Construction and Building Materials 43 (2013) 575–588

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

A joint fatigue–creep deterioration model for masonry with acoustic

emission based damage assessment
Adrienn Tomor a,1, Els Verstrynge b,⇑
a
Faculty of Environment and Technology, University of the West of England, Frenchay Campus, Coldharbour Lane, Bristol BS16 1QY, UK
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Catholic University of Leuven, Kasteelpark Arenberg 40, B-3001 Heverlee, Belgium

h i g h l i g h t s

 Development of SN and ST type failure prediction models for fatigue and creep in masonry, based on experimental results.
 Characterisation of stages of the damage accumulation process with acoustic emission techniques.
 A joint deterioration model for fatigue and creep in masonry.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The paper investigates the long-term fatigue and creep deterioration processes in historical brick
Received 29 October 2012 masonry. Based on two independent laboratory test series, the relationship between stress level and life
Received in revised form 14 February 2013 expectancy was considered for fatigue and creep loading in the form of SN type models. The process of
Accepted 26 February 2013
deterioration was investigated with the help of acoustic emission technique to identify stages and char-
Available online 3 April 2013
acteristics of the damage accumulation process. Based on the test data and acoustic emission results, a
joint SN type deterioration model was proposed to incorporate the static, fatigue and creep deterioration
Keywords:
mechanisms. A mathematical relationship was proposed for the joint fatigue–creep model and good
Fatigue
Creep
agreement was found between the test data and the proposed model.
Masonry Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Acoustic emission technique
Failure prediction
Joint deterioration model

1. Introduction relatively often observed in the form of ring separation (see

Over a long period of time fatigue and creep phenomena can
lead to changes in strength and material properties, cause gradual
deterioration or even collapse. While historical masonry structures
are generally expected to have relatively low stress levels with lit-
tle consequence on their long-term performance, increasing age
and higher performance demands can result in increasing stress
levels and accelerated long-term deterioration.
Fatigue and creep are both time-dependent progressive deteri-
oration phenomena. Fatigue is time-dependent deterioration un-
der long-term cyclic loading and creep occurs under constant
loading. Fatigue may be relevant, for example, to masonry arch
bridges with heavily increased traffic loading or to tall structures
subjected to wind loading. While compressive fatigue loading is
rarely seen on masonry arch bridges, fatigue shear failure can be
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +32 (0) 16 321987; fax: +32 (0) 16 321976.
E-mail addresses: Adrienn.Tomor@uwe.ac.uk (A. Tomor), els.verstrynge@bwk.-
kuleuven.be (E. Verstrynge).
1
Tel.: +44 117 328 3516.
Fig. 1). Although the present paper deals with fatigue compression
only, the basic principles behind the two phenomena are very sim-
ilar and the proposed theory can be adapted for both compression
and shear.
Creep damage can occur in tall masonry towers with high com-
pressive stresses due to their large self-weight [1,2]. Creep may be
observed as a series of vertical cracks through the vertical mortar
joints and bricks. Fig. 2 shows an example of creep cracks at the
base of a bell tower (Saint-Willibrordus church, Meldert, Belgium).
The cracks were monitored for just 3 weeks, during which highly
unstable crack growth was observed and creep damage suspected.
The church was subsequently closed, but the bell tower collapsed
before strengthening measures could be put in place [2].
Both fatigue and creep failure develops through time-depen-
dent deformation, during which micro cracks coalesce into macro
cracks and can lead to unstable crack development and sudden
failure. Damage development may occur over a long period of time
(even under relatively low stress levels) and may be difficult to as-
sess as it is not necessarily related to sudden changes in the loading

0950-0618/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.02.045
576 A. Tomor, E. Verstrynge / Construction and Building Materials 43 (2013) 575–588
Fig. 1. Fatigue shear failure in the form of ring separation in a masonry arch.
conditions. Environmental effects (e.g. moisture saturation) and
material deterioration may also interact with the creep and fatigue
processes and reduce the residual strength over time [3,4].
Fatigue and creep are long-term, stochastic damage mecha-
nisms with non-linear damage propagation. They are sensitive to
external influences and small changes in the masonry properties,
which make accurate modelling and failure prediction difficult. Fa-
tigue and creep in masonry can be modelled by empirical formulae
or by more advanced constitutive models, e.g. based on rheological
models and/or damage mechanics. Empirical models are based on
regression analysis of experimental data and can predict fatigue
and creep development for a specific set of data. Constitutive
Fig. 2. Creep damage at the base of the bell tower of Saint-Willibrordus church,
Belgium, a few weeks before collapse.
models are more general, but require a large number of input
parameters and the awareness of scatter on these input values.
Rheological models allow the effects of changes in humidity, tem-
perature and ageing to be taken into account [5].
Advanced creep models for masonry have been developed and
experimentally validated by Papa and Taliercio [6], Binda and
Anzani [1,7], Verstrynge et al. [8], Pina-Henriques and Lourenço
[9]. Modelling the combined effects of creep deformation, humidity
and age at loading was addressed by Van Zijl [10] and Choi [11],
while Ferretti and Bazant [12] also included the effects of carbon-
ation. Advanced modelling of fatigue deterioration in masonry has
not been possible to date due to the complexity of the issue and the
limited amount of available test data.
Material testing under fatigue has been carried out by Roberts
et al. [13,14], Abrams et al. [15], Brencich et al. [16,17], Ronca
et al. [18], Tomor and Wang [19] under laboratory conditions
and reviewed by Wang et al. [20]. Large-scale fatigue tests have
been carried out by Melbourne et al. [21,22] on masonry arches
and basic principles for assessing the fatigue capacity of masonry
have been proposed by also Melbourne et al. [23]. Creep testing
of masonry has been performed by Forth et al. [24,25], Lenczner
[26], Binda and Anzani [7,27], Ignoul et al. [28] and Verstrynge
et al. [2,29].
While fatigue and creep deterioration have so far been studied
separately for masonry, their joint interaction has not been consid-
ered before. The current paper investigates the long-term fatigue
and creep deterioration processes through two sets of experimen-
tal test series (obtained by two independent research groups) and
brings them together into a joint fatigue–creep deterioration mod-
el. Only basic fatigue and creep are considered in the current re-
search, focussing on stress induced damage, leaving external
environmental effects, such as weathering or moisture ingress out-
side the scope of this paper.
To help identify the relevant characteristics of fatigue and creep
deterioration processes, Acoustic Emission (AE) monitoring has
been applied during both laboratory test series. Acoustic emission
has previously been used for studying fatigue deterioration in ma-
sonry by Melbourne and Tomor [30], De Santis and Tomor [31] and
Masera et al. [32] under laboratory conditions and by Tomor and
Melbourne [33], Shigeishi et al. [34], Carpinteri and Invernizzi
[35,36] on vaults and masonry arch bridges. To study creep deteri-
oration in masonry, acoustic emission monitoring has been used by
Verstrynge et al. [37,38] and by Carpinteri and Lacidogna [39].
2. Experimental approach
2.1. Setup for fatigue testing
Brick masonry prisms (Fig. 3) have been built and tested at the University of the
West of England (UWE, Bristol, UK) under long-term fatigue loading to help develop
understanding of the performance of masonry arch bridges under long-term traffic
loading. The prisms were built using solid 213  100  65 mm3 Wienerberger
Warnham Red Terracotta moulded bricks with 22.6 N/mm2 strength and 2127 kg/
m3 density. 1:1:6 cement:lime:sand mortar was used by volume with NHL3.5 lime
and 3 mm sharp washed sand. Joint thickness was 8 mm and specimens were cured
for a minimum of 6 month before testing. The average compressive strength of
prisms (SAv) was 10.9 N/mm2 (1.0 N/mm2 standard deviation (SD) and 9.3% coeffi-
cient of variation (CV)), see Table 1.
Prisms were tested under compression using a 250 kN actuator at 0.15 kN/s
loading rate. Layers of 3 mm plywood and 30 mm thick steel plates were placed
on top and bottom of the specimens for load distribution.
10 prisms were tested under static loading to identify the average compressive
strength (SAv). Long-term cyclic loading was subsequently applied to further spec-
imens at 2 Hz frequency between a minimum stress level (SMin) and a maximum
stress level (SMax), that were defined as percentage of the average static strength
(SAv), see Fig. 4.
The minimum stress is intended to represent the dead load of a bridge due to its
self-weight and the maximum stress the variable live loads induced by passing traf-
fic. The minimum stress (or base load) was applied either at 10% or 30% of the aver-
age static strength (SAv) during the tests.
 A. Tomor, E. Verstrynge / Construction and Building Materials 43 (2013) 575–588 577

Fig. 3. Prisms with instrumentation (a), before (b) and after (c) testing.

Table 1
Overview of material characteristics of bricks and masonry for fatigue tests. Values are indicated with average strength (SAv), standard deviation (SD) and coefficient of variation
(CV).

Number of specimens Compressive strength (SAv) (N/mm2) (SD; CV) Remarks

Clay bricks 70 22.6 (2.3; 10.2%) Wienerberger Warnham Red solid
Prisms 10 10.9 (1.0; 9.3%)

Displacement-controlled quasi-static compressive tests with 10 lm/s displace-

Stress
ment velocity were performed for a set of 7 masonry test specimens to obtain the
SMax average compressive strength (SAv). Stress levels during subsequent creep tests
were defined as a percentage of the average static strength.
Accelerated Creep Tests (ACT) were performed following a stepwise loading
pattern [7,40]. The load was first increased to a stress level below half the average
compressive strength (SAv) and kept constant for a pre-defined period of time. The
load was subsequently increased and kept constant for another period, see Fig. 6.
SMin The process was repeated until failure occurred. The magnitude of load increase
was reduced when 70% of the average compressive strength was reached. The
advantage of the accelerated creep test is that creep and acoustic emission rates
Number of cycles
could be observed and compared at different stress levels. If the specimen failed
during a constant stress interval, a three-phase creep curve could also be observed.
Fig. 4. Loading pattern for fatigue tests.
Accelerated creep tests were performed either in the short- or long-term:

2.2. Setup for creep testing
A similar setup was used in the Reyntjens Laboratory at the Catholic University
of Leuven (KU Leuven, Belgium) to test the creep behaviour of masonry under uni-
axial compressive loading.
Relatively low-strength solid 188  88  48 mm3 Terca ‘Spanish Red’ clay
bricks and 1:2.5 lime:sand mortar was used by volume with hydrated lime and
2 mm sand. Both mortar type and composition were chosen to be representative
of historical masonry in Western Europe. Strength characteristics of the masonry
components and full scale specimens are listed in Table 2.
Masonry columns with overall dimensions 188  188  600 mm3
(length  width  height) were built with 10 layers of bricks (two bricks per layer)
and 10 mm mortar joints as shown in Fig. 5. Each specimen was constructed on a
concrete tile and a similar concrete tile or a steel plate was placed on top of the col-
umns after 1.5 months. Mortar samples and masonry specimens were stored at a
temperature of 20 °C and relative humidity of 60 ± 5% for three months before test-
Dartec hydraulic press (Fig. 5b) with 5000 kN capacity and an additional loadcell to
ing. The lime mortar was fully carbonated by storing the mortar and masonry spec-
limit the maximum load to 500 kN and increase accuracy. Long-term and 1-step
imens in a carbonation chamber with high CO2 level for several weeks.
(a) for Short-Term Accelerated Creep Tests (short-term ACT) the duration of the
loading steps (Dt) was 3 h and failure generally occurred within 24–36 h.
(b) for Long-Term Accelerated Creep Tests (long-term ACT) the duration of the
loading step (Dt) was 2 months and failure generally occurred within 1.5–
2 years for each specimen.
(c) Additionally, 1-Step Creep Tests (1-SCT) were performed to provide data for
damage accumulation at specific stress levels. During the 1-step tests the
load was increased up to 80–90% of the average compressive strength
within half an hour and kept constant until failure occurred. By maintaining
the stress level for an extended period of time, the tertiary creep phase had
more time to develop and the likelihood of failure during stress increase
was reduced. A constant stress level of 80–90% of the average strength
(SAv) was chosen based on experience, to allow the tertiary creep phase
to develop within 3–24 h.
Quasi-static compressive tests and short-term creep tests were performed in a

Table 2
Overview of material characteristics of bricks, mortar and masonry for creep tests. Values are indicated with average strength (SAv), standard deviation (SD) and coefficient of
variation (CV).

Number of specimens Compressive strength (SAv) (N/mm2) (SD; CV) Remarks

Clay bricks 10 8.02 (1.13, 14.1%) NBN EN 772–1:2000 Terca ‘Spanish Red’ clay bricks
Mortar 9 1.21 (0.19, 15.7%) 1:2.5 lime:sand mortar
Masonry 7 3.73 (0.47, 12.6%)
578 A. Tomor, E. Verstrynge / Construction and Building Materials 43 (2013) 575–588
Fig. 5. Test specimen, (a) short-term (b) long-term and (c) creep test setup.
Fig. 6. Loading pattern for stepwise short-term and long-term accelerated creep
tests (ST-/LT-ACT) and for 1-Step Creep Tests (1-SCT).
creep tests were performed in individual steel frames for each specimen (Fig. 5c)
due to the extended time requirements (up to 2 years). The latter setup closely
resembled the loading and boundary conditions of the short-term test setup. The
load was applied and increased manually using a hydraulic jack with an accumula-
tor to compensate for relaxation and keep the loading constant. All creep tests were
performed under load-control.
2.3. Instrumentation (strain and acoustic emission monitoring)
During both test series Linear Variable Differential Transformers (LVDTs) were
used to monitor deformation. During fatigue tests deformation was measured
across two mortar joints. Under short-term creep tests axial and lateral deformation
was constantly recorded on all four sides of the specimens using LVDTs and under
long-term creep tests deformation was recorded periodically using a Demountable
Mechanical DEMEC strain gauge.
In addition to deformation monitoring, the Acoustic Emission (AE) technique
was used during both test series to help identify damage development characteris-
tics under fatigue and creep loading. The technique has the advantage that it re-
cords the structure’s response to loading in real time. Acoustic emission
technique detects high-frequency transient elastic waves that are emitted by the
material itself during crack growth [41,42]. Waves are recorded on the surface by
piezoelectric sensors, pre-amplified, filtered and amplified before they are pro-
cessed by the data logger. AE amplitude is detected in lV, converted to AE decibel
by 1 dB = 20  log (Voltage (lV)/1 lV) [43] and energy is calculated as the area un-
der the envelope of an AE hit. Background noise is eliminated through a minimum
amplitude threshold. For each AE hit a number of parameters (e.g. amplitude, en-
ergy, duration, count, arrival time) and the waveform are recorded. If an AE hit is
recorded by one or more sensors it is defined as an AE event.
The amount of detected AE hits and energy is influenced by the applied hard-
ware and software (e.g. sensor type and frequency range, applied filters, waveform
sampling frequency, threshold level, hit duration discrimination time, etc.). There-
fore, software defined parameters should be kept constant for subsequent tests and
results obtained with different acquisition systems should be compared carefully
and in relative terms. The amount of AE hits detected during a time interval is also
sensitive to a number of setup-specific boundary conditions, such as quality of the
coupling between sensor and test specimen, material density, speed of wave prop-
agation, interference with surrounding test equipment, and presence of internal
cracks and voids. Due to the variability of the boundary conditions, relative change
in detection level is therefore better suited for defining damage accumulation in-
stead of the absolute amount of hits/energy.
During the fatigue test series at the University of the West of England, acoustic
emission monitoring was performed using a Physical Acoustics Micro-SAMOS sys-
tem with eight-channel PCI-8 AE board connected to PC via PCMCIA port and
AEwin™ software was used to process the data. IL40s voltage preamplifiers with
1–400 kHz frequency bandwidth and 40 dB gain were used. 150 kHz resonant
R15 sensors with 50–200 kHz operation frequency were attached to opposite sides
of the specimens by means of a thin layer of hot-melt glue, which has proven to be a
good couplant for laboratory conditions. The AE system was calibrated using the
standard method of pencil lead breaks [44] for every test to verify the sensitivity
of the sensors. Threshold level was adjusted during each test to avoid saturation.
AE monitoring was performed during each of the static tests and during some of
the fatigue tests that failed within a relatively short time interval, as long-term tests
exceeded the capacity of the data logger.
During the creep test series at the KU Leuven, acoustic emission monitoring was
performed using a 4-channel Vallen AMSY-5 system. 375 kHz resonance sensors
with 250–700 kHz operation frequency were attached to opposite sides of the spec-
imens by means of a thin metal plate that was glued to the surface and allowed easy
re-mounting for periodic monitoring. Vacuum grease was used as a couplant be-
tween the sensor and the metal plate. The preamplifier gain was set to 34 dB with
a fixed threshold level of 34.5 dB. High frequency noise was filtered by applying a
low-pass filter at 500 kHz. Pencil lead breaks were used for system calibration
[44] and could be detected up to 30 cm from the sensor, indicating that almost
all damage sources could be detected by only two sensors in the middle of the spec-
imen. During the quasi-static compression tests, short-term creep tests and 1-step
creep tests, AE events were continuously monitored. For long-term creep tests, AE
sensors were attached 1 day before stress increase and remained in position for
6 days after stress increase. If unstable or increasing damage accumulation was ob-
served after 6 days, the monitoring period was extended. Additional AE monitoring
was performed for 24 h halfway between two loading steps to identify if emission
rate was stable.
2.4. Experimental setup: similarities and differences
It is evident that the two test series for fatigue and creep deterioration were not
part of the same research program and differed in the choice of materials and test-
ing arrangements. However, despite of the differences, they had common goals and
methodologies. Both fatigue and creep are time-dependent deterioration processes
at stress levels below the maximum strength of the material. While fatigue is in-
duced by variable stress levels, creep may be considered as fatigue loading with
zero stress amplitude. It is therefore expected that common features may be ob-
served between the two phenomena that can help develop greater understanding
of the damage evolution process in masonry.
Before discussing the test results in detail, differences between the two test ser-
ies are summarised below.
 The masonry composition, specimen geometry (stacked bricks and bonded
bricks) and compressive strength of the fatigue and creep specimens were dif-
ferent (10.9 N/mm2 and 3.73 N/mm2 respectively). Therefore, relative stress (in
% of SAv) rather than absolute stress will be used for comparison. Damage evo-
lution during creep has been found to follow similar patterns for similar
masonry types if compared in terms of relative stresses [2].
 Strain was measured differently: axial strain across 2 bed joints during fatigue
loading and lateral and axial strain over 1 and 3 or 5 bed joints during creep
loading. Strain results will therefore not be directly compared in this paper.
 A. Tomor, E. Verstrynge / Construction and Building Materials 43 (2013) 575–588 579

 Different AE systems and sensors were used that are likely to influence the mag- With the help of AE technique, the process of micro crack for-
nitude and properties of detected acoustic emission events. AE in masonry is mation was detected from the very onset during compressive tests
however also affected by a series of further factors, such as system setup, inho-
mogeneities of the material, relative diffraction, reflection and attenuation of
on masonry prisms. Typical acoustic emission amplitude and aver-
brick and mortar, etc. As direct quantitative comparison of the two test pro- age energy recordings, obtained under quasi-static compressive
grammes would be unreliable, qualitative analysis will be used to identify loading of prisms, are shown in Fig. 7a and b. Noticeable emission
changes in emission patterns and indicate damage evolution. was recorded from almost the start of load application and clear in-
crease was observed around 40% and 95% of the maximum stress
(SMax) in both amplitude and average energy.
3. Deterioration process
The amplitude threshold was set to 40 dB at the beginning of
the test and was progressively raised to avoid saturation (loss of
Deformation in masonry is a consequence of elastic and plastic
linearity between input and output in the amplifier due to exces-
strain, micro-cracking and pore collapse within the material (the
sive signal drive). Although low-amplitude hits were not recorded
latter phenomena producing acoustic emissions). Before deforma-
under high loads, they were considered to be less significant in the
tion can be measured on the surface of the masonry, AE technique
presence of high intensity signals and have negligible effect on the
can generally capture emissions due to micro-crack development
energy output (shown on the log scale).
and crack growth. Based on the AE recordings under quasi-static
Based on the AE recordings, three phases of the crack develop-
compressive loading, fatigue loading and creep loading, character-
ment can be identified during quasi-static compression (marked as
istics of the deterioration processes were investigated to identify
‘‘S-Phase’’ for ‘‘Static-Phase’’), such as:
phases of damage development. Thereby, a parameter-based tech-
nique is adopted, analysing AE parameters such as amplitude, en-
 S-Phase 1: relatively constant low-level emission is observed,
ergy and event-counting to assess the damage accumulation
likely to be associated with compaction and crack nucleation,
within the masonry specimens. Other techniques, involving a more
while elastic strain is the dominant cause of deformation at this
complex signal-based analysis were developed for concrete [41],
stage.
but have not yet been applied on masonry due to the very complex
 S-Phase 2: micro-crack development from around 40% of SMax,
fracture behaviour of masonry under compression and the hetero-
likely to be associated with development of vertical cracks,
geneity of the material.
crack extension and further compaction of the mortar. Defor-
mation of the mortar induces local stress concentration in the
adjacent bricks with increasing plastic behaviour and develop-
3.1. Deterioration under static loading
ment of micro-cracks in the bricks. S-Phase 2 appears to have
a steeper initial section (a) with rapid amplitude and energy
It is generally accepted that macroscopic fracture in brittle
increase, followed by somewhat reduced amplitude and energy
materials under uniaxial compression is caused by nucleation,
release (b), but the exact mechanisms in the two sub-phases are
growth, interaction and coalescence of micro cracks [45,46]. Micro
yet to be identified
fracture originates at flaws in the material, such as grain bound-
 S-Phase 3: very high energy release from around 95% of SMax,
aries, and the stress at the crack tip responsible for crack growth
characterised by macro-cracking and bridging while the tensile
is of tensile nature. Consequently, cracks propagate in the direction
strength of bricks is being reached and fast fracture occurs in
parallel to the principal compressive stress. In masonry, the inter-
the bricks.
action between bricks and mortar, which have different stiffness
properties, is assumed to contribute to the concentration of stres-
In order to gain better insight into the fracture development
ses and subsequent crack formation. In the general case where the
process of masonry components, half size bricks (105  100
brick units have a higher stiffness than the mortar, deformation of
 65 mm3) and 100  100  100 mm3 (1:1:6) mortar cubes were
the mortar induces local tensile stress concentration in the adja-
subsequently tested under quasi-static compression (Fig. 8a and
cent bricks, while enclosed mortar joints are subjected to triaxial
b). For bricks, the AE amplitude and average energy increased rap-
compressive stresses [47].

Fig. 7. Typical AE amplitude (a) and average energy (b) vs. stress during compression of a masonry prism.
580 A. Tomor, E. Verstrynge / Construction and Building Materials 43 (2013) 575–588
Fig. 8. Typical AE amplitude and average energy during compression of a brick (a and b) and mortar cube (c and d).
idly between 0% and 30% SMax (up to ca. 90–100 dB) and a very high
emission level was maintained as the bricks disintegrated between
30% and 100% SMax. Elastic deformation and micro-cracking are
likely to have taken place very early on during the loading process
and macro-cracking is likely to occur from as early as 30% SMax due
to the brittle nature of the bricks. For mortar, AE amplitude and en-
ergy remained relatively low (40–60 dB) up to ca. 95% SMax, fol-
lowed by sudden increase and immediate failure (Fig. 8c and d).
During compressive loading of prisms, changes in energy levels
may therefore be associated with the following mechanisms:
 S-Phase 1: low-level emission (40–60 dB and ca. 103 aJ, Fig. 7),
associated with compression of the mortar joints.
 S-Phase 2: medium-level (60–85 dB and 103–106 aJ), crack
extension in the mortar joints is likely to be overridden by the
micro-crack development in the bricks.
 S-Phase 3: high-level emission (80–90 dB and 106–107 aJ), likely
to be almost entirely associated with macro-cracking of bricks.
When comparing the AE output for prisms, bricks and mortar
cubes in terms of amplitude level, the micro-cracking and critical
crack propagation seem to have initiated when ca. 60 dB was ex-
ceeded. 60 dB therefore appears to be an approximate critical limit
for damage development for the applied test setup in all three
cases presented.
3.2. Deterioration under fatigue loading
3.2.1. Test results under fatigue
After the static loading tests, prisms were subjected to long-
term cyclic loading to investigate the fatigue deterioration process.
Sinusoidal cyclic loading was applied at 2 Hz frequency for a min-
imum of 3,000,000 load cycles unless failure occurred. Loading was
however continued to several million cycles in most cases and was
only stopped due to excessive time requirements.
A typical example of acoustic emission recording during a fati-
gue test is shown in Fig. 9 for a loading range between 10% (=SMin)
and 70% stress (=SMax). During the fatigue deterioration process
three fatigue phases (‘‘F-Phase’’ for ‘‘Fatigue-Phase’’) have been
distinguished:
 F-Phase 1: (0–75% of the total number of cycles), relatively low,
constant emission (40–50 dB amplitude and 10–102 aJ absolute
energy);
 F-Phase 2: (75–95% cycles), small increase in emission (50–
60 dB amplitude and 10–102 aJ absolute energy);
 F-Phase 3: (95–100% cycles), rapid increase in emission and
sudden failure. Brief warning period.
While it is difficult to make specific assumptions about the fati-
gue deterioration process of prisms at this stage, it may be helpful
 A. Tomor, E. Verstrynge / Construction and Building Materials 43 (2013) 575–588 581

Fig. 9. Typical AE amplitude (a) and average energy (b) vs. number of cycles during fatigue compression of a masonry prism.

to compare the fatigue recordings (Fig. 9) with the quasi-static

compression tests for prisms (Fig. 7), bricks and mortar (Fig. 8).
Any comparison should however be considered purely on a quali-
tative basis, as detected energy levels and wave amplitudes are
dependent on a number of setup specific conditions.
Under fatigue loading (Fig. 9) the very low emission in F-Phase 1
(40–50 dB, 10–102 aJ) and relatively low emission in F-Phase 2
(50–60 dB, 10–102 aJ) may be compared with the energy levels
emitted during the first static compression Phase of a prism (S-
Phase 1, Fig. 7a) and static compression of a mortar cube (40–
60 dB, Fig. 8c) respectively. It is therefore likely, that F-Phase 1
and 2 are mostly associated with compaction of the mortar. Mi-
cro-cracking in bricks can be assumed to take part gradually as a
very slow process with limited energy emission within F-phase 1
and 2.
F-Phase 3 with sudden increase in emission (from 60 dB to up to
100 dB) is likely to encompass S-Phase 2b and 3 during static com-
pression (60–100 dB, Fig. 7a). The high emission level indicates ra-
pid macro-crack development in the bricks and is related to the
high-energy emission under static compression of a brick from
30% SMax (80–100 dB, Fig. 8a). It can thus be assumed that once
the mortar has been compacted and micro-cracking has initiated
during F-Phase 1 and 2, marco-crack development takes place rap-
idly within the brick during F-Phase 3.
In terms of critical amplitude, crack propagation appeared to
have developed soon after 60 dB was reached, similarly to the sta-
tic test results. In addition to the qualitative assessment, more
work and dedicated waveform analysis will be necessary to allow
emission levels to be defined as a function of the deterioration
process.
3.2.2. SN curves under fatigue
Fatigue behaviour is often described using analytical models
which define the relationship between stress level (S) and number
of cycles to failure (N). These models are referred to as SN curves
and their parameters are estimated based on experimental results.
The simplest model defines a linear relationship between the stress
level and the logarithm of the number of cycles. Results of the sta-
tic and fatigue compression tests are summarised for the relative
stress (% of SAv) against the number of cycles at failure (N) in
Fig. 10. During the fatigue tests the load was cycled between a min-
imum stress (SMin, 10% or 30% of SAv) and a maximum stress (SMax).
Static test results are shown as failure at 1 cycle and tests that were
stopped without failure are also included in the graph. For 10%
Fig. 10. SN curve for fatigue tests under compression: stress (S) vs. number of
cycles to failure (N, log scale).
minimum stress the best fit curve is also indicated with upper
and lower limits (dotted lines) defined by the coefficient of varia-
tion for the static test results (9.3%).
At first inspection it is clearly visible that the maximum number
of cycles increases for reduced stress levels. Also, the limited num-
ber of tests at 30% minimum stress (some overlap in the test data)
show noticeably higher life expectancy compared to the 10% re-
sults. The higher the minimum stress, the shallower the SN trend-
line is expected to be due to the reduced stress variation.
Comparing the test data at any particular stress level however
shows large variations in the number of cycles. The scatter is not
surprising, as fatigue deterioration is a stochastic process and the
fatigue stress level is defined as a percentage of the average static
strength (SAv) for a batch of samples. A selected fatigue stress level
therefore does not necessarily represent the actual stress level for
the particular specimen. Sensitivity to small variations in the mate-
rial properties, loading and environmental conditions can result in
relatively high scatter. A coefficient of variation up to around 20%
was indicated by Schueremans [48] for the compressive strength
of masonry specimens under controlled laboratory conditions
and even higher percentage are expected under field conditions.
Due to the natural variability of masonry, it is therefore inherently
impossible to define the relationship between the stress level and
life expectancy as a simple deterministic relationship. Probabilistic
582 A. Tomor, E. Verstrynge / Construction and Building Materials 43 (2013) 575–588
Table 3
Approximate life expectancy for 10% minimum stress (extrapolated from regression
curve in Fig. 10).
Maximum stress Life expectancy
(%) (Cycles)
55 6  106
50 4  107
45 2  108
analysis is therefore necessary to take the aleatoric uncertainties
into account and enable a practical relationship to be established
between the range of stress levels and desired confidence level,
as discussed by Verstrynge [2] for creep and Casas [49] for fatigue
in masonry.
In terms of practical application, SN curves may be used to indi-
cate the life expectancy at any chosen stress level. Table 3 lists
examples of the average life expectancy for 10% minimum stress,
indicated with the help of the projected trendline in Fig. 10. As
an example, at 50% maximum stress the trendline is indicating
4  107 cycles. If the stress level is reduced from 50% to 45%, the
life expectancy increases fivefold (from 4  107 to 2  108). If the
stress level is increased from 50% to 55%, the indicative life expec-
tancy reduces almost sevenfold (from 4  107 to 6  106). The
example illustrates the potentially enormous impact of the
assumed stress level on the outcome of the fatigue assessment.
Note, that the numbers are only indicative to demonstrate the
methodology and cannot be taken as actual values.
The maximum number of cycles during the testing program
was ca. 6.6  106 cycles (at 2 Hz frequency) that took 5.5 weeks
of constant testing. In terms of gathering long-term test data, it
is unlikely that individual specimens could be physically tested
over 6-month duration (3.1  107 cycles, indicated as boundary
‘A’ in Fig. 10) that would still be insufficient to prove, disprove or
identify the existence of a long-term fatigue limit for masonry.
The presented test data therefore does not support nor contradict
the existence of a fatigue limit.
While it may not be possible to identify a fatigue limit, in terms
of practical application, a permissible limit state (PLS) ‘‘at which
there is a loss of structural integrity that will measurably affect
the ability of the bridge to carry its working loads for the expected
life of the bridge’’ [23] would be of more interest. The permissible
limit may be defined by the maximum possible number of cycles
during the expected lifespan of a structure (e.g. number of vehicles
over a bridge). If, for example, the expected life of a bridge is in the
order of 300 years, under (non-realistic) continuous 2 Hz loading
the maximum number of cycles would add up to ca. 2  1010 (indi-
cated as boundary ‘B’ in Fig. 10). The related stress level for the
maximum possible number of cycles would therefore indicate a
permissible limit under which no fatigue deterioration is likely to
take place in the structure/material.
3.2.3. Mathematical models for fatigue
A limited number of models have been suggested to date for the
SN relationship under fatigue loading of masonry. Roberts [13] pro-
posed a lower bound fatigue limit based on a series of small-scale
tests (on dry and wet masonry) Eq. (1):
ðDS  SMax Þ0:5
¼ 0:7  0:05  logðNÞ
SAv
where DS is the stress range (DS = SMax  SMin), SMax the maximum
stress, SAv the average compressive strength and N the number of
cycles. The model suggests a linear relationship between the maxi-
mum stress level (SMax) and the logarithm of the number of cycles
(log(N)) and can be used for modelling fatigue behaviour at
different base loads by re-calibrating the model parameters. The
model is however based on experimental tests with limited dura-
tion (as are all fatigue and creep regression models) and log(N) does
not become zero for SMax equalling the compressive strength if a
Ratio non-zero base load is defined.
1/6.6
The fatigue model given by Casas [49] Eq. (2) was developed for
1 probabilistic analysis of masonry arch bridges and the parameters
5 were based on statistical analysis of the experimental results by
Roberts et al. [13]. Progressive fatigue deterioration is described
according to the Weibull distribution, which is widely used for fa-
tigue analysis of metals.
S ¼ A  NBð1RÞ > 0:5 ð2Þ
where S is the ratio of the maximum stress to the average strength
(S = SMax/SAv), N the number of cycles and R the ratio of the mini-
mum stress to the maximum stress (R = SMin/SMax). The exponent
of N depends on SMin, which enables the model to correctly repre-
sent the shallower slopes in case of higher base loads. An endurance
limit of S > 0.5 is assumed. Taking a logarithm on both sides con-
verts the model into:
logðSÞ ¼ logðAÞ  Bð1  RÞ  logðNÞ ð3Þ
In contrast with the previous SN models, linear relationship is
defined between log(S) and log(N). In Fig. 10 the analytical model
by Casas is represented for 10% and 30% minimum stress (SMin) to-
gether with the experimental test results. The value of 1 is adopted
for parameter A, as the failure time should be 1 cycle for values of
SMax equalling the compressive strength. The value of B is set to
0.04 for the current test data.
While it is relatively easy to achieve good agreement between
the experimental and mathematical models for low numbers of cy-
cles, the predicted relationship for high numbers of cycles becomes
increasingly sensitive to the chosen model in the absence of exper-
imental data. In order to improve the proposed model, the SN rela-
tionship will be revisited in Section 4 for a joint fatigue–creep
model in the presence of creep data.
3.3. Deterioration under creep loading
Parallel to the fatigue tests, creep deterioration of masonry was
studied at the KU Leuven through a laboratory test series. Com-
pressive creep occurs under constant long-term stress during
which gradual increase in strain can be used to identify phases of
creep deterioration (‘‘C-Phases’’) [1,2], such as:
 C-Phase 1: primary creep phase with decreasing strain rate.
 C-Phase 2: secondary creep phase with constant strain rate
where damage development is related to the relative stress
level.
 C-Phase 3: tertiary creep phase with increasing strain rate and
sudden failure.
It is generally assumed that the tertiary creep phase occurs if
the stress is high enough for the damage accumulation to become
unstable. This implies that a stress limit value exists, which is
called the ‘creep limit’ or ‘viscosity limit’ value below which only
primary and secondary creep is observed. For concrete, a theoreti-
cal framework was presented by Rüsch [50] and adopted for ma-
ð1Þ sonry by Binda [1]. It has been suggested that the viscosity limit
can be defined with the help of accelerated creep tests by analysing
the strain rate (=slope of the strain evolution in time) in subse-
quent loading steps during the secondary creep phase. If the strain
rate starts to increase during subsequent loading steps, the viscos-
ity limit is likely to have been reached [2]. For the low-strength
masonry specimens with air-hardening lime mortar the viscosity
 A. Tomor, E. Verstrynge / Construction and Building Materials 43 (2013) 575–588 583

limit was found to be around 40–50% of the average strength (SAv)

and for medium-strength masonry (with hydraulic lime mortar,
hybrid lime-cement mortar or low-strength cement mortar)
around 60–70% SAv [2,51].

3.3.1. Test results under creep

In order to help identify the stages of creep deterioration in ma-
sonry described above, acoustic emission monitoring has been
used for 1-step, short-term and long-term creep tests. A range of
studies is available on acoustic emission monitoring of compres-
sive creep in rocks [52,53] and concrete components under bend-
ing [54]. However, very limited information is available on AE
monitoring of compressive creep in masonry.
Fig. 11 shows a typical AE recording for a 1-step creep test at
88% of the average compressive strength. The evolution of the
stress level during the test is indicated in Fig. 11b. In Fig. 11a, AE
amplitude (left vertical axis) and cumulative number of AE events
(right vertical axis) are shown against time. An acoustic emission
event is defined as the detection of an AE hit at one or both of
the AE sensors. The three phases of creep deterioration can clearly
be distinguished. After initial stress increase, AE amplitude and the
slope of the cumulative AE event curve decrease in C-Phase 1. This
is followed by a lower, constant emission in C-Phase 2 and increase
and failure of the specimen in C-Phase 3.
Fig. 12 shows representative AE and strain recordings under a
short-term accelerated creep test (short-term ACT) for loading
intervals (DT) of 3 h. AE amplitude (left vertical axis) and cumula-
tive number of AE events (right vertical axis) are shown against
time. Fig. 12b presents the axial (negative) and lateral (positive)
strains against time for the same test. Close relationship between
Fig. 12. Typical short-term accelerated creep test with stepwise load application
(DT = 3 h) (see Fig. 6). (a): AE amplitude and cumulative AE event count vs. time.
(b): axial (negative) and lateral (positive) strains vs. Time.

strain and acoustic emission rate can be observed in the two

graphs.
Under short-term accelerated creep tests, failure of the speci-
men often occurred during stress increase and a tertiary creep
phase could not be observed. For 1-step creep tests and long-term
accelerated creep tests (long-term ACT), failure mostly occurred
during a constant loading phase and tertiary creep could be
observed.
Fig. 13 shows the AE event rate for three typical stress levels
(41%, 82% and 95% of SAv) during a long-term accelerated creep
test. The AE event rate is defined as the AE event count per time
interval, in this case an interval of 1 min. An increase in the AE
event rate within the secondary creep phase can be noticed when
comparing Fig. 13a and b and the development of a distinct tertiary
creep phase before failure can be observed during the final stress
level (Fig. 13c).
Within the creep test series, a clearly distinguishable 3-phased
creep curve (ranging from 15 min to 65 days duration) was ob-
served during 20 creep tests (short-term ACT, long-term ACT and
1-SCT).
In terms of AE and strain recordings, the following common pat-
terns can be observed during the short-term, long-term and 1-step
creep tests:

 After each stress increase, a primary creep phase with decreas-

ing AE amplitude can be observed in all loading cases;
 At relatively low stress levels (below the viscosity limit of 40–
50% SAv) strain and AE levels tend to diminish gradually to a
Fig. 11. Typical 1-step creep test. (a): AE Amplitude and Cumulative AE event count
minimum level during the secondary creep phase. Under higher
vs. Time with indicated creep phases (C-Phase 1, 2, 3). (b): absolute and relative stress levels a clear secondary creep phase can be observed
stress levels. (Figs. 13a and b respectively);
584 A. Tomor, E. Verstrynge / Construction and Building Materials 43 (2013) 575–588
Fig. 13. Typical long-term accelerated creep test with stepwise load application (DT = 2 months): AE event rate vs. time for 41% (a), 82% (b) and 95% of SAv (c).
 If creep failure occurs within the constant stress interval, ter-
tiary creep can clearly be distinguished in the AE recordings
(see Fig. 11a for the 1-step and Fig. 13c for the long-term creep
tests).
Figs. 11 and 12 presented AE amplitude levels for 1-step and
short-term accelerated creep tests. During stress increase and in
C-Phase 1, relatively high AE amplitudes can be observed. The low-
er AE amplitudes (50–60 dB) during C-Phase 2 can be related to
compaction of the mortar and possibly a very slow micro-cracking
process in the mortar and bricks, comparable with fatigue F-Phase
2. In C-Phase 3, an increase in AE amplitude accompanies macro-
crack development within the bricks. As the specimen composition
and AE acquisition systems differ for the creep and fatigue tests
series, a quantitative comparison of the AE amplitude and energy
emission levels will however not be made.
3.3.2. ST curves under creep
Similarly to the SN curves for fatigue loading, the relative stress
level (S in % of SAv) and time to failure (T) may be expressed as ST
curves for creep loading. Fig. 14 shows the creep test results for the
20 specimens for which a tertiary creep phase has been observed.
Time to failure (T) is defined as the time between stress increase
and creep failure. There is a large scatter in the test results simi-
larly to the fatigue tests that may be explained by similar reasons.
A logarithmic trendline is indicated with upper and lower limits
defined by the coefficient of variation (12.6%) of the static com-
pression tests.
It needs to be noted, that creep test results include not only the
1-step creep tests, but also the short- and long-term accelerated
Fig. 14. ST curve for compressive creep tests: stress (S) vs. time to failure (T, log
scale) for specimens for which a tertiary creep phase was observed.
creep tests. For these latter tests, the load history is not taken into
account and only the stress level and associated time between
stress increase and failure in the last loading step is shown. The re-
sults therefore do not take into account damage accumulation in
preceding loading steps, thus possibly underestimating the life
expectancy.
3.3.3. Mathematical model for creep
For creep loading, an analytical relationship between stress le-
vel and time to failure has been suggested by Verstrynge [2] as
shown in Eq. (4).
ð1  ðA  S þ BÞÞnþ1
T¼ ð4Þ
cðn þ 1Þ  Sn
where T is time to failure and S is the ratio of the maximum
stress to the average strength (S = SMax/SAv). Parameters A = 1.9,
B = 0.9, c = 8.5  1011 and n = 8 were calibrated based on the
creep test results reported in this paper, for which the calibration
process can be found in [2]. The model is presented in Fig. 14 to-
gether with the experimental creep test results and good corre-
spondence is observed.
3.3.4. AE–T curves under creep
While Fig. 14 shows damage development in terms of stress le-
vel and time to failure, crack development may also be expressed
in terms of AE activity against time. As higher stress levels are
likely to induce higher intensity micro- and macro-crack develop-
ment, strong correlation is expected to exist between stress level
and AE intensity [37]. In this respect, the 3-phase creep curve
and more specifically the relationship between the rate of deterio-
ration during the secondary creep phase and stress level can be de-
scribed with a Weibull distribution model. This statistical
background for creep failure prediction based on AE detection
was presented by Verstrynge et al. in [37]. Fig. 15 shows the AE
event rate (number of AE events per minute) during the secondary
creep phase against time to failure (T) for the same set of test re-
sults as Fig. 14. An improved relationship can be observed in the
AE–T graph compared to the ST graph and can help identify the
time to failure based on monitored AE event rate. In Fig. 15, values
are presented on a double logarithmic scale that implies decreasing
accuracy for increasing time to failure. Also, prediction accuracy
may reduce for lower stress levels (longer times to failure) if the
AE activity is of similar magnitude as the background noise.
Although the values in the AE–T curve are only indicative of a spe-
cific masonry type and AE setup, tested under constant environ-
mental conditions, it intends to demonstrate the general
principle for prediction of creep failure in masonry based on AE
detection.
 A. Tomor, E. Verstrynge / Construction and Building Materials 43 (2013) 575–588
Fig. 15. AE–T curve for compressive creep tests: AE event rate (AE, log) during
secondary creep phase vs. time to failure (T, log).
In terms of practical application, in situ stress levels are difficult
to measure in historical structures. Overall stress levels may be
computed and related to the time to failure with the help of ST
graphs for the structural elements, local stress levels however
may vary significantly from the overall stress levels (due to local
imperfections, variations in the material properties, cracks, voids,
etc.) and lead to localised failure. Local AE emission can however
be easily monitored and the proposed AE–T relationship may be
used to indicate the expected time to failure and severity of dam-
age progress for the specific location.
4. Relationship between fatigue and creep
Both fatigue and creep can be described as time-dependent
deterioration processes as a function of stress. The current section
attempts to draw together the relationship between stress level
and time to failure for static, fatigue and creep loading discussed
in the previous section.
4.1. Joint fatigue–creep deterioration model
Fatigue loading can be expressed by the combination of a mean
stress (SMean) and stress amplitude (SAmpl). Alternatively, fatigue
Fig. 16. Joint failure model indicating stress vs. time or cycles to failure (ST or SN curves) for static, fatigue and creep loading.
585
loading may also be defined by a minimum stress (SMin), a maxi-
mum stress (SMax) and/or a stress variation (DS = SMax  SMin = 2 -
 SAmpl). Using these same definitions, creep loading may be
expressed by a mean stress with zero stress amplitude.
A theoretical relationship between stress level and time or
number of cycles to failure (ST or SN curves) is shown in Fig. 16,
incorporating static, fatigue and creep loading. The mean stress
(SMean) is represented on the vertical axis and stress amplitudes
(SAmpl) are marked on individual curves. For example, for 60% mean
stress, 40% amplitude represents failure under static loading, 30%,
20% and 10% amplitude represent fatigue loading (with 30%, 40%
and 50% minimum stress (SMin) respectively) and 0% amplitude
represents creep. For practical application, the stress level for ma-
sonry structures may be more commonly defined as the combina-
tion of a minimum stress (SMin) and stress variation (DS) for which
the relevant (SMin and DS) curves are also included in the graph.
The shape of the ST or SN curves are only indicative and may
have greater curvature for lower stress levels. The curves may ap-
proach without intersecting a limit stress value as it tends to infin-
ity, although the existence of a fatigue limit (FLS) has not been
confirmed so far (see Section 3.2.2). An indicative Permissible Limit
State (PLS) has been included in the graph instead (see Sections
3.2.2 and 3.3), but more work is required to identify its position
and nature.
During fatigue loading the stress was defined against the num-
ber of cycles, while during creep loading stress was defined against
time. In order to collate the fatigue and creep test data into one
graph, ‘time to failure’ needs to be converted into ‘cycles to failure’,
or vice versa. Although various approaches may be taken for relat-
ing time to cycles, for the current model 1 s during creep will be
equated to 2 cycles under fatigue loading at 2 Hz frequency. While
it is expected that the frequency will have an effect on the rate of
deterioration, further work is required to propose suitable conver-
sion factors. In the meantime, a conversion factor of 1 will be used
for 2 Hz frequency.
It needs to be noted, that while static loading is considered as 1
cycle in theory, in practice load application under quasi-static load-
ing took a certain period of time that would need to be taken into
account when converting into time or cycles. However, in order to
demonstrate the principles of the model, the duration of the quasi-
static tests will be disregarded and static test results will be iden-
tified as failure at 1 cycle.
586 A. Tomor, E. Verstrynge / Construction and Building Materials 43 (2013) 575–588
4.2. Joint fatigue–creep mathematical model
For relating the experimental test results to mathematical mod-
els, the curves indicating fatigue failure for a given base load (SMin)
are simulated by means of the fatigue model adapted from Casas
[49] as described in Section 3.2.3. The creep curve (upper SAmpl
curve) is simulated by means of the creep model described in
Section 3.3.3.
While the fatigue model by Casas shows reasonable agreement
with the fatigue test data at 10% minimum stress (Fig. 10), no ade-
quate correlation has been found between the fatigue curves and
the creep model for higher SMin values. For an amplitude value of
zero, SMin, SMean and SMax become equal for a specific fatigue curve
and the number of cycles to failure should correspond to the failure
time indicated by the creep model at that specific stress level. In
order to improve the relationship, the fatigue model by Casas Eq.
(2) has been adapted and a correction factor (C) introduced Eq. (5).
S ¼ A  NBð1CRÞ
where S is the ratio of the maximum stress to the average
strength (S = SMax/SAv), N the number of cycles, R the ratio of the
minimum stress to the maximum stress (R = SMin/SMax), parameter
A is set to 1, parameter B is set to 0.04 and C is the correction factor.
To achieve the best correlation with the current fatigue and creep
test results, the value of 0.62 has been identified for parameter C.
The correction factor allows the interaction between the creep
and fatigue phenomena to be taken into account and the slope of
the SN curves to be adjusted.
This correction for higher stress levels might be explained by
the interaction between creep and fatigue, as the influence of creep
damage is expected to become more significant for higher stress
levels. Consequently, the slope of the fatigue curve and the number
of cycles to failure will be slightly reduced due to creep effects. In
terms of fatigue and creep effect, creep deterioration is assumed to
be the dominant cause of failure for higher base loads, while fati-
gue damage becomes more dominant for lower mean stresses.
The experimental fatigue and creep test data, modified fatigue
Eq. (5) and creep model Eq. (4) are jointly shown in Fig. 17. Good
correlation is observed between the test data and proposed modi-
fied model. To relate the results of the fatigue and creep tests with
their respective static tests, the static tests of the fatigue testing
with 10% base load are included as fatigue tests with 1 cycle, 55%
mean stress and 45% amplitude, while the static tests of the creep
90% SMin
80% SMin
70% SMin
45%SAmpl
90%Δ S 40%SAmpl
80%Δ S 35%SAmpl
70%Δ S
Fig. 17. Joint failure model indicating stress vs. cycles to failure for static, fatigue and creep loading, with experimental data.
test program are presented as creep tests at 100% mean stress with
0% amplitude.
In an environment where ambient fluctuations cannot be con-
trolled, fatigue and creep deterioration are likely to interact with
other physical, physico-chemical and biological deterioration pro-
cesses, making the prediction of life expectancy purely based on
stress level increasingly unreliable. To the authors’ knowledge no
extensive experimental test programs have been reported in the
literature to date on the interaction between fatigue, creep and
other deterioration phenomena. The influence of moisture ingress
on creep failure of sandstone and the effects of moisture move-
ment and salt crystallization on creep strain have however been
studied [3,24].
Although the available test data is insufficient at this stage to
fully quantify and validate the SN relationship, they are intended
to be used to demonstrate the methodology and partially validate
the proposed fatigue-creep model for masonry.
ð5Þ
5. Conclusions
Fatigue and creep deterioration are time-dependent mecha-
nisms that can lead to failure over time even at relatively low
stress levels. Fatigue and creep loading were considered for ma-
sonry in terms of deterioration process, life expectancy, SN or ST
curves and mathematical models in order to develop a joint fati-
gue–creep deterioration model.
Fatigue and creep deterioration were tested within two inde-
pendent laboratory test series at two universities with slightly dif-
ferent test setups, however results were comparable in terms of
relative stress and qualitative changes in the acoustic emission
output.
The acoustic emission technique has shown to be a valuable
tool for damage detection during creep and fatigue testing. With
the help of acoustic emission monitoring, stages of the deteriora-
tion process (micro-crack nucleation, growth, and coalescence into
macro-cracks) were identified and characterised during static, fati-
gue and creep loading.
Close relationship between AE signal characteristics (amplitude,
energy and event count) and remaining life expectancy has been
found during laboratory testing that can help predict the remain-
ing service life during laboratory and field testing.
Based on the fatigue test results, SN curves (stress vs. number of
cycles) have been developed for a specific masonry type and indi-
60% SMin
0%SAmpl
50% SMin 0%Δ S
40% SMin
5%SAmpl
30% SMin 10%Δ S
20% SMin
10%SAmpl
10% SMin 20%Δ S
30%SAmpl 0% SMin
60%Δ S 25%SAmpl 15%SAmpl
50%Δ S 20%SAmpl 30%Δ S
40%Δ S
 A. Tomor, E. Verstrynge / Construction and Building Materials 43 (2013) 575–588
cated very significant changes in life expectancy for relatively
small changes in stress levels. A fatigue model was proposed and
showed good correspondence with experimental data.
Creep test results were summarised in an ST relationship (stress
vs. time) and an existing creep model with good correlation with
the experimental data was applied. An AE-T relationship (AE event
rate vs. time to failure) was found to provide improved accuracy
for estimating the time to failure and rate of damage propagation.
A joint SN model was proposed to incorporate static, fatigue and
creep loading in terms of stress against time or number of cycles to
failure. Creep was considered as fatigue loading with zero ampli-
tude and static loading as fatigue failure after one cycle.
The proposed fatigue model was adapted to improve correlation
with the creep model and both mathematical models were com-
bined in a fatigue–creep deterioration graph. Good agreement
was found between the test data and proposed model for the
tested time span. No endurance limit was observed within the
timeframe of the experimental tests.
Further laboratory tests data are required to populate the pro-
posed fatigue–creep model and allow a generic quantitative model
to be developed for practical use. Also, further work is required to
quantify the effects of external influences and fluctuating environ-
mental conditions on creep and fatigue deterioration and on AE
emission levels to enable practical life-cycle prediction.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support pro-
vided by the Engineering and Physical Research Sciences Council
(EPSRC) for the research project at UWE and by the Research Foun-
dation – Flanders (FWO) for the postdoctoral research of E.
Verstrynge.
References
[1] Binda L, editor. Learning from failure – long-term behaviour of heavy masonry
structures. Advances in architecture, vol. 23. Southampton: WIT Press; 2008.
[2] Verstrynge E. Long-term behaviour of monumental masonry constructions:
modelling and probabilistic evaluation. PhD thesis. civil engineering
department, K.U.Leuven: Leuven; 2010.
[3] Verstrynge E, Konings S, Wevers M. The influence of moisture on creep
behaviour of sandstone assessed by means of acoustic emission. In: Jasienko J,
editor. 8th International conference on structural analysis of historical
constructions. Wroclaw, Poland; 2012. p. 2573–2581.
[4] Ferretti D, Bazant ZP. Stability of ancient masonry towers: moisture diffusion,
carbonation and size effect. Cement Conc Res 2006;36(7):1379–88.
[5] Bazant ZP. Prediction of concrete creep and shrinkage: past, present and future.
Nucl Eng Des 2001;203(1):27–38.
[6] Papa E, Taliercio A. A visco-damage model for brittle materials under
monotonic and sustained stresses. Int J Numer Anal Meth Geomech
2005;29(3):287–310.
[7] Binda L, Anzani A. The time-dependent behaviour of masonry prisms: an
interpretation. Masonry Soc J 1993;11(2):570–87.
[8] Verstrynge E, Schueremans L, Van Gemert D, Hendriks MAN. Modelling and
analysis of time-dependent behaviour of historical masonry under high stress
levels. Eng Struct 2011;33(1):210–7.
[9] Pina-Henriques J, Lourenço PB. Testing and modelling of masonry creep and
damage in uniaxial compression. Struct Stud, Repairs Maint Heritage Archit
VIII 2003;16:151–60.
[10] van Zijl GPAG. Computational modelling of masonry creep and shrinkage. PhD
thesis. Delft University of technology: Delft; 2000.
[11] Choi KK, Lissel SL, Taha MMR. Rheological modelling of masonry creep. Can J
Civil Eng 2007;34(11):1506–17.
[12] Ferretti D, Bazant ZP. Stability of ancient masonry towers: Stress redistribution
due to drying, carbonation, and creep. Cement Conc Res 2006;36(7):1389–98.
[13] Roberts TM, Hughes TG, Dandamudi VR, Bell B. Quasi-static and high cycle
fatigue strength of brick masonry. Constr Build Mater 2006;20:603–14.
[14] Roberts TM, Hughes TG, Dandamudi VR. Progressive damage to masonry arch
bridges caused by repeated traffic loading. RCNG 144 Final, report; 2004.
[15] Abrams DP, Noland JL, Atkinson RH. Response of clay-unit masonry to
repeated compressive forces. In: 7th International brick masonry conference:
melbourne; 1985. p. 567–576.
[16] Brencich A, Corradi C, Gambarotta L. Eccentrically loaded brickwork:
theoretical and experimental results. Eng Struct 2008;30(12):3629–43.
587
[17] Brencich A, de Felice G. Brickwork under eccentric compression: experimental
results and macroscopic models. Constr Build Mater 2009;23(5):1935–46.
[18] Ronca P, Franchi A, Crespi P. Structural failure of historic buildings: masonry
fatigue tests for an interpretation model. In: Modena C, Lourenço PB, Roca P,
editors. 4th International conference on structural analysis of historical
constructions. Taylor and Francis: Padova, Italy; 2005. p. 273–279.
[19] Tomor AK, Wang J. Fracture development process for masonry under static and
fatigue loading. In: 6th International conference on arch bridges: Fuzhou.
China; 2010. p. 550–560.
[20] Wang J, Tomor AK, Melbourne C, Yousif S. Critical review of research on high-
cycle fatigue behaviour of brick masonry. Constr Build Mater, in press.
[21] Melbourne C, Tomor AK, Wang J. Cyclic load capacity and endurance limit of
multi-ring masonry arches. In: 4th Arch bridges conference: Barcelona; 2004.
p. 375–384.
[22] Melbourne C, Tomor AK, Wang J. Modes of failure of multi-ring masonry
arches under fatigue loading. In: 5th International conference on bridge
management: Surrey. UK; 2005. p. 476–483.
[23] Melbourne C, Wang J, Tomor AK. A New Masonry Arch Bridge Assessment
Method (SMART). In: ICE – Bridge Engineering; 2007. p. 81–87.
[24] Forth JP, Brooks JJ. Creep of clay masonry exhibiting cryptoflorescence. Mater
Struct 2008;41(5):909–20.
[25] Forth JP, Brooks JJ, Tapsir SH. The effect of unit water absorption on long-term
movements of masonry. Cement Concr Compos 2000;22(4):273–80.
[26] Lenczner D. Creep and prestress losses in brick masonry. Struct Eng
1986;64B(3):57–62.
[27] Anzani A, Binda L, Mirabella Roberti G. The effect of heavy persistent actions
into the behaviour of ancient masonry. Mater Struct 2000;33(228):251–61.
[28] Ignoul S, Schueremans L, Tack J, Swinnen L, Feytons S, Binda L, et al. Creep
behavior of masonry structures – failure prediction based on a rheological
model and laboratory tests. In: Lourenço PB, et al., editors, 5th International
seminar on structural analysis of historical constructions. New Delhi; 2006. p.
913–920.
[29] Verstrynge E, Schueremans L, Van Gemert D. Time-dependent mechanical
behavior of lime-mortar masonry. Mater Struct 2010;44(1):29–42.
[30] Melbourne C, Tomor AK. Application of acoustic emission for masonry arch
bridges. Strain 2006;42(3):165–72.
[31] De Santis S, Tomor AK. Laboratory and field studies on the use of acoustic
emission for masonry arch bridges (<http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.ndteint.2013.01.00.6i>). Ndt & E International 2013.
[32] Masera D, Bocca P, Grazzini A. Frequency analysis of acoustic emission
signal to monitor damage evolution in masonry structures. In: 9th
International conference on damage assessment of structures (Damas
2011); 2011. p. 305.
[33] Tomor AK, Melbourne C. Condition monitoring of masonry arch bridges using
acoustic emission techniques. Struct Eng Int 2007;2:188–92.
[34] Shigeishi M, Colombo S, Broughton KJ, Rutledge H, Batchelor AJ, Forde MC.
Acoustic emission to assess and monitor the integrity of bridges. Constr Build
Mater 2001;15(1):35–49.
[35] Invernizzi S, Lacidogna G, Manuello A, Carpinteri A. AE monitoring and
numerical simulation of a two-span model masonry arch bridge subjected to
pier scour. Strain 2011;47:158–69.
[36] Carpinteri A, Invernizzi S, Lacidogna G. AE structural assessment of a 17th
century masonry vault. In: Lourenco PB, et al., editors. 5th International
seminar on structural analysis of historical constructions. New Delhi; 2006.
[37] Verstrynge E, Schueremans L, Van Gemert D, Wevers M. Monitoring and
predicting masonry’s creep failure with the acoustic emission technique. NdtE
Int 2009;42(6):518–23.
[38] Verstrynge E, Schueremans L, Van Gemert D. Predicting the time to failure in
heavily loaded masonry specimens with the acoustic emission technique. In:
7th International seminar on structural analysis of historical constructions:
Shanghai; 2010. p. 217–222.
[39] Carpinteri A, Lacidogna G. Damage evaluation of three masonry towers by
acoustic emission. Eng Struct 2007;29(7):1569–79.
[40] Binda L, Schueremans L, Verstrynge E, Ignoul S, Oliveira DV, Lourenco PB, et al.
Long term compressive testing of masonry – test procedure and practical
experience. In: D’Ayala D, Fodde E, editors. 6th International seminar on
structural analysis of historical constructions.: Bath; 2008. p. 1345–1355.
[41] Grosse CU, Ohtsu M, editors. Acoustic emission testing – basics for research –
applications in civil engineering. Springer; 2008.
[42] Wevers M. Listening to the sound of materials: acoustic emission for the
analysis of material behaviour. NdtE Int 1997;30(2):99–106.
[43] BS EN 1330–9 Non-destructive testing. Terminology. Terms used in acoustic
emission testing. British Standard Institution: London; 2009.
[44] BS EN 13477–2 Non-destructive testing. Acoustic emission. Equipment
characterisation. Verification of operating characteristic. British Standard
Institution: London; 2010.
[45] Ortiz M. Microcrack coalescence and macroscopic crack-growth initiation in
brittle solids. Int J Solids Struct 1988;24(3):231–50.
[46] Carpinteri A, Scavia C, Yang GP. Microcrack propagation, coalescence and size
effects in compression. Eng Fract Mech 1996;54(3):335–47.
[47] McNary WS, Abrams DP. Mechanics of masonry in compression. J Struct Eng-
Asce 1985;111(4):857–70.
[48] Schueremans L. Probabilistic evaluation of structural unreinforced masonry.
PhD thesis. Civil Engineering Department, K.U.Leuven: Leuven; 2001.
[49] Casas JR. Reliability-based assessment of masonry arch bridges. Constr Build
Mater 2011;25(4):1621–31.
588 A. Tomor, E. Verstrynge / Construction and Building Materials 43 (2013) 575–588

[50] Rüsch H. Researches toward a general flexural theory for structural concrete. J
Am Concr Inst 1960;57(1):1–28.
[51] Verstrynge E, Schueremans L, Van Gemert D. Creep and failure prediction of
Diestian ferruginous sandstone: modelling and repair options. Constr Build
Mater 2012;29:149–57.
[52] Lockner D, Byerlee J. Acoustic emission and creep in rock at high confining
pressure and differential stress. Bull Seismol Soc Am 1977;67(2):247–58.
[53] Grgic D, Amitrano D. Creep of a porous rock and associated acoustic emission
under different hydrous conditions. J Geophys Res-Solid, Earth
2009;114(B10201).
[54] Carpinteri A, Lacidogna G, Paggi M. Acoustic emission monitoring and
numerical modeling of FRP delamination in RC beams with non-rectangular
cross-section. Mater Struct 2007;40(6):553–66.