This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

Welcome to Scribd! Start your free trial and access books, documents and more.Find out more

Engineering Structures ( ) –

www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Nonlinear ﬁnite element analysis of grouted and ungrouted hollow

interlocking mortarless block masonry system

Waleed A. Thanoon

a,∗

, Ahmed H. Alwathaf

b

, Jamaloddin Noorzaei

c

, Mohd. Saleh Jaafar

c

,

Mohd. Razali Abdulkadir

c

a

College of Engineering and Architecture, University of Nizwa, Nizwa, Oman

b

Civil Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Sana’a University, Sana’a, Yemen

c

Civil Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, University Putra Malaysia, 43400 UPM-Serdang, Malaysia

Received 1 November 2006; received in revised form 23 October 2007; accepted 26 October 2007

Abstract

The main feature of the interlocking hollow block masonry is the replacement of mortar layers commonly used in bonded masonry with

interlocking keys (protrusions and grooves). This study covers the modelling and the analysis of interlocking mortarless ungrouted (hollow) and

grouted concrete block system subjected to axial compression loads using FEM. The main features simulated in the developed ﬁnite element code

are the mechanical characteristics of the interlocking dry joints including the geometric imperfection of the shell beds of the blocks, the interaction

between block units, the progressive debonding between the block and grout and material nonlinearity. The applicability of the proposed FE model

is investigated by demonstrating the nonlinear structural response and failure mechanism of individual block, ungrouted and grouted interlocking

mortarless prisms. The results found show good agreement with the experimental test results.

c 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Finite element method; Nonlinear analysis; Constitutive relations; Interlocking masonry block; Modelling of dry joint; Geometric imperfection;

Block–grout bond

1. Introduction

Numerous analytical models have been developed to

simulate the behaviour of different types of structural masonry

systems using Finite element technique. Two main approaches

have been employed in the masonry modelling depending on

the type of the problem and the level of accuracy. The macro-

modelling approach intentionally makes no distinction between

units and joints but smears the effect of joints presence through

the formulation of a ﬁctitious homogeneous and continuous

material equivalent to the actual one which is discrete and

composite [1–3]. The alternative micro-modelling approach

analyzes the masonry material as a discontinuous assembly of

blocks, connected to each other by joints at their actual position,

the latter being simulated by appropriate constitutive models of

interface [4–6]. An extensive critical review for the analytical

models of different masonry system can be found in Ref. [7].

∗

Corresponding author. Tel.: +968 25466401; fax: +968 25443629.

E-mail address: w.thanone@unizwa.edu.om (W.A. Thanoon).

Interlocking mortarless load bearing hollow block system

is different from conventional mortared masonry systems in

which the mortar layers are eliminated and instead the block

units are interconnected through interlocking protrusions and

grooves [8,9]. It was experimentally found that the behaviour of

this system is highly affected by the behaviour of the mortarless

(dry) joint in both elastic and inelastic stages of loading. The

geometric imperfection of the block bed is an important factor

inﬂuences the structural behaviour of the mortarless masonry

system [11,12]. Hence, the modelling of mortarless joint plays

a signiﬁcant role in the overall simulation of the system.

Moreover, in order to accurately estimate the system strength

and failure mechanism, it is necessary to have proper model for

the stress–strain behaviour of its different masonry materials in

a micro-model framework.

The complex interaction between block units, dry joint and

grouting material (if any) has to be well understood under

different stages of loading; i.e. elastic, inelastic and failure.

For interlocking mortarless masonry system, very limited

0141-0296/$ - see front matter c 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.10.014

Please cite this article in press as: Thanoon WA, et al. Nonlinear ﬁnite element analysis of grouted and ungrouted hollow interlocking mortarless block masonry

system. Engineering Structures (2007), doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.10.014

ARTICLE IN PRESS

2 W.A. Thanoon et al. / Engineering Structures ( ) –

Notations

f

c

, σ

o

Uniaxial compressive strength of the material

(block unit or grout)

ε

o

Uniaxial strain corresponding to the ultimate

strength, f

c

.

σ

1p

& σ

2p

Tensile and compressive stress respectively

f

t

Tensile strength of block or grout

E

o

Initial tangent modulus of elasticity

f

eq

Equivalent tensile strength

FE analyses have been reported in the literature [13,14].

The existing FE analyses are simpliﬁed and hence show

inaccurate prediction for the structural response of the masonry

system compared to actual behaviour of the system found

experimentally. Furthermore, the existing models ignore the

interaction between masonry block units, mortarless joint

and grout as well as are incapable of simulating the failure

mechanism of the masonry system.

In this study, a ﬁnite element model is proposed and

an incremental-iterative program is developed to predict

the behaviour and failure mechanism of the system under

compression load. The nonlinear progressive contact behaviour

(closing-up) of dry joint that takes into account the geometric

imperfection of the block bed interfaces is included based on

the experiment testing data. The developed contact relations for

dry joint within speciﬁed bounds can be used for any mortarless

masonry system efﬁciently with less computational effort. The

bond between block and grout is considered to simulate the

debonding and slipping of the block–grout interface.

Furthermore, the stress–strain behaviour of masonry blocks

and grout materials under compression for uniaxial and

biaxial stress state was modelled. Material nonlinearity in

the compressive stress ﬁeld is considered for the masonry

constituents (block and grout) in the orthogonal directions and

the effect of micro-cracking conﬁnement and softening on the

stress–strain relationship under biaxial stresses are included

employing the equivalent uniaxial strain concept. The model

allows for the progressive local failure of the masonry materials

(crushing and cracking). After cracking, a smeared crack model

is adopted and the compressive strength reduction in the

cracked block is considered. Both material and joint models

are proposed based on the comprehensive experimental tests

carried out by the authors and published elsewhere [11,12]

The interlocking block system investigated in this study is

called Putra Block. It is a load bearing block system consisting

of three types of blocks namely the stretcher block, corner

block and half block as shown in Fig. 1. The blocks were

developed at Universiti Putra Malaysia [9,10]. The stretcher

block is the main unit used in the construction of the wall;

the corner block unit is used to ﬁt the junctions and at the

end of the walls while the half block unit is to be used to

complete the courses of the wall so that the vertical joint will

be staggered. The interlocking mechanismof the block relies on

the insertion of the protrusions of the block to that of the next

course. In addition, the assembled blocks provide continuous

Fig. 1. Putra interlocking block units [9].

hollow voids in the wall that allow the casting of reinforced

concrete (grout) stiffeners in vertical and horizontal directions

to enhance stability and integrity of the wall. The structural

behaviour of full scale mortarless interlocking walls subjected

to eccentric compressive loads was investigated experimentally

by Thanoon et al. [15].

Previous studies on hollow block masonry under compres-

sion showed that the differences in ultimate strength using 2D

(plane stress and plane strain) and 3D FE analysis were not

more than 5% [4,16]. The accuracy can be increased if the FE

mesh is used in the critical section where the failure is initiated.

Also using 3D discretization involves high computational cost.

Therefore, plane stress 2D continuum is adopted in this study.

Fig. 2 shows the hollow and grouted prisms modelled using

Eight-nodded isoparametric element to simulate the masonry

constituents and three-nodded isoparametric interface element

of zero thickness located between material elements to model

the interface characteristics of the dry joint and bond between

block and grout. In hollow prism, the cross webs of the unit

are not in contact because the webs are not aligned vertically

in successive courses. Hence, there is no element representing

the webs between joint elements in FE modelling. However, in

the grouted prism, different elements thicknesses were used to

model the grout and block web.

2. Modelling of mortarless joint

The authors have investigated the characteristics of

mortarless joints experimentally [11,12]. The experimental

tests focus on the contact behaviour in mortarless joints

due to geometric imperfection of the block beds. The tests

were performed on small wall panels and the deformation

characteristic of the interlocking dry joint at different locations

along the wall was investigated considering different sources

of block bed imperfection [11]. Modiﬁed triplet tests on

mortarless interlocking panels with different levels of axial

compression were carried out to evolve the deformation and

shear strength characteristics of the system at the joint interface.

Failure criterion and stiffness of the interlocked bed joints under

combined normal-shear load was proposed [12]. Figs. 3 and 4

show the joint response under axial compression load and shear

Please cite this article in press as: Thanoon WA, et al. Nonlinear ﬁnite element analysis of grouted and ungrouted hollow interlocking mortarless block masonry

system. Engineering Structures (2007), doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.10.014

ARTICLE IN PRESS

W.A. Thanoon et al. / Engineering Structures ( ) – 3

(a) Hollow prism. (b) Grouted prism. (c) Different types of ﬁnite elements.

Fig. 2. Ungrouted and grouted prisms and elements used in FE analysis.

Fig. 3. Close-up deformation versus the compressive stress of dry joint [11].

Fig. 4. Shear slip under different precompressive stresses in dry joint [12].

load respectively [11,12]. The load–deformations relations that

required in the FE modelling of the joint is derived based on

these experimental results.

The proposed mathematical model that can describe the

nonlinear compressive stress in terms of the joint closure is:

σ

n

= ad

b

n

+ cd

n

(1)

where

σ

n

normal compressive stress (N/mm

2

)

d

n

close-up deformation (mm)

a, b, c constants determined from data analysis of the test

results.

Fig. 3 shows the upper and lower bounds of Eq. (1).

Although high variation in close-up deformations was

measured at dry joints at different location along the wall joint,

the average deformation of all speciﬁed joints in a wall yields

similar deformation [11]. Hence, Eq. (1) yields an average

compressive stress on the contacted area of the dry joint for

a family curves obtained at different location along the dry

joint in the tested specimen. These variations in closing-up

behaviour are due to block bed irregularity and variation of

the blocks height. The constants a, b, and c were evaluated

using nonlinear regression analysis. Although the modelling of

dry joint (geometric imperfection) of the block bed interfaces

under compressive load is based on the experimental data

obtained by testing interlocking Putra Block system, it might

also be applicable to any other dry stack block system. Only

the constants (a, b and c) need to be evaluated experimentally

for other mortarless block systems.

Fig. 5 showed the failure criteria and shear-slip model of

the joint under combined shear-normal forces. These models

were available in the developed computer code in order to

investigate the structural response of the interlocking system

under eccentric/shear load. However, this study is limited to

investigate the behaviour of the joint under concentric axial

compressive load in which the contact behaviour of the joint

is more dominant and will be discussed in more detail.

The normal tangent stiffness of the joint, k

n

, developed by

differentiating of Eq. (1) as follows:

k

n

= Ad

B

n

+ c (2)

where A = a.b and B = b − 1. At zero deformation (at the

origin) k

n

= k

ni

= c, where k

ni

is the initial normal stiffness

and Eq. (2) can be written as

k

n

= k

ni

+ Ad

B

n

. (3)

The relative displacement between the corresponding two

points lying on the opposite faces of the continuum elements

(Fig. 1) can be expressed as:

{d} = [B]

j

{δ} (4)

where

{d} relative displacement vector at a point (tangential (d

s

)

and normal (d

n

) displacement, i.e. shear slip and close-up

displacement).

[B]

j

strain–displacement matrix of the zero thickness

interface element.

Please cite this article in press as: Thanoon WA, et al. Nonlinear ﬁnite element analysis of grouted and ungrouted hollow interlocking mortarless block masonry

system. Engineering Structures (2007), doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.10.014

ARTICLE IN PRESS

4 W.A. Thanoon et al. / Engineering Structures ( ) –

Fig. 5. Shear strength envelope and shear load–slip model of dry joint [12].

{δ} nodal displacement of the top and bottom nodes of the

interface.

The stress–deformation constitutive relation for the dry joint

is expressed as in the standard form:

{σ} = [D

j

]{d}

or

¸

τ

s

σ

n

¸

=

¸

k

s

0

0 k

n

¸ ¸

d

s

d

n

¸

(5)

where

k

n

normal tangent stiffness of the joint determined from

Eq. (3).

k

s

elastic shear stiffness (estimated from shear load–slip

curves of the bed joints from the shear test [12], =10

3

N/mm

3

).

d

s

, d

n

relative shear and normal movement of the contacted

interfaces.

The dry joint is assumed to lose all its stiffness when σ

n

reaches the masonry block compressive strength ( f

c

).

3. Masonry materials modelling

3.1. Stress–strain relation

The experimental data of stress–strain tests at different load

level were used to model the stress–strain behaviour of masonry

block and grout materials [27]. The stress–strain relation under

uniaxial compression load is:

σ =

p(ε/ε

o

)σ

o

p − 1 + (ε/ε

o

)

p

(6)

where,

σ, ε instantaneous values of the stress and the strain

respectively

σ

o

, ε

o

the ultimate stress (peak) and the corresponding strain

respectively

p material parameter constant depends on the shape of the

stress–strain diagrams.

The material parameter ( p) was calculated in Ref. [17] based

on the initial tangent modulus. To avoid the inaccuracy in

calculating the initial tangent modulus, in this study, nonlinear

regression analysis was used for more accurate evaluation of

the material parameter ( p). Fig. 6 shows the experimental

Fig. 6. Comparison of test data and the best ﬁt relation.

test data [27] of the block and grout materials as well as the

suggested best ﬁt curve. A comparison with the well-known

formula suggested by Saenz [18], which is commonly used for

the simulation of compressive stress–strain curves of masonry

and concrete under uniaxial stress state [2,19], is also shown in

the same ﬁgure.

To include the biaxial stresses effect on the uniaxial

stress–strain relation given by Eq. (6), the procedure in

Ref. [27] was used and is summarized below.

Rewriting Eq. (1) in terms of equivalent uniaxial strain, we

obtain (for i = 1, 2):

σ

i

=

p(ε

i u

/ε

i p

)σ

i p

p − 1 + (ε

i u

/ε

i p

)

p

(7)

where

σ

i p

maximum (peak) compressive principal stress in

direction i

ε

i p

equivalent uniaxial strain corresponding to maximum

(peak) compressive principle stress σ

i p

ε

i u

the equivalent uniaxial strain.

The equivalent uniaxial strain ε

i u

eliminates Poisson’s

effect; whereas the strengthening due to the micro-cracking

conﬁnement in biaxial compression stress and softening in

compression–tension stress ﬁelds are incorporated in σ

i p

and

ε

i p

respectively [20–22]. Thus a single relation (Eq. (7)) can

represent inﬁnite variety of monotonic biaxial loading curves.

Please cite this article in press as: Thanoon WA, et al. Nonlinear ﬁnite element analysis of grouted and ungrouted hollow interlocking mortarless block masonry

system. Engineering Structures (2007), doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.10.014

ARTICLE IN PRESS

W.A. Thanoon et al. / Engineering Structures ( ) – 5

Fig. 7. Stress–Strain curves of masonry material for different biaxial stress

ratio.

Fig. 8. Masonry envelope for different stress states.

The tangent moduli, E

1t

and E

2t

for a given principal stress

directions are found as the slopes of the σ

1

versus ε

1u

and the

σ

2

versus ε

2u

curves for the current ε

1u

and ε

2u

as follows:

E

i t

=

pE

s

¸

p − 1 + (ε

i u

/ε

i p

)

p

− p(ε

i u

/ε

i p

)

p

¸

¸

p − 1 + (ε

i u

/ε

i p

)

p

¸

2

(8)

where

E

s

, the secant modulus at the peak (maximum stress)

σ

i p

/ε

i p

.

Fig. 7 depicts the equivalent uniaxial stress–strain curves

for masonry element loaded with different biaxial stress ratio,

α, (α = σ

1/

σ

2

) in the compression and tension ﬁelds. In the

tension ﬁeld, the relation is linear and the slope is equal to

the initial tangent modulus (E

o

) at the origin. The strength is

reduced when α < 0.0 whereas for α > 0.0, the strength is

enhanced due to micro-cracking conﬁnement. The maximum

stress (peak), σ

i p

, and the corresponding strain ε

i p

will be found

from the biaxial failure criteria.

3.2. Failure criteria

The proposed failure envelope implements the biaxial

strength envelope shown in Fig. 8 for all stress states and

summarized in Table 1 [28].

Table 1

Failure criterion under different stress states

Stress state Criteria

Compression–compression

state (Viccho [23])

K

c1

= 1 + 0.92(σ

2

/f

c

) − 0.76(σ

2

/f

c

)

2

K

c2

= 1 + 0.92(σ

1

/f

c

) − 0.76(σ

1

/f

c

)

2

σ

1p

= K

c1

f

c

ε

1p

= K

c1

ε

o

σ

2p

= K

c2

f

c

ε

2p

= K

c2

ε

o

Tension–compression

(Cerioni et al. [2])

σ

1p

= f

eq

=

1 − (σ

2

/f

c

)

2

f

t

σ

2p

= σ

1p

/α ≤ 0.65 f

c

ε

1p

= σ

1p

/E

o

ε

2p

= ε

o

[−1.6q

3

+ 2.25q

2

+ 0.35q]

q = σ

2p

/f

c

Tension–tension (Kupfer

et al. [24])

σ

1p

= f

t

≥ σ

2p

ε

1p

= f

t

/E

c

≥ ε

2p

= σ

2p

/E

o

An incremental relationship is assumed between strains

and stresses, which in differential form and in the principal

directions can be written for undamaged masonry (see Box I).

The tangent moduli of elasticity, E

1

and E

2

, along the

principle stress directions are evaluated in the compressive ﬁeld

from a nonlinear equivalent uniaxial stress–strain relation based

on Eq. (8) and from linear relation in the tensile ﬁeld as shown

in Fig. 7.

After cracking, the tangential elasticity modulus and

Poisson’s ratio are reduced to zero in the direction

perpendicular to the crack direction. Instead of zeros, very

small values are substituted in the program to avoid singularity

in stiffens matrices. The masonry along cracks is still

resisting compressive stress after cracking. It was found that

the compressive strength of concrete after cracking can be

signiﬁcantly reduced by the tensile strain in the transverse

direction [25,26]. To account for this effect, the following

formula is adopted to obtain σ

2p

after cracking:

σ

2p

f

c

=

1

0.8 + 0.34(ε

1

/ε

o

)

≤ 1.0 (9)

where ε

o

is the compressive strain relative to the uniaxial

compressive strength, f

c

, and ε

1

is the tensile strain normal to

the crack direction.

3.3. Modelling of block–grout interface

The signiﬁcant parameters that govern the bond between the

block and grouts are the tensile bond strength and shear bond

strength of the interface. Debonding (separation) occurs when

the normal force across the interface is tensile and its value

exceeds the tensile bond strength (σ

t

). This means that the

nodes located at both sides of the interfaces (Fig. 1) are free

to move separately.

Shear failure is initiated along the block–grout interface

when the shear stress is more than or equal to the shear strength

(τ

u

) that shown in Fig. 9. The envelope in this ﬁgure is divided

into three regions depending on the value of the normal stress

σ

n

(tension is positive) and given by the following equations:

for σ

n

≥ σ

t

τ

u

= 0.0 (10a)

for σ

t

> σ

n

≥ 0.0 τ

u

= |τ

o

| − (|τ

o

|/σ

t

)σ

n

(10b)

Please cite this article in press as: Thanoon WA, et al. Nonlinear ﬁnite element analysis of grouted and ungrouted hollow interlocking mortarless block masonry

system. Engineering Structures (2007), doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.10.014

ARTICLE IN PRESS

6 W.A. Thanoon et al. / Engineering Structures ( ) –

{dσ} = [D

c

]{dε}

¸

¸

dσ

1

dσ

2

dτ

12

¸

¸

¸

=

1

1 − ν

2

¸

¸

¸

E

1

ν

E

1

E

2

0

ν

E

1

E

2

E

2

0

0 0 0.25(E

1

+ E

2

− 2ν

E

1

E

2

)

¸

¸

dε

1

dε

2

dγ

12

¸

¸

¸

where v =

√

v

1

v

2

and v

1

= v

2

= 0.2

Box I.

Fig. 9. shear strength envelope of block–grout interface.

for σ

n

≤ 0.0 τ

u

= |τ

o

| − µσ

n

(10c)

where

σ

t

tensile bond strength on the interface (N/mm

2

)

τ

u

shear strength (mm)

τ

o

shear bond on the interface or cohesion strength (shear

strength at zero normal stress) (N/mm

2

)

µ friction coefﬁcient of the interface.

The stress–deformation relation of the block–grout interface

is governed by the constitutive relation in Eq. (4). In this case,

the interface is assumed to lose the shear stiffness when the

shear stress is more than the shear strength deﬁned by the

Eq. (10). The interface is assumed to lose all its stiffness

when σ

n

reaches the compressive strength ( f

c

) of the weaker

material (block or grout). Moreover, when the normal stress,

σ

n

, is tension and more than tensile bond strength (σ

t

) the

interface will lose all its stiffness at that point. In the undamaged

block–grout interface, high values (10

10

N/mm

3

) are assigned

to k

s

and k

n

to diminish relative displacement before the

interface failure.

4. Finite element analysis

Incremental-iterative ﬁnite element program has been

developed to implement the proposed mortarless masonry

model. Nonlinear analysis is started from the beginning of the

load application because of the nonlinearity characteristic of the

joint contact behaviour. Fig. 10 shows the adopted calculation

to predict the complete nonlinear response of the masonry

system for i th iteration for any incremental load.

Table 2

Masonry block properties

Type

of

material

E

o

(N/mm

2

)

f

c

(N/mm

2

)

ε

o

Material

parameter,

p

f

t

(N/mm

2

)

ε

cr

Block 10 932 −22.0 −0.0023 8 1.98 0.000181

Grout 9 562.5 −20.4 −0.0028 4.2 2.03 0.000212

Table 3

Dry joint element properties (JE)

Joint k

ni

(N/mm

3

) k

s

(N/mm

3

) Coeff. A Coeff. B

1 & 4 5.0 10

3

14 004.20 3.28

2 & 3 5.0 10

3

984.90 6.46

Table 4

Block–grout interface element properties (BE)

k

n

(N/mm

3

) k

s

(N/mm

3

) M τ

o

(N/mm

2

) σ

t

(N/mm

2

)

10

10

10

10

0.6 0.3

a

0.36

b

a

Ref. [16].

b

Ref. [4].

The results of FE analysis were compared with those

found experimentally; a unit block [27], interlocking mortarless

ungrouted and grouted prisms [11]. All the properties of the

block and grout as well as dry joint and block–grout bond

interfaces are shown in Tables 2–4.

4.1. Block unit

The compressive stress versus axial strain of the ﬁnite

element model and the results of the block unit tested under

axial compression are compared in Fig. 11. Experimentally,

under axial compression, block specimen shows conical shear-

compression type of failure at the face-shell of the block unit as

shown in Fig. 12(a). This mode of failure is well predicted by

the FE model as shown in Fig. 12(b), which shows the crushed

area bounded by dotted lines. The close matching between the

experimental and theoretical analysis indicates that the adopted

masonry material modelling and failure criteria are capable of

predicting both the nonlinear stress–strain response and the

failure mode of the masonry.

4.2. Ungrouted (hollow) prism

Fig. 13(a) shows a half of the three courses height prism

that used in the analysis. 2D ﬁnite element discretization of

Please cite this article in press as: Thanoon WA, et al. Nonlinear ﬁnite element analysis of grouted and ungrouted hollow interlocking mortarless block masonry

system. Engineering Structures (2007), doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.10.014

ARTICLE IN PRESS

W.A. Thanoon et al. / Engineering Structures ( ) – 7

Fig. 10. Nonlinear solution procedure.

Fig. 11. Stress–strain curves of block unit.

the prism in x–y plane is adopted as shown in Fig. 13(b).

The web and face-shell elements are modelled with different

thicknesses. The compressive load was applied incrementally

and the boundary condition at the top and bottom of the prism

were simulated as reported in the experimental test [11].

Fig. 14(a) shows the deformed mesh of the prism and

Fig. 14(b) shows the average axial deformation of the gauge

length between the Demec Points located as shown in the

same ﬁgure on both prism sides. The results obtained from the

program and the test results [11] are shown together in this

ﬁgure for comparison purposes. A good agreement between

the program results and the experimental work is distinguished.

It can be shown that the dry joints affect predominantly

the hollow prism deformation especially at the lower and

middle load levels (45% of the ultimate load). This behaviour

is due to the nonlinear gradual closure of the contacted

interfaces (or seating) of the dry bed joints. Beyond this

load, the joints will be mostly in maximum contact condition

and the prism deformation is affected by the masonry block

Please cite this article in press as: Thanoon WA, et al. Nonlinear ﬁnite element analysis of grouted and ungrouted hollow interlocking mortarless block masonry

system. Engineering Structures (2007), doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.10.014

ARTICLE IN PRESS

8 W.A. Thanoon et al. / Engineering Structures ( ) –

(a) Block crushing from the test [26]. (b) FE model crushing.

Fig. 12. Mode of failure of block unit.

(a) Half of hollow prism. (b) Finite element mesh.

Fig. 13. Hollow prism and FE mesh.

(a) Deformed mesh. (b) Axial deformation versus compressive load.

Fig. 14. Mode of deformation of hollow prism.

shortening only; till the sudden failure of the specimen. The

compressive strength provided by the FE model is 13.2 N/mm

2

(11.2 N/mm

2

from the test), which is 15.0% higher than the

average strength of the tested prisms.

Please cite this article in press as: Thanoon WA, et al. Nonlinear ﬁnite element analysis of grouted and ungrouted hollow interlocking mortarless block masonry

system. Engineering Structures (2007), doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.10.014

ARTICLE IN PRESS

W.A. Thanoon et al. / Engineering Structures ( ) – 9

(a) Maximum principal stress, S1. (b) Minimum principal stress, S2.

Fig. 15. Principal stresses distribution of hollow prism.

Maximum and Minimum principal stresses (S1, S2)

obtained by the FE analysis at a compressive load of 48

kN (average compressive stress is 2.0 N/mm

2

) are shown

in Fig. 15(a) and (b) respectively. The small unsymmetrical

distribution of the stresses in the prism is due to the block bed

imperfection. As predicted by the program, high tensile stress

is induced in the webs as shown in Fig. 15(a) and compressive

stress is higher at the face-shell as shown in Fig. 15(b).

Cracks initiate when the principal tensile stress reaches

the equivalent tensile strength. Fig. 16(a) shows the predicted

cracks pattern near the failure and Fig. 16(b) shows the

observed cracks in the experimental test [11]. A single line in

Fig. 16(a) means single crack and two cross lines means double

cracks in the orthogonal directions which occurred at different

loading stages. As can be seen, a relatively good agreement

between the FE mode results and the experimental test.

4.3. Grouted prism

The FE mesh of the grouted prism was constructed as in the

hollow prism with additional bond element located between

the block unit and the grouted core as shown in Fig. 17.

Bond element (BE) properties of the block–grout interface are

available in Table 4. An equivalent thickness for the grout and

block web is calculated to take into consideration the difference

in the material properties of the web block and grout in the

middle region of the prism. The calculated equivalent thickness

is based on the ratio of the modulus of elasticity of block and

grout.

(a) FE model result. (b) Test result [10].

Fig. 16. Cracks pattern in hollow prism.

The deformed mesh and the axial deformation are shown in

Fig. 18(a) and (b) respectively. The results of grouted prism

shows different mode of deformation compared to ungrouted

prism. Unlike the hollow prism, the high initial deformation

at the lower load levels is not exists in the grouted prism due

to grout which eliminates the effect of joint seating observed

in hollow prism. However noticeable deformation occurs at

the higher load levels, mainly, because of the progressive

failure of the bond between block and grout. FE results as

Please cite this article in press as: Thanoon WA, et al. Nonlinear ﬁnite element analysis of grouted and ungrouted hollow interlocking mortarless block masonry

system. Engineering Structures (2007), doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.10.014

ARTICLE IN PRESS

10 W.A. Thanoon et al. / Engineering Structures ( ) –

(a) Half of grouted prism. (b) Finite element mesh.

Fig. 17. Grouted prism and FE mesh.

(a) FE deformed mesh. (b) Axial deformation versus compressive load.

Fig. 18. Mode of deformation of grouted prism.

well as experimental results show linear variation of load with

deformation within the elastic range of loading, followed by

nonlinear style of relation reﬂecting the degradation of stiffness

due to the nonlinearity of material and gradual debonding of

block–grout interface.

The importance of using bond element in the block–grout

interface can be recognized from the ﬁnite element analysis

results with and without bond element as shown in Fig. 18(b).

In the analysis results without bond element, premature failure

in the grouted core occurred because the grout compressive

strength is lower than the block and the program stopped

at 181.7 kN which equal to average compressive stress of

5.3 N/mm

2

. However, the results with bond element show that

the prism sustains load more than that observed in ignoring the

bond element because part of the load was allocated to break the

block–grout interface bond and thus gradual debonding occurs

before the overall collapse. The predicted debonding failure of

the block face-shell from the grouted core is nearly similar

to the observed failure in the experimental test as shown in

Fig. 19. The compressive strength predicted by the model is

12.5 N/mm

2

(11.5 N/mm

2

from test) which is 8.0% higher

than the average strength of the tested prism (deformation

reading was stopped at stress of 9.36 N/mm

2

).

The variation of the stress distribution in the grouted prism

is relatively less compared to the hollow prism as shown in

the principal stresses (S1, S2) counter in Fig. 20 which plotted

at a compressive load of 69.0 kN (average compressive stress

is 2.0 N/mm

2

). In terms of load, the grouted prism carried

higher load compared to ungrouted prism. However, as the

cross sectional area of the grouted prism is higher than the

ungrouted prism, the stresses becomes lower. Furthermore, the

full capacity of grout strength was not achieved due to the

web-shell splitting failure. This phenomenon was also observed

in experimental testing [15]. It is attributed to the similar

Please cite this article in press as: Thanoon WA, et al. Nonlinear ﬁnite element analysis of grouted and ungrouted hollow interlocking mortarless block masonry

system. Engineering Structures (2007), doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.10.014

ARTICLE IN PRESS

W.A. Thanoon et al. / Engineering Structures ( ) – 11

(a) FE model result. (b) Test results [10].

Fig. 19. Block–grout debonding of grouted prism.

(a) Maximum principal stress, S1. (b) Minimum principal stress, S2.

Fig. 20. Principal stresses distribution of grouted prism.

failure modes observed in grouted and hollow prisms. The

axial compressive load in the grout produces bilateral expansion

of the grout which is conﬁned by the web-shell faces of the

block. This in turn will create additional tensile stresses at the

Please cite this article in press as: Thanoon WA, et al. Nonlinear ﬁnite element analysis of grouted and ungrouted hollow interlocking mortarless block masonry

system. Engineering Structures (2007), doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.10.014

ARTICLE IN PRESS

12 W.A. Thanoon et al. / Engineering Structures ( ) –

web-shell interface leading to a splitting crack at this junction

before material crushing failure or the full utilization of the

grout strength.

Maximum tensile stress is detected in the grout as shown in

Fig. 20(a). However cracks were not induced in the subsequent

incremental loads because the tensile stress value still much less

than the grout tensile strength and higher compressive stress is

predicted in the grout as shown in Fig. 20(b).

5. Summary and conclusion

1. Finite element model of mortarless block masonry system

has been developed. The model is at micro-level which

includes the modelling of masonry materials, mortarless

dry joint and block–grout interface behaviour. Moreover,

the proposed model is capable of predicting the nonlinear

response of the mortarless masonry system as well as its

failure mode.

2. The contact behaviour of mortarless joint taking into

consideration the geometric imperfection of the block bed

interfaces is simulated depending on the results obtained

experimentally. The developed contact relations for dry

joint within speciﬁed bounds describe accurately the

variation of the contact properties and can be used for

any mortarless masonry system efﬁciently in the nonlinear

solution procedure of the system.

3. The presented stress–strain relationship of masonry block

and grout material based on the ﬁtting experimental data

is capable of simulating the material nonlinear stress–strain

behaviour for different masonry constituents effectively.

Furthermore, it can be incorporated successfully into the

model to include the biaxial state of stress and the material

nonlinearity in the orthogonal directions using the equivalent

uniaxial strain concept. The effect of micro-cracking

conﬁnement and softening on the masonry behaviour under

biaxial stresses can be included efﬁciently also by the

presented stress–strain relation.

4. The bond between block and grout interfaces has been

modelled as well considering the debonding and slipping

failure of block–grout interface.

5. The FE model is capable of predicting accurately the

deformation of the mortarless ungrouted and grouted prism

under compression. In the ungrouted prism, the dry joint

inﬂuences the prism deformation predominantly from the

initial loading stage up to 45% of the ultimate loads

reﬂecting the seating effect of dry joint due to the block

bed imperfection. In this range of loading, the stiffness of

ungrouted prism increases due to increasing of the contacted

particles in the dry joint interface.

6. Unlike the ungrouted prism, the high initial deformation at

lower load levels disappears in the grouted prism due to the

presence of grout, which dominates the overall behaviour

of grouted prism. However, noticeable deformation occurs

at the higher load levels due to the debonding between the

block and grout.

7. The developed FE model can predict the cracking pattern

of ungrouted prism and block–grout debonding of grouted

prism as well as the failure load with acceptable accuracy.

References

[1] Lotﬁ H, Shing P. An appraisal of smeared crack model for masonry shear

wall analysis. Computer and Structures 1991;41:413–25.

[2] Cerioni R, Doinda G. A ﬁnite element model for the nonlinear analysis of

reinforced and prestressed masonry wall. Computer and Structures 1994;

53:1291–306.

[3] Zhuge Y, Thambiratnam D, Coreroy J. Nonlinear dynamic analysis of

unreinforced masonry. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 1998;

124(3):270–7.

[4] Suwalski P, Drysdale R. Inﬂuence of slenderness on the capacity

of concrete block walls. In: Proceeding of 4th Canadian masonry

symposium. 1986, p. 122–35.

[5] Ali SS, Page AW. Finite element model for masonry subjected to

concentrated loads. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 1988;

114(8):1761–84.

[6] Riddington JR, Noam NF. Finite element prediction of masonry

compressive strength. Computer and Structures 1994;52(1):113–9.

[7] Alwathaf AH, Thanoon WAM, Noorzaei J, Jaafar MS, Abdulkadir MR.

Analytical models for different masonry systems: Critical review. In: Proc.

of IBS2003 conf. 2003.

[8] Harris H, Oh K, Hamid A. Development of new interlocking and

mortarless block masonry units for efﬁcient building systems. In:

Proceeding of the sixth Canadian masonry symposium saskatoon. 1992.

[9] Thanoon WA, Jaafar MS, Abdul Kadir MR, Ali AA, Trikha DN,

Najm AM. Development of an innovative interlocking load bearing

hollow block system in Malaysia. Construction and Building Materials

2004;18:445–54.

[10] Jaafar MS, Thanoon WA, Najm AMS, Abdulkadir MR, Abang Ali AA.

Strength correlation between individual block, prism and basic wall

panel for interlocking mortarless hollow block masonry. Construction and

Building Materials 2006;20(7):492–8.

[11] Jaafar MS, Alwathaf AH, Thanoon WAM, Noorzaei J, Abdulkadir

MR. Characteristic of interlocking mortarless block masonry under

compression. In: Proceedings of ICE, construction materials. 2006.

[12] Alwathaf AH, Thanoon WAM, Noorzaei J, Jaafar MS, Abdulkadir MR.

Shear. Characteristic of interlocking mortarless block masonry joints,

masonry international. Journal of the British Masonry Society 2005;18(1):

139–46.

[13] Oh K. Development and investigation of failure mechanism of

interlocking mortarless block masonry system. Ph.D. thesis. Philadelphia:

Drexel University; 1994.

[14] Alpa G, Gambarotta L, Monetto I. Dry block assembly continuum

modelling for the in-plane analysis of shear walls. In: Proceeding of the

4th international symposium on computer methods in structural masonry.

E & FN, Spon; 1998. p. 111–8.

[15] Thanoon WA, Jaafar MS, Noorzaei J, Kadir MRA, Fares S. Structural

behaviour of interlocking masonry system. Advances in Structural

Engineering 2007;10(1):11–24.

[16] Guo P. Investigation and modelling of the mechanical properties of

masonry. Ph.D. thesis. McMaster University; 1991.

[17] Carreira DJ, Chu KC. Stress–strain relationship for plain concrete in

compression. ACI Journal 1985;82:797–804.

[18] Saenz LP. Discussion of “Equation for the stress–strain curve of

concrete”, by Desayi and Krishnan. ACI Journal 1964;61(Sep.):1229–35.

[19] Chen WF. Plasticity in reinforced concrete. McGraw-Hill Book

Company; 1982.

[20] Darwin D, Pecknold D. Nonlinear biaxial stress–strain law for concrete.

Journal of Engineering Mechanics Division, ASCE 1977;103(April):

229–41.

[21] Foster S, Gilbert R. Rotating crack ﬁnite element model for reinforced

concrete structures. Computers & Structures 1996;58:43–50.

[22] Ayoub A, Filippou F. Nonlinear ﬁnite element analysis of RC shear panels

and walls. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 1998;124(March):

298–308.

Please cite this article in press as: Thanoon WA, et al. Nonlinear ﬁnite element analysis of grouted and ungrouted hollow interlocking mortarless block masonry

system. Engineering Structures (2007), doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.10.014

ARTICLE IN PRESS

W.A. Thanoon et al. / Engineering Structures ( ) – 13

[23] Vecchio F. Finite element modelling of concrete expansion and

conﬁnement. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 1992;118:

2390–405.

[24] Kupfer H, Gerstle K. Behaviour of concrete under biaxial stresses. Journal

of Engineering Mechanics Division, ASCE 1973;99:853–67.

[25] Vecchio F, Collins M. The modiﬁed compression-ﬁeld theory for

reinforced concrete element subjected to shear. ACI Journal 1986;83:

219–31.

[26] Vecchio F, Collins M. Compressive response of cracked reinforced

concrete. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 1993;119:590–610.

[27] Al Wathaf AhmedHA. Development of ﬁnite element code for non-

linear analysis of interlocking mortarless masonry system. Ph.D. thesis.

Malaysia: Civil Engineering Department, University Putra Malaysia.

[28] Thanoon AW, Alwathaf AH, Noorzaei J, Jaafar MS, Abdul Kadir MR.

Finite element analysis of interlocking mortarless hollow block masonry

prism. Computers and Structures. Proof print on line.

Please cite this article in press as: Thanoon WA, et al. Nonlinear ﬁnite element analysis of grouted and ungrouted hollow interlocking mortarless block masonry

system. Engineering Structures (2007), doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.10.014

- 550249460cf24cee39fb7ed3
- Grupo_2
- Proposed Macro-model for the Analysis of Infilled
- Stress Analysis Overview
- pdc_tr-05-01
- Stress Analysis of Basalt Epoxy Laminate
- Masonry Learning Module
- Failure Theory for piping material
- prEN-13001-3-1-2010.pdf
- Solid Mechanics Notes
- 14. Psc Design (Aasht-lrfd 12) Tutorial
- Brick-lintels-Schermer.pdf
- Ae4131 Abaqus Lecture 3
- off-axis
- Thick Wall Cylinder test
- 20080015744
- Paper Elseiver 2011
- Skin Pass
- Shamong_0806
- Tabernacle 0430
- Callister Ch6 Mek Oz
- CIV301 Soil Mechanics Shear Strength Handout
- Pneumatically Actuated PDMS Fingers
- ISRM-11CONGRESS-2007-272_Micromechanisms of Borehole Failure in Reservoir Rocks
- construccion en piedra
- Material testing.ppt
- CH19_Springs.ppt
- Book - Chap 05 Creep Test
- Delran_1016
- Behaviour of Randomly Distributed Fiber-reinforced

Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

We've moved you to where you read on your other device.

Get the full title to continue

Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.

scribd