Page |

A continuous microscopic modeling approach for

masonry.

Author

BIBARG KHAN

Regn Number 00000203720

Supervisor

DR. ATHER ALI

DEPARTMENT OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING

SCHOOL OF CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY
H-12 ISLAMABAD, PAKISTAN
MARCH 2021
 Page |i

TITLE: A continuous microscopic modeling approach for masonry

Author

BIBARG KHAN

Regn Number 00000203720

Supervisor

DR. ATHER ALI

____________________________________

Signature

DEPARTMENT OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING

SCHOOL OF CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY
H-12 ISLAMABAD, PAKISTAN
MARCH 2021
 P a g e | ii

Thesis Submission Certificate

Certified that final copy of MS/M.Phil. Thesis written by Mr./Ms Bibarg Khan,
(Registration No. 00000203720, of School of Civil and Environmental Engineering
SCEE, NUST) has been vetted by undersigned, found complete in all respects as per
NUST Statutes/Regulations, is free of plagiarism, errors, and mistakes and is accepted
as partial fulfillment for award of MS/MPhil Degree. It is further certified that necessary
amendments as pointed out by GEC members of the scholar have also been incorporated
in the said thesis.

Signature: ____________________________

Name of Supervisor: Dr. Ather Ali

Date: _____________

Signature (HOD):
Date: _____________
 P a g e | iii

DECLARATION

I certify that this research work titled “A continuous microscopic modeling approach for

masonry” is my own work. The work has not been presented elsewhere for assessment. The

material that has been used from other sources it has been properly acknowledged / referred.

________________________
Signature of Student
Bibarg Khan
2017-NUST-MS-SE-00000203720
 P a g e | iv

PRINCIPAL NOTATIONS

c cohesion between the masonry joints interfaces (MPa)

D damage evolution variable
d material cohesion (MPa)
𝐸𝑎𝑑𝑗 adjusted elastic modulus (MPa)
𝐸𝑚 elastic modulus of mortar (MPa)
𝐸𝑢 elastic modulus of units (MPa)
𝑓𝑚𝑡 flexural tensile strength of masonry (MPa)
𝐺𝑚 shear modulus of mortar (MPa)
𝐺𝑢 shear modulus of units (MPa)
𝐺𝛪 work done by the traction-separation in the normal direction (N/mm)
𝐺𝛪𝛪 work done by the traction-separation in the first shear direction (N/mm)
𝐺𝛪𝛪𝛪 work done by the traction-separation in the second shear direction (N/mm)
𝐺𝑇𝐶 critical mixed-mode energy dissipation at failure (N/mm)
𝐺𝛪𝐶 critical fracture energy in the normal direction, refers to as mode І fracture
energy
(N/mm) 𝐺𝛪𝛪𝐶 critical fracture energy in the first and second shear directions, refers to as
mode ІІ
and mode ІІІ fracture energies (N/mm)
H height of masonry assemblage (mm)
h𝑚 thickness of mortar (mm)
h𝑢 height of masonry unit (mm)
I identity matrix
K elastic stiffness matrix
𝐾𝑛𝑛 stiffness of masonry joints in the normal direction (N/mm3)
𝐾𝑠𝑠 stiffness of masonry joints in the first shear direction (N/mm3)
𝐾𝑡𝑡 stiffness of masonry joints in the second shear direction (N/mm3)
𝑘𝑏 numerical factor
𝑙𝑢 length of masonry units (mm)
Md diagonal bending moment capacity of masonry (N.mm/mm)
Mh horizontal bending moment capacity of masonry (N.mm/mm)
n number of courses in a masonry assemblage
R ratio of the yield stress in triaxial tension to the yield stress in triaxial
compression
(flow stress ratio)
 Page |v

r third invariant of deviatoric stress (MPa)

𝐒 stress deviator (MPa)
t nominal traction stress vector
𝑡𝑢 thickness of masonry units (mm)
𝑜
𝑡𝑒𝑓𝑓 effective traction stress at damage initiation under combinations of normal and
shear
tractions in the joints (MPa)
𝑡𝑛 normal traction stress in masonry joints in the normal direction (MPa)
𝑡𝑠 shear traction stress in masonry joints along the first shear direction (MPa)
𝑡𝑡 shear traction stress in masonry joints along the second shear direction (MPa)
𝑚𝑎𝑥
𝑡𝑛 maximum allowable traction stress in masonry joints in the normal direction
(Tensile strength of masonry joints) (MPa)
𝑚𝑎𝑥
𝑡𝑠 maximum allowable traction stress in masonry joints in the first shear direction
(Shear strength of masonry joints) (MPa)
𝑚𝑎𝑥
𝑡𝑡 maximum allowable traction stress in masonry joints in the second shear
direction(Shear strength of masonry joints) (MPa)
ß material friction angle (Degree)
𝜹 separation vector
𝜂 exponent in the BK law associated with cohesive property i.e. brittle, ductile,
etc.
µ coefficient of friction between the masonry joints interfaces
ν Poisson’s ratio
𝝈 stress tensor
𝜎𝑐 compressive yield stress of masonry assemblage (MPa)
𝜎𝑛 normal contact pressure stress in masonry joint interfaces (MPa)
tcrit critical shear stress in masonry joint interfaces at which interfaces fail (MPa)
tsliding post-failure shear stress in masonry joint interfaces at which interfaces
slide (MPa)
Ø angle of diagonal crack line in masonry under out of plane loading (Degree)
ψ dilation angle (Degree)
 P a g e | vi

ABSTRACT

The complex behavior of masonry due to heterogeneity of material which make it challenging

for numerical modelling. In this regard, many modelling approaches are made to tackle the

complexity of numerical modelling with the consideration of accuracy and computational

efforts required. In this paper a new geometrical model continuous microscopic model is used

with concrete damage plasticity constitutive model for simulating in plane static response of

masonry. The novel continuous microscopic model is made by geometrically partitioning a

single part of masonry sample into cells of brick units and mortar joints pattern, thus excluding

the interface complexity. CDPM is utilized in brick units and mortar joints to precisely emulate

the non-linear behavior of masonry constituents. The numerical modelling and analysis of

masonry wallets is conducted using [1]. The proposed numerical model used is validated with

well documented experimental data to check the effectiveness of numerical model and from

the results it is evident that, the model proposed is in good agreement with the behavior of

masonry.
 P a g e | vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION.........................................................................................................................................III
PRINCIPAL NOTATIONS.......................................................................................................................... IV
ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................................................. VI
PROBLEM STATEMENT ........................................................................................................................... 1
MASONRY DESCRIPTION AND PROPERTIES ............................................................................................ 2
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................. 2
FRACTURE BEHAVIOR OF QUASI BRITTLE MATERIALS ....................................................................................... 2
Softening ........................................................................................................................................................ 3
Fracture Mechanics Applied to Quasi-Brittle Materials ................................................................................ 4
MASONRY – MECHANICAL AND FRACTURE BEHAVIOR ..................................................................................... 4
Brick Units ...................................................................................................................................................... 4
Mortar............................................................................................................................................................ 6
Brick Mortar Interface ................................................................................................................................... 6
FAILURE MODES OF MASONRY .............................................................................................................. 8
MASONRY MODELLING .......................................................................................................................... 8
MODELLING APPROACH ....................................................................................................................... 13
Extended Finite Element Method (XFEM) ........................................................................................................ 13
Elastic response of extended masonry units .................................................................................................... 15
Elastic response of joint interfaces .................................................................................................................. 15
Plastic response of joint interfaces .................................................................................................................. 16
Plastic response of mortar ............................................................................................................................... 17
Surface based cohesive model ......................................................................................................................... 17
Drucker-Prager plasticity model ...................................................................................................................... 18
CONCRETE DAMAGE PLASTICITY (CDPM) ............................................................................................. 18
Stiffness degradation ....................................................................................................................................... 19
Yield Criterion .............................................................................................................................................. 20
Flow rule ...................................................................................................................................................... 21
Viscoplastic regularization ........................................................................................................................... 21
MODELLING AND ANALYSIS.................................................................................................................. 22
NUMERICAL VALIDATIONS ................................................................................................................... 23
Simulation of masonry room ........................................................................................................................... 26
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................................ 27
RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................................... 27
REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................................... 28
 Page |1

PROBLEM STATEMENT

Since failure of Quasi Brittle materials like concrete and masonry having an isotropic

property cannot be judged. So, an understanding of complete behavior of Quasi Brittle material

is necessary to understand its modes of failure.

Using modern Software like Abaqus it has been easy to model a material with

nonlinearity of any degree.

 Page |2

MASONRY DESCRIPTION AND PROPERTIES

INTRODUCTION

It is well known that properties of masonry mainly depend on its constituents i.e. properties of

bricks and mortar. As masonry unit being a quasi-brittle and composite element, it is necessary

to study the mechanical properties of its constituents and their interfaces.

This chapter is focused on fracture behavior of quasi-brittle elements which include

softening and mechanical behavior of quasi-brittle elements. It further focuses on mechanical

behavior of masonry constituents (Bricks, mortar, interfaces) and masonry composite material

behavior i.e. (uniaxial tensile and compressive behavior and biaxial behavior). At last failure

modes of masonry are discussed.

FRACTURE BEHAVIOR OF QUASI BRITTLE MATERIALS

The study of Fracture Mechanics of engineering materials is mainly divided into two main

categories ductile material fracture and brittle material fracture.

Brittle material fracture is linear elastic fracture mechanics which have sharp crack

openings, and the structure response is linear elastic on unloading because the fracture process

zone at the crack tip is small as compare to structure dimensions as shown in Fig 1 (a).

Ductile material fracture is one in which crack tip is surrounded with a large nonlinear zone

which undergoes

large plastic yielding

without any

softening damage. In

ductile material

fracture the size of

fracture process
Figure 1: fracture behaviour of materials
 Page |3

zone at the crack tip is very small as shown in Fig 1 (b).

Alongside these two extreme fracture behaviors an intermediate fracture behavior is

defined called Quasi-Brittle material Fracture. In fracture mechanics the engineering materials

like clay, mortar and concrete are classified in quasi brittle materials as these poly-crystalline

materials undergo significant plastic deformations before damage failure. Quasi-brittle

elements possess a large fracture process zone as compared to brittle and ductile materials

because their fracture process zone is at crack tip is characterized by softening of material.(Z.

P. J. P. o. t. R. S. A. Bažant, 2019)

Softening

Softening is one of significant feature of fracture mechanics in Quasi-brittle materials. It is a

mechanical phenomenon in which due to continuous increase in deformation due to applied

force decreases the mechanical resistance of material. It is main feature of quasi brittle

materials which fail due to progressive crack growth in materials. So, to predict fracture in

quasi-brittle materials, softening must be considered.

Softening behavior for tensile failure identified by (J. Van Mier et al., 1997) for

concrete find out that the post peak behavior (softening behavior) depend on constraint

conditions . As shown in as shown in Fig 1 (c). when a fixed specimen is applied a bending

moment with tensile load multiple cracks will generate and result in a slightly higher tensile

strength and high fracture energy.

Softening behavior for compressive failure is dependent on the boundary conditions

and the specimen size (J. G. M. Van Mier, 1984). Tests on concrete by (Vonk, 1992) show that

the uniaxial behavior is governed by both local and continuum fracturing processes.

Softening behavior for shear failure is observed as degradation of cohesion in coulomb

friction models.
 Page |4

For quasi brittle materials in uniaxial tension and uniaxial compression the stress-

displacement represents that the inelastic behavior of both loadings can be described as integral

of σ- δ curve. The material properties represented in diagram are tensile fracture energy Gf and

compressive fracture energy Gc. With the energy-based approach, the tensile and compressive

softening can be described with same in same context as their failure mechanisms are same,

which is crack evolution at micro level. The inelastic shear behavior of quasi brittle element

described as mode II fracture energy G11f, which is defined as integral of τ- δ curve without any

normal compressive load. Shear failure is one of important feature of masonry behavior. It can

be incorporated in micro models, but it cannot be directly added in continuum models because

in continuum model brick unit and mortar layers are not discretized so in continuum models’

tension and compression failure modes are only accounted.

Fracture Mechanics Applied to Quasi-Brittle Materials

In quasi brittle materials the fracture mechanics is formulated by two approaches continuum

and discrete based approach. The formulation of continuum-based models is in term of stress-

strain tensor like crack band mode used in (Z. P. Bažant & Oh, 1983).The discrete based

approach consist of two main models the equivalent crack model and the cohesive crack model.

In equivalent crack model the linear elastic fracture mechanism is altered by adopting effective

crack length (Shah & Jeng, 1985), While in cohesive crack model it is assumed that after crack

propagation it still transfer stresses from one face to other. For further information the reader

is referred to (Bazant & Planas).

MASONRY – MECHANICAL AND FRACTURE BEHAVIOR

Mechanical properties of masonry depend on its constituent (brick, mortar, and their interface)

properties.

Brick Units

Bricks are generally made up of sand-lime, clay and concrete. In this study we will focus on

clay bricks as clay bricks are mostly used in masonry structures worldwide. Clay bricks are of
 Page |5

two types based on manufacturing kiln fried and sundried. Now days clay bricks are used for

construction in many shapes like cored bricks, hollow bricks, solid pressed bricks and mortar

less bricks etc.

Brick Compressive Strength

The compressive strength of brick is determined from a uniaxial test. The compressive

strength of a brick specimen depends in the rate of loading, size of specimen, shape of specimen

and restraints applied to ends of specimen. The main factor that effects the compressive

strength of brick is restraint because under uniaxial compression loading material tries to

expand in lateral direction. When this expansion (Poison’s effect) is restrained it produce

confining transverse stresses thus resulting in a triaxial compression stress state. Ultimately the

confining of a specimen with a hard-capping result in high compressive strength Another

method for calculating compressive strength of a specimen is to used brush platens.

Brick Tensile Strength

Tensile strength of bricks is determined by in-direct tensile tests as it is very difficult to

perform a direct tensile test of brick unit as the alignment of specimen and gripping of specimen

makes it complicated. So, for tensile test of bricks the in-direct tensile test methods three-point

bending test for flexural strength and splitting test are used. The flexural strength results

determined by three point bending tests are higher as compared to the results of direct tensile

tests. This is due to strain gradient as in three-point bending test the section to be stressed is

smaller than the section used in direct tensile test. Splitting test is also used to determine tensile

strength of brick units, it provides comparatively lower results than the other tests discussed.

The tensile strength of brick units reported by (Van der Pluijm, 1992) using direct

tensile test found that the tensile strength of solid clay bricks range from 1.5 to 3.5 N/mm2 and

Mode-I fracture energy ranges from 0.06 to 0.13 N/mm/mm2. Later (Barros, Almeida, &

Lourenço, 2002) also used direct tensile test to evaluate the mechanical behavior of brick unit
 Page |6

and brick mortar interfaces. The results found that the average tensile strength of brick unit was

3 N/mm2 and the Mode-I fracture energy ranges from 0.0512 to 0.081 N/mm/mm2.

Mortar

In masonry structure mortar is used as binding material which bonds brick units in a structural

array and enables the masonry structure to withstand external loads. There are many types of

mortar based on binding material used like, cement mortar, cement-lime mortar and

pozzolanic-lime mortar.

Mortar compressive strength

In masonry structures the mortar compressive strength is not that much important as

compared to its bond with brick units as mortar units transfer compressive strength to brick

units and very often fail in compression. Mortar compressive strength is determined by prism

test or cube test using ASTM-C-109 (1988) 50 mm cubes.

Brick Mortar Interface

Brick mortar interface is the most critical point of masonry assemblage as it is the plane of

initial failure in masonry which behaves as connection between mortar and brick units. The

failure modes of interface include Mode I failure (Tensile failure ) and Mode II failure (shear

failure).

Tensile failure of Brick Mortar interface

Brick-mortar interface being the weak zone in the masonry is most important feature

for modelling masonry structures. Tensile failure of brick-

mortar interfaces is tested on a setup of two bricks connected

head to bed by a single mortar layer and tensile load

(displacement) is applied to bricks by bolts drilled in brick units

(Jukes, 1998) as shown in figure. The experimental tests carried

Figure 2: Tensile test of two bricks.

out by (Van der Pluijm, 1992) show that the tensile strength of
 Page |7

brick-mortar interface ranges from 0.3 to 0.9 N/mm2 and the area under the curve of curve is

Mode I fracture energy which ranges from 0.005 to 0.02 Nmm/mm2. Fracture energy is the

amount of energy which generate a cracked area along the plane of brick-mortar interface.

Recent study carried out by (Barros et al., 2002) the average tensile strength of brick mortar

interface bounding is 2 N/mm2 and the average Mode I fracture energy is 0.008 Nmm/mm2.

Shear failure of Brick Mortar interface

The shear failure of brick mortar interface is defined by Mohr Coulomb failure criterion

which states a linear relation between the shear strength of joint and its normal stress Eq - 1

𝜏 = 𝑐 + 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝛷 . 𝜎 (1)

The experimental setup for shear test reported in {Van der Pluijm, 1993 #141}show the most

complete characterized

behavior. The shear strength of

brick-mortar interface with

initial cohesion ranges from 0.1

to 1.8 N/mm2 and the fracture

energy in Mode II ranges from

0.01 to 0.25 Nmm/mm2. The

Figure 3: Shear test of 2 bricks masonry
initial internal friction angle 𝛷𝑜

ranges from 0.7 to 1.5 with many testing parameters and the residual dry 𝛷𝑟 internal friction

angle was 0.75 with a constant value for each test. The dilatancy angle ranges from 0.2 to 0.7

which measures the uplift phenomena upon shearing effect.

 Page |8

FAILURE MODES OF MASONRY

Masonry structure is very simple in construction, but it behaves as anisotropic, heterogenous

and highly non-linear in nature. The variable nature of masonry is due to the complex state of

stress applied to it under loading, which results in different failure modes i.e. (i) Joint tensile

cracking (ii) Joint slip (iii) Masonry unit direct tensile crack (iv) Masonry unit diagonal tension

cracking and (v) Masonry unit compression crushing. The failures described above have

distinct nature as the failure in (i and ii) are brick brick-mortar interface failure mechanisms

which include tensile splitting and shear slipping. (iii) is brick unit failure mechanism in which

unit fails in tension. (iv and v) are mixed failure mechanisms including both units and joints

failure. The perfect modelling of masonry structure is one which include all these failure modes

but simulation of a model

with that complexity level

is very difficult and time

taking so different

modelling techniques

concluding few failure

modes of failure are used

with low complexity Figure 4: Failure modes of masonry

levels.

MASONRY MODELLING

In this study Finite Element Method is used to simulate the non-linear behavior of masonry.

For modelling masonry structures there are two main Finite Element Method approaches

Homogenous and Heterogenous modelling strategy based on simplicity and accuracy level

required. Homogenous modelling approach is used to capture the global response of a structure,
 Page |9

it includes Macroscopic Model. Heterogenous modelling technique is used to capture the local

response of a structure, it includes Microscopic Model.

Macroscopic modelling approach is used for major scale analysis of Masonry structure

in which homogenized, and continuum theories are adopted to predict the global response of

structures rather than detailed local responses. In this modelling approach the global response

of a structure is captured by eliminating the distinction between brick units, mortar layers and

the local interaction between them as shown in Figure 5(b). The material parameters used in

macroscopic modelling along each material axes are taken as Orthotropic and in elastic.

Macroscopic modelling approach have been used by several researchers to simulate the global

response of masonry structures See e.g.(Saloustros, Pelà, Cervera, & Roca, 2016).

Microscopic modelling approach is used for structural elements in which heterogenous

material parameters are used to predict local response of a structure. In this modeling approach

the distinction between unit, mortar and their interfaces are made, and their detailed properties

Figure 5: (a) Masonry Sample, (b) Macroscopic Model, (c) Detailed Microscopic Model, (d) Simplified Microscopic Model,
(e) Continuous Microscopic Model.

are included in modelling. Based on level of simplicity and accuracy microscopic modelling is

categorized into three modelling techniques detailed microscopic modelling, simplified

microscopic modelling and continuous microscopic modelling.

 P a g e | 10

 In detailed microscopic modelling technique, the unit and mortar are modeled as continuum

elements and their interfaces are represented by discontinuous elements which leads to more

accurate results as shown in Figure 5(c). The elastic and inelastic material properties for both

continuum elements are distinctly considered and the cohesive crack models are formulated

for discontinuous elements which are potential crack or slip planes. See e.g.(Andreotti,

Graziotti, & Magenes, 2018).

 In simplified microscopic modelling technique, the unit and mortar are lumped into average

extended units and their interfaces are modeled as discontinuous elements which leads to

computational ease as shown in Figure 5(d). The extended units are considered as elastic

material and cohesive crack models are formulated for interfaces. In SSM approach a slight

accuracy is lost as mortar Poisson’s effect is excluded but the computational time is decreased

which make it appropriate for modelling wider range of structures.(Bolhassani, Hamid, Lau,

Moon, & Materials, 2015)

 In continuous microscopic modelling technique, the brick unit and mortar layers are modeled

as is made of a single part having masonry pattern partitioned cells of bricks and mortar layers

are modeled as continuum elements and their interfaces are excluded by partitioning a single

part into brick units and mortar layer pattern as shown in Figure 5(e). The mortar layers are

attached to brick units as welded with each other. The elastic and in elastic properties for

both layers are distinctly considered and the non-linear interaction properties of interfaces

are assigned to the mortar layers. The exclusion of interfaces make this technique much more

computationally economical and accurate.(D’Altri, de Miranda, Castellazzi, & Sarhosis)

The Finite Element Method approaches used for modelling the masonry structures has

evolved timely from simple to complex modelling approaches to capture the most realistic

response of masonry structures. The strategies adopted by researchers for simplified

microscopic modelling timely evolved as SMM approach was initially used by (Goodman,

Taylor, Brekke, & Div, 1968) to model discontinuity of rock mechanics with zero thickness
 P a g e | 11

interface element assigned traction separation properties. Then (Page, 1978) adopted SMM

approach for analyzing masonry structures, He developed a constitutive model with brittle

tension failure and hardening in shear and compression but the compressive crushing was not

included in constitutive model. The same approach was used by (Lotfi & Shing, 1994)adopted

simplified microscopic modelling approach with interface constitutive elements assigned

fracture properties of mortar units with an initiation and propagation of cracking under

combined normal and shear stresses in both tension-shear and compression-shear regions but

the response under higher compressive stresses were not successful as increase in compression

decrease dilatancy then an appropriate model was developed by (P. B. Lourenço & Rots, 1997)

which included a multi surface interface cap model with a constitutive model which is

formulated on three failure criterions 1st tension cutoff criterion (Rankine failure criterion) for

Mode I (tensile failure) to capture cracking, Mohr-coulomb failure envelop for Mode II shear

failure to capture slipping and cap model for compression failure to capture crushing . In

addition, the potential vertical crack at middle of bricks were placed to capture the tension

cracks. The above model is adopted by (Dolatshahi & Aref, 2011), (Oliveira, Lourenço, &

structures, 2004).Further many complex constitutive models were used in recent past to

increase accuracy and computational cost of constitutive model proposed by (P. J. R. N.-.-.-.

Lourenço, 1994) like, (Kumar, Amirtham, & Pandey, 2014)developed a composite interface

model consisting a single surface yield criterion which includes an extended Mohr-Coulomb

criterion with a tension cutoff region to simulate the initiation and evolution of cracks in

masonry joints and potential cracks in middle of masonry units. While a compression cap was

included to capture the crushing of masonry unit. (Bolhassani et al., 2015) adopted simplified

micro modelling approach with modelling extended masonry units with concrete damage

plasticity model and cohesive element traction separation model for interface

elements..(Kumar & Barbato, 2019)adopted simplified microscopic modelling approach with

a new constitutive model defined by a convex composite failure surface defined by a tension
 P a g e | 12

,shear and compression cap failure criterion which is capable of simulating tension cracking

(Mode I failure) ,shear slipping (Mode II failure) and crushing of masonry unit.

(Abdulla, Cunningham, & Gillie, 2017) adopted simplified microscopic modelling with

combined plasticity based constitutive model and Extended Finite element method (XFEM).

The constitutive model used for simulation include surface based cohesive behavior for elastic

and plastic behavior of interface elements and Ducker Prager plasticity model for masonry unit

crushing while XFEM is used for simulation of crack propagation in masonry units specifying

crack location. Further (Zhai, Wang, Kong, Li, & Xie, 2017) adopted SMM approach for

analyzing Masonry-Infilled RC frame, He used XFEM with discrete interface elements for

propagation of cracks in arbitrary direction during analysis . XFEM also accounted for mix-

mode fracture of quasi brittle materials.

(Petracca et al., 2017) adopted continuous microscopic modelling with tension and

compression damage models for continuum brick units and mortar layers. For dilatancy of

material an existing failure criterion is improved under shear and a hardening-softening law

based on Bezier curves is established for quasi-brittle material.

Several researchers have used Concrete Damage plasticity with other modelling techniques

like [12], [19] and [20]adopted SMM approach by utilizing concrete damage plasticity model

in extended masonry units and cohesive element traction separation model for interface

elements. [21] also adopted simplified micro model with CDPM assigned to representative

element (extended masonry units) and interfaces having Mohr-coulomb and tension cutoff

failure criteria. [8] adopted detailed microscopic model by modelling interfaces using cohesive

surface-based behavior with quadratic stress criterion and utilizing CDPM for nonlinear

modeling of mortar joints and brick units.

In literature most of modelling techniques used have focused on detailed and simplified

microscopic modeling of unreinforced masonry structures with inclusion of interfaces while

some adopted 2D continuous microscopic models but here in this paper presents a 3D
 P a g e | 13

continuous microscopic model of masonry structure is simulated with monotonic in plane

loading. The constitutive model concrete damage plasticity is particularly utilized in continuum

brick units and mortar joints to precisely emulate the non-linear behavior of masonry

constituents. The proposed 3D model is developed by utilizing methods available in the Abaqus

Library, using python scripts but without employing any user defined subroutines.

 In contrast to all other previous approaches, it captures the behavior of mortar and brick

units and eliminating the joints between them thus leading to simplifications in simulation.

 In this model non-linear interaction properties are assigned to mortar layer by XFEM crack

growth.

 The proposed model is developed by making use of methods available in the Abaqus

Library without employing any user defined subroutines.

For the second modelling approach this paper uses the same constitutive model

developed by (Abdulla et al., 2017) with (surface based cohesion with tensile and shear yield

criterion for the initiation and propagation of masonry joints and ducker Prager plasticity model

for crushing behavior of masonry unit ) in addition with implication of find contact pairs for

automatic selection of interaction surfaces makes it different from previous studies.

MODELLING APPROACH

The constitutive models adopted to simulate the model is described in detail.

EXTENDED FINITE ELEMENT METHOD (XFEM)

The XFEM approach was initially developed by (Belytschko & Black, 1999) by FEM

approximations with two dimensional plane strain asymptotic crack tip fields. The XFEM

enriches the finite elements with additional degrees of freedom at the preexisting nodes and

allow the discontinuous displacement across the crack surface, which allow the cracks to be

aligned arbitrarily within mesh and solve crack growth difficulties with minimal remeshing.

(Moës, Dolbow, & Belytschko, 1999) improved this method and called it as XFEM. He
 P a g e | 14

introduced a new Heaviside function with crack tip field for the enrichment of the finite element

model with additional degrees of freedom. (Sukumar, Moës, Moran, & Belytschko, 2000)

Extended the XFEM to Three-Dimensional crack modelling by adding a discontinuous

function and 2D asymptotic crack tip fields to FEM to account for the crack using notion of

unity of partition. The basic displacement approximation for the crack modelling of XFEM is

written as:

4 (1)
𝑢𝑥𝑓𝑒𝑚 (𝑥) = ∑ 𝑁𝐼 (𝑥) 𝑢𝐼 + ∑ 𝑁𝐼 (𝑥)𝐻(𝑥)𝑎𝐼 + ∑ [𝑁𝐼 (𝑥) ∑ 𝐹∝ (𝑥) 𝑏𝐼∝ ]
𝐼∈𝑁 𝐼∈𝑁 𝐼∈𝑁 ∝=1

Here 𝑁𝐼 (𝑥) is nodal shape function and 𝑢𝐼 is nodal displacement vector for non-enriched

nodes only, 𝐻(𝑥) is Heaviside function which is associated with the discontinuous jump

function to form crack path, 𝑎𝐼 and 𝑏𝐼∝ are vectors used for the nodal enriched DOFs, 𝐹∝ (𝑥) is

crack tip function which is

associated with the development of

cracks at the tip. In above Equation

the first 𝑁𝐼 (𝑥) 𝑢𝐼 applies to all

nodes in the model the second term

𝐻(𝑥)𝑎𝐼 applies to the nodes where

the shape function support is cut by

Figure 6 : XFEM crack Heaviside enrichment and Crack tip enrichment.
the crack interior and the third term

𝐹∝ (𝑥) 𝑏𝐼∝ applies to the nodes where the shape function support is cut by the crack tip. As

shown in Figure (6).

In this paper XFEM is used in continuous microscopic model to simulate the initiation

and propagation of crack through both mortar layers and brick units under in-plane loading

conditions. XFEM cracks are simulated based on the fracture energies of materials obtained

from tensile traction separation response of material units. XFEM cracks are simulated in

mortar layers in two directions first for vertical layers with direction of crack growth normal to

local-1 direction, second for Horizontal layers with direction of crack growth parallel to local-
 P a g e | 15

1 direction while cracks in brick units are simulated along maximum tangential stress direction

to local-1 direction.

XFEM is also used in extended masonry units modelled by simplified micro modelling,

the cracks are initiated and propagated in units on basis of traction separation law and without

any pre specification of crack locations, see (Abdulla et al., 2017).

ELASTIC RESPONSE OF EXTENDED MASONRY UNITS

As in simplified micro modelling the

distinction between mortar and brick

units is merged into extended masonry

units so their elastic moduli are also

adjusted according to the geometry of

extended masonry units as a function of

detailed microscopic model

parameters.

𝐻 𝐸𝑢 𝐸𝑚 (2)
𝐸𝑎𝑑𝑗 =
𝑛 ℎ𝑢 𝐸𝑚 + (𝑛 − 1) ℎ𝑚 𝐸𝑢

ELASTIC RESPONSE OF JOINT INTERFACES

The linear traction separation response is initially followed by joints interfaces prior to the

damage. The linear relationship between nominal traction vector t, elastic stiffness matrix K

and the separation vector δ is given in Eq-3.

𝑡𝑛 𝐾𝑛𝑛 0 0 𝛿𝑛
𝒕 = { 𝑡𝑠 } = [ 0 𝐾𝑠𝑠 0 ] { 𝛿𝑠 } = 𝑲 𝜹
𝑡𝑡 0 0 𝐾𝑡𝑡 𝛿𝑡 (3)
 P a g e | 16

The elastic stiffness matrix K for joint interfaces between the extended units should be

same as the joint interfaces between units of detailed microscopic model. So, the three

components of elastic stiffness matrix K are expressed as a function of detailed microscopic

model parameters.

𝐸𝑢 𝐸𝑚 (4)
𝐾𝑛𝑛 =
ℎ𝑚 (𝐸𝑢 − 𝐸𝑚 )

𝐺𝑢 𝐺𝑚 (5)
𝐾𝑠𝑠 & 𝐾𝑡𝑡 =
ℎ𝑚 (𝐺𝑢 − 𝐺𝑚 )

PLASTIC RESPONSE OF JOINT INTERFACES

The joints follow the linear response up to the damage initiation defined based on the user

defined damage initiation criterion that includes tensile and shear strength of joint interfaces,

after the damage initiation criterion is achieved the crack propagation starts in joints. In this
2 2
〈𝑡𝑛 〉 𝑡𝑠 2 𝑡𝑡 (6)
( 𝑚𝑎𝑥 ) + ( 𝑚𝑎𝑥 ) + ( 𝑚𝑎𝑥 ) = 1
𝑡𝑛 𝑡𝑠 𝑡𝑡

paper quadratic stress criterion is adopted to define the initiation of damage, which implies that

the damage initiates when the ratio of quadratic stresses equals to 1 as shown in Eq- 6

Here the Macaulay bracket show that for the fracture behavior of the joint interfaces in

normal direction the compressive stresses are excluded. The tensile cracking depends on the

tensile strength of joint interfaces and the shear and the shear behavior of the joint interfaces is

defined by Mohr Coulomb failure criterion shown in Eq-7.

𝜏𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 = 𝑐 + 𝜇 𝜎𝑛 (7)

From above equation the critical shear stress of joint interfaces is calculated which

depends on the cohesion between joints, the coefficient of friction and the compressive stresses

between joint interfaces in normal direction.

 P a g e | 17

Further for the sliding shear failure of the joint interfaces the tangential behavior is adopted to

simulate the shear behavior of joints due to frictional resistance. The sliding shear stresses are

𝜏𝑠𝑙𝑖𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 = 𝜇 𝜎𝑛 (8)

defined by frictional law Eq-8.

After the damage initiation the crack evolution starts with the strength degradation of joint

interaction at a prescribed rate and ultimately leads to joints failure. The damage evolution is

shown in Eq-9.

𝒕 = (1 − 𝐷) 𝑲𝛿 (9)

Here D is damage evolution variable, its value ranges from 0 to 1 writ the continuity of

traction stresses as damage initiation criterion reaches its value. In this paper energy based

linear damage evolution criterion with Benzeggagh-Kenane (BK) law is used. For further

details see (Abdulla et al., 2017).

PLASTIC RESPONSE OF MORTAR

The joints follow the linear response up to the damage initiation defined based on the user

defined damage initiation criterion that includes tensile and shear strength of joint interfaces,

after the damage initiation criterion is achieved the crack propagation starts in joints. In this

paper quadratic stress criterion is adopted to define the initiation of damage, which implies that

the damage initiates when the ratio of quadratic stresses equals to 1 as shown in

SURFACE BASED COHESIVE MODEL

Along the bed and head joints of masonry the surface based cohesive model is used to capture

the linear behavior and fracture mechanics of joint interfaces based on the traction separation

law. By surface based cohesive model the mode I failure the tensile cracking of joints, mode II

failure the in-plane shear sliding of joint and mode III failure the out of plane shear sliding of

joint are simulated.

 P a g e | 18

DRUCKER-PRAGER PLASTICITY MODEL

Drucker-Prager yield criterion was first developed by (Drucker & Prager, 1952) as a

generalization of von Mises criterion which comprises the effect of hydrostatic stresses. It was

developed to evaluate the failure stresses of soil and rock materials. In this paper D-P plasticity

model is used to simulate non-linear behavior of extended masonry units in compression. The

D-P model allows the hardening and softening of material under compressive loads which will

capture the possible crushing failure of extended masonry units. The hardening and softening

behavior of D-P model is defined by compressive yield stresses against the absolute plastic

strains. In this study a linear yield surface of D-P model is adopted, and the evolution of the

yield surface is based on uniaxial compressive yield stress of extended masonry unit. For D-P

criterion the given parameters are also defined in ABAQUS i.e. Flow stress ratio R, Dilation

angle ψ and Friction angle ß. For further details see (Abdulla et al., 2017).

CONCRETE DAMAGE PLASTICITY (CDPM)

CDPM also known as Barcelona model is a modification of Drucker-Prager strength

hypothesis. It was first proposed by (Lubliner, Oliver, Oller, & Oñate, 1989) for monotonic

loading conditions associated with the failure in concrete and other quasi-brittle materials

(ceramics , masonry etc.) under low confining stresses. In Barcelona model a scalar damage

variable based on fracture energies is used to define complete damage status and for elastic

stiffness degradation the model uses elastic and plastic damage variables. The coupling of both

scalar damage and stiffness degradation causes problematic and irrational numerical algorithm

on plastic unloading. As in Quasi-brittle materials there are several damage states including

cracking in tension, crushing in compression, sliding in shear and stiffness degradation. To

account for these damage variables Barcelona model was modified by(Lee & Fenves, 1998) by

adding multiple damage variables used in (Mazars, 1986; Mazars & Pijaudier-Cabot, 1989;

Ohtani & Chen, 1988) models.

 P a g e | 19

Modified Barcelona model known as CDPM by (Lee & Fenves, 1998) comprises tensile

cracking damage variable and compressive crushing damage variable alongside a modified

yield function with multiple hardening variables. It depends on two failures i.e., tensile

cracking and compressive crushing.

STIFFNESS DEGRADATION

The stress-strain relationship of CDPM is governed by a scalar damage variable,

𝜎 = (1 − 𝑑)𝐷0𝑒𝑙 ∶ (𝜀 − 𝜀 𝑝𝑙 ) = 𝐷𝑒𝑙 ∶ (𝜀 − 𝜀 𝑝𝑙 ) (10)

Where, 𝐷0𝑒𝑙 is material undamaged elastic stiffness, 𝐷𝑒𝑙 is material damaged elastic stiffness

and d is scalar damage stiffness variable ranging from zero (undamaged) to one (complete

damage). The cracking and crushing damage of material result in stiffness degradation and

degradation of stiffness is characterized by scalar damage variable d, thus the effective stress

for isotropic stiffness degradation is

𝜎̅ ≝ 𝐷0𝑒𝑙 ∶ (𝜀 − 𝜀 𝑝𝑙 ) (11)

Cauchy stress (Tensile and compressive) related effective stresses through the scalar damage

stiffness variable:

𝜎𝑡 = (1 − 𝑑𝑡 ) 𝜎̅𝑡 ; 0 ≤ 𝑑𝑡 ≤ 1 (12)

𝜎𝑐 = (1 − 𝑑𝑐 ) 𝜎̅𝑐 ; 0 ≤ 𝑑𝑐 ≤ 1 (13)

Figure 7: tensile and compressive curves of CDPM

 P a g e | 20

Yield Criterion

Yield function of Barcelona model modified by {Lee, 1998 #109} include evolution for tensile

cracking and compressive crushing. The evolution of yield function on yield surface is

monitored by hardening variables 𝜀̃𝑡𝑝𝑙 and 𝜀̃𝑐𝑝𝑙 ,

1
𝐹= [𝑞̅ − 3𝛼𝑝̅ + 𝛽(𝜀̃𝑝𝑙 ) 〈𝜎̂𝑚𝑎𝑥 〉 − 𝛾〈−𝜎̂𝑚𝑎𝑥 〉 ] − 𝜎̅𝑐 (𝜀̃𝑡𝑝𝑙 ) = 0 (14)
1−𝛼

Here,

𝜎̂𝑚𝑎𝑥 is maximum effective principal stress and 𝜎̅𝑡 (𝜀̃𝑡𝑝𝑙 ) , 𝜎̅𝑐 (𝜀̃𝑐𝑝𝑙 ) are maximum effective

tensile and compressive cohesive stress, respectively. While 𝑝̅ , 𝑞̅, 𝑆̅ are effective hydrostatic

pressure, Mises equivalent effective stress and deviatoric part of mises effective stress tensor,

respectively. 𝛼 and 𝛾 are dimensionless material constants.

𝛼 =
(𝜎𝑏𝑜 /𝜎𝑐𝑜 )−1
, 0 ≤ 𝜎 ≤ 0.5 ;; 1
2(𝜎𝑏𝑜 /𝜎𝑐𝑜 )−1 𝑝̅ = − 𝜎̅ ∶ 𝐼
3
𝑝𝑙
𝑝𝑙 )
̅𝑐 (𝜀̃𝑐 )
𝜎 ;;
𝛽(𝜀̃ = (1 − 𝛼) − (1 + 𝛼) 3
𝑝𝑙
̅𝑡 (𝜀̃𝑡
𝜎 ) 𝑞̅ = √ 𝑆̅ ∶ 𝑆̅
2

3(1 − 𝐾𝑐 ) ;; 𝑆̅ = 𝑝𝐼
̅ + 𝜎̅
𝛾 =
2𝐾𝑐 − 1

Where,

𝜎𝑏𝑜 /𝜎𝑐𝑜 is the ratio of initial equi-biaxial yield compressive stress to initial uniaxial yield

compressive it ranges from 1.1 to 1.16 for quasi-brittle materials. 𝐾𝑐 is ratio of second stress

invariant on tensile meridian to that on compressive meridian it ranges from 0.5 to 1 (Lubliner,

1989 #116)

The parameter Kc is ratio of distance between hydrostatic axis to compression meridian and

tension meridian in a deviatoric plane. Kc Ranges from 0.5 like a triangularoid to 1 leading to

Drucker-Prager Criterion Strength hypothesis and CDPM recommends Kc = 2/3.

 P a g e | 21

Flow rule

The plastic flow rule of CDPM consider an unassociated plastic flow rule and potential plastic

flow rule of Drucker-Prager hyperbolic flow function is used.

𝐺 = √(𝜖𝜎𝑡𝑜 tan 𝜓)2 + 𝑞̅ 2 − 𝑝̅ tan 𝜓 (15)

Where: dilation angle ψ its uplift of material layers w.r.t to an adjacent layer on plastic

shearing. It controls the rate of volumetric plastic strain developed on plastic shearing. Dilation

angle increases with decrease in confining stresses. Uniaxial tensile stress 𝜎𝑡𝑜 is defined from

tension stiffening data. Eccentricity (𝜖) describe the rate at which the yield function reaches

asymptote. The default eccentricity (𝜖) = 0.1 implying that the dilation angle of material is

same over a wide range of confining stresses. Increasing eccentricity 𝜖 yields more curvature

to the potential flow and eccentricity less than default (𝜖 < 0.1) yields in convergence issues.

Viscoplastic regularization

Constitutive models having stiffness degradation and softening behavior often yield severe

convergence issues during analysis. Few of them can be addressed by defining viscus

regularization of the yield function and allowing stresses to lie outside yield surface. CDPM

uses viscoplastic strain rate tensor (𝜀̇ʋ𝑝𝑙 ) equation defined by Duvault-lions including viscosity

parameter μ.

1
𝜀̇ʋ𝑝𝑙 = 𝜇(𝜀 𝑝𝑙 − 𝜀ʋ𝑝𝑙 ) (16)

CDPM is a modification of the Drucker Prager strength hypothesis. It is included in Abaqus

material library to primarily model concrete under low confining stresses subject to monotonic,

cyclic, or dynamic loading. This constitutive model is also capable to analyze other quasi-

brittle materials such as masonry, ceramics, and rock materials etc. CDPM is based on isotropic

damage plasticity of material which include isotropic tensile and compressive damage

plasticity for the representation of inelastic response of material. The parameters required in
 P a g e | 22

Abaqus for defining CDP constitutive model include: Dilation angle (ψ), Eccentricity (𝜖),

𝜎𝑏𝑜 /𝜎𝑐𝑜 , 𝐾𝑐 , viscosity parameter (μ).

MODELLING AND ANALYSIS

In the proposed 3D continuous microscopic model masonry wallet is partitioned into Stretcher

bound masonry pattern cells which include mortar layers and brick units. Solid homogeneous

sections of brick units and mortar layers are assigned elastic properties [30], [31] alongside

Concrete Damage Plasticity properties a[8] and [32]. Two static general steps are defined to

minimize loading complexity and eliminate convergence issues under biaxial loading. In both

steps non-linear geometric effects of large deformations and displacements are considered. As

the softening behavior of mortar layers induce numerical instability in model so viscosity

regularization is needed to stabilize model without any numerical convergence issues the

viscosity coefficient for damage stabilization used in model is 0.001. Newton Raphson

algorithm solution technique is used which iteratively solves the equilibrium in each increment

also the conversion of severe discontinuity iterations is activated. Surface-based interaction is

used for interaction between wallet to Top and bottom clamped steel beams with Normal and

tangential contact behavior. For boundary conditions the constraints are applied in two steps

first for the initial vertical compressive stresses second for the horizontal displacement applied

to wallet via top steel beam. The main reason behind applying loading in two steps is to avoid

solution convergence issues which occur during biaxial loading conditions. The continuum

brick units, mortar layers and steel beams are modelled using C3D8R a standard 3-Dimensional

8 node linear brick element with reduced integration and hourglass control. The Finite Element

Modelling is conducted using a python script just to reduce time and effort required for

parametric study and meshing of model.

 P a g e | 23

Numerical Validations

For the capability of adopted

model, the numerical results are

validated with experimental results

available in literature. The

continuous microscopic model

adopted in this paper is validated

with the masonry shear walls tested

by [33] under in-plane loading. The

shear walls have dimensions 985

mm wide x 1106 mm high x 100 mm

thick. The wallet is composed of 18

courses brick units among 18 Figure 8: Masonry shear wall test setup.

courses 16 courses are active and 2 courses are clamped in steel beam, one at top and bottom

each. The wallet is made of wire cut solid clay bricks with dimensions 210 mm wide x 52 mm

high x 100 mm thick. A 10 mm thick mortar layer lies between head and bed joints of brick

units, the mortar joint is made up of cement: lime: sand with a volumetric ratio of 1:2:9. The

wallet is clamped by bottom steel beam which is fixed at base and at top the wallet is applied

a uniformly distributed vertical pre compression pressure via top steel beam. The top steel

beam is restrained in vertical direction after application of vertical pre-compression pressure

(stress). After the confinement, the wallet is monotonically loaded horizontally with

displacement control load via top steel beam as shown in Figure 8. The experimental tests

conducted on masonry wallets are J4D and J5D with a pre compressive pressure p = 0.30 MPa.

The mechanical properties of wallet used in finite element analysis were obtained by data

reported in [33] ,[30], [31], [21], [32] and[8]. The data used in numerical validation are given

below in table 1, 2 and 3.

 P a g e | 24

Table 1
Mechanical properties of Mortar and Bricks
Parameter Mortar Brick Reference
Elastic Modulus Eb (MPa) - 16700 [2]
Poison’s ratio v (-) 0.15 0.15
Elastic Modulus Em (MPa) 1250 - [30]
Dilation angle ψ (Degree) 11.3 11.3
Eccentricity 𝜖 (-) 0.1 0.1
fbo /fco (-) 1.16 1.16 [1]
Kc (-) 2/3 2/3
Viscosity parameter η (-) 0.001 0.001

Table 2
Compressive yield stress vs in-elastic strain [8] and [32].
Mortar Brick
Yield stress In-elastic strain Yield stress In-elastic strain
(MPa) (-) (MPa) (-)
5.5 0 10.5 0
5.16 0.00125 9.49 0.000758
4.73 0.00229 8.38 0.00126
3.61 0.00529 4.86 0.00326
2.26 0.0123 2.17 0.00726
1.48 0.0223 1.62 0.00926
0.99 0.0373 0.85 0.0153

Table 3
Tensile yield stress vs in-elastic strain [21].
Mortar Brick
Yield stress In-elastic strain Yield stress In-elastic strain
(MPa) (-) (MPa) (-)
1.5 0 3.5 0
0.10 0.002 0.30 0.002
 P a g e | 25

The results obtained by CMM show that the CDP constitutive model used for mortar joints and

bricks units show good agreement with the experimental results J4D and J5D. The comparison

of experimental sample J4D, J5D and numerical sample CMM Wallet is given in Figure 9.

The results of CMM Wallet shows that the numerical model is able to capture the initial

stiffness part of curve following a small over estimation of hardening part and early reaching

Figure 9: Force Deformation curve experimental J4D, J5D and CMM present model.

of maximum capacity that is probably due to the choice of geometrical model, which is lacking

interfaces, further followed by post peak softening part which is closely capturing the

experimental curve J4D and J5D.

Overall the prediction of

numerical model is very close to

experimental results reported in

[33]. Failure stresses of numerical

sample are shown in Figure 10 in

terms of mises stresses. For

response of initial 3-D room four

wallets are placed as a box shaped

room and response of room is

Figure 10: CMM Wallet mises stress contour.
shown in figure 12.
 P a g e | 26

SIMULATION OF MASONRY ROOM

In this section a 3D room is simulated to

check the capability of continuous

microscopic model. The experimental

masonry room presented in [35] is used for

investigation of CMM. Although the

experimental study is conducted to examine

the seismic response of masonry room. The

room having dimensions 1092 mm length x Figure 11: Masonry room test setup.

1092 mm width x 1090 mm height. The room consist of 13 courses of brick units made up of

compressed stabilized earth blocks and the cement mortar with a ratio of 1:6 having 15 mm

thickness. The masonry model was tested for dynamic loading by shake table test with a

frequency of 0 to 3 Hz and a maximum acceleration equal to 0.5920 g as shown in Figure 11.

Here the 3D room is simulated for static pushover load. The response of room is provided in

Figure 12.

Figure 12: Masonry structures response wallet, room

 P a g e | 27

CONCLUSION

This paper has employed concrete damage plasticity constitutive model on continuous

microscopic model to simulate the response of 3D masonry structure under in plane shear. The

aim of this paper is to evaluate the reliability and effectiveness of novel continuous microscopic

modelling technique utilizing the constitutive model concrete damage plasticity.

RECOMMENDATIONS
• Analysis of historical structures through Continuous micro model.

• Retrofitting techniques used with Continuous micro model.

 P a g e | 28

REFERENCES

1) Abdulla, K. F., Cunningham, L. S., & Gillie, M. J. E. S. (2017). Simulating masonry

wall behaviour using a simplified micro-model approach. 151, 349-365.
2) Andreotti, G., Graziotti, F., & Magenes, G. J. E. S. (2018). Detailed micro-modelling
of the direct shear tests of brick masonry specimens: the role of dilatancy. 168, 929-
949.
3) Barros, J. A., Almeida, J., & Lourenço, P. B. (2002). Characterization of brick and
brick–mortar interface under uniaxial tension. Paper presented at the VII International
Seminar on Structural Masonry for Developing Countries.
4) Bažant, Z. P., & Oh, B. H. J. M. e. c. (1983). Crack band theory for fracture of concrete.
16(3), 155-177.
5) Bazant, Z. P., & Planas, J. Fracture and Size Effect in Concrete and Other Quasi-Brittle
Materials, 1998: CRC press.
6) Bažant, Z. P. J. P. o. t. R. S. A. (2019). Design of quasibrittle materials and structures
to optimize strength and scaling at probability tail: an apercu. 475(2224), 20180617.
7) Belytschko, T., & Black, T. J. I. j. f. n. m. i. e. (1999). Elastic crack growth in finite
elements with minimal remeshing. 45(5), 601-620.
8) Bolhassani, M., Hamid, A. A., Lau, A. C., Moon, F. J. C., & Materials, B. (2015).
Simplified micro modeling of partially grouted masonry assemblages. 83, 159-173.
9) D’Altri, A. M., de Miranda, S., Castellazzi, G., & Sarhosis, V. A 3D Detailed Micro-
Modelling Approach for the In-Plane and Out-Of-Plane Analysis of Masonry
Structures.
10) Dolatshahi, K. M., & Aref, A. J. (2011). Three dimensional modeling of masonry
structures and interaction of in-plane and out-of-plane deformation of masonry walls.
Paper presented at the Engineering mechanics institute conference.
11) Drucker, D. C., & Prager, W. J. Q. o. a. m. (1952). Soil mechanics and plastic analysis
or limit design. 10(2), 157-165.
12) Goodman, R. E., Taylor, R. L., Brekke, T. L. J. J. o. S. M., & Div, F. (1968). A model
for the mechanics of jointed rock.
13) Jukes, P., and J. R. Riddington. . (1998). "Review of masonry tensile bond strength test
methods.". Masonry International, 12 no. 2(1998), 51-57.
14) Kumar, N., Amirtham, R., & Pandey, M. J. E. s. (2014). Plasticity based approach for
failure modelling of unreinforced masonry. 80, 40-52.
 P a g e | 29

15) Kumar, N., & Barbato, M. J. J. o. E. M. (2019). New Constitutive Model for Interface
Elements in Finite-Element Modeling of Masonry. 145(5), 04019022.
16) Lee, J., & Fenves, G. L. (1998). A plastic‐damage concrete model for earthquake
analysis of dams. Earthquake engineering & structural dynamics, 27(9), 937-956.
17) Lotfi, H. R., & Shing, P. B. J. J. o. s. e. (1994). Interface model applied to fracture of
masonry structures. 120(1), 63-80.
18) Lourenço, P. B., & Rots, J. G. J. J. o. e. m. (1997). Multisurface interface model for
analysis of masonry structures. 123(7), 660-668.
19) Lourenço, P. J. R. N.-.-.-. (1994). Analysis of masonry structures with interface
elements. 1.
20) Lubliner, J., Oliver, J., Oller, S., & Oñate, E. (1989). A plastic-damage model for
concrete. International Journal of solids and structures, 25(3), 299-326.
21) Mazars, J. (1986). A description of micro-and macroscale damage of concrete
structures. Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 25(5-6), 729-737.
22) Mazars, J., & Pijaudier-Cabot, G. (1989). Continuum damage theory—application to
concrete. Journal of engineering mechanics, 115(2), 345-365.
23) Moës, N., Dolbow, J., & Belytschko, T. J. I. j. f. n. m. i. e. (1999). A finite element
method for crack growth without remeshing. 46(1), 131-150.
24) Ohtani, Y., & Chen, W.-f. (1988). Multiple hardening plasticity for concrete materials.
Journal of engineering mechanics, 114(11), 1890-1910.
25) Oliveira, D. V., Lourenço, P. B. J. C., & structures. (2004). Implementation and
validation of a constitutive model for the cyclic behaviour of interface elements. 82(17-
19), 1451-1461.
26) Page, A. W. J. J. o. t. S. D. (1978). Finite element model for masonry. 104(8), 1267-
1285.
27) Petracca, M., Pelà, L., Rossi, R., Zaghi, S., Camata, G., & Spacone, E. (2017). Micro-
scale continuous and discrete numerical models for nonlinear analysis of masonry shear
walls. Construction and Building Materials, 149, 296-314.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.05.130
28) Saloustros, S., Pelà, L., Cervera, M., & Roca, P. J. S. A. o. H. C.-A., Diagnosis,
Therapy, Controls. (2016). A macro-modelling finite element technique for the realistic
simulation of cracking in masonry structures. 2010, 284-290.
29) Shah, S. P., & Jeng, Y. (1985). FRACTURE RESISTANCE OF STEEL FIBER
REINFORCED CONCRETE Unknown Host Publication Title (pp. 273-297): Swedish
Cement & Concrete Research Inst.
 P a g e | 30

30) Sukumar, N., Moës, N., Moran, B., & Belytschko, T. J. I. j. f. n. m. i. e. (2000).
Extended finite element method for three‐dimensional crack modelling. 48(11), 1549-
1570.
31) Van der Pluijm, R. (1992). Material properties of masonry and its components under
tension and shear.
32) Van Mier, J., Shah, S. P., Arnaud, M., Balayssac, J., Bascoul, A., Choi, S., . . .
Structures. (1997). Strain-softening of concrete in uniaxial compression. 30(4), 195-
209.
33) Van Mier, J. G. M. (1984). Strain-softening of concrete under multiaxial loading
conditions: Citeseer.
34) Vonk, R. A. (1992). Softening of concrete loaded in compression.
35) Zhai, C., Wang, X., Kong, J., Li, S., & Xie, L. J. J. o. S. E. (2017). Numerical simulation
of masonry-infilled RC frames using XFEM. 143(10), 04017144.