Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Cyclic loading test for brick masonry walls strengthened by steel mesh-ECC layers Cover

Cyclic loading test for brick masonry walls strengthened by steel mesh-ECC layers

Materials Science-Poland
Volume 43 (2025): Issue 4 (December 2025)
By: Zeqing Wan,  Juntao Chen,  Wenjie Ge,  Rui Zhang,  Yuexiang Hu,  Yi Wang,  Shenfeng Yuang and  Chuanzhi Sun  
Open Access
|Jan 2026

Figures & Tables

Figure 1

Typical damaged masonry structures. (a) Damage of masonry structure after long-term service. (b) Damage of masonry structure after earthquake.
Typical damaged masonry structures. (a) Damage of masonry structure after long-term service. (b) Damage of masonry structure after earthquake.

Figure 2

Retrofitting strategies for URM structures.
Retrofitting strategies for URM structures.

Figure 3

Dimension and configuration of the specimen (unit: mm). (a) Reinforcing mesh arrangement diagram. (b) Side view of reinforced specimen. (c) Top beam reinforcement diagram. (d) Floor beam reinforcement diagram.
Dimension and configuration of the specimen (unit: mm). (a) Reinforcing mesh arrangement diagram. (b) Side view of reinforced specimen. (c) Top beam reinforcement diagram. (d) Floor beam reinforcement diagram.

Figure 4

Raw materials used for mixing ECC. (a) Cement. (b) Fly ash. (c) Silica fume. (d) Quartz sand. (e) Fiber. (f) Water reducer.
Raw materials used for mixing ECC. (a) Cement. (b) Fly ash. (c) Silica fume. (d) Quartz sand. (e) Fiber. (f) Water reducer.

Figure 5

Masonry wall construction process. (a) Brick wall construction. (b) Loading beam formwork and concrete pouring.
Masonry wall construction process. (a) Brick wall construction. (b) Loading beam formwork and concrete pouring.

Figure 6

Strengthening of masonry walls. (a) Embed tie bars. (b) Steel mesh and strain gauges. (c) Surface layer ECC spraying. (d) ECC surface layer plastering.
Strengthening of masonry walls. (a) Embed tie bars. (b) Steel mesh and strain gauges. (c) Surface layer ECC spraying. (d) ECC surface layer plastering.

Figure 7

Compressive strength test of a single brick. (a) Brick specimens. (b) Testing apparatus.
Compressive strength test of a single brick. (a) Brick specimens. (b) Testing apparatus.

Figure 8

Specimens and testing apparatus.
Specimens and testing apparatus.

Figure 9

Specimens and testing apparatus.
Specimens and testing apparatus.

Figure 10

Loading scheme. (a) Loading device. (b) Loading system.
Loading scheme. (a) Loading device. (b) Loading system.

Figure 11

Schematic layout of measure points. (a) Schematic diagram of strain gauges attached on the reinforcing mesh. (b) Schematic diagram of strain and displacement gauges attached on the strengthened surface layer.
Schematic layout of measure points. (a) Schematic diagram of strain gauges attached on the reinforcing mesh. (b) Schematic diagram of strain and displacement gauges attached on the strengthened surface layer.

Figure 12

DIC measurement process. (a) DIC measurement area. (b) Diagram of the DIC data acquisition system.
DIC measurement process. (a) DIC measurement area. (b) Diagram of the DIC data acquisition system.

Figure 13

Main instruments. (a) TDS-540 static resistance strain acquisition system. (b) Extension unit. (c) Displacement gauges. (d) DIC device.
Main instruments. (a) TDS-540 static resistance strain acquisition system. (b) Extension unit. (c) Displacement gauges. (d) DIC device.

Figure 14

Failure pattern of specimen S1. (a) The south side of the specimen. (b) The north side of the specimen.
Failure pattern of specimen S1. (a) The south side of the specimen. (b) The north side of the specimen.

Figure 15

Failure pattern of specimen S2. (a) The south side. (b) The west side. (c) The north side. (d) The east side.
Failure pattern of specimen S2. (a) The south side. (b) The west side. (c) The north side. (d) The east side.

Figure 16

Failure pattern of specimen S3. (a) Cracking at the bottom of the mortar layer. (b) Cracking at the bottom of the sidewall.
Failure pattern of specimen S3. (a) Cracking at the bottom of the mortar layer. (b) Cracking at the bottom of the sidewall.

Figure 17

Comparison of hysteresis curves. (a) Specimen S1. (b) Specimen S2. (c) Specimen S3.
Comparison of hysteresis curves. (a) Specimen S1. (b) Specimen S2. (c) Specimen S3.

Figure 18

Skeleton curves. (a) Specimen S1. (b) Specimen S2. (c) Specimen S3. (d) Comparison of skeleton curves.
Skeleton curves. (a) Specimen S1. (b) Specimen S2. (c) Specimen S3. (d) Comparison of skeleton curves.

Figure 19

Strain distribution on the strengthening layer of specimen S2. (a) E-1∼E-7. (b) E-8∼E-15.
Strain distribution on the strengthening layer of specimen S2. (a) E-1∼E-7. (b) E-8∼E-15.

Figure 20

Strain distribution on the reinforcement of specimen S2. (a) Transverse reinforcement strain. (b) Vertical reinforcement strain.
Strain distribution on the reinforcement of specimen S2. (a) Transverse reinforcement strain. (b) Vertical reinforcement strain.

Figure 21

Strain distribution on the strengthening layer of specimen S3. (a) M-1∼M-7. (b) M-8∼M-15.
Strain distribution on the strengthening layer of specimen S3. (a) M-1∼M-7. (b) M-8∼M-15.

Figure 22

Strain distribution on the reinforcement of specimen S3. (a) Transverse reinforcement strain. (b) Vertical reinforcement strain.
Strain distribution on the reinforcement of specimen S3. (a) Transverse reinforcement strain. (b) Vertical reinforcement strain.

Figure 23

Strain contours and strain data obtained through DIC. (a) Strain contour map of specimen S2. (b) Strain distribution of specimen S2. (c) Strain contour map of specimen S3. (d) Strain distribution of specimen S3.
Strain contours and strain data obtained through DIC. (a) Strain contour map of specimen S2. (b) Strain distribution of specimen S2. (c) Strain contour map of specimen S3. (d) Strain distribution of specimen S3.

Figure 24

Comparison of stiffness degradation.
Comparison of stiffness degradation.

Figure 25

Energy equivalent method.
Energy equivalent method.

Figure 26

Schematic diagram of equivalent viscous damping factor calculation.
Schematic diagram of equivalent viscous damping factor calculation.

Figure 27

Comparison of energy dissipation capacity. (a) Equivalent viscous damping coefficient. (b) Cumulative energy dissipation. (c) Cumulative total energy dissipation.
Comparison of energy dissipation capacity. (a) Equivalent viscous damping coefficient. (b) Cumulative energy dissipation. (c) Cumulative total energy dissipation.

Mechanical properties of rebar_

Reinforcing rebarRebar diameter (mm)Yield strength (MPa)Average (MPa)Ultimate strength (MPa)Average (MPa)Elastic modulus (GPa)Average (GPa)
HRB4006454.33454.18603.47605.87201.74201.43
453.46 609.62 203.32
454.75 604.52 199.24

Experimental data of ECC_

f ct ε ct f tu ε tu f cu f cpr
20.0232.42.556.931.4

Design for specimens tested_

SpecimenStrengthen methodThickness of overlay (mm)Steel mesh
S1Unstrengthen——
S2Steel mesh-ECC layer (both double-sides)30 + 30 6@200
S3Steel mesh-mortar layer (both double-sides)30 + 30 6@200

Test data for the mortar compressive strength_

Compressive strength (MPa)Average compressive strength (MPa)
Q-15.365.205.085.21
Q-25.535.395.315.41
Q-35.335.495.355.39
M-110.1610.2310.1910.19

Comparison of characteristic load, displacement, and ductility_

SpecimenLoading direction σ s/kN Δ y/mm σ p/kN Δ p/mm σ u/kN Δ u/mm μ
S1Forward88.432.0997.322.3982.793.141.51
Downward−74.46−2.16−82.39−2.38−70.01−3.251.50
Averages81.452.1389.862.3976.403.191.51
S2Forward115.063.01145.185.14123.406.792.26
Downward−116.81−3.05−142.63−5.16121.23−6.772.22
Averages115.943.04143.935.15122.326.782.24
S3Forward109.812.65117.513.22111.524.801.81
Downward−89.29−2.34−107.83−3.19−105.32−4.792.04
Averages99.552.50112.673.21108.424.801.93

Mix proportions of the matrix (per m³)_

MaterialsQuartz sandFly ashSilica fumeCementWater
Mass ratio0.363.001.001.000.30
Quantity (kg/m3)11595431831895

Properties of fibers_

Fiber typeLength/mmDiameter/μmElastic modulus/GPaElongation/%Tensile strength/(N/mm2)Density/(g/cm3)
PVA1240416.51,5601.3

Chemical properties of cement and mineral admixtures (unit: %)_

MaterialSiO2 Al2O3 CaOMgOFe2O3 Na2OTiO2 SO3 K2O
Cement19.064.7166.17—3.49——2.400.46
Fly ash54.7624.564.850.106.54—1.85——
Silica fume96.740.320.110.100.080.09———

Compressive strength of fried common bricks_

SpecimenLoaded area dimensions (mm)Ultimate load (kN)Compressive strength (MPa) f ¯ \bar{f} (MPa)S (MPa) F k (MPa)
Z1108 × 113124.5510.2112.291.549.47
Z2109 × 112126.4510.36
Z3106 × 113159.2913.30
Z4107 × 115165.8913.48
Z5107 × 114160.3713.15
Z6108 × 115170.3913.72
Z7109 × 115175.0913.97
Z8109 × 113130.1310.57
Z9106 × 114158.9113.15
Z10107 × 115135.6211.02
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/msp-2025-0051 | Journal eISSN: 2083-134X | Journal ISSN: 2083-1331
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Page range: 243 - 266
Submitted on: Oct 13, 2025
|
Accepted on: Jan 17, 2026
|
Published on: Jan 18, 2026
Published by: Wroclaw University of Science and Technology
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 4 issues per year
Keywords:
Seismic performance,
Masonry wall strengthening,
Sprayed ECC,
Bearing capacity,
Failure pattern
Related subjects:
Materials sciences,
Materials sciences, other,
Nanomaterials,
Functional and smart materials,
Materials characterization and properties

© 2026 Zeqing Wan, Juntao Chen, Wenjie Ge, Rui Zhang, Yuexiang Hu, Yi Wang, Shenfeng Yuang, Chuanzhi Sun, published by Wroclaw University of Science and Technology
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

Previous articleVolume 43 (2025): Issue 4 (December 2025)