dei Lincei, Vol. 1(9),
235-258, 1990.
[31] Lucchesi M., Padovani C. and Pagni A., A numerical method for solving
equilibrium problems of masonry-like solids, Meccanica, Vol. 29, 175-193,
1994.
[32] Alfano G., Rosati L. and Valoroso N., A numerical strategy for finite
element analysis of no-tension material, Int. J. Num. Meth. Engng., Vol. 48,
317-350, 2000.
191
[33] Grimaldi A., Luciano R., Sacco E., Computational problems for masonry-
like materials, Proceedings of the 11th ABCM Mechanical Engineering
Conference, Sao Paulo (Brazil), December 11-13, 1991.
[34] Luciano R., Sacco E., Stress-penalty method for unilateral contact
problems, Mathematical formulation and computational aspects. European
Journal of Mechanics A/Solids, Vol. 13 (1), 93-111, 1994.
[35] Cuomo M., Ventura G., A complementary energy formulation of no tension
masonry-like solids, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg., Vol. 189, 313-
339, 2000.
[36] Lucchesi M., Padovani C. and Zani N., Masonry-like solids with bounded
compressive strength, Int. J. Solids Structures, Vol. 14, 1961-1994, 1996.
[37] Olivito R. S., Statica e stabilità delle costruzioni murarie, Pitagora Editrice
Bologna, 2003.
[38] Triantafillou T. C., Fardis M. N., Strengthening of historic masonry
structures with fiber reinforced plastic composites, in: Leftheris B., Brebbia
C. A. (Eds.), Structural Studies, Repair and Maintenance of Historical
Buildings STREMA 95, Computational Mechanics Publications, 1995.
[39] Croci G., Ayala D., Asdia P. and Palombini F., Analysis on shear walls
reinforced with fibres, IABSE Symp. On Safety and Quality Assurance of
Civil Engineering Structures, Tokyo, Japan, 1987.
[40] Saadatmanesh H., Fiber composites for new and existing structures, ACI
Structural Journal, Vol. 91, 346-354, 1994.
[41] Ehsani M. R., Strengthening of earthquake damaged masonry structures
with composite materials, in Non-metallic (FRP) Reinforcement for
concrete structures. Ed. L. Taerwe, 680-687, 1995.
[42] Luciano R. and Sacco E., Damage of masonry panels reinforced by FRP
sheets, International Journal of Solids and Structures, Vol. 35, 1723-1741,
1998.
192
[43] Marfia S. and Sacco E., Modeling of reinforced masonry elements,
International Journal of Solids and Structures, Vol. 38, 4177-4198, 2001.
[44] Cecchi A., Milani G., Tralli A., In-plane loaded CFRP reinforced masonry
walls: mechanical characteristics by homogenization procedures.
Composites Science and Technology, vol. 64, 2097-2112, 2004.
[45] Schwegler G., Masonry Construction Strengthened with Fibre Composites
in Seismically Endangered Zones, 10th European Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Rotterdam, 2299-2303, 1995.
[46] Laursen P. T., Seible F., and Hegemier G. A., Innamorato D., Seismic
Retrofit and Repair of masonry Walls with Carbon Overlays, Non-metallic
(FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete structures, Edited by L. Taerwe, RILEM,
616-627, 1995.
[47] Triantafillou T. C., Strengthening of masonry structures using epoxy-bonded
FRP laminates, Journal of Composites for Constructions, ASCE, 2 (1998),
96-103.
[48] Velazquez J. I., Ehsani R., Saadatmanesh H., Out-of-plane cyclic behavior
of URM walls retrofitted with fiber composites, ACI Structural Journal, 377-
387, May-June 2000.
[49] Olivito R. S. and Zuccarello F. A., On the durability of FRP brick masonry
structures subjected to low cycle fatigue, MMSS-FRP, Venezia, 2004.
[50] Croci G. and Viskovic A., L’uso di FRP di fibra aramidica per il rinforzo
della Basilica di San Francesco d’Assisi, Proc. Of Mechanicsw of masonry
structures strengthened with FRP materials, Venezia, Italia, 2000.
[51] Avorio A. and Cecchetti M. V., Applicazione di FRP su archi e volte in
muratura: il caso della Chiesa di San Filippo Neri di Spoleto, Proc. Of
Mechanicsw of masonry structures strengthened with FRP materials,
Venezia, Italia, 2000.
[52] Como M., Ianniruberto U., Imbimbo M., The capacity of masonry arches
strengthened with FRP sheets, Proceeding of the First National Conference
193
“Mechanics of masonry structures strengthened with FRP materials:
modelling, testing, design, control”, Venezia, 2000, (in Italian).
[53] Olivito R. S. and Stumpo P., Analisi numerico-sperimentale di strutture
murarie voltate soggette a carichi mobile, Proc. Nat. Con. XXXI AIAS,
Parma, 2002.
[54] Briccoli Bati S., Rovero L., Consolidation of masonry arches through sheets
of long carbon fibers composites, Proceeding of the First National
Conference “Mechanics of masonry structures strengthened with FRP
materials: modelling, testing, design, control”, Venezia, 2000, (in Italian).
[55] Aiello M. A., Galati N., La Tegola A., Collapse load of masonry arches
strengthened with FRP sheets, Proceeding of the First National Conference
“Mechanics of masonry structures strengthened with FRP materials:
modelling, testing, design, control”, Venezia, 2000, (in Italian).
[56] Chen J. F., Load-bearing capacity of masonry arch bridges strengthened
with fibre reinforced polymer composites, Advances in Structural
Engineering, vol. 5, 37-44(8), 2002.
[57] Luciano R., Marfia S., Sacco E. Reinforcement of masonry arches by FRP
materials. ICCI’02: International Conference on FRP Composites in
Infrastructures, San Francisco, USA, June 10-12, 2002.
[58] Foraboschi P., Strengthening of masonry arches with fiber-reinforced
polymer strips, Journal of Composites for Constructions, ASCE, 191-201,
May-June 2004.
[59] Ianniruberto U., Rinaldi Z., Ultimate behaviour of masonry arches
reinforced with FRP at the intrados: comparison between analytical and
numerical models, Proceedings of the International Seminar on Structural
Analysis of Historical Constructions – Possibilities of Numerical and
Experimental Tecniques, SACH, Padova, 2004.
[60] Olivito R. S., Stumpo P., Tralli A., Stress distribution in FRP reinforced
brick-works, Proc. Int. Conf. CCC2001, Porto, 2001.
194
[61] Olivito R.S., Zuccarello F. A., Milani G., Tralli A., FRP reinforced brick:
delamination tests, Proc. Int. Conf. IPMM, Salerno, 2007.
[62] Riks E., An incremental approach to the solution of snapping and buckling
problems, International Journal of Solids and Structures, vol. 15, 529-551,
1979.
[63] Zienkiewicz O. C. and Taylor R. L., The finite element method, 4th edition,
Mc Graw-Hill, London, 1991.
[64] Hill R., A comparative study of some variational principles in the theory of
plasticity, J. Appl. Mech., 17-64, 1950.
[65] Hill R., Mathematical theory of plasticity, Oxford University Press, Ch. III,
1950.
[66] Prager W. and Hodge P. G., Theory of perfectly plastic solids, Wiley, New-
York, 1951.
[67] Romano G., Scienza delle Costruzioni, Tomo I-II, Hevelius Edizioni, 2001.
[68] Timoshenko S.P., On the correction for shear of the differential equation
for transverse vibration of prismatic bars, Philosophical Magazine, Vol. 41,
744-746, 1921.
[69] Timoshenko S.P., On the transverse vibration of bars of uniform cross-
section, Philosophical Magazine, Vol. 43, 125-131, 1922.
[70] Crisfield M.A., Finite Element and Solution Procedures for Structural
Analysis, Pineridge Press, 1986.
[71] Crisfield M. A., Non-linear Finite Element Analysis of Solids and
Structures, Vol. 1. John Wiley & Sons LTD, England, 1991.
[72] Reddy J.N., An Introduction to the Finite Element Method. McGraw-Hill
International Editions, 1993.
[73] Reddy J.N., On locking-free shear deformable beam finite elements,
Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, vol. 149, pp.
113-132, 1997.
195
[74] Reddy J.N., On the derivation of the superconvergent Timoshenko beam
finite element, Int. J. Comput. Civil and Struct. Engng., vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 71-
84, 2000.
[75] Ortuzar J.M. and Samartin A., Some consistent finite element formulations
of 1-D models: a comparative study, Advances in Engineering Software,
Vol. 29(7-9), 667-678, 1998.
[76] Marfia S., Sacco E., Numerical techniques for the analysis of crack
propagation in cohesive materials, International Journal Numerical Method
in Engineering, vol. 57, 1577-1602, 2003.
[77] Eshelby J.D., The determination of the field of an ellipsoidal inclusion and
related problems, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Vol. 241,
376–396, 1957.
[78] Hashin Z., The elastic moduli of heterogeneous materials, ASME Journal
for Applied Mechanics, Vol. 29, 143–150, 1962.
[79] Hill R., A self-consistent mechanics of composites materials, Journal of the
Mechanics and Physics of Solids, Vol. 13, 213–222, 1965.
[80] Mori T. and Tanaka K., Average stress in the matrix and average elastic
energy of materials with misfitting inclusions, Acta Metallurgica, Vol. 21,
571–574,1973.
[81] Christman T., Needleman A. and Suresh S., An experimental and numerical
study of deformation in metal-ceramic composites, Acta Metallurgica,
37(11) : 3029–3050, 1989.
[82] Tvergaard V., Analysis of tensile properties for a whisker-reinforcedmetal-
matrix composite, Acta Metallurgica, Vol. 38(2), 185–194, 1990.
[83] Sluis O., Schreurs P.J.G. and Meijer H.E.H., Effective properties of a
viscoplastic constitutive model obtained by homogenisation, Mechanics of
Materials, Vol. 31, 743–759,1999.
196
[84] Sanchez-Palencia E., Comportement local etmacroscopique d’un type
demilieux physiques hétérogènes, International Journal for Engineering
Science, Vol. 12, 231–251,1974.
[85] Duvaut G., Materiaux élastiques composites à structure périodique
homogénéisation, In Proceedings of the IUTAM Congress, Delft, 1976.
[86] Benssoussan A., Lions J.-L. and Papanicolaou G., Asymptotic Analysis for
Periodic Structures, North-Holland Pub., 1978.
[87] Sanchez-Palencia E., Non homogeneous media and vibration theory, In
Lecture Note in Physics, Vol. 127. Springer Verlag, 1980.
[88] Hughes T. J. R., Multiscale phenomena : Green’s functions, the dirichlet-
toneumann formulation, subgrid scale models, bubbles and the origins of
stabilized methods, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and
Engineering, Vol. 127, 387–401, 1995.
[89] Mandel J., Balancing domain decomposition, Communications in Applied
Numerical Methods, Vol. 9, 233–241, 1993.
[90] Farhat C. and Roux F. X., A method of finite element tearing and
interconnecting and its parallel solution algorithm, International Journal for
Numerical Methods in Engineering, Vol. 32, 1205–1227, 1991.
[91] Glowinski R. and Le Tallec P., Augmented lagrangian interpretation of the
nonoverlapping schwartz alternating method, in Third International
Symposium on Domain Decomposition Methods for Partial Differential
Equations, 224–231, Philadelphia, SIAM, 1990.
[92] Ladevèze P., Nonlinear Computational Structural Mechanics - New
Approaches and non-Incremental Methods of Calculation, Springer Verlag,
1999.
[93] Farhat C., Pierson K. and Lesoinne M., A simple an unified framework for
accelerating the convergence of iterative substructuring methods with
lagrange multipliers: Applications to the design of new feti coarse
197
problems, Technical Report CU-CAS-96-26, Center for Aerospaces
Structures, CU, 1996.
[94] Farhat C., Lesoinne M., Le Tallec P., Pierson K. and Rixen D., FETI-DP: A
dual-primal unified FETI method - part i : A faster alternative to the two-
level FETI method, International Journal for Numerical Methods in
Engineering, Vol. 50, 1523–1544, 2001.
[95] Rixen D. and Farhat C., A simple and efficient extension of a class of
substructure based preconditioners to heterogeneous structural mechanics,
International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, Vol. 44, 489–
516, 1999.
[96] Gosselet P. and Ray C., On a selective reuse of krylov subspaces in newton-
krylov approaches for nonlinear elasticity, in Domain decomposition
methods in science and engineering, 419–426, 2002.
[97] Gosselet P., Mèthodes de dècomposition de domaine et mèthodes
d’accèlèration pour les problèmes multichamps en mècanique non-linèaire,
Thèse de doctorat, Universitè Paris 6, 2003.
[98] Ladevèze P. and Dureisseix D., Une nouvelle stratégie de calcul
micro/macro en mécanique des structures, Comptes-Rendus de
l’Acadadémie des Sciences, Vol. 327, 1327–1244, 1999.
[99] Ladevèze P. and Dureisseix D., A micro/macro approach for parallel
computing of heterogeneous structures, International Journal for
Computational Civil and Structural Engineering, Vol. 1, 18–28, 2000.
[100] Ladevèze P., Loiseau O. et Dureisseix D., A micro-macro and parallel
computational strategy for highly heterogeneous structures, International
Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, Vol. 52(1-2), 121–138,
2001.
[101] Loiseau O., Une stratégie de calcul multiéchelle pour les structures
hétérogénes, Thése de doctorat, ENS de Cachan, 2001.
198
[102] Allix O., Multiscale strategy for solving industrial problems - Keynote
Lecture, ECCM 2006 - 3d European Conference on Computational
Mechanics, 2006.
[103] Ladevèze P. and Nouy A., A multiscale computational method with time and
space homogeneization, C. R. Mécanique, Vol. 330, 1–7, 2002.
[104] Cresta P., Allix O., Rey C. and Guinard, S., Nonlinear localization
strategies for domain decomposition methods: Application to post-buckling
analyses. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics & Engineering, Vol
196, 1436-1446, 2007.
199

Tesi Maria Ricamato

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Tesi Maria Ricamato

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Università degli Studi di Cassino

Dottorato di Ricerca in Ingegneria Civile

Numerical and experimental analysis of

Cassino, Novembre 2007

Numerical and experimental analysis of masonry

Supervisor: Prof. Elio Sacco

Coordinator: Prof.ssa Maura Imbimbo

Fig. 1.1: The Colosseum, Roma.

Fig. 1.2: The Pantheon, Roma.

Moreover, Romans constructed arches also as monuments, like the “triumphal

Fig. 1.4: Cathedral of Milan.

During the Renaissance, the churches assumed a great structural interest. In

Fig. 1.5: S. Maria del Fiore and Basilica di S. Pietro.

Then no relevant or innovative solution concerning the structural conception were

1.1. Early static theories of the arch

Fig. 1.6: Leonardo’s intuitive static scheme for the arch.

1.2. Motivations of the research and outline of the thesis

2.2. Mechanical behavior

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 2.3: Qualitative stress-strain diagram in uniaxial tension and compression.

Poisson’s coefficient 0.10 - 0.35 0.10 - 0.25

Tab. 2.1: Mortar and brick mechanical characteristics.

Class Kind of Composition

Fig. 2.4: Stress - strain masonry curve.

An important feature, common to all cohesive materials, is the occurrence of

Fig. 2.5: Linear elastic model with no tensile strength.

Fig. 2.6: Elasto - plastic model.

A delicate point is the determination of the point D: it can be fixed to avoid to

Fig. 3.1: Ordinary FRP devices and appliances.

3.2. Mechanical behavior

Fig. 3.2: FRP phases.

Fig. 3.3: Carbon fibers at microscope.

Fig. 3.4: Glass fibers.

Fig. 3.5: Aramidic fiber.

Aramid fiber 62 - 180 3600 - 3800 1.9 - 5.5 -2 1.44 - 1.47

Polymeric matrix 2.7 - 3.6 40 - 82 1.4 - 5.2 30 - 54 1.10 - 1.25

Steel 206 250 - 400 (yield) 20 - 30 10.4 7.8

Tab. 3.1: Properties of FRP constituents.

Fig. 3.6: Laminate constituted by more laminas.

The main advantage of laminates is the maximum freedom in the disposition of

Fig. 3.7: Laminate with unidirectional fibers.

3.2.1. Alkaline ambient effects

3.2.3. Extreme temperature and thermal cycle effects

3.2.4. Frost-thaw cycles effects

3.2.5. Temperature effects

3.2.7. Fatigue effects

3.3. Masonry structures reinforced with FRP materials

3.4. Collapse mechanism for reinforced structures

4.2. Setup and instrumentations

4.5. Standard clay brick

Fig. 4.1: Standard clay brick.

4.5.1. Cubic compressive test

Fig. 4.2: Cubic specimen extrapolated by standard clay brick.

fbk = f b (1 − kcv ) (4.4)

where k is the fractile coefficient, fixed by normative in function of the number of

Fig. 4.3: Specimen positioning.

Specimen Area Failure Compressive

Average compressive Standard deviation Variation Characteristic

4.5.2. Indirect tensile test

Fig. 4.6: Indirect tensile test scheme.

Fig. 4.7: In direct tensile test particular.

Fig. 4.8: Specimen failure.

Analogously to the compressive test, the following quantities were determined:

hinge at the extrados between bricks 1-2, interface 1, in correspondence of

Epoxy resin preparation: the epoxy resin was constituted by two