Z
in N/mm
w in mm
w
1
E = 9150 N/mm, w
1
= 18.4 m
E = 12050 N/mm, w
1
= 8.3 m
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
PPb
PPc
Z
in N/mm
w in mm
E = 1800 N/mm, w
1
= 12.1 m
E = 1000 N/mm, w
1
= 13.1 m
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
Lba
LBd
Z
in N/mm
w in mm
E = 13300 N/mm, w
1
= 103.7 m
E = 3000 N/mm, w
1
= 23.9 m
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
VMzb
VMzc
Z
in N/mm
w in mm
E = 16000 N/mm, w
1
= 7.0 m
E = 16500 N/mm, w
1
= 11.0 m
Fig. 2.1. Material laws of the masonry unit materials
Calcium Silicate Units (KSd and KSe)
Autoclaved Aerated Concrete Units (PPb and PPc)
Lightweight Concrete Units (LBa and LBd)
Clay Units (VMzb and VMzc).
2.2 Investigations on the influence of the thickness
Applying the determined material laws, threepoint bending tests on unnotched test specimens
were numerically simulated to determine the influence of the specimen height at the same
specimen slenderness (here h / l =5) on the flexural tensile strength. The specimen height was
varied between the theoretic values 0.4 mm and 10 m. Figure 2.2 shows the ratio depending
on the specimen height for the different material laws (building practice area =shaded).
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
KSd
KSe
PPb
PPc
LBa
LBd
VMzb
VMzc
f
fl
/ f
t
h in mm
Fig. 2.2. Ratio flexural tensile strength / tensile strength depending on the specimen height.
128 SCHMIDT, BRAMESHUBER: Modelling of MAsonry under horizontal loads
Investigations in [Pla95], see also [Baz98], showed that the flexural tensile strength is
significantly influenced by the initial slope of the stresscrack opening curve (see Figure 2.1)
so that only 2 parameters are decisive: the tensile strength and the crack opening w
l
(intersection of the initial tangent with the xaxis).
The reason is that, when the maximum load is reached, the softening in the entire cross
section is still characterised by the first section of the SRD. The further evaluation of the own
test results showed that the influence of the thickness can also be characterised with the
following approach of [Pla95] published in [Baz98]
f
fl
f
t
=1.039+
1.854+99 h l
1
( )
1+2.44 h l
1
( ) ( )
1+87 h l
1
( ) ( )
(2.1)
with f
fl
flexural tensile strength [N/mm]
f
t
tensile strength [N/mm]
h test specimen height
l
1
= (E w
1
) / (2 f
t
)
w
1
see Figure 2
E modulus of elasticity
even for the investigated, strongly different material laws of the various masonry unit
materials when the constants are slightly changed (see Figure 2.3).
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
KSd
KSe
PPb
PPc
LBa
LBd
VMzb
VMzc
cal mod
f
fl
/ f
t
h / w
1
Fig. 2.3. Ratio flexural tensile strength / tensile strength depending on the related test specimen
height comparison numeric results with approach according to Eq. (2.1).
For the practice relevant area, the numerical simulation results could be verified with tests,
see [Sch10] and [Sch]. Besides the numerical investigations on the thickness influence, this
confirms the correct determination of the material laws by the numerical simulation of the
notched flexural tensile tests.
International RILEM Conference on Material Science MATSCI, Aachen 2010 Vol. II, HetMat 129
3 INVESTIGATIONS ON MASONRY WALLS
3.1 Numerical model and calibration
The experimental investigations on masonry conducted at ibac were generally made on wall
specimens which were 1 m high and about 2.5 m long, see among others [Sch03], [Sch08a],
[Sch08b] and [Sch]. Based on this, the model for the numerical investigations was developed.
In this process, the system could be limited to half the wall height for reasons of symmetry.
The numerical simulation of the flexural tensile tests on masonry walls was performed with
the Finite Element Programme DIANA 9. In the model of the walls, the unit elements as well
as the bed and head joints were modelled. Since the node lines along the head joints could not
be interrupted, vertical pseudo joints occurred inevitably in the unit element. On the
symmetry plane, all nodes perpendicular to the symmetry plane were fixed. Figure 3.1
exemplarily shows a discretised wall model with a halfunit overlap.
head joint
bed joint
support
load introduction
axis of symmetry
unit
pseudo joint
(=unit material)
Fig. 3.1. Discretised wall model.
The masonry units were discretised with threedimensional continuum elements with 20
nodes and three translational degrees of freedom. The masonry mortar as well as the interface
between masonry unit and masonry mortar were modelled with interface elements in a
smeared way. The element has 16 nodes with three translational degrees of freedom, each.
The bending load was applied by defining the displacement in both load introduction strips at
the back of the wall (z=0).
For the calibration of the model for the interface elements of the head and bed joints, the
Combined CrackingShearingCrushing Model was chosen. The pseudo unit joints behaved in
a linearelastic way with stiffnesses which would correspond to those of the unit material. To
characterise the tensile fracture behaviour of the unit elements, the Total Strain Crack Model
with smeared crack formation was applied. For the parameter studies (Ch. 3.2) of the unit
failure the bed joints also were simulated linear elastic.
At first, the numerical simulations were conducted for the experimentally investigated
masonry walls made of calcium silicate units and autoclaved aerated concrete units. Here, the
unit and joint elements were assigned the respective material laws determined in the small
size specimen tests without any further modification.
130 SCHMIDT, BRAMESHUBER: Modelling of MAsonry under horizontal loads
For this purpose, the multilinear SRD was converted into stressstrain curves applying a
crack bandwidth. As crack bandwidth, the distance of the Gauss point in the direction of the
longitudinal flexural tensile stresses parallel to the bed joints was applied. In the calculations
locally different widths of the crack growth areas occurred so that deviations from the
assumption could be inevitably observed (exceeding of the strength in several Gauss points),
with this approach, however, very good correlations between the simulation and test results
could be obtained for the different material combinations. Figure 3.2 illustrates the
comparison of the loaddeflection curves which were calculationally and experimentally
determined on autoclaved aerated concrete masonry for different overlaps l
0
.
0
2
4
6
8
10
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
F in kN
f in mm
l
0
=300mm/fi
l
0
=50mm/fi
l
0
=300mm/uf
l
0
=100mm/uf
l
0
=50mm/uf
PPc/TLM
0
2
4
6
8
10
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
f in mm
F in kN
l
0
=300mm/fi
l
0
=50mm/fi
l
0
=300mm/uf
l
0
=100mm/uf
l
0
=50mm/uf
PPc/TLM
Fig. 3.2. Experimentally and calculationally determined loaddeflection curves of autoclaved
aerated concrete masonry (PPc) with thin layer mortar (TLM) in a fourpint bending test
fi filled head joint, uf unfilled head joint.
Also the deformation measurements in the unit and joint area showed very good correlations,
see [Sch08a] so that it can be assumed that the flexural tensile strength of masonry can be
correctly calculated with the developed model. Moreover, this also applied for the case of
bond failure.
3.2 Parameter studies on the case of unit failure
Subsequent to the calibration of the wall model, extensive parameter studies varying the
material laws and bond joints as well as the interior masonry geometry mainly the unit
height and width, overlap and execution of the head joints were performed. In this paper,
the case of unit failure at unmortared head joints is exclusively treated. The influence of the
masonry materials as well as of the unit geometry and the overlap on the flexural bending
strength of the masonry was investigated. Table 3.1 gives an survey of the conducted
calculations. The ratio masonry flexural tensile strength / masonry unit tensile strength is
given as calculation result. Figure 3.3 exemplarily shows the influence of the overlap and the
masonry thickness on the flexural tensile strength for KSe (h =250 mm).
International RILEM Conference on Material Science MATSCI, Aachen 2010 Vol. II, HetMat 131
70
115
175
240
365
0.20
0.40
0.75
1.00
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
d in mm
l
0
/ h
f
fl,ma
/ f
t,u
Fig. 3.3. Ratio masonry flexural strength / unit tensile strength depending on the ratio overlap /
unit height an masonry thickness Calcium Silicate Units (KSe).
At the evaluations, furthermore the stress distributions in the masonry were analysed. Figure
3.4 exemplarily shows the tensile stresses over the unit height nearby the surface of the
masonry units which lies above or below the open head joints of the neighbouring unit layers
at first crack formation and under maximum load at different overlaps.
0
50
100
150
200
250
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
l /h = 0.2
l /h = 0.4
l /h = 0.75
l /h = 1.0
unit height in mm
Z
/ f
t
d = 175 mm
KSe
0
0
0
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
unit height in mm
Z
/ f
t
Fig. 3.4. Stress distribution (ratio tensile stress / tensile strength) in the unit
for first crack (left) and maximum load (right).
The following results can be derived at this stage:
The masonry flexural tensile strength significantly decreases even at unit failure because
of the stress concentration with decreasing overlap.
The flexural tensile strength decreases with increasing unit width (masonry thickness).
This can also be discerned at unit types which feature no considerable thickness effect
(see Chapter 2) in the practicerelevant area.
The ratio of masonry to unit flexural tensile strength tends to decrease with increasing
brittleness of the material. Deviating from the investigations on the unit material (see
Chapter 2) for the maximum load, however, not only the strength and the initial slope of
the SRD are decisive but also their gradient.
At the same geometry, the unit dimensions are of inferior importance for the flexural
tensile strength of masonry.
Figure 3.5 illustrates the values of the table  the ratio of the masonry flexural tensile strength
to the unit tensile strength depending on overlap and width of the masonry unit.
132 SCHMIDT, BRAMESHUBER: Modelling of MAsonry under horizontal loads
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
f
fl,mw
/ f
t,u
l
0
/h
70 mm
365 mm
KSe
240 mm
10 mm
40 mm
115 mm
175 mm
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
f
fl,mw
/ f
t,u
l
0
/h
70 mm
115 mm
365 mm
PPc
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
f
fl,mw
/ f
t,u
l
0
/h
70 mm
115 mm
365 mm
LBa
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
f
fl,mw
/ f
t,u
l
0
/h
70 mm
365 mm
VMzb
Fig. 3.5. Ratio masonry flexural strength / unit tensile strength depending on the ratio overlap /
unit height for different masonry thicknesses.
The following equation could be determined by regression calculation
( )
( )
(3.1)
with f
fl,ma
masonry flexural tensile strength [N/mm]
f
t,u
unit tensile strength [N/mm]
h unit height
l
0
overlap
d masonry thickness
x material correction factor to comprehend the gradient of the softening
curve
=1.0 (KSe)
=0.97 (PPc)
=2.35 (LBa)
=0.72 (VMzb)
International RILEM Conference on Material Science MATSCI, Aachen 2010 Vol. II, HetMat 133
With this equation, all calculation results are characterised correctly and also plausible curve
shapes are obtained for limit values (l
0
0, d 0 ). Presently, this equation is being verified
within the framework of [Sch] and therefore, for the time being, represents an intermediate
result. Comparative investigations for different kinds of mortar stiffness and bond strength did
not show an significant influence on the masonry flexural strength in case of unit failure. In
contrast an significant influence on the stress distribution and masonry strength in case of
joint failure could be pointed out for different mortar types.
Table 3.1. Results of the numerical parameter study
Ratio masonry flexural tensile strength / masonry unit tensile strength ffl,ma / ft,u
depending on the unit type, unit dimensions and overlap related to the unit height
ft,u masonry unit tensile strength
unit height hu, unit length lu, unit width and masonry thickness d, respectively
masonry unit flexural tensile strength ffl,u (depending on d, see Chapter 2).
f
fl,ma
/ f
t,u
f
t,u
h
u
l
u
d f
fl,u
l
0
/h Unit
N/mm mm N/mm 0.2 0.4 0.75 1.0
115 4.36 0.47 0.462
125 250
365 4.27

0.234

0.347
250 115 4.36  
70 4.46 0.251 0.434 0.472 0.486
115 4.36  0.367  0.431
175 0.156 0.306 0.362 0.379
240  0.266  0.345
250
500
365
4.27
0.122 0.228 0.290 0.308
115 4.36 0.241 0.328
500
365 4.27 0.129 0.217

115 4.36 0.388
KSe 4.0
500
1000
365 4.27

0.284
70 0.51 0.237 0.415 0.468 0.484
115 0.49  0.351 0.425
PPc 0.45 250 500
365 0.48 0.114 0.210

0.298
70 3.23 0.595 1.012 1.047
115 2.96  0.917 0.989 LBa 1.97 250 500
365 2.46 0.312 0.591

0.797
70 10.2 0.172 0.348
VMzb 9.5 250 500
365 10.1 0.082

0.229
134 SCHMIDT, BRAMESHUBER: Modelling of MAsonry under horizontal loads
SUMMARY AND OUTLOOK
To characterise the flexural load bearing behaviour of masonry, a numerical model was
developed and calibrated on wall tests. Extensive parameter studies varying the previously
determined material laws of the masonry units and the geometric properties (overlap, masonry
thickness) were performed. On the basis of the numerical results, a calculation equation could
be derived. The failure mechanisms can be comprehended by means of the stress distributions
in the wall section. The present paper is restricted to the failure case of unit failure at a load
parallel to the bed joints. In further investigations, the nonlinear bond behaviour in head and
bed joints has already been taken into account, see [Sch10] and [Sch].
ACKKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors wish to thank the Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) (German Research
Foundation) for their support of the research projects on which the presented works and
results are based.
REFERENCES
[Baz98] Bazant, Z.P.; Planas, J .: Fracture and Size Effect in Concrete and Other Quasibrittle
Materials. Boca Raton : CRC Press, 1998.
[Pla95] Planas, J .; Guinea, G.V.; Elices, M.: Rupture modulus and fracture properties of concrete. 
In: Fracture Mechanics of Concrete Structures, Vol. 1 (F.H: Wittmann (Ed.)), Aedificatio
Publishers, Freiburg, Germany, S. 95110.
[Han06] Hannawald, J .: Determining the Tensile Softening Diagram of ConcreteLike Materials
Using Hybrid Optimisation. Dordrecht : Springer, 2006.  In: Measuring, Monitoring and
Modeling Concrete Properties. An International Symposium Dedicated to Prof. Surendra P.
Shah, Northwestern University, USA, (KonstaGdoutos, M.S. (Ed.)), S. 179187.
[Sch03] Schmidt, U.; Schubert, P.: Flexural Strength of Masonry. Madison: Omnipress, 2003.  In:
Proceedings of the Ninth North American Masonry Conference, Clemson University of
Clemson, South Carolina, J une 14, 2003, S. 674685.
[Sch08a] Schmidt, U.: Flexural Strength of Masonry: Biegezugfestigkeit von Mauerwerk. Stuttgart:
Universitt Stuttgart, 2008.  In: 7
th
International PhD Symposium in Civil Engineering,
Proceedings, Stuttgart, September 11
th
13
th
, 2008, (Eligehausen, R.; Gehlen, C. (Eds.)).
[Sch08b] Schmidt, U.; Hannawald, J .; Brameshuber, W.: Theoretical and Practical Research on the
Flexural Strength of Masonry: Theoretische und praktische Untersuchungen zur
Biegezugfestigkeit von Mauerwerk. Callaghan: University of Newcastle, 2008.  In:
Proceedings of the 14
th
International Brick and Block Masonry Conference, Sydney, 17 
20 February 2008, (Masio, M.; Totoev, Y.; Page, A.; Sugo, H. (Eds.)).
[Sch10] Schmidt, U.; Hannawald, J .; Brameshuber, W.: Flexural Strength of Masonry. Dresden:
Lehrstuhl fr Tragwerksplanung, Technische Universitt Dresden, 2010.  In: Proceedings
of the 8
th
International Masonry Conference, Dresden, Germany, J uly 4
th
7
th
2010, accepted
[Sch] Schmidt, U.: Biegezugfestigkeit von Mauerwerk. RWTH Aachen University (Flexural
Strength of Masonry, in German), Ph.D., in preparation.