Materials and Structures

, Volume 49, Issue 8, pp 3293–3308 | Cite as

In-plane cyclic behaviour of unfired clay and earth brick walls in both unstrengthened and strengthened conditions

  • Stanislav HračovEmail author
  • Stanislav Pospíšil
  • Angelo Garofano
  • Shota Urushadze
Original Article


This article presents the outcome of a series of in-plane shear tests on non-traditional masonry walls under unstrengthened and strengthened conditions. The uniqueness of the experiments arises from the testing of unfired clay and earth (adobe) bricks, which are typical for numerous historical buildings and which have significantly different mechanical properties in comparison with the nowadays commonly used fired bricks, concrete blocks, etc. The applicability and suitability of two different strengthening techniques, which do not require significant structural intervention, were investigated with the use of two evaluation procedures. The first technique was realised using steel wire ropes that were mechanically fastened to the wall and arranged in an X shape. The other technique comprised of the application of a geo-net to the surface of the wall, which was then covered with a layer of adobe plaster. Two different types of geo-nets were tested. The paper focuses on the assessment of the influences of both strengthening techniques in changing the structural resistance of the walls loaded by a combination of constant vertical compression and a cyclic horizontal loading. Other mechanical parameters, e.g. ductility or damping, were also investigated in detail. In addition, the geo-net retrofitting technique applied to a previously damaged wall was studied. Conclusions and practical recommendations for preventive strengthening of adobe and dry brick masonry walls or for remedial work on damaged masonry in regions with high seismic risk are given.


Seismic strengthening Retrofitting Earth brick walls Experimental tests Energy dissipation Earthquake engineering 



This work was supported by the Czech Science Foundation project No. 13-41574P, NIKER project (New integrated knowledge based approaches to the protection of cultural heritage from earthquake—induced risk), Grant Agreement no. 244123 and institutional support RVO 68378297.


  1. 1.
    Houben H, Guillaud H (1994) Earth construction: a comprehensive guide. ITDG Publishing, LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Silveira D, Varum H, Costa Á, Martins T, Pereira H, Almeida J (2012) Mechanical properties of adobe bricks in ancient constructions. Construction and Building Materials 28:36–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wu F, Li G, Li H, Jia J (2013) Strength and stress-strain characteristics of traditional adobe block and masonry. Materials and Structures 46:1449–1457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Angulo-Ibáñez Q, Mas-Tomás Á, Galvañ-LLopis V, Sántolaria-Montesinos JL (2012) Traditional braces of earth constructions. Construction and Building Materials 30:389–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tolles EL, Webster FA, Crosby A., Kimbro EE (1996) Survey of damage to historic adobe buildings after the January 1994 Northridge Earthquake. In: GCI Scientific Program Reports, The Getty Conservation Institute (eds.)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Croci G, D’Ayala D, D’Asdia P, Palombini F (1987) Analysis on shear walls reinforced with fibres. IABSE Symp. on Safety and Quality Assurance of Civil Engineering Structures, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Triantafillou TC, Fardis MN (1997) Strengthening of historic masonry structures with composite materials. Materials and Structures 30:486–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Triantafillou TC, Fardis MN (1993) Advanced composites for strengthening historic structures. IABSE Symp. on Structural Preservation of the Architectural Heritage, Rome, pp 541–548Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ehsani M, Saadatmanesh H, Al-Saidy A (1997) Shear Behavior of URM Retrofitted with FRP Overlays. Journal of Composites for Construction 1:17–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schwegler G (1994) Masonry construction strengthened with fiber composites in seismically endangered zones. In: Proceedings.of the 10th European conference on earthquake engineering, Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Saadatmanesh H (1994) Fiber composites for new and existing structures. ACI Structural Journal 91(3):346–354Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ehsani MR (1995) Strengthening of earthquake-damaged masonry structures with composite materials. In: Taerwe L (ed) Non-metallic (FRP) reinforcement for concrete structures, pp 680–687Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Papanicolaou CG, Triantafillou TC, Karlos K, Papathanasiou M (2007) Textile reinforced mortar (TRM) versus FRP as strengthening material of URM walls: in-plane cyclic loading. Materials and Structures 40(10):1081–1097CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Papanicolaou CG, Triantafillou TC, Karlos K, Papathanasiou M (2008) Textile reinforced mortar (TRM) versus FRP as strengthening material of URM walls: out-of-plane cyclic loading. Materials and Structures 41(1):143–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Papanicolaou CG, Triantafillou TC, Lekka M (2011) Externally bonded grids as strengthening and seismic retrofitting materials of masonry panels. Construction and Building Materials 25:504–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Faella C, Martinelli E, Nigro E, Paciello S (2010) Shear capacity of masonry walls externally strengthened by a cement-based composite material: An experimental campaign. Construction and Building Materials 24:84–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Prota A, Marcari G, Fabbrocino G, Manfredi G, Aldea C (2006) Experimental in-plane behavior of tuff masonry strengthened with cementitious matrixgrid composites. Journal of Composites for Construction 10(3):223–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Aldea CM, Mobasher B, Jain N (2007) Cement-based matrix-grifd system for masonry rehabilitation, Textile Reinforced Concrete (TRC)—German/International Experience symposium sponsored by the ACI Committe 549, ACI Special Publications, SP-244-9, pp 141–156Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lehmsteine und Lehmmauermoertel, Scholar
  20. 20.
    Miccoli L, Müller U, Perrone C, Ziegert C (2012) Earth block masonry, rammed earth and cob: earthen components from different construction techniques and their structural performance. In: Proceedings of XIth international conference on the study and conservation of earthen architectural heritage, Lima, PeruGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Miragrid GX—Geogrids (2009) Technical data,
  22. 22.
    Tenax 3D Grids (2010) Technical data,
  23. 23.
    Magenes G, Morandi P (2008) Proposal for the evaluation of the q—factor from cyclic test results of masonry walls. University of Pavia and Eucentre unpublished report, ESECMaSE projectGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Magenes G, Calvi GM (1997) In-plane seismic response of brick masonry walls. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 26:1091–1112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Magenes G, Morandi P, Penna A (2008) Experimental in-plane cyclic response of masonry walls with clay units. In: Proceedings of the 14th world conference on earthquake engineering, Beijing, ChinaGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Frumento S, Magenes G, Morandi P, Calvi GM (2009) Interpretation of experimental shear tests on clay brick masonry walls and evaluation of q—factors for seismic design, Research Report No. 02.09, ESECMaSE project, University of Pavia and EucentreGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    de Silva CW (2007) Vibration Damping, Control, and Design. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, USACrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© RILEM 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stanislav Hračov
    • 1
    Email author
  • Stanislav Pospíšil
    • 1
  • Angelo Garofano
    • 2
  • Shota Urushadze
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics AS CR, v.v.i.PragueCzech Republic
  2. 2.Applied Computing and Mechanics LaboratoryÉcole Polytechnique Fédérale de LausanneLausanneSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations