Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
TECHNICAL PAPER
INTRODUCTION
Concrete masonry is a composite structural material that
does not resist even simple loads such as uniaxial compression
with a uniform state of stress. The reason for the complex
response of concrete masonry to such simple loading is
attributed to the varying geometry created by the face shells
and webs combined with the face-shell bedded mortar joints.
The response of concrete masonry to monotonic, axial loading
has been investigated in the past by several researchers
including Drysdale and Hamid;1 Hatzinikolas, Longworth,
and Warwaruk;2 Brown and Young;3 Shrive;4 SayedAhmed and Shrive;5 Ramamurthy and Ganesan;6 and
Colville and Wolde-Tinsae. 7 Through theoretical and
experimental investigations, they have found that under face
shell loading, the webs of hollow (ungrouted) concrete
masonry crack first as they act as deep beams spanning
between the face-shell mortar beds. This cracking leads to
loss of propping for the face shells that subsequently fail due
to instability often in combination with crushing of the mortar
bed. Full-bedded masonry, on the other hand, resists the
vertical compression more uniformly and fails due to the
formation of cracks in the face shells parallel to the direction
of the loading. These findings clearly illustrate the structural
advantages associated with full bedding. From the constructibility point of view, however, it is difficult to achieve full bedding due to the lack of vertical alignment of the webs of the
units in sequential courses. Given the dimensional issues, a requirement of full bedding would reduce the productivity of the
mason considerably.
Concrete masonry is often grouted, and there are many
situations where grouted concrete masonry is subjected to
concentrated loading. Grouted concrete masonry fails due to
a complex mechanism generated by the tendency of the grout
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2002
819
(1)
(2a)
= peak [ 1 Z [ 0.002 ] ]
(2b)
where
0.5
Z = ----------------------------------------------------------3 + 0.29 peak
---------------------------------------- 0.002
145 peak 1000
(2c)
The common point curve (the points that lie at the intersection
of the unloading and reloading paths of the cyclic stress-strain
curves) is related to the envelope curve through a reduction
factor of 0.9 for the stress in the Kent and Park equation.
Sinha, Gerstle, and Tulin17 reported polynomial functions
to define the cyclic stress-strain curves of concrete. The
polynomials for the curves were fitted with as many as seven
constants. Numerical values of the constants specific to their
concrete were reported in their paper. An exponential curve
was fitted to the envelope and common point data obtained
for solid clay brick masonry by Naraine and Sinha18 as
shown in Eq. (3)
( 1 + )
e
=
---------------------------------
(3)
( 1 + B + ( 1 ( n 1 ) ) )
= peak -------------------------------------------------------n-
1 + B + ( 1 ( n 1 ) )
(4)
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION
Thirty-three, three-high stack-bonded prisms were
constructed from 390 x 190 x 190 mm (15.6 x 7.6 x 7.6 in.)
(length x height x width) hollow concrete blocks. Each block
had two symmetrically placed tapered hollow cores of average
dimension 140 x 120 mm (5.6 x 4.8 in.). The thickness of the
face shell varied from 30 mm (1.2 in.) on one end to 35 mm
(1.4 in.) on the other end. Ready-mix Type S (structural)
mortar (1.0:0.5:3.5 to 4.5cement:lime:sand by volume) was
used in the construction. A professional bricklayer constructed
all prisms with 10 mm (0.4 in.) thick mortar joints. During
construction, three 50 mm (2 in.) mortar cubes were sampled.
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2002
Type of
specimen
Number of
Loaded area specimens Designation
Hollow prism
5 (3 mono
FSPx-t#h
+ 2 cyclic)
Hollow prism
Full bed
8 (2 mono
HOPx-t#h
+ 6 cyclic)
Grouted prism
Full bed
8 (4 mono
GUPx-t#h
+ 4 cyclic)
Full bed
6 (2 mono
CMPx-t#h
+ 4 cyclic)
Full bed
6 (2 mono
GCPx-t#h
+ 4 cyclic)
Note: Symbol x stands for prism number; t stands for load typem for
monotonic and c for cyclic; and h stands for load history 0 for monotonic, 1, 2,
or 5 for cyclic, depending on number of load cycles used in each strain increment.
(a)
(b)
Fig. 2Typical stress-strain curves measured experimentally:
(a) monotonic; and (b) cyclic.
beginning of loading. Typical monotonic and cyclic stressstrain responses are presented in Fig. 2.
FAILURE OF MASONRY
Modes of failure
Hollow prisms failed depending on the bedding and loading
conditions. Face-shell loaded specimens failed due to the
821
Strain at maximum
stress
Mean
Mean 0,
6
MPa (psi) COV, % (0 10 ) COV, %
15.8 (2292) 15.8
3600
20.5
20.1 (2916)
18.4
4440
16.1
13.7
2520
23.2
13.9 (2016)
11.2
3020
10.7
14.9 (2161)
7.2
3430
26.8
STRESS-STRAIN EQUATIONS
The stress-strain curves of the masonry exhibit significant
nonlinearity. The envelope curves of the cyclically loaded
specimens resemble the stress-strain curves of the monotonically
loaded specimens. For each type of masonry, the loci of the
common points form the common point curve that also
resembles the shape of the envelope curve for that masonry
with a shift in the stress ordinates.
Stress-strain data were normalized using the mean peak
stress 0 and the mean strain corresponding to the peak stress
0 , presented in Table 2. A program (PROCDATA) developed
in PEARL script on a SUN microsystem was used to scan the
normalized cyclic stress-strain data. The algorithm used in
the program examined the normalized strain data to decide
on the onset of load reversal. From the unloading and reloading
data, the program further evaluated the common points.
These points were interpolated from four very closely spaced
points, two each on the unloading and reloading curves. The
peaks of each reloading data set were stored as envelope data
points. The two data sets (namely, the envelope and common
points) were viewed graphically to ensure their integrity.
The normalized monotonic stress-strain data sets were
grouped under the envelope data curves.
Envelope and common point curves
Two equations (one simple and the other more refined)
were selected for fitting the envelope and common point data.
The simple equation follows Eq. (1) of Desayi and
Krishnan15 and the refined equation is based on the formulation
of Loov19 shown in Eq. (4). The equations are reformulated
as shown in Eq. (5) and (6). In these equations, x represents
the normalized strain (/0 ) and y represents normalized
stress (/0). The constants u0 and u1 are experimental
constants determined for each curve separately
u0
y = y max --------------u1
1+x
(5)
( 1 + u0 ( 1 + u1 ) ) x
-
y = y max ------------------------------------------------- u ( 1 + u x ) + x ( u0 + 1 )
0
1
(6)
The equations were then plotted for each group of the test
specimens (FSP, GUP, GMP, and GCP) using a curve-fitting
utility available in a commercial software, and the constants
were determined. Figure 3(a) to (e) shows the two curves
(simple and refined) with the envelope data for the FSP,
GUP, GMP, and GCP masonry types, respectively. From the
data presented in these figures, the monotonic stress-strain
data and the envelope data (extracted from the cyclic stressstrain curve) can be seen not to exhibit any significant systematic
variation. Grouping all the data together for the strength
(Table 2) and stress-strain equation is thus justified. As
shown in Fig. 3(a) to (e), the simple equation is as good as
the refined equation for all the grouted (confined or unconfined) masonry, but did not work well for the hollow masonry.
The refined equation is therefore used as the standard for
masonry stress-strain curves.
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2002
(a)
(b)
(d)
(c)
(e)
Fig. 3Envelope data points and fitted equations for: (a) FSP; (b) HOP; (c); GUP; (d) GMP; and (e) GCP.
The common point data were also fitted to the refined
equation using the approach used for the envelope curve. As
a final check, the fitted envelope and the common point
curves for each type of masonry were plotted together to
ensure that they do not cross each other for the full normalized
strain range. This check ensured that the initial slope of the
common point curve was not steeper than the initial slope of
the envelope curve, and that the slope of the descending part
of the envelope curve was not steeper than that of the common
point curve. Where such violation was observed, the process
of curve fitting (for envelope and common points) was repeated
until all anomalies were eliminated. A typical plot of the
envelope and common point curves to ensure consistency is
shown in Fig. 4.
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2002
( p )
-
= ------------------------------------------------( t )
( q ) + ( r ) + ( ( s ) )
(7)
Table 3Experimental constants (u0, u1) in nondimensional equations for various types of masonry
Simple equation
(Eq. (5))
Refined equation
(Eq. (6))
Masonry type
u0
u1
u0
u1
1.4
2.6
2.1
0.1
2.0
2.0
1.5
1.0
2.0
2.4
2.0
1.2
2.0
2.3
2.3
1.5
2.0
2.2
2.0
1.5
FSP
14,543
2.1
58
278
3.1
2.5
GUP
17,156
1.5
596
397
GMP
24,821
2.0
794
331
3.0
GCP
29,306
2.3
1005
291
3.3
HOP
27,162
2.0
676
225
3.0
(b)
(a)
Fig. 6Moment-curvature curves of cantilever piers: (a) piers tested under 1.2 MPa vertical compression; and (b) piers tested
under other than 1.2 MPa vertical compression.
(b)
(a)
Fig. 7Moment-curvature relations for piers under: (a) 1.2 MPa vertical compression; and (b) 2.0 MPa vertical compression.
compression of 2.0 MPa (290 psi) is due to discrete crack
extensions; such behavior is typical of masonry.
Numerical model
A layered line element developed for the flexural analysis
of reinforced concrete (RC) by Assa and Dhanasekar20 was
used to analyze the behavior of the masonry piers. The layered
line element was modified to account for the variation in the
materials of construction (from RC to reinforced masonry) in
addition to the change in the shape of the cross section. The
RC program employed the stress-strain curve proposed by
Kent and Park16 shown in Eq. (2). For the analysis of masonry
piers, the stress-strain equation developed in this paper (Eq. (6))
was used. As the stress-strain equation presented in this
paper was derived from axially loaded prisms, its application
to axially and laterally loaded piers required consideration of
the strain gradient effect. Strain gradient effect in grouted
masonry is described in detail by Drysdale, Hamid, and
Baker11 was adopted in the numerical model. Accordingly,
the term ymax in the stress-strain equation (Eq. (6)) was
multiplied by a factor of 1.75 (average of 1.5 and 2.0 given
in Drysdale, Hamid, and Baker11). The multiplier for ymax
accounts for the increase in the extreme compressive fiber
strength under the combined bending and axial loading
(strain gradient).
The cross section of the reinforced masonry pier was divided
into a number of layers to develop the moment-curvature
relations. The cross section was divided into layers (face
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2002
N
M
p q o
q r
(8)
in which
E sec i A i ], q = [ E sec i Ai yi ]
= [ E sec i A i y 2i + E tan i I i ]
p = [
r
(9)
826
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
A part of the work reported in this paper was financed by the Australian
Research Council (ARC) small grants scheme and RAAS scheme administered
by the Central Queensland University (CQU). Other funding support came
from the University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada, and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. The assistance and encouragement of R. Loov at the University of Calgary is thankfully
acknowledged. Concrete blocks were supplied by Calgary Masonry, and a mason funded by the Masonry Contractors Association of Alberta, Southern Division, constructed the masonry.
REFERENCES
1. Drysdale, R. G., and Hamid, A. A., Behaviour of Concrete Block
Masonry under Axial Compression, ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 76,
No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 1979, pp. 707-721.
2. Hatzinikolas, M.; Longworth, J.; and Warwaruk, J., Concrete
Masonry Walls, Structural Engineering Report No. 70, University of
Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, 1978.
3. Brown, R. H., and Young, J. M., Compressive Stress Distribution of
Grouted Hollow Clay Masonry under Strain Gradient, Report 1.2(b)-1,
US-Japan Coordinated Program for Masonry Building Research, Clemson
University, S.C., 1988.
4. Shrive, N. G., Compressive Strength and Strength Testing of Masonry,
Proceedings of the 7th IBMaC, Melbourne, Australia, 1985, pp. 699-709.
5. Sayed-Ahmed, E. Y., and Shrive, N. G., A Model for Face Shell
Bedded Hollow Masonry Using 2D Finite Elements, Proceedings of the
6th NAMC, Philadelphia, Pa., 1993, pp. 419-430.
6. Ramamurthy, K., and Ganesan, T. P., Analysis of Concrete Hollow
Block Masonry Prisms Under Eccentric Compression, Magazine of
Concrete Research (London), V. 45, No. 163, 1993, pp. 147-153.
7. Colville, J., and Wolde-Tinsae, A., Compressive Strength of Hollow
Concrete Masonry, The Masonry Journal, V. 9, No. 2, Feb. 1991, pp. 89-91.
8. Page, A. W.; Simundic, G.; and Xie, H., A Study on the Relationship
between Unit, Prism and Wall Strength for Hollow Masonry in Compression,
Proceedings of the 9th IB2MaC, Berlin, 1991, pp. 236-243.
9. Khalaf, F. M.; Hendry, A. W.; and Fairbairn, D. R., Study of the
Compressive Strength of Blockwork Masonry, ACI Structural Journal,
V. 91, No. 4, July-Aug. 1994, pp. 367-374.
10. Scrivener, J. C., and Baker, L., Factors Influencing Grouted
Masonry Prism Compressive Strength, Proceedings of the 8th IB2MaC,
Dublin, 1986, pp. 875-883.
11. Drysdale, R.; Hamid, A. A.; and Baker, L. R., Masonry Structures
Behaviour and Design, Prentice Hall, N.J., 784 pp.
12. Kumar, M., Development of Reinforced Clay Block Masonry
Columns Subjected to Concentric and Eccentric Compression, Master of
Engineering thesis, Central Queensland University, Australia, 1995.
13. Priestley, M. J. N., and Elder, D. M., Stress-Strain Curves for
Unconfined and Confined Concrete Masonry, ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings
V. 80, No. 3, May-June 1983, pp. 192-201.
14. Kumar, M., and Dhanasekar, M., Effect of Lateral Reinforcement
Detailing on the Strength and Stiffness of Reinforced Clay Block
Masonry, Proceedings of the 5th EASEC, Gold Coast, Australia, 1995,
pp. 1005-1010.
15. Desayi, P., and Krishnan, S., Equation for the Stress-Strain Curve of
Concrete, ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 61, Mar. 1964, pp. 345-350.
16. Kent, D. C., and Park, R., Flexural Members with Confined Concrete,
Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, V. 97, 1971, pp. 1969-1970.
17. Sinha, B. P.; Gerstle, K. H.; and Tulin, L.C., Stress-Strain Relations
for Concrete under Cyclic Loading, ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 61,
Feb. 1964, pp. 195-211.
18. Naraine, K., and Sinha, S., Model for Cyclic Compressive Behaviour of Brick Masonry, ACI Structural Journal, V. 88, No. 5, Sept.-Oct.
1991, pp. 603-609.
19. Loov, R.E., A General Stress-Strain Curve for Concrete, Canadian
Society of Civil Engineering Conference, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada,
1991, pp. 302-311.
20. Assa, B., and Dhanasekar, M., A Layered Line Element for the
Flexural Analysis of Cyclically Loaded Reinforced Concrete Beam
Columns, Computers and StructuresAn International Journal, V. 78,
2000, pp. 517-527.
21. Yakoo, Y., and Nakamura, T., Non-Stationary Hysteresis Uniaxial
Stress-Strain Relations of Wide Flange Steel: Part II Empirical Formulae,
Transactions of Architectural Institute of Japan, V. 260, 1977, pp. 143-149.