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

net/publication/330842922

Failure analysis of masonry wall panels subjected to in-plane and out-of-

plane loading using the discrete element method

Article in European Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineering · February 2019

DOI: 10.1080/19648189.2018.1552897

CITATION READS

1 503

3 authors:

Trung Bui Ali Limam

Institut National des Sciences Appliquées de Lyon Institut National des Sciences Appliquées de Lyon
37 PUBLICATIONS 270 CITATIONS 163 PUBLICATIONS 1,378 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Vasilis Sarhosis
University of Leeds
122 PUBLICATIONS 1,054 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

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

Stability of Structures View project

Understand the behaviour of masonry arch bridges View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Vasilis Sarhosis on 27 February 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 European Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineering

ISSN: 1964-8189 (Print) 2116-7214 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tece20

Failure analysis of masonry wall panels subjected

to in-plane and out-of-plane loading using the
discrete element method

Tan-Trung Bui, Ali Limam & Vasilis Sarhosis

To cite this article: Tan-Trung Bui, Ali Limam & Vasilis Sarhosis (2019): Failure analysis
of masonry wall panels subjected to in-plane and out-of-plane loading using the discrete
element method, European Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineering, DOI:
10.1080/19648189.2018.1552897

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/19648189.2018.1552897

Published online: 26 Feb 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tece20
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND CIVIL ENGINEERING
https://doi.org/10.1080/19648189.2018.1552897

Failure analysis of masonry wall panels subjected to in-plane

and out-of-plane loading using the discrete element method
Tan-Trung Buia , Ali Limamb and Vasilis Sarhosisc
a
Department of Civil Engineering, INSA Lyon, University of Lyon, GEOMAS, Lyon, France; bDepartment of
Civil Engineering, University of Lyon, Lyon, France; cSchool of Engineering, Newcastle University,
Newcastle, UK

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This paper aims to evaluate the ability of the Discrete Element Method Received 26 October 2017
(DEM) to accurately predict the mechanical behavior of modern brick- Accepted 22 November 2018
work and concrete block masonry wall panels subjected to in-plane and
KEYWORDS
out-of-plane loading. The efficiency of the DEM is based on the suitabil-
Masonry; discrete element
ity of the DEM models to predict the development and propagation of method; in-plane loading;
cracks up to collapse, the associated stress distributions and the ultim- out-of-plane loading; wall
ate load carrying capacity of masonry wall panels subjected to external
loading. Numerical results are compared with experimental ones
obtained from large-scale tests carried out in the laboratory. A good
agreement between the numerical and the experimental results were
obtained, which confirms the efficiency and robustness of the DEM to
simulate the in-plane and out-of-plane non-linear behavior of modern
masonry wall panels. Moreover, a collection of verified material parame-
ters is provided to be used by other researchers and engineers to
develop reliable computational models and understand the mechanical
behavior of masonry structures. Finally, computational results from this
study can help prevent engineering failures and provide reference for
stakeholders devising strategies for improving risk management and dis-
aster prevention in masonry structures.

1. Introduction
Masonry is a brittle, anisotropic, composite material that exhibits distinct directional properties
due to the mortar joints which act as planes of weakness. When masonry is subjected to very
low levels of stress, it behaves in a linear elastic manner. However, high non-linearity can be
observed after the formation of cracks which induces stress redistribution through uncracked
material (Hendry et al., 2004). Research is needed to be able to understand the in-plane and out-
of-plane behaviour of masonry construction subjected to external loading. In particular, it is
important to understand the post-cracking behaviour and decide on the need for repair and/or
strengthening. As experimental research is prohibitively expensive, it is fundamentally important
to have a computational model that can be used to predict the in-service and near-collapse
behaviour with sufficient accuracy. Such model can then be used to investigate a range of com-
plex problems and scenarios that would not, otherwise, be possible.
According to Lourenço (1996), numerical models able to simulate the mechanical behaviour
of masonry can be classified into two major categories. These are: (a) micro-models including

CONTACT Tan-Trung Bui [email protected] Department of Civil Engineering, INSA Lyon, University of Lyon,
GEOMAS, Lyon 69621, France
ß 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 T.-T. BUI ET AL.

detailed micro-models and simplified micro-models; and (b) macro-models. Micro-models con-
sider the various components which result in an accurate representation of the structure.
Generally, such a modelling approach is limited due to the large calculation time required for a
structural element to be analyzed. Also, the micro-modelling approach is commonly used when
parts of a structure are to be modelled. On the other hand, at the macro-scale, models are rela-
tively simple to use and require fewer input data. The macro-models are generally based on the
use of homogenization techniques. Overall, the micro-modelling approach represents more
accurately and rigorously the mechanical behaviour of masonry structures.
A wide variety of numerical methods are available to simulate the mechanical behaviour of
masonry structures and these can be classified into two main groups: (a) Continuous models;
and (b) Discrete models. Continuous models are based on the continuum mechanics. The Finite
Element Method (FEM) and the Boundary-Element Method (BEM) are typical examples of these
approaches. The macro-modelling strategy is well suited for these continuous models.
Developments in the plasticity theory have assisted significantly to mature these approaches
(Lourenço, 1996, 2000). Within macro-models, cracking is represented by a ‘smeared-crack’
approach. Macro-models were initially developed by Rots, Nauta, Kusters, and Blaauwendraad
(1985) for the design of concrete structures. The ‘smeared-crack’ approach takes into account the
crack effect, which induces relaxation in stress of the material, through softening or negative
hardening. The ‘smeared-crack’ approach was later extended to masonry structures by Lofti and
Shing (1991). The approach is controlled by combining fracture energy to the element size. A
drawback of the approach is that complete separation between masonry components (i.e.
blocks) cannot be achieved. Moreover, when modelling masonry structures, this approach is
highly dependent on the size of the mesh used in the development of the model. Lourenço and
Rots (1997) developed models based on the FEM with interface elements to simulate the in-
plane mechanical behaviour of masonry walls. For an overview of the different computational
methods used to simulate the mechanical behaviour of unreinforced masonry structures, the
reader can be directed to Moradabadi and Laefer (2014).
DEM has its origin in the early 1970s. It was initially used in two dimensions to simulate pro-
gressive rock movement using rigid block assemblies (Cundall, 1971a, 1971b). The method was
later extended to predict the mechanical behavior of masonry structures (Bui, Liman, & Bui, 2014;
Bui et al., 2017; Lemos, 2007; Munjiza, 2004; Sarhosis, 2012; Sarhosis et al. 2014b; Sarhosis &
Lemos, 2018). Within DEM, the heterogeneous nature of the masonry is taken into account expli-
citly. In this way, the discontinuity of interfaces between masonry units/blocks can be described.
So far, numerical models based on the DEM have been mainly applied to masonry structures
where failure is predominantly induced by mechanisms in which the block deformability is lim-
ited or has no role at all (Giamundo, Sarhosis, Lignola, Sheng, & Manfredi, 2014; Sarhosis, Garrity,
& Sheng, 2015; Sarhosis, Oliveira, Lemos, & Lourenco, 2014a). According to the method, masonry
blocks can be represented as an assembly of rigid or deformable blocks which may take any
arbitrary geometry. Rigid blocks do not change their geometry as a result of any applied loading.
Deformable blocks are internally discretised into finite difference triangular zones. These zones
are continuum elements as they occur in the finite element method (FEM). Mortar joints are rep-
resented as zero thickness interfaces between the blocks. Representation of the contacts
between blocks is not based on joint elements, as it occurs in the discontinuous finite element
models. Instead, the contact is represented by a set of point contacts, with no attempt to obtain
a continuous stress distribution through the contact surface. The assignment of contacts allows
the interface constitutive relations to be formulated in terms of the stresses and relative displace-
ments across the joint. As with FEM, the unknowns are the nodal displacements and rotations of
the blocks. However, unlike FEM, the unknowns in DEM are solved explicitly by differential equa-
tions from the known displacement, while Newton’s second law of motion gives the motion of
the blocks resulting from known forces acting on them. So, large displacements and rotations of
the blocks are allowed with the sequential contact detection and update of tasks automatically.
 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND CIVIL ENGINEERING 3

Figure 1. a) Detailed micro-modelling masonry wall; b) Simplified micro-modelling masonry wall; c) Mohr–Coulomb model of
joint with tension cut-off.

This differs from FEM, where the method is not readily capable of updating the contact size or
creating new contacts. DEM is also applicable for quasi-static problems using artificial viscous
damping controlled by an adaptive algorithm. In view of the diversity and complexity of non-lin-
ear behavior observed across the masonry structures, the validation of discrete modeling remains
a crucial task.
To date, many researchers have investigated the mechanical behaviour of masonry subjected
to in-plane loading; simply because masonry structures are designed to withstand in-plane verti-
cal load. However, not much research has been undertaken on the mechanical behavior of
masonry subjected to out-of-plane loading. The flexural strength of masonry was represented
mainly in relation to the resistance of walls to withstand wind load effects (Sarhosis & Sheng,
2014). However, out-of-plane bending in masonry walls can also appear due to:

a. Natural disasters such as earthquakes and floods (Kelman & Spence, 2003);
b. Snow avalanches and mud after a landslide (Colas, 2009);
c. Accidental damages such as the explosions inside buildings (Thomas, 1971);
d. Accidental impacts like vehicle hitting a wall of a building (Kelman & Spence, 2003); and
e. terrorist attacks.

The aim of this paper is to evaluate the efficiency of the DEM to accurately predict the mech-
anical behaviour of different brickwork and blockwork masonry wall panels subjected to external
in-plane and out-of-plane loading. The commercial three-dimensional software 3DEC developed
by Itasca has been used in this study (Itasca, 2018). Numerical results were compared to experi-
mental ones from testing full-scale masonry wall panels in the laboratory. The efficiency of the
DEM was assessed based on the suitability of the model to predict the development and the
propagation of cracks up to collapse, the associated stress distributions in the wall panels at the
different magnitude of applied loading and the ultimate load-bearing capacity. Moreover, a col-
lection of verified material parameters is provided.

2. Overview of the discrete element method for modelling masonry

The three-dimensional numerical code 3DEC based on the DEM, and developed by Itasca, has
been used in this study. Within 3DEC, the domain is represented as an assemblage of rigid or
deformable discrete blocks (brick or concrete masonry units) connected together by zero thick-
ness interfaces representing mortar joints. In masonry structures, damage is often consecrated in
the mortar joints rather than the masonry units (Bui et al., 2017). Within DEM, masonry units can
be represented as rigid blocks. Rigid blocks do not change their geometry as a result of any
applied loading and are able to undergo only translational and rotational motion; which reduces
significantly the computational time required to run the numerical simulations. Deformable
blocks are internally discretised into a finite number of constant strain tetrahedral elements
(Lemos, 2007). These zones are continuum elements, as in the FEM. However, unlike FEM, in
DEM, a compatible finite element mesh between the blocks and the joints is not required. So,
4 T.-T. BUI ET AL.

Figure 2. Representation of the interface behaviour: a) Mohr–Coulomb slip model; b) Bilinear dilatant model; c) Behavior
under uniaxial loading.

large displacements and rotations of the blocks are allowed with the sequential contact detec-
tion and update of tasks automatically. This differs from FEM where the method is not readily
capable of updating the contact size or creating new contacts. Despite these advantages, com-
paratively to FEM, the diversity and complexity of non-linear behaviour observed across the
masonry structures subjected to external loads necessitate careful validations.

2.1. Representation of the mortar joint interface

Within DEM, mortar joints are represented as zero-thickness interfaces, while the units are
slightly expanded in size in order to keep the geometry of the structure unchanged (Figure 1b).
In this way, it is possible to consider masonry as a set of blocks bonded together by potential
fracture slip lines at the mortar joints. Several researchers, including Andreaus and Casini (1999a,
1999b), have studied the interaction of masonry blocks using the classical simple Coulomb con-
stitutive model, characterized with only three input parameters including: (a) the normal stiffness;
(b) the shear stiffness; and (c) the friction angle. However, today, there are advanced models
developed, which take into account the frictional resistance, the tensile and shear-bond strength
too. Such models also consider a representative fracture energy as well as they avoid numerical
perturbations that may be induced by sudden bond failure (Giamundo et al., 2014; Lemos, 2007;
Sarhosis, 2012; Sarhosis & Sheng, 2014). Interaction between the blocks is enabled based on con-
stitutive relationships such as the Mohr–Coulomb with a tension cut-off (Figure 1a). This interface
constitutive model considers apart from dilation, both shear and tensile failure. In the elastic
range, the behaviour is governed by normal and shear stiffness of the interfaces kn and ks
according to:

   
ss ks 0 us
frg ¼ ½K fug or ¼ (1)
rn 0 kn un
where rn is the normal loading; un is the normal displacement; ss is the shear stress; and us is
the shear displacement. The maximum shear force is given by Equation (2):
smax ¼ c þ rnðmaxÞ  tanu (2)
where c and / are the interface cohesion and friction angle accordingly. When shear strength is
reached, it drops until a residual strength is achieved (Figure 2a). The residual shear strength
ðsres Þ can be calculated from Equation (3):
sres ¼ rnðmaxÞ  tanu (3)
From Figure 2b, the interface begins to dilate when it fails in shear, at shear displacement
DusðelasÞ . The dilation (w) can then be estimated from Equation (4):
 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND CIVIL ENGINEERING 5

Figure 3. Mohr–Coulomb failure criterion used for plastic block behavior (Itasca, 2018).

Dun; dilatation ¼ Dus tanw (4)

where Dun; dilatation is the normal displacement and Dus is the shear displacement. Also, the nor-
mal stress (rn; total ) can be adjusted to take into account the effect of dilatation:
rn; total ¼ rn; elastic þ rn; dilatation ¼ kn :Dun þ kn :Dun; dilatation ¼ kn :Dun þ kn :Dus tanw
(5)
where rn; elastic is the elastic normal stress, rn; dilatation is the normal stress due to dilation, kn and
ks is the normal and shear stiffnesses, Dun is the change in normal displacement, Dun; dilatation is
the change in normal displacement as a result of the dilation, and Dus is the change in shear dis-
placement. In the present f dilation, the shear displacement is in the plastic phase (Dus >Dus(elas),
Figure 2a). The normal displacement is assumed linear until a value equal to Zdil is reached
(Figure 2b). If shear displacement increments are in the same direction as the total shear dis-
placement, then dilatation angle increases. However, if the shear increments are in the opposite
direction, dilation angle decreases. The interface behaviour under uniaxial loads is shown in
Figure 2c, where T is the interface tensile strength. Before the tensile failure (rn < T) is achieved,
an elastic behaviour is assumed.

2.2. Representation of the masonry block units

Masonry block units can behave as linear elastic or elasto-plastic based on the Mohr–Coulomb criter-
ion. The Mohr–Coulomb criterion is expressed in terms of the principal stresses r1, r2, and r3, which
constitute the three components of the generalized stress vector (n ¼ 3), whereby for the three prin-
cipal stresses, it must satisfy: r1  r2  r3. Components of the corresponding generalized strain
vector are the principal strains e1, e2, e3. This criterion can be represented in the plane (r1, r3), as
illustrated in Figure 3 (compressive stresses are negative). The failure envelope (f) (r1, r3) = 0 is
defined from pointpA ffiffiffiffiffiffi to B by the Mohr–Coulomb shear failure criterion fs = 0 with
s
f ¼ r1  r3 Nu þ 2c Nu ; and from B to C by a tensile failure criterion as per f = 0 with ft = r3 
t
sin u
rt; where / is the friction angle, c is the cohesion, rt is the tensile strength, and Nu ¼ 1þ
1 sin u.
The tensile strength of the material cannot exceed the value of r3 corresponding to the inter-
section point of the straight lines fs = 0 and r1 = r3 in the (r1, r3) plane. The maximum stress
(rtmax Þ is given by:
c
rtmax ¼ (6)
tan u
The potential function, gs, used to define the shear plastic flow, corresponds to a non-associated
sin w
law according to the equation gs = r1  r3Nw, where w is the dilation angle and NW ¼ 1þ 1 sin w.
6 T.-T. BUI ET AL.

Figure 4. a) Geometry and application of load for ZW1 and ZW2 test panels (arrows denote the location of load and all units
are in mm); b) Geometry of the model developed at 3DEC.

If the shear failure takes place, the stress point is placed on the curve fs = 0 using a flow law
which is derived by using the potential function gs. If tensile failure is reached, the new stress
point is simply reset to satisfy the relationship ft equal to zero (Figure 3) and no flow rule is
used in this case.

3. DEM of masonry structures subjected to in-plane and out-of-plane loading

3.1. Masonry wall panels subjected to combined shear and vertical pre-compression
The first study investigates the suitability of the model to predict the in-plane behaviour of a
brickwork masonry wall panel subjected to combined shear and axial pre-compression. The
developed numerical model compared against experimental test results obtained by testing two
masonry wall panels (ZW1 and ZW2) made of concrete blocks and bonded together with mortar
(Lurati & Thu€rlimann, 1990). The walls had dimensions equal to 3600 mm  2000 mm  150 mm
(width  height  thickness) and were constructed by 10 rows of stretcher bonded concrete
blocks. The dimensions of the blocks were 300 mm  200 mm  150 mm. Two partition walls
were also attached at the ends of each of the main wall. The partition walls (ref. Figure 4a) had
dimensions equal to 150 mm  2000 mm  600 mm (width  height  thickness). Also, two con-
crete beams were positioned at the base and at the upper end of the wall to ensure an optimal
transfer of the loading in the upper part and a fixed condition at the base. The three-dimen-
sional geometric model representing the masonry wall panels tested in the laboratory developed
using 3DEC is shown in Figure 4b.
Vertical pre-compression equal to 419 kN and 833 kN applied on the walls ZW1 and ZW2
respectively. An external horizontal load was also applied incrementally to the upper beam until
the panel could no longer carry the applied load. The constitutive law to be used for represent-
ing the material behaviour will affect the simulation results. The suitability of two different con-
stitutive laws to represent the behaviour of the concrete block units were investigated. So,
concrete blocks were modelled based on: (a) a linear elastic behaviour; (b) an elasto-plastic
behaviour according to Mohr–Coulomb constitutive law. The mechanical properties for the block
and mortar joints are shown in Tables 1 and 2 respectively and are obtained from Lurati and
Thu€rlimann (1990).
Figure 5 compares the experimental against the numerical results predicted using DEM. From
the results analysis, and since failure is mainly at the brick-to-mortar interface, it is shown that
both models are capable of predicting the load against horizontal displacement relationship for
the wall panels ZW1 and ZW2 with adequate accuracy (maximum deviation is 4%; Table 3). In
Figure 5a, the peaks in the post-cracking behaviour indicate sudden crack formation and stress
 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND CIVIL ENGINEERING 7

Table 1. Properties of the masonry units and the zero thickness interfaces; masonry blocks behave in a linear elas-
tic manner.
Masonry block properties Joint Interface properties
Joint Joint
Shear Joint normal Joint shear Joint tensile cohesive Joint friction dilatation
Unit Weight Bulk modulus modulus stiffness stiffness strength strength angle angle
[kg/m3] [MN/m3] [MN/m3] [MN/m3] [MN/m3] [MPa] [MPa] [Degrees] [Degrees]
2,000 1.188E4 4.01E3 7.463E5 2.467E5 0.4 0.5 39 0

Table 2. Properties of the masonry units and the zero thickness interfaces; masonry blocks behave in an elasto-plastic man-
ner based on the Mohr–Coulomb constitutive law.
Masonry blocks Joint Interfaces
Joint Joint Joint Joint Joint Joint
Unit Bulk Cohesive Tensile Friction Dilation normal shear tensile cohesive friction dilatation
Weight modulus Strength Strength anlge angle stiffness stiffness strength strength angle angle
[kg/m3] [MN/m3] [MPa] [MPa] [Degrees] [Degrees] [MN/m3] [MN/m3] [MPa] [MPa] [Degrees] [Degrees]
2000 1.188E4 2.37 1.32 35 12 7.463E5 2.467E5 0.4 0.5 39 0

Figure 5. Load-displacement curves. Comparison of experimental results against those predicted by the numerical model: (a)
blocks modelled as linear elastic; and (b) blocks modelled using the elasto-plastic Mohr–Coulomb constitutive law.

Table 3. Comparison of experimental against numerical results.

Ultimate load (kN)
Difference
Test Wall Experimental results Numerical results (%)
ZW1 353 346 1.98
ZW2 634 660 4.10

redistribution in the panel following cracking. Such a behaviour was not observed in the case
where the blocks were assumed as elasto-plastic. Instead, failure was dominated at the mortar
joints rather than at the masonry blocks (Figure 5b).
Experimental against numerical results were also compared qualitatively. The failure modes
obtained by experimentally testing the ZW1 and the ZW2 wall panels were compared against
the failure modes predicted from the numerical models taking into consideration the two differ-
ent constitutive relationships used for representing the masonry blocks. From Figure 6a, during
the experiment, a single diagonal crack ran along the joints and blocks of the wall panel.
However, the failure mode estimated by the numerical model under the assumption that the
masonry block behaves in a linear elastic manner is dissimilar, since two diagonal cracks
observed for the ZW2 test (Figures 6b and c).
8 T.-T. BUI ET AL.

Figure 6. Comparison of experimental against numerical results based on the assumption that blocks behave in a linear elas-
tic manner: a) Experimental failure mode; b) Numerical failure mode; c) Distribution of principal strain in the wall.

Figure 7. Comparison of experimental against numerical results based on the assumption that the blocks behave in an
elasto-plastic behavior according to Mohr–Coulomb constitutive law: a) Numerical failure mode; b) Distribution of max princi-
pal strain in the wall; c) Plastic zone in the blocks.
 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND CIVIL ENGINEERING 9

Figure 8. Crack patterns obtained from the experimental study: a) WII; b) WF (Gazzola et al., 1985).

Table 4. Properties of the masonry units and the zero thickness joint interfaces.
Masonry
unit properties Joint Interface properties
Young’s Joint tensile Joint cohesive
modulus Poisson’s Joint normal Joint shear strength strength Joint friction Joint dilatation
[N/m2] ratio stiffness [Pa/m] stiffness [Pa/m] [N/mm2] [N/mm2] angle [ ] angle [ ]
15,000 0.2 7.68E9 7.68E9 0.157 0.5966 36 0

Table 5. Comparison of experimental against numerical failure load.

Numerical failure load by FEM
(Lourenço, 1997) Numerical failure load by DEM
Wall Experimental failure Load (kPa) Load (kPa) Difference (%) Load (kPa) Difference (%)
WII 6820 6630 2.9 7320 5.0
WP1 8820 9720 9.5 8990 1.9
WF 3900 3560 9.6 3550 3.5

On the other hand, when the masonry block assumed to behave in elastic-plastic behaviour,
a good agreement between the experimental and numerical failure mode was obtained (Figure
7). So, comparing the two different constitutive laws used to represent the mechanical behaviour
of masonry blocks, it was found that at very low levels of stress, a linear-elastic constitutive law
is sufficient to simulate the mechanical behaviour of masonry. Such type of masonry construction
is that characterized by low bond strength i.e. where the masonry unit/mortar joint interface is
sufficiently low to have a dominant effect on the mechanical behaviour such as the formation of
cracks, re-distribution of stresses after cracking and the formation of collapse mechanisms
(Sarhosis, 2012; Sarhosis & Sheng, 2014). However, at high-stress levels, a nonlinear elastic-plastic
model which can simulate crack formation, shear and/or crushing in the masonry blocks is
required in order to more accurately reproduce the phenomena observed in the laboratory.

3.2. Out of plane loading

3.2.1. Solid rectangular masonry wall panels
The second case study deals with the development of a numerical model based on the DEM to
study the out-of-plane behaviour of a rectangular blockwork masonry wall panel. The developed
numerical model was compared against experimental results obtained from the literature and
reported at Gazzola et al. (1985). The mechanical behaviour of three walls (WII, WP1 and WF)
containing hollow concrete block units bonded with 10 mm mortar was studied. All walls were
rectangular in shape with dimensions 5000 mm 2000 mm (length  height). Also, walls were
constructed with concrete block units’ with dimensions equal to 190 mm  390 mm  150 mm
(height  width  thickness). Panels WII and WP1 were supported on the four edges. Panel WF
10 T.-T. BUI ET AL.

Table 6. Properties of the masonry units and the interfaces.

Block Joint Interface
Normal Tangent Tensile
Young’s modulus Poisson’s ratio stiffness stiffness strength Cohesion Friction angle Dilatancy angle
[N/mm2] – [Pa/m] [Pa/m] [N/mm2] [N/mm2] [ ] [ ]
14,000 0.2 10E9 10E9 0.32 0.32 36 0

was supported on three edges while the top edge was left free. Also, for the panel WP1, an in-
plane confining pressure equal to 0.2 N/mm2 was assigned and kept constant during
the experiment.
For the test-setup, a backup wall composed of plywood on a steel grid framework was tied
back to the support frame to enclose the airbag placed between it and the test wall. The airbag
was fabricated to cover the entire area of the wall. The 100 mm side pieces of the airbag
matched the standard distance between the test wall and the backup wall. The airbag was
inflated using a 690 kPa supply incorporating a pressure reduction valve and low-pressure regula-
tor on the intake. Lateral pressure was applied to all panels incrementally, with the use of air-
bags, until they could no longer carry any further load. The crack patterns obtained from the
experimental study are shown in Figure 8.
Three dimensional geometric models representing the masonry wall panels tested in the
laboratory were developed in 3DEC. To allow for the 10 mm thick mortar joints in the real wall
panels, each masonry unit was based on the nominal brick size used in the laboratory built pan-
els increased by 5 mm in each dimension to give a block size of 200 mm  400 mm  150 mm
(height  width  thickness). It was assumed that the masonry units would exhibit linear elastic
behaviour and that slip along the mortar joints would be the predominant failure mechanism.
Mortar joints were represented using a Mohr–Coulomb failure surface combined with a tension
cut-off. The material parameters used for the development of the computational models are
shown in Table 4, whereas the material parameters used in the computational models are shown
in Table 4. These values used by Gazzola et al. (1985) and Lourenço (1997) were proposed in
their respective study after calibrating the overall stiffness of the wall (K ¼ 4.744E6 Pa/m).
Table 5 compares the failure load for each panel obtained experimentally with the ones pre-
dicted by the numerical model based on the DEM. From Table 5, the DEM model can predict the
ultimate load that the masonry wall panels can carry with sufficient accuracy. The values of the
ultimate load predicted from the numerical model are close to the experimental results, with a
maximum deviation of 5% for the WII wall panel.
Figure 9 shows the failure mechanisms for the WII, WP1 and WF panels as obtained by the
numerical model based on DEM. The experimental crack patterns are similar to those predicted
by the yield line theory. The influence of in-plane normal pressure for the panels WII and WP1 is
evident. From Table 5, it is also evident that the failure load increases with the confining pres-
sure. This is due to the fact that the masonry wall panel is spanning in the direction where the
normal compressive stress is applied. Remarkably, the effect of in-plane action prevents horizon-
tal cracks near the top and bottom of the panel WII (Figure 9).

3.2.2. Brickwork masonry wall panels containing an opening

A numerical model was developed to simulate the mechanical behaviour of the test wall SB02
containing a central opening. The numerical results were compared with those obtained from
the experimental testing carried out by Chong (1993). The dimensions of the wall were 5600 mm
 2475 mm  102.5 mm (length  height  thickness). The central opening had dimensions of
2260 mm  1125 mm  102.5 mm (length  height  thickness). The SB02 test wall was
 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND CIVIL ENGINEERING 11

Figure 9. Failure mode obtained by DEM for the panels WII, WP1 and WF.

Figure 10. Crack patterns in the experimental study (SB02).

Figure 11. Comparison of experimental against numerical results: a) Pressure against mid-span displacement relationship
(SB02); b) Failure mode predicted by the numerical model.

constructed using bricks in stretcher bond with dimensions equal to 215 mm  65 mm 

102.5 mm (height  width  thickness). The mortar joints were all nominally 10 mm thick.
The vertical edges were simply supported while the top edge left free. For the test-setup, the
lateral load was generated by admitting compressed air into polythene bags sandwiched
between the rear face of the panels and the steel reaction frame. Each bag was 2.475 m high by
l.4 m width and was placed directly against the rear of the test panel, and against sheets of
12 T.-T. BUI ET AL.

Figure 12. Experimental test arrangement.

Figure 13. a) Geometry of the masonry structure tested in the laboratory; b) Development of the computational model using
3DEC (cable modelling in blue colour); c) Representation of the one-dimensional reinforcing element in DEM.

12 mm thick plywood bearing onto the steel reaction frame. Timber beams were used to stiffen
the plywood. A full scale 5.6 m length panel has been loaded by four airbags. The panels were
loaded incrementally until failure. Load was applied in the out-of-plane direction of the masonry
wall panels using airbags. Mid-span displacements on the top of the wall were recorded at all
times. The crack patterns of the test wall SB02 obtained from the experimental study is shown in
Figure 10. Table 6 shows the material parameters used in the developed computational models
and adopted from Chong (1993), Gazzola et al. (1985) and (Lourenço, 1997).
Figure 11a compares the experimental against the numerical load against mid-span displace-
ment relationship as obtained from both the finite element method using a continuous model
of elasto-plastic orthotropic type (Lourenço, 1997) and that of the discrete element method
using the commercial software 3DEC. From Figure 10, both FEM and DEM models were able to
predict the ultimate load with sufficient accuracy.
Figure 11b shows the failure mechanisms obtained numerically using DEM. Also, from Figure
11b, the crack development at failure is in accordance with the one given by the yield
line theory.
 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND CIVIL ENGINEERING 13

Table 7. Properties of the masonry units and the interfaces.

Block Interface
Tensile Friction Dilatancy
Density Bulk modulus Shear modulus Normal stiffness Shear stiffness strength Cohesion angle angle
[kg/m3] [MPa] [MPa] [Gpa/m] [Gpa/m] [N/mm2] [N/mm2] ( ) ( )
2500 3200 2700 14 14 0.3 0.45 48 36

3.2.3. Rectangular masonry wall panel connected with shear walls

The last case study deals with the simulation of two full-scale rectangular masonry wall panels
constructed with hollow concrete blocks running in a stretcher bonded blockwork and con-
nected with two shear walls. The wall panels intended to represent the external face of a typical
load-bearing wall. The top of the main wall was free to move, while the bottom and two sides
were restrained. The main wall was 2900 mm  2000 mm  200 mm (length  width  height)
and the two shear walls attached on the edges of the main wall had dimensions 1500 mm 
2000 mm  200 mm. Horizontal steel reinforcement (3 bars with a 6 mm diameter) was installed
on the top end of the wall. Also, a vertical steel reinforcement (2 bars with a 12 mm diameter)
was installed at each corner, in accordance with the constructive process and standards (EN
1996–1-1, 2005). Only the masonry block units which contained steel reinforcement were filled
with concrete. For the test-setup, the main wall was subjected to a quasi-static loading of uni-
form pressure applied to the outside face by six inflatable cushions or water bags (Figure 12).
The reaction wall (a reaction frame) consisted of a set of metal HEB beams, anchored on the
laboratory test slab by pre-stressed steel bars (Bui & Liman, 2014).
Three-dimensional discrete element models of the masonry structure tested in the laboratory
were developed in 3DEC software (Figure 13b). Each block of the wall had dimensions equal to
500 mm  200 mm  200 mm (length  width  height). The bottom part of the walls was fixed
in all directions. The block and zero thickness interface parameters used for the development of
the computational model were obtained from (Bui & Liman, 2014; Bui, 2013) and are shown in
Table 7.
Horizontal and vertical reinforcement was modelled using 1 D elements assuming to behave
in an elastic perfectly plastic manner (Figure 13c). The 1 D element allows the modelling of a
shearing resistance along their length, as provided by the shear resistance (s-bond) between the
grout. The cable element was divided into a number of segments of equal in size lengths and
passed through the joints, with nodal points located at each end of the segment. Shearing resist-
ance was represented by spring/slider connections (k-bond/s-bond) between the structural nodes
and the block zones in which the nodes are located. The tensile yield strength of steel reinforce-
ment was taken equal to 400 MPa. A high grout shear stiffness and cohesive strength were
assigned to the 1 D element nodes; since reinforcement was embedded in the masonry wall. The
bond beam at the top of the walls contained three 6 mm diameter reinforcing elements. The ver-
tical reinforcement elements (2 bars with a 12 mm diameter) were placed at each corner of the
wall. First, the numerical model was brought into equilibrium state under its own self-weight.
Then, a controlled pressure was assigned to the masonry wall specimen. The load-deflection
curve obtained numerically is relatively similar to the one obtained experimentally (Figure 14).
Also, good agreement between the numerical and experimental cracking patterns obtained
(Figure 15).

3.2.4. Parametric study: geometric ratio and boundary conditions effects

A parametric study to investigate the influence of: (a) the geometric ratio length over height
(L/H) of the panels; and (b) the influence of the boundary conditions on the ultimate load carry-
ing capacity of the walls subjected to out-of-plane loading was undertaken. Geometric models
representing the masonry wall panels WII (fixed at four edges) and WF (fixed at three edges)
14 T.-T. BUI ET AL.

Figure 14. Comparison of experimental and numerical pressure against mid-span displacement relationship.

Figure 15. a) and b) DEM: Fracture surface in the joint interface (principal wall and return wall); c) and d) failure mode
obtained in experimental simulation (main wall and shear wall).

tested in the laboratory by Gazzola et al. (1985) were developed in the numerical model based
on the DEM. To allow for the 10 mm thick mortar joint in the real wall panels, each masonry unit
was based on the nominal brick size used in the laboratory built panels increased by 5 mm in
each direction to give a block size equal to 190 mm  390 mm  150 mm
(height  width  thickness). The ration of the L/H varied from 0.43 to 4.29 but the height (H) of
the wall was kept constant and equal to 2000 mm. It was assumed that the bricks would exhibit
linear elastic behaviour and that slip along the mortar joints would be the predominant failure
mechanism. The material properties for the mortar joint interface are shown in Table 4. Also, the
normal and shear stiffnesses were kept constant and equal to 7.68  109 Pa/m. Load in the
form of a uniform pressure was applied incrementally in the structure until collapse occurred.
Figure 16 illustrates the relationship between failure loads against the length over height ratio
for the different boundary conditions studied. From Figure 16, as the L/H increases, the load car-
rying capacity of the masonry wall panel reduces. Furthermore, for L/H greater than 2.25, the
ultimate load that the masonry wall panel can carry is almost constant. A remarkable increase in
the ultimate load carrying capacity was observed when the L/H was less than 1. Similar results
were also obtained from Essawy (1986) using numerical models developed based on the FEM.
Such findings are consistent with the theory of the yield lines (Johansen, 1972). The behavioural
 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND CIVIL ENGINEERING 15

Figure 16. Influence of geometric properties and boundary conditions on the load carrying capacity of the masonry
wall panel.

tendency in the case of the masonry wall panel fixed at three edges is similar to that observed
in the case of the masonry wall panel fixed at four edges. However, by changing the boundary
condition in the wall panel from four to three fixed edges, decreased from 10% to 50% the
ultimate load that the panel can carry.

4. Conclusions
Today, a wide variety of numerical methods have been developed in the literature to simulate
the mechanical behaviour of masonry structures. The choice of the most appropriate tool for the
analysis of masonry structures requires a good understanding of both the constitutive model
and the input material properties to be selected by the modeller. This article evaluates the effi-
ciency and performance of the discrete element method to simulate the mechanical behaviour
of different masonry wall panels subjected to in-plane and out-of-plane loading. The assessment
consisted of a comparison of the results from full-scale laboratory tests to the behaviour pre-
dicted using the discrete element modelling software, 3DEC. More specifically, the suitability of
the model is based on its ability to predict the development and propagation of cracks up to
collapse, the associated stress distributions in the wall panels at different magnitudes of the
applied loading and the ultimate load carrying capacity.
From the results analysis, it was found that the heterogeneous nature of masonry and the dis-
continuity at block interfaces can be well described by a discrete element approach. The numer-
ical simulations were in good agreement with experimental results. In particular, the conducted
simulations allowed us to quantify with sufficient accuracy the bearing capacity of the structures
as well as the cracking initiation and propagation. In addition, the nonlinear behaviour observed
in the experimental load-deflection curves were globally correctly reproduced from the initiation
up to the final failure. This, traduces that crack appearance and propagation, were correctly
reproduced. Stress redistributions inherent to cracks were also well represented, which allowed
us to identify areas of potential crack propagation and to predict the failure mechanism traduc-
ing the correct estimation of the bearing capacity as well as the characterization of the collapse
mode of the structure.
Difficulties in the choice of input parameters arise mostly due to the shortage of experimental
data, the proper characterization of the masonry material constituents (blocks and mortar) and
the masonry specimen. On the other hand, there is still a challenge to discontinuous idealiza-
tions for large and complex geometrical structures, as it is essential to simplify them. However,
this requires experience and a good insight into the expected structural behaviour.
16 T.-T. BUI ET AL.

For masonry structures, the DEM allows to simulate rupture phenomena taking into account
the discontinuous nature of masonry in an elegant and robust way.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

ORCID
Tan-Trung Bui http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8279-7230

References
Andreaus, U., & Casini, P. (1999a). Dynamics of three-block assemblies with unilateral deformable contacts. Part 1:
Contact modelling. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamicsand Structural Dynamics, 28(12), 1621–1636.
Volume Issue December Pages
Andreaus, U., & Casini, P. (1999b). Dynamics of three-block assemblies with unilateral deformable contacts. Part 2:
Actual application. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamicsand Structural Dynamics, 28(12), 1637–1649.
Volume Issue December Pages
Bui, T. T. (2013). Masonry walls submitted to out-of-plane loading: Experimental and numerical study. (Unpublished
PhD Thesis). INSA Lyon, Lyon. http://www.sudoc.fr/183858298.
Bui, T. T., & Limam, A. (2014). Out-of-plane behaviour of hollow concrete block masonry walls unstrengthened and
strengthened with CFRP composite. Composites Part B: Engineering, 67, 527–542. Volume December Pages 2014.
Bui, T. T., Limam, A., & Bui, Q. B. (2014). Characterization of vibration and damage in masonry structures:
Experimental and numerical analysis. European Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineering, 18(10), 1–12.
Bui, T. T., Limam, A., Sarhosis, V., & Hjiaj, M. (2017). Discrete element modelling of the in-plane and out-of-plane
behaviour of dry-joint masonry wall constructions. Engineering Structures, 136, 277–294.
Chong, V. L. (1993). The behaviour of laterally loaded masonry panels with openings. (Unpublished PhD Thesis).
University of Plymouth, Plymouth.
Colas, A. S. (2009). Mechanical modeling of dry stone retaining walls by calculation at failure and experimentation
scale 1. (Unpublished PhD Thesis). ENTPE, Vaulx-en-Velin.
Cundall, P. A. (1971a). A computer model for simulating progressive, large scale movements in blocky rock systems.
Proc. Int. Symp. Rock Fracture, ISRM, Nancy, Vol. 1, Paper II–8.
Cundall, P. A. (1971b). The measurement and analysis of acceleration in rock slopes. (Unpublished PhD Thesis).
Imperial College of Science and Technology, University of London, London.
EN 1996-1-1 (2005). Design of masonry structures. Part 1-1: General rules for reinforced and unreinforced masonry.
CEN, Brussels.
Essawy, A. S. (1986). Strength of Block Masonry Walls Subject to Lateral Loading. (PhD Thesis). McMaster University,
Hamilton, Canada. http://hdl.handle.net/11375/14319
Gazzola, E. A., Drysdale, R. G., & Essawy, A. S. (1985). Bending of concrete masonry walls at different angles to the
bed joint. Proceedings of 3rd North American Masonry Conference, Arlington, TX, USA, Paper 27.
Giamundo, V., Sarhosis, V., Lignola, G. P., Sheng, Y., & Manfredi, G. (2014). Evaluation of different computational
modelling strategies for modelling low strength masonry. Engineering Structures, 73, 160–169. doi:10.1016/
j.engstruct.2014.05.007
Hendry, A. W., Sinha, B. P., & Davies, S. R. (2004). Design of masonry structures. London: E&FN Spon.
Itasca, 3DEC. (2018). Three Dimensional Distinct Element Code, Version 6.0, Itasca, Minneapolis.
Johansen, K. W. (1972). Yield-line formulae for slabs, Cement and Concrete Association, London
Kelman, I., & Spence, R. (2003). A limit analysis of unreinforced masonry failing under flood water pressures.
Masonry International, 16(2), 51–61.
Lemos, J. V. (2007). Discrete element modeling of masonry structures. International Journal of Architectural Heritage,
1(2), 190–213.
Lofti, H. R., & Shing, P. B. (1991). An appraisal of smeared crack models for masonry shear wall analysis. Computer
and Structure, 41(5), 413–425.
Lourenço, P. B. (1996). Computational strategies for masonry structures. (Unpublished PhD Thesis). Delft University of
Technology, the Netherlands.
Lourenço, P. B. (1997). An anisotropic macro-model for masonry plates and shells: Implementation and validation.
Rep. No. 03.21.1.3.07, University of Delft, Holland and University of Minho, Guimaraes, Portugal.
 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND CIVIL ENGINEERING 17

Lourenço, P. B. (2000). Aspects related to the out-of-plane numerical modeling of masonry. Masonry International,
14, 31–34.
Lourenço, P. B., & Rots, J. G. (1997). Multisurface interface model for analysis of masonry structures. Journal of
Engineering Mechanics, 123(7), 660–668.
Lurati, F., & Th€urlimann, B. (1990). Tests in concrete masonry walls (in German). Report No. 8401-3, Institute of
Structural Engineering, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Moradabadi, E., & Laefer, D. (2014). Opportunities in numerical modelling of pre-existing damage of historical
masonry buildings (paper 1600). In 9th International Masonry Conference, Guimar~aes, Portugal.
Munjiza, A. (2004). The combined finite-discrete element method. New York: Wiley.
Rots, J. G., Nauta, P., Kusters, G. M. A., & Blaauwendraad, J. (1985). Smeared crack approach and fracture localization
in concrete. Heron, 30(1), 3–48.
Sarhosis, V. (2012). Computational modelling of low bond strength masonry. (Unpublished PhD thesis). University of
Leeds, UK.
Sarhosis, V., Garrity, S. W., & Sheng, Y. (2015). Influence of the brick-mortar interface on the mechanical response of
low bond strength masonry lintels. Engineering Structures, 88, 1–11. doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.12.014
Sarhosis, V., & Lemos, J. V. (2018). Detailed micro-modelling of masonry using the discrete element method.
Computers and Structures, 206, 66–81.
Sarhosis, V., Oliveira, D. V., Lemos, J. V., & Lourenco, P. (2014a). The effect of the angle of skew on the mechanical
behaviour of arches. Journal of Mechanics Research Communications, 61, 49–53. doi:10.1016/
j.mechrescom.2014.07.008
Sarhosis, V., & Sheng, Y. (2014). Identification of material parameters for low bond strength masonry. Engineering
Structures, 60, 100–110. doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2013.12.013
Sarhosis, V., Tsavdaridis, K., & Giannopoulos, G. (2014b). Discrete Element Modelling of masonry in-filled steel
frames with multiple window openings subjected to lateral load variations. The Open Construction and Building
Technology Journal Open Construction and Building Technology Journal, 8(1), 93–103.
Thomas, K. (1971). Structural Brickwork – materials and performance. The Structural Engineer, 49(10), 441–450.

View publication stats