Mahammed: Finite Element Analysis of Unreinforced Masonry Walls

Finite Element Analysis of Unreinforced Masonry Walls

Mohammed S. Mohammed
Assistant Lecture
Civil Engg. Dep./College of Engg. /Mosul University

Abstract

In the present work nonlinear finite element program written in fortran

language to simulate the behavior of masonry wall under the action of monotonic
loading has been developed. The masonry is modeled as a two-phase material, treating
bricks and mortar joints separately, thus allowing for nonlinear deformation
characteristic and progressive local failure of both bricks and mortar joints. The
influence of the mortar joint is taken into account by using an interface cap model as a
part of a rational unit-joint model able to describe cracking, slipping and crushing of
the material. The capabilities of the program have been examined and demonstrated by
analyzing two different types of masonry wall. The accuracy of the analytical results
was assessed by comparing them with the experimental results and shown to be good.
Key words: Interface element, Masonry Wall, Nonlinear behavior.

.
(Interface Cap Model) .
.
.

Received 7/6/2009 55 Accepted 14/2/2010

Al-Rafidain Engineering Vol.18 No.4 August 2010

1-Introduction
In recent years, there has been an interest study in the mechanics of unreinforced
masonry structures, with the aim to provide efficient tools for better understanding of their
complex behavior. Mortar joints usually present a lower strength than masonry units, so
explaining the existence of plane of weakness along which cracks propagate to failure.
Therefore, two main approaches have been developed for the constitutive description of
masonry, usually known in the technical literature as macro-modeling and micro-modeling
[1].
In macro-modeling masonry, no distinction between the individual units and joints is made,
and masonry is considered as a homogeneous, isotropic, or anisotropic continum. As macro-
modeling of masonry is advantageous when the global behavior of the structure is important.
The influence of the mortar joints acting as planes of weakness cannot be addressed.
The alternative micro-modeling approach, expanded units are modeled with continuum
elements, while the behavior of the mortar joints and unit-mortar interface is lumped as
discontinuous line interface elements [2]. In this research micro-modeling has been adopted
in preference to the macro-model.
The behavior of masonry wall under in plane loading has been the subject of many
investigations. Dhansekar etal [3] proposed nonlinear finite element model for solid masonry
based on average properties derived from biaxial tests on brick masonry panels.
Page[4] presented a method that accounts the nonlinear behavior of masonry , where the
masonry is considered as a two-phase material. Ali and Page [5] also used the method to
study the nonlinear behavior of masonry subjected to concentrated loads. However all these
models include only tensile (brittle) and shear failure (brittle or elastic/ideal plastic) of the
joint. A number of plasticity-based continuous interface models have been developed to
model the tension and shear behavior of masonry mortar joints [6].
Lourenco [7] recently used both micro-modeling and macro-modeling to represente masonry
wall. In this model the gradual softening behavior in the model for interface element was
used and the elastic model was used to represent behavior of the brick of wall.
In this search, nonlinear bidimensional finite element models are used to simulate fracture in
masonry structures. Masonry consists of bricks, which is modeled with eight quadratic plane
stress elements. Interface elements are used to simulate the joints. The plasticity model
proposed by Lourenco [7 ] is used to formulate a modern algorithmic plasticity concepts.
These include implicit Euler backward return mapping schemes and consistent tangent
operators .Including a correct handling of the corners. The model is formulated in the context
of non-associated plasticity. The analysis is carried out with a special arc-length control that
automatically search for the largest relative displacement in the interfaces. Numerical
implementation of the model is evaluated by a comparism between numerical results with the
experimental results for the case of masonry wall with in plane loading.

2-Finite element model of the present study

In the finite element analysis conducted here, masonry is treated with micro-model, in
which the units of brick and joints are modeled individually with different type of elements.
The masonry units are modeled with smeared crack elements, which account for both tensile
and compressive fracture of the units, while the mortar joints are modeled with interface
element to account for the inherent planes of weakness to include all the basic types of failure
mechanisms that characterize masonry, see Fig. 1.

56
 Mahammed: Finite Element Analysis of Unreinforced Masonry Walls

(b) (c)

(d) (e)
(a)

Fig.(1) Masonry failure mechanisms: (a) joint displacement; (b) joint slipping; (c) unit
direct tensile cracking; (d) masonry crushing; (e) unit diagonal tensile cracking.

2.1 Masonry units

Isoperimetric plane-stress element with eight-noded and smeared crack pattern is
used to model the behavior of masonry units as shown in Fig. 2.
P y, iv i
G en eral no de ,i
P x , iu i

P ara bp lic sh ap e an d
d ispla ce m e nt va ria tio n

Fig.( 2) Typical 8-node isoperimetric element

Material nonlinearities due to cracking of concrete, plastic flow or crushing of the unit in
compression are considered. The compressive failure and tensile fracture of masonry are
governed by a von Mises failure surface with tension cutoff as shown in Fig.3, in which 1
and 2 are the principal stresses, f m and f t are compressive and tensile strength of
masonry, and f o determines the initial yield surface which is also governed by the Von
Mises criterion where assumed in this research to be 0.5 f m .Before the tension cutoff surface
is reached, the material is assumed to be elastic-plastic, of which the plastic behavior is
represented by J 2 plasticity as soon as the stress state reaches the initial yield surface. The
material exhibits a strain-hardening behavior when the stress state is between the initial yield
surface and the final failure surface. Strain softening occurs once the final yield surface is
reached. The von Mises failure criterion can be expressed as follows.
2
J2 e ( p) 0
(1)
In which J 2 is the second invariant of the deviatoric stress, and e and p represent the
effective stress and effective plastic strain respectively. A crack is initiated when the

57
Al-Rafidain Engineering Vol.18 No.4 August 2010

maximum principle stress reaches the tensile strength, in direction normal to the maximum
principle stress at each Gauss point. The cracked element is assumed to be nonlinear
orthotropic material. The crushing type of unit is a strain-controlled phenomenon .A simple
way is used by converting the yield criterion in stresses into the yield criterion directly in
terms of the strain. The details of the plasticity model and smeared crack model can be found
in Ref. [10].

2
ft

fm fo ft
1

fo

fm

Fig.( 3) Yield and failure surface

2.2 Mortar joints

Interface element with six node as shown in Fig.4 permit discontinuities in the
displacement field and their behavior is described in terms of a relation between the traction,
and relative displacement , u , across the interface.
Y,v

X,u

Fig.( 4) Interface element

The linear elastic relation between these generalized stress and strains can be written in the
standard form as:
De (2)
T e T
Where , ,D dig K n , K s and u n , u s ,with n and s denote the normal and
shear components, respectively. The elastic stiffness matrix D e can be obtained from the
properties of the two masonry components (unit and mortar) and the mortar thickness of the
joint .Due to the zero thickness inherent to the interface element formulation, the size of the
unit has to be expanded by the mortar thickness, hm , in both direction (vertical and
horizontal) as shown in Fig. 5. Due to relative dimensions of mortar and unit, it is assumed
that the elastic properties of the unit remain unchanged.

58
 Mahammed: Finite Element Analysis of Unreinforced Masonry Walls

Fig.(5) Suggested modeling strategy. Units (u), which are expanded in both directions
by the mortar thickness, are modeled with continuum elements. Mortar joints (m) and
potential cracks in the units are modeled with zero-thickness interface elements.

The normal and shear stiffness required to define the material property matrix of the element,
can be represented by the following expressions [7].
Eu .E m Gu .Gm
Kn , Ks (3)
hm ( Eu E m ) hm (Gu Gm )
Where Eu and Em are the youngs modules, Gu and G m are the shear moduli , respectively
, for unit and mortar and hm is the actual thickness of the joint.
The stiffness values obtained from formula do not correspond to a penalty approach, which
means that overlap of neighboring units subjected to compression will become visible. This
feature is, however, intrinsic to the interface elements formulation and is independent of the
values of normal stiffness, even if it is clear that the amount of penetration will be higher with
decreasing interface stiffness. The interface model includes a compressive cap where the
complete inelastic behavior of masonry in compression is lumped. This is a
phenomenological representation of masonry crushing because the failure process in
compression is, in reality, explained by the microstructure of units and mortar and the
interaction between them. For dry joint of masonry wall, when the mortar not used between
units, the stiffness must be represented by the following expressions.
1 K n , jo int
K n , jo int , K s , jo int (4)
1 1 2(1 )
h
E wall Ebrick
Where h is the height of the block, E wall is the youngs modulus of the wall and Ebrick is the
youngs modulus of the brick and is the Poissons ratio.
The elastic domain is bounded by a composite yield surface that includes tension, shear and
compression failure see Fig.6. This model was developed by Lourenco [ 7 ]. This model has
been developed within the flow theory of plasticity. The composite yield surface is defined
by three yield functions, where softening behavior has been included for all modes(tension,
shear and compression modes) .

59
Al-Rafidain Engineering Vol.18 No.4 August 2010

Fig.(6) Adopted model for interfaces. an interface cap model. [8]

The stress rate vector can be expressed as:

De e De ( p
)
(5)
And the following yield functions have been adopted:
Tension criterion: f t ( , K t ) t (Kt )
(6)
Coulomb friction criterion: f s ( , K s ) tan s (K s )

(7)
Compression cap criterion: f c ( , K c ) ( T P )1 / 2 c (K c )
(8)
Where represents the friction angle and P is the projection diagonal matrix
diag 2C nn ,2C ss with C ss and C nn a set of material parameters. t , s and c are the
isotropic effective stress of each of the adopted yield functions, ruled by scalar internal
variables K t , K s and K C . The evaluation lows of these internal variables are giving by:
T P
Kt un t , Ks ut s , Kc c
c
(9)
And the plastic strain rate vector reads:
P g

(10)
Where is the plastic multiplier rate , g is the plastic potential function. Associated flow rule
is assumed for tensile and cap modes and anon-associated plastic potential g s is adopted for
the shear mode with a dilatancy angle and cohesion C , given by
gt ft , gs tan C , gc fc
(11)
In the particular case of dry masonry joints, the tensile strength and cohesion of the joints are
assumed to be equal to zero

60
 Mahammed: Finite Element Analysis of Unreinforced Masonry Walls

2.2.1 Integration of the elasto plastic equation:

The return mapping algorithm [9] in strain is driven and basically consists of two
steps, first the calculation of the elastic trial stress , also called the elastic predictor, and
scond the return mapping to the yield surface, the plastic corrector.
The stress update for each individual yield surface is obtained as [10]:
n 1 n n 1 n D ne 1 n D( n 1 P
n 1
(12)
This equation can be recast as:
Trial g
n 1 n 1 n 1D
n 1
(13)
Further more, since and K n 1 can be expressed as function of n 1 , the yield function is
n 1

transformed into nonlinear equation of one variable f ( n 1 ) 0 , which is solved locally

using the Newton-Raphson method. Considering that only one surface is active.
The consistent tangent stiffness matrix for each individual surface is obtained according to:
g T
H. . .H
ep d
D H
d T g
h .H .
(14)
Where
2
1 g f f K f K
H D n 1 2
, h
K n 1 K n 1

(15)

In the described composite yield criterion, the intersection of the different yield surfaces
defines two possible corners, see Fig. 7, composed by the tensile and shear modes or by the
shear and cap modes, due to the intersection between cap and tensile modes is numerically
prevented from occurring.

Fig.(7) Composite yield surface [7]

In this model, tensile and shear softening are coupled because, physically, both phenomena
are related with the degradation of bond between the unit and the mortar and due to physical
reasoning, shear and cap modes are assumed to be uncoupled, since phenomena that rule the

61
Al-Rafidain Engineering Vol.18 No.4 August 2010

hardening/softening of each mode seem to be only lightly related. Thus equations (9) 2, 3
remain unchanged.
The plastic strain rate in the corner is given by a linear combination of plastic strain rates of
yield surfaces 1 and 2
p p g1 g2
p 1 2 1 2 (16)
At this corner, quadratic combination for the hardening parameters rate is
adopted, which read,
2 2
G If C G If C
K 1c ( 1 )2 2 , K 2c ( 2 )2 1 (17)
G IIf f t G IIf f t
Where G If is fracture energy (from tension test) for mode I and G IIf is fracture energy (from
shear test) for mode II.
The stress update is then given by
Trial g1 g2 (18)
n 1 n 1( 1, n 1 , 2,n 1 ) n 1 1, n 1 D 2 ,n 1 D
n 1 n 1

For the corner regime, the Euler backward algorithm [10] can be simply expressed in a
system of two nonlinear equations on the variables 1, n 1 and 2, n 1
f1,n 1 ( 1, n 1 , 2,n 1 ) 0.0 (19)
f 2, n 1 ( 1, n 1 , 2, n 1 ) 0.0
These equation are Solved by a Newton-raphason procedure. The Jacobian matrix is given in
Lourenco [8].For multi-surface plasticity an expression equivalent to Equation (14) can also
be obtained. The reader is referred to Lourenco [8], where such expression can be found.

2.2.2 A nonlinear Solution Technique

The global nonlinear equations of equilibrium are solved using an incremental-
iterative technique performed under displacement control by using arc-length method.
iterative techniques use the standard and modified Newton-Raphson method. An automatic
load incrimination scheme is included. As shown in the previous section the theory of multi
surface plasticity is used to define the material behavior of interface element. Unconditionally
Elure backward algorithms are derived for all models of the cap model. The Eluer backward
return mapping is solved using a local Newton-Raphson method for nonlinear equations of
interface element only. A rail and error procedure to solve the return mapping is used. For
each step, the following algorithm is performed [11]:
1- Compute elastic trail stresses ( o ) . Check for plastic behavior;
If f ( n 1 , K n 1 ) 0 , the integration point is elastic, update stresses and strain, Exit;
If f ( n 1 , K n 1 ) 0 , the integration point is plastic see Fig.8;

2- If the integration point is plastic;

Iterations J=0 n
f ( j)
(( f / ) j D ( g / ) j
p
D( g / )j

62
 Mahammed: Finite Element Analysis of Unreinforced Masonry Walls

j 1 j p

Until f ( n 1 , K n 1 ) Tolerance
if a converged state is found compute consistent tangent operator.

Individual surface
i 1( i n .c) Incorrect return mapping
zone
n 1
tr ia l
i 3( c o .r) correct return mapping
n 1

t r ia l

i 1( i n c. )
Yield surface n 1

n Corner
i 2 ( i n .c) i 3( c o .r) zone
n 1 n 1
i 2 ( c o .r)
n n 1
i 1( i n c. )
n 1

Fig.(8) Return mapping algorithm (different case).

Numerical Examples
Confined masonry wall
A two masonry shear walls with same property and dimension (J4D, J5D) was
carried out by Raijmakers and Vermeltfoort [8]. The width /height ratio (L/H) of shear walls
is 990/1000 (mm/mm); the walls were built up with 18 courses of bricks, from which 16
courses were active and 2 were clamped a stiff steel beam, Fig.9. The brick dimensions are
210*52*100 mm 3 and the mortar joints are 10 mm thick. The vertical load ( P 0.3 N 2 )
mm
was applied on the top and their resultant was kept constant during the complete horizontal
loading procedure. The stiff steel beam did not allow rotations of the top and was
subsequently pushed within increasing horizontal force. The micro-properties for the
different materials according to Lourenco [8] are given in table.1 and table.2.

Table.1 Elastic properties for the bricks and joints.

Brick Joint
E Kn Ks
16700 82 36
N 0.15 N N
mm 2 mm 3 mm3

Table .2 Inelastic properties for the joints.

Tension Shear Cap
ft I
Gf C tan tan G IIf fm Css
0.25 0.018 1.4 ft 0.75 0.0 0.125 10.5 9.0
N 2
Nmm N Nmm N
2 2 2
mm mm mm 2 mm mm

63
Al-Rafidain Engineering Vol.18 No.4 August 2010

Fig.( 9) Loads Walls: (a) phase 1 - vertical loading;

(b) phase 2 - horizontal loading under displacement control[8].

The crack patterns for the walls tested are shown in Fig. 10 while the finite element mesh
system is shown in Fig. 11.

Fig.(10) Walls Experimental crack Fig.(11) Finite Element Meshes of

Wall - -patterns for different tests[8].

Fig.12 present the horizontal load-displacement curves for the top steel beam for the wall
studied. In this figure, the experimentally obtained results are compared with the numerical
analysis. This gives a good impression about the numerical implementation because it is
possible to trace the response of the structure through initial cracking, failure loads behavior.
The comparison with the experimental failure loads is shown , good agreement is found since
the difference between predicted and observed result is less than 3%.

Fig.13 shows the deformed shapes of the finite element models at 0.75 mm and 3.0 mm,
respectively. This figure shows opening and slip along the mortar joints. the crack starts in
the middle of the wall under increasing deformation, and progresses in the direction of the
supports and ,finally a collapse mechanism is formed with crushing of the compressed toes
and under the steel beam at the top.

64
 Mahammed: Finite Element Analysis of Unreinforced Masonry Walls

1 5 0 .0
E xp e r i m e n ta l
N u m e ric a l
1 0 0 .0

5 0 .0

0 .0
0 .0 1 .0 2 .0 3 .0 4 .0
H o r iz o n t a l d is p la c e m e n t [m m ]
Fig.(12) Load-displacement diagram.

(a) (b)

Fig.( 13) Deformed mesh for JD wall at horizontal displacement equal to: (a) 0.75
mm; (b) 3.0 mm.`

Unconfined masonry wall

The analyzed wall has a thickness of 200mm, with square panel 1000*1000 mm 2 and
made of stone blocks laid without mortar between them for two masonry wall with same
property and dimension tested by Oliveira [12] as shown in Fig.14.in addition to the dead
weight, the walls were first loaded by a vertical load of 30 kN applied at the top, after which
a horizontal load was progressively applied at the top beam. The experimental crack patterns
for the tested walls are shown in Fig.15. In the particular case of dry stone masonry joints, the
tensile strength and cohesion are assumed to be equal to zero. The material property are
given in table.3 and table.4.

65
Al-Rafidain Engineering Vol.18 No.4 August 2010

Table.3 Elastic properties for the bricks and joints.[12]

Brick Joint

E Kn Ks
5.87 2.45
15500
N 0.15 N N
mm 2 mm3 mm3

Table .4 Inelastic properties for the joints.

Shear Cap
II
tan tan Gf fm Css
0.62 0.0 0.125 6.0 2.0
Nmm N
mm 2 mm 2

Fig.(14) Adopted geometry for the dry stone masonry

walls and schematic loading arrangement[12].

Fig.(15) Experimental crack patterns for different tests [12].

66
 Mahammed: Finite Element Analysis of Unreinforced Masonry Walls

2 5 .0

2 0 .0

1 5 .0

1 0 .0 E x p e r im e n t a l s w 3 0 .1
E x p e r im e n t a l s w 3 0 .2
N u m e r ic a l
5 .0

0 .0
0 .0 5 .0 1 0 .0 1 5 .0
H o r iz o n t a l d is p la c e m e n t [ m m ]

Fig.(16) Comparison of curves relating the horizontal force (H) with the
horizontal displacement for walls SW30.1 and SW30.2.

Fig. 16. Illustrates the load-displacement diagram from the tested wall and the numerical
results, up to a displacement of 15 mm. the agreement between experimental and numerical
responses can be considered satisfactory.

Globally, the analysis captures well the experimental behavior of the walls, as illustrated in
Fig.17 together with the global load-displacement response, a comparison in terms of the
deformed mesh and failure pattern is necessary to appraise the quality of the numerical
analysis. At initial horizontal load, see Fig.17 it is possible to observe that separation of the
block through diagonal cracks gradually progresses from the bottom courses to the top,
finally overturning failure mechanism is found with a complete diagonal crack through head
and bed joints
.

(a) (b)

Fig.(17) Deformed mesh for SW wall at horizontal displacement equal to : (a) 0.75 mm
; (b) 3.0 mm.

67
Al-Rafidain Engineering Vol.18 No.4 August 2010

Conclusions:
This study presents an efficient finite element analysis technique which shows a
great versatility in analysis complex discontinuities in the analysis of masonry walls
structures by use of interface elements with a constitutive model entirely established on the
basis of the incremental theory of plasticity to simulate the actual behavior at the interface
between contacting materials.
A comparison between numerical and experimental result was also given. It was shown that
the finite element method model was able to predict effectively the behavior of masonry
structures, with both confined and unconfined masonry wall, as well as sufficiently accurate
collapse load values.

Reference

1-Milani, G., Loureno, P.B., Tralli, A., Homogenised Limit Analysis of Masonry Wall,
Part I: failure Surface ,Computers & Structures, 84(3-4),2006, pp. 166-180.
2-Asteris, P.G., Syrmakezis, C.A. ,Strength of Unreinforced Masonry Walls Under
Concentrated Compression Loads , Practice Periodical on Structural Design and
Construction, ASCE, Vol. 10, No. 2, 2005, pp. 133-140.
3-Tzamtzis, A.D, Asteris P.G., Finite Element Analysis of Masonry Structures: Part I-
Review of Previous Work, Proceedings, Ninth North American Masonry Conference,
South Carolina ,June 2003.
4-Page, A.W., Finite Element Model For Masonry Structure, J. Struct. Division ASCE,
Vol.104, No.8, 1978, pp.1267-1285.
5-Ali, S. and Page, A., W., Finite Element Model for Masonry Subjected to
Concentrated Loads, J., Struct. Division ASCE, Vol.114, No.8, 1988, pp.1761-1784.
6-Al-Chaar,G.K and Mehrabi , A.B., Constitutive Models for Nonlinear Finite Element
Analysis of Masonry Prisms and Infill Walls,ERDC/CERL TR-08-
19.Champaign,IL:Engineer Research and Development Center-Construction Engineering
Research Laboratory,2008.
7-Lourenco, P.B., Analysis of Masonry Structures with Interface Elements Theory and
Application. Report N 03.21.22.0.01, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The
Netherlands, 1994.
8-Lourenco, P.B., Rots, J.G., A Multisurface Interface Model for Analysis of Masonry
Structures J. Eng. Mech., ASCE ,Vol. 123,No.7, 1997, pp. 660-668.
9-Chen, W. F., Lan , Y. M. and Sotelino, E. D. ,The Strain-Space Consistent Tangent
Operator and Return Mapping Algorithm for Constitutive Modeling of Confined
Concrete International Journal of Applied Science and Engineering, Vol.1, No.1, 2003,
pp.17-29.
10-Zienkiewicz,O.C. and Taylor ,R.L.,The Finite Element Method for Solid and
Structural Mechanics, Sixth edition,2005.
11-Alfaiate.J. V., de Almeida, J. R. and Gago, A. S., On the Numerical Analysis of
Localized Damage in Masonry Structures In 2nd International Conference on
Structural Engineering and Construction (ISEC-02), Franco Bomtempi (Ed.), 769-774.,
Roma, 2003.
12-Oliveira, D.V., Mechanical Characterization of Stone and Brick Masonry, Report
00-DEC/E-4, Universidade do Minho.Gumaraes,Portugal, .2000.

The work was carried out at the University of Mosul

68