This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct
Experimental and numerical investigation of masonry under three-point bending (in-plane)
Krit Chaimoon, Mario M. Attard ∗
School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia
a b s t r a c t
The aim of this study is to investigate the failure and post-peak behaviour of masonry panels with low bond strength mortar under three-point bending (TPB) both experimentally and numerically. Full-scale masonry panels with two different mortar strengths were tested under TPB. The material parameters were obtained from compression, TPB and shear tests on bricks and brick–mortar interfaces. The experimental results are detailed. Adopted for the numerical study was a micro-model finite element formulation in which masonry is modelled using expanded brick units with zero thickness brick–mortar interfaces. The simulation of the masonry TPB tests compared well with the experimental results. Investigations were the crack propagation through the masonry and the effects of dilatancy on the post peak response. Crown Copyright © 2008 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Article history: Received 27 June 2007 Received in revised form 30 July 2008 Accepted 30 July 2008 Available online 3 September 2008 Keywords: Unreinforced masonry Three-point bending Fracture Softening
1. Introduction Unreinforced masonry is a composite of bricks, usually made from clay, and mortar joints. The fracture behaviour of masonry structures is influenced by several factors, e.g. material properties of brick and mortar, geometry of bricks, joint thickness, properties of brick–mortar bond, etc. In plain concrete, the notched threepoint bending test is used to determine the mode I fracture properties such as the flexural tensile strength and the mode I fracture energy. Masonry panels were tested in three-point bending by Guinea et al. . The mortar and brick units used by Guinea et al.  had similar strengths with the mortar having a tensile strength of approximately 73% of the brick units. The failure mode therefore consisted of a single vertical crack penetrating the panel through the mid-span region above the notch. The fracture was therefore primarily mode I. Masonry used in practice can have a variety of mortar to brick strengths and hence the failure in masonry panels will often consist of both mode I and mode II fracture. This is especially true for masonry panels with low bond strength as compared to the strength of the brick units. The aim of this study is to investigate the behaviour both experimentally and numerically of three-point bending masonry panels with relatively low strength mortar. The basic elastic and inelastic fracture material properties for the masonry components: bricks, mortar and brick–mortar interfaces, were obtained from several
Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 2 9385 5075; fax: +61 2 9385 6139. E-mail addresses: firstname.lastname@example.org (K. Chaimoon), email@example.com (M.M. Attard).
standard tests including compression, shear and TPB. Full-scale masonry panels with two different mortar strengths were also tested under TPB. The failure mode of the masonry panels, involved a zig-zagging crack pattern through the bed and head mortar joints, and incorporated both tensile and shear type fracture. The material parameters and the full load versus deflection and CMOD test results are presented. For numerical purpose, in general, there are two main approaches adopted for masonry modelling: macro-modelling and micro-modelling. In the macro-modelling approach, homogenisation techniques and continuum-based theories are usually adopted for large and practice-oriented analysis. The interaction between units and mortar is generally ignored for the global structural behaviour and a relation is established between average strains and average stresses. The material parameters must be obtained from masonry tests of sufficiently large size under homogeneous states of stress. Macro-modelling approaches have been adopted by many researchers such as Grande et al. , Wu and Hao , Betti and Vignoli , Cavicchi and Gambarotta , ElGawady et al. , Massart et al. , Milani et al. , Carpinteri et al.  and Lourenco et al. . In the micro-modelling approach, a representation of the unit, mortar and the unit/mortar interface must be included. Cohesive crack models are usually adopted in the micro-modelling formulation through the interface elements. This approach is suitable for small structural elements with particular interest in strongly heterogeneous states of stress and strain. The primary aim of micro-modelling is to closely represent masonry from the knowledge of the properties of each constituent and the interface. The experimental data must be obtained from laboratory tests on masonry constituents and small masonry samples.
0141-0296/$ – see front matter Crown Copyright © 2008 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2008.07.018
The length of the panels was equivalent to six bricks with five header joints. Prior to testing. constructed from constant strain triangles.26 ± 0.M.104 K. One side of the mortar joint contained the brick frog. while expanded elements are used to present the brick units. The compressive strengths at 28 days were determined according to the Australian standard AS1012. 1(c).1. Shear and TPB tests on mortar specimens were also undertaken and the results were detailed in . Triangular units are grouped into rectangular zones which mimic brick units and mortar joints. Stacked bond specimens consisting of five bricks with four joints were constructed for masonry compression tests. Notches were cut around each of the brick shear specimen to produce a uniform plane of weakness. Two levels of refinement are widely used in the literature including detailed micro-modelling and simplified micro-modelling.11. Materials and specimens The brick units used were solid clay bricks of 230 × 110 × 76 mm (Austral Bowral Brown dry pressed brick). Attard / Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 103–112 Fig. M. Chaimoon. Dimensions are in mm. Two proportions of mortar. see Fig. respectively.5.07 16. (b) Typical brick specimen for TPB tests. Both types of mortar (types W and S) were separately cast in moulds at the same time of construction as all the masonry specimens. 2(b). Materials and tests 2. see Table 1. The mortar thickness excluding frog was approximately 10 mm. shown in Fig. The similarity between the experimental and numerical predictions was good indicating that the numerical formulation of  provided a robust tool for the simulation of masonry fracture under shear and tension.17. 1(b) shows a typical brick TPB specimen. 2. brick specimens of 230 × 110 × 50 mm were cut for shear testing as Table 1 Compressive strength and mix proportions of the mortar Mortar type W S Compressive strength (MPa) 7. 100 mm in diameter and 200 mm in height.79 ± 0.10 Fig. The constitutive law is a single branch softening law. Three mortar cylinders. were mixed to provide two different strength mortars. 2. Since the best insight into the behaviour of masonry structures can be obtained from the use of a micro-model. (c) Typical brick specimen for shear testing. the micromodelling approach is used in this study. Dimensions are in mm. Section 3 presents the micro-model and the comparison between the experimental and numerical results. The micro-model purposed by Chaimoon and Attard  for the simulation of fracture in masonry was utilised for comparison with the test results. In the simplified micromodelling. the units. 1. The material within the triangular unit remains linear elastic. The finite element formulation is based on a triangular unit. both sides of each of the two-brick specimens were cut symmetrically in order to eliminate the outer brick frogs on the exposed faces. conclusions are made in Section 4.05:1. For compression testing.25. in non-holonomic rate form within a quasiprescribed displacement approach. In the detailed micro-modelling. 1(a). however the reduction in computational effort results in a model which would be applicable to a wider range of structures. Several researchers have adopted micro-models to study the complex behaviour of masonry structures.00:6.21. The inelastic failure surface is modelled using a Mohr–Coulomb failure surface with a tension cut-off. The shear and TPB mortar results are not listed here as they were found not to provide representative material properties of the mortar in the masonry panels because of the significant influence of the brick’s water absorption on the properties of the masonry mortar joints.16].58 1:0. 2(a).13. The path-dependent softening behaviour is solved using a linear complementarity problem (LCP) formulation. specimens made of two bricks and a mortar joint were prepared as shown in Fig. Finally. The mortar type notations ‘‘W’’ and ‘‘S’’ indicate a weak and strong mortar. To determine the shear properties of the brick–mortar interface. see [26.50:1. There is a frog at the top bed as shown in Fig. mortar and the unit/mortar interfaces are all modelled separately. (a) Typical masonry specimen for compression tests. Fracture is modelled through a constitutive softening-fracture law at the boundary nodes.20 Cement:lime:sand:water (weight ratio) 1:0. For the TPB brick tests.9:1999 and are listed in Table 1.12:3. (b) Typical masonry specimen for shear testing. Fig. Some accuracy is obviously lost. with nodes along its sides but not at the vertex or the center of the unit. were used for compression testing for each mortar type. The panels were four courses in height. six of the brick units (three for testing in the direction perpendicular to the bed face and three for testing in the direction parallel to the bed face) were cut into dimensions of 230 × 110 × 50 mm to eliminate the effects of the frog. In addition. . The masonry panels with the two different types of mortar were laid by a masonry mason. (a) Original brick. the frog was filled with plaster to reduce the effects of roughness and lack of a plane surface on the loaded face and a central notch 10 mm in depth was cut. the properties of the mortar and the unit/mortar interface are lumped into a common element. Section 2 describes the materials used in this work and the tests performed.
4(a). The positions of the LVDTs are shown in Fig. Fig. of the bricks and the brick–mortar interfaces. were measured with linear variable displacement transducers (LVDTs) which were installed after the application of the initial confining pressure and before applying the shear loading. respectively. Four displacements. (b) illustrate the typical unloading–reloading behaviour along the residual stage of the load path. Attard / Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 103–112 Table 2 Compression and shear test results of brick and masonry Material Brick Masonry (Mortar type W) Masonry (Mortar type S) Masonry joint (Mortar type W) Masonry joint (Mortar type S) a b 105 Compressive strength (MPa) Cohesion (MPa) 0. Compressive strength in the direction parallel to bed face.86 18.564–2.20 – – 0. 2.74 Mode II fracture energy (N/mm) 0.436 – – 0.12 0. The bricks exhibited unloading–reloading Fig. 3.03–0.74 0. two vertical and two horizontal.89 Residual friction coefficient 1.31 ± 6. Typical unloading–reloading behaviour: (a) Bricks and (b) Brick–mortar interfaces. All data was recorded until well into the residual load stage.04 – – Compressive strength in the direction perpendicular to bed face. the frog in the brick at the position of the mid-span loading point was filled with plaster to allow loading and a central notch 3 mm wide was sawn up to a specific depth shown as dimension ‘‘a’’ in Fig.97 ± 0. Van Der Pluijm’s shear test rig  was designed to provide an approximately uniform state of stress along the tested shear plane. Chaimoon.03–0. Fig. The shear test rig is shown schematically in Fig.74 – – 0.2 for the brick friction coefficient is not yet clear. 5. 5(a). The brick friction coefficients are much higher than the joint friction coefficients.56)a (21.M. The shear test results were also used to examine the unloading–reloading characteristics and the dilatancy behaviour. 3 gives the dimensions of the TPB masonry panels.70 0.2.K. Prior to testing. The high value of 4.68 ± 0.18 Initial friction coefficient tan φ 4. Tests Compression tests for the brick and masonry specimens were performed according to the Australian standards AS4456:2003 and AS3700. Geometry and dimensions of the masonry panels.62 – – 0.9].12 (31. Fig. Further research should clarify this. M. behaviour similar to the behaviour of plain concrete as the unloading stiffness was less than the initial tangent stiffness because of .71 ± 1. For all the shear tests. (a) Modified shear test rig. (b) Loading on the specimen. Report on the shear properties of brick is lacking in the literature. 3. Fig.43 0. Table 2 summarises the compression and shear test results for the brick and masonry specimens.54)b 18. Details of the modified shear test rig can be found in [8. Load was applied continuously under a controlled rate until the peak load was reached and then for some specimens unloading–reloading was applied at various stages along the postpeak path by manual control of strain rate. a modified version of the shear test set-up introduced by Van Der Pluijm  was used. 4. 4.
a CMOD rate of 0.106 K. 8 presents the evolution of total confining pressure with shear displacement for brick–mortar interfaces. Table 3 summarises the flexural strength and mode I fracture energy obtained from the brick TPB tests.42 Mode I fracture energy (N/mm) 0. was used so that the maximum load was reached within about 30–60 s after the start to comply with the RILEM TC-50 FMC Draft Fig. 9. Attard / Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 103–112 Fig.01 Fig. 9 presents the brick TPB load–CMOD curves.312 ± 0. of the brick–mortar interfaces is plotted against the shear/slip displacement in Fig. 10. respectively. the dilatancy coefficient tends to zero as the opening displacement is arrested with almost pure friction slip. All TPB tests were carried out under crack mouth opening displacement (CMOD) control. Evolution of total confining pressure with shear displacement for brick–mortar interfaces. M.3. Chaimoon. The test results for the masonry panels will be discussed in Section 3. damage (Gb2 . TPB test set-up scheme for the masonry panel. 7. The unloading stiffness of the brick–mortar interfaces at the residual stage was very similar to the initial tangent stiffness (Gj1 ≈ Gj2 ≈ Gj3 ≈ Gj4 ≈ Gj5 ). 7.09 mm/min (9000 µε/min) for panels with mortar type W and a CMOD rate of 0. The dilatancy coefficient. Fig. (b) show the typical dilatancy behaviour found in the brick units and the brick–mortar interfaces. Fig. Fig. 10 shows the test set-up for the TPB tests on the masonry panels. Fig. Load–CMOD curves obtained from the brick TPB tests.09 ± 0. At large slip displacement. . defined as the tangent to the inelastic opening versus inelastic shear displacement curve. During the test. Dilatancy behaviour: (a) Bricks (b) Brick–mortar interfaces. Recommendation . For the brick TPB tests. Gb4. Gb5 < Gb1 ). Gb3 .12 mm/min (12 000 µε/min) for panels with mortar type S.M. For the masonry panels it was necessary to use a CMOD rate of 0. 8.032 mm/min (3200 µε/min). Fig. 6(a). the load-point displacement and CMOD were continuously recorded. Evolution of tan ψ with shear displacement for brick–mortar interfaces. The dilatancy coefficient decreases with increasing slip displacement. Table 3 TPB test results for the brick units Flexural strength (MPa) 10. Fig. 6.
Qsy is defined by Qsy = c cos φ Li ti 2 . The masonry unit is subdivided using triangular units formed by assembling nine constant strain finite element triangles and condensing out the freedoms at the vertices and the centre (see Fig. There are two nodes on each of the three sides of the triangular unit. fracture is restricted to the horizontal and vertical brick–mortar interfaces as there was no brick failure in the TPB masonry panels tested. 11. The material within the triangular unit remains linear elastic. The failure surface involves interface forces as opposed to conventional continuum models. The dilatancy angle is taken as independent of the interface inelastic multipliers.2. sin ψ (3) (4) The tensile inelastic failure force Qty is estimated from the product of the material tensile strength stress ft obtained from a pure tension test. The mortar thickness and the brick–mortar interfaces are lumped into a zero-thickness interface while the dimensions of the brick units are expanded to keep the geometry of a masonry structure unchanged. 12. Fig. The conjugate generalized forces are the outward normal Qn and shear force Qs at the interface nodes (see Fig. 12. Constitutive law and solution algorithm At the level of the interface nodes. Mohr–Coulomb with tension cut-off failure surface. (2) The interface failure surface is defined by the inelastic failure vector ri and the orientations of the normals to each of the failure planes. and Qsy is the shear inelastic failure force. see [3. M. The inelastic failure forces are grouped into the initial inelastic failure vector ri . 11(a)). defined by ri = Qty Qsy Qsy T . Qty is the tensile inelastic failure force. In this study.M. Each of the failure planes is associated with an irreversible deformation vector called the interface multiplier vector (analogous to plastic multipliers used in classical plasticity). λs1 and λs2 are the multipliers associated with the Mohr–Coulomb portions of interface inelastic failure surface. interface multipliers into a vector given by λi = λ t λs1 λs2 T (1) where λt is the multiplier associated with the tension cut-off. 12. 12 shows the adopted failure surface at each of the interface nodes for the brick and brick–mortar joints. The failure surface consists of a Mohr–Coulomb linear inelastic surface and a tension cut-off. Qi represents the resultant force vector at an interface node at any stage of the analysis. 11(b) shows the simplest model for a single masonry unit using four triangular units. and half the interface length Li (see Fig. Each masonry unit is further subdivided into interior brick elements which have borders representing the mortar interfaces or internal brick interfaces. λi collects the Fig. Qty = ft Li ti 2 Similarly. Different inelastic constitutive properties are assigned to the brick–mortar interface around the perimeter of the masonry unit and to the interior brick interfaces. That is. The interface normality matrix Ni contains the orientations of the normal to each failure plane. Micro-model and numerical simulation 3. Fig. The dilatancy matrix Vi defines the flow rule for the interface irreversible deformation multipliers. A piece-wise linear assemblage of all the inelastic failure surfaces within the complete structural model is adopted following the procedures in . Fig. (5) (6) . For the nodal interface inelastic failure surface shown in Fig. Attard / Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 103–112 107 (a) Basic triangular unit. which are based on stresses. The normality and dilatancy matrices are defined by Ni = Vi = 0 1 0 1 cos φ sin φ cos ψ sin ψ − cos φ sin φ − cos ψ . the micro-model proposed by Chaimoon and Attard  was used. 11(a)). 3. No compression cap is introduced and a constant dilatancy angle is assumed here. The triangular unit was first developed by Attard and TinLoi  and was used for simulating fracture in quasi-brittle materials. 3.1. Fracture is captured through a constitutive softening-fracture law at the boundary nodes along the sides of the triangular unit. 11(a)) and the specimen thickness ti . In Fig. (b) Single masonry unit. Modelling for masonry units. the inelastic failure surface is a function of the normal and shear interface forces. Chaimoon.K. Masonry modelling In order to simulate the fracture of the masonry beams. The flow rule is non-associated when the friction and dilatancy angles are different. The angle φ is the friction angle and ψ is the dilatancy angle.1]. The basic triangular finite element unit has generalised interface displacements which correspond to the outward normal and tangential (anti-clockwise defined as positive) displacements at the interface nodes.
λsc = 2GII f c cos ψ (7) II where GI f .17]. For the panel with mortar type W. 13) with λnc denoting the critical opening or sliding displacement. The finite element model was able to capture the post-peak behaviour reasonably well. Van Der Pluijm  carried out an extensive testing program and obtained a ratio of the cohesion to the tensile bond strength that ranged between 1. The parameters used for the mortar interfaces are listed in Table 4.0370 0.0 0. Table 4 Parameters used for the mortar interfaces Mortar type Tension ft (MPa) W S 0. with unloading inelastic points removed from the active set.002 0. the multiplier λi is free to go either forwards or backwards. Single branch softening law. The evolution of the interface inelastic failure surface can be represented by the vector ξi given by ξi = ri + Hi λi . The experimental and numerical results are compared in Figs. see [23.0125 where c is the cohesion. .086 0. while Fig. At each event. Simulation of masonry panels under TPB Fig. M. The crack patterns clearly show that the failure of the masonry beams with the relatively low bond strength mortar was governed by both tensile and shear fracture (mode I and mode II fracture) of the mortar joints. respectively. Once the critical either crack opening or sliding displacement is reached.5. The formulation is then cast in terms of a quasi-prescribed displacement format which maintains the load vector. Using the estimated tensile bond strengths. (9) The path-dependent softening behaviour in finite incremental form will need to be solved [2. the equilibrium solution which provides the minimum increment in external work is taken as the critical solution.0 GII f (N/mm) 0. 14. When multiple solutions are detected.128 GI f (N/mm) 0.7 were employed for the interfaces with mortar types W and S.3]. The evolution of the inelastic failure surface is represented by an interface hardening (softening) matrix Hi . 17 illustrates the comparison for the masonry panel with mortar type W. the values of the mode I fracture energy were then estimated. The off-diagonal terms in the matrix above represent interaction between the tension and shear failure planes.89 tan ψ 0. The shear parameters were within 20% of the average experimental values and within the scatter of the test results. The crack patterns at failure for both mortar types are depicted and compared with the deformations obtained from the simulations (note the deformations were scaled to enhance the visualization).25. there are only two elements along brick length. R the vector of initial failure values and H the structure hardening matrix. The model employed a constant dilatancy angle of zero as dilatancy was thought not to be important for the TPB test. Fig.108 K.344 0. the rows and columns of the hardening matrix associated with the corresponding inelastic multiplier is made zero. Complementarity is enforced between the potential function vector ϕ and the increment of the inelastic multiplier vector.3 and 6. Further discussion about this assumption is made later in this paper. Solutions to the LCP are obtained using the algorithm in . Once the critical displacement is reached. the notch was neglected in the modelling because the notch depth was very small in comparison with the panel depth. 15 and 16 for the masonry beams with mortar types W and S. a set of active inelastic multipliers is maintained and updated. The elastic modulus of 3360 MPa obtained from a fit of the initial linear part of the test results was employed and a Poisson’s ratio of 0. respectively.2 was assumed in the simulations. The non-holonomic relationship between the structure generalised forces Q and the structural vector of plastic multipliers λ takes the linear complementarity problem (LCP) form: ϕ = NT Q − H λ − R ϕ ≤ 0 λ ≥ 0 ϕT λ = 0 (10) with N being the structure normality matrix. Although there was a central notch in each panel with mortar type S. Elastic unloading is allowed from the descending softening branch. 18 shows the comparison for mortar type S. Chaimoon. The tensile bond strengths were estimated based on the values of the cohesion. In this study the ratios of 4 and 1. Many researchers also used a mesh with two elements along brick length and obtained promising results. Attard / Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 103–112 Fig.74 0. Finite element modelling for the masonry panels under TPB. The problem is solved in incremental steps as a series of linear complementarity problems.3. 14 presents the finite element model employed for the masonry beams with mortar types W and S. In order to reflect the fact that the area where the joint and unit were bonded together was smaller than the area of the bed face of brick. 13. The critical displacements are approximated here by 3. A reasonable comparison was achieved for each mortar type in terms of the load–displacement and load–CMOD curves. The cracks zig-zagged through the head and bed joints without any crack penetrating the bricks.M. (7)) then the general form of the matrix Hi is defined by Qty Qty Qty − β − β − λtc λsc λsc Q Qsy sy Hi = − (8) β − 0 λtc λsc Qsy Qsy − β 0 − λtc λsc where β is an interaction parameter. The multiplier λi can only have positive values along the descending branch. Gf are the mode I and mode II fracture energies. Fig. If the multipliers have not exceeded their critical values (given in Eq. the prediction was slightly different from the experimental crack pattern whereas the crack pattern of the panel with mortar type S provided a much λtc = 2GI f ft . respectively.216 tan φ 0. The softening constitutive law for the interface forces is a single-branch softening curve (see Fig.003 Shear c (MPa) 0.
the other two bottom head joints where tensile inelastic failure was active then elastically unloaded. The assumption of zero dilatancy in the TPB test will be discussed here. Comparisons of the experimental and numerical results of the masonry beam with mortar type S: (a) load–displacement curve and (b) load–CMOD curve. Shortly after the peak load. better comparison. Fig. When the critical opening displacement was reached at the central bottom head joint. Comparison of the experimental and numerical crack patterns at failure for the masonry panel with mortar type W under TPB.K. The simulated crack patterns for both mortar types was reasonable. 19 denote either an activated inelastic failure surface. Finally. Any restraint on the brick–mortar interface opening caused by dilatancy was shown to result in large compressive stresses on the interfaces. Van Zijl incorporated a variable dilatancy coefficient to reproduce . The sequence and pattern of regions at the interface nodes of the finite element model where inelastic failure or unloading was active are detailed for several points along the load–displacement curve in Fig. 17. The pattern of inelastic failure points at the peak load. The considered points (A. Initially tensile failure took place in the bottom head joints in a symmetrical pattern around the midspan region. The failure points when the crack propagated in the third layer head joint are presented in Fig. 19(a). Chaimoon. point A. 15. unloading from a failure surface or a critical displacement either opening or sliding being activated. the cracks propagated further through the central head joint under tension. B. M. 19. 16(a). Van Zijl  detailed the role of dilatancy in shear-compression. The simulation of the masonry beam with mortar type S was used for further parameter investigation to help provide a better understanding of how the cracks propagate through the bed and head joints.M. Note the present formulation is limited to a constant dilatancy angle which does not degrade with increasing inelastic shear displacement. and C) on the load–displacement curve are as shown in Fig. (b) Numerical. the collapse (a) Experimental. The crack propagated up the central head joint. Inelastic failure associated with shear was also activated along the central bed joint. mechanism formed with an asymmetric stepped crack through the head and bed joints as shown in Fig. Comparisons of the experimental and numerical results of the masonry beam with mortar type W: (a) load–displacement curve and (b) load–CMOD curve. 16. Attard / Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 103–112 109 Fig. 19(c). Fig. The symbols used in Fig. 19(d). At this stage the critical crack opening displacement had only been reached in the vertical bottom central brick–mortar joint. are depicted in Fig. Cracking in the second layer head joints followed and led to a snap back in the load displacement response corresponding to point B and with the failure points illustrated in Fig. 19(b).
1 and 0. experimental measurements of brick normal uplift during shearing along a brick–mortar interface. 20. Effects of dilatancy angle on the simulation of masonry beam with mortar type W: (a) on load–displacement curve and (b) on load–CMOD curve.086 to 0. M. dilatancy has an effect after the first peak load is reached by increasing the peak load slightly and increasing the second peak load particularly in the case of panel with mortar type W. 18.438 for masonry joints with mortar type W and from 0. Fig. Three different dilatancy coefficients (tan ψ ) of 0. point B. (b) Numerical. Comparison of the experimental and numerical crack patterns at failure for the masonry panel with mortar type S under TPB. respectively.266 for mortar type S. point A. Y and Z in Fig. point C. (c) The failure points when the cracks propagate through three head joints. 20 and 21 show the load–displacement and load–CMOD curves with different values of dilatancy angle of the masonry TPB beams with mortar types W and S. Figs. 0. As can be seen. This implies that a constant zero dilatancy provides a conservative estimate of the load deformation response for the TPB specimens tested as compared to results with other values of constant dilatancy. Fig. Dilatancy would only be a factor when the crack path propagates through the horizontal bed joint under predominately-inelastic shear failure activated by the Mohr–Coulomb failure surface. were used and the numerical responses are compared in Figs.034 to 0.110 K. (d) The failure points at failure. In the TPB experiment. (b) The failure points when the snap back occurs. were used to verify the formulation. Attard / Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 103–112 (a) Experimental.2. 19. 21(a). Small masonry shear experiments in which the brick mortar interface opening was prevented. 22(a)–(c). Chaimoon. Note that the predicted response is in some cases higher than the observed experimental resistance because average values are used for all parameters. The progression of inelastic failure/cracking at three points along the load path identified as X. The simulation results — Progression of the failure points at several locations along the load–displacement curve of the masonry beam with mortar type S. (a) The failure points at the peak load.M. 20 and 21. Critical displacement Inelastic tensile failure Inelastic shear failure • Unloading. are presented in Fig. These values were chosen from an inspection of the initial experimental dilatancy coefficients which varied from 0. Fig. there is minimal restraint against uplift during shearing of the brick–mortar interfaces associated with dilatancy. The simulation of masonry beam with .
Fig. 22. Effects of dilatancy angle on the simulation of masonry beam with mortar type S: (a) on load–displacement curve and (b) on load–CMOD curve. mortar type S was still utilised for this purpose. see Fig. 22(c) is the inelastic failure/cracking distribution at load point Z well down the post-peak load path. 19(a)) and only after the tensile crack begun to propagate the second layer of head joint (point Y. As stated earlier. The path-dependent non-holonomic softening behaviour is solved in incremental steps as a series of linear complementarity problems. Dilatancy would therefore have an effect only after this stage of loading. the experimental failure behaviour of masonry panels with low bond strength under three-point bending (TPB) has been investigated. The cracks zigzagged through the head and bed mortar joints without brick failure. The micro-model relies on subdividing a masonry panel into expanded brick/masonry units and zero-thickness mortar joints. see Fig. As expected. The effects of including some dilatancy were studied. and brick–mortar interfaces were performed. Fig. as seen in Fig. (c) The failure points at point Z.M. the three values of the dilatancy angle have very little effect on the load deformation path as there is no further restraint to opening of the horizontal bed joints. mortar. 21(a)). The TPB test as a standard test to extract the mode I fracture energy. 22(a). (b) The failure points at point Y. Point X represents the stage at which shear inelastic failure is first initiated in the mortar bed joint. M. 22(b). TPB and shear tests on bricks and brick–mortar interfaces. Conclusions In this study. using a zero constant dilatancy provided a good reproduction of the load response for the TPB specimens. Chaimoon. Attard / Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 103–112 111 (a) The failure points when the dilatancy first occurs. The dilatancy effect then became more dominant with some interface nodes attaining their critical shear displacements. . Critical displacement Inelastic tensile failure Inelastic shear failure • Unloading. The simulation results of the masonry beam with mortar type S — the failure points at relevant locations on the load–displacement curve to reflect the dilatancy effects. therefore has limited use for masonry panels of low strength mortar joints. 6(b). Fracture is captured through a constitutive softeningfracture law at the finite element interface nodes. at point X. The present formulation does not allow a degradation of the dilatancy angle and hence this leads to an overestimation of the load carrying capacity.K. Different inelastic constitutive properties are assigned to the brick–mortar interface around the perimeter of the masonry unit and to the interior brick interfaces. Beyond load point Z. the load–displacement curve was unaffected by dilatancy until after the peak load (see Fig. Krit Chaimoon is supported financially by a Thai government research scholarship. Fracture tests on bricks. The micro-model purposed by Chaimoon and Attard  was used to determine numerical predictions of the test results including the load–displacement and CMOD curves and the crack patterns. Presented in Fig. Full-scale masonry panels with two different strengths of mortar were tested under TPB. 21. The dilatancy angle should have a value of zero when the critical shear displacement is reached as can be observed from the experimental results in Fig. The numerical results provided a good match to the experimental results even through the numerical formulation assumed a zero dilatancy. Acknowledgement Mr. 4. The basic material parameters were obtained from compression. The experimental crack propagation of the masonry panels involved both tensile and shear fracture (mode I and mode II fracture) of the mortar joints rather than just mode I fracture alone.
2005. Structural damage analysis of masonry walls using computational homogenization.30(6):1560–72. Lestuzzi P. Comput Struct 2006. Numerical analysis of masonry structures via interface models. Eng Struct 2008.192:1377–88.M. Mater Struct 1985. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 2003. Pina-Henriques J. Modeling of unreinforced masonry walls under shear and compression. Eng Struct 2008.  Drosopoulos GA. Eng Struct 2006. Hao H. Chaimoon. Spallino R.  Tin-Loi F. 1999. J Struct Eng 1994.112 K. Planas J.  Carpinteri A. Stavroulakis GE.29(11):3002–14. Comput Struct 2001. Tralli A. Invernizzi S. Vignoli A. Elices M. Tseng P. References  Attard MM. ASCE J Struct Eng 2007. 16(2):199–226. In: Proceedings of the 12th international conference on computational methods and experimental measurements. Tralli A.30(2): 352–67. 205–15. In: Proceedings of the 16th Australasian conference on the mechanics of structures and materials. Efficient computation of multiple solutions in quasibrittle fracture analysis. Modelling and analysis of a Romanesque church under earthquake loading: Assessment of seismic resistance. p. 125–36. M. Eng Struct 2005. Tin-Loi F. Sydney (Australia): University of New South Wales. Eng Struct 2007. Eng Struct 2008. Shing PB.  Wu C. Part I: Failure surfaces.  ElGawady MA. Homoginised limit analysis of masonry walls. Eng Struct 2007.28(12):1658–70. Attard MM. Determination of the fracture energy of mortar and concrete by means of three-point bend tests on notched beams.  Massart TJ.28(8):1132–48. Part II: Structural examples.  Lourenco PB.  Lourenco PB. Eng Struct 2006. Eng Struct 2006.  Binda L. Lower bound limit analysis of masonry bridges including arch-fill interaction.84(3–4):181–95. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 2001. Modelling masonry shear-compression: Role of dilatancy highlighted. Yu HS. .  Maier G. Attard / Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 103–112  Guinea GV. ASCE J Eng Mech 2004. Jaafar MS. Attard MM.  RILEM TC-50 FMC Draft Recommendation. In: Proceedings of the 6th North American masonry conference. Shear behavior of bed joints.5:54–66. Micromechanical modelling of brickmasonry fracture. A contribution for the understanding of load-transfer mechanisms in multi-leaf masonry walls: Testing and modelling.  Chaimoon K. Rots JG. Numerical derivation of averaged material properties of hollow concrete block masonry. Sacco E. Interface model applied for fracture of masonry structures. Cement Concrete Res 2000. p. Continuum model for masonry: Parameter estimation and validation.  Grande E. Lourenco PB.  Chaimoon K.  Milani G. Milani G. Gambarotta L. 3D homogenized limit analysis of masonry buildings under horizontal loads. Abdulkadir MR. Rizzo S. Numerical simulation of fracture in unreinforced masonry. Eng Struct 2007. Tin-Loi F. Page AW.  Milani G.  Attard MM. 1993. Homoginised limit analysis of masonry walls. Numerical simulation of quasibrittle fracture in concrete. Nappi A. Shear fracture in masonry joints. Lourenco PB.27(3): 387–95. Noorzaei J.30(7):1842–60.  Van Zijl GPAG.30:731–7.  Sutcliffe DJ. Lacidogna G. Eng Struct 2008. 2007. In situ damage assessment and nonlinear modelling of a historical masonry tower.  Lotfi HR. A matrix structural theory of piecewise linear elastoplasticity with interaction yield planes. Anzani A. Alwathaf AH. Lourenco P. thesis. Fontana A. Tin-Loi F. 28(13):1864–73.D. Lourenco PB. Comput Struct 2006.30(3):870–83.  Cavicchi A. Modelling and analysis of FRP-strengthened masonry panels.  Thanoon WA.  Attard MM. Ph. Tralli A.  Van Der Pluijm R. Shear strength of URM walls retrofitted using FRP. Meccanica 1970. Peerlings RHL.123(7):660–8.29(9):2056–68.29(11):3134–48. J Eng Mech 1997. Fracture simulation using a discrete triangular element. Eng Fracture Mech 2005.  Milani G. Geers MGD. Limit analysis of a single span masonry bridge with unilateral frictional contact interfaces.84(3-4):166–80. Rots JG. Multisurface interface model for analysis of masonry structures.124(6): 642–652.  Giambanco G.72:387–411. Badoux M.  Chaimoon K. Blaauwendraad J.120(1):63–80.79:1295–312. Massalas CV. Internat J Damage Mech 2007. Nonlinear finite element analysis of grouted and ungrouted hollow interlocking mortarless block masonry system. Lower bound limit analysis of unreinforced masonry shear walls.130(11):1289–96. Hussein G.133(10):1385–92.  Betti M.6494–511. Modeling fracture in masonry. ASCE J Struct Eng 1998.18(106):285–90.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.