A Multisurface Anisotropic Model for
Quasi-brittle Materials
Paulo B. Lourenço1 and Jan G. Rots2
Abstract. A novel yield criterion capable of modelling the
softening behaviour of anisotropic materials under plane
stress conditions is presented. Individual yield criteria are
considered for tension and compression, according to two
different failure mechanisms. The former is associated with
a localised fracture process, denoted by cracking of the
material, and, the latter, is associated with a more
distributed fracture process which is usually termed as
crushing of the material. The model is capable of
reproducing independent (in the sense of completely
diverse) elastic and inelastic behaviour along a prescribed
set of material axes. The energy-based regularisation
technique resorts then to four different fracture energies
(two in tension and two in compression).
1 INTRODUCTION
The difficulties in accurately modelling the behaviour
of orthotropic materials are, usually, quite strong. This
is due, not only, to the fact that comprehensive
experimental results (including pre- and post-peak
behaviour) are generally lacking, but also to intrinsic
difficulties in the formulation of orthotropic inelastic
behaviour. It is noted that a representation of an
orthotropic yield surface solely in terms of principal
stresses is not possible. For plane stress situations,
which is the case here, a graphical representation in
terms of the full stress vector in a predefined set of
material axes (σx, σy, τxy) is necessary.
In this article, the theory of plasticity is utilised to
combine anisotropic elastic behaviour with
anisotropic inelastic behaviour. Even if many
anisotropic plasticity models have been proposed from
1 Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Civil
Engineering, The Netherlands. Presently back at the
Department of Civil Engineering, School of Engineering,
University of Minho, Azurém, P-4800 Guimarães,
Portugal
2 Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Civil Engi-
neering, The Netherlands. Also at TNO Building and
Construction Research, P.O. Box 49, 2600 AA Delft, The
Netherlands
© 1996 P.B. Lourenço and J.G. Rots
ECCOMAS 96.
Published in 1996 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
purely theoretical and experimental standpoints, only
a few numerical implementations and calculations
have actually been carried out. An example is given in
[1] where the implementation of an elastic-perfectly-
plastic Hill criterion is fully treated. In principle,
hardening behaviour could be simulated with the
fraction model [2] but not much effort has been done
in this direction. More recent attempts are given in
[3], where linear tensorial hardening is included in the
Hill criterion, and [4], where linear hardening is
included in a modified (pressure dependent) Von
Mises to fit either the uniaxial tensile or the com-
pressive behaviour.
While problems can be acute in the implementation
of isotropic plasticity models, they can become even
more pronounced for anisotropic models where
algebraic simplifications are hardly possible. The
present article represents, thus, a step further in the
formulation of anisotropic plasticity models.
Individual yield criteria are considered for tension and
compression, according to different failure
mechanisms, one in tension and the other in
compression. This represents an extension of
conventional formulations for isotropic quasi-brittle
materials to describe orthotropic behaviour. The
proposed yield surface combines the advantages of
modern plasticity concepts with a powerful
representation of anisotropic material behaviour,
which includes different hardening/softening
behaviour along each material axis. The behaviour of
the model is demonstrated by means of single element
tests and a comparison between numerical results and
experimental results for the case of masonry shear
walls. The comparison shows good agreement both
for ductile and brittle failure modes.
2 PROPOSED YIELD SURFACE
Different approaches for the conception of a yield
surface can be used. One approach is to describe the
material behaviour with a single yield criterion. The
Hoffman criterion is quite flexible and attractive to
use, see e.g. [5], but yields a non-acceptable
representation of quasi-brittle materials, see [6], with
very poor fit of the experimental values. A single
criterion fit of experimental data would lead to an
extremely complex yield surface with a mixed harden-
ing/softening rule in order to describe properly the
inelastic behaviour. It is believed that this approach is
practically non-feasible. Thus, a different approach
will be adopted. Formulations of isotropic quasi-
brittle materials behaviour consider, generally, differ-
ent inelastic criteria for tension and compression. In
the present study, an extension of [7], where this
approach is utilised for concrete with a Rankine and a
Drucker-Prager criterion, will be presented. In order
to model orthotropic material behaviour, a Hill type
criterion for compression and a Rankine type criterion
for tension, see Fig. 1, are proposed. Note that the
word type is used here because the yield surfaces
adopted are close to the original yield criteria.
Nevertheless, they represent solely a fit of experimen-
tal results.
tensile strength even if in the perpendicular direction
damage has already occurred. A solution for this
problem seems quite complex, see e.g. [8]. Therefore,
the scalar κt measures the amount of softening
simultaneously in the two material axes, even though
the model still incorporates two different fracture
energies.
The expression for the Rankine criterion, cf.
eq. (1), can be rewritten as
(σ x − σ t (κ t )) + (σ y − σ t (κ t ))
f1 = +
2
2
 (σ x − σ t (κ t )) − (σ y − σ t (κ t )) 
  + τ xy2
 2 
  (2)
where coupling exists between the stress components
and the yield value. Setting forth a Rankine type
criterion for an orthotropic material, with different
yield values σ tx ( κ t ) and σ ty ( κ t ) along the x, y
directions is now straightforward if eq. (2) is modified
to

(σ x − σ tx (κ t )) + (σ y − σ ty (κ t ))
f1 = +
2
(3)
2
 (σ x − σ tx (κ t )) − (σ y − σ ty (κ t )) 
Figure 1. Proposed composite yield surface with iso-shear   +α τ xy2
 2 
stress lines. Different strength values for tension and  
compression along each material axis
where the parameter α, which controls the shear stress
contribution to failure, reads
3 FORMULATION OF THE MODEL
The most relevant aspects of the proposed yield f tx f ty
α= (4)
criteria are given next. For a complete description of τ
2
u, t
the model the reader is referred to [6].
Here, ftx, fty and τu,t are, respectively, the uniaxial
tensile strengths in the x, y directions and the pure
3.1 A Rankine type criterion shear strength. Note that the material axes are now
An adequate formulation of the Rankine criterion is fixed with respect to a specific frame of reference and
given by a single function, which is governed by the it shall be assumed that all stresses and strains for the
first principal stress and one yield value σ t which elastoplastic algorithm are given in the material
reference axes.
describes the softening behaviour of the material as,
Eq. (3) can be recast in a matrix form as
see [7],
T 1 T
f 1 = ( 1 2 {ξ} [ Pt ]{ξ}) 2 + 1 2 {π} {ξ} (5)
2 (1)
σ x +σ y
 σ x −σ y 
f1 = +   +τ xy2 −σ t (κ t )
 where the projection matrix [Pt] reads
2  2 
where the scalar κt controls the amount of softening.  12 − 12 0 
The assumption of isotropic softening is not [Pt ] = − 1 2 12 0 
completely valid for quasi-brittle materials such as  
 0 0 2  (6)
concrete or masonry which can be loaded up to the

Section Title 2 P.B. Lourenço and J. G. Rots

the projection vector {π} reads
T
{π} = {1 0 0} (7)

the reduced stress vector {ξ} reads

{ξ} = {σ} − {η} (8)

and the back stress vector {η} reads

{η} = {σ tx ( κ t ) σ ty ( κ t ) 0}T (9)

Exponential tensile softening is considered for both Example 1

equivalent stress-equivalent strain diagrams, with
different fracture energies (Gfx and Gfy) for each yield
value, which read
 h ftx   h fty 
σtx = ftx exp− kt σty = fty exp− kt  (10)
 G   G 
 fx   fy 

where the standard equivalent length h is related to the

element size.
A non-associated plastic potential g1
T 1 T
g1 = ( 1 2 {ξ} [ Pg ]{ξ}) 2 + 1 2 {π} {ξ} (11)
Example 2
is considered, where the projection matrix [Pg]
represents the original Rankine plastic flow, i.e. α = 1
in eq. (6).
The inelastic behaviour is described by a strain
softening hypothesis given by the maximum principal
.
plastic strain ε 1p as
ε⋅ x + ε⋅ y
p p

κ⋅ t = ε⋅1 = + 1 2 ( ε⋅ x − ε⋅ y ) + ( γ⋅ xy )
p p p 2 p 2
(12)
2

which reduces to the particularly simple expression

⋅
κ⋅ t = λ t (13) Example 3

Figure 2. Possible behaviour of the model along the

material axes for three different sets of material
parameters.

The behaviour of the model in uniaxial tension along

the material axes is given in Fig. 2. The values chosen
for the material parameters illustrate the fact that
completely different behaviour along the two material
axes can be reproduced. In the first example, the ma-
terial strength in the y direction degrades at a faster
rate than the material strength in the x direction. The
second example yields isotropic softening, which
means that degradation of strength in the x and y

Section Title 3 P.B. Lourenço and J. G. Rots

directions occurs at the same rate. Finally, the third
example yields elastic-perfectly-plastic behaviour in
the y direction while softening is allowed to occur in
the x direction.
3.2 A Hill type criterion
The simplest yield surface that features different
compressive strengths along the material axes is a
rotated centred ellipsoid in the full plane stress space.
The expression for such a quadric can be written as
σ cy ( κ c ) 2 σ (κ ) 2
f2 = σ x + β σ x σ y + cx c σ y +
σ cx ( κ c ) σ cy ( κ c )
(14)
2
γ τ xy − σ cx ( κ c ) σ cy ( κ c ) = 0
where σ cx ( κ c ) and σ cy ( κ c ) are, respectively, the
yield values along the material axes x and y. The β
and γ values are additional material parameters that
determine the shape of the yield surface. The
parameter β controls the coupling between the normal
stress values, i.e. rotates the yield surface around the
shear stress axis, and must be obtained from one
additional experimental test, e.g. biaxial compression
with a unit ratio between principal stresses. The
parameter γ, which controls the shear stress
contribution to failure, can be obtained from
f cx f cy
γ= 2
τ u ,c
where fcx, fcy and τu,c are, respectively, the uniaxial
compressive strengths in the x, y directions and a
fictitious pure shear in compression.
The proposed yield surface can be rewritten in a
matrix form as
T 1
f 2 = ( 1 2 {σ} [Pc ]{ σ}) 2 − σ c ( κ c ) (16)
where the projection matrix [Pc] reads
and the scalar κc controls the amount of hardening and
softening.
The inelastic law adopted comprehends parabolic
hardening followed by parabolic/exponential
softening for both equivalent stress-equivalent strain
diagrams, with different compressive fracture energies
(Gfcx and Gfcy) along the material axes. The problem of
mesh objectivity of the analyses with strain softening
materials is a well debated issue, at least for tensile
behaviour, and the stress-strain diagram must be
adjusted according to an equivalent length h to
provide an objective energy dissipation. The inelastic
law features hardening, softening and a residual
plateau of ideally plastic behaviour. The peak strength
value is assumed to be reached simultaneously on
both materials axes, i.e. isotropic hardening, followed
by anisotropic softening as determined by the
different fracture energies. A residual strength value is
considered to avoid a cumbersome code (precluding
the case when the compressive mode falls completely
inside the tension mode) and to achieve a more robust
code (precluding degeneration of the yield surface to a
point). For practical reasons, it is assumed that all the
stress values for the inelastic law are determined from
the peak value.
An associated flow rule and a work-like
hardening/softening hypothesis are considered. This
yields
1 ⋅
κ⋅ c = {σ}T {ε⋅ p } = λ c (19)
σc
(15)
The behaviour of the model in uniaxial
compression along the material axes is given in Fig. 3.
Again, the values chosen for the material parameters
illustrate the fact that completely different behaviour
along the two material axes can be reproduced. In the
first example, the material strength in the x direction
degrades at a faster rate than the material strength in
the y direction. The second example yields elastic-
perfectly-plastic behaviour in the y direction while
softening is allowed to occur in the x direction.

 σ cy (κ c ) 
2 β 0
 σ cx (κ c ) 
 σ cx (κ c ) 
[Pc ] =  β 2 0
σ cy (κ c )
 
 0 0 2γ 
 
(17)
the yield value σ c is given by
σ c ( κ c ) = σ cx ( κ c ) σ cy ( κ c ) (18)

Section Title 4 P.B. Lourenço and J. G. Rots

 line searches, whereas the snap-backs are traced with
COD control over the most active crack. It is noted
that the self-weight of the wall and the top slab is also
considered in the analyses.

Example 1

Figure 4. Geometry and loads for masonry walls.

Two walls from the experiments, denoted by W1 and

W2, are analysed with the composite plasticity model.
The properties of the composite material are obtained
from [10], see Table 1 to 3.

Table 1. Elastic properties

Example 2
Ex Ey νxy Gxy
2460 N/mm2 5460 N/mm2 0.18 1130 N/mm2
Figure 3. Possible behaviour of the model along the
material axes for two different sets of material parameters. Table 2. Rankine material parameters (α = 1.73)
ftx fty Gfx Gfy
4 EXAMPLES 0.28 N/mm2 0.05 N/mm2 0.02 N/mm 0.02 N/mm
The performance of the anisotropic continuum model Table 3. Hill material parameters (β = -1.05, γ = 1.20)
is validated next by a comparison with experimental
fcx fcy Gfcx Gfcy
results in hollow clay brick masonry shear walls [9].
These experiments are well suited for the validation of 1.87 N/mm2 7.61 N/mm2 5.0 N/mm 10.0 N/mm
the model because most of the parameters necessary
to characterise the model are available from biaxial The first wall analysed (W1) is subjected to an
tests. initial vertical load p of 0.61 N/mm2 and shows a very
Fig. 4 shows the geometry of the walls, which ductile response with tensile and shear failure along
consist of a masonry panel of 3600 × 2000 × 150 mm3 the diagonal stepped cracks [9]. The comparison
and two flanges of 150 × 2000 × 600 mm3. Additional between numerical and experimental load-
boundary conditions are given by two concrete slabs displacement diagrams, for wall W1, is given in
placed in the top and bottom of the specimen. Fig. 5. Good agreement is found. The low initial
Initially, the wall is subjected to a vertical load p vertical load combined with the confinement provided
uniformly distributed over the length of the wall. This by the flanges and the top concrete slab yields an
is followed by the application of a horizontal force F extremely ductile behaviour. The unloading found at d
on the top slab causing a horizontal displacement d. A equal to 2.0 mm is due to the mode I crack opening of
regular mesh of 24 × 15 4-noded quadrilaterals is used the left flange. The behaviour of the wall is depicted
for the panel and 2 × 15 cross diagonal patches of 3- in Fig. 6 in terms of the deformed mesh at ultimate
noded triangles are used for each flange. The analyses stage, where the centre node of the crossed diagonal
are carried out with indirect displacement control with patch of the flanges is not shown in order to obtain a

Section Title 5 P.B. Lourenço and J. G. Rots

more legible picture. Even at the ultimate stage the
stress values are considerably below the maximum
compressive strength in the vertical direction which
confirms the fact that failure is exclusively governed
by the tension regime.
Figure 5. Wall W1. Load - displacement diagrams.
Figure 6. Wall W1. Total deformed mesh at a displacement
of 12.0 mm.
The second wall analysed (W2), is subjected to an
initial vertical load p of 1.91 N/mm2 and, initially,
shows a relatively ductile behaviour, followed by
brittle failure with explosive behaviour due to
crushing of the compressed zone [9]. The comparison
between numerical and experimental load-
displacement diagrams is given in Fig. 7. From a
qualitative perspective good agreement is found
because the same trend is observed in both diagrams.
Remarkably, the explosive type of failure observed in
the experiments at a displacement of approximately
8.0 mm is also predicted by the analysis. Less good
agreement is found with respect to the calculated
collapse load value, which is 20 % higher than the
experimental value. Even if the sharp reproduction of
the collapse load value is not the main issue here, it is
likely that the difference can be explained by the
variation of the material properties in compression
between the biaxial tests and the wall. In [6], good
Section Title 6 P.B. Lourenço and J. G. Rots
agreement is found for other tests even in the case of
failure due to masonry crushing.
Figure 7. Wall W2. Load - displacement diagrams.
Figure 8. Wall W2. Incremental deformed mesh at a
displacement of 8.0 mm.
The behaviour of the wall W2, depicted in Fig. 8 in
terms of the deformed mesh at ultimate stage, is quite
different from the behaviour of wall W1. The
explosive type of failure due to crushing in the
compressed toes, which is also observed in the
experiments, has been traced with arc-length control
over the nodes in the bottom row of elements of the
panel.
5 MESH SENSITIVITY
A crucial point in the analysis of strain softening
materials with standard continuum is the sensitivity of
the results with respect to the mesh size. The fracture
energy based regularisation which has been adopted in
this study is widely used in engineering practice to
overcome this problem. It suffices to incorporate an
equivalent length in the material model which is
related to the area of an element. Fig. 9 shows the
comparison between the results of the analysis for
wall W1 with the original mesh and a mesh refined by
a factor two. It is observed that, for practical purposes,
the results can be considered mesh
insensitive.
Figure 9. Wall W1. Mesh sensitivity analysis.
6 CONCLUSIONS
An anisotropic composite continuum model capable
of reproducing independent inelastic behaviour along
two orthogonal axes has been formulated. It is
assumed that two failure mechanisms can be
distinguished, one associated with localised fracture
processes and one associated with a more distributed
fracture process which can be termed crushing of the
material. Orthotropic elasticity is combined with
orthotropic softening plasticity in a frame of reference
associated to a set of material axes. The model
includes a Rankine type criterion for tension and a
Hill type criterion for compression, which is flexible
enough to accommodate the behaviour of quasi-brittle
materials.
A comparison between numerical results and
experimental results for masonry shear walls shows
the good performance of the model.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The calculations have been carried out with DIANA
finite element code of TNO Building and
Construction Research. The research is supported
financially by the Netherlands Technology
Foundation (STW) under grant DCT 33.3052.
Section Title 7 P.B. Lourenço and J. G. Rots
REFERENCES
[1] R. de Borst and P.H. Feenstra, Studies in anisotropic
plasticity with reference to the Hill criterion, Int. J.
Numer. Methods Engrg., 29, p. 315-336, 1990.
[2] J.F. Besseling, A theory of elastic, plastic and creep
deformations of an initially isotropic material showing
anisotropic strain-hardening, creep recovery and
secondary creep, J. Appl. Mech., 22, p. 529-536, 1958.
[3] C.C. Swan and A.S. Cakmak, A hardening orthotropic
plasticity model for non-frictional composites: Rate
formulation and integration algorithm, Int. J. Numer.
Methods Engrg., 37, p. 839-860, 1994.
[4] X. Li, P.G. Duxbury and P. Lyons, Considerations for
the application and numerical implementation of strain
hardening with the Hoffman yield criterion, Comp.
Struct., 52(4), p. 633-644, 1994.
[5] J.C.J. Schellekens and R. de Borst, The use of the
Hoffman yield criterion in finite element analysis of
anisotropic composites, Comp. Struct., 37(6), p. 1087-
1096, 1990.
[6] P.B. Lourenço, Computational strategies for masonry
structures, Dissertation, Delft University of Technology,
Delft, The Netherlands, 1996.
[7] P.H. Feenstra and R. de Borst, A composite plasticity
model for concrete, Int. J. Solids Structures, 33(5),
p. 707-730, 1996.
[8] P.B. Lourenço, J.G. Rots and P.H. Feenstra, A 'tensile'
Rankine type orthotropic model for masonry, in:
Computer methods in structural masonry - 3, eds. G.N.
Pande and J. Middleton, Books & Journals International,
Swansea, UK, p. 167-176, 1995.
[9] H.R. Ganz and B. Thürlimann, Tests on masonry walls
under normal and shear loading (in German), Report
No. 7502-4, Institute of Structural Engineering, ETH
Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland, 1984.
[10] H.R. Ganz and B. Thürlimann, Tests on the biaxial
strength of masonry (in German). Report No. 7502-3,
Institute of Structural Engineering, ETH Zurich, Zurich,
Switzerland, 1982.