Whole

Numerical simulation of fracture in unreinforced masonry
Author:
Chaimoon, Krit
Publication Date:
2007
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.26190/unsworks/17488
License:
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/au/
Link to license to see what you are allowed to do with this resource.
Downloaded from http://hdl.handle.net/1959.4/40757 in https://

unsworks.unsw.edu.au on 2022-08-01
NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF FRACTURE
IN UNREINFORCED MASONRY
by
KRIT CHAIMOON
B.Eng. (Civil, 1st Hons.), Chiang Mai University, Thailand
M.Eng. (Structural), Asian Institute of Technology, Thailand
A thesis submitted as a fulfilment
of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
School of Civil and Environmental Engineering
The University of New South Wales
Sydney, Australia
July 2007
ORIGINALITY STATEMENT
‘I hereby declare that this submission is my own work and to the best of my
knowledge it contains no materials previously published or written by
another person, or substantial proportions of material which have been
accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma at UNSW or any
other educational institution, except where due acknowledgement is made
in the thesis. Any contribution made to the research by others, with whom I
have worked at UNSW or elsewhere, is explicitly acknowledged in the
thesis. I also declare that the intellectual content of this thesis is the product
of my own work, except to the extent that assistance from others in the
project's design and conception or in style, presentation and linguistic
expression is acknowledged.’
Signed ……………………………………………..............
Date ……………………………………………..............
To my grandfather and grandmother
i
ABSTRACT
The aims of this thesis are to study the fracture behaviour in unreinforced masonry, to
carry out a limited experimental program on three-point bending (TPB) masonry panels
and to develop a time-dependent fracture formulation for the study of mode I fracture in
quasi-brittle materials.
A micro-model for fracture in unreinforced masonry is developed using the
concept of the discrete crack approach. All basic masonry failure modes are taken into
account. To capture brick diagonal tensile cracking and masonry crushing, a linear
compression cap is proposed with a criterion for defining the compression cap. The
failure surface for brick and brick-mortar interfaces are modelled using a Mohr-
Coulomb failure surface with a tension cut-off and a linear compression cap. The
fracture formulation, in nonholonomic rate form within a quasi-prescribed displacement
approach, is based on a piecewise-linear constitutive law and is in the form of a so-
called “linear complementarity problem” (LCP). The proposed model has been applied
to simulating fracture in masonry shear walls and masonry TPB panels.
An experimental program was undertaken to investigate the failure behaviour of
masonry panels under TPB with relatively low strength mortar. The basic material
parameters were obtained from compression, TPB and shear tests on bricks, mortar and
brick-mortar interfaces. The experimental results showed that the failure of masonry
TPB panels is governed by both tensile and shear failure rather than just tensile failure.
The simulation of the masonry TPB tests compared well with the experimental results.
ii
In addition, the LCP fracture formulation is enhanced to study the time-
dependent mode I fracture in quasi-brittle materials. Two main time-dependent sources,
the viscoelasticity of the bulk material and the crack rate dependent opening, are taken
into account. A simplified crack rate model is proposed to include the rate-dependent
crack opening. The model is applied to predicting time-dependent crack growth in plain
concrete beams under sustained loading. The model captures the essential features
including the observed strength increase with loading rate, the load-deflection and load-
CMOD responses, the deflection-time and CMOD-time curves, the predicted time to
failure and the stress distributions in the fracture zone.

iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The research work presented in this thesis was undertaken under the supervision of
Associate Professor Mario M. Attard, at the School of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of New South Wales.
I wish to express my sincere gratitude to Associate Professor Mario M. Attard
for his invaluable guidance, critical comments and continuous support during the whole
study. I am indebted to Professor Francis Tin-Loi for many valuable discussions and
suggestions on the proposed model in the thesis. I wish to thank Associate Professor
Stephen J. Foster for his assistance at the beginning of this research work. I would also
like to thank Dr. Xiaobo Yu who initially developed some of the computer software.
During the period of this study, my colleagues at the School have given me their
support, which is deeply appreciated. Special thanks are directed to Dr. Nantawat
Khomwan, Dr. Siriluk Chumchean, Mr. Sawekchai Tangaramvong, Mr. Suvinai R.
Santiwong, Mr. Thanh T. Bui, Mr. Niphan Yaiaroon, Mr. Tayakorn Chandrangsu, Mrs.
Kate Brown, Mr. Robert Hegedus and Mr. Jonathan Lo for their assistance and support,
to Mr. William Terry, Mr. Tony Macken, Mr. Paul Gwyne and Mr. Richard Berndt for
their assistance in the experimental work.
This research was funded by a Royal Thai Government Scholarship and
Mahasarakham University, Thailand, which are gratefully acknowledged.
Taking the opportunity, I would like to thank my parents and my wife, Nida
Seelsaen for their great love, encouragement and support.

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................... i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...........................................................................................iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS............................................................................................... iv
ABBREVIATIONS ......................................................................................................... x
PRINCIPAL NOTATIONS .......................................................................................... xi
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................1
1.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT .............................................................................................1
1.2 AIMS AND SCOPE ......................................................................................................2
1.3 OUTLINE OF THESIS ..................................................................................................4
1.4 LIST OF PUBLICATIONS .............................................................................................5
CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF FRACTURE BEHAVIOUR IN UNREINFORCED
MASONRY ......................................................................................................................7
2.1 INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................7
2.2 FRACTURE BEHAVIOUR OF QUASI-BRITTLE MATERIALS .........................................8
2.2.1 Softening ..........................................................................................................8
2.2.2 Size Effect ........................................................................................................9
2.2.3 Fracture Mechanics Applied to Quasi-Brittle Materials ................................11
2.3 UNREINFORCED MASONRY – MECHANICAL AND FRACTURE BEHAVIOUR..............12
2.3.1 Brick Units .....................................................................................................12
Brick Compressive Strength ...............................................................................13
Brick Tensile Strength.........................................................................................15

v
Brick Rate of Absorption ....................................................................................17
2.3.2 Mortar.............................................................................................................18
Mortar Compressive Strength .............................................................................19
2.3.3 Brick-Mortar Interface ...................................................................................20
Brick-Mortar Interface Tensile Failure ...............................................................20
Brick-Mortar Interface Shear Failure..................................................................22
2.3.4 Uniaxial Compressive Behaviour of Masonry...............................................26
2.3.5 Uniaxial Tensile Behaviour of Masonry ........................................................28
2.3.6 Biaxial Behaviour of Masonry .......................................................................29
2.4 MODES OF FAILURE OF UNREINFORCED MASONRY................................................32
2.5 SUMMARY ..............................................................................................................33
CHAPTER 3 MODELLING OF FRACTURE IN UNREINFORCED MASONRY
.........................................................................................................................................36
3.1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................36
3.2 BASIC TRIANGULAR ELEMENT ...............................................................................41
3.2.1 Formulation of Basic Triangular Element......................................................42
Constant Strain Triangle .....................................................................................42
Derivation of Stiffness Matrix of Basic Triangular Element ..............................45
3.3 MASONRY MODELLING ..........................................................................................49
3.3.1 Detailed Micro-Modelling .............................................................................50
3.3.2 Simplified Micro-Modelling ..........................................................................50
3.3.3 Modelling Strategies ......................................................................................52
Failure Surface Compression Cap.......................................................................53
3.4 CONSTITUTIVE MODELS .........................................................................................59

vi
3.4.1 Piece-Wise Linear Inelastic Failure Surface ..................................................60
3.4.2 Softening Laws ..............................................................................................63
3.5 STRUCTURAL GOVERNING EQUATIONS ..................................................................66
3.5.1 Basic Relations...............................................................................................66
3.5.2 Nonholonomic Rate or Finite Incremental Formulation................................68
3.5.3 Quasi-Prescribed Displacement Control ........................................................71
3.6 SOLUTION STRATEGIES AND ALGORITHM ..............................................................72
3.7 VALIDATION...........................................................................................................76
3.7.1 Simulation of Masonry under Uniaxial Compression....................................76
3.7.2 Simulation of Masonry Shear Walls ..............................................................79
3.8 SUMMARY ..............................................................................................................93
CHAPTER 4 EXPERIMENTAL STUDY – THREE-POINT BENDING TESTS
ON MASONRY PANELS ............................................................................................95
4.1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................95
4.2 EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM .....................................................................................96
4.3 SPECIMEN PREPARATION ........................................................................................99
4.3.1 Materials.........................................................................................................99
Bricks ..................................................................................................................99
Mortar..................................................................................................................99
4.3.2 Preparation ...................................................................................................100
Masonry Specimens ..........................................................................................100
Brick Specimens ...............................................................................................101
Mortar Specimens .............................................................................................102
4.4 TEST SET-UPS AND TEST PROCEDURES ................................................................103

vii
4.4.1 Three-Point Bending Tests...........................................................................103
4.4.2 Shear Tests ...................................................................................................106
4.4.3 Compression Tests .......................................................................................107
4.5 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .........................................................109
4.5.1 Basic Material Properties .............................................................................109
4.5.2 Shear Test Results ........................................................................................109
Masonry Joint Shear Test Results .....................................................................110
Brick Shear Test Results ...................................................................................121
Mortar Shear Test Results.................................................................................128
4.5.3 TPB Test Results..........................................................................................140
Brick TPB Test Results.....................................................................................140
Mortar TPB Test Results...................................................................................141
Masonry Panel TPB Test Results......................................................................143
4.6 NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF THREE-POINT BENDING TESTS ...............................147
4.7 SUMMARY ............................................................................................................158
CHAPTER 5 REVIEW OF TIME-DEPENDENT FRACTURE BEHAVIOUR .160
5.1 INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................160
5.2 SOURCES OF TIME-DEPENDENT FRACTURE ..........................................................161
5.2.1 Creep ............................................................................................................162
5.2.2 Cracking and Rate Dependence ...................................................................166
Influence of Loading Rate on Fracture Parameter and on Size Effect..............166
5.3 TIME-DEPENDENT FRACTURE BEHAVIOUR ..........................................................172
5.3.1 Concrete Creep Rupture Tests .....................................................................172
5.3.2 Concrete Relaxation Tests............................................................................173

viii
5.3.3 Masonry under High Sustained Compressive Loading................................174
5.4 SUMMARY ............................................................................................................178
CHAPTER 6 MODELLING OF TIME-DEPENDENT MODE I FRACTURE ..180
6.1 INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................180
6.2 BASIC STRUCTURAL RELATIONS ..........................................................................183
6.3 BULK CREEP OR VISCOELASTICITY ......................................................................188
6.3.1 Long-Term Bulk Creep ................................................................................188
6.3.2 Short-Term Bulk Creep................................................................................189
6.4 CRACK RATE DEPENDENCY .................................................................................190
6.5 FINITE INCREMENTAL FORMULATION ..................................................................192
6.5.1 Viscoelasticity with Rate-Independent Crack Opening ...............................192
6.5.2 Viscoelasticity with Rate-Dependent Crack Opening..................................193
6.5.3 Quasi-Prescribed Displacement Rate Control..............................................195
6.6 SOLUTION ALGORITHM ........................................................................................196
6.7 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS AND BEHAVIOUR OF THE PROPOSED MODEL ..................201
6.8 VALIDATION.........................................................................................................204
6.8.1 Simulation of Flexural Creep Rupture Tests on Concrete ...........................204
6.9 SUMMARY ............................................................................................................213
CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................215
7.1 INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................215
7.2 MODELLING OF FRACTURE IN UNREINFORCED MASONRY ...................................215
7.3 EXPERIMENTAL STUDY – THREE-POINT BENDING TESTS ON MASONRY PANELS .216
7.4 MODELLING OF TIME-DEPENDENT MODE I FRACTURE ........................................218
7.5 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH ......................................................219

ix
APPENDIX A EXPERIMENTAL DATA AND ADDITIONAL RESULTS ........220
APPENDIX B FLOW CHARTS AND MAIN MATLAB CODES ........................227
REFERENCES............................................................................................................327
x
ABBREVIATIONS
CMOD crack mouth opening displacement
FPZ fracture process zone
I.R.A. initial rate of absorption
LCP linear complementarity problem
LEFM linear elastic fracture mechanics
LVDT linear variable displacement transducer
TPB three-point bending

xi
PRINCIPAL NOTATIONS
A structure equilibrium matrix
Au equilibrium matrix of the basic triangular element
c cohesion
E Young’s modulus
Eb Young’s modulus of brick
Em Young’s modulus of mortar
Eba adjusted Young’s modulus of expanded brick
F structure global force vector
Fi global forces at interface node
Fu global force vector of the basic triangular element
Funit structure global force vector due to unit load factor
F structure global force vector rate
Fix component of Fi in x direction
Fiy component of Fi in y direction
fr compressive residual stress
fcc compressive strength
ftc tensile strength
G shear modulus
Gb shear modulus of brick
Gm shear modulus of motar
Gba adjusted shear modulus of expanded brick
GfI mode I fracture energy

xii
GfII mode II fracture energy
Gfc compressive fracture energy
H structure softening/hardening matrix
Hi softening/hardening matrix of interface node
K structure global elastic stiffness matrix
Ku global elastic stiffness matrix of the basic triangular element
k0 constant for crack rate dependency
Li side/interface length of the basic triangular element
N structure normality matrix
Ni normality matrix of interface node
Nu normality matrix of the basic triangular element
Q structure generalised force vector
Qc creep component of Q
Qe elastic component of Q
Qi generalised forces at interface node
Qp plastic/inelastic component of Q
Qu generalised force vector of the basic triangular element
Qeunit elastic component of Q due to unit load factor

Q structure generalised force vector rate
Qn outward normal component of Qi
Qr residual compressive cap inelastic failure force
Qs anti-clockwise tangential component of Qi
Qcy compressive cap inelastic failure force
Qsy shear inelastic failure force
Qty tensile inelastic failure force

xiii
q structure generalised displacement vector
qc creep component of q
qe elastic component of q
qi generalised displacements at interface node
qp plastic/inelastic component of q
qu generalised displacement vector of the basic triangular element
qcu creep component of qu
qeu elastic component of qu
qpu plastic/inelastic component of qu
q structure generalised displacement vector rate
q c creep component of q
q e elastic component of q
q p plastic/inelastic component of q
qn outward normal component of qi
qs anti-clockwise tangential component of qi
R structure residual force vector
Ri residual force vector at interface node
r structure initial inelastic failure vector
ri initial inelastic failure vector at interface node
S structure generalised elastic stiffness matrix
Su generalised elastic stiffness matrix of the basic triangular element
T1 retardation time
t thickness of element
t time
xiv
tb thickness of brick
ti thickness of the basic triangular element
ti time at previous step
tm thickness of mortar
tc age of material when the first load is applied
u structure global displacement vector
uc creep component of u
ue elastic component of u
up plastic/inelastic component of u
ui global displacements at interface node
uu global displacement vector of the basic triangular element
ueunit elastic component of u due to unit load factor
u structure global displacement vector rate
ur value of u at control point
uix component of ui in x direction
uiy component of ui in y direction
uerunit value of ueunit at control point
u r rate of ur
V structure dilatancy matrix
Vi dilatancy matrix of interface node
Vu dilatancy matrix of the basic triangular element
load factor
D load factor rate
parameter representing interaction between tension and shear failure planes
I friction angle
xv
I(t) or I creep coefficient
I0 initial friction angle
Ir residual friction angle
If creep coefficient at time infinity
I creep coefficient rate
J angle defining the linear compression cap slope
displacement factor
potential function vector
M potential function vector rate
structure inelastic multiplier vector
i inelastic multiplier vector of interface node
u inelastic multiplier vector of the basic triangular element
structure inelastic multiplier vector rate
inelastic multiplier
c multiplier associated with the linear compression cap of interface failure
surface
s multiplier associated with the Mohr-Coulomb portion of interface failure
surface
t multiplier associated with the tension cut-off of interface failure surface
cc critical value of c
sc critical value of s
tc or tc critical value of t
O inelastic multiplier rate
Or constant reference multiplier rate

xvi
Q Poisson’ratio
normal stress
shear stress
u shear strength
r residual shear strength
i vector representing evolution of interface failure surface
\ dilatancy angle
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Problem Statement
A large number of historical buildings have been constructed by using masonry, as
masonry is one of the oldest building materials. In the present, masonry is still widely
used in building industries due to its simplicity in construction, aesthetics, durability,
low maintenance, versatility, sound absorption and fire protection. However, many
aspects of masonry design and construction are still based on traditional construction
practice rather than on rationalised design requirements. One of the reasons behind this
is the lack of good understanding in the complex fracture behaviour of masonry.
Application of fracture mechanics to failure analysis of quasi-brittle materials,
such as concrete and masonry, has generally been accepted. For the analysis of fracture
in masonry, there are two main approaches including macro-modelling and micro-
modelling. In macro-models, interaction between units and mortar is excluded as no
distinctions between units and mortar are made. The masonry components are smeared
into an averaged continuum. Masonry stresses are related to masonry strains in an
average sense. In micro-models, units and mortar are separately represented. The best
insight into the behaviour of masonry structures can be obtained as all possible failure
modes can be captured. The micro-modelling approach is therefore more preferable in
terms of the accuracy and sophistication. Although several micro-models have been
purposed to study the behaviour of masonry structures, micro-models that can predict
the complete response of masonry structures have appeared only during the late 1990s.
Also, each of micro-models proposed in the literature has its own drawbacks and
numerical difficulties. It is therefore believed that a robust micro-model for the analysis
of masonry structures, capable of predicting the structural response from the linear
elastic stage through cracking and degradation until complete loss of strength, is still
needed. Much research effort is still required to refine and improve existing models or
to develop new models.
Another crucial aspect of quasi-brittle materials is the time-dependent fracture
behaviour. Karihaloo and Santhikumar (1999) described the formation of a large crack
almost 43m deep that had developed in the Zhexi diamond-head buttressed concrete
dam built in the Hunan Province of China which was detected almost 8 years after
completion. Extensive measures were required to repair the crack and thwart further
crack growth. Also, there were a number of sudden collapses of historical buildings
such as the collapse of the civic masonry tower of Pavia, Italy, in 1989 due to sustained
loading, after surviving for nine centuries and the partial collapse of the Noto Cathedral,
Italy, in 1996. These collapses reinforce the importance of taking into account time-
dependent fracture.
1.2 Aims and Scope
The primary aims of this thesis are to study the fracture behaviour in unreinforced
masonry and to study the time-dependent mode I fracture behaviour in quasi-brittle
materials under static loading by using a micro-modelling approach based on a discrete
crack model. This study focuses on in-plane behaviour with small displacements only.
No geometric nonlinearity is considered herein. The formulation is based on a

piecewise-linear constitutive law and is in the form of a so-called “linear
complementarity problem” (LCP). Solutions to the system of equations that results from
a finite element discretisation are obtained using a mathematical programming
procedure based on the solution of the LCP. The specific objectives and scope of this
study are:
- to develop a micro-model capable of predicting the complete structural response
by taking into account softening and all failure mechanisms including tensile,
shear and compressive failure for the study of fracture behaviour in unreinforced
masonry;
- to conduct an experimental study on masonry three-point bending panels in
order to investigate the failure behaviour of masonry panels with relatively low
strength mortar;
- to develop a micro-model competent to predict the time-dependent mode I
fracture behaviour in quasi-brittle materials, especially at high load levels, by
taking into account viscoelasticity of bulk material outside fracture process zone
(FPZ) and rate-dependent crack inside the FPZ. Temperature and humidity
effects are not considered in this study. In other words, the temperature is
assumed to be constant and shrinkage is excluded;
- to verify and validate the developed models by comparing the predicted
behaviour with the behaviour observed in experiments carried out in this study
and from published results.

1.3 Outline of Thesis
In Chapter 2 the fracture behaviour of quasi-brittle materials is mentioned first and then
an overview of the mechanical and fracture behaviour of unreinforced masonry relevant
for numerical purposes is given. Modes of failure which characterise unreinforced
masonry are addressed.
In Chapter 3 the numerical modelling purposed in this study, which attempts to
capture and simulate the fracture behaviour in unreinforced masonry from the linear
elastic stage through cracking and degradation until complete loss of strength, is
presented after the discussion on the ability of numerical models available in the
literature is made. The formulation of the basic element mainly used in this study is
presented. The masonry modelling and strategies adopted are described. A proposed
compression cap for the micro-model is introduced and explained in detail. The
constitutive models are elucidated. The nonholonomic rate formulation in a LCP form is
expressed. The solution algorithm using a mathematical programming procedure is
outlined. Some examples to verify and validate the proposed model are given.
Chapter 4 describes the experimental work performed to investigate the failure
behaviour of masonry three-point bending specimens with relatively low strength
mortar where both tensile and shear failure are relevant. Also the numerical results
using the model developed in Chapter 3 are presented and compared with the
experimental results.
In Chapter 5 a literature review of the time effect on fracture in quasi-brittle
materials such as concrete and masonry is given to provide some background for the
formulation in the subsequent chapter.

Chapter 6 expresses the extension of the formulation proposed in Chapter 3 to
include time-dependent crack growth in quasi-brittle materials. A review of numerical
models for time-dependent fracture available in the literature is also made. Some
examples to verify and validate the proposed model are given.
Finally, concluding and reflecting remarks are made in Chapter 7. Some
recommendations for future research are also given.
1.4 List of Publications
During this research work, the following papers have been published, accepted or have
been submitted for publication.
(1) Chaimoon, K., and Attard, M.M. (2004). “Shear-compression fracture in
unreinforced masonry”. Proceedings of the 18th Australasian Conference on the
Mechanics of Structures and Materials (ACMSM18), Perth, Australia, 1241-
1246.
(2) Attard, M.M., Chaimoon, K., and Nappi, A. (2004). “Fracture of unreinforced
masonry walls under shear”. Proceedings CDROM of the 6th World Congress on
Computational Mechanics (WCCM VI) in conjunction with the 2nd Asian-Pacific
Congress on Computational Mechanics (APCOM'04), Beijing, China, 4341-
4346.
(3) Chaimoon, K., and Attard, M.M. (2005). “Shear fracture in masonry joints”.
Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Computational Methods
and Experimental Measurements (CMEM 2005), Malta, 205-215.

(4) Chaimoon, K., and Attard, M.M. (2006). “A model for compressive failure in
unreinforced masonry”. Proceedings of the 19th Australasian Conference on the
Mechanics of Structures and Materials (ACMSM 19), Christchurch, New
Zealand, 563-567.
(5) Chaimoon, K., Attard, M.M., and Tin-Loi, F. (2006). “Numerical simulation of
time-dependent creep fracture in quasi-brittle materials”. Proceedings of the 10th
East Asia-Pacific Conference on Structural Engineering and Construction
(EASEC-10), Bangkok, Thailand, 351-356.
(6) Chaimoon, K., and Attard, M. M. (2006). “Modeling of unreinforced masonry
walls under shear and compression”. Engineering Structures,
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2006.10.019.
(7) Chaimoon, K., Attard, M.M., and Tin-Loi, F. (2007). “Crack propagation due to
time-dependent creep in quasi-brittle materials under sustained loading”.
Computational Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, (submitted).
(8) Chaimoon, K., and Attard, M. M. (2007). “Experimental and numerical
investigation of masonry under three-point bending”. Engineering Structures,
(submitted).
CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF FRACTURE BEHAVIOUR IN UNREINFORCED MASONRY 7
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF FRACTURE BEHAVIOUR IN
UNREINFORCED MASONRY
2.1 Introduction
It is well understood that behaviour of masonry is strongly dependent upon the
properties of its constituents, the bricks and the mortar, as reported by many researchers,
see Binda et al. (1988), Van Der Pluijm (1992) and Ignatakis et al. (1998). To be able to
model the fracture behaviour of masonry structures, it is necessary to study the
mechanical and fracture behaviour of its constituents, of brick-mortar interface and of
masonry assemblage, particularly when a micro-modelling approach will be adopted.
This review is focused on the behaviour at macroscopic level and the prominent features
that are to be captured. A complete description of unreinforced masonry can be found in
Hendry (1998) and Drysdale et al. (1994).
This chapter starts with fracture in quasi-brittle materials to provide some
background of their salient features and then focuses on the mechanical and fracture
behaviour of masonry constituents, of brick-mortar interface and of masonry
assemblage and deals with the modes of failure. Note that the literature review for time-
dependent fracture is given in Chapter 5.

2.2 Fracture Behaviour of Quasi-Brittle Materials
In fracture mechanics, concrete, clay brick and mortar are classified as quasi-brittle
materials as they do not exhibit significant plastic deformations but have relatively large
fracture process zone (FPZ) as compared with metals and brittle materials, see Figure
2.1. The FPZ is a nonlinear zone characterised by progressive softening.
N N
N
F F F
L L L
Brittle materials Metals Quasi-brittle materials
Figure 2.1. Relative sizes of fracture process zone (F), nonlinear hardening zone
(N) and linear elastic zone (L) in different types of materials (Zhou, 1992).
2.2.1 Softening
Softening is the most crucial feature of fracture in quasi-brittle materials and takes place
in the FPZ. Softening is a mechanical phenomenon that mechanical resistance of a
material gradually decreases under a continuous increase of deformation. Softening
occurs simultaneously with the growth of macro-cracks causing localization of cracking
in a narrow zone and unloading in the rest of material. To be able to predict fracture
behaviour in quasi-brittle materials correctly, softening must be taken into account.
For tensile failure, softening has been well identified for concrete. Van Mier
(1997) pointed out that the softening or post-peak behaviour can assume two different
shapes depending on the end restraints of the tested specimen, as demonstrated in Figure
2.2. This behaviour is due to the rotation of the specimen during the loading. When
fixed platens are applied, a bending moment is introduced and multiple cracks will
occur resulting in a slightly larger tensile strength and a higher value of energy
dissipated or fracture energy.

F M F
fixed
rotating
a) hinges b) fixed platens c) stress-crack width diagrams
Figure 2.2. Effect of the end condition on softening curve, Van Mier (1997).
2.2.2 Size Effect
Another feature of quasi-brittle materials is size effect. Size effect is understood as the
dependence of the structure strength on the structure size. Although in the classical
theories based on plasticity or limit analysis the strength of geometrically similar
structures is independent of the structure size, quasi-brittle materials do not follow this
trend. The size effect is generally defined through a comparison of geometrically similar
structures of different sizes. It is normally characterized in terms of the nominal
strength. There are six different size effects that may cause the nominal strength to
depend on structure size including boundary layer effect, diffusion phenomena,
hydration heat, statistical size effect, fracture mechanics size effect and fractal nature of
crack surfaces, see Bazant and Planas (1998). The fracture mechanics size effect is the
most important source of size-effect. This size effect is due to the release of stored
energy of the structure into the fracture front.
Bazant (1984) generalised the fracture mechanics size effect of quasi-brittle
materials as a transitional behaviour illustrated by the solid curve in Figure 2.3(b). This
curve approaches a horizontal line for the strength criterion if the structure is very small
and an inclined straight line of slope -1/2 if the structure is very large.
log (strength)
strength criteria
2
most laboratory 1
stress tests
LEFM
small size
large size
most structures
relative deflection log (size)
(a) (b)
Figure 2.3. Size effect: (a) on the curves of nominal stress vs. relative deflection,
and (b) on the strength in a bi-logarithmic plot, Bazant and Planas (1998).
The simplest size effect law was derived and proposed by Bazant (1984) as a
function depending on two parameters as
Bf tc d
VN , = (2.1)
1 d0
where V N is nominal stress at failure, f tc is tensile strength of the material, B is a
dimensionless constant and d 0 is a constant with the dimension of length. is called
the brittleness number. d is a characteristic dimension of the structure, which may be

chosen as any dimension, e.g. the depth of the beam, or the span, or half of the span,
since only the relative values of V N matter. Both empirical parameters, B and d 0 ,
depend on the fracture properties of the material, which are dependent on the loading
rate and on the geometry (shape) of the structure, but not on the structure size. They can
be identified by any fitting procedure to get the optimal fit to the experimental data.
The Bazant’s size effect equation has been verified by a large number of
experimental data, for both notched fracture specimens and unnotched structures, see
e.g. Bazant and Pfeiffer (1986), Bazant and Pfeiffer (1987), Gettu et al. (1990) and
Bazant and Kazemi (1991).
2.2.3 Fracture Mechanics Applied to Quasi-Brittle Materials
A historical review of the application of fracture mechanics to quasi-brittle materials
can be found in Bazant and Planas (1998). In general, there are two main approaches
including continuum-based and discrete crack approaches. The continuum-based
models (which are formulated in terms of stress and strain tensors) such as the crack
band model see Bazant and Oh (1983), the gradient and non-local models see Jirasek
(1998) and Peerlings et al. (2001), and the strong singularity model see Oliver et al.
(2002) are not discussed here. Two major descriptions of the discrete crack approach
are the equivalent elastic crack models and cohesive crack models.
In the equivalent crack models, the linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM)
was modified by using an effective crack length or equivalent crack length concept. The
two parameter fracture model by Jeng and Shah (1985) and the effective crack model by
Karihaloo and Nallathambi (1989) are in this class.

In the cohesive crack models, the crack is assumed to propagate and to open
while still transferring stress from one face to the other. The cohesive crack models
were developed based on the ideas of the pioneering work of Barenblatt (1962) and
Dugdale (1960) which were restricted to the analysis of the fracture processes near the
tip of a pre-existing crack. Since then more elaborate cohesive crack models have been
proposed with various names to simulate various physically different fracture
mechanisms such as the fictitious crack model for crack growth in concrete see
Hillerborg et al. (1976) and the bridged crack model for crack bridging in ceramics see
Mai and Lawn (1987). However, the fictitious crack model proposed by Hillerborg for
concrete merits special comment as mentioned in Bazant and Planas (1998). To analyse
failure of a structure or component no pre-existing crack is required for the Hillerborg’s
model because it includes crack initiation rules for any situation. Such a model can be
applied to initially uncracked concrete structures and describes all the fracture processes
from no crack at all to complete structural failure. An evaluation of the models
describing fracture of concrete can be found in Elices and Planas (1989).
2.3 Unreinforced Masonry – Mechanical and Fracture

Behaviour
2.3.1 Brick Units
From a structural viewpoint, bricks used today are generally made from clay, calcium
silicate (sand-lime) and concrete. This study will be mainly focused on clay bricks as it
is the most extensively used type of masonry unit throughout the world.
Clay bricks may be kiln fired or sun dried. Typical contemporary clay bricks are
shown in Figure 2.4. An overview of the compressive, tensile and other mechanical
properties of clay bricks is given as follows. Note there is very little information on
shear mechanical properties of bricks available in the literature.
(a) solid pressed brick (b) cored brick (c) hollow brick
Figure 2.4. Contemporary clay bricks: (a) solid pressed brick; (b) cored brick; (c)
hollow brick.
Brick Compressive Strength
In general, compressive strength obtained from any uniaxial test has been known to be
influenced by several factors such as loading rate, specimen size and shape, and
specimen end conditions. Consequently, the actual compressive strength is intricate to
determine.
The major factor affecting compressive strength is the restraint effect, occurring
at the end of specimen. The restraint effect occurs because under a uniaxial compression
load, materials tend to expand in the transverse directions (Poisson’s effect). Where this
expansion is restrained, transverse compressive confining stresses are built up, resulting
in a triaxial compression stress state. As a result of such confinement, the axial
compressive strength increases particularly when hard capping, such as a thin layer of
molten sulphur compound or a gypsum plaster compound, is used. However, the effect
of platen restraint can be minimize by the use of other types of soft capping such as
teflon sheets or the use of greased platens. Another approach is to use brush platens as
shown in Figure 2.5. This technique has been used successfully for the testing of both
concrete and masonry, see Hegemier et al. (1978), Page (1981) and Page (1983). The
restraint effect has been discussed in detail by Drysdale et al. (1994) and Dhanasekar
(1985).
Figure 2.5. Brick uniaxial compression testing using brush platen.
To be able to keep the simplicity in determining brick compressive strength
some standard codes, e.g. CEN (1995) and AS/NZS-4456.4 (2003), account for the
restraint effect by adopting a correction factor to convert the confined compressive
strength to an equivalent unconfined value which can be used in design and research
work.
The measured compressive strength of clay bricks can vary from 20 to 145 MPa
(3000 to 21000 psi), depending on various factors such as the constituents of clay, firing
conditions, coring pattern and the size and shape of units. Furthermore, different
mechanical properties including compressive strength, elastic modulus and Poisson’s
ratio are obtained if a brick is loaded in different directions, see e.g. Ignatakis et al.
(1998). This indicates the material anisotropy, which may be attributed to nonuniform
firing or manufacturing processes, as pointed out by Drysdale et al. (1994).
Brick Tensile Strength
Although tensile strength can be determined by a direct tensile test, such tests are
difficult to perform and produce quite variable results because of alignment
complications in the test apparatus and stress concentrations associated with gripping
the test specimen. In order to avoid the difficulties in performing direct tensile tests,
indirect tensile tests are usually adopted including three-point bending test for flexural
strength and splitting test. However the flexural tensile strength is found to be
considerably higher than the direct tension results. The reason for this difference is that
the strain gradient in a three-point bending test results in a smaller fraction of the
section being highly stressed. Alternatively, a splitting tension test is often performed to
obtain a comparative measure of tensile strength. It produces results with lower
variability compared with other tests and is easy to carry out. The nearly constant
tension developed over the central part of the unit height between the loading points is
closer to a direct tension condition and the calculated average strengths tend to be close
to (slightly higher than) the direct tension results, see Drysdale et al. (1994).
Experiments have shown that the tensile strength of clay bricks, as measured by
indirect methods, increases with brick compressive strength. Sahlin (1971) reported that
the ratio of flexural strength to compressive strength varies between about 0.1 to 0.32.
The flexural strength values are 20% to 50% higher than the values obtained from
splitting tests. For the longitudinal tensile strength of clay, calcium-silicate and concrete
units, Schubert (1988) found that the ratio between the tensile and compressive strength
ranges from 0.03 to 0.10.
There is little investigation about mode I fracture energy of brick units reported
in the literature. Van Der Pluijm (1992) performed direct tensile tests on brick
specimens and found that mode I fracture energy of solid clay and calcium silicate units
ranges from 0.06 to 0.13 Nmm/mm2 for tensile strength values ranging from 1.5 to 3.5
N/mm2.
Almeida et al. (2002) also utilised direct tensile tests to characterise the tensile
behaviour of bricks and brick-mortar interfaces. Solid bricks, hollow bricks produced in
Portugal and hollow bricks produced in Spain were considered. Due to the constraints of
the testing machine, all specimens were obtained by extracting from original bricks. The
tests were performed under displacement control with a deformation rate of 0.5 Pm/s.
Both the tensile strength and mode I fracture energy were quantified. The results for all
types of brick were in the same order. An average value of the tensile strength was in
the order of 3 N/mm2. The average mode I fracture energy was between 0.0512 and
0.081 Nmm/mm2. However, the scatter of the test results was very high, for example see
Figure 2.6. It can be observed that for specimens with higher strength, larger stress
decays after peak load occurred and the descending curves of some specimens displayed
irregularities. The reported causes of the scatter on the test results were due to the non-
uniform crack opening and the orientation of the cracks developed during the
manufacturing processes. This scatter is typical of masonry materials under tension,
Van Der Pluijm (1999). It was also reported that a significant number of specimens
(20% to 50% of specimens) failed before attaining the ultimate deformation condition
which reflects the testing difficulties.

6.0
5.0
4.0
(N/mm2)
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
u (Pm)
Figure 2.6. Brick direct tensile test responses according to Almeida et al. (2002).
Brick Rate of Absorption
One brick property that does significantly influence the brick masonry strength is its
initial rate of absorption (I.R.A.) or brick suction. Brick suction plays an important role
in the achievement of bond and as such, significantly influences both the compressive
and tensile strength of brick masonry. The influence of the initial rate of absorption of
brick on shear bond capacity was illustrated by Drysdale et al. (1982). Bricks should
have an optimum value of I.R.A. to maximise the bond strength of the masonry. As
mentioned by Dhanasekar (1985) that if the brick has a high value of I.R.A. it will
absorb most of the water from the mortar without leaving sufficient moisture for
hydration of cement which makes the bricks very difficult to lay. By contrast, bricks
with smaller values of I.R.A. will not develop proper bond with the mortar, if they have
been pre-wet.
2.3.2 Mortar
Mortar is used in masonry construction as a binding material to bond individual
masonry units into a composite assemblage that will withstand the imposed conditions
of loads and weather. There are various types of mortar which have been used over
several centuries such as lime-pozzolanic, cement-lime and cement mortar. In most
cases the mortar is weaker and more flexible than the bricks.
The weathering characteristics of mortar are strongly dependent upon local
exposure conditions and the thickness of the joint, while its inherent properties are
affected by mixing, curing, age, joint thickness and its constituents such as cement,
sand, lime or admixture (if used) and water. Properties of adequate constituents can be
found in Dhanasekar (1985). Mortar types and their proportions according to ASTM-C-
270 (1989) were discusses by Drysdale et al. (1994). Fundamentally, the cement adds
strength, the lime and water contribute to workability and the sand provides an
inexpensive filler.
Mortar should have good workability, sufficient bond and appropriate strength.
However, the two most critical properties are bond and workability. The bonding is
dependent upon a satisfactory value of the brick suction and mortar water retention. The
workability is the ability of the mortar to flow easily over the surface of bricks. Even
though the use of large quantities of water will improve the mortar flow and
workability, its water-cement ratio will increase and hence reduce the mortar strength.
Only information on the compressive behaviour of mortar is discussed here
since less information on tensile and shear properties is available in the literature.
Additionally, standard specimens for mortar tests are usually cast in non-absorbent
moulds and the water absorption effect of the masonry unit is therefore ignored, since
the mortar strength is therefore non-representative of the mortar in a masonry joint. The
measured values from any standard test are therefore not the real properties of the
mortar. The influence of the suction rate was measured in the experimental results
carried out by Van Der Pluijm (1992). For this reason, mortar properties are merely
used as a measure of quality control rather than representative of the actual properties.
Typically, only the mortar compressive strength and mortar flexural strength are
measured and reported, see e.g. Almeida et al. (2002) and Abdou et al. (2006).
Some researchers have investigated the properties of mortar disks extracted from
masonry joints see e.g. Bierwirth et al. (1993), Schubert and Hoffmann (1994) and
Stockl et al. (1994). There is still a lack of knowledge on the complete mortar uniaxial
behaviour, both in compression and tension, Lourenco (1996).
Mortar Compressive Strength
Although mortar compressive strength is frequently less important than bond as
discussed above, it has an influence on masonry compressive strength. The CEN (1995)
uses the compressive strength of masonry components to determine the compressive
strength of masonry.
Mortar compressive strength may be determined using either cube or prism tests.
The standard mortar specimen according to ASTM-C-109 (1988) is a 50 mm (2 in.)
cube cast in a non-absorbent mould. A minimum of three specimens is typically
required and these are cured under specified conditions before testing at ages of 7 and/or
28 days.
Grim (1975) expressed the compressive strength of mortar as a function of
shape, curing, age, air content and initial flow rate of a mortar.
2.3.3 Brick-Mortar Interface
The brick-mortar interface is the most important characteristic that governs the
behaviour of brick masonry since it usually acts as plane of weakness. There are two
modes of failure occurring in the brick-mortar interface including tensile failure (mode
I) and shear failure (mode II) as discussed by Lourenco (1996).
Brick-Mortar Interface Tensile Failure
The brick-mortar interface tensile strength is a key parameter for numerical modelling
of masonry structures. There are various types of test methods used and proposed in the
literature to measure tensile strength. A review of the test methods and problems related
to each method was described by Jukes and Riddington (1998). Jukes and Riddington
(1998) suggested the direct tensile test using couplet specimens, made of two bricks
connected by only one mortar joint, with the load applied via bolts that pass through
holes drilled through the bricks. Jukes and Riddington (1998) proposed that this
measure of tensile strength be used when a bond strength value is required for checking
for in-plane strength or for use in a finite element analysis. However, this test cannot be
used when there is a combination of low strength bricks with and high joint bond
strength.
Experiments on the direct tensile strength of solid clay and calcium-silicate
bricks were performed by Van Der Pluijm (1992). These tensile results showed that the
tension softening response was an exponential curve as shown in Figure 2.7. Van Der
Pluijm found that the mode I fracture energy, which is defined as the amount of energy
to create a unitary area of a crack along the unit/mortar interface, ranges from 0.005 to
0.02 Nmm/mm2 for a tensile strength varying between 0.3 to 0.9 N/mm2 according to
the unit/mortar combination.
V 0.4
0.3
(N/mm2)
0.2
0.1
V 0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15
Crack displacement (mm)
(a) (b)
Figure 2.7. Tensile behaviour of brick-mortar interface (Van Der Pluijm 1992): (a)
test specimen; (b) typical response for solid clay brick masonry (the shaded area
represents the envelope of three tests).
Recently, a set of tests on the direct tensile strength of brick and the brick-mortar
interface was carried out by Almeida et al. (2002). The tensile strength of bricks has
been briefly summarised in Section 2.3.1. Almeida et al. quantified the tensile strength
and mode I fracture energy for different types of brick-mortar interfaces. The average
bond tensile strength was in the order of 2 N/mm2 and the average mode I fracture
energy was around 0.008 Nmm/mm2. However, there was considerable scatter of the
test results, as well as on the shape of the softening branch. The tests were also rather
unstable and the softening branch was obtained only in a few tests. Figure 2.8 shows an
example of the scatter of the reported test results. The causes of the scatter were due to
the non-uniform crack opening and the nature of the masonry materials.
3.5
3.0
2.5
(N/mm2) 2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
u (Pm)
Figure 2.8. Responses obtained from direct tensile tests of brick-mortar interfaces
according to Almeida et al. (2002).
Brick-Mortar Interface Shear Failure
Shear failure in a brick-mortar interface has been studied by many researchers using
either masonry specimens with several horizontal and vertical joints, see e.g. Riddington
and Ghazali (1988) and Lourenco et al. (2004), or small specimens containing only one
mortar joint, see e.g. Hamid and Drysdale (1982) and Jukes and Riddington (2001). The
shear failure behaviour investigated from both types of specimens seems to have similar
trends, Lourenco et al. (2004).
The failure of masonry joints under shear can be represented by a Mohr-
Coulomb failure law which expresses a linear relationship between the shear stress W
and the normal stress V as
W c tan I V (2.2)
In which c is cohesion and I is friction angle.

In order to obtain shear failure parameters, Van Der Pluijm (1993) purposed a
shear test set-up as shown in Figure 2.9. This test set-up reportedly provided a uniform
state of stress in the masonry joint. Note that a uniform state of shear stress is difficult to
generate because the equilibrium constraints introduce non-uniform stresses in
specimen. Van Der Pluijm’s shear test permits a constant normal confining pressure to
be maintained upon shearing. Van Der Pluijm used this test set-up to study masonry
shear behaviour for solid clay and calcium-silicate bricks. Confining stresses were
applied of three different levels: 0.1, 0.5 and 1.0 N/mm2. The results showed an
exponential shear softening with a residual friction level, Figure 2.10(a). Van Der
Pluijm found that the value of mode II fracture energy G fII , the area defined by the
stress/displacement diagram and the residual friction shear level, depends on the level of
the confining stress, Figure 2.10(b). The mode II fracture energy value ranges from 0.01
to 0.25 Nmm/mm2 while the initial cohesion value ranges from 0.1 to 1.8 N/mm2.
actuator load cell

counter wt. counter wt.
ball hinge
M V V M
load cell actuator
d
M
100 mm specimen
V
centring plate line hinges
(a) (b)
Figure 2.9. Shear test set-up and loading on the specimen (Van Der Pluijm 1993).
2.0 0.25
GfII (Nmm/mm2)
1.5 0.20
(N/mm2)
1.0 = -1.0 (N/mm2) 0.15
0.5 = -0.5 (N/mm2) 0.10

= -0.1 (N/mm2)
0.0 0.05
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25
Shear displacement (mm) 2
Confining stress (N/mm )
(a) (b)
Figure 2.10. Typical shear behaviour of brick-mortar interface for clay bricks
(Van Der Pluijm 1993): (a) stress/displacement diagram for different normal stress
levels; (b) mode II fracture energy as a function of the normal stress level.
In addition, Van Der Pluijm found that the tangent of the initial internal friction
angle tan I0 ranges from 0.7 to 1.2 for different unit/mortar combinations. The tangent
of the residual internal friction angle tan Ir was approximately constant and equal to
0.75. The dilatancy angle \ which measures the uplift of one unit over the other upon
shearing, see Figure 2.11, depends on the level of the confining stress, see Figure
2.12(a). The average value of tan \ ranges from 0.2 to 0.7 depending on the roughness
of the brick surface for low confining pressures. The dilatancy angles soften to zero
with increasing confining pressures indicating pure shear sliding displacement at the
residual state, see Figure 2.12(b).

|W | Gn
\ arctan
ø0 Gs
Gn
ør
V Gs
(a) (b)
Figure 2.11. Definition of friction and dilatancy angles (Van Der Pluijm 1993).
0.8 0.25
Normal displacement (mm)

0.20
0.6
0.15
tan \
0.4
0.10
0.2
0.05
0.0 0.00
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Confining stress (MPa) Shear displacement (mm)
(a) (b)
Figure 2.12. Typical shear behaviour of brick-mortar interface for clay bricks
(Van Der Pluijm 1993): (a) tangent of the dilatancy angle \ as a function of the
normal stress level; (b) relation between the normal and the shear displacement.
The results of 74 shear tests on clay brick masonry assemblages were also
reported by Drysdale et al. (1982). Shear was transmitted along the bed joints with or
without normal compressive stress. Constant levels of precompression ranging from 0
to 30% of the compressive strength were considered. Different types of mortar were
used. The shear bond failure capacities of the bed joints were influenced by the mortar
type but were not proportional to the compressive strength of either the mortars or the
corresponding masonry prisms. Under compressive stresses normal to the bed joints, the
type and strength of the mortar had more significance for the shear strength. Also, the
additional shear resistance obtained by increasing the normal compressive stress was
not proportional to the level of compressive stress and the so-called coefficient of
friction along the bed joint decreased with increased normal compressive stress.
Abdou et al. (2006) studied the influence of holes on joint mortar behaviour by
testing on half brick couplet specimens made of both solid and hollow bricks. A
relatively high compressive strength mortar (20 MPa) was used. In both cases, the
experimental results showed that there was not any stiffness degradation even in the
softening regime. However, it seems that the presence of holes increases the stiffness
due to mortar filling in the holes but does not affect the internal friction angle of the
mortar joint.
2.3.4 Uniaxial Compressive Behaviour of Masonry
There are several factors influencing the compressive behaviour of masonry,
particularly brick and mortar characteristics. The difference in elastic properties of the
brick and mortar generating composite action governs the compressive failure of
masonry. Under compression, both brick and mortar tend to expand laterally at different
rates due to Poisson’s effect. The mortar usually has a higher value of Poisson’s ratio
and will therefore expand laterally more than the bricks. The mortar expansion is
restrained by the bond and friction at the brick-mortar interface leading to state of
triaxial compression in the mortar and of compression/biaxial tension in the brick (see
Figure 2.13). This phenomenon has been discussed in detail by Hilsdorf (1969), Khoo
and Hendry (1973), Dhanasekar (1985) and Chaimoon and Attard (2006).
Other influencing factors on the masonry compressive behaviour, see Hendry
(1998), are workmanship, coring patterns of extruded bricks causing significant
reduction in the strength of brick masonry due to stress concentration effect,
dimensional variations produced by variations in size and poor workmanship inducing
eccentricities into the wall, and thickness of mortar joints. As the thickness of the joint
increases the compressive strength decreases because the flexible mortar tends to spread
more and causes tensile splitting of brick units at lower loads.
Vnb
P Vtb
Vpb brick
Vnm
Vtm
Vpm mortar
Vnm
P
Figure 2.13. Failure mechanism of brick masonry in compression (Dhanasekar
1985).
The compressive strength of brick masonry is one of the most important material
parameters for the analysis and design of masonry structures. It can be determined either
from brick and mortar strength using an approximating approach or from compression
tests on masonry prisms. Dhanasekar (1985) pointed out that if the approximate method
is adopted they should be interpreted carefully because no allowance has been made for
variations in workmanship and when a more reliable estimate of compressive strength is
required, a prism test should be used. Although the real uniaxial compressive strength of
masonry could be obtained from the so-called RILEM test, see Figure 2.14, the RILEM
specimen is relatively large and costly to carry out, particularly when compared to the
standard cube or cylinder tests for concrete as mentioned by Lourenco (1996). As a
result, the stacked bond prism as shown in Figure 2.13 is frequently used to obtain the
uniaxial compressive strength instead. And the more representative value of the
compressive strength is achieved by adopting correction factors to account for the
effects of pier aspect ratio and brick height/joint thickness ratio.
hb
h 5 hb
h h 3 tb
h 5 tb
hb
lb
tb
b
Figure 2.14. Specimen for determination of masonry compressive strength
according to RILEM test.
2.3.5 Uniaxial Tensile Behaviour of Masonry
The uniaxial tensile behaviour of masonry is dependent upon the direction of loading.
The tensile strength in the direction parallel to bed joint will be higher than that in the
direction normal to bed joint because either some brick must also fracture or the failure
line must follow a staggered path along the bed and head joints.
A review of the uniaxial tensile behaviour of masonry was made by Lourenco
(1996). Lourenco (1996) pointed out that if the tensile loading is perpendicular to the
bed joints, failure is generally caused by failure of the relatively low tensile bond
strength of the brick-mortar interface. The masonry tensile strength may be

approximately equal to the tensile bond strength of brick-mortar interface. For tensile
loading parallel to the bed joints, there are two different types of failure depending on
the relative strength of joints and units, see Figure 2.15 (Backes 1985). In the first type
of failure, cracks zigzag through the head and bed joints. A typical stress-displacement
diagram shows some residual plateau upon increasing deformation. In the second type
of failure, cracks run almost vertically through the bricks and head joints. A typical
stress-displacement diagram shows progressive softening with no residual strength.

(MPa)
Total displacement (mm)
Figure 2.15. Typical experimental responses of masonry under tensile loading
parallel to the bed joints (Backes 1985).
2.3.6 Biaxial Behaviour of Masonry
The biaxial behaviour of masonry is more complex than that of plain concrete due to the
composite interaction of its constituents and the distinct directional properties of
masonry caused by the mortar joints and/or brick arrangement. The overall biaxial
behaviour is a result of the combination of stress redistribution, local cracking and
progressive failure in localised regions. Various experimental programs have been
performed to study the overall behaviour of masonry subjected to biaxial states of stress.
These programs concentrated on the study of the definition of failure (failure envelope)
and failure modes. For example, Ganz and Thurlimann (1982) reported a failure surface
for hollow brick masonry subjected to biaxial stresses. Guggisberg and Thurlimann
(1987) studied the biaxial behaviour of clay and calcium-silicate unit masonry and
Lurati et al. (1990) for concrete unit masonry.
In order to illustrate the influence of stress ratio and stress orientation an
intensive testing program on masonry subjected to proportional biaxial loading was
performed by Dhanasekar (1985). The most complete set of experimental data is shown
in Figure 2.16. Half scale solid clay bricks and 1:1:6 (cement:lime:sand, by volume)
mortar were used. Different bed joint angles with different load combinations were
adopted. The different modes of failure are illustrated in Figure 2.17.
Figure 2.16. Biaxial strength of solid clay unit masonry (Page, 1981&1983).
Angle Uniaxial Tension/ Uniaxial Biaxial

T tension compression compression compression
0q
Splitting
crack
22.5q
45q
67.5q
90q
Figure 2.17. Modes of failure of solid clay unit masonry under biaxial loading
(Dhanasekar, 1985).
As can be observed in Figure 2.17, under uniaxial tension, cracking and sliding
of the head and bed joints govern failure. Under tension-compression, failure occurs
either by cracking and sliding of the joints alone or in a combined mechanism involving
both units and joints. Similar types of failure occur for uniaxial compression. In biaxial
compression, failure typically occurs by splitting of the specimen at mid-thickness (see
Figure 2.17), in a plane parallel to its free surface, regardless of the orientation of the
principal stresses.
2.4 Modes of Failure of Unreinforced Masonry
Different cracking patterns are found when masonry is subjected to loads. This is
attributed to the composite nature of masonry and the characteristics of brick and
mortar. In a macroscopic sense, modes of failure of masonry may be identified
according to Mann and Müller (1982). Failure can occur in many modes under shear
and compression, see Figure 2.18, including (a) friction failure of the bed joints, (b)
failure due to cracking of the bricks and (c) compression failure of the masonry. In some
cases failure due to the bed joint cracking open may also be found if the tensile strength
of the joint is exceeded.
(a)
(b) (c)
Figure 2.18. Failure modes of unreinforced masonry in a macroscopic sense: (a)
friction failure; (b) brick cracking; (c) masonry compression failure, Mann and
Müller (1982).
Lourenco and Rots (1997) pointed out that the basic failure mechanisms of
masonry consist of (i) tensile cracking of the joints, (ii) sliding along a bed or head joint
at low values of normal stress, (iii) cracking of the masonry units in direct tension, (iv)
diagonal tension cracking of masonry units at values of normal stress sufficient to
develop friction in joints and (v) compressive failure, characterised by splitting of units
in tension as a result of mortar dilatancy at high compression values, see Figure 2.19.
(i,ii) are joint mechanisms, (iii) is a brick mechanism and (iv,v) are combined
mechanisms involving bricks and joints.
(i) Joint Tensile Cracking
(ii) Joint Slip (iii) Unit Direct Tensile Cracking
(iv) Unit Diagonal Tension Cracking (v) Masonry Crushing
Figure 2.19. Failure modes of unreinforced masonry in a microscopic sense
according to Lourenco and Rots (1997).
2.5 Summary
An overview of the main features of the mechanical and fracture behaviour of the
masonry constituents, the brick-mortar interface and the masonry assemblage has been
given in this chapter. Masonry is a composite material which consists of brick units and
mortar. It is apparent from the literature that the behaviour of masonry is strongly
dependent upon the properties of its constituents (the brick units and the mortar) and
exhibits distinct directional properties. Masonry fracture behaviour is complex not only
due to the inherent features in quasi-brittle materials especially softening but also due to
the composite interaction between the brick units and the mortar. As a result, masonry
exhibits various modes of failure which include tensile cracking of the joints, sliding
along the bed or head joints, cracking of the masonry units, diagonal tension cracking of
the masonry units and masonry compressive failure.
The measured compressive strength of clay bricks can vary from 20 to 145 MPa,
depending on various factors such as the constituents of clay, firing conditions, coring
pattern and the size and shape of units. Different mechanical properties are obtained if a
brick is loaded in different directions. The ratio of flexural strength to compressive
strength of bricks varies between about 0.1 to 0.32. The flexural strength values are
20% to 50% higher than the values obtained from splitting tests. For the longitudinal
tensile strength of clay, calcium-silicate and concrete units, the ratio between the tensile
and compressive strength ranges from 0.03 to 0.10. Based on the limited investigation
of brick mode I failure, the mode I fracture energy of bricks ranges from 0.05 to 0.13
Nmm/mm2 for tensile strength values ranging from 1.5 to 3.5 N/mm2.
Standard specimens for mortar tests are usually cast in non-absorbent moulds
and the water absorption effect of the masonry unit is ignored. The mortar strength is
therefore non-representative of the mortar in a masonry joint. The measured values from
any standard test are not the real properties of the mortar within a masonry assembly.
For this reason, mortar properties are merely used as a measure of quality control rather
than representative of the actual mortar properties within masonry.
The brick-mortar interface is the most important characteristic that governs the
behaviour of brick masonry since it usually acts as a plane of weakness. The mode I
fracture energy of brick-mortar interfaces ranges from 0.005 to 0.02 Nmm/mm2 for a
tensile strength varying between 0.3 to 0.9 N/mm2. The failure of masonry joints under
shear can be represented by a Mohr-Coulomb failure law. The value of mode II fracture
energy depends on the level of the confining stress. The mode II fracture energy value
ranges from 0.01 to 0.25 Nmm/mm2 while the initial cohesion value ranges from 0.1 to
1.8 N/mm2. The tangent of initial friction angle of brick-mortar interfaces ranges from
0.7 to 1.2. The tangent of residual friction angle is approximately constant. The
dilatancy angle of brick-mortar interfaces, which measures the uplift of one unit over
the other upon shearing, depends on the level of the confining stress. The average value
of tangent of dilatancy angle ranges from 0.2 to 0.7. The dilatancy angle softens to zero
with increasing confining pressures.
The difference in elastic properties of brick and mortar generating composite
action governs the compressive failure of masonry. The uniaxial tensile behaviour of
masonry is dependent upon the direction of loading. The tensile strength in the direction
parallel to bed joint is higher than that in the direction normal to bed joint. The biaxial
behaviour of masonry is more complex than that of plain concrete due to the composite
interaction of its constituents and the distinct directional properties of masonry caused
by the mortar joints and/or brick arrangement.

CHAPTER 3 MODELLING OF FRACTURE IN UNREINFORCED MASONRY 36
CHAPTER 3
MODELLING OF FRACTURE IN UNREINFORCED
MASONRY
3.1 Introduction
There are two main approaches to analyse the linear and nonlinear behaviour of
masonry structures either the macro-modelling or the micro-modelling approaches, see
Giambanco et al. (2001), Sutcliffe et al. (2001), Lourenco (1996) and Ma et al. (2001).
In the macro-modelling approach, homogenisation techniques and continuum-based
theories (Figure 3.1) are usually adopted for large and practice-oriented analysis. The
interaction between units and mortar is generally ignored for the global structural
behaviour and a relation is established between average strains and average stresses.
The material parameters must be obtained from masonry tests of sufficiently large size
under homogeneous states of stress. A complete macro-model must reproduce an
orthotropic material with different tensile and compressive strengths along the material
axes as well as different inelastic behaviour for each material axis. Macro-modelling
approaches have been adopted by many researchers such as Luciano and Sacco (1997),
Luciano and Sacco (1998), Ma et al. (2001) and Giambanco et al. (2001).
Homogeneous
Homogenisation
Figure 3.1. Macro-modelling of masonry (Ma et al. 2001).

In the micro-modelling approach, a representation of the unit, mortar and the
unit/mortar interface must be included, see e.g. Page (1978), Lourenco and Rots (1997),
Guinea et al. (2000), Giambanco et al. (2001), Van Zijl et al. (2001c), Sutcliffe et al.
(2001) and Chaimoon and Attard (2006). Cohesive crack models are usually adopted in
the micro-modelling formulation through the interface elements. This approach is
suitable for small structural elements with particular interest in strongly heterogeneous
states of stress and strain. The primary aim of micro-modelling is to closely represent
masonry from the knowledge of the properties of each constituent and the interface. The
experimental data must be obtained from laboratory tests on masonry constituents and
small masonry samples. Two levels of refinement are widely used in the literature
including detailed micro-modelling and simplified micro-modelling as shown in Figure
3.2. In the detailed micro-modelling, the units, mortar and the unit/mortar interfaces are
all modelled separately. While this leads to more accurate results, the level of
refinement means that any analysis will be computational intensive and so limit its
application to small laboratory specimens and structural details. In the simplified micro-
modelling, the properties of the mortar and the unit/mortar interface are lumped into a
common element, while expanded elements are used to present the brick units. Some
accuracy is obviously lost, however the reduction in computational effort results in a
model which would be applicable to a wider range of structures.
unit mortar unit joint
interface
unit/mortar
a) Detailed micro-modelling b) Simplified micro-modelling
Figure 3.2. Two levels of refinement of masonry micro-modelling (Lourenco 1996).

Since the best insight into the behaviour of masonry structures can be obtained
from the use of a micro-model, the micro-modelling approach is used in this study.
Several researchers have adopted micro-models to study the complex behaviour
of masonry structures. For an elaborate model the shear wall problem is often used for
the validation purpose, as in such a problem all possible failure modes are involved and
govern the structural response. In order to model the complicated behaviour of shear
walls different micro-models have been proposed. Giambanco et al. (2001) used a
micro-model in which only tensile and shear failure were considered in the interface
mortar joint elements. Lourenco and Rots (1993) included compressive failure of
masonry via a Von Mises plasticity criterion for the brick units. There were numerical
difficulties with this approach which were overcome by Lourenco (1996) who
introduced a sophisticated model capable of predicting the behaviour of masonry
structures from the linear elastic stage, through cracking and degradation until complete
loss of strength. All possible failure modes were taken into account. The compressive
failure of masonry was lumped and modelled via interface elements leading to a robust
type of modelling. Although the complete load path of masonry structures could be
reproduced reasonably well, Lourenco (1996) had to set the shear stresses in the brick
units to zero in a single load step upon initiation of cracking so that convergence could
be achieved. Large amounts of energy were therefore released in a single load step
which affected the robustness of the numerical procedure. The numerical difficulties
arose because at certain load increments bifurcations in the load path could not be
resolved with the analysis unable to choose “ …whether to propagate the crack in the
unit or the crack/slip in the head and bed joint around the unit, Lourenco (1996)”.
Sutcliffe et al. (2001) included both the tensile and shear failure in brick units for a
lower bound limit analysis. A compression cap for the interface elements was also
included. Nevertheless, softening was not taken into account. It is therefore believed
that a robust micro-model for the analysis of masonry structures is still needed.
A micro-model based on a discrete crack model using a piecewise-linear
constitutive law will be developed herein. The formulation is in the form of a so-called
“linear complementarity problem” (LCP). Solutions to the system of equations that
results from a finite element discretisation are obtained using a mathematical
programming procedure based on the solution of a LCP. To achieve this purpose, the
formulation devised by Attard and Tin-Loi (1999, 2005) for the numerical simulation of
fracture in concrete is extended and enhanced to model the fracture in unreinforced
masonry. The advantages of this formulation are that:
x As with the discrete crack models, there is no length scale required and
hence the softening response is only marginally affected by the mesh
used.
x Snap-back of the load deflection path is easily handled.
x Different crack profiles, including curved, can be followed
simultaneously, as well as branching and interacting cracks without
requiring remeshing.
x Bifurcation of the equilibrium path is identified and the path with the
minimum second order work followed. The formulation enables
capturing both symmetric and asymmetric failure modes.

The formulation of Attard and Tin-Loi (1999, 2005) was based on a linear
complementarity formulation as in Bolzon et al. (1995) and used a mathematical
programming algorithm to obtain solutions to a nonholonomic rate form within a quasi-
prescribed displacement approach. The inelastic failure surface of a structure was an
assembled piece-wise linear failure surface. However, compressive failure was not
taken into account. The purpose of this study is therefore to enhance the formulation by
including the compressive failure to be able to completely capture the behaviour of
unreinforced masonry structures.
This chapter begins with an introduction to the basic unit which is adopted as the
major element in the finite element modelling. After that the masonry modelling and
strategies are described. The proposed compression cap which is one of the main
contributions of this study is presented in detail. A criterion for defining the
compression cap is provided. The piecewise-linear constitutive relationships are then
expressed. The two most important components of the constitutive model are the
interface failure surface and the softening law. These components are elucidated. The
structural governing equations are then formulated. The nonholonomic rate formulation
(note that the rate is with respect to displacement, not time) in LCP form is expressed.
The solution algorithm needed to solve the LCP is then outlined. Finally, some
examples to verify and validate the proposed model are given.

3.2 Basic Triangular Element
To model a complete structural system, a triangular element developed by Attard and
Tin-Loi (1999) is utilised in this study as the basic element. Figure 3.3 shows the basic
triangular element.
Interface node
Qs, qs Fiy, uiy
Q n, q n
Fix, uix
Li / 2n
Li
a) Generalised coordinate system b) Global coordinate system
Figure 3.3. Basic triangular element: a) in generalised coordinate system and b) in
global coordinate system.
The basic triangular element is formed by assembling nine constant strain
triangles and condensing out the freedoms at the vertices and the centre, more details
are given in next section. There are two nodes along each of its sides/interfaces. The
position of each interface node is set at Li/2n from the nearest vertex, where Li is the
interface length and n is a chosen number. In this study a value of 10 is set for n
following the original assumption stated in Attard and Tin-Loi (2005) to make the
elastic displacement predictions closely match those from a continuum formulation.
At the interface nodes, generalised interface displacements represented by q i are
defined and correspond to the outward normal q n and tangential q s displacements
(anti-clockwise defined as positive) at each interface node. The conjugate generalised

interface forces denoted by Qi correspond to the outward normal Qn and shear Qs
forces (see Figure 3.3(a)). Figure 3.3(b) shows the interface forces in global coordinates
designated by Fi corresponding to the forces in x direction Fix and in y direction Fiy
with the conjugate displacements u i , u ix and u iy , respectively.
3.2.1 Formulation of Basic Triangular Element
In this section the constant strain triangle is briefly introduced first as it is used to form
the basic triangular element. The derivation of the characteristic or stiffness matrix,
which relates the nodal displacements to the nodal forces, of the basic triangular
element, is then presented.
Constant Strain Triangle
The constant strain triangle is one of the earliest and simplest finite elements. A
complete formulation of this element can be found in any finite element text book, e.g.
Cook et al. (1989) and Desai and Abel (1971). It can be used to solve problems of either
plane stress or plane strain. This study focuses on the plane stress problem.
Consider a typical constant strain triangle as shown in Figure 3.4. Displacement
at any point is denoted by u(x,y) and is written in terms of displacements in the x, y
coordinate directions, ux and uy, respectively, which can be further approximated and
related to the nodal displacements by means of shape functions as expressed in Equation
(3.1).
y
u6
3 u5
uy
u2
ux
1 u1 u4
u3
2
x
Figure 3.4. Constant strain triangle.
°u x ½°
u x, y ® ¾ N(x, y)ua (3.1)
°¯ u y °¿
where N(x,y) is shape function matrix defined by Equations (3.2) to (3.6) and ua is
nodal displacement vector defined by Equation (3.7).
ª N1 0 N2 0 N3 0 º
N(x, y) «0 (3.2)
¬ N1 0 N2 0 N3 »¼
in which
N1
1
2A e
^ x 2 y3 x3 y2 y2 y3 x x 3 x 2 y` (3.3)
N2
1
2A e
^ x 3 y1 x1y3 y3 y1 x x1 x 3 y` (3.4)
1
N3
2A e
^ x1y2 x 2 y1 y1 y2 x x 2 x1 y` (3.5)
1
Ae x 2 y3 x1y 2 x 3 y1 y1x 2 y 2 x 3 y3 x1 (3.6)
2
ua û1 u2 u3 u4 u5 u6`
T
(3.7)
where Ae is the area of the element. For 2-D problems, the relation between strains, H,
and displacements is given by the kinemetic equation for small displacements as
T
° wu x wu y § wu x wu y · °½
^ x `
T
y xy ® ¨ ¸¾ (3.8)
¯° wx wy © wy wx ¹ ¿°
By substituting Equation (3.1) into Equation (3.8), strains can be expressed in terms of
the nodal displacements as
Bua (3.9)
where
ª wN1 wN 2 wN3 º
« 0 0 0 »
« wx wx wx »
« wN1 wN 2 wN3 »
B « 0 0 0 » (3.10)
« wy wy wy »
« wN1 wN1 wN 2 wN 2 wN3 wN3 »
« »
¬ wy wx wy wx wy wx ¼
or
ª y 2 y 3 0 y3 y1 0 y1 y2 0 º
1 «
B 0 x3 x 2 0 x1 x 3 0 x 2 x1 »» (3.11)
2A e «
«¬ x 3 x1 y2 y3 x1 x 3 y3 y1 x 2 x1 y1 y2 »¼
It can be seen that strains are constant and independent of x and y within the
element, hence the name “constant strain triangle”. For plane stress problems, the stress-
strain relation for an elastic material is given by
^ x `
T
y xy De (3.12)
where
ª º
«1 Q 0 »
E « »
De «Q 1 0 » (3.13)
(1 Q 2 ) «
«0 0 1 Q »»
¬« 2 ¼»
where E is Young’s modulus and Q is Poisson’s ratio. From the principle of stationary
potential energy, general expressions for the element elastic stiffness matrix, Ke, can be
expressed as
³V B
T
Ke De BdV (3.14)
where V is the element domain. If the element thickness t is constant over the element,
Equation (3.14) becomes
Ke A e tB T D e B (3.15)
Substituting Equations (3.11) and (3.13) into Equation (3.15), the elastic
stiffness matrix of a constant strain triangle which relates the nodal forces to the nodal
displacements can be obtained.
Derivation of Stiffness Matrix of Basic Triangular Element
To form a basic triangular element nine constant strain triangles are assembled and the
freedoms at the vertices and the centre are condensed out, see Figure 3.5.
7 Constant strain triangles

9
6
1 2
3 4
a) Uncondensed triangle b) Condensed triangle
Figure 3.5. Forming of a basic triangular element.
Assembling of nine constant strain triangles produces an element with 20
degrees of freedom as shown in Figure 3.5(a), its elastic stiffness matrix in global
coordinate system, denoted by K cu , can be constructed by superimposing the elastic
stiffness matrices of the individual constant strain triangles which are calculated using
Equation (3.15). The conjugate displacement vector is denoted by ucu . In order to derive
the stiffness matrix of the condensed triangle as shown in Figure 3.5(b), let the equation
K cu ucu Fuc represent the basic relationship of the uncondensed triangle. Let ucu be
ûr uc ` , where ur are the degrees of freedom to be retained

T
partitioned so that ucu
and uc are the degrees of freedom to be eliminated by condensation. Thus K cu ucu Fuc
becomes
ª K rr K rc º u r ½ Fr ½
«K ® ¾ ® ¾ (3.16)
¬ cr K cc »¼ ¯u c ¿ ¯Fc ¿
The lower partition is solved for uc
uc K cc 1 K cr u r Fc (3.17)
By substituting uc into the upper partition of Equation (3.16) gives

K rr
K rc K cc 1K cr ur Fr K rc K cc 1Fc (3.18)
or
K uu u Fu (3.19)
Equation (3.19) represents the fundamental relationship of the basic triangular
element or the condensed triangle in global coordinate system, where K u is the elastic
element stiffness matrix, uu is the nodal displacement vector and Fu is the nodal force
vector. To obtain the element elastic stiffness matrix in generalised coordinates, see
Figure 3.6, the relationship between the forces at the interface nodes in global
coordinates Fu and the forces at the interface nodes in generalised coordinates Qu are
given by
AuQu Fu (3.20)
where A u is an equilibrium matrix. The matrix A u is a block diagonal matrix of the
form diag > A1 A1 A2 A2 A3 A 3 @ with the A i matrices representing the
transformation matrices relating the generalised coordinate system to the global
coordinate system. Equation (3.21) shows the expansion form of the matrix A u .
Q10 3 F10 3
Q7 F8
Q8 F9
Q9 F7
Q12 F10
L3 L3
F11 L2
L2 Q5
Q11 Q6 F6
1 L1 1 L1 F5
F2
Q1
2 F1 F4 2
Q2 Q3
F3
Q4
a) Generalised coordinate system b) Global coordinate system
Figure 3.6. Force components of the basic triangular element: a) in generalised
coordinate system and b) in global coordinate system.
ª ct1 st1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 º
« st ct1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 »
« 1 »
«0 0 ct1 st1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 »
« »
«0 0 st1 ct1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 »
«0 0 0 0 ct 2 st 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 »
« »
«0 0 0 0 st 2 ct 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 »
Au «0 (3.21)
0 0 0 0 0 ct 2 st 2 0 0 0 0 »
« »
«0 0 0 0 0 0 st 2 ct 2 0 0 0 0 »
«0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ct 3 st 3 0 0 »
« »
«0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 st 3 ct 3 0 0 »
« »
«0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ct 3 st 3 »
«¬ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 st 3 ct 3 »¼
where
ct1
x 2 x1 , ct 2
x3 x 2 , ct 3
x1 x 3
L1 L2 L3
(3.22)
st1
y 2 y1 , st 2
y3 y 2 , st 3
y1 y3
L1 L2 L3
Compatibility conditions between the displacement vector in global coordinates
uu and the displacement vector in generalised coordinates qu can be determined
through the theorem of virtual work ( FuTuu QuTqu ) and Equation (3.20), that is
A uTuu qu (3.23)
Since the equilibrium matrix in Equation (3.20) is invertible and using Equations
(3.19) and (3.23), the basic relationship of the basic triangular element in generalised
coordinates can be obtained as
Suqu Qu (3.24)
where Su is the element elastic stiffness matrix of the basic triangular element in the
generalised coordinate system and can be expressed as

1
Su A u1K u A uT (3.25)
3.3 Masonry Modelling
In this study, masonry is modelled using a micro-modelling approach. Both detailed and
simplified micro-modelling are considered. The detailed micro-modelling enables
analyses of the micro-behaviour of masonry and verifications of the validity of
characterising material properties determined from micro-experimental studies. The
simplified micro-modelling allows simulations of masonry structures of more practical
scale such as shear walls.

3.3.1 Detailed Micro-Modelling
In the detailed micro-modelling, the bricks, the mortar and the brick-mortar interfaces
are all modelled separately. The basic triangular elements presented in Figure 3.3 are
grouped into rectangular zones mimicking the bricks and the mortar. Figure 3.7 depicts
a detailed micro-modelling of masonry comprising two bricks and a mortar joint with a
coarse mesh. Properties are properly assigned to each component. With this approach,
the actual sizes of bricks and mortar can be considered.
Figure 3.7. Detailed micro-modelling of masonry.
3.3.2 Simplified Micro-Modelling
In the simplified micro-modelling, the mortar thickness and the brick-mortar interfaces
are lumped into a zero-thickness interface while the dimensions of the bricks are
expanded to keep the geometry of a masonry structure unchanged. A masonry structure
is thus modelled as a set of masonry units. Each masonry unit is further subdivided into
interior brick elements which have boundaries either representing the mortar interfaces
or internal brick interfaces. The masonry unit is subdivided using the basic triangular
elements demonstrated in Figure 3.3. Figure 3.8 shows a simple model for a single
masonry unit using four basic triangular elements while Figure 3.9 illustrates a
simplified micro-modelling of masonry using the masonry units. In each masonry unit,
different inelastic constitutive properties are assigned to the mortar interface around the
perimeter of the masonry unit and to the interior brick interfaces. Fracture is restricted
to the horizontal and/or vertical mortar interface and the vertical and/or diagonal brick
interior interfaces.
brick interface
tb + tm
mortar interface
Figure 3.8. Single masonry unit.
Figure 3.9. Simplified micro-modelling of masonry using the masonry units.
Due to the assumption of the zero thickness brick-mortar interfaces, the elastic
properties of the expanded bricks must be adjusted to yield the elastic modulus of the
represented masonry. The adjusted averaged elastic stiffness of the bricks can be
obtained by considering the elastic properties of the two masonry components (brick
and mortar) and the thickness of the mortar if available. With the assumption of stack
bond, i.e. a serial chain connection of the components, and uniform stress distributions
both in the brick and the mortar, the adjusted average elastic stiffness of expanded
bricks can be simply derived from

EbEm t b t m G bG m t b t m
E ba G ba (3.26)
t bEm t mEb t bG m t mG b
where Eba and Gba are the adjusted Young’s modulus and adjusted shear modulus of the
expanded bricks, respectively. E and G are the Young’s modulus and the shear modulus,
respectively, and t is the actual thickness. The subscripts b and m denote brick and
mortar, respectively.
In practice, however, it is difficult to determine the actual stiffness of the
masonry components (brick and mortar) because of the water absorption effect of the
brick units within the constructed composite masonry structure. An alternative is to
directly use the masonry stiffness for the adjusted stiffness of the expanded brick units.
3.3.3 Modelling Strategies
In this study, fracture is captured through a constitutive softening-fracture law at the
boundary nodes along the sides of the triangular finite element units. The material
within each triangular finite element unit remains linear elastic if the plasticity
constitutive relationship for the interface forces is softening (see Attard and Tin-Loi
(1999, 2005)). In order to take all basic failure modes into account, the modelling
strategy proposed by Lourenco (1996) is followed. Figure 3.10 shows the basic failure
mechanisms in masonry and the associated point on the failure surfaces proposed in this
study. With an attempt to concentrate most of the damage in the relatively weak joints,
the failure mechanism types (i), (ii), (iv) and (v) are considered to be interface/joint
failure mechanisms while the failure mechanism type (iii) is considered to occur in the
brick unit. A compression cap is included into the joint failure surface to limit the
compressive/shear stress in the interface and to enable the capturing of the diagonal
tensile cracking of brick units and masonry crushing as failure at the interface. To do so,
nevertheless, a compression cap needs to be included into the original failure surface
proposed by Attard and Tin-Loi (1999, 2005) which only has a tension cut-off to
capture tensile failure and a Mohr-Coulomb friction envelope to represent shear failure.
V Joint failure surface
(i) Joint Tensile Cracking
W W
V Joint failure surface V Unit failure surface
(ii) Joint Slip (iii) Unit Direct Tensile Crack
W W
V Joint failure surface V Joint failure surface
(iv) Unit Diagonal Tension Crack (v) Masonry Crushing
Figure 3.10. Modelling strategy to capture all basic failure modes in masonry.
Failure Surface Compression Cap
A compression cap in the shear compression region of a material’s failure surface was
first introduced by Drucker et al. (1957) for problems in soil mechanics. A spherical
compression cap was introduced in order to describe experimental evidence which
showed that yielding does occur for a state of hydrostatic stress. The compression cap
concept for micro-level failure envelopes for masonry was introduced by Lourenco
(1996). An elliptical compression cap which had some basis from experimental results
in rock joints subjected to high confining stresses which showed some deviation from
the usual linear Coulomb friction model to a parabolic Mohr failure envelope was
adopted. The micro-level failure envelopes were found to be similar to the macro-level
failure envelopes proposed by Mann and Müller (1982) which were derived from
experiments carried out on shear walls. The shape of the elliptical cap was controlled by
a parameter Css. The square root of Css is equal to the ratio of the masonry compressive
strength f
c to the ultimate shear strength Wu. Higher values of Css are associated with
lower values of the ultimate shear strength. Different values of Css were studied and the
results showed that a value of Css = 4 allowed the cap to approximately fit the ultimate
Mohr-circle. This, however, lead to incorrect values for the shear strength. A higher
value of Css = 9 was used which limited the shear strength to one-third of the masonry
compressive strength. Essentially, the value of Css controlled the intersection of the
compression cap with the Coulomb failure line. However, no clear criterion was
provided to define this intersection point as mentioned in Chaimoon and Attard (2006).
An attempt to identify the point of intersection between the compression cap and the
Coulomb failure line is addressed herein. First the stress state at masonry compressive
failure is examined.
As reviewed in Chapter 2, the compressive strength of masonry is neither due to
brick strength alone nor to the strength of the mortar alone but depends on the
composite nature of the brick and mortar. While the separate mechanical properties, e.g.
elastic modulus and Poisson’s ratio, of brick and mortar, as well as the dimensions of
the brick and mortar joint affect the compressive strength, of importance is also the
confining effect of the brick on the free expansion of the mortar joint under
compression. Uniaxial compression of masonry leads to an approximate state of triaxial
compression in the mortar joint and of compression/biaxial tension in the bricks. Figure
3.11 attempts to demonstrate the confining effect of the bond between the brick and
mortar joint in two dimensions. The bricks prevent the free expansion of the mortar
joint under compression and hence induce an approximate state of triaxial stress in the
mortar. This increases the apparent failure stress in the mortar.
V
Transverse
tension
Em, Pm Transverse
compression
Eb, Pb
Figure 3.11. Confining effect of bond between mortar and bricks due to differences
of mechanical properties (Mann and Betzler 1994).
In order to gain a better understanding of a state of stresses in brick units and
mortar under compression and to quantify the level of confining stress in mortar joints,
a three dimensional linear elastic analysis was performed on a masonry sample under
uniaxial compressive using the program STRAND 7. The experimental specimen tested
by Vermeltfoort and Van Der Pluijm (1991) was modelled. All the required material
properties were available. The specimen consisted of 5 bricks with 4 mortar joints in
stack bond. The bricks were solid clay bricks fabricated by JOOSTEN with dimensions
of 52u100u210 mm. The mortar proportion by volume was 1:2:9 of cement, lime and
sand, respectively. The brick and mortar compressive strengths were 66 and 3 MPa,
respectively. The total height of the specimen was approximately 312 mm. Figure 3.12
shows the geometry, loading and symmetrical boundary conditions used in the analysis.
Two symmetry planes were exploited, enabling only one fourth of the specimen to be
modelled. The problem was modelled with 20-noded hexahedral brick elements.
Applied load
13 mm
thick
mortar
156 mm
Brick
Symmetrical
plane and
boundary
conditions
110 mm
105 mm
Figure 3.12. Geometry, load and symmetrical boundary conditions provided by
STRAND 7 for masonry uniaxial compressive analysis.
The parameters used in the analysis for the bricks were: Young’s modulus 17500
MPa, Poisson’s ratio 0.15, while for the mortar a Young’s modulus of 2100 MPa and a
Poisson’s ratio of 0.22 were used. The applied load corresponded to the experimental
masonry compressive strength of 11.73 MPa as reported by Vermeltfoort et al. (1993).
The compressive strength reported is much less than the brick compressive strength but
also considerably higher than the mortar compressive strength. Table 3.1 shows the
principal stresses in the mortar joint and brick obtained from the analysis (tension is
taken as positive).
Table 3.1. Principal stresses obtained from the analysis using STRAND 7.
Material Principal stresses (MPa)
11 (max) 22 33 (min)
Brick 0.80 0.21 -11.73
Mortar -2.58 -2.88 -11.73
These results agree with Hilsdorf (1969) in that the mortar joint is found to be in
a state of approximate triaxial compression while the brick is subjected to compression
combined with biaxial tension (see Table 3.1). The mortar joint is subjected to a
confining stress of approximately 2.6 to 2.9 MPa and this explains why the masonry
compressive strength is much higher than its weakest component that of the mortar. The
mortar can bear much higher compression due to internal confining stresses. The state
of stresses in the mortar joint given in Table 3.1 were further investigated by examining
the Mohr-circle corresponding to the calculated principal stresses and superimposing
this on the Mohr-Coulomb failure surface as shown in Figure 3.13 (the tension and
shear failure properties were provided by Lourenco (1996)). The Mohr-circle
tangentially intersects the Mohr-Coulomb failure line at point 1 which represents
Coulomb type failure. Point 2 represents the compressive strength of the mortar joint
under confinement and is equivalent to the compressive strength of the masonry. A two
dimensional analysis of a masonry structure using zero-thickness interfaces will not
reproduce the three dimensional confining stresses. Hence, to represent mechanism
types (iv) and (v) as shown in Figure 3.10 at least points 1 and 2 should be included in
the failure surface of the modelled masonry interfaces. This implies that the intersection
of the compression cap with the Mohr-Coulomb line is point 1. Point 2 clearly
corresponds to the masonry compressive strength. Lourenco’s (1996) compression cap
with a Css = 9 also intersects the Mohr-Coulomb failure line at point 1, see Figure 3.13.
Mohr-Coulomb
failure surface I
Lourenco’s
elliptical line,
Css=9 Mohr-circle
Wu 1
The proposed
compression cap
c
J 2
V
ftc Vmax Vmin
tension compression
Figure 3.13. Failure surface showing the Mohr-circle, the failure surface of
Lourenco (1996) and the proposed linear compression cap in stress space.
It is proposed here to use a linear compression cap connecting points 1 and 2, as
shown in Figure 3.13. The angle J shown in Figure 3.13 can be derived from the
geometry of the failure surface and can be expressed as (in radians)
S I
J (3.27)
4 2
where I is the mortar friction angle. Hence, to define the proposed linear compression
cap only two material properties are required, the masonry compressive strength and the
friction angle of the mortar. The masonry compressive strength corresponds to point 2
while the friction angle is used to calculate the angle J defining point 1 on Figure 3.13.
3.4 Constitutive Models
To be able to model structural behaviour, three basic relations comprising equilibrium,
compatibility and constitutive relations are required. The most important component is
the constitutive model which is the mathematical description of material behaviour. In
this study, the formulation is developed in a plasticity framework. The piecewise-linear
constitutive laws with interacting yield planes developed by Maier (1970) are followed.
In a discrete system, the material behaviour is directly represented by the behaviour of
the basic triangular element which is described by the generalised interface
displacements qu and generalised interface forces Qu as elucidated in Section 3.2.
The interface displacements qu are taken to be the sum of elastic qeu and
plastic/ inelastic qpu components, hence
qu qeu qpu (3.28)
The elastic interface displacements qeu are further related to the interface forces Qu
through
Qu Suqeu (3.29)
where Su is the elastic stiffness matrix of the basic triangular element in generalised
coordinate system defined in Equation (3.25). Figure 3.14 shows diagrammatically the
relationships defined in Equations (3.28) and (3.29). It is assumed that there is no
damage (degrading of the instantaneous unloading stiffness) through the history of
loading and that the instantaneous unloading stiffness is equal to the initial secant
stiffness.
Qu
Su
Su 1
1
qu
qpu qeu
Figure 3.14. Unloading constitutive relationship.
The inelastic components qpu are given by
qpu NuO u (3.30)
for an associated flow rule and by
qpu Vu O u (3.31)
for a non-associated flow rule, where N u , Vu and O u are the interface normality
matrix, the dilatancy matrix and the interface multiplier vector (analogous to plastic
multipliers used in conventional plasticity) of the basic triangular element, respectively.
3.4.1 Piece-Wise Linear Inelastic Failure Surface
At the level of the interface nodes, the inelastic failure surface is a function of the
normal and shear interface forces as opposed to conventional continuum models which
are based on stresses. Figure 3.15 demonstrates a typical interface inelastic failure
surface that includes a tension cut-off for tension failure, the classical Mohr-Coulomb
type law for shear failure and the purposed compression cap for compression failure.
Qs Ni
I
Os1 Qcy
\
cLiti/2
Qsy Qi Oc1
I Qr
J
Qn Ot Qty
Residual failure surface
Oc2
Initial failure surface

\
Os2
Tension (+) Compression (-)
Figure 3.15. Piecewise-linear failure surface in generalised force space.
Each of the failure planes is associated with an interface multiplier. For the
nodal interface inelastic failure surface shown in Figure 3.15, O i collects the interface
multipliers into an interface vector given by
Ô t O c1 O c2 `
T
i O s1 O s2 (3.32)
where Ot is the multiplier associated with the tension cut-off; Os1 and Os2 are the
multipliers associated with the Mohr-Coulomb portions of interface inelastic failure
surface; Oc1 and Oc2 are the multipliers associated with the compression cap. In Figure
3.15, Q i represents the resultant force vector at an interface node at any stage of the
analysis, Qty is the tensile inelastic failure force, Qsy is the shear inelastic failure force,
Qcy is the compressive cap inelastic failure force and Qr is the residual compressive
inelastic force. The inelastic failure forces and residual forces are grouped into an initial
inelastic failure vector ri and a residual force vector R i , respectively, defined by
^Q Qcy `
T
ri ty Qsy Qsy Qcy (3.33)
^0 Qr `
T
Ri 0 0 Qr (3.34)
The interface failure surface is defined by the inelastic failure vector ri and the
orientations of the normals to each of the failure planes. The interface normality matrix
N i contains the orientations of the normal to each failure plane. The dilatancy matrix
Vi defines the flow rule for the interface irreversible deformation multipliers. Both
these matrices are defined, respectively, by
ª0 cos I cos I cos J cos J º

Ni «1 sin I sin I sin J sin J » (3.35)
¬ ¼
ª0 cos \ cos \ 0 0 º
Vi «1 sin \ sin \ 1 1» (3.36)
¬ ¼
The angle I is the friction angle, \ is the dilatancy angle and J is the angle defining the
compression cap slope calculated using Equation (3.27). Clearly, the flow rule is
“associated” when inelastic failure is initiated by tension and “non-associated” when
initiated by shear if the friction and dilatancy angles are different. The flow rule for the
compression cap is also non-associated and here we assume that initiation of failure on
the compression cap results in irreversible deformations in the normal direction towards
the interface (compression).

The tensile inelastic failure force Qty is estimated from the product of the
material tensile strength f tc obtained from a pure tension test, and half the interface
length Li (see Figure 3.3(a)) and the specimen thickness ti. That is,
f tcLiti
Q ty (3.37)
2
This is an average measure of the inelastic failure capacity since the tractions along the
interface will not normally be uniform. Similarly, Qsy, Qcy and Qr are defined by
c cos ILiti f cc sin JLiti f r sin JLiti

Qsy , Qcy , Qr (3.38)
2 2 2
where c is the cohesion, fc

is the masonry compressive strength and fr is the residual.
3.4.2 Softening Laws
At the interface nodes, the softening constitutive laws for the interface forces are shown
in Figure 3.16. A single-branch softening curve is adopted for tensile and shear failure
as shown in Figures 3.16(a) and 3.16(b), respectively. A single-branch softening curve
with a residual level is assumed for compression failure as shown in Figure 3.16(c). Otc,
Osc and Occ are the critical opening displacements for cracking, sliding and compression,
respectively.
Qn Qs Qn
Softening slope Softening slope Softening slope

Qty Qsy Qcy
= -Qty/Otc = -Qsy/Osc = -(Qcy-Qr)/Occ
Elastic Elastic
unloading unloading Qr
Elastic
unloading
Ot Os Oc
Otc Osc Occ
(a) For tensile mode (b) For shear mode (c) For compression mode
Figure 3.16. Interface softening law for each mode.
The multipliers O i can only have positive values along the descending branch.
Elastic unloading is allowed from the descending softening branch. Once the critical
displacement is reached, the corresponding multiplier can go either forwards or
backwards freely. The critical displacements are approximated here by
2G fI 2G fII 2G fc
O tc , O sc , O cc (3.39)
f tc c cos \ f cc f r
where G fI , G fII and G cf are the mode I, mode II and compressive fracture energy,
respectively. The derivation of O sc is depicted in Figure 3.17. When pure shear failure is
considered, see Figure 3.17(a), the mode II fracture energy is defined and assumed
numerically to be the area beneath the curve in Figure 3.17(b). With this assumption O sc
can be expressed as in Equation (3.39).

Os
\
c
c
GfII
scos\
sccos\
Tension (+) Compression (-)
(a) Pure shear failure in stress space (b) Description of G fII in the model
Figure 3.17. Definition of O sc
The evolution of the inelastic failure surface is represented through an interface
hardening (softening) matrix H i . If the multipliers have not exceeded their critical
values (given in Equation (3.38)) then the general form of the matrix H i is defined by
ª Q ty Q ty Q ty º
« E E 0 0 »
« O tc O sc O sc »
« Qsy Qsy »
« E 0 0 0 »
« O tc O sc »
« Q Qsy »
Hi « sy E 0 0 0 » (3.40)
« O tc O sc »
« »
« 0 Qcy
0 0 0 »
« O cc »
« »
« Qcy »
« 0 0 0 0
¬ O cc »¼
where E is an interaction parameter with a typical value of 0.95, see Attard and Tin-Loi
(2005) for a discussion. The off-diagonal terms in the matrix above represent interaction
between the tension and shear failure planes. If E is taken as unity the inelastic failure
surface contracts in an isotropic manner. Here, there is no interaction between the shear
and compression failure planes. The evolution of the interface inelastic failure surface
can be represented by the vector i given by
i ri H i i R i (3.41)
3.5 Structural Governing Equations
3.5.1 Basic Relations
The governing relations for a complete structure are formulated and assembled
following the procedures in Attard and Tin-Loi (2005) and Chaimoon and Attard (2006)
and are based on the classical approach developed by Maier (1970). All quantities are
all assembled for the complete structure. Consequently, the relationship between the
structure global force vector F and the structure generalised force vector Q is given by
F AQ (3.42)
where A is the assembled structure equilibrium matrix. Compatibility conditions
between the structure global displacement vector u and the structure generalised
displacement vector q can be expressed as
A Tu q (3.43)
And the relationship between the structure elastic displacement vector qe and the
structure generalised force vector Q is
Q Sqe (3.44)
in which S diag >S1 , S 2 ...S m @ is the assembled block-diagonal matrix of “m” (basic
triangular) element elastic stiffness matrices. For the sake of generality the non-
associated flow rule will be assumed in the following derivations. According to
Equations (3.28), (3.31) and (3.43), the structure elastic interface displacements qe can
be expressed as
qe A Tu VO (3.45)
Combining Equations (3.42) and (3.44), and using Equation (3.45), we have
F AQ ASqe ASA Tu ASVO Ku ASVO (3.46)
or
u K -1F K -1 ASVO K -1F unit DO ue up (3.47)
where ue and up are the elastic and plastic/inelastic components of u , respectively,
is a scalar load factor, F unit is the global structure load vector due to a unit load factor,
K is the both the secant and tangent structure stiffness matrix and D K -1 ASV for
non-associated flow rule.
To determine the elastic and plastic/inelastic components of Q , denoted by Qe
and Qp respectively, we use Equations (3.44), (3.45) and (3.47), hence
Q SA T K -1F unit (SA T K -1 AS S)VO Qunit

e ZVO Qe Qp (3.48)
where Qunit
e is the elastic component of Q due to a unit load factor. Applying the
equilibrium equation described in Equation (3.42) and employing Equation (3.48), we
find that
AQp AZVO Kup ASqp 0 (3.49)
since AZ 0 . The set of inelastic generalised interface forces Qp define a set of forces
in equilibrium with zero applied loads.
3.5.2 Nonholonomic Rate or Finite Incremental Formulation
The yield surface is approximated by a piecewise-linear inelastic failure surface. The
inelastic failure is activated if the interface generalised force vector Q reaches the
inelastic failure surface, see Figure 3.18. The projections of Q in all phases must,
therefore, satisfy the following condition.
0t M N TQ - r - H A t 0 (3.50)
which is in holonomic form and can be written in nonholonomic rate form as
0 t M - H A t 0
N TQ (3.51)
where M is a potential function vector, r is the vector of initial inelastic failure values
and H is the hardening/softening matrix. Also given in Equation (3.50) is the
complementarity condition between the inelastic multiplier vector and the potential
function vector MT 0 which indicates that the multiplier vector O and the function
vector M must be orthogonal. If the ith inelastic failure plane is active then i = 0 while
for the non-active planes the corresponding multipliers must be zero.

Q2
NO
VO
Q
r
NTQ
Q1
Figure 3.18. Definition of yielding and unloading for piecewise-linear failure
surface.
According to Equation (3.50) and using Equation (3.48), we can write the
yielding and unloading conditions for the complete structure as
0t M N TQeunit - r N T ZV - H A t 0
(3.52)
N TQeunit - r W A t 0
Equation (3.52) represents the holonomic relations in total quantities. In order to
capture critical events such as unloading and the start of a fully developed crack, a
nonholonomic problem must be formulated and solved. This is can be cast in terms of
“active” variables (active multipliers, etc.) in finite incremental form using Equation
(3.52). Active variables pertain to those points on either the descending branch or on the
horizontal branch (see Figure 3.16) while points on the unloaded branch are termed
“inactive”. The active set also needs to distinguish between these two types of active
variables, since for a softening branch 'O

O is nonnegative whereas it is free (i.e. can take
negative or positive values as required by a crack opening or closing) on the horizontal
branch.
In the following, the subscripts a and b, are used to refer to the active set of
plastic multipliers on the descending branch and the active set on the horizontal branch,
respectively. The genetic finite step complementarity problem to be solved requires
evaluation of quantities pertaining to both sets. Let the increment of the plastic
^'O a 'O b ` . Thus the finite incremental form

T
multipliers be partitioned so that 'O
of Equation (3.52) becomes
'Ma ½
N TQunit
° e ½° ª W * *
Wab º 'O a ½
0t ® ¾ ' ® T unit ¾ « ¾ A ' t 0
a aa
* »®
(3.53)
¯ 'Mb ¿ °¯ N Qe °¿ ¬ W
b
*
ba Wbb ¼ ¯'O b ¿
where the subscripting indicates an appropriate subset of the relevant quantity, '
denotes a finite increment and the superscript * designates the current value. The lower
partition of Equation (3.53) must be zero as the failure planes corresponding to the
active set b are always active, thus 'O b can be solved in terms of 'D and 'O a .
'O b *

Wbb
1
N Q
T unit
e b
Wba
*
'O a (3.54)
Substituting Equation (3.54) into the upper partition of Equation (3.53), gives
'Ma

® N TQunit
¯
e a
Wab
*

*
Wbb N Q
1
T unit
e b

1

Waa* Wab
* *
Wbb
1
*
Wba ½
'O a ¾
¿
'Ma
T
'Ma d 0 'O a t 0 'O a 0
(3.55)
when { 'O b } is the null set, Equation (3.55) becomes

½
'Ma
® N TQeunit
¯
a

1

Waa* 'O a ¾
¿ (3.56)
'Ma
T
'Ma d 0 'O a t 0 'O a 0
Both governing equations, Equations (3.55) and (3.56), are in the standard LCP form
which is commonly expressed as
z p Mx t 0 xt0 zTx 0 (3.57)
3.5.3 Quasi-Prescribed Displacement Control
To be able to simulate the complete responses of a structure, Equation (3.52) will be
recast in quasi-prescribed displacement control which maintains proportional loading.
The displacement vector defined in Equation (3.47) is rewritten as
u Duunit
e DO (3.58)
where uunit
e is the elastic displacement vector for a unit load factor. Further, vector u
can be split into a scalar term ur representing the displacement at a control point and a
vector us such that
u r ½ ° u erunit Dr O ½°
u ® ¾ ® unit ¾ (3.59)
¯us ¿ °¯ues Ds O ¿°
where u erunit is the r-th term of uunit

e and Dr is the r-th row of D . The upper partition is
solved for the load factor.
ur 1
unit
unit Dr O Dcr O (3.60)
u er u er
where is a control displacement factor. Substituting Equation (3.60) into Equation
(3.52) provides the finite incremental form for the potential function vector M under
quasi-prescribed displacement control, or
½
0 t 'M ®N TQeunit
1
W* N TQeunit Dcr 'O ¾ A ' t 0 (3.61)
¯ ¿
The necessary modification can also be applied to Equations (3.55) and (3.56).
3.6 Solution Strategies and Algorithm
From Equation (3.61), the LCP is given by
z p Mx t 0 xt0 zTx 0
z 'M x 'O (3.62)
p N TQunit
e M N Q
T unit
e Dcr W*
The problem is solved in incremental steps as a series of LCPs. For a LCP as
expressed in Equation (3.62), unique solutions are guaranteed if the M matrix is positive
definite and standard algorithms such that of Lemke (1965) can be used. The procedures
proposed by Attard and Tin-Loi (2005) are followed herein. When the M matrix is not
symmetric, the symmetric part of the M matrix is checked for positive definiteness.
When the M matrix is not positive definite, a multiplicity of solutions is possible. For
problems which involve a large number of variables either the strategy outlined in Tin-
Loi and Tseng (2003) or a single event by event strategy can be employed. When
multiple solutions are detected, the equilibrium solution which provides the minimum
increment in external work is taken as the critical solution. This approach becomes
important when bifurcations in the equilibrium path exist. If the solution algorithm is
restricted to only a single event at each step (simultaneous points reaching failure
excluded), the number of possible multiple solutions to the equilibrium path is reduced.
This is a single event by event strategy. Real structures with imperfections could be
argued exclude simultaneous inelastic failure produced by symmetry. When several
locations within a structure simultaneously reach inelastic failure, the minimum work
would be done if only one location softens and the rest elastically unload (excluding the
solution where all elastically unload). For large problems, the single event by event
strategy is adopted here. At each event, a set of active inelastic multipliers is maintained
and updated, with unloading failure points removed from the active set.
The steps in the solution algorithm are
i) The initial inelastic failure set of multipliers is determined from
§ r j ·
K0 min ¨ T unit ! 0¸ (3.63)
¨ N Q j ¸
© e ¹
where K0 is the initial displacement factor and j is a member in the potential
set. Equation (3.63) is used to identify a set of initial active multipliers “x”
and an inactive set “y”. The initial values for the potential function are then
M0 K0 N TQunit
e -r (3.64)
and the initial values for the evolution of the inelastic failure surface vector
are set equal to 0 r R . The first event is taken as the initial inelastic
failure.
ii) To reduce the storage space, the elements associated with the active set are
only required in the formation of the W* and Dcr matrices. These matrices
are assembled at each increment. The p x and M xx matrices are determined
for the active set “x”. The symmetric part of the M xx matrix is then checked
to see if it is positive definite. For the active set, Equation (3.61) becomes
0 d -'M p x M xx 'O A ' t 0 (3.65)
As p N TQeunit , the increment in the control displacement factor is
initially set to unity. If the M xx matrix is positive definite, Lemke (1965)’s
routine is used to solve the LCP for a unique solution. If no solutions exist,
then the possibility of snapback is checked. This is done by solving the LCP
with = -1 .
When the M xx matrix is not positive definite, an enumerative procedure
can be employed to check for bifurcation of the equilibrium path and
capture possible multiple solutions. This is done for both = +1 and -1.
When multiple solutions exist, a bifurcation has been encountered and the
solution which provides the minimum increment in external work is taken as
the critical solution. This is seen as very important when investigating
softening and especially so for interacting and/or branching cracks. To
determine the increment in the external work, the load factor increment is
first calculated from
' ' Dcr 'O (3.66)
The displacement increments conjugate to the load freedoms are then
computed as well as the external increment in work. Total unloading of all
multipliers (total elastic unloading) is excluded from the solution set. When
all the solutions provide positive increments in the external work, the
solution corresponding to the minimum increment is chosen. When
solutions provide negative increments in external work, the critical solution
corresponds to the maximum increment.
iii) The load path is traced by determining events corresponding to either the
activation of the inelastic failure surface or an interface inelastic failure
surface contracting to zero/residual value (corresponding to unrestrained
movement). Each event is linear in 'O . The control displacement increment
for the next inelastic failure event is hence calculated from
§ M j ·
'Knext yield min ¨
¨ 'M j ¸¸
(3.67)
© ¹
where j is a member in the inactive set. The control displacement increment
required for the next inelastic failure surface to contract to zero/residual
value is determined from
§ [ j ·
min ¨ *
¨ H j,: 'O ¸¸
critical (3.68)
© ¹
where j is a member in the active set on the descending branch and : are all
member of 'O . The critical displacement increment is determined from the
minimum of Equations (3.67) and (3.68). If this increment is associated with
a fully contracted inelastic failure surface, the elements of the row and
column of the hardening/softening matrix H associated with the contracted
inelastic failure surface are set to zero. At each event, a set of active
multipliers is maintained and updated, with points unloading removed from

the active set. Unloading is detected when the increment to a multiplier is
zero.
3.7 Validation
The proposed formulation is validated and verified by comparing the results with
available experimental and numerical results. Some examples, including direct tension,
micro-shear test and three-point bending of masonry panels, have been studied in Attard
et al. (2007) where only tensile and shear failure were considered. Shear walls under
shear and compression loading where all modes of failure can govern the structural
response are investigated herein to verify and validate the purposed compression cap
model. A computer program in MATLAB was written to perform the fracture
simulations. Flow chart of the MATLAB program and main MATLAB codes are
provided in Appendix B. To show the capability and limitation of the proposed model,
experimental results on simple masonry panels under uniaxial compression are studied
first.
3.7.1 Simulation of Masonry under Uniaxial Compression
The experimental work by Vermeltfoort and Van Der Pluijm (1991) on simple masonry
walls under uniaxial compression, discussed in Section 3.3.3 in regard to the need of a
failure surface compression cap, is simulated using the proposed model. The geometry
and boundary conditions used for the simulation are shown in Figure 3.19 for the five
brick case. Walls with two bricks and 10 bricks are also considered.
The basic 312 mm

triangular
element
210 mm
Figure 3.19. Geometry modelling and boundary conditions used for the analysis of
masonry compression test carried out by Vermeltfoort and Van Der Pluijm (1991).
The simplified micro-modelling approach described in Section 3.3.2 is adopted
for this purpose. Each masonry unit is subdivided into 16 basic triangular elements. No
brick failure is allowed in the simulation so as to study the activation of the compression
cap in the mortar interface. Adjusted elastic material properties are required for this
modelling approach as discussed in Section 3.3.2. The adjusted Young’s modulus for
the masonry is taken as 8000 MPa while the Poisson’s ratio is set at 0.15, as reported by
Vermeltfoort et al. (1993). Table 3.2 lists the parameters used for the mortar interface.
Table 3.2. Inelastic properties for the mortar interface used for the analysis of
masonry compression test carried out by Vermeltfoort and Van Der Pluijm (1991).
Tension Shear Compression
f tc G fI c tanI tan\ G fII f cc G cf fr
(MPa) (Nmm/mm2) (MPa) (Nmm/mm2) (MPa) (Nmm/mm2) (MPa)
0.25 0.024 0.35 0.75 0.0 0.167 11.73 14.91 11.73/3
The predicted masonry compressive strength is found to be equal to the
experimental result of 11.73 MPa, as expected and as shown in Figure 3.20
(compression is taken as positive). The masonry compressive strength is captured
through the activation of the compression cap in the horizontal mortar interfaces. The
effect of specimen height represented by varying the number of bricks is also
investigated to demonstrate that the post-peak stress-displacement response is not
affected by the height of the specimen. The resulting stress-strain diagrams are plotted
in Figure 3.20(a) where the stress-strain curves are the same in the pre-peak regime but
beyond peak, the slope of the descending stress-strain branch is affected by the height of
the wall. The stresses versus post-peak displacements are plotted in Figure 3.20(b) and
show that the post-peak curves are almost the same. The model is therefore able to
capture the post-peak behaviour reasonably well but does not display non-linear pre-
peak behaviour. This is due to the adoption of the single-branch softening curve without
hardening behaviour (before peak). However, the aim of this study is to predict the
behaviour of shear wall problems and the simple assumption is still adopted.
16 16
2 bricks 2 bricks
12 5 bricks 12 5 bricks
10 bricks 10 bricks
Stress (MPa)
Stress (MPa)
8 8
4 4
0 0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Strain Post peak displacement (mm)
(a) Stress-strain diagram (b) Stress-post peak displacement diagram
Figure 3.20. Results showing effect of specimen height obtained from the analysis
of masonry compression test; (a) Stress-strain diagram; (b) Stress-post peak
displacement diagram.
3.7.2 Simulation of Masonry Shear Walls
Shear wall tests carried out by Vermeltfoort et al. (1993) are simulated here to study the
performance of the proposed model for the case of shear compression. Vermeltfoort’s
specimens had a width/height ratio of 0.99 (990×1000 mm). The walls were built with
18 courses (16 courses were active and 2 courses were clamped in steel beams). The
bricks were Joosten solid clay bricks (dimensions 204×98×50 mm) and a 10 mm thick
mortar joint was used. The distance measured between the mortar joints above the
bottom layer of bricks and below the top layer of bricks was approximately 1000 mm.
The mortar was low strength and had a composition of 1 part cement to 2 parts lime to 9
parts sand, by volume. Three different vertical pre-compression distributed loads of
0.30, 1.21 and 2.12 MPa were first applied to the top of walls. These pre-compression
loads are equivalent to a total vertical pre-compression load of 30, 120 and 210 kN,
respectively. Monotonically increasing horizontal loading was then applied at the top of
the wall through a horizontal upper beam. Three vertical jacks were used to keep the
upper beam in a horizontal position (see Figure 3.21).
jacks 3 and 4 jack 2
jack 1
jack
front view
1 4
2
3
top view
Figure 3.21. Shear wall test-setup (Vermeltfoort et al. 1993).
The reported behaviour of the walls under the three pre-compression loadings
was similar, see Figure 3.22. For the lowest pre-compression load of 30 kN (two tests
were successfully carried out identified as walls J4D and J5D), the deformation
behaviour of the tested walls was characterized by an initial horizontal tension crack
that grew along the bottom and top of the wall. For all the tested walls, a diagonal
stepped shear crack developed which under increasing deformation led to collapse of
the wall. There were also some vertical cracks in the brick units and crushing at the
compressed toe of the wall.

(a)
J5D J4D Compressive failure

Experimental (30 kN) Numerical (30 kN)
(b)
Compressive
failure
(c)
Compressive
failure
Figure 3.22. Comparison of the experimental and numerical crack patterns for
each case of the shear wall problem.

For the numerical analyses, as described in Chaimoon and Attard (2006),
Chaimoon and Attard (2004) and Attard et al. (2004), in order to simulate the
experimental results the loading conditions and confinement control through the upper
loading beam were identified as very important and proved to be the most difficult
aspect of the simulation to model, as the upper beam was not actually maintained in a
horizontal position throughout the test as noted by Van Zijl et al. (2001c). Furthermore,
the bending of the top beam was not measured hence the actual stiffness of upper beam
could not be estimated. As a result, different finite element models for the loading
conditions have been adopted by different researchers. Lourenco (1996) and Chaimoon
and Attard (2006) modelled the top boundary with rollers based on the assumption that
the bottom and top boundaries are always horizontal and precluding any vertical
movement, while Giambanco et al. (2001) introduced a spring between the rollers and
the top brick course. Attard et al. (2004) and Chaimoon and Attard (2004) applied a
layer of soft material placed between the rollers and the horizontal loading beam.
In the present study, similar loading and boundary conditions are adopted to
those used by Lourenco (1996). Since the stiffness of the upper loading beam was not
known and the loading configuration did not restrain vertical deformation a zero
dilatancy angle was adopted. Figure 3.23 presents the finite element mesh, the model
geometry, the boundary conditions and loading. The simplified micro-modelling
approach described in Section 3.3.2 is also adopted. Each masonry unit is subdivided
into 16 basic triangular segments. As all failure modes described in Section 2.4 would
be presented, the interface failure surface is modelled using a Mohr-Coulomb failure
surface with a tension cut-off and a compression cap. In addition, to be able to represent
cracking of the brick units, the failure surface for the brick units is represented by Mohr-
Coulomb failure surface with a tension cut-off. It is noted that only vertical brick
cracking is considered here. Cracking is not permitted in the brick diagonal interfaces.
Pre-compression load
70 mm
Loading
steel beam
1000 mm (a)
70 mm
Steel beam
990 mm
Horizontal
load
(b)
Figure 3.23. Geometry modelling, boundary conditions, mesh and loads for shear
wall problems: (a) phase 1 – pre-loading; (b) phase 2 – horizontal loading.

First of all, the masonry Young’s modulus is estimated. As mentioned
previously this can be either estimated using Equation (3.26) or by adopting measured
masonry properties. The individual properties of brick and mortar joint provided by
Lourenco (1996) are employed. Table 3.3 gives the estimated Young’s modulus with
Eba1 based on Equation (3.26) and Eba2 estimated using the force-displacement
experimental results which included shear effects. The values estimated using the
experimental results are utilised here.
Table 3.3. The adjusted model properties used for the shear wall problems.
Pre-load (kN) Eba1 (MPa) Eba2 (MPa) Q (Poisson’s ratio)
30 3800 3150 0.14
120 4700 3900 0.11
210 3800 3150 0.14
Some of the inelastic properties used by Lourenco (1996) for the joint interface
and brick can be found in Tables 3.4 and 3.5, where f tc refers to the tensile strength, c
is the cohesive strength, f cc is the compressive strength, I is the friction angle, \ is the
dilatancy angle, G fI is the mode I fracture energy, G fII is the mode II fracture energy
and G cf is the compressive fracture energy.
As mentioned earlier, because of the modelling of the upper boundary a zero
dilatancy for the mortar interface is adopted. Several parameters in Tables 3.4 and 3.5
particularly the inelastic properties for the brick including the cohesion, friction angle
and mode II fracture energy, needed for this study had to be estimated. A sensitivity
analysis on these parameters was performed for the case of the 30 kN pre-load, with the
results presented in Figure 3.24. The base parameter set for the brick cohesion, friction
angle and mode II fracture energy are given in Table 3.5. It is noted that the dilatancy
angle of the expanded brick units was assumed to be zero.
As only the brick properties are varied in Figure 3.24, failure in the brick units
starts after the peak load since the pre-peak responses are identical. For the range of
brick inelastic parameters studied, the simulation behaviour is more brittle than the
experimental observations. The inelastic properties defining the Mohr-Coulomb failure
for the brick have a significant influence on the descending branch of the load
deformation response. Increasing the cohesion and mode II fracture energy increases the
ductility while increasing the friction angle has the opposite effect. The simulation
matches the pre-peak experimental response well but not the descending branch, only
matching the general trend. This may be related to the difficulty in modelling the
experimental boundary conditions and the need to estimate some of the required
material parameters.
Table 3.4. Inelastic properties for the mortar interface adopted for shear wall
problems.
Pre- Tension Shear Compression
load f tc G fI c tanI tan\ G fII f cc G cf fr
(kN) (MPa) (Nmm/mm2) (MPa) (Nmm/mm2) (MPa) (Nmm/mm2) (MPa)
30 0.25 0.018 1.4 f tc 0.75 0.0 0.125 10.50 5.0 f cc /7
120 0.16 0.012 0.050 11.50 5.5
210 0.16 0.012 0.050 11.50 5.5

Table 3.5. Inelastic properties for the brick interface adopted for shear wall
problems.
Tension Shear
f tc G fI c tanI tan\ G fII
(MPa) (Nmm/mm2) (MPa) (Nmm/mm2)
2.0 0.08 1.4 f tc 1.0 0.0 0.50
60
c = 3.2
50
c = 2.0 J5D
c = 2.8
Horizontal Load (kN)
40 c = 2.4
J4D
30
20
Experimental
10
Numerical
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
Horizontal Displacement (mm)
(a) Effects of brick cohesion

60
I = 30q
50
I = 60q I = 40q J5D

I = 45q
40 I = 50q
J4D
30
20
Experimental
10
Numerical
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
(b) Effects of brick friction angle
60
50
GfII = 1.0 J5D

GfII = 0.1
40
GfII = 0.5 J4D
30
20
Experimental
10
Numerical
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
(c) Effects of brick mode II fracture energy
Figure 3.24. Sensitivity analysis results of shear wall with 30 kN pre-load.

Using the parameters listed in Tables 3.4 and 3.5, Figure 3.25 shows the
comparison of results of the simulation with the experimental results and with the
simulations of Lourenco (1996). As expected, higher pre-compression loads lead to
increasing strength of the walls. The comparisons for all cases are in reasonable
agreement with the experimental results, particularly the case for the 120 kN pre-
compression. In the case of the 210 kN pre-compression, Figure 3.25(c), the pre-peak
and post-peak trends are reproduced well, but the peak load is approximately 15%
greater than the experimental value. This was also the case with Lourenco’s prediction.
Again, the level of uncertainty in the material inelastic properties may be the cause of
this discrepancy.
60
50
J5D
40
J4D
30
20
Experimental
10 Lourenco (1996)
This study
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
(a) For case of 30 kN pre-compression load

100
80
60
40
Experimental
20
Lourenco (1996)
This study
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
(b) For case of 120 kN pre-compression load
120
100
80
60
40
Experimental
20 Lourenco (1996)
This study
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
(c) For case of 210 kN pre-compression load
Figure 3.25. Comparison of load-displacement responses for the shear wall
problems.
The crack patterns and scaled deformed meshes obtained from the simulations
for each of the pre-compression load cases are illustrated in Figures 3.22 and 3.26,
respectively. For all cases, the main failure characteristics are captured well including
the stepped diagonal shear crack and compressive failure at the compressed toes.
Horizontal tension cracks are only clearly observed for the case of the 30 kN pre-
compression load and are less visible in the other pre-compression cases.
In the experiments the vertical reaction was also measured for the case of 30 kN
pre-compression. A comparison between the experimentally measured vertical reaction
and the results of the simulation is given in Figure 3.27. Figure 3.27(a) illustrates the
evolution of the vertical reaction under increasing horizontal displacement indicating
dilatant behavior. The experimental results show that the vertical reaction is almost
constant at the initial state indicating no dilatancy. The reaction then gradually increases
with increasing horizontal displacement with dilatant effects coming into play, until the
maximum value of the reaction is reached. This behavior can be reasonably captured by
the proposed model. It is noted that the reaction drop occurs due to progressive
compression failure at the toe. The predicted reaction is less than the experimental
observations and those predicted by Lourenco (1996). Again this is attributed to the
assumed values of the unknown parameters used.

(a) Pre-compression = 30 kN (scale = 30)
(b) Pre-compression = 120 kN (scale = 30)
(c) Pre-compression = 210 kN (scale = 30)
Figure 3.26. Scaled deformed meshes obtained from the analysis of shear walls.
The redistribution of vertical stresses in the bottom support represented by the
eccentricity of the vertical reaction with respect to the middle line of the wall is also
compared and illustrated in Figure 3.27(b). The experiment results show that the
reaction moves initially away from the middle line of the wall under increasing
horizontal displacement until it reaches a certain point and then moves back in the
direction of the middle line of the wall. The result predicted by this study shows the
same trend to the experimental results and closely matches the simulation of Lourenco
(1996) as the same loading and boundary conditions are employed.
C
L
x F
w
120
100
Vertical reaction F (kN)
80
60
40
Experimental
20 Lourenco (1996)
This study
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Horizontal displacement (mm)
(a) Vertical reaction versus horizontal displacement

0.8
Eccentricity x/w
0.6
0.4
Experimental
0.2
Lourenco (1996)
This study
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Horizontal displacement (mm)
(b) Eccentricity versus horizontal displacement
Figure 3.27. Comparison of the experimental and numerical vertical reaction and
its eccentricity of shear wall with 30 kN pre-compression load.
3.8 Summary
The choice of modelling approaches, macro and micro modelling, depends on the level
of accuracy and the simplicity desired. A macro-model is more precious when a
compromise between accuracy and efficiency is needed whereas a micro-model gives a
better understanding about the local behaviour as mortar and units are modelled
separately and can lead to the best insight into the behaviour of masonry structures.
A micro-model proposed for the simulation of fracture in unreinforced masonry
has been developed. Masonry is discretised by means of triangular elements constructed
from nine constant strain triangles with two nodes on each side but not at the vertices.
The triangular elements are grouped into rectangular zones mimicking the brick units
and mortar joints. The mortar joint, which is a plane of weakness, can be modelled as an
interface of zero thickness or of a given thickness. The model is ideally suited to the
modelling of fracture in masonry because fracture usually runs along a horizontal or
vertical joint in the mortar or is approximately vertical in the bricks. Fracture is captured
through a constitutive softening-fracture law at the interface boundary nodes. The
inelastic failure surface is modelled using a Mohr-Coulomb failure surface with a
tension cut-off and a linear compression cap. The proposed linear compression cap was
discussed in detail. A procedure to define the intersection between the compression cap
and the Coulomb failure line was proposed. The model is implemented in a robust
algorithm. The path-dependent softening behaviour is solved using a LCP formulation,
in nonholonomic rate form.
Validation of the model was successful. Comparison of the formulation with the
experimental results on masonry shear walls under pre-compression and shear showed
good agreement. The formulation was able to capture the pre-peak and post-peak
responses and the cracking characteristics reasonably well without significant numerical
difficulties.
CHAPTER 4 EXPERIMENTAL STUDY – THREE-POINT BENDING TESTS ON MASONRY PANELS 95
CHAPTER 4
EXPERIMENTAL STUDY – THREE-POINT
BENDING TESTS ON MASONRY PANELS
4.1 Introduction
As mentioned in Chapter 2, the behaviour of masonry structures depends strongly on the
properties of the mortar joint. The failure of masonry panels under three-point bending
(TPB) with relatively low bond strength may be governed by both mode I and mode II
fracture rather than just mode I failure as for example in a concrete beam or in a
masonry panel with relatively high bond strength, see e.g. Guinea et al. (2000). In order
to investigate the failure behaviour of low mortar strength masonry panels, an
experimental research program was carried out. Full-scale masonry panels with two
different strengths of mortar were tested under TPB. The fracture behaviour of the
constituents (the bricks and the mortar) was also investigated. It is worth noting that the
mortar test results were not intended to represent properties of the mortar inside the
masonry as the mortar specimens were separately cast in moulds and the water
absorption effect of the unit was ignored. All test results are reported herein. A
comparison between the experimental and numerical results is also presented.
The experimental program is detailed in Section 4.2. The specimen preparation
and the test set-ups are described in Sections 4.3 and 4.4, respectively. The experimental
results are presented in Section 4.5 along with some discussion. Before a summary is
made, a numerical simulation of the TPB tests using the model described in Chapter 3 is
demonstrated in Section 4.6.

4.2 Experimental Program
Three different tests including TPB, shear and compression tests were performed on
masonry, brick and mortar specimens. The experimental program is summarised in
Table 4.1. All specimens were tested in a servo-hydraulically controlled INSTRON
testing machine. The mortar type is denoted by W – weak or S – strong.
The TPB tests on brick and mortar specimens were performed to determine and
investigate mode I fracture energy G fI . The RILEM TC-50 FMC Recommendation
(1985) was followed and applied for this purpose. In order to determine and investigate
shear fracture behaviour, the shear test arrangement proposed by Van Der Pluijm (1993)
which can provide an approximately uniform state of stress in the shear plane (see
Chapter 2) was employed with some modifications. The compression tests were carried
out to determine the compressive strength f cc of each material. Elastic modulus E of
each material and Poisson’s ratio Q of brick and mortar were also considered. More
details on each test will be given in the following sections.

Table 4.1. Experimental program.
Geometry of specimen (mm) Test Mortar No. of

type test
P
W 3
Masonry TPB
334
test
1200 110 S 3
1430
M
W 3u3
P
112 Masonry shear
P
test
M S 3u3
110
230
P
W 3
420 Masonry
compression test
S 3
P
110
230
76
10 Brick TPB test - 3
200 110
230
M
P
50
P Brick shear test - 3u3
M
230 110
Geometry of specimen (mm) Test Mortar No.

type of
test
P
230 - 3
P
50
110 Brick
compression
test
P
50 - 3
P 110
230
P
W 3
100
50 Mortar TPB
test
400 100
S 3
500
M
W 3u3
P
100 Mortar shear
P test
M
100 S 3u3
200
W 3
Mortar
200 compression
test
S 3
P
I100
4.3 Specimen Preparation
4.3.1 Materials
Bricks
Bricks used in this work are solid clay bricks (Austral Bowral Brown dry pressed brick).
The dimensions of each unit are about 230u110u76 mm. There is a frog at the top bed
of each unit as shown in Figure 4.1(a). The depth of the frog is about 16 mm.
32 20
frog 16
mortar
76
230
(a) The brick used (b) Typical x-section of the two-brick masonry specimen
Figure 4.1. The brick and the two-brick masonry specimen. Dimensions are in mm.
Mortar
Two proportions of mortar as shown in Table 4.2 were mixed so that two types of
mortar, types W and S, in terms of compressive strength were obtained. Note that with
these proportions it was found that the mortar type W had better workability.
Table 4.2. Mix proportions by weight of the mortar.
Mortar type Cement : lime : sand : water
W 1 : 0.00 : 6.05 : 1.58
S 1 : 0.12 : 3.50 : 1.10
4.3.2 Preparation
All specimens as shown in Table 4.1 were prepared and cured in the laboratory. All
masonry specimens were laid by a trade-man mason. The original size bricks were used.
The mortar thickness excluding frog was about 10 mm.
Masonry Specimens
The masonry panels used for the TPB tests were built up with four courses. The length
of panels was equivalent to six bricks with five head joints. Figure 4.2 shows the
dimensions of all masonry TPB specimens. The age of the specimens at the time of
testing varied between 250 and 258 days. Prior to testing, the frog in the brick at the
position of loading point was filled with plaster to reduce any lack of plane surfaces on
the loaded faces and a central notch 3 mm wide was sawn up to a specific depth as
indicated in Figure 4.2.
Each specimen for the masonry shear tests was made of two bricks and a mortar
joint, see Figure 4.1(b). One side of the joint is in frog. The age of specimens at the time
of testing varied between 40 and 61 days. Prior to testing, both sides of each two-brick
specimen were cut symmetrically in order to eliminate the frog in the exposed face.
Specimens for the masonry compression tests consisted of five bricks with four
joints as presented in Table 4.1.
Plaster filled in frog prior to testing
a
3 mm
B
L
Panel D (mm) L (mm) B (mm) a (mm)
WMWTP1 334 1428 110 0
WMWTP2 334 1427 110 0
WMWTP3 335 1431 110 0
SMWTP1 335 1429 110 10
SMWTP3 334 1427 110 10
SMWTP4 336 1430 110 10
Figure 4.2. Geometry and dimensions of the masonry panels.
Brick Specimens
Figure 4.3(a) presents a typical specimen for the brick TPB tests. The frog was filled
with plaster to reduce the effects of roughness and lack of plane surfaces on the loaded
faces. Before testing, a central notch 3 mm in width and 10 mm in depth was cut.
In the brick shear tests, specimens of 230u110u50 mm were cut from the
original size bricks to eliminate the effects of the frog, see Figure 4.3(b). Notches were
cut around each specimen before testing. The shear area of each specimen is given in
Table 4.7. The notch was 3 mm wide.

notches cut around
frog filled
with plaster
230
76
10
110
230 110
50
(a) (b)
Figure 4.3. The brick specimens: (a) for the TPB test; (b) for the shear test.
Dimensions are in mm.
To determine brick compressive strength the original size bricks were also cut to
eliminate the effects of the frog. The final dimensions of each specimen were
230u110u50 mm. Tests were performed in both directions, vertical and parallel to bed
face, see Table 4.1.
Mortar Specimens
Both types of mortar (types W and S) were separately cast in moulds at the time of
construction of the masonry specimens. Prismatic specimens 500u100u100 mm, see
Figure 4.4(a), were cast for the mortar TPB tests. The age of the mortar specimens at the
time of testing was about 228 days. The TPB notch was cut before testing with a notch
to depth ratio of 1/4.
For the mortar shear tests, prismatic specimens 200u100u100 mm were cast.
The age of the shear specimens at the time of testing varied between 172 and 194 days.
The notches were cut around the specimens before testing as shown in Figure 4.4(b).
The shear area of each specimen is given in Table 4.9.
Cylinder specimens with dimensions 100 mm in diameter and 200 mm in height
were used for determining the compressive strength of the mortar.
notches cut around
200
100 25
100
500 100
100
(a) (b)
Figure 4.4. The mortar specimens: (a) for the TPB test; (b) for the shear test.
Dimensions are in mm.
4.4 Test Set-Ups and Test Procedures
4.4.1 Three-Point Bending Tests
All TPB tests were carried out under crack mouth opening displacement (CMOD)
control. During the test, load-point displacement and CMOD were continuously
recorded.
Figure 4.5 shows the test set-up of the TPB test on the masonry panel and Figure
4.6 shows the device arrangement. In order to obtain a complete response, a CMOD rate
of 0.09 mm/min (9000 PH/min) was applied for panels with mortar type W and 0.12
mm/min (12000 PH/min) for panels with mortar type S.

LVDT at each side Aluminium angle

glued on each side
CMOD gauge
1200 mm
Figure 4.5. TPB test set-up scheme for the masonry panel.
LVDT
CMOD
gauge
Figure 4.6. TPB test arrangement for the masonry panel.
In Figure 4.7, the TPB test set-up for the brick specimen is shown. A CMOD
rate of 0.032 mm/min (3200 PH/min) was used, which was chosen so that the maximum
load was reached within about 30-60 seconds after the start of the test according to the
RILEM TC-50 FMC Recommendation (1985).

P
LVDT at each side
CMOD gauge
200 mm
Figure 4.7. TPB test set-up scheme for the brick specimen.
Figure 4.8 shows the TPB test set-up for the mortar specimen. However, in order
to obtain a complete response, the CMOD rate resulted in a time to peak load which was
larger than that recommended in RILEM TC-50 FMC Recommendation (1985). Two
counter weights compensating the specimen weight also had to be used. A CMOD rate
of 0.010 mm/min (1000 PH/min) was adopted for mortar type W and 0.015 mm/min
(1500 PH/min) for mortar type S. The peak load was reached within 2.5 minutes. Note
that at the first test attempt, the CMOD rates were performed according to the RILEM
recommendation without counter weights, but the specimens failed suddenly after the
peak load was reached. Hence the counter weights were added and slower CMOD rates
were adopted.
P
LVDT at each side
Counter wt.
CMOD gauge
400 mm
Figure 4.8. TPB test set-up scheme for the mortar specimen.
4.4.2 Shear Tests
The test set-up introduced by Van Der Pluijm (1993) was adopted and modified for all
shear tests carried out in this study. The main part of the test rig is shown schematically
in Figure 4.9(a) and the photographs of the device arrangement are shown in Figure
4.10. This test rig cannot maintain a confining pressure on the mortar joint while
applying a shear load through the joint as in the test rig of Van Der Pluijm. However,
any change in the confining pressure was recorded during the test by means of a load
cell positioned as shown in Figure 4.9(a). The test rig of Van Der Pluijm was also
modified by inserting two steel blocks between the L-shaped steel blocks and specimen
at the top and the bottom. The steel blocks were positioned closely to the edge of
specimen. By this means, any slip of the specimen was avoided without having to glue
the specimens to the L-shaped steel blocks.
actuator
actuator
LVDT
LVDT
100mmmm
100
ball hinge
ball hinge V2
V2
specimen
specimen V1
V1 M
M
N N
load cell
load cell
N N
M
M V1
V1
V2
V2
V=V1+V2
V=V1+V2
ballhinge
ball hinge
steel
steel block
block
counter
counter wt.
weight line hinge
line hinge M
M
(a) (b)
Figure 4.9. (a) Shear test set-up modified from Van Der Pluijm (1993); (b) loading
on the specimen.
Three different initial confining pressures were considered for each type of
specimen and three tests were repeated for each initial confining pressure. Four
displacements, two vertical on each side and two horizontal on the same side of each
specimen, were measured with LVDTs which were installed after the application of the
initial confining pressure and before applying any shear load. The positions of the
LVDTs are also shown in Figure 4.9(a). Load was applied continuously under
controlled rate until the peak load was reached and then for some specimens unloading-
reloading was applied at some stages by manually controlling the strain rate. All data
was recorded until the residual stage was reached.
4.4.3 Compression Tests
For masonry and mortar specimens, the compression tests were performed according to
the Australian standards AS3700 and AS1012, respectively. The compressive strength
of brick specimens was determined according to the Australian standard AS4456:2003
in which the effects of platen restraint are taken into account.

hori. ball
LVDT hinge
steel
block
counter
weight
line
hinge
(a) At one side
load
cell
vert.
LVDT
(b) At the other side
Figure 4.10. Shear test arrangement.

4.5 Experimental Results and Discussion
4.5.1 Basic Material Properties
The basic properties, i.e. compressive strength, elastic modulus and Poisson’s ratio, of
each material are reported in Table 4.3. The bricks clearly exhibit anisotropic behaviour
as different compressive strength was detected from different loading directions. Mortar
type S is about two times stronger in terms of compressive strength and elastic modulus
than type W. Both types of mortar have relatively low compressive strength in
comparison with that of the brick (vertical to bed face). The combination of the brick
and the two different mortar types resulted in masonry of roughly the same compressive
strength but with an elastic modulus for type S mortar double that of the type W mortar.
Table 4.3. Basic properties of each material.
Properties Brick Mortar Masonry
vertical parallel type type with with
to bed to bed W S mortar mortar
face face type W type S
Compressive strength, fc' (MPa) 33.31 21.68 7.26 16.79 18.97 18.71
Modulus of elasticity, E (MPa) - 14525 6175 11320 4500 8270
Poisson’s ratio, Q - 0.06 0.13 0.18 - -
4.5.2 Shear Test Results
In all the analyses of the shear test results a uniform stress distribution across the bed
joint was assumed. The results will be discussed here and concern shear bond strength
in relation to the cohesion c and angle of internal friction I, shear modulus G and post-
peak behaviour (residual bond strength, unloading-reloading behaviour, mode II
fracture energy G fII and dilatancy angle \). The results for each type of material
(masonry joint, brick and mortar) are as follows.
Masonry Joint Shear Test Results
For masonry specimens, the three initial confining pressures applied perpendicularly to
the bed joint were approximately 0.2, 0.4 and 0.8 MPa. The test results showed that the
shear failure at the final stage could be classified into two groups. To aid the
explanation, interface 1 is the interface between mortar and brick face without frog
while interface 2 refers to the interface between mortar and brick face having the frog,
see Figure 4.11(a). In one failure group, a single peak in the load-deformation response
was produced. The failure of the specimens occurred completely along interface 1 or
occurred almost completely along interface 1 and partially along interface 2 with a
crack crossing the mortar near the bottom edge of the frog, see
Figures 4.11(a) and 4.11(b). In the other failure group, two peaks were produced. The
position and number of the crack crossing the mortar are different from group one, as
shown in Figures 4.11(c) and 4.11(d). The irregularity of the mortar in the frog as can
be seen in Figure 4.11 may be responsible for the two different failure modes.
Furthermore, it may also be the major cause of scatter of the test results.
(a) 1 2
(b)
(c)
(d)
Figure 4.11. Failure characteristics of the mortar joints under shear.
Figure 4.12 shows some typical shear stress-displacement curves obtained from
the tests. The results for all specimens can be found in Appendix A.
Table 4.4 summarises the shear bond strength, residual shear bond strength and
mode of failure of each specimen. The additional confining pressure and total confining
pressure at the peak load are also reported.

0.9
S1-10
0.7
Shear stress (MPa)
0.5
0.3
0.1
-0.1
0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1
Shear displacement (mm)
(a) one peak
0.9
W15-5
0.7
Shear stress (MPa)
0.5
0.3
0.1
-0.1
0 0.7 1.4 2.1 2.8 3.5
(b) two peaks
Figure 4.12. Typical shear stress-displacement curves obtained from the masonry
mortar joint shear tests.

Table 4.4. Shear bond strength, residual bond strength and mode of failure of the
mortar joints.
Specimen* Initial Additional Total Shear Residual Mode of
confining confining confining bond shear bond failure
pressure pressure at peak pressure at peak strength strength
(MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
W15-5 0.20 0.10 0.30 0.75 0.27 two peaks
W16-5 0.20 0.10 0.30 0.70 0.28 two peaks
W17-5 0.19 0.08 0.27 0.40 0.24 one peak
W4-10 0.35 0.12 0.47 0.83 0.40 one peak
W5-10 0.39 0.03 0.42 0.68 0.36 one peak
W11-10 0.44 0.04 0.48 0.82 0.40 two peaks
W13-20 0.79 0.00 0.79 1.02 0.66 one peak
W18-20 0.79 0.01 0.80 0.88 0.52 one peak
W19-20 0.81 0.02 0.83 1.03 0.58 two peaks
S7-5 0.21 0.07 0.28 0.30 0.24 one peak
S8-5 0.21 0.03 0.24 0.25 0.18 one peak
S9-5 0.21 0.07 0.28 0.42 0.18 two peaks
S1-10 0.41 0.10 0.51 0.67 0.37 one peak
S2-10 0.40 0.02 0.42 0.62 0.30 one peak
S3-10 0.42 0.04 0.46 0.88 0.36 one peak
S4-20 0.77 0.04 0.81 0.82 0.58 two peaks
S5-20 0.83 0.07 0.90 0.92 0.78 two peaks
S6-20 0.76 0.03 0.79 0.87 0.64 two peaks
* The first character indicates the mortar type.
To be able to derive the cohesion and internal friction angle, the shear bond
strength is plotted versus the confining pressure in Figure 4.13. The linear best fit for
each mortar type is also presented. The cohesion, here estimated to be 0.43 and 0.18 for
masonry joint with mortar types W and S, respectively, depends on the mortar type. The
internal friction angle, which is the arctangent of the slope was estimated at 35.0q and
41.7q for masonry joint with mortar types W and S, respectively, and also depends on
the mortar type. It can be observed that mortar type W having the better workability
provides a cohesion greater than mortar type S even though mortar type S possesses
higher compressive strength. This may be due to the fact that the bond strength is
dependent on many factors and one of those is workability. The effect of water
absorption of the unit could also be a major factor.
1.2
Shear Bond Strength, u (MPa)
Wu = 0.43 + 0.70V
R2 = 0.70
0.8
Wu = 0.18 + 0.89V
R2 = 0.74
0.4
mortar type W
mortar type S
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Total Confining Pressure, V (MPa)
Figure 4.13. Shear bond strength of the mortar joints as a function of total
confining pressure.
The residual bond strength is plotted against the total confining pressure in
Figure 4.14. As expected this figure indicates that at the residual stage the cohesion
reduces to zero. The relation between residual bond strength and confining pressure is
independent of the mortar used. The residual friction coefficient was estimated at 0.74.
1.00
Residual Bond Strength, r (MPa)

Wr = 0.00 + 0.74V
R2 = 0.93
0.75
0.50
0.25 mortar type W

mortar type S
0.00
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00
V
Total Confining Pressure, (MPa)
Figure 4.14. Residual bond strength of the mortar joins as a function of total
confining pressure.
An important aspect of this study is the examination of the unloading-reloading
characteristics of masonry joints under shear. A typical unloading-reloading behaviour
is illustrated in Figure 4.15. It can be observed that the unloading stiffness at the
residual stage is close to the initial stiffness (G1|G2|G3|G4|G5). This is probably due
to the fact that micro-cracking which is the main mechanism responsible for the
reduction of stiffness formed only along the interface rather than in the whole mortar
joint.
The shear modulus of the mortar joints was determined by applying linear
regression. The results are presented in Table 4.5. Due to the irregularity of the mortar
within the frog, the estimated values of the shear modulus are variable. However, the
results give the same trend found when the cohesion is considered as masonry with
mortar type W has a higher average value of the shear modulus than type S. In addition,
the estimated values of the shear modulus at the residual stage are also given in Table
4.5.
G1
G2 G3 G4 G5
Stress
Shear Stress
Shear
Shear Displacement
Shear Displacement
Figure 4.15. Typical unloading-reloading behaviour of the mortar joints under
shear.
Table 4.5. Shear modulus of the mortar joints.
Specimen* Initial shear Shear modulus Specimen* Initial shear Shear modulus
modulus at residual modulus at residual
(MPa) stage (MPa) (MPa) stage (MPa)
W15-5 2070 1420 S7-5 1550 1300
W16-5 2415 2000 S8-5 1295 1110
W17-5 525 - S9-5 895 -
W4-10 1835 - S1-10 1020 900
W5-10 1600 - S2-10 1420 -
W11-10 1945 1490 S3-10 1917 1750
W13-20 1420 1315 S4-20 1415 1160
W18-20 1565 - S5-20 1190 1150
W19-20 1470 1380 S6-20 1650 -
Average 1649 Average 1372
Mode II fracture energy was determined as the area beneath the shear stress
versus irreversible slip displacement curve and the residual shear stress level, as
depicted in Figure 4.16(a). The irreversible slip displacement (see Figure 4.16(b)) was
determined from the unloading response and the use of an estimated unloading stiffness.
For this purpose the initial shear modulus given in Table 4.5 was adopted. Mode II
fracture energies are presented in Table 4.6 and plotted against the total confining
pressure in Figure 4.17. The mode II fracture energy increases with increased confining
pressure. It was also found that the mode II fracture energy depends on the mortar type.
Note that since some values of the mode II fracture energy, marked by asterisk in Table
4.6, are not consistent (mainly due to the two-peak failure mode), these values were not
plotted in Figure 4.17.
(a) (b)
slope equal to
W - Wr
stress
mode II initial slope

fracture energy
Irreversible slip displacement di de displacement
Figure 4.16. Definitions of: (a) mode II fracture energy; (b) irreversible
displacement, di.
Mode II fracture energy, GfII (N/mm)
0.15
(N/mm)
GfII = 0.016 + 0.13V

R2 = 0.98
0.10
Fracture Energy,
0.05
mortar type W
II
Gf = 0.027 + 0.06V mortar type S
R2 = 0.26
0.00
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2
Total Confining Pressure, V (MPa)
Figure 4.17. Mode II fracture energy of the mortar joints as a function of total
confining pressure.
Table 4.6. Mode II fracture energy of the mortar joints.
Specimen G fII (N/mm) Failure mode Specimen G fII (N/mm) Failure mode
W15-5 0.2755* two peaks S7-5 0.0400 one peak
W17-5 0.0302* one peak S9-5 0.1271* two peaks
W4-10 0.0760 one peak S1-10 0.0441 one peak
W5-10 0.0318* one peak S2-10 0.0709 one peak
W13-20 0.1201 one peak S4-20 0.2250* two peaks
W18-20 0.1154 one peak S5-20 0.1242* two peaks
W19-20 0.9329* two peaks S6-20 0.0964* two peaks
As the mortar joint fails under shear an opening displacement also occurs which
characterises the dilatant behaviour of the joint. If this dimensional change is restrained,
compressive stresses may build up, causing confining pressure increase and enhancing
the resistance to slip. Therefore, this behaviour was also investigated by plotting
irreversible opening displacement versus irreversible slip displacement as depicted in
Figure 4.18. The irreversible opening displacement was determined by subtracting the
elastic displacement of masonry specimen due to additional confining pressure from
total displacement. Young’s modulus derived from compression tests, 4500 and 8270
MPa for masonry with mortar types W and S, respectively, were employed. In Figure
4.18, it can be seen that the dilantancy depends on the confining pressure, with
significantly reduced opening displacement with increased confining pressure. The
dilatancy coefficient (tan\), which is the tangent to the irreversible opening
displacement versus the irreversible slip displacement curve, exponentially decreases
with increasing slip displacement, see Figure 4.19. At large slip displacement, the
dilatancy coefficient tends to become zero as the opening displacement is totally
arrested indicating a pure friction slip across the bed joint. The dilatancy coefficient at
the initial stage is also plotted versus the total confining pressure in Figure 4.20. The
figure shows that the dilatancy coefficient decreases when the total confining pressure
increases.
0.4
W16-5 (0.30 MPa)

Irreversible opening displ. (mm)
0.3
W15-5 (0.30 MPa)

0.2
W11-10 (0.48 MPa)

0.1
W18-20 (0.80 MPa)

0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
Irreversible slip displacement (mm)
(a) Specimens with mortar type W
0.15
S7-5 (0.28 MPa)
Irreversible opening displ. (mm)
0.10 S8-5 (0.24 MPa)
0.05 S1-10 (0.51 MPa)

S3-10 (0.46 MPa)
S4-20 (0.81 MPa)
0.00
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
(b) Specimens with mortar type S
Figure 4.18. Dilatancy softening responses of the mortar joints under shear. The
value in the parenthesis is the total confining pressure.

0.5
w16-5
0.4 w11-10
w18-20
0.3 W16-5 (0.30 MPa)

tan \
W11-10 (0.48 MPa)
tan
0.2 W18-20 (0.80 MPa)
0.1
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
(a) Specimens with mortar type W
0.3
s8-5
s1-10
s4-20
0.2
S8-5 (0.24 MPa)
tan \
tan
S1-10 (0.51 MPa)

0.1 S4-20 (0.81 MPa)
0
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0
(b) Specimens with mortar type S
Figure 4.19. Evolution of tan \ with irreversible slip displacement for the mortar
joints under shear. The value in the parenthesis is the total confining pressure.
0.5
mortar type W
) .
0.4
(tan
Initial tan \ 0.3
Dilatancy coefficient
0.2
0.1
tan\ = -0.57 + 0.49
R2 = 0.59
0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Total
Total confining
confining pressure, (MPa)
pressure, (MPa)
0.3
mortar type S
) . (tan
0.2
Initial tan \
Dilatancy coefficient
0.1
tan\ = -0.24 + 0.31

R2 = 0.77
0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Total confining pressure, (MPa)
Total confining pressure, (MPa)
Figure 4.20. Dilatancy coefficient at the initial stage of the mortar joints as a
function of total confining pressure.
Brick Shear Test Results
In the brick shear tests, three different initial confining pressures of approximately 0.40,
0.60 and 0.85 MPa were applied. A typical failure pattern was observed and shown in
Figure 4.21. There was only a single crack propagating straight through the shear plane.
The failure surface was quite smooth. Figure 4.22 presents all results obtained from the
brick shear tests. In general, the value and scatter of the peak load increases when
higher initial confining pressure was applied. A series of analyses to determine and
investigate the shear properties of the bricks were carried out and are presented here.
Table 4.7 summarises the shear area, additional confining pressure at the peak
load, shear bond strength and residual shear bond strength of each brick specimen. The
shear bond strength is plotted against the total confining pressure in Figure 4.23. The
linear best fit is also presented. The estimated cohesion was 0.62 and the friction angle
was about 76.6q. The residual bond strength is also plotted against total confining
pressure in Figure 4.24. At the residual stage the cohesion was approximately zero. The
friction angle at this stage was about 60.1q.
Figure 4.21. Typical failure pattern of the bricks under shear.

10
BST1 (a)
8 BST2
BST3
BST3
Shear stress (MPa)

6 BST2
BST1
4
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
10
BST4 (b)
BST4 BST5
8
BST5 BST6
Shear stress (MPa)
6 BST6
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
10
BST9 BST7 (c)
8 BST7 BST8
BST9
Shear stress (MPa)
6
BST8
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Figure 4.22. All test responses obtained from shear tests on the brick specimens.
Table 4.7. Shear bond strength and residual bond strength of the brick specimens.
Specimen Shear area Initial Additional Total Shear Residual
(mmumm) confining confining confining bond shear bond
BST1 39u174.5 0.40 1.02 1.42 6.55 2.31
BST2 38u173 0.42 1.18 1.60 6.60 2.39
BST3 42u181 0.40 1.04 1.44 6.76 2.44
BST4 40u180 0.61 1.05 1.66 7.54 2.65
BST5 42.5u178 0.63 0.95 1.58 7.86 2.60
BST6 39u182.5 0.62 0.79 1.41 6.68 2.75
BST7 37u177 0.90 0.90 1.80 7.89 3.45
BST8 38u143 0.85 0.60 1.45 6.70 2.66
BST9 40u183 0.82 1.19 2.01 9.30 3.45
10.0
Shear Bond Strength, (MPa)
Shear bond strength, Wu (MPa)
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0 Wu = 0.62 + 4.20V

R2 = 0.84
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Total
TotalConfining
confiningPressure,
pressure, (MPa)
(MPa)
Figure 4.23. Shear bond strength of the brick specimens as a function of total
confining pressure.
4.0
(MPa)
Strength,Wr (MPa)
Wr
3.0
Bondstrength,
2.0
Residual bond
1.0 Wr = 1.74V
R2 = 0.68
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Total Confining
Total confining Pressure,
pressure, (MPa)
(MPa)
Figure 4.24. Residual bond strength of the brick specimens as a function of total
confining pressure.
A typical unloading-reloading characteristic of the brick specimens under shear
is presented in Figure 4.25. It shows that the behaviour is similar to that of plain
concrete as the stiffness decreases compared to the initial stiffness when damage exists
(G2, G3, G4, G5 < G1). The values of the shear modulus at the initial stage and at the
residual stage of each specimen were estimated and summarized in Table 4.8. Table 4.8
also gives the mode II fracture energy of each brick specimen. The mode II fracture
energy is plotted against the total confining pressure in Figure 4.26. The same procedure
used in the calculation of the mode II fracture energy of the masonry joints was adopted.
Figure 4.26 shows a large scatter of data which may be attributed to nonuniform firing
or manufacturing processes. Despite of the large scatter of data, the mode II fracture
energy of the bricks depends on the confining pressure as found in the masonry
specimens. Figure 4.27 shows the dilatant behaviour of the brick specimens. The
behaviour is similar to that of the masonry specimens, with the opening displacement
increasing with increasing of the shear displacement until pure friction slip occurs.
Figure 4.28 shows the evolution of tan \ with slip displacement of the brick specimens.
8
G1
Shear stress (MPa)

4 G2 G3 G4 G5
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Figure 4.25. Typical unloading-reloading behaviour at residual stage of the bricks
under shear.
Table 4.8. Shear modulus and mode II fracture energy of each brick specimen.
Specimen Initial shear modulus Shear modulus at Mode II fracture energy
(MPa) residual stage (MPa) (N/mm)
BST1 6810 3050 0.564
BST2 5300 2145 0.920
BST3 7090 1800 0.916
BST4 too high 3140 1.243
BST5 6370 2845 2.436
BST6 too high 2885 1.318
BST7 6575 2790 1.292
BST8 6970 2975 1.914
BST9 6120 2780 1.610
Average 6462 2712

3.0
Mode II fracture energy (N/mm)

Fracture Energry, (N/mm)
2.0
1.0
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Total
TotalConfining
confiningPressure, (MPa)
pressure (MPa)
Figure 4.26. Influence of total confining pressure on the mode II fracture energy of
the bricks.
1.2
BST2 (1.60 MPa)
Irreversible opening displacement (mm)
1 BST4 (1.66 MPa)
0.8
0.6 BST3 (1.44 MPa)

BST6 (1.41 MPa)
0.4
BST7 (1.80 MPa)
BST5 (1.58 MPa)
0.2
BST8 (1.45 MPa)
0
0 0.6 1.2 1.8 2.4 3
Figure 4.27. Dilatant behaviour of the brick specimens. The value in the
parenthesis is the total confining pressure.

3.5
BST6 (1.41 MPa)
3.0
BST7 (1.80 MPa) BST5
2.5 BST6
2.0 BST7
BST8 (1.45 MPa) BST8
tan \
1.5
tan
BST5 (1.58 MPa)

1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Figure 4.28. Evolution of tan \ with irreversible slip displacement for the bricks
under shear. The value in the parenthesis is the total confining pressure
Mortar Shear Test Results
As mentioned earlier, the mortar test results were not intended to represent the
properties of the mortar within the masonry as the mortar specimens had different water
content. The test results reported herein merely aim to present the fracture behaviour of
the two types of mortar used. Three different initial confining pressures of
approximately 0.25, 0.40 and 0.90 MPa were considered in the shear tests. The typical
failure pattern is shown in Figure 4.29. The crack pattern was not straight but clearly
wavy along the shear plane. The evolution of the shear stress and shear displacement
were plotted for mortar types W and S in Figures 4.30 and 4.31, respectively. The
results were very similar for each initial confining pressure in case of mortar type W,
while in case of mortar type S there was a much greater scatter of the load-deformation
response. Table 4.9 summarises the shear area, additional confining pressure at the peak
load, shear bond strength and residual shear bond strength for each of the mortar
specimens. The shear bond strength is plotted against the total confining pressure and is
shown in Figure 4.32. The linear best fit is also presented. The estimated cohesion was
1.75 and 2.73 for mortar types W and S, respectively. The estimated friction angle was
32.2q and 54.1q for mortar types W and S, respectively.
Figure 4.29. Typical failure pattern in the mortar specimens under shear.
3.0
(a)
2.5 WMST1 WMST2
Shear stress (MPa)

2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
3.0
(b)
2.5
Shear stress (MPa)
WMST5 WMST6
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
3.0
WMST7 (c)
2.5
Shear stress (MPa)
2.0
WMST9
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Figure 4.30. Shear stress - displacement curves obtained from shear tests on the
type W mortar specimens.

6
SMST2(a)
5
SMST2 SMST3
Shear stress (MPa)

4
SMST3
3
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
6
SMST4(b)
SMST4
5 SMST5
SMST6 SMST6
Shear stress (MPa)
4
SMST5
3
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
6
SMST7(c)
SMST7 SMST8
5 SMST9
SMST8
Shear stress (MPa)
4 SMST9
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Figure 4.31. Shear stress - displacement curves obtained from shear tests on the
type S mortar specimens.

Table 4.9. Shear bond strength and residual bond strength of each mortar
specimen.
Specimen* Shear area Initial Additional Total Shear Residual
(mmumm) confining confining confining bond shear bond
WMST1 81u184 0.24 0.35 0.59 2.04 1.60***
WMST2 78u182 0.25 0.32 0.57 2.16 1.50***
WMST3** - - - - - -
WMST4** - - - - - -
WMST5 79u181 0.43 0.38 0.81 2.31 1.44
WMST6 79u180 0.43 0.46 0.89 2.25 1.55
WMST7 81u180 0.85 0.13 0.98 2.45 1.80
WMST8** - - - - - -
WMST9 77u179 0.84 0.25 1.09 2.38 1.90
SMST1** - - - - - -
SMST2 77u180 0.26 0.71 0.97 3.87 1.71
SMST3 82u178 0.24 1.07 1.31 4.79 2.09
SMST4 78u182 0.41 0.69 1.10 4.08 2.15
SMST5 80u180 0.41 0.63 1.04 4.07 2.12
SMST6 79u178 0.41 0.62 1.03 4.45 1.93
SMST7 74u177 0.96 0.63 1.59 4.63 3.21
SMST8 77u191 0.85 0.83 1.68 5.04 3.32
SMST9 79u181 0.88 0.60 1.48 5.03 2.33

** Specimen did not fail under pure shear (there was crack out of shear plane).
*** Not used in evaluation of residual shear bond strength.
6.0
(MPa)
Strength,Wu (MPa)
5.0
4.0 Wu = 2.73 + 1.38V
bond strength,
R2 = 0.74
3.0
Shear Bond 2.0

Wu = 1.75 + 0.63V mortar type W
Shear
1.0 R2 = 0.77 mortar type S
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Total Confining
confining pressure,
Pressure, (MPa)
(MPa)
Figure 4.32. Shear bond strength of the mortar as a function of total confining
pressure.
The residual bond strength is plotted against total confining pressure in Figure
4.33. At the residual stage the cohesion becomes zero for both types of mortar. The
friction angle at this stage was approximately 62.2q for both mortar types.
(MPa)
4.0
Strength,Wr (MPa)
Wr = 1.90V
R2 = 0.85
3.0
Bondstrength,
2.0
Residual bond
1.0 mortar type W

mortar type S
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
confining Pressure,
Total Confining pressure, (MPa)
(MPa)
Figure 4.33. Residual bond strength of the mortar as a function of total confining
pressure.
A typical unloading-reloading response of the mortar is presented in Figure 4.34.
The behaviour is similar to that of plain concrete as the stiffness decreases compared to
the initial stiffness when damage exists (G2, G3, G4 < G1). The values of the shear
modulus at the initial stage and at the residual stage of each specimen were estimated
and summarized in Table 4.10.
5
G1
4
Shear stress (MPa)
3
G2 G3 G4
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Figure 4.34. Typical unloading-reloading behaviour at the residual stage of the
mortar under shear.
Table 4.11 gives the mode II fracture energy for each mortar specimen. The
same procedure used in the calculation of the mode II fracture energy for the masonry
joints was adopted. Figure 4.35 presents the relationship between the mode II fracture
energy and the total confining pressure.

Table 4.10. Shear modulus of each mortar specimen.
Specimen* Initial Shear Specimen* Initial Shear
shear modulus at shear modulus at
modulus residual stage modulus residual
(MPa) (MPa) (MPa) stage (MPa)
WMST1 6470 1005 SMST1** - -
WMST2 7325 1300 SMST2 6695 2060
WMST3** - - SMST3 10790 2175
WMST4** - - SMST4 12720 2565
WMST5 7265 1460 SMST5 9975 2330
WMST6 9840 1185 SMST6 9800 2215
WMST7 4070 1360 SMST7 9910 2140
WMST8** - - SMST8 22695 2880
WMST9 11610 1140 SMST9 16190 3190
Average 7763 1242 12347 2444
* The first character indicates mortar type.

** Specimen did not fail under pure shear (there was crack out of shear plane).
Figures 4.36 and 4.37 present the dilatant behaviour for mortar types W and S,
respectively. The typical trend, opening displacement increases with increasing of shear
displacement until pure friction slip occurs, was found. Figure 4.38 shows the evolution
of tan \ with slip displacement of the mortar specimens.

Table 4.11. Mode II fracture energy of each mortar specimen.
Specimen* Mode II fracture Specimen* Mode II fracture
energy (N/mm) energy (N/mm)
WMST1 0.370 SMST1** -
WMST2 0.856 SMST2 1.015
WMST3** - SMST3 1.076
WMST4** - SMST4 0.855
WMST5 0.621 SMST5 0.314***
WMST6 0.640 SMST6 1.084
WMST7 0.790 SMST7 2.524***
WMST8** - SMST8 1.052
WMST9 0.860 SMST9 1.468

** Specimen did not fail under pure shear.
*** Not taken into account in Figure 4.35.
2.0
f (N/mm)
mortar type W GfII = 0.68 + 0.33V

(N/mm)
mortar type S
II
energy, G
Energry,
1.0
II fracture
ModeFracture
GfII = 0.35 + 0.42V

0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
confining pressure,
Total Confining Pressure, (MPa)
(MPa)
Figure 4.35. Mode II fracture energy of the mortar as a function of total confining
pressure.
1.25
Opening displacement (mm)

1.00 WMST2 (0.57 MPa)
0.75
WMST1 (0.59 MPa)
0.50
WMST1
0.25
(a)
WMST2
0.00
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
1.25
1.00 WMST5 (0.81 MPa)
0.75 WMST6 (0.89 MPa)
0.50
WMST5
0.25
(b)
WMST6
0.00
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
1.25
1.00
WMST7 (0.98 MPa)

0.75
0.50
WMST9 (1.09 MPa)
WMST7
0.25
(c)
WMST9
0.00
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Figure 4.36. Dilatant behaviour of the mortar type W. The value in the parenthesis
is the total confining pressure.

1.2
SMST3 (1.31 MPa)

0.9
SMST2 (0.97 MPa)

0.6
0.3
SMST2
SMST3(a)
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
0.8
SMST6 (1.03 MPa)

0.6 SMST4 (1.10 MPa)
SMST5 (1.04 MPa)

0.4
SMST4
0.2
SMST5
SMST6(b)
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
2.5
SMST7 SMST8 (1.68 MPa)
2.0 SMST8
SMST9
1.5
1.0
SMST7 (1.59 MPa)
0.5
SMST9 (1.48 MPa) (c)
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Figure 4.37. Dilatant behaviour of the mortar type S. The value in the parenthesis
is the total confining pressure.

4.0
3.0 WMST2 (0.57 MPa)
WMST5 (0.81 MPa) WMST2

tan\
2.0 WMST5
tan
WMST7
WMST7 (0.98 MPa)
1.0
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
(a) Type W mortar
2.5
SMST3
SMST4
2.0 SMST3 (1.31 MPa) SMST6
SMST7
SMST4 (1.10 MPa)
1.5
SMST7 (1.59 MPa)
tan\
tan
SMST6 (1.03 MPa)

1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
(b) Type S mortar
Figure 4.38. Evolution of tan \ with irreversible slip displacement for the mortar
specimens under shear. The value in the parenthesis is the total confining pressure.
4.5.3 TPB Test Results
Brick TPB Test Results
The TPB test results were used to determine mode I fracture energy. The mode I
fracture energy, defined as the amount of energy necessary to create a unit area of a
crack, was calculated from Equation (4.1) according to the RILEM TC-50 FMC
Recommendation (1985).
G fI
W0 mgG0 (4.1)
A lig
where W0 is the energy supplied by the external load represented by the area under the
load-deformation curve, m = m1 + m2 in which m1 is the mass of the beam between
supports and m2 is the mass of the part of the loading arrangement which is not attached
to the machine but follows the beam until failure, g is the acceleration due to gravity, 0
is the displacement at the final failure of the beam and Alig is the area of the initial
ligament which is equivalent to the product of the beam depth without the notch depth
and the beam thickness.
As for an example, Figure 4.39 shows a set of typical results obtained from the
TPB test of a brick specimen (FBTP8). The results of all specimens can be found in
Appendix A. The requirements of the recommendation were met as the maximum load
was reached within 60 seconds after the start of the test, see Figure 4.39(c), and the test
was performed with a constant rate of CMOD, see Figure 4.39(d). Table 4.12
summarises the flexural strength and mode I fracture energy of each brick specimen.
10 10
8 8
Load (kN)
Load (kN)
6 6
(a) (b)
4 4
2 2
0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
CMOD (mm) Load-point displacement (mm)
10 0.4
8 0.3
CMOD (mm)
Load (kN)
6
(c) 0.2 (d)
4
2 0.1
0 0
0 4 8 12 0 4 8 12
Time (min) Time (min)
Figure 4.39. A set of typical results obtained from the brick TPB test.
Table 4.12. Flexural strength and mode I fracture energy of the brick specimens.
Specimen Flexural strength (MPa) Mode I fracture energy (N/mm)
FBTP6 11.58 0.315
FBTP8 10.86 0.321
FBTP9 10.83 0.301
Average 11.09 0.312
Mortar TPB Test Results
Figure 4.40 presents a set of typical results obtained from the TPB test of a type W
mortar specimen (WMTP1) while Figure 4.41 presents the results for a type S mortar
specimen (SMTP2). The results of all specimens can be found in Appendix A.

1 1
0.8 0.8
Load (kN)
Load (kN)
0.6 0.6
(a) (b)
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0 0.1 0.2 0.3
1 0.25
0.8 0.2
CMOD (mm)
Load (kN)
0.6 0.15
(c) (d)
0.4 0.1
0.2 0.05
0 0
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30
Figure 4.40. A set of typical results obtained from the type W mortar TPB test.
3 3
2.5 2.5
Load (kN)
Load (kN)
2 2
1.5 (a) 1.5 (b)
1 1
0.5 0.5
0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
3 0.25
2.5 0.2
CMOD (mm)
Load (kN)
2
0.15
1.5 (c) (d)
0.1
1
0.5 0.05
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
Figure 4.41. A set of typical results obtained from the type S mortar TPB test.
Table 4.13 summarises the flexural strength and mode I fracture energy of each
mortar specimen. Each mode I fracture energy was calculated from Equation (4.1).
Table 4.13. Flexural strength and mode I fracture energy of the mortar specimens.
Specimen* Flexural G fI Specimen* Flexural G fI
strength (MPa) (N/mm) strength (MPa) (N/mm)
WMTP1 0.94 0.012 SMTP1** 2.17 -
WMTP2** 0.77 - SMTP2 2.47 0.033
WMTP3** - - SMTP3** 2.20 -
Average 0.85 - Average 2.28 -

** Response is not complete or test failed.
Masonry Panel TPB Test Results
Although three panels were tested for each case (with mortar types W and S), only one
panel for each case was successfully carried out and gave a complete response. The
main cause was inappropriate CMOD rate. Figure 4.42 presents all responses obtained
from the TPB test of masonry panel with mortar type W (denoted WMWTP1) while
Figure 4.43 presents the responses for the masonry panel with mortar type S (denoted
SMWTP4). Tests were stable due to the CMOD control performed during the tests.
Some instabilities were produced which were due to the sudden tensile failure in the
head joints. The crack patterns for both mortar types are shown in Figure 4.44. The
cracks zigzagged through the head and bed joints without brick failure. Both crack
patterns clearly show that the failure of the masonry beams with relatively low bond
strength mortar were governed by both tensile and shear fracture (mode I and mode II
fracture) of the mortar joints.

4
(a)
WMWTP1
Load (kN) 3
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Load-point displacement (mm)
4
(b)
WMWTP1
3
Load (kN)
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
CMOD (mm)
Figure 4.42. Test results obtained from the TPB test of masonry panel with mortar
type W: a) load vs. load-point displacement curve and b) load vs. CMOD curve.
4.5
(a)
4 SMWTP4
3.5
3
2.5
Load (kN)
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
4.5
(b)
4 SMWTP4
3.5
3
2.5
Load (kN)
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
CMOD (mm)
Figure 4.43. Test results obtained from the TPB test of masonry panel with mortar
type S: a) load vs. load-point displacement curve and b) load vs. CMOD curve.
(a) Masonry panel with mortar type W (WMWTP1)
(b) Masonry panel with mortar type S (SMWTP4)
Figure 4.44. Crack patterns of masonry panels under TPB load.

4.6 Numerical Simulation of Three-Point Bending Tests
In order to simulate the fracture behaviour of the masonry beams, the micro-model
proposed in Chapter 3 was utilised for this purposed. The simplified micro-modelling
approach was followed wherein the mortar joints are represented through interfaces of
zero thickness. Figure 4.45 presents the finite element modelling employed for the
masonry beams. Although there was a central notch in each panel with mortar type S,
the notch was neglected in the modelling because the notch depth was very small in
comparison with the panel depth. As the failure of the panels were governed by tensile
and shear failure in the mortar joints, only mode I and mode II failure were considered
and the interface failure surface was modelled using a Mohr-Coulomb failure surface
with a tension cut-off. Brick failure was excluded. The elastic modulus of 3360 MPa
obtained from a fit of the initial linear part of the test results was employed and a
Poisson’s ratio of 0.2 was assumed in the simulations. The parameters used for the
mortar interfaces are listed in Table 4.14. The shear parameters were within 20% of the
reported results in Section 4.5.2 which are still acceptable in comparison with the scatter
of masonry test results. As the model employs a constant dilatancy angle, the dilatancy
angle was assumed to equal zero initially. A reason for this choice and an investigation
of the effect of dilatancy angle will be given later. The tensile bond strengths were
related to the values of the cohesion. Van Der Pluijm (1993) carried out a testing
program and obtained a ratio of the cohesion to the tensile bond strength that ranges
from 1.3 to 6.5. In this study the ratios of 4 and 1.7 were employed for the interfaces
with mortar types W and S, respectively. Using the estimated tensile bond strengths, the
values of mode I fracture energy were also then estimated.

334 mm
1200 mm
Figure 4.45. Finite element modelling for the masonry beams.
Table 4.14. Parameters used for the mortar interfaces for the simulations of
masonry beams.
Mortar Tension Shear
type f tc (MPa) G fI (Nmm/mm2) c (MPa) tanI tan\ G fII (Nmm/mm2)
W 0.086 0.002 0.344 0.74 0.0 0.037
S 0.128 0.003 0.216 0.89 0.0 0.0125
The experimental and numerical responses are compared in Figures 4.46 and
4.47 for masonry beams with mortar types W and S, respectively. With the parameters
used a reasonable agreement was achieved in each case in terms of the load-
displacement and load-CMOD curves. The model was able to capture the post-peak
behaviour reasonably well.

4
(a)
Experimental
Numerical
Load (kN) 3
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
4
(b)
Experimental
Numerical
3
Load (kN)
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
CMOD (mm)
Figure 4.46. Comparisons of the experimental and numerical results of the
masonry beam with mortar type W: a) load-displacement curve and b) load-
CMOD curve.
4.5
(a)
4 A Experimental
Numerical
3.5
3
2.5
Load (kN)
2 B
1.5
C
1
0.5
0
-0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
4.5
(b)
4 Experimental
Numerical
3.5
3
2.5
Load (kN)
1.5
1
0.5
0
-0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
CMOD (mm)
Figure 4.47. Comparisons of the experimental and numerical results of the
masonry beam with mortar type S: a) load-displacement curve and b) load-CMOD
curve.
The crack patterns at failure for both mortar types are also depicted and
compared with the deformed specimens obtained from the simulations (note the
deformations were scaled to enhance the visualization). Figure 4.48 compares the crack
patterns of the masonry panel with mortar type W, while Figure 4.49 shows the
simulated and actual crack pattern for the masonry with mortar type S. The cracks zig-
zagged through the head and bed joints without any crack penetrating the bricks. The
crack patterns clearly show that the failure of the masonry beams with the relatively low
bond strength mortar was governed by both tensile and shear fracture (mode I and mode
II fracture) of the mortar joints. For the panel with mortar type W, the simulation result
was slightly different from the experimental crack pattern whereas the crack pattern of
the panel with mortar type S was reasonably and compared well.
WMWTP1
(a) Experimental
(b) Numerical
Figure 4.48. Comparison of the experimental and numerical crack patterns at
failure for the masonry panel with mortar type W under TPB.
SMWTP4
(a) Experimental
(b) Numerical
Figure 4.49. Comparison of the experimental and numerical crack patterns at
failure for the masonry panel with mortar type S under TPB.
To be able to acquire a better understanding of the failure behaviour of masonry
beams and how cracks propagate, the simulation of a masonry beam with mortar type S
was used to study in detail the importance of several of the material parameters. Several
points along the load-displacement path are also examined in detail. The considered
points were A, B and C on the load-displacement curve as shown in Figure 4.47(a).
From the analysis it was found that the initial tensile inelastic failure occurred at the
bottom interface node of the central head joint of the bottom course. In the tension
region a number of the interface nodes were subjected to both tension and shear. The
bottom midspan region reached the critical crack opening displacement before the peak
load was reached. The active failure points at the peak load point A are depicted in
Figure 4.50(a). The symbols used in Figure 4.50 denote either an activated inelastic
failure surface, unloading from a failure surface or a critical displacement either
opening or sliding being activated. At this stage, only one point had reached the critical
opening displacement indicating that the crack would not be visible in the test at the
peak load. However, shortly after the peak, the tensile crack propagated through the
central head joint where the initial tensile inelastic failure occurred. The second head
joint crack followed and was associated with a snap back corresponding to point B in
Figure 4.47(a) and the failure points illustrated in Figure 4.50(b). The failure points
when the crack propagated through the third head joints are presented in Figure 4.50(c)
and correspond to point C in Figure 4.47(a). Finally, the collapse mechanism was
formed with a stepped crack through the head and bed joints as shown in Figure 4.50(d).
(a) The failure points at the peak load, point A
(b) The failure points when the snap back occurs, point B
3
2
1
(c) The failure points when the cracks propagate through three head joints, point C
(D) The failure points at collapse
Critical displacement Inelastic tensile failure Inelastic shear failure Unloading
Figure 4.50. The simulation results — Progression of the failure points at several
points along the load-displacement curve of the masonry beam with mortar type S.
In the study so far, a zero dilatancy angle was assumed and the dilatancy angle
was taken to be independent of the amount of slip. A parametric investigation of the
effect of the dilatancy angel was carried out. As the model employs a constant dilatancy
angle, the numerical responses with different values of the dilatancy angle were
compared and examined. The dilatancy coefficients (tan\) of 0.1 and 0.2 were
considered for both mortar types as it was found that the initial dilatancy coefficient, at
zero shear-slipping displacement, varies from 0.021 to 0.438 for masonry joints with
mortar type W and from 0.100 to 0.266 for mortar type S, see Figure 4.20.
Figures 4.51 and 4.52 show the experimental and simulation load-displacement
and load-CMOD curves of the masonry beams with mortar types W and S, respectively.
As can be seen, the dilatancy effect starts its role from the first peak by increasing the
peak slightly and plays an important role on the softening branch which leads to an
increasing of the second peak in particular in the case of panel with mortar type W as
the second peak becomes higher than the first peak even if a small dilatancy angle is
adopted. This implies that a constant nonzero dilatancy coefficient leads to an

overestimated strength. Employing a zero dilatancy coefficient seems to be a better
choice for the model used in this study.
5.0
tan\ = 0.2
Experimental
tan\ = 0.1
4.0 Numerical
tan\ = 0.0
3.0
Load (kN)
(a)
2.0
1.0
0.0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
5.0
tan\ = 0.2
Experimental
tan\ = 0.1
4.0 Numerical
tan\ = 0.0
3.0
Load (kN)
(b)
2.0
1.0
0.0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
CMOD (mm)
Figure 4.51. Effects of the dilatancy angle on the simulation of masonry beam with
mortar type W: a) on the load-displacement curve and b) on the load-CMOD
curve.
4.5
4 tan\ = 0.2 Experimental

3.5 tan\ = 0.1 Numerical
tan\ = 0.0
3 X
2.5 Y
Load (kN)
2 (a)
1.5
Z
1
0.5
0
-0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
4.5
4 tan\ = 0.2 Experimental

tan\ = 0.1 Numerical
3.5
tan\ = 0.0
3
2.5
Load (kN)
2 (b)
1.5
0.5
0
-0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
CMOD (mm)
Figure 4.52. Effects of the dilatancy angle on the simulation of masonry beam with
mortar type S: a) on the load-displacement curve and b) on the load-CMOD curve.
The increased second peak leads to an overestimation of the post peak response.
To understand the effect of dilatancy, the progression of inelastic activated failure
points within the finite element mesh at relevant points on the load-displacement curve
are re-investigated as dilatancy is a phenomenon which accompanies inelastic shearing
deformation. The simulation of masonry beam with mortar type S was utilised. It was
found that shear and hence dilatancy was activated when the load reached point X on
the load-displacement curve, see Figures 4.52(a) and 4.53(a). The effect of dilatancy
however appeared after the peak load because shear inelastic failure extends over the
bed joint as can be seen in Figure 4.50(a) which shows the failure points at the peak
load. When the load reached point Y in Figure 4.52(a) with the dilatancy effect was
more dominant, some of the interface nodes had attained their critical shear
displacements, see Figure 4.53(b). The corresponding dilatancy coefficients should at
this stage be zero as can be observed from the experimental results in Figure 4.18: the
dilatancy coefficient not only depends on the confining pressure but also decreases
exponentially with increasing shear-slip displacements. This is one reason why a
constant nonzero dilatancy coefficient leads to an overestimation of the strength of the
masonry panel. The activated failure zones when the load reached point Z where the
effect of dilatancy was prevalent, are presented in Figure 4.53(c). Beyond load point Z,
the three values of the dilatancy angle have very little effect on the load deformation
path as there is no further restraint to opening of the horizontal bed joints.
(a) The failure points when the dilatancy first occurs, at point X
(b) The failure points at point Y
(c) The failure points at point Z
Critical displacement Inelastic tensile failure Inelastic shear failure Unloading
Figure 4.53. The simulation results of the masonry beam with mortar type S — the
failure points at relevant locations on the load-displacement curve to reflect the
dilatancy effects.
4.7 Summary
Three different tests including TPB, shear and compression tests have been performed
on masonry, brick and mortar specimens with the main aim to investigate the failure
behaviour of masonry TPB panels with relatively low bond strength under three-point
bending. The full-scale masonry beams with two different types of mortar were tested.
It was found that the failure of the masonry beams was governed by both tensile and
shear fracture (mode I and mode II) of the mortar joints rather than just mode I failure.
The cracks zigzagged through the head and bed joints without brick failure.
In addition, it has been shown that the bricks used exhibited anisotropic
behaviour as different compressive strength was detected from different loading
directions. The shear parameters including the shear bond strength, cohesion, friction
angle, shear modulus and post-peak behaviour (residual bond strength, unloading-
reloading behaviour, mode II fracture energy and dilatancy angle) of each material have
been presented and discussed. The properties of the mortar specimens were very
different from the brick-mortar interface within masonry because of the brick water
absorption and the restraint of the mortar expansion causing triaxial/biaxial stresses in
the mortar. The unloading-reloading behaviour revealed that the behaviour of brick and
mortar was similar to the behaviour of plain concrete, as the unloading stiffness
decreased compared to the initial stiffness when damage exists. Masonry joints
exhibited a different behaviour as the unloading stiffness at the residual stage was close
to the initial stiffness.
Finally, the proposed model using the simplified micro-modelling approach has
been utilised to simulate the fracture behaviour of masonry TPB beams. The model
captured and predicted the experimental results reasonably well with the parameters
adopted. The role of the dilatancy angle were studied and discussed.
CHAPTER 5 REVIEW OF TIME-DEPENDENT FRACTURE BEHAVIOUR 160
CHAPTER 5
REVIEW OF TIME-DEPENDENT FRACTURE
BEHAVIOUR
5.1 Introduction
As mentioned in the introduction, another crucial aspect of quasi-brittle materials is the
time-dependent fracture behaviour. In the previous chapters, fracture has been treated as
independent of time. In fact, the fracture behaviour depends on the rate of loading. A
number of experimental studies, e.g. Rüsch (1960), Bazant and Gettu (1992) and Zhou
(1992), provided evidence of the time-dependent fracture behaviour of quasi-brittle
materials at static loading rates. Those results revealed that there was a strong
interaction between fracture and creep. At the structure level, many structures built of
quasi-brittle materials, when subjected to sustained loading, can develop cracks which
over time propagate and could eventually lead to structural failure. Karihaloo and
Santhikumar (1999) described the formation of a large crack almost 43 m deep that had
developed in the Zhexi diamond-head buttressed concrete dam built in the Hunan
Province of China which was detected almost 8 years after completion. Extensive
measures were required to repair the crack and thwart further crack growth. Also, there
were a number of sudden collapses of historical buildings such as the collapse of the
civic masonry tower of Pavia, Italy, in 1989 due to sustained loading after surviving for
nine centuries and the partial collapse of the Noto Cathedral, Italy, in 1996. These
examples render the important role of time-dependent effects in the fracture zone and
the need for taking time-dependent fracture into consideration.

In this chapter, the time-dependent fracture behaviour of quasi-brittle materials
is reviewed and briefly presented to provide some background for the formulation in the
subsequent chapter. The review is focused on the fracture behaviour at macroscopic
level to study the prominent features that are to be captured. Mechanisms at microscopic
level can be found in Neville (1995), Young (1988) and Wittmann (1982). Temperature
and humidity effects are not considered in this study.
5.2 Sources of Time-Dependent Fracture
Despite the effects of temperature and humidity, sources of time-dependent fracture
may be classified accordingly to the zones surrounding the crack tip depicted in Figure
5.1 according to Bazant and Planas (1998). As a result, there are three sources of the
time-dependent fracture including the time dependence in the linear elastic zone
(viscoelasticity), in the nonlinear hardening zone (viscoplasticity) and in FPZ (time-
dependent fracture growth or crack rate dependence). However, their relative
importance can be quite variable. For example, in most metals, the contributions of
viscoelasticity and crack rate dependence to the time-dependent response are negligible
compared to the contribution of viscoplasticity.
For quasi-brittle materials in which the nonlinear hardening zone is very small
there are only two main sources of time-dependent fracture: the viscoelasticity due to
creep of the bulk material within the structure outside the FPZ and the crack rate
dependence inside the FPZ. This was numerically confirmed by Bazant and Li (1997)
and Van Zijl et al. (2001a).

N N
N
F F F
L L L
Brittle materials Metals Quasi-brittle materials
Figure 5.1. Relative sizes of fracture process zone (F), nonlinear hardening zone
(N) and linear elastic zone (L) in different types of materials.
5.2.1 Creep
Creep is one of the major contributions to time-dependent deformation. It is mainly
dependent on stress and also influenced by temperature and moisture content. In a
loaded specimen which is at a constant temperature and without drying, the basic creep
is defined, see e.g. Neville (1995), otherwise shrinkage and the additional creep
simultaneously occur. The additional creep is known as the drying creep or the so-called
“Pickett effect”, see Pickett (1942). In Figure 5.2, creep components are illustrated.
Experimentally, creep can be determined as the difference between the total time-
dependent deformation of a loaded specimen in a drying environment and the
shringkage of a similar unloaded specimen. The drying creep can be calculated by
subtracting the basic creep from the total creep. However, the real mechanism of creep
has not clearly been understood. According to research investigations the real creep
mechanism might be divided into short-time and long-time creep, Wittmann (1982).
The short-time creep is caused by a stress induced redistribution of capillary water
within the microstructure, while the long-time creep is the consequence of displacement
of gel particles and to some extent creep within particles under high concentrated stress.
Time-dependent deformation
Drying creep = A-B-C
Creep = A-B
C
Basic creep
sealed A
B
Shrinkage
Time
Figure 5.2. Illustration of creep components (Van Zijl 1999).
At the macroscopic level, creep is a phenomenon in which a material continues
to deform with time under sustained loading, see Figure 5.3(a). If deformation is kept
constant, the force required for the constraint relaxes in time, see Figure 5.3(b). The
creep deformation-time curve, Figure 5.3(a), is usually divided into three stages which
include the primary, secondary and tertiary stages. In the primary stage the initial high
creep rate gradually decreases followed by an approximately constant rate, the
secondary stage. Only a part of the creep is recovered upon unloading, Lenczner (1981)
and Neville (1995). Finally, an increased deformation rate marks the onset of the
tertiary stage. In the latter stage the deformation rate increases rapidly until failure
occurs. The last two stages will occur only when the creep load level is high enough to
initiate a sufficiently high level of diffuse micro-cracking coalescing into a macro-crack
which propagates and leads to failure.

failure
primary secondary tertiary

stage stage stage
Deformation
(a)
partial recovery
upon unloading
Time
(b)
Force
Time
Figure 5.3. Time-dependent behaviour: (a) schematic creep deformation-time
curve; (b) schematic relaxation-time curve, (Van Zijl 1999).
In quasi-brittle materials, creep can be observed at all load levels. For example
in concrete at low load levels, it has been found that for stress levels not exceeding
about one-half of the ultimate strength, creep varies in an almost linear proportion to the
applied stress and is known as linear creep, Gilbert (1988). There is only the primary
stage present for this case. At higher stress levels creep increases at a faster rate and
becomes non-linear with respect to stress, as shown in Figure 5.4. This non-linear
behaviour of creep at high stress levels is thought to be related to an increase in
microcracking. Rüsch (1960) found that if the sustained stress is greater than 80% of the
short term peak load, the deformation will continue under the sustained load until failure
limit is reached. If a creep load is less than 80% of the short term peak load, the
deformation will continue until the creep limit, at which creep is absent, is reached. In
this case failure does not occur and the structure has infinite life. However, Karsan and
Jirsa (1969) and Zhou (1992) found that the descending branch of the load-crack mouth
opening displacement (CMOD) curve in static loading might serve as a failure limit for
sustained loadings, see Figure 5.5.
Specific stress
1.0 failure limit

t=0
creep limit non-linear creep

at t = f
linear creep
0 Strain
Figure 5.4. Influence of load intensity and duration of strain (Gilbert 1988).
Load
failure limit
t=0
CMOD
Figure 5.5. Failure limit for high sustained loadings according to Zhou (1992).
5.2.2 Cracking and Rate Dependence
In all materials, even those that do not show significant creep, fracture is rate-sensitive.
Bazant and Gettu (1992) mentioned that this is due to the fact that the rupture of
interatomic or intermolecular bonds is a thermally activated process. The probability
that the thermal vibration energy of an atom or molecule (depending on the load) would
exceed the activation energy barrier of the bond increases with the number of
oscillations. It is equal to zero for an infinitely short time interval (high loading rate). A
number of experimental results illustrating the rate effect on the time-dependent
behaviour and on the fracture process are available in the literature, Wittmann et al.
(1987), Bazant et al. (1995), Bazant and Gettu (1992) and Zhou (1992). Some of them
are presented below.
Influence of Loading Rate on Fracture Parameter and on Size Effect
Experimental data clearly showed that fracture parameters (modulus of elasticity, tensile
strength, fracture energy, softening curve, etc.) and size effect are influenced by the
loading rate. The experiments carried out by Bazant and Gettu (1992) dealt with
simultaneous rate and size effects for three-point bending concrete fracture specimens.
Each test was performed under a constant CMOD rate. Figure 5.6(b) shows two load-
CMOD responses for two different rates of loading while Figure 5.6(c) presents two
load-deflection responses. The increase in peak load can be observed when the loading
rate is increased from 1.2 seconds to 20000 seconds.

D
D/6
2.5D
(a)
4000 4000
tp=1.2s
3000 3000
tp=1.2s
load (N)
load (N)
2000
tp=time to peak 2000
tp=20000s
1000 1000 tp=20000s
f'c=37MPa
age=150days
0 0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.000 0.025 0.050 0.075 0.100
crack
Crackmouth
mouth open displ.(mm)
open displ. (mm) load-line
Load-line displ. (mm)
displ. (mm)
(b) (c)
Figure 5.6. (a) Specimen geometry; (b) rate effect on load-CMOD response; (c)
rate effect on load-deflection response, Bazant and Gettu (1992).
The influence of loading rate on size effect was investigated using specimens of
three different sizes (D = 38 mm, 76 mm, 152 mm) and CMOD rates ranging from
4u10-11 m/s to 10-5 m/s (the corresponding times to peak ranging from 250000 seconds
to 1 second). Figure 5.7 shows the effect of the loading rate on the peak load for each
size and Figure 5.8 shows the log-log size effect plot, in which the full line represents
Bazant’s size effect equation. According to Bazant and Planas (1998), some general
trends were pointed out that: (i) the peak loads increase with increasing rate of loading;
(ii) the rate dependence of the peak loads is stronger for larger specimens than for small
ones; (iii) the nominal strength decreases with increasing size, approximately following
the size effect law; (iv) the size effect on the peak loads is stronger for slow loading
rates than for fast ones; and (v) a decrease of loading rate causes a shift towards more
brittle behaviour.
7
large medium small
6
Peak load (kN) 5
0
10-11
1.E-11 10-10
1.E-10 10-9
1.E-09 10-8
1.E-08 10-7
1.E-07 10-6
1.E-06 10-5
1.E-05 10-4
1.E-04
CMOD rate (m/s)
Figure 5.7. Effect of loading rate and specimen size on the peak load, Bazant and
Gettu (1992).
plasticity
0
LEFM
ln ((N/Bf tt)
ln
-1
fast
very slow
slow
usual
-2
-2 -1 0 1 2 3
ln (D/D0 )
Figure 5.8. Log-log size effect plot showing the rate-dependent shift of brittleness,
Bazant and Gettu (1992).

The rate effect on mode I fracture energy was investigated by Zhou (1992) by
means of three-point bending tests of notched concrete beams (50u50u640 mm). The
loading span was 600 mm and the notch depth was 25 mm. The deflection rates varied
from 0.05 Pm/s to 50 Pm/s, with time to peak loads ranging from about 5 seconds to
5000 seconds. The mean curves of the load-displacement responses are depicted in
Figure 5.9. This figure also depicts the rate effect on the modulus of elasticity and the
softening curve.
300
250 50 Pm/s
2 Pm/s
200 0.2 Pm/s
(N)
load (N)
0.05 Pm/s
150
Load
100
50
0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Deflection (mm)
Figure 5.9. Rate effects on the load-displacement responses obtained from the
central deflection-controlled three-point bending tests on notched concrete beams
carried out by Zhou (1992).
Mode I fracture energy was evaluated according to the RILEM TC-50 FMC
Recommendation (1985) for each rate. The results are plotted in a double logarithm plot
as shown in Figure 5.10.

GfI (Nm/m2)
100
90
80
70
60
50 u (Pm/s)
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Figure 5.10. Rate effect on mode I fracture energy obtained from the three-point
bending tests on notched concrete beams carried out by Zhou (1992).
The mode I fracture energy reported by Zhou (1992) seems to decrease as
loading rate decreases. The mode I fracture energy was related to the deflection rate in a
power law as
0.04
G fI § u ·
¨ ¸ (5.1)
G fI 0 © u 0 ¹
where u is deformation rate, u 0 = 2 Pm/s and G fI 0 is mode I fracture energy in Nm/m2
at displacement rate u 0 . However, experimental data with a wider range of deflection
rates varying from about 0.0167 Pm/s to 166.67 Pm/s provided by Wittmann et al.
(1987) showed that for much slower loading than static loading (about 1.67 Pm/s) mode
I fracture energy seems to increase with decreasing loading rate, see Figure 5.11. This
trend agrees with Bazant’s size effect law reported in Bazant and Gettu (1992). Both
Wittmann et al. (1987) and Bazant and Gettu (1992) pointed out that the mode I fracture
energy increases under very slow loading due to the influence of creep.
140
Nm/m ))
GGffI ((Nm/m22
90
40
10-5
1.E-05 10-4
1.E-04 10-3
1.E-03 10-2
1.E-02 10-1
1.E-01 100
1.E+00 101
1.E+01 102
1.E+02
Rate of deflection (mm/min)
Figure 5.11. Rate effect on mode I fracture energy according to Wittmann et al.
(1987).
The effect due to a sudden change of loading rate was also studied by Bazant et
al. (1995). In the tests, the initial CMOD rate was held constant up to a certain point in
the post-peak region. After the load decreased from its peak value to some lower value,
the CMOD rate was suddenly increased or decreased by several orders of magnitude
and the test continued with the new value of a constant CMOD rate. Figure 5.12
illustrates the effect on the load-CMOD curves. Curves A and B correspond to a large
and relatively smaller specimens, respectively. For each curve, a sudden change of slope
of the load-CMOD curve can be observed. Increasing of the loading rate caused the load
capacity to increase resulting in a second peak (Figure 5.12, curve A). Decreasing the
loading rate produced a fast drop in the slope of the load-CMOD curve (Figure 5.12,
curve B).
5.0
10-8 m/s
4.0
10-5 m/s
Load (kN) 3.0
10-7 m/s
A
2.0
10-8 m/s
B
1.0
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
CMOD (micro
CMOD m)
(Pm)
Figure 5.12. Effect of a sudden change of rate on load-CMOD curves, Bazant et al.
(1995).
5.3 Time-Dependent Fracture Behaviour
5.3.1 Concrete Creep Rupture Tests
In order to study time-dependent fracture behaviour, flexural creep rupture tests were
performed on notched concrete beams (100u100u840 mm) by Zhou (1992). The loading
span was 800 mm and the notch depth was 50 mm. Figure 5.13(a) shows a typical creep
curve which exhibits the general trend as illustrated in Figure 5.3(a) in which the
CMOD rate first decreased (primary creep), goes through a constant-rate state
(secondary creep) and then starts to increase at an accelerated rate up to failure (tertiary
creep). The experimental results are presented by the data points. The dashed line is the
theoretical prediction of the model purposed by Zhou (1992).

100 1.0
(a) (b)
80
Relative load, P/PU

CMOD (Pm) experimental 0.9
60 theoretical
0.8
40
experimental
20 power fit
0.7
theoretical
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 10 100 1000 10000
Time (s) Time to failure (s)
Figure 5.13. Flexural creep rupture test results of Zhou (1992): (a) CMOD-creep
results; (b) load-failure time results.
Figure 5.13(b) depicts the experimental results for the load-failure time curve.
The solid line is the power-law regression according to the relationship estimated by
Zhou (1992) as
22
§P·
tf 6¨ ¸ (5.2)
© Pu ¹
where tf is failure time in second, P is sustained load in kN and Pu is the peak load in kN
determined under deflection control (5 Pm/s).
5.3.2 Concrete Relaxation Tests
Another type of test which demonstrates time-dependent fracture behaviour is the
relaxation test. Relaxation tests in tension were also performed by Zhou (1992).
Concrete cylinders, 64 mm in diameter and 60 mm in length with 12 mm depth
circumferential notches, were used in the tests. The tests were performed under
displacement control. The displacement was increased at a constant rate up to a point

just after the peak and then the displacement was held constant for a certain period of
time and the stress relaxation recorded. Figure 5.14 illustrates a typical result. In this
test, the held time period was about 60, 30, 30 minutes, when the stress was 2.65, 1.75,
0.90 MPa, respectively. It can be seen that the stress decreases quickly at first but then
slows down at each held period, see Figure 5.14(b).
3.0 3.0
(a) (b)
2.5 2.5
2.0 2.0
Stress (MPa)
Stress (MPa)
1.5 1.5
1.0 1.0
0.5 0.5
0.0 0.0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Displacement (mm) Time (min)
Figure 5.14. A typical result obtained from relaxation test on a notched concrete
cylinder of Zhou (1992): (a) stress vs. displacement; (b) stress vs. time.
5.3.3 Masonry under High Sustained Compressive Loading
The time-dependent effects of heavily stressed masonry structures have found
increasing interest from masonry researchers due to sudden collapses of famous
masonry buildings such as the Pavia Civic Tower in 1989 and the Noto Cathedral in
1996. Also collapse investigation of the tower of Pavia made by Binda et al. (1992)
revealed that the time-dependent mechanical damage due to high sustained loading was
a possible cause of collapse.

To obtain a characterisation of creep behaviour of ancient masonry under high
sustained compressive stresses, Pina-Henriques (2005) carried out short-term creep tests
in which failure occurred between 0.5 and 8 days and long-term creep tests in which
failure took place between 400 to 800 days. Three different types of ancient masonry
prisms were considered: rubble prisms from the crypt of the Monza Cathedral denoted
by MRu, rubble prisms recovered from the wall ruins of the Pavia Civic Tower denoted
by PRu and regular prisms recovered from the belfry ruins of the Pavia Civic Tower
denoted by PRe. The dimensions of the MRu specimens were about 200u200u320 mm
while the PRu and PRe specimens were approximately 200u200u330 mm. Teflon sheets
were used to minimize restraining frictional effect. Both creep tests were performed by
applying the load in successive steps at a given time interval instead of executing
standard creep test with a constant load. Both creep tests were repeated with a series of
different loads to characterise the creep behaviour of the material, as a limited number
of specimens were available. For short-term creep tests, the average vertical (Hv) and
horizontal (Hh) strains are illustrated in Figure 5.15 while Figure 5.16 depicts the results
for long-term creep tests. Note that MRu specimens were tested with load steps of 0.25
N/mm2 at intervals of three hours while load steps of 0.30 N/mm2 at intervals of eight
hours were applied to PRu and PRe specimens for short-term creep tests. For long-term
creep tests only PRe specimens were considered with two different holding periods of
three months and six months. The same crack patterns were reported for both short-term
and long-term creep tests. It was pointed out that the failure mode is quite dangerous as
thin and diffuse vertical cracks developed in the specimens during testing but large
cracks and spalling were only observed at failure. Also, the investigation of the strain
rate evolution with the applied stress demonstrated that the three main stages of creep
curve existed for both short-term and long-term creep tests.

-8.0 -12.0
MRu_3 MRu_4 PRu_4
MRu_1
-6.0 PRu_2
-8.0 PRu_5
MRu_2
v [10-3]
v [10-3]
MRu_5
-4.0
-4.0 PRu_3
-2.0
MRu_6
0.0 0.0
MRu_6
4.0 10.0 PRu_5

h [10-3]
h [10-3]
PRu_3 PRu_2
MRu_2 MRu_5
8.0 20.0
MRu_3 MRu_4
MRu_1 PRu_4
12.0 30.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
Time [days] Time [days]
(a) MRu prisms (b) PRu prisms
-6.0
PRe_5
PRe_8 PRe_7
-4.0
v [10-3]
PRe_6
-2.0
0.0
PRe_6
4.0
h [10-3]
8.0
12.0 PRe_5
PRe_8
PRe_7
16.0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0
Time [days]
(c) PRe prisms
Figure 5.15. Strain-time diagrams obtained from short-term creep tests on ancient
masonry prisms according to Pina-Henriques (2005).

-3.0 -4.5
=1.5 =2.2 =2.8 =3.5 =4.1 =4.1 =4.8 =5.4 =6.1
=4.8 =6.7
-2.0 -3.0
v [10-3]
v [10-3]
-1.0 -1.5
89 days 95 days 91 days 91 days 97 days 184 days 187 days 188 days 180 days
0.0 0.0
1.0 2.0
h [10-3]
h [10-3]
2.0 4.0 PRe_11

PRe_9 PRe_12
PRe_10 PRe_13
PRe_14
3.0 6.0
0 100 200 300 400 500 0 200 400 600 800
Time [days] Time [days]
(a) with holding periods of three months (b) with holding periods of six months
Figure 5.16. Stain-time diagrams obtained from long-term creep tests on ancient
masonry PRe prisms according to Pina-Henriques (2005).
In addition, the evolution of the creep coefficient, defined as the ratio of the
creep strain to the elastic strain, was interpreted from both short-term and long-term
creep results as shown in Figures 5.17(a) and 5.17(b), respectively. Creep coefficients
of approximately 0.10 and 0.15 were found at the end of 8 hours and 90 days of
sustained loading, respectively, implying that most creep strain occurs at an early stage
as the fastest failure time for short-term creep tests is more than 0.5 days while it is
more than 400 days for long-term creep tests. It was also pointed out that the long-term
creep coefficient of approximately 0.15 is significantly lower than the values
recommended by Eurocode 6, CEN (2003), for new masonry made with clay units,
which range from 0.5-1.0.

0.20 0.20
Creep coefficient (-)

Creep coefficient (-) 0.16 0.16
0.12 0.12
0.08 0.08
0.04 0.04
0.00 0.00
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 0 20 40 60 80 100
Time (h) Time (days)
(a) (b)
Figure 5.17. Evolution of creep coefficient with time obtained from creep tests on
ancient masonry PRe prisms according to Pina-Henriques (2005): (a) short-term
creep tests and (b) long-term creep tests with holding periods of three months.
5.4 Summary
An overview of the main features of time-dependent fracture behaviour at macroscopic
level of quasi-brittle materials especially concrete and masonry has been given in this
chapter. For mode I fracture in quasi-brittle materials, there are two main sources of
time-dependent fracture including the viscoelasticity due to creep of the bulk material
within the structure outside the FPZ and the crack rate dependence inside the FPZ.
Creep behaviour was described and discussed at both low and high load levels. For a
sufficiently high load level, all three main stages of creep curve could be observed.
Some experimental evidence for the effect of loading rate on time-dependent behaviour
and on the fracture process has been presented. All fracture parameters and size effect
are influenced by the loading rate. Not only does the peak load increase with increasing
loading rate but also the modulus of elasticity. Furthermore mode I fracture energy is
likely to have the same trend. Rate dependence of the peak load is stronger for larger
specimen than for small one. Sudden changes of the loading rate have a significant
effect on the load deformation response.
There is a strong interaction between fracture and creep in quasi-brittle
materials, which is very important for both failure and serviceability analyses of
structures. Analysis of long-term fracture propagation in quasi-brittle materials must
take this interaction into account.

CHAPTER 6 MODELLING OF TIME-DEPENDENT MODE I FRACTURE 180
CHAPTER 6
MODELLING OF TIME-DEPENDENT MODE I
FRACTURE
6.1 Introduction
As pointed out in the previous chapter, many structures built of quasi-brittle materials
such as concrete or masonry, when subjected to sustained loading, can develop cracks
which over time propagate and could eventually lead to structural failure. Analysis of
creep under sustained loading is of fundamental importance in the prediction of the time
to failure of many concrete and masonry structures. Understanding and being able to
predict how cracks propagate under various levels of load rate and load duration is very
important for critical infrastructure such as mass concrete dams (see Karihaloo and
Santhikumar (1999), Barpi et al. (1999), Barpi and Valente (2000), Barpi and Valente
(2002) and Barpi and Valente (2005)), concrete tunnel lining, bridge abutments, historic
structures and many more.
Time dependence may be accounted for in several ways. The simplest way is to
include its effect indirectly through parameters in the time-independent formulation.
Thus, the time-independent elastic and fracture parameters (E, ftc, GfI, softening curve,
etc.) are simply considered to depend on the rate. This may be a useful expedient for
some situations with constant rate only. More detailed models are required for the
situations with widely variable loading rates, Bazant and Planas (1998).
Bazant and Li (1997) identified two main sources for time-dependent fracture in
quasi-brittle materials: the viscoelasticity of the bulk material within the structure
outside the crack zone and the cohesive crack rate dependent opening. The crack rate
dependence is associated with the rate of the process of the breakage of bonds within
the fracture process zone (FPZ). The viscoelasticity of the bulk material can lead to a
redistribution of stress as well as additional stresses which cause the micro-cracks
within the process zone to spread with time and a possible propagation of cracking and
potential failure at an early age. Nevertheless, the observed strength increase with
loading rate cannot be captured if only bulk creep is considered as confirmed by Wu
and Bazant (1993). Bazant and Xiang (1997) also suggested that there is a mechanism
in the FPZ which is solely related to crack rate dependence and which governs the crack
propagation velocity, especially in the final stages of crack opening. In addition, Van
Zijl et al. (2001b) presented evidence that the inclusion of crack rate dependence was
important in the estimate of the time to failure of a structure under the sustained load.
Many attempts have been proposed in the past to study time-dependent fracture
and to explain the macroscopically observed behaviour of creep fracture. Santhikumar
and Karihaloo (1998) discuss three main approaches. The first approach is based on the
concept of activation energy and rate-dependent softening (see Bazant (1990), Bazant
and Jirasek (1992), Bazant (1993), Bazant and Jirasek (1993), Wu and Bazant (1993),
Bazant and Li (1997), Li and Bazant (1997), Van Zijl et al. (2001a) and Van Zijl et al.
(2001b)). The second approach introduces time dependency into the fictitious crack
model by adoption of a rheological model (see Hansen (1990), Zhou (1992), Zhou and
Hillerborg (1992), Carpinteri et al. (1992), Carpinteri et al. (1995), Barpi and Valente
(1998), Barpi et al. (1999), Barpi and Valente (2002) and Barpi and Valente (2005)).
The constitutive laws are obtained by fitting test results. This approach ignores the
structural interaction of the bulk creep on the stresses induced on the crack from the
surrounding uncracked material. The third approach combines a rheological model for
viscoelastic behaviour with a micromechanical homogenization model for tension
softening in the FPZ (see Santhikumar and Karihaloo (1996), Santhikumar and
Karihaloo (1998), Santhikumar et al. (1998), Karihaloo and Santhikumar (1999), Barpi
and Valente (2003a), Barpi and Valente (2003b) and Barpi and Valente (2004)).
This research considers static fracture under sustained loading, time-dependent
fracture resulting from the viscoelasticity of the bulk material outside the FPZ and
cohesive crack rate dependence. Creep deformations are assumed to be irrecoverable
and are treated as dislocations. The magnitude of the bulk creep deformations are taken
to be related to the elastic deformations, material parameters and time. The simple
concept of a creep coefficient is adopted to account for bulk creep. When inelastic
deformations such as those within the FPZ are present under a sustained load, bulk
creep within the elastic material of a structure causes a system of self-equilibrating
stresses to develop and additional tension at the head of the FPZ which results in
propagation of the crack tip. A simplified crack rate model is proposed in this chapter
and used to represent rate-dependent crack opening. Only time-dependent mode I
fracture is considered in the present study.
In order to capture time-dependent creep fracture, the finite element model
described in Chapter 3 is extended by introducing creep displacements and crack rate
dependency into the equilibrium system leading to the interaction between cracking and
time-dependent behaviour.
This chapter begins with the basic structural relations. A description of bulk
creep (both long-term and short-term) is given and a proposed model for crack rate
dependency is presented. The structural governing equations are then formulated in LCP
form as a function of a quasi-prescribed displacement rate control. The solution
algorithm needed to solve the LCP is outlined. The sensitivity analysis and behaviour of
the proposed model are illustrated. Finally, in order to verify the formulation, the
developed model is applied to predicting time-dependent crack propagation in plain
concrete subjected to sustained loading as experimental data on masonry are lacking.
Some examples are given and compared with published results.
It is worth noting that the time-dependent behaviour of masonry structures at
low (service) load levels have been intensively studied and a number of models have
been proposed and utilised, for example, Shrive and England (1981), Warren and
Lenczner (1981), Brooks and Bingel (1994), Maksoud and Drysdale (1995) and Anand
and Bhatia (1995).
Although the major causes of time-dependent deformation are shrinkage and
creep, shrinkage is disregarded in this study as it is assumed that at high load level creep
appears to be a more important source of time dependence and time-dependent fracture
behaviour is mainly governed by interaction of creep and rate-dependent cracking. A
model of both shrinkage and creep can be found in Van Zijl (1999).
6.2 Basic Structural Relations
Consider a matrix-vector formulation such as the finite element method describing
structural behaviour in Chapter 3. Here the structural behaviour is written in rate form
with respect to time. The global structure load vector rate is denoted by F while the
conjugate unconstrained global displacement vector rate is denoted by u . For a linear
elastic small displacement problem the fundamental relationship can be expressed as
F Ku (6.1)
where K represents both the secant and tangent structure stiffness matrix. As described
in Chapter 3, associated with each finite element (the basic triangular element) are
generalised forces/stresses which can be grouped into a vector Qu as well as conjugate
generalised displacements/strains qu (the subscript “u” refers to element quantities). At
a structural level the element generalised forces and displacements can be assembled
into structural vectors Q and q , respectively. Equilibrium relations between the load
vector rate and the rate of the generalised forces can be established for each element.
Assembling the equilibrium relations on a structural level gives
F AQ F
AQ (6.2)
where A is the assembled equilibrium matrix. The equilibrium matrix, when nodal
movements are ignored, is a matrix of constants and hence is independent of
deformation and time. Compatibility conditions between the global displacement vector
rate u and the vector of generalised displacement rates can be determined through the
theorem of virtual work ( F Tu Q Tq ) and Equation (6.2), that is
A Tu q (6.3)
The generalised displacement rates q are taken to be the sum of recoverable
generalised elastic displacement rates q e , irrecoverable generalised inelastic
displacement rates q p and irrecoverable generalised creep displacement rates q c , hence

q q e q p q c (6.4)
Note again the recoverable component of creep, shrinkage and thermal effects
are not considered here. Using Equations (6.3) and (6.4), the recoverable generalised
elastic displacement rates are expressible by
q e A Tu q p q c (6.5)
Q q p + q c dt
dt
Q
q e dt
S
1
q
qp + qc qe
Figure 6.1. Unloading constitutive relationship for time-dependent behaviour.
As it is assumed that there is no damage (degrading of the instantaneous
unloading stiffness) through the history of loading and that the instantaneous unloading
stiffness is equal to the initial secant stiffness. For a linear elastic material the
recoverable component of the generalised displacement rates can therefore be
represented by
Sq
Q (6.6)
e
where S diag ª¬S1 , S 2 ...Sm º¼ is an assembled block-diagonal matrix of “m” element
kernel stiffness matrices. Figure 6.1 shows a representation of Equation (6.6).
Combining Equations (6.2), (6.5) and (6.6), yields

F
AQ ASq e ASA Tu AS q p + q c Ku AS q p + q c (6.7)
or
u K -1F K -1 AS q p + q c (6.8)
or
u D K -1F unit K -1 AS q p + q c D ueunit K -1 AS q p + q c (6.9)
where D is a load factor rate. F unit and uunit

e are the global structure load vector and the
elastic component of the global displacement u due to a unit load factor, respectively.
The term AS q p + q c in Equation (6.7) represents equivalent nodal loads calculated
by imposing the irrecoverable displacement rates q p + q c on the structure. Substituting
Equation (6.5) into Equation (6.6), and using Equation (6.8) one can write
SA Tu Sq Sq

Q p c SA TK -1F SA T K -1 AS q p + q c S q p + q c (6.10)
or
SA T K -1F Z q + q
Q (6.11)
p c
or
D SA T K -1F unit Z q + q D Qunit Z q + q

Q (6.12)
p c e p c
in which Z is a stress matrix defined by SATK-1AS-S and Qunit

e is the elastic component
of the generalised forces Q due to a unit load factor. Equation (6.10) is in the familiar
relaxation format where the structure is firstly disconnected at the nodes and the
displacements q p + q c applied to the structural members, deforming the members. To

reconnect the structure, imposed generalised forces due to the irrecoverable
displacements need to be applied and are given by
S q p + q c (6.13)
The members are then reconnected and the structure finds its own equilibrium
state. The restoring generalised forces to maintain equilibrium are given by
SA T K -1 AS q p + q c (6.14)
Note that the system of generalised forces Z q p + q c is a self equilibrating
system since (see Equation (6.2))
AZ ASA T K -1 AS AS 0 (6.15)
One can also show using Equations (6.3) and (6.4) that
Zq ZA Tu SA K ASA

T -1 T
SA T u 0
(6.16)
? Zq e Z q + q
p c
The generalised inelastic displacement rates q p can be expressed as a function
of a supervector of inelastic multiplier rates, denoted by . For an associated flow rule
it can be expressed as
q p N (6.17)
while for a non-associated flow rule, q p reads
q p V (6.18)
where N is a normality matrix and V is a dilatancy matrix (dilatancy assumed to be
independent of ).
6.3 Bulk Creep or Viscoelasticity
The generalised creep displacements qc and its rate are defined by assuming that the
creep displacements are proportional to the recoverable generalised elastic
displacements at time t and a creep coefficient I t , as determined by
qc I t qe q c I q e I qe (6.19)
Since the creep displacements are assumed to be proportional to the elastic
deformations, creep only scales uniformly all deformations and there will be no induced
stresses for a homogenous material if there are no inelastic displacements. This implies
that for a crack to propagate under creep in a “homogenous material” there must exist a
process zone (microcracking).
6.3.1 Long-Term Bulk Creep
For long periods exceeding several months, the creep coefficient I(t), which is the ratio
of the creep displacement to the elastic displacement at time t, is expressed by an
exponential growth function or negative exponential power law as
§ t
·
I t If ¨1 e T1 ¸ (6.20)
¨ ¸
© ¹
where If is the creep coefficient at time infinity, T1 is the retardation time at which
63% of the maximum value of I is obtained. Figure 6.2 illustrates the evolution of I
with time.
If
I 0.63If
T1
t
Figure 6.2. Evolution of long-term creep coefficient with time.
For a time increment such that t t i 't , Equation (6.20) can be approximated by
ti
If e T1
'I 't (6.21)
T1
For an acceptable error H, the maximum time increment 't max must be less than
't max 2
d ti
(6.22)
T1
If e T1
6.3.2 Short-Term Bulk Creep
For short creep duration (not exceeding several months), Bazant and Chern (1985)
proposed a double power law for the creep coefficient I(t). Bazant and Chern’s
expression is written here in a modified form as
§ 1
· 1
I t, t c If ¨ t c 3 0.05 ¸ t 8 (6.23)
© ¹
where t' is age of the material when the first load is applied; t and t' are in days. The
incremental form of Equation (6.23) may be expressed as

0.125If § 31 ·
'I 7 ¨ t c 0.05 ¸ 't (6.24)
t i8 © ¹
The time increment must be less than the maximum time increment 't max calculated
using Equation (6.25) for an acceptable error H.
15
8
128t
't max d i
(6.25)
§ 1 ·
7If ¨ t c 3 0.05 ¸
© ¹
Equations (6.21) and (6.24) can be written in general form as
'I CI 't (6.26)
6.4 Crack Rate Dependency
Based on the activation energy theory of the rate-process of bond ruptures in the
fracture process zone and the assumption that the cracking rate is governed by this
process, Wu and Bazant (1993) derived the following expression for the crack opening
for the case of constant temperature.

rate w
ª V V t (w) º

w r sinh «
w » (6.27)
«¬ k 0 V t (w) k1f tc »¼
r is a constant, reference crack opening displacement rate, t(w) describes the

where w
strength degradation with an infinitely slow displacement rate and k0 is a constant in the
range of 0.01-0.08. The parameter k1 is a small positive constant to prevent the
denominator in Equation (6.27) from becoming zero. The expression for describing the
crack rate dependency was modified by Van Zijl et al. (2001b) and is here recast
without the residual term and written in terms of the inelastic multiplier and its rate, as
ª § O ·º
t O «1 k 0 sinh 1 ¨ ¸» (6.28)
¬ © Or ¹¼
with Or being a constant and refers to a reference inelastic multiplier rate. A simple,
alternative expression proposed by Sluys (1992) and De Borst et al. (1993), in which the
cracking process is considered to be viscous and the activation energy-controlled
process is described with a viscosity term which acts only in the fracture process zone,
is
ª m º
V V t ( N) «1 N » (6.29)
¬ f tc ¼
where m is the cracking viscosity, N is the cracking strain and N is the cracking strain
rate. The rate term is degraded with increasing crack width to avoid a residual strength.
Van Zijl et al. (2001b), however, showed that with the simple expression, Equation
(6.29), it was impossible to capture the observed strength increase over the entire range
of loading rates. Using Equation (6.28), Equation (3.50) in Section 3.5.2 (Chapter 3) can
be modified to include rate-dependent cracking and can be rewritten as
0tM
¬
N TQ - ªI + L O º r H A t 0
¼
(6.30)
ª § O · § O · § O ·º

where L O diag « k 0 sinh 1 ¨ 1 ¸ ,k 0 sinh 1 ¨ 2 ¸ ,...k 0 sinh 1 ¨ A ¸ » is an assembled
¬ © Or1 ¹ © Or 2 ¹ © OrA ¹¼
block-diagonal crack rate dependency matrix of “ A ” inelastic multipliers and I is the
identity matrix. According to Equations (3.41) and (6.30), the evolution of the inelastic
failure surface with rate-dependent crack opening may thus be represented as

¬
= ª I + L O º r H
¼
(6.31)
6.5 Finite Incremental Formulation
6.5.1 Viscoelasticity with Rate-Independent Crack Opening
Assuming a non-associated flow rule and using Equations (6.12) and (6.18), the
nonholonomic rate form of Equation (3.51) in Section 3.5.2 becomes
0 t M N TQunit
e N T Zq c N T ZV H A t 0 (6.32)
Via Equations (6.16) and (6.19), one can write
§ ·
Zq c
I
1

Z q p + q e Z ¨ q p + q c I qe ¸
© ¹ (6.33)
? Zq c
1
1 I
I Zq p IZqe
Substituting the above into Equation (6.32) and using Equation (6.18) gives
I T § 1 ·
0 t M N TQeunit N Zqe ¨ N T ZV H ¸ A t 0 (6.34)
1 I © 1 I ¹
To be able to solve the problem numerically the rate equations must be transformed into
approximate incremental form. When the time increment is small enough Equation
(6.19) can be approximated by
q c I t i qe 'I qe t i (6.35)
Note that subscript “i” denotes the value at the time step t t i . Using Equations (6.26)
and (6.35), Equation (6.34) can be written in incremental form as

§ 'tCI · T § 1 ·
0 t M 'N TQ eunit ¨ ¸ N Zq e t i ¨ N T ZV H ¸ A t 0 (6.36)
¨ 1 I t ¸ ¨ 1 I t ¸
© i ¹ © i ¹
When the applied loads are sustained we have F 0 or 'D 0 , hence, under
sustained loading Equation (6.36) becomes
§ CI · T § 1 ·
0 t M 't ¨ ¸ N Zq e t i ¨ N T ZV H ¸ A t 0 (6.37)
¨ 1 I t ¸ ¨ 1 I t ¸
© i ¹ © i ¹
Equation (6.37) is the governing equation with rate-independent cracking under
sustained loading.
6.5.2 Viscoelasticity with Rate-Dependent Crack Opening
Equation (6.30) can be approximated by using a Taylor’s series expansion of the crack

rate dependency matrix L O about O t i and is expressed by
0tM N TQ t i - r - H t i - L
§ 1 · (6.38)
©
't ¹

N T Q - ¨ I Lˆ H L ¸ A t 0
in which
^L L 2 ...LA `
T
L 1 (6.39)
§ § O (t i ) · · ª § · § O (t i ) · º
Ln k 0 rn ¨ 1 ¨ ¸ ¸ «sinh 1 ¨ O (t i ) ¸ ¨ ¸ » n 1, 2...A (6.40)
¨ © Otc ¹ ¸ «
© n ¹
¬ © Or ¹ n ¨© Or2 O (t i ) 2 ¸ »
¹n ¼
L diag > L1 , L 2 ...LA @ (6.41)
k 0 rn § § O (t i ) · ·
¨1 ¨ ¸ n 1, 2...A
¨ © Otc ¸¹ ¸

Ln (6.42)
Or2 O (t i ) 2 © n¹
n
Lˆ diag ª¬ Lˆ 1 , Lˆ 2 ...Lˆ A º¼ (6.43)
ª § O (t i ) · § O (t i ) · º
L̂ n k 0 «sinh 1 ¨ ¸ ¨ ¸ » n 1, 2...A (6.44)
« © Or ¹n ¨ O 2 O (t ) 2 ¸ »
¬ © r i ¹n ¼
where Otc denotes the critical crack opening inelastic multiplier. Using the incremental
form of Equation (6.12), Equation (6.38) becomes
§ 1 · (6.45)

'N TQ eunit N T Zqc ¨ N T ZV I Lˆ H L ¸ A t 0
© 't ¹
Adopting the incremental form of Equation (6.16) and using Equation (6.35) gives
Zqc
1
1 I ti
I t Zq
i p 'I Zq e t i (6.46)
Substituting Equation (6.46) into Equation (6.45) and using incremental form of
Equation (6.18) and Equation (6.26), Equation (6.45) becomes
'tCI
0tM N TQ t i - r - H t i - L N TQ eunit N T Zq e t i
1 I t
i
(6.47)
§ 1 ·
¨
1

N T ZV I Lˆ H L ¸ A t 0
© 1 I t i
¨ 't ¸¹
Under sustained loading as 'D 0 , we have the governing equation with rate-
dependent cracking as
'tCI
0tM N TQ t i - r - H t i - L N T Zq e t i
1 I t
i
(6.48)
§ 1 ·
¨
1
¨ 1 I t i
N T ZV I Lˆ H L ¸ A t 0
't ¸¹
©
6.5.3 Quasi-Prescribed Displacement Rate Control
The incremental form of the global displacement vector defined in Equation (6.9) can be
written as
u 'Duunit
e D + K -1 ASqc (6.49)
where D K -1 ASV for non-associated flow rule. Substituting Equation (6.35) into
Equation (6.49) yields
u 1 I t 'u
i
unit
e D + 'I t i u eunit (6.50)
Choosing the rth displacement u r as the control displacement, the increment in the
control displacement reads
'u r 1 I t ' u
i
unit
er Dr + 'I t i u erunit (6.51)
Solving the above equation for the incremental load factor 'D , therefore
'u r Dr 'I t i u erunit ' Dcr 'I t i

' (6.52)
1 I t u
i
unit
er 1 I t
i
where is the control displacement factor and Dcr Dr / u erunit . Using Equation (6.26) and
assuming the rth displacement rate u r is set, Equation (6.52) can be expressed as
't u r (Dc 't CI t i )

' r (6.53)
1 I t i u er
unit
1 I t i
Substituting Equation (6.53) into Equation (6.36) provides the incremental governing
equation for bulk creep with rate-independent cracking under quasi-prescribed
displacement rate control u r as

§§ u · T unit § CI · T ·
0 t M 't ¨ ¨ unit r ¸
¨ ¨ u er (1 I t i ) ¸
N Qe ¨
¨ 1 I t ¸ ¸ N Zqe t i t i N TQeunit ¸
¸
©© ¹ © i ¹ ¹
(6.54)
§§ 1 · § 1 · ·
¨¨ N T ZV H ¨ c
e D r ¸ A t 0
N TQunit
¨ ¨ 1 I t i ¸¸ ¨ 1 I t ¸¸ ¸
©© ¹ © i ¹ ¹
Similarly, substituting Equation (6.53) into Equation (6.47) the governing equation with
bulk creep combined with rate-dependent cracking under quasi-prescribed displacement
rate control u r can be expressed as
§§ u · T unit § CI · T ·
't ¨ ¨ unit r ¸
¨ ¨ u er (1 I t i ) ¸
N Qe ¨ ¸
¨ 1 I t ¸ N Zqe t i t i N TQunit
e ¸
¸
(6.55)
©© ¹ © i ¹ ¹
§§ · T § · T unit L·
¨¨
¨¨
1
¸
¸
N ZV ¨
¨
1
¸
¸
N Qe Dcr I Lˆ H ¸ A t 0
© © 1 I ti ¹ © 1 I ti ¹ 't ¹¸
6.6 Solution Algorithm
The analysis is carried out by stepping the time interval from zero and using a quasi-
prescribed displacement rate control. Equations (6.54) and (6.55) need an estimate of
the elastic displacements at the time of interest. Firstly assume an estimate of the
inelastic multiplier vector at time t i 't is known so that only the elastic
displacements and the bulk creep displacements are unknown. Estimating the inelastic
multiplier vector will be discussed later in this section. From Equations (6.5) and (6.9),
the elastic generalised displacement rates can be written as
q e A Tu q p q c D A Tuunit
e A T K -1 AS I q p + q c
(6.56)
D A Tueunit B q p + q c
This equation is complicated by the fact that the bulk creep displacements are
themselves a function of the elastic displacements. Substituting Equation (6.19) into
(6.56) yields
q e A Tuunit
e
B q p I qe I Bq e (6.57)
and
q e I I B
1
A u
T unit
e
B q p I qe (6.58)
Using the incremental form of Equation (6.18) and assuming a small time increment,
the above equations can be approximated by
qe 'A Tuunit

e B V 'I qne In Bqe (6.59)
and
I I B 'A u B V 'I qen

1 T unit
qe n e (6.60)
The elastic generalised displacements can therefore be calculated using Equation
(6.60). However, the computationally most efficient means to calculate these elastic
generalised displacements is to solve Equation (6.59) iteratively rather than to use
Equation (6.60) which makes excessive demands on computer memory. Therefore, the
following is used until convergence ( qe n 1 qe n d 106 )
qe n+1 'A Tu eunit B VO 'I q e t i I t i Bqe n (6.61)
and then
qe q e t i qe (6.62)
All the governing equations including Equations (6.37), (6.48), (6.54) and (6.55)
are in the form of a standard LCP
0dz p Mx A x t 0 (6.63)
which can be solved for x = ( z = -M if crack rate dependency is not considered or
z = -M if crack rate dependency is considered) using standard LCP solvers as outlined
in Section 3.6 for a given increment in time 't d 't max .
The analysis in this study for time-dependent behaviour can be divided into three
main stages with the first stage before cracking, the next stage when cracking exists and
the final stage under sustained loading.
For a prescribed displacement rate u r at the rth freedom, the stage before
cracking is first analysed until the first inelastic interface node is reached. The analysis
steps for the uncracked stage are:
(1.1) Estimate the time increment t = min (tbc, tfy) in which tbc is the time
increment limited by the bulk creep. tbc can be calculated using Equation (6.22)
or (6.25) depending on the type of the creep process being considered. tfy is the
time increment limited by the first inelastic point which can be estimated using:
min ^'t y1 't y2 .......`

T
't fy (6.64)
where
1 I t N Q t r
i
T
i
't yn n
n 1, 2,3.... (6.65)
§§ u r · T unit ·
¨¨ ¨ CI t i unit ¸ N Q e n CI N Zq e t i n ¸¸
T
©© u er ¹ ¹
Note that if the first time increment cannot be determined (which can occur if
the short-term creep process is considered), a very small time increment is used
instead.
(1.2) Calculate the load factor increment, , using Equation (6.53) with = 0 and
update all corresponding quantities.
(1.3) If the first inelastic/yielding interface node is reached where t = tfy, skip to the
next stage when cracking exists. Otherwise return to Step (1.1) for next time
increment.
For the stage when cracking exists, the problem is solved in incremental steps as
a series of LCPs; the strategy follows Section 3.6. The set of inelastic multipliers is
divided into two groups including active and inactive sets of inelastic multipliers. The
active multipliers pertain to those points which are still inelastic and are not unloading.
The analysis steps for this stage are:
(2.1) Assume the time increment t = tbc using Equation (6.22) or (6.25) depending
on the type of the creep process being considered.
(2.2) Form LCP for the active set using either Equation (6.54) if crack rate
dependency is not considered or Equation (6.55) if crack rate dependency is
considered. Information from the previous time step is utilised.
(2.3) Solve the LCP for corresponding to the assumed time increment.
(2.4) Check whether the assumed time increment is acceptable. If there are any new
active multipliers or if any active multipliers reach their critical opening

displacement value Otc , the assumed time increment is adjusted and the iteration
returns to Step (2.2) with a new time increment determined.
The new time increment is estimated from t = min (tbp, tny, tlimit)
where tbp is the time increment required for the critical crack opening
displacement Otc to be reached by any of the active set (at any point in the
process zone). tny is the time increment required for the process zone or the
inactive set to be activated at a new point. Note that both tbp and tny are
predicted based on the assumption that all variables vary linearly with . This
assumption is true for the case of rate-independent crack opening. tlimit is the
time increment used to make sure that the new time increment is less than the
old time increment.
(2.5) If the assumed time increment is acceptable, update all corresponding quantities
along with finding the new active point if t = tny and/or updating the active set
due to new critical point if t = tbp. Return to Step (2.1) for next time step until
there is no load carrying capacity or until the prescribed sustained load is
reached.
For the stage under sustained loading, the load level is kept constant ( = 0)
and the creep behaviour is analysed until creep failure/rupture is reached. The problem
is also solved in incremental steps as a series of LCPs. The analysis steps for this stage
are:
(3.1) Assume the time increment t = tbc using Equation (6.22) or (6.25) depending
on the type of creep process being considered.

(3.2) Form LCP for the active set using Equation (6.37) if crack rate dependency is
not considered or Equation (6.48) if crack rate dependency is considered.
Information from the previous time step is utilised.
(3.3) Solve the LCP for corresponding to the assumed time increment.
(3.4) Check whether the assumed time increment is acceptable. If there are any new
active multipliers or if any active multipliers reach their critical values, the
assumed time increment is adjusted and the analysis returns to Step (3.2) with a
new time increment. The new time increment is estimated as in Step (2.4).
(3.5) If the assumed time increment is acceptable, update all corresponding quantities
along with finding the new active point if t = tny and/or updating the active set
due to new critical point if t = tbp. Then return to Step (3.1) for next time step
until creep failure/rupture is reached indicated by the final/tertiary stage of
creep-time curve.
6.7 Sensitivity Analysis and Behaviour of the Proposed Model
In this section, a sensitivity analysis is carried out varying the parameters If and k0
which significantly influence the time-dependent response of the proposed model. The
If parameter controls the bulk creep behaviour while k0 influences the crack rate
dependency. Short-term bulk creep with rate dependent cracking is considered. For this
purpose, a three-point bending problem loaded under a constant deflection rate is
considered. The span-to-depth ratio is 8.0. The ratio of the notch depth to specimen
depth is 0.5. The results of this analysis are shown in Figure 6.3. All material properties
are held constant and the only parameters that are varied is either If or k0.
1200
If
High phi
1000 If
Low phi
800
F (N)
600
400
200
0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
u (mm)
1200
High k0
k0
1000 Low k0
k0
800
F (N)
600
400
200
0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
u (mm)
Figure 6.3. Sensitivity analysis results from the time-dependent fracture model.
As can be seen in Figure 6.3, the selected parameters influence the response in
different ways. The discussion is focussed on the effects on the basic characteristics
associated with mode I fracture, i.e. modulus of elasticity indicated by the initial slope,
tensile strength reflected by the peak load and mode I fracture energy represented by the
area under the curve. As can be observed in Figure 6.3, the bulk creep parameter If
affects all properties, but predominately the modulus of elasticity and strength. The
crack rate dependency factor k0 has very little influence on the modulus of elasticity but
plays an important role on strength and mode I fracture energy.
Increasing the loading rate should result in an increase in the peak load. In order
to show the capability of the proposed formulation in capturing this behaviour, a three-
point bending problem with different deflection rates is again considered. The results of
this analysis are shown in Figure 6.4.
1.2
1.0
50 Pm/s
2 Pm/s
0.8
F/Fp at highest rate
0.2 Pm/s
0.05 Pm/s
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
u/u max at highest rate
Figure 6.4. Numerical responses with different displacement rates.

As can be seen, the proposed formulation with crack rate dependency displays
an increasing strength with increasing loading rate which is what is expected. In the
next section, the predictions of the formulation are compared to experimental results. It
can be observed that all the basic material parameters including modulus of elasticity,
tensile strength and mode I fracture energy are strongly dependent on the loading rate.
This is why tests on structural materials must be performed at a standardized rate.
6.8 Validation
6.8.1 Simulation of Flexural Creep Rupture Tests on Concrete
The proposed formulation is applied to predicting the time-dependent crack propagation
in concrete notched beams subjected to sustained mid-span concentrated loads. These
creep experiments were conducted by Zhou (1992). In the creep tests, the beams were
subjected to sustained loadings of 76%, 80%, 85% and 92% of the peak load obtained
from displacement-controlled tests. The deflection rate was 5 Pm/s. The beam
dimensions were 840u100u100 mm with a span of 800 mm and a 4 mm notch of depth
50 mm (see Figure 6.5). The reported material properties were: tensile strength f tc = 2.8
MPa, modulus of elasticity E = 36 GPa and mode I fracture energy G fI = 0.082
Nmm/mm2. All specimens were about 4 months old at testing. All beams were sealed to
avoid shrinkage. The finite element model employed in this study is shown in Figure
6.5. A computer program in MATLAB was written to perform the time-dependent
fracture analyses. Flow chart of the MATLAB program and main MATLAB codes are
provided in Appendix B.
4 mm wide, 50 mm depth v-notch
800 mm
Figure 6.5. Finite element model for creep rupture simulations.
Since the sustained loads being considered are greater than 50% of peak load,
crack rate dependency becomes crucial and plays an important role in the prediction of
the creep behaviour, in particular the time to failure as discussed in Van Zijl et al.
(2001b). The formulation with crack rate dependency is used here coupled with short-
term bulk creep as all the loading periods are less than 1 hour.
The formulation parameters including the tensile strength, modulus of elasticity
and mode I fracture energy are all rate-dependent and the reported values are those at a
specific loading rate. For this reason, a set of reference material properties need to be
estimated. The formulation parameters are obtained by studying Zhou (1992)’s results
on smaller three-point bending specimens (640u50u50 mm) made of the same concrete
as the larger beam specimens but tested under various loading rates. The span of the
smaller beams was 600 mm and the notch length was 25 mm. The deflection rates
varied from 0.05 Pm/s to 50 Pm/s. The same finite element mesh as in Figure 6.5 but
scaled to the smaller geometry was used for the simulation. Self-weight was also
included in all the simulations in this study. Figure 6.6 compares the normalised
numerical and experimental peak loads at different deflection rates.

1.0
m/s
50 Pm/s 0.9
0.8
at 50
Fp/Fp at
Fp/Fp
0.7
0.6 Experimental
Numerical
0.5
-2 -1
10
0.01 10
0.1 1010 10
10
1
10
100
2
Deflection rate ((Pm/s)

Deflection m/s)
Figure 6.6. Rate effect on peak load in three-point bending tests.
The peak load increases over the entire range of the loading rates. The reference
parameters used for these simulations are listed in Table 6.1 where the subscript “o”
denotes a reference value. Note that these parameters are different to the material
properties quoted by Zhou (1992).
Table 6.1. List of the parameters used in creep rupture test simulations.
f toc Eo G foI If k0 t' Or
(MPa) (GPa) (Nmm/mm2) (days) (s-1)
2.66 26 0.040 6 0.08 112 4e-7
Using the obtained parameters listed in Table 6.1 the creep rupture tests were
simulated. Firstly, a simulation was carried out for the complete load-displacement
response at the deflection rate of 5 Pm/s. The various sustained load cases were then
simulated using the same testing procedure as in the experiments where the load was
firstly increased under the deflection rate 5 Pm/s until the prescribed sustained load was
reached after which the load was kept constant. Using this strategy the initial inelastic
multiplier rate is known at the point when the load is held constant. The simulated load-
deflection and load-crack mouth opening displacement (CMOD) curves are shown in
Figures 6.7(a) and 6.7(b), respectively. Zhou (1992) observed that creep failure
occurred when CMOD approximately reached the value on the descending part of the
displacement-controlled curve. The simulated sustained load responses were initially
found to be different from those of Zhou (1992).
1.2
Disp. rate control
1.0
Sustained load
0.92Fp
0.85Fp
0.8 0.80Fp
0.76Fp
F/Fp
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5
u/u max
(a) load-deflection curve

1.2
Disp. rate control
1.0 Sustained load
0.92Fp
0.85Fp
0.8 0.80Fp
0.76Fp
F/Fp
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5
CMOD/CMODmax
(b) load-CMOD curve
Figure 6.7. Numerical results of creep rupture test simulations.
Figures 6.8(a) and 6.8(b) show the numerical deflection-time and CMOD-time
curves, respectively, for all the sustained loads. The results show that the proposed
formulation captured all the three stages of the deflection time curve observed in the
creep rupture tests. The response increases rapidly in the primary stage and then
gradually slows down to a constant rate in the secondary stage. Finally in the last stage
the response grows increasingly rapidly until creep failure.

0.7
0.85Fp
0.80Fp
0.76Fp
0.92Fp
0.6
0.5
0.4
u/umax
u/umax
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Time (s)
(a) deflection-failure lifetime curve
0.5
0.85Fp
0.80Fp
0.76Fp
0.92Fp
0.4
CMOD/CMODmax
CMOD/CMODmax
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Time (s)
(b) CMOD-failure lifetime curve
Figure 6.8. Predicted creep curves.

As failure occurs suddenly and extremely fast the measured displacement at
failure could be extremely difficult to capture experimentally. The numerical responses
shown in Figure 6.7 are re-plotted in Figure 6.9 with the failure point estimated as at the
point marked with a cross in Figure 6.8 (the point where there is a rapid increase in the
time interval). The displacements at the creep rapture estimated in this way and shown
in Figure 6.9 agree with Zhou (1992)’s proposition.
1.2
Disp. rate control

1.0
0.92Fp Sustained load
0.85Fp
0.8 0.80Fp
0.76Fp
F/Fp
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5
u/u max
(a) load-deflection curve

1.2
Disp. rate control

1.0
0.92Fp Sustained load
0.85Fp
0.8 0.80Fp
0.76Fp
F/Fp
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5
CMOD/CMODmax
(b) load-CMOD curve
Figure 6.9. Numerical results of creep rupture test simulations when only the
initial failure points are considered.
1.0
Experimental
Numerical
0.9
F/Fp
0.8
0.7
0.6
1
10
10 102
100 103
1000 104
10000
Time to failure (s)
Figure 6.10. Comparison in terms of load-failure lifetime curve.

In Figure 6.10, the failure lifetime is plotted for each of the sustained load levels
and compared with the measured results. The simulated lifetime increases with
deceasing load level and shows excellent agreement with the test results.
The stress distributions within the fracture zone at different stages were also
predicted by Zhou (1992), as shown in Figure 6.11. The stress distributions within the
fracture zone at different stages obtained from the simulation for the case of 0.85Fp are
plotted in Figure 6.12. The stress distribution at the point of failure (t = tf ) looks similar
to that shown in Figure 6.11 except that there is no residual stress at the notch tip. The
difference might be because there is no residual term in Equation (6.28).
Compression (-) Tension (+)
Figure 6.11. Stress distributions in fracture zone under sustained load predicted by
Zhou (1992).
100
-
+
90
t/tf=1
Beam Depth (mm) .
0.96
80 0.86
0.72
0.56
0.4
70 0.27
0.16
0.07
0.01
60
50
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10
Stress (MPa)
Figure 6.12. Stress distributions in fracture zone under sustained load for case of
0.85Fp.
6.9 Summary
The extension of the finite element model described in Chapter 3 to include time-
dependent mode I fracture behaviour in quasi-brittle materials has been presented and
has been verified by comparison to experimental results. The formulation includes bulk
creep and crack rate dependency. The bulk creep component was introduced into the
formulation by considering the creep displacements as inelastic irrecoverable
displacements which were assumed to be proportional to the elastic recoverable
displacements. A simplified crack rate model was proposed and used to represent the
rate-dependent crack opening. The numerical formulation was shown to accurately
predict the time-dependent crack propagation behaviour of plain concrete beams under
sustained three-point bending loads. The essential behaviour was captured and
presented, and included the observed strength increase with loading rate, the load-
deflection and load-CMOD responses, the deflection-time and CMOD-time curves, the
predicted time to failure and the stress distributions in the fracture zone.
CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 215
CHAPTER 7
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 Introduction
This thesis aims to study the fracture of unreinforced masonry, to carry out a limited
experimental program on three-point bending masonry panels and to develop a time-
dependent fracture formulation for the study of mode I fracture in quasi-brittle
materials.
A summary of conclusions drawn in this study is given below.
7.2 Modelling of Fracture in Unreinforced Masonry
By applying the basic idea of the discrete crack approach, a micro-model has been
developed in Chapter 3 for the simulation of fracture in unreinforced masonry. Masonry
is discretised by means of a triangular element constructed from nine constant strain
triangles with two nodes on each side but not at the vertices.
Fracture is captured through a constitutive softening-fracture law at the interface
boundary nodes, while the material within the triangular element remains linear elastic.
All basic failure modes for masonry failure are taken into account. The inelastic failure
surface for the brick and brick-mortar interface is modelled using a Mohr-Coulomb
failure surface with a tension cut-off and a linear compression cap. The compression cap
is included into the brick-mortar interface failure surface to limit the compressive/shear
stress in the interface and to capture brick diagonal tensile cracking and masonry
crushing. The proposed compression cap which is a major contribution was presented in
detail. A criterion for defining the compression cap was provided.
The fracture formulation is based on a piecewise-linear constitutive law and is in
the form of a so-called “linear complementarity problem” (LCP). The path-dependent
softening behaviour is solved in nonholonomic rate form within a quasi-prescribed
displacement formulation. Solutions to the nonholonomic rate formulation are obtained
using a mathematical programming procedure based on the solution of the LCP. A
computer program in MATLAB was written to perform the fracture simulations.
The proposed model has been applied to simulating fracture in unreinforced
masonry shear walls under shear and compression loading where all modes of failure
govern the structural response. In this study, dilatancy degradation has not been
considered. Validation of the model was successful. Comparison of the formulation
with the experimental results showed good agreement. The formulation was able to
capture the pre-peak and post-peak responses and the cracking characteristics
reasonably well without significant numerical difficulties.
7.3 Experimental Study – Three-Point Bending Tests on

Masonry Panels
Behaviour of masonry structures depends strongly on the properties of the mortar joints.
The failure of masonry panels under three-point bending (TPB) with relatively low bond
strength may be governed by both mode I and mode II fracture rather than just mode I
failure as for example in a concrete beam or in a masonry panel with relatively high
bond strength. In order to investigate the failure behaviour of masonry panels under
TPB with relatively low strength mortar, an experimental program was undertaken.
Full-scale masonry panels with two different strengths of mortar were tested under TPB.
Fracture tests on bricks, mortar and brick-mortar interfaces were also performed. The
basic material parameters were obtained from compression, TPB and shear tests on
bricks, mortar and brick-mortar interfaces. For the shear tests, a modified version of the
shear test set-up proposed by Van Der Pluijm (1993) was introduced and used.
The experimental results were reported in Chapter 4. The bricks exhibited
anisotropic behaviour as different compressive strength was detected from different
loading directions. The shear parameters including the shear bond strength, cohesion,
friction angle, shear modulus and post-peak behaviour (residual bond strength,
unloading-reloading behaviour, mode II fracture energy and dilatancy angle) of each
material were presented and discussed. The properties of the mortar were very different
from the brick-mortar interface within a masonry unit because of the water absorption
of the brick and the restraint due to the brick on expansion of the mortar causing
triaxial/biaxial stresses in the mortar. The experimental results showed that the failure of
masonry panels under TPB with relatively low strength mortar are governed by both
tensile and shear fracture (mode I and mode II) of the mortar joints rather than just
mode I failure. The cracks zigzagged through the head and bed joints without brick
failure.
The experimental results provided a comparison basis for the verification of the
accuracy of the proposed model. The numerical results provided a good match to the
experimental results even though the numerical formulation assumed a zero dilatancy.
The effects of including some dilatancy were studied.

7.4 Modelling of Time-Dependent Mode I Fracture
By extending the LCP formulation in Chapter 3, a time-dependent fracture model was
proposed in Chapter 6 to study time-dependent mode I fracture in quasi-brittle
materials. Two main time-dependent sources, the viscoelasticity of the bulk material
within the structure outside the crack zone and the cohesive crack rate dependent
opening, have been taken into account. The bulk creep component was introduced into
the formulation by considering the creep displacements as inelastic irrecoverable
displacements which were assumed to be proportional to the elastic recoverable
displacements, while the rate-dependent crack opening was introduced through a
simplified crack rate model proposed in this study.
The structural governing equations were formulated in LCP form as a function
of a quasi-prescribed displacement rate control. The LCP formulation has never been
applied to this problem. The solution algorithm needed to solve the LCP was outlined.
To be able to solve the problem numerically the rate equations were transformed into
approximate incremental form without the second derivative terms. The analysis was
carried out by stepping the time interval from zero and using the quasi-prescribed
displacement rate control so that the initial inelastic multiplier rate is known at the point
when the load is held constant.
The sensitivity analysis and behaviour of the proposed model were illustrated.
The model was applied to predicting time-dependent crack propagation. The time-
dependent crack model was able to capture the time-dependent crack propagation
behaviour of plain TPB concrete beams under sustained loads. The essential behaviour
was presented and included the observed strength increase with loading rate, the load-
deflection and load-CMOD responses, the deflection-time and CMOD-time curves, the
predicted time to failure and the stress distributions in the fracture zone.
7.5 Recommendations for Future Research
Some further developments that can be suggested are the following.
To include a more refined softening law such as a bi-linear softening law.
To include decaying dilatancy as a function of the shear slip and the
confining stress.
To include shrinkage in the time-dependent analysis.
To include geometric nonlinearity.
To extend the time-dependent formulation to masonry.
To extend the time-dependent formulation to mode II fracture.

APPENDIX A EXPERIMENTAL DATA AND ADDITIONAL RESULTS 220
APPENDIX A
EXPERIMENTAL DATA AND ADDITIONAL
RESULTS
Table A. 1. Brick compression test data.
Loading Test Width Thickness, Height, fc' H/T Ka(1)

Corrected
direction No. (mm) T (mm) H (mm) (MPa) fc' (MPa)(2)
Parellel kc2 109.0 49.8 228.2 21.83 4.58 0.969 21.15
to bed kc3 108.7 51.4 228.5 22.60 4.45 0.958 21.65
face kc5 109.3 51.2 229.4 23.14 4.48 0.961 22.24
average 21.68
Vertical kc6 109.2 109.2 50.7 75.68 0.46 0.521 39.43
to bed kc7 109.1 109.1 50.8 50.60 0.47 0.523 26.46
face kc8 109.4 109.4 51.4 65.06 0.47 0.523 34.03
average 33.31
Note: (1) Aspect ratio factor Ka, which is dependent on the height to thickness ratio, was estimated
according to the Australian standard AS4456:2003.
(2) Corrected fc' = Ka u fc'.
Table A. 2. Mortar compression test data (at age of 28 days).
Mortar type Test No. fc' (MPa) Mortar type Test No. fc' (MPa)
1 7.19 1 16.59
W 2 7.32 S 2 16.98
3 7.28 3 16.80
average 7.26 average 16.79
Table A. 3. Masonry compression test data.
Mortar type Test No. fc' (MPa) Mortar type Test No. fc' (MPa)
1 18.78 1 18.81
W 2 19.91 S 2 19.70
3 18.23 3 17.63
average 18.97 average 18.71
Table A. 4. Total confining pressure at residual stage of mortar joint shear tests.
Specimen* Initial Total Specimen* Initial Total

confining confining confining confining
pressure pressure at pressure pressure at
(MPa) residual (MPa) (MPa) residual (MPa)
W15-5 0.20 0.33 S7-5 0.21 0.29
W16-5 0.20 0.33 S8-5 0.21 0.23
W17-5 0.19 0.30 S9-5 0.21 0.25
W4-10 0.35 0.46 S1-10 0.41 0.49
W5-10 0.39 0.48 S2-10 0.40 0.40
W11-10 0.44 0.52 S3-10 0.42 0.44
W13-20 0.79 0.82 S4-20 0.77 0.77
W18-20 0.79 0.74 S5-20 0.83 0.99
W19-20 0.81 0.81 S6-20 0.76 0.85
Table A. 5. Total confining pressure at residual stage of brick shear tests
Specimen Initial Total

confining confining
pressure pressure at
(MPa) residual (MPa)
BST1 0.40 2.27
BST2 0.42 2.37
BST3 0.40 2.16
BST4 0.61 2.31
BST5 0.63 2.71
BST6 0.62 3.12
BST7 0.90 3.70
BST8 0.85 3.32
BST9 0.82 2.86
0.9
W15-5 W15-5
0.7 W16-5 W16-5
Shear Stress (MPa)

W17-5
W17-5
0.5
0.3
0.1
-0.1
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Shear Displacement (mm)
0.9
W4-10 W4-10
0.7 W5-10 W5-10
W11-10
Shear Stress (MPa)
W11-10
0.5
0.3
0.1
-0.1
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25
1.1 W19-20 W13-20

W18-20
Shear Stress (MPa)
W13-20 W19-20
0.7 W18-20
0.3
-0.1
0 1 2 3 4 5
Figure A. 1. All shear stress-displacement curves obtained from the mortar joint
shear tests (type W mortar).

0.5
S7-5 S7-5
S9-5 S8-5
S8-5
Shear Stress (MPa)

S9-5
0.3
0.1
-0.1
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
1.1
S3-10 S1-10
0.9 S2-10
S1-10
Shear Stress (MPa)
S3-10
0.7
S2-10
0.5
0.3
0.1
-0.1
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
1.1 S5-20 S4-20

S6-20 S5-20
S4-20
0.9
Shear Stress (MPa)
S6-20
0.7
0.5
0.3
0.1
-0.1
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 2.8 3.2
Figure A. 2. All shear stress-displacement curves obtained from the mortar joint
shear tests (type S mortar).

12
FBTP6
FBTP6
10 FBTP8
FBTP9
8
FBTP8
Load (kN)
6 FBTP9
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
CMOD (mm)
12
FBTP6
10 FBTP8
FBTP6
FBTP9
8 FBTP8
Load (kN)
FBTP9
6
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Figure A. 3. All results obtained from the brick TPB tests.

1.1
WMTP1
0.9
WMTP2
Load (kN) 0.7
0.5
0.3
0.1
-0.1
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
CMOD (mm)
1.1
WMPT1
0.9
0.7
Load (kN)
0.5
0.3
0.1
-0.1
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Figure A. 4. All results obtained from the mortar TPB tests (type W mortar).
2.5
SMTP1
SMTP2 SMTP2
2 SMTP3
SMTP1
SMTP3
1.5
Load (kN)
0.5
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
CMOD (mm)
2.5
SMTP2 SMPT1
SMTP1 SMTP2
2 SMTP3
SMTP3
1.5
Load (kN)
0.5
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
Figure A. 5. All results obtained from the mortar TPB tests (type S mortar).
APPENDIX B FLOW CHARTS AND MAIN MATLAB CODES 227
APPENDIX B
FLOW CHARTS AND MAIN MATLAB CODES
Fracture_main_ncap4.m
START
Fracture_pre_ncap4.m READ INPUT FILE

(Prepared by User)
CREATE MESH & TOPOGRAPHY
ESTABLISH BASIC MATRICES
DETERMINE INITIAL FAILURE /ACTIVE SET
Solver_fracture_ncap4.m INITIALISE VARIABLES
FORM LCP Action_Assemble_ncap4.m

FOR ACTIVE SET
NO BREAK POINT (BP) YES

SET EXISTS
EXCLUDE BP FROM LCP
SOLVE LCP FOR LAMBDA INCREMENT

DUE TO UNIT FACTOR INCREMENT
DETERMINE UNLOADING SET

& UPDATE VARIABLES

SET EXISTS
DETERMINE LAMBDA
INCREMENT OF BP SET
DETERMINE FACTOR INCREMENT

REQUIRED TO REACH NEXT BP
DETERMINE FACTOR INCREMENT REQUIRED

TO REACH NEXT YIELD POINT (YP)
DETERMINE FACTOR INCREMENT

& UPDATE VARIABLES
POST-PROCESS & STORE RESULTS
NO YIELD LIMIT
EXCEEDED
YES
END
Figure B. 1. Flow chart of MATLAB program for fracture model.

Fracture_main_time.m
START
Fracture_pre_time.m READ INPUT FILE

(Prepared by User)
CREATE MESH & TOPOGRAPHY
ESTABLISH BASIC MATRICES
PRE-PROCESS & CALCULATE CREEP LOAD (CL)
Solver_fracture_time.m INITIALISE VARIABLES
DETERMINE INITIAL FAILURE /ACTIVE SET UNDER DISP. RATE CONTROL
ASSUME TIME INCREMENT (t)
FORM LCP Action_Assemble_time.m

FOR ACTIVE SET

SET EXISTS
EXCLUDE BP FROM LCP

& UPDATE VARIABLES

SET EXISTS
Incremental Loop
DETERMINE LAMBDA
Iterative Loop
INCREMENT OF BP SET
DETERMINE t REQUIRED TO REACH

NEXT BP (tbp)
UPDATE POTENTIAL FUNC. (Phi_Total),

EVOLUTION FUNC. (Evol_Total) & LOAD FACTOR (LF)
YES Phi_Total < -10-6 OR NO

Evol_Total < -10-6 OR LF > CL
ESTIMATE t REQUIRED CHECK FOR NEW ACTIVE

TO REACH NEXT YP (typ) & UPDATE VARIABLES
ESTIMATE t REQUIRED CHECK FOR NEW BP

TO GET CREEP LOAD (tcl) & UPDATE VARIABLES
NEW t
= min (tbp, typ, tlimit, tcl)
RESTORE OLD VALUES

OF MAIN PARAMETERS
2 1
Fracture_main_time.m
2 1
Solver_fracture_time.m POST-PROCESS & STORE RESUTS
NO
LF = CL
YES
INITIALISE VARIABLES
ASSUME TIME INCREMENT (t)
FORM LCP Action_Assemble_creep.m

FOR ACTIVE SET (under sustained loading)

SET EXISTS
EXCLUDE BP FROM LCP

& UPDATE VARIABLES

SET EXISTS
DETERMINE LAMBDA
Incremental Loop
Iterative Loop
INCREMENT OF BP SET
DETERMINE t REQUIRED TO REACH

NEXT BP (tbp)
UPDATE POTENTIAL FUNC. (Phi_Total)

& EVOLUTION FUNC. (Evol_Total)
YES Phi_Total < -10-6 OR NO

Evol_Total < -10-6
ESTIMATE t REQUIRED
TO REACH NEXT YP (typ) CHECK FOR NEW ACTIVE
& UPDATE VARIABLES
NEW t
= min (tbp, typ, tlimit) CHECK FOR NEW BP
& UPDATE VARIABLES
RESTORE OLD VALUES
OF MAIN PARAMETERS
POST-PROCESS & STORE RESUTS
NO CREEP FAILURE IS
REACHED
YES
END
Figure B. 2. Flow chart of MATLAB program for time-dependent fracture model.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%% Fracture_main_ncap4.m %%%%%
%%%%% DISCRETE TRIANGULAR FRACTURE MODEL %%%%%
%%%%% UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES %%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
disp(' %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%');
disp(' %%% START OF FRACTURE ANALYSIS - UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES %%%');
disp(' %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%');
clear all;
if exist('restart.mat', 'file') == 0 % 1st start
disp(' --- PREPROCESS : MESH GENERATION & MATRIX ASSEMBLY ---');

Fracture_pre_ncap4; % call a written sub-script (& open Diary_Fracture.txt)
flag_restart = 0;
else % restart mode
diary Diary_Fracture.txt; % write & append diary of MATLAB input/output

disp('--- RESTART MODE : LOAD RESTART FILE & SETUP ---');
load restart;
flag_restart = 1;
disp(' -------------------------------------');
disp(' - CURRENT NUMBER FACTOR -');
disp([' - ', num2str(num_factors)]);
disp(' -------------------------------------');
num_factors = input('ENTER NEW NUMBER FACTOR:');
num_factors
disp(' -------------------------------------');
disp(' - CURRENT RESTART NUBBER -');
disp([' - ', num2str(Restart_Number)]);
disp(' -------------------------------------');
Restart_Number = input('ENTER NEW RESTART NUMBER:');
Restart_Number
end;
jdisplacement = [1:1:num_factors]; % step for calculating displacement

jdisplacement = [2,jdisplacement]; % j=2 is used for one-off title writing
jrestart = [200:50:num_factors]; % step for over-wrinting restart file
disp(' ---SOLVER FRACTURE ---');

Solver_fracture_ncap4; % call a written sub-script
%%% PLOT ACTIVE LAMBDAS %%%
Active_NonBreak = Active;
IVec_ones = ismember(Active,BreakPointSet);
IVec = find(IVec_ones == 1);
Active_NonBreak(IVec) = [];
IActive_Tension = find(VecPotential(Active_NonBreak) == 1);
Active_Tension = Active_NonBreak(IActive_Tension);
if shear == 6 % cap model is included

IActive_Comp1 = find(VecPotential(Active_NonBreak) == 4);
IActive_Comp2 = find(VecPotential(Active_NonBreak) == 5);
IActive_Comp = unique([IActive_Comp1,IActive_Comp2]);
Active_Comp = Active_NonBreak(IActive_Comp);
end;
IActive_Shear1 = find(VecPotential(Active_NonBreak) == 2);

IActive_Shear2 = find(VecPotential(Active_NonBreak) == 3);
IActive_Shear = unique([IActive_Shear1,IActive_Shear2]);
Active_Shear = Active_NonBreak(IActive_Shear);
plot(XY_Midpoint(VecIncidence(Active_Tension),1),XY_Midpoint...
(VecIncidence(Active_Tension),2),'rv') % tension failure points

plot(XY_Midpoint(VecIncidence(Active_Comp),1),XY_Midpoint...
(VecIncidence(Active_Comp),2),'mh') % compression failure points
end;
plot(XY_Midpoint(VecIncidence(Active_Shear),1),XY_Midpoint...
(VecIncidence(Active_Shear),2),'b^') % shear failure points
plot(XY_Midpoint(VecIncidence(UnLoadSet_Total),1),XY_Midpoint...
(VecIncidence(UnLoadSet_Total),2),'r.'); % unloading points
title(case_title);
print -dmfile BrickFig1
hold;
figure;
plot(udisplay,pdisplay,'r*-')
title(case_title);
grid;
dlmwrite('u_p.txt', [udisplay', pdisplay'],','); % write a output file
if exist('Bifurcation_p','var') == 1 % if this variable exist

dlmwrite('bifurcation_u_p.txt', [Bifurcation_u', Bifurcation_p'],',');
end;
disp(' --- DRAWING DEFORMED MESH ---');

Deflection_Assemble_ncap4; % call a sub-script
status = fclose('all'); % close all files

masonry_makefile(2) % call a written funtion to delete temporary input files
disp(' --- END OF PROGRAM ---');
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%% EXAMPLE OF INPUT FILE FOR Fracture_main_ncap4.m %%%%
%%%% FOR MASONRY SHEAR WALL PROBLEM WITH 30 kN PRELOAD %%%%
%%%% UNITS ARE IN N & mm %%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
*** control_main.m
function [Restart_Mesh, Restart_Assemble, Restart_Number, ...
shear, num_factors, jplot, jsave, Lemke_Use, mesh_style, ...
case_title, nonassociated, Yield_Tolerance, Select_Mode, ...
Snap_Back_Factor] = control_main
%
% shear: ID number for interface constitutive relationship
% =0 : Mode I -- Assumed;
% =1 : Mode I -- Interaction betw. normal & shear, non-asso. flow rules;
% =2 : Mode 2 -- Mohr-Coulomb, 2 planes in Tension-Shear Quadrant;
% =3 : Mode 1 -- Shear retention, 1 plane in Tension. 2 for Shear;
% =4 : Mode 2 -- Mohr-Coulomb, 1 planes in Tension, 2 for Shear;
% =6 : Mode 2 -- Mohr-Coulomb-Cap, 1 in Tens, 2 for Shear, 2 in Comp;
%------------------------------------------------------------------------
Restart_Mesh = 0; % = 0 (current model)

Restart_Assemble = 0; % = 0 (current model)
shear = 6;
num_factors = 9000; % number of load steps
Restart_Number = 100; % start saving restart file at this step
jplot = [1:100:num_factors+5]; % Plot Ouput at these Load Steps

jsave = [1:100:num_factors+5]; % Plot saved at these load steps
Lemke_Use = [1:9500]; % Use Lemke Solver at these Load Steps
%mesh_style = 0; % mesh prepared by easymesh

%case_title = 'double edge plate under tension';
mesh_style = 1; % brickwall mesh to be generated

case_title = 'Shear wall without diag. brick failure';
%mesh_style = 2; % brickwall + lintel mesh to be generated

%case_title = 'Lintel bending';
%mesh_style = 3; % brickwall + tension fixture to be generated

%case_title = 'Brick wall tension';
%mesh_style = 8; % brickwall mesh to be generated with brick failure

%case_title = 'Shear wall with diag. brick failure';
%mesh_style = 13; % brickwall mesh to be generated

%case_title = 'Brick wall with stack bond';
nonassociated = 1; % = 0 for normality

Yield_Tolerance = 1.0; % = 1 Event by Event - No simultaneous Yield
Select_Mode = 0; % = 1 Select Equilibrium Path; = 0 use Min Work Criteria
Snap_Back_Factor = 1.0E-2; % = 1.0E-2 (currently used)
%=========================== end of control_main.m ======================
*** control_mesh1.m
function [sidenum, Panel_Length, Panel_Height, flaglb, bd, bw, tm, ...
exclude_ratio, Nx, Ny] = control_mesh1
% (for mesh_style = 1, 2, 3, 8, 13)
%--parameters used to generate brickwall mesh
% sidenum: distance_midpoint^vetice = side length / (2*sidenum)
% Panel_Length: Length of the wall panel;
% Panel_Height: Height of the wall panel;
% flaglb: options of left bottom brick;
% =0: full brick;
% =1: half brick;
% bd: brick dimension along panel height direction;
% bw: brick dimension along Penal length direction;
% tm: mortar thickness, assume even mortar thickness
% along a brick.
% exclude_ratio: potentials are not consided for nodes whose distance
% from either end of the wall samller than
% (exclude_ratio * Panel_Length)
% Nx, Ny: element number along x-, y- within half brick
%------------------------------------------------------------------------
sidenum = 10; % = 10 (currently used)
Panel_Length = 990; % mm
Panel_Height = 1125; % mm
flaglb = 1;
bd = 62.5; % mm
bw = 220; % mm
tm = 0; % mm
exclude_ratio = 0.001;
Nx = 2;
Ny = 2;
%=========================== end of control_mesh1.m =====================
*** verticeShift_definition.m
function BoxVerticeShift = verticeShift_definition
%
% function used to shift vertices of elements
%------------------------------------------------------------------------
stol = 1e-6;
% Top and bottom rigid parts are expanded from 62.5 to 70 mm.
BoxVerticeShift = [0-stol, 0-stol, 990+stol, 0+stol, 0, -7.5;...
0-stol, 31.25-stol, 990+stol, 31.25+stol, 0, -3.75;...
0-stol, 1125-stol, 990+stol, 1125+stol, 0, 7.5;...
0-stol, 1093.75-stol, 990+stol, 1093.75+ stol, 0, 3.75];
%================= end of verticeShift_Definition.m =====================
*** control_BC.m
function [Bx, By, Tx, Ty, Txp, Typ, T_control] = control_BC(XY_Midpoint);
%
% purpose : to define boundary conditions and loadings
%------------------------------------------------------------------------
%%% Geometrical Information %%%
xmin = min(XY_Midpoint(:,1));
ymin = min(XY_Midpoint(:,2));
xmax = max(XY_Midpoint(:,1));
ymax = max(XY_Midpoint(:,2));
stol = 1e-5;
y = (XY_Midpoint(:,2))';
x = (XY_Midpoint(:,1))';
%%% Node Set for Displacement Constraints %%%
% Boundary Nodes
L1 = find(y<=ymin+stol); % bottom -- all nodes

L2 = find(y>ymax-stol); % top -- all nodes
Bx = [L1]; % x-displacements are fixed

By = [L1,L2]; % y-displacements are fixed
%%% Node Set for Loads & Constraints %%%
L = find(x<=xmin+stol & y > 1062.5-stol & y < 1132.5 + stol);

%(left midpoint at top rigid part)
Tx = L;
Txp(1:length(Tx)) = 1/length(Tx); % let sum of forces = 1 N
Ty = []; Typ = []; % no force along y-direction

T_control = 3 % T_control >0 ==> use Tx (third node in Tx set)

%T_control = -1 % T_control <0 ==> use Ty (first node in Ty set)
%===================== end of control_BC.m ============================
*** Data_Material_Interface_raw.m
function [plastic_ten_stress, opening_crack_width, breakpoint, ...
plastic_shear_stress, opening_crack_width_shear, breakpoint_shear, ...
shear_friction, Yield_Angle, Misalignment_Angle, Dilatancy_Angle, ...
Friction_Angle, Thickness, beta_factor, compression_strength, ...
opening_crack_width_comp, breakpoint_comp, Residual_Comp_Stress, ...
beta_factor_comp] = Data_Material_Interface_raw(material)
%
%--purpose : to provide interface material properties
% called by : Data_Material_Interface_ncap4.m
%
% Input:
% material: ID number of interface material;
%------------------------------------------------------------------------
if material == 1 % for Brick Interface
% Tensile Properties
plastic_ten_stress = 2.0; % N/mm2 or MPa
modeI_frac_energ = 0.08; % N/mm
opening_crack_width = 2.0*modeI_frac_energ/plastic_ten_stress;
breakpoint = opening_crack_width; % mm
% Shear Properties
Dilatancy_Angle = 0.0; % in radian
Friction_Angle = 0.7854; % in radian
shear_friction = tan(Friction_Angle);
Cohesion = 2.8; % N/mm2 or MPa

plastic_shear_stress = Cohesion*cos(Friction_Angle);
modeII_frac_energ = 0.50; % N/mm
opening_crack_width_shear = 2.0*modeII_frac_energ/Cohesion/...
cos(Dilatancy_Angle); % mm
breakpoint_shear = opening_crack_width_shear; % mm
% Compressive Properties (No brick compressive failure)

compression_strength = 66.0*1000; % N/mm2 or MPa
Residual_Comp_Stress = 66/7; % N/mm2 or MPa

beta_factor_comp = 0.00; % no interaction between shear & comp.
comp_frac_energ = 5.40*66/11.73; % N/mm
opening_crack_width_comp = 2.0*comp_frac_energ/...
(compression_strength-
Residual_Comp_Stress);
breakpoint_comp = opening_crack_width_comp; % mm
%
Yield_Angle = 0; % in degree, = 0 (currently used)
Misalignment_Angle = 0; % in degree, = 0 (currently used)
beta_factor = 0.95; % = 0.95 (currently used)

Thickness = 100.0; % mm
end;
if material == 2 % for Mortar Interface
% Shear Properties
Cohesion = 1.4*0.25; % N/mm2 or MPa

% Compressive Properties
compression_strength = 10.5; % N/mm2 or MPa
Residual_Comp_Stress = 10.5/7; % N/mm2 or MPa

comp_frac_energ = 5.0; % N/mm
%

end;
if material == 3 % for rigid part (No failure)
plastic_ten_stress = 2.00*1000; % N/mm2 or MPa
opening_crack_width = 2*modeI_frac_energ/plastic_ten_stress;
% Shear Properties
Cohesion = 2.8*1000; % N/mm2 or MPa

opening_crack_width_shear = 2*modeII_frac_energ/Cohesion/...
compression_strength = 11.20*1000; % N/mm2 or MPa
Residual_Comp_Stress = 2.8*11.2/7; % N/mm2 or MPa

comp_frac_energ = 5.0*11.2/3.5; % N/mm
%

end;
%================ end of Data_Material_Interface_raw.m =================
*** Data_Material_Body.m
function [elastic, nu, Thickness] = Data_Material_Body(material)
%
%--purpose : to provide body material properties.
% called by : SMat_Fracture_ncap4.m
%
% Input:
% material : ID number of body material;
%
% Output & Usage:
% elastic, nu, Thickness
%------------------------------------------------------------------------
if material == 1 % for Masonry unit

elastic = 3150; % N/mm2 or MPa
nu = 0.14;
end;
if material == 2 % for Rigid Part

nu = 0.30;
end;
%=================== end of Data_Material_Body.m ========================
*** box_ReDefineMaterialID.m
function [Box_InterID, Box_BodyID] = box_ReDefineMaterialID
%
%--purpose : to define boxes covering area where material ID to be redefined
% called by : Redefine_MaterialID.m
%
% Output & Usage:
% Box_InterID: boxes covering an area where interface ID to be redefined
% judged by the centre of the element edge
% Box_BodyID: boxes covering an area where body ID to be redifined
% judged by centre of the element
% each row: [x1, y1, x2, y2, id]
% x1, y1 -- coordinates of lower left corner
% x2, y2 -- coordinates of upper right corner
% id -- ID number to be assigned
%------------------------------------------------------------------------
stol = 1e-5;
Box_InterID = [0-stol, -7.5-stol, 990+stol, 62.50-stol, 3;...

0-stol, 1062.5+stol, 990+stol, 1132.5+stol, 3]; % rigid parts
Box_BodyID = [0-stol, -7.5-stol, 990+stol, 62.50+stol, 2;...

0-stol, 1062.5-stol, 990+stol, 1132.5+stol, 2]; % rigid parts
%==================== end of box_ReDefineMaterialID.m ===================
*** box_ReDefineListExclude.m
function [Box_ListExclude, mode] = box_ReDefineListExclude
%
% Purpose: to define boxes covering midpoints
% where yield potentials are ignored
% Called by: Redefine_ListExclude.m
%
% Output & Usage:
% Box_ListExclude: boxes covering midpoints
% where yield potentials are ignored;
% each row: [x1, y1, x2, y2]
% later row's definition append to earliers.
%------------------------------------------------------------------------
stol = 1e-3;
mode = 0;
Box_ListExclude = [0-stol, -7.5-stol, 990+stol, 62.50-stol;...

0-stol, 1062.5+stol, 990+stol, 1132.5+stol]; % rigid parts
%================ end of box_ReDefineListExclude.m ======================
*** qhistory_boxs.m
function Bxy = qhistory_boxs
%
%--purpose : to define boxes covering midpoints whose interface force
% & displacement history will be exported
% called by : qhistory_position.m
%
% Output & Usage:
% Bxy: box covering an area within which the midpoints are selected
% each row [x1, y1, x2, y2]
%------------------------------------------------------------------------
stol = 1e-5;
Bxy = [0-stol, 62.5-stol, 990+stol, 62.5+stol]; % at bottom of wall
%==================== end of qhistory_boxs ==============================
*** dhistory_boxs.m
function [Bx, By] = dhistory_boxs
%
% Purpose:
% To define boxes covering midpoints whose deflec. history will be exported
%
% Called by: dhistory_dof.m
%
% Output & Usage:
% Bx: box covering an area within

% which the x-deflec. of midpoints are selected
% By: box covering an area within
% which the y-deflec. of midpoints are selected
%------------------------------------------------------------------------
stol = 1e-5;
Bx = [0-stol, 1130.75-stol, 0+stol, 1130.75+1];

By = [0-stol, 1130.75-stol, 0+stol, 1130.75+1]; % control point
%================== end of dhistory_boxs ================================
*** preload_boxs.m
function [Bxp, Byp, Pxp, Pyp, Bxb, Byb] = preload_boxs(XY_Midpoint);
%
% Purpose:
% To define boxes covering midpoints where preloads are applied
% To define the set of points for BC control
% Called by: preload_function.m
%
% Input: XY_Midpoint
%
% Output & Usage:
% Bxp: boxes covering an area where the midpoints have x-preloads
% Byp: boxes covering an area where the midpoints have y-preloads
% Pxp: load values defined per box corresponding to Bxp,(1:n_rowx)
% Pyp: load values defined per box corresponding to Byp,(1:n_rowy)
% Bxb: boxes covering an area where the midpoints has x-displ. are fixed
% Byb: boxes covering an area where the midpoints has y-displ. are fixed
%------------------------------------------------------------------------
%%% PreLoad Information %%%
stol = 1e-5;
Bxp = [];
Pxp = [];
y1 = 1132.5;
Byp = [0-stol, y1-stol, 990+stol, y1+stol]; % top of wall
% Pyp =(-209880)/36; % 2.12Mpa = 2.12*990*100 = 209880 kN (using N points)

% Pyp =(-119790)/36; % 1.21Mpa = 1.21*990*100 = 119790 kN (using N points)
Pyp =(-29700)/36; % 0.30Mpa = 0.30*990*100 = 29700 kN (using N points)
stol = 1e-5;
% Boundary Nodes
L1 = find(y<=ymin+stol); % bottom -- all nodes
Bxb = [L1]; % x-displacements are fixed

Byb = [L1]; % y-displacements are fixed
%====================== end of preload_boxs.m ==========================
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%% Fracture_pre_ncap4.m %%%%%
%%%%% CALLED BY Fracture_main_ncap4.m %%%%%
%%%%% FOR PREPROCESSING : MESH GENERATION & MATRIX ASSEMBLY %%%%%
%%%%% CALLED ONLY IF RESTART FILE ("restart.mat") DOES NOT EXIST %%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
clear all;
%%% GET INPUT FILENAME FROM USER %%%
inputtemp = input('ENTER NEW INPUT FILE NAME (without extension) :', 's');
if isempty(inputtemp)
inputfile = [inputfile '.m'];
else
inputfile = [inputtemp '.m'];
end;
%%% CALL A WRITTEN FUNCTION TO CREATE FUNCTIONS DEFINED IN INPUT FILE
masonry_makefile(1, inputfile); % (create temporary input files)
while exist('control_main.m', 'file') == 0 end;
%%% GET MAIN CONTROL PARAMETERS %%%

% FROM FUNCTION control_main.m DEFINED IN INPUT FILE %
[Restart_Mesh, Restart_Assemble, Restart_Number, shear, num_factors,...

jplot, jsave, Lemke_Use, mesh_style, case_title, nonassociated, ...
Yield_Tolerance, Select_Mode, Snap_Back_Factor] = control_main;
%%% START WRITING DIARY OF MATLAB INPUT/OUTPUT %%%
diary Diary_Fracture.txt;
num_actions = 12; % number of actions per element

num_nodes = 6; % number of nodes per element
%%% ASSIGN NUMBER OF POTENTIALS PER NODE DEPENDENT ON YIELD SURFACE USED
if shear == 0 % Mode 1 - Assumed

num_potentials_node = 1;
end;
if shear == 1 % Mode 1 - Interaction between Normal & Shear

num_potentials_node = 2; % Non-Assocated Flow Rule
end;
if shear == 2 % Mode 2 - Mohr-Coulomb

num_potentials_node = 4; % Two Planes in Tension - Shear Quadrant
end;
if shear == 3 % Mode 1 - Shear Reduction

num_potentials_node = 3; % One Plane in Tension - Two Planes for Shear
end;
if shear == 4 % Mode 2 - Mohr-Coulomb (USUALLY USED, WITHOUT COMP. CAP)

num_potentials_node = 3; % One Plane in Tension - Two in Shear
end;
if shear == 6 % Mode 2 - Mohr-Coulomb-CAP

% One Plane in Tension - Two in Shear - Two in Compression
end;
num_potentials = num_nodes*num_potentials_node; % num. of potentials per Elem.
%%% CALL A WRITTEN FUNCTION TO GENERATE & DISPLAY MESH %%%
disp('--- PREPARE & DISPLAY MESH - CASE SPECIFIC ---');

[XY_Midpoint, Incidence, XYvertices, tri, Ele_Mat, ...
List_exclude] = Case_definition_Mesh_ncap4(mesh_style);
X1 = XYvertices(:,1);
Y1 = XYvertices(:,2);
%%% CALL A WRITTEN FUNC. TO CREATE TOPOGRAPHY FOR POTENTIAL, LOAD, etc.
disp('--- CREATE TOPOGRAPHY FOR POTENTIAL, LOAD, FREEDOMS etc. ---');

[VecIncidence, VecPotential, Free, Load, Top, pindex, Incidence] ...
= Masonry_topography_ncap4(Incidence, XY_Midpoint, Ele_Mat,...
shear, List_exclude);
%%% CALL A WRITTEN FUNC. TO FINDOUT FREEDOM ID FOR DEFLECTION HISTORY OUTPUT
dhistory_dofID = []
if exist('dhistory_boxs.m', 'file')
dhistory_dofID = dhistory_dof (XY_Midpoint, Free, Incidence, Ele_Mat)
end;
%%% CALL A WRITTEN FUNCTION TO CALCULATE PRELOAD %%%

% DEFINED IN FUNCTION preload_boxs.m IN INPUT FILE %
if exist('preload_boxs.m', 'file')
disp('--- PRELOAD - CASE SPECIFIC ---');
[preload, pdof2, dp2, fdof2] = ...
preload_function(XY_Midpoint, Incidence, Ele_Mat, Free);
end;
%%% CALL A WRITTEN FUNCTION TO CALCULATE DEADLOAD %%%

% DEFINED IN FUNCTION deadLoad_boxs.m IN INPUT FILE %
% (RETURN ZEROS IF deadLoad_boxs.m DOESN'T EXIST) %
deadLoad = deadLoad_treat(XY_Midpoint,Free,Incidence,Ele_Mat);
%%% CALL A WRITTEN FUNC. TO FINDOUT INDEXES FOR INTERFACE FORCE HISTORY OUTPUT
qhistory_midpoints = [];
qhistory_S2row = [];
qhistory_S2col = [];
if exist('qhistory_boxs.m', 'file')
[qhistory_midpoints, qhistory_S2row, qhistory_S2col] = ...
qhistory_position (XY_Midpoint, Incidence, Ele_Mat);
end;
%%% CALL A WRITTEN FUNCTION TO CREATE BOUNDARY CONDITIONS - CASE SPECIFIC
disp('--- CREATE BOUNDARY CONDITIONS - CASE SPECIFIC ---');

[B_Supports, pdof, dp, fdof, display_free_node, control_node, ...
load_nodes, control_free, display_free, Load, load_free_total] = ...
Case_definition_BC(XY_Midpoint, abs(Incidence), Ele_Mat, Free, Load);
disp('--- DISPLAY MESH ---');
hf_1 = figure('units', 'normalized', 'position', [0.01, 0.3, 0.98, 0.6]);

ha_1 = axes('units', 'normalized', 'position', [0.07, 0.12, 0.42, 0.8],...
'visible', 'on'); % for mesh
ha_2 = axes('units', 'normalized', 'position', [0.55, 0.12, 0.42, 0.8],...
'visible', 'off'); % for u-p display
set(hf_1, 'currentaxes',ha_1);
eledraw(XYvertices, tri, Ele_Mat, 1); % call a written function
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% START ASSEMBLING MATRICES %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
num_members = size(Incidence, 1); % number of members/elements

free_total = max(max(Free)); % number of freedoms
size_pindex = length(pindex); % number of potentials
%%% ZERO A, S, K & H MATRICES (STRUCTURAL) %%%
num_col = num_actions*num_members;
A2 = spalloc(free_total,num_col,1); % structural equilibrium matrix
S2 = spalloc(num_col,num_col,1); % structural kernel stiffness matrix
if shear < 3
H2 = zeros(num_potentials*num_members,1); % structural softening matrix
else
H2 = spalloc(num_potentials*num_members,num_potentials*num_members,1);
end;
N2 = spalloc(num_actions*num_members,num_potentials*num_members,1);
if nonassociated == 1
V2 = spalloc(num_actions*num_members,num_potentials*num_members,1);
end;
%%% PREPARE MATRIX USED FOR PLOTTING DEFLECTION
A_ele = spalloc(num_actions*num_members,num_actions*num_members,1);
%%% MAJOR LOOP - FOR EACH MEMBER/ELEMENT %%%
for i = 1:num_members
%%% CALL A WRITTEN FUNCTION TO CALCULATE ELEMENT MATRICES %%%
[Se, Ae, Ke, He, Be, Ne, Ve, ResidualE] = ...

SMat_Fracture_ncap4(i, abs(Incidence), XY_Midpoint, tri,...
XYvertices, shear, Ele_Mat, nonassociated);
if shear < 5
clear ResidualE
end;
%%% ASSEMBLE STRUCTURAL MATRICES %%%
n1 = num_actions*(i-1)+1:num_actions*i;
A2(Top(i,2:13),n1) = sparse(Ae); % structural equilibrium matrix
A_ele(n1,n1) = sparse(Ae);
VecGeneralised(i,1:num_actions) = n1; % generalised stress numbering
S2(n1,n1) = sparse(Se); % structural S matrix
n1 = num_potentials*(i-1)+1:num_potentials*i;
N2(n2,n1) = sparse(Ne); % structural normality matrix
V2(n2,n1) = sparse(Ve); % structural dilatancy matrix
end;
VecYield(i,1:num_potentials) = n1; % plastic yield numbering

K(n1) = Ke; % structural initial-inelastic-failure vector

Residual_temp(n1) = ResidualE; % temp. structural residual vector
end;
if shear < 3
H2(n1) = sparse(He); % structural softening matrix
else
H2(n1,n1) = sparse(He); % structural softening matrix
end;
BP(n1) = Be; % structural break-point matrix (critical displacement)

end;
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% END OF ASSEMBLING MATRICES %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%% CALCULATE STRUCTURAL STIFFNESS MATRIX %%%
Kuu = sparse(A2*S2*A2');
%%% CALCULATE UNIT DISP. & UNIT FORCE DUE TO PRELOAD %%%
ue_preload2 = Kuu(fdof2,fdof2)\preload(fdof2);
ue_unit_preload(fdof2) = ue_preload2;
ue_unit_preload(pdof2) = dp2; % unit displacement (u)
clear ue_preload2
Qe_preload = S2*A2(fdof2,:)'*ue_unit_preload(fdof2)'; % unit force (Q)
P_preload = N2(:,pindex)'*Qe_preload; % proj. of Q on yield surfaces
end;
%%%% CALCULATE UNIT DISP. & UNIT FORCE DUE TO DEADLOAD & UNIT LOAD %%%
ue_unit2 = Kuu(fdof,fdof)\Load(fdof);
ue_deadLoad2 = Kuu(fdof,fdof)\deadLoad(fdof);
ue_unit(fdof) = ue_unit2;
ue_unit(pdof) = dp; % unit displacement (u)
ue_unit_deadLoad(fdof) = ue_deadLoad2;
ue_unit_deadLoad(pdof) = dp; % unit displacement (u)
Qe_unit = S2*A2(fdof,:)'*ue_unit(fdof)'; % unit force (Q)
P_unit = N2(:,pindex)'*Qe_unit; % projection of Q on yield surfaces

Qe_deadLoad = S2*A2(fdof,:)'*ue_unit_deadLoad(fdof)'; % unit force (Q)
P_deadLoad = N2(:,pindex)'*Qe_deadLoad; % projection of Q on yield surfaces
ue_load_unit = ue_unit(load_free_total); % unit disp. (u) at load points
ue_load_unit_deadLoad = ue_unit_deadLoad(load_free_total);
%%% CAL. UNIT DISPLACEMENT (u) AT CONTROL POINT
ue_r = ue_unit(control_free);
ue_r_deadLoad = ue_unit_deadLoad(control_free);
%%% INITIALISE VARIABLES %%%
NonActive = pindex'; % non-active set

NonActive_Band = [1:size_pindex];
Factor = zeros(num_factors,1); % displacement factor vector
Lambda_Increment = zeros(size_pindex,1);
Lambda_Total = zeros(size_pindex,1);
BreakPointSet = [];
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% DETERMINE 1st YIELD POINT %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%% CALCULATE 1st DISPLACEMENT FACTOR %%%
K_NonActive = K(NonActive) - P_deadLoad' - P_preload';
else
K_NonActive = K(NonActive) - P_deadLoad';
end;
index_positive = find(K_NonActive'./P_unit(NonActive_Band) > 0);

K_P_unit_ratio = K_NonActive'./P_unit(NonActive_Band);
Factor(1) = min(K_P_unit_ratio(index_positive)); % 1st displacement factor
%%% FIND LOCATION OF ALL POINTS THAT REACH YIELD %%%
IndexActive = find(Factor(1)==K_NonActive'./P_unit(NonActive_Band));
%%% UPDATE ACTIVE SET %%%
Active = NonActive(IndexActive);
Active_Band = IndexActive;
Initial_Active = Active;
disp(' Initial Active Set');
Active
%%% UPDATE NON-ACTIVE SET %%%
[CNA,INA,IA] = intersect(NonActive,Active);
NonActive(INA) = [];
[Cp,IA,IB] = intersect(NonActive,pindex);
NonActive_Band = IB;
clear Cp IA IB;
disp(' Initial Load Factor'); % equal to displacement factor for 1st yield
Factor(1)
%%% CALCULATE POTENTIAL FUNCTION INCREMENT & UPDATE POTENTIAL FUNCTION VECTOR
Phi_Increment = K(pindex)' - P_unit*Factor(1) - P_deadLoad - P_preload;
else
Phi_Increment = K(pindex)' - P_unit*Factor(1) - P_deadLoad;
end;
Phi_Total = Phi_Increment; % potential function vector
%%% DISPLAY & PLOT INITIAL ACTIVE SET & SAVE FIGURE %%%
disp('Coordinates of Initial Active Set');

XY_Midpoint(VecIncidence(Active),:)
plot(XY_Midpoint(VecIncidence(Active),1),XY_Midpoint...
(VecIncidence(Active),2),'kp');
title(' Initial Active Set');

text_save = ['Event_' num2str(1)];
pause(0.1)
hgsave(hf_1, text_save); % save figure
close all % figures
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% END OF DETERMINING 1st YIELD POINT %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%% PREPARE VARIABLES FOR FUNCTION Solver_fracture_ncap4.m %%%
q_path_rate = -P_unit; % P_unit = N2(:,pindex)'*Qe_unit;

BT = sparse(A2(fdof,:))*S2*N2(:,pindex);
NTQ = sparse(-N2(:,pindex)'*Qe_unit);
disp('--- END OF PREPROCESSING ---')
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%% Solver_fracture_ncap4.m %%%
%%% CALLED BY Fracture_main_ncap4.m %%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
if flag_restart == 0 % 1st start
Bifurcation_u = [];
Bifurcation_p = [];
udisplay(1) = 0;
pdisplay(1) = 0;
udisplay(2) = Factor(1)*ue_r % excluding effects of preload & deadload
pdisplay(2) = Factor(1)
Yield_Limit_Exceeded = 0;
j = 1;
BP_Band = BP(pindex);
UnLoadSet_Total = []; % a vector for storing unloading set
clear BP;
ZeroNu = 1.0E-25; % a constant used in LCP solver
if Select_Mode == 1
Eliminate_Elastic_Unloading = 0;
else
end;
if shear <= 4
Evol_Total = K(pindex)'; % structural evolution vector
else
Residual = Residual_temp(pindex)'; % structural residual vector
Evol_Total = K(pindex)'- Residual;
end;
%%% OPEN solvec.txt FOR STORING DETAILS OF SOLVING %%%
if exist('solvec.txt', 'file')
delete solvec.txt;
end;
fidsol = fopen('solvec.txt','a');
% one-off write for titles
fprintf(fidsol, '\n\nsolution\n');
fprintf(fidsol, 'j, load, no. forward, no. snapback, pnum,');
fprintf(fidsol, 'no. active, no. breakset, no. yield,');
fprintf(fidsol, 'no. break, no. unload');
fprintf(fidsol, '\n');
else % restart mode
fidsol = fopen('solvec.txt','a');
end;
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% MAIN WHILE LOOP %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
j000 = j;
while j <= num_factors,
fprintf(fidsol, '%d', j); % write data in solvec.txt
%%% RESET VALUES OF VARIABLES %%%
forward_marker = 0;
snap_marker = 0;
p_num = 0;
%%% CHECK YIELD LIMIT %%%
if Yield_Limit_Exceeded
disp('Yield Limit Exceeded');
break;
end;
disp('Load Step:');
j
%%% WRITE RESTART FILE, NO WRITING IMMEDIATELY AFTER RESTARTING %%%
if j > j000
if ismember(j,jrestart) | j == Restart_Number | j == num_factors
disp(['--- Saving Files for Restart, j = ', num2str(j)]);
text_save = ['restart' num2str(j)];
save(text_save);
clear text_save
disp('--- Files written for Restart Option');

end;
end;
%%% RESET VALUES OF VARIABLES %%%
if size(Active,1) == 1
Active = Active'; % convert Active vector to column vector
end;
lenActive = length(Active);
lenBreakSet = 0;
lenYield = 0;
lenBreak = 0;
lenUnLoad = 0;
unbounded = 0;
SolNum = 1;
disp(' Before Assemble M & q');

size_Active = size(Active) % including break point set
%%% CALL A WRITTEN SUB-SCRIPT (Action_Assemble_ncap4.m) TO FORM LCP %%%
clear q_path M_path; % q_path == p & M_path == M in general LCP form
Action_Assemble_ncap4; % call a written sub-script
disp('After Assembly');
size_Active = size(Active) % excluding break point set
ActiveWithBreaks = union(Active,BreakPointSet); % total active set
disp('Active without Breakpoint');

Active
if isempty(Active)
Factor_Increment_BP = inf; % disp. factor incre. required to get BP
end;
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%% START SOLVING LCP %%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
if ~isempty(Active) % * ------------------------%%%%%%%%%%%%% LINE AAA
%%% CHECK POSITIVE DEFINITENESS OF M_path MATRIX %%%
M_Sym = (M_path + M_path');

[R_temp, p_num] = chol(M_Sym);
if p_num > 0
disp('Matrix Not Positive Definite')
p_num
else
disp('Matrix Positive Definite')
p_num
end;
clear M_Sym R_temp;
%%% LCP SOLVERS %%%

%%% Bounded = 0 Solution Found
%%% Bounded = 1 No Solution Found
%%% Bounded = -1 Elastic Solution
jintersect = 0;
jintersect = ismember(j,Lemke_Use); % Lemke_Use defined in input file
if p_num == 0; jintersect = 1; end; % p_num = 0 - unique forward sol.
if jintersect == 1 % **
clear z z_tmp z_temp;
unbounded = 0;
disp(' Forward Solution Using Lemke');
[z_tmp,Bounded] = Lemke(M_path,q_path);
z_temp(:,1) = z_tmp(1:size_Active(1))
if Bounded == 1 & Yield_Tolerance ~= 1.0

Bounded = 0;
disp(' Forward Solution Using LPCMEX'); % (pathlcp.m)
clear z_lcpmex;
clear functions;
[z_lcpmex,Bounded] = pathlcp(M_path,q_path)
z_temp(:,1) = z_lcpmex;
end;
if Bounded == -1
disp(' Elastic Solution Only');
if p_num ~= 0
Bounded = 0;
clear z_temp;
clear z_lcpmex;
clear functions;
[z_lcpmex,Bounded_path] = pathlcp(M_path,q_path)
Bounded = Bounded_path;
clear Bounded_path;
z_temp2 = zeros(size_Active(1),1);
G_tmp2 = z_temp(:,1)'*q_path+z_temp(:,1)'*...
M_path*z_temp(:,1);
phi_tmp2 = q_path + M_path*z_temp(:,1);
if isequal(z_temp(:,1),z_temp2)
Bounded = -1;
end;
clear z_temp2;
else
unbounded = 0;
z = z_temp(:,1);
end;
end;
if Bounded == 0 & p_num == 0

forward_marker = -1;
z = z_temp(:,1);
end;
if Bounded == 1
unbounded = 1;
snap_marker = -1;
end;
if Bounded == 1 | p_num ~= 0
disp(' Snap Back Solution Using LPCMEX'); % (pathlcp.m)
clear z_lcpmex;
clear functions;
size(z_temp)
[z_lcpmex,Bounded_path] = pathlcp(M_path,-q_path)
size(z_lcpmex)
G_tmp = -z_temp(:,2)'*q_path+z_temp(:,2)'*M_path*z_temp(:,2);
phi_tmp = -q_path + M_path*z_temp(:,2);
if Bounded_path == 1 & p_num == 0

disp(' No Solution');
break;
end;
if Bounded == 1 & abs(G_tmp) > 0.001

disp(' Error G Not Zero');
j
pause;
end;
clear G_tmp phi_tmp;
if p_num == 0
unbounded = 1;
snap_marker = -1;
z = z_temp(:,2);
end;
if p_num > 0 & Bounded ~= 1

Forward_Solution_Only = 0;
if Eliminate_Elastic_Unloading == 1
z_temp2 = zeros(size_Active(1),1);
if isequal(z_temp(:,2),z_temp2)
disp(' Warning Elastic UnLoading Deletted');
z_temp(:,2) = [];
Forward_Solution_Only = 1;
end;
clear z_temp2;
end;
if Forward_Solution_Only == 0
forward_marker = -1;
snap_marker = -1;
% Snap Back Norm used to get rid of spurious modes

clear Snap_Back_Norm;
Snap_Back_Norm = sqrt(sum(z_temp(:,2).*...
z_temp(:,2)))/length(z_temp(:,2))
if Snap_Back_Norm > Snap_Back_Factor

i_select = input('Bifurcation Select Solution 1
(increasing) 2 (snap-back)');
else
i_select = 1;
end;
z = z_temp(:,i_select);
if i_select == 1
unbounded = 0;
else
unbounded = 1;
end;
else
unbounded = 0;
forward_backer = -1;
z = z_temp(:,1);
end;
else
% Snap Back Critical
unbounded = 1;
snap_marker = -1;
z = z_temp(:,2);
end;
clear z_temp i_select;

end;
else % **
disp(' Forward Solution Using CPXMAT');
[Bounded,SolNum_Forward] = cpxmat(q_path,M_path,ZeroNu)
forward_marker = SolNum_Forward;
if SolNum_Forward ~= 0
clear z_sol_Forward;
z_sol_Forward = zeros(size_Active(1),SolNum_Forward);
fid = fopen('cpxmat.out','r');
for i = 1:SolNum_Forward
Sol = fscanf(fid,'%5d');
z_sol_Forward(1:size_Active(1),i) =...
fscanf(fid,'%e',size_Active(1));
end;
status = fclose(fid);
%%% Determine Critical Path %%%
disp(' Lambda Increment Forward')

z_sol_Forward
% Load Factor for Unit Prescribed Displacement

clear us_free;
disp(' Load Factors')
if isempty(BreakPointSet) == 0
clear z_sol_Break;
for i = 1:size(z_sol_Forward,2)
z_sol_Break(:,i) = q_break -...
Z_break*z_sol_Forward(:,i);
end;
Factor_inc = 1 - Rr*z_sol_Forward - RrBreak*z_sol_Break

disp(' Displacment Increment')
us_free(:,i) = ue_load_unit'*Factor_inc(i) + ...
(Rloadfree*z_sol_Forward(:,i) + ...
RloadfreeBreak*z_sol_Break(:,i))
end;
else
Factor_inc = 1 - Rr*z_sol_Forward
(Rloadfree*z_sol_Forward(:,i))
end;
end;
disp(' Work Increment')

% Minimum Second Order Work
Work_inc_Forward = (Load(load_free_total)'*us_free).*...
pdisplay(j) + 0.5*(Load(load_free_total)'*...
us_free).*Factor_inc
Second_Order_Work_Forward = (Load(load_free_total)'*...
end;
disp(' Snap Back Solution Using CPXMAT');

[Bounded_path,SolNum_Snap] = cpxmat(-q_path,M_path,ZeroNu)
snap_marker = SolNum_Snap;
if SolNum_Snap ~= 0
clear z_sol_Snap;
z_sol_Snap = zeros(size_Active(1),SolNum_Snap);
% z_temp used to check elastically unloading path

z_temp = zeros(size_Active(1),1);
fid = fopen('cpxmat.out','r');
for i = 1:SolNum_Snap
Sol = fscanf(fid,'%5d');
z_sol_Snap(1:size_Active(1),i) =...
fscanf(fid,'%e',size_Active(1));
end;
disp(' Lambda Increment Snap')

z_sol_Snap
if Select_Mode == 0
if (size(z_sol_Snap,2) == 1 & size(z_sol_Forward,2) > 0)
disp(' Warning SnapBack Solution Deletted');
z_sol_Snap = [];
SolNum_Snap = 0;
end;
end;
if Eliminate_Elastic_Unloading == 1
i = 1;
SolNum_Temp = SolNum_Snap;
z_sol_Temp = z_sol_Snap;
while i <= SolNum_Temp

if isequal(z_sol_Snap(:,i),z_temp)
disp(' Warning Elastic UnLoading Deletted');
z_sol_Temp(:,i) = [];
SolNum_Snap = SolNum_Snap -1 ;
end;
i = i+1;
end;
z_sol_Snap = z_sol_Temp;
clear i z_sol_Temp;
end;
status = fclose(fid);
%%% Determine Critical Path %%%

if SolNum_Snap ~= 0
% Load Factor for - Unit Prescribed Displacement

clear us_free;
disp(' Load Factors')
if isempty(BreakPointSet) == 0
clear z_sol_Break;
for i = 1:size(z_sol_Snap,2)
z_sol_Break(:,i) = -q_break -...
Z_break*z_sol_Snap(:,i);
end;
Factor_inc = -1 - Rr*z_sol_Snap - RrBreak*z_sol_Break

(Rloadfree*z_sol_Snap(:,i) + ...
RloadfreeBreak*z_sol_Break(:,i));
end;
us_free
else
Factor_inc = -1 - Rr*z_sol_Snap
disp(' Displacement Increment')
(Rloadfree*z_sol_Snap(:,i));
end;
us_free
end;
disp(' Work Increment')

Work_inc_Snap = (Load(load_free_total)'*us_free).*...
pdisplay(j) + 0.5*(Load(load_free_total)'*...
Second_Order_Work_Snap = (Load(load_free_total)'*...
end;
end;
if SolNum_Forward ~= 0 | SolNum_Snap ~= 0
if SolNum_Forward ~=0 & SolNum_Snap ~=0

clear z_sol Work_inc;
z_sol = [z_sol_Forward, z_sol_Snap]
Work_inc = [Work_inc_Forward,Work_inc_Snap]
if Select_Mode == 0
clear WorkNegIndex i_vec_work y_vec_work;
WorkNegIndex = find(Work_inc < 0);
if isempty(WorkNegIndex)
[y_vec,i_vec] = min(Work_inc);
else
[y_vec_work,i_vec_work] =...
max(Work_inc(WorkNegIndex));
i_vec = WorkNegIndex(i_vec_work);
end;
else
disp(' Select Equilibrium Path');
i_vec = input('Select Solution 1 2 3 4 etc.');
end;
end;
if SolNum_Forward == 0
z_sol = z_sol_Snap
Work_inc = Work_inc_Snap
if Select_Mode == 0
else
end;
else
end;
end;
if SolNum_Snap == 0
z_sol = z_sol_Forward
Work_inc = Work_inc_Forward
if Select_Mode == 0
else
end;
else
end;
end;
if isequal(z_sol(:,i_vec),z_temp)
disp(' Elastic UnLoading Critical');
end;
if i_vec > SolNum_Forward

unbounded = 1;
G_tmp = -z_sol(:,i_vec)'*q_path+z_sol(:,i_vec)'*...
M_path*z_sol(:,i_vec)
phi_tmp = -q_path + M_path*z_sol(:,i_vec)
else
unbounded = 0;
G_tmp = z_sol(:,i_vec)'*q_path+z_sol(:,i_vec)'*...
M_path*z_sol(:,i_vec)
phi_tmp = q_path + M_path*z_sol(:,i_vec)
end;
if abs(G_tmp) > 0.001

disp(' Error G Not Zero');
j
break;
end;
clear G_tmp phi_tmp;
else
disp(' No Solutions');
break;
end;
z(1:size_Active(1)) = z_sol(:,i_vec);
end; % ** ------------------------%%%%%%%%%%%%% LINE BBB
%%% GET LAMBDA INCREMENT DUE TO UNIT DISP. FACTOR INCREMENT %%%
if size(z,2) > 1
Lambda_Increment = z(1:size_Active(1))';
else
Lambda_Increment = z(1:size_Active(1));
end;
%%% DETERMINE UNLOADING SET %%%
UnLoadSet = find(Lambda_Increment<1.0E-25&Lambda_Increment>-1.0E-25);
disp('Unloading Lambda');
Active(UnLoadSet)
if isempty(intersect(Active(UnLoadSet),BreakPointSet)) == 0
disp('UnLoadSet contains Breakpoint');
break;
end;
ActiveBeforeUnLoad = Active; % excluding break point set
%%% UPDATE VARIABLES DUE TO UNLOADING SET %%%
UnLoadSet_Total = unique([UnLoadSet_Total;Active(UnLoadSet)]);
Active(UnLoadSet) = []; % update active set
[Cp,IA,IB] = intersect(Active,pindex');
Active_Band = IB;
clear Cp IA IB;
Lambda_Increment(UnLoadSet) = []; % update lambda increment
if ~isempty(BreakPointSet)
Z_break(:,UnLoadSet) = []; % Z_break from Action_Assemble_ncap4.m
end;
if ~isempty(UnLoadSet)
lenUnLoad = length(UnLoadSet);
end;
NonActive = union(NonActive,UnLoadSet); % update non-active set

[Cp,IA,IB] = intersect(NonActive,pindex');
clear Cp IA IB;
%%% CALC. LAMBDA INCRE. DUE TO UNIT DISP. FACTOR INCRE. OF BP SET %%%
if ~isempty(Active) % ***
ActiveNoBreak = Active; %Active no break and no unloading
ActiveNoBreak_Band = Active_Band;
Lambda_Increment_2 = Lambda_Increment;
if unbounded == 0
if ~isempty(Lambda_Increment)
Lambda_Break_Increment = q_break -...
Z_break*Lambda_Increment;
else % q_break from Action_Assemble_ncap4.m
Lambda_Break_Increment = q_break;
end;
else
Lambda_Break_Increment = -q_break -...
Z_break*Lambda_Increment;
else
Lambda_Break_Increment = -q_break;
end;
end;
Active = union(Active,BreakPointSet);
if size(Active,2) > 1
Active = Active';
end;
[Cp,IA,IB] = intersect(ActiveNoBreak,Active);
Lambda_Increment_New(IB) = Lambda_Increment;
clear Cp IA IB;
[Cp,IA,IB] = intersect(BreakPointSet,Active);
Lambda_Increment_New(IB) = Lambda_Break_Increment;
clear Cp IA IB;
%%% Update Lambda Increment Due to Break Point Set %%%
Active_Band = union(Active_Band,BreakPointSet_Band);
Lambda_Increment = Lambda_Increment_New';
clear Rr Rloadfree;
Rr = RrOld; % Rr from Action_Assemble_ncap4.m

Rloadfree = RloadfreeOld;
clear RrOld RloadfreeOld;
clear RrBreak RloadfreeBreak;
clear Lambda_Increment_New Lambda_Break_Increment
end;
%%% DETERMINE (DISP.) FACTOR INCREMENT REQUIRED TO REACH NEW BP.
ActiveBreak = ActiveNoBreak;
ActiveBreak_Band = ActiveNoBreak_Band;
Factor_ratio = (-Evol_Total(ActiveNoBreak_Band))./...
(full(H(ActiveNoBreak_Band,Active_Band))*Lambda_Increment);
index_positive = find(Factor_ratio > 0);
IFactor=find(Factor_ratio == -inf);
Factor_ratio(IFactor) = inf;
Factor_Increment_BP = min(Factor_ratio(index_positive));
if isempty(Factor_Increment_BP)
Factor_Increment_BP = inf;
end;
Factor_Increment_BP
if Factor_Increment_BP ~= inf
if Yield_Tolerance ~= 1.0
ActiveBreak_Band_index_temp = find(Factor_ratio >= ...
Factor_Increment_BP & Factor_ratio < ...
Factor_Increment_BP*1.0000001);
else
ActiveBreak_Band_index_temp = ...
find(Factor_Increment_BP==Factor_ratio);
end;
Active_Break_Temp2 = pindex(ActiveNoBreak_Band...
(ActiveBreak_Band_index_temp))'
else
Active_Break_Temp2 = [];
end;
clear index_positive ActiveBreak_Band_index_temp;

else % ***
if exist('q_break','var') == 0 | isempty(q_break)
disp('Active Set Empty');
break;
end;
Lambda_Increment = q_break;
Active = BreakPointSet;
Active = Active';
end;
Active_Band = BreakPointSet_Band;
clear Rr Rloadfree;
Rloadfree = RloadfreeOld; % Rloadfree from Action_Assemble_ncap4.m
end; % ***
else % *
Lambda_Increment = q_break;
Active = Active';
end;
clear Rr Rloadfree;
Rloadfree = RloadfreeOld; % Rloadfree from Action_Assemble_ncap4.m
end; % *
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% END OF SOLVING LCP %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Active_Band_Old = Active_Band; % active set corresponding to lambda inc.

ActiveOld = Active;
%%% UPDATE OTHER VARIABLES DUE TO UNLOADING SET %%%
[C,IA,IB] = intersect(ActiveBeforeUnLoad(UnLoadSet),ActiveWithBreaks);
M_path_rate(:,IB) = [];
Rr(:,IB) = []; % Rr from Action_Assemble_ncap4.m
Rloadfree(:,IB) = []; % Rloadfree from Action_Assemble_ncap4.m
clear C IA IB;
%%% DETERMINE (DISP.) FACTOR INCREMENT REQUIRED TO REACH NEW YIELD POINT
if unbounded == 0
Phi_NonActive = q_path_rate(NonActive_Band) + ...
M_path_rate(NonActive_Band,:)*Lambda_Increment;
Phi_NotZero_index = find(Phi_NonActive~=0);
index_positive = find(Phi_Total(NonActive_Band(Phi_NotZero_index))...
./-Phi_NonActive(Phi_NotZero_index) > 0);
Phi_ratio = Phi_Total(NonActive_Band(Phi_NotZero_index))./...
-Phi_NonActive(Phi_NotZero_index);
if ~isempty(index_positive)
Factor_Increment_YP = min(Phi_ratio(index_positive));
Factor_Increment_YP
NewActiveElm_Band_Temp = find(Factor_Increment_YP==Phi_ratio);
NewActive_Band_Temp = ...
NonActive_Band(Phi_NotZero_index(NewActiveElm_Band_Temp));
NewActive_Yield = pindex(NewActive_Band_Temp)'
clear NewActive_Yield NewActive_Band_Temp;
clear NewActiveElm_Band_Temp;
else
Factor_Increment_YP = inf;
end;
else % Snap Back Solution
Phi_NonActive = q_path_rate(NonActive_Band) - ...
M_path_rate(NonActive_Band,:)*Lambda_Increment;
index_neg = find(Phi_Total(NonActive_Band(Phi_NotZero_index))./...
-Phi_NonActive(Phi_NotZero_index) < 0);
Phi_ratio = Phi_Total(NonActive_Band(Phi_NotZero_index))./...
if ~isempty(index_neg)
Factor_Increment_YP = max(Phi_ratio(index_neg));
Factor_Increment_YP
NewActiveElm_Band_Temp = find(Factor_Increment_YP==Phi_ratio);
NewActive_Band_Temp =...
NonActive_Band(Phi_NotZero_index(NewActiveElm_Band_Temp));
NewActive_Yield = pindex(NewActive_Band_Temp)'
clear NewActive_Yield NewActive_Band_Temp;
clear NewActiveElm_Band_Temp;
else
Factor_Increment_YP = inf;
end;
end;
lenBreakSet = length(BreakPointSet);
end;
%%% DETERMINE & GET (DISP.) FACTOR INCREMENT %%%
if unbounded == 0
Sign_Factor = 1;
Factor_Increment_BP
else % Snap Back Solution
Sign_Factor = -1;
Factor_Increment_BP = -Factor_Increment_BP;
Factor_Increment_BP
end;
if isempty(Factor_Increment_BP) == 1;
Factor_Increment_BP = inf*Sign_Factor;
end;
if (Factor_Increment_BP*Sign_Factor > Factor_Increment_YP*Sign_Factor)
%%% WHEN Factor_Increment = Factor_Increment_YP %%%
if Factor_Increment_YP > 1.0E10

Factor_Increment_YP = 10000;
end;
Factor_Increment = Factor_Increment_YP;
%%% Update Phi_Total, Evol_Total %%%
if ~isempty(Active_Band)
Phi_Total = Phi_Total + (q_path_rate + (M_path_rate*...
Lambda_Increment).*Sign_Factor).*Factor_Increment;
Evol_Total = Evol_Total + ((full(H(:,Active_Band_Old))*...
Phi_Index = find(abs(Phi_Total(Active_Band))>0.01);
if isempty(Phi_Index) == 0
disp(' Error Phi Not Zero');
j
pause;
end;
end;
%%% Determine New Active %%%
if Yield_Tolerance ~= 1.0
if(Factor_Increment>0)
NewActiveElm_Band = find(Phi_ratio>=Factor_Increment&...
Phi_ratio<Factor_Increment*Yield_Tolerance);
else
NewActiveElm_Band = find(Phi_ratio<=Factor_Increment&...
Phi_ratio>Factor_Increment*Yield_Tolerance);
end;
else
NewActiveElm_Band = find(Factor_Increment==Phi_ratio);
end;
NewActive_Band = NonActive_Band(Phi_NotZero_index(NewActiveElm_Band));
NewActive = pindex(NewActive_Band)';
if ~isempty(NewActive)
lenYield = length(NewActive);
end;
%%% Update Active Set %%%
Active = unique([Active;NewActive]);
Active_Band = IB;
clear Cp IA IB;
%%% Update Non-Active Set %%%
NonActive = pindex';
if isempty(Active) == 0
end;
clear Cp IA IB;
else
%%% WHEN Factor_Increment = Factor_Increment_BP %%%
Factor_Increment = Factor_Increment_BP;
%%% Update Active_Break_Temp Containing Actives that have reached BP
Active_Break_Temp = Active_Break_Temp2;
lenBreak=length(Active_Break_Temp);
%%% Update Phi_Total, Evol_Total %%%
Phi_Total = Phi_Total + (q_path_rate + ...

(M_path_rate*Lambda_Increment).*Sign_Factor).*Factor_Increment;
Evol_Total = Evol_Total+((full(H(:,Active_Band_Old))*...
Phi_Index = find(abs(Phi_Total(Active_Band))>0.01);
if isempty(Phi_Index) == 0
disp(' Error Phi Not Zero');
j
pause;
end;
%%% Update Softening Matrix,H, Due to New Break Point %%%
if shear < 3
H2(Active_Break_Temp) = 0;
else
if shear == 3
for i = 1:size(Active_Break_Temp,1),
H2(Active_Break_Temp(i),Active_Break_Temp(i)) = 0;
size(Active_Break_Temp)
temp1 = Active_Break_Temp+ones(size(Active_Break_Temp));
temp2 = temp1+ones(size(Active_Break_Temp));
H2(Active_Break_Temp(i),temp1(i)) = 0;
end;
elseif shear == 4
Active_Break_Temp
Active_Break_Temp
clear temp1;
temp3 = Active_Break_Temp-ones(size(Active_Break_Temp));
temp4 = temp3-ones(size(Active_Break_Temp));
H2(temp1(i),Active_Break_Temp(i)) = 0;
if temp4(i) ~= 0
end;
end;
clear temp1 temp2 temp3 temp4;
else % shear == 6
Active_Break_Temp
Active_Break_Temp
clear temp1;
temp4 = Active_Break_Temp-ones(size(Active_Break_Temp));
if temp6(i) ~= 0
end;
end;
clear temp1 temp2 temp3 temp4 temp5 temp6;
end;
end;
%%% Update Break Point Set %%%
BreakPointSet = unique([BreakPointSet;Active_Break_Temp]);
%%% Update Non-Active Set %%%
clear Cp IA IB;
end;
if Factor_Increment == inf
disp('Factor Increment = inf');
break;
end;
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%% POST-PROCESSING %%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Factor(j+1) = Factor(j) + Factor_Increment; % update disp. factor

Lambda_Total(Active_Band_Old) = Lambda_Total(Active_Band_Old) + ...
Sign_Factor*Lambda_Increment*Factor_Increment; % update lambda
%%% Check Lambda %%%
Lambda_Index = find(Lambda_Total(Active_Band_Old)<0 &...

Lambda_Total(Active_Band_Old)>-1.0E-20);
if isempty(Lambda_Index) == 0
disp(' Error Lambda Less Than Zero');
j
pause;
end;
%%%
j = j+1
disp(' New Displacement Factor')

Factor(j)
disp(' Load Factor');

Load_Factor_Increment = Factor_Increment*...
(1 - Rr*Sign_Factor*Lambda_Increment);
pdisplay(j+1) = pdisplay(j)+ Load_Factor_Increment;
Load_Factor = pdisplay(j+1)
%%% Write Data to solvec.txt %%%
fprintf(fidsol, ',%d', Load_Factor);

fprintf(fidsol, ',%d', forward_marker);
fprintf(fidsol, ',%d', snap_marker);
fprintf(fidsol, ',%d', p_num);
fprintf(fidsol, ',%d', lenActive);
fprintf(fidsol, ',%d', lenBreakSet);
fprintf(fidsol, ',%d', lenYield);
fprintf(fidsol, ',%d', lenBreak);
fprintf(fidsol, ',%d', lenUnLoad);
clear lenActive lenYield lenBreak lenUnLoad;
%%%
udisplay(j+1) = Factor(j)*ue_r;
pdisplay(j+1) = Load_Factor
udisplay(j+1)
save pudata.dat j udisplay pdisplay -ascii
if forward_marker>1 | snap_marker>0
Bi_Size = size(Bifurcation_u);
Bifurcation_u(Bi_Size+1) = udisplay(j);
Bifurcation_p(Bi_Size+1) = pdisplay(j);
end;
%%% Plot Figure Showing Results %%%
if j == 2
u_display_max = 1.5*max(udisplay); p_display_max = 1.5*max(pdisplay);
u_display_min = 1.5*min(udisplay); p_display_min = 1.5*min(pdisplay);
end;
if ismember(j,jplot) | j == num_factors | exist('stop.m', 'file')

disp('Plot Figures');
close all;
hf_1 = figure('units', 'normalized', 'position',[0.01,0.3,0.98,0.6]);

ha_1 = axes('units', 'normalized', 'position', ...
[0.07, 0.12, 0.42, 0.8], 'visible', 'on'); % for mesh
[0.55, 0.12, 0.42, 0.8], 'visible', 'on'); % for u-p display
hold on;
eledraw(XYvertices, tri, Ele_Mat, 1);

xlabel('X'); ylabel('Y');
hold on
plot(XY_Midpoint(B_Supports,1),XY_Midpoint(B_Supports,2),'rsquare')
plot(XY_Midpoint(load_nodes,1),XY_Midpoint(load_nodes,2),'gd')
plot(XY_Midpoint(control_node,1),XY_Midpoint(control_node,2),'kh')
plot(XY_Midpoint(VecIncidence(Initial_Active),1),...
XY_Midpoint(VecIncidence(Initial_Active),2),'kp');
IVec = find(IVec_ones==1);
IActive_Tension = find(VecPotential(Active_NonBreak)==1);
if shear == 6 % Cap is included

IActive_Comp1 = find(VecPotential(Active_NonBreak)==4);
IActive_Comp2 = find(VecPotential(Active_NonBreak)==5);
IActive_Comp = unique([IActive_Comp1,IActive_Comp2]);
Active_Comp = Active_NonBreak(IActive_Comp);
end;
IActive_Shear1 = find(VecPotential(Active_NonBreak)==2);
plot(XY_Midpoint(VecIncidence(Active_Tension),1),...
XY_Midpoint(VecIncidence(Active_Tension),2),'rv')
plot(XY_Midpoint(VecIncidence(Active_Shear),1),...
XY_Midpoint(VecIncidence(Active_Shear),2),'b^')
if shear == 6 % Cap is included

plot(XY_Midpoint(VecIncidence(Active_Comp),1),...
XY_Midpoint(VecIncidence(Active_Comp),2),'mh')
clear IActive_Comp;
clear Active_Comp;
end;
clear IActive_Tension IActive_Shear IActive_Shear1 IActive_Shear2

clear Active_Tension Active_Shear IVec IVec_ones Active_NonBreak
plot(XY_Midpoint(VecIncidence(BreakPointSet),1),...
XY_Midpoint(VecIncidence(BreakPointSet),2),'bo'); %Break Point
plot(XY_Midpoint(VecIncidence(UnLoadSet_Total),1),...
XY_Midpoint(VecIncidence(UnLoadSet_Total),2),'r.'); %Unloading
text_title = ['Event ' num2str(j) ' : udisplay=' ...

num2str(udisplay(j+1))];
text_title = [text_title ' : pdisplay=' num2str(pdisplay(j+1))];
title(text_title);
text_save = ['Event_' num2str(j)];
set(hf_1, 'currentaxes', ha_2);
hold on;
if max(udisplay)>u_display_max, u_display_max = 1.5*max(udisplay);end;

if max(pdisplay)>p_display_max, p_display_max = 1.5*max(pdisplay);end;
if min(udisplay)<u_display_min, u_display_min = 1.5*min(udisplay);end;
if min(pdisplay)<p_display_min, p_display_min = 1.5*min(pdisplay);end;
axis([u_display_min, u_display_max, p_display_min, p_display_max]);

plot(udisplay, pdisplay, 'b-o');
hold on;
if ~isempty(Bifurcation_u)
plot(Bifurcation_u,Bifurcation_p, 'rh');
end;
xlabel('u');ylabel('p');
pause(0.1)
if ismember(j,jsave) | j == num_factors | exist('stop.m', 'file')

hgsave(hf_1, text_save);
end;
end;
%%% Calculate Deflection History & Interface Force History %%%
if ismember(j,jdisplacement)| j == num_factors | exist('stop.m', 'file')
%%% Call a Written Function to Calculate R2 Matrix (R2 = K\ASV) %%%

% R2 can only be calculated when j >=2 %
if (~isempty( dhistory_dofID ) | ~isempty(qhistory_S2row)) & j >= 2

[R2, Total_Active, Total_Active_Band] = History_R2(j, VecYield,...
Active, UnLoadSet_Total, fdof, VecGeneralised, Kuu, A2, S2,...
N2, V2, nonassociated,pindex);
end;
%%% Call a Written Function to Calculate Deflection History %%%
if ~isempty( dhistory_dofID )
% deflection_history to be appended to dhistory.txt
if j == 2
History_Deflection(1, Factor, ue_unit, dhistory_dofID,...
pdisplay, udisplay, ue_unit_deadLoad);
end;
History_Deflection(j, Factor, ue_unit, dhistory_dofID,...

pdisplay, udisplay, ue_unit_deadLoad, fdof,...
control_free, ue_r, Lambda_Total, R2, Total_Active_Band);
end;
%%% Call a Written Function to Calculate Interface Force History %%%
if ~isempty(qhistory_S2row) & j >= 2

History_Interface_preload(j, qhistory_midpoints,...
qhistory_S2row, qhistory_S2col, Load_Factor,Qe_unit,...
fdof, S2, A2, R2, N2, V2, Total_Active,...
Total_Active_Band, Lambda_Total, nonassociated, ...
Incidence, XY_Midpoint, Qe_deadLoad, Qe_preload)
else
History_Interface(j, qhistory_midpoints, qhistory_S2row,...
qhistory_S2col, Load_Factor, Qe_unit, fdof, S2, A2, R2,...
N2, V2, Total_Active, Total_Active_Band, Lambda_Total,...
nonassociated, Incidence, XY_Midpoint, Qe_deadLoad)
end;
end;
end;
%%%
if exist('stop.m', 'file') | j == num_factors

disp(' ');
disp('-------------------------------------');
disp('- CURRENT NUMBER FACTOR -');
disp(['- ', num2str(num_factors)]);
disp('-------------------------------------');
m_choice = input('ENTER NEW NUMBER FACTOR (0 FOR NO CHANGE):');
if m_choice > 0
num_factors = m_choice;
end;
disp('-------------------------------------');
disp('- CURRENT RESTART NUMBER -');
disp(['- ', num2str(Restart_Number)]);
disp('-------------------------------------');
m_Restart = input('ENTER NEW RESTART NUMBER (0 FOR NO CHANGE):');
if m_Restart > 0
Restart_Number = m_Restart;
end;
jdisplacement = [1:1:num_factors];
jdisplacement = [2, jdisplacement];
jrestart = [50:50:num_factors];
jplot = [1:100:num_factors];
jsave = [1:100:num_factors];
end;
end;
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% END MAIN WHILE LOOP %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

end;
fclose(fidsol); % close solvec.txt
disp('--- END LOOP ---');
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%% Action_Assemble_ncap4.m %%%
%%% CALLED BY Solver_fracture_ncap4.m %%%
%%% TO FORM LCP %%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%% Determine Members with Active Potentials %%%
VecMember = ismember(VecYield,Active);
[iAction,jAction] = find(VecMember==1);
iActions = unique(iAction);
pActions_Matrix = VecGeneralised(iActions,:);
size1 = size(pActions_Matrix,1);
pActions = reshape(pActions_Matrix',1,size1*size2);
%%% Calculate R2 = K\ASN or K\KSV %%%

% Each row of R2 corresponds to a freedom number given in fdof while
% the columns correspond to potential numbering given in pindex
clear R2;
R2 = sparse(Kuu(fdof,fdof)\(A2(fdof,pActions)*...
S2(pActions,pActions)*N2(pActions,Active)));
else
S2(pActions,pActions)*V2(pActions,Active)));
end;
%%% Calculate Rr Rloadfree %%%
clear Ir Rr Rloadfree;
Ir = find(fdof==control_free);
Rr = sparse((R2(Ir,:))./(ue_r));
[ytemp,Isort] = sort(load_free_total);
[ytemp2,IIsort] = sort(Isort);
IVec2 = ismember(fdof,load_free_total);
IVecf = find(IVec2==1);
Rloadfree_temp = sparse(R2(IVecf,:));
Rloadfree = Rloadfree_temp(IIsort,:);
clear IVec2 IVecf ytemp ytemp2 Isort IIsort Rloadfree_temp
%%% Calculate Z = SA'(K\AS)-S
Z1 = sparse(BT'*R2);
size1 = size(Z1,1);
size2 = size(Z1,2);
Z2 = spalloc(size1,size2,1);
pack;
Z2 = sparse(Z1+(NTQ*Rr));
clear Z1 size1 size2;
Z = sparse(Z2 - N2(pActions,pindex)'*...
(S2(pActions,pActions)*N2(pActions,Active)));
else
Z = sparse(Z2 - N2(pActions,pindex)'*...
(S2(pActions,pActions)*V2(pActions,Active)));
end;
clear Z2;
%%% Form H (Softening) Matrix Corresponding to pindex %%%
clear H;
if shear < 3
H3 = H2(pindex);
nn = size(H3,1);
for i = 1:nn
H(i,i) = sparse((H3(i)));
end;
clear H3 nn;
else
H = sparse(H2(pindex,pindex));
end;
%%% Form LCP %%%

% H (Active_Band, Active_Band)
% Z (Active_Band, Active)
M_path_rate = sparse(H(:,Active_Band) - Z);

M_path = full(H(Active_Band,Active_Band) - Z(Active_Band,:));
q_path = q_path_rate(Active_Band);
sizeq = size(q_path);
sizeq1 = sizeq(1);
%%% Exclude Break Point Set %%%
ActiveWithoutBreak = Active;
[Cintersect,IA,IB] = intersect(Active,BreakPointSet);
ActiveWithoutBreak(IA) = []; % active set excluding break point set
B_Index = IA; % for break point set
clear Cintersect IA IB;
[Cp,IA,IB] = intersect(ActiveWithoutBreak,Active);
A_Index = IB; % for active set
clear Cp IA IB;
[Cp,IA,IB] = intersect(ActiveWithoutBreak,pindex');
Active_BandWithoutBreak = IB;
clear Cp IA IB;
[Cp,IA,IB] = intersect(BreakPointSet,pindex');
BreakPointSet_Band = IB;
clear Cp IA IB;
clear M_path;
%%% Re-form M_path Matrix Due to Break Point Set %%%

M_path = full(H(Active_BandWithoutBreak,Active_BandWithoutBreak)...
-Z(Active_BandWithoutBreak,A_Index));
M_path = M_path + full((Z(Active_BandWithoutBreak,B_Index) - ...

H(Active_BandWithoutBreak,BreakPointSet_Band))*...
((Z(BreakPointSet_Band,B_Index)-H(BreakPointSet_Band,...
BreakPointSet_Band))\(Z(BreakPointSet_Band,A_Index) - ...
H(BreakPointSet_Band,Active_BandWithoutBreak)) ) );
%%% Calculate q_break = Wbb\(N'Qe_unit) & Z_break = Wbb\Wba %%%
q_break = full((Z(BreakPointSet_Band,B_Index) - ...

H(BreakPointSet_Band,BreakPointSet_Band))\q_path(B_Index));
Z_break = full((Z(BreakPointSet_Band,B_Index) - H(BreakPointSet_Band,...
BreakPointSet_Band))\(Z(BreakPointSet_Band,A_Index) - ...
H(BreakPointSet_Band,Active_BandWithoutBreak)));
%%% Update Active Set Due to Break Point Set %%%
Active = ActiveWithoutBreak;
Active_Band = IB;
clear Cp IA IB;
%%% Re-form q_path Vector Due to Break Point Set %%%
if ~isempty(A_Index)
q_path2 = q_path(A_Index)-full((Z(Active_BandWithoutBreak,B_Index)-...
H(Active_BandWithoutBreak,BreakPointSet_Band))*...
((Z(BreakPointSet_Band,B_Index) - H(BreakPointSet_Band,...
BreakPointSet_Band))\q_path(B_Index)));
else
q_path2 = - full((Z(Active_BandWithoutBreak,B_Index) - ...
H(Active_BandWithoutBreak,BreakPointSet_Band))...
*((Z(BreakPointSet_Band,B_Index) - H(BreakPointSet_Band,...
BreakPointSet_Band))\q_path(B_Index)));
end;
clear q_path;
q_path = q_path2;
%%% Update Rr Rloadfree Due to Break Point Set
RrOld = Rr;
RloadfreeOld = Rloadfree;
RrBreak = Rr(:,B_Index);
Rr(:,B_Index) = [];
RloadfreeBreak = Rloadfree(:,B_Index);
Rloadfree(:,B_Index) = [];
%%%
clear q_path2;
sizeq = size(q_path);
sizeq1 = sizeq(1);
end;
clear Z R2 B;
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%% Fracture_main_time.m %%%%%
%%%%% TIME-DEPENDENT MODE I FRACTURE MODEL %%%%%
%%%%% UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES %%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
disp(' %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%');
disp(' %%%%%%% START OF TIME-DEPENDENT MODE I FRACTURE ANALYSIS %%%%%%%%');
disp(' %%%%%%% UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES %%%%%%%%');
disp(' %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%');
clear all;
if exist('restart.mat', 'file') == 0 % 1st start
disp(' --- PREPROCESS : MESH GENERATION & MATRIX ASSEMBLY ---');

Fracture_pre_time; % call sub-script (and open Diary_Fracture.txt)
flag_restart = 0;
else % restart mode
diary Diary_Fracture.txt; % write & append diary of MATLAB input/output

disp('--- RESTART MODE : LOAD RESTART FILE & SETUP ---');
load restart;
flag_restart = 1;
disp(' -------------------------------------');
disp(' - CURRENT NUMBER FACTOR -');
disp([' - ', num2str(num_factors)]);
disp(' -------------------------------------');
num_factors = input('ENTER NEW NUMBER FACTOR:');
num_factors
disp(' -------------------------------------');
disp(' - CURRENT RESTART NUBBER -');
disp([' - ', num2str(Restart_Number)]);
disp(' -------------------------------------');
Restart_Number = input('ENTER NEW RESTART NUMBER:');
Restart_Number
end;
jdisplacement = [1:2:num_factors]; % step for calculating displacement

jdisplacement = [2, jdisplacement]; % j=2 is used for one-off title writing
jrestart = [200:50:num_factors]; % step for over-wrinting restart file
disp(' ---SOLVER TIME-DEPENDENT MODE I FRACTURE ---');

Solver_fracture_time; %Lsi2
%%% PLOT ACTIVE LAMBDAS %%%
plot(XY_Midpoint(VecIncidence(Active_Tension),1),XY_Midpoint...
(VecIncidence(Active_Tension),2),'rv') % tension failure points
plot(XY_Midpoint(VecIncidence(Active_Shear),1),XY_Midpoint...
(VecIncidence(Active_Shear),2),'b^') % shear failure points
plot(XY_Midpoint(VecIncidence(UnLoadSet_Total),1),XY_Midpoint...
(VecIncidence(UnLoadSet_Total),2),'r.'); % unloading points
title(case_title);
hold;
figure;
plot(udisplay,pdisplay,'r*-')
title(case_title);
grid;
dlmwrite('u_p.txt', [udisplay', pdisplay'],','); % write a output file
if exist('Bifurcation_p','var')==1 % if this variable exist

end
disp(' --- DRAWING DEFORMED MESH ---');

Deflection_Assemble_time; % call sub-script
status = fclose('all'); % close all files

masonry_makefile(2) % delete temporary input files
disp(' --- END OF PROGRAM ---');
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%% EXAMPLE OF INPUT FILE FOR Fracture_main_time.m %%%%
%%%% FOR SIMULATION OF FLEXURAL CREEP RUPTURE TEST (92% PEAK LOAD) %%%%
%%%% UNITS ARE IN N, mm & s %%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
*** Time_parameter.m
function [creep_coef_inf, t_age, Displacement_rate, Peak_Load, ...
creep_load_percent, num_time, Time_Increment_Limit_Initial, ...
Time_Stepping_Factor, Time_control_factor, k0, Lr] = Time_parameter
%
% creep_coef_inf : creep coef. at time infinity varying from 2 to 6
% t_age : time or age at which load is first applied (days)
% k0 : a constant varying from 0.01 - 0.08
% Lr : a constant, reference crack opening disp. rate
% Peak_Load : peak load under the considering displacement rate (N)
% creep_load_percent : sustained load in terms of percent of peak load
% Time_Increment_Limit_Initial : initial time increment limit (s)
%-----------------------------------------------------------------------
% Bulk Creep Parameters

creep_coef_inf = 6;
t_age = 4*28; % days
% Crack-Rate Dependence Parameters

Displacement_rate = 5*1e-3; % mm/s
k0 = 0.08;
Lr = 4*1e-7;
% Sustained Load Parameters

Peak_Load = 998.6; % N
creep_load_percent = 92;
num_time = 5000; % No. of steps for sustained load
% Time Stepping Parameters

Time_Increment_Limit_Initial = 0.01; % second
Time_Stepping_Factor = 0.1; % (0.01 - 0.15)
Time_control_factor = 2.0; % (1.5 - 2.0)
%===================== end of Time_parameter.m =======================
*** control_main.m
function [Restart_Mesh, Restart_Assemble, Restart_Number, ...
shear, num_factors, jplot, jsave, Lemke_Use, mesh_style, ...
case_title, nonassociated, Yield_Tolerance, Select_Mode, ...
Snap_Back_Factor] = control_main
%
% shear: ID number for interface constitutive relationship
% =0 : Mode I -- Assumed;
% =1 : Mode I -- Interaction betw. normal & shear, non-asso. flow rules;
% =2 : Mode 2 -- Mohr-Coulomb, 2 planes in Tension-Shear Quadrant;
% =3 : Mode 1 -- Shear retention, 1 plane in Tension. 2 for Shear;
% =4 : Mode 2 -- Mohr-Coulomb, 1 planes in Tension, 2 for Shear;
% =6 : Mode 2 -- Mohr-Coulomb-Cap, 1 in Tens, 2 for Shear, 2 in Comp;
%------------------------------------------------------------------------
Restart_Mesh = 0; % = 0 (current model)

Restart_Assemble = 0; % = 0 (current model)
shear = 4;
num_factors = 5000; % number of load steps
Restart_Number = 100; % start saving restart file at this step
jplot = [1:100:num_factors+5]; % Plot Ouput at these Load Steps

jsave = [1:100:num_factors+5]; % Plot saved at these load steps
Lemke_Use = [1:6500]; % Use Lemke Solver at these Load Steps
%mesh_style = 0; % mesh prepared by easymesh

%case_title = 'double edge plate under tension';
%mesh_style = 1; % brickwall mesh to be generated

%case_title = '3-point bending';
%mesh_style = 2; % brickwall + lintel mesh to be generated

%case_title = 'Lintel bending';
%mesh_style = 3; % brickwall + tension fixture to be generated

%case_title = 'Brick wall tension';
mesh_style = 14; % mesh prepared by GiD, similar to mesh_style = 0

case_title = '3-point bending creep rupture';
nonassociated = 1; % = 0 for normality

Yield_Tolerance = 1.0; % = 1 Event by Event - No simultaneous Yield
Select_Mode = 0; % = 1 Select Equilibrium Path; = 0 use Min Work Criteria
Snap_Back_Factor = 1.0E-2; % = 1.0E-2 (currently used)
%=========================== end of control_main.m ======================

*** control_mesh0.m
function [sidenum, file, exclude_ratio] = control_mesh0
% (for mesh_style = 0, 14)
%--parameters used to generate mesh based on what prepared by Easymesh or GiD
% sidenum: distance_midpoint^vetice = side length / (2*sidenum)
% file: Easymesh/GiD file name (without extension) for
% nodal (*.n) and element (*.e) information
% Thickness: constant thickness of the mesh
% exclude_ratio: potentials are not consided for nodes whose distance
% from either end of the wall smaller than
% (exclude_ratio * Panel_Length)
%------------------------------------------------------------------------
sidenum = 10.; % = 10 (currently used)
file = 'Zhou92b';
exclude_ratio = 0.33;
%=========================== end of control_mesh0.m =====================
*** control_BC.m
function [Bx, By, Tx, Ty, Txp, Typ, T_control] = control_BC(XY_Midpoint);
%
% purpose : to define boundary conditions and loadings
%------------------------------------------------------------------------
stol = 1e-2;
% Boundary Nodes
L = find(y<=ymin+stol); % bottom -- all nodes

length_L = length(L);
x1min = min(XY_Midpoint(L,1));
x1max = max(XY_Midpoint(L,1));
% x=0 is at bottom left corner of beam

L1 = []; L2 = []; % for collecting No. of nodes needed
for i = 1:length_L
x_t = XY_Midpoint(L(i), 1);
% node # of left supporting point
if x_t > x1min-stol & x_t < x1min+stol; L1 = [L1,L(i)]; end
% node # of right supporting point
if x_t > x1max-stol & x_t < x1max+stol; L2 = [L2,L(i)]; end
end
Bx = [L1]; % x-displacements are fixed

By = [L1,L2]; % y-displacements are fixed
%%% Node Set for Loads & Constraints %%%
L = find(y>=ymax-stol); % top -- all nodes

x_L = x(L); % x-values of nodes at top
[L_sorted,L_index] = sort(x_L); % sort from left to right
m = length(L) / 2; % 1/2 of node number in L

L1 = L([L_index(m),L_index(m+1)]); % node # of middle load point
Tx = []; Txp = []; % no force along x-direction
Ty = L1;
Typ(1:length(Ty)) = -1.0/length(Ty) % let sum of forces = 1 N
%T_control = +1 % T_control >0 ==> use Tx (first node in Tx set)

T_control = -1 % T_control <0 ==> use Ty (first node in Ty set)
%===================== end of control_BC.m ============================
*** Data_Material_Interface_raw.m
function [plastic_ten_stress, opening_crack_width, breakpoint, ...
plastic_shear_stress, opening_crack_width_shear, breakpoint_shear, ...
shear_friction, Yield_Angle, Misalignment_Angle, Dilatancy_Angle, ...
Friction_Angle, Thickness, beta_factor, compression_strength, ...
opening_crack_width_comp, breakpoint_comp, Residual_Comp_Stress, ...
beta_factor_comp] = Data_Material_Interface_raw(material)
%
%--purpose : to provide interface material properties
% called by : Data_Material_Interface_ncap4.m
%
% Input:
% material: ID number of interface material;
%------------------------------------------------------------------------
if material == 1 % for Concrete Interface
% Shear Properties (Doesn't matter)

Cohesion = 3.92; % N/mm2

plastic_shear_stress = Cohesion*cos(Friction_Angle); % N/mm2
% Compressive Properties (Doesn't matter)

compression_strength = 100; % N/mm2 or MPa

(compression_strength-Residual_Comp_Stress);
%

end
if material == 2 % for Concrete Interface (the same as mat. 1)
% Shear Properties (Doesn't matter)


% Compressive Properties (Doesn't matter)


%

end
if material == 3 % Doesn't matter & No use in this problem
% Shear Properties



%

end
%================ end of Data_Material_Interface_raw.m =================
*** Data_Material_Body.m
function [elastic, nu, Thickness] = Data_Material_Body(material)
%
%--purpose : to provide body material properties.
% called by : SMat_Fracture_ncap4.m
%
% Input:
% material : ID number of body material;
%
% Output & Usage:
% elastic, nu, Thickness
%------------------------------------------------------------------------
if material == 1 % for Concrete unit

nu = 0.2;
end;
%=================== end of Data_Material_Body.m ========================
*** dhistory_boxs.m
function [Bx, By] = dhistory_boxs
%
% Purpose:
% To define boxes covering midpoints whose deflec. history will be exported
%
% Called by: dhistory_dof.m
%
% Output & Usage:
% Bx: box covering an area within
% which the x-deflec. of midpoints are selected
% By: box covering an area within
% which the y-deflec. of midpoints are selected
%------------------------------------------------------------------------
stol = 1e-2;
Bx = [398-2, 0-stol, 402+2, 0+stol]; % CMOD

By = [398-2, 0-stol, 402+2, 0+stol];
%================== end of dhistory_boxs ================================
*** qhistory_boxs.m
function Bxy = qhistory_boxs
%
%--purpose : to define boxes covering midpoints whose interface force
% & displacement history will be exported
% called by : qhistory_position.m
%
% Output & Usage:
% Bxy: box covering an area within which the midpoints are selected
%------------------------------------------------------------------------
stol = 0.01;
Bxy = [400-stol, 50-stol, 400+stol, 100+stol]; % At mid of beam
%==================== end of qhistory_boxs ==============================
*** deadLoad_boxs.m
function [Bx, By, Px, Py] = deadLoad_boxs(XY_Midpoint) % (modified)
%
% Purpose:
% To define boxes covering midpoints where dead loads are applied
% Called by: deadLoad_Treat.m
%
% Input: XY_Midpoint
%
% Output & Usage:
% Bx: boxes covering an area where the midpoints have x-dead loads
% By: boxes covering an area where the midpoints have y-dead loads
% Px: load values defined per box corresponding to Bx, (1:n_rowx)
% Py: load values defined per box corresponding to By, (1:n_rowy)
%------------------------------------------------------------------------
sidenum = 10.; % = 10 (currently used)
stol = 1e-5; s = 5.0;
Bx = [];
Px = [];
By = [0-stol, 100-stol, 800+stol, 100+stol];
% for unequal element length

Density = 2400*10/1e9; % N/mm3 (2400 kg/m3)
Panel_Height = 100; % mm (depth of beam)
DL = Density*Thickness*Panel_Height; % N/mm
y =(XY_Midpoint(:,2))';
L = find(y>ymax-stol); % top -- all nodes
length_L = length(L);
Py = [];
for i = 1:2:length_L
x1 = XY_Midpoint(L(i),1);
x2 = XY_Midpoint(L(i+1),1);
Ln = (x2-x1)*2*sidenum/(2*sidenum-2);
Py(i) = -DL*Ln/2;
Py(i+1) = -DL*Ln/2;
end
%===================== end of deadLoad_boxs.m ===========================
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%% Fracture_pre_time.m %%%%%
%%%%% CALLED BY Fracture_main_time.m %%%%%
%%%%% FOR PREPROCESSING : MESH GENERATION & MATRIX ASSEMBLY %%%%%
%%%%% CALLED ONLY IF RESTART FILE ("restart.mat") DOES NOT EXIST %%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
clear all;
%%% GET INPUT FILENAME FROM USER %%%
inputtemp = input('ENTER NEW INPUT FILE NAME (without extension) :', 's');
if isempty(inputtemp)
inputfile = [inputfile '.m'];
else
inputfile = [inputtemp '.m'];
end;
%%% CALL A FUNCTION TO CREATE FUNCTIONS DEFINED IN INPUT FILE
masonry_makefile(1, inputfile); % (create temporary input files)
while exist('control_main.m', 'file')==0 end;
%%% GET MAIN TIME PARAMETERS %%%

% FROM FUNCTION Time_parameter.m DEFINED IN INPUT FILE %
[creep_coef_inf, t_age, Displacement_rate, Peak_Load,...

creep_load_percent, num_time, Time_Increment_Limit_Initial,...
Time_Stepping_Factor, Time_control_factor, k0, Lr] = Time_parameter;
%%% GET MAIN CONTROL PARAMETERS %%%

% FROM FUNCTION control_main.m DEFINED IN INPUT FILE %
[Restart_Mesh, Restart_Assemble, Restart_Number, shear, num_factors,...

jplot, jsave, Lemke_Use, mesh_style, case_title, nonassociated, ...
Yield_Tolerance, Select_Mode, Snap_Back_Factor] = control_main;
%%% START WRITING DIARY OF MATLAB INPUT/OUTPUT %%%
diary Diary_Fracture.txt;
%
jdisplay = [];
num_actions = 12; % number of actions per element
num_nodes = 6; % number of nodes per element
%%% ASSIGN NUMBER OF POTENTIALS PER NODE DEPENDENT ON YIELD SURFACE USED
if shear == 0 % Mode 1 - Assumed

end;
if shear == 1 % Mode 1 - Interaction between Normal & Shear

num_potentials_node = 2; % Non-Assocated Flow Rule
end;

num_potentials_node = 4; % Two Planes in Tension - Shear Quadrant
end;
if shear == 3 % Mode 1 - Shear Reduction

num_potentials_node = 3; % One Plane in Tension - Two Planes for Shear
end;

num_potentials_node = 3; % One Plane in Tension - Two in Shear
end;
num_potentials = num_nodes*num_potentials_node; % num. of potentials per Elem.
%%% CALL A FUNCTION TO GENERATE & DISPLAY MESH %%%
disp('--- PREPARE & DISPLAY MESH - CASE SPECIFIC ---');

[XY_Midpoint, Incidence, XYvertices, tri, Ele_Mat, ...
List_exclude] = Case_definition_Mesh_ncap4(mesh_style);
X1 = XYvertices(:,1);
Y1 = XYvertices(:,2);
%%% CALL A FUNCTION TO CREATE TOPOGRAPHY FOR POTENTIAL, LOAD, FREEDOMS etc.
disp('--- CREATE TOPOGRAPHY FOR POTENTIAL, LOAD, FREEDOMS etc. ---');

[VecIncidence, VecPotential, Free, Load, Top, pindex, Incidence] ...
= Masonry_topography_ncap4(Incidence, XY_Midpoint, Ele_Mat,...
shear, List_exclude);
%%% CALL A FUNCTION TO FINDOUT FREEDOM ID FOR DEFLECTION HISTORY OUTPUT
dhistory_dofID = []
if exist('dhistory_boxs.m', 'file')
dhistory_dofID = dhistory_dof_time (XY_Midpoint, Free, Incidence, Ele_Mat)
end;
%%% CALL A FUNCTION TO CALCULATE PRELOAD %%%

% DEFINED IN FUNCTION preload_boxs.m IN INPUT FILE %
disp('--- PRELOAD - CASE SPECIFIC ---');
[preload, pdof2, dp2, fdof2] = ...
preload_function(XY_Midpoint, Incidence, Ele_Mat, Free);
end;
%%% CALL A FUNCTION TO CALCULATE DEADLOAD %%%

% DEFINED IN FUNCTION deadLoad_boxs.m IN INPUT FILE %
% (RETURN ZEROS IF deadLoad_boxs.m DOESN'T EXIST) %
deadLoad = deadLoad_treat(XY_Midpoint,Free,Incidence,Ele_Mat);
%%% CALL A FUNCTION TO FINDOUT INDEXES FOR INTERFACE FORCE HISTORY OUTPUT
qhistory_midpoints = [];
qhistory_S2row = [];
qhistory_S2col = [];
if exist('qhistory_boxs.m', 'file')
[qhistory_midpoints, qhistory_S2row, qhistory_S2col] = ...
qhistory_position (XY_Midpoint, Incidence, Ele_Mat);
end;
%%% CALL A FUNCTION TO CREATE BOUNDARY CONDITIONS - CASE SPECIFIC
disp('--- CREATE BOUNDARY CONDITIONS - CASE SPECIFIC ---');

[B_Supports, pdof, dp, fdof, display_free_node, control_node, ...
load_nodes, control_free, display_free, Load, load_free_total] = ...
Case_definition_BC(XY_Midpoint, abs(Incidence), Ele_Mat, Free, Load);
disp('--- DISPLAY MESH ---');
hf_1 = figure('units', 'normalized', 'position', [0.01, 0.3, 0.98, 0.6]);

ha_1 = axes('units', 'normalized', 'position', [0.07, 0.12, 0.42, 0.8], ...
'visible', 'on'); % for mesh
ha_2 = axes('units', 'normalized', 'position', [0.55, 0.12, 0.42, 0.8], ...
'visible', 'off'); % for u-p display
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% START ASSEMBLING MATRICES %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
num_members = size(Incidence, 1); % number of members/elements

free_total = max(max(Free)); % number of freedoms
size_pindex = length(pindex); % number of potentials
%%% ZERO A, S, K & H MATRICES (STRUCTURAL) %%%
num_col = num_actions*num_members;
A2 = spalloc(free_total,num_col,1); % structural equilibrium matrix
S2 = spalloc(num_col,num_col,1); % structural kernel stiffness matrix
if shear < 3
H2 = zeros(num_potentials*num_members,1); % structural softening matrix
else
H2 = spalloc(num_potentials*num_members,num_potentials*num_members,1);
end;
N2 = spalloc(num_actions*num_members,num_potentials*num_members,1);
V2 = spalloc(num_actions*num_members,num_potentials*num_members,1);
end;
%%% PREPARE MATRIX USED FOR PLOTTING DEFLECTION
A_ele = spalloc(num_actions*num_members,num_actions*num_members,1);
%%% MAJOR LOOP - FOR EACH MEMBER/ELEMENT %%%
for i = 1:num_members
%%% CALL A FUNCTION TO CALCULATE ELEMENT MATRICES %%%
[Se, Ae, Ke, He, Be, Ne, Ve, ResidualE] = ...

SMat_Fracture_ncap4(i, abs(Incidence), XY_Midpoint, tri, ...
XYvertices, shear, Ele_Mat, nonassociated);
if shear < 5
clear ResidualE
end;
%%% ASSEMBLE STRUCTURAL MATRICES %%%
A2(Top(i,2:13),n1) = sparse(Ae); % structural equilibrium matrix
A_ele(n1,n1) = sparse(Ae);
VecGeneralised(i,1:num_actions) = n1; % generalised stress numbering
S2(n1,n1) = sparse(Se); % structural S matrix
n1 = num_potentials*(i-1)+1:num_potentials*i;
N2(n2,n1) = sparse(Ne); % structural normality matrix
V2(n2,n1) = sparse(Ve); % structural dilatancy matrix
end;
VecYield(i,1:num_potentials) = n1; % plastic yield numbering

K(n1) = Ke; % structural initial-inelastic-failure vector
if shear < 3
H2(n1) = sparse(He); % structural softening matrix
else
H2(n1,n1) = sparse(He); % structural softening matrix
end;
BP2(n1) = Be; % structural break-point matrix (critical displacement)

end;
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% END OF ASSEMBLING MATRICES %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%% CALCULATE STRUCTURAL STIFFNESS MATRIX %%%
Kuu = sparse(A2*S2*A2');
%%% CALCULATE UNIT DISP. & UNIT FORCE DUE TO PRELOAD %%%
ue_preload2 = Kuu(fdof2,fdof2)\preload(fdof2);
ue_unit_preload(fdof2) = ue_preload2;
ue_unit_preload(pdof2) = dp2; % unit displacement (u)
clear ue_preload2
Qe_preload = S2*A2(fdof2,:)'*ue_unit_preload(fdof2)'; % unit force (Q)
P_preload = N2(:,pindex)'*Qe_preload; % proj. of Q on yield surfaces
end;
%%%% CALCULATE UNIT DISP. & UNIT FORCE DUE TO DEADLOAD & UNIT LOAD %%%
ue_unit2 = Kuu(fdof,fdof)\Load(fdof);
ue_deadLoad2 = Kuu(fdof,fdof)\deadLoad(fdof);
ue_unit(fdof) = ue_unit2;
ue_unit(pdof) = dp; % unit displacement (u)
ue_unit_deadLoad(fdof) = ue_deadLoad2;
ue_unit_deadLoad(pdof) = dp; % unit displacement (u)
Qe_unit = S2*A2(fdof,:)'*ue_unit(fdof)'; % unit force (Q)
P_unit = N2(:,pindex)'*Qe_unit; % projection of Q on yield surfaces
Qe_deadLoad = S2*A2(fdof,:)'*ue_unit_deadLoad(fdof)'; % unit force (Q)
P_deadLoad = N2(:,pindex)'*Qe_deadLoad; % projection of Q on yield surfaces
ue_load_unit = ue_unit(load_free_total); % unit disp. (u) at load points
ue_load_unit_deadLoad = ue_unit_deadLoad(load_free_total);
%%% CAL. UNIT DISPLACEMENT (u) AT CONTROL POINT
ue_r = ue_unit(control_free);
ue_r_deadLoad = ue_unit_deadLoad(control_free);
creep_load = creep_load_percent/100*Peak_Load; % value of sustained load

NonActive = pindex'; % non-active set
NonActive_Band = [1:size_pindex];
Factor = zeros(num_factors,1); % displacement factor vector
Lambda_Total = zeros(size_pindex,1);
BreakPointSet = [];
j = 1;
Q = Qe_deadLoad + Qe_preload;
Phi_Total = K(pindex)' - P_deadLoad - P_preload;
else
Q = Qe_deadLoad;
Phi_Total = K(pindex)' - P_deadLoad;
end;
qp = 0*Q; % plastic interface displacement

u = 0*ue_unit_deadLoad; % excluding effects of preload & deadload
qe = A2'*u'; % elastic interface displacement
%%% PREPARE VARIABLES FOR FUNCTION Solver_fracture_time.m %%%
BT = sparse(A2(fdof,:))*S2*N2(:,pindex);
disp('--- END OF PREPROCESSING ---')
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%% Solver_fracture_time.m %%%
%%% CALLED BY Fracture_main_time.m %%%
%%% USING SHORT-TERM CREEP %%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
if flag_restart == 0 % 1st start
t = 0; % time at start
j_sustained = 0; % step at first load is sustained
t_sustained = 0; % time at first load is sustained
Active = [];
Initial_Active = [];
creep_coef = 0; % creep coefficient
creep_coef_check = 0;
qc = 0*Q; % creep generalised displacement
Load_Factor = 0;
R = K(pindex)'; % structural initial-inelastic-failure vector (constant)
Bifurcation_u = [];
Bifurcation_p = [];
udisplay(1) = 0;
pdisplay(1) = 0;
BP_Exceeded = 0;
UnLoadSet_Total = [];
ZeroNu = 1.0E-25; % a constant used in LCP solver
Lambda_Inc_Max = 0; % maximum lambda increment
if Select_Mode == 1
else
end;
Evol_Total = K(pindex)'; % structural evolution vector
%%% OPEN solvectime.txt FOR STORING DETAILS OF SOLVING %%%
if exist('solvectime.txt', 'file')~=0;
delete solvectime.txt;
end;
fidsol = fopen('solvectime.txt','a');
% one-off write for titles
fprintf(fidsol, '\n\nsolution(time)\n');
fprintf(fidsol, 'j, load, no. forward, no. snapback, pnum, no. active,');
fprintf(fidsol, 'no. breakset, no. yield, no. break, no. unload, t,');
fprintf(fidsol, 't_sustained, creep_coef, creep_coef_check,');
fprintf(fidsol, 'j_sustained, Lambda_Inc_Max');
else % restart mode
fidsol = fopen('solvectime.txt','a');
end;
SAT = sparse(S2*A2(fdof,:)');
AS = sparse(A2(fdof,:)*S2);
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%% BEFORE CRACKING %%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%% WHILE LOOP FOR DETERMINING FIRST YIELD POINT %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
while isempty(Active)
fprintf(fidsol, '%d', j); % write data in solvectime.txt
disp(' ');
disp('at Step:');
j
%%% DETERMINE TIME INCREMENT %%%

% Time_Increment_YP : time increment required to reach next yield point
% Time_Increment_BC : time increment limited by bulk creep
if t == 0
Time_Increment_YP = inf;
Time_Increment = Time_Increment_Limit_Initial;
else
%%% Estimate Time_Increment_BC %%%
if creep_coef_inf ~= 0
Time_Increment_BC = 86400*sqrt((t/86400)^(15/8)*1e-6*128/7/...
creep_coef_inf/(t_age^(-1/3)+0.05)); % short-term creep
else
Time_Increment_BC = inf;
end;
%%% Estimate Time_Increment_YP %%%
A = (R - N2(:,pindex)'*Q)*(1+creep_coef);
c1 = 1/86400*creep_coef_inf*(t_age^(-1/3)+0.05)*...
0.125/(t/86400)^(7/8); % short-term creep
ASqe = AS*qe;
NTZqe = N2(:,pindex)'*SAT*(Kuu(fdof,fdof)\ASqe)-N2(:,pindex)'*S2*qe;
B1 = c1*NTZqe;
if t == 0
B2 = abs(Displacement_rate/ue_r)*P_unit; %P_unit = N'Qe_unit
else
B2 =(abs(Displacement_rate/ue_r) - c1*Load_Factor)*P_unit;
end;
B = B1+B2;
index_nonzero = find(B ~= 0);
Time_Increment_YP_temp = A(index_nonzero)./B(index_nonzero);
index_positive = find(Time_Increment_YP_temp > 0);
Time_Increment_YP = min(Time_Increment_YP_temp(index_positive));
clear A B ASqe NTZqe B1 B2 index_nonzero
%%% Get Time_Increment %%%
Time_Increment = [Time_Increment_BC,Time_Increment_YP];
Time_Increment = min(Time_Increment)
clear Time_Increment_BC
end;
%%% CALCULATE LOAD FACTOR INCREMENT %%%
Factor_Increment = abs(Displacement_rate/ue_r)*Time_Increment
if t == 0
creep_coef_increment = creep_coef_inf*(t_age^(-1/3)+0.05)*...
(Time_Increment/86400)^(1/8); % short-term creep
else
creep_coef_increment = c1*Time_Increment
end;
clear c1
if t == 0
Load_Factor_Increment = Factor_Increment
else
Load_Factor_Increment = (Factor_Increment-creep_coef_increment*...
Load_Factor)/(1+creep_coef)
end;
%%% UPDATE VARIABLES %%%
Load_Factor = Load_Factor + Load_Factor_Increment

if j == 1
Factor(j) = Factor_Increment; % displacement factor
else
Factor(j) = Factor(j-1) + Factor_Increment;
end;
j = j+1;
Phi_Total = Phi_Total - Load_Factor_Increment*P_unit; % potential func.
%%% Calculate qe_increment & qc_increment %%%
term1 = Load_Factor_Increment*A2(fdof,:)'*ue_unit(fdof)' +...

A2(fdof,:)'*(Kuu(fdof,fdof)\(AS*creep_coef_increment*qe)) -...
creep_coef_increment*qe;
qe_increment_old = (1+creep_coef).\term1;
qe_increment = qe_increment_old;
clear term1
criterion = 1;
icount_time = 1;
while criterion >= 1e-6 | icount_time > 1000

icount_time = icount_time+1;
qe_inc = (1+creep_coef).\AS*creep_coef*qe_increment;
qe_increment_new = qe_increment_old + A2(fdof,:)'*...
(Kuu(fdof,fdof)\qe_inc);
criterion = norm(qe_increment)\norm(qe_increment_new-qe_increment);
qe_increment = qe_increment_new;
end;
if icount_time > 1000

disp(' Convergence Not Achieved')
pause(5);
break;
end;
criterion
clear qe_increment_old icount_time qe_inc qe_increment_new criterion
qc_increment = creep_coef*qe_increment + creep_coef_increment*qe;
%%% Calculate Other Variables %%%
qe = qe + qe_increment; % elastic generalised displacement

qc = qc + qc_increment; % creep generalised displacement
Qe_increment = Qe_unit*Load_Factor_Increment;
ASqc_inc = AS*qc_increment;
Qc_increment = SAT*(Kuu(fdof,fdof)\ASqc_inc) - S2*qc_increment;
Q_increment = Qe_increment + Qc_increment;
Q = Q + Q_increment; % generalised force
clear Qe_increment Qc_increment Q_increment
ue_increment = Load_Factor_Increment.*ue_unit;
uc_increment(fdof) = (Kuu(fdof,fdof)\(ASqc_inc))';
u_increment = ue_increment + uc_increment;
u = u + u_increment; % displacement
clear qe_increment ue_increment ASqc_inc uc_increment
clear u_increment
q = A2'*u'; % generalised displacement

t = t + Time_Increment % time
creep_coef = creep_coef + creep_coef_increment; % creep coefficient
creep_coef_check = creep_coef_inf*( t_age^(-1/3)+0.05 )*(t/86400)^(1/8);
udisplay(j) = u(control_free)
pdisplay(j) = Load_Factor
forward_marker = 0;
snap_marker = 0;
p_num = 0;
lenBreakSet = 0;
lenYield = 0;
lenBreak = 0;
lenUnLoad = 0;
Lambda_Inc_Max = 0;
%%% Write Data to solvectime.txt %%%

fprintf(fidsol, ',%.15e', t);
fprintf(fidsol, ',%.15e', t_sustained);
fprintf(fidsol, ',%.15e', creep_coef);
fprintf(fidsol, ',%.15e', creep_coef_check);
fprintf(fidsol, ',%d', j_sustained);
fprintf(fidsol, ',%.15e', Lambda_Inc_Max);
if Time_Increment == Time_Increment_YP
%%% Find Location of All Points That Reach Yield %%%
Active_Band = find(Time_Increment_YP==Time_Increment_YP_temp);
Active = pindex(Active_Band)';
Initial_Active = Active;
disp(' Initial Active Set');
Active
disp(' Coordinates of Initial Active Points')
XY_Midpoint(VecIncidence(Active),:)
[Cp,IA,IB] = intersect(NonActive,pindex);
clear CNA INA Cp IA IB;
end;
%%% Plot Figure %%%
if j == 2
end;
if ismember(j,jplot) | j == num_factors | exist('stop.m', 'file') |...

Time_Increment == Time_Increment_YP
close all;
hf_1 = figure('units', 'normalized', 'position', ...

[0.01, 0.3, 0.98, 0.6]);
hold on;

hold on
if ~isempty(Initial_Active)
clear IActive_Tension IActive_Shear IActive_Shear1 IActive_Shear2

clear Active_Tension Active_Shear IVec IVec_ones Active_NonBreak
end;
text_title = ['Event ' num2str(j-1) ' : udisplay=' ...

num2str(udisplay(j))];
text_title = [text_title ' : pdisplay=' num2str(pdisplay(j))];
title(text_title);
text_save = ['Event_' num2str(j-1)];
hold on;


hold on;
xlabel('u'); ylabel('p');
pause(0.1)
if ismember(j,jsave) | j == num_factors | exist('stop.m', 'file')

end;
end;
if ~isempty( dhistory_dofID ) % call a written function

History_Deflection_creep_rate(j-1, dhistory_dofID, pdisplay,...
udisplay, u, t);
end;
if ~isempty(qhistory_S2row) % call a written function

History_Interface_creep_rate(j-1, qhistory_midpoints, ...
qhistory_S2row, Incidence, XY_Midpoint, Q, q, qe, qp, qc, t)
end;
creep_coef = creep_coef_check;
disp (' -------- End Current Loop --------')

end;
%%%%%%% END OF WHILE LOOP FOR DETERMINING FIRST YIELD POINT %%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%% WHEN CRACKING EXISTS %%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
if exist('restart.mat', 'file') == 0 % --- not a restart runing
%%% STORE CONSTANT PARAMETERS %%%
save ViVpMidR VecIncidence VecPotential XY_Midpoint % maintime1

save A2SatAsFdof A2 SAT AS fdof % maintime1a
save N2V2Pin N2 V2 pindex % ActionDef1
save LoVgVyLemBt Load VecGeneralised VecYield Lemke_Use BT % begintime1
save KuS2 Kuu S2 % begintime2
save AeFree A_ele Free % deflection1
save EleTriVer Ele_Mat tri XYvertices % postprocess1
save JsJpJd jsave jplot jdisplacement % postprocess1a
save Inc Incidence % PostDeflec1
%%% CLEAR PARAMETERS NO LONGER USED %%%
clear Qe_deadLoad Top VecQ deadLoad ue1 K

clear ue_deadLoad2 ue_unit2 ue_unit_deadLoad Y1 X1 Ve Se Ne He NTQ
clear List_exclude Ae Le Be Ke BP
m_choice = 1;
t_initial = 1;
Lambda_rate = zeros(size_pindex,1);
end;
%%%%%%%%%%%%%% MAIN WHILE LOOP WHEN CRACKING EXISTS %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
j000 = j;
while j_sustained == 0 & j <= num_factors,
%%% LOAD PARAMETERS %%%
load N2V2Pin % ActionDef1

load LoVgVyLemBt % begintime1
load KuS2 % begintime2
%%%
%%% CHECK YIELD LIMIT %%%
if Yield_Limit_Exceeded
disp('Yield Limit Exceeded');
break;
end;
disp(' ');
disp('at Step:');
j
if j > j000
if ismember(j,jrestart) | j == Restart_Number | j == num_factors
disp(['--- Saving Files for Restart, j = ', num2str(j)]);
save(text_save);
clear text_save
end;
end;
%%% CONVERT ACTIVE VECTOR TO COLUMN VECTOR %%%
Active = Active';
end;
%%% ASSUME TIME INCREMENT %%%

% Time_Increment_qp : time increment limited by previous plastic disp.
% Time_Increment_qc : time increment limited by previous creep disp.
creep_coef_inf/(t_age^(-1/3) + 0.05)); % short-term creep
else
end;
%%% Estimate Time_Increment_qp %%%
if exist('qp_increment','var')
index_qp_nonzero = find(qp_increment ~= 0);
else
index_qp_nonzero = [];
end;
if ~isempty(index_qp_nonzero)
Time_Increment_qp = Time_Stepping_Factor*q(index_qp_nonzero)./...
(qp_increment(index_qp_nonzero)/Time_Increment);
index_positive = find(Time_Stepping_Factor*q(index_qp_nonzero)./...
(qp_increment(index_qp_nonzero)/Time_Increment) > 0);
Time_Increment_qp = min(Time_Increment_qp(index_positive));
else
Time_Increment_qp = inf;
end;
clear index_qp_nonzero index_positive
%%% Estimate Time_Increment_qc %%%
index_qc_nonzero = find(qc_increment ~= 0);
if ~isempty(index_qc_nonzero)
Time_Increment_qc = Time_Stepping_Factor*q(index_qc_nonzero)./...
(qc_increment(index_qc_nonzero)/Time_Increment);
index_positive = find(Time_Stepping_Factor*q(index_qc_nonzero)./...
(qc_increment(index_qc_nonzero)/Time_Increment) > 0);
Time_Increment_qc = min(Time_Increment_qc(index_positive));
else
Time_Increment_qc = inf;
end;
clear index_qc_nonzero index_positive qc_increment
%%% GET ASSUMED TIME INCREMENT %%%
Time_Increment_temp = [Time_Increment_BC, Time_Increment_qp, ...

Time_Increment_qc];
Time_Increment_temp = min(Time_Increment_temp);
if Time_Increment_temp > Time_control_factor*Time_Increment

Time_Increment = Time_control_factor*Time_Increment;
else
Time_Increment = Time_Increment_temp;
end;
clear Time_Increment_temp
Time_Increment
clear Time_Increment_BC Time_Increment_qp Time_Increment_qc
%%% WHILE LOOP TO GET A SOLUTION ACCORDING TO THE ASSUMED TIME INCREMENT
icount_rate = 0;
Active_BeforeAssemble = Active;
Time_Increment_Accepted = 0;
while Time_Increment_Accepted == 0
icount_rate = icount_rate + 1;
forward_marker = 0;
snap_marker = 0;
p_num = 0;
lenBreakSet = 0;
lenYield = 0;
lenBreak = 0;
lenUnLoad = 0;
unbounded = 0;
SolNum = 1;
disp(' Before Assembly M & q with Time Effect');

%%% CALL A WRITTEN SUB-SCRIPT (Action_Assemble_time.m) TO FORM LCP %%%

% q_path_time == p & M_path_time == M in general LCP form
clear q_path_time M_path_time;
Action_Assemble_time; % call a written sub-script

Active
if isempty(Active)
Time_Increment_BP = inf; % time increment required to get new BP
end;
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
% NOTE: use the same procedure as shown in Solver_fracture_ncap4.m
% from line as marked by LINE AAA to LINE BBB to solve LCP
% by setting q_path = q_path_time and M_path = M_path_time
% !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
%%% GET LAMBDA INCREMENT %%%
if size(z,2) > 1
else
end;
if unbounded == 0
Sign_Factor = 1;
else
Sign_Factor = -1; % snap back solution
end;
disp ('---- Determine Unloading Set -----')

UnLoadSet = find(Lambda_Increment < 1E-25 & ...
Lambda_Increment > -1E-25);
end;
Active(UnLoadSet)
break;
end;
%%% UPDATE VARIABLES DUE TO UNLOADING SET & KEEP OLD VALUES %%%
UnLoadSet_Total_old = UnLoadSet_Total;
NonActive = union(NonActive,Active(UnLoadSet)); % non-active set

clear Cp IA IB;
Active(UnLoadSet) = []; % active set

Active_Band = IB;
clear Cp IA IB;
Lambda_Increment(UnLoadSet) = []; % lambda increment
Z_break_time(:,UnLoadSet) = []; % from Action_Assemble_time.m
end;
%%% CALCULATE LAMBDA INCREMENT OF BP SET %%%
if ~isempty(Active)
disp (' ---- Calc. Lambda_Break_Increment ----')
if unbounded == 0
Lambda_Break_Increment = q_break_time - ...
Z_break_time*Lambda_Increment;
else % q_break_time from Action_Assemble_time.m
Lambda_Break_Increment = q_break_time
end;
else
Lambda_Break_Increment = -q_break_time - ...
else
Lambda_Break_Increment = -q_break_time
end;
end;
Active = Active';
end;
clear Cp IA IB;
clear Cp IA IB;
clear Rr Rloadfree;
Rr = RrOld; % Rr from Action_Assemble_time.m

end;
%%% ESTIMATE TIME INCREMENT REQUIRED TO REACH NEW BP. %%%
Evol_Total_new_temp = R(ActiveNoBreak_Band) + ...

full(H(ActiveNoBreak_Band,Active_Band))*...
Lambda_Total(Active_Band) + Lb_term(ActiveNoBreak_Band)...
+ full(H(ActiveNoBreak_Band,Active_Band) +...
L_term(ActiveNoBreak_Band,Active_Band)/Time_Increment +...
LH(ActiveNoBreak_Band,Active_Band))*...
Lambda_Increment*Sign_Factor;
Evol_Total_Inc_temp = Evol_Total_new_temp - ...

Evol_Total(ActiveNoBreak_Band);
Factor_ratio = -Evol_Total(ActiveNoBreak_Band)./...
(Evol_Total_Inc_temp/Time_Increment);
IFactor = find(Factor_ratio==-inf);
Time_Increment_BP = min(Factor_ratio(index_positive));
if isempty(Time_Increment_BP)
Time_Increment_BP = inf;
end;
clear Evol_Total_new_temp Evol_Total_Inc_temp

clear Factor_ratio index_positive IFactor
else % if ~isempty(Active) -- all active unloading
if exist('q_break_time','var') == 0 | isempty(q_break_time)
break;
end;
Lambda_Increment = q_break_time;
Active = Active';
end;
ActiveNoBreak = [];
ActiveNoBreak_Band = [];
clear Rr Rloadfree;
end;
else % no actice set
Active = Active';
end;
ActiveNoBreak = [];
BP_Exceeded = 1;
clear Rr Rloadfree;
Time_Increment_BP=inf;
end;
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% END OF SOLVING LCP %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Lambda_Increment
end;
Active_Band_Old = Active_Band;
ActiveOld = Active; % active set corresponding to lambda inc.
M_path_rate_time(:,IB) = [];
Rr(:,IB) = [];
clear C IA IB;
%%% UPDATE Phi_Total & Evol_Total & Load Factor %%%
Phi_Total_old = Phi_Total;
Evol_Total_old = Evol_Total;
Load_Factor_old = Load_Factor;
Phi_Total = q_path_rate_time + M_path_rate_time*...

Lambda_Increment.*Sign_Factor;
Evol_Total = R + full(H)*Lambda_Total + Lb_term + ...

full(H(:,Active_Band) + L_term(:,Active_Band)/Time_Increment+...
LH(:,Active_Band))*Lambda_Increment*Sign_Factor;
Load_Factor_Increment = (Factor_Increment - ...

Rr*Sign_Factor*Lambda_Increment - creep_coef_increment*...
Load_Factor)/(1+creep_coef);
Load_Factor = Load_Factor + Load_Factor_Increment;
%%% CHECK Phi_Total & Evol_Total & Load_Factor %%%
%Check for New Yield Point or New Break Point

NY_index = find(Phi_Total(NonActive_Band) < -1E-6);
NBP_index = find(Evol_Total(ActiveNoBreak_Band) < -1E-6);
if ~isempty(ActiveNoBreak)
Lambda_Inc_Limit = BP(ActiveNoBreak_Band) - ...
Lambda_Total(ActiveNoBreak_Band);
[Cp,IA,ActiveNoBreak_index] = intersect(ActiveNoBreak,Active);
NBPC_index = find(Lambda_Increment(ActiveNoBreak_index) > ...
Lambda_Inc_Limit);
else
NBPC_index = [];
end;
if ~isempty(NY_index) | ~isempty(NBP_index) | ...

Load_Factor > creep_load | ~isempty(NBPC_index)
Time_Increment_Accepted = 0 % Time_Increment too much
%%% Estimate New Time_Increment %%%
Time_Increment_limit = 0.99*Time_Increment;
%%% Estimate Time_Increment to Reach New Break Point %%%
if isempty(Time_Increment_BP) == 1
Time_Increment_BP = inf*Sign_Factor;
end;
Factor_ratio_lambda = Lambda_Inc_Limit./...
(Lambda_Increment(ActiveNoBreak_index)/Time_Increment);
Time_Increment_BP_lambda = min(Factor_ratio_lambda);
Time_Increment_BP = [Time_Increment_BP;Time_Increment_BP_lambda];
Time_Increment_BP = min(Time_Increment_BP);
%%% Estimate Time_Increment to Reach New Yield Point
Phi_NonActive = (Phi_Total(NonActive_Band) - ...

Phi_Total_old(NonActive_Band))/Time_Increment;
Phi_ratio = Phi_Total_old(NonActive_Band(Phi_NotZero_index))./...
if unbounded == 0
%Forward Solution
index_positive = find(Phi_Total_old(NonActive_Band...
(Phi_NotZero_index))./...
-Phi_NonActive(Phi_NotZero_index) > 0);
Time_Increment_YP = min(Phi_ratio(index_positive));
else
end;
else
%Snap Back Solution
index_neg = find(Phi_Total_old(NonActive_Band...
Time_Increment_YP = max(Phi_ratio(index_neg));
else
end;
end;
clear Phi_NonActive Phi_NotZero_index index_positive

clear Phi_ratio index_neg
%%% Estimate Time_Increment to Reach Creep Load %%%
Time_Increment_CL = (creep_load - Load_Factor_old)/...

(Load_Factor_Increment/Time_Increment);
%%% Get new Time_Increment %%%
Time_Increment_limit
if Time_Increment_limit < 0
Time_Increment_limit = inf
end;
Time_Increment_BP
if Time_Increment_BP < 0
Time_Increment_BP = inf
end;
Time_Increment_YP
if Time_Increment_YP < 0
Time_Increment_YP = inf
end;
Time_Increment_CL
if Time_Increment_CL < 0
Time_Increment_CL = inf
end;
Time_Increment = [Time_Increment_limit, Time_Increment_BP,...

Time_Increment_YP, Time_Increment_CL];
if Time_Increment < 1e-10

if icount_rate < 500
Time_Increment = rand(1)*1e-4
pause(1);
else
disp('Time_Increment < 1e-10');
disp('1. Continue');
disp('0. Exit');
clear m_choice
m_choice = input('Enter your choice (1/0):');
if m_choice == 1
Time_Increment = input('input Time_Increment:');
end;
if m_choice == 0
break;
end;
end;
end;
clear Time_Increment_limit Time_Increment_BP Time_Increment_YP
clear Time_Increment_CL
%%%%%%%%%% End of Estimating New Time_Increment %%%%%%%%%%%%
%%% Restore Old Values of Main Parameters %%%
Active = Active_BeforeAssemble;
Active_Band = IB;
clear Cp IA IB;
clear Cp IA IB CNA INA;
UnLoadSet_Total = UnLoadSet_Total_old;
Phi_Total = Phi_Total_old;
Evol_Total = Evol_Total_old;
Load_Factor = Load_Factor_old;
else
Time_Increment_Accepted = 1
icount_rate
PhiNonActive_zero_index = find(Phi_Total(NonActive_Band) < ...

1.0E-6 & Phi_Total(NonActive_Band) > -1.0E-6);
if length(PhiNonActive_zero_index) > 1;
disp('Multi-Yielding occurs !')
pause;
end;
if ~isempty(PhiNonActive_zero_index)
%Get New Active and lenYield

NewActive_Band = NonActive_Band(PhiNonActive_zero_index);
disp(' New Active Set');
NewActive = pindex(NewActive_Band)'
end;
%Update Active and Active_Band

Active_Band = IB;
clear Cp IA IB;
%Update NonActive and NonActive_Band

end;
clear Cp IA IB;
end;
%%% Determine New Break Point %%%
Evol_zero_index = find(Evol_Total(ActiveNoBreak_Band) < ...

1.0E-6 & Evol_Total(ActiveNoBreak_Band) > -1.0E-6);
if length(Evol_zero_index) > 1;
disp('Multi-BP occurs !')
length(Evol_zero_index)
pause;
end;
critical_disp_index = find(abs(Lambda_Increment...
(ActiveNoBreak_index) - Lambda_Inc_Limit) < 1e-6);
else
critical_disp_index = [];
end;
if length(critical_disp_index) > 1;
length(critical_disp_index)
pause;
end;
NewBP_Band1 = []; NewBP_Band2 = [];
%Get New Break Points and lenBreak

if ~isempty(Evol_zero_index)
NewBP_Band1 = ActiveNoBreak_Band(Evol_zero_index);
if size(NewBP_Band1,1) ~= 1
NewBP_Band1 = NewBP_Band1';
end;
end;
if ~isempty(critical_disp_index)
NewBP_Band2 = ActiveNoBreak_Band(critical_disp_index);
Evol_Total(ActiveNoBreak_Band(critical_disp_index)) = 0;
end;
end;
NewBP_Band = unique([NewBP_Band1,NewBP_Band2]);
clear NewBP_Band1 NewBP_Band2
if ~isempty(NewBP_Band)
NewBP = pindex(NewBP_Band)'
lenBreak = length(NewBP);
%Update BreakPointSet
BreakPointSet = unique([BreakPointSet;NewBP]);
%Update R
if shear <= 4
R(NewBP_Band) = 0;
else
R(NewBP_Band) = Residual(NewBP_Band);
end;
%Update H2
if shear < 3
H2(NewBP) = 0;
else
if shear == 3
for i = 1:size(NewBP,1),
H2(NewBP(i),NewBP(i)) = 0;
size(NewBP)
temp1 = NewBP+ones(size(NewBP));
temp2 = temp1+ones(size(NewBP));
H2(NewBP(i),temp1(i)) = 0;
end;
else
clear temp1;
temp3 = NewBP-ones(size(NewBP));
temp4 = temp3-ones(size(NewBP));
H2(temp1(i),NewBP(i)) = 0;
if temp4(i) ~= 0
end;
end;
end;
end; % Update H2
end;
if ~isempty(PhiNonActive_zero_index) & ~isempty(NewBP_Band)

disp('Both new active and BP occur simultaneously');
pause;
end;
end;
clear NY_index NBP_index PhiNonActive_zero_index

clear Evol_zero_index
clear Lambda_Inc_Limit NBPC_index critical_disp_index
clear NewBP NewBP_Band ActiveNoBreak_index
end; %while Time_Increment_Accepted == 0
clear UnLoadSet_Total_old Active_BeforeAssemble

clear Phi_Total_old Evol_Total_old
if m_choice == 0
break;
end;
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%% POST-PROCESSING WHEN CRACING EXISTS %%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
disp (' ------- Post Processing (Time Effect) --------')
if Time_Increment == inf
disp('Time Increment = inf');
break;
end;
Factor(j) = Factor(j-1) + Factor_Increment; % displacement factor
Lambda_Total(Active_Band_Old) = Lambda_Total(Active_Band_Old)...
+ Sign_Factor*Lambda_Increment;
disp(' Lambda Total Active')

Lambda_Total(Active_Band_Old)
Lambda_rate(Active_Band_Old) = Lambda_Increment/Time_Increment;
Lambda_Inc_Max = max(Lambda_Increment); % maximum lambda increment
Lambda_Index = find(Lambda_Total(Active_Band_Old) < 0 & ...

Lambda_Total(Active_Band_Old) > -1E-20);
j
pause;
end;
%%%
j = j+1;
qp_increment = N2(:,ActiveOld)*Sign_Factor*Lambda_Increment;
else
qp_increment = V2(:,ActiveOld)*Sign_Factor*Lambda_Increment;
end;
%%% Store & Clear Values of Variables to Save Memory %%%
save maintime2 q u Lambda_Total Phi_Total Evol_Total H2 BP2

save postprocess2 R2
clear H M_path_rate_time M_path_time q_path_rate_time q_path_time

clear VecIncidence VecPotential XY_Midpoint
clear N2 V2 pindex
clear Load VecGeneralised VecYield Lemke_Use BT
clear A_ele Free
clear Ele_Mat R2c u_j1 tri XYvertices
clear jsave jplot jdisplacement
clear Incidence
clear q u uc ue up Lambda_Total Phi_Total Evol_Total H2 L2 LC2 BP2
clear Z22
qpterm = qp_increment + creep_coef_increment*qe;

term1 = Load_Factor_Increment*A2(fdof,:)'*ue_unit(fdof)' +...
A2(fdof,:)'*(Kuu(fdof,fdof)\(AS*qpterm)) - qpterm;
qe_increment_old = (1+creep_coef).\term1;
clear qpterm term1
criterion = 1;
icount_time = 1;

icount_time = icount_time + 1;
qe_increment_new = qe_increment_old + ...
A2(fdof,:)'*(Kuu(fdof,fdof)\qe_inc);
criterion = norm(qe_increment)\norm(qe_increment_new - qe_increment);
end;

pause(5);
break;
end;
criterion
Qe_increment = Qe_unit*Load_Factor_Increment;
ASqp_inc = AS*qp_increment;
Qp_increment = SAT*(Kuu(fdof,fdof)\ASqp_inc) - S2*qp_increment;
Q_increment = Qe_increment + Qc_increment + Qp_increment;
clear Qe_increment ASqp_inc ASqc_inc Qc_increment Qp_increment
%%% Load Parameters %%%
load ViVpMidR %maintime1

load maintime2
load EleTriVer %postprocess1
load JsJpJd %postprocess1a
load Inc %PostDeflec1
%%%
ue_increment = Load_Factor_Increment.*ue_unit;
up_increment = 0*u;
R2(:,IB) = [];
up_increment(fdof) = (R2*Sign_Factor*Lambda_Increment)';
uc_increment = 0*u;
ASqc = AS*qc_increment;
uc_increment(fdof) = (Kuu(fdof,fdof)\(ASqc))';
u_increment = ue_increment + up_increment + uc_increment;

clear ue_increment ASqc up_increment uc_increment
creep_coef = creep_coef + creep_coef_increment % creep coefficient
disp(' Total Time');

creep_coef_check = creep_coef_inf*( t_age^(-1/3)+0.05 )*(t/86400)^(1/8);

qp = qp + qp_increment; % plastic generalised displacement

clear u_increment Q_increment

if forward_marker > 1 | snap_marker > 0

Bi_Size = size(Bifurcation_u)
end;
%%% Plot Figure %%%
if j == 2
end;
if ismember(j,jplot) | j == num_factors | exist('stop.m','file') |...

BP_Exceeded == 1
close all;

[0.01, 0.3, 0.98, 0.6]);
hold on;

hold on
XY_Midpoint(VecIncidence(BreakPointSet),2),'bo');
XY_Midpoint(VecIncidence(UnLoadSet_Total),2),'r.');
text_title = ['Event ' num2str(j-1) ' : udisplay=' ...

num2str(udisplay(j))];
text_title = [text_title ' : pdisplay=' num2str(pdisplay(j))];
title(text_title);
hold on;


hold on;
end;
xlabel('u'); ylabel('p');
pause(0.1)
if ismember(j,jsave) | j == num_factors | exist('stop.m', 'file') |...

BP_Exceeded == 1
end;
end;

History_Deflection_creep_rate(j-1, dhistory_dofID, pdisplay, ...
udisplay, u, t);
end;

qhistory_S2row, Incidence, XY_Midpoint, Q, q, qe, qp, qc, t);
end;
%%%
udisplay_new = udisplay(j);
udisplay_old = udisplay(j-1);
udisplay_increment = udisplay_new - udisplay_old;
if creep_coef >= creep_coef_inf

if abs(udisplay_increment) < 1e-16
disp ('!!! Creep Limit is reached !!! ')
udisplay_old
udisplay_new
udisplay_increment
break;
end;
end;
clear udisplay_new udisplay_old
%%% Cheak Creep Load %%%
if abs(Load_Factor - creep_load) < 1e-6

j_sustained = 1; % in order to start sustained loading
end;
%%%
disp (' -------- End Current Loop (Time Effect) ---------')
if BP_Exceeded == 1
disp('BP_Exceeded');
break;
end;
if exist('stop.m', 'file') | j == num_factors

disp(' ');
disp('-------------------------------------');
disp('- Current Number Factor -');
disp('-------------------------------------');
m_choice = input('Enter new number factor(0 for no change):');
if m_choice > 0
end;
disp('-------------------------------------');
disp('- Current Restart Number -');
disp('-------------------------------------');
m_Restart = input('Enter new Restart (0 for no change):');
if m_Restart > 0
end;
jdisplacement = [1:1:num_factors];
jdisplacement = [2, jdisplacement];
jrestart = [50:50:num_factors];
save JsJpJd jsave jplot jdisplacement % postprocess1a

end;
end;
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% END (WHEN CRACKING EXISTS) %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%% UNDER SUSTAINED LOADING %%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
if j_sustained ~= 0
if j_sustained == 1
u_t_display(1) = abs(udisplay(j));
tdisplay(1) = 0;
t_ref = t;
end;
m_choice = 1;
j000 = j_sustained;
%%%%%%%%%%%%%% MAIN WHILE LOOP UNDER SUSTAINED LOADING %%%%%%%%%%%%%%
while j_sustained <= num_factors,
load N2V2Pin % ActionDef1

load LoVgVyLemBt % begintime1
load KuS2 % begintime2
%%%
disp(' ');
disp('at Sustained Loading Step:');
j_sustained
if j_sustained > j000

if ismember(j_sustained,jrestart) | ...
j_sustained == Restart_Number | j_sustained == num_time
disp(['--- Saving Files for Restart, j_sustained = ', ...

num2str(j_sustained)]);
save(text_save);
clear text_save
end;
end;
%%% CONVERT ACTIVE VECTOR TO COLUMN VECTOR %%%
Active = Active';
end;
%%% ASSUME TIME INCREMENT %%%

% Time_Increment_qp : time increment limited by previous plastic disp.
% Time_Increment_qc : time increment limited by previous creep disp.
creep_coef_inf/(t_age^(-1/3)+0.05)); % short-term creep
else
end;
%%% Estimate Time_Increment_qp %%%
index_qp_nonzero = find(qp_increment ~= 0);
if ~isempty(index_qp_nonzero)
Time_Increment_qp = Time_Stepping_Factor*q(index_qp_nonzero)./...
(qp_increment(index_qp_nonzero)/Time_Increment);
index_positive =find(Time_Stepping_Factor*q(index_qp_nonzero)./...
(qp_increment(index_qp_nonzero)/Time_Increment) > 0);
Time_Increment_qp = min(Time_Increment_qp(index_positive));
else
Time_Increment_qp = inf;
end;
clear index_qp_nonzero index_positive
%%% Estimate Time_Increment_qc %%%
index_qc_nonzero = find(qc_increment ~= 0);
if ~isempty(index_qc_nonzero)
Time_Increment_qc = Time_Stepping_Factor*q(index_qc_nonzero)./...
(qc_increment(index_qc_nonzero)/Time_Increment);
index_positive =find(Time_Stepping_Factor*q(index_qc_nonzero)./...
(qc_increment(index_qc_nonzero)/Time_Increment) > 0);
Time_Increment_qc = min(Time_Increment_qc(index_positive));
else
Time_Increment_qc = inf;
end;
clear index_qc_nonzero index_positive
%%% GET ASSUMED TIME INCREMENT %%%
Time_Increment_temp = [Time_Increment_BC, Time_Increment_qp, ...

Time_Increment_qc];
Time_Increment_temp = min(Time_Increment_temp);
if Time_Increment_temp > Time_control_factor*Time_Increment

Time_Increment = Time_control_factor*Time_Increment;
else
Time_Increment = Time_Increment_temp;
end;
clear Time_Increment_temp
Time_Increment
clear Time_Increment_BC Time_Increment_qp Time_Increment_qc
%%% WHILE LOOP TO GET A SOLUTION ACCORDING TO THE ASSUMED TIME INCRE.
icount_rate = 0;
Active_BeforeAssemble = Active;
Time_Increment_Accepted = 0;
while Time_Increment_Accepted == 0
icount_rate = icount_rate + 1;
forward_marker = 0;
snap_marker = 0;
p_num = 0;
lenBreakSet = 0;
lenYield = 0;
lenBreak = 0;
lenUnLoad = 0;
unbounded = 0;
SolNum = 1;
disp(' Before Assembly M & q with Time Effect');

%%% CALL Action_Assemble_creep.m TO FORM LCP %%%

% q_path_time == p & M_path_time == M in general LCP form
clear q_path_time M_path_time;
Action_Assemble_creep; % call a written sub-script

Active
Time_Increment_BP = inf; % time incre. required to get new BP
end;
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
% NOTE: use the same procedure as shown in Solver_fracture_ncap4.m
% from line as marked by LINE AAA to LINE BBB to solve LCP
% by setting q_path = q_path_time and M_path = M_path_time
% !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
%%% GET LAMBDA INCREMENT %%%
if size(z,2) > 1
else
end;
if unbounded == 0
Sign_Factor = 1;
else
Sign_Factor = -1; % snap back solution
end;
disp ('---- Determine Unloading Set -----')

UnLoadSet = find(Lambda_Increment < 1E-25 & ...
Lambda_Increment > -1E-25);
end;
Active(UnLoadSet)
break;
end;
%%% UPDATE VARIABLES DUE TO UNLOADING SET & KEEP OLD VALUES
UnLoadSet_Total_old = UnLoadSet_Total;
NonActive = union(NonActive,Active(UnLoadSet)); % non-active

clear Cp IA IB;
Active(UnLoadSet) = []; % active set

Active_Band = IB;
clear Cp IA IB;
Lambda_Increment(UnLoadSet) = []; % lambda increment

Z_break_time(:,UnLoadSet) = [];
end; % Z_break_time from Action_Assemble_creep.m
%%% CALCULATE LAMBDA INCREMENT OF BP SET %%%
if ~isempty(Active)
disp (' ---- Calc. Lambda_Break_Increment ----')
if unbounded == 0
Lambda_Break_Increment = q_break_time - ...
else % q_break_time from Action_Assemble_creep.m
Lambda_Break_Increment = q_break_time
end;
else
Lambda_Break_Increment = -q_break_time - ...
else
Lambda_Break_Increment = -q_break_time
end;
end;
Active = Active';
end;
clear Cp IA IB;
clear Cp IA IB;
clear Rr Rloadfree;
end;
%%% ESTIMATE TIME INCREMENT REQUIRED TO REACH NEW BP. %%%
Evol_Total_new_temp = R(ActiveNoBreak_Band) + ...

full(H(ActiveNoBreak_Band,Active_Band))*...
Lambda_Total(Active_Band) + ...
Lb_term(ActiveNoBreak_Band) + ...
full(H(ActiveNoBreak_Band,Active_Band) + ...
L_term(ActiveNoBreak_Band,Active_Band)/...
Time_Increment+LH(ActiveNoBreak_Band,Active_Band))*...
Evol_Total_Inc_temp = Evol_Total_new_temp - ...

Evol_Total(ActiveNoBreak_Band);
Factor_ratio = -Evol_Total(ActiveNoBreak_Band)./...
(Evol_Total_Inc_temp/Time_Increment);
IFactor = find(Factor_ratio==-inf);
Time_Increment_BP = min(Factor_ratio(index_positive));
if isempty(Time_Increment_BP)
end;
clear Evol_Total_new_temp Evol_Total_Inc_temp

clear Factor_ratio index_positive IFactor
else % if ~isempty(Active) -- all active unloading
if exist('q_break_time','var')== 0 | isempty(q_break_time)
break;
end;
Active = Active';
end;
ActiveNoBreak = [];
clear Rr Rloadfree;
end;
else % no actice set
Active = Active';
end;
ActiveNoBreak = [];
clear Rr Rloadfree;
BP_Exceeded = 1;
end;
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% END OF SOLVING LCP %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Lambda_Increment
end;
Active_Band_Old = Active_Band;
ActiveOld = Active; % active set corresponding to lambda inc.
[C,IA,IB] = intersect(ActiveBeforeUnLoad(UnLoadSet),...
ActiveWithBreaks);
M_path_rate_time(:,IB) = [];
clear C IA IB;
%%% UPDATE Phi_Total & Evol_Total %%%
Phi_Total_old = Phi_Total;
Evol_Total_old = Evol_Total;
Phi_Total = q_path_rate_time + ...

M_path_rate_time*Lambda_Increment.*Sign_Factor;
Evol_Total = R + full(H)*Lambda_Total + Lb_term + ...

full(H(:,Active_Band) + L_term(:,Active_Band)/...
Time_Increment+ LH(:,Active_Band))*...
%%% CHECK Phi_Total & Evol_Total %%%
%Check for New Yield Point or New Break Point

NY_index = find(Phi_Total(NonActive_Band) < -1E-6);
NBP_index = find(Evol_Total(ActiveNoBreak_Band) < -1E-6);
Lambda_Inc_Limit = BP(ActiveNoBreak_Band) - ...
Lambda_Total(ActiveNoBreak_Band);
[Cp,IA,ActiveNoBreak_index] = intersect(ActiveNoBreak,Active);
NBPC_index = find(Lambda_Increment(ActiveNoBreak_index) > ...
Lambda_Inc_Limit);
else
NBPC_index = [];
end;
if ~isempty(NY_index) | ~isempty(NBP_index) | ~isempty(NBPC_index)
Time_Increment_Accepted = 0 % Time_Increment too much
%%% Estimate New Time_Increment %%%
Time_Increment_limit = 0.99*Time_Increment;
%%% Estimate Time_Increment to Reach New Break Point %%%
if isempty(Time_Increment_BP) == 1
Time_Increment_BP = inf*Sign_Factor;
end;
Factor_ratio_lambda = Lambda_Inc_Limit./...
(Lambda_Increment(ActiveNoBreak_index)/Time_Increment);
Time_Increment_BP_lambda = min(Factor_ratio_lambda);
Time_Increment_BP = [Time_Increment_BP;...
Time_Increment_BP_lambda];
Time_Increment_BP = min(Time_Increment_BP);
%%% Estimate Time_Increment to Reach New Yield Point
Phi_NonActive = (Phi_Total(NonActive_Band) - ...

Phi_Total_old(NonActive_Band))/Time_Increment;
Phi_ratio = Phi_Total_old(NonActive_Band...
(Phi_NotZero_index))./-Phi_NonActive(Phi_NotZero_index);
if unbounded == 0
%Forward Solution
index_positive = find(Phi_Total_old(NonActive_Band...
-Phi_NonActive(Phi_NotZero_index) > 0);
Time_Increment_YP = min(Phi_ratio(index_positive));
else
end;
else
%Snap Back Solution
index_neg = find(Phi_Total_old(NonActive_Band...
Time_Increment_YP = max(Phi_ratio(index_neg));
else
end;
end;
clear Phi_NonActive Phi_NotZero_index index_positive

clear Phi_ratio index_neg
%%% Get new Time_Increment %%%
Time_Increment_limit
Time_Increment_BP
Time_Increment_YP
Time_Increment = [Time_Increment_limit, Time_Increment_BP,...

Time_Increment_YP];
if Time_Increment < 1e-10

disp('1. Continue');
disp('0. Exit');
clear m_choice
m_choice = input('Enter your choice (1/0):');
if m_choice == 1
Time_Increment = input('input Time_Increment:');
end;
if m_choice == 0
break;
end;
end;
clear Time_Increment_limit Time_Increment_BP Time_Increment_YP
%%%%%%%%% End of Estimating New Time_Increment %%%%%%%%%%
%%% Restore Old Values of Main Parameters %%%
Active = Active_BeforeAssemble;
Active_Band = IB;
clear Cp IA IB;
clear Cp IA IB CNA INA;
UnLoadSet_Total = UnLoadSet_Total_old;
Phi_Total = Phi_Total_old;
Evol_Total = Evol_Total_old;
else
Time_Increment_Accepted = 1
icount_rate
PhiNonActive_zero_index = find(Phi_Total(NonActive_Band) <...

1E-6 & Phi_Total(NonActive_Band) > -1E-6);
if length(PhiNonActive_zero_index) > 1;
disp('Multi-Yielding occurs !')
pause;
end;
if ~isempty(PhiNonActive_zero_index)
%Get New Active and lenYield

NewActive_Band = NonActive_Band(PhiNonActive_zero_index);
disp(' New Active Set');
NewActive = pindex(NewActive_Band)'
end;
%Update Active and Active_Band

Active_Band = IB;
clear Cp IA IB;
%Update NonActive and NonActive_Band

end;
clear Cp IA IB;
end;
%%% Determine New Break Point %%%
Evol_zero_index = find(Evol_Total(ActiveNoBreak_Band) <...

1E-6 & Evol_Total(ActiveNoBreak_Band) > -1E-6);
if length(Evol_zero_index) > 1;
length(Evol_zero_index)
pause;
end;
critical_disp_index = find(abs(Lambda_Increment...
(ActiveNoBreak_index) - Lambda_Inc_Limit) < 1e-6);
else
critical_disp_index = [];
end;
if length(critical_disp_index) > 1;
length(critical_disp_index)
pause;
end;
NewBP_Band1 = []; NewBP_Band2 = [];
%Get New Break Points and lenBreak

if ~isempty(Evol_zero_index)
NewBP_Band1 = ActiveNoBreak_Band(Evol_zero_index);
end;
end;
if ~isempty(critical_disp_index)
NewBP_Band2 = ActiveNoBreak_Band(critical_disp_index);
Evol_Total(ActiveNoBreak_Band(critical_disp_index)) = 0;
end;
end;
NewBP_Band = unique([NewBP_Band1,NewBP_Band2]);
clear NewBP_Band1 NewBP_Band2
if ~isempty(NewBP_Band)
NewBP = pindex(NewBP_Band)'
lenBreak = length(NewBP);
%Update BreakPointSet
BreakPointSet = unique([BreakPointSet;NewBP]);
%Update R
if shear <= 4
R(NewBP_Band) = 0;
else
R(NewBP_Band) = Residual(NewBP_Band);
end;
%Update H2
if shear < 3
H2(NewBP) = 0;
else
if shear == 3
size(NewBP)
end;
else
clear temp1;
temp3 = NewBP-ones(size(NewBP));
temp4 = temp3-ones(size(NewBP));
if temp4(i) ~= 0
end;
end;
end;
end; % Update H2
end;
if ~isempty(PhiNonActive_zero_index) & ~isempty(NewBP_Band)

disp('Both new active and BP occur simultaneously');
pause;
end;
end;
clear NY_index NBP_index PhiNonActive_zero_index

clear Evol_zero_index
clear Lambda_Inc_Limit NBPC_index critical_disp_index
clear NewBP NewBP_Band ActiveNoBreak_index
if icount_rate > 1000

disp(' Time Convergence Not Achieved')
pause(5);
break;
end;
end; %while Time_Increment_Accepted == 0
clear UnLoadSet_Total_old Active_BeforeAssemble

clear Phi_Total_old Evol_Total_old
if m_choice == 0 | icount_rate > 1000

break;
end;
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%% POST-PROCESSING UNDER SUSTAINED LOADING %%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
disp (' ------- Post Processing (Time Effect) --------')
if Time_Increment == inf
disp('Time Increment = inf');
break;
end;
Lambda_Total(Active_Band_Old) = Lambda_Total(Active_Band_Old)...
+ Sign_Factor*Lambda_Increment;
disp(' Lambda Total Active')

Lambda_Total(Active_Band_Old)
Lambda_rate(Active_Band_Old) = Lambda_Increment/Time_Increment;
Lambda_Inc_Max = max(Lambda_Increment); % maximum lambda increment
Lambda_Index = find(Lambda_Total(Active_Band_Old) < 0 & ...

Lambda_Total(Active_Band_Old) > -1E-20);
j
j_sustained
pause;
end;
%%%
j = j+1;
disp(' Time Increment');

Time_Increment
qp_increment = N2(:,ActiveOld)*Sign_Factor*Lambda_Increment;
else
qp_increment = V2(:,ActiveOld)*Sign_Factor*Lambda_Increment;
end;
%%% Store & Clear Values of Variables to Save Memory %%%
save maintime2 q u Lambda_Total Phi_Total Evol_Total H2 BP2

save postprocess2 R2
clear H M_path_rate_time M_path_time q_path_rate_time q_path_time

clear VecIncidence VecPotential XY_Midpoint
clear N2 V2 pindex
clear Load VecGeneralised VecYield Lemke_Use BT
clear A_ele ue_unit Free
clear Ele_Mat R2c u_j1 tri XYvertices
clear Incidence
clear q u uc ue up Lambda_Total Phi_Total Evol_Total H2 L2 LC2 BP2
clear R2
clear Z22
qpterm = qp_increment + creep_coef_increment*qe;

qe_inc_1 = AS*qpterm;
qe_inc_2 = A2(fdof,:)'*(Kuu(fdof,fdof)\qe_inc_1) - qpterm;
qe_increment_old = (1+creep_coef).\qe_inc_2;
clear qe_inc_1 qe_inc_2 qpterm
criterion = 1;
icount_time = 1;

icount_time = icount_time+1;
qe_increment_new = qe_increment_old + ...
A2(fdof,:)'*(Kuu(fdof,fdof)\qe_inc);
criterion = norm(qe_increment)\...
norm(qe_increment_new - qe_increment);
end;

pause(5);
break;
end;
criterion
ASqp_inc = AS*qp_increment;
Qp_increment = SAT*(Kuu(fdof,fdof)\ASqp_inc) - S2*qp_increment;
Q_increment = Qc_increment + Qp_increment;

clear ASqp_inc ASqc_inc Qc_increment Qp_increment
%%% Load Parameters %%%
load ViVpMidR %maintime1

load maintime2
load EleTriVer %postprocess1
load JsJpJd %postprocess1a
load postprocess2
%%%
up_increment = 0*u;
R2(:,IB) = [];
up_increment(fdof) = (R2*Sign_Factor*Lambda_Increment)';
uc_increment = 0*u;
ASqc = AS*qc_increment;
uc_increment(fdof) = (Kuu(fdof,fdof)\(ASqc))';
u_increment = up_increment + uc_increment;
clear ASqc up_increment uc_increment
creep_coef = creep_coef + creep_coef_increment % creep coefficient
disp(' Total Time');

creep_coef_check = creep_coef_inf*(t_age^(-1/3)+0.05)*(t/86400)^(1/8);

qp = qp + qp_increment; % plastic generalised displacement

clear u_increment Q_increment
t_sustained = t-t_ref; % time since load is sustained


%%%
j_sustained = j_sustained + 1;
u_t_display(j_sustained) = abs(udisplay(j));
tdisplay(j_sustained) = t - t_ref;
if forward_marker > 1 | snap_marker > 0

Bi_Size = size(Bifurcation_u)
end;
%%% Plot Figure %%%
if j_sustained == 2
u_t_display_max = 1.5*max(u_t_display);
u_t_display_min = 0;
t_display_max = 1.5*max(tdisplay);
t_display_min = 1.5*min(tdisplay);
end;
if ismember(j_sustained,jplot) | j_sustained == num_time | ...

exist('stop.m', 'file') | BP_Exceeded == 1
close all;

[0.01, 0.3, 0.98, 0.6]);
hold on;

hold on
plot(XY_Midpoint(B_Supports,1),...
XY_Midpoint(B_Supports,2),'rsquare')
XY_Midpoint(VecIncidence(BreakPointSet),2),'bo');
XY_Midpoint(VecIncidence(UnLoadSet_Total),2),'r.');
text_title = ['Event ' num2str(j-1) ' : u=' num2str(udisplay(j))];

text_title = [text_title ' : p=' num2str(pdisplay(j))];
text_title = [text_title ' : jtime=' num2str(j_sustained)];
text_title = [text_title ' : t(sustained)=' ...
num2str(tdisplay(j_sustained))];
title(text_title);
hold on;
if max(u_t_display) > u_t_display_max,

u_t_display_max = 1.5*max(u_t_display);
end;
if max(tdisplay) > t_display_max,

t_display_max = 1.5*max(tdisplay);
end;
if min(tdisplay) < t_display_min,

t_display_min = 1.5*min(tdisplay);
end;
axis([t_display_min, t_display_max, u_t_display_min, ...

u_t_display_max]);
plot(tdisplay, u_t_display, 'b-o');
hold on;
end;
xlabel('t(sustained)'); ylabel('abs(u)');
text_title = ['%CLoad= ' num2str(creep_load_percent)];

text_title = [text_title ' : creep coef=' num2str(creep_coef)];
title(text_title);
pause(0.1)
if ismember(j_sustained,jsave) | j == num_time | ...

exist('stop.m', 'file') | BP_Exceeded == 1
end;
end;

History_Deflection_creep_rate(j-1, dhistory_dofID, ...
pdisplay, udisplay, u, t);
end;

qhistory_S2row, Incidence, XY_Midpoint, Q, q, qe, qp, qc, t)
end;
%%%
udisplay_new = udisplay(j);
udisplay_old = udisplay(j-1);
udisplay_increment = udisplay_new - udisplay_old;
if creep_coef >= creep_coef_inf

if abs(udisplay_increment) < 1e-16
disp ('!!! Creep Limit is reached !!! ')
udisplay_old
udisplay_new
udisplay_increment
break;
end;
end;
clear udisplay_new udisplay_old
disp (' -------- End Current Loop (Time Effect) ---------')
if BP_Exceeded == 1;
disp('BP_Exceeded');
break;
end;
if exist('stop.m', 'file') | j_sustained == num_factors

disp(' ');
disp('-------------------------------------');
disp('- Current Number factors -');
disp('-------------------------------------');
clear m_choice
m_choice = input('Enter new number factors(0 for no change):');
if m_choice > 0
end;
disp('-------------------------------------');
disp('- Current Restart Number -');
disp('-------------------------------------');
m_Restart = input('Enter new Restart (0 for no change):');
if m_Restart > 0
end;
end;
end; % while j_sustained <= num_time,
%%%%%%%%%%% END OF MAIN WHILE LOOP UNDER SUSTAINED LOADING %%%%%%%%%%%
end; % if j_sustained ~= 0

end;
fclose(fidsol); % close solvectime.txt
%%% CLEAR VARIABLES %%%
clear N2 V2 pindex
clear Kuu Load S2 VecGeneralised VecYield Lemke_Use BT
clear A_ele ue_unit Free
clear R2c u_j1 fdof tri XYvertices
clear Incidence
clear q uc up Lambda_Total Phi_Total Evol_Total H2 L2 LC2 BP2
clear R2
clear Qe_unit
load AeFree %deflection1

disp('--- END LOOP ---');
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%% Action_Assemble_time.m %%%
%%% CALLED BY Solver_fracture_time.m %%%
%%% TO FORM LCP %%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

clear R2;
else
end;
%%% Calculate Z_time = N'ZN or N'ZV and Z = SA'(K\AS)-S
size1 = size(Z1,1);
size2 = size(Z1,2);
Z2_time = spalloc(size1,size2,1);
pack;
Z2_time = sparse(Z1);
Z_time = sparse(Z2_time - N2(pActions,pindex)'*...
else
end;
clear Z2_time;
%%% Form H (Softening) & BP Matrices Corresponding to pindex %%%
clear H BP;
if shear < 3
H3 = H2(pindex);
nn = size(H3,1);
for i = 1:nn
end;
clear H3 nn;
else
end;
BP = BP2(pindex)';
%%% Form LCP %%%

% Z_time (Active_Band, Active)
creep_coef_increment = creep_coef_inf*( t_age^(-1/3)+0.05 )*...

0.125/(t/86400)^(7/8)*Time_Increment/86400; % short-term creep
ASqe = AS*qe;
NTZqe = N2(:,pindex)'*SAT*(Kuu(fdof,fdof)\ASqe) - N2(:,pindex)'*S2*qe;
NTQ1 = N2(:,pindex)'*Q;
Factor_Increment = abs(Displacement_rate/ue_r)*Time_Increment;
NTQRr = P_unit*Rr; % N'Q*Rr
Lr_vec = Lr*ones(size(pindex))';
Lbb = Lambda_rate./sqrt(Lr_vec.*Lr_vec + Lambda_rate.*Lambda_rate);
Lb_term = k0*R.*(asinh(Lambda_rate./Lr) - Lbb) - ...
k0*R.*(asinh(Lambda_rate./Lr) - Lbb).*(Lambda_Total./BP);
L_prime = k0*(asinh(Lambda_rate./Lr) - Lbb);

L_prime = diag(L_prime); %form diag. matrix
LH = L_prime*H;
clear L_prime
clear Lbb
L_term = k0*R./sqrt(Lr_vec.*Lr_vec + Lambda_rate.*Lambda_rate) - ...

k0*R./sqrt(Lr_vec.*Lr_vec+Lambda_rate.*Lambda_rate).*(Lambda_Total./BP);
L_term = diag(L_term); %form diag. matrix
M_path_rate_time = sparse(H(:,Active_Band) - Z_time/(1+creep_coef) +...

L_term(:,Active_Band)/Time_Increment + NTQRr/(1+creep_coef) + ...
LH(:,Active_Band));
M_path_time = full(H(Active_Band,Active_Band) - ...
Z_time(Active_Band,:)/(1+creep_coef) + ...
L_term(Active_Band,Active_Band)/Time_Increment + ...
NTQRr(Active_Band,:)/(1+creep_coef) + LH(Active_Band,Active_Band));
q_path_rate_time = -NTQ1 + R + sparse(H(:,Active_Band)*...

Lambda_Total(Active_Band)) + (creep_coef_increment*Load_Factor - ...
Factor_Increment)*P_unit/(1+creep_coef) - ...
creep_coef_increment/(1+creep_coef)*NTZqe + Lb_term;
clear ASqe NTZqe NTQ1 Lr_vec
q_path_time = q_path_rate_time(Active_Band);
sizeq = size(q_path_time);
sizeq1 = sizeq(1);
B_index = IA; % for break point set
A_index = IB; % for active set
clear Cp IA IB;
clear Cp IA IB;
clear Cp IA IB;
%%% Re-form M_path_time Matrix Due to Break Point Set %%%
clear M_path_time;
Waa = full(H(Active_BandWithoutBreak,Active_BandWithoutBreak) - ...

Z_time(Active_BandWithoutBreak,A_index)/(1+creep_coef) + ...
L_term(Active_BandWithoutBreak,Active_BandWithoutBreak)/...
Time_Increment + NTQRr(Active_BandWithoutBreak,A_index)/...
(1+creep_coef) + LH(Active_BandWithoutBreak,Active_BandWithoutBreak));
Wab = full(H(Active_BandWithoutBreak,BreakPointSet_Band) - ...
Z_time(Active_BandWithoutBreak,B_index)/(1+creep_coef) + ...
L_term(Active_BandWithoutBreak,BreakPointSet_Band)/...
Time_Increment + NTQRr(Active_BandWithoutBreak,B_index)/...
(1+creep_coef) + LH(Active_BandWithoutBreak,BreakPointSet_Band));
Wbb = full(H(BreakPointSet_Band,BreakPointSet_Band) - ...

Z_time(BreakPointSet_Band,B_index)/(1+creep_coef) + ...
L_term(BreakPointSet_Band,BreakPointSet_Band)/Time_Increment + ...
NTQRr(BreakPointSet_Band,B_index)/(1+creep_coef) + ...
LH(BreakPointSet_Band,BreakPointSet_Band));
Wba = full(H(BreakPointSet_Band,Active_BandWithoutBreak) - ...
Z_time(BreakPointSet_Band,A_index)/(1+creep_coef) + ...
L_term(BreakPointSet_Band,Active_BandWithoutBreak)/Time_Increment+ ...
NTQRr(BreakPointSet_Band,A_index)/(1+creep_coef) + ...
LH(BreakPointSet_Band,Active_BandWithoutBreak));
M_path_time = Waa - Wab*(Wbb\Wba);
%%% Calculate q_break_time & Z_break_time %%%
q_break_time = -Wbb\q_path_time(B_index);
Z_break_time = Wbb\Wba;
Active_Band = IB;
clear Cp IA IB;
%%% Re-form q_path_time Vector Due to Break Point Set %%%
if ~isempty(A_index)
q_path_time2 = q_path_time(A_index)-Wab*(Wbb\q_path_time(B_index));
else
q_path_time2 = -Wab*(Wbb\q_path_time(B_index));
end;
clear q_path_time;
q_path_time = q_path_time2;
RrOld = Rr;
RrBreak = Rr(:,B_index);
Rr(:,B_index) = [];
RloadfreeBreak = Rloadfree(:,B_index);
Rloadfree(:,B_index) = [];
%%%
clear q_path_time2;
sizeq1 = sizeq(1);
end;
save Z_time Z_time

clear Z_time VecMember sizeq NTQRr
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%% Action_Assemble_creep.m %%%
%%% CALLED BY Solver_fracture_time.m %%%
%%% TO FORM LCP UNDER SUSTAINED LOADING %%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

clear R2;
else
end;
%%% Calculate Z_time = N'ZN or N'ZV and Z = SA'(K\AS)-S
size1 = size(Z1,1);
size2 = size(Z1,2);
Z2_time = spalloc(size1,size2,1);
pack;
Z2_time = sparse(Z1);
else
end;
clear Z2_time;
%%% Form H (Softening) & BP Matrices Corresponding to pindex %%%
clear H BP;
if shear < 3
H3 = H2(pindex);
nn = size(H3,1);
for i = 1:nn
end;
clear H3 nn;
else
end;
BP = BP2(pindex)';
%%% Form LCP %%%

% Z_time (Active_Band, Active)
if t == 0
(Time_Increment/86400)^(1/8); % short-term creep
else
0.125/(t/86400)^(7/8)*Time_Increment/86400; % short-term creep
end
ASqe = AS*qe;
NTZqe = N2(:,pindex)'*SAT*(Kuu(fdof,fdof)\ASqe) - N2(:,pindex)'*S2*qe;
NTQ1 = N2(:,pindex)'*Q;
Lr_vec = Lr*ones(size(pindex))';
if t == 0
Lb_term = zeros(size_pindex,1);
LH = zeros(size_pindex,size_pindex);
else
Lbb = Lambda_rate./sqrt(Lr_vec.*Lr_vec + Lambda_rate.*Lambda_rate);
Lb_term = k0*R.*(asinh(Lambda_rate./Lr) - Lbb) - ...
k0*R.*(asinh(Lambda_rate./Lr) - Lbb).*(Lambda_Total./BP);
L_prime = k0*(asinh(Lambda_rate./Lr) - Lbb);

L_prime = diag(L_prime); %form diag. matrix
LH = L_prime*H;
clear L_prime
clear Lbb
end
L_term = k0*R./sqrt(Lr_vec.*Lr_vec + Lambda_rate.*Lambda_rate) - ...

k0*R./sqrt(Lr_vec.*Lr_vec + Lambda_rate.*Lambda_rate).*(Lambda_Total./BP);
L_term = diag(L_term); %form diag. matrix
M_path_rate_time = sparse(H(:,Active_Band) - Z_time/(1+creep_coef) + ...

L_term(:,Active_Band)/Time_Increment + LH(:,Active_Band));
M_path_time = full(H(Active_Band,Active_Band) - ...
Z_time(Active_Band,:)/(1+creep_coef) + ...
L_term(Active_Band,Active_Band)/Time_Increment + ...
LH(Active_Band,Active_Band));
q_path_rate_time = -creep_coef_increment/(1+creep_coef)*NTZqe - NTQ1...

+ R + sparse(H(:,Active_Band)*Lambda_Total(Active_Band)) + Lb_term;
clear ASqe NTZqe NTQ1
q_path_time = q_path_rate_time(Active_Band);
sizeq1 = sizeq(1);
B_index = IA; % for break point set
A_index = IB; % for active set
clear Cp IA IB;
clear Cp IA IB;
clear Cp IA IB;
%%% Re-form M_path_time Matrix Due to Break Point Set %%%
clear M_path_time;
Waa = full(H(Active_BandWithoutBreak,Active_BandWithoutBreak) - ...

Z_time(Active_BandWithoutBreak,A_index)/(1+creep_coef) + ...
L_term(Active_BandWithoutBreak,Active_BandWithoutBreak)/...
Time_Increment + LH(Active_BandWithoutBreak,Active_BandWithoutBreak));
Wab = full(H(Active_BandWithoutBreak,BreakPointSet_Band) - ...
Z_time(Active_BandWithoutBreak,B_index)/(1+creep_coef) + ...
L_term(Active_BandWithoutBreak,BreakPointSet_Band)/...
Time_Increment + LH(Active_BandWithoutBreak,BreakPointSet_Band));
Wbb = full(H(BreakPointSet_Band,BreakPointSet_Band) - ...
Z_time(BreakPointSet_Band,B_index)/(1+creep_coef) + ...
L_term(BreakPointSet_Band,BreakPointSet_Band)/Time_Increment + ...
LH(BreakPointSet_Band,BreakPointSet_Band));
Wba = full(H(BreakPointSet_Band,Active_BandWithoutBreak) - ...
Z_time(BreakPointSet_Band,A_index)/(1+creep_coef) + ...
L_term(BreakPointSet_Band,Active_BandWithoutBreak)/...
Time_Increment + LH(BreakPointSet_Band,Active_BandWithoutBreak));
M_path_time = Waa - Wab*(Wbb\Wba);
%%% Calculate q_break_time & Z_break_time %%%
q_break_time = -Wbb\q_path_time(B_index);
Z_break_time = Wbb\Wba;
Active_Band = IB;
clear Cp IA IB;
%%% Re-form q_path_time Vector Due to Break Point Set %%%
if ~isempty(A_index)
q_path_time2 = q_path_time(A_index) - Wab*(Wbb\q_path_time(B_index));
else
q_path_time2 = -Wab*(Wbb\q_path_time(B_index));
end
clear q_path_time;
q_path_time = q_path_time2;
RrOld = Rr;
RrBreak = Rr(:,B_index);
Rr(:,B_index) = [];
RloadfreeBreak = Rloadfree(:,B_index);
Rloadfree(:,B_index) = [];
%%%
clear q_path_time2;
sizeq1 = sizeq(1);
end;
clear Z_time VecMember sizeq

REFERENCES 327
REFERENCES
Abdou, L., Ami Saada, R., Meftah, F., and Mebarki, A. (2006). "Experimental
investigations of the joint-mortar behaviour." Mechanics Research
Communications, 33, 370-384.
Almeida, J. C., Lourenco, P. B., and Barros, J. O. (2002). "Characterization of brick and
brick–mortar interface under uniaxial tension." Proceedings of the 7th
International Seminar on Structural Masonry for Developing Countries, Brazil,
67-76.
Anand, S. C., and Bhatia, N. (1995). "Modeling creep in masonry based on creep of
units and mortar." Proceedings of Structures Congress XIII: Restructuring --
America and beyond, Boston, Massachusetts, 397-400.
AS/NZS-4456.4 (2003) - Australian/New Zealand standard: Determining compressive
strength of masonry units.
ASTM-C-109 (1988) - American Society for Testing and Materials: Test method for
compressive strength of hydraulic cement mortar.
ASTM-C-270 (1989) - American Society for Testing and Materials: Standard
specification for mortar for unit masonry.
Attard, M. M., Chaimoon, K., and Nappi, A. (2004). "Fracture of unreinforced masonry
walls under shear." Proceedings CDROM of the 6th World Congress on
Computational Mechanics (WCCM VI) in conjunction with the 2nd Asian-

REFERENCES 328
Pacific Congress on Computational Mechanics (APCOM'04), Beijing, China,
4341-4346.
Attard, M. M., Nappi, A., and Tin-Loi, F. (2007). "Modeling fracture in masonry."
ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, Accepted for Publication.
Attard, M. M., and Tin-Loi, F. (1999). "Fracture simulation using a discrete triangular
element." Proceedings of the 16th Australasian Conference on the Mechanics of
Structures and Materials (ACMSM16), Sydney, Australia, 11-16.
Attard, M. M., and Tin-Loi, F. (2005). "Numerical simulation of quasibrittle fracture in
concrete." Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 72, 387-411.
Barenblatt, G. I. (1962). "The mathematical theory of equilibrium of cracks in brittle
fracture." Advances in Applied Mechanics, 7, 55-129.
Barpi, F., Ferrara, G., Imperato, L., and Valente, S. (1999). "Lifetime of concrete dam
models under constant loads " Materials and Structures, 32(216), 103-111.
Barpi, F., and Valente, S. (1998). "Crack propagation under constant load: Constitutive
laws for the process zone." Proceedings of the Conference on Computational
Modelling of Concrete Structures Austria, 285-290.
Barpi, F., and Valente, S. (2000). "Numerical simulation of prenotched gravity dam
models." Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 126(6), 611-619.
Barpi, F., and Valente, S. (2002). "Fuzzy parameters analysis of time-dependent fracture
of concrete dam models." International Journal for Numerical and Methods in
Geomechanics, 26, 1005-1027.

REFERENCES 329
Barpi, F., and Valente, S. (2003a). "Creep and fracture in concrete: A fractional order
rate approach." Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 70(5), 611-623.
Barpi, F., and Valente, S. (2003b). "Long time behaviour of concrete: Creep, fracture
and size effects." Proceedings of the Conference on Computational Modelling of
Concrete Structures, 373-379.
Barpi, F., and Valente, S. (2004). "A fractional order rate approach for modeling
concrete structures subjected to creep and fracture." International Journal of
Solids and Structures, 41, 2607-2621.
Barpi, F., and Valente, S. (2005). "Lifetime evaluation of concrete structures under
sustained post-peak loading." Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 72, 2427-2443.
Bazant, Z. P. (1984). "Size effect in blunt fracture: Concrete, rock, metal." Journal of
Engineering Mechanics - ASCE, 110, 518-535.
Bazant, Z. P. (1990). "Rate effect, size effect and nonlocal concepts for fracture of
concrete and other quasi-brittle materials." Proceedings of the Conference on
Mechanisms of Quasi-brittle Materials, 131-153.
Bazant, Z. P. (1993). "Current status and advances in the theory of creep and interaction
with fracture." Proceedings of the 5th International RILEM Symposium on Creep
and Shrinkage of Concrete, U.P.C., Barcelona, 291-307.
Bazant, Z. P., and Chern, J. C. (1985). "Strain softening with creep and exponential
algorithm." Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, 111, 391-415.

REFERENCES 330
Bazant, Z. P., and Gettu, R. (1992). "Rate effects and load relaxation in static fracture of
concrete." ACI Materials Journal, 89(5), 456-468.
Bazant, Z. P., Gu, W.-H., and Faber, K. T. (1995). "Softening reversal and other effects
of a change in loading rate on fracture of concrete." ACI Materials Journal, 92,
3-9.
Bazant, Z. P., and Jirasek, M. (1992). "R-curve modeling of rate effect in static fracture
and its interference with size effect." Proceedings of the Conference on Fracture
Mechanics of Concrete Structures, 918-923.
Bazant, Z. P., and Jirasek, M. (1993). "R-curve modeling of rate and size effects in
quasibrittle fracture." International Journal of Fracture, 62, 355-373.
Bazant, Z. P., and Kazemi, M. T. (1991). "Size effect on diagonal shear failure of beams
without stirrups." ACI Structural Journal, 88(3), 268-276.
Bazant, Z. P., and Li, Y.-N. (1997). "Cohesive crack with rate-dependent opening and
viscoelasticity: I. Mathematical model and scaling." International Journal of
Fracture, 86(3), 247-265.
Bazant, Z. P., and Oh, B.-H. (1983). "Crack band theory for fracture of concrete."
Materials and Structures, 16, 155-177.
Bazant, Z. P., and Pfeiffer, P. A. (1986). "Shear fracture tests of concrete." RILEM,
Materials and Structures, 19, 111-121.
Bazant, Z. P., and Pfeiffer, P. A. (1987). "Determination of fracture energy from size
effect and brittleness number." ACI Materials Journal, 84(6), 463-480.

REFERENCES 331
Bazant, Z. P., and Planas, J. (1998). Fracture and size effect in concrete and other
quasibrittle materials, Boca Raton : CRC Press.
Bazant, Z. P., and Xiang, Y. (1997). "Crack growth and lifetime of concrete under long
time loading." Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 123(4), 350-358.
Bierwirth, H., Stockl, S., and Kupfer, H. (1993). "Triaxial tests on mortar specimens
taken from bed joints." Proceedings of the 6th North American Masonry
Conference, 995-1007.
Binda, L., Fontana, A., and Frigerio, G. (1988). "Mechanical behaviour of brick
masonries derived from units and mortar characteristics." Proceedings of the 8th
IBMAC on Brick and Block Masonry, 205-216.
Binda, L., Gatti, G., Mangano, G., Poggi, C., and Landriani, G. S. (1992). "The collapse
of the Civic Tower of Pavia: a survey of the materials and structure." Masonry
International, 6(1), 11-20.
Bolzon, G., Maier, G., and Tin-Loi, F. (1995). "Holonomic and nonholonomic
simulations of quasi-brittle fracture: A comparative study of mathematical
programming approaches." Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on
Fracture Mechanics of Concrete Structures (FRAMCOS-2), 885-898.
Brooks, J. J., and Bingel, P. R. (1994). "Creep of masonry under varying stress."
Proceedings of the 10th International Brick/Block Masonry Conference, 789-
796.
REFERENCES 332
Carpinteri, A., Valente, S., Ferrara, G., and Imperato, L. (1992). "Experimental and
numerical fracture modelling of a gravity dam." Proceedings of the Conference
on Fracture Mechanics of Concrete Structures, 351-360.
Carpinteri, A., Valente, S., and Zhou, Z. P. (1995). "Crack propagation in concrete
specimens subjected to sustained loads." Proceedings of the 2nd International
Conference on Fracture Mechanics of Concrete Structures (FRAMCOS-2),
1315-1328.
CEN (1995) - Eurocode 6: Design of masonry structures.
CEN (2003) - Eurocode 6: Design of masonry structures.
Chaimoon, K., and Attard, M. M. (2004). "Shear-compression fracture in unreinforced
masonry." Proceedings of the 18th Australasian Conference on the Mechanics of
Structures and Materials (ACMSM18), Perth, Australia, 1241-1246.
Chaimoon, K., and Attard, M. M. (2006). "Modeling of unreinforced masonry walls
under shear and compression." Engineering Structures,
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2006.10.019.
Cook, R. D., Malkus, D. S., and Plesha, M. E. (1989). Concepts and applications of
finite element analysis John Wiley & Sons Inc.
De Borst, R., Van Den Boogaard, A. H., Sluys, L. J., and Van Der Bogert, P. A. J.
(1993). "Computational issue in time-dependent deformation and fracture in
concrete." Proceedings of the 5th International RILEM Symposium: Creep and
Shrinkage of Concrete, 309-325.

REFERENCES 333
Desai, C. S., and Abel, J. F. (1971). Introduction to the finite element method : A
numerical method for engineering analysis, N.Y. : Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Dhanasekar, M. (1985). "Performance of brick masonry under biaxial loading," PhD
Thesis, University of Newcastle, Australia.
Drucker, D. C., Gibson, R. E., and Henkel, D. J. (1957). "Soil mechanics and work
hardening theories of plasticity." Transactions of the American Society of Civil
Engineers, 338-346.
Drysdale, R. G., Hamid, A. A., and Baker, L. R. (1994). Masonry structures: Behavior
and design, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, USA.
Drysdale, R. G., Vanderkeyl, R., and Hamid, A. A. (1982). "Shear strength of brick
masonry joints." Proceedings of the 5th International Brick Masonry
Conference (VIBMaC), Washington, DC, USA, 106-113.
Dugdale, D. S. (1960). "Yielding of steel sheets containing slits." Journal of the
Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 8, 100-108.
Elices, M., and Planas, J. (1989). "Material models." Proceedings of the Conference on
Fracture Mechanics of Concrete Structures: From Theory to Application, 16-66.
Ganz, H. R., and Thurlimann, B. (1982). "Tests on the biaxial strength of masonry (in
German)." Report No.7502-3, Institute for Structural Statics and Construction
Federal Technical University Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Gettu, R., Bazant, Z. P., and Karr, M. E. (1990). "Fracture properties and brittleness of
high-strength concrete." ACI Materials Journal, 87, 608-618.

REFERENCES 334
Giambanco, G., Rizzo, S., and Spallino, R. (2001). "Numerical analysis of masonry
structures via interface models." Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and
Engineering, 6494-6511.
Gilbert, R. I. (1988). Time effects in concrete structures, Elsevier Science Publishers.
Grim, C. T. (1975). "Strength and related properties of brick masonry." Journal of
Structural Division, ASCE, 101(1), 217-232.
Guggisberg, R., and Thurlimann, B. (1987). "Experimental determination of masonry
strength parameters (in German)." Report No.7502-5 Institute of Structural
Engineering, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Guinea, G. V., Hussein, G., Elices, M., and Planas, J. (2000). "Micromechanical
modelling of brick-masonry fracture." Cement and Concrete Research, 30, 731-
737.
Hamid, A. A., and Drysdale, R. G. (1982). "The shear behaviour of brickwork bed
joints." Proceedings of the British Ceramic Society, 101-109.
Hansen, E. A. (1990). "A visco-elastic fictitious crack model." Proceedings of the
Conference on Micromechanics of Quasi-brittle Materials, 156-165.
Hegemier, G. A., Arya, S. K., Krishnamoorthy, G., Nachbar, W., and Furguson, R.
(1978). "On the behaviour of joints in concrete masonry." Proceedings of the
North American Masonry Conference, Boulder, Colorado, 4.1-4.21.
Hendry, A. W. (1998). Structural masonry, Macmillan, London.

REFERENCES 335
Hillerborg, A., Modeer, M., and Petersson, P. E. (1976). "Analysis of crack formation
and crack growth in concrete by means of fracture mechanics and finite
elements." Cement and Concrete Research, 6, 773-782.
Hilsdorf, H. K. (1969). "Investigation into the failure mechanism of brick masonry
loaded in axial compression." Proceedings of the Conference on Designing,
Engineering and Constructing with Masonry Products, 34-41.
Ignatakis, C., Zygomalas, M., Liapis, S., Poulioulis, C., and Roussos, J. (1998).
"Mechanical behaviour of thick mortar joints under compression: Experimental
and analytical evaluation." Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on
Computer Methods in Structural Masonry, Florence, Itary, 261-268.
Jeng, Y. S., and Shah, S. P. (1985). "Two parameter fracture model for concrete." ASCE
Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 111(10), 1227-1241.
Jirasek, M. (1998). "Nonlocal models for damage and fracture: comparison of
approaches." International Journal of Solids and Structures, 35(31), 4133-45.
Jukes, P., and Riddington, J. R. (1998). "Review of masonry tensile bond strength test
methods." Masonry International, 12(2), 51-57.
Jukes, P., and Riddington, J. R. (2001). "The failure of brick triplet test specimens."
Masonry International, 15(1), 30-33.
Karihaloo, B. L., and Nallathambi, P. (1989). "An improved effective crack model for
the determination of fracture toughness of concrete." Cement and Concrete
Research, 19, 603-610.

REFERENCES 336
Karihaloo, B. L., and Santhikumar, S. (1999). "Application of a visco-elastic tension-
softening constitutive model to cracked and ageing concrete." Construction and
Building Materials, 13, 15-21.
Karsan, I. D., and Jirsa, J. O. (1969). "Behaviour of concrete under compressive
loadings." Journal of Structural Division, ASCE, 95(ST12), 2543-2563.
Khoo, C. L., and Hendry, A. W. (1973). "A failure criteria for brickwork in axial
compression." Proceedings of the 3rd International of Brick Masonry
Conference, Essen, 141-145.
Lemke, C. E. (1965). "Bimatrix equilibrium points and mathematical programming."
Management Science, 11, 681-689.
Lenczner, D. (1981). Movements in buildings, Pergamon Press, Oxford, England.
Li, Y.-N., and Bazant, Z. P. (1997). "Cohesive crack model with rate-dependent
opening and viscoelasticity: II. Numerical algorithm, behavior and size effect."
International Journal of Fracture, 86(3), 267-288.
Lourenco, P. B. (1996). "Computational strategies for masonry structures " PhD Thesis,
Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands.
Lourenco, P. B., Barros, J. O., and Oliveira, J. T. (2004). "Shear testing of stack bonded
masonry." Construction and Building Materials, 18(2), 125-132.
Lourenco, P. B., and Rots, J. G. (1993). "On the use of micro-models for the analysis of
masonry shear walls." Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on
Computer Methods in Structural Masonry, 14-26.

REFERENCES 337
Lourenco, P. B., and Rots, J. G. (1997). "Multisurface interface model for analysis of
masonry structures." Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 123(7), 660-668.
Luciano, R., and Sacco, E. (1997). "Homogenization technique and damage model for
old masonry material." International Journal of Solids and Structures, 34(24),
3191-3208.
Luciano, R., and Sacco, E. (1998). "A damage model for masonry structures." European
Journal of Mechanics A-Solids, 17(2), 285-303.
Lurati, F., Graf, H., and Thürlimann, B. (1990). "Experimental determination of the
strength parameters of concrete masonry (in German)." Report No. 8401-2,
Institute of Structural Engineering, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Ma, G., Hao, H., and Lu, Y. (2001). "Homogenization of masonry using numerical
simulations." Journal of Engineering Mechanics 127(5), 421-431.
Mai, Y.-W., and Lawn, B. R. (1987). "Crack-interface bridging as a fracture resistance
mechanism in ceramics: II theoretical fracture mechanics model." Journal of the
American Ceramic Society, 70, 289-294.
Maier, G. (1970). "A matrix structural theory of piecewise linear elastoplasticity with
interaction yield planes." Meccanica, 5, 54-66.
Maksoud, A., and Drysdale, R. G. (1995). "Creep effects on unreinforced slender
concrete block walls." Proceedings of the 7th Canadian Masonry Symposium,
McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, 353- 363.

REFERENCES 338
Mann, W., and Müller, H. (1982). "Failure of shear-stressed masonry- An enlarged
theory, tests and application to shear walls." Proceedings of the British Ceramic
Society 223-235.
Neville, A. M. (1995). Properties of concrete, Burnt Mill, Harlow, Essex ; New York :
Longman Scientific & Technical.
Oliver, J., Huespe, A. E., Pulido, M. D. G., and Chaves, E. (2002). "From continuum
mechanics to fracture mechanics: the strong discontinuity approach."
Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 69, 113-36.
Page, A. W. (1978). "Finite element model for masonry." ASCE Journal of the
Structural Division, 108(8), 1267-1285.
Page, A. W. (1981). "The biaxial compressive strength of brick masonry." Proceedings
of the Institution of Civil Engineers, 893-906.
Page, A. W. (1983). "The strength of brick masonry under biaxial compression-
tension." International Journal of Masonry Construction, 3(1), 26-31.
Peerlings, R. H., Geers, M. G. D., De Borst, R., and Brekelmans, W. A. M. (2001). "A
critical comparison of nonlocal and gradient-enhanced softening continua."
International Journal of Solids and Structures, 38, 7732-46.
Pickett, G. (1942). "The effect of change in moisture content on the creep of concrete
under a sustained load." Journal of the ACI, 38, 333-355.
Pina-Henriques, J. (2005). "Masonry under compression : failure analysis and long-term
effects," PhD Thesis, University of Minho, Portugal.

REFERENCES 339
Riddington, J. R., and Ghazali, M. Z. (1988). "Shear strength of masonry walls."
Proceedings of the 8th International Brick and Block Masonry Conference,
Dublin, Republic of Ireland, 548-558.
RILEM TC-50 FMC Recommendation. (1985). "Determination of the fracture energy
of mortar and concrete by means of three-point bend tests on notched beams."
Materials and Structures, 18(106), 285-290.
Rüsch, H. (1960). "Researchs toward a general flexural theory for structural concrete."
ACI Journal, 57(1), 1-28.
Sahlin, S. (1971). Structural masonry, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Santhikumar, S., and Karihaloo, B. L. (1996). "Time-dependent tension softening."
Mechanics of Cohesive-Frictional Materials, 1, 295-304.
Santhikumar, S., and Karihaloo, B. L. (1998). "Time-dependent behaviour of cracked
and ageing concrete." Proceedings of the Conference on Computational
Modelling of Concrete Structures, 455-465.
Santhikumar, S., Karihaloo, B. L., and Reid, S. G. (1998). "A model for ageing visco-
elastic tension softening materials." Mechanics of Cohesive-Frictional
Materials, 3, 27-39.
Schubert, P. (1988). "The influence of mortar on the strength of masonry." Proceedings
of the 8th International Brick and Block Masonry Conference, 162-174.

REFERENCES 340
Schubert, P., and Hoffmann. (1994). "Compressive strength of mortar in masonry:
Significance, influences, test methods, requirements." Proceedings of the 10th
International Brick and Block Masonry Conference, 1335-1344.
Shrive, N. G., and England, G. L. (1981). "Creep and shrinkage behavior of masonry."
International Journal of Masonry Construction, 1(3), 103-109.
Sluys, L. J. (1992). "Wave propagation, localisation and dispersion in softening solids,"
Doctoral Dissertation, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.
Stockl, S., Bierwirth, H., and Kupfer, H. (1994). "The influence of test method on the
results of compression tests on mortar." Proceedings of the 10th International
Brick and Block Masonry Conference, 1397-1406.
Sutcliffe, D. J., Yu, H. S., and Page, A. W. (2001). "Lower bound limit analysis of
unreinforced masonry shear walls." Computers and Structures, 79, 1295-1312.
Tin-Loi, F., and Tseng, P. (2003). "Efficient computation of multiple solutions in
quasibrittle fracture analysis." Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and
Engineering, 192, 1377-1388.
Van Der Pluijm, R. (1992). "Material properties of masonry and its components under
tension and shear." Proceedings of the 6th Canadian Masonry Symposium,
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada, 675-686.
Van Der Pluijm, R. (1993). "Shear behavior of bed joints." Proceedings of the 6th North
American Masonry Conference, 125-136.

REFERENCES 341
Van Der Pluijm, R. (1999). "Out-of-plane bending of masonry behaviour and strength,"
PhD Thesis, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands.
Van Mier. (1997). Fracture processes of concrete, CRC Press, New York.
Van Zijl, G. P. A. G. (1999). "Computational modelling of masonry creep and
shrinkage," Dissertation, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The
Netherlands.
Van Zijl, G. P. A. G., De Borst, R., and Rots, J. G. (2001a). "A numerical model for the
time-dependent cracking of cementitious materials." International Journal for
Numerical Methods in Engineering, 52, 637-654.
Van Zijl, G. P. A. G., De Borst, R., and Rots, J. G. (2001b). "The role of crack rate
dependence in the long-term behaviour of cementitious materials " International
Journal of Solids and Structures, 38(30-31), 5063-5079
Van Zijl, G. P. A. G., Rots, J. G., and Vermeltfoort, A. T. (2001c). "Modelling shear-
compression in masonry." Proceedings of the 9th Canadian Masonry
Symposium.
Vermeltfoort, A. T., Raijmakers, T. M. J., and Janssen, H. J. M. (1993). "Shear tests on
masonry walls." Proceedings of the 6th North American Masonry Conference,
1183-1193.
Vermeltfoort, A. T., and Van Der Pluijm, R. (1991). "Strength and deformation
properties of masonry to be used in computer calculations." Proceedings of the
9th International Brick Masonry Conference, Berlin, 244-252.

REFERENCES 342
Warren, D., and Lenczner, D. (1981). "A creep-time function for single-leaf brickwork
walls." International Journal of Masonry Construction, 2(1), 13-20.
Wittmann, F. H. (1982). "Creep and shrinkage mechanisms." Creep and Shrinkage in
Concrete Structures, Z. P. Bazant and F. H. Wittmann, eds., John Wiley & Sons
Ltd, Ch. 6, 129-161.
Wittmann, F. H., Roelfstra, P. E., Mihashi, H., Huang, Y.-y., Zhang, X., and Nomura,
N. (1987). "Influence of age of loading, water-cement ratio and rate of loading
on fracture energy of concrete." RILEM, Materials and Structures, 20, 103-110.
Wu, Z. S., and Bazant, Z. P. (1993). "Finite element modeling of rate effect in concrete
fracture with influence of creep." Proceedings of the 5th International RILEM
Symposium on Creep and Shrinkage of Concrete, U.P.C., Barcelona, 427-432.
Young, J. F. (1988). "Physical mechanisms and their mathematical descriptions."
Mathematical Modeling of Creep and Shrinkage of Concrete, 63-98.
Zhou, F. P. (1992). "Time-dependent crack growth and fracture in concrete," Doctoral
Dissertation, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Zhou, F. P., and Hillerborg, A. (1992). "Time-dependent fracture of concrete: testing
and modeling." Proceedings of the Conference on Fracture Mechanics of
Concrete Structures, 906-911.

Whole

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Whole

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Whole

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Numerical simulation of fracture in unreinforced masonry

Downloaded from http://hdl.handle.net/1959.4/40757 in https://

A thesis submitted as a fulfilment

of the requirements for the degree of

School of Civil and Environmental Engineering

The University of New South Wales

A micro-model for fracture in unreinforced masonry is developed using the

fracture formulation, in nonholonomic rate form within a quasi-prescribed displacement

approach, is based on a piecewise-linear constitutive law and is in the form of a so-

to simulating fracture in masonry shear walls and masonry TPB panels.

An experimental program was undertaken to investigate the failure behaviour of

In addition, the LCP fracture formulation is enhanced to study the time-

dependent mode I fracture in quasi-brittle materials. Two main time-dependent sources,

failure and the stress distributions in the fracture zone.

Associate Professor Mario M. Attard, at the School of Civil and Environmental

Engineering, University of New South Wales.

I wish to express my sincere gratitude to Associate Professor Mario M. Attard

Khomwan, Dr. Siriluk Chumchean, Mr. Sawekchai Tangaramvong, Mr. Suvinai R.

their assistance in the experimental work.

This research was funded by a Royal Thai Government Scholarship and

Mahasarakham University, Thailand, which are gratefully acknowledged.

Seelsaen for their great love, encouragement and support.

PRINCIPAL NOTATIONS .......................................................................................... xi

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................1

1.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT .............................................................................................1

1.2 AIMS AND SCOPE ......................................................................................................2

1.3 OUTLINE OF THESIS ..................................................................................................4

1.4 LIST OF PUBLICATIONS .............................................................................................5

CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF FRACTURE BEHAVIOUR IN UNREINFORCED

2.1 INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................7

2.2 FRACTURE BEHAVIOUR OF QUASI-BRITTLE MATERIALS .........................................8

2.2.1 Softening ..........................................................................................................8

2.2.2 Size Effect ........................................................................................................9

2.2.3 Fracture Mechanics Applied to Quasi-Brittle Materials ................................11

2.3 UNREINFORCED MASONRY – MECHANICAL AND FRACTURE BEHAVIOUR..............12

2.3.1 Brick Units .....................................................................................................12

Brick Compressive Strength ...............................................................................13

Brick Tensile Strength.........................................................................................15

Brick Rate of Absorption ....................................................................................17

Mortar Compressive Strength .............................................................................19

2.3.3 Brick-Mortar Interface ...................................................................................20

Brick-Mortar Interface Tensile Failure ...............................................................20

Brick-Mortar Interface Shear Failure..................................................................22

2.3.4 Uniaxial Compressive Behaviour of Masonry...............................................26

2.3.5 Uniaxial Tensile Behaviour of Masonry ........................................................28

2.3.6 Biaxial Behaviour of Masonry .......................................................................29

2.4 MODES OF FAILURE OF UNREINFORCED MASONRY................................................32

2.5 SUMMARY ..............................................................................................................33

CHAPTER 3 MODELLING OF FRACTURE IN UNREINFORCED MASONRY

3.1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................36

3.2 BASIC TRIANGULAR ELEMENT ...............................................................................41

3.2.1 Formulation of Basic Triangular Element......................................................42

Constant Strain Triangle .....................................................................................42

Derivation of Stiffness Matrix of Basic Triangular Element ..............................45

3.3 MASONRY MODELLING ..........................................................................................49

3.3.1 Detailed Micro-Modelling .............................................................................50

3.3.2 Simplified Micro-Modelling ..........................................................................50

3.3.3 Modelling Strategies ......................................................................................52

Failure Surface Compression Cap.......................................................................53