8th North American Masonry Conference

Engineering
June 6-9, 1999
Architecture
Austin, Texas, USA
Reviewed in accordance with the policies of The Masonry Society Construction

DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MASONRY WALLS

UNDER CONCENTRATED VERTICAL LOADS

C. A. Syrrnakezis”, P. G. Asteris**

Abstract

In this paper, the strength of masonry walls subjected to concentrated vertical loads is
investigated. An orthotropic finite element model is used to simulate the wall behaviour. Non-
linear deformation characteristics of masonfy material as well as its anisotropic (orthotropic)
behaviour are taken into consideration. A new anisotropic yieldlfailure surface of masonry wall
under biaxial stress, in a cubic tensor polynomial form, is proposed. A parametric study is
carried out using several parameters: the loaded area length to the total length ratio, the load
location in relation to the end of the wall, and wall geometry. Using the results of the
parametric investigation a new design rule is proposed.

Introduction

When a wall is subjected to a concentrated load (e.g. from a structural member), the
compressive resistance of the masonry immediately under the load is usually greater than the
normal compressive strength of the wall. The phenomenon occurs due to the apparent local
strengthening of the material beneath the load, restraining its lateral expansion (Poisson’s
effect). The magnitude of this strength enhancement depends upon the loaded area ratio, the
wall geometry and the location of the load along the wall, with the degree of enhancement

● Assoc. Professor, National Technical University of Athens, Institute of Structural Analysis

and Aseismic Research, Zografou Campus, GR-1 5773, Athens, Greece.
e-mail: isaarsyr@central. ntua.gr

““Research Assistant, National Technical University of Athens, Institute of Structural Analysis

and Aseismic Research, Zografou Campus, GR-1 5773, Athens, Greece.
e-mail: pasteris@central .ntua.gr
reducing as the load approaches the end of the wall. Although some form of stress
enhancement factor is given in most masonfy design codes, its nature and magnitude varies
considerably from country to country.

One of the difficulties in predicting the behaviour of masonry walls subjected to concentrated
loads is the lack of realistic stress analysis of the masonry, since the region beneath the load
is in a state of biaxial stress with high stress gradients. The in-plane deformation and failure of
masonry is influenced by the properties of its components, the blocks and the mortar. The
influence of the mortar joints is particularly significant as these joints act as weak planes. The
results of previous studies of concentrated loading on more isotropic homogeneous material
(such as concrete) are thus not directly applicable. To model the behaviour of masonry walls
subjected to concentrated loads, a more representative material model is required.

This paper describes an analytical investigation of the behaviour of masonry walls subjected
to concentrated loads, using a finite element program for non-linear anisotropic analysis. A
total of 62 walls are analyzed, with the effect of loaded area ratio p, the load location in
relation to the end of the wall d/a, and the aspect ratio of the wall a (as defined in Figure 1)
being investigated. From the results, design rule incorporating all of the above variables is
proposed and compared to existing design rules from various masonry codes. For the
analytkal investigation a Finite Element Model is used (Fig. 1b).

- Axo.1MPa

a= ah
If
p= a’la

(a) (b)

Fig.1. Concentrated load on a wall: a) geometry and terminology, b) finite

element mesh

Previous research

On account of the lack of comprehensive research in this area, existing design rules are semi-
empirical and vary considerably from country to country. Experimental investigations have
been hampered by the large number of variables which must be considered. Analytkal
studies have usually assumed isotropic elastic behaviour, thus ignoring the effects of material
non-linearity. Existing rules do not take account of the aspect ratio of the wall, and most of
them do not considered the location of the load along the wall.
IZxkting design rules for predicting the capacity of walls subjected to concentrated loads
reflect the empirical nature of the provisions, Increased stresses are typically allowed
immediately beneath the concentrated load, usually by the use of a stress enhancement
factor which is a function of the loaded area ratio. The most characteristic design rules for the
strength enhancement factor y are the following:

EC6 (1988):

y = 1.0+0.1 ~ <1,50 (1)

a’

Chinese code GBJ-3-73 (Dai-Xin, 1985):

‘Y=
r
1
–-1
P

Dai-Xin (1985):
(2)

for concentric load: Y = 1+ 0.708 (3)

/ ;-1s3”00

1
for eccentric load: y=l+ow ––1s2.00 (4)
/ P

Ali & Page (1988):

~
=
[0.80
+(l-/3)d/fi](2+
l/fl)’/2>Im
-.
1+ o.4oa
(5)
1.80
1+ o.2oa

Malek & Hendry (1988):

for central load: y = 0.701 /? -0”42 (6)

for eccentric load: y = 0806 B 433 (7)

for end load: y = 0R36 p -0”2M (8)

Method of analysis

For the analytical investigation two requirements have to be met

 ● a finite element program for non-linear analysis which takes into account the distinct
anisotropic nature of masonry and
. a regfJ/ar anisotropic yield surface. According to Koiter (1953) a yield surface is called
regular if it is described by a continuous function.

Finite Eiement Progmm

A finite element non-linear analysis program in two dimensions has been developed in
FORTRAN. Emphasis to the anisotropic (orthotropic) nature of masonry modeling is given.
Four noded isoparametric finite elements have been used, with a finer mesh immediately
below the loaded area where stress gradients are high. Atypical finite element mesh is shown
in Figure 1(b). In the finite element program, the loads are applied incrementally. The
reference load amplitude is assumed to equal 0.1 Mpa and the load factor increment is equal
to 0.50. The masonry wall is considered totally elastoplastic.

Yield surface

Brickwork is a structure which exhibits distinct directional properties, due mainly to the motir
joints acting as planes of weakness. To define yield under biaxial stress, a three-dimensional
surface in terms of the two normal stresses and shear stress (or alternatively the two principal
stresses and their orientation to the bed joints) is required. Recently a method to define a
general anisotropic failure surface of masonry under biaxial stress, using a cubic tensor
polynomial has been proposed [Syrmakezis & Asteris 1998]. The method has been
implemented in a specific program developed in FORTRAN.

CJy [MPa]

Fig.2. Masonty yield surface in terms of normal stresses

Using this program, the failure surface is determined for a real case of a masonry material
which has been studied experimentally by Page (1981). According to Syrmakezis & Asteris
(1999), the yielding surface (Fig. 2) for the masonry can be described by the equation:
f[ x Y )
CJ, CJ,’C = 2.270X+ 9$7ay + 057#x + 132< + 6Q5T2- 0300xcJy+
+ 0.00958tixcry + 0.00313%=< + 0243398CrxT2
+ 0.4689cy2 = 1
(9)

Parametric investigation

A total of 62 masonry walls subjected to concentrated load were analyzed using the finite
element model. As concentrated load, a distributed load on a very small area a’ (a’/a=O.O5 or
O.10) is considered. The influence of the loaded area ratio & the load location d/a, and the
wall aspect ratio were investigated. A summary of the investigation results are presented in
Tables 1 and 2. The walls were restrained horizontally and vertically at the base. The other
three edges were assumed free.

Cellf#ld CO~CtW?ffdd /08~

A total of 32 centrally loaded masonry walls were analysed, with aspect ratios ranging from
0.50 to 2.00 and loaded area ratios from 0.05 to 1.00.

Figure 3 depicts the variation of the strength enhancement factor y with the factor ~, for
various values of the parameter ct. The strength enhancement factor y is critically dependent
on the loaded area ratio $ Specifically for low values of j.1factor (@O.30), the increment of the
strength enhancement factor is excessively high. Much higher is the increment in the case of
low values of the factor a (a=O.50).

The influence of the wall aspect ratio a on the strength enhancement factor y for various
values of loaded area ratio p is presented on Figure 4. The reduction of the wall aspect ratio u
value leads to an approximately linear increment of the wall strength. More significant is the
increment for low values of ~ factor. For ~=0.05 the wall’s strength is reduced up to 60Y0, with
the factor a increasing from 0.50 to 2.00.

Eccentric concenfratecf load

A total of 30 loaded masonry walls were analyzed, with aspect ratios 0.50, 1.00 and 1.50. The
loaded area ratio has been investigated for values 0.05 and 0,10 (characteristic values for
concentrated loads). Values of load eccentricity ratio d/a from 0.00 to 0.50 have been taken
into consideration.

On Figures 5 and 6, the variation of the strength enhancement factor Y related to the
concentrated load eccentricity d/a for two values of the ratio a (0.50 and 1.00) is presented.
According to these figures it can be stated that the increment of the load eccentricity
(reduction of ratio d/a) leads to reduction of the wall strength. For load eccentricity values
between 0.20 to 0.50 the strength reduction is almost zero. This reduction becomes more
significant for values of the ratio d/a between 0.00 to 0.20. The strength enhancement factory
can get values lower than 1 (Fig. 6), in accordance with existing experimental results (Arora,
1988).
Table 1. Summary of parametric study for the Table 2. Summary of parametric study for the case of
case of c%ntral load eccentric load

Length Height Aspact Loaded da

Length +aigh &pect Loadad I I I I
(m) t ratto area case (m) (m) t-wo area
Caaa
(m) a ratii p a ratiop

1.00 0.10 0.000

0.60 0.05 0.000
1.50 3.00 0.50 0.60 1.50 3.00 0.50 0.10 0.100
0.40 0.05 0.100
0.20 0.10 0.200
0.15 0.05 0.200
0.10 0.10 0.300
0.05 0.05 0.300
1.00 0.10 0.450
0.60 0.05 0.475
0.60
3.00 3.00 1.00 0.40
0.20 I I I I I 0.10 I O.000
0!15 0.05 0.000
0.10 3.00 3.00 1.00 0.10 0.100
0.05 0.05 0.100
0.10 0.200
0.05 0.200
2: 0.10 0.300
0.60 0.05 0.300
4.50 3.00 1.50 0.40 I I I I 0.10 I 0.450
0.20 0.05 0.475
0.15
0.10 G
0.05 I 0.10 0.000
0.000
:: 0.100
0.60 0.100
0.40 0.200
6.00 3.00 2.00 0.20 0.200
0.15 0.300
0.10 0.300
0.05 0.10 0.450
0.05 0.475
 3.00

2.50 . . . . . . . .. . .. .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . .. . .

2.00 -. ----; -. . . . . . . ..--- . . . . . . . . . . . ...!

1.50 .. . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . .. . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . ...1

1,00

~ Uniaxial strength’ ~ I

0.50 .............. . .......... .... ......---- .. -;..- ------ .--. r....... .-

0,00 1
c ) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1,00
Loaded area ratio ~

Fig. 3. Variation of strength enhancement factory with loaded area

ratio P for difFerent aspect ratios a
3.00 -----

>
~ \-..... J_
2.50 .-.................----- .....__.J_............!

1.50

1.00
‘- ::’~~
2.00 ------- . .. . . . . . . . .. .. . . . .. . . . . . . . .

0.60 i

~~ Unia)(ial &@h ~ ~

0.50 .-..............~.-.........------}----..-....-....;. ..--...-.........

,
0.00 I I I I
c o 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00
Aspect ratio a

Fig. 4. Variation of strength enhancement factory with aspect ratio

a for different loaded area ratios f!
 ! p=o.05 i ~
----- &_..._. -—_ .+. —-—-.. .. ; —--”’
----- - -

,/’/
/
—’+-.-—-——— ___
__— — ---
_4.. _._.. -—-- ——–%
/’ /,
/’ ,/
,/ . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .
,,.
,,

—.—.———
—..
‘l- Jniaxial strength
1

T------”--
a=O.50

+
10

Load location along the wall d/a

Fig. 5. Strength enhancement factor of eccentric loading

. .....

,-
_J_.—-—-’=
,... - ‘+—— —._+_.._.-—- ;

.,-
.--,/-~ :---k--------.---.-;-- ----------- }----- ------
,,

,,,’‘“ ~~ Uniaxial strength ~ ~

.. ..

‘----’r
-!

a=l.00

--
..
—-—-~ —-&- ~
0 ;~o ., {> 5’)

Load location along the wall d/a

Fig. 6. Strength enhancement factor of eccentric loading

 Proposed design recommendation

A general design rule for the strength enhancement factor should allow for the influence of the
loaded area ratio ~, the load location along the wall d/a, and the aspect ratio of the wall ct.
Using the results of the present parametric study, the following relationship providing a lower
bound to the results of the parametric study for the strength enhancement factor y can be
suggested:

(lo)

where:
(p= 1.00 for the case of 0.20< ~ <0.50
a
2

(p=l.oo-12
()
020-: for the case of 0.00< ~ <0.20
a

On Figures 7 and 8, the graphical representation of Equation 10 (Curve C) is compared to the

variation of they-values provided by Dai-Xin (Cutve A), Ali & Page (Curve B) and EC6 (Cun#e
D).

Using Equation 10, the curves of Figures 9 and 10 can be derived. Figure 9 show the
variation of the strength enhancement factory with the loaded area ratio P, for various values
of the wall aspect ratio a (8.00,4.00, 2.00, 1.00, 0.50) and central loading. Similar results for
eccentric loading are shown on Figure 10.

Conclusion

An analytical parametric study of masonry walls behaviour subjected to concentrated loads

has been presented. An iterative (incremental) finite element model has been used to
simulate the wall behaviour. Through this model, the non-linear deformation of masonry can
be described.

In the parametric study, the influence of the loaded area ratio, the location of the load and the
wall geometry to the strength enhancement factor Y, have been considered. All variables have
been shown to influence signifmntly the degree of enhancement of bearing strength
appearing in the area beneath the load.

Using the results of the parametric study a new design relationship, incorporating all above
three variables, has been proposed. This new relationship, compared to the existing design
recommendations (which do not always consider all variables), has been proved more
conservative and reliable.
 3.50 . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . ... . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. .

3.00

2.50
T-L---------L---
........;.~
-“”\\
...................... .. .. . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.00

1.50

1.00

~ Uniaxial strength ~ ~
0.50 .............................. ..................---------

0.00 I 1 1 I
c 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.(
o

Loaded area ratio ~

Fig. 7. Typical design provisions for concentrated loads
(a=l .00, central load).

3.50 . . ... . . . .. . .. . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . .. . ... ... . .. .. . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . .. .

3.00

2.50

2.00 ------ .. . . . . . -------- . . . . .. .. . . .. . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . ...1

.50 ...........

.00

LJ.50 . .. . . .. .. . . .. L....-..---
.................!..--.
------
.--
L ----------- --~

0.00 I I I 1 I
( o 0.10 0,20 0.30 0.40 0.50
Load location along the wall d/a

Fig. 8. Typical design provisions for concentrated loads

(a=2.00, ~=0.05, eccentric load).
 3.50
t ,
I I
3.00 .. L-------------
!--
............L ------------- . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.50 ---------- . . . L . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. L . . . . . . . . . . .

2.00 .. _.. ---L

-------------i
---------

1.50 ............ L---.

...................................-

1.00

I Uniaxial,strength ~ ~
0.50 ------ ...... .. .. ........ ----------- .... .... .. ........-------- ..----

0.00 1 I I I
c ) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 o

Loaded area ratio ~’

Fig. 9. Proposed design recommendation for concentric load

3.50
.- .-. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

> ; ct=o.50 !

3.00 .......... .._.L-.. ................. .. .....-. .. L. ............I

2.50 ---- ... ... ......................... .. ......... L-------------- ,

! C%=l.00~
2.00 L-------------
L-----------.-L--------
-----,
~ ~=1.50 ;
! a=2000 ! (
1.50 .. .. ....... .. ......... ....... ... ......... ......I

1.00 \;
/
~p ~ Uniaxial strength ‘ ~
0.50 . .............-,---------- ... L-------
&&05 -~

I
i m,
0.00 1 I 1 [ I
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50
Load location along the wall d/a

Fig. 10. Proposed design recommendation for eocentric load

 References

Alli 1988: AlIi, S., A. W. Page, “Concentrated loads on solid masonry walls-a parametric study
and design recommendations”, Proc. Instn Civ. Enars, Part 2, 1988,85, June, pp. 271-289.

Arora 1988: Arora S. K., “Performance of Masonry Walls under Concentrated Load”,
Proceedings of the British Masonrv Society, No. 2, April 1988, pp. 50-55.

Dai-Xin 1985: Dai-Xin T., “Testing and analysis of the bearing strength of brick masonry”,
Proceedings of the 7th International Brick Mason IV Conferece, Melbourne, Australia, 17-20
February 1985, Vol. 1, pp. 747-755.

Eurocode N06 (1988). Common unified rules for masonry structures, EEC, Re~ort EUR 9888
EN.

Koiter 1953: Koiter W. T., “Stress-strain relations, uniqueness and variational theorems for
elastic-plastic materials with a singular yield surface”, Quarterlv of amlied mathematics, 1953,
vol. xl, pp. 350-354.

Malek 1988: Malek M. H., A. W. Hendry, ‘Compressive Strength of Brickwork Masonry Under
Concentrated Loading”, Proceedings of the ~, No. 2, April 1988, pp. 56-
60.

Page 1981: Page A. W., “The biaxial compressive strength of brick mason~, Proc. Instn Civ.
,~, part 2, 1981, Vol. 71, Sept., pp. 893-906.

Syrmakezis 1999: Syrmakezis, C. A., P. G. Asteris, “Masonry failure sufface under biaxial
stress”, Technika Chronika, Scientific Journal of the Technical Chamber of Greece, Vol. 19,
1999, (in greek).

Notation

a aspect ratio of the wall

p= a’/a : loaded area ratio (ratio of loaded area to total area)

l’: strength enhancement factor

a .. length of wall
a’ length of loading plate
d: distance of concentrated load from the nearest corner of the wall
A: load factor