Engineering Structures 201 (2019) 109803

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Jointed Masonry Model: A constitutive law for 3D soil-structure interaction T

analysis
Wanda G. Lasciarreaa, Angelo Amorosib, Daniela Boldinic, Gianmarco de Felicea, ,
⁎

Marialaura Malenaa
a
Department of Engineering, Roma Tre University, Rome, Italy
b
Department of Structural and Geotechnical Engineering, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy
c
Department of Civil, Chemical, Environmental and Materials Engineering, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Classical approaches to soil-structure interaction are often characterised by relatively simple constitutive as-
Masonry sumptions for either one or both components of the problem. Such simplified assumptions prove to be appro-
Soil-structure interaction priate for simple soil-foundation cases, while showing all their limits when tackling more complex problems, as
Numerical modelling those involving excavation in the vicinity or beneath historical masonry structures. In such cases, the need for
Constitutive modelling
reliable prediction of the potential damage induced by construction activities on surface structures justifies the
Tunnelling
adoption of more advanced numerical approaches, possibly based on realistic constitutive assumptions for both
soils and masonries, together with an accurate modelling schematisation of the excavation process. In recent
years the Authors have adopted an advanced numerical approach to investigate this issue in the two-dimensional
domain, accounting for the non-linearity and irreversibility of the soil behaviour and schematising the block
masonry structure as a homogenised anisotropic medium. This study extends this approach to three dimensional
conditions, to more realistically account for a number of features, including the possible different relative or-
ientations between the structure and an underground tunnel under construction. The focus in this contribution is
on the modelling of the masonry, here described by a modified version of the Jointed Rock model, an anisotropic
elastic perfectly plastic constitutive model based on a simplified multilaminate approach and implemented in the
commercial code Plaxis 3D. This model takes into account the directional properties of the medium, identifying
the orientation of three planes along which the Mohr-Coulomb yield criterion applies. Here we first describe the
modification introduced in the original model and then illustrate some benchmark numerical examples to va-
lidate it. This is followed by the illustration of a 3D analysis of an idealised tunnelling-structure interaction
problem, aimed at highlighting some of the features of the proposed masonry model.

1. Introduction traction [3,4], or incorporating the discontinuities induced by mortar

Preserving our monuments is a matter of vital importance since each
one of them is the historical and artistic witness of the evolution of the
man, society and territory. Particularly nowadays, this issue should also
consider the possible interaction with underground infrastructures that
are increasingly constructed in the historical city centres. Consequently,
it is crucial to implement a methodology for the analysis of coupled
geotechnical and structural problems in order to accurately predict the
possible damage induced on historical structures by underground con-
structions [1] or excavations [2].
A considerable number of nonlinear models have been developed
for masonry, aiming at capturing the essential no-tensile strength under
joints [5,6] and the complex interaction among the masonry units,
through a homogenization technique, resulting in an overall anisotropic
behaviour [7–11]. Most of these approaches are developed under plane
stress or generalised plane strain conditions, resulting in a negligible
influence on the macroscopic elastic behaviour [12], but affecting its
non-linear response [13]. More complex three-dimensional models
have been proposed in the framework of either continuum [14], or
discrete limit analysis [15–17], mainly addressed to earthquake en-
gineering applications [18–20]. However, only few approaches con-
sider the interaction of masonry structures with geotechnical infra-
structures accounting for both soil nonlinear behaviour and masonry
cracking phenomena in 2D [21–23] or 3D analyses [24–27]. The 3D

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: defelice@uniroma3.it (G. de Felice).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.109803
Received 13 October 2018; Received in revised form 13 October 2019; Accepted 14 October 2019
Available online 30 October 2019
0141-0296/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
W.G. Lasciarrea, et al. Engineering Structures 201 (2019) 109803

modelling appears to be a relevant ingredient for investigating the re-

sponse of masonry subjected to the displacement field induced by the
construction of a nearby geotechnical infrastructure. This is especially
true in the case of tunnels, where the progressive excavation induces
subsidence troughs which evolve as the tunnel face advances.
In this work a 3D nonlinear constitutive model is proposed for the
analysis of masonry structures. The model, called Jointed Masonry Model
(JMM), is a modified version of the well-known Jointed Rock Model
(JRM), an anisotropic elastic perfectly plastic constitutive law, based on
a simplified multilaminate approach, originally developed for the de-
scription of the mechanical behaviour of fractured rock-mass [28,29].
The JRM assumes different plane orientations along which a local
Mohr-Coulomb yield criterion with a tension cut-off holds, to represent
the rock-mass discontinuities planes. Similarly to fractured rocks, an-
cient masonry structures are characterised by high strength units, such
as stone blocks or bricks, with weak joints, either dry joints or lime Fig. 1. Global and local coordinate systems in 2D conditions.
mortar joints, that represent the possible discontinuities where the
cracks tend to develop. When subjected to soil settlements or earth- cut-off and a corresponding versatile flow rule, which can be either
quake loading, the behaviour of ancient masonry structures strongly associated or not. The Mohr-Coulomb and tensile-cut off yield functions
depends on the effective arrangement of block units, rather than on the are respectively defined as:
mechanical properties of the blocks themselves, and therefore, similarly
to fractured rocks, the crack pattern is driven by the discontinuity fiC = | s, i| + n, i tan i c0, i for i = 1. .np0 (2.1)
planes represented by the joints.
However, contrary to fractured rocks, the interlocking among ma-
fit = for i = 1. .np0 (2.2)
sonry units deriving from staggered head joints, provides a further n, i t 0, i

strength against the opening of vertical cracks.

Accordingly, the JMM model coincides with the JRM for the treat-
ment of bed joints that can be simply regarded as discontinuous planes
with a local Mohr-Coulomb yield condition, while a more refined model
needs to be developed for the head joints to account for the specific
features of masonry, stemming from the interlocking of the units.
As discussed before, more sophisticated material models exist in the
literature to describe the nonlinear behaviour of masonry, at the cost of
a relatively large number of material parameters and state variables,
both hard to be detected or initialised in engineering practice. The
advantages of the JMM consist in the reduced number of material
parameters, whose calibration procedure is well-defined and straight-
forward, and in the low computational cost stemming from a balanced
compromise between accuracy and simplicity. The constitutive model
was implemented in a geotechnical Finite Element code, called Plaxis
where i = 1, ..,np0 with np0 3 is the specific orientation considered.
Along each orientation i, n, i and s, i are the normal and shear stresses
(Fig. 1), while c0, i, i and t 0, i are the cohesion, friction angle and tensile
strength, respectively, with t 0, i c0, icot i .
The original JRM can be directly adopted for block masonry bed
joints, represented by the plane orientation 2 in Fig. 2 [2], but not of
head joints, since those latter are typically arranged in a staggered way
(Fig. 2 – plane orientation 1), resulting in an increased overall tensile
and shear strength.
Let us consider the portion of the wall shown in Fig. 3(a), made of
blocks with height a and width b, subjected to a vertical compressive
stress 2 and to a horizontal tensile stress 1. Each block is subjected to a
compressive stress n,2 = 2 acting perpendicularly to the bed joints, a
tensile stress n,1 1 on the head ones, and a tangential stress s,2 on

3D, aiming at analysing soil-structure interaction problems without
introducing classical oversimplifications for the soil deposits (e.g.
Winkler-based approximations) usually adopted in structural-oriented
finite element codes.
The paper is organised as follows. In Section 2, the formulation of
JMM is provided starting from that of the JRM. Then the model is va-
lidated through comparison with some selected benchmark problems
related to masonry panels under either tensile or shear loading condi-
tions, for which analytical solutions or experimental results are avail-
able. Finally, the simulations of the interaction between a tunnel and a
3D masonry building under different geometrical configurations are
presented and discussed to highlight the performance of the proposed
approach.
the bed joints as shown in Fig. 3b, where this latter arises from the
friction among the blocks and have opposite sign in the two half sides of
each single block.
Aiming at incorporating the interlocking effect in a continuous
equivalent head joint and assuming it can be described by the yield
conditions (2.1) and (2.2), the macroscopic tensile strength t,1 on the
macroscopic head joint, i.e. the ultimate value of n,1, can be evaluated
as:

2. Formulation of JMM constitutive model

2.1. Strength conditions

The Jointed Masonry Model (JMM) was developed as a modified

version of the Jointed Rock Model (JRM), an anisotropic elastic per-
fectly plastic constitutive model developed for the description of frac-
tured rock-masses and already implemented in Plaxis 3D [29]. More
specifically, the JRM is a simplified multi-laminate model characterised
by isotropic elasticity and anisotropic yielding. Its formulation takes
into account a maximum of three different rock-mass discontinuity
planes, along which a Mohr-Coulomb yield criterion holds, with tension Fig. 2. Definition of plane 1 and plane 2 in the JMM.

2
W.G. Lasciarrea, et al. Engineering Structures 201 (2019) 109803

σ2
σn,2
τs,2

h σ1 σ1 σn,1 σn,1 a

τs,2

σn,2
σ2
b

Fig. 3. Stress state acting on: (a) a portion of the masonry wall; (b) the single block.

n b
= + (c0,2 n,2tan 2 ) = + c0,2
t ,1 t 0,1
h 2 (2.3) t ,1 t 0,1 n,2
tan 2 (2.9)
where h is the height of the portion of wall while n is the corresponding
number of bed joints. c1 = c0,1 n,2 c0,2 tan 1
Writing the block height as:
tan 2 (2.10)

h It is worth noting that the geometry of the blocks is retained in the

a=
(2.4) model through the parameter. However, given the continuum for-
n
mulation, the failure mechanisms can occur at any point of the domain,
and substituting into Eq. (2.3), it becomes: provided that the strength is mobilised along a direction corresponding
to that selected for the definition of the strength parameters.
b b
= + c0,2 n,2tan 2 No modifications are introduced for the strength parameters of
t ,1 t 0,1
2a 2a (2.5)
joints aligned along direction 2 (i.e. for the bed joints), not interested by
The first term in Eq. (2.5) is the contribution of tensile strength t0,1 the interlocking effect. Remarkably, this direction results as the weakest
on the brick head joints, the second one accounts for the cohesive one, consistently with experimental observations.
contribution c0,2 of the bed joints and the third term refers to the fric- Modern masonry structures can benefit from some tensile and co-
tional contribution tan φ2 along the bed joints due to the compressive hesive strength at the joints, while historical ones are often dry, i.e.
stress n,2. characterised by the absence of mortar, or build up using fragile mor-
Without considering the interlocking of the bricks, i.e. adopting the tars, leading in both cases to null or negligible cohesive strength con-
original Jointed Rock Model, the corresponding ultimate horizontal tribution at the joints. In such circumstances, this latter strength in-
stress would have simply been equal to: gredient should be disregarded, consistently with what proposed in
classical theory of masonry behaviour [4]. Accordingly, Eq. (2.9)
t ,1 = t 0,1 (2.6) simply reduces to:
thus, uniquely corresponding to the tensile strength t0,1 along the t,1 = n,2 (2.11)
head joints.
The increment in the tensile strength of the macroscopic head joints while Eq. (2.10) becomes:
implies a corresponding increment in the available cohesion: c1 = n,2tan 1 (2.12)
b b
c1 = c0,1 n,2tan 2 c0,2 tan
2a 2a 1
(2.7) 2.2. Elastic properties

characterised by a translation of the strength domain along a di-

According to [16], the macroscopic elastic properties are derived
rection parallel to the original one, as illustrated in Fig. 4.
via homogenisation, starting from the elastic properties of blocks
In summary, in the JMM constitutive formulation, the influence of
(Eb, b) and joints (Em, m) , as well as from the brick geometry (a, b) and
the block interlocking is accounted for by a new parameter defined as:
the thickness tm of the mortar joints:
b 1 1 4a 1
= tan = + 2 +
2
2a (2.8) G aKt b Kn + 4abKt µb (2.13)
Accordingly, the Eqs. (2.5) and (2.7) are rewritten as follows:
12 21 b
= =
E1 E2 2(3µb b
+ 2µb2 ) (2.14)

1 4a 1 b + 2µb
= + +
E1 4abKn + b2Kt 4µb 4(3µb b + 2µb2) (2.15)

1 1 1 b + 2µb
= + +
E2 aKn 4µb 4(3µb b + 2µb2) (2.16)
where
Eb
µb =
2(1 + b)

Fig. 4. JMM: Mohr plane representation of the modified strength domain for b Eb
b =
macroscopic head joints (along direction 1). (1 2 b)(1 + b)

3
W.G. Lasciarrea, et al. Engineering Structures 201 (2019) 109803

Eb Em Table 1
Kn =
tb (Eb Em) Parameters of the JMM for the tensile test, from [30].

1 1 Material properties
K t = µb µ m
t m µb µ m γ (kN/m3) 15
G (kPa) 477,093
Kn and Kt being the normal and the shear joint stiffness, respec- (-) 0.12
tively. (-) 0.687
An equivalent isotropic behaviour can also be adopted for the JMM, c0,1 2 (kPa) 5
with elastic modulus E equal to the average between E1 and E2, and the 1 2 (°) 31
shear modulus G derived from Eq. (2.13). 1 2 (°) 31
t0,1 2 (kPa) 8.32

3. Benchmark numerical examples

Table 2
The examples described in the present section discuss the predictive
Parameters of the JMM for tilting tests, from [30].
capabilities of the proposed model under either tensile or shear loading
conditions. The tests were selected in order to reproduce typical Material properties

benchmark problems for which experimental results, analytical solu-
tions or well-established numerical outcomes are available.
3.1. Horizontal tensile test
Here we consider an ideal masonry panel subjected to self-weight γ,
a vertical pressure q applied on top of the wall and a prescribed in-
creasingly horizontal displacement imposed at one side. The panel has a
dimension of 1.50 × 0.98 m2 and an out-of-plane thickness of 0.12 m. It
is constituted by 14 courses of bricks, each brick with dimensions of
16 × 7 × 12 cm3 (Fig. 5). Boundary conditions are represented in
Fig. 5.
The self-weight and the vertical pressure q = 10 kPa are first ap-
plied, followed by the application of a uniformly increasing horizontal
displacement ud .
The values of the mechanical parameters adopted in the numerical
analysis, considered appropriate for a historical structure, are sum-
marised in Table 1. The tensile strength on the sliding planes was as-
sumed to be equal to c0, icot i .
The problem admits an analytical solution for the ultimate hor-
izontal resultant tensile force, according to both static and the kine-
matic approaches of the limit analysis, as discussed in [30]:
b H b b
Flim = H t0 + c0 + tan + q tan
2a 2 2a 2a
In this case, it provides a value of Flim = 25.4 kN/m. The corre-
sponding value obtained by the numerical analysis performed with the
JMM is equal to 25.3 kN/m.
3.2. In-plane tilting test
This example is inspired by a set of experimental tests described in
[31]. The masonry panel is assumed as made by blocks with dimensions
Fig. 5. Geometrical characteristics of the wall and boundary conditions.
Texture A Texture B
γ (kN/m3) 15 15
G (kPa) 511,490 477,093
(-) 0.14 0.12
(-) 1.372 0.687
c0,1 2 (kPa) 0.0 0.0
1 2 (°) 31 31
31 31
1 2 (°)
t0,1 2 (kPa) 0.0 0.0
32 × 16 × 7 cm3 arranged in two different textures A (a = 7 cm;
b = 16 cm) and B (a = 7 cm; b = 32 cm), corresponding to factors
equal to 1.372 and 0.686 respectively (Table 2) with friction angle
equal to 31°. The panel is subjected to its self-weight, when tilting its
base up to the occurrence of failure. The test aims at representing the
lateral strength of a wall when subjected to horizontal acceleration,
simulating the effect of in-plane earthquake action. The load factor is
defined as the ratio between the components of the body forces along
direction 2 and 1 (Fig. 2).
The ultimate behaviour of the system is analysed for six different
wall aspect ratios , defined as ratio between height H and length L of
the wall, all referring to the same wall area equal to 16 m2. The me-
chanical characteristics of the joints are summarised in Table 2.
Fig. 6 compares the analytical upper bound and the homogenisa-
(3.1)
tion-based numerical solution provided in [30] to the numerical results,
as obtained by the JMM. The maximum load factors attained in the
numerical analyses at failure, max , are summarised in Table 3, as-
suming a tolerance of 10−3 in terms of unbalanced forces: a difference
generally lower than 3% emerges comparing the results of the two
different numerical models. Fig. 7a shows the JMM predictions of the
principal tensile strain pattern at failure, which nicely compare to the
crack pattern of the reference experimental tests (Fig. 7b).
As already discussed in [30], the max value decreases with in-
creasing values of for both the textures. For decreasing values of the
value of λ at failure tends toward a constant value. This can be related
to the observed concentration of the tensile strains in a limited portion
of the wall, the upper right sector (Fig. 7), such that the actual width of
the wall itself does no longer influence the failure mechanism. This
latter feature does not hold for larger values of , for which the entire
width of the wall is involved in the strain localisation mechanism as
shown in Fig. 8. The role of the factor can be assessed by comparing
the tensile strain localisation pattern shown in Fig. 8: the smaller the
value of , the more concentrated the tensile strain localisation in a
narrower zone.
The analytical and numerical solutions match satisfactorily in the
case of = 0.687 while tend to diverge for low values of ρ for = 1.37
(Fig. 7). This should be related to the different assumptions on which
the solutions relay: the analytical upper-bound solution was obtained
assuming a rigid block failure mechanism, characterised by a rotation

4
W.G. Lasciarrea, et al. Engineering Structures 201 (2019) 109803

Fig. 6. Maximum load factors max attained at failure for in plane tilting test with different aspect ratio.

Table 3 concentrated tensile strain localisation zones. The more concentrated

Maximum load factors max attained at failure for in-plane tilting test. the localised zone, the closer the numerical solution is to the analytical
Wall aspect ratio (ρ) 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 one: this justifies the accordance of the results for relatively large values
of for both values of , although the better match is observed for the
Texture A Homogenised 0.477 0.461 0.422 0.367 0.312 0.270 = 0.687 case, characterised by a more concentrated localisation
model pattern (Fig. 8).
JMM 0.492 0.466 0.420 0.361 0.310 0.271
Deviation −3% −1% 1% 2% 1% 0%
Texture B Homogenised 0.410 0.410 0.391 0.348 0.301 0.262
3.3. Out-of-plane tilting test
model
JMM 0.401 0.417 0.408 0.362 0.332 0.271
Deviation 2% −2% −4% −4% −10% −3% In this section the capability of the proposed model in reproducing
out-of-plane deformative and failure mechanisms is investigated. The
numerical simulation refers to one of the tests, named S10, conducted
around a point at the base of the wall and the related development of a during the experimental campaign performed in [32], where a series of
discontinuity plane, while the FE solution is based on a continuum static 1:5 scaled dry-stone masonry walls were subjected to tilting. The
approach characterised by the development of either diffuse or more walls were constructed with blocks having dimensions

Fig. 7. Principal tensile strain pattern of the JMM and corresponding experimental results for the tilting test with texture B and = 0.5 (left), = 1(right).

5
W.G. Lasciarrea, et al.
Fig. 8. Principal tensile strain pattern of the JMM for slender wall ( = 2.5)
having texture A (left) and texture B (right).
30 × 80 × 40 mm3. The prototype masonry structure (Fig. 9) was
composed by a main wall, 21 bricks high and 12 bricks wide, and two
orthogonal partition walls, 21 bricks high and 10 bricks wide. The
mechanical characteristics of the joints, derived from [32], are sum-
marised in Table 4.
As in the previous section, numerical simulations of the tilting test
were carried out constraining the walls at the base, applying gravity
first followed by a horizontal body force proportional to the self-weight.
The load factor attained in the numerical analysis at failure, max , is
0.213, while the experimental one was equal to 0.231. Fig. 10(a) shows
the top view of the deformed shape at failure on half model revealing
the presence of torsional rotations at the base edges of the two ortho-
gonal connected walls, as it occurred in experiments. Fig. 10(b)–(c)
illustrates the principal tensile strain pattern in the partition walls and
in the main wall, respectively. The figures show that in-plane tensile
strains concentrate on the upper edge of the partition walls where they
start detaching from the main wall, while this latter is affected by
tensile strains due to out-of-plane bending.
3.4. Diagonal compression test
The predictive capability of the proposed model for a diagonal
compression test was investigated by comparing the numerical results
Fig. 9. Geometrical configuration and failure mechanism for experimental test S10 [32].
6
Engineering Structures 201 (2019) 109803
Table 4
Parameters of the JMM for tilting tests [32].
Material properties
γ (kN/m3) 26.8
G (kPa) 461,490
(–) 0.25
(–) 0.93
c0,1 2 (kPa) 0.0
1 2 (°) 35
1 2 (°) 35
t0,1 2 (kPa) 0.0
with the experimental ones obtained in [33] (Fig. 11). The specimen
has dimensions 122 × 122 × 0.48 cm3. The average ratio height b
versus base a of the blocks is equal to 3. The diagonal load was trans-
ferred to the specimen through two steel elements placed on the two
diagonally opposite corners of the panel and modelled as an elastic
material. In the experiments, the strain was calculated through the
measurements of displacements at the four reference points along the
two diagonals (Fig. 11), whose coordinates are reported in Table 5.
During the numerical test, the displacements at the base of the lower
steel element were constrained and the specimen was first subjected to
its weight and then to a displacement orthogonal to the upper steel
element equal to 20.00 mm (Fig. 11).
Two families of plane orientations were activated: the first one was
inclined at 45° to represent the head joints, and the second one inclined
at −45° to represent the bed joints. The material properties used in the
numerical analysis are the same as those proposed by the Authors of the
experiments (Table 6).
Fig. 11 compares the total strain distribution obtained in the nu-
merical analysis and the crack pattern detected in the experiment,
showing an overall good agreement, despite in the experimental test a
fully diagonal crack was observed in the direction of the two steel
elements, while in the numerical simulation the strain concentration
pattern is more vertical. This feature was probably due to the activa-
tion, in the numerical simulation, of both discontinuities along planes 1
and 2, while the real masonry is made of irregular blocks with no clear
discontinuity directions.
The results are illustrated in terms of shear stress-strain ( )
curve as shown in Fig. 12. Both, the stress and strain components were
calculated as average values considering the four points mentioned
before. The results indicate a reasonable agreement between numerical
and experimental data, though the peak shear strength prediction is
underestimated of about 10%.
3.5. Shear wall tests
As a benchmark example of a shear wall test, the two panels
W.G. Lasciarrea, et al. Engineering Structures 201 (2019) 109803

Fig. 10. JMM simulation of test S10: deformed shape and tensile principal strain pattern.

Fig. 11. Crack pattern obtained in the diagonal compression experimental tests [33] (left) and distribution of total strain in the numerical analysis performed with
the JMM (right).

Table 5
Coordinates of the control points [33].
Point Node x (m) z (m)

1 38,075 0.22 0.24

2 2874 0.94 0.96
3 20,336 0.94 0.26
4 25,415 0.23 0.96

Table 6
Parameters of the JMM for diagonal compression test
[33].
Material properties

γ (kN/m3) 19
G (kPa) 20,000
(–) 0.25
(–) 0.94
c 0,1 2 (kPa) 55
1 2 (°) 32
1 2 (°) 32
t0,1 2 (kPa) 60

(Fig. 13) that were tested in [34] are considered. The panels are 0.99 m
Fig. 12. Shear stress-strain ( ) curve of diagonal compression test.
wide, 1.00 m high, and 0.10 m thick, and are made of wire-cut solid
clay bricks with dimensions 210 × 52 × 100 mm3. The opening, if
present, has a dimension of 400 × 235 mm2. imposing a vertical pressure q equal to 300 kPa and finally applying a
The tests were simulated by first activating the self-weight, then uniform horizontal displacement at the top of the wall (shear condi-
tions), precluding any rotation of its upper edge.

7
W.G. Lasciarrea, et al.
Fig. 13. Geometrical characteristics of the analysed walls [34].
The described experimental tests were simulated in [35] through a
discrete model in which the joints were modelled as interface elements
allowing for crack, slip or crushing, adopting a Mohr-Coulomb friction
with tension cut-off and a cap for compressive failure.
Aiming at providing a direct comparison with the numerical results
discussed in [35], the JMM simulations were carried out adopting
constitutive parameters directly related to those assumed in [35], as
summarised in Table 7 where the elastic shear modulus G derives from
the homogenisation procedure discussed in Section 2.2.
The comparison of the failure pattern at the target displacement of
2 mm for the wall without opening, is shown in Fig. 14: the shear strain
at the end of the analysis is concentred along the diagonal, in good
agreement with the crack pattern obtained in [35].
In the case of the panel with opening (Fig. 15) at the target dis-
placement of 25 mm, the JMM model reproduces quite reasonably the
shear strain localization along the diagonal obtained in [35] with the
panel accurately discretized with interfaces at the joint locations. The
JMM model also back-predicts the horizontal cracks that originate from
the vertical sides of the wall, both at the top left pier next to the opening
and at the bottom right side.
Fig. 16 shows the total horizontal shear at the base of the wall as a
function of the displacement applied at the top of the wall. The curve
derived from the JMM-based numerical simulations are compared with
those observed in the experiments and those resulting by the simula-
tions reported in [35]. All the inelastic phenomena occur at the inter-
face elements, where the degradation of stiffness and strength is also
accounted for, in contrast to the perfectly plastic formulation of the
JMM, that cannot account for any decay of strength along the joints
Table 7
Parameters of the JMM for shear wall tests, directly re-
lated to those of [35].
Material properties
γ (kN/m3) 15
G (kPa) 1,404,494
(-) 0.06
(-) 1.514
c0,1 2 (kPa) 350
1 2 (°) 36.9
36.9
1 2 (°)
t0,1 2 (kPa) 250
8
Engineering Structures 201 (2019) 109803
and, as such, cannot reproduce the final decay of strength. Nonetheless,
the JMM formulation, which is far less complex than the discrete
model, provides a reasonable estimate of the wall lateral strength for
practical applications.
4. Numerical analyses of boundary value problems
In the following sections, the response of several ideal masonry
structural configurations to shallow tunnelling is analysed. The studied
cases resemble those often occurring during the construction of real
metro-lines in the centre of historical towns. They include isolated 3D
façades, with or without openings, and a complete 3D building, all
described through the JMM.
4.1. Modelling of tunnel excavation
The soil domain, adopted for all the numerical analyses, has di-
mensions of 80 × 80 × 20 m3 (Fig. 17). The coordinate system is de-
fined such that x is the distance from the tunnel axis in the horizontal
direction, z is the depth below the ground surface and y is the direction
of the tunnel axis.
The geotechnical conditions and tunnel characteristics are inspired
by the case-history of the Milan metro line 5 discussed in [36,37]. The
soil is a sandy material, described by a linear elastic-perfectly plastic
Mohr-Coulomb model, characterised by the following parameters:
γ = 17 kN/m3, E′ = 75 MPa, = 0.3, c′ = 1 kPa (a value slightly larger
than zero is adopted to avoid numerical problems), ' = 31°, = 0°.
The ground-water level is at the ground surface and the pore pressure
distribution is hydrostatic. Drained conditions were assumed for the soil
during the whole analysis due to its high permeability.
The tunnel is supposed to be constructed by an EPB-TBM machine,
such that modest induced-subsidence and low impacts on the sur-
rounding structures are expected. These goals are obtained thanks to
the pressure applied at the face, the presence of the shield and the
immediate installation of a pre-casted lining ring backfilled with quick-
setting grouting. The tunnel has a diameter D equal to 8 m and an axis
depth of z0 = 9 m below the ground surface (Fig. 17).
To reduce the computational cost, for each analysis the tunnel is
assumed as already excavated and lined for the first 20 m. The ex-
cavation of the following 40 m is simulated step-by-step considering
face advancements of 1.5 m, this latter length corresponding to the
longitudinal dimension of the lining ring. In detail, in each calculation
W.G. Lasciarrea, et al. Engineering Structures 201 (2019) 109803

[
*10-
3]
1,
00

-
0,32

-
1,63

-
2,95

-
4,26

-
5,58

-
6,89

-
8,21

-
10,
84

-
11,
50
Fig. 14. Crack pattern at an applied displacement of 2 mm obtained in [35] (left) and corresponding distribution of total shear strain calculated with the JMM (right).

step the following processes are simulated: excavation of the soil for a
1.5 m tunnel length, setting of a null pore water pressure in the ex-
cavated elements, application of a pressure equal to 90 kPa at the new
tunnel face, advancement of the EPB shield of 1.5 m, application of a
pressure simulating the grouting action at the back of the shield and
installation of a new lining ring. This procedure, similar to that dis-
cussed in [36,37], is aimed at reproducing in a simplified, though
realistic, way all the 3D complex processes that occur during EPB
tunnelling. The generated subsidence is controlled by imposing a value
of surface contraction to the EPB shield equal to 0.5%. For all the
analyses, a more refined mesh was used for tunnel elements as com-
pared to the soil ones.
4.2. Free field analysis
Fig. 18 shows the free-field surface settlements along a transversal
section of the tunnel at a distance of 31.25 m from the origin of the
tunnel axis. The surface volume loss is equal to 0.4%, typical of well
performing tunnelling activity. The settlement profile is compared to
that obtained by a Gaussian distribution curve characterised by a width
parameter K equal to 0.25, appropriate for the considered geotechnical
conditions. This latter represents the best empirical approximation of
the expected free-field settlement distribution. The accordance between
the numerical results and the empirical predictions indicates that the
relatively simple constitutive assumptions for the soil and the simula-
tion technique adopted for the tunnel excavation are adequate to the
purpose of the present work.
4.3. Masonry wall without openings
The masonry wall introduced in the tunnel-soil-structure interaction
analysis is 8 m high, 20 m wide and 0.5 m thick. The foundation is
modelled as a strip footing characterised by a width of 1 m, thickness
equal to 0.5 m and 1 m embedded depth, as suggested in [27] (Fig. 19).
The structure develops perpendicularly to the tunnel longitudinal axis
and is located at a distance of 31.25 m from the side of the domain
(Fig. 17). The mechanical parameters adopted for the masonry wall and
foundation are the same of the example in Section 3.1.

Fig. 15. Crack pattern at an applied displacement of 25 mm obtained in [35] (left) and corresponding distribution of total shear strain calculated with the JMM
(right).

9
W.G. Lasciarrea, et al. Engineering Structures 201 (2019) 109803

Fig. 16. Comparison between experimental and numerical results: horizontal reaction versus horizontal displacement (left) wall without opening, (right) wall with
opening.

In the numerical analysis, the gravity of the masonry façade was

activated before the simulation of the tunnel excavation. At the final
stage of tunnel excavation (Fig. 20), the maximum extensional total
strain in the masonry façade reaches a value equal to 1.9%, which
corresponds to a severe damage according to [38]. The extensional
strain distribution in the masonry wall clearly resembles the pattern
described in literature as “short settlement” applied in the middle of the
façade [39]. In this case, in fact, the cracks are inclined at about 45°
towards the centre of the wall, with a higher concentration in the lower
portion of the structure.
The distribution of the vertical displacements at the foundation
level differs significantly from that obtained under free field conditions
(Fig. 21). In particular, while the maximum settlement is nearly the
same, the volume loss is significantly larger, as a consequence of the
key factors affecting this interaction process, namely the weight of the Fig. 18. Comparison between numerical and empirical settlement profiles at
wall and the relative stiffness of the wall-soil system. the ground surface (volume loss of 0.4%).

4.4. Masonry wall with openings [24,25], is shown in Fig. 22.

The second example discussed is related to a masonry façade with
openings. The dimensions of the structure and of the foundation are the
same of the previous example, while the layout of the openings, re-
producing the scheme of an ideal case proposed in the literature
Lintels are included above all the window and door openings to
avoid tensile failure in the masonry due to local sagging effects. The
mechanical parameters of the wall and the foundation are those
adopted in the previous example, while the lintels are modelled as

Fig. 17. Sketch of the soil domain, tunnel direction and wall position.

10
W.G. Lasciarrea, et al. Engineering Structures 201 (2019) 109803

Fig. 19. Dimensions of masonry façade and foundation’s details [27].

Fig. 20. Deformed mesh and extensional total strain distribution in the masonry façade without openings.

the wall without openings, the gravity of the masonry façade was ac-
tivated before the simulation of the tunnel excavation.

4.4.1. Analysis without eccentricity

In this first analysis, the position of the masonry façade is centred
with respect to the tunnel axis (Fig. 23). Due to the presence of the
openings in the façade, the settlement profile at the base of the foun-
dation shows a stepped profile (Fig. 21) if compared to that obtained for
the wall without openings. Apart from this peculiar shape, its average
profile is in agreement with that of the previous example, however it is
characterised by a lower volume loss possibly due to the lower weight
of this structure. The extensional total strains induced in the façade are
shown in Fig. 23: they reach a maximum value of 11.7%, a larger figure
as compared to that observed in the full wall case due to the presence of
the openings. Extensional strains concentrate around the openings, with
a global pattern that is consistent with that observed in the full wall
described before. These results highlight the importance of accounting
Fig. 21. Vertical displacements at foundation level.
for openings when investigating the pattern and magnitude of exten-
sional strains distribution developed in a façade.
elastic elements (G = 3.75E6 kPa, ν = 0.2).
As in the previous case, the structure is oriented perpendicularly to
4.4.2. Analysis with eccentricity
the tunnel axis at a distance of 31.25 m from the origin of the tunnel
A second analysis was carried out considering an eccentric position
axis. It was first located in a symmetrical position with respect to the
of the structure, with its left corner aligned with the tunnel axis
tunnel axis, then an eccentric position was considered. As in the case of
(Fig. 24a). Fig. 24 shows the deformed configuration and the

Fig. 22. Dimensions of the masonry façade with openings and foundation’s details [24,25].

11
W.G. Lasciarrea, et al. Engineering Structures 201 (2019) 109803

Fig. 23. Deformed mesh and extensional total strains distribution in a masonry façade with openings.

extensional strains distribution at the end of the analysis. As a con-

sequence of the tunnel excavation, the wall seems to be subdivided into
three portions, the first one on the left being characterised by an almost
rigid rotation towards the tunnel. In particular, a maximum strain value
of 5.4% is reached at the upper right corner of this portion, about at the
inflection point of the subsidence trough as evaluated at the foundation
intrados (Fig. 21). This is an expected outcome since the deformation
distribution resembles the typical damage observed in terminal settle-
ment foundation problems [39].
The same analysis was repeated assuming a linear elastic model for
the masonry façade (γ = 15 kN/m3, G = 477.7 MPa, I ½ = 0.12) to
evaluate the influence of the constitutive assumptions on the computed
results. In Fig. 26, a comparison between the extensional total strains Fig. 25. Complete mesh of the tunnelling analysis with the 3D masonry
pattern obtained adopting the two constitutive assumptions is pro- building.
posed. At the end of the analysis, when an elastic behaviour is adopted,
the total strain distribution seems to be widespread throughout a large considered conservative.
part of the façade; on the contrary, a very localised total strain pattern
characterises the analysis in which the JMM is employed. The max- 5. Coupled analysis with 3D masonry building
imum value of total strain for the elastic model is equal to 0.06%, two
order of magnitude smaller than that for the case of JMM. The response of a fully 3D masonry building to tunnelling is finally
Accordingly, Fig. 21 highlights that, in the case of the elastic model, presented (Fig. 25). The building is composed by a front and a rear
the profile is characterised by a significantly reduced maximum set- façade and two end walls [24,25].
tlement and deflection ratios in sagging and hogging as compared to The two facades and the foundations have the same geometrical
that observed when the non-linear behaviour of the masonry is taken characteristics of the masonry façade with openings analysed in the
into account. These results highlight that the usually adopted partially previous section, while the end walls have no openings and are char-
coupled approach, in which the soil-structure interaction problem is acterised by the same thickness of the façades and a length equal to
computed schematising the structure as an elastic medium to, then, 10 m (Fig. 25). Mechanical parameters of the walls are the same
carry out a more refined non-linear structural analysis imposing the adopted in the previous examples.
previously obtained displacement field, can highly underestimate the To emphasise the capability of the adopted 3D modelling approach,
deformation and damage of the structure and as such in cannot be the building was set eccentric and not perpendicular to the tunnel, as

Fig. 24. Deformed configuration (a) and extensional total strains distribution at the end of the tunnelling analysis (b) performed with JMM (left) and Linear Elastic
Model (right).

12
W.G. Lasciarrea, et al. Engineering Structures 201 (2019) 109803

Fig. 26. Extensional total strains distribution at the end of the tunnelling analysis performed with JMM (left) and Linear Elastic Model (right).

Fig. 27. Extensional total strains distribution in the front (left) and the rear (right) façade performed with JMM.

shown in Fig. 25: the tunnel axis passes by the midpoint of the left end
wall, forming an angle of 30°.
After the activation of the gravity of the masonry façade, the si-
mulation of the tunnel excavation was carried out. Fig. 26 shows the
extensional strain distribution on the four sides of the building at the
end of tunnelling. More details are provided in Fig. 27 for the front and
the rear façade, where damage concentrates. As shown in Fig. 27,
tensile strains tend to localise at different locations along the façades,
shifting from the left part of the front façade to the central part of the
rear one, at similar distances from the tunnel axis.
A maximum tensile strain equal to 4.5% was found on the front
façade. This value is slightly smaller than that obtained for the same
masonry façade modelled perpendicular to tunnel axis in an eccentric
position (Figs. 23 and 24).
Also in this case, a further analysis was carried out describing the
masonry building as an elastic continuum (γ = 15kN/m3,
G = 477.7 MPa, 12 = 0.12). A maximum value of total strain equal to
0.05% was obtained in this case on the front façade at the end of the
analysis. As in the previous example, at the end of the tunnel excavation Fig. 28. Vertical displacements at foundation level of the front façade.
the total strain distribution on the façades results diffused and wide-
spread while, for the nonlinear masonry modelling case, a far more
presented in this paper. The model captures the essential no-tensile
localised total strain patter was obtained.
strength and anisotropy of masonry deriving from the shape and ar-
Fig. 28 highlights that the settlement profiles along the two facades
rangement of the masonry units, with a limited number of material
are significantly affected by the adopted constitutive hypotheses for the
parameters whose calibration strategy is straightforward. The pre-
masonry. Linear elasticity is associated to considerably lower maximum
dictive capabilities of the constitutive model were validated under
settlements and practically null deflection ratios in sagging and hog-
tensile and shear loading conditions by numerical simulations of se-
ging. On the contrary, the JMM-based analyses lead to more complex
lected benchmark problems and experiments.
subsidence profiles due to the effect of the localised deformations.
The overall performance of the model is satisfactory, given its re-
latively simple formulation. However, some features of the mechanics
6. Conclusions of masonry structures, as for example their out of plane behaviour, are
only poorly accounted for by JMM and, as such, deserve further pos-
A nonlinear constitutive model for the analysis of masonry struc- sible developments. Along this line, it is also worth noting that the
tures, called Jointed Masonry Model (JMM), was developed and

13
W.G. Lasciarrea, et al.
model was developed referring to a single leaf masonry panel with
running bond pattern. Therefore, at the present stage the JMM is not
able to describe the behaviour of multi-leaf walls, since splitting of the
two leaves is not accounted for. This limitation could be addressed in
future, extending the number of active failure planes from two to three
and consistently orienting the third plane along the inter-leaf surface.
The non-linear behaviour of the block units is not considered in this
work, as mainly focused on the discontinuities induced by the joints.
This assumption is appropriate for structures having weak mortar joints
and subjected to low compressive stresses. In such a case, the behaviour
of the units can be considered as elastic, being the joints the main
source of non-linearity. However, as a further step the model could be
further improved to include an isotropic strength criterion accounting
for the possible crushing of masonry blocks under compression.
The JMM model was implemented in a geotechnical Finite Element
code and used to investigate soil-structure interaction problems, aiming
at overcoming either the classical Winkler-based approximations for
soils, when modelling masonry structures, or the equivalent plate ap-
proximations for buildings, when modelling soil excavations. The effect
of tunnel excavation under different masonry walls configurations was
investigated, taking into account the decrease in stiffness induced by
openings and damage and their effects on the settlement profiles. The
proposed approach allowed to directly evaluate the tunnelling-induced
damage occurring in the structures, which can result as significantly
larger than that predicted adopting a linear elastic constitutive model
for the masonry, this latter being the customary assumption in en-
gineering practice to tackle similar soil-structure interaction problems.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] Amorosi A, Boldini D, de Felice G, Malena M, Sebastianelli M. Tunnelling-induced
deformation and damage on historical masonry structures. Géotechnique
2014;64(2):118–30.
[2] Amorosi A, Boldini D, de Felice G, Lasciarrea WG, Malena M. Analisi geotecnica e
strutturale del Ninfeo di Genazzano. Rivista Italiana Di Geotecnica
2015;49(1):29–44.
[3] Heyman J. The stone skeleton. Int J Solids Struct 1966;2(2):249–79. https://doi.
org/10.1016/0020-7683(66)90018-7.
[4] Angelillo M. Constitutive relations for no-tension materials. Meccanica
1993;28(3):195–202.
[5] Nazir S, Dhanasekar M. Modelling the failure of thin layered mortar joints in ma-
sonry. Eng Struct 2013;49:615–27.
[6] Nazir S, Dhanasekar M. A non-linear interface element model for thin layer high
adhesive mortared masonry. Comput Struct 2014;144:23–39.
[7] de Buhan P, de Felice G. A homogenization approach to the ultimate strength of
brick masonry. J Mech Phys Solids 1997;45(7):1085–104.
[8] Cecchi A, Sab K. A multi-parameter homogenization study for modeling elastic
masonry. Eur J Mech – A/Solids 2002;21(2):249–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0997-7538(01)01195-0.
[9] Zucchini A, Lourenço PB. A micro-mechanical model for the homogenisation of
masonry. Int J Solids Struct 2002;39(12):3233–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-
7683(02)00230-5.
[10] Marfia S, Sacco E. Multiscale damage contact-friction model for periodic masonry
walls. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 2012;205–208(1):189–203.
[11] de Felice G, Malena M. Failure pattern prediction in masonry. J Mech Mater Struct
2019. https://doi.org/10.2140/jomms.2019.14.620.
14
Engineering Structures 201 (2019) 109803
[12] Anthoine A. Homogenization of periodic masonry: plane stress, generalized plane
strain or 3D modelling? Commun Numer Methods Eng 1997;13(5):319–26.
[13] Massart T, Peerlings R, Geers M, Gottcheiner S. Mesoscopic modeling of failure in
brick masonry accounting for three-dimensional effects. Eng Fract Mech
2005;72(8):1238–53.
[14] Milani G, Lourenço PB, Tralli A. Homogenised limit analysis of masonry walls. Part
I: failure surfaces. Comput Struct 2006;84(3):166–80.
[15] Livesley RK. Limit analysis of structures formed from rigid blocks. Int J Numer
Methods Eng 1978;12(12):1853–71. https://doi.org/10.1002/nme.1620121207.
[16] Portioli F, Casapulla C, Gilbert M, Cascini L. Limit analysis of 3D masonry block
structures with non-associative frictional joints using cone programming. Comput
Struct 2014;143:108–21.
[17] Malena M, Portioli F, Gagliardo R, Tomaselli G, Cascini L, de Felice G. Collapse
mechanism analysis of historic masonry structures subjected to lateral loads: a
comparison between continuous and discrete models. Comput Struct
2019;220:14–31.
[18] Noor-E-Khuda S, Dhanasekar M, Thambiratnam DP. An explicit finite element
modelling method for masonry walls under out-of-plane loading. Eng Struct
2016;113:103–20.
[19] de Felice G, De Santis S, Lourenço P, Mendes N. Methods and challenges for the
seismic assessment of historic masonry structures. Int J Archit Herit
2017;11(1):143–60.
[20] Roselli I, Malena M, Mongelli M, Cavalagli N, Gioffrè M, De Canio G, et al. Health
assessment and ambient vibration testing of the “Ponte delle Torri” of Spoleto
during the 2016–2017 Central Italy seismic sequence. J Civil Struct Health Monitor
2018;8(2):199–216.
[21] Liu G, Houlsby GT, Augarde CE. 2-dimensional analysis of settlement damage to
masonry buildings caused by tunnelling. Struct Eng 2000;79(1):19–25.
[22] Amorosi A, Boldini D, De Felice G, Malena M. Tunnelling-induced deformation on a
masonry structure: a numerical approach. Geotechnical aspects of underground
construction in soft ground Proceedings of the 7th international symposium on
geotechnical aspects of underground construction in soft ground. 2012. p. 353–9.
[23] Giardina G, Van de Graaf AV, Hendriks MAN, Rots JG, Marini A. Numerical analysis
of a masonry façade subject to tunnelling-induced settlements. Eng Struct
2013;54:234–47.
[24] Burd HJ, Houlsby GT, Augarde CE, Liu G. Modelling tunnelling-induced settlement
of masonry buildings. Proc Inst Civ Engr – Geotech Eng, 2000;143(1):17–29, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1680/geng.2000.143.1.17.
[25] Pickhaver JA, Burd HJ, Houlsby GT. An equivalent beam method to model masonry
buildings in 3D finite element analysis. Comput Struct 2010;88:1049–63.
[26] Giardina G, Ritter S, DeJong MJ, Mair RJ. Modelling the 3D brittle response of
masonry buildings to tunnelling. Structural analysis of Historical Constructions:
Anamnesis, diagnosis, therapy, controls - Proceedings of the 10th international
conference on structural analysis of historical constructions SAHC. 2016. p. 481–8.
[27] Yiu WN, Burd HJ, Martin CM. Finite element modelling for the assessment of
tunnel-induced damage to a masonry building. Géotechnique 2017;67(9):780–94.
[28] Godman RE, Taylor RL, Brekke TL. A model for the mechanics of jointed rock. J Soil
Mech Found Divis 1968;94(3):637–60.
[29] Binkgreve RBJ, Engin E, Swolfs WM. Plaxis 3D Reference Manual, Delft, The
Neaderlands, Plaxis bv; 2013.
[30] de Felice G, Amorosi A, Malena M. Elasto-plastic analysis of block structures
through a homogenization method. Int J Numer Analyt Methods Geomech
2010;34(3):221–47.
[31] Ceradini V. Modellazione e sperimentazione per lo studio della struttura muraria
storica. Ph.D. Thesis, University Rome ‘La Sapienza’; 1992 [in Italian].
[32] Restrepo LF, Magenes G, Griffith MC. Dry stone masonry walls in bending Part I:
static tests. Int J Archit Herit 2014;8(1):1–28.
[33] Borri A, Corradi M, Galano L, Vignoli A. Analisi Sperimentali e numeriche per la
valutazione della resistenza a taglio delle murature. Ingegneria Sismica
2004;3:50–68.
[34] Raijmakers TMJ, Vermeltfoort ATh. Deformation controlled tests in masonry shear
walls. Research report TNO-Bouw 1992; Report B-92-1156 [in Dutch].
[35] Lourenco PB. Computational strategies for masonry structures PhD thesis Delft
University Press; 1996.
[36] Fargnoli V, Boldini D, Amorosi A. Twin tunnel excavation in coarse grained soils:
observations and numerical back-predictions under free field conditions and in
presence of a surface structure. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 2015;49:454–69.
[37] Fargnoli V, Gragnano CG, Boldini D, Amorosi A. 3D numerical modelling of soil–-
structure interaction during EPB tunnelling. Géotechnique 2015;65(1):23–7.
[38] Boscardin MD, Cording EJ. Building response to excavation-induced settlement. J
Geotech Eng 1989;115(1):1–21.
[39] Mastrodicasa S. Dissesti statici delle strutture edilizie. Milan, Italy: Hoepli Editore;
1993. in Italian.