Engineering Structures 171 (2018) 154–169

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: [Link]/locate/engstruct

Review article

A review of methods for strengthening of masonry arches with composite T

materials
⁎
Paolo Zampieri , Nicolò Simoncelo, Cyrille Denis Tetougueni, Carlo Pellegrino
Department of Civil, Environmental and Architectural Engineering, ICEA, University of Padua, Italy

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Strengthening of existing structures have been widely investigated around the world with the aim to preserve
Masonry arch historic heritage and monument. Traditional techniques are being abandoned in favour to composite materials
Masonry and composites considered as innovative. Several authors have recently investigated techniques using carbon fibre, glass fibre,
Experimental tests steel rod or other fibre materials as strengthening material of masonry arches the last two decades.
Strengthening of arches
This paper reviews the experimental campaigns conducted by several international researchers with the aim
to bring new insights on the effectiveness of strengthening techniques using composite materials. A database of
over 100 experimental tests have been analysed considering different arch parameters and interesting results on
the role played by the position and the type of the reinforcement have be found.

1. Introduction type of collapse mechanism and displacement capacity of masonry ar-

ches with spreading supports [5–8]. Instead, few works studied the
Masonry as construction material has been widely used around the interaction between inertia accelerations and relative displacement at
world. First buildings with arched forms are attributed to Ancient and the abutments as both the consequence of the earthquake in masonry
Near East civilizations 4000 BCE. They used stone or clay bricks to arch structures. Numerical and experimental studies taking into ac-
build corbel arches for underground structures such as drains. This count this interaction are required for the optimal design of the seismic
technique will be considerably expanded throughout the Roman Empire retrofit of masonry structures.
where bigger structures like bridges and aqueducts will be constructed The reinforcement of masonry arches can be achieved by means of
in masonry. Different forms of arches and vaults will be then introduced several techniques. Traditional techniques for strengthening vaults and
like segmental or semi-circular arches. In Europe, the introduction of arches have been widely used in Europe and particularly in Italy many
ogive will be done during the construction of several bridges early years ago. The common techniques found in literature are the use of
centuries AC. Masonry became an architectural and structural system steel bars or stirrups to increase confinement of masonry arches, the
well diffused and adopted in many existing structures such as bridges introduction of ties at the arch impost, the use of reinforced concrete
and monuments. Since many of these existing structures were built long hoods, the construction of internal spandrel walls to prevent thrust, the
time ago, they are now suffering different type of damages either due to application of steel profiles at the arch intrados and the injection of
exceeding traffic loads or seismic events. It becomes important to assess cementitious mortar [9]. Due to the aesthetic incompatibility and to the
them and plan their strengthening in order to preserve these cultural extra self-weight and rigidity that these techniques could added to the
heritages. structure, they are no longer used and are being replaced by new
Strengthening of masonry arches is adopted to either improve or techniques.
restore their load carrying capacity. Specifically, reinforcement of ar- Strengthening of masonry arches by means of composite materials is
ches is required for example, to improve their capacity to withstand one of the most innovative techniques that can be used to increase or
earthquakes or live loads that have increased over the years from the restore the structural capacity of these structures. The technique offers
original design conditions. Moreover, strengthening is essential for re- advantages over traditional reinforcement methods, as it does not
pairing structures that have suffered earthquake damages, settlement of modify the mass of the structure, does not significantly alter the rigidity
foundations [1–4]. These events could induce essentially a loss of of the arch [2,10,11], does not alter the static arrangement of the arch
springing at the supports leading to different collapse mechanisms of in service conditions and finally modifies the arch collapse mechanism.
the arch. Many authors focused their works on the discussion of the The preservation architectural aspect of the cultural heritage and

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [Link]@[Link] (P. Zampieri).

[Link]
Received 12 December 2017; Received in revised form 15 May 2018; Accepted 17 May 2018
0141-0296/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
P. Zampieri et al. Engineering Structures 171 (2018) 154–169

Nomenclature L arch length:

f arch rise
Notation S arch thickness
b arch depth
V shear force in section of vault Ac equivalent area of reinforcement
ds length of portion of laminate e width of the reinforcement
Rfrp sliding resistance due to FRP laminate ρ Ac/(b × S) reinforcement ratio
Rm sliding resistance due to masonry L.T load type
R radius of curvature XL load position
T tensile force in FRP Pu maximum load of reinforced arch
δs infinitesimal length of portion of laminate αP Pu/Pu,0
δϕ infinitesimal angle Pu,0 maximum load of non-reinforced arch
δN infinitesimal axial force μ (qu − qy)/qy Kinematic ductility
CFRP carbon fiber reinforced polymer qu maximum displacement at Pu
PBO-FRCM polyparaphenylene benzobisoxazole- Fabric Reinforced qy displacement at Py
Cementitious Matrix αμ μ/μ0 (μ0 = ductility of non-reinforced arch)
SRG steel reinforced grout I reinforcement at intrados;
BTRM Basalt Textile Reinforced Mortar E reinforcement at extrados;
C-FRCM Carbon-Fabric Reinforced Cementitious Matrix S.C. static concentrated load
SRP steel reinforced polymer S.D. static distributed load
GFRP Glass Fibre Reinforced Polymer H.L. horizontal load

monument plays an important role to determine the strengthening and strengthened masonry arches and vaults describe the collapse
technique. For this reason, the less invasive technique is to be con- mechanism of unreinforced arches as a consequence of the formation of
sidered for both the use of traditional and innovative technique. In fact, four or five alternate hinges on the structure. In particular, a limited
for traditional technique, the use of non-compatible material usually crushing of the masonry elements occurs firstly at the compressed part
generates the flaw of the original structure while the use of epoxy resin of the arch and the collapse becomes possible if hinges occur in an
in the composite material can lead to the humidity concentration until adequately number to create mechanism [22]. When the hinges are
the cracks formation or failure of the structure [12]. formed, they subdivide the arch structure in different blocks. A pinned
Beside experimental researches, numerous theoretical studies have system is then created at the boundary of each block that can rotate
also been developed in recent years to determine structural models able independently whether the load is symmetrical or asymmetrical [23].
to analytically and/or numerically simulate the experimental results. Since the tensile strength of masonry is relatively low, the collapse of
The aim of these studies was to provide mathematical tools to support the masonry arch is linked to the position of the thrust line. As long as
the design of masonry strengthening systems that can provide reliable the thrust line remains inside the arch thickness, the arch is only
results and take into account the different possible types of collapse. compressed [24]. By increasing external loads, the structural behaviour
These theoretical studies have primarily adopted three different cal- changes and cracks initiate leading to the formation of first hinge. Some
culation approaches: The finite and discrete element method [13–15] authors found that the first hinge appears at the extrados part of the
and limit analysis [15–21]. arch while the second appears at the intrados. The failure happens thus
The simplest and most basic method of seismic analysis is the limit as a consequence of the development of two other hinges near both the
analysis, which despite being a simple structural calculation method, left and right abutments of the arch [9,24]. Fig. 1a shows the collapse
provides results that well describe the seismic behaviour of the masonry mechanism of a masonry arch subjected to a concentrated load located
arch structure. In order to apply limit analysis, three assumptions at one third of its span length. As it can be seen (Fig. 1a), four hinges are
should be made: the masonry has an infinite compressive strength, the formed and the thrust line is internal into the arch and tangential to the
tensile strength of the masonry is neglected and sliding within masonry hinge points. When composite material is bonded to the surface of the
elements is not allowed. arch, the collapse mechanism changes and the thrust line can be ex-
This paper presents and summarises the main data obtained from ternal with respect to the arch thickness (Fig. 1b–d). The tensile
destructive laboratory tests carried out on reinforced arches using
composite materials. The tests analysed in detail refer to the application
Table 1
of incremental vertical concentrated load until reaching failure condi-
List of composite materials with both reinforcement materials and matrix.
tions. It was then possible to perform a statistical analysis of data ob-
tained and make interesting considerations on the structural behaviour Composite Reinforcement materials Matrix
materials
of masonry arches reinforced with composite material.
PBO-FRCM Polyparaphenylene Cementitious mortar
benzobisoxazole
2. Collapse mechanism of masonry arch CFRP Carbon fibre Polymer
BTRM Basalt textile Cement-free primer
Researches carried out in recent decades on the strengthening of mortar (PM)
masonry arches with composite materials essentially focused on de- BTRM Basalt textile Cement-free primer
mortar (PM)
termining which materials can offer the best performance from a
B-FRCM Basalt fibre Cement-lime mortar
structural, economic and compatibility standpoint. Consequently, sev- C-FRCM Carbon fibre Cement-lime mortar
eral research experiments have associated the structural performance SRP Steel cord Polymer
achieved by strengthening masonry arches with different composite GFRP Glass fibre Polymer
GTRM Glass textile Cementitious mortar
materials. Specifically, the main composite materials used are sum-
marized in the Table 1.
Several experimental campaigns performed on both unreinforced

155
P. Zampieri et al. Engineering Structures 171 (2018) 154–169

Fig. 1. (a) Collapse mechanism of non-reinforced arch. (b) Thrust line of reinforced masonry arch with intrados subjected to concentrated load. (c) Thrust line of
reinforced masonry arch with extrados subjected to concentrated load. (d) Hinge mechanism.

review of destructive tests on arches strengthened with composite

materials reported in literature, shows that the collapse mechanism of
reinforced arches is generally different of a hinge mechanism (HM)
observed in case of unreinforced arches as shown in Fig. 2.
In particular, the analysis of results shows that the collapse me-
chanism of strengthened arches is linked to the damage observed on
masonry elements, on composite materials or on both masonry and
composite elements. Therefore, seven different failure modes leading to
collapse can be distinguished as presented in Table 2.
As shown in Fig. 3a, the first type of failure (SS) occurs when the
sliding resistance of the arch is reached first in a given section [9]. In
addition, analytic investigation showed that the total sliding resistance
of reinforced arches is the sum of the sliding resistance between the
arch blocks and the transverse resistance due to strengthening (Fig. 6a)
[27]. It is also important to note that this mechanism occurs frequently
when the reinforcement is applied continuously along the extrados of
Fig. 2. Failure mechanism of unreinforced arch (from Cancellieri et al. 2010
the arch and is generally independent of the type of reinforcement. In
[23]).
arches with continuous reinforcement at the extrados, due to the cur-
vature of the arch a force is created that is transversally to the re-
Table 2 inforcement [28] (Fig. 6b) and that may cause the detachment of the
collapse mechanisms of reinforced arches with composite materials. composite material from masonry elements (D).
Failure modes observed in strengthened arches Elements involved in the On the other hand, as shown in Fig. 3b, masonry crushing (C) may
failure occur prior to shear sliding (SS) or detachment (D) (Fig. 4a), due to the
increase of compressive stress inside the arch as a consequence of
(1) Shear sliding (SS) Masonry
strengthening. Similarly, the rupture of composite material (CR) may be
(2) Masonry Crushing (D) Masonry
(3) Composite Detachment (D) Composite observed when the tensile strength of the reinforcement is reached.
(4) Composite Rupture (CR) Composite However, analysis of experimental evidence reveals that this type of
(5) Composite Detachment + Masonry Crushing Masonry and Composite failure has only been found in a limited number of cases (see Fig. 5).
(D + C)
Combined situations can also occur when two different failures
(6) Shear Sliding + Composite Detachment(SS + D) Masonry and Composite
(7) Masonry Crushing + Shear Sliding (C + SS) Masonry
occur simultaneously. Analysis of scientific literature has highlighted
the following combinations: D + C, SS + D, C + SS.

3. Review of experimental tests on reinforced arches

strength of the composite material is in fact used by arch to prevent
opening of some hinges. The arch section can ideally be considered This part presents the data analysis of main experimental campaigns
equivalent to a section of reinforced concrete as long as the reinforcing conducted by several authors [9,29–31,22,25,32–35,24,27,36,37,26]
material remains bonded to the masonry. on both unreinforced and strengthened arches. In particular, over 100
Strengthening with composite material also modifies the type of arches have been analysed considering different geometry of arches and
collapse mechanism that develops in failure conditions. In fact, the characteristics of the reinforcement. Information about tests, authors,

156
P. Zampieri et al. Engineering Structures 171 (2018) 154–169

a) Shear Sliding (from Alecci et al. b) Masonry Crushing (From Borri c) Crushing + Shear Sliding (From
2016a) [9] et al. 2011) [25] Rovero et al. 2013) [26]

Fig. 3. collapse mechanism of reinforced arches involving damage of masonry elements.

a) Composite Detachment (From b) Composite Rupture (From Borri et al.

Oliveira et al. 2010) [24] 2009) [22]
Fig. 4. Collapse mechanism of reinforced arched involving damage of composite materials.

a) Detachment + Crushing failure (From b) Shear sliding + Detachment (From

Garmandia et al. 2011) [28] Borri et al. 2009) [22]
Fig. 5. Collapse mechanism of reinforced arched involving both masonry and composite materials.

157
P. Zampieri et al. Engineering Structures 171 (2018) 154–169

Fig. 6. (a) Shear sliding failure (from Valluzzi et al., 2001). (b) Transversal force component (from Valluzzi et al. 2001).

arches, loads and outputs analysed can be found in Tables 3 and 4. will be formed if the thrust line is tangent to the intrados. On the other
hand, shear sliding between masonry elements will be observed close to
– Geometric parameters of the arch: the abutment [24,9] (Fig. 7c). In addition, a rotation of the abutment
L = arch span: may happen if the thrust line is tangent to the extrados. Finally, con-
f = arch rise sidering influence of anchorage when reinforcement is applied to the
S = arch thickness intrados Fig. 7d, occurrence of hinge or shear sliding may happen de-
b = arch depth pending on the thrust line. In particular, if the trust line is tangent to the
– Characteristics of the reinforcement: reinforcement the hinge could be formed [33].
Ac [mm2] equivalent area of reinforcement
ρ = Ac/(b × S) reinforcement ratio 3.2. Influence of reinforcement position
– Loading conditions in Experimental campaign
Loc. = Location of composite reinforcement In the next two sections, a parametric analysis will be performed. In
L.T = Load type order to take into account different situations in terms of shape of the
XL = Load position arch, type of reinforcement, boundary conditions, arches have been
– Summary of test outputs subdivided in four groups. Table 5 gives information about the 4 groups
Pu[N] = Maximum load of reinforced arch of masonry arches considered.
αP = Pu/Pu,0 (Pu,0 = Maximum load of non-reinforced arch) In addition, other parameters have been considered regarding the
μ = (qu-qy)/qy Kinematic ductility position of loads, and the width of composite materials. Such in-
qu = Displacement corresponding at the 80% of the peak load formation is given in Table 6.
evaluated in the descending branch of the load–displacement curve From the data analysed, it emerged that the position of the re-
qy = Displacement corresponding to the end of the elastic branch inforcement plays a fundamental role in the structural behaviour of
αμ=μ/μ0 (μ0= ductility of non-reinforced arch) reinforced arches. The experimental tests analysed refer to four dif-
ferent reinforcement positions: Continuous reinforcement at the arch
By reworking the data contained in the two tables, it was possible to extrados (Fig. 8a); continuous reinforcement at the arch intrados
evaluate the following aspects that affect the structural response of (Fig. 8b); continuous reinforcement at the intrados and extrados
reinforced arches: (Fig. 8c) and local reinforcement positioned alternately at the intrados
and the extrados (Fig. 8d).
• Influence of reinforcement type; The first type of reinforcement position (Fig. 8a) prevents the
• Influence of matrix type; opening of hinges that would form on the intrados of the arch (Fig. 1b),
• Influence of reinforcement position. while the second type of reinforcement (Fig. 8b) prevents the formation
of hinges at the extrados (Fig. 1c). In these two cases, the arch is able to
3.1. Influence of the abutment connected with the reinforcement in the withstand higher loads than a non-reinforced arch, and the thrust line
collapse mechanism may be external to the arch.
Specifically it has been observed that independently of the type of
The collapse mechanism of strengthened arches may be different reinforcement, the current collapse mechanisms described by
depending on the arrangement of the reinforcement at the abutment. strengthened arches are Shear Sliding, Crushing and Detachment of the
Some authors studied the failure mode observed near the abutment composite material depending whether the reinforcement is at the in-
when composite material is well anchored. In particular, when re- trados, extrados or at both part as shown in Figs. 9 and 10. Continuous
inforcement is applied at the extrados, or intrados or at both intrados reinforcement on both intrados and extrados of the arch prevents
and extrados without anchorage as shown Fig. 7a, the development of hinges to arise on the strengthening arch as can be seen in Fig. 9d. The
hinges near the supports may be similar as the case of unreinforced arch same objective can ideally be achieved through local reinforcement at
[37,38]. In case of anchoring of composite material at the abutment, the intrados and extrados of the arch. However, analysis of the ex-
the formation of the hinge at the support will be prevented and other perimental results highlights that this type of reinforcement (Fig. 8d)
phenomena will be developed. The detachment of the reinforcement at does not prevent the formation of hinges, but rather simply changes
the intrados will be observed in the situation where is applied to both their position. In fact Fig. 10b and c shows that the failure mode for
sides (extrados and intrados) (Fig. 7b). If the composite material is arches belonging to group 2 and group 3 is mainly due to Hinge Me-
applied at the extrados and well anchored to the abutment, no hinge chanism in case of local reinforcement.

158
P. Zampieri et al. Engineering Structures 171 (2018) 154–169

Table 3
Experimental data collection: Geometric parameters and reinforcement characteristics.
No. Reference Arch Geometry Masonry type Composite Ac [mm2] ρ

1 Alecci et al. 2016a L [cm] 150 3

Solid clay Bricks were 95 × 46 × 21 mm sized with average thickness of the NR – –
2 f [cm] 43.25 mortar layers of 5 mm NR – –
3 S [cm] 9.5 PBO-FRCM 16.15 0.1789%
4 b [cm] 9.5 PBO-FRCM 16.15 0.1789%
5 f/L 0.29 PBO-FRCM 16.15 0.1789%
6 S/L 0.06 PBO-FRCM 16.15 0.1789%
7 CFRP 1.33 0.0147%
8 CFRP 1.33 0.0147%
9 CFRP 1.33 0.0147%
10 CFRP 1.33 0.0147%

11 Alecci et al. 2016b As Alecci et al. 2016a NR – –

12 NR – –
13 PBO-FRCM 16.15 0.1789%
14 PBO-FRCM 16.15 0.1789%

15 Alecci et al. 2017a As Alecci et al. 2016a C-FRCM 4.6 0.0510%

16 C-FRCM 4.46 0.0494%

17 Alecci et al. 2017b As Alecci et al. 2016a BTRM 3.04 0.0337%

18 Borri et al. 2009 L [cm] 198 Concrete bricks disposed in a single layer NR – –
19 f [cm] 49 SRG 76.6 0.3830%
20 S [cm] 10 SRP 76.6 0.3830%
21 b [cm] 20 SRG 76.6 0.3830%
22 f/L 0.25 CFRP 33.4 0.1670%
23 S/L 0.05 SRG 19.6 0.0980%
24 SRP 19.6 0.0980%
25 SRG 19.6 0.0980%
26 CFRP 33.4 0.1670%
27 SRG 96.2 0.4810%

28 Borri et al. 2011 L [cm] 200 Solid clay bricks disposed in a single layer NR – –
29 f [cm] 100 GFRP 57.75 0.1848%
30 S [cm] 12.5 GFRP 57.75 0.1848%
31 b [cm] 25 GFRP 57.75 0.1848%
32 f/L 0.5 GFRP 57.75 0.1848%
33 S/L 0.063 GFRP 57.75 0.1848%
34 GFRP 57.75 0.1848%
35 GFRP 57.75 0.1848%
36 GFRP 57.75 0.1848%
37 CFRP 350 1.1200%
38 CFRP 350 1.1200%
39 CFRP 350 1.1200%
40 CFRP 350 1.1200%
41 CFRP 350 1.1200%
42 CFRP 350 1.1200%

43 Briccoli Bati and Rovero L [cm] 150 Solid clay bricks disposed in a single layer cut pattern maintaining anisotropic NR – –
44 2008 f [cm] 43.25 properties CFRP 2 0.0200%
45 S [cm] 10 CFRP 2 0.0200%
46 b [cm] 10 CFRP 2 0.0200%
47 f/L 0.29 CFRP 0.4 0.0040%
48 S/L 0.07 CFRP 0.4 0.0040%
49 CFRP 8 0.0800%
50 CFRP 8 0.0800%

51 Garmendia et al. 2014 L [cm] 113 Sand stones disposed in a single layer NR – –
52 f [cm] 44 NR – –
53 S [cm] 12 NR – –
54 b [cm] 25 BTRM 10.6 0.0353%
55 f/L 0.39 BTRM 10.6 0.0353%
56 S/L 0.11 BTRM 10.6 0.0353%
57 BTRM 10.6 0.0353%
58 BTRM 10.6 0.0353%
59 BTRM 10.6 0.0353%
60 BTRM 10.6 0.0353%
61 BTRM 10.6 0.0353%
62 BTRM 10.6 0.0353%

63 Girardello et al. 2013 L [cm] 298 Sand stones disposed in a single layer NR – –
64 f [cm] 114 SRG – –
65 S [cm] 12 SRG – –
66 b [cm] 77 BTRM – –
67 f/L 0.38 SRP – –
68 S/L 0.04 CFRP – –
69 SRG – –
70 SRP – –

(continued on next page)

159
P. Zampieri et al. Engineering Structures 171 (2018) 154–169

Table 3 (continued)

No. Reference Arch Geometry Masonry type Composite Ac [mm2] ρ

71 Bednarz et al. 2011 L [cm] 400 Solid clay bricks disposed in a single layer NR – –
72 f [cm] 200 C-FRCM – –
73 S [cm] 12 C-FRCM + CFRP – –
74 b [cm] 77 C-FRCM – –
75 f/L 0.50 CFRP – –
76 S/L 0.03 3 Φ8 – –
77 Glued Wood – –

78 Oliveira et al. 2010 L [cm] 146.7 Solid clay bricks disposed in a single layer NR – –
79 f [cm] 59.3 NR – –
80 S [cm] 5 GFRP 23.84 0.1060%
81 b [cm] 45 GFRP 23.84 0.1060%
82 f/L 0.40 GFRP 14.9 0.0662%
83 S/L 0.03 GFRP 14.9 0.0662%
84 GFRP 14.9 0.0662%
85 GFRP 14.9 0.0662%
86 GFRP 23.84 0.1060%
87 GFRP 23.84 0.1060%
88 GFRP 23.84 0.1060%
89 GFRP 23.84 0.1060%

90 Valluzzi et al. 2001 L [cm] 200 Solid clay bricks disposed in a single layer CFRP
91 f [cm] 73 CFRP
92 S [cm] 5.5 GFRP
93 b [cm] GFRP
94 f/L 0.37 CFRP
95 S/L 0.03 CFRP
96 Carozzi et al. 2018 L [cm] 330 Solid clay Bricks were 250 × 120 × 55 mm3 sized with average thickness of the NR – –
97 f [cm] 83 mortar layers of 10 mm SRG 25.5 0.0850%
S [cm] 12
b [cm] 25
f/L 0.25
S/L 0.04

98 Carozzi et al. 2018 L [cm] 330 Solid clay Bricks were 250 × 120 × 55 mm3 sized with average thickness of the NR – –
99 f [cm] 83 mortar layers of 10 mm GTRM 12 0.0800%
100 S [cm] 6 CFRP 16.5 0.1100%
b [cm] 25
f/L 0.25
S/L 0.02

101 Briccoli et al. 2007 L [cm] 150 Solid clay Bricks were 250 × 120 × 55 mm3 sized with average thickness of the NR – –
102 f [cm] 43.5 mortar layers of 10 mm CFRP 12.5 0.0833%
103 S [cm] 6 NR – –
104 b [cm] 25 GFRCM 80 0.5333%
f/L 0.29
S/L 0.04

105 Rovero et al. 2013 L [cm] 150 Solid clay bricks disposed in double layer NR – –
106 f [cm] 43.5 NR – –
107 S [cm] 9.5 NR – –
108 b [cm] 9.5 NR – –
109 f/L 0.29 CFRP 1.615 –
110 S/L 0.06 CFRP 1.615 –
111 CFRP 1.615 –
112 CFRP 1.615 –

I = reinforcement at intrados; E = reinforcement at extrados; S.C. = Static concentrated load; L/4, L/2 Position of load respect to the arch length; NR = non-
reinforced arch; BTRM Basalt Textile Reinforced Mortar; CFRP = Carbon Fibre Reinforced Polymer; GFRP = Glass Fibre Reinforced Polymer; PBO-
FRCM = polyparaphenylene benzobisoxazole- Fabric Reinforced Cementitious Matrix; C-FRCM = Carbon-Fabric Reinforced Cementitious Matrix; SRG = steel re-
inforced grout; SRP = steel reinforced polymer.

With regards to the beneficial effect provided by the reinforcement FRP present a good structural behaviour in terms of ultimate loads with
position in terms of ultimate load, the parameter αp has been studied. In respect to FRCM.
general, local reinforcement will provide lower value of parameter αp
in comparison to other reinforcement positions. Furthermore, the 3.3. Influence of composite material type
highest ratio between final load on the reinforced arch and final load on
the unreinforced arch should be obtained with continuous reinforce- The type of reinforcing material is another very important para-
ment at both intrados and extrados of the arch (Fig. 11). By data ana- meter to be considered when evaluating the structural response of an
lysis, we cannot state that continuous reinforcement at the extrados arch reinforced with composite material. The most commonly used
generally increases arch load carrying capacity more than continuous materials for strengthening arches are carbon, glass, steel and PBO,
reinforcement at the intrados (Fig. 11). It may depend on other factors which can be applied indistinctly on a polymer matrix or mortar matrix.
as type of reinforcement, rapport between the rise of the arch and its In this part, 3 reinforcement materials using cementitious mortar as
span length. A direct comparison between FRCM and FRP applied matrix (Fig. 11) in one hand and using polymers in other hand will also
whether on extrados or intrados shows that arches strengthened with be compared (Fig. 12) (see Fig. 13).

160
P. Zampieri et al. Engineering Structures 171 (2018) 154–169

Table 4
Experimental data collection: Output of experimental tests.
No. Loc. L. T. XL Pu αP μ αμ Mode of failure No. Loc. L. T. XL Pu αP μ αμ Mode of failure

1 – S. C. L/4 0.91 0.92 1.9 1.3 HM 47 – S. C. L/4 0.99 1.0 HM

2 – 1.07 1.08 1.1 0.8 HM 48 – 1.30 1.3 HM
3 I 5.28 5.34 2.8 1.9 D+C 49 – 1.45 1.5 HM
4 I 5.67 5.74 3.6 2.5 D+C 50 E 19.30 19.5 SS
5 E 4.97 5.03 20.3 13.7 SS 51 E 16.83 17.0 D
6 E 4.81 4.87 19.5 13.1 SS 52 E 12.65 12.8 SS + C
7 I 15.20 15.38 1.4 0.9 C 53 I 8.52 8.6 SS
8 I 14.94 15.12 1.2 0.8 C 54 I 15.53 15.7 SS
9 E 11.35 11.48 10.9 7.4 SS 55 I 10.07 10.2 D
10 E 11.96 12.10 7.8 5.3 SS 56 E+I 28.96 29.3 D
11 I S. C. L/4 7.14 7.23 2.5 1.7 D+C 57 E+I 28.30 28.6 C
12 I 6.99 7.07 2.0 1.3 D+C 58 E+I 21.05 21.3 SS
13 E S. C. L/4 5.37 5.43 36.6 24.7 HM 59 – C.C. L/4; 3/4L 1.38 1.0 HM
14 – S. C. L/4 7.00 1.00 HM 60 E 13.47 9.8 SS
15 E 9.20 1.31 – 61 E 14.33 10.4 SS
16 E 13.60 1.94 SS 62 E 11.49 8.3 HM
17 E 23.40 3.34 SS 63 E 22.63 16.4 C
18 E 11.50 1.64 SS 64 E 15.56 11.3 C
19 I 16.20 2.31 CR 65 E 9.53 6.9 HM
20 I 14.70 2.10 CR 66 E 11.57 8.4 HM
21 I 21.70 3.10 D 67 – C.C. L/4 2.88 1.0 HM
22 I 12.30 1.76 D 68 E 10.87 3.8 SS
23 E+I 33.00 4.71 SS + D 69 E 26.68 9.3 –
24 I S. C. L/2 0.70 1.00 HM 70 E 26.37 9.1 –
25 I 7.07 10.10 D 71 E 19.31 6.7 –
26 I 6.41 9.16 D 72 E 16.59 5.8 –
27 I 6.90 9.86 C 73 E 27.62 9.6 –
28 I 4.71 6.73 D 74 – C.C. L/4 1.43 0.9 HM
29 I 4.48 6.40 D 75 – 1.92 1.1 HM
30 I 4.85 6.93 SS + D 76 LS 2.73 1.6 HM
31 I 5.93 8.47 SS + D 77 LS 3.18 1.9 HM
32 I 4.88 6.97 SS + D 78 I 4.63 2.8 D
33 I 13.44 19.20 SS 79 I 4.26 2.5 D
34 I 14.20 20.29 SS 80 I 5.41 3.2 D
35 I 15.55 22.21 C 81 I 3.81 2.3 D
36 I 18.55 26.50 C 82 E 2.51 1.5 SS
37 I 11.50 16.43 C 83 E 3.82 2.3 SS
38 I 11.18 15.97 C 84 E 3.62 2.2 SS
39 – S. C. L/2 0.45 1.00 2.43 1 HM 85 E 3.26 1.9 SS
40 LS 0.70 1.56 1.89 0.778 HM 86 E C L/4 15.30 – – – SS
41 I 3.56 7.91 2.36 0.971 D 87 E 15.40 – – – SS
42 E 5.87 13.04 2.5 1.029 SS 88 E 20.25 – – – SS
43 I 5.18 11.51 2.27 0.934 D+C 89 E 19.70 – – – SS
44 E 7.13 15.84 3.63 1.494 SS 90 I 15.20 – – – D
45 I 6.58 14.62 1.8 0.741 D+C 91 I 13.90 – – – D
46 E 8.59 19.09 3.92 1.613 SS 92 – S. C. L/4 15.30 – – – HM
105 – S. D. + H.L. – 14.60 1.05 5.67 1.05 HM 93 – 15.40 – – – HM
106 – 15.00 1.079 5.71 1.058 HM 94 E 20.25 – – – SS
107 – 12.00 0.86 4.21 0.78 HM 95 E 19.70 – – – SS
108 – 14.00 1.01 6.00 1.11 HM 96 – S. C. L/6 2.08 1.00 – 3.25 HM
109 I 15.60 1.12 3.67 0.68 C 97 E 8.83 4.25 – 1.85 D
110 I 19.00 1.37 3.33 0.62 C 98 – S. C. L/6 0.39 1.0 – – HM
111 I 34.00 2.45 3.43 0.64 D 99 E 1.54 3.9 – 1.6 D
112 E 15.00 1.08 5.71 1.06 HM 100 E 2.17 5.6 – 3.19 D
101 – S.D. – 5.04 1 1.75 1 HM
102 – 6.10 1.21 3.16 1.806 HM
103 E 5.17 1.00 6.47 1.00 D
104 E 9.20 1.78 9.75 1.51 D

Arches strengthened with BTRM are prone to fail describing the state that carbon fibres provide greater value of αp coefficient with
hinge mechanism as the unreinforced arches. When CFRP is used as respect to steel fibre reinforcement. It depends also on the width of the
reinforcement, independently on its position (E, I, E + I, L.S) three reinforcement applied on the arch. However, what is clear is that
different mechanisms namely Shear Sliding, Crushing or Detachment of carbon and steel fibres give higher performance of the composite ma-
the composite may happen depending on the arch parameters. The terial with respect to glass fibres (Fig. 14). Finally, through scatter plots
same situation may happen when Glass is used as reinforcement instead in Fig. 14, arches with large e/b ratio present good results in terms of αp
of carbon. It is difficult to link the collapse mechanism with the load coefficient independently of type of reinforcement. The same conclu-
coefficient αp. The fact that the reinforcement develops a Hinge sion can be done by increasing f/L.
Mechanism before failure does not always mean that his load coeffi- Another structural parameter to be considered when evaluating the
cient αp will take a low value (Fig. 14). structural behaviour of a reinforced arch is ductility. Ductility is in fact
When fibre reinforcement is used on masonry arches, we cannot a highly important requirement that structures need to ensure a good

161
P. Zampieri et al. Engineering Structures 171 (2018) 154–169

a) From Tao et al 2011 [38]

b) Composite Detachment from Garmendia et al 2014 [33]

joint sliding at the abutment from Alecci et al 2016 [9]

c) shear sliding close to the edge of the steel plate from Borri et
al 2009 [22]

d) Hinge is formed from Garmendia et al 2014 [33]

Fig. 7. Four-reinforcement condition at the abutment: (a) not fixed; (b) extrados and intrados fixed; (c) extrados fixed (d) intrados fixed.

behaviour with regards to seismic loads. The kinematic ductility is Consequently, the mean value of parameter αμ is shown in Fig. 15,
considered as the ratio between the displacement at ultimate load and representing the relationship between ductility of the reinforced arch
the maximum displacement obtained in elastic part of the load-dis- and ductility of the non-reinforced arch, for different types of material.
placement curve [30]. The data shown in Fig. 15 are taken from the work by Alecci et al.

162
P. Zampieri et al. Engineering Structures 171 (2018) 154–169

Table 5 [9,29,30] and highlights that: reinforcement at the extrados increases

Groups of Arches considered in the analysis of output. arch ductility more than reinforcement at the intrados; reinforcement
Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 with FRCM increases arch ductility more than FRP reinforcement; and
basalt is the material that ensures the highest ductility.
f/L [0.2; 0.35] [0.2; 0.35] ]0.35; 0.5] ]0.35; 0.5] Since many experimental tests were performed on relatively small
S/L [0; 0.05] [0.06; 1.2] [0; 0.05] [0.06; 1.2]
specimens considering in most cases arch span less than 200 cm, it
would have been interesting to study how will change the collapse
mechanisms and load improvement if the tests were performed in large
Table 6 arched structures. From the collected data, the maximum arch span
Parameters considered in the output analysis. studied experimentally are less than 4 m. A direct comparison of in-
XL L/2 L/4 L/6 vestigations done by Bednarz et al. in 2011 [35], Carozzi et al. in 2018
[36] with the work done by Alecci et al. in 2016 [9] shows a reduction
e/b [0; 0.4] [0.5; 1] of strength improvement of the CFRP when the arch span increases. It
may be difficult to establish a general conclusion due to the lack of data.
Nevertheless it should be observed a variability of the results if arches

Fig. 8. Four reinforcement positions: (a) arch extrados; (b) arch intrados; (c) arch extrados and arch intrados (d) local reinforcement at arch intrados and extrados.

a) Group 1 b) Group 2

c) Group 3 d) Group 4
Fig. 9. Type of failure of masonry arch strengthening with FRCM. (a) Group 1; (b) Group 2; (c) Group 3 and (d) Group 4.

163
P. Zampieri et al. Engineering Structures 171 (2018) 154–169

a) Group 1 b) Group 2

c) Group 3 d) Group 4
Fig. 10. Type of failure of masonry arch strengthening with FRP. (a) Group 1; (b) Group 2; (c) Group 3 and (d) Group 4.

a) Group 1 b) Group 2

c) Group 3 d) Group 4
Fig. 11. comparison between αp for different types of reinforcement (a) Group 1; (b) Group 2; (c) Group 3 and (d) Group 4.

164
P. Zampieri et al. Engineering Structures 171 (2018) 154–169

a) Group 1 b) Group 2

c) Group 3 d) Group 4
Fig. 12. Failure type PBO-FRCM, BTRM, C-FRCM. (a) Group 1; (b) Group 2; (c) Group 3 and (d) Group 4.

a) Group 1 b) Group 2

c) Group 3 d) Group 4
Fig. 13. Failure type CFRP, GFRP, SRP. (a) Group 1; (b) Group 2; (c) Group 3 and (d) Group 4.

165
P. Zampieri et al. Engineering Structures 171 (2018) 154–169

a) Case 0.2 ” f/l ” 0.35 b) Case 0.35 < f/l ” 0.5

Fig. 14. Analysis of the influence of reinforcement arrangement considering two groups of arch.

– 3D-model developed using solid elements such as soil65 for mortar

and soil45 for reinforcement [41] or solid elements such as soil65
for masonry and shell8 elements for reinforcement [35].

It is very difficult to develop numerical models that can simulta-

neously predict ultimate load, collapse mechanism of the structure and
failure mode of the reinforcement due to the complexity of contact joint
through elements involved in the analysis. In fact, Garmendia et al. in
2014 was able to reproduce the failure mode of the non-reinforced arch
structure obtaining good correlation with experimental tests [33]
(Fig. 16a). In case of reinforced arch, a deviation of about 50% higher
than the experimental results has been observed for ultimate loads
while the collapse mechanism was similar (Fig. 16b and c).
In general, the FEM model provide results different and greater than
the experimental model in terms of stress and displacement if the same
condition are used. In fact, for the experimental tests, initial im-
Fig. 15. Mean value of αμ for different types of reinforcement (I = intrados, perfections as geometrical defects can affect the heterogeneities in the
E = extrados), Case 0.2 ≤ f/l ≤ 0.35. masonry element. These imperfections will induce local phenomena
that may reduce significantly the compressive stress of the material
(Fig. 17) [46]. If the imperfections is not taking into account, the results
with long span are used instead of short span. The same conclusion has
from FEM may produce higher value.
been highlighted by De Santis et al. in 2018 [39].
Some authors also used DE method to compare the experimental
results. In fact, a Discrete Element Model is more appropriate when it is
4. Numerical analysis of strengthened arches
used to simulate large displacements of the structure. In particular,
Girardello et al., in 2013 [34] has used the UDEC 5.0 software to de-
Some authors have reproduced experimental tests through numer-
termine very similar results with experimental test in terms of dis-
ical analysis. The aim was to determine an FEM model that can predict
placement [47]. The sliding phenomenon between two consecutive
the ultimate load and the collapse mechanism of masonry arches. In
masonry elements is also well represented by the analysis performed.
most cases, calibration phase before the analysis was done gradually
Finally, Fraternali et al. studied the arch strengthened with FRP and
starting for the unreinforced arches. Once the “real” behaviour has been
FRCM [47].
determined for unreinforced arches, the strengthened masonry arch
could also be assessed numerically. The analyses were carried out with
various commercial software such as ANSYS [33,35,40,41] and 5. Conclusions
STRAND7 [42] or with codes implemented in MATLAB using Mohr
Coulomb contact [43] or FORTRAN [44] in order to better define the This paper reviews experimental research on arches reinforced with
behaviour of the different reinforcement used. The numerical codes composite material. The study involved the re-working of data obtained
have been implemented using different elements: from the main destructive tests carried out by applying incremental
vertical concentrated loads. A database of results obtained from ex-
– 1D-beam model implementing the Timoshenko's theory for arch perimental testing was thus created, and this allowed general conclu-
[23] or using open source codes such as Opensees to model fibre sions to be made on the parameters that most influence the load car-
[45]; rying capacity and ductility of arches reinforced with composite
– 2D-model using shell elements (plane-stress) for arch and cable materials. Statistical reprocessing of the data highlighted how arch
elements with tensile strength used for reinforcement [33], or shell capacity and ductility also depends on the position of the reinforce-
elements (plane-stress) for masonry, cut of bars with shear panel ment. Specifically, the best type of reinforcement position is continuous
elements to simulate the cracks and truss elements for reinforcement at the intrados and extrados. On the other hand, local reinforcement
[42]; seems to be less advantageous compared to those obtained by others

166
P. Zampieri et al. Engineering Structures 171 (2018) 154–169

Fig. 16. Comparison between Experimental and FEM results (from Garmendia et al. 2014) [33].

positions of reinforcement since it leads the arches to collapse in most matrix compared to a polymer matrix. In addition, basalt on a mortar
case under hinge mechanism as for the case of unreinforced arches. The matrix is the solution that provides both higher capacity and better
type of arch failure also depends on the reinforcement position; speci- ductility.
fically, arches reinforced at the extrados or at intrados are most likely to Until now, several experimental tests have been done on un-
be subjected to SS, D or C failure independently on the type of re- damaged arches, reinforced or not but just few authors focused their
inforcement. In contrary, the positive effect of reinforcement in term on works on damaged arches. During their investigations, the authors have
ultimate loads will depend on type of reinforcement applied, width of faced some difficulties where the most important was the wide varia-
the reinforcement as well as the arch parameters. bility in terms of arch parameters. In order to give more insight on this
Finally, it has been seen that the type of material used (for arch interesting topic, authors advised others scientist to define standard
reinforcement) may affect the ductility of the reinforced arch. geometries of arches that could be used in future experimental cam-
Specifically, higher ductility can be achieved when using a mortar paigns. Furthermore, experimental and numerical analysis of reinforced

167
P. Zampieri et al. Engineering Structures 171 (2018) 154–169

Fig. 17. Results from FEM after a calibration of the (compressive stress from Marfia et al. 2008) [46].

damaged arches due to (horizontal and/or vertical) cyclic loads or loss [15] Pantò B, Cannizzaro F, Caddemi S, Caliò I, Chácara C, Lourenço PB. Nonlinear
of support need to be focused on. modelling of curved masonry structures after seismic retrofit through FRP re-
inforcing. Buildings 2017;7(3), art. no. 79. doi:[Link]
buildings7030079.
Appendix A. Supplementary material [16] Baratta A, Corbi O. Closed-form solutions for FRP strengthening of masonry vaults.
Comput Struct 2014;147:244–9. [Link]
007.
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the [17] Caporale A, Feo L, Hui D, Luciano R. Debonding of FRP in multi-span masonry arch
online version, at [Link] structures via limit analysis. Compos Struct 2014;108(1):856–65. [Link]
org/10.1016/[Link].2013.10.006.
[18] Caporale A, Feo L, Luciano R, Penna R. Numerical collapse load of multi-span
References masonry arch structures with FRP reinforcement. Compos B Eng 2013;54(1):71–84.
[Link]
[1] Giamundo V, Lignola GP, Maddaloni G, Balsamo A, Prota A, Manfredi G. [19] Caporale A, Luciano R. Limit analysis of masonry arches with finite compressive
Experimental investigation of the seismic performances of IMG reinforcement on strength and externally bonded reinforcement. Compos B Eng 2012;43(8):3131–45.
curved masonry elements. Compos B Eng 2015;70:53–63. [Link] [Link]
1016/[Link].2014.10.039. [20] Caporale A, Luciano R, Rosati L. Limit analysis of masonry arches with externally
[2] Marini A, Belleri A, Preti M, Riva P, Giuriani E. Lightweight extrados restraining bonded FRP reinforcements. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng
elements for the anti-seismic retrofit of single leaf vaults. Eng Struct 2006;196(1–3):247–60. [Link]
2017;141:543–54. [Link] [21] D'Ambrisi A, Feo L, Focacci F. Masonry arches strengthened with composite un-
[3] Ramaglia G, Lignola GP, Balsamo A, Prota A, Manfredi G. Seismic strengthening of bonded tendons. Compos Struct 2012;98:323–9. [Link]
masonry vaults with abutments using textile-reinforced mortar. ASCE 2017;21(2): compstruct.2012.10.040.
art. no. 04016079. [Link] [22] Borri A, Casadei P, Castori G, Hammond J. Strengthening of brick masonry arches
[4] Theodossopoulos D, Makoond N, Akl L. The effect of boundary conditions on the with externally bonded steel reinforced composites. J Compos Constr
behaviour of pointed masonry barrel vaults: Late gothic cases in Scotland. 2009;13(6):468–75. [Link]
2016;10:274–92. [Link] [23] Cancelliere I, Imbimbo M, Sacco E. Experimental tests and numerical modeling of
[5] Ochsendorf JA. Collapse of masonry structures. Dissertation. Cambridge University reinforced masonry arches. Eng Struct 2010;32(3):776–92. [Link]
Department of Engineering, Cambridge; 2002. 1016/[Link].2009.12.005.
[6] Ochsendorf JA. The masonry arch on spreading supports. Struct Eng Inst Struct Eng [24] Oliveira DV, Basilio I, Loureņo PB. Experimental behavior of FRP strengthened
Lond 2006;84(2):29–36. masonry arches. J Compos Constr 2010;14(3):312–22. [Link]
[7] Coccia S, Di Carlo F, Rinaldi Z. Collapse displacements for a mechanism of (ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000086.
spreading-induced supports in a masonry arch. Int J Adv Struct Eng [25] Borri A, Castori G, Corradi M. Intrados strengthening of brick masonry arches with
2015;7(3):307–20. [Link] composite materials. Compos B Eng 2011;42(5):1164–72. [Link]
[8] Zampieri P, Faleschini F, Zanini MA, Simoncello N. Collapse mechanisms of ma- 1016/[Link].2011.03.005.
sonry arches with settled springing. Eng Struct 2018;156:363–74. [Link] [26] Rovero L, Focacci F, Stipo G. Structural behavior of arch models strengthened using
org/10.1016/[Link].2017.11.048. fiber-reinforced polymer strips of different lengths. J Compos Constr 2013;17(2):
[9] Alecci V, Misseri G, Rovero L, Stipo G, De Stefano M, Feo L, et al. Experimental 249–58. doi:[Link]
investigation on masonry arches strengthened with PBO-FRCM composite. Compos [27] Valluzzi MR, Valdemarca M, Modena C. Behavior of brick masonry vaults
B Eng 2016;100:228–39. [Link] strengthened by FRP laminates. 2001;5(3):163–69. doi:[Link]
[10] Cakir F, Uysal H, Acar V. Experimental modal analysis of masonry arches (ASCE)1090-0268(2001)5:3(163).
strengthened with graphene nanoplatelets reinforced prepreg composites. Measur: J [28] Garmendia L, San-José JT, García D, Larrinaga P. Rehabilitation of masonry arches
Int Measur Confed 2016;90:233–41. [Link] with compatible advanced composite material. Constr Build Mater
2016.04.061. 2011;25(12):4374–85. [Link]
[11] Cakir F, Uysal H. Experimental modal analysis of brick masonry arches strength- [29] Alecci V, Focacci F, Rovero L, Stipo G, de Stefano M. Extrados strengthening of brick
ened prepreg composites. J Cult Heritage 2015;16(3):284–92. [Link] masonry arches with PBO-FRCM composites: experimental and analytical in-
1016/[Link].2014.06.003. vestigations. Compos Struct 2016;149:184–96. [Link]
[12] Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali, Linee Guida per la valutazione e ridu- compstruct.2016.04.030.
zione del rischio sismico del patrimonio culturale allineate alle nuove Norme tec- [30] Alecci V, Focacci F, Rovero L, Stipo G, de Stefano M. Intrados strengthening of brick
niche per le costruzioni (d.m. 14 gennaio 2008) [in italian]. masonry arches with different FRCM composites: experimental and analytical in-
[13] Bertolesi E, Milani G, Fedele R. Fast and reliable non-linear heterogeneous FE ap- vestigations. Compos Struct 2017;176:898–909. [Link]
proach for the analysis of FRP-reinforced masonry arches. Compos B Eng COMPSTRUCT.2017.06.023.
2015;88:189–200. [Link] [31] Alecci V, De Stefano M, Focacci F, Luciano R, Rovero L, Stipo G. Strengthening
[14] Milani G, Milani E, Tralli A. Upper bound limit analysis model for FRP-reinforced masonry arches with lime-based mortar composite. Buildings 2017;7(2), art. no. 49.
masonry curved structures. Part II: Structural analyses. Comput Struct doi:[Link]
2009;87(23–24):1534–58. [Link] [32] Briccoli Bati S, Rovero L. Towards a methodology for estimating strength and

168
P. Zampieri et al. Engineering Structures 171 (2018) 154–169

collapse mechanism in masonry arches strengthened with fibre reinforced polymer strengthened historical brick vaults with adobe piers. Constr Build Mater
applied on external surfaces. 2008;41(7): 1291–306. doi:[Link] 2015;74:201–18. [Link]
1617/s11527-007-9328-8. [41] Mahini SS, Eslami A, Ronagh HR. Lateral performance and load carrying capacity of
[33] Garmendia L, Marcos I, Garbin E, Valluzzi MR. Strengthening of masonry arches an unreinforced, CFRP-retrofitted historical masonry vault – a case study. Constr
with Textile-Reinforced Mortar: experimental behaviour and analytical approaches. Build Mater 2012;28:146–56. [Link]
Mater Struct 2014;47:2067–80. [Link] 013.
[34] Girardello P, Pappas A, da Porto F, Valluzzi MR. Experimental testing and numer- [42] Bertolisi E, Milani G, Carozzi FG, Poggi C. Ancient masonry arches and vaults
ical modelling of masonry vaults. In: International conference on rehabilitation and strengthened with TRM, SRG and FRP composites: numerical analyses. Compos
restoration of structures at: Chennai, India; January 2013. Struct 2018;187:385–402. [Link]
[35] Bednarz L, Górski A, Jasieńko J, Rusiński E. Simulations and analyses of arched [43] Bertolisi E, Milani G, Fedele R. Fast and reliable non-linear heterogeneous FE ap-
brick structures. Autom Constr 2011;20(7):741–54. [Link] proach for the analysis of FRP-reinforced masonry arches. Composites Part B
autcon.2011.01.005. 2016;88:189–200. [Link]
[36] Carozzi FG, Poggi C, Bertolesi E, Milani G. Ancient masonry arches and vaults [44] Chen Y, Ashour AF, Garrity SW. Modified four-hinge mechanism analysis for ma-
strengthened with TRM, SRG and FRP composites: experimental evaluation. sonry arches strengthened with near-surface reinforcement. Eng Struct
Compos Struct 2018;2018(187):466–80. [Link] 2006;29:1864–71. [Link]
2017.12.075. [45] de Felice G. Assessment of the load-carrying capacity of multi-span masonry arch
[37] Briccoli Bati S, Rovero L, Tonietti U. Strengthening masonry arches with composite bridges using fibre beam elements. Eng Struct 2009;31:1634–47. [Link]
materials. ASCE 2007;11(1):33–41. [Link] 10.1016/[Link].2009.02.022.
0268(2007) 11:1(33). [46] Marfia S, Ricamato M, Sacco E. Stress analysis of reinforced masonry arches. Int J
[38] Tao Y, Stratford TJ, Chen JF. Behaviour of a masonry arch bridge repaired using Comput Methods Eng Sci Mech 2008;9:77–90. [Link]
fibre-reinforced polymer composites. Eng Struct 2011;33(5):1594–606. [Link] 15502280701752676.
[Link]/10.1016/[Link].2011.01.029. [47] Fraternali F, Carpentieri G, Modano M, Fabbrocino F, Skelton RE. A tensegrity
[39] De Santis S, Roscini F, de Felice G. Full-scale tests on masonry vaults strengthened approach to the optimal reinforcement of masonry domes and vaults through fiber-
with Steel Reinforced Grout. Composites Part B 2018;2018(141):20–36. [Link] reinforced composite materials. Compos Struct 2015;134:247–54. doi:[Link]
[Link]/10.1016/[Link].2017.12.023. [Link]/10.1016/[Link].2015.08.087.
[40] Mahini SS. Smeared crack material modelling for the nonlinear analysis of CFRP-

169