See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/284415010

Finite element interface modeling and experimental verification of masonry-

infilled R/C frames

Article · January 2008

CITATIONS READS

23 1,946

3 authors, including:

Ghassan Al-Chaar
US Army Corps of Engineers
39 PUBLICATIONS   688 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Emerging materials for lightweight ferro-cement structural systems View project

Study on silicon nanoparticles View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ghassan Al-Chaar on 26 July 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Finite Element Interface Modeling and
Experimental Verificaion of Masonry-infilled R/C Frames
Ghassan Al-Chaar1, Armin B. Mehrabi2, and Teymour Manzouri3
Masonry walls have been used as both load-bearing
structural elements and architectural non-structural ele-
ments in single- and multi-story buildings. Both reinforced
and unreinforced masonry partitions have been used,
sometimes filling the space within structural frames and
other times not bounded by any confining structure. In
load-bearing walls of the latter type, ties and columns
are generally used to increase the structural integrity. In
cases where the masonry infill interacts with the bounding
frame, that interaction must be accounted for in design
and evaluation of structures subjected to lateral loading
such as an earthquake.
Although there has been much previous work to
develop analytical models that realistically capture
the behavior characteristics of experimentally tested
masonry-infilled R/C frame prototypes, many technical
difficulties in analytical modeling remain unresolved.
A simplified analytical model that captures the salient
characteristics of infilled masonry structures has not yet
been developed. Success toward that end will require
understanding masonry-infilled frame behavior in much
more detail than offered by a strut or beam model. The
required understanding can be accomplished only through
experimental investigation followed by numerical simu-
lation and parametric studies. The correct approach will
facilitate the introduction and calibration of a simple yet
accurate model for infill walls.
Recent research has shed new light on the behavior
of infill frames and has produced advanced analytic tools.
Classical diagonal strut models have been subjected to
more thorough evaluations with new experimental data,
and various limit analysis methods have been developed
to account for the different load-resisting mechanisms of
infilled frames. Sophisticated finite element models have
been developed to analyze the nonlinear behavior of infilled
frames in a detailed manner. This paper summarizes some
of those findings and developments, identifies numerical
models, and demonstrates their capabilities. Also, to facili-
tate the use of these models by researchers and designers, a
1
Structural Engineer, U.S. Army Engineer Research and
Development Center – Construction Engineering Labo-
ratory, 2902 Newmark Dr., Champaign, IL 61822.
2
President, Bridge Engineering Solutions, Inc., 1706
Aralia Dr., Mt. Prospect, IL 60056.
3
President, Trilogy Consultants, Inc., 440 Huehl Rd.,
Northbrook, IL 60062.
TMS Journal July 2008
commercial finite element program is identified with similar
capabilities and is tested for its capabilities.
The finite element models identified in this study for
modeling of unreinforced concrete masonry infill walls
and R/C frames are (1) a cohesive interface model to
simulate the behavior of mortar joints between masonry
units and the behavior of the frame/panel interface, and
(2) a smeared crack finite element formulation to model
concrete in R/C frames and masonry units. The interface
model is used to analyze a simple combination of concrete
blocks and mortar joints, and it also can account for the
shearing, residual shear strength, and opening and closing
of joints under cyclic shear loads.
The behavior of infilled frames is briefly discussed
to determine important aspects that need to be considered
and accommodated by the FE modeling approaches. Then,
a brief review of the modeling approaches and models
used specifically for masonry-infilled frames is presented.
From the successful experiences of other investigators, as-
semblies and infilled frame samples for which laboratory
test and numerical results are available are selected. A
summary of the results of verification studies conducted at
the constitutive model level using the selected commercial
software program is presented. The models in the com-
mercial program were first used to analyze masonry prism
subassemblies for validation and possible calibration. Then
the program was used to develop a sophisticated model and
analysis of the behavior of two types of infill frames, with
two distinctive failure mechanisms, subjected to in-plane
lateral loading. The numerical results are compared with
available experimental and other numerical results.
Current State of Knowledge
Behavior of Masonry-infilled Frames
Subjected to In-plane Loads
The behavior of masonry-infilled steel and reinforced
concrete frames subjected to in-plane lateral loads has
been investigated by a number of researchers. Fiorato et
al. (1970) tested 1/8-scale non-ductile R/C frames infilled
with brick masonry under both monotonically increasing
and cyclic lateral loads. That work was followed by the
studies of Klingner and Bertero (1976), Bertero and Brok-
ken (1983), Zarnic and Tomazevic (1985), and Schmidt
(1989). More recently, single-story reinforced concrete
frames with masonry infills were studied by Mehrabi et al.
9
(1994), Angel et al. (1994), Buonopane and White (1997),
and Al-Chaar et al. (1998, 2002)
All studies have shown that the behavior of an infilled
frame is heavily influenced by the interaction of the infill
with its bounding frame. At a low lateral load level, an
infilled frame acts as a monolithic load-resisting system.
As the load increases, the infill tends to partially separate
from the bounding frame and form a compression strut
mechanism as observed in many early studies (e.g., Stafford
Smith (1962)). However, the compression strut may or may
not evolve into a primary load-resistance mechanism for the
structure depending on the strength and stiffness properties
of the infill with respect to those of the bounding frame.
FE Modeling Studies of Masonry-infilled
Frames
Dhanasekar and Page (1986) and Liauw and Lo (1988)
have used linear and nonlinear beam elements to model the
behavior of steel frames, and interface elements to model
the interaction between the infill and the frame. Dhanasekar
and Page used a nonlinear orthotropic model to simulate the
behavior of brick infills, and Liauw and Lo used a simple
smeared crack model to simulate the behavior of micro-
concrete infills. Schmidt (1989) used smeared crack ele-
ments to model both reinforced concrete frames and brick
infills. In these three analyses, the infill panels have been
modeled as a homogenous material before fracture and the
effects of mortar joints have been smeared out.
Mehrabi et al. (1994) demonstrated through experi-
mental and analytical studies that diagonal and horizontal
cracking within the infill and slip at cracked joints is the
dominant failure mechanism for R/C frames infilled with
unreinforced masonry. Although cracking, crushing, and
accumulation of damage occur also in the masonry units,
it is the degradation of shear resistance in cracked masonry
joints that defines loss of lateral stiffness and resistance of
a masonry-infilled frame. It can be seen that smeared crack
models have a deficiency in modeling unreinforced ma-
sonry infills because they alone cannot realistically capture
diagonal shear cracking and the shear sliding of cracked
concrete or masonry mortar joints. Those deficiencies are
inherent in the kinematic constraints related to trying to
account for cracking in a continuum (i.e., a homogeneous
material). Consequently, the use of smeared crack ele-
ments alone will lead to non-conservative design results
for unreinforced masonry infill. In order to realistically
account for the natural planes of weakness in unreinforced
masonry infill, interface elements must be incorporated
into the model.
A number of plasticity-based continuous interface
models have been developed to model the tension and
shear behavior of masonry mortar joints [Rots (1991);
Lotfi and Shing (1994); Lourenco (1996)]. These models
10
account for the interaction between normal compression
and shear as well as the shear dilatation often observed in
experiments. Mehrabi and Shing (1997) have developed
an interface model that accounts for the increase of contact
stress due to joint closing, the geometric shear dilatation,
and the plastic compaction of a mortar joint for analyzing
masonry infills. The failure surface of the model is based
on a hyperbolic function proposed by Lotfi and Shing
(1994), and is capable of modeling damage accumulation
at mortar joints under increasing displacement and cyclic
loading. This is reflected by shear strength reduction and
mortar compaction (i.e., loss of material) at interfaces. The
model has been used to analyze the infilled frames tested
by Mehrabi et al. (1994).
The literature review strongly suggests that the most
realistic approach to modeling masonry-infilled R/C frames
would combine both continuum and interface constitutive
models: the continuum model captures the behavior of the
reinforced concrete in frame and masonry units in infill, and
the interface model captures the behavior of mortar joints
between individual masonry units and between the infill and
frame. Mehrabi and Shing (1997) have tested the validity
of this approach and the capability of related constitutive
models. The use of a plasticity-based total strain, rotating
smeared crack model with tension softening and shear re-
tention for modeling the concrete continuum in concert with
a combined Coulomb friction/tension cutoff/compression
cap interface model for masonry joints was recognized to
be in good agreement with the requirements established by
the modeling approach [Lofti and Shing (1994); Mehrabi
and Shing (1997)]. In general, the models were shown to
be able to represent the important behavioral aspects of the
materials and elements used in infilled-frame structures.
Review of Commercial FE Programs
The approach and constitutive models described above
have thus far been implemented mostly by researchers in
an academic setting. Those implementations have been
developed using analytical software programs that are
not necessarily available in the public domain and typi-
cally have limited scope and applicability. For effective
modeling and simulation of infilled frames in the design
and engineering community, a commercial finite element
program must be employed. The advantages of commercial
modeling programs include ease of model construction,
large element and model libraries, user-friendly input and
output formats, and integrated graphics capabilities. Four
available FE programs capable of modeling concrete and
interfaces were selected for review. These were Ansys,
Adina, Abaqus, and Diana. The programs were reviewed
for their capabilities in modeling structural discontinuities,
such as mortar joints, in otherwise heterogeneous materi-
als such as concrete and masonry. For the type of infilled
frames considered in this study, i.e., R/C frames infilled
with unreinforced concrete masonry (UCM) blocks, the
TMS Journal July 2008
defining parameters are (1) separation of mortar joints and
infill-to-frame interfaces, and (2) cracking and crushing of
the infill material. Degradation of shear properties, espe-
cially at the interfaces and joints, was of specific interest.
Based on stated selection criteria, the Diana finite ele-
ment program was identified as the best fit for the purpose
of this study.
Modeling Brittle Materials in
Diana
General Capabilities
Diana offers a broad range of element types for model-
ing structures made of brittle and quasi-brittle materials,
including concrete. The constitutive behavior of quasi-
brittle material is characterized by tensile cracking and
compressive crushing, and by long-term effects such as
shrinkage and creep.
Cracking can be modeled in Diana using plasticity-
based total strain models with multidirectional fixed or
rotating smeared crack features, and tension softening and
shear retention. Brittle cracking, linear tension softening,
multilinear softening, and nonlinear softening are avail-
able. The combination of tensile and compressive stresses
also can be modeled with a multi-surface plasticity model,
which is available for biaxial stress states.
Reinforcement in a concrete structure can be modeled
with the embedded reinforcement types available in Diana.
The constitutive behavior of the reinforcement can be mod-
eled by an elasto-plastic material model with hardening.
Specific Masonry Modeling Capabilities
Masonry structures are analyzed on two different levels:
one where the global behavior is simulated and the other
where the behavior is analyzed in more detail. At the global
level, Diana offers smeared crack, plasticity-based models
to simulate cracking. At the detailed level, Diana can model
the bricks using continuum elements and the joints using
interface elements. Various models for concrete in the R/C
frame and in masonry units are available, as described previ-
ously. Other models are available to describe the interface
behavior: a discrete crack model, a Coulomb friction model,
and a combined Coulomb friction/tension cutoff/compres-
sion cap model. The latter model, which seems more ap-
propriate for the purpose of modeling masonry joints, was
formulated by Lourenço and Rots (1996) and enhanced by
Van Zijl (2000). It is based on multi-surface plasticity, com-
prising a Coulomb friction model combined with a tension
cutoff and an elliptical compression cap. The model acts in
softening in all three modes, and is preceded by hardening
in the case of the cap mode.
TMS Journal July 2008
The models described above are not the only ones that
can be applied to masonry. In some cases, inclusion of the
elastic orthotropy of the masonry may not be essential and
a standard smeared or total strain crack model with isotro-
pic elasticity may be applied as well. Also, the combined
friction/tension/compression interface model is not always
required, and one may choose to use a standard discrete
crack or Coulomb friction model.
In summary, Diana offers a broad range of constitu-
tive material models for concrete and masonry. Modeling
and analysis at a detailed level is recommended, as noted
previously. Specifically, masonry units and R/C concrete
are modeled using continuum elements with a smeared-
crack-type constitutive model capable of cracking and
crushing; and mortar joints are modeled using structural
interfaces capable of modeling cohesion, separation, shear
degradation, cyclic behavior, and closing.
Verification of Diana Models and
Calibration Process
The experimental work by Mehrabi et al. (1994) was
selected as a baseline for this verification study. That work
provides detailed test results for masonry subassemblies
and for masonry-infilled R/C frames as well as numerical
results following the analytical approach selected here
in this study. Mehrabi et al. used half-scale specimens of
conventional concrete masonry blocks, both hollow and
solid, to construct half-scale R/C infilled frames. Material
properties and parameters are also well defined in their
work. Two types of tests are selected: one using masonry
prisms under axial loading, the other using one-bay, one-
story masonry-infilled R/C frames under constant vertical
loading and increasing lateral loading. The masonry prisms
represented the material used to construct the masonry
infills for the R/C frames. Therefore, the modeling of
prisms followed by simulation of the behavior of the infilled
frames provides a consistent and effective verification and
calibration process.
As discussed previously, the most suitable models for
the current study were determined to be the smeared crack
and interface models developed and used by Lotfi and Shing
(1991) and Mehrabi and Shing (1997). Those models are
hereinafter referred to as the comparative models. The
comparative models have been tested and validated through
several investigations by those researchers, and their results
are considered to be a useful basis for comparison, along
with available experimental results.
In order to evaluate the performance of the finite
element models used for simulating the behavior of unre-
inforced masonry, it is necessary to observe the behavior
of the models under different basic modes of stress and
deformation. The performance of these models in simu-
11
 Coulomb Friction Mode

Cap Mode
Tension Mode

Intermediate Yield
surface Residual Yield Surface

Initial Yield Surface

Figure 1—Diana Interface Model Yield Criterion

lating the behavior of a physical specimen under loading
is also tested against other numerical investigations and
experimental results (if available).
Investigating the Interface Model
The following basic modes of behavior were generated
for the interface model: (1) separation of interface under
pure tension and tension softening, (2) shearing and loss of
cohesion of the joint and residual shear strength under zero
normal stress, (3) shearing and loss of cohesion of the joint
and residual shear strength under nominal normal stress,
and (4) shear behavior under cyclic shear displacement. It is
believed that an interface model able to realistically capture
these four modes of behavior has the basic required capa-
bilities for modeling masonry joints. The Diana interface
model selected for this evaluation is the combined Coulomb
friction/tension cut-off/compression cap model.
interface model is shown in Table 2. The Diana interface
model possesses a compression cap that can represent
compressive damage associated with the failure in joints.
The comparative interface model does not have this feature.
The Diana interface model is not capable of representing
accumulative damage to the joints in the form of loss of
material, while the comparative model has this feature. This
feature affects the active dilatancy and can be of importance
once the joints are placed under constraints such as in an
infilled frame. Nevertheless, the two interface models share
a wide basis for addressing frictional behavior, frictional
and tensile degradation, and the progression of damage, and
for the most part they are expected to behave similarly.

Prior to performing such evaluation, the parameters

required for defining the Diana interface model and the
comparative interface model is introduced. The Diana
model is based on multi-surface plasticity, where the yield
criterion comprises a Coulomb friction model combined
with a tension cutoff and an elliptical compression cap,
as shown in Figure 1. The comparative interface model
is an elastic/plastic softening, dilatant constitutive model
whose hyperbolic yield criterion is shown in Figure 2. The
parameters for these two models are listed and defined in
Table 1.

A comparison between the major features and capa- Figure 2. Comparative Interface Model Yield
bilities of the Diana interface model and the comparative Criterion [Mehrabi and Shing (1997)].

12 TMS Journal July 2008

Table 1. Parameters Defining Interface Models (1 psi = 0.00689 MPa, 1 in. = 25.4 mm)
Value for Prism
Diana Interface Model Comparative Interface Model
Analysis
Knn = normal numerical elastic stiffness Knn = normal numerical initial elastic
parameter, psi/in stiffness parameter, psi/in 74E+4 (psi/in)
Kss = tangential numerical elastic Dtt = tangential numerical elastic stiffness
stiffness parameter, psi/in parameter, psi/in 90E+4 (psi/in)
ft = joint tensile strength, psi so = joint tensile strength, psi 40 (psi)
Gf = first mode fracture energy, psi-in
I
Gf = first mode fracture energy, psi-in
I
1.61 (psi-in)
co = initial cohesion, psi η = parameter controlling loss of material
/ plastic flow direction 40 (psi)
φ = internal friction angle, radian ξo = initial asperity slope 0.9
ψ = dilatancy angle, radian ξr = residual asperity slope 0.005
φi = initial internal friction angle, µ O = initial friction coefficient
radian 0.75
φ r = residual internal friction angle, µ r = residual friction coefficient
radian 150 (psi)
σu = confining stress over which the δ = interface closing distance, in.
dilatancy will be zero, psi 2.3
δ = dilatancy shear slip degradation γ = asperity angle degradation coefficient
coefficient 16.1 (psi-in)
GfII = shear mode fracture energy, psi-in GfII = shear mode fracture energy, psi-in 2100 (psi)
f c′ = compressive strength, psi ro = initial radius of curvature for vertex
of yield hyperbola 1
Cs = parameter controlling the shear r r = residual radius of curvature for
stress contribution to failure vertex of yield hyperbola 55 (psi-in)
Gfc = fracture energy in compression, α = parameter controlling the rate of
interface, psi-in friction reduction/softening 0.006
κp = Norm of plastic strain associated β = parameter controlling the rate of
with peak compressive strength curvature reduction/softening 74E+4 (psi/in)

Other Notations:
ν = Poisson’s ratio, Diana smeared crack model
E = Modulus of elasticity, psi, Diana smeared crack model
f cm′ = compressive strength of masonry mortar cubes, psi
f cu′ = compressive strength of masonry units, psi (with respect to net cross-sectional area)
f m′ = compressive strength of masonry prisms, psi (with respect to net cross-sectional area)
so = joint tensile strength, psi, comparative interface model
εu = strain at maximum strength for axial testing of masonry prisms (in./in.)

Table 2. Comparison between the Diana and Comparative Interface Models, Features, and Relevant Parameters.
Diana Model Comparative Interface Model
Model Feature
Shape Parameters Shape Parameters
Shear slipping Coulomb φ, co Hyperbola µ,s,r
Surface

Tension softening Exponential Ψ, δ Exponential s,r

Yield

Tension Cut-Off Cut-Off Line ft Tip of Hyperbola s,r

Compression Cap Elliptic Cs , fc NA NA
Flow Rule Exponential Ψ, δ, σu Elliptic a,η
Dilatancy Exponential Ψ, δ,σu Exponential ξ,γ
Loss of Material NA NA Exponential ξ,γ

TMS Journal July 2008 13

Table 3. Material Parameters for Diana Interface Model Verification Analysis (1 psi = 0.00689 MPa and
1 in. = 25.4 mm)
Knn Kss ft GfI co
tgφi tgΨ
(psi) (psi) (psi) (psi-in) (psi)
2.8E+4 3.5E+4 40 1.61 40 0.79 0.005
Investigating Diana Interface Model Performance
The Diana interface model was investigated in terms
of some important behavioral modes. The model for this
study is a single joint, 8 in. (203 mm) long, 3/8 in. (10 mm)
thick, and unit depth. This joint is placed between two
elastic masonry blocks and is analyzed under tension and
direct shear displacement loading one at a time. The case
of shear loading is analyzed first without any normal stress
acting on the interface, then with normal pressure. A com-
bination of the Modified Newton-Raphson and the BFGS4
secant solution methods was used for analysis at the mate-
rial and structural levels, respectively. The direct solver is
employed, and the convergence criterion is set for a small
value of the norm of the residual energy at each iteration.
The step size is varied for each run in order to find and fit
the parameters to their best performance. Table 3 shows
the parameters used for the Diana interface model for these
analyses. These parameters are adopted representing a bed
joint for clay brick masonry [Mehrabi et al. (1994)].
The first analysis was performed to check the tensile ca-
pacity and after-peak behavior of the interface element. The
interface was subjected to incremental normal displacement.
The interface element reached a maximum tensile stress of
38.2 psi (263 kPa) (compared with 40 psi (276 kPa) defined
by the input parameters), after which significant joint open-
ing and tension softening occurred. The second analysis was
carried out on the same element, this time subjected to shear
displacement loading without normal pressure. The maxi-
mum shear strength was approximately 40 psi (276 kPa),
the same as defined for the model by cohesion factor. The
residual shear became zero in absence of normal pressure.
The third analysis was also carried out under shear
displacement loading, but with an applied constant normal
pressure of 100 psi (689 kPa). As expected, the normal
compressive pressure increased the shear capacity, yielding
a maximum shear stress of 123.8 psi (854 kPa), which is
comparable by the cohesion resistance (40 psi (276 kPa))
plus friction that resulted from 100 psi (689 kPa) normal
pressure (0.79 × 100 = 79 psi (544 kPa)). The model suc-
cessfully followed the sharp drop after loss of cohesion
and approached the residual shear resistance defined by
model parameters.
The last verification analysis was carried out on the
same interface element subjected to shear displacement
4
BFGS: Broyden-Fletcher-Goldfarb-Shanno algorithm.
14
σu GfII f c′
tgφr δ Cs Gfc κp
(psi) (psi-in) (psi)
0.65 150 2.3 16.1 1,500 1.0 2 0.006
loading and under 100 psi (689 kPa) constant normal
pressure. A full shear loading cycle was applied with 1.2
in. (30 mm) shear displacement in both directions, a total
of 2.4 in. (61 mm) shear displacement. As for the shear
stress, the joint reached a maximum stress of 123.8  psi
(854 kPa), after which the shear resistance dropped with
softening toward residual shear strength. The model was
able to trace the full cycle, and pass unloading and loading
successfully. In return, after 1.7 in. (43 mm) cumulative
shear displacement, the shear strength reached the residual
shear strength defined by the corresponding material pa-
rameter (φr = 0.65).
Verification and Comparison
To validate the performance of the Diana interface
model, the model was used to simulate two direct shear
laboratory tests reported by Mehrabi et al. (1994). For those
tests, numerical results using the comparative interface
model were also available. The tests were performed on
two mortar bed joints—one between two concrete hollow
blocks and the other between two solid concrete blocks.
Each joint was subjected to 100 psi (689 kPa) normal pres-
sure in Test 1, and 150 psi (1,034 kPa) normal pressure in
Test 2. Cyclic shear displacement loading was used.
For numerical modeling of these tests, Mehrabi et al
(1994) used the comparative interface model with parameters
reported in Table 4 for Tests 1 and 2. The Diana interface
model parameters were selected to match those of the com-
parative interface model as much as possible. Both tests were
modeled using the same material parameters because in the
comparative models, those parameters defined differently be-
tween Tests 1 and 2 do not have equivalents in the Diana model
and/or they have no influence in the analysis performed here
(e.g., initial asperity angle). The parameters used for analysis
with the Diana interface model are shown in Table 5. Some
of the parameters had to be specified independently because
there was no equivalent for them in the comparative interface
model. Parameters Ψi , σu , δ, f c′ , Cs , Gfc , and κp were taken
either in the range recommended by the Diana manual or
assigned values within a reasonable range. For example, the
compressive strength, f c′ , which defines the limit of the com-
pression cap on the yield surface for Diana interface model, is
not reflected or used in the comparative interface model but
is assumed to be 1,500 psi 10.3 MPa, which falls within the
customary range of masonry strength. The cohesion factor, c,
was selected to be 40 psi (276 kPa)to approximate the cohesion
factor calculated for the comparative interface model, based
on the other input material parameters.
TMS Journal July 2008
 Table 4. Material parameters for the comparative interface model. (1 psi = 0.00689 MPa, 1 in. = 25.4 mm)
Knn Dtt so GfI GfII ro rr
Test µo µr α δ β ςο ςr γ η
(psi) (psi) (psi) (psi-in) (psi-in) (psi) (psi)

1 2.8E+4 3.5E+4 40 1.61 0.9 0.75 4 0.2 16.1 2 10 5 0.45 3E-4 3 15.7

2 2.8E+4 3.5E+4 40 1.61 0.9 0.75 2 0.2 16.1 2 10 5 0.15 3E-4 3 55

Table 5. Material Parameters for Diana Interface Model in Comparison Analyses (1 psi = 0.00689 MPa,
1 in. = 25.4 mm)
Knn Kss ft GfI co σu GfII f c′
tgφi tgΨ tgφr δ Cs Gfc κp
(psi) (psi) (psi) (psi-in) (psi) (psi) (psi-in) (psi)
2.8E+4 3.5E+4 40 1.61 40 0.9 0.005 0.75 150 2.3 16.1 1500 1.0 2 0.006

Figure 3 shows the shear stress/shear displacement
curve generated by the simulation of Test 1 using the Di-
ana interface model. Figure 4 shows the shear stress/shear
displacement curves generated by the laboratory test, and
the numerical simulation of Test 1 using the comparative
interface model. These simulation results clearly show
the capability of the Diana interface model to accurately
simulate the test and other numerical results.
Investigating the Smeared Crack Model
Diana finite element program has a wide range of
continuum models for concrete and masonry materials. All
of these models follow well established and verified formu-
lations, so a full validation investigation is not necessary.
The purpose of this section is to demonstrate the capability
of the selected model, which is a plasticity-based, total-
strain, rotating smeared crack model intended to provide
an acceptable form of stress/strain relationship for concrete
used in R/C frames and masonry blocks. Without loss of
generality, a plane stress condition was considered in this
evaluation to match the two-dimensional interface model
Shear Stress (psi)
described previously because the two models will be used
together to model masonry assemblages. Therefore, the
selected Diana smeared crack model was tested for its
overall behavior.
A single block was tested under compression and
tension. The material parameters, type of tension and
compression curves, and assumed for them are shown in
Table 6. Values for parameters such as E, ν,  ft, and f c′ were
selected to represent a normal weight concrete material.
These parameters usually define only the strength limits
and slope of the initial ascending branch of the stress/strain
curves. Parameters GfI, and Gfc, on the other hand, define the
curvature and descending (softening) branch of the stress/
strain curve. The initial values reflected in Table 6 for these
parameters were estimated by the area under the expected
stress/strain curves. By varying the latter parameters, a
limited calibration of the stress/strain curves was performed
to provide numerical robustness to the model and also to
generate desirable shapes for stress-strain curves. The first
objective is especially important for implementation of the
constitutive model in a large-scale model for analysis.

Shear Stress (psi)

Shear Displacement (in.) Shear Displacement (in.)

Figure 3. Test 1 Simulated using Diana Interface Figure 4. Laboratory Result for Test 1 [Mehrabi et al.
Model (1 psi = 0.00689 MPa, 1 in. = 25.4 mm) (1994)]. (1 psi = 0.00689 MPa, 1 in. = 25.4 mm)

TMS Journal July 2008 15

Table 6. Material Parameters for Concrete in Masonry Units, Prism Analysis (1 psi = 0.00689 MPa and 1 in. = 25.4 mm)
Value for Hollow Value for Solid
Parameter Parameter Definition Value for Single Unit CMU
Blocks Blocks
E Modulus of elasticity 2 E+6 (psi) 2.0E+6 (psi) 2 E+6 (psi)

ν Poisson’s ratio 0.16 0.16 0.16

ft Tensile strength 240 (psi) 200 (psi) 230 (psi)

First mode fracture
GfI 0.09 (psi-in) 0.09 (psi-in) 0.09 (psi-in)
energy
β Shear retention factor NA NA NA

f c′ Compressive strength 2400 (psi) 3,000 (psi) 2,300 (psi)

Fracture energy in
Gfc 22 (psi-in) 2 (psi-in) 22 (psi-in)
compression
Shape of tensile stress- Exponential- defined by other
Tension Curve Exponential Exponential
strain curve parameters
Compression Shape of compressive Parabolic- Defined by other
Parabolic Parabolic
Curve stress-strain curve parameters

A four-node finite element representing a concrete
block was considered for these analyses. The two-
dimensional analysis focused on the fracture energy in
compression, Gfc, and its effect on the parabolic curve of
the compressive failure. The model was subjected to in-
creasing uniaxial compression in a series of analyses with
Gfc as the variable.
Modeling of Masonry Prisms
solid and hollow blocks are assumed to be the same, and
minor differences introduced by Mehrabi et al. in their
calibration process were ignored. The tensile strength of
concrete for which no test result was reported is assumed
to be 10% of the compressive strength. The fracture energy
in compression, Gfc , was increased to 22 psi-in. (3.85 MPa-
mm) to provide strain at maximum strength and a shape of
descending branch (softening) in the normal stress/normal
strain curve similar to that obtained from the test results.

Numerical Analysis Material parameters and their definitions for interface

Two masonry prisms, one with hollow blocks and
the other with solid blocks, were modeled using Diana.
Two-dimensional modeling and analysis were performed.
Dimensions and geometry were as described in the previ-
ous section. For the prisms with hollow blocks, equiva-
lent thickness of the blocks was considered to be 1.8 in.
(45.7  mm) and the thickness of the mortar joints was
1.25  in. (32  mm). For the prisms with solid blocks, the
thickness of blocks was considered to be 3.625 in. (92 mm)
and width of mortar bed joints to be 3.5 in. 88.9 mm).
Masonry units were modeled using rotating smeared
crack model, and mortar joints were modeled using Diana
interface models. Two-dimensional, plane-stress, four-node
elements with four integration points were used for masonry
units. Two-dimensional four-node interface elements with
two integration points were used for mortar joints. Mate-
rial parameters used for modeling the concrete in hollow
and solid blocks are shown in Table 6. The values for the
parameters were determined by the material test results
and the infilled frame analysis calibration process reported
by Mehrabi et al. (1994), and also by values defined by
verification studies in the first phase of the current study.
For simplicity, interface normal and shear stiffnesses for
elements are shown in Table 1. The values for the param-
eters were assigned mostly according to parameters used
by Mehrabi et al. (1994) for bed joints in modeling of the
infill walls, and by values defined in verification studies
in the first phase of this investigation. Mehrabi et al. have
used shear stiffness values for bed joints in analysis of infill
walls that are considerably larger than those used in their
verification studies for individual mortar joints. It was their
conclusion that lower values calibrated according to single
joint shear testing do not correspond to practical values
due to the fact that deformation of the test machine distorts
the joint deformation measurements. The higher stiffness
values were the result of their calibration efforts in model-
ing of infilled frames. The compression cap value, f c′ , was
defined by the compressive strength of masonry mortar
reported by Mehrabi et al. (1994). The fracture energy in
compression, Gfc , was increased to 55 psi-in. (9.63 MPa-
mm) to provide strain at maximum strength and a gradual
descending branch (softening) in the normal stress/normal
strain curve similar to that obtained from test results.
All nodes at the bottom of the lower masonry unit were
restrained in every direction and a uniform vertical displace-
ment was applied at upper nodes in the top masonry unit.
The loaded nodes were restrained from horizontal movement
assuming a perfect bond between loading cap and masonry

16 TMS Journal July 2008

 strain at maximum strength, and softening curves agree well
with the test results. The normal stress is calculated based on
equivalent thickness of 1.8 in. (46 mm) and 3.625 in. (92 mm)
for hollow and solid block prisms, respectively. It should be
noted, however, that the failure of the prisms in the analysis
was initiated and dominated by the failure of mortar joints.
This is not precisely consistent with the laboratory results,
in which the failure is dominated by conic shear failure of
masonry units. The two-dimensional model used for the
analysis is not capable of generating the confinement in the
mortar required for transferring the failure to the masonry
blocks. This represents a limitation of the two-dimensional
model used in this study.

Experimental Results

The three-unit, one-half-scale masonry prisms tested

Figure 5—A Sample Finite Element Mesh and Stress
Contour for Masonry Prism Analyses
units in the prism test. A sample finite element mesh and
stress distribution is shown in Figure 5. The stress distribu-
tion reflects the formation of shear cones in the prisms that
agree well with those in the standard prism tests. Stress rise
at the upper bed joint shows initiation of the failure at that
joint. Figure 6 shows normal stress/normal strain curves
for hollow and solid block prisms. The maximum strength,
by Mehrabi et al. (1994) consisted of concrete hollow
or solid blocks with nominal dimensions of 4 x 4 x 8 in.
(3.625 x 3.625 x 7.625 in. (92 x 92 x 194 mm) actual) and
3
/8 in. (10 mm), Type S masonry mortar joints. The mortar
was applied to face shells only for the hollow block prisms
and to the entire bed joints for the solid block prisms. The
thickness of each face shell in hollow blocks was 0.625
in. (16 mm) Therefore, the equivalent width of mortar
joint for hollow blocks was assumed to be twice the shell
thickness, i.e., 1.25 in. (32 mm). An equivalent thickness of
1.8 in. (46 mm) for hollow blocks, including face shells and
webs, was calculated based on proportion of net concrete
cross-section with respect to the gross cross-section of the
block. Table 7 summarizes the average material proper-
ties and test results for hollow and solid masonry prisms
calculated based on the results reported by Mehrabi et al.

2500

2000
Normal Stress (psi)

1500

1000

Solid block prism

Hollow block prism

500

0
0.000 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006
Normal Strain (in/in)
Figure 6—Normal Stress/Normal Strain Curves for Hollow and Solid Block Masonry Prisms (1 psi = 0.00689
MPa, 1 in. = 25.4 mm)

TMS Journal July 2008 17

Table 7. Average Material Properties and Axial Test Results for Masonry Prisms [Mehrabi et al. (1994)]
(1 psi = 0.00689 MPa and 1 in. = 25.4 mm)
Type of Blocks f cu′ (psi) ′ (psi)
f cm f m′ (psi) εu (in./in.)
Hollow 2,400 2,100 1,550 0.0031
Solid 2,300 2,100 1,930 0.0027

This table includes the average compressive strength of in R/C infilled frame structures.
masonry units with respect to the net cross-sectional area
( f cu′ ), average compressive strength of masonry mortar Diana is here to model and analyze one frame with
tested on cubes ( f cm′ ), compressive strength of masonry a relatively weak infill to further calibrate the models for
obtaining agreement between analytical and experimental
prisms with respect to the net cross-sectional area ( f m′ ),
results. The failure of such specimen is expected to be gov-
and strain at maximum strength for masonry prisms (εu).
erned by shearing and slip along masonry bed joints. Then a
A sample stress contour for one of the prism tests is shown
second frame with a relatively strong infill will be analyzed
in Figure 5. The high stress concentration is evident near
with the calibrated models. The failure mechanism for that
the mortar joint between the top and the middle masonry
frame is expected to be governed by diagonal cracking of
units. The stresses at the ends of the prisms are also high
the infill and shear failure of columns. The goal is to verify
but attributed to the loading applied directly at both ends
that the models calibrated with the results of one test could
of the prism.
be applied to another frame.
Modeling and Analysis of
Experimental Results of Masonry-infilled
Masonry-Infilled R/C Frames
R/C Frames
The purpose of this section is to examine the capa-
The specimens tested by Mehrabi et al. (1994), as
bilities and to identify the limitations of the Diana finite
modeled in the current study, were half-scale frame physical
element program in simulating the behavior of masonry-
models representing the interior bay at the bottom story of a
infilled structures subjected to lateral loading and to estab-
prototype frame. The prototype frame was a six-story, three-
lish a framework for future modeling and analysis of these
bay moment resisting R/C frame with a 45 x 15 ft tributary
highly nonlinear structures. Two specimens among those
floor area at each story. Two types of frames were designed
tested by Mehrabi et al. (1994) are considered with distinc-
for the prototype structure with respect to the lateral loadings.
tively different load carrying and failure mechanisms. The
One was a “weak” frame, designed only for a strong wind
two specimens both have frames that are not designed for
load, and the other was a “strong” frame, designed to resist
high seismicity regions (referred to as weak frames) and
the equivalent static forces of strong seismic loading. For
therefore are susceptible to development of shear failure
infill panels, 4 x 4 x 8 in. (100 x 100 x 200 mm) (nominal)
in the frame columns—a failure that is of the most concern

Figure 7—A Sample Stress/Strain Curve for Axial Testing of Masonry Prisms
(1 psi = 0.00689 MPa and 1 in. = 25.4 mm)

18 TMS Journal July 2008

 P3 P3
P2
d d
P1
Figure 8—Geometry and Loading Details of Test Specimen [Mehrabi et al. (1994)] (1 in. = 25.4 mm)
hollow and solid concrete masonry blocks were used to
represent weak and strong infill panels, respectively.
The accuracy and reliability of an analytical model
for simulating the behavior of an infilled frame strongly
depend on the capability of the model to predict the load-
carrying and failure mechanisms in addition to estimate
strength and deformations. The specimens considered for
this study are one with a weak frame and weak infill, and
one with a weak frame and strong infill. These are common
failures for frames with unreinforced masonry infill that are
not designed for high seismicity in accordance with recent
design code revisions.
Geometry and details of the selected specimens are
shown in Figure 8. Each test specimen was subjected to con-
stant vertical loading and monotonically increasing lateral
Figure 9—Failure Pattern from Laboratory Tests on Weak Infill (Left) and Strong Infill (Right)
TMS Journal July 2008
P2
loading. In this figure, P2 is 22 kips (97.9 kN), P3 is 11 kips
(48.8 kN), and d is equal to 16.5 in. (419 mm) Figure 9 shows
damage to the two specimens mapped after completion of
the tests for weak and strong infill specimens.
Mehrabi et al. (1994) used finite element modeling to
analyze their test specimen. They used their experimental
results to calibrate the model and determine parameter
values. A smeared-crack finite element formulation was
used to model concrete in the R/C frame and masonry
units; a nonlinear constitutive model was used for bond-
slip behavior between steel reinforcement and concrete,
and an interface model was used for the mortar joints.
For the specimen with strong infill, Mehrabi et al. used
interface elements at column ends to allow shear failure
of the columns that otherwise could not be modeled with
their smeared crack model for concrete.
19
Figure 10—Finite Element Mesh for Frame with Weak Infill, Analysis Using Diana.
Modeling of Masonry-infilled R/C Frames
The infilled frame with geometry and details shown
in Figure 8 was modeled with Diana. As before, two-
dimensional, plain-stress, four-node elements with four
integration points were used to model the concrete in R/C
frame and masonry units. Two-dimensional, four-node
interface elements with two integration points were used to
model the mortar bed joints, head joints, and joints between
the infill and the frame. The Diana rotating smeared crack
and interface element models were utilized as described
earlier in this paper. Reinforcement bars for the frame were
modeled using Diana elastic-hardening plastic, two-node
discrete bar elements. The loading plates were modeled
with linear elastic, four-node plane-stress elements. The
loading top beam was modeled with two-node beam ele-
ments using linear-elastic material with steel properties
while the frame footing was modeled with four-node plane-
stress elements using linear-elastic material with concrete
properties. The finite element mesh is shown in Figure 10
at initial stages of lateral loading. Each masonry unit was
discretized into two elements with an aspect ratio of 1:1.
The loading scheme followed the one illustrated in Fig-
ure 20. The vertical load was first applied in increments to
its maximum and kept constant while lateral displacement
loading was applied gradually.
Model Parameter Setting and Analysis
When analyzing infilled frames, Mehrabi et al. (1994)
adjusted the normal and shear stiffnesses of mortar joints
20
to about 30 times those calibrated by their laboratory direct
shear test results. The need for adjustment was attributed to
the inaccuracy of interface normal and shear displacements
in the elastic region of their laboratory test responses, which
was caused by deflections of the test fixture. They had
differentiated among mortar bed joints, head joints, joints
between wall and frame by introducing different interface
material parameters and thicknesses.
Parameter Setting for Frame with Weak Infill
For the first trial using Diana, material parameters
were selected in agreement with those used by Mehrabi et
al. (1994). The parameters for the bed joints were the same
as those used for the prism analysis described previously
and reflected in Table 1. The use of the normal and shear
stiffnesses shown in Table 1 resulted in divergence and lack
of solution at initial stages of the analysis. This divergence
occurred with initiation of shear cracking and slipping
at interfaces. The numerical process for determining the
stress on the yield surface (i.e., return mapping) failed in
tension-shear or compression-shear corner zones. Persistent
efforts to prevent the divergence of the algorithm, both with
reduction of step sizes and tolerances in practical range and
the application of various available solution methods, did
not resolve the issue. It was concluded that sharp corners,
especially at tension cutoff zone, must be repaired in the
yield surface of the interface model if this problem is to
be avoided. Mehrabi et al. (1994) used a hyperbolic yield
surface that avoided corners in the shear-tension zone, and
their model did not include a compression cap.
TMS Journal July 2008
Table 8. Material Parameters for Concrete in Frame and Masonry Units (1 psi = 0.00689 and MPa, 1 in. = 25.4 mm)
Concrete in Concrete in Masonry
Parameter Description
Frame Hollow Units
E Modulus of elasticity 3.55 E+6 (psi)
ν Poisson’s ratio 0.16
ft Tensile strength 390 (psi)
First mode fracture
GfI 0.09 (psi-in)
energy
β Shear retention factor NA
f c′ Compressive strength 3,900 (psi)
Fracture energy in
Gfc 22 (psi-in)
compression
Shape of tensile
Tension Curve Exponential
stress-strain curve
Compression Shape of compressive
Parabolic
Curve stress-strain curve
It should be noted that during the earlier verification
of the constitutive models with the parameter set calibrated
based on laboratory material test results, the analysis did
not encounter any problem with convergence. That result
was due to much lower normal and shear stiffness values
than those utilized by Mehrabi et al. (1994) for their infilled
frame analyses. Therefore, it was decided to carry out the
analysis with lower stiffness values according to those used
in the material-level investigation. Another trial analysis
using Diana confirmed the conclusion by Mehrabi et al.
(1994) that use of these low values for stiffness does not
yield an agreement between experimental and analytical
responses. This trial analysis clearly showed that low nor-
mal stiffness for interfaces resulted in transferring much of
the vertical load to the frame columns and less to the infill
wall. Because the shear resistance of the infill wall strongly
depends on normal stresses, low normal stresses on infill
resulted in significantly lower lateral resistance for the
infilled frame. Also, lower shear stiffness for mortar joints
of the infill resulted in a significantly lower initial stiffness
for the analytical response curve than that of experimental
results. To find an agreement between analytical and ex-
perimental results, higher stiffnesses had to be simulated
while avoiding the numerical convergence problem. It was
decided to use the lower stiffness values for all interfaces
as the base stiffness parameters (for which good numerical
convergence is guaranteed at material level) while increas-
ing the assumed width of joints to provide the higher overall
stiffness required to obtain agreement with the experimen-
tal results. In order to avoid an unwanted and unrealistic
increase in the overall interface strength values due to the
width increase, the parameters affecting the strength (i.e.,
compressive strength, tensile strength, and cohesion) had to
be reduced by the same proportion to which the thicknesses
are increased. The confining stress, σu, is related only to
evolution of dilatancy and is not reduced.
TMS Journal July 2008
Concrete in Masonry
Solid Units
2.0 E+6 (psi) 2.0 E+6 (psi)
0.16 0.16
240 (psi) 230 (psi)
0.09 (psi-in) 0.09 (psi-in)
NA NA
2,400 (psi) 2,300 (psi)
22 (psi-in) 22 (psi-in)
Exponential Exponential
Parabolic Parabolic
After a series of trial runs with various width increases,
a tenfold increase in the stiffness of bed joints from those
of base values (estimated originally by calibration using
material test results) was found to provide a good agreement
between the analytical and experimental responses for the
frame with weak infill. The stiffnesses of the head joints
and the joints between the frame and the infill were adjusted
accordingly, retaining the same proportion considered by
Mehrabi et al. (1994) in their modeling effort with respect
to the bed joints. Material parameters for the concrete
material in the frame and masonry units were calculated
according to the test results provided by Mehrabi et al.
(1994) and the verification process discussed previously.
Table 8 shows material parameters and the definition of
each for the concrete in the frame and the masonry units.
Tables 9, 10, and 11 show target material parameters and
the parameters actually used for bed joints, head joints, and
joints between frame and wall, respectively.
Analysis Results for Frame with Weak Infill
With the geometry and material properties described
above, the analysis on the weak-infill R/C frame was car-
ried out for a maximum lateral displacement of 0.8 in.
(20 mm) Figure 10 shows the principal stress contour at
0.07 in. (1.5 mm) lateral displacement. This figure shows
signs of forming diagonal struts that serve as the load-
carrying mechanism of infilled frames at initial loading
stages. Figure 11 shows the deformed shape and principal
stress contour at 0.31 in. (7.9 mm) lateral deflection, be-
fore the maximum strength is reached. This figure shows
separation and slip at the bed and head joints, which is
the governing failure mechanism for this infilled frame.
It also shows that stress at loaded corners of the infill is
approaching the compressive strength of the masonry,
21
Table 9. Material Parameters for Bed Joints, Hollow Block Infill, Diana Interface Model (1 psi = 0.00689 MPa and
1 in. = 25.4 mm)
Parameter Width Knn Kss ft GfI co σu GfII f c′
tgφi tgΨ tgφr δ Cs Gfc κp
Set (in.) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi-in) (psi) (psi) (psi-in) (psi)
Target
1.25 280,000 350,000 40 1.61 40 0.9 0.005 0.75 150 2.3 16.1 1,500 1.0 55 0.006
values
Actual
12.5 28,000 35,000 4 1.61 4 0.9 0.005 0.75 150 2.3 16.1 150 1.0 55 0.006
values used

Table 10. Material Parameters for Head Joints, Hollow Block Infill, Diana Interface Model (1 psi = 0.00689 MPa
and 1 in. = 25.4 mm)
Parameter Width Knn Kss ft GfI co σu GfII f c′
tgφi tgΨ tgφr δ Cs Gfc κp
Set (in.) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi-in) (psi) (psi) (psi-in) (psi)
Target
1.25 215,300 269,200 10 1.61 10 0.8 0.005 0.7 150 2.3 16.1 1,500 1.0 55 0.006
values
Actual
12.5 21,530 26,920 1 1.61 1 0.8 0.005 0.7 150 2.3 16.1 150 1.0 55 0.006
values used

Table 11. Material Parameters for Joints between Frame and Wall, Hollow Block Infill, Diana Interface Model
(1 psi = 0.00689 MPa and 1 in. = 25.4 mm)
Parameter Width Knn Kss ft GfI co σu GfII f c′
tgφi tgΨ tgφr δ Cs Gfc κp
Set (in.) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi-in) (psi) (psi) (psi-in) (psi)
Target
1.4 215,300 269,200 20 1.61 20 0.8 0.005 0.7 150 2.3 16.1 1,500 1.0 55 0.006
values
Actual
14 21,530 26,920 2 1.61 2 0.8 0.005 0.7 150 2.3 16.1 150 1.0 55 0.006
values used

Figure 11—Deformed Shape and Stress Contour for Frame with Weak Infill, Analysis Using Diana

22 TMS Journal July 2008

 60
50
Lateral Load (kips)
40
30
20
10
0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Lateral Displacement (in)
Figure 12—Experimental and Numerical (Diana) Lateral Load/Lateral Displacement Curves for Frame with Weak
Infill (1 kip = 4.45 kN and 1 in. = 25.4 mm)
signaling crushing at loaded corners under higher lateral
displacements. These results agree well with the experi-
mental and analytical results by Mehrabi et al. (1994) and
illustrate the capability of the models to predict the load-
carrying and failure mechanisms of the R/C frame with
weak masonry infill. Figure 12 shows response curves
obtained from this analysis compared with those from
the laboratory test. Stiffness, response trend (including
initiation of nonlinear behavior due to mortar joint shear
cracking and separation), and lateral resistance obtained
numerically agree well with the experimental results.
Parameter Setting for Frame with Strong Infill
To examine the capability of the calibrated models
to predict the behavior of another infilled frame with dif-
ferent characteristics, the Diana constructed and material
parameters calibrated for the weak-infill frame were used
to analyze the frame with strong infill. The material param-
eters for masonry units were changed to those of the solid
blocks (see Table 8). The only parameter in the interface
model needing adjustment was the compressive strength
(or the compression cap), f’c, to reflect the higher strength
Table 12. Material Parameters for Mortar Joints in Solid Block Infill that are Different from Hollow Block Infill,
Diana Interface (1 psi = 0.00689 MPa and 1 in. = 25.4 mm)
Width of Bed Joints Width of Head Joints Width
Parameter
Set (in.) (in.)
Target values 3.5
Actual values used 35
TMS Journal July 2008
Experimental (Mehrabi et all, 1994)
Numerical using DIANA program
0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
of the masonry assembly made of solid blocks. The width
of the mortar joints had to be also adjusted to higher val-
ues. These changes are shown in Table 12. A thickness of
3.625 in. (92 mm) was used for masonry units in the infill.
The model was then analyzed with the same loading scheme
used for the weak-infill frame.
Analysis Results for Frame with Strong Infill
The analysis results indicated that the predicted behav-
ior of the frame with strong infill using the abovementioned
models agreed well with the experimental behavior for
the initial portion of the response curve, i.e., for lateral
displacement smaller than 0.2 in. (5 mm). However, the
numerical response did not flatten and the lateral resis-
tance continued to increase with increasing displacement
far beyond the strength obtained in the experimental test
(see Figure 13). Reviewing the numerical results indicated
that the shear failure at the top end of windward column,
expected to govern the failure of the infilled frame based
on the experimental results, did not occur. Furthermore,
with stronger mortar joints in the strong infill, sliding of
bed joints did not occur as it did in the weak-infill frame.
of Frame to f c′
Wall Joints
(psi)
(in.)
3 3.5 2,000
30 35 200
23
 90.0
80.0
70.0
Lateral Load (kips)
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Lateral Displacement (in)
Figure 13—Experimental and Numerical (Diana) Lateral Load/Lateral Displacement Curves for Frame with Strong
Infill (1 kip = 4.45 kN and 1 in. = 25.4 mm)
Only some diagonal cracking and mortar joint separation
were observed. This behavior resulted in the development
of confined a diagonal compression strut in the infill, pro-
viding a much higher lateral strength than expected. This
problem was attributed to the inefficiency of the smeared
crack model for concrete in the R/C frame for modeling
the shear failure.
To overcome this modeling problem, a discontinuity
in the form of an interface model was introduced at the
column ends. The purpose was to allow shear failure of the
columns along these interfaces, as was anticipated for the
strong-infill frame. The material properties assigned to the
interface element at the column ends were similar to those
of the interfaces in the masonry. However, some param-
eters, such as tensile strength, cohesion, and compressive
strength, were adjusted to reflect properties of concrete in
the frame. To avoid problems with convergence, the inter-
face thicknesses were increased here by the same method
as used for the interfaces in infill.
With the above modification, the model was analyzed
again. As can be seen in Figure 14, the response agreed
well with the experimental results. Figure 14 shows the
deformed shape and displacement field contour at 0.795 in.
(20 mm) lateral displacement. It also shows the shear fail-
ure of the top end of the windward column. A large part
of the lateral displacement has been absorbed by the shear
failure of the column and displacement of the upper right-
portion of the frame and infill. Load-carrying and failure
mechanisms of the modified model agree well with the
experimental results.
24
Experimental (Mehrabi et al. 1994)
DIANA Model W Column Interface
DIANA Model W/O Column Interface
0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
In general, the Diana program performed well for
modeling of masonry-infilled R/C frames of various
characteristics. However, the capabilities and limitations
of the models should be recognized, and modifications or
improvements be applied for better performance.
Conclusions
This study identified a modeling approach that treats
the discontinuities in masonry by introducing interface
elements for the masonry joints. Furthermore, the study
identified constitutive material models through an exten-
sive literature review, and demonstrated their capabilities
through verification analyses. It was concluded that an
approach using both continuum and interface constitutive
models is most suitable for R/C frames infilled with UCM
blocks. To facilitate the use of these models by researchers
and designers, a commercial finite element program having
similar capabilities was identified. The constitutive mod-
els used by this program, Diana, were examined through
analysis of data available from earlier experimental physi-
cal modeling tests to verify their strengths, weaknesses,
capabilities and limitations.
Diana was first used to analyze masonry prisms made
of hollow and solid blocks. Next, one frame with weak infill
(hollow blocks) was modeled and analyzed, and further
calibration was performed to obtain agreement between
the analytical and experimental results. The failure of the
weak-infill frame was governed by shear cracking and slip
along masonry bed joints. A second frame, with strong infill
(solid blocks), was analyzed with the calibrated models.
TMS Journal July 2008
Figure 14—Deformed Shape and Displacement Field Contour for Frame with Strong Infill at 0.795 in. (20 mm)
Lateral Displacement, Analysis Using Diana
The anticipated failure mechanism for this frame was di-
agonal cracking in the infill and shear failure of windward
column at the top end. The goal was to investigate whether
the models calibrated with the results of one test could be
applied to another test as well. In order to obtain agreement
in this second test, interface elements had to be introduced
into the columns to allow the shear expected failure. That
adjustment was necessary because the shear failure could
not be obtained using the smeared crack model applied to
the concrete material in the frame.
The models in Diana showed good capabilities for
predicting load-carrying and failure mechanisms for such
complex structures as infilled frames. This capability is
recognized to be the most crucial for reliable strength and
ductility predictions. Among limitations of the models in
Diana, the convergence problem with the numerical scheme
in return mapping on the yield surface for higher stiff-
nesses for interface elements is a significant impediment
to a robust and reliable solution. A short-term solution was
implemented to overcome this problem, but is believed that
this numerical inefficiency in the models can be overcome
by improvements to the failure surface and return mapping
schemes of the interface constitutive model. For the case
of potential shear failure in columns, it was shown that the
use of interface elements in the column ends is required to
compensate for inability of the smeared crack formulation
to model of shear failure. In any case, it is understood that
for successful application of any FE program to infilled
frames, the model parameters must be calibrated using ap-
propriate material-level and structural-level experimental
TMS Journal July 2008
results. Once calibrated, the models can be used reliably
for parametric study of the behavior of infilled frames
subjected to lateral loading.
References
Al-Chaar, G. K., “Evaluating Strength and Stiffness of
Unreinforced Masonry Infill Structures,” ERDC/CERL
TR-02-1/ADA407072, Champaign, IL:Engineer Research
and Development Center–Construction Engineering Re-
search Laboratory, January, 2002.
Al-Chaar, G. K., “Non-Ductile Behavior of Reinforced
Concrete Frame with Masonry Infill Panels Subjected to In-
Plane Loading,” USACERL Technical Manuscript 88/18.
Champaign, IL: U. S. Army Construction Engineering
Research Laboratory, 1988.
Bertero, V. V., and Brokken, S., “Infills in Seismic Resis-
tant Building,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE,
U.S.A.: 109(6): pp. 1337-1361, 1983.
Buonopane, S. G., and White, R. N., “Pseudodynamic
Testing of Masonry Infilled Reinforced Concrete Frame,”
Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, U.S.A.: 125(6):
pp. 578-589, 1999.
Dhanasekar, M., and Page, A. W., “The Influence of Brick
Masonry Infill Properties on the Behavior of Infilled
Frames,” Proceedings of the Institute of Civil Engineers,
UK: 81(2): pp. 593-606, 1986.
25
D iana 8.1 Finite Element Program, Users’ Manual,
FEMSYS, TNO Building and Construction Research,
Department of Computational Mechanics, Delft, The
Netherlands, 2002.
Fiorato, A.E., Sozen, M.A., and Gamble, W.L., “An
Investigation of the Interaction of Reinforced Concrete
Frames with Masonry Filler Walls,” Report No. UILU-
ENG-70-100, Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of
Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, IL, U.S.A., 1970.
Klingner, R.E., and Bertero, V.V., “Infilled Frames in Earth-
quake-Resistant Construction,” Report No. EERC/76-32,
Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of
California, Berkeley, CA, U.S.A., 1976.
Liauw, T.C., and Lo, C.Q., “Multibay Infilled Frames
without Shear Connectors,” ACI Structural Journal, ACI,
U.S.A., pp. 423-428, July-August 1988.
Lotfi, H.R., and Shing, P.B., “An Appraisal of Smeared
Crack Models for Masonry Shear Wall Analysis,” Comput-
ers and Structures, 41(3), pp. 413-425, 1991.
Lotfi, H.R., and Shing, P.B., “An Interface Model Applied
to Fracture of Masonry Structures,” Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, U.S.A., 120(1), pp. 63-80, 1994.
Lourenco, P.B., “Computational Strategies for Masonry
Structures,” Doctoral Thesis, Civil Engineering Depart-
ment, Delft University, The Netherlands, 1996.
Mehrabi, A.B., and Shing, P.B., “Finite Element Modeling
of Masonry-infilled RC Frames,” Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, U.S.A., 123( 5), pp. 604-613, 1997.
Mehrabi, A.B., Shing, P.B., Schuller, M.P., and Noland,
J.L., “Performance of Masonry-infilled R/C Frames under
In-plane Lateral Loads,” Report No. CU/SR-94-6, Dept.
of Civil, Environmental, and Architectural Engineering,
University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, U.S.A., 1994.
Rots, J.G., “Numerical Simulation of Cracking in Structural
Masonry,” HERON, Netherlands School for Advanced
Studies in Construction, The Netherlands, 36(2), pp.
49-63, 1991.
Rots, J.G., and Borst, “Analysis of Mixed-mode Fracture
in Concrete,” Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE,
113(11), pp. 1739-1758, R, 1987.
Schmidt, T., “An Approach of Modeling Masonry Infilled
Frames by the F. E. Method and a Modified Equivalent
Strut Method,” Darmstadt Concrete, Annual Journal on
Concrete and Concrete Structures, Darmstadt University,
Darmstadt, Germany, 1989.
26
Stafford Smith, B., “Lateral Stiffness of Infilled Frames,”
Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, U.S.A., 88(6),
pp. 183-199, 1962.
Van Zijl, G. P. A. G., “Computational Modeling of Masonry
Creep and Shrinkage,” Ph.D. Thesis, Delft University of
Technology, 2000.
Zarnic, R., and Tomazevic, M., “Study of the Behav-
ior of Masonry Infilled Reinforced Concrete Frames
Subjected to Seismic Loading,” Proceedings of the 7th
International Conference on Brick Masonry, Australia,
pp. 1315-1325, 1985.
NOTATIONS
co = initial cohesion, psi.
Cs = parameter controlling the shear stress contri-
bution to failure.
Dtt = tangential numerical elastic stiffness param-
eter, psi/in, MPa/mm.
E = modulus of elasticity, psi, MPa, D iana
smeared crack model.
FE = finite element.
f c′ = compressive strength, psi, MPa.
f cm′ = compressive strength of masonry mor-
tar cubes.
f cm′ = average compressive strength of masonry
mortar tested on cubes.
f cu′ = compressive strength of masonry units (with
respect to net cross-sectional area).
f cu′ = average compressive strength of masonry units
with respect to the net cross-sectional area.
f m′ = compressive strength of masonry prisms (with
respect to net cross-sectional area).
f m′ = compressive strength of masonry prisms with
respect to the net cross-sectional area.
ft = joint tensile strength, psi, MPa.
GfI = first mode fracture energy, psi-in, MPa-mm.
GfII = shear mode fracture energy, psi-in, MPa-mm.
Gfc = fracture energy in compression, interface,
psi-in, MPa-mm.
Knn = normal numerical elastic stiffness parameter,
psi/in, MPa/mm.
Knn = normal numerical initial elastic stiffness
parameter, psi/in, MPa/mm.
Kss = tangential numerical elastic stiffness param-
eter, psi/in, MPa/mm.
R/C = reinforced concrete.
r = radius of curvature for vertex of yield hy-
perbola.
ro = initial radius of curvature for vertex of yield
hyperbola.
rr = residual radius of curvature for vertex of yield
hyperbola.
TMS Journal July 2008
 s = joint tensile strength, psi, MPa.
so = joint tensile strength, psi, MPa.
so = joint tensile strength, psi, comparative inter-
face model.
UCM = unreinforced concrete masonry.
α = parameter controlling the rate of friction
reduction/softening.
β = parameter controlling the rate of curvature
reduction/softening.
µ = friction coefficient.
δ = dilatancy shear slip degradation coefficient.
δ = interface closing distance, in., mm.
εu = strain at maximum strength for masonry
prisms in/in(mm/mm).
φ = internal friction angle, radian.
φi = initial internal friction angle, radian.
TMS Journal July 2008
View publication stats
φ r = residual internal friction angle, radian.
γ = asperity angle degradation coefficient.
η = parameter controlling loss of material/plastic
flow direction.
κp = norm of plastic strain associated with peak
compressive strength.
µO = initial friction coefficient.
µ r = residual friction coefficient.
ν = Poisson’s ratio, Diana smeared crack model.
σu = confining stress over which the dilatancy will
be zero, psi, MPa.
ξ o = initial asperity slope.
ξr = residual asperity slope.
Ψi = initial dilatancy angle, radian.
ψ = dilatancy angle, radian.
27