Computational Modeling of Irregular Masonry Failure

Computational Modeling of Irregular Masonry Failure
DECLARATION
Name:
Rony Betzer
Email:
rony.be@gmail.com
Title of the
Msc Dissertation:
Supervisor(s):
Prof. Ing. Milan Jirsek, DrSc. & Doc. Ing. Jan Zeman, Ph.D.
Year:
2014
I hereby declare that all information in this document has been obtained and presented in accordance
with academic rules and ethical conduct. I also declare that, as required by these rules and conduct, I
have fully cited and referenced all material and results that are not original to this work.
I hereby declare that the MSc Consortium responsible for the Advanced Masters in Structural Analysis
of Monuments and Historical Constructions is allowed to store and make available electronically the
present MSc Dissertation.
University:
Czech Technical University
Date:
21.07.2014
Signature:
___________________________
Erasmus Mundus Programme

ADVANCED MASTERS IN STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF MONUMENTS AND HISTORICAL CONSTRUCTIONS

ii
To my family

iii

iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost I wish to express my deepest appreciation and gratitude to my supervisors, Prof.
Milan Jirsek and Prof. Jan Zeman, who have supported, guided and encouraged me throughout my
thesis with their impeccable knowledge and unmatched patience. One could not wish for better or
friendlier supervisors.
I must also acknowledge my thanks and appreciation to Dr. Petr Havlsek for the technical support
and suggestions.
I would like to thank Prof. Paulo Loureno, Prof. Pere Roca, Prof. Claudio Modena, Prof. Petr Kabele,
Prof. Daniel Oliveira and Prof. Lus Ramos for their professional and personal commitment to the
SAHC program.
A very special thanks goes to Eng. Yaacov Schaffer and Eng. Meir Ronen, for their continued support
and mentoring.
My sincere gratitude goes to the Erasmus Mundus program and the MSc consortium for the generous
scholarship. I am truly fortunate to have had this opportunity.
Last but not least, I wish to thank my extended international family of SAHC students, for being the
highlight of this amazing year.


vi
ABSTRACT
The study discusses the potential influence of material and geometrical randomness on the behavior
of masonry walls. Accumulated knowledge and modeling approaches as well as documented
experimental studies from the literature are considered in the process of definition, validation and
calibration of the adopted finite element models. A typical stones and joints arrangement of an existing
masonry wall is defined as reference geometry. Statistical data are then collected by performing
numerical simulations of compression and shear tests, taking into account the natural randomness of
the various material properties on both meso and macro scale, as well as the 'semi-randomness' of
the geometrical parameters, which are mainly dominated by construction technology, available
building materials and somewhat by the masons' building technique. These parameters are randomly
generated in these simulations, while complying with the overall arrangement of the reference
geometry.
The objectives of the research are to characterize, depict and quantitatively investigate the structural
behavior of masonry walls, focusing on the possible sensitivity to random material and geometrical
factors on both local and global scales. For the in-plane loading conditions considered, the results
indicate that random distribution of material properties has fairly limited influence on global behavior,
whereas geometrical arrangement is dominant in the failure mechanism triggered and in post-failure
behavior.
Keywords: Masonry; random; stochastic; failure; simulation

vii

viii
NUMERICK MODELOVN PORUEN NEPRAVIDELNHO ZDIVA

ABSTRAKT
Tato studie pojednv o monm vlivu nhodnho charakteru materilovch a geometrickch
vlastnost na chovn zdnch stn. Pi tvorb, oven a kalibraci pouitch konenprvkovch
model se vyuv znalost, model a experimentlnch studi pevzatch z literatury. Typick
uspodn kamen a spr ve skuten zdn stn je definovno jako referenn geometrie. Pot
jsou shromdna statistick data zaloen na numerickch simulacch tlakovch a smykovch
zkouek, kter berou v vahu pirozenou nhodnost rznch materilovch vlastnost v mezo- a
makromtku, jako i stenou nhodnost geometrickch parametr, kter jsou ovlivnny zejmna
technologi vstavby, dostupnmi stavebnmi materily a do jist mry i specifickou stavebn technikou
konkrtnch zednk. Tyto parametry jsou v simulacch nhodn generovny, pi respektovn
celkovho uspodn referenn geometrie.
Clem provedenho vzkumu je charakterizovat, zobrazit a kvantitativn prozkoumat konstrukn
chovn zdnch stn, se zamenm na ppadnou citlivost na nhodn materilov a geometrick
faktory na lokln i globln rovni. Vsledky ukazuj, e pi zatovn ve stednicov rovin m
nhodn rozloen materilovch vlastnost jen omezen vliv na globln chovn, zatmco
geometrick uspodn je pro vznikl mechanismus poruen a pro chovn v postkritickm reimu
rozhodujc.
Klov slova: Zdivo; nhodnost; stochastick; poruen; simulace

ix

x
. ,

. .
,
, , '-' ,
, .
, .
, ,
.
,
, .
: ; ; ; ;

xi

xii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 1
2.
ADOPTED MESO MODELING ....................................................................................................... 5
3.
4.
2.1
Finite element mesh ................................................................................................................ 5
2.2
Constitutive material models ................................................................................................... 7
2.3
Modeling of uncertainties ...................................................................................................... 12
FEM SIMULATIONS AND RESULTS ........................................................................................... 15

3.1
Deterministic validation model ............................................................................................... 15
3.2
Random input models ........................................................................................................... 18
3.3
Random geometry models .................................................................................................... 28
3.4
Periodic geometry models ..................................................................................................... 36
CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................ 47
REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................................... 49

xiii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Input parameter of SBETA material......................................................................................... 7

Table 2 Input parameter of Interface material .................................................................................... 11
Table 3 Input material parameters of the validation model ................................................................ 16
Table 4 - Elastic and inelastic properties of the material models .......................................................... 18
Table 5 Mean and standard deviation of random fields in material sample DG2RB1 ....................... 19
Table 6 Input variables of material properties in simulations 1-30 ..................................................... 20
Table 7 Input variables of material properties in simulations 31-41 ................................................... 20
Table 8 Input variables of material properties in simulations 42-47 ................................................... 23
Table 9 Results summary for simulations performed with a vertical load equal to -80 kN................. 29
Table 10 Results summary for simulations 61-66 .............................................................................. 35
Table 11 Results summary for simulations 67 and 69 ....................................................................... 37
Table 12 Results summary for simulations 68 and 70 ....................................................................... 37

xiv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Modeling strategies for masonry structures: (a) detailed micro-modeling; (b) simplified
micro-modeling; and (c) macro-modeling, Loureno (2002). .......................................................... 1
Figure 2 Masonry wall defined as reference geometry, Cavalagli, Cluni and Gusella (2013). ............ 3
Figure 3 Blocks and interfaces representation of reference geometry. ............................................... 3
Figure 4 Representative 1mx1m specimens from reference geometry. .............................................. 3
Figure 5 Geometry of CCISOQUAD quadrilateral element, adapted from ervenka, Jendele and
ervenka (2013). ............................................................................................................................. 5
Figure 6 Geometry of CCISOGAP 2D interface element, ervenka, Jendele and ervenka (2013). . 6
Figure 7 Uniaxial stress-stain law, adapted from ervenka, Jendele and ervenka (2013) ............... 8
Figure 8 Exponential crack opening law, ervenka, Jendele and ervenka (2013) ........................... 8
Figure 9 Biaxial failure function, adapted from ervenka, Jendele and ervenka (2013) .................. 9
Figure 10 Interface element failure surface, adapted from ervenka, Jendele and ervenka (2013)
....................................................................................................................................................... 11
Figure 11 Division of the variable domain into intervals, Novk, Tepl, Kerner and Voechovsk
(2002) ............................................................................................................................................ 12
Figure 14 Geometry and schematic loading arrangement, Loureno, Oliveira, Roca and Ordua
(2005) ............................................................................................................................................ 15
Figure 15 Geometry and finite element mesh of the validation model ............................................... 15
Figure 16 Load-displacement diagrams, Loureno, Oliveira, Roca and Ordua (2005) on the left,
validation model on the right ......................................................................................................... 16

xv
Figure 17 Principal compressive stresses (N/mm2) depicted on the incremental deformed mesh for a
horizontal displacement equal to (mm): (a) 1.0; (b) 2.0; (c) 3.0; and (d) 15.0, Loureno, Oliveira,
Roca and Ordua (2005). .............................................................................................................. 17
Figure 18 Principal compressive stresses (N/mm2) depicted on the deformed mesh of the validation
model for a horizontal displacement equal to (mm): (a) 1.0; (b) 2.0; (c) 3.0; and (d) 15.0 ............ 17
Figure 19 Random fields of material sample DG2RB1 ...................................................................... 19
Figure 20 Load-displacement diagram for simulations 1-30 .............................................................. 21
Figure 21 Load-displacement diagram for simulations 31-41 ............................................................ 21
Figure 22 Load-displacement diagram for simulations 1 and 31 ....................................................... 22
Figure 24 Load-displacement diagram for simulations 1 and 42 ....................................................... 24
Figure 25 Principal compressive stresses (N/mm2) depicted on the deformed mesh of simulation
model 1 for a horizontal displacement equal to 0.2 mm ................................................................ 25
model 42 for a horizontal displacement equal to 0.2 mm .............................................................. 25
Figure 31 Load-displacement diagram for simulations 1, 42 and 48-60 ............................................ 28
Figure 32 Load-displacement diagram for simulations 53 and 55 ..................................................... 30

xvi
model 55 for a horizontal displacement equal to 0.5 mm.............................................................. 31
model 53 for a horizontal displacement equal to 1.45 mm............................................................ 33
model 55 for a horizontal displacement equal to 1.45 mm............................................................ 33
Figure 40 Peak response versus applied vertical load for samples RG1-RG6 .................................. 35
Figure 41 Geometries of the stack bond and running bond models .................................................. 36
Figure 42 Load-displacement diagram for simulations 1, 42, 48, 67 and 69 ..................................... 37
Figure 43 Load-displacement diagram for simulations 61, 63, 68 and 70 ......................................... 38

xvii

xviii
1.
INTRODUCTION
"I need to discuss science vs. engineering. Put glibly: In science if you know what you are doing you
should not be doing it. In engineering if you do not know what you are doing you should not be doing
it. Of course, you seldom, if ever, see either pure state." (Richard W. Hamming, 1915-1998)
Numerical models of mechanical systems may be described as mathematical idealizations of their

physical characteristics. They assume geometry, loads and material properties as well as the
governing equations that link these variables with the response variables of the system
(displacements, strains, stresses). The finite element method provides a powerful tool of numerical
solutions to such boundary value problems. Coupled with advanced formulations of constitutive laws,
approximations can be achieved with high level of accuracy for engineering purposes.
The three main approaches to the modeling of masonry as an anisotropic material are detailed micromodeling, simplified micro-modeling and macro-modeling. In the first approach, units and mortar joints
are represented by continuum elements whereas the unit-mortar interface is represented by a
discontinuum element. In the second approach, the mortar joints and the unit-mortar interface are
lumped in discontinuum elements and the units are represented by continuum elements and
expanded to keep the geometry unchanged. In the third approach, units, mortar and unit-mortar
interface are smeared out in a homogenous continuum. The approaches differ in implemented
assumptions and in complexity, which is linked to the cost of the numerical computation, the accuracy
and the validity range, all of which should be adequately considered and prioritized when choosing a
modeling strategy, depending on the desired performance scale. For most practice oriented
applications, macro-modeling is considered efficient whereas micro-modeling is considered more
suitable for smaller scale applications, where individual units and joints and their interaction are of
interest. (Loureno 2002).
Figure 1 Modeling strategies for masonry structures: (a) detailed micro-modeling; (b) simplified
micro-modeling; and (c) macro-modeling, Loureno (2002).

One of the remaining challenges lies in the inherent randomness of material properties in the
structural components. The significance of both natural material randomness and manmade
geometrical arrangement has been subject to comprehensive research during the past few decades.
In the case of masonry structures in particular, many related studies focus on formulating descriptive
and optimal computational solutions to these 'built-in' yet statistically foreseeable imperfections, mostly
within the framework of homogenization approaches to the definition of equivalent material properties
(Zucchini & Loureno 2004) and equivalent periodic representations of irregular masonry (Spence,
Gioffr & Grigoriu 2008).
In this study, these uncertainties are factored back into the models by means of stochastic or
probabilistic mechanics, with the objective of assessing the effects of randomness, as well as the
accuracy of the averaged deterministic approaches commonly used in civil engineering. Specifically,
displacement controlled simulations of compression and shear tests are performed on masonry wall
specimens. An initial geometry is taken from an existing wall and a representative finite element model
is compiled as a 2D mesh, consisting of blocks and interfaces (simplified micro-modeling). Once the
model is validated by comparing simulation results with documented laboratory experiments, three
types of assumptions are made in subsequent simulations: (i) deterministic material properties, (ii)
stochastic material properties expressed as discretized random fields and (iii) probabilistic distribution
of material properties expressed as random input variables per masonry block. A fourth type of
simulation is performed assuming deterministic material properties and randomly generated geometry,
true to the reference model in terms of statistical distributions of the geometrical parameters.
Simulations are repeated with a variety of isolated or coupled modified fields and variables in order to
estimate the sensitivity of the structural behavior to each parameter.

2
Figure 2 Masonry wall defined as reference geometry, Cavalagli, Cluni and Gusella (2013).
Figure 3 Blocks and interfaces representation of reference geometry.
Figure 4 Representative 1mX1m specimens from reference geometry.


4
2.
ADOPTED MESO MODELING
The FEM simulations are modeled in ATENA nonlinear finite element software. The general
mathematical formulation of the problem follows a classical energetic approach. The principle of virtual
work is applied in its virtual displacement variation. Equilibrium and boundary condition equations are
expressed in an incremental form, where the structural response up to time t is assumed known and a
load is applied at t+Dt. Linearization is performed by neglecting 2
nd
order terms of the nonlinear strain
increment, arriving at the general governing equations balancing virtual internal work with work done
by external forces. The domain is decomposed by applying the Finite Element Method. The
discretized displacement field is approximated for each element at each load increment and the nodal
displacements are determined from a system of nonlinear algebraic equations solved by an iterative
Newton-Raphson Method solver. Detailed numerical assumptions and formulations of the process and
of the incorporated nonlinear material models and elements are found in ATENA Program
Documentation.
2.1 Finite element mesh

The modeled finite element mesh consists of CCIsoQuad plane stress quadrilateral isoparametric
elements and CCIsoGap 2D interface elements, representing masonry blocks and joints, respectively.
Figure 5 Geometry of CCIsoQuad quadrilateral element, adapted from ervenka, Jendele and
ervenka (2013).
The CCIsoQuad plane stress isoparametric element is bilinearly interpolated over its area and the
integrals arising in the finite element method are approximated using four Gauss integration points.
The interpolation functions at each point are expressed in the local coordinate system r,s:
Node i
Function hi
1
(1+r)(1+s)
4
1
(1-r)(1+s)
4
1
(1-r)(1-s)
4
1
(1+r)(1-s)
4
(1)

The CCIsoGap 2D interface element is a linear approximation derived from the isoparametric element.
It is defined by a pair of gapped lines, each located on opposing side of the interface. The degrees of
freedom defined for the element are the relative displacements Du, Dv, expressed in the local
coordinate system, which is aligned with the gap direction.
Figure 6 Geometry of CCIsoGap 2D interface element, ervenka, Jendele and ervenka (2013).
The initial state of the gap is closed, allowing full contact interaction. In addition, friction sliding is
possible within the gap. In open state, there is no contact between the lines. This behavior is modeled
by employing a penalty method. A constitutive matrix of the interface is defined:
F K
F = = tt
F 0
0 u
= Du
K nn v
(2)
where Du, Dv are the relative displacements of the interface sides (sliding and opening), Ktt, Knn are
the shear and normal stiffness, respectively and
F , F are the tractions at the interface. All values are
defined in the local coordinate system r, s.

The relative displacements Du, Dv are derived:
1
1
(1 + r ), h2 = (1 r )
2
2
u h2 u1,4 + h1u2,3
u = =
v h2 v1,4 + h1v2,3
h1 =
h
u = 1
0
h2
h2
h1
h2
0
h2
(3)
h1
0
u1
v
1
u 2

0 v2
= Bu
h1 u3

v3
u
4
v4
A numerical integration in two Gauss points is used to integrate the interface element stiffness matrix.
The stiffness coefficients depend on the gap state. The interface is considered open if the normal

6
stress exceeds the interface tensile strength, in which case a stress free constitutive law is considered
(Fi=0) and the stiffness is set to a small, but nonzero value. The local stiffness matrix and internal
tractions vector are transformed into the global coordinate system and then assembled in the general
problem governing equations.
2.2 Constitutive material models

The damage-based SBETA constitutive model, in which cracks are computed using a smeared
approach, is assigned to the block elements. The properties defined for a material point are valid
within a certain material volume, associated with a Gauss integration point. The mathematical
formulation is considered in the plane stress state. The principal directions of the computed stresses
and strains may be identical or different, depending on the state of the material (un-cracked or
cracked). The input parameters used to construct the constitutive model are given in Table 1.
Table 1 Input parameter of SBETA material
Parameter
E
Definition
Elastic modulus
Poisson's ratio
Tensile strength
Compressive strength
Specific fracture energy
Compressive strain at uniaxial compressive strength
Compressive strength reduction factor due to cracks
Critical compressive displacement
Specific material weight
ft
fc
Gf
c
c
wd
In the simulations described in Chapter 3, these input variables are defined as either deterministic or
random and assigned values accordingly. The following effects of the material behavior are accounted
for by the listed input variables and relations formulations of the constitutive model:
nonlinear behavior in compression including softening
tensile fracturing based on nonlinear fracture mechanics
biaxial strength failure criterion
reduction of compressive strength after cracking
tensile softening effect
rotated crack direction model
The material stiffness matrix is defined by the elastic constants derived from a stress-strain function
representing an equivalent uniaxial law, where different laws are used for loading and unloading,
allowing energy dissipation. The nonlinear behavior in the biaxial stress state is described by means of
ef
eq
a so-called effective stress and the equivalent uniaxial strain .

eq =
(4)
Ei
The effective stress is in most cases a principal stress. The equivalent uniaxial strain is introduced in
order to eliminate the Poissons effect in the plane stress state and may be considered as the strain
that would be produced by the stress i in a uniaxial test with modulus Ei associated with the direction
i. Peak compressive and tensile stresses reflect biaxial stress state.
Figure 7 Uniaxial stress-stain law, adapted from ervenka, Jendele and ervenka (2013)
t
The tangent modulus E is used in the material stiffness matrix D to construct an element stiffness
matrix for the iterative solution. For numerical reasons, E is set to a minimum positive value near the
compressive peak and tensile softening ranges of the stress-strain curve.
Tensile behavior prior to cracking is assumed linear elastic. Post cracking tensile behavior is based on
an exponential crack opening law and fracture energy, derived experimentally by Hordijk (1991) and
defined per unit area of a crack.
Figure 8 Exponential crack opening law, ervenka, Jendele and ervenka (2013)
The particular form of the crack opening law reads:
w 3
w
w
=
1
+
3
exp
6.93
28 exp(6.93),
' ef
ft
wc
wc
wc
G
wc = 5.14 ' eff
ft
(5)

8
where w is the crack opening, wc is the crack opening at the complete release of stress, is the
'ef
normal stress in the crack, ft is the effective tensile strength and Gf is the fracture energy . The crack
opening displacement w is calculated as total strains normal to the crack direction multiplied by band
size, which is associated with the finite element mesh size and skew.
Compressive behavior prior to peak stress is expressed as:
ef = f c ' ef
E
kx x 2
, x = ,k = 0
c
1 + (k 2) x
Ec
ef
(6)
'ef
where is the compressive stress, fc is the effective compressive strength, and c are the strain
and strain at peak stress respectively, E0 is the initial elastic modulus and Ec is the secant elastic
modulus at peak stress.
Post peak compressive behavior is defined by a linearly descending softening law. In an analogy to
the tensile cracking theory, the shape of the crack opening law is associated with a plastic
displacement and fracture energy defined and considered material properties. Both tensile and
compression failure bands are introduced in the formulation with the purpose of eliminating finite
element size and orientation effects and are defined as projections of the finite element dimensions on
the failure planes, assumed normal to the principal stresses. For skewed meshes, band size is
increased with respect to the element orientation angle.
A biaxial stress failure criterion according to Kupfer et al. (1969) is used.
Figure 9 Biaxial failure function, adapted from ervenka, Jendele and ervenka (2013)
Cracks are formed in the material when the principal stress exceeds the tensile strength. They are
assumed uniformly distributed within the material volume. A rotated crack model is defined, in which
the directions of the principal stress and principal strain are identical. Therefore, no shear strain occurs
on the crack plane and only two normal stress components are defined.

Decreased compressive strength due to cracks is expressed by normal strain and reduction factor c
parallel to the cracks:
f c ' ef = rc f c' , rc = c + (1 c)e (128 )
(7)
The material stiffness matrix prior to cracking is defined as elastic isotropic and written in the global x,
y coordinate system:
1
0
E
D=
0
1
2
1
1
0 0
(8)
where E is the elastic modulus derived from the equivalent uniaxial law and is the Poisson's ratio
regarded constant. In the cracked material, the stiffness matrix takes the form of an elastic orthotropic
solid. It is defined in a coordinate system coinciding with crack direction. Local direction 1 is defined
normal to the crack and local direction 2 parallel to it. The matrix is derived as an inverse of a
manipulated plane stress state flexibility matrix, in which 21= is assumed and symmetry relation
12E2= 21E1 is used to obtain 12 =
E1
.
E2
The stiffness matrix DL found accordingly in the local coordinate system:
E
E1
1
E
E2
2
E
E
DL = E1 (1 1 2 ) 1
1
E2
E2
0
0
(9)
and is transformed to the global coordinate system and assembled into the global matrix.

10
The joints are assigned with an Interface material model which simulates the contact between the
blocks and is based on Mohr-Coulomb criterion with tension cut off. The constitutive relation is given in
terms of tractions on the interface plane and relative sliding and opening displacements (2).
The initial failure surface corresponds to Mohr-Coulomb condition (10). Once stresses violate this
condition, the surface collapses to a residual dry friction surface.
| | c , 0
= 0
( c )2
1
, 0 =
( ft c )2
c2
1
( ft c )2
f t 2
, c =
, 0 < < ft
c 2 f t
(10)
= 0, = f t
The tensile failure criterion is represented by an ellipsoid intersecting the normal stress axis at ft with a
vertical tangent and the shear axis at c (i.e. cohesion) with a tangent equivalent to .
Figure 10 Interface element failure surface, adapted from ervenka, Jendele and ervenka (2013)
Knn and Ktt denote the initial elastic normal and shear stiffness respectively. Theoretically, post failure
stiffness is zero, however, for numerical reasons both are set to a positive value of ~1 0 00 of the initial
stiffness. The input parameters of the interface material model are listed in Table 2. These parameters
are defined as either deterministic or random in the FEM simulations and assigned with values
accordingly.
Table 2 Input parameter of Interface material
Parameter
Knn
Ktt
ft
C
F
MIN
Knn
MIN
Ktt
Definition
Normal stiffness
Shear stiffness
Tensile strength
Initial cohesion
Friction coefficient
Minimal normal stiffness for numerical purposes
Minimal shear stiffness for numerical purposes

11
2.3 Modeling of uncertainties

The random fluctuations in the mechanical properties of the materials are captured by introducing
randomized input variables in the FEM models. An initial set of deterministic variables is defined,
assigned with values representing average physical properties of natural building stones and mortar
joints (reduced to 2D interfaces in the models). These values and their probability density functions
(PDF) are estimated based on experimental and numerical studies by Oliveira (2003), ejnoha,
ejnoha, Zeman, Skora and Vorel (2008) and Naghoj, Youssef and Maaitah (2010). Randomized
input values are generated using the Latin Hypercube Sampling (LHS) technique. Utilizing this
sampling strategy, the need for a large number of samples is avoided, as the range of the probability
density functions of the random variables is divided into N equivalent intervals, where N is the number
of simulations. The centroids of the intervals are then used in the simulation process; therefore, the
range of the PDF for each variable is divided into N intervals of equal probability 1/N. The cumulative
probability density function (CPDF) is used directly for the random sampling:
k 0.5
xi ,k = i1
(11)
-1
where xi,k is the k-th sample of the i-th variable Xi and Fi is the inverse of the CPDF of Xi.
Figure 11 Division of the variable domain into intervals, Novk, Tepl, Kerner and Voechovsk
(2002)
Every interval of each variable is used once in the sampling, resulting in an N by n table, where n is
the number of variables. Two types of samples are collected implementing this method: (i) randomized
input variables associated with material properties of the blocks, generated per block and (ii) random
fields of both block and interface material properties, generated per integration point associated with a
finite element. Each generated sample of random material properties replaces deterministic input in a
FEM simulation.

12
The geometrical characteristics of the reference wall are statistically analyzed and artificially
reproduced using a set of random parameters, derived from their respective PDF, accounting for the
height and width distribution of the blocks. The length distribution of the bed joints is used as control
criteria to prevent vertical overlap of head joints. If a sample fails the control criteria it is rejected and a
new sample is generated. The samples are converted into coordinate input for FEM models, as well
as the two samples taken directly from the actual wall. Compression and shear test simulations are
performed, considering deterministic material properties, thus isolating the effects of the geometrical
arrangement. The performed simulations are reported and discussed in Chapter 3.
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure 12 Estimation of probability density function for the reference wall shown in Figure 2:
(a) stones width, (b) stones height, (c) bed joints' length, Cavalagli, Cluni and Gusella (2013).
Figure 13 Randomly generated geometries

13

14
3.
FEM SIMULATIONS AND RESULTS
3.1 Deterministic validation model

For the purpose of procedure validation, an initial FEM model is developed, representing a 1m X 1m
specimen from the reference geometry. The model is numerically analyzed with deterministic input
variables calculated using the same considerations and basic configuration implementation to match
experimental and simulation studies by Loureno and Ramos (2004) and Loureno, Oliveira, Roca
and Ordua (2005). The compared specimens differ in geometrical arrangement and parameters,
which can be characterized as periodic in the experimental study case and quasi-periodic in the
reference geometry.
Figure 14 Geometry and schematic loading arrangement, Loureno, Oliveira, Roca and Ordua
(2005)
Figure 15 Geometry and finite element mesh of the validation model

15
The input variables for the material models are shown in Table 3.
Table 3 Input material parameters of the validation model

Material
Block
Interface
Property
Value
Unit
Definition
15500
MPa
Young's modulus
0.2
Poisson's ratio
ft
3.7
MPa
Tensile strength
fc
MPa
Gf
c
- 80.3
110
N/m
-3.277E-03

0.8
wd
-0.5
mm

2.500E-02
MN/m
Knn
155000
MN/m
Normal stiffness
Shear stiffness
Ktt
64580
MN/m
ft
0.015
MPa
Tensile strength
0.019
MPa
Initial cohesion
0.62
100
3
MN/m
MIN
Knn
MIN
Ktt
60
MN/m

While both present similar global structural responses in terms of triggered failure mechanisms and
load-displacement behaviors, each specimen exhibits a different stress path and a different post peak
behavior, most likely linked with their respective geometries, which dominate the location of the
diagonal cracks propagating through the head and bed joints and the formation of struts.
Figure 16 Load-displacement diagrams, Loureno, Oliveira, Roca and Ordua (2005) on the left,
validation model on the right

16
Figure 17 Principal compressive stresses (N/mm ) depicted on the incremental deformed mesh for a
horizontal displacement equal to (mm): (a) 1.0; (b) 2.0; (c) 3.0; and (d) 15.0, Loureno, Oliveira, Roca
and Ordua (2005).
Figure 18 Principal compressive stresses (N/mm ) depicted on the deformed mesh of the validation
model for a horizontal displacement equal to (mm): (a) 1.0; (b) 2.0; (c) 3.0; and (d) 15.0
17
The comparison between the results leads to the development of two random modeling strategies.
The first is achieved by performing repetitive simulations, altering material properties input to capture
their natural physical randomness, whereas the second is realized by performing repetitive simulations
altering the geometrical arrangement which captures manmade irregularity of the masonry.
3.2 Random input models

The model described in the previous article is used in subsequent random input modeling. For the
purpose of this study, the material properties are redefined according to average values for limestone
masonry. The input variables of the block and interface material models are shown in Table 4. The
statistical distribution around some of these mean values is assumed normal, with a coefficient of
variation equal to 0.25, while the remaining values are assumed deterministic in the simulations, for a
MIN
number of reasons. For example, a numerical input parameter such as Knn
has no physical meaning
and therefore is not randomized. On the other hand, the specific material weight which certainly is a
physical characteristic is not randomized to avoid changing the self weight load, since randomized
loads are not investigated within the scope of this study.
Table 4 - Elastic and inelastic properties of the material models
Material
Block
Property
E
ft
fc
Gf
Interface
c
wd
Knn
Ktt
ft
C
F
MIN
Knn
MIN
Ktt
Value
35610
Unit
MPa
Definition
Young's modulus
0.178
4
- 40
80
-2.257E-03
0.8
-0.5
2.300E-02
350000
150000
0.225
0.35
MPa
MPa
N/m
mm
3
MN/m
3
MN/m
3
MN/m
MPa
MPa
0.75
350
150
3
MN/m
3
MN/m
Poisson's ratio
Tensile strength
Normal stiffness
Shear stiffness
Tensile strength
Initial cohesion
In the initial simulation, deterministic values are defined according to Table 4. The self weight load is
applied to the blocks and a compressive distributed vertical load of -80 kN/m is applied on the top of
the wall. A master slave condition is defined on the top nodes in the vertical direction and a prescribed
horizontal displacement is incrementaly applied. Simulations 2 through 30 are performed with identical
geometrical and loading configurations, while the input variables are randomized in isolated and
coupled variations as reported in Table 6. An illustration of randomized fields is shown in Figure 19.
18
ft
fc
Figure 19 Random fields of material sample DG2RB1
Table 5 Mean and standard deviation of random fields in material sample DG2RB1
Field
ft
fc
Mean
36800 MPa
3.8043 MPa
-38.974 MPa
Standard deviation
8436.7 MPa
1.0241 MPa
-10.744 MPa
All samples are defined to mimic natural randomness of mechanical properties, with the exception of
those generated for simulations 21 through 23, in which the variables are defined to represent a
probabilistic scatter of properties among the stones, but not within them. In each randomized sample,
the mean value of any particular input variable is slightly shifted from the mean of the population, while
the coefficient of variation may differ significantly, as described in Chapter 2. Nevertheless, the
responses obtained in all simulations are remarkably similar, practically identical before failure. This
phenomenon is due to the global nature of the mechanical behavior, in which localized material
failures have lesser influence on the response than the overall geometrical arrangement that
determines the triggered mechanisms. However, it has been well established that the vertical load
applied to a wall plays a significant role in its shear capacity and failure modes (rocking vs. crushing).
As the investigated wall exhibits minimal cracks, simulations 31 through 41 are performed with an
increased vertical load equal to -100 kN. The samples used in these simulations are reported in Table
7. As expected, the responses computed with the increased vertical load configuration exhibit an
elevated horizontal force peak. The peak loads in the latter simulations appear at exactly the same
horizontal displacement as in the former. The responses suggest that the failure modes triggered are
identical for both the lower and the higher stress capacities, which complies with experimental
evidence of correlation between the equivalent stiffness and the applied vertical load.

19
Table 6 Input variables of material properties in simulations 1-30
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Simulation
Sample ID
DG1D
DG1RE1
DG1RE2
DG1RE3
DG1RE4
DG1RE5
DG1RK1
DG1RK2
DG1RK3
DG1RK4
DG1RK5
DG1RB1
DG1RB2
DG1RB3
DG1RB4
DG1RB5
DG1RJ1
DG1RJ2
DG1RJ3
DG1RJ4
DG1RBB1
DG1RBB2
DG1RBB3
DG1RFC1
DG1RFC2
DG1RFC3
DG1RFC4
DG1RFC5
DG1RFC6
DG1RFC7
Input variables of material properties

Blocks
Joints
Deterministic
Deterministic
Random E field
Deterministic
Random E field
Deterministic
Random E field
Deterministic
Random E field
Deterministic
Random E field
Deterministic
Random Knn field
Deterministic
Random Knn field
Deterministic
Random Knn field
Deterministic
Random Knn field
Deterministic
Random Knn field
Deterministic
Random E, ft, fc fields
Deterministic
Deterministic
Deterministic
Deterministic
Deterministic
Random Knn, Ktt, ft fields
Deterministic
Deterministic
Deterministic
Deterministic
Random E, ft, fc input per unit
Deterministic
Deterministic
Deterministic
Random C,F, ft fields
Deterministic
Deterministic
Deterministic
Deterministic
Deterministic
Deterministic
Deterministic
No.
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Simulation
Sample ID
DG1D
DG1RE1
DG1RE2
DG1RE3
DG1RE4
DG1RE5
DG1RK1
DG1RK2
DG1RK3
DG1RK4
DG1RK5

Blocks
Joints
Deterministic
Deterministic
Random E field
Deterministic
Random E field
Deterministic
Random E field
Deterministic
Random E field
Deterministic
Random E field
Deterministic
Random Knn field
Deterministic
Random Knn field
Deterministic
Random Knn field
Deterministic
Random Knn field
Deterministic
Random Knn field
Deterministic
20
Figure 20 Load-displacement diagram for simulations 1-30

21
For the first loading configuration, a peak response with a median value of 46.88 kN is obtained when
the prescribed displacement reaches 0.79 mm (median value). At this point, the head joints along the
propagated diagonal crack have all reached failure. Stresses redistribute, as the bed joints along the
diagonal crack are partially in contact. The second peak marks the triggering of the second failure
mode. As the bed joints along the diagonal crack fail, the boundary conditions associated with the
partial confinement of the specimen allow the corner bed joints of the crack to establish partial contact,
which results in high stress concentrations and eventual crushing. As the secondary failure mode is a
localized one, dominated by the stress concentrations, the scatter in the responses of the different
specimens is directly linked to the randomness of their mechanical material properties. The weaker the
specimen is at the crucial remaining contact areas, the sooner a crushing mechanism appears, i.e. at
lower values of displacement and force. Once the crushing mechanism is activated and the residual
available stress paths are exhausted, the structure yields. The yielding mechanism may be
characterized as a combined failure mode of rocking and crushing, as the scattered responses appear
to converge back into a global rather than local failure mode. A similar behavior is exhibited by the
responses computed for the second loading configuration. Once the primary failure mode is activated,
the structure reaches a peak response with a median value of 56.56 kN, at a displacement of 0.8 mm.
The secondary failure mode of the specimens is scattered on the load-displacement curve, while
triggered at slightly lower displacement values with respect to the first configuration, due to the higher
stresses. It is noted that for both loading configurations, the responses of the deterministic sample
marked DG1D are of intermediate values in comparison to those of the randomized samples.
Moreover, as the localized crushing mechanism is governed primarily by the material properties of the
stone and since the random samples used in the second set of simulations are the same as those
used in the first set, the order in which the crushing mechanism is triggered in these samples is
identical for both loading configurations.
Figure 22 Load-displacement diagram for simulations 1 and 31

22
In the mechanical sense, these results suggest that the random fluctuations of material properties
have negligible effects on the global response of the structure and are only significant when a weakest
link type of localized failure is dominant, in which case, the performance of a structure with a narrower
scatter of material properties is not necessarily superior, but is more predictable.
The last set of samples with randomized input variables is generated and used in simulations 43
through 47, as reported in Table 8. A FEM model is compiled using geometrical input derived from a
second specimen of the reference wall, in which the number of blocks (and their mean height) is
identical to the first specimen, while their width (and consequential area) has a higher variation. The
simulations are performed with a loading configuration identical to the one used in simulations 1
through 30. As the expected scatter of the responses is dominated by the material properties of the
blocks, the interface material properties are not randomized in these simulations. All six specimens
exhibit similar behavior, almost identical before the peak response, after which a low scatter is
observed. The responses of deterministic material model marked DG2D are of intermediate values
within said scatter. The peak response has a median value of 50.02 kN, at a median displacement
value of 1.38 mm.
No.
42
43
44
45
46
47
Simulation
Sample ID
DG2D
DG2RB1
DG2RB2
DG2RB3
DG2RB4
DG2RB5

Blocks
Joints
Deterministic
Deterministic
Deterministic
Deterministic
Deterministic
Deterministic
Deterministic

23
Comparing the structural behaviors of the two geometrical specimens, taken from the same reference
wall and applied with the same loading, several differences are noted, suggesting that the geometrical
arrangement within the wall plays a significant role in the response, while the fluctuations in material
properties play a minor one. In the initial linear phase, no noticeable differences are present, but
throughout the nonlinear phase, each specimen presents a different response, associated with the
different failure mechanisms. The first cracks appear in the specimen marked DG1D before the peak
load is reached, resulting in a semi brittle behavior, local softening, stress redistribution and combined
failure modes of rocking and crushing. In the specimen marked DG2D, the first cracks appear after the
peak load is reached, resulting in a more ductile behavior.

24
-1.576E+00
-1.395E+00
-1.215E+00
-1.035E+00
-8.550E-01
-6.600E-01
-4.800E-01
-3.000E-01
-1.200E-01
4.751E-02
Figure 25 Principal compressive stresses (N/mm ) depicted on the deformed mesh of simulation
model 1 for a horizontal displacement equal to 0.2 mm
-1.339E+00
-1.185E+00
-1.005E+00
-8.250E-01
-6.600E-01
-4.800E-01
-3.000E-01
-1.350E-01
4.500E-02
2.013E-01

25
-3.528E+00
-3.150E+00
-2.730E+00
-2.310E+00
-1.890E+00
-1.470E+00
-1.050E+00
-6.300E-01
-2.100E-01
1.556E-01
-2.718E+00
-2.430E+00
-2.100E+00
-1.770E+00
-1.440E+00
-1.140E+00
-8.100E-01
-4.800E-01
-1.500E-01
1.523E-01

26
-8.423E+00
-7.470E+00
-6.480E+00
-5.490E+00
-4.500E+00
-3.510E+00
-2.520E+00
-1.530E+00
-5.400E-01
2.846E-01
-3.987E+00
-3.560E+00
-3.080E+00
-2.600E+00
-2.120E+00
-1.680E+00
-1.200E+00
-7.200E-01
-2.400E-01
1.715E-01

27
3.3 Random geometry models

Considering the results obtained in simulations 1 through 47, simulations 48 through 60 are performed
by generating random geometries as described in Chapter 2 and keeping the material properties fixed
to the values listed in Table 4. As the former simulations demonstrate the effect of the random material
properties on the structural behavior, the latter are meant to demonstrate the significance of the
geometrical arrangement of the masonry. It is understood that given a fixed set of building stones, a
finite number of possible arrangements exists and determining between them is up to the mason. The
geometries are randomly generated taking into account the statistical distribution of stone dimensions
from the reference geometry, as well as incorporating the mason's discretion by applying a control
criteria derived from the statistical distribution of the bed joint dimensions. The generated 1m X 1m
specimens are applied with the same loading configuration described in the previous article. The
scatter found in the responses of the random geometries is significantly higher than the scatter
associated with the randomness of the material properties and is apparent throughout the loaddisplacement curve. It is noted that the responses of the samples marked DG1D and DG2D taken
from the reference geometry are of intermediate values in comparison to those obtained in the random
geometry simulations.
Figure 31 Load-displacement diagram for simulations 1, 42 and 48-60

28
Table 9 Results summary for simulations performed with a vertical load equal to -80 kN
Geometry
Reference
wall
specimen
#1
Reference
wall
specimen
#2
Random
Random
Random
Random
Random
Random
Random
Random
Random
Random
Random
Random
Random
Simulation
No. Sample ID
1
DG1D
2
DG1RE1
3
DG1RE2
4
DG1RE3
5
DG1RE4
6
DG1RE5
7
DG1RK1
8
DG1RK2
9
DG1RK3
10
DG1RK4
11
DG1RK5
12
DG1RB1
13
DG1RB2
14
DG1RB3
15
DG1RB4
16
DG1RB5
17
DG1RJ1
18
DG1RJ2
19
DG1RJ3
20
DG1RJ4
21 DG1RBB1
22 DG1RBB2
23 DG1RBB3
24 DG1RFC1
25 DG1RFC2
26 DG1RFC3
27 DG1RFC4
28 DG1RFC5
29 DG1RFC6
30 DG1RFC7
42
DG2D
43
DG2RB1
44
DG2RB2
45
DG2RB3
46
DG2RB4
47
DG2RB5
48
RG1
49
RG2
50
RG3
51
RG4
52
RG5
53
RG6
54
RG7
55
RG8
56
RG9
57
RG10
58
RG11
59
RG12
60
RG13
Responses for vertical load=-80 kN

Horizontal disp. at peak load [mm]
Peak horizontal load [kN]
0.80
46.88
0.80
46.85
0.80
46.88
0.80
46.82
0.80
46.87
0.75
46.69
0.80
46.89
0.80
46.88
0.80
46.88
0.80
46.88
0.80
46.88
0.80
46.81
0.75
46.82
0.80
46.84
0.70
47.05
0.70
46.75
0.80
46.88
0.80
46.87
0.80
46.87
0.80
46.88
0.80
46.87
0.80
46.88
0.80
46.87
0.80
46.91
0.80
46.91
0.80
46.91
0.80
46.91
0.80
46.91
0.80
46.91
0.80
46.91
1.35
50.00
1.35
49.81
1.35
49.88
1.40
50.03
1.40
50.17
1.40
50.44
1.13
46.98
0.80
52.90
0.85
44.41
0.70
43.45
0.70
44.64
1.49
57.20
1.01
51.00
1.45
45.63
1.09
46.52
0.65
42.17
1.05
47.72
0.80
46.82
0.80
47.56

29
Samples RG6 and RG8 (simulations 53 and 55, respectively) both exhibit high values in terms of the
displacement corresponding to the peak response (1.49 mm and 1.45 mm respectively), but while the
peak response obtained by sample RG6 has the highest value (57.20 kN), the peak response value of
sample RG8 (45.63 kN) is lower than the median value (46.82 kN). In comparison with the other
samples, the geometrical assemblies of both these samples sufficiently allow diagonal struts to form
through partial contact in the joints. However, in sample RG6 there are larger stones located in the
diagonal path compared to those in sample RG8 and therefore these paths are exhausted at a much
later stage in comparison, postponing the formation of cracks in the stones. These occurrences lead to
the high deformability of both samples as well as to the high equivalent stiffness and load capacity of
sample RG6 and the corresponding lower values of sample RG8.

30
-3.852E+00
-3.440E+00
-3.000E+00
-2.520E+00
-2.080E+00
-1.600E+00
-1.160E+00
-6.800E-01
-2.400E-01
2.009E-01
-3.234E+00
-2.905E+00
-2.520E+00
-2.135E+00
-1.785E+00
-1.400E+00
-1.015E+00
-6.650E-01
-2.800E-01
6.724E-02

31
-5.046E+00
-4.510E+00
-3.905E+00
-3.300E+00
-2.695E+00
-2.090E+00
-1.485E+00
-8.800E-01
-2.750E-01
2.723E-01
-6.200E+00
-5.525E+00
-4.810E+00
-4.030E+00
-3.315E+00
-2.600E+00
-1.820E+00
-1.105E+00
-3.900E-01
2.867E-01

32
-5.564E+00
-4.920E+00
-4.260E+00
-3.600E+00
-2.940E+00
-2.280E+00
-1.620E+00
-9.600E-01
-3.000E-01
3.018E-01
-7.706E+00
-6.880E+00
-6.000E+00
-5.040E+00
-4.160E+00
-3.280E+00
-2.320E+00
-1.440E+00
-5.600E-01
2.559E-01

33
The next set of simulations (61-66) is performed using samples RG1 through RG6 with an increased
compressive load equal to -200 kN. As the influence of the geometrical arrangement is under
investigation, it is important to establish whether the scatter in the responses is somehow linked to the
loads and to what extent. It is noted that the increase in the peak horizontal response and the
corresponding displacement was more or less predictable, meaning that each sample performed as
was expected, with the exception of sample RG6, which while obtained the expected peak response,
had no significant increase in the displacement corresponding to it. Although the limited number of
simulations renders these results inconclusive, it is decided to proceed to the final modeling approach
for further validation.

34
Table 10 Results summary for simulations 61-66
No.
61
62
63
64
65
66
Simulation
Sample ID
RG1
RG2
RG3
RG4
RG5
RG6

2.60
103.70
1.65
112.10
1.30
94.92
1.30
99.61
1.93
102.00
1.75
124.10
Figure 40 Peak response versus applied vertical load for samples RG1-RG6

35
3.4 Periodic geometry models
To demonstrate the significance of the geometrical arrangement, the final set of simulations is
performed by placing a set of averaged sized blocks in what is considered a poor arrangement,
meaning that the head joints are aligned throughout the height of the masonry wall (stack bond). This
overlapping is expected to reduce the capacity of the wall and bring to an early onset of failure, even
compared to the lowest results obtained in former simulations. Then, the blocks are rearranged in the
optimal running bond manner, meaning that the bed joints are all the same length and no head joints
overlap. It is important to emphasize that the reference wall has an irregular geometry that is
comparable to a running bond, in which each stone is in contact with six adjacent stones and not to a
stack bond, in which each stone is in contact with four adjacent stones. Taking that into account,
simulations 67-68, performed with the sample marked SBOND, are meant to represent an extreme
situation that is not applicable to the reference wall, while simulations 69-70, performed with the
sample marked RBOND, represent a regular periodic assembly with geometrical characteristics that
resemble median values of the reference wall and are therefore comparable. The material properties
and model configurations are defined the same as in the previous simulations. The structural
behaviors are compared for applied vertical loads of -80 kN and -200 kN. The response of the running
bond specimen RBOND is very much like the responses of the formerly analyzed samples. The failure
mechanisms triggered and the formation of diagonal struts occurs within the parameters of the
observed scatter in the former simulations. As expected, the stack bonded specimen SBOND exhibits
a significantly different structural behavior.
Figure 41 Geometries of the stack bond and running bond models

36
Table 11 Results summary for simulations 67 and 69
No.
67
69
Simulation
Sample ID
SBOND
RBOND

3.25
24.02
0.80
45.65
Figure 42 Load-displacement diagram for simulations 1, 42, 48, 67 and 69
Table 12 Results summary for simulations 68 and 70
No.
68
70
Simulation
Sample ID
SBOND
RBOND

Horizontal disp. at peak load [mm] Peak horizontal load [kN]
7.45
57.25
1.60
110.90

37
Figure 43 Load-displacement diagram for simulations 61, 63, 68 and 70

The stack bond has apparent diminished equivalent stiffness compared to the running bond and to the
reference geometry. Under the compression and shear loads, the geometry of the stack bond, which
resembles an array of pillars, dictates a behavior that conforms to this structural assumption. This
geometrical arrangement of the wall allows for very limited lateral interaction which is necessary in
order to absorb lateral loading and form diagonal struts. Therefore, the failure mode is very different
than those seen in the former simulations, the deformations are substantially higher and the load
bearing capacity is substantially lower. In the running bond sample, interaction is established via
partial contact in the joints, allowing diagonal struts to form in a uniform fashion. It is noted that the
reference geometry samples and the randomly generated geometries support the same type of
interaction but in a more scattered fashion, as no two contact joints are of the same length and the
stress paths are formed accordingly, for better or worse. In the cases of the irregular geometry, if the
stones on the diagonal path happen to be large and happen to have a large contact surface with the
adjacent stones, the formation of struts is accomplished with relative ease and a larger part of the
structure participates in the load bearing. As there is no guaranty of that happening in any of the
irregular walls, there is a scatter in the structural responses which is associated with these geometrical
parameters and the periodic sample RBOND obtains responses of intermediate values within this
scatter.

38
-1.185E+00
-1.050E+00
-9.150E-01
-7.650E-01
-6.300E-01
-4.950E-01
-3.450E-01
-2.100E-01
-7.500E-02
5.715E-02
-1.990E+00
-1.780E+00
-1.540E+00
-1.320E+00
-1.080E+00
-8.600E-01
-6.200E-01
-4.000E-01
-1.600E-01
5.141E-02

39
-1.538E+00
-1.365E+00
-1.185E+00
-1.005E+00
-8.250E-01
-6.450E-01
-4.650E-01
-2.850E-01
-1.050E-01
6.907E-02
-3.500E+00
-3.115E+00
-2.695E+00
-2.275E+00
-1.855E+00
-1.470E+00
-1.050E+00
-6.300E-01
-2.100E-01
1.448E-01

40
-1.842E+00
-1.660E+00
-1.440E+00
-1.220E+00
-1.000E+00
-7.800E-01
-5.600E-01
-3.400E-01
-1.200E-01
7.395E-02
-4.325E+00
-3.870E+00
-3.375E+00
-2.835E+00
-2.340E+00
-1.845E+00
-1.305E+00
-8.100E-01
-3.150E-01
1.746E-01

41
-2.372E+00
-2.100E+00
-1.825E+00
-1.550E+00
-1.275E+00
-1.000E+00
-7.250E-01
-4.500E-01
-1.750E-01
9.647E-02
-3.385E+00
-3.010E+00
-2.625E+00
-2.205E+00
-1.820E+00
-1.435E+00
-1.015E+00
-6.300E-01
-2.450E-01
1.111E-01

42
-3.274E+00
-2.905E+00
-2.520E+00
-2.135E+00
-1.750E+00
-1.365E+00
-9.800E-01
-5.950E-01
-2.100E-01
1.575E-01
-6.311E+00
-5.590E+00
-4.875E+00
-4.095E+00
-3.380E+00
-2.665E+00
-1.885E+00
-1.170E+00
-4.550E-01
2.267E-01

43
-3.736E+00
-3.320E+00
-2.880E+00
-2.440E+00
-2.000E+00
-1.560E+00
-1.120E+00
-6.800E-01
-2.400E-01
1.740E-01
-8.578E+00
-7.650E+00
-6.660E+00
-5.670E+00
-4.680E+00
-3.600E+00
-2.610E+00
-1.620E+00
-6.300E-01
2.886E-01

44
-4.794E+00
-4.250E+00
-3.700E+00
-3.150E+00
-2.600E+00
-2.000E+00
-1.450E+00
-9.000E-01
-3.500E-01
1.890E-01
-3.523E+01
-3.150E+01
-2.730E+01
-2.310E+01
-1.925E+01
-1.505E+01
-1.085E+01
-7.000E+00
-2.800E+00
7.841E-01
45
The running bond sample, which is considered comparable with the reference wall and indeed exhibits
similar global behavior, has an important difference embedded in the periodicity, which is the
symmetry and uniformity of dimensions. The efficiency of these geometrical characteristics can be
regarded as both an advantage and a drawback. The periodicity of the arrangement is clearly an
advantage in terms of predictability. The symmetry in geometry translates to a higher uniformity in the
responses within the wall, clearly an important aspect since the loads themselves are rarely as
predictable. On the other hand, it seems that in the reference geometry, the larger stones do
compensate for the lack of regularity and an efficient arrangement can be achieved that is of higher
capacity in comparison to regular running bond. That being said, it is emphasized that these
simulations only predict the compression and shear capacity and under different conditions or even a
different location of the same load, the larger stones advantage may be lost or irrelevant.

46
4.
CONCLUSIONS
The simulations performed in this study provide a compelling insight to the sensitivity of the structural
behavior to the randomness of the material properties as well as the geometrical arrangement. It is
clear from the results that in masonry structures, the geometrical characteristics have a much greater
influence on the structural behavior than that of the random fluctuations in the material properties
within the components, which can be regarded as minor in the full range of the response and
negligible in the linear range.
The analyzed simulations suggest that predictions associated with the randomness of the material
properties can be achieved with high accuracy and that the safety factors that should be considered
can be derived from their estimated scatter. On the other hand, it is obvious that the geometrical
arrangement should be more carefully studied, as any assumptions regarding its characteristics that
are applied will profoundly alter the obtained results. Although this study is limited to just one form of
structural response and neglects some aspects related to it, such as out of plain behavior and the
Poisson effect of the mortar joints, the simulations which were carried out confirm the applicability of
the deterministic approach regarding the material properties of the structural components. Moreover, it
is stated that even given the high dependency on the geometrical arrangement, it can still be
quantified to a sufficient extent, in the sense that such educated assessments when appropriately
applied enable simplified modeling strategies to provide precise predictions for engineering purposes,
especially for estimations conducted in the linear range.
As far as computational effort is concerned, it is advisable to construct numerical models on a case by

case basis, according to the desired level of accuracy in the predictions. While the simplest solutions
are suffice for most practice oriented applications, an experienced user should always consider all the
available tools and not allow the effort of computation to dictate the modeling strategy, especially
when dealing with a complex subject matter.
It is emphasized that the conclusions of the study can be inferred only in such cases where a global
response is the subject of interest and that any assumptions regarding the material properties should
be made with respect to the state of the structure. In the case of heritage buildings in particular, such
assumptions must be conducted with great attention, as it is likely that residual material and structural
damage is present and unevenly spread in the structural components.

47

48
REFERENCES
1.
Abdou, L., Saada, R. A., Meftah, F. & Mebarki, A. Experimental investigations of the joint-mortar
behaviour. Mechanics Research Communications 33, 370384 (2006).
2.
Abrams, D. P. Strength and Behavior of Unreinforced Masonry Elements. (University of Illinois,

1992).
3.
Cavalagli, N., Cluni, F. & Gusella, V. Evaluation of a Statistically Equivalent Periodic Unit Cell for a
quasi-periodic masonry. International Journal of Solids and Structures 50, 42264240 (2013).
4.
ervenka, V., Jendele, L. & ervenka, J. ATENA Program Documentation. (ervenka Consulting,
2014).
5.
Corradi, M., Borri, A. & Vignoli, A. Experimental study on the determination of strength of masonry
walls. Construction and Building Materials 17, 325337 (2003).
6.
Da Porto, F., Guidi, G., Garbin, E. & Modena, C. In-plane behavior of clay masonry walls:
experimental testing and finite-element modeling. Journal of Structural Engineering 136, 1379
1392 (2010).
7.
Falsone, G. & Lombardo, M. Stochastic representation of the mechanical properties of irregular

masonry structures. International Journal of Solids and Structures 44, 86008612 (2007).
8.
Giambanco, G., Rizzo, S. & Spallino, R. Numerical analysis of masonry structures via interface
models. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 190, 64936511 (2001).
9.
Gusella, V. & Cluni, F. Random field and homogenization for masonry with nonperiodic
microstructure. Journal of Mechanics of Materials and Structures 1, 357386 (2006).
10. Hamming, R. W. The Art of Doing Science and Engineering: Learning to Learn. (CRC Press,
2003).
11. Loureno, P. B., Oliveira, D. V., Roca, P. & Ordua, A. Dry joint stone masonry walls subjected to
in-plane combined loading. Journal of Structural Engineering 131, 16651673 (2005).
12. Loureno, P. B. Computations on historic masonry structures. Progress in Structural Engineering
and Materials 4, 301319 (2002).

49
13. Loureno, P. B. Experimental and numerical issues in the modelling of the mechanical behaviour
of masonry. Structural Analysis of Historical Constructions II. (Roca, P., Gonzlez, J. L., Oate,
E., & Loureno, P. B., eds.). CIMNE, Barcelona 5791 (1998).
14. Loureno, P. B. Recent advances in masonry modelling: Micromodelling and homogenisation.
Multiscale Modeling in Solid Mechanics: Computational Approaches 3, 251-293 (2009).
15. Massart, T. J. Multi-scale modeling of damage in masonry structures. Ph.D. thesis, Eindhoven
University of Technology & Universit Libre de Bruxelles (2003).
16. Mishnaevsky, L. L. & Schmauder, S. Continuum mesomechanical finite element modeling in
materials development: A state-of-the-art review. Applied Mechanics Reviews 54, 4967 (2001).
17. Naghoj, N. M., Youssef, N. & Maaitah, O. Mechanical properties of natural building stone:
Jordanian building limestone as an example. Jordan Journal of Earth and Environmental Sciences
3, 3748 (2010).
18. Novk, D., Tepl, B., Kerner, Z. & Voechovsk, M. FREET Program Documentation. (Brno,
2002).
19. Oliveira, D. V. Experimental and numerical analysis of blocky masonry structures under cyclic
loading. Ph.D. thesis, University of Minho (2003).
20. Rao, S. S. The Finite Element Method in Engineering. (Butterworth-Heinemann, 2005).
21. Sejnoha, J., Sejnoha, M., Zeman, J., Sykora, J. & Vorel, J. Mesoscopic study on historic masonry.
Structural Engineering and Mechanics 30(1), 99-117 (2008).
22. Senthivel, R. & Loureno, P. B. Finite element modelling of deformation characteristics of
historical stone masonry shear walls. Engineering Structures 31, 19301943 (2009).
23. Spence, S. M., Gioffr, M. & Grigoriu, M. D. Probabilistic models and simulation of irregular
masonry walls. Journal of Engineering Mechanics 134, 750762 (2008).
24. Sudret, B. & Der Kiureghian, A. Stochastic finite element methods and reliability: A state-of-the-art
report. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Berkeley
(2000).
25. Totoev, Y. Z. & Nichols, J. M. A comparative experimental study of the modulus of elasticity of
bricks and masonry. Proceedings of the 11th International Brick/Block Masonry Conference:
Shanghai, PR China (1997).

50
26. Vasconcelos, G. & Loureno, P. B. Experimental characterization of stone masonry in shear and
compression. Construction and Building Materials 23, 33373345 (2009).
27. Voechovsk, M. Simulation of simply cross correlated random fields by series expansion
methods. Structural Safety 30, 337363 (2008).
28. Zucchini, A. & Loureno, P. B. A coupled homogenisationdamage model for masonry cracking.
Computers & Structures 82, 917929 (2004).

51

Computational Modeling of Irregular Masonry Failure

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Computational Modeling of Irregular Masonry Failure

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Computational Modeling of Irregular Masonry Failure