See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: [Link]

net/publication/262297772

Determination of Shear Strength of Masonry Panels Through Different Tests

Article  in  International Journal of Architectural Heritage · November 2015

DOI: 10.1080/15583058.2013.804607

CITATIONS READS

43 2,945

3 authors:

Antonio Borri Giulio Castori

Università degli Studi di Perugia Università degli Studi di Perugia
210 PUBLICATIONS   3,177 CITATIONS    90 PUBLICATIONS   1,477 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Marco Corradi
Northumbria University
200 PUBLICATIONS   3,140 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Special Issue "Reinforcement and Repair Materials for Masonry Structures" MATERIALS Impact Factor: 2.467 View project

STAINLESS STEEL PROFILES FOR SEISMIC REINFORCEMENT OF HISTORIC MASONRY View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Marco Corradi on 15 November 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 DETERMINATION OF SHEAR STRENGTH OF MASONRY PANELS

THROUGH DIFFERENT TESTS

Antonio Borri, Giulio Castori, Marco Corradi*

University of Perugia, Dept. of Engineering Via Duranti, 93 - 06125 Perugia, Italy

* corresponding author: mcorradi@[Link]

KEYWORDS: Masonry panels, shear tests, shear strength.

ABSTRACT

This paper addresses the problem of evaluation of strength of masonry walls. In-plane

behaviour of masonry panels has been studied under monotonic diagonal-compression and

shear-compression loading in quasi-static test facility. The results of 35 laboratory and in-situ

tests are analysed to show that in the case of the diagonal compression test results are lower

than the strength of masonry walls evaluated trough the shear-compression test, highlighting

the problem of choosing the test which best simulates to the real behavior of the masonry

when stressed by lateral loads. A presentation is also given of the results of a F.E.

investigation for shear strength evaluation of masonry walls. F.E. modeling non-linear

procedure was used for the representation of masonry panels. The numerical simulations are

compared with experimental results and the reliability of the different finite element models is

discussed, thus confirming the different shear strength values measured in the experimental

campaign.

INTRODUCTION

Uncertainties are inherent in all engineering projects and particularly for rehabilitation and

reinforcement of existing masonry structures due to design assumptions and modeling

methods. As far as material properties are concerned, these can be specified during the design
phase and uncertainties arise due to discrepancies between these assumed values and those

corresponding to the properties of the materials that are actually found or used. Historic

masonry buildings in urban centres have not been conceived to resist seismic loads and an

important mechanic parameter is the masonry shear strength. Site investigations can typically

offer estimates of shear characteristics and researchers recently developed different testing

methods in order to calculate the shear parameters of masonry panels.

Investigations of construction failures during the recent earthquakes, such as the 2009 Aquila

and 2012 Emilia show that low masonry shear strength are among the major causes of failure

[1-3]. Many difficulties could be eliminated if better technical information regarding the

mechanical characteristics of masonry walls are available. In their calculations structural

engineers and technicians have often referred to not well-identified parameters for different

kinds of masonry walls found in scarce bibliography studies. Solid brick and multiple-leaf

stone masonry walls are commonly encountered in historic buildings dating back to ancient

times and up to the first half of 20th century. The classification and the analysis of historical

masonry typologies were conducted in the past with different purposes in mind [4-5].

However these contributions have rarely included an experimental part regarding the

mechanical characteristics of masonry due to the uncertainty in the determination of

mechanical characteristic from in-situ tests. Masonry walls have been classified with regard to

the constituting materials, section dimensions, bonding patterns and mortar types, but very

rarely with regard to their mechanical properties.

When studying literature with respect to shear tests on masonry, different types of test are

found. In this paper two types of test will be distinguished, that are characterized by the way

in which the load is applied.

The first type is the shear compression test. A masonry wall panel with bed joints in

horizontal direction is supported at the lower and at the upper sides. It is loaded in–plane by a
horizontal force placed at mid-span. It was first performed in-site by Turnšek and Sheppard

[6] in Slovenia. Several shear-compression tests were carried out on panels from buildings in

the city of Ljubljana. The compression stress was equal to that effectively hanging over the

panels, but not completely well-defined. In the recent past in Italy many historical

constructions have been tested: Chiostrini and Vignoli [7-8] applied the shear compression

test on some historical buildings in Tuscany fixing the compression stress using oil jacks

positioned over the panels. Other experimental campaigns were carried out by Corradi et al.

[9-11], Valluzzi et al. [12], Luciano and Sacco [13], Costa et al. [14].

The second type is the diagonal compression test. The loading is applied by means of a

compression force only and the bed joints are at an angle with the loading direction. The

diagonal compression test is clearly defined by ASTM [15] and RILEM [16] specifications, to

which this experimental work refers. Several experimental campaigns were carried out in the

past, but most results refer to new masonry walls made of hollow bricks or concrete masonry

units [17-20]. With regard to historic masonry walls, during the last decades diagonal tests

were carried out on masonry panels in site or in laboratory by Valluzzi et al. [21], Gabor et al.

[22] and recently by Brignola et al. [23], Calderini et al. [24], Alecci et al. [25].

Beside variations in geometrical and material properties, mortar quality, this study aim to

validate the two test methods and to discuss and compare the results in terms of shear strength

for similar wall panels. The authors have performed a series of both analytical and

experimental studies on the mechanical characterization of historic masonry walls, and most

of the results have either been published or are currently under consideration for publication.

TEST SETUP AND PROCEDURES

(1) Diagonal compression test

The diagonal compression test was designed in order to evaluate the shear strength and the

shear elastic modulus of the masonry. The laboratory procedure is normalized by ASTM and
RILEM standards. The two codes show some differences both in the interpretation of test

results and in the evaluation of the mechanical properties from the experimental test. Both

testing procedures involved rotation of the URM wall panel by 45° and vertical loading along

one of the wall’s diagonals.

Two groups of masonry specimens were tested. They had two different dimensions: 1200 x

1200 mm and 500 x 500 mm with different thicknesses. For masonry specimens tested in-site

(all 1200x1200 mm), the panel remained anchored to the rest of masonry wall through a part

of the 700 mm of the lower horizontal edge. The remaining three edges and a part of the

fourth were cut and isolated from the rest of the masonry wall.

Fig. 1 shows the schematic and scene picture of the test setup in this experimental program.

The load is monotonically applied by a 1000kN-hydraulic actuator (50 kN- for 500x500 mm

panels) positioned on the corners of the panels between an H shaped metal element and a

loading plate, which when loaded developed tension forces in two steel rods positioned

between the steel loading plates, consequently compressing the wall panel diagonally.

4 LVDTs were used to measure the diagonal shortening and expansion on both sides of

masonry panels. All experimental data about load, time, displacements during entire test were

recorded through an electric datum acquisition system. The tests were performed with many

cycles of loading and unloading, increasing the jack action gradually until the failure of the

panel to identify the diagonal shear strength and the degradation of the shear stiffness.

According to ASTM standard, this test was introduced to simulate a pure shear stress state. In

these conditions the Mohr circle of the stress state is centered in the origins of  axes.

Shear stress, Ss of masonry, equal to the principal tensile stress I, at applied load P was

determined by using the following equation:

Ss   I 
0.707 P (1)
An
in which An is the net cross-horizontal section of the panel, determined as the average of the

width and height of the specimen multiplied by its thickness. From the diagonal compression

test it is possible to determine the shear modulus G. In the experimental analysis the angular

strain  was evaluated:

 V  H 
    (2)
 g 

where: V = diagonal shortening, H= diagonal extension, g= gage length

Fig. 2 represents the stress states defined by ASTM and Rilem Standards with the Mohr’s

circle representation. According to ASTM Standard, the centre of Mohr’s circle is in the

origin of the axis, so the maximum principal (tensile) stress I is equal to both principal

compression III and shear stress xy.

The RILEM interpretation of the test results is obtained modeling the masonry panel as if it is

an isotropic and homogeneous material and running a linear elastic analysis: the stress state at

the centre of the specimen is not a pure shear state:

P P
 x   y  0.56  xy  1.05 (3)
An An

According to this interpretation, it is possible to evaluate the tensile strength ft of masonry by:

P
f t  0.5 (4)
An

and using the Turnšek and Cacovic [26] formulation, the shear strength  0 D from a diagonal-

compression test is given by:

ft P
 0D   (5)
1.5 3 An

The compressive and tensile strain values have been calculated from the relative displacement

between two control points in each diagonal (gage length).

(2) Shear-compression tests

The shear strength is evaluated here with the shear-compression test as the average shear

stress in a panel subjected to a vertical compression and to a horizontal load in its plane. The

investigation was carried out on two types of masonry panels: large panels measured 1800

mm in height and 900 mm in width while small panels tested only in laboratory measured

1000 mm in height and 500 mm in width.

Fig. 3 shows the in-site test set-up. Large specimens were placed in the test set-up and firstly

subjected to the desired level of compression which was kept constant during the test. The

level of compression applied, corresponding to approx. 20-40% of the estimated masonry

compressive strength, was 0.20÷0.30 MPa (typical for a two or three-storey building). The

axial load was applied by means of two 500kN hydraulic jacks placed between a support

frame and an upper spreader beam. Applied loads and corresponding displacements were

recorded with a frequency of 2 Hz.

All the tests were performed under force control (monotonic up to the point of failure), using

a 1000 kN hydraulic jack, at a load increment rate approximately equal to 0.25 kN/s.

The presence of the apparatus overhanging the panel was not enough to constitute a perfect

constraint (Fig. 4). The upper half of the panel was able to translate and rotate while the lower

half, connected to the rest of the masonry, could be considered as a perfect constraint. This

caused a lack of symmetry in shear distribution between the upper and lower halves of the

panel, which was taken into account during the elaboration of the data. As consequence of

this lack of symmetry, the lower half of the panel resulted always more stressed and the

failure always occurred here. Sixteen displacement transducers were adopted: eight W50 (50

mm of maximum deformation) were applied on the main façades of the wall to record the

diagonal displacements (4 shortenings and 4 extensions), respectively, whereas 6 other

transducers W50 were placed along each side of one vertical edge (at the base, the center

point, the top of the panel) and two more transducers were placed on one side to measure
vertical movements on the edge of one side of the panel and eventual rotations at the top of

the panel.

In order to evaluate the shear strength 0T of the masonry, the well-known Turnšek and

Cacovic formulation is assumed:

T f  (6)
 max   t 1 0
Dt b ft

where: f t  1.5 0T (7)

and ft represents the tensile strength of masonry and b is a parameter which was assumed to be

dependent on the panel aspect ratio H/D (H=height of the panel, D=width of the panel) and

accounts for the distribution of shear stress.  0 is the vertical compression stress and T is the

maximum shear load in the lower half of the panel.  max is the shear strength affected by the

vertical compression stress  0 according to the Turnšek formulation. The parameter b takes

into account the variability and distribution of the shear stresses at the center of the wall and

was assumed equal to 1.5 in the Turnšek and Cacovic formulation. Recently in the new Italian

Seismic Code [27], according to the formulation proposed by Benedetti and Tomasevic [28],

this parameter with aspect ratio H/D=1 has been assumed equal to 1.

EXPERIMENTAL WORK

(1) Test matrix

The evaluation of the shear strength of URM panels was the main thrust of this study. The

total number of specimens is thirty-five, nineteen of which were manufactured in laboratory,

and sixteen large panels were cut from six existing buildings. The in-site tests were carried

out on historic constructions located in central Italy while the laboratory tests on both large

and small panels were conducted at the Lastru laboratory of the University of Perugia located

in Terni.
The test matrix of shear-compression and diagonal compression tests was based on the

following panels:

1. In-site testing: a) 5 full-scale tests carried out at the Farnetta building (2 diagonal

compression tests and 3 shear compression tests); b) 3 full-scale tests carried out at the

Belfiore building (2 diagonal compression tests and 1 shear compression test) and one

full-scale test carried out at the Vescia building (shear compression test); c) 2 full-

scale tests carried out at the Ponte Postignano building (1 diagonal compression test

and 1 shear compression test); d) 2 full-scale tests at the San Felice building (1

diagonal compression test and 1 shear compression test); e) 4 full-scale tests at the

Colle Umberto building (2 diagonal compression test and 2 shear compression test).

2. Laboratory testing: a) 10 tests on large panels (3 diagonal compression tests and 7

shear compression tests); b) 9 tests on small panels (4 diagonal compression tests and

5 shear compression tests).

All panels are identified by a four index code, in which the first indicates the type of test

(CD=diagonal compression, TC=shear-compression); the second identification number of the

panel; the third location of the structure from which the panels were obtained (B=Belfiore,

V=Vescia, F=Farnetta, P=Ponte , U=Colle Umberto, S=San Felice, L=Laboratory), while the

fourth index indicates the type of intervention carried out (in this case the fourth index is

always OR because this paper reports only the results on un-strengthened panels, with the

exception of tests identified by codes V-T-07-IN in which the strengthening technique using

preventive injections resulted as not effective).

(2) Description of the panels tested in-situ

Considering the importance of the type of masonry assemblage a brief description of the

buildings where the panels were cut is reported in this section. The panels were cut from 6
buildings located in Farnetta, Vescia, Belfiore, Ponte, Colle Umberto and San Felice. A photo

of the masonry pattern of each building is reported in Fig. 5.

The mortars of all buildings are rather weak and all lime-based in consideration to the absence

of portlandite and of silicates of calcium and aluminum (with the exception of the poor

cement based mortar of Ponte building) . The chemical analysis shows that the main

differences are in relation to the period of construction of the buildings: the Ponte mortar has

a high weight ratio cement/aggregates. The other buildings, constructed before Ponte, have a

smaller value of this ratio and the mortars have small quartz traces removed by the erosive

action of water. The walls of five buildings (Vescia, Ponte, Farnetta, Colle Umberto and

Belfiore) are made of barely cut calcareous white- and pink-color stones (stone rubble

masonry). The dimensions of the stones vary for the different buildings from which the

panels were cut. Larger stones were present in Belfiore and Vescia and (average dimension of

the longest edge equal to 300 mm) while smaller calcareous stones constituted the panels at

Farnetta, Colle Umberto and Ponte (average dimension of the longest edge equal to 200-250

mm).

The characteristics of the two types of stone were obtained on cylindrical specimens 70 mm

in diameter and 150 mm in height, cored from irregular cut stones. The compressive strength

was 57.5 MPa for pink color calcareous stone and 36.0 for white-color calcareous stones. The

weight density of these stones is sufficiently constant and average values equal to 2330 kg/m3

for the pink color one and 2485 kg/m3 for the white color one were measured.

The results show a significant scattering in the data of the compression tests carried out on the

sponge travertine of the building of Ponte. This depends on the high inhomogeneity of the

stone due to the presence of large and frequent voids. The average values of the weight

density and of the compression strength are respectively equal to 1335 kg/m3 e 2.66 MPa.
The first building located in the countryside of the village of Farnetta in Umbria was

constructed at the beginning of the 20th century as a rural house (farm). The walls of the two

storeys farm are constructed from URM, with a timber framed trussed roof; the walls are

made with a two leaf masonry of irregular white calcareous stones with weak connections and

a thickness of 480 mm.

The buildings of Belfiore and Vescia are two stories high. The masonry texture of these

buildings is very similar and made of stone double-leaf walls with double solid brick courses

interposed at intervals of 800-1200 mm. The two external leaves, approximately 180-240 mm

thick each, consisted of rough-shaped calcareous limestone white- and pink-colored blocks

bonded in sub-horizontal courses. The double-leaf walls had a thickness of 480 mm.

Connecting stones are not present.

The Ponte building is three floors high and was constructed just before 1955 to serve as a

residence. The masonry assemblage is made with irregularly cut stones with a maximum

thickness of 480 mm and the wall is a double leaf masonry made of white- and pink-

limestones and sponge travertine. Connecting stones between the leave are not present.

The stone masonry building of Colle Umberto is an abandoned rural farm located in the north

of Umbria. Colle Umberto farm is a double-gabled building. The building was probably built

in the 18-19th century and enlarged during the 20th century. White-calcareous stone masonry

walls are characterized by two thinness’s: oldest masonry walls are about 600 mm thick and

20th century walls are 480 mm thick.

The building of San Felice is located in the Italian region of Emilia. The building is outside

the city walls and it is from the 18th century. Its layout is quite simple, as a two-storey

building. Solid clay bricks and broad mortar joints (average height 10-15 mm) were used for

the construction of this building. The URM walls of the buildings consist of multi-leaf clay

brick masonry constructed in common bond. The average thickness of the wall section of the
building is approximately 300 mm. The exterior solid brick walls are two single leaf URM

walls connected by transverse bricks (2-4 bricks/m2). The interior and exterior of the

perimeter walls and the internal walls are plastered with a weak 10 mm to 20 mm thick lime-

sand plaster.

(3) Description of the panels built in laboratory

The laboratory investigation was carried out on panels of small and large dimensions. Large

specimens were made of solid clay bricks (dimensions: 240x120x55 mm, bulk density: 970

kg/m3) or barely cut calcareous pink stones (Fig. 6). All panels were constructed by

experienced masons following traditional construction procedures. Clay solid bricks were

supplied by a local Manufacturer (Fornaci briziarelli Marsciano S.p.A). In all specimens the

joints (bed and head) consisted of a general purpose masonry lime-based mortar and were

made approximately 10 mm thick.

The mean compressive and flexural strengths of the clay-brick masonry units and mortar are

shown in Tab. 1. Mortar used for the masonry panels had the following mix composition:

sand/ inorganic binder weight ratio =3.0 and water/binder weight ratio = 0.85. The binder is

produced by Colacem S.p.A. and its commercial name is “Calce Idrata Colacem”.

(4) Test results

Large panels

Twenty-six (10 in laboratory, 16 in site) large panels failed due a shear-friction crack along a

diagonal. The results of in-site tests show significantly different values depending on the type

of test carried out on the masonry panels. Considering only the double-leaf walls in the

building of Belfiore shear strengths were 0.0705 MPa and 0.0337 MPa respectively for the

shear-compression test and the diagonal compression test (Tab. 2).

Similar results were obtained for the panels tested in Ponte: a shear strength 0T of 0.0837

MPa was measured for panel 15, submitted to a shear-compression test, and a shear strength
0D of 0.0270 MPa for panel 13 (diagonal compression test). For these buildings the results of

shear-compression tests are about 170% higher than the results of diagonal compression tests

(respectively +127% and +210% higher).

The shear stress, calculated from Eq. (5 ) and (6), vs angular strain response, is compared in

Figs. 7-9. Fig. 7 shows the shear stress – angular strain response for two similar panels of

Colle Umberto while Figs. 8 and 9 shows the same comparison respectively at San Felice and

Belfiore/Vescia buildings. It must be noted that the shear stress max from the shear-

compression tests is affected by the vertical compression stress 0 applied on the top of the

panel. Using Eq. (7) it is possible to calculate the shear strength 0T and compare it with the

shear strength 0D . Tab. 3 shows the ratio between the results of shear strength obtained from

the two test methods. Working with eight couples of results (16 shear tests) related to the five

above-mentioned buildings of Belfiore and Vescia, Colle Umberto, San Felice and Farnetta,

the ratio r=0T / 0D varied from 1.13 to 3.10 (average value 2.26). Surely, due to the very few

number of tests carried out, the above quoted correlation must be investigated by a bigger

number of tests. However, the emerging line seems quite correct and hence they allow the

following considerations.

With regard of shear-compression tests carried out in laboratory on masonry stone panels, the

maximum shear strength 0T of the walls varied between 0.036 and 0.104 MPa, but evident

cracks pattern already started at a stress level varying from 0.025 to 0.071 MPa. The average

value of shear strength 0T of these panels was 0.073 MPa (Tab. 4).

Only one panel with this masonry texture (double-leaf roughly cut stones) was tested in

laboratory in diagonal compression (CD-08-L-OR) and a shear strength 0D of 0.020 MPa

was measured. The cracks had a diagonal pattern, located on both panel surfaces and in the

transverse sections. The ratio r of these tests is 3.67. Higher values of shear strength 0D were

detected for the two solid brick panels (shear strength 0.043 and 0.053 MPa), whereas shear
strengths 0T of brick panels tested in shear-compression were much higher, varying from

0.094 to 0.144 MPa.

Tab. 5 shows the comparison between the results of diagonal- and shear-compression tests:

the ratio r is always higher than 1. For solid bricks panels it was 2.44.

Small panels

Small specimens were tested in laboratory according to both test methods. For a reliable

correlation study with the prototype, one of the most important considerations is the

appropriate modelling as per similitude relations. However the aim of this part of the

experimental work was not to simulate the behavior of large panels, but to compare the results

of shear strength of small specimens. For practical considerations, the brick geometric,

modulus and density ratio are assumed unity.

Shear tests on small-scale panels, having nominal dimensions of 500x500x120 mm (diagonal

compression tests) (Figs. 10a and 11a) revealed an average shear strength 0D of 0.0354 MPa

(Tab. 6).

The panels tested in shear-compression consist of single-leaf clay brick masonry constructed

in common bond (horizontal courses) (Figs. 10b and 11b) nor in a masonry bond pattern with

vertical courses (Fig. 10c). These tests were performed in order to remove the influence of

masonry bond pattern from results. From these tests it appears evident that the results are

connected to both the type of test and the bond pattern (Fig. 12). Identical panels (for

dimensions and mix design) have been tested and different results have been found. The shear

compression tests lead to different values of strength 0T when different bond patterns are

used (0T = 0.0897 MPa (bricks arranged in horizontal courses), 0T=0.0375 MPa (vertical

courses)). Tab. 7 shows the comparison between the results of diagonal- and shear-

compression tests: the ratio r=0T / 0D is always higher than 1 and varied between 1.06 and

2.53.
Discussion

Once it is assumed that a ratio exists between the results of the two shear tests, we face the

problem of choosing the one more representative of the real behavior of masonry walls

stressed by horizontal loads typical of seismic actions. Diagonal compression tests allow the

panel a free deformation, since its four sides are free from any kind of constraints, with the

exception of the small portion of masonry that permits the connection between the panel and

the rest of the masonry wall. Numerical calculations demonstrated its un-influence and the

panel can be considered completely un-constrained. This situation may be assumed to be

representative of masonry spandrels in which the vertical compression stress 0 may be

considered equal to zero and the effect of confinement is very limited.

On the contrary, during the shear-compression test, the two square halves resulting from the

division of the panels in two parts have therefore a common edge. This causes an effect of

confinement from one half to the other. These are also constrained by the presence, on the

upper part of the panel, of the apparatus overhanging the panel (steel plates, jacks, rods) and,

by the bottom one, of the remaining masonry constituting the wall.

The most common seismic verifications for buildings, constituted of 2-3 floors with walls

characterized by a low slenderness ratio, assume the vertical masonry elements between

adjacent openings as infinitely stiff. In analogy with the shear-compression tests, the failure of

these elements occurs when the shear strength is not able to absorb the seismic loads. The

strains along the vertical edges of masonry elements are free, while an effect of confinement

is produced by the remaining overhanging part of the masonry wall (Turnšek and Sheppard

[6], Chiostrini et al. [7-8], Lagomarsino and Giovinazzi [29]). This situation is typical for

masonry piers or heavily confined load-bearing walls in which the absence of openings

prevents any kind of masonry deformation.

A behavior such as this is easy to verify from the analysis of damages to constructions struck

by the earthquake, in which the failure condition occurs when the tensile strength in the center

of the masonry panel is achieved.

One other important aspect of the problem concerns the bond pattern of the panels, which

affects the shear strength. Fig. 13 shows two different bond patterns: it is clear that the shear

strength of the second wall is bigger. Experiments on brick panels also demonstrate that the

shear strength from shear-compression test method is higher compared to the one from

diagonal compression-test. The ratio r assumed high values varying between 2.44 and 2.53 for

brick panels arranged in a common (horizontal courses) bond pattern. The collapse

mechanism of two brick panels is shown in Fig. 14: following the rupture in the centre of the

panel, the contribution of friction during the test is different for the two test methods. The

slide mechanism in the shear compression test may contribute to increase the shear load

while during a diagonal compression test the diagonal crack causes the separation of the two

parts of the panel without significant friction contribution.

NUMERICAL ANALISYS

In this paragraph non-linear static analysis has been carried out on the 3D model of the

masonry panels tested in accordance with ASTM E-519 [15] (diagonal compression) and

shear compression. A three-dimensional finite element model has been developed to account

for geometric and material nonlinear behavior of masonry panels and was used to model the

shear tests on the masonry panels. The numerical simulation was carried out using ANSYS

code ver. 14.5; the panels were modeled using isoparametric elements (SOLID65) with the

hypothesis of plane stress. Panel for diagonal compression and shear-compression tests are

characterized by the dimensions respectively of 1200x1200x400 mm and 1800x900x400 mm.

A compression stress 0 of 0.30 MPa was applied over the panels tested in shear-compression.

A typical finite element discretization of the masonry panels and steel apparatus used in the
present study is shown in Fig. 15. Structural steel sections (spreader beam, C-shaped

elements, loading plate) were modeled as an elastic material. The panels tested in diagonal

compression and shear-compression was respectively modeled with 24x24x8 and 18x36x8

elements. A smeared model with homogenized properties has been used. The masonry is

modelled as a isotropic continuum.

Values concerning the physical properties of masonry material have been established on

statistical analysis of test data found in the literature (Corradi et al. [9]). The average elastic

Young ES modulus, own weight W, Poisson ratio  and tensile strength fwt of masonry values

used in the FE analyses were: ES = 1000, 2000 and 3000 MPa, W=17.5 kN/m3,  = 0.25,

fwt=0.02, 0.03, 0.04, 0.05 and 0.06 MPa.

The finite element model developed herein has been used to analyze the nonlinear response

of masonry is highly discontinuous due to cracking. Fig. 16 reports the tensional results and

displacements for both types of panels. Fig. 17 reports the crushing and the cracking path

obtained in the non-linear analysis due to increasing shear load. The analyses carry out on the

non-linear 3D F.E. model has also permitted to evaluate the shear strength capacity of the two

test types. The predicted shear strength 0 vs. masonry tensile strength fwt response for three

values of masonry Young modulus Es of 1000, 2000 and 3000 MPa is shown in Fig. 18. In

this figure two theoretical predictions are shown for each test method. It is evident from Fig.

19 that the ratio r=0T / 0D is always higher than 1. In the case of ES=1000 MPa, the ratio

value varied between 1.23 and 1.89 and all the values were higher than 1.

CONCLUSIONS

An experimental research on the shear behavior of 35 masonry panels tested in diagonal- and

shear-compression has been presented. Based on the results obtained from the experimental

program, the following conclusions can be stated:

1. The diagonal compression and the shear-compression tests were carried out on the same

type of masonry. This allowed to identify a significant differentiation both in site and in

laboratory between the results obtained from the two test methods. It was noted that the ratio

r=0T / 0D between the results of shear strength for the two tests is always higher than 1,

highlighting the problem of choosing the test which best simulates to the real behavior of the

masonry when stressed by lateral loads.

2. The experimental results of laboratory tests carried out on small and large panels made of

solid bricks confirmed that the type of test has an influence on the shear strength. The

difference between shear results from the two test methods seems to be even bigger for brick

panels arranged in horizontal courses compared to rubble stone panels.

3. The laboratory experimental campaign also analyzed the influence of bond pattern for

small solid-brick panels highlighting the importance of this parameter. Bricks panels arranged

in vertical courses exhibited a lower shear strength compared to the same panels arranged in

standard horizontal course. The ratio r generally assumed high values varying between 2.44

and 2.53 for brick panels arranged in a standard bond pattern.

4. FE analysis of the shear tests has shown that the ratio r=0T / 0D is always bigger than 1

ranging between 1.23 and 1.89. For low masonry tensile strength the ratio assumed the

highest values. Despite tests results, the value of this ratio never exceeded 1.89 for all FE

analyses carried out.

5. Ongoing and new developments are focused on the influence of masonry assemblage and

of the panel geometrical and mechanical characteristics on the formulation for the prediction

of the shear strength measured with two test methods.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The experimental program was carried out with the help of Giulio Befani and Fabrizio

Cristofari, Undergraduate Research Assistants, and Alessandro de Maria, Alessio Molinari

and Romina Sisti, Graduate Research Assistants. The authors are grateful for their

contributions.

REFERENCES

[1] Carocci, C.F. 2012. Small centres damaged by 2009 L’Aquila earthquake: on site analyses

of historical masonry aggregates, Bull Earthquake Eng,10:45–71.

[2] Ural, A., Dogangun, A., Sezen, H. and Angın, Z. 2012. Seismic performance of masonry

buildings during the 2007 Bala, Turkey earthquakes, Nat Hazards 60:1013–1026.

[3] Furukawa, A. and Ohta, Y. 2009. Failure process of masonry buildings during earthquake

and associated casualty risk evaluation, Nat Hazards, 49:25–51.

[4] Borri. A. and De Maria, A. 2009. Indice di qualità muraria: applicazioni nell’ambito delle

NTC 2008 [in Italian], L'Edilizia, Ed. De Lettera, 46-54.

[5] Binda, L., Saisi, A. and Tiraboschi, C. 2000. Investigation procedures for the diagnosis of

historic masonries, Construction and Building Materials 14, 199-233.

[6] Turnšek, V. and Sheppard, P.F. 1980. The shear and flexural resistance of masonry walls,

Proc. Research Conference on Earthquake Eng., Skopje, Macedonia, Sept. 8–13, 517–573

[7] Chiostrini, S. and Vignoli, A. 1994. In-situ determination of the strength properties of

masonry walls by destructive shear and compression tests. Masonry Int.;7(3):87–96.

[8] Chiostrini, S., Galano. L. and Vignoli, A. 2000. On the determination of strength of

ancient masonry walls via experimental tests. Proc. 12th World Conference on Earthquake

Engineering, cd-rom, Aukland, New Zealand, January 30–February 4, paper No. 2564.

[9] Corradi, M., Borri, A. and Vignoli, A. 2003. Experimental study on the determination of

strength of masonry walls. Journal of Construction and Building Material, 17: 325–37.

[10] Corradi, M., Tedeschi, C., Binda, L. and Borri, A. 2008. Experimental evaluation of

shear and compression strength of masonry wall before and after reinforcement: Deep

repointing. Journal of Construction and Building Material, 22: 463–472.

[11] Borri, A., Castori, G., Corradi, M. and Speranzini, E. 2011. Shear behavior of

unreinforced and reinforced masonry panels subjected to in situ diagonal compression tests.

Constr Build Mater; 25:4403–14.

[12] Valluzzi, M. R., Tinazzi, D. and Modena, C. 2002. Shear behavior of masonry panels

strengthened by FRP laminates, Journal of Construction and Building Materials, 16:409–416.

[13] Luciano, R. and Sacco, E. 1998. Damage of masonry panels reinforced by FRP sheets.

Int. J. Solids and Structures, Elsevier Science Ldt, 35-15, 1723-1741.

[14] Costa, A., Arêde, A., Costa, A., Oliveira, C. 2011. In situ cyclic tests on existing stone

masonry walls and strengthening solutions, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics,

40, 4, 449–471.

[15] ASTM E 519-81 1981, Standard Test Method for Diagonal Tension (Shear) in Masonry

Assemblages, American Society for Testing Materials.

[16] RILEM TC. 1994, 76-LUM. Diagonal tensile strength tests of small wall specimens,

1991. In RILEM, Recommendations for the Testing and Use of Constructions Materials.

London: E& FN SPON, 488–489.

[17] Correa, M.R.S., Page, A.W., Han, Y. and Masia, M. 2006. Experimental and theoretical

study of the shear behaviour of URM walls with openings. Masonry Int;19(1): 1–14.

[18] Tomazevic, M., Lutman, M. and Petkovic, L.J. 1996. Seismic behaviour of masonry

walls: experimental simulation. J Struct Eng – ASCE;122(9):1040–7.

[19] Sing-Sang, P., Totoev, Y. and Page, A.W. 2008. Earthquake shear load in load-bearing

masonry buildings. Australian J Struct Eng;8(2):171–89.

[20] Roca, P. and Araiza, G. 2010. Shear response of brick masonry small assemblages

strengthened with bonded FRP laminates for in-plane reinforcement. Construction and

Building Materials 24, 1372–1384.

[21] Valluzzi, M. R., Da Porto, F. and Modena, C. 2004. Behavior and modeling of

strengthened three-leaf stone masonry walls. Materials and Structures / Matériaux et

Constructions, 37, 184-192.

[22] Gabor, A., Bennani, A., Jacquelin, E. and Lebon, F. 2006. Modelling approaches of the

in-plane shear behavior of unreinforced and FRP strengthened masonry panels, Composite

Structures, 74: 277–288.

[23] Brignola, A., Frumento, S., Lagomarsino, S. and Podestà, S. 2009. Identification of Shear

Parameters of Masonry Panels Through the In-Situ Diagonal compression test, International

Journal of Architectural Heritage, 3: 1, 52 -73.

[24] Calderini, C., Cattari, S. and Lagomarsino, S. 2010. The use of the diagonal compression

test to identify the shear mechanical parameters of masonry. Constructions and Building

Materlials, 24, 677-685.

[25] Alecci, V., Fagone, M. and Rotunno, T. 2013. De Stefano M. Shear strength of brick

masonry walls assembled with different types of mortar, Construction and Building Materials

40, 1038–1045.

[26] Turnšek, V. and Cacovic, F. 1971. Some experimental results on the strength of brick

masonry walls. Proc. of the 2nd International Brick Masonry Conference, Stoke-on-Trent,

149-156.

[27] Italian Seismic Code, D.M. 14.01.08, G.U. No.9 – 04.02.08 [in Italian] 2008.

[28] Benedetti, D. and Tomasevic, M. 1984. Sulla verifica sismica di costruzioni in muratura.

Ingegneria sismica, 1(0), 9-16 [in Italian].

[29] Lagomarsino, S. and Giovinazzi, S. 2006. Macroseismic and mechanical models for the

vulnerability and damage assessment of current buildings. Bull Earthq Eng 2006;4:415-43
Tab. 1: Results from mechanical characterization of bricks and lime-based mortar
for masonry panels tested in lab.

Sample size Compression Flexural

stress Strength
(MPa) (MPa)
Solid clay bricks 30 20.99 7.39
Mortar 21 0.549 -
42 - 0.281
 Tab. 2: Results from the diagonal compression and the shear-compression tests
(masonry panels tested in site)

Test No. Panel Masonry Failure Compression Shear Shear

dimensions texture Load stress 0 Strength 0 Strength SS
(mm) (kN) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
CD-03-F-OR 1200x1190x480 1 37.0 - 0.0215 0.046
CD-04-F-OR 1200x1200x480 1 37.9 - 0.0219 0.047
CD-01-B-OR 1200x1220x480 1A 58.8 - 0.0337 0.072
CD-13-P-OR 1230x1220x480 1 47.7 - 0.0270 0.059
CD-02-U-OR 1170x1180x480 1 31.2 - 0.0188 0.039
CD-06-U-OR 1190x1200x600 1 44.1 - 0.0209 0.043
CD-09-S-OR 1180x1200x280 2 19.6 - 0.0195 0.041
TC-01-F-OR 860x480x1820 1 34.3* 0.147 0.0250 -
TC-02-F-OR 863x480x1800 1 37.0* 0.184 0.0241 -
TC-05-F-OR 900x480x1800 1 62.5* 0.183 0.0531 -
TC-04-B-OR 880x480x1830 1A 88.3* 0.308 0.0705 -
TC-07-V-IN 930x480x1830 1A 100.5* 0.287 0.0823 -
TC-15-P-OR 880x480x1820 1 74.4* 0.122 0.0837 -
TC-16-U-OR 890x480x1820 1 36.1 0.100 0.0320 -
TC-17-U-OR 900x600x1810 1 36.9 0.100 0.0430 -
TC-18-S-OR 880x280x1890 2 40.6 0.200 0.0604 -
Masonry textures: 1: double-leaf stone panel, 1A: double-leaf stone masonry with two solid brick courses at
intervals of 800-1200 mm, 2: solid bricks; CD=diagonal compression, TC=shear-compression, B=Belfiore,
V=Vescia, F=Farnetta, P=Ponte , U=Colle Umberto, S=San Felice, L=Laboratory.
Tab. 3: Comparison of the results from the diagonal compression and the shear-compression
tests
(masonry panels tested in site)

Test No. Test type Texture r=0T / 0D

CD-01-B-OR Diagonal compression Double-leaf rubble stone masonry with two solid 2.27
TC-04-B-OR Shear-compression brick courses at intervals of 800-1200 mm
TC-07-V-IN Shear-compression
CD-13-P-OR Diagonal compression Double-leaf rubble stone masonry 3.10
TC-15-P-OR Shear-compression
CD-03-F-OR Diagonal compression
CD-04-F-OR Diagonal compression
TC-01-F-OR Shear-compression Double-leaf rubble stone masonry 1.13
TC-02-F-OR Shear-compression
TC-05-F-OR Shear-compression
CD-02-U-OR Diagonal compression Double-leaf rubble stone masonry 1.70
TC-16-U-OR Shear-compression
CD-02-U-OR Diagonal compression Double-leaf rubble stone masonry 2.29
TC-17-U-OR Shear-compression
CD-09-S-OR Diagonal compression Double-leaf solid brick masonry 3.10
TC-18-S-OR Shear-compression
 Tab. 4: Results of laboratory tests carried out on masonry panels.
Test No. Panel Masonry Failure Compression Shear Shear
dimensions texture Load stress 0 Strength 0 Strength SS
(mm) (kN) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
CD-08-L-OR 1200x1200x480 1 34.8 - 0.020 0.044
TC-35-L-OR 900x510x1805 1 109.3 0.208 0.104 -
TC-36-L-OR 900x490x1810 1 52.0 0.208 0.036 -
TC-37-L-OR 900x510x1805 1 80.7 0.188 0.071 -
TC-39-L-OR 900x486x1900 1 87.6 0.209 0.083 -
CD-20-L-OR 1190x1200x245 2 38.1 - 0.043 0.090
CD-21-L-OR 1190x1200x245 2 46.5 - 0.053 0.117
TC-22-L-OR 890x1810x245 2 84.1 0.482 0.144 -
TC-42-L-OR 900x1790x250 2 61.3 0.397 0.094 -
TC-44-L-OR 925x1800x250 2 70.8 0.386 0.113 -
Masonry textures: 1: double-leaf stone panel, 2: solid bricks
Tab.5: Comparison of the results from the diagonal compression and the shear-compression
tests
(masonry panels tested in laboratory)

Test No. Test type Texture r2=0T / 0D

CD-08-L-OR Diagonal compression

TC-35-L-OR Shear-compression
TC-36-L-OR Shear-compression Double-leaf rubble stone masonry 3.67
TC-37-L-OR Shear-compression
TC-39-L-OR Shear-compression
CD-20-L-OR Diagonal compression
CD-21-L-OR Diagonal compression
TC-22-L-OR Shear-compression Solid bricks 2.44
TC-42-L-OR Shear-compression
TC-44-L-OR Shear-compression
 Tab. 6: Results of laboratory tests carried out on small brick panels.
Test No. Panel Failure Compression Shear Strength Shear Strength SS Texture
dimensions Load stress 0 0 (MPa)
(mm) (kN) (MPa) (MPa)
CD-70-L-OR 500x510x120 3.78 - 0.0210 0.0445 1
CD-71-L-OR 500x500x120 5.60 - 0.0311 0.0660 1
CD-72-L-OR 500x505x120 8.42 - 0.0468 0.0992 1
CD-73-L-OR 500x500x120 7.68 - 0.0427 0.0905 1
TC-80-L-OR 1000x510x120 12.81 0.33 0.0700 - 1
TC-81-L-OR 1010x500x120 16.77 0.32 0.1080 - 1
TC-82-L-OR 1000x500x120 15.42 0.35 0.0910 - 1
TC-83-L-OR 1000x510x120 8.55 0.32 0.0360 - 2
TC-84-L-OR 1010x510x120 7.76 0.23 0.0390 - 2
Bond pattern: 1=horizontal courses, 2=vertical courses.
Tab. 7: Comparison of the results from the diagonal compression and the shear-compression
tests
(small brick panels)
Test No. Test type Bond pattern r=0T / 0D
CD-70-F-OR Diagonal compression
CD-71-F-OR Diagonal compression
CD-72-F-OR Diagonal compression
CD-73-F-OR Diagonal compression Solid bricks (bond pattern 1 for Shear- 2.53
TC-80-F-OR Shear-compression Compression Test)
TC-81-F-OR Shear-compression
TC-82-F-OR Shear-compression
CD-70-F-OR Diagonal compression
CD-71-F-OR Diagonal compression
CD-72-F-OR Diagonal compression
CD-73-F-OR Diagonal compression Solid bricks (bond pattern 2 for Shear- 1.06
TC-83-F-OR Shear-compression Compression Test)
TC-84-F-OR Shear-compression
Bond pattern: 1=horizontal courses, 2=vertical courses.
Figure 1: Typical in-plane diagonal compression test setup.
Figure 2: Interpretation of the diagonal compression test according to ASTM and RILEM, by
the Mohr’s circle representation.
 900

1800

Figure 3: Typical in-plane shear-compression test setup.

Figure 4: Layout of a shear-compression test in laboratory.
(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e)

Figure 5: Front view of masonry wall panels (a) Belfiore, (b) Farnetta, (c) Ponte , (d)

Colle Umberto, (e) San Felice.

Figure 6: View of some specimens during construction.
Figure 7: Shear stress – angular strain response (Colle Umberto building).
Figure 8: Shear stress – angular strain response (San Felice building).
Figure 9: Shear stress – angular strain response (Belfiore and Vescia buildings).
 0 0

H/2 H/2

H H

b) c)
a)
H/2 H/2
P

Figure 10: Tests on small scale brick panels: a) diagonal compression; b) and c) shear-
compression.
 (a)

(b)

Figure 11: Diagonal compression (a) and shear-compression (b) tests carried out on small-
scale brick panels.
Figure 12: Shear stress – angular strain response (small panels, standard bond pattern).
 1)

2)

Figure 13: Influence of different bond patterns on shear strength.

 0

H/2

b)
a)
H/2
P

Figure 14: Crack pattern of brick panels tested under diagonal- and shear-compression.
 Compression load

Shear load

Metal element

Figure 15: Modeling of diagonal- and shear-compression tests using the code Ansys.
 (a)

(b)

Figure 16: FE analysis predictions: tension.

Figure 17: FE analysis predictions: cracks and crushing.
Figure 18: FE Analysis predictions: shear strength vs. tensile strength of masonry fwt for three
values of masonry Young modulus Es of 1000, 2000 and 3000 MPa.
 Figure 19: Analysis predictions: ratio r=0T / 0D vs. tensile strength of masonry fwt for three
values of masonry Young modulus Es of 1000, 2000 and 3000 MPa.

View publication stats