Computational & Technology Resources
an online resource for computational,
engineering & technology publications
Civil-Comp Proceedings
ISSN 1759-3433
CCP: 86
Edited by: B.H.V. Topping
Paper 220

Numerical Analysis of In-plane Performance of Unreinforced Masonry Walls Retrofitted with Fiber Reinforced Polymers

M.Z. Kabir and M. Farrin

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran, Iran

Full Bibliographic Reference for this paper
M.Z. Kabir, M. Farrin, "Numerical Analysis of In-plane Performance of Unreinforced Masonry Walls Retrofitted with Fiber Reinforced Polymers", in B.H.V. Topping, (Editor), "Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Civil, Structural and Environmental Engineering Computing", Civil-Comp Press, Stirlingshire, UK, Paper 220, 2007. doi:10.4203/ccp.86.220
Keywords: unreinforced masonry wall, retrofit, CFRP, GFRP, in-plane, static cyclic loading, numerical analysis.

This paper presents three-dimensional finite element models for in-plane static cyclic behaviour of unreinforced masonry (URM) walls retrofitted using fiber reinforced polymers (URM-FRP). The finite element modelling strategy, based on the concepts of homogenized material with smeared cracking constitutive law for URM walls and orthotropic elastic material with Tsai-Wu failure criterion for FRP, is used in the commercial code ANSYS. Experimental data are used to verify the numerical results and a reasonable agreement is found between the finite element analysis and the experimental results. Then the effects of following parameters are investigated:
  • FRP types: glass and carbon
  • Various upgrading configurations on one side of URM wall: Full coverage, X, X-Frame, H-Frame, Picture Frame and Reinforced Picture Frame.
  • Length/height ratio of the masonry wall: 1:1, 2:1, 1:2.
The results showed the following concluding remarks:
  • Retrofitting of a URM wall with GFRP increased the lateral resistances by a factor of 1.1 up to 3.3 and with CFRP increased the lateral resistance by a factor of 1.5 up to 5.3 depending on FRP configuration.
  • All the retrofitted models possessed higher stiffness than that of their unretrofitted walls in the static cyclic loading.
  • FRPs with high ultimate strain increased ductility and energy dissipation of URM walls.
  • X-Frame and H-Frame pattern reinforcement were the optimum configuration that could almost resist against all of the failure modes.
  • Retrofitted squat wall represented the most increment of energy dissipation and ductility and retrofitted slender and middle walls represented the most increment in lateral resistance.

purchase the full-text of this paper (price £20)

go to the previous paper
go to the next paper
return to the table of contents
return to the book description
purchase this book (price £120 +P&P)