Materials and Structures

, Volume 47, Issue 9, pp 1573–1587 | Cite as

Behavior of unreinforced masonry prisms and beams retrofitted with engineered cementitious composites

Original Article


The impact of a thin layer of a ductile fiber-reinforced concrete referred to as engineered cementitious composites (ECC) on unreinforced masonry (URM) prisms and beams has been evaluated. The objective of the research was to characterize the performance and potential benefits of using ECC to retrofit URM with eventual application to masonry infill walls in non-ductile reinforced concrete frames. Compression tests of masonry prisms and flexural tests of masonry beams with different ECC retrofit schemes were conducted. The variables studied were the use of wall anchors to improve the ECC-masonry bond and alternate steel reinforcement ratios within the ECC layer in the form of welded wire fabric. The ECC retrofit was found to increase the strength and stiffness of URM prisms by 45 and 53 %, respectively compared to those of a plain specimen. When wall anchors were installed on the masonry specimens, the bond between the ECC layer and the masonry surface was improved. Four-point bending tests indicated that the strength and more importantly the ductility of an ECC retrofitted brick beam are increased significantly, especially when light reinforcement is added to the ECC layer, relative to an URM beam. Analytical models for estimating the strength and stiffness of ECC retrofitted masonry specimens are proposed and evaluated.


Unreinforced masonry Engineered cementitious composites Sprayable Retrofit Compression tests Flexural tests 


  1. 1.
    Almusallam TH, Al-Salloum YA (2007) Behavior of FRP strengthened infilled walls under in-plane seismic loading. ASCE J Compos Constr 11(3):308–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    ASTM C67–09 (2009) Standard test methods for sampling and testing brick and structural clay tile. ASTM International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    ASTM C1552–09a (2009) Standard practice for capping concrete masonry units, related units and masonry prisms for compression testing. ASTM International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    ASTM C39/C39M-10 (2010) Standard test method for compressive strength of cylindrical concrete specimens. ASTM International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    ASTM C78/C78M-10 (2010) Standard test method for flexural strength of concrete (using simple beam with third-point loading). ASTM International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    ASTM C216–10 (2010) Standard specification for facing brick (solid masonry units made from clay or shale). ASTM International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    ASTM C1314–10 (2010) Standard test method for compressive strength of masonry prisms. ASTM International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    ASTM E518/E518M-10 (2010) Standard test methods for flexural bond strength of masonry. ASTM International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Beall C (1997) Masonry design and detailing: for architects, engineers, and contractors, 4th edn. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    ElGawady MA, Lestuzzi P, Badoux M (2006) Retrofitting of masonry walls using shotcrete. NZSEE Conference, paper 45Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Franklin S, Lynch J, Abrams D (2001). Performance of rehabilitated URM shear walls: flexural behavior of piers. Department of Civil Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, December 2001Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hamoush SA, McGinley MW, Mlakar P, Scott D (2001) Murray K (2001) Out-of-plane strengthening of masonry walls with reinforced composites. ASCE J Compos Constr 5(3):139–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hilsdorf HK (1969) Investigation into the failure mechanism of brick masonry under axial compression. In: Johnson FB (ed) Designing, engineering and construction with masonry products. Gulf Publishing, Houston, pp 34–41Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Karantoni FV, Fardis MN (1992) Effectiveness of seismic strengthening techniques for masonry buildings. ASCE J Struct Eng 118(7):1884–1902CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kim YY, Kong HJ, Li VC (2003) Design of engineered cementitious composite suitable for wet-mixture shotcreting. ACI Mater J 100(6):511–518Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kyriakides MA (2011) Seismic retrofit of unreinforced masonry infills in non-ductile reinforced concrete frames using engineered cementitious composites. PhD Thesis, Stanford University, California, March 2011Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kyriakides MA, Hendriks MAN, Billington SL (2012) Simulation of unreinforced masonry beams retrofitted with engineered cementitious composites in flexure. ASCE J Mater Civ Eng 24(5):506–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Li VC (2003) On engineered cementitious composites (ECC)—a review of the material and its applications. J Adv Concr Technol 1(3):215–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mander JB, Nair B, Wojtkowski K, Ma J (1993) An experimental study on the seismic performance of brick-infilled steel frames with and without retrofit. Technical Report No. NCEER-93-0001, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, State University of New York, BuffaloGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Papanicolaou CG, Triantafillou TC, Papathanasiou M, Karlos K (2008) Textile reinforced mortar (TRM) versus FRP as strengthening material of URM walls: out-of-plane cyclic loading. Mater Struct RILEM 41(1):143–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Triantafillou TC (1998) Strengthening of masonry structures using epoxy-bonded FRP laminates. ASCE J Compos Constr 2(2):96–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© RILEM 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil Engineering and GeomaticsCyprus University of TechnologyLimassolCyprus
  2. 2.Department of Civil & Environmental EngineeringStanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations