Metamodeling-Assisted Numerical Homogenization

for Masonry and Cracked Structures

Georgios A. Drosopoulos 1; Konstantinos Giannis 2; Maria E. Stavroulaki 3;
and Georgios E. Stavroulakis 4

Abstract: In this article a numerical approach is proposed for the investigation of composite materials, like masonry. A number of sim-
ulations of a nonlinear, heterogeneous microstructure with gradually increasing loading, are considered. Average stress and stiffness are also
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tufts University on 06/13/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

derived. Then, this information is incorporated in databases, and a metamodel is created based on the data and used in an overall macroscopic
analysis. On the micro scale, a classical plasticity model for masonry or a unilateral contact law representing a potential crack are considered.
A satisfactory comparison between the proposed models and direct macroscopic models arises, indicating that the method can be used for an
initial, quick assessment of the failure of heterogeneous materials on the structural scale. Due to its simplicity, it can be applied even by using
commercial software for the creation of the databases. Thus, the creation of complex, sophisticated, nonlinear finite element codes may be
avoided within the framework of this approach. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)EM.1943-7889.0001500. © 2018 American Society of Civil
Engineers.

Introduction can be found in Zohdi and Wriggers (2008) and Theodossopoulos

A multiscale method related to the investigation of the structural
behavior of composite structures is presented in this work. First,
independent simulation of a microscopic representative volume
element (RVE) of the material is performed. Then, average infor-
mation is obtained and incorporated in a metamodel which repre-
sents the homogenized mechanical behavior at the macroscopic
level. The proposed method can be applied to masonry structures,
composite materials, cracked and damaged structures, etc.
Within the framework of numerical homogenization, first a unit
cell is analyzed and its average material properties are estimated.
Then, these average properties are considered for the estimation of
the parameters of the macroscopic material law (Luciano and Sacco
1998; Dascalu et al. 2008). Sacco (2009) proposed transformation
field analysis for the representation of the effective properties of
masonry by using the technique of superposition of the effects
and the finite element method. In Mercatoris et al. (2009) a closed-
form damage model at the mesoscopic level of masonry is used to
show that a structural scale localization criterion, based on the
acoustic tensor adapted to shell kinematics, allows the detection of
the structural scale localization. Limit analysis, quadratic program-
ming, and homogenization can also be combined (Milani 2011;
Milani et al. 2013a, b; Reccia et al. 2014) for the investigation of
masonry structures. Several aspects of numerical homogenization
1 for the estimation of the strain-energy potential in the whole macro-
Discipline of Civil Engineering, School of Engineering, Univ. of
KwaZulu-Natal, 4041 Durban, South Africa (corresponding author).
Email: DrosopoulosG@ukzn.ac.za
2
Institute for Particle Technology, Technical Univ. of Braunschweig,
Volkmaroder Str. 5, 38104 Braunschweig, Germany.
3
Faculty of Architecture, Applied Mechanics Laboratory, Technical
Univ. of Crete, GR-73100 Chania, Crete, Greece.
4
School of Production Engineering and Management, Institute of
Computational Mechanics and Optimization, Technical Univ. of Crete,
GR-73100 Chania, Crete, Greece.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on January 17, 2017; approved
on March 7, 2018; published online on June 13, 2018. Discussion period
open until November 13, 2018; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Engineering Me-
chanics, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9399.
and Sinha (2013).
Different nonlinearities can also be depicted in a multiscale com-
putational homogenization framework (Nguyen et al. 2011). In ad-
dition, both the macroscopic and the microscopic structure are
simultaneously solved, and the framework of a nested procedure
(Suquet 1985; Smit et al. 1998; Feyel 1999; Miehe et al. 1999;
Kouznetsova 2002; Miehe and Koch 2002; Massart et al. 2007b;
Drosopoulos et al. 2014b; Massart et al. 2007a; Verhoosel et al.
2010; Coenen et al. 2012; Drosopoulos et al. 2014a) is incorpo-
rated. A macro-micro-macro computational homogenization for in-
elastic materials has been proposed in Tsalis et al. (2013) and
Chatzigeorgiou et al. (2016). The main concept related to computa-
tional homogenization is the fact that the macroscopic material law
is built numerically, during simulation; the microscopic problem
is solved and its average properties are sent to the macro scale.
By this procedure (which is often called FE2 ), complex microscopic
patterns can be considered, incorporating every nonlinear law.
The idea of deriving the macroscopic material properties of
heterogeneous materials by using interpolation to average quan-
tities obtained by independent microscopic simulations has been
presented in several articles. In Yvonnet et al. (2009) the effective
strain-energy potential of nonlinear elastic heterogeneous materials
is computed in a number of points (nodes) which discretize the
macroscopic strain space. Then, an interpolation method is used
scopic strain space, and the effective stress–strain relation and the
tangent stiffness are directly calculated. In Clément et al. (2012), a
database is used to describe the strain energy density (potential)
function in both the macroscopic strain space and the geometrical
random parameters domain. Finite element analysis on an elemen-
tary cell whose geometry is given by random parameters is used for
the determination of the potential function. A continuous explicit
form of the potential, which stands for the evaluation of the macro-
scopic stress and elastic tangent tensors during the macroscopic
structural analysis, is estimated by introducing an interpolation
scheme. Artificial neural networks (ANN) have been used in Unger
and Könke (2008) in order to link the mesoscopic and the macro-
scopic scale. The mesoscale model is approximated by an ANN,

© ASCE 04018072-1 J. Eng. Mech.

J. Eng. Mech., 2018, 144(8): 04018072

 which in turn has been trained from a certain number of experi-
ments. Then, the constitutive relation in the macroscopic scale is
derived by using a homogenization technique.
Within the framework of the present article, some parameters
are incorporated in microscopic finite element models to describe
the loading of each structure. For each loading, average material
properties are calculated. Then, this information is stored in two
databases. For each strain load, an average stress is assigned (first
database) as well as an average stiffness (second database). Accord-
ing to the final step of the method, an interpolation algorithm is
adopted in MATLAB for the usage of the databases by a homog-
enization (macro) metamodel. This final model works in an FE2
framework.
Several microstructures with different material laws can be si-
mulated by the proposed scheme. In this article, one elastoplastic
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tufts University on 06/13/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
masonry structure and one rectangular structure with a crack, which
is simulated by unilateral contact, have been used.
Finally, among the goals of this work is the proposition of
a simple numerical scheme which can be used for the initial assess-
ment of heterogeneous structures. The proposed approach can
be implemented by commercial software or simple MATLAB
codes. Sophisticated localization phenomena are not taken into
account; however, the extension of the method to cover these issues
(e.g., Katz et al. 2015) will be the subject of future work.
Proposed Multiscale Numerical Approach
Multiscale computational homogenization states that two problems
are formulated (Smit et al. 1998; Kouznetsova 2002): (1) a macro-
scopic problem, and (2) a microscopic problem. In each Gauss
point of a macroscopic model, a microscopic structure (RVE) is
assigned. Every material law related to the structure is considered
at this microscopic level.
The principle which theoretically supports this method is the
Hill-Mandel energy condition (Hill 1963):
Z
1 macroscopic models. These are developed within commercial
σ M :δϵM ¼ σ m :δϵm dV m
Vm Vm
This energy principle is satisfied when the three most common
types of loading conditions (among others) are applied to the
boundaries of the microstructure (RVE): (1) prescribed linear dis-
placements, (2) prescribed tractions, and (3) periodic boundary
conditions. Both linear displacement and periodic boundary con-
ditions have been selected for this work.
In particular, each RVE is loaded by a strain, the strain of each
macroscopic Gauss point, and a finite element analysis takes pla-
ces. When convergence is reached, the average material properties
are calculated, average stress and (tangent) stiffness. These proper-
ties are then used by the macro Gauss point (Fig. 1). According to
this procedure, the constitutive behavior is built during simulation.
Fig. 1. Schematic representation of the multiscale, concurrent, compu-
tational homogenization.
© ASCE
J. Eng. Mech., 2018, 144(8): 04018072
The idea which is presented in this article, is related to the usage
of databases (instead of RVE simulations) to depict the microscopic
behavior for the chosen structure. These are built, initially, by con-
ducting parametric microscopic analyses. For each strain load, an
average stress and (tangent) stiffness is assigned in each database,
respectively. These stand for the material properties that will be
used by the macroscopic structure in a next step.
Outline of the Method
The proposed procedure is described by the following steps:
1. The finite element model of the nonlinear RVE is developed.
Two different microscopic constitutive laws are chosen in this
study, one representing a masonry RVE with a proper elasto-
plastic law, and another depicting a two-dimensional plate
with unilateral contact standing for a potential crack. COMSOL
Multiphysics version 3.4 and MATLAB have been used, respec-
tively, for the analysis of the former and the latter models.
2. A strain load vector, with dimensions 3 × 1 in the plane stress
conditions used, is applied to the RVE by using either linear
displacement or periodic boundary conditions. Three indepen-
dent parameters are then adopted for the representation of
each possible strain vector load case. Variation of these para-
meters leads to a (significant) number of different loading strain
combinations.
3. Following Step 2, average RVE stresses and strains are derived.
4. Three test incremental loading strain vectors are used and
Steps 2 and 3 are repeated. Then, by developing the incremental
stress–strain relation, the instantaneous, average tangent tensor
is obtained from each analysis.
5. Two databases are derived. Within the first, each strain is
assigned an average stress, and in the second, each strain is as-
signed a (tangent) stiffness. A multiscale homogenization mod-
el, which uses these databases, is then developed in MATLAB.
Within this metamodel, the required quantity is interpolated
from the databases.
6. The results obtained are compared with direct heterogeneous
ð1Þ finite element packages and used to verify the proposed
method.
Micro to Macro Relations and the Averaging Procedure
The macroscopic stress of the final macroscopic metamodel will be
the average stress estimated in the first database. Moreover, the
macroscopic tangent stiffness matrix will be built based on the ef-
fective tangent tensor, obtained by the second database.
For the first phase of the presented concept, a strain loading is
applied to the boundaries of the RVE, within the framework of lin-
ear displacement or periodic boundary conditions. The former con-
ditions are given by Eq. (2):
uj∂V m ¼ ϵM x ð2Þ
where a loading strain ϵM is applied as displacement loading to the
boundaries ∂V m of the RVE; and x denotes the matrix with the
undeformed coordinates of the boundary nodes of the RVE.
Eq. (2) is further elaborated and Eq. (3) is derived:
ux ¼ ϵxx x þ 0.5γ xy y ð3aÞ
uy ¼ ϵyy y þ 0.5γ xy x ð3bÞ
where ux and uy = displacement (boundary) loading along the X
and Y axes; and ϵxx , ϵyy , and γ xy = terms for the loading strain tensor
04018072-2 J. Eng. Mech.
 (plane stress conditions). For linear displacement boundary condi-
tions, the displacement loading is applied at each boundary node of
the RVE; therefore, x and y are the (undeformed) coordinates of
each boundary node.
Periodic boundary conditions require periodic displacements, as
well as antiperiodic tractions, in the opposite boundaries of the
RVE. In this framework, the displacements of the opposite boun-
daries of the RVE are given by the following equations:
uT − uB ¼ u4 − u1 ð4aÞ
uL − uR ¼ u1 − u2 ð4bÞ
where the displacements in the top, bottom, left, and right boun-
daries are estimated by using the prescribed displacements of three
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tufts University on 06/13/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
corner nodes of the RVE, namely 1, 2, and 4, given by Eq. (2).
For the simplest case of a single rectangular (four-node)
element, with dimensions Lx , Ly and origin of the coordinate sys-
tem at the bottom-left node, the strain loading of the four corner
nodes (Nodes 1–4 defined anticlockwise) is described by the fol-
lowing equations:
u1x ¼ 0; u1y ¼ 0 ð5aÞ
u2x ¼ ϵxx Lx ; u2y ¼ 0.5γ xy Lx ð5bÞ
u3x ¼ ϵxx Lx þ 0.5γ xy Ly ; u3y ¼ ϵyy Ly þ 0.5γ xy Lx ð5cÞ
u4x ¼ 0.5γ xy Ly ; u4y ¼ ϵyy Ly ð5dÞ
As previously mentioned, three independent parameters are
used in the COMSOL finite element package for the representation
of each possible strain vector. To capture all the possible strain vec-
tors that the macroscopic structure may potentially encounter at
every location in the analysis space, some limiting (maximum
and minimum) values for the components of the loading strain
are defined. Then, a great number of RVE simulations takes place
within these limits, with every possible combination between strain
components. To define these limit values, one may consult the
stress–strain behavior of the chosen material given in the literature
(and find yield strain, ultimate strain, etc.) or run a simple, linear
analysis problem of the macroscopic structure.
After each strain load is applied to the boundaries of the RVE,
the average strain and stress are obtained by implementing averag-
ing relations:
Z Z
1 1
<ϵ>V m ¼ ϵm dV m ; < σ>V m ¼ σ m dV m ð6Þ
Vm Vm V m Vm
The volume average strain of the microstructure is equal to the
(known) load strain vector:
<ϵ>V m ¼ ϵM ð7Þ
For the model, developed in MATLAB, of a two-dimensional
plate with the unilateral contact and periodic boundary conditions
applied to the RVE, the following relation for the average stress is
adopted (Kouznetsova 2002; Miehe and Koch 2002):
1 It is worth noticing that the alternative of simulating the direct
< σ>V m ¼ f x ¼ σM ð8Þ
Vm p p
where fp = external forces in three corner nodes (of the RVE) with
prescribed displacements; and xp = undeformed coordinates of
these nodes.
© ASCE 04018072-3
J. Eng. Mech., 2018, 144(8): 04018072
To obtain the stiffness of the overall macroscopic model, the
same procedure is repeated. Thus, for every strain load combination
which is considered in each microscopic analysis, three test, incre-
mental strain vectors are additionally applied to the RVE [Eq. (9a)],
resulting in three incremental average stress vectors [Eq. (9b)].
Then, the instantaneous, effective tangent tensor is estimated by
using the system of equations given in Eq. (9c). This is used for
the creation of the macroscopic tangent stiffness matrix
½δϵM  ¼ ½ δϵM
1 δϵM
2 3 
δϵM ð9aÞ
½δσ M  ¼ ½ δσ M
1 δσ M
2 3 
δσ M ð9bÞ
½δσ M  ¼ CM ½δϵM  ⇒ CM ¼ ½δσ M ½δϵM −1 ð9cÞ
In plane stress problems, the tangent tensor CM is a 3 × 3 tensor,
while δϵM 1 , δϵ2 , δϵ3 , δσ 1 , δσ 2 , and δσ 3 are 3 × 1 tensors; thus,
M M M M M
δϵ and δσ are both 3 × 3 tensors.
M M
To use the microstructure databases on the macroscopic model,
the data included in each database (taken from COMSOL) are
saved in spreadsheet files. Each file has 6 columns, representing
each of the (three) strain components and the corresponding (three)
stress components. On each line, one strain load combination and
the corresponding stress components derived from the parametric
(strain) loading are depicted. These files are then used by the
overall multiscale scheme to build the stress and the stiffness
corresponding to each Gauss point. In a preliminary step, Eq. (9)
is implemented and the strain–tangent stiffness database is built.
Then, in the final multiscale homogenization analysis, the strain–
stress and strain–tangent stiffness databases are used to provide the
stress and the tangent stiffness within the framework of the non-
linear finite element analysis.
It should be mentioned that according to the description given
here, on the microscopic scale only the averaging relations are used
for the estimation of the necessary information for the final meta-
model (stress and stiffness). Thus, no manipulation of the final tan-
gent stiffness matrix of the RVE is needed for the representation of
the average stress–strain law, contrary to classical computational
homogenization (Kouznetsova 2002; Drosopoulos et al. 2014b).
This makes the implementation of the proposed scheme possible
even by using a commercial software package, provided that vol-
ume average quantities can be calculated and a simple finite
element metamodel incorporating relation (9c) can be developed.
Regarding the computational effort which is required for the im-
plementation of the proposed method, it is mainly significant for
the creation of the databases. It depends on specific parameters
of the microscopic model—mainly the density of the mesh—as
well as the number of loading strain vector combinations. There-
fore, it can vary from several minutes to several hours. In order to
consider 9,000 strain loading combinations and a mesh with 1,767
nodes (3,534 degrees of freedom), COMSOL 3.4 was used and ap-
proximately 15 h were needed for a quad-core processor for the
creation of each database. For the solution of each elastoplastic
model, the Newton-Raphson procedure was used. For the second,
final phase, where the databases are used on a structural level, the
computational time is relatively small (depending on the mesh den-
sity of the macro structure). Only some minutes were needed for the
simulations presented in this article.
heterogeneous macroscopic model, taking into account the stone
blocks and mortar of masonry structures, results in large numerical
models requiring significant computational effort to be solved. This
is attributed to the fact that in order to simulate the small thickness
of the mortar, the larger thickness of the stone, and extend for the
J. Eng. Mech.
 Fig. 2. Multiscale homogenization scheme.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tufts University on 06/13/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
overall masonry structure, a fairly dense mesh (consisting of thou-
sands of elements and nodes) is required. On the contrary, within
the framework of the proposed scheme, the final multiscale model
consists of a small number of elements.
Fig. 3. Flow chart of the proposed multiscale scheme.
Fig. 4. (a) Geometry of the masonry RVE (in millimeters); and (b) mesh of the RVE.
© ASCE 04018072-4
J. Eng. Mech., 2018, 144(8): 04018072
Overall Macroscopic Metamodel
The final macroscopic metamodel proposed in this work is shown
schematically in Fig. 2. A finite element model representing the
macroscopic structure is developed in MATLAB. Plane stress
analysis, with first order, full integration elements, has been se-
lected within the framework of the Newton-Rapshon procedure.
For each strain, a stress and an instantaneous tangent tensor should
be selected from the databases.
In particular, the nonlinear macroscopic equation is given by
Kðui Þδuiþ1 ¼ −Gðui Þ ð10Þ
where K = tangent stiffness matrix; and G = residual force vector,
given by
Z
Gðui Þ ¼ BT σðui ÞdV − F ð11Þ
V
To build the tangent stiffness matrix K and the internal force
vector given by the integral of Eq. (11), the two databases obtained
from the microstructural analysis are used; the strain to stress data-
base is used to create the internal force vector, and the strain to
stiffness database is used to create the tangent stiffness matrix.
The flow chart shown in Fig. 3 depicts the overall multiscale
scheme.
To obtain these quantities from the databases, an interpolation
technique should be used. According to the method chosen here, a
scattered dataset, defined by locations X and corresponding values
Y, is interpolated using a Delaunay triangulation of X. By doing
this, a surface which has the form Y ¼ fðXÞ is built. Then, the in-
terpolation function f is used for the evaluation of the surface at any
query location qX, using qY ¼ fðqXÞ, where qX lies within the
convex hull of X. In this work, a MATLAB toolbox is used for
the implementation of this interpolation [MATLAB R2010a
(MATLAB 2010)]; however other approaches could be considered,
such as Neural Networks (Lefik 2004).
J. Eng. Mech.
 × 10-5
0.1
0.09
0.08
0.07
10
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0 0.01
(a) (b) 0

Fig. 5. Plastic strain distribution in the RVE, for gradually increased strain loading, from (a) to (b).
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tufts University on 06/13/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Numerical Examples
Simulation of Masonry Structures
The microscopic masonry structure (RVE) shown in Fig. 4 is made
of bricks and mortar joints. In this work, only the nonlinear
behavior of the mortar has been considered. For this, a Drucker-
Prager material law has been chosen (Drucker 1954; COMSOL
Multiphysics 2007).
For this model, a total of 1,680 four-node, quadrilateral, isopara-
metric plane stress elements (1,767 nodes) and an out-of-plane thick-
ness of 70 mm were used (Fig. 4). The properties of the materials
were (Lourenço and Pina-Henriques 2006): for bricks Eb ¼
4865 N=mm2 , nb ¼ 0.09; and for mortar Em ¼ 1180 N=mm2,
nm ¼ 0.06. The tensile and compressive strength of the mortar, were
0.9 and 3.2 N=mm2 , respectively.
Fig. 5 shows failure of the mortar joint in the RVE as the loading
strain is gradually increased. This behavior, which is obtained after

−1

−2
(a) (b)

-1

(c)

Fig. 6. (a) Masonry wall (in meters); (b) maximum principle stresses from the proposed approach (MPa); and (c) maximum principle stresses from the
direct macroscopic simulation (MPa).

© ASCE 04018072-5 J. Eng. Mech.

J. Eng. Mech., 2018, 144(8): 04018072

 The element type and material properties within the DNS model
were the same as those taken into account in the RVE.
A first example, a rectangular masonry wall, was examined. The
dimensions, displacement loading, and boundary conditions for
this structure are shown in Fig. 6(a). For this DNS analysis, a total
of 40,768 four-node, quadrilateral, isoparametric plane stress ele-
ments (41,173 nodes) were used. A significantly smaller number of
elements were used for the macroscopic model of the proposed
multiscale scheme; thus, 400 elements (441 nodes) were considered
for this model.
In Figs. 6(b and c) the maximum principle stress distribution
from the proposed homogenization scheme [Fig. 6(b)] and the
DNS model [Fig. 6(c)] is given. According to these figures, a sim-
ilar distribution for the maximum principle stress arises from the
Fig. 7. Force-displacement diagrams from both the multiscale and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tufts University on 06/13/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

DNS approaches.
RVE analysis, is projected on the macroscopic scale by use of the
databases, within the final macroscopic metamodel.
A direct heterogeneous model was created (within commercial
finite element software) and direct numerical simulation (DNS)
was used for the verification of the method presented in this work.
two approaches.
A comparison between the force-displacement diagrams ob-
tained from both the DNS and the multiscale models is given in
Fig. 7. Based on this figure, it can be stated that the recommended
approach can be used as a tool for a first evaluation of a composite
structure.
A second example of a masonry structure with two openings
was then examined. The dimensions, displacement loading, and
boundary conditions for this structure are shown in Fig. 8(a).

0.5

–0.5

(a) (b)

1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
–0.5
–1.0
–1.5

(c)

Fig. 8. (a) Masonry wall with two openings (in meters); (b) maximum principle stresses from the proposed approach (MPa); and (c) maximum
principle stresses from the direct macroscopic simulation (MPa).

© ASCE 04018072-6 J. Eng. Mech.

J. Eng. Mech., 2018, 144(8): 04018072

 A dense mesh of 103,805 four-node, quadrilateral, isoparametric
plane stress elements (104,825 nodes) was used for the DNS analy-
sis. The macroscopic multiscale mesh consists of 539 elements
(612 nodes).
In Figs. 8(b and c) the maximum principle stress distribution
from the proposed homogenization scheme [Fig. 8(b)] and the
DNS model [Fig. 8(c)] is given. Although some differences
arose, mainly in peak negative stresses, the results are qualita-
tively comparable in depicting values with similar orders of
magnitude.
Finally, the stress contour received from the two models is given
in Fig. 9. According to this figure, a sufficient comparison arises
for the stress distribution and the limit stress values. Some differ-
ences, which are observed in the Sxx values, can be attributed to
some peaks that appear in the corners of the windows in the direct
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tufts University on 06/13/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
heterogeneous model. These peak values of stresses, which are
depicted by the very dense mesh of the direct heterogeneous model,
cannot be depicted by the homogenization scheme. However,
the differences only appear in very small areas of the structure
(e.g., near the corners of the windows). For the same reason, some
positive values for the Sxy stresses, obtained from the direct hetero-
geneous model [Fig. 9(c)], are not captured by the multiscale model
[Fig. 9(f)]. The contour of Sxy stresses shown in Fig. 9(c) indicates
that these positive values represent only small areas of the wall
(the authors can recognize four small areas, two near the top edge
and two below the bottom window, with a value approximately
equal to 0.09 MPa).
Fig. 9. Stresses Sxx , Syy , and Sxy (MPa) obtained (a–c) from the direct macroscopic model; and (d–f) from the proposed homogenization approach
(last time step).
© ASCE 04018072-7
J. Eng. Mech., 2018, 144(8): 04018072
Simulation of Material with Uniform Distributed
Microcracks
In this section, the proposed multiscale computational homogeni-
zation scheme was applied to a different material, a microstructure
with a preexisting, open crack [Figs. 10(b and c)]. Between the
faces of the crack, a unilateral contact condition without friction
was introduced. This law induced the only nonlinearity of the
model.
When only tensile loading is applied to the macroscopic struc-
ture [Fig. 10(a)], the microcrack tends to open and the analysis is
linear, since for a nonpropagating crack no further change in the
stiffness of the structure takes place. On the contrary, for a com-
pressive load case, the analysis becomes nonlinear due to the differ-
ent stiffnesses of the system, before and after the appearance of
contact in the RVE. Thus, when contact occurs, the stiffness of
the structure is increased.
The material properties used in this problem were taken from
the literature and can be considered similar to a ceramic material:
E ¼ 328,389 N=mm2 , n ¼ 0.229. Figs. 10(b and c) show the di-
mensions of the microscopic structure (RVE) and the mesh,
consisting of 412 four-node, isoparametric plane stress elements
(462 nodes). Periodic boundary conditions were used for the load-
ing of the microstructure. For the parametric microscopic simula-
tions, a MATLAB finite element code was developed.
Fig. 10(a) shows the dimensions, the (tensile) loading, and the
boundary conditions of the macrostructure. For the multiscale
J. Eng. Mech.
 (a) (b) (c)

Fig. 10. (a) Macroscopic structure (in millimeters); (b) RVE (in millimeters) with an initial opening (preexisting crack); and (c) mesh of the RVE.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tufts University on 06/13/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

−3
x 10
9

0
(a) (b)

Fig. 11. Vertical displacements (in meters) obtained from (a) the proposed multiscale approach; and (b) the direct macroscopic simulation with tensile
macroscopic load.

−4
x 10
0

−2

−4

−6

−8

−10

(a) (b)

Fig. 12. (a) Nonlinear force-displacement diagram from the overall multiscale scheme and the direct macroscopic simulation; and (b) vertical
displacements (in meters) of an RVE at the end of analysis.

analysis, 100 first order, plane stress elements (121 nodes) were
selected. Identical characteristics were adopted in the direct
numerical simulation of the macroscopic heterogeneous structure.
The mesh of this model consisted of 41,200 elements (42,411
nodes).
According to the results shown in Fig. 11, a quite similar vertical
displacement distribution was generated by the two numerical
schemes.
When a compressive load is applied to the macroscopic struc-
ture, either no contact or contact conditions appear in the RVE.

© ASCE 04018072-8 J. Eng. Mech.

J. Eng. Mech., 2018, 144(8): 04018072

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tufts University on 06/13/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 13. Vertical displacements (in meters) obtained from (a) the proposed multiscale approach; and (b) the direct macroscopic simulation with
compressive load.
When the gap closes and contact occurs, a higher value in the y
direction of the effective tangent tensor is expected. In this case,
the effective tangent tensor is similar to the initial elasticity tensor
of the structure.
An augmented Lagrangian formulation has been used to simu-
late contact conditions in the microscopic analysis (Drosopoulos
et al. 2014b).
According to the diagrams shown in Fig. 12(a), the expected
nonlinearity due to the difference in the stiffness before and
after contact occurrence can be successfully depicted. At the end
of the analysis, the gap is closed and a contact state on the micro-
scopic level is received [Fig. 12(b)]. The depicted change in the
contact/no-contact state shown in this work also characterizes
more complicated microscopic structures with potential periodic
microcracks—for instance, composite materials [matrix-fiber and
its interface, simulated within a classical FE2 approach without
databases in Drosopoulos et al. (2014b)].
It is worth noticing that a step-by-step increasing of the loading
allows for gradual activation of contact along the crack faces and
clear observation of the nonlinear effects shown in Fig. 12(a).
Finally, Figs. 12(a) and 13 show the comparison between the
multiscale homogenization scheme and the direct heterogeneous
model for a compressive load case.
Conclusions
In this work a multiscale approach is proposed for the investigation
of the behavior of heterogeneous structures. According to the main
concept, two databases, which include information for the average
stress–stiffness of a macroscopic structure, replace each RVE sim-
ulation that normally takes place within the framework of an FE2
analysis. To build the databases some independent parametric mi-
croscopic analyses are initially considered. An overall metamodel,
which uses the databases to build the constitutive behavior, is then
developed. Comparison with direct numerical heterogeneous mod-
els has been used to verify the proposed approach.
The proposed scheme can be implemented even by commercial
software, since only the averaging relations in the microscopic
scale are necessary for the macroscopic model (stress and stiffness).
No manipulation of the final tangent stiffness matrix of the RVE is
needed, contrary to classical computational homogenization
(Kouznetsova 2002). Therefore, this method offers an alternative
way of estimating the structural evaluation of heterogeneous
© ASCE 04018072-9
J. Eng. Mech., 2018, 144(8): 04018072
structures (masonry) or structures with cracks by using commercial
software and/or simplified MATLAB codes in the form of interpo-
lation from a database of results coming from suitable models, in-
stead of sophisticated models, which need specialized knowledge
in computational mechanics (to be formulated) and advanced pro-
gramming capabilities (to be implemented).
In addition, although the authors did simulate a problem close to
real cases—a two-story masonry wall with windows—it should be
stated that this approach can be used in even bigger structures, pro-
vided that one uses a commercial finite element analysis package
for conducting parametric analyses for building the databases, and
a finite element package or a simple MATLAB code for using the
databases. There are commercial finite element packages which can
easily incorporate the parameters related to materials, loading, etc.
(e.g., ANSYS or COMSOL). Modern approaches, like parallel sol-
ution by several computer cores, usage of clusters, etc., could be
used to reduce computational effort, which is mainly required for
the creation of the databases.
Complex phenomena, such as localization, cannot yet be inves-
tigated with this approach. Consequently, it can be considered as an
initial tool for the assessment of the mechanical behavior of hetero-
geneous structures.
The proposed multiscale algorithm has been used on masonry
structures as well as on materials with a microscopic open crack.
In the former model, degradation of strength due to failure in the
mortar is depicted. In the latter, alterations in the stiffness of the
macroscopic system, due to changes in the contact conditions of
the open microcrack, are given.
Possible future work could incorporate the study of localization,
thus softening traction-separation laws describing the (unstable)
behavior of materials. Moreover, a cyclic (rather than monotonic)
loading could be considered to further extend the applicability of
the proposed scheme. Thais would involve the consideration of
both loading and unloading during the creation of the databases.
References
Chatzigeorgiou, G., N. Charalambakis, Y. Chemiski, and F. Meraghni.
2016. “Periodic homogenization for fully coupled thermomechanical
modeling of dissipative generalized standard materials.” Int. J. Plast.
81: 18–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijplas.2016.01.013.
Clément, A., C. Soize, and J. Yvonnet. 2012. “Computational nonlinear
stochastic homogenization using a nonconcurrent multiscale approach
J. Eng. Mech.
 for hyperelastic heterogeneous microstructures analysis.” Int. J. Numer.
Methods Eng. 91 (8): 799–824. https://doi.org/10.1002/nme.4293.
Coenen, E. W. C., V. G. Kouznetsova, E. Bosco, and M. G. D. Geers. 2012.
“A multi-scale approach to bridge microscale damage and macroscale
failure: A nested computational homogenization-localization frame-
work.” Int. J. Fract. 178 (1–2): 157–178. https://doi.org/10.1007
/s10704-012-9765-4.
COMSOL Multiphysics. 2007. User’s guide. Stockholm Sweden: COM-
SOL AB.
Dascalu, C., G. Bilbie, and E. K. Agiasofitou. 2008. “Damage and size
effects in elastic solids: A homogenization approach.” Int. J. Solids
Struct. 45 (2): 409–430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2007.08.025.
Drosopoulos, G. A., M. E. Stavroulaki, K. Giannis, L. Plymakis, G. E.
Stavroulakis, and P. Wriggers. 2014a. “Nonlinear homogenization in
masonry structures.” In Proc., WCCM XI-ECCM V-ECFD VI., edited
by E. Oñate, X. Oliver, and A. E. Huerta, 6795–6806. Barcelona, Spain:
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tufts University on 06/13/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
International Center for Numerical Methods in Engineering.
Drosopoulos, G. A., P. Wriggers, and G. E. Stavroulakis. 2014b. “A multi-
scale computational method including contact for the analysis of dam-
age in composite materials.” Comput. Mater. Sci. 95: 522–535. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.commatsci.2014.08.004.
Drucker, D. C. 1954. “Coulomb friction, plasticity and limit loads.” J. Appl.
Mech. 21: 71–74.
Feyel, F. 1999. “Multiscale FE2 elastoviscoplastic analysis of composite
structures.” Comput. Mater. Sci. 16 (1–4): 344–354. https://doi.org/10
.1016/S0927-0256(99)00077-4.
Hill, R. 1963. “Elastic properties of reinforced solids: Some theoretical
principles.” J. Mech. Phys. Solids 11 (5): 357–372. https://doi.org/10
.1016/0022-5096(63)90036-X.
Katz, A., C. Trinh, J. Wright, W. Tu, and M.-J. Pindera. 2015. “Plastic-
strain localization in periodic materials with wavy brick-and-mortar ar-
chitectures and its effect on the homogenized response.” Compos.
Part B Eng. 68: 270–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2014
.08.037.
Kouznetsova, V. 2002. “Computational homogenization for the multi-
scale analysis of multi-phase materials.” Ph.D. thesis, Technical Univ.
Eindhoven.
Lefik, M. 2004. “Hybrid, finite element-artificial neural network model for
composite materials.” J. Theor. Appl. Mech. 42 (3): 539–563.
Lourenço, P. B., and J. Pina-Henriques. 2006. “Validation of analytical and
continuum numerical methods for estimating the compressive strength
of masonry.” Comput. Struct. 84 (29–30): 1977–1989. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.compstruc.2006.08.009.
Luciano, R., and E. Sacco. 1998. “A damage model for masonry struc-
tures.” Eur. J. Mech. A/Solids 17 (2): 285–303. https://doi.org/10
.1016/S0997-7538(98)80087-9.
Massart, T. J., R. H. J. Peerlings, and M. G. D. Geers. 2007a. “An enhanced
multi-scale approach for masonry wall computations with localization
of damage.” Int. J. Numer Methods Eng. 69 (5): 1022–1059. https://doi
.org/10.1002/nme.1799.
Massart, T. J., R. H. J. Peerlings, and M. G. D. Geers. 2007b. “Structural
damage analysis of masonry walls using computational homogeniza-
tion.” Int. J. Damage Mech. 16 (2): 199–226. https://doi.org/10.1177
/1056789506064943.
MATLAB R2010a. 2010. User’s guide. Natick, Massachusetts: MathWorks.
Mercatoris, B. C. N., P. Bouillard, and T. J. Massart. 2009. “Multi-scale
detection of failure in planar masonry thin shells using computational
homogenisation.” Eng. Fract. Mech. 76 (4): 479–499. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.engfracmech.2008.10.003.
© ASCE 04018072-10
J. Eng. Mech., 2018, 144(8): 04018072
Miehe, C., and A. Koch. 2002. “Computational micro-to-macro transitions
of discretized microstructures undergoing small strains.” Archit. Appl.
Mech. 72 (4–5): 300–317. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00419-002-0212-2.
Miehe, C., J. Schröder, and J. Schotte. 1999. “Computational homogeni-
zation analysis in finite plasticity simulation of texture development
in polycrystalline materials.” Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng.
171 (3–4): 387–418. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0045-7825(98)00218-7.
Milani, G. 2011. “Simple lower bound limit analysis homogenization
model for in- and out-of-plane loaded masonry walls.” Constr. Build.
Mater. 25 (12): 4426–4443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011
.01.012.
Milani, G., Y. W. Esquivel, P. B. Lourenço, B. Riveiro, and D. V. Oliveira.
2013a. “Characterization of the response of quasi-periodic masonry:
Geometrical investigation, homogenization and application to the
Guimarães castle Portugal.” Eng. Struct. 56: 621–641. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.engstruct.2013.05.040.
Milani, G., M. Pizzolato, and A. Tralli. 2013b. “Simple numerical model
with second order effects for out-of-plane loaded masonry walls.” Eng.
Struct. 48: 98–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.08.029.
Nguyen, V. P., M. Stroeven, and L. J. Sluys. 2011. “Multiscale continuous
and discontinuous modeling of heterogeneous materials: A review on
recent developments.” J. Multiscale Model 3 (4): 1–42. https://doi.org
/10.1142/S1756973711000509.
Reccia, E., G. Milani, A. Cecchi, and A. Tralli. 2014. “Full 3D homogeni-
zation approach to investigate the behavior of masonry arch bridges:
The Venice trans-lagoon railway bridge.” Constr. Build. Mater.
66: 567–586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.05.096.
Sacco, E. 2009. “A nonlinear homogenization procedure for periodic ma-
sonry.” Eur. J. Mech. A/Solids 28 (2): 209–222. https://doi.org/10.1016
/j.euromechsol.2008.06.005.
Smit, R., W. Brekelmans, and H. Meijer. 1998. “Prediction of the mechani-
cal behavior of non-linear heterogeneous systems by multi-level finite
element modeling.” Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 155 (1–2):
181–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0045-7825(97)00139-4.
Suquet, P. M. 1985. Local and global aspects in the mathematical theory
of plasticity. Plasticity today: Modelling, methods and applications.
London: Elsevier.
Theodossopoulos, D., and B. Sinha. 2013. “A review of analytical methods
in the current design processes and assessment of performance of ma-
sonry structures.” Constr. Build. Mater. 41: 990–1001. https://doi.org
/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.07.095.
Tsalis, D., T. Baxevanis, G. Chatzigeorgiou, and N. Charalambakis. 2013.
“Homogenization of elastoplastic composites with generalized perio-
dicity in the microstructure.” Int. J. Plast. 51: 161–187. https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.ijplas.2013.05.006.
Unger, J. F., and C. Könke. 2008. “Coupling of scales in a multiscale sim-
ulation using neural networks.” Comput. Struct. 86 (21–22):
1994–2003. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruc.2008.05.004.
Verhoosel, C. V., J. J. C. Remmers, M. A. Gutiérrez, and R. de Borst. 2010.
“Computational homogenization for adhesive and cohesive failure
in quasi-brittle solids.” Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. 83 (8–9):
1155–1179. https://doi.org/10.1002/nme.2854.
Yvonnet, J., D. Gonzalez, and Q.-C. He. 2009. “Numerically explicit po-
tentials for the homogenization of nonlinear elastic heterogeneous ma-
terials.” Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 198 (33–36): 2723–2737.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2009.03.017.
Zohdi, T. I., and P. Wriggers. 2008. An introduction to computational mi-
cromechanics. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
J. Eng. Mech.