0 views

Uploaded by Fauziah Aziz

analysis

- Materials and Manufacturing
- EffectiveTensileStress.pdf
- Hao Investigation of Ultra High Performance Concrete Slab and Normal Strength Concrete Slab Under Contact Explosion
- Finite Element Modelling of Anisotropic Elasto-plastic Timber Composite Beams With Openings
- Tutorial_18_3D_Tunnel_Simulation_using_Material_Softening.pdf
- ch01_STRESS - hanim-converted.pdf
- 7 Design of Deep Flexural Member
- 253
- Cable-pipe Lifting Analysis
- v074n08p312
- 13365_2
- 13_chapter 7.pdf
- Single Box
- 138669
- WSM vs ULM vs LSM
- L3_laminaTheory
- ch06.ppt
- chap-2.pdf
- Ertalyte TX Technical Data Sheet
- 0021.pdf

You are on page 1of 23

net/publication/295261407

concrete masonry

DOI: 10.1504/IJMRI.2016.074727

CITATION READS

1 143

2 authors:

South Eastern University of Sri Lanka Queensland University of Technology

12 PUBLICATIONS 36 CITATIONS 163 PUBLICATIONS 1,240 CITATIONS

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

All content following this page was uploaded by Manicka Dhanasekar on 15 March 2016.

Int. J. Masonry Research and Innovation, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2016 5

thin-layer mortared concrete masonry

School of Civil Engineering,

Queensland University of Technology,

Gardens Point Campus,

2 George Street, Brisbane 4000,

QLD, Australia

Email: ajittj@yahoo.com

Email: m.dhanasekar@qut.edu.au

*Corresponding author

Abstract: This paper presents a finite element technique for high bond

strength, thin-layer mortared-masonry through material and interface modelling

to simulate the behaviour of masonry. Constituent material blocks and mortar

and their interfaces, affect the behaviour of masonry significantly. A finite

element technique to represent these constituent materials and their interfaces is

presented in this paper, and is shown that the technique predicts the behaviour

of thin-layer mortared-concrete-masonry appropriately, and provides good

insight into the failure characteristics of masonry under different loading

conditions. The properties of the unit and the mortar are modelled using

the principles of concrete damage plasticity, and the characteristics of the

interfaces are modelled using the traction separation damage principles. The

finite element model is applied to masonry subject to shear, flexure,

compression and combined shear-compression. The numerical results are

validated with experimental test results; good agreement is found. The

predicted biaxial failure envelope of the high bond strength thin-layer

mortared-concrete-masonry is presented.

compression; material damage model.

Dhanasekar, M. (2016) ‘Nonlinear finite element modelling of high bond thin-

layer mortared concrete masonry’, Int. J. Masonry Research and Innovation,

Vol. 1, No. 1, pp.5–26.

Sri Lanka. He obtained his PhD from Queensland University of Technology

and Bachelor of the Science of Engineering from University of Peradeniya,

Sri Lanka with first class honours. His research interest includes structural

masonry, innovative construction materials and dynamic response of structures.

M. Dhanasekar has a long research track record since 1981; his research is

predominantly in innovative designs and modelling of concrete masonry. He

has secured A$3 million over the past 10 years towards research grants.

6 J.A. Thamboo and M. Dhanasekar

1 Introduction

The recent developments in numerical methods and advent of computational power, have

paved the way to study masonry behaviour without expensive and time consuming series

of laboratory experiments. Masonry is modelled numerically either as a homogenised

macro material or as a composite of constituent materials interacting at their interfaces,

depending on the type the problem and the level of details desired in a detailed manner.

The macro material modelling approach, considers the effect of the presence of mortar

joints in the masonry failure envelope (Dhanasekar and Haider, 2008; Zhuge et al., 1998;

Da Porto et al., 2010; Orduna and Lourenco 2003; Berto et al., 2002); on the other hand,

the detailed model (Shieh-Beygi and Pietruszczak, 2008; Zucchini and Lourenco, 2007;

Brencich and Gambarotta, 2005; Adam et al., 2010; Uday Vyas and Venkatarama Reddy,

2010) represents the actual pattern of the unit and mortar layer layout, explicitly each

with distinct properties; the interfaces are modelled using the concept of either the

contact surfaces or smeared with the mortar layers. Either of the detailed modelling

techniques is suitable for investigation for uniaxial or biaxial behaviour characterisation

of masonry replicating small prisms/wallets laboratory experiments. This paper deals

with a detailed modelling approach. A brief review of such detailed modelling methods

reported in the literature is provided in this section.

The biaxial failure envelope of hollow concrete masonry was numerically evaluated,

using a double-scalar damage material - criterion for the homogenised interface and

mortar layer and the units by Wu and Hao (2008). Barbosa et al. (2010) proposed a

continuum damage model with plasticity and smeared cracking to reproduce the

experimental compressive behaviour of hollow concrete block masonry prisms. Nazir and

Dhanasekar (2013) used Mohr-Coulomb plasticity model for smeared interface - mortar

layers, and damage plasticity for units to simulate uniaxial and biaxial behaviour of thin-

layer, high bond strength concrete masonry. Koksal et al. (2005) considered an elasto-

plastic approach and an isotropic damage model to study the compression behaviour of

concrete masonry prisms. Massart et al. (2004) considered a scalar damage model to

evaluate the biaxial failure envelope of brick masonry; it was shown that the scalar

damage models obtain realistic in-plane damage patterns obtained in experiments.

The interface in masonry is commonly modelled using surface-to-surface contact

(Adem et al., 2010; Fouchal et al., 2009; Nazir and Dhanasekar, 2013) behaviour between

the unit and the mortar.

The primary aim of this study, is to examine the failure mechanism of high-bond,

thin-layer mortared concrete block masonry assembly under shear, flexure and

compression, using a detailed nonlinear finite element approach, where the blocks mortar

layer and the interfaces are modelled separately. Behaviour of both constituent materials

(block and mortar) are described using damage plasticity theory using ABAQUS 6.12.

To appropriately model the masonry, the failure modes of the masonry under different

loading condition should be properly understood, and must be taken in to the modelling

consideration. Figure 1 shows the commonly observed basic masonry failure mechanisms

in various experiments.

Nonlinear finite element modelling of high bond thin-layer 7

1 Interface tensile failure (Figure 1a): This failure occurs, when the masonry

interfaces are subjected to tensile stresses that exceed the tensile bond strength of the

interface.

2 Interface shear failure (Figure 1b): This failure happens, when the interface is

subjected to shear stresses that exceed the shear bond strength of the interfaces.

3 Unit tensile failure (Figure 1c): This failure takes place, when the state of stress in

the masonry unit exceeds its tensile capacity.

4 Unit failure with interface shear failure (Figure 1d): This failure occurs, when the

combination of compression and shear stresses exceed the unit or interface strength.

5 Unit compression failure (Figure 1e): This failure happens, when the state of stress

in the unit and mortar exceeds unit or mortar compression capacity.

It can be seen that the failure modes of 1(a), 1(b) and 1(d) are dominated by the masonry

interface characteristics, and the failure modes of 1(c) and 1(e) are the result of the failure

of the constituent materials (unit or mortar). Therefore, the constituent materials and the

interfaces are modelled carefully to capture all these failure modes.

3 Material model

The Quasi-brittle materials, such as concrete blocks and mortar undergo several damage

states, such as tensile cracking, compressive crushing failure associated with stiffness

8 J.A. Thamboo and M. Dhanasekar

tension and compression, the degradation of the elastic stiffness is characterised by two

damage variables, dt and dc, which are assumed as functions of the inelastic strains in this

numerical model as defined in Equations (1) and (2) respectively.

dt = dt (ε tpl ); 0 ≤ dt ≤ 1 (1)

d c = d c (ε cpl ); 0 ≤ d c ≤ 1 (2)

respectively; dt and dc are assigned values from 0 (no damage) to 1 (full damage). This is

the concrete damage plasticity model incorporated in ABAQUS, and has been used to

simulate the damage in constitutive materials in masonry (i.e. unit and mortar) in this

modelling.

If E0 is the initial (undamaged) elastic stiffness of the material, the stress-strain

relations under uniaxial tension and compression loading can be defined as in Equations

(3) and (4) respectively:

σ t = (1 − dt ) E0 (ε t − ε tpl ) (3)

σ c = (1 − d c ) E0 (ε c − ε cpl ) (4)

In which εt and εc are (total) tensile and compressive strains in material. Main two failure

mechanisms (tensile cracking and compressive crushing) are accounted for in the damage

model.

The compressive inelastic strain is defined as the total strain minus the elastic strain

σ c0

corresponding to the undamaged material, ε cpl = ε c − ε 0el where ε 0 =

el

as illustrated in

E0

Figure 2(a). A similar concept was also followed in tension damage as illustrated in

Figure 2(b).

Figure 2 Response of concrete to uniaxial loading in (a) compression and (b) tension

Nonlinear finite element modelling of high bond thin-layer 9

relationship, until the failure stress (σt0, σc0) is reached, where onset of micro-cracking

occurs. Beyond the failure stress, the formation of micro-cracks is represented

macroscopically with a softening stress-strain response.

The evolution of the failure surface is controlled by the hardening variables, ε t pl and

ε c pl . In terms of effective stresses, the yield function (F) takes the form of Equation (5).

1 pl

F= (q − 3α ρ + β (ε ) σ max − γ −σ max − σ c (ε cpl ) = 0 (5)

1−α

In which,

⎛ σ b0 ⎞

⎜

⎝ σ c 0 ⎟⎠ − 1

α= ; 0 ≤ α ≤ 0.5 (6)

⎛ σ ⎞

2⎜

σ c 0 ⎟⎠ − 1

b 0

⎝

σ c (ε cpl )

β= (1 − α ) − (1 + α ) (7)

σ (ε tpl )

3(1 − K c )

γ= (8)

2Kc − 1

where σ max is the maximum principal effective stress, σ b 0 / σ c 0 is the ratio of initial

biaxial compressive failure stress to initial uniaxial compressive failure stress, K c the

ratio of the second stress invariant on the tensile meridian q(TM) to that on the

compressive meridian q(CM), at initial failure for any given value of the pressure

pl pl

invariant. σ t (ε t ) is the effective tensile cohesion stress and σ c (ε c ) is the effective

compressive cohesion stress. The failure surface in plane stress state is illustrated in

Figure 3. The damaged model assumes non-associated potential plastic flow, details are

in ABAQUS theory manual (2012).

Figure 3 The failure surface of concrete and mortar in plane stress state

10 J.A. Thamboo and M. Dhanasekar

A constitutive law that accounts for the traction-separation of the interfaces is considered.

This model assumes the interfaces to behave initially in linear elastic manner until the

onset of damage (due to tension/compression or shear), and subsequently follow an

interface damage evolution law depending on the cause of damage. The elastic behaviour

is written in terms of the constitutive matrix, shown in Equation (9), that relates the

normal and shear stresses to the normal and shear separations (displacements) across the

interface.

r r

r ⎧⎪tn ⎫⎪ ⎡ K nn 0 ⎤ ⎪⎧δ n ⎪⎫ r

t = ⎨r ⎬ = ⎢ ⎥ ⎨ r ⎬ = Kδ (9)

⎩⎪ts ⎭⎪ ⎣ 0 K ss ⎦ ⎪δ s ⎪

⎩ ⎭

r

The interface traction stress vector t consists of two components (since it is a two-

r r

dimensional problem) - namely tn and ts ; the corresponding separations (displacements)

r r

are denoted by δ s and δ n respectively. The corresponding stiffness coefficients are Knn

and Kss.

Damage is assumed to initiate, when the squares of maximum interface stress ratios

reach the value of unity as shown in Equation (10).

2 2

⎛t ⎞ ⎛t ⎞

f1 = ⎜ n ⎟ + ⎜ s ⎟ − 1 (10)

⎝ tn 0 ⎠ ⎝ ts 0 ⎠

In which, tn0 and ts0 are the limiting tensile bond and shear bond strength of thin-layer

mortared concrete masonry. With the combined shear-compression stresses, the masonry

exhibit Mohr Coulomb failure behaviour as shown in Equation (11):

f 2 = ts − [ts 0 + tn tan φ ] (11)

Until the onset of the interface damage, any normal/tangential slip is assumed to be

purely elastic in nature, and is resisted by the interface bond strength that resulting in

normal and tangential stresses. Once the interface stiffness commence degrading, the

friction model activates and begins contributing to the shear stresses. The failure domain

of the complete interface model is illustrated in Figure 4.

A scalar damage variable (D) is used to define the interface stress components that are

affected by the damage according to Equations (12) and (13):

Nonlinear finite element modelling of high bond thin-layer 11

tn = ⎨ ' (12)

⎪⎩t n ;

ts = (1 − D)t ' s (13)

In which, t ' n and t ' s are the interface stress components predicted by the elastic traction-

separation behaviour after the interface failure criterion is researched.

5 Modelling procedure

uniform uniaxial compression pressure shown in Figure 5. The units and mortar layers

were created as separate parts, and the part instances were assembled to create the

masonry couplet. The interaction between the contacting surfaces of the units and mortar

layers were assigned with the properties defined in Section 4. Due to symmetry, only one

quarter section of couplet is modelled in this particular example.

Figure 6 Created couplet assembly in ABAQUS (see online version for colours)

12 J.A. Thamboo and M. Dhanasekar

The vertical stress distribution at the interface was obtained from the results file and

plotted in Figure 7. ‘Section A-A’ refers to mid height of the top unit, and ‘Section B-B’

refers to the interface between the top unit and top surface of mortar layer as shown in

Figure 6(b). The edge stress raiser in the mortar layer exhibits the appropriateness of the

determined stress distribution at contacting interfaces.

Figure 7 Vertical stress variation at unit mid height and mortar-unit interface (see online

version for colours)

The validation process involves the comparison of the results of the finite element

modelling with those determined experimentally. Four examples were selected, one of

each representing the failure of masonry due to joint shear, flexure, compression and

combined shear-compression loading cases.

The details of material properties used in the FE modelling are given in Table 1. The

compressive strength of block and mortar (high adhesive, polymer cement mortar (PCM))

are obtained from experimental test carried out in Thamboo et al. (2013b). The Poisson’s

ratio of concrete unit and mortar were taken from literature Barbosa et al. (2010).

The biaxial stress ratio in Table 1 is the ratio of biaxial compressive (compression-

compression principal stress) failure stress to the uniaxial compressive failure stress of

concrete and mortar. The flow potential eccentricity (ε) is the parameter that characterise

the rate, in which the hyperbolic flow potential approaches its asymptote. Viscosity

parameter (μ) was given to visco-plastic regularisation of concrete damage plasticity

constitutive equations in ABAQUS.

Nonlinear finite element modelling of high bond thin-layer 13

Table 1 Details of concrete and mortar material properties used in the analysis

Elastic modulus, (MPa) 9000 5000

Poisson’s ratio, υ 0.2 0.25

Uniaxial compressive 12.66 5.26

strength,(MPa)

Uniaxial tensile strength, (MPa) 1.25 0.52

Biaxial stress ratio 1.16 1.16

Dilation angle (°) 15 10

Flow potential eccentricity (ε) 0.1 0.1

Viscosity parameter 0.01 0.01

mortar under compression were given according to Sfar et al. (2002) and ABAQUS

theory manual (2012). The approximate stress-strain relations of concrete and mortar

under uniaxial tension were given according to Evans and Marathe (1968) and ABAQUS

theory manual (2012) findings, where the stress-strain curves for different grades of

concrete were given for uniaxial tension.

The interface properties used in the FE analysis are given in Table 2. Three sets of

interface properties were selected to validate the shear interface behaviour of thin-layer

mortared concrete masonry.

3

Tensile stiffness, knn (N/mm ) 32

Shear stiffness, kss (N/mm3) 35

Maximum tensile stress, tn0 (MPa) 0.8

Maximum shear stress, ts0 (MPa) 1.0

Friction coefficient (μ) 0.75

A 90mm thick masonry prism under uniaxial compression was taken into consideration.

The prism was made from hollow concrete blocks of 390 mm long × 90 mm high ×

90 mm width. Taking advantage of symmetry (Figure 8(a)), only one-quarter of the prism

was modelled. One-quarter of four courses high stack bonded masonry prism considered

for modelling is shown in Figure 8(b).

14 J.A. Thamboo and M. Dhanasekar

Figure 8 Stack bonded masonry prisms (see online version for colours)

The block and the mortar of the prism assembly were modelled with 4-node bilinear

plane stress quadrilateral element (CPS4R) in ABAQUS. A typical meshed geometry of

modelled prism is shown in Figure 8(b). The vertical movement of bottom surface of the

prism and the lateral movement of symmetric edge of the prism were restrained to

maintain symmetry of deformation under compression. The load was applied as

uniformly distributed incremental displacements at the top quarter of prism section (only

to the face-shell of the hollow prism). Figure 9 shows the FE and experimental axial

stress-strain responses of prism analysis; the comparison is quite good.

Figure 9 Axial stress-axial strain diagram of experimental and FE prism analysis (see online

version for colours)

From the FE stress-strain graphs, the ultimate failure capacity and elastic modulus were

calculated and presented in Table 3 for comparison.

Nonlinear finite element modelling of high bond thin-layer 15

Elastic modulus, E

Compression capacity (MPa) (MPa)

Experimental FE f m− Exp f m − FE Experimental FE EExp EFE

10.1 9.3 1.07 8217 9352 0.88

The elastic modulus was calculated as the slope of stress-strain curve by limiting the

stress to 40% of the ultimate strength. The experimental ultimate strength and elastic

modulus are reported in Thamboo et al. (2013a).

Ratios between the experimental and the FE compression strength (fm) and the elastic

modulus (E) are presented in Table 3. It is good to note that FE prediction of compressive

strength is 7% lower (conservative) than the experiment; however, the initial elastic

modulus was predicted 12% stiffer in the FE. The expectation of E = (700 – 1000) × fm is

satisfied, as can be seen in the experimental Young Modulus E ≈ 810 fm and the FE

Young Modulus E ≈ 1000 fm. Therefore, it can be concluded that the proposed numerical

technique predicts the compression behaviour of thin-layer mortared concrete masonry to

an acceptable level of accuracy.

A three block stack bonded triplet of size 574 mm (Long) × 390 mm (high) × 90 mm

(Thick) was considered with 2 mm thick polymer cement mortar (PCM) joint as shown in

Figure 10. The triplet was constructed using the same hollow block that was used for

compressive strength (referred to Section 6.2). Only one half of the triplet was considered

in FE model with appropriate boundary conditions due to symmetric arrangement of

specimen geometry and loading. The bottom block movement was restrained vertically,

and the lateral movement of symmetric edge was restrained in the triplet model to

maintain the equilibrium during the FE analysis. Monotonic displacement control (δ) was

applied at the top of the middle block as shown in Figure 10.

Figure 10 Triplet and the FE mesh (see online version for colours)

16 J.A. Thamboo and M. Dhanasekar

The shear load was determined through the sum of the nodal reactions and the shear

stress was obtained by dividing the shearing area of triplet. Particular interest was given

to validate the shear bond stress vs. shear strain response of the experimental results with

the FE model output. Figure 11 shows the results.

Figure 11 FE and experimental shear response at unit-mortar interface (see online version

for colours)

The shear interface responses of the FE models reasonably follow the average (of three

specimens) experimental shear bond stress vs. shear strain response. FE shear interface

behaviour of thin-layer mortared concrete masonry has initially remained linearly elastic,

and showed slight nonlinearity towards the defined maximum shear stress. Figure 12

shows the shear sliding failure mode of triplet in the FE simulation (including close-up

views).

Figure 12 FE predicted failure modes of triplets (see online version for colours)

Nonlinear finite element modelling of high bond thin-layer 17

Seven block stack bonded beams of size 1342 mm (Long) × 390 mm (deep) × 90 mm

(Thick) was considered with 2 mm thick mortar joint. The beams were constructed using

the hollow blocks of same dimension described in Section 6.2. Due to symmetry, one half

of the beam was modelled. The bottom support movement was restrained vertically and

the lateral movement of symmetric edge was restrained in the half beam model to

maintain the equilibrium during the FE analysis as shown in Figure 13.

Figure 13 FE and experimental set-up of beam (see online version for colours)

Monotonic displacement control load was applied at one third distance of the beam. The

corresponding flexural load was determined, through the sum of the nodal reaction and

the flexural stress was calculated. The flexural stress-strain response of the high bond

thin-layer mortared masonry beam is shown in Figure 14.

It can be seen from the Figure 14, the FE model reasonably follows the experimental

flexural stress vs. flexural tensile strain response. Interface separation failure mode was

observed in the FE model consistent with the experimental failure mode. The FE beam

model reasonably demonstrates the flexural behaviour of thin-layer mortared masonry

stack bonded beam.

18 J.A. Thamboo and M. Dhanasekar

Figure 14 FE and experimental flexural stress vs. strain (see online version for colours)

With the increase in compressive stress, shear strength of concrete masonry increases in

conventional masonry (Kornbak, 2000). This section can be considered as an extension of

analysis from previous sections as a complex biaxial state of stress in a masonry panel for

this purpose is shown in Figure 15(a). Analysis was carried out using superposition of

symmetric (Figures 15(b)) and anti-symmetric (Figure 15(c)) cases.

Figure 15 Typical masonry panel under combined shear and compression pressures

Figure 15(b) shows biaxial compression pressures (σn and σp) acting on the panel; due

to symmetry, the model can be restricted to quarter of the panel. Figure 15(c) shows the

shear traction (τnp) acting on the panel; due to anti-symmetry of the traction, modelling

of quarter of the panel can be considered. Therefore, only quarter of the masonry panel is

considered in the modelling for combined shear-compression behaviour of masonry.

The cases considered for combined shear-compression FE modelling are (also see

Figure 16):

Nonlinear finite element modelling of high bond thin-layer 19

version for colours)

• Case A1: Compressive stress perpendicular to bed joint, (σn/σp = ∞).

• Case A2: Compressive stress parallel to bed joint, (σn/σp = 0).

2 Case B: Combined shear-compression on masonry panel as given in Table 4.

Ratio B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8

σn/σp 6.6 4.5 3.0 1.66 1.0 0.66 0.5 0.2

τnp/σn 0.33 0.39 0.44 0.8 1.0 1.33 1.33 2

τnp/σp 2 1.75 1.33 1.33 1.0 0.8 0.66 0.4

As shown in Figure 16 two blocks high and one block wide symmetric section of the

masonry panel was considered. The modelled block size was 185 mm (long) × 90 mm

(wide), which is a half scale block. 1 mm thick mortar was modelled to create the

symmetric panel assembly. The perpend joint was also filled with the same thickness of

the mortar. The FE models considered for cases A and B are shown in Figure 16(a) and

(b) respectively. For case A analysis, symmetric boundary conditions were given to the

vertical and horizontal symmetric edges as shown in Figure 16(a) to apply normal (σn) or

parallel (σp) pressures to the bed joints. For case B analyses, bottom and vertical left

edges of the FE model were restrained with antisymmetric boundary condition as

displayed in Figure 16(b) and combined shear (τnp) - compression pressures (σn and σp)

20 J.A. Thamboo and M. Dhanasekar

were applied. Incremental pressure rate (i.e. keeping the same normal to parallel to

pressure ratio) was given to maintain uniform stress state during the FE analysis.

Figure 17 shows the failure mode with vertical and lateral stress distribution of FE model

for compression normal to bed joint.

Figure 17 Failure stress distribution of applied compressive stress normal to bed joint (see online

version for colours)

The FE model clearly shows the lateral tensile stresses development in the unit and

perpend joint separation under applied stress normal to bed joint. This phenomenon is

due to the differential expansion of unit and mortar under compression normal to bed

joint in masonry.

Figure 18 shows the failure mode with vertical and lateral stress distribution of FE

model for compression perpendicular to bed joint. The FE model clearly shows tensile

stresses in the bed joints under the applied stress parallel to bed joint, which ultimately

causes the tensile splitting of bed joint interface. The combined shear-compression

strengths obtained from experimental panel tests are shown in Figure 19.

Nonlinear finite element modelling of high bond thin-layer 21

Figure 18 Stress distribution of applied compressive stress parallel to bed joint (see online

version for colours)

Figure 19 Shear stress variation with (a) normal and (b) parallel compressive stresses

(see online version for colours)

22 J.A. Thamboo and M. Dhanasekar

The compressive strength normal to the bed joint of 10.35 MPa and 10.45 MPa

(a difference of 1%) were obtained in the FE model and the experimental tests

respectively. In addition, the compressive strength parallel to the bed joint of 9.36 MPa

and 8.28 MPa were obtained in FE model and experimental tests respectively. The

variation is nearly 13%, as the tensile split is highly variable. It can be said that, FE

model predicted the compressive strength normal and parallel to the bed joints with

acceptable accuracy. The normal, parallel and shear stresses obtained from experimental

tests are plotted in Figure 19(a) and (b) to compare the shear stress prediction of FE

model.

The predicted FE and experimental shear stresses are given in Table 5.

FE Shear

FE Shear stress stress from Experimental

from Figure Figure 16(b) shear stress

Experimental 16(a) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) τ Exp τ FE

Normal (22.5º) 8.00 2.26 – 3.32 1.47

stress (45º) 3.84 3.88 – 3.84 0.99

(MPa)

(67.5º) 1.10 2.37 – 2.65 1.12

Parallel (22.5º) 1.37 – 2.61 3.32 1.27

stress (45º) 3.84 – 3.88 3.84 0.99

(MPa)

(67.5º) 6.41 – 2.47 2.65 1.07

The ratios (τExp/τFE) between experimental and FE prediction shear strengths are

calculated to check the accuracy of FE prediction. Only the FE prediction from 22.5°

panel tests had larger scatter (47% and 27% respectively for perpendicular and parallel to

bed joints). Otherwise, reasonability good agreements between FE and experimental

shear strengths are found.

mortared masonry

Masonry structural elements such as shear walls, walls supported on beams, confined

masonry wall panels and infilled walls subjected to in-plane loads are in a state of biaxial

stresses. Whilst failure biaxial envelopes are available in the literature for traditional

unreinforced masonry (both solid clay bricks and hollow concrete blocks) and grouted

hollow block masonry, a failure surface for high bond strength, thin-layer mortared

masonry is not yet found in the literature. Biaxial tests are expensive, and hence, the FE

model developed in this paper was used to simulate high bond thin-layer mortared

masonry panels subject to biaxial states of stress to determine the biaxial failure surface.

Totally 13 combinations of stress states were simulated in FE modelling for bed joint

angles of 0° and 90° to principle stresses with different stress ratios as given in Table 6.

Nonlinear finite element modelling of high bond thin-layer 23

Uniaxial compression (UC) 0, ∞

Biaxial compression (CC) 0.2, 0.5, 1, 2, 5

Biaxial tension-compression (TC) –0.1, –0.2, –5, –10

Uniaxial tension (UT) 0, ∞

The FE masonry panel was kept same as part-1 to analyse the biaxial behaviour of thin-

layer mortared concrete masonry. Also the same material and interface properties were

used as described in Section 5.5 of this paper. In order to maintain the uniform stress state

in the masonry panel, biaxial loads were applied as increasing pressure rate (i.e. keeping

the pressure ratio same at a given time) during the analysis.

The failure strengths for each stress states were taken from FE output and presented

in Figure 20(a) in terms of normal (σn) and parallel stresses (σp) of bed joints.

Figure 20 Biaxial strength envelop of bed joint angles 0° and 90° for thin-layer mortared concrete

masonry (see online version for colours)

For the biaxial compression-compression region, with the dominant compressive stresses

on one direction tend to increase the compressive capacity of thin-layer mortared

concrete masonry. The biaxial compression capacity tends to increase up to 20% over the

uniaxial compression capacity, normal to the bed joint. For the biaxial tension-

compression stress state, with the applied compressive stress (either parallel or normal to

bed joint), the tensile capacity of thin-layer mortared masonry tends to reduce almost to

zero when the compressive stresses reaches the highest value.

Biaxial strength envelops proposed by Dhanasekar (1985) and Kattab (1993) are

compared with thin-layer mortared concrete masonry strength envelop in Figure 20(b).

Since different material strengths were used in each tests, comparison is shown in non-

dimensional form in Figure 20(b). In order to get the non-dimensional strength, the

biaxial strengths were divided by the compression strength normal to bed joint (fm) of the

corresponding envelope. It can be seen from Figure 20(b), that the biaxial failure envelop

24 J.A. Thamboo and M. Dhanasekar

of thin-layer mortared concrete masonry is consistent with conventional clay and grouted

concrete masonry. Also failure modes obtained from FE analysis also indicate similar to

conventional masonry failures under biaxial loading cases. Therefore the in-plane biaxial

behaviour of thin-layer mortared concrete masonry can reasonably assumed similar to

that of the conventional masonry.

8 Summary

The recent developments in numerical methods to formulate the masonry strength and

response, paved the way to study masonry behaviour without expensive and time

consuming series of experimental studies. In this paper, a detailed finite element

modelling technique is presented. Nonlinear two dimensional finite element analyses

based on concrete damage plasticity for masonry materials (block and mortar) and the

traction separation interface damage model for masonry bond behaviour have been

applied. The developed numerical technique was validated with the previous

experimental works. Good agreements were found between proposed numerical model

and experimental results. Based on this investigation, following conclusions have been

made:

• The proposed model can reproduce the masonry material behaviour, which are

essential for design.

• The interface model can be used to simulate the behaviours for masonry joint, which

dominates many modes of failure of masonry. In this study, the joint failures of shear

and flexural were implemented and found good agreement with experimental results.

• The model can be used to analysis the compression behaviour of masonry prisms,

which is sole representative of masonry behaviour.

• The FE element modelling technique was further validated with the thin-layer

mortared concrete masonry behaviour under combined shear-compression stress

state experimental studies. Relatively good agreement between and experimental and

numerical results in terms of axial stress-stain relationship were found in all the cases

analysed.

• The biaxial strength envelop developed for thin-layer mortared concrete masonry for

bed joint angles of 0° and 90°, shows similar pattern of conventional clay masonry

and full grouted concrete masonry.

Acknowledgement

Authors thank the Australian Research Council for the financial support to this project

(LP0990514) and Queensland University of technology provided technical support.

The assistance from the industry partners Adbri masonry and Rockcote for providing the

required concrete blocks and the cement mortar are gratefully acknowledged. Also the

support of Concrete masonry association of Australia (CMAA) is thanked by authors.

Nonlinear finite element modelling of high bond thin-layer 25

References

Abaqus (2012). Abaqus Theory Manual, Version 6.12-1, Hibbit, Karlson and Sorenson.

Adam, J.M., Brencich, A., Hughes, T.G. and Jefferson, T. (2010) ‘Micromodelling of eccentrically

loaded brickwork: study of masonry wallettes’, Engineering Structures, Vol. 32, No. 5,

pp.1244–1251.

Barbosa, C.S., Lourenco, P.B. and Hanai, J.B. (2010) ‘On the compressive strength prediction for

concrete masonry prisms’, Materials and Structures, Vol. 43, pp.331–344.

Berto, L., Saetta, A., Scotta, R. and Vitaliani, R. (2002) ‘An orthotropic damage model for masonry

structures’, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, Vol. 55, No. 2,

pp.127–157.

Brencich, A. and Gambarotta, L. (2005) ‘Mechanical response of solid clay brickwork under

eccentric loading. Part I: unreinforced masonry’, Materials and structures, Vol.38, No. 2,

pp.257–266.

Da Porto, F., Guidi, G., Garbin, E. and Modena, C. (2010) ‘In-plane behaviour of clay masonry

walls: experimental testing and finite-element modelling’, Journal of Structural Engineering,

ASCE, Vol. 136, No. 11, pp.1379–1392.

Dhanasekar, M. (1985). ‘The performance of brick masonry subjected to inplane loading’, PhD

Thesis, University of Newcastle, Australia.

Dhanasekar, M. and Haider, W. (2008) ‘Explicit finite element analyses of lightly reinforced

masonry shear walls’, Computures & Structures, Vol. 86, pp.15–26.

Evans, R. and Marathe, M. (1968) ‘Microcracking and stress-strain curves for concrete in tension’,

Materials and Structures, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp.61–64.

Fouchal, F., Lebon, F. and Titeux, I. (2009) ‘Contribution to the modelling of interfaces in masonry

construction’, Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 23, No. 6, pp.2428–2441.

Khattab, M.M.S. (1993) ‘In-plane behaviour of grouted concrete masonry under biaxial states of

stress’, PhD Thesis, McMaster University, Canada.

Koksal, H.O., Karakoc, C. and Yildirim, H. (2005) ‘Compression behavior and failure mechanisms

of concrete masonry prisms’, Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, Vol. 17, p.107.

Kornbak, D.L. (2000) ‘Mohr-Coulomb approach to the ductility of masonry and optimum

unit/block configuration’, Masonry International, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp.18–27.

Massart, T., Peerlings, R. and Geers, M.G.D. (2004) ‘Mesoscopic modeling of failure and damage-

induced anisotropy in brick masonry’, European Journal of Mechanics-A/Solids, Vol. 23,

No. 5, pp.719–735.

Nazir, S. and Dhanasekar, M. (2013) ‘Modelling the failure of thin-layered mortar joints in

masonry’, Engineering Structures, Vol. 49, pp.615–627.

Orduña, A., and Lourenço P.B. (2003) ‘Cap model for limit analysis and strengthening of masonry

structures’, Journal of Structural Engineering (ASCE), Vol 129, No 10, pp.1367–1375.

Sfer, D., Carol, I., Gettu, R. and Etse, G. (2002) ‘Study of the behavior of concrete under triaxial

compression’, Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Vol 128, No 2, pp.156–163.

Shieh-Beygi, B. and Pietruszczak, S. (2008) ‘Numerical analysis of structural masonry: mesoscale

approach’, Computers & Structures, Vol. 86, Nos.21–22, pp.1958–1973.

Thamboo, J.A., Dhanasekar, M. and Cheng, Y. (2013a) ‘Effects of joint thickness adhesion and

web shells to the face shell bedded concrete masonry loaded in compression’, Australian

Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp.291–302.

Thamboo, J.A., Dhanasekar, M. and Cheng, Y. (2013b) ‘Flexural and shear bond characteristics of

thin bed concrete masonry’, Construction & Building Materials, Vol. 46, pp.104–113.

Uday Vyas, C.V. and Venkatarama Reddy, B. (2010) ‘Prediction of solid block masonry prism

compressive strength using FE model’, Materials and structures, Vol. 43, pp.719–735.

Wu, C. and Hao, H. (2008) ‘Numerical derivation of averaged material properties of hollow

concrete block masonry’, Engineering Structures, Vol. 30, pp.870–883.

26 J.A. Thamboo and M. Dhanasekar

Zhuge, Y., Thambiratnam, D. and Corderoy, J. (1998) ‘Nonlinear dynamic analysis of unreinforced

masonry’ Journal of Structural Engineering (ASCE), Vol 124, No 3, pp.270–277.

Zucchini, A. and Lourenco, P. B. (2007) ‘Mechanics of masonry in compression: results from a

homogenisation approach’, Computers & Structures, Vol 85, No 3, pp.193–204.

- Materials and ManufacturingUploaded byAnh Nguyen
- EffectiveTensileStress.pdfUploaded byOat GT
- Hao Investigation of Ultra High Performance Concrete Slab and Normal Strength Concrete Slab Under Contact ExplosionUploaded byPouya Darvish
- Finite Element Modelling of Anisotropic Elasto-plastic Timber Composite Beams With OpeningsUploaded byKhairul Salleh Baharudin
- Tutorial_18_3D_Tunnel_Simulation_using_Material_Softening.pdfUploaded bymed Amine
- ch01_STRESS - hanim-converted.pdfUploaded byt0kbilal
- 7 Design of Deep Flexural MemberUploaded byfiorebloem
- 253Uploaded byprakush_prakush
- Cable-pipe Lifting AnalysisUploaded byBudy Sinaga
- v074n08p312Uploaded byAr Muttaqien
- 13365_2Uploaded byShishir_Kadam_2138
- 13_chapter 7.pdfUploaded byনীল জোছনা
- Single BoxUploaded bySipil Inten
- 138669Uploaded byAmine Bou
- WSM vs ULM vs LSMUploaded bySameer Belim
- L3_laminaTheoryUploaded byMezbah Uddin
- ch06.pptUploaded byزهديابوانس
- chap-2.pdfUploaded by안혜영
- Ertalyte TX Technical Data SheetUploaded byLutfi Ismail
- 0021.pdfUploaded byGicu
- Chapter 06 AviUploaded byanton_deocampo
- Axial LoadUploaded bySang Ka Kala
- 2015-10_acisj_Experimental Investigation Prestress Losses in Full-scale Bridge GirdersUploaded byAnonymous 8f2veZf
- StressesUploaded byVenkat Palli
- Yield StrengthUploaded byShanmuga Sundaram
- Finite element analysis of laminated structural glass plates with polyvinyl butyral (PVB) interlayer.pdfUploaded byRobert Vochescu
- Design of Welded Connections.pdfUploaded byMarat Khodzhaiev
- Strength of Materials 2016 by S K Mondal.pdfUploaded byrobin
- Uniaxial Compaction Behaviour and Elasticity of Cohesive PowdersUploaded byCesar Rodolfo Angulo Delgado
- 2-004Uploaded byJovanne Langga

- Mechanical PropertiesUploaded byFauziah Aziz
- Examples 2Uploaded bymehtabpathan
- Discrete Element Method SarhosisUploaded byFauziah Aziz
- ASTM-C90Uploaded bycarlos
- Critical ReviewUploaded byFauziah Aziz
- Chen 2018Uploaded byFauziah Aziz
- Compressive Strength of Sandcrete BlocksUploaded byFauziah Aziz
- 11Uploaded byJuan Américo López Pizarro
- Emailing AriefSetiawanBudiNugrohoUploaded byFauziah Aziz
- Finite Element MethodUploaded byKeri Mason
- The Principle of Topological Interlocking in Extra (1)Uploaded byFauziah Aziz
- Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis of GroUploaded byFauziah Aziz
- Bol Hassan i 2015Uploaded byFauziah Aziz
- Height ImperfectionUploaded byFauziah Aziz
- A Study of Facility Management Knowledge Classification for the eUploaded byFauziah Aziz
- GOVPUB-C13-573a91df7a84ef2a50b72dd27067a296Uploaded byFauziah Aziz
- Determination the Capacity Reduction FactorUploaded byFauziah Aziz
- Users Satisfaction Survey on Building MaUploaded byFauziah Aziz
- Article_reviewed.pdfUploaded byFauziah Aziz
- life cysle of a project management.pptUploaded byFauziah Aziz
- 258860946-Masonry-Wall-Abaqus.pdfUploaded byFauziah Aziz
- Ms 1934 Part 2 2007-Methods of Test for Masonry Part 2 Determination of Flexural Strength-850457 (1)Uploaded byFauziah Aziz
- C-469(1).pdfUploaded byTommy Cr
- applsci-06-00245Uploaded byFauziah Aziz
- Capacity Reduction FactorUploaded byFauziah Aziz
- MS 1064 PT 8 2001 CONFIRMED PREPDF.pdfUploaded byFauziah Aziz
- Ms 1933 Part 12007 Methods of Test for Masonry Units Part 1 Determination of Compressive Strength-872238Uploaded byFauziah Aziz

- civil-engineeringUploaded byapi-279049687
- ETABS Exmple1Uploaded byAnonymous nwByj9L
- BArch1_ SyllabusUploaded byKeerthana Gopalakrishnan
- Lelissie KudamaUploaded byBobby Lupango
- Comflor_floordecking brochure.pdfUploaded bykrivco
- Advanced Steel Structure Design, Construction for Oil and Gas and Petrochemical Industry(1)Uploaded byMUTHUKKUMARAM
- HEB Beams, European Standard Wide Flange H Beams, Dimensions, SpecificationsUploaded byDimitra Tsagala
- U03O8Rl3Uploaded bychakrapanithota
- reseach.pdfUploaded byNat Thana Anan
- IMCA 1.Diseño Por Vibración 2015Uploaded bysergio
- illustrated design of reinforced concrete buildingsUploaded byAjitesh Yelisetty
- Notas Tec. Etabs 9.7.0.4Uploaded byDavid Gutierrez
- Steel Beam Analysis & Design (AISC360)-Beam Supporting Wall.tedUploaded byRoberto Catalani
- A Study on Application of Passive Control Techniques to RC Bridges through Non Linear Dynamic AnalysisUploaded byIRJET Journal
- Eurocode Design midas GenUploaded bykdb92uce
- AMIEUploaded byprasenjitsayantan
- Arch. DictionaryUploaded byVinay Gupta
- Behavior-Of-Castellated-Beam-Column-Due-To-Cyclic-Loads.pdfUploaded byijteee
- CraneBeam_v1_1(1).xlsUploaded byharry_1981
- PowerConnect-Presentation.pdfUploaded byAlejandro García Guillén
- Dynamics and Vibration, Wahab,2008-chapter 10Uploaded byChris
- Boietz' Slope & Deflection Diagram by PartsUploaded byPapaDaplis
- ch11Uploaded byPriyanka Cholleti
- OverviOverview of Structural Systems Slides 924ew of Structural Systems Slides 924Uploaded bymarinkata
- introduction_to_sacs.int.pdfUploaded byYongsub Jung
- Airy ExampleUploaded byvennila-puvi
- MAcaulay's MethodUploaded bySalil Deshpande
- FINAL I.P.T REPORTUploaded byIndu Gunasekaran
- GopiUploaded byrfvz6s
- Civil NotesUploaded bySam Tom