Effect of Normal Stress on Pull out Strength

of Reinforcement in Masonry Deep Beam

Dr. Abhay Bambole1 Sayali Ahire2
VJTI, Mumbai, India

Abstract: The objective of this paper is to investigate a novel technique for strengthening masonry arches,
based on the use of high strength steel cords or rod embedded in masonry. This paper considers the effect of
confinement on bond splitting failures between reinforcing bar and mortar in order to accumulate
experimental data for proposing realistic evaluating method. This paper, focus on the bond slip behavior
under the condition with confinement, each of which have one reinforcing bar, were subjected to the pullout-
loading test in order to study the bond performance between reinforcing bar and mortar. From the test
results, relationships between bond strength and confinement pressure can be known. Converting
unreinforced masonry into reinforced masonry by inserting steel reinforcement into joints to avoid tensile/
flexural failure and by studying the effect of normal stress on pull out strength of reinforcement in masonry
deep beam above results can be used to prepare design charts for rehabilitation of masonry arches/lintels and
also to estimate the effective depth of masonry beam.

Keywords: Pullout, Bond Behavior, Steel-Mortar bond, Masonry, Confinement.

1. INTRODUCTION
Masonry structures form part of our architectural heritage. Among the various structural components of
monumental buildings, masonry arches are important. They are very extensive in Indian historical centers, and their
preservation as part of the cultural heritage is a very well-timed subject. Because of the degradation owing to time
and other accidental causes (such as earthquakes), these structures suffer a number of types of damage. These
require the application of strengthening materials and repair techniques designed to re-establish initial structural
performances and prevent the easily broken collapse of the masonry due to possible future harmful conditions. Their
existence in our everyday life is such that we tend to regard them as key elements in our landscape. Indeed, it is
difficult to imagine the built environment without these structures. Furthermore, they often comprise masonry arches
that are necessary to a large number of buildings, many of which are historic and all of which are of great functional
as well as cultural importance: housing, religious buildings, bridges, footbridges, aqueducts, and waterways, among
others. Arches are building artifacts made of voussoirs which are placed in a specific curved form in order to stand
over the empty spaces beneath them. Their stability is achieved by simple gravity force, which means that they work
only under compression. The main challenge resides in further development of novel techniques, materials and
reinforcement processes that will lead to the discovery of alternatives to the more traditional solutions, which are
incompatible in certain scenarios. Masonry arches can be damaged due to inadequate design, poor construction
practices and changes in their use, ageing effects, poor maintenance, fatigue effects, foundation settlement,
earthquakes, architectural changes or load increments. As a consequence, it is important to evaluate the structural
safety of the building and later, if so required, to design a reinforcement solution. However, masonry structures
have, until recently, largely been ignored as an area of interest for structural researchers. In this context, poor
knowledge of masonry structures, assessment methods and reinforcement techniques should be acknowledged in
comparison with other construction materials. Effective reinforcement restores structural performance; increases
load Capacity and prevent brittle collapse. Conversely, reinforcement is also necessary in the cases where the
structures must satisfy the requirements of current codes and standards. Coupled with Concerns over the
maintenance of our architectural heritage, there is wide interest nowadays in studying new strengthening techniques
in greater detail. Prior to applying the reinforcement, all possible solutions must be studied, giving special
consideration to their efficiency and compatibility. Conventional reinforcement techniques (saddling, shot Crete
sprayed onto the intrados, etc.) can be difficult to use and they introduce new rigid and resistant structural elements
which increase the applied load and change the natural structural behavior of the building.
 Large populations of masonry buildings situated in seismic zones have historically been designed with little
or no regard for seismic loading; therefore the assessment of the vulnerability of unreinforced masonry walls and
their seismic upgrade is a current problem with important socio-economic implications. These structural elements
play the major role on the seismic response of the whole structure, since they represent the basic resisting elements
to horizontal seismic actions. Restoration and adaptive reuse of heritage buildings has become an issue of great
importance around the world, particularly in the most developed societies. Restoration is the result of the need to
improve existing buildings for new conditions of use, and also of the recognition of the importance of conservation
of the architectural heritage. Existing buildings are subjected to processes of degradation with time, which leads to a
situation in which they are unable to fulfill the purpose for which they were built. Sometimes, there is also a need to
improve the conditions offered by existing buildings or to adapt them to new functions. As a country with rich
cultural heritage develops, the feeling grows that it is necessary to maintain the existing architectural heritage. As a
kind of counterpoint to the changes caused by rapid technological evolution, the feeling grows of keeping the
existing built environment and passing it on to future generations. Rehabilitation of heritage buildings is a way of
sustainable development and also an act of culture.

Nomenclature
Steelmortar bond stress
F Tensile force applied
Bond strength (maximum bond stress)
D Diameter of steel rod(deformed)
L Anchorage length
S Bond slip
F Force on surface of brick
P Force in each rod of confinement frame
d Diameter of steel rod of confinement frame
Strain in each rod of confinement frame
Stress in each rod of confinement frame

A basic point in considering structural rehabilitation of a heritage building is establishing the performance
level to be fulfilled, particularly, the requirements in terms of structural safety, i.e., the structural safety level. The
required targets of safety levels will have to be established, prior to the intervention, by agreement between the
owner, the designer and the competent authority. Heritage buildings, by their very nature and history (material and
assembly), present challenges in diagnosis, analysis and rehabilitation, which limits the extent of application of
modern legal codes and building standards. Presently, prejudices persist against structural masonry, based on the
claim that it is expensive, fragile and unable to withstand earthquakes and dependent on unreliable workmanship and
unknown quality. As a consequence, only few resources have been put in structural masonry research, the current
code of practice seems to be underdeveloped and there is a lack of knowledge about the behavior of this composite
material. The fundamental point of todays research in structural masonry is thus to rationalize the engineering
design of structural masonry.

2. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAMME

Experimental work for pull out test on reinforced masonry with different confinement pressure is discussed.
Material and methodology also discussed for the same.

2.1 Test setup and specimens

Indian brick of size 210mm x 90mm x 70mm, Mortar (1:6) and ribbed reinforcement of 8mm diameter is
used for specimen preparation.
The test specimens are consist of two bricks each of size 210 mm x 90 mm x 70 mm with 20 mm thickness
of mortar in between of size given for bricks, with a single reinforcing deformed bar of 8 mm diameter embedded
vertically along a central axis in each specimen. The bar is projected 200 mm upward from the top face to provide
sufficient length of bar to extend through the specimen and the support of the testing machine and to provide an
adequate length to be gripped for application of load. Six specimens for each confinement level are taken for test.
After preparation of reinforced brick assemblage test specimens are cured for 28 days.
2.2 Instrumentation for test program
Instruments and their purpose used for pull out testing of brick assemblage with confinement are described
below.
Instruments Purpose
Potentiometer To measure slip (vertical displacement).
Steel strain gauge To adjust confining pressure for pull out sample.
Load cell To measure pull out load.
UTM Platform for pull out test.
DAQ System To acquire and monitor slip, force, confinement and record same data.

2.3 Overall test description

Specimens are tested for pull out test as described above. The slip at the loaded end of the bar shall be
calculated from the readings we are getting from DAQ system using potentiometer. For the purpose of this test, the
average bond stress shall be the value obtained for each specimen, by dividing the applied load at the slip specified,
by the surface area of the embedded length of the bar; and then taking the average value for the group of each type
of bar in the test series. For deformed bars, the surface shall be calculated from the nominal size of the deformed bar
as specified in the relevant standard specification.
The Confinement will be applied through plates again plates will be confining through four steel rods of 16
mm diameter size. We have mounted total four strain gauges (one on each steel rod) for applying desired
confinement by adjusting strain in each rod using Data acquisition system (DAQ).

2.4 Pull out tests and Calculation of bond stress

The bond strength, or the measure of the effectiveness of the grip between mortar and steel, has no standard
quantitative definition. In pull-out tests on bars, the maximum load generally represents the bond strength that can
be developed between the mortar and steel. For the purpose of this test, the average bond stress shall be the value
obtained for each specimen, by dividing the applied load at the slip specified, by the surface area of the embedded
length of the bar; and then taking the average value for the group of each type of bar in the test series.

= F / DL

Confinement is applied through plates again plates are confine through four steel rods of size 16 mm
diameter. We have mounted total four strain gauges (one on each steel rod) for applying desired confinement by
adjusting strain in each rod using Data acquisition system.

Fig 2: Confinement frame

Fig 1: Test setup Fig 3: Pull out specimens

 3. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

To study the effect of the confinement, a special testing frame (Fig. 2) is used to apply a uniform pressure
on the direction perpendicular to the reinforcement. It is composed of two thick steel plates and four steel rods. The
experimental campaign includes six confined specimens for each confinement level.

3.1. Confined specimens

The failure of the specimens is caused by a pulling of the bar and visible crack appears on the mortar
surface. From graphs it is observed that the mortar is gradually compressed in front of each rib of the deformed bar
and some micro-cracks appear at the steelmortar interface. After that the bond stress reaches its maximal value,
called the bond strength. Then, the bond stress decreases as the degradation of the steelmortar interface
develops. Finally, the bond behaviour tends to a friction between the two materials.

Load vs Displacement (0.2 Mpa) Load vs Displacement (0.4 Mpa)

2500 2500

2000 2000
Force in kg

Force in kg
1500 1500

1000 1000

500 500

0 0
-5 5 15 25 35 45 -5 5 15 25 35 45
Displacement in mm Displacement in mm

Graph 1 Graph 2

Load vs Displacement (0.6 Mpa) Load vs Displacement (0.8 Mpa)

2500 2500

2000 2000
Force in Kg
Force in kg

1500 1500

1000 1000

500 500

0 0
-5 5 15 25 35 45 -5 5 15 25 35 45
Displacement in mm Displacement in mm

Graph 3
Graph 4
Table 1
Material properties of specimen.
Sr No Material Compressive strength Young's modulus
1 Brick 4.55 Mpa 500 Mpa
2 Mortar 14.93 Mpa 5000 Mpa
3 Steel - 200000 Mpa

3.2 Influence of the active confinement

Graphs represents the bond stressslip obtained with different confinements (0.2, 0.4, 0.6 and 0.8 MPa).
The average values of the bond strength are compared for each confinement pressure in Table 2. In order to better
estimate the confinement effect, Graph 6 presents the normalized curves. Finally, to conclude on the experimental
tests, Table 2 presents the main results of the experimental campaign.

Table 2
Experimental results of pull out tests
Sr No Confining Pressure Average Bond Strength
1 0.2 Mpa 2.7 Mpa
2 0.4 Mpa 2.8 Mpa
3 0.6 Mpa 2.87 Mpa
4 0.8 Mpa 3.11 Mpa

Load vs Displacement
0.8 Mpa
2500 Confinement

0.6 Mpa
2000 Confinement

0.4 Mpa
Force in kg

1500
Confinement

1000
0.2 Mpa
Confinement
500

0
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Displacement in mm

Graph 5
 Load vs Displacement
2500

2000

0.6 Mpa Confinement

Force in Kg

1500

0.4 Mpa Confinement

1000 0.2 Mpa Confinement

500

0
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Displacement in mm

Graph 6

4. CONCLUSION
In the present work need of Reinforced masonry structures were identified and an attempt was made to understand
the masonry behavior under different level of confinement. In literature different experimental set ups for pull out
test, parameters affecting pull out strength and various developed retrofitting methods were studied for verifying its
applicability in Indian scenario. An experimental approach is defined to evaluate confinement effect on bond
strength and stiffness in reinforced masonry. From results it is found that confining pressure plays an important role
in evaluation of bond strength. Tests were done for four different confining pressures and it is observed that
maximum bond strength and stiffness of reinforced assemblage were increase with different level of increasing
confining pressure. Steel reinforcement can be inserted into joints to avoid flexural failure above the opening of
masonry structures. Above results can be used to prepare design charts for rehabilitation of masonry arches/lintels
and also to estimate the effective depth of masonry beam as there is significant effect of confinement pressure on
pull out strength of reinforcement in masonry deep beams.

REFERENCE

[1] Arezoumandi.M et al (2012) A Comparative Study of the Bond Strength of Reinforcing Steel in High-Volume Fly Ash
Concrete and Conventional Concrete( Construction and Building Materials 40 (2013) 919924)

[2] Borri.A et al (2010) Shear behavior of masonry panels strengthened by high strength steel cords (Construction and
Building Materials 25 (2011) 494503)

[3] Carrara.P et al (2012) Debonding behavior of ancient masonry elements strengthened with CFRP sheets (Composites:
Part B 45 (2013) 800810)
[4] Garmendia.L et al (2011) Rehabilitation of masonry arches with compatible advanced composite material (Construction
and Building Materials 25 (2011) 43744385)

[5] Ismail Net et al (2011) Diagonal shear behavior of unreinforced masonry wallets strengthened using twisted steel bars
(Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 43864393)

[6] Paganoni.S et al (2014) Testing and design procedure for corner connections of masonry heritage buildings strengthened
by metallic grouted anchors (Engineering Structures 70 (2014) 278293)

[7] Parsons.D et al Shear Tests of Reinforced Brick Masonry Beams (1932)(Bureau of Standards Journal of Research)

[8] Razavizadeh.A et al (2014)-Bond behavior of SRG-strengthened masonry units: Testing and numerical modeling
(Construction and Building Materials 64 (2014) 387397)
[9] Torre-Casanova. A et al (2012) Confinement effects on the steelconcrete bond strength and pull-out failure
(Engineering Fracture Mechanics 97 (2013) 92104)

[10] Wijaya.W et al (2009) Experimental Study on Wall-Frame Connection of Confined Masonry Wall (Procedia
Engineering 14 (2011) 20942102)
[11] IS: 2770 (Part I) 1967 [Methods of testing bond in reinforced concrete part 1 pull-out test]