FRPRCS-8 University of Patras, Patras, Greece, July 16-18, 2007

GFRP STRENGTHENING OF NATURAL MASONRY WALLS

RESISTING AXIAL AND LATERAL LOADS USING
GFRP ANCHOR SPIKES

Bahira ABDUL RAHMAN 1 Nasser ELSHAFEY 2 Mashhour GHONEIM 3 Wael El DEGWEY 4

1
PhD Candidate University of Sherbrooke Quebec Canada
2
Assistant Professor Structural Engineering Department Cairo University Giza Egypt
3,4
Professor of Structural Engineering Department Cairo University Giza Egypt

Keywords: anchorage, fiber reinforced polymers, lime stone, masonry, out-of-plane, strengthening.

1 INTRODUCTION

There is a huge inventory of URM walls exposed to structural weakness or overloading . Most of
the traditional strengthening methods result in an added mass to the structure, extracting larger forces
during an earthquake. FRP systems can improve strength, stiffness and ductility. A considerable
progress was achieved in understanding the basic mechanics and establishing design guidelines on
the use of FRP composites in the retrofit of URM (Unreinforced Masonry) walls . In this paper we are
satisfying some of the research needs related to the reinforcement of masonry structures with FRP
systems as pointed out in the ACI 440 M (2005)1 and as investigated by Abdul Rahman, B. (2006)2
,Abdul Rahman, B. and El Shafey, N.(2005)3 which are as follows , Interaction of axial and flexural
capacity of masonry walls retrofitted with FRP systems ; determination of failure modes of masonry
walls retrofit with externally bonded FRP systems , detailing performance of FRP anchors when
anchored into masonry , and the effect of anchorages on masonry elements .
Several masonry strengthening work using FRP to resist out-of-plane loads were proposed and
investigated by, Ehsani, et. al (1997)4 , Triantafillou (1998)5, Dimas, et. al (2000)6, Tumialan, et. al
(2003)7, Hamoush, et. al (2003)8 , Tan and Patoary (2004)9 , Ghobarah and Galal (2004)10.
Triantafillou (1998)5 has performed one of a few researches that considered the interaction of axial
load and flexure as a parameter in the experimental investigations , he also proposed design
equations for FRP strengthened walls for both combined out-of-plane bending and axial load , using
the concept of balanced strain reinforcement ratio. Natural stone masonry retrofit with FRP was
investigated by some researchers such as Aiello, et. al (2003)11 who studied the bond performance
between natural masonry and FRP sheets. GFRP anchor spikes proved to have good performance in
preventing peeling off and enhancing the flexural strength of reinforced concrete slabs Piyong, et. al
(2003)12, and in clay masonry Tan and Patoary (2004)9.

2 EXPERIMENTAL STUDY

2.1 Test Specimens

This experimental study is a part of the experimental work made by Abdul Rahman B.(2006)2 .
The main objectives of this part of the study were to evaluate the effectiveness of the masonry wall
GFRP strengthening and the effect of anchoring the sheet ends and to study the effect of increasing
the axial load on the performance of the GFRP strengthened walls. All the walls were tested under
combined constant low axial load levels and out-of-plane bending caused by two point monotonic
loading. All the specimens had h/t ratio of 7.1. The main variables investigated were the anchorage;
the GFRP reinforcement ratio, and the axial load level.
To construct the test specimens limestone from Egypt’s Mokattam Mountain was used. The lime
stone units were cut into two different dimensions (100x200x300)mm and (100x200x150)mm . ASTM
standard testing was performed to characterize the mechanical properties of the materials. The
average compressive strength of stone was 30.9 MPa with a specific weight of 21.6 kN/m3. The wall
specimens were single wythe walls constructed in a running bond pattern laid with Type L lime mortar

1
FRPRCS-8 University of Patras, Patras, Greece, July 16-18, 2007

according to ASTM designation composed of lime, sand and water with an average compressive
strength of 0.15 Mpa , and masonry prism compressive strength was 3.7 MPa .
A total of identical nine one-third scale stone masonry wall specimens were constructed and
reinforced with a single vertical GFRP ply on the tension side, in the reinforced concrete laboratory of
Cairo university . The specimens nominal dimensions were (200x450x1450) mm. They included two
as-built (control) specimens to represent two different axial load levels. The walls were tested
statically under combined uniformly distributed normal force and two points out-of-plane bending. The
walls were divided into three groups , all of them had approximately the same axial capacity, all the
walls had h/t ratio equal to 7.1. The numbers 1,2,3 in the wall identification denote the group number.
The letters A&G denote as-built or strengthened walls .While; the letters I, II, III denote the specimen
number within each group .
The axial load was calculated based on a percentage of the average cross sectional capacity of
the wall (N) where N was approximately 30 kN . The walls were tested one week after application of
GFRP and 28 days after construction .Figure(1) shows the dimensions , the building pattern and
reinforcement configuration of the test walls. The details of the tested walls are summarized in
Table(1). It should be noted that the percent of the reinforcement ratio is the ratio between the gross
cross sectional area of the GFRP reinforcement to the cross sectional area of the masonry section.

Table 1 Test Matrix

GFRP Anchorage
Axial load Strip Width
Group Specimen Reinforcement at each side
level (N) (mm)
Ratio *(%) of GFRP sheet
W1GI 0.06 50 Non
Group 1 W1GII 0.1 0.12 100 Non
W1GIII 0.12 100 One anchor spike
W2A Control specimen
Group 2 W2GI 0.1 0.06 50 Two anchor spikes
W2GII 0.12 100 Two anchor spikes
W3A Control specimen
Group 3 W3GI 0.2 0.06 50 Two anchor spikes
W3GII 0.12 100 Two anchor spikes

Fig. 1 Test Walls

2.2 Glass Fiber Properties
The fiber reinforcement used is E-Glass with a density of 2.68 gm/cm3, the fiber modulus is 65 GPa,
fiber weight is 400 gm/cm2 (Main direction) with a thickness 0.149 mm. The fiber tensile strength is
3000 MPa, the tensile strength of impregnated fiber is 1700 Mpa, and the ultimate tensile elongation is
4.3 percent as presented by the manufacturer.

2.3 Limestone masonry properties

The compressive strength of stone was performed according to standard test method for
compressive strength of dimension stone, ASTM Designation C 170 – 90 (Re-approved 1999) ,a
sample was taken to represent a true average of the grade of the limestone, and the chosen test
specimens were cubes 100x100x100 mm . The mortar used was Type L mortar according to ASTM
designation Sand 75% Lime 25% Water 50% .Three 460x200x550 masonry prisms were constructed
all using two different unit dimensions as the units used in wall panels which is used in the walls

2
FRPRCS-8 University of Patras, Patras, Greece, July 16-18, 2007

construction , the prisms were laid with lime mortar using the same design mix in the walls . The
prisms were tested in compression; according to ASTM designation E447. The Pattern used for the
prism assembly was chosen to provide representative value of the compressive strength as built in the
structure , Drysdale et al.(1994)13 the test setup for the compressive strength of masonry units and for
masonry prisms is shown in Figure 2(a) and (b) respectively. Table(2) shows the test results of the
average compressive strengths of the materials.

(a) (b)
Fig. 2 Test Walls

Table 2 Average compressive strength of masonry

Specimen Average Compressive strength (MPa)
Lime Stone cubes 30.9
Lime mortar cubes 0.15
Lime Stone Masonry prism assemblies 3.7

2.3 Preparation of test specimens and GFRP anchor spikes

The stone surface was brushed to install the sheet using a wire brush. For the anchored
specimens , holes of 100 mm depth and 12 mm diameter were drilled at the required locations then
cleaned by vacuum . GFRP strip(s) were installed to the stone surface by wet lay up technique, taking
into consideration not to cover the predrilled hole, the sheets were installed in the middle of the
specimens width on the tension side , about one millimetre was left between the installed sheet and
the supporting hinge in order not to add additional anchorage to the GFRP sheet and to represent the
actual field conditions. To improve bond capacity of the GFRP sheet anchor spikes were developed
with plain fibers , Tan and Patoary (2004)9, Piyong, et al (2003)12 . The procedure to manufacture an
anchor spike is as follows :150 mm dry GFRP sheet was cut using 30 bundles of fibers , 8 mm
diameter and 100 mm length steel bars were used to bundle dry glass fibers together. Then , 100 mm
length of the bundled fibers were impregnated with saturate thoroughly. Next, the impregnated fibers
were covered with a tape around the steel bar and left to cure in ambient temperature. The leftover
length of the anchor was used for bonding. With the same resin used for vertical strips, the spikes
were inserted into the predrilled holes. Installation of GFRP sheets and anchors and spreading the dry
fibers portion to be attached to the outer surface of the strips then fully impregnated with epoxy are
shown in Figure(3).

Limestone masonry walls Drilled hole

Dry GFRP sheet Impregnated GFRP sheet Spreading of GFRP anchor

GFRP anchor spike

Fig. 3 Installation of GFRP sheets and GFRP anchor spikes

3
FRPRCS-8 University of Patras, Patras, Greece, July 16-18, 2007

2.4 Wall tests

A test setup was designed to subject the masonry wall specimens to an increasing horizontal load
causing out-of-plane bending combined with a constant uniformly distributed axial compressive normal
force maintained at a specified axial load level while applying the horizontal load. The out-of-plane
load was created by means of a hydraulic jack activated by a manual pump. The force created by this
jack reacted against a vertical stiff steel girder .This force was transmitted to the exterior face of the
masonry wall using two steel rods attached to two horizontal steel beams at a quarter height from the
top and the bottom of the wall. On the reaction side, two 45 cm length hinges were used to prevent top
and bottom bed joint sliding "Walking", they were placed 50 mm from the top and bottom of the wall
edges. A uniformly distributed axial compressive normal force was generated by 500-ton testing
machine at a specified axial load level; the wall was placed between an R.C. footing at the wall base
and the rigid steel plate of the testing machine at the top of the wall. This prevented the wall edges
from outward movement. A scheme of the test setup and the actual test in the lab is shown in
Figure(4) . A constant vertical prestress was maintained during the tests by adjusting the axial load
manually.
The first group consisted of W1GI, W1GII, and W1GIII . It was subjected to an axial load
equivalent to 0.1 axial load level W1GI and W1GII were strengthened using 50 and 100 mm GFRP
plies respectively without anchorage. A single anchor was used in W2GIII in the second masonry unit.
W2A & W3A were tested under the condition of “as-built” the axial load was increased from 0.1 to 0.2
axial load level, W2GI and W3GI were strengthened using 50mm single GFRP layer. To study the
effect of increasing the axial load level in case of low reinforcement ratio. W2GII and W3GII were
strengthened with a single 100 mm GFRP layer. To study the effect of increasing the axial load when
using high reinforcement ratio . For all tested walls mid span deflections , strains at the tension side
and the applied loads have been measured.
N N

Channels
LVDTs

Load
Cell
GFRP Sheet

Strain Gauge

Hydraulic
Jack
Masonry wall

Fig. 4 Test Setup Scheme

4
FRPRCS-8 University of Patras, Patras, Greece, July 16-18, 2007

2.5 Test results

2.5.1 First Group

The failure of GFRP strengthened masonry walls was classified as follows: flexural failure , flexural
rupture of FRP , sliding or stepped shear failure. Figure(5) Compares the load deflection curves of the
control specimen to the strengthened specimens W1GI and W1GII without anchorage and W1GIII with
a single GFRP anchor spike in the body of the second masonry unit . Both walls W1GI and W1GII
performed an identical failure mode . Both specimens failed by debonding which was the controlling
mode of failure , for W1GI 75% of the area of the strip was detached while in W1GII 15% of the area
of the sheet was detached . Figure(6) shows the specimens of the first group during failure . With a
lower gain in strength for wall with the lower reinforcement ratio and a higher strength gain in the wall
with the higher reinforcement ratio . Providing the wall with a single anchor spike at each side in the
second masonry unit enhanced the wall behaviour and changed the failure mode to sliding shear
failure with a slight increase in the wall capacity and ductility, the failure occurred in the plane of the
first masonry joint. This indicates the importance of including an anchor in the first masonry unit not
the second one to avoid such mode of failure.

70

60
Out-of-plane load (kN)

W1GIII
50 Sliding shear
Debonding
40 W1GII
Debonding
30

20 W1GI
W2A W1GI W1GII
10 W1GIII
W2A
0
0 10 20 30 40
Mid span deflection mm
Fig 5 Load Deflection Curves of the First Group with the Control Specimen

Mortar
Mortar Joint
Joint Crack
Crack
Location
of a single
GFRP Sliding
anchor shear
Hinge spike failure
Hinge

GFRP Debonding GFRP Debonding

W1GI W1GII W1GIII

Fig 6 Specimens of the first group during failure

5
FRPRCS-8 University of Patras, Patras, Greece, July 16-18, 2007

2.5.2 Second Group

W2A was constructed as a reference specimen ,the first sign of distress was two horizontal cracks
passing through the third upper and lower mortar joints .The specimen failed by rigid body out-of-
plane rocking on four cracks top and bottom joints and two at the third mortar joints symmetrically.
Walls W2GI and W2GII were constructed to study the effect of increasing the reinforcement ratio on
the walls behaviour under the same axial load level . The axial load level was maintained at 0.1 the
axial capacity and both walls were anchored using two anchor spikes in the middle of the first and the
second masonry units in both sides.
Approximately the same strength and ductility gain were achieved in both W2GI and W2GII with
two completely different modes of failure. The specimen W2GI with the lower reinforcement ratio failed
due to tensile fracture of the GFRP sheet and the specimen W2GII failed due to sliding shear failure at
the third masonry unit at a slightly higher out-of-plane load than W1GIII as shown in Figure(7).
Although W2GII and W1GIII had the same reinforcement ratio and loading conditions W2GII failed at a
higher out-of-plane load due to the additional anchor located in the first masonry unit. Figure(8) shows
the failure of the specimens of the second group .

70

60
Tensile rupture W2GI W2GII
Out-of-plane load (kN)

in GFRP
50
Sliding
40 shear failure

30
W2A
20
W2A
10 W2GI
W2GII
0
0 10 20 30 40
Mid span deflection mm
Fig 7 Load Deflection Curves and Failure Modes Second Group

Mortar
Mortar joint
Cracks
joint
Cracks Shear
GFRP Failure
Rupture

(a) W2A (b)W2GI (c)W2GII

Fig 8 Failure of the specimens of the second Group

6
FRPRCS-8 University of Patras, Patras, Greece, July 16-18, 2007

2.5.3 Third Group

The control specimen W3A demonstrated a brittle mode of failure by rigid body out-of-plane
rocking on three cracks , top and bottom mortar joints and one at the mid height of the specimen as
shown in Figure 10(a) increasing the axial load led to increased compressive cracks thorough the
stone units therefore the fractured units increased , while reducing the crack width openings on the
tension side of the wall . W3A also achieved a higher strength gain than W2A. Due to increasing the
axial load to 0.2 axial capacity both the strengthened specimens reached lower out-of-plane load
carrying capacities than the specimens of Group 2 as shown in Figure(9) .The same observation was
proved by Triantafillou (1998)5 where the moment capacity of the wall is a function of the
reinforcement ratio and compression depth, since FRP composites act as tensile reinforcement, their
effectiveness decreases with an increase in axial compression and is negligible for axial loads
exceeding 25% of the compressive strength of the unreinforced wall in the case of the out-of-plane
bending . Although W3GI and W3GII reached approximately the same load carrying capacities they
failed with completely two different modes of failure which were tensile rupture of the GFRP for W3GI
and stepped shear failure for W3GII the failure of specimens of the third group is shown in Figure(10) .
70
Tensile rupture
60
in GFRP
Out-of-plane load (kN)

W3GII
50
W3GI Sliding
40 shear
failure
30
W3GII
20 W3A W3A
10 W3GI
W3GII
0
0 10 20 30 40 5
Mid span deflection mm
Fig 9 Load Deflection Curves and Failure Modes Third Group

GFRP
anchor Stepped
spike shear
Crack

Mid height
mortar joint Rupture of
crack GFRP sheet

(a) W3A (b) W3G1 (c) W3GII

Fig 10 Failure of the specimens of the third group
3 Mathematical calculations

The flexural capacity of the strengthened walls was calculated using the design equations by
Triantafillou (1998)5 for the case of out-of-plane bending with axial force .The additional moment due
to the P-delta effect was included in calculations based on γ m and γ frp =1 , a MathCAD worksheet
was constructed to perform the calculations .
Comparing the theoretical results and experimental observations it can be concluded that the given
equations were effective in predicting the ultimate capacity for the case of tensile flexural failure,

7
 FRPRCS-8 University of Patras, Patras, Greece, July 16-18, 2007

where the tensile strength of GFRP is governing the wall behaviour. In the case of unanchored
specimens when debonding is controlling the wall behaviour (un-anchored specimens) the equations
where unconservative . A comparison between the experimental and predicted wall ultimate loads is
given in Table(3).
Table 3 Comparison between Experimental and Predicted Ultimate Loads
Predicted Experimental
Ultimate Ultimate out- Experimental Failure
Group Specimen
out-of-plane of-plane load Predicted Mode
load (kN) (kN)
W1GI 63.5 35.0 0.55 D
Group1 W1GII 70 42.5 0.61 D
W1GIII 70 47.0 0.67 SS
W2A Control 30.5 Control O2C
Group2 W2GI 63.5 63.3 1 R
W2GII 70 60.0 0.86 SS
W3A Control 49.4 Control O1C
Group3 W3GI 54 58.7 1.09 R
W3GII 71 49.2 0.69 SS

R is flexural rupture failure of GFRP, SS is sliding shear mode of failure, D is debonding failure,
O2C is overturning on two cracks, O1C is overturning on a single crack, the percentage of the strain
levels in GFRP are measured when debonding initiated ( for the specimens failed by debonding) , or
the strain attained at failure for different modes of failure.

4 Discussion of test results

Compared to as-built walls the strengthened walls exhibited significantly improved performance .
The composite overlays adhered very well to the stone substrate and apparently helped to prevent a
total masonry collapse. The GFRP anchor spikes gave a good performance in anchoring the sheet to
the wall till the end of the experiments, transferring the cause of failure from premature peeling off to
other modes. A fact , which must be clearly indicated, is that there are some limited variations in the
properties of the test specimens which were fabricated using natural dimension stone because of the
nature of the material .
Increasing the GFRP reinforcement ratio led to another premature failure caused by sliding shear
at the second mortar joint. That was true for specimens W2GII and W3GII which were reinforced using
100 mm strip .The same observation was stated in the ACI 440 M (2005)1 in case of strengthening
flexural and bearing walls for out-of-plane loads . Indicating the fact of observing shear mode of failure
in case of providing a large amount of FRP for flexural reinforcement .Figure(11) shows the
enhancement in the walls’ behaviour due to anchorage for the higher and lower reinforcement ratios at
0.2 axial load.
70
70
Tensile rupture
60
60 W2GI GFRP W2GII
Out-of-plane load (kN)

debonding Sliding
50 W1GII
50 shear failure

40 40
Debonding
30 30
W1GI
W2A
20 W2A W1GI 20
W2A W2A
10 W2GI 10 W2GII
W1GII
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
Mid span deflection mm Mid span deflection mm

Fig 11 Enhancement of the wall behaviour due to anchorage

8
FRPRCS-8 University of Patras, Patras, Greece, July 16-18, 2007

Table(4) shows the increase in the ultimate load carrying capacities of the strengthened walls
calculated as a ratio of the capacity of the control specimen for each group and the mode of failure .
Table 4 Increase in the Ultimate Load Carrying Capacity Referred to the Control Specimen

Wall % Increase in the Ultimate Mode of Failure

Load Carrying Capacity (kN)
W1GI 14.8 Debonding
Group 1 W1GII 39.3 Debonding
W1GIII 54.01 Sliding shear
W2A Control Over turning
Group 2 W2GI 107.5 Tensile rupture
W2GII 96.7 Sliding shear
W3A Control Over turning
Group 3 W3GI 18.8 Tensile rupture
W3GII 0 Sliding shear

For the strengthened specimens variable modes of failure were noted depending on the
dominant parameters. It was noted that the increase in the ultimate load carrying capacity was
maximum when the failure of the wall was controlled by tensile rupture for lower axial load level . All of
the specimens failed by undesirable brittle modes of failure which didn’t give enough signs of warning
before failure this was by either premature debonding or tensile rupture in GFRP or by sliding or
stepped shear failure, to obtain more desirable mode of failure compressive crushing failure should be
insured this was investigated by Abdul Rahman, B.(2006)2 .

CONCLUSIONS
The following conclusions are deducted from the experimental results

• Glass-fiber-reinforced polymer system provides significant increase in out-of-plane load-

carrying capacity when externally bonded to limestone masonry walls.
• Anchorage of GFRP sheets to limestone masonry is essential for preventing the premature
failure due to GFRP debonding and increasing the ultimate out-of-plane capacity and ductility
of masonry walls.
• Using GFRP anchor spikes is an effective anchorage method for GFRP sheets to limestone
masonry.
• Although tensile rupture and sliding shear failure are brittle undesirable modes of failure
Anchored GFRP strips restrained the broken limestone units from collapse at failure of the
wall which will most probably cause injury and hazard to life.
• The capacity of the strengthened walls was limited by the shear strength of stone masonry
walls , interface strength between FRP and stone masonry.
• The efficiency of wall strengthening decreases by increasing the axial load level.
• For high GFRP reinforcement ratios, the shear capacity of the masonry wall section governs
the wall failure.
• In order to provide the best strength gain the location of anchors must include at least the first
and the last masonry units.

RECOMMENDATIONS
It is suggested to do further experimental investigations to analyse the various parameters , and to
develop reliable relationships for the cases considered. It is also recommended to investigate the
reinforcement ratio at which compressive crushing occurs, which is the most desirable mode of failure.

9
FRPRCS-8 University of Patras, Patras, Greece, July 16-18, 2007

REFERENCES

[1] ACI 440 M, Guide for the Design and Construction of Externally Bonded FRP Systems for
Strengthening Unreinforced Masonry Structures , Draft of the State- of-the-Art Report on
externally bonded Fiber Reinforced Plastic (FRP) Reinforcement for Masonry Structures,2005.
[2] Abdul Rahman, B., “Out-Of-Plane GFRP Strengthening of Natural Masonry Walls Enhanced
Using Glass Fiber Composite Anchors” , Master Degree Thesis Department of Structural
Engineering, Cairo University, Egypt January 2006.
[3] Abdul Rahman, B. and El Shafey, N. “Out-Of-Plane GFRP Strengthening Of Natural Masonry
Walls Enhanced Using Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymer Anchors”, Fourth Middle East
Symposium Of Structural Composites For Infrastructure Applications, May 20-23, Alexandria,
Egypt.
[4] Ehsani, M., Saadatmanesh, H., Al-Saidy, A., “Shear Behaviour of URM Retrofitted with FRP
Overlays” , Journal of Composites for Construction ASCE, 1(1), 1997, pp 17-25.
Web site: http://www.u.arizona.edu/~ehsani/Publications.htm.
[5] Triantafillou,T. “Strengthening of Masonry Structures Using Epoxy-Bonded FRP Laminates”,
Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE, V. 2, No. 2,1998, pp. 96-104.
[6] Dimas, V., Ehsani, M. and Saadatmanesh, H., "Out-of-Plane Behavior of Brick Masonry Walls
Strengthened with Fiber Composites ", ACI Structural Journal Vol. 97 No. 3 May June, 2000
pp. 377-387.
[7] Tumialan, J., Galati, N., Nanni, A., “Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Strengthening of Unreinforced
Masonry Walls Subject to Out-of-Plane Loads”, ACI Structural Journal, V. 100, Issue 3, May-
June, 2003, pp 321-329
[8] Hamoush, S., Mlakar, P., Bastos, A., Costa, A., “The Shear Strength of Fiber Reinforced
Masonry Walls”, Proceedings of the International Conference Structural Faults and Repair 1-3
July,2003, London UK.
[9] Tan, K., Patoary, M., “Strengthening of Masonry Walls against Out-of-Plane Loads Using
Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement”, Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE
January/February,2004, pp 1-9.
[10] Ghobarah, A., Galal, K., ”Out-of-Plane Strengthening of Unreinforced Masonry Walls with
Openings”, Journal of Composites for Construction ASCE, July/August, 2004,pp 298-305.
[11] Aiello, M., Sciolti, M., Pecce, M., “Experimental Investigation on Bond between FRP Sheets
and Natural Masonry Blocks”, Proceedings of the International Conference Structural Faults
and Repair, 1-3 July,2003, London UK.
[12] Piyong, Y., Silva, P., Nanni, A., “Flexural Strengthening of Concrete Slabs by a Three-stage
Prestressing FRP System Enhanced with the Presence of GFRP Anchor Spikes”, Proceedings
of CCC 2003 - Composites in Construction International Conference, 16-19 September,2003,
University of Calabria Rende (CS), Italy.
Web site: http://campus.umr.edu/rb2c/research/2003/03-46.pdf
[13] Drysdale, R., Hamid, A., Baker, L., “Masonry Structures Behaviour and Design” , Textbook and
design reference”, ISBN 0-13-562026-0, Sponsored by Brick Institute of America National
Concrete Masonry Association published by Prentice-Hall,1994.

10