Eindhoven University of Technology

MASTER

Experimental and numerical simulations of various unreinforced masonry walls with

openings under in-plane static cyclic loading conditions

Scheen, M.M.

Award date:
2016

Disclaimer
This document contains a student thesis (bachelor's or master's), as authored by a student at Eindhoven University of Technology. Student
theses are made available in the TU/e repository upon obtaining the required degree. The grade received is not published on the document
as presented in the repository. The required complexity or quality of research of student theses may vary by program, and the required
minimum study period may vary in duration.

General rights
Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners
and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.

• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research.
• You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain

Take down policy

If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately
and investigate your claim.

Download date: 22. feb. 2018

 EXPERIMENTAL AND NUMERICAL
SIMULATIONS OF VARIOUS
UNREINFORCED MASONRY WALLS WITH
OPENINGS UNDER IN-PLANE STATIC
CYCLIC LOADING CONDITIONS

Thesis

M.M. Scheen

Eindhoven University of Technology

Department of the Built Environment
Architecture Building and Planning
Structural Design
 Department of the Built Environment
Unit Structural Design

“Experimental and numerical simulations of various unreinforced

masonry walls with openings under in-plane
static cyclic loading conditions”

Author

Matthёus Machiel Scheen

0874245

Graduation commission

prof. ir.-arch D.R.W. Martens

dr. ir. A.T. Vermeltfoort
ir. Ӧ. S. Türkmen

Document number

A-2016.154

Academic year: 2015-2016

Master of Science

M.M. Scheen ii
Preface
Before you lies the Master of Science thesis of “Experimental and numerical simulations of various
unreinforced masonry walls with openings under in-plane static cyclic loading conditions”. This thesis is
performed at Eindhoven University of Technology for the completion of the master Architecture
Building and Planning.

The goal of this thesis is to create insight in the behaviour of unreinforced masonry walls with openings
subjected to a horizontal in-plane load using numerical simulations with the software TNO DIANA v9.6.
The process of the thesis started in September 2015 and was completed in August 2016. Numerical
modelling of unreinforced masonry is considered to be comprehensive due to the many variables
describing the behaviour of masonry. Therefore it was a great challenge to explore this unknown field of
masonry constructions.

Nowadays earthquakes occur in the province of Groningen because of gas extraction. In Groningen, as
of the rest of the Netherlands, the buildings are mainly built with masonry. Because of the earthquakes
these masonry buildings develop cracks. When gas extraction is stopped the primary settlement stops.
However, the secondary settlement continues over a period of time. Stopping the gas extraction will
also cause a big discussion from an economical point of view. With my research I hope to create more
insight in the behaviour of URM under an earthquake load, which will lead to effective retrofitting of
masonry building.

The work was performed under the direct guidance of dr. ir. A.T. Vermeltfoort and the supervision of
prof. ir.-arch D.R.W. Martens. I would like to express my deep gratitude to dr. ir. A.T. Vermeltfoort. I am
grateful for his time, his answers and his advice. The supervision of prof. ir.-arch D.R.W. Martens during
the intermediate presentations was always pleasant and helpful in creating the thesis. An important
aspect in this thesis is the experimental research conducted by QuakeShield. Therefore, I would like to
thank the employees of QuakeShield and mainly my 3rd supervisor ir. Ӧ. S. Türkmen. With the software
of TNO DIANA v9.6 the finite element calculations were conducted. I am grateful to the employees of
TNO DIANA. Not only did they provide me the software but they were always willing to help me with
any questions and difficulties.

Machiel Scheen
Eindhoven, August 2016

M.M. Scheen iii

Abstract
Induced earthquakes, caused by gas extractions, develop cracks in the buildings in the Groningen area.
The in-plane and out-of-plane load bearing capacity of an unreinforced masonry (URM) wall needs to be
able to withstand forces originating from an earthquake. This thesis will consider the in-plane capacity
of URM walls. URM walls subjected to an in-plane horizontal load have four characteristic failure modes:
rocking, sliding, diagonal tensioning and toe crushing. Rocking and sliding are preferred due to the high
degree of ductility. Variables (e.g. bond pattern and vertical pre-stress) of the URM walls determine
which type of failure mode occurs. This thesis describes, with a numerical research in TNO DIANA v9.6,
the influence of the vertical pre-stress and the bond pattern of an URM wall subjected to an in-plane
horizontal load. Experimental research by QuakeShield in Grijpskerk was performed and used to verify
the numerical research. Subsequently, a sensitivity analysis was performed based on the verified
numerical research in order to determine the influence of the vertical pre-stress and the bond pattern
on the occurring type of failure mode.

Three experimental samples of an URM wall with dimensions of 2500x4000x100 mm³ were subjected to
an in-plane horizontal load. The openings in the URM wall were different for every sample and are
characteristic for the houses in the Groningen area. Two vertical actuators provided a vertical pre-stress
of 0.6 N/mm² on the sample and a horizontal actuator was used for an increasing horizontal load. One
sample was subjected to an in-plane monotonic load and two samples to an in-plane static cyclic load.
The model with a low pier aspect ratio (h/l) was failing due to shear while the model with a high pier
aspect ratio failed due to bending. The material properties of the masonry used in the numerical
research were experimentally determined. Four compression tests, nine triplet tests and five four point
bending test were performed in the Pieter van Musschenbroek Laboratory of Eindhoven University of
Technology. In order to simulate the behaviour of masonry accurately (especially the post peak
behaviour) several values obtained by van der Pluijm (1999) and Lourenço (1996) were used. They are
assumed to be characteristic for masonry in the Groningen area.

With the micro modelling technique described by Lourenço (1996) a numerical model was created in
TNO DIANA v9.6. The verification of the numerical model was based on experimental results of the
sample subjected to monotonic loading. The conditions of the material properties, modelling techniques
and solving procedures were similar for every simulation in the sensitivity analysis. The vertical pre-
stress had a significant influence on the load bearing capacity of the URM wall. With a higher vertical
pre-stress a higher load bearing capacity was achieved. However, a higher vertical pre-stress also led to
a stiffer construction which failed due to shear. A reduced vertical pre-stress led to more ductile
behaviour and the URM wall failed due to bending. However, the influence of the bond pattern was
negligible. The results indicated that the load bearing capacity and the failing modes were similar for
both the 1/2 running bond pattern (i.e. stretcher bond pattern) and the 1/3 running bond pattern (i.e.
raking stretcher bond pattern).

M.M. Scheen iv
Table of contents
List of figures vii

List of tables x

List of symbols xi

1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background ...................................................................................................................1
1.2 Research goal ...............................................................................................................2
1.3 Thesis guide ..................................................................................................................3

Part I: Literature study

2. Regulation background ....................................................................................................... 6

2.1 Tectonic and induced earthquakes ..............................................................................6
2.2 Peak ground acceleration .............................................................................................7
2.3 Calculation methods .....................................................................................................8

3. Predictive research ............................................................................................................11

4. Properties of unreinforced masonry ...................................................................................13

4.1 Mann und Müller failure criterion............................................................................. 13
4.2 Mechanical properties of masonry ........................................................................... 15
4.3 Fracture modes.......................................................................................................... 18

5. Experimental research .......................................................................................................20

5.1 Performed research ................................................................................................... 20
5.2 Experimental determination of the properties of masonry ...................................... 21

6. Numerical research ............................................................................................................25

6.1 Nonlinear Finite Element Method ............................................................................. 25
6.2 Modelling masonry .................................................................................................... 27
6.3 Examples.................................................................................................................... 34

7. TNO DIANA ........................................................................................................................37

7.1 Simulating masonry with TNO DIANA ....................................................................... 37
7.2 Phased Analysis ......................................................................................................... 38

M.M. Scheen v
 Part II: Experimental research

8. Experimental research .......................................................................................................41

8.1 In-plane loading of URM walls................................................................................... 43
8.2 Test Samples .............................................................................................................. 45

Part III: Numerical research

9. Numerical research ............................................................................................................50

9.1 Modelling techniques ................................................................................................ 50
9.2 Drafting a model of QuakeShield .............................................................................. 59
9.3 Monotonic load on Model I ....................................................................................... 63
9.4 Cyclic load on Model II .............................................................................................. 65
9.5 Cyclic load on Model III ............................................................................................. 68

Part IV: Sensitivity analysis

10. Sensitivity analysis .............................................................................................................71

10.1 Variables ................................................................................................................... 71
10.2 Model I ..................................................................................................................... 73
10.3 Model II .................................................................................................................... 75
10.4 Model III ................................................................................................................... 77
10.5 Overview .................................................................................................................. 79

11. Conclusion and recommendations ......................................................................................83

11.1 Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 83
11.2 Recommendations for future research .................................................................... 84

12. Reference ..........................................................................................................................86

Appendix A: Dimensions of the models ...................................................................................... 89

Appendix B: TNO DIANA v9.6 input file ...................................................................................... 94
Appendix C: Solution techniques: Static cyclic load .................................................................... 96
Appendix D: Solution techniques: Monotonic load .................................................................. 104

M.M. Scheen vi
List of figures
1.1: Map of natural gas concessions in the Netherlands .........................................................................1

2.1: Definition of the epicentre and the hypocentre ...............................................................................6

2.2: Magnitude of the PGA .......................................................................................................................7
2.3: Elastic and design response spectra Se and Sd .................................................................................8
2.4: Earthquake signal of 16-08-2012 in Huizinge ................................................................................. 10

3.1: Registered eathquake between 1995 and 2013 ............................................................................ 11

3.2: Prognoses of the damaged buildings according to the building material...................................... 12
3.3: Force acting on an URM wall.......................................................................................................... 12

4.1: Mann und Müller failure criteria of masonry ................................................................................. 13

4.2: Derivation of the Mann und Müller model .................................................................................... 14
4.3: Schematic diagram of a deformation controlled tensile test ........................................................ 15
4.4: Force deformation diagram of masonry under compression ........................................................ 16
4.5: Schematic diagram of deformation controlled shear test under a constant normal force ........... 17
4.6: Diagram of shear tests with three different normal stresses ........................................................ 18
4.7: Fracture modes .............................................................................................................................. 18
4.8: Definition of friction and dilatancy angles ..................................................................................... 19

5.1: Different failure modes .................................................................................................................. 20

5.2: Shear strength as a function of axial stress and failure modes...................................................... 21
5.3: Test setup used by R. van der Pluijm ............................................................................................. 21
5.4: Location of LVDT's used to control the increase of deformation during the test .......................... 22
5.5: Four point bending test .................................................................................................................. 22
5.6: Scheme of the measurement position on a five-brick bonded specimen ..................................... 23
5.7: TNO shear arrangement ................................................................................................................. 24
5.8: Schematic view of a test arrangement........................................................................................... 24

6.1: Example of a force displacement relationship used in a Newton Raphson method ..................... 26
6.2: Visualization of "Snap-through" and "Snap-back" behaviour ........................................................ 26
6.3: An arc-length method example ...................................................................................................... 27
6.4: Modelling strategies ....................................................................................................................... 27
6.5: Masonry failure mechanisms ......................................................................................................... 29
6.6: Model for interfaces, the interface cap model .............................................................................. 30
6.7: Tensile behaviour of the discrete crack interface .......................................................................... 30
6.8: Secant and Elastic (a) and cyclic behaviour according to Hordijk (1991) ....................................... 31
6.9: Detailed explanation of the theory of Hordijk (1991) .................................................................... 32
6.10: Adopted hypothesis for cyclic behaviour ..................................................................................... 33
6.11: Schematic hardening laws ............................................................................................................ 34
6.12: Schematic hardening laws ............................................................................................................ 34
6.13: Loads for TU Eindhoven shear walls............................................................................................. 35
6.14: Force displacement diagram of TU Eindhoven shear walls ......................................................... 36

M.M. Scheen vii

7.1: Modelling masonry......................................................................................................................... 37

8.1: Experimental research of model I .................................................................................................. 41

8.2: Experimental research of model II ................................................................................................. 42
8.3: Experimental research of model III ................................................................................................ 42
8.4: Force displacement diagram of model I ......................................................................................... 43
8.5: Hysteresis of model II ..................................................................................................................... 43
8.6: Hysteresis of model III .................................................................................................................... 44
8.7: Backbone curve of model II ............................................................................................................ 45
8.8: Backbone curve of model III ........................................................................................................... 45
8.9: Impression of the test set up and linear regression....................................................................... 47
8.10: Experimental set-up for the four point bending test ................................................................... 48

9.1: Explanation of the automatically generated line interfaces ………….…………………………………..…50

9.2: Modelling steps .............................................................................................................................. 51
9.3: "Fake" thickness model technique ................................................................................................. 51
9.4: Rigid Link ........................................................................................................................................ 53
9.5: Crack pattern of the reference model with a horizontal top load ................................................ 53
9.6: Force displacement diagram .......................................................................................................... 53
9.7: Numerical model with no constraints at the top ........................................................................... 54
9.8: Force displacement diagram .......................................................................................................... 54
9.9: Reference model with concentrated load...................................................................................... 55
9.10: Vertical pre-stress (N/mm²) at load step 1 .................................................................................. 56
9.11: Vertical pre-stress (N/mm²) at load step 0.1 ............................................................................... 56
9.12: Force displacement diagram with different vertical pre-stress ................................................... 57
9.13: Load step diagram for a static cyclic load .................................................................................... 57
9.14: Hysteresis of the horizontal static cyclic load of the reference model with a vertical .....................
pre-stress of 0.3 MPa ............................................................................................................................ 58
9.15: Numerical Model I ........................................................................................................................ 59
9.16: Force displacement diagram first verification.............................................................................. 61
9.17: Principle of the steel beam used in experimental research ......................................................... 61
9.18: Horizontal displacement (mm) of the model ............................................................................... 62
9.19: Vertical stress (N/mm²) at the beginning of the simulation ........................................................ 62
9.20: Verified force displacement diagram of model I .......................................................................... 63
9.21: Model I loaded with a horizontal top displacement of 8.6 mm ................................................... 63
9.22: Crack location with a horizontal top displacement of 2.2 mm .................................................... 64
9.23: Crack location with a horizontal top displacement of 5.6 mm .................................................... 64
9.24: Crack location with a horizontal top displacement of 8.6 mm .................................................... 65
9.25: Numerical Model II ....................................................................................................................... 65
9.26: Force displacement diagram with the unloading type secant and elastic .................................. 66
9.27: Backbone curves of model II ........................................................................................................ 67
9.28: Loadstep 347 on model II -4.25mm ............................................................................................ 67
9.29: First crack appearance of model II ............................................................................................... 67
9.30: Numerical Model III ...................................................................................................................... 68
9.31: Backbone curves of model III ....................................................................................................... 69

10.1: Variable bond pattern, 1/2 running bond pattern and 1/3 running bond pattern...................... 72

M.M. Scheen viii

10.2: Force displacement diagram of model I with a 1/2 running bond pattern with variable.................
vertical pre-stress .................................................................................................................................. 73
10.3: Model I with a vertical pre-stress of 0.099 MPa and a displacement of ux= 9.95 mm ................ 73
10.4: Model I with a vertical pre-stress of 1.2 MPa and a displacement of ux = 5.68 mm ................... 74
10.5: Force displacement diagram of the 1/2 and 1/3 running bond pattern ...................................... 74
10.6: Variable bond patterns of Model II .............................................................................................. 75
10.7: Force displacement diagram of model II ...................................................................................... 75
10.8: Model II with a vertical pre-stress of 0.099 MPa and a displacement of ux = 5.32 mm .............. 76
10.9: Model II with a vertical pre-stress of 0.6 MPa and a displacement of ux=5.4 mm ...................... 76
10.10: Force displacement diagram of the 1/2 and 1/3 running bond pattern of model II ................. 77
10.11: Variable bond patterns of model III ........................................................................................... 77
10.12: Model III with a vertical pre-stress of 0.3 MPa and a displacement of ux = 3.81 mm ............... 78
10.13: Model III with a vertical pre-stress of 1.2 MPa and a displacement of ux = 2.5 mm ................. 78
10.14: Force displacement diagram with varying vertical pre-stress of model III ................................ 79
10.15: Force displacement diagram of the 1/2 and 1/3 running bond pattern of model III ................ 79
10.16: Geometry of the models ............................................................................................................ 80
10.17: Influence of the vertical pre-stress on the models I, II and III.................................................... 80
10.18: Influence of the vertical pre-stress on the model with 1/2 running bond and..............................
the 1/3 running bond ............................................................................................................................ 81

M.M. Scheen ix
List of tables
6.1: Material properties used in the numerical model ......................................................................... 35

8.1: Results of the compression test ..................................................................................................... 46

8.2: Results of the triplet test ................................................................................................................ 47
8.3: Results of the flexural bending test................................................................................................ 48

9.1: Material properties of the reference model .................................................................................. 52

9.2: Material properties first verification .............................................................................................. 60

10.1: Variable vertical pre-stress........................................................................................................... 72

10.2: Overview of the horizontal force ................................................................................................. 80
10.3: Dominant failure modes............................................................................................................... 82

M.M. Scheen x
List of symbols
Latin symbols

a Acceleration m/s²
b Fracture energy factor [-]
Cs Shear traction contribution factor [-]
c Cohesion N/mm²
co Initial cohesion N/mm²
cr Residual cohesion N/mm²
c1 Constant [-]
c2 Constant [-]
d Thickness mm
Em Young’s modulus of the masonry N/mm²
Eb Young’s modulus of the brick N/mm²
Ej Young’s modulus joint N/mm²
Eu Young’s modulus of the unit N/mm²
Fs Shear force N
Fb Seismic shear force at the base N
Fi Seismic shear force at storey I N
ftb Tensile strength of the brick N
fcb Compression strength of the brick N/mm²
ftj Tensile strength of the joint N
fcj Compression strength of the joint N/mm²
ft Tensile strength N/mm²
fm Compression strength of the masonry N/mm²
Gj Shear modulus of the joint N/mm²
Gu Shear modulus of the unit N/mm²
GfI Energy fracture mode I N/mm
GfII Energy fracture mode II N/mm
Gfc Compressive fracture energy N/mm
g Gravity acceleration m/s²
H Height mm
hj Height of the joint mm
hst Height of the brick mm
kn Normal stiffness modulus N/mm³
ks Shear stiffness modulus N/mm³
kp Peak Equivalent plastic relative displacement mm
lst Length of the brick mm
M Moment Nmm
mi Mass at floor i kg
mj Mass at floor j, including floor i kg
Sd(T) Design response spectrum -
Se(T) Elastic response spectrum
si Displacement of mass mi mm
si Displacement of mass mj , including mass mi mm

M.M. Scheen xi
T1 First oscillation time Hz
tj Thickness of the joint mm
tb Thickness of the brick mm
ux Displacement in direction x mm
w Crack width mm
wc Theoretical crack width mm
q Behaviour factor [-]

[K] Stiffness matrix

[R] Variable stiffness matrix
[d] Displacement of the node
[F] External force on the node

Greek symbols

ɤm Young’s modulus ratio [-]

ɤmasonry Self weight of the masonry kg/m³
ɤt Thickness ratio [-]
δ Exponential degradation factor [-]
ε Strain [-]
Φ Residual friction coefficient [-]
φ0 Internal friction angle [Deg]
φr Residual friction angle [Deg]
λ Correction factor [-]
μ Friction coefficient [-]
ν Poisson factor [-]
νpl Plastic shear displacement mm
σ Normal stress N/mm²
σu Confining normal stress N/mm²
σx Normal stress in direction x N/mm²
σy Normal stress in direction y N/mm²
τ Shear stress N/mm²
τst Shear stress of the brick N/mm²
τu Ultimate shear stress N/mm²
τfr Fracture shear stress N/mm²
ϕ Eigen mode Hz
ψ Dilatancy angle [Deg]

Explanation of abbreviations

ASCE American society of engineers

BC Boundary condition
C Compression
CSC Crack Shear Crush
CUR Civieltechnische Centrum Uitvoering Research
DIANA Displacement analyser
DS Damage state

M.M. Scheen xii

E Elastic
ENCI Eerste Nederlandse Cement Industrie
e.g. exempli gratiã
FEM Finite element method
GNL Geometric nonlinearity
i.e. id est
KNMI Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute
LVDT Linear variable differential transducer
MC Metselcement
NEN Nederlandse norm
PGA Peak ground acceleration
R² Coefficient of determination
RHS Rectangle hollow section
RSA Response spectrum analysis
T Tension
TNO Nederlandse organisatie voor toegepast-natuurwetenschappelijk onderzoek
URM Unreinforced masonry

M.M. Scheen xiii

Chapter 1

Introduction
Buildings in the province of Groningen are being damaged due to induced earthquakes and are a
current issue in the Netherlands. Most of the buildings in the province of Groningen consist of
unreinforced masonry (URM). URM is one of the oldest building material. When engineers used
masonry to construct a building, the construction was built by the experience of the engineer. When
a building was created the engineer estimated a certain wall thickness. When the building collapsed
(e.g. due to an earthquake) the engineer would rebuild the structure but with an enlarged thickness.
After a certain period the wall thickness had the perfect dimension to withstand the forces of
earthquakes. There were no earthquakes in the Groningen area but the buildings had to be resistant
against a different problem: damp. Therefore the engineers in the Groningen had to develop a
construction which was perfect for the resistance of damp. The cavity construction was developed
and consisted of an inner wall, a cavity and an outer wall. When in 1986 the first earthquake was
measured in the city of Assen the Dutch engineers were afraid that the cavity construction would not
be suitable to withstand the forces of an earthquake, because the slender construction of the cavity
wall is not developed to resist earthquakes.

1.1 Background

In 1943 the Royal Dutch Shell discovered an oil field in the area of Schoonebeek in the province of
Drenthe. In cooperation with Esso the Royal Dutch Shell decided to establish an organisation which
will concern with the exploration and production of oil in the Netherlands. On 19 September 1947
the NAM (Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij) was founded. In 1948 the NAM discovered its first
natural gas field in area of Coevorden. Natural gas was however not a primary energy source used in
the Netherlands. After ten years the NAM discovered a gas field of approximately 2800 billion square
meter which was the largest gas field in West-Europe. The discovery was a turning point for, not only
the Dutch economy, but also for the NAM. The main energy exploration of the NAM changed from oil
to natural gas. Since 1959 the NAM is producing natural gas for the Dutch industry and it is, until
now, the most beneficial energy source in the Netherlands.

Figure 1.1: Map of natural gas concessions in the Netherlands (http://www-static.shell.com)

M.M. Scheen 1
The inhabitants of the province of Groningen believed that the extraction of natural gas would
eventually leads to earthquakes. This was actually the case and was long ignored because the
magnitude of the earthquakes were imperceptible. The first observed earthquake was on 26
December 1986 in the city of Assen. After the first earthquakes the NAM did not recognize it was due
to the gas winning. However in 1993, 7 years later, the NAM discovered that the earthquakes were
developed due to the gas extraction.

No action was taken when the first earthquakes occurred but this changed when the earthquakes
became more frequent. On 16 August 2012 an earthquake arose in the city of Huizinge, with a
magnitude of 3.6 on the Richter scale, which led to a reduction in gas extraction. The earthquakes
caused damage to buildings in Groningen and the NAM was facing claims of the inhabitants.
Therefore, the NAM started to investigate the forces and the behaviour of buildings subjected to an
earthquake.

Seismic forces on a building due to earthquakes are relatively unknown in the Netherlands. Therefore
it is difficult for engineers in the Netherlands to estimate and understand the behaviour of a building
subjected to an earthquake. Masonry is the most applied construction material used for buildings in
the province of Groningen. The behaviour of masonry under a seismic load is however not
adequately studied.

1.2 Research goal

The research goal of this thesis is to create insight in the behaviour of an in-plane loaded URM wall.
With a numerical model different variables (i.e. vertical pre-stress and bond pattern) are analysed on
an URM wall subjected with an in-plane monotonic load. Numerical modelling of masonry is
relatively difficult to perform due to the many variables that are involved in masonry. Mann und
Müller (1977) created an analytical model which describes all the types of failure modes of masonry.
However, this is not correctly implicated to the finite element method. The most accurate method
that describes the behaviour of masonry with the finite element method is the theory developed by
Lourenço (1996). However, the theory of Lourenço (1996) is inaccurate in describing a cyclic load.

It is important to understand the behaviour of the failure mechanisms of an URM wall under in-plane
loading. Parameters (i.e. bond pattern and vertical pre-stress) affect the type of failure mechanism of
the URM wall, Foraboschi (2008). Therefore the main research question of this thesis reads:

What is the influence of the static vertical pre-stress and the bond pattern on the failure
mechanisms for static in-plane loaded URM walls with openings?

The process to find the answer of this research question is divided into three phases:

- Perform experimental research on three URM walls with openings subjected to an in-plane
static cyclic load.
- Create a numerical model that will be verified by the previous experimental research.
- Perform a sensitivity analysis on the numerical model with changing variables (i.e. vertical
pre-stress and bond pattern).

M.M. Scheen 2
1.3 Thesis guide

The thesis is divided into four parts namely: literature study, experimental research, numerical
research and a sensitivity analysis. The literature study is performed to create insight and gain
knowledge of the current researches in the field of unreinforced masonry, experimental research and
numerical modelling. The numerical research is the main part of this thesis and is used to create a
verified numerical model of an URM wall. In the sensitivity analysis certain variables are adapted to
create insight in the behaviour of URM.

1.3.1 Literature study

URM is a relatively difficult building material to simulate with the use of the finite element method.
The great number of influencing factors, such as dimension and anisotropy of the bricks, joint width
and arrangement of the bed and head joints, material properties of both brick and mortar, and
quality of the workmanship, make the simulation of masonry extremely difficult. Therefore literature
study is needed to accurate determine and argue the variables which are needed to create numerical
simulations of URM. A short summary of the calculation methods for determining the forces of an
earthquake according to the NPR 9998 (2015) is explained in chapter 2. The influence of the ductility
(q-factor) of the structure is explained based on the NPR 9998 (2015).

Modelling masonry with the finite element method is relatively unknown. Therefore a research is
performed on different modelling techniques. Modelling of URM, cyclic load and a general
explanation of the finite element method is described in chapter 6. Numerical modelling is
performed with the software TNO DIANA v9.6. The software TNO DIANA v9.6 is however relatively
unknown at Eindhoven University of Technology. A brief explanation and description of the software
TNO DIANA v9.6 is described in chapter 7.

1.3.2 Experimental research

The second part in the thesis describes the experimental research performed by QuakeShield in
Grijpskerk. Two URM walls were subjected to an in-plane static cyclic load and one URM wall with an
in-plane monotonic load. The corresponding force displacement diagrams are analysed and displayed
in chapter 8. To determine the variables of the masonry used in the experimental research a
determination of the material properties is needed. Therefore certain experimental test are
performed and the results are analysed in chapter 8.

1.3.3 Numerical research

Numerical simulations of URM walls are relatively difficult to verify with reality. The relatively
difficult theory of the finite element method has to simulate the behaviour of URM correctly.
Therefore it is crucial that every simulation is correct (e.g. with models from literature). Chapter 9
describes the procedure of a correct 2 dimensional numerical model. The behaviour of an URM wall
with dimensions of 900x1000 mm² is simulated to see if the results correspond with the results
achieved from literature. Step by step the (correct) numerical model will be adapted until the same
URM wall described in the experimental research is reached.

M.M. Scheen 3
1.3.4 Sensitivity analysis

With the correct model created in chapter 9 a sensitivity analysis is performed in chapter 10.
Different variables are varied and the results are analysed. The force displacement diagrams are
shown and explained. The deformation and the acting failure modes are also important. Therefore,
three result values of the simulated numerical models will be analysed and compared with each
other. The applied horizontal static load and the acting type of failure mode is shown in chapter 10.

M.M. Scheen 4
 Part I
Literature study

M.M. Scheen 5
Chapter 2

Regulation background
In the Netherlands, earthquakes are a relatively unknown phenomenon and therefore lots of
research is required. Current research has led to the development of regulations, described in the
NPR 9998 (2015), in order to estimate the forces on a building during an earthquake. This chapter
describes the determination of the earthquake load according to NPR 9998 (2015).

2.1 Tectonic and induced earthquakes

Earthquakes in Groningen are not similar as the general earthquakes appearing in the rest of the
world. The earth’s crust consist out of tectonic plates which are “floating” on the earth’s upper
mantle. Tectonic earthquakes occur along the plates boundaries were a spontaneous local energy
release appears. Induced earthquakes however are caused due to the events of human activity in the
soil. When extracting liquid, gas or solids from the earths soil the stresses changes, which leads to
settlements.

The Richter scale assigns a magnitude number to qualify the energy release of an earthquake. When
analysing the Richter scale care should be taken with the interpretation. The Richter scale is on a
base-10 logarithmic scale. An earthquake with a magnitude of 3.0 on the Richter scale has an energy
release of 2.0 gigajoule, while a magnitude of 3.5 on the Richter scale has an energy release of 11
gigajoule. Earthquakes have an epicentre and a hypocentre which refers to the origin of the
earthquake. The epicentre is located at the surface and lies above the hypocentre as shown in figure
2.1. The forces of an earthquakes arise in the hypocentre and move as a vibration under a certain
angle (depended on the type of soil) to the surface. The magnitude of the Richter scale is determined
as the energy release at the hypocentre. The energy release at the surface depends on, not only, the
Richter scale but also on the depth of the hypocentres location. The vibrations at the surface are
described as the ground peak acceleration (PGA) which can be expressed in g (the acceleration due
to earth’s gravity, 1g = 9.81 m/s²).

Figure 2.1: Definition of the epicentre and the hypocentre (www.studio-haverstraat.nl)

M.M. Scheen 6
The hypocentre of a general tectonic earthquake has a depth between 60 and 300 kilometre and for
an induced earthquake the hypocentre has a depth of 3 kilometre. Therefore, the magnitude of the
Richter scale with an induced earthquake has a larger influence on the PGA than for a general
tectonic earthquake. Therefore, in this literature report the earthquake load will be expressed in PGA
and not in the Richter scale.

2.2 Peak ground acceleration

As mentioned in the introduction the type of forces on a building due to an earthquake are relatively
unknown in the Netherlands. Tectonic earthquakes in different countries can be analysed but are not
completely similar to the induced earthquakes in Groningen. The international regulations for
earthquakes is described in NEN-EN 1998-1 Eurocode 8 (2005). However, the earthquakes in the
Groningen area are different and therefore a specialised national regulation is created. NPR 9998
(2015), describes the determination of a Groningen earthquake load on a structure. The PGA
depends on the location in the province of Groningen and can be obtained from the NPR 9998
(2015), also shown in figure 2.2.

Figure 2.2: Magnitude description of the PGA (NPR 9998, 2015)

With the PGA, acquired from NPR 9998 (2015), a response spectrum of the structure can be
determined. A response spectrum describes the resulting acceleration, expressed in gravitation
speed (g), with a specific oscillation period of the structure. The load on the structure is determined
with the use of the calculated acceleration. Figure 2.3 shows the elastic response spectrum (Se) and
the design spectrum (Sd). The design spectrum can be reduced with a q-factor, this factor takes the
ductility of the structure into account. The elastic response spectrum uses a q-factor of 1 (no
ductility). The value of the q-factor determines the applied load on the structure, the lower the q-
factor the bigger the load.

M.M. Scheen 7
Figure 2.3: Elastic and design response spectra Se and Sd, (van der Aa, 2015)

2.3 Calculation methods

This paragraph mainly refers to the information described in “Rekenmethodiek voor seismische
belasting” by P.J. van der Aa (2015) and in NPR 9998 (2015). NPR 9998 (2015) gives four calculation
methods for describing an earthquake load namely: lateral force method, model response spectrum,
pushover analysis and the time history analysis, respectively simple calculations to more extensive
calculations.

2.3.1 Lateral force method (linear static)

With relatively simple hand calculations a horizontal force distribution can be calculated with the
lateral force method. The calculation starts with the decisive natural period and the associated
displacement. The magnitude of the total horizontal force is determined according to the total mass,
the acceleration which belongs to the first oscillation time of the structure and a correction factor.
The formula can be described as [1].

Fb  S d (T1 )  m   [1]

Fb = Total horizontal force

Sd = Acceleration
T1 = Natural period or first oscillation time
m= Total mass
λ= Correction factor

The distribution of the horizontal load is determined to the decisive displacement point. The
corresponding mass is usually located at the floors of a building.

si  mi
Fi  Fb  [2]
 sj  mj

M.M. Scheen 8
Fi = Horizontal force at floor i
Fb = Total horizontal force
mi = Mass at floor i
si = Distance from the floor with mass mi, compared with the ground floor.
mi = Mass at floor i
si = Distance from the floor with the mass mj, compared with the ground floor, including mi
mj = Mass at floor j, including floor i

With the formula [1] and [2] the horizontal load and the load distribution can be calculated. With the
NEN-EN 1998-1 Eurocode 8 (2005) and NPR 9998 (2015) the construction can be checked. The lateral
force method is a relative simple calculation method to determine the load distribution of a
structure. For relatively simple constructions this method gives a first indication of the structures
capacity. As described before the calculation is linear static which leads to a conservative result.

2.3.2 Model response spectrum (linear dynamic)

The model response spectrum is a linear dynamic analysis which uses a combination of the different
eigenmodes to determine the earthquake load on a linear elastic construction. The RSA (Respons
spectrum analysis) start with the total determination of all the eigenmodes using the oscillation time.
The dtermination can only be performed with a finite element analysis. The number of modes is
described in NPR 9998 (2015) as “The sum of the effective masses of the considered activated modes
of the considered vibration shape is at least 90% of the total mass”. The eigenmodes with an effective
mass larger than 5% also needs to be considered.

The advantage of the RSA is that with the linear calculation a relative fast indication of the applied
load can be seen. For complex buildings multiple eigenmodes can occur and with the calculation
(which encounters more eigenmodes) gives a relative accurate solution. A disadvantage of the
method is that the material properties are assumed linear. For materials with a nonlinear behaviour
this method leads to inaccurate and often conservative results. Because of the nonlinear behaviour
of the material the failure pattern is also uncertain.

2.3.3 Pushover analysis (nonlinear static)

A pushover analysis is a nonlinear static calculation were the horizontal load gradually increases,
according to the initial eigenmode, until de construction fails. The pushover analysis starts with an
eigenvalue analysis. The engineer should predict which eigenmode is decisive. Using an FEM program
(e.g. TNO DIANA) the decisive eigenmode can be converted to a load distribution. The magnitude and
distribution of the load can be calculated with: the selected eigenmode (ϕ), the acceleration (a) and
the mass distribution (M).

f push   a  M  i [3]

fpush = Horizontal load

ϕ= Selected eigenmode
a= Acceleration
M= Mass distribution

M.M. Scheen 9
The construction is loaded until failure occurs. The node with the largest displacement the so called
“control node” can be plotted against the total horizontal load, the force displacement diagram. The
advantage of a pushover analysis is that the geometry and physic nonlinear properties are
considered, which leads to accurate results. With the pushover analysis the failure pattern of the
construction is clearly shown. A disadvantage is that it is not possible to combine the different
eigenmodes of the construction, the initial eigenmode should be interpreted by the engineer. It is
not a problem for relative small buildings with simple eigenmodes but for larger building the
combination of the eigenmodes is important

2.3.4 Time history analysis (nonlinear dynamic)

The time history analysis is a nonlinear dynamic analysis which contains a real time acceleration
signal. Every signal exists out of three components (X, Y and Z). When a construction is subjected to
an earthquake different eigenmodes can arise in the construction. When the eigenfrequency of these
modes are similar to the frequency originated from the earthquake, resonant rise can occur. This
leads to relative large displacements and stresses in the construction.

Figure 2.4: Eartquake signal of 16-08-2012 in Huizinge (KNMI, 2013)

The time history analysis gives the most accurate results of the calculation methods, because the
dynamical and nonlinear aspect of the construction are considered. The combination of the
eigenmodes are also used in the calculation, especially for complex buildings this leads to accurate
results. The nonlinear properties of the material gives a good estimation of the acting failure mode.
The disadvantage of the analysis is the relatively long calculation time. NEN-EN 1998-1 Eurocode 8
(2005) describes that a minimum of seven different signals must be used in order to use the analysis.

M.M. Scheen 10
Chapter 3

Predictive research
This chapter mainly refers to the information described in “Client: Nederlandse Aardolie
Maatschappij”, ARUP bv (2013). Since 2013 the NAM started to investigate the behaviour of
buildings subject to an earthquake load. The NAM hired the engineering firm “ARUP” to investigate
and research the number of damaged buildings in Groningen.

In 2013 the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI) showed the results of the magnitude
of the occurred earthquakes between 1995 and 2013 in Groningen. Only earthquakes with a
magnitude higher than 1.5 on the Richter scale were considered. It is assumed that below the
magnitude of 1.5 an earthquake is seldom noticed by humans. The epicentre of the detected
earthquake commonly occurred in the northern part of Groningen.

Figure 3.1: Registered earthquakes between 1995 and 2013 (ARUP, 2013)

One of the first subjects for ARUP was to create a prognoses of the damaged buildings in the
Groningen area. In cooperation with the KNMI, ARUP investigated the situation based on the results
of the prognoses. The damaged buildings due to earthquakes in the Groningen area are reported and
ARUP qualified the building grade of damage. The damaged buildings are graded into 5 damage
states and are according to the EMS-98, European Seismological Scale.

- DS 1: slight damage (Hair-line cracks in very few walls)

- DS 2: moderate damage (Cracks in many walls)
- DS 3: extensive damage (Large and extensive cracks in most walls)
- DS 4: complete damage (Serious failure of walls; partial structural failure)
- DS 5: collapse (Total or near total collapse)

With the results from the research of KNMI, ARUP investigated the earthquakes and predicted the
buildings damage with a changing magnitude on the Richter scale. A building database has been

M.M. Scheen 11
created for the study which consisted of 250.000 buildings with a population of 500.000 inhabitants.
The study considered four earthquake situations with a magnitude between 3.6 and 5 on the Richter
scale. The largest measured magnitude was in the city Huizinge which had a magnitude of 3.6. The
magnitudes on the Richter scale, which were researched by ARUP in 2013, are 5, 4.5, 4 and 3.6.

With the results of the analysis a prognoses is developed. The results, shown in figure 3.2, from the
analysis indicates that with a magnitude of 5 on the Richter scale 2424 buildings of unreinforced
masonry (URM) build before 1920 have reached damage state 1. The results also indicates that URM
is the most vulnerable building material when subjected to an earthquake.

Figure 3.2: prognoses of the damaged buildings according to the building material, (ARUP, 2013)

URM walls are characterized by a weak and a strong direction in load bearing capacity. The strength
of an URM wall depends on the in-plane shear and the out-of-plane bending capacity. During an
earthquake a wall is subjected to a seismic horizontal load in all directions (X, Y and Z direction). The
material properties of the masonry will be described in chapter 4. URM walls are characterized by a
relatively high in-plane and a relatively low out-of-plane stiffness.

Figure 3.3: Force acting on an URM wall, (ARUP, 2013)

M.M. Scheen 12
Chapter 4

Properties of unreinforced masonry

As described in chapter 3 URM is relatively vulnerable for seismic events and therefore a good
understanding of the behaviour of URM under seismic loading is important. This chapter will describe
the properties of masonry under tensile, compression and shear stress. The behaviour of masonry
under a combination of stresses is analytically explained according to the theory of Mann und Müller
(1977). This chapter mainly refers to the information prescribed in the thesis “Out-of-Plane Bending
of Masonry Behaviour and Strength” by van der Pluijm (1999).

4.1 Mann und Müller failure criterion

Mann und Müller (1977) have made a distinction between four different failure modes as a function
of the normal stress, shown in figure 4.1. The features of the failure modes are described as:

a) Failure of the bonding shear strength between the brick and mortar
b) Failure of the tensile strength between the brick and mortar.
c) Failure of the tensile strength of the brick
d) Failure of the compressive strength

Figure 4.1: Mann und Müller failure criteria of masonry (van der Pluijm 1999)

Several methods have been developed for the theoretical determination of the shear strength of
masonry, the general model is the Mann und Müller model. In order to determine the shear capacity
of a cross section the model describes a simplified analytical model based on the previous mentioned
failure modes.

M.M. Scheen 13
Figure 4.2: Derivation of the Mann und Müller model (Mann und Müller, 1977)

The analytical derivation of the Mann and Müller theory can be explained based on equilibrium, an
overview is shown in figure 4.2. In order to get equilibrium the moment in the brick needs to be zero,
shown in formula [4] and [5], in order to create the formula of the normal stress σ1 and σ2 [6].

hst l l hst hst

  lst   2   x  st  st  4 [4]  x  2    [5]  1,2   x  2   [6]
2 2 4 lst lst

In case of gaping of the units, the shear capacity is determined by limiting the main tensile stress to
the bond strength fx1 [7]. When bed joint sliding occurs the shear resistance is given by the general
Mohr-Coulomb criterion and inserting σ2 [8] by the value found in the equilibrium equation [9].

lst
  f v   f x1   x   [7]   f v  f v  f v 0     2 [8]
2  hst

fv0     x
  fv  [9]
2  hst
1  
lst

The diagonal cracking due to tensile failure of the units can be calculated by the main stresses using
theory of elasticity for uniaxial loading [10] and failure will occur when the main tensile stress equals
the tensile strength of the unit fbt, [11] and [12].

x  y 1 x x
   y   4   2 [10]  st  fbt  1   st  fbt  1 
2
 I , II    [11] [12]
2 2
x
I f bt

Based on FEM calculations for a unit with a height:length ratio of 0.5, the maximum value of the
shear stress was found to be   2.3   , shown in formula [13].

1 
f  fbt  1  x [13]
2.3 fbt

M.M. Scheen 14
In case of large stresses, crushing may occur and the shear resistance is determined by the
equilibrium equation in which σ1 is replaced by the compressive strength of masonry fm , see [14].

lst
 st  f m   f   x   [14]
2  hst

4.2 Mechanical properties of masonry

In order to describe the mechanical properties of a building material (e.g. steel, concrete and
masonry) a stress strain diagram is preferred. A diagram shows the stresses applied with the
corresponding displacement. When a stress (e.g. tensile, compression or shear) is applied on a
sample at some point the maximum stress is reached and the material fails. For concrete and
masonry the material shows cracks before complete failure. Different types of loading show also
different stress strain relationship, each with its own characteristic values.

4.2.1. Tensile

Figure 4.3: Schematic diagram of a deformation controlled tensile test (van der Pluijm, 1999)

Figure 4.3 shows a tensile stress strain diagram of a quasi-brittle material (e.g. concrete or masonry).
If the material was completely brittle the stress would immediately reduce to zero after the
maximum stress has been reached (ft). However, concrete and masonry have a so called softening
effect, indicated as the line after the top ft. The first state, in figure 4.3 indicated between point A
and point B, in a stress strain diagram is described as a linear function. After point B the stress strain
relationship is described as a nonlinear function. Also the post peak behaviour, the state after the
maximum load, must be described in a different manner since the stress strain relation is nonlinear.
Developed formula which are verified with experimental research indicate that the stress-crack width
diagram for masonry can be described as:

   w    c2  wc w
3 w

 
 1   c1    e   1  c13   e c2 [15]
ft   wc   wc
 

c1 , c2  Dimensionless constants, respectively 3.0 and 6.93

M.M. Scheen 15
 G fl
wc  Theoretical crack width at which no stresses are being transferred anymore, w2  5.14 
ft

G fI  Mode I fracture energy, defined as  du 

With formula [15] the post peak behaviour of masonry can be described. Only the tensile strength
and the mode I fracture energy are needed to describe the wc and consequently the post peak
behaviour of masonry under tension.

4.2.2. Compression

Figure 4.4: Force displacement diagram of masonry under compression (CUR 171, 1994)

The compression strength of masonry is difficult to express in formulas, the interaction between the
mortar and the brick is important. According to NEN-EN 1996-1-1+C1 Eurocode 6 (2006) the equation
to determine the characteristic compression strength of masonry is shown in [16].

f m  0.6   f cb    f cj 
0.65 0.25
[16]

fm  Compression strength of masonry

f cb  Compression strength of the brick
f cj  Compression strength of the joint

NEN-EN 1996-1-1+C1 Eurocode 6 (2006) describes an equation for the design of structures and
should never overestimate the real strength of masonry, therefore formula [16] describes a lower
bound value. For a purely linear elastic material an elastic modulus can be established from the
stress-strain diagram. With a nonlinear stress strain diagram a choice has to be made for a defining
method. For example compression tests, according to CUR 171 (1994), has defined the elastic
modulus at a load of 35% of the determined fracture load.

M.M. Scheen 16
4.2.3. Shear

The shear strength can be analysed as a function of the normal stress using the equation according to
the Mohr-Coulomb theory.

 u  c0  tan    [17]

u  Shear strength
c0  Cohesion or shear bond strength
 Angle of internal friction

From a shear test a schematic diagram, shown in figure 4.5 can be obtained. Here a constant normal
stress is applied in the experiment. The behaviour of the stress strain diagram is similar with the one
according to the tensile stress strain diagram, mentioned in §4.2.1. The main difference between the
diagrams is that the shear behaviour does not fall back to zero if the maximum stress is obtained. The
so called dry friction of the two surfaces can still obtain certain stresses. The branch between τ u and
τfr can be seen as the softening of the cohesion.

Figure 4.5: Schematic diagram of deformation controlled shear test under a constant normal force (van der Pluijm, 1999)

According to Lourenço (1996) the mode II fracture energy can be defined to the area under the
branch of the peak by softening of the cohesion. The term c0 in the formula [17] can be replaced with
formula [18].

c0
  pl
cr  c0  e
G fII
[18]

cr  Residual cohesion
c0  Initial cohesion
G fII  Mode II fracture energy
 pl  Plastic shear displacement

M.M. Scheen 17
In order to obtain the Mohr-Coulomb failure criteria different diagrams with variable normal stress
should be experimented. Figure 4.6 shows three diagrams with a different normal stress combined
into one graph. The problem in replacing the term cr with formula [17] is that for tan (ϕ) ≠ μ an
opening in the graph appears. Shown in figure 4.6, formula τfr = -σ * μ (μ = tan (ϕ)) perfectly connects
with the graph but the τfr = -σ * μ (μ ≤ tan (ϕ)) indeed creates an opening. According to Lourenço
(1996) a linear softening of the tan  must be coupled to the cohesion.

Figure 4.6: Diagram of shear tests with three different normal stresses (van der Pluijm, 1999)

4.3 Fracture modes

When a crack arises, a new surface is generated, with a specific surface energy. This energy is
provided by the external load and is also called as stored elastic energy. However, not all available
energy is used for the generation of new cracks. It is also transformed into other energies, like kinetic
energy or dissipative heat according to Schreurs (2012). When allot of available energy is used for
crack growth, the fracture is brittle. When allot of energy is transformed into other energies (e.g.
heat) the fracture is indicated to be ductile. The strain of a brittle material has the property to reduce
to zero when the maximum stress is reached, there is no post peak behaviour. For a quasi-brittle
material (e.g. masonry and concrete) the post peak is present but relatively difficult to determine.

In fracture mechanics there are three type of crack modes. For a 2 dimensional system only mode I
(tension) and mode II (shear) are considered. In practical situations, a crack is mostly subjected to a
combined mode I and mode II loading.

Figure 4.7: Fracture modes (Schreurs, 2012)

M.M. Scheen 18
4.3.1. Energy fracture mode I

The mode I energy fracture mode is associated with tensile failure of the material. This fracture
energy is defined as the amount of energy over the adhesion area to create a crack between the
brick and the joint. The surface of the adhesion is not equal to the cross sectional area of the brick. A
cracked specimen shows that the bond area was smaller than the cross sectional area of the brick.
The bond surface seems to concentrate in the inner part of the brick and has, according to van der
Pluijm (1999), a surface of 35% of the cross sectional area. The energy fracture mode describes the
energy which is needed to create a crack on the bond area. The energy fracture mode (GfI) can also
be described as the integral under the stress strain diagram, shown in figure 4.3. The results of the
tests of van der Pluijm (1999) indicate that the tension softening curve has a value between 0.005 to
0.02 Nmm/mm² for a tensile bond strength ranging from 0.3 to 0.9 N/mm².

4.3.2. Energy fracture mode II

It is relatively difficult to design a test set-up which can describe the softening effect of URM, for an
explanation of the test set-up used by van der Pluijm (1999) see §5.2.3. The area defined by the
stress strain diagram and the residual dry friction shear level is named mode II fracture energy (GfII),
with values ranging from 0.01 to 0.25 Nmm/mm² for initial cohesion c values ranging from 0.1 to 1.8
N/mm². Additional material parameters can be obtained from experimental tests.

Figure 4.8: Definition of friction and dilatancy angles (Lourenço, 1996)

The internal friction angle φ0, associated with the Coulomb friction model and is measured by tan
(φ0) ranging from 0.7 to 1.2 for different brick-joint combinations. The residual internal friction angle
φr is measured by tan (φr) which according to van der Pluijm (1999), is constant and equal to 0.75.
Another variable in measuring the softening aspect of URM for the mode II failure criterion is the
dilatancy angle ψ. The dilatancy angle measures the uplift of one unit over the other upon shearing.
The dilatancy angle is depended on the level of the confining stress. For low confining stress the
average value of tan (ψ) falls in the range from 0.2 to 0.7, depending on the roughness of the brick
surface.

M.M. Scheen 19
Chapter 5

Experimental research
As mentioned in chapter 3 an URM wall subjected under horizontal loading (e.g. an earthquake) can
be described as a force acting on the in-plane and out-of-plane direction of the URM wall. This
literature study will focus on the in-plane load bearing capacity of the URM wall and out-of-plane
falls outside the scope of the thesis.

5.1 Performed research

Experimental research of in-plane seismic loading of URM walls was performed by different
researchers. The failure mode of an URM wall after a seismic load depends on different variables
(e.g. geometry of the piers, type of lintel, brick arrangement and vertical pre-stress).

According to the ASCE 41-13 (American Society of Civil Engineers) masonry walls with openings for
windows and doors are assumed to behave as a series of piers in between openings. Each pier can be
checked individually for its in-plane capacity. When a pier has been subjected to a seismic in-plane
load, different failure mechanisms can occur: rocking, bed joint sliding, diagonal cracking and toe
crushing. The controlling failure modes of masonry under a seismic loading are rocking and sliding
mechanisms. Deformation controlled failure modes are preferred as they main stable under large
deformations and dissipate energy.

Figure 5.1: Different failure modes (Vanin, A and Foraboschi, P, 2012)

The type of failure mode depends on different variables. According to the research of Vanin and
Foraboschi (2012) different arrangements of the bricks in the spandrels and piers give rise to
different failure modes. An accurate knowledge of the structures property is necessary to determine
the influence of certain parameters (e.g. geometry of the openings, brick arrangement). It is difficult
to determine the influence of parameters because the property description of the masonry used in
the houses in the province of Groningen are often unknown.

M.M. Scheen 20
Figure 5.2: Shear strength as a function of axial stress and failure modes (Arup, 2013)

According to a research performed by Arup (2013), the failure mechanisms can be characterized by
the pier:spandrel ratio. A research is performed with a vertical stress of 0.251 MPa and 2.51 MPa,
with an aspect ratio of 1 and 2.

5.2 Experimental determination of the properties of masonry

For an accurate description of the material properties of masonry, experimental tests need to be
performed. Commonly experimental tests are performed as force controlled, instead of displacement
controlled. Quasi-brittle material (e.g. masonry and concrete) have the property to have little
deformation capacity after the failure load (post-peak). It is difficult for a force controlled test to
describe the post peak behaviour of a quasi-brittle material. A deformation controlled test is
preferable in describing the post peak behaviour of the material. Experimental research by R. van der
Pluijm (1999) in “Out-of-Plane Bending of Masonry Behaviour and Strength” describes different
setups to measure the post peak behaviour of masonry.

5.2.1 Tensile

Figure 5.3: Test setup used by R. van der Pluijm (van der Pluijm, 1999)

M.M. Scheen 21
The test setup to measure the tensile strength used by van der Pluijm (1999) is relatively
comprehensive. The red box RHS 300x300x10 mm³ ensures that the tensile force (originated from
the actuator) will be perpendicular to the specimen, shown in figure 5.3. The arms, which are
connected with elastic hinges, ensure that the red box stays straight and therefore the force remains
perpendicular on the specimen. The displacement is measured using four linear variable differential
transducer (LVDT) which are glued on the specimen.

Figure 5.4: Location of LVDT's used to control the increase of deformation during the test (van der Pluijm, 1999)

The experimental test setup to determine the tensile strength of masonry is relatively
comprehensive. For simpler tests a bending test is performed. Due to the four point bending test a
pure moment can be calculated, using standard formula, in the middle of the specimen. The flexural
strength, derived from the four point bending test, is according to van der Pluijm (1999) however 1.5
respectively 1.2 times greater than the tensile strength derived with the red box experiment.

Figure 5.5: Four point bending test (van der Pluijm, 1999)

5.2.2 Compression

One of the important features of an accurate compression test is to create a uniformly distributed
load on the specimen. Bricks have often a rough surface due to the manufacturing process. If a load
would be transferred on the brick with a rough surface local peak stresses will occur. Therefore,
before testing the specimen’s surface should be plain.

M.M. Scheen 22
 (a) (b)

Figure 5.6: Scheme of the measurement position on a five-brick bonded specimen front (a) and back (b) (Vermeltfoort, 2005)

Theoretically, when applying an equally distributed compression load on the specimen no bending
stresses will occur. However, in practise there is always some eccentricity (e.g. in the bench press)
which must be taking into account. Using four LVDT’s during a compression test will give insight in
the bending behaviour of the specimen. The results of the experiment must be critically analysed
when the bending stresses (e.g. eccentricity) are too large.

De vertical strain is used for the stress strain diagram to determine the Young’s modulus of the
masonry. However, it is not possible to determine the Young’s modulus of the mortar and bricks
separately. The mortar has the property to create local peak stresses on the bricks, according to
Vermeltfoort (2005). The bricks need to be glued on top of each other in order to determine the
Young’s modulus of the brick. With the obtained strength properties the Young’s modulus of the
mortar can be analytically determined with [19].

Em 
1   t   Eb [19]
 t 
1  
 m 

Em  Young’s modulus of the masonry

Eb  Young’s modulus of the brick
tj
t  thickness ratio,
tb
tj  thickness of the joint
tb  thickness of the brick
Ej
m  Young’s modulus ratio,
Eb
Ej  Young’s modulus of the joint
Eb  Young’s modulus of the brick

M.M. Scheen 23
5.2.3 Shear

A challenging feature for a joint shear test is to create a pure shear load into the specimen. However,
introducing a pure shear stress distribution in a joint is nearly impossible, van der Pluijm (1999). The
test setup of TNO (Nederlandse organisatie voor toegepast-natuurwetenschappelijk onderzoek),
shown in figure 5.7, is a relatively accurate test setup.

Figure 5.7: TNO shear arrangement (van der Pluijm, 1999)

By means of two L-shaped steel moulds an axial load is transformed into the desired moment and
F d
shear forces. The idea is that the moments M  s are in equilibrium, so a pure shear stress is
2
created in the joint. This is an important difference with test setups where the load Fs is applied
directly on the plane of the specimen, perpendicular to the shear direction. According to a FEM
calculation still some normal stresses occur in the test arrangement of TNO. However, their
magnitude is neglected compared with the shear stresses. The test setup does not allow a
combination of tensile and shear stresses. Therefore a more comprehensive arrangement is
required, shown in figure 5.8. The test setup mentioned in figure 5.7 is adapted and the angle of
internal friction tan (ϕ) was found between 30⁰ and 50⁰.

Figure 5.8: Schematic view of a test arrangement (van der Pluijm, 1999)

M.M. Scheen 24
Chapter 6

Numerical research
The disadvantage of performing a sensitivity analysis with experimental research is that it is relatively
time consuming for adapting certain parameters. With numerical research it is relatively simple to
adapt a variable while keeping the other variables constant. A numerical research is adequate to
confirm experimental results, predict certain behaviour and describe the influence of certain
parameters. The procedure in modelling masonry structures is relatively complex, therefore
simplifications are necessary. The simplification is necessary due to the complex behaviour of the
interaction between the mortar and bricks of masonry. This chapter describes the different
modelling techniques and principles used in numerical modelling. The determination of the FEM will
be briefly explained.

6.1 Nonlinear Finite Element Method

The finite element method is a numerical technique for finding an approximate solution to boundary
value problems. The method divides the whole problem (e.g. structure) into smaller parts, it is like
the principle that a lot of straight lines can approximate a larger circle. The general equation of the
behaviour of the elements is,  K    d    F  . With K the stiffness matrix, d the displacement of the
node and F the external force on the node. This general equation is valid for a linear approximation
between the node and the external force. For a nonlinear approximation the stiffness matrix changes
and becomes a variable in the equation. There should always be equilibrium in the deformed state of
the structure. The general expression for nonlinear problems changes to,  R    d    F  with R the
variable stiffness matrix. There are three types of nonlinear calculation namely:

- The material properties (e.g. stress strain relationship) are nonlinear

- The boundary conditions are nonlinear (e.g. the BC’s are displacement dependent).
- Geometric nonlinearity, GNL accounts for the changes in the geometry of the structure by
large displacements.

The main problem of nonlinear finite element calculations is the variable stiffness matrix. The
nonlinearity in the force displacement diagram should be approximated. There are a couple of
different methods for solving the variable stiffness matrix namely the Newton Raphson and the arc-
length method.

6.1.1. Newton Raphson method

The Newton Raphson method approximates a first value on the load displacement curve by using a
linear stiffness matrix. It then calculates a new stiffness matrix according to the approximated value
and uses the stiffness matrix to calculate the next point on the curve. An example is shown in figure
6.1.

M.M. Scheen 25
Figure 6.1: Example of a force displacement relationship used in a Newton Raphson method, force controlled (Becker, 2001)

In figure 6.1 an external load F is set at a certain value. An approximation of the original stiffness
matrix is used to get point d1 on the curve. A new stiffness matrix is calculated on the tangent of
point d1. The procedure will restart with the updated stiffness matrix to find point Δd1. This process
converges to a certain value d for the set external force. For a displacement controlled simulation the
method is similar only here the displacement will be approximated and it will converge to a certain
external force.

6.1.2. The arc-length method

It is possible that the load displacement curve creates a negative tangent stiffness matrix. However, a
negative tangent stiffness leads to an undefined matrix and cannot be solved mathematically. To
illustrate this phenomena imagine a load displacement diagram shown in figure 6.2. The phase
between point A and B can be determined using the Newton Raphson solving technique. For a force
controlled simulation a negative tangent stiffness matrix arises after point B (the angle to determine
the stiffness matrix has a negative value) and is called snap-through behaviour of the system. Point B
has the same load value as point C but with a different displacement. For a displacement controlled
simulation a negative tangent stiffness matrix comes at point D and is called snap-back behaviour.
Point D has the same displacement as point E but with a different load.

Figure 6.2: Visualization of "Snap-through" and "Snap-back" behaviour (Becker, 2001)

M.M. Scheen 26
Snap-through and snap-back behaviour provides an inaccurate solution of the behaviour of the
system and therefore a different solving technique is required, like the arc-length method. The arc-
length method uses a certain arc-length and creates an arc using the angle calculated by the stiffness
matrix (the slope) of the system. It then converges to the point by multiple iterations until the arc has
reached its new corresponding equilibrium state.

Figure 6.3: An arc-length method example (Becker, 2001)

When the new solution point has converged, the new ‘slope’ can be calculated to start searching for
the next equilibrium point on the system curve. Note that when the arc-length is set to smaller
values, a more accurate behaviour of the system can be predicted. It takes only more calculation
time since there are more solution points. This method is capable of approximating a relatively good
solution.

6.2 Modelling masonry

Figure 6.4: Modelling strategies (Lourenço, 1996)

This paragraph mainly refers to the information described in the thesis “Computional strategies for
masonry structures” by Lourenço, P.B. (1996). To model URM different model techniques can be
used. The use of a specific modelling technique is depended on the size of the model. For a large
model (e.g. an entire building) a different model is preferred when modelling a detail. The following
modelling strategies can be applied for modelling a masonry structure:

- Detailed micro-modelling – units and mortar in the joints are discontinuous elements. This
type of modelling is very extended and commonly used for detailed simulations.

M.M. Scheen 27
 - Simplified micro-modelling – expanded units are continuum elements whereas the behaviour
of the mortar and unit-mortar interface is modelled as discontinuous elements.
- Macro-modelling – the general material properties of the material is smeared out over the
structure. This method is less accurate but relatively easy to apply on large buildings.

Accurate determination of the material properties is needed to apply the micro- or macro-modelling.
However, not all variables can be considered in a numerical analysis. The properties of URM are
influenced by: material properties of mortar and units, arrangements of bed and head joints,
anisotropy and dimensions of the bricks.

6.2.1. Adopted modelling strategy

With the simplified micro-model, masonry is considered as a set of elastic blocks bonded by potential
1 dimensional line interfaces for the joints and potential cracks. The detailed micro-model describes
the bond between the joint and units as a 2 dimensional interface element. However, “The difference
between a detailed micro-modelling and a simplified micro-modelling is smaller than 2.5%”, Lourenço
(1996). Modelling an URM wall the global behaviour of the simplified micro-model is accurate
compared with the detailed micro-model.

An accurate micro-model technique must describe the failure mechanisms that characterize masonry
(Lourenço, 1996), shown in figure 6.5:

- Cracking of the joint

- Sliding along the bed or head joint, at low values of normal stress
- Cracking of the units in direct tension
- Diagonal tensile cracking of the units at values of normal stress sufficient to develop friction
in the joint.
- Masonry crushing, commonly known with splitting of units in tension as a result of mortar
dilatancy at high values of normal stress.

The “joint tensile cracking” and the “joint slipping” are failing due to the adhesion between the joint
and the units while the “masonry crushing” is failure of the unit. The “unit diagonal tensile cracking”
and the “unit direct tensile cracking” are due to a combination of failure of the unit and the joint. It is
difficult for a numerical simulation to describe all the failure modes.

The approach in the numerical model is to concentrate all the damage in the joint and in a potential
crack. The potential crack is located in the middle of the unit. These potential cracks in the units are
able to simulate a crack from one unit to another, simulating the behaviour of masonry. With this
modelling technique the behaviour of the joint can simulate the failure mechanisms “direct tensile
cracking” and “masonry crushing”, also shown in figure 6.5. A numerical model of a URM wall
constructed with the simplified micro-modelling technique is able to simulate all the failure modes
described by Foraboschi (2008).

M.M. Scheen 28
Figure 6.5: Masonry failure mechanisms (Lourenço, 1996)

Interface elements create discontinuities in the displacement field and the behaviour is descrbied
between the traction and displacement of the interface. The linear elastic relation between these
stresses and strains can be written in the standard form   R   , with R the stiffness matrix
consisting of k n and k s . Subscript “n” and “s” mean normal and shear. Hooks law (   E   ) can be
recognized in the equation. The elastic stiffness matrix [R] can be obtained from the properties of the
two masonry components and the thickness of the joints.

Eu  E j Gu  G j
kn  ks 
h j   Eu  E j  h j   Gu  G j 
[20] and [21]

6.2.2. Crack-shear-crush interface model

In §4.1 the derivation of the failure criterion of masonry is analytically determined with the Mann
und Müller theorem. However, for a numerical simulation the Mann und Müller theorem is
approximated with a different model, shown in figure 6.6. Lourenço (1996) proposed the “interface
cap model” to describe the behaviour of the joints in a numerical simulation for a masonry
construction. The derivation of the FEM used in the interface cap model is relatively complex and
therefore not described in this research.

M.M. Scheen 29
Figure 6.6: Model for interfaces, the interface cap model (Lourenço, 1996)

Certain characteristic can be observed when comparing the “interface cap model” with the
analytically determined model from Mann und Müller (1977). However, a critical point is the
coupling between tension and shear softening, because there are both related to the bond or
adhesion between the unit and mortar.

6.2.3. Discrete crack interface

This paragraph refers to the information described in the thesis “Local Approach to fatique of
Concrete”, Hordijk, D.A. (1991). The discrete crack interface modelling technique is commonly known
in concrete structures. In concrete structures the discrete crack interface is placed at the expected
crack location. In a masonry wall the cracks most often appears in the joints. Therefore the joints in
the masonry wall will be simulated as discrete crack interfaces. The mechanical properties of the
discrete crack interface is mainly depended on the tensile (mode I) and shear (mode II) properties.
The interface does not describe a relationship between mode I and mode II, the modes are
uncoupled. The tensile stiffness matrix and the shear stiffness matrix are uncoupled in the finite
element method, which leads to a relatively increase of stiffness. The discrete crack interface
describes four type of tensile behaviour namely brittle, linear, nonlinear and multi-linear. This thesis
will use the linear and nonlinear tensile behaviour, shown in figure 6.7.

Figure 6.7: Tensile behaviour of the discrete crack interface (Manie, 2014)

For a loading and unloading behaviour of the model, the discrete crack interface is preferred. The
CSC interface, described in §6.2.2., describes an elastic behaviour for unloading of the structure. The
stiffness matrix in the finite element method for unloading is the original (elastic) stiffness matrix.
The discrete crack interface describes a secant, elastic or a cyclic stiffness matrix (Hordijk, 1991) in
unloading. The difference between the elastic stiffness and the secant stiffness matrix for unloading

M.M. Scheen 30
is shown in figure 6.8. Imagine that the structure has a certain tensile stress at the start of unloading,
shown as point A in figure 6.8. The discrete crack interface uses a secant stiffness matrix which is
obtained by generating the matrix from its origin. During loading and unloading of the structure the
secant stiffness matrix adapts while the elastic stiffness matrix stays constant. Another drawback of
the discrete crack interface is that the compressive behaviour of the structure is describes as linear
elastic.

(a) (b)

Figure 6.8: Secant and Elastic (a) and cyclic behaviour (b) (Hordijk, 1991)

For unloading, the discrete interface crack model has another option namely the cyclic behaviour
described in Hordijk (1991) in which unloading and reloading follow different paths. The path
between unloading and reloading is based on experimental results. The principle of Hordijk (1991) is
mainly described by three expressions, which are shown in figure 6.9 (I) unloading curve, (II)
reloading curve and (III) the cap in the envelope curve. The formulation of the expressions into the
finite element method are relatively comprehensive and therefore falls outside the scope of this
thesis. It should be made clear that the aim of the principle of Hordijk (1991) was to tackle the whole
problem by using only these three expressions and the expression for the general curve. Although
the model describes a different path between loading and unloading a drawback of the model is that
it gives convergence errors for small crack openings.

M.M. Scheen 31
Figure 6.9: Detailed explanation of the theory of Hordijk (Hordijk, 1991)

Original envelope curve

    u 3    
  1  c1  exp  c2 
u
 1   c1      exp  c2  3
 
   c     
ft  u uc [22]
c1  3, c2  6.93 and 5.14  G f / ft

(I) Unloading

  u  
5
   u  
0.5
  eu 1 
    0.014  ln     0.57  1   
ft ft  3   ueu / uc   0.4     ueu    u   [23]
 eu

(I) Reloading

 0.2c3
  u  u 2    c   
c4
 1  u  uL  
1      1   L
   
 3

er
 1
L  c3  uer  uL  u  uL   c 1   L 
   er    3
ueu  
 
  0.71 ft 
 1 0.5  
 ft   L  uc 
  ueu  ft  L  
c3  3   3    1     [24]
 ft    uc  
 
1
  f   3 
c4   2   3  t L
  0.5
  ft  

M.M. Scheen 32
 (II) Gap in the envelope curve

uinc u     eu   L  
 0.1   eu   ln 1  3  
uc  uc    ft   [25]
uer  ueu  uinc

6.2.4. Formulation of the interface by Prof. D. Oliveira

This paragraph refers to the information described in the thesis “Experimental and numerical analysis
of blocky masonry structures under cyclic loading”, Oliveira, D.V.C. (2003). The discrete interface
element described in §6.2.3. are relatively simple formulations for the interfaces. Crucial properties,
like stiffness degradation and permanent deformations, of a cyclic loaded specimen are simplified.
The formulation of Hordijk (1991) however is based on experimental results and shows convergence
error for small crack openings. In 2003, Daniel Oliveira presented a new theory in his thesis
“Experimental and numerical analysis of blocky masonry structures under cyclic loading”. The crack-
shear-crush model, the CSC model, described by Lourenço (1996) is a relatively powerful tool to
understand the behaviour of masonry. However, if a cyclic load is introduced this model is unable to
reproduce aspects like: stiffness degradation, crack opening/closing and energy dissipation.

The proposed model of Oliveira (2003) is controlled by a mixed hardening law. The principle is that a
surface must be activated each time a stress reversal, from tension to compression or vice versa,
takes place. The developed model contains six possibilities for unloading movements shown in figure
6.10. Two unloading cases from the static loading envelope are considered: unloading to tension (CT)
and unloading to compression (TC). When a stress reversal appears the model changes again to (CTC)
or (TCT). If the stress reversal takes place during a CTC or TCT movement, reloading movement CT or
TC are assumed to occur.

Figure 6.10: Adopted hypothesis for cyclic behaviour (E for elastic, C for compression and T for tension) (Oliveira, 2003)

For example if a unit in a masonry wall is subject to tension, compression, tension and again by
compression it follows the path indicated as A in figure 6.10 However, if the path is like B the surface
is subjected to compression, tension and again by tension. The load path which corresponds to the
surface is important in the applied stiffness of the unit. The force displacement diagrams and the
corresponding load path are developed by experimental research and are shown in figure 6.11 and
6.12.

M.M. Scheen 33
 (a) (b) (c)

Figure 6.11: Schematic hardening laws for: CT (a), CTC (b) and CTCT (c) (Oliveira, 2003)

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 6.12: Schematic hardening laws for: TC (a), TCT (b) and TCTC (c) (Oliveira, 2003)

The same principle applies for the hardening laws for which tension is the primary applied stress. The
schematic shown in figure 6.11 and 6.12 are also obtained by experimental research. In his theory
Oliveira describes the constitutive relations, the relation between force and displacements, by means
of the classical theory of plasticity. However, the classical theory of plasticity is characterized by pure
elastic behaviour during unloading. The complete derivation of the theory of Oliveira and the
implication of the hardening laws in formulation of the finite elements method is relatively
comprehensive and therefore falls outside the scope of this thesis and can be found in Oliveira
(2003).

6.3 Examples

Different type of models are numerical simulated with the use of the “interface cap model”.
However, the results between the experimental research and the numerical model still have some
deviation. The correct method to know the accuracy is to compare the numerical results with
experimental research.

6.3.1. TU Eindhoven shear walls

Raijmakers and Vermeltfoort (1992) and Raijmakers and Vermeltfoort (1993) did test on several
masonry shear walls. Two types of walls were considered, some with and some without a central

M.M. Scheen 34
opening. In order to analysis the behaviour of the type of failure mode different vertical pre-stress
were applied to the wall, before it was subjected to a horizontal monotonic load.

Figure 6.13: Loads for TU Eindhoven shear walls (Lourenço, 1996)

Different initial vertical loadings of 0.3 N/mm², 1.21 N/mm² and 2.12 N/mm² were applied on the
URM walls. The crack patterns resulting from the experiment were similar to the patterns of the
numerical model created with the interface cap model. The material properties uses in the numerical
model are shown in table 6.1.

Table 6.1: Material properties used in the numerical model

Element Symbol Value Dimension

Kn 1000000 N/mm³
Ks 1000000 N/mm³
Crack
ft 2.0 N/mm²
GfI 0.08 Nmm/mm²

E 16700 N/mm²
Brick
ν 0.15 [-]

Kn respectively 82, 110 and 82 N/mm³

Joint
Ks respectively 36, 50 and 36 N/mm³

ft respectively 0.25, 0.16 and 0.16 N/mm²

Tension
GfI respectively 0.018, 0.012 and 0.012 Nmm/mm²

Css 9.0 [-]

Compression
fm respectively 10.5, 11.5 and 11.5 N/mm²

c 1.4 x ft N/mm²
tan(ϕ) 0.75
Shear
tan(ψ) 0.0
GfII respectively 0.125, 0.05 and 0.05 Nmm/mm²

M.M. Scheen 35
The comparison between the numerical results and the experimental results of the failure load can
be estimated in a range of 15%. The sudden load drops are, according to Lourenço (1996), due to
cracking in an integration point of the potential cracks in a brick. All the walls behave in a relatively
ductile manner, which contradict with that confined masonry can withstand post-peak deformation
with reduced loss of strength.

Figure 6.14: Force displacement diagram of TU Eindhoven shear walls (Lourenço, 1996)

A higher initial vertical load lead to increasing strength but also to increasing brittleness, Feenstra
(1993). Higher loads correspond to higher normal stresses in the supports. Therefore the structure is
confined by failure by the failure mode “toe crushing”. The results, shown in figure 6.14, indicate that
a higher initial vertical load lead to increasing load bearing capacity of the shear wall.

In the experiments also the vertical reaction at the bottom of the URM wall was measured. This gives
a good indication of the behaviour of the numerical model during the simulation. The reaction force
with the highest magnitude was originally located in the bottom middle brick of the shear wall.
However, during the experiments the general vertical support shifts to the direction of the
compressed toe. Due to plasticisation of the compressed zone and cracking of the units close to the
compressed toe the vertical reaction shifts back to the direction of the middle brick.

M.M. Scheen 36
Chapter 7

TNO DIANA
This chapter refers to the information described in the DIANA manuals “DIANA finite element
analysis”, Manie, J (2014). DIANA (Displacement Analyser) is a finite element analysis solver
developed by TNO DIANA BV. The software uses the finite element method (FEM) to determine the
displacements of a structure. The solver for the numerical simulation will be TNO DIANA v9.6 with
the pre- and post-processor Midas FX+. Every software package has its own features to simulate a
structure but are all based on the finite element method. TNO needed a FEM software that, amongst
other things, was applicable for engineers using fracture mechanics and therefore the FEM program
TNO DIANA was developed. The main fields of TNO DIANA are design and analysis of dams, dikes,
tunnels, underground structures and historical constructions. The available tools in TNO DIANA also
include seismic analyse tools.

7.1 Simulating masonry with TNO DIANA

Figure 7.1: Modelling masonry

As described in §6.2 masonry can be modelled with three different modelling techniques. For this
thesis the simplified micro-modelling technique is used. The simplified micro-modelling technique
describes the mortar and cracks as line interfaces. The bricks or units are modelled as an isotropic
linear elastic material. The potential crack is in the simplified micro-modelling technique set in the
middle of the brick. The crack is as it were preprogramed and set as a linear line interface. The
strength that describe the potential crack are according to the discrete crack interface: normal
stiffness modulus (kn), shear stiffness modulus (ks), tensile strength and the energy fracture mode.
The determination of the moduli can be found in §7.3.1. Lourenço (1996) uses the values kn =
1000000 N/mm³ and ks = 1000000 N/mm³ for the potential cracks.

The proposed model for interfaces is the “Interface cap model” described in §6.2.2. The modelling of
the head and bed joint of masonry is according to the CSC (Cracking-Shear-Crush) interface material
model. The modelling of a masonry structure consist of half bricks with alternately potential cracks
and line interfaces with the CSC material model.

The main advantage of the FEM software TNO DIANA v9.6 compared with other FEM programs is
that interface elements are preprogramed. The interface feature describes a relation of the adhesion
between two elements. According to the TNO DIANA manual there are three different interface

M.M. Scheen 37
elements which can be applied in the program namely structural interfaces, contact elements and
fluid-structure interfaces. Structural interfaces are used in structural analysis, contact elements used
in contact analysis and fluid-structure interfaces used in dynamic fluid-structure interaction analysis.
This thesis uses the interfaces for structural analysis.

The structural interface elements describes the interface behaviour between the normal and shear
displacements across the interface (i.e. joint or potential crack). The thickness of the properties for
the interface elements is described as values of t1 to tn. If only t1 is specified the thickness is uniform.
The structural interface elements are mainly used for: bond-slip along reinforcement, discrete
cracking, elastic bedding, nonlinear elastic bedding, friction between surfaces etc.

7.2 Phased Analysis

Phased analysis ensures modelling of phased construction and should be applied for simulations with
multiple loads. It considers the construction history (i.e. strain and stress in the previous phase)
before applying a new load. A phased analysis consists of several load phases. The phased analysis
can also be applied when certain elements in the construction are inapplicable. In each phase a
separate analysis is performed, in which the results from previous phases are automatically used as
initial values for the next phase. The start of each phase can include input of the model which is
changed compared to the previous input. The engineer selects, at the start of each phase, the active
part of the model and specify the position and boundary conditions. After the start you may perform
a regular analysis using the TNO DIANA v9.6 analysis. TNO DIANA v9.6 can perform phased analysis
for linear, nonlinear and dynamical structural analysis. The combination of a linear, nonlinear and
dynamical analysis is however not possible.

Nonlinear analysis is, in addiction to linear static systems, relatively difficult to perform. Nonlinear
calculations have not one unique solution procedure that is applicable for every problem. The
experience of the user is important in solving a nonlinear analysis. When the model is not correctly
determined the solution will give “convergence errors”. Convergence errors can also arise when the
iterative solution method is unable to find a solution for the nonlinear problem. An example of the
main given errors in TNO DIANA v9.6 are:

In nonlinear global equilibrium iterations.

SEVERITY: ABORT
ERROR CODE: /DIANA/AP/LB40/0053
ERRORMSG.A: Divergence occurred, iteration method failed. Use smaller load steps, different
iteration procedure or different control procedure. Restart from a saved FILOS file or rerun the
complete job.

In nonlinear local stress-return mapping iterations.

SEVERITY: WARNING
ERROR CODE: /DIANA/NL/LB41/0210
ERRORMSG.W: Local crack stress iterations did not converge in:
Element number: 1414
Integration point number: 7
Stress in main material = 2.1621

M.M. Scheen 38
Stress in crack material = 2.0712
Stresses in main and crack converged situation. If values are not equal then stresses do not follow
the softening curve exactly. Use smaller load-steps to overcome this problem.

Error in the iterative solution method

SEVERITY: ABORT
ERROR CODE: /DIANA/NL/DU41/0042
ERRORMSG.A: Division by zero, values of ALFA = 0.0000 in BFGS secant method. Check your iterative
procedure.

M.M. Scheen 39
 Part II
Experimental research

M.M. Scheen 40
Chapter 8

Experimental research
This thesis partially describes the experimental research performed by “QuakeShield”. QuakeShield is
a company founded by Oosterhof Holman and SealteQ that developed an innovative technique to
retrofit masonry walls in the province of Groningen. Masonry walls with dimensions of
2500x4000x100 mm³ have been subjected to an in-plane static cyclic load. The horizontal load
increases every cycle with 5 kN. The load is introduced by a horizontal hydraulic actuator at the top
of the specimen. The vertical pre-stress has a total magnitude of 0.6 MPa, Türkmen (2015).

(a) (b)

Figure 8.1: Experimental research of model I before testing (a) and after testing (b)

An impression of the experimental researched URM walls are given in figure 8.1, 8.2 and 8.3. The
dimensions of the samples are given in appendix A. The force displacement diagrams, which is
numerical verified in chapter 9, are described in §8.1 and the determination of the material
properties is described in §8.2. The experimental tests for determining the material properties are
performed in the Pieter van Musschenbroek Laboratory at Eindhoven University of Technology.

M.M. Scheen 41
 (a) (b)

Figure 8.2: Experimental research of model II before testing (a) and after testing (b)

(a) (b)

Figure 8.3: Experimental research of model III before testing (a) and after testing (b)

M.M. Scheen 42
8.1 In-plane loading of URM walls

Three experimental tests on URM walls are performed by “QuakeShield” in Grijpskerk. Figure 8.4
shows the force displacement diagram of model I. Instead of a static cyclic load the sample was
subjected to a horizontal monotonic load. Therefore only the positive horizontal force is displayed in
figure 8.4.

8.1.1 Force displacement diagram

160
140
Horizontal force [kN]

120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Horizontal displacement [mm]

Figure 8.4: Force displacement diagram of model I (de Vries, 2016)

160

120
Horizontal force [kN]

80

40

-40

-80

-120
-22-20-18-16-14-12-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Horizontal displacement [mm]

Figure 8.5: Hysteresis of model II (de Vries, 2016)

M.M. Scheen 43
 180
140

Horizontal force [kN]

100
60
20
-20
-60
-100
-140
-180
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Horizontal displacement [mm]

Figure 8.6: Hysteresis of Model III (de Vries, 2016)

The hysteresis of model II, shown in figure 8.5, has a maximum measured displacement of -20.23
mm. Model II has a larger displacement and shows a more ductile behaviour than model III. The
results are as expected while model II is failing due to bending of the piers and model III fails due to
shear, see figure 8.2 and 8.3 for the crack patterns. The aspect ratio of the piers (h/l) is an important
variable for the occurring failure mode. The aspect ratio (h/l) of the failing pier in model II is 2.38 and
model III has an aspect ratio of 0.93. Therefore it is expected that model II fails due to bending and
model III due to shear, see §5.1.

Not only the displacement of model II is larger but the maximum applied horizontal load on model II
(102 kN) is smaller than the measured maximum load on model III (165 kN). When a structure is
failing due to shear the structure fails unexpected while bending failure gives a certain warning if the
structure reaches its maximum capacity. In practise it is preferable to have a structure failing due to
bending instead of shear.

8.1.2 Backbone curve

A backbone curve is a relatively simple method to display the behaviour of a hysteresis. The
backbone consist of the connection of all the maximum loads or displacements per cycle. The
experiment performed by QuakeShield have a load increment of 5 kN per cycle. Therefore the
backbone curve will connect the maximum load and there corresponding displacement per cycle.
Figure 8.7 and 8.8 show the backbone curve obtained by the force displacement diagram in §8.1.1.

M.M. Scheen 44
 180
140

Horizontal force [kN]

100
60
20
-20
-60
-100
-140
-180
-20 -18 -16 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Horizontal displacement [mm]

Figure 8.7: Backbone curve of model II (de Vries, 2016)

180
140
100
Horizontal force [kN]

60
20
-20
-60
-100
-140
-180
-14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Horizontal displacement [mm]

Figure 8.8: Backbone curve of Model III (de Vries, 2016)

8.2 Test Samples

The material properties used in the numerical model are experimentally determined. According to
van der Pluijm (1999), the determination of the mechanical property values used for numerical
modelling are relatively comprehensive to acquire and falls outside the scope of this thesis.
Therefore, simplified test are performed in this thesis. Four compression tests, five flexural tests and
nine shear tests with a variable normal stress of 0.2 N/mm², 0.6 N/mm² and 1.0 N/mm² were
conducted.

8.2.1 Compression test

In the Pieter van Musschenbroek Laboratory of Eindhoven University of Technology displacement

controlled compression tests on four six stack bonded prisms were conducted. The average

M.M. Scheen 45
dimensions of the four samples are 360x210x100 mm³. Four linear variable differential transformers
(LVDT) were used to measure the vertical displacement and two LVDT’s for the horizontal
displacement. The displacement speed of the jack was 0.2 mm/min. The bricks used in the samples
are extruded bricks with an average dimension of 210x100x50 mm³. The mortar is a standard ENCI
masonry cement MC12.5. The applied mortar is a hydraulic binder based on Portland cement and
limestone. Masonry cement MC12.5 is made conform the rules indicated by the European standards
for masonry cement EN 413-1.

The results of the compression test are shown in table 8.1. The Poisson ratio is determined at 50% of
the fracture load and the Young’s modulus of the masonry at 35%, CUR 171 (1994). However, in the
numerical model the Young’s modulus of the bricks and the joints were both needed and therefore a
secondary compression test was performed.

Table 8.1: Results of the compression test

Max. load Avg. load Max. strength Avg. strength

kN kN N/mm² N/mm²
D1 294 14,1
D2 315 14,7
296 13,9
D3 261 12,3
D4 313 14,5

Poisson's ratio Avg. Poisson's ratio Young's modulus Avg. Young's modulus
[-] [-] N/mm² N/mm²
D1 0,03 8700
D2 0,16 8900
0,08 7900
D3 0,07 6500
D4 0,06 7400

In the secondary compression test, two stacks of five half bricks (100x100x250 mm³) were glued on
top of each other, in order to prevent local peak stresses in the sample. During the test the sample
was subjected to bending and compression instead of pure compression. The maximum failure load
was therefore relatively low compared to the failure load for the brick mortar samples. The Young’s
modulus of the bricks, determined at 35% of the failure load, was 6500 N/mm². With the formula
described in chapter 5 and the Young’s modulus of the compression test of the stack bonded units,
the Young’s modulus of the mortar was calculated at 24000 N/mm². The results of the adapted test
were unrealistic and therefore not usable for the remainder of this thesis.

8.2.2 Triplet test

Nine triplet specimens were loaded in shear under normal stresses of 0.2 N/mm², 0.6 N/mm² and 1.0
N/mm². The goal of the test was to find the Mohr-Coulomb criteria of the masonry. The post peak
behaviour of the sample was difficult to analyse because the test setup did not meet the
requirements described in chapter 5. For an accurate analyses of the post peak behaviour, a test
setup described by van der Pluijm (1999) was needed, but was too comprehensive for this thesis.
Therefore the tensile energy fracture (GfI) described in van der Pluijm (1999) is used in the numerical

M.M. Scheen 46
model. The triplet test has been analysed as the function of the normal stress with the Mohr-
Coulomb theory,   c  tan( )   . The results of the shear test are shown in the table 8.2.

Table 8.2: Results of the triplet test

Specimen Normal stress Shear stress

N/mm² N/mm²
A1 0,21 0.72
A2 0,21 0.85
A3 0,20 0.80
A4 0,61 0.80
A5 0,62 0.89
A6 0.60 0.86
A7 0,97 0.94
A8 0,97 1.02
A9 1,05 1.04

The normal stress is plotted versus the shear stress and a linear regression is applied. With a “best fit
line” the R² was 0.77 with the following formula:   0.2648    0.72 . The internal friction angle
was   14.83 and the initial shear strength 0.72 N/mm².

The internal friction angle is unrealistic low. The average value of the internal friction angle,
according to van der Pluijm (1999) described in chapter 5, should be between 30⁰ and 50⁰. The
results of the experimental research indicate an unrealistic value for the internal friction angle and
for the initial shear strength. Therefore, the results will not be used in the numerical model created
in chapter 9.

1,20
Shear stress [N/mm²]

1,00
0,80
0,60
0,40 y = 0,2648x + 0,72
0,20 R² = 0,7653
0,00
0,00 0,20 0,40 0,60 0,80 1,00 1,20
Normal stress [N/mm²]

(a) (b)

Figure 8.9: Impression of the test set up (a) and linear regression of the results (b)

M.M. Scheen 47
8.2.3 Four point bending test

To determine the flexural tensile strength of the masonry, a four point bending test was conducted.
With the results, the direct tensile strength of the masonry could be established and be used in the
numerical model. The post peak behaviour can be described with the test set up used by van der
Pluijm (1999), described in chapter 5. The results of the flexural bending test are shown in table 8.3.

Table 8.3: Results of the flexural bending test

Mmax Wel fbt fbt;gem

Specimens
Nmm N/mm3 N/mm2 N/mm2
B1 194308 353333 0,56
B2 142164 355000 0,41
B3 92169 349167 0,26 0,36
B4 128464 353333 0,37
B5 70060 358735 0,20

The ratio between the flexural bending strength and the tensile strength is according to Van der
Pluijm (1999) between 1.2 and 1.5. Therefore the uniaxial tensile strength of the mortar is assumed
to be between 0.24 – 0.3 N/mm².

Figure 8.10: Experimental set-up for the four point bending test

M.M. Scheen 48
 Part III
Numerical research

M.M. Scheen 49
Chapter 9

Numerical research
The main advantage of a numerical simulation is the ability to adapt certain variables (e.g.
mechanical properties, boundary conditions) which for experimental research is too comprehensive.
However, the numerical simulation has to simulate the behaviour of the experimental research and
the results must fall within the predetermined range. When creating a numerical model it is
important to verify the model’s behaviour by means of examples from literature. This chapter
describes the modelling of an URM wall which is horizontal displaced at the top. Several modelling
techniques for the interface elements are explained. A reference model, verified by TNO DIANA, will
be used to determine the preferable solution procedure, mesh properties and material properties for
the final model. The dimensions of the reference model are smaller than those of the final model
which reduces the calculation time. This thesis will use the CSC interface in verifying models from
TNO DIANA and the dilatancy crack interface for verifying the model described by “QuakeShield”.

9.1 Modelling techniques

As described in the literature study (part I) there are several modelling techniques for modelling
masonry construction (e.g. detailed micro-modelling, simplified micro-modelling and the macro
modelling). The modelling technique in this thesis will be the simplified micro-modelling technique.
Within the simplified micro-modelling technique there are different ways to create the model. This
chapter will describe two different approaches of modelling masonry with the simplified micro-
modelling.

9.1.1 Zero thickness modelling technique and the “fake” thickness modelling technique

The zero thickness modelling technique will be created with an automatic generation of the program
TNO DIANA v9.6. The interfaces will be created automatically from the selected mesh-set.

Figure 9.1: Explanation of the automatically generated line interfaces

M.M. Scheen 50
 The model will consist of half brick size (105 mm) mesh elements with between two half bricks a
potential crack. The properties of the line interfaces (the joints) which are automatically generated
by TNO DIANA can be changed to the properties of the potential cracks. Figure 9.2 shows an image of
the created model. The first step is to create a model of half bricks (a) which consist out of a one
mesh element. The second step is to use the tool of TNO DIANA v9.6 to automatically create
interface elements between the mesh (b). Eventually the interface elements which act as a potential
crack should be adapted, the red line interfaces in (c).

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 9.2: Modelling steps; half bricks (a), interface elements (b) and interface elements with potential cracks (c)

This modelling technique is relatively quick in creating a 2 dimensional masonry wall. However, the
results of the analysis are relatively uncertain because Manie & Wolthers (2014). only describes the
failure mode of the analysis. Manie & Wolthers (2014) is not describing the force displacement
diagram and therefore a verification of the model is excluded.

Another modelling technique in TNO DIANA v9.6 is the fake thickness modelling technique. The
principle is that the interface (e.g. joint or potential crack) has a relatively small dimension. The half
bricks of the model are in this technique 104.75 mm with an interface element of 0.5 mm. The
elements of the brick will consist out of 4-node plane stress elements and the interface elements.
The bricks in the fake thickness model will, in contradict with the previous model which consisted of
2 plane stress elements, consist out of eight plane stress elements. This to enlarge the accuracy
results of the analysis.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 9.3: "Fake" thickness model technique, half brick (a), entire brick (b) and entire wall (c)

M.M. Scheen 51
The model is built in three steps. First a half brick is created (a) with interface elements to represent
the potential crack and the joints. Then the half brick is copied into a basic block (b) of two bricks and
finally the two brick model are copied several times into a complete wall (c). The results of the
analysis corresponds with the results of the TNO DIANA manual, Manie & Wolthers (2014).
Therefore, the fake thickness modelling technique is further used in this thesis.

9.1.2 Reference model with top constraint in X and Y direction

The reference model used in this thesis has a height of 16 layers and a width of 5 brick lengths. The
experimental assessment of this specimen had been published by van Zijl et al (2001). The interfaces
will be modelled with the fake thickness technique.

The first simulation has constrained boundary condition at the top and bottom of the model. At the
top the model can translate in horizontal direction but is fixed in vertical direction. The bottom layer
is however horizontally and vertically constraint. At the top and bottom the boundary conditions are
linked to a bed joint. The material properties which are used in the simulation are shown in table 9.1.

Table 9.1: Material properties of the reference model

Element Property Symbol Value Dimension

Young’s modulus E 17400 N/mm²

Brick
Poisson ratio v 0.15 [-]

Linear normal stiffness kn 10000 N/mm³

Cracks
Linear tangential stiffness kt 1000 N/mm³

Linear normal stiffness kn 83 N/mm³

Linear tangential stiffness kt 36 N/mm³
Tensile strength ft 0.25 N/mm²
Fracture energy Gt 0.018 N/mm
Cohesion c 0.35 N/mm²
Friction angle tan(φ) 0.75
Dilatancy angle tan(ψ) 0.60
Joint Residual friction coefficient Φ 0.75
Confining normal stress σu -1.3 N/mm²
Exponential degradation coefficient δ 5.0
Cap critical compressive strength fc 8.5 N/mm²
Shear traction control factor Cs 9.0
Compressive fracture energy Gfc 5.0 N/mm
Equivalent plastic relative displacement κp 0.093
Fracture energy factor b 0.05

M.M. Scheen 52
A rigid link connection is created at the top of the model which will describe the properties of the
master and the designated slave nodes. The property of a slave node is that it has the same
prescribed boundary conditions, displacements or forces as the assigned master node. For example if
the master node has given a horizontal displacement of 10 mm than all the designated slave nodes
displace 10 mm. A rigid link connection describes not only the master and designated slave nodes but
also boundary conditions can be assigned to the rigid link element. The x-direction is the (only)
degree of freedom of the top layer.

Figure 9.4: Rigid Link

Figure 9.5: Crack pattern of the refference model with a horizontal top load

The load steps are determined with a total automatic step size of 8.15. The maximum step size is set
at 0.2 and the minimum step size at 0.0001. With the Newton-Raphson method and with an energy
convergence norm of 0.0001 the simulation is started. The force displacement diagram of the
simulation is shown in figure 10.6.

60
Horizontal force [kN]

50
40
30
20
10
0
0 2 4 6 8
Horizontal displacement [mm]

Figure 9.6: Force displacement diagram

M.M. Scheen 53
9.1.3 Top layer restraint in x-direction

It is also interesting to analyse the behaviour of the model when the top layer is still rigidly
connected in x-direction but also allowed to move vertically. The new model has, in comparison with
the model from the previous paragraph, no constraints at the top layer. The rigid link has a degree of
freedom in the x and y-direction. This also includes that the top layer cannot rotate and stays
horizontally.

(a) (b)

Figure 9.7: Numerical model with no constraints at the top layer (a), deformation in x-direction at load step 17 (b)

14
12
Horizontal force [kN]

10
8
6
4
2
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Horizontal displacement [mm]

Figure 9.8: Force displacement diagram

The force displacement diagram is shown in figure 9.8. The model is failing due to bending of the
construction. When the maximum load is reached (12 kN) the model is cracked and the horizontal
force reduces to 0 kN. The behaviour of the model can be compared with the experimental tensile
test of masonry described in §5.2.1. The model is failing due to bending and when the maximum
tensile strength is reached the structure cracks. After the maximum force the force displacement
diagram shows a little curve when it reduces back to zero. This is called the post peak behaviour and
is the same as described experimentally by van der Pluijm (1999).

M.M. Scheen 54
9.1.4 Vertical pre-stress

The experimental research of the horizontal in-plane static cyclic loading of an URM wall conducted
by “QuakeShield” has a vertical pre-stress of 0.6 MPa. The numerical model also needs to have a
vertical pre-stress in order to verify the experiments of QuakeShield. In the sensitivity analysis the
vertical pre-stress will vary to determine the influence on the type of failure mode.

Figure 9.9: Reference model with concentrated load

As described in §9.1.2. a rigid link is created at the top brick layer. The rigid link consist out of 30
nodes: 18 interface nodes 2 end nodes and 10 midsize nodes. The nodes located at the interfaces are
0.5 mm apart. Therefore, in order to avoid local peak stresses, 2 nodes at the interfaces and the both
end nodes are considered, for the calculation of the vertical pre-stress, as 1 node. For the calculation
of the vertical pre-stress the total vertical force needs to be divided over (18 / 2) + (2 / 2) + 10 = 20
nodes. The vertical pre-stress converted as forces on the nodes to get a vertical pre-stress of 0.3 MPa
can be calculated as:

F F
 [22]  0.3Mpa [23] F  31500 N [24]
bl 100 1050

The total vertical force needs to be equally distributed over the total number of nodes.

F 31500
  1575 N for the nodes located in the centre of the bricks.
Number of nodes 20

1575
 787.5 N for the interface and end nodes
2

M.M. Scheen 55
Figure 9.10: Vertical pre-stress (N/mm²) at load step 1

Figure 9.10 shows that the vertical pre-stress in the structure has a value of approximately 0.3 MPa
at load step 1. The vertical pre-stress will be applied before the horizontal displacements is increased
with 1 mm per load step. Figure 9.11 shows the vertical pre-stress SYY at load step 0.1 (i.e. horizontal
top displacement of 0.1 mm). The vertical stress changes due to bending of the structure. The
stresses in the upper left hand corner reduces while the stresses in the upper right hand corner
increases. This corresponds with the expected stress distribution of the model.

Figure 9.11: Vertical pre-stress (N/mm²) at load step 0.1 (i.e. upper layer displace 0.1 mm to the left)

The force displacement diagram of the models with a vertical pre-stress subjected to a horizontal
force is shown in figure 9.12. It is clear to see that with a higher vertical pre-stress a higher horizontal
force can be achieved. The difference of magnitude of the horizontal force between the models with
a vertical pre-stress of 0.3 MPa and 0.6 MPa at a deformation of 8 mm are relatively small.

M.M. Scheen 56
 50

40
Horizontal force [kN]

30
0 Mpa
20 0,3 Mpa
0,6 Mpa
10

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Horizontal displacement [mm]

Figure 9.12: Force displacement diagram with different vertical pre-stress

9.1.5 Modelling of the horizontal static cyclic load

Chapter 6 explains the principle of the finite element method. In order to create equilibrium in the
model the FEM uses iterations (e.g. Newton-Raphson or arc length method). However, it is possible
that convergence errors occurs when the load steps are too large. The system needs to apply smaller
steps to solve the model and find equilibrium. The program TNO DIANA v9.6 has the application to
determine the step size automatically. When the force displacement diagram changes from linear to
nonlinear the step sizes are reduced automatically. For a static cyclic load the same principle is used.

However, the input to create a static cyclic load in the solver TNO DIANA v9.6 is different from a
monotonic horizontal force and needs some explanation. In figure 9.13 a diagram is shown which
explains the input for a static cyclic load in TNO DIANA v9.6. The load steps which are given in TNO
DIANA v9.6 are (1) (-2) (3) (-4) (5) (-6) (7) (-8) (9) (-10). These coordinates correspond with the
diagram shown in figure 9.13.

6
5
4
3
2
Load step

1
0
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
-2
-3
-4
-5
-6
Cycles

Figure 9.13: Load step diagram for a static cyclic load

M.M. Scheen 57
Consider a given displacement of 0.1 mm in the post processing (Midas FX+) of the reference model.
The load steps that TNO DIANA v9.6 will be running, and correspond with the desired displacement,
with the load steps of figure 10.13 are: 0.1 mm, -0.1 mm, 0.2 mm, -0.2 mm, 0.3 mm, -0.3 mm, 0.4
mm, -0.4 mm, 0.5 mm and -0.5 mm. It is possible to input the load steps directly in TNO DIANA v9.6.
However, with the direct input of the load steps convergence errors can occur. Automatic step size is
used so that TNO DIANA v9.6 can automatically create the preferred step size in solving the model.

Figure 9.14 shows a hysteresis of the reference model with a vertical pre-stress of 0.3 MPa subjected
to a horizontal in-plane static cyclic load. A force controlled simulation stops after the maximum load
is reached and therefore a displacement controlled simulation is performed. The simulation is
displacement controlled with static cycles of 0.25 mm.

50
40
30
Horizontal force [kN]

20
10
0
-10 0,3 Mpa
-20
-30
-40
-50
-2 -1 0 1 2
Horizontal displacement [mm]

Figure 9.14: Hysteresis of the horizontal static cyclic load of the reference model with a vertical pre-stress of 0.3 MPa.

After the maximum load is reached the model starts to crack. After that point the displacement of
the model will continue with a reduced horizontal force. The behaviour of the model after cracking is
relatively difficult to simulate. TNO DIANA v9.6 has trouble in finding equilibrium with the same
conditions as for the non-cracking part. Therefore, the convergence norm is increased from 0.0001 to
0.001 which makes the nonlinear calculation less accurate than the linear calculation. The hysteresis
shown in figure 9.14 will not be verified using information from literature. Therefore it is uncertain if
the results from the analysis correspond with the reality.

M.M. Scheen 58
9.2 Drafting a model of QuakeShield

A numerical analysis should, not only, be able to give the maximum load capacity but also indicate
the failure mode of the structure. Numerical models should be seen as mathematical simplifications
that approximate the behaviour of a loaded structure. An exact model does not exist because it is
impossible to reproduce all the information in one model, Oliveira (2003). As described in §6.2.3 the
modelling of cyclic behaviour is relatively comprehensive, especially the modelling of the unloading
behaviour. This paragraph will describe the modelling of model I of QuakeShield subjected to a
monotonic load.

Model I from QuakeShield will not be simulated with the use of a rigid link, see §9.1.2. The top
surface of the experimental models are subjected with a vertical pre-stress of 0.6 MPa. In the
experiments the vertical pre-stress is introduce by two actuators on a steel beam. The steel beam
can translate in x-, and y-direction and rotate around the z-axes. The rigid link is however not
compatible to rotate and therefore the rigid link creates an unwilling boundary condition to the
model. Another difference with the model described in §9.1.2 is that the self-weight of the bricks and
the steel beam are included in the analyses. The bricks have a self-weight of 1650 kg/m³, according
to experimental results in chapter 8, and the steel beam has a self-weight of 7800 kg/m³.

Figure 9.15: Numerical Model I

M.M. Scheen 59
9.2.1 Material properties

The material properties used in the numerical model are determined with the experimental research
as described in chapter 8. However, the simplified micro-modelling technique describes the mortar
as line interfaces with the use of the zero thickness technique. Table 9.2 shows the values of the
material properties used in the numerical model which were obtained partially by van der Pluijm
(1999), Lourenço (1996) and the experimental research described in chapter 8.

The tensile strength of the numerical model is determined according to the experimental research
described in §8.2. The properties describing the post peak behaviour of the system (e.g. GfI and GfII)
are determined by van der Pluijm (1999). The results of the shear test performed in §8.2 are
inaccurate to use in the numerical model. Therefore the values of the shear behaviour are according
to Lourenço (1996) and are characteristic for historic masonry. The normal stiffness modulus (kn) and
the shear stiffness modulus (ks) of the joints in the numerical model will be calibrated with the
experimental results of QuakeShield. The technique to calibrate the stiffness properties of the joints
in a numerical model with experimental results is also applied in Dumova-Jovanoska & Churilov
(2009).

Table 9.2: Material properties first verification

Element Property Symbol Value Dimension

Young's modulus E 16700 N/mm²

Brick
Poisson ratio v 0.15 [-]
Mass Density 1.65e-05 N/mm³/g

Linear normal stiffness kn 100000 N/mm³

Cracks
Linear tangential stiffness kt 100000 N/mm³

Linear normal stiffness kn 38 N/mm³

Linear tangential stiffness kt 15 N/mm³
Tensile strength ft 0.25 N/mm²
Fracture energy Gt 0.018 N/mm
Cohesion c 0.35 N/mm²
Friction angle tan(φ) 0.75
Dilatancy angle tan(ψ) 0.60
Joint Residual friction coefficient Φ 0.75
Confining normal stress σu -0.7 N/mm²
Exponential degradation coefficient δ 5.0
Cap critical compressive strength fc 8.5 N/mm²
Shear traction control factor Cs 9.0
Compressive fracture energy Gfc 5.0 N/mm
Equivalent plastic relative displacement κp 0.093
Fracture energy factor b 0.25

M.M. Scheen 60
9.2.2 Stiffness of the steel beam

Model I was subjected to a horizontal load until cracking. The cyclic behaviour of model I was
therefore not determined and the numerical model will therefore be simulated with a (single)
monotonic horizontal load. The experimental and numerical determined force displacement diagram
of model I is shown in figure 9.16. The horizontal displacement is measured in the middle of the steel
beam.

180
160
Horizontal force [kN]

140
120
100
80 Experimental
60 Numerical
40
20
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Horizontal displacement [mm]

Figure 9.16: Force displacement diagram first verification

The numerical curve in the force displacement diagram, shown in figure 9.16, is relatively similar to
the experimental curve. Figure 9.18 shows the crack pattern obtained by the numerical simulation.
The first bending crack occurs above the door opening, which contradicts with the crack pattern from
the experimental research obtained by de Vries (2016). An explanation for the different crack pattern
is that the steel beam in the numerical model has a lower stiffness than the steel beam used in the
experimental research. In the numerical model a HEA 200 profile has been modelled while the
experimental research uses two stacked IPE profiles and a plate to secure the stiffness of the beam,
see figure 9.17.

Figure 9.17: Principle of the steel beam used in experimental research

M.M. Scheen 61
Figure 9.18: Horizontal displacement (mm) of the model

The vertical stress of the numerical model in the beginning of the simulation is shown in figure 9.19.
Figure 9.19 shows a reduced vertical pre-stress above the opening. Due to the two vertical forces
from the actuators, the beam is deflecting in the middle. The vertical stress above the opening is
therefore a tensile stress with a value of +1.45 N/mm². The solution for this problem is to increase
the stiffness of the steel beam from 2.1e+5 N/mm² to 2.1e+6 N/mm², which leads to a reduced
deflection of the beam and therefore an equally distributed vertical pre-stress.

Figure 9.19: Vertical stress (N/mm²) at the beginning of the simulation

M.M. Scheen 62
9.3 Monotonic load on Model I

Model I is failing due to toe crushing (i.e. failing of the compression strength) in the lower right hand
pier. To simulate compression failure of the bricks a potential crack, described in chapter 6, is applied
as a discrete crack. The values of the material properties of the discrete crack interface are described
by Lourenço (1996) and are shown in table 9.2. The input file in TNO DIANA v9.6 of the verified
model can be found in appendix B.

160
Horizontal force [kN]

140
120
100
80
Experimental
60
40 Numerical

20
0
0 5 10 15
Horizontal displacement [mm]

Figure 9.20: Verified force displacement diagram of model I

Figure 9.21 shows the crack pattern at the last load step (horizontal top displacement of 9.3 mm),
were no equilibrium in the calculation can be found and the calculation is aborted. Figure 9.21 also
shows failing of the crack in the upper left hand pier, were it is clearly to see that the crack starts at
the edge of the lintel and develops to the steel beam.

Figure 9.21: Model I loaded with a horizontal top displacement of 8.6 mm

The experimental results indicate that the model fails due to toe crushing in the lower right hand pier
in the first cycle. In the second cycle bending cracks occur in the upper left hand pier, (de Vries,
2016), which corresponds with the numerical model.

M.M. Scheen 63
Figure 9.22 shows that the largest strain occurs in the lower right hand pier at a horizontal top
displacement of 2.2 mm in the steel beam. The failure mode “toe crushing” is starting to develop and
correspond with the experimental results. Besides the failure mode “toe crushing” also a bending
crack is developing in the upper left pier starting from the lintel.

Figure 9.22: Crack location with a horizontal top displacement of 2.2 mm

Figure 9.23 shows the strains of the joint at a horizontal top displacement of 5.6 mm. The bending
crack at the upper left hand pier is developing to the steel beam. Also a tensile crack in the lower left
hand pier is developing, indicating that the bending crack is nog fully developed to the steel beam.

Figure 9.23: Crack location with a horizontal top displacement of 5.6 mm

The ultimate strains in the final load step are shown in figure 9.24. The bending crack is completely
developed from the lintel to the steel beam. The tensile cracks in the lower left hand pier are
therefore reduced.

M.M. Scheen 64
Figure 9.24: Crack location with a horizontal top displacement of 8.6 mm

9.4 Cyclic load on Model II

The crack-shear-crush model described by Lourenço (1996) is accurate for (only) a monotonic load,
as described in chapter 6. For modelling a cyclic load a discrete crack interface is preferred. However,
the discrete crack interface has certain drawbacks, like the compression behaviour of the model is
described as linear elastic. The tensile (mode I) and shear (mode II) behaviour are also uncoupled,
consequently the numerical simulation behaves stiffer then the experimental model. The unloading
of the structure can be categorized in three types namely: secant, elastic and the unloading
behaviour according to Hordijk (1991). The unloading type according to Hordijk (1991) is however
difficult to perform because of the occurring convergence errors. Even for advanced solution
procedures it is difficult to use the theory for an URM wall. The file input for a cyclic load on model II
can be found in appendix C.

Figure 9.25: Numerical Model II

M.M. Scheen 65
9.4.1 Discrete cracking interface

In the secant approach the relation between the traction and the relative normal displacement is
linear up to the origin, after which the initial stiffness is recovered, Manie (2014). This means that the
structure will not have stiffness degradation nor a permanent deformation after a cycle. The force
displacement diagram (a) is obtained after performing a cyclic load on model II with the secant
unloading type. The curves of each cycle are relatively similar in unloading and indicates that there is
no stiffness degradation nor permanent displacement.
Horizontal force [kN]

-180,0

Horizontal force [kN]

-180,0
-120,0 -120,0
-60,0 -60,0
0,0 0,0
60,0 60,0
120,0 120,0
180,0 180,0
-20,0 -10,0 0,0 10,0 20,0 -2,0 -1,0 0,0 1,0 2,0
Horizontal displacement [mm]
Horizontal displacement [mm]

(a) (b)

Figure 9.26: Force displacement diagram with the unloading type secant (a) and elastic (b) applied on model II

The force displacement diagram with the elastic unloading type is shown in figure 9.26 (b). Elastic
unloading type shows, like the secant, no stiffness degradation nor permanent displacement. The
behaviour of the URM walls after the first cracks is important for the verification of the numerical
model and is not described with the elastic unloading type. The maximum horizontal force applied on
model II has a larger value with the secant type (a) than with the elastic type (b). With the elastic
unloading type convergence errors arise in the linear elastic regime and therefore the calculation was
prematurely aborted.

The unloading type described by Hordijk (1991) is also performed on model II but the calculation
showed convergence errors in the first cycle. For a simple structure, (e.g. a concrete beam) the
theory of Hordijk (1991) is applicable but for a more complex structure (e.g. an entire URM wall) the
theory shows complications. The unloading type described by Hordijk (1991) is therefore not applied
in this thesis.

9.4.2 The Crack-Shear-Crush interface

The CSC interface described by Lourenço (1996) is applied with a cyclic load on model II. Unloading of
the structure is however inaccurate with the CSC interface. Therefore, in this paragraph, only the
backbone curve of the experimental and numerical simulations is compared. The material properties
used in the numerical simulation of model II is similar to model I and is determined in §9.3. Figure
9.27 shows the force displacement diagram of the experimental and numerical results.

M.M. Scheen 66
 120
Horizontal force [kN]
80
40
0 Experimental
-8 -6 -4 -2 -40 0 2 4 6 8
Numerical
-80
-120
Horizontal displacement [mm]

Figure 9.27: Backbone curves of model II

The first cracks appear in the upper right hand and upper left hand corner of the opening and
develops to the steel beam, as shown in figure 9.29. These crack are characteristic for the failure
mode “rocking” and “sliding”. The second crack occur at the bottom left and bottom right hand
corner of the opening and develops to the foundation. These cracks are also characterized to the
rocking and sliding failure mode. Tensile cracks also occur at the connection of the foundation which
can explained by exceedance of the tensile strength of the joint.

Figure 9.28: Loadstep 347 on model II -4.25 mm

After tensile failure of the joints the masonry eventually fails in compression of the bricks at the
lower left and lower right hand side of the pier. The compression strength of the brick is exceeded
and the simulation fails due to the failure mode “toe crushing”.

Figure 9.29: First crack appearance of model II

M.M. Scheen 67
As described by Senthivel, Lourenço and Vasconcelos (2006), and according to figure 9.27, the cyclic
load and corresponding displacement obtained by numerical analysis are relatively inaccurate. The
main disadvantage with the numerical model (i.e. CSC-model) is that the bed joint opening does not
close on release of the lateral cyclic load or displacement. Therefore in the sensitivity analysis the
cyclic load is transformed to a monotonic load.

9.5 Cyclic load on Model III

The verification of model III will only by applied with the CSC interface described by Lourenço (1996).
The discrete crack interface with the unloading type secant and elastic are prove to be inaccurate in
describing a cyclic load. However, the CSC interface is also not ideal for simulating a cyclic load, the
back bone curve of the numerical determined force displacement hysteresis will be compared with
the experimental results. The material properties of the model are calibrated in §9.2 and the same
values will be used in the verification of model III. The input file for a cyclic load on model III can be
found in appendix C.

Figure 9.30: Numerical Model III

The force displacement diagram of model II is shown in figure 9.31. The curves of the experimental
and numerical simulation are relatively similar. Remarkable is that for a negative displacement the
numerical curve is different than the experimental curve. Due to uncertainties in the results of the
experimental and numerical simulations the difference can hardly be explained. The CSC-model by
Lourenço (1996) shows no stiffness degradation and is difficult in describing the open and closure of
a crack. Therefore the modelling in the sensitivity analysis will be about a single monotonic load.

M.M. Scheen 68
 100
Horizontal force [kN]

60

20
Experimental
-4 -3 -2 -1 -20 0 1 2 3 4
Numerical
-60

-100

-140
Horizontal displacement [mm]

Figure 9.31: Backbone curves of model III

M.M. Scheen 69
 Part IV
Sensitivity analysis

M.M. Scheen 70
Chapter 10

Sensitivity analysis
The sensitivity analysis in this thesis will describe the influence of adapted variables on the verified
numerical model created in §9.3. The variables are determined on the base of the situation in the
Groningen area. The values of the vertical pre-stress are determined for an outer and inner wall and
correspond with a multi-storey building and the values according to Lourenço (1996). The failure
mode of the structure and the force displacement diagram will be analysed. The material properties
and the modelling technique is described in chapter 9, were a verification is performed on model I.
Model II and model III will be constructed with the same material properties and modelling
technique as the verified model I. Due to the inaccuracy of the CSC model on a static cyclic load only
a monotonic load is performed on model II and model III.

10.1 Variables

This thesis is about the behaviour of URM wall subjected with an in-plane horizontal load under
various conditions. The influence of the vertical pre-stress and the bond pattern on the failure mode
of the URM is researched. The value of the vertical pre-stress is calculated for an outer wall typical
for the Groningen area. A numerical model with the 1/2 running bond pattern and the 1/3 running
bond pattern is created. The combination between the running bond patterns and the vertical pre-
stresses are applied on the URM wall.

10.1.1 Vertical pre-stress

The magnitude of the vertical pre-stress is depended on the type of structure. The URM wall on the
ground floor of a multi-storey building has a larger vertical pre-stress, due to the self-weight, as the
URM wall of the upper level. A cavity wall, with an inner and an outer wall, is a relatively slender
construction and not ideal in load bearing against a horizontal load. The vertical pre-stress on the
inner wall is relatively higher, due to the vertical load originated from the floors, than for the outer
wall. The magnitude of the vertical pre-stress used by Lourenço (1996) for an URM wall is 0.3, 0.6
and 1.2 MPa and will also be used in this thesis. The vertical pre-stress of the outer wall is based on
the own weight of the upper storeys. The magnitude of the variable vertical pre-stress is calculated in
[25].

H   m  Vertical pre-stress [25]

With

H = Height of the URM above the first floor

ɣm = Self-weight of the masonry determined as 1650 kg/m³

M.M. Scheen 71
Table 10.1 shows the variable vertical pre-stress that will be researched in this thesis. The values
described by Lourenço (1996) are relatively good in understanding the influence of the vertical pre-
stress on an URM wall. Therefore, in order to obtain understanding of the behaviour of the model,
the simulations are also subjected to the values of the vertical pre-stress obtained by Lourenço
(1996).

Table 10.1: Variable vertical pre-stress

Vertical pre-stress [Mpa]

0.0990 3 storey building
0.1485 4 storey building
0.1980 5 storey building

0.3 Lourenço (1996)

0.6 Lourenço (1996)
1.2 Lourenço (1996)

10.1.2 Bond pattern

The main bond pattern of masonry walls in the Groningen area is the 1/2 running bond pattern or
stretcher bond pattern. However, for a single leaf (e.g. the outer wall in a cavity wall) sometimes a
1/3 running bond pattern (or raking bond pattern) is applied. In order to investigate the influence of
the bond pattern (e.g. the difference between the 1/2 running bond and the 1/3 running bond) the
different bond patterns are researched with different vertical pre-stresses. The dimensions and the
different bond patterns of the models can be found in appendix A. Figure 10.1 shows the bond
patterns of model I.

(a) (b)

Figure 10.1: Variable bond pattern, 1/2 running bond pattern (a) and 1/3 running bond pattern (b)

M.M. Scheen 72
10.2 Model I

The variable vertical pre-stress, corresponding with a multi storey building, is applied on model I with
a 1/2 running bond pattern and the 1/3 running bond pattern. An analysis of the results between the
bond patterns and the influence on the failure mode of the URM wall is performed. The input file
describing the performed solution technique can be found in appendix D.

10.2.1 1/2 running bond pattern

Figure 10.2 shows the force displacement diagram of the 1/2 running bond pattern with variable
vertical pre-stress. The curves in figure 10.2 indicate that for a higher vertical pre-stress a higher
horizontal force can be applied. However, the maximum displacement reduces if the model is
subjected with a higher vertical pre-stress.

250 1.2 Mpa

Horizontal force [kN]

200 0.6 Mpa

150 0.3 Mpa

100 0.198 Mpa (5 storey building)

0.149 Mpa (4 storey building)
50
0.099 Mpa (3 storey building)
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Horizontal displacement [mm]

Figure 10.2: Force displacement diagram of model I with a 1/2 running bond pattern with variable vertical pre-stress

The failure mode also changes as the vertical pre-stress increases. Figure 10.3 shows the failure
mode of the structure with a horizontal top displacement of ux= 9.95 mm with a vertical pre-stress of
0.099 MPa (i.e. a 3 storey building). The structure is failing due to bending and the first cracks occur
in the upper left pier. The failing mode “rocking” is clearly to see in figure 10.3.

Figure 10.3: Model I with a vertical pre-stress of 0.099 MPa and a displacement of ux= 9.95 mm

M.M. Scheen 73
 Figure 10.4: Model I with a vertical pre-stress of 1.2 MPa and a displacement of ux = 5.95 mm

Figure 10.4 shows the failure mode of model I subjected with a vertical pre-stress of 1.2 MPa. The
first compression cracks occur in the lower right hand and lower left hand pier. The compression
strength is exceeded due to the high vertical pre-stress and the self-weight of the bricks. Therefore,
the failing mode “toe crushing” occurs in model I. After toe crushing of the model a shear crack,
indicated in green in figure 10.4, occurs from the lintel to the steel beam.

The total displacement of the model with a vertical pre-stress of 1.2 MPa is relatively low (5.95 mm)
compared with the displacement with a vertical pre-stress of 0.099 MPa (9.95 mm). The vertical pre-
stress of 1.2 MPa is causing the masonry to crush in the lower right hand corner. The strength of the
URM wall with a vertical pre-stress of 1.2 MPa is higher for a vertical pre-stress of 0.099 MPa. With a
lower vertical pre-stress the ductility of the URM wall is increased.

10.2.2 1/3 running bond pattern

The 1/3 running bond pattern is commonly used for an outer wall in a cavity wall. Therefore, the 1/3
running bond is only subjected to the vertical pre-stress of 0.099, 0.149 and 0.198 MPa, which
correspond respectively with a 3, 4 and 5 storey building. The difference between the curves in the
force displacement diagram of the 1/2 running bond and the 1/3 running bond pattern is relatively
small and are shown in figure 10.5. The force displacement diagram and the failure mode is similar
for every vertical pre-stress.

100
0.099 Mpa (1/3 running bond)
Horizontal force [kN]

80
0.149 Mpa (1/3 running bond)
60 0.198 Mpa (1/3 running bond)
40 0.099 Mpa (1/2 running bond)

20 0.149 Mpa (1/2 running bond)

0.198 Mpa (1/2 running bond)
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Horizontal displacement [mm]

Figure 10.5: Force displacement diagram of the 1/2 and 1/3 running bond pattern

M.M. Scheen 74
10.3 Model II

The sensitivity analysis on model II is performed with a monotonic load instead of a static cyclic load.
The material properties and the modelling technique are described in §9.3 and are similar to the
sensitivity analysis performed on model I. Model II is relatively difficult, in compare with model I and
model III, to simulate. The relatively large opening in the model creates difficulties in the numerical
simulation. Cracks develop, due to the thin pier, at a lower horizontal top load compared with model
I and model III. Therefore, the nonlinear calculation (relatively complex calculations) starts at a
smaller horizontal top displacement. The solution technique regime in the force displacement
diagram can be simulated with a similar technique in model I. However, for simulating the post peak
behaviour a different convergence norm is necessary. Therefore, the convergence norm is increased
from 0.001 to 0.01, also described in §10.1, which makes the nonlinear calculation less accurate than
the linear calculation. The 1/2 running bond pattern and the 1/3 bond pattern of the numerical
simulations are displayed in figure 10.6. The input file describing the performed solution technique
can be found in appendix D.

(a) (b)

Figure 10.6: Variable bond patterns of Model II: 1/2 running bond pattern (a) and the 1/3 running bond pattern (b)

10.3.1 1/2 running bond pattern

The simulation of the 1/2 running bond pattern on model II, describing the post peak behaviour, is
relatively comprehensive. The final deformation in the force displacement diagram, shown in figure
10.7, was not the maximum deformation but due to the complex calculations the simulations was
prematurely aborted. The influence of the vertical pre-stress on the URM wall is still displayed.

140 1,2 Mpa

Horizontal force [kN]

120 0,6 Mpa

100
80 0,3 Mpa
60 0.198 Mpa (5 Storey building)
40
0.149 Mpa (4 Storey building)
20
0 0.099 Mpa (3 storey building)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Horizontal displacement [mm]

Figure 10.7: Force displacement diagram of model II

M.M. Scheen 75
The left pier, the pier with a high aspect ratio, is failing due to bending with a vertical pre-stress of
0.099 Mpa, shown in figure 10.8. However, when the vertical pre-stress is enlarged to 0.6 Mpa the
bending cracks change into shear cracks and develop to the steel beam. Model II subjected with a
vertical pre-stress of 0.6 Mpa, shown in figure 10.9, is eventually failing due to toe crushing in the
lower right pier. The compression strength of the masonry is exceeded and the construction fails. The
bending cracks in the left pier is however not fully developed.

Figure 10.8: Model II with a vertical pre-stress of 0.099 Mpa and a displacement of ux = 5.32 mm

Figure 10.9: Model II with a vertical pre-stress of 0.6 Mpa and a displacement of ux=5.4 mm

10.3.2 1/3 running bond pattern

The difference of the curves in the force displacement diagram between the 1/2 running bond
pattern and the 1/3 running bond are relatively small. The curves in figure 10.10 indicate that the
bond pattern has little effect on the load bearing capacity and the failure mode of the structure.

M.M. Scheen 76
 100
0.198 Mpa (1/3 running bond)
Horizontal force [kN]

80
0.149 Mpa (1/3 running bond)
60 0.099 Mpa (1/3 running bond)
40 0.198 Mpa (1/2 running bond)
20 0.149 Mpa (1/2 running bond)

0 0.099 Mpa (1/2 running bond)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Horizontal displacement [mm]

Figure 10.10: Force displacement diagram of the 1/2 running bond pattern and 1/3 running bond pattern of model II

10.4 Model III

Model III consists of a smaller door opening than model I, shown in figure 10.11. The failing mode of
model III is dependent on the vertical pre-stress. The failing modes are different, than the falling
modes of model I, due to the geometry of the spandrel. Model III is dominated by the failing mode
“toe crushing” and “diagonal tensioning”. The input file for the performed solution technique can be
found in appendix D.

(a) (b)

Figure 10.11: Variable bond patterns of Model III: 1/2 running bond pattern (a) and the 1/3 running bond pattern (b)

M.M. Scheen 77
10.4.1 1/2 running bond pattern

Figure 10.12: Model III with a vertical pre-stress of 0.3 Mpa and a displacement of ux = 3.81 mm

Figure 10.13: Model III with a vertical pre-stress of 1.2 Mpa and a displacement of ux = 2.5 mm

When the vertical pre-stress develops, the crack pattern changes until the compression strength of
the masonry is exceeded. In figure 10.13 the failing mode “toe crushing” or “diagonal tensioning” is
dominant. The compression strength of the masonry is firstly exceeded in the lower right hand
corner of the right hand pier. The maximum displacement of the structure with a vertical pre-stress
of 1.2 Mpa is 3.5 mm. The force displacement diagram of model III with varying vertical pre-stress is
shown in figure 10.14. The displacement of the vertical pre-stress of the 3, 4 and 5 storey building are
not according to the maximum displacement of the structure. As mentioned in §10.3 the nonlinear
regime in the force displacement diagram starts in an earlier state as for the simulations with a
higher vertical pre-stress. The accuracy of the results is therefore questionable and not shown in
figure 10.14. In order to get a good comparison on the influence of the vertical pre-stress between
the models, the solution method is similar for every simulation.

M.M. Scheen 78
 Horizontal force [kN] 160
1.2 Mpa
120 0,6 Mpa

80 0,3 Mpa
0,198 Mpa (5 storey building)
40 0,148 Mpa (4 storey building)
0 0,099 Mpa (3 storey building)
0 1 2 3 4 5

Horizontal displacement [mm]

Figure 10.14: Force displacement diagram with varying vertical pre-stress of model III

10.4.2 1/3 running bond pattern

The behaviour of the 1/3 running bond pattern is, like model I and model II, relatively similar to the
1/2 running bond pattern. The force displacement diagrams of the 1/2 running bond pattern and the
1/3 running bond pattern of model III are shown in figure 10.15.

100
Horizontal force [kN]

0.198 Mpa (1/3 running bond)

80 0.148 Mpa (1/3 running bond)
60 0.099 Mpa (1/3 running bond)
40 0.198 Mpa (1/2 running bond)

20 0.149 Mpa (1/2 running bond)

0.099 Mpa (1/2 running bond)
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Horizontal displacement [mm]

Figure 10.15: Force displacement diagram of the 1/2 and 1/3 running bond pattern of model III

10.5 Overview

The maximum force and displacements of model II and model III are not determined in the analyses.
As explained in chapter 6 the accuracy of the nonlinear regime is drastically decreased when
adapting certain parameters. In order to perform an accurate comparison between the models the
solving technique (linear and nonlinear) is considered to be the same. The maximum load and
displacement is therefore not determined for model II and model III. The influence of the vertical
pre-stress on the models will be analysed and presented in this paragraph. The dominating failure
modes of the different models will be analysed and compared with each other.

M.M. Scheen 79
 (a) (b) (c)

Figure 10.16: Geometry of the models: model I (a), model II (b) and model III (c)

10.5.1 Influence of vertical pre-stress on the load bearing capacity

Figure 10.17 shows the influence of the vertical pre-stress with the corresponding model. The
horizontal force is determined at a displacement of 3.5 mm. Figure 10.17 shows that for a higher
vertical pre-stress a higher horizontal force can be applied. However, the ductility of the structure is
also influenced by the magnitude of the vertical pre-stress. The vertical pre-stress has a different
effect on the geometry of the structure. Model II is characteristic for a pier with a high aspect ratio.
Therefore the maximum horizontal load is, slightly, increasing after a vertical pre-stress of 0.3 Mpa.

140
Horizontal force [kN]

120
100 Model I
80 Model II
60
Model III
40
20
0
0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0 1,2
Vertical pre-stress [Mpa]

Figure 10.17: Influence of the vertical pre-stress on the models I, II and III

The influence of the vertical pre-stress on model I and model III are relatively similar. A lower aspect
ratio (h/l) of the piers results in a stiffer construction with a higher horizontal load but fails at a
smaller displacement. The height of the spandrel is also of influence on the load bearing capacity.
The spandrel has to be capable to distribute the stresses to its corresponding pier. A lower height of
the spandrel results in a non-uniform stress distribution to its piers.

Table 10.2: Overview of the maximum horizontal force

Model Vertical pre-stress [MPa]

0.099 1.2

I 44.4 kN 125 kN
II 44.8 kN 95.1 kN
III 54.3 kN 149.8 kN

M.M. Scheen 80
10.5.2 Influence of the bond pattern on the load bearing capacity

The influence of the bond pattern has a minor effect on the load bearing capacity. According to
Foraboschi (2008), mentioned in §5.1, the bond pattern influences the behaviour of URM wall
subjected to a horizontal load. However, the analysis of the results shows that for the 1/2 running
bond pattern and the 1/3 running bond pattern no difference in horizontal force or failure
mechanism occur, as shown in figure 10.18.

1/2 running bond pattern 1/3 running bond pattern

100 100
Horizontal force [kN]

Horizontal force [kN]

80 80

60 60

40 40

20 20
0 0
0,00 0,05 0,10 0,15 0,20 0,25 0,00 0,05 0,10 0,15 0,20 0,25

Vertical pre-stress [Mpa] Vertical pre-stress [Mpa]

Model I Model II Model III Model I Model II Model III

(a) (b)

Figure 10.18: Influence of the vertical pre-stress on the model with 1/2 running bond (a) and the 1/3 running bond (b)

11.5.3 Influence of the variables on the failure mode

The vertical pre-stress has an influence on the failure mode of URM walls. An overview of the type
and sequence of the occurring failure mode is displayed in table 10.3. The type of failure mode
mainly changes when the vertical pre-stress is increased from 0.6 MPa to 1.2 MPa. The diagonal
shear crack develops, for every model and vertical pre-stress, from the corner opening to the steel
beam. For a low vertical pre-stress, 0.099 MPa, the crack develops through the bed joints. The failure
mode is characteristic for bending by tilting of the pier. With a higher vertical pre-stress the crack
patterns are changing to more diagonal shear crack patterns. The bond pattern has no influence on
the type of failure mode of the construction. The crack locations are similar for every simulation.

The governing failure mode for all simulations is failure due to bending with crushing of the masonry.
The compression zone is, for every simulation and model, located in the lower right hand pier.
Strengthening of the compression zone will increase the total load bearing capacity of the URM wall.

M.M. Scheen 81
 Table 10.3: Dominant failure modes

Model Vertical pre-stress [Mpa]

0.099 0.148 0.198 0.3 0.6 1.2

1. Bending (c) 1. Bending (c) 1. Bending (c) 1. Bending (c) 1. Bending (c) 1. Bending (c)
I 2. Bending (t) 2. Bending (t) 2. Bending (t) 2. Bending (t) 2. Bending (t) 2. Shear (b)
3. Shear (b) 3. Shear (d) 3. Shear (d) 3. Shear (d) 3. Shear (d)

1. Bending (c) 1. Bending (c) 1. Bending (c) 1. Bending (c) 1. Bending (c) 1. Bending (c)
II 2. Bending (t) 2. Bending (t) 2. Shear (d) 2. Shear (d) 2. Shear (d) 2. Shear (d)
3. Shear (b) 3. Shear (b) 3. Shear (b) 3. Shear (b) 3. Shear (b)

1. Bending (c) 1. Bending (c) 1. Bending (c) 1. Bending (c) 1. Bending (c) 1. Bending (c)
III 2. Bending (t) 2. Bending (t) 2. Bending (t) 2. Bending (t) 2. Bending (t)
3. Shear (d) 3. Shear (d) 3. Shear (d) 3. Shear (d) 3. Shear (d)

with Bending (t) = Tilting

Bending (c) = Crushing
Shear (b) = Shear bedjoint
Shear (d) = Shear diagonal

M.M. Scheen 82
Chapter 11

Conclusion and recommendations

Chapter 11 will describe the conclusion and recommendations of the thesis. An experimental and
numerical research of various unreinforced masonry walls with openings under in-plane static
loading conditions were performed. Subsequently a sensitivity analysis to determine the influence of
predetermined variables on the URM wall was performed. The sensitivity analysis created insight in
the behaviour of an URM wall subjected to an in-plane horizontal load. Recommendations are
proposed for future research.

11.1 Conclusion

This thesis describes experimental and numerical research in the behaviour of URM walls subjected
to an in-plane horizontal load. The samples of the experimental research had a different geometry
and were characteristic for houses in the Groningen area. The results of the experimental research
were analysed by de Vries (2016) and Türkmen, Vermeltfoort & Martens (2016)

The material properties of the masonry were determined according to experimental tests in the
Pieter van Musschenbroek Laboratory at Eindhoven University of Technology. Four compression
tests, nine triplet tests and five four point bending tests were conducted. The results of the
compression and triplet tests showed significant spread of the results. Therefore only the results of
the four point bending test, to determine the tensile strength of the mortar, is considered to be
accurate. The material properties used in the numerical model, describing the compression and
shear behaviour, are according to Lourenço (1996) and van der Pluijm (1999), and are assumed to be
characteristic for masonry in the Groningen area.

A numerical model was created with the software TNO DIANA v9.6. This software uses the finite
element method to approximate the behaviour of URM. The models were created with the micro
modelling technique and subjected to an in-plane horizontal load. Model I was, as described in the
experimental research, subjected to a monotonic load instead of a static cyclic load. Therefore, the
verification of the numerical simulation was based on the experimental results of model I. The force
displacement diagram and the failure mode of the numerical model were relatively similar to the
results of the experimental research.

Modelling a static cyclic load is extremely difficult to perform. The theory of the behaviour in
unloading of the structure is difficult to describe in a finite element analysis. Several researchers,
Oliveira (2003) and Hordijk (1991), have approximated the unloading behaviour of masonry derived
from experimental tests. The theory of Oliveira (2003) is however relatively new and therefore not
recognized by TNO DIANA. In order to use the theory of Oliveira (2003) with TNO DIANA v9.6 the
finite element theory needs to be manually implicated. Advanced knowledge of computer
programming is therefore required. Applying the theory of Oliveira (2003) was too extensive and falls
therefore outside the scope of this thesis. The theory of Hordijk (1991) is usually applied in the
numerical simulations of concrete constructions. For masonry constructions the theory of Hordijk
(1991) is difficult to perform even using advanced solution procedures. Applying the theory of

M.M. Scheen 83
Hordijk (1991) on an URM wall, with dimensions of 2500x4000 mm², would significantly lead to
convergence errors in the simulations. Therefore the theory of Hordijk (1991) was not applied.

In the sensitivity analysis the models were subjected to an in-plane monotonic load. With the micro
modelling technique the models were subjected to a vertical top load and then by a horizontal top
displacement. The influence of two variables (i.e. vertical pre-stress and bond pattern) on the URM
walls were examined. The results of the analysis according to the numerical simulations were:

 The vertical pre-stress has a significant influence on the load bearing capacity of the URM
wall. A higher vertical pre-stress leads to a higher load bearing capacity.
 With a higher vertical pre-stress a stiffer construction is created. With a lower vertical pre-
stress the structure can have a larger top displacement.
 The geometry of the model influences the structural behaviour. A pier with a low aspect ratio
(h/l) is stiffer then a pier with a high aspect ratio. The pier with a low aspect ratio is
dominated by shear failure while the pier with a high aspect ratio is failing due to bending.
 The difference between the 1/2 running bond pattern and the 1/3 running bond pattern on
the behaviour of the URM wall is negligible. The load bearing capacity and the failure mode
are similar for every geometry and variable vertical pre-stress.
 The stiffness of the steel beam influences the behaviour of the URM walls significantly. The
deflection of the beam is decisive for the stress distribution in the model.
 The lintel in the URM walls is for a large opening (i.e. model II) the weakest link for higher
vertical pre-stress. The stiffness of the lintel needs to be adapted when a higher vertical pre-
stress is applied.

11.2 Recommendations for future research

In this thesis the results of the experimental research, obtained by de Vries (2016) and Türkmen et al.
(2016), were assumed to be correct and were used to verify the numerical research. Therefore, the
performance and the analysis of the experimental research had a direct effect on this research. In the
experimental research performed by QuakeShield certain boundary conditions were not
representative for the Groningen area. The results should be taken with some caution.

Determination of the material properties of the masonry used in the experimental research was
needed for the numerical research. The relative extensive values describing the post peak behaviour
(i.e. energy fracture mode and dilatancy angle) need to be experimentally determined. Displacement
controlled tests, to determine the material properties of masonry, are required for creating an
accurate numerical model.

The results of the sensitivity analysis indicate that the weakest link in the URM wall subjected to a
horizontal in-plane monotonic load is the compression strength of the masonry in the lower right
hand corner. When strengthening the compression zone, the total load bearing capacity of the URM
wall can be increased. Accurate experimental research is required to verify the increase in load
bearing capacity.

The numerical model in this thesis is restricted to a 2 dimensional model. To create an advanced
numerical model a 3 dimensional modelling is required. 3 dimensional numerical modelling of an

M.M. Scheen 84
URM wall is relatively comprehensive compared to a 2 dimensional model due to the anisotropic
property of masonry.

According to Foraboschi (2008), the bond pattern influences the failure mode of an URM wall
subjected to a horizontal in-plane load. However, this thesis concludes that the difference between
the 1/2 running bond pattern and the 1/3 running bond pattern can be neglected. The bond patterns
in this thesis are suitable for a single leaf masonry wall and are characteristic for the Groningen area.
The influence of the bond pattern for a double leaf masonry wall can have more effect on the
behaviour of the URM wall. However, when determining the influence of the bond pattern on a
double leaf masonry wall a 3 dimensional numerical model needs to be created.

When masonry is subjected to a horizontal load the Young’s modulus of the material reduces. The
behaviour of cyclic loading of masonry is relatively difficult to simulate and is, partially, performed by
experimental research. Modelling cyclic behaviour of masonry with the finite element method is
however not often performed by researchers. The most suitable theory for describing cyclic
behaviour of URM is the theory of Oliveira (2003). When implicating the theory in TNO DIANA v.9.6
an accurate numerical simulation of an URM wall can be achieved.

M.M. Scheen 85
Reference
Aa, P. van der (2015) – Rekenmethodieken voor seismische belasting. In KOersief 96, June (2015), pp
13-14.

Allen, C, Masia, M.J, Page A.W., Griffith, M.C. & Derakhshan, H (2015) – Cyclic In-plane shear testing
of unreinforced masonry walls with openings. Proceedings of the Tenth Pacific Conference on
Earthquakes Engineering Building an Earthquake-Resilient Pacific (2015).

ARUP bv (2013) – Client: Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij. ARUP Project Title: Groningen 2013.
Structural Upgrading Study

Becker, A (2001) – Understanding Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis through illustrative benchmarks.
Great Britain: Antony Rowe LTD, Chippendam, Wiltshire

Dost, B, Kraaijpoel, D, (2013) – The August 16, 2012 earthquake near Huizinge (Groningen). De Bilt:
KNMI

Dumova-Javonoske, E. Churilov, S. (2009) – Calibration of a numerical model for masonry with

application to experimental results. In Protection of Historical Buildings, London: Taylor &
Francis Group, ISBN 978-0-415-55803-7

Foraboschi, P. (2008) – Coupling effect between masonry spandrels and piers. In Materials and
Structures (2008) pp 279-300

Hordijk, D.A. (1991) Local Approach to fatique of Concrete. PhD thesis, Delft University of Technology,

Lourenço, P.B. (1996) – Computational Strategies for Masonry Structures. PhD thesis Delft: Delft
University Press.

Manie, J (2014) – DIANA finite element analysis, User’s Manual release 9.6, Concrete and Masonry
Analysis. Delft: TNO DIANA bv

Manie, J (2014) – DIANA finite element analysis, User’s Manual release 9.6, FX+ for DIANA. Delft: TNO
DIANA bv

Manie, J, Wijtze P.K. (2014) – DIANA finite element analysis, User’s Manual release 9.6, Analysis
Procedures. Delft: TNO DIANA bv

Manie, J, Wolthers A, (2014) – DIANA finite element analysis, User’s Manual release 9.6, Analysis
Examples. Delft: TNO DIANA bv

Mann, W, H. Müller (1977), Bruchkriterien fűr querbeanspruchtes Mauerwerk und ihre Anwendung
auf gemauerte Windscheiben, Bericht der Technische Hochschule Darmstadt

Mann, W, H. Müller (1982). Failure of shear-stressed masonry. An enlarge theory, tests and
application to shear walls. In Proc. Br. Ceram. Soc. (p.223).

M.M. Scheen 86
Mendes, M & Lourenço, P.B. (2014) – Sensitivity analysis of the seismic performance of existing
masonry buildings. In Engineering Structures 80 (2014), 137-146.

NPR 9998: (2015) Ontw. Beoordeling van de constructieve veiligheid van een gebouw bij nieuwbouw
verbouw en afkeuren –Grondslagen voor aardbevingsbelastingen: geïnduceerde
aardbevingen.

NEN-EN 1998-1, Eurocode 8 – Ontwerp en berekening van aardbevingsbestendige constructies. Deel

1: Algemene regels, seismische belastingen en regels voor gebouwen, 2005.

NEN-EN 1996-1-1+C1, Eurocode 6 – Ontwerp en berekening van constructies van metselwerk – Deel
1-1: Algemene regels voor constructies van gewapend en ongewapend metselwerk, 2006.

Oliveira, D.V.C (2003). Experimental and numerical analysis of blocky masonry structures under cyclic
loading. PhD thesis. Minho: Universidade do Minho

Pluijm, R. van der (1999). Out-of-Plane Bending of Masonry Behaviour and Strength. PhD thesis.
Eindhoven: Eindhoven University of Technology

Rots, J.G., van der Pluijm, R., Vermeltfoort. A.T., Janssen, H.J.M. and Lourenço, P.B. (1994) - 171
Structural Masonry; An experimental/Numerical Basis for Practival Design Rules. Gouda: CUR

Senthivel R., Lourenço P.B., and Vasconcelos G. (2006) Numerical Modelling of Deformation
Behaviour of Dry-Stack Stone Masonry, Department of Civil Engineering, Azurem Campus
University of Minho. P-4800-058 Guimaraes, Portugal

Schreurs, P.J.G. (2012) – Fracture Mechanics Lecture notes – course 4A780 draft. Eindhoven
University of Technology, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Materials Technology

TNO DIANA. (2012). Modelling Masonry [Video file]. Consulted on 18 February 2016, of
http://tnodiana.com/upload/files/training/webinars/2012_modelling_masonry.avi

Türkmen, Ӧ. (2015). Koolstoflijmwapening. In Bouwen met Staal 248 (2015), pp 68-69.

Türkmen, Ӧ. Vermeltfoort, A.T., Martens, D.R.W. (2016) – Seismic retrofit system for single leaf
masonry buildings in Groningen. Consulted on 12 August 2016 of http://www.quake-
shield.com/

Vanin, A & Foraboschi, P. (2012) – In-plane behavior of perforated brick masonry walls. In Materials
and Structures (2012).

Vermeltfoort, A.T. and van der Pluijm, R (1994-1997) - 193 Materiaal parameters voor constructief
metselwerk. Gouda: CUR

Vermeltfoort, A.T. and van der Pluijm, R. (1991). Deformation controlled tensile and compression
tests on units, mortar and masonry, Technical report B-91- 0561/TUE/BKO/91-07, TNO
Building and Construction Research/Eindhoven University of Technology

M.M. Scheen 87
Vermelftfoort, A.T. (2005). Brick-mortar interaction in masonry under compression. PhD thesis
Eindhoven: Eindhoven University of Technology

Vries, de, B.T. (2016). Metselwerkwanden onder seismische belasting in het vlak. Graduation thesis.
Eindhoven University of Technology, Department of Build Environment Unit Structural
Design.

Zijl, van, G. P. A. G., Rots, J. G., and Vermeltfoort, A. T. Modelling shear-compression in masonry. In
Proc. 9th Canadian Masonry Symposium (Fredericton, NB, Canada, 2001), P. H. Bischoff, J. L.
Dawe, A. B. Schriver, and A. J. Valsangkar, Eds., o. ISBN 1-55131-040-6, University of New
Brunswick.

Figures

Figure title page: Marc Ruygrok, (2009) – Het Slochter Molecuul. Retrieved from: www.flickriver.com

M.M. Scheen 88
Appendix A Dimensions of the models
Models for experimental research

M.M. Scheen 89
Verified numerical models

M.M. Scheen 90
Models with variable vertical pre-stress according to Lourenço (1996)

M.M. Scheen 91
Models with variable vertical pre-stress simulating a multi-storey building

M.M. Scheen 92
Models with variable vertical pre-stress and variable bond pattern

M.M. Scheen 93
Appendix B TNO DIANA v9.6 input file
: Diana Datafile written by Diana 9.6
Translated from FX+ for DIANA neutral file (version 1.2.0).
'UNITS'
LENGTH MM
FORCE N
TEMPER CELSIU
'DIRECTIONS'
1 1.00000E+00 0.00000E+00 0.00000E+00
2 0.00000E+00 1.00000E+00 0.00000E+00
3 0.00000E+00 0.00000E+00 1.00000E+00
4 0.00000E+00 -1.00000E+00 0.00000E+00
'MODEL'
GRAVDI 4
GRAVAC 9.81000E+00
'COORDINATES'
1 0.00000E+00 5.00000E+01 0.00000E+00

14420 1.36775E+03 1.64100E+03 0.00000E+00

'MATERI'
1 NAME "Masonry"
YOUNG 1.67000E+04
POISON 1.50000E-01
DENSIT 1.65000E-05
2 NAME "Cracks"
DISCRA 1
DSTIF 1.00000E+06 1.00000E+06
DCRVAL 2.00000E+00
MODE1 2
UNLO1 1
MO1VAL 8.00000E-02
MODE2 0
3 NAME "Joints"
COMBIF
DSTIF 3.80000E+01 1.50000E+01
FRCVAL 3.50000E-01 7.50003E-01 6.00006E-01 7.50003E-01
-1.30000E+00 1.00000E-02
GAPVAL 2.50000E-01
MO1VAL 1.80000E-02
MO2VAL 0.00000E+00 2.50000E-01
CAPVAL 8.50000E+00 9.00000E+00
MOCVAL 5.00000E+00 9.30000E-02
4 NAME "Steel"
YOUNG 2.10000E+07
POISON 2.00000E-01
DENSIT 7.80000E-06
5 NAME "Lintel"
YOUNG 1.67000E+04
POISON 2.00000E-01
DENSIT 1.60000E-05
'GEOMET'
1 NAME "Cracks"
THICK 1.00000E+02
CONFIG MEMBRA
ZAXIS 0.00000E+00 0.00000E+00 1.00000E+00
2 NAME "Joints"
THICK 1.00000E+02
CONFIG MEMBRA
ZAXIS 0.00000E+00 0.00000E+00 1.00000E+00
3 NAME "Brick"
THICK 1.00000E+02
4 NAME "Beam"
THICK 1.00000E+02
5 NAME "Lintel"
THICK 1.00000E+02
'DATA'
1 NAME "Brick"
4 NAME "Lintel"
5 NAME "Beam"
2 NAME "Cracks"
3 NAME "Joints"
'ELEMENTS'

M.M. Scheen 94
SET "Brick"
CONNECT
1 CQ16M 1 5 2 6 3 7 4 8

7316 CQ16M 14414 14413 10633 14405 14406 14420 14394 14393
MATERIAL 1
GEOMETRY 3
DATA 1
SET "Crack"
CONNECT
4 L8IF 9 11 3 7

7115 L8IF 13773 13772 13769 13737

MATERIAL 2
GEOMETRY 1
DATA 2
SET "Joint"
CONNECT
6 L8IF 1 8 12 14

7315 L8IF 14412 14415 14406 14420

MATERIAL 3
GEOMETRY 2
DATA 3
SET "Beam"
CONNECT
7199 CQ16M 14013 14122 14014 14198 14087 14199 14086 14197
7270 CQ16M 14121 14303 13784 14159 13796 14160 14050 14268
MATERIAL 4
GEOMETRY 4
DATA 5
SET "Lintel"
CONNECT
7273 CQ16M 11320 14355 14306 14331 14307 14356 11305 11339
7318 CQ16M 11472 14363 14314 14388 14389 14392 14383 14382
MATERIAL 5
GEOMETRY 5
DATA 4
'LOADS'
CASE 1
NAME "Pressure"
WEIGHT
NODAL
14083 FORCE 4 5.68275E+04
14055 FORCE 4 5.68275E+04
CASE 2
NAME "Horizontal displacement"
DEFORM
14104 TR 1 1.00000E+00
'SUPPOR'
NAME "Foundation"
/ 13798 13799 13802 13804 13805 13808 13810 13811 13814 13816 13817 13820 13822
13823 13826 13828 13829 13832 13834 13835 13838 13840 13841 13844 13882 13883
13886 13888 13889 13892 13894 13895 13898 13900 13901 13904 13906 13907 13910
13912 13913 13916 13918 13919 13922 13923 13926 13928 13929 13932 13934 13935
13938 13940 13941 13944 13946 13947 13950 13952 13953 13956 13970 13971 13974
13976 13977 13980 13982 13983 13986 13988 13989 13992 13994 13995 13998 14000
14001 14004 14006 14008 14009 14012 / TR 1
/ 13798 13799 13802 13804 13805 13808 13810 13811 13814 13816 13817 13820 13822
13823 13826 13828 13829 13832 13834 13835 13838 13840 13841 13844 13882 13883
13886 13888 13889 13892 13894 13895 13898 13900 13901 13904 13906 13907 13910
13912 13913 13916 13918 13919 13922 13923 13926 13928 13929 13932 13934 13935
13938 13940 13941 13944 13946 13947 13950 13952 13953 13956 13970 13971 13974
13976 13977 13980 13982 13983 13986 13988 13989 13992 13994 13995 13998 14000
14001 14004 14006 14008 14009 14012 / TR 2
NAME "L_Horizontal displacement"
14104 TR 1
'END'

M.M. Scheen 95
Appendix C Solution techniques: Static cyclic load
Model II - 0.6 MPa – 1/2 running bond pattern – Cyclic
*PHASE LABEL="Phased - Pre-stress"
BEGIN ACTIVE
ELEMEN "Brick" "Crack" "Joint" "Beam" "Lintel" /
SUPPOR "Foundation"
END ACTIVE
*NONLIN LABEL="Structural nonlinear - Pre-stress"
BEGIN EXECUT
BEGIN LOAD
LOADNR 1
BEGIN STEPS
BEGIN AUTOMA
SIZES 1.5
ARCLEN REGULA
END AUTOMA
END STEPS
END LOAD
BEGIN ITERAT
MAXITE 50
METHOD NEWTON
LINESE
BEGIN CONVER
FORCE OFF
DISPLA OFF
ENERGY
END CONVER
END ITERAT
END EXECUT
SOLVE PARDIS
OUTPUT OFF TEXT "Output"
*PHASE LABEL="Phased - Horizontal displacement"
BEGIN ACTIVE
ELEMEN "Brick" "Crack" "Joint" "Beam" "Lintel" /
SUPPOR "Foundation" "L_Horizontal displacement"
END ACTIVE
*NONLIN LABEL="Structural nonlinear - Horizontal displacement"
BEGIN EXECUT
TEXT "new execute block Start"
START STEPS EXPLIC ARCLEN REGULA
ITERAT METHOD NEWTON
END EXECUT
BEGIN EXECUT
TEXT "Cyclisch -0.243"
BEGIN LOAD
LOADNR 2
BEGIN STEPS
BEGIN AUTOMA
SIZES -0.243
MINSIZ 1e-06
MAXSIZ 0.1
ARCLEN REGULA
END AUTOMA
END STEPS
END LOAD
BEGIN ITERAT
MAXITE 50
METHOD NEWTON
LINESE OFF
BEGIN CONVER
SIMULT ON
FORCE OFF
DISPLA OFF
ENERGY TOLCON 0.01
END CONVER
END ITERAT
END EXECUT
BEGIN EXECUT
TEXT "Cyclisch 0.293"
BEGIN LOAD

M.M. Scheen 96
 LOADNR 2
BEGIN STEPS
BEGIN AUTOMA
SIZES 0.293
MINSIZ 1e-06
MAXSIZ 0.1
ARCLEN REGULA
END AUTOMA
END STEPS
END LOAD
BEGIN ITERAT
MAXITE 50
METHOD NEWTON
LINESE OFF
BEGIN CONVER
SIMULT ON
FORCE OFF
DISPLA OFF
ENERGY TOLCON 0.01
END CONVER
END ITERAT
END EXECUT
BEGIN EXECUT
TEXT "Cyclisch -0.364"
BEGIN LOAD
LOADNR 2
BEGIN STEPS
BEGIN AUTOMA
SIZES -0.364
MINSIZ 1e-06
MAXSIZ 0.1
ARCLEN REGULA
END AUTOMA
END STEPS
END LOAD
BEGIN ITERAT
MAXITE 50
METHOD NEWTON
LINESE OFF
BEGIN CONVER
SIMULT ON
FORCE OFF
DISPLA OFF
ENERGY TOLCON 0.01
END CONVER
END ITERAT
END EXECUT
BEGIN EXECUT
TEXT "Cyclisch 0.425"
BEGIN LOAD
LOADNR 2
BEGIN STEPS
BEGIN AUTOMA
SIZES 0.425
MINSIZ 1e-06
MAXSIZ 0.1
ARCLEN REGULA
END AUTOMA
END STEPS
END LOAD
BEGIN ITERAT
MAXITE 50
METHOD NEWTON
LINESE OFF
BEGIN CONVER
SIMULT ON
FORCE OFF
DISPLA OFF
ENERGY TOLCON 0.01
END CONVER
END ITERAT
END EXECUT
BEGIN EXECUT
TEXT "Cyclisch -0.546"
BEGIN LOAD

M.M. Scheen 97
 LOADNR 2
BEGIN STEPS
BEGIN AUTOMA
SIZES -0.546
MINSIZ 1e-06
MAXSIZ 0.1
ARCLEN REGULA
END AUTOMA
END STEPS
END LOAD
BEGIN ITERAT
MAXITE 50
METHOD NEWTON
LINESE OFF
BEGIN CONVER
SIMULT ON
FORCE OFF
DISPLA OFF
ENERGY TOLCON 0.01
END CONVER
END ITERAT
END EXECUT
BEGIN EXECUT
TEXT "Cyclisch 0.567"
BEGIN LOAD
LOADNR 2
BEGIN STEPS
BEGIN AUTOMA
SIZES 0.567
MINSIZ 1e-06
MAXSIZ 0.1
ARCLEN REGULA
END AUTOMA
END STEPS
END LOAD
BEGIN ITERAT
MAXITE 50
METHOD NEWTON
LINESE OFF
BEGIN CONVER
SIMULT ON
FORCE OFF
DISPLA OFF
ENERGY TOLCON 0.01
END CONVER
END ITERAT
END EXECUT
BEGIN EXECUT
TEXT "Cyclisch -0.669"
BEGIN LOAD
LOADNR 2
BEGIN STEPS
BEGIN AUTOMA
SIZES -0.669
MINSIZ 1e-06
MAXSIZ 0.1
ARCLEN REGULA
END AUTOMA
END STEPS
END LOAD
BEGIN ITERAT
MAXITE 50
METHOD NEWTON
LINESE OFF
BEGIN CONVER
SIMULT ON
FORCE OFF
DISPLA OFF
ENERGY TOLCON 0.01
END CONVER
END ITERAT
END EXECUT
BEGIN EXECUT
TEXT "Cyclisch 0.821"
BEGIN LOAD

M.M. Scheen 98
 LOADNR 2
BEGIN STEPS
BEGIN AUTOMA
SIZES 0.821
MINSIZ 1e-06
MAXSIZ 0.1
ARCLEN REGULA
END AUTOMA
END STEPS
END LOAD
BEGIN ITERAT
MAXITE 50
METHOD NEWTON
LINESE OFF
BEGIN CONVER
SIMULT ON
FORCE OFF
DISPLA OFF
ENERGY TOLCON 0.01
END CONVER
END ITERAT
END EXECUT
BEGIN EXECUT
TEXT "Cyclisch -0.8"
BEGIN LOAD
LOADNR 2
BEGIN STEPS
BEGIN AUTOMA
SIZES -0.8
MINSIZ 1e-06
MAXSIZ 0.1
ARCLEN REGULA
END AUTOMA
END STEPS
END LOAD
BEGIN ITERAT
MAXITE 50
METHOD NEWTON
LINESE OFF
BEGIN CONVER
SIMULT ON
FORCE OFF
DISPLA OFF
ENERGY TOLCON 0.01
END CONVER
END ITERAT
END EXECUT
BEGIN EXECUT
TEXT "Cyclisch 0.84"
BEGIN LOAD
LOADNR 2
BEGIN STEPS
BEGIN AUTOMA
SIZES 0.84
MINSIZ 1e-06
MAXSIZ 0.1
ARCLEN REGULA
END AUTOMA
END STEPS
END LOAD
BEGIN ITERAT
MAXITE 50
METHOD NEWTON
LINESE OFF
BEGIN CONVER
SIMULT ON
FORCE OFF
DISPLA OFF
ENERGY TOLCON 0.01
END CONVER
END ITERAT
END EXECUT
BEGIN EXECUT
TEXT "Cyclisch -0.982"
BEGIN LOAD

M.M. Scheen 99
 LOADNR 2
BEGIN STEPS
BEGIN AUTOMA
SIZES -0.982
MINSIZ 1e-06
MAXSIZ 0.1
ARCLEN REGULA
END AUTOMA
END STEPS
END LOAD
BEGIN ITERAT
MAXITE 50
METHOD NEWTON
LINESE OFF
BEGIN CONVER
SIMULT ON
FORCE OFF
DISPLA OFF
ENERGY TOLCON 0.01
END CONVER
END ITERAT
SOLVE PARDIS
BEGIN OUTPUT
TEXT "Output"
FXPLUS
BINARY
FILE "RO_1_Cyclic"
SELECT STEPS ALL /
END OUTPUT

Model III - 0.6 MPa – 1/2 running bond pattern – Cyclic

*PHASE LABEL="Phased"
BEGIN ACTIVE
ELEMEN "Brick" "Crack" "Joint" "Beam" "Lintel" /
SUPPOR "Foundation"
END ACTIVE
*NONLIN LABEL="Structural nonlinear"
BEGIN EXECUT
BEGIN LOAD
LOADNR 2
BEGIN STEPS
BEGIN AUTOMA
SIZES 1.5
MINSIZ 1e-06
ARCLEN REGULA
END AUTOMA
END STEPS
END LOAD
BEGIN ITERAT
MAXITE 50
METHOD NEWTON MODIFI
BEGIN CONVER
SIMULT ON
FORCE OFF
DISPLA OFF
ENERGY TOLCON 0.001
END CONVER
END ITERAT
END EXECUT
SOLVE PARDIS
OUTPUT OFF TEXT "Output"
*PHASE LABEL="Phased 1"
BEGIN ACTIVE
ELEMEN "Brick" "Crack" "Joint" "Beam" "Lintel" /
SUPPOR "Foundation" "L_Horizontal displacement"
END ACTIVE
*NONLIN LABEL="Structural nonlinear 1"
BEGIN EXECUT
TEXT "new execute block - Start"
START STEPS EXPLIC ARCLEN REGULA
ITERAT METHOD NEWTON
END EXECUT

M.M. Scheen 100

 BEGIN EXECUT
TEXT "new execute block - 0,091"
BEGIN LOAD
LOADNR 1
BEGIN STEPS
BEGIN AUTOMA
SIZES -0.091
MINSIZ 1e-06
MAXSIZ 0.1
ARCLEN REGULA
END AUTOMA
END STEPS
END LOAD
BEGIN ITERAT
MAXITE 50
METHOD NEWTON
LINESE OFF
BEGIN CONVER
SIMULT ON
FORCE OFF
DISPLA OFF
ENERGY TOLCON 0.001
END CONVER
END ITERAT
END EXECUT
BEGIN EXECUT
TEXT "new execute block 0,314"
BEGIN LOAD
LOADNR 1
BEGIN STEPS
BEGIN AUTOMA
SIZES 0.314
MINSIZ 1e-06
MAXSIZ 0.1
ARCLEN REGULA
END AUTOMA
END STEPS
END LOAD
BEGIN ITERAT
MAXITE 50
METHOD NEWTON
LINESE OFF
BEGIN CONVER
SIMULT ON
FORCE OFF
DISPLA OFF
ENERGY TOLCON 0.001
END CONVER
END ITERAT
END EXECUT
BEGIN EXECUT
TEXT "new execute block -0,354"
BEGIN LOAD
LOADNR 1
BEGIN STEPS
BEGIN AUTOMA
SIZES -0.354
MINSIZ 1e-06
MAXSIZ 0.1
ARCLEN REGULA
END AUTOMA
END STEPS
END LOAD
BEGIN ITERAT
MAXITE 50
METHOD NEWTON
LINESE OFF
BEGIN CONVER
SIMULT ON
FORCE OFF
DISPLA OFF
ENERGY TOLCON 0.001
END CONVER
END ITERAT
END EXECUT

M.M. Scheen 101

 BEGIN EXECUT
TEXT "new execute block 0,405"
BEGIN LOAD
LOADNR 1
BEGIN STEPS
BEGIN AUTOMA
SIZES 0.405
MINSIZ 1e-06
MAXSIZ 0.1
ARCLEN REGULA
END AUTOMA
END STEPS
END LOAD
BEGIN ITERAT
MAXITE 50
METHOD NEWTON
LINESE OFF
BEGIN CONVER
SIMULT ON
FORCE OFF
DISPLA OFF
ENERGY TOLCON 0.001
END CONVER
END ITERAT
END EXECUT
BEGIN EXECUT
TEXT "new execute block -0,435"
BEGIN LOAD
LOADNR 1
BEGIN STEPS
BEGIN AUTOMA
SIZES -0.435
MINSIZ 1e-06
MAXSIZ 0.1
ARCLEN REGULA
END AUTOMA
END STEPS
END LOAD
BEGIN ITERAT
MAXITE 50
METHOD NEWTON
LINESE OFF
BEGIN CONVER
SIMULT ON
FORCE OFF
DISPLA OFF
ENERGY TOLCON 0.001
END CONVER
END ITERAT
END EXECUT
BEGIN EXECUT
TEXT "new execute block 0,496"
BEGIN LOAD
LOADNR 1
BEGIN STEPS
BEGIN AUTOMA
SIZES 0.496
MINSIZ 1e-06
MAXSIZ 0.1
ARCLEN REGULA
END AUTOMA
END STEPS
END LOAD
BEGIN ITERAT
MAXITE 50
METHOD NEWTON
LINESE OFF
BEGIN CONVER
SIMULT ON
FORCE OFF
DISPLA OFF
ENERGY TOLCON 0.001
END CONVER
END ITERAT
END EXECUT

M.M. Scheen 102

 SOLVE PARDIS
BEGIN OUTPUT
TEXT "Output"
FXPLUS
BINARY
FILE "Nonlinear"
SELECT STEPS ALL /
DISPLA TOTAL TRANSL GLOBAL
STRAIN TOTAL GREEN GLOBAL
STRAIN TOTAL TRACTI LOCAL
STRESS TOTAL CAUCHY GLOBAL
STRESS TOTAL TRACTI LOCAL
FORCE REACTI TRANSL GLOBAL
END OUTPUT
*END

M.M. Scheen 103

Appendix D Solution techniques: Monotonic load
Model I - 0.6 MPa – 1/2 running bond pattern (verified model)
*PHASE LABEL="Phased"
BEGIN ACTIVE
ELEMEN "Brick" "Crack" "Joint" "Beam" "Lintel" /
SUPPOR "Foundation"
END ACTIVE
*NONLIN LABEL="Structural nonlinear"
BEGIN EXECUT
BEGIN LOAD
LOADNR 1
BEGIN STEPS
BEGIN AUTOMA
SIZES 1.5
MINSIZ 1e-06
ARCLEN OFF
END AUTOMA
END STEPS
END LOAD
BEGIN ITERAT
MAXITE 50
METHOD NEWTON MODIFI
BEGIN CONVER
SIMULT ON
FORCE OFF
DISPLA OFF
ENERGY TOLCON 0.001
END CONVER
END ITERAT
END EXECUT
SOLVE PARDIS
OUTPUT OFF TEXT "Output"
*PHASE LABEL="Phased 1"
BEGIN ACTIVE
ELEMEN "Brick" "Crack" "Joint" "Beam" "Lintel" /
SUPPOR "Foundation" "L_Horizontal displacement"
END ACTIVE
*NONLIN LABEL="Structural nonlinear 1"
BEGIN EXECUT
TEXT "new execute block - Start"
START STEPS EXPLIC ARCLEN OFF
ITERAT METHOD NEWTON
END EXECUT
BEGIN EXECUT
TEXT "new execute block < 5 mm"
BEGIN LOAD
LOADNR 2
BEGIN STEPS
BEGIN AUTOMA
SIZES 5
ARCLEN REGULA
END AUTOMA
END STEPS
END LOAD
BEGIN ITERAT
MAXITE 50
METHOD NEWTON
LINESE OFF
BEGIN CONVER
SIMULT ON
FORCE OFF
DISPLA OFF
ENERGY TOLCON 0.001
END CONVER
END ITERAT
END EXECUT
BEGIN EXECUT
TEXT "new execute block > 5 mm"
BEGIN LOAD
LOADNR 2

M.M. Scheen 104

 BEGIN STEPS
BEGIN AUTOMA
SIZES 4
MINSIZ 1e-06
CUTBCK 0.35
ARCLEN REGULA
END AUTOMA
END STEPS
END LOAD
BEGIN ITERAT
MAXITE 50
METHOD NEWTON
LINESE OFF
BEGIN CONVER
SIMULT ON
FORCE OFF
DISPLA OFF
ENERGY TOLCON 0.001
END CONVER
END ITERAT
END EXECUT
SOLVE PARDIS
BEGIN OUTPUT
TEXT "Output"
FXPLUS
BINARY
FILE "DO1_0,6 Mpa"
SELECT STEPS ALL /
DISPLA TOTAL TRANSL GLOBAL
STRAIN TOTAL GREEN GLOBAL
STRAIN TOTAL TRACTI LOCAL
STRESS TOTAL CAUCHY GLOBAL
STRESS TOTAL TRACTI LOCAL
FORCE REACTI TRANSL GLOBAL
END OUTPUT
*END

Model I – 0.3 MPa – 1/2 running bond pattern

*PHASE LABEL="Phased"
BEGIN ACTIVE
ELEMEN "Brick" "Crack" "Joint" "Beam" "Lintel" /
SUPPOR "Foundation"
END ACTIVE
*NONLIN LABEL="Structural nonlinear"
BEGIN EXECUT
BEGIN LOAD
LOADNR 1
BEGIN STEPS
BEGIN AUTOMA
MINSIZ 1e-06
ARCLEN OFF
END AUTOMA
END STEPS
END LOAD
BEGIN ITERAT
MAXITE 50
METHOD NEWTON MODIFI
BEGIN CONVER
SIMULT ON
FORCE OFF
DISPLA OFF
ENERGY TOLCON 0.001
END CONVER
END ITERAT
END EXECUT
SOLVE PARDIS
OUTPUT OFF TEXT "Output"
*PHASE LABEL="Phased 1"
BEGIN ACTIVE
ELEMEN "Brick" "Crack" "Joint" "Beam" "Lintel" /
SUPPOR "Foundation" "L_Horizontal displacement"
END ACTIVE

M.M. Scheen 105

*NONLIN LABEL="Structural nonlinear 1"
BEGIN EXECUT
TEXT "new execute block - Start"
START STEPS EXPLIC ARCLEN OFF
ITERAT METHOD NEWTON
END EXECUT
BEGIN EXECUT
TEXT "new execute block < 4 mm"
BEGIN LOAD
LOADNR 2
BEGIN STEPS
BEGIN AUTOMA
SIZES 4
ARCLEN REGULA
END AUTOMA
END STEPS
END LOAD
BEGIN ITERAT
MAXITE 50
METHOD NEWTON
LINESE OFF
BEGIN CONVER
SIMULT ON
FORCE OFF
DISPLA OFF
ENERGY TOLCON 0.001
END CONVER
END ITERAT
END EXECUT
BEGIN EXECUT
TEXT "new execute block > 4 mm"
BEGIN LOAD
LOADNR 2
BEGIN STEPS
BEGIN AUTOMA
SIZES 8
MINSIZ 1e-05
ARCLEN REGULA
END AUTOMA
END STEPS
END LOAD
BEGIN ITERAT
MAXITE 50
METHOD NEWTON
LINESE OFF
BEGIN CONVER
SIMULT ON
FORCE OFF
DISPLA OFF
ENERGY TOLCON 0.01
END CONVER
END ITERAT
END EXECUT
SOLVE PARDIS
BEGIN OUTPUT
TEXT "Output"
FXPLUS
BINARY
FILE "DO1_0,3 MPa"
SELECT STEPS ALL /
DISPLA TOTAL TRANSL GLOBAL
STRAIN TOTAL GREEN GLOBAL
STRAIN TOTAL TRACTI LOCAL
STRESS TOTAL CAUCHY GLOBAL
STRESS TOTAL TRACTI LOCAL
FORCE REACTI TRANSL GLOBAL
END OUTPUT
*END

Model I – 1.2 MPa – 1/2 running bond pattern

*PHASE LABEL="Own weigth"
BEGIN ACTIVE

M.M. Scheen 106

 ELEMEN "Brick" "Crack" "Joint" "Beam" "Lintel" /
SUPPOR "Foundation"
END ACTIVE
*NONLIN LABEL="Structural nonlinear 2"
BEGIN EXECUT
BEGIN LOAD
LOADNR 3
STEPS AUTOMA
END LOAD
ITERAT METHOD NEWTON
END EXECUT
SOLVE PARDIS
OUTPUT OFF TEXT "Output"
*PHASE LABEL="Phased"
BEGIN ACTIVE
ELEMEN "Brick" "Crack" "Joint" "Beam" "Lintel" /
SUPPOR "Foundation"
END ACTIVE
*NONLIN LABEL="Structural nonlinear"
BEGIN EXECUT
TEXT "new execute block 1"
START STEPS EXPLIC
ITERAT METHOD NEWTON
END EXECUT
BEGIN EXECUT
BEGIN LOAD
LOADNR 1
BEGIN STEPS
BEGIN AUTOMA
SIZES 4
MINSIZ 1e-06
ARCLEN OFF
END AUTOMA
END STEPS
END LOAD
BEGIN ITERAT
MAXITE 50
METHOD NEWTON
BEGIN CONVER
SIMULT ON
FORCE OFF
DISPLA OFF
ENERGY TOLCON 0.001
END CONVER
END ITERAT
END EXECUT
SOLVE PARDIS
OUTPUT OFF TEXT "Output"
*PHASE LABEL="Phased 1"
BEGIN ACTIVE
ELEMEN "Brick" "Crack" "Joint" "Beam" "Lintel" /
SUPPOR "Foundation" "L_Horizontal displacement"
END ACTIVE
*NONLIN LABEL="Structural nonlinear 1"
BEGIN EXECUT
TEXT "new execute block - Start"
BEGIN START
BEGIN STEPS
BEGIN AUTOMA
MINSIZ 1e-06
ARCLEN REGULA
END AUTOMA
END STEPS
END START
BEGIN ITERAT
MAXITE 50
METHOD NEWTON
BEGIN CONVER
SIMULT ON
FORCE OFF
DISPLA OFF
ENERGY TOLCON 0.001
END CONVER
END ITERAT
END EXECUT

M.M. Scheen 107

 BEGIN EXECUT
BEGIN LOAD
LOADNR 2
BEGIN STEPS
BEGIN AUTOMA
SIZES 10
MINSIZ 1e-06
ARCLEN REGULA
END AUTOMA
END STEPS
END LOAD
BEGIN ITERAT
MAXITE 50
METHOD NEWTON
LINESE OFF
BEGIN CONVER
SIMULT ON
FORCE OFF
DISPLA OFF
ENERGY TOLCON 0.001
END CONVER
END ITERAT
END EXECUT
SOLVE PARDIS
BEGIN OUTPUT
TEXT "Output"
FXPLUS
BINARY
FILE "DO1_1,2 Mpa"
SELECT STEPS ALL /
DISPLA TOTAL TRANSL GLOBAL
STRAIN TOTAL GREEN GLOBAL
STRAIN TOTAL TRACTI LOCAL
STRESS TOTAL CAUCHY GLOBAL
STRESS TOTAL TRACTI LOCAL
FORCE REACTI TRANSL GLOBAL
END OUTPUT
*END

Model I – 5 Storey building – 1/2 running bond pattern

*PHASE LABEL="Phased"
BEGIN ACTIVE
ELEMEN "Brick" "Crack" "Joint" "Beam" "Lintel" /
SUPPOR "Foundation"
END ACTIVE
*NONLIN LABEL="Structural nonlinear"
BEGIN EXECUT
BEGIN LOAD
LOADNR 1
BEGIN STEPS
BEGIN AUTOMA
SIZES 0.66
MINSIZ 1e-06
ARCLEN OFF
END AUTOMA
END STEPS
END LOAD
BEGIN ITERAT
MAXITE 50
METHOD NEWTON MODIFI
BEGIN CONVER
SIMULT ON
FORCE OFF
DISPLA OFF
ENERGY TOLCON 0.001
END CONVER
END ITERAT
END EXECUT
SOLVE PARDIS
OUTPUT OFF TEXT "Output"
*PHASE LABEL="Phased 1"
BEGIN ACTIVE

M.M. Scheen 108

 ELEMEN "Brick" "Crack" "Joint" "Beam" "Lintel" /
SUPPOR "Foundation" "L_Horizontal displacement"
END ACTIVE
*NONLIN LABEL="Structural nonlinear 1"
BEGIN EXECUT
TEXT "new execute block - Start"
START STEPS EXPLIC ARCLEN OFF
ITERAT METHOD NEWTON
END EXECUT
BEGIN EXECUT
TEXT "new execute block < 10 mm"
BEGIN LOAD
LOADNR 2
BEGIN STEPS
BEGIN AUTOMA
SIZES 10
MINSIZ 1e-06
ARCLEN REGULA
END AUTOMA
END STEPS
END LOAD
BEGIN ITERAT
MAXITE 50
METHOD NEWTON
LINESE OFF
BEGIN CONVER
SIMULT ON
FORCE OFF
DISPLA OFF
ENERGY TOLCON 0.001
END CONVER
END ITERAT
END EXECUT
SOLVE PARDIS
BEGIN OUTPUT
TEXT "Output"
FXPLUS
BINARY
FILE "DO1_5 Storey"
SELECT STEPS ALL /
DISPLA TOTAL TRANSL GLOBAL
STRAIN TOTAL GREEN GLOBAL
STRAIN TOTAL TRACTI LOCAL
STRESS TOTAL CAUCHY GLOBAL
STRESS TOTAL TRACTI LOCAL
FORCE REACTI TRANSL GLOBAL
END OUTPUT
*END

Model I – 4 Storey building – 1/2 running bond pattern

*PHASE LABEL="Phased"
BEGIN ACTIVE
ELEMEN "Brick" "Crack" "Joint" "Beam" "Lintel" /
SUPPOR "Foundation"
END ACTIVE
*NONLIN LABEL="Structural nonlinear"
BEGIN EXECUT
BEGIN LOAD
LOADNR 1
BEGIN STEPS
BEGIN AUTOMA
SIZES 0.495
MINSIZ 1e-06
ARCLEN OFF
END AUTOMA
END STEPS
END LOAD
BEGIN ITERAT
MAXITE 50
METHOD NEWTON MODIFI
BEGIN CONVER
SIMULT ON

M.M. Scheen 109

 FORCE OFF
DISPLA OFF
ENERGY TOLCON 0.001
END CONVER
END ITERAT
END EXECUT
SOLVE PARDIS
OUTPUT OFF TEXT "Output"
*PHASE LABEL="Phased 1"
BEGIN ACTIVE
ELEMEN "Brick" "Crack" "Joint" "Beam" "Lintel" /
SUPPOR "Foundation" "L_Horizontal displacement"
END ACTIVE
*NONLIN LABEL="Structural nonlinear 1"
BEGIN EXECUT
TEXT "new execute block - Start"
START STEPS EXPLIC ARCLEN OFF
ITERAT METHOD NEWTON
END EXECUT
BEGIN EXECUT
TEXT "new execute block < 10 mm"
BEGIN LOAD
LOADNR 2
BEGIN STEPS
BEGIN AUTOMA
SIZES 10
MINSIZ 1e-06
ARCLEN REGULA
END AUTOMA
END STEPS
END LOAD
BEGIN ITERAT
MAXITE 50
METHOD NEWTON
LINESE OFF
BEGIN CONVER
SIMULT ON
FORCE OFF
DISPLA OFF
ENERGY TOLCON 0.001
END CONVER
END ITERAT
END EXECUT
SOLVE PARDIS
BEGIN OUTPUT
TEXT "Output"
FXPLUS
BINARY
FILE "DO1_4 Storey"
SELECT STEPS ALL /
DISPLA TOTAL TRANSL GLOBAL
STRAIN TOTAL GREEN GLOBAL
STRAIN TOTAL TRACTI LOCAL
STRESS TOTAL CAUCHY GLOBAL
STRESS TOTAL TRACTI LOCAL
FORCE REACTI TRANSL GLOBAL
END OUTPUT
*END

Model I – 3 Storey building – 1/2 running bond pattern

*PHASE LABEL="Phased"
BEGIN ACTIVE
ELEMEN "Brick" "Crack" "Joint" "Beam" "Lintel" /
SUPPOR "Foundation"
END ACTIVE
*NONLIN LABEL="Structural nonlinear"
BEGIN EXECUT
BEGIN LOAD
LOADNR 1
BEGIN STEPS
BEGIN AUTOMA
SIZES 0.33

M.M. Scheen 110

 MINSIZ 1e-06
ARCLEN OFF
END AUTOMA
END STEPS
END LOAD
BEGIN ITERAT
MAXITE 50
METHOD NEWTON MODIFI
BEGIN CONVER
SIMULT ON
FORCE OFF
DISPLA OFF
ENERGY TOLCON 0.001
END CONVER
END ITERAT
END EXECUT
SOLVE PARDIS
OUTPUT OFF TEXT "Output"
*PHASE LABEL="Phased 1"
BEGIN ACTIVE
ELEMEN "Brick" "Crack" "Joint" "Beam" "Lintel" /
SUPPOR "Foundation" "L_Horizontal displacement"
END ACTIVE
*NONLIN LABEL="Structural nonlinear 1"
BEGIN EXECUT
TEXT "new execute block - Start"
START STEPS EXPLIC ARCLEN OFF
ITERAT METHOD NEWTON
END EXECUT
BEGIN EXECUT
TEXT "new execute block < 10 mm"
BEGIN LOAD
LOADNR 2
BEGIN STEPS
BEGIN AUTOMA
SIZES 10
MINSIZ 1e-06
CUTBCK 0.35
ARCLEN REGULA
END AUTOMA
END STEPS
END LOAD
BEGIN ITERAT
MAXITE 50
METHOD NEWTON
LINESE OFF
BEGIN CONVER
SIMULT ON
FORCE OFF
DISPLA OFF
ENERGY TOLCON 0.001
END CONVER
END ITERAT
END EXECUT
SOLVE PARDIS
BEGIN OUTPUT
TEXT "Output"
FXPLUS
BINARY
FILE "DO1_3 Storey"
SELECT STEPS ALL /
DISPLA TOTAL TRANSL GLOBAL
STRAIN TOTAL GREEN GLOBAL
STRAIN TOTAL TRACTI LOCAL
STRESS TOTAL CAUCHY GLOBAL
STRESS TOTAL TRACTI LOCAL
FORCE REACTI TRANSL GLOBAL
END OUTPUT
*END

Model I – 5 Storey building – 1/3 running bond pattern

*PHASE LABEL="Phased"

M.M. Scheen 111

 BEGIN ACTIVE
ELEMEN "Brick" "Crack" "Joint" "Beam" "Lintel" /
SUPPOR "Foundation"
END ACTIVE
*NONLIN LABEL="Structural nonlinear"
BEGIN EXECUT
BEGIN LOAD
LOADNR 1
BEGIN STEPS
BEGIN AUTOMA
SIZES 0.66
MINSIZ 1e-06
ARCLEN OFF
END AUTOMA
END STEPS
END LOAD
BEGIN ITERAT
MAXITE 50
METHOD NEWTON MODIFI
BEGIN CONVER
SIMULT ON
FORCE OFF
DISPLA OFF
ENERGY TOLCON 0.001
END CONVER
END ITERAT
END EXECUT
SOLVE PARDIS
OUTPUT OFF TEXT "Output"
*PHASE LABEL="Phased 1"
BEGIN ACTIVE
ELEMEN "Brick" "Crack" "Joint" "Beam" "Lintel" /
SUPPOR "Foundation" "L_Horizontal displacement"
END ACTIVE
*NONLIN LABEL="Structural nonlinear 1"
BEGIN EXECUT
TEXT "new execute block - Start"
START STEPS EXPLIC ARCLEN OFF
ITERAT METHOD NEWTON
END EXECUT
BEGIN EXECUT
TEXT "new execute block < 10 mm"
BEGIN LOAD
LOADNR 2
BEGIN STEPS
BEGIN AUTOMA
SIZES 15
ARCLEN REGULA
END AUTOMA
END STEPS
END LOAD
BEGIN ITERAT
MAXITE 50
METHOD NEWTON
LINESE OFF
BEGIN CONVER
SIMULT ON
FORCE OFF
DISPLA OFF
ENERGY TOLCON 0.001
END CONVER
END ITERAT
END EXECUT
SOLVE PARDIS
BEGIN OUTPUT
TEXT "Output"
FXPLUS
BINARY
FILE "DO1_5 Storey"
SELECT STEPS ALL /
DISPLA TOTAL TRANSL GLOBAL
STRAIN TOTAL GREEN GLOBAL
STRAIN TOTAL TRACTI LOCAL
STRESS TOTAL CAUCHY GLOBAL
STRESS TOTAL TRACTI LOCAL

M.M. Scheen 112

 FORCE REACTI TRANSL GLOBAL
END OUTPUT
*END

Model I – 4 Storey building – 1/3 running bond pattern

*PHASE LABEL="Phased"
BEGIN ACTIVE
ELEMEN "Brick" "Crack" "Joint" "Beam" "Lintel" /
SUPPOR "Foundation"
END ACTIVE
*NONLIN LABEL="Structural nonlinear"
BEGIN EXECUT
BEGIN LOAD
LOADNR 1
BEGIN STEPS
BEGIN AUTOMA
SIZES 0.495
MINSIZ 1e-06
ARCLEN OFF
END AUTOMA
END STEPS
END LOAD
BEGIN ITERAT
MAXITE 50
METHOD NEWTON MODIFI
BEGIN CONVER
SIMULT ON
FORCE OFF
DISPLA OFF
ENERGY TOLCON 0.001
END CONVER
END ITERAT
END EXECUT
SOLVE PARDIS
OUTPUT OFF TEXT "Output"
*PHASE LABEL="Phased 1"
BEGIN ACTIVE
ELEMEN "Brick" "Crack" "Joint" "Beam" "Lintel" /
SUPPOR "Foundation" "L_Horizontal displacement"
END ACTIVE
*NONLIN LABEL="Structural nonlinear 1"
BEGIN EXECUT
TEXT "new execute block - Start"
START STEPS EXPLIC ARCLEN OFF
ITERAT METHOD NEWTON
END EXECUT
BEGIN EXECUT
TEXT "new execute block < 10 mm"
BEGIN LOAD
LOADNR 2
BEGIN STEPS
BEGIN AUTOMA
SIZES 15
ARCLEN REGULA
END AUTOMA
END STEPS
END LOAD
BEGIN ITERAT
MAXITE 50
METHOD NEWTON
LINESE OFF
BEGIN CONVER
SIMULT ON
FORCE OFF
DISPLA OFF
ENERGY TOLCON 0.001
END CONVER
END ITERAT
END EXECUT
SOLVE PARDIS
BEGIN OUTPUT

M.M. Scheen 113

 TEXT "Output"
FXPLUS
BINARY
FILE "DO1_4 Storey"
SELECT STEPS ALL /
DISPLA TOTAL TRANSL GLOBAL
STRAIN TOTAL GREEN GLOBAL
STRAIN TOTAL TRACTI LOCAL
STRESS TOTAL CAUCHY GLOBAL
STRESS TOTAL TRACTI LOCAL
FORCE REACTI TRANSL GLOBAL
END OUTPUT
*END

Model I – 3 Storey building – 1/3 running bond pattern

*PHASE LABEL="Phased"
BEGIN ACTIVE
ELEMEN "Brick" "Crack" "Joint" "Beam" "Lintel" /
SUPPOR "Foundation"
END ACTIVE
*NONLIN LABEL="Structural nonlinear"
BEGIN EXECUT
BEGIN LOAD
LOADNR 1
BEGIN STEPS
BEGIN AUTOMA
SIZES 0.33
MINSIZ 1e-06
ARCLEN OFF
END AUTOMA
END STEPS
END LOAD
BEGIN ITERAT
MAXITE 50
METHOD NEWTON MODIFI
BEGIN CONVER
SIMULT ON
FORCE OFF
DISPLA OFF
ENERGY TOLCON 0.001
END CONVER
END ITERAT
END EXECUT
SOLVE PARDIS
OUTPUT OFF TEXT "Output"
*PHASE LABEL="Phased 1"
BEGIN ACTIVE
ELEMEN "Brick" "Crack" "Joint" "Beam" "Lintel" /
SUPPOR "Foundation" "L_Horizontal displacement"
END ACTIVE
*NONLIN LABEL="Structural nonlinear 1"
BEGIN EXECUT
TEXT "new execute block - Start"
START STEPS EXPLIC ARCLEN OFF
ITERAT METHOD NEWTON
END EXECUT
BEGIN EXECUT
TEXT "new execute block < 10 mm"
BEGIN LOAD
LOADNR 2
BEGIN STEPS
BEGIN AUTOMA
SIZES 10
MINSIZ 1e-06
CUTBCK 0.35
ARCLEN REGULA
END AUTOMA
END STEPS
END LOAD
BEGIN ITERAT
MAXITE 50
METHOD NEWTON

M.M. Scheen 114

 LINESE OFF
BEGIN CONVER
SIMULT ON
FORCE OFF
DISPLA OFF
ENERGY TOLCON 0.001
END CONVER
END ITERAT
END EXECUT
SOLVE PARDIS
BEGIN OUTPUT
TEXT "Output"
FXPLUS
BINARY
FILE "DO1_3 Storey"
SELECT STEPS ALL /
DISPLA TOTAL TRANSL GLOBAL
STRAIN TOTAL GREEN GLOBAL
STRAIN TOTAL TRACTI LOCAL
STRESS TOTAL CAUCHY GLOBAL
STRESS TOTAL TRACTI LOCAL
FORCE REACTI TRANSL GLOBAL
END OUTPUT
*END

Model II – 0.3 MPa – 1/2 running bond pattern

*PHASE LABEL="Phased"
BEGIN ACTIVE
ELEMEN "Brick" "Crack" "Joint" "Beam" "Lintel" /
SUPPOR "Foundation"
END ACTIVE
*NONLIN LABEL="Structural nonlinear"
BEGIN EXECUT
BEGIN LOAD
LOADNR 1
BEGIN STEPS
BEGIN AUTOMA
MINSIZ 1e-06
ARCLEN OFF
END AUTOMA
END STEPS
END LOAD
BEGIN ITERAT
MAXITE 50
METHOD NEWTON MODIFI
BEGIN CONVER
SIMULT ON
FORCE OFF
DISPLA OFF
ENERGY TOLCON 0.001
END CONVER
END ITERAT
END EXECUT
SOLVE PARDIS
OUTPUT OFF TEXT "Output"
*PHASE LABEL="Phased 1"
BEGIN ACTIVE
ELEMEN "Brick" "Crack" "Joint" "Beam" "Lintel" /
SUPPOR "Foundation" "L_Horizontal displacement"
END ACTIVE
*NONLIN LABEL="Structural nonlinear 1"
BEGIN EXECUT
TEXT "new execute block - Start"
START STEPS EXPLIC
ITERAT METHOD NEWTON
END EXECUT
BEGIN EXECUT
BEGIN LOAD
LOADNR 2
BEGIN STEPS
BEGIN AUTOMA

M.M. Scheen 115

 SIZES 15
MINSIZ 1e-06
CUTBCK 0.35
ARCLEN REGULA
END AUTOMA
END STEPS
END LOAD
BEGIN ITERAT
MAXITE 50
METHOD NEWTON
LINESE OFF
BEGIN CONVER
SIMULT ON
FORCE OFF
DISPLA OFF
ENERGY TOLCON 0.001
END CONVER
END ITERAT
END EXECUT
SOLVE PARDIS
BEGIN OUTPUT
TEXT "Output"
FXPLUS
BINARY
FILE "RO1_0,3 Mpa"
SELECT STEPS ALL /
DISPLA TOTAL TRANSL GLOBAL
STRAIN TOTAL GREEN GLOBAL
STRAIN TOTAL TRACTI LOCAL
STRESS TOTAL CAUCHY GLOBAL
STRESS TOTAL TRACTI LOCAL
FORCE REACTI TRANSL GLOBAL
END OUTPUT
*END

Model II - 0.6 MPa – 1/2 running bond pattern

*PHASE LABEL="Phased"
BEGIN ACTIVE
ELEMEN "Brick" "Crack" "Joint" "Beam" "Lintel" /
SUPPOR "Foundation"
END ACTIVE
*NONLIN LABEL="Structural nonlinear"
BEGIN EXECUT
BEGIN LOAD
LOADNR 1
BEGIN STEPS
BEGIN AUTOMA
SIZES 1.5
MINSIZ 1e-06
ARCLEN OFF
END AUTOMA
END STEPS
END LOAD
BEGIN ITERAT
MAXITE 50
METHOD NEWTON MODIFI
BEGIN CONVER
SIMULT ON
FORCE OFF
DISPLA OFF
ENERGY TOLCON 0.001
END CONVER
END ITERAT
END EXECUT
SOLVE PARDIS
OUTPUT OFF TEXT "Output"
*PHASE LABEL="Phased 1"
BEGIN ACTIVE
ELEMEN "Brick" "Crack" "Joint" "Beam" "Lintel" /
SUPPOR "Foundation" "L_Horizontal displacement"
END ACTIVE
*NONLIN LABEL="Structural nonlinear 1"

M.M. Scheen 116

 BEGIN EXECUT
TEXT "new execute block - Start"
START STEPS EXPLIC
ITERAT METHOD NEWTON
END EXECUT
BEGIN EXECUT
BEGIN LOAD
LOADNR 2
BEGIN STEPS
BEGIN AUTOMA
SIZES 10
MINSIZ 1e-06
ARCLEN REGULA
END AUTOMA
END STEPS
END LOAD
BEGIN ITERAT
MAXITE 50
METHOD NEWTON
LINESE OFF
BEGIN CONVER
SIMULT ON
FORCE OFF
DISPLA OFF
ENERGY TOLCON 0.001
END CONVER
END ITERAT
END EXECUT
SOLVE PARDIS
BEGIN OUTPUT
TEXT "Output"
FXPLUS
BINARY
FILE "RO1_0,6 Mpa"
SELECT STEPS ALL /
DISPLA TOTAL TRANSL GLOBAL
STRAIN TOTAL GREEN GLOBAL
STRAIN TOTAL TRACTI LOCAL
STRESS TOTAL CAUCHY GLOBAL
STRESS TOTAL TRACTI LOCAL
FORCE REACTI TRANSL GLOBAL
END OUTPUT
*END

Model II – 1.2 MPa – 1/2 running bond pattern

*PHASE LABEL="Own weigth"
BEGIN ACTIVE
ELEMEN "Brick" "Crack" "Joint" "Beam" "Lintel" /
SUPPOR "Foundation"
END ACTIVE
*NONLIN LABEL="Structural nonlinear 2"
BEGIN EXECUT
BEGIN LOAD
LOADNR 3
STEPS AUTOMA
END LOAD
ITERAT METHOD NEWTON
END EXECUT
SOLVE PARDIS
OUTPUT OFF TEXT "Output"
*PHASE LABEL="Phased"
BEGIN ACTIVE
ELEMEN "Brick" "Crack" "Joint" "Beam" "Lintel" /
SUPPOR "Foundation"
END ACTIVE
*NONLIN LABEL="Structural nonlinear"
BEGIN EXECUT
TEXT "new execute block 1"
START STEPS EXPLIC
ITERAT METHOD NEWTON
END EXECUT
BEGIN EXECUT

M.M. Scheen 117

 BEGIN LOAD
LOADNR 1
BEGIN STEPS
BEGIN AUTOMA
SIZES 4
MINSIZ 1e-06
ARCLEN OFF
END AUTOMA
END STEPS
END LOAD
BEGIN ITERAT
MAXITE 50
METHOD NEWTON
BEGIN CONVER
SIMULT ON
FORCE OFF
DISPLA OFF
ENERGY TOLCON 0.001
END CONVER
END ITERAT
END EXECUT
SOLVE PARDIS
OUTPUT OFF TEXT "Output"
*PHASE LABEL="Phased 1"
BEGIN ACTIVE
ELEMEN "Brick" "Crack" "Joint" "Beam" "Lintel" /
SUPPOR "Foundation" "L_Horizontal displacement"
END ACTIVE
*NONLIN LABEL="Structural nonlinear 1"
BEGIN EXECUT
TEXT "new execute block - Start"
BEGIN START
BEGIN STEPS
BEGIN AUTOMA
MINSIZ 1e-06
ARCLEN REGULA
END AUTOMA
END STEPS
END START
BEGIN ITERAT
MAXITE 50
METHOD NEWTON
BEGIN CONVER
SIMULT ON
FORCE OFF
DISPLA OFF
ENERGY TOLCON 0.001
END CONVER
END ITERAT
END EXECUT
BEGIN EXECUT
BEGIN LOAD
LOADNR 2
BEGIN STEPS
BEGIN AUTOMA
SIZES 10
MINSIZ 1e-06
ARCLEN REGULA
END AUTOMA
END STEPS
END LOAD
BEGIN ITERAT
MAXITE 50
METHOD NEWTON
LINESE OFF
BEGIN CONVER
SIMULT ON
FORCE OFF
DISPLA OFF
ENERGY TOLCON 0.001
END CONVER
END ITERAT
END EXECUT
SOLVE PARDIS
BEGIN OUTPUT

M.M. Scheen 118

 TEXT "Output"
FXPLUS
BINARY
FILE "RO1_1,2 Mpa"
SELECT STEPS ALL /
DISPLA TOTAL TRANSL GLOBAL
STRAIN TOTAL GREEN GLOBAL
STRAIN TOTAL TRACTI LOCAL
STRESS TOTAL CAUCHY GLOBAL
STRESS TOTAL TRACTI LOCAL
FORCE REACTI TRANSL GLOBAL
END OUTPUT
*END

Model III - 0.3 MPa – 1/2 running bond pattern

*PHASE LABEL="Phased"
BEGIN ACTIVE
ELEMEN "Brick" "Crack" "Joint" "Beam" "Lintel" /
SUPPOR "Foundation"
END ACTIVE
*NONLIN LABEL="Structural nonlinear"
BEGIN EXECUT
BEGIN LOAD
LOADNR 2
BEGIN STEPS
BEGIN AUTOMA
MINSIZ 1e-06
ARCLEN OFF
END AUTOMA
END STEPS
END LOAD
BEGIN ITERAT
MAXITE 50
METHOD NEWTON
BEGIN CONVER
SIMULT ON
FORCE OFF
DISPLA OFF
ENERGY TOLCON 0.001
END CONVER
END ITERAT
END EXECUT
SOLVE PARDIS
OUTPUT OFF TEXT "Output"
*PHASE LABEL="Phased 1"
BEGIN ACTIVE
ELEMEN "Brick" "Crack" "Joint" "Beam" "Lintel" /
SUPPOR "Foundation" "L_Horizontal displacement"
END ACTIVE
*NONLIN LABEL="Structural nonlinear 1"
BEGIN EXECUT
TEXT "new execute block - Start"
START STEPS EXPLIC ARCLEN OFF
ITERAT METHOD NEWTON
END EXECUT
BEGIN EXECUT
BEGIN LOAD
LOADNR 1
BEGIN STEPS
BEGIN AUTOMA
SIZES 15
MINSIZ 1e-06
ARCLEN REGULA
END AUTOMA
END STEPS
END LOAD
BEGIN ITERAT
MAXITE 50
METHOD NEWTON
LINESE OFF
BEGIN CONVER

M.M. Scheen 119

 SIMULT ON
FORCE OFF
DISPLA OFF
BEGIN ENERGY
TOLCON 0.001
CONTIN
END ENERGY
END CONVER
END ITERAT
END EXECUT
SOLVE PARDIS
BEGIN OUTPUT
TEXT "Output"
FXPLUS
BINARY
FILE "DO2_0,3 Mpa"
SELECT STEPS ALL /
DISPLA TOTAL TRANSL GLOBAL
STRAIN TOTAL GREEN GLOBAL
STRAIN TOTAL TRACTI LOCAL
STRESS TOTAL CAUCHY GLOBAL
STRESS TOTAL TRACTI LOCAL
FORCE REACTI TRANSL GLOBAL
END OUTPUT
*END

Model III - 0.6 MPa – 1/2 running bond pattern

*PHASE LABEL="Phased"
BEGIN ACTIVE
ELEMEN "Brick" "Crack" "Joint" "Beam" "Lintel" /
SUPPOR "Foundation"
END ACTIVE
*NONLIN LABEL="Structural nonlinear"
BEGIN EXECUT
BEGIN LOAD
LOADNR 2
BEGIN STEPS
BEGIN AUTOMA
SIZES 1.5
MINSIZ 1e-06
ARCLEN OFF
END AUTOMA
END STEPS
END LOAD
BEGIN ITERAT
MAXITE 50
METHOD NEWTON
BEGIN CONVER
SIMULT ON
FORCE OFF
DISPLA OFF
ENERGY TOLCON 0.001
END CONVER
END ITERAT
END EXECUT
SOLVE PARDIS
OUTPUT OFF TEXT "Output"
*PHASE LABEL="Phased 1"
BEGIN ACTIVE
ELEMEN "Brick" "Crack" "Joint" "Beam" "Lintel" /
SUPPOR "Foundation" "L_Horizontal displacement"
END ACTIVE
*NONLIN LABEL="Structural nonlinear 1"
BEGIN EXECUT
TEXT "new execute block - Start"
START STEPS EXPLIC ARCLEN OFF
ITERAT METHOD NEWTON
END EXECUT
BEGIN EXECUT
BEGIN LOAD
LOADNR 1
BEGIN STEPS

M.M. Scheen 120

 BEGIN AUTOMA
SIZES 15
MINSIZ 1e-06
ARCLEN REGULA
END AUTOMA
END STEPS
END LOAD
BEGIN ITERAT
MAXITE 50
METHOD NEWTON
LINESE OFF
BEGIN CONVER
SIMULT ON
FORCE OFF
DISPLA OFF
BEGIN ENERGY
TOLCON 0.001
CONTIN
END ENERGY
END CONVER
END ITERAT
END EXECUT
SOLVE PARDIS
BEGIN OUTPUT
TEXT "Output"
FXPLUS
BINARY
FILE "DO2_0,6 Mpa"
SELECT STEPS ALL /
DISPLA TOTAL TRANSL GLOBAL
STRAIN TOTAL GREEN GLOBAL
STRAIN TOTAL TRACTI LOCAL
STRESS TOTAL CAUCHY GLOBAL
STRESS TOTAL TRACTI LOCAL
FORCE REACTI TRANSL GLOBAL
END OUTPUT
*END

Model III – 1.2 MPa – 1/2 running bond pattern

*PHASE LABEL="Own weigth"
BEGIN ACTIVE
ELEMEN "Brick" "Crack" "Joint" "Beam" "Lintel" /
SUPPOR "Foundation"
END ACTIVE
*NONLIN LABEL="Structural nonlinear 2"
BEGIN EXECUT
BEGIN LOAD
LOADNR 3
STEPS AUTOMA
END LOAD
ITERAT METHOD NEWTON
END EXECUT
SOLVE PARDIS
OUTPUT OFF TEXT "Output"
*PHASE LABEL="Phased"
BEGIN ACTIVE
ELEMEN "Brick" "Crack" "Joint" "Beam" "Lintel" /
SUPPOR "Foundation"
END ACTIVE
*NONLIN LABEL="Structural nonlinear"
BEGIN EXECUT
TEXT "new execute block 1"
START STEPS EXPLIC
ITERAT METHOD NEWTON
END EXECUT
BEGIN EXECUT
BEGIN LOAD
LOADNR 2
BEGIN STEPS
BEGIN AUTOMA
SIZES 4
MINSIZ 1e-06

M.M. Scheen 121

 ARCLEN OFF
END AUTOMA
END STEPS
END LOAD
BEGIN ITERAT
MAXITE 50
METHOD NEWTON
BEGIN CONVER
SIMULT ON
FORCE OFF
DISPLA OFF
ENERGY TOLCON 0.001
END CONVER
END ITERAT
END EXECUT
SOLVE PARDIS
OUTPUT OFF TEXT "Output"
*PHASE LABEL="Phased 1"
BEGIN ACTIVE
ELEMEN "Brick" "Crack" "Joint" "Beam" "Lintel" /
SUPPOR "Foundation" "L_Horizontal displacement"
END ACTIVE
*NONLIN LABEL="Structural nonlinear 1"
BEGIN EXECUT
TEXT "new execute block - Start"
BEGIN START
BEGIN STEPS
BEGIN AUTOMA
MINSIZ 1e-06
ARCLEN REGULA
END AUTOMA
END STEPS
END START
BEGIN ITERAT
MAXITE 50
METHOD NEWTON
BEGIN CONVER
SIMULT ON
FORCE OFF
DISPLA OFF
ENERGY TOLCON 0.001
END CONVER
END ITERAT
END EXECUT
BEGIN EXECUT
BEGIN LOAD
LOADNR 1
BEGIN STEPS
BEGIN AUTOMA
SIZES 10
MINSIZ 1e-06
ARCLEN REGULA
END AUTOMA
END STEPS
END LOAD
BEGIN ITERAT
MAXITE 50
METHOD NEWTON
LINESE OFF
BEGIN CONVER
SIMULT ON
FORCE OFF
DISPLA OFF
ENERGY TOLCON 0.001
END CONVER
END ITERAT
END EXECUT
SOLVE PARDIS
BEGIN OUTPUT
TEXT "Output"
FXPLUS
BINARY
FILE "DO2_1,2 Mpa"
SELECT STEPS ALL /
DISPLA TOTAL TRANSL GLOBAL

M.M. Scheen 122

 STRAIN TOTAL GREEN GLOBAL
STRAIN TOTAL TRACTI LOCAL
STRESS TOTAL CAUCHY GLOBAL
STRESS TOTAL TRACTI LOCAL
FORCE REACTI TRANSL GLOBAL
END OUTPUT
*END

M.M. Scheen 123