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

net/publication/215469225

Numerical Modelling of Masonry Structures

Conference Paper · January 2011

CITATIONS READS

0 666

2 authors, including:

Tammam Bakeer
Technische Universität Dresden
44 PUBLICATIONS 113 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

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

Master thesis: ENGINEERING MODELS FOR THE IN-PLANE LOAD CARRYING CAPACITY ASSESSMENT OF CONFINED MASONRY: NUMERICAL AND ANALYTICAL MODELS View
project

CASA MILÀ The influence of the construction of high speed train tunnel on the works of Antoni Gaudì, Part 2 View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Tammam Bakeer on 15 March 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Numerical Modelling of Masonry Structures
BAKEER, TAMMAM ; SCHÖPS, PETER
Dr.-Ing. Tammam Bakeer, Technische Universität Dresden, Faculty of Architecture, Chair of Structure Design,
D-01062 Dresden, Germany, E-Mail: tammam.bakeer@tu-dresden.de
Dipl.-Ing. Peter Schöps, Jäger Ingenieure GmbH, Wichernstr. 12 * D-01445, Germany, Radebeul, Email:
p.schoeps@jaeger-ingenieure.de
1 Introduction
The multipurpose finite element packages like ANSYS and
LS-DYNA have many potential and user programmable
features to solve civil engineering problems. Masonry struc-
tures in all forms and types, the historical and today’s struc-
tures, have received a great attention in recent decades in
parallel to the advances achieved in FEM industry.
Numerical models of masonry are based on two methodolo-
gies. First, mesoscopic detailed descriptions consider ma-
sonry as a heterogeneous structure with separate descrip-
tions of each constituent. Second, models intended for
large-scale structural calculations are generally of a phe-
nomenological nature, and represent the collective behav-
iour of constituents by closed-form macroscopic constitutive
equations. The two principle modelling strategies are corre-
spond to three different scales of complexity which have
been identified by Lourenço [17] and Rots [22]:
- Micro modelling or two phase material model: starting from
the knowledge of single constituents. Each component of
masonry has its own behaviour which might be complex.
This modelling strategy can be categorized into:
(a) Detailed micro-modelling whereby units and mortar
represented as continuum, with the unit/mortar inter-
faces modelled using discontinuous interfaces as poten-
tial crack, slip and crushing planes;
(b) Simplified micro-modelling through the adoption of
"geometrically expanded" masonry units with a single
"averaged" interface representing the mortar and the two
mortar/unit interfaces. This model requires the material
model of the expanded unit and masonry joints.
- Macro-modelling or single phase material model, the
quasi-periodic nature of masonry has prompted to investi-
gate the use of homogenization techniques, where all ma-
sonry components are smeared by an equivalent homoge-
nized continuum. One-phase material models have been
treated masonry as an ideal homogeneous material with
constitutive equations that differ from those of the compo-
nents.
2 Methods of modelling
2.1 Discrete Modelling
Several discrete modelling methods are available in litera-
ture (Rigid Bodies Spring Method, Discontinuous Deforma-
tion Analysis, Non-Smooth Contact Dynamics, Modified
Discrete Element Method, Combined Finite-Discrete Ele-
ments and Applied Element Method), Bakeer [4]. The mod-
elling methods which can be used in ANSYS and LS-DYNA
are mainly based on discretization of the structure and de-
fining the interface model which has contact formulation or
interface element. The available ANSYS contact elements
(ideal plastic, linear softening) and the interface elements
(exponential load displacement relationship) can be em-
ployed for modelling masonry joints.
LS-DYNA has fully automated contact analysis capabilities,
which make this software very user-friendly for contact
analysis problems.
The node-segment pair is the root level of all contact types
in LS-DYNA. The node is a point with mass and is usually
named as slave node. The segment is either 3-noded or 4-
noded connectivity information and is usually named as
master segment. The contact algorithm consists of the fol-
lowing steps, Bala [5]:
(a) The slave node-master segment pair is assembled
so that, the projection of the slave node onto the master
segment, along the master segment normal must lie
within the area enclosed by the 3 or 4 nodes of the seg-
ment. The projection point called contact point and the
distance from slave node to contact point called projec-
tion distance. In order to collect the nodes which may lie
near the edges, it is necessary to use a small increase in
the area of the segment. LS-DYNA uses an additional
2% increase to the master segment.
(b) Determining of the contact point in the isoparametric
coordinates of the master segment.
(c) Computing the projection distance in the local coordi-
nate system which is embedded in the master segment.
(d) When the projection distance found to be negative,
its absolute value indicates the depth of the penetration.
The slave nodal force is calculated according to the fol-
lowing equation
f
{s
= K
{c
⋅ δ{
(1)
contact force contact stiffness penetration depth
(e) Distributing the contact force to the master segment
nodes. Each master node gets a fraction of the slave
force based on the contact point location by using the
isoparametric shape functions
 performed using parallel 40 Intel Itanium processors “SGI

segment normal
Altix 4700” at the centre of High Performance Computing of
TU-Dresden. The calculation for the model was carried out
projection distance

along 7 days for only 20 seconds of loading.

slave node
master segment 2.2 Smeared Modelling
In continuum methods the softening and local cracking of
material have considered by the smeared crack approach.
scaled segment The smeared crack approach was first developed to be
contact point used in concrete structures and has been extended to ma-
sonry. In this approach cracks are modelled in an average
sense by modifying the material properties at the integration
points of finite elements. Smeared cracks are convenient
when the crack orientations are not known beforehand,
transformation to because the formation of a crack involves no re-meshing or
isoparametric coordi- new degrees of freedom. However, the smeared crack
nates of the master
segment
models can not be able to simulate the final stage of soften-
ing process in masonry material, i.e. the full separation of
η
the continuum can not be accomplished by means of
2 (-1,1) 1 (1,1)
smeared crack models.

3 (-1,-1) 4 (1,-1)

Figure 1 Assemblage of slave node- master seg-

ment pair

(a)

(b)

Figure 3 Continuum modelling for (a) the Church of

Figure 2 Collapse analysis of the Mosque of Takiyya
al-Sulaymaniyya under generated earth-
quake model, Bakeer & Jäger [3].
Discrete modelling is very high time consuming for model-
ling masonry structures, even with high performance com-
puters. As an example, LS-DYNA model was built to explore
the effect of earthquake characteristics on the collapse of
historical masonry buildings Figure 2, each calculation was
our ladies (Frauenkirche), Dresden, Stoll.
et al.[25], (b) Plastic strains in multi-family
building, Jäger et al. [12] & [13].
Many complications arise with continuum approach for the
highly nonlinear behaviours, either from material or geomet-
rical perspectives. For instance, it is very difficult or unfeasi-
ble to use the continuum approach to study the behaviour of
materials or structures that change their status from contin-
uum state to entirely discrete state, like behaviour of struc-
tures before and during collapse.
The interest to develop continuous model for the discrete
structure of masonry is due to computation efficiencies
gained by this model while the discrete type of analyses is
very computer time consuming. Furthermore, masonry often
has periodic nature where the application of the homoge-
nized continuum model would allow for more elegant and
efficient solution.
The plasticity theory has been employed to develop macro
material models for in plane behaviour of masonry.
Lourenço [17] has proposed an anisotropic model of two
surfaces Rankine/Hill. Massart [20] has developed two-
dimensional anisotropic damage model in a “multi-plane”
framework. Schlegel [23] has implemented the material
model of Ganz theory (Ganz [10]) in ANSYS software. Jäger
et al. [12], [13] have implemented the shear theory of Mann
& Müller in ANSYS to be employed for calculation of mini-
mum cross sectional area of the shear walls to develop
simplified seismic design procedure. By this constitutive law
the cyclic elastoplastic behaviour have been realistically
simulated. Mistler [21], as well, has employed the shear
failure theory of Mann & Müller [19] to implement a material
model for masonry panels in ANSYS.
3 Constitutive models
3.1 Constitutive models of masonry
constituents
Masonry constituents belong to geo-materials. There are
large amounts of experimental data reported by different
researchers over past years for masonry constituents. Dif-
ferent multi parameter yield functions have been proposed
to fit with the experiential data, which have been resulted in
a variety of constitutive models capable to represent various
aspects of geo-materials behaviour, such as limestone,
granite, as well as concrete and ceramics. The key feature
of material model is to identify the relationship between the
stress tensor and strain tensor based on few parameters
that characterize the material behaviour.
In ANSYS most materials basically can better simulate the
hardening behaviour. However, the concrete material in
ANSYS can be used with Solid element 65 to represent
brittle softening. ANSYS has user-programmable features
that offer the possibility to implement user materials. To
consider the softening behaviour of masonry constituents,
2D material model has been implemented Figure 4. Figure 5
shows the calculation of element length to consider the
possible orientation of crack. The material model has been
tested on shear wall to examine the damage patterns and
the load deflection curve, Figure 6.
LS-DYNA comprises material models that cover a wide
range of masonry constituents, but such materials have
been developed basically for concrete and soils. They rep-
resent the general behaviour of many geo-materials. The
candidate LS-DYNA materials for masonry are: Soil and
foam material model No.5, Pseudo tensor material model
No.16, Concrete material No. 72, Winfrith concrete material
model No. 84, Cap material models No.25, No.145 and
No.159. However, the general triaxial empirical laws of
many masonry materials are still lacking in literature and
further investigations are required.
3.2 Constitutive models of the interfaces
Various numerical approaches can be employed to simulate
the crack formation, tied or adhesive contact surfaces with
failure, interface elements, breakable tied nodes and pre-
refinement of the mesh along potential crack. Those nu-
merical approaches can only give a real representation of
the interfaces in case of masonry if an accurate constitutive
model is employed. All these numerical approaches are
already implemented in LS-DYNA with various options, but
the possibility to employ those approaches for masonry with
the appropriated options and the validation is still ques-
tioned.
Due to the robustness of contact algorithms in LS-DYNA,
the available contact options for modelling masonry inter-
faces have been examined. The Tiebreak contact in LS-
DYNA allows the modelling of connections which transmits
both compressive and tensile forces with optional failure
criterion. The separation of the slave node from the master
is resisted by contact spring for both tensile and compres-
sive forces until failure, after which the tensile coupling is
removed, Bala [5]. The option 6 of contact tiebreak permits
damage modelling by scaling the stress components after
failure is met. The following yield function has been em-
ployed:
σ2 τ2
F (σ,κ ) = + − Ω(κ ) (2)
ft 2 c2
where: ft tensile strength of the interface, c shear strength
of the interface, Ω(κ ) linear damage function, given by
Ω(κ ) = 1 − κ , κ the damage scalar given by κ = w / w c ,
and w , w c current crack width and crack width at failure,
respectively.
After the damage is initiated, the stress is linearly scaled
down until the crack width reaches the critical distance
wc at which the interface failure is complete. Tiebreak con-
tact in LS-DYNA uses penalty method. This produces some
relative displacement between the surfaces before the dam-
age of the contact which results in deponding, due to which,
the yield criterion is possible to be achieved. This brings out
an unrealistic behaviour because the tractions between the
surfaces are suddenly jumped down. Further options to
prevent this behaviour are available in LS-DYNA by increas-
ing the stiffness scale factor of the contact. However, care
should be taken with higher penalty stiffness, which results
in high frequency modes and therefore instability in the
solution.
 1

0
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1
-1

-2

σ 1 in N/mm ²
σ 2 + σ 2 − (α ⋅ f )2 TT − Region
-3
 1 2 t t

F = σ 1α k fk − σ 2α t ft − α k fkα t ft TC − Region -4

 σ 1 + σ 2 − σ 1 ⋅ σ 2 − α k ⋅ fk CC − Region
2 2
-5

-6

-7
σ1 in N/mm²

Figure 4 The yield surface of multiple functions

lcal lcal lcal

Figure 5 Possible crack orientation and calculation of the correspond element length

Figure 6 Load-deflection curve and damage pattern at load of 0.55 N/mm² (0.5 σ0) without defining contact on the head
joints (variation coefficient of tensile strength 15%)

Beattie et al. [6], Beattie et al. [7] and Burnett et al. [9] have
developed a discrete crack model in LS-DYNA for modelling
masonry joints within a project to study the performance of
masonry parapet walls that subjected to vehicle impact. The
yield surface in the proposed model is concave. For this
reason the return mapping has been used parallel to shear
axis in compression region instead of radial return mapping,
but in such case the assumption of the plastic potential
theory (Huber-von Mises theory) is not valid.
Several interface models have been developed in literature
to model masonry mortar joints. Interface element also has
been developed in LS-DYNA in ver. 971, and has been
used for problems of dynamic delamination modelling, Ian-
nucci [11] and modelling of damage in composite materials,
Jiang et al.[14]. Interface elements are available to be used
with the following cohesive material models in LS-DYNA:
(1) Elastic cohesive material model,
 (2) Tvergaard and Hutchinson cohesive material
model, and
(3) General cohesive material model.
To simulate the dynamic events after the failure of the inter-
face elements, it would be possible to replace the surfaces
which linked by the failed interface elements with frictional
contact model. The deletion of the interface element after
the failure does not bring any loss in the mass if the thick-
ness of the interface element has been set to zero. In such
way, the inherent difficulties associated with large displace-
ment after the failure of the interface element also are
avoided. In LS-DYNA ‘contact eroding single surface’ offers
a possibility to detect the contact on the eroded surfaces
after the failure of the interface element.
The adoption of non-smooth yield surface needs further
treatments for corners which increase the complexity of
implementation, and increase the computation time. The
complexity is going to be worse especially for explicit
solvers like LS-DYNA, where the material subroutine has to
be called in time steps smaller than those in implicit solvers.
An interface model has been implemented into LS-DYNA
that based on smoothed yield surface (Bakeer [4]), It re-
duces the computation time and avoids the treatments of
corners, Figure 7. The proposed model is multi yield surface
but does not need any further treatment of the transition
points.

23

τ
µ = µ0 + (µr − µ 0) ⋅ (1 − Ω (κ))

Shear Stress
F2 = τ − c ⋅ Ω(κ) + µ ⋅σ
arctan( µ ) F12
Region 3 Region 2

c2
F3 =τ 2 − Ff2 ⋅ Fc F1 =τ 2 + (1 −α) ⋅σ 2 + 2µ ⋅ c ⋅ Ω⋅σ − c 2 ⋅ Ω2
ft 2

c ⋅ Ω (κ)
Softening
 σ + L(κc ) 
2

Fc =1 −  arctan( µr )

 X (κc ) − L(κc )  Region 1
B
Ff = c ⋅ Ω(κ) + µ ⋅σ c
-fc ⋅ Ωc (κc ) -L(κc ) f t ⋅ Ω(κ ) µ
σ
normal stress

A C
f t 2 −α
A= Ω
2 1 −α
c 2 −α
B= Ω
2 1 −α
c α2
C= Ω
Region 2 4µ 1 −α
F12

F23

Figure 7 The smooth yield surface of the cohesive interface model, Bakeer [4].

In ANSYS a user-interface element has been developed for

modelling masonry joints and discrete simulation of cracks. 1
The implemented model has yield surface of two parts, the 0,9
compression part governed by Mohr-Coulomb surface and
mittlere Haftscherfestigkeit
nach DIN 18555-5 [N/mm²]

0,8
the tensile part governed by elliptic yield surface, Figure 9.
0,7
Several options have been provided for the definition of the
0,6
strength-crack width relationships: linear, bilinear, exponen-
0,5
tial, and Hordijk functions.
0,4
The implemented subroutine has been examined by three 0,3
point flexural test, and DIN shear test. The simulation results spröde
0,2 duktil
of the three point bending test Figure 10 and the DIN shear
0,1
test have been demonstrated good conformity with tests
0
results. The influences of the crack energy and element size
0 50 100 150 200
have been studied. Figure 8 shows the results for brittle and Elementlänge [mm]
ductile behaviours.
Figure 8 Influence of crack energy and element size
 τ fvk0-µ·σ
f Linear

Bilinear
Elliptic part
Exponential
Softening α—f Hordijk
fvk0

µS·σ
w

ft -σ wc

Figure 9 The yield surface and the possible functions for strength-crack width relationship

300
Versuch Spaltöffnung
250
FEM linear

200 FEM bilinear

FEM exponentiell
Last in N

150
FEM Hordijk

100

50

0
0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1
-50
Weg in mm

Figure 10 (Left) Simulated bending test with a notched prism for an inverse calculation of the crack energy by using user-
implemented Interface-Elements, (Right) Comparison of FEM and test for tensile strength of 0.78 N/mm² and
crack energy of 10 N/m for different softening functions (PP4 AAC)

prerequisite of mesh is the main reason for the limitation of

4 Meshfree methods those methods and at the same time it is the key of success.
The Lagrangian mesh based numerical methods like FEM
show a lot of difficulties when are applied to simulate the
fracture and fragmentation of material under high dynamic
loading. The combination of finite element with discrete
element method brings out a great enhancement. However,
it is still based on mesh connectivity which shows difficulties
at the level of one discrete element.
Contrary to the Lagrangian mesh, the Eulerian mesh is fixed
on the space and by time the materials are flowing across
the mesh. Therefore, large deformations in the material do
not cause any deformations in the mesh. By this way the
numerical problems in Lagrangian mesh based methods
can be avoided at this point. Nevertheless, Eulerian meth-
ods dominate the area of computational fluid dynamic, and
the application of this method for irregular geometries brings
up a lot of difficulties.
Plastic strain output results of SPH analysis
The Lagrangian and Eulerian approaches have been com-
bined to overcome the limitations of each other and to pro- Figure 11 SPH analysis of masonry shear wall in LS-
duce more robust numerical approaches, like CEL coupled DYNA
Eulerian Lagrangian (CEL) and Arbitrary Lagrange Eulerian
(ALE), (Liu et al. [15] & [16]). Those approaches have been Several research efforts during the last years have been
concerned to develop mesh independent methods, which
developed basically to solve problems of solid fluid interac-
have been driven to mesh free methods. The key idea of
tion. Despite the great success of mesh based methods, the
mesh free methods is to represent the domain of the prob-
lem using a set of nodes or particles without considering any quake loads causes further unwanted vertical vibrations to
connectivity in between. the structure at the beginning of simulation. Therefore, in
order to eliminate the dynamic effect of gravity loads, it must
Smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH) is one of mesh
be applied (statically) through enough time. Therefore, the
free Lagrangian methods which already implemented into implicit solver can be lunched until getting the stresses and
LS-DYNA. It has features of the simplicity and adaptability to deformation states and then running the explicit solver for
handle large deformations without regarding the distribution
earthquake loads. Figure 12 and Figure 13 show examples
of particles. Figure 11 shows 2D SPH modelling for masonry
of using different solvers for applying different loading se-
shear wall. Masonry units as well as mortar have been rep- quence.
resented using SPH particles spaced each 1 cm. The whole
model is composed of 5625 SPH particles. The initial SPH
density for each particle is considered to be equally distrib-
uted over unit or over mortar. Few geo-materials in LS-
DYNA support SPH modelling. Concrete model No.72 has
been employed for unit and mortar materials. Vertical and
horizontal displacements have been applied increasingly on
the model, to simulate the shear failure of the wall.
SPH analysis of the masonry shear wall has been demon-
strated the ability of this method to represent all failure
modes, even the fragmentation due to compressive crush-
ing which difficult to handle in finite element analysis.

5 Loading regime
The type of loading has a great influence on the perform-
ance of the FEM solver. Explicit based integration solvers
are highly recommended to solve short duration loading
problems, whereas implicit based solvers are recommended
to solve long term loading problems. LS-DYNA is basically
has powerful explicit solver, therefore, it has widely em-
ployed to simulate high dynamic events like impact, explo-
sion, and earthquake actions. On other hand, ANSYS has
powerful implicit solver with which the static and long term
loading problems can be well solved.
40%g
(b)
Figure 12 Simulation of masonry structure under
earthquake actions, Bakeer [4].
The combination of explicit and implicit solvers is common in
both FEM packages when several loading regimes are be-
ing applied in sequence. For example, it is essential, before
imposing the earthquake action, or wind action on the
model, to initialize the stresses and deformation state in the
structure which can be developed from gravity loads. The
application of gravity loads immediately together with earth-
High
pressure
Figure 13 Simulation the dynamic response of the
structure under high pressure
6 Confined masonry
Confined masonry differs from both reinforced masonry and
infill masonry. The most essential difference in comparison
with infill masonry consists in the fact that masonry carries a
portion of the vertical load. The sequence in the erection of
the structural members is therefore an important factor for
confined masonry
In the following the typical numerical crack patterns have
been simulated in ANSYS (Schöps et al. [24]). Compared
with unconfined masonry the cracks are found out clearly
wide and also the stress distribution in the masonry is more
homogeneous. In Figure 14, it can be seen that the first
cracks goes diagonally through the masonry and both re-
sulting wall halves are held together by the frame. With the
most unfavourable estimation that both wall halves take the
same portion of the shear load a shear action arises for the
frame by the half height of the external shear load.
The joint failure could be examined only numerically, be-
cause the bond strength of the used AAC-unit is greater
than the tensile strength of the units. The failure type varies
depending on the unit geometry, the vertical load, and the
relation of tensile bond strength to the initial shear strength.
The gaping shown on the right in Figure 14 must not lead to
failure in the case of confined masonry, but rather to an
additional load of the frame.
Figure 14 Left: numerical crack pattern for masonry wall (monotonic static loading)
Right: Joint failure for shorter masonry unit without unit failure (normal stress, compression is positive)
7 Modelling of reinforced masonry
Various modelling approaches have been proposed for
masonry. Nevertheless, the inclusion of the reinforcement
into the model is still challenging, and fraught with difficul-
ties, consequently, reinforced masonry is still lacking in
literature. In analogue with modelling strategies that have
been proposed for reinforced concrete models, the following
modelling strategies can be employed for the reinforced
masonry: discrete modelling and smeared modelling.
7.1 Discrete modelling
In discrete modelling, the reinforcement can be modelled by
means of bar elements, and masonry can be modelled us-
ing solid elements (2D or 3D). The nodes of reinforcement
bars must be merged with masonry elements through the
shared nodes, Figure 15-a.
The restriction to create shared nodes might result in some
inflexibility in mesh generation. However, it is not quite accu-
rate to apply full bonding between the reinforcement and
masonry mesh. The bonding model can be represented by
dummy spring elements that connect the duplicated nodes
from reinforcement and masonry. The spring element has
no dimension and serves only as a breakable linkage be-
tween reinforcement and masonry. Therefore, the failure
model is the most important part of spring element.
In order to avoid the restriction of node sharing between
reinforcement and masonry, an embedded formulation can
be introduced. In the embedded formulation, the intersection
points of reinforcement bar with the segments of masonry
elements are first identified and then used to create the
nodal locations of the reinforcement elements, Figure 15-b.
Brookes et al. [8] have utilized the partially constrained spar
formulation to model reinforcement independently from
masonry. The connection between the reinforcement and
masonry meshes was achieved through a non-linear bond
element. The arrangement of reinforcement is automated
without the need for topologically consistent element
meshes. In LS-DYNA [18] the following methods can be
employed for modelling the reinforcement of masonry:
(1) Truss elements tied to solids by one dimensional con-
tact
The 1D Contact was originally developed to offer bond
slip failure for modelling reinforced concrete. In addi-
tion, it is possible to employ this feature for reinforced
masonry. The principle of this contact model is to allow
the sliding of reinforcement nodes along masonry
nodes, where the sliding initiates after the rebar
debonds. The bond model is assumed to be elastic
perfectly plastic.
(2) Constrained Lagrange in solid
This constrained method has been developed for
modelling the fluid structure interaction and frequently
used to embed the reinforcement rebar inside concrete
element, Abu Odeh [1]. The reinforcement mesh main-
tained to be fixed within the solid elements. However,
the bond slip failure has not been considered in this
formulation. For masonry, the reinforcement can be
treated as a slave material that is linked to the master
material of masonry by means of ‘constrained La-
grange in solid’. Both masonry and reinforcement
mesh must be Lagrangian.
(3) Constrained spotweld
The spotweld provides a breakable connection for the
nodal points of the nodal pairs. The failure force at
which the spotweld is failing can be regarded as the
pull-out force of reinforcement.
(4) Discrete beam elements
with nonlinear plastic discrete beam material to simulate
failure of the beams.
Although several methods are available in LS-DYNA to build
embedded discrete models of reinforcement concrete, care
should be taken when applying these methods on reinforced
masonry by considering the correct bonding behaviour be- crete modelling of reinforced masonry in ANSYS and LS-
tween reinforcement and masonry. DYNA.
1
NODAL SOLUTION
JUN 3 2007
sheared node between STEP=1
19:01:41
SUB =1
reinforcement and unit TIME=.05
S1 (AVG)
DMX =.898E-04
SMN =-688.535
SMX =3830
reinforced bar element

MX
unit finite element

MN

Y
X
Z

-688.535 315.685 1320 2324 3328

-186.425 817.795 1822 2826 3830

Pull-out failure of the reinforcement

(a) Discrete reinforcement model Figure 16 FE model in ANSYS for reinforced masonry
shear wall, the reinforcement smeared with
grout material
nodes of reinforcement bar

points of compatible
displacements between
reinforcement and unit

reinforced bar element

Figure 17 Simulation of Sistani’s House in Bam Citadel

to calculate the required reinforcement.

(b) Embedded reinforcement model

Figure 15 Discrete modelling of reinforced ma-

sonry

7.2 Smeared modelling

The smeared approach integrates the reinforcement with
masonry in one finite element. The resultant element has to
be constructed from the individual properties of masonry
and reinforcement using composite theory. This technique
has been often applied to large structures, where the rein-
forced details are not essential to capture the overall re-
sponse of the structure. In LS-DYNA or ANSYS, there are
material models which can represent the reinforced con- Figure 18 Simulation of the main tower at Governor
crete include an option to represent the reinforcement in a Seat in Bam Citadel to calculate the required
smeared fashion. However, the material models that repre- reinforcement.
sent reinforced masonry or even unreinforced masonry in
smeared approach are missing in LS-DYNA and ANSYS. 8 Conclusion and recommendations
The simulation of reinforced masonry is of great interest for One of the challenging problems in simulation of large de-
retrofitting and rehabilitation of cultural heritage masonry formation using finite element method is that, the model
structures. It is also important to understand the interaction undergoes large deformations during collapse. Such prob-
between the reinforcement and masonry to identify the lem causes the termination of calculation in the finite ele-
modes of failures and to propose the design procedures. In ment codes.
Figure 16, Figure 17, and Figure 18 are examples for dis-
It has been proofed that the smooth yield surfaces are com-
putationally stable and efficient for implementation. It is
recommended thus to apply the smooth functions to repre-
sent the yield surface, which is especially recommended for
explicit solvers like LS-DYNA, where the material subroutine [5]
will be called in time steps smaller than those in implicit
solvers.
The contact formulation is more appropriate for representing [6]
the post failure behaviour than interface elements. It em-
phasizes, therefore, to offer possibility for implementing user
contact models into LS-DYNA in next versions. This allows
the researchers from different research fields to develop [7]
their own constitutive models.
The progressive crack growth methods in fracture mechan-
ics like Virtual Crack Closure Technique VCCT and Discrete
Cohesive Zone Models DCZM, are highly recommended for
further research work, where such methods are not embed-
[8]
ded in most of finite element codes. In order to study the
effect of dynamic events that cause high local distortion,
failure or fragmentation, the features of the mesh free meth-
ods are urged. Meshfree methods could be an alternative
for the discrete methods. The obtained results for simulating
a masonry shear wall have been proofed the ability to rep-
resent all failure modes even the crushing under high com- [9]
pression and the fragmentation of the material without any
numerical problems.
One drawback of this method is the need for large numbers
of particles, even if the model is small the computation time
will be relatively big, and the accuracy is less than that in [10]
finite element method.
The discrete modelling of reinforcement or reinforcement-
masonry bonding models are lacking in literature. The avail-
able tools in finite element packages have been developed
primarily for modelling problems other than reinforcement. It [11]
is recommended therefore to consider this issue for further
research in this direction.
[12]
9 References
[1] Abu-Odeh, A.: Application of New Concrete Model to
th
Roadside Safety Barriers. In: Proc. of the 9 Interna-
tional LS-DYNA Users’ Conference: Dearborn 2006
[13]
[2] Bakeer, T. & Jäger, W.: Collapse analysis of rein-
forced and unreinforced adobe masonry structures
under earthquake actions – case study: Bam Citadel.
In: Proc. of the Structural Studies, Repairs and Main-
tenance of Heritage Architecture X, Ed. C.A. Brebbia,
WIT Press: Prague 2007, pp. 577-586
[14]
[3] Bakeer, T. & Jäger, W.: The effect of earthquake
characteristics on the collapse of historical masonry
buildings: case study of the mosque of Takiyya al-
Sulaymaniyya. In: Proc. of the Structural Studies,
Repairs and Maintenance of Heritage Architecture [15]
XI, Ed. C.A. Brebbia, WIT Press:, Tallinn, Estonia,
22-24 July, 2009
[4] Bakeer, T.: Collapse Analysis of Masonry Structures [16]
under Earthquake Actions. PhD Thesis, Dresden
University of Technology. Publication Series of the
Chair of Structural Design, Faculty of Architecture,
Dresden University of Technology Vol. 8: Dresden
2009
Bala, S.: Tie-Break Contacts in LS-DYNA. Livemore
Software. USA 2007
Beattie, G.; Molyneaux, T.C.K.; Gilbert, M. & Burnett,
S.: Masonry Shear Strength under Impact Loading.
th
In: Proc. of the 9 Canadian Masonry Symposium
Beattie, G.; Molyneaux, T.C.K.; Gilbert, M.; Hobbs,
B.; Burnett, S. & Newton, P. & Gration, D.A.: Improv-
ing the Impact Resistance of Masonry Parapets. In:
Proc. of LS-DYNA Users’ Conference, LSTC: Paris,
France 2001
Brookes, C.L. & Mehrkar-asl, S.: Numerical Model-
ling of Reinforced Masonry to Enhance Seismic Re-
st
sistance. In: Proc. of the 1 Conference on Strength-
ening and Retrofitting of Structures, University of
Amir-Kabir: Tehran-Iran 2002
Burnett, S.; Gilbert, M.; Molyneaux, T.; Beattie, G. &
Hobbs, B.: The Performance of Unreinforced Ma-
sonry Walls Subjected to Low-Velocity Impacts: Fi-
nite Element Analysis. International Journal of Impact
Engineering, 34 (2007) 8, pp. 1433-1450
Ganz, H.R.: Mauerwerkscheiben unter Normalkraft
und Schub. Dissertation, ETH Zürich, Institut für
Baustatik und Konstruktion. Birkhäuser Verlag Basel:
Zürich, Switzerland 1985
Lannucci, L.: Dynamic delamination modelling using
interface elements. Computers & Structures, 84
(2006) 1, pp. 1029-1048
Jäger, W.; Nguyen, S.H.; Schöps, P.: Konstruktive
Maßnahmen zur Gewährleistung der
Erdbebensicherheit im Mauerwerksbau.
Abschlußbericht, gefördert durch Bundesamt für
Bauwesen und Raumordnung, 2005.
Jäger, W.; Nguyen, S.H.; Stransky, W.: Konstruktive
Maßnahmen zur Gewährleistung der
Erdbebensicherheit im Mauerwerksbau –
Erweiterung für die Zonen 2 und 3. Abschlußbericht,
gefördert durch Bundesamt für Bauwesen und
Raumordnung, 2008.
Jiang, W.G.; Hallett, S.R. & Wisnom, M.R.: Modelling
of damage in composite materials using interface
th
elements. In: Proc. of the 5 European LS-DYNA
Users Conference: Birmingham, UK 2005, pp. 5d-55
Liu, G.R. & Gu, Y.T.: An Introduction to Meshfree
Methods and Their Programming, Springer: Nether-
lands 2005
Liu, G.R.: Mesh Free Methods, Moving beyond the
Finite Element Method, CRC press: USA 2003
 [17] Lourenço, P.B.: Computational Strategies for Ma-
sonry Structures. PhD-Thesis, Delft University of
Technology. Delft University Press: Delft, The Neth-
erlands 1996
[18] LSTC: LS-DYNA ver. 971 Keyword User's Manual,
Livemore Software Technology Corporation: Califor-
nia 2007
[19] Mann, W. & Müller, H.: Failure of Shear-Stressed
Masonry- an Enlarged Theory, Tests and Application
to Shear Walls. Proceedings of the British Ceramic
Society, 30 (1982) 1, pp. 223-235
[20] Massart, T.J.: Multi-scale modeling of damage in
masonry structures. PhD-Thesis, Technische
Universiteit Eindhoven: Eindhoven, The Netherlands
2003
[21] Mistler, M.: Verformungsbasiertes seismisches
Bemessungskozept für Mauerwerksbauten.
Dissertation, Technischen Hochschule Aachen:
Aechen, Deutschland 2006
View publication stats
[22] Rots, J.G.: Smeared and discrete representations of
localized fracture. International Journal of Fracture,
51 (1991) 1, pp. 45-59
[23] Schlegel, R.: Numerische Berechnung von
Mauerwerkstrukturen in homogenen und diskreten
Modellierungsstrategien. Dissertation, Bauhaus-
Universität Weimar: Weimer 2004
[24] Schöps, P.; Steinborn, Th. & Höveling, H.:
Schubtragfähigkeit von Mauerwerk aus Porenbeton-
Plansteinen und Porenbeton-Planelementen.
Forschungsbericht. Technische Universität Dresden,
Fakultät Architektur, Lehrstuhl für Tragwerksplanung
AIF-Nr.14642BG. 2009.
[25] Stoll, V.: The Main Cupola of the Dresden Frauen-
kirche. In International Quality Network – Tradational
and Innovative Structures in Architecture – First
report, Eds. W. Jäger; A. Lippert; L. Rietzschel; D.
Wendland, From Research to Practice in
Construction, Publication Series of the Chair of
Structural Design, Dresden University of Technology:
Dresden 2003, pp. 169-189