Scholarlink

Background <p>This study numerically investigates the out-of-plane (OOP) behavior of decoupled masonry infill walls strengthened using conventional plastering systems and Textile Reinforced Mortar (TRM).</p> Methods <p>Validated finite element models were employed to analyze 34 wall configurations considering plaster type, boundary conditions, opening type, and TRM layout in hollow clay block walls. In addition to peak load capacity, ductility and energy dissipation characteristics were also evaluated.</p> Results <p>Boundary conditions governed OOP behavior, with four-sided support increasing load capacity by approximately 1.3–2.6 times through the development of two-way arching action. Compared with un-plastered walls, cement plaster increased the OOP capacity by about 80–120% under two-sided support and up to 170–225% under four-sided support. Full-coverage TRM systems provided the highest overall performance, with strength increases reaching up to 270%. Nevertheless, under four-sided support conditions, cement-plastered walls achieved nearly 90% of the peak capacity of full-coverage TRM systems. For decoupled infill walls in wind-dominated or low-to-moderate seismic regions, where deformation demand is generally limited, cement plaster can therefore provide an efficient strengthening solution with high stiffness, significant strength enhancement, and relatively simple implementation. A clear strength–ductility trade-off was observed between the investigated strengthening methods. While cement plaster exhibited relatively brittle behavior, TRM-strengthened walls showed substantially improved ductility, crack control, and energy dissipation capacity. The ductility factor increased from about 1.0–1.2 in conventional plastered walls to approximately 2.5–3.0 in TRM-strengthened walls, while the absorbed energy increased by nearly five to seven times.</p> Conclusions <p>The benefits of TRM were particularly pronounced in two-sided walls and walls with openings, where deformation capacity and crack control are critical.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Strength–ductility trade-off between TRM and conventional cement plaster in out-of-plane strengthening of masonry infills

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年6月22日

查看全文
  • Simin Al-Sadat Rasekhi,
  • Mohammad Reza Mirjalili

摘要

Background

This study numerically investigates the out-of-plane (OOP) behavior of decoupled masonry infill walls strengthened using conventional plastering systems and Textile Reinforced Mortar (TRM).

Methods

Validated finite element models were employed to analyze 34 wall configurations considering plaster type, boundary conditions, opening type, and TRM layout in hollow clay block walls. In addition to peak load capacity, ductility and energy dissipation characteristics were also evaluated.

Results

Boundary conditions governed OOP behavior, with four-sided support increasing load capacity by approximately 1.3–2.6 times through the development of two-way arching action. Compared with un-plastered walls, cement plaster increased the OOP capacity by about 80–120% under two-sided support and up to 170–225% under four-sided support. Full-coverage TRM systems provided the highest overall performance, with strength increases reaching up to 270%. Nevertheless, under four-sided support conditions, cement-plastered walls achieved nearly 90% of the peak capacity of full-coverage TRM systems. For decoupled infill walls in wind-dominated or low-to-moderate seismic regions, where deformation demand is generally limited, cement plaster can therefore provide an efficient strengthening solution with high stiffness, significant strength enhancement, and relatively simple implementation. A clear strength–ductility trade-off was observed between the investigated strengthening methods. While cement plaster exhibited relatively brittle behavior, TRM-strengthened walls showed substantially improved ductility, crack control, and energy dissipation capacity. The ductility factor increased from about 1.0–1.2 in conventional plastered walls to approximately 2.5–3.0 in TRM-strengthened walls, while the absorbed energy increased by nearly five to seven times.

Conclusions

The benefits of TRM were particularly pronounced in two-sided walls and walls with openings, where deformation capacity and crack control are critical.