Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 1411–1422

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Numerical modelling of cracks in masonry walls due to thermal movements in

an overlying slab
K.G.S. Dilrukshi a , W.P.S. Dias a,∗ , R.K.N.D. Rajapakse b
a
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Moratuwa, Sri Lanka
b
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of British Columbia, Canada

article info abstract

Article history: This paper describes a numerical modelling exercise employed to understand the propagation of cracks in
Received 29 December 2008 masonry walls under a time varying thermal load in an overlying roof slab. A structural–thermal coupled
Received in revised form non-linear analysis was used to predict locations, directions and propagation of cracks. A commercially
21 January 2010
available finite element code ANSYS was used to construct the model. It is shown that masonry walls
Accepted 21 January 2010
Available online 2 March 2010
under a concrete slab that is exposed to solar radiation can experience cracking, and that this cracking
can be predicted based on the features of the wall – i.e. whether the wall is load bearing or framed –
Keywords:
and the presence of openings and lintels. The results were compared with the information obtained from
Masonry cracking a survey of buildings having cracks and also with a few physical models. It was found that the pattern
Thermal loading (orientation and location) of cracking depends significantly on whether the wall is load bearing or framed
Non-linear modelling by the reinforced concrete elements. Cracking around openings is very likely, irrespective of the structural
Structural–thermal coupled analysis form of the wall. The use of a continuous lintel will not be able to remedy this cracking, but a limited
separation of the wall from the frame at roof level will.
© 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction and background
Cracking is the most common and visible defect found in
masonry. It is usually considered a symptom of distress within
the fabric of the building. The appearance of cracking can affect
the value of the structure, its insurability and saleability, and can
give rise to litigation. Also it must be controlled to maintain the
moisture resistance of the wall. Therefore, even though cracking of
masonry is not a normal structural design consideration, regardless
of the reason for cracking it is unacceptable where good finish is
desired.
Concrete slabs exposed to direct sunlight experience tempera-
ture related horizontal movements. In addition, temperatures on
the top surface will be higher than those on the underside of the
slab, causing an upward deflection of the slab during heating. In
a typical building, masonry and concrete elements are connected
to each other at their respective interfaces. Therefore, significant
movements may be generated on the masonry walls due to the
movement of the roof slab. These movements can result in over-
stressing and cracking in masonry. Even though these cracks lead
to considerable problems with respect to the performance and ap-
pearance of a building, there is very little in the literature regard-
ing this, e.g. Ref. [1]. Therefore a study about these cracks and the
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +94 11 2650422; fax: +94 11 2650622.
E-mail address: priyan@civil.mrt.ac.lk (W.P.S. Dias).
0141-0296/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.01.019
factors causing their formation is important, in order to propose
remedial measures.
Masonry is a composite, heterogeneous, non-linear material
that exhibits distinct directional properties, because the mortar
joints act as planes of weakness. Various attempts have been
made to model this complicated nature of masonry, where
its inherent discontinuities (units, joints and interfaces) are
recognised. Depending on the level of accuracy and simplicity
desired, different modelling strategies have been used by masonry
researchers. Micro-modelling and macro-modelling techniques
are the main methods among them [2].
The micro-modelling strategy is preferred for understanding
the local behaviour of masonry structures since both masonry
and mortar can be modelled in detail and many attempts
have been made by researchers [3–8]. The continuum units
have been modelled by 2D plane stress or shell elements and
joints have been modelled by interface elements. However, in
most cases, the collective response of the mortar joints with
brick–mortar interface has been considered [4,6–8]. The failure
of masonry is governed by complex phenomena, i.e. failure of
each of the constituents and of the interface between them.
This level of complexity has been used mostly for numerical
simulation of laboratory experiments that have been conducted
to investigate the failure of masonry by cracking and crushing
under different static and dynamic loading conditions. However,
such micro-modelling is only suitable for modelling of small
structural elements, because of the large amount of data and
1412 K.G.S. Dilrukshi et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 1411–1422
variables involved. In large and practice-oriented analysis the
interaction between units and mortar is usually negligible for the
global structural behaviour. In these cases the macro-modelling
technique is widely used [2].
In the case of macro-modelling, the stress–strain behaviour
of masonry has been derived by a procedure of homogenization
or ‘averaging’ of the stress–strain relationships of mortar joints
and masonry units. Different homogenization techniques have
been developed by masonry researchers [9–12]. However in most
cases average properties obtained from experimental techniques
have been used in the literature [1,4,13–15]. In cases where
representation of damage induced anisotropy effects is a required
feature, a classical macroscopic continuum description has been
enhanced with embedded discrete bands to represent the failure
behaviour of masonry [9].
Tensile weakness of masonry and the cracking that results
from it is the most significant factor contributing to the non-
linear behaviour of masonry structures. Therefore crack modelling
is undoubtedly the most important factor to be considered. In
crack modelling, the selection of a particular cracking model from
the various alternatives available in the literature depends on
the purpose of the finite element study, the nature of the output
desired from the study and available computing facilities. Usually
a crack model must have three components [16]: a definition of
crack initiation, a method of crack representation, and a criterion
for crack propagation.
Crack initiation has been represented in many ways based on
the state of stress or strain at a point of a material element. Two
approaches have been adopted as the basis of failure theories [17].
The first assumes homogeneous isotropic behaviour, while the
second considers the behaviour of the unit and joint material
separately under the action of biaxial or triaxial stress. A number
of investigators have proposed failure criteria for masonry using
experimental [18,19] and theoretical [20–22] methods.
Different crack representation approaches have been used by
researchers in crack modelling. The discrete crack approach and
smeared crack approach are the main methods that have been
used. In the discrete crack approach, cracking of materials is
modelled by separation of the appropriate nodes of adjoining
elements. When the stress or strain at a node or the average
in adjacent elements exceeds the allowable value, the node is
redefined as two nodes and elements on either side are allowed
to separate. This requires monitoring the response and modifying
the topology of the finite element mesh corresponding to the crack
configurations at each state of loading.
In the smeared crack approach, the cracked material is assumed
to remain as a continuum. Rather than representing a single crack,
the crack is represented as an infinite number of parallel fissures
across the cracked element: i.e. the effect of a crack or sheared
plane is spread out over the area that belongs to an integration
point. Although a fixed finite element mesh is used (no re-meshing)
and new degrees of freedom are not involved during the analysis,
a large number of material parameters are required. However the
use of a smeared crack approach is convenient when the crack
orientation is not known beforehand [17]. A smeared crack can
occur in the element mesh at any location and in any direction.
Crack propagation will depend on the state of stress in the
region ahead of the crack. Two methods can be used to predict
potential crack growth. The first method uses a criterion based
on the inherent strength of the material and the local state of
stress. The second uses a criterion based on the fracture toughness
of the material [16]. In the first method, the development of
discontinuities is incorporated into the stress–strain constitutive
laws of the material that will be non-linear with softening of
material. In the second method, the strain energy released by the
softening of material is assumed as equal to the strain energy
released by the opening of the crack. Then the global structural
behaviour will be the same when the strain energy is redistributed.
The method is widely used to model the opening or development
of a crack when the crack has been identified beforehand [23].
This paper describes the numerical model developed to under-
stand the propagation of cracks in masonry walls under a time
varying thermal load on the roof slab. A commercially available
finite element code ANSYS (Version 11.0) was used to construct
the model. The modelling was done as a structural–thermal cou-
pled non-linear analysis. Mode 1 tensile cracking with linear soft-
ening of masonry was assumed. The smeared crack approach was
used to obtain the crack propagation. These results were compared
with the information obtained from a survey of buildings having
thermally induced cracks and also with results from a few physical
models that were constructed to 1/3 scale of the prototype.
2. Approach and methodology
2.1. Objective
The main objective of the study was to identify the contribution
of factors that cause cracking, such as the structural form of
the wall (i.e. whether the wall is load bearing or within a
concrete frame) and the effect of different geometric and structural
features such as openings and lintels. The relative effectiveness
of numerical modelling as coupled non-linear analysis to predict
locations and directions of cracks was also established.
2.2. Related studies
The numerical modelling described in this paper was supple-
mented by other studies, reported elsewhere. A building survey
was carried out to identify factors associated with the type of
cracking being investigated. The specific nature of the cracks was
carefully studied — i.e. whether they increased monotonically with
time or whether their widths were cyclic with diurnal temperature
variations. The latter is good evidence for the cracks being thermal,
as opposed to settlement cracks. In some cases soil investigation
reports were used to eliminate settlement as a cause for cracking.
Care was also taken to distinguish between cracking due to shrink-
age of masonry and that due to thermal effects. The most common
type of shrinkage crack is where infill masonry walls separate away
from the concrete frame. In load bearing walls, a prominent verti-
cal crack through the height of the wall will be a shrinkage crack. It
was observed that cracks due to thermal movements of the overly-
ing slab do not depend on the building orientation. In most build-
ings cracks were visible on both internal and external walls. These
observations indicate that the formation of cracks is not due to the
direct solar radiation on walls. Considering all the cases as a whole,
the behaviour of these cracks and their patterns in relation to the
structural form – i.e. whether the wall was load bearing or concrete
framed – was identified [24].
Three physical models were constructed (1/3 scale) to identify
the effect of structural form (using models representing 6 m long
load bearing and concrete framed walls) and the effect of aspect
ratio of the wall (using models representing 3 m long and 6 m
long load bearing walls) on the above phenomenon. Only the
overlying slabs were exposed to solar radiation, while the walls
were shielded. Strain and temperature variations of the models
were monitored [25]. The objective of the physical modelling was
not to establish an equivalence between model and prototype
but rather to investigate the general pattern of movements and
cracking in the walls.
Finally, prior to carrying out the non-linear finite element
analysis described here, linear elastic analysis using SAP2000 was
also carried out, in part to highlight the conditions under which
such an approach would be particularly deficient.
 K.G.S. Dilrukshi et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 1411–1422
Table 1
Material properties.
Property Concrete Masonry
Weight per unit volume 23.6 kN/m3 20 kN/m3
Modulus of elasticity 25.0E6 kN/m2 1.0E6 kN/m2
Poisson’s ratio 0.2 0.2
Coefficient of thermal expansion 9.9E−6/°C 6.0E−6/°C
Shear transfer coefficient for open crack (C1 ) – 0.0
Shear transfer coefficient for closed crack (C2 ) – 0.2
Uniaxial tensile cracking stress (C3 ) – 0.2 N/mm2
Uniaxial crushing stress (C4 ) – 2.0 N/mm2
Biaxial crushing stress (C5 ) – 1.2 C4
2.3. Modelling assumptions and the assemblies used in the study
A typical masonry brick wall connected to the tributary slab
area was considered, rather than analysing a whole building.
Translation of the longitudinal edges of the slab in the direction
perpendicular to the plane of the wall was restrained in order to
model the continuity of the roof slab. Hence we were exploring
thermal movements in the plane of the wall. Movements in the out
of plane direction of a given wall in a building would be restrained
by other walls that are perpendicular to that wall. The base of the
wall itself was fully fixed.
Since the objective of the study was to understand the overall
behaviour of the masonry structures under the thermal expansion
of an overlying slab, rather than modelling bricks and joints
separately, masonry was modelled as one constituent – i.e. the
macro-modelling approach was used. Although anisotropy is a key
characteristic of masonry, in this study it was in fact considered
as a homogeneous and isotropic material. The justification for this
is that Sri Lankan bricks are of very low strength, and similar to
the strength of the mortar joints. Material properties (Table 1)
were defined based on experimental results available in the
literature [26–28]. The entities C1 to C5 constitute the parameters
used to define the Williams–Warnke failure criterion [29].
In the case of modelling concrete framed walls, consideration
of interaction between concrete and masonry is important and
many attempts have been made by past researchers to study the
possibility of separation at the masonry–concrete interface [1]
and to understand the effect of the frame–infill separation
at the interface on the structure’s performance [30]. In this
study too, some preliminary studies were undertaken to model
interfaces [24,25]. However, given the very low strength of bricks
(and also masonry) that we were modelling, it was decided to
have perfect bond between the masonry and the frames, on the
assumption that the elements adjacent to the concrete elements
would represent the interfaces. If cracking was found to develop
in such elements, it would represent a separation at the interface.
Both the isotropic and perfect bond assumptions are of course
gross simplifications, but considered acceptable on the basis of low
brick and mortar strength; typical masonry crushing strength is
2 MPa (Table 1). Furthermore, the intention here is to more to study
the thermal movement phenomenon rather than the material
property one. Also, we are currently investigating the effect on the
results obtained of removing the above assumptions.
Different structural and geometric conditions were analysed to
investigate the propagation of cracks and to identify the remedial
measures to avoid them. The details of the assemblies are given
in Table 2. The height and thickness of each wall were considered
as 3 m and 225 mm respectively. The total length of the wall was
considered as 6 m in all cases (with a 3 m length for each bay in
the two bay walls). The tributary slab area was equal to the length
of wall × the tributary width (3 m) and its thickness was equal to
125 mm.
Solid walls with different structural forms were studied using
assemblies MA1 to MA4. Assemblies MA5 to MA8 were used to
1413
understand the effect of openings and lintels on the formation
of cracks in the two bay walls. The assemblies MA9 to MA15
were used to explore various wall–frame separations as remedial
measures for these conditions.
Fig. 1 illustrates a typical arrangement of features in the selected
assemblies. The small opening is placed as demonstrated in the
figure. In order to model the opening up to the beam level, only
the height of opening was extended up to the beam soffit level
without changing the other parameters. A lintel extending 0.25 m
horizontally from the top corners of the opening was considered
as a short lintel. In some cases a lintel from the left-hand column
to the centre column (LH to Centre) or the left-hand column to
the right-hand column through the centre column (LH to RH) was
also considered for the analysis. A typical separation of the wall
from the concrete frame is also illustrated in Fig. 1. The height
of the vertical separation, measured from the beam soffit level,
was considered as a variable in different assemblies as depicted in
Table 2.
2.4. Thermal history analysis
The thermal conduction across the concrete roof slab due to
the temperature variation of the top and the bottom boundary
over a period of 24 h was analysed. The slab was divided into six
equal layers (thickness of each being 25 mm) and the temperature
variation on the top and the bottom surface of the concrete roof
assembly was defined as the thermal boundary conditions (Table 3)
while all cross-sectional faces were treated as insulated for the
thermal analysis. The pattern of thermal variation observed by
monitoring physical models [25] was used as the pattern for the
thermal boundary conditions in this analysis, due allowance being
made for the difference in thicknesses between the physical and
numerical models. Both concrete and masonry elements were
modelled using SOLID70, a 3D thermal solid element that can be
used for 3D steady-state or transient thermal analysis [31].
2.5. Numerical modelling of cracking
A 3D eight noded isoparametric element, SOLID65, was em-
ployed for the modelling of both concrete and masonry elements.
The element is capable of cracking (in three orthogonal directions),
crushing, plastic deformation and creep. The material model of
SOLID65 in ANSYS, having a five parameter Williams–Warnke fail-
ure criterion [29], is implemented to measure cracking or crushing
of the material (Fig. 2)—symbols are defined in Ref. [29]. Since the
interest in this research is not focused on studying the cracking of
the concrete elements, those elements were created without the
crack model.
The SOLID65 element has eight Gauss integration points at
which cracking and crushing checks are performed. The element
behaves in a linear elastic manner until either the specific tensile
or compressive strength is exceeded. If cracking or crushing occurs
at an integration point, the cracking is modelled through an
adjustment of material properties which effectively treats the
cracking as a smeared band of cracks. In numerical routines the
formation of a crack is represented by the modification of the
stress–strain relationships of the element to introduce a plane
of weakness (using the factor Rt ) in a direction normal to the
crack face. The strength in a cracked condition is shown in Fig. 3,
with symbols defined in Ref. [29]. Also, a shear transfer coefficient
is used to represent a shear strength reduction factor for those
subsequent loads that induce sliding across the crack. The amount
of shear transfer across a crack can be varied between full shear
transfer and no shear transfer at a cracked section, i.e. from 1
to 0.
1414 K.G.S. Dilrukshi et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 1411–1422

Table 2
Description of assemblies.
Assembly Structural type Window opening Lintel Separation from top (m)

MA1 Load bearing – – –

MA2 Framed-one bay – – –
MA3 Framed-two bay – – –
MA4 Framed-two bay – LH to RH –
MA5 Framed-two bay Small Short –
MA6 Framed-two bay Small LH to Centre –
MA7 Framed-two bay Small LH to RH –
MA8 Framed-two bay Large Beam is lintel
MA9 Framed-two bay – – 0.000
MA10 Framed-two bay – – 1.000
MA11 Framed-two bay – – 0.750
MA12 Framed-two bay – – 0.600
MA13 Framed-two bay Large – 0.875
MA14 Framed-two bay Small LH to RH 0.875
MA15 Framed-two bay Small Short 0.875

Table 3
Thermal boundary conditions.
Time (s) Temperature (K)
Top surface of roof slab Bottom surface of roof slab Bottom surface of concrete beam

0 (6:00 a.m.) 296 (23 °C) 296 (23 °C) 296 (23 °C)
28 800 (2:00 p.m.) 333 (60 °C) 308 (35 °C) 306 (33 °C)
32 400 (3:00 p.m.) 333 (60 °C) 308 (35 °C) 306 (33 °C)
43 200 (6:00 p.m.) 300 (27 °C) 300 (27 °C) 300 (27 °C)
64 800 (12:00 p.m.) 296 (23 °C) 296 (23 °C) 296 (23 °C)
86 400 (6:00 a.m.) 296 (23 °C) 296 (23 °C) 296 (23 °C)

125 mm

Distance from edge

Level

3000 mm
1000 mm

1000 mm

750 mm 3000 mm

Fig. 1. Typical arrangement of an assembly.

2.6. Loading and analysis
In addition to the initially applied self-load of the structure,
the temperature variation of the structure over a period of 24 h
(86 400 s) was applied to the structure. The self-load was applied
at the first load step and the thermal load was then applied to the
structure at a number of substeps. The analysis was performed as a
structural–thermal coupled analysis. The normal substep interval
was set to 30 s while the minimum and the maximum substep sizes
were set to 1 s and 300 s respectively. The variation of temperature
from one substep to the other was considered as a ramped load. The
analysis was performed at each substep and results of each substep
were recorded.
temperature across the roof slab obtained from the analysis is
shown in Fig. 4. The 3.125 m and 3.000 m levels (from the base
of the wall) represent the top and bottom of the slab respectively.
The zero value of the time axis corresponds to 6 a.m.
After reaching its peak value, the temperature of the top surface
decreases as shown in Fig. 4. However, the results show that the
rate of decrease of temperature within the slab is less than that of
the outer surfaces and hence the internal temperature of the slab
remains at higher values in the evenings. Also, the temperature
across the slab reached a steady equilibrium state during the night.
The results of this thermal analysis were input as the thermal loads
for the structural analysis of the model at successive time steps.

3. Results and discussion 3.2. Analysis of displacements

3.1. Heat flow analysis The concrete–masonry interface of these walls was studied to
understand the displacements generated in both load bearing and
The temperature values of nodes at intervals of 25 mm across concrete framed walls. The horizontal and vertical displacement of
the thickness of the slab were obtained. The variation of the the nodes from the outer edge of wall (0.0 m) to the centre (3.0 m)
 K.G.S. Dilrukshi et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 1411–1422 1415

σzp
-
fc

r2
r1 σxp = σyp = σzp

r2

r1

r1 η
r2
σyp
-
fc

σxp
- Octahedral Plane Distance (m)
fc
Fig. 5. Displacement at the wall–slab interface of load bearing wall.
Fig. 2. The failure surface described in 3D principal stress space (ANSYS Theory
reference).

ft

Tcft

E Rt
1 1

ε
εck 6εck

Fig. 3. Strength in a cracked condition (ANSYS Theory reference). Distance (m)

Fig. 6. Displacement at the wall–beam interface of the concrete framed wall.

slab. In the concrete framed wall we can observe a variation of

Fig. 4. Temperature variation across the roof slab at various levels from the wall
base.
are shown in Figs. 5 and 6 for the load bearing wall and the concrete
framed wall respectively. The values were obtained after applying
self-load (initial), and at the time corresponding to the maximum
thermal load.
Where the initial displacements are concerned (due to self-load
of the structures), the horizontal displacements within each wall
type are almost zero. However the walls experience downward
vertical displacements due to self-loads. These observations clearly
demonstrate that the horizontal displacements developed in the
later stages are due to the thermal expansions of the slab, whereas
the upward vertical displacements are created by differential
expansion and curvature due to the thermal gradient within the
the initial vertical displacements due to the stiffness of the edge
concrete columns. In the load bearing wall the initial displacement
seems almost constant. Also, in the concrete framed wall the
initial vertical displacements are smaller than in the load bearing
wall. When comparing the two models after thermal loading,
the upward vertical displacement in the concrete framed wall
is considerably higher than in the load bearing wall. Despite
carrying the load of slab, the load bearing wall displays upward
displacement due to the convex upward shape taken by the slab.
In the load bearing wall, the horizontal displacements are
higher than the vertical displacements at nodes from the outer
edge up to a length of 2.375 m. The horizontal displacement is
maximum at the outer edge and minimum (zero) at the centre,
whereas vertical displacement is minimum at the outer edge
and maximum at the centre. In the framed wall the horizontal
displacements are higher than the vertical displacements at the
nodes from the outer edge up to a length of 1.125 m. The maximum
vertical displacement has occurred at 1.25 m away from outer
edge and the maximum horizontal displacement is at the panel
edge. When comparing the two structural types, the horizontal
displacements are higher in the load bearing wall and the vertical
displacements are higher in the framed wall.
Variation of displacements at the locations where maximum
values were identified are shown in Figs. 7 and 8 for the load
bearing wall and framed wall respectively, over a period of 24 h
starting from 6 a.m. It can be clearly seen that all the displacements
follow the pattern of diurnal thermal variation. The maximum
values have occurred at a time of around 29 700 s (around
2.30 p.m.) in all cases.
1416 K.G.S. Dilrukshi et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 1411–1422
Table 4
Details about the first crack initiation (Note: MA9 to MA15 display only marginal cracking).
Assembly Location of the first crack
MA1 Between 1.375 m to 1.5 m from the outer edge close to the wall–slab interface
MA2 Between 1.0 m to 1.25 m from the outer edge close to the wall–beam interface
MA3 Between 0.875 m to 1.125 m from the outer edge close to the wall–beam interface
MA4 Between 0.875 m to 1.125 m from the outer edge close to the wall–beam interface
MA5 Top corner of the right vertical boundary of the opening
MA6 Top corner of the right vertical boundary of the opening
MA7 Top corner of the right vertical boundary of the opening
MA8 Top corner of the right vertical boundary of the opening
MA9 Top of left and right wall–column interfaces
MA10 Bottom of the vertical separation at outer columns
MA11 Bottom of the vertical separation at outer columns
MA12 Bottom of the vertical separation at outer columns
MA13 Bottom of the vertical separation at the right outer column
MA14 Bottom of the vertical separation at the right outer column
MA15 Bottom left corner of the opening
Fig. 7. Maximum horizontal and vertical displacement of load bearing wall.
Fig. 8. Maximum horizontal and vertical displacement of concrete framed wall.
3.3. Overview of crack initiation
The appearing of the first crack was different in each case.
Information regarding the start of cracking in each assembly is
given in Table 4. Both the location of the first crack and the thermal
load required for the formation of cracking were investigated. The
propagation of cracking under the time varying thermal load on the
roof slab was studied in detail for each case. The details regarding
the propagation of cracks are shown in Figs. 9, 10, 12, 13, 15 and
18–20. The numbers on the arrows (in some of the figures) denote
the sequence of cracking while the directions of the arrows indicate
the directions of crack propagation. For symmetrical assemblies
the arrows in the figures are drawn only on one side of the wall.
Temperature of the roof slab
Top surface (°C) Bottom surface (°C)
57.7 34.6
58.0 34.2
53.0 32.7
52.7 32.6
45.3 30.0
48.6 31.3
48.6 31.3
37.7 27.8
37.9 27.5
45.3 30.1
38.5 28.0
34.2 26.7
43.2 29.5
44.7 30.0
59.8 34.9
Descriptions of the crack propagation in each assembly are given
in Sections 3.4–3.6.
According to Table 4 we can clearly see that in two bay concrete
framed walls cracking has started slightly earlier than in the load
bearing and the single bay concrete framed wall. However, in the
presence of openings, cracking starts much earlier than in walls
without openings.
3.4. Cracking of solid walls
In the 6 m load bearing wall (MA1), cracking started when the
slab top temperature reached 57.7 °C, at the elements between
1.375 m to 1.5 m from the outer edge. In the 6 m framed wall (MA2)
the first crack appeared in elements around 1.0 m to 1.25 m from
the outer edge of the wall when the slab top temperature reached
58 °C. The propagation of cracking continued with the increase
of thermal load on the slab. The final crack patterns of the load
bearing and the single bay concrete framed walls are shown in
Figs. 9 and 12 respectively. The details of the maximum strains (at
the maximum thermal gradient across the slab) are given in Figs. 10
and 13. The arrow connecting the midpoints of the double headed
maximum principal strain vectors is taken as the likely direction of
the diagonal crack.
In the load bearing wall the first crack appeared close to
the wall–slab interface. Then cracking developed in a series of
elements under the slab and finally propagated in the vertical
direction. Fig. 9 illustrates the series of elements under the slab
that are cracked and also the other cracked elements that are
stacked vertically. However, according to the strain vectors in
Fig. 10, the direction of strains are diagonal and the formation
of an average diagonal crack can be envisaged. The direction of
the average diagonal crack can be identified as around 60° to the
horizontal.
According to the observations from the building survey, cracks
in load bearing walls will be vertical near the centre and inclined
downward close to the ends of the wall. The inclinations of
these diagonal cracks were identified as around 50°– 60° to the
horizontal [24]. The observations from the physical models that
represented load bearing walls also confirmed this crack pattern. In
the long wall (representing 6 m in the prototype) the tensile strains
measured in a diagonal direction close to the panel edge at 30° to
the horizontal were the highest (Fig. 11).
The assemblies were also previously subjected to an uncoupled
linear elastic analysis using a commercially available software
SAP2000 [24]. The stresses generated on walls corresponding to
the maximum thermal gradient across the roof slab were obtained.
The locations of possible cracking were identified by analysing the
 K.G.S. Dilrukshi et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 1411–1422
1
1 2
3
Starting point
Fig. 9. Cracking in the 6 m load bearing wall (MA1).
Fig. 10. Vector plot of total strains in 6 m load bearing wall (MA1).
Strain x 10-6
Time
Fig. 11. Strain measurements 1/3 scale model representing 6 m load bearing wall.
principal stresses according to a failure criterion developed based
on a modified von Mises criterion [24,32]. The results indicated
that the maximum principal stress in the long load bearing walls is
at 30° to the horizontal close to the panel edge.
In the concrete framed wall the initial propagation of a
horizontal crack under the beam (‘‘1’’) and subsequent propagation
of a diagonal crack (‘‘2’’) can be identified clearly (Fig. 12). Using
the pattern of the elements that have cracked, the direction of
diagonal cracking can be identified as around 45° to the horizontal.
The inclination of the diagonal cracking identified by using the
directions of strains is also the same 45° to the horizontal (Fig. 13).
1417
When the diagonal crack has met the wall–column interface it
has changed direction and propagated in a vertically downward
direction (‘‘3’’) at the wall–column interface.
Horizontal cracking under the beam and diagonal cracking close
to the column near panel edges were the most common types of
cracks observed in the concrete framed walls during the building
survey. The direction of the diagonal cracking was around 45° to
the horizontal [24]. The cracks observed in the physical model
which represented a concrete framed wall were also the same as
the above (Fig. 14). The strains observed in the vertical direction at
the wall centre and diagonal directions (at 45° to the horizontal)
at the panel edges were the highest in this wall [25]. The linear
elastic numerical models also predicted diagonal cracking close
to the wall edges (due to high principal stresses in the wall) and
horizontal cracking under the beam (due to high principal stresses
in the wall or high tensile and/or shear stresses in the interface link
elements) [24].
We see that all the approaches used to study this phenomenon
have given very similar results with respect to the pattern and
location of cracking in solid walls. The fact that some of the
approaches are physical (whether full scale or model scale) while
others are numerical indicate that the phenomenon of cracking in
masonry walls due to the thermal movements of an overlying slab
can be predicted using computational models. Reasonably good
agreement has also been demonstrated between experimentally
measured strains and numerical simulations [25].
The crack pattern of the two bay framed wall (MA3) was
similar to the pattern mentioned above in the one bay framed
wall (Fig. 12). However, the cracks appeared earlier than in the
1418 K.G.S. Dilrukshi et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 1411–1422

Fig. 12. Cracking at 6 m concrete framed wall (MA2).

Fig. 13. Vector plot of total strains in 6 m concrete framed wall (MA2).

location and the thermal load required for the formation of first
cracking was also similar to MA3. Therefore, we can conclude that
a lintel is not able to avoid or divert the cracking. Hence tying
the columns by a lintel is not a solution for this type of thermal
cracking.

3.5. Cracking of walls with openings

The presence of an opening (with a short lintel) has a significant

Fig. 14. Cracking close to the beam column junction in physical model representing
6 m concrete framed wall, with crack highlighted.
one bay framed wall (Table 4). When the slab reached its greatest
thermal gradient the formation of cracking in the directions
perpendicular to the second and third principal stress directions
was also identified in this assembly. Hence cracking here seemed
to be more severe than in the one bay framed wall.
The effect of a lintel which is 0.875 m below the beam–wall
interface level from the left-hand column to right-hand column on
the two bay framed walls was studied using assembly MA4. The
crack pattern was almost identical to the MA3 assembly, including
the formation of cracking due to all three principal stresses. The
effect on the pattern of crack formation in walls. The crack pattern
of the assembly with a window opening of 1.5 m × 1.0 m and
a short lintel in the left-hand bay of the wall (MA5) is shown
in Fig. 15. In this case the propagation of cracking started at the
top right corner of the opening (under the lintel), when the slab
top reached a temperature of around 45 °C. It should be noted
that this thermal load requirement is significantly lower than the
temperatures for crack initiation in solid walls. The crack moves
horizontally (‘‘1’’), passes around the lintel and then starts to
propagate upward (‘‘2’’), finally turning towards the panel edge
(‘‘3’’) at the top level of the wall. Another crack, which started
at the bottom left corner of the opening (‘‘4’’) when the slab top
reached 46.7 °C, propagated horizontally for a short distance and
then developed as a downward diagonal crack (‘‘5’’). When the slab
top reached 55 °C a crack started on the wall of the right-hand
bay from the top corner of the internal column and propagated
vertically downward along the column–wall interface (‘‘6’’) as well
as horizontally along the wall–beam interface (‘‘7’’). Also when the
 K.G.S. Dilrukshi et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 1411–1422 1419

3 7 8 8
2
9

6
1

Fig. 15. Cracking of 6 m two bay framed wall with opening and short lintel (MA5).

Fig. 16. Possibility of cracking identified by uncoupled linear elastic analysis using SAP2000.

slab top was at 57.5 °C another horizontal crack started under
the beam in the same right-hand panel (‘‘8’’) with a downward
inclined diagonal part at the panel edge (‘‘9’’). At the time the slab
reached its maximum gradient condition, it was seen that some of
the elements consisted of cracks perpendicular to the second and
third principal stresses as well (Fig. 15).
It should be noted that this assembly was also subjected to
an uncoupled linear elastic analysis using SAP2000 [23]. The
possibility of cracking (i.e. areas in the masonry and interface
elements where stresses exceeded failure boundaries) identified in
the 6 m long two bay wall with an opening is shown in Fig. 16. The
survey observation of cracking in a wall with a similar structural
arrangement is shown in Fig. 17, where care was taken to establish
that the cause of the cracking observed was in fact due to thermal
movements in the roof slab—i.e. according to the orientation of
the building, the wall was not subject to direct thermal radiation;
the crack had reappeared after repair; diurnal variation of the
crack width was observed; and soil investigation reports of the site
showed that the building was founded on firm soil, with settlement
very unlikely [25].
According to the results of our non-linear numerical modelling,
cracking of the wall starts at the top right corner of the opening.
After the formation of the first crack the stress relaxation in the
wall has been captured by the non-linear modelling. This stress
relaxation has reduced the stresses generated under the beam in
the left-hand panel. As a result the possibility of cracking in that
area has disappeared. Also there is a crack at the bottom left corner
of the opening which has not been identified by the linear elastic
modelling, but observed in the building survey too. The first crack
has therefore increased the stresses in that area while reducing
stresses under the beam. These observations clearly indicate the
significant influence of stress relaxation after the first crack on the
formation of subsequent cracks.
Since the analysis done using SAP2000 as an uncoupled linear
elastic analysis is not able to model stress relaxation and its
effect on the formation of subsequent cracks, the results do not
give a clear picture about the location and pattern of cracking
in walls with openings and lintels. Therefore, especially when
analysing structures with complicated structural features, coupled
non-linear analysis will be essential with respect to predicting
actual phenomena.
The effect of a lintel was further studied using MA6 (lintel from
left hand to centre column) and MA7 (lintel from left-hand to
right-hand column). The results from both configurations are very
similar (see Fig. 18 for MA7). The lintels have been able to increase
the thermal load requirement for crack initiation. The temperature
of the top surface is 48.6 °C in both MA6 and MA7, compared to the
45 °C in the previous case (i.e. MA5). Also in both MA6 and MA7
the formation of vertical cracking close to the central column at
the right-hand panel has been avoided. However, cracking around
the opening seems to be more severe than in the previous case (i.e.
MA 5).
The cracking in MA7 started at the top right corner of
the opening and propagated horizontally under the lintel (‘‘1’’).
Meanwhile another crack started at the bottom left corner of
the opening (slab top at 49.6 °C) and propagated horizontally
towards the panel edge (‘‘2’’). Then the cracking in the right-hand
panel started when the slab top reached 54.2 °C. The cracking
started under the beam and propagated horizontally (‘‘3’’) with
a downward diagonal part at the panel edge (‘‘4’’). This diagonal
crack has turned to a vertically downward direction (‘‘5’’) when
it met the wall–column interface. After that another crack, which
1420 K.G.S. Dilrukshi et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 1411–1422

Fig. 17. Crack observations at the shopping complex of West Bus Park, Awissawella, Sri Lanka (Cracks have been enhanced for clarity).

3
6 3
4

8 7 5

Fig. 18. Cracking of 6 m two bay framed wall with opening and lintel from the left column to the right column (MA7).

started close to the top left corner of the internal column (‘‘6’’)
when the slab top reached 57 °C propagated downward. When
the crack reached almost the lintel level, it turned diagonally (‘‘7’’)
toward the opening and propagated horizontally (‘‘8’’) along the
top of the lintel until it reached a point closed to the top left edge
of the opening. After that the crack at the bottom left corner of
the opening started to propagate diagonally downwards (‘‘9’’). The
cracking perpendicular to the second and third principal stresses
could not be seen in this case.
The crack pattern on MA6 was also similar. The load required
for forming a crack in the right-hand panel (when the slab top
reached 53.5 °C) was lower than in the case of MA7. However,
crack development was not more extensive than in MA7. Cracking
perpendicular to the second and third principal stresses was not
evident in this case too. The cracks in the left-hand panel had a
similar pattern to those in MA7, although the load requirement for
crack propagation was slightly lower.
The pattern of cracking for the case where the height of
the opening extends up to the level of concrete beam (MA8) is
somewhat similar to the case MA5 (having a small opening with a
short lintel). In MA8 the cracking started very early at the top right
corner of the opening (when the slab top reached 37.7 °C). Then
this crack developed horizontally under the beam towards the
panel edge. When the thermal load of the roof slab corresponded
to 45 °C at the top surface of the slab the cracking at the bottom
left corner of the opening started and developed horizontally. The
cracking in the right-hand panel started at the top left corner near
the central column when the slab top temperature reached 53.5 °C.
In this case, even though the initial cracking started earlier than in
MA6 and MA7 (see Table 4), the thermal load requirement for the
formation of subsequent cracks was higher.
3.6. Remedial measures for thermal cracking in walls
It is necessary to discover methods to minimise this cracking.
It was already established that the use of lintels does not seem
to be effective. For the framed walls, separation of the masonry
wall from the concrete beam and columns at its upper levels was
considered a possible solution.
The effect was first studied on the two bay framed wall without
lintels and openings. The separation was done at the wall–beam
interface and the top part of the column–wall interface. The
assembly MA9 was used to study the effect of separation at the
wall–beam interface alone. In this case cracks were only developed
vertically (up to 1 m length) at the top part of the left and
right wall–column interfaces (Fig. 19). The height needing to be
 K.G.S. Dilrukshi et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 1411–1422
Fig. 19. Cracking of 6 m two bay framed wall with separation at wall–beam interface (MA9).
Fig. 20. Cracking of 6 m two bay framed wall with opening, short lintel and separation (MA14).
separated at the column–wall interface was studied using MA10
(separation at wall–column is 1.0 m, i.e. 1/3 of the wall height),
MA11 (separation at wall–column is 0.75 m, i.e. 1/4 of the wall
height) and MA12 (separation at wall–column is 0.6 m, i.e. 1/5
of the wall height). In these cases cracks developed only at the
bottom ends of the vertical separations. According to the results,
an appropriate height of separation at the wall–column interface
can be considered to be around 1/3 of the wall height, since smaller
separation heights and separation only at the wall–beam interface
did give rise to cracking of some length. Also the thermal load
requirement for the first crack initiation in MA10 is much higher
than in the other cases (see Table 4). The 1 m height separation
was possible only if continuous lintels were not employed.
Therefore a separation height of 0.875 m was selected for further
studies to find its effect on walls with openings and lintels.
The separation extended vertically from beam soffit to lintel top
level.
Assembly MA13 was used to study the effect of wall separation
from beam and column (down to 0.875 m from top) of two
bay walls, when one span contained a window that extended
up to the beam. In this situation only small cracks (of lengths
0.375 m and 0.25 m) were noted at the bottom ends of the left
and right wall–column separations respectively. In the presence
of a small opening with a short lintel (MA14), the crack can
only be seen at the right-hand end (Fig. 20). In the configuration
having an opening and a continuous lintel from left column to
right column (MA15), instead of cracking at the bottom ends of
the wall–column separation, a small crack was formed at the
bottom left-hand corner of the opening. In all these cases the
cracking is very small compared to the cases that did not have
1421
separations at masonry–concrete interfaces. Therefore, according
to the above numerical simulations, the partial separation of the
masonry–concrete interface in concrete framed walls is a very
effective remedial measure to control the formation of cracks due
to thermal movements of an overlying slab. Although this may
be in conflict somewhat with provisions for seismic regions, the
fact that only a limited separation is required may be deemed
acceptable even in such regions, especially because the separation
is required only at the uppermost floor, just below the roof
level.
It should be noted in passing that we have not proposed any
remedial measure for the prevention of cracking in load bearing
masonry walls. While this aspect is being currently investigated
(using intermittent vertical separations), it may in fact not be
possible to find a practically acceptable structural remedy. Hence
for such walls, providing thermal insulation in the slab or avoiding
exposed roof slabs may be the only solution. Conversely, if
an exposed roof slab without thermal insulation is envisaged,
prevention of cracking in the underlying masonry wall may be
possible only if a concrete frame is used, with separation of the
masonry–concrete interfaces in the upper areas.
4. Conclusions
The following conclusions can be made.
1. The pattern (orientation and location) of cracking depends
significantly on whether the wall is load bearing or framed by
the reinforced concrete elements. The presence of structural
features such as lintels and openings also has a considerable
effect on the formation of these cracks.
1422 K.G.S. Dilrukshi et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 1411–1422
2. Both types of structural arrangements give diagonal cracking
near the ends of the wall panels. The diagonal cracks in concrete
framed walls usually have inclinations of around 45° to the
horizontal and in load bearing walls it is generally around 60°.
3. Cracking around openings is virtually inevitable irrespective of
the structural form of the wall. The cracks form at both top and
bottom corners of window openings.
4. Structural–thermal coupled non-linear numerical modelling
is able to reproduce the observed phenomena even in the
presence of openings and lintels in walls, because such
modelling can capture the relaxation of stress after the
formation of cracks. For solid walls however, a linear elastic
analysis can be used to identify likely locations and possible
initial directions of cracking.
5. Reasonably good correspondence has been found among the
relevant results from survey, experimental and numerical (lin-
ear and non-linear) approaches regarding the likely locations
and directions of cracking in masonry walls due to thermal
movements of an overlying slab. The numerical modelling can
therefore be seen as having been qualitatively validated.
6. The results of the non-linear numerical modelling illustrate that
the use of a continuous lintel in a concrete framed wall is not an
effective solution to the problem of thermal cracking in walls.
However, separating the wall from the concrete frame at the
wall–beam interface and wall–column interface (for a depth of
1/3 of the wall height from the roof beam soffit level) seems to
be an effective solution.
Acknowledgements
Financial assistance from the National Science Foundation
(NSF/SCH/2004/02) and the University of Moratuwa (Senate
Research Fund) is gratefully acknowledged.
References
[1] Ibraham KS, Suter GT. Finite element study of thermal stresses in low-rise
concrete masonry walls. In: Proceedings of fifth north american masonry
conference. 1990.
[2] Lourenco PB. Historical structures: Models and modelling. 1999.
http://www.civil.uminho.pt/masonry/publications/update-webpage/1999-
lourenco.pdf.
[3] Attard MM, Nappi A, Tin-Loi F. Modelling fracture in masonry. ASCE J Struct
Eng 2007;133:1385–92.
[4] Rots JG. Numerical models in Diana. In: Rots JG, editor. Structural masonry—
An experimental/numerical basis for practical design rules. Rotterdam
(Netherlands): A.A. Balkem publishers; 1997. p. 46–95.
[5] Rots JG. Computer simulation of masonry fracture: Continuum and discontin-
uum models. In: Middleton J, Pande GN, editors. Computer methods in struc-
tural masonry. UK: Books and Journals International Ltd.; 1991. p. 14–123.
[6] Lourenco PB, Rots JG. Multisurface interface model for analysis of masonry
structures. J Eng Mech 1997;123:660–8.
[7] Senthival R, Lourenco PB. Finite element modelling of deformation character-
istics of historical stone masonry shear walls. Eng Struct 2009;31:1930–43.
[8] Chaimoon K, Attard MM. Experimental and numerical investigation of
masonry under three-point bending (in-plane). Eng Struct 2009;31:103–12.
[9] Massart TJ, Peerlings RHJ, Geers MGD. Structural damage analysis of masonry
walls using computational homogenization. Int J Damage Mech 2007;16:
199–226.
[10] Middleton J, Pande GN, Liang JX, Kralj B. Some recent advances in computer
methods in structural masonry. In: Middleton J, Pande GN, editors. Computer
methods in structural masonry. UK: Books and Journals International Ltd.;
1991. p. 1–21.
[11] Pande GN, Liang JX, Middleton J. Equivalent elastic moduli for brick masonry.
Comput Geotech 1989;8:243–65.
[12] Gouwei Ma, Hong Hao, Yong Lu. Homogenization of masonry using numerical
simulations. J Eng Mech 2001;127:421–31.
[13] Sager V, Holla L. The numerical analysis of brick structures subject to mine
subsidence. Aust Civ Eng Trans 1994;CE36: IEAus.
[14] Paul JF, Thomas EB. Three dimensional modelling and full scale testing of stone
arch bridges. Comput Struct 2001;79:2645–62.
[15] Carpinteri A, Invernizzi S, Lacidogna G. In situ damage assessment and
nonlinear modelling of a historical masonry tower. Eng Struct 2005;27:
387–95.
[16] Ali S, Page AW. Cracking analysis of solid concrete masonry subjected to
concentrated loads. ACI Struct J 1989;86:367–75.
[17] Athanasios DT. Finite element modelling of cracks and joints in discontinuous
structural systems. In: Proceedings of 16th ASCE engineering mechanics
conference. 2003.
[18] Page AW. An experimental investigation of the biaxial strength of masonry. In:
Proceedings of the sixth international brick masonry conference. 1980.
[19] Samarasinghe W. The in-plane failure of brickwork. Ph.D. thesis. University of
Edinburgh; 1980.
[20] Syrmakezis CA, Asteris PG. Masonry failure criterion under biaxial stress state.
J Mater Civil Eng 2001;13:58–64.
[21] Lourenco PB, Borst De R, Rots JG. A plane stress softening plasticity model for
orthotropic materials. Int J Numer Methods Eng 1997;40:4033–57.
[22] Hamid RL, Shing PB. Interface model applied to fracture of masonry structures.
ASCE J Struct Eng 1994;120:63–80.
[23] Chaimoon K, Mario MA, Tin-Loi F. Crack propagation due to time-dependent
creep in quasi-brittle materials under sustained loading. Comput Methods
Appl Mech Eng 2007;197:1938–52.
[24] Dilrukshi KGS, Dias WPS. Field survey and numerical modelling of cracking in
masonry walls due to thermal movements of an overlying slab. J Natl Sci Found
Sri Lanka 2008;36(3):205–13.
[25] Dilrukshi KGS. Numerical and physical modelling of cracks in masonry walls
due to thermal movements of an overlying slab. Ph.D. thesis. Sri Lanka:
University of Moratuwa; 2008.
[26] Jayasinghe MTR. Load bearing brickwork construction for Sri Lanka. Colombo
(Sri Lanka): STRAD Consultants (Pvt) Ltd.; 1997.
[27] Jayasinghe MTR, Jayatunga PTP. Guidelines for framed buildings braced with
brick wall infills. Transactions – Part 2 – Institution of Engineers. Sri Lanka;
1998. p. 45–57.
[28] Rahman AH, Suter GT. An analytical study of extreme temperatures in masonry
building walls. Masonry Int 1993;6:89–95.
[29] ANSYS Theory reference. Documentation for ANSYS 11.0. ANSYS Inc. 2007.
[30] Asteris PG. Finite element micro-modeling of unfilled frames. Electron J Struct
Eng 2008;8:1–11.
[31] ANSYS Thermal analysis guide. Documentation for ANSYS 11.0. ANSYS Inc.
2007.
[32] Syrmakezis CA, Antonopoulos AK, Mavruli OA. Analysis of historical masonry
structures using three-dimensional solid elements. In: Proceedings of
the tenth international conference on civil, structural and environmental
engineering computing. 2005.