Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
com
S. Carlos School of Engineering, USP, Av. Trabalhador Sancarlense, 400, 13566-590 Sao Carlos (SP), Brazil
Department of Structural Engineering, Politecnico di Milano, Piazza Leonardo da Vinci 32, 20133 Milan, Italy
Department of Environment, Health and Safety, Universita` dellInsubria, Via J.H. Dunant 3, 21100 Varese, Italy
b
c
Abstract
A nonlinear nite element model was developed to simulate the nonlinear response of three-leaf masonry specimens, which were subjected to laboratory tests with the aim of investigating the mechanical behaviour of multiple-leaf stone masonry walls up to failure. The
specimens consisted of two external leaves made of stone bricks and mortar joints, and an internal leaf in mortar and stone aggregate.
Dierent loading conditions, typologies of the collar joints, and stone types were taken into account. The constitutive law implemented in
the model is characterized by a damage tensor, which allows the damage-induced anisotropy accompanying the cracking process to be
described. To follow the post-peak behaviour of the specimens with sucient accuracy it was necessary to make the damage model nonlocal, to avoid mesh-dependency eects related to the strain-softening behaviour of the material. Comparisons between the predicted and
measured failure loads are quite satisfactory in most of the studied cases.
2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Multi-leaf masonry; Testing; Damage; Anisotropy; Finite elements; Non-local damage; Mesh-sensitivity
1. Introduction
The historical-monumental and residential patrimony
diused over the Italian territory, declared seismic by the
National Code, as well as in the rest of Europe, mostly consists of masonry constructions, often made of multiple-leaf
stone walls dating back to the Roman times, to the middleage (see Fig. 1), and to later times, up to the XIX century.
According to an extensive survey of the masonry cross
sections carried out in dierent Italian regions, the most
common typologies turned out to be single-, double- and
triple-leaf walls, characterized by various types of mutual
connections ranging from simple juxtaposition to good
interlocking. The partial or total collapse of a wall is
hampered by the eectiveness of the connections, that is,
*
20.
E-mail address: alberto.taliercio@polimi.it (A. Taliercio).
0965-9978/$ - see front matter 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.advengsoft.2007.01.003
the capacity of yielding a monolithic response under outof-plane actions by preventing the leaves from detaching
easily. Some striking events which took place in seismic
areas (damage of historical centres after an earthquake in
Umbria and Marche in 1997 [1]; collapse of the Cathedral
of Noto, Sicily, in 1996 [2]) further highlighted the importance of understanding the mechanical behaviour of similar
structures, the vulnerability of which to seismic actions can
be enhanced by creep-induced damage originated by elevated dead loads. This was actually the case with the pillars
of the Cathedral of Noto, which collapsed six years after
being hit by an earthquake without revealing any serious
evidence of damage. Only after plaster removal, damage
became visible, in the form of deep vertical cracks in the
outer limestone leaf, whereas the rubble inll material,
made of pebbles and a very weak mortar, appeared to be
scarcely damaged [2].
Following a previous research on the behaviour of
multiple-leaf walls [3], an experimental investigation was
250
Fig. 1. Examples of multi-leaf masonry walls: (a) St. Antimo Abbey, Tuscany, Italy and (b) Durham Castle, Yorkshire, UK.
Fig. 2. Typical geometry of the tested walls: (a) keyed collar joints and (b)
at collar joints.
Table 1
Properties of the stones used for the preparation of the samples
Stone
Load vs.
bed joint direction
E
(N/mm2)
rc
(N/mm2)
rt
(N/mm2)
Noto
Noto
Serena
Serena
Normal
Parallel
Normal
Parallel
9476
8526
18218
23293
0.10
0.09
0.19
0.21
20.6
17.6
104.2
89.0
_
2.06
_
6.07
251
where C = the fourth-order exibility tensor of the damaged material. The eigenvalues and the normalized eigenvectors of the damage tensor will be denoted by Da and
na (a = I, II, III), respectively. Note that nI, nII and nIII
are the unit vectors normal to the local planes of material
symmetry of the damaged material. Any one of the planes
of damage-induced orthotropy is somehow associated to a
plane microcrack that forms in the solid. Once any damage
direction is activated, its orientation is supposed to remain
xed throughout the rest of the stress history. Thus, the
ensuing model can be qualied as a non-rotating, smeared
crack model.
In this model, the damage process driving variable is
supposed to be an equivalent strain measure, y =
1/2 (eel)2. As the maximum eigenvalue of y attains a critical
value (y0T or y0C, according to the sign of the associated
strain), the rst damage direction (nI) is activated. An additional damage direction, nII, can activate in the plane
orthogonal to nI if the maximum direct component of y,
that is, yhh = nh (y nh), with nh ? nI, attains the damage
threshold. The third possible damage direction is necessarily nIII = nI ^ nII.
In the case of increasing stresses, each principal value of
the damage tensor is supposed to evolve according to a law
similar to that presented in [5] for concrete:
!
1
; a I; II; III:
2
Da C H 1
B
1 AH hy hh y 0H i H
Here, h*i are McAuley brackets and AH, BH and CH are
material parameters, which take dierent values according
to the sign of the strain component that activates damage
(H = T for tension; H = C for compression). In the model
version implemented in ABAQUS, CC = CT = 1.
Note that permanent (plastic) strains are disregarded in
the proposed version of the model. Also, crack-closure
eects (that is, the recovery of stiness upon closure of
an existing crack due to a stress reversal) are neglected.
These are not deemed to be serious limitations as far as
the model is applied to the simulation of tests involving
monotonically increasing loads or displacements. If the
local stress rate changes in sign in signicant regions of
the analyzed structure, the model results are likely to be
unreliable, unless the above simplications are removed.
For nite element applications, it is expedient to have
the constitutive law in matrix form. Let {e} and {r} be
the arrays gathering the six engineering (innitesimal)
strains and stresses, referred to any (global) Cartesian reference frame (x, y, z):
T
3a
3b
252
frg q1 f^
rg;
where
2
nxI 2
6 x 2
6 nII
6
6 x 2
6 n
q 6 III
6 nx nx
6 I II
6 x x
4 nII nIII
nxIII nxI
nyI 2
nzI 2
nzII
nyII
2nxI nyI
2nyI nzI
2nxII nyII
2nyII nzII
nyIII 2
nzIII 2
2nxIII nyIII
2nyIII nzIII
nyI nyII
nzI nzII
nyII nyIII
nyIII nyI
nzII nzIII
nzIII nzI
where
2
6
6
6
6
6
6
1
^
C i 6
E6
6
6
6
6
4
1
wI;I
m
wI;II
m
wI;III
1
wII;II
m
wII;III
1
wIII;III
21m
wI;II
symm:
0
21m
wII;III
7
0 7
7
7
0 7
7
7
0 7
7
7
7
0 7
5
21m
wI;III
tti1
8
with wa,b = [(1Da) (1Db)]1/2 (a, b = I, II, III). This
matrix can be rotated to the global Cartesian reference
frame (x, y, z) to get the exibility matrix involved in Eq.
(6) using the classical transformation rule:
^ i q:
C i qT C
7
7
7
7
2nzIII nxIII
7
7
z x
x z 7
nI nII nI nII 7
7
nzII nxIII nxII nzIII 5
2nzII nxII
where k is the internal length of the non-local neighbourhood, representing the diameter of a sphere centered at
the current point x. The value of k to be employed in
non-local damage models is not a trivial choice (see e.g.,
[19]). For concrete, there is a certain agreement upon taking three times the diameter of the largest aggregate. No
indication was found in the literature for stone masonry,
and some theoretical work about this topic should be performed. Thus, the choice made in the present work
(k = 100 mm for Noto stone and 60 mm for Serena stone)
is quite arbitrary.
There are a few basic requirements that the averaging
procedure has to meet. First, if the local strain would be
always simply replaced by the average strain this could
aect incorrectly the results as long as the material behaviour is still in the elastic range. So it is important that averaging is performed only when the material is actually
damaged. Secondly, the model should give a realistic
response even in simple loading situations, such as uniaxial
tension or compression. Then, being the strain eld constant, the stresses should be constant as well.
In nite element analyses, strains and stresses are usually evaluated at the Gauss points. Taking this fact into
account, one can write:
P
xj 2V f xi xj xxj J xj exj
ea xi P
;
12
xj 2V f xi xj xxj J xj
where x(xj) is the Gauss integration weight at point j
and J(xj) is the Jacobian of the isoparametric transformation evaluated at point j. According to Eq. (12), it is possible to evaluate the average strain at any Gauss point i
based on the strain eld values at neighbouring Gauss
points.
As FEAP identies that the user material model for
non-local damage is being used, it calls a routine that performs a loop over all the active elements in order to identify, for each element, its neighbourhood according to
two dierent procedures. The rst one, performed when
the neighbourhood radius (RNL) is null, identies all the
elements that have common nodes with the current element. The second, performed when RNL is not null, identies all the elements that have the centre inside a sphere of
radius RNL that has the origin at the centre of the current
element. For both procedures, an array is allocated in
order to store this information.
When the material model routine is called (for each element and for each Gauss point), it receives the local strain
evaluated in the usual way by the routines of FEAP. Then,
inside the material model and just when a damage direction
is activated, the new non-local strains are evaluated according to Eq. (12) and used to compute the secant matrix.
There are two options for the weighting function. The rst
one is Eq. (11); the second one is f = 1 (constant), which
means to perform an arithmetic averaging over the neighbourhood. The second option may be important for analyzing simple cases, like uniaxial loading.
253
254
Table 2
Model parameters employed in the FE analyses
Noto stone
Serena stone
outer leaf
inner leaf
outer leaf
inner leaf
E (MPa)
FEAP
Abaqus
2200
2500
1100
1800
3800
3800
1300
1875
FEAP/Abaqus
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
y0C
FEAP
Abaqus
0.001
0.5E6
0.001
0.5E6
0.1
0.5E6
0.0001
0.5E6
AC
FEAP
Abaqus
6.68E+6
0.34E+6
1.78E+6
0.30E+6
23.42E+6
1.0E+6
0.545E+6
0.50E+6
BC
FEAP
Abaqus
1.27
1.2
1.2
1.11
1.5
1.3
1.2
1.2
CC
FEAP
Abaqus
2.8
1
2.0
1
6.0
1
1.05
1
Fig. 5. Loaddisplacement plots for Type 1-tests: (a) Noto stone and (b) Serena stone.
Fig. 6. Loaddisplacement plots for Type 2-tests: (a) Noto stone and (b) Serena stone.
255
Fig. 7. Loaddisplacement plots for Type 3-tests: (a) Noto stone and (b) Serena stone.
_________________
STRESS 3
_________________
STRESS 3
-2.41E+00
-1.79E+00
-2.26E+00
-2.11E+00
-1.68E+00
-1.96E+00
-1.47E+00
-1.80E+00
-1.65E+00
-1.37E+00
-1.50E+00
-1.16E+00
-1.35E+00
-1.05E+00
-1.20E+00
-9.48E-01
-1.04E+00
-8.44E-01
-8.91E-01
-7.39E-01
-7.39E-01
-5.86E-01
-5.30E-01
Time = 1.20E+01
-1.58E+00
-1.26E+00
-6.35E-01
Time = 1.20E+01
Fig. 8. Type 1-tests on walls in Noto stone: contour plots for the axial stress in the post-peak regime and deformed mesh obtained with the local (a) and
the non-local (b) damage model.
_________________
STRESS 3
_________________
STRESS 3
-3.86E+00
-3.31E+01
-3.44E+00
-3.01E+00
-2.87E+01
-2.59E+00
-1.98E+01
-2.16E+00
-1.73E+00
-1.54E+01
-1.31E+00
-6.54E+00
-8.81E-01
-2.12E+00
-4.54E-01
2.30E+00
-2.83E-02
6.73E+00
3.98E-01
8.24E-01
1.11E+01
1.56E+01
1.25E+00
2.00E+01
Time = 1.60E+01
-2.42E+01
-1.10E+01
Time = 1.60E+01
Fig. 9. Type 3-tests on walls in Serena stone: contour plots for the axial stress in the post-peak regime and deformed mesh obtained with the local (a) and
the non-local (b) damage model.
256
257