See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/275970264

Linear homogenization of masonry elements strengthened with mortar

overlays

Research · May 2015

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.5061.7765

CITATIONS READS

0 200

3 authors:

Bahman Ghiassi Masoud Soltani

University of Nottingham Tarbiat Modares University
107 PUBLICATIONS   1,515 CITATIONS    67 PUBLICATIONS   553 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Abbas Ali Tasnimi

TMU (Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran)
66 PUBLICATIONS   716 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Equivalent Fiber Frame Model in Masonry Structures View project

Durability of FRP-strengthened masonry bricks View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Bahman Ghiassi on 08 May 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Linear homogenization of masonry elements strengthened with mortar
overlays
B.Ghiassi1, M.Soltani*, A.A.Tasnimi
Department of Civil Engineering, Tarbiat Modares University, Jalaale-al Ahmad Ave., Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Vulnerability of masonry buildings to seismic activities has been confirmed by the past earthquakes. A large

number of these structures in Iran are residential buildings, hospitals and schools, and their damage would

end to the human being causalities. Therefore, seismic evaluation and strengthening of the masonry buildings

are very crucial. Coating the walls with thin reinforced mortar layers is an ordinary technique in retrofitting

the masonry buildings in Iran. However, due to the lack of appropriate design guidelines, the rehabilitation

procedures are mostly carried out for the purpose of practically being experienced. In this study, the elastic

properties of bare and retrofitted masonry walls, used in linear evaluation procedures, are derived from

applying the developed homogenization method. This approximate homogenization method can be used

easily in any kind of bond patterns, the solution is in closed-form and the results show good agreement with

the homogenization procedures used by other researchers. The homogenized model is also used to simply

develop the anisotropic yield surfaces of bare and retrofitted masonry elements, assuming an elastic-brittle

behavior for mortar and unit.

Keywords: Masonry, seismic strengthening, homogenization, modeling

* Corresponding author. Fax: +98 21 82883975.

E-mail address: msoltani@modares.ac.ir (M. Soltani)

Department of Civil Engineering, Tarbiat Modares University, Jalaale-al Ahmad Ave., Tehran, Iran

P.O. Box: 14115-143

1. Introduction

While more than 70% of the buildings in Iran are masonry, most of them are residential buildings, hospitals

and schools In which many people and children are accommodated The experience of past earthquakes

revealed that masonry buildings are mostly vulnerable to the seismic activities, and can be destroyed even by

moderate earthquakes leading to massive losses of human beings` lives and widespread damage extensive

loses. Their vulnerability is mostly due to: 1-some structures are constructed in the period of existing no

available seismic code, 2- while the seismic codes had been published others are designed and constructed

without following them, 3- the third group are designed and constructed according to the seismic codes, but

their rules are not safety enough because of the complexity and lack of information on the behavior of the

masonry structures. In general, high seismic vulnerability of these structures can be associated with their

particular configuration and also mechanical properties of the masonry.

There are a large number of methods for retrofitting masonry structures that are intended to improve both

their in-plane and out-of-plane integrities and behaviors. Some conventional methods are surface treatments

like Ferrocement (Abrams and Lynch 2001), FRP or Shotcrete layers (Kahn 1984), grout and epoxy

injection (Calvi and Magenes 1994), external reinforcement (Chuang et al. 2004), confining masonry

walls and post-tensioning (Elgawady et al. 2004). Coating the walls with reinforced concrete layers is one

of the most common methods for strengthening the masonry structures in Iran. However, because of the lack

of information, experimental and analytical, on this method and lack of appropriate design guideline,

rehabilitation procedures are performed based on the empirical judgments.

Numerical modeling of masonry structures can be applied with a macro or micro approach. Micro modeling

represents brick, mortar and brick-mortar interfaces separately. Although this method may be the most

accurate one, it is much more expensive in terms of computational costs and the corresponding high number

of degrees of freedom, limits its applicability. A large number of micro-models were developed by researches

such as Page 1978 and Lourenco and Rots 1997. In macro modeling approach, there is no distinction

between brick, mortar and brick-mortar interfaces and the masonry structures are modeled as isotropic or

anisotropic homogenous continuum media and also it doesn’t take much time to model and analyze even

complete structures, (Kappos et al. 2002, Mistler et al. 2007).

In homogenized modeling of masonry elements, in the elastic range, mechanical elastic properties of masonry

are needed. These properties can be achieved through the homogenization techniques. The homogenization

theory for periodic media allows derivation of global behavior of masonry from the behavior of constitutive

materials (brick and mortar). In other words homogenization is the technique of describing the composite

behavior of masonry in terms of macro or average stresses and strains. Homogenization techniques can be

applied in two main ways called experimental homogenization and analytical homogenization. The former

needs so many costly tests and the obtained results are limited to the tests conditions (Zucchini and

Lourenco 2002). The latter method has been used by many authors in different frameworks (elastic, plastic,

limit states, etc.) and with a variety of methods like single-step homogenization (Anthoine 1995), two-step

homogenization and Engineering methods (Pande 1989) and in most cases only in plane behavior in a two

dimensional framework is considered.

Single-step homogenization, used by many authors like Anthoine 1995 and Urbanski et al. 1995 needs

numerical solution that can be obtain ‎through finite element analysis.

In the two-step homogenization, the masonry is homogenized first horizontally, and then vertically or vice

versa. This simplified approach has been used by many authors, but there are two sources of errors in the

results obtained by this method: 1- the results depend on the order of the fulfilling steps; 2- different bond

patterns may lead to similar results because the geometrical arrangements are not entirely taken into account

(Anthoine 1995).

Engineering methods are used with some simplifying assumptions and in many cases lead to a closed-form

solution with an approximate manner.

Zucchini and Lourenco 2002 proposed a new micro-mechanical model to overcome the limitations of the

two step homogenization and showed good results but not in a closed-form.

This paper presents a new three dimensional homogenization method based on energy concepts. The

advantages of this method are: 1-simple usage, 2-few calculations and 3-closed-form solution usable in

masonry walls modeling for linear evaluation procedures. The results of proposed method also show very

good accordance with those of other homogenization ones.

2. Homogenization of unreinforced masonry

Masonry is a composite material consisting brick and mortar that its components are usually are arranged

periodically. In this section a basic cell, having a periodic pattern in the whole wall, is selected (Fig. 1) and

the average stresses and strains are computed by a developed homogenization method. This homogenization

technique is based upon the strain energy of the hyper elastic materials. There is a relation between total

energy and the stress and strain tensors in the hyper elastic materials as:

u
 ij  (1)
eij

where,  ij is the stress in i-th plane and along j-th direction of the basic cell, u is total volumetric strain energy

of the basic cell and eij is the strain in i-th plane and along j-th direction of the basic cell.

Here, it is assumed that the components of masonry are hyper elastic. Therefore, according to the equation

(1), in case of computing the total strain energy of basic cell in terms of average stresses and strains, the

average stresses of basic cell can be obtained in terms of average strains and then the elasticity tensor will be

achieved.

Fig. 1

Total volumetric strain energy can be calculated by the summation of the volumetric energy of each

constituent as follows:

U E  V E  U b  V b  U m1  V m1  U m2  V m2 (2)

where, U E is the total volumetric strain energy, V E is the total volume of basic cell, U b is the total strain

energy of bricks, V b is the total bricks volume, U m1 is the total strain energy of horizontal mortar, V m1 is the

horizontal mortar volume, U m2 is the total strain energy of vertical mortar and V m2 is the vertical mortar

volume.

The volumes can be computed with regard to Fig. 2 as follows:

V E  2(a  t f )(b  t v )t z (3)

V b  2abtz (4)

V m1  2t f (b  t v )t z (5)

V m2  2t v at z (6)
Fig. 2
The strain energy in hyper elastic materials can be calculated as:
 1
u ij   ij eij (7)
2

where,
 ij  Cijkl eij (8)

Substituting equation (8) into equation (7) results in:

1 1 1
uij   ij eij  Cijkl eij elk  u  eT Ce (9)
2 2 2

where, C is the elasticity tensor and e is strain tensor. Assuming that the brick and mortar are isotropic

materials, their elasticity tensors can be obtained as:

C11 C12 C12 0 0 0 

 
C12 C11 C12 0 0 0 
C C12 C11 0 0 0 
C   12  (10)
 0 0 0 G12 0 0 
 0 0 0 0 G13 0 
 
 0 0 0 0 0 G23

where
C11    2 , C22   (11)
E E
 ,  (12)
(1   )(1  2 ) 2(1   )

C11  C12
G12  G13  G23   G (13)
2

Having calculated the strain energy of each component and putting them in equation (2), the total strain

energy of the basic cell will be obtained in terms of masonry components strains. In order to calculate the

strains of masonry components in terms of average strains, the basic cell should be subjected to the

compression along x, y and z axes, and to the shear on xz, xy and yz planes (axes are shown in Fig. 2). Here

two simplifying assumptions are made:

 The stresses in opposite faces of each masonry components are the same, like differential surfaces.

 Normal and pure shear stresses produce only corresponding stresses in each masonry component.

As an example the assumed stress distribution in masonry components under average tension stress along x

axis is shown in Fig. 3.

Fig. 3

The stiffness differences between units and mortar cause complex interactions between the masonry

components if the masonry is deformed. These differences also cause heterogeneous distribution of

deformations over the units and mortar in comparison with the average deformation of homogenous masonry.
For better understanding of internal deformational behavior of masonry components and their relations,

detailed finite element calculations have been carried out on the selected basic cell for different loading

conditions (Fig. 4). Fig. 5 shows the deformed shape of the basic cell subjected to compression along x and y

axes. Zucchini and Lourenco 2002 had shown that for compression along axis z, all basic cell components

are subjected to the real homogenous state of normal stress. Further information about stress states on the

masonry components are addressed in (Zucchini and Lourenco 2002).

Fig. 4

Fig. 5

The displacement of each nodes on the faces normal to x and y directions, subjected to compression along x

and y axes, are shown in Fig. 6 for different ratios of mortar/brick stiffness (Em/Eb). The node numbers are

shown in Fig. 4.

Fig. 6

Fig. 6 illustrates that with increasing the mortar/brick stiffness ratio the relative nodal displacements will

decrease and, as it is expected, the masonry behaves more homogenously.

Fig. 6 shows that with increasing the mortar/brick stiffness ratio the relative nodal displacements will

decrease and, as it is expected, the masonry behaves more homogenously.

Considering the mentioned assumptions, the relation between masonry components strains and average

strains will be obtained as:

 11b  f1 11,  11m1   11,  11m2  nf1 11 ,  22b  f 2 22 ,  22m1  nf 2  22 ,  22m2   22 (14)

 33b   33m1   33m2   33 ,  12b  f 3 12 ,  12m1  n2 f 3 12 ,  12m2  f 3 12 (15)

 23b  f 3 23 ,  23m1  n2 f 3 23 ,  23m2  f 3 23 ,  13b   13m1   13m2   13 (16)

in which:
Eb b  tv a tf n b  tv a tf Gb b  tv
n , f1  , f2  , n2  1 , f3  , nG  ,z 
Em b  ntv a  nt f b  tv a  n2t f Gm nGb  tv

where b, tv, a and tf are shown in Fig. 2,  ij is the average strain and  k ij is the strain of k-th component of

masonry, Eb is the elastic modulus of brick, Em is the elastic modulus of mortar, Gb is the brick shear modulus

and Gm is the mortar shear modulus. It is assumed that the elastic properties of horizontal and vertical mortars

are the same, however considering different elastic properties for them has no effect on the homogenization

procedure. So the total volumetric energy of the basic cell will be as follows:
U E  A11
2
 B 22
2
 C 33
2
 D11 22  E11 33  F 22 33  G12
2
 H13
2
 I 23
2
(17)
where,
1 1
A (C11b f12Vb  C11m1Vm1  C11m2n2 f12Vm2 ) , B  (C11b f12Vb  C11m1n2 f 22Vm1  C11m2 f 22Vm2 )
2V E 2V E

1 1
C (C11bVb  C11m1Vm1  C11m2Vm2 ) , D  (C12b f1 f 2Vb  C12m1nf2Vm1  C12m2nf1 f 2Vm2 )
2V E 2V E

1 1
E E
(C12b f1Vb  C12m1Vm1  C12m2nf1Vm2 ) , F  (C12b f 2Vb  C12m1nf2Vm1  C12m2 f 2Vm2 )
V VE

2 2
G E
(Gb f32Vb  Gm1n22 f32Vm1  Gm2 f32Vm2 ) , H  E
(GbVb nG z 2  Gm1Vm1  Gm2Vm2 z 2 )
V V

2
I (Gb f32Vb  Gm1n22 f32Vm1  Gm2 f32Vm2 )
VE

So the average elasticity tensor will be as:

2 A D E 0 0 0 
 
 D 2B F 0 0 0 
 E F 2C 0 0 0 
C  (18)
0 0 0 0.5G 0 0 
0 0 0 0 0.5H 0 
 
 0 0 0 0 0 0.5I 

The young’s modulus and shear modulus of homogenized masonry also will be computed as:

x x x
eq
E11  eq
, E22  eq
, E33  (19)
4 BC  F 2
4 AC  E 2
4 AB  D 2

eq
G12  0.5G, G13
eq
 0.5H , G23
eq
 0.5I (20)

2 DC  EF 2 DC  EF 2 EB  DF eq 2 EB  DF 2 AF  DE eq 2 AF  DE
12
eq
 , 21
eq
 , 13
eq
 , 
2 31
,  23
eq
 , 32  (21)
4 BC  F 2 4 BC  E 2 4 BC  F 2
4 AB  D 2
4 AB  D
2
4 AC  E

where,

x  2  [ A(4BC  F 2 )  D2C  DEF  E 2 B]

eq eq eq
In the above equations, E11 , E22 and E33 are continuum elastic modulus in X, Y and Z directions,

eq eq eq
respectively and G12 , G13 and G23 are continuum shear modulus in XY, XZ and YZ planes, respectively.

 is the poison coefficient in the corresponding plane.

The proposed relations are still simplified with the aim of regression methods as follows:

0.2 0.36
0.028T f b E  0.021b E 
E11  (  1.14)  Eb   m  , E22  (  0.41T f  2.23)  Eb   m  (22)
a  Eb  a  Eb 
0.07
0.03bTf E 
E33  (  1.14)  Eb   m  (23)
a  Eb 
 0.4 0.2
0.2b E  0.027bTf E 
G12  G23  (  0.44T f  2.25)  Gb   m  , G13  (  1.15)  Gb   m  (24)
a  Eb  a  Eb 

3. Results verification

Zucchini and Lourenco 2002 used micro-mechanical model for masonry homogenization considering

actual deformations of basic cells, including additional internal deformation modes with respect to the

standard two step homogenization procedure. They showed how good their model is in agreement with finite

element results. In this section, to check the accuracy of adopted procedure, the results are compared with

Zucchini and Lourenco’s homogenization model. The basic cell properties are chosen as Zucchini and

Lourenco’s, i.e. the unit dimensions and mortar thickness are 210x100x52 and 10 mm, respectively, for the

unit, the Young’s modulus (Eb) is 20 MPa and the poison ratio (  b ) is 0.15, for the mortar the Young’s

modulus is varied to yield a ratio, Em/Eb ranging from 1 to 1000 and the poison ratio (  m ) is kept 0.15. The

same properties are adopted for bed, head and cross joints. The computed elastic properties of the

homogenized cell are compared with the Zucchini and Lourenco’s, Fig. 7. Considering different stiffness

ratios between mortar and brick allows assessing the model performance for inelastic behavior (Zucchini

and Lourenco 2002). In nonlinear behavior, the material stiffness is degraded and the homogenization of

nonlinear processes leads to the large differences in the stiffness of mortar and unit.

Fig. 7

The very good agreement between the proposed model and Zucchini and Lourenco’s one is shown in Fig. 7.

4. Structural Comparison of unreinforced masonry

In this section the results accuracy of the proposed homogenization procedure is controlled through modeling

some structural walls, each one with two different approaches, using a finite element software. The first

approach is modeling in a micro phase and the other is macro modeling by using the continuum properties of

the wall obtained by proposed relations.

In the first sample, a brick masonry wall by the length and height of 2720 and 2090 mm, respectively, is

modeled in both macro and micro phases (Fig. 8). The wall thickness is kept 10 cm. In micro model the brick

dimensions are 200x100x50 mm and the thickness of the mortar is 1 cm. The mechanical properties of brick
and mortar, used in the modeling, are summarized in Table 1, and the continuum mechanical properties,

calculated by proposed relations, are shown in Table 2.

Table 1

Table 2

The wall is subjected to in-plane load. The displacement of top right corner of the wall is shown in Table 3

for both micro and continuum models.

Fig. 8

Table 3

In the second sample, a 1040x890 mm masonry panel is subjected to out of plane loading with different

supporting conditions of at 4 sides. Table 4 comprises the central point displacement of micro and macro

model for all supporting types.

Table 4

5. Homogenization of retrofitted masonry with reinforced concrete layer

In this section the retrofitted masonry is homogenized and the continuum elastic properties are computed. The

basic cell, selected for the homogenization process, is shown in Fig. 9. The calculations are made in such a

way that the thickness of wall and concrete layer are inserted in the relations and therefore, the proposed

relations are applicable in any thickness.

Fig. 9

Masonry is assumed as continuum orthotropic material and concrete layer as isotropic. The calculations are

done as in the previous sections. The relations between components strains and average strains are obtained

as follows:

tm  tc t t
f 23  , f13  m c (25)
n23tm  tc n13tm  tc

11c  11m  11 ,  22c   22m   22 ,  33c  f3 33,  33m  n3 f3 33 (26)

 23c  f 23 23 ,  23m  n23 f 23 23 , 12c  12m  12 , 13c  f1313 , 13m  n13 f1313 (27)

in which,

Ec t t G Gc
n3  , f3  m c , n13  c , n23 
Em3 n3tm  tc Gm13 Gm23
where, Ec and Em3 are concrete and masonry Young’s modulus, respectively, in z direction; tm is the thickness

of masonry wall; tc is the thickness of concrete layer; Gc is the concrete shear modulus; Gm13 and Gm23 are

masonry shear modulus in xz and yz directions, respectively. The average elasticity tensor of the

homogenized retrofitted masonry will be:

2 A D E 0 0 0 
 
 D 2 B F 0 0 0 
 E F 2C 0 0 0 
C  (28)
0 0 0 0.5G 0 0 
0 0 0 0 0.5H 0 
 
 0 0 0 0 0 0.5I 

where,
1 1 1
A (C11wtw  C11ctc ) , B  (C22wtw  C11ctc ) , C  (C33wtwn32 f32  C11ctc f32 )
2(tm  tc ) 2(tm  tc ) 2(tm  tc )

1 1 1
D (C12wtw  C12ctc ) , E  (n3 f3C13wtw  f3C12ctc ) , F  (n3 f3C23wtw  f3C12ctc )
(tm  tc ) (tm  tc ) (tm  tc )

2 2 2
G (G12wtw  Gctc ) , H  2 2
(n13 f13G13wtw  f13
2
Gctc ) , I  2 2
(n23 f 23G23wtw  f 23
2
Gctc
(tm  tc ) (tm  tc ) (tm  tc )

x  2  [ A(4BC  F 2 )  D2C  DEF  E 2 B]

So, the elastic properties of homogenized retrofitted masonry will be as follows:

x x x
eq
E11  eq
, E22  eq
, E33  (29)
4 BC  F 2 4 AC  E 2 4 AB  D 2

eq
G12  0.5G, G13
eq
 0.5H , G23
eq
 0.5I (30)

2 DC  EF 2 DC  EF 2 EB  DF
12
eq
 , 21
eq
 , 13
eq
 (31)
4 BC  F 2
4 AC  E 2
4 BC  F
2

2EB  DF 2 AF  DE 2 AF  DE
 31
eq
 , 23
eq
 , 32
eq
 (32)
4 AB  D 2
4 AB  D 2
4 AC  E 2

the proposed relations are also simplified with the aim of regression methods as follows:

tm E E
eq
E11  E22
eq
 (0.068  1.068)(0.243 m  0.45 b  0.335) Ec (33)
tc Ec Ec

tm E E
eq
E33  (0.077  0.924)(0.124 m  0.785 b  0.126) Ec (34)
tc Ec Ec

tm E E E
eq
G12  (0.062  1.062)  (0.074 b ln( m )  0.282 b  0.145) Ec (35)
tc Ec Eb Ec

tm E E E
eq
G13  G23
eq
 (0.066  1.066)  (0.052 b ln( m )  0.413 b  0.04) Ec (36)
tc Ec Eb Ec
6. Structural comparisons of retrofitted masonry

In this section a retrofitted masonry wall, subjected to in-plane and out-of-plane loading, is modeled with

macro and micro approaches. The wall displacements in each condition are shown in Table 5 and 6; the

former is for in-plane and the latter is for out-of-plane loading.

Table 5

Table 6

The obvious good agreement between the results of both models indicates the accuracy of the

homogenization process used in this research. For better verifying the results of the homogenization process,

a complete 2 story retrofitted masonry building (Fig. 10) are modeled, first with a micro approach -modeling

the brick and mortar separately- and then with a macro one using shell elements with the elastic properties

obtained from homogenization procedure.

Fig. 10

This masonry building is subjected to concurrent lateral static loads applied at structural mass center,

applying 100% of design forces in x direction plus 30% of design forces in y direction and vice versa. The

deformed shape and displacement of the roof are shown in Fig. 11.

Fig. 11

7. Parametric study

The effect of various values of Em/Eb on the orthotropic properties of retrofitted wall is shown in Fig. 12. The

effect of different stiffness ratios of unit and mortar (Em/Eb) and also different thickness ratios of masonry

wall and concrete layer (tc/tw) are presented in the Fig. 12.

Fig. 12

8. Homogenized yield surfaces

The objective of this section is to derive the yield surfaces of homogenized bare and retrofitted masonry.

These surfaces distinguish the linear regions of the homogenized material. Considering the assumptions,

made to develop the homogenization method, the stresses of each masonry component can be computed in

terms of homogenized material stresses (average stresses). Then, in case of assuming an elastic-brittle
behavior for mortar and unit, the yield surface is defined by the stresses in which any components reaches

their failure criteria. Both the brick and mortar are assumed isotropic. Zucchini and Lourenco 2002 used

classic Von Mises criterion for compression behavior and Rankine criterion for describing tensile behavior of

masonry components. As the masonry is a frictional material, using independent pressure failure criteria leads

to no acceptable results and applying pressure dependent failure criteria is preferred. Therefore, in this study

Mohr-Coulomb criterion is used for brick and mortar.

Fig. 13 shows the resulting yield surfaces of homogenized bare and retrofitted masonry in which the principle

stresses coincide with the material axes happening in the absence of shear stresses. The retrofitted masonry is

layered with a concrete layer of the thickness equal to that of masonry wall. The inner surface, formed by the

intersection of components yield surfaces, is homogenized masonry’s yield surface. The assumed parameters

are as follows:

Em
f cb  9.81, ftb  4, fcm  3.33, ftm  0.196 ( MPA),  0.1,m  b  0.2
Eb

Fig. 13

Retrofitting the masonry with concrete layer has widen the yield surface of the material and also increased the

strength of material in both x and y directions. These yield surfaces are usable in computing the continuum

material strength in any direction.

9. Conclusions

This paper presents a new approximate homogenization method of masonry. This method is simple and

usable in all bond patterns of brick masonry walls, its results are in closed-form and also show good

agreement with the other exact methods. A brick masonry wall is homogenized with proposed method in the

elastic range, the relations are derived and their simplified forms are proposed. Then, the masonry walls,

retrofitted by concrete layer, are homogenized and the relations for computing the elastic properties are

proposed. Finally, the anisotropic failure surfaces of bare brick masonry and retrofitted brick masonry with

concrete layer are extracted, showing considerable increase in the strength.

References

[1] Abrams, D.P. and Lynch, M.J. (2001). “Flexural behavior of retrofitted masonry piers”,
KEERC-MAE Joint Seminar on Risk Mitigation for Regions of Moderate Seismicity, Illinois,
USA.
[2] Anthoine, A. (1995). “Derivation of in-plane elastic characteristics of masonry through
homogenization theory”, International Journal of Solids and Structures, Vol. 32, No. 2, pp.
137-163.
[3] Calvi, G. and Magenes, G. (1994). “Experimental results on unreinforced masonry shear walls
damaged and repaired”, 10th IB2MaC, Calgary, USA.
[4] Chuang, S. et al. (2004) ,“Sesmic retrofitting of unreinforced masonry by cable system” , 13th
WCEE, August, Vancour, Paper No. 3228
[5] Elgawady, M. and Lestuzzi, P. and Badoux, M. (2004). “A review of convetional seismic
retrofitting techniques for URM”, 13th IB2MaC, Amesterdam.
[6] Kahn, L. (1984) “Shotcrete retrofit for unreinforced brick masonry”, 8th WCEE, USA, 583-
590.
[7] Kappos, A.J. and Penelis, G.G. and Drakopoulos, C.G. (2002). “Evaluation of simplified
models for lateral loadd analysis of unreinforced masonry buildings”, Journal of Structural
Engineering, Vol. 128, pp. 890-897.
[8] Lourenco, P.B. and Rots, G. (1997). “Multisurface interface model for analysis of masonry
structures”, Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Vol. 123, No. 7, July, pp. 660-668.
[9] Mistler, M. et al. (2007). “In-plane and out-of-plane homogenisation of masonry”, Comput
struct, doi:10.1016/j.compstruc.2006.08.087.
[10] Page, A.W. (1978). “Finite element model for masonry”, J. Struc. Div., Vol. 104(8), pp. 1267-
1285.
[11] Pande, G.N. and Liang, J.X. and Middleton, J. (1989). “Equivalen elastic moduli for unit
masonry”, Computers and Geotechnics 8, pp. 243-265
[12] Urbanski, A. and Szarlinski, J. and Kordecki, Z. (1995). “Finite element modeling of the
behavior of the masonry walls and coloumns by homogenization approach”, Computer
methods in structural masonry, pp.32-41.
[13] Zucchini, A. and Lourenco, P.B. (2002). “A micro-mechanical model for homogenisation of
masonry”, International Journal of Solids and Structures, Vol. 39, pp. 3233–3255

Keywords: Masonry, seismic strengthening, homogenization, modeling

List of figures:

Fig. 1. The Basic Cell

Fig. 2. The dimensions of the basic cell's consituents

Fig. 3. Stress distribution in components due to tension along axis x

Fig. 4. Finite element mesh of the basic cell

Fig. 5. Deformed shape of the basic cell

Fig. 6. Nodal displacement of compression along x (right) and y (left)

Fig. 7. Comparison between shear and Young’s modulus of the proposed model and Lourenco model

Fig. 1. The Basic Cell

Fig. 2. The dimensions of the basic cell's consituents

Fig. 3. Stress distribution in components due to tension along axis x

Fig. 4. Finite element mesh of the basic cell

Fig. 5. Deformed shape of the basic cell

Fig. 6. Nodal displacement of compression along x (right) and y (left)

Fig. 7. Comparison between shear and Young’s modulus of the proposed model and Lourenco model

Fig. 8. The deformed shape of the micro model under in-plane loading

Fig. 9. The basic cell of retrofitted masonry

Fig. 10. The 2 story retrofitted masonry building

Fig. 11. Deformed shape of the roof under 100Ex-30Ey

Fig .12- The effect of different values of Em/Eb on orthotropic properties of retrofitted masonry

Fig. 13-Yield surface of homogenized masonry(left) and retrofitted masonry(right)

List of Tables:

Table 1- Mechanical elastic properties of brick and mortar

Table 2- Mechanical elastic orthotropic properties of homogenized material

Table 3-In-plane displacement of the URM wall

Table 4- Out-of-plane displacement of the URM wall

Table 5- In-plane displacements of the retrofitted wall

Table 6- Out of plane displacements of the retrofitted wall

 Fig. 1. The Basic Cell

Fig. 2. The dimensions of the basic cell's consituents

Fig. 3. Stress distribution in components due to tension along axis x

Fig. 4. Finite element mesh of the basic cell

 Fig. 5. Deformed shape of the basic cell

Fig. 6. Nodal displacement of compression along x (right) and y (left)

Fig. 7. Comparison between shear and Young’s modulus of the proposed model and Lourenco model
 Fig. 8. The deformed shape of the micro model under in-plane loading

Fig. 9. The basic cell of retrofitted masonry

Fig. 10. The 2 story retrofitted masonry building

Multidirectional Seismic load

Ux(mm) Uy(mm)
Macro-model 8.3 3.6
Micro-model 8.2 3.7

Fig. 11. Deformed shape of the roof under 100Ex-30Ey

Fig .12- The effect of different values of Em/Eb on orthotropic properties of retrofitted masonry

Fig. 13-Yield surface of homogenized masonry(left) and retrofitted masonry(right)

 Table 1- Mechanical elastic properties of brick and mortar

Brick Mortar
Young's Modulus(N/mm2) 9810 981
Poison Ratio 0.15 0.15

Table 2- Mechanical elastic orthotropic properties of homogenized material

Ex(eq) 6140.96 Gxy(eq) 1714.79

Ey(eq) 4108.43 Gxz(eq) 3499.72
Ez(eq) 8126.11 Gyz(eq) 1714.79

Table 3-In-plane displacement of the URM wall

In-plane Node Displacement

Macro-model 8.1 (mm)
Micro-model 8.2 (mm)

Table 4- Out-of-plane displacement of the URM wall

Supporting Macro-model (mm) Micro-model (mm)

4-sides 6.7 6.4
Bottom & Top sides 14.3 14.9
Left & Right Sides 15 16.8

Table 5- In-plane displacements of the retrofitted wall

In-plane Node Displacement

Macro-model 10 (mm)
Micro-model 10 (mm)
(without opening)

In-plane Node Displacement

Macro-model 10.8 (mm)
Micro-model 11.1 (mm)
(with opening)

Table 6- Out of plane displacements of the retrofitted wall

Out-of-plane Node Displacement (mm)

Supporting Macro-model Micro-model
4-sides 0.474 0.476
Bottom & Top sides 0.703 0.714
Left & Right Sides 1.015 1.057
(without opening)

Out-of-plane Node Displacement (mm)

Supporting Macro-model Micro-model
Bottom & Top sides 1.968 1.988
(with opening)

View publication stats