Simulation of Masonry in ANSYS and LSDYNA The Features and Challenges
Wolfram Jäger, Tammam Bakeer & Peter Schöps
Dresden University of Technology, Faculty of Architecture, Chair of Structural Design Dresden, Germany
Summary
There is an everincreasing demand for more advanced and userfriendly FEM packages. Despite the great progress achieved in FEM industry, the modelling of masonry structures is still challenging at several scales. The present paper discusses the potential capabilities of both FEM packages ANSYS and LSDYNA for multiple scales modelling of masonry structures. The smeared and discrete modelling approaches, constitutive models and solution strategies will be discussed and the outcome will be supported with examples for unreinforced and reinforced masonry. Further discussion will be given to the difficulties and challenging problems. The paper will be concluded to recommendations to enhance the current state and the aspects of future works.
Keywords
ANSYS, LSDYNA, masonry, explicit/ implicit solvers
1.
Introduction
The multipurpose finite element packages like ANSYS and LSDYNA have many potential and user programmable features to solve civil engineering problems. Masonry structures in all forms and types, the historical and today’s structures, have received a great attention in recent decades in parallel to the advance achieved in FEM industry. Numerical models of masonry are based on two methodologies. First, mesoscopic detailed descriptions consider masonry as a heterogeneous structure with separate descriptions of each constituent. Second, models intended for largescale structural calculations are generally of a phenomenological nature, and represent the collective behaviour of constituents by closedform macroscopic constitutive equations. The two principle modelling strategies are correspond to three different scales of complexity which have been identified by Lourenço [18] and Rots [23]:
ANSYS Conference & 27 ^{t}^{h} CADFEM Users’ Meeting 2009
November 1820, 2009 Congress Center Leipzig, Germany
1
 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 micromodelling whereby units and mortar represented as continuum, with the
unit/mortar interfaces modelled using discontinuous interfaces as potential crack, slip and crushing planes; (b) Simplified micromodelling 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.  Macromodelling or single phase material model, the quasiperiodic nature of masonry has prompted
to investigate the use of homogenization techniques, where all masonry components are smeared by an equivalent homogenized continuum. Onephase material models have been treated masonry as an ideal homogeneous material with constitutive equations that differ from those of the components.
2. Methods of modelling
2.1 Discrete Modelling
Several discrete modelling methods are available in literature (Rigid Bodies Spring Method, Discontinuous Deformation Analysis, NonSmooth Contact Dynamics, Modified Discrete Element Method, Combined FiniteDiscrete Elements and Applied Element Method), Bakeer [5]. The modelling methods which can be used in ANSYS and LSDYNA are mainly based on discretization of the structure and defining 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 employed for modelling masonry joints. LSDYNA has fully automated contact analysis capabilities, which make this software very user
friendly for contact analysis problems. The nodesegment pair is the root level of all contact types in LSDYNA. The node is a point with mass and is usually named as slave node. The segment is either 3noded or 4noded connectivity information and is usually named as master segment. The contact algorithm consists of the following steps, Bala [6]:
(a) The slave nodemaster 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 segment. The projection point called contact point and the distance from slave
node to contact point called projection 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. LSDYNA uses an additional 2% increase to the master segment.
η
Figure 1
Assemblage of slave node master segment pair
(b) 
Determining of the contact point in the isoparametric coordinates of the master segment. 
(c) 
Computing the projection distance in the local coordinate 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 following equation
ANSYS Conference & 27 ^{t}^{h} CADFEM Users’ Meeting 2009
November 1820, 2009 Congress Center Leipzig, Germany
2
{ f
s
contact force
=
{ K
c
⋅
δ
{
contact stiffness penetratio n depth
(1)
(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
Discrete modelling is very high time consuming for modelling masonry structures, even with high performance computers. As an example, LSDYNA model was built to explore the effect of earthquake characteristics on the collapse of historical masonry buildings Figure 2, each calculation was performed using parallel 40 Intel Itanium processors “SGI Altix 4700” at the centre of High Performance Computing of TUDresden. The calculation for the model was carried out along 7 days for only 20 seconds of loading.
Figure 2
Collapse analysis of the Mosque of Takiyya alSulaymaniyya under generated earthquake model, Bakeer & Jäger [4].
2.2 Smeared Modelling
In continuum methods the softening and local cracking of material have considered by the smeared crack approach. The smeared crack approach was first developed to be used in concrete structures and has been extended to masonry. 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, because the formation of a crack involves no remeshing or new degrees of freedom. However, the smeared crack models can not be able to simulate the final stage of softening process in masonry material, i.e. the full separation of the continuum can not be accomplished by means of smeared crack models. Many complications arise with continuum approach for the highly nonlinear behaviours, either from material or geometrical perspectives. For instance, it is very difficult or unfeasible to use the continuum approach to study the behaviour of materials or structures that change their status from continuum state to entirely discrete state, like behaviour of structures before and during collapse.
ANSYS Conference & 27 ^{t}^{h} CADFEM Users’ Meeting 2009
November 1820, 2009 Congress Center Leipzig, Germany
3
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 homogenized 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 [18] has proposed an anisotropic model of two surfaces Rankine/Hill. Massart [21] has developed twodimensional anisotropic damage model in a “multiplane” framework. Schlegel [24] has implemented the material model of Ganz theory (Ganz [11]) in ANSYS software. Jäger et al. [13], [14] have implemented the shear theory of Mann & Müller in ANSYS to be employed for calculation of minimum 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 [22], as well, has employed the shear failure theory of Mann & Müller [20] to implement a material model for masonry panels in ANSYS.
Figure 3
Continuum modelling for (a) the Church of our ladies (Frauenkirche), Dresden, Stoll. et al.[26], (b) Plastic strains in multifamily building, Jäger et al. [13] & [14].
3. Constitutive models
3.1 Constitutive models of masonry constituents
Masonry constituents belong to geomaterials. There are large amounts of experimental data reported by different researchers over past years for masonry constituents. Different 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 geomaterials 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 userprogrammable 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. LSDYNA comprises material models that cover a wide range of masonry constituents, but such materials have been developed basically for concrete and soils. They represent the general behaviour of many geomaterials. The candidate LSDYNA 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
ANSYS Conference & 27 ^{t}^{h} CADFEM Users’ Meeting 2009
November 1820, 2009 Congress Center Leipzig, Germany
4
empirical laws of many masonry materials are still lacking in literature and further investigations are required.
F =
⎧
⎪
σ
⎪
2 2
1 +
σ
2
−
t
σ α
2
t
f t
⋅
f
t
−
2
α
k
f
k
α
t
(
α
)
⎨ −
⎪
σ α
1
k
f
k
σ
1
2
+
σ
2
2
−
σ
1
⋅
σ
2
−
α
k
⋅
f
t
f k
TT
TC
CC
−
−
−
Region
Region
Region
Figure 4
The yield surface of multiple functions
Figure 5
Possible crack orientation and calculation of the correspond element length
Figure 6
Loaddeflection curve and damage pattern at load of 0.55 N/mm² (0.5 σ _{0} ) without defining contact on the head joints (variation coefficient of tensile strength 15%)
ANSYS Conference & 27 ^{t}^{h} CADFEM Users’ Meeting 2009
November 1820, 2009 Congress Center Leipzig, Germany
5
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 prerefinement of the mesh along potential crack. Those numerical 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 LSDYNA with various options, but the possibility to employ those approaches for masonry with the appropriated options and the validation is still questioned. Due to the robustness of contact algorithms in LSDYNA, the available contact options for modelling masonry interfaces have been examined. The Tiebreak contact in LSDYNA 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 compressive forces until failure, after which the tensile coupling is removed, Bala [6]. The option 6 of contact tiebreak permits damage modelling by scaling the stress components after failure is met. The following yield function has been employed:
F (
)
σ κ
,
=
σ
2
τ
2
+
f
t
2
c
2
− Ω
(
)
κ
(2)
where:
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
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
w at which the interface failure is complete. Tiebreak contact in LSDYNA uses penalty
distance
method. This produces some relative displacement between the surfaces before the damage 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 LSDYNA by increasing 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. Beattie et al. [7], Beattie et al. [8] and Burnett et al. [10] 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 (Hubervon 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 LSDYNA in ver. 971, and has been used for problems of dynamic delamination modelling, Iannucci [12] and modelling of damage in composite materials, Jiang et al.[15]. Interface elements are available to be used with the following cohesive material models in LSDYNA:
current
f
t
κ
= w / w , and
c
w ,
w
c
c
(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 interface 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 thickness of the interface element has been set to zero. In such way, the inherent difficulties associated with large displacement after the failure of the interface element also are avoided. In LSDYNA ‘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 nonsmooth 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 LSDYNA, where the material subroutine has to be called in time steps smaller than those in implicit solvers. An interface model has been implemented into LSDYNA that based on smoothed yield surface (Bakeer [5]), It reduces the computation time and avoids the
ANSYS Conference & 27 ^{t}^{h} CADFEM Users’ Meeting 2009
November 1820, 2009 Congress Center Leipzig, Germany
6
Figure 7
The smooth yield surface of the cohesive interface model, Bakeer [5].
In ANSYS a userinterface element has been developed for modelling masonry joints and discrete simulation of cracks. The implemented model has yield surface of two parts, the compression part governed by MohrCoulomb surface and the tensile part governed by elliptic yield surface, Figure 8. Several options have been provided for the definition of the strengthcrack width relationships: linear, bilinear, exponential, and Hordijk functions.
α·f
Figure 8
The yield surface and the possible functions for strengthcrack width relationship
The implemented subroutine has been examined by three point flexural test, and DIN shear test. The simulation results of the three point bending test Figure 9 and the DIN shear test have been
ANSYS Conference & 27 ^{t}^{h} CADFEM Users’ Meeting 2009
November 1820, 2009 Congress Center Leipzig, Germany
7
demonstrated good conformity with tests results. The influences of the crack energy and element size have been studied. Figure 10 shows the results for brittle and ductile behaviours.
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
50
Figure 9
(Left) Simulated bending test with a notched prism for an inverse calculation of the crack energy by using user implemented InterfaceElements, (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)
0
50
100
150
Elementlänge [mm]
200
Figure 10
Influence of crack energy and element size
4. Meshfree methods
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 methods dominate the area of computational fluid dynamic, and the application of this method for irregular geometries brings up a lot of difficulties. The Lagrangian and Eulerian approaches have been combined to overcome the limitations of each other and to produce more robust numerical approaches, like CEL coupled Eulerian Lagrangian (CEL) and Arbitrary Lagrange Eulerian (ALE), (Liu et al. [16] & [17]). Those approaches have been developed basically to solve problems of solid fluid interaction. Despite the great success of mesh
ANSYS Conference & 27 ^{t}^{h} CADFEM Users’ Meeting 2009
November 1820, 2009 Congress Center Leipzig, Germany
8
based methods, the prerequisite of mesh is the main reason for the limitation of those methods and at the same time it is the key of success. Several research efforts during the last years have been concerned to develop mesh independent methods, which have been driven to mesh free methods. The key idea of mesh free methods is to represent the domain of the problem using a set of nodes or particles without considering any connectivity in between. Smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH) is one of mesh free Lagrangian methods which already implemented into LSDYNA. It has features of the simplicity and adaptability to handle large deformations without regarding the distribution of particles. Figure 11 shows 2D SPH modelling for masonry shear wall. Masonry units as well as mortar have been represented 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 distributed over unit or over mortar. Few geomaterials 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 demonstrated the ability of this method to represent all failure modes, even the fragmentation due to compressive crushing which difficult to handle in finite element analysis.
Vertical displacement
Unit 23x23x15 cm
2D SPH model for Masonry shear wall
Plastic strain output results of SPH analysis
Figure 11
SPH analysis of masonry shear wall in LSDYNA
5. Loading regime
The type of loading has a great influence on the performance 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. LSDYNA is basically has powerful explicit solver, therefore, it has widely employed to simulate high dynamic events like impact, explosion, and earthquake actions. On other hand, ANSYS has powerful implicit solver with which the static and long term loading problems can be well solved. The combination of explicit and implicit solvers is common in both FEM packages when several loading regimes are being 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 earthquake loads causes further unwanted vertical vibrations to the structure at the beginning of simulation. Therefore, in order to eliminate the dynamic effect of gravity loads, it must be applied (statically) through enough time. Therefore, the implicit solver can be lunched until getting the
ANSYS Conference & 27 ^{t}^{h} CADFEM Users’ Meeting 2009
November 1820, 2009 Congress Center Leipzig, Germany
9
stresses and deformation states and then running the explicit solver for earthquake loads. Figure 12 and Figure 13 show examples of using different solvers for applying different loading sequence.
(a)
^{(}^{b}^{)}
Figure 12
Simulation of masonry structure under earthquake actions, (a) full scale experimental test carried out in Ispra, Anthoine [2], (b) collapse analysis of the tested specimen under 40%g, Bakeer [5].
Figure 13
Simulation the dynamic response of the structure for high wind 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. [25]). 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 resulting 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, because the bond strength of the used AACunit 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.
ANSYS Conference & 27 ^{t}^{h} CADFEM Users’ Meeting 2009
November 1820, 2009 Congress Center Leipzig, Germany
10
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 difficulties, 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 using solid elements (2D or 3D). The nodes of reinforcement bars must be merged with masonry elements through the shared nodes, Figure 15a.
(b) Embedded reinforcement model
Figure 15
Discrete modelling of reinforced masonry
ANSYS Conference & 27 ^{t}^{h} CADFEM Users’ Meeting 2009
November 1820, 2009 Congress Center Leipzig, Germany
11
The restriction to create shared nodes might result in some inflexibility in mesh generation. However, it is not quite accurate 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 between 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 15b. Brookes et al. [9] 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 nonlinear bond element. The arrangement of reinforcement is automated without the need for topologically consistent element meshes. In LSDYNA [19] the following methods can be employed for modelling the reinforcement of masonry:
(1) Truss elements tied to solids by one dimensional contact The 1D Contact was originally developed to offer bond slip failure for modelling reinforced concrete. In addition, 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 maintained 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 Lagrange 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 pullout 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 LSDYNA 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 between reinforcement and masonry.
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 reinforced details are not essential to capture the overall response of the structure. In LSDYNA or ANSYS, there are material models which can represent the reinforced concrete include an option to represent the reinforcement in a smeared fashion. However, the material models that represent reinforced masonry or even unreinforced masonry in smeared approach are missing in LSDYNA and ANSYS.
The simulation of reinforced masonry is of great interest for retrofitting and rehabilitation of cultural heritage masonry structures. It is also important to understand the interaction between the reinforcement and masonry to identify the modes of failures and to propose the design procedures. In Figure 16, Figure 17, and Figure 18 are examples for discrete modelling of reinforced masonry in ANSYS and LSDYNA.
ANSYS Conference & 27 ^{t}^{h} CADFEM Users’ Meeting 2009
November 1820, 2009 Congress Center Leipzig, Germany
12
1
^{}^{6}^{8}^{8}^{.}^{5}^{3}^{5} 186.425 ^{3}^{1}^{5}^{.}^{6}^{8}^{5} 817.795 ^{1}^{3}^{2}^{0}
1822
^{2}^{3}^{2}^{4}
2826
^{3}^{3}^{2}^{8}
3830
(a) pullout failure of the reinforcement
1
NODAL SOLUTION 

JUN 
3 2007 

STEP=1 
21:31:11 

SUB =1 

TIME=.05 

S1 
(AVG) 
DMX =.435E04
SMN =717.435
SMX =4284
2800
2178
1556
933.333 311.111 311.111 933.333 1556
2178
2800
(b) Local compression
Figure 16
FE model in ANSYS for reinforced masonry shear wall, the reinforcement smeared with grout material
Figure 17
Simulation of Sistani’s House in Bam Citadel to calculate the required reinforcement.
Figure 18
Simulation of the main tower at Governor Seat in Bam Citadel to calculate the required reinforcement.
ANSYS Conference & 27 ^{t}^{h} CADFEM Users’ Meeting 2009
November 1820, 2009 Congress Center Leipzig, Germany
13
8.
Conclusion and recommendations
One of the challenging problems in simulation of large deformation using finite element method is that, the model undergoes large deformations during collapse. Such problem causes the termination of calculation in the finite element codes. It has been proofed that the smooth yield surfaces are computationally stable and efficient for implementation. It is recommended thus to apply the smooth functions to represent the yield surface, which is especially recommended for explicit solvers like LSDYNA, where the material subroutine will be called in time steps smaller than those in implicit solvers. The contact formulation is more appropriate for representing the post failure behaviour than interface elements. It emphasizes, 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 their own constitutive models. The progressive crack growth methods in fracture mechanics like Virtual Crack Closure Technique VCCT and Discrete Cohesive Zone Models DCZM, are highly recommended for further research work, where such methods are not embedded 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 methods 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 represent all failure modes even the crushing under high compression 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 finite element method. The discrete modelling of reinforcement or reinforcementmasonry bonding models are lacking in literature. The available tools in finite element packages have been developed primarily for modelling problems other than reinforcement. It is recommended therefore to consider this issue for further research in this direction.
9. References
AbuOdeh, A.: “Application of New Concrete Model to Roadside Safety Barriers”. In: Proc. of the 9 ^{t}^{h} International LSDYNA Users’ Conference: Dearborn 2006
[2] Anthoine, A.: “Definition and Design of the Test Specimen. Technical report D8.1 of the collective research project ESECMaSE”: Joint Research Centre of the European Commission, European Laboratory for Structural Assessment (ELSA): October 2007
[1]
[3] 
Bakeer, T. & Jäger, W.: “Collapse analysis of reinforced and unreinforced adobe masonry structures under earthquake actions – case study: Bam Citadel”. In: Proc. of the Structural Studies, Repairs and Maintenance of Heritage Architecture X, Ed. C.A. Brebbia, WIT Press: 
Prague 2007, pp. 577586 

[4] 
Bakeer, T. & Jäger, W.: “The effect of earthquake characteristics on the collapse of historical masonry buildings: case study of the mosque of Takiyya alSulaymaniyya”. In: Proc. of the Structural Studies, Repairs and Maintenance of Heritage Architecture XI, Ed. C.A. Brebbia, WIT Press:, Tallinn, Estonia, 2224 July, 2009 
[5] 
Bakeer, T.: “Collapse Analysis of Masonry Structures 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 
[6] 
Bala, S.: “TieBreak Contacts in LSDYNA”. Livemore Software. USA 2007 
[7] 
Beattie, G.; Molyneaux, T.C.K.; Gilbert, M. & Burnett, S.: “Masonry Shear Strength under Impact Loading”. In: Proc. of the 9 ^{t}^{h} Canadian Masonry Symposium 
[8] 
Beattie, G.; Molyneaux, T.C.K.; Gilbert, M.; Hobbs, B.; Burnett, S. & Newton, P. & Gration, D.A.: 
“Improving the Impact Resistance of Masonry Parapets”. In: Proc. of LSDYNA Users’ Conference, LSTC: Paris, France 2001
ANSYS Conference & 27 ^{t}^{h} CADFEM Users’ Meeting 2009
November 1820, 2009 Congress Center Leipzig, Germany
14
[9] 
Brookes, C.L. & Mehrkarasl, S.: “Numerical Modelling of Reinforced Masonry to Enhance Seismic Resistance”. In: Proc. of the 1 ^{s}^{t} Conference on Strengthening and Retrofitting of Structures, University of AmirKabir: TehranIran 2002 

[10] 
Burnett, S.; Gilbert, M.; Molyneaux, T.; Beattie, G. & Hobbs, B.: “The Performance of Unreinforced Masonry Walls Subjected to LowVelocity Impacts”: Finite Element Analysis. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 34 (2007) 8, pp. 14331450 

[11] 
Ganz, H.R.: “Mauerwerkscheiben unter Normalkraft und Schub”. Dissertation, ETH Zürich, Institut für Baustatik und Konstruktion. Birkhäuser Verlag Basel: Zürich, Switzerland 1985 

[12] 
Iannucci, L.: “Dynamic delamination modelling using interface elements”. Computers & Structures, 84 (2006) 1, pp. 10291048 

[13] 
Jäger, W.; Nguyen, S.H.; Schöps, P.: “Konstruktive Maßnahmen zur Gewährleistung der Erdbebensicherheit im Mauerwerksbau”. Abschlußbericht, gefördert durch Bundesamt für Bauwesen und Raumordnung, 2005. 

[14] 
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. 

[15] 
Jiang, W.G.; Hallett, S.R. & Wisnom, M.R.: “Modelling of damage in composite materials using interface elements”. In: Proc. of the 5 ^{t}^{h} European LSDYNA Users Conference: Birmingham, UK 2005, pp. 5d55 

[16] 
Liu, G.R. & Gu, Y.T.: “An Introduction to Meshfree Methods and Their Programming”, Springer: 

Netherlands 2005 

[17] 
Liu, G.R.: “Mesh Free Methods, Moving beyond the Finite Element Method”, CRC press: USA 

2003 

[18] 
Lourenço, P.B.: “Computational Strategies for Masonry Structures”. PhDThesis, Delft University of Technology. Delft University Press: Delft, The Netherlands 1996 

[19] 
LSTC: 
“LSDYNA 
ver. 
971 
Keyword 
User's 
Manual”, 
Livemore Software Technology 
Corporation: California 2007 

[20] 
Mann, W. & Müller, H.: “Failure of ShearStressed Masonry an Enlarged Theory, Tests and Application to Shear Walls”. Proceedings of the British Ceramic Society, 30 (1982) 1, pp. 223 

235 

[21] 
Massart, T.J.: “Multiscale modeling of damage in masonry structures”. PhDThesis, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven: Eindhoven, The Netherlands 2003 

[22] 
Mistler, M.: “Verformungsbasiertes seismisches Bemessungskozept für Mauerwerksbauten. Dissertation”, Technischen Hochschule Aachen: Aechen, Deutschland 2006 

[23] 
Rots, J.G.: “Smeared and discrete representations of localized fracture”. International Journal of Fracture, 51 (1991) 1, pp. 4559 

[24] 
Schlegel, R.: “Numerische Berechnung von Mauerwerkstrukturen in homogenen und diskreten Modellierungsstrategien”. Dissertation, BauhausUniversität Weimar: Weimer 2004 

[25] 
Schöps, P.; Steinborn, Th. & Höveling, H.: “Schubtragfähigkeit von Mauerwerk aus Porenbeton Plansteinen und PorenbetonPlanelementen”. Forschungsbericht. Technische Universität Dresden, Fakultät Architektur, Lehrstuhl für Tragwerksplanung AIFNr.14642BG. 2009. 

[26] 
Stoll, V.: “The Main Cupola of the Dresden Frauenkirche”. 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. 169189 
ANSYS Conference & 27 ^{t}^{h} CADFEM Users’ Meeting 2009
November 1820, 2009 Congress Center Leipzig, Germany
15
Viel mehr als nur Dokumente.
Entdecken, was Scribd alles zu bieten hat, inklusive Bücher und Hörbücher von großen Verlagen.
Jederzeit kündbar.