International Journal of Architectural Heritage

Conservation, Analysis, and Restoration

ISSN: 1558-3058 (Print) 1558-3066 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uarc20

Numerical Modeling of Traditional Masonry Walls

Strengthened with Grout Injection

Bilge Doran, Nabi Yuzer, Selen Aktan, Didem Oktay & Serhan Ulukaya

To cite this article: Bilge Doran, Nabi Yuzer, Selen Aktan, Didem Oktay & Serhan Ulukaya (2019):
Numerical Modeling of Traditional Masonry Walls Strengthened with Grout Injection, International
Journal of Architectural Heritage, DOI: 10.1080/15583058.2019.1618970

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15583058.2019.1618970

Published online: 29 May 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 23

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uarc20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE
https://doi.org/10.1080/15583058.2019.1618970

Numerical Modeling of Traditional Masonry Walls Strengthened with Grout

Injection
Bilge Dorana, Nabi Yuzera, Selen Aktanb, Didem Oktaya, and Serhan Ulukayaa
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Yıldız Technical University, Esenler, Istanbul, Turkey; bDepartment of Civil Engineering, Canakkale 18 Mart
University, Canakkale, Turkey

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The main purpose of this article is to experimentally and numerically study the improvements Received 4 September 2018
introduced by the grout injection strengthening technique for the structural rehabilitation of tradi- Accepted 10 May 2019
tional unreinforced masonry (URM) walls. In this context, four damaged URM walls with four different KEYWORDS
types of lime mortars under shear-compression are strengthened using grout injection method. Damage model;
Injection materials (Grout) which have same contents with existing mortar types are applied to all elasto-plastic behavior; finite
cracks in damaged walls. Besides, for the numerical simulations, a simplified micro modeling strategy element analysis; grout
is preferred combining the mortar and the mortar-unit interface behavior and then an elasto-plastic injection; masonry walls;
damage (EPD) approach is adopted calibrating the parameters of Oliver’s damage model and the traditional lime mortars
modified von-Mises yield criterion for the masonry constituents. Results show that the proposed
approach can be useful to describe the behavior of mortar and mortar-unit interface in strengthened
masonry structures with grout injection.

1. Introduction to restore the original integrity of the retrofitted wall and

to fill the voids and cracks (ElGawady, Lestuzzi, and
There are large numbers of existing historical masonry
Badoux 2004). The method used for rehabilitation of
structures in Turkey and around the world that have
historic URM walls should be consistent and compatible
been constructed with unreinforced masonry (URM).
with the original materials in physical, chemical, and
The masonry elements in these buildings were designed
mechanical aspects. Grouting method ensures good che-
to resist primarily gravity and also lateral loads generated
mical, physical and mechanical compatibility between the
by seismic events that introduce severe in-plane and out-of
injection material and the original material (Padovnik
-plane forces. Many of these structures have been con-
et al. 2016). The strength and durability of the applied
structed with little or no seismic requirement. For that
material, the distributions of the voids, and the properties
reason, they have suffered the maximum damage since
of the existing material are important parameters that
they have an inability to dissipate energy through inelastic
influence the efficacy of injection (Kalagri, Miltiadou-
deformation in an earthquake event. Several conventional
Fezans, and Vintzileou 2010). It has been shown that
rehabilitation and strengthening methods (grout injection,
injection method resulted in an increase in the initial
insertion of reinforcing steel, prestressing, jacketing, etc.)
stiffness of the masonry walls by 16%, if the void ratio of
have been performed for especially damaged historic URM
inner layers were limited (Oliveira et al. 2012). In another
structures to protect the architectural heritage.
study, it has been stated that masonry walls with a void
The structural shear walls, which are the most used
ratio less than 4% were not suitable for injection (Binda,
single masonry element subjected to horizontal loading,
Saisi, and Tedeschi 2006). Finally, this method improves
usually present two types of failure: (1)out-of-plane fail-
the continuity of the existing material by providing more
ure, where cracks appear along the horizontal mortar
homogeneous structure, increasing the cohesion of the
joints; and (2) in-plane failure, that is characterized by
damaged materials and causing an enhancement in com-
a diagonal tensile crack. In this context, it is important to
bined shear and flexural strength (Luso and Lourenço
increase shear resistance of masonry units. Grout injec-
2016). The compactness between the layers would also
tion as one of the conventional rehabilitation method
be increased with grout injection (Bras and Henriques
significantly improves in-plane behavior by enhancing
2012). From the experimental studies in the literature,
the shear resistance. The main purposes of injection are

CONTACT Selen Aktan saktan@comu.edu.tr Department of Civil Engineering, Canakkale 18 Mart University, Canakkale 17100, Turkey
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/uarc.
© 2019 Taylor & Francis
2 B. DORAN ET AL.
considering the various levels of pre-compression, shear
strengths vary between values of 0.026 MPa and
0.219 MPa for non-injected URM walls and between
values of 0.040 MPa and 0.53 MPa for URM walls with
injection. For the shear modulus of non-injected URM
walls range from 24.8–546 MPa and 37.8–450 MPa for
grout-injected ones on average 2.1 times higher as
reported in Silva et al. (2014).
Pozzolan-added lime based grouts give positive results
by means of the similarity to the existing historical materi-
als and improve mechanical properties of structure.
Valluzzi (2000) developed a hydraulic lime based grouts
with a 2-month compressive strength of 3.0–5.0 MPa. In
the study of Vintzileou and Miltiadou-Fezans (2008),
a hydraulic lime based grouts with a 6-month compressive
strength of 6.4 MPa and a flexural strength of 3.9 MPa was
produced. Toumbakari (2002) tested four masonry walls
made of limestone. Two different types of grout were
produced. One of them contained lime, trass and silica
fume and the other one was cement based. The 90-day
compressive strength of the first mixture used at different
ratios was in the range of 7.3–9.0 MPa, while the compres-
sive strength of the latter mixture was 19.5 MPa. Test
results showed that the compressive strength increased in
all cases as a result of the injection.
Valluzzi, Da Porto, and Modena (2004) performed
a series of experiments by applying various strengthening
methods to 17 rubble stone masonry walls. For injection
application within nine walls, lime based materials were
selected which would ensure the compatibility with the
original material. It has been observed that in the wall
samples strengthened with injection, the grout injection
improved the adherence between the layers and increased
the compressive strength and the rigidity by about 40% and
30% on average, respectively.
Chaimoon and Attard (2007) suggested a numerical
formulation for the analysis of unreinforced masonry
walls under shear–compression fracture. They extended
the simulation of fracture in concrete with the formula-
tion of Attard and Tin-Loi to model URM. Fracture was
modeled through a constitutive softening fracture law at
the boundary nodes in their study. The path-dependent
softening behavior was solved using a linear complemen-
tarity problem formulation, in non-holonomic rate form
within a quasi-prescribed displacement approach. The
inelastic failure surface was modeled using a Mohr–
Coulomb failure surface with a tension cut-off and
a linear compression cap. The formulation was verified
by comparing the results with the experimental results of
Vermeltfoort, Raijmakers, and Janssen (1993).
Corradi et al. (2008) proposed a complementary
technique for grouting. The main purposes were to
characterize the behavior of the typical masonry walls
and to study the effectiveness of the seismic upgrading
and reinforcing work both on undamaged and
damaged walls. The deep repointing technique alone
or combined with grout injection was described and
reported in their study. The results showed a significant
increase in strength and stiffness compared to the
unstrengthened panels.
Vintzileou and Miltiadou-Fezans (2008) experimentally
investigated the stress-strain behavior of three masonry
walls before and after injection. In their study, an increase
of 65% in initial compressive strength was observed within
hydraulic lime based material, while grout containing
cement, pozzolan, and hydraulic lime led to an increase
in compressive strength by 116%.
Zucchini and Lourenço (2009) proposed a model to
capture and reproduce the fundamental features of
a masonry shear wall up to collapse with a coarse finite
element mesh. The shear wall tests, which are the most
common large-scale in-plane test method to validate
advanced simulations and understand masonry failure,
were adopted by the masonry community. They pointed
out that the proposed model was capable of reproducing
well such experimental results available in the literature.
Roca et al. (2011) submitted a new approach for the
analysis of masonry shear walls subjected to in-plane
loading. A method was presented by the authors for the
determination of the ultimate capacity of masonry solid
shear walls based on simple models resulting from
equilibrium considerations. Specific models were pro-
posed for solid shear walls subjected to either distrib-
uted or concentrated loading. The validation of
proposed model with the experimental results and
advanced numerical simulation was reported.
Vintzileou (2011) studied the behavior and the failure
mechanism of three-leaf masonry under compression.
The effect of the mechanical properties of ternary and
hydraulic lime-based grout on the mechanical properties
of masonry in compression was investigated. Simple for-
mulae were proposed for the estimation of the compres-
sive strength of three-leaf masonry after grouting.
Silva et al. (2014) studied the mechanical behavior of
non-injected and injected three-leaf stone masonry
structures and the effectiveness of injections of hydrau-
lic lime-based grout as a reinforcement technique was
evaluated. For this purpose, shear compression tests
were conducted on 16 masonry panels. The effect of
grout injection on the wall behavior was investigated by
applying cyclic horizontal load to 1:1 and 2:3 speci-
mens. In comparison with non-injected ones, the first
crack in injected panels occurred when almost two
times higher displacement values were obtained and
the tensile strength also increased three times by the
grout injection.

Borri, Castori, and Corradi (2015) performed
a series of both experimental and numerical studies
on the mechanical characterization of historic masonry
walls. An experimental research on the shear behavior
of 35 masonry panels tested in diagonal- and shear-
compression was presented. The aim of the study was
to validate the two test methods and to discuss and
compare the results in terms of shear strength. Besides,
a three-dimensional finite element model was devel-
oped using ANSYS package to obtain the nonlinear
behavior of masonry panels. As a result, authors con-
firmed that the type of test had an influence on the
shear strength.
Giaretton et al. (2017) conducted a series of shaking
table test on eight full-scale multi-leaf stone masonry
walls in both as-built and strengthened conditions. The
proposed strengthening procedures were comprised of
three types: the insertion of steel tie-rods in the wall
cross section, the grout injection to the inner-core, and
a combination of these two techniques. Besides, the
numerical analysis was performed to identify the main
dynamic characteristics playing a key role in damage
mechanism.
Silva et al. (2017) numerically investigated the mechan-
ical behavior of original and grout-injected three-leaf
stone masonry panels tested under shear-compression.
The stone masonry panels were simulated considering
a macro-scale approach. With the proposed approach,
numerical results were shown to fit quite well with the
experimental ones in terms of initial elastic stiffness and
ultimate horizontal loads for all specimens.
Boscato, Reccia, and Cecchi (2018) proposed the
dynamic monitoring of multi-leaf masonry wall. The
case of multi-leaf masonry wall was investigated, and
with the aim of reproducing historical buildings struc-
tural elements, three different typologies of multi-leaf
masonry walls were considered; full infill, damaged
infill, and consolidated infill. Several masonry speci-
mens of the above-described typologies were con-
structed and tested to obtain the dynamic parameters.
Moreover, the numerical simulations of tested masonry
panels were performed considering the mechanical
properties of component materials obtained from
laboratory tests. Finally, experimental results were com-
pared with the results of finite elements analysis.
Reccia et al. (2018) presented a multi-scale/multi-
domain approach for nonlinear analysis of masonries
based on a couple-stress homogenization for unda-
maged regions and an adaptive strategy for triggering
the macro-to-micro switching operations. An extended
validation of the proposed approach was discussed.
This article primarily focuses on the numerical mod-
eling of in-plane shear tests of traditional URM walls
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 3
strengthened with grout injection. The grout injection
has been applied to the masonry walls with 860 mm
long, 80 mm thick, and 860 mm high which were
previously tested and damaged by Doran et al. (2017)
and re-tested. The load-displacement curves have been
obtained to characterize the failure mechanisms for test
walls. Moreover, these walls have been simulated in
finite element analysis software considering elastic plas-
tic damage model definition: the damage model
together with the von-Mises yield criterion. For pre-
dicting of the damage, simplified micro model with
brick, joint, and brick-joint interface has been intro-
duced. A definition of fictitious joint material that was
calibrated in a previous study (Doran et al. 2017) has
been used for describing the constitutive behavior of
mortar, mortar-brick interface, and grout as an injec-
tion material. Finally, experimental and numerical
results of strengthened traditionally URM walls have
been compared.
2. Material modeling
General load-displacement behavior (Figure 1) of
a masonry wall subjected to combined shear and com-
pression can be realistically simulated employing an
EPD model in which inelastic deformations under
compression can be coupled with the damage progress
based on primarily the crack development. Besides the
elastic degradation of the stiffness under this combined
action can be described by Oliver’s damage model.
The LUSAS software package provides a modified
von-Mises model, which needs the compressive and
tensile strength of masonry constituents (fc≠ft) sepa-
rately, as illustrated in Figure 2 (LUSAS 2004). The
equation that relates the principal stresses (S1, S2, S3)
at yielding to the yield stress in a simple tensile test
specimen (S1) is:
2ft2 ¼ ðS1  S2 Þ2 þ ðS2  S3 Þ2 þ ðS3  S1 Þ2 (1)
This equation assumes yielding of a von-Mises material
occurs at the same stresses both in uniaxial compres-
sion as in uniaxial tension. Modified von-Mises yield
criterion considers that the yields stresses in tension
and compression may be different. The equation
describing the yield function and the yield stresses in
uniaxial compression as in uniaxial tension (Rogget and
Sieck 1983):
2fc ft ¼ ðS1  S2 Þ2 þ ðS2  S3 Þ2 þ ðS3  S1 Þ2
þ 2ðfc  ft ÞðS1 þ S2 þ S3 Þ (2)
All brittle materials such as concrete, sheetrock, wood,
stone, brick, and mortar deformed under various effects
4 B. DORAN ET AL.
Figure 1. Constitutive modeling of URM walls under shear and compression (Doran et al. 2017).
Figure 2. Modified von-Mises yield criterion (Doran et al. 2017).
and the micro cracks form increasingly after repeated
use. Damages in these materials can be described by
constitutive equations derived from micromechanical
considerations by damage mechanics theory. Isotropic
scalar damage models are the simplest version of con-
tinuum damage mechanics theory and a gradual reduc-
tion in the stiffness due to the tensile crack growth can
be expressed in the basic constitutive relation of the
isotropic damage theory as follows:
σ ¼ Eð1  dÞ ε (3)
In this theory, the basic approach is based on the
assumption that a gradual reduction along the element
by overcoming any particular damage threshold value
of the initial modulus of elasticity which is a reflection
of the defects in the internal structure (Figure 3). This
reduction is taken into account with the help of
a damage variable (d) with a value of 0–1 in the analysis
(Koksal and Karakoç 1999; Oliver et al. 1990).
Figure 3. Axial stress — strain diagram in damage mechanics
(Oliver et al. 1990).
Damage variable (d), which represents damage
development, can be considered as the percentage of
damage and can be expressed in terms of “fracture
energy” Gf = G (dmax, E0) required for crack propaga-
tion in materials such as concrete and masonry.
Fracture energy is defined as the energy required form-
ing a crack surface in the unit area. These cracks may
develop in the form of axial tension, in-plane and out-
of-plane shear. Micro cracks in semi-brittle materials
such as bricks and mortar are expressed by increasing
values of the damage variables. These variables indicate
the development of yield stress and elastic stiffness
degradation. It is assumed that the damage in the
masonry depends on the beginning and increase of
tensile cracks in the mortar (Quinteros, Oller, and
Nallim 2012). Mortar damage can be defined as the
deterioration of the form of the material consisted
from a decrease in cohesion (Van Hees et al. 2004).
Oliver’s damage model is used in which the differ-
ence in the tensile and compressive strengths of the
material could be accounted for in the calculations. In
the Oliver’s damage model, there are three material
parameters that are used to express the behavior of an
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 5

Table 1. Material parameters for Oliver’s damage model.

First parameter τ*, “initial damage threshold”; Second parameter A, is a material parameter used to Third parameter, refers to the ratio
refers to the inelastic behavior, in other words, prevent the results obtained in nonlinear finite element between the tensile strength and the
the beginning of tensile cracks. analysis from being dependent on the selected mesh size. compressive strength of the material.
 1
pffiffiffiffi A ¼ Gh:ff :E20  12 0
τ  ¼ ft = E 0 t η ¼ fc =ft
ft: Tensile strength Gffm ¼ 15; 48dmax ft2 =E0 fc: Compressive strength
E0: Modulus of elasticity Gfb ¼p25; 8dmax ft2 =E0
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ft: Tensile strength
h ¼ 3 hx :hy :hz
Gf: Fracture energy
dmax: Maximum aggregate dimension
ft: Tensile strength
E0: Modulus of elasticity
h: Chosen mesh size

isotropic homogeneous material under multiaxial pres- the experimental part of the present study, these walls
sure (Table 1). have been consolidated with grout injection and re-tested
In the previous study (Doran et al. 2017), the material under shear and axial compression until failure.
properties existing in the specific historic buildings had In previous study of Doran et al. (2017), traditional
been utilized in the production and procurement of new red blend bricks with dimensions of 180 × 80 × 50 mm
materials as mortar and bricks, respectively; and then four and four different lime-based mortars were employed
different unreinforced brick masonry walls were con- during construction of test walls. Thickness of mortar
structed in the laboratory. The behaviors of these walls joints were chosen as 40 mm and 20 mm for bed and
under the vertical and horizontal loads were experimen- head joints, respectively, considering historical build-
tally investigated and load-displacement values were ings from Roman and Byzantine periods (Bakolas et al.
simultaneously recorded. The experiments were termi- 1998; Moropoulou, Bakolas, and Anagnostopoulou
nated when the crack, which had been initially formed at 2005; Moropoulou et al. 2013). Original material prop-
the lateral load-side top corner, reached to the lower erties encountered in historical buildings and the pre-
corner of the opposite side. The widths of these cracks viously carried out studies were taken into
formed on the masonry walls had different values due to consideration when the mix proportions of the new
variation in the mechanical properties of different mortar mortars were prepared (Bakolas et al. 1998;
types. Moropoulou et al. 2002). According to the correspond-
In this study, test walls damaged in the previous ing standard of EN 459-1 (2011), NHL 3.5 type of
study are strengthened with grouts that prepared with natural hydraulic lime and CL 80-S type of air lime
respect to the original mortar contents, and new lateral were used as binder and CEN standard sand was
load-lateral displacement relationships have been employed in accordance with EN 196–1 (2016).
experimentally examined. Besides, an improved consti- Highly pozzolanic and non-pozzolanic crushed/ground
tutive model for the numerical simulation of these walls brick particles were produced after a firing process of
strengthened by means of grout injection is proposed. raw impure clay mortars and these were used as aggre-
gate in the mortars (Ulukaya and Yuzer 2016). Lime/
aggregate ratio by weight was kept constant as 1/3 and
3. Experimental program water content was determined for each mortar accord-
Four different URM walls with dimensions of ing to the consistency of fresh mortar measured in
860 × 860 × 80 mm were produced and damaged within compliance with EN 1015-3 (1999). Brick particles
the scope of the previous study of Doran et al. (2017). In and sand were added with an equal volume fraction
to the aggregate batch and size distribution of the
crushed/ground brick particles were arranged in accor-
Table 2. Mix proportions of mortars (by weight). dance with a case study carried out by Boke et al.
Aggregate
(2006). The mix proportions of mortars were given in
Brick Particles
Natural CEN 500°C Fired
Table 2.
Mortar Hydraulic Air Standard 850°C Fired (Non- In the experimental part of this study, lime-based
Code Lime Lime Sand (Pozzolanic) Pozzolanic) Water grouts compatible with the mortars of the previous
A1 1.0 – 3.0 – – 0.7
A2 1.0 – 1.5 – 1.5 1.1 study (Doran et al. 2017) are produced for strengthen-
A3 1.0 – 1.5 1.5 – 1.1 ing purposes of damaged URM walls. These walls have
A4 – 1.0 1.5 – 1.5 1.4
been consolidated with grout injection and re-tested
6 B. DORAN ET AL.

under shear and axial compression until failure. been used to confine bleeding of grouts. Mix propor-
Natural hydraulic lime and air lime are also used as tions of grouts are presented in Table 3.
binders according to EN 459-1 (2011). Two different Plastic parameters such as compressive and flexural
firing temperatures are applied to unfired clay as 500°C strength of mortars and grouts have been determined
and 850°C to obtain non-pozzolanic and highly pozzo- in accordance with EN 1015-11 (2003) (Figure 4b),
lanic bricks, respectively. Then they are ground and while the modulus of elasticity which is one of the
sieved from 63 µm. The brick dust is added to the elastic parameters, has been determined in compliance
mixtures at a ratio of 30% of the lime by weight. with EN 13286-43 (1999) (Figure 4c). Mechanical tests
Water/binder ratios are determined according to suffi- are performed at 28th day of grout and mortar speci-
cient fluidity, penetrability, and limited bleeding value mens and also at 365th day of mortars since the
of grouts. These three main fresh state properties of strengthened walls have been re-loaded at the
grouts have been determined in compliance with first year of mortars. Mechanical properties of grouts
ASTM D6910 (2009), EN 1771 (2004), and ASTM and mortars are presented in Table 4. Compressive and
C940 (2010), respectively. In order to reduce water flexural strength of brick have been determined accord-
demand, a polycarboxylate based superplasticizer has ing to ASTM C67 (2014). The uniaxial compression test
been introduced to all mixtures to obtain required fresh is performed on rectangular prism-shaped brick sam-
state properties. Viscosity modifying admixture has also ples to determine the modulus of elasticity and
Poisson’s ratio. The displacements occurred during
the loading are measured via two LVDT couples
mounted on the specimens both horizontally and ver-
Table 3. Mix proportions of the grouts (by weight).
tically (Figure 4a). In this context, compressive
Brick Brick
Natural dust dust strength, flexural strength, modulus of elasticity and
Grout Hydraulic Air Water/ (850°C (500°C SP*, VM**, Poisson’s ratio for masonry unit are 9.4 MPa,
code Lime Lime Binder Fired) Fired) (%) (%)
3.9 MPa, 6085 MPa, and 0.18, respectively.
G1 1 - 0.85 - - 1.5 0.4
G2 1 - 0.80 - 0.3 1.5 0.5 Masonry walls are subjected to a monotonically increas-
G3 1 - 0.80 0.3 - 1.5 0.5 ing lateral loads under a constant uniformly distributed
G4 - 1 1.20 0.3 - 1.5 0.4
*SP: Superplasticizer
vertical load at the 28th day of mortars. The loading appa-
**VM: Viscosity modifier ratus are consisted of a 2000 kN and 500 kN capacities

Figure 4. (a) Determination of the elastic parameters for the clay brick, (b) bending test of grouts, and (c) Compression test to
determine the elastic parameters of grouts.

Table 4. Mechanical properties of mortars and grouts.

Plastic Parameters
Material Elastic Parameters 28th day 365th day
Modulus of elasticity Poisson’s Compressive strength Flexural strength Compressive strength Flexural strength
Type Code (MPa) ratio (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
Grout G1 1140 0.26 1.7 1.1 - -
G2 537 0.25 1.4 0.9 - -
G3 2712 0.21 2.0 1.0 - -
G4 515 0.18 0.3 0.2 - -
Mortar A1 3864 0.24 1.5 0.9 5.9 1.8
A2 620 0.23 1.2 0.4 4.3 0.9
A3 3091 0.23 3.1 1.1 6.2 1.4
A4 1263 0.21 0.8 0.3 3.2 0.9

hydraulic rams for vertical and lateral loading, respectively.
Two different vertical pre-compression distributed loads of
0.727 MPa for WA1-WA3 and 0.363 MPa for WA4 are
applied to the top surface of a steel plate with a thickness of
3.5 cm located on the wall. It should be noted that WA4 has
lowest compressive strength of mortar than the others
(Doran et al. 2017). Lateral loads are applied at a rate of
0.10 ± 0.03 kN/sec and a LVDT is horizontally fixed on
the second mortar row from the top to measure lateral
displacements.
In the previous study (Doran et al. 2017), the tests were
terminated when a stair step crack appeared and extended
diagonally across the walls. 11 months after production of
each wall, these damaged walls are consolidated by grout
injection. First, injection holes are drilled at an angle of 45°
on one side of the test walls (Figure 5a). The cracks and
injection holes are cleaned with air pressure (Figure 5b),
and then water is injected (Figure 5c). Finally, plastic tubes
are introduced into the injection holes and the grout is
injected via these plastic tubes from the bottom to top
(Figure 5d). Injection pressure is kept constant at 1 bar
during injection process. The repaired walls are stored in
the laboratory and are tested under the same loading
procedure at the 28th day after the grout injection.
Experimental crack patterns for grout-injected walls are
given in Figure 6.
4. Numerical modeling and validation
In this study, a simplified micro modeling strategy for
nonlinear finite element analysis (NLFEA) of URM walls
under shear and compression is preferred for combining
the mortar and mortar-unit interface behavior. During the
analysis, monotonically increasing lateral loads are applied
while keeping the vertical pre-compression distributed
loads constant.
The fictitious joint material is a representative mate-
rial proposed for both the mortar region between the
units and the unit-mortar interface as can be seen in
Figure 5. (a) Drilling the injection holes, (b) cleaning the cracks with air injection, (c) water injection into the cracks, and (d) grout
injection and sealing leakage points.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 7
Figure 7 (Doran et al. 2017). Since this region is weak,
it will be damaged after the application of the axial load
due to low compression strength of the material. In this
modeling technique, it is considered that the initial
stiffness values of the fictitious joint material decreased
considerably before the lateral load was applied. The
fictitious joint material can be used to represent the
behavior of mortar joints without using any zero thick-
ness interface element.
Each of the masonry units, the fictitious joint material
and grout are modeled with eight-noded hexahedral ele-
ment (HX8M) 3D elements (Solid) defined in the LUSAS
finite element software (LUSAS 2004) (Figure 8), which
makes it possible to evaluate stresses in the thickness of
a wall in much more realistic way. The numerical model of
typical grout-injected URM wall with actual mesh config-
uration has been given in Figure 9.
Deep cracks and damages are mostly formed in
mortar joints due to lower mechanical properties of
mortar compared to brick (a few bricks are affected
by fractures) during the experiments. Since minor
damage is observed in the brick units, its material
parameters are assumed not changed (Doran et al.
2017). Besides, material parameters of grouts are deter-
mined from laboratory tests.
While masonry walls are strengthened with grout
injection, existing lime mortars continue to gain con-
siderable strength based upon carbonation and in addi-
tion to formation of hydraulic products when hydraulic
lime is used. This result is clearly verified with the
compressive and flexural strength values determined
at the 365th day (Table 4). The compressive strength
values double in mortar A3 and approximately quad-
ruple in mortars A1, A2, and A4. Flexural strength
values also increase 1.3 times in mortar A3, double in
mortars A1, A2, and roughly triple in mortar A4.
Observed increases in strength are taken into account
in the fictitious joint material elements of the walls
which are not injected. The existing fictitious joint
8 B. DORAN ET AL.
Figure 6. Crack patterns after injection for (a) WA1 wall, (b) WA2 wall, (c) WA3 wall, and (d) WA4 wall.
Figure 7. Description of the fictitious joint material in
a masonry wall (Doran et al. 2017).
material of damaged walls depends on several para-
meters as it reflects the behavior of the mortar and
brick-mortar interface. The elastic and plastic material
parameters for the existing fictitious joint material are
obtained by the compression and bending tests
performed at the 365th day on the mortar specimens.
Once compressive strengths of the fictitious joint mate-
rial for the damaged zones are determined, the com-
pressive strength values measured at the 365th day of
mortar are reduced. The tensile strength of the ficti-
tious joint material is taken as a value somewhere
between itself and half of the tensile strength values in
bending, which are determined experimentally as
described Doran et al. (2017). In practice, it is a well-
known phenomenon that the tensile strength is
approximately the half of flexural strength value for
concrete (Ersoy and Özcebe 2001). Poisson’s ratios for
the fictitious joint material of the mortar and grout are
also obtained from laboratory tests.

Figure 8. Eight-noded hexahedral element (HX8M).
It is thereby understood that a simplified smeared
crack approach has been used for analysis purposes in
this study. Necessary modifications to correct the actual
strength of the material after injection (strengthening
intervention) have been implemented on the same
numerical models for un-injected URM walls (Figure 9);
cracks and joints are modeled in an average sense by
appropriately modifying the material properties at the
integration points of regular finite elements.
The material parameters used in the numerical model
are given in Table 5. In Table 5, E, υ, ft, and fc represent
the modulus of elasticity, Poisson’s ratio, tensile and
compressive strengths of the material, respectively.
Figure 9. Numerical model for typical grout-injected URM wall.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 9
5. Results and discussion
Tests walls WA1, WA2, WA3, and WA4, which were
damaged and strengthened by means of grout injection,
have been re-tested under shear and compression loads and
it can be observed that the cracking manners are substan-
tially similar to those of the same walls before the injection.
These walls are numerically modeled by proposed
methodology mentioned above and NLFEA have been
accomplished using LUSAS-ver.13.5 software (LUSAS
2004). The lateral load-displacement curves obtained
from NLFEA are compared with the experimental
ones. Using the parameters listed in Table 5, Figure 10
shows the comparison of results of the simulation with
experimental results. It can be seen from Figure 10 that,
although proposed approach utilizes a failure criterion
for URM walls under shear and compression, crack
formations and peak-loads have only been predicted
acceptably. Peak-load values can also be seen in Table
6 for comparison. It should be noted that proposed
methodology implemented in above software (LUSAS
2004) with smeared crack approach predicts a peak-
load and pre-peak experimental response (only match-
ing the general trend) but not capable of capturing the
post-peak behavior of all specimens because of the het-
erogeneities of the constitutive materials. Besides, this
may also be related to the difficulty of modeling the
boundary conditions in the experiments and the need to
estimate some of the material parameters required for
the proposed EPD constitutive relations. Moreover,
WA1 has a significant lateral load carrying capacity
10 B. DORAN ET AL.

Table 5. Material parameters used in NLFEA.

Elastic Plastic Damage
Specimen Material E (MPa) υ ft (MPa) fc (MPa) τ* A η
WA1 Masonry unit 6085 0.18 3.9 9.4 0.05 13.2 2.41
Mortar joint 250 0.24 1.5 5 0.095 2.1 3.33
Grout 20.6 0.26 0.6 2.5 0.132 2.1 4.17
WA2 Masonry unit 6085 0.18 3.9 9.4 0.05 13.2 2.41
Mortar joint 68 0.23 0.5 3.5 0.061 2.1 7
Grout 48.7 0.25 0.3 1.8 0.043 2.1 6
WA3 Masonry unit 6085 0.18 3.9 9.4 0.05 13.2 2.41
Mortar joint 50 0.23 0.5 5.8 0.07 2.1 11.6
Grout 39.5 0.21 0.3 1.1 0.048 2.1 3.67
WA4 Masonry unit 6085 0.18 3.9 9.4 0.05 13.2 2.41
Mortar joint 60 0.21 0.4 1.2 0.052 2.1 3
Grout 12.2 0.18 0.2 0.3 0.057 2.1 1.5

Figure 10. Load–displacement curves for grout-injected (a) WA1 wall, (b) WA2 wall, (c) WA3 wall, and (d) WA4 wall.

Table 6. Critical loads for test walls.

patterns and developments obtained from numerical
Experimental Peak-loads
first cracking loads (N) after injection (N) analysis reflect the experimental ones when the stress
Specimen Before injection After injection Experimental Numerical distributions in Figure 11 are examined carefully.
WA1 40,750 36,280 37,570 38,647 Moreover, Figures 12–15 show the failure mechanisms
WA2 27,400 23,530 26,370 26,094 and deformed shapes of test walls before and after
WA3 37,290 29,210 31,640 31,406
WA4 17,160 10,870 13,530 13,906 injection. For all the tested walls, a stair step crack
developed which led to collapse of the wall under
increasing deformation. There were also some capillary
vertical cracks in the brick units and crushing at the
(Figure 10) as the modulus of elasticity for the mortar compressed toe of the wall. For example, in Figures
A1 is higher than all others. Thus, the high modulus of 12b–15b, the diagonal cracks, as in the case before
elasticity of the mortar substantially increases the initial injection, move throughout the mortar brick joints
stiffness. and the horizontal mortar. A new crack has been
From the NLFEA results, shear stress distributions at formed at the WA1 starting from the upper third-row
failure for test walls are depicted in Figure 11a–d. Crack brick in close proximity to the step-like crack, but
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 11

Figure 11. Shear stress distributions at failure for grout-injected (a) WA1 wall, (b) WA2 wall, (c) WA3 wall, and (d) WA4 wall.

Figure 12. Failure mechanisms and deformed shapes (a) for URM wall WA1 and (b) for grout-injected URM wall WA1.
12 B. DORAN ET AL.

Figure 13. Failure mechanisms and deformed shapes (a) for URM wall WA2 and (b) for grout-injected URM wall WA2.

Figure 14. Failure mechanisms and deformed shapes (a) for URM wall WA3 and (b) for grout-injected URM wall WA3.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 13

Figure 15. Failure mechanisms and deformed shapes (a) for URM wall WA4 and (b) for grout-injected URM wall WA4.

Table 7. Crack widths for test walls.

in Table 6 are relatively lower than URM walls.
Minimum crack width (mm) Maximum crack width (mm)
However, successful grout injection is achieved
Before After Before After
Specimen injection injection* injection injection* when the strength development of lime based mate-
WA1 0.2 1.0 6.4 18.5 rials is considered.
WA2 0.6 2.5 4.2 18.6
WA3 0.2 2.9 3.0 18.3
WA4 0.4 3.7 5.8 17.2
*Crack widths at failure
6. Conclusion
This article presents a new simplified micro modeling
methodology based on the isotropic damage model of
remains capillary (Figure 12b). The crack widths for the Oliver et al. (1990), combined with the von-Mises
specimens before and after injection are given in type plasticity is proposed for modeling in-plane
Table 7. non-linear analysis of damaged historic URM walls
Additionally, when the first cracks occurred strengthened with grout injection. The numerical
before and after injection the lateral loads were results of a NLFEA are compared with the test results
recorded during the experiments to examine the of four test walls to evaluate the accuracy of pro-
performance of walls (Table 6). It should be noted posed methodology. The following conclusions can
that grout-injected walls consist of 1-year mortars be drawn from the results.
and 28-day grouts when the tests on grout-injected
walls were performed. Depending on the weakness (1) From the tests carried out on damaged URM
of the 28-days grouts, first cracks generally took walls under shear and compression and then
place at the injected regions. For this reason, first strengthened with grout injection, cracks are
cracking loads for all grout-injected walls presented formed in injected region due to the fact that
14 B. DORAN ET AL.
the resistance of grout is lower than the other
materials. It can easily be seen that crack
shapes which have diagonally stair step are
largely similar to the crack shape before
strengthening. Besides, load carrying capacities
of the test walls will be enhanced with grout
injection; it can be reached the ultimate load
capacity of undamaged URM wall (Doran
et al. 2017).
(2) The numerical approach previously devel-
oped for the EPD analysis of URM walls
before injection (Doran et al. 2017) has
been adopted for the analysis of the strength-
ened URM walls with grout injection under
shear and compression. Masonry units, mor-
tar and grout are considered separately as an
isotropic and homogeneous materials.
Furthermore, a new representative material
called “fictitious joint material” is defined
for the description of the constitutive beha-
vior of both the mortar region between bricks
and grout.
(3) In the numerical simulations using simplified
micro modeling technique, experimentally mea-
sured values are generally used to define the
mechanical parameters for EPD constitutive
models. However, the loss of load carrying capa-
city of the damaged URM walls and considerable
increase in the strength of lime mortar with the
injection should somehow be considered for the
mechanical parameters; EPD analysis with the
constitutive model employs smeared crack
approach has been achieved by modifying the
mechanical properties of the mortar. Finally,
peak-loads have been evaluated for URM walls
strengthened with grout injection. All predictions
are in acceptable agreement with the experimen-
tal ones. Unfortunately, post-peak behavior has
not been captured with the smeared crack
approach used in this study. The authors con-
sider that above approach may be more attractive
if overall analysis of large-scale masonry wall is
essential.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the researches grants of The
Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey
(Project No. 111M568 and 114M256). The authors thank
Yildiz Technical University Research Foundation for finan-
cial support (Project No. 2011-05-01-DOP01) and Isıklar
Building Materials Inc. for supplying the raw clay mortars.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Funding
This work was supported by the Yildiz Technical University
[2011-05-01-DOP01]; The Scientific and Technological
Research Council of Turkey [111M568 and 114M256].
References
ASTM. 2009. Standard test method for marsh funnel viscosity
of clay construction slurries. West Conshohocken, PA:
ASTM D6910.
ASTM. 2010. Standard test method for expansion and
bleeding of freshly mixed grouts for preplaced-aggregate
concrete in the laboratory. West Conshohocken, PA:
ASTM C940.
ASTM C67. 2014. Standard test methods for sampling and
testing brick and structural clay tile. West Conshohocken,
Pennsylvania, United States: ASTM International.
Bakolas, A., G. Biscontin, A. Moropoulou, and E. Zendri.
1998. Characterization of structural Byzantine mortars by
thermogravimetric analysis. Thermochimica Acta 321
(1–2):151–60. doi:10.1016/S0040-6031(98)00454-7.
Binda, L., A. Saisi, and C. Tedeschi. 2006. Compatibility of
materials used for repair of masonry buildings: Research
and applications. In Fracture and failure of natural building
stones, ed. S. K. Kourkoulis, 167–82. Netherlands: Springer.
Boke, H., S. Akkurt, B. Ipekoglu, and E. Ugurlu. 2006.
Characteristics of brick used as aggregate in historic
brick-lime mortars and plasters. Cement and Concrete
Research 36 (6):1115–22. doi:10.1016/j.cemcon
res.2006.03.011.
Borri, A., G. Castori, and M. Corradi. 2015. Determination of
shear strength of masonry panels through different tests.
International Journal of Architectural Heritage 9 (8):913–
27. doi:10.1080/15583058.2013.804607.
Boscato, G., E. Reccia, and A. Cecchi. 2018. Non-destructive
experimentation: Dynamic identification of multi-leaf
masonry walls damaged and consolidated. Composites
Part B: Engineering 133:145–65. doi:10.1016/j.
compositesb.2017.08.022.
Bras, A., and F. M. A. Henriques. 2012. Natural hydraulic
lime based grouts – The selection of grout injection para-
meters for masonry consolidation. Construction and
Building Materials 26 (1):135–44. doi:10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2011.05.012.
Chaimoon, K., and M. M. Attard. 2007. Modeling of unrein-
forced masonry walls under shear and compression.
Engineering Structures 29 (9):2056–68. doi:10.1016/j.
engstruct.2006.10.019.
Corradi, M., C. Tedeschi, L. Binda, and A. Borri. 2008.
Experimental evaluation of shear and compression
strength of masonry wall before and after reinforcement:
Deep repointing. Construction and Building Materials 22
(4):463–72. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2006.11.021.
Doran, B., H. O. Köksal, S. Aktan, S. Ulukaya, D. Oktay, and
N. Yüzer. 2017. In-plane shear behavior of traditional

masonry walls. International Journal of Architectural
Heritage 11 (2):278–91. doi:10.1080/15583058.2016.1207114.
ElGawady, M. A., P. Lestuzzi, and M. Badoux 2004, July 4-7.
A review of conventional seismic retrofitting techniques
for URM. Paper presented at the 13th International Brick
and Block Masonry Conference, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
EN 1015-11. 2003. Methods of test for mortar for masonry–
Part 11: Determination of flexural and compressive strength
of hardened mortar. Brussels: European Committee for
Standardization.
EN 1015-3. 1999. Methods of test for mortar for masonry–Part
3: Determination of consistence of fresh mortar (by flow
table). Brussels: European Committee for Standardization.
EN 13286-43. 1999. Unbound and hydraulically bound mix-
tures - Part 43: Test method for the determination of the
modulus of elasticity of hydraulically bound mixtures.
Brussels: European Committee for Standardization.
EN 1771. 2004. Products and systems for the protection and
repair of concrete structures – Test methods –
Determination of injectability using the sand column test.
Brussels: European Committee for Standardization.
EN 196-1. 2016. Methods of testing cement–Part 1:
Determination of strength. Brussels: European Committee
for Standardization.
EN 459-1. 2011. Building lime–Part 1: Definitions, specifica-
tions and conformity criteria. Brussels: European
Committee for Standardization.
Ersoy, U., and G. Özcebe. 2001. Betonarme. Istanbul, Türkiye:
Evrim Yayınevi.
Giaretton, M., M. R. Valluzzi, N. Mazzon, and C. Modena. 2017.
Out-of-plane shake-table tests of strengthened multi-leaf
stone masonry walls. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 15
(10):4299–317. doi:10.1007/s10518-017-0125-7.
Kalagri, A., A. Miltiadou-Fezans, and E. Vintzileou. 2010.
Design and evaluation of hydraulic lime grouts for the
strengthening of stone masonry historic structures.
Materials and Structures 43 (8):1135–46. doi:10.1617/
s11527-009-9572-1.
Koksal, H. O., and C. Karakoç. 1999. An isotropic damage
model for concrete. Materials and Structures 32:611–17.
doi:10.1007/BF02480497.
LUSAS. 2004. Finite element system. Surrey, UK: FEA Ltd.
Luso, E., and P. B. Lourenço. 2016. Experimental charac-
terization of commercial lime based grouts for stone
masonry consolidation. Construction and Building
Materials 102 (1):216–25. doi:10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2015.10.096.
Moropoulou, A., A. Bakolas, P. Moundoulas, E. Aggelakopoulou,
and S. Anagnostopoulou. 2013. Optimization of compatible
restoration mortars for the earthquake protection of Hagia
Sophia. Journal of Cultural Heritage 14 (3):147–52.
doi:10.1016/j.culher.2013.01.008.
Moropoulou, A., A. Bakolas, and S. Anagnostopoulou. 2005.
Composite materials in ancient structures.
Cement&Concrete Composites 27:295–300. doi:10.1016/j.
cemconcomp.2004.02.018.
Moropoulou, A., A. S. Cakmak, G. Biscontin, A. Bakolas, and
E. Zendri. 2002. Advanced Byzantine cement based com-
posites resisting earthquake stresses: The crushed brick/
lime mortars of Justinian’s Hagia Sophia. Construction
and Building Materials 16 (8):543–52. doi:10.1016/S0950-
0618(02)00005-3.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 15
Oliveira, D. V., R. A. Silva, E. Garbin, and P. B. Lourenço.
2012. Strengthening of three-leaf stone masonry walls: An
experimental research. Materials and Structures 45
(8):1259–76. doi:10.1617/s11527-012-9832-3.
Oliver, J., M. Cervera, S. Oller, and J. Lubliner 1990, April
4-6. Isotropic damage models and smeared crack analysis
of concrete. Paper presented at the 2nd International
Conference on Computer Aided Analysis and Design of
Concrete Structures, At Zell am See, Austria.
Padovnik, A., F. Piqué, A. Jornet, and V. Bokan-Bosiljkov.
2016. Injection grouts for the re-Attachment of architec-
tural surfaces with historic value-measures to improve the
properties of hydrated lime grouts in Slovenia.
International Journal of Architectural Heritage 10
(8):993–1007. doi:10.1080/15583058.2016.1177747.
Quinteros, R. D., S. Oller, and L. G. Nallim. 2012. Nonlinear
homogenization techniques to solve masonry structures
problems. Composite Structures 94 (2):724–30.
doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2011.09.006.
Reccia, E., L. Leonetti, P. Trovalusci, and A. Cecchi. 2018.
A multiscale/multidomain model for the failure analysis of
masonry walls: A validation with a combined FEM/DEM
approach. International Journal for Multiscale
Computational Engineering 16 (4):325–43. doi:10.1615/
IntJMultCompEng.2018026988.
Roca, P., Á. Viviescas, M. Lobato, C. Díaz, and I. Serra. 2011.
Capacity of shear walls by simple equilibrium models.
International Journal of Architectural Heritage 5
(4–5):412–35. doi:10.1080/15583058.2010.501481.
Rogget, T. R., and C. F. Sieck. 1983. The use of nonsap to
compare the von mises and a modified von mises yield
criteria. Computers&Structures 17 (5–6):705–10.
doi:10.1016/0045-7949(83)90084-6.
Silva, B., A. Pappas, J. M. Guedes, F. Da Porto, and
C. Modena. 2017. Numerical analysis of the in-plane
behaviour of three-leaf stone masonry panels consoli-
dated with grout injection. Bulletin of Earthquake
Engineering 15 (1):357–83. doi:10.1007/s10518-016-
9969-5.
Silva, B., M. Dalla Benetta, F. Da Porto, and C. Modena. 2014.
Experimental assessment of in-plane behaviour of three-leaf
stone masonry walls. Construction and Building Materials
53:149–61. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.11.084.
Toumbakari, E. 2002. Lime-pozzolan-cement grouts and
their structural effects on composite masonry walls. PhD
Thesis, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Ulukaya, S., and N. Yuzer. 2016. Assessment of pozzolanicity
of clay bricks fired at different temperatures for use in
repair mortar. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering
28 (8):04016052. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-
5533.0001560.
Valluzzi, M. R. 2000. Comportamento meccanico di mura-
ture storiche consolidate con materiali e tecniche a base di
calce. PhD Thesis, University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy.
Valluzzi, M. R., F. Da Porto, and C. Modena. 2004. Behavior
and modeling of strengthened three-leaf stone masonry
walls. Materials and Structures 37 (3):184–92.
doi:10.1007/BF02481618.
Van Hees, J., L. Binda, I. Papayianni, and E. Toumbakari.
2004. Characterization and damage analysis of old
mortars. Materials and Structure 37 (9):644–48.
doi:10.1007/BF02483293.
16 B. DORAN ET AL.
Vermeltfoort, A. T., T. Raijmakers, and H. J. M. Janssen 1993,
June 6-9. Shear tests on masonry walls. Proceeding of the
6th North American Masonry Conference, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, USA. 1183–93.
Vintzileou, E. 2011. Three-leaf masonry in compression,
before and after grouting: A review of literature.
International Journal of Architectural Heritage 5
(4–5):513–38. doi:10.1080/15583058.2011.557137.
Vintzileou, E., and A. Miltiadou-Fezans. 2008. Mechanical
properties of three-leaf stone masonry grouted with tern-
ary or hydraulic lime based grouts. Engineering Structures
30 (8):2265–76. doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.11.003.
Zucchini, A., and P. B. Lourenço. 2009. A micro-mechanical
homogenisation model for masonry: Application to shear
walls. International Journal of Solids and Structures 46
(3):871–86. doi:10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2008.09.034.