Composites: Part B 38 (2007) 144151

www.elsevier.com/locate/compositesb

FRP reinforcement of stone arch bridges: Unilateral contact models

and limit analysis
G.A. Drosopoulos a, G.E. Stavroulakis
b

b,c,*

, C.V. Massalas

a
Department of Material Science and Technology, University of Ioannina, GR-45100 Ioannina, Greece
Department of Production Engineering and Management, Technical University of Crete, GR-73132 Chania, Greece
c
Department of Civil Engineering, Technical University of Braunschweig, Germany

Received 23 January 2006; received in revised form 20 July 2006; accepted 9 August 2006
Available online 24 October 2006

Abstract
A method for the estimation of the limit load and the failure mode of ber-reinforced polymer (FRP) reinforced stone arch bridges is
hereby presented. Unilateral contact interfaces with friction simulating potential cracks are considered in the nite element model of the
bridge. FRP strips are then applied to the intrados and/or the extrados of the arch. The possible failure modes of the reinforced structure
are sliding of the masonry, crushing, debonding of the reinforcement and FRP rupture. Identical failure modes arise from the computer
simulation and from experiments on reinforced arches published in the literature.
2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: A. Layered structures; B. Delamination; B. Interface/interphase; C. Finite element analysis (FEA)

1. Introduction
FRPs have initially been proposed for the reinforcement
of concrete structures. The implementation of those materials on masonry structures has been studied in the last
years both experimentally and analytically, as well [17].
FRP is made of a polymeric matrix with dierent kind of
bers (glass, carbon, etc.). As a strengthening material, it
presents a number of advantages such as high tensile
strength, negligible self-weight and corrosion resistance.
On the other hand, bers have brittle behavior while the
irregularity of the masonry surface may lead to a poor
bond between the bers and the masonry, thus to a negligible strengthening eect.
In experimental research conducted in the past on FRP
reinforced masonry, the reinforced arch failed due to slid*

Corresponding author. Address: Department of Production Engineering and Management, Technical University of Crete, GR-73132 Chania,
Greece. Tel.: +30 28210 37418; fax: +30 28210 69410.
E-mail addresses: me01122@cc.uoi.gr (G.A. Drosopoulos), gestavr@
dpem.tuc.gr (G.E. Stavroulakis), cmasalas@cc.uoi.gr (C.V. Massalas).
1359-8368/$ - see front matter 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compositesb.2006.08.004

ing of the masonry, crushing, debonding of the reinforcement and FRP rupture [1,2]. Identical failure modes have
been obtained in this study, from the nite element analysis
of the reinforced arch.
A stone arch bridge consists of stone blocks and mortar
joints. Blocks have high strength in compression and low
strength in tension while mortar has generally low strength.
Thus, a safe assumption of a no tension material can be
adopted at least for the purpose of limit analysis. To simulate
this behavior and the ultimate load of the arch, a discrete
model has been developed. In particular, the elastic model
of the bridge is divided into a number of interfaces perpendicular to the center line of the arch. Those interfaces are uniformly distributed along the length of the arch. A large
number of interfaces is used (e.g. forty interfaces) in order
to achieve a satisfactory simulation of the behavior of the
masonry structure [8]. Opening or sliding of the interfaces
denotes crack initiation. Other studies which are related with
the investigation of the behavior of masonry arches, as well
as no-tension materials like masonry, are reported in [912].
Unilateral contact law governs the behavior in the normal direction of an interface, indicating that no tension

G.A. Drosopoulos et al. / Composites: Part B 38 (2007) 144151

forces can be transmitted in this direction and a gap may

appear if the stresses in this direction become zero. For
the behavior in the tangential direction it is taken into
account that sliding may or may not occur, by the usage
of the Coulomb friction model. The either-or decisions
incorporated in the unilateral contact and the friction
mechanisms make the whole mechanical model highly nonlinear. Due to the presence of non-dierentiable functions
within these models, they are characterized as nonsmooth
mechanics models. For practical applications it is important to use carefully tuned path-following iterative techniques for the reliable numerical solution of the problem.
Furthermore, the limit analysis problem is related to the
solvability of the underlying mechanical problem using
analogous theoretical results concerning the solvability of
variational inequalities and complementarity problems
and applications on elastoplasticity [13].
On the top of the model described above, three types of
reinforcements have been tested. FRP is placed on the
whole length of the extrados, on the whole length of the
intrados and both on the extrados and the intrados of
the arch. FRP layers are modelled with two-dimensional
elasticity elements. For the masonry-FRP interface the
unilateral contact-friction model is also adopted. Various
models are additionally considered in the interface, including xed or elastic bonding.
The proposed model is able to predict the ultimate load
and the failure mode of the unreinforced arch. This structure collapses by the development of four hinges in the
arch, due to the small tensile resistant of the masonry
[14,8]. According to the main idea of this study, the
mechanical behavior of the structure can be improved if
a thin layer of reinforcement is applied to the model, which
was initially developed for the unreinforced arch. The
material of the reinforcement will provide tensile resistant
to the structure. As a result, the new model will be capable
of predicting the alteration in the behavior of the reinforced structure. In particular, the failure mode will be
changed and the reinforced arch will collapse due to the
sliding or the compressive failure of the masonry, the rupture of the FRP and the debonding of the reinforcement.
These failure modes are clearly depicted by the proposed
model of the reinforced structure, as it will be explained
in the following sections. Identical failure modes, have also
been obtained by experimental research on FRP reinforced
stone arches.

145

tact occurs. The basic unilateral contact law is described

by the set of inequalities (1), (2) and by the complementarity relation (3), [1517]
hug 60)h60
n

1
2
3

t P0
tn u  g 0:

Inequality (1) represents the nonpenetration relation,

relation (2) implements the requirement that only compressive stresses (contact pressures) are allowed and Eq. (3) is
the complementarity relation according to which either
separation with zero contact stress occurs or contact is realized with possibly non-zero contact stress.
The behavior in the tangential direction is dened by a
static version of the Coulomb friction model. Two contacting surfaces start sliding when the shear stress in the interface reaches a maximum critical value equal to
tt scr ljtn j

where tt, tn are the shear stress and the contact pressure at a
given point of the contacting surfaces respectively and l is
the friction coecient. There are two possible directions of
sliding along an interface, so tt can be positive or negative
depending on that direction. Furthermore, there is no sliding if |tt| < l|tn| (stick conditions). The stick-slip relations of
the frictional mechanism can be mathematically described
with two sets of inequalities and complementarity relations,
similar to (1)(3), by using appropriate slack variables
[18,15].
2.2. Formulation and solution of the unilateral
contact-friction problem
For the frictional-contact problem the virtual work
equation is written in a general form
Z
Z
Z
Z
s : d dV
du  t dS du  f dV
du  tn dS 0
V
S
V
S0
Z

du  tt dS 0
5
S0

2. Failure of the masonry arch

where tn and tt are the normal and tangential traction vectors on the actual contact boundary S 0 , s is the stress tensor, d is the virtual strain tensor, du is the virtual
displacement vector and t, f are the surface and body force
vectors, respectively.
The nonlinearity in the unilateral contact problem is
introduced by the variational inequality [16]

2.1. Elements of the frictional-contact mechanics

du  tn 6 0

The behavior in the normal direction of an interface is

described by the unilateral contact model. In particular,
let us consider the boundary of an elastic body which
comes in contact with a rigid wall. Let u be the single
degree of freedom of the system, g be the initial opening
and tn be the corresponding contact pressure in case con-

which represents the principle of virtual work in a variational form. The contact constraint is enforced with
Lagrange multipliers representing the contact pressures.
The nonlinearity in the frictional problem is introduced
by the variational inequality
dut  tt 6 maxdut  ttcr ; dut  ttcr

146

G.A. Drosopoulos et al. / Composites: Part B 38 (2007) 144151

where ttcr is the vector of the critical shear stresses scr, in the
tangential direction of the interfaces. Relation (7) implies
that no slip occurs when j ttj < scr = ljtnj while slip starts
when tt = scr. Lagrange multipliers are also used in the
principle of the virtual work to enforce sticking conditions.
The set of the nonlinear equations is solved by the
NewtonRaphson incremental iterative procedure.
The frictionless unilateral contact problem can be written in matrix form as follows
Ku NT r Po kP

8a

Nu  g 6 0
rP0

8b
8c

Nu  gT r 0:

8d

surface to the DruckerPrager shear failure surface bounds

the yield surface in hydrostatic compression, thus providing an inelastic hardening mechanism to represent plastic
compaction.
The DruckerPrager shear failure surface is written as
F s t  p tan b  d 0

where b and d represent the angle of internal friction and

the cohesion of the material respectively, t is a deviatoric
stress measure and p is the equivalent pressure stress.
The cap yield surface is
s

2
Rt
2
 Rd pa tan b
F c p  pa
1 a  a= cos b
0

Eq. (8a) expresses the equilibrium equations of the unilateral contact problem, where for simplicity frictional
terms are omitted. K is the stiness matrix and u is the displacement vector. Po denotes the self-weight of the structure and P represents the concentrated live load. N is an
appropriate geometric transformation matrix and vector
g contains the initial gaps for the description of the unilateral contact joints. Relations (8b), (8c), (8d) represent the
constraints of the unilateral contact problem for the whole
discretized structure and are based on the local description
given by relations (1)(3). The enforcement of the constraints is achieved by using Lagrange multipliers. Thus, r
is the vector of Lagrange multipliers corresponding to the
inequality constraints and is equal to the corresponding
contact pressure (tn).
The problem described above is a nonsmooth parametric linear complementarity problem (LCP) [19] parametrized by the one-dimensional load parameter k. All
required quantities can be calculated by using nite element
techniques. Using path-following the solution of the problem can be calculated in the interval 0 6 k 6 kfailure, where
kfailure is the value of the loading factor for which the unilateral contact problem does not have a solution. This is
the limit analysis load.

10

where R is a material parameter that controls the shape of

the cap, a is a small number used to dene a transition yield
surface for a smooth intersection between the cap and
shear failure surfaces (for the sake of simplicity the transition surface is not written explicitly here) and pa is an evolution parameter, which is obtained by substituting (p, t)
with (pb, 0) in Eq. (10)
pa

pb  Rd
:
1 R tan b

11

In relation (11), pb represents the hydrostatic compression yield stress and is dened by a bilinear hardening
law (with an almost horizontal branch), relating pb with
the plastic strain.
The model described above uses associated ow rule in
the cap region and nonassociated ow in the shear failure
and transition regions. However, yielding in the shear
(and in the transition) surface is prevented because the contact-friction model stands for the shear failure of the
masonry arch. This is implemented by giving high enough
values in the parameters that mainly dene the shape of the
shear failure surface (b and d), see Fig. 1.
3. The reinforced arch

2.3. Compressive failure of the arch

3.1. Failure modes of the reinforced arch
For the compressive failure of the arch the Drucker
Prager plasticity model, in which a cap yield surface has
been added, is used (Fig. 1). The addition of the cap yield

Failure occurs by sliding of the masonry at the springing

of the bridge and at the point of external (concentrated)

Fig. 1. DruckerPrager cap model plasticity (a) in the pt plane (b) in the deviatoric plane.

G.A. Drosopoulos et al. / Composites: Part B 38 (2007) 144151

loading if the reinforcement is attached on the whole length

of the extrados [1,2].
Debonding of the FRP at the intrados may also lead to
failure. An FRP strip epoxy-bonded onto a curved surface,
gives rise to stress concentrations normal to the boundary
of the bonding masonry [1]. These stresses exist due to
the curvature of the arch, and, in fact, are proportional
to the curvature. For reinforcement placed on the intrados
these stresses are tensile for the masonry-FRP interface,
denoting that debonding is an issue of concern.
These previously mentioned normal stresses are also
proportional to the tensile force of the strip [1] indicating
that they mainly arise on the bricks adjacent to cracks
(i.e. when a crack is about to open on a brick, the strip
bonded to this brick develops tensile forces). As a result,
debonding occurs close to the point of application of the
load or more generally in areas of the intrados where a
hinge of the collapse mechanism tends to open.
In some experiments debonding of the FRP is accompanied either with ripping of a layer of a stone close to the
reinforcement (local tensile failure of the masonry) or with
pull-out of a whole block. In both cases debonding is
related with the masonry, not the FRP, due to the fact that
the epoxy resin is stronger than the masonry under tension,
under the assumption that the reinforcement has been
properly applied. However, debonding can be related to
the FRP as well, if the masonry-FRP connection is not
strong enough.
In addition, some experiments have shown that a debonding failure mode can be accompanied with the four
hinges collapse mechanism [1] introduced by Heyman
[20]. A brief description of the four hinges failure mechanism is given later in this study. Simplied relations and
relevant information concerning detachment of the FRP,
are presented in [1,2].
In case that no debonding is permitted in an arch reinforced at the whole length of the intrados, collapse occurs
by compressive failure of the masonry [1]. If this is the case,
the limit load is considerably increased.
Finally, if the reinforcement includes interior FRP, the
structure is possible to fail by the four hinges mechanism
but the positions of the hinges can be dierent in comparison
with the collapse mechanism of the unreinforced arch [1].
3.2. FRP reinforcement
The failure modes of the reinforced arch obtained by
experimental research, have been mentioned in the previous section. The proposed model predicts identical failure
modes. In particular, if the FRP is applied to the whole
length of the extrados of the arch, experiments show that
the structure will collapse due to sliding of the masonry.
This possibility is taken into account in the framework of
the proposed model, by the usage of the Coulomb friction
law in the tangential direction of the interfaces of the arch.
If the reinforcement is applied to the whole length of the
intrados and there is a strong connection between the

147

masonry and the FRP, then the structure collapses due to

compressive failure of the arch. This type of failure is represented in the proposed model, by the usage of the previously described DruckerPrager plasticity model, in which
a cap yield surface has been added in order to put a limit on
the hydrostatic pressure.
If the reinforcement is applied to the intrados of the arch
and the connection between the FRP and the masonry is
not strong enough, experiments demonstrate that debonding of the reinforcement is possible to appear. In this case
the failure is caused by the four hinges mechanism similar
to the unreinforced structure. The behavior of the
masonry-FRP interface is simulated by the contact-friction
law for all types of reinforcement. Nonlinear springs are
also used in this interface, in order to depict debonding
of the FRP which appears in the case of intrados reinforcement. These springs provide a nite (small) tensile resistant
in the normal direction of the interface. When this limit is
reached, debonding of the reinforcement takes place.
If the ultimate load of the reinforced structure is considerably increased, FRP rupture may occur. Failure of the
FRP is represented by the proposed model, with the von
Mises yield criterion and a perfect plastic stress-plastic
strain law.
In all the above cases of reinforcement, the behavior of
the masonry-FPR interface signicantly aects the result of
the reinforcement. The proposed model is able to reproduce situations in which the interface has not been
adequately prepared before the application of the FRP
(e.g. there is a low bond strength). As it has already been
mentioned, the contact-friction model is applied in the
masonry-FRP interface, for all types of reinforcement.
If the reinforcement is applied to the intrados of the arch
and the connection between the FRP and the masonry is
not strong enough, it is possible to occur debonding of
the FRP. This weak connection is simulated in the proposed
model with nonlinear springs, which oer a small tensile
resistant in the normal direction of the masonry-FRP interface. When this strength is reached, debonding of the reinforcement, together with premature failure take place.
The proposed model is capable of simulating another
case of premature failure of the reinforcement, which is
related with the sliding of the FRP in the tangential direction of the masonry-FPR interface. Sliding of the FRP is
modelled with the Coulomb friction law and a small friction coecient.
It is noted, that conditions which do not permit sliding
nor debonding of the FRP from the masonry can also be
represented by the proposed model, by applying sticking
conditions (without a bound, contrary to the Eq. (4)).
In the following sections some applications on the reinforcement of stone arches are presented. Three types of
FRP reinforcement are applied on the masonry. The FRP
is attached to the whole length of the extrados, to the whole
length of the intrados and both to the extrados and the
intrados of the arch. The mechanical properties of both
the masonry and the reinforcement are given in Table 1.

148

G.A. Drosopoulos et al. / Composites: Part B 38 (2007) 144151

Table 1
List of the material properties for both the masonry and the reinforcement
Masonry
Youngs modulus
Poissons ratio
Density
Compressive yield stress
Width

5 GPa
0.3
2200 Kg/m3
10 MPa
1m

FRP Reinforcement
Youngs modulus
Poissons ratio
Thickness
Tensile yield stress
Width

50 GPa
0.3
1 mm
5 GPa
0.4 m

4. A brief description of Heymans method

The classical collapse mechanism method of Heyman
[20], has been proposed for the determination of the load
carrying capacity of stone arch bridges. It is based on the
estimation of the thrust line (a funicular polygon which
denes the resultant force in a cross-section of the arch).
When the thrust line in a cross-section is adjacent to the
ring of the arch, the eccentricity e of the normal force
PN, from the center line of the arch at a given cross-section,
becomes maximum. As a result, a bending moment M
equal to PNe is developed around the center line of the arch
and a hinge opens, on the assumption that the arch does
not develop any tensile strength. Since a three-pin arch is
a statically determinate structure, opening of a fourth hinge
converts the structure into a mechanism and collapse
occurs. Therefore, the four hinges collapse mechanism is
the collapse mode for an unreinforced arch loaded with a
vertical concentrated force in the quarter-span of the arch.
The same loading position (together with the self-weight) is
considered both in this study and in the experimental
research on stone arches referred herein, as the quarterspan is probably the worst position of the live load according to [20]. In addition, no compressive failure for the
unreinforced masonry is usually expected [20].

ing of the masonry occurs). A list of the material properties

for both the masonry and the FRP is represented in Table
1. It is noted that the mechanical properties of the reinforcement are similar to the ones reported for a carbon
ber-reinforced polymer (CFRP) in [21]. The nite element
analysis model consists of quadrilateral plane strain elements. The arch is considered xed to the ground and large
displacement eects have been neglected.
5.1. FRP attached to the whole extrados
Experimental work has shown that the structure collapses due to masonrys sliding at the springing and at
the point of concentrated loading. The same conclusion
arises from the present study (Fig. 3). While no sliding of
the unreinforced arch occurs for a friction coecient equal
to 0.6 (Fig. 2(b)), sliding of the masonry is the failure mode
of the reinforced structure for the same friction coecient.
The ultimate failure load is equal to 586.9 KN, about 6
times greater than the one received for the arch without
FRP reinforcement. After initiation of sliding in the
masonry, FRP is yielding at the areas of the model where
sliding of the masonry takes place, especially at the point
of loading, while no compressive failure of the masonry
occurs.
5.2. FRP attached to the whole intrados
As described above, crushing of the masonry is the failure mode when no debonding of the FRP can be developed
in the FRP-masonry interface. But if the FRP-masonry
connection is not strong enough, detachment of the reinforcement usually together with a collapse mechanism on
the body of the arch, appears to be the most possible failure mode. Both collapse modes can be reproduced by the
proposed model.
Crushing takes place at a considerably large ultimate
load. According to the numerical results, compressive
yielding of the masonry occurs in places where a hinge of

5. Results
The geometry of the arch, in which the proposed model
is applied, and the four hinges collapse mechanism if no
FRP reinforcement is attached to this structure, are shown
in Fig. 2. The failure load is equal to 87.14 KN (no crush-

Fig. 3. Failure mode of the arch reinforced at the whole extrados.

Fig. 2. (a) Geometry (m) of a forty interfaces contact-friction model and (b) four hinges collapse mechanism and failure load for the unreinforced arch.

G.A. Drosopoulos et al. / Composites: Part B 38 (2007) 144151

149

Fig. 4. (a) Compressive failure mode of the arch reinforced at the whole intrados (no debonding in the masonry-FRP interface) and (b) Force
displacement diagrams for FRP attached to the whole extrados and the whole intrados.

the collapse mechanism of the unreinforced structure

opens, in the boundary of the ring opposite to the crack.
FRP yielding takes place near the point of concentrated
loading as well as in the springing opposite to the loading.
At those places a crack of the unreinforced arch would
open at the intrados, thus the reinforcement develops tensile forces. In Fig. 4(a) crushing failure mode is shown.
Grey color represents yielding of the masonry.
In addition, the forcedisplacements diagrams presented
in Fig. 4(b) indicate that FRP reinforcement attached to
the intrados is more eective in comparison with exterior
FRP reinforcement, on the assumption that no debonding
of the FRP is permitted. Sliding of the masonry, which is
obtained for the case of exterior FRP placement, can be
an explanation for this.
In order to obtain the ultimate load of the structure
when debonding of the FRP can be developed, nonlinear
springs are used to model the behavior of the masonryFRP interface. A bilinear forcedisplacement diagram is
used for those springs, with an initial stiness equal to
104 KN/m. This relatively small value of the springs stiness represents a weak FRP-masonry connection. After a
very small deformation the diagram becomes horizontal
indicating that the contribution of the springs in the
FRP-masonry connection is minimized. In addition, FRP
is considered either xed to the springings or connected
with springs to them.
From the results obtained in the present study, it is clear
that when the FRP is considered xed to the springings,
detachment occurs both near the point of application of
the concentrated loading and at the springing opposite to
the concentrated load (Fig. 5(a)). The failure load is then
equal to 130.2 KN, very close to the one received for the
unreinforced arch (Fig. 2).
If the FRP is connected with springs to the springings,
detachment of the FRP takes place only near the point

Fig. 6. Forcedisplacement diagrams of the arch reinforced at the whole

intrados in case debonding of the FRP is permitted.

of loading while a small sliding of the FRP occurs in the

springing opposite to the load (Fig. 5(b)). The failure load
is equal to 115.6 KN. In both cases, the four hinges collapse mechanism arise. The corresponding forcedisplacements diagrams are shown in Fig. 6.
In case that debonding of the FRP takes place, the
behavior of the reinforced arch is similar to the unreinforced structure (only a small increase of the failure load
occurs, see also [6]). As a result, neither FRP yielding nor
crushing of the masonry arise when debonding occurs.

5.3. FRP attached both to the intrados and the extrados

of the arch
In this section the FRP is assumed to be partially
attached both to the intrados and the extrados of the arch,
around the positions where a hinge of the collapse mechanism would open in the unreinforced arch.
Similar to the previous case, the ultimate load and the
collapse mechanism are inuenced by the masonry-FRP
connection at the intrados. If this connection is strong
enough and no debonding of the FRP is permitted at
the intrados, the failure load is equal to 456.9 KN, a
value which is about 5 times greater than the one of the

Fig. 5. Failure mode of the arch reinforced at the whole intrados when debonding of the FRP is permitted (a) FRP xed in the springings and (b) FRP
connected with springs in the springings.

150

G.A. Drosopoulos et al. / Composites: Part B 38 (2007) 144151

Fig. 7. Failure mode of the arch reinforced both at the intrados and the extrados (a) No debonding in the masonry-FRP interface and (b) Debonding for
FRP xed in the springings.

Fig. 8. Forcedisplacement diagrams of the arch reinforced both at the

intrados and the extrados.

unreinforced structure. The arch fails by the four hinge collapse mechanism, but the position of the hinges diers from
the case of the unreinforced bridge (see Figs. 2(b) and 7(a)).
The hinges, both at the intrados and the extrados, open
near the boundary of the FRP reinforcement strip, thus
there is an oset of the hinges position. The increase of
the limit load can be attributed to this oset.
A signicant reduction of the failure load occurs if debonding of the FRP at the intrados can be developed. In
order to obtain debonding, nonlinear springs are used in
the masonry-FRP interface at the intrados. The same
forcedisplacement diagram described in the previous
section for the springs, is used here. In addition, FRP is
considered xed to the springings. The arch fails by the
four hinge collapse mechanism at 124.2 KN (Fig. 7(b))
indicating premature failure of the reinforcement. The
corresponding forcedisplacement diagrams of the arch
reinforced both at the intrados and the extrados, are shown
in Fig. 8.
6. Conclusions
In the present study a numerical investigation of the ultimate load of an FRP reinforced masonry arch has been
presented. A unilateral contact-friction nite element
model is proposed for the simulation of the arch and is
extended to cover the behavior of the reinforced structure.
The model is able to predict the failure modes of the reinforced arch such as sliding of the masonry, debonding of
the FRP and compressive failure of the masonry. Identical
failure modes arise from experimental research on stone
arches.
Unilateral contact interfaces are used for the simulation
of the arch. A contact law is applied in the normal direction
of the interfaces, indicating that masonry has a zero tensile

resistant in the normal direction of each interface. The

Coulomb friction law (with a friction coecient equal to
0.6), which is applied on the tangential direction of the
interfaces, models the sliding failure mode for the masonry.
The reinforcement is added in the model of the unreinforced arch. It has a very small thickness (equal to 1 mm)
and is simulated by nite elements of two-dimensional elasticity. The mechanical properties of the reinforcement are
similar to the ones reported for a carbon ber-reinforced
polymer (CFRP). The interface between the masonry and
the FRP is also simulated by the contact-friction law. Conditions which do not permit sliding nor debonding of the
FRP from the masonry can be included in the law of the
masonry-FRP interface, simulating a high bond strength
between the reinforcement and the masonry.
Sliding or debonding of the FRP may also be represented by this interface, indicating the existence of a weak
connection between the two materials. If the reinforcement
is applied on the intrados of the arch and the connection
between the FRP and the masonry is not strong enough,
debonding of the FRP is possible to occur. This weak connection is simulated in the proposed model with nonlinear
springs, which are added in the masonry-FRP interface and
oer a small tensile resistant in the normal direction of this
interface. When the strength of the springs is reached, debonding of the reinforcement, together with premature failure take place. Sliding of the FRP can also be represented
by the usage of the Coulomb friction law in the masonryFRP interface.
Three types of reinforcement are applied to the
masonry. FRP is attached to the whole length of the extrados, to the whole length of the intrados and both to the
extrados and the intrados of the arch, in areas where a
hinge of the unreinforced structure would be developed.
Concerning interior reinforcement, debonding of the FRP
proves to be very crucial for the behavior of the reinforced
arch, as the ultimate load is very close to the one received
for the unreinforced structure. The exterior reinforced arch
collapses due to sliding of the masonry both at the point of
loading and at the springing opposite loading. This can be
prevented by applying a proper amount of reinforcement in
those areas. Supposing that no debonding of the FRP is
permitted, full interior reinforcement seems to result in a
higher ultimate load in comparison with full exterior reinforcement. Moreover, compressive failure of the masonry
occurs, if FRP is applied to the full length of the intrados
and no debonding is permitted. For reinforcement attached

G.A. Drosopoulos et al. / Composites: Part B 38 (2007) 144151

both to the intrados and the extrados, failure follows the

classical four hinges collapse mechanism. In comparison
with the unreinforced arch an oset in the hinges position
is observed. A signicantly increased ultimate load is
attributed to this oset.
Further work is needed for the assessment of the behavior of both the unreinforced and the reinforced structure in
the direction normal to the plane of the arch, especially
when horizontal forces simulating seismic activity are present. The development of three-dimensional models is left
for further investigation.
References
[1] Foraboschi P. Strengthening of masonry arches with ber-reinforced
polymer strips. ASCE J Compos Constr 2004;8(3):191202.
[2] Valluzzi MR, Valdemarca M, Modena C. Behavior of brick masonry
vaults strengthened by FRP laminates. ASCE J Compos Constr
2001;5(3):1639.
[3] Triantallou TC. Strengthening of masonry structures using epoxybonded FRP laminates. ASCE J Compos Constr 1998;2(2):96
104.
[4] Albert ML, Elwi AE, Cheng JJR. Strengthening of unreinforced
masonry walls using FRPs. ASCE J Compos Constr 2001;5(2):7684.
[5] Kolsch H. Carbon ber cement matrix (CFCM) overlay system for
masonry strengthening. ASCE J Compos Constr 1998;2(2):1059.
[6] Ascione L, Feo L, Fraternali F. Load carrying capacity of 2D FRP/
strengthened masonry structures. Compos Part B Eng 2005;36:
61926.
[7] ElGawady AM, Lestuzzi P, Badoux M. Aseismic retrotting of
unreinforced masonry walls using FRP. Compos Part B Eng
2006;37:14862.

151

[8] Drosopoulos GA, Stavroulakis GE, Massalas CV. Limit analysis of a

single span masonry bridge with unilateral frictional contact interfaces. Eng Struct 2006;28:186473.
[9] Lofti H, Shing P. Interface model applied to fracture of masonry
structures. ASCE J Struct Eng 1994;120:6380.
[10] Del Piero G. Limit analysis and no-tension materials. Int J Plasticity
1998;14:25971.
[11] Lucchesi M, Padovani C, Pasquinelli G, Zani N. On the collapse of
masonry arches. Meccanica 1997;32:32746.
[12] Giacquinta M, Giusti G. Researches on the equilibrium of masonry
structures. Arch Ration Mech Anal 1985;88:35992.
[13] Stavroulakis GE, Panagiotopoulos PD, Al-Fahed AM. On the rigid
body displacements and rotations in unilateral contact problems and
applications. Comput Struct 1991;40:599614.
[14] Heyman J. The stone skeleton. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press; 1995.
[15] Mistakidis ES, Stavroulakis GE. Nonconvex optimization in
mechanics. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1998.
[16] Panagiotopoulos PD. Inequality problems in mechanics and applications: Convex and nonconvex energy functions. Boston, Basel,
Stuttgart: Birkhauser; 1985.
[17] Stavroulaki ME, Stavroulakis GE. Unilateral contact applications
using FEM software. Int J Appl Math Comput Sci 2002;12:10111.
[18] AL-Fahed AM, Stavroulakis GE, Panagiotopoulos PD. Hard and
soft ngered robot grippers. The linear complementarity approach.
ZAMM 1991;71:25765.
[19] Stavroulakis GE. Optimization for modeling of nonlinear interactions in mechanics. In: Pardalos PM, Resende GC, editors. Handbook of applied optimization. New York: Oxford University Press;
2002. p. 97891.
[20] Heyman J. The masonry arch. England: Ellis Horwood Series In
Engineering Science; 1982.
[21] Berthelot MJ. Composite materials: mechanical behavior and structural analysis. New York: Springer-Verlag; 1999.