Angelillo Mechanics of Masonry Structures PDF
Angelillo Mechanics of Masonry Structures PDF
Angelillo Mechanics of Masonry Structures PDF
Maurizio Angelillo
Editor
Mechanics of
Masonry Structures
International Centre
for Mechanical Sciences
CISM Courses and Lectures
Series Editors:
The Rectors
Friedrich Pfeiffer - Munich
Franz G. Rammerstorfer - Wien
Elisabeth Guazzelli - Marseille
Executive Editor
Paolo Serafini - Udine
Mechanics of Masonry
Structures
Editor
Maurizio Angelillo
Università di Salerno, Fisciano, Italy
ISSN 0254-1971
ISBN 978-3-7091-1773-6 ISBN 978-3-7091-1774-3 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/ 978-3-7091-1774-3
Springer Wien Heidelberg New York Dordrecht London
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole
or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of
illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical
way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer
software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. Ex-
empted from this legal reservation are brief excerpts in connection with reviews or scholarly
analysis or material supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered and executed on
a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work. Duplication of this pub-
lication or parts thereof is permitted only under the provisions of the Copyright Law of the
Publisher’s location, in its current version, and permission for use must always be obtained
from Springer. Permissions for use may be obtained through RightsLink at the Copyright
Clearance Center. Violations are liable to prosecution under the respective Copyright Law.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are
exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
While the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at
the date of publication, neither the authors nor the editors nor the publisher can ac-
cept any legal responsibility for any errors or omissions that may be made. The publish-
er makes no warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein.
Premise 1
Bibliography 24
I Simplified Models 27
2. Mathematics of the Masonry-Like model and Limit
Analysis
by M. Šilhavý . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Introduction 29
Constitutive equations 31
Loads 40
Limit analysis 53
Bibliography 67
Introduction 71
Explicit expression for the stress function for isotropic ma-
sonry-like materials and its derivative . . . . . . . . . . 73
The equilibrium problem and a numerical method for its
solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Comparison between the explicit and numerical solutions 82
Example applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
A numerical method for dynamic analysis of slender ma-
sonry structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Bibliography 104
Bibliography 207
Introduction 213
Conclusion 237
Bibliography 237
6. Micro, Multiscale and Macro Models for Masonry
Structures
by E. Sacco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241
Introduction 241
Conclusions 284
Bibliography 286
Conclusions 335
Bibliography 336
Masonry behaviour and modelling
‡
Department of Civil Eng., University of Salerno, Italy
*
Institute for Sustainability and Innovation in Structural Engineering (ISISE),
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Minho, Portugal
†
Department of Architecture, Built environment and Construction engineering
(A.B.C.), Politecnico di Milano, Italy
1 Premise
The first basic question that any course on Masonry Structures should ad-
dress is: what we consider as masonry material?
Masonry structures can be built with a large variety of materials, ma-
sonry blocks can be of different types and assembled in many different ways;
mortar, if present, can also be of various kinds, and the way it interacts with
the blocks depends on workmanship. There is old masonry, new masonry
and a peculiar place is taken by brickworks.
There are essentially two ways of approaching the modelling of masonry:
the first one is rather ambitious and aims at the modelling of large classes
of masonry buildings (e.g. old masonry structures). The second one is
more pragmatic and restricts to the mechanical description of very specific
types of masonry (masonry structures of regularly arranged blocks, e.g.
brickworks of known geometry). Here Silhavi, Lucchesi and myself adopt
the first approach and Sacco, Lebon, and Lourenco & Milani propose the
second one (also if Sacco has had experiences and papers where the first
approach was considered).
It is evident that with the second approach the models adopted can
be very sophisticated and more close to reality, whilst the first approach
asks for very crude material assumptions and produces predictions on real
constructions that are affected by large approximations. The point is that,
often, the real geometry and material behaviour of the building is not known
in the detail required by the second approach, the definition of even the
most primitive material parameters, such as strength and stiffness, being
generally difficult and affected by an elevated randomness and uncertainty.
The most basic assumption that can be made, in view of the small and
often erratic value of the tensile strength of masonry materials, is that the
material behaves unilaterally, that is only compressive stresses can be trans-
mitted (No-Tension assumption). It is generally recognized (since the pio-
neering work of Heyman (1966)) that such an assumption is the first clue
for the interpretation of masonry behaviour; on adopting and applying it,
we acquire the eyes to appreciate and interpret the fracture patterns, that is
the masonry most peculiar manifestation, representing, in a sense, its breath
(that is the way in which the masonry buildings relieve and can survive also
to radical and, sometimes, dramatic changes of the environment).
We call the models based on the No-Tension assumption simple models
and the models accounting for more sophisticate stress-strain laws (i.e. ex-
hibiting damage, softening, brittleness) or based on the micro/meso-scopic
structure of the material, refined models. The book is divided into two in-
terconnected but separate parts: Part I, where the simplified models are
studied, Part II where the refined models are described.
In the present Chapter we discuss the basic experimental facts on ma-
sonry materials justifying the introduction of the simple and refined models
for masonry.
1. The first one is the one associated to the brittleness of the material
and that manifests itself with detachment fractures, such as those
reported in Figure 1. Such fractures consist in cracks that usually
separate neatly two parts of seemingly intact material and are usually
Masonry Behaviour and Modelling 3
3. The third failure mode is the so–called crushing of the material (Fig-
ure 3) and occurs essentially under compression. By looking closely to
this failure mode one can see again that it consists of finer detachment
fractures, close together and separated by damaged material, having
sometimes the consistence of powder.
The first type of fractures is the most frequent and usually irrelevant.
The second and third modes often occur when the load is critical or close to
become a collapse load. The third one is the most dangerous since failure
under compression is usually sudden.
which a masonry structure (or a part of it) may collapse. The most fre-
quent one, under seismic loads, is out of plane rocking as shown in Figure 4.
Such a mechanism can be due to the effect of the self load solely, or can be
favoured by the pushing of the roof, or the hammering of a heavy floor or
ceiling.
Both crushing failure and out of plane rocking are usually the result
of a poor design, or of unwise modifications of the original construction.
To avoid out of plane rocking many regulations prescribe the maximum
distance between two consecutive transverse walls. The demolition of such
transverse walls is one of the most common examples of risky modifications.
The third failure mechanism, that is in-plane shear, is the one proper
of well designed buildings, that is structures sustaining the horizontal ac-
tions through the harmonized cooperation of the shear resistant structures
(Figure 5), i.e. with local failure modes of their masonry units in their own
planes, of the type shown in Figure 2.
Masonry Behaviour and Modelling 5
Figure 6. Incipient failure of a shallow cross vault due to excessive spread of the
abutments (aisle vaults of a XVI century chapel in Nocera Inferiore (SA), Italy). Courtesy
of Enrico Sicignano.
6 M. Angelillo, P. B. Lourenço and G. Milani
The reader must be warned that also the detachment fractures, due to
settlement or accommodation of the structure to new loads or to environ-
mental changes, usually physiological and not necessarily entailing an immi-
nent danger, may be the precursors of an incipient collapse: if the amplitude
of the displacements and the size of the cracks become comparatively large
with respect to the overall size of the structure, they could allow for the
structure to become unstable. As an example, an arch or a vault may be
perfectly comfortable under the action of their own weight, in a fractured
and heavily distorted configuration, until the displacements grow to be so
large that a mechanism becomes possible and their overall stability is sud-
denly lost. An example of such extreme conditions is reported in Figure 6.
The message is that detachment fractures are usually unwary, but it is wise
checking the size of cracks and displacements and their evolution in time.
(a) (b)
Figure 7. Typical stress-displacement plot for a masonry material. (a) compression,
(b) tension. In (b) the shaded area labelled G is the toughness, that is the surface energy
per unit area that must be expended to open a crack. The plots are only qualitative;
for any kind of masonry, usually, the values of σc and σt differ of at least one order of
magnitude.
Old master masons could perfectly build without the help of tests on
the construction materials. Nowadays the situation, compared to ancient
times (when the predominance of metaphysics on physics was absolute, see
Benvenuto (1991)), is entirely different and no work on buildings can proceed
in absence of an experimental assessment on material performances.
Masonry is a composite material and accurate tests can be performed
on the component materials, on masonry assemblies and on small masonry
structures. The detailed description of some of these tests will be touched
elsewhere in this book (see Sect.3, Ch.1), here I consider the results of
typical tests on small masonry walls, in order to extract the main aspects
Masonry Behaviour and Modelling 7
(a) (b)
Figure 8. Simple compression tests on masonry walls made of tuff blocks. (a) test set
up, (b) stress strain plots corresponding to four different tests on walls having identical
geometry and material components. Courtesy of A. Prota et al. (2008).
Table 1. Densities and reference mechanical strength and stiffness of different types of
coarse masonry with poor mortar. Strength in compression and shear: σc , τs , E: Young
modulus, ρ: density. Source: Italian Code for Constructions (DM 14.1.2008).
We must observe explicitly that the first model is not, as one usually
expects for any canonical solid, the linear elastic material. There is of
course the possibility of modelling masonry structures as linearly elastic:
masonry material is definitely an elastic brittle material for very small stress
and strains, but the point is that the levels of stress and strains at which
masonry materials work in real structures, are usually higher.
Model zero (RNT). As a first approximation to the behaviour of
Figure 9a, the Rigid No-Tension material has been proposed (Figure 9b).
This crude unilateral model that describes the material as indefinitely strong
and stiff in compression but incapable of sustaining tensile stresses, was
first rationally introduced by Heyman (1966) and divulgated and extended
in Italy thanks to the effort of Salvatore Di Pasquale (1984) and other
distinguished members of the Italian school of Structural Mechanics (see
below for an extensive reference). This material is rigid in compression and
can elongate freely, a positive deformation of the bar being interpreted as
a measure of fracture into the material (either smeared or concentrated).
It must be observed that, though the material has a limited repertoire of
admissible stresses and strains and exhibits fractures, its uniaxial behaviour
in elongation is elastic.
a b c d
Figure 9. Typical uniaxial behaviour, (a), and simplified models: (b) model zero, (c)
model one, (d) model two.
This statement, that may appear “paradoxical”, derives from the primi-
tive definition of elasticity: stress determined by strain, and the stress has
actually a definite value (zero) if the bar elongates. The behaviour is in-
deed perfectly reversible in elongation, also if deformation occurs without
accumulation of elastic energy. We may also notice that there is a degen-
erate elastic energy associated to this material (Φ = 0 if is non negative,
Φ = +∞ otherwise) and that the constraint on strain makes the compres-
sive stress σ a sort of reaction to this constraint, that is negative values of σ
are non-constitutive (in the same way in which pressure is non-constitutive
10 M. Angelillo, P. B. Lourenço and G. Milani
a. b. c.
Figure 10. In (a) elastic energy for model one, in (b) elastic energy for NT hyperelastic
model with threshold. (c) elastic energy for model two.
Now the strain can be positive or negative, positive strain being the
fracture part of deformation and negative strain the elastic part. The ENT
material is globally elastic, in the sense that strain determines stress for any
value of strain: now compressive stress is constitutive. The material is even
hyperelastic since there exists a stored elastic energy density Φ such that σ
is the derivative of Φ with respect to . The elastic energy corresponding
to model one is depicted in Figure 10a. Notice that such energy, though
convex, is not strictly convex (major source of mathematical and numerical
troubles, see (Giaquinta and Giusti, 1985)).
This model requires only one material parameter: the elastic modulus
Masonry Behaviour and Modelling 11
For what concerns model one the linear elastic assumption in compres-
sion is easily generalized if one restricts to isotropy; in such a case the
definition of a further parameter: the Poisson ratio ν (a value that is diffi-
cult to be assessed through tests and is usually set between 0.1 and 0.2) is
required.
The law of normality and the usual restrictions considered on the elastic
constants, make the global response of model one in 3d elastic, and even
hyperelastic (see Del Piero (1989)), that is path independent. Also for model
two the restriction to isotropy simplify things, but now, besides the material
parameter σc , it is required to define a material function f, that is the limit
surface in compression.
The flow rule for the increments of crushing strain must be also intro-
duced; for simplicity one can choose to adopt an associated flow rule, also if
the frictional nature of sliding under compression would require the adop-
tion of a non-associated law.
Remark 1. Though the RNT model (model zero) appears as rather
rudimentary (notice that it allows only to apply the theorems of limit analy-
sis), it is the opinion of many master masons (among which Heyman (1995),
Como (2010), and Huerta (2006)) that the RNT model is the only choice
for old masonry constructions, the main motivation to this opinion being
the impossibility for the elastic models to define correctly the initial state of
the structure, due to the uncertainties about the boundary conditions and
on the previous history.
Any elastic solution, that, in principle, would allow the definition of the
stress state under the given loads, is indeed extraordinarily sensitive to very
small variations of the boundary conditions, particularly to the change of
the given boundary constraints such as those produced by the unknown
settlements of the foundation. The idea for applying the elastic assumption
(models one and two) is that the given settlements have been accommodated
by means of a small displacement mechanism, that is a kind of rigid body
relative displacement of some parts of the structure. The stress produced
during the nucleation and growth of the fracture necessary to activate the
mechanism are, in the end, almost completely released, and the final state
that we see, can be used as an essentially stress free reference state. In the
analysis of a real masonry artefact, it is up to the sensitivity of the analyzer,
based on the signs that the structure exhibits, to judge if the construction
seats or not in this comfortable state.
Remark 2. We have given reasons for adopting the simplified models,
but it is obvious that doing so we forget about many mechanical properties
of real masonry materials. Such properties can have a more or less fun-
damental role in the modelling and it is important to know them to fully
Masonry Behaviour and Modelling 13
appreciate the limits of validity of the simplified models. They are recorded
in a “subjective” order of importance in the following list.
• There are signs of damage since the early stages of loading. Effect:
non linear σ − plot and decline of stiffness.
• The behaviour in tension is brittle. Effect: energy is expended to open
a crack.
• The anelastic strains and strain rates are not purely normal, sliding
is ruled by friction.
• Ductility, if any, is rather limited.
• The elastic and anelastic response is anisotropic.
• The anelastic behaviour, initially of hardening type, turns soon into
softening.
• The cyclic response is hysteretic and the stress-strain plots depends
on the rates: viscoelastic behaviour is implied.
• The material shows signs of degradation (strength reduction) under
long term loading.
• Sometimes the displacements are very large and demand for theories
accounting for geometric nonlinearities.
Nowadays there would not be any difficulties, either analytical or numer-
ical, to include all this effects (except brittleness, softening and friction) into
a FEM simulation of the masonry structure. The point is that, as already
remarked, the knowledge of these fine properties of masonry materials is
often lacking, especially for old masonry.
3.1 Introduction
Masonry is a heterogeneous assemblage of units and joints. Units are
such as bricks, blocks, ashlars, adobes, irregular stones and others. Mortar
can be clay, bitumen, chalk, lime/cement based mortar, glue or other. The
huge number of possible combinations generated by the geometry, nature
and arrangement of units as well as the characteristics of mortars raises
doubts about the accuracy of the term “masonry”. Still, much information
can be gained from the study of regular masonry structures, in which a peri-
odic repetition of the microstructure occurs due to a constant arrangement
of the units (or constant bond).
14 M. Angelillo, P. B. Lourenço and G. Milani
P series 1.50
S series
W = -0.618V R series 1.25
r2 = 0.975
2
Linear (S series) 1.00
W = -0.561V Linear (R series)
r2 = 0.985
0.75
0.50
W = -0.179V
r2 = 0.866 0.25
0.00
-2.00 -1.50 -1.00 -0.50 0.00
Normal stress (N/mm2)
(a)
0
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
-0.05
-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
-0.25
-0.3
-0.35
-0.4
(b)
Figure 11. Testing of dry stone masonry joints under cyclic shearing,
Lourenço and Ramos (2004): (a) Coulomb friction law for polished “P”,
sawn “S” and rough “R” surfaces; (b) dilatancy of the joints for “R” surface
under reversed cycles, with the horizontal and vertical displacements of the
joints in the respective axes, in mm.
(d)
(e)
ft V
Gf
V
G
(a)
V
fc
V
Gc
G
(b)
Figure 13. Softening and the definition of fracture energy: (a) tension;
(b) compression. Here, ft equals the tensile strength, fc equals the com-
pressive strength, Gf equals the tensile fracture energy and Gc equals the
compressive fracture energy. It is noted that the shape of the non-linear
response is also considered a parameter controlling the structural response.
Nevertheless, for engineering applications, this seems less relevant than the
other parameters.
18 M. Angelillo, P. B. Lourenço and G. Milani
tensile fracture energy of mortar, very few results are available, see Paulo-
Pereira (2012), and the average value of ductility found for different mortar
compositions is 0.065 mm.
V
V
V
Crack displacement
(a) (b)
Figure 14. Tensile bond behaviour of masonry: (a) test specimen (direct
tension); (b) typical experimental stress-crack displacement results for solid
clay brick masonry (the shaded area represents the envelope of four tests),
van der Pluijm (1999).
The parameters needed for the tensile mode (Mode I) are similar to the
previous section, namely the bond tensile strength ft and the bond fracture
energy Gf . The factors that affect the bond between unit and mortar are
20 M. Angelillo, P. B. Lourenço and G. Milani
(a) (b)
Figure 15. Possible test set-ups for shear strength: (a) couplet test;
(b) triplet test.
W
Shear displacement
(a)
W
Gv
\ arctan
I0 Gh
Ir
Gv
c
Gh
V
(b) (c)
Figure 16c. Note that the dilatancy angle decreases to zero with increasing
vertical stress and with increasing slip, so a zero value is recommended.
The effect of the dilatancy angle is only relevant for applications in which
masonry is confined, due to the interlocking effect of the units and the
associated stress built-up.
0.35 N/mm2 . The tensile strength for a stepped crack can be approx-
imated by c × l/2/h = 0.29 N/mm2 . The value to be used is the min-
imum of the two values (0.29 N/mm2 ), being this response in shear
fully plastic. Note that the tensile strength of the head joints was not
used, as it is rather low and will not reach the peak value simultane-
ously with the other phenomena involved.
3. The masonry compressive strength perpendicular to the joints is the
same as above.
4. The masonry compressive strength parallel to the bed joints for this
type of masonry can be estimated as 30% of the vertical strength, as
a lower bound. This value can also can be calculated from Eurocode
6 as 0.35 × (fconc × ts × 2/t)0.7 × 60.3 /0.8 = 3.0 N/mm2 . The recom-
mended ductility index du,c is 1.6 mm, providing a fracture energy for
compression of 4.8 N/mm.
Bibliography
M. Angelillo. Constitutive relations for no-tension materials. Meccanica,
28:195–202. 1993.
A. Baratta and R. Toscano. Stati tensionali in pannelli di materiale non
resistente a trazione. In Atti del VII Congresso Nazionale AIMETA,
1982 (in Italian).
E. Benvenuto. An Introduction on the History of Structural Mechanics Part
II: Vaulted Structures and Elastic Systems, Springer-Verlag. Springer
Verlag, 1991.
G. Castellano. Un modello cinematico per i materiali non resistente a
trazione. In Cinquantenario della Facoltà di Architettura di Napoli:
Franco Jossa e la sua opera, pages 241–256, 1988 (in Italian).
CEB-FIP. Model Code 90. Thomas Telford Ltd., UK, 1993.
CEN. Eurocode 6: Design of masonry structures, Part 1–1: General rules
for reinforced and unreinforced masonry structures. European Commit-
tee for Standardization, Belgium, 2005.
M. Como. Statica delle costruzioni storiche in muratura, Aracne. Aracne,
2010 (in Italian).
M. Como and A. Grimaldi. A unilateral model for the limit analysis of
masonry walls. In Unilateral problems in structural analysis, edited by
G. Del Piero and F. Maceri, CISM Courses and Lectures 288, Springer.,
pages 25–45, 1985.
G. Del Piero. Constitutive equation and compatibility of the external loads
for linear elastic masonry–like materials. Meccanica, 24:150–162, 1989.
S. Di Pasquale. Statica dei solidi murari: teorie ed esperienze. Reports
Dipartimento di Costruzioni, Univ. Firenze, 27, 1984 (in Italian).
Masonry Behaviour and Modelling 25
M. Šilhavý
Institute of Mathematics of the AV ČR
Žitná 25
115 67 Prague 1
Czech Republic
1 Introduction
These notes present a brief introduction to the mathematics of equilibrium
of no–tension (masonry–like) materials. We first review the constitutive
equations using the idea that the stress of the no–tension material must be
always negative semidefinite. The strain tensor is naturally split into the
sum of the elastic strain and fracture strain. The stress depends linearly
on the elastic strain via the fourth–order tensor of elasticities. Then we
consider a body made of a no–tension material, introduce the loads and the
total energy of the deformation with is the sum of the internal energy and
the energy of the loads. Then we examine the question whether the total
energy is bounded from below. That brings us to the important notion
of the strong compatibility of loads. The loads are strongly compatible
if they can be equilibrated (in the sense of the principle of virtual work)
by a square integrable negative semidefinite stress field. The total energy
is bounded from below if and only if the loads are strongly compatible.
The notion of strong compatibility of loads is central in the limit analysis
and in a strengthened form in the theory of existence of equilibrium states.
Roughly speaking, if the loads are strongly compatible, then the body is
safe, while otherwise strongly incompatible loads lead to the collapse of
the body. To determine whether the loads are strongly compatible, it is
not necessary to solve the full displacement problem, it suffices to find the
negative semidefinite square integrable stress field, which is independent of
the constitutive theory.
The considerations concerning the limit analysis and strong compati-
bility of loads are based on the displacements that belong to the Sobolev
space of square integrable maps with square integrable gradients. Roughly
speaking, this means that the fracture part of the strain is always without
macroscopic cracks. To obtain the existence theory of equilibrium states, it
is necessary to enlarge the class of deformations in which the fracture part
of the deformation is a measure in the mathematical sense of that word.
This introduces discontinuous displacements with macroscopic cracks. We
give a brief introduction to the mathematical theory of such displacements,
called displacements with bounded deformation. The full theory of equilib-
rium states is nontrivial and many assertions are presented without proofs.
However, the basic line of thought is preserved.
Then the limit analysis for no–tension materials is presented. The loads
of the limit analysis are assumed to be linearly dependent on the loading
parameter. The ideal goal of the limit analysis is to determine the largest
value of the loading parameter for which the loads are strongly compatible.
This value is called the collapse multiplier; the loads corresponding to the
loading multiplier bigger than the collapse multiplier lead to the collapse of
the body. The loading parameters for which the loads are strongly compat-
ible are called statically admissible loading parameters. By the above, they
are characterized by the existence of a square integrable negative semidef-
inite stress field equilibrating the corresponding loads. For concrete loads,
it is often easier to find a stress field represented by a negative semidefinite
tensor valued measure equilibrating the loads. We call such loads weakly
compatible. The difference between the square integrable stress fields and
the stress fields represented by measures is that the latter can contain sin-
gular part which is concentrated on surfaces and curves in the body. Of
course the strong compatibility implies the weak compatibility but not con-
versely: there are weakly compatible loads that are not strongly compatible.
If the loads happen to be weakly compatible on some interval of the load-
ing parameters, then the averaging procedure to be described in Section 7
may lead to square integrable equilibrating stress fields and hence to the
strong compatibility. The last section presents an example of the averaging
procedure which leads to an explicit determination of the square integrable
averaged stress field.
The mechanical tools to be employed include the notion of stress, the
virtual power principle, the notion of weak solution, and the notion of the
total energy of the body. These notions are established in detail in the
treatment below.
The mathematical tools necessary for the understanding include in par-
ticular the notions of the convex cones and orthogonal projection upon
them, some elements of the convex analysis, vector valued measures, Sobolev
spaces, families of measures, and the basic notions associated with the space
of displacements of bounded deformation. The basic definitions of the math-
Mathematics of the Masonry-Like Model and Limit Analysis 31
ematical notions are given in the text below and the basic properties are
stated without proof.
2 Constitutive equations
Throughout we use the conventions for vectors and second order tensors
identical with those in (Gurtin 1981). Thus Lin denotes the set of all sec-
ond order tensors on Rn , i.e., linear transformations from Rn into itself,
Sym is the subspace of symmetric tensors, Skew is the subspace of skew
(antisymmetric) tensors, Sym+ the set of all positive semidefinite elements
of Sym; additionally, Sym− is the set of all negative semidefinite elements of
Sym . The scalar product of A, B ∈ Lin is defined by A · B = tr(ABT ) and
| · | denotes the associated euclidean norm on Lin. We denote by 1 ∈ Lin
the unit tensor. If A, B ∈ Sym, we write A ≤ B if B − A ∈ Sym+ .
To describe the stress, we assume that C : Sym → Sym is a given linear
transformation, the fourth order tensor of elastic constants, such that
E · CE > 0 for all E ∈ Sym, E = 0,
(1)
E1 · CE2 = E2 · CE1 for all E1 , E2 ∈ Sym .
For example, the tensor of elastic constants of an isotropic material is of the
form
CE = λ(tr E)1 + 2μE
for each E ∈ Sym where λ and μ are constants, Lamé moduli, satisfying
μ > 0, nλ + 2μ > 0
where n = 2, 3 is the dimension of the underlying space.
In the case of a general C, we introduce the energetic scalar product
(·, ·)E and the energetic norm | · |E on Sym by setting
(A, B)E = A · CB, |A|E = (A, A)E
for each A, B ∈ Sym .
We are now going to review briefly some concepts of convex analysis. We
refer to (Rockafellar 1970) and (Ekeland & Temam 1999) for more details.
A nonempty subset K of a vector space V is called a convex cone if
tx + sy ∈ K for each x, y ∈ K and each t ≥ 0, s ≥ 0.
Let K be a closed convex cone in a vector space V with scalar product
(·, ·) and norm | · |. We say that a point y ∈ K is the (orthogonal) projection
of a point x ∈ V if y makes the distance |z − x| minimal among all z ∈ K,
i.e., if
|y − x| ≤ |z − x|
32 M. Šilhavý
for all z ∈ K. The projection onto a closed convex cone exists and is uniquely
determined.
Let K be a nonempty set in a vector space V with scalar product and
x ∈ V. We define the normal cone Norm(K, x) to K at x by
x − y ∈ Norm(K, y).
|z − y + y − x|2 ≥ |y − x|2
t2 |w|2 + 2t(w, y − x) ≥ 0.
t2 |y|2 + 2t(y, y − x) ≥ 0.
Ee is the projection of E onto C−1 Sym− with respect to (·, ·)E . (6)
Proof. Let us first show that the three characterizations of the triplet (T,
Ee , Ef ) are equivalent.
Proof of (iii) ⇒ (i). Assume that Characterization (iii) holds. Let Ee be
the projection of E onto the convex cone C−1 Sym− with respect to the ener-
getic scalar product and let Ef and T be as in (4)1,2 . Since Ee ∈ C−1 Sym− ,
we have T = CEe ∈ Sym− and by Remark 2.2(i) (Ef , C−1 T∗ )E = (E −
Ee , C−1 T∗ )E ≤ 0 for all T∗ ∈ Sym− which can be rewritten as Ef · T∗ ≤ 0,
34 M. Šilhavý
which in turn implies that Ef ∈ Sym+ . Thus we have (4)3 . Finally, by Re-
mark 2.2(ii) we have (Ef , C−1 Ee )E = (E − Ee , C−1 T)E = 0 which can be
rewritten as Ef · T = 0. Thus we have (4)4 . This proves that (iii) ⇒ (i).
Proof of (i) ⇒ (ii). Assume that Characterization (i) holds. Then we
have (5)1 . Furthermore, if T∗ ∈ Sym− then T∗ · Ef ≤ 0 since Ef ∈ Sym+
by (4)3 . Combining with (4)4 we obtain (5)2 . Thus (i) ⇒ (ii).
Proof of (ii) ⇒ (iii). Assume that Characterization (ii) holds. Using
(4)1,2 we can rewrite (5) as
Ee ∈ C−1 Sym−
We have
∗
1
2T · C−1 T if T ∈ Sym− ,
ŵ (T) = (12)
∞ if T ∈ Sym \ Sym− .
Cf. Del Piero (Del Piero 1989, Proposition 4.4 and Lemma 5.1) for (8)–(10).
Proof. Let E, F ∈ Sym and put T = T̂(E), U = T̂(F). From (5)2 we obtain
(T − U) · C−1 (T − U) ≤ (T − U) · (E − F);
using (11) we obtain (8). Using the Schwarz inequality on the left hand side
of (8) we obtain (9). To prove (10), one finds that
a reference to (11) then yields (10) and hence also the convexity of ŵ. To
prove that ŵ is continuously differentiable and T̂ is its derivative, we note
that using (10) twice we obtain
for every S ∈ Sym− with the equality if S = T. Since (14) holds also if
S∈ / Sym− as the right hand side is −∞ in that case, we have
T · E − ĥ(T) ≥ S · E − ĥ(S)
for all S ∈ Sym and thus the definition gives ĥ∗ (E) = T · E − ĥ(T)(≡ ŵ(E).
Then ŵ∗ = ĥ∗∗ = ĥ by (Fonseca & Leoni 2007, Theorem 4.92(iii)) since
ĥ is lowersemicontinuous, convex and bounded from below by an affine
(continuous) function. The proof of (12) is complete.
for any E ∈ Sym and any P ∈ Sym+ . Moreover, the function ŵ is com-
pletely characterized by the following two equivalent requirements:
(i) ŵ is the largest decreasing function such that
ŵ(E) ≤ 12 E · CE (16)
Proof. To prove (i), we invoke (10) in which we omit the last term on the
right hand side to obtain
ŵ(E − Q) = { 12 (E − P ) · C(E − P ) : P ∈ S }
≥ { 21 (E − P) · C(E − P) : P ∈ Sym+ }
= ŵ(E).
ŵ(E) = 12 (E − Ef ) · C(E − Ef )
38 M. Šilhavý
and
φ(∅) = 0.
If Ω is a Borel subset of R and m a V valued measure or a nonnegative
n
4 Loads
We consider a continuous body represented by a Lipschitz domain
(Adams & Fournier 2003) Ω ⊂ Rn and assume that D, S are two disjoint
subsets of ∂Ω such that D ∪ S = ∂Ω, to be identified below as the set of pre-
scribed boundary displacement and prescribed boundary force. We assume
that D is a closed set.
We put
V0 = {v ∈ C 1 (cl Ω, Rn ) : v = 0 on D}
and
V = {v ∈ W 1,2 (Ω, Rn ) : v = 0 almost everywhere on D};
Mathematics of the Masonry-Like Model and Limit Analysis 41
An important special case arises when there are square integrable func-
tions b ∈ L2 (Ω, Rn ), s ∈ L2 (S, Rn ) such that
and L2 (S, Rn ) is the set of all Hn−1 measurable maps s : S → Rn such that
|s|2 dHn−1 < ∞.
S
In the case (18) one can define the potential energy of the loads l, u for
each u from the larger space V by
l, u = u · b dLn + u · s dHn−1
Ω S
u ∈ V.
Given the loads (s, b) and u ∈ V, we say that u is an equilibrium state
of Ω under the given loads if
T̂(Ê(u)) · Ê(v) dLn = l, v (19)
Ω
for each v ∈ V0 .
We note that if the loads are of the special form (18) with b ∈ L2 (Ω, Rn ),
s ∈ L2 (S, Rn ) and if T̂(Ê(u)) ∈ C 1 (cl Ω, Sym) then the variational equation
(19) is equivalent to the strong form
div T + b = 0 in Ω and Tn = s on S
where n is the outer normal to ∂Ω. We note that in general the existence of
the equilibrium state is not guaranteed. The existence theory of equilibrium
state requires the extension of the states to admit fracture. See Section
5, below. On the other hand, the given loads may admit more than one
equilibrium state u.
Remark 4.1. Assume the loads of the special form (18) with b ∈ L2 (Ω, Rn ),
s ∈ L2 (S, Rn ). Then u ∈ V is an equilibrium state under the given loads if
and only if u is a minimizer of the total energy under the given loads.
Theorem 4.2. Let u ∈ V0 be an equilibrium state under the loads (s, b).
Then the stress field S := T̂(Ê(u)) is a minimum point of the complemen-
tary energy functional
G(T) = 2 1
T · C−1 T dLn
Ω
Proof. Let T be an admissible stress field equilibrating the loads and let Ee
and Ef be the elastic and fracture parts of the strain corresponding to u.
Using the convexity of the function U → 12 (C−1 U · U) we find
G(T) − G(S) ≥ Ω C−1 S · (T − S) dLn
= Ω Ee · (T − S) dLn
= Ω Ee · T dLn − l, u
= [ Ω Ê(u) · T dLn − l, u] − Ω Ef · T dLn
= − Ω Ef · T dLn ≥ 0
since u is an equilibrium state and because the square bracket vanishes as
T is a stress field equilibrating the loads.
and hence
1
T · C−1 T dLn if T is negative semidefinite,
H ∗ (T) = 2 Ω
∞ otherwise,
Mathematics of the Masonry-Like Model and Limit Analysis 45
I0 > −∞.
L(A) ≤ −c.
46 M. Šilhavý
and hence
∞ > H ∗ (T) := sup{ T · A dLn − H(A) : A ∈ Y }
Ω
from which
H(A) − T · A dLn ≥ −H ∗ (T) for all A ∈ Y ;
Ω
for all T ∈ C0∞ (Ω, Sym). Here C0∞ (Ω, Sym) is the set of all T : Rn → Sym
such that the support
a b = 12 (a ⊗ b + b ⊗ a)
for every a, b ∈ Rn .
48 M. Šilhavý
u(x) = Wx + a (25)
u(x) = b × x + a.
We call any u of the form (25) a rigid body displacement and denote by
R(Ω) the linear space of all rigid body displacements of Ω.
Recall from Section 2 that P : Sym → C−1 Sym− denotes the orthogonal
projection from Sym onto C−1 Sym− with respect to the energetic scalar
product (·, ·)E . Endow Sym with the energetic scalar product. Let u ∈
BD(Ω) and write
Ê(u) = D|Ê(u)|
for the polar decomposition of the measure Ê(u), with |Ê(u)| a nonnegative
measure on Ω and D : Ω → Sym a function satisfying |D|E = 1 for |Ê(u)|
almost every point of Ω. We denote by P Ê(u) the measure defined by
P Ê(u) = (PD)|Ê(u)|.
Definition 5.8. We denote by U(Ω) the set of all u ∈ BD(Ω) such that the
measure P Ê(u) is absolutely continuous with respect to the Lebesgue mea-
sure, with the density P̃ Ê(u) such that P̃ Ê(u) ∈ L2 (Ω, Sym). We call the
elements of U (Ω) admissible displacements. We define the internal energy
of the admissible displacement u by
E(u) = |P̃ Ê(u)|2E dLn .
Ω
Example 5.9 (Fracture in U (Ω)). The set U (Ω) is the basic set of com-
petitors for the equilibrium problem. Note that U (Ω) is not a linear space
50 M. Šilhavý
[u] = λm on Σ, (26)
Proof. Assume that there exists a point x on Σ such that [u] and m are not
positively proportional. Then by the continuity there exists a neighborhood
N of x in Σ such that [u] and m are not positively proportional. One easily
finds that in this case the tensor [u] m has a nonzero negative definite
part, which further implies
P([u] m) = 0 on N,
P Ê(u) = P{Ê(u)}Ln Ω
We shall deal with the existence of solution for the Neumann problem.
Thus we assume that D = ∅. We call a pair (s, b) loads for the system if
s ∈ L∞ (∂Ω, Rn ), b ∈ Ln (Ω, Rn ). In view of the fact that for any u ∈ BD(Ω)
we have γ0 (u) ∈ L1 (∂Ω), u ∈ Ln/(n−1) (Ω, Rn ), by the Hölder inequality we
have a well defined energy of the loads
l, u = u · s dHn−1 + u · b dLn
∂Ω Ω
for any u ∈ BD(Ω) and in particular for any u ∈ U (Ω). We define the total
energy of u ∈ U(Ω) by
uj → u in Ln/(n−1) (Ω, Rn ),
M(Ê(uj )) → M(Ê(u)),
P̃(uj ) → P̃(u) in L2 (Ω, Sym).
It turns out that all Lipschitz domains in R2 are admissible and that for
any n all star shaped Lipschitz domains are admissible.
Definition 5.10. We say that a stress field T ∈ L2 (Ω, Sym) is safe if there
exists an α > 0 such that
−T(x) · A ≥ α|A|
Proposition 5.13. The set U (Ω) is closed under the weak convergence of
sequences, i.e., if uj ∈ U (Ω) converges weakly to u ∈ BD(Ω) then u ∈ U(Ω).
M(Ê(uj )) ≤ M,
|P̃(Ê(uj ))|2E dLn ≤ M
Ω
M(Ê(vj )) ≤ M, (29)
|P̃(Ê(vj ))|2E dLn ≤ M. (30)
Ω
Mathematics of the Masonry-Like Model and Limit Analysis 53
This gives
F(v) ≤ inf{F(u) : u ∈ U (Ω)}
and thus
F(v) = min{F(u) : u ∈ U (Ω)}.
6 Limit analysis
The limit analysis deals with the loads that depend linearly (affinely) on a
scalar parameter λ ∈ R, see (Del Piero 1998). Accordingly, we thus assume
(Lucchesi et al. 2008b), (Lucchesi et al. 2011) that the body and surface
forces bλ ∈ M(Ω, Rn ) and sλ ∈ M(S, Rn ) corresponding to λ are given by
where
b0 , b1 ∈ M(Ω, Rn ) s0 , s1 ∈ M(S, Rn ).
We call (s(λ), b(λ)) = (sλ , bλ ) the loads corresponding to λ. If v ∈ V0 then
the work of the loads (s(λ), b(λ)) corresponding to v is
l(λ), v = v · ds +
λ
v · dbλ .
S Ω
b0 = b0 L n , b 1 = b1 L n , s0 = s0 Hn−1 , s1 = s1 Hn−1 ,
54 M. Šilhavý
where
b0 , b1 ∈ L2 (Ω, Rn ), s0 , s1 ∈ L2 (S, Rn ),
then one can extend the definition of l(λ) to elements v of V.
In the general context of loads represented by measures we define the
total energy F(v, λ) of the body corresponding to the loads (s(λ), b(λ)) and
displacement v ∈ V0 by
I0 (λ) = inf{F(v, λ) : v ∈ V0 }.
We denote by A(λ) the set of all admissible stress fields equilibrating the
loads (s(λ), b(λ)). Recal that the loads (s(λ), b(λ)) are strongly compatible
if A(λ) = ∅.
We now follow (Lucchesi et al. 2010).
Proposition 6.1.
(i) The loads (s(λ), b(λ)) are strongly compatible if and only if I0 (λ) >
−∞.
(ii) The function I0 : R → R∪{−∞} is concave and uppersemicontinuous,
i.e.,
I0 (αλ + (1 − α)μ) ≥ αI0 (λ) + (1 − α)I0 (μ)
for every λ, μ ∈ R and α ∈ [0, 1] and
is an interval.
Since the notion of compatibility of loads is independent of the tensor of
elastic constants C, also the finiteness of I0 (λ) is independent of C [within
the class specified by (1)], even though the concrete value of I0 (λ) depends
on C. We emphasize the role of the square integrability requirement of the
stress field in the definition of strongly compatible loads; there are loads
(s(λ), b(λ)) with I0 (λ) = −∞ and yet with (s(λ), b(λ)) being weakly equili-
brated by a stress field T ∈ L1 (Ω, Sym) \ L2 (Ω, Sym) with values in Sym− .
Mathematics of the Masonry-Like Model and Limit Analysis 55
Proof.
(i): This follows from Proposition 4.3.
(ii): The affine dependence of l(λ) on λ implies that the function λ →
F(u, λ) is affine for each u ∈ V0 ; thus the function λ → I0 (λ), being the lower
envelope of the family of affine continuous functions over the parameter set
{u ∈ V0 }, is concave and uppersemicontinuous (Ekeland & Temam 1999,
Chapter I, Section 2).
Remark 6.3.
(i) The collapse multiplier can be statically admissible as well as statically
inadmissible.
(ii) The notion of collapse multiplier can be given a dynamical meaning.
The paper (Padovani et al. 2008) considers no–tension bodies in dynamical
situations with a viscous perturbation of the equations of motion. It turns
out that if I0 (λ) > −∞ then the motion with arbitrary initial data stabilizes
in the sense that the kinetic energy satisfies K(t) → 0 as t → ∞ while if
I0 (λ) = −∞ then the total energy, given by the sum of the total potential
energy and the kinetic energy, T (t) = F (t) + K(t), satisfies T (t) → −∞ as
t → ∞.
a collapse mechanism then there exists a v ∈ V with
(iii) If λ admits
Ê(v) ≥ 0, l̄, v = 1 and l(λ), v = 0; each such a v is said to be a collapse
mechanism for the loads (s(λ), b(λ)).
(iv) If λ admits a collapse mechanism and if additionally λ is statically
admissible then each admissible equilibrating stress field for (s(λ), b(λ)) is
called a collapse stress field. A stronger version of the definition of collapse
mechanism v in (Del Piero 1998) requires that v be as in (iii) and that
additionally λ be statically admissible.
56 M. Šilhavý
Remark 6.4. If T ∈ L2 (Ω, Sym), we denote the normal cone to the set
L2 (Ω, Sym− ) at T by Norm(L2 (Ω, Sym− ), T) and applying the definition
from Section 2 we obtain
Let λ ∈ R. If v ∈ V satisfies
Ê(v) ∈ Norm(L2 (Ω, Sym− ), T), l̄, v = 1 (35)
and
λ = − l0 , v (36)
for some T ∈ A(λ) then v is a collapse mechanism for the loads (s(λ), b(λ)).
Indeed, the second characterization of Norm(L2 (Ω, Sym− ), T) implies that
Ê(v) ≥ 0 almost everywhere on Ω.
λ+
c := sup{λ ∈ R : λ is statically admissible } (37)
−∞ ≤ λ+ + +
c ≤ ∞; thus if λc is finite, then λc is a collapse multiplier, and if
+
there are two collapse multipliers, then λc is the larger of these two. Also,
we consider the multiplier
λ̄+
c = inf{λ ∈ R : λ is kinematically admissible }. (38)
Remark 6.6. It turns out (Lucchesi et al. 2012) that the definition of the
kinematic multiplier (38) can be reformulated to the format of the varia-
tional problem by Ekeland & Temam (Ekeland & Temam 1999) and then
the static multiplier (37) takes the form of the dual problem in the sense of
the cited reference.
Our first result shows that our definition of the collapse multiplier gen-
eralizes that based on the collapse mechanism:
Theorem 6.7.
(i) We have λ+ +
c ≤ λ̄c .
(ii) If λ ∈ R admits a collapse mechanism then λ = λ+ +
c = λ̄c .
Proof.
(i): Let λ ∈ R be kinematically admissible, there exists a v ∈ V0 such
i.e.,
that Ê(v) ≥ 0 almost everywhere on Ω, l̄, v = 1, and l(λ), v = 0. Then
λ = − l0 , v and thus
λ̄+
c = inf{− l0 , v : v ∈ V0 , Ê(v) ≥ 0, l̄, v = 1}. (39)
Thus
λ ≤ − l0 , v .
Taking the infimum over all v with the indicated properties and using (39)
we find λ ≤ λ̄+ c and taking the supremum over all T with the indicated
properties, we obtain the inequality in (i).
(ii): Assume that λ ∈ R admits a collapse mechanism. Prove first that
λ = λ+c . Since λ admits a collapse mechanism, λ is kinematically admissible
and hence there exists a v ∈ V0 with
Ê(v) ≥ 0, l̄, v = 1 and l(λ), v = 0. (40)
Prove that I0 (μ) = −∞ for all μ > λ. We have E(tv) = 0 and hence
for any v ∈ V0 . We say that the loads (s, b) are weakly compatible if there
exists an admissible T ∈ M(Ω, Sym) which weakly equilibrates them. The
reader is referred to (Šilhavý 2008) for the general properties of stresses
represented by measures.
If the loads are strongly compatible then they are weakly compatible;
however, there are examples of loads that are weakly compatible but not
strongly compatible.
Mathematics of the Masonry-Like Model and Limit Analysis 59
T = Tr + Ts , where Tr = Tr Ln Ω, Ts = Ts Hn−1 N
Definition 7.2.
An integrable parametric measure (see (Lucchesi et al. 2008b)) is a family
{mλ : λ ∈ Λ} of V valued measures on Rn where Λ ⊂ R is a L1 measurable
set of parameters such that
(i) for every continuous
V valued function f on Rn with compact support
the function λ → Rn f · dm is L1 measurable on Λ;
λ
(ii) we have
c := M(mλ ) dλ < ∞.
Λ
Tλr = Tλr Ln Ω
where
Tr (x) = Tλr (x) dλ
Λ
Then for L1 almost every λ ∈ R the function Ts is Hn−1 ϕ−1 (λ) inte-
grable; denoting by Λ the set of all such λ we define the measure mλ by
If E ∈ C0 (Rn , Sym) then by the coarea formula (Ambrosio et al. 2000, Sec-
tion 2.12) we have
Ω0
E · Ts |∇ϕ| dLn = R ϕ−1 (λ) E · Ts dHn−1 dλ
= Λ Rn E · dTλ dλ
= Rn E · dT.
We now assume that the loads depend affinely on the loading parameter
as in (32), thus we have loads (sλ , bλ ) defined for each λ ∈ R. It may happen
that there exists an interval (λ−, λ+) such that each load (sμ , bμ ), with μ
from this interval, is weakly equilibrated by a stress field Tμ ∈ M(Ω, Sym)
in such a way that
{Tμ , μ ∈ Λ} (49)
is an integrable parametric measure. In this situation, we have
62 M. Šilhavý
i.e., the loads (sλ , bλ ) are strongly equilibrated by the stress field U. Such a
situation arises when the family (49) satisfies the hypothesis of Proposition
7.4 or Proposition 7.5, or is a sum of families such that one satisfies Propo-
sition 7.4 and the other Proposition 7.5. In many concrete cases, it is hard
to evalueate U explicitly but for the analysis it suffices to know that U is
represented by a square integrable function.
D = (0, B) × {H}, S = ∂Ω \ D
and consider the loads (sλ , bλ ) where, for b > 0, bλ = bj in Ω, and for
r = (x, y) ∈ S and λ > 0,
λ
λi on {0} × (0, H),
s (r) = (50)
0 elsewhere.
Mathematics of the Masonry-Like Model and Limit Analysis 63
The stress field Tλ will be constructed in two steps. Firstly, for every
λ ∈ (0, λc ) we determine a measure stress field Tλ ∈ M(Ω, Sym− ) that is
in equilibrium with the loads, i.e., such that
Ê(v) · dTλ = b v · j dL2 + λ v · i dH1
Ω Ω {0}×(0,H)
for every v ∈ V = W 1,2 (Ω, R2 ) (we recall that L2 stands for the Lebesgue
measure and H1 for the 1-dimensional Hausdorff measure in R2 ). This
expression is well defined because the loads are of the special form (18).
Secondly, we determine a square integrable negative semidefinite and equi-
librated stress field Tλ for every λ ∈ (0, λc ) by the integration procedure
described in Section 7, i.e. Tλ ∈ A(λ). This will prove that the loads
(sλ , bλ ) are strongly compatible for every λ ∈ (0, λc ) (see (6.2)).
To determine the stress measure Tλ , we use the results of the paper
(Lucchesi et al. 2009). We consider a smooth curve N λ which starts at the
upper right corner and ends at the bottom of the panel, and which is the
graph of an increasing function ω λ : [0, tλ ] → [0, H] to be specified below.
In this way, Ω is divided into the regions Ωλ+ (on the left) and Ωλ− (on the
right) by the curve N λ . We are looking for a weakly equilibrated measure
stress field Tλ which is absolutely continuous with respect to the Lebesgue
measure in Ωλ+ and Ωλ− with a piecewise continuously differentiable density
Tλr and has a concentration on N λ with a continuously differentiable density
Tλs , i.e.,
Tλ = Tλr L2 Ω + Tλs H1 N λ .
The equilibrium condition (41) implies that
div Tλr + bλ = 0 in Ω \ N λ . (51)
Furthermore, Tλs is superficial by Item (ii) of Example 7.1, which means
here
Tλs = σ λ tλ ⊗ tλ , (52)
where tλ is the unit tangent vector to N λ and σ λ is a scalar function on
N λ . By (42) we have
[Tλr ]m + div N Tλs = 0 on N λ (53)
where [Tλr ] is the jump discontinuity Tλr on N λ , m is the unit normal to
N λ pointing toward Ωλ+ .
Following the method presented in (Lucchesi et al. 2009) we obtain (see
(Lucchesi et al. 2009, Eqs. (4.6), (4.7) and (3.1)))
λ −byj ⊗ j if r ∈ Ωλ+ ,
Tr (r) = 2 2 (54)
−λi ⊗ i − 2bxi j − b λx j ⊗ j if r ∈ Ωλ−
64 M. Šilhavý
which satisfies the equilibrium equation (51) and the boundary conditions
(50). From (53) we deduce the equation of N λ (see (Lucchesi et al. 2009,
Eq. (4.16)) with λ = βH and p0 = 0)
√
ω λ (x) = cbx2 /λ, c = 1/2 + 3/6 (55)
which has the unit tangent vector
xi + 2yj
tλ (r) = (56)
x2 + 4y 2
Moreover, from (55) and (53) we obtain (see (Lucchesi et al. 2009, Eq.
(2.19)), with s0 = 0, and f (x, y) at the end of page 229)
√
3 2
σ (r) = −
λ
bx x + 4y 2 (57)
6
r ∈ N λ . If λ ∈ (0, λc ), with λc = cbB 2 /H, then N λ is contained in Ω,
except for the endpoints and the measure stress field Tλ is well defined by
relations (54)–(57).
The parametric measure Tλr L2 Ω is of the form considered in Propo-
sition 7.4 and the integrability condition (45) is satisfied because we have
λc
|Tλr (r)| dr dλ < ∞
0 Ω
where
b2 c2 x4 1
ξ1 (r) = 2
− (λ + )2
2y 2
bcx2
ξ2 (r) = bx( − λ − ),
y
y(λ + )
ξ3 (r) = by(λ − ) − b2 x2 c + ln .
bcx2
In order to verify the first two regimes in (61) we note that if r ∈ Ωμ+ \ A or
r ∈ Ωμ− \A then, for all values of μ in Λ, the expression of Tμr (r) is that given
by (54)1 and (54)2 , respectively. Thus, (61)1 and (61)2 can be immediately
obtained from (55). For r ∈ A, we have r ∈ Ωμ+ for μ ∈ (λ − , bcx2 /y) and
r ∈ Ωμ− for μ ∈ (bcx2 /y, λ + ). Therefore
λ+
Uλr (r) = (2)−1 Tμr dμ
λ−
bcx2 /y
= (2)−1 λ− −byj ⊗ j dμ
λ+ 2 2
+ bcx2 /y (−μi ⊗ i − 2bxi j − b μx j ⊗ j) dμ
2 2 4 2
= (2)−1 b 2y c x
2 − 12 (λ + )2 i ⊗ i + 2bx bcxy −λ− ij
+ by(λ − ) − b2 x2 c + ln y(λ+)
bcx2 j⊗j .
The density Uλr is bounded in Ω (we note that for r∈ A we have λ − <
cbx2 /y < λ + by (56)).
Next we consider the measures Tλs . Let ϕ : Ω → R be defined by
r = (x, y) ∈ Ω. Then, for any λ ∈ (0, λc ), the curve N λ is the level set of ϕ
corresponding to the value of λ, i.e.
is bounded in
Ω0 = {r = (x, y) : cbx2 /y ∈ (0, λc )} = ϕ−1 (0, λc ),
in view of (63), (52) and (57). Then, Proposition 7.5 says that for any
interval Λ as in (58) the measure
1
T̄λs = Tμ dμ
2 Λ s
is L2 absolutely continuous over Ω, i.e.,
T̄λs = Uλs (r)L2 Ω0 ,
with the density given by (47), i.e.
λ (2)−1 Tλs (r)|∇ϕ(r)| if r ∈ A,
Us (r) = (64)
0 otherwise.
Note that ϕ(r) ∈ Λ if and only if r ∈ A, by (62) and (60). In the present
case we have
Tλs (r) |∇ϕ(r)| = σ λ (r)tλ (r) ⊗ tλ (r) |∇ϕ(r)|
√
3cb2 x2
=− 6y 2 (xi + 2yj) ⊗ (xi + 2yj)
√ 2 2
3cb x
=− 6y 2 (x2 i ⊗ i + 4xyi j + 4y 2 j ⊗ j)
r ∈ A, by (63), (52) and (57).
Finally, we obtain the negative semidefinite and square integrable (in
fact bounded) stress field Uλ = Uλr + Uλs ,
⎧
⎨ −byj ⊗ j
⎪ if r ∈ Ωλ+ \ A,
−1 2 2
U (r) = −λi ⊗ i − 2bxi j − (2) b x ln λ− j ⊗ j if r ∈ Ωλ− \ A,
λ λ+
⎪
⎩
s(r) if r ∈ A,
where
2 4
1
s(r) = −(2)−1 − 12y
b x
2 + 2 (λ + )
2
i⊗i
2 3
+ 2 − b3yx + bx(λ + ) i j
√
+ ( 23 + 56 + ln y(λ+) 2 2
bcx2 )b x − by(λ − ) j ⊗ j
by (61) and (64). It is an easy matter to verify that, for every λ ∈ (0, λc ),
Uλ verifies the equilibrium equation div Uλ + bj = 0 in Ω and the boundary
conditions (50), so that λ is statically admissible and the loads (sλ , bλ ) are
strongly compatible.
Mathematics of the Masonry-Like Model and Limit Analysis 67
Bibliography
[Adams & Fournier 2003] Adams, R. A.; Fournier, J. J. F. 2003. S obolev
spaces (Second edition). New York: Academic Press.
[Ambrosio et al. 1997] Ambrosio, L.; Coscia, A.; Dal Maso, G. 1997. Fine
properties of functions with bounded deformation. Arch. Rational
Mech. Anal., Vol. 139: 201–238.
[Ambrosio et al. 2000] Ambrosio, L.; Fusco, N.; Pallara, D. 2000. F unctions
of bounded variation and free discontinuity problems. Oxford: Claren-
don Press.
[Angelillo 1993] Angelillo, M. 1993. Constitutive relations for no-tension
materials. M eccanica (Milano), Vol. 28: 195–202.
[Anzellotti 1985] Anzellotti, G. 1985. A class of convex non-corecive func-
tionals and masonry-like materials. Ann. Inst. Henri Poincaré, Vol. 2:
261–307.
[Barsotti & Vannucci 2013] Barsotti, R.; Vannucci, P. 2013. Wrinkling of
Orthotropic Membranes: An Analysis by the Polar Method. J. Elas-
ticity. To appear. DOI 10.1007/s10659-012-9408-z
[Del Piero 1989] Del Piero, G. 1989. Constitutive equations and compat-
ibility of the external loads for linear elastic masonry-like materials.
M eccanica, Vol. 24: 150–162.
[Del Piero 1998] Del Piero, G. 1998. Limit analysis and no-tension materi-
als. I nt. J. Plasticity, Vol. 14: 259–271.
[Di Pasquale 1984] Di Pasquale, S. 1984. Statica dei solidi murari teorie ed
esperienze. Dipartimento di Costruzioni, Pubblicazione n. 27
[Ekeland & Temam 1999] Ekeland, I.; Temam, R. 1999. C onvex analysis
and variational problems. Philadelphia: SIAM.
[Epstein 2002] Epstein, M. 2002. From Saturated Elasticity to Finite Evo-
lution, Plasticity and Growth. M athematics and mechanics of solids,
Vol. 7: 255–283.
[Fonseca & Leoni 2007] Fonseca, I.; Leoni, G. 2007. M odern Methods in
the Calculus of Variations: Lp Spaces. New York: Springer.
[Giaquinta & Giusti 1985] Giaquinta, M.; Giusti, E. 1985. Researches on
the equilibrium of masonry structures. Arch. Rational Mech. Anal.,
Vol. 88: 359–392.
[Gurtin 1981] Gurtin, M. E. 1981. An introduction to continuum mechanics.
Boston: Academic Press.
68 M. Šilhavý
[Lucchesi et al. 1994] Lucchesi, M.; Padovani, C.; Pagni, A. 1994. A numer-
ical method for solving equilibrium problems of masonry–like solids.
M eccanica, Vol. 24: 175–193.
[Lucchesi et al. 1996] Lucchesi, M.; Padovani, C.; Zani, N. 1996. Masonry–
like materials with bounded compressive strength. I nt J. Solids and
Structures, Vol. 33: 1961–1994.
[Lucchesi et al. 2008a] Lucchesi, M.; Padovani, C.; Pasquinelli, G.; Zani,
N. 2008. M asonry Constructions: Mechanical Models and Numerical
Applications. Berlin: Springer.
[Lucchesi et al. 2010] Lucchesi, M.; Padovani, C.; Šilhavý, M. 2010. An en-
ergetic view on the limit analysis of normal bodies. Quart. Appl. Math.,
Vol. 68: 713–746.
[Lucchesi et al. 2006] Lucchesi, M.; Šilhavý, M.; Zani, N. 2006. A new class
of equilibrated stress fields for no–tension bodies. J ournal of Mechanics
of Materials and Structures, Vol. 1: 503–539.
[Lucchesi et al. 2008b] Lucchesi, M.; Šilhavý, M.; Zani, N. 2008. Integration
of measures and admissible stress fields for masonry bodies. J ournal of
Mechanics of Materials and Structures, Vol. 3: 675–696.
[Lucchesi et al. 2009] Lucchesi, M.; Šilhavý, M.; Zani, N. 2009. Equili-
brated divergence measure stress tensor fields for heavy masonry bod-
ies. E uropean Journal of Mechanics A/Solids, Vol. 28: 223–232.
[Lucchesi et al. 2011] Lucchesi, M.; Šilhavý, M.; Zani, N. 2011. Integration
of parametric measures and the statics of masonry panels. Annals of
Solid and Structural Mechanics, Vol. 2: 33–44.
[Lucchesi et al. 2012] Lucchesi, M.; Šilhavý, M.; Zani, N. 2012. On the
choice of functions spaces in the limit analysis for masonry bodies.
J ournal of Mechanics of Materials and Structures, Vol. 7: 795–836.
[Müller 1999] Müller, S. 1999. Variational Models for Microstructure and
Phase Transitions. Pp. 85–210 in S. Hildebrandt, M. Struwe (ed.),
In Calculus of variations and geometric evolution problems (Cetraro,
1996) Lecture notes in Math. 1713 Springer, Berlin.
[Padovani et al. 2008] Padovani, C.; Pasquinelli, G.; Šilhavý, M. 2008. Pro-
cesses in masonry bodies and the dynamical significance of collapse.
M ath. Mech. Solids, Vol. 13: 573–610.
[Rockafellar 1970] Rockafellar, R. T. 1970. C onvex analysis. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
[Rudin 1970] Rudin, W. 1970. Real and complex analysis. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
[Šilhavý 2008] Šilhavý, M. 2008. Cauchy’s stress theorem for stresses rep-
resented by measures. C ontinuum Mechanics and Thermodynamics,
Vol. 20: 75–96.
Mathematics of the Masonry-Like Model and Limit Analysis 69
Massimiliano Lucchesi*
*
Dipartimento di Ingegneria Civile e Ambientale
University of Florence
via S. Marta 3, 50139 Florence
1 Introduction
In this chapter, we shall first explicitly determine the solution to the con-
stitutive equation of isotropic masonry-like materials (i.e., find the stress
tensor T and the fracture strain Ef corresponding to a prescribed strain
tensor E, so as to satisfy relations (2.4)). The problem can be solved by
observing that the stress in the isotropic case is coaxial not only with the
fracture strain, but with the elastic strain as well. This enables representing
all these tensors with respect to the same principal system and then express-
ing the constitutive equation as a function of their eigenvalues. In this way,
(2.4) can be transformed into a linear complementarity problem (7), (27),
(28) whose solution is unique because the tensor of the elastic constants has
been assumed to be positive definite. As the solution to the constitutive
equation depends on the number of principal stresses that vanish, in order
to construct the stress function we need to consider a partition of the strain
space into four different regions, each of which corresponds to different ma-
terial behavior. We then calculate the derivative of the stress function with
respect to the strain, as this will be used to construct the tangent stiffness
matrix when dealing with numerical solution of the equilibrium problem.
The derivative of the stress function turns out to be smooth in each region
and its jump has no tangential component at the interfaces between the
different regions.
In Section 2 we consider the equilibrium problem of a body made of
masonry-like material. We limit ourselves to considering loads that are
square integrable functions (i.e. measures that are absolutely continuum
with a square integrable density). Thus, we can suppose that the displace-
ment field belongs to the Sobolev space V of all vector fields which are
square integrable with their first weak derivative and satisfy the prescribed
boundary conditions. Then, for given loads, solving the equilibrium prob-
lem involves finding an equilibrium state, i.e., a displacement field in V
which satisfies the equation of virtual work for every displacement field in
V (see (22) below). As already established in the previous chapter, for gen-
eral loads the equilibrium state cannot exist and, if it does exist it cannot
be unique; on the other hands, the stress fields corresponding to different
equilibrium states coincide. We say that the loads are admissible if there
exists at least one equilibrium state, and that all such equilibrium state
are regular admissible if they are admissible and the corresponding stress
field is continuously differentiable. Because numerical applications require
assigning the loads incrementally, we define a (regular) admissible loading
process, that is, a piecewise continuously differentiable path in the space of
loads which starts at the origin, ends at the assigned loads and whose points
are (regular) admissible loads. Because masonry-like material is hyperelas-
tic, it turns out that the solution is independent of the choice of the process,
at least for the stress. Next, we briefly describe a numerical method for
solving the equilibrium problem. The approach is based on a displacement
formulation of the finite element method (1), (5), (6) and uses the Newton
Raphson method to solve the non-linear algebraic system that is obtained
by the discretization. (See also (8) and (2) for different approaches).
In Section 3, in order to make a comparison between the explicit and
numerical solutions, we consider a trapezoidal panel that is fixed at its base
and whose horizontal displacements are prevented at its vertical lateral side.
The panel undergoes normal and tangential loads that are distributed on its
top (see Fig. 1 below). Due to the constraint conditions used, in this case
the solution is unique also in terms of displacement and strain. This makes
the comparison between explicitly and numerically determined displacement
fields meaningful (see Figures 2 and 3 below).
With the aim of illustrating the possible applications of the constitutive
equation of masonry-like materials and the numerical method presented in
the foregoing, Section 4 reports on a case study. The cross vault of the
Church of San Ponziano in Lucca was analysed using the NOSA code (16)
at the Laboratory of Mechanics of Materials and Structures of the ISTI-
CNR Institute (25).
Lastly, Section 5 addresses the study of the dynamic behavior of slen-
der masonry structures. In order to overcome the difficulties inherent in
performing dynamic analyses of continuous bodies made of masonry-like
materials, a constitutive equation for masonry structures that can be rep-
resented by one-dimensional elements has been formulated (4), (30). By
assuming that the longitudinal fibers of the beam have no resistance under
tension and bounded compressive strength, the generalized stresses (normal
A Numerical Method for Solving BVP… 73
1.1 Explicit expression for the stress function for isotropic ma-
sonry-like materials and its derivative
In this Section we study the constitutive equation of masonry-like mate-
rials in order to characterize the mechanical behavior of a class of isotropic
materials that are incapable of withstanding tensile stresses and have in-
finite compressive strength. See (20), Chap. 2 for a constitutive equation
that takes into account the limited compressive strength of the material.
We say that a masonry-like material, whose constitutive equation is de-
fined in (2.4), is isotropic if the tensor of the elastic constant C is isotropic,
i.e., if
C QEQT = QC (E) QT
for all orthogonal tensors Q. In the following we suppose that the material
is isotropic and that (2.1) is satisfied. Thus, we have (13) p. 235
t = Dee ,
t ≤ 0,
ef ≥ 0,
t · ef = 0, (3)
where
⎛ ⎞
2μ + λ λ λ
D=⎝ λ 2μ + λ λ ⎠. (4)
λ λ 2μ + λ
This is a linear complementarity problem which, given e, has a unique
solution t and ef , because D is positive definite by (2) (see (7)).
In order to write the explicit solution of system (3), we define
R = {e = (e1 , e2 , e3 ) ∈ R3 : e1 ≤ e2 ≤ e3 } (5)
and consider the partition of R made up of the following four subsets
ti = 0, efi = ei , i = 1, 2, 3; (8)
if e∈ R3 then
μ(2μ + 3λ)
t1 = e1 , ef1 = 0,
λ+μ
A Numerical Method for Solving BVP… 75
λ
ti = 0, efi = ei + e1 , i = 2, 3; (9)
2(λ + μ)
if e∈ R4 then
2μ
t1 = (λe2 + 2(λ + μ)e1 ), ef1 = 0,
λ + 2μ
2μ λ
t2 = (λe1 + 2(λ + μ)e2 ), ef2 = 0, t3 = 0, ef3 = e3 + (e1 + e2 ).
λ + 2μ 2(λ + μ)
(10)
%3
Thus, given a symmetric tensor E= i=1 ei qi ⊗qi , we can calculate the
corresponding stress
3
&
T = T(E) = ti q i ⊗ q i (11)
i=1
&
T(QEQ T &
) = QT(E)Q T
. (13)
1&
&
Moreover, for the stored energy function w(E) = 2 T(E) · E we have
(20), p. 30
if e ∈ R1 then
2 1
&
w(E) = μ E + λ(trE)2 ; (14)
2
if e ∈ R2 then
&
w(E) = 0; (15)
if e ∈ R3 then
1 μ(2μ + 3λ) 2
&
w(E) = e1 ; (16)
2 λ+μ
if e ∈ R4 then
2μ
&
w(E) = ((λ + μ)(e21 + e22 ) + λe1 e2 ). (17)
λ + 2μ
76 M. Lucchesi
ai : Sym∗ → R, A → ai (A), i = 1, 2, 3
∗
which associate each A∈Sym with its eigenvalues, with a1 < a2 < a3 ,
denote by g1 , g2 , g3 a triad of corresponding normalized eigenvectors, and
put
1
Gij = (gi ⊗ gj + gj ⊗ gi ), i, j = 1, 2, 3.
2
Proposition 1.2. We have
DA ai = Gii i = 1, 2, 3,
2
DA Gii = Gij ⊗ Gij , i = 1, 2, 3.
ai − aj
i=j
Now we are in a position to give the explicit expression for the derivative
DE T& of T
& with respect to E in the interior R̊i of each region Ri . Let I and
O be the identity and the null fourth order tensor, respectively. Moreover,
let us put
1
Oij = (qi ⊗ qj + qj ⊗ qi ), i, j = 1, 2, 3.
2
& is differen-
Proposition 1.3. If e belongs to R̊i , i = 1, 2, 3, 4, then T
tiable with respect to E and we have
if e ∈ R1 then
& = 2μI + λ1 ⊗ 1;
DE T (18)
if e ∈ R2 then
& = O;
DE T (19)
if e ∈ R3 then
& = 2μ(2μ + 3λ) O11 ⊗ O11 − e1 O12 ⊗ O12
DE T
λ+μ e2 − e1
e1
− O13 ⊗ O13 ; (20)
e3 − e1
A Numerical Method for Solving BVP… 77
if e ∈ R4 then
& 1
E(v) = (∇v + ∇vT )
2
be the corresponding infinitesimal strain tensor. We assume that the body
force b acting in Ω and the surface force s acting on S are square integrable
functions as in (2.18), i.e.,
b ∈ L2 (Ω, R3 ), s ∈ L2 (S, R3 )
and call (b,s) the load applied to Ω. Thus, the internal energy of the body
E(u) = w( &
& E(u))dL 3
,
Ω
3
< l, u >= b · u dL + s · u dH2
Ω S
F(u) = E(u)− < l, u >= &
& E(u))dL
w( 3
− 3
b · udL − s · u, dH2
Ω Ω S
T · ∇v = div(TT v) − v · divT,
the symmetry of T, and because v= 0 on D, by using the divergence theo-
rem, we obtain
& 3
T · E(v)dL = T · ∇vdL3 =
Ω Ω
div(Tv)dL3 − v · divTdL3 =
Ω Ω
2
Tn · vdH − v · divTdL3 . (24)
S Ω
By comparing (22) and (24) we obtain equation (23) due to the arbi-
trariness of v.
In general, the existence of an equilibrium state is not guaranteed for
equilibrium problems of masonry-like solids (see Chapter 2, Sec 3 for the
A Numerical Method for Solving BVP… 79
existence theory). Moreover, it may happen that there more than one equi-
librium state exists. However, if u1 and u2 are two equilibrium states then
& E(u
T( & E(u
& 1 )) = T( & 2 )). (25)
This follows from the fact that if u is an equilibrium state, then T( & E(u))
&
is a minimum point of the complementary energy functional among all ad-
missible stress fields equilibrating the loads, and this minimum point is
unique, as the complementary energy functional is convex. This has been
proved in Chapter 2, Theorem 3.3 (see also (20), Prop. 3.1 for a simple
direct proof of (2.4)). We say that the load (b, s) is admissible if there
is at least one equilibrium state, that is, a displacement field u which
satisfies (2.1); we moreover say that (b, s) is a regular admissible load if
& E(u))
T( & ∈ C 1 (clΩ,Sym).
In order to solve the equilibrium problem by using the finite element
method, we have to assign the load incrementally. Therefore, given a regular
admissible load (b, s), we consider a piecewise continuously differentiable
loading process τ →(b(τ ), s(τ )), where τ ∈ [0, τ̄ ] is a loading parameter,
such that (b(0), s(0))= (0, 0), (b(τ̄ ), s(τ̄ ))=(b, s), (b(τ ), s(τ )) is a regular
admissible load for each τ ∈ [0, τ̄ ] and, moreover, the map τ → T( & E(u(τ
& )))
is piecewise continuously differentiable. We call a map τ →(b(τ ), s(τ )) with
such characteristics a regular loading process.
Given a regular loading process, from (22) we deduce that
& E(u(τ
T( & &
))) · E(v)dL3
= b(τ ) · vdL + 3
s(τ ) · vdH2 (26)
Ω Ω S
& E(u))[
DE T( & &
Ė(u)] · E(v)dL 3
= ḃ · v, dL3 + ṡ · vdH2 (27)
Ω Ω S
& E(τ
Ṫ = DE T( & )[Ė(τ )],
80 M. Lucchesi
divṪ + ḃ = 0 on Ω
u̇ = 0 on D,
Ṫn = ṡ on S.
It is easy to see that, given a regular admissible load (b, s), the solution
to the equilibrium problem does not depend on the (regular) loading process,
at least with regard to the stress.
By using the finite element method (see e.g., (3), (5), (6), (24)), the
equilibrium equation (26) and the incremental equilibrium equation (27)
are transformed into the non-linear algebraic equilibrium system
[K{u}]{u} = {f } (28)
and into the non-linear evolution system
use (18), with the right-hand side multiplied by a small positive number
(see (1) for a slightly different technique).
After solving system (31), we calculate the vector of the residual load
h/2 h/2
N(η1 , η2 ) = T(η1 , η2, ζ)dζ, M(η1 , η2 ) = T(η1 , η2, ζ)ζdζ. (34)
−h/2 −h/2
Moreover, for each γ ∈[−π/2, π/2) let g(γ) be the unit tangent vector
to S which forms an angle γ with g1 . Thus,
Now let us consider the subset S of S , where N= 0, and for each
γ ∈[−π/2, π/2) let us consider the corresponding eccentricity
M (η1 , η2 , γ)
e(η1 , η2 , γ) = . (37)
N (η1 , η2 , γ)
If, for some γ, we have N (η1 , η2 , γ) = 0, the corresponding eccentricity
is not well-defined, but it can be proved that in this case e(η1 , η2 , γ) = α is
a constant function of γ. Thus, e(η1 , η2 , γ) can be extended by continuity
(20), Prop. 5.1. Let (η1 , η2 ) ∈ S and ē(η1 , η2 ) be such that
β− β 2 − 4 (detN) (detM) β 2 − 4 (detN) (detM)
β+
ω1 = , ω2 = .
2detN 2detN
(39)
Note that, in view of inequality (36), the m.m.e.s corresponding to a
negative semidefinite stress field is entirely contained within the vault. The
m.m.e.s. allows concise, effective rendering of the results of finite elements
analyses. In dealing with masonry vaults the m.m.e.s. plays a role analogous
to that of the line of thrust for arches (15), (16).
x o
y
b
2α
p
αp
b
2α
b/2 b/2
The panel is fixed at its base (0, b) × {b/α} and, moreover, horizontal
displacements are prevented on its right-hand side {0} × (b/2α, b/α). In
the absence of gravity, the panel is subjected to a uniform vertical load p
and a linear tangential load q(x) = 2αpx/b which are distributed on its
top (0, b/2) × {b/2α}. We now try to solve the BVP with a stress field
T : Ω →Sym− ,
T = σx i ⊗ i + τxy (i ⊗ j + j ⊗ i) + σy j ⊗ j, (41)
such that detT = 0. Thus, if we denote by κ the cotangent of the angle
between the active isostatic lines and the x axis, and σy by σ, we can write
(17)
T = κ2 σi ⊗ i + κσ(i ⊗ j + j ⊗ i) + σj ⊗ j, (42)
where κ and σ have to satisfy the system of PDE
κκ,x + κ,y = 0,
(43)
κσ,x + σκ,x + σ,y = 0
with the boundary conditions
μ(2μ + 3λ) λ
E= and ν=
μ+λ 2(μ + λ)
the Young’s modulus and Poisson’ s ratio of the material, from (2) and (48)
we obtain the elastic strain
pb
Ee = − (r ⊗ r − νr⊥ ⊗ r⊥ )
2αEy 3
with r⊥ = (y, −x). Moreover, because the inequalities Ef ≥ 0, T ≤ 0
and the condition T · Ef = 0 imply TEf = 0, from (48) we deduce the
expression for the fracture strain
1
Ef = a(r)r⊥ ⊗ r⊥
y2
with a : Ω → R+ and we have
pb 1
E = Ee + Ef = − 3
(r ⊗ r − νr⊥ ⊗ r⊥ ) + 2 a(r)r⊥ ⊗ r⊥ . (49)
2αEy y
In order that the strain E satisfy the compatibility condition a, once it
has been expressed as a function of y and κ, has to satisfy the ODE (17)
2 φ
a,yy + a,y = 3 , (50)
y y
where
2pb(1 + 3κ2 )
φ= .
αE
From (50) we obtain
1
a(y, κ) = − (φ(1 + lny) + a0 (κ)) + a1 (κ) (51)
y
with a0 and a1 arbitrary functions.
Let u(r) = (u(r), v(r)) be the displacement field. If we require
b b
u(0, y) = 0, for <y< ,
2α α
86 M. Lucchesi
and, for the sake of simplicity we put ν = 0, then from (49) and (51) we
obtain
pbx(x2 + y 2 ) αy αy
u(r) = 3
(−2ln( ) + − 1),
αEy b b
pb(x2 + y 2 ) 1 αy αy
v(r) = 4
( (3x2 − y 2 )ln( ) + x2 (1 − )). (52)
αEy 2 b b
In order to compare the explicit and numerical solutions, the panel has
been discretized into 6400 four-node isoparametric rectangular finite ele-
ments and the following parameter values have been used.
particular, the roofing structures, which had deteriorated over the centuries,
were consolidated and partially reconstructed. Structurally, the church is
constructed of load-bearing masonry with a rectangular plan divided into
three aisles. The central aisle (nave) in correspondence to the presbytery
area is covered by a constant-thickness cross, or groin, vault (Fig. 4), which
is the focus of the present study. Sometime in the past a number of small
solid-brick walls were built to support the beams, which therefore unloaded
the weight of the roofing, the beams themselves and associated joists onto
the cross vault, thereby giving rise to an asymmetrical distribution of con-
centrated loads.
The NOSA code has been used to study the compound structure made up
of the cross vault overlying the altar, which represents the intersection of two
toroidal surfaces, the arches delimiting it from the nave and lateral aisles,
and the wall overlying the barrel vault of the apse area. The dimensions of
the compound structure under examination are 9 m x 13.8 m in plan and 6.4
m in height. Static analyses of the structure were conducted by discretising
it into 6040 nonconforming “shell” elements (12), subjected to their own
weight and the concentrated loads on the extrados due to the walls, while
at the same time accounting for the presence of reinforcement chains in the
arches (fig. 7). The relevant values of Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio
have respectively been assumed to be 5 · 109 Pa and 0.1, while the specific
weight has been taken to be 2 · 104 N/m3 , and the thickness of the vault
and arches 0.25 m and 0.60 m, respectively.
Regarding the boundary conditions, the vault’s springers were considered
to be immovably wedged onto the supporting pillars, and no movement of
the arch extremities was moreover allowed in the direction of the generatices.
This last condition was imposed by assuming that the stiffness of the vault’s
supporting and surrounding structures is such that any movement of the
constraining bonds is severely limited.
Initially, an analysis was made of the structure subjected to its own
weight alone. Analysis of the displacement field reveals a lowering of the
vault in its central area and, regarding the arches, a lowering at the keystone
accompanied by bulging in the area of the haunches. In any event, the
relative displacement did not exceed 1.25 mm. An analysis of the entire
compound structure enables concluding that the compressive stresses are
below 13 · 105 Pa, a value considered acceptable. Analysis of the fracture
strain components moreover excludes the presence of cracking in the cross
vault.
Figures 8, 9 and 10 show plots of the maximum modulus eccentricities
surface respectively for the arch towards the nave, for one of the arches
towards a lateral aisle and for the cross vault. In all three cases, the surface
A Numerical Method for Solving BVP… 89
Figure 7. Finite element model of the cross vault and connected arches.
Figure 11. Plan of the cross vault with the walls sustaining the roof beams.
subjected to its self-weight alone, and when subjected to its self-weight plus
the loads transmitted by the walls. A fair degree of variation is evident,
especially in correspondence to the group of walls indicated as muretto 1,
muretto 2 and muretto 3 in figure 11. In any case, the displacement values
are very small and their variation quite unlikely to cause any significant
changes in the fracture stress and strain fields. Moreover, once again under
these loading conditions, the maximum modulus eccentricities surface is
contained well within the thickness of the arches and the cross vault.
The study shows the potentials of the constitutive equation and nu-
merical techniques described in the foregoing for analysing the structural
behaviour of historical buildings and modelling any consolidation operations
before undertaking them.
Figure 13. Vertical displacement (m) under both self-weight and loads
transmitted by the walls.
A Numerical Method for Solving BVP… 95
given rise to a nonlinear constitutive equation for beams, which furnishes the
generalized stress (normal force and bending moment) as a function of the
generalized strain (extensional strain and curvature change of the beams
longitudinal axis), by making the assumption that the material does not
withstand tensile stresses in the longitudinal direction; variants of the model
take into account the cases of unbounded, as well as bounded compressive
strength (21).
This constitutive equation has revealed to be suitable for formulating and
refining a simple numerical model which, implemented in the finite-element
code MADY, developed at the Dipartimento di Costruzioni e Restauro,
University of Florence (22), render almost effortless to perform non-linear
dynamic analyses of slender masonry structures which exhibit primarily a
flexural behaviour. Specifically, the model has been developed for both solid
and hollow rectangular cross-sections in order to study masonry arches as
well as free-standing masonry towers (19), (26).
From a practical standpoints, the proposed model has shown to be partic-
ularly suitable for the seismic analysis of slender towers: although it repre-
sents towers as one-dimensional continuum, it is refined enough to reveal the
effects of the higher vibration modes that often affect them. Moreover, cou-
pling phenomena between transverse and axial vibrations, which are widely
recognized as an important factor in the seismic behaviour of slender tow-
ers, are also taken into account by the model, as they are embedded in the
constitutive equation. The vertical components of earthquake excitations,
often significant sources of additional damage to these structures, can also
be introduced as input ground motions.
Furthermore, since the model accounts for the material’s non-linear be-
haviour in all sections along the structure’s height, it can be useful to obtain
measures of local and global damage. Because the damage to such struc-
tures tends to be distributed along their height, rather than concentrated
at the base alone, such measures can be meaningful, even if the assumed
elasticity of the material does not allow for assessing the irreversibility of
the damage process.
Firstly, we introduce the constitutive equation formulated for hollow, rect-
angular cross-section beams made of a non-linear elastic material with no
resistance to tension and limited compressive strength σo .
By making the usual assumption of plane sections, according to the classi-
cal Euler-Bernoulli hypothesis, and accounting for axial stresses alone, the
relation between generalized stress and strain can be determined as follows.
For each longitudinal fiber, the considered constitutive equation is
96 M. Lucchesi
⎧
⎪
⎨σ0 if (ȳ) ≤ 0 ,
σ(ȳ) = E(ȳ) if 0 ≤ (ȳ) ≤ 0, (54)
⎪
⎩
0 if (ȳ) > 0,
κh
η= , χ= , (56)
o o
and to describe the geometric properties of the sections via the non-dimensionalized
parameters
h−t b−s
α= , β= (57)
h b
where b and 2h denote the section’s dimensions, while (b − s) and 2(h − t)
denote those of the hollow in the x and y directions, respectively (Fig. 14,
Case 1). Analogously, regarding the generalized stresses, it is useful to refer
to the non-dimensionalized quantities
2N 6M
n= m= . (58)
bhσo bh2 σo
A Numerical Method for Solving BVP… 97
In view of (55), we can define different regions in the plane (η, χ), in
which each of the illustrated σ patterns occur (Fig. 15). Due to the different
distributions of σ, distinct constitutive relations expressing n and m as a
function of η and χ hold for each region.
Thus, since from (55) and (56) we have
η 1−η
yn = − h, ys = h, (59)
χ χ
in view of relations
yn ≤ −h
(60)
ys ≥ h
E1 = {χ ≥ 0, χ ≤ η, χ ≤ 1 − η} .
In the same way for each of the twelve regions of non-linear behaviour
Ei , i = 2, ..13, we obtain
A Numerical Method for Solving BVP… 99
−h ≤ yn ≤ −αh η
Case 2 : E2 = χ ≥ 0, χ ≥ η, χ ≤ ,χ ≤ 1 − η
ys ≥ h α
−αh ≤ yn ≤ αh η η
Case 3 : E3 = χ ≥ 0, χ ≥ ,χ ≥ − , χ ≤ 1 − η
ys ≥ h α α
αh ≤ yn ≤ h η
Case 4 : E4 = χ ≥ 0, χ ≥ −η, χ ≤ − , χ ≤ 1 − η
ys ≥ h α
yn ≤ −h 1−η
Case 5 : E5 = χ ≥ 0, χ ≤ η, χ ≤ , χ≥1−η
αh ≤ ys ≤ h α
yn ≤ −h η−1 1−η
Case 6 : E6 = χ ≥ 0, χ ≤ η, χ ≥ ,χ≥
−αh ≤ ys ≤ αh α α
yn ≤ −h η−1
Case 7 : E7 = χ ≥ 0, χ ≤ η, χ ≥ η − 1, χ ≤
−αh ≤ ys ≤ αh α
−h ≤ yn ≤ −αh
Case 8 :
αh ≤ ys ≤ h
η 1−η
E8 = χ ≥ 0, χ ≥ η, χ ≤ , χ ≤ , χ≥1−η
α α
−h ≤ yn ≤ −αh
Case 9 :
−αh ≤ ys ≤ αh
η 1−η η−1
E9 = χ ≥ 0, χ ≥ η, χ ≤ , χ ≥ ,χ≥
α α α
yn ≥ −h η−1
Case 10 : E10 = χ ≥ 0, χ ≥ η, χ ≤
ys ≤ −αh α
100 M. Lucchesi
−αh ≤ yn ≤ αh
Case 11 :
αh ≤ ys ≤ h
η η 1−η
E11 = χ ≥ 0, χ ≥ , χ ≥ − , χ ≤ ,χ ≥ 1 − η
α α α
yn ≥ −αh η 1−η
Case 12 : E12 = χ ≥ 0, χ ≥ ,χ≥
ys ≤ αh α α
yn ≥ αh η
Case 13 : E13 = χ ≥ 0, χ ≤ − , χ ≥ 1 − η
ys ≤ h α
∂2v ∂ ∂M ∂v ∂ 2 u ∂N
m 2
+ ( + N ) − q = 0,m 2 − −p=0 (62)
∂t ∂z ∂z ∂z ∂t ∂z
where z denotes the abscissa along the beam’s axis, t the time; M (z, t)
and N (z, t) denote the bending moment and axial forces, v(z, t) and u(z, t)
the transverse and longitudinal displacements, q(z, t) and p(z, t) the trans-
A Numerical Method for Solving BVP… 103
verse and axial distributed loads, and m the mass per unit length of beam.
The dynamic problem of the beam is governed by the equations (62) to-
gether with the strain-displacement relations
∂2v h ∂u 1
χ=− ,η = (63)
∂z 2 o ∂z o
and the constitutive relations (61). Equations (62) and (63) together with
(61) are solved numerically. Beams are discretized into finite elements and
each node has three degrees of freedom: axial and transverse displacement
plus rotation. The flexural problem is addressed by using Hermite shape
functions, which guarantee the continuity of both the transverse displace-
ment and rotation, while for the axial displacement linear shape functions
are adopted (24). Moreover, the Newmark and the Newton-Raphson meth-
ods are used to obtain the numerical solution. As most of these techniques
are standard, a detailed explanation has been omitted. Nevertheless, it
should be noted that defining the element stiffness matrix K̂E requires cal-
culating the derivatives of the generalized stress with respect to the gener-
alized strain in each of the domain regions. Moreover, it should mentioned
that two different contributions are accounted for defining K̂E : the tangent
stiffness matrix of the element K̂Es and the so-called geometric-stiffness ma-
trix K̂E
g , which represents the tendency toward buckling induced by axial
loads, with consequent reduction of the total stiffness matrix. In this re-
gard, it is interesting to point out that, while the stiffness matrix K̂E s is
symmetrical in all regions of the admissible domain, K̂E g is not, as detailed
in (26).
Lastly, regarding the effects of viscous damping, these have been ac-
counted for by including in the motion equation a constant viscous damping
matrix, C, which is obtained as a linear combination of M and the initial
elastic stiffness matrix K, as per the Rayleigh assumption.
Bibliography
[1] Alfano G., Rosati L., Valoroso N., A numerical strategy for finite el-
ement analysis of no-tension materials. Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng,
vol. 48, pp. 317-350, 2000.
[2] Angelillo M., Cardamone L., Fortunato A., A new numerical model for
masonry structures. J Mech. Mater. Stuct. 5, 583-615 (2010).
[3] Bathe K. J., Wilson E. L., Numerical methods in finite element analy-
sis, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1976.
[4] Bennati S., Barsotti R.: Optimum radii of circular masonry arches.
A Numerical Method for Solving BVP… 105
y−displacement
0.25
UCS masonry
0.2 LCS masonry
0.15
0.1
0.05
[m]
−0.05
−0.1
−0.15
−0.2
−0.25
0 5 10 15 20
t [s]
x 10
−3 z−displacement
4
UCS masonry
LCS masonry
2
−2
[m]
−4
−6
−8
−10
0 5 10 15 20
t [s]
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0 5 10 15 20
t [s]
C /V
v
0.05
LCS masonry
0.045
0.04
0.035
0.03
0.025
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
0 5 10 15 20
t [s]
35 35
30 30
25 25
H [m]
H [m]
20 20
15 15
10 10
5 5
0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0 0.2 0.4 0.6
[17] Lucchesi M., Zani N., Some explicit solution to plane equilibrium prob-
lem for no-tension bodies. Structural Engineering and Mechanics, vol.
16, pp. 295-316, 2003.
[18] Lucchesi M., Padovani C., Pasquinelli G., Zani N., Static analysis of
masonry vaults, constitutive model and numerical analysis. Journal of
Mechanics of Materials and Structures, 2(2), pp. 211-244, 2007.
[19] Lucchesi M., Pintucchi B.: A numerical model for non-linear dynamic
analysis of slender masonry structures. Eur. J. Mech. A. Solids, 26,
88-105, (2007).
[20] Lucchesi M., Padovani C., Pasquinelli G., Zani N.: Masonry Con-
structions: Mechanical Models and Numerical Applications. Lectures
notes in applied and computational mechanics, Vol. 39, Springer Verlag
(2008).
[21] Lucchesi M., Silhavy M., Zani N.: Equilibrium problems and limit
analysis of masonry beams. J. Elasticity, 106, 165-188, (2012).
[22] Lucchesi M., Pintucchi B. Zani N.: MADY, a finite element code for
dynamic analysis of slender masonry structures: Mathematical specifi-
cations and user manual (In preparation) (2013).
[23] http://www.nosaitaca.it/en/
[24] Oden J. T., Carey G. F., Finite elements-Special problems in solid
mechanics, Vol. 5. Prenctice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey,
1984.
[25] Padovani C., Pagni A., Pasquinelli G.: Un codice di calcolo per l’analisi
statica e il consolidamento di volte in muratura. Proc. WONDERma-
sonry - Workshop on design for rehabilitation of masonry structures,
145 - 153, P. Spinelli (ed.), (2006).
[26] Pintucchi B, Zani N.: Effects of material and geometric non-linearities
on the collapse load of masonry arches. Eur. J. Mech. A. Solids, 28,
45-61, (2009).
[27] Romano G., Sacco E., Sulla proprietà di coassialità del tensore di fes-
surazione. Atti Ist. Scienza delle Costruzioni, Facoltà di Ingegneria,
Napoli, n. 351, 1984.
[28] Sacco E., Modellazione e calcolo di strutture in materiale non resistente
a trazione. Rend. Mat. Acc. Lincei, s. 9, vol. 1, pp. 235-258, 1990.
[29] http://www.salome-platform.org
[30] Zani N.: A constitutive equation and a closed form solution for no-
tension beams with limited compressive strength. Eur. J. Mech. A.
Solids, 23, 467-484, (2004).
Practical applications of unilateral models to
Masonry Equilibrium
Maurizio Angelillo‡
‡
Dipartimento di Ingegneria Civile, University of Salerno, Italy
1 Basic tools
In this section the main notation and the basic notions of equilibrium and
compatibility, in presence of singular stress and strain fields, are introduced.
Singular strains are usually considered in perfect plasticity, and the use
of singular stress fields (though in a mathematically unconscious way) has
been around since the nineteenth century (see Mery (1840)). It is only fairly
recently that Šilhavý, Lucchesi et al (see Lucchesi and Zani (2005)) , have
put forward a rigorous mathematical formulation of stress field singularities.
Chapters 2 and 3 of the present book are partly devoted to the mathematical
exposition of these clever concepts within the theory of measures.
M. Angelillo (Ed.), Mechanics of Masonry Structures, CISM International Centre for Me-
chanical Sciences, DOI 10.1007/ 978-3-7091-1774-3_4, © CISM, Udine 2014
110 M. Angelillo
The formulation that is given here, instead, is rather informal and based
mainly on geometrical arguments. A substantial knowledge of the mathe-
matical theory of linear elasticity, such as that given in the monograph by
Gurtin (1972), to which I refer for notations, is presumed. Familiarity with
functional analysis is not strictly required, though some previous experi-
ence with elementary functional analysis in Sobolev spaces and variational
methods (as can be found, for example, in the books by Kreyszig (1989)
and Dym and Shames (1973)) would be of help.
The matter treated and analysed here is not entirely new. Much of
what is reported, apart from the classical and more recent sources cited
throughout the text, leans on a number of papers recently published, or
under print or review, by myself or my reserch group. In particular, on
singular stress: Angelillo et al. (2012) and Angelillo et al. (2013); on Limit
Analysis for masonry: Angelillo and Fortunato (2013); on semianalitical
solutions for panels: Fortunato (2010); on numerical methods for unilateral
materials Angelillo et al. (2010).
1.1 Preliminaries
It is assumed that the body, a domain Ω ∈ n (here n=2), loaded by
the given tractions s on the part ∂ΩN of the boundary, and subject to given
displacements u on the complementary, constrained part of the boundary
∂ΩD , is in equilibrium under the given surface displacements, tractions and
body loads (u; s,b)1 and undergoes displacements u and local deformations,
so small that the infinitesimal strain E(u) is a proper strain measure.
Vectors and tensors are represented in Cartesian components, in a fixed
frame (0; x1 , x2 ). Summation convention is adopted throughout the text.
divT + b = 0 ,
and the traction boundary conditions
Tn = s , on ∂ΩN ,
n denoting the unit outward normal to ∂Ω.
1
Other possible data are the eigenstrains E; here I omit them from the analysis to
simplify the exposition, though some special eigenstrains will be considered as data in
some of the examples which follow.
Practical Applications of Unilateral Models… 111
For some rigid perfectly plastic materials (such as rigid unilateral mate-
rials), less regular and even singular stresses may be admitted. The minimal
request for such materials is that T be summable
√
T · Tda < ∞ .
Ω
If one admits stress fields that are only summable, the set of competing
functions enlarges to bounded measures, that is to summable distributions
)
T:
)
T < ∞ ,
Ω
) =T
T )s ,
)r + T
u = u , on ∂ΩD .
For linearly elastic bodies, on adopting a variational formulation, the
usual assumption is that E be square summable, that is
(
E · Eda < ∞ .
Ω
For some rigid, perfectly plastic (or rigid unilateral) materials, it is suf-
ficient to assume that E be summable
√
E · Eda < ∞ .
Ω
) =E
E )s ,
)r + E
2
Recall that, here, E(u) is the infinitesimal strain
Practical Applications of Unilateral Models… 113
to the length measure (that is special bounded measures with void Cantor
part).
Remark 2. If u∈ BD(Ω), that is u can be discontinuous, the b.c. u
=u on ∂ΩD makes no sense. A way to keep alive the b.c. of Dirichelet type
is to identify the masonry body rather than with the domain Ω (usually an
open set) with the set Ω ∪ ∂ΩD and to assume that u must comply with
the constraint u =u on the skin ∂ΩD , admitting possible singularities of
the strain at the constrained boundary. Then, from here on, I shall deviate
from standard notation referring to Ω as to the set Ω ∪ ∂ΩD .
Given the displacement field u of x, by taking the gradient of u, in a
classical sense if u is regular, and in a generalized sense if u is singular,
the strain E(u) is derived. Vice versa, if E of x is given, the possibility of
integrating the components Eαβ to get the (possibly discontinuous) compo-
nents uα of u, is submitted to the necessary compatibility conditions (also
sufficient if Ω is simply connected)
or, in other words, T and E must be bounded measures. Here I call M (Ω)
the set of bounded measures on Ω ∪ ∂ΩD . Line Dirac deltas are special
bounded measures; a simple example of a Dirac delta in 1d, is the concen-
trated load on a beam, that is a point Dirac delta (Figure 1).
114 M. Angelillo
a b c
Figure 1. Concentrated transverse force Q on a beam: (a). Corresponding internal
shear force T : (b), and bending moment M : (c).
From elementary beam theory the internal moment M, the shear force
T and the transverse load per unit length q, are related by the differential
equilibrium relations
M = T , T = −q ,
where prime denotes differentiation with respect to z.
The previous equilibrium conditions admit also the following integral
form
z z
T (z) = T (0) − q , M (z) = M (0) + T .
0 0
The second set of equations have sense also if q is a concentrated force,
that is a Dirac delta:
q(z) = Qδ(z o ) ,
Q being the intensity of the load, δ(.) the unit Dirac delta, zo the point of
application of the force.
The unit point Dirac delta applied at zo is defined as follows
z o +
δ(z o ) = 1 , ∀ > 0 .
z o −
The differential equations can be extended to the case of singular loads by
interpreting -q in Figure 1a as the generalized derivative of T in Figure 1b.
More generally, in 1d, the generalized derivative of a piecewise constant
function f is a distribution whose regular part is zero and whose singular
part has support on the jump set of f. Therefore a piecewise constant
function is a special BV function whose singular part consists of point Dirac
deltas applied at the points of discontinuity of f. The integral of such Dirac
deltas across any point of discontinuity gives the value of the jump of f, at
that point.
Practical Applications of Unilateral Models… 115
a b
Figure 2. Discontinuous displacement alog a straight line Γ, unit tangent t and normal
m to Γ: (a). Graph of the generic component uα , a BV function: (b).
[[u]] = u+ − u− .
due to a relative translation of the two parts, is considered. Here u+ is the
displacement on the side of Γ where m points
The displacement field is a piecewise constant vector field, discontinuous
on Γ; the graph of a generic Cartesian component of u, is depicted in
Figure 2b.
The jump of u can be decomposed into normal and tangential compo-
nents
Δv = [[u]] · m , Δw = [[u]] · t ,
where t, m are the unit tangent and normal to Γ, represented in Figure 2a.
Notice that, on any crack, incompenetrability of matter requires Δv ≥ 0 (a
unilateral restriction).
116 M. Angelillo
(T+ − T− )m = 0 ,
T+ being the stress on the side of Γ where m points. Then, if T ∈ L2 (Ω),
the possible jumps of T must be restricted to the part of T non-emerging
on Γ.
If T is singular, say a Dirac delta on Γ, also the part of T emerging on
Γ can be discontinuous. The unbalanced emerging stress
q = (T+ − T− )m ,
in equilibrium, must be balanced by the stress concentrated on Γ (Figure 3).
Referring for notations to Figure 3, the representation of the singular part
Ts of T on Γ, is
Ts = N δ(Γ)t ⊗ t .
For equilibrium, calling p, q the components of q in the tangential and
normal directions, and denoting ρ the curvature of Γ, the following equations
must hold
qs
Ns
ps ''
a b c
Figure 4. Square panel under uniform pressure: (a). Corresponding boundary value
m(s): (b), and normal slope n(s): (c).
This is the general solution of the equilibrium equations, if the loads are
self-balanced on any closed boundary delimiting Ω (see Gurtin (1972)).
The b.c. T n = s on ∂ΩN , must be reformulated in terms of F. Denoting
x(s) the parametrization of ∂ΩN with the arc length, the b.c. on F are:
dF
F (s) = m(s) , = n(s) , on ∂ΩN ,
dν
in which dF/dν is the normal derivative of F at the boundary (that is the
slope of F in the direction of n) and m(s), n(s) are the moment of contact
and the axial force of contact produced by the tractions s(s), on a beam
structure having the same shape of ∂Ω, and cut at the point s=0.
A simple example is shown in Figure 4.
Regular and singular equilibrated stress fields can be derived by stress
functions meeting the prescribed b.c. on F and dF/dν. A regular stress
field is represented by a smooth F (see Figure 5a), a singular stress field by
a continuous but folded F (Figure 5b). The projection of a fold of F on Ω is
118 M. Angelillo
a b c
Figure 5. Square panel under uniform pressure. Smooth Airy’s stress function giving
homogeneous pressure inside the body: (a); folded Airy’s function: (b); representation
of the uniaxial and singular stress field corresponding to the folded Airy’s function: (c).
H(F ) = Δm F δ(Γ)m ⊗ m ,
Ts = N δ(Γ)t ⊗ t ,
N = Δm F .
T ∈ Sym− , (1)
∗
the effective strain E = E(u) − E is positive semidefinite
E∗ ∈ Sym+ , (2)
∗
and the stress T does no work for the corresponding effective strain E
T · E∗ = 0 . (3)
∗
The effective strain E is a positive definite tensor field doing no work
for the corresponding stress, and representing detachment fractures (that is
type 1. fractures, see Sect.2, Chap.1). E ∗ is a sort of “reaction” deformation
associated to the constraint on stress (1), and, therefore, is also called latent
strain. In order to avoid trivial incompatible loads (s,b), it is assumed that
the tractions s satisfy the condition
tr T ≤ 0 , det T ≥ 0 , (5)
tr E∗ ≥ 0 , det E∗ ≥ 0 . (6)
3
When eigenstrains are considered, under the small strain assumption, the total strain
E(u) is decomposed additively as follows: E(u) = E∗ +E, E∗ being the effective strain
of the material.
120 M. Angelillo
H = T ∈ S(Ω) s.t. divT + b = 0 , Tn = s on ∂ΩN , T ∈ Sym− , (7)
S(Ω) being a function space of convenient regularity. Since for RNT ma-
terials, discontinuous and even singular stress fields will be considered, one
can assume S(Ω) = M (Ω), that is the set of bounded measures.
For Elastic No-Tension (ENT) materials a sensible choice is S(Ω) =
L2 (Ω), that is the function space of square summable functions.
Actually the space M (Ω) contains L2 (Ω) and is much larger than it, that
is the set of functions which compete for equilibrium is richer for RNT than
for ENT materials; this fact makes easier for RNT materials the search of
s.a. stress fields.
The differential equations of equilibrium must be reformulated for non
smooth T, since the derivatives of T do not exist in a classical sense4 . One
way to do it is to impose equilibrium in a variational form, namely by using
the Virtual Work Principle.
On introducing the set of virtual displacements
s · δu + b · δu = T · E(δu) , ∀δu ∈ δ K . (9)
∂ΩN Ω Ω
Ω3 = {x ∈ Ω s.t. T = 0} . (12)
T = σ1 k1 ⊗ k1 + σ2 k2 ⊗ k2 ,
in Ω1 the stress is of biaxial compression, that is σ1 < 0, σ2 < 0; in Ω2 the
stress is of uniaxial compression, that is T=σ k ⊗ k, σ < 0; Ω3 is inert.
Notice that the form and the regularity of these regions depend on the
smoothness of T, and that such regions can be rather weird if one admits
T ∈ M (Ω). We will see in what follows that, on admitting only special
bounded measures (i.e. Dirac deltas with support on a finite number of
regular arcs), the regions Ωi can degenerate, but the fundamental partition
can be still easily identified.
Remark 3. In the Ω2 regions, that is where the stress is of uniaxial com-
pression, a classical theorem of Tension Field Theory (see Subsection 3.8
and Remark 9), states that (as the intuition suggests, see below and Fig-
ure 6) the lines of principal compression (tension in the case of TFT) form
a family of straight lines if the body forces vanish.
A simple geometrical proof of this statement can be obtained by observ-
ing that, the equilibrium of a material tube contained in between two such
infinitesimally spaced principal lines, is possible only if the tube is straight
and the internal axial force of contact N is constant (see Figure 6).
If the two contiguous lines are parallel the stress itself is constant. If the
two lines converge, on denoting R the distance between the point P and
the point of intersection of the two lines, and introducing the arc length s
along the ray from the origin P , calling σ(s) and σ ◦ the stress at Q and the
stress at P , for equilibrium, the stress along the ray takes the form
R
σ(s) = σ◦ .
R−s
122 M. Angelillo
2
tr T = F,11 + F,22 ≤ 0 , det T = F,11 F,22 − F,12 ≥0, (13)
then the Hessian H(F) of F, is negative semidefinite and the stress function
F must be concave. Therefore, in absence of body forces b, the equilibrium
problem for a NT material, can be formulated as the search of a concave
function F, taking on the part ∂ΩN of the boundary, a specified value and
a specified slope.
Example. As a simple example of an equilibrium problem, I consider
the traction problem depicted in Figure 7a. Smooth and singular statically
admissible stress fields can be easily derived from simple stress functions
matching the given boundary data.
A smooth solution can be derived from the stress function (here L=1 is
assumed):
− 23 p + 2px2 , x2 < 12 (1 − x21 ) ,
F = (1−x2 )2
− 21 px21 − 2p 1+x22 , x2 ≥ 12 (1 − x21 ) .
1
a b c
Figure 7. Wall beam under uniform transverse load: (a). Graph of the Airy’s stress
function, corresponding to the smooth solution: (b). Domain partition and one of the
families of compression lines corresponding to the smooth solution: (c).
a b c
Figure 8. Graph of the folded Airy’s function, showing the intersection of the gener-
ating surfaces: (a). Corresponding domain partition and principal lines of compression:
(b). Support of the singular stress (solid lines 3, 4, 5): (c).
Ts = N δ(Γ)t ⊗ t .
Since the fold is concave the jump of slope is negative, then
N = Δm F < 0 .
124 M. Angelillo
K = u ∈ T (Ω) s.t. u = u on ∂ΩD , (E(u)-E) ∈ Sym+ , (14)
(δTn) · u − δT · E = δT · E(u) , ∀δT ∈ δ H . (16)
∂ΩD Ω Ω
a b
Figure 9. Examples of kinematical problems. Wall loaded by uniform vertical load
at the top and subjected to a given uniform settlement of the right foot: (a). Masonry
panel subject to uniform thermal expansion of the right half: (b).
a b c
Figure 10. Compatible solution for the problem of Figure 9a: (a). Corresponding
(singular) strain components: (b), (c).
a b c
Figure 11. Compatible solution for the problem of Figure 10b: (a). Corresponding
(regular and singular) strain components: (b), (c).
The corresponding deformation and the strain components E11 , E22 , are
graphically represented in Figure 11. I leave to the reader to verify that the
effective strain (E(u)-E) belongs to Sym+ 6 and that the strain E, whose
non-vanishing components are depicted in Figures 11b c, satisfy the com-
patibility conditions (6) in a generalized sense.
↔ (s, b) ≈ loads ,
∗ ↔ (u, E) ≈ distortions .
The equilibrium problem and the kinematical problem for RNT materials,
namely the search of admissible stress or displacement fields for given data,
are essentially independent, in the sense that they are uncoupled but for
condition (3).
It has to be pointed out that, for RNT bodies, there are non-trivial
compatibility conditions, both on the loads and on the distortions; that is
the existence of statically admissible stress fields for given loads, and the
existence of kinematically admissible displacement fields for given distor-
tions, is submitted to special conditions on the data (for a thorough study
of compatibility conditions on the loads see Del Piero (1989) and Angelillo
and Rosso (1995)).
6
The assumption that the effective strain has to belong to Sym+ , implies that, on a
crack Γ, the form of the singular strain be
Figure 12. Statically admissible solution reconcilable with the compatible mechanism
of Figure 11a, and corresponding to the BVP depicted in Figure 10a. An arch carrying
a concentrated axial force is formed, springing from the two hinges of Figure 10a. The
stress field is regular and uniaxial above the arch.
{ is compatible} ⇔ {H = ∅} , (17)
Therefore the more direct way to prove compatibility, both for loads and
distortions, is to construct a s.a. stress field or a k.a. displacement field, as
done in the previous examples.
To prove the existence of a solution to the BVP for a No-Tension body,
the compatibility of and ∗ is necessary but not sufficient, since the further
condition
T · E∗ (u) = 0 ,
must be satisfied (this is the material restriction (3)). Then one can say
that a possible solution to the BVP is given, if there exist a s.a. stress field
and and a k.a. dispalcement field, which are reconcilable in the sense of
condition (3).
As a simple example in Figure 12, a s.a. stress field giving, together
with the mechanism of Figure 10a, a possible solution to the simple problem
depicted in Figure 9a, is reported.
Examples. In the examples of Figure 13, the possible solution of two
classical mixed BVP for RNT materials is pictorially presented. Notice that
both the stress solution and the displacement solution present singularities.
128 M. Angelillo
a b
Figure 13. Examples of solutions of typical BVP’s for NENT materials. Arch loaded
by a uniform (per-unit projection) vertical load at the extrados and subjected to a given
uniform settlement of its abutments. In (a) the supports spread, in (b) they get closer.
The strain is singular at the supports and at the key-stone; two different arches form in
the two cases.
The examples reported in Figures 13, that can be found also in the mile-
stone book by Heyman (1995), testify the need, in order to solve a BVP
for Rigid No-Tension materials, to consider at the same time singular stress
and strain fields, and call for an extended formulation of the theorems of
Limit Analysis.
H◦ = T◦ ∈ S(Ω) s.t. divT◦ = 0 , T◦ n = 0 on ∂ΩN , T◦ ∈ Sym− ,
and
K◦ = u◦ ∈ T (Ω) s.t. u◦ = 0 on ∂ΩD , E(u◦ ) ∈ Sym+ .
◦ ◦ ◦◦ ◦◦
Both H and K can reduce to the sets H and K corresponding to
null stress and strain fields, depending on the geometry of the boundary, of
the loads and of the constraints.
◦ ◦◦ ◦ ◦◦
Remark 4. The fact that H − H can be void and that K − K
can be non-void is kind of peculiar of RNT materials; indeed we are used to
think to 2d continua as overdetermined and deprived of rigid, zero-energy,
internal modes.
One way to see overdeterminacy is to add to any s.a. stress field a, non
◦ ◦◦
zero, self balanced stress field T◦ . The fact that H − H can be void,
Practical Applications of Unilateral Models… 129
a b
Figure 14. Example of incompatible loads: in (a) wall loaded by uniform vertical
loads at the top and bottom bases. K.a. displacement field for which the load performs
positive work: (b).
means that overdeterminacy depends on the loads. There also can be loads
for which the structure becomes statically admissible. The fact that the
overdeterminacy/underdeterminacy of the structure depends on the load is
typical also of discrete structures with unilateral constraints.
The absence of degrees of freedom is proved, for discrete structures,
◦ ◦◦
by denying the possibility of zero energy mechanisms. u◦ ∈ K − K is
indeed a non trivial mechanism requiring, for the RNT body, zero energy
expended. The underdeterminacy of the structure, descending from the
◦ ◦◦
fact that K − K can be non-void, demands for non trivial compatibility
conditions on the loads.
The incompatibility of the data can be assessed as follows
◦
{ incompatible} ⇐ ∃u◦ ∈ K s.t. , u◦ > 0 , (19)
◦
{∗ incompatible} ⇐ ∃T◦ ∈ H s.t. ∗ , T◦ > 0 , (20)
where , u◦ , ∗ , T◦ represent the work of the loads and distortions for
u◦ , T◦ , respectively.
Examples. The load of Figure 14a is incompatible, since it makes pos-
itive work for the mechanism u◦ depicted in Figure 14b.
The distortion represented in Figure 15a is incompatible, since it makes
positive work for the self stress T◦ depicted in Figure 15b.
Remark 5. The incompatibility of a given set of loads means that
equilibrium is not possible and that acceleration of the structure must take
place7 . The incompatibility of a given set of distortions means that the given
7
A trivial compatibility condition for all kinds of bodies, under pure traction conditions,
130 M. Angelillo
a b
Figure 15. Example of incompatible distortions: in (a) panel subject to a given
displacement of the left constraint. S.a. stress field for which the distortion performs
positive work: (b).
is load balance. Load balance is only a necessary compatibility condition for unilateral
bodies.
Practical Applications of Unilateral Models… 131
H = T ∈ S(Ω) s.t. divT + b = 0 , Tn = s on ∂ΩN , T ∈ Sym− , (21)
K = u ∈ T (Ω) s.t. u = 0 on ∂ΩD , E(u) ∈ Sym+ , (22)
where a convenient choice for the function spaces S(Ω) and T (Ω) is
S(Ω) = SM F (Ω) ,
σ 1 < 0 , σ2 < 0 ,
σ1 , σ2 being the eigenvalues of T at the point x.
Kinematic Theorem. If is a collapse load (in the sense of item (1)
above) then H is void.
Static Theorem. If a strictly admissible stress field T exists, then the
load is safe (in the sense of item (3) above).
Limit Theorem. If H is not void and there exists u∗ ∈ K − K ◦◦
, u∗ = 0, then the load is limit (in the sense of item (2) above).
For the proof of these theorems I refer to the paper (Del Piero, 1998).
The reader must be warned that the proofs given by Del Piero refer to
a similar function space for the displacement but to a different functional
setting for the stress (namely L2 (Ω)). In the present paper I assume that
these theorem are still valid in the present larger setting for the stress and
smaller setting for the displacement9 .
a b c d
Figure 16. Compressed pier (wall). Pure traction problem: (a), Mixed problem: (b).
Corresponding data for F and dF/ν for the two cases.
px21
F =− .
2
The uniqueness of this F can be proved by observing that the surface
defined by it coincides with the upper part of the convex hull of the curve
carrying the boundary datum for F. The properties of minimality of the
convex hull ensure the uniqueness of F and of the corresponding stress (see
Angelillo and Rosso (1995)), that is of the uniform uniaxial stress
0 0
{T} = .
0 −p
Since this is the only statically admissible stress field, H is a singleton
and we can say that the structure, with this load, is statically determined
(see Remark 4). Notice that based on the definition (3) above and on the
theorems of LA, the load is not safe. It is actually limit (see Limit The-
orem above) since by splitting the panel into two parts along any vertical
line Γ with a normal crack, the strain corresponding to this mechanism is
a horizontal uniaxial Dirac delta whose intensity has the value of the dis-
placement jump along Γ: the work of the load for this non-zero mechanism
is zero. Notice that the strain corresponding to this mechanism and the
unique statically admissible stress field are reconcilable in the sense of con-
dition (3), that is they represent a possible solution for the BVP. The fact
that, under these conditions, strain can increase indefinitely at constant
load is a typical feature of limit loads.
In case (b) the previous stress function can be corrected by adding a
term to it. Notice that the boundary is loaded only on the lateral sides and
on the top base (with the same load of case (a)), and that both the value
and the slope of the stress function can be modified along the bottom base
134 M. Angelillo
of the panel (see Figure 16d). The simplest correction with polinomia one
can think of, is
2(a2 − x21 )2
4
detT = β 8
pa − β(4a2 + 20x21 )x22 .
a
√ √
2 2
If h ≤ 2 a then trT is always negative. If h > 2 a then trT is negative
on Ω if
pa2
β< ,
4h2 − 2a2
and detT is positive on Ω if
pa2
β< .
24h2
Then T is negative definite on Ω, and the load is safe, on the base of
the Static Theorem of LA, if the second inequality holds. For example, for
p
a square panel, if one takes β < 96 , then the stress given by the above
expression is strictly admissible and the load is safe. In Figure 17 the
stress functions emploied for cases (a) and (b) are shown side by side for
p
comparison, in the special case h = 2a, and putting for case (b), β = 400 .
Notice that the negative definiteness of T in case (b) is not uniform, since
on the lateral sides we must have detT = 0 and one of the two eigenvalues
of T must tend to zero as that part of the boundary is approached.
Remark 6. The bounds found on β give values of β vanishingly small
with respect to p, as the ratio h/a increases; if one takes β/p as a sort of
measure of the safety level of the load with respect to collapse: then slender
walls, under this kind of loading, tend to become less and less safe, as the
ratio h/a is increased.
Practical Applications of Unilateral Models… 135
a b
Figure 17. Compressed pier (wall): in (a) Airy’s stress function for the traction
problem. In (b) Airy’s stress function adopted for the mixed case.
a b
Figure 18. In (a) Airy’s folded stress function for the mixed problem. In (b) a scheme
of the corresponding stress is reported.
a b c
Figure 19. Smoothing of the folded stress function of Figure 18. Sections of the folded
surface and its smoothed transformation at x2 = 0: (a); the section of the parabolic
cylinder corresponding to the solution of the traction problem is reported for reference.
In (b), (c) a 3d view of the folded and smoothed surfaces is shown
admissible stress fields can be obtained. A non smooth F satisfying the b.c.
for case (b) of Figure 16 is depicted in Figure 18a.
The stress field corresponding to the non smooth Airy’s function depicted
in Figure 18a, is reported schematically in Figure 18b. The way in which
such a composite surface can be generated by the boundary data is explained
in detail in the next example. Notice that the half-span αa and the rise βh
of the arch-like structure depicted in Figure 18b can be chosen arbitrarily
provided that α, β vary in the interval [0, 1].
The process through which the singular statically admissible stress field
depicted in Figure 18 can be smoothed out and transformed into a strictly
admissible stress field is not discussed here for brevity. A 3d view of the
folded F and of its strictly admissible modification (together with the stress
function of case (a) used as a reference surface) is shown pictorially in Fig-
ure 19.
x2
ΑP q
3
2
L
x1
L
a b
Figure 20. Rectangular panel loaded by vertical and horizontal forces. Loading
scheme: (a). Rocking mechanism: (b)
x2
1 s 0 s 4
s
ms ns
s
x1
2 s 3
a b c
Figure 21. Rectangular panel loaded by vertical and horizontal forces. Parametriza-
tion of the boundary: (a). Boundary value for F (moment m(s)): (a). Boundary value
for the normal derivative of F (axial force n(s)): (c)
138 M. Angelillo
x2
t
2
1.5
0.0
0.1 3
0.2 1.0
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.2
0.0 x1
0.2
0.4 0.0
a b
Figure 22. Rectangular panel loaded by vertical and horizontal forces for α = 1/4.
Composite stress function: (a). Corresponding support of the singular stress on the
planform and domain partition: (b).
Segment 0-1
Load direction: k = {0, −1};
Propagation vector: v(s) = {k1 , k2 , gradF · k} = {0, −1, 0};
2
Parametric form of F 1 : y(s, ν) = X(s) + νv(s) = {−s, 32 − ν, − qs2 };
qx2
F 1 in terms of x1 , x2 : F 1 (x1, x2 ) = − 21 .
Segment 1-2
Load direction: k = {1, 0};
Propagation vector: v(s) = {k1 , k2 , gradF · k} = {1, 0, 2q };
Parametric form of F 2 : y(s, ν) = X(s) + νv(s) =
{− 12 + ν, 32 − s, − p8 (1 − 2qs + 4νq)};
F 2 in terms of x1 , x2 : F 2 (x1, x2 ) = − 4q (1 − 2x1 − x2 ).
3. The two surfaces F 1 and F 2 intersect along a curve (represented in
Figure 22a) whose projection Γ on the “planform” is determined, in explicit
form. By solving the equation F 1 = F 2 , one obtains the following equation
for Γ:
x2 = 1 − 2x1 − 2x21 .
*
1
ΔF = (gradF 1 − gradF 2 ) · h = − q 5 + 16x1 + 16x21 .
4
pL
p L4 p
T0
p
3
p L
2
p L4
a b
Figure 23. Rectangular panel loaded by vertical and horizontal forces for α = 1/4.
Stress corresponding to the stress function of Figure 22: (a). Graph of the axial force
along the arch: (b).
x21 1
F 1 (x1 , x2 ) = −q , F 2 (x1 , x2 ) = − q(9 − 12x1 − 8x2 ) .
2 24
They intersect along the curve Γ depicted in Figure 24a, whose projection
on the planform is given by the equation:
3
x2 = (3 − 4x1 − 4x21 ) .
8
Γ is a parabola passing through the points [−1/2, 3/2], [1/2, 0] (thus is
the two opposite top and bottom corners of the rectangle: Figure 24b). The
jump of slope along Γ is
*
1
ΔF (x1 ) = (gradF 1 − gradF 2 )|Γ · h(x1 ) = − q 13 + 36x1 + 36x21 .
6
the corresponding axial force N along Γ, in the interval [−0.5, 0.5], is re-
ported in Figure 24d.
In Figure 24c the stress field corresponding to the composite surface
F 1 , F 2 is reported. Such a field is not strictly admissible and does zero
work for the mechanism of Figure 20b, therefore α = 1/3 is the limit load.
Practical Applications of Unilateral Models… 141
x2
m
t
2
0.0
1.5
0.2 3
0.4 1.0
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.2
0.0 x1
0.2
0.4 0.0
a b
pL
p L3 p
T0
pL
p L3
c d
Figure 24. Rectangular panel loaded by vertical and horizontal forces for α = 1/3.
Strees function: (a). Support of the singular stress on the planform and domain partition:
(b). Stress corresponding to the stress function depicted in (a): (c). Graph of the axial
force along the arch: (d).
The stress field that was constructed for α = 1/4 is not strictly admissible
(actually the stress that we derived from the folded stress function is on the
boundary of the cone Sym− all over Ω), but, for any value of the load
parameter α < 31 , the previous construction can be used to generate a
strictly admissible stress field. The method proceeds as follows:
Assume that a value of the parameter, say α ) < 13 , is given. If one
removes a portion p = q(1 − 3) α) from the given uniform load, the load
becomes limit, that is the parabola hits the right corner of the rectangle
and, as before, a stress field T1 can be constructed. Now I consider the
panel under the action of the uniform vertical load p applied at the top
base, and take the strictly admissible solution, say T2 , constructed for the
142 M. Angelillo
previous example (the compressed wall). The sum of the two stress fields
T1 + T2 is strictly statically admissible, since Sym− is convex, the second
stress state is strictly inside the cone, and then the sum of the two stress
fields is also strictly inside the cone for any x ∈ Ω.
Remark 9. In the previous example statically admissible stress fields
were produced through the stress function formulation. The overdetermined
problem of equilibrium was reduced to a determined problem by restricting
the search to a special class of stress functions, namely that of ruled surfaces
(that is surfaces composed of straight lines). The stress fields corresponding
to these surfaces are either uniaxial or null, that is the stress is limit almost
everywhere in the body and the equilibrium problem is determined, since to
the two differential equations of equilibrium the algebraic condition that the
stress is uniaxial (detT = 0) is added10 . Any statically admissible uniaxial
stress field balanced with zero body forces b, has one family of isostatic lines
(the ones corresponding to the negative eigenvalue) composed of straight
lines (see Remark 3 and Figure 6). These straight lines, being actually the
projections of the straight lines generating the ruled stress surface associated
to T, are called compression rays 11 .
The differential problem is parabolic, and the stresses inside Ω are deter-
mined by the boundary data. By propagating the loads from opposite parts
of the boundary the corresponding stress fields are usually unbalanced at
the interface between the two fields: singular stress fields must be admitted
along the interface. Both the value of the singular stress and the shape
and location of the interface is determined by equilibrium. With the stress
function formulation both the form and the location of the interface, besides
the intensity of the axial contact force along Γ, are derived by intersecting
two contiguous stress surfaces.
10
This assumption is the basic hypothesis of the Tension Field Theory (see (Mansfield,
1969)), a simplified unilateral model for thin elastic membranes, analogous to the NT
model for masonry structures (see Remark 3 and Subsection 3.8).
11
This is a terminology similar to that adopted in Tension Field Theory, see Fortunato
(2010).
Practical Applications of Unilateral Models… 143
the diffuse effect of body forces will be neglected. In Example 5 below the
effect of uniform vertical body forces is considered.
The lintel’s lower edge is actually often curved (see dashed line in Fig-
ure 25a), this feature being in keeping with the kind of stress state that
I wish to consider in the element, as we shall see below. The presence of
this arched intrados is necessary for equilibrium, if vertical body forces are
considered.
By adopting the previous approach, in the case at hand I formulate the
equilibrium problem of the lintel as follows.
The loads acting on Ω consists of a distributed load q, applied along
the top edge of Ω and having two components {q1 , q2 } (see Figure 25b).
The supports A, B reacts with two forces RA , RB , whose components are
denoted {H(A), V (A)}, {−H(B), V (B)} ; the lateral and the lower edges
are unloaded.
Restricting to at most uniaxial stress fields and denoting g = q1 /q2 the
slope of the applied load with respect to x2 , the stress field, in the upper
part of the domain, is a uniaxial field in the direction of the compression
rays emanating from the top edge, whose slope with respect to x2 is g.
Calling τ the length along the (straight) top edge of the domain, measured
from O, I also assume that the slope g is so restricted:
τ L−τ
g(0) = 0 , g(L) = 0 , − ≤ g(τ ) ≤ , |g(τ )| ,
h◦ h◦
that is the initial and final slopes are zero (then the two extreme compression
rays run along the lateral edges), and the compression rays go from base to
base and do not cross each other inside the rectangle enclosing Ω.
The stress field in the lower part of the domain is zero. The upper and
the lower regions are separated by a common boundary Γ, passing through
A and B, that is parametrized in terms of τ as follows
y
H = q1 , V = q2 , V = H ,
1 + gy + g y
12
For the positive sign of these two components I refer to the choice reported in Fig-
ure 25a.
144 M. Angelillo
q x
q
f°
HA A B HB
VA VB A B
y
a b
Span Load
q1
Τ
Q
q2
c d
Span Load
q1
q2 Q
e f
Figure 25. Lintel loaded by vertical and horizontal forces. Geometry of the panel:
(a). Forces acting on the panel, compression rays and arch: (b). Horizontal and vertical
load for two special cases (c, e) corresponding to the equilibrium solutions (d, f).
τ ◦ being an unknown position along the upper edge. In the special case in
which the horizontal and vertical loads have the form
6q ◦ (L − τ )2 τ
q1 (τ ) = , q2 (τ ) = q ◦ ,
L3
that is the vertical load is uniform, the horizontal load is parabolic, and the
horizontal load resultant is half of the vertical resultant, the solution is
Practical Applications of Unilateral Models… 145
◦ (h◦ − L)2 6L2 τ 2 − 8Lτ 3 + 3τ 4
H=q + ,
8h◦ 2L3
1 ◦ ◦
V = q (h − L + 2τ ) ,
2
h◦ L3 (h◦ − L + 2τ )2
y= ,
L5 + (h◦ )2 a(τ ) − 2h◦ b(τ )
where
F q
A B
L
a b
' ''
'''
c d
Figure 26. Lintel loaded by vertical and horizontal forces: (a). Boundary data: (b).
Composite stress function: (c). Support of the singular stress, arch structure: (d).
with
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.0 0.0
0.4 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4
a b c
Figure 27. Lintel loaded by uniform body forces. Geometry of the panel: (a). Lower
arch for α = 9/10: (b) and for α = 1/100: (c).
σ = −γ(h◦ − y) .
Therefore the arch Γ is subjected to the vertical distributed load (per unit
horizontal length) q = −γ(h◦ − f (x)), f (x) being the vertical coordinate of
the arch Γ. For equilibrium the shape of the arch must satisfy the equation
h◦ − f
f = −γ .
H
that one can solve (for f and H) with the boundary conditions
L2
H=γ √ .
Log2 2−α2 −2 1−α2
α2
2
√
√
◦ 2L 1 − α2 + 1 − α2 Log 2 − α2 − 2 1 − α2 − 2Log(α)
Q = γp
√ √
−1 + 1 − α2 Log2 2−α +2
2 1−α2
α 2 .
In Figures 27b,c the shape of the lower curve determined through equi-
librium is compared to the actual shape of the intrados of the lintel, for
two extreme special cases (α = 0.9, α = 0.01). From these two pictures
one can see that, in the first case, the statically admissible stress field here
constructed can be accepted as an approximate equilibrated solution (by
neglecting the slight geometrical difference between the two curves); whilst,
in the second case, there is a large portion of the domain (located below the
arch) that remains out of the picture.
It is to be pointed out that for α → 1, the thrust force tends to +∞.
Second solution: reducing the thrust.The domain Ω is divided into
two parts: the part Ω comprised between the curve Γ and the curve
x1 = x , x2 = h(x, λ) ,
with
Figure 28. Lintel loaded by uniform body forces: geometry of the panel and domain
partition for the second solution.
1
g(x) = f (x)
1−α
is the function describing the upper curve Γ .
The natural and reciprocal base vectors associated to this curvilinear
system, in components in the Cartesian reference depicted in Figure 28, are
1 h,1 1
a = {1, 0} , a2 = − , .
h,2 h,2
The uniaxial stress field here considered has the form
T = σa1 ⊗ a1 ,
σ being a function of (x, λ), describing the intensity of the stress field, to
be found, together with f , by solving the equilibrium equation
∂
(σa1 ⊗ a1 ) aα + b = 0 .
∂ϑα
By projecting this vector equation along the natural bases, after some
algebra, the following system of second order differential equations, is ob-
tained:
h,12
σ,1 + σ =0,
h,2
γ h,11
− +σ =0,
h,2 h,2
150 M. Angelillo
∂h
Recalling that h,2 = ∂λ = αg, since h,2 is always different from zero
inside Ω , integrating the first equation, one obtains
m(λ)
σ= ,
h,2
m(λ) being an unknown function of λ. Substituting into the second equation
one obtains
h,11
γ = m(λ) .
h,2
∂h ∂2h
Therefore, taking into account that h,2 = ∂λ = αg and h,11 = ∂x2 =
(1 − α + αλ)g , the following two conditions are obtained:
α
g = −kg , m(λ) = −γ ,
k(1 − α + αλ)
k being a constant that I will assume positive.
By solving the first equation with the boundary conditions g(−L/2) =
0, g(0) = h◦ the following solution is obtained
- -√ . .
√ kL √
◦ ◦
g = h cos kx + cot sin kx .
2
π2
k= ,
L2
and then the form of the curve Γ is given by
πx
g ◦ = h◦ cos ,
L
that is
πx / 0
◦ L L
Γ = {x} = x, h cos , x∈ − , .
L 2 2
The physical uniaxial stress component
a1 a1 L2 γSec πx
σ = T(11) = T · ⊗ =− ◦ 2 L
,
|a1 | |a1 | h π (1 + α(−1 + λ))
along the ϑ1 curves, is depicted in the graphic of Figure 29.
Practical Applications of Unilateral Models… 151
Α 4
5
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.4 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4
It is assumed that the load which is given above the curve Γ , is taken by
an arch Γ , that is by a concentrated stress with support on Γ . The form
of this curve, springing from the points A, B, determined by the form of the
load through equilibrium, should be located below the load (that is below
the curve Γ ) and contained inside the masonry (that is above the curve Γ).
In this way, the load can be transmitted to the arch by compressive uniaxial
vertical stresses, linearly varying inside Ω , and constant outside it.
The vertical load that I consider acting on Γ is then
q = γ(s + h◦ − g ◦ ) ,
hy π 2 (Lp◦ + 2s) L2 − 4x2 − 8L3 p◦ cos πx
L
Γ = x, ,
L2 (L (−8 + π 2 ) p◦ + 2π 2 s)
x ∈ (−L/2, L/2) ,
◦
where p◦ = 2hL is the aspect ratio of the lintel. In Figure 30 the form of the
arch for p◦ = 1 , s = L/8 and three special cases is reported.
Finally the values of the vertical reactions and of the thrust forces in A
and B, due to the compound effect of the first and the second equilibrium
solutions are:
(π − 4p◦ + 2πp◦ )γ p◦ αγ
Q/2 = + , (23)
8π 2π
152 M. Angelillo
2 1
Α hy
3 5
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.4 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4
1 1
Α hy
3 3
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.4 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4
1 21
Α hy
6 50
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.4 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4
Figure 30. Lintel loaded by uniform body forces: geometry of the arch Γ carrying
the load of the part Ω for three special cases: from top top to bottom, α = 2/3, α = 1/3,
α = 1/6.
Practical Applications of Unilateral Models… 153
l L l
D h C
h0
f b
A B E
h1
G F
Figure 31. Typical masonry portal. L: span of the arch, f : rise, h: thickness. ABCD:
lintel, h◦ : height of the lintel. GF EB: pier, h1 : height of the pier, : width of the pier.
−16p◦ + π 2 (1 + 2p◦ ) γ γLog(1 − α)
H= 2
− . (24)
32hy π π2
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.25
0.20 0.2
0.15
0.10
0.05
a b
Figure 32. Derand’s rule for shallow and pointed arches.
H
B E
G F
Figure 33. Forces acting of the pier. Q, H are the vertical and horizontal forces
trasmitted by the lintel; the uniformly distributed load at the top base is the effect of
the weight of the part BEC; b is the body force.
the points A, B, have the vertical and horizontal components given by (23)
and (24).
The concentrated and distributed forces acting on the right pier of the
portal, are depicted in Figure 33a.
Pier. These forces and their slope can be used as data for the equilibrium
of the pier, as shown in Figure 33. In the pier BEF G I consider an arch
Γ springing from the point B with the slope given by 2H/Q. The arch Γ
is represented by its graph z(x) in a right handed reference {O; x, y} with
origin in B and y directed vertically, downward. The arch Γ carries the
inclined thrust force coming from the lintel and the weight of the part of
the wall above it, besides the over-load s. A uniaxial stress field, linearly
varying with y, and balancing the, constant, vertical load b (|b| = γ = 1),
is considered both above and below the arch: the upper part is sustained by
the arch; the part below is supported by the soil. The equilibrium conditions
give, in this case, the following equation for z:
1
z = (s + h◦ + z) .
H
This equation can be integrated with the conditions
2H
z(0) = 0, z (0) = .
Q
156 M. Angelillo
The solution is
◦ 1 ◦L −βx 2H
z = (p + s)(1 − e βx
)(−1 + e ) + (1 + eβx ) ,
2 2 Qβ 2
where β = 1/H. The form taken by the arch Γ depends on the aspect
ratio, p◦ , of the lintel, and on the parameter α defining the thickness of the
arch at the key stone. To compare the results with the rule of Derand, I
introduce the parameter
λ = tan(ϑ) ,
(1 − α)2h◦
λ= = (1 − α)p◦ .
L
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Figure 34. Comparison of Derand’s (and Gil’s) rule with LA predictions. The con-
tinuous upper curve represents the graphic of Derand’s rule (25). The sequence of curves
represents the LA predictions of c for (from left to right) p◦ = { 18 , 14 , 12 , 1, 2, 3}.
where -, u is the linear form describing the potential energy of the load,
that is minus the work of the load = (s, b) for the displacement u, and
U(u) is the stored energy functional. The simplest case in which existence
theorems for the minimum problem
K being the subset of a convenient Banach space T (Ω̃), occurs when E(u) is
lower semicontinuous and coercive, in the sense that E(u) → ∞ as uS →
∞. Unfortunately, as we shall see, the energy functional for masonry-like
materials is not coercive (see also the form that the strain energy density
takes in the 1d case (see Figure 10.a of Chapter 1) and therefore some
supplementary hypotheses have to be added in order to get existence. For
instance, existence of solution in the case of Normal Elastic No-Tension
materials, under small strains and in the 2d context, has been established
by Giaquinta and Giusti (in Giaquinta and Giusti (1985)), under a so called
safe load condition. Specifically the form of energy to be minimized in the
case of NENT materials is
E(u) = − s·u− b·u+ Φ(E(u)) , (28)
∂ΩN Ω Ω
T ∈ Sym− , (30)
the effective strain, that is the total infinitesimal strain E(u) minus the
eigenstrains E, is decomposed additively into the sum of an elastic part Ee
and an anelastic part Ea , namely:
E(u) = Ee + Ea + E , (31)
the elastic part being linearly related to the stress T:
Ee = A [T] , (32)
the latent anelastic part (a measure for fracture) being positive semidefinite
Ea ∈ Sym+ , (33)
and the stress T doing no work for the corresponding latent strain Ea
T · Ea = 0 . (34)
Notice that in the plane case (n=2) conditions (30), (33), can be rewrit-
ten as
tr T ≤ 0 , det T ≥ 0 , (35)
tr Ea ≥ 0 , det Ea ≥ 0 . (36)
Remark 10. It is to be pointed out that a NENT material, that is a
material defined by the restrictions (30) through (34), is elastic in the sense
that, given the total strain E(u), the stress can be univocally determined.
The material is actually hyperelastic as we shall see later in what follows.
13
When eigenstrains are considered, under the small strain assumption, the total strain
E(u) is decomposed additively as follows: E(u)=E∗ + E, E∗ being the effective strain
of the material.
160 M. Angelillo
divT + b = 0 , (37)
and the stress T and the displacement u must comply with the boundary
conditions
a1 ⊗ a1
T=σ ,
a1 · a1
σ being the only non zero, negative eigenvalue of T. Normality implies the
following form for the fracture strain Ea :
a2 ⊗ a2
Ea = λ ,
a 2 · a2
λ being the only non zero, non negative eigenvalue of Ea . Then, regardless
of the possible elastic anisotropy of the material, the principal directions
of stress and anelastic strain of a NENT material are always coincident all
over Ω.
E, ν being the Young modulus and the Poisson ratio. Notice that the stress
T derived from Φ satisfies identically the no-tension restriction (30), that
is there is no need to impose it as a constraint.
14
In the general anisotropic case the explicit symbolic form of Φ is not known and must
be constructed numerically, case by case.
162 M. Angelillo
0
0 e2
e1 0
Figure 35. Strain energy density of isotropic NENT materials: zero energy region:
light grey; parabolic energy region: grey; elliptic energy region: dark grey.
H = T ∈ S(Ω) s.t. divT + b = 0 , Tn = s on ∂ΩN , T ∈ Sym− , (41)
such that
Practical Applications of Unilateral Models… 163
for some constant β > 0. In other words the load is supersafe if T is strictly
statically admissible over the set Ω in a uniform way, that is independently
of x. The definition of supersafe loads depends on the choice of the function
space S(Ω). For NENT materials one can assume
If the load is supersafe then the potential energy associated to the exter-
nal forces can be expressed in terms of T and of any displacement u ∈ K,
in the form
− s·u− b·u=− T · E(u) .
∂ΩN Ω Ω
Then the total potential energy can be rewritten in terms of this super
safe s.a. stress field T as
1
E(u) = − T · E(u) + C[Ee (u)] · Ee (u) .
Ω 2 Ω
Recalling that E(u) = Ee (u) + Ea (u), on using the safe load assumption
one can write
1
E(u) ≥ − T · Ee (u) + C[Ee (u)] · Ee (u) + β |Ea (u)| ,
Ω 2 Ω Ω
that is the energy has at least a linear growth with respect to the norm of the
space BD(Ω): the space of functions u whose corresponding infinitesimal
deformation E is a bounded measure. For full information on this function
space I refer to the paper by Temam and Strang (1994). Here I notice only
that, since the infinitesimal strain E can be a bounded measure, then u can
be discontinuous and E can be decomposed in its absolutely continuous and
singular parts with respect to the 2d Lebesgue measure:
E(u) = Er + Es .
Recalling the decomposition of E into its elastic and fracture parts,
since the potential energy grows quadratically with respect to the elastic
part of the deformation, then only the fracture part Ea can be singular,
164 M. Angelillo
that is only fracture discontinuities are admitted. In other words the elastic
deformation must be regular and the anelastic deformation can be either
regular or singular. In Giaquinta and Giusti (1985) (theorem 6.8, p 381),
the authors show the existence of the solution for the minimum problem
with T (Ω) = BD(Ω) under the supersafe load condition (and some sup-
plementary technical conditions) in the special case of traction problems
and isotropic elastic behaviour. Since the energy is not strictly convex the
solution is in general non unique.
H = T ∈ S(Ω) s.t. divT + b = 0 , Tn = s on ∂ΩN , T ∈ Sym− , (45)
S(Ω) being a convenient Banach space. S(Ω) can be assumed as the Hilbert
space L2 (Ω): in other words H is represented by the symmetric second order
tensors T of L2 (Ω), such that T is negative semidefinite and balanced with
s, b. Obviously on considering T ∈ L2 (Ω) the balance conditions must be
considered in a generalized sense (see (8), (9)).
The choice of L2 (Ω) as the function space for the stress field seems natu-
ral considering the quadratic term which represents the stress energy in the
complementary energy (44). Since the Complementary Energy functional is
strictly convex over the convex set H, the existence and the uniqueness of
the minimizer T◦ of such functional is guaranteed whenever H is not void
(that is there exist at least one square summable stress field T such that
T is negative semidefinite and balanced with s, b, or, in other words, the
loads are compatible in the sense of definition (17)). Therefore though the
solution u◦ may be non unique the elastic part Ee of the strain solution is
unique. Non uniqueness is restricted to the anelastic part Ea of the defor-
mation E, and to special arrangements of the boundary conditions. This
circumstance makes the displacement and stress approach to the equilib-
rium of NENT materials non symmetric, in the sense that existence of the
minimizer T◦ for the complementary energy. is not sufficient for the exis-
tence of the minimizer u◦ of the potential energy E. The existence of T◦
Practical Applications of Unilateral Models… 165
a b
Figure 36. Examples of non existence of the solution for the NENT BVP. (a) : the
displacement corresponding to the only statically admissible state cannot possibly verify
the normality condition at the interface Γ (the vertical center line), unless the normal
displacement jump on Γ tends to +∞. (b): since the only statically admissible stress
field is T = 0, any k.a. displacement field cannot possibly satisfy the normality condition
at the base for the given tangential displacements, unless the normal displacement jump
at the base tends to +∞.
a b
Figure 37. Pure shear: (a). Stress field solution: (b).
Exact solution 1: Pure shear. The very first simple, non trivial solu-
tion (i.e. distinct from elementary solutions of linear elasticity), for NENT
materials is pure shear (Figure 37).
The solution, in terms of displacements, is identical to the universal
solution for homogeneous linearly elastic materials, that is
u1 = γx2 , u2 = 0 .
0 γ
− γ4 γ γ γ γ γ
2 = 4 +ν 4 4 + (1 − ν) 4 4 ,
γ
2 0 γ
4 − γ4 γ
4
γ
4
γ
4
γ
4
where
γ γ
{E } = (1 − ν)
a 4
γ
4
γ .
4 4
The associated stress field, trivially balanced with zero body loads inside
Ω is (see Figure 37b)
γ
−4 γ
{T} = E 4 .
γ
4 − γ4
With this solution the whole domain is of the Ω2 type, the material
being uniformly compressed along a family of compression rays parallel to
a diagonal of the square panel; uniformly distributed fractures open up in
the direction of the other diagonal. Therefore, in a real masonry panel, one
may expect a pattern of parallel cracks in the direction of the compression
rays.
a b
Figure 38. Pure flexure of a rectangular strip. Boundary data: (a), stress and domain
partition corresponding to the first solution: (b).
⎧
⎪
⎪ −2 ϕx 2
0
⎪
⎪
L , x2 > 0 ,
⎪
⎪ 0 0
⎨
{Ee } = (46)
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ 0 0
⎪
⎪ , x2 ≤ 0 ,
⎩
0 0
⎧
⎪
⎪ 0 0
⎪
⎪ , x2 > 0 ,
⎪
⎪
⎨ 0 0
{Ea } = (47)
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ −2 ϕx 2
0
⎪
⎪ L , x2 ≤ 0 .
⎩
0 0
The corresponding stress field is
⎧
⎪
⎪ −2 ϕx 2
0
⎪
⎪
L , x2 > 0 ,
⎪
⎪ 0 0
⎨
{T} = E (48)
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ 0 0
⎪
⎪ , x2 ≤ 0 .
⎩
0 0
This stress field is obviously balanced with the prescribed body load
b = 0 at the interior and with the surface tractions s = 0 given at the
loaded part of the boundary (x = ∓H/2). Based on this solution for the
Practical Applications of Unilateral Models… 169
stress, the domain Ω is divided into two zones of the type Ω2 , Ω3 , as depicted
in Figure 38b.
For this example I can also give a different solution, namely the same
stress field but a different fracture field, under the same boundary condi-
tions. The second solution (see Figure 39) to the same problem is defined
by the displacement field u = uê1 + vê2 , as follows
⎧
⎪
⎨ L (L − 2x1 )x2
ϕ
, x2 > 0 ,
u = ϕx2 , x2 < 0 and, x1 < L/2 ,
⎪
⎩
−ϕx2 , x2 < 0 and, x1 > L/2 ,
⎧
⎪
⎨− L (L − x1 )x1
ϕ
, x2 > 0 ,
v = −ϕx1 , x2 < 0 and, x1 < L/2 ,
⎪
⎩
ϕ(x1 − L) , x2 < 0 and, x1 > L/2 .
⎧
⎪
⎪ −2ϕx 2 0
⎪
⎪ δ , x1 = L/2 and x2 ≤ 0 ,
⎪
⎪ 0 0
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎨ 0 0
{Es } = ϕx21 δ , x1 < L/2 and x2 = 0 ,
⎪
⎪ 0
⎪
⎪ L
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ −2ϕx2
⎪ 0
⎪
⎩ δ , x1 > L/2 & x2 = 0 .
ϕ(x1 −L)2
0 L
where δ denotes the unit Dirac delta. The total strain is then decomposed
in its elastic and anelastic parts as follows:
Ee = E r , E a = E s .
170 M. Angelillo
λ11 λ22
x
y
y
a b c
Figure 39. Deformed configuration corresponding to the second solution: (a). Graph
of the non zero Cartesian components of Ea :(b). Flexure test on a masonry panel
(courtesy G. Castellano): (c).
a b
Figure 40. Heap under uniform body forces resting on a smooth foundation: (a).
Mechanism for which the load does zero work: (b).
Therefore the stress T coincides with that of the first solution and de-
termines the same partition of the domain Ω, as described in Figure 38b.
The fracture strain is singular and describes the cracks exhibited by the
deformed configuration depicted in Figure 39a. A graph of the E11 and E22
components of Ea is reported in Figure 39b. In the absence of any energy
price to pay to open up fractures, the two solutions reported are perfectly
equivalent and the body can choose any of the two. It could be of some
interest to look at the result of the flexure test performed on a masonry-like
material (a mixture of lime and gypsum with a ratio between tensile and
1
compressive strength of 20 ) shown in Figure 39c.
one admissible stress field for this geometry and for these data.
The load is a collapse load since the resultant stress across any vertical
section of the triangle (see Figure 40b) is zero and any two parts divided by
a vertical section, can be separated horizontally with a vertical crack, cor-
responding to a zero energy mode and consisting into a horizontal uniaxial
strain, concentrated on the line of separation.
Setting the length scale in such a way that L = 1, the one and only
s.a. stress field, negative semidefinite and in equilibrium with the load, is
written as follows
0 0
{T} = ,
0 σ(x1 , x2 )
with
γ(x2 − x1 ) , x1 ≤ 1 ,
σ(x1 , x2 ) = .
γ(x2 + x1 − 2) , x1 ≥ 1
To this stress field (considering for simplicity the case ν = 0) is associated
the elastic strain
0 0
{E } =
e
,
0 (x1 , x2 )
with
E (x2 − x1 ) , x1 ≤ 1 ,
γ
(x1 , x2 ) = .
E (x2 + x1 − 2) , x1 ≥ 1
γ
Therefore, taking into account the normality condition T.Ea , the anelas-
tic strain takes the form
λ(x1 , x2 ) 0
{Ea } = ,
0
the total strain being
λ(x1 , x2 ) 0
{E} = .
0 (x1 , x2 )
Such total strain is compatible if and only if
∂ 2 λ(x1 , x2 ) ∂ 2 (x1 , x2 )
+ =0.
∂x22 ∂x21
The function (x1 , x2 ) is not smooth and its second derivatives must be
interpreted in a generalized sense. The 3d graph of (x1 , x2 ) depicted in
172 M. Angelillo
a b
c d
Figure 41. 3d plot of the elastic uniaxial strain (x1 , x2 ): (a). In (b): first derivative
of (x1 , x2 ) with respect to x1 : piecewise constant field. In (c): second derivative; a
constant line Dirac delta with support on the center line Γ. In (d) the anelastic strain
λ(x1 , x2 ) restoring compatibility: a parabolic line Dirac delta with support on the center
line Γ
Figure 41a, can help to visualize the first and second derivatives of (x1 , x2 )
with respect to x1 reported in Figures 41b,c.
A function λ(x1 , x2 ) that solves the compatibility equation and is non
negative is
γ
λ(x1 , x2 ) = (L − x22 ) δ(Γ) ,
E
where δ(Γ) is the line Dirac delta defined on the line Γ of equation x1 = 1
(see the graph depicted in Figure 41d).
The displacement u = uê1 + vê2 is then obtained integrating the total
deformation. In components
2
2E (x2 − 1)
γ
, x1 < 1 ,
u= 2
2E (1 − x2 )
γ
, x1 > 1 ,
γ
2E x2 (x2 − x1 ) , x1 < 1 ,
v= γ
2E x2 (x2 + x1 − 2) , x1 > 1 ,
Practical Applications of Unilateral Models… 173
p
a
3a
2a
2
2
2
1
a b c
Figure 42. Ring under external and internal pressures: (a). Fundamental partition
of the domain corresponding to the solution for α = 25/48: (b). Fundamental partition
corresponding to α = 1/2: (c).
r 2 + a2
Tϑϑ = −p ,
36r2
Trϑ = 0 .
174 M. Angelillo
The existence of a purely compressive s.a. stress field does not imply
that the solution of the BVP is necessarily of pure biaxial compression. In
the case at hand we shall see that both uniaxial and biaxial stress states,
and fractures open up in the inner part of the domain.
With reference to the linear elastic solution for an isotropic pressur-
ized ring, recalling the formula for the stress (see Timoshenko and Goodier
(1951)), one easily finds that: in the region Ω1 = {{r, ϑ} s.t. 32 a < r < 2a},
the stress coincides with the classical elastic solution; in the region Ω2 =
{{r, ϑ} s.t. a < r < 32 a}, the stress is uniaxial and radial (see Figure 42b).
Namely:
pa
− r , a ≤ r ≤ 32 a ,
Trr = 2 2
p(9a +4r )
− 12r2 , 23 a ≤ r ≤ 2a ,
0 , a ≤ r ≤ 32 a ,
Tϑϑ = 2 2
p(4r −9a )
− 12r2 , 32 a ≤ r ≤ 2a ,
Trϑ = 0 .
We leave to the reader to verify that this stress field verifies the bal-
ance equations with zero body forces, matches the given pressures at the
inner and outer boundary, and is compressive. In the region Ω1 the stress
field being coincident with the elastic solution, gives compatible strains and
the physical components{ur , 0} of the displacement u, can be easily found
through the relations:
ur
Eϑϑ = Tϑϑ − νTrr , Eϑϑ = .
r
In Ω2 , ur can be found, modulo a constant, through the equations
∂ur
Err = Trr − νTϑϑ , Err = .
∂r
The constant is finally determined by imposing the continuity condition
u r r − = ur r + ,
at r = 32 a. Then the displacement ur takes the following form
p a
3a
E log 2r + ν , a ≤ r ≤ 32 a ,
ur = p(4r2 (−1+ν)+9a2 (1+ν))
12Er , 32 a ≤ r ≤ 2a ,
e
In Ω2 the elastic deformations Err e
= Trr , Eϑϑ = −νTrr , left alone, are
not compatible. To restore compatibility I must add the fracture field
Practical Applications of Unilateral Models… 175
∂ur
a
Eϑϑ = − Eϑϑ
e
,
∂r
that is
3a
a
pa
Er log 2r , a ≤ r ≤ 32 a ,
Eϑϑ =
0 , 32 a ≤ r ≤ 2a .
Then the fracture field is described by a regular deformation consisting
into a diffuse uniaxial circumferential strain taking place in the internal ring
Ω2 , of outer radius 32 a, and becoming vanishingly small at the boundary
between Ω1 and Ω2 (as shown pictorially in Figure 42b).
Second case: Limit load. Consider now the case in which α = 12 (see
Figure 42c).
In this case the load is limit since there exists at the same time, a
stress field belonging to H, that is a statically admissible (but not strictly
admissible) stress field, and also a non-zero displacement field belonging to
K ◦ for which the load does zero work.
This s.a. stress field, in physical components in the polar coordinate
system {r, ϑ} with origin in the center of the ring, is
a
Trr = −p ,
r
Tϑϑ = 0 ,
Trϑ = 0 .
Notice that, in this case, this is also the unique statically admissible
solution, that is the set H of s.a. stress fields is a singleton (with the
language of Structural Mechanics one may say that the structure, with this
kind of load, is statically determined).
The given loads do zero work for the mechanism described by the fol-
lowing physical components of displacement:
ur = u , uϑ = 0 ,
where u is an arbitrary positive constant.
The solution of the BVP in terms of displacements reads
pa 2a
ur = u + log + ν , uϑ = 0 ,
E r
and the corresponding fracture strain is
176 M. Angelillo
a u pa 2a
Eϑϑ = + log .
r Er r
We point out that, being u an unknown positive parameter, the solution,
in terms of strains and displacements, is not unique.
Figure 43. Structural scheme of a masonry wall with openings (in a simplified model
dashed parts can be considered as rigid).
a b
Figure 44. Wrinkling of a rectangular sheet under relative shearing of the bases and
free on the lateral sides. Boundary conditions: (a) . In (b) wrinkles developing in an
alluminium sheet subject to the b.c. described in (a).
B a b c
Figure 45. Masonry panel undergoing rigid relative displacements of the bases: a.
Slope g of a compression ray: (b). Typical minimizing slope g as a function of ϑ1 = x:
(c).
ua = ua e1 + va e2 = U e1 + (V + Φx)e2 ,
ub = ub e1 + vb e2 = −U e1 − (V + Φx)e2 .
Based on the complementary energy principle stated in Subsection 3.5,
the equilibrium solution can be searched by minimizing the complementary
energy over the set H defined in (45). In keeping with the spirit of TF-T,
an approximate solution is looked for in the restricted set H̃ obtained by
considering stress fields T ∈ H such that T is of rank-one.
Remark 11. As shown by some of the elementary solutions previously
discussed, the displacement solution, in the closure of the regions Ω2 ∪
Ω3 , can exhibit singularities affecting the latent strain. These singularities
correspond to discontinuities in the displacement through lines that can be
interpreted as fracture lines. The normality assumptions (34), (36), imply
that displacement discontinuities be orthogonal to the discontinuity line.
Remark 12. On the interface between Ω2 and Ω3 the stress must be
continuous in order to avoid shear discontinuities (violating the normality
rule). As a consequence the stress along the interface between the regions
Ω2 and Ω3 must be zero, the interface itself a straight unextended line.
The minimizer T◦ of the complementary energy over the restricted set
H̃ is generally not the exact solution of the problem, rather an approximate
solution.
180 M. Angelillo
1 − 2ϑ1 1 − 2ϑ1
− ≤ g(ϑ1 ) ≤ s.t. ϑ1 > 0 , (49)
H H
1 + 2ϑ1 1 + 2ϑ1
− ≤ g(ϑ1 ) ≤ s.t. ϑ1 ≤ 0 , (50)
H H
must be satisfied.
Practical Applications of Unilateral Models… 181
V Φ
g(ϑ1 ) = − − ϑ1 . (51)
U U
The free boundary must be chosen in this class.
It is easy to show that all the rays satisfying the constraint (51) pass
through a common centre C whose coordinates {x◦ , y◦ ) depend only on the
parameters {U, V, Φ}. The expressions for the coordinates of the centre C
are
V U
x◦ = − , y◦ = .
Φ Φ
The partition of the panel into the disjoint regions Ω2 and Ω3 , and in
particular their free boundary (necessarily made by rays that satisfy the
constraint (51) ), can be obtained by the position of the center C, and is
independent of the size of the rigid displacement parameters, provided the
ratios U V
Φ and Φ stay constant.
If U > 0 the inequality
V Φ
g(ϑ1 ) < − − ϑ1 . (52)
U U
defines the ray passing through the points P and Q on the top and bot-
tom bases which are shortened for the given rigid displacements parameters
{U, V, Φ} of the bases.
This is a kinematic constraint on the slope g for the existence of the
compression rays, that is for the existence of the region Ω2 .
In the case U = 0, g(ϑ1 ) is not restricted and the rays are shortened, as
long as ϑ1 > − VΦ if Φ > 0 and ϑ1 < − VΦ if Φ < 0. In the case U < 0 then
Φ 1
g(ϑ1 ) > − VΦ − U ϑ .
Summing up, the restrictions on g(ϑ1 ) that have been introduced can be
reformulated as follows:
Given the rigid boundary displacement parameters {U, V, Φ}, find the
pair {ϑ1 , g(ϑ1 )}, so that the geometrical constraints (49), (50) and the kine-
matical constraint (52) hold.
These five inequalities define a feasible region for the pair ({ϑ1 , g(ϑ1 )}
that can be easily visualized with a graph through which the interface be-
tween the Ω2 and Ω3 regions can be located.
182 M. Angelillo
Depending on the values of the triplet {U, V, Φ}, the feasible region for g
can be either empty or not empty. In the latter case the region is a polygon
with three to five sides whose extrema, with respect to the ϑ1 component,
1
define the boundary of the Ω2 region. These extrema are called ϑ1 and ϑ .
Based on the values of U, V, Φ, there are essentially five representative
cases to be considered:
(i) Shearing, shortening, flexure: U = 0 , V > 0, Φ = 0 ;
(ii) Shearing, elongation, flexure: U = 0 , V < 0, Φ = 0 ;
(iii) Shortening: U = 0 , V > 0, Φ = 0 ;
(iv) Shearing: U = 0 , V = 0, Φ = 0 ;
(v) Shortening, flexure: U = 0 , V < 0, Φ = 0 .
Figure 46 shows the admissible repertoire of g(ϑ1 ) in the range [−1/2, 1/2]
for one of these cases.
1min , 1max 4 C
0.6 3
0.4
0.2 2
0.0 1
0.2 1
0.4
0.6
0.40.20.00.20.4 0.51.0
Figure 46. Definition of the taut region for the case of shearing, elongation, flexure.
Restrictions on g and limit slopes: (a). Position of the center C: (b). Taut region: (c).
x1 = ϑ1 + gϑ2 , x2 = ϑ2 ,
g ϑ2
E11 = u1,1 − u1 ,
1 + g ϑ2
E22 = u2,2 ,
1 g
E12 = (u1,2 − u2,1 ) − u1 .
2 1 + g ϑ2
The physical component of strain in the ray direction, that is the strain
component in the direction of e2 ⊗e2 , is related to the covariant component
E22 through the relation
1
E(2 2 ) = E22 .
1 + g2
Notice that the total strain E, in the variable hortonormal base {e1 , e2 },
is described by the matrix
λ(ϑ1 , ϑ2 ) − ν(ϑ1 , ϑ2 ) 0
{E} = .
0 (ϑ1 , ϑ2 )
where ν is the Poisson ratio, = E(2 2 ) is the elastic strain component and
λ is the unknown fracture field.
The decomposition of the total strain into its anelastic and elastic parts
is then
λ(ϑ1 , ϑ2 ) 0
{Ea } = ,
0 0
−ν(x1 , x2 ) 0
{Ee } = .
0 (x1 , x2 )
The uniaxial stress T, in order to satisfy the equilibrium with zero body
forces, must take the form (for a pictorial description of equilibrium along
a compression ray see Remark 3 and Figure 6)
T = σe2 ⊗ e2 ,
with
184 M. Angelillo
f (1 + g 2 )
σ= .
1 + g ϑ2
The elastic part of the deformation, is easily obtained, through the
Hooke’s law, in the form
σ
, =
E
E being the Young modulus of the material.
1 1 H
ϑ
1 ϑ 2 f 2 (1 + g 2 )2 1 2
Ec = − 2f (U g +V +Φϑ1 )dϑ1 + dϑ dϑ . (53)
ϑ1 2 ϑ1 −H
2
E 1 + g ϑ2
Eg 2(U g + V + Φϑ1
f= .
(1 + g 2 )2 log(1 − g H2 ) − log(1 − g H2 )
By substituting the previous expression into the stress, one has
1 Eg 2(U g + V + Φϑ1
σ= ,
1 + g ϑ2 1 + g 2 log(1 − g H2 ) − log(1 − g H2 )
and substituting back into the energy, after some algebra, the following
reduced expression of Ec is obtained
1
ϑ
(U g + V + Φϑ1 )2 g 2
Ec = −2E dϑ1 . (54)
1+g H
ϑ1 (1 + g 2 )2 log 2
1−g H
2
1min , 1max
g1
0.6 0.10
0.4
0.05
0.2
0.0 1 0.00 1
0.2 0.05
0.4
0.10
0.6 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4
0.40.2 0.0 0.2 0.4
1min , 1max
g1
0.6 0.0
0.4 0.1
0.2 0.2
0.0 1
0.3
0.2
0.4 0.4
0.6 0.5
0.4 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4
0.40.2 0.0 0.2 0.4
a b
Figure 47. Numerical solution of three special cases. In column a: fundamental
partition and minimizing slope g. In column b: compression rays corresponding to the
minimizing g and level curves of the principal stress. First row: shortening and flexure.
Second row: pure relative shearing. Third row: shearing, elongation and flexure.
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Figure 48. Level curves for of the fracture strain for the case of pure relative shearing.
z(1 + g◦2 )
λ= + ν + g◦2
1 + g◦ ϑ2
Practical Applications of Unilateral Models… 187
T ∈ K ∩ Sym− , (56)
Practical Applications of Unilateral Models… 189
T2
Ω’2 Ω2 λ Ω3
T1
Ω1
Ω2
K∩NSym
Ω’1
NSym Ω’2
Figure 49. Section of the Elastic Domain in the stress space Sym with the plane
T12 = 0.
while its boundary is the yield surface. Notice that K ∩Sym− is convex but
need not to be smooth. The boundary of K may be represented by a level
set of a function f , called the crushing function, so that
K = {T ∈ Sym : f (T) ≤ 0} .
For simplicity I consider
σ◦2
f (T) = Φ̃(T) − , (57)
2E
where Φ̃ is the strain energy density of the isotropic NENT material, ex-
pressed as a function of the stress T, and σ◦ is the crushing stress in uni-axial
compression; that is the boundary of K is a level set of the free energy of
the NENT material. In Figure 49 the intersection of the elastic domain with
the plane T12 = 0, is depicted.
Under the small strain hypothesis, the total deformation is again de-
scribed by the tensor E, and an additive decomposition of the total strain
can be considered in the form
E = E∗ + Ep , (58)
where Ep is the plastic strain. Notice that now E∗ represents the reversible
part of the deformation, in turn composed itself of two parts:
190 M. Angelillo
E ∗ = Ee + E a , (59)
the elastic part being linearly related to the stress T:
Ee = A [T] . (60)
For the latent anelastic part (a measure for fracture) of the reversible
strain, again normality to the cone Sym− is assumed
p
(T − T) · Ė ≤ 0 , ∀T ∈ K , (62)
is considered.
Notice that the reversible part of the strain E∗ can still be derived by
an energy density:
∂Φ
T= .
∂E∗
In the isotropic case the form of the energy density Φ can be constructed
explicitly in terms of the eigenvalues e∗1 , e∗2 of E∗ (here e∗1 < e∗2 is assumed).
In the case of generalized plane stress this form is
⎧
⎪
⎨0 , e∗1 ≥ 0 and e∗2 ≥ 0 ,
Φ = 12 E(e∗1 )2 , e∗ < 0 and e∗2 ≥ −νe∗1 , (63)
⎪
⎩1 E
∗ 2 ∗ 2 ∗ ∗
1∗
2 1−ν 2 (e1 ) + (e2 ) + 2νe1 e2 e1 < 0 and e∗2 < −νe∗1 ,
E, ν being the Young modulus and the Poisson ratio. Notice that the stress
T derived from Φ satisfies identically the unilateral restriction (30), that is
there is no need to impose it as a constraint.
the instantaneous values of T are known if E is given and the entire process
Practical Applications of Unilateral Models… 191
t p p
of plastic strain is known. Obviously Ep = 0 Ė dt, and Ė is described by
the flow rule (62).
Notice that, based on the ML model, fracture strains are reversible and
are perfectly recoiled upon load inversion. Crushing strains, by contrast,
cannot be healed and, being totally irreversible, can either stay or grow.
In other words, smeared fractures cannot cancel crushing strains; the two
mechanisms being completely independent.
seems to be the right choice to overcome the difficulties which are inherent
to the NT constraint.
) h }) of
The energy functional E is approximated with the function E({u
the nodal displacements {uh }:
) h }) = −
E({u Lr s(xr ) · ur − fm · u m − An b(xn ) · un − Aq Φ(xq )
r m n q
(64)
where ur is the displacement at the midpoint xr of the r-th edge of length Lr
on ∂ΩN , um the displacement of the m-th mesh node where the concentrated
force fm is applied, un the displacement at the Gauss point xn of the n-th
mesh triangle with area An , and xq the Gauss point of the q-th mesh triangle
of area Aq , where the strain energy density Φ is evaluated for integration. In
the discretized version (64) of the potential energy, all the displacements uj ,
as well as the strain energy density Φ(xq ) of the q-th triangle, are clearly
explicit functions of the nodal displacements {uh }, via the linear shape
functions of a standard triangular mesh.
The iterative procedure adopted to minimize the function (64) is based
on a step-by-step minimization method. Let us denote {uh }j the nodal
displacements at the j-th minimization step. The force acting on the mesh
nodes is given by the negative gradient of the energy fj = −∇j E. ) The
descent method implemented computes the current velocity pj employing
the nodal forces at the current and previous step as
pj = ηj pj−1 + fj ,
where the scalar ηj is
fj · (fj − fj−1 )
ηj = M ax ,0 ,
fj−1 · fj−1
in the Polak-Ribiere version of the conjugate gradient method, and
fj · fj
ηj = ,
fj−1 · fj−1
if the Fletcher-Reeves variant of the method is employed (the Polak-Ribiere
method is usually adopted in the applications reported herein).
If the nodes of the mesh are constrained, the velocity pj is projected
onto the tangent space of the constraint equations to obtain the compat-
ible velocity p∗j . The velocity p∗j gives the direction for the minimization
motion while obeying all the constraints imposed on the nodes. The nodal
displacement {uh }j is computed as
Practical Applications of Unilateral Models… 193
where κj is the amplitude of the minimization step in the direction of p∗j and
is computed via a line search method16 to minimize the energy E({u ) h }) in
∗
the direction of the velocity pj . The iteration process stops when a suitable
norm of the energy gradient becomes sufficiently small (for the decrease
conditions see for example (Kelley, 1999)).
16
The line search method calculates the energy for several values of the scale factor κj
(doubling or halving each time) until the minimum energy is passed. The optimum
scale is then calculated by quadratic interpolation.
194 M. Angelillo
φ~i
s 0 ( e)
i 2
( ie)10
Figure 50. Linear prolongation of the strain energy beyond the crushing limit.
⎧
⎪
⎪ 0, (e∗1 )i ≥ 0 , (e∗2 )i ≥ 0 ,
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ 1
E(e∗ )2 , (e∗1 )i < 0 , (e∗2 )i ≥ −ν(e∗1 )i , f (E∗i ) ≤ 0 ,
⎪
⎨2* 1 i
) i (E∗i ) = α 12 E(e∗1 )2i + β ,
Φ (e∗1 )i < 0 , (e∗2 )i ≥ −ν(e∗1 )i , f (E∗i ) > 0 ,
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ϕ((e∗j )i ) (e∗1 )i < 0 , (e∗2 )i < −ν(e∗1 )i , f (E∗i ) ≤ 0 ,
⎪
⎪ *
⎪
⎩α ϕ((e∗ )i ) + β
j (e∗1 )i < 0 , (e∗2 )i < −ν(e∗1 )i , f (E∗i ) > 0 ,
where
1 E
∗ 2
ϕ((e∗j )i ) = 2
(e1 )i + (e∗2 )2i + 2ν(e∗1 )i (e∗2 )i ,
21−ν
(e∗1 )i , (e∗2 )i ((e∗1 )i < (e∗2 )i ) are the principal values of E∗i , and the elastic
strain at time ti is given by the difference between the total strain Ei at
the same time step and the plastic strain Epi−1 inherited from the previous
solution step, that is E∗i = Ei − Epi−1 ; by using this relation Φ ) i (E∗ ) can be
i
expressed as a function of Ei and becomes Φ & i (Ei ). The constants
1
2 σ2
α= σ◦ , β = − ◦
E 2E
are introduced to preserve the C 1 regularity of Φ ) i (E∗ ). A representation of
i
) ∗
Φi (Ei ) in the space of principal elastic strains is depicted in Figure 50.
Practical Applications of Unilateral Models… 195
The descent procedure finds the minimum of the total potential energy
at time ti , defined as
Ei (ui ) = − s · ui − b · ui + & i (ui )) ,
Φ(E (65)
∂ΩN Ω Ω
via a finite element discretization of the domain and descent minimization.
The solution at the previous loading step is used as the initial condition for
the minimization of the function
& h }) = −
E({u Lr s(xr ) · ur − fm · u m − An b(xn ) · un − & q)
Aq Φ(x
r m n q
(66)
representing the finite element approximation of the total potential energy
(65), as in the case of NENT materials (see (64)). At each step i, the
& h }) is performed via the descent method
minimization of the function E({u
described previously for NENT materials.
A plastic strain update is then performed at each Gauss point. The yield
condition f (E∗i ) = 0 defines, in the space of principal reversible strains
E∗ , a curve whose position vector is y, of coordinates {yj }. It is useful
to give a parametric description y(γ) of the yielding curve in the space
of principal elastic strain, γ being the parameter. The return mapping
algorithm, according to the principle of minimum dissipation imposed by
the assumption of associated plasticity (Ortiz and Simo, 1986), consists in
finding the value of the parameter giving the minimum distance (in the
energy norm) of the current elastic strain E∗i from the curve y(γ):
energy density dissipation at the given Gauss point, at time step ti , can be
computed as
& i , Ep ) − Φ(E
Di = Φ(E & i , Ep ) − 1 Ti · A[Ti ]
& i , Ep ) = Φ(E
i−1 i i−1
2
from which one sees that the plastic strain increments produce energy loss.
x 1 0.1
0.5
y
0
1 0.5 0 −0.5 −1
y a b
Figure 51. Numerical solution of the flexure problem for an isotropic NENT material.
In (a): maximum fracture strain [×10−3 . ]. Deformation on the right and rigid-block
displacement on the right, close to the solution obtained numerically through descent.
versus the dimensionless mesh size h/D (T0 , Th , being the exact stress
solution snd the stress field computed for the mesh of size h) is reported. A
linear convergence of the method is obtained in both cases.
Example 2: Pure relative shearing. The simple rectangular panel
depicted in Figure 54 subject to a given relative horizontal translation of the
bases (of value 2U ) and vanishing tractions on the lateral sides is considered.
198 M. Angelillo
2 2
−18
1.5 1.5
−14
x 1 x 1 −10
−6
0.5 0.5
−2
0 0
1 0.5 0 −0.5 −1 1 0.5 0 −0.5 −1
y a y b
2
2 4
1
0.5
1.5 0.5
1
x 1 0.1
0.5
0.1
0
1 0.5 0 −0.5 −1
y c d
Figure 52. Numerical solution of the flexure problem for an isotropic ML material.
In (a), (b): isostatic lines of compression and contour plot of the minimum principal
stress (the other principal stress is almost zero). In (c): contour plot of the maximum
anelastic strain component (fracture strain). Flexure test on a masonry panel (courtesy
G. Castellano): (d).
0.14 0.14
0.12 0.12
0.1 0.1
0.08 0.08
eh
eh
0.06 0.06
0.04 0.04
0.02 0.02
0 0 0 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
h/D h/D
a b
Figure 53. Flexure: convergence diagram. In (a): NENT material; in (b): ML
material.
Practical Applications of Unilateral Models… 199
U −0.5
2
−1.0
1.5 −2.0
x 1 −3.0
0.5
−4.0
0 −5.0
U −8.0
1 0.5 0 −0.5 −1
y a b
Figure 54. Pure relative shearing of a NENT panel. In (a): boundary conditions and
mesh used in the numerical simulation. In (b): Comparison of the minimum principal
compressive stress levels corresponding to the numerical (solid lines) and exact solution
(dotted lines).
NENT material. The material parameters and the geometry are the
same adopted in the previous Section. The value U = 1mm is considered.
In Figures 54 and 55 the numerical solution is compared with the semi-
analytical solution described in Subsection 3.8.
The distribution of the maximum compressive stress, the fracture strain,
and the form of the isostatic lines computed numerically for the NENT
panel are in good agreement with the results of the semi-analytical method
of Fortunato (2010), as summarized in Figures 54 and 55.
ML material. The numerical experiment was repeated for a ML panel, by
assuming the same material parameters adopted for the NENT material and
putting for the limit stress: σ◦ = 19.8 MPa. The value of the displacement
at the boundary, U = 1 mm, previously considered, is small enough to give
very limited yielding (mainly located in the vicinity of the corners, and is
used as the first step in the discretized loading of the ML panel, whose
evolution and crushing spreading is followed approximately, as the relative
shearing U is gradually increased, by discretizing the real trajectory into
steps.
In Figure 56 three stages of the evolving solution are reported. As the
boundary displacement increases, a diagonal band, uniaxially and uniformly
compressed at the limit stress of 19.8 MPa, forms progressively, and the
isostatic lines of compression (compression rays) become more and more
parallel.
The contour plots in Figure 57 represent the maximum fracture strain,
which concentrates on two sub-diagonal lines, and the maximum plastic
200 M. Angelillo
0.5
1.0
2.0
3.0
a1 a2
b1 b2
Figure 55. Pure relative shearing of a NENT panel. Fracture strain for the numerical:
(a) and for the exact: (b) solutions. Compression rays for the numerical: (c) and the
exact: (d) solutions.
2 2
−1
−3
1.5 −5 1.5
−7
−9
x 1 x 1
0 −14 0
1 0.5 0 −0.5 −1 1 0.5 0 −0.5 −1
y a1 y b1
2 2
−10
−7
−13 −4
1.5 −1 1.5
−16
x 1 x 1
−19
0.5 0.5
0 0
1 0.5 0 −0.5 −1 1 0.5 0 −0.5 −1
y a2 y b2
2 2
−19
−16
1.5 −13 1.5
−10
−7
x 1 −4 x 1
−1
0.5 0.5
0 0
1 0.5 0 −0.5 −1 1 0.5 0 −0.5 −1
y a3 y b3
Figure 56. Pure shearing of a ML panel. Evolution of the contour plot of the minimum
principal compressive stress and of the compression rays at three steps of the loading
process.
202 M. Angelillo
2 2
−2.8
5 −5.6
1.5 1.5 −8.4
10
−14.0 −11.2
15
x 1 20 x 1
25
0.5 0.5
0 0
1 0.5 0 −0.5 −1 1 0.5 0 −0.5 −1
y a y b
Figure 57. Pure shearing of a ML panel. Contour plot of the maximum principal
fracture strain: (a), and minimum plastic strain: (b), for the final value of the relative
displacement.
5 5
horizontal force at the base [105N]
4
total potential energy [kJ]
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15
U [mm] U [mm]
update of the plastic strain that gives the approximate solution at time i+1.
This energy loss represents energy dissipation due to plastic work, and
gives evidence of spreading of plastic deformation as the load is increased.
The dashed line (that is the envelope of the solution points) represents the
numerical approximation to the exact time history of the total potential
energy of the body. In Figure 58b the push-over plot, that is the evolution
of the horizontal component of the computed reaction at the base (horizontal
force) as the displacement U increases, is depicted. The shear force plateaus,
as expected for a perfectly plastic structure approaching collapse.
Validation against experimental tests. Here the ML material model
is validated against independent sets of experimental results from Benedetti
Practical Applications of Unilateral Models… 203
U N0
Figure 59. Loading scheme in the experiments by Benedetti and Steli (2008) and
Eucentre (2010)
and Steli (2008) and Eucentre (2010), performed on different types of ma-
sonry. Figure 59 reports the constraints and the load scheme used in the
numerical analysis to simulate the experimental setup.
A masonry panel of width B, height H, and thickness D is fixed to the
ground at the bottom and to a steel beam at the top (the gray strip in Fig-
ure 59). A uniform load is distributed at the top part of the steel beam and
the horizontal load is applied in incremental steps by imposing the horizon-
tal displacement U of the left edge of the steel beam. Neither Benedetti and
Steli (2008) and Eucentre (2010) report measurements of the Poisson’s ratio,
and because of that ν = 0 is assumed in the simulations, since, paramet-
ric studies, not reported here, show that the simulated force-displacement
curves, under shear, manifest very low sensitivity to the Poisson’s ratio. The
graphs in the top row of Figure 60 compare the numerical simulations and
the experimental results for specimens (1A-08,2C-03) of the experiments
by Benedetti and Steli (2008). In these tests, the masonry is composed of
crushed stones and injected crushed stones. Our model reproduces quanti-
tatively the substantial features of the measured force-displacement curves,
with a slight overestimation of the force for higher levels of the horizontal
displacement U .
The graphs of Figure 60c,d report the comparison between experimental
data and numerical simulations for the specimens CS00, CS02, and CT01
of (Eucentre, 2010), all composed of stone masonry. Specimen CS00 differs
from the other two because the mortar has been reinforced with 20% sand
in mass fraction. This might explain the flatness of the force-displacement
curve for experiment CS00 which is very well captured by the model. The
204 M. Angelillo
1A−08 2C−03
250 300
200 250
horizontal force [kN]
30 150
20 100
1m Q
39kN/m
0.25m
3m
25kN/m
seismic load
1m
1800kg/m3
weight
3m
subsiding
6 cm
c d
Figure 61. Masonry wall with openings. Loading schemes: (a). Numerical results for
vertical loads: b,c,d. Contour plot of maximum principal fracture strain: (b). Minimum
principal stress: (c). Isostatic lines: (d)
and the force transmitted by the floors (25 kN/m); the results of the sim-
ulation are reported in Figure 61b,c,d. The structure sustains the working
loads without detectable crushing. The value of the maximum stress at the
base of the wall is about 0.35 MPa. The partition of the domain can be
inferred from Figure 61d: in Ω1 both families of isostatic lines are depicted;
in Omega2 the family of isostatic lines corresponding to zero stress are not
reported.
Horizontal loads. We simulated the response of the facade to a uniform
horizontal force per unit length of 39 kN/m, distributed on the right side of
the structure and superimposed to the structure subject to working loads
(see Figure 61a). The total horizontal load is equivalent to 70% of the
weight of the structure and is applied in ten steps. This kind of loading
can be adopted to simulate seismic loads if horizontal ties or connections
are present. Crushing strain accumulates in very localized regions near the
206 M. Angelillo
a b
c d
Figure 62. Numerical results for vertical and horizontal loads. Contour plot of max-
imum principal plastic strain: (a). Contour plot of maximum principal fracture strain:
(b). Minimum principal stress: (c). Isostatic lines: (d)
a b
c d
Figure 63. Masonry walls with openings under the effect of vertical loads and a vertical
settlement of the central pier: mumerical results. Contour plot of maximum principal
plastic strain: (a). Contour plot of maximum principal fracture strain: (b). Minimum
principal stress: (c). Isostatic lines: (d)
parison of the isostatic lines depicted in Figure 63d with the ones reported
in Figure 61d.
Bibliography
Dassault Systemes Abaqus, ver. 6.12 http://www.3ds.com/fileadmin/
PRODUCTS/SIMULIA
G. Alfano, L. Rosati and N. Valoroso. A numerical strategy for finite element
analysis of no-tension materials. Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng., 48 (3):
317–350, 2000.
L. Ambrosio, N. Fusco and D. Pallara . Functions of bounded variation and
free discontinuity problems, Clarendon Press. 2000.
M. Angelillo and A. Fortunato. Compatibility of loads and distortions for
unilateral materials. In preparation.
208 M. Angelillo
3.5
3.0
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25
horizontal displacement [mm]
Figure 64. Masonry walls with openings under vertical and horizontal loads: shearing
force versus roof displacement
Frédéric Lebon∗
Aix-Marseille University, LMA, UPR7051, CNRS, Centrale Marseille, 13402
Marseille, France
[email protected]
1 Introduction
The aim of the chapter is to present some ideas for modeling interfaces in
masonry structures. Devising means of modeling interfaces between solids
in structural assemblies is obviously now of great importance in the fields
of mechanical technology and civil engineering. These interfaces contribute
crucially to the strength of many structures, such as optics lenses, airplanes,
asphalt pavements and masonry, for example. It is therefore necessary to
develop rather fine models. One of the main problems which often arises
in this context is that of developing a unified theory: from the tribological
point of view, the contact is often unique, in the sense that it depends on the
materials, roughness, wear, etc., and especially on the mechanical system
involved. The problem of cracking in pavements is obviously quite different
from that of the cornering of an airplane tire. Another problem is due to the
smallness of the interface in comparison with the size of the structure, as well
as the possibly weak mechanical characteristics (in the case of old mortar,
for example). A large number of studies have been devoted to the behavior
of interfaces. Two main modeling approaches used for this purpose are phe-
nomenological modeling and deductive modeling. In the first approach, the
thickness of the interface is taken to be zero and the mechanical properties
are obtained from physical considerations and experiments (see for exam-
ple Frémond (1987); Point and Sacco (1996); Freddi and Frémond (2006);
Raous (2011); Bonetti and Frémond (2011) and references therein). The
∗
The author thanks F. Fouchal, C. Pelissou, A. Rekik, R. Rizzoni and I. Titeux for their
contribution in this work
M. Angelillo (Ed.), Mechanics of Masonry Structures, CISM International Centre for Me-
chanical Sciences, DOI 10.1007/ 978-3-7091-1774-3_5, © CISM, Udine 2014
214 F. Lebon
a rigid foundation. The left half of the rigid foundation could be moved
down. The total possible displacement was 6 cm.
Figure 5 shows the displacement of the blocks. Note that the interactions
between the blocks are limited to contact (there is no penetration) and dry
friction. The displacement of the blocks is strongly heterogeneous, especially
along the diagonal.
||FT || ≤ μ|FN |
||FT || < μ|FN | ⇒ [u˙T ] = 0 (4)
||FT || = μ|FN | ⇒ ∃λ ≥ 0, [u˙T ] = λFT
3.3 Formulations
The bodies are assumed to be elastic and the deformations are assumed
to be small. In this case, formulation of three kinds can be used: primal (the
unknowns are the displacements), dual (the unknowns are the stresses) and
mixed formulations (the unknowns are the displacements and the stresses).
Modeling the Interfaces in Masonry Structures 221
In this chapter, two kinds of formulations are presented. Note that there
exists a large class of methods for solving problems of this kind (see Raous
et al. (1988); Lebon and Raous (1992); Chabrand et al. (1998); Lebon (2003);
Fortin et al. (2002); Alart and Curnier (1991); Alart and Lebon (1995);
Wriggers (2006) and references therein). Two corresponding algorithms are
presented below.
H = {v ∈ (H 1 (Ω))2 , v = U on Γd },
(5)
H0 = {v ∈ (H 1 (Ω))2 , v = 0 on Γd },
fields.
⎧
⎪
⎪ u0 ∈ H be given, find u ∈ V = H 1 (0, T ; K) such that u(0) = u0 in Ω
⎪
⎪
⎨ a(u, v − u̇) + j(u, v) − j(u, u̇) ≤ l(v − u̇), ∀v ∈ H0
⎪
⎪ σN (u)([zN ] − [uN ])dl ≤ 0, ∀z ∈ K
⎪
⎪
⎩
Γc
(6)
with
j(u, v) = − μσN (u)||[v̇T ]||dl,
Γc
l(v) = F vdx + f vdl (7)
Ω Γf
a(u, v) = e(u)Ae(v)dx.
Ω
k+1 k
Δuk
Using a finite difference, u̇(tk+1 ) " u Δt−u = Δt , with uk = u(tk ), at
time tk+1 , we have
Find uk+1 = uk + Δuk ∈ K such that
a(uk+1 , v − Δuk ) + j(uk+1 , v) − j(uk+1 , Δuk ) ≤ l(v − Δuk ), ∀v ∈ K.
(8)
Note that the results obtained on the existence, unicity and regularity of the
solution for this problem have been discussed in Cocu (1984). An example
of non uniqueness is given in Hild (2003).
Fixed point Method FPM (see Raous et al. (1988); Lebon and Raous
(1992)) In the following sections, the indices k (time) will be omitted (this
is a static formulation). The above problem is expressed as a fixed point
problem on the sliding limit (Duvaut and Lions (1976); Cocu (1984))
λ −→ −μσN (u(λ)), (9)
u is the solution of a variational inequation similar to the above one, where
j(., .) is replaced by j(.) defined by
j(v) = λ|vT |dl. (10)
Γc
k,n+ 21 1
%
j=i−1 %h
j=N
ui = aii (fi − aij uk,n
j − aij uk,n+1
j )
j=1 j=i+1 (11)
k,n+ 21
If ui ≥ 0 then uk,n+1
i = 0.
1
j=i−1
h
j=N
uk,n+1
i = (fi − k,n
aij uj − aij uk,n+1
j
aii j=1 j=i+1
+λki (uk,n+1
i ))
If x ≥ 0, (x) = 1, if x ≤ 0, (x) = −1, if x = 0, (x) = 0.
(12)
Case 3 With a component of a free node (not involved in the
contact)
1
j=i−1
h
j=N
uk,n+1
i = (fi − k,n
aij uj − aij uk,n+1
j ). (13)
aii j=1 j=i+1
Mixed formulation (see Alart and Curnier (1991); Alart and Lebon
(1995))
The idea underlying this method is to write the problem as an equilib-
rium equation,
⎧
⎨ F ind u and λ such that
F int (u) + F ext + F([u], F ) = 0, (14)
⎩
a(F − F([u], F )) = 0,
where a is a given coefficient, F ext are the given external forces, F int are
internal forces which depend on the constitutive equation and the kinemat-
ics, and F([u], λ) is the friction map. In the case of a node in contact with a
rigid obstacle (i.e. [u] = u), in elasto-statics, we have (see Alart and Curnier
(1991); Alart and Lebon (1995))
where / 0 / 0
Au + f ext F(u, F )
D(x) = and U(x) = . (18)
aF −aF(u, F )
This system is solved using a Generalized Newton method
∂U (xi ) is a point in the Jacobian set of matrices. The linearized system (19)
is solved by a solver dedicated to non symmetric systems. The algorithm
can be summed up as follows:
0 Initialization x0 = (u0 , λ0 ) be given
1 Resolution (Non-symmetric linear system)
y i+1 = (#D(xi ) + ∂U(xi ))−1 (D(xi ) + U (xi ))
2 Updating xi+1 = xi − y i+1
3 Convergence Test Yes = End; No = Go to Step 1
Modeling the Interfaces in Masonry Structures 225
Note that if there is no adhesion (b = 0), this model involves the classical
Signorini-Coulomb problem.
A graphic interpretation of the normal part of this RCCM model given in
figure 11 (for (p, q, r) = (2, 2, 1)) shows the changes with time in the normal
forces depending on the normal displacement jump. The changes in b lead
to irreversible effects. If b decreases, the adhesive forces will decrease and
eventually disappear. In the case of pure traction ([uN ] > 0), the adhesion
resistance (RN = CN [uN ]p ) is activated (elasticity without damage). b
decreases when the displacement becomes sufficiently large for the elastic
energy to become larger than the adhesion limit w.
Figure 11. Normalized normal forces versus the normalized normal jump
in the displacement
order to reach values resembling the experimental data, and θ (in the time
integration method) is fixed and taken to be equal to 0.55.
The example presented shows the evolution of a triplet of full bricks and
comparisons are made in figures 12 and 13 between two experiments and
the numerical results.
in powers of η
c) Continuity conditions The third step in the method consists in the con-
necting of the two expansions. If the interface between the mortar and the
brick is perfect, we have continuity of the displacement and of the stress
tensor along this interface. This gives:
τij−1 = 0
0 (29)
τi2,2 = 0
that is
Modeling the Interfaces in Masonry Structures 231
+ 0
,
τi2 .e2 = 0 (30)
The interphase is assumed to be linearly elastic, and the above theory is
applied to this kind of material. We have
−1
η −1 τij + τij0 + ητij1 + ... = Cijkl η −1 e−1 0 1
kl + ekl + ηekl + (31)
& is a matrix consisting of C1212 and C2222 . Note that this technique
where C
was used in Rekik and Lebon (2010) and Rekik and Lebon (2012).
We can write
ean
t = kαχI (σT )(σT ± μσN ) (38)
234 F. Lebon
10
R
9
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
damage
Φ(α) = Y − R(α)
1 2 1 (40)
Y = hH(σN )σN + kχI (σT )σT2
2 2
where R is the toughness of the material defined by (see figure 18)
R(α) = R0 α, if 0 ≤ α ≤ 1
(41)
R(α) = R0 /α, if α ≥ 1
0
0 λ+2G ∂v2
τ22 = lim
e→0 1+(λ+2G)hαH ∂y2 (44)
0 ±μ(λ+2G)GkαχI ∂v20 G ∂v10
τ12 = lim (1+(λ+2G)hαH)(1+Gkαχ )
I ∂y2
+ lim 1+Gkαχ I ∂y2
e→0 e→0
Due to the geometry and the loading conditions, the behavior of the
contact zone is very complex. Figure 20 shows the evolution of the dam-
age along the contact zone, which is strongly non linear. In particular,
Modeling the Interfaces in Masonry Structures 237
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Figure 20. Damage evolution for four typical elements (shear test).
5 Conclusion
In this chapter, four of the many existing interface models are presented. It
is quite difficult to solve large problems using this approach. In Rekik and
Lebon (2010, 2012), we established that it can be possible to solve larger
problems (small walls), however. It will obviously be necessary in future
studies to review all the existing models (a simple look at Science DirectT M
with the keywords ”masonry” and ”interface” gives more than 2500 papers),
in order to choose the most suitable one and use efficient solvers (DDM, MG,
etc.) before it will be possible to solve real physical problems.
Bibliography
P. Alart and A. Curnier. A mixed formulation for frictional contact problems
prone to Newton like solution methods. Computer Methods in Applied
Mechanics and Engineering, 92:353–375, 1991.
P. Alart and F. Lebon. Solution of frictional contact problems using ILU
and coarse/fine preconditioners. Computational Mechanics, 16:98–105,
1995.
238 F. Lebon
Elio Sacco
Dipartimento di Ingegneria Civile e Meccanica
Università di Cassino e del Lazio Meridionale
1 Introduction
The development of adequate stress analyses for masonry structures rep-
resents an important task not only for verifying the stability of masonry
constructions, as old buildings, historical town and monumental structures,
but also to properly design effective strengthening and repairing interven-
tions. The analysis of masonry structures is not simple at least for two
reasons: the masonry material presents a strong nonlinear behavior, so
that linear elastic analyses generally cannot be considered as adequate; the
structural schemes, which can be adopted for the masonry structural anal-
yses, are more complex than the ones adopted for concrete or steel framed
structures, as masonry elements require often to be modeled by two- or
three-dimensional elements. As a consequence, the behavior and the analy-
sis of masonry structures still represents one of the most important research
field in civil engineering, receiving great attention from the scientific and
professional community.
Several numerical techniques have been developed to investigate and to
predict the behavior of masonry structures. In fact, in the last decades,
the scientific community has demonstrated great interest in the develop-
ment of sophisticated numerical tools as an opposition to the tradition of
rules-of-thumb or empirical and geometrical formulas adopted to evaluate
the safety of masonry buildings. In particular, nonlinear models imple-
mented in suitable finite elements formulations currently represent the most
common advanced strategy to simulate the structural behavior of masonry
structures. The main problem in the development of accurate stress analy-
ses for masonry structures is the definition and the use of suitable material
constitutive laws.
2 Micromechanical modeling
The micromechanical analysis of masonry elements is performed considering
different constitutive laws for the bricks and for the mortar. Moreover, the
adhesion between the mortar and the brick can play a fundamental role
Micro, Multiscale and Macro Models for Masonry Structures 243
Figure 1. (a) the interface models the mortar and the adhesion mortar-
brick; (b) the interface models only the adhesion mortar-brick.
in the overall response of the masonry texture. Thus, the modeling of the
response of the mortar-brick interface can be necessary in order to reproduce
the possible decohesion of the mortar from the brick.
In the micromechanical modeling of the masonry, at least two possible
approaches can be distinguished, schematically illustrated in figure 1:
• the mortar and the adhesion surfaces between the mortar and the
brick are modeled as a unique interface, characterized by a mechanical
response which accounts for the behavior of the mortar and of the
mortar-brick adhesion; in this case, as the interface has zero thickness,
the units are expanded in both the directions by the mortar thickness
(37);
• the mortar is modeled as a continuum material, eventually charac-
terized by nonlinear response, and the adhesion surface between the
mortar and the brick is modeled by a specific interface (59).
In both cases, the interface models are characterized by constitutive laws
relating the stress acting at the interface with the displacement discontinu-
ity. Several interface models have been presented in literature; in particular
some of them have been developed to reproduce the gradual process of crack
opening, in which the incipient separation of the two edges of the crack is
constrained by cohesive stresses due to interaction and friction between
aggregate or bridging phenomena. It is the salient feature of the quasi-
brittle materials like clay brick, mortar, ceramics, rock or concrete, which
244 E. Sacco
In the following the model proposed in (5) and (4) and reviewed in (59)
is presented.
Au = (1 − D)A, Ad = A D (2)
According to this definition, D can vary in the range [0, 1], where the case
D = 0 corresponds to the virgin material state and the case D = 1 to the
total damaged state.
The relative displacement vector at the typical point of the interface
is denoted by s. Thus, the vector s represents in the REA the relative
displacement of the two surfaces in contact, as schematically illustrated in
figure 2. Denoting with the subscripts N and T the components in the
normal and tangential direction to the interface, respectively, according to
the local coordinate system illustrated in figure 1 and in figure 2, the relative
T
displacement can be written as s = {sN sT } .
As schematically illustrated in figure 3, the overall behavior of the REA
can be obtained as the superposition of three schemes: the first scheme
considers the REA subjected to a relative displacement se of the interface,
assuming the crack mouths opening equal to zero; in the second scheme,
a relative displacement c, corresponding to a crack opening, is prescribed,
which leads to the overall relative displacement sc of the interface; in the
third scheme, the REA is subjected to a relative displacement p at the
crack mouths, due to the frictional sliding, which induces an overall relative
displacement sp . In such a way, the overall relative displacement is obtained
as:
s = se + s c + s p (3)
Micro, Multiscale and Macro Models for Masonry Structures 247
d
where μ is the friction coefficient and τN −
denotes the negative part of the
d
normal stress τN . The evolution law of p is governed by the relationships:
⎧ ⎫ ⎧ ⎫
⎨ 0 ⎬ ⎨ 0 ⎬
ṗ = λ̇ dφ = λ̇ τd
⎩ ⎭ ⎩ Td ⎭ (10)
dτTd
d τT
λ̇ ≥ 0, φ τ ≤ 0, λ̇φ τ d = 0
s0N s0N τN
0
s0T s0T τT0
ηN = = , ηT = = (11)
sfN 2 GcN sfT 2 GcT
0
where τN and τT0 are the peak stresses corresponding to the first cracking
relative displacements and GcN and GcT are the specific fracture energies
in mode I and mode II, respectively. Then, the parameter η, which relates
the two modes of fracture, is defined as follows:
2
sN + s2T
η= 2 ηN + 2 ηT (12)
s̃ s̃
T
where s̃ = {sN sT } , with the McCauley bracket . selecting the positive
part of a number. The equivalent relative displacement ratio is introduced
as:
* sN + sT
Y = YN2 + YT2 with YN = , YT = 0 (13)
s0N sT
The damage parameter is assumed to be function of η and of the history of
the equivalent relative displacement Y as:
Y −1
D = max 0, min 1, (14)
history Y (1 − η)
The damage evolution law given by equation (14) allows to obtain a lin-
ear stress - relative displacement softening when the ratio sN /sT is assigned
(59).
Micro, Multiscale and Macro Models for Masonry Structures 249
Figure 6. Finite element mesh and constraints adopted for the analyses.
where Eb , νb and Em , νm are the elastic modulus and the Poisson ratio of
the brick and the mortar, respectively. The following values of the mechan-
ical properties, derived by the experimental evidences, are adopted for the
interface elements:
252 E. Sacco
0 3
τN = 0.3 MPa, GcN = 0.3 N/mm, KN = 1500 N/mm ,
3
τT0 = 3.0 MPa, GcT = 0.3 N/mm, KT = 750 N/mm ,
μ = 0.5
Three different discretizations are considered for the arch; they are ob-
tained introducing the three discretization parameters nh , nb end nm , rep-
resenting the number of subdivisions along the height of the brick, along
the base of the brick and in the thickness of mortar joint, respectively, as
illustrated in figure 6. In particular, the computations are performed set-
ting nh = 2 and nm = 1, while different values for the parameter nb are
considered, nb = 5, 10 and 20. In the numerical simulations, the arc-length
technique is adopted in order to be able to capture the possible softening
branch of the equilibrium path. In particular, the incremental negative dis-
placement u2 along the x2 −direction (see figure 4) of the loaded node is
chosen as control parameter.
In the graph of figure 7 the results of the numerical simulations, plotted
in term of nodal force F versus the negative displacement u2 of the loaded
node, are compared with the experimental data provided in (11). In same
figure the value of the failure load (650 N) deduced by applying the kine-
Micro, Multiscale and Macro Models for Masonry Structures 253
during the rest of the analysis, in which the horizontal displacement of the
top-right corner, u1 , is incremented left-ward.
Computations are performed modeling the mortar and the adhesion-
contact surface mortar-brick by means of the interface element. Thus, the
numerical model is constituted by bricks, suitably enlarged, directly joined
by interfaces.
Interface elements have even been placed in the middle of each brick
to take into account the possible failure of a brick by allowing a crack to
initiate and propagate vertically on its middle. A regular finite-element
discretization is adopted for the computations. In particular, each half
brick is discretized with 2 × 2 4-noded, plane stress elements with enhanced
strains.
The material properties of the brick, adopted for the computations, are:
while the following values of the mechanical properties are adopted for the
interface elements:
Micro, Multiscale and Macro Models for Masonry Structures 255
• mortar joint
0 3
τN = 0.25 MPa, GcN = 0.018 N/mm, KN = 82 N/mm ,
3
τT0 = 0.35 MPa, GcT = 0.125 N/mm, KT = 36 N/mm ,
μ = 0.75
• brick-brick interface
0 3
τN = 2.00 MPa, GcN = 0.080 N/mm, KN = 1E6 N/mm ,
3
τT0 = 4.00 MPa, GcT = 0.200 N/mm, KT = 1E6 N/mm ,
μ = 0.75
3 Multiscale modeling
The masonry is a composite, material; for this reason, in the last twenty
years, several models derived from homogenization approaches have been
proposed in the literature. Different assumptions have been considered in
the development of the models.
The differences among the models concern: the arrangement of the ma-
sonry, i.e. regular or irregular texture; the constitutive model adopted for
the brick, i.e. rigid, deformable with linear or nonlinear response, including
damage and/or plasticity effects; the model adopted for the mortar, i.e. in-
terface or continuum material characterized by linear or nonlinear response;
the macroscopic model obtained by homogenization, i.e. Cauchy, Cosserat
or higher order continua.
Moreover, various homogenization techniques have been proposed and
applied for the masonry material. Thus, selecting among the different pos-
sible mechanical assumptions and adopting different homogenization tech-
256 E. Sacco
niques, many masonry models and numerical procedures have been proposed
in literature.
Among the others, Cauchy models have been derived for the partic-
ular microstructural geometry of masonry material, developing simplified
homogenization techniques by Kralj et al. (33), by Pietruszczak and Niu
(54) and by Gambarotta and Lagomarsino (27; 28), considering the nonlin-
ear behavior of the constituents. Periodic homogenization techniques have
been proposed by Anthoine (6) and by Luciano and Sacco (41), considering
the elastic behavior of both brick and mortar. Pegon and Anthoine (52) de-
rived the in-plane macroscopic nonlinear behavior of masonry considering a
damage model for the brick and the mortar in the framework of the plane
stress and generalized plane strain states. The effect of the head joints in
the overall nonlinear response of the masonry has been remarked. Luciano
and Sacco (40) derived a damage model for masonry material character-
ized by periodic micro-structure. As for old masonry the strength of the
mortar is much lower than the strength of the bricks, it has been assumed
that damage can develop only in the mortar material. Uva and Salerno
Micro, Multiscale and Macro Models for Masonry Structures 257
(67) presented the homogenized response of the masonry accounting for the
damage development within the bed joints and the frictional dissipation
over cracks’ faces. Multiscale FE (finite element) analyses of large-scale
panels have been shown. Massart et al. (46) proposed an enhanced mul-
tiscale model using nonlocal implicit gradient isotropic damage models for
both the constituents, describing the damage preferential orientations and
employing at the macroscopic scale an embedded band model. Zucchini and
Lourenço (70) proposed an improved micromechanical model for masonry
homogenization in the nonlinear domain, incorporating suitably chosen de-
formation mechanisms coupled with damage and plasticity models. Wei
and Hao (68) developed a continuum damage model for masonry account-
258 E. Sacco
ing for the strain rate effect, using a homogenization theory implemented
in a numerical algorithm. Sacco (60) presented a nonlinear homogeniza-
tion procedure for the masonry, considering a linear elastic behavior for the
blocks and a nonlinear constitutive law for the mortar joints. In particu-
lar, the mortar constitutive law accounted for the coupling of the damage
and friction phenomena occurring in the mortar joints during the loading
history.
In the framework of the Cosserat continuum models, Masiani et al. (44)
and Masiani and Trovalusci (45) studied the case of two-dimensional peri-
odic rigid block assemblies joined by elastic mortar, deducing the macro-
scopic characterization of the equivalent medium by equating the virtual
power of the coarse model with the virtual power of the internal actions
of the discrete fine model. Casolo (12) considered isotropic linear elastic
models both for the brick and the mortar and used a computational ap-
proach to identify the homogenized elastic tensor of the equivalent Cosserat
medium. Salerno and de Felice (61) investigated the accuracy of various
identification schemes for Cauchy and Cosserat continua, showing that in
the case of non-periodic deformation states micropolar continuum better
reproduces the discrete solutions, due to its capability to take scale effects
into account. Addessi et al. (3) developed a two scales model, characterized
by the Cosserat micropolar continuum at the macro level and the classical
Cauchy medium at the micro level. Nonlinear response of the mortar joints
was considered by using a cohesive-friction constitutive model. The nonlin-
ear behavior for both brick and mortar has been considered by De Bellis
and Addessi (17). A full multiscale model for the structural analysis of
the in-plane response of masonry panels has been presented by Addessi and
Sacco (2).
Micro-macro, i.e. multiscale, analysis based on nonlocal Cauchy-Cauchy
modeling has been presented by Marfia and Sacco (42), where an effective
homogenization procedure is developed and implemented at Gauss point
level, in 2D plane state finite element. A nonlocal integral model is adopted
in order to overcome problems due to the localization of strain and damage.
An interesting numerical procedure, based on a multilevel computational
approach, has been proposed by Brasile et al. (9), (10) for the static and
dynamic multiscale analysis of masonry walls.
Most of the existing models for masonry concern periodic microstruc-
tures. A non-periodic masonry, typical of historical buildings, has been
analyzed in (14) by means of a perturbation approach, while the evaluation
of the strength domain for non-periodic masonry using a random media
micromechanical approach is discussed in (13).
The out-of-plane analysis of masonry panels is a very important and
Micro, Multiscale and Macro Models for Masonry Structures 259
where Σ1 and Σ2 are the normal stresses, Σ12 is the symmetric shear stress,
Z is the stress component associated to the rotational deformation Θ and
M1 and M2 are the couples.
In order to derive the constitutive response in each macroscopic material
point a homogenization procedure is applied by means of the analysis of the
corresponding RVE (representative volume element). In particular, for each
RVE a boundary value problem is solved and the constitutive relationship
is determined, deriving the macroscopic elastic 6 × 6 constitutive matrix C.
The strain ε = {ε1 ε2 γ12 }T is obtained from the compatibility equation as:
⎡ ∂ ⎤
∂x1 0
ε = du in ω with d=⎣ 0 ∂
∂x2
⎦ (17)
∂ ∂
∂x2 ∂x1
being ε̄ and ε̃ the strain fields compatible with ū and ũ, respectively.
Micro, Multiscale and Macro Models for Masonry Structures 261
Linear elastic stress-strain relationship is adopted for the brick:
σ B = CB ε (19)
B T
where CB is the elastic matrix and σ B = σ1B , σ2B , τ12 is the stress
vector in the brick.
Regarding the mortar material a coupled damage-plasticity constitutive
model is adopted. Indeed, the stress-strain relationship can be considered
as the extension to the case of continuum material of the constitutive law
presented in the previous section for the interface. It is able to conjugate
the damage due to the evolution of the micro-cracks and the plasticity due
to the unilateral and friction effects. Herein, the model is enriched intro-
ducing a limit compressive stress in order to take into account the crushing
mechanism of the masonry. Indeed, the crushing of the masonry panel is
generally due to the failure of the bricks; in order to work with a simple
model, leaving a linear elastic stress-strain relationship for the bricks, the
compressive crushing is introduced in the mortar constitutive law.
The proposed nonlinear model for the masonry, described in detail in
(58; 2), can be obtained by a suitable modification of the interface model
presented in section 2. An additive decomposition of the stress vector σ M
at a typical point of the mortar is assumed as follows:
σ M = (1 − D) σ u + Dσ d (20)
with D the scalar damage parameter. The two stress vectors σ u and σ d are
given by the relationships:
σ u = CM (ε − εκ ) , σ d = CM (ε − εp − εκ ) (21)
where: ⎡ ⎤
CTMT M
CN T 0
CM = ⎣ CN
M
T
M
CN N 0 ⎦ (22)
0 0 GM
represents the elasticity matrix of the mortar, εp is the inelastic strain vector
accounting for the possible unilateral opening effect and for the friction
sliding, while εκ is the plastic strain due to the crushing.
Taking into account the constitutive equations (21), the relationship (20)
becomes:
σ M = CM (ε − π) (23)
where π is the vector collecting all the inelastic strains:
⎧ ⎫ ⎧ ⎫ ⎧ ⎫
⎨ πT ⎬ ⎨ 0 ⎬ ⎨ H (εN − εκN ) εT ⎬
π= πN = εκN +D H (εN − εκN ) (εN − εκN ) (24)
⎩ ⎭ ⎩ ⎭ ⎩ p ⎭
πN T 0 γN T
262 E. Sacco
accounting for the crushing, εκN , the damage, D, the unilateral contact by
means of the component H (εN − εκN ) (εN − εκN ) and the slip by means of
p
T ; H (εN − εN ) is the Heaviside function, which assumes
κ
the component γN
the following values: H (εN − εN ) = 0 if (εN − εκN ) ≤ 0 and H (εN − εκN ) =
κ
1 if (εN − εκN ) > 0. Because of the simplified form of the inelastic strain (24),
the constitutive law (21) is able to provide zero normal stress in transversal
d
direction, σN = 0, as well as in longitudinal direction, σTd = 0, when opening
of the mortar joint occurs.
The crushing and the friction effects are modeled as classical plasticity
problems. The evolution law of the crushing inelastic strain component εκN
is stated as:
ε̇κN = −λ̇κ (25)
and it is ruled by the Kuhn-Tucker conditions, being λκ the inelastic mul-
tiplier:
λ̇κ ≥ 0 ψ (σ) ≤ 0, λ̇κ ψ (σ) = 0 (26)
The yield function is assumed as:
ε0N σN
0 0
γN 0
T τN T
ηN = , ηN T = (32)
2 GcN 2 GcN T
The equivalent strain measures YN and YN T are defined as:
2 2
YN = (εN − εκN ) , YN T = (γN T ) (33)
where the bracket operator • gives the positive part of the quantity •.
Then, the strain ratios are determined as:
(
1 YN YN T
η = 2 (YN ηN + YN T ηN T ) , β = 2 + 2 , α = YN + YN T
α εN,0 γN T,0
(34)
Finally, the damage is evaluated according to the following law:
β−1
D = max 0, min 1, (35)
history (1 − η) β
Figure 12. Selected RVE for the running bond masonry texture (a); num-
bering of the mortar joints (b).
of the Eshelby method (50) can be quite successfully adopted for compos-
ites characterized by random microstructure. When the geometry of the
microstructure is complex, as in the case of masonry material, numerical
techniques, most often based on the assumption of microstructure periodic-
ity, can be adopted. In fact, finite element methods or fast Fourier transform
solutions are able to describe accurately local stress and strain fields, so that
the correct nonlinear behavior of the phases can be determined.
A RVE is selected; it is characterized by rectangular shape with di-
mensions 2a1 and 2a2 , parallel to the coordinate axes x1 and x2 , mortar
thickness denoted by s and brick sizes by b and h, as shown in figure 12(a).
The RVE accounts for all the geometrical and constitutive properties of the
masonry components.
Akinematic map linking the macro-and micro-level is established. Herein,
following the methodology proposed by Forest and Sab (24), third order
polynomial expansions are assumed for the assigned part of the microscopic
displacement ū(x), which allows to take into account all the macroscopic
Cosserat deformation components. In the case of a rectangular cell, the fol-
lowing form of the assigned displacement ū is adopted in compact notation:
ū = A (x) E (36)
Micro, Multiscale and Macro Models for Masonry Structures 265
where
/ 1
0
x1 0 2 x2 −a(x32 − 3ρ2 x21 x2 ) −x1 x2 − 12 x22
A= 1 1 2 (37)
0 x2 2 x1 −ρ2 a(ρ2 x31 − 3x1 x22 ) 2 x1 x1 x2
with
5 a21 + a22 a2
a= ρ= (38)
4 a41 a1
In order to activate the Cauchy deformation modes independently from the
Cosserat ones, in equation (36) the fourth component of the Cosserat strain
vector E is redefined as:
1 ρ2 − 1
Θ̂ = Θ + Γ12 (39)
2 ρ2 + 1
e = Re (x) E (43)
266 E. Sacco
Σe = C E (45)
being Riπ (x) the associated localization matrix. Note that the local strain
field qi is characterized by null average. The elastic strain in the mortar
joint M j results:
j j
j
η i,M = qi,M − δij π i = RM π i − δ ij I πi (no sum) (48)
j j
where qi,M and RM j
π i are the restriction to the mortar M of the fields q
i
When the RVE is subjected to the overall elastic strain E and to the
inelastic strains π i , i = 1, 2, . . . , m, the superposition of the effects can be
performed. In such a way, it is possible to compute the overall stress:
m
m
Σ = Σe + Σπi = CE + Σπ i (50)
i=1 i=1
28
Micro, Multiscale and Macro Models for Masonry Structures 269
meshes (solid line and dashed line), and to the experimental ones (line with
diamond symbols). As it can be noted the numerical curves are in a very
good agreement with the experimental one.
Figure 16. Damage distributions in horizontal (first line) and vertical joints
(second line) evaluated at different values of the applied horizontal displace-
ment.
referring to the numerically obtained results and the experimental ones (line
with diamond symbols). It is evident that the numerical curves match very
well the experimental one. Furthermore, the dashed line curve referring to
the 15 × 15 mesh is not a perfectly converged solution, while the solid and
dash-dot line curves referring to the finer mesh are indistinguishable, so
proving the capability of the Cosserat model adopted at the macro-level to
lead to mesh-independent FE results. After the initial linear elastic behav-
ior, the nonlinear mechanisms are activated and the global response curve
reaches a peak load of about 48 N, a little lower than the experimental one,
at the applied displacement value of 2.5 mm. Then, the global response
curve shows a softening trend.
272 E. Sacco
4 Macromechanical modeling
Masonry is a cohesive material characterized by softening response. Indeed,
his nonlinear behavior is due to the damage and plastic micromechanical
processes. From a microscopic point of view the damage is linked to the
growth and coalescence of microcracks, leading to the formation of macro-
cracks which can induce the collapse of the structure. The plasticity can
simulate the presence of irreversible displacements due, for instance, to the
effects of the friction. Various phenomenological nonlinear models have
been proposed in the literature to describe the softening response of struc-
tural elements made of masonry material. The available models adopted for
structural computations are mainly based on macromechanical approaches
using damage mechanics (34) and plasticity theory (39).
Among the others, Lotfi and Shing (35) developed smeared crack finite
element analyses of masonry structures in order to assess the capability of
this approach in capturing the strength and various failure mechanisms of
masonry shear walls. They compared the numerical results with experimen-
tal data, investigating the objectivity of numerical results with respect to
mesh size. Lourenço (37) presented an anisotropic continuum model based
on multisurface plasticity, considering a Rankine type yield surface for ten-
sion and a Hill type yield surface for compression. The proposed model is
completed with a computational algorithm which is used to perform compar-
isons between numerical and experimental results, available in the literature.
Berto et al. (8) proposed an orthotropic damage model for the analysis of
brittle masonry subjected to in-plane loading. The material model is gov-
erned by four independent internal damage parameters, one in compression
and one in tension for each of the two natural axes of the masonry, and
Micro, Multiscale and Macro Models for Masonry Structures 273
From the relation between the stress and the strain (52), the effective
) deduced by the complementary energy equivalence
constitutive matrix C,
principle proposed by Sideroff (63), is defined as:
) = (1 − D)2 C
C (53)
It can be pointed out that, since the damage variable D has an equal in-
fluence on all the components of the isotropic matrix C, the relation (53)
define an isotropic constitutive matrix during the whole damage process.
The effective stress is defined as:
σ
)=
σ 2 (54)
(1 − D)
The proposed model, able to describe the damage processes both in
tension and in compression by means of a unique damage scalar variable
D, is derived introducing a proper definition of the equivalent tensile and
compressive deformations Yt and Yc as:
Yt = < ee1 >2 + < ee2 >2 Yc = < −e1 >2 + < −e2 >2 (55)
The equivalent elastic and total strains eei and ei are defined as:
with ε̂ei and ε̂i the elastic and total principal strains.
Then, the variable Ỹ is defined as:
Yt Yc
Ỹ = + 0 (57)
Yt0 Yc
where Yt0 > 0 and Yc0 > 0 are the initial damage thresholds in tension and in
compression, respectively. Hence, the quantity Ỹ , defined by formula (57),
represents an equivalent deformation, function of the principal positive and
negative strains.
A suitable choice for the damage limit function is proposed:
F = Ỹ − 1 − ãỸ + K̃ D + h∗ ∇2 D (58)
Figure 17. Evolution of the damage yield function in the strain (a) and
stress plane (b).
where Kt/c ≥ 0 and 0 ≤ at/c ≤ 1 control the damage rate growth and the
softening branch slope, respectively. The quantity αt/c is defined as:
ηt ηc
αt = , αc = ⇒ αt + α c = 1 (60)
ηt + ηc ηt + ηc
with
Yt Yce
ηt = , ηc = (61)
Y0t + (at Yt + Kt ) D Y0c + (ac Yce + Kc ) D
where
Yce = < −ee1 >2 + < −ee2 >2 (62)
In the figure 17(a) the damage function is schematically represented in
the principal strain plane ε̂1 − ε̂2 and in the principal stress plane σ̂1 − σ̂2 ,
for different values of the damage variable. Figure 17(b) shows the stress
hardening and softening phases occurring during the damage evolution.
The nonlocal parameter h∗ , linked to the characteristic length of the
material, controls the size of the localization region. The determinations of
the dimension of the internal length is an important and interesting issue.
A procedure for the definition of h∗ as function of is discussed in (1).
In the proposed model, the value of h∗ is set as:
αt αc
h∗ = h + (63)
Y0t Y0c
Micro, Multiscale and Macro Models for Masonry Structures 277
where h is the constant nonlocal parameter used for the pure tensile and
compressive states. Thus, h∗ depends on the equivalent deformation Y . By
substituting equations (59) and (63) into relation (58), the limit function
takes the explicit form:
F = Y t + Yc − 1
Y0t Y0c
− (αt at + αc ac ) YYt + YYc + αt Y K t + α Kc
cY (64)
0t 0c 0t 0c
α α
+ h Y t + Y c ] ∇2 D
0t 0c
q = −χ α (70)
σ , q) = 3J2 + (σc − σt ) I1 − σc σt + q
FP () (74)
where σc and σt are the compressive and tensile yield stresses, respectively,
I1 is the first stress tensor invariant and J2 is the second deviatoric stress
invariant, defined as:
I1 = )1 + σ
σ )2 (75)
1 2
J2 = σ1 − σ
() )2 ) + σ )22 + 6)
)12 + σ 2
τ12
6
/ 0
∂FP ∂I1 ∂J2
P
ε̇ = λ̇P = λ̇P (σc − σt ) +3
∂)
σ ∂)
σ ∂)
σ
∂FP (77)
α̇ = λ̇P = λ̇P
∂q
FP ≤ 0 λ̇P ≥ 0 FP λ̇P = 0
Micro, Multiscale and Macro Models for Masonry Structures 279
F ≤ 0 Ḋ ≥ 0
F Ḋ = 0 (78)
∗
2 ∂h
Ḟ = −(aY + K)Ḋ + 1 − aD + ∇ D Ẏ
∂Y
+h∗ ∇2 Ḋ = 0 with Ḋ > 0
leading to:
if X ∈ ∂ΩD and X ∈
/ ∂Ω then Ḋ = 0
(82)
if X ∈ ∂ΩD and X ∈ ∂Ω then ∇Ḋ · n = 0
• damage parameters:
• plastic parameters:
The value of the damage parameter h is related to the internal length of the
material. For masonry walls it can be set = 300 mm, which corresponds
about to h = 100 mm2 .
Three masonry panels, schematically reported in figure 18, subjected to
pure shear loading are analyzed. They are characterized by the following
geometrical parameters:
The adopted material properties of the masonry are reported above. Meshes
obtained adopting 4-node elements are considered for the computations. In
particular, wall1 is discretized by 15×20 elements, wall2 by 15×15 elements
and wall3 by 20 × 15 elements.
In figures 19, 20 and 21, the damage and the minimum principal stress
maps for the prescribed displacement u1 = 6 mm are plotted for wall1,
wall2 and wall3, respectively (figure 18). It can be noted that the failure
mechanism is characterized by the formation, growth and propagation of
inclined damage bands, as it typically occurs in masonry panels subjected
to horizontal forces, e.g. seismic loading.
Because of the different geometrical properties of the three walls, the
damaging process in wall1 and wall2 is concentrated in a single band, while
in the widest panel, denoted as wall3, two damage bands appear. Then, as
it can be seen in figures 19(b), 20(b) and 21(b), the resistant part of the
walls consists in compressive inclined trusses carrying the external applied
load. These compressive zones are separated by the damage bands.
In figure 22, the load versus the prescribed displacement is plotted for
wall1 adopting three different discretizations, consisting in 15 × 20 = 300,
20 × 30 = 600 and 30 × 40 = 1200 quadrilateral elements. According to the
adopted discretizations, the minimum and maximum element dimensions
282 E. Sacco
Figure 19. Damage (a) and minimal normal stress distribution (b) for the
wall1.
Micro, Multiscale and Macro Models for Masonry Structures 283
Figure 20. Damage (a) and minimal normal stress distribution (b) for the
wall2.
Figure 21. Damage (a) and minimal normal stress distribution (b) for the
wall3.
are 133.33 mm and 266.67 mm, respectively; since the masonry damage lo-
calization size is taken 600 mm, it results that the mesh size is lower than
the damage length.
It can be noted that the mechanical response of wall1 subjected to shear
loading is characterized by:
• an initial elastic response;
• a damage phase characterized by hardening response;
• a first steep softening branch due to the damage propagation, concen-
trated where the maximum tensile strains occur;
• a hardening phase during which the plastic evolution process becomes
more significant than the damage one;
• a softening branch due to the formation and growth of the damage
band.
284 E. Sacco
5 Conclusions
The modeling of masonry structures is an interesting and important problem
related both to the safety of historical and monumental constructions and
to the safeguard of the human lives of many people who live in masonry
buildings.
Even limiting the interest only to the computational modeling of ma-
Micro, Multiscale and Macro Models for Masonry Structures 285
Figure 23. Mechanical response of the three walls in terms of base force
vs top displacement.
structures characterized by big blocks, in which the size of the blocks has
the same order of magnitude of the size of the structural element. On the
contrary, it is less suitable for the analysis of large structures because of
the required great computational effort and for the difficulty in adequately
describing the specific geometry of the whole masonry texture, i.e. the
position of each brick or block in the structure.
As consequence, the most suitable approach for the stress analysis de-
pends on the typology and on the characteristics of masonry elements; the
choice of the most appropriate approach and, then, of the most suitable
model depends on masonry construction, on the specific masonry behavior
and on the knowledge of the material parameters of the material.
Acknowledgments
This chapter contains the results of the researches developed together with
Daniela Addessi, Giulio Alfano, Sonia Marfia and Jessica Toti, who are
deeply and kindly thanked for their nice and fruitful collaboration. Without
their work this chapter would be not written.
Bibliography
[1] D. Addessi, S. Marfia, and E. Sacco. A plastic nonlocal damage model.
Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 191:1291–
1310, 2002.
[2] D. Addessi and E. Sacco. A multi-scale enriched model for the analysis
of masonry panels. International Journal of Solids and Structures,
49:865–880, 2012.
[3] D. Addessi, E. Sacco, and A. Paolone. Cosserat model for periodic
masonry deduced by nonlinear homogenization. European Journal of
Mechanics - A/Solids, 29:724–737, 2010.
[4] G. Alfano, S. Marfia, and E. Sacco. A cohesive damage-friction interface
model accounting for water pressure on crack propagation. Computer
Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 196:192–209, 2006.
[5] G. Alfano and E. Sacco. Combining interface damage and friction in a
cohesive-zone model. International Journal for Numerical Methods in
Engineering, 68(5):542–582, 2006.
[6] A. Anthoine. Derivation of the in-plane elastic characteristics of ma-
sonry through homogenization theory. International Journal of Solids
and Structures, 32(2):137–163, 1995.
[7] G. I. Barenblatt. The mathematical theory of equilibrium cracks in the
brittle fracture. Advances in Applied Mechanics, 7:55–129, 1962.
Micro, Multiscale and Macro Models for Masonry Structures 287
[36] H.R Lofti and B.P. Shing. Interface model applied to fracture of ma-
sonry structures. Journal of Structural Engineering, 120:63–80, 1994.
[37] P. B. Lourenço. Computational Strategies for Masonry Structures. PhD
thesis, Delft University of Technology, 1996.
[38] P. B. Lourenço and J. G. Rots. Multisurface interface model for analysis
of masonry structures. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 123(7):660–
668, 1997.
[39] J. Lubliner. Plasticity Theory. Macmillan Publishing Company, New
York, 1990.
[40] R. Luciano and E. Sacco. Homogenization technique and damage model
for old masonry material. International Journal of Solids and Struc-
tures, 32(24):3191–3208, 1997.
[41] R. Luciano and E. Sacco. Variational methods for the homogenization
of periodic heterogeneous media. European Journal of Mechanics -
A/Solids, 17(4):599–617, 1998.
[42] S. Marfia and E. Sacco. Multiscale damage contact-friction model for
periodic masonry walls. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and
Engineering, 205-208:189–203, 2012.
[43] R. Marques and P.B. Lourenço. Possibilities and comparison of struc-
tural component models for the seismic assessment of modern unre-
inforced masonry buildings. Computers and Structures, 89:2079–2091,
2011.
[44] R. Masiani, R. Rizzi, and P. Trovalusci. Masonry as structured contin-
uum. Meccanica, 30(6):673–683, 1995.
[45] R. Masiani and P. Trovalusci. Cauchy and Cosserat materials as con-
tinuum models of brick masonry. Meccanica, 31(4):421432., 1996.
[46] T. J. Massart, R. H. J. Peerlings, and M. G. D. Geers. An enhanced
multi-scale approach for masonry wall computations with localization
of damage. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineer-
ing, 69(5):1022–1059, 2007.
[47] B.C.N. Mercatoris and T.J. Massart. A coupled two-scale computa-
tional scheme for the failure of periodic quasi-brittle thin planar shells
and its application to masonry. International Journal for Numerical
Methods in Engineering, 85:1177–1206, 2011.
[48] J.C. Michel and P. Suquet. Nonuniform transformation field analysis.
International Journal for Solids and Structures, 40:6937–6955, 2003.
[49] G. Milani, P. B. Lourenço, and Tralli. Homogenization approach for
the limit analysis of out-of-plane loaded masonry walls. Journal of
Structural engineering, 132:1650–1663, 2006.
[50] T. Mura. Micromechanics of defects in solid. Martinus, 1987.
290 E. Sacco
* †
Paulo B. Lourenço and Gabriele Milani
*
Institute for Sustainability and Innovation in Structural Engineering (ISISE),
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Minho, Portugal
†
Department of Architecture, Built environment and Construction engineering
(A.B.C.), Politecnico di Milano, Italy
Mortar
y1
y3
Y
l
y2
x1
Elementary cell Y y1
b
y3
y2 + -
Y3 Y3
t y2
h a/2
e
y1 a
eh
a/2 y3 y1
b/2 b/2 y3
ev
the local quantities (stresses and strains respectively) and ∗ is the average
operator.
According to Anthoine (1995) and Cecchi et al. (2005) the homogeniza-
tion problem in the linear elastic range in presence of coupled membranal
and flexural loads, under the assumption of the Kirchhoff-Love plate theory,
can be written as follows:
⎫
div σ = 0 (a) ⎪
⎪
⎪
σ = a(y) (b) ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
= E + y3 χ + sym (grad uper ) (c) ⎬
(2)
σe3 = 0 on ∂Y3+ and ∂Y3− (d) ⎪⎪
⎪
⎪
σn antiperiodic on ∂Yl (e) ⎪⎪
⎪
⎪
⎭
uper periodic on ∂Yl (f )
where σ is the microscopic stress tensor (micro-stress), uper is a ω-periodic
displacement field, E is the macroscopic in-plane strain tensor, χ is the out-
of-plane strain tensor (curvature tensor), a(y) represents a ω-periodic linear
elastic constitutive law for the components (masonry units and mortar), as
given in equation (2b). Equation (2a) represents the micro-equilibrium for
the elementary cell with zero body forces, usually neglected in the framework
of homogenization.
Furthermore, in equation (2c), the micro-strain tensor is obtained as
a linear combination among macroscopic E and χ tensors and a periodic
strain field. E and χ tensors are related to a(y) represents a ω-periodic lin-
ear elastic constitutive law for the components (masonry units and mortar),
as given in equation (2b). Equation (2a) represents the micro-equilibrium
for the elementary cell with zero body forces, usually neglected in the
framework of homogenization. The macroscopic displacement field compo-
nents U1 (x1 , x2 ), U2 (x1 , x2 ) and U3 (x1 , x2 ) by means of the classic relations
1
Eαβ = (Uα,β + Uβ,α ) , with Ei3 = 0, and χαβ = −U3,αβ with χi3 = 0,
2
α, β = 1, 2 and i = 1, 2, 3.
Macroscopic homogenized membrane and bending constants can be ob-
tained solving the elastostatic problem (2) and making use of the classic
relations: ∗
N = σ = AE + Aχ
∗ (3)
M = y3 σ = BT E + Dχ
where A, B, and D are the constitutive homogenized plate tensors. Usu-
ally, the elementary cell has a central symmetry, hence B = 0. As a rule, a
solution for the problem given by equation (2) can be obtained using stan-
dard FE packages, as suggested for the in-plane case by Anthoine (1995).
296 P. B. Lourenço and G. Milani
(a) (b)
First step
Second step
Homogenized material
y 1
eh y 1
a
b b
y 2
y 2
Yl Yl
e
2
Y3- Y3-
t y t y
1
e
1
1
y 3 y 3
e
3
Y3+ Y3+
Figure 3. unit cell utilized in de Felice (1995) and Cecchi and Sab (2002).
Left: joints reduced to interfaces. Right: actual thickness of the joints.
I11
E
I12
E
u1-u1 =E11 y1
per
u1-u1 =E11 y1
per
y2 u1-u1 =E12 y2
per
y2
u2-u2 =E12 y1
per
u2-u2 =E12 y1
per
y1 y1
per per
u2 =0 u1 =0
per
u =0 per
u1 =0 u2 =0per per
u2 =0
per per
u2 =0 u1 =0
Figure 4. Applied displacement boundary conditions on the elementary
cell.
On the other hand, the most severe limitation of the approach is that
the computational cost of a FE procedure does not compete favourably
with macroscopic approaches when non-linear problems are treated, since
the homogenization field problem has to be solved for each Gauss point
of each loading step. This leads to handle continuously a “two-size” FE
problem (macroscopic and cell level), where the averaged results obtained
at a cell level are utilized at a structural level (in the framework of non-linear
numerical procedure).
Mortar Brick 12
1 1 15 11
2 ev b 2 ev 10
18 14 3
13 2
a 3 2 1 17
30 6 1
eh 6 5 4 H 16 5
29 9
a 33 8 4
9 8 7 28
32 7
L 36 21
20
35 31
23
24 19
34
26
27 22
25
(a) (b)
y2(j) Quadratic interpolation for (or )
j-th sub-domain: frame of reference Local frame of reference
O (j) y1(j) (k)
(k-r) interface
y2(r) y2(k) y2
(r)
H O(r) y1(r) O(k) y1(k)
(k)
H (k) y2(q) (r)
(r) L y1(q) (k) 1 2 3
L O(q)
(q) (q)
H L (q) y1
(c) (d)
1 2
elementary cell
(m)
n1 1 2
n2
n1 3
4
(n)
n2 3
4
Where n(m) and n(n) are oriented tensors of the external faces of the paired
sub-domains (m)(n).
To conclude, some elementary assemblage operations on the local vari-
ables (handled automatically) lead to write the stress vector inside every
sub-domain as follows:
σ ) (k) (y) S
) (k) = X ) k = 1, . . . , k max (7)
where:
) (k) is the vector of membrane actions inside the k th sub-domain;
– σ
– X) (k) is a 3 × Nun matrix which contains only geometrical coefficients;
its elements are polynomial forms in the microscopic coordinate y;
) is the vector (of length Nun ) of the total stress parameters unknown.
– S
The equations written in order to satisfy internal equilibrium, equilib-
rium on interfaces and anti-periodicity of the stress vector lead to a system
of equations AS = 0 , where S is the vector of total stress parameters. Nev-
ertheless, not all the rows of this system are linearly independent. This can
be easily shown if four generic rectangular elements with four common in-
terfaces and subjected only to constant non zero shear stress are considered,
as reported in Figure 6-d. Internal equilibrium is a priori satisfied, whereas
four equations for ensuring equilibrium on interfaces have to be written.
Nevertheless, only three of these four equations are linear independent.
Finally, four different models of increasing accuracy (P0 P2 P3 P4 )
have been obtained increasing the degree of the polynomial expansion.
Where Cb,m is the compliance matrix of units or mortar joints and ū is the
displacement imposed on the boundary ∂Y of the elementary cell, repre-
senting a given macroscopic strain tensor E.
Homogenization and Seismic Assessment:… 305
) − Ū = 0
= Chom S
which enables to find both S,) by factorization of the matrix Chom and Σ,
from integration of the local stress field.
(a) (b)
0 0
10 10
P4 P4
P3 P3
P2 P2
P0 P0
FEM 2D FEM 2D
A1122/A 1122
A1111/A 1111
b
b
-1
10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
E b/E m E b/E m
(c) (d)
0 0
10 10
P4 P4
P3 P3
P2 P2
P0 P0
FEM 2D FEM 2D
A1212/A 1212
A2222/A 2222
b
-1
10
-1
10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
E b/E m E b/E m
(2)
xx
n (1) (1)
xx
ratio between brick semi-length and height, i.e. ρ = b/2a and the super-
script (n), with n positive integer, a stress component belonging to the n-th
element. In this way, assuming a plane-stress condition, the Cauchy stress
tensor inside the n-th CST element σ (n) is constituted by the components
(n) (n)
σxx (horizontal stress), σyy (vertical stress) and τ (n) (shear stress).
Within the static approach of limit analysis, equilibrium inside each
element is a priori satisfied, div σ = 0. On the contrary, two equality con-
straints involving Cauchy stress tensor components of triangular elements
must be imposed for each internal interface between adjoining elements.
It can be shown that the imposition of equilibrium on interfaces is rep-
resented by a set of 10 equations (being 5 the interfaces for 1/4 of the REV)
in 18 unknowns (three stress components for each triangular element).
Having in mind to analyze masonry macroscopic behaviour under com-
bined states of stress acting on its middle plane, all the REV must be con-
sidered, as depicted schematically in Figure 8. Anti-periodicity constrains
for the stress vector field are written on couples of triangles 1–6, 1’–6’, 7–12,
7’–12’, 1–7’, 3–9’, 4–10’, 6–12’.
When the whole cell problem is considered, independent variables are
308 P. B. Lourenço and G. Milani
(i)
Where, apart quantities already introduced, Atr is the area of the i-th
CST element, N tr is the total number of elements in the unit cell and AC
is the total area of the unit cell.
From equilibrium equations, anti-periodicity and (10) a set of linear
equations in both the elastic and rigid-plastic problem is obtained.
When dealing with the elastic case, membrane elastic homogenized mod-
uli may be obtained in the same way followed for the polynomial expansion
shown in the previous case, i.e. minimizing the complementary energy in
the unit cell. In this case, the complementary energy assumes the following
quadratic form:
N tr
: ;
(i)2 (i)2
1
(i) σxx
(i) (i) 2
∗ σxx σyy σyy τ (i)
Π = A + 2νb + +
2 i=1 tr Eb Eb Eb Gb
NI
: ; (11)
(i)2
1
(i)2 σn
2
τ (i)
+ A + − AC Σij Eij
2 i=1 I Em Gm
(i)
Where N I is the total number of mortar interfaces, AI is the area of the
i-th mortar interface and Σij Eij is a summation saturating indices i and j
(assuming either value x or y) and Eij is a prescribed macroscopic strain
component.
Analogously to the previous case, the determination of the membrane
elastic moduli may be obtained by a constrained minimization of the com-
plementary energy, which is a quadratic form on the 72 independent micro-
stress variables of the elements and the three variables Σij representing the
Homogenization and Seismic Assessment:… 309
1
A1111
A2222
0.8
A1122
A1212
0.6 A2222 analytic
Aijhk/A1111
b
0.4
0.2
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Eb/Em
problem:
⎫
max {λ̂} ⎪
⎪
⎧ ⎪
⎪
4kmax ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ 1
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ λ̂nΣ = X ) dY
) (k) (y) S (a) ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎬
⎪
⎪ Y
⎨ k=1 Y
(12)
such that y ∈Yk (b) ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ )
) (k) (y) S ⎪
⎪
⎪ ) =X
σ (c) ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎩ ⎪
⎭
) (y) ∈ S k k = 1, . . . , 4k max
σ (d)
where + ,T
– nΣ = α11 α22 α12 is a tensor in the homogenized stress space
Σ11 Σ22 Σ12
– λ̂nΣ represents a macroscopic stress state on the homogenized failure
surface S hom , belonging to a straight line from the origin of direction
nΣ
– S k stands for the failure surface of the component (unit or mortar)
belonging to the ith sub-domain.
– Y is the area of the elementary cell.
The optimisation problem given by Eqs. (12) is generally non-linear as
a consequence of the (possible) non-linearity of the strength functions of
the components. In addition, condition Eqs. (12) (d) has to be checked in
every point of the domain Y . Nevertheless, as suggested in a classical paper
by Belytschko and Hodge (1970), the check could be avoided imposing the
material admissibility only where the stress status is the maximum. This
is feasible only for the P 0 and P 1 models; alternatively, the discretisation
proposed here consists in enforcing, in every sub-domain, the admissibility
condition in a regular grid of “nodal points” with step r × q (quasi-lower
bound approach).
Within this assumption, the optimisation problem reduces to:
⎫
max {λ̂} ⎪
⎪
⎧ ⎪
⎪
1
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ) (k) ) ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
λ̂n Σ = X (y) S dY ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ Y Y ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
k ⎬
⎪
⎨yj ≡ nodal point (13)
such that
j ⎪
⎪
⎪σ) =X
j ) (k) ) ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ y S ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ j ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ )
σ ∈ S j
j = 1, . . . , rq ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎩ max ⎭
k = 1, . . . , 4k
312 P. B. Lourenço and G. Milani
(a) (b)
Si: solution step i 2 2
P1 P5 P1
P2 P2
P'
1 1
O O
P4 P6 P4
P3 P3
step i step i+1
In Figure 11, the strength domain obtained increasing the degree of the
polynomial expansion is represented in the macroscopic stress space with
Σ12 = 0 ; the results are compared with a full finite element limit analysis
Homogenization and Seismic Assessment:… 313
tension-tension range 12 =0
1.25
=81°
=72°
6°
°
4°
5°
=3
=63
=4
=5
°
P0 Model =27
P2 Model
1.00
P3 Model
P4 Model
F.E. Model
0.75
=18°
V t
v
0.50
=9°
0.25
0
0 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.20
h
V t
Figure 11. Failure surface in the tension-tension range for the models
proposed without shear actions.
314 P. B. Lourenço and G. Milani
max λ
⎧
⎪
⎪ %
24
(i)
⎪
⎪ σxx Ai
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ λα = i=1
⎪
⎪ 2ab
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ %24
⎪
⎪ (i)
⎪
⎪
σyy Ai
⎪
⎪ i=1
⎪
⎪ λβ =
⎪
⎪ 2ab
⎪
⎪
⎨ %24
(14)
subject to τ (i) Ai
⎪
⎪ λγ = i=1
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
2ab
⎪
⎪ I I
⎪
⎪ A eq X = b eq
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ A ap
X = b ap
⎪
⎪ eq eq
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ i (i) (i) (i)
≤ 0 ∀i = 1, . . . , 24
⎪ E xx yy
⎪ f σ , σ , τ
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎩fIi σ (i) , τ (i) ≤ 0 ∀i = 1, . . . , 32
I I
of all zeros.
vector
(i) (i)
– fEi σxx , σyy , τ (i) ≤ 0 is a set of non linear inequalities constraints
representing the failure surface adopted for the i-th element. Within
a linear programming scheme, such failure surfaces are normally lin-
earized. The linearization is usually a lower bound one when a static
approach is used, to ensure that a strict lower bound estimation of the
collapse load is obtained. Such a lower bound approximation is easily
obtained
bymeans of a Delaunay tessellation.
(i) (i)
– fIi σI , τI ≤ 0 ∀i = 1, . . . , 32 plays the role of fEi for the interfaces.
Two typologies of interfaces are present in the model, namely brick-
brick interfaces and mortar joints reduce to interfaces. When deal-
ing with the numerical applications reported hereafter, a linearized
Lourenço and Rots (1997) failure criterion is adopted for joints re-
duced to interfaces and a classic Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion is
used for brick interfaces. While in the first case a rough approxima-
tion of the elliptic cap is assumed (in agreement with Sutcliffe et al.
(2001), in the second the constraint is already linear.
(i) (i)
– σI and τI indicate respectively the normal and shear stress acting
on interface i.
(14) is a standard linear programming problem and the reader is referred
to e.g Anderheggen and Knöpfel (1972) for a critical discussion of efficient
(classic) linear programming tools suited for solving (14). On the other
hand, it is worth noting that recent trends in limit analysis have demon-
strated that the linearization of the strength domain can be circumvented
using conic/semidefinite programming (e.g. Krabbenhoft et al. (2005)).
xy
yy
xx
whereas the thickness of the mortar joints is 10 mm. Such shear walls have
been examined through numerical simulations and a micro-mechanical ap-
proach by many authors, e.g. Lourenço and Rots (1997); Milani et al.
(2006a); Sutcliffe et al. (2001), etc.
It is worth noting that a comparison with a kinematic formulation is
possible for joints reduced to interfaces and bricks infinitely resistant. The
kinematic formulation, again solved using linear programming, is the fol-
lowing: ⎫
[[v]] σ ds⎪
1
χ = min ⎪
⎪
v Γ Γ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎬
0
Σ :D=1 (16)
⎪
⎪
n
⎪
⎪
[[v]] = λ̇i ∇σ f (i) ⎪
⎪
⎭
i=1
gion obtained using the presented static models (results of both models in
practice coincide for polynomial expansions with degrees higher than 5) are
reported in Figure 13 (Model A) and Figure 14 (Model B), whereas the ho-
mogenized behaviour in the tension-tension region is depicted in Figure 15.
In this latter case, obviously Model A and B provide the same result. Along
with static failure surfaces, the corresponding kinematic strength domains
obtained solving (16) are represented. For graphical convenience, kinematic
failure surfaces are slightly shifted. As it can be noted, the agreement
between the here revised static approaches and the kinematic procedure
is almost perfect for all the points inspected. The results show that the
homogenized surface depends on the geometrical and mechanical character-
istics assumed for the components.
318 P. B. Lourenço and G. Milani
-2
T =0° present model
Homogenized stress6 22 [MPa]
T =22.5°
-4 T =45°
T =0° kinematic model
T =22.5°
-6
T =45°
-8
-10
-12
-20 -18 -16 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0
Homogenized stress 6 11 [MPa]
-2
-4
Homogenized stress6 22 [MPa]
-6
-8
-10
0.4 T =45°
T=0° kinematic model
T =22.5°
0.3 T =45°
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Homogenized stress 6 11 [MPa]
t/2 L1
t/2
L2
Ln
y3
y1
i-th layer discretization
(6) (4) (3) (1)
(5) (2)
b
Figure 16. The micro-mechanical model proposed for out-of-plane actions.
Subdivision in layers along the thickness and discretization of each layer
into triangular equilibrated elements.
Homogenization and Seismic Assessment:… 321
max{λ}
⎧ %
⎪
⎪ %
nL
t+ΔLi
24
(i,j)
⎪
⎪ ΔL i − jΔLi σxx Ai
⎪
⎪
2
⎪
⎪ λα =
j=1 i=1
⎪
⎪ 2ab
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ %
nL %24
⎪
⎪ t+ΔLi
−
(i,j)
⎪
⎪ Δ L i 2 jΔ L i σyy Ai
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ λβ =
j=1 i=1
⎪
⎪ 2ab
⎪
⎪ %
⎪
⎪ %
nL 24
⎪
⎪ ΔL i
t+ΔLi
− jΔ τ (i,j) Ai
⎪
⎪ 2 L i
⎪
⎪ j=1 i=1
⎪
⎪ λγ =
⎪
⎪ 2ab
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ %
nL %
24
⎪
⎪ ΔLi
(i,j)
σxx Ai
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎨Nxx = j=1 i=1
= Σxx t = 0 (17)
s.t. 2ab
⎪
⎪ %
nL %24
⎪
⎪ (i,j)
⎪
⎪ ΔL i σyy Ai
⎪
⎪ j=1 i=1
⎪Nyy =
⎪ = Σyy t = 0
⎪
⎪ 2ab
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ %
nL %
24
⎪
⎪ ΔLi τ (i,j) Ai
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ j=1 i=1
⎪
⎪ Nxy = = Σxy t = 0
⎪
⎪ 2ab
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ AI X = bIeq
⎪
⎪ eq
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ Aap eq X = beq
ap
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ f i,j
σ (i,j)
, σ (i,j) (i,j)
, τ ≤ 0 ∀i = 1, . . . , 24 ∀j = 1, . . . , nL
⎪
⎪ E xx yy
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎩f i,j σ (i,j) , τ (i,j) ≤ 0 ∀i = 1, . . . , 32 ∀j = 1, . . . , nL
I I I
where all the symbols have been already introduced for the in-plane case.
With respect to the in-plane case, the following key issues are worth
noting:
322 P. B. Lourenço and G. Milani
– λ is the value of the failure strength in the Mxx − Myy − Mxy space;
– α, β and γ indicate the components of the unitary vector nΣ , see
Figure 12, in the homogenized Mxx − Myy − Mxy space, in analogy to
what stated for the in-plane case;
– AIeq X = bIeq collects equilibrium constraints of all interfaces of each
layer. Since between contiguous layers no shear stresses are exchanged,
such constraints are the same of the in-plane case, one set written for
each layer. AIeq is a 64nL × (72nL + 1) matrix and bIeq is a 64nL × 1
vector of all zeros. Analogous considerations can be repeated for the
equations set Aap ap
eq X = beq , which collects anti-periodicity conditions
for each layer. For the out-of-plane case, Aap eq is a 16nL × (72nL + 1)
matrix and bap eq is a 16nL × 1 vector of all zeros;
– differently to the in-plane case, three additional equality constraints
have to be imposed, corresponding to require that homogenized mem-
brane actions Nxx − Nyy − Nxy are equal to zero; - vector X collects
all the unknown stresses of each FE of each layer). Therefore, X is a
vector of length 3 × 24 × nL .
Finally, it is worth noting that membrane actions are kept, for the sake
of simplicity, constant and independent from load multiplier. Consequently,
in-plane actions effect optimization only in the evaluation of Mxx , Myy , Mxy
strength domains. Generally, this assumption is technically acceptable for
experimental tests where vertical pre compression Nyy is constant and ap-
plied before out-of-plane actions.
nL=4
[kN*mm/mm]
3 nL=10
nL=20
2
nL=80
22
Homogenized bending moment M
1 kinematic model
-1
-2
-3
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Homogenized bending moment M11 [kN*mm/mm]
2 Structural Level
The homogenized failure surface obtained with the above approaches may be
easily coupled with finite element limit analysis codes. Both upper and lower
bound approaches have been developed, for in- and out-of-plane loaded ma-
sonry walls (Milani et al., 2006b,c) with the aim of providing a full set of
numerical data for the design and/or the structural assessment of complex
structures. For in-plane loads, the finite element lower bound analysis is
based on the equilibrated triangular element bySloan (1988), while the up-
per bound is based on a modified version of the triangular element with
discontinuities of the velocity field in the interfaces by Sloan and Kleeman
(1995). The modification takes into account the actual shape of the yield
surface for the homogenized material in the interfaces.
324 P. B. Lourenço and G. Milani
nL=4
2
nL=10
Homogenized torque M12 [kN*mm/mm]
1.5 nL=20
nL=80
1
kinematic model
0.5
-0.5
-1
-1.5
-2
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Homogenized bending moment M11 [kN*mm/mm]
When dealing with out-of-plane loads, the triangular plate bending el-
ement proposed independently by Hellan (1967) and Herrmann (1967) has
been adopted for lower bound calculations, whereas the triangular element
proposed by Munro and da Fonseca (1978) has been implemented and em-
ployed for the upper bound analyses.
Steel Beams
L L
Panel J2G Panel J3G
40
External load P [kN]
30
20
Raijmakers and Vermeltfoort 1992 experimental
Raijmakers and Vermeltfoort 1992 experimental
10 Lourenço and Rots numerical 1997
Present limit analysis
0
0 5 10 15
Max displacement G [mm]
displacements was provided) and the top edge free. A completely restrained
support was provided at the base because of practical difficulties in provid-
ing a simple support. The panels were loaded by air-bags until failure with
increasing out-of-plane uniform pressure p. The reader is referred to Mi-
lani et al. (2006c) for a detailed description of geometric dimensions, loads
application, structural FE implementation and discussion of results.
Figure 22 shows typical comparisons between experimental pressure-
displacement curves by Chong et al. (1994), numerical pressure displace-
ment curves obtained by means of an orthotropic elasto-plastic macro-model
(Lourenço, 2000) and the homogenized limit analysis results (Milani et al.,
2006c). In addition, Figure 23 shows typical results of the numerical analysis
in terms of principal moment distribution and mechanisms at failure. The
agreement with experimental results is worth noting in all cases analysed.
2.0
p [kN/m2 ]
p [kN/m2 ]
1.5
Panel SB01/SB05
0.5
Panel SB02
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0
Max displacement [mm] Max displacement [mm]
0.3
0.2
2
0.1
1.5
0
0 1
1
2 0.5
3
4
5 0
real earthquakes also exist, being their most relevant characteristics the
amplitude, the frequency contents and the duration.
In case of seismic loading on unreinforced masonry buildings, it is certain
that non-linear behaviour is triggered at early stages of loading and linear
elastic analysis is not an option. Alternative options seem to be push-over
methods, as recommended in most codes for earthquake safety assessment,
or non-linear time integration methods, which provide complex and time
consuming tools hardly available for practitioners. Another much relevant
property in case of seismic loading is the presence of floors that provide
diaphragmatic action and the so-called “box-behaviour”. This possible fea-
ture is not usually present in ancient masonry buildings while being present
in modern unreinforced masonry buildings, requiring different models of
analysis, as addressed next.
ration and damage of the three buildings, where it can be observed that the
collapse mechanisms are essentially induced by flexure, while plastic mech-
anisms by shear are only found for the three-storey building in spandrels
adjacent to the first slab.
agR
Zone Soil (m/s2) S
1.1 A 2.50 1.00
B 1.20
agR
1.2 A 2.00 1.00 Zone Soil (m/s2)
B 1.20 S
A 1.50 1.00 A 1.70 1.00
2.3
1.3 B 1.35
B 1.20
A 1.00 1.00 A 1.10 1.00
2.4
1.4 B 1.33
B 1.30
A 0.50 1.00 A 0.80 1.00
2.5
1.5 B 1.35
B 1.30
collapse mechanisms and then adopt the correct collapse mechanism analy-
sis to calculate the required strengthening.
A second example of application is the Qutb Minar, in New Deli, India.
To evaluate its seismic performance different techniques of structural anal-
yses were used, namely non-linear dynamic analysis and non-linear static
analysis (pushover analysis). In the analyses different numerical models
were considered. Two models were prepared using the Finite Element
Method (FEM), both are three-dimensional models but one uses 3D solid el-
ements (Solid Model) while the other one was performed with 3D composite
beams (Beam Model). A simplified in-plane model of the minaret based on
the Rigid Element Method was also developed. The Rigid Element Method
idealizes the masonry structure as a mechanism made of rigid elements and
springs (Casolo and Peña, 2007). The numerical models were updated from
dynamic identification tests.
In the FEM models, the physical non-linear behaviour of the masonry
was simulated using the Total Strain Crack Model detailed in DIANA
334 P. B. Lourenço and G. Milani
Figure 29. Results of the pushover analyses: (a) capacity curves of the
pushover analyses proportional to the mass; (b) comparison between the
drifts obtained through modal pushover analysis and trough dynamic anal-
yses of the Beam and RBSM Models.
The results of the pushover analyses, namely the failure mode and dis-
placements’ distribution along the height, are not in agreement with the
non-linear dynamic analysis. Even modal pushover analysis, in which the
responses of the first seven modes were combined, is not able to simulate the
amplification of the response at higher levels (Figure 29b). This example
demonstrates again the need of adopting adequate analysis techniques for
the seismic assessment of unreinforced masonry structures.
4 Conclusions
Constraints to be considered in the use of advanced modelling are the cost,
the need of an experienced user/engineer, the level of accuracy required, the
availability of input data, the need for validation and the use of the results.
As a rule, advanced modelling is a necessary means for understanding
the behaviour and damage of (complex) historical masonry constructions
and examples have been addressed here. For this purpose, it is necessary
to have reliable information on material data, and recommendations are
provided in this chapter.
Micro-modelling techniques for masonry structures allow a deep under-
standing of the mechanical phenomena involved. For large scale applica-
tions, macro-block approaches or average continuum mechanics must be
adopted and homogenization techniques represent a popular and active field
in masonry research. Homogenization techniques represent a popular and
active field in masonry research. Several approaches have been recently in-
troduced by different authors and a first attempt to catalogue them and to
discuss pros and cons are carried out in this Chapter. Even if it impossible
to predict the future of masonry research, this Chapter addresses in detail
two different static approaches considered particularly relevant. The first
approach is based on a polynomial expansion of the stress field coupled with
limit finite elements analysis, whereas the second relies into a discretization
of the unit cell by means of a few constant stress finite elements (CST) with
joints reduced to interfaces.
Finally, the possibilities of assessment unreinforced masonry structures
subjected to seismic loading is addressed using different techniques. It is ad-
vocated that linear elastic analysis can hardly be used, as masonry features
low tensile strength, and different models must be used in the presence or
absence of adequately connected floors, the so-called box behaviour.
In case of box behaviour the available methods have been briefly re-
viewed. Their performance is good and the knowledge is sound, with some
corrections needed in the recent European regulations (Eurocode 8). When
box behaviour cannot be guaranteed, the analysis of masonry structures
336 P. B. Lourenço and G. Milani
becomes rather complex. The use of macro-models and limit analysis seems
the current trend but difficulties arise in the practical use, namely with re-
spect to validation of the hypothesis of the user and the risk of selecting
inadequate failure mechanisms. The non-linear static analysis could be a
good and easily understood approach, because it is based on the simple
evaluation of the requested deformation with respect to the displacement
capacity of the building. This approach is in agreement with the modern
provisions for structural assessment. Still, the results obtained from the
non-linear static and dynamic analyses indicate quite different response of
these structures to earthquakes. It is therefore concluded that non-linear
pushover analysis does not simulate correctly the failure mode of masonry
structures without box behaviour, even if higher modes are considered via
modal pushover analysis.
Bibliography
E. Anderheggen and H. Knöpfel. Finite element limit analysis using linear
programming. International Journal of Solids and Structures, 8(12):
1413–1431, 1972.
A. Anthoine. Derivation of the in-plane elastic characteristics of masonry
through homogenization theory. International Journal of Solids and
Structures, 32(2):137–163, 1995.
A. Anthoine. Homogenization of periodic masonry: plane stress, generalized
plane strain or 3d modelling? Communications in numerical methods in
engineering, 13(5):319–326, 1997.
T. Belytschko and P.G. Hodge. Plane stress limit analysis by finite elements.
Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division, 96(6):931–944, 1970.
D. Caillerie. Thin elastic and periodic plates. Mathematical Methods in the
Applied Sciences, 6(1):159–191, 1984.
S. Casolo and F. Peña. Rigid element model for in-plane dynamics of ma-
sonry walls considering hysteretic behaviour and damage. Earthquake
engineering & structural dynamics, 36(8):1029–1048, 2007.
CEB-FIP. Model Code 90. Thomas Telford Ltd., UK, 1993.
A. Cecchi and K. Sab. A multi-parameter homogenization study for mod-
elling elastic masonry. European Journal of Mechanics-A/Solids, 21(2):
249–268, 2002.
A. Cecchi, G. Milani, and A. Tralli. Validation of analytical multiparameter
homogenization models for out-of-plane loaded masonry walls by means
of the finite element method. Journal of engineering mechanics, 131(2):
185–198, 2005.
Homogenization and Seismic Assessment:… 337