Computational Modelling of Indian Masonry with Experimental Validation

Sr. No. List of Figures Page No.

Masonry Composition Throughout the years in Europe [JR Van Noort
2.1 8
(2012)]
Parts of Masonry; Brick units (Red); Bed Joints (Green); Head Joints
2.2 8
(Blue)

Different arrangements for brick masonry: (a) American (or common)

2.3 bond; (b) English (or cross) bond; (c) Flemish bond; (d) stack bond; 9
(e) stretcher bond.

Tensile behaviour of stone (quassi brittle) like materials. [Laurenco

2.4 11
(1994)]

2.5 Compressive behaviour of stone like materials [Laurenco (1994)] 12

Tensile bond surface, Van der Pluijm (1992): (a) typical net bond
2.6 surface for tensile specimens of solid clay units; (b) extrapolation of 13
net bond surface from specimen to wall.

Tensile bond behavior of masonry, Van der Pluijm (1992): (a) test
specimen; (b) typical experimental stress-crack displacement results
2.7 14
for solid clay brick masonry (the shaded area represents the envelope
of three tests).

Test set-up to obtain shear bond behavior, Van der Pluijm (1993): (a)
2.8 test specimen ready for testing; (b) forces applied to the test specimen 15
during testing.

Typical shear bond behavior of the joints for solid clay units, Van der
Pluijm (1993): (a) stress-displacement diagram for different normal
2.9 stress levels (the shaded area represents the envelope of three tests); 15
(b) Mode II fracture energy GIIfas a function of the normal stress
level.

Schematic Mortar Mode I (left) and mode II (right) failure [JP Van
2.10 16
Noort (2012)]

3
 Computational Modelling of Indian Masonry with Experimental Validation

Uniaxial behavior of masonry upon loading normal to the bed joints:

(a) stacked bond prism; (b) schematic representation of RILEM test
2.11 specimen; (c) typical experimental stress-displacement diagrams for 17
500 250 600 [mm3] prisms of solid soft mud brick, Bindaet al.
(1988).

Test set-up for tensile strength of masonry parallel to the bed joints,
2.12 Backes (1985): (a) building of the test specimen; (b) test specimen 18
before 90 rotation and testing.

Typical experimental stress-displacement diagrams for tension in the

direction parallel to the bed joints, Backes (1985): (a) failure occurs
2.13 19
with a stepped crack through head and bed joints; (b) failure occurs
vertically through head joints and units.

2.14 Test setup for the experiments by Page (1981, 1983) 20

2.15 Variations of the experiments performed by Page (1981, 1983) 20

2.16 Biaxial strength of solid clay units masonry, Page (1981, 1983). 21

Different types of modelling for masonry structures: (a) part of a

2.17 masonry wall; (b) detailed micro-model; (c) simplified micro-model; 23
(d) macro-model
Masonry failure mechanisms: (a) joint tensile cracking; (b) joint
2.18 slipping; (c) unit direct tensile cracking; (d) unit diagonal tensile 24
cracking; (e) masonry crushing.

Suggested modeling strategy. Units (u), which are expanded in both

directions by the mortar thickness, are modeled with continuum
2.19 25
elements. Mortar joints (m) and potential cracks in the units are
modeled with zero-thickness interface elements

2.20 CQ16M element with one cracked integration point 26

2.21 Rankine yield surface for the Total Strain Cracking Model 27

Fitting the Hoffmann criterion to the experimental results found by

2.22 27
Page (1981, 1983).

2.23 Rankine-Hill yield criterion as proposed by Lourenco (1996). 28

4
 Computational Modelling of Indian Masonry with Experimental Validation

2.24 Yield surface of the Coulomb friction model 29

2.25 Hardening with subsequential softening criterion 29
Loads for TU Eindhoven shear walls: (a) phase 1 - vertical loading;
2.26 (b) phase 2 - horizontal loading under displacement control. 31
(Laurenco 1994)
2.27 Load - displacement diagrams 31
2.28 Deep beam test, Page (1978). 32
2.29 Deep Beam Calculated response by analytically (Laurenco 1994) 33
2.30 Geometry and loads for ETH Zurich shear walls 34
2.31 Load - displacement diagrams 35
3.1 Masonry Arch Failure [CoEP] 36
3.2 Masonry Arch Failure [Mumbai High Court] 37
3.3 Tension Test on Brick 38
3.4 Masonry Prism as per EU standards (RILEM) 41
3.5 Masonry Prism as per IS standards (RILEM) 41
3.6 Uniaxial Tensile test of Prism Set up 41
3.7 Uniaxial Compression Test set up for Prism Test 41
3.8 Schematic Mortar Mode I (left) and mode II (right) failure 42
3.9 Tension test of Unit-Mortar Interface 42
3.1 Shear test of Unit-Mortar Interface 43
3.11 Failure Mode of Reinforcement Grout-Unit Interface 43
3.12 Reinforcement Grout- Unit Interface Test 44
3.13 Reinforcement Grout- Unit Interface Element 45
3.14 Material Stock before Sample Preparation 47
3.15 Sample Preparation 47
3.16 Tensile Test and Shear Test of interface element samples 47
3.17 New Interface element samples 48
3.18 Trial Test samples (curing period) 49
3.19 Trial Test on Shear test of new interface element 49
3.2 Trial Test on Shear test of new interface element 50
3.21 Shear Test Results for New Interface Element (Trail Test) 55
3.22 Deep Beam Experiment (Page 1968) 58
3.23 Deep Beam Experiment Simulation Using ABAQUS 6.12 59
Combined Crushing-shearing-cracking model for interface Property
3.24 59
table (midasFEA)