## 3 Results and Discussion
### FRAAM Composite: Mechanical Behavior
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Textile Properties**} & \(\sigma_{\mathrm{I}}\) & \(\epsilon_{\mathrm{I}}\) & \(\varepsilon_{\mathrm{I}}\) & \(\sigma_{\mathrm{u}}\) & \(\epsilon_{\mathrm{u}}\) & \(\varepsilon_{\mathrm{III}}\) & \(\sigma_{\mathrm{L,m}}\) & & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Present paper} & **Mesh Size** & **Mass** & \multirow{2}{*}{**(MPa)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**(\%)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**(GPa)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**(MPa)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**(\%)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**(GPa)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**(MPa)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**(\%)**} & **Exploitation Ratio** \\  & **(mm)** & & & & & & & & \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{5-10}  & \multirow{2}{*}{\(8\times 8\)} & 400 & 174 & 0.024 & 1890 & 434 & 2.192 & 39 & 1.07 & 0.46 \\  & (coated) & (8.7\(\%\)) & (73.8\(\%\)) & (27.6\(\%\)) & (14.2\(\%\)) & (4.1\(\%\)) & (11.3\(\%\)) & (8.7\(\%\)) & (14.2\(\%\)) \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{[14]} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(8\times 8\)} & 400 & 171 & 0.0114\% & 1457 & 413 & 2.037 & 33 & 1.02 & 0.44 \\  & (coated) & (35.9\(\%\)) & (34.2\(\%\)) & (19.1\(\%\)) & (13.0\(\%\)) & (3.7\(\%\)) & (6.3\(\%\)) & (35.9\(\%\)) & (13.0\(\%\)) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Tensile tests results: FRAAM composite and commercial system [14]. FRCM failure modes depend on the layout and nature of the textile, the use of a coating on fibers and its nature, the mechanical properties of the matrix and substrate, among many others [3]. Common failure modes involve the textile-to-matrix interface, the mortar-to-substrate interface and the slippage of the textile out of the mortar matrix [49]. In the present investigation, the debonding at the textile-to-matrix interface (C) was the most observed failure mode (Figure 16a). It was accompanied in some cases by the tensile rupture of the textile (E) (Figure 16b). The first detected failure mode is often found when textiles with insufficient or low grid spacing are used, causing a non-optimal penetration of the matrix in the voids of the textile, whereas textile rupture often occurs in weak textiles, such as basalt or glass [49]. The exploitation ratios, both vs. textile and tensile average strengths, are coherent with the observed failure modes. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Specimen ID**} & **Peak Load** & **Peak Stress \(\sigma_{\text{max}}\)** & **Exploitation Ratio** & **Exploitation Ratio** & **Failure Mode** \\ \cline{2-6}  & **(N)** & **(MPa)** & **(vs. Textile)** & **(vs. Tensile)** & **Failure Mode** \\ \hline DS B4 AAM 1 & 1481 & 482 & 0.52 & 1.11 & C/E \\ DS B4 AAM 2 & 990 & 322 & 0.34 & 0.74 & C \\ DS B4 AAM 3 & 1095 & 357 & 0.38 & 0.82 & C \\ DS B4 AAM 4 & 751 & 244 & 0.26 & 0.56 & C \\ DS B4 AAM 5 & 1370 & 446 & 0.48 & 1.03 & C/E \\ DS B4 AAM 6 & 1201 & 391 & 0.42 & 0.90 & C \\ \hline Avg & 1148 & 374 & 0.40 & 0.86 & \\ CoV & 23.0\% & 23.0\% & 23.0\% & 23.0\% & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Results of direct shear tests. Figure 15: Direct shear test: load-global slip response curves. In Table 7, the major outcomes of direct shear tests of the composites tested in the present work are compared with the ones obtained using a commercial system based on the same basalt textile [14]. In particular, the commercial mortar used in [14] was the Mineral-Natural Hydraulic Lime (NHL), whose main properties are reported in Table 3; the composite strips had the same bonded length as those tested in the present investigation and they were externally bonded on brickwork substrate with the same properties as in the current paper. Debonding at the textile-to-matrix interface (C) was the only observed failure mode for basalt FRCM strips produced using the commercial matrix. It is worthy to be noted that Basalt-FRAAM composites, even in presence of some strips that fail also by a tensile rupture of the textile, show a lower average peak stress value than commercial Basalt-FRCM composites.