Professional Documents
Culture Documents
By Hamid R. Lotfi and P. Benson Shing, 2 Members, ASCE Abstract
By Hamid R. Lotfi and P. Benson Shing, 2 Members, ASCE Abstract
MASONRY STRUCTURES
INTRODUCTION
LRes. Assoc., Dept. of Civ., Envir., and Arch. Engrg., Univ. of Colorado, Boul-
der, CO 80309-0428.
2Assoc. Prof., Dept. of Civ., Envir., and Arch. Engrg., Univ. of Colorado, Boul-
der, CO.
Note. Discussion open until June 1, 1994. To extend the closing date one month,
a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager of Journals. The manuscript
for this paper was submitted for review and possible publication on September 8,
1992. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 120, No. 1,
January, 1994. 9 ISSN 0733-9445/94/0001-0063/$1.00 + $.15 per page. Paper
No. 4747.
63
1988; Anand and Rahman 1990; Rots 1991). Any analysis with this level of
refinement is computationally intensive and is only suitable for simulating
the fracture behavior of small laboratory specimens.
In a less-refined approach, masonry units are modeled with continuum
elements, while mortar joints are modeled by means of interface elements.
Early attempts with this approach were made by Arya and Hegemier (1978)
and Page (1978) and more recently Rots (1991). Obviously, the approach
with this level of refinement is computationally intensive for the analysis of
large masonry structures, but it is certainly a valuable research tool and also
a viable alternative to the costly and often time-consuming laboratory ex-
periments. The aforementioned approach resembles the micromechanics
approach used in the failure simulation of particle composites (Zubelewicz
and Ba~ant 1987; Stankowski 1990; Yamaguchi and Chen 1991). From a
modeling point of view the aforementioned approach is similar to the dis-
crete element method, which was originally proposed by Cundall (1971) in
the area of rock mechanics. In the discrete element method, however, the
solution procedure is based on an explicit dynamic relaxation technique,
and special procedures are used for contact detection and contact force
evaluation.
In the current study, the aforementioned approach is adopted for simu-
lating the behavior and failure mechanisms of masonry assemblages based
on the behavior of the basic constituents. Since the fracture of mortar joints
usually dominates the behavior of unreinforced masonry structures sub-
jected to severe seismic loadings, proper modeling of the behavior of these
joints is most crucial. Hence, a constitutive model for dilatant interfaces
was developed. In the following sections, the formulation of the interface
model is explained, and the applicability of the interface model to mortar
joints is validated by experimental results. Furthermore, the interface model
is used, in conjunction with a smeared crack model, to simulate the behavior
of unreinforced concrete masonry panels. Results of these analyses are
presented and compared to experimental data, and the capabilities and
shortcomings of the model are discussed.
INTERFACE MODEL
Constitutive Relations
In this section, a constitutive model for dilatant interfaces is proposed.
The model is able to simulate the initiation and propagation of fracture
under combined normal and shear stresses in both tension-shear and
compression-shear regions. Furthermore, the model is able to capture the
joint dilatancy that is observed in experiments. The theory of plasticity,
which provides an appealing framework for incorporating the foregoing
characteristics, is adopted here.
The present plasticity-based model is one-dimensional, and is, thus, ap-
plicable to the plane stress, plane strain, and axisymmetric conditions. In
accordance with the theory of plasticity, the relative displacements between
the top and bottom faces of an interface can be decomposed into an elastic
part and a plastic part
d = d~ + dp ............................................... (1)
64
Yield Criterion
The Mohr-Coulomb yield criterion is perhaps the most commonly used
criterion for modeling rock joints, mortar joints, and other similar interfaces.
This criterion has often been combined with a tension-cutoff criterion to
allow tensile fracture. Linear (Plesha et al. 1989), parabolic (Stankowski
1990), and hyperbolic (Prat et al. 1991) yield criteria have already been
proposed for rock and concrete joints. A three-parameter hyperbolic yield
criterion that provides a smooth transition between the Mohr-Coulomb and
tension-cutoff yield criteria is proposed here. This is expressed as
q) = - _ s)2 + 2r( - s) : 0 ................... (3)
65
Softening Rules
The evolution of the internal variables q is governed by a set of work-
softening rules. During plastic loading, the rate of plastic work can be
expressed as
~." = ~i/P + "r# ............................................. (6)
In this model, it is assumed that plastic loading in the tension-shear region
reduces the tensile strength s, while the shear strength generated by Ix and
r, which is loosely termed the frictional strength here, remains unchanged.
Furthermore, plastic loading in the compression-shear region reduces both
-....
1
urlace
Yi~l~ ' \i \ \
O'>
FIG. 2. Nonassociated Flow Rule
66
J. Struct. Eng. 1994.120:63-80.
1 o o T
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NATIONAL UNIV OF SINGAPORE on 07/08/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
: I
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NATIONAL UNIV OF SINGAPORE on 07/08/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
4 s , 6
,7, ~- &
I 2 3
4 (r=-I ~=0 ~=1
X,'U,
(a) (b)
FIG. 5. Isoparametric Interface Element: (a) Global Coordinate System; (b) Local
Coordinate System
It is assumed that rr~ and %2 are zero in the tension-shear region. The
internal variables q are related to the i n t e r m e d i a t e variables through the
following expressions:
30.0
Experiment
Analysis ~ (a)
r
O~
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NATIONAL UNIV OF SINGAPORE on 07/08/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
20.0
v
10.0
o
i
0.0
-10.0
-20.0
-30.0
-0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4
Relative Tangential Displacement (in,)
O
50 l-f . . . . . . . . .
o.o
-5.0
..... ...... _--']
-10.0 i i
-0.6 -0.3 0.0 0.3 0.6
P 0
It = / r - %1 sign(r) ((r)q
o/ ................................ (17)
/
L('rrl- %2)sign(r) o]
The tensile softening rule represented by (12) is adopted from Stankowski
(1990). However, in his interface model, a different yield criterion and flow rule
are used, and the only softening mechanism considered is the loss of tensile
strength s, which means that during plastic loading, the yield surface simply
translates in the (r-,r plane without changing shape. This limitation is removed
in the present model by incorporating additional softening mechanisms con-
tributed by the degradation of frictional properties represented by Ix and r.
69
J. Struct. Eng. 1994.120:63-80.
10.0 Experiment (r = 71 psi (c)
Analysis
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NATIONAL UNIV OF SINGAPORE on 07/08/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
v 5.0
0
I
0.0
I
-5.0
-0.8 -0.4 0.0 0.4 0.8
~D
0
// ............ 2-" ~ -- 194 psi
-0.01
F -< 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (18a)
rk = 0 .................................................. (18c)
In the case of plastic loading, t h e plastic m u l t i p l i e r k can be d e t e r m i n e d
from the consistency c o n d i t i o n (i.e., F = 0), which leads to
n r D ed
- nTDem _ pT t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (19)
where
70
v
t~
60.0
40.0
O
z 20.0
0.0 , I
150.0
(b)
i00.0
r
r~
9Q) 50.0
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4
OF
n = - - . ................................................. (20a)
0(r
0F
p = -- . ................................................. (20b)
Oq
Finally, (1), (2), (5), and (19) lead to the following rate equation:
6" = De'd ................................................. (21)
where the interface elastoplastic tangent stiffness D ep is expressed as
71
20.0 /
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NATIONAL UNIV OF SINGAPORE on 07/08/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
(D s
% 0.0
-20.0
\'\ ~ = 1.5
..... ~ = 0.15
o
-40.0 "'~- 77 = 0 015
E
0 -60.0 , I i l
D~mnrD ~
n ~ = D e .................................. (22)
nrDem - pr t
For finite load steps, the system of differential equations governing the
constitutive behavior of the interface have to be integrated numerically. In
the displacement-based finite element m e t h o d , the p r o b l e m at the integra-
tion level is strain-driven. Consequently, upon discretization in time, the
problem of integrating the rate constitutive relations can be stated as follows:
given ~r., q., and dn at time t = t., evaluate r = ~% + A(r. and qn+l
= q . + A q . for a prescribed value of d . + i = d . + Ad. at time t = t.+~
= t . + A t . . This can be carried out with an elastic p r e d i c t o r - p l a s t i c corrector
approach. If the trial (elastic) stress fie + 1 expressed as
or~+ 1 = ~ . + D e A d . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (23)
lies inside or on the yield surface, i.e., F(~r,~+ ~, q.) -< 0, the finite l o a d step
involves elastic loading or unloading, and (r~+l and qn are obviously the
solution at time t = t . + l . F o r the case of plastic loading [i.e., F(ff,~+l, qn)
> 0], the integration is p e r f o r m e d as follows. F r o m (1) and (2), one can
obtain
Aft. = DeAd,~ = De(Ad. - AdP.) ............................. (24)
A main difficulty arises in evaluation of the following integrals:
tn + At n fttn + Atn
AdP. =
~t n
dp d t =
n
km dt ........................... (25)
72
-,~/ -,o/
1
f;/ o" I
(a)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NATIONAL UNIV OF SINGAPORE on 07/08/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
!l-
/ ,'L,.EA. / I';
/ //
%~ELASTOPLASTIC .~ ~"I N I T I A L YIELD
SURFACE
VONMIS~S~~''~'''~ F~,
FAILURESURFACEf
l (b)
--~2 --El
, I
Expon "~ I
Parabola ~,.
FIG. 9. Constitutive Model for Masonry Units: (a) Yield Criterion for Masonry
Units; (b) Uniaxial Behavior of Masonry Units
In this study, the generalized midpoint rule, proposed by Ortiz and Popov
(1985), is adopted for the integration of the preceding integrals. In this
method, the integrals are approximated by
Ade. = AXnm.§ ............................................ (27)
Aq. = AXnt. + 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (28)
in which 0 -- 0 --< 1. Consequently, for a given incremental relative dis-
placements Ad., the problem of integrating the system of differential equa-
tions governing the constitutive behavior is replaced by the solution of the
following system of nonlinear equations for O'n+l, qn+l, and AX.:
et.+~ = er.~+l - AX.D~m.+o ................................. (29)
q.+~ = q . + Ahntn+o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (30)
F((r.+~, qn+l) = 0 ......................................... (31)
where
73
mmmmmmmmmmmlmmm
mmmmmm|
mmmmmmmmlmmm
mmmmmmmmmm
In the case of plastic loading, if ~r, lies inside the loading surface at t = tn,
i.e., F(crn, q , ) < 0, the finite load step involves elastic loading and sub-
sequent plastic loading. In such a case, the step is subdivided so that the
contact or penetration stress 6"n expressed as
v
37
o /(
.3
20.0 IIII
Experiment
Analyms
0.0 , I , I I
(b)
~" 40.0 /
o
ZlII
20.0
nt
Analysis
0.0 i I I I
FIG. 11. Load-Displacement Curves: (a) Concrete Masonry Panel under 59-kip
Normal Load; (b) Concrete Masonry Panel under 78-kip Normal Load (1 in. = 25.4
mm; 1 kip = 4.45 kN)
gorithm were addressed by Ortiz and Popov (1985). At each time t, + 1, the
foregoing system of nonlinear equations is solved for ~rn+ 1, q,, + 1, and Ahn,
iteratively. Details of a two-level iterative procedure for the solution of the
system of equations were outlined by Lotfi (1992).
JOINT ELEMENT F O R M U L A T I O N
Interface elements were first introduced in the area of concrete mechanics
by Ngo and Scordelis (1967), and in the area of rock mechanics by Goodman
et al. (1968), and have been used in a variety of problems ever since. The
presented constitutive model is implemented in four-node and six-node
75
IIIIIIIlIIIIII
I[lIIIIIIIIIIlI
III IIIIIIIIIII
IIIlIlIIlIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIII
(a)
IIIIIII[IIIIIII
IIIlIIIlIIIIIII
IIIIIIIII IIIII
IIlIIlIlI[IIlII
IIIIIIIIIIIrIII
IIIIlIIIIIIIII
I l I I l I I I l I I I l I
IIlIlIIIlIIIII
IIlIIIlIIlIII I I I I I I I I i i I I
IlIIlIIlIIIlI I I I I I kl I
IlIIlIIlIIIII
IIIIlIIIIIIII i! I I I
I , I
I I
I ' !1
(,b)
IW~[~IIIIIIII I I 1 ~1 I
IlI$1IIIIIIII
II~II~IIl~II
IIIIl$IlI[III
IIlI~lI~IIlI
I|1 I
,
I
~ : I UIlII
~ I I I II
III n I I I I
I
:
I
i
I
IIIlIIllIIl~I I Ii,I : Z : l
IlIIII~IIIIII
IIIIIIIII~III
II!l I !
I n I I II I ~
I
I
I
I
I
(c)
IIIIIIII~LIII I Iw,l I I II
IIIIIII$III~I IIIn I I l !
IniimI~mII(;II I l I I II I
Immmmllmi[iii
IIIIIIIIIIIII
i I ,|! IIII
IIIIIII~III~I I I I I
IIIIlIIlIIlII
IIIIIIIIIIIII
I I I I I I I I IlIlIlIl I I I I I
I i,I I !i lI l I 1, kll
II
VERIFICATION STUDIES
Shear Behavior of Mortar Joints
The shear behavior of masonry mortar joints has been studied in various
laboratory experiments. A rather complete literature review of experimental
studies has been given by Guo (1991). In the following, the capability of
the proposed interface constitutive model in representing the behavior of
masonry mortar joints under different load conditions is validated by ex-
perimental results obtained by Amadei et al. (1989).
Data from three shear tests under different levels of normal stress are
generally required to calibrate the model. Furthermore, it is desirable to
have data from a mode I tension test and a mode II shear test to deduce
the values of G} and G}z. However, since neither pure tension nor pure
shear tests were conducted on mortar joints in the experimental study of
Amadei et al. (1989), the values of G} and G}~had to be obtained indirectly
in the calibration process. For the present shear tests, the assumption that
G} = 5GImin, .
and 6 }. I 10G}, where9 G l mf ,i n . : S2[2Dnn corresponds
=
.
to a
perfectly brittle tensile fracture, provided satisfactory numerical results,
76
unit is shown in Fig. 9(b). Further features and details of the model have
been reported by Lotfi and Shing (1991).
Woodward and Rankine (1985) tested several unreinforced, ungrouted
hollow concrete-block masonry panels, with different types of units and
mortar, under different levels of normal loads. In these experiments, the
normal load was applied first and kept constant during the test. In-plane
lateral displacement was then applied at the top of the panel, with the top
of the panel restrained against rotation. The walls chosen for numerical
simulation were 64 in. (1.62 m) high and 64 in. (1.62 m) wide, and had a
net horizontal cross-sectional area of 246 sq in. (0.16 m2).
The finite element mesh is shown in Fig. 10. Four-node isoparametric
quadrilateral elements with 2 • 2 Gauss points are used to model the
masonry units. The material properties of the masonry units, modeled with
the rotating smeared crack model, were as follows: modulus of elasticity
Em = 5,000 ksi (34,450. MPa); Poisson's ratio v = 0.16; compressive yield
stress f0 = 1,000 psi (6.89 MPa); compressive strength f " = 2,000 psi (13.78
MPa); tensile strength f~ = 200 psi (1.38 MPa); ultimate compressive strain
e~ = 0.003; e2 = 0.004; and et, = 1,000 psi (6.89 MPa). Mortar joints are
modeled with four-node isoparametric interface elements with two Gauss
points. Although the effect of mortar joints on the behavior of these types
of panels is significant, relevant experiments on the mortar joints were not
conducted. Hence, based on the results of experiments on similar mortar
joints, the properties of the mortar joints in these experiments are speculated
on, as shown in Table 2.
The numerical and experimental results for walls subjected to 59-kip (262
kN) and 78-kip (347 kN) normal loads (walls 64HL240 and 64HL320 in the
aforementioned study) are compared in Figs. l l ( a and b). As shown in Fig.
11, apart from some discrepancy at the final stage of loading, the correlation
of the numerical and experimental load-displacement curves is good. One
cause of this discrepancy is a deficiency of the smeared crack model that
was discussed by Lotfi and Shing (1991). This deficiency influences the shear
resistance at the top and bottom compression toes of the wall. Another
cause of this discrepancy is the uncertainty in the speculated material pa-
rameters for the mortar joints. For the case with a 78-kip (347 kN) normal
load, the deformed mesh at the final stage of loading is shown in Fig. 12(a);
and the crack, yielding, and crushing patterns of masonry units are shown
in Fig. 12(b and c). As the load-displacement curves show, the unreinforced
panels have a brittle response. The sudden load drop in both the experiment
and the analysis is due to the sudden formation of the staircase-type failure
in the mortar joints. The sequence of damage of the mortar joints and the
masonry units in ttie analyses matches the experimental observations very
well. Since the behavior of the panels was dominated by the fracture of
mortar joints, analyses with different mesh refinements showed no mesh-
size sensitivity.
CONCLUSIONS
A constitutive model for dilatant interfaces was proposed. The consti-
tutive model is capable of simulating the initiation and propagation of frac-
ture under combined normal and shear stresses in both tension-shear and
78
stitutive model can correctly predict the shear capacity as well as the amount
of dilatancy. Furthermore, a numerical approach using interface elements
to model masonry joints and smeared crack elements to model masonry
units was utilized to simulate the brittle failure of unreinforced concrete
masonry panels. The results of the analyses show that the numerical model
is capable not only of predicting the load-carrying capacity of a masonry
assemblage from the response of its basic constituents, but also providing
detailed information on the failure mode, ductility, and crack patterns,
which can be of much value in evaluating the seismic resistance of unrein-
forced masonry panels.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
APPENDIX. REFERENCES
Ali, S. S., and Page, A. W. (1988). "Finite element model for masonry subjected
to concentrated loads." J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 114(8), 1761-1784.
Amadei, B., Sture, S., Saeb, S., and Atkinson, R. H. (1989). "An evaluation of
masonry joint shear strength in existing buildings." Rep., Dept. Civ., Envir., and
Arch. Engrg., University of Colorado, Boulder, Colo.
Anand, S. C., and Rahman, M. A. (1990). "Interface behavior in concrete block
mortar joints--a comparison of analytical and experimental results." Proc., 5th
North Am. Masonry Conf., University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Ill., 475-
486.
Arya, S. K., and Hegemier, G. A. (1978). "On nonlinear response prediction of
concrete masonry assemblies." Proc., North Am. Masonry Conf., Masonry So-
ciety, Boulder, Colo., 19.1-19.24.
Cundall, P. A. (1971). "A computer model for simulating progressive large-scale
movements in block rock systems." Proc., Int. Symp. Rock Fracture, Nancy, France,
II-8.
Dhanasekar, M., Kleeman, P. W., and Page, A. W. (1985). "Biaxial stress-strain
relations for brick masonry." J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 111(5), 1085-1100.
Goodman, R. E., Taylor, R. L., and Brekke, T. L. (1968). " A model for the
mechanics of jointed rock." J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., ASCE, 94(3), 637-659.
Guo, P. (1991). "Investigation and modeling of the mechanical properties of ma-
sonry," PhD thesis, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
Lotfi, H. R., and Shing, P. B. (1991). "An appraisal of smeared crack models for
masonry shear wall analysis." Computers and Struct., 41(3), 413-425.
Lotfi, H. R. (1992). "Finite element analysis of fracture of concrete and masonry
structures," PhD thesis, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colo.
Middleton, J., Pande, G. N., Liang, J. X., and Kralj, B. (1991). "Some recent
advances in computer methods in structural masonry." Computer methods in struc-
tural masonry, J. Middleton and G. N. Pande, eds., Books and Journals Inter-
national, Swansea, U.K., 1-21.
Ngo, D., and Scordelis, A. C. (1967). "Finite element analysis of reinforced concrete
beams." J. Am. Concrete Inst., 64(3), 152-163.
Ortiz, M., and Popov, E. P. (1985). "Accuracy and stability of integration algorithms
79
8O