See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/220291880

Homogenization methods for interface modeling in damaged masonry

Article  in  Advances in Engineering Software · April 2012

DOI: 10.1016/j.advengsoft.2010.09.009 · Source: DBLP

CITATIONS READS

49 199

2 authors:

Amna Rekik Frédéric Lebon

Université d'Orléans Aix-Marseille Université
42 PUBLICATIONS   333 CITATIONS    295 PUBLICATIONS   2,267 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Modèle d'interface View project

Imperfect interfaces in masonry structures View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Amna Rekik on 10 February 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Author manuscript, published in "Advances in Engineering Software 46, 1 (2012) 35-42"
DOI : 10.1016/j.advengsoft.2010.09.009

Homogenization methods for interface modeling in

damaged masonry
A. Rekik1 , F. Lebon2
1
Institut PRISME, Polytech’Orléans, 8 rue Léonard de Vinci, 45072 Orléans Cedex 2
2
LMA CNRS UPR 7051, Université de Provence, 31, Chemin Joseph Aiguier, 13402
Marseille Cedex 20

Abstract
The aim of the present study was to predict damage to masonry by com-
hal-00652805, version 1 - 16 Dec 2011

bining structural analysis and homogenization methods. In the case of a

masonry structure composed of bricks and mortar, a third material is as-
sumed to exist, which is a mixture of the two materials sandwiched between
the other two. This new layer has a small thickness, a low stiffness and a
given damage ratio. The mechanical problem set by this masonry, which
was initially a 3-D problem, is solved numerically in 2-D terms using finite
element methods and modeling the three materials: brick, mortar and the
interface material defined above. The properties of the third material are
obtained by performing the following three steps: (i) first an exact homoge-
nization of a brick/mortar laminate defining a first homogeneous equivalent
medium (HEM-1) is performed. (ii) Secondly, we assume the HEM-1 to be
damaged and apply the Kachanov model to assess the global behavior of the
damaged HEM-1, thus defining a second equivalent homogeneous medium
denoted HEM-2. (iii) Thirdly, asymptotic analysis is performed to model
HEM-2 as an interface or a joint. The properties of this joint are deduced
from those of the HEM-2 material. This interface is modeled numerically
with connector finite elements.
This method is applied to two cases: a triplet of full bricks and a triplet
of hollow bricks subjected twice to shear loading. The numerical results
obtained are compared with experimental data available in the literature.
Key words: masonry structure, interface damage, homogenization,
asymptotic analysis, finite element method.

Preprint submitted to Computers and Structures July 23, 2009

 1. Introduction
Traditionally, as in ancient Greece and Egypt, people have always built
their homes with natural materials available nearby, such as stones and
bricks, in particular. Masonry is therefore one of the oldest construction ma-
terials. Masonry is still commonly used nowadays to build houses because
of its qualities of strength, solidity, durability and fire resistance, and its
elegant appearance, etc. However, masonry, which is not generally thought
to be a highly technological material, shows highly complex behaviour, due
in particular to the interactions between the components (mortar, bricks,
concrete blocks and stones) and the anisotropy induced by the direction of
the joints, which are a source of weakness. Masonry structures were classi-
cally designed on the basis of empirical rules. Modern virtual methods of
design developed only quite recently. In particular, the structures built long
hal-00652805, version 1 - 16 Dec 2011

ago were extremely stable because they were massive. In modern masonry
buildings the walls are very thick for economic reasons and the stability has
to be studied from the theoretical point of view, especially when wind or
earthquakes are liable to occur. The strength of the masonry then becomes
more critical and it is necessary to study the solidity of the structure using
fine models and numerical simulations as in the case of concrete and steel
structures. Other problems such as cracks are intolerable for the occupants
of buildings, and preventing this problem also requires more detailed studies
on the design of masonry structures.
In this paper, we deal with the resistance of masonry to in-plane shear
forces. It is classically held that the seismic vulnerability of masonry build-
ings depends strongly on their resistance to shear forces. It is therefore of
great interest to model and test the shear responses of building components
subjected to loading of this kind, especially cyclic loading. These responses
have generally been characterized by a peak load, loss of rigidity and energy
dissipation. To summarize considerably, two methods of modeling masonry
structures have been used so far.
The first method involves macroscopic models, in which the wall is as-
sumed to be a single structural element characterized by a non linear response
when it is exposed to shear forces [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 37]. These models, which
are generally based on the use of homogenization techniques, usually take the
properties of the materials and the bonding between the various components
into account [24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35].
On the other hand, some models have been developed for predicting the

2
 evolution of damage to the interface between two initially bonded deformable
bodies [8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 36, 38]. These
models are based mostly on phenomenological approaches. In this paper, an
original multi-level model for interfaces based on homogenization techniques
is presented, which takes the characteristics of the masonry into account.
The first part of this paper deals with the mechanical modeling approach
used, and in particular with the model developed. The multi-level approach
used is described. This approach takes the mechanical characteristics of the
mortar and bricks, the presence of micro-cracks and the thickness of the
interface into account. In the second part, the numerical procedure used and
implemented using a finite element software program is presented and some
numerical examples are given and compared with experimental data [11, 6].
Details of the computations are given in appendices A and B.
hal-00652805, version 1 - 16 Dec 2011

2. The method of analysis proposed

In order to model interface damage to masonry structures, the present
method based on homogenization theories, asymptotic techniques and finite
element methods was developed. The main steps involved in this method will
be described below. Most studies on masonry structures have dealt with only
two materials: brick and mortar. In the present work, we assume the exis-
tence of a third material: a mixture of brick and mortar with a crack density
ρ. To obtain the effective properties of the damaged intermediate material,
three steps are performed. First we calculate the exact effective properties of
the material devoid of cracks using homogenization techniques for laminate
composites, and thus define a first homogeneous equivalent medium, which
will be referred below as HEM-1. In the second step, we attribute the crack
density ρ to the material HEM-1. To model the macroscopic behavior of the
cracked material HEM-1, we use the Kachanov model and then define a new
homogeneous equivalent medium HEM-2. This material sandwiched between
the brick and mortar is taken to have a small thickness, and its mechanical
behavior can therefore be obtained using asymptotic techniques to shift from
the micro to macro level. With this interface law, the masonry structure
problem can be solved using finite element methods.
The following overall scheme (Fig.1) describes the principles underlying the
model proposed:

3
hal-00652805, version 1 - 16 Dec 2011

Figure 1: Principle of the proposed model

2.1. First step: undamaged stratified composite homogenization

The behavior of brick and mortar is assumed to be isotropic and linear,
as described by the local law:
4
 εijk = Sjkln
i i
σln , for j, k, l, n = 1, 2, 3 (1)
Where S i is the compliance tensor of the phase i = b, m. The indexes b and
m denote the brick and mortar phases respectively. Each fourth-order local
1 1
homogeneous phase compliance tensor S i reads: S i = i J + i K, where
3k 2µ
i Ei
the compressibility and the shear coefficients are given by: k =
3(1 − 2ν i )
i
E
and µi = , respectively. E i and ν i are the Young’s modulus and the
2(1 + ν i )
Poisson ratio, respectively, of each phase i . The fourth-order tensors J and
K are given by the relations: J = 13 i ⊗ i and K = I − J, respectively, where
i is the second-order identity tensor and I is the fourth-order one.
hal-00652805, version 1 - 16 Dec 2011

The macroscopic behavior law of the laminate brick/mortar reads:

X X
ε̄ = S̃ 0 : σ̄ where ε̄ = f i εi = f iS i : σi (2)
i=b, m i=b, m

where f i (i = b, m) denotes the volume fractions of the phases, S̃ 0 is the

effective fourth-order compliance tensor of the transversely isotropic crack-
free laminate. According to the modified Voigt notation [23], the macroscopic
law reads:
   0 0 0
 
ε̄11 S̃1111 S̃1122 S̃1133 0 0 0 σ̄11
 ε̄22   S̃ 0 0 
 σ̄22 
0 0
   1122 S̃2222 S̃1133 0 0  
 ε̄   0 0 0   σ̄ 
 √ 33  S̃ S̃
 =  1133 1133 3333 S̃ 0 0 0   √ 33 
 2ε̄23   0   2σ̄23 
 √  0 0 0 2 S̃ 0 0 
 2ε̄13  
1313
0  √
 2σ̄13 

√  0 0 0 0 2 S̃ 1313 0  √
2ε̄12 0 0 0 0 0
0 2S̃1212 2σ̄12
(3)
0
The unknown components of the compliance tensor S̃ are determined in
Appendix A by applying four independent loads: axial tension, axisymmetric
loading, plane traction combined with a plane shear load and a longitudi-
nal shear load. With each loading condition, it is necessary to fulfill two
conditions at the brick/mortar interface as regards: (i) the continuity of the
normal stress vector σ.e3 , i.e.:
b m
σj3 = σj3 for every index j = 1, 2, 3 (4)

5
 and (ii) the continuity of the in-plane deformation components
εbkj = εm
kj for the couplets (k, j) = (1, 1), (2, 2) and (1, 2) (5)
In [39], the macroscopic description of a periodic stratified composite is ob-
tained differently, using the asymptotic expansion technique [40] up to third
³ ´−1
order. The expression for the macroscopic elastic tensor C̃ 0 = S̃ 0 is writ-
ten in terms of the elastic properties of the layers and its volume fractions in
the periodic cell.

2.2. Second step: homogenization of the damaged composite

In this section, the material HEM-1 is assumed to contain an arbitrary
crack orientation distribution. Kachanov and Mauge [15] provided an accu-
rate approximation of the effective behaviour of the cracked material HEM-1.
hal-00652805, version 1 - 16 Dec 2011

Assuming that cracks are rectilinear and located in the plane (e1 , e3 ), the
initial 3−D problem can be reduced to a 2−D problem. In this case, it has
been established [15] that the overall strain ε̄ in a solid with N cracks can
be written in the form
N
0 1X
ε̄ = S̃ : σ̄ = S̃ : σ̄ + (n⊗ < b > + < b > ⊗n)(k) l(k) = (S̃ 0 + ∆S̃) : σ̄
A k=1
(6)
0
where S̃ is the effective compliance of the cracked material, S̃ is the com-
pliance of the crack-free matrix, n(k) , 2l(k) and < b >(k) are the normal unit
vector, the length of the kth crack and the average displacement disconti-
nuity (COD) vector at the kth crack; and A is the representative averaging
area.
The potential of the cracked material is therefore the sum of two terms:
N
1 1 1X
f (σ̄) = ε̄ : S̃ : ε̄ = σ̄ : S̃ 0 : σ̄ + (n.σ̄. < b >)(k) l(k) = f 0 (σ̄) + ∆f
2 2 A k=1

f 0 is the potential of the crack-free material and ∆f is the change of f due

to the presence of cracks.
The problem of finding the additional compliance ∆S̃ (relation (6)) due to
cracks is reduced to finding the COD tensor B in terms of the average stress
σ̄. The latter is defined by the relation [16, 17]:
< b >= n.σ̄.B (7)

6
 The components of B depend on the compliance matrix S̃ 0 and the orien-
tation of the crack with respect to the matrix anisotropy axes. In the crack
coordinate system (t, n), where t is a unit vector which is tangential to the
crack so that:
t = cosφ e1 + sinφ e3
n = −sinφ e1 + cosφ e3
B = Bnn n ⊗ n + Btt t ⊗ t + Bnt n ⊗ t + Btn t ⊗ n (8)
(e1 , e3 ) are the principal axes of the matrix orthotropy and φ is the angle
between the crack line and the e1 -principal axis.
The expressions for the COD tensor (7) and (8) are used to obtain the change
in f due to the presence of a family of non-interacting cracks for which t and
n are the same:
hal-00652805, version 1 - 16 Dec 2011

∆f = ρσ̄ : n. {Bnn n ⊗ n + Btt t ⊗ t + Bnt (n ⊗ t + t ⊗ n)} .n : σ̄ (9)

P
where ρ = A1 k (l(k) )2 is the conventional scalar crack density parameter.
In the considered case of an orthotropic matrix with one arbitrarily oriented
family of parallel cracks (− π2 ≤ φ ≤ π2 ), B can be expressed in the following
form, using the solution given by Lekhnitsky [19] and Savin [20].

 Btt = C(1 − Dcos2φ)l
Bnn = C(1 + Dcos2φ)l (10)

Btn = CD(sin2φ)l

where 
 p p à ! 21

 π E 0
+ E 0
1 ν 0
2

 C= p1 3
− 2 130 + p 0 0
0
4 Ep0 0
1 E3
G 13 E1 E1 E3
p (11)

 0
E1 − E3 0


 D=p 0 p 0
E1 + E3
E10 , E30 , ν13
0
and G013 are the elastic engineering constants of the crack-free
material HEM-1. These constants are deduced from the effective elastic

7
 compliances S̃ 0 [19] as follows:

 0 1

 S̃1111 = 0

 E1

 1

 0
 S̃3333 = 0
E3
0
ν13 (12)

 S̃1133
0
= −



 E10

 1
 0
 S̃1313 = 0
G13
We note here the dependance of the sign of D on the anisotropy ratio
E10 /E30 .
Substituting B from (10) into (9), we obtain the elastic potential f , and
therefore, all the moduli of the material HEM-2 (i.e. HEM-1 with cracks).
hal-00652805, version 1 - 16 Dec 2011

On the principal axes e1 , e3 , the effective properties of HEM-2 are therefore

given by:

 E1 1
 0 =


 E1 1 + 2ρsin φ(Btt cos φ + Bnn sin2 φ − Bnt sin2φ)E10
2 2

 E 1

 3
 0 =
E3 1 + 2ρcos2 φ(Btt sin2 φ + Bnn cos2 φ + Bnt sin2φ)E30
G 1 (13)

 13
=

 G013 1 + ρ(Bnn sin2 2φ + Btt cos2 2φ − Bnt sin4φ)G013



 ν ν0

 13 = 130
E1 E1

The stiffness tensor C̃ of the material HEM−2 is obtained by performing

inversion on the compliance tensor S̃ deduced from the elastic engineering
constants E1 , E3 , ν13 and G13 (giving a relation similar to (12)). For the
following applications, we assume the cracks to be parallel to the e1 -principal
axis, i.e., φ = 0. In this case, the engineering constants defining the behavior
of HEM-2 read:
0
E1 = E10 , E3 = E30 /(1 + 2ρBnn E30 ), G13 = G013 /(1 + ρBtt G013 ) and ν13 = ν13
where, in this case, Bnn = C(1 + D)l and Btt = C(1 − D)l.

2.3. Third step: asymptotic analysis and interface law

In this section, we consider a thin joint composed of the material defined
above, which is sandwiched between brick and mortar. Since the joint is

8
 thin and soft, it is natural to use asymptotic techniques, to study the limit
problem (when the thickness is equal to zero) and to replace the joint by
an interface law defined along the limit surface. We take ε to denote the
thickness of the joint, which is assumed to be constant and S to denote the
limit surface of the joint (a line in 2D), corresponding to a thickness equal
to zero. In what follows, we work in 2-dimensional terms (direction 1 and
3) in order to simplify the computations (see fig. 2). The details of the
computations are given in appendix B. We take a to denote the elasticity
tensor of the joint and lim aijkl /ε = āijkl . The limits are assumed to exist.
hal-00652805, version 1 - 16 Dec 2011

Figure 2: the principle of the asymptotic techniques in a 2-D case

We take [ ] to denote the jump along S. We obtain

0
£ ¤
σi3 = āi3i3 u0i
We find an interface law which links the stress vector to the jump in
the displacement via a diagonal matrix. In our case, the terms CN and CT

9
 in this matrix (corresponding to the normal and tangential jumps in the
displacement) are given by

 CN = C̄3333 (ε → 0) where C̄3333 = C̃3333

ε (14)

 C = C̄ (ε → 0) where C̄ C̃1313
T 1313 1313 =
ε
Using expressions ((13), (12)) and since the crack density scalar can be
expressed in the form: ρ = l2 /ε L0 , where L0 denotes the joint length, it can
be established that the normal and tangential joint stiffnesses read:
 L0

 CN =
2C(1 + Dcos2φ) l3
L0 (15)

 CT =
hal-00652805, version 1 - 16 Dec 2011

4C(1 − Dcos2φ) l3

The present model takes the evolution of the micro-crack into account by
taking a variable crack half length l depending on the load. For the follow-
ing applications and for the sake of simplicity, we first assume that the half
length l depends only on the predominant tangential stress τ and we neglect
its dependance on the normal stress. For its evolution, we assume that l
remains constant (l = ξ1 L0 , where ξ1 is a scalar such as 0 < ξ1 < 1) until a
certain value τ0 of the shear stress has been reached. From this value, the
crack half length l evolves linearly with respect to the shear stress τ up to a
second value of the crack length ξ2 L0 (ξ1 < ξ2 < 1) reached at the maximum
shear stress value τmax . The following figure (Fig. 3) describes the evolution
of the half crack length with respect to the shear stress τ :
The first step (where l is constant) corresponds to a stable state of the in-
terface material in which crack propagation occurs. The second step (where
l evolves linearly as a function of the shear stress τ ) includes the crack prop-
agation, which leads to the failure of the interface.
The values of the shear stresses τ0 and τmax are fixed in advance, based on
experimental ’stress-displacement’ diagrams obtained on various masonries
subjected to shear conditions. The values of the crack evolution law param-
eters (ξ1 and ξ2 ) result from the minimization of the difference between the
numerical and experimental ’stress-displacement’ diagrams.

10
hal-00652805, version 1 - 16 Dec 2011

Figure 3: Function describing the evolution of the crack half length with respect to the
applied shear stress

3. Results and discussion

The numerical evaluation of the model described above is restricted to
the case of 2D plane stress in masonry structures subjected to shear loading.
The obtained numerical results are then compared with experimental data
available in the literature [36].
In this paper, two cases are considered: a triplet of full bricks and a triplet
of hollow bricks, both subjected twice to the same nominal loading (with
no lateral confinement) as shown in figure (4). Table (1) lists the material
properties of the mortar and full bricks used to simulate a triplet of full bricks

11
 Young’s moduli (MPa) of full brick 9438
Poisson ratio of full brick 0.13
Young’s moduli (MPa) of hollow brick 6059
Poisson ratio of hollow brick 0.13
Young’s moduli (MPa) of mortar 4000
Poisson ratio of mortar 0.3

Table 1: Mechanical properties of the three-fold masonry constituents [36]

under the shear loading conditions described (Fig. (4)). The properties of
the full bricks given in this table were based on experiments by Fouchal et
al [36]. Those of the hollow bricks were deduced using the self-consistent
estimate [21, 22], based on the fact that the porosity ratio of the bricks
hal-00652805, version 1 - 16 Dec 2011

equals 30%. These homogenized properties are in good agreement with the
results of experiments performed in [36].
Case of the triplet of full bricks. The properties of the undamaged material
are those of the equivalent behavior of the mortar and full brick sandwich (see
table 1), assuming the existence of an equal volume fraction between these
two materials (fm = fb = 0.5). In the case of this sandwich configuration,
the constants αi (23, 25), β i (32, 33), γ i (37) are equal to:
αb = −0.229, αm = 0.229, βb = −0.884, βm = −0.115, γb = 1.461, γm = 0.538
The compliance tensor S̃ 0 therefore reads:
 
1.478 −0.271 −0.348 0 0 0
 −0.271 1.478 −0.348 0 0 0 
 
 −0.348 −0.348 1.639 0 0 0 
10−4 


 (16)
 0 0 0 4.444 0 0 
 0 0 0 0 4.444 0 
0 0 0 0 0 3.499
The engineering constants defining this undamaged homogeneous material
(HEM-1) are therefore:
0
Ẽ10 = Ẽ20 = 6762.57 MPa, G̃012 = 5714.57 MPa, and ν̃12 = 0.183

Ẽ30 = 6099.53 MPa, G̃013 = G̃023 = 4497.12 MPa, and ν̃13

0 0
= ν̃23 = 0.236

12
 To evaluate the engineering constants defining the homogeneous damaged
material (HEM-2), we need to determine the coefficients C and D (11) which
are independent of the crack length parameter 2 l:

C = 4.223 10−4 and D = 0.0258

Lastly, the normal and tangential stiffness of the interface are given by the
following expressions, respectively:

CN = 242365/l3 (N/mm2 ) and CT = 255199/2 l3 (N/mm2 )

The experimental responses (blue dashed and pink dashed-dotted curves)

are used to identify the parameters ξ1 and ξ2 as follows:
½
for the blue dashed curve: ξ1 L0 = 1.47 µm, ξ2 L0 = 1.484 µm
hal-00652805, version 1 - 16 Dec 2011

for the pink dashed-dotted curve: ξ1 L0 = 1.397 µm, ξ2 L0 = 1.47 µm

(17)
The shear stresses values taken from the experimental ’stress-displacement’
curves and serving to construct a simplified ’two-slope’ crack evolution law,
as depicted in Figure (3), are:
½
for the blue dashed curve: τ0 = 0.7 M P a, τmax = 0.83 M P a
for the pink dashed-dotted curve: τ0 = 1.26 M P a, τmax = 1.6 M P a
(18)

Case of the triplet of hollow bricks. With this triplet of hollow bricks, the
coefficients αi , β i and γ i , i = b, m, are equal to:

αb = −0.168, αm = 0.168, βb = −0.717, βm = −0.282, γb = 1.270, γm = 0.729

The compliance tensor S̃ 0 of this homogeneous undamaged material HEM-1

is written as follows:
 
1.973 −0.396 −0.456 0 0 0
 −0.396 1.973 −0.456 0 0 0 
 

−4  −0.456 −0.456 1.985 0 0 0 
10   (19)
0 0 0 5.115 0 0 
 
 0 0 0 0 5.115 0 
0 0 0 0 0 4.740

13
 The engineering constants are therefore:
Ẽ10 = Ẽ20 = 5066.57 MPa, G̃012 = 4219.43 MPa, and ν̃12
0
= 0.2

Ẽ30 = 5037.2 MPa, G̃013 = 3910.1 MPa, and ν̃13

0
= 0.23
The constants C and D (11) used to evaluate the components of the COD
tensor B are:
C = 5.232 10−4 and D = 14.53 10−4
The normal and tangential stiffness of the interface sandwiched between
mortar and hollow brick is given by the following expressions:
CN = 200396/l3 (N/mm2 ) and CT = 200980/2 l3 (N/mm2 )
The blue dashed experimental curve, which shows that failure occurs at
hal-00652805, version 1 - 16 Dec 2011

the interface and not across the thickness of the mortar or across the hol-
low brick, makes it possible to identify the following two parameters ξ1 and
ξ2 : ξ1 L0 = 1.60 µm and ξ2 L0 = 1.61 µm, obtained for the shear stresses
τ0 = 0.63 M P a and τmax = 0.67 M P a, respectively. Fig.(4, (a)) shows the
initial geometrical configuration of the three-fold masonry structure. The
deformation and the ’stress-displacement’ relation of the triplet of full bricks
under shear loading conditions are shown in Fig.((4, (b)) and Fig.(5), re-
spectively. The numerical results obtained with the present model match
the experimental data (curves denoted by 1-f and 2-f) and are in good agree-
ment particularly with the test data obtained in 1 (curve 1-f).

Fig.(6) shows the numerical results and the experimental data obtained
on a triplet of hollow bricks under shear loading conditions. In the case of
the experimental data denoted by 1-h, 2-h and 3-h, the failure occurred only
across the mortar phase (figure (7), (b)) or the brick and mortar phases (fig-
ure (7), (a)). These experimental tests (1-h, 2-h and 3-h) do not show the
failure occurring across the brick/mortar interface and were therefore not
used to obtain our numerical results. The experimental data denoted 4-h
show the ability of the present model to predict the failure process across the
brick/mortar interface.

The numerical results provided by the present model accurately describe

the ’stress-displacement’ relationship in a masonry structure where the failure
occurs at the brick-mortar interface.

14
hal-00652805, version 1 - 16 Dec 2011

Figure 4: Initial geometrical configuration and loading conditions imposed on the triplet of
full bricks (a), deformation of the triplet of full bricks in a shear test (b)
.

4. Conclusion
The multi-scale model presented here was successfully used to simulate
the experimental tests in which failure occurred at the brick/mortar inter-
face presented in [36], which provided the coefficients required to model the
interface, namely the stiffness parameters and the length of the micro-cracks.
The model is sensitive to these characteristics but the results obtained are
in line with the experimental data.
The present method was also tested on a more complex structure pre-
sented in the literature (the case of a full wall subjected to diagonal com-
pression loading [7]). The results obtained show that the model presented
here can be used to describe the behavior of structures of this kind.
From the practical point of view, an optimization routine is needed to sys-

15
hal-00652805, version 1 - 16 Dec 2011

Figure 5: Stress-displacement diagrams of the triplet of full bricks under shear, numerical
and experimental results.

tematically determine the values of the parameters describing the evolution

of the crack length (ξ1 and ξ2 ). This idea will be applied to more complex
masonry structures in a future study.
It is proposed in the future to establish an optimization routine for sys-
tematically determining the values of the parameters describing the evolution
of the crack length (ξ1 and ξ2 ), which have depended up to now only on the
shear stress. In a future study, it is plained to also examine the dependence
on the normal stress.
More complex structures such as modern masonry buildings will also be

16
hal-00652805, version 1 - 16 Dec 2011

Figure 6: Stress-displacement diagrams of the triplet of hollow bricks under shear loading
conditions: numerical and experimental results.

studied to improve the model presented here, by accounting more efficiently

for the evolution of the micro-cracks more efficiently into account, in partic-
ular.

References
[1] Orduna A., Lourenço P.B., Three-dimensional limit analysis of rigid
blocks assemblages. Part II: Load-path following solution procedure and
validation, Int. J. of Sol. and Struct., 42, 5161-5180 (2005).

17
 (a) (b)
Figure 7: Experimental data on a masonry structures composed of hollow bricks under
shear stress loading conditions. Failure across the mortar and brick phases (a), across the
mortar phase alone (b)
hal-00652805, version 1 - 16 Dec 2011

[2] Lourenço P.B., Barros J.O., Olveira J.T., Shear testing of stack bonded
masonry, Construction and Building Materials., 18, 125-132 (2004).

[3] Anthoine A., Magonette G. and Magenes G., Shear-compression testing

and analysis of brick masonry walls, in G. Duma (ed), Proc. 10th Euro-
pean conf. Earthquake eng., Vol. 3, Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 1657-1662
(1995).

[4] Benedetti D., Benzoni G.M., A numerical model for seismic analysis of
masonry building: Experimental Correlations, Earthquake Eng. Struct.
dyn. 12, 817-831 (1984).

[5] Lotfi H. R., Shing P. B., An appraisal of smeared crack models for
masonry shear wall analysis, Comput. Struct. 41, 413-425 544 91).

[6] Gabor A., Ferrier E., Jacquelin E. and Hamelin P., Analysis of the
inplane shear behaviour of FRP reinforced hollow brick masonry walls,
Struct. Eng. Mech., 19, 237-260, (2005).

[7] Gabor A., Bennani A., Jacquelin E. and Lebon F., Modelling approaches
of the in-plane shear behaviour of unreinforced and FRP 548 engthened
masonry panels, Comp. Struct., 74, 277-288, 2006.

[8] Raous M., Cangémi L. and Cocou M., A consistent model coupling
adhesion, friction and unilateral contact, Comp. Methods. Appl. Mech.
Engn. 177, 383-399 (1999).

18
 [9] Monerie Y. and Raous M., A model coupling adhesion to friction for the
intercation between a crack and a fiber/matrix interface, 552 .M.M. 80,
205-209 (2000).

[10] Frémond M., Adhérence des solides, J. Mec. Theor. Appl., 6, 383-407
(1987).

[11] Lebon F., Ronel-Idrissi S., Asymptotic studies of Mohr-Coulomb and

Drucker-Prager soft thin layers, International Journal of 556 el and Com-
posite Structures, Vol. 4, pp. 133-148, 2004

[12] Lebon F., Rizzoni, R., Ronel-Idrissi, S. Analysis of non-linear soft thin
interfaces, Computers and Structures, Vol 82, pp 558 9-1938, 2004

[13] Lebon F., Ronel-Idrissi, S. First order numerical analysis of linear thin
hal-00652805, version 1 - 16 Dec 2011

layers, ASME Journal of Applied Mechanics, Vol. 74, pp. 824-828, 2007

[14] Lebon F., Rizzoni, R., Asymptotic study of soft thin layer: the non
convex case, Mechanics of Advanced Materials and Structures, Vol. 15,
pp. 12-20, 2008

[15] Mauge C., Kachanov M., Effective elastic properties of an anisotropic

material with arbitrarily oriented interacting cracks, J. 564 h. Phys.
Solids, Vol. 42, pp. 561-584, 1994

[16] Kachanov M., Effective elastic properties of cracked solids: critical re-
view of some basic concepts, Appl. Mech. Rev. 45 (8), pp 566 -335,
1992

[17] Kachanov M., Elastic solids with many cracks and related problems,
Advances in Applied Mechanics (ed. J. Hutchinson and T. Wu), 568 30,
pp 259-445, Academic Press, New-York, 1993

[18] Chaboche J-L, Suquet P., Besson J., Endommagement et change-

ment d’échelle, in: Bornert M., Bretheau T., Gilormini P. (Eds),
570 ogénéisation en mécanique des matériaux, tome2, Hermes Science,
Chapter 3, pp. 91-146, 2001

[19] Lekhnitsky S. G., Theory of elasticity of an anisotropic elastic body,

OGIZ (in Russian) English Transl.: Mir Publishers, 1961

19
 [20] Savin G. N., Stress concentration around holes, Gostekhteoretzdat (in
Russian). English transl.: Pergamon Press, 1960
[21] Hutchinson J., Bounds and self-consistent estimates for creep of poly-
crystalline materials, Proc. Roy. Soc. London A348, pp. 574 -127, 1976
[22] Berveiller M., Zaoui A., An extension of the self-consistent scheme to
plastically-flowing polycrystals, J. Mech. Phys. Solids 576 pp. 325-344,
1979
[23] Suquet P., Bornert M., Calcul tensoriel et élasticité, in: Bornert M.,
Bretheau T., Gilormini P. (Eds), Homogénéisation 578 mécanique des
matériaux, tome 2, Hermes Science Publications, chapter 5, pp. 171-202,
2001
hal-00652805, version 1 - 16 Dec 2011

[24] Milani E., Milani G., Tralli A., Limit analysis of masonry vaults by
means of curved shell finite elements and homogenization, 582 ernational
Journal of Solids and Structures, Vol. 45, Issue 20, pp. 5258-5288, 2008
[25] Dallot J., Sab K., Godet O., Experimental validation of a homogenized
plate model for the yield design of masonry walls, Comptes 584 dus
Mécanique, Vol. 336, Issue 6, pp. 487-492, 2008
[26] Wei X., Hao H., Numerical derivation of homogenized dynamic masonry
material properties with strain rate effects, International 586 rnal of
Impact Engineering, in press, 2008
[27] Wu C., Hao H., Numerical derivation of averaged material properties of
hollow concrete block masonry, Engineering Structures, Vol. 588 Issue
3, pp. 870-883, 2008
[28] Kawa M., Pietruszczak S., Shieh-Beygi B., Limit states for brick ma-
sonry based on homogenization approach, International Journal 590
Solids and Structures, Vol. 45, Issues 3-4, pp. 998-1016, 2008
[29] Dallot J., Sab K., Limit analysis of multi-layered plates. Part I: The ho-
mogenized Love-Kirchhoff model, Journal of the Mechanics 592 Physics
of Solids, Vol. 56, Issue 2, pp. 561-580, 2008
[30] Falsone G., Lombardo M., Stochastic representation of the mechani-
cal properties of irregular masonry structures, International 594 rnal of
Solids and Structures, Vol. 44, Issues 25-26, pp. 8600-8612, 2007

20
 [31] Cecchi A., Milani G., Tralli A., Out-of-plane loaded CFRP reinforced
masonry walls: Mechanical characteristics by homogenization 596 ce-
dures, Composites Science and Technology, Vol. 65, Issue 10, pp. 1480-
1500, 2005

[32] Carbone V.I., Codegone M., Homogenization process of stratified ma-

sonry, Mathematical and Computer Modelling, Vol. 42, Issues 3-4, 598
375-380, 2005

[33] Cluni F., Gusella V., Homogenization of non-periodic masonry struc-

tures, International Journal of Solids and Structures, Vol. 41, 600 ue 7,
pp. 1911-1923, 2004

[34] Sab K., Yield design of thin periodic plates by a homogenization tech-
nique and an application to masonry walls, Comptes Rendus 602 anique,
hal-00652805, version 1 - 16 Dec 2011

Vol. 331, Issue 9, pp. 641-646, 2003

[35] Marfia S., Sacco E., Modeling of reinforced masonry elements, Inter-
national Journal of Solids and Structures, Vol. 38, Issues 604 25, pp.
4177-4198, 2001

[36] Fouchal F., Lebon F., Titeux I., Contribution to the modelling of in-
terfaces in masonry construction, Construction and Building 607 erials,
Vol. 23 (6), pp. 2428-2441 (2009).

[37] Sacco E., A nonlinear homogenization procedure for periodic masonry,

European Journal of Mechanics A/Solids, Vol. 28 (2), pp. 609 -222
(2009)

[38] Sejnoha J., Sejnoha M., Zeman J., Sykora J., Vorel J., Mesoscopic study
on historic masonry, Structural Engineering and Mechanics, 612 . 30,
Issue 1, pp. 99-117, 2008

[39] Boutin C., Microstructural effects in elastic composites, International

Journal of Solids and Structures, Vol. 33, pp. 1023-1051, 614 6

[40] Sanchez P., In: Homogenization Techniques for composites media, Lec-
ture Note in Physics, 272, pp. 122-189, Springer, Berlin, 616 5

21
 Appendix A: Effective properties of the undamaged stratified brick/mortar:
HEM-1
Axial tension. The brick/mortar laminate is subjected to an axial stress:
σ̄ = σ̄33 e3 ⊗ e3 (20)
In this case, relation (3) involves the equalities:
0
ε̄11 = ε̄22 = S̃1133 σ̄33
0 (21)
ε̄33 = S̃3333 σ̄33
ε̄23 = ε̄13 = ε̄12 = 0
In each phase, we assume the local stress induced by the macroscopic loading
to be transversely isotropic with the form:
hal-00652805, version 1 - 16 Dec 2011

σ i = σ̄33 (e3 ⊗ e3 + αi (e1 ⊗ e1 + e2 ⊗ e2 )), (22)

where αi (i = b, m) are real constants
P determined so thatP(4) and (5) are
fulfilled. The average stress σ̄ = i=b,m f i σ i means that i=b,m f i αi = 0.
The real constant αm can then be expressed as a function of the primary
constant αb . It reads:
fb
αm = − m αb (23)
f
Under the present loading conditions (20), the local deformation reads
εikj = Skjln
i i
σln i
= (Skj33 + αi (Skj11
i i
+ Skj22 ))σ̄33 , i = b, m (24)
Applying relations (5) and (24) to the couplet (1, 1) gives the constant αb ,
which reads:
m b
b fm (S1133 − S1133 )
α = m m b b
(25)
fb (S1111 + S1122 ) + fm (S1111 + S1122 )
0
To identify the effective compliance S̃1133 of the material HEM-1, we then
use the relations:
½ 0
ε̄11 = P
S̃1133 σ̄33 P (a)
ε̄11 = i=b,m f i εi11 = i=b,m f i (S1133
i
+ αi (S1111
i i
+ S1122 ))σ̄33 668ox(b)
(26)
0
and S̃1133 therefore reads:
X £ ¤
0
S̃1133 = f i S1133
i
+ αi (S1111 + S1122
i
) (27)
i=b,m

22
 We proceed in a similar way with the macroscopic strain component ε̄33 in
0
order to determine the compliance component S̃3333 as follows:
X £ ¤
0
S̃3333 = f i S3333
i
+ αi (S3311
i i
+ S3322 ) (28)
i

Axisymmetric loading. It is now proposed to subject the laminate to the

following axisymmetric loading
1
σ̄ = σ̄33 (e3 ⊗ e3 − (e1 ⊗ e1 + e2 ⊗ e2 )) (29)
2
Based on the overall constitutive relation (3), the macroscopic strain response
components read:

 ε̄11 = ε̄22 = (− 12 (S̃1111
0 0
+ S̃1122 0
) + S̃1133 )σ̄33 (a)
0 0 (30)
ε̄33 = (−S̃1133 + S̃3333 )σ̄33 (b)

hal-00652805, version 1 - 16 Dec 2011

ε̄23 = ε̄13 = ε̄12 = 0

The local stress induced by the macroscopic stress (29) is assumed to take
the form:
σ i = σ̄33 (e3 ⊗ e3 + β i (e1 ⊗ e1 + e2 ⊗ e2 ))) (31)
where β i (i = b, m) are real constants determined so that the conditions
specified above in (4) and (5) are met.
X 1
The average stress over the laminate gives the expression: f iβ i = − .
i=b,m
2
The constant β m can then be expressed as a function of β b as follows:
−1/2 − f b β b
βm = (32)
fm
It is now only necessary to express the constant β b .
The first continuity condition (4) is ensured by the assumed form of the
local stress (31), whatever are the values of the constants β i . The continuity
condition (5) is used to express β b :
m
fm (S1133 b
− S1133 ) − 21 (S1111
m m
+ S1122 )
βb = m m b b
(33)
f1 (S1111 + S1122 ) + f2 (S1111 + S1122 )
The average strain component ε̄11 given by relations (30, (a)) and (26, (b))
0 0
gives a first algebraic equation for the compliance components S̃1111 and S̃1122 :
X £ ¤
0 0 0 i
S̃1111 + S̃1122 = 2S̃1133 −2 fi S1133 + β i (S1111
i i
+ S1122 ) (34)
i=b,m

23
 Mixed load: plane traction and plane shear. In this paragraph, the macro-
scopic stress applied to the stratified crack-free composite reads:
1
σ̄ = σ̄12 (e1 ⊗ e2 + e2 ⊗ e1 ) + (σ11 − σ22 )(e1 ⊗ e1 − e2 ⊗ e2 ) (35)
2
The assumed local stress reads:

σ i = γ i σ̄, i = b, m (36)

where γ i (i = b, m) has to be determined in order to meet the continuity

conditions (4)
P and (5). The average value of the local stress solution (36)
i i
means that i=b,m f γ = 1. The local strain continuity condition (5) can
be used to determine the real primary constant γ b , which reads:
hal-00652805, version 1 - 16 Dec 2011

m m m
S1212 S1111 − S1122
γb = m b
= m m b b
(37)
fb S1212 + fm S1212 fb (S1111 − S1122 ) + fm (S1111 − S1122 )

Based on Hooke’s law, the local strain reads: εi = S i σ i = γ i S i σ̄. With this
kind of macroscopic load (35), the couplet (1, 2) in relation (3) can be used
0
to identify the effective compliance component S̃1212 as follows:
X
0
S̃1212 = f i γ i S1212
i

i=b,m

The average local strain components ε11 and ε22 in the stratified composite
give the following algebraic relations:
0 0
P
S̃1111 − S̃1122 = i=b,m fi γ i (S1111
i i
− S1122 ) (a)
0 0
P i i i (38)
S̃1122 − S̃2222 = i=b,m fi γ (S2211 − S2222 ) (b)

Expressions (34) and (38, (a)) are used to determine the HEM-1 compliance
0 0
components S̃1111 and S̃1122 . Relation (38, (b)) is then used to obtain the
0
compliance component S̃2222 .

Longitudinal shear loading. In this case, the macroscopic stress applied is:

σ̄ = σ̄13 (e1 ⊗ e3 + e3 ⊗ e1 ) + σ̄23 (e2 ⊗ e3 + e3 ⊗ e2 )

The local stress solution reads σ i = δ i σ̄, where δ i (i = b, m) are such that
the local stress meets the continuity conditions ((4), (5)). The average stress

24
 P i i
gives the following relation between the constants δ i : i f δ = 1. The
continuity of the force vector at the brick/mortar interface (condition (4))
means that: δ b = δ m = 1. With the couplet (2, 3), relations (3) and (1) are
0
used to obtain the effective compliance component S̃2323 , which reads:
X
0
S̃2323 = f i S2323
i

i=b,m

Appendix B: asymptotic analysis, elements of proof

The idea underlying matched asymptotic expansions is to find two ex-
pansions of the displacement uε and the stress σ ε in powers of ε, i.e., an
external expansion in the case of the bodies and an internal one in that of
the joint, and to combine these two expansions in order to obtain the same
hal-00652805, version 1 - 16 Dec 2011

limit. In what follows, we work in 2-dimensional terms in order to simplify

the computations. The relations obtained in the internal expansions will be
expressed using values occurring in the external expansions.

External asymptotic expansions. The external expansion is a classical expan-

sion in powers of ε
uε (x1 , x3 ) = u0 (x1 , x3 ) + εu1 (x1 , x3 ) + ...,
eij (uε )(x1 , x3 ) = e0ij + εe1ij + ...,
∂ul ∂ul (39)
elij = 12 ( ∂xji + ∂xji ),
σijε (x1 , x2 ) = σij0 (x1 , x3 ) + εσij1 (x1 , x3 ) + ...
Internal asymptotic expansions. In the internal expansions, we perform a
rescaling of the second variable. Let y3 = xε3 . The internal expansion gives

uε (x1 , x3 ) = v 0 (x1 , y3 ) + εv 1 (x1 , y3 ) + ...,

eij (uε )(x1 , y3 ) = ε−1 e−1 0 1
ij + eij + εeij + ...,
∂v l
el11 = ∂x11 ,
∂v2l+1
el33 = ,
∂y3 (40)
1 ∂v l ∂v1l+1
el13 = (
2 ∂x1
2
+ ∂y3
),
−1 −1
σijε (x1 , y3 ) = ε τij (x1 , y3 ) + τij0 (x1 , y3 ) + ετij1 (x1 , y3 ) + ...,
ε
P∞
∂τ l ∂τ l+1
σij,j = εl ( ∂xi11 + ∂yi33 ).
l=−2

25
 Conventionally
v l = 0, l < 0, τ l = 0, l < −1. (41)

Continuity conditions. The third step in this method consists in combining

the two expansions. We adopted some intermediate lines defined by x3 =
±θεt , 0 < t < 1, θ ∈]0, +∞[. When ε tends to zero, x3 tends to 0± and
y3 = x3 /ε tends to ±∞. The principle of the method consists in assuming
that the two expansions both give the same asymptotic limits, that is

(i) v 0 (x1 , ±∞) = u0 (x1 , 0± ),

(ii) τ −1 (x1 , ±∞) = 0, (42)
(iii) τ 0 (x1 , ±∞) = σ 0 (x1 , 0± ).

At order zero, these conditions give the continuity of the displacements (u0
hal-00652805, version 1 - 16 Dec 2011

and v 0 ) and stresses (σ 0 and τ 0 ) along the surface S.

Elasticity of the thin layer. We take a to denote the elasticity tensor of the
joint and lim aijkl /ε = āijkl . This limit is assumed to exist.

τij−1 = 0
(43)
τij0 = āijkl e−1
kl

in the thin layer.

Equilibrium. The equilibrium at −2 gives

∂τi3−1
=0
∂y3
The equilibrium at −1 gives

∂τi20
=0
∂y3
The stress vector does not depend on the second variable in the thin layer.
We add the connectivity conditions

vi0 = u0i (x1 , 0)

τi30 = σi3
0
(x1 , 0)

26
 Using the constitutive equations, we have

∂vi0
τi30 = āi2i2 for i = 1, 3.
∂y3

By integration (the stress is constant) into [0, 1].

£ ¤
τi30 = āi3i3 vi0

Using the connection method, we obtain

0
£ ¤
σi3 = āi3i3 u0i
hal-00652805, version 1 - 16 Dec 2011

27

View publication stats