Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The State University of New York at Buffalo (SUNY - Buffalo) on 08/08/19. Copyright ASCE.

For personal use only; all rights reserved.

INTERFACE MODEL APPLIED TO FRACTURE OF

MASONRY STRUCTURES

By Hamid R. Lotfi ~ and P. Benson Shing, 2 Members, ASCE

ABSTRACT: The failure of unreinforced masonry structures subjected to lateral

loads is dominated, to a large extent, by the fracture of mortar joints as well as
the cracking and crushingof masonry units. This can be simulatedby means of a
finite element approach in which the mortar joints are modeled with interface
elements and the masonryunits are modeled with smeared crack elements. To this
end, a dilatant interface constitutivemodel capable of simulatingthe initiationand
propagationof interfacefracture under combinednormaland shear stresses in both
tension-shear and compression-shear regions, and capable of simulating the ex-
perimentallyobserved dilatancywas developed in this study. The performance of
the interfacemodel in representingthe behavior of masonry mortar joints is eval-
uated with the availableexperimentalresults. Furthermore, the failure of unrein-
forced concrete masonry panels is analyzedwith the aforementionedapproach. It
is concluded that the numerical model is capable of predicting the response of a
masonry assemblage based on the response of its basic constituents.

INTRODUCTION

Unreinforced masonry structures constitute a large portion of existing

buildings around the world. Many of these structures are located in areas
of high seismic risk. However, it is important to be able to evaluate the
lateral load-carrying capability and ductility of these structures for design,
repair, and retrofit purposes,
The failure analysis of masonry structures has been based very much on
modeling techniques developed in concrete mechanics. For modern fully
grouted reinforced masonry, the influence of mortar joints on the mechan-
ical behavior of a masonry assemblage is generally insignificant. Conse-
quently, the smeared crack approach, which has been widely used to analyze
concrete structures, can be applied to the analysis of such masonry structures
(Lotfi and Shing 1991). O n the other hand, the behavior of unreinforced
masonry is a lot more complex than that of concrete. Although intact con-
crete may be assumed homogeneous and isotropic, the presence of mortar
joints makes unreinforced masonry composite, both heterogeneous and an-
isotropic.
In the finite-element analysis of unreinforced masonry structures, the
effect of mortar joints as the major source of weakness and material non-
linearity has been accounted for with different levels of refinement. The
least-refined approach is to consider a homogeneous material law for a
masonry composite, which takes into account the effect of mortar joints in
an average sense (Dhanasekar et al. 1985; Middleton et al. 1991). Although
the approach with this level of refinement is most suitable for the analysis

LRes. Assoc., Dept. of Civ., Envir., and Arch. Engrg., Univ. of Colorado, Boul-
der, CO 80309-0428.
2Assoc. Prof., Dept. of Civ., Envir., and Arch. Engrg., Univ. of Colorado, Boul-
der, CO.
Note. Discussion open until June 1, 1994. To extend the closing date one month,
a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager of Journals. The manuscript
for this paper was submitted for review and possible publication on September 8,
1992. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 120, No. 1,
January, 1994. 9 ISSN 0733-9445/94/0001-0063/$1.00 + $.15 per page. Paper
No. 4747.

63

J. Struct. Eng., 1994, 120(1): 63-80

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The State University of New York at Buffalo (SUNY - Buffalo) on 08/08/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

of large masonry structures, it is not adequate for detailed stress analysis

and for capturing the various failure mechanisms of masonry assemblages.
In the most refined approach, both the masonry units and the mortar
joints are discretized and modeled with continuum elements (Ali and Page
1988; Anand and Rahman 1990; Rots 1991). Any analysis with this level of
refinement is computationally intensive and is only suitable for simulating
the fracture behavior of small laboratory specimens.
In a less-refined approach, masonry units are modeled with continuum
elements, while mortar joints are modeled by means of interface elements.
Early attempts with this approach were made by Arya and Hegemier (1978)
and Page (1978) and more recently Rots (1991). Obviously, the approach
with this level of refinement is computationally intensive for the analysis of
large masonry structures, but it is certainly a valuable research tool and also
a viable alternative to the costly and often time-consuming laboratory ex-
periments. The aforementioned approach resembles the micromechanics
approach used in the failure simulation of particle composites (Zubelewicz
and Ba~ant 1987; Stankowski 1990; Yamaguchi and Chen 1991). From a
modeling point of view the aforementioned approach is similar to the dis-
crete element method, which was originally proposed by Cundall (1971) in
the area of rock mechanics. In the discrete element method, however, the
solution procedure is based on an explicit dynamic relaxation technique,
and special procedures are used for contact detection and contact force
evaluation.
In the current study, the aforementioned approach is adopted for simu-
lating the behavior and failure mechanisms of masonry assemblages based
on the behavior of the basic constituents. Since the fracture of mortar joints
usually dominates the behavior of unreinforced masonry structures sub-
jected to severe seismic loadings, proper modeling of the behavior of these
joints is most crucial. Hence, a constitutive model for dilatant interfaces
was developed. In the following sections, the formulation of the interface
model is explained, and the applicability of the interface model to mortar
joints is validated by experimental results. Furthermore, the interface model
is used, in conjunction with a smeared crack model, to simulate the behavior
of unreinforced concrete masonry panels. Results of these analyses are
presented and compared to experimental data, and the capabilities and
shortcomings of the model are discussed.

INTERFACE MODEL
Constitutive Relations
In this section, a constitutive model for dilatant interfaces is proposed.
The model is able to simulate the initiation and propagation of fracture
under combined normal and shear stresses in both tension-shear and
compression-shear regions. Furthermore, the model is able to capture the
joint dilatancy that is observed in experiments. The theory of plasticity,
which provides an appealing framework for incorporating the foregoing
characteristics, is adopted here.
The present plasticity-based model is one-dimensional, and is, thus, ap-
plicable to the plane stress, plane strain, and axisymmetric conditions. In
accordance with the theory of plasticity, the relative displacements between
the top and bottom faces of an interface can be decomposed into an elastic
part and a plastic part
d = d~ + dp ............................................... (1)

64

J. Struct. Eng., 1994, 120(1): 63-80

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The State University of New York at Buffalo (SUNY - Buffalo) on 08/08/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

in which d --- {d, dn}T, where d, and dn = relative tangential and normal
displacements, respectively. In this study, the elastic relative displacements
are governed by
o" = D~de . ................................................. (2)
in which a = {T or}r, w h e r e , and r = shear and normal stresses; and D e
= diag [ D , , D , , ] = a diagonal matrix of elastic interface parameters. Tensile
stress is considered positive. For cracks in concrete or unfilled cracks in
rocks, the elastic interface parameters serve as penalty parameters to enforce
the impenetrability constraint. For other types of interfaces that have a
finite thickness, such as mortar joints and filled rock joints, the matrix D e
is intended to model the actual elastic interface properties, which may de-
pend on the stress state as well as certain interna! variables. In the current
study, D ~ is assumed constant. By adopting the diagonal matrix DL no
elastic dilation is considered.

Yield Criterion
The Mohr-Coulomb yield criterion is perhaps the most commonly used
criterion for modeling rock joints, mortar joints, and other similar interfaces.
This criterion has often been combined with a tension-cutoff criterion to
allow tensile fracture. Linear (Plesha et al. 1989), parabolic (Stankowski
1990), and hyperbolic (Prat et al. 1991) yield criteria have already been
proposed for rock and concrete joints. A three-parameter hyperbolic yield
criterion that provides a smooth transition between the Mohr-Coulomb and
tension-cutoff yield criteria is proposed here. This is expressed as
q) = - _ s)2 + 2r( - s) : 0 ................... (3)

in which r = ( c 2 - ~ 2 s 2 ) / 2 s = radius of curvature of the yield surface at

the vertex of the hyperbola; s = tensile resistance; c = cohesion; and p~ =
slope of the asymptotes of the hyperbola, as shown in Fig. 1. The foregoing
criterion differs from the one proposed by Prat et al. (1991) in terms of
internal variables used in its formulation. The internal variables q = {s r
Ix}r control the evolution of the yield surface. As shown in Fig. 1, q0 = {So

F ~ ~ f [ Initial Yield Surface

F(er, qr) = 0 F( er, q0) = 0
FIG. 1. Hyperbolic Yield Criterion

65

J. Struct. Eng., 1994, 120(1): 63-80

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The State University of New York at Buffalo (SUNY - Buffalo) on 08/08/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

r o i~o}r denotes the internal variables for an intact interface and q~ = {0 r r

I~r}r denotes the residual values characterizing the final state of an interface.

Nonassociated Flow Rule

To avoid excessive plastic dilatancy, a nonassociated flow rule is proposed.
This is expressed as
Q(~r, q) = ~l'r2 + (r - rr)(cr - s) ............................. (4)
in which ~1 = a parameter that scales the dilatancy. The direction of plastic
relative displacements is governed by the flow rule as

= ~, ~ = J,m ............................................ (5)

c3~
in which ~ = plastic multiplier.
Experimental results on dilatant interfaces [e.g., see Amadei et al. (1989)]
indicate that the higher the compressive stress is, the smaller the dilataney.
In contrast to linear plastic potentials, the preceding plastic potential ac-
counts for this phenomenon. As illustrated in Fig. 2 for given values of
internal variables, as the compressive stress increases, the dilatancy angle
decreases. Furthermore, experimental results indicate that, for a given com-
pressiye stress, the rate of dilatancy decreases with increasing cumulative
relative tangential displacements [e.g., see Pande et al. (1990)]. The pre-
ceding plastic potential also accounts for this phenomenon. As Fig. 2 shows,
for a given value of compressive stress, as the yield surface approaches the
final yield surface, the dilatancy angle decreases and finally approaches zero.

Softening Rules
The evolution of the internal variables q is governed by a set of work-
softening rules. During plastic loading, the rate of plastic work can be
expressed as
~." = ~i/P + "r# ............................................. (6)
In this model, it is assumed that plastic loading in the tension-shear region
reduces the tensile strength s, while the shear strength generated by Ix and
r, which is loosely termed the frictional strength here, remains unchanged.
Furthermore, plastic loading in the compression-shear region reduces both

-....
1

urlace

Yi~l~ ' \i \ \
O'>
FIG. 2. Nonassociated Flow Rule

66
J. Struct. Eng., 1994, 120(1): 63-80
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The State University of New York at Buffalo (SUNY - Buffalo) on 08/08/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

1 o o T

FIG, 3. Residual Shear Strength

on+l~\ \NN~ cr >

FIG. 4. Generalized Midpoint Rule for Integration of Constitutive Relations

the tensile and frictional strength. For frictional-strength degradation, only

the portion of the plastic work associated with the shear stress is considered.
To incorporate the foregoing assumptions, intermediate work-softening var-
iables, K1, K2, and K3, are introduced. The tensile-strength degradation is
governed by K1 and K2, and the frictional-strength degradation is governed
by K3. These variables contain portions of the total plastic work, and are
expressed as
/c, = (~>d~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (7)
1(2 = [q" -- q'rl sign('r)]df ...................................... (8)
k3 = ('r~ - "r~2)sign(r)df . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (9)
67
J. Struct. Eng., 1994, 120(1): 63-80
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The State University of New York at Buffalo (SUNY - Buffalo) on 08/08/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

y, V

: 4

I
,7,
s
I
~-
2
, 6
&

3
4 (r=-I ~=0 ~=1
X,'U,

(a) (b)
FIG. 5. Isoparametric Interface Element: (a) Global Coordinate System; (b) Local
Coordinate System

TABLE I. Material Parameters for Brick Masonry Joints

D,,, D,, s ro r, a and 13
(psi/in.) (psi/in.) (psi) (psi) (psi) ixo tzr (in./Ib) -q
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
14,000 42,000 95 42 5 0.79 0.67 2 0.15
Note: 1 psi = 6.89 kPa; l psi/in. = 270. kPa/m; 1 in./lb = 5.71 m/kN.

in which ( ) = Macauley brackets [(x) = (x + Ixl)/2], F o r a given state,

"rrl corresponds to the shear capacity u n d e r a given normal stress when the
tensile strength is exhausted; %2 corresponds to the residual shear capacity
given by the final yield surface, as shown in Fig. 3. F o r the compression-
shear region, it follows from the yield criterion that
'I"21 ~--- ~b20 "2 - - 2r~r .......................................... (10)

r22 = 1*2r 2 - 2rrr .......................................... (11)

It is assumed that rr~ and %2 are zero in the tension-shear region. The
internal variables q are related to the i n t e r m e d i a t e variables through the
following expressions:

s = So 1 G} >- 0 ................................. (12)

r = rr + ( r o - rr)e -~K3 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (13)

P- = P-r + (W0 - ~ ) e -".3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (14)
in which G} and G}I can be considered as m o d e I and m o d e II fracture
energy; a n d s and [~ are two material p a r a m e t e r s that control the rate of
softening. The preceding softening rules guarantee that the a m o u n t of en-
ergy released in a m o d e I tension test and a m o d e II shear test are equal
to G} and G}x, respectively. T h e preceding sets of equations can be written
in a compact form as
= H(~r)dp ............................................... (15)
q = f(K) .................................................. (16)
68

J. Struct. Eng., 1994, 120(1): 63-80

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The State University of New York at Buffalo (SUNY - Buffalo) on 08/08/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

40.0

30.0
Experiment
Analysis ~ (a)

r
O~ 20.0
v

10.0
o
i
0.0
-10.0
-20.0

-30.0
-0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4
Relative Tangential Displacement (in,)

15.0 Experiment t (r = 194 psi (b)

Analysis 'L
10.0

O
50 l-f . . . . . . . . .

o.o

-5.0
..... ...... _--']
-10.0 i i
-0.6 -0.3 0.0 0.3 0.6

Relative Tangential Displacement (in,)

FIG. 6. Direct S h e a r T e s t s on Brick M a s o n r y B e d Joints: (a) cr = 6 2 7 psi (b) cr =
194 psi (1 in. = 25.4 m m ; 1 kip = 4.45 kN; 1 psi = 6.89 kPa)

in which K = {K1 K2 K3}T;and

P 0
It = / r - %1 sign(r) ((r)q
o/ ................................ (17)
/

L('rrl- %2)sign(r) o]
The tensile softening rule represented by (12) is adopted from Stankowski
(1990). However, in his interface model, a different yield criterion and flow rule
are used, and the only softening mechanism considered is the loss of tensile
strength s, which means that during plastic loading, the yield surface simply
translates in the (r-,r plane without changing shape. This limitation is removed
in the present model by incorporating additional softening mechanisms con-
tributed by the degradation of frictional properties represented by Ix and r.
69
J. Struct. Eng., 1994, 120(1): 63-80
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The State University of New York at Buffalo (SUNY - Buffalo) on 08/08/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

10.0 Experiment (r = 71 psi (c)

Analysis

v 5.0

0
I
0.0

I
-5.0
-0.8 -0.4 0.0 0.4 0.8

Relative Tangential Displacement (~)

....... Experiment__ ~ - - ~ - ~ '...

f ' ~~ . ~ (d)
v 0.04 --- >~,aly~~-- ,,=~l psi

~D

0
// ............ 2-" ~ -- 194 psi
-0.01

....... ~ = 627 psi

0
z
-0.06 I , I r
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6

Relative Tangential Displacement (ir~)

FIG. 6. Continued: (c) ~ = 71 psi; (d) Joint Dilatancy

Interface Tangent Stiffness

The loading and u n l o a d i n g satisfy the K u h n - T u c k e r c o n d i t i o n s

F -< 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (18a)

>- 0 .................................................... (18b)

rk = 0 .................................................. (18c)
In the case of plastic loading, t h e plastic m u l t i p l i e r k can be d e t e r m i n e d
from the consistency c o n d i t i o n (i.e., F = 0), which leads to
n r D ed
- nTDem _ pT t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (19)

where

70

J. Struct. Eng., 1994, 120(1): 63-80

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The State University of New York at Buffalo (SUNY - Buffalo) on 08/08/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

100.0
(a)
80.0
v
t~
60.0

40.0

O
z 20.0

0.0 , I

0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0, I0

Relative Normal D i s p l a c e m e n t (in,)

150.0
(b)

i00.0
r

r~

9Q) 50.0

0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4

Relative Tangential D i s p l a c e m e n t (in.)

FIG. 7. Mode I and Mode II Fracture of Brick Masonry Bed Joints: (a) Mode I; (b)
Mode II (1 in. = 25.4 ram; 1 psi = 6.89 kPa)

OF
n = - - . ................................................. (20a)
0(r

0F
p = -- . ................................................. (20b)
Oq

oq rim ............................................... (2Oc)

t = OK

Finally, (1), (2), (5), and (19) lead to the following rate equation:
6" = De'd ................................................. (21)
where the interface elastoplastic tangent stiffness D ep is expressed as
71

J. Struct. Eng., 1994, 120(1): 63-80

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The State University of New York at Buffalo (SUNY - Buffalo) on 08/08/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

q2
40.0
O

20.0 /
(D s

% 0.0

-20.0
\'\ ~ = 1.5
..... ~ = 0.15
o
-40.0 "'~- 77 = 0 015

E
0 -60.0 , I i l

0.00 0.i0 0.20 0,30 0.40

Relative Tangential Displacement (in,)

FIG. 8. Effect of Dilataney on Response of Confined Interface (1 in. = 25.4 mm;
1 kip = 4.45 kN)

D~mnrD ~
n ~ = D e .................................. (22)
nrDem - pr t

INTEGRATION OF CONSTITUTIVE RELATIONS

For finite load steps, the system of differential equations governing the
constitutive behavior of the interface have to be integrated numerically. In
the displacement-based finite element m e t h o d , the p r o b l e m at the integra-
tion level is strain-driven. Consequently, upon discretization in time, the
problem of integrating the rate constitutive relations can be stated as follows:
given ~r., q., and dn at time t = t., evaluate r = ~% + A(r. and qn+l
= q . + A q . for a prescribed value of d . + i = d . + Ad. at time t = t.+~
= t . + A t . . This can be carried out with an elastic p r e d i c t o r - p l a s t i c corrector
approach. If the trial (elastic) stress fie + 1 expressed as
or~+ 1 = ~ . + D e A d . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (23)
lies inside or on the yield surface, i.e., F(~r,~+ ~, q.) -< 0, the finite l o a d step
involves elastic loading or unloading, and (r~+l and qn are obviously the
solution at time t = t . + l . F o r the case of plastic loading [i.e., F(ff,~+l, qn)
> 0], the integration is p e r f o r m e d as follows. F r o m (1) and (2), one can
obtain
Aft. = DeAd,~ = De(Ad. - AdP.) ............................. (24)
A main difficulty arises in evaluation of the following integrals:
tn + At n fttn + Atn
AdP. =
~t n
dp d t =
n
km dt ........................... (25)

Aq. = q dt = k-- Hm dt = kt dt .......... (26)

a t. a t. OK .

72

J. Struct. Eng., 1994, 120(1): 63-80

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The State University of New York at Buffalo (SUNY - Buffalo) on 08/08/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

o-z

-,~/ -,o/
1
f;/ o" I
!l-
(a)

/ ,'L,.EA. / I';
/ //
%~ELASTOPLASTIC .~ ~"I N I T I A L YIELD
SURFACE

VONMIS~S~~''~'''~ F~,
FAILURESURFACEf

l (b)

--~2 --El
, I

Expon "~ I

Parabola ~,.

FIG. 9. Constitutive Model for Masonry Units: (a) Yield Criterion for Masonry
Units; (b) Uniaxial Behavior of Masonry Units

In this study, the generalized midpoint rule, proposed by Ortiz and Popov
(1985), is adopted for the integration of the preceding integrals. In this
method, the integrals are approximated by
Ade. = AXnm.§ ............................................ (27)
Aq. = AXnt. + 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (28)
in which 0 -- 0 --< 1. Consequently, for a given incremental relative dis-
placements Ad., the problem of integrating the system of differential equa-
tions governing the constitutive behavior is replaced by the solution of the
following system of nonlinear equations for O'n+l, qn+l, and AX.:
et.+~ = er.~+l - AX.D~m.+o ................................. (29)
q.+~ = q . + Ahntn+o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (30)
F((r.+~, qn+l) = 0 ......................................... (31)
where
73

J. Struct. Eng., 1994, 120(1): 63-80

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The State University of New York at Buffalo (SUNY - Buffalo) on 08/08/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

mmmmmmmmmmmlmmm
mmmmmm|
mmmmmmmmlmmm
mmmmmmmmmm

FIG. 10. Finite Element Mesh of Masonry Wall Panel

TABLE 2. Material Parameters for Concrete Masonry Joints

D,n Dtt s ro r, ~ and [3

Joint type (psi/in.) (psi/in.) (psi) (psi) (psi) IZo Ixr (in./Ib) ~q
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)
Bed joint 80,000 40,000 150 150 5 0.95 0.60 2 0.1
Head joint 80,000 40,000 75 75 5 0.75 0.45 2 0.2
Note: 1 psi = 6.89 kPa; 1 psi/in. = 270. kPa/m; 1 in./lb = 5.71 m/kN.

ran+0 : m(~ qn+o) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (32)

t,+0 = t(o'n+o, q,+o) ....................................... (33)
~r,+ o = (1 - 0)~rn + 04r,+1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (34)
qn+0 = (1 - - 0 ) q n "}- 0 q l , t + 1 .................................. (35)

In the case of plastic loading, if ~r, lies inside the loading surface at t = tn,
i.e., F(crn, q , ) < 0, the finite load step involves elastic loading and sub-
sequent plastic loading. In such a case, the step is subdivided so that the
contact or penetration stress 6"n expressed as

On = (1 - ~)(r, + ~o'e+l .................................... (36)

is first evaluated by using the condition that F(6r,, qn) = 0. T h e contact
stress @, is then used instead of (r, as the start of plastic loading, as illustrated
in Fig. 4.
With the preceding scheme, the forward E u l e r and backward E u l e r meth-
ods (closest-point project m e t h o d ) are recovered by setting 0 equal to 0 and
1, respectively. The accuracy and stability of the a d o p t e d integration al-
74

J. Struct. Eng., 1994, 120(1): 63-80

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The State University of New York at Buffalo (SUNY - Buffalo) on 08/08/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a)
40.0
v
37

o /(
.3
20.0 IIII
Experiment
Analyms

0.0 , I , I I

0.00 0.I0 0.20 0.30 0.40

Lateral Displacement (in.)

(b)
~" 40.0 /

o
ZlII
20.0
nt
Analysis

0.0 i I I I

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30

Lateral Displacement (in.)

FIG. 11. Load-Displacement Curves: (a) Concrete Masonry Panel under 59-kip
Normal Load; (b) Concrete Masonry Panel under 78-kip Normal Load (1 in. = 25.4
mm; 1 kip = 4.45 kN)

gorithm were addressed by Ortiz and Popov (1985). At each time t, + 1, the
foregoing system of nonlinear equations is solved for ~rn+ 1, q,, + 1, and Ahn,
iteratively. Details of a two-level iterative procedure for the solution of the
system of equations were outlined by Lotfi (1992).

JOINT ELEMENT F O R M U L A T I O N
Interface elements were first introduced in the area of concrete mechanics
by Ngo and Scordelis (1967), and in the area of rock mechanics by Goodman
et al. (1968), and have been used in a variety of problems ever since. The
presented constitutive model is implemented in four-node and six-node
75

J. Struct. Eng., 1994, 120(1): 63-80

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The State University of New York at Buffalo (SUNY - Buffalo) on 08/08/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

[ I l l I I l I I l I I I l I
IlIIIIIIIlIlII
IlIIIIIlIlIlII
IIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIlIIIIII
I[lIIIIIIIIIIlI
III IIIIIIIIIII
IIIlIlIIlIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIII
(a)
IIIIIII[IIIIIII
IIIlIIIlIIIIIII
IIIIIIIII IIIII
IIlIIlIlI[IIlII
IIIIIIIIIIIrIII
IIIIlIIIIIIIII
I l I I l I I I l I I I l I
IIlIlIIIlIIIII

IIlIIIlIIlIII I I I I I I I I i i I I
IlIIlIIlIIIlI I I I I I kl I
IlIIlIIlIIIII
IIIIlIIIIIIII i! I I I
I , I
I I
I ' !1

(,b)
IW~[~IIIIIIII I I 1 ~1 I

IlI$1IIIIIIII
II~II~IIl~II
IIIIl$IlI[III
IIlI~lI~IIlI
I|1 I

,
I

~ : I UIlII
~ I I I II
III n I I I I
I
:
I
i
I
IIIlIIllIIl~I I Ii,I : Z : l
IlIIII~IIIIII
IIIIIIIII~III
II!l I !
I n I I II I ~
I
I
I
I
I
(c)
IIIIIIII~LIII I Iw,l I I II
IIIIIII$III~I IIIn I I l !
IniimI~mII(;II I l I I II I
Immmmllmi[iii
IIIIIIIIIIIII
i I ,|! IIII
IIIIIII~III~I I I I I
IIIIlIIlIIlII
IIIIIIIIIIIII
I I I I I I I I IlIlIlIl I I I I I
I i,I I !i lI l I 1, kll
II

o Yielding 9 Crushing Failure

FIG. 12. Concrete Masonry Panel under 78-kip Normal Load: (a) Final Deformed
Mesh; (b) Final Crack Pattern in Masonry Units; (c) Final Yielding and Crushing
Patterns in Masonry Units (1 kip = 4.45 kN)

isoparametric interface elements, as shown in Fig. 5. Details of isoparametric

interface element formulations have been explained by Rots (1988), Schel-
lekens (1990), and Lotfi (1992), among others.

VERIFICATION STUDIES
Shear Behavior of Mortar Joints
The shear behavior of masonry mortar joints has been studied in various
laboratory experiments. A rather complete literature review of experimental
studies has been given by Guo (1991). In the following, the capability of
the proposed interface constitutive model in representing the behavior of
masonry mortar joints under different load conditions is validated by ex-
perimental results obtained by Amadei et al. (1989).
Data from three shear tests under different levels of normal stress are
generally required to calibrate the model. Furthermore, it is desirable to
have data from a mode I tension test and a mode II shear test to deduce
the values of G} and G}z. However, since neither pure tension nor pure
shear tests were conducted on mortar joints in the experimental study of
Amadei et al. (1989), the values of G} and G}~had to be obtained indirectly
in the calibration process. For the present shear tests, the assumption that
G} = 5GImin, .
and 6 }. I 10G}, where9 G l mf ,i n . : S2[2Dnn corresponds
=
.
to a
perfectly brittle tensile fracture, provided satisfactory numerical results,
76

J. Struct. Eng., 1994, 120(1): 63-80

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The State University of New York at Buffalo (SUNY - Buffalo) on 08/08/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Amadei et al. (1989) conducted direct shear tests using a servo-controlled

loading apparatus to examine the response of brick masonry bed joints under
monotonic and cyclic loadings. In each of these tests, the normal stress was
kept constant at a level ranging from 50 to 625 psi (0.34-4.31 MPa), and
up to four cycles of shear reversals were imposed under displacement con-
trol. Old and new bricks were used with low- and high-strength mortars.
The tests on new clay units with high-strength mortar conducted under three
different levels of compressive stress are simulated here. The values of the
material parameters used in the simulations are summarized in Table 1.
Since mortar joints have a finite thickness, the linear elastic stiffnesses of
a mortar joint can be estimated from the linear elastic properties of the
mortar, i.e., D,, = E/h, and D , = E/J2(1 + v)h], where E = Young's
modulus; v = Poisson's ratio; and h = thickness of the mortar joint. These
relations, which are based on the assumption of uniform stresses along the
interface, show that the elastic normal stiffness D,n of the joint is at least
twice the elastic shear stiffness D,. However, the elastic stiffnesses obtained
from the experimental results, shown in Table 1, do not conform to this
deduction. The area of the mortar joints in these experiments was 56.7 sq
in. (0.037 m2). The experimentally and numerically obtained shear l o a d -
relative tangential displacement curves are compared in Fig. 6(a-c). The
experimental and numerical dilatancy curves are shown in Fig. 6(d). As Fig.
6(d) shows, the higher the compressive stress, the smaller the dilatancy.
Furthermore, the rate of dilatancy decreases with increasing cumulative
relative tangential displacement. It is observed that the correlation of the
numerical and experimental results is very good. The predicted responses
under pure tension and pure shear loadings are shown in Fig. 7, which
indicate the capability of the model in representing the fracture under dif-
ferent deformation paths.
The significant influence of dilatancy on the deformability and strength of
an interface can be demonstrated by a simple numerical example. An interface
with the material properties identical to those shown in Table 1 is subjected
to shear deformations under a normal confinement. The stiffness of the elastic
boundary at the top and bottom of the joint is assumed to be 20 times the
elastic normal stiffness of the mortar joint. Initially, the normal stress on the
interface is zero; however, since the elastic boundary prevents the interface
from dilating freely, a significant compressive stress develops on the interface
during the application of relative tangential displacement. As Fig. 8 shows,
depending on the amount of dilatancy, controlled by the diltancy parameter
-q, the shear response can change from softening to hardening, and the shear
strength of the interface can change by an order of magnitude.

Unreinforced Concrete Masonry Panels

In the following, the response of unreinforced concrete masonry panels,
tested by Woodward and Rankine (1985) under different levels of normal
loads, is simulated.
A smeared crack model is used to simulate the compressive failure as
well as tensile fracture of the masonry units. For the unreinforced masonry
panels considered here, compressive fracture of masonry units is less sig-
nificant than the tensile fracture of masonry units and the fracture of mortar
joints. Consequently, a v o n Mises plasticity model with associated flow rule
and isotropic strain-hardening/softening is adopted to model the behavior
of uncracked masonry units. As shown in Fig. 9(a), the plasticity model is
combined with a Rankine tension-cutoff failure surface to signal the onset
77

J. Struct. Eng., 1994, 120(1): 63-80

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The State University of New York at Buffalo (SUNY - Buffalo) on 08/08/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

of cracking of the masonry units. Once the state of stress reaches the Rankine
failure surface, the unit is assumed to be cracked and, subsequently, a
rotating crack model is adopted to model the behavior of the cracked ma-
sonry unit. The uniaxial tensile and compressive behavior of the masonry
unit is shown in Fig. 9(b). Further features and details of the model have
been reported by Lotfi and Shing (1991).
Woodward and Rankine (1985) tested several unreinforced, ungrouted
hollow concrete-block masonry panels, with different types of units and
mortar, under different levels of normal loads. In these experiments, the
normal load was applied first and kept constant during the test. In-plane
lateral displacement was then applied at the top of the panel, with the top
of the panel restrained against rotation. The walls chosen for numerical
simulation were 64 in. (1.62 m) high and 64 in. (1.62 m) wide, and had a
net horizontal cross-sectional area of 246 sq in. (0.16 m2).
The finite element mesh is shown in Fig. 10. Four-node isoparametric
quadrilateral elements with 2 • 2 Gauss points are used to model the
masonry units. The material properties of the masonry units, modeled with
the rotating smeared crack model, were as follows: modulus of elasticity
Em = 5,000 ksi (34,450. MPa); Poisson's ratio v = 0.16; compressive yield
stress f0 = 1,000 psi (6.89 MPa); compressive strength f " = 2,000 psi (13.78
MPa); tensile strength f~ = 200 psi (1.38 MPa); ultimate compressive strain
e~ = 0.003; e2 = 0.004; and et, = 1,000 psi (6.89 MPa). Mortar joints are
modeled with four-node isoparametric interface elements with two Gauss
points. Although the effect of mortar joints on the behavior of these types
of panels is significant, relevant experiments on the mortar joints were not
conducted. Hence, based on the results of experiments on similar mortar
joints, the properties of the mortar joints in these experiments are speculated
on, as shown in Table 2.
The numerical and experimental results for walls subjected to 59-kip (262
kN) and 78-kip (347 kN) normal loads (walls 64HL240 and 64HL320 in the
aforementioned study) are compared in Figs. l l ( a and b). As shown in Fig.
11, apart from some discrepancy at the final stage of loading, the correlation
of the numerical and experimental load-displacement curves is good. One
cause of this discrepancy is a deficiency of the smeared crack model that
was discussed by Lotfi and Shing (1991). This deficiency influences the shear
resistance at the top and bottom compression toes of the wall. Another
cause of this discrepancy is the uncertainty in the speculated material pa-
rameters for the mortar joints. For the case with a 78-kip (347 kN) normal
load, the deformed mesh at the final stage of loading is shown in Fig. 12(a);
and the crack, yielding, and crushing patterns of masonry units are shown
in Fig. 12(b and c). As the load-displacement curves show, the unreinforced
panels have a brittle response. The sudden load drop in both the experiment
and the analysis is due to the sudden formation of the staircase-type failure
in the mortar joints. The sequence of damage of the mortar joints and the
masonry units in ttie analyses matches the experimental observations very
well. Since the behavior of the panels was dominated by the fracture of
mortar joints, analyses with different mesh refinements showed no mesh-
size sensitivity.

CONCLUSIONS
A constitutive model for dilatant interfaces was proposed. The consti-
tutive model is capable of simulating the initiation and propagation of frac-
ture under combined normal and shear stresses in both tension-shear and
78

J. Struct. Eng., 1994, 120(1): 63-80

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The State University of New York at Buffalo (SUNY - Buffalo) on 08/08/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

compression-shear regions. Furthermore, the proposed interface constitu-

tive model is able to model the experimentally observed dilatancy, which
can have a significant effect on the response of a confined interface. By
simulating some available experiments, it was shown that the interface con-
stitutive model can correctly predict the shear capacity as well as the amount
of dilatancy. Furthermore, a numerical approach using interface elements
to model masonry joints and smeared crack elements to model masonry
units was utilized to simulate the brittle failure of unreinforced concrete
masonry panels. The results of the analyses show that the numerical model
is capable not only of predicting the load-carrying capacity of a masonry
assemblage from the response of its basic constituents, but also providing
detailed information on the failure mode, ductility, and crack patterns,
which can be of much value in evaluating the seismic resistance of unrein-
forced masonry panels.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The study presented in this paper is supported by the National Science

Foundation under Grant Nos. BCS-8658100 and MSM-8914008; however,
opinions expressed in this paper are those of the writers and do not nec-
essarily represent those of the sponsor.

APPENDIX. REFERENCES
Ali, S. S., and Page, A. W. (1988). "Finite element model for masonry subjected
to concentrated loads." J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 114(8), 1761-1784.
Amadei, B., Sture, S., Saeb, S., and Atkinson, R. H. (1989). "An evaluation of
masonry joint shear strength in existing buildings." Rep., Dept. Civ., Envir., and
Arch. Engrg., University of Colorado, Boulder, Colo.
Anand, S. C., and Rahman, M. A. (1990). "Interface behavior in concrete block
mortar joints--a comparison of analytical and experimental results." Proc., 5th
North Am. Masonry Conf., University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Ill., 475-
486.
Arya, S. K., and Hegemier, G. A. (1978). "On nonlinear response prediction of
concrete masonry assemblies." Proc., North Am. Masonry Conf., Masonry So-
ciety, Boulder, Colo., 19.1-19.24.
Cundall, P. A. (1971). "A computer model for simulating progressive large-scale
movements in block rock systems." Proc., Int. Symp. Rock Fracture, Nancy, France,
II-8.
Dhanasekar, M., Kleeman, P. W., and Page, A. W. (1985). "Biaxial stress-strain
relations for brick masonry." J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 111(5), 1085-1100.
Goodman, R. E., Taylor, R. L., and Brekke, T. L. (1968). " A model for the
mechanics of jointed rock." J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., ASCE, 94(3), 637-659.
Guo, P. (1991). "Investigation and modeling of the mechanical properties of ma-
sonry," PhD thesis, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
Lotfi, H. R., and Shing, P. B. (1991). "An appraisal of smeared crack models for
masonry shear wall analysis." Computers and Struct., 41(3), 413-425.
Lotfi, H. R. (1992). "Finite element analysis of fracture of concrete and masonry
structures," PhD thesis, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colo.
Middleton, J., Pande, G. N., Liang, J. X., and Kralj, B. (1991). "Some recent
advances in computer methods in structural masonry." Computer methods in struc-
tural masonry, J. Middleton and G. N. Pande, eds., Books and Journals Inter-
national, Swansea, U.K., 1-21.
Ngo, D., and Scordelis, A. C. (1967). "Finite element analysis of reinforced concrete
beams." J. Am. Concrete Inst., 64(3), 152-163.
Ortiz, M., and Popov, E. P. (1985). "Accuracy and stability of integration algorithms
79

J. Struct. Eng., 1994, 120(1): 63-80

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The State University of New York at Buffalo (SUNY - Buffalo) on 08/08/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

for elasto-plastic constitutive relations." Int. J. Num. Meth. Engrg., 21, 1561-
1575.
Page, A. W. (1978). "Finite element model for masonry." J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE,
104(8), 1267-1285.
Pande, G. N., Beer, G., and Williams, J. R. (1990). Numerical methods in rock
mechanics. John Wiley and Sons Ltd., Chichester, England.
Plesha, M. E., Ballarini, R., and Parulekar, A. (1989). "Constitutive model and
finite element procedure for dilatant contact problems." J. Engrg. Mech., ASCE,
115(12), 2649-2668.
Prat, P. C., Carol, I., and Gettu, R. (1991). "Numerical analysis of mixed-mode
fracture of quasi-brittle materials using a multicrack constitutive model." Proc.,
Int. Conf. on Mixed-Mode Fracture and Fatigue, Chapman and Hall, Austria.
Rots, J. G. (1988). "Computational modeling of concrete fracture," PhD thesis,
Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands,
Rots, J. G. (199l). "Numerical simulation of cracking in structural masonry." HERON,
36(2), 49-63.
Schellekens, J. C. J. (1990). "Interface elements in finite element analysis," Rep.
No. 25-2-90-5-17, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.
Stankowski, T. (1990). "Numerical simulation of progressive failure in particle com-
posites," PhD thesis, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colo.
Woodward, K., and Rankin, F. (1985). "Influence of block and mortar strength on
shear resistance of concrete block masonry walls." Rep. No. NBSIR 85-3143, U.S.
Department of Commerce, Gaithersburg, Md.
Yamaguchi, E., and Chen, W. F. (1991). "Microcrack propagation study of concrete
under compression." J. Engrg. Mech., ASCE, 117(3), 653-673.
Zubelewicz, A., and Bazant, Z. P. (1987). "Interface modeling of fracture in ag-
gregate composites." J. Engrg. Mech., ASCE, 113(11), 1619-1629.

8O

J. Struct. Eng., 1994, 120(1): 63-80