This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier.

The attached
copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/copyright
 Author's personal copy

Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1560–1572

www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Nonlinear finite element analysis of grouted and ungrouted hollow

interlocking mortarless block masonry system
Waleed A. Thanoon a,∗ , Ahmed H. Alwathaf b , Jamaloddin Noorzaei c , Mohd. Saleh Jaafar c ,
Mohd. Razali Abdulkadir c
a College of Engineering and Architecture, University of Nizwa, Nizwa, Oman
b Civil Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Sana’a University, Sana’a, Yemen
c Civil Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, University Putra Malaysia, 43400 UPM-Serdang, Malaysia

Received 1 November 2006; received in revised form 23 October 2007; accepted 26 October 2007
Available online 11 December 2007

Abstract

The main feature of the interlocking hollow block masonry is the replacement of mortar layers commonly used in bonded masonry with
interlocking keys (protrusions and grooves). This study covers the modelling and the analysis of interlocking mortarless ungrouted (hollow) and
grouted concrete block system subjected to axial compression loads using FEM. The main features simulated in the developed finite element code
are the mechanical characteristics of the interlocking dry joints including the geometric imperfection of the shell beds of the blocks, the interaction
between block units, the progressive debonding between the block and grout and material nonlinearity. The applicability of the proposed FE model
is investigated by demonstrating the nonlinear structural response and failure mechanism of individual block, ungrouted and grouted interlocking
mortarless prisms. The results found show good agreement with the experimental test results.
c 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Finite element method; Nonlinear analysis; Constitutive relations; Interlocking masonry block; Modelling of dry joint; Geometric imperfection;
Block–grout bond

1. Introduction Interlocking mortarless load bearing hollow block system

Numerous analytical models have been developed to
simulate the behaviour of different types of structural masonry
systems using Finite element technique. Two main approaches
have been employed in the masonry modelling depending on
the type of the problem and the level of accuracy. The macro-
modelling approach intentionally makes no distinction between
units and joints but smears the effect of joints presence through
the formulation of a fictitious homogeneous and continuous
material equivalent to the actual one which is discrete and
composite [1–3]. The alternative micro-modelling approach
analyzes the masonry material as a discontinuous assembly of
blocks, connected to each other by joints at their actual position,
the latter being simulated by appropriate constitutive models of
interface [4–6]. An extensive critical review for the analytical
models of different masonry system can be found in Ref. [7].
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +968 25466401; fax: +968 25443629.
E-mail address: w.thanone@unizwa.edu.om (W.A. Thanoon).
is different from conventional mortared masonry systems in
which the mortar layers are eliminated and instead the block
units are interconnected through interlocking protrusions and
grooves [8,9]. It was experimentally found that the behaviour of
this system is highly affected by the behaviour of the mortarless
(dry) joint in both elastic and inelastic stages of loading. The
geometric imperfection of the block bed is an important factor
influences the structural behaviour of the mortarless masonry
system [11,12]. Hence, the modelling of mortarless joint plays
a significant role in the overall simulation of the system.
Moreover, in order to accurately estimate the system strength
and failure mechanism, it is necessary to have proper model for
the stress–strain behaviour of its different masonry materials in
a micro-model framework.
The complex interaction between block units, dry joint and
grouting material (if any) has to be well understood under
different stages of loading; i.e. elastic, inelastic and failure.
For interlocking mortarless masonry system, very limited

c 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

0141-0296/$ - see front matter

doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.10.014
 Author's personal copy
W.A. Thanoon et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1560–1572
Notations
f c0 , σo Uniaxial compressive strength of the material
(block unit or grout)
εo Uniaxial strain corresponding to the ultimate
strength, f c0 .
σ1 p & σ2 p Tensile and compressive stress respectively
f t0 Tensile strength of block or grout
Eo Initial tangent modulus of elasticity
f eq Equivalent tensile strength
FE analyses have been reported in the literature [13,14].
The existing FE analyses are simplified and hence show
inaccurate prediction for the structural response of the masonry
system compared to actual behaviour of the system found
experimentally. Furthermore, the existing models ignore the
interaction between masonry block units, mortarless joint
and grout as well as are incapable of simulating the failure
mechanism of the masonry system.
In this study, a finite element model is proposed and
an incremental-iterative program is developed to predict
the behaviour and failure mechanism of the system under
compression load. The nonlinear progressive contact behaviour
(closing-up) of dry joint that takes into account the geometric
imperfection of the block bed interfaces is included based on
the experiment testing data. The developed contact relations for
dry joint within specified bounds can be used for any mortarless
masonry system efficiently with less computational effort. The
bond between block and grout is considered to simulate the
debonding and slipping of the block–grout interface.
Furthermore, the stress–strain behaviour of masonry blocks
and grout materials under compression for uniaxial and
biaxial stress state was modelled. Material nonlinearity in
the compressive stress field is considered for the masonry
constituents (block and grout) in the orthogonal directions and
the effect of micro-cracking confinement and softening on the
stress–strain relationship under biaxial stresses are included
employing the equivalent uniaxial strain concept. The model
allows for the progressive local failure of the masonry materials
(crushing and cracking). After cracking, a smeared crack model
is adopted and the compressive strength reduction in the
cracked block is considered. Both material and joint models
are proposed based on the comprehensive experimental tests
carried out by the authors and published elsewhere [11,12]
The interlocking block system investigated in this study is
called Putra Block. It is a load bearing block system consisting
of three types of blocks namely the stretcher block, corner
block and half block as shown in Fig. 1. The blocks were
developed at Universiti Putra Malaysia [9,10]. The stretcher
block is the main unit used in the construction of the wall;
the corner block unit is used to fit the junctions and at the
end of the walls while the half block unit is to be used to
complete the courses of the wall so that the vertical joint will
be staggered. The interlocking mechanism of the block relies on
the insertion of the protrusions of the block to that of the next
course. In addition, the assembled blocks provide continuous
1561
Fig. 1. Putra interlocking block units [9].
hollow voids in the wall that allow the casting of reinforced
concrete (grout) stiffeners in vertical and horizontal directions
to enhance stability and integrity of the wall. The structural
behaviour of full scale mortarless interlocking walls subjected
to eccentric compressive loads was investigated experimentally
by Thanoon et al. [15].
Previous studies on hollow block masonry under compres-
sion showed that the differences in ultimate strength using 2D
(plane stress and plane strain) and 3D FE analysis were not
more than 5% [4,16]. The accuracy can be increased if the FE
mesh is used in the critical section where the failure is initiated.
Also using 3D discretization involves high computational cost.
Therefore, plane stress 2D continuum is adopted in this study.
Fig. 2 shows the hollow and grouted prisms modelled using
Eight-nodded isoparametric element to simulate the masonry
constituents and three-nodded isoparametric interface element
of zero thickness located between material elements to model
the interface characteristics of the dry joint and bond between
block and grout. In hollow prism, the cross webs of the unit
are not in contact because the webs are not aligned vertically
in successive courses. Hence, there is no element representing
the webs between joint elements in FE modelling. However, in
the grouted prism, different elements thicknesses were used to
model the grout and block web.
2. Modelling of mortarless joint
The authors have investigated the characteristics of
mortarless joints experimentally [11,12]. The experimental
tests focus on the contact behaviour in mortarless joints
due to geometric imperfection of the block beds. The tests
were performed on small wall panels and the deformation
characteristic of the interlocking dry joint at different locations
along the wall was investigated considering different sources
of block bed imperfection [11]. Modified triplet tests on
mortarless interlocking panels with different levels of axial
compression were carried out to evolve the deformation and
shear strength characteristics of the system at the joint interface.
Failure criterion and stiffness of the interlocked bed joints under
combined normal-shear load was proposed [12]. Figs. 3 and 4
show the joint response under axial compression load and shear
 Author's personal copy

1562 W.A. Thanoon et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1560–1572

(a) Hollow prism. (b) Grouted prism. (c) Different types of finite elements.

Fig. 2. Ungrouted and grouted prisms and elements used in FE analysis.

measured at dry joints at different location along the wall joint,

Fig. 3. Close-up deformation versus the compressive stress of dry joint [11].
the average deformation of all specified joints in a wall yields
similar deformation [11]. Hence, Eq. (1) yields an average
compressive stress on the contacted area of the dry joint for
a family curves obtained at different location along the dry
joint in the tested specimen. These variations in closing-up
behaviour are due to block bed irregularity and variation of
the blocks height. The constants a, b, and c were evaluated
using nonlinear regression analysis. Although the modelling of
dry joint (geometric imperfection) of the block bed interfaces
under compressive load is based on the experimental data
obtained by testing interlocking Putra Block system, it might
also be applicable to any other dry stack block system. Only
the constants (a, b and c) need to be evaluated experimentally
for other mortarless block systems.
Fig. 5 showed the failure criteria and shear-slip model of
the joint under combined shear-normal forces. These models
were available in the developed computer code in order to
investigate the structural response of the interlocking system
under eccentric/shear load. However, this study is limited to
investigate the behaviour of the joint under concentric axial
compressive load in which the contact behaviour of the joint
is more dominant and will be discussed in more detail.
The normal tangent stiffness of the joint, kn , developed by
differentiating of Eq. (1) as follows:

kn = AdnB + c (2)

Fig. 4. Shear slip under different precompressive stresses in dry joint [12]. where A = a.b and B = b − 1. At zero deformation (at the
origin) kn = kni = c, where kni is the initial normal stiffness
load respectively [11,12]. The load–deformations relations that and Eq. (2) can be written as
required in the FE modelling of the joint is derived based on
these experimental results. kn = kni + AdnB . (3)
The proposed mathematical model that can describe the The relative displacement between the corresponding two
nonlinear compressive stress in terms of the joint closure is: points lying on the opposite faces of the continuum elements
(Fig. 1) can be expressed as:
σn = adnb + cdn (1)
{d} = [B] j {δ} (4)
where
σn normal compressive stress (N/mm2 ) where
dn close-up deformation (mm) {d} relative displacement vector at a point (tangential (ds )
a, b, c constants determined from data analysis of the test and normal (dn ) displacement, i.e. shear slip and close-up
results. displacement).
Fig. 3 shows the upper and lower bounds of Eq. (1). [B] j strain–displacement matrix of the zero thickness
Although high variation in close-up deformations was interface element.
 Author's personal copy

W.A. Thanoon et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1560–1572 1563

Fig. 5. Shear strength envelope and shear load–slip model of dry joint [12].

{δ} nodal displacement of the top and bottom nodes of the

interface.
The stress–deformation constitutive relation for the dry joint
is expressed as in the standard form:
{σ } = [D j ]{d}
or
τs
    
k 0 ds
= s (5)
σn 0 kn dn
where
kn normal tangent stiffness of the joint determined from
Eq. (3).
ks elastic shear stiffness (estimated from shear load–slip
curves of the bed joints from the shear test [12], =103 N/mm3 ). Fig. 6. Comparison of test data and the best fit relation.
ds , dn relative shear and normal movement of the contacted
interfaces. test data [27] of the block and grout materials as well as the
The dry joint is assumed to lose all its stiffness when σn suggested best fit curve. A comparison with the well-known
reaches the masonry block compressive strength ( f c0 ). formula suggested by Saenz [18], which is commonly used for
the simulation of compressive stress–strain curves of masonry
3. Masonry materials modelling and concrete under uniaxial stress state [2,19], is also shown in
the same figure.
3.1. Stress–strain relation To include the biaxial stresses effect on the uniaxial
stress–strain relation given by Eq. (6), the procedure in
The experimental data of stress–strain tests at different load
Ref. [27] was used and is summarized below.
level were used to model the stress–strain behaviour of masonry
block and grout materials [27]. The stress–strain relation under Rewriting Eq. (1) in terms of equivalent uniaxial strain, we
uniaxial compression load is: obtain (for i = 1, 2):

p(ε/εo )σo p(εiu /εi p )σi p

σ = σi = (7)
p − 1 + (ε/εo ) p
(6) p − 1 + (εiu /εi p ) p

where,
σ , ε instantaneous values of the stress and the strain
respectively
σo , εo the ultimate stress (peak) and the corresponding strain
respectively
p material parameter constant depends on the shape of the
stress–strain diagrams.
The material parameter ( p) was calculated in Ref. [17] based
on the initial tangent modulus. To avoid the inaccuracy in
calculating the initial tangent modulus, in this study, nonlinear
regression analysis was used for more accurate evaluation of
the material parameter ( p). Fig. 6 shows the experimental
where
σi p maximum (peak) compressive principal stress in
direction i
εi p equivalent uniaxial strain corresponding to maximum
(peak) compressive principle stress σi p
εiu the equivalent uniaxial strain.
The equivalent uniaxial strain εiu eliminates Poisson’s
effect; whereas the strengthening due to the micro-cracking
confinement in biaxial compression stress and softening in
compression–tension stress fields are incorporated in σi p and
εi p respectively [20–22]. Thus a single relation (Eq. (7)) can
represent infinite variety of monotonic biaxial loading curves.
 Author's personal copy

1564 W.A. Thanoon et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1560–1572

Table 1
Failure criterion under different stress states
Stress state Criteria
Compression–compression K c1 = 1 + 0.92(σ2 / f c0 ) − 0.76(σ2 / f c0 )2
state (Viccho [23]) K c2 = 1 + 0.92(σ1 / f c0 ) − 0.76(σ1 / f c0 )2
σ1 p = K c1 f c0 ε1 p = K c1 εo
σ2 p = K c2 f c0 ε2 p = K c2 εo
p
Tension–compression σ1 p = f eq = 1 − (σ2 / f c0 )2 f t0
(Cerioni et al. [2]) σ2 p = σ1 p /α ≤ 0.65 f c0
ε1 p = σ1 p /E o
ε2 p = εo [−1.6q 3 + 2.25q 2 + 0.35q]
q = σ2 p / f c0
Fig. 7. Stress–Strain curves of masonry material for different biaxial stress Tension–tension (Kupfer σ1 p = f t0 ≥ σ2 p
ratio. et al. [24]) ε1 p = f t0 /E c ≥ ε2 p = σ2 p /E o

An incremental relationship is assumed between strains

Fig. 8. Masonry envelope for different stress states.
The tangent moduli, E 1t and E 2t for a given principal stress
directions are found as the slopes of the σ1 versus ε1u and the
σ2 versus ε2u curves for the current ε1u and ε2u as follows:
pE s p − 1 + (εiu /εi p ) p − p(εiu /εi p ) p
 
E it = 2 (8)
p − 1 + (εiu /εi p ) p

and stresses, which in differential form and in the principal
directions can be written for undamaged masonry (see Box I).
The tangent moduli of elasticity, E 1 and E 2 , along the
principle stress directions are evaluated in the compressive field
from a nonlinear equivalent uniaxial stress–strain relation based
on Eq. (8) and from linear relation in the tensile field as shown
in Fig. 7.
After cracking, the tangential elasticity modulus and
Poisson’s ratio are reduced to zero in the direction
perpendicular to the crack direction. Instead of zeros, very
small values are substituted in the program to avoid singularity
in stiffens matrices. The masonry along cracks is still
resisting compressive stress after cracking. It was found that
the compressive strength of concrete after cracking can be
significantly reduced by the tensile strain in the transverse
direction [25,26]. To account for this effect, the following
formula is adopted to obtain σ2 p after cracking:
σ2 p 1
= ≤ 1.0 (9)
0.8 + 0.34(ε1 /εo )
fc0
where εo is the compressive strain relative to the uniaxial

compressive strength, f c0 , and ε1 is the tensile strain normal to

where
E s , the secant modulus at the peak (maximum stress)
σi p /εi p .
Fig. 7 depicts the equivalent uniaxial stress–strain curves
for masonry element loaded with different biaxial stress ratio,
α, (α = σ1/ σ2 ) in the compression and tension fields. In the
tension field, the relation is linear and the slope is equal to
the initial tangent modulus (E o ) at the origin. The strength is
reduced when α < 0.0 whereas for α > 0.0, the strength is
enhanced due to micro-cracking confinement. The maximum
stress (peak), σi p , and the corresponding strain εi p will be found
from the biaxial failure criteria.
3.2. Failure criteria
The proposed failure envelope implements the biaxial
strength envelope shown in Fig. 8 for all stress states and
summarized in Table 1 [28].
the crack direction.
3.3. Modelling of block–grout interface
The significant parameters that govern the bond between the
block and grouts are the tensile bond strength and shear bond
strength of the interface. Debonding (separation) occurs when
the normal force across the interface is tensile and its value
exceeds the tensile bond strength (σt 0 ). This means that the
nodes located at both sides of the interfaces (Fig. 1) are free
to move separately.
Shear failure is initiated along the block–grout interface
when the shear stress is more than or equal to the shear strength
(τu ) that shown in Fig. 9. The envelope in this figure is divided
into three regions depending on the value of the normal stress
σn (tension is positive) and given by the following equations:
for σn ≥ σt 0 τu = 0.0 (10a)
for σt 0 > σn ≥ 0.0 τu = |τo | − (|τo |/σt 0 )σn (10b)
 Author's personal copy

W.A. Thanoon et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1560–1572 1565

{dσ } = [Dc ]{dε}

 p 
ν E1 E2
  
 dσ1  E1 0 dε1 
1  p 
dσ2 = ν E 1 E 2 E2 0  dε2

 1 − ν2 p
dτ12 0.25(E 1 + E 2 − 2ν E 1 E 2 ) dγ12
  
0 0
√
where v = v1 v2 and v1 = v2 = 0.2

Box I.

Table 2
Masonry block properties

Type Eo f c0 εo Material f t0 εcr

of (N/mm2 ) (N/mm2 ) parameter, (N/mm2 )
material p
Block 10 932 −22.0 −0.0023 8 1.98 0.000181
Grout 9 562.5 −20.4 −0.0028 4.2 2.03 0.000212

Table 3
Dry joint element properties (JE)

Joint kni (N/mm3 ) ks (N/mm3 ) Coeff. A Coeff. B

1&4 5.0 103 14 004.20 3.28
2&3 5.0 103 984.90 6.46

Fig. 9. shear strength envelope of block–grout interface. Table 4

Block–grout interface element properties (BE)

for σn ≤ 0.0 τu = |τo | − µσn (10c) kn (N/mm3 ) ks (N/mm3 ) M τo (N/mm2 ) σt 0 (N/mm2 )

where
σt 0 tensile bond strength on the interface (N/mm2 )
τu shear strength (mm)
τo shear bond on the interface or cohesion strength (shear
strength at zero normal stress) (N/mm2 )
µ friction coefficient of the interface.
The stress–deformation relation of the block–grout interface
is governed by the constitutive relation in Eq. (4). In this case,
the interface is assumed to lose the shear stiffness when the
shear stress is more than the shear strength defined by the
Eq. (10). The interface is assumed to lose all its stiffness
when σn reaches the compressive strength ( f c0 ) of the weaker
material (block or grout). Moreover, when the normal stress,
σn , is tension and more than tensile bond strength (σt 0 ) the
interface will lose all its stiffness at that point. In the undamaged
block–grout interface, high values (1010 N/mm3 ) are assigned
to ks and kn to diminish relative displacement before the
interface failure.
4. Finite element analysis
Incremental-iterative finite element program has been
developed to implement the proposed mortarless masonry
model. Nonlinear analysis is started from the beginning of the
load application because of the nonlinearity characteristic of the
joint contact behaviour. Fig. 10 shows the adopted calculation
to predict the complete nonlinear response of the masonry
system for ith iteration for any incremental load.
1010 1010 0.6 0.3a 0.36b
a Ref. [16].
b Ref. [4].
The results of FE analysis were compared with those
found experimentally; a unit block [27], interlocking mortarless
ungrouted and grouted prisms [11]. All the properties of the
block and grout as well as dry joint and block–grout bond
interfaces are shown in Tables 2–4.
4.1. Block unit
The compressive stress versus axial strain of the finite
element model and the results of the block unit tested under
axial compression are compared in Fig. 11. Experimentally,
under axial compression, block specimen shows conical shear-
compression type of failure at the face-shell of the block unit as
shown in Fig. 12(a). This mode of failure is well predicted by
the FE model as shown in Fig. 12(b), which shows the crushed
area bounded by dotted lines. The close matching between the
experimental and theoretical analysis indicates that the adopted
masonry material modelling and failure criteria are capable of
predicting both the nonlinear stress–strain response and the
failure mode of the masonry.
4.2. Ungrouted (hollow) prism
Fig. 13(a) shows a half of the three courses height prism
that used in the analysis. 2D finite element discretization of
 Author's personal copy
1566 W.A. Thanoon et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1560–1572
Fig. 10. Nonlinear solution procedure.
Fig. 11. Stress–strain curves of block unit.
the prism in x–y plane is adopted as shown in Fig. 13(b).
The web and face-shell elements are modelled with different
thicknesses. The compressive load was applied incrementally
and the boundary condition at the top and bottom of the prism
were simulated as reported in the experimental test [11].
Fig. 14(a) shows the deformed mesh of the prism and
Fig. 14(b) shows the average axial deformation of the gauge
length between the Demec Points located as shown in the
same figure on both prism sides. The results obtained from the
program and the test results [11] are shown together in this
figure for comparison purposes. A good agreement between
the program results and the experimental work is distinguished.
It can be shown that the dry joints affect predominantly
the hollow prism deformation especially at the lower and
middle load levels (45% of the ultimate load). This behaviour
is due to the nonlinear gradual closure of the contacted
interfaces (or seating) of the dry bed joints. Beyond this
load, the joints will be mostly in maximum contact condition
and the prism deformation is affected by the masonry block
 Author's personal copy

W.A. Thanoon et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1560–1572 1567

(a) Block crushing from the test [26]. (b) FE model crushing.

Fig. 12. Mode of failure of block unit.

(a) Half of hollow prism. (b) Finite element mesh.

Fig. 13. Hollow prism and FE mesh.

(a) Deformed mesh. (b) Axial deformation versus compressive load.

Fig. 14. Mode of deformation of hollow prism.

shortening only; till the sudden failure of the specimen. The (11.2 N/mm2 from the test), which is 15.0% higher than the
compressive strength provided by the FE model is 13.2 N/mm2 average strength of the tested prisms.
 Author's personal copy

1568 W.A. Thanoon et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1560–1572

(a) Maximum principal stress, S1. (b) Minimum principal stress, S2.

Fig. 15. Principal stresses distribution of hollow prism.

Maximum and Minimum principal stresses (S1, S2)

obtained by the FE analysis at a compressive load of 48
kN (average compressive stress is 2.0 N/mm2 ) are shown
in Fig. 15(a) and (b) respectively. The small unsymmetrical
distribution of the stresses in the prism is due to the block bed
imperfection. As predicted by the program, high tensile stress
is induced in the webs as shown in Fig. 15(a) and compressive
stress is higher at the face-shell as shown in Fig. 15(b).
Cracks initiate when the principal tensile stress reaches
the equivalent tensile strength. Fig. 16(a) shows the predicted
cracks pattern near the failure and Fig. 16(b) shows the
observed cracks in the experimental test [11]. A single line in
Fig. 16(a) means single crack and two cross lines means double
cracks in the orthogonal directions which occurred at different
loading stages. As can be seen, a relatively good agreement
between the FE mode results and the experimental test.
(a) FE model result. (b) Test result [10].
4.3. Grouted prism Fig. 16. Cracks pattern in hollow prism.

The FE mesh of the grouted prism was constructed as in the

hollow prism with additional bond element located between
the block unit and the grouted core as shown in Fig. 17.
Bond element (BE) properties of the block–grout interface are
available in Table 4. An equivalent thickness for the grout and
block web is calculated to take into consideration the difference
in the material properties of the web block and grout in the
middle region of the prism. The calculated equivalent thickness
is based on the ratio of the modulus of elasticity of block and
grout.
The deformed mesh and the axial deformation are shown in
Fig. 18(a) and (b) respectively. The results of grouted prism
shows different mode of deformation compared to ungrouted
prism. Unlike the hollow prism, the high initial deformation
at the lower load levels is not exists in the grouted prism due
to grout which eliminates the effect of joint seating observed
in hollow prism. However noticeable deformation occurs at
the higher load levels, mainly, because of the progressive
failure of the bond between block and grout. FE results as
 Author's personal copy

W.A. Thanoon et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1560–1572 1569

(a) Half of grouted prism. (b) Finite element mesh.

Fig. 17. Grouted prism and FE mesh.

(a) FE deformed mesh. (b) Axial deformation versus compressive load.

Fig. 18. Mode of deformation of grouted prism.

well as experimental results show linear variation of load with
deformation within the elastic range of loading, followed by
nonlinear style of relation reflecting the degradation of stiffness
due to the nonlinearity of material and gradual debonding of
block–grout interface.
The importance of using bond element in the block–grout
interface can be recognized from the finite element analysis
results with and without bond element as shown in Fig. 18(b).
In the analysis results without bond element, premature failure
in the grouted core occurred because the grout compressive
strength is lower than the block and the program stopped
at 181.7 kN which equal to average compressive stress of
5.3 N/mm2 . However, the results with bond element show that
the prism sustains load more than that observed in ignoring the
bond element because part of the load was allocated to break the
block–grout interface bond and thus gradual debonding occurs
before the overall collapse. The predicted debonding failure of
the block face-shell from the grouted core is nearly similar
to the observed failure in the experimental test as shown in
Fig. 19. The compressive strength predicted by the model is
12.5 N/mm2 (11.5 N/mm2 from test) which is 8.0% higher
than the average strength of the tested prism (deformation
reading was stopped at stress of 9.36 N/mm2 ).
The variation of the stress distribution in the grouted prism
is relatively less compared to the hollow prism as shown in
the principal stresses (S1, S2) counter in Fig. 20 which plotted
at a compressive load of 69.0 kN (average compressive stress
is 2.0 N/mm2 ). In terms of load, the grouted prism carried
higher load compared to ungrouted prism. However, as the
cross sectional area of the grouted prism is higher than the
ungrouted prism, the stresses becomes lower. Furthermore, the
full capacity of grout strength was not achieved due to the
web-shell splitting failure. This phenomenon was also observed
in experimental testing [15]. It is attributed to the similar
 Author's personal copy

1570 W.A. Thanoon et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1560–1572

(a) FE model result. (b) Test results [10].

Fig. 19. Block–grout debonding of grouted prism.

(a) Maximum principal stress, S1. (b) Minimum principal stress, S2.

Fig. 20. Principal stresses distribution of grouted prism.

failure modes observed in grouted and hollow prisms. The of the grout which is confined by the web-shell faces of the
axial compressive load in the grout produces bilateral expansion block. This in turn will create additional tensile stresses at the
 Author's personal copy
W.A. Thanoon et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1560–1572
web-shell interface leading to a splitting crack at this junction
before material crushing failure or the full utilization of the
grout strength.
Maximum tensile stress is detected in the grout as shown in
Fig. 20(a). However cracks were not induced in the subsequent
incremental loads because the tensile stress value still much less
than the grout tensile strength and higher compressive stress is
predicted in the grout as shown in Fig. 20(b).
5. Summary and conclusion
1. Finite element model of mortarless block masonry system
has been developed. The model is at micro-level which
includes the modelling of masonry materials, mortarless
dry joint and block–grout interface behaviour. Moreover,
the proposed model is capable of predicting the nonlinear
response of the mortarless masonry system as well as its
failure mode.
2. The contact behaviour of mortarless joint taking into
consideration the geometric imperfection of the block bed
interfaces is simulated depending on the results obtained
experimentally. The developed contact relations for dry
joint within specified bounds describe accurately the
variation of the contact properties and can be used for
any mortarless masonry system efficiently in the nonlinear
solution procedure of the system.
3. The presented stress–strain relationship of masonry block
and grout material based on the fitting experimental data
is capable of simulating the material nonlinear stress–strain
behaviour for different masonry constituents effectively.
Furthermore, it can be incorporated successfully into the
model to include the biaxial state of stress and the material
nonlinearity in the orthogonal directions using the equivalent
uniaxial strain concept. The effect of micro-cracking
confinement and softening on the masonry behaviour under
biaxial stresses can be included efficiently also by the
presented stress–strain relation.
4. The bond between block and grout interfaces has been
modelled as well considering the debonding and slipping
failure of block–grout interface.
5. The FE model is capable of predicting accurately the
deformation of the mortarless ungrouted and grouted prism
under compression. In the ungrouted prism, the dry joint
influences the prism deformation predominantly from the
initial loading stage up to 45% of the ultimate loads
reflecting the seating effect of dry joint due to the block
bed imperfection. In this range of loading, the stiffness of
ungrouted prism increases due to increasing of the contacted
particles in the dry joint interface.
6. Unlike the ungrouted prism, the high initial deformation at
lower load levels disappears in the grouted prism due to the
presence of grout, which dominates the overall behaviour
of grouted prism. However, noticeable deformation occurs
at the higher load levels due to the debonding between the
block and grout.
7. The developed FE model can predict the cracking pattern
of ungrouted prism and block–grout debonding of grouted
prism as well as the failure load with acceptable accuracy.
1571
References
[1] Lotfi H, Shing P. An appraisal of smeared crack model for masonry shear
wall analysis. Computer and Structures 1991;41:413–25.
[2] Cerioni R, Doinda G. A finite element model for the nonlinear analysis of
reinforced and prestressed masonry wall. Computer and Structures 1994;
53:1291–306.
[3] Zhuge Y, Thambiratnam D, Coreroy J. Nonlinear dynamic analysis of
unreinforced masonry. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 1998;
124(3):270–7.
[4] Suwalski P, Drysdale R. Influence of slenderness on the capacity
of concrete block walls. In: Proceeding of 4th Canadian masonry
symposium. 1986, p. 122–35.
[5] Ali SS, Page AW. Finite element model for masonry subjected to
concentrated loads. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 1988;
114(8):1761–84.
[6] Riddington JR, Noam NF. Finite element prediction of masonry
compressive strength. Computer and Structures 1994;52(1):113–9.
[7] Alwathaf AH, Thanoon WAM, Noorzaei J, Jaafar MS, Abdulkadir MR.
Analytical models for different masonry systems: Critical review. In: Proc.
of IBS2003 conf. 2003.
[8] Harris H, Oh K, Hamid A. Development of new interlocking and
mortarless block masonry units for efficient building systems. In:
Proceeding of the sixth Canadian masonry symposium saskatoon. 1992.
[9] Thanoon WA, Jaafar MS, Abdul Kadir MR, Ali AA, Trikha DN,
Najm AM. Development of an innovative interlocking load bearing
hollow block system in Malaysia. Construction and Building Materials
2004;18:445–54.
[10] Jaafar MS, Thanoon WA, Najm AMS, Abdulkadir MR, Abang Ali AA.
Strength correlation between individual block, prism and basic wall
panel for interlocking mortarless hollow block masonry. Construction and
Building Materials 2006;20(7):492–8.
[11] Jaafar MS, Alwathaf AH, Thanoon WAM, Noorzaei J, Abdulkadir
MR. Characteristic of interlocking mortarless block masonry under
compression. In: Proceedings of ICE, construction materials. 2006.
[12] Alwathaf AH, Thanoon WAM, Noorzaei J, Jaafar MS, Abdulkadir MR.
Shear. Characteristic of interlocking mortarless block masonry joints,
masonry international. Journal of the British Masonry Society 2005;18(1):
139–46.
[13] Oh K. Development and investigation of failure mechanism of
interlocking mortarless block masonry system. Ph.D. thesis. Philadelphia:
Drexel University; 1994.
[14] Alpa G, Gambarotta L, Monetto I. Dry block assembly continuum
modelling for the in-plane analysis of shear walls. In: Proceeding of the
4th international symposium on computer methods in structural masonry.
E & FN, Spon; 1998. p. 111–8.
[15] Thanoon WA, Jaafar MS, Noorzaei J, Kadir MRA, Fares S. Structural
behaviour of interlocking masonry system. Advances in Structural
Engineering 2007;10(1):11–24.
[16] Guo P. Investigation and modelling of the mechanical properties of
masonry. Ph.D. thesis. McMaster University; 1991.
[17] Carreira DJ, Chu KC. Stress–strain relationship for plain concrete in
compression. ACI Journal 1985;82:797–804.
[18] Saenz LP. Discussion of “Equation for the stress–strain curve of
concrete”, by Desayi and Krishnan. ACI Journal 1964;61(Sep.):1229–35.
[19] Chen WF. Plasticity in reinforced concrete. McGraw-Hill Book
Company; 1982.
[20] Darwin D, Pecknold D. Nonlinear biaxial stress–strain law for concrete.
Journal of Engineering Mechanics Division, ASCE 1977;103(April):
229–41.
[21] Foster S, Gilbert R. Rotating crack finite element model for reinforced
concrete structures. Computers & Structures 1996;58:43–50.
[22] Ayoub A, Filippou F. Nonlinear finite element analysis of RC shear panels
and walls. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 1998;124(March):
298–308.
 Author's personal copy
1572 W.A. Thanoon et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1560–1572
[23] Vecchio F. Finite element modelling of concrete expansion and
confinement. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 1992;118:
2390–405.
[24] Kupfer H, Gerstle K. Behaviour of concrete under biaxial stresses. Journal
of Engineering Mechanics Division, ASCE 1973;99:853–67.
[25] Vecchio F, Collins M. The modified compression-field theory for
reinforced concrete element subjected to shear. ACI Journal 1986;83:
219–31.
[26] Vecchio F, Collins M. Compressive response of cracked reinforced
concrete. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 1993;119:590–610.
[27] Al Wathaf AhmedHA. Development of finite element code for non-
linear analysis of interlocking mortarless masonry system. Ph.D. thesis.
Malaysia: Civil Engineering Department, University Putra Malaysia.
[28] Thanoon AW, Alwathaf AH, Noorzaei J, Jaafar MS, Abdul Kadir MR.
Finite element analysis of interlocking mortarless hollow block masonry
prism. Computers and Structures. Proof print on line.