15th International Brick and Block

Masonry Conference

Florianópolis – Brazil – 2012

Permissible Stress Level of Brick Masonry under Compressive Cyclic

Loading
Alshebani, Milad1
1
PhD, Professor, Department of Civil Engineering. Tripoli University , Tripoli – Libya, milad53@hotmail.com

Laboratory tests revealed that the behavior of brick masonry under compressive cyclic loading is
characterized by three distinct stress-strain curves. These three curves are termed as envelope curve,
common point curve and stability point curve. The envelope curve is obtained by superimposing the
cyclic peaks on the monotonic stress-strain curve. The common point curve is the locus of intersection
points of loading and unloading curves of the cycles. If for the same cycle, the loading and unloading
is repeated several times, the intersection points of loading and unloading paths will stabilize at a
lower bound. The locus of these stabilized points (lower bound points) of all cycles form the stability
point curve. Therefore, the stability point curve can be used as a measure for the allowable stress for
masonry under cyclic loadings. The proposed cyclic allowable stress level is associated with the
accumulation of residual (plastic) strain levels as a result of cyclic loading history. The permissible
stress level was found to be about two thirds of the cyclic peak stress of the specimen.

Keywords: cyclic , permissible stress, residual strain, stability point

INTRODUCTION
The stress-strain characteristic of brick masonry under uniaxial and biaxial compressive
monotonic loading has been widely investigated over a long period of time. On the other
hand, behaviour of brick masonry under cyclic or repeated loading conditions has not been
fully developed. Naraine and Sinha (1989) investigated the deformation characteristics of
brick masonry under cyclic loading for low compressive strength of fired clay brick.
Alshebani and Sinha (1999) examined the cyclic stress-strain behaviour of high strength
masonry under cyclic uniaxial and biaxial compression. Cyclic behaviour of brick masonry
was also reported by Chen et al. (1978), and Macchi (1985), but their finding was in
connection to seismic design of buildings with no particular emphasis into cyclic deformation
characteristics of the masonry assemblage. Karsan and Jersa (1969) were first to report that
plain concrete exhibits three fundamental stress-strain curves when subjected to cyclic
loading. Brick masonry prism under cyclic compressive loading also exhibits three distinct
stress-strain curves , Alshebani and Sinha (2001). These stress-strain curves are termed
envelope, common point and stability point stress-strain curves.

Knowledge of cyclic behaviour of brick masonry is vital when considering material ductility,
energy dissipation characteristics and stiffness degradation. Allen (1973) has reported that
strength reduction due to cyclic loading is as high as 30% of the strength due to monotonic
conditions. Therefore, the design of structures having large live to dead load ratios needs to
allow for the reduction in strength due to cyclic actions. It has been observed that high
strength concrete under cyclic loading exhibits slower strength degradation than normal
strength concrete, owing to the higher shear strength associated with high strength concrete,
Fang et al.(1973). Meanwhile, reinforced concrete block masonry under tension showed a
more rapid loss of tensile stiffness associated with surrounding grout, masonry units and
mortar than was observed in reinforced concrete, Atkinson and Hammons (1997). Strength
deterioration and stiffness degradation of brick masonry takes place and accumulate with the
increase in number of load cycles and the intensity of load. Tomazvic and Lutman (1996) has
used test results from masonry walls to evaluate stiffness and strength degradation parameters
which define the hysteretic behaviour. It has been stipulated that once the first joint in a
masonry wall cracks, the response is characterised by a series of degrading elastic stiffnesses,
(Button & Mayes, 1992).

This paper examines the stress-strain behaviour of a sand plast (a form of calcium silicate)
brick masonry when subjected to uniaxial compressive cyclic loading. The load was applied
to half-scale brickwork panels for two loading conditions: normal to the bed joints and
parallel to the bed joints. Test results were used to investigate the stiffness degradation and
the permissible stress level due to cyclic actions.

TEST PROGRAM
The test specimens were constructed from sand plast brick units each measuring 115 x 55x35
mm. a mortar mix of 1 cement:0.5 lime:4 sand by volume was used for bed joints of 5 mm
thickness. The mean compressive strength of the brick was 23.4N/mm2, and the mean cube
compressive strength of the mortar was 10.2N/mm2.

LVDTs were installed in two orthogonal directions on both faces of the panel to sensor the
displacements which can be captured graphically on two X-Y plotters. Loading – unloading
was controlled by Universal Testing Machine. Typical specimen is shown in Fig (1)
360 mm
360 mm
250 mm

m 15
m
1

250 mm

Figure 1 The specimen and the LVDT arrangements

Three types of loading were conducted, each would produce a distinct stress-strain curve:
Loading type I is a monotonic loading in which load was increased steadily to failure to
obtain the envelope stress-strain curve. Loading type II is a cyclic loading in which the peak
stress-strain in each cycle coincided approximately with the envelope stress-strain curve.
Loading type III is a cyclic loading as in type II except the reloading and unloading was
repeated several times in each cycle until the intersection of loading-unloading curves
stabilizes at a lower bound point.

CYCLIC STRESS-STRAIN CURVES

The three types of cyclic loadings produced three distinct stress-strain curves. Stress and
strain are expressed in a nondimensional form. The stress coordinate is normalized with
respect to peak stress, and the strain coordinate is normalized with respect to the strain
corresponding to peak stress for each specimen.
a- Envelope curve: Loading type I produced the monotonic stress-strain curve. The envelope
stress-strain curve was obtained by superimposing the points of peak stress-strain of cyclic
loading type II and loading type III on peaks of monotonic stress-strain curve. Envelope
curves were produced for the two loading conditions; normal to the bed joints and parallel to
the bed joints.
b- Common Point curve: Cyclic loading type II possessed a locus of intersection points
called common points. These points are formed by the intersection points of reloading curve
of each cycle with the unloading curve of the previous cycle. The first cycle of loading type
III also produced data for common point curve.
c- Stability Point curve: This curve is the result of loading type III. If each cycle of loading-
unloading is repeated several times, then intersection points of loading unloading curves keep
forming in descending order. This process continuous for each cycle until the intersection
point stabilizes at a lower bound. The locus of these lower bound points for all the cycles
termed as the stability point stress-strain curve. The hysteresis of stress-strain loops are
shown in Fig (2). Thus cyclic loading can produce three levels of stress-strain curves in
which cycle peaks are bounded by the envelope curve limit. These curves can be presented
mathematically in a non-dimentional coordinate system. The cyclic loading is applied
uniaxially normal to bed joints and parallel to bed joints.

Figure 2 Typical stress-strain hysteresis of cyclic loading

MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSIONS
Data collected from the test of the three types of loading were used to establish a
mathematical model for the three stress-strain curves for the two bed joint orientations:
For envelope stress-strain curve:

σ = εβ exp (1 − ε/α) (1a)

σ = εβ exp [(1 − ε) ε (α + β)] (1b)

Equation (1a) is for load normal to the bed joint and equation (1b) is for load parallel to the
bed joint.
For common point or stability point stress-strain curve :

σ = εβ exp [(1 − ε/α) ε] (2)

Equation (2) is valid for load normal to the bed joint and for load parallel to the bed joint.
In the above equations, the terms σ and ε are the normalized stress and normalized strain
respectively.
The parameters α and β in the above equations are constants that depend on bed joint
orientation under loading and on stress level. The parameter β is considered as a shape factor
while parameter α accounts for the change in stress maxima. The values of the parameters α
and β are listed in Table (1) along with the correlation indices iC between the proposed curves
and the test data. The mathematically expressed curves of equations (1) and (2) are shown in
Figure (3)

Table 1 values for α , β, iC

Stress-Strain Curve Normal Bed Joint Parallel Bed Joint

α β iC α β iC

Envelope 1.0 1.0 0.97 0.73 0.70 0.96

Common Point 0.73 0.80 0.95 0.70 0.73 0.92
Stability Point 0.58 0.80 0.90 0.96 0.73 0.89

Figure 3 : Three Cyclic Curves of Brick Masonry

CYCLIC RESIDUAL STRAIN LEVEL
It can be observed that cyclic compressive loading may produce two boundary curves.
Loading type II produced the uppermost boundary, and loading type III produced the
lowermost boundary. Stresses above the uppermost boundary produce additional strain,
whereas stresses coinciding with the lowermost boundary produce no additional strain to that
previously accumulated. Therefore, if cycle peaks exceed the stability point limit (σ > σs ),
plastic strains continue to accumulate until failure, Fig (4) . However, if cycle peaks σ is
below the stability point limit, strain accumulates until the peak coincide with the stability
point curve at Point 1and further cycling thereafter produces no additional plastic strain as it
follows the same path again and again and stabilizes at ε1.

The level of plastic strain in the material is considered the most important factor influencing
the permissible stress level (Choubey & Sinha, 1994). If the level of plastic strain ε2 in the
material is found to be less than plastic strain εs corresponding to peak stress σs of stability
point curve, then σs can be regarded as the maximum permissible stress level. On the other
hand, if the level of plastic strain ε3 is more than plastic strain εs , then the corresponding
stability point stress σ3 can be considered as the permissible stress level, Fig (4).

Figure 4 Concept of Permissible Stress

CYCLIC PERMISSIBLE STRESS LIMIT

It can be inferred that the stability point curve represents the permissible stress limit, and the
peak stress of stability point curve is regarded as the maximum permissible stress under
cyclic loading. It was stipulated that the plastic strain corresponding to the stability point
peak stress can be used as a reference point in determining the permissible stress level. The
peak stress of stability point curve can then be regarded as the maximum permissible stress
level of brick masonry under cyclic actions. The peak stress of stability point curve of this
investigation was found to be about two-thirds of the average failure stress. It has also been
established that the relation between normalized residual strain and energy dissipation ratio is
initially linear (Alshebani & Sinha, 2000). Such linearity is extended up to a ratio
approximately equal to 0.68, which indicates that the process of strength deterioration under
cyclic loads immediately after this ratio (0.68) has been reached. This conclusion is in
coherence with the peak of stability point curve established. This leads to the conclusion that
the maximum permissible stress revealed by this study provides a factor of safety of about 1.5
against failure. Some of recent codes (ACI, ASCE, TMS, 1995) recommends a factor of
safety against failure of 4.0 or 3.0 depending on whether the load is uniaxial compression or
in combination with seismic load, respectively. The maximum permissible stress value
obtained in this study is, however, based on maximum permissible plastic deformation
capacity of masonry corresponding to the peak stress of stability point curve. However, if the
plastic deformation permitted in the masonry is less than the maximum permissible plastic
deformation capacity, then permissible stress shall have lower value resulting in a higher
factor of safety.

CONCLUSION
Experimental investigations conducted on sand plast brick masonry panels subjected to
uniaxial cyclic compression on two orthogonal directions have revealed the following:
1. Three distinct stress-strain curves can be drawn from the test data. These curves are
termed; envelope curve, common point curve, and stability point curve.
2. The stability point curve was regarded as the limit at which the cyclic permissible stress
can be defined. The strain corresponding to stability point peak stress can be used as a
reference point in determining the value of permissible stress in the material.
3. The peak stress of stability point is the maximum permissible stress and it was found to be
approximately two-thirds of failure stress. This could provide a factor of safety of 1.5

REFERENCES
Allen, H. (1973) Effect of Direction Loading on Compressive Strength of Brick Masonry,
Proc. 3rd Int. Brick Masonry Conference, 98-105.

Alshebani, M.M. and SINHA, S.N. (1999) Stress-Strain Characteristics of Brick Masonry
Under Uniaxial Cyclic Loading, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 125, No. 6,
pp 600- 604.

Alshebani, M.M. and Sinha, S.N. (2001) Stiffness degradation of brick masonry under cyclic
compressive loading. Journal of Masonry International, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp 13-16.

Alshebani, M.M. and Sinha, S.N. (2000) Energy Dissipation of Masonry Under Cyclic
Biaxial Compression, Proc. 6th Int. Conf. on Structures Under Shock and Impact, Wessex
Inst. of Tech. pp 427-436.

Atkinson, R. and Hammons, M. (1997) Tensile Stiffening Behavior of Reinforced Masonry,

J.of Structural Engineering, 123 50, 597-603.

Building Code Requirements of Masonry Structures, ACI 530-95/ASCE 5-95/TMS 402-95,

Masonry Standards Joint Committee, ACI, ASCE, TMS., 1995.

Button, M., and Mayes, M. (1992) “Out -of –Plane Seismic Response of Reinforced Masonry
Walls , J. of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 118 (9), 2495-2513.

Chen, S.W.J., Hidalgo, P.A., Mayes, R.L., Clough, R.W., and Mcniven, H.D., (1978) Cyclic
Loading Tests of Masonry Single Piers, Volume 2 – Height to Width Ratio of 1, EERC
Report No. 78/28, Environmental Engineering Research Council, University of California.

Choubey, U., and Sinha, S.N., (1994) Cyclic Response of Infilled Frames, J. of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, 21 (3), 203-211.
Fang, I. K., Yen, S. T., Wang, C.S., and Hong, K.L. (1993) Cyclic Behavior of Moderately
Deep HSC Beams, J.of Structural Engineering, ASCE,119 (9), 2573-2593.

Karsan, J. K. and Jersa, J. O. (1969) Behavior of Concrete Under Compressive Loading,

Journal of Structural Division, ASCE, 95(12), pp 2543-2563.

Macchi G., (1985) Behaviour of Masonry Under Cyclic Actions and Seismic Design. Int.
Brick Masonry Conf., LI-XXIV Proc. 6th.

Naraine, K. and Sinha, S.N. (1989) Behaviour of Brick Masonry Under Cyclic Compressive
Loading , Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol 115, No. 6, pp1432-1445

Tomazevic, M. and Lutman, M. (1996) Seismic Behavior of Masonry Walls: Modelling for
Hysteretic Rules, J.of Structural Engineering, ASCE 122 (9), 1048-1054.