applied

sciences
Article
Experimental and Numerical Analysis of the
Compressive and Shear Behavior for a New Type
of Self-Insulating Concrete Masonry System
Abu-Bakre Abdelmoneim Elamin Mohamad and Zhongfan Chen *
Key Laboratory of RC & PC Structures of Ministry of Education, Southeast University, Nanjing 210096, China;
abubakre55@yahoo.com
* Correspondence: 101003944@seu.edu.cn; Tel.: +86-139-5101-8486

Academic Editor: Stefano Invernizzi

Received: 21 June 2016; Accepted: 19 August 2016; Published: 30 August 2016

Abstract: The developed study aimed at investigating the mechanical behavior of a new type of
self-insulating concrete masonry unit (SCMU). A total of 12 full-grouted wall assemblages were
prepared and tested for compression and shear strength. In addition, different axial stress ratios
were used in shear tests. Furthermore, numerical models were developed to predict the behavior
of grouted specimens using simplified micro-modeling technique. The mortar joints were modeled
with zero thickness and their behavior was applied using the traction–separation model of the
cohesive element. The experimental results revealed that the shear resistance increases as the level
of precompression increases. A good agreement between the experimental results and numerical
models was observed. It was concluded that the proposed models can be used to deduct the general
behavior of grouted specimens.

Keywords: self-insulating concrete masonry units; masonry assemblage; compression test; shear test;
micro modeling; cohesive surface-based behavior; full grouted masonry

1. Introduction
Masonry has been used as a common building material worldwide for many centuries. Masonry is
a composite of block units bonded together with mortar. The most effective use of masonry building
can be found in load-bearing structures. The manufacturing of masonry units consumes significant
amounts of resources and energy. This has added considerable pressure on the construction industry
to reduce energy consumption associated with masonry production. Accordingly, many developed
countries applied the energy conservation concept in the building technology. This concept can be
achieved by introducing alternative building materials that have a low impact on the environment.
The use of thermal insulation materials in the production of masonry is one of the most effective ways
for green building technology [1,2].
A number of studies were carried out in this area, and it is thought that there are many parameters
which influence the thickness of an insulator, such as building type, shape, construction materials,
insulation materials, and costs [3–6]. In general, external insulation methods are common practice
around the world. However, use of insulation blocks composed of expanded polystyrene (EPS)
foam, which are used to replace the external insulation of buildings, becomes more popular with the
intention of thermal insulation. EPS is composed of small, white, and interconnected beads and offers
superior engineering properties such as being lightweight, versatile, energy-efficient, and cost effective.
Therefore, it is used as insulation material in buildings and it can be molded into many shapes to fit
the required purpose [7].

Appl. Sci. 2016, 6, 245; doi:10.3390/app6090245 www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2016, 6, 245 2 of 14

Most of the previous researches focus on lightweight concrete masonry units as good thermal
insulation materials in buildings. This is because they have a lower thermal conductivity compared
with normal-weight concrete. Unfortunately, masonry units made from lightweight concrete have low
Appl. Sci. 2016, 6, 245  2 of 14 
mechanical properties compared with normal-weight concrete [8–12]. Inserting insulation material
such
43 as EPSMost of the previous researches focus on lightweight concrete masonry units as good thermal 
into normal-weight concrete with a special configuration of concrete masonry units (CMUs)
44 toinsulation materials in buildings. This is because they have a lower thermal conductivity compared 
leads an increase in their thermal resistance without affecting their mechanical performance [13].
45
Recently, a new type of unreinforced masonry system was developed in Europe for use in the
with normal‐weight concrete. Unfortunately, masonry units made from lightweight concrete have 
46 low 
construction mechanical 
of small properties 
houses. Thecompared  with  normal‐weight 
developed system has anconcrete  [8–12].  Inserting 
energy-efficiency insulation 
enclosure without
47 material such as EPS into normal‐weight concrete with a special configuration of concrete masonry 
concern for thermal bridges. This type of unreinforced masonry system offers significant contribution
48
regardingunits  (CMUs)  leads  to  an  increase  in  their  thermal  resistance  without  affecting  their  mechanical 
the design and construction of cost-effective buildings in seismic regions [14].
49 performance [13]. Recently, a new type of unreinforced masonry system was developed in Europe 
In this research, a new type of concrete masonry unit has been developed with a self-insulating
50 for use in the construction of small houses. The developed system has an energy‐efficiency enclosure 
feature.
51 The developed
without  concern  for  type of self-insulating
thermal  bridges.  This  concrete masonry unit
type  of  unreinforced  (SCMU)
masonry  would
system  besignificant 
offers  applicable for
52
both low and medium height residential buildings in seismic area zones. The main objective
contribution regarding the design and construction of cost‐effective buildings in seismic regions [14].  of this
53 was to
study investigate the mechanical properties, namely, compression strength and shear strength,
In this research, a new type of concrete masonry unit has been developed with a self‐insulating 
of54the proposed
feature. The developed type of self‐insulating concrete masonry unit (SCMU) would be applicable 
SCMUs. The second objective of this study was to develop numerical models to predict
55 for both low and medium height residential buildings in seismic area zones. The main objective of 
the behavior of grouted specimens using a simplified micro-modeling technique. The successful use of
56
SCMUs this  study  was  to  investigate  the  mechanical  properties,  namely,  compression  strength  and  shear 
in the construction industry can have a potentially significant impact on the sustainability of
57 strength,  of  the  proposed  SCMUs.  The  second  objective  of  this  study  was  to  develop  numerical 
masonry structures.
58 models to predict the behavior of grouted specimens using a simplified micro‐modeling technique. 
59 The successful use of SCMUs in the construction industry can have a potentially significant impact 
2. Experimental Program
60 on the sustainability of masonry structures. 
A comprehensive testing program was carried out to determine the compressive strength and
61 strength
shear 2. Experimental Program 
of masonry wall assemblages. A total of 12 full-grouted wall assemblages were
62
constructed with a new type of SCMU. Six specimens (Nanjing Shihao Co., Ltd., Nanjing, China) were
A comprehensive testing program was carried out to determine the compressive strength and 
63 for
tested shear  strength  of  masonry 
compression strength,wall  assemblages. 
whereas A  total  of 
the remaining 12  full‐grouted 
specimens werewall  assemblages 
tested for shearwere 
strength
64 constructed  with  a  new  type  of  SCMU.  Six  specimens  (Nanjing  Shihao  Co.,  Ltd., 
(triplet test). It should be highlighted that all specimens were prepared with the same SCMUs, mortar, Nanjing,  China) 
65 were  tested  for  compression  strength,  whereas  the  remaining  specimens  were  tested  for  shear 
and grout properties.
66 strength  (triplet  test).  It  should  be  highlighted  that  all  specimens  were  prepared  with  the  same 
67 SCMUs, mortar, and grout properties. 
2.1. Materials
68 The 2.1. Materials   
general dimensions of the new type of self-insulating concrete masonry unit used in this study
69 390 mmThe general dimensions of the new type of self‐insulating concrete masonry unit used in this 
are length, 190 mm height, and 240 mm width for block units and 190 mm length with the
70 height
same and width for half-block units as shown in Figure 1. The SCMU has one core with circular
study are 390 mm length, 190 mm height, and 240 mm width for block units and 190 mm length with 
71 the same height and width for half‐block units as shown in Figure 1. The SCMU has one core with 
voids at the ends and two chambers: (1) an outer chamber with thickness of 20 mm to accommodate
72 circular 
insulation, andvoids 
(2) anat inner
the  ends  and  two 
chamber withchambers: 
thickness(1) 
ofan 
160outer 
mmchamber  with  thickness 
to accommodate of  20  mm 
reinforcing to with
steel
73 accommodate  insulation,  and  (2)  an  inner  chamber  with  thickness  of  160  mm  to  accommodate 
the filling grouting concrete. The face and web shell thickness is 30 mm. After blocks were produced,
74 reinforcing steel with the filling grouting concrete. The face and web shell thickness is 30 mm. After 
the insulation material (EPS) with thickness 20 mm was inserted in chamber (1). Table 1 shows the
75 blocks were produced, the insulation material (EPS) with thickness 20 mm was inserted in chamber 
mechanical
76 and thermal properties of EPS used in this study.
(1). Table 1 shows the mechanical and thermal properties of EPS used in this study. 

 
(a)  (b)
77 Figure 1.  Self‐insulating concrete masonry unit (SCMU) configurations: (a) block; and (b) half‐block 
Figure 1. Self-insulating concrete masonry unit (SCMU) configurations: (a) block; and (b) half-block units.
78 units. 
 Appl. Sci. 2016, 6, 245 3 of 14

Appl. Sci. 2016, 6, 245 
Table 1. The mechanical and thermal properties of expanded polystyrene (EPS). 3 of 14 

79 Density Table 1. The mechanical and thermal properties of expanded polystyrene (EPS). 
Thermal Conductivity Specific Heat Young Modulus Yield Strength
3
(kg/m ) (w/m·K) Capacity (J/kg·◦ C) (kN/mm2 ) (N/mm2 )
Density  Thermal Conductivity  Specific Heat  Young Modulus  Yield Strength 
30 3) 
(kg/m 0.04
(w/m∙K)  1300
Capacity (J/kg∙°C) 3.6 2) 
(kN/mm 0.46 2) 
(N/mm
30  0.04  1300  3.6  0.46 
The compressive strength of SCMUs was determined in accordance with The American Society for
80 TestingThe compressive strength of SCMUs was determined in accordance with The American Society 
and Materials (ASTM) C140 [15] and ASTM C90 [16]. The test was conducted using universal
81 machine
for  Testing  and  Materials  (ASTM)  C140  [15]  and  ASTM  C90  [16].  The  test  was  conducted  using 
(Jinan Time Shijin Instruments Co., Ltd., Jinan, China) with load capacity of 2000 kN and load
82 universal machine (Jinan Time Shijin Instruments Co., Ltd., Jinan, China) with load capacity of 2000 
rating of 0.05 ± 0.01 N/mm2 /sec. The average compressive strength value of SCMUs was 6.7 N/mm2 .
83 kN and load rating of 0.05 ± 0.01 N/mm2/sec. The average compressive strength value of SCMUs was  3
Also, the weights of SCMUs were measured which have an average density value of 1850 kg/m .
84 6.7 N/mm2. Also, the weights of SCMUs were measured which have an average density value of 1850 
The typical mode of failure with face-shell separation was observed during the test for all SCMU
85 kg/m3.  The  typical  mode  of  failure  with  face‐shell  separation  was  observed  during  the  test  for  all 
86 specimens as shown in Figure 2. No cracks were observed during loading of the SCMUs, and the
SCMU specimens as shown in Figure 2. No cracks were observed during loading of the SCMUs, and 
87 failure was brittle without warning.
the failure was brittle without warning.   

88 Figure 2. SCMU under compression test machine. 
Figure 2. SCMU under compression test machine.
89 Mortar used in this study was Mb15 (GB50003‐2010) [17]. Mortar was composed of cement, sand, 
90 Mortar used in this study was Mb15 (GB50003-2010) [17]. Mortar was composed of cement, sand,
lime, and water. The mortar mixtures were prepared according to JGJ/T98‐2011 [18]. Three cubes of 
91 lime, and water. The3 were casted and tested at 28 days of curing time to determine the compressive 
70.7 × 70.7 × 70.7 mm mortar mixtures were prepared according to JGJ/T98-2011 [18]. Three cubes
92 ofstrength of mortar. The average compressive strength value of the three specimens of mortar was 
70.7 × 70.7 × 70.7 mm3 were casted and tested at 28 days of curing time to determine the
93 compressive
14.7 N/mm2. strength of mortar. The average compressive strength value of the three specimens
94 of mortar was 14.7 N/mm2 .
The grout was used to fill the cores, increasing the effective cross‐sectional area of the masonry 
95 for load resistance, and permitting the bonding of reinforcing bars to the concrete masonry blocks. 
The grout was used to fill the cores, increasing the effective cross-sectional area of the masonry
96 for
Three cubes of 100 × 100 × 100 mm
load resistance, and permitting were casted and tested at 28 days of curing time to determine the 
3
the bonding of reinforcing bars to the concrete masonry blocks.
97 Three
compressive 
cubes ofstrength  of  grout. 
100 × 100 × 100 The 
mmgrout 
3 werespecimens  were 
casted and tested 
tested at 28in days
accordance  with 
of curing timethe to
ordinary 
determine
98 the
concrete  mechanical  performance  test  method  (GBJ50081‐2002)  [19].  The  value 
compressive strength of grout. The grout specimens were tested in accordance with the of  the  average 
ordinary
99 concrete
compressive strength of the three specimens of grout was 24.7 N/mm2. 
mechanical performance test method (GBJ50081-2002) [19]. The value of the average
compressive strength of the three specimens of grout was 24.7 N/mm2 .
100 2.2. Compressive Strength Test 
101 2.2. Compressive
Six  prisms Strength
of  SCMUs Testwall  assemblages  (denoted  by  PC1–PC6)  as  illustrated  in  Table  2  were 
102 prepared  according  to  the  procedure  specified  by  the  Chinese  Masonry  Code  for  compressive 
Six prisms of SCMUs wall assemblages (denoted by PC1–PC6) as illustrated in Table 2 were
103 strength  test  [17].  The  compressive  strength  test  of  masonry  prism  was  conducted  on  units  of 
prepared according to the procedure specified by the Chinese Masonry Code for compressive strength
104 dimensions of 590 mm length, 240 mm width, and 790 mm height, as shown in Figure 3. The masonry 
test [17]. The compressive strength test of masonry prism was conducted on units of dimensions
105 prisms were constructed with four courses in running bond pattern. The prisms were fully grouted 
106 ofand wooden forms were used to ensure the proper finishing of the grout at the end of the face‐shells. 
590 mm length, 240 mm width, and 790 mm height, as shown in Figure 3. The masonry prisms were
107 constructed with four courses in running bond pattern. The prisms were fully grouted and wooden
The prisms were cured in standard conditions (22 ± 3 °C and 95% RH) for 28 days. Before testing, the 
108 forms were used to ensure the proper finishing of the grout at the end of the face-shells. The prisms
prisms were capped with a 10 mm thick cement mortar to have a uniform bearing surface. 
were cured in standard conditions (22 ± 3 ◦ C and 95% RH) for 28 days. Before testing, the prisms were
capped with a 10 mm thick cement mortar to have a uniform bearing surface.
 Appl. Sci. 2016, 6, 245 4 of 14
Appl. Sci. 2016, 6, 245  4 of 14 
Appl. Sci. 2016, 6, 245  4 of 14 

109
109 Figure 3. Masonry prism for compressive strength test (units in mm). 
Figure 3. Masonry prism for compressive strength test (units in mm).
Figure 3. Masonry prism for compressive strength test (units in mm). 

110
110 The  compressive 
The
The  compressive 
strength 
compressive strength  test 
strengthtest  was 
testwas 
was performed 
performed
performed 
using 
using
using 
a  universal  machine 
a universal
a  universal 
(Jinan  Time  Shijin 
machine
machine  (Jinan (Jinan Time
Time  Shijin 
111
111 Instruments 
Shijin Instruments
Instruments 
Co.,  Ltd.,  Jinan, 
Co.,Jinan, 
Co.,  Ltd., 
China) 
Ltd.,China)  with 
Jinan, with 
China)capacity  of 
with of 
capacity 
5000 
capacity kN 
5000  kN 
and 
of and  loading 
5000loading 
kN and rate  of 
loading
rate 
0.05  ± 
of  0.05 rate
0.01 
of
±  0.01 
112
112 N/mm 2/sec. The prism was placed in the lower plate and then both centroidal axes of the prism and 
0.05 ± 20.01
N/mm 2
N/mm /sec. The prism was placed in the lower plate and then both centroidal axes
/sec. The prism was placed in the lower plate and then both centroidal axes of the prism and 
113
113 the 
of the
the 
center 
prism
center 
of  thrust 
of and
of  the of
the of 
thrust  center machine 
thrust of
the  machine 
were  aligned. were
the aligned. 
were  machine Test  setup 
aligned.
Test  setup 
of Test
compressive  strength  is  shown 
setup of compressive
of  compressive  strength
strength  is  shown 
in 
in 
114
114 Figure 4. 
is shown in Figure 4.
Figure 4. 

115
115   
116
116 Figure 4. Compressive strength test setup. 
Figure 4. Compressive strength test setup. 
Figure 4. Compressive strength test setup.

117
117 Table 2 shows the results of compressive strength test of masonry prisms. The results revealed 
Table 2 shows the results of compressive strength test of masonry prisms. The results revealed 
118
118
Table 2 shows the results of compressive strength test of masonry prisms. The results revealed2 
that the average compressive strength and the standard deviation of tested prisms were 9.21 N/mm
that the average compressive strength and the standard deviation of tested prisms were 9.21 N/mm22 
119
119
that the average2, respectively. The typical failure pattern observed during the compressive strength 
and 0.4 N/mm compressive strength and the standard deviation of tested prisms were 9.21 N/mm
and 0.4 N/mm22, respectively. The typical failure pattern observed during the compressive strength 
120
120
and 0.4 N/mm , respectively. The typical failure pattern observed during the compressive strength
test is shown in Figure 5. It was observed that the prisms failed due to the development of vertical 
test is shown in Figure 5. It was observed that the prisms failed due to the development of vertical 
121
121
test is shown
cracks  along in Figure
their  5. It Apparently, 
height.  was observedthe 
that the prisms
lateral  failedof 
expansion  due tomortar 
the  the development of vertical
induced  high  tensile 
cracks  along  their  height.  Apparently,  the  lateral  expansion  of  the  mortar  induced  high  tensile 
122
122
cracks along their height. Apparently, the lateral expansion of the mortar induced high tensile stresses
stresses in the blocks, causing them to crack and eventually fail. Generally, the pattern of failure is 
stresses in the blocks, causing them to crack and eventually fail. Generally, the pattern of failure is 
123
123
in the blocks, causing them to crack and eventually fail. Generally, the pattern of failure is influenced
influenced by the modulus of elasticity of the different materials that made up the masonry system 
influenced by the modulus of elasticity of the different materials that made up the masonry system 
124
124
by the  modulus of elasticity of the different materials that made up the masonry system [20].
[20]. 
[20].   
125
125
Table 2. Compressive strength results of masonry prisms.
Table 2. Compressive strength results of masonry prisms. 
Table 2. Compressive strength results of masonry prisms. 
Specimen No.
Specimen No. Compressive Strength (N/mm
Compressive Strength (N/mm2 ) 2) ) 
2
Specimen No. Compressive Strength (N/mm
PC1 
PC1 9.79 
9.79
PC1  9.79 
PC2 
PC2 9.58 
9.58
PC2  9.58 
PC3
PC3  9.27
9.27 
PC3 
PC4 9.27 
8.85
PC4  8.85 
PC4 
PC5 8.85 
9.08
PC5  9.08 
PC5 
PC6 9.08 
8.71
PC6 
Average Compressive 8.71 
PC6 strength of prisms 9.21
8.71 
Average Compressive strength of prisms 9.21 
Average Compressive strength of prisms 9.21 
 Appl. Sci. 2016, 6, 245 5 of 14
Appl. Sci. 2016, 6, 245  5 of 14 

Appl. Sci. 2016, 6, 245  5 of 14 

 
126 Figure 5. Typical failure mode of prism. 
Figure 5. Typical failure mode of prism.  
126 Figure 5. Typical failure mode of prism. 
127 2.3. Shear Strength Test   
2.3. Shear Strength Test
127
128 2.3. Shear Strength Test   
Six masonry prisms of SCMU assemblages (denoted by PS1–PS6), as presented in Table 3, were 
Six masonry prisms of SCMU assemblages (denoted by PS1–PS6), as presented in Table 3, were
129
128 prepared according to the procedure specified by the Chinese Masonry Code for shear strength test 
Six masonry prisms of SCMU assemblages (denoted by PS1–PS6), as presented in Table 3, were 
prepared according to the procedure specified by the Chinese Masonry Code for shear strength
130
129 [17]. The masonry prism of shear test was 390 mm in length, 240 mm in width, and 590 mm in height, 
prepared according to the procedure specified by the Chinese Masonry Code for shear strength test 
test [17]. The masonry prism of shear test was 390 mm in length, 240 mm in width, and 590 mm
131
130 as shown in Figure 6. The shear prisms were constructed with three courses in running bond pattern. 
[17]. The masonry prism of shear test was 390 mm in length, 240 mm in width, and 590 mm in height, 
in height, as shown in Figure 6. The shear prisms were constructed with three courses in running
132
131 All shear prisms were cured in the standard conditions (22 ± 3 °C and 95% RH) for 28 days. Before 
pattern. All shear prisms were cured in the standard conditions (22 ± 3 ◦ C and 95% RH)
as shown in Figure 6. The shear prisms were constructed with three courses in running bond pattern. 
bond
133
132 testing, the prisms were capped with a 10 mm thick cement mortar to have a uniform bearing surface. 
All shear prisms were cured in the standard conditions (22 ± 3 °C and 95% RH) for 28 days. Before 
for 28 days. Before testing, the prisms were capped with a 10 mm thick cement mortar to have a
134
133 Shear strength test was performed using two load cells. One load cell (Shanghai Huali Sensor 
testing, the prisms were capped with a 10 mm thick cement mortar to have a uniform bearing surface. 
uniform bearing surface.
135
134 Technology Co., Ltd., Shanghai, China) was used to apply a constant vertical precompression load 
Shear strength test was performed using two load cells. One load cell (Shanghai Huali Sensor 
Shear strength test was performed using two load cells. One load cell (Shanghai Huali Sensor
136
135 while the second load cell (Shanghai Huali Sensor Technology Co., Ltd., Shanghai, China) was used 
Technology Co., Ltd., Shanghai, China) was used to apply a constant vertical precompression load 
Technology Co., Ltd., Shanghai, China) was used to apply a constant vertical precompression load
137
136 to apply an increasing horizontal load. Steel plates were installed to ensure a uniform distribution of 
while the second load cell (Shanghai Huali Sensor Technology Co., Ltd., Shanghai, China) was used 
while the second load cell (Shanghai Huali Sensor Technology Co., Ltd., Shanghai, China) was used to
138
137 load and to control the location of supporting points. 
to apply an increasing horizontal load. Steel plates were installed to ensure a uniform distribution of 
apply an increasing horizontal load. Steel plates were installed to ensure a uniform distribution of
139
138 Prisms PS1, PS2, and PS3 were tested under precompression of 0.1 N/mm2, whereas prisms PS4, 
load and to control the location of supporting points. 
load and to control the location of supporting points.
140
139 PS5, and PS6 were tested under precompression of 0.3 N/mm 2. Then the pressures were kept constant 
Prisms PS1, PS2, and PS3 were tested under precompression of 0.1 N/mm 2, whereas prisms PS4, 
2 , whereas prisms
Prisms PS1, PS2, and PS3 were tested under precompression of 0.1 N/mm
141
140 while  the  shear  load  was  applied  until  the  failure 
PS5, and PS6 were tested under precompression of 0.3 N/mm of  the  prism  occurred  [21,22].  Shear  load  was 
2. Then the pressures were kept constant 
2 . Then the pressures
PS4, PS5, and PS6 were tested under precompression of 0.3 N/mm were kept
142
141 increased at a rate of 0.1 N/mm
while  the  shear  load  was 
2 per minute. 
applied  until  the  failure  of  the of
prism  occurred  [21,22].  Shear  load load
was 
constant while the shear load was applied until the failure the prism occurred [21,22]. Shear
142 increased at a rate of 0.1 N/mm 2 per minute. 
2
was increased at a rate of 0.1 N/mm per minute.

143 Figure 6. Masonry prism for shear test (units in mm). 

143 Figure 6. Masonry prism for shear test (units in mm).

Figure 6. Masonry prism for shear test (units in mm). 
144 Four potentiometers (Liyang Instruments Co., Ltd., Liyang, China) (i.e., two at each side) were 
145
144 placed to monitor the slip between the outer and middle units. All measuring devices were connected 
Four potentiometers (Liyang Instruments Co., Ltd., Liyang, China) (i.e., two at each side) were 
Four potentiometers (Liyang Instruments Co., Ltd., Liyang, China) (i.e., two at each side) were
146
145 to  a  computer  (ASUSTeK®  Computer  Inc.,  Taibei,  China),  which  processed  the  data  in  real  time. 
placed to monitor the slip between the outer and middle units. All measuring devices were connected 
placed to monitor the slip between the outer and middle units. All measuring devices were connected
147
146 Figure 7 shows the shear strength test setup. 
to 
to aa  computer
computer  (ASUSTeK
(ASUSTeK®®  Computer 
Computer Inc., 
Inc., Taibei, 
Taibei, China), 
China), which 
which processed 
processed the 
the data 
data in 
in real 
real time. 
time.
147 Figure 7 shows the shear strength test setup. 
Figure 7 shows the shear strength test setup.
 Appl. Sci. 2016, 6, 245 6 of 14
Appl. Sci. 2016, 6, 245  6 of 14 

Appl. Sci. 2016, 6, 245  6 of 14 

148 Figure 7. Shear test general setup. 
Figure 7. Shear test general setup.

149148 Table 3 shows the results of shear strength test. The influence of the applied level of the pre‐
Figure 7. Shear test general setup. 
150 Table 3 shows the results of shear strength test. The influence of the applied level of the
compression is clearly visible from Table 3. The results revealed that the shear resistance increases 
151149
pre-compression is clearly visible from Table 3. The results revealed that the shear resistance increases
when increasing the level of pre‐compression. The failure occurred at the bed joint for all specimens, 
Table 3 shows the results of shear strength test. The influence of the applied level of the pre‐
152150
when increasing the level of pre-compression. The failure occurred at the bed joint for all specimens,
as shown in Figure 8. The failure patterns observed during the tests can be characterized as sliding 
compression is clearly visible from Table 3. The results revealed that the shear resistance increases 
153151 when increasing the level of pre‐compression. The failure occurred at the bed joint for all specimens, 
failure mode. Sliding failure of the prism can be described by the classical Mohr‐Coulomb’s failure 
as shown in Figure 8. The failure patterns observed during the tests can be characterized as sliding
152
154failure as shown in Figure 8. The failure patterns observed during the tests can be characterized as sliding 
criterion equation:   
mode. Sliding failure of the prism can be described by the classical Mohr-Coulomb’s failure
153 failure mode. Sliding failure of the prism can be described by the classical Mohr‐Coulomb’s failure 
criterion equation:
154 σ tan  
τ =τ c +
c σtanφ
criterion equation:    (1)(1)

155where, c  σ tanfriction,
τ internal  
Where, c denotes the cohesion, φ is the angle of internal friction, σ is the normal stress. 
c denotes the cohesion, φ is the angle of σ is the normal stress. (1)

156155 Where, c denotes the cohesion, φ is the angle of internal friction, σ is the normal stress. 
Table 3. Shear strength results of masonry prisms. 
Table 3. Shear strength results of masonry prisms.
156 Specimen  Table 3. Shear strength results of masonry prisms. 
Precompression  Maximum Shear  Precompression  Shear Stress τi 
Specimen
No.  Precompression
Load F pi (kN)  Maximum
Load FimaxShear Precompression
 (kN)  Precompression 
Stress σ i (N/mm2) Shear Stress2) 
(N/mm τi
Specimen  Precompression  Maximum Shear  2) Shear Stress τ2 )i 
No.
PS1  Fpi (kN)
Load8.7  Load F103.0 
imax (kN) Stress σ0.10 
i (N/mm (N/mm
No.  Load Fpi (kN)  Load Fimax (kN)  Stress σi (N/mm2) (N/mm0.60 
2) 

PS1
PS2 
PS1  8.7
8.5 
8.7  103.0
106.7 
103.0  0.10
0.10 
0.10  0.60
0.60 0.62 
PS2
PS3 
PS2  8.5
8.4 
8.5  106.7
105.1 
106.7  0.10
0.10 
0.10  0.62
0.62 0.61 
PS3
PS4  8.4
26.0  105.1
126.8  0.10
0.30  0.61
PS3  8.4  105.1  0.10  0.61 0.74 
PS4 26.0 126.8 0.30 0.74
PS4 
PS5  26.0 
25.0  126.8 
124.5  0.30 
0.29  0.74 0.73 
PS5 25.0 124.5 0.29 0.73
PS5 
PS6  25.0 
27.0  124.5 
130.3  0.29 
0.31  0.73 0.76 
PS6 27.0 130.3 0.31 0.76
157 σpiσ=pi  F
=  F/A
PS6  27.0  130.3  0.31  0.76 
pi/Ai  and  τi=  Fimax/2Ai,  (Ai)  is  the  cross‐sectional  area  of  a  specimen  parallel  to  the  bed  joints,  in  square 
pi i and τi = Fimax /2Ai , (Ai ) is the cross-sectional area of a specimen parallel to the bed joints, in square
158157 σpi  =  Fpi/Ai  and 
millimeters (mm
millimeters
τ i
(mm2 ).2).2 
=  F imax/2Ai,  (Ai )  is  the  cross‐sectional  area  of  a  specimen  parallel  to  the  bed  joints,  in  square 
158 millimeters (mm ). 

159159    
160160 Figure 8. Typical mode of failure for masonry shear prism. 
Figure 8. Typical mode of failure for masonry shear prism. 
Figure 8. Typical mode of failure for masonry shear prism.
161 Based  on  the  test  results  presented  in  Table  3,  the  friction  coefficient  in  the  bed  joint  can  be 
161 Based  on  the  test  results  presented  in  Table  3,  the  friction  coefficient  in  the  bed  joint  can  be 
162 Based on the test results presented in Table 3, the friction coefficient in the bed joint can be
calculated based on the levels of compression and shear in the joint once sliding has occurred [22]. 
162 calculated based on the levels of compression and shear in the joint once sliding has occurred [22]. 
163
calculated based on the levels
The resulting shear‐stress ‐normal‐stress graph is shown in Figure 9, which has been obtained from a 
of compression and shear in the joint once sliding has occurred [22].
163164 The resulting shear‐stress ‐normal‐stress graph is shown in Figure 9, which has been obtained from a 
linear regression of points. The average cohesion and friction angle in the bed joints of the SCMU 
The resulting shear-stress-normal-stress graph is shown in Figure 9, which has been obtained from
164165 linear regression of points. The average cohesion and friction angle in the bed joints of the SCMU 
a linearprisms are, respectively, 0.5433 N/mm
regression of points. The average 2 and 33.7°. 
cohesion and friction angle in the bed joints of the SCMU
165 prisms are, respectively, 0.5433 N/mm 2 and 33.7°. 
2 
◦
prisms are, respectively, 0.5433 N/mm and 33.7 .
 Appl. Sci. 2016, 6, 245 7 of 14
Appl. Sci. 2016, 6, 245 
Appl. Sci. 2016, 6, 245  7 of 14 
7 of 14 

166  
167 Figure 9. The resulting shear‐stress–normal‐stress graph. 
Figure 9. The resulting shear‐stress–normal‐stress graph. 
Figure 9. The resulting shear-stress–normal-stress graph.

168 3. Finite Element Modeling 
Finite Element Modeling   
3. Finite Element Modeling 
3.
169 The finite element method (FEM) is one of the powerful tools for modeling a structure with very 
The finite element method (FEM) is one of the powerful tools for modeling a structure with very 
The finite element method (FEM) is one of the powerful tools for modeling a structure with very
170 complicated geometry and materials. There are many strategies, as shown in Figure 10, to model a 
complicated geometry and materials. There are many strategies, as shown in Figure 10, to model a 
complicated geometry and materials. There are many strategies, as shown in Figure 10, to model
171 masonry structure with FEM, which includes macro‐ and micro‐modeling. The macro‐model is based 
masonry structure with FEM, which includes macro‐ and micro‐modeling. The macro‐model is based 
a masonry structure with FEM, which includes macro- and micro-modeling. The macro-model is
172 on the assumption of homogenous materials, and the mortar joints and units can be smeared into one 
on the assumption of homogenous materials, and the mortar joints and units can be smeared into one 
based on the assumption of homogenous materials, and the mortar joints and units can be smeared
173 isotropic or anisotropic material.
isotropic or anisotropic material.
into  This procedure may be preferred for the analysis of large masonry 
one isotropic or anisotropic  material.
This procedure may be preferred for the analysis of large masonry 
This procedure may be preferred for the analysis of large
174 structures 
masonry structures due to the reduced time memory 
structures  due 
due  to 
to  the 
the  reduced 
reduced  time 
time  and 
and  memory  requirements 
requirements 
and memory as 
as  well 
requirements well 
as as 
as asa 
well a auser‐friendly 
user-friendly mesh 
user‐friendly  mesh 
mesh
175 generation. In addition, this type of modeling is most valuable when a compromise between accuracy 
generation. In addition, this type of modeling is most valuable when a compromise between accuracy 
generation. In addition, this type of modeling is most valuable when a compromise between accuracy
176 and efficiency is needed [23,24]. 
and efficiency is needed [23,24]. 
and efficiency is needed [23,24].

177  
178 Figure 
Figure 10. 
10. Modeling 
Figure 10. Modeling strategies 
Modeling strategies for 
strategies for block 
for block masonry. 
block masonry. (a) 
masonry. (a) Typical 
(a)  Typical masonry 
Typical masonry sample; 
sample; (b) 
masonry sample; (b) Detailed 
(b) Detailed micro 
Detailed micro
micro 
179 (c) Simplified micro modeling; (d) Macro modeling.   
modeling; (c) Simplified micro modeling; (d) Macro modeling.
modeling;
modeling; (c) Simplified micro modeling; (d) Macro modeling.

180 More  accurate 

accurate  response 
More  accurate
More response  of 
response of  aa 
of masonry 
a  masonry assembly 
masonry  assembly
assembly  cancan  be 
can  be deducted 
be  deducted by 
deducted  by using 
by using micro‐modeling 
using micro-modeling
micro‐modeling 
181 techniques. In this method, the units and the mortar and unit/mortar interface are represented by 
techniques. In this method, the units and the mortar and unit/mortar interface are represented by 
techniques. In this method, the units and the mortar and unit/mortar interface are represented by
182 continuum and discontinuous elements, respectively. Different properties for both units and mortar 
continuum and discontinuous elements, respectively. Different properties for both units and mortar 
continuum and discontinuous elements, respectively. Different properties for both units and mortar
183 were  separately 
were separately
were
applied, 
applied,  and 
separately  applied, and  this 
and this  leads 
this leads  to 
leads
a 
to  a
to
realistic 
a realistic response 
realistic response
response ofof 
of aa  masonry 
a masonry assembly 
masonry assembly with 
assembly with more 
with more
more 
184 accurate prediction of its local behavior. Despite these advantages, this approach is uneconomic and 
accurate prediction of its local behavior. Despite these advantages, this approach is uneconomic and 
accurate prediction of its local behavior. Despite these advantages, this approach is uneconomic and
185 inefficient in terms of computational time. To overcome this problem, simplified micro‐modeling has 
inefficient in terms of computational time. To overcome this problem, simplified micro‐modeling has 
inefficient in terms of computational time. To overcome this problem, simplified micro-modeling has
186 been used and, according to pervious research, it can give accurate results with a simple modeling 
been used and, according to pervious research, it can give accurate results with a simple modeling 
been used and, according to pervious research, it can give accurate results with a simple modeling
187 procedure. In this type of modeling, the mortar joints are clamped into the unit/mortar interface as a 
procedure. In this type of modeling, the mortar joints are clamped into the unit/mortar interface as a 
procedure. In this type of modeling, the mortar joints are clamped into the unit/mortar interface as a
188 discontinuous element. Expanded units—up to half of the mortar thickness in horizontal and vertical 
discontinuous element. Expanded units—up to half of the mortar thickness in horizontal and vertical 
discontinuous element. Expanded units—up to half of the mortar thickness in horizontal and vertical
189 directions—were simulated to continuum elements. This procedure can successfully predict the shear 
directions—were simulated to continuum elements. This procedure can successfully predict the shear 
directions—were simulated to continuum elements. This procedure can successfully predict the shear
190 behavior and crack pattern [25–28]. 
behavior and crack pattern [25–28]. 
behavior and crack pattern [25–28].

191 3.1. Constitutive Models 
3.1. Constitutive Models 

192 (a) Concrete Damage Plasticity (CDP) 
(a) Concrete Damage Plasticity (CDP) 
 Appl. Sci. 2016, 6, 245 8 of 14

Appl. Sci. 2016, 6, 245  8 of 14 

3.1. Constitutive Models

193 The nonlinear behavior of the masonry can be simulated in Abaqus using the CDP model, which 
194 (a) Appl. Sci. 2016, 6, 245 
Concrete Damage Plasticity (CDP)
can be used for concrete and other brittle materials [29]. The failure modes of this model are cracks  8 of 14 

195 in  tension  or  crushing  in  compression.  The can

stress–strain  relationship 
in Abaqus and  corresponding  damage 
193 The nonlinear behavior of the masonry be simulated using the CDP model,
The nonlinear behavior of the masonry can be simulated in Abaqus using the CDP model, which  which
196194 parameters for the validation models used in this study were based on primary models proposed by 
cancan be used for concrete and other brittle materials [29]. The failure modes of this model are cracks 
be used for concrete and other brittle materials [29]. The failure modes of this model are cracks
197195 Lubliner et al. [30] and Lee and Fenves [31]. The uniaxial compressive and tensile response of concrete 
in in 
tension
tension  oror 
crushing
crushing in
in compression. The
compression.  The  stress–strain
stress–strain  relationship
relationship  and corresponding
and  corresponding  damage  damage
198196 is described by damage plasticity as shown in Figure 11. 
parameters for the validation models used in this study were based on primary models proposed by 
parameters for the validation models used in this study were based on primary models proposed by
197 Lubliner
Lubliner et al. [30] and Lee and Fenves [31]. The uniaxial compressive and tensile response of concrete 
et al. [30] and Lee and Fenves [31]. The uniaxial compressive and tensile response of concrete
198 is described
is described by damage plasticity as shown in Figure 11. 
by damage plasticity as shown in Figure 11.

199  
199  
200 Figure 11. Response of concrete to uniaxial loading according to the Abaqus theory manual [29]. 
Figure 11. Response of concrete to uniaxial loading according to the Abaqus theory manual [29].
200 Figure 11. Response of concrete to uniaxial loading according to the Abaqus theory manual [29]. 
201 (b) Cohesive Surface‐Based Element 
201 (b)(b) Cohesive Surface‐Based Element 
Cohesive Surface-Based Element
202202 The cohesive interaction is defined as a function of displacement separation between the edges 
The cohesive interaction is defined as a function of displacement separation between the edges 
The cohesive interaction is defined as a function of displacement separation between the edges of
203203 of  of 
potential  cracks  [32]. 
[32].  Furthermore,  pervious  researches  have  been  conducted  to  study  the 
potential crackscracks 
potential  Furthermore, 
[32]. Furthermore, pervious 
pervious researches 
researches havehave 
beenbeen  conducted 
conducted to  study 
to study the 
the parameters
204204 parameters 
parameters  that  affect  the 
the  cohesive  interaction  performance  for  for  brittle  materials. 
These These  have 
that affect the that  affect interaction
cohesive cohesive  interaction 
performance performance 
for brittle materials.brittle  materials. 
These have concluded have that the
205205 concluded that the mechanical behavior of cohesive elements can be defined by three methods: (1) 
concluded that the mechanical behavior of cohesive elements can be defined by three methods: (1) 
mechanical behavior of cohesive elements can be defined by three methods: (1) uniaxial stress-based,
206206 uniaxial 
uniaxial  stress‐based, (2) 
stress‐based,  (2)  continuum‐based 
continuum‐based  and  and (3) (3) 
traction–separation 
traction–separation  constitutive  model. 
constitutive  The  The 
model. 
(2) continuum-based and (3) traction–separation constitutive model. The traction–separation model
207207 traction–separation model represents the corresponding initial separation caused by pure normal, in 
traction–separation model represents the corresponding initial separation caused by pure normal, in 
represents theout 
corresponding initial separation caused12.  byThis 
pure normal, ininto 
plane, and out plane the  shear
208208 plane, 
plane,  and 
and  plane shear 
out  plane  shear stress 
stress  as 
as shown 
shown in in 
Figure 
Figure  12.  study 
This  takes 
study  takes  consideration 
into  consideration  the 
209209 damage 
stress as shown
damage  in Figure
evolution  which 12. can This study takes either 
be  specified  into consideration the damage evolution which can
evolution  which  can  be  specified by  by  either  using  the  post‐damage‐initiation 
using  the  post‐damage‐initiation  effective 
effective 
210 be separation at failure or the total fracture energy. Furthermore, Coulomb frictional contact behavior 
specified by either using the post-damage-initiation effective separation at failure or the total
210211 separation at failure or the total fracture energy. Furthermore, Coulomb frictional contact behavior  (  ) which 
fracture energy.to Furthermore,
was  applied  Coulomb
the  current  models  frictional contact
by  introducing  behavior
a  coefficient  was applied
of  friction  to the prevents 
current models
211 was  applied  to  the  current  models  by  introducing  a  coefficient  of  friction   (  )  which  prevents 
212 by components’ penetration after forming the contact as shown in Figure 13, especially for the normal 
introducing a coefficient of friction (µ) which prevents components’ penetration after forming
212213 components’ penetration after forming the contact as shown in Figure 13, especially for the normal 
thebehavior 
contact of 
as contacts. 
shown in For  this  study, 
Figure surface‐to‐surface 
13, especially for the normalcontact  behavior
was  chosen  of and  the  contacting 
contacts. For this study,
213214 behavior  of  contacts.  For  this  study,  surface‐to‐surface  contact  was  chosen 
properties for the tangential and normal behavior were specified. This type of contact is generally 
surface-to-surface contact was chosen and the contacting properties for the tangential and and  the  contacting 
normal
214215 properties for the tangential and normal behavior were specified. This type of contact is generally 
used to describe the behavior of two deformable surfaces connecting together. Also the slip‐rate data 
behavior were specified. This type of contact is generally used to describe the behavior of two
215216 used to describe the behavior of two deformable surfaces connecting together. Also the slip‐rate data 
were specified to define the coefficient of friction [29,33]. 
deformable surfaces connecting together. Also the slip-rate data were specified to define the coefficient
216 were specified to define the coefficient of friction [29,33]. 
of friction [29,33].

(a)  (b)
217 Figure 12. Typical traction–separation behavior and fracture modes. (a) Traction‐separation response; 
218 (a) 
(b) Fracture modes [29].  (b)
217 Figure 12. Typical traction–separation behavior and fracture modes. (a) Traction‐separation response; 
Figure 12. Typical traction–separation behavior and fracture modes. (a) Traction-separation response;
218 (b) Fracture modes [29]. 
(b) Fracture modes [29].
 Appl. Sci. 2016, 6, 245 9 of 14
Appl. Sci. 2016, 6, 245  9 of 14 

219  
220 Figure 13. Frictional behavior [29]. 
Figure 13. Frictional behavior [29].

221 3.2. FE Model, Results, and Discussion 
3.2. FE Model, Results, and Discussion
222 Three models—compression prism and shear prisms with precompression stress of 0.10 N/mm
Three models—compression prism and shear prisms with precompression stress of 0.10 N/mm2
2 

223 and 0.30 N/mm
and 0.30 N/mm2—were generated using Abaqus software to simulate the experiments. 
2
—were generated using Abaqus software to simulate the experiments.  

224 3.2.1. Model Inputs 
3.2.1. Model Inputs

225 (a) Concrete Damage Plasticity Parameters

(a) Concrete Damage Plasticity Parameters 
226 The masonry assemblages were modeled according to the materials’ properties in Table 4.
The masonry assemblages were modeled according to the materials’ properties in Table 4. The 
227 The compression behavior of CDP model was extracted from compression test data for masonry prism.
compression behavior of CDP model was extracted from compression test data for masonry prism. 
228 Table 5 shows the stress–strain and the damage data applied to the models in this study, which
Table 5 shows the stress–strain and the damage data applied to the models in this study, which 
229 were calculated based on set of equations provided by Sinha et al [34].
were calculated based on set of equations provided by Sinha et al [34]. 
Table 4. The mechanical properties of masonry assemblages.
230 Table 4. The mechanical properties of masonry assemblages. 
Elasticity
Elasticity Plasticity
Plasticity 
Mass
Mass  Young’s
Young’s 
Sample Density Poisson’s Dilation Viscosity
Sample  Density 3 Modulus Poisson’s  Dilation  Eccentricity f /f co K Viscosity 
(kg/m ) Modulus 2
(kN/mm )
Ratio Angle Ψ Eccentricity bo fbo /fco  K  Parameter
(kg/m ) 
3 Ratio  Angle Ψ Parameter
Compression
(kN/mm2) 
Compression 
and shear 2672 15.2 0.2 34 0.1 1.16 0.67 0.001
prism
and shear  2672  15.2  0.2  34  0.1  1.16  0.67  0.001 
prism 
where, Ψ is the dilation angle (degrees), f bo is bidirectional compressive strength of masonry (N/mm ), f co is
2

231 unidirectional
where,  Ψ  is  the compressive strength
dilation  angle  of masonry
(degrees),  (N/mm2 ), Kcompressive 
fbo  is  bidirectional  is the ratio ofstrength 
the second stress invariant
of  masonry  (N/mmon2), the
fco  is 
tensile meridian, and Viscosity parameter is used for the viscoplastic regularization of the concrete constitutive
232 unidirectional compressive strength of masonry (N/mm
equations in Abaqus/Standard analyses (seconds).
2), K is the ratio of the second stress invariant on the tensile 

233 meridian, and Viscosity parameter is used for the viscoplastic regularization of the concrete constitutive equations 
234 in Abaqus/Standard analyses (seconds). 
Table 5. Compressive and tensile behavior of the model.

235 Table 5. Compressive and tensile behavior of the model. 
Concrete Damage Plasticity
Compression and Shear Prism
Concrete Damage Plasticity 
Compressive Behavior Compression and Shear Prism 
Tensile Behavior
(N/mm2 ) Inelastic Strain
Yield Stress Compressive Behavior  Yield Stress (N/mm 2) Cracking Strain
Tensile Behavior 
3.68
Yield Stress (N/mm ) 
2 0
Inelastic Strain  1.06
Yield Stress (N/mm )
2 0
Cracking Strain 
5.95 0.00021 0.80 0.00013
3.68  0  1.06  0 
8.77 0.00082 0.65 0.00025
5.95 
9.16 0.00021 
0.00120 0.80 
0.48 0.00013 
0.00052
8.77 
9.20 0.00082 
0.00140 0.65 
0.43 0.00025 
0.00064
9.16 
9.13 0.00120 
0.00230 0.48 
- 0.00052 
-
8.14
9.20  0.00746
0.00140  -
0.43  -
0.00064 
9.13  0.00230  ‐  ‐ 
8.14 
(b) Joints Cohesive Behavior Parameters0.00746  ‐  ‐ 

236 The most common friction coefficient (µ) of concrete masonry is in the range of 0.6–0.8 [33].
(b) Joints Cohesive Behavior Parameters 
The best fit was obtained when using 0.80 in this study. Cohesive behavior of the bed and vertical
237 The most common friction coefficient ( μ) of concrete masonry is in the range of 0.6–0.8 [33]. The 
238 best fit was obtained when using 0.80 in this study. Cohesive behavior of the bed and vertical joints 
 Appl. Sci. 2016, 6, 245  10 of 14 

239 were defined as shown in Table 6. However, the average compressive strength of masonry prism of 
Appl. Sci. 2016, 6, 245 10 of 14
240 9.2 N/mm2 was employed in order to model the normal damage initiation [33]. Shear (I) presents the 
241 in‐plane shear, which was determined according to Equation (1) (Figure 9). It is well known that the 
242 shear strength for masonry depends on the mechanical properties of masonry assemblage and the 
joints were defined as shown in Table 6. However, the average compressive strength of masonry prism
243 of amount 
9.2 N/mm of 2the 
wasapplied  vertical 
employed load. to
in order This  leads 
model to normal
the different  values  initiation
damage of  shear  strength  for  (I)
[33]. Shear the presents
three 
244 models  as  presented  in  Table  6.  The  last  parameter  of  traction–separation 
the in-plane shear, which was determined according to Equation (1) (Figure 9). It is well known model  is  shear  (II)  that 
that
245 defines  the  out‐of‐plane  shear,  which  was  set  to  zero  for  all  models.  Furthermore, 
the shear strength for masonry depends on the mechanical properties of masonry assemblage and the the  maximum 
246 separation 
amount of theand  stiffness 
applied coefficient 
vertical specified 
load. This leads tofor  shear  models 
different values only  were 
of shear 1.25  mm 
strength forand  26  MN/m, 
the three models
247 respectively. These values were obtained indirectly by trial and error in the calibration process. More 
as presented in Table 6. The last parameter of traction–separation model is shear (II) that defines
248 tested  specimens  are  needed  to  specify  more  accurate  values  for  the  maximum  separation  and 
the out-of-plane shear, which was set to zero for all models. Furthermore, the maximum separation
249 stiffness coefficient. The contact was assumed to have a thickness of zero, therefore hard contact was 
and stiffness coefficient specified for shear models only were 1.25 mm and 26 MN/m, respectively.
250 assigned for normal behavior of contact. It is supposed that “hard” contact prevents the penetration 
These values were obtained indirectly by trial and error in the calibration process. More tested
251 of surfaces which can occur in the models. 
specimens are needed to specify more accurate values for the maximum separation and stiffness
252 coefficient. The contact was assumed to have a thickness of zero, therefore hard contact was assigned
Table 6. Cohesive behavior of joints. 
for normal behavior of contact. It is supposed that “hard” contact prevents the penetration of surfaces
which can occur in the models. Contact 
Cohesive Behavior 
Table 6. Cohesive behavior of joints.
Traction‐Separation 
Tangential 
Behavior  Contact
Sample  Behavior  Damage Initiation (N/mm2)  Evolution 
Normal  Stiffness  Cohesive Behavior
Tangential
Behavior Traction-Separation Behavior
Coefficients (MN/m)
Behavior
Stiffness Coefficients (MN/m) Damage Initiation (N/mm2 ) Evolution
Sample Normal
Plastic 
Frication  Behavior Plastic
Frication
Coefficient Knn Knn Kssss
K KKu u Normal
Normal Shear I
Shear I Shear II 
Shear II Displacement 
Displacement
Coefficient
(mm) 
(mm)
Compression
Compression  Hard
Hard 
0.8 - ‐  -
prism 0.8  contact ‐  ‐ - 9.2
9.2  00  0 0  - ‐ 
prism  contact 
Shear prism (1) 26 26 0 9.2 0.61 1.25
Shear prism (1) 
Shear prism (2)     26  26 0  9.2  0.61 
0.74   1.25 
Shear prism (2)    Ku represent the stiffness
Knn , Kss , and   coefficients
   
in normal  
and two shear0.74   
directions, MN/m.  
253 Knn, Kss, and Ku represent the stiffness coefficients in normal and two shear directions, MN/m. 
The finite element mesh, boundary conditions, and loading of masonry assemblages are shown in
254 The finite element mesh, boundary conditions, and loading of masonry assemblages are shown 
Figure 14. All the nodes at the bottom of the compression prism were restrained in the three directions
255 in  Figure  14.  All  the  nodes  at  the  bottom  of  the  compression  prism  were  restrained  in  the  three 
(x, y, and z axes) to simulate the friction test condition as shown in Figure 14a. While in the shear
256 directions (x, y, and z axes) to simulate the friction test condition as shown in Figure 14a. While in the 
models, the bottom of the prism and the right sides (for bottom and top units) were restrained in the
257 shear models, the bottom of the prism and the right sides (for bottom and top units) were restrained 
directions against the loading as shown in Figure 14b.
258 in the directions against the loading as shown in Figure 14b. 

(a)  (b)
259 Figure  14.  Geometry  of  assemblages,  finite  element  (F.E.)  mesh,  boundary  conditions  and  surface‐
Figure 14. Geometry of assemblages, finite element (F.E.) mesh, boundary conditions and surface-based
260 based interaction of units. (a) Compression prism; (b) Shear prism. 
interaction of units. (a) Compression prism; (b) Shear prism.

261 An eight‐node 3D stress linear brick (C3D8R) was used for modeling the masonry assemblages 
262 An eight-node 3D stress linear brick (C3D8R) was used for modeling the masonry assemblages to
to reduce the computation time without losing the results accuracy [33]. The geometry of assemblages 
reduce the computation time without losing the results accuracy [33]. The geometry of assemblages
and defined interaction surfaces between units are shown in Figure 14. The size of units are
390 × 220 × 195 mm and 195 × 220 × 195 mm with zero thickness of mortar.
 Appl. Sci. 2016, 6, 245 
Appl. Sci. 2016, 6, 245  11 of 14 
11 of 14 

263
263 and defined interaction surfaces between units are shown in Figure 14. The size of units are 390 × 220 
and defined interaction surfaces between units are shown in Figure 14. The size of units are 390 × 220 
264
264 × 195 mm and 195 × 220 × 195 mm with zero thickness of mortar. 
Appl. Sci. 2016, 6, 245
× 195 mm and 195 × 220 × 195 mm with zero thickness of mortar.  11 of 14

265
265 3.2.2. Model Outputs 
3.2.2. Model Outputs 
3.2.2. Model Outputs
266
266 Figure 15 shows the final von Mises and maximum principal stress and strains for compression 
Figure 15 shows the final von Mises and maximum principal stress and strains for compression 
267 Figure 15 shows the finalmaximum 
von Mises and maximum principal stress and strains for compression
267 prism. 
prism. As 
prism.
As can 
As
can be 
can be
be seen, 
seen, the 
seen, the
the  maximum stress 
maximum
stress occurred 
stress
occurred at 
occurred at the
at the 
the bottom 
bottom
bottom edges 
edges of
edges of 
prism,
of prism, 
prism, while 
while
while the 
the maximum
the 
268
268 maximum strain is located at the middle of the prism. Obviously, this leads to the initiation of vertical 
maximum strain is located at the middle of the prism. Obviously, this leads to the initiation of vertical 
269 strain is located at the middle of the prism. Obviously, this leads to the initiation of vertical tensile
269 tensile splitting cracks at the middle of the prism and spreading to the top and bottom units, which 
tensile splitting cracks at the middle of the prism and spreading to the top and bottom units, which 
splitting cracks at the middle of the prism and spreading to the top and bottom units,numerical 
which is
270
270 is 
is similar 
similar to 
to what 
what was was found 
found experimentally. 
experimentally. The 
The maximum 
maximum stress 
stress obtained 
obtained from 
from the 
the  numerical 
271 similar to what was found experimentally. The maximum stress obtained from the numerical model
271 model 
model was 
was 8.67 
8.67 2N/mm
N/mm2  with 
2
with a 
a difference 
difference of 
of 6% 
6% compared 
compared with 
with that 
that recorded 
recorded from 
was 8.67 N/mm with a difference of 6% compared with that recorded from experimental results.
from experimental 
experimental 
272
272 results. 
results. 

(a) 
(a)  (b) 
(b) 

(c)
(c)
273
273 Figure 15. Compression prism F.E. results: (a) Principal stresses; (b) Strains; (c) Von  Mises stresses.
Figure 15. Compression prism F.E. results: (a) Principal stresses; (b) Strains; (c) Von Mises stresses.  
Figure 15. Compression prism F.E. results: (a) Principal stresses; (b) Strains; (c) Von Mises stresses.

274
274 Figure 16 shows the numerical results for the two shear models. Figure 16a presents the von 
Figure 16 shows the numerical results for the two shear models. Figure 16a presents the von 
275
275 Mises Figure
Mises  and  16 shows the
and principal 
principal  numerical
stresses 
stresses and  results for 
and strains 
strains for
for the twoprism 
shear 
shear  shear with 
prism  models.
0.1 Figure
with 0.1  N/mm16a
N/mm presents
22  axial 
  axial  the von
constant 
constant  Mises
stress. 
stress. In 
In 
2 axial constant stress. In addition,
276
276 and principal
addition, 
addition, the  stresses
the load  and strains
load displacement  for
displacement curve  shear
curve was prism with
was obtained  0.1
obtained and  N/mm
and compared 
compared with 
with the  the experimental 
experimental one. 
one. 
277
277 the load displacement curve was obtained and compared with the experimental one. Furthermore,
Furthermore, Figure 16b describes the same output with different axial constant stress of 0.3 N/mm
Furthermore, Figure 16b describes the same output with different axial constant stress of 0.3 N/mm 22. 
. 
2 . Displacement
278
278 Figure 16b describes the same output with different axial constant
Displacement for model (b) (with an axial constant stress of 0.3 N/mm stress of 0.3 N/mm
Displacement for model (b) (with an axial constant stress of 0.3 N/mm ))is much higher than model 
22     is much higher than model 
279
279 for
(a) (with an axial constant stress of 0.1 N/mm
(a) (with an axial constant stress of 0.1 N/mm 0.3 N/mm2 ) is much higher than model (a) (with an
model (b) (with an axial constant stress of22), which is mainly due to increasing the constant axial 
), which is mainly due to increasing the constant axial 
2
280
280 axial constant
stress. 
stress.    stress of 0.1 N/mm ), which is mainly due to increasing the constant axial stress.

Figure 16. Cont.

 Appl. Sci. 2016, 6, 245 12 of 14
Appl. Sci. 2016, 6, 245  12 of 14 

(a)

 
(b)
281 Figure 16. Shear prisms; load displacement curves, principal, and von Mises stress and strain contours: 
Figure 16. Shear prisms; load displacement curves, principal, and von Mises stress and strain contours:
282 (a) Model with precompression stress 0.1 N/mm
(a) (b) Model with precompression stress 0.3 N/mm2 .. 
Model with precompression stress 0.1 N/mm2 ; ; (b) Model with precompression stress 0.3 N/mm
2 2

283 The maximum horizontal loads obtained numerically for the two models were 94.4 kN and 119.9 
The maximum horizontal loads obtained numerically for the two models were 94.4 kN and
284 kN for model (a) (with an axial constant stress of 0.1 N/mm2) and model (b) (with an axial constant 
119.9 kN for model (a) (with an axial constant stress of 0.1 N/mm2 ) and model (b) (with an axial
285 stress  of  0.3  N/mm2),  respectively.  Moreover,  the  horizontal  displacement  corresponding  to  the 
constant stress of 0.3 N/mm2 ), respectively. Moreover, the horizontal displacement corresponding
286 maximum horizontal loads was 0.074 mm and 0.13 mm, respectively. These results show a difference 
to the maximum horizontal loads was 0.074 mm and 0.13 mm, respectively. These results show
287 not more than 10% compared with the experimental one. The stepped shape for the experimental 
a difference not more than 10% compared with the experimental one. The stepped shape for the
288 load‐displacement curves took place due to the fact that the load was manually applied with force 
experimental load-displacement curves took place due to the fact that the load was manually applied
289 control. Furthermore, Figure 16 shows the maximum von Mises stress that occurred at the location 
with force control. Furthermore, Figure 16 shows the maximum von Mises stress that occurred at the
290 of applying the shear loading. The maximum strain is located in the horizontal joints for both models 
location of applying the shear loading. The maximum strain is located in the horizontal joints for both
291 which  agreed  with  the  experimental  results  as  shown  in  Figure  8.  The  amount  of  the  horizontal 
models which agreed with the experimental results as shown in Figure 8. The amount of the horizontal
292 displacement  (slip)  at  the  location  of  bed  joint  is  relatively  small,  indicating  a  high  degree  of 
displacement (slip) at the location of bed joint is relatively small, indicating a high degree of brittleness
293 brittleness for the materials. Failure modes and load‐displacement curves for the numerical models 
for the materials. Failure modes and load-displacement curves for the numerical models showed good
294 showed good agreement with the experimental results. 
agreement with the experimental results.
295 4. Conclusions   
4. Conclusions
296 This paper presents an experimental and analytical study for masonry assemblages which were 
This paper presents an experimental and analytical study for masonry assemblages which were
297 built from a new type of self‐insulating concrete masonry unit (SCMU), and subjected to compression 
built from a new type of self-insulating concrete masonry unit (SCMU), and subjected to compression
298 and  shear  loadings.  Based  on  the  results  from  experimental  and  numerical  analysis,  it  can  be 
and shear loadings. Based on the results from experimental and numerical analysis, it can be
299 concluded that: 
concluded that:
300 (1) The special configuration of SCMUs has advantages in both structural and thermal properties. 
301 The structural advantage is providing stronger bonds than the ordinary concrete masonry units by 
Appl. Sci. 2016, 6, 245 13 of 14

(1) The special configuration of SCMUs has advantages in both structural and thermal properties.
The structural advantage is providing stronger bonds than the ordinary concrete masonry units by
facilitating the grout between the units, both vertically and horizontally. On the other hand, the thermal
advantage is reducing the thermal bridges by using continuous insulation materials.
(2) The shear resistance of SCMUs’ assemblages increased as the level of precompression
increased. The shear stress increased from approximately 0.61 N/mm2 to 0.74 N/mm2 as the
precompression stress increased from 0.1 N/mm2 to 0.3 N/mm2 . A similar trend was obtained
from the numerical analysis.
(3) Using a simplified micro-modeling strategy for grouted masonry assemblages gave accurate
results with a simple model procedure. Furthermore, the mortar joints were modeled with
zero thickness and their behavior was simulated using the traction–separation model of the
cohesive element.
(4) The applications of Mohr–Coulomb’s failure criterion and the compressive strength of masonry
prism in the traction–separation model displayed an acceptable procedure to deduce the general
behavior of grouted masonry assemblages. An average cohesive stress of 0.54 N/mm2 and friction
angle of 33.7◦ for SCMUs’ prism were obtained from a linear regression model (R2 = 0.99).
(5) The crack patterns observed experimentally were in good agreement with those predicted by
the F.E. models. Also, excellent correlations between the numerical and experimental results of failure
loads, displacement, and stress distribution were recorded. The predicted values of failure load and
stress presented not more than 10% error.

Acknowledgments: This research was conducted with the financial support of the National “Twelfth Five-Year”
Research Project in the National Science & Technology Pillar Program (Grant No. 2015BAL03B02).
Author Contributions: Abu-Bakre Abdelmoneim Elamin Mohamad wrote the manuscript; Abu-Bakre
Abdelmoneim Elamin Mohamad and Zhongfan Chen designed the experiments. Abu-Bakre Abdelmoneim
Elamin Mohamad and Zhongfan Chen modified the final paper.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Ghrab-Morcos, N. CHEOPS: A simplified tool for thermal assessment of Mediterranean residential buildings
in hot and cold seasons. Energy Build. 2005, 37, 651–662. [CrossRef]
2. Mohsen, M.S.; Akash, B.A. Some prospects of energy savings in buildings. Energy Convers. Manage. 2001, 42,
1307–1315. [CrossRef]
3. Al-Homoud, M.S. Performance characteristics and practical applications of common building thermal
insulation materials. Build. Environ. 2005, 40, 353–366. [CrossRef]
4. Ansari, F.A.; Mokhtar, A.S.; Abbas, K.A.; Adam, N.M. A simple approach for building cooling load estimation.
Am. J. Environ. Sci. 2005, 1, 209–212. [CrossRef]
5. Al-Khawaja, M.J. Determination and selecting the optimum thickness of insulation for buildings in hot
countries by accounting for solar radiation. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2004, 24, 2601–2610. [CrossRef]
6. Yu, J.; Yang, C.; Tian, L.; Liao, D. A study on optimum insulation thicknesses of external walls in hot summer
and cold winter zone of China. Appl. Energy 2009, 86, 2520–2529. [CrossRef]
7. Demirel, B. Optimization of the composite brick composed of expanded polystyrene and pumice blocks.
Constr. Build. Mater. 2013, 40, 306–313. [CrossRef]
8. Ding, X.Y.; Luo, Y.-L.; Chen, Z.-F.; Xu, M. Self-insulation concrete block design and optimized design based
on thermal and mechanical properties in severe cold zones. Adv. Mater. Res. 2014, 1051, 730–736. [CrossRef]
9. Javidan, F. Shape optimization of hollow concrete blocks using the lattice discrete particle model. Iranica J.
Energy Environ. 2013, 4, 243–250. [CrossRef]
10. Xunrong, G. An optimization design research of self-heat preservation concrete hollow block for cold region
of north-east China. Master’s Thesis, Southeast University, Nanjing, China, June 2013.
11. Del Coz Diaz, J.J.; García Nieto, P.J.; Rodriguez, A.M.; Martinez-Luengas, A.L.; Biempica, C.B. Non-linear
thermal analysis of light concrete hollow brick walls by the finite element method and experimental
validation. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2006, 26, 777–786. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2016, 6, 245 14 of 14

12. Al-Jabri, K.S.; Hago, A.W.; Al-Nuaimi, A.S.; Al-Saidy, A.H. Concrete blocks for thermal insulation in hot
climate. Cem. Concr. Res. 2005, 35, 1472–1479. [CrossRef]
13. Christine, B. Masonry Design and Detailing: For Architects And Contractors; McGraw-Hill eBooks: New York,
NK, USA, 2004.
14. Marques, R.; Lourenço, P.B. Unreinforced and confined masonry buildings in seismic regions: Validation of
macro-element models and cost analysis. Eng. Struct. 2014, 64, 52–67. [CrossRef]
15. ASTM. Sampling and Testing Concrete Masonry Units and Related Units C140/C140M-15aε1 ; ASTM International:
West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2016.
16. ASTM. Loadbearing Concrete Masonry Units C90-16; ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2016.
17. Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of China. Code for design of
masonry structures GB50003-2011; China Architecture Building Press: Beijing, China, 2011.
18. Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of China. The masonry mortar
mix design procedure JGJ/T98-2011; China Architecture Building Press: Beijing, China, 2011.
19. Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of China. Ordinary concrete
mechanical performance test method GBJ50081-2002; China Architecture Building Press: Beijing, China, 2002.
20. Fortes, E.S.; Parsekian, G.A.; Fonseca, F.S. Relationship between the compressive strength of concrete
masonry and the compressive strength of concrete masonry units. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2014, 27. [CrossRef]
21. Gabor, A.; Ferrier, E.; Jacquelin, E.; Hamelin, P. Analysis and modelling of the in-plane shear behaviour of
hollow brick masonry panels. Constr. Build. Mater. 2006, 20, 308–321. [CrossRef]
22. British Standard. Methods of test for masonry-Part 3: Determination of initial shear strength BS EN 1052-3: 2002;
European Committee for Standardization: Brussels, Belgium, 2002.
23. Lourenco, P.B. Computational strategies for masonry structures; Delft Univirisy press: Delft, Netherlands, 1996.
24. Marques, R.; Lourenço, P.B. Possibilities and comparison of structural component models for the seismic
assessment of modern unreinforced masonry buildings. Comput. Struct. 2011, 89, 2079–2091. [CrossRef]
25. Berto, L.; Saetta, A.; Scotta, R.; Vitaliani, R. Shear behaviour of masonry panel: Parametric FE analyses.
Inter. J. Solids Struct. 2004, 41, 4383–4405. [CrossRef]
26. La Mendola, L.; Accardi, M.; Cucchiara, C.; Licata, V. Nonlinear FE analysis of out-of-plane behaviour of
masonry walls with and without CFRP reinforcement. Constr. Build. Mater. 2014, 54, 190–196. [CrossRef]
27. Milani, G. 3D upper bound limit analysis of multi-leaf masonry walls. Inter.J. Mech. Sci. 2008, 50, 817–836.
[CrossRef]
28. Koutromanos, I.; Stavridis, A.; Shing, P.B.; Willam, K. Numerical modeling of masonry-infilled RC frames
subjected to seismic loads. Comput. Struct. 2011, 89, 1026–1037. [CrossRef]
29. Dassault Systems. Abaqus analysis user’s manual 6.13-3. RI2013; Dassault Systems Providence: Waltham, MA,
USA, 2013.
30. Lubliner, J.; Oliver, J.; Oller, S.; Onate, E. A plastic-damage model for concrete. Inter. J. Solids Struct. 1989, 25,
299–326. [CrossRef]
31. Lee, J.; Fenves, G.L. Plastic-damage model for cyclic loading of concrete structures. J. Eng. Mech. 1998, 124,
892–900. [CrossRef]
32. Dugdale, D.S. Yielding of steel sheets containing slits. Mech. Phys. Solids 1960, 8, 100–104. [CrossRef]
33. Bolhassani, M.; Hamid, A.A.; Lau, A.C.; Moon, F. Simplified micro modeling of partially grouted masonry
assemblages. Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 83, 159–173. [CrossRef]
34. Sinha, B.P.; Gerstle, K.H.; Tulin, L.G. Stress-strain relations for concrete under cyclic loading. J. Am. Concr. Ins.
1964, 61, 195–211.

© 2016 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).