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

net/publication/275346723

Modeling and Analysis of Masonry Structures

Article · June 2008

CITATIONS READS

0 2,886

2 authors:

Naveed Anwar Jereme Mula

Asian Institute of Technology Asian Institute of Technology
148 PUBLICATIONS   113 CITATIONS    1 PUBLICATION   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Structural Assessment and Recommendation for Risk Mitigation of Baltit Fort, Pakistan View project

Seismic Performance Evaluation of High-rise Buildings with RC Flag Wall Systems View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Naveed Anwar on 24 April 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 MODELING AND ANALYSIS
OF MASONRY STRUCTURES
Introduction
In recent years, advancements in modeling and
analysis of structures have focused on tall buildings,
bridges, towers and other major infrastructures to
become earthquake-resistant structures. Neverthe-
less, masonry structures are equally important con-
sidering its high level of vulnerability to earthquake.
In earthquake prone countries, masonry is still wide-
ly used as a construction material in building their
residential houses due to economic reasons while
other masonry structures with historical value are
being maintained. In terms of damages and casu-
alties in the aftermath of the earthquake, sizeable
quantity is normally accounted from collapsed ma-
sonry structures. In Pakistan, for instance, the 2005
Kashmir Earthquake with 7.7 magnitude in Richter
Scale claimed thousands of lives and damaged hun-
dreds of masonry structures.
Seismic evaluation of existing masonry structures,
particularly unreinforced masonry structures, should
be carried out prior to rehabilitation while nonlinear
analysis should be included in the design of pro-
posed buildings. Assessment of structure’s present
condition can be done by means of load testing,
however, this method is not practical for low story
About the Authors weak-type of structure such as masonry structures.
Nonlinear modeling and analysis offers a better al-
ternative since it can be performed without the need
to induce forces to the existing buildings where dam-
ages may occur, and rather inexpensive. However,
modeling and analysis of masonry structures require
analytical skills and engineering judgment.
Naveed Anwar There are several ways to model masonry structures,
Associate Director,
ACECOMS
namely: continuous model; discrete model; rigid-
Affiliate Faculty, SET components model; and equivalent frame model.
AIT
Analysis cases include force controlled analysis,
displacement controlled analysis or pushover analy-
sis and dynamic analysis. Equivalent frame model
and linear to static nonlinear pushover analysis are
discussed in this paper while other modeling types
analysis cases can be found in the literature.
Simulation of Masonry Prism Test
Jereme Mula
Master Student
Structural Engineering,
An experimental study on unreinforced masonry
AIT structure conducted at the NWFP University of
10 May 2008
Engineering and Technology (UET) in Peshawar,
Pakistan, is the main reference of comparison in
this paper. The compressive strength of a stack
of masonry bricks connected by mortar, also
called as masonry prism, was determined. Behav-
ior of a masonry prism against compressive load
can better represent the actual behavior of a ma-
sonry structure compared to individual brick test
(Paulay and Priestly, 1992). This is because, the
strength of mortar in between the bricks is a criti-
cal consideration, for which nonlinear analysis is
more appropriate to perform rather than a linear
analysis.
The tested masonry prism is composed of a
number of bricks stacked together by CSK 144
type of mortar, with dimension 16” long x 18”
high x 9” thick, as shown in Figure 1a. In modeling
a masonry prism, a set of procedures is required
to follow such as: defining the material properties,
determining the type of elements to use, defin-
ing the constitutive law for shear and compression
and setting the loads and boundary conditions.
Material Properties
Material properties were defined as: mass per unit
volume, ρ = 1.260 x10-06 kg/mm3; weight per unit
volume, γ = 1.240 x10-05 N/mm3; compressive
Strength, f ’c = 690.68 psi (4.77MPa); modulus of
elasticity, E = 270 ksi (1,866 MPa); Poisson’s ra-
tio, v = 0.3 and coefficient of thermal expansion
(8.1E-06 mm/mm/0C) is given in ACI 530-05/
ASCE5-05/TMS 402-05/FEMA 273.
Types of Elements to Use
Modeling should be able to appropriately represent
not just the physical properties of the structure
but more importantly, the elastic-plastic behavior
of masonry structure. The actual tests conducted
in NWFP-UET laboratory include compressive
test and shear bond strength test. However, only
the compressive test results were compared since
the actual shear strength test was carried out using
different type of prism (consisting of two bricks
only).

In the application of an “equivalent frame model”
analysis approach, the masonry prism is divided into
number of fibers which are governed by a constitu-
tive law. This approach is based on a fiber element
method where each fiber acts independently from
the other fibers within the sections, and is capa-
ble of uniaxial compression only. Using equivalent
frame model, each fiber is represented by a linear
beam-column element. Column elements are used
to capture the behavior of the masonry prism both
against compressive loads and shear, while beam
elements act as connecting elements between col-
umns. Further, these columns have an elastic-plastic
behavior based on the plastic hinge concept avail-
able in SAP2000 nonlinear program. The sections
of equivalent frame elements (Fig. 1.b) have been
defined based on the actual dimensions of masonry
prism (Fig. 1.a).
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 1: (a) The actual masonry prism; (b) the
equivalent frame model; and (c) the equivalent ma-
sonry prism
Figure 1.c shows the overlapping of bricks between
columns and beams. This does not, however, affect
the modeling of the behavior of actual masonry
prism because diaphragm and plate constraints were
enforced at the nodes connecting column and beam
elements.
Constitutive Law for Column Fibers
The stress-strain relationship for a masonry prism
due to compressive loads was obtained from the ex-
perimental result (Fig. 2).
Figure 2: Stress-strain relationship for masonry prism
due to compressive loads
The same stress-strain relationship can be assigned
to each column-fiber, however, the point load
should be derived from the total compressive load.
From the stress-strain curve, corresponding multi-
Article
linear material model can be established, especially
when assigning the plastic hinge property.
For plastic hinge property due to shear, the stress-
strain relationship used by Salonikos et el. (2003) was
used as a basis (Fig. 3.b) since there is no complete
stress-strain curve derived from the actual test.
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 3: (a) Shear strength test; (b) failure criterion
of the joints with the corresponding stress-displace-
ment curves in tension and shear (Salonikos, T. et
al. 2003); and (c) adjusted stress-strain relationship
for masonry shear strength
Loads/Boundary Conditions
The total compressive load was computed based Using diaphragm con-
on the average compressive stress (f ’m = 690.68 straints, the same amount
psi) and mean compressive area (140 in.2). In the of displacement can be im-
posed at the constrained
same manner, shear load was computed from the
nodes while plate constraints
average shear stress (0.143 MPa) and shear area do not transmit bending mo-
(18 in.2). The shear load was assigned as a lateral ments.
load acting horizontally. Further, diaphragm con-
straints and plate constraints were enforced at the
nodes of beam-column elements. Using diaphragm
constraints, the same amount of displacement can
be imposed at the constrained nodes while plate
constraints do not transmit bending moments.
Thus, shear is resisted only by the columns, satisfy-
ing the criteria of fiber modeling.
Analysis of Masonry Prism
Elastic Analysis
Prior to nonlinear analysis, elastic analysis was per-
formed in order to determine the appropriate value
of modulus of elasticity, E, for nonlinear analysis us-
ing SAP2000. Several points along the curves were
considered for the verification of results (Fig. 4).
Figure 4: Figure 2 is redrawn showing the points
considered for the verification
May 2008 11
 Article

The results of elastic analysis is summarized in Ta- In the application of given formulations, the geo-
ble 1. metric properties were set based on the actual com-
pressive test, as follows: b = 230mm, h = 406mm
Table 1: Comparison of Elastic Analysis Between the Actual Test L=457mm; and ultimate load, P = 43.3 tons
and SAP2000 Simulation (425,754 N). For elastic sectional analysis, the axial
load, N = 30% of ultimate load (N= 127,726.2 N).
Actual Test Results from SAP2000
Stress, σ Strain, ε Displacement Length Strain, ε
(psi) (in)
On the other hand, inputs in SAP2000 include: E
= 550fm = 2524 MPa (based on the assumption of
PARA 1 690.68 0.0033 0.0464 16.5 0.00281
Penelis, GR. G. (E = 550 to 1,000 fm); axial load N
PARA 2 500 0.0019 0.0305 16.5 0.00185 = 127,726.20 N; and lateral load, Vu = 106,720 N.
PARA 3 580 0.0024 0.0385 16.5 0.0023
PARA 4 600 0.0025 0.0401 16.5 0.0024 Nonlinear Pushover Analysis

As explained earlier, nonlinear modeling of mason-

The results show that compressive strength of 500
ry prism using pushover analysis requires a stress-
psi (PARA2) yielded a marginal difference between
strain relationship of plastic hinges due to com-
elastic analysis using SAP2000 and the actual result.
pressive load (Fig. 5) and due to shear (Fig. 3.c).
Hence, the 500 psi compressive strength was used
The acceptance criteria are described in Fig. 5.
for nonlinear pushover analysis.
Further, a formulation suggested by Penelis, GR.
R (2006) for unreinforced masonry structures was
adopted for both compression and shear. The elas-
tic rotation θ is calculated using:
2
f 2
θ= = VL = 12VL
3
(3.1)
L 3EI 3(1000fm bh )

The shear strength is defined by using the following

Nonlinear modeling of ma-
sonry prism using pushover equations, describing shear failure along bed joints
analysis requires a stress- in case the section is cracked due to flexure
Figure 5: Stress-Strain Relationship due to compres-
strain relationship of plastic
Vu = hb 1.5fuko + µp
sive load
hinges due to compressive (3.2)
load and due to shear 1+3fuko av p
or another approach for a cracked section proposed
by Magenes and Calvi (1997) describing diagonal E
cracking due to mortar joint failure _ε F
O

Vu = hb fuko + µp (3.3)
D

1+av p

where: fuko = cohesion of masonry in MPa

µ = coefficient of friction
N
p= Legend: IO = Immediate Occupancy, LS = Life Safety, CP = Collapse
hb Prevention
Figure 6: Plastic hinges acceptance criteria
av = M = (shear ratio for cantilever)
Vh Due to Compressive Loads
And finally, critical shear stress is defined as: Results are tabulated below, and also shown in Fig-
V ure 6 of nonlinear pushover analysis
τcr= u , and
hb Table 2: Result of nonlinear pushover analysis

θcr=
τcr Steps Displacement, in AcceptanceCriteria
5/6(Gef )
4 0.0313 B
where: 7 0.0583 IO*
8 0.0659 C
Gef = 90 fm (effective shear modulus)
10 0.0761 D
12 0.09 D

May 2008 *Immediate occupancy

12
 Article

Figure 6:
Results of
Nonlinear
Pushover
Analysis
due to
Compres-
sive Load

(a) (b) (c)

The table shows that the first plastic hinge (B – fuch-
sia color) appeared at 0.0313 inches displacement,
as also shown in Figure 9. This means that cracking
in masonry prism starts to appear at 0.0313 inches
and the peak load is recorded at 0.0659 inches or
at C plastic hinge. This result is very close to the
actual test, where at strain 0.0019, the displacement
is 0.0314 inches. Hence, SAP2000 is able to simu-
late the actual test, and the analysis can be extended
further when the model is pushed into desired dis-
placement.

Due to Shear
Results are tabulated below, and also shown in Figure 7.

Table 3: Result of nonlinear pushover analysis due

(a) (b)
to shear
Steps Displacement, in AcceptanceCriteria
Figure 7: Results of Nonlinear Pushover Analysis Due to Shear

3 1.1972 B Nonlinear Analysis and Modeling

4 1.1973 C &E of Masonry Structure
In the modeling and analysis of a two-storey ma-
The results mean that cracking of masonry prism sonry structure, the model (Fig. 8) used by Salonikos,
starts when it is pushed by 1.2 mm and immediately T. et al. (2003) was adopted, so that results from
fail thereafter as shown in Figure 7. SAP2000, including formulation of plastic hinges
properties, can be verified.
Comparison Between Manual Analysis 4t/m
and SAP2000 DISPL 2.5 mm 5.5 mm

Table below shows that there is no significant differ-

6t/m
ence between SAP2000 results and the manual cal-
culation. It could be inferred therefore that manual
calculation can be an alternative in determining the
properties of plastic hinges.
3.00
Critical Rotation, θcr
SAP2000 0.00331 (a) (b) (c)
Manual Calculation 0.0032
Figure 8 : (a) Two-storey perforated masonry structure; (b) the equivalent frame
model; and (c) deformation history (Salonikos, et al., 2003)

May 2008 13
 Article

Modeling of two-storey masonry structure

In modeling the two-storey masonry structure, equivalent frame model is used and then extended into fiber
modeling; column element to represent the pier and beam element for spandrel. Assignment of rigid off-
sets can be horizontal only, vertical only or both depending on the properties of the real structure (Penelis,
GR.G. 2006). Plastic hinges, due to rotations and shear, were also assigned in beams and columns. Loca-
tions of plastic hinges show the critical areas in the masonry structure where cracking may occur.
Geometric properties of column and beam elements were defined as: b = 220mm, h = 1500mm, and
L=3,500mm. The material properties used by Salonikos et al. were adopted so that results can be verified,
such as: fm = 3.0 MPa; E = 1650 MPa; unit wt. per volume, ρ = 2t/m3; Poisson’s ratio, v = 0.2; cohesion
of masonry, Ø = 0.09, and coefficient of friction; μ = 0.24.
From Eqn. (3.1), the critical shear stress is 0.169 MPa and critical rotation 0.000753 or 0.0753%. The
adopted shear mode diagram (Penelis, GR.G 2006) and the equivalent diagram for the property of plastic
hinges as inputs in SAP2000 is shown in Figures 9 and 10

0.8 Vu=44736.8

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 9: (a) shear mode diagram by Penelis (2006); (b) plastic hinges for shear in columns; and (c) plastic
hinges for shear in beams

Moment, M Moment, M
[N.mm] [N.mm]

Mu=195,578,800 Mu=195,578,800
0.8Mu=156,578,800 0.8Mu=156,578,800

Rotation
0.000753 0.0006 Rotation

0.0023 0.00184

0.00457
0.0037

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 10: (a) shear mode diagram by Penelis (2006); (b) plastic hinges for M-θ in columns; and (c) plastic
hinges for M-θ in beams

Critical displacement is given by the formula, θcr = Δ/L where Δ = 2.64mm. Ultimate displacement value
of 8mm was based from experimental results while 16mm is the displacement that the structure is pushed.
Notably, it was established in FEMA 273 guidelines that the properties of plastic hinges in the spandrel is
20-25% less than the values in the pier.
Manual calculation of plastic hinges properties can be a good alternative. The 4.2mm displacement is quite
close to the result of Salonikos, T. et al. It only differs in the location of plastic hinges formation, where
no plastic hinge formed at the columns. This result can be checked from the “shear value” resisted by the
column, as shown in Figure 11.

14 May 2008

DISPL. = 4.2mm DISPL. = 6.02mm
(a) (b)
Figure 11: Nonlinear Pushover Analysis
The amount of shear developed at the column
shown in Figure 11 is only 49,406 N while the shear
at the plastic hinge is 55,921 N. This only means that
the property of plastic hinges assigned in column is
relatively high, that the column will not exhibit any
deformation or crack. Penelis, GR. G emphasized
that setting of rigid offsets in unreinforced masonry
structure is very important. In some cases, horizon-
tal rigid offsets or setting rigid zone in the equivalent
beam is more appropriate than using vertical and
horizontal rigid offsets.
Conclusion
There is a good agreement between the simulation
results using SAP2000 and the actual test results,
from elastic analysis of compressive loads, and
nonlinear analysis of masonry prism and two-sto-
rey unreinforced masonry structure. Results from
SAP2000 and sectional analysis yielded proximate
value in terms of critical rotation of the masonry
prism under loads. And lastly, sectional analysis is a
practical solution in deriving the property of plas-
tic hinges while FEMA 273 remains to be a good
guideline.
And, fiber modeling and analysis, as a holistic ap-
proach in analyzing pier or spandrel components,
needs further study. ■
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to acknowledge the NWFP-
University of Engineering and Technology (NWFP-
UET) in Peshawar, Pakistan, for its partial financial
support to this research. Also the research term of
NWFP-UET led by Prof. Qaisar Ali are gratefully
View publication stats
Article
DISPL. =12.89mm
(c) (d)
acknowledged for initiating the idea and providing
the experimental results for this research.
References
1-ACI 530-05/ASCE5-05/TMS 402-05/FEMA
273
2-Chaimoon, K. (2007), Modeling of Unreinforced Ma-
sonry Walls Under Shear and Compression, Engineering
Structures 29 2056–2068, www.elsevier.com/locate/eng-
struct
3-Computers and Structures, Inc. (2005), CSI Analy-
sis Reference Manual for SAP2000, ETABS, SAFE’,
Berkley, California, USA.
4- Gabor, A. et al. (2006), Analysis and Modeling of
the In-plane Shear Behaviour of Hollow Brick Masonry
Panels, Construction and Building Materials 20 (2006)
308–321, www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat.
5-Kappos, A.J. et al. (2002), Evaluation of Simpli-
fied Models for Lateral Load Analysis of Unreinforced
Masonry Buildings, Journal of Structural Engineer-
ing, Vol. 128, No. 7, July 1, 2002. www.scopus.com
6- Paulay, T. and Priestly, M.J.N (1992), Seismic Design
of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Building, John Wi-
ley and Sons Inc., New York, USA
7-Penelis, GR.G. (2006). An Efficient Approach for
Pushover Analysis of Unreinforced Masonry Structures,
Journal of Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 10, No. 3
(2006) 359–379
8-Roca, P. et al. (2005), Strength Capacity of Masonry
Wall Structures by the Equivalent Frame Method, Journal
of Structural Engineering, Vol. 131, No. 10, October 1,
2005, www.scopus.com.
9-Salonikos, T. et al. (2003), Comparative Inelastic Push-
over Analysis of Masonry Frames, Engineering Structures
25 1515–1523, www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct
10-Yi, T. et al. (2006), Analyses of a Two-Story Unre-
inforced Masonry Building, Journal of Structural Engi-
neering, www.scopus.com
May 2008 15