KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering (2016) 20(2):784-791 Structural Engineering

Copyright ⓒ2016 Korean Society of Civil Engineers

DOI 10.1007/s12205-015-0393-1 pISSN 1226-7988, eISSN 1976-3808
www.springer.com/12205
TECHNICAL NOTE

Elastoplastic Finite Element Analysis of Masonry Shear Walls

H. Orhun Koksal*, Bilge Doran**, A. Osman Kuruscu***, and Ali Kocak****
Received July 17, 2014/Revised November 20, 2014/Accepted April 28, 2015/Published Online June 19, 2015

··································································································································································································································

Abstract

Masonry is the most important construction material in Turkey. It has been used for public and residential buildings in the past
several thousand years. A great number of well-preserved old masonry structures still exist proving that this form of construction can
successfully resist loads and environmental impact. Traditionally, most major buildings were solid walled structures with the walls
bearing directly on the ground. Engineers work hard to convert the highly indeterminate, ambiguous and nonlinear behavior of
historic masonry construction into something which can be understood with mathematical certainty. Therefore, practical and accurate
structural analysis techniques are needed for the preserve the historical monuments as a huge cultural heritage. This paper is focused
on Nonlinear Finite Element (NLFE) modeling of masonry shear walls at a macro-level taking the geometric arrangement of
constituents. In this study, 3D elasto-plastic Finite Element (FE) analysis for the masonry walls that subjected to the combinations of
vertical and lateral loads, are determined to find a practical method. An original meshing procedure is introduced to consider the
orthotropy along the two natural directions of the masonry while the material is still assumed to be isotropic. The paper further
examines parameter studies carried out to show that the relation suggested for cohesion values of mortar joint masonry can also be
adopted for the masonry walls with dry joints employing compressive stresses on the top surface of the wall despite using its
compressive strength. The accuracy of the proposed approach is verified by simulating a series of experiments reported in the
literature. Those papers include shear tests on masonry walls with both dry and mortar joints by Raijmakers and Vermeltfoort,
Oliveira and Roca. Comparisons between the predicted and measured failure loads of the walls confirm that it is possible to
reproduce the fundamental features of masonry shear walls with the proposed meshing scheme. Finally, the proposed approach is
shown to fit quite well the experimental load-deformation plots of masonry walls with both dry- and mortar joint under shear-
compression fracture.
Keywords: masonry wall, finite element analysis, plasticity, load-displacement curves, Drucker-Prager criterion
··································································································································································································································

1. Introduction tensile and shear resistance in earthquakes. As far as dealing with

Masonry is the oldest building material that survived until
today and still finds wide use in today’s construction technologies.
The growing concern about the preservation of historic structures
and buildings has so amplified the urgency to develop new
numerical techniques for their structural analysis. Any advancement
about the assessment and mitigation of earthquake hazard should
be associated with the cooperation of many specialists from
different disciplines. One of these tasks traditionally belongs to
structural engineers providing and advancing the construction
practices and theoretical models for earthquake resistant design
(Belmouden and Lestuzzi, 2009; Guler et al., 2008; Koçak and
Yildirim, 2011). In this context, although masonry structures are
capable of withstanding the effects of gravity loads, a serious
problem may appear in carrying lateral loads due to their low
the failure mechanisms in-plane behavior, Unreinforced Masonry
(URM) walls are generally used as primary structural components
to provide sufficient lateral resistance to earthquake effects
(Krstevska et al., 2007; Mele et al., 2003). Thus, there is an
apparent need for more computational simulation models of
URM walls under vertical and in-plane lateral loading. It is also
important to point out here that there are still unresolved aspects
in the estimation of the constitutive behavior of URM walls.
Because of the interaction between units and mortar joints and
orthotropy along the two natural directions of the masonry, the
response of masonry walls under shear-compression is complex
in nature and manifesting itself as an essential ingredient of
comprehensive structural analysis. Accordingly, simulation of
masonry wall behavior involves simplifications and assumptions
of a variety of sorts for the numerical analysis. Despite starting

*Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Çanakkale 18 Mart University, 17100 Çanakkale, Turkey (E-mail: hokoksal@comu.edu.tr)
**Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Yildiz Technical University, 34220 Esenler, Istanbul, Turkey (E-mail: doranbilge@gmail.com;
doran@yildiz.edu.tr)
***Assistant Professor, Dept. of Architecture, Y ild iz Technical University, 34349 Besiktas, I·stanbu, Turkey (E-mail: okuruscu@yildiz.edu.tr)
****Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Y ild iz Technical University, 34220 Esenler, Istanbu, Turkey (Corresponding Author, E-mail: ako-
cak@yildiz.edu.tr)

− 784 −
 Elastoplastic Finite Element Analysis of Masonry Shear Walls
with several important assumptions and evaluating a limited
number of experimental results available in the literature, researchers
have proposed various analytical models to study the behavior of
masonry walls (Mele et al., 2003; Raijmakers and Vermeltfoort,
1992; Roca et al., 2001; Oliveira et al., 2006; Chaimoon and
Attard, 2007; Formica et al., 2002; Lourenco, 1996; Lourenco
and Rots, 1997; Berto et al., 2002; Tasnimi and Farzin, 2006;
Mohebkhah et al., 2008; Popehn et al., 2008). These experimental
works quite adequately explain the response of masonry walls
built with both mortar and dry joint masonry identifying the
differences in the mechanical behavior between each of them
(Oliveira, 2000; Roca et al., 2001).
The present paper reports the main results obtained by a simple
macro modeling approach proposed for the elasto-plastic Finite
Element (FE) analysis of URM walls subjected to a combination
of lateral and vertical loads. An original meshing procedure is
primarily proposed to account for the orthotropy along the two
natural directions of the masonry while the material is still
considered isotropic (Koksal et al., 2010). Then, a parametric
study has been carried out to investigate the effects of the main
parameters of Drucker-Prager criterion, cohesion and internal
friction angle, on the behavior of masonry walls with both mortar
and dry joints. The ability of the proposed approach for estimating
the response of the masonry walls has been evaluated by
comparing their analytical predictions with the results of the
Eindhoven experiments (Raijmakers and Vermeltfoort, 1992)
and shear tests on masonry walls with both dry and mortar joints
by Oliveira (2000) and Roca (2001; 2004).
2. Material Modeling
In the past two decades, several researchers proposed different
complex modeling approaches for the description of the masonry
behavior. Their practical implementation into 3D FE analyses is
very cumbersome due to the solution strategies to express and
deliver the effects of the nonlinearity in compression and the
orthotropy along the two natural directions. Fortunately, only the
effect of interaction between masonry units and mortar on the
global structural behavior would be enough for large and practice-
oriented analyses (Lourenco et al., 1998). Macro-modeling generally
involves some degree of approximation in the computational
masonry modeling because of complex load transfer mechanisms.
On the other hand, micro-modeling approach requires the
mechanical properties of the constituents and masonry as a
composite material and especially the detailed modeling of the
interface behavior between the units and mortar. Nevertheless,
there are several numerical difficulties and uncertainties about
the crack induced nonlinearity arising from evaluating all these
topics (Chaimoon and Attard, 2007). In macro modeling,
interaction between units and mortar is excluded as no distinctions
between units, mortar and unit–mortar interfaces are made. It is
further noted that masonry units, mortar and mortar-unit
interface are smeared out in a homogenous continuum materials
(Fig. 1). Therefore, macro models are applicable when the structure
Vol. 20, No. 2 / March 2016
Fig. 1. FE models of Typical Masonry Wall (Koksal et al., 2010):
(a) Detailed Micro-modeling, (b) Simplified Micro-modeling,
(c) Micro-modeling
is composed of solid walls with sufficiently large dimensions, in
which there are no significant gradients in the stress distributions.
The constitutive behavior of masonry is orthotropic due to the
geometrical arrangement of its constituents, i.e. units and mortar,
even if their mechanical properties are usually isotropic (Dhanasekar
and Haider, 2007). In this study, a simple and practical modeling
approach is proposed rather than starting with a discrete approach
to modeling units and mortar joints separately (Koksal et al.,
2010). The primary aim of this study is to obtain the whole load-
displacement behavior of the wall in the horizontal direction. For
this purpose, the present study reports an appropriate choice on
mesh size in order to describe in-plane orthotropic behavior.
URM wall is initially divided into finite elements, which their
boundaries exactly coincide with the bed joints in horizontal
direction. Bed joints are utilized only to define the element
boundaries along the wall length in the present modeling technique
(Koksal et al., 2010). Head joints are basically neglected in
modeling since they do not coincide with each other in the
vertical direction and they have a little effect on the horizontal
displacements of the wall (Fig. 2). In the nonlinear analysis,
while the masonry is still considered isotropic, the current mesh
topology is capable of producing an artificial weakness in the
horizontal direction imposing a maximum size along the wall
length and a much smaller mesh size which is limited to the
height of the unit and the mortar thickness in the vertical
direction. The effects of both the mortar behavior and the
phenomenon of the unit-mortar interface are considered in the
constitutive modeling of this single long unit element.
The elasto-plastic analysis of masonry structures refers to
practical solutions instead of using sophisticated material models.
Due to the smooth yield surface for a frictional material,
Drucker-Prager plasticity model would be the first choice for the
elasto-plastic analyses from a point of view of failure criterion
(Koksal et al., 2009; Doran, 2009). The material parameters of
Drucker-Prager criterion are cohesion and internal friction angle.
Since the compressive strength is the only material parameter,
Fig. 2. An Original Macro Modeling Approach
− 785 −
 H. Orhun Koksal, Bilge Doran, A. Osman Kuruscu, and Ali Kocak
which can be easily measured and handled, other parameters can
be expressed in terms of the compressive strength similarly to
those just described in concrete design. When modeling URM
walls based on the successive applications to the elasto-plastic
analysis of reinforced concrete elements, the authors prefer this
approach because of its simplicity (Koksal et al., 2009; Doran,
2009; Doran et al., 2009). Generally, expressions for the cohesion
are in the following form:
c = Afc + B (1)
Tasimi and Farzin (2006) proposed similar relations for the
cohesion and the internal friction angle of the units in the analysis
of masonry walls (Tasnimi and Farzin, 2006; Mohebkhah et al.,
2008):
c = 0.1065fc + 0.531 (2)
φ = 0.145fc + 49.71 (3)
Regarding the dominant effects of horizontal sliding along bed
joints, the models for wall behavior under lateral loading have to
create this friction effect realistically. For this reason, Eq. (1)
generally yields 50o-53o for internal friction angle. However,
they used the average angle of internal friction and cohesion of
the mortar joints are 35o and 0.6 MPa, respectively (Mohebkhah
et al., 2008). As an upper limit, sixty degree can be reasonable
considering the huge mesh sizes used in this study (Koksal et al.,
2010) (Fig. 3). When the granular size is increased, it is quite
normal to use higher values for friction angle. There is another
available relation for the cohesion of mortar previously proposed
by Koksal et al. (2004) as:
cmr = 0.129fmr + 1.85 (4)
In that study, different parameters were provided each for
grout, hollow blocks and mortar in nonlinear modeling of
concentrically loaded reinforced blockwork masonry columns.
The following relation has been found as a result of the parametric
study performed to calibrate the cohesion value throughout the
analyses of URM walls (Koksal et al., 2010):
c = 0.1225fc ( MPa ) + 0.22 (5)
The coefficients of compressive strength in all above three
equations (Eqs. (2), (4), (5)) proposed for cohesion are close to
Fig. 3. Geometry and Loading Arrangements: (a) Eindhoven Experi-
ments, (b) Oliveira and Roca Experiments
− 786 −
each other. On the other hand, a higher constant 1.85 in Eq. (4) is
probably employed to avoid the premature failure of 10-mm thin
layer of mortar joint caused by the mesh size effect. In fact,
without supplying separate meshes for mortar joints, if the effect
of joints is smeared out to a continuum in which large finite
element mesh sizes are used, it is quite normal to obtain a lower
constant such as 0.22 in Eq. (5) on the basis of a parametric study
performed for URM walls.
3. Numerical Simulation of Masonry Walls
For the purpose of checking for the performance of the
proposed algorithm, TU Eindhoven shear walls (Raijmakers and
Vermeltfoort, 1992; Vermeltfoort and Raijmakers, 1993), dry stone
walls (Oliveira, 2000) and experimental cohesive walls (Roca,
2004) loaded in compression and shear are modeled using 8-
node hexahedral isoparametric elements (HX8M). HX8M is a
solid element with an incompatible strain field (Fig. 4) in LUSAS
package and the element formulations take account of membrane,
shear, and flexural deformations and are capable of modeling
inelastic phenomenon.
Eindhoven shear walls were made of on-purpose manufactured
solid clay bricks with dimensions 210 × 52 × 100 mm and 10 mm
thick mortar. In TU Eindhoven tests on shear walls (Raijmakers
and Vermeltfoort, 1992; Vermeltfoort and Raijmakers, 1993),
pre-compression load (V) of 30, 120, 210 kN were applied
respectively before a lateral load (H) was monotonically increased
under top displacement control until failure (Fig. 3(a)). However,
these walls were confined by means of top and bottom beams.
The predicted responses agree well with experimental ones in
terms of the slopes of the initial ascending part of the load-
displacement curves and the peak load levels in Fig. 5. There
exists some deviation between the predicted and experimental
results only for the post peak behavior. Here, it is noted that the
elasto-plastic theory cannot give a complete representation of the
gradual degradation of the shear failure mode after the peak point
due to a stepped diagonal crack by breaking the units or the bond
along a combination of head and bed joints (Malyszko, 2005).
Oliviera (2000) tested seven dry stone walls which geometries
are shown in Fig. 3(b). Taking into account that historical
structures are generally submitted low stress states, the walls
were tested for vertical loads of 30, 100, 200, and 250 kN,
resulting compressive stresses of 0.15, 0.50, 1.00 and 1.25 MPa,
Fig. 4. Eight-noded Hexahedral Element
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering
 Elastoplastic Finite Element Analysis of Masonry Shear Walls

Fig. 7. Comparison of Load Capacities for Roca 2 Series

Fig. 5. Comparison of Load–displacement Responses for Eind-
hoven Experiments: (a) Test J4D, (b) Test J6D, (c) Test J7D
Fig. 6. Comparison of Load–displacement Responses for Oliveira
Experiments: (a) Test SW.30.1, (b)Test SW.100.1, (c) Test
SW.200.1, (d)Test SW.250.1
respectively. Dry-joint walls were built with sandstone blocks
with dimensions 200 × 200 × 100 mm. The lateral load-displacement
curves of dry joint masonry in Fig. 6 - are in good agreement
with the predictions in terms of both the ultimate lateral load and
the pre-peak behavior of the walls.
Roca (2004) performed tests on 15 walls with 2.5 mm micro-
mortar bed joints. Walls were made of on-purpose manufactured
small solid clay bricks with dimensions 72.5 × 12.5 × 35 mm as
shown in Fig. 3(b). A single joint masonry wall having the same
geometrical and mechanical properties given above is also
modeled by the proposed model. Effect of vertical load on lateral
load capacities of the masonry shear walls are predicted well as
shown in Fig. 7.
Material properties and wall dimensions are given in Table 1.
The compressive strength of blocks are used for the case of
mortar joint masonry while determining the cohesion values
from Eq. (4) since the mortar strength is generally close to the
strength of units. For the case of dry joint masonry, there is no
cohesion between units. Only confinement stresses exit on the
top surface of the wall. Vertical force prevents the opening of the
joints in a similar way to the interaction phenomena along the
crack surfaces in a reinforced concrete beam called as aggregate
interlocking. There are several constitutive relations for aggregate
interlocking including confining and shear stresses along the
crack faces (Gambarova and Karakoc, 1983; Dei Ploi et al.,
1987).
The analyses show a very stiff behavior if the compressive
strength of blocks is used for the dry- joint masonry walls. It is

Table 1. Summary of Features of Different Experimental Wall Series

Bed joint b h t Ec c
Experiment Ref. no ν φ
(Thickness) (mm) (mm) (mm) (MPa) (MPa)
Eindhoven JD Walls J4D 0.14
Mortar
(Raimakers and J6D 1000 990 100 0.11 5000 60o 2.2
(10 mm)
Vermeltfoort, 1992) J7D 0.14
SW.30.1 250 0.25
Oliveira SW.100.1 500 0.40
(Vermeltfoort and Dry 1000 1000 200 0.15 60o
Raimakers, 1993) SW.200.1 1000 0.40
SW.250.1 1350 0.65
Micro mortar
Pere Roca (2004) Series 2 300 250 35 0.15 3750 60o 2.1
(2.5 mm)

Vol. 20, No. 2 / March 2016 − 787 −

 H. Orhun Koksal, Bilge Doran, A. Osman Kuruscu, and Ali Kocak

Fig. 8. Eindhoven Test Series: (a) Experimental Crack Pattern for Test J4D (b), (c), and (d) Principal Stresses for Different Load Cases

also worth mentioning that much better plots for experimental
load-displacement curves are obtained by incorporating the
confining stresses for the determination of the cohesion and the
elasticity modulus.
Insight on the experimental crack pattern and the distribution
of principal stresses ( σ 1 ≥ σ 2 ≥ σ 3 ) upon increasing loading can
be provided by the stress distributions along the wall surface for
masonry with mortar joint in Fig. 8. If an attempt is made to
relate the observed form of the principal stress distribution σ1
with the failure mode of the wall, it can be easily seen that some
specific stress contours closely predict the crack pattern at
failure. The stress contours of mortar joint masonry, indicating
stress values between 1.00 and 1.60 MPa approximately equal to
one-tenth of the compressive strength of units, are almost
identical to the stepped diagonal cracking pattern of the wall.
These principal stress values can be apparently considered as the
tensile strength of the units. In the case of dry joint masonry, the
stress contours, approximately equals to the compressive stresses
exerted from the vertical loading on the top surface, can be
simply used for defining the final cracking pattern in Fig. 9.
4. Conclusions
Numerical simulations of the masonry shear walls are strongly
required in the design of masonry structures and building frames
with masonry infill walls to provide buildings with adequate
resistance to earthquake effects. Accordingly, the accuracy of
analytical evaluation methods is probably the most important
factor affecting the success of repair and retrofitting of historic
structures. This paper outlines a new approach to 3D FE modeling
of masonry walls subjected to a combination of vertical and
lateral loads. Available experimental studies on the masonry
walls with dry and mortar joints are employed to verify the
proposed approach for masonry wall computations. Finally, the
following conclusions can be drawn from the present study:
1. In the numerical simulation presented in this paper, the focus
is on the 3D mesh generation scheme. Wall is divided into
finite elements, which their boundaries exactly coincide
with the bed joints in horizontal direction. Head joints are
not considered in the mesh generation process since they do
not coincide with each other in the vertical direction. This
type of mesh generation is of primary interest in creating an
artificial weakness in the horizontal direction. Therefore,
orthotropy and its effects are reflected into the analysis instead
of using different material parameters for the description of
the wall orthotropy.
2. It can be also concluded that it is possible to use simply
compressive strength of units for the determination of mate-
rial parameters of Drucker-Prager yield criterion. Based on
the analytical expressions previously recommended for the

− 788 − KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

 Elastoplastic Finite Element Analysis of Masonry Shear Walls
Fig. 9. Oliveira Test Series: (a) Experimental Crack Pattern for Test SW.30.1 (b), (c), and (d) Principal Stresses for Different Load Cases
cohesion it seems that there is a linear relation between the
cohesion and the compressive strength of masonry with
mortar joints. A comparison between the coefficients of the
compressive strength proposed in this study and recom-
mended by other researchers, shows that they are very close
to each other. There is only a significant difference for con-
stant term in the general form of the cohesion relation origi-
nating probably from the mesh size effect. Small meshes
simply need higher cohesion values in order to prevent the
premature failure of the wall system.
3. In the case of dry joint masonry, the use of confinement
stresses instead of the compressive strength provides much
better predictions for the wall response. As discussed before,
the internal friction angle is kept as a constant value of 60o,
which actually represents an upper limit for both dry and
mortar joint masonry.
4. Comparison of the wall responses subjected to vertical and
lateral loads between analytical and experimental results
Vol. 20, No. 2 / March 2016 − 789 −
indicates reasonable agreement except the shape of the load-
displacement curves for both mortar joint and dry joint
masonry after peak point. The reason for this is that there
exists no gradually developing damage defined in the elasto-
plastic model so that the zig-zag form of the post-peak curve
can not be predicted accurately. In fact the primary aim of
this study is to avoid from the complexities of the micro-
modelling approach, especially from defining the interface
behavior between the units and mortar of which the material
parameters can be determined very roughly due to the lim-
ited experimental data. According to this explanation, an
envelop curve is anticipated without producing any degrada-
tion due to the gradual decreasing of the interface parame-
ters in the present study.
5. The rigidity under axial loads is defined by the length and
the thickness of the wall. In the proposed approach, the loads
are applied at the nodes of the singular element between
adjacent the bed joints and the material coefficients are cali-
 H. Orhun Koksal, Bilge Doran, A. Osman Kuruscu, and Ali Kocak
brated according to existing experimental data in the litera-
ture. When the wall is very long, higher values are observed
for the wall rigidity during the nonlinear analysis if one
makes a comparison between the experimental and predicted
behavior. Furthermore, the stress-concentration around the
head joints will weaken the wall, if their numbers will
increase. In reality, if the vertical load is increased or the
wall is very long (longer than 1m), the effect of the uni-
formly distributed load and stress-concentration around the
head joints will increase and therefore the wall can not prob-
ably reach the load levels predicted by the proposed
approach.
References
Belmouden, Y. and Lestuzzi, P. (2009). “An equivalent frame model for
seismic analysis of masonry and reinforced concrete buildings.”
Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 40-53,
DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2007.10.023.
Berto, L., Saetta, A., Scotta, R., and Vitaliani, R. (2002). “An orthotropic
damage model for masonary structures.” International Journal for
Numerical Methods in Engineering, Vol. 55, No. 2, pp. 127-157.
DOI: 10.1002/nme.495.
Chaimoon, K. and Attard, M. (2007). “Modeling of unreinforced masonry
walls under shear and compression.” Engineering Structures, Vol.
29, No. 9, pp. 2056-2068, DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2006.10.019.
Dei Ploi, S., Gambarova, P. G., and Karakoc, C. (1987). “Aggregate interlock
role in R.C. thin-webbed beams in shear.” Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 113, No. 1, pp. 1-19, DOI: org/10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9445(1987)113:1(1).
Dhanasekar, M. and Haider, W. (2007). “Explicit finite element analysis
of lightly reinforced masonry shear walls.” Computers and Structures,
Vol. 86, Nos. 1-2, pp. 15-26, DOI: 10.1016/j.compstruc. 2007.06.006.
Doran, B. (2009). “Numerical simulation of conventional rc columns
under concentric loading.” Materials and Design, Vol. 30, No. 6, pp.
2158-2166, DOI: 10.1016/j.matdes.2008.08.033.
Doran, B., Koksal, H. O., and Turgay, T. (2009). “Nonlinear finite element
modeling of rectangular/square concrete columns confined with FRP.”
Materials and Design, Vol. 30, No. 8, pp. 3066-3075, DOI: 10.1016/
j.matdes.2008.12.007.
Formica, G., Sansalone, V., and Casciaro R. (2002). “A mixed solution
strategy for the nonlinear analysis of brick masonry walls.” Computer
Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, Vol. 191, No. 51-
52, pp. 5847-5876, DOI: 10.1016/S0045-7825(02)00501-7.
Gambarova, P. G. and Karakoc, C. (1983). “A new approach to the
analysis of the confinement role in regularly cracked concrete
elements.” Transactions 7th SMIRT Conference, Vol. H, Paper H5/7,
Chicago, pp. 251-261.
Ganz, H. R. and Thürlimann, B. (1984). Tests on masonry walls under
normal and shear loading (in German), Report No. 7502-4. Institute
of Structural Engineering, ETH Zurich.
Guler, K., Yuksel, E., and Kocak, A. (2008). “Estimation of the fundamental
vibration period of existing rc buildings in turkey utilizing ambient
vibration records.” Journal of Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 12, No.
1, pp. 140-150, DOI: 10.1080/13632460802013909.
Koksal, H. O., Doran, B., Kuruscu, A. O., and Altönsoy F. (2010).
Modelling the in-plane behavior of unreinforced masonry walls,
MONUBASIN - 8th International Symposium on the Conservation
− 790 −
of Monuments in the Mediterranean Basin, 30 May-2 June 2010,
Patras, Greece.
Koksal, H. O., Doran, B., Özsoy, A. E., and Alacal i, N. S. (2004).
“Nonlinear modeling of concentrically loaded reinforced blockwork
masonry columns.” Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 31,
No. 6, pp. 1012-1023, DOI: 10.1139/l04-058.
Koksal, H. O., Doran, B., and Turgay, T. (2009). “A practical approach
for modeling frp wrapped concrete columns.” Construction and
Building Materials, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 1429-1437, DOI: 10.1016/
j.conbuildmat.2008.07.008.
Koçak, A. and Yildirim, M. K. (2011). “Effects on infill wall ratio on
the period of reinforced concrete framed buildings.” Journal of
Advances in Structural Engineering, Vol. 14, No. 5, pp. 731-743.
DOI: 10.1260/1369-4332.14.5.731
Krstevska, L., Tashkov, Lj, Arun, G., Aköz, F. (2007). “Evaluation of
seismic behavior of historical monuments.” SHH07 International
Symposium on Studies on Historical Heritage Symposium Book,
pp. 411-418, 2007, Antalya, ISBN 978-975-461-433-6.
Lourenco, P. B. (1996). Computational strategies for masonry structures,
PhD Thesis, Delft University, Netherlands.
Lourenco, P. B. and Rots, J. G. (1997). “Multisurface interface model for
analysis of masonry structures.” Journal of Engineering Mechanics,
Vol. 123, No. 7, pp. 660-668, DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399
(1997)123:7(660).
Lourenco, P. B., Rots J. G., and Blaauwendraad, J. (1998). “Continiuum
model for masonry: parameter estimation and validation.” Journal
of Structural Engineering, Vol. 124, No. 6, pp. 642-652, DOI:
10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1998)124:6(642).
LUSAS Finite Element System. FEA Ltd, Surrey, UK.
Malyszko, L. (2005). In-plane shear and tensile strength tests of small
brickwork specimens, International Seminar on Structural Analysis
of Historical Constructions 4th, International Seminar on Structural
Analysis of Historical Constructions, 291-298.
Mele, E., Deluca, A., and Giordano, A. (2003). “Modelling and analysis
of a basilica under earthquake loading.” Journal of cultural Heritage,
Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 355-367, DOI: 10.1016/j.culher.2003.03.002.
Mohebkhah, A., Tasmini, A. A., and Moghadam, H. A. (2008). “Nonlinear
analysis of masonry-infilled steel frames with openings using discrete
element method.” Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Vol. 64,
No. 12, pp. 1463-1472, DOI: 10.1016/j.jcsr.2008. 01.016.
Oliveira, D. V. (2000). Mechanical characterization of stone and brick
masonry, Rep. No. 00-DEC/E-4, Univ. do Minho, Guimaraes.
Oliveira, D. V., Lourenço, P. B., and Roca, P. (2006). “Cyclic behaviour
of stone and brick masonry under uniaxial compressive loading.”
Materials and Structures, Vol. 39, No. 2, pp. 219-227, DOI:
10.1617/s11527-005-9050-3.
Popehn, J. R. B., Schultz, A. E., Lu, M., Stolarski, H. K., and Ojard, N.
J. (2008). “Influence of transverse loading on the stability of slender
unreinforced masonry walls.” Engineering Structures, Vol. 30, No.
10, pp. 2830-2839, DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2008.02.016.
Raijmakers, T. M. J. and Vermeltfoort, A. T. H. (1992). Deformation
controlled tests in masonry shear walls [in Dutch], Report B-92-
1156, TNO-Bouw, Delft.
Roca, P. (2004). “Simplified methods for assessment of masonry shear-
walls.” 6th National Congress of Seismology and Earthquake
Engineering and International Workshop “Masonry Walls and
Earthquakes”, SISMICA 2004, pp. 101-118.
Roca, P., Oliveira, D., Lourenco, P., and Carol, I. (2001). Mechanical
response of dry joint masonry, In: Arun G, Seckin N, editors. Studies
in ancient structures. Istanbul: Yildiz Teknik Universitesi; 2001, pp.
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering
 Elastoplastic Finite Element Analysis of Masonry Shear Walls

291-300. Vermelfoort, A. T. H. and Raijmakers, T. M. J. (1993). Deformation

Tasnimi, A. A. and Farzin, M. (2006). “Inelastic behavior if RC columns controlled tests in masonry shear walls, Part 2 [in Dutch], Report
under cyclic loads on cohesion and internal friction angle of TUE/BKO/93.08, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven.
concrete.” Modarres Technical Eng J., Vol. 1, No. 23, pp. 29-40.

Vol. 20, No. 2 / March 2016 − 791 −