Congresso de Métodos Numéricos em Engenharia

1-3 julho 2019, Guimarães, Portugal

Universidade do Minho

NUMERICAL APPROACH: FEM TESTING OF MASONRY

SPECIMENS WITH DIFFERENT BOND CONFIGURATIONS OF
UNITS
Bledian Nela1 and Florim Grajçevci 2

1: Department of Civil Engineering

Faculty of Civil Engineering and Architecture, University of Prishtina “Hasan Prishtina”
e-mail: bledian.nela@uni-pr.edu

2: Department of Civil Engineering

Faculty of Civil Engineering and Architecture, University of Prishtina “Hasan Prishtina”
e-mail: florim.grajcevci@uni-pr.edu

Keywords: masonry, micro-modelling, bond configuration, FEM

Abstract. Masonry presents a heterogenous material and therefore many challenges. Since
there are many bond techniques for masonry constructions, their behavior is not the same.
Major differences can be observed from different bond configurations of units in masonry
constructions. The experimental determination of mechanical properties of all possibilities
presented by various bond configurations of masonry constructions is quite challenging,
expensive and time demanding. An easier and faster approach is the numerical modelling of
the masonry test specimens with different configurations and tested through finite element
methods.

A series of specimens are utilized to compare the differences between the different bond
configurations of units in the masonry. Each specimen consists of a different bond configuration
of units of the same material, to exclude any other parameters affecting the behavior of the
specimen other than the configuration type. The specimens are micro-modelled in ABAQUS
and afterwards tested in compression in different angles. The modelling of units follows the
CDP (Concrete Damaged Plasticity) model in ABAQUS which is appropriate for quasi brittle
materials. Damage parameters output shows the different cracking patterns of the specimens
and represents the reduction in elastic modulus of the model. Different mechanical properties
and performances are obtained from every specimen tested. This shows the crucial importance
of the bond configuration on the overall behavior of masonry constructions.
 Bledian Nela and Florim Grajçevci

1. INTRODUCTION
Masonry is one of the oldest building materials that is still used in modern constructions.
Masonry consists of units and mortar which can be from different materials and with various
mechanical properties. Furthermore, the combination in configuration of these constituent
materials results in an intricate and diverse construction material. This categorizes masonry as
a heterogenous material with different properties in all directions, namely anisotropic. Since it
is a very old construction material, the existing buildings with masonry as a construction
material are very diverse in many aspects. Masonry constructions differ in terms of mechanical
parameters, laying and configuration of the units, various materials for the constituents and
more importantly not standardization of these diversities. Many rules for designing and
constructing masonry were from intuition and experience. This increases the challenges when
assessing existing masonry buildings. The large differences in this material cannot be
categorized easily and with assurance. Furthermore, modelling strategies for masonry are only
recently developed as a tool for assessing and designing masonry constructions. The numerical
models to perform linear or nonlinear analysis can be built utilizing the numerical methods such
as finite element method (FEM), discrete element method (DEM), limit analysis or even applied
element method (AEM). For this paper the finite element method is used to conduct the testing.
The experimental testing of masonry specimens is quite time demanding, very expensive and
requires considerable effort. Additionally, considering the amount of possibilities presented by
different masonry assemblages, a large number of testing is required to cover that domain.
Especially in the region of Balkans and thus in Kosovo, a considerable number of existing
buildings are built with masonry. These buildings present a very large diversity in terms of bond
configurations, mechanical parameters, materials, construction methods and so on. For the time
being, there is no standard of national annex on assessing existing buildings. The need for
assessment is increasing, since as presented by [1] this region is very seismic and very
vulnerable. To account for all the diversities and to make physical experiments and testing is
quite challenging for the amount of work and cost compared to the economy of the region.
Alternatives are required to develop methods of assessment and categorization of various
masonry constructions. Numerical methods nowadays are relatively accurate and provide with
very good results compared to experiments [2].
The numerical modeling strategies of masonry are mainly divided into micro-modeling and
macro-modeling or even into diagonal strut models for different purposes which are out of the
scope of this paper. Micro-modeling and macro-modeling strategies are developed according
to the level of accuracy and detail necessary. These strategies are described by [3] and can be
seen in FIG. The micro-modeling approach can be a detailed micro-modeling Figure 1(a) or a
simplified micro-modeling Figure 1(b). In the detailed micro-modeling approach unit and
mortar are represented separately as continuum elements with respective mechanical
parameters. The unit-mortar interface is represented as a potential crack or slip plane with
discontinuous elements. The geometry of the constituents in this case remains unchanged. On
the other hand, in the simplified micro-modeling strategy only the units are represented by
continuum elements with certain mechanical parameters. Whereas the mortar and the unit-
mortar interface are lumped into the joints as a discontinuous element as a potential plane of
slip or crack. In this case the geometry of the units is changed, where the units are expanded to
2
 Bledian Nela and Florim Grajçevci

keep the overall geometry of the model intact. In the detailed micro-model the accuracy is
higher than in the simplified micro-model, since in the latter strategy the Poisson’s effect is
excluded. This results in the exclusion of the triaxial behavior of the mortar which induces
tensile forces in the units. The macro-modeling approach Figure 1(c), masonry is considered as
a homogenous material which is obtained through the technique of homogenization. The units,
mortar and the unit-mortar interface are all averaged into a single continuum with no distinction
in-between. This strategy can be utilized to build bigger models where the global behavior of
the structure is of interest rather than local.

(a) (b)

(c)

Figure 1 - Modeling Strategies for Masonry; (a) detailed micro-modeling; (b) simplified micro-modeling;
(c) macro-modeling [3]

For this paper a simplified micro-modeling approach has been utilized to model the three-
dimensional behavior of masonry specimens. The specimens are subjected to uniaxial
compression and diagonal test through a displacement-controlled analysis. The displacement is
applied in the vertical direction for the uniaxial test and the diagonal one for the diagonal test.
The model is built with solids and interaction surfaces in the commercial software Abaqus
utilizing the finite element modeling (FEM) analysis. For the units a concrete damaged
plasticity model (CDP) is used to represent their behavior, which is developed within Abaqus
and can be used to model concrete and other quasi-brittle materials [4], such as masonry units
in this case. For the lumped mortar and mortar-unit interface is utilized a surface-based cohesive
interaction property. This interaction model provides a way of modeling cohesive connections
with negligible thickness interfaces by using the traction-separation constitutive model.
3
 Bledian Nela and Florim Grajçevci

2. CONCRETE DAMAGED PLASTICITY (CDP) MODEL

The concrete damaged plasticity model in Abaqus uses isotropic damaged elasticity in
combination with isotropic tensile and compressive plasticity to represent the inelastic
behavior of concrete and other quasi-brittle materials [4]. [2] validated the CDP numerical
model with experiments, utilizing a simplified micro-model of masonry. The results
presented a very similar behavior for the axial compression test, diagonal tension test and
bed joint shear test. The CDP model assumes that the two main failure mechanisms are the
tensile cracking and the compressive crushing of the material (Figure 2).

(a)

(b)

Figure 2 – (a) Tension softening behavior; (b) Compression hardening behavior; [4]

2.1. Tensile behavior

The function governing the tensile behavior is characterized with a softening curve. The
softening function in CDP can be determined by the degradation of elastic modulus (E0).
This post-failure behavior is obtained from the post-failure stress as a function of cracking

4
 Bledian Nela and Florim Grajçevci

strain 𝜀tck . The cracking strain is defined as the total strain (𝜀t ) minus the elastic strain,
el
where the elastic strain 𝜀0t corresponds to the undamaged material as expressed in equation
(1). Inputting the damage parameter in tension (dt ), a degradation of stiffness can be
obtained to present the cracking of the material in tension. The damage parameter in tension
has values ranging from 0 (no degradation) up to 1 (full degradation).
el el
𝜀tck = 𝜀t − 𝜀0t , where 𝜀0t = 𝜎t ⁄E0 (1)

Nevertheless, for tensile behavior an alternative can be the fracture energy (GF ) to define
the loss of strength after cracking (Figure 3). This model presents a linear loss of strength
after cracking which is defined from inputting the fracture energy data. The cracking
displacement (ut0 ) which determines the complete loss of strength for the material is
obtained from the fracture energy and the tensile strength of the material (𝜎t ). Index “t”
refers to tension.

Figure 3 – Post-failure fracture energy curve [4]

2.2. Compressive behavior

The compressive hardening behavior for the CDP model can be expressed by the
compressive stress data as a function of crushing strain (𝜀cin ). The compressive crushing
el
strain is defined as the total strain (𝜀c ) minus the elastic strain (𝜀oc ), where the elastic strain
corresponds to the undamaged material (equation 2). Inputting the damage parameter in
compression (dc), a degradation of stiffness can be obtained to present the crushing of the
material in compression.
el el
𝜀cin = 𝜀c − 𝜀0c ; where 𝜀0c = 𝜎c ⁄E0 (2)

The damage parameter in compression has values ranging from 0 (no degradation) up to 1
(full degradation). In Abaqus the inelastic strain is automatically converted to plastic strain
pl
(𝜀c ) with the relationship presented in equation (3), which can also be followed in Figure 2
(b). Index “c” refers to compression.
pl dc 𝜎c
𝜀c = 𝜀cin - (3)
(1-dc ) E0

5
 Bledian Nela and Florim Grajçevci

3. SURFACE BASED COHESIVE MODEL FOR THE JOINTS

The modeling of joints is represented by interaction surfaces with cohesive behavior which
is implemented in Abaqus. The formulation that governs the cohesive model is based on the
linear elastic traction-separation behavior followed by an initiation and evolution of
damage.
Traction-separation behavior relates the normal and shear separations across the interfaces
before the initiation of damage. This behavior is expressed in the form of an elastic stiffness
matrix (K), which relates the traction forces (t) to the separation vectors (𝛿) according to
the stiffness components. This formulation is shown in equation (4).
tn K nn 0 0
̅t = { t s } = [ 0 K ss ̿ 𝛿̅
0 ]=K (4)
tt 0 0 K tt

The indexes “n”, “s” and “t” correspond to the normal and shear in two principal directions,
respectively. The single bar accent in equation (4) represents the vectors, while the double
bar accent represents matrix. The equivalent stiffness components for the unit-mortar
interface in the joined interface can be expressed as a function of elastic modulus or shear
modulus of the constituents and the thickness of mortar presented in equation (5) and (6)
[3]. The indexes “m” and “u” in the following equation represent mortar and unit,
respectively.
Eu Em
K nn = (5)
hm (Eu -Em )
Gu Gm
K ss = K tt = (6)
hm (Gu -Gm )
For the damage initiation and evolution, the quadratic stress criterion is used. The adoption
of this criterion is due to the effectivity to predict the damage initiation when joints are
subjected to mixed-mode loadings [5]. This criterion is met when the quadratic stress ratios
of the masonry joints reach a value of 1. This criterion in Abaqus is expressed as in the
equation (7).
2 2
〈t n 〉 ts 2 tt (7)
( max ) + ( max ) + ( max ) = 1
tn ts tt
The tensile cracking of the joints is determined by the tensile strength of the joints and
compressive stress is excluded (indicated by the angle brackets). Critical shear stress of the
joints is governed by the Mohr-Coulomb failure criteria.
The damage evolution can be based on energy or separation. For this paper energy-based
evolution of damage is used which is defined by the Benzeggagh-Kenane (BK) formulation
implemented in Abaqus and presented in equation (8).

6
 Bledian Nela and Florim Grajçevci

Gshear 𝜂 (8)
GIC + (GIIC -GIC ) ( ) = GTC
GT
The exponent 𝜂 presents the behavior of the joint, which can be put to 2 for a brittle
behavior. The Gshear is the addition of the mode II and III fracture energies of the joint and
GT is the addition of Gshear with mode I fracture energy. A graphical representation of the
cohesive behavior of the joints is shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4 – Traction-separation model for the joints [4]

The degradation of stiffness in the model often leads to major convergence problems. To
overcome these difficulties a viscous regularization is used for this paper to help with the
convergence.

4. MATERIAL INPUT DATA FOR THE MODEL

4.1. Unit and Mortar properties

The masonry specimens are all modeled with the same material data to avoid any other
influences other than the bond configuration of units in the behavior of the specimen. The
units are made of clay brick bonded together by a cementitious mortar. The properties for
both the unit and the mortar are retrieved from experimental tests on clay bricks, mortar
cubes and masonry prims performed by [6]. From the experimental data performed on four
types of clay bricks with a total of 40 specimens. Mean values are used for this paper, shown
in Table 1. The mean elastic modulus for the bricks obtained from the tests is approximately
about 300 times the compressive strength of the unit. [6] conducted tests on 27 specimens
of mortar cubes of three different types, namely weak, intermediate and strong mortar. For
this paper the values of the intermediate mortar are used and presented in Table 1. This
mortar consists of a 1:0.5:4.5 (cement:lime:sand by volume) ratio. The elastic modulus for
this mortar is obtained around 220 times the compressive strength of mortar. The shear
modulus for mortar and units is computed as 40% of the elastic modulus recommended by
[7]. Tensile strength of mortar and unit is obtained as 10% of the compressive strength [8]
[9].

7
 Bledian Nela and Florim Grajçevci

Table 1 - Mechanical parameters for the unit and the mortar

Material fc ft E G Poisson’s ratio
[MPa] [MPa] [GPa] [GPa] [-]
Unit 20 2 6.1 2.44 0.15
Mortar 15 1.5 3.3 1.32 0.2

Since the mortar is lumped in the joints, an adjusted elastic modulus is used to have an
equivalent elastic response of the masonry assemblage. The formulation proposed by [5] is
shown in equation (9), where n is the number of courses in the masonry, H is the total height
of the specimen and h u and hm are height of unit and mortar, respectively.
H Eu Em
Eadj = (9)
n hu Em + (n - 1) hm Eu

With this formulation an adjusted elastic modulus of 5.14 [GPa] is obtained. The fracture
energy of the unit and the mortar are computed according to Model Code 90 [10], which
are proposed for the concrete material. For values of compressive strength between 12 up
to 80 [MPa] the expression in equation (10) is given. On the other hand, for the tensile
strength the ductility index (du), which is the ratio between fracture energy and the tensile
strength, ranges between 0.018 and 0.040 [mm] [8]. An average value for the du is taken as
0.029 [mm]. The obtained parameters are presented in the Table 2 below.
GC = 15 + 0.43fc - 0.0036 fc2 (10)

Table 2 – Fracture parameters for the unit and the mortar

Material dc du GC GF
[mm] [mm] [N/mm] [N/mm]
Unit 0.8 0.029 22 0.05
Mortar 1.3 0.029 20 0.04

4.2. Compressive and tensile behavior

The compressive behavior of the unit is formulated as a stress-strain curve to input in Abaqus
for the CDP model. The compressive curve is built according to the proposed curve from [6],
which takes into account the unit and the mortar. The curve ascends following a parabolic
variation between stress and strain until the peak which corresponds to the point which the
material reaches compressive strength (fm ') and the corresponding strain (𝜀m '). The parabolic
curve continues descending until 0.9 fm ' and thereafter follows a linear descending line until
0.2 fm ' for the stress and a corresponding strain of 2.75 𝜀m ' for mortars containing lime and a
value of. The parabolic curve is given in terms of stress ratio and strain ratio, shown in equation
(11). The peak strain (𝜀m ') corresponding to compressive strength (fm '), is given as a function
of the mortar strength used (fj ), shown in equation (12).

8
 Bledian Nela and Florim Grajçevci

fm 𝜀m 𝜀m 2
'
= 2 '
- ( '
) (11)
fm 𝜀m 𝜀m
'
'
0.27 fm
𝜀m = 0.7
(12)
fj0.25 Eadj
The stress-strain curve for the compressive behavior is shown in Figure 5. The tensile behavior
is input in the energy-based form. The yield stress of for the unit is input 2.0 [MPa], which is
the tensile strength of the unit and the corresponding fracture energy 0.05 [N/mm] from Table
2.

Figure 5 – Stress-strain curve for the unit

Damage parameters (dc) in compression are obtained directly from the stress-strain curve. The
plastic strain in the CDP model is described in equation (3) and the inelastic strain in equation
(2). The ratio of plastic strain to the inelastic strain is taken as 0.9 as suggested by [11].
Therefore, in the equation (3) remains only one unknown, which is the damage parameter in
compression. For the damage parameter in tension (dt) is used the displacement formulation.
From Figure 3 is obtained the cracking displacement which corresponds to a total loss of tensile
strength. The final damage displacement is obtained from the addition of cracking displacement
to the elastic displacement.
The plasticity parameters for the CDP model include also the definition of some other
parameters such as the dilation angle (𝜓), eccentricity, ratio of initial equibiaxial to the uniaxial
compressive yield stress (fb0 ⁄fc0), a value for the ratio of the second stress invariant on the
tensile meridian (K) and the viscosity parameter (𝜇) for the regularization of the constitutive
equations. The tangent of the dilation angle according to [12] ranges from 0.2 to 0.7 and a value
of 15° is used. The other parameters are recommended by [4] and are presented in Table 3.

9
 Bledian Nela and Florim Grajçevci

Table 3 – Concrete damaged plasticity parameters

Dilation angle Eccentricity 𝒇𝒃𝟎 ⁄𝒇𝒄𝟎 K Viscosity parameter
𝝍 𝝁
15 0.1 1.16 0.67 0.001

4.3. Interface properties

The linear elastic properties of the surface which include the stiffness components in the
traction-separation stiffness matrix are computed according to equation (5) and (6). The mortar
thickness is assumed to be 20 [mm] and the elastic properties of the constituents are given in
Table 1. This interface property is assigned as an interaction surface between the two
consequent units as a surface-to-surface contact interaction. The obtained stiffness parameters
are shown in Table 4.

Table 4 – Stiffness matrix components for the cohesive behavior

Normal direction Shear-1 direction Shear-2 direction
𝑲𝒏𝒏 [N/mm³] 𝑲𝒔𝒔 [N/mm³] 𝑲𝒕𝒕 [N/mm³]
359.46 143.78 143.78

The damage initiation for this paper is formulated conform the quadratic stress criterion which
is defined from the contact stresses in the interface. The normal contact for this criterion is
defined from the tensile strength of the bond which according to [3] ranges from 0.3 up to 0.9
[MPa]. The mode I fracture energy which responds to this normal behavior ranges from 0.005
up to 0.02 [N/mm]. The shear tractions are directly related to the cohesion parameter (c) for
zero confining stress or also known as the initial shear strength. Values for the shear tractions
range from 0.1 up to 1.8 [MPa] and the mode II and III fracture energy thereafter ranges from
0.01 to 0.25 [N/mm]. Since the mortar is of high strength, upper bound values are used for this
paper and shown in Table 5. For the damage evolution a Benzeggagh-Kenane formulation,
which is energy-based and has a linear softening.
Table 5 – Damage parameters for the cohesive behavior
Damage initiation Damage evolution
tnmax tsmax max
tt GFI GFII GFII
[N/mm²] [N/mm²] [N/mm²] [N/mm] [N/mm] [N/mm]
0.8 1.0 1.0 0.02 0.2 0.2

Sensitivity analysis performed by [5] show that a viscosity parameter of 0.002 provides a stable
analysis and avoids convergence problems. Furthermore, it provides with enough accuracy
considering the computational time required.

5. FINITE ELEMENT MODELING AND RESULTS

The modeling od the masonry specimens follows a simplified micro-modeling strategy. The
units are modeled with 3D hexahedral solid elements with eight nodes (C3D8R). The interfaces
10
 Bledian Nela and Florim Grajçevci

are surface-based cohesive interaction surfaces which are applied at the surfaces of the solid
elements. A hard-contact behavior is assigned to the interaction in order to not have
interpenetration of units and not transfer tensile stresses in between them. Three masonry
specimens are tested in uniaxial and diagonal compression. The three specimens have different
bond configurations, namely stretcher, English and stacked bond (Figure 6). The basic unit has
a length of 240 mm, a width of 120 mm and a height of 6 mm. 7 courses of units are used to
build the specimens with a total height of 420 mm. The length is kept the same for all the
specimens as two full units resulting in a width of 480 mm. This results in a ratio of 1:0.9
(length:height) for the specimens.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 6 – Bond configurations of the three specimens; (a) Stretcher bond; (b) English bond; (c) Stacked
bond

The load is a linear increase of displacements applied on the surface of rigid elastic solids used
to distribute the stresses to the top of masonry and avoid localized damages. These elastic solids
are connected to the specimens by a tie constraint. As boundary conditions, at the bottom of the
masonry specimens are restricted the translations for the uniaxial compression test (left column
in Figure 7). For the diagonal compression test the boundary conditions are applied on the rigid
solid in the right bottom corner of the specimen, where translations are restricted (middle
column in Figure 7). The mesh size for the solids is chosen as 20 mm which provides with 12
x 6 x 3 elements for a full unit (right column in Figure 7).

(a)

11
 Bledian Nela and Florim Grajçevci

(b)

(c)

Figure 7 – Uniaxial test boundary conditions (left column), diagonal test boundary conditions (middle
column) and elements mesh (right column) for: (a) Stretcher bond, (b) English bond and (c) Stacked bond

The load-displacement curve for the uniaxial test is obtained from the displacement at the top
and the sum of reaction forces at the bottom boundary condition. Additionally, the stresses are
computed by dividing the force to the top area of the specimen and the strains result from the
division of the displacement to the total height of the specimen. As per the diagonal test, the
load displacement curve is obtained from the displacement at the left top corner and the
resultant sum of forces at the right bottom corner of the specimen. The stresses are computed
by dividing the force to the diagonal area, which is the length connecting the two corners of the
specimen multiplied by the thickness. The strain data result from the division of the
displacement to the diagonal length connecting the two corners of the specimen. The load-
displacement and the stress-strain curves for the three specimens are shown in Figure 8.

(a) I. II.

12
 Bledian Nela and Florim Grajçevci

(b) I. II.

(c) I. II.

Figure 8 – Uniaxial compression test results for: (a) Stretch bond, (b)English bond and (c) Stacked bond
(I. Force-displacement curves; II. Stress-strain curves)

The graphs show above show very similar behavior in the uniaxial behavior with very small
differences. The maximum force for the stretcher bond is 1147.15 [kN] with a corresponding
displacement of 2.527 [mm] which results in a maximum stress of 19.715 [N/mm²] and a
corresponding strain of 6.01 [‰]. For the English bond the maximum force is 1144.08 [kN]
with a corresponding displacement of 2.516 [mm], resulting in a maximum stress of 19.862
[N/mm²] and a corresponding strain of 5.99 [‰]. The stacked bond shows a maximum force of
1143.47 [kN] with a corresponding displacement of 2.577 [mm] which result in a maximum
stress of 19.85 [N/mm²] and a corresponding strain of 6.13 [‰]. The maximum stress is
approximately similar to the maximum strength of the unit. Therefore, according to these tests
the compressive strength of the masonry specimen is strongly related to the strength of the unit
compressive strength. However, the simplified micro-modeling lumps the mortar and the
interface together in the joints. Thereafter, the triaxial behavior of the mortar inducing tensile
stresses in the units is neglected. This shows a crucial importance of the mortar to the overall
behavior of masonry specimens. A detailed micro-modeling would be more appropriate to
capture the behavior and differences in these specimens. The stress-strain curves for the uniaxial
compressive test of the three specimens are plotted and shown in Figure 9. A small difference
can be seen in the tangent line on the elastic range where they show slightly different elastic
modulus. For the stretcher bond the modulus is 5092 [N/mm²], for the English bond is smaller
with a value of 4471 [N/mm2] and for the stacked bond is 5003 [N/mm²]. On the other hand,
the diagonal compressive test shows different behaviors for the specimens. The stress-strain
13
 Bledian Nela and Florim Grajçevci

curves are plotted in one graph and shown in Figure 9, which also provide the tensile strength
of the specimens. The specimen with stretch bond reaches a maximum stress of 0.78 [N/mm²]
with a corresponding strain of 0.534 [‰]. The English bond specimen reaches a maximum
stress of 0.684 [N/mm²] to a corresponding strain of 0.835 [‰]. The stacked bond specimen
reaches a maximum stress of 0.77 [N/mm²] with a corresponding strain of 0.70 [‰]. From these
results it can be observed that the English bond shows a lower strength, but a longer plateau in
the inelastic range. In terms of the tangent line the English bond shows considerably higher
results followed by the stretcher bond and then the stacked one.

Figure 9 – Stress-strain curves for the three specimens subjected to uniaxial compressive test (left) and
diagonal test (right)

It was observed that for the uniaxial compressive test the overall behavior in terms of maximum
stresses and strains was the same. Below in Table 6 are shown the results for the minimal
principal stresses (Smin), the maximal principal strains (Emax) and the damage parameter in
compression (DamageC) which is enabled since the CDP model is input for the material
plasticity. Even though the overall behavior of the specimens remains mainly the same, the
distribution of stresses, strains and the loss of strength in the material (related to the compressive
crushing) shows very different performance. For the stretcher bond the minimum principal
stresses are vertical and shifted to the left side of the specimen. This behavior is followed also
in the maximal principal strains and the damage parameter. The crushing of the stretcher bond
specimen follows a diagonal pattern starting from the top and shifted to the left to be then
distributed to the sides. The English bond specimen also exhibits a diagonal distribution of
stresses but starting from a lower position and centered. The third specimen with a stacked bond
configuration shows a different behavior due to the alignment of units in a vertical line. The
concentration of stresses can be observed in the bottom lateral sides of the specimen. The
crushing of this specimen is concentrated on the bottom corners but also along the thickness
can be observed the initiation of a vertical crack.

14
 Bledian Nela and Florim Grajçevci

Table 6 – Stresses, strains and damage parameter outputs for the three specimens

Stretcher bond English bond Stacked bond

Smin
Emax
DamageC

6. CONCLUSIONS
A series of tests was conducted using Finite Element Method (FEM) on three masonry
specimens with different bond configuration. The tests include the uniaxial compressive test
and the diagonal test for the three specimens. Stretcher, English and Stacked bond were chosen
for the arrangement of units in the specimens. A simplified micro-modeling strategy was
utilized for the modeling, where the units are modeled with solids and the mortar is lumped
together with the interface in the joints. For the units a concrete damaged plasticity (CDP)
model was used by specifying the compressive hardening curve for the compressive behavior
and a fracture energy for the tensile behavior. Damage parameters were also computed to define
the loss of strength in the material. A surface-based cohesive behavior with damage modeling
was used to model the joints. The FEM micro-model was built in Abaqus with solid elements
and the test was conducted via a displacement-controlled boundary condition with monotonic
linear increase. For the uniaxial compressive test, the specimens showed a similar behavior in

15
 Bledian Nela and Florim Grajçevci

terms of compressive strength and strains with slight differences in elastic modulus.
Nevertheless, the stresses and strains in the specimens exhibits a different distribution.
Furthermore, the compressive damage parameters showed different crushing of the specimens.
This leads to a conclusion that a detailed micro-model is a better modeling technique to capture
the behavior of the specimens with different bond configurations when subjected to axial
compression. The reason is the negligence of the triaxial behavior of the mortar in the masonry
when subjected to compression. As per the diagonal test, the English bond type shows a lower
tensile strength but endures larges deformation. The stretcher bond specimen showed the
biggest tensile strength followed by the stacked bond and English bond.

REFERENCES

[1] F. Grajçevci, Seismic behaviour and vulnerability of existing buildings in Prishtina -

Kosova, Skopje: University "St. Cyril and METHODIUS" - Civil Engineering
Faculty, 2009.
[2] M. Bolhassani, A. A. Hamid, A. C. Lau and F. Moon, "Simplified micro modeling of
partially grouted masonry assemblages," Construction and Building Materials, pp.
159-173, 2015.
[3] P. B. Lourenço, "Computational Strategies for Masonry Structures," Delft Technical
University, Delft, 1996.
[4] ABAQUS, "Abaqus analysis user's manual," Dassault Systems Providence , USA,
2013.
[5] K. F. Abdulla, L. S. Cunningham and M. Gillie, "Simulating masonry wall behaviour
using a simplified micro-model approach," Engineering Structures. Elsevier, vol. 151,
pp. 349-365, 2017.
[6] H. B. Kaushik, D. C. Rai and S. K. Jain, "Stress-Strain characteristics of clay brick
masonry under uniaxial compression," Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, pp.
728-739, 2007.
[7] CEN, "EN 1996-1-1:2005: Eurocode 6: Design of masonry structures - Part 1-1:
General rules for reinforced and unreinforced masonry structures," European
Comittee for Standardization, 2005.
[8] M. Angelillo, P. B. Lourenço and G. Milani, "Masonry behaviour and modelling,"
MEchanics of masonry structures. Springer, pp. 1-26, 2014.
[9] G. Vasconcelos, P. Lourenço, C. Alves, J. Pamplona and T. Miranda, "Relation
between tensile and compressive engineering properties of granites," Harmonising
Rock Engineering and the Environment. Taylor & Francis Group, pp. 867-872, 2012.
[10] CEB-FIB, "Model Code 90," Thomas Telford Ltd., UK, 1993.
[11] B. Alfarah, F. Lopez-Almansa and S. Oller, "New methodology for calculating
damage variables evolution in Plastic Damage Model for RC structures," Engineering
Structures, p. Elsevier Ltd., 2016.

16
 Bledian Nela and Florim Grajçevci

[12] K. Mosalam, L. Glascoe and J. Bernier, Mechanical properties of unreinforced brick

masonry - Section 1, Documented to US Department of Energy by Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory, 2009.

17